Rocky Flats

National Wildlife Refuge

Record of Decision

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Rocky Flats 

National Wildlife Refuge 

Record of Decision 

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

February 2005

Fish and Wildlife Service 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Rocky Mountain Arsenal – Building 121 

Commerce City, CO 80022 
2 
Contents 

1.1 Introduction........................................1

Background ............................................1

Refuge Significance .............................2

Purpose and Direction ........................2

Vision .....................................................2

Goals ......................................................3

Planning Issues ....................................3

Future Planning...................................4

Refuge Resources ................................4

1.2 Decision (Alternative B) ...................5

1.3 Other Alternatives Considered........5

Alternative A: No Action ...................5

Alternative C: Ecological 

Restoration ...........................................7

Alternative D: Public Use..................7

1.4 Public Involvement............................8

Project Scoping ....................................8

Alternative Workshops .......................9

Comments on the Draft EIS..............9

Controversial Issues............................9

Responses to Comments

Received on the Final 

CCP/EIS .............................................10

1.5 Environmentally Preferable 

Alternative.................................................11

1.6 Measures to Minimize 

Environmental Harm...............................12

1.7 Finding and Basis for Decision......13

i
ii 
Introduction 

This Record of Decision (ROD) for the Final 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) 

for the Rocky Flats National Wildlife 

Refuge provides the basis for a decision by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) 

on the proposed management of the future 

Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge

(Refuge). The CCP has been prepared 

along with an Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), and Service planning policies. The 

Service proposes to adopt and implement a 

CCP that provides Refuge management 

direction for the first 15 years following the 

establishment of the Refuge. The CCP 

addresses the issues identified during the 

public process, and is consistent with

Service policies, the Rocky Flats National 

Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001 (Refuge Act), 

and sound wildlife and habitat management 

principles. Significant issues addressed in 

the Final CCP/EIS include: vegetation 

management, wildlife management, public 

use, cultural resources, property, 

infrastructure, and Refuge operations. 

Background 

The Rocky Flats site is located at the 

intersection of Jefferson, Boulder and 

Broomfield counties, along the Front Range 

of Colorado. The Rocky Flats site is a 

6,240-acre former nuclear defense facility 

operated by the U.S. Department of Energy 

(DOE). All weapons manufacturing was 

performed in a 600-acre area in the middle 

of the site known as the Industrial Area. 

The Rocky Flats site is currently managed 

by the DOE according to existing 

management plans and policies. A 1,800-

acre area in the northern half of the site is 

designated as the Rock Creek Reserve, and 

is managed in accordance with the 2001 

Rock Creek Reserve Integrated Natural 

Resources Management Plan. 

In 1992, the mission of the Rocky Flats site 

changed from weapons production to

environmental cleanup and closure. The 

DOE is completing the cleanup in

accordance with the Rocky Flats Cleanup 

Agreement under oversight by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

and the Colorado Department of Public 

Health and Environment (CDPHE).

Under the Refuge Act, most of the 6,240-

acre Rocky Flats site will become the 

Refuge following certification from the EPA 

that cleanup and closure have been 

completed. An area consisting of about 

1,500 acres in the center of the site will 

likely be retained by DOE for long-term 

cleanup and monitoring. When portions of

the site become a Refuge, the Service will 

assume management responsibility for 

those areas. Five sequential steps must be 

completed before Rocky Flats becomes a 

Refuge. These steps are: 

1. Service completes final CCP/EIS and 

issues a Record of Decision 

2. DOE completes site cleanup except 

for operations and management of 

the remedy 

3. EPA certifies completion of the 

cleanup 

4. DOE transfers land to Department of 

the Interior 

5. Department of the Interior 

establishes the Refuge and Service 

begins management and 

implementation of the CCP

The Refuge Act requires that the DOE 

retain jurisdiction, authority and control 

over portions of the Rocky Flats site 

necessary for cleanup response actions. 

DOE anticipates that it will need to retain 

land in and around the current Industrial 

Area to maintain institutional controls and 

protect cleanup and monitoring systems. 

Such lands are referred to as the DOE 

retained area. 

1
Management alternatives for the DOEretained lands were not considered in the 

CCP because the lands will not be part of 

the Refuge and the Service will not have 

authority to decide how those lands should 

be managed. The Service is recommending 

a fence be built around the retained area to 

distinguish Refuge lands from lands under 

DOE jurisdiction. Such a fence will not 

adversely affect the movement of wildlife 

across the site, and will not be visually 

obtrusive. The DOE does not anticipate 

transferring any lands that would require 

additional safety requirements for either 

the Refuge worker or visitor. 

