U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Rocky Flats

National Wildlife Refuge

Volume Four, Summer 2003

Above: Conservation of wildlife and their

habitat is a common concern.

Planning Update

Letter from the Refuge Manager

Thanks to all of you who participated 

in our May 2003 public workshops, 

and to those who submitted electronic

and written comments on the 

preliminary alternatives. 

Though the National Environmental

Policy Act did not require us to hold

public meetings during this stage of

planning, we felt it important to keep the

public informed on our progress and to

solicit feedback on the alternatives. We

highly value the public input we’ve

received throughout the planning process

and will consider your suggestions as we

begin writing the draft Comprehensive

Conservation Plan and Environmental

Impact Statement (CCP/EIS). Your

comments have helped us develop a

better sense for the public’s preferences

and concerns. 

Developing a range of alternatives is a key

component of the planning process

because it helps us establish suitable

management strategies for Rocky Flats.

The alternatives also provide a basis for

comparing the impacts and effects of the

different approaches. 

“I support the proposed

action, but I’d like to see

equestrian use included

in Alternative B.”

— Boulder Resident

The alternatives focus on the lands that

will be transferred to the Service following

clean-up and closure. The Department of

Energy (DOE) will retain jurisdiction over

a portion of the site in order to monitor

remediated areas.

This planning update reports what we

learned from public comments, and

defines the next steps in the process.

Again, thank you for your input!

Dean Rundle

Rocky Flats NWR Manager

“Manage the Refuge for

wildlife for the first fifteen

years, while analyzing

safety issues.”

— Arvada Resident
Public Workshops

The Alternatives 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

developed four preliminary management

alternatives as part of the CCP/EIS

development. The alternatives ranged

from providing little or no public access

(Alternatives A & C) to moderate

recreational uses (Alternative B), to

extensive public access and facility

development (Alternative D). All four

alternatives involve habitat conservation

and restoration. The vast majority of

people felt that the range of alternatives

was appropriate.

Alternative A - No Action 

The current management regime would 

be retained and restoration efforts would

focus on the Rock Creek drainage.

Alternative B - Wildlife, Habitat & Public Use

Draft Proposed Action

Alternative B would emphasize the

conservation of wildlife and their 

habitats while allowing a moderate level of

public use.

Alternative C - Ecological Restoration 

This alternative would emphasize habitat

conservation with a focus on restoring the

Refuge to presettlement conditions.

Alternative D - Public Use 

Alternative D would provide the highest

level of wildlife-dependent recreational

opportunities for refuge visitors.

*Please refer to Planning Update Vol. III or

visit, http://rockyflats.fws.gov for more detailed

alternative descriptions.

Public Workshops

Four workshops held in Westminster,

Boulder, Broomfield, and Arvada in May

2003 provided a forum for explaining the

alternatives and soliciting public comment. 

At the workshops, the Service presented

the alternatives and encouraged

participants to provide their input about

what they liked and disliked about the

various plans.

Public Use 42%

Habitat and Wildlife 30%

Infrastructure 8%

Contamination* 7%

Property 5%

Refuge Operations 4%

Cultural Resources 4%

* see the explanation of “Issues Outside the

Scope of Refuge Planning”.

Topics of Interest 

(by percentage of all comments received)

Issues to Reconsider

The public expressed differing opinions on

several issues. The following were the

predominant concerns: 

 Proposed Action: Re-examine

Alternative B and determine if it

should remain as is or be modified in

some specific way.

 Equestrian Use: Evaluate whether

equestrian use is consistent with the

goals of Alternative B, and if it is

compatible with the Refuge purposes.

 Trail Design: Consider modifying 

trail configurations in Alternatives B

and D to improve connectivity and

enhance visitor experience while

minimizing potential impacts on

sensitive natural resources.

 Restoration: Consider phasing options

which would accelerate habitat

conservation and delay public use

facility and programming development

until restoration efforts are underway.

The Service will take a closer look at all

the issues and determine if the

alternatives should be revised prior to the

development of the CCP/EIS.

Comments were highly varied

as to people’s desires, with

some wanting no public

access to Rocky Flats and

some wanting extensive public

use. More people supported

Alternative B - either as it is or

with some modifications. 

