U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

Draft Environmental Assessment 

and Land Protection Plan 

Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 
The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service is working with others to conserve, 

protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, 

and their habitats for the continuing 

benefit of the American people. 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System is 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 within the 

United States for the benefit of present 

and future generations of Americans. 

Cover photograph of Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge in Jefferson County, Colorado. 

Michael D. Dixon / USFWS 

Page i 

Contents 

1.0 Introduction and Project Description................................................................................................. 1
 

1.1	 Background ............................................................................................................................ 1
 

1.2	 Proposed Action..................................................................................................................... 1
 

1.3	 Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action............................................................................. 2
 

1.4	 Decisions to Be Made ............................................................................................................ 3
 

1.5	 Issues Identified and Selected for Analysis............................................................................ 4
 

1.6	 National Wildlife Refuge System and Authorities................................................................. 7
 

2.0 Description of Alternatives .................................................................................................................. 9
 

2.1	 Introduction............................................................................................................................ 9
 

2.2	 Alternative A – No Change to the Administrative Boundary of the Refuge and 

Direct Sale of Transportation Corridor (No Action Alternative)......................................... 10
 

2.3	 Alternative B – Expand the Administrative Boundary of the Refuge and Complete
 

a Land Exchange for Holdings at the Refuge (Proposed Action) ........................................ 10
 

2.4	 Alternative C – No Change to the Administrative Boundary of the Refuge and 

Complete a Land Exchange for Holdings at Other Refuges in Colorado ............................ 15
 

2.5	 Alternative D - Expand the Administrative Boundary of the Refuge and Complete a
 

Land Exchange for Holdings at Other Refuges in Colorado................................................ 17
 

2.6	 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis.......................................... 17
 

3.0 Affected Environment........................................................................................................................ 20
 

3.1	 Physical Environment .......................................................................................................... 20
 

3.2	 Biological Environment ....................................................................................................... 25
 

3.3	 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................... 37
 

3.4	 Socioeconomic Environment ............................................................................................... 42
 

4.0 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................................................... 48
 

4.1	 Effects on the Physical Environment ................................................................................... 48
 

4.2	 Effects on the Biological Environment ................................................................................ 50
 

4.3	 Effects on Cultural Resources.............................................................................................. 60
 

4.4	 Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment ........................................................................ 60
 

4.5	 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ............................................................................................. 63
 

4.6	 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources................................................... 64
 

4.7	 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................. 65
 

5.0 Coordination and Environmental Review........................................................................................ 71
 

5.1	 Agency Coordination ........................................................................................................... 71
 

5.2	 Contaminants and Hazardous Materials............................................................................... 71
 

5.3	 National Environmental Policy Act ..................................................................................... 71
 

5.4	 List of Preparers and Reviewers .......................................................................................... 72
 
Page ii 

Appendices
 

Appendix A Rocky Flats Act 

Appendix B Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Species List 

Appendix C Phase 1 Environmental Assessment of Section 16 

Appendix D Process for Evaluation of Competing Applications 

Appendix E City of Golden Proposal 

Appendis F Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority Proposal 

Appendix G FWS Letter to CDPHE & EPA and EPA/CDPHE Response 

Appendix H Scoping Letters from Government Agencies 

Appendix I Rocky Flats NWR Land Protection Plan for Section 16 Acquisition 

Bibliography
 
Page 1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.0 Introduction and Project Description 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) in 

accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 

CFR 1500-1508), and Service NEPA guidance and Departmental regulations (43 CFR 46), procedures 

and memoranda. The EA documents the purpose, issues, alternatives, and analysis for the proposed action 

(described in Section 1.2) at the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge) in Jefferson 

County, Colorado. 

1.1 Background 

Rocky Flats NWR, located 16 miles northwest of Denver, Colorado on the borders of Boulder, 

Broomfield, and Jefferson counties, was authorized by Congress in 2001. Rocky Flats NWR was once the 

Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, a portion of 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. In 1992, weapons production at Rocky 

Flats site ceased and environmental cleanup and closure began. The DOE completed the cleanup in 

accordance with the Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement (RFCA) under oversight from the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 

(CDPHE). Under the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001 (Rocky Flats Act), most of the 

6,240-acre Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site became the Rocky Flats NWR in 2007 following 

certification from the EPA that cleanup and closure had been completed; the Central Operable Unit in the 

center of the Refuge, which will remain under the jurisdiction of the DOE. 

1.2 Proposed Action 

In accordance with the Rocky Flats Act (Appendix A), land up to 300 feet in width extending west from 

the existing Indiana Street transportation corridor shall be made available by easement or sale for the sole 

purpose of transportation improvements upon application from any county, city, or political subdivision 

of the State of Colorado, provided that the transportation improvements “are carried out so as to minimize 

adverse effects on the management of Rocky Flats as a wildlife refuge” and are part of the approved 

Denver regional transportation plan. 

The Service has received proposals related to the 300-foot-wide parcel of land along the eastern 

boundary of the Refuge from approximately 96th Avenue to State Highway (SH) 128. 

The two current applications are from the City of Golden and the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway 

Authority (JPPHA), and they are discussed in detail in Appendices E and F, respectively. Briefly, the 

City of Golden initially proposed to acquire the 300-foot-wide transportation corridor for use as a bike 

path with the remainder of the land reserved for future transportation improvements along Indiana Street, 

but has since stated that they only intend to use the property as a bike path. Golden has offered to buy the 

transportation corridor outright for $3 million, which is $200 thousand greater than the current appraised 
Page 2 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

value of the land. Alternatively, they have offered to exchange the transportation corridor for land of 

equal value. This could be a portion of land known as section 16 (Section 16, Township 2 South, Range 

70 West) on the immediate southwestern corner of the Refuge, or land in inholdings at refuges elsewhere 

in Colorado. At present, there are inholdings at both Baca and Arapaho National Wildlife Refuges. 

The proposal from JPPHA is to acquire the transportation corridor in order to construct a toll highway in 

the northwest corner of the Denver metropolitan area. Following Golden's submission of a proposal, 

JHPPA’s application was amended to reflect that they too would include a bike path, in addition to their 

originally intended highway. JPPHA has offered to purchase the land for its appraised value of $2.8 

million, or to exchange the parcel for property in section 16. They have brokered a deal with several local 

municipalities who will donate money and dedicate Natural Resource Damage Assessment funds from the 

Rocky Flats site to a broader conservation initiative to acquire land and mineral rights on 617 acres of 

section 16. This deal also includes provisions to buy out the existing mineral estates on 629 acres of 

Department of Energy lands that are already within the refuge boundary. 

The Service proposes to expand the acquisition boundary of Rocky Flats NWR to accommodate a 

potential land exchange at the Refuge. Acquisition boundaries are administrative lines delineating areas 

within which the Service has the authority to acquire interests in land. 

1.3 Purpose of and Need for Proposed Action 

This EA presents and evaluates a proposal for protection and management of wildlife habitats through the 

expansion of the Rocky Flats NWR approved acquisition boundary. Lands within a refuge acquisition 

boundary do not become part of the refuge unless and until a legal interest is acquired through an 

easement, lease, donation, or purchase. Lands within an acquisition boundary are not subject to any 

refuge regulations or jurisdiction unless and until an interest is acquired. Land interests are typically 

acquired from willing sellers only. Any landowner whose land is within an approved acquisition 

boundary, even though the surrounding parcels may have been purchased by the Service, retains all the 

rights, privileges, and responsibilities of private land ownership. These include, but are not limited to, the 

rights to allow access, hunting, and vehicle use; control trespass; the right to sell the property to any other 

party; and the responsibility to pay local real estate or property taxes. 

Within approved acquisition boundaries, the Service can enter into negotiations for the protection of 

environmentally sensitive lands. The land within the proposed Rocky Flats expansion area serves several 

important environmental functions. First, it contains a large portion of the remaining unprotected xeric 

tallgrass prairie, a globally rare vegetation community that is dependent upon disturbance by fire and 

grazing. Acquisition of this land would allow this habitat to be managed for these important disturbance 

mechanisms, and would protect it from the residential and commercial development that is occurring in 

adjacent parcels. 

Many species of wildlife make use of the land within the proposed expanded boundary. The property 

includes critical habitat for the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, a Federally threatened species that 

inhabits the riparian area along Woman Creek. A herd of resident mule deer uses the site, and elk are 

known to move through this parcel into the adjacent Refuge from mountain habitat in the Front Range of 

the Rocky Mountains. The acquisition of an interest in this parcel would protect this important wildlife 

corridor by connecting Rocky Flats NWR to regional open space to the west, providing a permanently 
Page 3 

 

protected path to the Front Range. In addition to allowing normal wildlife movement, the acquisition of 

this corridor would provide ecological resiliency by allowing migration and re-colonization following 

major disturbances such as disease, fire, and long-term environmental change. 

View from the Refuge into section 16, which serves as an important wildlife corridor 

linking Rocky Flats with public lands to the west. 

 

 

 

The expansion of the Refuge to the west to permanently conserve this land would be in keeping with the 

vision that was articulated in the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan (CCP) (2005): 

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 area through 

compatible wildlife-dependent 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. 

1.4 Decisions to Be Made 

The Service’s planning team will complete an analysis of the No Action and action alternatives, and the 

resulting impacts to the natural, social, and cultural environment. Based on that analysis, the Service’s 

Director of Region 6, with the concurrence of the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, will 

make three decisions: 
Page 4 

 Determine whether the Service should expand the acquisition boundary of Rocky Flats NWR; 

 Determine whether the Service should exchange the 300-foot wide transportation corridor for 

property and mineral rights adjacent to the existing Refuge, or elsewhere in the refuge system; 

and 

 If yes to both of these issues, determine whether the selected alternative would have a significant 

impact on the quality of the natural and human environment. The National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 requires this analysis. If the quality of the natural and human environment would not 

be significantly affected, a Finding of No Significant Impact will be signed and made available to 

the public. If the selected alternative would have a significant impact, completion of an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) would be required to address those impacts. 

1.5 Issues Identified and Selected for Analysis 

The Service solicited comments on the proposed Rocky Flats NWR boundary expansion and land 

exchange from the public and agencies through direct mailings, a news release, a public scoping meeting, 

and direct contacts. 

 On July 7, 2011, the Service issued a scoping notice to local media outlets in Colorado. This 

information was also posted on www.fws.gov/rockyflats, as well as the Service’s Facebook and 

Twitter profiles. Scoping comments were accepted through July 29, 2011. 

 The Service prepared a 2-page fact sheet which was made available through the Refuge Website, 

and as a handout at the scoping meeting and at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal NWR, which 

manages the Rocky Flats NWR. The fact sheet was also sent electronically to interested 

individuals. 

 A scoping meeting was held on July 20, 2011 at the Westminster City Park Recreation Center in 

Westminster, Colorado from 5-8 pm. Sign-in attendance was 80 individuals. 

 The Refuge website provided interested parties with updates and information about the proposal. 

The Service received 1,163 email and written comments during the scoping period, of which 796 were 

generated by a change.org petition. Most of the comments reflected concern about the potential use of the 

300-foot-wide transportation corridor as a highway rather than a bike path. A substantial number of 

commentors also expressed concern about potential public health risks related to the disturbance of 

contaminated surface soil in that corridor as part of any potential transportation improvements on the site. 

The vast majority of comments expressed support for the proposed expansion of the refuge boundary to 

include Section 16. 
Page 5 

Looking south along Indiana Street along proposed transportation corridor. 

The Service’s planning team (listed in section 5.4) reviewed all comments collected from the public and 

agencies, and identified several key issues that were considered in this EA. If comments were substantive 

and/or provided relevant information, the issues are addressed in this EA. Based on internal discussion 

and comments received during scoping, the following issues and concerns were identified for discussion 

in detail in this EA. 

 Effects of a land exchange on wildlife habitat, regional open space, and functional and resilient 

ecosystems 

 Potential effects of transportation uses on the Refuge 

 Effects of potential highway construction on local communities, including increased traffic, 

development and urban sprawl, and health impacts of vehicle traffic 

 Potential recreational and commuter value of using the transportation corridor for a bike path as 

well as lack of existing, safe bike commuting options along SH 93 and Indiana Street 

 Effects of highway construction on the viewshed, soundscape, and open space aesthetic 

 Concern about construction-related disturbance of soil resulting in potential public exposure to 

plutonium 
Page 6 

 Inadequacy of the scope of 2004 Rocky Flats NWR CCP/EIS as it relates to downstream and 

cumulative effects of the proposed transportation uses 

 Lack of attention to environmental justice issues in Rocky Flats NWR CCP/EIS and Northwest 

Corridor Transportation Study 

Existing NEPA Compliance at Rocky Flats NWR 

As discussed above (section 1.2), the Rocky Flats Act mandated that the Service make available a parcel 

up to 300 feet wide from the Indiana Street transportation corridor for transportation improvements, as 

long as such improvements will be undertaken in a way that does not interfere with the management of 

Rocky Flats as a National Wildlife Refuge. Following the Rocky Flats Act, but prior to the transfer of 

Rocky Flats to Service stewardship in 2007, the Service drafted a CCP (USFWS 2005a) detailing the 

vision for the management of the then-future Refuge. A full NEPA review, which culminated in an EIS 

(USFWS 2004a), was conducted for the proposed actions in the CCP. Because of the congressionallymandated transportation corridor provision, the 2004 EIS included an analysis of the impacts from 

potential transportation improvements along Indiana Street. The impacts analyzed in the 2004 EIS 

included water quality, noxious weeds, wildlife corridors/habitat fragmentation, noise and aesthetics, 

public use facilities such as trails, and overall loss of wildlife and cultural resources (USFWS 2004). 

Based upon this analysis, the Service determined that a land transfer up to the statutory 300 foot width 

would not adversely affect the management of the Refuge, and that the analysis satisfied its NEPA 

requirement relating to the mandated land disposal (USFWS 2009). Analysis contained in the 2004 EIS 

related to transfer of the transportation corridor is still valid and is incorporated into this EA by reference. 

The Service is aware that plutonium is present within areas of the former Rocky Flats Environmental 

Technology Site that have become Rocky Flats NWR, including within the surface soils of the 300-foot 

wide transportation corridor (USFWS 2004a). The following timeline outlines the actions related to 

plutonium contamination at the Refuge ending at the Refuge’s establishment on August 3, 2007 (72 FR 

43293): 

 Rocky Flats NWR Act of 2001 -- December 28, 2001 

 Rocky Flats NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan EIS -- September 16, 2004 

 Rocky Flats NWR CCP/EIS Record Of Decision -- February 16, 2005 

 USFWS Refuge Soil Samples for Modified Level III Contaminants Assessment-- May 8, 2006 

 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Report -- July 2006 

 Corrective Action Decision/Record of Decision for Rocky Flats Plant (USDOE) Peripheral 

Operable Unit and Central Operable Unit -- September 29, 2006 

 Notice of Partial Deletion of the Rocky Flats Plant From National Priorities List -- May 25, 2007 

 USFWS Modified Level III Contaminants Assessment Report -- May 2007 

 Land Transfer -- July 12, 2007 

 Refuge Established -- August 3, 2007 

The EPA, as the lead Federal regulatory agency for peripheral areas transferred to the Service, has stated 

that no hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants occur above levels that allow for unlimited use 

and unrestricted exposure (72 FR 11313 & 72 FR 29276). This information has been confirmed by the 

EPA and the CDPHE. Both the Corrective Action Decision/Record of Decision and delisting action 

contemplated the eventual transfer of lands for the transportation corridor and are included in the 
Page 7 

 

 

 

 

agency’s decision to remove Rocky Flats from the National Priorities List (CDPHE 2011; Appendix G). 

Included within the CDPHE/EPA letter in Appendix G is updated information and regulatory guidance 

from EPA and CDPHE on any potentially remaining plutonium contamination and on the safety of refuge 

workers and visitors on Refuge lands. Refuge lands are currently managed under exclusive Federal 

jurisdiction whereby current State environmental regulations do not apply. That said, grading and 

construction activities such as those associated with the proposed bike path (City of Golden) or Jefferson 

Parkway (Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority) construction, after the disposal of the property to 

a non-Federal entity, would be subject to Colorado Standards for Protection Against Radiation1

; These 

control techniques would be required on non-Federal lands and would be similar to those already imposed 

on any transportation project. For example, dust suppression would likely be required, but is not 

considered a restriction and would not limit the use of the property proposed for transfer (CDPHE 2011; 

Appendix G). In addition, the Colorado Air Pollution Prevention and Control Act (§25-7-102 C.R.S), is 

designed to provide the maximum practical air quality for the residents of Colorado. This act includes 

regulations to reduce fugitive particulate matter that may arise during ground disturbing techniques, such 

as watering, chemical stabilization, and speed restrictions for construction vehicles.

2 Similarly, the Water 

Quality Control Act (§25-8-501(1) C.R.S.), requires control measures for erosion control and stormwater 

management during construction activities, including development of a stormwater management plan and 

a variety of tools to reduce the likelihood of spills or other venues where contaminants could be added to 

surface or groundwater.3 

Also confirmed is the FWS's 2004 analysis of cultural resources in the transportation corridor. The 

FWS's work with the State's Historic Preservation Office's staff is described in 3.3 of this EA. 

1.6 National Wildlife Refuge System and Authorities 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is “...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 within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations 

of Americans” (National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997). National wildlife refuges 

provide important habitat for native plants and many species of mammals, birds, fish, insects, amphibians, 

and reptiles. They also play a vital role in conserving threatened and endangered species. Refuges offer a 

wide variety of wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities, and many have visitor centers, wildlife 

trails, and environmental education programs. 

Conservation of additional wildlife habitat in the Rocky Flats NWR would continue to be consistent with 

the following policies and management plans: 

 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1918) 

 Bald Eagle Protection Act (1940) 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Act (1956) 

 Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (1965) 

 

1 6 CCR 1007-1 Part 4 – Standards for Protection Against Radiation; effective July 31, 2005 

2 5 CCR 1001-3 Regulation 1 – Emmission Control for Particulate Matter, Smoke, Carbon Monoxide, and Sulfur 

Oxides; effective June 21, 2007 

3 5 CCR 1002-61 – Colorado Discharge Permit System Regulations; effective September 30, 2011 
Page 8 

 Endangered Species Act (1973) 

 Migratory Non-Game Birds of Management Concern in the U.S. (2002) 

 Rocky Flats Comprehensive Conservation Plan (2005) 

The acquisition authorities for the proposed refuge boundary expansion and property acquisition are the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-j) and the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). Federal money for land acquisition would not be 

required under the terms of the current land exchange proposals. However, if the boundary is expanded 

but land is not exchanged within section 16, land could be acquired with the use of the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund (LWCF). The LWCF is derived primarily from oil and gas leases on the Outer 

Continental Shelf, motorboat fuel taxes, and the sale of surplus Federal property. There could also be 

additional money to acquire lands, water, and interests for fish and wildlife conservation purposes as 

identified by Congress or donations from nonprofit organizations. Any acquisition from willing sellers 

would be subject to available funding. 
Page 9 

2.0 Description of Alternatives 

2.1 Introduction 

This chapter describes the alternatives that were considered in the development of this EA and discusses 

alternatives that were considered but were eliminated from detailed analysis. The alternatives offer a hard 

look at the full range of possibilities available that will be analyzed further to make a decision on whether 

or not significant impacts will be associated with the Service’s proposed action. Alternatives are different 

approaches that meet the purpose and need for the proposed action and must be identified and objectively 

evaluated. 

The Service has developed a range of alternatives for this EA necessary to provide sufficient evidence and 

analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) or a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (40 CFR § 1508.9). Informed by the scoping process, a range of alternatives was 

identified during the development of this EA. The alternatives include a decision to not expand the 

Refuge (no action), a decision to expand the Refuge and facilitate a land exchange for lands adjacent to 

the Refuge (proposed action), and decisions on whether or not to expand the Refuge and facilitate a land 

exchange for lands at another Refuge elsewhere in Colorado. These alternatives evaluate different 

scenarios that may accomplish the requirements that land be made available for transportation 

improvements to Indiana Street as well as provide the necessary real estate options to expand the Refuge. 

Section 3174 of the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-107, 115 Stat. 

1382) states that, upon receipt of an application meeting certain conditions, the Service must make land 

along the eastern boundary of Rocky Flats NWR available for the sole purpose of transportation 

improvements along Indiana Street. An application must meet the following conditions: 

 Be submitted by any county, city, or political subdivision of the State of Colorado; and 

 Include documentation demonstrating that the transportation improvements for which the land is 

to made available: 

−	 Are carried out so as to minimize adverse effects on the management of Rocky Flats as a 

National Wildlife Refuge; and 

−	 Are included in the regional transportation plan of the metropolitan planning organization 

designated for the Denver metropolitan area under 49 U.S.C. § 5303. 

As described above in section 1.5, analysis of potential impacts associated with disposal of lands within 

300 feet of Indiana Street was included as a part of the Refuge’s 2004 EIS. The Service will not include 

deed restrictions or reversionary clauses as a condition of sale. However, language will be included as a 

part of any real estate transaction that is specific to the Rocky Flats Act, requiring that these lands must be 

used solely for transportation improvements. 
Page 10 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.2	 Alternative A – No Change to the Administrative Boundary of 

the Refuge and Direct Sale of Transportation Corridor (No 

Action Alternative) 

The No Action Alternative is included in the range of alternatives because it allows decision-makers to 

compare the magnitude of environmental effects of the action alternatives (i.e., Alternatives B, C, and D) 

against a benchmark. NEPA regulations require the inclusion of a no action alternative. The CEQ 

provides additional interpretation of the “no action alternative” requirement, stating that one option is to 

consider such an alternative as “no change” from current management guidelines (CEQ 1981). The 

Service has developed a no action alternative following these guidelines. 

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no change to existing management and the 

administrative boundary of the Refuge would be unchanged. The Service, as directed by Congress, would 

release Federal lands for disposal per the conditions set forth and purposes included in the Rocky Flats 

Act. Any future construction of transportation improvements occurring on these lands (which at this time 

is not well-defined) would be beyond the Service’s jurisdiction and would be regulated by appropriate 

Federal, State, and local agencies. 

The Service would oversee a real estate transaction to sell up to 300 feet of the eastern boundary of the 

Refuge for its fair market value. In December 2010, the Service received an appraisal for a strip of land 

approximately 300 feet wide and approximately 2.76 miles long along the west side of Indiana Street 

between 120th Avenue and Jefferson County Road 4. The market value of the property, based on its 

highest and best use as a transportation corridor, is $2,800,000 (Shannon & Lundquist 2010). The Service 

has no authority to retain any revenue received from this transaction. Any funds received from the land 

sale would be deposited into the U.S. Treasury (31 U.S.C. § 3302(b)).4 Under this alternative, the Service 

would sell these lands for $2,800,000 or more to one or more entities for the purpose of transportation 

improvements along Indiana Street. 

2.3	 Alternative B – Expand the Administrative Boundary of the 

Refuge and Complete a Land Exchange for Holdings at the 

Refuge (Proposed Action)

Under this alternative, the Service would expand the Refuge by 617 acres into an area known as section 

16.5 These lands are currently owned by the State of Colorado and managed as state trust lands6

. The 

Refuge’s expanded boundary would exclude approximately 23 acres located in the northwest corner of 

4 Known as the “miscellaneous receipts” statute, 31 U.S.C. 3302(b) provides “Except as provided in section 3718(b) 

of this title, an official or agent of the Government receiving money for the Government from any source shall deposit 

the money in the Treasury as soon as practicable without deduction for any charge or claim.” (GAO 2006). 

5 The Public Land Survey System (PLSS) is a method used in the United States to survey and identify land parcels, 

particularly for titles and deeds of rural, wild or undeveloped land. Its basic units of area are the township and section. 

A section of land is one-square-mile block of land, containing 640 acres, or approximately one thirty-sixth of a 

township. 

6 As a general rule, the Federal Government endowed sections 16 and 36 of each township to the State of Colorado. 

The Colorado State Land Board is responsible for management and stewardship of lands and minerals associated 

with these lands. Over 95% of these lands are part of the common school trust required to generate revenue for 

public education. 
Page 11 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

section 16 that have been affected by prior oil and gas development. Consistent with Service policy, all 

existing land acquisition methods would be available to add lands to the refuge system within the 

expanded boundary of the Refuge. 

The administrative boundary of the Refuge encompasses 6,240 acres of Federal lands. The Service has 

accepted ownership of and management responsibility for approximately 3,953 of these acres. The DOE 

has retained approximately 1,308 acres within the center of the Refuge. This retained area is located in 

and around the past industrial area, which is required to maintain institutional controls and ongoing 

monitoring activities associated with the final clean-up remedy. In addition, the DOE desires to transfer 

an additional 644 acres once outstanding mineral rights are resolved to the Service’s satisfaction. Rocky 

Flats is surrounded on three sides by designated open space. There are additional Federal and non-Federal 

lands immediately to the west of the Refuge that may be added to the Refuge System to increase habitat 

resiliency and connectivity. 

Under this alternative, the Service would exchange the 300 feet of the eastern boundary of the Refuge for 

equal interests in lands found within section 16. This alternative is also described in the Draft Rocky Flats 

Land Protection Plan, included as Appendix I in this document. This alternative currently relates most 

directly to JPPHA's proposal that is described in Appendix F, but could easily apply to Golden or another 

party if they were to make arrange similar partnerships. All exchange proposals would include three 

parties (the applicant, the Service, and the owner of lands to be added to the Refuge). In this case, there 

would be a three-way transaction where: (1) the deed for the transportation corridor is transferred to the 

successful applicant; (2) the successful applicant provides funds to the Colorado State Land Board; and 

(3) the Colorado State Land Board provides a patent on lands within section 16 to the Service. The 

following policy guides this transfer 

The Act of August 8, 1956 (Public Law 95-616, 70 Stat. 1122), known as the Fish and 

Wildlife Act of 1956, authorizes the Service to take such steps required for the 

development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and 

wildlife including land acquisition by purchase or exchange of land and water, or 

interests therein (16 U.S.C. § 742f(a)(4)). Service policy, 342 FW 5.7, provides criteria 

for land exchanges that include: (1) that the exchange be of benefit to the United States, 

and (2) that the value of the lands or interests in lands be approximately equal or that 

values may be equalized by the payment of cash by the grantor or by the United States. 

The Service Director must approve the acquisition of lands or interests by exchange 

when valued in excess of $500,000 and such actions require the notification of 

Congressional committees holding jurisdiction.

7 

7 On April 14, 2008, the Service’s Deputy Director amended language found in land acquisition policy chapter 342 

FW 5.7D to reflect the new Congressional Exchange guidelines listed on page 191 of House Report 110-187, which 

explains the FY 2008 Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies portion of the FY 2008 

Consolidated Appropriations Act (PL 110·161). 
Page 12 

The present and proposed boundaries of Rocky Flats NWR. 
Page 13 

 

 

Under this alternative, the Service would also use its land acquisition methods to complete acquisition of 

additional holdings within the expanded boundary of the Refuge. This may include the acceptance of 

donations, withdrawal of additional Federal interests, and necessary steps to secure outstanding mineral 

interests. The following policy guides these actions: 

The Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, allows the Service to accept gifts, devises, or bequests 

of real and personal property, or proceeds therefrom, or interests therein, when 

beneficial to its mission (16 U.S.C. § 742f(b)(1)). 

As stated in the Refuge’s 2004 EIS, a substantial portion of the mineral estate (subsurface mineral rights) 

associated with lands at the Rocky Flats NWR is privately owned or encumbered by leases. The Service 

does not believe it can manage the Refuge for the purposes included in section 3177(e)(2) of the Rocky 

Flats Act if certain mineral rights are exercised. The Service's 2004 EIS stated: 

Accordingly, the Service will not accept transfer of administrative jurisdiction from DOE 

for lands subject to the mining of gravel and other aggregate material at Rocky Flats 

until the United States owns the mineral rights of the land to be transferred to the 

Service, or until the mined lands have been reclaimed to a mixed prairie grassland 

community (USFWS 2004a). 