Refuge Significance

In the Refuge Act, Congress found that the 

Rocky Flats site had several significant 

qualities:

• The majority of the Rocky Flats site

has generally remained undisturbed 

since its acquisition by the federal 

government. 

• The State of Colorado is experiencing 

increasing growth and development,

especially in the metropolitan Denver 

Front Range area in the vicinity of 

the Rocky Flats site. That growth 

and development reduces the amount

of open space and thereby diminishes

for many metropolitan Denver 

communities the vistas of the striking

Front Range mountain backdrop. 

• The Rocky Flats site provides habitat 

for many wildlife species, including a 

number of threatened and 

endangered species, and is marked 

by the presence of rare xeric 

tallgrass prairie plant communities. 

Establishing the site as a unit of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System

(NWRS) will promote the

preservation and enhancement of 

those resources for present and 

future generations. 

Purpose and Direction 

As discussed previously, the Rocky Flats 

NWR was established by the Refuge Act, 

which identified four purposes of the Rocky 

Flats NWR: 

• Restoring and preserving native 

ecosystems 

• Providing habitat for and population 

management of native plants and 

migratory and resident wildlife 

• Conserving threatened and 

endangered species (including 

species that are candidates for listing 

under the Endangered Species Act) 

• Providing opportunities for 

compatible scientific research 

The Refuge Act also provided some 

direction for managing the Refuge. The 

Service is to manage the Refuge to ensure 

that wildlife-dependent public uses and 

environmental education and interpretation

are the priority public uses of the Refuge 

and to comply with all response actions. 

Vision 

At the beginning of the planning process, 

the Service developed a vision for the 

Refuge. A vision describes what will be 

different in the future as a result of the CCP 

and is the essence of what the Service is 

trying to accomplish at the Refuge. The 

vision is a future-oriented statement 

designed to be achieved through Refuge 

management by the end of the 15-year CCP 

planning horizon. The vision for the Refuge 

is: 

Rocky Flats National Wildlife

Refuge is a healthy expanse of 

grasslands, shrublands and

wetlands, including rare xeric 

tallgrass prairie, where natural

processes support a broad range of 

native wildlife. The Refuge provides 

striking mountain and prairie views 

and opportunities to appreciate the 

Refuge resources in an urbanized 

2 
area through compatible wildlifedependent public uses and

education. Working with others, the 

Refuge conserves the unique biotic 

communities and sustains wildlife

populations at the interface of

mountains and prairies on 

Colorado’s Front Range. 

Goals 

The Service also developed six goals for 

Refuge management based on the Refuge 

Act and information developed during 

project planning. The goals are: 

Goal 1. Wildlife and Habitat 

Management. Conserve, restore and 

sustain biological diversity of the native 

flora and fauna of the mountain/prairie 

interface with particular consideration given 

to threatened and endangered species. 

Goal 2. Public Use, Education and 

Interpretation. Provide visitors and 

students high quality recreational,

educational and interpretive opportunities 

and foster an understanding and 

appreciation of the Refuge’s xeric tallgrass 

prairie, upland shrub and wetland habitats; 

native wildlife; the history of the site; and 

the NWRS.

Goal 3. Safety. Conduct operations and 

manage public access in accordance with the 

final Rocky Flats’ cleanup decision 

documents to ensure the safety of the 

Refuge visitors, staff and neighbors.

Goal 4. Effective and Open 

Communication. Conduct communication 

outreach efforts to raise public awareness

about the Refuge programs, management

decisions and the mission of the Service and 

the NWRS among visitors, students and 

nearby residents. 

Goal 5. Working with Others. Foster 

beneficial partnerships with individuals, 

government agencies, non-governmental 

organizations, and others to promote 

resource conservation, compatible wildliferelated research, public use, site history and 

infrastructure. 

Goal 6. Refuge Operations. Based on 

available funds, provide facilities and staff 

to fulfill the Refuge vision and purpose. 

Planning Issues 

Several significant issues were identified 

following the analysis of all comments 

collected through various public scoping 

activities. These issues, as well as the many 

other substantive issues identified during 

scoping, were considered during the 

formulation of alternatives for future 

Refuge management. The significant issues 

are: 

Vegetation Management: Native plant 

community preservation and restoration, 

fire management and weed control.

Wildlife Management: Wildlife species 

protection and management, including 

strategies to address species reintroduction, 

population management, migration 

corridors and coordination with regional 

wildlife managers. 

