glossary
Glossary

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 125

accessibility: the state or quality of being easily

approached or entered, particularly as it relates to the

Americans With Disabilities Act.

accessible facilities: structures accessible for most

people with disabilities without assistance; ADA-accessible

(e.g., parking lots, trails, pathways, ramps).

adaptive management: the rigorous application of

management, research, and monitoring to gain

information and experience necessary to assess and

modify management activities. A process that uses

feedback from refuge research and monitoring and

evaluation of management actions to support or modify

objectives and strategies at all planning levels.

alternative: a reasonable way to fix an identified problem

or satisfy a stated need (40 CFR 1500.2 [cf. "management

alternative"]).

alluvium: soils that have been formed by the deposition

of water borne materials.

appropriate use: a proposed or existing use of a national

wildlife refuge that (1) supports the Refuge System

Mission, the major purposes, goals or objectives of the

refuge; (2) is necessary for the safe and effective conduct

of a priority general public use on the refuge; (3) is

otherwise determined under Service Manual Chapter 605

FW1 (draft), by the Refuge Manager and Refuge

Supervisor to be appropriate.

aquifer: a formation, group of formations, or part of a

formation that contains sufficient saturated, permeable

material to yield significant quantities of water to wells

and springs.

aquitard: a layer of rock having low permeability that

stores groundwater but delays its flow.

biodiversity: the variety of life in all its forms.

breeding habitat: habitat used by migratory birds or

other animals during the breeding season.

buffer zones: land bordering and protecting critical

habitats; areas created or sustained to lessen the negative

effects of land development on animals, plants, and their

habitats.

candidate species: species for which the Service has

sufficient information on file about their biological

vulnerability and threats to propose their listing under the

Endangered Species Act.

CERCLA: The Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act (commonly known as

Superfund), which created a tax on the chemical and

petroleum industries to, among other purposes, establish a

trust fund to provide for long-term cleanup of

contaminated sites.

Chronic Wasting Disease: a contagious fatal

neurological disease among deer and elk that produces

small lesions in brains of infected animals. It is

characterized by loss of body condition, behavioral

abnormalities and death.

community: the locality in which a group of people

resides and shares the same government.

vegetation community type: a particular assemblage of

plants and animals, named for its dominant characteristic.

compatible use: “a wildlife-dependent recreational use or

any other use of a refuge that, in the sound professional

judgment of the Director, will not materially interfere

with or detract from the fulfillment of the mission of the

System or the purposes of the refuge" (National Wildlife

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 [Public Law 105-

57; 111 Stat. 1253]).

compatibility determination: a required determination

for wildlife-dependent recreational uses or any other

public uses of a refuge before a use is allowed.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan: a document

mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge System

Improvement Act of 1997 that describes desired future

conditions for a refuge unit, and provides long-range

guidance for the unit leader to accomplish the mission of

the System and the purpose(s) of the unit (P.L. 105-

57;FWS Manual 602 FW 1.4).

concern: cf. "issue."

conservation: managing natural resources to prevent loss

or waste (N.b. Management actions may include

preservation, restoration, and enhancement).

conservation agreements: voluntary written

agreements among two or more parties for the purpose of

ensuring the survival and welfare of unlisted species of

fish and wildlife or their habitats or to achieve other

specified conservation goals.

conservation easement: a legal agreement between a

landowner and a land trust (a private, nonprofit

conservation organization) or government agency that

permanently limits uses of a property to protect its

conservation values.

cooperative agreement: the legal instrument used when

the principal purpose of a transaction is the transfer of

money, property, services, or anything of value to a

recipient in order to accomplish a public purpose
Glossary

126 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

authorized by Federal statute, and substantial involvement

between the Service and the recipient is anticipated (cf.

"grant agreement").

cultural resource: a general term applied to buildings,

structures, landscape features, places, or other identifiable

artifacts of scientific, aesthetic, educational, spiritual,

archaeological, architectural, or historic significance. Can

also be more narrowly defined to refer to a prehistoric or

historic district, site, building, structure or object listed in

or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic

Places. 

designated wilderness area: an area designated by

Congress as part of the National Wilderness Preservation

System (FWS Manual 610 FW 1.5 [draft]).

disturbed area: an area where natural processes have

been degraded or destroyed due to human impacts (e.g.,

mining, cultivation, development).

easement: an agreement by which landowners give up or

sell one of the rights on their property (e.g., ditch owners

may have an easement to maintain the waterway [cf.

"conservation easement"]).

ecosystem: a natural community of organisms

interacting with its physical environment, regarded as a

unit.

endangered species: a Federal- or State-listed protected

species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a

significant portion of its range.

environmental education: education aimed at producing

a citizenry that is knowledgeable about the biophysical

environment and its associated problems, aware of how to

help solve these problems, and motivated to work toward

their solution" (Stapp et al. 1969).

Environmental Impact Statement: (EIS) a detailed,

written analysis of the environmental impacts of a

proposed action, adverse effects of the project that cannot

be avoided, alternative courses of action, short-term uses

of the environment versus the maintenance and

enhancement of long-term productivity, and any

irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources (cf.

40 CFR 1508.11).

erosion: the detachment and movement of soil from the

land by wind, water, or gravity.

extirpated: no longer occurring in a given geographic

area.

Federal land: public land owned by the Federal

Government, including national forests, national parks,

and national wildlife refuges.

Federally listed species: a species listed either as

endangered, threatened, or a species at risk (formerly, a

"candidate species") under the Endangered Species Act of

1973, as amended.

geographic information system: (GIS) a computerized

system to compile, store, analyze and display

geographically referenced information (e.g., GIS can

overlay multiple sets of information on the distribution of

a variety of biological and physical features).

global positioning system: (GPS) a satellite-based

navigation and positioning system that can be used to

locate and store specific points on the earth. GPS

technology can be used to create accurate maps of refuge

resources or management issues (such as weed patches)

that can be easily loaded onto a GIS for analysis. 

habitat fragmentation: the breaking up of a specific

habitat into smaller, unconnected areas (N.b. A habitat

area that is too small may not provide enough space to

maintain a breeding population of the species in question).

habitat conservation: protecting an animal or plant

habitat to ensure that the use of that habitat by the animal

or plant is not altered or reduced.

habitat: the place where a particular type of plant or

animal lives.

hay meadow: reference to a 300-acre portion of Rocky

Flats that was once cultivated for agriculture and is now

comprised primarily of non-native smooth brome and

crested wheatgrass. In its current condition, the hay

meadow provides marginal wildlife habitat, though it does

not adversely affect other Refuge resources.

informal monitoring: (see monitoring) the on-going

observation of resource conditions and needs by Service

staff that does not follow a pre-determined schedule or

observation method. 

Integrated Pest Management: (IPM) sustainable

approach to managing pests by combining biological,

cultural, physical, and chemical tools in a way that

minimizes economic, health, and environmental risks.

interpretive facilities: structures that provide

information about an event, place, or thing by a variety of

means, including printed, audiovisual, or multimedia

materials (e.g., kiosks that offer printed materials and

audiovisuals, signs, and trail heads).

forbs: flowering plants (excluding grasses, sedges, and

rushes) that do not have a woody stem and die back to the

ground at the end of the growing season.

interpretive materials: any tool used to provide or

clarify information, explain events or things, or increase
Glossary

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 127

awareness and understanding of the events or things (e.g.,

printed materials like brochures, maps or curriculum

materials; audio/visual materials like video and audio

tapes, films, or slides; and, interactive multimedia

materials, CD-ROM or other computer technology).

issue: any unsettled matter that requires a management

decision (e.g., a Service initiative, an opportunity, a

management problem, a threat to the resources of the

unit, a conflict in uses, a public concern, or the presence of

an undesirable resource condition).

local agencies: generally, municipal governments,

regional planning commissions, or conservation groups.

long-term protection: mechanisms like fee title

acquisition, conservation easements, or binding

agreements with landowners that ensure land use and

land management practices will remain compatible with

maintaining species populations over the long term.

managed grazing: the use of livestock such as cattle or

goats for purposes other than livestock production

(including weed management and vegetative succession).

Often requires fencing and moving animals in an

organized fashion to achieve resource management

objectives.

management alternative: a set of objectives and the

strategies needed to accomplish each objective [FWS

Manual 602 FW 1.4].

management concern: cf. "issue"; "migratory nongame

birds of management concern."

management opportunity: cf. "issue."

management plan: a plan that guides future land

management practices on a tract.

management strategy: a general approach to meeting

unit objectives (N.b. A strategy may be broad, or it may be

detailed enough to guide implementation through specific

actions, tasks, and projects [FWS Manual 602 FW 1.4]).

mission statement: a succinct statement of the purpose

for which the unit was established; its reason for being.

mitigation: actions taken to compensate for the negative

effects of a particular project (e.g., wetland mitigation

usually restores or enhances a previously damaged

wetland or creates a new wetland).

mixed grassland prairie: a combination of several

grassland communities, including mesic mixed grassland,

short grassland, xeric needle and thread grassland, and

reclaimed mixed grassland, that are composed of similar

types of native and non-native grasses and have common

management requirements. 

monitoring: the collection of scientific information to

determine the effects of resource management actions and

to identify changing resource conditions or needs.

multi-use trails: trails designated for a variety of uses

including hiking, biking and, in some cases, equestrian

use. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969: (NEPA)

requires all Federal agencies to examine the

environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate

environmental information, and use public participation in

planning and implementing environmental actions.

(Federal agencies must integrate NEPA with other

planning requirements, and prepare appropriate NEPA

documents to facilitate better environmental decisionmaking [cf. 40 CFR 1500].)

National Register of Historic Places: Authorized under

the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the

National Register is the nation's official list of cultural

resources worthy of preservation. National Register

properties are distinguished by having been documented

and evaluated according to uniform standards. 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex: (Complex) an

internal Service administrative linking of refuge units

closely related by their purposes, goals, ecosystem, or

geopolitical boundaries. In this case, referring to the

Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge (NWR),

Two Ponds NWR, and Rocky Flats NWR as a complex.

National Wildlife Refuge System: (System) all lands

and waters and interests therein administered by the

Service as wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, wildlife

management areas, waterfowl production areas, and other

areas for the protection and conservation of fish and

wildlife, including those that are threatened with

extinction.

native species: a plant or animal that has grown in the

region since the last glaciation and occurred before

European settlement.

Notice of Intent: (NOI) an announcement published in

the Federal Register that states what the an agency will

prepare and review an environmental impact statement

[40 CFR 1508.22].

noxious weeds: non-native species that have been

introduced into an area and, because of their aggressive

growth and lack of natural predators, displace native

species.
Glossary

128 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

objective: a concise statement of what the Service wants

to achieve, how much to achieve, when and where to

achieve it, and who is responsible for the work. Objectives

derive from goals and provide the basis for determining

strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, and

evaluating the success of strategies. Objectives are made

to be attainable, time-specific, and measurable.

off-trail use: designated areas where visitors are

permitted to traverse across the landscape and are not

limited to the trail corridors.

outdoor classroom: an environmental education facility

that provides learning space and storage for educational

materials and props in the field.

overlook: A designated viewing area often furnished

with a bench and interpretive signage.

partnership: a contract or agreement among two or

more individuals, groups of individuals, organizations, or

agencies, in which each agrees to famish a part of the

capital or some service in kind (e.g., labor) for a mutually

beneficial enterprise.

patch: a relatively homogenous habitat area that is not

interrupted by disturbance corridors such as roads,

trails, or fences.

permitted mining use: an area in which an outside

party owns the rights to subsurface minerals and a

permit to mine those minerals. Mining could occur on

these areas.

picocurie: A unit of measurement for radioactivity,

equal to one trillionth of a curie (1x10-12). A curie is a

unit of radioactivity, based originally on the radioactivity

of 1 gram of pure radium, equal to 37 billion

disintegrations per second.

Planning Updates: newsletters distributed, primarily

through mailing lists, in order to update the interested

public on the status of the CCP project.

pre-settlement condition: a conceptual goal for habitat

restoration based on ecological conditions that existed

prior to ranching and modern use and disturbance of the

site. 

prescribed fire: the application of fire to wildland fuels,

either by natural or intentional ignition, to achieve

identified land use objectives (FWS Manual 621 FW 1.7).

private land: land owned by a private individual or

group or non-government organization.

private landowner: cf. "private land."

private organization: any non-government organization.

Proposed Action (or alternative): activities for which

an Environmental Impact Statement is being written; the

alternative containing the actions and strategies

recommended by the planning team. The proposed action

is, for all proactive purposes, the draft CCP for the

Refuge. (Referred to as the Preferred Alternative in the

Final CCP/EIS).

pedestrian trails: trails designated for hiking use only

and not opened to other modes of transportation such as

biking or equestrian uses.

protection: mechanisms like fee title acquisition,

conservation easements, or binding agreements with

landowners that ensure land use and land management

practices will remain compatible with maintaining species

populations at a site (cf. “long-term ")

public: individuals, organizations, and non-government

groups; officials of Federal, State, and local government

agencies; Native American tribes, and foreign nations

includes anyone outside the core planning team, those who

may or may not have indicated an interest in the issues

and those who do or do not realize that our decisions may

affect them.

public involvement: offering to interested individuals

and organizations that our actions or policies may affect

an opportunity to become informed; soliciting their

opinion.

public involvement plan: long-term guidance for

involving the public in the comprehensive planning

process.

public land: land owned by the local, State, or Federal

Government.

rare species: species identified for special management

emphasis because of their uncommon occurrence.

rare community types: plant community types classified

as rare by any State program (as used in CCPs, includes

exemplary community types).

recommended wilderness: areas studied and found

suitable for wilderness designation by both the Director

(FWS) and Secretary (DOI), and recommended by the

President to Congress for inclusion in the National

Wilderness System (FWS Manual 610 FW 1.5 [draft]).

Record of Decision: (ROD) a concise public record of a

decision by a Federal agency pursuant to NEPA. (N.b. A

ROD includes: the decision; all the alternatives considered;

the environmentally preferable alternative; a summary of

monitoring and enforcement, where applicable, for any

mitigation; and, whether all practical means have been

adopted to avoid or minimize environmental harm from
Glossary

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 129

the alternative selected [or if not, why not].)

refuge goals: ”descriptive, open-ended, and often broad

statements of desired future conditions that convey a

purpose but do not define measurable units" (Writing

Refuge Management Goals and Objectives: A Handbook).

refuge management economic activity: a management

activity on a national wildlife refuge that results in the

generation of a commodity which is or can be sold as

income or revenue or can be traded for goods and

services. Examples include: farming, grazing, haying,

timber harvesting, and trapping.

Refuge Manager: the official directly in charge of a

national wildlife refuge or a wildlife refuge complex.

refuge purposes: “The purposes specified in or derived

from the law, proclamation, executive order, agreement,

public land order, donation document, or administrative

memorandum establishing, authorizing, or expanding a

refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit" (National Wildlife

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997).

refuge lands: lands in which the Service holds full

interest in fee title or partial interest like an easement.

refuge use: a recreational use (including actions

associated with a recreational use or other general public

use), or refuge management economic activity.

Regional Chief: the official in charge of the National

Wildlife Refuge System within a Region of the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service.

relative cover: a measure of abundance for individual

plant species or group of species of interest in a specified

area, relative to the total cover all species. Can be

expressed as a percentage. 

restoration: the artificial manipulation of habitat to

restore it to its former condition (e.g., restoration may

involve planting native grasses and forbs, removing

shrubs, prescribed burning, or re-establishing habitat for

native plants and animals on degraded grassland).

restored stream crossing: obstructions such as culverts,

roads and trails are removed or restructured to allow

stream flows to return to a more natural condition.

revegetation: the process of establishing a native plant

community in an area that was formerly disturbed. May

involve removing existing non-native vegetation, grading,

soil preparation, seeding, and supplemental irrigation.

RFCA Parties: the agencies that are signatories to the

Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement: U.S. Department of

Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, and the

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

riparian area: see riparian habitat.

riparian habitat: habitat along the banks of a stream or

river that is characterized by trees and shrubs (such as

cottonwood and willow) that grow in moist conditions. 

right of way: that land on which a public road may be

built within The Refuge boundary. 

runoff: water from rain, melted snow, or agricultural or

landscape irrigation that flows over a land surface into a

water body (cf. "urban runoff").

scoping: the process used at the beginning of a planning

process to engage the public and other agencies to

determine the scope and significant issues to be addressed

in the plan and analyzed in the EIS.

seasonal closures: areas and/or trails closed for the

protection of wildlife based on their annual life cycles and

habitat needs. Closures are seasonal and are determined

by Refuge staff.

sedimentation: the introduction of eroded soil particles

to a water body which can result in increased turbidity

(cloudiness) and affect aquatic plants and animals. 

Service presence: Service programs and facilities that it

directs or shares with other organizations; public

awareness of the Service as a sole or cooperative provider

of programs and facilities.

site improvement: any activity that changes the

condition of an existing site to better interpret events,

places, or things related to a refuge (e.g., improving safety

and access, replacing non-native with native plants,

refurbishing footbridges and trail ways, and renovating or

expanding exhibits).

Refuge mailing list: A list containing names and

addresses of people with an interest in the Refuge. As

part of the planning process, the list was continually

updated to include conservation agencies, recreation

interests, Congressionals, workbook respondents, open

house/focus group attendees, etc.

social trail: unplanned trails that develop informally

through repeated use. Are commonly formed between

planned trails and points of interest.

soil productivity: The overall productive status of a soil

arising from all aspects of its quality, such as its physical

and structural condition as well as its chemical content.

species of concern: species not federally listed as

threatened or endangered, but about which the Service or
Glossary

130 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

our partners are concerned.

stabilization: reinforcing a building (e.g., Lindsay Barn)

to avoid further deterioration of its structural integrity.

State agencies: generally, natural resource agencies of

State governments.

State land: State-owned public land.

State-listed species: cf. Wildlife species that are listed as

threatened or endangered within the State of Colorado by

the Colorado Division of Wildlife.

step-down management plan: a plan for dealing with

specific refuge management subjects, strategies, and

schedules, e.g., hunting, vegetation and fire (FWS Manual

602 FW 1.4).

target population: the preferred number of animals

(deer or elk) that live on the Refuge, as determined by

Service and CDOW staff based on fluctuating habitat

conditions. 

threatened species: a Federally listed, protected species

that is likely to become an endangered species in all or a

significant portion of its range.

urban runoff: water from rain, melted snow, or landscape

irrigation flowing from city streets and domestic or

commercial properties that may carry pollutants into a

sewer system or water body.

vision statement: a concise statement of what the unit

could achieve in the next 10 to 15 years.

visitor center: a permanently staffed building offering

exhibits and interpretive information to the visiting public.

Some visitor centers are co-located with refuge offices,

others include additional facilities such as classrooms or

wildlife viewing areas.

visitor contact station: compared to a visitor center, a

contact station is a smaller facility that may not be

permanently staffed.

viewing blind: a structure that provides shelter and a

suitable vantage for wildlife observation and photography.

warm-season grass: native prairie grass that grows the

most during summer, when cool-season grasses are

dormant.

trail connections: trailheads along the refuge boundary

that provide a link to outlying trail systems.

watchable wildlife: wildlife that are visible and enjoyed

by Refuge visitors. A watchable wildlife program is one

that helps maintain viable populations of all native fish

and wildlife species by building an active, well-informed

constituency for conservation. Watchable wildlife

programs are tools for meeting wildlife conservation goals

while at the same time fulfilling public demand for

wildlife-dependent recreational activities (other than sport

hunting, sport fishing, or trapping).

water bar: a constructed trail structure that diverts

water off of the trail surface. May consist of a earthen

berm, rock, wood, or other materials.

watershed: the geographic area within which water

drains into a particular river, stream, or body of water;

land and the body of water into which the land drains.

wetlands: lands transitional between terrestrial and

aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or

near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water"

(Cowardin et al 1979).

wilderness: cf. "designated wilderness."

wildfire: a free-burning fire requiring a suppression

response; all fire other than prescribed fire that occurs on

wildlands (FWS Manual 621 FW 1.7).

wildland fire: every wildland fire is either a wildfire or a

prescribed fire (FWS Manual 621 FW 1.3).

wildlife management: manipulating wildlife populations,

either directly by regulating the numbers, ages, and sex

ratios harvested, or indirectly by providing favorable

habitat conditions and alleviating limiting factors.

wildlife-dependent recreation: recreational experiences

in which wildlife is the focus. The terms “wildlifedependent recreation” and '”wildlife-dependent

recreational use” mean a use of a refuge involving

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or

environmental education and interpretation (National

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997).
appendices
appendix a

Refuge Legislation
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 135

Appendix A: Refuge Legislation

PUBLIC LAW 107–107—DEC. 28, 2001 115 STAT. 1379

defense plutonium or defense plutonium materials to the Savannah

River Site during the period beginning on February 1, 2002, and

ending on the date on which such plans are submitted to Congress.

