Department of Commerce Boulder Laboratories 

Campus Master Plan 

Final Environmental Assessment 

June 2017 
 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

Department of Commerce Boulder Laboratories 

Campus Master Plan 

Final Environmental Assessment 

June 2017
 

National Institute of Standards and Technology
 

Boulder, Colorado
 

Prepared by:
 

Metropolitan Architects and Planners, Inc.
 

Eastern Research Group, Inc.
 

For Further Information, Contact: 

Susan Cantilli, AIA, Master Plan Project Manager 

Telephone: (301) 975-8833 

Email: susan.cantilli@nist.gov 

Abstract: 

The Department of Commerce (DoC) has developed a 20-year Master Plan for the DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus located in Boulder, Colorado. The 

need for the Master Plan, and the campus improvements prescribed therein, is driven by both institutional policy and the inability of existing facilities and 

infrastructure to support current and projected mission requirements at the DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus. 

Two alternatives were considered in detail in the Environmental Assessment. The Proposed Action would implement the DoC Boulder Laboratories 

Master Plan to guide the physical development of the campus to advance the agency’s mission-related goals over the next 20 years. The Master Plan 

emphasizes quality and collaborative research in addition to sustainable and efficient operations. The Master Plan addresses current campus needs and 

delineates future development through phasing packages. When and if funding becomes available, DoC would execute new construction, additions, 

renovation, demolition, landscape improvements, utility improvements, and circulation improvements under the Master Plan. The No-Action Alternative 

would continue current DoC operations and would not implement the Master Plan. The No-Action Alternative would ultimately result in a site that would 

no longer support the advanced research requirements of DoC and would render much of the campus obsolete. DoC’s preferred alternative is the Proposed 

Action alternative. 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan i Final Environmental Assessment 
 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan ii Final Environmental Assessment 
Table of Contents
 

 

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................... 1-1
 

2 INTRODUCTION.................................................................... 2-1
 

2.1	 Campus Background ................................................... 2-1
 

2.2	 Purpose and Need for Action ...................................... 2-5
 

2.3	 Public Scoping............................................................. 2-5
 

2.4	 Public Review of Draft EA ......................................... 2-6
 

3 ALTERNATIVES .................................................................... 3-1
 

3.1	 Proposed Action .......................................................... 3-1
 

3.1.1	 Components of the Proposed Action.............. 3-1
 

3.1.2	 Phasing of the Master Plan............................. 3-4
 

3.2	 No-Action Alternative................................................. 3-4
 

4	 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL 

CONSEQUENCES .................................................................. 4-1
 

4.1	 Land Use and Socioeconomics.................................... 4-1
 

4.1.1	 Land Use and Regional Planning ................... 4-1
 

4.1.2	 Social and Economic Resources..................... 4-2
 

4.1.3 Open Space..................................................... 4-4
 

4.1.4 Trails............................................................... 4-5
 

4.2	 Biological Resources................................................... 4-6
 

4.2.1 Vegetation ...................................................... 4-6
 

4.2.2 Wildlife........................................................... 4-8
 

4.3	 Topography, Geology, and Soils............................... 4-10
 

4.3.1	 Topography .................................................. 4-10
 

4.3.2	 Geology and Soils ........................................ 4-11
 

4.4 Water Resources........................................................ 4-13
 

4.4.1 Surface Water............................................... 4-13
 

4.4.2 Groundwater................................................. 4-14
 

4.4.3 Wetlands....................................................... 4-15
 

4.4.4 Floodplains................................................... 4-15
 

4.5	 Utilities and Infrastructure......................................... 4-21
 

4.5.1	 Potable Water Supply................................... 4-21
 

4.5.2	 Wastewater....................................................4-21
 

4.5.3 Stormwater Management ..............................4-22
 

4.5.4 Energy Systems.............................................4-25
 

4.5.4.1 Electricity .....................................4-25
 

4.5.4.2 Heating and Cooling.....................4-26
 

4.6 Sustainable Development...........................................4-27
 

4.7 Solid and Hazardous Waste .......................................4-28
 

4.8 Transportation............................................................4-29
 

4.8.1	 Vehicle Circulation and Parking...................4-29
 

4.8.2	 Public and Alternative Transportation ..........4-30
 

4.9 Air Quality .................................................................4-31
 

4.10 Climate Change..........................................................4-34
 

4.11	 Cultural and Historic Resources ................................4-35
 

4.11.1	 Architectural Resources ................................4-35
 

4.11.2	 Archeological Resources ..............................4-36
 

4.12	 Visual Impacts ...........................................................4-37
 

4.12.1 Viewscapes ...................................................4-37
 

4.12.2 Light Pollution ..............................................4-38
 

4.13 Noise Levels...............................................................4-39
 

5 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS.......................................................5-1
 

5.1	 Evaluated Actions ........................................................5-1
 

5.2	 Potential Actions Considered but Excluded from
 

Analysis .......................................................................5-3
 

5.3	 Cumulative Improvements and Impacts Analysis........5-3
 

6 LITERATURE CITED .............................................................6-1
 

7 LIST OF PREPARERS.............................................................7-1
 

8 LIST OF AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED ..........8-1
 

9 DISTRIBUTION LIST .............................................................9-1
 

Appendix A: Correspondence 

Appendix B: Phasing Diagrams 

Appendix C: General Conformity Rule Applicability Analysis 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan iii	 Final Environmental Assessment 
List of Tables
 

 

Table 1-1. Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures...............................................................................................................................1-3
 

Table 2-1. Summary of Campus Buildings ..............................................................................................................................................................................2-4
 

Table 3-1. Summary of Phasing Packages and Associated Major Components under the DoC Master Plan..........................................................................3-5
 

Table 4-1. Threatened and Endangered Species that could be Present or Otherwise Impacted by Activities on the Campus ................................................4-9
 

Table 4-2. Change in Impervious Areas by Master Plan Phasing Package............................................................................................................................4-25
 

Table 4-3. Summary of Changes in Criteria Pollutant Emissions under the Master Plan......................................................................................................4-33
 

Table 4-4. Perception of Noise...............................................................................................................................................................................................4-40
 

Table 4-5. Colorado State Maximum Permissible Noise Levels............................................................................................................................................4-40
 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan iv Final Environmental Assessment 
List of Figures
 

 

Figure 2-1. Location of DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus within Boulder County, Colorado.............................................................................................2-2
 

Figure 2-2. Overview of DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus..................................................................................................................................................2-3
 

Figure 3-1. Master Plan ............................................................................................................................................................................................................3-2
 

Figure 4-1. Development Zone Districts at the DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus...............................................................................................................4-3
 

Figure 4-2. City of Boulder Existing and Proposed Trails .......................................................................................................................................................4-6
 

Figure 4-3. Prairie Dog Habitat at the DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus.............................................................................................................................4-9
 

Figure 4-4. Topographic Contours at the DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus ......................................................................................................................4-12
 

Figure 4-5. Current and Proposed 100-Year Floodplains on the Campus..............................................................................................................................4-17
 

Figure 4-6. Proposed 500-Year Floodplain on the Campus ...................................................................................................................................................4-18
 

Figure 4-7. Current and Proposed Conveyance Zones on the Campus ..................................................................................................................................4-19
 

Figure 4-8. Current and Proposed High Hazard Zones on the Campus .................................................................................................................................4-20
 

Figure 4-9. Proposed Stormwater Conveyance Network under the Master Plan ...................................................................................................................4-24
 

Figure 4-10. View of the Campus, Flatirons, and Kohler Mesa from Broadway...................................................................................................................4-37
 

Figure 5-1. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Evaluated in Cumulative Effects Analysis ..........................................................................5-2
 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan v Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Symbols
 

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

APEN Air Pollution Emission Notice LID Low Impact Development 

BCC Boulder Computing Center MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

BCCP Boulder County Comprehensive Plan MML Material Measurement Laboratory 

BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

BHP Boiler horsepower MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System 

BMP Best management practice N/A Not applicable/not available 

BSHED Boulder Safety, Health, and Environment Division NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

BVCP Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan NdD Nederland 

CAA Clean Air Act NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

CCF Central Computing Facility NHPA National Historic Preservation Act 

CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology 

CDR Construction, demolition, and renovation NO2 Nitrogen dioxide 

CO Carbon monoxide NOx Nitrogen oxides 

CSA Combined Statistical Area NOA Notice of Availability 

CTL Communications Technology Laboratory NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

CUP Central Utility Plant NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

CWA Clean Water Act NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service 

dBA A-weighted decibel NTIA National Telecommunications and Information 

DoC Department of Commerce Administration 

EA Environmental Assessment NWI National Wetlands Inventory 

EAB Emerald ash borer O3 Ozone 

EISA Energy Independence and Security Act OAHP Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation 

EO Executive Order OFPM Office of Facilities and Property Management 

ES Equipment structure OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

ESA Endangered Species Act OSMP City of Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks 

ESC Erosion and sediment control Department 

FY Fiscal year PACE Partners for a Clean Environment 

GCR General Conformity Rule Pb Lead 

GHG Greenhouse Gas PCBs Polychlorinated biphenyls 

GSA General Services Administration PEVs Plug-in Electric Vehicles 

GSF Gross square feet PM Particulate matter 

hp Horsepower PML Physical Measurement Laboratory 

HVAC Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning POV Privately owned vehicle 

IDA International Dark Sky Association Pph Pounds of steam per hour 

IES Illuminating Engineering Society PSCo Public Service Company of Colorado 

ITL Information Technology Laboratory PV Photovoltaic 

kW Kilowatts RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan vi Final Environmental Assessment 
 

RHA Rivers and Harbors Act Super IGA Boulder County Countywide Coordinated Development 

RL-1 Low Density Residential Plan 

RTD Regional Transportation District SWAP State Wildlife Action Plan 

SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SWMP Stormwater Management Plan 

SF Square feet Te Terrance Escarpments 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

SIP State Implementation Plan USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture 

SO2 Sulfur dioxide USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

SSPP Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

VOC Volatile organic compound 

WQCV Water Quality Capture Volume 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan vii Final Environmental Assessment 
 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan Final Environmental Assessment 
1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 
 Executive Summary
 

Background 

The 206-acre Department of Commerce (DoC) Boulder 

Laboratories Campus, located in Boulder, Colorado, is home to 

research programs of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), and the National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration (NTIA). A total of 1,761 research 

scientists, engineers, administrators, and support personnel work in 

34 buildings and structures at the campus, of which 29 are 

occupied buildings. The campus is situated within a strikingly 

beautiful setting with Kohler Mesa and the Flatirons as a backdrop 

to the buildings and landscape. The entrance and buildings are 

oriented toward the east, bordering on Broadway (Colorado State 

Highway 93). The remainder of the property is surrounded by 

residential development and recreational land, with a cemetery 

bordering the campus at the north. The land gently rises toward the 

west, culminating in a steep rise to Kohler Mesa at the western end 

of the property. Two ephemeral water bodies transect the site: 

Skunk Creek and Anderson Ditch, an irrigation channel. Much of 

the property is designated Open Space, protected from 

development under a Memorandum of Agreement with the City of 

Boulder together with an association of Native American tribes. 