Public Use: Policies and facility options to 

address several scenarios, from no access to 

multiple recreational and educational uses. 

This includes a range of facility 

development to accommodate these 

scenarios. 

Cultural Resources: Preservation and 

recognition of elements related to site 

history, including Lindsay Ranch structures

and Cold War heritage.

Property: Privately owned mineral rights, 

transportation right of way, and adjacent 

landowner relationships.

Infrastructure: Facilities, such as roads, 

fences, signs and water systems that 

3 
accommodate Refuge needs and user

comfort/safety. Also includes surface water 

hydrology and maintenance of water

quality. 

Refuge Operations: Staffing requirements 

and management strategies to preserve 

significant resources and coordinate with 

surrounding communities and landowners. 

Future Planning

The CCP will be adjusted to include new 

and improved information as it becomes 

available over the course of the CCP’s 15-

year duration. Implementation of the CCP 

will be monitored and reviewed regularly 

during inspections and programmatic 

evaluations. Budget requests and annual 

work plans will be tied directly to the CCP. 

Fifteen years after the Refuge has been 

established, the CCP will be formally

revised, following the process used on this 

CCP. Any substantive changes to the CCP 

before the 15-year period will involve a 

public involvement process. 

The CCP describes the desired future 

conditions of the Refuge and provides longrange guidance and management direction. 

Chapter 2 describes objectives and 

strategies that the Service will use to

achieve the desired future conditions. 

During the 15-year planning period, the 

Service will prepare additional plans, called 

step-down management plans. A step-down 

management plan provides specific 

guidance for the Service to follow to achieve 

objectives or implement management 

strategies related to specific management 

topics such as habitat, fire and public use. 

Step-down plans will be developed as the 

need arises. The Service anticipates the 

following plans will be needed at the

Refuge: 

• Vegetation and Wildlife Management

Plan 

• Integrated Pest Management Plan 

• Fire Management Plan 

• Health and Safety Plan 

• Historic Preservation Plan 

• Visitor Services Plan - an umbrella

document that will include 

interpretation, environmental 

education, hunting management and 

research protocols. 

Refuge Resources 

The Rocky Flats site is located at the 

interface of the Great Plains and Rocky 

Mountains, where it supports a diverse 

mosaic of vegetation communities. Many 

areas of the Rocky Flats site have remained 

relatively undisturbed for the past 30 to 50 

years, allowing them to retain diverse 

natural habitat and associated wildlife. 

Some of the significant vegetation

communities include the rare xeric tallgrass 

grassland and the tall upland shrubland 

communities. The xeric tallgrass grassland 

community covers over 1,500 acres on the 

Rocky Flats pediment tops, and is believed 

to be the largest example of this community 

remaining in Colorado and perhaps North 

America. The tall upland shrubland 

community is primarily found near seeps on

north-facing slopes in the Rock Creek 

drainage. While this community covers less 

than 1percent of the total area at Rocky 

Flats, it contains 55 percent of the plant 

species on the site. 

Wildlife communities are supported by a 

regional network of protected open space 

that surrounds Rocky Flats on three sides 

and buffers wildlife habitat from the 

surrounding urban development. Preble’s 

meadow jumping mouse, a federally listed 

threatened species, occurs in every major 

drainage at Rocky Flats, as well as in 

wetlands and shrubland communities 

adjacent to the Rock Creek and Woman 

Creek drainages. A resident herd of about 

160 mule deer inhabit the site and elk are 

occasionally present. 

4 
Cultural resource surveys identified and 

recorded 45 cultural sites or isolated

artifacts at Rocky Flats. None of the 

identified cultural resources are 

recommended as eligible for listing in the 

National Register of Historic Places. The 

Lindsay Ranch within the Rock Creek 

drainage provides opportunities to interpret 

the early history of settlement and ranching 

on the prairie. 

Decision (Alternative B) 

The Service selected Alternative B – 

Wildlife, Habitat, and Public Use as 

described in the Final CCP/EIS. The 

Service identified Alternative B as the 

Preferred Alternative in the Final 

CCP/EIS. The Service believes that

Alternative B best satisfies the missions of

the Service and the National Wildlife

Refuge System, the direction of the Refuge 

Act, and the long-term needs of the habitats 

and wildlife at Rocky Flats. Alternative B 

represents a balance between wildlife and 

habitat management needs, compatible 

wildlife-dependent public uses, and 

budgetary constraints, and will guide 

Refuge management for the first 15 years 

after Refuge establishment. 