Under this alternative, the Service will continue its efforts to obtain all outstanding non-oil and gas 

mineral rights beneath the current and expanded Refuge boundary. Some of these areas have active 

surface disturbance from aggregate mining and others do not. The following is a description of mineral 

ownership and encumbrances beneath DOE lands within the current Refuge boundary: 

 Section 4 – The United States currently owns the minerals beneath Parcels A-1, A-2, and D-1, 

totaling 478 acres. These minerals are currently leased through December 31, 2012. The lessor 

may request an extension to this lease. 

 Section 9 – The United States currently owns the minerals beneath Parcel C, totaling 161 acres, 

with no encumbrances (ready for transfer to the Service). The minerals beneath Parcels B, D-2, 

D-3, and D4 are privately owned. Parcels B and D-2, totaling 127 acres, are currently leased. 

Parcels D-3 and D-4, totaling 164 acres, are currently leased and being actively mined for 

aggregate. 

 The State-Federal Natural Resource Trustee Council8

 for Rocky Flats has adopted a proposal to 

purchase aggregate mining leases on Parcels A-1, A-2, B, D-2, D-3, and D-4. This proposal is 

conditioned on the successful acquisition and transfer of private mineral rights to the United 

States.9 

 

8 The term “trustees” means the Federal and State officials designated as trustees under section 107f(2) of the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. § 9607f(2)). The 

purchase of essential mineral rights and eventual transfer of DOE lands is authorized by Section 3112 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 (Division C, Title XXXI of Public Law 109-163). Section 3112b(6) also 

exempts the purchase of outstanding mineral rights beneath Rocky Flats from the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (42 U.S.C. §§ 4321 et seq.). 

9 Colorado Natural Resource Trustee Resolution 2011-7-19-11 was adopted on July 19, 2011. 
Page 14 

 

Current surface and mineral estate ownership on and around Rocky Flats NWR. 
Page 15 

PARCEL 

APPROXIMATE AREA 

(ACRES) 

A-1 262.31 

A-2 61.11 

B 80.61 

C 160.54 

D-1 154.89 

D-2 46.12 

D-3 75.66 

D-4 87.86 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Therefore, Alternative B includes a description of several possible real estate processes that could be used 

to expand the overall size of the Refuge and acquire essential mineral rights beneath the Refuge. 

2.4	 Alternative C – No Change to the Administrative Boundary of 

the Refuge and Complete a Land Exchange for Holdings at 

Other Refuges in Colorado 

Under this alternative, the Service would make no change to the administrative boundary of the Refuge. 

The Service would use its existing exchange authority to acquire additional lands for the Refuge System 

within the State of Colorado. Similar to the exchange described under Alternative B, the Service would 

complete an exchange of lands to facilitate the sale of the 300 feet of the eastern boundary of the Refuge 

in exchange for equal interests in lands. This alternative relates to Golden’s proposal outlined in 

Appendix E. However, under this alternative, the exchange would be for lands at a unit of the Refuge 

System other than Rocky Flats NWR. 

There are currently eight units of the Refuge System located in the State of Colorado. The Service has 

ongoing land acquisition programs at many of these units. Under this alternative, the Service would use 

its preexisting exchange authority to dispose of the transportation corridor and add lands to either the 

Arapaho NWR in Jackson County, Colorado, or the Baca NWR located in Alamosa and Saguache 

Counties, Colorado. Such a decision would be based upon a determination that no further land protection 

is required at the Refuge. 

At the Arapaho NWR, near Walden, Colorado, a 3,687-acre inholding is available for purchase from a 

willing seller. The property is the largest remaining inholding within the Refuge’s acquisition boundary, 

and has an appraised value of $7.1 million. The Trust for Public Land (TPL) has expressed its willingness 

to assist with this acquisition and has received a letter from the Service requesting their assistance. If this 

property is selected for an exchange under this alternative, a three-way exchange between the successful 

applicant, TPL, and the Service would provide for a portion of the inholding at Arapaho NWR. The TPL 

would locate another funding source for the remainder of the purchase price of the property, as the 

landowner is not willing to divide the tract. 
Page 16 

Araphao NWR including inholdings 
Page 17 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At Baca NWR, near Moffat, Colorado, The Nature Conservancy (TNC) owns approximately 103,000 

acres, known as the Zapata Ranch. A portion of the ranch is within the Refuge’s acquisition boundary. 

TNC has expressed interest in conveying this property to the Service. The TNC property has not yet been 

appraised, however, the value of TNC land is likely to be closer to the $2.8 - $3.0 million value of the 

transportation corridor than the Arapaho property value. If the property is selected for an exchange under 

this alternative, a three-way exchange between the successful applicant, TNC, and the Service would 

provide this inholding without requiring additional funding. Once appraised, if the value of lands is in 

excess of the exchange, it is anticipated the TNC will work with the Service to transfer the property in 

phases over several years. 

2.5	 Alternative D - Expand the Administrative Boundary of the 

Refuge and Complete a Land Exchange for Holdings at Other 

Refuges in Colorado 

A combination of Alternative B and Alternative C could be derived whereby the Service would complete 

land acquisition planning to expand Rocky Flats NWR and use the Service’s preexisting exchange 

authority to add lands to either the Arapaho NWR located in Jackson County, Colorado, or the Baca 

NWR in Alamosa and Saguache Counties, Colorado. Such a decision would be based upon a 

determination that further land protection is required at Rocky Flats NWR, but that the urgency of land 

protection at these alternate locations is greater, or that land acquisition at the Refuge falls on a different 

timeline than is necessary to properly dispose of the transportation corridor. 

2.6	 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis 

Return Management Authority Over Certain Lands to the Department of Energy 

The Rocky Flats Act required the Secretary of Energy to be responsible for disposal of the transportation 

corridor. The transportation corridor was contemplated in the Corrective Action Decision/Record of 

Decision for the Rocky Flats Plant Peripheral Operable Unit and Central Operable Unit and lands were 

transferred to the Service in 2007 (DOE 2006). This alternative would require that management authority 

over lands be transferred back to DOE. Transfer of management authority from FWS to DOE is not in the 

interest of any party and would result in increased overall costs. 

Retain Transportation Corridor Lands 

Section 3174 of the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001 requires the Service to make land 

available by easement or sale to one or more entities. Such a sale must be in accordance with the 

conditions described by the Rocky Flats Act and may not extend beyond 300 feet from the west edge of 

the Indiana Street transportation corridor. Since the establishment of the Refuge, clear legislative 

direction has been provided which indicates that the Service must make these lands available for the 

purpose of transportation improvements along Indiana Street. An alternative to retain the eastern edge of 

the Refuge is contrary to congressional intent. 
Page 18 

Baca NWR including inholdings 
Page 19 

 

 

 

Disallow Transportation Improvements along Indiana Street 

Section 3174 of the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001 requires the Service to make land 

available by easement or sale to one or more entities. Such a sale must be in accordance with the 

conditions described by the Rocky Flats Act and may not extend beyond 300 feet from the west edge of 

the Indiana Street transportation corridor. Since the establishment of the Refuge, clear legislative 

direction has been provided that the Service must make these lands available for the purpose of 

transportation improvements along Indiana Street. Once sold, the Service would be required to monitor 

any transportation improvement project to ensure minimal adverse effects on the management of the 

Refuge; would review any wetlands or other habitat mitigation plans that may be required; would consult 

on any project that may affect a threatened or endangered species, such as the Preble’s meadow jumping 

mouse. However, the Service does not believe it can or should disallow transportation improvements 

along Indiana street. 

Expand the Administrative Boundary of the Refuge and Direct Sale of the 

Transportation Corridor 

A combination of Alternative A and Alternative B could be derived whereby the Service would complete 

land acquisition planning to expand the Refuge and dispose of the transportation corridor by direct sale. 

Analysis of potential impacts associated with disposal of lands within 300 feet of Indiana Street is 

included as a part of the Refuge’s 2004 EIS. If the decision is made to pursue a direct sale of the 

transportation corridor, the Service would not continue its action of planning for an expansion of the 

Refuge because the funds derived from the sale would go to the Treasury and could not be used for the 

expansion. 

Retain a Limited Interest in the Transportation Corridor 

As described previously, the Service must make lands available for transportation improvements along 

Indiana Street. The Rocky Flats Act states that lands must be made available by sale or easement. The 

Service’s land acquisition policy, 341 FW 1.3A(1), states that when lands are to be acquired, the 

minimum interest necessary to reach management objectives is to be acquired or retained. The Refuge’s 

2004 EIS discusses possible transportation improvements near the Refuge and displays the potential 

resource impacts associated with a range of options. This analysis shows that these lands are not essential 

in achieving the purposes for which the Refuge was established and the Refuge would not benefit from 

retaining an interest in these lands. 
Page 20 

 

 

3.0 Affected Environment 

This chapter describes the physical, biological, cultural, and socioeconomic resources most likely to be 

affected by the proposed land exchange and expansion of Rocky Flats NWR, with a brief summary of 

Baca and Arapahoe NWRs. For additional information on lands elsewhere in Colorado that are proposed 

for exchange under Alternatives C and D, please reference the conceptual and current Comprehensive 

Conservation Plans for the Baca NWR and Arapaho NWRs, at <http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/planning/plans_co/index.html>. 

3.1 Physical Environment 

This section describes the physical features of the Rocky Flats NWR and adjoining land within the 

proposed boundary expansion, including geology, climate, and anticipated climate change. 

Physiographic and Geological Features 

The Rocky Flats NWR sits at the interface of the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains, about 2 miles east 

of the foothill escarpment in Jefferson County, Colorado. The elevation of the Refuge ranges from 5,500 

feet in the southeastern corner to 6,250 feet on the western edge of the adjacent section 16 property. The 

western half of the site is characterized by the relatively flat Rocky Flats pediment, which gives way to 

several finger-like drainages that slope down to the rolling plains in the eastern portion of the site. 

Geological units at the Rocky Flats site range from unconsolidated surficial deposits to various bedrock 

layers. Surficial deposits in the western portions of the site are characterized by Rocky Flats Alluvium, 

clayey and sandy gravels up to 100 feet thick. The steeper slopes below the Rocky Flats Alluvium in the 

central portion of the site generally consist of landslide deposits. Surficial deposits in the eastern portion 

of the refuge consist of colluvium 3 to 15 feet thick and terrace alluvium 10 to 20 feet thick (Shroba and 

Carrara 1996). 

Mineral resources 

The Rocky Flats Alluvium is believed to be the only mineral resource feasible for development at the 

Refuge. Historically, uranium, coal, oil and natural gas have been extracted near the Rocky Flats site. At 

present, mineral leases for Rocky Flats Alluvium are held within the proposed acquisition on section 16, 

as well as within DOE-administered properties within the current approved acquisition boundary. 

Soils 

The soils at the site formed from alluvium (stream deposited), colluvium (gravity deposited), or residuum 

(bedrock material that weathered in place). Soils in the western half of the site formed from alluvium, 

while those in the eastern half of the site formed from colluvium and residuum. Soils in the western half 

of the site are primarily the Flatirons and Nederland soils that formed in the Rocky Flats Alluvium 

(Figure 5). Flatirons soils consist of very cobbly to very stony loamy surface soils and clayey subsoils. 

These soils are deep and well drained. Flatirons soils are located on western pediments and ridgetops, as 

well as the upper portions of hillsides. Nederland soils have very cobbly loamy surface and subsoils. They 
Page 21 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

are deep and well drained. Nederland soils are located on steeper hillsides and valley slopes in the western 

portion of the Refuge. 

Soils in the eastern portion of the site consist primarily of Denver, Kutch, Midway, Valmont, Haverson, 

and Nunn soils. The Denver-Kutch-Midway complex consists of soils with loamy surfaces and clayey 

subsoils. The Denver soils are deep and well drained, the Kutch soils are moderately deep and well 

drained, and Midway soils are shallow and well drained. The Denver-Kutch-Midway complex is the 

dominant soil map unit in the eastern portion of the Refuge, although it also occurs in the western half 

along hillsides. Denver and Kutch soils are found on side slopes, and the Midway soils occur on steeper 

slopes. Valmont soils consist of deep, well-drained soils with loamy surfaces and loamy to clayey 

subsoils. This soil type is found in the northeast corner of the Refuge on the eastward extension of the 

Rock Creek/Walnut Creek drainage divide. Haverson soils are loamy soils located in floodplains or low 

terraces. Nunn soils consist of deep, well-drained soils on lower slopes adjacent to drainage bottoms. 

They have loamy surface surfaces and loamy to clayey subsoils. 

Surface water 

Three drainages originate on or near the Refuge: Rock Creek, Walnut Creek, and Woman Creek. Stream 

levels fluctuate depending on the season and amount of precipitation. Most streamflow is controlled by 

groundwater discharge. Streamflow is greater when groundwater levels are higher, such as in the spring. 

Surface sheet flow is only a significant contributor to stream flows during high precipitation events 

(Kaiser-Hill 2002a). 

There are four ponds on the Refuge: the two Lindsay Ponds on Rock Creek and ponds D-1 and D-2 on the 

Smart Ditch. Several additional ponds are found within the DOE Retained Area. 

The Rock Creek basin drains the northwest portion of the Refuge. This drainage has a relatively flat 

headwater area to the west, but has steep gullies and channels to the east where it cuts below the Rocky 

Flats Alluvium into bedrock formations. Rock Creek is hydrologically isolated from the rest of the site 

and receives no water from the DOE Retained Area. Surface water generally originates from shallow 

groundwater discharge as well as precipitation. Rock Creek continues off-site to the northeast, where it 

joins Coal Creek in the Boulder Creek basin. 

Walnut Creek consists of three tributaries that drain the central portion of the Refuge, including most of 

the Core Operable Unit. The northernmost branch, No Name Gulch, begins at the outfall of the East 

Landfill Pond. The central branch, North Walnut Creek, begins at the northern edge of the Industrial Area 

and flows through the “A” series ponds. South Walnut Creek begins in the Core Operable Unit and 

collects discharge from the Rocky Flats Wastewater Treatment Plant before flowing through the “B” 

series ponds. The three branches converge near the eastern Refuge boundary before flowing off-site to the 

east. Walnut Creek is typically dry during most of the year. 

The Woman Creek basin drains the southern portion of the Refuge. The Woman Creek drainage consists 

of two major branches that begin off of the Rocky Flats site to the southwest. The main stem of Woman 

Creek flows across the site, passing south of the DOE Retained Area and flowing through the C-1 pond. 

The Mower Ditch diverts most of the Woman Creek flow into Mower Reservoir, east of the Refuge. 

Typically, Woman Creek has no streamflow in late spring and summer. All surface flows are lost to 
Page 22 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

groundwater in the warmer months. In the winter, most of the baseflow is from Antelope Springs. Woman 

Creek is largely unaffected by pond releases from the DOE Retained Area. 

A small portion of the Refuge near its southern boundary lies within the Big Dry Creek drainage, 

although the creek itself does not flow through the Refuge. Big Dry Creek flows into Standley Lake about 

1 mile east of Indiana Street. 

Besides the three principal natural drainages, several ditches cross the Refuges. The South Interceptor 

Ditch currently collects runoff from south of the Core Operable Unit, which channels surface runoff into 

the C-2 pond. The Smart Ditch originates at Rocky Flats Lake, which is to the southwest of the Refuge, 

then it enters the Refuge and flows through the South Woman Creek drainage for almost 2 miles before 

splitting off toward Standley Lake to the southeast. The Mower Ditch diverts most of Woman Creek 

toward Mower Reservoir to the east. The Upper Church Ditch enters Rocky Flats from the west and 

traverses the Rock Creek/Walnut Creek drainage divide until it exits the Refuge in the northeast corner. 

The McKay Ditch runs from the west side of the Core Operable Unit into the Walnut Creek drainage. The 

Kinnear Ditch diverts water from Coal Creek west of the Refuge and conveys it to the Woman Creek 

channel. The South Boulder Canal runs from north to south across section 16 and conveys water to 

Ralston Reservoir to the south of the Refuge. 

Groundwater 

Hydrogeology at the Rocky Flats NWR is characterized by three distinct units: the upper alluvial aquifer, 

lower aquitard, and the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer. An aquifer is a geologic formation that has sufficient 

permeability to store and/or convey water. An aquitard is a confining layer with low permeability that can 

store water but does not allow water to readily pass through it. 

The upper alluvial aquifer is comprised of unconsolidated materials, which can be as much as 100 feet 

thick in the western portions of the Refuge. This aquifer is generally recharged from precipitation or 

surface water. Groundwater in the unconsolidated alluvial aquifer is generally close to the land surface, 

with an average depth of 11 feet below ground surface. 

The lower aquitard is composed of the deeper claystones and siltstones of the Laramie and Arapahoe 

Formations. Combined, these formations combined are up to 800 feet thick below the Refuge. Recharge 

of the lower aquitard occurs from downward flow through the upper aquifer, or directly through 

precipitation in areas where the bedrock is exposed. Beneath the aquitard lies the regional Laramie-Fox 

Hills aquifer. It is composed of the lower sandstone unit of the Laramie Formation and the Fox Hills 

Sandstone and is confined by the overlying aquitard. Groundwater levels in the bedrock aquifers are 

generally greater than 100 feet. 

Several springs have emerged where the upper aquifer and the lower aquitard are exposed at the surface. 

While most of these springs occur within the Rock Creek drainage, Antelope Springs in the Woman 

Creek drainage has the largest discharge at the site. Antelope Springs discharges continuously over 

several acres. 

Several portions of the upper alluvial aquifer east and northeast of the DOE Retained Area are known or 

suspected of being contaminated with radionuclides, volatile organic compounds, and metals. The 

aquitard is less contaminated than the upper alluvial aquifer. No contaminant plumes have been identified 
Page 23 

 

 

 

 

 

 

in the aquitard. The Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer beneath the site is unlikely to be contaminated (IATTF 

1998). 

Air Quality 

For air quality planning purposes, Rocky Flats is located within the boundary of the Denver Metropolitan 

Area. For many years, the Denver metropolitan area has experienced carbon monoxide, ozone, and 

particulate matter air pollution as well as visibility problems. This region is considered an air quality 

attainment city by the EPA (USFWS 2004a), meaning it currently meets EPA air quality standards. The 

Rocky Flats NWR is almost entirely in Jefferson County, Colorado. In 2008, air quality was good or 

moderate in Jefferson County on 264 out of 274 days for which data is available. The primary air quality 

concern in the region is ozone (EPA 2011). 

Noise 

Noise levels on the north, west, and east perimeter are affected by traffic on the highways adjacent to 

these locations. Because traffic volumes are higher on SH 93, noise levels are higher on the western 

perimeter than at other locations. Noise levels are lower on the southern perimeter because SH 72 is 

farther from the site boundary. Wind generators at the National Wind Technology Center (NWTC) also 

generate noise. The Refuge is typically a very windy location and wind noise contributes to the overall 

ambient noise levels. Noise levels decrease away from the area highways and NWTC wind generators 

(USFWS 2004a). 

Climate 

Rocky Flats NWR, including the proposed expansion area, lies within the semi-arid, continental climate 

zone (Peel et al. 2007). Temperatures range from an average high of 43o

F and low of 15oF in January, to 

an average high of 88o

F and low of 57oF in July. However, the temperatures can be much more extreme, 

with a record high of 105o

F and a record low of -29oF. This area has low mean annual precipitation, with 

an average of 15 inches per year (NWS 2011). Most of the overall precipitation falls in the summer, but 

because of its elevation, much of the winter precipitation falls as snow. 

Climate Change 

Broad scale climate prediction models anticipate that the climate of Rocky Flats NWR will warm between 

3-7o

F by the 2080s. Regardless of the emissions scenario used in individual climate models, the amount 

of precipitation in the Refuge area is expected to remain about the same or slightly decrease (Maurer et al. 

2007). 

Physical Environment of Baca National Wildlife Refuge Inholdings 

One of the properties described for Alternatives C & D is part of the 103,000 acre Medano-Zepata Ranch, 

owned by The Nature Conservancy (TNC). Three inholding parcels, totaling about 6,490 acres, are 

within the Baca NWR administrative boundary. These parcels, located in the southern portion of the 

refuge, are relatively close to one another. 
Page 24 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Baca NWR located in Saguache and Alamosa Counties in the San Luis Valley (SLV) of southern 

Colorado. The San Luis Valley is a high mountain desert surrounded by two 14,000 foot mountain ranges. 

Elevations on the valley floor average about 7,500 feet above sea level. The Baca NWR contains a highly 

diverse suite of habitats including desert shrublands, grasslands, wet meadows, playa wetlands, and 

riparian areas. Combined with other adjacent conservation-focused lands including the Great Sand Dunes 

National Park and Preserve, the Rio Grande National Forest, Colorado State Lands, and The Nature 

Conservancy, this region of the San Luis Valley contains one of the largest and most diverse assembles of 

wetland habitats remaining in Colorado. 

The climate of the San Luis Valley is arid, with cold winters and moderate summers. Much of the valley 

floor receives between 7-8 inches of precipitation annually while the surrounding mountain ranges 

receive upwards of 60 inches. Thus water resources in the San Luis Valley are almost exclusively driven 

by snow melt throughout the spring and summer months for both available surface water and subsurface 

groundwater recharge. The Rio Grande River is the largest river bisecting the valley floor with numerous 

tributary streams and creek feeding in to it. Flowing onto the Baca NWR, major creeks include 

Cottonwood, Deadman, Crestone, and Willow Creeks. These creeks provide critical water which sustains 

wetland and riparian habitats and help replenish groundwater resources. 

The San Luis Valley is part of the Rio Grande Rift Zone that extends from southern New Mexico north 

through the valley to its terminus near Leadville, Colorado. The valley is bordered on the east by the 

Sangre de Cristo mountain range and on the west by the San Juan mountain range. The valley floor 

contains deep deposits of alluvium fill material comprised of a variety of materials ranging in size from 

fine clays and sands to small and medium cobbles and boulders. The groundwater system is very 

complex containing both a confined and unconfined aquifer system. The Baca NWR is largely comprised 

of either shallow or deep sands where water drainage is generally rapid or cemented sands where drainage 

is poor. Playa wetlands are typical of the areas with cemented sands as the primary substrate. 

Physical Environment of Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge Inholding 

The second property mentioned in Alternatives B & C is an inholding at Arapahoe NWR known as the 

Yarmony Ranch. It is located in an intermountain, glacial basin south of the town of Walden, the county 

seat of Jackson County. The 8,200-foot elevation basin is approximately 30 miles wide and 45 miles long, 

and is commonly known as “North Park” since it is the most northern of three such “parks” in Colorado. 

The elevation in North Park ranges from slightly below 8,000 feet on the valley floor to 12,965 feet on 

Clarks Peak. 

The climate is semiarid—characterized as having short, cool summers with an average growing season of 

only 43 days a year followed by long, cold winters. The mean rainfall in Walden is 10.83 inches of 

precipitation annually, 70 percent of which falls as snow (Lischka et al. 1983). 

North Park is a structural basin between the Precambrian granites, gneisses and schists of the Medicine 

Bow and Park Ranges and Independence Mountain. The sandstones, conglomerates, and shales of the 

Tertiary Coalmont Formation dominate the surface geology of the North Park floor. Coal is found in the 

lower members of the formation (Hail 1968). 
Page 25 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Yarmony Ranch is an approximately 3,000-acre inholding located within the Arapaho National 

Wildlife Refuge administrative boundary. The Ranch parcel contains mostly meadow (70%) and 

important riparian-willow and sage upland habitat. 

The water table is shallow, with the elevation of the groundwater table approximating the water-surface 

elevations in nearby rivers, creeks, reservoirs, and ponds. The flooded meadows and riparian area allow 

the Refuge and Ranch to support abundant wildlife resources, producing thousands of ducks annually, and 

a diverse wildlife community that is common to high mountain valleys in the central Southern Rocky 

Mountains. 

3.2 Biological Environment 

Vegetation 

Rocky Flats is found in the Front Range Fans subregion within the broader high plains ecogregion. An 

ecoregion is a major ecosystem (a biological community of interacting organisms and their physical 

environment) that is defined by a distinctive geography. This area has seen substantial urbanization and 

other land conversion along the Front Range Urban Corridor. According to Nelson (2010), the Refuge 

likely serves as “a refugium for plants and animals that were once much more common.” The Refuge is 

home to some 630 plant species, of which 7 are considered rare or imperiled by the Colorado Natural 

Heritage Program (CHNP) (Nelson 2010). A diverse mosaic of vegetation communities is found at the 

Refuge. The dominant natural vegetation in this ecoregion is short grass prairie, which today comprises 

only about 20% of its original area (Robinson et al. 1995) due to land cover and land use changes 

associated with factors such as agriculture and urbanization. Wildlife dependent on prairie habitats are 

thus dependent on a substantially shrunken ecosystem. 

Two of the vegetation communities present on the Refuge, the xeric tallgrass grassland and the tall upland 

shrubland, are considered to be rare in the region. Other significant vegetation communities include the 

riparian woodland, riparian shrubland, wetlands, mesic mixed grassland, xeric needle and thread 

grassland, reclaimed mixed grassland and ponderosa pine woodland. 

Xeric Tallgrass Grassland 

This rare plant community is found on the rocky plains and ridgelines in the western portions of the 

Refuge and in the proposed acquisition area in section 16. Covering about 2,000 acres, it contains several 

different plant associations that include combinations of big bluestem, little bluestem, mountain muhly, 

sun sedge, Fendler’s sandwort and Porter’s aster. Other tallgrass prairie species include Indian-grass, 

prairie dropseed, switchgrass, and needle-and-thread grass. Species richness is high; 285 species have 

been recorded within the xeric tallgrass community at the Refuge, of which about 80% are native. 

Interestingly, the big bluestem grass-dominated plant communities show a negative relationship between 

the age of the underlying alluvial soil and both the overall species richness and the invasibility of those 

habitats. Therefore, the Refuge, with its 2.2 million year old soils, has lower overall species richness but 

also far lower prevalence of invasive plant species than other nearby communities with younger soils 

(Buckner and Odasz in review). Differences in species composition are attributable to annual variations in 

climate and precipitation (Kaiser-Hill 2002b). The xeric tallgrass grassland is found primarily on Flatirons 

and Nederland soils and is believed to be a relict once connected to the tallgrass prairie hundreds of miles 
Page 26 

The vegetation and land cover of the proposed acquisition in Section 16 
Page 27 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rocky Flats NWR and section 16 contain approximately 2,000 acres of Rocky Flats 

bluestem grassland. 

to the east (Nelson 2003; Essington et al. 1996). About 5% of the plant species in this community are 

associated with eastern North American prairies and woodlands (Weber 1965, 1976). 