(g) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section may be

construed to prohibit or limit the Secretary from shipping defense

plutonium or defense plutonium materials to sites other than the

Savannah River Site during the period referred to in subsection

(f) or any other period.

(h) ANNUAL REPORT ON FUNDING FOR FISSILE MATERIALS DISPOSITION ACTIVITIES.—The Secretary shall include with the budget

justification materials submitted to Congress in support of the

Department of Energy budget for each fiscal year (as submitted

with the budget of the President under section 1105(a) of title

31, United States Code) a report setting forth the extent to which

amounts requested for the Department for such fiscal year for

fissile materials disposition activities will enable the Department

to meet commitments for the disposition of surplus defense plutonium and defense plutonium materials located at the Savannah

River Site, and for any other fissile materials disposition activities,

in such fiscal year.

SEC. 3156. MODIFICATION OF DATE OF REPORT OF PANEL TO ASSESS

THE RELIABILITY, SAFETY, AND SECURITY OF THE

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR STOCKPILE.

Section 3159(d) of the Strom Thurmond National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (Public Law 105–261; 42

U.S.C. 2121 note) is amended by striking ‘‘of each year, beginning

with 1999,’’ and inserting ‘‘of 1999 and 2000, and not later than

February 1, 2002,’’.

Subtitle F—Rocky Flats National Wildlife

Refuge

SEC. 3171. SHORT TITLE.

This subtitle may be cited as the ‘‘Rocky Flats National Wildlife

Refuge Act of 2001’’.

SEC. 3172. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following:

(1) The Federal Government, through the Atomic Energy

Commission, acquired the Rocky Flats site in 1951 and began

operations there in 1952. The site remains a Department of

Energy facility. Since 1992, the mission of the Rocky Flats

site has changed from the production of nuclear weapons components to cleanup and closure in a manner that is safe, environmentally and socially responsible, physically secure, and costeffective.

(2) The majority of the Rocky Flats site has generally

remained undisturbed since its acquisition by the Federal

Government.

(3) 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.

Rocky Flats

National Wildlife

Refuge Act of

2001.

16 USC 668dd

note.
136 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix A : Refuge Legislation

115 STAT. 1380 PUBLIC LAW 107–107—DEC. 28, 2001

(4) Some areas of the Rocky Flats site contain contamination and will require further response action. The national

interest requires that the ongoing cleanup and closure of the

entire site be completed safely, effectively, and without unnecessary delay and that the site thereafter be retained by the

United States and managed so as to preserve the value of

the site for open space and wildlife habitat.

(5) 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 will promote the preservation and enhancement of those resources for present and future

generations.

(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this subtitle are—

(1) to provide for the establishment of the Rocky Flats

site as a national wildlife refuge following cleanup and closure

of the site;

(2) to create a process for public input on the management

of the refuge referred to in paragraph (1) before transfer of

administrative jurisdiction to the Secretary of the Interior;

and

(3) to ensure that the Rocky Flats site is thoroughly and

completely cleaned up.

SEC. 3173. DEFINITIONS.

In this subtitle:

(1) CERCLA.—The term ‘‘CERCLA’’ means the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.).

(2) CLEANUP AND CLOSURE.—The term ‘‘cleanup and closure’’ means the response actions for covered substances carried

out at Rocky Flats, as required by any of the following:

(A) The RFCA.

(B) CERCLA.

(C) RCRA.

(D) The Colorado Hazardous Waste Act, 25–15–101

to 25–15–327, Colorado Revised Statutes.

(3) COVERED SUBSTANCE.—The term ‘‘covered substance’’

means any of the following:

(A) Any hazardous substance, as such term is defined

in paragraph (14) of section 101 of CERCLA (42 U.S.C.

9601).

(B) Any pollutant or contaminant, as such term is

defined in paragraph (33) of such section 101.

(C) Any petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction

thereof which is not otherwise specifically listed or designated as a hazardous substance under subparagraphs

(A) through (F) of paragraph (14) of such section 101.

(4) RCRA.—The term ‘‘RCRA’’ means the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.), popularly known as the

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

(5) REFUGE.—The term ‘‘refuge’’ means the Rocky Flats

National Wildlife Refuge established under section 3177.

(6) RESPONSE ACTION.—The term ‘‘response action’’ means

any of the following:
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 137

Appendix A: Refuge Legislation

PUBLIC LAW 107–107—DEC. 28, 2001 115 STAT. 1381

(A) A response, as such term is defined in paragraph

(25) of section 101 of CERCLA (42 U.S.C. 9601).

(B) A corrective action under RCRA or under the Colorado Hazardous Waste Act, 25–15–101 to 25–15–327, Colorado Revised Statutes.

(C) Any requirement for institutional controls imposed

by any of the laws referred to in subparagraph (A) or

(B).

(7) RFCA.—The term ‘‘RFCA’’ means the Rocky Flats

Cleanup Agreement, an intergovernmental agreement, dated

July 19, 1996, among—

(A) the Department of Energy;

(B) the Environmental Protection Agency; and

(C) the Department of Public Health and Environment

of the State of Colorado.

(8) ROCKY FLATS.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph

(B), the term ‘‘Rocky Flats’’ means the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, Colorado, a defense nuclear

facility, as depicted on the map titled ‘‘Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site’’, dated October 22, 2001, and available for inspection in the appropriate offices of the United

States Fish and Wildlife Service.

(B) EXCLUSIONS.—The term ‘‘Rocky Flats’’ does not

include—

(i) the land and facilities of the Department of

Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory,

including the acres retained by the Secretary under

section 3174(f); and

(ii) any land and facilities not within the boundaries depicted on the map referred to in subparagraph

(A).

(9) SECRETARY.—The term ‘‘Secretary’’ means the Secretary

of Energy.

SEC. 3174. FUTURE OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT.

(a) FEDERAL OWNERSHIP.—Except as expressly provided in this

subtitle, all right, title, and interest of the United States, held

on or acquired after the date of the enactment of this Act, to

land or interest therein, including minerals, within the boundaries

of Rocky Flats shall be retained by the United States.

(b) LINDSAY RANCH.—The structures that comprise the former

Lindsay Ranch homestead site in the Rock Creek Reserve area

of the buffer zone, as depicted on the map referred to in section

3173(8)(A), shall be permanently preserved and maintained in

accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C.

470 et seq.).

(c) PROHIBITION ON ANNEXATION.—Neither the Secretary nor

the Secretary of the Interior shall allow the annexation of land

within the refuge by any unit of local government.

(d) PROHIBITION ON THROUGH ROADS.—Except as provided in

subsection (e), no public road shall be constructed through Rocky

Flats.

(e) TRANSPORTATION RIGHT-OF-WAY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—
138 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix A : Refuge Legislation

115 STAT. 1382 PUBLIC LAW 107–107—DEC. 28, 2001

(A) AVAILABILITY OF LAND.—On submission of an

application meeting each of the conditions specified in paragraph (2), the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary

of the Interior, shall make available land along the eastern

boundary of Rocky Flats for the sole purpose of transportation improvements along Indiana Street.

(B) BOUNDARIES.—Land made available under this

paragraph may not extend more than 300 feet from the

west edge of the Indiana Street right-of-way, as that rightof-way exists as of the date of the enactment of this Act.

(C) EASEMENT OR SALE.—Land may be made available

under this paragraph by easement or sale to one or more

appropriate entities.

(D) COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAW.—Any action

under this paragraph shall be taken in compliance with

applicable law.

(2) CONDITIONS.—An application referred to in paragraph

(1) meets the conditions specified in this paragraph if the

application—

(A) is submitted by any county, city, or other political

subdivision of the State of Colorado; and

(B) includes documentation demonstrating that the

transportation improvements for which the land is to be

made available—

(i) are carried out so as to minimize adverse effects

on the management of Rocky Flats as a wildlife refuge;

and

(ii) are included in the regional transportation plan

of the metropolitan planning organization designated

for the Denver metropolitan area under section 5303

of title 49, United States Code.

(f) WIND TECHNOLOGY EXPANSION AREA.—The Secretary shall

retain, for the use of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory,

the approximately 25 acres identified on the map referred to in

section 3173(8)(A) as the ‘‘Wind Technology Expansion Area’’.

SEC. 3175. TRANSFER OF MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES AND JURISDICTION OVER ROCKY FLATS.

(a) TRANSFER REQUIRED.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the other provisions of this

section, the Secretary shall transfer administrative jurisdiction

over the property that is to comprise the refuge to the Secretary

of the Interior.

(2) DATE OF TRANSFER.—The transfer shall be carried out

not earlier than the completion certification date, and not later

than 30 business days after that date.

(3) COMPLETION CERTIFICATION DATE.—For purposes of

paragraph (2), the completion certification date is the date

on which the Administrator of the Environmental Protection

Agency certifies to the Secretary and to the Secretary of the

Interior that cleanup and closure at Rocky Flats has been

completed, except for the operation and maintenance associated

with response actions, and that all response actions are operating properly and successfully.

(b) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.—

(1) REQUIRED ELEMENTS.—The transfer required by subsection (a) shall be carried out pursuant to a memorandum
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 139

Appendix A: Refuge Legislation

PUBLIC LAW 107–107—DEC. 28, 2001 115 STAT. 1383

of understanding between the Secretary and the Secretary of

the Interior. The memorandum of understanding shall—

(A) provide for the division of responsibilities between

the Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior necessary

to carry out such transfer;

(B) address the impacts that any property rights

referred to in section 3179(a) may have on the management

of the refuge, and provide strategies for resolving or mitigating these impacts;

(C) identify the land the administrative jurisdiction

of which is to be transferred to the Secretary of the Interior;

and

(D) specify the allocation of the Federal costs incurred

at the refuge after the date of such transfer for any site

investigations, response actions, and related activities for

covered substances.

(2) PUBLICATION OF DRAFT.—Not later than one year after

the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary and the

Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal Register

a draft of the memorandum of understanding.

(3) FINALIZATION AND IMPLEMENTATION.—

(A) Not later than 18 months after the date of the

enactment of this Act, the Secretary and Secretary of the

Interior shall finalize and implement the memorandum

of understanding.

(B) In finalizing the memorandum of understanding,

the Secretary and Secretary of the Interior shall specifically

identify the land the administrative jurisdiction of which

is to be transferred to the Secretary of the Interior and

provide for a determination of the exact acreage and legal

description of such land by a survey mutually satisfactory

to the Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior.

(c) TRANSFER OF IMPROVEMENTS.—The transfer required by

subsection (a) may include such buildings or other improvements

as the Secretary of the Interior has requested in writing for purposes of managing the refuge.

(d) PROPERTY RETAINED FOR RESPONSE ACTIONS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The transfer required by subsection (a)

shall not include, and the Secretary shall retain jurisdiction,

authority, and control over, the following real property and

facilities at Rocky Flats:

(A) Any engineered structure, including caps, barrier

walls, and monitoring or treatment wells, to be used in

carrying out a response action for covered substances.

(B) Any real property or facility to be used for any

other purpose relating to a response action or any other

action that is required to be carried out by the Secretary

at Rocky Flats.

(2) CONSULTATION.—The Secretary shall consult with the

Secretary of the Interior, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Governor of the State of

Colorado on the identification of all real property and facilities

to be retained under this subsection.

(e) COST.—The transfer required by subsection (a) shall be

completed without cost to the Secretary of the Interior.

(f) NO REDUCTION IN FUNDS.—The transfer required by subsection (a), and the memorandum of understanding required by
140 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix A : Refuge Legislation

115 STAT. 1384 PUBLIC LAW 107–107—DEC. 28, 2001

subsection (b), shall not result in any reduction in funds available

to the Secretary for cleanup and closure of Rocky Flats.

SEC. 3176. ADMINISTRATION OF RETAINED PROPERTY; CONTINUATION OF CLEANUP AND CLOSURE.

(a) ADMINISTRATION OF RETAINED PROPERTY.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—In administering the property retained

under section 3175(d), the Secretary shall consult with the

Secretary of the Interior to minimize any conflict between—

(A) the administration by the Secretary of such property for a purpose relating to a response action; and

(B) the administration by the Secretary of the Interior

of land the administrative jurisdiction of which is transferred under section 3175(a).

(2) PRIORITY IN CASE OF CONFLICT.—In the case of any

such conflict, the Secretary and the Secretary of the Interior

shall ensure that the administration for a purpose relating

to a response action, as described in paragraph (1)(A), shall

take priority.

(3) ACCESS.—The Secretary of the Interior shall provide

to the Secretary such access and cooperation with respect to

the refuge as the Secretary requires to carry out operation

and maintenance, future response actions, natural resources

restoration, or any other obligations.

(b) ONGOING CLEANUP AND CLOSURE.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out to completion cleanup and closure at Rocky Flats.

(2) CLEANUP LEVELS.—The Secretary shall carry out such

cleanup and closure to the levels established for soil, water,

and other media, following a thorough review by the parties

to the RFCA and the public (including the United States Fish

and Wildlife Service and other interested government agencies)

of the appropriateness of the interim levels in the RFCA.

(3) NO RESTRICTION ON USE OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES.—

Nothing in this subtitle, and no action taken under this subtitle,

restricts the Secretary from using at Rocky Flats any new

technology that may become available for remediation of

contamination.

(c) OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT.—The Secretary of the Interior

shall have the opportunity to comment with respect to any proposed

response action as to the impacts, if any, of such proposed response

action on the refuge.

(d) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.—

(1) NO RELIEF FROM OBLIGATIONS UNDER OTHER LAW.—

Nothing in this subtitle, and no action taken under this

subtitle—

(A) relieves the Secretary, the Administrator of the

Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary of the

Interior, or any other person from any obligation or other

liability with respect to Rocky Flats under the RFCA or

any Federal or State law;

(B) impairs or alters any provision of the RFCA; or

(C) alters any authority of the Administrator of the

Environmental Protection Agency under section 120(e) of

CERCLA (42 U.S.C. 9620(e)), or any authority of the State

of Colorado.
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 141

Appendix A: Refuge Legislation

PUBLIC LAW 107–107—DEC. 28, 2001 115 STAT. 1385

(2) CLEANUP LEVELS.—Nothing in this subtitle shall reduce

the level of cleanup and closure at Rocky Flats required under

the RFCA or any Federal or State law.

(3) PAYMENT OF RESPONSE ACTION COSTS.—Nothing in this

subtitle affects the obligation of a Federal department or agency

that had or has operations at Rocky Flats resulting in the

release or threatened release of a covered substance to pay

the costs of response actions carried out to abate the release

of, or clean up, the covered substance.

SEC. 3177. ROCKY FLATS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE.

(a) IN GENERAL.—On completion of the transfer required by

section 3175(a), and subject to section 3176(a), the Secretary of

the Interior shall commence administration of the real property

comprising the refuge in accordance with this subtitle.

(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF REFUGE.—Not later than 30 days after

the transfer required by section 3175(a), the Secretary of the

Interior shall establish at Rocky Flats a national wildlife refuge

to be known as the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge.

(c) COMPOSITION.—The refuge shall be comprised of the property the administrative jurisdiction of which was transferred as

required by section 3175(a).

(d) NOTICE.—The Secretary of the Interior shall publish in

the Federal Register a notice of the establishment of the refuge.

(e) ADMINISTRATION AND PURPOSES.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Interior shall manage the refuge in accordance with applicable law, including

this subtitle, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.), and the purposes

specified in that Act.

(2) REFUGE PURPOSES.—The refuge shall be managed for

the purposes of—

(A) restoring and preserving native ecosystems;

(B) providing habitat for, and population management

of, native plants and migratory and resident wildlife;

(C) conserving threatened and endangered species

(including species that are candidates for listing under

the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et

seq.)); and

(D) providing opportunities for compatible scientific

research.

(3) MANAGEMENT.—In managing the refuge, the Secretary

of the Interior shall—

(A) ensure that wildlife-dependent recreation and

environmental education and interpretation are the priority

public uses of the refuge; and

(B) comply with all response actions.

SEC. 3178. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING PROCESS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of

the enactment of this Act, in developing a comprehensive conservation plan for the refuge in accordance with section 4(e) of the

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16

U.S.C. 668dd(e)), the Secretary of the Interior shall establish a

comprehensive planning process that involves the public and local

communities. The Secretary of the Interior shall establish such

process in consultation with the Secretary, the members of the

Coalition, the Governor of the State of Colorado, and the Federal

Deadline.
142 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix A : Refuge Legislation

115 STAT. 1386 PUBLIC LAW 107–107—DEC. 28, 2001

and State of Colorado officials who have been designated as trustees

for Rocky Flats under section 107(f)(2) of CERCLA (42 U.S.C.

9607(f)(2)).

(b) OTHER PARTICIPANTS.—In addition to the entities specified

in subsection (a), the comprehensive planning process required by

subsection (a) shall include the opportunity for direct involvement

of entities that are not members of the Coalition as of the date

of the enactment of this Act, including the Rocky Flats Citizens’

Advisory Board and the cities of Thornton, Northglenn, Golden,

Louisville, and Lafayette, Colorado.

(c) DISSOLUTION OF COALITION.—If the Coalition dissolves, or

if any Coalition member elects to leave the Coalition during the

comprehensive planning process required by subsection (a)—

(1) such comprehensive planning process shall continue;

and

(2) an opportunity shall be provided to each entity that

is a member of the Coalition as of September 1, 2000, for

direct involvement in such comprehensive planning process.

(d) CONTENTS.—In addition to the requirements of section 4(e)

of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966

(16 U.S.C. 668dd(e)), the comprehensive conservation plan referred

to in subsection (a) shall address and make recommendations on

the following:

(1) The identification of any land referred to in subsection

(e) of section 3174 that could be made available under that

subsection.

(2) The characteristics and configuration of any perimeter

fencing that may be appropriate or compatible for cleanup

and closure purposes, refuge purposes, or other purposes.

(3) The feasibility of locating, and the potential location

for, a visitor and education center at the refuge.

(4) Any other issues relating to Rocky Flats.

(e) COALITION DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘Coalition’’

means the Rocky Flats Coalition of Local Governments established

by the Intergovernmental Agreement, dated February 16, 1999,

among—

(1) the city of Arvada, Colorado;

(2) the city of Boulder, Colorado;

(3) the city of Broomfield, Colorado;

(4) the city of Westminster, Colorado;

(5) the town of Superior, Colorado;

(6) Boulder County, Colorado; and

(7) Jefferson County, Colorado.

(f) REPORT.—Not later than three years after the date of the

enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall submit

to Congress—

(1) the comprehensive conservation plan referred to in subsection (a); and

(2) a report that contains—

(A) an outline of the involvement of the public and

local communities in the comprehensive planning process,

as required by subsection (a);

(B) to the extent that any input or recommendation

from the comprehensive planning process is not accepted,

a clear statement of the reasons why such input or recommendation is not accepted; and

Deadline.
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 143

Appendix A: Refuge Legislation

PUBLIC LAW 107–107—DEC. 28, 2001 115 STAT. 1387

(C) a discussion of the impacts of any property rights

referred to in section 3179(a) on management of the refuge,

and an identification of strategies for resolving and mitigating these impacts.

SEC. 3179. PROPERTY RIGHTS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subsections (c) and

(d), nothing in this subtitle limits any valid, existing property

right at Rocky Flats that is owned by any person or entity,

including, but not limited to—

(1) any mineral right;

(2) any water right or related easement; and

(3) any facility or right-of-way for a utility.

(b) ACCESS.—Except as provided in subsection (c), nothing in

this subtitle affects any right of an owner of a property right

referred to in subsection (a) to access the owner’s property.

(c) REASONABLE CONDITIONS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary or the Secretary of the

Interior may impose such reasonable conditions on access to

property rights referred to in subsection (a) as are appropriate

for the cleanup and closure of Rocky Flats and for the management of the refuge.