Habitat management efforts will include the 

use of a variety of tools, including 

prescribed fire, grazing, and mowing to 

stimulate and maintain native grassland 

communities. As part of an integrated pest 

management plan, these tools will be used 

along with herbicides, biological controls, 

and other mechanical controls to reduce the 

density and spread of noxious weed species. 

The Service will remove and revegetate 28 

miles of unused road, and 13 stream 

crossings. These efforts will improve

habitat conditions for a variety of wildlife

species, including the wetland and riparian 

habitat areas that are important to the 

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. 

The Service will work with the Colorado 

Division of Wildlife (CDOW) to manage 

wildlife species. Deer and elk populations 

on the Refuge will be managed through 

public hunting, culling, and other means. 

Prairie dog populations will be allowed to 

expand up to 750 acres in areas outside of 

recognized Preble’s habitat and the xeric 

tallgrass community. In partnership with 

the CDOW, the Service will evaluate the 

suitability for reintroducing native

extirpated species, such as the sharp-tailed 

grouse, to the Refuge. 

Public use programs will include 

environmental education programs for high

school and college students, a limited 

hunting program (two weekends per year) 

for youth and the disabled, and interpretive 

programs. Visitor use facilities will include 

12.8 miles of multi-use trail, 3.8 miles of 

hiking-only trail, a visitor contact station, 

interpretive overlooks, viewing blinds, and 

associated access and parking facilities. The 

Service will work closely with surrounding 

jurisdictions to coordinate natural resource 

management, public use, and the regional 

protection of wildlife movement corridors.

Other Alternatives Considered 

The Final CCP/EIS evaluated three other 

alternatives for the management of the 

Refuge. These alternatives are summarized 

below, along with an explanation of why the 

alternative was not selected. 

Alternative A: No Action

In the No Action Alternative, the Service 

would not develop any public use facilities

and would not implement any new 

management, restoration, or education 

programs at Rocky Flats. In this 

alternative, the Service would continue to 

manage the 1,800-acre Rock Creek Reserve 

in accordance with the 2001 Rock Creek 

Reserve Integrated Natural Resources 

Management Plan. Management activities 

within the Rock Creek Reserve would 

5 

include ongoing resource inventories and 

monitoring, habitat restoration, weed

control and road removal and revegetation. 

Public use opportunities would be limited to 

guided tours. 

Alternative A was not selected for 

implementation because it would allow only 

a limited amount of habitat restoration and 

could result in long-term impacts to Refuge 

resources due to erosion, expanded noxious 

weed infestations, and secondary impacts to 

wildlife habitat. The very limited public use 

opportunities offered in Alternative A are 

not consistent with the Refuge Act and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, which direct the 

Service to provide wildlife-dependent 

recreation opportunities whenever those 

uses are found to be compatible with the 

purposes of the refuge and the mission of 

the Refuge System. 

Alternative C: Ecological Restoration 

Alternative C emphasizes Refuge-wide 

conservation and restoration of large areas 

of wildlife habitat. Restoration and 

management activities would strive to

replicate pre-settlement conditions. 

Restoration efforts would focus on 

disturbed areas such as road corridors, 

stream crossings, cultivated fields and 

developed areas. 

Limited public use and minimal facility 

development would occur in this alternative. 

Any facilities on the Refuge would be built 

for specific resource protection and 

management purposes. A single, 3,700-foot 

long trail would provide access to the Rock 

Creek drainage, but access would be limited 

to guided tours only. Environmental 

education programs would be limited to 

local distribution of educational materials 

about the Refuge and its ecological 

resources. 

In Alternative C, the Service would 

facilitate increased opportunities for applied 

research relating to long-term habitat 

changes and species of special concern. 

Partnerships would be expanded with 

governmental agencies, educational 

institutions and others to assist in wildlife

and habitat protection, resource 

stewardship and the preservation of

contiguous lands. 

Alternative C was not selected for 

implementation because it does not provide 

the level of compatible wildlife-dependent 

public use opportunities that is desired by 

many members of the public and some

nearby county and city governments. In 

addition, the estimated expense of

additional resource management and 

monitoring activities is cost prohibitive. 

Alternative D: Public Use 

In Alternative D, the Service would 

emphasize wildlife-dependent public uses. 

Wildlife and habitat management would 

focus on the restoration of select plant 

communities and ongoing conservation and 

management of existing native plant and 

wildlife species. Certain roads and other 

disturbed areas not used for trails or public 

use facilities would be restored with native

vegetation. 