The CNHP has found that much of the xeric tallgrass grasslands along the Colorado Front Range have 

been disturbed by urban development and agricultural conversion over the last century. In addition, 

aggressive weed species such as cheatgrass, Japanese brome and diffuse knapweed have degraded many 

areas of this community throughout the region (Essington et al. 1996). The CNHP believes that the xeric 

tallgrass grassland community exists in fewer than 20 places globally and that the Refuge has the largest 

example of this community remaining in Colorado and perhaps North America. The CNHP ranks this 

community as imperiled within the State (Essington et al. 1996) 

The xeric tallgrass grassland community is comprised of several sub-communities (Nelson 2003). One of 

these sub-communities was identified by ESCO during a five-year evaluation of bluestem-dominated 

grasslands in the Rocky Flats area, including in the potential acquisition area in section 16. This study 

found that the major distinguishing feature of what ESCO calls the rare “Rocky Flats Bluestem 

Grassland” community is the abundance of big bluestem with little bluestem, mountain muhly, and 

Porter’s aster. While big and little bluestem are characteristic of midwestern tallgrass prairies, mountain 

muhly and Porter’s aster are characteristic of mountain environments. This unusual combination of 

mountain and plains grassland species in a consistent and recurring pattern across the Rocky Flats alluvial 

surface, along with evidence of exceptional stability, makes this vegetation community a rare, if not 

unique, resource (ESCO 2002). 
Page 28 

 

 

 

 

 

Riparian Woodland 

The riparian woodland community is characterized by a diverse mixture of plains cottonwood, peachleaf 

willow, Siberian elm, and coyote willow, with an understory of various shrubs such as leadplant and 

snowberry. It is found primarily along the drainage bottoms of the Refuge, with the most significant stand 

occurring in the Rock Creek drainage (Essington et al. 1996; PTI 1997). 

The most significant threat to the riparian woodland community is from exotic species such as Russian 

olive, tamarisk, Siberian elm, Canada thistle, musk thistle, smooth brome, and Kentucky bluegrass. 

Preservation of this woodland community depends on the preservation of associated streamflow 

(Essington et al. 1996; PTI 1997). 

Riparian Shrubland 

Riparian shrubland forms extensive, dense thickets of shrubs along the stream bottoms of the Refuge as 

well as along Woman Creek in section 16. It is dominated by narrowleaf willow, coyote willow, and 

indigo bush and generally has an understory consisting of leadplant, Baltic rush and various sedges 

(Kettler et al. 1994). 

Tall Upland Shrubland 

Tall upland shrubland occurs on north facing slopes above seeps and along streams, primarily within the 

Rock Creek drainage. The tall upland shrubland consists of a rare association of hawthorn, chokecherry, 

and occasionally wild plum. This shrubland is associated with groundwater seeps that form at the contact 

of the Rocky Flats Alluvium and the underlying, relatively impermeable Arapahoe Formation. The 

herbaceous understory contains a number of species that are restricted to the cool, shaded microhabitat 

provided by the canopy. Understory species include Fendler waterleaf, spreading sweetroot, anise root, 

carrionflower greenbriar, fragile fern, Colorado violet, Rydberg’s violet and northern bedstraw. Although 

the tall upland shrubland represents less than 1% of the total area of the Refuge, it contains 55% of the 

plant species on the site (DOE/Service 2001). This shrubland community is believed to be rare and may 

not occur anywhere else (DOE/Service 2001; Essington et al. 1996). 

Other Shrubland 

Other shrubland communities include short upland shrubland and savanna shrubland, which are found 

primarily in the Rock Creek drainage. Short upland shrubland is characterized by stands of snowberry and 

occasional Wood’s rose and is often found in association with wet meadows and other wetland or riparian 

communities. Savanna shrubland occurs in drier areas where scattered shrubs are interspersed with 

grasslands. Three-leaf sumac is the predominant shrub in this community. 

Wetland Communities 

Wetland communities play an important role in sustaining the diverse vegetation and habitat types found 

on the Refuge. The two most significant wetland complexes at Rocky Flats are the seep-fed wetlands 

along the hillsides of the Rock Creek drainage and the Antelope Springs complex in the Woman Creek 

drainage. These wetlands areas are the most significant because they have the largest contiguous areas 

and the most complex plant associations (PTI 1997). Three wetland types, tall marsh, short marsh and wet 
Page 29 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

meadow, are found at the Refuge. These wetland types occur both in streamside areas along the valley 

floors as well as near the seeps and springs that occur along many of the hillsides. 

Tall marsh wetlands generally occur along ponds and ditches and in persistently saturated seeps. These 

wetlands are dominated by cattails, bulrushes, and associated forbs such as watercress, showy milkweed, 

swamp milkweed and Canada thistle (a noxious weed). Antelope Springs in the Woman Creek drainage is 

the best example of a saturated slope wetland and tall marsh community at the Refuge. 

Short marsh wetland is commonly associated with seasonally inundated or saturated areas, such as 

hillside seeps. Prevalent species include Nebraska sedge, Baltic rush, and spike rush as well as forbs such 

as watercress and speedwell. 

The seasonally saturated wet meadow wetlands occur on the perimeter of saturated wetlands and contain 

elements of both the short marsh wetland and upland mixed grassland communities. Prevalent species 

include redtop, prairie cordgrass, and solid stands of Canada bluegrass and western wheatgrass. Other 

species commonly found in this community include common milkweed, wild iris, Canada thistle, dock, 

and occasionally arnica (Nelson 2003). 

Mesic Mixed Grassland 

The mesic mixed grassland community is the largest vegetation community at the Refuge, covering much 

of the broad ridges, hillsides, and valley floors throughout the site and the rolling plains in the eastern 

portions of the Refuge. This community is characterized by western wheatgrass, blue grama, side-oats 

grama, prairie Junegrass, Canada bluegrass, Kentucky bluegrass, green needlegrass and little bluestem. 

This grassland occurs on clay loam soils that have relatively higher soil moisture content than other 

upland areas. The higher soil moisture results from subirrigation from the coarse alluvial soils, snow 

accumulation, and protection from wind (DOE 1997). The mesic mixed grassland is very important to 

wildlife species including grassland birds, small mammals and larger mammals such as mule deer. 

The quality of the mesic mixed grassland habitat varies considerably across the site. In the western parts 

of the site, this community has been degraded by diffuse knapweed, while in the eastern portion of the 

site, some areas have been degraded by weed species such as Japanese brome, alyssum, and musk thistle 

(PTI 1997). 

Xeric Needle and Thread Grassland 

Several patches of xeric grassland dominated by needle-and-thread grass occur in the eastern half of the 

Refuge. Other dominant grass species include New Mexico feathergrass, Canada bluegrass, Kentucky 

bluegrass, and Japanese brome (Nelson 2003). This grassland occurs primarily on the eastern extensions 

of the Rocky Flats pediment, an area that is characterized by very cobbly sandy loam soils. These soils are 

very similar to the soils that support the xeric tallgrass grassland community (Kaiser-Hill 1997). The 

largest expanse of needle-and-thread grassland at the Refuge occurs along the ridgetop north of the east 

access road. 
Page 30 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reclaimed Mixed Grassland 

Reclaimed mixed grassland occurs primarily in the southeastern portion of the Refuge which was 

formerly cultivated. Most of these areas have been re-seeded with a mixture of smooth brome and 

intermediate wheatgrass, both introduced species. Other common species include crested wheatgrass, 

sweetclover, and field bindweed (Kaiser-Hill 1997). 

Short Grassland 

This grassland is typified by buffalograss and blue grama, both short grass prairie species (Kaiser-Hill 

1997). 

Ponderosa Pine Woodland 

Isolated patches of ponderosa pine woodland cover 9 acres in the uppermost reaches of the Rock Creek 

and Woman Creek drainages near the western edge of the Refuge, as well as nearby areas in the section 

16 parcel. These scattered pines represent an eastward extension of the nearby foothill forests. While 

much of the understory is similar to the adjacent grassland communities, other associated plants are more 

likely to occur in foothills environments (DOE 1997). 

Disturbed and Developed Areas 

Disturbed and developed areas consist of existing or former facilities associated with the previous use of 

the Rocky Flats site. They include roads, landfills, dams, and other facilities. They also include former 

facilities that have been revegetated with native and introduced grass species. 

Noxious Weeds 

Noxious weeds are exotic, aggressive plants that invade native habitat and cause adverse economic or 

environmental impacts. Since 1990, the Refuge has experienced a large increase in noxious weeds (DOE 

1997). At the Refuge, the noxious weed species with the greatest potential to degrade the native plant 

communities and that are the most difficult to control include diffuse knapweed, musk thistle, Dalmatian 

toadflax, and Canada thistle. Other increasingly problematic weeds are downy brome (cheatgrass), field 

bindweed, and jointed goatgrass (Lane 2004). Diffuse knapweed, an aggressive tumbleweed, is currently 

given highest control priority. Canada thistle is common in and around most of the wetlands, musk thistle 

is found across mesic grasslands, and Dalmatian toadflax is common in xeric grasslands and other areas. 

Sulfur cinquefoil is a new invader to the area that may have already established populations on the Refuge 

(Lane 2004). 

While the grasslands on the western part of the Refuge and section 16 currently have relatively few 

invasive species, possibly due to lower invasibility of these older assemblages (Buckner and Odasz In 

Review), this is likely to change if the threat posed by invasive species on the Refuge is not addressed. 

Rare Plants 

No Federally listed plant species, such as the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid or Colorado butterfly plant, are 

known to occur at the Refuge. Aside from the rare xeric tallgrass prairie and tall upland shrubland 

communities, the Refuge also supports populations of four rare plant species that are listed as rare or 
Page 31 

imperiled by the CNHP. These species are the mountain-loving sedge, forktip three-awn, carrionflower 

greenbriar, and dwarf wild indigo. Forktip three-awn primarily occurs in previously disturbed sites near 

the western edge of the DOE Core Operable Unit. The other three species occur primarily along the 

pediment slopes in the Rock Creek drainage (Kaiser-Hill 2002b). 

Fire History 

Historical documentation indicates that the grasslands in the Rocky Flats area have been subjected to 

lightning and human-caused fires for thousands of years (DOE 1999). These fires likely played a major 

role in promoting native vegetation growth and diversity (DOE 1999). Since 1972, wildfires have not 

been allowed to burn and only one controlled burn has been conducted in the grasslands at the Refuge. As 

a result, a fuel load of dead vegetation has been building up in the grasslands of Rocky Flats for almost 30 

years. This buildup of dead vegetation has contributed to an invasion of noxious weeds on the site, 

particularly in the last 10 years (DOE 1999). 

Several wildfires have been documented on the site since 1993. In 1994, the Spring Grassland fire burned 

70 acres between SH 128 on the north boundary and the north access road. In 1996, the 104-acre Labor 

Day Grassland Fire burned much of an area penned in by access roads in the southern portion of the site. 

In February 2002b, a 27-acre fire burned through portions of the Rock Creek drainage on the south side of 

SH 128. A 48-acre prescribed burn was conducted on April 6, 2000. The prescribed burn took place in the 

same area as the 1996 wildfire (Kaiser-Hill 2002). A fire caused by a faulty power line burned 852 acres 

on Rocky Flats and another 140 acres outside of Federal ownership (USFWS 2006). The most recent fire 

burned between 10-15 acres on September 28, 2011 (Dixon, pers. obs.) 

A recent wildfire on September 28, 2011, was actively suppressed at less than 15 acres. 
Page 32 

 

 

 

 

 

Wildlife Resources 

Many areas of the Refuge have remained relatively undisturbed for the last 40 to 60 years, allowing them 

to retain diverse habitat and associated wildlife communities. These wildlife communities are supported 

by the regional network of protected open space that surrounds the site on three sides, buffering wildlife 

habitat from the surrounding urban development. 

Mammals 

One of the most abundant and conspicuous mammal species at the Refuge is the mule deer. A resident 

herd of about 160 individuals inhabits the site. In the spring, mule deer prefer woody habitat followed by 

grasslands. In summer, deer use is typically divided among a more diverse range of habitats. In the fall, 

mule deer primarily use woody habitats, with grasslands also being important. In the winter, mule deer 

are commonly observed in grasslands and tall upland shrublands (Kaiser-Hill 2001). 

Whitetail deer have become more common at the site and are often observed in company with mule deer. 

The Refuge is in the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW; formerly known as the Colorado Division of 

Wildlife [CDOW]) Game Management Unit (GMU) #38 and is adjacent to GMU#29, which collectively 

make up the Boulder deer herd. Elk actively use the Refuge, possibly for calving, and at least two herds 

are using the Refuge (M. Dixon, personal observation). 

Rocky Flats provides important elk habitat, particularly for cows and calves 

Other mammals observed at the Refuge include desert cottontail, white-tailed jackrabbits, blacktailed 

jackrabbits, muskrat, and porcupine. Muskrats generally occur in and around the ponds, while porcupine 
Page 33 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

populations are limited to the shrubland and ponderosa pine habitats in the upper Rock Creek drainage 

(DOE 1997). Porcupines are also likely to occur in the ponderosa pine woodland on section 16. Blacktailed prairie dogs once inhabited the Refuge in limited numbers but were largely extirpated from the 

Refuge by a plague outbreak in the early 2000’s. Numerous small mammal species, such as mice and 

voles, inhabit all vegetation community types at the Refuge. Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, a 

threatened species, is described below. 

Two commonly observed carnivore species at the Refuge are coyote, which occurs throughout the site, 

and raccoon, which is often seen in the DOE Core Operable Unit and near watercourses. Three to six 

coyote dens on the Refuge support an estimated 14 to 16 individuals at any given time (Kaiser-Hill 2001). 

Twenty-two historic coyote dens used between 1991 and 2002 have been identified at the Refuge. The 

coyote dens generally occur on hillsides near watercourses. Six dens were active in 2002. One active den 

was located in the upper Rock Creek drainage, two were located on the slopes above either side of Walnut 

Creek near Indiana Street, one was near the D-1 pond, one was near Antelope Springs, and one was in the 

upper South Woman Creek drainage (Nelson 2003). Other carnivores include striped skunk, gray fox, red 

fox, long-tailed weasel, American badger, and mink. Black bears and mountain lion tracks are 

occasionally seen at the site (Kaiser-Hill 2000; 2001). 

Birds 

The most commonly observed raptors at the Refuge are red-tailed hawk, great horned owl, and American 

kestrel. Other less abundant raptors include Swainson’s hawk, prairie falcon, and long-eared owl. Most 

raptor species use riparian woodlands or tall upland shrublands for nesting and roosting habitat and forage 

in all habitats at the site. In addition, the burrowing owl (Colorado threatened) has been observed using 

grasslands, and the ferruginous hawk uses riparian areas of the Refuge (PTI 1997; DOE 1997). 

More than 185 species of migratory birds have been recorded at the Refuge, of which about 75 are 

believed to breed at the site. Of the estimated 100 neotropical migrants (migratory birds that breed north 

of the U.S./Mexico border and winter south of the border) at the Refuge, about 45 are confirmed or 

suspected breeders at the site (PTI 1997). 

Commonly observed bird species in wetland habitats include the red-winged blackbird, song sparrow, 

common yellowthroat, and common snipe. Common birds in riparian woodland areas include the northern 

oriole, American goldfinch, house finch and yellow warbler. The tall upland shrubland habitat is 

inhabited by the song sparrow, rufous-sided towhee, black-billed magpie, yellow-breasted chat, and black 

capped chickadee. Common grassland birds include the vesper sparrow, western meadowlark, 

grasshopper sparrow, and mourning dove (DOE 1997). The reclaimed mixed grassland provides habitat 

for birds such as the western meadowlark and vesper sparrow (PTI 1997). Several waterfowl species use 

the ponds at the Refuge. The most common waterfowl are mallards and Canada geese (DOE 1997). Great 

blue herons feed in mudflats and short marshlands, while double-crested cormorants are common summer 

residents. 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

In general, reptiles and amphibians are found in small numbers at the Refuge due to an absence of 

suitable habitat. The most common reptiles are the bullsnake, yellow-bellied racer, plains garter snake, 

and prairie rattlesnake. All of these species occur in the open grassland habitats, although the plains garter 
Page 34 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

snake typically lives close to water bodies. Other reptiles include the short-horned lizard which occurs in 

open grasslands, the eastern fence lizard which occurs in rocky shrublands, and the western painted turtle 

which occurs in Refuge ponds (DOE 1997) and in the clay mine pool on Section 16 (M. Dixon, personal 

observation). The most abundant amphibian at the Refuge is the boreal chorus frog, which breeds in water 

bodies throughout the site. The northern leopard frog is less common and is found only in permanent 

water bodies such as ponds (DOE 1997). The boreal chorus frog is relatively abundant in the streams and 

wetlands at the Refuge (Kaiser-Hill 2000). Other amphibians include the bullfrog, Woodhouse’s toad, 

plains spadefoot, and tiger salamander (DOE 1997). 

Aquatic Species 

Aquatic species at the Refuge are limited in drainages and ditches by low and irregular flows. The most 

common aquatic macroinvertebrates (aquatic insects) are the larvae of the blackfly, midge and mayfly 

(DOE 1997). Other species include caddisflies, craneflies, and damselfly larvae, as well as snails and 

amphipods. Large macroinvertebrates such as crayfish and snails are potentially important prey for fish, 

waterfowl, and mammal species. 

Each of the three primary drainages at the Refuge contains a variety of pond and stream habitats, varying 

amounts of habitat modification, and seasonal water flows. The Walnut Creek drainage has been highly 

modified as part of the development of the Refuge. The upper section of the drainage was filled and the 

lower section was modified into a series of small reservoirs that can retain water released from the 

Industrial Area. A variety of non-native fish species (rainbow trout, carp, and bass) were introduced into 

the Walnut Creek reservoirs. Although all introductions did not establish reproducing fish populations, 

carp, goldfish, and fathead minnows are present in these reservoirs. Woman Creek retains a significant 

amount of stream habitat and holds the majority of Refuge fish species. Native fish species that reproduce 

within Woman Creek include white suckers, fathead minnows, green sunfish, stonerollers, and creek 

chubs. Two nonnative fish species, golden shiners and largemouth bass, also are found in the drainage. 

Three Refuge fish species are considered imperiled by the CPW: the redbelly dace (endangered), the Iowa 

darter (special concern), and the common shiner (threatened) (CDOW 2011). Threats to these species 

include extirpation through habitat degradation (e.g., siltation, pollution and/or bank destabilization), the 

effects of urbanization, and predation by introduced non-native fish. 

Special Status Species 

Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse 

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse occurs in every major drainage on the Refuge. Listed as a threatened 

species in 1998, the mouse occurs in habitat adjacent to streams and waterways along the Front Range of 

Colorado and southeastern Wyoming. At the Refuge, Preble’s meadow jumping mouse has been found in 

wetlands and shrubland communities adjacent to the Rock Creek and Woman Creek drainages. 

Approximately 1,108 acres on 12 miles of Rock, Walnut, and Woman creeks are designated as critical 

habitat (USFWS 2010). 
Page 35 

Preble’s meadow jumping mice inhabit the riparian corridors of the Rocky Flats area 

 

 

 

Bald Eagle 

The bald eagle occasionally forages at the Refuge although no nests have been identified. An active nest 

is located to the east of the Refuge near Standley Lake. Eagles feed primarily on fish and waterbirds but 

also on small mammals and mammal carcasses (DOE/Service 2001). The bald eagle was Federally listed 

as endangered in 1967 was downlisted to threatened in 1994, and was officially delisted from the 

Endangered Species Act on August 8, 2007 (72 FR 37346). The bald eagle remains a special status 

species due to its ongoing protections provided under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 

Bald eagles nest near the refuge and are occasionally observed hunting in Rocky Flats 
Page 36 

 

 

 

Burrowing Owl 

The burrowing owl has a broad range across North and South America, but it is listed as threatened by the 

state of Colorado because of habitat loss due to suburban development and agriculture along the Front 

Range (CDOW 2011). Colorado’s burrowing owls are present from April to October, and in the months 

between, they migrate to Mexico and Central America. The burrowing owl is found in grassland areas of 

the Refuge where it roosts in burrows, particularly those of prairie dogs. Due to the recent decline in 

prairie dogs on the Refuge, its range on the Refuge may be restricted relative to its historic use of the area. 

Burrowing owls feed primarily on invertebrates and small vertebrates. 

Burrowing owls often roost in prairie dog burrows, but are presently uncommon at Rocky 

Flats because of a decline in black-tailed prairie dogs on the Refuge 

 

Biological Environment of Baca National Wildlife Refuge Inholdings 

The vegetation communities within the three Baca NWR inholding parcels mentioned in Alternatives C & 

D are described in detail in Salas et al. 2010. These three TNC parcels are largely comprised of open to 

moderately dense shrub steppe or shrublands dominated by rabbitbrush occurring widely on the stabilized 

sandsheet and sand ramp. Intermixed within the rabbitbrush is black greasewood and winterfat. 

Herbaceous species include Indian ricegrass, needle and thread, Sandhill muhly and alkali sacaton. As the 

shrubland community transitions into herbaceous dominate community types, species such as Indian 

ricegrass and needle and thread are much more common. Mesic meadows, emergent marshes, and playa 

wetland also comprise a portion of the parcels with species like sedges, Baltic rush, saltgrass, and western 

wheatgrass occurring throughout. 
Page 37 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These vegetation communities support a variety of migratory birds including grassland songbirds, shrubobligate species such as Brewer’s sparrow and sage thrasher, and wetland-dependent birds such as 

American avocets, white-faced ibis, sandhill crane, and numerous waterfowl species. Other wildlife 

species known to occur in these habitats include rare species such as slender spiderflower, a silky pocket 

mouse, and a sandhill skipper (butterfly). These species occur throughout the transition areas between 

playa and wet meadow habitats and the surrounding upland grassland and shrub habitats. Slender 

spiderflower is locally abundant on Baca NWR and surrounding lands, however, it has very limited a 

range outside of the San Luis Valley (Rondeau et al 1998). Elk, pronghorn, and coyotes are also common 

throughout the refuge including these parcels. 

Biological Environment of Arapahoe National Wildlife Refuge Inholding 

The inholding in Arapahoe NWR provides quality habitat for many birds common to the sage-brush 

steppe including sage thrasher, Vesper sparrow and Brewer’s sparrow. Greater sage-grouse are common, 

and provides critical feeding areas for sage grouse young. Mammals using the sage habitat include whitetailed prairie dogs, Wyoming ground squirrel, and pronghorn. 

The Illinois River, which is tributary to the Michigan River, supports 7 species of native and non-native 

fish. Willow flycatcher, yellow warbler, black-crowned night-heron, sora, along with moose, river otter, 

beaver and wintering elk extensively use the riparian and willow habitat found along the river. 

Moose, mule deer, elk and pronghorn are common. These animals migrate between the Refuge, Ranch 

and adjacent areas, with an average of 1200 elk, 200 pronghorn and 20 moose inhabiting the area at any 

one time. 

Special Status Species 

Species that are known, or believed to occur in Jackson County, and possibly on the Ranch and Refuge, 

include; American wolverine (candidate), piping plover and Canada lynx (threatened); and least tern, 

(endangered). An endangered plant, North Park phacelia is found on the Refuge and several other areas 

in Jackson County. A number of species of State concern are found in the area include western 

burrowing owl, ferruginous hawk, long-billed curlew, peregrine falcon, northern leopard frog, and 

American white pelican. 

3.3 Cultural Resources 

The following brief summary of the prehistory and history of the Rocky Flats NWR region is primarily an 

abridgment of the extensive background research done as a part of the archaeological investigations for 

the then-proposed Northwest Parkway (Painter et al. 2005). Additional detailed information is available in 

that publication and in the numerous sources cited as a part of that research. 

Prehistory 

Current archaeological evidence indicates that the earliest humans migrated to the Rocky Flats NWR 

region near the close of the last ice age approximately 14,000 years ago. The sites and artifacts left by 

these early peoples are divided into five general stages: 

Paleoindian 12,000 BC – 5,700 BC 
Page 38 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Archaic 5,700 BC – AD 150
 

Late Prehistoric AD 150 – AD 1540
 

Protohistoric AD 1540 – AD 1750
 

Early Historic AD 1750 - 1850 

Artifacts from the Paleoindian stage provide the earliest evidence of human occupation in Colorado. The 

traditional view of the Paleoindian pattern emphasizes a nomadic culture tied to the migration of large 

game, most notably extinct “Pleistocene megafauna,” such as mammoth and Bison antiquus. Recent 

studies, however, indicate that Paleoindians also exploited smaller game, fish, and waterfowl, although on 

a much reduced scale (Kuehn 1998; Walker 1982; Wheat 1979; Wilmsen and Roberts 1978). Perhaps the 

most readily recognized stone tools in the Americas are associated with the Paleoindian stage, specifically 

the well-crafted, large, lanceolate, and often fluted projectile points (i.e., large, longitudinal flake scars 

extending from the base of the point along its centerline). Paleoindian lithic assemblages are composed 

predominantly of flaked stone tools believed to have been used primarily for hide and meat processing. 

Population densities were low during the Paleoindian stage, and therefore sites (particularly camp sites) 

dating to this period occur less frequently than those of the subsequent stages. 

The Archaic stage is marked by an increasingly diverse subsistence base, an extensive feature 

assemblage, and a variety of stone tool and projectile point styles. The beginning of the Archaic stage 

coincides roughly with the onset of the Altithermal climatic episode (approximately 7,000 BC - 4,000 

BC): a prolonged period of general warming and drying in western North America (Frison 1991). The 

change in weather patterns and environments resulted in the total replacement of Pleistocene fauna with 

generally modern species. Collected wild plant foods made up a significant portion of the human diet 

during the Archaic stage and small mammals, reptiles, and even insects were eaten. Ground stone 

implements used to process floral material such as nuts, seeds, berries and fruits became common. Stone 

boiling pits, storage cists, and architectural features such as basin houses are also associated with the 

Archaic stage and are likely the result of increasing population density and a general shift toward 

increased levels of sedentism (Frison 1991; Metcalf and Black 1991; Shields 1998). Archaic projectile 

points are generally large and often are not as well crafted as points of the preceding Paleoindian stage. 

The Late Prehistoric stage is generally defined as the time from the introduction of the bow and arrow and 

the start of the use of pottery to the earliest contacts of the native population with Europeans. Throughout 

the region this was a time of important changes in economic patterns, artifact complexes, and population 

distribution. During this stage material traits and possibly certain economic patterns believed native to 

areas farther east were adopted by the local hunter-gatherers. This time period coincides with the 

introduction of the bow and arrow, and, although large spear points are associated with the early years, 

the most distinctive lithic characteristic of the period is the small triangular projectile point. A range of 

habitation sites with structures has been recorded in eastern Colorado, but there is no evidence of 

permanently settled horticultural villages. Ceramics are varied but in general consist of cord-marked jars. 

Bone artifacts are common and include awls, fleshers, wrenches, and beads. Ground stone is abundant 

and varied, including not only manos and metates but also shaft abraders. 

The Protohistoric stage encompasses the span of time between the earliest European influences on the 

Native Americans and the onset of regular, direct contacts between Native Americans and EuroAmericans. The AD 1540 date for the beginning of this stage corresponds with Coronado’s first 

expedition to the Southern Plains of North America and, although the Spanish did not make it to the 

Rocky Flats region, it is the beginning of potential influences. Euro-American incursions into the central 
Page 39 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and western high plains are known to have occurred on an infrequent basis during the latter half of the 

18th century. External pressures in addition to the introduction of the horse and other material goods led 

to accelerated changes to the traditional cultures. A nomadic, equestrian lifestyle emphasizing bison 

hunting, generally with firearms, became pervasive among tribes occupying eastern Colorado. The 

circular arrangements of rock often associated with Protohistoric sites are thought to be primarily the 

remnant “footprints” of tipi structures - representing rock weights used to secure the structure coverings. 

Much more information is available for the post-AD 1725 periods. Most notably, historically identifiable 

tribes established a presence in the region. Historical records indicate that this particular span of time is 

characterized by successive incursions and retreats by various tribes. By 1725, incursions by Comanches 

and their Ute allies had forced the Apache to withdraw from Colorado. The short-lived Ute/Comanche 

alliance that successfully pushed the Apache south disintegrated by the late 1740s (Anderson 1989:34). 