(2) NO EFFECT ON OTHER LAW.—Nothing in this subtitle

affects any Federal, State, or local law (including any regulation) relating to the use, development, and management of

property rights referred to in subsection (a).

(3) NO EFFECT ON ACCESS RIGHTS.—Nothing in this subsection precludes the exercise of any access right, in existence

on the date of the enactment of this Act, that is necessary

to perfect or maintain a water right in existence on that date.

(d) UTILITY EXTENSION.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary or the Secretary of the

Interior may allow not more than one extension from an

existing utility right-of-way on Rocky Flats, if necessary.

(2) CONDITIONS.—An extension under paragraph (1) shall

be subject to the conditions specified in subsection (c).

(e) EASEMENT SURVEYS.—Subject to subsection (c), until the

date that is 180 days after the date of the enactment of this

Act, an entity that possesses a decreed water right or prescriptive

easement relating to land at Rocky Flats may carry out such surveys

at Rocky Flats as the entity determines are necessary to perfect

the right or easement.

SEC. 3180. LIABILITIES AND OTHER OBLIGATIONS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this subtitle shall relieve, and

no action may be taken under this subtitle to relieve, the Secretary,

the Secretary of the Interior, or any other person from any liability

or other obligation at Rocky Flats under CERCLA, RCRA, or any

other Federal or State law.

(b) COST RECOVERY, CONTRIBUTION, AND OTHER ACTION.—

Nothing in this subtitle is intended to prevent the United States

from bringing a cost recovery, contribution, or other action that

would otherwise be available under Federal or State law.

SEC. 3181. ROCKY FLATS MUSEUM.

(a) MUSEUM.—To commemorate the contribution that Rocky

Flats and its worker force provided to winning the Cold War and
144 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix A : Refuge Legislation

115 STAT. 1388 PUBLIC LAW 107–107—DEC. 28, 2001

the impact that such contribution has had on the nearby communities and the State of Colorado, the Secretary may establish a

Rocky Flats Museum.

(b) LOCATION.—The Rocky Flats Museum shall be located in

the city of Arvada, Colorado, unless, after consultation under subsection (c), the Secretary determines otherwise.

(c) CONSULTATION.—The Secretary shall consult with the city

of Arvada, other local communities, and the Colorado State Historical Society on—

(1) the development of the museum;

(2) the siting of the museum; and

(3) any other issues relating to the development and

construction of the museum.

(d) REPORT.—Not later than three years after the date of the

enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in coordination with the city

of Arvada, shall submit to Congress a report on the costs associated

with the construction of the museum and any other issues relating

to the development and construction of the museum.

SEC. 3182. ANNUAL REPORT ON FUNDING.

For each of fiscal years 2003 through 2007, at the time of

submission of the budget of the President under section 1105(a)

of title 31, United States Code, for such fiscal year, the Secretary

and the Secretary of the Interior shall jointly submit to Congress

a report on the costs of implementation of this subtitle. The report

shall include—

(1) the costs incurred by each Secretary in implementing

this subtitle during the preceding fiscal year; and

(2) the funds required by each Secretary to implement

this subtitle during the current and subsequent fiscal years.

TITLE XXXII—DEFENSE NUCLEAR

FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD

Sec. 3201. Authorization.

SEC. 3201. AUTHORIZATION.

There are authorized to be appropriated for fiscal year 2002,

$18,500,000 for the operation of the Defense Nuclear Facilities

Safety Board under chapter 21 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954

(42 U.S.C. 2286 et seq.).

TITLE XXXIII—NATIONAL DEFENSE

STOCKPILE

Sec. 3301. Definitions.

Sec. 3302. Authorized uses of stockpile funds.

Sec. 3303. Authority to dispose of certain materials in National Defense Stockpile.

Sec. 3304. Revision of limitations on required disposals of certain materials in National Defense Stockpile.

Sec. 3305. Acceleration of required disposal of cobalt in National Defense Stockpile.

Sec. 3306. Restriction on disposal of manganese ferro.

SEC. 3301. DEFINITIONS.

In this title:

50 USC 98d note.
appendix b

Compatibility Determinations
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 147

Appendix B: Compatibility Determination

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Hunting 

Refuge Name: Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

 Jefferson and Boulder Counties, Colorado 

Establishing 

Authority: Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-107) 

Refuge Purposes: 1. Restoring and preserving native ecosystems. 

2. Providing habitat for, and population management of, native plants, and 

migratory and resident wildlife. 

3. Conserving threatened and endangered species (including species that are 

candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.)). 

 4. Providing opportunities for compatible scientific research. 

NWRS Mission: “...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats, 

of the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” (16 U.S.C. 

668dd(a)(2)). 

Description of Use: The Refuge will administer a limited big game (mule deer and elk) hunting program 

for youth and disabled hunters. The program may be expanded after year 2 to include able-bodied hunters, 

if needed to control ungulate populations in order to meet wildlife management goals. 

A maximum of 10 hunter/participants would be allowed per hunt. There will be two hunts per year (one 

for youth and one for disabled hunters). Each hunt will last for 1 weekend, including a Saturday and 

Sunday. Hunts will be scheduled during the period October 15 - January 15 annually. 

Weapons will be limited to: shotguns (20 gauge or larger), firing single projectiles; and archery (bow and 

arrow). No centerfire rifles or muzzleloading rifles will be allowed. Disabled hunters may be authorized to 

use centerfire handguns or cross-bow archery tackle, determined on a case-by-case basis, depending on the 

nature of the hunter’s disability. 

All weapons will meet requirements of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, (CDOW) for the species hunted. 

The Rocky Flats NWR program will be highly managed. Permits/licenses will be issued by drawing 

cooperatively administered by the Refuge and CDOW. All hunters will be required to check-in prior to 

hunting and attend a safety/orientation briefing, and check-out at the end of each hunt day. 

Youth hunters will be required to hunt with a mentor and disabled hunters will be required to have a 

volunteer to assist them. There will be a minimum ratio of 1 Refuge or CDOW staff present on-site for 

every 3 hunter participants. 

Each hunter will be assigned to a unique hunting zone within the Refuge for his/her exclusive use and is 

restricted to hunting in that zone. 

Hunters will be required to present all harvested game for inspection and collection of biological data, 

including sampling for Chronic Wasting Disease. 
148 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix B: Compatibility Determination

Other authorized public uses of the Refuge will be suspended and the Refuge will be closed for any nonhunting public use activities on hunt weekends. 

Hunt dates, bag limits, hunter quotas, and any adjustments to Refuge Hunt Zones will be determined on an 

annual basis, in consultation with CDOW. 

Availability of Resources: It is anticipated that annual planning and execution of the proposed hunting 

program will require approximately 20 staff-days of work, spread among the Refuge Manager, Biological, 

Visitor Services and Law Enforcement staff and cost approximately $5,000 to operate. Refuge O&M 

resources are expected to be augmented by the services and volunteers and partnership with CDOW and 

conservation organizations. 

This is a “pre-acquisition” compatibility determination, prepared to accompany the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP) for the future Rocky Flats NWR. No 

facility development will be required to operate the proposed hunting program and funds are anticipated to 

be available for the operation of this program based on the Refuge staffing levels and budget proposed in 

the CCP. 

Anticipated Impacts: This limited big game hunting program is anticipated to have minimal potential 

impacts on Refuge wildlife, but potentially significant beneficial impacts on the unique flora of the Refuge. 

The proposed use is a Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Use and a Priority Public Use of the NWRS. 

The Rocky Flats site has supported a mule deer herd numbering approximately 160 animals (on 6,240 

acres) since at least the late 1990s (Kaiser Hill 2001). Small, but increasing numbers of white-tailed deer 

also occur on the site. Prior to 2002, elk were known to visit Rocky Flats, but were not considered to be a 

resident species by DOE (DOE 1997). During the winter of 2002 - 2003, significant numbers of elk were 

observed regularly on the east side of Highway 93 adjacent to Rocky Flats and at least 9 cow elk are known 

to have calved on the site in the summer of 2003. 

The future Refuge is bordered by public conservation lands to the north and west. Fencing is typical stock 

fencing that does not impede movement of ungulates. Although there is potential for future commercial 

development on the west side of the site, it is anticipated that deer, elk and other large mammals will 

continue to be able to move freely between the Refuge and adjacent public lands, and into the Roosevelt 

National Forest to the west. 

The Refuge is located in CDOW’s Game Management Unit (GMU) No. 38, and adjacent to GMU 29. 

Those two GMUs make up CDOW’s Data Analysis Unit (DAU) D-27 which covers to the Boulder Deer 

Herd. CDOW has published the Boulder Deer Herd Management Plan (CDOW 2002). DAU D-27 lies at 

the edge of the endemic area for Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in northeast Colorado. The plan focuses 

on keeping the prevalence of CWD in the Boulder Deer Herd at no more than 1% infection rate and the 

Boulder Deer Herd. 

In December 2002, 26 deer were collected at Rocky Flats, by CDOW as part of the state’s CWD 

surveillance program. All animals harvested were negative for CWD. 

Under the Region 6 CWD Policy, it will be necessary to continue surveillance of the Refuge herds for 

occurrence and prevalence of CWD. Hunter-harvested deer and elk will provide data for this surveillance 

requirement and reduce or eliminate the need for Refuge staff to take deer for CWD surveillance purposes. 

Colorado has the largest elk population of any state or province in North America. The current Colorado 

elk herd is far above CDOW’s objective level, and CDOW has taken aggressive action in recent years to 

reduce the herd through sport hunting. Increasingly, elk are becoming established in suburban and 

agricultural areas along the Front Range. Elk in the cities of Evergreen and Estes Park, and a newly 

established population near Loveland, Colorado are creating numerous depredation issues. In Rocky 

Mountain National Park, the unhunted elk herd is destroying important riparian habitat. 
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 149

Appendix B: Compatibility Determination

It will be important to prevent or control the establishment of a resident elk herd on the Refuge. Yearround grazing and browsing by elk has the potential to significantly degrade rare plant communities and 

destroy or reduce the quality of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse on the Refuge. 

Hunting will have a positive impact on habitats by controlling ungulate grazing and browsing pressure on 

the Refuge. Direct impacts of the hunting program will be insignificant because of the timing (during 

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse hibernation and outside the bird nesting season) and small number of 

participants walking through upland and riparian areas. The program will require no facility development 

or conversion of habitat areas to administrative use. 

Public Review and Comment: This Compatibility Determination was presented for public review and 

comment in conjunction with the public comment period for the Draft CCP/EIS for the future Rocky Flats 

NWR in the first quarter of CY 04. 

At four public hearings, and throughout the comment period for the Draft CCP/EIS for Rocky Flats NWR, 

significant public input was received regarding the provisions in the Proposed Action to provide a hunting 

program at Rocky Flats NWR. None of the comments received were specifically addressed to the Draft 

Compatibility Determination that was published with the Draft CCP/EIS. However, several individuals and 

organizations expressed the opinion that hunting, in general, is not a compatible use of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. All public testimony presented at the hearings and written comments received 

and responses are reported in Appendix H, Comments and Responses on the Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS), of the Final EIS for the Rocky Flats NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

Numerous public comments were received both in favor and in opposition of the proposed hunting 

program. A petition was received with 89 signatures (23 incomplete or illegible) stating “The following 

object to any recreational sport hunting at Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge.” The petition did not 

address issues germane to the compatibility determination. 

Letters supporting the hunting proposal were received from: the State of Colorado, Division of Wildlife, 

Colorado Wildlife Federation, National Wildlife Federation and the Wildlife Management Institute and 

other organizations and individuals. Letters opposing hunting were received from the Rocky Mountain 

Peace and Justice Center, Prairie Preservation Alliance and other organizations and individuals. Local 

units of government had mixed responses, with some supporting hunting, and others wanting no public use 

at all. Several local governments expressed concerns about the safety of the hunting proposal, and in 

response to those concerns, the proposal was changed to delete muzzleloading rifles and restrict hunting to 

archery and shotguns/slugs only. See Appendix H, Final CCP/EIS, for full comments and responses. 

At public hearings, concerns were expressed that: the hunting program proposed was excessively 

expensive; the definition of “refuge” was a “place of safety”; ungulate populations should be controlled, if 

necessary, by agency sharpshooters; and that it would be inappropriate to protect animals all year, and then 

shoot at them two weekends per year – implying a “fair-chase” issue. 

In the professional judgment of the undersigned, none of the issues raised at the hearings warrants changing 

the proposal. Hunting is clearly an appropriate use of NWRS – by law. The costs of the program are 

mostly salaries of personnel expended over the course of a fiscal year and are not excessive compared to 

many Refuge programs. Hunting can be an effective tool for ungulate population management that 

provides a wholesome outdoor recreation experience that is absent in culling programs. Many state-wide 

and Refuge deer herds are hunted a few days per year without fair chase concerns. The Rocky Flats herd is 

not fenced, and is currently subject to some hunting pressure on adjacent private, and nearby public lands. 

Compatibility Determination: Using sound professional judgment (603 FW 2.6U and 2.11A), place an 

“X” in appropriate space to indicate whether the use would or would not materially interfere with or detract 

from the NWRS Mission or the Purposes of Rocky Flats NWR. 
150 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix B: Compatibility Determination

 __ Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: The use (hunting) will not begin until a step-down 

hunting plan, ensuring biological integrity, and safety of the program, has been approved under provisions 

of 8RM5, and the Refuge has been formally opened to hunting through publication of a rule in the Federal 

Register and inclusion of Rocky Flats among refuges open to big game hunting in 50 CFR 32.7. 

Justification: Hunting is a form of wildlife-dependent recreation and is a priority use of the NWRS. 

Hunting will help control ungulate populations and distribution on the Refuge, with a net benefit to the 

conservation of rare botanical communities and conservation of habitat for the threatened Preble’s meadow 

jumping mouse. Hunting will provide scientific data for surveillance of Refuge deer and elk populations 

for Chronic Wasting Disease. 

Mandatory Re-evaluation Date: As a priority public use, the Compatibility Determination for this use is 

subject to mandatory re-evaluation in 15 years, on the anniversary of final Compatibility Determination in 

2019.

NEPA Compliance: This use is addressed in an Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. 

Approval/Concurrence: 

Prepared/Approved: 

 Refuge Manager: 

 Signature Date 

 Concurrence: 

 Regional Chief: 

 Signature Date 

References:

Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2002. Boulder Deer Herd Management Plan. Denver, CO. 

Department of Energy. 1997. Rocky Flats Cumulative Impacts Document. Rocky Flats Field Office, 

Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site. Golden, CO. 
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 151

Appendix B: Compatibility Determination

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Interpretation and Environmental Education 

Refuge Name: Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

 Jefferson and Boulder Counties, Colorado 

Establishing 

Authority: Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-107) 

Refuge Purposes: 1. Restoring and preserving native ecosystems. 

2. Providing habitat for, and population management of, native plants, and 

migratory and resident wildlife. 

3. Conserving threatened and endangered species (including species that are 

candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.)). 

 4. Providing opportunities for compatible scientific research. 

NWRS Mission: “... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats, 

of the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” (16 U.S.C. 

668dd(a)(2)). 

Description of Use: 

Interpretation: This is a priority public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System per the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. It is proposed to continue delivery of Interpretation 

programs to accomplish the goals and objectives of the Refuge as established in the CCP. 

Interpretation programs and facilities are proposed along designated trails and at the Visitor Contact Station 

on the west side of the Refuge. Facilities and programs would be mostly passive, consisting of interpretive 

panels on kiosks at trailhead access points and overlooks along trails. Signage would interpret the native 

prairie ecosystem, rare plant communities, wetlands, endangered species, invasive weeds, and the social 

significance and cultural resources of Rocky Flats NWR. 

Guided tours, led by Service personnel or volunteers, provide a similar but more detailed experience than 

the self-guided Refuge visit. Tours and nature programs will be developed for delivery to the public on a 

scheduled basis, and by reservation for groups with special interests and needs. Tours will generally be 

conducted on the established trail system, but when guided by staff, may access all upland portions of the 

Refuge, depending on visitor interests, and the subject matter of the interpretive program. 

A variety of interpretive programs may also be delivered off-site. 

Environmental Education: Environmental education at Rocky Flats NWR will emphasize teacher-led 

programs and be targeted to high school and college level students. No formal outdoor classroom facilities 

are planned, but the Refuge will provide sites for student field trips on an “as-arranged” basis. Temporary 

and impromptu outdoor classrooms will not be established or used in wetland, riparian and other sensitive 

communities during the growing season, and will be scheduled seasonally to avoid impacts to threatened 

and endangered species. Rocky Flats NWR will become a venue for implementation of environmental 

education curricula developed at Rocky Mountain Arsenal NWR 

Availability of Resources: It is anticipated that initial development of interpretive facilities designated in 

the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Rocky Flats NWR will cost approximately $76,000. It is also 
152 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix B: Compatibility Determination

anticipated that appropriated NWRS Operations and Maintenance funds for development of interpretive 

facilities will be leveraged through partnership arrangements with non-profit organizations and with local 

units of government and state agencies. Once developed, the annual maintenance costs for interpretive 

facilities is anticipated to be approximately $5,000 per year. 

No development of specialized facilities is anticipated to facilitate teacher-led environmental education 

programs at Rocky Flats NWR. It is estimated that development of special curricula and lesson plans for 

Rocky Flats will require approximately 0.5 FTE of labor and $30,000 over the course of the first five years 

following Refuge establishment. The required level of staffing and funding to produce those materials is 

within the current operating budget and staffing pattern of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal NWR Complex. 

This is a “pre-acquisition” compatibility determination, prepared to accompany the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP) for the future Rocky Flats NWR. Funds are anticipated to be available for the 

operation of this program based on the Refuge staffing levels and budget proposed in the CCP. 

Anticipated Impacts: Development and implementation of interpretive and education programs at Rocky 

Flats NWR will have minimal and biologically insignificant impacts on Refuge resources. Less than 0.25 

acres of habitat will need to be disturbed or converted for development of all planned interpretive facilities 

(not including parking facilities). 

Human presence and movement on the Refuge for participation in Interpretive and Environmental 

Education programs will result in some wildlife disturbance. The level of disturbance will be minimal and 

will not be additive to disturbances attributed to other public uses such as wildlife observation and trail use. 

Public Review and Comment: This Compatibility Determination was presented for public review and 

comment in conjunction with the public comment period for the Draft CCP/EIS for the future Rocky Flats 

NWR in the first quarter of CY 04. 

Many public comments were received at four public hearings held in March 2004, and throughout the 

public comment period on the Draft CCP/EIS. Comments related to public use were received both from 

those in opposition and in favor of public access for interpretation and environmental education. 

Many people were opposed to any form of public use at Rocky Flats NWR based on their belief that site 

cleanup is inadequate and that public access would result in health and safety risks to visitors. Those 

comments did not address whether wildlife observation and photography were compatible with Refuge 

purposes or the mission of NWRS. 

Comments were received from several organizations, including the Colorado Wildlife Federation that 

supported the proposed action (Alternative B), including interpretation and environmental education. The 

Rocky Flats Citizen’s Advisory Board supported environmental education, but was not in agreement about 

whether those activities should take place on-site. The Rocky Flats Cold War Museum expressed a desire 

to partner with the Service in development of interpretive and education programs. Other groups, including 

the Prairie Preservation Alliance recommended no wildlife-dependent recreation, based on concerns of 

wildlife disturbance, exacerbating invasive weed problems and causing erosion. 

Comments from local units of government also varied, with several cities and counties favoring public 

access for interpretation and environmental education, and others recommending no public use of the 

Refuge. Similarly, written comments received from individuals ran the gamut from advocating more 

extensive public use programs, to the 815 copies of a form letter expressing opposition to any recreational 

access to the Rocky Flats NWR. For the complete record of public comment received on this issue, 

including responses to written comments and testimony received at the public hearings, please see 

Appendix H to the Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for 

Rocky Flats NWR. 
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 153

Appendix B: Compatibility Determination

Several of the comments received were germane to the issue of compatibility. Those comments raised 

concerns mostly related to wildlife disturbance. There were also several general comments opposing public 

use on the basis that a “refuge” should be free of disturbance and a place of inviolate sanctuary for wildlife. 