Purpose and Need for Action 

The Master Plan analyzed in this Environmental Assessment (EA) 

reflects DoC’s vision for the physical development of the campus 

and for a flexible strategy for implementation. DoC is ever 

evolving and needs flexible, integrative, and collaborative support 

spaces to effectively promote scientific research. The overall 

purpose of the Master Plan analyzed in this EA is to guide 

fulfillment of the following objectives: 

•	 Create a comprehensive and coordinated framework for 

physical development of the campus; 

•	 Develop appropriate facilities and infrastructure for the 

evolving and advancing scientific research; 

•	 Respect the campus location, historic context, and 

agreements with the local community and Native 

American tribes; 

•	 Encourage collaboration and interaction among the 

laboratories and researchers, with welcoming facilities 

and staff amenities; 

•	 Accommodate interchange with the public and outside 

colleagues, using both conference facilities and 

technology; 

•	 Create an attractive campus, respecting both the science 

and the staff; 

•	 Promote good stewardship of the natural environment, 

and support and advance the sustainable design goals of 

DoC, the General Services Administration (GSA), NIST, 

and NOAA; and 

•	 Develop a plan for gradual change, that is complete at 

each step. 

The need for the Master Plan, and the campus improvements 

prescribed therein, is driven by both institutional policy and the 

inability of existing facilities and infrastructure to support current 

and projected mission requirements. DoC requires that its agencies 

have a physical master plan for their sites, reflecting both the 

anticipated special needs of the user groups and the impact of its 

activities on the surrounding community. Master plans aid DoC 

planners in their decision-making while accommodating changing 

circumstances and agency priorities. 

Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action is a Master Plan to guide the physical 

development of the campus to advance the agency’s missionrelated goals over the next 20 years. The Master Plan emphasizes 

quality and collaborative research in addition to sustainable and 

efficient operations. The Master Plan addresses current campus 

needs and delineates future development through phasing 

packages. Full execution of the Master Plan would increase the 

employee population by approximately 12% from its current 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 1-1	 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

population of 1,761 to 1,973 by 2031 and would result in a net increase in 

facility space by approximately 13% (DoC, 2017). 

DoC would execute new construction, additions, renovation, demolition, 

landscape improvements, utility improvements, and circulation improvements 

under the Master Plan. The Master Plan would focus on a core center of the 

campus and associated green space used to connect existing, renovated, and new 

laboratories. The Master Plan also involves the consolidation of administrative 

buildings and support facilities at the western end of the campus green. Aging, 

deteriorating, and some temporary buildings would be phased out and replaced 

by updated facilities. 

No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not implement the Master Plan and would 

maintain the present course of action at the campus by continuing ongoing 

research, management, and maintenance activities. The No-Action Alternative 

would ultimately result in a site that would no longer support the advanced 

research requirements of DoC and would render much of the campus obsolete. 

The No-Action Alternative would not meet the purpose and need criteria for the 

campus. As a result, DoC considers the No-Action Alternative to be less 

desirable than the Proposed Action. 

Decision to be Made 

Based on environmental analysis, public comments on the Draft EA, and other 

considerations, DoC will decide whether to proceed with the Proposed Action or 

the No-Action Alternative. The EA scope is confined to issues and potential 

environmental consequences relevant to this decision. 

Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures 

The Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing the National 

Environmental Policy Act require consideration of environmental effects and 

prescribe mitigation where practical to limit those effects. 

The Proposed Action would result in temporary impacts from construction, 

renovation, and demolition activities, as well as some minor continuing impacts 

due to operation of the new facilities and the modest increase in DoC personnel 

over the course of 20 years. The No-Action Alternative would not result in 

temporary impacts, demolition activities, or other improvements under the 

Master Plan. The environmental effects and mitigation measures associated with 

the Proposed Action and No-Action Alternative are described in Table 1-1 

(Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures) below. 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 1-2 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Table 1-1. Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures 

Resource Proposed Action (DoC Boulder Laboratories Master Plan) No-Action Alternative 

Land Use and Socioeconomics 

Land Use and 

Regional 

Planning 

Effects: 

• Improved connectivity, stronger campus identity, and encouraged collaboration amongst employees. 

• No impact on land use designations on the campus. Continued preservation of open space and natural 

features. 

• No impact on zoning or regional planning outside the campus. 

Effects: 

• No impact on land use or regional 

planning. 

Mitigation: 

• No mitigation necessary. 

Social and 

Economic 

Resources 

Effects: 

• Minimal long-term impact on population, housing, and education trends due to the projected increase of 

approximately 200 staff over the course of 20 years. 

• Minor long-term economic benefits associated with improved productivity and available resources as well 

as a marginal improvement to employment levels associated with increased staff on the campus. Staff 

increases would likely benefit the local economy and job market. 

• Temporary minor impact on the population and availability of housing during construction (due to 

potential influx of construction workers). 

• Temporary economic benefits to the local community during construction activities (e.g., meals and 

incidentals for construction workers). 

• No disproportionate impact on children, minorities, or low income populations. 

Effects: 

• No impact on social and economic 

resources. 

• No economic benefits to the 

region. 

Mitigation: 

• No mitigation necessary. 

Open Space Effects: 

• No long-term or temporary impact on open space, protected areas, or recreational areas. 

Effects: 

• No impact on open spaces. 

Mitigation: 

• No mitigation necessary. 

Trails Effects: 

• No impact on public trails located within the Protected Area on campus. 

• Potential improvement to trails leading to off-campus recreation areas, multi-use trails, and the 

designated bicycle route areas. 

• Improvement to circulation and safety on campus for pedestrians and bicyclists. 

• Potential temporary trail closure or detour during construction activities. 

Effects: 

• No impact on trails. 

• No improvement to trails, 

circulation, or safety. 

Mitigation: 

• No mitigation necessary. 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 1-3 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Resource Proposed Action (DoC Boulder Laboratories Master Plan) No-Action Alternative 

Biological Resources 

Vegetation Effects: 

• Removal of vegetation due to construction in previously undeveloped areas. 

• No impact on rare, threatened, or endangered plant species or to vegetation in stream buffers or 

wetlands. 

• Improvement to urban landscape due to replacement of water-intensive, non-native plants with droughtresistant, native species (requiring less irrigation). 

• Improvement to urban landscape due to planting additional trees for cover and shade and additional 

native vegetation in association with the pedestrian promenade and vegetated arroyo. 

• Improvement to urban landscape due to removal and replacement of ash trees, which provide emerald 

ash borer habitat. 

Mitigation: 

• Reseeding native grasses and vegetative species in disturbed areas following completion of construction 

activities to the extent feasible. 

• Replacement of trees removed. 

• Management of ponderosa pine stands to prevent infestation by bark beetles. 

• Management of hardwood trees to prevent the spread of the emerald ash borer. 

• Consolidation of facilities in previously developed areas. 

Effects: 

• No impact on vegetation. 

• No removal of non-native invasive 

species and replacement with 

native species in accordance with 

Executive Order (EO) 13112. 

• No improvement to urban 

landscape. 

Wildlife Effects: 

• Temporary minor reduction in potential wildlife, migratory bird, and pollinator habitat during 

construction activities. 

• Temporary potential impact on wildlife due to noise during construction. Negligible long-term noise 

impacts. 

• No disturbance within the boundaries of the existing prairie dog colony located in the protected area. 

• Unlikely impact on rare, threatened, and endangered species since there are no critical habitats within 

the project areas. 

• Potential minor impact on aquatic life due to runoff of sediment or other contaminants. 

• Minor improvement to wildlife and pollinator habitat due to replacement of non-native plants with native 

vegetation and planting additional trees. 

Mitigation: 

• Consolidation of facilities within previously developed areas. 

• Avoidance of tree clearing until it is verified that no migratory bird eggs and/or young are present. 

• Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and implementation of appropriate mitigation 

measures if threatened or endangered species are discovered on the campus during the course of 

planning or execution of the Master Plan. 

(continued on next page) 

Effects: 

• No impact on wildlife or habitat. 

• No enhancement to habitats for 

native wildlife and pollinators. 

Table 1-1. Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 1-4 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Resource Proposed Action (DoC Boulder Laboratories Master Plan) No-Action Alternative 

Wildlife 

(continued) Mitigation (continued): 

• Reassessment of the prairie dog colony boundaries prior to project implementation to determine 

whether a potential conflict exists. Non-lethal, non-removal methods would be implemented for 

resolving any conflicts. 

• Implementation of stormwater management and pollution prevention measures to reduce impact on 

aquatic life. 

• Management of ponderosa pine stands to prevent infestation by bark beetles. 

• Management of ash trees to prevent the spread of the emerald ash borer. 

Topography, Geology, and Soils 

Topography Effects: 

• Minor impact on topography due to construction activities, which would require grading in previously 

disturbed areas. 

• Potential for minor changes to existing drainage patterns in the immediate vicinity of new facilities. 

• No impact on topography of Kohler Mesa. 

Effects: 

• No grading or associated impact 

on topography. 

Mitigation: 

• No mitigation necessary. 

Geology and 

Soils 

Effects: 

• Moderate disturbance due to construction, demolition, and renovation projects that would impact 

previously disturbed soils. Potential for surface and subsurface compaction and soil relocation during 

construction and demolition activities. 

• Minimal potential for extensive soil erosion. 

Effects: 

• No impact on geology or soils. 

Mitigation: 

• Implementation of erosion and sediment control (ESC) measures during earth disturbance. 

• Installation of post-construction best management practices (BMPs) for projects that disturb 1 acre or 

greater of land. 

Table 1-1. Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 1-5 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Resource Proposed Action (DoC Boulder Laboratories Master Plan) No-Action Alternative 

Water Resources 

Surface Water Effects: 

• Potential impact on surface waters due to runoff from construction activities and changes in the quality 

and quantity of post-construction stormwater runoff. 

• Potential improvement to surface water quality at the campus associated with design and 

implementation of post-construction BMPs and improved stormwater management techniques such as 

Low Impact Development (LID) features. 

• Potential increase in wastewater discharge to the City of Boulder sanitary sewer system due to increased 

campus population. No change in wastewater quality. 

• Potential increase in wastewater discharge to the campus stormwater system due to increased cooling 

loads. 

Effects: 

• No impact on surface waters. 

• No implementation of LID or 

improvement to existing 

stormwater management 

practices to meet the intent of 

local, state, and federal rules and 

regulations. 

Mitigation: 

• Implementation of ESC measures during all construction activities to prevent sediment transport to Skunk 

Creek and Anderson Ditch. 

Groundwater Effects: 

• No impact on groundwater consumption. 