The Comanche subsequently controlled southeastern Colorado until they were pushed south by the Kiowa 

and Kiowa Apache in the late 1780s (Jones et al. 1998). A later alliance among the Comanche, Kiowa, 

and Kiowa Apache was, in turn, challenged by Cheyenne and Arapaho entering the region in the first 

quarter of the nineteenth century. Although the Ute remained the primary occupants of the mountainous 

regions, the Shoshone and various plains-oriented groups were known to have used the mountains on a 

more limited basis. During this rather turbulent period of history, however, trade networks between 

Native American and Euro-American groups became well established despite the ongoing hostility. 

History 

Although Euro-Americans had been in the area sporadically for several decades, in 1806 the U.S. 

Government funded the first major expedition to investigate central and southern portions of the newly 

acquired Louisiana Purchase. Led by Lieutenant. Zebulon Pike, the expedition explored both the 

Arkansas River and South Platte River basins and, along the eastern slope of the Rocky Mountains, came 

as far north as the Colorado Springs area before heading west. After Pike’s foray, the next significant 

expedition to the Front Range area occurred in 1820. Commanded by Major Stephen H. Long of the U.S. 

Army, the exploration had a decided scientific emphasis and traveled west along the South Platte River to 

the foothills before heading south. The first accounts of the Denver area and the foothills to the west were 

provided by the Long expedition. It is interesting to note that neither man ever set foot on the peaks that 

were later named after them. 

The 1820s and 1830s were also characterized by a flourishing fur trade. Notable mountain men such as 

Andrew Sublette and Louis Vasquez exploited the abundant animal resources present along the Front 

Range. Vasquez and a band of trappers are reported to have camped at the confluence of the South Platte 

River and Clear Creek (known originally as the Vasquez River or Vasquez Fork), and from there 

followed Clear Creek to its source in the mountains. The booming fur trade led to the establishment of a 

series of trading posts bordering the eastern flanks of the Rocky Mountains from southeastern Colorado to 

southeastern Wyoming. By the early 1840s, a growing scarcity of beaver and changes in European 

fashion led to a significant decrease in the fur trade. 

Throughout much of the 1850s, the Colorado Piedmont and adjacent foothills remained devoid of 

permanent settlements. The discovery of gold quickly changed this situation. Gold was reportedly first 

found along the Front Range creeks sporadically during the late 1840s and early 1850s (Mehls 1984:33), 

particularly by miners on their way to the gold fields of California. However, the 1858 discovery of gold 
Page 40 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

near the confluence of the South Platte River and Cherry Creek provided the initial impetus for largescale mining in the region (Ubbelohde et al. 1995:56-57). 

During the initial gold rush years, northeast Colorado above the fortieth parallel (Baseline Road in 

Boulder, Colorado) was included within the Nebraska Territory, and the portion below the fortieth (which 

includes Rocky Flats) parallel was part of the Kansas Territory. Colorado was proclaimed an official 

territory by the U.S. Congress after Kansas entered the U.S. in 1861 and became the 38th State in 1876. 

Towns such as Golden, Boulder, and Arvada (known for being the “Celery Capital of the World”) sprang 

up in the areas surrounding the Rocky Flats NWR. Transportation networks consisting primarily of trails 

and later roads and railroads connected the growing population with the agricultural, mining, and 

ranching products produced throughout the State. Based on the U.S. Census the Denver Metro area, 

consisting of the seven counties of Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, Douglas, Jefferson, and (after 

2001) Broomfield, had a combined population of 186,987 people in 1900, 615,645 people in 1950, and 

2,784,228 people in 2010. 

The growing numbers of settlers and gold miners led to increasing conflicts with the Native American 

populations. A series of clashes culminated in both the 1864 massacre at Sand Creek, where more than 

100 Native American men, women, and children were killed, and the sacking of Julesburg, Colorado, by 

Cheyenne, Arapaho, and Sioux attackers the following year (Anderson 1989). Finally, the diminution of 

bison herds and continuous strife, in combination with disease and hunger, took its toll on the Native 

American population. The Medicine Lodge Treaties of 1867 provided for the final removal of the various 

Plains tribes to reservations located primarily in Oklahoma. 

History of the Rocky Flats Plant 

There are numerous documents and publications that provide a detailed history of the Rocky Flats Plant. 

There is also a diverse range of opinions and emotions concerning that history. Only a brief review of key 

events is presented here but additional details are available through several on-line and hardcopy 

publications. A list of these resources is available on the Rocky Flats Stewardship Council web page: 

http://www.rockyflatssc.org/rockyflats_history.html. 

The Rocky Flats Plant was approved for construction in March 1951 with the primary mission of building 

triggers for nuclear weapons. Ground was broken in July of that year and by April 1952 the Plant was 

fully operational. A major fire in 1969 heightened the public’s awareness of the possible dangers and a 

1989 raid to investigate environmental crimes led to a temporary closure that became permanent in 1992. 

A twelve-year cleanup process began in 1993. The Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001 set 

forth the creation of the refuge following the completion of the clean-up. In July of 2007 the Refuge, 

covering nearly 4,000 acres, was officially established. 

The following information outlines some important features of the Plant (HAER CO-83): 

 There were 436 structures including 150 permanent buildings and 90 temporary trailers. 

 The original site was 1,900 acres and an additional 4,600 acres were purchased in 1972. 
Page 41 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 From 1951 to 1975 the Plant was operated under the Atomic Energy Commission; from 1975­

1977 the Energy Research and Development Administration; and from 1977 to 1992 the DOE. 

 In 1951 the Plant employed 133 people; 1,059 employees by 1953; 3,000 employees between 

1957 and 1963; 3,700 employees in 1970; 2,750 employees in the mid-1970s, 6,000 employees 

during much of the 1980s, 7,100 employees in 1991. 

Previous Cultural Resource Investigations in Proposed Divestiture Lands 

The Refuge was created in 2007 from lands that were once a part of the Rocky Flats Plant. Prior to the 

establishment of the Refuge, the DOE, through the private firm of EG&G who was operating the Plant at 

the time, hired the environmental consulting firm of Dames & Moore to conduct a cultural resource 

inventory of all accessible lands on the Plant. That survey and the subsequent report include the 300-footwide strip of land currently proposed for divestiture (Dames and Moore 1991). Information from earlier 

surveys is incorporated into the findings of the 1991 report. 

The following table summarizes information concerning the cultural resources located within the 300­

foot-wide strip of land. The information is based on Figure 3 of the 1991 report and a review of 

information on the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation on-line database (Compass) 

on August 1, 2010. The eligibility information refers to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). 

These results are typical of investigations in the region: there are few sites, mostly from the historical 

period, and they are not eligible for the NRHP. 

SITE # SITE NAME 

LOCATION IN PROJECT 

AREA 

DETERMINATION 

OF NRHP ELIGIBILITY 

5JF512.1 Upper Church Ditch Section 1, northeast corner of 

project area 

Officially Not Eligible 

February 28, 1992 

5JF513.1 McKay Ditch Section 1, south 1/3 Officially Not Eligible 

February 28, 1989 

5JF734.1 Mower Ditch Section 13, north 1/3 Officially Not Eligible 

August 26, 1992 

5JF484 Stone House – Church Ranch Section 13, north 1/2 Officially Not Eligible 

July 20, 2006 

5JF514.3 Smart Ditch Section 13 Officially Not Eligible 

February 28, 1989 

 

 

 

The divestiture of Federal land constitutes an undertaking under section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA). On August, 25, 2010, as a part of the review process required by NHPA, the 

Service initiated consultation with the Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) with a letter 

recommending that no further cultural resource work was necessary as the land was previously surveyed 

and no historic properties were located. The SHPO responded on September 8, 2010 noting that the 

previously recorded linear resources (ditches) in the project area were recorded prior to the establishment 

of the current standards and requesting that the ditches be reconsidered. Three possible options for 

protection or re-evaluation of the resources were outlined in the letter. The Service decided to make use of 

the third option and re-evaluate the linear resources. 
Page 42 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In October of 2010, Dr. John Hoffecker of Historic Preservation Consultants completed the necessary reevaluations. In discussions with Shin duVail (SHPO staff) it was decided that two resources, the Upper 

Church Ditch segment (5JF512.1) and the McKay Ditch segment (5JF513.2) would be re-evaluated. Both 

of the re-evaluated segments are in poor condition and neither supports the NRHP eligibility of the ditch. 

These findings were sent to the SHPO on November 1, 2010, with a request for their concurrence. The 

SHPO concurred with the finding of no adverse effect for the proposed land disposal on November 5, 

2010. 

Previous Cultural Resource Investigations in Section 16 

Section 16 (Township 2 south, Range 70 west) is what is often referred to as a “school section.” School 

sections were initially established under the Federal Land Ordinance of 1785 which set aside section 16 of 

each township to provide income and, in some cases, a location for local schools. As western states were 

admitted to the Union, section 36 in each township was also established as a school section. The section 

16 in question was designated a school section when Colorado became a state in 1876. The section is 

referred to as the Rocky Flats school section and is part of the State Trust Lands managed by the 

Colorado State Board of Land Commissioners. 

There has been one cultural resource survey done in section 16. In January of 1998, the Colorado 

Department of Transportation archaeological staff surveyed the very disturbed SH 93 transportation 

corridor through the section in preparation for proposed shoulder work. No cultural resources were 

located (Hand 1998). 

A cultural resource survey was also done for the 35-mile long proposed W470 corridor in 1988 and 1989. 

The corridor was located just south of section 16. No cultural resources were located in the vicinity, 

however most of the corridor in the Rocky Flats area was excluded from the survey (Joyner 1989). 

3.4 Socioeconomic Environment 

The Rocky Flats NWR is at the intersection of Jefferson, Boulder, and Broomfield counties, in the 

northwest portion of the Denver metropolitan region. It is surrounded by open space to the north, east, and 

west and urban development to the northeast and southeast. Although there are no active developed uses 

within the Rocky Flats NWR, the DOE does retain some land within the middle of the site. Other nearby 

land uses include mining operations, wind energy research, and water collection and storage facilities. 

Surrounding Communities 

Five principal cities and towns (Arvada, Westminster, Broomfield, Superior, and Boulder) are located 

within close proximity to the Rocky Flats NWR. The general land uses of those portions of these 

municipalities located near the site are described below. 

 The City of Arvada is located southeast of the Refuge. While most of Arvada’s residential and 

commercial development is over 1 mile from the Refuge, the City’s incorporated boundary 

directly abuts the site. A large area immediately south of the Refuge and east of SH 93 has been 

annexed by the City and is planned for residential and mixed development. This area, known as 

the Vauxmont property, is currently vacant and used is for livestock grazing. 
Page 43 

 

 

 The City of Westminster is located directly east of the Refuge and north of Arvada. However, 

most of the western portions of Westminster’s incorporated area consist of open space, including 

the Westminster Hills Open Space which is being restored as a native grassland and prairie dog 

habitat. Residential land uses begin about 1.5 miles east of the Refuge. 

 The City and County of Broomfield is located immediately east and northeast of the Refuge. The 

area to the east is dominated by open space associated with Great Western Reservoir and 

undeveloped land. Other portions of this area are planned for development supporting office 

complexes. An existing office complex is located about 1 mile northeast of the Refuge on the 

north side of SH 128. 

 The Town of Superior is north and northeast of the Refuges’ northeastern corner. Existing 

residential areas are about 1⁄4 mile north of the Refuge and future residential developments are 

proposed for the area. Superior’s town center is located about 2 miles north of the Rocky Flats 

NWR boundary. 

 The City of Boulder is north and west of the Refuge’s northwestern corner. Much of the open 

space adjacent to the Refuge in this general area is owned or managed by the City of Boulder as 

open space, both for recreational and wildlife habitat purposes. The Flatirons Vista and Greenbelt 

Plateau trail systems are located in areas adjacent to the northern boundary of the Rocky Flats 

NWR. 

Population and Demographics 

The population in Jefferson County grew from 527,056 in 2000 to 534,543 in 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau), 

a total increase of 7,487 people. Population in the County is projected to continue growing over the long 

term, and reach more than 700,000 by the year 2040 (Colorado State Demography Office). 

The communities nearest to Rocky Flats NWR also exhibit strong growth trends. The surrounding 

communities have experienced tremendous growth over the past several years and this trend is expected 

to continue. This anticipated growth is considered in city, county, and regional plans. Census data for 

these communities can be found in the table below. 

CITY / TOWN 

2000 

POPULATION 

2010 

POPULATION 

CHANGE BETWEEN 2000 AND 

2010 

# % 

Arvada 102,153 106,433 +4,280 +4.2% 

Boulder 94,673 97,385 +2,712 +2.9% 

Broomfield 38,272 55,889 +17,617 +46.0% 

Superior 9,011 12,483 +3,472 +38.5% 

Westminster 100,940 106,114 +5,174 +5.1% 

Total 345,049 378,304 +33,255 +9.6% 
Page 44 

 

 

 

Within the surrounding communities noted in the table above, approximately 80% consider themselves to 

be non-Hispanic whites (Census 2010). Within the communities, approximately 13% of the population is 

Hispanic, with the highest proportion (21%) in Westminster. 

Employment 

As designated by the State of Colorado, Rocky Flats NWR is located in the Tri-County Workforce 

Region (Jefferson, Gilpin, and Clear Creek Counties). In June 2011, the average unemployment rate for 

this area was 8.3%, while the State average was 8.7% (Colorado Department of Labor and Employment). 

In the fourth quarter of 2010, the largest employment sectors were retail trade (29,098 employees), health 

care and social assistance (22,974), and accommodation and food services (21,901). (Colorado 

Department of Labor and Employment 2011). 

NUMBER UNEMPLOYMENT 

WORKFORCE REGION NUMBER EMPLOYED UNEMPLOYED RATE 

Boulder 160,804 11,986 6.9% 

Broomfield 28,069 2,429 8.0% 

Tri-County (Jefferson, 284,143 25,668 8.3% 

Gilpin, Clear Creek) 

Colorado 2,687,828 2,453,351 8.7% 

Income 

In 2009, per capita personal income was $45,834 in Jefferson County, a 2.8% annual increase since 1999. 

Total personal income in Jefferson County was $24.6 billion in 2009, up from about $18.3 billion in 

1999, reflecting an average annual growth rate of about 3.0% (Bureau of Economic Analysis). 

In 2008, median household income in Jefferson County was $66,627. This was 9% higher than the 

median household income across Colorado, and 32% higher than the median figure for the United States 

as a whole (Colorado Department of Labor and Employment). These figures are also substantially higher 

than Federal poverty thresholds for the same year. In 2008, Federal poverty thresholds for households of 

two and three persons were annual income of $14,051 and $17,163, respectively (U.S. Census Bureau). 

COUNTY 

TOTAL PERSONAL 

2009 TOTAL 

INCOME 

AVG ANNUAL 

GROWTH 

(1999-2009) 

PER CAPITA PE

2009 TOTAL 

RSONAL INCOME 

AVG ANNUAL 

GROWTH 

(1999-2009) 

Boulder $14.6B 3.4% $48,056 +2.8% 

Broomfield $2.1B n/a $37,135 n/a 

Jefferson $24.6B 3.0% $45,834 +2.8% 

Land Ownership 

The existing administrative boundary of the Refuge includes 6,240 acres of Federally-owned land, part of 

which is managed by the Service and part of which is managed by DOE. A substantial portion of the 
Page 45 

subsurface mineral rights on DOE-managed land within the Refuge acquisition boundary is privately 

owned or encumbered by leases. Existing Service policy states that it will not accept the transfer of 

jurisdiction from DOE if the land is subject to the mining of gravel or other aggregate materials. There are 

currently efforts underway to acquire mineral rights to the areas within the Refuge acquisition boundary. 

Section 16 

The State of Colorado currently owns section 16, including the 617 acres that have been proposed for 

exchange, and the land is managed by the State Land Board. Portions of section 16 have been mined for 

clay and aggregates and most of the land is leased for grazing livestock. 

Land Ownership at Other Potential Refuge Expansion Sites within Colorado 

There are two options under consideration for adding lands to existing wildlife refuges in the State of 

Colorado at either the Arapaho NWR in Jackson County or the Baca NWR in Alamosa and Saguache 

Counties. 

 The 3,687-acre land holding within the Arapaho NWR is available for purchase from a private 

land owner, and represents the largest remaining inholding within the Refuge’s acquisition 

boundary. 

 A portion of a 103,000-acre property owned by The Nature Conservancy is within the Baca 

NWR’s acquisition boundary, and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has expressed an interest in 

conveying this property to the Service. 

Property Tax 

The Rocky Flats NWR is Federally owned, and section 16 area is State-owned, meaning that there are no 

property taxes paid on these sites, and there would be no impacts from the changing of the acquisition 

boundary for the Refuge. Properties that are under consideration for acquisition at other refuges in the 

State may involve a change in land ownership status from private to public, meaning a net loss in property 

tax revenues for local jurisdictions. 

Public Use and Wildlife-dependent Recreational Activities 

The Refuge is currently not open to the public. However, the plan for public use and recreational 

opportunities is defined within the Rocky Flats NWR 2004 Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the site, 

which outlines how visitors will access the site, what activities they will enjoy, and what facilities they 

will encounter. 

 Access: Access to the site will be obtained via a two-lane road off SH 93. The access road will 

direct visitors to orientation information, trailheads and parking areas. To tie into surrounding 

existing and proposed trail systems, additional trailheads will be built on the north, east, and south 

boundaries of the Refuge. Strategically located to provide links to proposed trail networks, the 

secondary access points along the Refuge boundary will permit visitors to enter the site on foot, 

bike, and in some cases by horse. 
Page 46 

The Refuge will remain open from sunrise to sunset. Since visitors will be able to enter the site 

from a number of access points, each entry will serve as a “use portal” where signage will inform 

users about the distinction between where they came from (e.g., municipal open space) and where 

they are going (a National Wildlife Refuge). In addition to clarifying access opportunities and 

restrictions as well as information on the site’s history and cleanup, the signage will inform 

visitors about the conservation practices and priorities that may differ from those of surrounding 

open space areas. 

 Wildlife-Dependent Public Uses: The Refuge will provide a spectrum of wildlife recreation 

opportunities ranging from guided tours, to hiking, to interactive interpretation programs. Visitors 

will explore and learn about the site independently with the aid of interpretive facilities including 

signage, kiosks, and printed materials. Through the careful siting of trails and the design of visitor 

use facilities, it will be possible to shape the Refuge environment so that it invites exploration and 

reveals natural processes while minimizing impact to sensitive areas. Interpretive and educational 

programs will promote appreciation of the ecology of the prairie environment and inspire a 

greater appreciation for the Front Range’s remaining grassland habitat. Dogs and other pets will 

not be permitted on the Refuge. The visitor experience will include opportunities for the public to 

engage in wildlife observation, photography, interpretation, environmental education, and 

possible hunting. The public use activities will be carefully managed to avoid harmful impacts to 

wildlife and their habitat. Because the Service will focus on restoration and facility development 

during the first 5 years of Refuge operation, most of these activities will not be instituted until the 

Refuge is fully open to the general public. 

 Facilities: Facility development will carefully balance habitat conservation with opportunities for 

visitors to explore the prairie. Facility development will include trails, trailheads (with portable 

restrooms) overlooks, information kiosks, viewing blinds, contact station (with restrooms) and 

parking areas. Initially, the site will only be open to the general public at scheduled times and 

only one trail (1.75 miles) to Lindsay Ranch will be open to pedestrians. The initial trail will 

extend from the parking area to the Rock Creek overlook and make a loop within the Rock Creek 

drainage. Outlined below are all facilities that will be developed and open to the public once 

adequate funding is available to manage the refuge for public access: 

−	 Trails: Approximately 12.8 miles of multi-use trails and 3.8 miles of pedestrian-only trails 

will be developed. The majority of the trails will follow converted road corridors away from 

riparian areas. Trails within the Rock Creek drainage and other sensitive areas will be subject 

to seasonal closures as needed to protect wildlife. Looped pedestrian-only and multi-use trails 

as well as connections to adjacent trail systems will accommodate a variety of trail users. 

−	 Kiosk: Within a kiosk located outside the contact station, visitors will find maps of the trail 

system, rules and regulations, and information on Refuge wildlife and habitat. The kiosk will 

consist of three sign panels hung on a wooden structure. The kiosk will be accessible to all 

visitors when the contact station is closed. During the early years of visitor use of the refuge 

before development of the contact station and when access is limited, the kiosk will provide 

information on current and future public use opportunities. 
Page 47 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

−	 Equestrian Uses: Only multi-use trails in the southern portion of the site will be open to 

equestrian uses. Hitching posts will be located near the contact station, allowing equestrian 

users to hike to Lindsay Ranch. 

−	 Trailheads: All entries to the Refuge trail system will be posted with signage that clearly 

demarcates the visitor’s entry into a National Wildlife Refuge. 

−	 Overlook: Three overlooks will provide views of the site and the outlying landscape. The 

overlooks will be simple and designed to fit into the prairie landscape. They will likely entail 

a graded, gravel area sited for its nearby and distant views. The Rock Creek and SH 128 

overlooks will feature interpretive sign panels. Benches at the Woman Creek and Rock Creek 

overlooks will provide a resting point for visitors. 

−	 Blinds: Wildlife viewing blinds will be sited to optimize observation opportunities. The 

blinds will be designed to blend in with the surrounding landscape and minimize disturbances 

to wildlife. 

−	 Parking: Four parking areas (spaces for about 54 cars and one bus) will be constructed. The 

largest parking lot (30 spaces) will be located at the entry drive terminus, adjacent to the 

contact station. This main parking area will be designed to accommodate horse trailers. An 

additional parking lot (20 spaces) will be situated on the site’s northern edge with convenient 

access from Highway 128. Pull-offs along the main access road, south of the visitor contact 

station, and along Indiana Street will provide additional parking spaces (3 to 4 spaces each) 

for visitors using trails in the southern portion of the Refuge. All parking areas will be gravel 

and will be enclosed by a post and beam fence. 

−	 Contact Station: A small structure (approximately 750 to 1,000 square feet) will house an 

interpretive display and staff office space. The contact station will be the primary orientation 

point for visitors where they will collect information about the Refuge. The station also will 

serve as the meeting ground for guided tours and other Refuge programs. Located outside the 

main parking area, the contact station will be staffed seasonally (e.g., weekends from May 

through October), to provide visitor contact with Refuge staff. 
Page 48 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Environmental Consequences 

This chapter assesses the environmental impacts that would be expected to occur from the implementation 

of alternatives A, B, C, and D as described in chapter 2. Environmental impacts are analyzed by issues for 

each alternative and appear in the same order as discussed in chapter 2. The terms “bike path” and 

“highway” reference independent transportation use proposals that have been submitted to the Service; 

for details see a discussion of these proposals in Appendices E and F. 

4.1 Effects on the Physical Environment 

This section describes the effects of each alternative on the physical environment, including geology, 

mineral resources, soils, water, and the Service’s ability to address climate change. Further effects on the 

physical environment that are applicable to all alternatives are discussed below in “Unavoidable Adverse 

Impacts.” 

Alternative A (No Action ) 

If there is no change to the administrative boundary of the Refuge and the 300-foot-wide transportation 

corridor is disposed of via direct sale, the existing mineral lease on Section 16 may be exploited to extract 

marketable resources from the Rocky Flats Alluvium on that parcel. There would be a loss of productive 

soils on that parcel until mineral extraction is complete and the site has been reclaimed. There would also 

be a loss of productive soils within a portion of the 300 foot transportation corridor; the amount of loss 

would depend upon the amount of paved area in that 2.76-mile long parcel, but could range from 15 feet 

in width for a bike path up to nearly 300 feet for a highway with a multi-use path. Rights to the mineral 

resources under the 300-foot-wide transportation corridor would be transferred to the party receiving the 

surface rights, so there could be potential impacts to those resources as long as those uses do not interfere 

with the mandated use of the parcel for transportation improvements. 

The 300-foot-wide transportation corridor includes 5,133 feet of streams and ditches. Besides the 

potential loss of wildlife habitat associated with those waterways if the corridor is developed, there is the 

potential for increased downstream sedimentation and turbidity of surface water as a result of ground 

disturbance and increased erosion via runoff. There may also be effects on water quality due to runoff 

from the impervious surface of new transportation facilities if constructed, and increased temperatures 

downstream. It was determined in the Rocky Flats NWR CCP/EIS (USFWS 2004a) that these impacts 

would not significantly affect the management of Rocky Flats as a wildlife refuge. Development of the 

300-foot-wide parcel for transportation purposes would have to be performed in accordance with 

applicable local, State, and Federal regulations, including state radiation health standards that would be 

triggered by the disturbance of low-level residual plutonium in the soil as discussed in Appendix G. 

Under this alternative, section 16 would remain available for future development which would isolate the 

Refuge from existing regional open space that runs along much of the foot of the Front Range. One of the 

primary ecological concerns of climate change is the potential for populations with genotypes that are 

adapted to specific environmental conditions to die out because they are isolated from the land that will 

have those conditions under future climate regimes (Loss et al. 2011). Future climate projections suggest 

a substantial increase in temperature with a slight decrease in precipitation, which would leave the Refuge 
Page 49 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

vulnerable to more intense and frequent wildfire in the future and exert selection on the existing 

biodiversity of the Refuge. In Colorado, average temperatures have increased about 2 degrees Fahrenheit 

(°F) in the past 30 years and future winter projections indicate fewer extreme cold months, more extreme 

warm months, and more strings of consecutive warm winters (National Research Council of the National 

Academies 2007; Western Water Assessment 2008). Alternative A would make it more difficult for the 

Service to manage Refuge resources and adapt to climate change. 

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

Under this alternative, the mineral lease held on section 16 would be extinguished, and the mineral rights 

transferred to the United States along with the surface rights. The Rocky Flats Alluvium on the site would 

remain unextracted. Some reclamation would likely be necessary because of early and mid-twentieth 

century clay mining on the site, but the effort required to restore those parts of section 16 to tallgrass and 

mixed grass prairie would be far less than that required to reclaim the site from the full-scale gravel 

extraction would be likely to take place under Alternative A. Soil and mineral effects on the 

transportation corridor would be the same as under Alternative A. One of the existing land exchange 

proposals (Appendix F) would also provide for an extinguishment of mineral leases on lands within the 

administrative boundary of the Refuge that are currently administered by the DOE, which would allow 

the subsurface minerals and surface soils on an approximately 629 additional acres to remain in an 

undisturbed state and allow them to subsequently become a part of the Refuge. 

There would be little difference in direct impacts to water resources between Alternatives A and B 

because under Alternative B the water rights in section 16 would remain in private ownership. Effects to 

water quality resulting from potential transportation improvements would be similar to Alternative A, and 

these development activities would be performed in accordance with applicable local, state, and Federal 

regulations, including state radiation health standards. 

Alternative B would allow section 16 to be protected from development. This would preserve a habitat 

corridor that may allow future colonization of the Refuge by both new species and other ecotypes of 

existing species, which may be better suited for future climate regimes. This would allow the Refuge to 

be managed for greater resilience to climate change. 

Alternative C 

The effects on section 16 and the transportation corridor would be similar to that described in Alternative 

A. However, there would be conservation of productive soils on other privately held lands within either 

Arapaho or Baca National Wildlife Refuges. 

Alternative D 

Under this alternative, the acquisition of property within Arapaho and Baca National Wildlife Refuges 

would protect the geological resources of that parcel as under Alternative C, and the Service could 

potentially pursue the acquisition of an interest in section 16 in the future in order to realize some of the 

benefits of Alternative B. 
Page 50 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.2 Effects on the Biological Environment 

This section describes the effects of each alternative on vegetation, wildlife, and Special Status Species. 

The Service will complete an intra-Service Section 7 consultation on its proposed activities as they relate 

to the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and the potential for modification of designated critical habitat. 

This decision is completed as a part of the final environmental assessment. 