Public Preferences

Below: American Goldfinch and American

Robin (right) within the upland shrubs. 

© Michael Mauro
 Visitor Management: Some expressed concerns about the Service's

ability to manage visitors and enforce regulations.

 Signage: Several asked for signage to inform visitors about the

Refuge’s history and safety issues.

 Restoration: Several suggested that public use should be limited until

restoration is completed.

 Weed Management: Some expressed support for aggressive weed

management.

 Grazing: While some supported the use of grazing as a habitat

management tool, a few did not support grazing.

 Prescribed Burning: While a few expressed their opposition to

burning as a habitat management tool, others supported burning.

 Wildlife Corridors: Many expressed support for preserving wildlife

corridors at the Refuge boundaries.

 Prairie Dog Relocation: Several opposed relocation of prairie dogs

from off-site.

 Equestrian use: Many supported equestrian use on the Refuge, and

several noted a preference for Alternative B with equestrian access.

 Hunting: While some supported limited hunting on the Refuge,

others did not support any hunting on the site.

 Trail Connections: Many supported off-site trail connections, with

about half of those asking for better connections to Boulder trails.

 Loop Trails: Many wanted to see more loop trails in the plan.

 Perimeter Trail: Several asked for a perimeter trail on the Refuge,

and several others asked that the trail be located away from roads.

 North-South Trail: Several preferred a north-south trail connection in

the eastern part of the Refuge.

 Trail Development: Several expressed their concerns about trail

development on the Refuge and the impacts that it would have on

sensitive resources.

 Lindsay Ranch: Several expressed support for retaining/stabilizing

the Lindsay Ranch barn, while a few wanted all structures stabilized.

 Fencing: Several supported some type of boundary fencing, while

some of those suggested a chain-link security fence to exclude people

from the site.

 Water Supply: While a few wanted a water supply for a visitor's

center and restroom facilities, others cautioned that such

infrastructure would accelerate adjacent land development.

 Mineral Rights: Several expressed concern about mining on the

Refuge. This issue is being addressed separately from the CCP/EIS.

Habitat and Wildlife Management

Public Use

Cultural Resources

Property

Infrastructure

Refuge Operations

Above: Public workshop in Boulder.

Summary of Public Comments

Several issues related to contamination were identified during public

workshops. 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 and are not within the scope of the CCP/EIS. 

* Issues Outside the Scope of Refuge Planning

© Michael Mauro
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Rocky Flats National Wildlife Refuge

Rocky Mountain Arsenal - Building 121

Commerce City, CO 80022

RETURN SERVICE REQUESTED

Future Public Review

We encourage you to stay involved in the

planning process, and to provide input on

the draft CCP/EIS when the document is

presented at another series of public

workshops in the Spring of 2004. Prior to

these workshops the Service will

distribute Public Update vol. V, which will

summarize the draft document. This

update and a CCP/EIS summary will also

be posted on the project website.

FIRST CLASS MAIL

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

CITY OF DENVER

PERMIT NO 5267

Next Steps

The Service will revisit the alternatives

and revise them as needed before

drafting the Comprehensive Conservation

Plan and Environmental Impact

Statement (CCP/EIS).

The CCP/EIS will describe desired future

conditions and provide long-range

guidance to achieve the Refuge’s primary

purposes of habitat conservation, scientific

research and the management of wildlifedependent recreational uses. 

Contents of the CCP/EIS:

 Vision, goals, objectives, strategies

 Resource and issue descriptions

 Alternative descriptions

 Impact evaluation for each alternative

 Monitoring plans

 Prioritized projects, costs, staffing

 Partnership opportunities

Once complete, the draft CCP/EIS will be

released to the public for comment.

Following the public comment period, the

document will be revised and finalized by

December 2004.

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

For additional information on CCP/EIS

development, visit http://rockyflats.fws.gov 

Information regarding cleanup at Rocky Flats

can be found at http://www.rfets.gov

Right: 

Prairie dog

relocation

from offsite is

a concern.

Below: 

Opportunities for

wildlife observation

are valued by the

public.

“Limit access to the Refuge

during the first few years

and focus on restoration.”

— Broomfield Resident