A broad range of public use opportunities 

would be provided, including wildlife

observation and photography, 

interpretation, environmental education and 

a limited hunting program. Access through 

the Refuge would be provided by a 21-mile 

trail system that would accommodate 

hiking, bicycling and equestrian use. Most 

of the trails would be constructed along 

existing roads. A visitor center would be 

constructed at the Refuge. Environmental 

education efforts would include on- and offsite programs for kindergarten through 

college age students. 

Research opportunities would focus on the 

integration of public use into the Refuge 

environment and interactions between 

7
wildlife and visitors. Partnerships would be 

sought with various public agencies to help

sustain Refuge goals and preserve 

contiguous lands. The Service also would 

work with local communities and tourism 

organizations to promote wildlife-dependent 

public uses on the Refuge. 

Alternative D was not selected for 

implementation because the Service 

believes that the cost and extent of public 

use programs and facilities would be

unnecessarily large, would preclude some 

habitat restoration and monitoring efforts, 

and would result in more extensive 

environmental impacts.

Public Involvement 

Project Scoping

The scoping process began with informal 

public agency consultations in February 

2002. The formal scoping period for the 

general public began on August 23, 2002, 

with the publication of a Notice of Intent in 

the Federal Register (67 FR 54667). The 

scoping period ended on October 31, 2002. 

The Notice of Intent notified the public of

the Service’s intent to begin the CCP/EIS 

process, set the dates for public scoping 

meetings, and solicited public comments. 

The public scoping process included four 

public scoping meetings held in September 

2002 in Broomfield, Arvada, Westminster, 

and Boulder. Other scoping materials 

included the distribution of the Planning

Update newsletter, a press release sent to 

23 local and national media organizations, 

advertisements in seven newspapers, flyers 

posted in public buildings, and the posting 

of project information on the project 

website (http://rockyflats.fws.gov). 

On August 19, 2002, the Service hosted a 

meeting for representatives from various 

state and federal agencies interested in the 

future management of the Rocky Flats site. 

The following agencies were represented: 

• Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry 

• City of Westminster 

• Colorado Attorney General’s Office 

• Colorado Department of Agriculture 

• Colorado Department of Public 

Health and Environment 

• Colorado Department of 

Transportation 

• Colorado Division of Minerals and 

Geology 

• Colorado Division of Wildlife 

• Colorado Geological Society 

• Colorado Historical Society 

• Colorado State Parks 

• Denver Regional Council of 

Governments 

• Federal Aviation Administration 

• Governor Owens’ Office 

• Rocky Flats Coalition of Local 

Governments 

• State Land Board 

• Senator Allard’s Office 

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

• U.S. Department of Energy 

• U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

• Urban Drainage and Flood Control 

District 

• Xcel Energy 

Six focus group meetings were held on 

October 28, 29, and 30, 2002. The purpose of 

the focus groups was to convene a forum to 

better explore key issues, as well as 

potential management alternatives and 

their potential implications. Participants 

were invited because of their knowledge of a 

particular subject. Focus groups addressed 

the following topics: recreation, 

environmental education, public 

perception/public information, managing a 

8 
NWR in the context of remediation and 

contamination, trails, vegetation 

management, and wildlife management. 

The Service also contacted representatives 

from the Arapaho Tribe, Cheyenne and 

Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, Northern 

Cheyenne Tribe, the Ute Indian Tribe 

Business Council, Southern Ute Tribe, and 

the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe to solicit their 

input for the scoping process. 

Alternative Workshops 

After the significant issues were identified 

during the scoping period, the Service 

developed alternatives for the management 

of the Refuge. In May 2003, the Service 

held public workshops in Broomfield, 

Arvada, Westminster, and Boulder to 

present four preliminary management 

alternatives. At each workshop, the 

participants were encouraged to provide 

comments on the alternatives, and were 

specifically asked what they liked or 

disliked about them. 

Comments on the Draft EIS 

A Notice of Availability for the Draft 

CCP/EIS was published in the Federal 

Register on February 19, 2004 (69 FR 

7789). During the Draft CCP/EIS comment 

period that occurred from February 19, 

2004 to April 25, 2004, the Service received 

over 5,000 comments, received through 

public hearing testimony, letters, and 

emails. Comments came from 251 

individuals and 34 agencies or organizations. 

The Service also heard from 933 people 

through form letters and petitions. All 

substantive issues raised in the comments 

were addressed in the Final CCP/EIS. 