Alternative A (No Action) 

The No Action Alternative addresses the disposal of the 300-foot-wide transportation corridor along the 

eastern border of the Refuge, as mandated by the Rocky Flats Act. Therefore, there are few differences in 

the effect on vegetation or wildlife in the transportation corridor between Alternative A and the other 

action alternatives. 

Vegetation 

As previously mentioned, the 300-foot-wide transportation corridor includes 5,133 feet of streams and 

ditches (USFWS 2004a), the latter of which are mostly dry. Disturbance to the full 300-foot-strip could 

destroy more than 9 acres of xeric tallgrass prairie and 65 acres of mesic, riparian, and wetland 

vegetation. The amount of loss would depend upon the amount and location of disturbance, but could be 

up to 300 feet for a highway. Besides the potential loss of wildlife habitat associated with the streams if 

the corridor is developed, there also is the potential for increased downstream sedimentation and turbidity 

of surface water as a result of runoff from disturbed soil and subsequent erosion. This soil disturbance and 

resultant erosion could affect aquatic vegetation, at least until the affected areas were stabilized. There 

also is potential for effects on aquatic resources due to runoff from the impervious surface of a new 

highway. However, the Rocky Flats NWR CCP/EIS (USFWS 2004a) determined that these effects would 

not significantly affect the management of Rocky Flats as a wildlife refuge. 

If there is no change to the administrative boundary of the Refuge and the 300-foot-wide transportation 

corridor is divested via direct sale, the existing mineral lease on section 16 may be exploited to extract 

marketable resources from the Rocky Flats Alluvium on that parcel. If that were to happen, vegetation 

would be lost in upland areas and in wetland and riparian corridors. Loss of uplands would be particularly 

problematic for the native xeric tallgrass prairie. The Northwest Corridor Transportation Environmental 

Study (FHWA 2008) identified much of this section as tallgrass prairie, and Artmann and Hannan (2011, 

unpublished data) estimated that two-thirds of section 16 was dominated by xeric tallgrass prairie. If the 

site were disturbed, there is no guarantee that it would be adequately restored. In addition, noxious weeds 

such as toadflax and several knapweed species would likely proliferate and provide a constant source of 

weed seed to the adjacent Refuge. 

Similar destruction of uplands, wetlands, and riparian areas in the DOE-retained land to the northwest of 

the Refuge will occur if the No Action Alternative is chosen and the mineral leases are not purchased by 

the Federal Government. If these northwestern areas are quarried, the mining company will be required to 

revegetate the sites, but the native vegetation would be lost, including the xeric tallgrass prairie and much 

of the wetland, riparian, and even upland shrub communities. Even restoration by the mining company 

would likely fall considerably short of the vegetative communities that currently exist there. Prior to 

restoration, noxious weeds might proliferate and spread seed over the adjacent Refuge. 
Page 51 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

General Wildlife and Special Status Species 

The Service works mostly with Federal trust species. Of particular relevance to this EA are special status 

species (usually threatened and endangered species and other species of concern) and migratory birds. 

Special status species for this discussion include the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, the bald eagle, the 

burrowing owl and due to its relevance to important raptor species, the black-tailed prairie dog. In 

addition, the Refuge Purposes of the Rocky Flats Act included “providing habitat for, and population 

management of, ... resident wildlife” as well as threatened and endangered and migratory species; 

therefore some large mammals under State jurisdiction are discussed. 

Divestiture and the resulting disturbance to the 300-foot-wide transportation corridor will not likely have 

a significant effect on wildlife. Most of Rocky Flats NWR has been identified as habitat for ungulates (elk 

and deer), some of which would be lost by development of the corridor. Also, movements of elk and deer 

between the Refuge and the open space east of Indiana Street would be hampered, and the impact of this 

development would likely increase proportionally with increased development of the transportation 

corridor unless appropriate mitigation measures such as adequate underpasses were included in the 

transportation plan. However, the Rocky Flats NWR CCP/EIS (USFWS 2004a, p. 193) stated that “the 

Service does not want to encourage the movement of deer and elk between the Refuge and the open space 

lands to the east because of the potential for impacts to nearby subdivisions, and efforts to discourage the 

establishment of a resident elk herd in the grasslands around Rocky Flats. For these reasons the designs of 

any transportation improvements along the Indiana Street corridor could include crossings that facilitate 

the movement of smaller species (such as small mammals and reptiles) while prohibiting the movement 

of deer and elk. Crossings should be located at Woman Creek and Walnut Creek, as well as select upland 

locations.” 

The Rocky Flats NWR CCP/EIS (USFWS 2004a) estimated that loss of the entire 300-foot transportation 

corridor would remove 8.5 acres of Preble’s meadow jumping mouse habitat in the transportation corridor 

portions of Walnut Creek, Woman Creek, and Mower Ditch. After the EIS published, the FWS has 

designated critical habitat for the Preble's meadow jumping mouse in a portion of the 300-foot 

transportation corridor, totaling 12.4 acres. However, a visit by Service biologists to these sites on April 

27, 2011, revealed that Preble’s meadow jumping mouse habitat was almost nonexistent in Mower Ditch 

and that Walnut Creek and Woman Creek did not appear as optimal as habitat located west of these two 

parcels and just east of Indiana Street in the Walnut Creek drainage. The Northwest Corridor 

Transportation Environmental Study (FHWA 2008) suggested that construction of a highway could cause 

harm to the species from increased mortality of individual mice during construction, but would be 

designed to facilitate Preble’s movement through better culverts at Walnut Creek and Woman Creek. 

Compliance with the ESA will need to occur should construction of the highway go forward, which 

would may adversely affect the Preble's meadow jumping mouse. 

The black-tailed prairie dog is a Colorado Species of State Concern (FHWA 2008). Although about threequarters of the transportation corridor area is potential habitat for the prairie dog, less than 2 acres were 

occupied in 2004 (USFWS 2004a). A recent outbreak of sylvatic plague may have eliminated all of these 

occupants. Considering the large expanse of unoccupied prairie dog habitat within the Refuge, divesture 

of the transportation corridor is not considered potentially problematic for this species, or for other special 

status species such as burrowing owls and bald eagles that prey upon the prairie dog. While the eagle is 

no longer protected as a threatened or endangered species, it holds its “special” status through specific 
Page 52 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

legal mandates under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. However, the obvious proximity 

of the transportation corridor to a currently busy road (Indiana Street) and the lack of suitable bodies of 

water along this corridor diminish the suitability of this area for bald eagles. Better eagle habitat is 

available in nearby open spaces and reservoirs. 

The burrowing owl is listed as threatened by the State of Colorado (CDOW 2011), and is dependent on 

prairie dog towns for nesting. However, very little prairie dog activity has been observed in the 

transportation corridor in recent years. With large areas available for prairie dogs elsewhere, burrowing 

owls should not be adversely affected by any transportation use in the 300-foot-wide corridor. 

Similarly, other migratory bird species such as raptors, neotropical migrants, waterfowl, and shorebirds 

are not likely to be adversely affected by the divestiture. While some grassland and riparian habitats do 

exist in and near the corridor (USFWS 2004a), the amount of suitable habitat that would be lost is not 

considered significant enough to adversely affect any species in these groups. Ferruginous hawks rely on 

prairie dogs for prey, but the transportation corridor does not hold enough prairie dogs (if any) to be 

essential to these raptors. 

Additional noise and light would result from the construction and use of the transportation corridor. This 

is particularly problematic for birds (USFWS 2004a). These disturbances would be greater on a larger 

project such as a four-lane highway than a smaller improvements such as a bike path. The Rocky Flats 

NWR CCP/EIS identified several methods of mitigating these disturbances for both construction (e.g., 

light positioning) and traffic (e.g., vegetation sound barriers). 

Under the No Action Alternative, section 16 would remain available for future development, which would 

isolate the Refuge from existing regional open space that runs along much of the Front Range. This 

property is important for current and future movements of wildlife, especially deer and elk, between the 

foothills and the Refuge. From the standpoint of Federal trust species, section 16 contains some riparian 

habitat that is considered suitable for Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and also possesses excellent 

shrubby riparian corridors that are potentially important to neotropical migrant bird species. In addition, 

open native prairie such as found in section 16 is important to various species of grassland birds, and 

some open water is used by waterfowl and wading birds. Currently, much of this habitat is far enough 

away from SH 93 to be very useful to these species, all of which could potentially be lost under the No 

Action Alternative. Also, section 16 provides a mile of buffer to the Refuge, which could be replaced by 

a mining operation or other development considered inappropriate along the perimeter of a wildlife 

refuge. 

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no possibility of obtaining the mineral leases and 

eventually the mineral rights to the land located northwest of and adjacent to the Refuge. Parts of this 

property are currently very important to Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. Both the riparian areas and the 

upland shrublands are also significant to many species of birds and mammals. Deer and elk are seen in 

and near these parcels on a regular basis. Some native xeric tallgrass prairie exists in this area and is used 

by migratory songbirds. All of this could potentially be lost under the No Action Alternative. 
Page 53
 

Connectivity of Rocky Flats With Existing Open Space 
Page 54 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

Alternative B would expand the administrative boundary of the Refuge and complete a land exchange for 

holdings at the Refuge. As with all alternatives, land up to 300 feet wide along the eastern border of the 

Refuge would be divested, as mandated by the Rocky Flats Act. However, the transportation corridor 

would be exchanged for land and related mineral leases and rights for most of section 16 along the 

southwestern border and for mineral leases on DOE-retained lands northwest of the current Refuge 

border. 

Vegetation 

Impacts to vegetation along the 300-foot-wide transportation corridor in Alternative B would be similar to 

those in Alternative A. 

If Alternative B is selected, the existing mineral lease on section 16 will not be exploited for marketable 

resources in that parcel. If the Service acquires the lease, vegetation would be preserved and could likely 

be improved through an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach to weed control in upland grassland 

areas and in wetland and riparian corridors. Protection of uplands would be particularly important for the 

native xeric tallgrass prairie, which is widespread in this section (FHWA 2008). Noxious weeds such as 

toadflax and knapweed species would likely disappear over time and quit ‘infecting’ adjacent Refuge land 

with a constant source of weed seed. 

Similar destruction of uplands, wetlands, and riparian areas in the DOE-retained land northwest of the 

Refuge could be averted if Alternative B is selected and the mineral leases are purchased by the Federal 

Government. The xeric tallgrass prairie, the wetland and riparian vegetation and several upland shrub 

communities would be permanently protected. Future weed infestations would be less likely than under 

the No Action Alternative, and weed encroachments could be controlled more easily. 

Preserving the xeric tallgrass community is not to be taken lightly. Essington et al. (1996) and Nelson 

(2003) have proposed that this type of grassland is probably a small relict of a community that was once 

connected to the tallgrass prairie hundreds of miles to the east. The CNHP considers this community to be 

so rare that it exists in fewer than 20 places globally, and that Rocky Flats has the largest example 

remaining in Colorado and perhaps North America (Essington et al. 1996). The CNHP ranks the xeric 

tallgrass community as imperiled within the State. A significant portion of this prairie is located in section 

16 and the two DOE parcels northwest and adjacent to the Refuge. 

General Wildlife and Special Status Species 

Impacts to wildlife along the 300-foot-wide transportation corridor in Alternative B would be similar to 

those in Alternative A. 

Under Alternative B, section 16 would no longer be available for future development and therefore would 

provide a wildlife corridor between the current Refuge and existing regional open space that runs along 

much of the Front Range. This property is especially important to deer and elk moving between the 

foothills and the Refuge. From the standpoint of Federal trust species, expanding the Refuge to include 

section 16 would protect some existing riparian habitat that is considered suitable for the Preble’s 

meadow jumping mouse and is potentially important to neotropical migrant bird species. Open native 
Page 55 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

prairie, such as that found in section 16, is important to various species of grassland passerines and 

raptors, and open water at Rocky Flats Reservoir is used by waterfowl and wading birds. These habitats 

would remain in their current status or improve if protected. Alternative B would continue to provide a 

mile of buffer to the existing Refuge, which, if the No Action Alternative were selected, could be replaced 

by a mining operation or other development considered inappropriate along the perimeter of a wildlife 

refuge. 

Section 16 contains riparian shrubland along Woman Creek, known to be important 

Preble’s mouse habitat 

Under Alternative B, the mineral rights to the land located northwest and adjacent to the Refuge would be 

back in Federal ownership, protecting these important areas. Preserving the xeric tallgrass prairie would 

protect habitat for some migratory passerines and raptors. Parts of this property are considered very 

important to Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. Both the riparian areas and the upland shrublands are also 

significant to many other species of birds and mammals. Deer and elk are seen in and near these parcels 

on a regular basis. All of this important habitat would be preserved under Alternative B. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C would not expand the administrative boundary of the Refuge but would complete a land 

exchange for holdings at other refuges in Colorado. As with all alternatives, a strip of land up to 300 feet 

wide along the eastern border of the Refuge would be divested, as mandated by the Rocky Flats Act. The 

transportation corridor would be exchanged for an inholding at either Arapaho NWR or Baca NWR. 
Page 56 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vegetation 

Impacts to vegetation along the 300 foot transportation corridor in Alternative C would be similar to those 

in Alternative A, though the construction of a bike path or a bike path coupled with improvements to 

Indiana Street is likely to have a smaller footprint than the construction of a toll highway with a bike path. 

If the 300-foot-wide transportation corridor is divested through an exchange with Arapaho NWR or Baca 

NWR, and therefore there is no change to the administrative boundary of Rocky Flats NWR, the existing 

mineral lease on section 16 may be exploited to extract marketable resources from the Rocky Flats 

Alluvium on that parcel. If that were to happen, vegetation would be lost in grassland areas and in 

wetland and riparian corridors. Loss of uplands would be particularly problematic for the native xeric 

tallgrass prairie in section 16 because this vegetation type dominates approximately two-thirds of the 

section (Artmann and Hannan 2011, unpublished data). If disturbed, there is no guarantee that the site 

would be adequately restored. In addition, noxious weeds such as toadflax and several knapweed species 

would likely proliferate and provide a constant source of weed seed to the adjacent Refuge. 

Similar destruction of uplands, wetlands, and riparian areas in the DOE-retained land northwest of the 

Refuge would likely occur if Alternative C is selected and the mineral leases are not purchased by the 

Federal Government. If these northwestern areas are quarried, the mining company will be required to 

revegetate the sites, but this would eventually destroy the native vegetation, including the xeric tallgrass 

prairie and much of the wetland and riparian and even upland shrub communities. Even restoration by the 

mining company would likely fail to replace the vegetative communities that currently exist there. Prior to 

restoration, noxious weeds might proliferate and spread seed over the adjacent Refuge. 

If Alternative C is selected and the inholding in the southern portion of Arapaho NWR is exchanged for 

the 300-foot transportation corridor, a large parcel of riparian and upland habitats would become part of 

the Arapaho Refuge. The riparian, meadow and wetland areas along the Illinois River (a stream at this 

location) produce six species of willows and numerous species of grasses, sedges, and rushes (USFWS 

2004b). The upland areas also have numerous grasses and a number of shrub species. Common weedy 

species include Canada thistle and some grasses that have been introduced for grazing and haying. 

Selection of Alternative C / Arapaho would preserve this unique area and provide an opportunity to 

control the exotic species there. 

If Alternative C is selected and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) inholding in the southern portion of Baca 

NWR was exchanged for the 300-foot right-wide strip, a large parcel of mostly shrubland/grassland mix 

and herbaceous stabilized areas in sandy soils, with some mesic meadows, playas, and emergent marshes 

(USFWS 2005b) would be protected. Typical upland species appear to be rubber rabbitbrush 

(Chrysothamnus nauseosus), greasewood (Sacrobatus vermiculatus), and numerous native and non-native 

species of grasses. Weedy species include cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum, a highly invasive exotic), and 

crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum, a commonly planted species for grazing, haying, and soil 

stabilization). Selection of Alternative C / Baca NWR would preserve this site and provide an opportunity 

to control the existing exotic species. 
Page 57 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wildlife and Special Status Species 

Impacts to wildlife along the 300-foot-wide transportation corridor in Alternative C would be similar to 

those in Alternative A, though as stated above, the footprint of a proposed transportation improvements 

currently fitting Alternative C would be smaller and effects on wildlife would be lower. 

Under Alternative C, section 16 would remain available for future development, which would isolate the 

Rocky Flats NWR from existing regional open space that runs along much of the Front Range. This 

property is important for current and future movements of wildlife, especially deer and elk, between the 

foothills and the Refuge. From the standpoint of Federal trust species, section 16 contains some riparian 

habitat that is considered suitable for Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, and also possesses excellent 

shrubby riparian corridors that are potentially important to neotropical migrant bird species. In addition, 

open native prairie such as that found in section 16 is important to various species of grassland birds, and 

open water at Rocky Flats Reservoir is used by waterfowl and shorebirds. Currently, much of this habitat 

is far enough away from SH 93 to be very valuable to these species, all of which could potentially be lost 

under the No Action Alternative. Also, section 16 provides a mile of buffer to the Refuge, which could be 

replaced by a mining operation or other development considered inappropriate along the perimeter of a 

wildlife refuge. 

Under Alternative C, there would be no possibility of obtaining the mineral leases and eventually the 

mineral rights to the land located northwest and adjacent to the Refuge. Parts of this property are currently 

very important to Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. Both the riparian areas and the upland shrublands are 

also significant for many species of birds and mammals. Deer and elk are seen in and near these parcels 

on a regular basis. Some native xeric tallgrass prairie exists in this area and is used by migratory 

songbirds. All of this could potentially be lost under Alternative C. 

If Alternative C is selected and the inholding in the southern portion of Arapaho NWR is exchanged for 

the 300 foot corridor, a large parcel of riparian (with some meadow and wetland areas) and upland 

habitats would become part of that Refuge. Wildlife using these habitats at Arapaho NWR include sage 

grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), various raptors, numerous species of waterfowl and shorebirds, and 

at least 40 species of migrating songbirds (USFWS 2004b). Mammals that use the area include beaver 

(Castor canadensis) and several species of large mammals such as moose (Alces alces), pronghorn 

(Antilocapra americana), mule deer, and elk. Selection of Alternative C would provide management 

opportunities for a variety of wildlife species under Federal and state jurisdiction, such as sage grouse and 

big game species. 

If Alternative C is selected and TNC inholding in the southern portion of Baca NWR was exchanged for 

the 300-foot corridor, a large parcel of mostly shrublands and grasslands that provide wildlife habitat for a 

number of avian species, including songbirds such as horned larks (Eremophilo alpestiris) would be 

protected. The wetter areas within the surrounding area provide habitat for numerous other birds 

including various waterfowl, American avocets (Recurvirostra americana), and sandhill cranes (Grus 

canadensis). Globally vulnerable small mammals that live in these environments and which might be 

protected under Alternative C include the silky pocket mouse (Perognathus flavus sanluisi) and the 

thirteen-lined ground squirrel (Spermophilus tridecemlineatus blanca) (USFWS 2005b). 
Page 58 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alternative D 

Alternative D would not only exchange land to expand the administrative boundary of Rocky Flats NWR, 

but also to obtain holdings at another refuge. As with all alternatives, land up to 300 feet wide along the 

eastern border of the Refuge would be divested, as mandated by the Rocky Flats Act. However, the 

transportation corridor would be exchanged for up to three other properties: (1) most of section 16, (2) the 

mineral leases/rights on DOE properties northwest of the Refuge, and (3) an inholding at either Arapaho 

NWR or Baca NWR. These exchanges would likely be on different timelines. Timing and expense are 

factors that would dictate the potential to pursue Alternative D. 

Vegetation 

Impacts to vegetation along the 300-foot-wide transportation corridor in Alternative D would be identical 

to those in Alternative A and therefore will not be discussed further. 

If Alternative D is selected, the existing mineral lease on section 16 will not be exploited for marketable 

resources in that parcel. If the Service acquires the lease, vegetation would be preserved and probably 

improved through an IPM approach to weed control in upland grassland areas and in wetland and riparian 

corridors. Protection of uplands would be particularly important for the native xeric tallgrass prairie, 

which is widespread in this section (FHWA 2008). Noxious weeds such as toadflax and knapweed 

species would likely disappear over time and quit infesting adjacent Refuge land with a constant source of 

weed seed. 

Similar destruction of uplands, wetlands, and riparian areas in the DOE-retained land northwest of the 

Refuge could be averted if Alternative D is selected and the mineral leases are purchased by the Federal 

Government. The xeric tallgrass prairie, the wetland and riparian vegetation, and several upland shrub 

communities would be permanently protected. Future weed infestations would be less likely than under 

Alternatives A or C, and weed encroachments could be controlled more easily. 

Preserving the xeric tallgrass community is an important priority of the Service and other agencies. 

Essington et al. (1996) and Nelson (2003) have proposed that this type of grassland is probably a small 

relict of a community that was once connected to the tallgrass prairie hundreds of miles to the east. The 

CNHP reports that this community is now so rare that it exists in fewer than 20 places globally, and that 

Rocky Flats NWR has the largest example remaining in Colorado and perhaps North America (Essington 

et al. 1996). The CNHP ranks the xeric tallgrass community as imperiled within the State. A significant 

portion of this prairie is located in section 16 and the two DOE parcels northwest and adjacent to the 

Refuge. 

If Alternative D is selected and the inholding in the southern portion of Arapaho NWR was part of the 

exchange for the 300-foot-wide transportation corridor, a large parcel of riparian and upland habitats 

would become part of the that Refuge. The riparian, meadow and wetland areas along the Illinois River (a 

stream at this location) produce six species of willows and numerous species of grasses, sedges, and 

rushes (USFWS 2004b). The upland areas also have numerous grasses, but also a number of shrub 

species. Common weedy species include Canada thistle and some grasses that have been introduced for 

grazing and haying. Selection of Alternative D would preserve this unique area and provide an 

opportunity to control the exotic species there. 
Page 59 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If Alternative D would be selected and TNC inholding in the southern portion of Baca NWR were part of 

the exchange for the 300-foot-wide transportation corridor, a large parcel of mostly shrubland/grassland 

mix and herbaceous stabilized areas in sandy soils, with some mesic meadows, playas, and emergent 

marshes would be protected (USFWS 2005b). Typical upland species appear to be rubber rabbitbrush, 

greasewood, and numerous native and non-native species of grasses. Weedy species include cheatgrass (a 

highly invasive exotic) and crested wheatgrass (a commonly planted species for grazing, haying, and soil 

stabilization). Selection of Alternative D would preserve this site and provide an opportunity to control 

the existing exotic species. 

General Wildlife and Special Status Species 

Impacts to wildlife along the 300-foot transportation corridor in Alternative D would be identical to those 

in Alternative C and therefore will not be discussed further. 

Under Alternative D, section 16 would no longer be vulnerable to future development and therefore 

would provide a wildlife corridor from the current Refuge to existing regional open space that runs along 

much of the Front Range. This property is especially important to deer and elk moving between the 

foothills and the Refuge. From the standpoint of Federal trust species, expanding the Refuge to include 

section 16 would protect some existing riparian habitat that is considered suitable for the Preble’s 

meadow jumping mouse and is important to neotropical migrant bird species. Its open native prairie areas 

are important to various species of grassland passerines and some raptors, and open water at Rocky Flats 

Reservoir is used by waterfowl and wading birds, the current status of all of which would remain steady 

or actually improve. Alternative D would continue to provide a mile of buffer to the existing Refuge, 

which otherwise could be replaced by a mining operation or other development considered inappropriate 

along the perimeter of a wildlife refuge. 

Under Alternative D, the mineral rights to the land located northwest and adjacent to the Refuge would be 

back in Federal ownership and these important areas would be protected from mining or other 

disturbance. Protecting the xeric tallgrass prairie would protect habitat for some migratory songbirds and 

raptors. Parts of this property are considered very important to Preble’s meadow jumping mouse. Both the 

riparian areas and the upland shrublands are also significant to many other species of birds and mammals. 

Deer and elk are seen in and near these parcels on a regular basis. All of this important habitat would be 

preserved under Alternative D. 

If Alternative D is selected and the inholding in the southern portion of Arapaho NWR were part of the 

exchange for the 300-foot-wide transportation corridor, a large parcel of riparian habitat (with some 

meadow and wetland areas) and upland habitats would become part of that Refuge. Wildlife using these 

habitats at Arapaho NWR include sage grouse, raptors, numerous species of waterfowl and shorebirds, 

and at least 40 species of migrating songbirds (USFWS 2004b). Mammals that use the area include 

beaver and several species of charismatic megafauna including moose, pronghorn, mule deer, and elk. 

Selection of Alternative D NWR would provide management opportunities for a variety of wildlife 

species under Federal (e.g., sage grouse) and State (e.g., big game) jurisdiction. 

If Alternative D were selected and the TNC inholding in the southern portion of Baca NWR was part of 

the exchange for the 300-foot-wide transportation corridor, a large parcel of mostly shrublands and 

grasslands with some wetter areas would provide wildlife habitat for a number of avian species, including 

songbirds such as horned larks. The wetter areas within the general area provide habitat for numerous 
Page 60 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

other birds including various waterfowl, American avocets, and sandhill cranes. Globally vulnerable 

small mammals that live in these environments and that would be protected under Alternative D include 

the silky pocket mouse and the thirteen-lined ground squirrel (USFWS 2005b). 

4.3 Effects on Cultural Resources 

This section describes the estimated effects of each alternative on cultural resources. 

Alternative A (No Action) 

There could be the disturbance or loss of some of the linear ditches, which are non NRHP-eligible cultural 

resources within the 300 foot wide transportation corridor. These non-eligible sites are described in 

section 3.3; Previous Cultural Resource Investigations in Proposed Divestiture Lands. The SHPO 

concurred with the finding of no adverse effect for the proposed land disposal on November 5, 2010. 

Therefore, this alternative is not anticipated to result in an adverse effect. 

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

The same effects as Alternative A are anticipated from the selection of Alternative B. Although, no 

cultural resources were located through previous studies in section 16, there is a potential that unidentified 

cultural resources may be protected by the addition of section 16 to the Refuge. 

Alternative C 

The same effects as Alternative A are anticipated from the selection of Alternative C. In addition, 

potentially unidentified cultural resources on private inholdings within Arapaho NWR or Baca NWR may 

be protected. 

Alternative D 

The same effects as Alternative C are anticipated from the selection of Alternative D. Although, no 

cultural resources were located through previous studies in section 16, there is the potential that 

unidentified cultural resources may be protected by the addition of section 16 and through future 

acquisitions of lands at other refuges. 

4.4 Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment 

This section describes the estimated effects of alternatives A, B, C, and D on the socioeconomic 

environment; specifically on land ownership, land use and development (including oil and gas, wind 

energy, and residential), and public use. 

Effects on Land Ownership, Use and Development 

The effects of the various alternatives on land ownership and land use are described below. The primary 

differentiator between the alternatives involves the potential for acquisition of State-controlled property 

within section 16, which has the potential to expand preserved open space holdings in the Rocky Flats 

NWR. 
Page 61 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alternative A (No Action) 

As with all the alternatives, a 300-foot-wide strip of land would be disposed of by the Service, reducing 

the amount of Refuge land by approximately 100 acres. No other property outside of or within the Refuge 

would be affected. Under this alternative, the land removed from the Refuge would not be replaced or 

exchanged with an equal amount of new property, resulting in a net reduction in Federal open space. 

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

The disposition of the land for a transportation improvement project would be used as a mechanism for a 

land exchange for new holdings at the Refuge, specifically within a 617-acre area at the far southwest 

edge of the existing acquisition boundary. Expansion of the acquisition boundary would allow for the 

Service to acquire land in this area, and the actual turning over of some portion of land to the Service 

would occur as a result of an exchange of land with approximately an equal value to the 300-foot-wide 

boundary area. 