• Potential impact on groundwater quality during construction and demolition activities. 

• Potential for enhanced groundwater recharge during storm events due to installation of BMPs and 

implementation of advanced stormwater management techniques. 

Mitigation: 

• Implementation of appropriate pollution prevention and ESC measures during construction and 

demolition activities to avoid spills and exposure of groundwater to contamination. 

Effects: 

• No impact on groundwater 

consumption. 

• No construction-related impact on 

groundwater. 

• No potential for enhanced 

groundwater recharge during 

storm events. 

Wetlands Effects: 

• No construction, demolition, or renovation within wetlands or wetland buffers. 

• Potential for long-term changes in the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff discharged to the 

wetland surrounding Skunk Creek following construction of the new Childcare Center and parking garage. 

Effects: 

• No impact on wetlands. 

Mitigation: 

• Installation of stormwater management BMPs to reduce potential for sediment and contaminant 

transport. 

Table 1-1. Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 1-6 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Resource Proposed Action (DoC Boulder Laboratories Master Plan) No-Action Alternative 

Floodplains Effects: 

• Reconfiguration of Curie Circle within the current 100-year floodplain. No construction, demolition, or 

renovation within the city’s proposed 100-year floodplain. 

• Renovation of portions of Building 1 within the city’s proposed 500-year floodplain. 

• No construction, demolition, or renovation within the current or proposed conveyance zone or high 

hazard zone. 

Effects: 

• No changes within the current or 

proposed 100-year floodplain, 

500-year floodplain, conveyance 

zone, or high hazard zone. 

Mitigation: 

• Permitting or consultation with Boulder Planning and Development Services Center. 

• Proper siting and design of new facilities to avoid impacts to floodplains and ensure consistency with 

federal regulations and EOs. 

• Minimization of stormwater runoff from new development to Skunk Creek and Anderson Ditch. 

Utilities and Infrastructure 

Potable Water 

Supply 

Effects: 

• Minor increase or potential decrease in potable water demand. 

• Potential for improvement to water efficiency via improved availability of chilled water, installation of 

efficient water fixtures, and addressing water leaks. 

• New potable water line installation. 

Mitigation: 

• Implementation of water conservation practices. 

Effects: 

• No change in potable water 

demand. 

• No improvement to water 

efficiency within the campus. 

• No impact on existing potable 

water infrastructure. 

Wastewater Effects: 

• Increase in wastewater generation from increased population and increased cooling loads. 

• New sanitary sewer line installation. 

Mitigation: 

• Installation of water-efficient fixtures in new and renovated buildings. 

Effects: 

• No increase in wastewater 

discharge. 

• No impact on existing wastewater 

infrastructure. 

Stormwater 

Management 

Effects: 

• Temporary impact on stormwater from sediment associated with renovation, demolition, and 

construction activities. 

• Potential long-term improvement to stormwater quality and reduction in stormwater quantity via 

removal of impervious surfaces and installation of post-construction BMPs, control measures, and LID 

technologies. Reduction in impervious areas within the campus by 4.8% with full implementation of the 

Master Plan. 

Effects: 

• No impact on stormwater. 

• No improvement to stormwater 

management practices on the 

campus to meet the intent of local 

and federal rules and regulations. 

Mitigation: 

• Implementation of approved ESC and stormwater management plans during construction activities. 

Table 1-1. Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 1-7 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Resource Proposed Action (DoC Boulder Laboratories Master Plan) No-Action Alternative 

Energy Systems 

- Electricity 

Effects: 

• Expected 1-2% increase in electrical demand due to operation of lighting systems, laboratory equipment, 

and HVAC systems associated with new buildings. 

• Removal of inefficient small and temporary buildings. 

• Improved energy efficiency for new and renovated buildings. 

• Potential for reduced consumption of electricity from the grid with installation of photovoltaic energy 

systems and a solar panel field. 

• Potential for new buildings to achieve net-zero energy consumption. 

• No extensive modifications to the existing electrical distribution network. 

Effects: 

• No impact on electrical 

infrastructure or demand. 

• No improvement to energy 

efficiency. 

Mitigation: 

• No mitigation necessary. 

Energy Systems 

- Heating and 

Cooling 

Effects: 

• Expected 1-2% increase in electrical (including cooling demand) and 1-3% increase in heating demand. 

• Removal of inefficient and under-insulated small and temporary buildings. 

• Improvement to insulation and efficiency of heating and cooling for new facilities. 

Mitigation: 

• No mitigation necessary. 

Effects: 

• No change in heating and cooling 

demand. 

• No improvement to energy 

efficiency. 

Sustainable Development 

-- Effects: 

• Moderate overall improvement to campus sustainability through replacement of inefficient facilities and 

upgrading outdated equipment. 

• Improvement of energy efficiency; stormwater management; and transportation efficiency. 

• Short-term and continuing generation of waste and commitment of resources (e.g., raw construction 

materials, fossil fuels) to support facility construction and operation. 

• Achievement of LEED Silver certification (or better) for each new or renovated building. 

• Adaptive reuse of an outdated laboratory building to become the Campus Center. 

Effects: 

• No change in energy demand or 

infrastructure on the campus. 

• No improvement to energy 

efficiency, stormwater 

management, or overall campus 

sustainability in accordance with 

EO 13693. 

Mitigation: 

• Recycling of construction and demolition debris to the extent practicable. 

Solid and Hazardous Waste 

-- Effects: 

• Temporary generation of construction and demolition waste, potentially including materials containing 

polychlorinated biphenyls, lead, or asbestos. 

• Minor long-term increase in operational waste due to increase in staff and operational space. 

Mitigation: 

• Recycling of construction and demolition debris to the extent practicable. 

• Handling and disposal of wastes in accordance with Colorado Department of Public Health and 

Environment regulations. 

Effects: 

• No change in the generation, 

storage, or disposal of solid or 

hazardous waste. 

• No removal of hazardous building 

materials. 

Table 1-1. Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 1-8 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Resource Proposed Action (DoC Boulder Laboratories Master Plan) No-Action Alternative 

Transportation 

Vehicle 

Circulation and 

Parking 

Effects: 

• Reduced vehicle congestion and queuing at the campus entrance and Security Center. 

• Improved vehicle circulation and maneuvering. 

• Slight increase in vehicles entering and exiting the campus due to personnel increase. 

• Minor reduction in vehicle use within the campus due to improved pedestrian access to and between 

buildings. 

• Improved parking configuration. 

• Temporary increase in traffic and decrease in parking availability during construction and demolition 

activities. 

Mitigation: 

• Coordinate construction activities and create temporary parking and staging areas to avoid parking 

overflow during construction and demolition activities. 

Effects: 

• No impact on the local 

transportation network or traffic 

levels. 

• No change in vehicle use or 

parking availability within the 

campus. 

• No improvement to campus 

ingress or vehicle circulation 

within the campus. 

Public and 

Alternative 

Transportation 

Effects: 

• Slight increase in public transit ridership due to increase in employees. 

• Improved access to the campus from bus stops due to improved pedestrian walkways. 

• Improved safety and accessibility for bicycle commuters. 

Effects: 

• No impact on public and 

alternative transportation. 

Mitigation: 

• No mitigation necessary. 

Air Quality 

-- Effects: 

• Minor long-term increase in air emissions from onsite boilers and emergency generators and new or 

relocated laboratory activities. 

• Minor long-term increase in local air emissions from mobile sources associated with 12% increase in 

employee population and associated increase in vehicle use. 

• Temporary increase in air emissions due to demolition, construction, and renovation activities. 

• Air emissions would be below the de minimis thresholds each calendar year for nonattainment criteria 

pollutants and their precursors. 

Effects: 

• No impact on air emissions from 

onsite stationary sources, mobile 

sources, or temporary activities. 

Mitigation: 

• Continued use of low-NOx burners in new boilers. 

• Implementation of BMPs during demolition, construction, and renovation activities to reduce criteria 

pollutant and fugitive dust emissions. 

• Removal and disposal of lead-containing materials, asbestos-containing materials, and ozone-depleting 

substances in accordance with applicable regulations. 

Table 1-1. Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 1-9 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Resource Proposed Action (DoC Boulder Laboratories Master Plan) No-Action Alternative 

Climate Change 

-- Effects: 

• Minor long-term increase in direct and indirect greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from boilers, emergency 

generators, and operation of new facilities (including purchasing of electricity). 

• Temporary increase in GHG emissions due to demolition, construction, and renovation activities. 

• Potential contribution to effects of climate change through potential minor increase in potable water 

demand. 

Mitigation: 

• Implementation of BMPs during demolition, construction, and renovation activities to reduce GHG 

emissions. 

• Installation of solar energy systems to further offset GHG emissions from the campus. 

Effects: 

• No impact on direct or indirect 

GHG emissions. 

• No change in contribution to 

climate change effects. 

• Increased susceptibility of nonnative landscape vegetation to 

climate change-induced drought. 

Cultural and Historic Resources 

Architectural 

Resources 

Effects: 

• Potential adverse effect associated with renovation of historic Building 1. 

• No impact on Anderson Ditch or historic properties outside the campus. 

Mitigation: 

• Continued consultation with the Colorado Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation to identify 

appropriate mitigation measures to reduce or avoid adverse effects to Building 1. 

Effects: 

• No impact on potentially historic 

properties. 

Archeological 

Resources 

Effects: 

• No adverse effects on tribal protected areas, archeologically sensitive areas, or previously identified 

archeological sites. 

Mitigation: 

• No mitigation necessary. 

Effects: 

• No adverse effects on tribal 

protected areas, archeologically 

sensitive areas, or previously 

identified archeological sites. 

Visual Impacts 

Viewscapes Effects: 

• Minimal impact on the viewscape from surrounding areas due to new construction, which would not 

obstruct visibility of Kohler Mesa when viewed from Broadway and 27th Street. 

• Temporary impact on the viewscape from surrounding areas due to construction activities. 

• Improvement of viewscape on the campus by replacing dated buildings with new buildings. 

Effects: 

• No impact on viewscapes. 

• No enhancement of viewscapes 

on the campus. 

Mitigation: 

• No mitigation necessary. 

Table 1-1. Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 1-10 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Resource Proposed Action (DoC Boulder Laboratories Master Plan) No-Action Alternative 

Light Pollution Effects: 

• Negligible change in light trespass outside the campus boundary. 

• Potential minor temporary light trespass from supplemental lighting during construction activities . 

• Potential increase in glare in the vicinity of the campus due to sunlight reflected from solar panels. 

• Potential increase in light trespass on the campus from interior lighting due to skylights and windows in 

proposed facilities. 

Mitigation: 

• Conducting construction work during daylight hours. 

• Ensuring that all new exterior lighting systems would be directed and sized appropriately; designed in 

accordance with current guidance and the Boulder County Outdoor Lighting Ordinance; and would 

generate light with a color temperature that is appropriate for reducing nighttime light pollution. 