Public comments are available for review at 

the Front Range Community College 

Library, Rocky Flats Reading Room or at 

the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National 

Wildlife Refuge Visitor Center on

weekends. Responses to comments are 

included as an appendix to the Final 

CCP/EIS. 

Controversial Issues

While the comments on the Draft CCP/EIS 

included a variety of topics, several 

particular controversial issues became 

apparent during the comment period. 

Controversial issues were centered on the 

following topics: 

• Contamination and cleanup 

• Public use 

• Hunting 

Contamination and Cleanup – Concerns 

about existing contamination levels at the 

site, DOE’s cleanup efforts, and the 

implications of these issues on all other 

aspects of future Refuge management 

overshadowed all other issues during the 

comment period. Particular issues of 

concern included whether any public use is 

safe and appropriate, how the Refuge will 

be demarcated from the DOE retained 

lands, and whether certain practices such as 

prescribed fire and hunting will be safe. 

These issues are largely outside of the scope 

of the EIS. The CCP/EIS was written 

under the premise that the area to become 

the Refuge will be certified to be safe prior 

to the establishment of the Refuge and the 

implementation of the CCP. The EPA and 

CDPHE have indicated that all of the 

proposed Refuge activities will be safe for 

the Refuge worker and visitor. If postcleanup conditions change this assumption, 

the cleanup will not be certified and the 

Refuge will not be established. 

In the DEIS, the Service recommended that 

the demarcation of the DOE retained area 

be “seamless” with few obvious visual 

differences between the Refuge and the 

DOE retained area. The final configuration 

of the DOE retained area, as well as the 

nature of any fencing or structures 

demarcating its boundary within the Refuge 

will be decided by the DOE, EPA, and

9 
CDPHE. The Service is not the final

decision-maker in these matters. Based on 

public concerns about the demarcation of 

the DOE retained area, the FEIS was 

revised to elaborate that the Service 

believes that a four-strand barbed-wire 

agricultural fence with signs and permanent

obelisks will effectively demarcate the 

interior property boundary, keep livestock 

out of the DOE lands, and clarify that the 

DOE lands are closed to public access. Such 

a fence will not adversely affect the 

movement of wildlife across the site, and 

will not be visually obtrusive. 

Public Use – In addition to contamination 

concerns (discussed above), the primary 

issues related to public use are whether the 

environmental impacts of public use/trail 

facilities are acceptable. During the 

planning process, the Service planned trail 

configurations that avoid and minimize 

impacts to riparian habitat. Existing roads 

will be re-used to the greatest extent 

possible, and trails through riparian habitat 

areas will be subject to seasonal closures. 

The overall trail density will be less than 

many of the other open space areas in the 

region. Of the 16.5 miles of trails that are 

planned, only 2 percent of the trails will be 

within riparian habitat, and most of those 

are stream crossings that follow existing 

roads. Overall, the proposed public use 

facilities, including trails, will directly

impact less than 1% of the Refuge area, and 

the anticipated impacts from the use of 

those facilities will not significantly detract 

from wildlife and habitat values. As

documented by the Compatibility 

Determinations in Appendix B of the Final 

CCP/EIS, the Service found the proposed 

public uses and facilities to be compatible 

with the mission of the NWRS and the 

purposes of the Refuge.

Hunting – Some members of the public 

were opposed to the general concept of 

hunting on a National Wildlife Refuge, 

disagreed with public hunting as a 

management tool, or had concerns about the 

safety of hunting at Rocky Flats. The 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 established 

hunting as a priority public use if it is

compatible with the Refuge purposes and is 

consistent with public safety. The Service 

believes that a limited, highly managed 

hunting program will be an appropriate and 

compatible form of wildlife dependent 

recreation on the Refuge, and will 

complement other tools for managing

ungulate populations, if necessary. In order 

to protect the safety of Refuge visitors and 

the surrounding communities, the Refuge 

will be closed to other uses on hunting 

weekends, and will be limited to short-range 

weapons such as shotgun slugs and archery. 

In addition, some members of the public 

were opposed to hunting on the Refuge 

because of concerns about the potential 

uptake of contaminants by wildlife, and the 

potential health risks that those animals, 

especially hunted deer, pose to the general 

public. Tissue samples of deer harvested at 

Rocky Flats in 2002 were analyzed for 

contaminants. Radionuclide levels are very 

low for method detection limits and are well 

below the risk-based level for consumption 

of Rocky Flats deer tissue. 

