chapter 2

PLANNING PROCESS
Chapter 2: Planning Process

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15

This chapter provides an overview of the planning process

and describes the Service's efforts to involve the public in

the development of the Rocky Flats CCP and EIS

(CCP/EIS). Public involvement was an important

component of the CCP/EIS project. During the scoping

phase of the project, the Service sought input from the

public and interested organizations and agencies to help

direct the CCP/EIS process. Scoping helped identify

specific opportunities, issues, concerns and ideas related

to the management of the future Refuge. This section

also includes a summary of the significant issues that

were identified following the analysis of all comments

collected through the various public scoping activities and

a review of the requirements of the Improvement Act and

NEPA.

2.1 OVERVIEW OF PLANNING PROCESS

The planning process for the CCP/EIS officially began

August 23, 2002 when a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare

a comprehensive management plan was published in the

Federal Register (Vol. 67: 54667-54668). The Service

undertook pre-planning steps prior to the NOI date to

ensure that the planning process was thorough and fair.

The CCP/EIS for the Rocky Flats NWR is intended to

comply with the Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act and the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and their

implementing regulations. The Service issued a final

refuge planning policy in 2000 that established

requirements and guidance for NWR planning, which

includes CCPs and step-down management plans. This

policy ensures that planning efforts comply with the

provisions of the Improvement Act (U.S Fish & Wildlife

Service 2000). The planning policy identifies several steps

of the CCP and EIS process (Figure 4):

• Form a planning team and conduct preplanning

• Initiate public involvement and scoping

• Review Draft Vision Statement and Goals and

determine significant issues

• Develop and analyze alternatives, including the

Proposed Action

Chapter 2. Planning Process

The

Comprehensive 

Conservation 

Planning Process and 

NEPA Compliance

B. INITIATE PUBLIC

INVOLVEMENT AND SCOPING

- Involve the public

C. REVIEW VISION

STATEMENT AND GOALS AND

DETERMINE SIGNIFICANT

ISSUES

D. DEVELOP AND ANALYZE

ALTERNATIVES

- Reasonable range of

alternatives and a No Action

alternative

E. PREPARE DRAFT PLAN

AND NEPA 

DOCUMENT (EIS)

- Public comment and review

F. PREPARE AND ADOPT

FINAL PLAN

- Respond to public comment

- Select preferred alternative

G. IMPLEMENT PLAN,

MONITOR AND EVALUATE

- Public involvement when

applicable

H. REVIEW AND REVISE

PLAN

- Public involvement when

applicable

A. PREPLANNING: 

PLAN THE PLAN

Figure 4. Comprehensive Conservation

Planning Process. 
Chapter 2: Planning Process

16 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

• Prepare Draft CCP and EIS

• Prepare and adopt Final CCP and EIS and

issue a Record of Decision (ROD)

• Implement plan, monitor and evaluate

• Review and revise plan

The Service began the pre-planning process after the

Refuge Act was passed in December 2001. A planning

team comprised of Service staff and outside consultants

was formed in May 2002. Next the planning team

facilitated an interagency workshop to identify a draft

Refuge vision and goals in July 2002. During this preplanning phase, the team collected available information

about the resources of Rocky Flats and the surrounding

area. This information was summarized in a Resource

Inventory Report for the site (U.S Fish & Wildlife Service

2003b).

After reviewing comments from public workshops, the

core team refined the vision and goals statements and

initiated the alternative development process. The team

developed three viable management alternatives in

addition to a No Action Alternative, as required by NEPA.

Each alternative was defined by a set of objectives and

strategies that responded to the significant issues raised

during scoping. The alternatives were then submitted for

public review.

Once public comments were collected, the alternative

plans were refined and the proposed action selected. The

team then drafted the preliminary CCP/EIS. At this

point, the Refuge Manager made preliminary

determinations as to whether or not proposed uses were

compatible with the Refuge System Mission and/or refuge

purpose(s). Once this was completed, the draft CCP/EIS

was made available for public review. The core team

recorded all public comments and developed responses to

those considered substantive.