The undersigned acknowledge that this use is likely to result in some disturbance of wildlife. However, in 

the professional judgment of the undersigned, we do not believe that the level of disturbance that may 

result from this use will materially detract from or prevent the achievement of the Refuge establishment 

purposes or mission of the NWRS. Wildlife interpretation and environmental education are clearly 

appropriate uses of the NWRS, and are among the priority public uses of the Refuge System, as established 

in law. The areas necessary to be disturbed for development of the proposed facilities to support 

interpretation and environmental education are very small. The conversion of those small areas to nonhabitat uses will not materially detract from the ability of the Refuge to achieve its establishment purposes 

or its contribution to accomplishing the NWRS mission. 

Compatibility Determination: Using sound professional judgment (603 FW 2.6U and 2.11A), place an 

“X” in appropriate space to indicate whether the use would or would not materially interfere with or detract 

from the NWRS Mission or the Purposes of Rocky Flats NWR. 

 __ Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Development and implementation of Interpretation and Environmental Education programs in the first 

five years following Refuge establishment will be limited to one short trail from the Visitor Contact Station 

on the west side of the Refuge to the Lindsay Ranch site, and one guided interpretive tour per month that 

will follow existing Department of Energy service roads. 

2. A self-study training program will be prepared for use by educators. Teachers will be required to 

participate in that training, or in Service-sponsored teacher workshops prior to leading teacher-lead 

environmental education programs on the Refuge. The training will include information on site history, 

safety, residual contamination, closed areas, endangered species and wetland conservation, and 

preservation of rare habitats. 

Justification: Interpretation and environmental education are forms of wildlife-dependent recreation and 

are priority public uses of the NWRS. Interpretation and Environmental Education will increase public 

awareness and appreciation of the significant wildlife and habitat values of Rocky Flats NWR, and the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. It is anticipated that such appreciation and understanding will foster 

increased public support for the Refuge System and conservation of America’s wildlife resources. 

Mandatory Re-evaluation Date: As a priority public use, the Compatibility Determination for this use is 

subject to mandatory re-evaluation in 15 years, on the anniversary of final Compatibility Determination in 

2019. 

NEPA Compliance: This use is addressed in an Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. 

Approval/Concurrence:

 Prepared/Approved: 

 Refuge Manager: 

 Signature Date 

 Concurrence: 

 Regional Chief: 

 Signature Date 
154 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix B: Compatibility Determination

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Multi-Use (Equestrian, Bicycle and Foot access) Trails 

Refuge Name: Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

 Jefferson and Boulder Counties, Colorado 

Establishing 

Authority: Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-107) 

Refuge Purposes: 1. Restoring and preserving native ecosystems. 

2. Providing habitat for, and population management of, native plants, and 

migratory and resident wildlife. 

3. Conserving threatened and endangered species (including species that are 

candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.)). 

 4. Providing opportunities for compatible scientific research. 

NWRS Mission: “... to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats, 

of the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” (16 U.S.C. 

668dd(a)(2)). 

Description of Use: To provide access for compatible wildlife-dependent recreational activities of 

wildlife observation, wildlife photography and interpretation, a 16-mile system of trails will be developed 

at Rocky Flats NWR. 

In order to provide connectivity with regional trail systems and complement public uses of adjacent public 

lands (municipal and county open space), some portions of the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR) trail system will accommodate horseback riding and bicycles as modes of transportation for 

wildlife-dependent recreation. 

Within the total anticipated trail system of 16.5 miles, approximately 3.8 miles of trail will be open to foot 

traffic only, and portions of those foot trails will be closed seasonally to reduce disturbance of 

wetland/riparian habitats during the months of May through September when the threatened Preble’s 

meadow jumping mouse is active above ground. 

In the northern portion of the Refuge, a multi-use trail approximately 4 miles long will follow the top of the 

mesa on the southern boundary of the Rock Creek drainage. This trail will connect a parking lot on State 

Highway 128, with open space parks managed by the City of Boulder, Boulder County, City and County of 

Broomfield, and Town of Superior with the proposed Visitor Contact Station on the west side of the Refuge 

and ultimately with regional trails to be located off-Refuge in the State Highway 93 corridor west of the 

Refuge. This trail will be open for foot and bicycle traffic only. 

In the southern portion of the Refuge, a multi-use trail, approximately 8 miles long will follow portions of 

the Refuge south boundary, and mesa tops south of the main stem of Woman Creek, connecting City of 

Westminster and City of Arvada Open Space with the Visitor Contact Station and eventually with other 

public lands and regional trails west of Rocky Flats. This southern multi-use trail will be open for 

equestrian, bicycle and foot traffic. 
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 155

Appendix B: Compatibility Determination

Most (72%) of the multi-use trails will follow existing gravel and dirt roads constructed prior to Refuge 

establishment. None of the multi-use trails will traverse sensitive riparian habitats, except for the use of 

one existing crossing of Woman Creek at the west boundary of the Refuge. 

Multi-use trails connecting the Refuge with adjacent public lands are not anticipated to be open for public 

use for the first five years following Refuge establishment. Initial Refuge management will focus on 

reclaiming and restoring grassland and riparian habitats on existing roads and trails that will not be retained 

for management or public use purposes. 

Availability of Resources: It is anticipated that initial development of the multi-use trail system will cost 

about $145,723 including revegetation to reduce width of existing roads, signage, and in some places, 

augmentation of existing road surface materials with appropriate aggregate products. Annual maintenance 

of these trails, once established, is estimated to cost about $8,000 per year. It is anticipated that 

appropriated funds for trail development and maintenance will be leveraged with volunteer labor and funds 

developed through partnerships with user groups, local governments and state agencies. 

This is a pre-acquisition compatibility determination, prepared to accompany the Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP) for the future Rocky Flats NWR. Funds are anticipated to be available for the 

operation of this program based on the Refuge staffing levels and budget proposed in the CCP. 

Anticipated Impacts: With an average estimated width of 8 feet, multi-use trails accommodating bicycle 

and/or equestrian traffic will occupy approximately 12 acres or 0.2% of the land area of the Rocky Flats 

site. However, because all but 12% of the multi-use trails will be located on existing DOE service roads, 

no loss of habitat will result from establishment of these trails. 

Trails also channel visitor access to and through the Refuge. An authorized system of foot-only and multiuse trails provides access that is highly desired by the public for wildlife-dependent recreation, and makes 

priority public uses accessible to people with limited mobility. Well-maintained and posted trails reduce 

demands for general access to sensitive habitat areas. The use of unobtrusive barriers, such as post and 

cable fencing and signage reminds visitors to remain on trails and reduces trespass into sensitive areas. 

Trails are the sole means of providing compatible wildlife observation and photography programs at Rocky 

Flats NWR. Without trails, the Refuge would need to be closed for those priority public uses to ensure and 

adequate level of protection to sensitive habitats and federally listed threatened and endangered species. 

Trail use will result in some wildlife disturbance, and the level of disturbance resulting from various modes 

of transportation (horse, bicycle, foot) will vary depending on the species present and season. Many 

species of wildlife exhibit less of a reaction to the presence of moving bicycles than they do to humans on 

foot. Many species are also more tolerant of equestrians than pedestrians. Because of the relatively small 

percentage of Refuge habitats that are located near trails, the ability of some species to become acclimated 

to trail use, and the location of planned multi-use trails outside of sensitive habitats, disturbance resulting 

from trail use is anticipated to be biologically insignificant. It is acknowledged that some species do not 

acclimate to regular human presence in their habitat and that wildlife-dependent recreation on a multi-use 

trail system will result in reduced use of some habitat areas by some species. 

Horse manure can be a source of weed seeds along equestrian trails. Weed seeds can also be introduced 

and spread by bicycle and motor vehicle tires and on boots and shoes. Rocky Flats NWR does have 

significant invasive weed problems, particularly with diffuse knapweed and Dalmatian toadflax. It is 

believed that the principal source of these weeds are disturbed gravel mining areas and other developmental 

activities on neighboring lands. Horse manure on trails may also present a “mess” issue with some trail 

users. 

Multi-use trails present some safety issues not associated with “foot-only” trails. Horses may be spooked 

by pedestrians and bicycles and cyclists traveling at higher speeds may present a hazard to pedestrians. 
156 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix B: Compatibility Determination

The greatest anticipated impact associated with multi-use trails is the potential for erosion and damage to 

trail surfaces caused by horses and bicycles. Permitting those modes of transportation is likely to increase 

maintenance costs and if not managed, could eventually lead to soil loss and reduced surface water quality. 

It is noted that equestrian use is authorized in most units of the National Wilderness System, and is deemed 

appropriate with preservation of wilderness values, and that bicycle use on trails has proven to be a 

compatible mode of transportation on other urban units of the NWRS, including Minnesota Valley NWR 

and refuges of the San Diego NWR Complex. 

Public Review and Comment: This Compatibility Determination was presented for public review and 

comment in conjunction with the public comment period for the Draft CCP/EIS for the future Rocky Flats 

NWR in the first quarter of CY 04. 

Many public comments were received at four public hearings held in March 2004, and throughout the 

public comment period on the Draft CCP/EIS. Comments related to trails were received both from those in 

opposition and in favor of multi-use trails. 

Many people were opposed to any form of public use at Rocky Flats NWR based on their belief that site 

cleanup is inadequate and that public access would result in health and safety risks to visitors. Those 

comments did not address whether trails were compatible with Refuge purposes or the mission of NWRS. 

Comments were also received from several organizations, including the Boulder Area Trails Coalition and 

Boulder County Horse Association, which supported multi-use trails and other groups, including Plan 

Jeffco and the Prairie Preservation Alliance, which recommended very limited trails or no trails at all due to 

concerns about trail users causing wildlife disturbance, exacerbating invasive weed problems and causing 

erosion. The National Wildlife Federation and others specifically opposed equestrian access based on the 

weed issue. Comments from local units of government also varied, with several cities and counties 

favoring establishment of multi-use trails and others recommending no public use of the Refuge. 

Similarly, written comments received from individuals ran the gamut from advocating more extensive trails 

with greater access for equestrians to 815 copies of a form letter expressing opposition to any recreational 

access to the Rocky Flats NWR. For the complete record of public comment received on this issue, 

including responses to written comments and testimony received at the public hearings, please see 

Appendix H to the Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for 

Rocky Flats NWR. 

Several of the comments received were germane to the issue of compatibility. Those comments raised 

concerns mostly related to wildlife disturbance, habitat fragmentation, weed seed importation and erosion 

that might result from trail use. There were also several general comments opposing public use on the basis 

that a “refuge” should be free of disturbance and a place of inviolate sanctuary for wildlife. 

The undersigned acknowledge that this use is likely to result in some disturbance of wildlife, and that 

active management of this use will be required to mitigate potential for this use to exacerbate weed 

problems and cause erosion. However, in the professional judgment of the undersigned, we do not believe 

that the level of disturbance that may result from this use will materially detract from or prevent the 

achievement of the Refuge establishment purposes or mission of the NWRS. Trails will occupy a very 

small portion of Rocky Flats NWR. Implementation of the Final CCP will result in less habitat 

fragmentation, fewer roads and point sources of soil erosion, and enhanced weed control efforts. If 

implemented with the stipulations listed below, this use will facilitate achievement of Refuge goals for 

wildlife-dependent recreation, and will not significantly interfere with preservation and restoration of native 

habitats, or conservation of native wildlife. 

Compatibility Determination: Using sound professional judgment (603 FW 2.6U and 2.11A), place an 

“X” in appropriate space to indicate whether the use would or would not materially interfere with or detract 

from the NWRS Mission or the Purposes of Rocky Flats NWR. 
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 157

Appendix B: Compatibility Determination

 __ Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Multi-use trails with equestrian and bicycle access are limited to those trail segments designated in the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Rocky Flats NWR. Development or opening of additional areas for 

these uses will require additional evaluation under the National Environmental Policy Act, a new 

Compatibility Determination, and a new Intra-Service Section 7 Consultation. 

2. No dogs or other pets will be allowed on any trails or other areas of Rocky Flats NWR. 

3. Equestrian use is contingent on development and implementation of volunteer service agreements with 

equestrian user groups who will agree to pick up and remove horse manure from Refuge trails at least twice 

a month to reduce the potential for horses to become a source of weed seed. 

4. Trails will be posted with “yield” signs indicating that pedestrians must yield to equestrian users and 

bicycles must yield to both equestrians and pedestrians. 

5. Trails open to bicycle use will be located on level ground to the maximum extent possible to discourage 

use by recreational mountain bikers for “thrill riding.” 

Justification: Multi-use trails accommodating equestrian and bicycle use are not a form of wildlife 

dependent recreation. However, they are modes of access and transportation that facilitate public 

participation in wildlife observation, wildlife photography and interpretation. Within the context of an 

urban NWR, surrounded on three sides by public lands administered by local units of government, these 

trails provide needed connectivity among public lands to facilitate the public’s appreciation of open space 

and habitat conservation at the edge of a rapidly urbanizing metropolitan area. 

It is noted that equestrian use is authorized in almost all units of the National Wilderness System, and is 

deemed appropriate with preservation of wilderness values. Bicycle use on trails has proven to be a 

compatible mode of transportation on other urban units of the NWRS, including Minnesota Valley NWR 

and refuges of the San Diego NWR Complex that support far more sensitive habitats and far more 

significant migratory bird and endangered species resources than does Rocky Flats. 

Mandatory Re-evaluation Date: This is not a priority public use. The Compatibility Determination for 

this use is subject to mandatory re-evaluation in 10 years, on the anniversary of final Compatibility 

Determination in 2014. 

NEPA Compliance: This use is addressed in an Environmental Impact Statement and Record of 

Decision.

Approval/Concurrence:

 Prepared/Approved: 

 Refuge Manager: 

 Signature Date 

 Concurrence: 

 Regional Chief: 

 Signature Date 
158 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix B: Compatibility Determination

COMPATIBILITY DETERMINATION

Use: Wildlife Observation and Photography, Including Public Use Facility 

 Development to support those uses. 

Refuge Name: Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

 Jefferson and Boulder Counties, Colorado 

Establishing 

Authority: Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-107) 

Refuge Purposes: 1. Restoring and preserving native ecosystems. 

2. Providing habitat for, and population management of, native plants, and 

migratory and resident wildlife. 

3. Conserving threatened and endangered species (including species that are 

candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.)). 

 4. Providing opportunities for compatible scientific research. 

NWRS Mission: “...to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, 

management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife and plant resources and their habitats, 

of the United States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans.” (16 U.S.C. 

668dd(a)(2)). 

Description of Use: Wildlife Observation and Wildlife Photography programs are provided to the general 

public, during daylight hours, along an established and well delineated system of authorized trails 

designated in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. A total of 

16.5 miles of trail will be developed and open. Most of the trail system will be open year-round, however 

trails that enter the Rock Creek drainage and cross sensitive habitats of the Preble’s meadow jumping 

mouse will be closed seasonally during May through September. 

Off-trail access for wildlife observation and photography will also be provided seasonally, on the southern 

third of the Refuge, during the Preble’s hibernation season from September through May, outside the birdnesting season. 

Most areas of the Refuge are closed to general public access due to the sensitivity of habitats. Despite 

highly restricted access that prohibits visitor traffic in the Refuge’s sensitive endangered species habitats, 

excellent opportunities are available for observing deer, coyotes, raptors, song birds other species from the 

approved trail system. Opportunities for wildlife observation and photography may also be available in 

conjunction with staff or volunteer-led interpretive tours and programs. 

The CCP calls for access to public use trails for wildlife observation and photography. The CCP also calls 

for enhanced programs including the addition of one wildlife observation and photography blind, and three 

enhanced overlook facilities for observation and photography, a Visitor Contact Station, and trailhead 

parking areas. The Visitor Contact Station would be a small (700 - 1000 square foot) building with 

associated restroom facilities. Parking facilities would include three lots, to accommodate a total of 70 cars 

and 1 bus. Parking lots would be gravel surfaced, and enclosed with post and beam type fencing. Over 

72% of the planned trail system will be located on existing roads. About 2 miles of new foot trail will be 

constructed in the northwest corner of the Refuge. Approximately 0.6 miles of existing roads would have 

to be improved to provide for accessibility for mobility impaired visitors. 
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 159

Appendix B: Compatibility Determination

Availability of Resources: Most of the planned trail system will be located on existing roads, so wildlife 

observation and photography could be initiated without additional facility development, and with minimum 

costs for posting and staffing. 

Construction of two new trail segments (4.6 miles), overlook facilities, viewing/ photography blinds, 

trailhead parking lots and Visitor Contact Station represent one-time construction costs of about $390,000. 

Resources necessary to open and operate wildlife observation and photography programs, using the 

existing trail system are estimated to be 0.5 FTE and $42,000 annually. Those resources are available 

within the existing staffing and budget allocations of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal NWR Complex. They 

will be well within the resources available under the proposed staffing and O&M budget proposed in the 

CCP for Rocky Flats NWR. 

Resources are not currently available for development of new facilities to support the objective level of 

wildlife observation and photography programs for Rocky Flats NWR. Once approved, all facilities called 

for in the CCP will be incorporated in funding packages in the Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS), 

and will be developed as funds become available over the life of the CCP. Development of additional 

facilities are not required to open the Refuge for limited wildlife observation and photography. 

Anticipated Impacts: Continuation of the existing programs for interpretation, wildlife observation and 

wildlife photography will have a negligible impact on habitats. Development of facilities to support these 

uses will result in a loss of 1.9 acres or xeric tallgrass prairie and 2.9 acres of mixed grass prairie, mostly 

for parking lot development. Those acreages represent 0.12% and 0.13% of those habitat types at Rocky 

Flats, respectively. Facility development would result in no loss of upland shrub, riparian, or other wetland 

habitats. 

Some wildlife disturbance will result from these programs. Some birds will be flushed from foraging or 

resting habitats by the approach of people on trails. However, the area impacted by these disturbances is 

small compared to the overall habitat area available. Approximately 200 acres of habitat will be within 100 

feet on either side of the proposed trail system. That amounts to 4% of the total acreage at Rocky Flats. It 

is also possible that some particularly sensitive bird species will avoid areas adjacent to trails for nesting 

purposes. However, under the CCP approved trail plan, over 80% of Refuge habitats will be greater than 

100 yards from any trail. 

Off-trail access during the period of October – April in the southern portion of the Refuge is provided to 

give bird watchers and photographers an opportunity for viewing and photographing wildlife that may not 

be available on designated trails. This area avoids occupied Preble’s habitat and the use will occur during 

seasons when there will be no impact to ground-nesting birds. Some trampling of vegetation will occur, 

but most plants will be senescent during those seasons. It is not anticipated that off-trail traffic will be 

intense enough to create social trails or damage habitat. 

Disturbance caused by these uses is not anticipated to cause wildlife to leave or abandon the Refuge, and all 

areas are available to wildlife for undisturbed use during closed hours. Disturbance resulting from wildlife 

observation, and photography programs is deemed to be biologically insignificant. 

Additionally, the CCP calls for continued closure and restoration of many roads and trails that will exist at 

the time of Refuge establishment. Fencing, other barriers, signs and revegetation efforts will restore many 

acres and result in a net habitat gain. All stream crossings will be on existing roads, and no new 

disturbance of riparian habitats will be required for these uses. Numerous existing stream crossings will be 

restored and revegetated. Trails that occur in riparian areas in the Rock Creek drainage will be closed 

seasonally to prevent wildlife observation and photography activities from impacting Preble’s during the 

May through September active period. 

The proposed uses, including development of facilities to support those uses, will foster public appreciation 

and understanding of the prairie ecosystem and the importance of Refuge habitats for wildlife conservation. 
160 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix B: Compatibility Determination

The proposed uses are also priority wildlife-dependent uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System and 

promote fulfillment of the intent of the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. 

Public Review and Comment: This Compatibility Determination was presented for public review and 

comment in conjunction with the public comment period for the Draft CCP/EIS for the future Rocky Flats 

NWR in the first quarter of CY 04. 

Many public comments were received at four public hearings held in March 2004, and throughout the 

public comment period on the Draft CCP/EIS. Comments related to public use were received both from 

those in opposition, and in favor of public access for wildlife observation and photography. 

Many people were opposed to any form of public use at Rocky Flats NWR based on their belief that site 

cleanup is inadequate and that public access would result in health and safety risks to visitors. Those 

comments did not address whether wildlife observation and photography were compatible with Refuge 

purposes or the mission of NWRS. 