• Screening with tree plantings on the campus to intercept light trespass outside the campus boundary. 

• Ensuring that solar panel designs incorporate glare reduction measures and that the panels are sited in a 

manner to avoid creating excessive glare. 

• Continued use of automatic lighting controls. 

• Continued evaluation of whether additional design and landscaping measures would be necessary to 

mitigate light trespass outside the campus boundary. 

Effects: 

• No impact on lighting at the 

campus. 

• No improvement to existing 

interior or exterior campus 

lighting. 

Noise Levels 

-- Effects: 

• Negligible impact on overall operational noise levels. 

• Temporary increase in noise during construction activities. 

Effects: 

• No impact on ambient or interior 

noise levels. 

Mitigation: 

• Limitation of construction activities to normal daytime working hours. 

• Use of hearing protection by operational and construction workers as needed. 

• Continued evaluation of whether additional design and landscaping measures would be necessary to 

mitigate noise trespass into adjacent residential properties. 

Table 1-1. Summary of Environmental Effects and Mitigation Measures 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 1-11 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan Final Environmental Assessment 
2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2Introduction
 
 2.1 Campus Background 

The 206-acre Department of Commerce (DoC) Boulder 

Laboratories Campus, located in Boulder, Colorado, is home to 

research programs of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), and the National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration (NTIA). A total of 1,761 research 

scientists, engineers, administrators, and support personnel work in 

34 buildings and structures at the campus, of which 29 are 

occupied buildings. 

The roughly L-shaped campus, donated to DoC by the Boulder 

Chamber of Commerce in 1950, is situated within a strikingly 

beautiful setting with Kohler Mesa and the Flatirons as a backdrop 

to the buildings and landscape. The site was considered ideal for 

the measurement science and research that NIST conducted, and its 

close proximity to University of Colorado promised outstanding 

scientific resources. The entrance and buildings are oriented 

toward the east, bordering on Broadway (Colorado State Highway 

93). The remainder of the property is surrounded by residential 

development and recreational land, with a cemetery bordering the 

campus at the north. The land gently rises toward the west, 

culminating in a steep rise to Kohler Mesa at the western end of 

the property. Two ephemeral water bodies transect the site: Skunk 

Creek and Anderson Ditch, an irrigation channel. Much of the 

property is designated Open Space, protected from development 

under a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the City of 

Boulder together with an association of Native American tribes. 

The three DoC agencies with programs situated at the DoC 

Boulder Laboratories Campus are described below. 

NIST promotes U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by 

advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in 

ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of 

life. NIST occupies five major buildings at the campus (Buildings 

1, 2, 3, 24, and 81) and manages the remaining buildings with the 

exception of the two NOAA facilities (Buildings 33 and 34). NIST 

has four laboratory components located here: Communications 

Technology Laboratory (CTL), Information Technology 

Laboratory (ITL), Material Measurement Laboratory (MML), and 

Physical Measurement Laboratory (PML). These laboratories, 

together with administrators and support groups, have 

approximately 740 employees and affiliates on campus. Research 

is conducted in the areas of materials reliability, opto-electronics, 

quantum electronics and physics, time and frequency, and 

electromagnetics. 

NOAA at Boulder conducts research in atmospheric and space 

sciences, with approximately 950 employees and affiliates, 

including General Services Administration (GSA) operations and 

management personnel. NOAA occupies Buildings 33 (David 

Skaggs Research Center) and 34 (Solar Observatory). These two 

buildings, the associated parking areas, and the grounds 

immediately adjacent (totaling about 15 acres) are managed by 

GSA. Three research, forecasting, and information programs share 

these facilities: the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, 

the National Weather Service, and National Environmental 

Satellite Data and Information Services. 

NTIA is principally responsible for advising the President on 

telecommunications and information policy issues. It has one 

laboratory headquartered at the campus, the Institute for 

Telecommunication Sciences. This group, with approximately 70 

people, researches cutting-edge areas of telecommunication 

technology, principles, and applications. They work closely with 

PML's time and frequency research components and with CTL. 

Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2 illustrate the location and general 

features, respectively, of the DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus. 

Table 2-1 provides basic information regarding each of the 

buildings at the campus. Refer to the Master Plan for more 

background about the history, evolution, and facilities of the 

campus. 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 2-1 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Figure 2-1. Location of DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus within Boulder County, C olorado 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 2-2 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Figure 2-2. Overview of DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 2-3 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Table 2-1. Summary of Campus Buildings 

Building Number and Name Size (GSF) Stories Year Completed Occupants Spaces 

1 Radio Building (Wings 1-6, Spine) 336,909 1-5 1954 Various Labs and Admin. Labs, Offices; Public; Support 

1C Annex 4,611 1 1989 PML Offices (research) 

1D Annex 3,456 1 1992 PML Offices (research) 

1E Annex ES — N/A — Mechanical Equipment 

1F Annex ES — N/A — Mechanical Equipment 

2 Cryogenic 69,771 2 1951 PML, MML Labs; Offices (research) 

2A Cryogenic Annex 2,880 1 1989 PML Labs; Offices (research) 

3 Liquifier 17,403 1 1952 Vacant for Renovation Labs; Support 

3A OFPM Annex 2,160 1 1989 OFPM Offices (admin) 

4 Camco 15,795 1 1951 OFPM Offices (admin) 

5 Camco Annex 3,149 1 1951 OFPM, CTL Offices (admin); Lab 

8 Cryogenic Mesa Test 2,400 1 1953 MML Labs 

9 Gas Meter Bldg. ES — 1958 — Water Pump Equipment 

11 Ionospheric Observatory 466 1 1958 NOAA Labs 

12 Hydrogen Test Facility 1,446 1 2010 MML Lab, Support 

21 Maintenance Garage 3,999 1 1963 OFPM Support; Offices (admin/support) 

22 Warehouse 17,530 1 1964 NOAA Support (Shipping and Receiving, Warehouse) 

23 Hazardous Materials 984 1 1989 Safety, Health & Environ. Support 

23A Hazard. Materials Annex ES — 1989 — Mechanical Equipment 

24 Plasma Physics 32,723 3 1967 CTL, PML Labs; Offices (research) 

25 Maintenance Shop 8,306 1 1966 OFPM Support (workshops); Offices (support) 

25 MI Building 25 Annex 525 1 N/A OFPM Offices; Support 

26 Day Care Center 7,776 1 1989 OFPM manages Public; Classrooms; Support 

27 High Frequency Field 1,045 1 1992 CTL Lab (Antenna testing w/ RF Shielding) 

41 High Speed Switch ES — N/A — Electrical Equipment 

42 Central Utility Plant 45,845 3 2005 OFPM Support (Utility); Offices (support) 

51 Security Center 1,470 1 2006 Police Support (Visitor Screening) 

81 Katharine Blodgett Gebbie Laboratory 286,674 1 2012 PML, CTL, MML Labs; Offices (research); Public (conference center) 

91 Construction Research 3,561 1 2008 OFPM Offices (admin) 

111 Building 4 Annex 2,821 1 2011 Acquisition Mgmt. Div. Offices (admin) 

112 Butler Building 5,795 1 2011 OFPM Support (storage) 

131 Office 1,440 1 2013 OFPM Offices (admin.) 

— Concourse 1,234 1 2013 — Connector—Buildings 1 and 81 

NIST Total 882,174 

33 David Skaggs Research Center 372,000* 4 1999 NOAA Labs; Offices; Public 

34 NOAA Solar Observatory Incl. above 1 1999 NOAA Lab 

Site Total 1,254,174 

Source: DoC, 2017. 

* NOAA now reports 415,973 gross square feet (GSF) as existing, because of changed measurement methodology (DoC, 2017).
 

Acronyms: CTL (Communications Technology Laboratory); ES (equipment structure); MML (Material Measurement Laboratory); N/A (not available); NIST (National 

Institute of Standards and Technology); NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration); OFPM (Office of Facilities and Property Management); PML (Physical
 

Measurement Laboratory).
 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 2-4 Final Environmental Assessment 
2.2 Purpose and Need for Action 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan analyzed in this 

Environmental Assessment (EA)—hereafter referred to simply as the Master 

Plan—reflects DoC’s vision for the physical development of the campus and for 

a flexible strategy for implementation. 

DoC is ever evolving and needs flexible, integrative, and collaborative support 

spaces to effectively promote scientific research. The overall purpose of the 

Master Plan analyzed in this EA is to guide fulfillment of the following 

objectives: 

•	 Create a comprehensive and coordinated framework for physical 

development of the campus; 

•	 Develop appropriate facilities and infrastructure for the evolving and 

advancing scientific research; 

•	 Respect the campus location, historic context, and agreements with the 

local community and Native American tribes; 

•	 Encourage collaboration and interaction among the laboratories and 

researchers, with welcoming facilities and staff amenities; 

•	 Accommodate interchange with the public and outside colleagues, 

using both conference facilities and technology; 

•	 Create an attractive campus, respecting both the science and the staff; 

•	 Promote good stewardship of the natural environment, and support and 

advance the sustainable design goals of DoC, GSA, NIST, and NOAA; 

and 

•	 Develop a plan for gradual change, that is complete at each step. 

The need for the Master Plan, and the campus improvements prescribed therein, 

is driven by both institutional policy and the inability of existing facilities and 

infrastructure to support current and projected mission requirements. DoC 

requires that its agencies have a physical master plan for their sites, reflecting 

both the anticipated special needs of the user groups and the impact of its 

activities on the surrounding community. Master plans aid DoC planners in their 

decision-making while accommodating changing circumstances and agency 

priorities. The most recent campus master plan, prepared in 1992, is outdated 

and no longer reflects DoC’s vision for the physical development of the campus. 

While DoC commissioned the Master Plan in response to institutional policy, 

the campus improvements prescribed therein are needed to address real 

deficiencies with the existing facilities, infrastructure, and organization, 

including the following: 

•	 Modernized laboratory space (including improved environmental 

control) and flexible, integrative, and collaborative space is needed to 

promote advancing research; 

•	 The current campus layout does not have a unifying vision of
 

organization;
 

•	 Existing conditions lack a central meeting place for collaboration 

between researchers, resulting in limited collaboration opportunities; 

•	 Administrative functions throughout the facility are housed in seven 

separate buildings, creating inefficiencies in collaboration, 

coordination, and overall logistical correspondence; 

•	 Existing conditions, including visitor screening requirements and 

campus layout, make it difficult for the public to access the facility; and 

•	 Circulation and screening conflicts result in congestion at the entrance 

to the campus and the Security Center where badging and vehicle 

screening occurs. 

Refer to the Master Plan for additional discussion of these facility, 

infrastructure, and organizational deficiencies that drive the need for the DoC 

Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan. 