The proposed action would allow for the transfer of existing State-owned property to the Federal 

Government, and would potentially lead to contiguous connection with protected open space lands to the 

west. No private land owners would be affected by the expansion of the acquisition boundary, or the 

change from State lands to Federal ownership. Any ongoing lessees of these properties, such as for 

mining or livestock grazing, may be affected by this action. The acquisition of land within this area will 

reduce the likelihood that future development pressures, such as from the surrounding communities, will 

impinge on the preservation of wildlife and protected open space at the Rocky Flats NWR. 

Alternative C 

The disposition of the land for a transportation improvement would be used as a mechanism for a land 

exchange for new holdings at another refuge within Colorado, specifically capitalizing on opportunities to 

add to land holdings at Arapaho NWR or Baca NWR. This would occur as a result of an exchange of land 

with approximately an equal value to the 300-foot-wide boundary area, and possibly through the 

leveraging of opportunities to accept land donations from various charitable trusts. 

Other than the disposition of the 300-foot-wide boundary area, this alternative would not have an effect 

on the land ownership or land use within the Rocky Flats NWR. The result would be a net reduction in 

land holdings within the Refuge, but may result in a statewide increase in Service-controlled property. 

The State-owned land within section 16 would not become Federally-protected open space, and may be 

open to future activities such as mining, energy development, or residential or commercial development. 

This could lead to potential economic benefits to the State and local area, as these types of development 

could have fiscal impacts (sales tax, property tax) or economic growth impacts (jobs, energy 

development). 

Alternative D 

The disposition of the land for a transportation improvement project would be used as a mechanism for a 

land exchange for new holdings at another refuge within Colorado as defined in Alternative C. While the 
Page 62 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

acquisition boundary for the Refuge would be expanded to include section 16, no immediate exchange for 

land within this area would take place. 

Expansion of the acquisition boundary would allow for the Service to acquire land in the State-owned 

section 16 area, although it would not require that the property is preserved in accordance with Refuge 

guidance. The land in this area would still be open to future activities such as mining, energy 

development, or residential or commercial development. This could lead to potential economic benefits 

to the State and local area, as these types of development could have fiscal impacts (sales tax, property 

tax) or economic growth impacts (jobs, energy development). 

Overall, the size of the Rocky Flats NWR would be reduced in the short term, even though there may be a 

statewide increase in Service-controlled property due to acquisitions at Arapaho NWR or Baca NWR. 

Effects on Public Use 

Because the Rocky Flats NWR is currently not open for public use, there are not any existing public users 

that would be negatively affected by the various alternatives. However, the impacts to long-term plans for 

various public uses on the site are considered. 

For all of the alternatives, the creation of a transportation improvement within the 300-foot-wide 

boundary area has the potential to serve as a barrier between the Rocky Flats NWR and the community 

and open space assets to the east. A stipulation of the disposition of the land for this improvement is that 

it must be undertaken so as to minimize potential negative impacts to the management and access to the 

Refuge. 

Alternative A (No Action) 

Because there would be no additional Refuge property added as part of this alternative, there would be no 

additional impact to public use options at the Rocky Flats NWR. At the same time, there would not be an 

opportunity to expand the options for public use through the exchange of land for additional Refuge 

property. The visitor experience in future public use scenarios would be adversely affected by proposed 

transportation improvements that may follow this action. 

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

Under this alternative, the Rocky Flats NWR property would be expanded to incorporate additional land 

within the section 16 area. This would create additional opportunities for public recreation and use, and 

greater contiguity between existing open space assets controlled by the various Federal, State, county, and 

municipal governments in the immediate area. Additional effects would be similar to Alternative A. 

Alternative C 

Because there would be no additional Refuge property added as part of this alternative, there would be no 

additional impact to public use options at the Rocky Flats NWR. At the same time, there would not be an 

opportunity to expand the options for public use through the exchange of land for additional Refuge 

property. However, public use options at the existing Arapaho NWR and Baca NWR may be expanded 

under this alternative. Additional effects would be similar to Alternative A, though the potential 
Page 63 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

construction of a bike path, or a bike path with improvements to Indiana Street, is likely to have lesser 

adverse effects on the visitor experience at Rocky Flats NWR. 

Alternative D 

Because there would be no additional Refuge property added as part of this alternative, there would be no 

additional impact to public use options at the Rocky Flats NWR. Over the long-term, expansion of the 

acquisition boundary may lead to incorporation of land within the State-owned section 16 area. However, 

public use options at the existing Arapaho NWR and Baca NWR may be expanded under this alternative. 

Additional effects would be similar to Alternative A, though the potential construction of a bike path, or a 

bike path with improvements to Indiana Street, is likely to have lesser adverse effects on the visitor 

experience at Rocky Flats NWR. 

Effects on Environmental Justice 

Environmental Justice is defined as the fair treatment of people of all races, culture, incomes, and 

educational levels with respect to the development and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, 

and policies. Fair treatment means that no population should be forced to shoulder a disproportionate 

share of environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or 

the execution of Federal, State, local, and tribal programs and policies. Executive Order 12898, Federal 

Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 

mandates Federal agencies make achieving environmental justice part of their mission. 

Because there are no people living at the Rocky Flats NWR, there are no residents who would be 

negatively nor disproportionately impacted by the various alternatives considered in this EA. The racial 

composition of the surrounding areas is predominantly white and not of Hispanic heritage. Median 

household income characteristics describe a population that has higher household income than State and 

national figures. These statistics are similar at Arapaho and Baca NWR. Based on the race and income 

characteristics of the surrounding communities and counties in these areas, as described in Section 3.4, 

there are not anticipated to be any disproportionate environmental justice impacts to sensitive or protected 

populations. 

4.5 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 

Any adverse effects that may be unavoidable when carrying out these alternatives are described below. 

Under all alternatives, land within 300 feet of Indiana Street will be transferred to an entity which has 

proposed transportation improvements in that corridor. All alternatives would result a loss of the habitat 

within the 300-foot-wide transportation corridor. This includes loss of critical habitat for the Preble’s 

meadow jumping mouse. Details of the area and type of habitat lost are discussed in more detail in the 

2004 Rocky Flats CCP/EIS (USFWS 2004a) and in this EA. 

Increased noise associated with the proposed transportation improvements along Indiana Street could 

adversely impact the experience of Refuge visitors and displace wildlife or affect their behavior. Many 

species depend on sound to communicate, avoid danger, and locate food. Studies have found that noise 

can impact reproduction, productivity, behavior, and energy expenditure in wildlife (Bowles 1995). 

Increased traffic volume and/or speeds may impact wildlife species sensitive to noise. Lighting equipment 
Page 64 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and increased light along the roadway could adversely affect some wildlife species. Artificial light can 

disrupt bird behavior, affect migration, increase bird collisions with structures, and increase risk of 

predation (IDA 2002). Impacts to the Refuge could be reduced by incorporating berms, sound walls, 

vegetation, or other noise-reducing techniques into the design of transportation improvements to reduce 

the impacts of traffic noise on wildlife and Refuge visitors. Roadway lighting could be designed to reduce 

light emission and be positioned to minimize effects to wildlife and Refuge aesthetics. 

Use of standard emission minimization measures and dust abatement would mitigate potential impacts to 

air quality during construction for any of the proposed alternatives (FHWA 2008). Therefore, the Service 

does not anticipate significant impacts to air quality through violation of National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards10 based on the proposed action. However, foreseeable transportation improvements which may 

lead to increased vehicle traffic are likely to result in higher vehicle emissions near the Refuge. This could 

result in negative effects to air quality, particularly in the form of higher ozone, volatile organic 

compound (VOC), and carbon monoxide (CO) levels. The Denver metropolitan area has a history of 

nonattainment of EPA standards for ozone and CO (FHWA 2008), though Denver is presently in a 

maintenance status. Because the implementation of proposed transportation alternatives is speculative, it 

is difficult to quantitatively analyze potential impacts of these proposals on air quality. However, a 

detailed analysis of Northwest Corridor Transportation Environmental Study construction alternatives 

determined that none of the alternatives would be likely to violate air quality standards or maintenance 

plans (FHWA 2008). 

In addition, construction work to carry out the planned transportation improvements could disturb 

plutonium and other radioisotope contaminants potentially present in the surface soils of the 300-footwide parcel. The Service requested clarification on risks associated with construction activities on the 

transportation corridor. The CDPHE and EPA have provided specific analysis of this activity and 

determined the risk to a construction worker is at or below the low end of the CERCLA risk range (1 x 

10-6) and any potential impacts to neighboring communities do not present health or environmental 

concerns (CDPHE 2011, Appendix G). An entity wishing to develop that parcel for transportation 

improvements would likely be required to take measures such as dust abatement to remain in compliance 

with Colorado Standards for Protection Against Radiation regulations 11. Further, both the construction 

process and potential increased vehicle use on the Refuge boundary would result in an increased risk of 

the discharge of oil or the release of hazardous substances onto the Refuge or adjacent lands and waters. 

4.6 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 

Any commitments of resources that may be irreversible or irretrievable because of carrying out 

alternatives A, B, C, or D are described below. 

Alternative A (No Action) 

There would be no commitment of resources by the Service if the No Action Alternative were selected. 

The Service’s obligation under the Rocky Flats Act would be discharged. 

10 40 CFR §50 – National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air quality Standards 

11 6 CCR 1007-1 Part 4 – Standards for Protection Against Radiation; effective July 31, 2005 
Page 65 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

The Service would commit $2.8 million of property in the 300 foot transportation corridor toward a land 

exchange. The exchange and subsequent donation of land and surface mineral rights would result in the 

receipt of approximately $15 million in property and unexploited mineral estates by the United States. 

Alternative C 

The Service would commit $2.8 million of property in the 300 foot transportation corridor toward an 

exchange for an equivalent value of privately-held inholdings within Baca NWR or Arapaho NWR. 

Alternative D 

The same effects as Alternative C are anticipated under Alternative D. There would be no irreversible or 

irretrievable commitment of resources involved in the expansion of the administrative boundary of Rocky 

Flats NWR to include section 16. Potential acquisition of property in that section could come through 

LWCF funding or other appropriate means. 

4.7 Cumulative Impacts 

As defined by the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 

§1508.7), a cumulative impact is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental 

impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions 

regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative 

impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period 

of time. 

This section describes the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions related to the proposed 

action and alternatives. To define projects included for the cumulative analysis, only those actions were 

considered that have a reasonable expectation that they may occur, and would result in an identifiable 

incremental impact when combined with the effects of the proposed action or alternatives. 

Past Actions 

The most important past action that has the potential for cumulative impacts was the operation of the 

Rocky Flats Plant, which had a primary mission of manufacturing triggers for nuclear weapons. 

Construction of the plant, which was operated by DOE, began in 1951 and the plant was permanently 

decommissioned in 1992. Due to the nature of the work at the plant, radioactive materials, including 

plutonium and uranium, were onsite, and through a variety of means, resulted in contamination of soils 

and groundwater at the site. Additional contamination resulted from airborne plutonium. Several studies 

were conducted by the EPA and other organizations that mapped detectable levels of radioactive elements 

on the Rocky Flats property and at offsite areas, primarily east/southeast of the former plant in the 

direction of the prevailing winds. 

The Rocky Flats Plant was placed on the EPA National Priority List (NPL) and became an EPA 

superfund site, with cleanup starting in 1992. In 2007, the EPA announced that a large portion of the 

Rocky Flats site was deleted from the NPL which reflected the completion of the response actions needed 
Page 66 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to clean up the site. This allowed the DOE to transfer part of the Rocky Flats site to the U.S. Department 

of Interior (DOI) for the Service to manage as a National Wildlife Refuge. Section 1.1 in chapter 1 gives a 

brief description of the transfer of the Rocky Flats site to the Service. 

Present Actions 

The 2005 Rocky Flats NWR CCP sets the management direction for the Refuge. The CCP emphasizes 

conservation of habitat and wildlife, along with a moderate level of wildlife dependent public uses, 

primarily trails and interpretive displays. Due to a lack of funding, implementation of parts of the CCP is 

on hold, and most of the public access, as well as proactive habitat and wildlife conservation plans have 

been delayed. Present management at the Refuge focuses on maintenance, compliance with weed control 

regulations, and compliance with endangered species requirements. 

As described in section 1.2 in chapter 1, the Service’s Proposed Action is to expand the acquisition 

boundary of the Refuge to accommodate a potential land exchange related to a 300-foot-wide easement 

along Indiana Street, which was mandated in the Rocky Flats Act. The Act stated that land up to 300 feet 

in width shall be made available by easement or sale for the sole purpose of transportation improvements, 

provided that the improvements minimize adverse effects on the management of the Refuge, and are part 

of an approved Denver regional transportation plan. 

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions 

Reasonably foreseeable future actions are actions and activities that are independent of the proposed 

action, but may result in cumulative impacts when combined with the Proposed Action or alternatives. 

The future actions should have a reasonable expectation of occurring, and usually are anticipated to occur 

regardless of which alternative is selected. Transportation improvements, land development, mining, and 

recreation development in the form of trails are considered cumulative projects for this EA. 

Transportation 

As previously discussed, the Rocky Flats Act included a provision that the Service must make a 300-footwide strip along Indiana Street available by easement or sale for transportation improvements. Although 

the exact configuration of a future transportation improvement is not known at this time, it is likely that 

there will be improvements to facilitate traffic flow and to provide for bike transportation through the 

300-foot-wide strip. . 

The Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority (JPPHA) provided a proposal (referred to as the 

Jefferson Greenway Proposal) to the Service regarding the direct sale of the 300-foot-wide transportation 

corridor along Indiana Street as well as an exchange of land (section 16) to expand the Refuge boundary. 

Through its scoping comments on this project (letter dated July 29, 2011; see Appendix H), JPPHA 

refined its proposed plan for the divestiture of the transportation corridor. In a direct sale of the 

transportation corridor from the Service, JPPHA proposes to develop the “Jefferson Parkway” for 

regional traffic movement. Although not designed to date, the Parkway may consist of multi-modal 

improvements and is proposed to retain space for a pedestrian and bicycle pathway in the transportation 

corridor and along the entire Parkway from SH 128 to SH 93. 
Page 67 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The City of Golden has also proposed to acquire the land for transportation improvements, either through 

sale or land exchange. Golden’s proposal and supplements (See Appendix E) detail the use of the 300­

foot-wide transportation corridor to provide an important north-south connection for bicycle commuters. 

They would also potentially reserve a portion of that corridor for improvements to Indiana Street. 

Impacts associated with possible transportation improvements can be found in the Rocky Flats CCP/EIS 

(USFWS 2004) and the Northwest Corridor Transportation Study (CDOT 2008). 

Land Development 

The Denver metropolitan area has experienced considerable growth in the recent past, and although 

current economic conditions have slowed the rate of development, urbanization has spread towards Rocky 

Flats NWR. Existing open space surrounding the Refuge helps protect the ecological values associated 

with the Refuge, however there is developable land to the south and southeast of the Refuge. Over the 

years, much of the surrounding area has experienced the conversion of land from traditionally rural uses 

such as farming and ranching to more suburban and urban uses. In general, residential and commercial 

development has continued to replace vacant agricultural land in much of the surrounding area. The 

Denver Regional Council of Governments estimates that in 20 years, an additional two million residents 

will occupy the Denver metropolitan region. With the increase in population, areas of development have 

spread and continue to consume agricultural and open space lands. (FHWA 2008). 

The Northwest Parkway Transportation Environmental Study (FHWA 2008) identified two areas of 

potential future development: the Vauxmont development northeast of SH 93 and SH 72, and the 

Cimarron Park development northwest of SH 72 and Indiana Street. Some development has already 

occurred at the Cimarron Park project and the Vauxmont project. Much of the undeveloped land in the 

same general area, although not currently proposed or platted, has been preliminarily identified for future 

development. While development of the built environment is occurring, jurisdictions are also active in 

acquiring and preserving open space, parks, and recreation areas (FHWA 2008). There is potential for 

further development which may be facilitated by transportation improvements (including bike and 

roadway developments) that have been proposed for the 300-foot corridor, which would be additive with 

those discussed above. 

Mining 

Existing mining operations are located on the western edge of Rocky Flats NWR. These are primarily 

aggregate and clay mines. Continued operations at these facilities have the potential for continued 

cumulative impacts to resources at the Refuge. The proposals to donate and/or retire mineral rights 

beneath existing DOE and State lands represent a minimal reduction of potential aggregate development 

in the Denver metropolitan area. 

Recreation 

There is a substantial amount of designated open space surrounding the Rocky Flats NWR. These areas 

are managed by numerous local agencies, including Boulder County, Jefferson County, and the cities of 

Boulder, Westminster, and Broomfield. Future foreseeable development includes trail construction that 

could connect many of these existing open space areas by connecting trails through the Refuge. Trail 
Page 68 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

development is part of the 2005 Rocky Flats NWR CCP, but is delayed until such time as funding is 

available. 

As described above, Golden proposes development of the transportation corridor on the east side of the 

Refuge for an approximately ten-foot-wide bicycle and pedestrian facility, including appurtenant trailhead 

parking facilities. The proposed bikeway facility is intended for connection to trails, bike lanes, and open 

space. As discussed above, the JPPHA proposal has also been revised to include a bicycle/pedestrian 

route along their proposed roadway. 

Cumulative Impacts by Alternative 

This section describes any adverse cumulative effects that may result from the combination of past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions and implementation of the proposed action or 

alternatives. 

Alternative A (No Action) 

Under the No Action Alternative, the Service would not change the administrative boundary of the 

Refuge, and would engage in a direct sale of the 300-foot-wide transportation corridor as directed by the 

Rocky Flats Act. Revenue from the direct sale would be deposited into the U.S. Treasury. 

Cumulative impacts to the Refuge would include use of the 300-foot-wide strip along Indiana Street as a 

transportation corridor. For this analysis, it is assumed that the transportation improvement would involve 

construction of a roadway for use by motorized vehicles. 

Construction activities associated with transportation improvements would require clearing and grading 

of a transportation corridor which would result in soil disturbance. The EPA has certified that no 

hazardous contamination (including plutonium) occurs above levels that allow for unlimited use of the 

area. As described in Section 1.5 in Chapter 1, should the Service dispose of the property to an entity for 

transportation purposes, the project would be subject to the State of Colorado Radiation Control 

Regulations. The CDPHE has stated that construction activities would require appropriate construction 

controls such as dust abatement, erosion control, and sediment control (CDPHE 2011; Appendix G). It 

would be the responsibility of the owner and developer of improvements in the 300-foot-wide corridor to 

comply the State of Colorado requirements regarding issues of public health and for appropriate 

implementation of control techniques that may be necessary during construction. The cumulative impacts 

would include the potential for the release of airborne contamination during construction, although the 

existing level of contamination is considered low as the EPA certified in 2007 that the planned corrective 

actions had been completed for all of what is now Rocky Flats NWR. 

In addition to soil disturbance and the resulting potential for contamination, several other resources may 

be impacted by the development of transportation improvements. These potential impacts were discussed 

in the 2004 Rocky Flats NWR CCP/EIS (USFWS 2004a) and included effects to water resources, noxious 

weeds, wildlife, vegetation, noise and aesthetics, and public use. 

Land development in the area surrounding the Refuge could be facilitated by sale of the transportation 

corridor and could affect Refuge resources through several means. Clearing land for future development 

could result in weed infestations that could affect Refuge lands; land development could be a movement 
Page 69 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

barrier to wildlife between the Refuge and surrounding open space lands; development along the southern 

boundary of the Refuge could impact Preble’s meadow jumping mouse habitat potentially connected to 

the Refuge and urbanization can bring an increase in domestic pets, especially cats that can have a 

negative impact on native rodents and birds; development can bring an increase in traffic to roads 

surrounding the Refuge; construction activities can affect the natural scenery and visual character of the 

landscape as viewed from the Refuge; and housing or commercial development in proximity to the 

Refuge can increase the ambient noise levels. Land development and urban growth have put a significant 

strain on the area’s natural resources, most notably water supplies. They are also driving up land values, 

making it increasingly expensive for local and county governments to preserve additional open space, and 

for agricultural landowners to stay in business. Many communities have begun to recognize the 

importance of open space and are taking steps to preserve open space corridors for residents and wildlife 

alike in their respective community comprehensive plans (FHWA 2008). 

Future mining activity, primarily along the western edge of the Refuge, could result in impacts to the 

Refuge through impacts to soils (erosion and windblown soil deposition), water resources (changes in 

surface and groundwater flows), vegetation (disturbance to vegetation communities; weed infestation), 

wildlife (disruption to animal movement; fragmented habitat; noise and human activity), threatened and 

endangered species (direct or indirect impacts to Preble’s meadow jumping mouse habitat), visual 

resources (ground disturbance impacts to scenic quality), noise (increased noise from mine operations), 

and air quality (dust and windblown soil). 

Recreation development related to the cumulative projects identified for the assessment is primarily 

related to trails. As mentioned above, Golden has proposed a bike and pedestrian trail within the 300-footwide transportation corridor, with associated trailhead parking. The trail could connect to other existing or 

planned trails and open space. Other local jurisdictions have future plans for trail development that could 

impact public use at the Refuge. Impacts of constructing a bike/pedestrian trail would include soil 

disturbance, which could result in the soil contamination issue discussed above, although construction of 

a trail would have substantially less potential for soil disturbance than construction of a roadway. Other 

potential cumulative impacts related to Refuge resources would include an increase in public use, 

recreation, and interpretation activities, which would be in compliance with the 2005 Rocky Flats NWR 

CCP and considered a beneficial impact. However, generally as human activity increases in the area, 

negative impacts to wildlife habitat and movement would likely increase. 

The above analysis discusses the potential cumulative impacts to resources at Rocky Flats NWR. These 

impacts could occur regardless of which alternative is implemented. Disclosure of these impacts provides 

context for the cumulative impacts of the alternatives themselves. Alternative A, other than the direct sale 

of the 300-foot-wide transportation corridor, would result in no change to existing management or the 

administrative boundary. As such, this alternative would have little effect as far as adding to cumulative 

impacts to Refuge resources. The spread of noxious weeds at the Refuge is an ongoing problem; the 

situation existed at the site in 2007 when the land was transferred to the Service and continues to be an 

issue. Continued weed infestations would be a cumulative impact to vegetation and wildlife habitat. 

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

Alternative B includes the expansion of the administrative boundary to include section 16 located at the 

southwest corner of the existing Refuge boundary. The Service would sell the 300-foot-wide 

transportation corridor in exchange for equal interest in lands within section 16. Additionally, the Service 
Page 70 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

would continue efforts to acquire subsurface mineral rights within both the existing and expanded 

administrative boundary. Implementation of this alternative would generally have a positive effect as far 

as reducing cumulative impacts to Refuge resources. Acquiring section 16, and subsurface mineral rights 

would benefit wildlife and create a connection between the Refuge and open space areas to the west, 

protect Preble’s meadow jumping mouse habitat, protect a vestige of xeric tallgrass prairie, and would 

reduce the amount of active mining in the area which would reduce impacts caused by that activity. The 

effects from the sale of the 300-foot-wide transportation corridor would cause cumulative impacts as 

previously discussed. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C would include the sale of the 300-foot-wide corridor in exchange for land holdings at 

another NWR in Colorado, and would not include a change in the existing Refuge administration 

boundary. Cumulative impacts to the Refuge associated with this alternative would be similar to 

Alternative A except that impacts related to a bike path, or a bike path with transportation improvements 

along Indiana Street, are likely to be lower. Other than the sale of the transportation corridor, management 

of the Refuge and the amount of land included within the administrative boundary would not change. A 

land exchange at either Arapaho NWR or Baca NWR would be a benefit to those refuges, but is not 

considered a cumulative impact at Rocky Flats NWR. 

Alternative D 

Alternative D would expand the administrative boundary of the Refuge but would complete a land 

exchange for land holdings at another Colorado refuge. section 16 would not immediately be acquired as 

part of this alternative. Cumulative impacts would be similar to Alternative A. Although the 

administrative boundary would be expanded, without the actual acquisition of land within the expanded 

boundary, the Service would have no control over activities in non-Service owned lands within the 

expanded boundary. Although it may be more likely at some point in the future that the Service could 

acquire lands within the administrative boundary, there would be no change to cumulative impacts for the 

foreseeable future. 
Page 71 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.0 Coordination and Environmental Review 

This chapter describes how the Service coordinated with others and conducted environmental reviews of 

various aspects of the project proposal and analysis. Additional coordination and review would be needed 

to carry out the proposed action, if selected. 

5.1 Agency Coordination 

The Service has discussed the potential expansion and land exchange with local and regional conservation 

organizations and non-governmental organizations, and has worked closely with other Federal (DOE, 

EPA), State (Colorado State Land Board, Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, and CDPHE), and 

local (City of Arvada, City and County of Boulder, City and County of Broomfield, City of Golden, City 

of Westminster, Jefferson County, and Town of Superior) governments. Tribal governments with 

aboriginal interest in the Rocky Flats area (Cheyenne and Arapaho of Oklahoma, Northern Arapaho, 

Northern Cheyenne, Shoshone-Bannock, and Eastern Shoshone) were invited to comment and/or formally 

consult with the Service. The Services’ Regional Archaeologist consulted with the State Historic 

Preservation Officer, and was intimately involved with the development of this EA. 

The Service coordinated internally in developing this EA. Field and regional Service staff conducted the 

analysis and prepared this document, and an Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation is underway 

and will be completed before the release of the final EA (see section 5.4, List of Preparers and 

Reviewers). 

5.2 Contaminants and Hazardous Materials 

The Service is required to invest in healthy lands. A Level 1 pre-acquisition site assessment was 

conducted on section 16 by the USFWS Ecological Services field office in Colorado (Appendix C). If an 

alternative other than the proposed action which involved a land acquisition were selected, the appropriate 

level of contaminants assessment would be conducted for that site prior to acquisition. 

5.3 National Environmental Policy Act 

The Service conducted this environmental analysis under the authority of and in compliance with NEPA, 

which requires an evaluation of reasonable alternatives that will meet stated objectives and an assessment 

of the possible effects on the natural and human environment. 

Environmental Assessment 

This EA will be the basis for determining whether the implementation of the proposed action would 

constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. NEPA 

planning for this EA involved other government agencies and the public in the identification of issues and 

alternatives for the proposed project (See chapter 1; Issues Identified and Selected for Analysis). 
Page 72 

 

 

Distribution and Availability 

The Service is distributing the EA (with the associated draft Land Protection Plan (LPP) in the same 

volume) to the project mailing list, which includes Federal and State legislative delegations; tribes; 

Federal, State, and local agencies; non-governmental organizations; and interested individuals. Copies can 

be requested from the USFWS Region 6 office. After the EA is released for public review, the Service 

will hold a public meeting to discuss the EA and draft LPP. 

Copies of the draft EA/LPP and information about the public meeting are available by visiting the Rocky 

Flats NWR website or by contacting the service by email, mail, phone, or in person. 