Comments were received from several organizations that supported the proposed action (Alternative B), 

including wildlife observation and photography. Other groups, including the Prairie Preservation Alliance 

recommended no trails or wildlife-dependent recreation based on concerns of wildlife disturbance, 

exacerbating invasive weed problems and causing erosion. 

Comments from local units of government also varied, with several cities and counties favoring public 

access for wildlife observation and photography, and others recommending no public use of the Refuge. 

Similarly, written comments received from individuals ran the gamut from advocating more extensive 

public use programs, to the 815 copies of a form letter expressing opposition to any recreational access to 

the Rocky Flats NWR. For the complete record of public comment received on this issue, including 

responses to written comments and testimony received at the public hearings, please see Appendix H to the 

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for Rocky Flats NWR. 

Several of the comments received were germane to the issue of compatibility. Those comments raised 

concerns mostly related to wildlife disturbance. There were also several general comments opposing public 

use on the basis that a “refuge” should be free of disturbance and a place of inviolate sanctuary for wildlife. 

The undersigned acknowledge that this use is likely to result in some disturbance of wildlife. However, in 

the professional judgment of the undersigned, we do not believe that the level of disturbance that may 

result from this use will materially detract from or prevent the achievement of the Refuge establishment 

purposes or mission of the NWRS. Wildlife observation and photography are clearly appropriate uses of 

the NWRS, and are among the priority public uses of the Refuge System, as established in law. The areas 

necessary to be disturbed for development of the proposed facilities to support wildlife observation and 

photography are very small. The conversion of those small areas to non-habitat uses will not materially 

detract from the ability of the Refuge to achieve its establishment purposes or its contribution to 

accomplishing the NWRS mission. 

Compatibility Determination: Using sound professional judgment (603 FW 2.6U., and 2.11A), place an 

"X" in appropriate space to indicate whether the use would or would not materially interfere with or detract 

from the NWRS Mission or the Purposes of Rocky Flats NWR. 

 __ Use is Not Compatible 

 X Use is Compatible with the Following Stipulations 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Wildlife observation and photography programs must be conducted in accordance with the 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Any new programs or facilities not prescribed in the CCP must be 

approved through an additional public planning process, in compliance with NEPA, Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act, and other environmental compliance requirements, prior to implementation. 
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 161

Appendix B: Compatibility Determination

2. Areas open for off-trail use in the southern third of the Refuge will be closely monitored by Refuge 

staff. If off-trail use exceeds the capacity of the habitat (e.g., to a point where trampling results in loss of 

vegetative cover), the off-trail portion of the program will be curtailed or reduced to preserve habitat 

integrity. 

Justification: Wildlife observation, and wildlife photography are priority wildlife-dependent public uses 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System. These uses, including existing and future enhanced programs as 

prescribed in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Rocky Flats NWR are compatible with the 

Refuge’s establishment purposes, and with the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. These 

uses are not only justified but are encouraged by the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. 

The Rocky Flats NWR Act of 2001 states that wildlife-dependent recreation is a priority public use of 

Rocky Flats NWR. 

Mandatory Re-evaluation Date: As a priority public use, the Compatibility Determination for this use is 

subject to mandatory re-evaluation in 15 years, on the anniversary of final Compatibility Determination in 

2019. 

NEPA Compliance: This use is addressed in an Environmental Impact Statement and Record of 

Decision.

Approval/Concurrence:

 Prepared/Approved: 

 Refuge Manager: 

 Signature Date 

 Concurrence: 

 Regional Chief: 

 Signature Date 
appendix c

Laws and Executive Orders
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 165

Appendix C: Laws and Executive Orders

LAWS AND REGULATIONS AFFECTING ROCKY

FLATS NWR

Many procedural and substantive requirements of

Federal and applicable State and local laws and

regulations affect Refuge establishment, management,

and development. The following list identifies the key

federal laws and policies that were considered during the

planning process or that could affect future Refuge

management.

AMERICAN INDIAN RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT (1978): Directs

agencies to consult with native traditional religious leaders

to determine appropriate policy changes necessary to

protect and preserve Native American religious cultural

rights and practices.

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (1992): Prohibits

discrimination in public accommodations and services.

ANTIQUITIES ACT (1906): Authorizes the scientific

investigation of antiquities on Federal land and provides

penalties for unauthorized removal of objects taken or

collected without a permit.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT (1974):

Directs the preservation of historic and archaeological

data in Federal construction projects.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES PROTECTION ACT (1979) AS AMENDED:

Protects materials of archaeological interest from

unauthorized removal or destruction and requires Federal

managers to develop plans and schedules to locate

archaeological resources.

ARCHITECTURAL BARRIERS ACT (1968): Requires federally

owned, leased, or funded buildings and facilities to be

accessible to persons with disabilities.

BALD AND GOLDEN EAGLE PROTECTION ACT (1940): The Act

prohibits the taking or possession of and commerce in

bald and golden eagles, with limited exceptions. 

CLEAN AIR ACT OF 1977, AS AMENDED: The primary objective

of this Act is to establish Federal standards for various

pollutants from both stationary and mobile sources and 

to provide for the regulation of polluting emissions via

state implementation plants. In addition, and of special

interest for National Wildlife Refuges, some amendments

are designed to prevent significant deterioration in 

certain areas where air quality exceeds national

standards, and to provide for improved air quality in areas

which do not meet Federal standards ("non-attainment"

areas). Federal facilities are required to comply with air

quality standards to the same extent as nongovernmental

entities (42 U.S.C. 7418).

CLEAN WATER ACT (1977): Requires consultation with the

Corps of Engineers (404 permits) for major wetland

modifications.

EMERGENCY WETLANDS RESOURCES ACT (1986): The purpose of

the Act is "To promote the conservation of migratory

waterfowl and to offset or prevent the serious loss of

wetlands by the acquisition of wetlands and other essential

habitat, and for other purposes."

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (1973): Requires all Federal

agencies to carry out programs for the conservation of

endangered and threatened species.

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 11593, PROTECTION AND ENHANCEMENT OF

THE CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT (1971): If the Service proposes

any development activities that would affect the

archaeological or historical sites, the Service will consult

with Federal and State Historic Preservation Officers to

comply with Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act of 1966, as amended.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11987, EXOTIC ORGANISMS (1977): This

Executive Order requires Federal agencies, to the extent

permitted by law, to: restrict the introduction of exotic

species into the natural ecosystems on lands and waters

owned or leased by the United States; encourage States,

local governments, and private citizens to prevent the

introduction of exotic species into natural ecosystems of

the U.S.; restrict the importation and introduction of

exotic species into any natural U.S. ecosystems as a result

of activities they undertake, fund, or authorize; and

restrict the use of Federal funds, programs, or authorities

to export native species for introduction into ecosystems

outside the U.S. where they do not occur naturally.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11988, FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT (1977): Each

Federal agency shall provide leadership and take action to

reduce the risk of flood loss and minimize the impact of

floods on human safety, and preserve the natural and

beneficial values served by the floodplains.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11990, PROTECTION OF WETLANDS (1977): This

order directs all Federal agencies to avoid, if possible,

adverse impacts to wetlands and to preserve and enhance

the natural and beneficial values of wetlands. Each agency

shall avoid undertaking or assisting in wetland

construction projects unless the head of the agency

determines that there is no practicable alternative to such

construction and that the proposed action includes
166 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix C: Laws and Executive Orders

measures to minimize harm. Also, agencies shall provide

opportunity for early public review of proposals for

construction in wetlands, including those projects not

requiring an EIS.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (1994): This

order provides minority and low-income populations an

opportunity to comment on the development and design

of Reclamation activities. Federal agencies shall make

achieving environmental justice part of their missions by

identifying and addressing, as appropriate,

disproportionately high and adverse human health or

environmental effects of its programs, policies, and

activities on minority populations and low-income

populations.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12996 MANAGEMENT AND GENERAL PUBLIC USE

OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM (1996): Defines the

mission, purpose, and priority public uses of the National

Wildlife Refuge System. It also presents four principles to

guide management of the System.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13007 INDIAN SACRED SITES (1996): Directs

Federal land management agencies to accommodate access

to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites by Indian

religious practitioners, avoid adversely affecting the

physical integrity of such sacred sites, and where

appropriate, maintain the confidentiality of sacred sites.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13084, CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION WITH

INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS (1998): The United States has a

unique legal relationship with Indian tribal governments

as set forth in the Constitution of the United States,

treaties, statutes, Executive orders, and court decisions.

Since the formation of the Union, the United States has

recognized Indian tribes as domestic dependent nations

under its protection. In treaties, our Nation has

guaranteed the right of Indian tribes to self-government.

As domestic dependent nations, Indian tribes exercise

inherent sovereign powers over their members and

territory. The United States continues to work with

Indian tribes on a government-to-government basis to

address issues concerning Indian tribal self-government,

trust resources, and Indian tribal treaty and other rights.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 13112, INVASIVE SPECIES(1999): Directs federal

agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive species,

control and monitor invasive species, and restore native

species and habitats that have been invaded.

FEDERAL AID IN WILDLIFE RESTORATION ACT OF SEPTEMBER 2, 1937

16 U.S.C.669-669I), AS AMENDED: This Act, commonly

referred to as the "Pittman-Robertson Act", provides to

States for game and non-game wildlife restoration work.

Funds from an excise tax on sporting arms and

ammunition are appropriated to the Secretary of the

Interior annually and apportioned to States on a

formula basis for approved land acquisition, research,

development and management projects and hunter

safety programs.

FEDERAL NOXIOUS WEED ACT (1990): Requires the use of

integrated management systems to control or contain

undesirable plant species; and an interdisciplinary

approach with the cooperation of other Federal and

State agencies.

FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT OF MARCH 10, 1934 (16

U.S.C. 661-66C), AS AMENDED: This Act authorizes the

Secretary of the Interior to assist Federal, State and other

agencies in development, protection, rearing and stocking

fish and wildlife on Federal lands, and to study effects of

pollution on fish and wildlife. The Act also requires

consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the

wildlife agency of any State wherein the waters of any

stream or other water body are proposed to be

impounded, diverted, channelized or otherwise controlled

or modified by any Federal agency, or any private agency

under Federal permit or license, with a view to preventing

loss of, or damage to, wildlife resources in connection with

such water resource projects. The Act further authorizes

Federal water resource agencies to acquire lands or

interests in connection with water use projects specifically

for mitigation and enhancement of fish and wildlife.

FISH AND WILDLIFE ACT (1956): Established a comprehensive

national fish and wildlife policy and broadened the

authority for acquisition and development of refuges.

FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT (1958): Allows the Fish

and Wildlife Service to enter into agreements with private

landowners for wildlife management purposes.

FOOD SECURITY ACT OF 1985 (TITLE XII, PUBLIC LAW 99-198, 99

STAT. 1354; DECEMBER 23, 1985), AS AMENDED: Authorizes

acquisition of easements in real property for a term of not

less than 50 years for conservation, recreation, and

wildlife purposes.

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND ACT (1965): Uses the

receipts from the sale of surplus Federal land, outer

continental shelf oil and gas sales, and other sources for

land acquisition under several authorities.

MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION ACT (1929): Establishes

procedures for acquisition by purchase, rental, or gift of

areas approved by the Migratory Bird Conservation

Commission.
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 167

Appendix C: Laws and Executive Orders

MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT (1918): Designates the protection

of migratory birds as a Federal responsibility. This Act

enables the setting of seasons, and other regulations

including the closing of areas, Federal or nonfederal, to the

hunting of migratory birds.

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (1969): Requires all

Federal agencies to examine the impacts upon the

environment that their actions might have, to incorporate

the best available environmental information, and the use of

public participation in the planning and implementation of

all actions. All Federal agencies must integrate NEPA with

other planning requirements, and prepare appropriate

NEPA documentation to facilitate sound environmental

decision making. NEPA requires the disclosure of the

environmental impacts of any major Federal action that

affects in a significant way the quality of the human

environment. 

NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT (1966) AS AMENDED:

Establishes as policy that the Federal Government is to

provide leadership in the preservation of the nation's

prehistoric and historic resources.

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION ACT OF 1966

AS AMENDED BY THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM

IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1997, 16 U.S.C. 668DD-668EE. (REFUGE

ADMINISTRATION ACT): Defines the National Wildlife Refuge

System and authorizes the Secretary to permit any use of

a refuge provided such use is compatible with the major

purposes for which the refuge was established. The

Refuge Improvement Act clearly defines a unifying

mission for the Refuge System; establishes the legitimacy

and appropriateness of the six priority public uses

(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, or

environmental education and interpretation); establishes a

formal process for determining compatibility; established

the responsibilities of the Secretary of Interior for

managing and protecting the System; and requires a

Comprehensive Conservation Plan for each refuge by the

year 2012. This Act amended portions of the Refuge

Recreation Act and National Wildlife Refuge System

Administration Act of 1966.

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1997:

Sets the mission and administrative policy for all refuges

in the National Wildlife Refuge System. Clearly defines a

unifying mission for the Refuge System; establishes the

legitimacy and appropriateness of the six priority public

uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and

photography, or environmental education and

interpretation); establishes a formal process for

determining compatibility; establishes the responsibilities

of the Secretary of the Interior for managing and

protecting the System; and requires a Comprehensive

Conservation Plan for each refuge by the year 2012. This

Act amended portions of the Refuge Recreation Act and

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of

1966.

NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION ACT

(1990): Requires Federal agencies and museums to

inventory, determine ownership of, and repatriate cultural

items under their control or possession.

REFUGE RECREATION ACT (1962): Allows the use of refuges for

recreation when such uses are compatible with the

refuge's primary purposes and when sufficient funds are

available to manage the uses.

REHABILITATION ACT (1973): Requires programmatic

accessibility in addition to physical accessibility for all

facilities and programs funded by the Federal government

to ensure that anybody can participate in any program.

REFUGE REVENUE SHARING ACT OF 1935, AS AMENDED: Provides

for payments to counties in lieu of taxes, using revenues

derived from the sale of products from refuges. Public

Law 88-523 (1964) revised this Act and required that all

revenues received from refuge products, such as animals,

timber and minerals, or from leases or other privileges, be

deposited in a special Treasury account and net receipts

distributed to counties for public schools and roads.

Payments to counties were established as: 1) on acquired

land, the greatest amount calculated on the basis of 75

cents per acre, three-fourths of one percent of the

appraised value, or 25 percent of the net receipts

produced from the land; and 2) on land withdrawn from

the public domain, 25 percent of net receipts and basic

payments under Public Law 94-565 (31 U.S.C. 1601- 1607,

90 Stat. 2662), payment in lieu of taxes on public lands. 

ROCKY FLATS NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ACT OF 2001:

Establishes Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge following

cleanup and closure of the site, directs the development of

a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Refuge, and

other details.
appendix d

Regulatory Letters about Future

Refuge Management
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 171

Appendix D: Regulatory Letters about Future Refuge Management

Printed on Recycled Paper

Ref: 8EPR-F 

Mr. Mark Sattelberg 

Senior Contaminant Biologist 

US Fish and Wildlife Service 

Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge 

Building 111 

Commerce City, CO 80222-1748 

 Re: USFWS Future Activities at Rocky Flats 

Dear Mr. Sattelberg: 

 This is in response to your letter dated August 20, 2003, in which you asked whether 

EPA anticipated placing restrictions on activities the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) may 

wish to conduct at the future Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. Specifically the Service 

asked about the following activities: prescribed fire, grazing, plowing, and ripping up old roads. 

 Once EPA certifies the remedy to be complete and jurisdiction of property has been 

transferred to the Service, does EPA foresee any restrictions on the use of prescribed fire? 

Similarly, does the EPA envision restrictions on ripping up roads? 

 As you are aware, the widespread contaminants of most concern at Rocky Flats are 

plutonium and americium. Consequently, areas at the site where these contaminants remain at 

closure would have the most use restrictions. In June 2003, CDPHE and EPA approved 

modifications to the Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement, including revised contaminant soil action 

levels. EPA expects that at the completion of the remedy no significant contamination will be 

left in the surface soils at concentrations greater than outlined in the Attachment 5 of the 

modified agreement. For plutonium, the expectation is that surface soils contaminated at 

concentrations greater than 50 picocuries/gram (pCi/g) will have been removed. Surface soils 

are defined as those less than three feet in depth. EPA anticipates there will be restrictions on 

areas of the Site with residual contamination less than 50 pCi/g but greater than 9 pCi/g – a 

concentration representing lifetime excess cancer risk of one in 1,000,000 to a wildlife refuge 

worker. This is not to say that prescribed fire or ripping up roads would be precluded in areas 

with residual contamination in the 9-50 pCi/g range. Rather, the Service would need to take 

extra precautions in those areas to minimize soil disturbances. The primary concern being that 

major soil disturbances could result in elevated levels of contaminants to migrate to surface 

water. 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

REGION 8 

999 18TH STREET - SUITE 300 

DENVER, CO 80202-2466
172 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix D: Regulatory Letters about Future Refuge Management

 The use of prescribed fire at Rocky Flats is of special interest to citizens and public 

officials in the surrounding communities. EPA believes that the use of prescribed fire at the site 

will not pose significant risk to firefighters, Service personnel or the general public. This belief 

is based upon data gathered during and after the 2000 test burn and for accidental burns at the 

site, as well as risk assessment work documented in the Task 3 Report (title/date) on the effects 

of prescribed fire at Rocky Flats. However, relatively large areas of Rocky Flats have not been 

characterized to date. These areas are often referred to as “white spaces.” EPA does not believe 

there is great potential to find contamination in these areas because they are removed from areas 

of known contamination and are not associated with past practices at the site that resulted in 

releases of contamination. Nevertheless, unexpected discoveries have occurred at Rocky Flats 

(e.g., the incinerator near the ash pits), and EPA believes that samples should be collected from 

white spaces before closure and analyzed prior to the application of prescribed fire in those areas. 

 Does EPA foresee any restrictions on the consumption of edible tissues from the grazing 

animals used for weed control at Rocky Flats? 

 Animal studies to date, and studies conducted by the actinide migration panel, indicate 

that there is no significant uptake of contaminants by grazing animals at Rocky Flats. Therefore, 

EPA does not anticipate restrictions on consumption of animals that graze at Rocky Flats. 

However, overgrazing in the areas in the 9 to 50 pCi/g range could result in water quality issues 

as discussed above. Therefore, EPA would expect to see measures put in place that would 

prevent overgrazing. 

 Do you foresee any restrictions on the plowing of areas in the southeast portion of the 

site for the purpose of reestablishing native vegetation? 

 Plowing will in all likelihood be prohibited in any areas of the site where contamination 

concentrations are greater than 9 pCi/g plutonium. 

 EPA looks forward to working with the Service in identifying and implementing the 

necessary restrictions for assuring that residual contamination at the future Rocky Flats National 

Wildlife Refuge poses a negligible risk to workers and members of the public. Please contact me 

at (303) 312-6246. 