2.3 Public Scoping 

Scoping is an early and open process for determining the range of significant 

issues to be analyzed in a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

document. During the scoping period, the public can provide comments on the 

proposed action, alternatives, issues, and potential environmental impacts to be 

analyzed in the NEPA document. Scoping may involve public meetings and 

other means to obtain public comments. 

While not required for a NEPA EA, an agency may choose to include public 

scoping as part of EA development to ensure that the analysis considers those 

issues that are of interest to the public. Because of the expected high level of 

public interest in the Master Plan, DoC held a public scoping meeting from 6 

p.m. to 8 p.m. at the Boulder Public Library on January 12, 2016 to kick-off the 

public scoping period. The public scoping meeting was followed by a 31-day 

comment period. 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 2-5	 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Outreach 

DoC published legal notices indicating the date, location, time, and a brief 

description of the scoping meeting in local newspapers. Notices were published 

in the Boulder Weekly (December 31, 2015 through January 13, 2016) and the 

Boulder Daily Camera (December 21 through December 23, 2015). In addition, 

DoC worked with the Boulder City liaison to contact Martin Acres, Olde 

Columbine, and Dartmouth neighborhood organizations via email. DoC also 

went door-to-door down most of Dartmouth Avenue and Columbine Avenue 

handing out hard copies of the notice. 

Public Meeting 

The public scoping meeting incorporated the following components: 

•	 Posters with information for attendees to peruse before the meeting was 

underway – e.g., existing conditions, the preliminary development 

concepts, an overview of the NEPA process, and tips for providing 

effective public comments; 

•	 A presentation that addressed the history of the campus and needs for 

improvement, the master planning process and goals, the preliminary 

development concepts being considered for incorporation in the Master 

Plan, and the NEPA process; 

•	 An opportunity for members of the public to provide spoken comments 

for the record; 

•	 A stenographer/videographer to record the meeting and document 

comments; and 

•	 Handouts to send home with attendees. 

Following the meeting, the presentation was made available to the public at 

www.nist.gov/director/ofpm/boulder-master-plan.cfm. 

Public Comments Received 

Following the presentation, attendees were afforded the opportunity to provide 

oral comments and ask questions. Following the meeting, members of the public 

were afforded the opportunity to provide written comments until February 12th, 

2016. Seventeen attendees made comments at the meeting and twelve 

households submitted comments following the meeting. Comments covered a 

range of topics related to campus accessibility, noise and light pollution, 

viewscape, wildlife, vegetation, facility improvements, and campus growth. 

DoC considered all public comments during development of the Master Plan 

and EA. 

Selection of Master Plan Concept 

Prior to the public scoping period, DoC developed four preliminary Master Plan 

concepts to meet the purpose and need for action (Section 2.2). These 

preliminary concepts are described in detail in Section 4.4 (Master Plan 

Development) of the Master Plan. Based on input received during the scoping 

period, DoC crafted a single concept from a fusion of the most desirable 

elements of each preliminary concept. Key elements selected for inclusion in the 

final concept include consolidation of management staff and services, a 

pedestrian spine both outdoors and within buildings, a campus center for staff 

amenities and services, and replacement of obsolete laboratory space. The 

resulting hybrid concept, described in Section 3.1 (Proposed Action), was 

selected as the Master Plan and is evaluated in this EA. DoC determined that the 

potential environmental impacts associated with the preliminary concepts would 

likely be similar to those associated with the final hybrid concept selected as the 

Master Plan. 

2.4 Public Review of Draft EA 

The Draft Master Plan and Draft EA were made available for review by federal, 

state, and local agencies as well as the interested public. The subsections that 

follow summarize the procedures followed to conduct Government and public 

outreach while highlighting some examples of the types of comments received 

from each entity and how they were addressed. All comments received were 

taken into consideration during development of the Final Master Plan and Final 

EA. 

Governmental Outreach 

DoC distributed copies of the Draft Master Plan and Draft EA to the agencies 

and entities listed in Section 9 (Distribution List). In response, the following 

federal, state, and local agencies submitted comment letters to DoC: 

• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Colorado Field Office 

provided a response of “no comment” on the Draft Master Plan and 

Draft EA. 

•	 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources 

Conservation Service (NRCS) Colorado State Office provided 

comments regarding farmland protection and erosion control. 

•	 The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) 

provided comments regarding protection of air quality. 

•	 The City of Boulder provided comments on a variety of topics affecting 

both the Draft Master Plan and Draft EA. 

These comment letters are provided in Appendix A. This Final EA incorporates 

minor text revisions to address the comments from NRCS and CDPHE. This EA 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 2-6	 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

also incorporates the following edits to address comments received from the • Distributing flyers to neighbors and directly contacting neighbors who 

City of Boulder: had previously expressed concerns about operational impacts from the 

•	 Acknowledgement that continued discussions with the City of Boulder 

are necessary regarding reconfiguration of the bicycle path along 

Broadway near the campus entrance, with the goal of encouraging 

cyclists to slow down and creating a better line of sight for motorists. 

•	 Modifications to reduce stormwater flows to Anderson Ditch. 

Specifically, DoC revised the Final Master Plan and Final EA to 

emphasize the use, where feasible, of the existing detention basins that 

provide storage and infiltration capacity prior to overflow to Bear 

Canyon Creek. DoC also clarified that the arroyo would be designed 

not only to manage the increased flows from proposed development, 

but also to decrease the overall flow rate of stormwater runoff into 

Anderson Ditch from developed areas within the campus (e.g., using 

check dams). 

•	 Acknowledgement that prairie dog colonies are dynamic and that DoC 

is committed to reassessing the prairie dog colony boundaries 

throughout development and implementation of the Master Plan. DoC 

is further committed to complying with the decision-making process 

outlined in the city’s prairie dog protection ordinance to emphasize the 

use of non-lethal, non-removal methods for resolving any conflicts that 

arise. 

•	 Acknowledgement of the land use designation change for 385 

Broadway from Transitional Business to Low Density Residential. 

Public Outreach 

DoC initiated a public comment period on the Draft Master Plan and Draft EA 

on October 19, 2016 and accepted comments through December 5, 2016. The 

draft documents were available for public review on the NIST website and at the 

Boulder Public Library. DoC’s public outreach efforts for the review of the draft 

documents included the following: 

•	 Publishing a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft Master Plan and 

Draft EA in local publications, which initiated the public comment 

period. NOAs were published in the Boulder Daily Camera (October 

19-21, 2016) and the Boulder Weekly (October 20-26, 2016); 

•	 Providing hard copies of the Draft Master Plan and Draft EA at the 

Boulder Public Library, with a poster to request public review and 

comment; 

•	 Hanging posters at a local grocery store (King Soopers), coffee shops, 

and restaurants; 

campus; 

•	 Sending emails directly to each member of the public who provided 

comments during the public scoping phase of the Master Plan; and 

•	 Presenting the Draft Master Plan to the Boulder City Council on 

October 18, 2016. 

In addition to the above, DoC conducted outreach to staff at the DoC Boulder 

Laboratories Campus to encourage their feedback on the Draft Master Plan and 

EA. This outreach consisted of giving a presentation during an all-hands 

meeting, publishing notices on DoC and NIST internal websites, and directly 

emailing NOAA staff. 

Public Comments Received 

DoC considered all public comments during development of the Final Master 

Plan and the Final EA. Several of the more substantial comments highlighted the 

following community concerns: 

•	 Commenters suggested that the Master Plan should take further 

measures to reduce light pollution and noise, improve aesthetics, and 

discourage use of street parking in adjacent neighborhoods by campus 

personnel and construction crews. DoC considered these concerns and 

revised the Final Master Plan and Final EA to include more tree 

plantings along the campus exterior, including along the south side of 

the Building 33 parking lot. The revisions also acknowledge the need to 

further evaluate potential noise and light pollution concerns for 

individual projects as they enter the design phase (e.g., the Building 34 

expansion) and to incorporate additional design and landscaping 

measures to mitigate these concerns as necessary. DoC also revised the 

Final Master Plan and Final EA to acknowledge the need to provide 

sufficient construction vehicle parking and material staging areas 

during each phase of development so that parking overflow outside of 

the campus can be avoided. 

•	 Commenters suggested that stormwater should be managed in such a 

way as to prevent future flooding. DoC considered this concern and 

revised the Final Master Plan and Final EA to minimize stormwater 

runoff to Anderson Ditch (as described previously) and Skunk Creek. 

•	 Commenters suggested that the landscaping plan should incorporate a 

deciduous landscape approach instead of a ponderosa pine savannah 

landscape approach due to better shading in summer, better snow and 

ice melt in winter, and concerns associated with susceptibility of 

ponderosa pines to attack by bark beetles. DoC considered these 

suggestions, but decided to retain the prescribed landscape approach 

which includes the use of ponderosa pines and Rocky Mountain juniper 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 2-7	 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

around the perimeter of the site in Planting Zone 1 to maximize drought 

tolerance and to blend with the surrounding natural setting. The Master 

Plan would also plant deciduous trees toward the interior of the campus 

where shade is needed. DoC revised this Final EA to include a 

discussion of bark beetles in Section 4.2.1 (Vegetation). 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 2-8 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3

3
 Alternatives
 

3.1 Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action is a Master Plan to guide the physical 

development of the campus in order to advance the agency’s 

mission-related goals over the next 20 years. The Master Plan 

emphasizes quality and collaborative research in addition to 

sustainable and efficient operations. The Master Plan addresses 

current campus needs and delineates future development through 

phasing packages. The core concept of the Master Plan includes a 

linear arrangement of connected laboratories and a campus center, 

joined by a campus green. The Master Plan improves campus flow, 

promotes energy efficiency, and harbors an integrated and 

sustainable space for research and collaboration. Full execution of 

the Master Plan would increase the employee population by 

approximately 12% from its current population of 1,761 to 1,973 

by 2031 (DoC, 2017). 

Full implementation of the Master Plan would result in a net 

increase in facility space by approximately 13%, from 1,254,174 

gross square feet (GSF) to 1,419,626 GSF (DoC, 2017). The 

Master Plan would focus on a core center of the campus and 

associated green space used to connect existing, renovated, and 

new laboratories. The Master Plan also involves the consolidation 

of administrative buildings and support facilities at the western end 

of the campus green. Aging, deteriorating, and some temporary 

buildings would be phased out and replaced by updated facilities. 

Partial or entire realization of the Master Plan will depend on DoC 

priorities, government policy decisions, as well as budgetary 

considerations. The Master Plan represents neither the preapproval of any individual project nor the pre-approval of the 

particular needs of specific programs to be accommodated on the 

campus. The financing of such projects and programs must be 

addressed within the annual DoC budget process and congressional 

budget approval. Furthermore, the Master Plan is not a 

commitment for the agency to build these facilities within a 

specific timeframe. 

3.1.1 Components of the Proposed Action 

Below is a summary of the new construction, demolition, and other 

improvements that DoC would execute under the Master Plan. 