 Project website: www.fws.gov/rockyflats 

 Project email: rockyflatsea@fws.gov 

 Planning team leads: 

Mike Dixon 

Attn: Rocky Flats EA 

Division of Refuge Planning 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Center 

Denver, CO 80225 

303-236-8132 

Bruce Hastings 

Attn: Rocky Flats EA 

Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge 

Building 121 

Commerce City, CO 80022 

5.4 List of Preparers and Reviewers 

AUTHOR POSITION WORK UNIT 

Rachel Badger Project manager, senior environmental URS Corporation, Denver, CO 

planner 

Mike D. Dixon Planning team leader, wildlife biologist USFWS Region 6, Division of Refuge 

Planning, Lakewood, CO 

Bruce Hastings Planning team leader, deputy refuge USFWS, Rocky Mountain Arsenal NWR, 

manager Commerce City, CO 

David C. Lucas Chief, Division of Refuge Planning USFWS Region 6, Division of Refuge 

Planning, Lakewood, CO 

Sue Oliveira Chief, Division of Realty USFWS Region 6, Division of Realty, 

Lakewood, CO 

Jean Sanson Senior planner URS Corporation, Denver, CO 
Page 73 

 

 

AUTHOR POSITION WORK UNIT 

Steve Shuck Realty Operations Specialist USFWS Region 6, Division of Realty, 

Lakewood, CO 

Meg VanNess Regional Archeologist USFWS Region 6, Division of Realty, 

Lakewood, CO 

Brooke McDonald Lead Writer/Editor North State Resources, Inc., Redding, CA 

Kathryn McDonald Managing Writer/Editor North State Resources, Inc., Redding, CA 
APPENDIX A
 

Rocky Flats Act 
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	 

Rocky Flats 

National Wildlife

Refuge Act of 

2001. 

16 USC 668dd SEC. 3171. SHORT TITLE. note. 

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 cost-


effective.
 

(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.
 

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan & EIS 241 
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: 

242 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 
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.— 

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan & EIS 243 
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 

244 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 
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 

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan & EIS 245 
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. 

246 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 
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 Deadline. 

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 

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan & EIS 247 
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. 

Deadline.	 (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 

248 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 
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 

Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan & EIS 249 
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. 

50 USC 98d note. SEC. 3301. DEFINITIONS. 

In this title: 

250 Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 
APPENDIX B
 

Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Species List 
Page B-1 

Appendix B 

Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Species List 

Plant Species 

Grasses, Reeds, Rushes, and Grass-Like Plants 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Jointed Goatgrass Aegilops cylindrical 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 

Feather fingergrass Chloris virgata 

Bermuda Grass Cynodon dactylon 

Orchardgrass Dactylis glomerata 

Poverty Oatgrass Danthonia spicata 

Common Name Scientific Name 

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 

Bearded Sprangletop Leptochloa fasicularis 

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 
Page D-2 

Common Name Scientific Name 

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 

Toad Rush Juncus bufonius 

Dudley Rush Juncus dudleyi 

Swordleaf rush Juncus ensifolius 

Common Name Scientific Name 

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 maritimus 

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 

Sea arrowgrass Triglochin maritima 

Field Horsetail Equisetum arvense 

Smooth Horsetail Equisetum laevigatum 

Variegated Scouring Rush Equisetum variegatum 
Page B-3 

Forbs 

Common Name Scientific Name 

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 Ambrosia psilostachya 

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 

Common Name Scientific Name 

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 

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 

Cornflower Centaurea cyanus 

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 

Oakleaf goosefoot Chenopodium glaucum 

Goosefoot Chenopodium 

leptophyllum 

Overi’s Goosefoot Chenopodium overi 

Blue Mustard Chorispora tenella 

Ox-eye Daisy Chrysanthemum 

Leucanthemum 
Page D-4 

Common Name Scientific Name 

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 

Western White Clematis Clematis ligusticifolia 

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 

Plains Coreopsis Coreposis tinctoria 

Crown Vetch Coronilla varia 

Nipple Cactus Coryphantha 

missouriensis 

Mexican Aster Cosmos bipinnatus 

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 

African Daisy Dimporphotheca 

aurantiaca 

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 

Common Name Scientific Name 

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 

California Poppy Eschscholzia californica 

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 

Russian leavy spurge Euphorbia uralensis 

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 

Annual Baby’s Breath Gysophila elegans 

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 
Page B-5 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Stiff Sunflower Helianthus rigidus 

Showy Goldeneye Heliomeris multiflora 

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 

Common Name Scientific Name 

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 cuspidate 

Slender Phlox Microsteris gracilis 

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 

Whitest Evening Primrose Oenothera albicaulis 

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 

Corn Poppy Papaver rhoeas 

Pennsylvania Pellitory Parietaria pensylvanica 

James’ Nailwort Paronychia jamesii 

Nipple Cactus Pediocactus simpsonii 

White Beardtongue Penstemon albidus 

Firecracker Penstemon Penstemon eatonii 

Palmer’s Penstemon Penstemon palmeri 

Sidebells Penstemon Penstemon 

secundiflorus 

Rocky Mountain Penstemon Penstemon strictus 

Slender Penstemon Penstemon virens 
Page D-6 

Common Name Scientific Name 

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 

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 

xhippiana 

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 

Common Name Scientific Name 

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 

Strict Blue Eyed Grass Sisyrinchium montanum 

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 

Greater sea-spurry Spergularia media 

Sand Spurry Spergularia rubra 

Red False Mallow Sphaeralcea coccinea 

Globe Mallow Sphaeralcea parvifolia 

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 
Page B-7 

Common Name Scientific Name 

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 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Great Plains Verbena Verbena bipinnatifida 

Prostrate Vervain Verbena bracteata 

Blue Vervain Verbena hastata 

Golden Crownbeard Verbesina encelioides 

Brooklime Speedwell Veronica americana 

Water Speedwell Veronica anagallisaquatica 

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 

Common Name Scientific Name 

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 

New Jersey Tea Ceanothus herbaceus 

GreenplumeRabbitbrush 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 

Common Name Scientific Name 

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 

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 
Page D-8 

Trees 

Common Name Scientific Name 

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 

Common Name Scientific Name 

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 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Hedge Bindweed Calystegia macouni 

Hedge Bindweed Calystegia sepium 

Hairy Clematis Clematis hirsutissima 

Western Clematis Clematis ligusticifolia 

Field Bindweed Convolvulus arvensis 

Evolvulus Evolvulus nuttallianus 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Common Hops Humulus lupulus 

Poison Ivy Toxicodendron 

rydbergii 

Puncture Vine Tribulus terrestris 

River-bank Grape Vitis riparia 

Others 

The following types of plants have also been identified at Rocky Flats: 

 15 mosses 

 24 lichens 
Page B-9 

Wildlife Species List 

Birds 

Raptors 

Common Name Scientific Name 

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 

Common Name Scientific Name 

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 

Common Name Scientific Name 

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-throatedgray 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 

Common Name Scientific Name 

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 
Page D-10 

Common Name Scientific Name 

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 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Red-winged blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 

Rock dove Columba livia 

Rock wren Salpinctes obsoletus 

Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula 

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 traillii 

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 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Ring-necked pheasant Phasianus colchicus 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Sharp-tailed grouse Tympanuchus 

phasianellus 
Page B-11 

Waterfowl and Shorebirds 

Common Name Scientific Name 

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 

Common Name Scientific Name 

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 
Page D-12 

MAMMALS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

American black bear Ursus americanus 

Big brown bat Eptesicus fuscus 

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 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus 

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 

Preble’s meadow jumping 

 mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei 

Raccoon Procyon lotor 

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 xvirginianus 

White-tailed jackrabbit Lepus townsendii 

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS 

Common Name Scientific Name 

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 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Prairie rattlesnake Crotalus viridis 

Red-sided garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis 

Short-horned lizard Phynosoma douglassi 

Snapping turtle Chelydra serpentian 

Tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum 

Western painted turtle Chrysemys picta 

Western plains gartersnake Thamnophis radix 

FISH 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus 

Creek chub Semotilus 

atromaculatus 

Common shiner Luxilus cornutus 

Fathead minnow Pimephales promelas 

Green sunfish Lepomis cyanellus 

Common Name Scientific Name 

Northern redbelly dace Phoxinus eos 

Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides 

Longnose dace Rhinichthys cataractae 

Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieui 

Stoneroller Campostoma anomalum 

White sucker Catostomus commersoni 
Page B-13 

OTHERS 

The following types of invertebrate species have also been identified at Rocky Flats: 

 63 species of phytoplankton 

 63 species of zooplankton 

 197 macrobiotic invertebrates 

 72 emergent insects 

 688 terrestrial invertebrates 
APPENDIX C
 

Phase 1 Environmental Assessment of Section 16 


















APPENDIX D
 

Process for Evaluation of Competing Applications 
Page D-1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix D 

Process for Evaluation of Competing Applications 

Background 

Section 3174 of the Rocky Flats Act states that “The Secretary...shall make available land along the 

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

Street.” 

Upon receipt of an application for use of lands for transportation improvements along Indiana Street, the 

Service will evaluate the application to determine if it meets all of the conditions outlined in the Rocky 

Flats Act (Appendix A). The legislative intent of the Rocky Flats Act was to establish a wildlife refuge 

out of the closed Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site and to make a small portion of those lands 

available for transportation improvements along Indiana Street (Rep. Udall 2001). Section 3172 of the 

Rocky Flats Act includes discussion on the existing site conditions and overall nature of the site; the need 

for open space in the Denver Front Range area; the fact that the area provides habitat for many wildlife 

species, including a number of threatened and endangered species; and the presence of rare xeric tallgrass 

prairie plant communities on the site. Section 3174 specifically states that up to 300 feet of land along the 

eastern boundary of the Refuge shall be made available for the sole purpose of transportation 

improvements along Indiana Street. This section also provides that any application must demonstrate that 

those improvements will be carried out so as to minimize adverse effects on the management of Rocky 

Flats as a wildlife refuge.12 Lastly, section 3177 defines the purposes for which the Refuge shall be 

managed. 

The Service has received two applications for the transportation corridor. After completing an 

environmental analysis on proposed actions involving expansion of the Refuge and a land exchange for 

the transportation corridor, the Service must make a decision on which application will be accepted. 

Consistent with Service policy, the Refuge Manager will make the decision between any competing 

applications. 

The Service will provide a statement explaining the basis for its final decision on this matter. The FWS 

will evaluate the applications under the Rocky Flats Act and this decision will be made available to the 

public on the Refuge webpage (www.fws.gov/rockyflats). 

Regulatory Framework 

When the Service evaluates the applications, it will examine the following regulations and policies: 

12 The Service has thoroughly analyzed impacts associated with the loss of a 300 foot corridor in the Rocky Flats 

NWR CCP/EIS (USFWS 2004) and determined that loss of the corridor would not significantly impact the 

management of Rocky Flats as a wildlife refuge. 
Page D-2 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Compatibility Policy 

Code of Federal Regulations 

Title 50, Chapter 1, Part 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 25.11-25.45) outlines the 

Service’s administrative procedures and governs the general administration of units of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, public notice of changes in Service policy regarding Refuge System units, 

issuance of permits required on Refuge System units, and other administrative aspects involving the 

management of various units of the Refuge System. The regulations in this part apply to areas of land and 

water held by the United States in fee title and to property interests in such land and water in less than fee, 

including but not limited to easements. 

Service Regulations 

The 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, provides the authority for establishing 

policies and regulations governing refuges uses, including the authority to prohibit certain harmful 

activities. 

Appropriate Use Policy 

The Service’s Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy (USFWS 2006b) sets the general rules and provides 

guidelines for determining appropriate uses of National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) lands. This 

policy applies to all existing and proposed uses in the NWRS when the Service has jurisdiction over the 

use. The policy does not apply to a use that is mandated by statute. 

The Service’s Compatible Uses Policy (USFWS 2000b), and the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act set forth general rules and provide guidelines for determining compatibility of existing 

and proposed uses of the Refuge. This policy does not apply to circumstances where other legal mandates 

supersede those requiring compatibility. 

Other Laws Pertaining to Activities on Refuge Lands 

Endangered Species Act 

The Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, provides for the protection of endangered and 

threatened species and the habitats upon which they depend. Section 7 of the Act requires Federal 

agencies to consult with the Service when the agencies’ action may affect a listed species. Consultation 

ensures that agency actions authorized, funded, or carried out are not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of threatened or endangered species or result in destruction or adverse modification of critical 

habitat for these species. 

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse occurs in every major drainage on the Refuge. Listed as a threatened 

species in 1998, the mouse occurs in habitat adjacent to streams and waterways along the Front Range of 

Colorado and southeastern Wyoming. At Rocky Flats, Preble’s meadow jumping mouse has been found 

in wetlands and shrubland communities adjacent to the Rock Creek and Woman Creek drainages. A total 

of 1108 acres on 12 miles of Rock, Walnut, and Woman Creek are designated as critical habitat (USFWS 

2010). 
Page D-3 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Service will complete an intra-Service Section 7 consultation on its proposed activities as they relate 

to the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and the potential for modification of designated critical habitat. 

This decision is completed as a part of the final environmental assessment. 

National Historic Preservation Act 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), as amended, requires Federal 

agencies to assess the effects of an action on historical and cultural resource sites. This is accomplished 

by inventorying proposed disturbance areas or the area of potential impact (APE), evaluating site 

importance and eligibility to the NRHP, assessing the effect of the undertaking on NRHP-eligible sites, 

and consulting with appropriate historic preservation agencies. Compliance with section 106 of the NHPA 

was followed for the proposed activities described under this EA. 

Archaeological Resources Protection Act 

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 16 U.S.C. 470aa-470mm, as amended, provides 

for the protection of archaeological resources on public and Native American lands and for exchange of 

information between governmental entities and academic or private archaeological researchers. An 

archaeological resource under this act is defined as material remains of past human life or activities that 

are of archaeological interest and includes but is not limited to pottery, basketry, bottles, weapons, tools, 

structures, rock paintings or carvings, intaglios, graves, and human skeletal remains. 

State Regulations and Rules 

The majority of regulatory agencies and programs under which the proposed transportation improvements 

are regulated are covered by: 

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 

Major regulatory programs of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) that 

apply to construction of transportation projects include the regulation of stormwater discharges during 

construction activities, storage and disposal of solid waste, radiation health, and air emission sources. 
APPENDIX E
 

City of Golden Proposal 
Page E-1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix E 

City of Golden Proposal 

On May 19, 2011, the City of Golden submitted an application for the 300’ transportation corridor. (See 

Attachment 1.) This proposal involved a direct sale of the corridor to Golden for $3 million, or $200,000 

more than the appraised value of $2.8 million. Golden’s application stated: “Specifically, the City would 

use the westernmost 250 feet of the 300 foot transportation corridor for development of bicycle and 

pedestrian transportation facilities along a generally north-south alignment.” The application further 

states, “In addition, the city proposes to reserve the easternmost 50 feet of the transportation corridor for 

arterial improvements to Indiana Street.” The application detailed Golden’s reasoning as to why their 

application would minimize adverse impacts to the refuge. 

On May 23, 2011, Golden submitted a supplement to its application of May 19. (See attachment 2.) The 

supplement reiterated the earlier proposal to use the westernmost 250 feet of the corridor for bicycle and 

pedestrian access, and to reserve the easternmost 50 feet for arterial improvements to Indiana Street. It 

then stated: “While the City still requests transfer of the Rocky Flats transportation corridor for this 

purpose, it believes that the Department (consistent with its obligations under the National Environmental 

Policy Act and the Rocky Flats Act) should consider, as an alternative, making the entire 300 feet of the 

Rocky Flats transportation corridor available for the development of bicycle and pedestrian transportation 

facilities.” The proposal was still structured as a direct sale to Golden. 

In a letter dated June 9, 2011, the Service informed Golden of its conclusion that the appropriate way to 

evaluate the proposals from JPPHA and Golden was through the NEPA process. 

On July 1, 2011, Golden submitted a second supplement to the application of May 19 in which it offered 

the concept of a land exchange, rather than a direct sale. (See attachment 3.) In this supplement Golden 

stated that: “The City would also be willing to engage in a land exchange whereby it would purchase 

approximately $3 million worth of property to exchange with the Service upon the transfer of the Rocky 

Flats transportation corridor to the City. A land exchange would keep the value of the land within the 

Service for use in the region and help maximize the value of any exchange to the City. The land to be 

exchanged could include property within the adjoining section 16 or land within the Arapaho National 

Wildlife Refuge (“Arapaho NWR”).” This supplement also discussed how a bicycle/pedestrian corridor 

would contribute to the realization of Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar’s vision of a Rocky Mountain 

Greenway connecting the Denver Greenway System to the three national wildlife refuges in the Denver 

region and eventually to Rocky Mountain National Park. 

On July 29, 2011, Golden submitted scoping comments addressing the environmental assessment for 

Rocky Flats. In that document, Golden suggested alternatives that the Service should analyze. Golden 

also stated: “To simplify the analysis for the Service, the City limits its proposed use of the transportation 

corridor to development of bicycle and pedestrian transportation facilities and does not seek to reserve the 

easternmost 50 feet for arterial improvements to Indiana Street.” 

Since the initial Golden submittal of May 19, 2011, the Service has been working with the Office of the 

Regional Solicitor to determine whether Golden’s proposal conforms to the requirements of the Act. 
Page E-2 

 

Golden will be advised of any deficiencies identified so that they may pursue corrective action to make 

the proposal compliant if they chose to do so. 

On August 18, 2011, Golden included the Service on additional correspondence regarding this issue. 




































APPENDIX F
 

Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority Proposal 
Page F-1 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix F 

Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority Proposal 

On April 29, 2008, Jefferson County, the City of Arvada, and the City and County of Broomfield, 

requested from the Secretary of Energy the transfer of a 300-foot-wide transportation corridor pursuant to 

provisions of the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001 (Act). On May 22, 2008, those same 

entities formally established the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority (JPPHA) to finance, 

construct, operate and maintain the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway. The proposed highway, located 

northwest of Denver, would provide most of the missing link in a circumferential highway around the 

Denver metropolitan area. With the limited availability of State and Federal highway construction funds, 

construction of a toll road was being considered. Upon notification that jurisdiction of the corridor had 

transferred to the Department of Interior, JPPHA re-submitted their request to the Secretary of Interior on 

August 11, 2008. (See attachment 1.). The Service began discussions with JPPHA and informed them that 

the agency lacked authority to transfer the property at no cost. Options that could be used for transfer 

included a transportation corridor in accordance with the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR § 29.21, 

a direct sale of the property as authorized by the Act, or a land-for-land exchange as authorized by the 

National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee). 

On April 16, 2009, JPPHA adopted Resolution 09-001, authorizing the Chairman to bind JPPHA to an 

agreement with the Service to adopt the minimization/mitigation strategies recommended in the CDOT 

Northwest Corridor Transportation and Environmental Planning Study. 

In a letter dated June 11, 2009, the Service notified JPPHA that additional information would be needed 

to process an application for a transportation corridor in accordance with procedures outlined in the Code 

of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR § 29.21. The Service also advised JPPHA that its proposal must be on 

the Fiscally-Constrained 2035 Regional Transportation Plan adopted by the Denver Regional Council of 

Governments (DRCOG) pursuant to 49 U.S.C.§ 5303. JPPHA began the process of submitting the project 

to DRCOG and on January 20, 2010, DRCOG voted to include the Parkway corridor in its Fiscally 

Constrained 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. 

On January 26, 2010, JPPHA submitted a request to purchase the corridor through a direct sale. (See 

attachment 2.) 

Starting in March of 2010, the Service began discussions with JPPHA, the Colorado State Land Board 

(SLB), and several local municipalities that centered around the concept of a land exchange. In any direct 

sale of the corridor, the proceeds would be deposited into the U.S. Treasury and would not be available 

for additional land conservation. A land-for-land exchange would enable the Service to acquire other 

lands that could provide additional conservation benefits in exchange for the corridor. There was 

considerable interest in an expansion of the Refuge to include some or all of the adjoining section 16, 

administered by the SLB, in order to provide connectivity between the existing Refuge and other open 

space lands to the west of Highway 93. Since the value of the section 16 land (estimated at $9.5 million) 

is considerably higher than the value of the corridor ($2.8 million), and since the SLB did not wish to 

subdivide the 617 acres it proposes to transfer, a need for additional funding to complete the transaction 

was identified. Local governments began pledging various sums of money for the project. 
Page F-2 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This exchange transaction was envisioned as a 3-way exchange. The Service would provide a deed to the 

corridor to JPPHA, JPPHA would pay $2.8 million to the SLB, and the SLB would provide a patent on 

section 16 lands to the Service. The remainder of the purchase price for section 16 would come from 

other sources, and the remaining interests would be conveyed to the Service as a donation. 

Only the surface of section 16 would be transferred to the Service initially. The mineral interest (sand, 

gravel and aggregate) is currently leased to a private company. Because of concerns over potential 

mineral development, which would result in significant negative impacts to the surface estate, the Service 

was not willing to accept the surface interest without having a definitive plan in place to acquire the 

mineral interest as well. Prior to the surface transfer, a third party (most likely a local government) would 

acquire the mineral lease and hold it for non-production. This party would continue making Advance 

Mineral Royalty (ARM) payments to the SLB. Subsequent to transfer of the surface, the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), which has responsibility for management of Federal minerals, would begin 

processing a mineral exchange. The BLM would work with the SLB to identify other lands in Colorado 

where the State owns the surface interest and the United States (US) owns the underlying minerals. The 

SLB’s minerals under section 16 would be exchanged for an equal value of US minerals under State lands 

elsewhere in the State. This would re-unite surface and mineral interests for both parties. Upon BLM’s 

completion of the exchange, the section 16 minerals would be protected as part of the Refuge. The mining 

lease would be extinguished and the ARM payments to the SLB would terminate. The State would 

reserve the oil and gas, which are currently leased to a private party. 

As the Service worked with JPPHA on identifying various procedural requirements to be met for a land 

exchange, local governments also were working toward an even larger land protection endeavor. 

Additional funding from local municipalities and a Natural Resource Damage (NRD) fund would finance 

the acquisition of various mineral interests in other lands located within the current Refuge acquisition 

boundary but still under the jurisdiction of the Dept. of Energy (DOE). The mineral interests and/or 

mineral leases are held by private parties. Under the terms of the Act, the current plan is for the mineral 

owner/lessee to exercise their rights and extract sand, gravel, and other aggregate material. The mineral 

operator, in conjunction with DOE, will be responsible for reclamation of the site after extraction activity 

has concluded but prior to the transfer of jurisdiction of the property from DOE to the Service. As part of 

the larger conservation proposal, the mineral leases will be extinguished and the mineral rights acquired 

prior to extraction of any material. These areas could then be transferred to the Service without the 

disturbance and restoration that mining would entail. 

On July 29, 2011, JPPHA submitted scoping comments addressing the environmental assessment for 

Rocky Flats. (See Attachment 3.) In that document, JPPHA expressed its willingness to continue with 

either an exchange or a direct sale of the corridor. JPPHA also expressed its commitment to providing 

pedestrian and bicycle access in conjunction with any roadway development within the corridor. 
































APPENDIX G
 

FWS Letter to CDPHE & EPA and EPA/CDPHE Response 










APPENDIX H
 

Scoping Letters from Government Agencies 


Frie to Dixon 

Page 3 

July 29, 2011 

A) Golden's request is for a recreational use. Golden's July 1 letter to Regional Fish and Wildlife 

Director Steve Gueltin offers its primary justification for its application is consistency with the Rocky 

Mountain Greenway Plan within the Great Outdoors Initiative. The City of Arvada also supports the 

Great Outdoors Initiative as a premier recreational plan linking together many federal, state and local 

parks and open space. That said it is plainly not a transportation program. 

B) Golden's proposed bicycle path project is not on the DRCOG Fiscally Constrained plan. Golden's 

application only speaks to proposed bike paths found in the 2035 metro vision transportation plan. The 

Sol icitor General's office has already determined that any project for the use of the transportation 

corridor must be included in the fiscally-constrained regional transportation plan. No bicycle path 

project meeting the requirements for inclusion in the fiscally-constrained plan, including reasonable 

prospects for funding, as ever even been submitted by the City of Golden to DRCOG let alone approved 

by the DRCOG Board as a specific project amendment to the fiscally-constrained regional transportation 

plan. 

C) Golden's proposal is to buy land outside of Jefferson County and exchange it for the transportation 

corridor. This is counter to the goal of having the proceeds from the transportation corridor inure to the 

benefit of the Rocky Flats Wildlife Corridor. Alternatively, a straight sale to Golden would have that $3 

million sent to Washington for deficit reduction rather than be retained for amenities and additions to the 

Rocky Flats Wildlife Refuge. In either case, the effect of Golden's acquisition strategy for the 

transportation corridor is to reduce the funds available to effectuate the desired Section 16 

inclusion/exchange proposal (Jefferson Greenway Proposal) also being evaluated as part of this process. 

For these reasons, the Service should not further consider the Golden alternative within the scoping 

process; their proposal is fatally deficient, does not meet the plain requirements of the Refuge Act, and 

cannot further the goals of acquiring, including and exchanging Section 16 and the associated mineral 

rights to the benefit of the Rocky Flats Wildlife Refuge. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. 

Sincerely, 

?J-;f«2 

Robert Frie, 

Mayor of Arvada 

cc: Arvada City Council 

Arvada City Manager 

JPPHA Board of Directors 


































APPENDIX I
 

Rocky Flats NWR Land Protection Plan for Section 16 Acquisition 
Page I-1 

 

 

 

                               

Appendix I 

Rocky Flats NWR Land Protection Plan for Section 16 

Acquisition 

Introduction 

Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) sits at the interface of the Great Plains and Rocky 

Mountains, about 2 miles from the foothills of the Front Range. It has a somewhat unusual history. It was 

established in 2001 and came into U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) stewardship in 2007 following 

the closure and subsequent cleanup of a nuclear weapons plant operated by the Department of Energy. 

The establishing legislation, the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001 (Rocky Flats Act), 

mandated that land up to 300 feet13 in width extending west from the existing Indiana Street 

transportation corridor on the Refuge’s eastern boundary shall be made available by easement or sale for 

the sole purpose of transportation improvements. The Rocky Flats Act includes a process for completing 

this process. The Service must receive applications from any county, city, or political subdivision of the 

State of Colorado and such applications must be carried out so as to minimize adverse effects on the 

management of Rocky Flats as a NWR. The transportation improvements must also be included in the 

transportation plan of the metropolitan planning organization designated for the Denver metropolitan area 

under 49 U.S.C. 5303. 

Purpose for Action 

The Service has received applications for acquisition of the 300 foot corridor for transportation purposes 

that meet the stipulations described in the Rocky Flats Act, and is preparing to dispose of this land as 

required by law. Parties who wish to use this approximately 100 acre parcel for transportation 

improvements have proposed exchanging that land for other property in the southwest corner of the 

Refuge. 

This Land Protection Plan (LPP) provides a description of the potential expansion of the Rocky Flats 

NWR through a land exchange, as outlined in the proposed action of the Environmental Assessment (EA) 

in the first part of this volume. The Service developed the draft LPP during the planning process to 

provide a general understanding of the proposed expansion to other government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and the interested public. 

Need for Action 

In exchange for the property which the Service is obligated to dispose of under the Rocky Flats Act, the 

Service has the opportunity to protect an important wildlife corridor and rare habitat on the western side 

of the refuge. This land, hereafter referred to as Section 16, comprises 617 acres and is described in detail 

in Chapter 3 of the Rocky Flats EA in this volume, but a brief description of the conservation value of this 

property is included in the Project Description below. 

13 §3174(e) of the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge Act of 2001 (Public Law 107‐107, 115 Stat. 1382)
Page I-2 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Planning Context 

The planning for Rocky Flats NWR began in 2001 with the passage of the Rocky Flats Act, though 

Rocky Flats did not come into Service stewardship until 2007 following EPA certification of the cleanup 

of the former DOE Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site. A thorough Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP) was drafted for the then-future Refuge in 2005. The planning process for the 

CCP included the drafting of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to assess the impacts of 

conservation and management alternatives for the Refuge (USFWS 2004). This EIS included an analysis 

of the impacts of potential transportation improvements along Indiana Street in the 300-foot-wide 

transportation corridor. However, submitted proposals for the transfer of that land have included the 

possibility for exchanging that land for the section 16 property. The exchange of these lands and the 

expansion of the Refuge’s administrative boundary to include section 16 constitute Federal actions 

subject to review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Planning for a NEPA review 

began in June of 2011. Public scoping comments regarding the Rocky Flats NWR land exchange 

proposals and boundary expansion were accepted from July 8 through 29, 2011, and an open-house style 

public meeting was held on July 15. The resulting draft EA is included in this volume. A public meeting 

on the draft EA will be held on October 13, 2011. 