Sincerely, 

 

 Gary Kleeman 

 Acting Rocky Flats Team Leader 

cc: Dean Rundle, FWS 

 Steve Gunderson, CDPHE 

 Joe Legare, DOE 

 Dave Shelton, KH 

 Administrative Records, T130G 
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 173

Appendix D: Regulatory Letters about Future Refuge Management
174 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix D: Regulatory Letters about Future Refuge Management
appendix e

Letter to Rocky Flats Cleanup

Agreement (RFCA) Parties
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 177

Appendix E: Letter to RFCA Parties
178 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix E: Letter to RFCA Parties
appendix f

Cost Details
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 181

Appendix F: Cost Details

Cost Request Details

Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge

Refuge Operations Needs System (RONS) CCP 

Staff* $ 431,265

Facility Lease*

Maintenance (Weed Management)* 50,000 

Utilities* 20,020

Restoration 93,736

Trails 140,395

Visitor Facilities 249,269 

Interpretation 81,000 

Storage/Maintenance Building 225,000 

Cistern 8,000

Septic System 12,000 

Burglar Alarm 2,000

Fencing 46,613

Signs 7,405

Utility Line Installation 15,000 

Computers/Fax/Office Equipment 8,800 

Mountain Bike (for Patrol) 1,600 

All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) 13,000 

Spray-Rig for ATV 3,000 

Maintenance Truck 35,000 

Pickup Truck 44,000 

Slip-On Spray-Rig for Truck 12,000 

Mower 9,500

Maintenance Tools 10,000 

Generator

Biological Monitoring/Restoration Tools 15,000 

Water Storage - 50K Gallon Bladder 15,000 

Water Storage - Pumpkin 7,000 

500 Gallon Fuel Tank/Pump 20,000 

Shared Equipment Budget 100,000 

Planning and Design 78,169 

 Sub-Total - RONS $ 1,753,772

Maintenance Management System (MMS)

Renovate 1/2 Shed for Office

Both RONS and MMS

Visitor Center

Maintenance Funds (Annual)

Facility/Equipment Maintenance 55,779 $ 

Fire Funding:

Fire Cache (One-Time) 50,000 $ 

Fire Engine (One-Time) 75,000 

Staff (Ongoing) 133,007 

 Sub-Total - Fire Funding $ 258,007

 Total Cost Requests $ 2,067,558

* Classified as RONS for the first year of Refuge operations, then as annual operating funds.
182 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix F: Cost Details

Estimated CCP Costs

Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge

Notes Quantity Units Cost/Unit Cost Subtotal Area Subtotal 

New Funding: (see notes) $ 427,914

Staff $ 302,115

Refuge Manager (GS-12) Cost reflects cost/ FTE 69,939 1.0 $ 101,412 $ 

Biologist (GS-11) unit increased by 45% FTE 58,353 1.0 $ 84,612 $ 

Public Use (GS-9) to reflect training, FTE 48,230 1.0 $ 69,934 $ 

Range Biotech (GS-5) supplies and benefits. FTE 31,833 1.0 $ 46,158 $ 

Maintenance $ 100,779

Weed Management Staff Est. of Supplies 50,000 $ 

Lindsay Barn Staff Estimate 2,000 $ 

Facility/Equipment Maintenance 5% of Facilities/Equip. 48,779 $ 

Utilities $ 20,020

Electricity 12 months 250 $ 3,000 $ 

Gas months 250 12 $ 3,000 $ 

Phone Over 12 months 5 lines 50 $ 3,000 $ 

Burglar Alarm 12 months 100 $ 1,200 $ 

Cleaning/Trash Pickup Clean 2x/week 9,820 $ 

Interpretive Materials lump 5,000 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 

Existing Base Funding: $ 134,150

Staff $ 129,150

Public Use Assistance (GS-11) Cost reflects cost/ FTE 58,353 0.25 $ 21,153 $ 

Public Use Assistance (GS-5) unit increased by 45% FTE 31,833 0.50 $ 23,079 $ 

Administrative Assistance (GS-9) to reflect training, FTE 48,230 0.15 $ 10,490 $ 

Maintenance (WG-7) supplies and benefits. FTE 43,666 0.25 $ 15,829 $ 

Law Enforcement (GS-9) 0.50 FTE 48,230 $ 58,599 $ 

Maintenance $ 5,000

Shared Equipment Maintenance 5% of Shared Equip. 5,000 $ 

Total: Operations $ 562,064

Net Present Value of Operations over 15 Year Period $ 6,249,247

Notes Quantity Units Cost/Unit Cost Subtotal Area Subtotal 

New Funding: $ 1,537,151 

Restoration $ 93,736

Seeding

Restoration Seeding Disturbed/Non-Native 417 ac. 134 $ 55,878 $ 

Seed for Eliminating Roads 27.8 miles @ 20 feet 67 ac. 134 $ 9,031 $ 

Seed for Road Narrowing 21 ac. 134 $ 2,827 $ 

Stream Crossing Restoration 26 ea. 1,000 $ 26,000 $ 

Facilities

Public Use $ 465,664

Trails

New Trails - Natural Surface 3.7 Miles 19,536 l.f. 4 $ 78,144 $ 389,664 $ 

ADA Accessible (Reused Road) .9 Miles

Prep 23,760 s.f. 0.12 $ 2,851 $ 

Surfacing 23,760 s.f. 2.50 $ 59,400 $ 

Visitor Facilities

Restroom 1 ea. 26,000 $ 26,000 $ 

Viewing Blind 1 ea. 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 

Seasonal Contact Station 1,200 s.f. 150 $ 180,000 $ 

Benches 4 ea. 1,500 $ 6,000 $ 

Parking Lots 3 Lots/70 Cars/1 Bus

Site Preparation 26,830 s.f. 0.38 $ 10,195 $ 

Surfacing 26,830 s.f. 0.45 $ 12,074 $ 

Interpretation

Interpretive Sign Panels (Porcelain) 4 ea. 5,500 $ 22,000 $ 

Interpretive Signs (Porcelain) Trails, Sm. Entrances 6 ea 4,000 $ 24,000 $ 

Kiosk 1 ea. 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 

Interior Display 1 lump 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 

Restoration and Implementation (One-Time)

Operations (Ongoing)
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 183

Appendix F: Cost Details

Notes Quantity Units Cost/Unit Cost Subtotal Area Subtotal 

Administrative $ 316,018

Administrative Offices Incl. in Contact Sta. - $ 

Storage/Maintenance Building 30'x75' 1 lump 225,000 $ 225,000 $ 

Cistern ea. 8,000 1 $ 8,000 $ 

Septic System 1 lump 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 

Burglar Alarm 1 lump 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 

Fencing

Remove Interior Stock Fence Approx. 8 Miles 42,240 l.f. 0.50 $ 21,120 $ 

Weed Control Fencing Approx. 3 Miles 15,840 l.f. 0.17 $ 2,693 $ 

Security Fencing around Facilities 400 l.f. 57 $ 22,800 $ 

Signs

Roadside 6 ea. 650 $ 3,900 $ 

Boundary Every 1,000 Feet 67 ea. 15 $ 1,005 $ 

Trail Directional 5 ea. 500 $ 2,500 $ 

Utilities

Power 1 lump 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 

Equipment $ 193,900

Computers/Fax/Office Equipment 4 emp. 2,200 $ 8,800 $ 

Mountain Bike (for Patrol) 2 ea. 800 $ 1,600 $ 

All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) 2 ea. 6,500 $ 13,000 $ 

Spray-Rig for ATV 2 ea. 1,500 $ 3,000 $ 

Maintenance Truck 1 ea. 35,000 $ 35,000 $ 

Pickup Truck 2 ea. 22,000 $ 44,000 $ 

Slip-On Spray-Rig for Truck 1 ea. 12,000 $ 12,000 $ 

Mower ea. 9,500 1 $ 9,500 $ 

Maintenance Tools 1 lump 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 

Biological Monitoring/Restoration Tools 1 lump 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 

Water Storage - 50K Gallon Bladder 1 ea. 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 

Water Storage - Pumpkin 2 ea. 3,500 $ 7,000 $ 

500 Gallon Fuel Tank/Pump 2 ea. 10,000 $ 20,000 $ 

Planning and Design $ 78,169

Site Layout and Design 10% of Construction 1 lump 78,169 $ 78,169 $ 

Existing Base Funding: $ 100,000

Shared Equipment Budget 1 lump 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 

Total: Restoration and Implementation $ 1,637,151

Net Present Value of Restoration and Implementation over 15 Year Period $ 1,159,182

Notes Quantity Units Cost/Unit Cost Subtotal Area Subtotal 

New Funding: $ 258,007

Equipment $ 125,000

Fire Cache (One-Time) Staff Est. of Supplies 50,000 $ 

Fire Engine (One Time) $ 75,000

Staff (Ongoing) Cost reflects cost/ $ 133,007

Fire Program Technician (GS-6/9) unit increased by 45% FTE 49,283 1 $ 49,283 $ 

Fire Engine Foreman (GS-5/6) to reflect training, FTE 44,211 1 $ 44,211 $ 

Fire Fighters (Seasonal) (GS-4/5) supplies and benefits. FTE 39,514 1 $ 39,514 $ 

Total: Fire Management $ 258,007

Net Present Value of Fire Managment over 15 Year Period $ 1,599,016

Fire Management
appendix g

Species Lists
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 187

Appendix G: Species Lists

ROCKY FLATS NWR WILDLIFE SPECIES LIST 

BIRDS

Raptors 

American kestrel Falco sparverius

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Barn owl Tyto alba

Black vulture Coragyps atratus

Broad-winged hawk Buteo platypterus

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia

Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis

Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos

Great horned owl Bubo virginianus

Long-eared owl Asio otus

Merlin Falco columbarius

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus

Osprey Pandion haliaetus

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus

Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus

Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis

Rough-legged hawk Buteo lagopus

Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus

Short-eared owl Asio flammeus

Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni

Turkey vulture Cathartes aura

Songbirds 

American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos

American goldfinch Carduelis tristis

American pipit Anthus rubescens

American redstart Setophaga ruticilla

American robin Turdus migratorius

American tree sparrow Spizella arborea

Ash-throated flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens

Barn swallow Hirundo rustica

Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon

Black swift Cypseloides niger

Black-billed cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus

Black-billed magpie Pica hudsonia

Black-capped chickadee Poecile atricapilla

Black-headed grosbeak Pheucticus elanocephalus

Black-throated 

gray warbler Dendroica nigrescens

Blue grosbeak Guiraca caerulea

Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata

Blue-gray gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea

Blue-headed vireo Vireo solitarius

Bohemian waxwing Bombycilla garrulus 

Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus

Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri

Broad-tailed hummingbird Selasphorus platycercus

Brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum

Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater

Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii

Cassin’s finch Carpodacus cassinii

Cassin’s sparrow Aimophila cassinii

Chestnut-collaredlongspur Calcarius ornatus

Chestnut-sided warbler Dendroica pensylvanica

Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina

Clay-colored sparrow Spizella pallida

Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota

Common grackle Quiscalus quiscula

Common nighthawk Chordeiles minor

Common poorwill Phalaenoptilus nuttallii

Common raven Corvus corax

Common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas

Cordilleran flycatcher Empidonax occidentalis

Dark-eyed junco Junco hyemalis canice

Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens

Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus

Eastern phoebe Sayornis phoebe

European starling Sturnus vulgaris

Field sparrow Spizella pusilla

Fox sparrow Passerella illiaca

Golden-crowned kinglet Regulus satrapa

Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum

Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis

Green-tailed towhee Pipilo chlorurus

Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus

Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus

Horned lark Eremophila alpestris

House finch Carpodacus mexicanus

House sparrow Passer domesticus

House wren Troglodytes aedon

Lapland longspur Calcarius lapponicus

Lark bunting Calamospiza melanocorys 

Lark sparrow Chondestes grammacus

Lazuli bunting Passerina amoena

Lesser goldfinch Carduelis psaltria

Lincoln’s sparrow Melospiza lincolnii

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus

MacGillivray’s warbler Opornis tolmiei

Marsh wren Cistothorus palustris

Mountain bluebird Sialia currucoides

Mountain chickadee Parus gambeii

Mourning dove Zenaida macroura

Northern flicker Colaptes auratus

Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottus

Northern shrike Lanius excubitor

Orange-crowned warbler Vermivora celata

Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus

Palm warbler Dendroica palmarum

Pine siskin Carduelis pinus

Red-breasted nuthatch Sitta canadensis

Red-naped sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis

Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus

Rock sove Columba livia

Rock wren Salpinctes obsoletus

Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula
188 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix G: Species Lists

Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus

Sage thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus 

Savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis

Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya

Snow bunting Plectrophenax nivalis

Song sparrow Melospiza melodia

Spotted towhee Pipilo maculatus

Swainson’s thrush Catharus ustulatus

Townsend’s solitaire Myadestes townsendi

Tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor

Vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus

Violet-green swallow Tachycineta thalassina

Virginia’s warbler Vermivora virginiae

Warbling vireo Vireo gilvus

Western bluebird Sialia mexicana

Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis

Western meadowlark Sturnella neglecta

Western tanager Piranga ludoviciana

Western wood-pewee Contopus sordidulus

White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis

White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys

Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii

Wilson’s warbler Wilsonia pusilla

Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia

Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens

Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus

Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata 

Upland Game 

Ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus

Sharp-tailed grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus 

Waterfowl and Shorebirds 

American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus

American coot Fulica americana

American white pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos

American wigeon Anas americana

Black-crowned nightheron Nycticorax nycticorax

Blue-winged teal Anas discors

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola

Canada goose Branta canadensis

Canvasback Aythya valisineria

Cinnamon teal Anas cyanoptera

Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula

Common merganser Mergus merganser

Common snipe Gallinago gallinago

Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus

Eared grebe Podiceps nigricollis

Franklin’s gull Larus pipixcan

Gadwall Anas strepera

Great blue heron Ardea herodias

Great egret Ardea alba

Greater scaup Aythya marila

Greater yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca

Green-winged teal Anas crecca

Hooded merganser Lophodytes cucullatus

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus

Lesser scaup Aythya affinis

Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes

Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos

Northern pintail Anas acuta

Northern shoveler Anas clypeata

Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos

Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps

Redhead Aythya americana

Ring-billed gull Larus delawarensis

Ring-necked duck Aythya collaris

Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis

Semipalmated plover Charadrius semipalmatus

Semipalmated sandpiper Calidris pusilla

Snow goose Chen caerulescens

Snowy egret Egretta thula

Solitary sandpiper Tringa solitaria

Sora Porzana carolina

Spotted sandpiper Actitis macularia

Virginia rail Rallus limicola

Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis

White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi

Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus

Wilson’s phalarope Phalaropus tricolor

Wood duck Aix sponsa 

MAMMALS

American black bear Ursus americanus

Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus

Black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus

Black-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus

Bobcat Lynx rufus

Common gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus

Common porcupine Erethizon dorsatum

Coyote Canis latrans

Deer mouse Peromyscus maniculatus

Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii

Eastern fox squirrel Sciurus niger

Elk (Wapiti) Cervus elaphus

Hispid pocket mouse Chaetodipus hispidus

House mouse Mus musculus

Long-tailed vole Microtus longicaudus

Masked shrew Sorex cinereus

Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus

Merriam’s shrew Sorex merriami

Mexican woodrat Neotoma mexicana

Mountain lion Felis concolor

Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus

Mule x White-tailed deer Odocoileus hemionus x 

 virginianus

Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus

Northern pocket gopher Thomomys talpoides

Olive-backed pocket mouse Perognathus fasciatus

Plains harvest mouse Reithrodontomys montanus

Plains pocket mouse Perognathus flavescens

Prairie vole Microtus ochrogaster 
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 189

Appendix G: Species Lists

Preble’s meadow 

jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei

Raccoon Procyon lotor

Red fox Vulpes vulpes

Silky pocket mouse Perognathus flavus

Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis

Thirteen-lined 

ground squirrel Spermophilus tridecemlineatus

Chipmunk Eutamias spp. 

Western harvest mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis

Western jumping mouse Zapus princeps

White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS

Boreal chorus frog Pseudacris triseriatus maculata

Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana

Bullsnake Pituophis melanoleucus

Eastern yellowbelly racer Coluber constrictor

Great Plains toad Bufo cognatus

Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens

Prairie rattlesnake Crotalus viridis

Red-sided garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis 

Short-horned lizard Phynosoma douglassi

Snapping turtle Chelydra serpentian

Tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum

Unidentified lizard 

Western painted turtle Chrysemys picta

Western plains garter 

snake Thamnophis radix

FISH

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus

Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus

Common shiner Luxilus cornutus

Fathead minnow Pimephales promelas

Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus

Northern redbelly dace Phoxinus eos

Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides

Longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae

Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieui

Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum

White sucker Catostomus commersoni

OTHERS

The following types invertebrate species have also been identified at Rocky Flats: 

x 63 species of phytoplankton 

x 63 species of zooplankton 

x 197 macrobiotic invertebrates 

x 72 emergent insects 

x 688 terrestrial invertebrates
190 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix G: Species Lists

ROCKY FLATS NWR PLANT SPECIES LIST

Listed in alphabetical order by scientific name. 

State listed noxious weeds are marked with an *. 

GRASSES

Jointed Goatgrass* Aegilops cylindrica 

X Agrohordeum macounii 

Slender Wheatgrass Agropyron caninum 

Crested Wheatgrass Agropyron cristatum 

Thickspike Wheatgrass Agropyron dasystachyum 

Crested Wheatgrass Agropyron desertorum

Tall Wheatgrass Agropyron elongatum 

Griffin’s Wheatgrass Agropyron griffithsii 

Intermediate 

Wheatgrass Agropyron intermedium 

Quackgrass * Agropyron repens 

Western Wheatgrass Agropyron smithii

Bluebunch Wheatgrass Agropyron spicatum 

Ticklegrass Agrostis scabra

Redtop Agrostis stolonifera

Marsh Foxtail Alopecurus geniculatus 

Big Bluestem Andropogon gerardii 

Silver Bluestem Andropogon saccharoides

Little Bluestem Andropogon scoparius.

Italian Windgrass Apera interrupta 

Forktip Threeawn Aristida basiramea 

Fendler Threeawn Aristida purpurea 

Red Threeawn Aristida purpurea

Cultivated Oats Avena fatua var. sativa 

Side-oats Grama Bouteloua curtipendula 

Blue Grama Bouteloua gracilis 

Hairy Grama Bouteloua hirsuta 

Rattlesnake Grass Bromus briziformis 

Smooth Brome Bromus inermis 

Japanese Brome Bromus japonicus

Downy Brome * Bromus tectorum

Buffalo-grass Buchloe dactyloides 

Northern Reedgrass Calamagrostis stricta 

Field Sandbur Cenchrus longispinus 

Rescuegrass Ceratochloa marginata 

Bermuda Grass Cynodon dactylon 

Orchardgrass Dactylis glomerata

Poverty Oatgrass Danthonia spicata 

Slimleaf Dichanthelium Dichanthelium linearifolium 

Scribner Dichanthelium Dichanthelium oligosanthes 

Hairy Crabgrass Digitaria sanguinalis 

Inland Salt Grass Distichlis spicata

Barnyard Grass Echinochloa crusgallii.

Canada Wild Rye Elymus canadensis

Russian Wild Rye Elymus juncea

Stinkgrass Eragrostis cilianensis 

Weeping Lovegrass Eragrostis curvula 

Little Lovegrass Eragrostis minor 

India Lovegrass Eragrostis pilosa

Sand Lovegrass Eragrostis trichodes 

Six-weeks Fescue Festuca octoflora

Sheep’s Fescue Festuca ovina 

Meadow Fescue Festuca pratensis

Tall Mannagrass Glyceria grandis 

Fowl Mannagrass Glyceria striata 

Meadow Barley Hordeum brachyantherum 

Foxtail Barley Hordeum jubatum

Little Barley Hordeum pusillum

Junegrass Koeleria pyramidata 

Rice Cutgrass Leersia oryzoides 

Italian Ryegrass Lolium perenne 

Perennial Ryegrass Lolium perenne

Wolftail Lycurus phleoides 

Scratchgrass Muhlenbergia asperifolia 

Muhly Muhlenbergia filiformis 

Mountain Muhly Muhlenbergia montana 

Marsh Muhly Muhlenbergia racemosa

Spike Muhly Muhlenbergia wrightii 

Indian Ricegrass Oryzopsis hymenoides 

Witchgrass Panicum capillare 

Fall Panicum Panicum dichotomiflorum

Switchgrass Panicum virgatum 

Reed Canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea 

Timothy Phleum pratense

Common Reed Phragmites australis 

Bulbous Bluegrass Poa bulbosa 

Canby’s Bluegrass Poa canbyi 

Canada Bluegrass Poa compress

Muttongrass Poa fendleriana 

Alkali Bluegrass Poa juncifolia

Fowl Bluegrass Poa palustris

Kentucky Bluegrass Poa pratensis

Rabbitfoot Grass Polypogon monspeliensis 

Tumblegrass Schedonnardus paniculatus.

Rye Secale cereale 

Green Foxtail Setaria viridis 

Squirreltail Sitanion hystrix 

Indian-grass Sorghastrum nutans 

Prairie Cordgrass Spartina pectinata 

Prairie Wedgegrass Sphenopholis obtusata.