Figure 3-1 presents the vision for the campus following completion 

of all components of the Master Plan. Refer to the Master Plan for 

additional details regarding the scope of facility improvements. 

New Construction, Additions, Renovation, and Demolition 

•	 New Research Buildings. This component would involve 

the construction of new research facilities, linking new 

facilities to existing renovated facilities, and shaping the 

campus center and associated green space. New 

laboratories would provide the flexibility, infrastructure, 

and controlled environments necessary for advanced 

research. 

•	 New Management Resources Center. This new facility 

would provide a central location for consolidation of the 

existing NIST administrative functions and support 

facilities. This consolidated facility would replace eight 

temporary facilities and as a net-zero energy facility 

would increase energy efficiency and provide for more 

efficient service for the campus. 

•	 New Childcare Center. This new net-zero energy facility 

would replace the existing Childcare Center and would be 

designed to meet the GSA Child Care Center guidelines. 

•	 New Parking Garage. This new three-story garage near 

Building 81 would provide parking for new research 

buildings near the campus center. 

•	 Campus Center. Building 24 would be renovated to 

function as a campus center for employee services and 

amenities including a fitness center, cafeteria, health 

center, service desks, meeting rooms, and informal 

collaboration spaces. 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 3-1	 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Figure 3-1. Master Plan 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 3-2 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Conference Center and Public Zone. Renovations to Building 1 would 

involve the addition of a new entry pavilion to accommodate security 

badging and provide support facilities for the Conference Center. 

Modifications to the visitor screening and parking configuration would 

also allow improved utility of the Conference Center at Building 1 for 

conferences and public forums. 

•	 Building 1 Renovation. This renovation is a continuation of the 

Building 1 Renovation Program and would involve improvements to 

the central spine and four of the building’s six wings. These 

improvements would include complete interior renovation, utility 

system replacement, recladding, and the addition of utility galley space. 

The initial phase of the Building 1 Renovation Program, renovation of 

Wings 3 and 6 and a portion of the spine, is nearly complete. 

•	 Building 3 Addition. This project would construct an addition to 

Building 3 to support antenna laboratories. 

•	 Demolition. This component would involve the demolition of 16 small, 

temporary, and inefficient buildings throughout the campus resulting in 

a total of 153,448 GSF of demolition. 

•	 Retained Research Buildings. The David Skaggs Research Center, 

Katharine Blodgett Gebbie Laboratory, and smaller specialty research 

buildings, including the Hydrotest Facility, would be retained. 

Landscape Plan 

The goal of the Landscape Plan is to unify the campus, minimize the irrigation 

and maintenance of vegetation, and embrace the natural settings. Major design 

features and themes under the Landscape Plan include the following: 

•	 Development of a Campus Green – A corridor that integrates a range of 

social spaces and green infrastructure into the physical design. 

•	 Construction of a Central Promenade – A pedestrian promenade that 

connects Building 1 on the north end of campus all the way to Building 

4 on the western edge. 

•	 Achievement of an Activated Campus – Activation of outdoor spaces 

accomplished by providing for a wider range of social spaces and 

recreational amenities. 

•	 Development of an Arroyo – An aesthetically pleasing, large vegetated 

arroyo that also functions to channel, slow, and filter stormwater runoff 

from buildings and roads. 

The Landscape Plan also provides design language that prescribes contemporary 

design aesthetic that expresses DoC’s technological mission and a naturalistic 

aesthetic that reflects the natural setting with ecologically functional native 

plantings. Planting guidelines take the setting of a ponderosa pine savannah into 

consideration and encourage replacement of much of the water-intensive lawns 

that currently surround the campus buildings with low grasses and clustered 

evergreens characteristic of savannah vegetation. 

Utility Framework Plan 

The goal of the Utility Framework Plan is to improve overall energy efficiency 

and sustainability, and to accommodate the anticipated growth and evolving 

research needs by replacing aging infrastructure and utility systems. The Utility 

Framework Plan prescribes the following: 

•	 Extension of the existing Central Utility Plan (CUP) services (e.g., 

provision of chilled water, steam, and compressed air) to the new and 

renovated NIST laboratory buildings under the Master Plan; 

•	 Provision of the Childcare Center with either dedicated heating and 

cooling systems independent of the campus systems or alternately 

connected to the campus steam and chilled water system; 

•	 Provision of the NOAA Laboratory and the Security Center with 

dedicated independent heating and cooling systems; and 

•	 Extension of normal electrical power and data communications services 

from the campus distribution systems. 

The Utility Framework Plan also prescribes reduction of energy demand, 

selection of energy efficient equipment and systems, and provision of a clean 

renewable energy supply by promoting implementation of the following design 

strategies: 

•	 Natural Ventilation – Natural and passive ventilation for new and 

renovated campus buildings (especially the Management Resources 

Center), except for laboratory components that require more carefully 

controlled environments. 

•	 Improved Envelope – Improving the cohesion of aesthetics, solar 

radiation, heat transfer, moisture transfer, visual connection, and 

natural air movement for new and renovated buildings. 

•	 Lighting Load Reduction – Effective use of natural light and 

incorporation of highly efficient lighting technologies in the 

Management Resources Center, the Campus Center, and office areas 

within research buildings. 

•	 Plug Load Reduction – Use of more efficient equipment and occupantsensing technologies. 

•	 Air-side Energy Savings – Efficient air distribution, decoupled cooling 

and ventilation systems for spaces with high sensible loads, and 

consideration of natural ventilation for the non-lab buildings. 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 3-3	 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Water-side Energy Savings – Distribution of cooling energy via water 

(rather than air) and use of zone-level cooling. 

•	 Solar Energy Systems – Installation of photovoltaic (PV) technologies 

such as solar panels on top of buildings (especially the Management 

Resources Building, Childcare Center, and the Campus Center), over 

the canopy shielding parking areas, and in the Building 25 site 

following its demolition. 

Circulation Plan 

The goal of the Circulation Plan is to improve the circulation on campus. 

Circulation modifications would be implemented in phases, mimicking those of 

construction. Design proposals include the following: 

•	 Removal of the central roadway between Building 3 and Building 81; 

•	 Reconfiguration of Curie Circle; 

•	 Potential limitation of the use of a segment of Compton Road to 

bicycle, pedestrian, and emergency traffic use; and 

•	 Reconfiguration of the roadways and screening areas surrounding the 

Security Center. 

The Circulation Plan also describes changes in visitor and delivery screening 

processes, a new loading dock at the research buildings, and a relocated dock at 

Building 1. Parking elements of the Circulation Plan include the following: 

•	 Construction of a three-story garage near Building 81 to provide 

parking for new research buildings near the campus center; and 

•	 Relocation and replacement of an existing parking lot near Building 1 

and the Security Center to provide added flexibility in accommodating 

visitor parking during special events. 

In addition to these Circulation Plan elements, the Master Plan suggests 

replacing the large parking lot near Building 33 with a parking garage to reduce 

impervious surfaces within the campus. 

3.1.2 Phasing of the Master Plan 

Phasing for the implementation of the Master Plan involves an integrated 

approach that meets short-term needs and also provides steps for redevelopment 

and consolidation of the campus in the future. Phasing for the Master Plan is 

provided in packages that could be implemented independently of one another. 

The Master Plan Steering Committee prioritized research facility improvements, 

consolidation of the administrative facilities, and modifications that would 

improve circulation and flow at the campus. Support building project phasing 

would follow the priority projects. The support building project phasing 

packages are independent and could be initiated at any time. Refer to Table 3-1 

below for an overview of prescribed phasing packages. Phasing diagrams 

depicting the changes during the implementation of each phasing package are 

provided in Appendix B. 

Prior to initiating any of the phasing packages, DoC would develop plans to 

ensure that sufficient space is available for construction vehicle parking and 

material staging areas during that phase. These plans would prioritize the use of 

previously developed areas such as the sites of demolished buildings and 

vacated parking lots. 

3.2 No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not implement the Master Plan. The NoAction Alternative would maintain the present course of action at the campus by 

continuing ongoing research, management, and maintenance activities. The NoAction Alternative would ultimately result in a site that would no longer support 

the advanced research requirements of DoC and would render much of the 

campus obsolete. The No-Action Alternative would not affect the number of 

employees at the campus. Section 4 (Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences) discusses the potential environmental impacts 

and consequences of the Proposed Action and the No-Action Alternative. The 

No-Action Alternative would not meet the purpose and need criteria defined in 

Section 2.2 (Purpose and Need for Action). As a result, DoC considers the NoAction Alternative to be less desirable than the Proposed Action. 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 3-4	 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Phasing Packages Major Components Comments 

NIST Research Buildings • Building 1 renovations Multi-step process to ensure research continuity. 

• Building 3 repurposing 

• New research buildings (replace Building 2, 2A, 24) 

• Demolition of Buildings 2 and 2A 

• Creation of campus center, campus green, and new parking 

garage 

• Road/parking modifications 

Campus Center • Renovation of Building 24 Coincides or is combined with creation of new research 

• Covered connection to new research buildings buildings. 

• Pedestrian and parking modifications 

Visitor Center, Parking and Vehicle • New visitor pavilion (Building 1) Independent package, could proceed at any time. 

Screening • Conference center renovations 

• Parking lot modification 

• Addition to Building 51 

• Roadway/vehicle screening modifications 

• Building 1 loading dock relocation 

Management Resources Center • New Management Resources Center Independent package, could proceed at any time. 

• Swing space for Building 4 and 5 occupants 

• Demolition of 10 support buildings Completion would free up some space in Building 1. 

• Roadway, parking, and utility yard modifications 

• Installation of solar collection field 

NOAA Research Building • New research building or expansion of Building 34 Independent package, could proceed at any time. 

• Roadway/parking modifications 

• Road/truck maneuvering expansion at Building 22 

Childcare Center • New Childcare Center, replacing existing Building 25 Independent package, could proceed at any time. 

• Landscaped play areas 

• Removal of remainder of center road and relocation Must be completed if/when future lab buildings are 

• Completion of campus green desired. 

Table 3-1. Summary of Phasing Packages and Associated Major Components under the DoC Master Plan 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 3-5 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4Affected Environment and
 4
 Environmental Consequences 

4.1 Land Use and Socioeconomics 

4.1.1 Land Use and Regional Planning 

Affected Environment 

Land use planning helps determine the best use for each parcel of 

land in a municipality with the goals of serving community needs, 

minimizing land use conflicts, and protecting natural resources. 

Land use planning may take into account geological, ecological, 

economic, health, and sociological factors. Proper land use 

planning can favorably impact development and sustainment costs, 

traffic congestion and commute times, air pollution, energy 

consumption, preservation of open space and habitat, equitable 

distribution of economic resources, and the sense of community. 

Community sustainability requires proper land use planning to 

create and maintain livable environments. 

Local government entities operating in the Boulder region provide 

planning and development services. These include the Boulder 

County Land Use Planning Division and the City of Boulder 

Planning Board. 