Responses to Comments Received 

on the Final CCP/EIS 

The Service received two comments on the 

Final CCP/EIS, regarding the trail 

alignment along the southern boundary of 

the Refuge, and indirect impacts due to 

development activities near the Refuge. 

Trail Alignment – One commentor 

requested a more extensive trail along the 

southern boundary of the Refuge. The 

Service has decided to not make the 

requested changes to the Final CCP. 

However, at the time of implementation, the 

Service will work with adjacent landowners 

and jurisdictions to coordinate trail 

10 
11 

connections between the Refuge and 

adjacent areas. 

Indirect Impacts of Development – One 

commentor expressed that indirect impacts 

from proposed development, including 

management of DOE-retained lands, the 

potential urban development, and a 

potential transportation corridor near the 

Refuge, could have been addressed further. 

The Service believes that these issues are 

adequately discussed in the Final CCP/EIS, 

and will not make changes to the document. 

With regard to the management of DOEretained lands, the Final CCP/EIS notes 

that these activities have the potential to 

adversely affect vegetation communities on 

the Refuge. The Final CCP/EIS also 

explains that the Service will provide 

recommendations to DOE on revegetation 

and resource management, and that the 

Service does not have decision-making 

authority on these matters. 

The Final CCP/EIS explains that urban 

development adjacent to the Refuge may 

adversely affect the Refuge through weed 

dispersal and impacts to wildlife habitat and 

wildlife corridors. As new developments are 

proposed, the Service will work with local 

jurisdictions during the land use and 

development planning process to minimize 

the impact of adjacent urban development 

on Refuge resources. 

As required by the Refuge Act, the Final 

CCP/EIS addresses and makes 

recommendations on the land to be made 

available along Indiana Street for 

transportation improvements. The Service 

believes that some transportation 

improvements in the area surrounding 

Rocky Flats is a reasonably foreseeable 

activity, but the specific location of any 

particular transportation improvement is 

speculative and is not reasonably 

foreseeable. In order to meet the 

requirements of the Refuge Act without 

speculating on any specific transportation 

improvement, the Final CCP/EIS includes a 

section that quantifies resource impacts 

within three theoretical right-of-way widths 

along Indiana Street, and outlines potential 

impacts and mitigation measures that could 

apply to any transportation improvement 

near the Refuge. 

Environmentally Preferable 

Alternative 

The environmentally preferable alternative 

is defined as the “alternative that will 

promote the national environmental policy 

as expressed in NEPA’s Section 101. 

Typically, this means the alternative that 

causes the least damage to the biological 

and physical environment. It also means 

the alternative that best protects, preserves 

and enhances historic, cultural and natural 

resources” (Forty Most Asked Questions 

Concerning Council of Environmental 

Quality’s National Environmental Policy 

Act Regulations, 1981). According to this 

definition, Alternative C, Ecological 

Restoration, is the environmentally 

preferable alternative. 

Alternative C would emphasize the 

conservation and restoration of large areas 

of wildlife habitat, striving to replicate 

ecological conditions that existed prior to 

modern use and disturbance of the site. The 

key components of Alternative C, relative to 

Alternative B, include more extensive 

monitoring of Preble’s habitat and deer 

populations, more aggressive weed 

management, and would include additional 

staffing with an emphasis on habitat 

conservation and restoration. Public access 

would be limited to guided tours, and the 

Lindsay Ranch structures would be 

removed to allow the restoration of the site 

to a pre-settlement condition. The most 

significant ecological benefits of Alternative 

C over Alternative B would be the lack of 

open public access and its potential impacts 

to wildlife and habitat, and the improved 
focus of staffing on habitat restoration and 

monitoring.

While Alternative C would cause the least 

damage to the biological and physical

environment, removal of the Lindsay Ranch 

structures would result in some loss of 

cultural resource values. All of the action 

alternatives (B, C, and D) would promote 

the national environmental policy as 

expressed in NEPA’s Section 101, and 

would be preferable to no action. The main 

distinctions between the action alternatives 

would be the extent of environmental 

restoration and monitoring, and the level of 

public use that would be allowed and 

facilitated. Most of the habitat restoration 

and conservation elements of Alternative C 

are also found in Alternative B. In 

Alternative B, public access will be allowed 

and public use facilities will be constructed, 

but these facilities will have minimal impact 

on the biological and physical environment 

at Rocky Flats. Trails and facilities 

proposed for Alternative B were designed to 

avoid sensitive habitat areas, and most of 

trails will be converted from existing roads. 