Rough Dropseed Sporobolus asper 

Sand Dropseed Sporobolus cryptandrus 

Prairie Dropseed Sporobolus heterolepis 

Poverty Grass Sporobolus neglectus 

Needle-and-thread Stipa comata 

New Mexico Feather 

Grass Stipa neomexicana 

Sleepy Grass Stipa robusta 

Porcupine-grass Stipa spartea 

Green Needlegrass Stipa viridula 

Wheat Triticum aestivum 

Narrow-leaved Cattail Typha angustifolia 

Common Cattail Typha latifolia 

Blue-eyed Grass Sisyrinchium montanum 

Articulate Rush Juncus articulatus 

Baltic Rush Juncus balticus 
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 191

Appendix G: Species Lists

Toad Rush Juncus bufonius 

Dudley Rush Juncus dudleyi 

Swordleaf rush Juncus ensifolius 

Inland Rush Juncus interior

Longstyle rush Juncus longistylis

Knotted Rush Juncus nodosus 

Torrey’s Rush Juncus torreyi 

Tracy Rush Juncus tracyi

Spikerush Eleocharis acicularis 

Spikerush Eleocharis compressa 

Spikerush Eleocharis macrostachya 

Blunt Spikerush Eleocharis obtusa

Spikerush Eleocharis parvula 

Bulrush Scirpus acutus 

Bulrush Scirpus pallidus 

Pungent Bulrush Scirpus pungens 

Bulrush Scirpus validus 

Slenderbeak sedge Carex athrostachya 

Golden sedge Carex aurea 

Bebs sedge Carex bebbii 

Short-beaked sedge Carex brevior

Douglas sedge Carex douglasii

Narrowleaf sedge Carex eleocharis 

Emory’s sedge Carex emoryi

Threadleaf sedge Carex filifolia

Bottlebrush sedge Carex hystericina

Inland sedge Carex interior 

Sun sedge Carex inops ssp. heliophila

Woolly sedge Carex lanuginosa

Nebraska sedge Carex nebrascensis

Grassyslope sedge Carex oreocharis

Clustered field sedge Carex praegracilis 

Beaked sedge Carex rostrata 

Broom sedge Carex scoparia 

Analogue sedge Carex simulata 

Prickly sedge Carex stipata 

Fox Sedge Carex vulpinoidea 

Field Horsetail Equisetum arvense 

Smooth Horsetail Equisetum laevigatum 

Variegated Scouring 

Rush Equisetum variegatum 

FORBS

Yarrow Achillea millefolium 

False Dandelion Agoseris glauca 

Striate Agrimony Agrimonia striata 

American Water 

Plantain Alisma trivale 

Wild Onion Allium cernuum 

Geyer’s Onion Allium geyeri 

Wild White Onion Allium textile 

Alder Alnus incana 

Pale Alyssum Alyssum alyssoides 

Alyssum Alyssum minus 

Tumbleweed Amaranthus albus 

Prostrate Pigweed Amaranthus graecizans 

Rough Pigweed Amaranthus retroflexus 

Common Ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifolia 

Western Ragweed Ambrosiapsilostachya 

Giant Ragweed Ambrosia trifida 

Robust Toothcup Ammania robusta 

False Indigo Amorpha fruticosa 

Western Rock Jasmine Androsace occidentalis 

Candle Anemone Anemone cylindrica 

Pasque-flower Anemone patens 

Pink Pussytoes Antennaria microphylla 

Pussytoes Antennaria parvifolia 

Dog Fennel Anthemis cotula 

Spreading Dogbane Apocynum androsaemifolium 

Hemp Dogbane Apocynum cannabinum 

Rock Cress Arabis fendleri 

Tower Mustard Arabis glabra 

Rock Cress Arabis hirsuta 

Burdock * Arctium minus 

Fendler’s Sandwort Arenaria fendleri 

Prickly Poppy Argemone polyanthemos 

Arnica Arnica fulgens 

Swamp Milkweed Asclepias incarnata 

Plains Milkweed Asclepias pumila 

Showy Milkweed Asclepias speciosa 

Narrow-leaved Milkweed Asclepias stenophylla 

Green Milkweed Asclepias viridiflora 

Asparagus Asparagus officinalis 

Madwort Asperugo procumbens 

Meadow Aster Aster campestris 

Aster Aster falcatus 

Fendler’s Aster Aster fendleri 

Panicled Aster Aster hesperius 

Smooth Blue Aster Aster laevis 

Aster Aster porteri 

Standing Milkvetch Astragalus adsurgens 

Field Milkvetch Astragalus agrestis 

Two-grooved Vetch Astragalus bisulcatus 

Canada Milk-vetch Astragalus canadensis 

Ground-plum Astragalus crassicarpus 

Drummond Milkvetch Astragalus drummondii 

Pliant Milkvetch Astragalus flexuosus 

Lotus Milk-Vetch Astragalus lotiflorus 

Parry’s Milkvetch Astragalus parryi 

Short’s Milkvetch Astragalus shortianus 

Draba Milk-Vetch Astragalus spathulatus 

Foothill Milkvetch Astragalus tridactylicus 

Yellowrocket 

Wintercress Barbarea vulgaris 

Water Parsnip Berula erecta 

Nodding Beggarticks Bidens cernua 

Beggar-ticks Bidens frondosa 

Water Starwort Callitriche verna 

Sego Lily Calochortus gunnisonii 

Plains Yellow Primrose Calylophus serrulatus 

Small-seeded False Flax Camelina microcarpa 

Harebell Campanularotundifolia 

Shepherd’s Purse Capsella bursa-pastoris 

Lens-padded Hoary 

Cress Cardaria chalepensis 

Hoary Cress * Cardaria draba 

Musk Thistle * Carduus nutans 
192 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix G: Species Lists

Orange Paintbrush Castilleja integra 

Downy Paintbrush Castilleja sessiliflora. 

Diffuse Knapweed * Centaurea diffusa 

Russian Knapweed * Centaurea repens 

Yellow Star Thistle Centaurea solstitialis 

Prairie Chickweed Cerastium arvense 

Short-stalked 

Chickweed Cerastiumbrachypodum 

Common Mouse-Ear Cerastium vulgatum 

Coontail Ceratophyllum demersum 

Lamb’s Quarters Chenopodium album 

Dark Goosefoot Chenopodium atrovirens 

Pitseed Goosefoot Chenopodium berlandieri 

Jerusalem Oak Chenopodium botrys 

Desert goosefoot Chenopodium dessicatum 

Fremont Goosefoot Chenopodium fremontii 

Goosefoot Chenopodium leptophyllum 

Overi’s Goosefoot Chenopodium overi 

Blue Mustard Chorispora tenella 

Ox-eye Daisy Chrysanthemum leucanthemum 

Golden Aster Chrysopsis fulcrata 

Golden Aster Chrysopsis villosa 

Common Chicory * Cichorium intybus 

Water Hemlock Cicuta maculata 

Canada Thistle * Cirsium arvense 

Flodman’s Thistle Cirsium flodmanni 

Yellow Spine Thistle Cirsium ochrocentrum 

Wavyleaf Thistle Cirsium undulatum 

Bull Thistle * Cirsium vulgare 

Spring Beauty Claytonia rosea 

Rocky Mountain 

Beeplant Cleome serrulata 

Blue Lips Collinsia parviflora 

Collomia Collomia linearis 

Bastard Toadflax Comandra umbellata 

Poison Hemlock * Conium maculatum 

Community Campion Conosilene conica 

Hare’s-ear Mustard Conringia orientalis 

Horseweed Conyza canadensis 

Crown Vetch Coronilla varia 

Nipple Cactus Coryphantha missouriensis 

Hawksbeard Crepis occidentalis 

Hawksbeard Crepis runcinata 

Miners Candle Cryptantha virgata 

Dodder Cuscuta approximata 

Hound’s Tongue Cynoglossum officinale 

Taperleaf Flatsedge Cyperus acuminatus 

Fragile Fern Cystopteris fragilis 

White Prairie Clover Dalea candida 

Purple Prairie Clover Dalea purpurea 

Wild Carrot Daucus carota 

Blue Larkspur Delphinium nuttalianum 

Prairie Larkspur Delphinium virescens 

Tansy Mustard Descurainia pinnata 

Tansy Mustard Descurainia richardsonii 

Flixweed Descurainia sophia 

Shooting Star Dodecatheon pulchellum 

Yellow Whitlowort Draba nemorosa 

White Whitlowort Draba reptans 

Dragonhead Dracocephalum parviflorum 

Fetid Marigold Dyssodia papposa 

Hedgehog Cactus Echinocereus viridiflorus 

Willow Herb Epilobium ciliatum 

Willow Herb Epilobium paniculatum 

Fleabane Erigeron canus 

Fleabane Erigeron compositus 

Fleabane Erigeron divergens 

Fleabane Erigeron flagellaris 

Fleabane Erigeron pumilus 

Oregon Fleabane Erigeron speciosa 

Daisy Fleabane Erigeron strigosus 

LaVeta Fleabane Erigeron vetensis 

Winged Eriogonum Eriogonum alatum 

Spreading Wild 

Buckwheat Eriogonum effusum 

James’ Wild 

Buckwheat Eriogonum jamesii 

Sulphur Flower Eriogonum umbellatum 

Filaria Erodium cicutarium 

Western Wallflower Erysimum capitatum 

Bushy Wallflower Erysimum repandum 

Toothed Spurge Euphorbia dentata 

Fendler’s Euphorbia Euphorbia fendleri 

Snow-on-the-Mountain Euphorbia marginata 

Spurge Euphorbia robusta 

Thyme-leaved Spurge Euphorbia serpyllifolia 

Spurge Euphorbia spathulata 

Fumitory Fumaria vaillentii 

Blanket Flower Gaillardia aristata 

Catchweed Bedstraw Galium aparine 

Northern Bedstraw Galium septentrionale

Scarlet Gaura Gaura coccinea 

Velvety Gaura Gaura parviflora 

Yellow Avens Geum aleppicum 

Large-leaved Avens Geum macrophyllum

Northern Gentian Gentiana affinis 

Common Wild 

Geranium Geranium caespitosum 

Gilia Gilia opthalmoides 

Wild Licorice Glycyrrhiza lepidota 

Cotton-batting Gnapthalium chilense 

Hedge Hyssop Gratiola neglecta 

Curly-top Gumweed Grindelia squarrosa 

Northern Green Orchid Habenaria hyperborea 

Large-flowered 

Stickseed Hackelia floribunda 

Cutleaf Ironplant Happlopappus spinulosus 

Whiskbroom Parsley Harbouria trachypleura 

Rough False 

Pennyroyal Hedeoma hispidum 

Common Sunflower Helianthus annuus 

Texas Blue Weed Helianthus ciliaris 

Maximilian Sunflower Helianthus maximilianii 

Nuttall’s Sunflower Helianthus nuttallii 

Plains Sunflower Helianthus petiolaris 

Sunflower Helianthus pumilus 

Stiff Sunflower Helianthus rigidus 

Showy Goldeneye Heliomeris multiflora 
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 193

Appendix G: Species Lists

Cow Parsnip Heracleum sphondylium 

Dame’s Rocket * Hesperis matronalis 

Alumroot Heuchera parvifolia 

Nodding Green Violet Hybanthus verticillatus 

Waterleaf Hydrophyllum fendleri 

Hymenopappus Hymenopappus filifolius 

Greater St. John’s-wort Hypericum majus 

Common St. John’swort * Hypericum perforatum 

Spike Gilia Ipomopsis spicata 

Western Blue Flag Iris missouriensis 

Poverty Weed Iva axillaris 

Marsh Elder Iva xanthifolia 

Kochia Kochia scoparia 

False Boneset Kuhnia chlorolepis 

False Boneset Kuhnia eupatorioides 

Blue Lettuce Lactuca oblongifolia. 

Prickly Lettuce Lactuca serriola 

Stickseed Lappula redowskii 

Purple Peavine Lathyrus eucosmus 

Duckweed Lemna minor 

Field Peppergrass Lepidium campestre 

Peppergrass Lepidium densiflorum 

Bladderpod Lesquerella montana 

White Aster Leucelene ericoides 

Mountain Lily Leucocrinum montanum 

Blazing Star Liatris punctata 

Porter’s Lovage Ligusticum porteri 

Mudwort Limosella aquatica 

Texas Toadflax Linaria canadensis. 

Dalmatian Toadflax * Linaria dalmatica 

Butter-and-eggs* Linaria vulgaris 

Blue Flax Linum perenne 

Norton’s Flax Linum pratense 

Plains Flax Linum puberulum 

Fog-fruit Lippia cuneifolia 

Puccoon Lithospermum incisum 

Puccoon Lithospermum multiflorum

Great Lobelia Lobelia siphilitica 

Wild Parsley Lomatium orientale 

Birdfoot Trefoil Lotus corniculatus 

Silvery Lupine Lupinus argenteus 

American Bugleweed Lycopus americanus 

Rough Bugleweed Lycopus asper 

Skeleton-weed Lygodesmia juncea 

Fringed Loostrife Lysimachia ciliata 

Winged Loosestrife Lythrum alatum 

Bigelovi’s Tansy Aster Machaeranthera bigelovii 

Hoary Aster Machaeranthera canescens 

Tarweed Madia glomerata 

Common Mallow Malva neglecta 

Common Horehound Marrubium vulgare 

Black Medick Medicago lupulina 

Alfalfa Medicago sativa 

White Sweetclover Melilotus alba 

Yellow Sweetclover Melilotus officinalis 

Field Mint Mentha arvensis 

Bluebells Mertensia lanceolata 

False Dandelion Microseris cuspidata 

Monkey Flower Mimulus floribundus 

Roundleaf Monkeyflower Mimulus glabratus 

Hairy Four-O’Clock Mirabilis hirsuta 

Narrowleaf Four 

O’Clock Mirabilis linearis 

Wild Four-O’Clock Mirabilis nyctaginea 

Wild Bergamot Monarda fistulosa 

Spotted Bee-Balm Monarda pectinata 

Musineon Musineon divaricatum 

Mousetail Myosurus minimus 

American Milfoil Myriophyllum exalbescens. 

Watercress Nasturtium officinale 

Navarretia Navarretia minima 

Catnip Nepeta cataria 

Evening Primrose Oenothera flava 

Yellow Stemless 

Evening Primrose Oenothera howardii 

Common Evening 

Primrose Oenothera villosa 

Scotch Thistle * Onopordum acanthium 

False Gromwell Onosmodium molle 

Pale Evening Primrose Onothera albicaulis 

Little Prickly Pear Opuntia fragilis 

Twistspine Prickly Pear Opuntia macrorhiza 

Plains Prickly Pear Opuntia polyacantha 

Broomrape Orobanche fasciculata 

Sweet Cicely Osmorhiza chiliensis 

Anise Root Osmorhiza longistylis 

Gray-Green Wood 

Sorrel Oxalis dillenii. 

Purple Locoweed Oxytropis lambertii 

Pennsylvania Pellitory Parietaria pensylvanica 

James’ Nailwort Paronychia jamesii 

Nipple Cactus Pediocactus simpsonii 

White Beardtongue Penstemon albidus 

Penstemon Penstemon secundiflorus 

Rocky Mountain 

Penstemon Penstemon strictus 

Slender Penstemon Penstemon virens 

Penstemon Penstemon virgatus 

Scorpionweed Phacelia heterophylla 

Clammy Ground cherry Physalis heterophylla 

Prairie Ground Cherry Physalis pumila 

Virginia Ground Cherry Physalis virginiana 

Double Bladder-pod Physaria vitulifera 

Picradeniopsis Picradeniopsis oppositifolia 

Popcorn Flower Plagiobothrys scouleri 

English Plantain Plantago lanceolata 

Common Plantain Plantago major 

Patagonian Plantain Plantago patagonica. 

Clammy-weed Polansia dodecandra 

Knotweed Polygonum arenastrum. 

Wild Buckwheat Polygonum convolvulus. 

Knotweed Polygonum douglasii 

Water Pepper Polygonum hydropiper 

Pale Smartweed Polygonum lapathifolium 

Pennsylvania Smartweed Polygonum pensylvanicum 

Lady’s Thumb Polygonum persicaria 
194 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix G: Species Lists

Knotweed Polygonum ramosissimum 

Knotweed Polygonum sawatchense 

Common Purslane Portulaca oleracea 

Leafy Pondweed Potamogeton foliosus 

Floatingleaf Pondweed Potamogeton natans 

Tall Cinquefoil Potentilla arguta 

Cinquefoil Potentilla fissa 

Cinquefoil Potentilla gracilis 

Wooly Cinquefoil Potentilla hippiana 

Norwegian Cinquefoil Potentilla norvegica 

Bushy Cinquefoil Potentilla paradoxa 

Cinquefoil Potentilla pensylvanica 

Hybrid Cinquefoil Potentilla pulcherrima x 

 hippiana 

Cinquefoil Potentilla rivalis 

Selfheal Prunella vulgaris 

Wild Alfala Psoralea tenuiflora 

Purple Ground Cherry Quincula lobata 

Macoun’s Buttercup Ranunculus macounii 

Cursed Crowfoot Ranunculus scleratus 

Hairy Leaf Buttercup Ranunculus trichophyllus 

Prairie Coneflower Ratibida columnifera 

Bog Yellow Cress Rorippa palustris 

Goldenglow Rudbeckia ampla 

Sheep Sorrel Rumex acetosella 

Curly Dock Rumex crispus 

Golden Dock Rumex maritimus 

Bitter Dock Rumex obtusifolius 

Willow Dock Rumex salicifolius. 

Common Arrowhead Sagittaria latifolia 

Russian-Thistle Salsola iberica 

Lance-leaved Sage Salvia reflexa 

Bouncing Bet Saponaria officinalis 

Diamondleaf Saxifrage Saxifraga rhomoidea 

False Salsify Scorzonera laciniata 

Figwort Scrophularia lanceolata 

Britton’s Skullcap Scutellaria brittonii 

Stonecrop Sedum lanceolatum 

Spikemoss Selaginella densa 

Groundsel Senecio fendleri 

Groundsel Senecio integerrimus 

Prairie Ragwort Senecio plattensis 

Groundsel Senecio spartioides 

Groundsel Senecio tridenticulatus 

White Checkermallow Sidalcea candida 

New Mexico 

Checkmallow Sidalcea neomexicana 

Sleepy Catchfly Silene antirrhina 

Campion Silene drummondii 

White Campion Silene pratensis 

Tumbling Mustard Sisymbrium altissimum 

Spikenard Smilacina stellata (L.) 