Habitat Protection Alternatives 

No Action 

The property on section 16 would remain in the stewardship of the Colorado State Land Board as a school 

trust property. 

Expansion of Rocky Flats NWR to include Section 16 (Proposed Action) 

The administrative boundary of Rocky Flats NWR would be expanded to include 617 acres of section 16. 

The Refuge would be able to consider a full range of alternatives, including a proposal to exchange the 

transportation corridor for that land as well as mineral rights on adjacent properties that are already within 

the approved acquisition boundary which would then become part of the refuge, resulting in a net gain of 

over 1,000 acres of refuge land. If the land exchange does not happen as proposed, the Service could 

consider the use of LWCF funding to purchase fee title property or conservation easements in section 16. 

Project Description and Proposed Action 

The Service proposes to expand the acquisition boundary of Rocky Flats NWR to accommodate the 

potential acquisition of 617 acres of land and mineral rights in section 16. This project would support a 

number of the initiatives and recommendations of the America’s Great Outdoors report (CEQ et al. 2011). 

The nature of Rocky Flats NWR as an urban refuge in a large metropolitan area suggests that, if 

necessary, the use of LWCF funds to acquire section 16 would be appropriate per Recommendation 5.2, 

“Focus a portion of Federal LWCF funds on projects that achieve AGO goals related to ...urban parks 

and community green spaces”, and that the acquisition would be in keeping with the intent of chapter 6, 

“Establish Great Urban Parks and Community Green Spaces.” By permanently protecting a corridor 1­

mile wide connecting the refuge to existing public open space, the acquisition of section 16 would fulfill 

Recommendation 8.2 “Manage Federal lands and waters to increase their resilience to climate change,” 
Page I-3 

 

The following biological and socioeconomic standards apply to the proposed acquisition of section 16. 

and Recommendation 8.3 “Manage Federal lands and waters to create and protect critical wildlife 

corridors and maintain landscape connectivity with other public and private stakeholders.” 

Conserves a Priority Conservation Target 

The land cover of the proposed acquisition is quite diverse, but it is dominated by xeric tallgrass prairie, a 

globally rare plant community that the CNHP has designated as imperiled in the State. It is believed to be 

a relict of a much broader past distribution when it was contiguous with more mesic tallgrass prairies 

hundreds of miles east in the Midwest of the U.S. One particular sub-community of xeric tallgrass prairie, 

the Rocky Flats Bluestem Grassland, is particularly well represented on the site (ESCO 2002). This 

community has an unusual combination of species from eastern tallgrass prairies, western shortgrass 

prairies, and plants more commonly found at higher elevations in the Rocky Mountains. It is also 

noteworthy in its apparent resistance to invasion by exotic plants (Buckner and Odasz in review). The site 

also contains areas of ponderosa pine/Gambel oak woodland, wetlands, and a riparian corridor, providing 

a remarkable range of wildlife habitat (USFWS 2004). 
Page I-4 

 

 

 

The riparian corridor along Woman Creek in the northern portion of section 16 contains known habitat for 

the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse, a Federally threatened species (Federal Register 1998). This habitat 

is contiguous with existing designated critical habitat on the adjacent Refuge. 

Provides Habitat Connections 

The proposed acquisition is not specifically described in the current CCP for Rocky Flats NWR, but its 

potential and value is mentioned: 

... the Service may pursue habit at-protection partnerships, c onservation easements 

and/or acquisition of lands west of the Refuge. The protection of grassland habitat that 

buffers the Refuge’s western boundary (east of Highway 93) is important for the health of 

ungulate populations that migrate from the foothills down to the prairie... degradation of 

this habitat may deter wildlife from migrating to the Refuge and threate n existing 

ungulate populations that reside and/or calve within the Refuge (USFWS 2005). 

Rocky Flats NWR is currently bordered by an extensive network of protected public open space. 

However, at present it is not contiguous with any of the open space to the west. The acquisition of land in 
Page I-5 

 

 

 

 

section 16 would connect the refuge to these western parks, and thus provide a corridor from the Refuge 

to the Front Range. 

Promotes Biological Integrity and Diversity 

Besides containing unusual and rare habitat, Rocky Flats has high plant species richness, with over 600 

species of plants having been recorded in the tallgrass and mixed grass prairie and other habitats on the 

adjacent Refuge. The acquisition of this parcel would safeguard a large portion of this unique species 

assemblage that remains outside of permanently protected areas. Invasive plant species constitute an 

ongoing problem in the region, including on the Rocky Flats NWR (Inspector General 2011). Currently, 

the western portions of the refuge and the section 16 have fewer invasive weeds (Buckner and Odasz in 

review; M. Dixon personal observation); however, this is unlikely to remain the case without active 

management, and certainly not if the site is disturbed by further mining. Conservation of section 16 will 

allow that land to be managed so that it continues to be a healthy ecosystem, and also provide an 

important native vegetation seed source for reseeding other parts of the Refuge which require more 

intensive invasive weed control. 

Anticipates or Responds to Climate Change 

As mentioned above, the land in the proposed acquisition would connect the Refuge to a broad network of 

existing open space at the base of the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains. One of the primary ecological 

concerns of climate change is the potential for a loss of diversity due to an absence of suitable 

intermediate habitat between populations with genotypes that are adapted to specific environmental 

conditions and the land that will have those conditions under future climate regimes (Loss et al. 2011). 

This acquisition would protect a path for colonization of the refuge by new species, and ecotypes of 

existing species, that are adapted to future climatic conditions. 

Provides Adequate Water 

Rocky Flats Lake, a reservoir on the property, is privately owned and would remain so under the 

proposed acquisition. section 16 is also crossed by a diversion canal owned by the City of Denver. 

However, these manmade water sources, as well as marshes formed by seepage from Rocky Flats Lake, 

do provide year round water resources for resident wildlife in an otherwise arid landscape. 

Working Landscapes 

The proposed expansion is surrounded by public open space, some of which is grazed by cattle, and 

section 16 itself currently has an active grazing lease. There would likely be continued rotational grazing 

on the property as a prairie management strategy. 

Urban Refuges 

Rocky Flats NWR is managed under Rocky Mountain Arsenal NWR, which also oversees Two Ponds 

NWR. All three are within the Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area. Rocky Flats 

NWR is also a 10 minute drive from the Boulder, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area. This network of 

urban refuges provides environmental education and interpretation of natural resources to local school 

groups and the broader urban population. It also provides invaluable opportunities for wildlife-dependent 
Page I-6 

 

 

recreation such as photography, bird watching, hiking, and fishing. While the Rocky Flats NWR is not 

currently open to the public because of a lack of appropriations for that purpose, the Rocky Flats CCP 

states that it will provide for these same recreation and educational opportunities (USFWS 2005a). 

Public Use 

As mentioned above, Rocky Flats NWR has been closed to the public since its establishment in 2001 due 

to a lack of appropriations. However, upon the availability of funding, a comprehensive network of trails 

and interpretive facilities will be constructed, as described in the Rocky Flats NWR CCP (USFWS 

2005a). 

Special Considerations 

The property in the proposed expansion has little potential for special designations because of past land 

use practices on the site and its presence in an urban area. 

There are preexisting but potentially non-compatible activities on the site; namely, there is a surface 

mineral (gravel) lease on the site that is currently owned by a private entity which is paying advance 

mining royalties to the State of Colorado to maintain their lease. However, under the terms of a proposed 

land exchange and donation scheme, that mineral lease would be extinguished and the mineral rights 

would be conveyed to the United States via exchange. 

As part of one of the land exchange proposals, the mineral interests in properties within the current 

approved acquisition boundary that are currently administered by the Department of Energy (DOE) would 

be transferred to the United States. Those properties could then be transferred to the refuge as well, in 

accordance with the following: 

... the Service will not accept transfer of administrative jurisdiction from DOE for lands 

subject to the mining of gravel and other aggregate material a t Rocky Flat s until the 

United States owns the mineral rights of the land to be transferred to the Service, or until 

the mined lands have been reclaimed t o a mixed prairie grassla nd community (USFWS 

2004). 

Public Attitude, Involvement, and Potential Partners 

Because of its Cold War heritage and publicly stated uncertainty by local non-governmental organizations 

about the thoroughness of the resulting cleanup, there is some public ambivalence about Rocky Flats. 

Additionally, based upon initial scoping comments for the current NEPA review, there are very strongly 

held opinions about the potential purpose of the transportation corridor that the Service is required to 

make available under the Rocky Flats Act. However, nearly all of these comments support the expansion 

of the Refuge to include section 16. 

Because of the unusual nature of this acquisition, the Service does not need to seek partners to assist with 

the acquisition of this property. However, a coalition of local governments is providing the additional 

money beyond the value of the transportation corridor purchase portion of Section 16 and its mineral 

lease, as well as mineral rights on adjacent properties under the stewardship of DOE which would then 
Page I-7 

become part of the Refuge. The Colorado State Land Board, which owns section 16, is working closely 

with the Service on this project. 

In addition, we are reaching out to local governments and non-governmental organizations to ensure that 

they are engaged in the planning process for this proposed addition. 

Consequences of No Action 

As described above, the Service will divest the 300-foot-wide transportation corridor (~100 acres) as 

required by law. If no action is taken under this proposal, the generated revenue would be returned to the 

U.S. Treasury and there would be only negative conservation consequences and a net loss for the Refuge. 

The property on section 16 would remain in the stewardship of the Colorado State Land Board as a school 

trust property. The State Land Board is charged with using school trust lands to generate revenue for 

public education, and they often lease mineral rights on these properties toward that end. There is 

currently a private but inactive surface mineral lease on the property which would likely be exploited if 

the property is not placed in a formal protected status. There is also an oil lease in the northwest corner of 

section 16; further energy exploration on the property is possible. Also, at least one municipality in the 

region has expressed interest in annexing that parcel for development. The lack of alternative areas for 

development in the northwestern Denver metropolitan area suggests that the threat of development of this 

land will continue to grow. 

Coordination and Consultation 

The Service has discussed the potential expansion and land exchange with local and regional conservation 

organizations and NGOs, and worked closely with other Federal (Department of Energy, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency), State (Colorado State Land Board, Department of Fish, Wildlife, and 

Parks, and Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment), and local (City of Arvada, City 

and County of Boulder, City and County of Broomfield, City of Golden, City of Westminster, Jefferson 

County, Town of Superior) governments. Tribal governments with aboriginal interest in the Rocky Flats 

area (Cheyenne and Arapaho of Oklahoma, Northern Arapaho, Northern Cheyenne, Shoshone-Bannock, 

and Eastern Shoshone) were invited to comment and/or formal consult with the Service. 

The Service coordinated internally in developing this EA. Field and regional Service staff 

conducted the analysis and prepared this document (see section 5.4 of this volume, List of Preparers and 

Reviewers). 
BIBLIOGRAPHY
 
Bibliography-1 

 

Bibliography 

Anderson, Jane L. 1989. Chronological framework. In Temporal assessment of diagnostic materials from 

the Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site, edited by C. Lintz and Jane L. Anderson. Memoirs of the 

Colorado Archaeological Society No. 4. Denver, CO. 8–41. 

Artmann, M., and Hannan, M. K. 2011. Unpublished data. 

Bowles, A. E. 1995. Responses of wildlife to noise. In Wildlife and recreationists: Coexistence through 

management and research, edited by R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller. Island Press, Washington, 

D.C. 109–156. 

Buckner, David L., and Odasz, Ann Marie. In review. Decrease in species richness and invisibility in big 

bluestem (Andropogon gerardii) communities along a 2.2 million year chronosequence in 

Colorado, USA. 

Bureau of Economic Analysis. Regional economic and income data. http://www.bea.gov/regional/. 

Accessed August 2011. 

[CEQ] Council on Environmental Quality. 1981. Forty most asked questions concerning CEQ’s National 

Environmental Policy Act regulations. [Editor’s note: The forty most asked questions were 

compiled into a letter to Federal agencies. The memo was published in the Federal Register (46 

FR 18026).] http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/regs/40/40p1.htm. Accessed August 8, 2011. 

[CEQ] Council on Environmental Quality, Department of Agriculture, Department of the Interior, and 

Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. America’s great outdoors: A promise to future 

generations. 167 p. 

Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. Regional labor and employment data. Undated. 

http://lmigateway.coworkforce.com/lmigateway/default.asp. Accessed August 2011. 

[CDOW] Colorado Division of Wildlife. Undated. Threatened and endangered list. 

http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/SpeciesOfConcern/ThreatenedEndangeredList/ListOfT 

hreatenedAndEndangeredSpecies.htm. Accessed July 26, 2011. 

[CDOW] Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2003. Grassland Species Conservation Plan. Colorado Division 

of Wildlife. 

[CDOW] Colorado Division of Wildlife. 2011. Burrowing owl species profile. 

http://wildlife.state.co.us/WildlifeSpecies/Profiles/Birds/Pages/BurrowingOwl.aspx. Accessed 

August 16, 2011. 

[CDPHE] Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment and U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. 2011. Letter to USFWS regarding Services’ request for additional 

information regarding residual risk at Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. 

Colorado State Demography Office. Undated. Population and demographics data. 

http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?c=Page&childpagename=DOLAMain%2FCBONLayout&cid=1251593346867&pagename=CBONWrapper. Accessed August 

2011. 
Bibliography-2 

 

 

Dames and Moore. 1991. Cultural resources class III survey of the Department of Energy Rocky Flats 

Plant, Northern Jefferson and Boulder Counties, Colorado. Prepared for EG&G. 

Dixon, M. D. Wildlife Biologist. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Personal observation, July 25, 2011. 

ESCO Associates, Inc. 2002. Report of findings: Five-year study of the ecology of bluestem-dominated 

grasslands of the Rocky Flats Area, 1996-2001 (Draft). 

Essington, K. D., Kettler, S. M., Simonson, S. E., Pague, C. A., Sanderson, J. S., Pineda, P. M., and 

Ellingson, A. R. 1996. Natural heritage resources of the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology 

Site and their conservation. Phase II: The buffer zone. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Fort 

Collins, CO. 

[FHWA] Federal Highway Administration. 2008. Northwest corridor: A transportation environmental 

study. Northwest Corridor Transportation Improvements, Boulder, Broomfield, and Jefferson 

Counties, Denver Metropolitan Area, Colorado. Prepared for the Colorado Department of 

Transportation, Region 6. 

Federal Register; March 13, 2007. vol 72. no. 48. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007-03-13/pdf/E7-

4449.pdf. Accessed August 8, 2011. 

Federal Register; May 25, 2007. vol 72. no. 101. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007-05-25/pdf/E7-

10055.pdf. Accessed August 8, 2011. 

Federal Register; August 3, 2007. vol 72. no. 130. 

http://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/birds/baldEagle/documents/2007Jul09_72FR37346_Final_Rule_De 

list_Bald_Eagle.pdf. Accessed August 12, 2011. 

Federal Register; August 3, 2007. vol 72. no. 149. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007-08-03/pdf/07-

3773.pdf. Accessed August 8, 2011. 

Frison, George C. 1991. Prehistoric hunters of the high plains, 2nd edition. Academic Press, New York. 

GAO. 2006. Availability of Appropriations: Amount. In: Principles of Federal Appropriations Law. 

Volume II. 3rd edition. 166-175. 

[GAO] Government Accountability Office. 2004. Agency regulations and administrative discretion. In 

Principles of federal appropriations law, Vol. I, 3rd ed. 207-228. 

HAER CO-83. Rocky Flats Plant, Guard Facility, South side of west access road, approximately 2,323 

feet east of Colorado Highway 93 & West Road, Golden vicinity, Jefferson, CO. Historic 

American Engineering Record, Library of Congress, Data Pages: http://memory.loc.gov/cgibin/ampage?collId=hhdatapage&fileName=co/co0400/co0471/data/hhdatapage.db&title2=Rocky 

%20Flats%20Plant,%20Bounded%20by%20Indiana%20Street%20%26%20Routes%2093,%201 

28%20%26%2072,%20Golden%20vicinity,%20Jefferson,%20CO&recNum=0&itemLink=D?hh: 

37:./temp/~ammem_o1sf 

Hamon, Charles. 2011. E-mail from Charles Hamon (Office of the Inspector General) to Patrick McHugh 

(USFWS) and David Lucas (USFWS) stating that the Rocky Flats report will be revised; 

September 9, 2011. On File at USFWS Mountain-Prairie Regional Office, Lakewood, CO. 
Bibliography-3 

Hand, O. D. 1998 An intensive archaeological survey along State Highway 93 between Leyden Road and 

the Boulder county line, Jefferson County, Colorado. OAHP Number JF.CH.NR39. Colorado 

Department of Transportation, Denver, CO. 

Industrial Area Transition Task Force. 1998. Environmental conditions, Rocky Flats Environmental 

Technology Site, Golden, Colorado. Prepared by ERO Resources Corp. 

[IDA] International Dark-Sky Association. 2002. Effects of artificial light at night on wildlife. 

Information Sheet #187. IDA, Inc., Tucson, AZ. 

Jones, Donald G.; Williams, Martha; Stemmler, Kathy; McGrath, Michael H.; and Winstead, Elizabeth C. 

1998. Ethnohistoric and ethnographic information related to the Fort Carson Military Reservation 

and Pinon Canyon Maneuver Site in Colorado. Prepared for Department of the Army, Corps of 

Engineers, by R. Christopher Goodwin and Associates, Inc., Frederick, MD. 

Joyner, Kathryn. 1989. Results of a cultural resource inventory of the proposed W470 right-of-way 

corridor, Boulder, Broomfield, and Jefferson Counties, Colorado. OAHP Report MC.CH.R13. 

Prepared for Centennial Engineering for the Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver, 

CO. 

Kaiser-Hill, LLC. 2000. 1999 annual wildlife survey for the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site, 

Golden, CO. 

Kaiser-Hill, LLC. 2001. 2000 Annual wildlife survey for the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology 

Site, Golden, CO. 

Kaiser-Hill, LLC. 2002a. Site-wide water balance report for the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology 

Site, Golden, CO. 

Kaiser-Hill, LLC. 2002b. 2001 annual vegetation report for the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology 

Site, Golden, CO. 

Kettler, S. M.; Simonson, S. E.; Pague, C.A.; and Ellingson, A. R. 1994. Significant natural heritage 

resources of the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site and their conservation. Phase I: The 

Rock Creek Drainage. Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Fort Collins, CO. 

Kuehn, Steven R. 1998. New evidence for late paleoindian-early archaic subsistence behavior in the 

western Great Lakes. American Antiquity 63(3):457-476. 

Lane, Eric, State Weed Coordinator, Colorado Department of Agriculture. Information provided in 

comments to Draft CCP/EIS, April 26, 2004. 

Loss, S. R.; Terwilliger, L. A.; and Peterson, A. C. 2011. Assisted colonization: Integrating conservation 

strategies in the face of climate change. Biological Conservation 144:92-100. 

Maurer, E. P.; Brekke, L.; Pruitt, T.; and Duffy, P. B. 2007. Fine-resolution climate projections enhance 

regional climate change impact studies. Eos Transactions, AGU. 88(47), 504. As interpreted by 

TNC Climate Wizard (www.climatewizard.org). Accessed August 1, 2011. 

Mehls, Steven F. 1984. The new empire of the Rockies: A history of northeast Colorado. Bureau of Land 

Management Cultural Resource Series, No. 16. Denver, CO. 
Bibliography-4 

 

Metcalf, Michael D., and Black, Kevin D. 1991. Archaeological excavations at the Yarmony Pit House 

Site, Eagle County, Colorado. Cultural Resource Series, No. 31. Colorado Bureau of Land 

Management, Lakewood, CO. 

National Research Council of the National Academies. 2007. Colorado River Basin water management: 

Evaluating and adjusting to hydroclimatic variability. Committee on the Scientific Bases of 

Colorado River Basin Water Management, Water Science and Technology Board, Division on 

Earth and Life Studies. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. 

National Weather Service. Denver normals and means 1971–2000 and Extremes 1872–2009. 

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/bou/?n=normals. Accessed July 20, 2011. 

Nelson, Jody, Senior Ecologist, Kaiser-Hill Ecology Group. Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site. 

Personal communication with Bill Mangle, ERO Resources. January 14, 2003. As cited in 

USFWS 2004a. 

Nelson, Jody. 2010. Vascular flora of the Rocky Flats area, Jefferson County, Colorado, USA. Phytologia 

92:121-149. 

Office of the Inspector General. 2011. Status of the Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. Department of 

Interior. Report No. C-IS-FWS-0017-2010. 

Painter, Mary W.; Zier, Christian J.; and Kalasz, Stephen M. 2005a. Class III archaeological inventory of 

highway alternatives for the Northwest Corridor Project. In Alternatives for the Northwest 

Corridor Project, Boulder, Broomfield, and Jefferson Counties, Colorado. Prepared for Felsburg 

Holt & Ullevig, Centennial, Colorado, and Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver, 

Colorado. Prepared by Centennial Archaeology, Inc., Fort Collins, CO. 

Peel, M. C.; Finlayson, B. L.; and McMahon, T. A. 2007. Updated world map of the Koppen-Geiger 

climate classification. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 11:1633–1644. 

PTI Environmental Services. 1997. Ecological resource management plan for the Rocky Flats 

Environmental Technology Site. Prepared for Kaiser-Hill, LLC. 

Robinson, R.; White, D. B.; and Meyer, M. H. 1995. Plants in prairie communities. University of 

Minnesota, St. Paul, MN. 

Shannon, Donald J., and Lundquist, W. E. 2010. An appraisal of: The Federal vacant land along the east 

edge of Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge, Jefferson County, Colorado. Prepared for U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. Fort Collins, CO. December 1, 2010. 127 p. 

Shields, Wm. Lane. 1998. Basin houses in Colorado and Wyoming: Delineation of a culture area and 

parsing hunter-gatherer modeling. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of 

Colorado, Boulder. 

Shroba, Ralph R., and Carrara, P. E. 1996. Surficial geologic map of the Rocky Flats Environmental 

Technology Site and Vicinity, Jefferson and Boulder Counties, Colorado. U.S. Geological 

Survey. Map number OF-94-162. 

Stone, Eric. Biologist. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Personal communication with Bill Mangle, ERO 

Resources. January 5, 2004. 
Bibliography-5 

Ubbelohde, Carl; Benson, Maxine; and Smith, Duane A. 1995. A Colorado history, 7th edition. Pruett 

Publishing Company, Boulder, CO. 

Udall, Rep. Mark (CO). 2001. Conference Report on S. 1438, National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2002. Congressional Record 147, Pt. 173 (December 13, 2001) pp. 10070-10072. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010 Census. http://dola.colorado.gov/dlg/demog/2010censusdata.html. Accessed 

August 2011. 

U.S. Census Bureau. Federal Poverty Thresholds. 

http://dola.colorado.gov/dlg/demog/2010censusdata.html. Accessed August 25, 2011. 

U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Integrated natural resources 

management plan, environmental assessment, and finding of no significant impacts for Rock 

Creek Reserve, 2001–Closure. 

[DOE] U.S. Department of Energy. 1997. Rocky Flats cumulative impacts document. Rocky Flats Field 

Office, Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site. Golden, CO. 

DOE. 1999. Vegetation management environmental assessment. Rocky Flats Field Office. 

DOE. 2006. Corrective Action Decision/Record of Decision for Rocky Flats Plant (USDOE) Peripheral 

Operable Unit and Central Operable Unit. http://www.lm.doe.gov/Rocky_Flats/Regulations.aspx. 

Accessed August 4, 2011. 

[EPA] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011. Air quality index chart – Jefferson County, 

Colorado. http://www.epa.gov/cgibin/broker?_service=airdata&_program=progs.webprogs.aqiday.scl&geotype=co&geocode=0805 

9&begyr=2008&begmo=1&nummo=12&chtype=d&mapsize=zsc&reqtype=viewmap. Accessed 

11 August 2011. 

[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Service Manual 340 FW 1, Real Property Management. 

http://www.fws.gov/policy/340fw1.html. Updated June 4, 1993. Accessed August 15, 2011. 

USFWS. 1996. Service Manual 203 FW 1, Freedom of Information Act. 

http://www.fws.gov/policy/203fw1.html. Updated May 7, 1996. Accessed August 15, 2011. 

USFWS. 2000. Service Manual 603 FW 2, Compatibility. http://www.fws.gov/policy/603fw2.html. Site 

updated November 17, 2000. Accessed August 15, 2011. 

USFWS. 2004a. Final comprehensive conservation plan and environmental impact statement for the 

Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Mountain-Prairie Region, Lakewood, CO. 312 p. 

USFWS. 2004b. Comprehensive conservation plan: Arapaho National Wildlife Refuge. Lakewood, CO: 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region, Lakewood, 

CO. 183 p. 

USFWS. 2005a. Comprehensive conservation plan: Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region, Lakewood CO. 

225 p. 
Bibliography-6 

 

 

 

USFWS. 2005b. Conceptual management plan: Baca National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region, Lakewood, CO. 54 p. 

USFWS. 2006a. Wildfire Report – Org Code 61772, Rocky Flats NWR, Rocky Flats Fire CE7U. 

USFWS. 2006b. Service Manual 603 FW 1, Appropriate Refuge Uses. 

http://www.fws.gov/policy/603fw1.html. Site updated July 26, 2006. Accessed August 15, 2011. 

USFWS. 2009. Reply to Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority Right-of-Way Request. Letter 

from Regional Director to Mr. Kevin McKaskey; June 11, 2009. On file at USFWS MountainPrairie Regional Office, Lakewood, CO. 

USFWS. 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Revised critical habitat for the Preble’s 

meadow jumping mouse in Colorado, Final Rule. Federal Register. 75(240):78430-78483. 

Walker, Danny N. 1982. Early Holocene vertebrate fauna. In The Agate Basin site: A record of 

paleoindian occupation of the northwestern high plains, edited by G. C. Frison and D. J. Stanford. 

Academic Press, New York. 274–308. 

Weber, W. A. 1965. Plant geography in the southern Rocky Mountains. In Wright, A. E., and Frey, D. G. 

The Quaternary of the United States. Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ. 

Weber, W. A. 1976. Rocky Mountain flora. Colorado Associated University Press. Boulder, CO. 

Western Water Assessment. 2008. Climate change in Colorado: A synthesis to support water resources 

management and adaptation. A report for the Colorado Water Conservation Board. 

Wheat, Joe. 1979. The Jurgens site. Plains Anthropologist Memoir 15(84, Pt. 2). Lincoln, NE. 

Wilmsen, Edwin, and Roberts, Jr., Frank H. H. 1978. Lindenmeier, 1934–1974: Concluding Report on 

Investigations. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 24. Smithsonian Institution Press, 

Washington, D.C. 
Equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from programs and activities of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service is available to all individuals regardless of physical or mental ability. Dial 711 for a free connection 

to the state transfer relay service for the hearing impaired. For more information or to address accessibility 

needs, please contact the Fish and Wildlife Service staff or the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of 

Equal Opportunity, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240. 
Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge 

10801 Highway 93 

Golden, CO 80402 

www.fws.gov/rockyflats 

rockyflatsea@fws.gov 

303/289 0232 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Mountain–Prairie Region 

134 Union Boulevard 

Lakewood, CO 80228 

www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie 

fw6_planning@fws.gov 

303/236 8145 

September 2011