The CCP and EIS were revised and finalized based on

analysis of public comments. At this time, the CCP and

EIS were divided and published as separate documents.

A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Final EIS and CCP

was published in the Federal Register December 2004. In

accordance with NEPA, the Service's regional director

issued a record of decision (ROD) on the CCP 30 days

after the notice in the Federal Register was published.

The ROD disclosed the alternative selected by the regional

director and the reasons for its selection. The final CCP

was then released in April 2005. The final CCP or a

summary of the document was made available to

interested parties.

2.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 

In accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act of 1997, the Service's Refuge Planning

Policy requires substantial and significant public

involvement throughout the planning process. The Refuge

Planning Policy draws from the public involvement

requirements outlined in the NEPA guidelines and other

pertinent laws, executive orders, regulations, policies and

guidelines.

During the pre-planning phase, the planning team

developed a Public Involvement Plan that described how

agencies and the public could participate in the planning

process (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 2002). Public

involvement in the planning process ensured that

interested and affected individuals, organizations,

agencies and governmental entities were consulted and

provided opportunities to participate. Public involvement

in the Refuge CCP/EIS process served the following

functions:

• Informed public about the proposed Rocky

Flats NWR

• Collected public input on key issues and

concerns

• Provided help in determining management

direction of Rocky Flats NWR

Several communication tools were used to engage the

public. Over the course of the project, the planning team

published 7 "Planning Update" newsletters that provided

periodic reports to stakeholders. Workshops, public

meetings, and public hearings were held in the

communities surrounding Rocky Flats NWR to solicit

The Service sought input from the public throughout the

planning process.

© Shapins Associates
Chapter 2: Planning Process

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17

public input. A website provided an overview of Rocky Flats

and the CCP process, information about upcoming public

meetings and other important dates, a comment submission

area, and a download area for planning documents. In

addition, notifications of public meetings and document

availability were distributed through Federal Register

notices, media press releases and advertisements in local

papers. Furthermore, presentations and briefings of the

project's status were made to key stakeholder groups.

PROJECT SCOPING

Since public input was to involve both idea generation and

idea review, the Service worked to establish a dialogue with

interested individuals and groups. The objective of the

scoping process was to gather the full range of comments,

questions and concerns that the public has about the future

Rocky Flats NWR. Scoping helped identify specific

opportunities, issues, concerns and ideas related to the

management of the Refuge. Professional facilitators on the

planning team were instrumental in organizing forums for

public participation. 

Initial Consultations

The scoping process began with informal public agency

consultations in February 2002. The Refuge Act required

the Service to consult with a variety of local and state

officials to develop the Public Involvement Plan. 

Service staff met with representatives from communities,

agencies, and businesses that may have an interest in the

Rocky Flats CCP/EIS process. The Service also met with

state representatives, including the offices of the Governor,

the Attorney General and the CDPHE to help develop the

public process. The purpose of these meetings was to brief

the stakeholders on the planning process, and solicit their

comments and concerns for the scoping process. 

Between February 6 and April 12, 2002, the Refuge

Manager and Planning Team Leader met individually with

each member of the Rocky Flats Coalition of Local

Governments (RFCLOG). The RFCLOG is a coalition of

seven local governments (Boulder County, Jefferson County,

City and County of Broomfield, and the cities of Arvada,

Boulder, Westminster, and Superior). All the local

governments had questions about developing the

Memorandum of Understanding between DOE and the

Service in addition to the planning process. Copies of the

Service's policy on Planning and Compatibility were

distributed at the meetings. On July 23, 2002, Service staff

met with the Rocky Flats Coalition of Local Governments

(RFCLOG). Service staff also met with representatives of

the cities of Golden, Thornton, Northglenn, Louisville and

Lafayette.

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. 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 scoping

period ended on October 31, 2002. 

Public Scoping Meetings

Public scoping meetings were held in September 2002

in Broomfield, Arvada, Westminster, and Boulder. The

scoping meetings provided a forum for community

residents, public agency members, and interested

organizations to express their concerns. To ensure that

people's concerns were captured and that they felt

comfortable giving verbal comments, participants were

allowed to form small groups - each facilitated by a

planning team member. 