(Many of these roads would remain in 

Alternative C to provide utility and 

maintenance access.) Trails within or

adjacent to sensitive habitat areas are 

restricted to hiking only, and are subject to

seasonal closures. Overall, less than 1 

percent of the Refuge area will be directly 

impacted by visitor use facilities. 

Measures to Minimize 

Environmental Harm 

Throughout the planning process, the 

Service took into account all practicable 

measures to avoid or minimize 

environmental impacts that could result 

from the implementation of Alternative B. 

These measures include the following: 

Public Use Facilities – Most (72 percent) 

of the trails will be constructed by 

narrowing the width of existing gravel or 

dirt roads on the site. All of the trails in the 

Rock Creek drainage will be restricted to 

hiking only, and will be subject to seasonal 

closures. Most of the visitor and 

maintenance facilities will be located on 

previously disturbed sites, to the greatest 

extent possible. 

Road Restoration – Over 50 miles of roads 

currently exist on the portions of Rocky 

Flats that will become the Refuge. In 

Alternative B, the Service will remove and 

revegetate about 28 miles of roads. 

Thirteen stream crossings will be removed 

and restored with native riparian

vegetation. The remainder of the existing 

roads will be used for trails and/or access 

roads. Where necessary, stream crossings 

to be re-used will be upgraded to reduce 

potential impacts on sensitive wildlife 

species such as the Preble’s meadow 

jumping mouse. 

Habitat Management – Sensitive habitat 

areas including the xeric tallgrass prairie, 

tall upland shrubland, and riparian habitat 

that support the Preble’s meadow jumping 

mouse will be monitored by Service staff 

every 2 to 3 years to document the 

effectiveness of weed control and habitat 

restoration efforts, and to asses the impacts 

of disturbance. 

Weed Management – An integrated pest 

management plan will be developed and 

implemented to control the spread of

noxious weeds on the Refuge. The CCP 

includes a full suite of weed management 

and restoration tools to ensure that the 

most effective and efficient methods can be

used to control weeds and restore degraded 

habitat.

Deer and Elk Management – In 

cooperation with the CDOW, the Service 

will establish population targets and use 

public hunting, culling, or other means to 

achieve those targets. Population

management will reduce the potential for 

12 
13 

impacts to sensitive habitat areas from 

overbrowsing or overgrazing and assist in 

ensuring the health and well being of 

ungulate populations on the Refuge. 

Species Reintroduction – The Service will 

work with the CDOW to evaluate the 

suitability of reintroducing the extirpated 

sharp-tailed grouse to the Refuge, and will 

continue to monitor native fish that have 

recently been introduced to Rock Creek. 

Conservation – The Service will work with 

other nearby jurisdictions and natural 

resource management agencies to 

coordinate resource management activities 

and to protect wildlife movement corridors 

surrounding the Refuge. 

Finding and Basis for Decision 

The Service has considered the 

environmental and relevant concerns 

presented by agencies, organizations and 

individuals on the proposed action to 

develop and implement a Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan for the Rocky Flats 

National Wildlife Refuge. Alternative B 

was selected for implementation because it 

achieves a reasonable balance between 

wildlife and habitat conservation and 

compatible wildlife-dependent public use. 

The Service believes that Alternative B is 

most consistent with the intent of the 

Refuge Act, the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1977, and 

Service planning policies, and is the best 

way to achieve the vision and goals for the 

Refuge. While Alternative C provides a 

higher level of habitat restoration and 

monitoring and Alternative D provides more 

extensive public use facilities and programs, 

Alternative B best balances habitat 

protection and public use while limiting 

implementation costs. 

All public and agency comments received 

during the environmental process were 

reviewed. Most of the issues and comments 

raised by the public and other stakeholders 

have been addressed in the Final EIS. 

Issues related to cleanup and 

contamination, will be addressed by other 

agencies prior to Refuge establishment and 

CCP implementation. Comments and 

responses on the Final CCP/EIS are 

presented in Appendix H of the Final 

CCP/EIS. Based on the above information, 

the Service has selected Alternative B for 

implementation.

For further information contact the Refuge Manager, Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge, Building 121, 

Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge, Commerce City, CO 80022. Copies of the Final 

CCP/EIS and this ROD may be obtained from the above address or through the refuge website at 

http://rockyflats.fws.gov.
Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Building 121

Commerce City, CO 80022 

303/289 0980

rockyflats@fws.gov

http://rockyflats.fws.gov

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov

http://www.r6.fws.gov/larp

For Refuge Information

1 800/344 WILD

February 2005