A number of planning initiatives set forth guidelines for 

development and growth within the region: 

•	 Boulder County Comprehensive Plan (BCCP). The goal 

of the BCCP is to direct future land use decisions toward 

the following goals: channeling growth to municipalities, 

protecting agricultural lands, and preserving 

environmental and natural resources. The 1996 Second 

Edition of the BCCP was updated on July 14, 2015. 

•	 Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP). The BVCP 

is a joint initiative between the City of Boulder and 

Boulder County to direct future planning and guide 

decisions about growth and development. Updates to the 

BVCP are scheduled for completion in 2016. 

•	 Boulder County Countywide Coordinated Development 

Plan (Super IGA). The Super IGA combines all of the 

comprehensive planning agreements within Boulder 

County and coordinates interests such as planning and 

management. 

There are two main land use designations on the DoC Boulder 

Laboratories Campus, according to the BVCP. The largest is 

Public Use. This refers to a variety of public and private nonprofit 

uses that provide a community service, and also includes 

government laboratories (City of Boulder, 2010). 

The remainder of the property is designated as two different types 

of Open Space. Research Zone 1 on Kohler Mesa is designated as 

Open Space, Other. This refers to public and private land that is 

protected through various preservation methods. The remainder is 

designated as Open Space, Developmental Rights. 

Two agreements were signed in the 1990s that shaped the future of 

development on the campus. The first, the April 1995 

Programmatic Agreement with the Tribes, was extended to the 

Medicine Wheel Coalition and federally recognized American 

Tribes. It provided an irrevocable easement that establishes the 

Protected Area, an undeveloped area along the eastern side of the 

campus. It established responsibilities and rights to the City of 

Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks Department (OSMP) to 

manage the Protected Area along with NIST. The area functions as 

a natural buffer between the campus and the neighborhood, but is 

not a conservation easement. 

The second agreement, the 1998 First Amended MOA between the 

City of Boulder, NIST, and DoC, updated a previous MOA signed 

on December 8, 1993. It addressed DoC’s and NIST’s present and 

future research needs and the City’s interests in preserving the 

open space on campus that does not fall within the Protected Area, 

and providing access for public use and enjoyment. The MOA 

defines development zones, research zones and protected areas and 

describes how NIST and the City of Boulder will work together 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-1	 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

regarding any developments in the protected areas and the research zones. The 

MOA also sets limits on campus total square footage, parking, building heights, 

and view to Kohler Mesa (formerly known as Long Mesa). Refer to the Master 

Plan for an overview of the land use provisions (DoC, 2017). 

While there are three designated research zones described in the MOA, two of 

them are restricted in their use. The largest of the three, Research Zone 3, is also 

designated as the “Development Zone” where additional buildings, parking, and 

roadways should be concentrated. The Development Zone can be grouped into 

three districts based on common usage and physical characteristics (Figure 4-1). 

The system of roads within the campus promotes the separation of the districts, 

further emphasized by changes in grade. Each district has a distinct appearance and 

the feeling of connectivity between them is lacking. The districts are described as 

follows: 

•	 NIST Laboratory District. This cluster of buildings is located near 

Broadway. The centerpieces of this district are the original laboratories 

Building 1 (Radio Building) and Building 2 (Cryogenic Building), as well 

as the recently constructed Building 81 (Katharine Blodgett Gebbie 

Laboratory). 

•	 Support District. This district is to the west on the campus. Buildings 

include Building 42 (CUP), administration and support buildings, and a 

few lab functions. Each building has a parking area here. 

•	 NOAA District. This roughly triangular district consists of the NOAA 

buildings and parking area (DoC, 2017). 

Properties adjacent to the north, east, and south campus boundaries have a land use 

designation of Low Density Residential (RL-1), defined as two to six units per acre. 

The campus is bordered to the west by land designated as Open Space, Acquired. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

Implementation of the Master Plan would create an organized and cohesive campus 

identity by replacing and consolidating aged, small, and scattered buildings. The 

Master Plan would include a number of open space zones, each with distinctive 

features and functions that would characterize and define the areas. The Campus 

Green and Campus Walk would provide connectivity between various areas on 

campus and would provide for a physical organization for new buildings. Through 

this improved land use, the Master Plan would allow for better connectivity, 

provide a stronger campus identity, and encourage collaboration amongst 

employees. 

The Master Plan would not impact land use designations on the campus and would 

be consistent with the current institutional land use on the campus. The 

preservation of the open space and protected areas on campus would continue. 

The Master Plan would have no impacts on zoning or regional planning outside the 

campus. The campus is expected to remain consistent with the county planning and 

zoning regulations. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not impact land use. 

4.1.2 Social and Economic Resources 

Affected Environment 

Social Resources 

Social resources consist of elements of the environment integral to personal and 

community dynamics, including population, housing, education, and open spaces. 

Access to these resources is essential to maintaining sustainable communities. 

A subset of social resources is environmental justice. Environmental justice 

considers sensitive populations, such as children, minorities, and low-income 

communities. Sensitive populations are identified in two Executive Orders (EOs): 

•	 EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

and Low-Income Populations, serves to avoid the disproportionate 

placement of adverse environmental, economic, social, or health impacts 

from federal actions and policies on minority and low-income 

populations. 

•	 EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and 

Safety Risks, states that federal agencies will identify and address 

environmental health and safety risks from their activities, policies, or 

programs that may disproportionately affect children. 

The Denver-Aurora-Boulder Combined Statistical Area (CSA) is home to over 

61% of Colorado’s resident population although it covers less than 13% of the 

state’s total land area. It is the sixteenth most populous of the 166 CSAs in the 

United States (DoC, 2017). 

The City of Boulder has a population of about 100,000, with a projected increase to 

123,000 by 2040 (City of Boulder, 2015a). Residents are considerably younger 

than the county, state, and national rates, with the median age of the city at 29.9 

years. The population of residents over 65 (10.2%) is also small compared to the 

state (12.7%) and national rates (14.5%) (BEC, 2015). 

The Boulder Valley School District has 56 schools, with approximately 30,000 

students and 4,000 employees. Residents of the City of Boulder tend to be highly 

educated. According to the Boulder Economic Council, the percentage of residents 

with a bachelor’s degree or higher education attainment is almost twice that of 

national levels (DoC, 2017). 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-2	 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Figure 4-1. Development Zone Districts at the DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-3 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Housing availability for Boulder City and County is relatively low, with lower 

vacancy rates (7%) than for the state or the nation (around 11%). The 2015 

Boulder Community Profile indicates 51% renter-occupied units, in comparison 

to the county, state, and national rates of 35%-37%. This increased rate of rental 

units is likely due to the number of University of Colorado Boulder students 

living in rental units (DoC, 2017). 

Sensitive populations, such as children and low-income minority populations, 

are present within the city. However, prevalence is significantly lower in the city 

than in Boulder County and the state as a whole (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). 

Economic Resources 

The City of Boulder Department of Community Planning and Sustainability 

estimates that there were 98,510 jobs in the city as of 2014. About 45% of these 

jobs are held by city residents whereas 55% are held by commuters. Trends 

indicate that the city will have about 117,000 jobs by 2035 (City of Boulder, 

2015a). 

The unemployment rate for Boulder County has steadily declined from 7.8% in 

2009 (BEC, 2015) to 3.8% in 2015 (City of Boulder, 2015a). The city and 

county have unemployment rates that are lower than those of the CSA, the state, 

and the nation (DoC, 2017). 

The per capita income for city residents is almost 22% higher than that of the 

state and 35% higher than the national levels. The median household income for 

city residents is higher than that of the nation, and the percentage of households 

earning $200,000 or more per year is double that of the national levels (DoC, 

2017). 

NIST and NOAA are major employers within the City of Boulder (BEC, 2015). 

In 2015, NOAA was one of the top ten largest employers in Boulder (City of 

Boulder, 2015a). The University of Colorado Boulder’s Business Research 

Division conducted a review in 2003 on the economic benefits of the DoC 

laboratories (including NIST, NOAA and NTIA/ITS) to the City of Boulder, 

Boulder County, and Colorado. It concluded that the federal labs provide strong 

economic benefits to the city, county, and state. For the period 2001 to 2005, 

this study estimated that the DoC laboratories provide a net economic benefit of 

$340 million to the city; $1.3 billion to the county; and $2.0 billion to the state. 

The majority of these benefits were derived from employee wages and related 

indirect benefits (CU Boulder, 2003). In 2012, the federally funded labs 

contributed $743.2 million and employed nearly 3,600 people in the City of 

Boulder and Boulder County, including NIST and NOAA (BEC, 2016). 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

Implementation of the Master Plan would allow for continued advancement of 

measurement standards and technology, thereby benefitting the national 

economy. Improvement of research facilities would facilitate achievement of 

NIST’s mission to promote industrial competitiveness on a national level. 

The Master Plan would have minor long-term economic benefits. The proposed 

campus reorganization and updated facilities would provide an economic benefit 

by improving productivity and available resources at the DoC Boulder 

Laboratories Campus. The increase in staff of approximately 200 over the 

projected 20-year period would marginally improve employment levels and 

would not displace existing jobs in Boulder County. 

Implementation of the Master Plan would result in temporary minor impacts on 

the population and the availability of housing, due to construction workers who 

might temporarily relocate to the area. During construction of the Master Plan 

elements, construction jobs and related incidentals would temporarily add to the 

local economy. 

The Master Plan would have minimal impacts on population, housing, and 

education trends in the area. The projected increase of approximately 200 staff 

over the course of 20 years is considered minor and would not negatively impact 

social or economic resources in the area. Any staff increases would likely 

benefit the local economy and job market. 

The City of Boulder, including the areas immediately surrounding the campus, 

has relatively low proportions of children, minority, and low-income 

populations. Therefore, the Master Plan would not result in disproportional 

impacts on sensitive populations. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would have no effects on the population, including 

sensitive populations. Jobs and population growth would continue as projected 

in the region. The No-Action Alternative would result in no improvements to 

employment or income in the area. 

4.1.3 Open Space 

Affected Environment 

Open space areas are an integral feature of the City of Boulder as well as the 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus. Open space surrounding the campus 

includes Tippitt Open Space to the north and Boulder Mountain Park along the 

western border. These areas are popular for recreational activities, including 

hiking and biking. 

The City of Boulder’s open spaces are managed by the OSMP. The Department 

oversees more than 45,000 acres, including 151 miles of trails. These areas are 

preserved for “...scenic, agricultural and buffer value.” It estimates annual 

visitation at 5.3 million per year (City of Boulder, 2016a). 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-4 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Open space covers about half of the land on campus, approximately 104 acres, 

and includes areas protected under agreement, as discussed below. The protected
 

area begins at Broadway in front of Building 33 (David Skaggs Research
 

Center) and continues across the southern section and western third of campus.
 