To solicit public input, the Service conducted workshops

in the communities surrounding Rocky Flats.
Chapter 2: Planning Process

18 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Several weeks before the public scoping meetings,

Planning Update #1, an announcement of the scoping

meetings, was mailed to 889 individuals, businesses and

organizations. The mailing list consisted of individuals

and organizations that had previously expressed an

interest in Rocky Flats-related issues and were on the

Rocky Flats Citizen Advisory Board (RFCAB), the

DOE, or Kaiser-Hill (DOE contractor) mailing lists. 

Planning Update #1 described the planning process, the

draft vision and goals for the Refuge, and the dates,

times and locations of the public scoping meetings.

Information contained in Planning Update #1 also was

announced at RFCLOG and RFCAB meetings. A press

release soliciting participation in the scoping process

was also sent to 23 local and national media

organizations. The Service placed advertisements in

seven newspapers to publicize the project and invite the

public to the scoping meetings. Flyers announcing the

public scoping meetings were posted in public buildings

in several communities surrounding the Rocky Flats

site. 

Project Website

The Rocky Flats NWR web site (http://rocky

flats.fws.gov/) was published for public access during

the week of July 21, 2002, and contained information

about the public scoping meetings, as well as

downloadable versions of all of the available public scoping

documents.

Throughout the project additional planning documents and

announcements of upcoming events were posted on the

website. The website also provided an avenue for

submitting questions and comments to the planning team.

In order to keep stakeholders informed, the planning team produced “Planning Update” newsletters throughout the

course of the project.

The Rocky Flats CCP website provided important

information about the planning process and allowed

stakeholders to submit their comments and questions.
Chapter 2: Planning Process

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19

Public Agency Meeting

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 Survey

• 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

Focus Groups

Six focus group meetings were held on October 28, 29,

and 30, 2002. The purpose of the focus group meetings

was to convene a forum to better explore key issues, as

well as the potential management alternatives and their

implications. Participants were invited because of their

knowledge of a particular subject. Focus groups were

convened around the following topics: Recreation;

Environmental Education; Public Perception/Public

Information: Managing a NWR in the Context of

Remediation and Contamination; Trails; Vegetation

Management; and Wildlife Management. 

Native American Tribes

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 were contacted by

the Service to solicit their input for the scoping process.

The Service received responses from the Cheyenne and

Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, but did not receive any

scoping comments from the Tribes.

Results from Scoping

During the course of the public scoping process, the

planning team received 1,881 comments from the public

or other stakeholders. Every comment was considered

and grouped by topic area (Table 2). Major topics

included public use, cultural resources, real estate,

infrastructure, vegetation management, and wildlife

management. Other topics that have attracted comments

include Refuge operations, cleanup level and remediation

issues, and comments on the planning process. 

Written submissions came in the form of letters, email,

questionnaires, and notes from telephone calls.

Questionnaires were distributed at the public scoping

meetings and could also be downloaded from the project

website. Sixty-two written submissions were received.

All written submissions were carefully read and evaluated

to determine the specific issues or concerns that were

being addressed.

Focus groups considered wildlife management and

several other subjects.

© Mauro
Chapter 2: Planning Process

20 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

ISSUES

The Service prepared a Scoping Report that describes in

detail the scoping process and results (U.S Fish & Wildlife

Service 2003a). Several significant issues were identified

following the analysis of all comments collected through

the various public scoping activities and a review of the

requirements of the Improvement Act and NEPA. 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 summarized in

the following sections.

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 land owner relationships.

Infrastructure. Facilities, such as roads, fences, signs

and water systems, that 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.

Issues outside the Scope of the CCP and EIS

While issues about site cleanup were raised frequently,

the issue is outside the scope of the planning effort. The

Service routinely communicated to the public that Rocky

Flats will not be transferred to the Service until the EPA

certifies that cleanup and closure are complete.

Contamination and remediation issues are being

addressed by DOE, the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and the Colorado Department of Public

Health and Environment. However, due to the public's

concern about this issue, the final CCP and EIS includes

an expanded discussion of issues related to cleanup (see

Section 1.5).

