U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Rocky Flats

National Wildlife Refuge

Volume Two, Winter 2002

© Shapins Associates

Left:

Northern Harrier 

Planning Update

Progress Report

The Comprehensive Conservation Plan

and Environmental Impact Statement

(CCP/EIS) for the future Rocky Flats

National Wildlife Refuge is well underway.

We have recently completed the scoping

(issues identification) phase of the project

and have begun to develop preliminary

alternative management options. The 

purpose of this Planning Update is to 

summarize what the Service learned from

the public and how scoping comments will

be incorporated during the next phase of

the planning process. 

During the scoping phase, the Service

invited community residents, agency 

members and interested organizations and

citizens to attend public meetings, state

their views, and submit written comments.

The meetings also provided an opportunity

for the public to learn about the CCP/EIS

project, develop an understanding of the

Rocky Flats site's natural resources, 

interact with Service staff and ask 

questions related to the planning of the

future wildlife Refuge. Significant issues

and concerns that surfaced during the

public scoping meetings were later 

deliberated in a series of focus group 

discussions -- dialogues between local

resource specialists and the core 

planning team.

Currently, the Service and the planning

team are analyzing public comments and

formulating a range of management 

alternatives that consider issues and 

recommendations that arose during 

public scoping.

Thank you for Participating!

For a comprehensive list and analysis of

comments gathered during public scoping

please refer to the Public Scoping Report

that is available for download at

http://rockyflats.fws.gov and main branch

libraries in neighboring communities.

A Sample of Public Comments 

"Preserve the site's tallgrass prairie" 

"How will the Service balance wildlife conservation and habitat protection

with public uses such as hiking, hunting and interpretation?”

"The views, terrain and wildlife at the future Refuge provide excellent 

opportunities for trails."

"Consider stabilizing the Lindsay Ranch structures and interpreting them

from an overlook area.”

"Will surface mining and the transportation corridor adversely impact the

Refuge's natural resources? How can these impacts be mitigated?"

"Convert existing roads into trails and links to outlying trail systems."

"How will the refuge be integrated with adjacent and regional open space?” 

“Allow no public access.” 
Public Scoping

Bottom:

Future Rocky Flats

National Wildlife

Refuge and the

Front Range 

backdrop.

What is “Scoping”? 

As defined by the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA), scoping is " ...an early

and open process for determining the scope

of issues to be addressed and for 

identifying the significant issues.” 

The scoping process provides a forum for

recognizing public and agency concerns

that help guide development of alternative

refuge management plans and the 

environmental analysis.

In an effort to recruit public involvement

in the CCP/EIS planning process, the

Service published Public Update vol. I that

outlined the purpose and need for public

scoping and a schedule of scoping events.

Additionally, the Service circulated 

newspaper advertisements, announcement

flyers and press releases. 

During September 2002, four public 

meetings were held in various communities

that neighbor the future Refuge. Following

the meetings, the Service organized six

groups of resource specialists to address

the following topics: Recreation, 

Environmental Education, Public

Perception and Public Information:

Managing in the Context of Remediation

and Contamination, Trails, Vegetation

Management and Wildlife Management.

In addition to discussing key issues that

arose during the public scoping meetings,

the focus group participants provided

input for management options.

Public Comment Topics

The table to the right lists the general 

comment topics received and the 

percentage of comments in each of the 

topics. Comments compiled from the focus

group meetings have been omitted from

these calculations, since the determination

of focus groups topics was based on the

outcome of public comments.

Public Comments

We received many comments, questions,

and concerns about the future Refuge by

the close of the public comment period

(October 31, 2002) and are grateful to

those who have participated. The planning

team gathered 1,881 statements through

various scoping activities and outreach

methods. Although the majority of public

comments were generated at the four 

public scoping meetings and six focus

group workshops, statements were also

submitted via letter, mail-in questionnaire,

email, telephone and the project webpage.

While many of the comments echoed

similar concerns, it should be noted that

the objective of compiling public statements

does not represent a voting process. Public

statements are gathered to identify issues

to be addressed and each comment holds

equal importance.

Public Use 31%

Vegetation 13%

Wildlife 12%

Infrastructure 11%

Contamination 10%

Property * 8%

Cultural Resources 6%

Refuge Operations 6%

Planning Process 3%

* primary issues within this topic include

mineral rights, potential land acquisitions

and the transportation corridor right-of-way

Percentage of 

Scoping Comments Topics
 Need for preservation and restoration of xeric tallgrass prairie, 

wetland and riparian habitats and other shrub and grassland 

communities

 Consider a variety of noxious weed management tools including 

prescribed burning, grazing, herbicide, mowing, hand-pulling, and/or

biological controls and the extent (if any) of the use of each tool

Issues Summary

Several key issues were identified following the analysis of all 

comments collected through the various public scoping activities

and a review of the requirements of the National Wildlife Refuge

System Improvement Act and the National Environmental Policy

Act. These issues, as well as the many other substantive issues 

identified during scoping, will be considered during the 

formulation of alternatives for future refuge management. The 

key issues are summarized below:

Vegetation Management

 Need for evaluation of a range of public access options from no access

to multiple recreational uses

 Consider the following public uses: hiking, biking, equestrian, wildlife

observation, education, interpretation, dog walking, and hunting

 Evaluate different levels (if any) of trail development and trail 

connections

 Consider a range of facility development (e.g. interpretive overlooks,

parking, motorized vehicle loop, restroom facilities, visitor center, 

universal access)

 Evaluate regional needs for environmental education and other

wildlife-dependent recreation programs

 Need for preservation and recognition (if any) of Lindsay Ranch and

the site’s Cold War heritage

 Consider range of preservation and interpretive options (if any) for

Lindsay Ranch 

 Evaluate levels of public access to site’s remaining cultural resources

 Need for assessment of requirements for funding refuge staff 

and operations

 Consider integrating refuge operations with surrounding 

communities and landowners

 Need for management strategies that effectively preserve the

Refuge’s ecologically and socially significant resources

 Consider public perception of the site and public outreach efforts

including risk communication

 Take into account management of refuge land in the context of 

residual contamination and how management will correspond 

to that of the DOE

 Need habitat protection for a variety of wildlife species including the

threatened Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse 

 Need for management strategies that address population 

management, wildlife corridors, and coordination with regional

wildlife managers

 Consider the reintroduction of extirpated species to the Refuge 

(e.g. Grouse, Pronghorn, Bison) & relocation of prairie dogs to the site

 Consider the maintenance, use, and/or removal of existing 

infrastructure such as roads and fences 

 Consider measures (e.g. signage, fencing) to keep visitor traffic and

wildlife away from contaminated areas

 Study the effects of modifications to surface water hydrology and

maintenance of water quality following closure

 Consider how privately owned mineral rights and the 

transportation right-of-way may influence refuge resources and 

final configuration

 Need for management strategies addressing relationships with 

adjacent land owners, opportunities for land acquisition, mitigation of

disturbances such as mining and the transportation right-of-way

Wildlife Management

Public Use

Cultural Resources

Property

Infrastructure

Refuge Operations

Below:

Public Scoping

Meeting in Arvada

Significant Issues

© Shapins Associates
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge

Rocky Mountain Arsenal - Building 121

Commerce City, CO 80022

RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED

Next Steps - Development of

Management Alternatives 

As part of the next phase of developing

the CCP/EIS, the core planning team and

Service staff are evaluating issues and 

concerns identified during scoping, and

developing a range of management 

alternatives. Alternatives define 

management options and provide a basis

for comparing the impacts and effects of

various approaches. Several alternative

management plans will be generated,

including a "no action" alternative, which

preserves the existing management

regime and provides an environmental

baseline against which impacts of the

other alternatives can be compared.

Within the framework provided by NEPA,

each alternative will represent a specific

management concept or theme and various

levels of management intensity relevant to

wildlife, flora, refuge administration, 

public use, cultural resources, and degrees

of facility development. Each alternative

will be analyzed in the EIS.

We encourage you to stay involved in the

planning process and to provide input on

the alternatives when they are presented

at public meetings in the Spring of 2003.

Prior to the workshop the Service will 

distribute Public Update vol. III, which

will describe the alternatives in detail. 

FIRST CLASS MAIL

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

CITY OF DENVER

PERMIT NO 5267

Issues Outside the Scope of 

Refuge Planning 

Several issues that were identified during

public scoping will be addressed by means

other than the CCP/EIS. The rationale

that explains why these issues are

considered outside the scope of refuge

planning is described below:

Contamination & Remediation Issues

 Existing contamination levels and 

reliability of remediated efforts 

Contamination and remediation issues are

being addressed in the Rocky Flats

cleanup process administered by DOE, the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

and the Colorado Department of Public

Health and Environment. The Service and

the DOE are developing a memorandum of

understanding that will, among other

things, identify which areas will be

transferred to the Service and which areas

will be retained by DOE for the purposes

of ongoing remediation. The transfer of

land from DOE to the Service will not

occur until the Environmental Protection

Agency certifies that the cleanup and 

closure at Rocky Flats has been completed. 

The Service will address management of

its jurisdictional land in the context of

residual contamination and analyze how

refuge management corresponds to DOE's

jurisdictional controls.

Cold War Museum Issues

 Location of the museum, including

potential co-location with a visitor center 

The refuge legislation states that it is

DOE's responsibility to work with the City

of Arvada and other entities on issues

related to the development of the museum.

For additional information on the scoping

process and results, please read the Public

Scoping Report. The report is available at the

following locations:

 http://rockyflats.fws.gov 

 Main branch libraries in communities that

neighbor the future Refuge: Arvada,

Broomfield, Boulder, Golden and the

Front Range Community College 

Reading Room in Westminster

Contact Information 

Please direct correspondence about the

refuge planning process to:

Rocky Flats NWR 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Laurie Shannon, Planning Team Leader 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Rocky Mountain Arsenal - Building 121

Commerce City, CO 80022 

Phone 303/289 0980

Fax 303/289 0579

Email rockyflats@fws.gov

© Shapins Associates Online http://rockyflats.fws.gov

Right:

Blue Grama