Carrion Flower Smilax herbacea 

Buffalo Bur Solanum rostratum 

Cut-leaved Nightshade Solanum triflorum 

Canada Goldenrod Solidago canadensis 

Late Goldenrod Solidago gigantea 

Prairie Goldenrod Solidago missouriensis 

Soft Goldenrod Solidago mollis 

Low Goldenrod Solidago nana 

Rigid Goldenrod Solidago rigida 

Field Sow Thistle Sonchus arvensis 

Prickly Sow Thistle Sonchus asper 

Sand Spurry Spergularia rubra 

Red False Mallow Sphaeralcea coccinea 

Hedge Nettle Stachys palustris 

Long-leaved Stitchwort Stellaria longifolia 

Wire Lettuce Stephanomeria pauciflora 

Green Gentian Swertia radiata 

Prairie Fameflower Talinum parviflorum 

Red Seeded Dandelion Taraxacum laevigatum 

Dandelion Taraxacum officinale 

Purple Meadow Rue Thalictrum dasycarpum 

Greenthread Thelesperma megapotanicum 

Golden Banner Thermopsis rhombifolia var. 

 divaricarpa 

Field Penny Cress Thlaspi arvense 

Easter Daisy Townsendia grandiflora 

Easter Daisy Townsendia hookeri 

Spiderwort Tradescantia occidentalis 

Noseburn Tragia ramosa 

Goat’s Beard Tragopogon dubius 

Salsify Tragopogon porrifolius 

Alsike Clover Trifolium hybridum 

Red Clover Trifolium pratense 

White Clover Trifolium repens 

Venus’ Looking Glass Triodanis leptocarpa 

Venus Looking Glass Triodanis perfoliata 

Stinging Nettle Urtica dioica 

Cow Cockle Vaccaria pyramidata 

Moth Mullein * Verbascum blattaria 

Common Mullein * Verbascum thapsus 

Prostrate Vervain Verbena bracteata 

Blue Vervain Verbena hastata 

Golden Crownbeard Verbesina encelioides 

Brooklime Speedwell Veronica americana 

Water Speedwell Veronica anagallis-aquatica 

Catenate Ironweed Veronica catentata 

Purslane Speedwell Veronica peregrina 

American Vetch Vicia americana 

Yellow Prairie Violet Viola nuttallii 

Rydberg’s Violet Viola rydbergii 

Colorado Violet Viola scopulorum 

Northern Bog Violet Viola sororia 

Cocklebur Xanthium strumarium 

Death Camass Zigadenus venenosus 

SHRUBS

Saskatoon Service-berry Amelanchier alnifolia 

Dwarf Wild Indigo Amorpha nana

Western Sagewort Artemisia campestris 

Silky Wormwood Artemisia dracunculus 

Silver Sage Artemisia frigida 

White Sage Artemisia ludoviciana 

Four-winged Saltbush Atriplex canescens 

Oregon Grape Berberis repens 

Buckbrush Ceanothus fendleri 
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 195

Appendix G: Species Lists

New Jersey Tea Ceanothus herbaceus 

Greenplume 

Rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus nauseosus 

Rubber Rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus nauseosus 

Hawthorne Crataegus erythropoda 

Hawthorn Crataegus succulenta 

Snakeweed Gutierrezia sarothrae

Common Juniper Juniperus communis 

Mountain Ninebark Physocarpus monogynus 

Ninebark Physocarpus opulifolius 

Wild Plum Prunus americana 

Sand Cherry Prunus pumila 

Chokecherry Prunus virginiana 

Apple Pyrus malus 

Fragrant Sumac Rhus aromatica

Golden Currant Ribes aureum 

Western Red Currant Ribes cereum 

Common Gooseberry Ribes inerme 

Prickly Wild Rose Rosa acicularis 

Prairie Wild Rose Rosa arkansana 

Western Wild Rose Rosa woodsii 

Boulder Raspberry Rubus deliciosus 

Raspberry Rubus idaeus 

Coyote Willow Salix exigua 

Sandbar Willow Salix exigua 

Bluestem willow Salix irrorata 

Yellow Willow Salix lutea 

Burnet Sanguisorba minor 

Mountain Ash Sorbus scopulina 

Western Snowberry Symphoricarpos occidentalis 

Snowberry Symphoricarpos oreophilus

Salt Cedar * Tamarix ramosissima

Highbush Cranberry Viburnum opulus 

Yucca Yucca glauca 

TREES

Mountain Maple Acer glabrum 

Box-elder Acer negundo 

Norway Maple Acer platanoides 

Water Birch Betula occidentalis 

Russian Olive * Elaeagnus angustifolia 

Green Ash Fraxinus pennsylvania 

Rocky Mountain 

Juniper Juniperus scopulorum 

Blue Spruce Picea pungens 

Ponderosa Pine Pinus ponderosa 

Silver Poplar Populus alba 

Narrow-leaved 

Cottonwood Populus angustifolia 

Plains Cottonwood Populus deltoides 

Lanceleaf Cottonwood Populus x acuminata 

Douglas-Fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 

Black Locust Robinia pseudo-acacia

Peach-leaf Willow Salix amygdaloides 

Crack Willow Salix fragilis 

Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila 

VINES

Hedge Bindweed Calystegia macouni 

Hedge Bindweed Calystegia sepium 

Hairy Clematis Clematis hirsutissima 

Western Clematis Clematis ligusticifolia 

Field Bindweed * Convolvulus arvensis 

Evolvulus Evolvulus nuttallianus 

Common Hops Humulus lupulus 

Poison Ivy Toxicodendron rydbergii 

Puncture Vine Tribulus terrestris 

River-bank Grape Vitis riparia 

OTHERS

The following types plants have also been identified at Rocky Flats: 

x 15 mosses 

x 24 lichens
appendix h

Record of Decision
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 199

Appendix H: Record of Decision

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 
200 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix H: Record of Decision

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
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 201

Appendix H: Record of Decision

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. 
202 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix H: Record of Decision

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:

x The majority of the Rocky Flats site

has generally remained undisturbed

since its acquisition by the federal 

government.

x 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. 

x 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: 

x Restoring and preserving native 

ecosystems

x Providing habitat for and population 

management of native plants and

migratory and resident wildlife

x Conserving threatened and 

endangered species (including

species that are candidates for listing 

under the Endangered Species Act) 

x 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
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 203

Appendix H: Record of Decision

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
204 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix H: Record of Decision

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:

x Vegetation and Wildlife Management

Plan

x Integrated Pest Management Plan

x Fire Management Plan

x Health and Safety Plan

x Historic Preservation Plan

x 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.
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 205

Appendix H: Record of Decision

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
206 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix H: Record of Decision
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 207

Appendix H: Record of Decision

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
208 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix H: Record of Decision

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:

x Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry

x City of Westminster

x Colorado Attorney General’s Office 

x Colorado Department of Agriculture

x Colorado Department of Public

Health and Environment 

x Colorado Department of 

Transportation

x Colorado Division of Minerals and

Geology

x Colorado Division of Wildlife 

x Colorado Geological Society

x Colorado Historical Society

x Colorado State Parks

x Denver Regional Council of 

Governments

x Federal Aviation Administration

x Governor Owens’ Office

x Rocky Flats Coalition of Local 

Governments

x State Land Board 

x Senator Allard’s Office 

x U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

x U.S. Department of Energy 

x U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency

x U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

x Urban Drainage and Flood Control 

District

x 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 
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 209

Appendix H: Record of Decision

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:

x Contamination and cleanup

x Public use 

x 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
210 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix H: Record of Decision

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
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 211

Appendix H: Record of Decision

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 
212 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix H: Record of Decision

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 
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 213

Appendix H: Record of Decision

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.
appendix i

List of Preparers
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 217

Appendix I : List of Preparers

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Name Responsibilities Education Experience

Dean Rundle Refuge Manager B.S. Fisheries and Wildlife 29 years

M.S. Fisheries and Wildlife

Laurie Shannon Team Leader, RF CCP Plan B.S. Recreation Resources Mgmt. 27 years

Michael Spratt Chief of Refuge Planning B.S. Forestry 23 years

Region 6 M.S. Landscape Architecture

Mark Sattelberg Contaminants Biologist RF B.A. Chemistry and Biology 15 years

M.S. Biology

Andrew Todd Water Quality Specialist B.A. Biology 6 years

M.S. Civil Engineering/Water Res.

Amy Thornburg Refuge Operations Specialist B.S. Wildlife Biology 9 years

Sherry James Supervisory Park Ranger 14 years

Visitor Services, RMA

Bruce Hastings Supervisor, Wildlife/Habitat B.S. Chemistry and Psychology 18 years

RMA M.S. Wildlife Science

Ph.D. Ecology

Lorenz Sollmann Integrated Pest Management B.S. Wildlife Biology 9 years

Fire Management, RMA

Robin Romero Biocontrol of weeds, RF B.S. Animal Science 10 years

Planning Assistance M.S. Biology/Entomology

Beth Dickerson Planning Assistance M.S. Biology 4 years

Preble’s Consultation

SHAPINS ASSOCIATES, INC.

Name Responsibilities Education Experience

Ann Moss Project Manager, CCP B.A. Art and Art History 27 Years

Masters of Landscape Architecture

Mimi Mather Planner, CCP; Public Use B.A. Sociology 5 Years

Masters of Landscape Architecture

Brian Braa Planner, CCP; Public Use B.S. Accounting 5 Years

Masters of Landscape Architecture
218 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix I : List of Preparers

RESOLVE

Name Responsibilities Education Experience

Mike Hughes Facilitation B.A. Political Science 20 Years 

Masters of City Planning

Jody Erikson Facilitation B.A. Human Communication 4 Years

ERO RESOURCES CORP.

Name Responsibilities Education Experience

Richard Trenholme Project Manager, EIS B.S. Agronomy 25 years

Bill Mangle Project Planning and B.S. History/Political Science 6 years

Coordination M.S. Natural Resource Policy/Planning

Ron Beane Wildlife B.S. Biology 28 years

M.S. Wildlife Biology

Mark DeHaven Vegetation, Soils, and Geology B.A., Business 24 years

M.S., Natural Resources

Barbara Galloway Water Resources and B.A., Environmental Conservation 20 years

Aquatic Life and Biology

M.S., Water Resources

Michael Simler GIS B.S., Biology 5 years

Martha Clark Technical Editor B.A., English 18 years

ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTORS

The following individuals also contributed to the development of the CCP/EIS by sharing their knowledge in planning

workshops or at other times during the planning process. 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, REGION 6 REGIONAL OFFICE

Name

Rick Coleman Chief of Refuges 

Ron Cole Former Region 6 Program Supervisor (CO, KS, NE)

Ron Shupe Region 6 Program Supervisor (CO, KS, NE)

Larry Gamble Chief, Environmental Contaminants

Mark Ely Planning, GIS and Mapping Coordinator

Sheri Fetherman Chief, Education and Visitor Services Division

Melvie Uhland Education and Visitor Services, CO/KS/NE

Ken Kerr Zone Fire Management Officer, CO/KS/NE
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 219

Appendix I : List of Preparers

Harvey Wittmier Chief, Realty Division

David Redhorse External Affairs

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, REGION 6 ECOLOGICAL SERVICES

Name

Lee Carlson Former CO Ecological Services Field Office 

Supervisor

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, COLORADO FISH AND WILDLIFE ASSISTANCE OFFICE

Name

Bruce Rosenlund Colorado Fish and Wildlife Management Assistance Office

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, PRIVATE LANDS

Name

Bill Noonan Private Lands Coordinator

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, WASHINGTON OFFICE

Name

Liz Bellatoni Planning Coordinator 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL NWR STAFF

Name

Vic Elam Refuge Operations Specialist

Stephen Smith Civil Engineer

Tom Jackson Remedy Coordinator

Mindy Hetrick Wildlife Biologist

Eric Stone Wildlife Biologist

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, ROCKY FLATS FIELD OFFICE

Name

Cliff Franklin

John Rampe
220 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

Appendix I : List of Preparers

KAISER-HILL/LABAT-ANDERSON

Name

Jody Nelson Plant Ecologist

COLORADO DIVISION OF WILDLIFE

Name

Mike Wedermyer District Wildlife Manager

Aaron Lindstrom Wildlife Biologist
index
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 223

Index

INDEX

A

Access S4, S5, S7, S8, 7, 10, 20, 21, 37, 39, 47, 51, 53, 54,

56, 59, 61, 62, 68, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 80, 85, 86,87, 90, 91,

92, 93, 96, 100, 101, 102, 103, 129, 166

Accessible facilities 74, 87, 90, 125

Adaptive management 120, 125

Air quality 61-62, 77, 78, 82, 106, 114, 165

Aquatic species 45, 48

B

Bald eagle 4, 48, 107, 113

Biking 56, 59, 74, 127-128

Biological control 82

Birds 5, 36, 42, 45, 76, 85, 106, 108, 125, 127, 167

Blinds, viewing 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 91, 108, 72, 107, 108

Buffer Zone 3, 63

C

Candidate species 41, 46, 48, 83, 113, 125-126

Chronic Wasting Disease 125

Cleanup vi, S3, S5, S7, 3, 4, 7, 10, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 27, 32,

55, 61,71, 72, 84, 92, 125, 129, 167

Colorado Division of Wildlife vi, S7, 19, 62, 63, 64, 76, 102,

130, 220

Colorado Natural Heritage Program vi, 33, 63

Communication S5, S8, 7, 16, 62, 63, 64, 70, 71, 72, 218

Compatibility 4-6, 125, 167

Conservation easement 125-126

Contamination 3, 8, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 47-48

Culling 68, 82, 100, 107, 111, 114

Cultural resources S6, 4, 19, 20, 49-50, 62, 70, 72, 73, 86,

87, 96, 97, 105, 127

Cumulative impacts 21, 64, 109

D

Deer S6, S7, S8, S9, 6, 36, 39, 41, 47, 48, 68, 73, 76, 82, 85,

88, 89, 100, 102, 106, 107, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114,

125,130

Department of Energy vi, S3, S7, 3, 19, 62, 64, 109, 129,

219,

Ditches 29, 36, 45, 49, 86

DOE retained lands 11, 96

E

Easement 53-54, 125-126, 129

Elk S3, S6, S7, S8, S9, 41, 47, 68, 73, 76, 82, 88, 89, 100,

102, 106, 107, 108, 110, 111, 113, 114, 125,130

Endangered Species Act vi, 6, 48, 125-126, 165

Environmental education S4, S7, S8, 5, 7, 11, 19, 72, 73,

86, 87, 88, 89, 102, 126, 128, 130, 167

Environmental Justice 115, 166

Environmental Protection Agency vi, S3, 3, 19, 64, 109,

129

Equestrian 20, 56, 59, 74, 75, 90, 91, 95, 101, 127-128

Erosion 27, 106, 107, 108, 110, 126

F

Fencing S4, 49, 56, 77, 78, 80, 82, 83, 86, 96, 99, 112, 127

Fire S9, 6, 11, 27, 39-40, 45, 63, 69, 78, 79, 81, 82, 90, 94,

95, 96, 104, 105, 119, 120, 128, 130, 217-218

Fire, prescribed 21, 68, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 93, 98, 99,

106, 107, 110, 112, 113

G

Geology 25-26, 48, 54, 62, 108, 110, 218

Global Positioning System vi, 82, 126

Goals S5, S7, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, 16, 18, 20, 68, 76, 77, 85, 87,

93-96, 113, 120, 121, 125, 127, 128, 129, 130

Grazing 45, 21, 55-56, 68, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 82, 83, 98, 99,

107, 107, 110, 111, 113, 114, 120, 127, 129

Ground water 27, 29-30, 32, 34
Index

224 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

H

Hay meadow S9, 78, 80, 98, 110, 126

Herbicide 80, 82

Highway 128 39, 47, 51, 53, 55-56, 60, 75, 114

Highway 72 51, 53, 56, 59, 61, 

Highway 93 7, 47, 51, 53-56, 59, 6171, 72, 114

Hiking 56, 59, 72, 89, 90, 102, 127-128

Hunting S7, S8, 5, 11, 21, 68, 71, 73, 82, 89, 100, 102, 107,

108, 111, 114, 120, 130, 167

I

Indiana Street 29, 41, 47, 51, 53-54, 61, 75, 79, 90, 114

Industrial Area S3, S7, 3, 8, 25, 29, 30, 32, 37, 41, 46, 51,

53, 54, 61, 63

Integrated Pest Management vi, S9, 11, 99, 107, 119, 126,

217

Interpretation S4, S5, S8, 5, 7, 11, 68, 70, 72, 73, 84, 86,

87, 91, 96, 97, 101, 102, 120, 130, 167

L

Lindsay Ponds 29, 46

Lindsay Ranch S6, S7, 20, 21, 49, 51, 60, 63, 70, 71, 74, 75,

86, 89, 90, 93, 96, 97, 101, 102, 105, 113

M

Mammals 5, 36, 39, 41, 47-48, 76, 106, 108

Management zones 32

Mineral rights 20, 53-54, 86

Mining S6, 21, 25, 47, 49, 53-56, 61, 126, 128

Mountain backdrop S4, 6, 60

Mountain plover 47

Mowing 77, 78, 80, 81, 98

N

National Environmental Policy Act vi, 127, 167

National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 4-5, 11,

15, 125, 129-130, 167

National Wind Technology Center vi, 64, 79, 109

Native American tribes 19, 128

Noise 61, 114

Noxious weeds 33, 37-39, 68, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 99, 127

O

Office space 92, 96

Off-trail use 74, 101, 108, 110, 111, 128

Open space vi, S4, S6, 6, 39, 45, 47, 53, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60,

62, 63, 64, 68, 71, 72, 84, 90, 91, 71, 104, 107, 108, 109, 113,

120

Overlook 68, 71, 74, 75, 87, 90, 102, 107, 110, 113, 114, 128

P

Parking S7, 72, 74, 75, 86, 90, 125

Partnerships S5, S7, S8, 7, 77, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 105, 120

Photography 5, 73, 108, 130, 167

Planning update 16, 18

Population targets S9, 82, 100, 111

Prairie dog, black-tailed 82, 83, 98, 100, 110, 111, 113, 114

Preble's meadow jumping mouse S6, S7, 4, 41, 48, 56, 64,

71, 76, 107, 108

Preferred Alternative 15, 128

Public involvement S6, 11, 15, 16, 17, 128

Public outreach 68, 70

Public use facilities S7, 72, 86, 91, 92, 96, 111, 114, 121

R

Record of Decision vi, S3, 3, 4, 16, 128

Refuge Act S3, S4, 4, 6, 7, 16, 17, 53, 54, 91, 167

Refuge operations vi, S3, S5, S8, 4, 7, 20, 217, 219

Refuge Recreation Act 4, 167

Refuge System Administration Act 4, 11, 167

Reintroduction S8, S9, 20, 45, 62, 68, 76, 78, 80, 83, 84, 98,

100, 107, 108, 111, 113, 121

Reptiles and amphibians 45

Research S4, S5, S6, S7, S8, 6, 7, 11, 55, 56, 62, 87, 88, 94,
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan 225

Index

95, 104, 108, 111, 112, 120, 125, 166

Response actions S7, 4, 7

Riparian S6, S9, 32, 33, 34, 36, 39, 42, 45, 46, 48, 56, 60,

68, 71, 74, 76, 78, 80, 81, 82, 85, 86, 100, 107, 108, 110, 111,

113, 120, 121, 129

Rock Creek S6, 25, 27, 29-30, 32, 34, 36-37, 39, 41, 46-48,

54, 56, 60, 63-64, 70, 71, 74, 75, 82, 84, 85, 86, 90, 100, 102,

108, 109

Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement vi, S3, 3, 129

S

Safety S4, S5, S7, S8, 7, 11, 15, 20, 27, 68, 70, 78, 80, 84,

85, 87, 88, 89, 92, 93, 94, 97, 103, 105, 114, 120, 121, 129,

165, 166

Scoping S7, 7, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 62, 70, 109 129

Seasonal closures 74, 129

Sharp-tailed grouse S9, 45, 47, 62-63, 68, 83, 84, 98, 100,

107, 111

Signage S4, 71, 72, 73, 75, 85, 86, 90, 91, 93, 96, 97, 101,

103, 105, 128

Significant issues 15, 20, 21, 129

Social trail 108, 111, 129

Soils 10, 25, 27-28, 33, 36-37, 42, 48, 83, 110, 121, 125, 218

Step-down management plan 5, 11, 119, 130

Stream crossing 129

T

Tall upland shrubland S6, 25, 32-34, 37, 42, 48, 82

Threatened species S6, 41, 48, 71, 76, 82, 130, 165

Tours, guided 72, 73, 75, 87, 92

Traffic 51, 53, 61-63, 114

Trail impacts S9

Trailheads S4, S7, 56, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 90, 91, 93, 102,

103, 108, 113, 121, 130

Trails S7, S9, 56, 58, 59, 60, 62, 64, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75,

76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 86, 90, 91, 95, 96, 101, 102,

104, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113, 121, 125, 127, 128, 129

U

Utilities 25, 32, 51-54, 119

V

Vauxmont 55, 59

Vegetation communities S6, S9, 25, 32, 33, 48, 49, 107,

110, 111, 112, 121

Visitor center 22, 130

Visitor contact station S7, 75, 96, 101, 121, 130

Visitor use S7, S9, 4, 27, 72, 86, 91, 96, 106, 120

Visual resources 60-61, 107, 114

Volunteers 72, 73, 87, 94, 95, 96, 104, 121, 94

W

Walnut Creek 27, 29, 32, 39, 41, 45-47, 59-60, 79, 84

Water rights 21, 53, 55, 62

Weed management S8, S9, 34, 68, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82,

90, 99, 106, 107, 110, 111, 112, 113, 121, 127

Wetland S5, 7, 33-34, 36, 42, 48, 56, 73, 76, 84, 85, 107,

110, 127, 165

Wildlife and Habitat Management S5, S8, 7, 76, 78, 99,

100, 112, 121 

Wildlife-dependent public use S7, 5

Woman Creek S6, 27, 29-30, 32, 36-37, 39, 41, 46-49, 54-56,

73, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 98, 100, 110, 111, 112, 113, 120, 121 

X

Xeric tallgrass S3, S4, S5, S6, S8, 6, 7, 32, 33, 37, 48, 71,

77, 80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 98, 100, 110, 111, 112, 113, 120, 121