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. The alternatives ranged from

providing little or no public access to extensive public

access and facility development. At each workshop, the

participants were encouraged to provide comments on the

alternatives, and were specifically asked what they liked

or disliked about them.

Issues to Reconsider

The public expressed differing opinions on several issues.

The following were the predominant concerns: 

Proposed Action. Re-examine the Service's Proposed

Action (Alternative B) and determine if it should remain

as is or be modified in some specific way.

Equestrian Use. Evaluate whether equestrian use is

consistent with the Refuge goals and if it is compatible

with the Refuge purposes.

Trail Design. Consider modifying trail configurations to

improve connectivity and enhance visitor experience while

minimizing potential impacts on sensitive natural

resources.

Table 2. Percentage of Scoping Comments by Topic

Public Use

Vegetation

Wildlife

Infrastructure

Contamination†

Property‡

Cultural Resources

Refuge Operations

Planning Process

Topic Area

31

13

12

11

10

8

6

6

3

Percentage of 

Comments

† Issues related to contamination and site cleanup are outside the scope of 

this CCP/EIS, as explained in Section 1.8.

‡ Issues related to property include mineral rights, potential land 

acquisitions, and the transportation corridor right of way, all of

which are discussed in Section 2.9. 
Chapter 2: Planning Process

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21

Restoration. Consider phasing options that would

accelerate habitat conservation and delay public use

facility and programming development until restoration

efforts are underway.

Public Preferences

Comments on the alternatives expressed a range of

opinions about the site. Some people believed that no

public access was appropriate, while others wished for

extensive public use. More people supported the Service's

Proposed Action (Alternative B), either as it is or with

some modifications. A majority of the comments were

related to public use opportunities (42 percent) and

habitat and wildlife management (30 percent). These

percentages reflect what was heard through the comment

period, which ended in June 2003. 

After the workshops were completed, the Service reevaluated all the issues and revised some portions of the

alternatives.

Comments on the Draft CCP/EIS

The Draft CCP/EIS was available for public review from

February 19, 2004 to April 25, 2004. In March 2004, the

Service held four public hearings on the draft in

Westminster, Boulder, Arvada, and Broomfield. The

meetings were conducted as hearings in which individuals

were given 3 minutes to comment and their comments

were recorded by a court reporter. The Refuge Manager,

attended all meetings and conducted a question and

answer session following the comments. 

In addition to the public hearing testimony, comments

were also received in the form of letters, emails, form

letters, and petitions. During the Draft CCP/EIS

comment period, the Service received over 5,000

comments from 251 individuals, 34 agencies/

organizations, and 933 form letters. From those who

specifically stated a preference for a particular

alternative, 21 percent supported Alternative A, 63

percent supported Alternative B (the Service's proposed

action), 15 percent for Alternative C, and 1 percent for

Alternative D. 

The most significant issue raised was public access. Due

to the history of contamination and the ongoing cleanup

efforts, members of the public were concerned about

plans for public access and very interested in how the

DOE retained area should be demarcated. Other

significant issues included public hunting, prescribed fire

and grazing, prairie dog management, water rights,

Lindsay Ranch, cumulative impacts of adjacent mining,

and nearby transportation improvements. 

All of the comments received on the Draft CCP/EIS, as

well as responses to substantive comments, are included

or summarized in Appendix H to the Final CCP/EIS--

Comments and Responses on the Draft Environmental

Impact Statement (under a separate cover). Public

Four preliminary

management

alternatives were

presented at

public workshops.

© Shapins Associates
Chapter 2: Planning Process

22 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

comments were also made 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. 

Changes to the Draft CCP/EIS

As a result of public comments and concerns about the

Draft CCP/EIS, several changes were made to the Final

CCP. The most significant changes to the CCP include

the following:

• Trails – New trail configurations (See Figure

17). 

• Contamination – Expanded discussion of

contamination, cleanup, and the DOE retained

lands (See CCP Sections 1.5, 3.2 and

Appendix E).