A secondary research area is included in this area at the top of Kohler Mesa.
 

Trails and open space on the campus are extensions of the trail and recreation
 

system off campus. Trails from both Boulder Mountain Park and Tippitt Open
 

Space cross the campus and are maintained by OSMP. Refer to Section 4.1.4
 

(Trails) for additional information.
 

Two agreements established protected areas on campus: the April 1995
 

Programmatic Agreement with the Tribes, and the 1998 First Amended MOA.
 

Refer to Section 4.1.1 (Land Use and Regional Planning) for more information.
 

These agreements defined protected areas, development zones, and research
 

zones. NIST and the City of Boulder collaborate on preserving these areas.
 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

The Master Plan would not impact open space, protected areas, or recreational 

areas. Campus open space would be maintained in a natural state. 

The Master Plan would not include any development in the Protected Area. Any 

proposed developments would occur only in the Development Zone and would 

comply with the above referenced agreements. 

Temporary construction-related noise levels would be minor and would not 

affect the recreational use of nearby parks and open spaces; refer to Section 4.13 

(Noise Levels) for more information. Air emissions from operations and 

construction activities would not be expected to affect ambient air quality within 

nearby parks and open spaces; refer to Section 4.9 (Air Quality) for more 

information. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not affect open spaces on, or in the vicinity 

of, the DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus. 

4.1.4 Trails 

Affected Environment 

The campus features a network of trails that are integrated into the trail system 

that is maintained by OSMP. Refer to Figure 4-2 for an illustration of the trail 

network (City of Boulder, 2016b). This network connects to trails in the adjacent 

off-campus recreation areas – Boulder Mountain Park to the west and Tippitt 

Open Space to the north. 

Kusch Road, a NIST service road, is a soft surface hiking trail that passes 

through the Protected Area and connects the campus road system to Kohler 

Mesa and Boulder Mountain Park. Extending off Kusch Road is Four Pines 

Trail, also a soft surface hiking trail, which joins Boulder Mountain Park to 

Tippitt Open Space. 

The City of Boulder also maintains a public designated bicycle route throughout 

the campus that is part of a city-wide system. Most of the roads on campus are 

part of this network, with the route beginning at the Broadway entrance. It 

continues along Rayleigh Road and Curie Circle. At the connection between 

Kusch Road and Curie Circle, the bicycle route then connects to the Skunk 

Canyon Path, a city multi-use path. 

The city maintains two multi-use paths on campus that are designated for nonmotorized users such as pedestrians and bicyclists. One path follows along 

Broadway at the eastern border of the campus and is separated from the street. It 

connects to the designated bicycle route at the campus entrance and continues 

along Broadway in either direction. The second multi-use path, Skunk Canyon 

Path, follows Skunk Creek and connects to the designated bicycle route at Curie 

Circle. 

A Safety Study was conducted in 2014 to address bicycle/vehicle traffic conflict 

at the campus entrance. The study presented solutions that would alleviate 

collisions and near misses at this intersection (DoC, 2017). DoC and OSMP are 

collaborating on a project to create a designated environmentally sustainable 

trail system on campus. Elements of this project include establishing trails 

between Skunk Creek and Broadway, closing and restoring undesignated trails, 

constructing new trails to connect existing trails and multi-use paths, and 

working with the Anderson Ditch Company to design and install a crossing 

(DoC, 2017). 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

The Master Plan would not impact public trails located within the Protected 

Area on campus, as per the agreements described earlier; refer to Section 4.1.1 

(Land Use and Regional Planning). Trails leading to off-campus recreation 

areas, as well as multi-use trails and the designated bicycle route areas, would 

remain the same or would be improved. 

The Master Plan is designed to improve circulation on campus for pedestrians 

and bicyclists. In addition to creating more direct connections and better flow, 

the Master Plan promotes development of a cohesive wayfinding plan to 

improve visibility and clarity of signage, which would improve navigation and 

safety of the trail network. 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-5 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4-2. City of Boulder Existing and Proposed Trails 

The Master Plan would affect the designated bicycle route within the campus by 

removing a portion of Curie Circle that connects to Rayleigh Road, essentially 

replacing it with a pedestrian promenade. This promenade would be accessible 

to bicyclists but would not be part of the designated bicycle route, which would 

still lead to the campus entrance via Curie Circle, Spine Road, and Rayleigh 

Road. In addition to these Master Plan elements, OSMP is considering an 

undesignated, unpaved path along the southern campus boundary to provide an 

additional alternative bicycle route leading to Broadway. 

The Master Plan recommends reconfiguration of the bicycle path along 

Broadway near the campus entrance to encourage cyclists to slow down and to 

create a better line of sight for motorists. The final alignment would be 

developed in consultation with the City of Boulder. Some of these changes 

could include reconfiguration of the path, added signage, or signalization at the 

intersection. 

During construction, trails may be temporarily closed or rerouted for the 

duration of the project. Once construction is completed, the usability of the trails 

would return to pre-construction status. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not affect trails on or in the vicinity of the 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus. 

4.2 Biological Resources 

4.2.1 Vegetation 

Affected Environment 

Vegetation performs the following important functions: 

•	 Slows the flow of stormwater runoff, allowing water to soak into the 

ground to replenish aquifers; 

•	 Helps maintain the water quality of nearby waterways by filtering 

runoff and removing harmful sediment and pollutants; 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-6	 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 Prevents erosion by reducing the impact of rain on soil and by holding 

soil in position with roots; 

•	 Shades paved surfaces, reducing heat island effect and stormwater 

runoff temperatures that affect aquatic habitats; and 

•	 Provides habitat for a variety of organisms. 

A diversity of plant species is necessary to maintain a functioning habitat or 

ecosystem. Plant species within a particular ecosystem may compete with one 

another for water, light, and overall sustenance. Therefore, the loss of a 

particular species may negatively affect an ecosystem. The Endangered Species 

Act was enacted in 1973 to protect species in danger of extinction. This act 

requires federal agencies to ensure that their actions will not jeopardize the 

continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat associated with these 

species. 

In 1999, EO 13112 was signed establishing the National Invasive Species 

Council. EO 13112 encourages federal efforts to minimize the harm to the 

economy, the environment, and human health caused by invasive species. 

Section 6-6-2 of the City of Boulder Municipal Code includes regulations 

regarding the removal of dead, diseased, or dangerous trees and grants the city 

the authority to order the removal of said vegetation. 

Vegetation on the DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus was severely disturbed 

during the mid-1950s and much of the previously native vegetation at the 

campus was replaced with invasive species. A survey conducted in the 1990s 

revealed approximately 1,500 species of vascular plants in the Boulder region 

and nearly 430 species (representing 77 families) on the campus. During the 

1990s, the majority of the vegetation at the campus consisted of non-native 

grasses and forbs including Kentucky bluegrass, cheat grass, orchard grass, and 

crested wheatgrass. Native vegetation on the campus included grasses such as 

switchgrass, Canada wild rye, and western wheatgrass and comprised less than 

1% of the vegetative cover at the campus. Kohler Mesa primarily served as a 

transitional space for native mountain species including ponderosa pines and 

plants including big bluestem, pasture sage, Canada bluegrass, prairie dropseed, 

needle-and-thread, cinquefoil, prickly pear, and rose (GSA, 1996). 

As part of this EA, DoC consulted with the USFWS to obtain records of rare, 

threatened, or endangered species on the campus. The Official Species List, 

provided by the Colorado Ecological Services Field Office, indicates that the 

following species of threatened plants may be present on the campus: Colorado 

butterfly plant, Ute ladies’-tresses, and western prairie fringed orchid (Appendix 

A). According to the Colorado Rare Plant Guide, these three plant species are 

threatened throughout their range (Colorado Natural Heritage Program, 2014). 

No endangered flora is expected to occur on the campus. 

Vegetative buffers are present along Anderson Ditch and Skunk Creek. A 

freshwater forested/shrub wetland is also located at Skunk Creek. Refer to 

Section 4.4.1 (Surface Water) and Section 4.4.3 (Wetlands), respectively, for 

additional information. 

The emerald ash borer (EAB), a federally quarantined, invasive tree pest 

responsible for the death or decline of more than 50 million ash trees in 25 

states, has recently been confirmed within the City of Boulder. In order to 

prevent the spread of the EAB, the Colorado Department of Agriculture has 

enforced quarantine on the movement of ash tree products and related firewood 

out of Boulder County. According to the city’s website, between 2014 and 2015, 

approximately 200 declining ash trees were removed from public property in the 

City. An additional 50 ash trees are planned to be removed and replaced on 

public properties throughout the City during 2016 (Emerald Ash Borer 

Information Network, 2016). DoC has identified a large number of ash trees on 

the campus (notably lining Anderson Ditch in front of the David Skaggs 

Research Center) and plans to preserve the deciduous tree population by 

diversifying the tree canopy. 

Bark beetles, including the mountain pine beetle and Ips beetle, have historically 

caused devastating impacts on ponderosa pines, lodgepole pines, and five-needle 

pines throughout Colorado. In recent years, however, the epidemic has subsided 

(Colorado State University, 2017). Healthy, uncrowded ponderosa pine forests 

create a suite of conditions that are unfavorable to infestation by bark beetles 

(Boulder County, 2017a). 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

Implementation of the Master Plan would minimize impacts on vegetation by 

consolidating facilities within previously developed areas. Construction 

activities associated with the implementation of the Master Plan, especially 

construction of the proposed NOAA expansion and the Childcare Center, would 

impact vegetation at the campus. Native grasses and similar vegetative species, 

however, would be re-seeded in the disturbed areas following completion of 

construction activities to the extent feasible. The size of vegetative areas that 

would be disturbed varies by Master Plan phasing package. Some of the phasing 

packages add vegetated pervious surface while others reduce it. Refer to Section 

4.5.3 (Stormwater Management) for additional information regarding pervious 

surface area at the campus. 

Implementation of the Master Plan is not expected to impact rare, threatened, or 

endangered plant species or vegetation in stream buffers or wetlands on the 

campus because areas proposed for development predominantly consist of nonnative grasses and forbs. 

The Master Plan prescribes replacement of non-native invasive vegetative 

species with native species and planting additional trees to provide cover and 

shade throughout the campus. A variety of native flora species would also be 

planted at the edges and open spaces and in the center of the campus. Under the 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-7	 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Master Plan, water-intensive plants throughout the campus would be replaced by 

low-maintenance grasses, evergreens, and other native vegetation to mimic 

native savannah vegetation. As such, vegetation prescribed under the Master 

Plan would be more drought-resistant and require less irrigation than the 

existing non-native vegetation. DoC would manage the ponderosa pine stands 

using established practices to prevent infestation by bark beetles. These 

practices could include appropriately spacing and regularly thinning stands to 

ensure trees remain adequately spaced; surveying for and removing infested 

trees; and limiting tree cutting during beetle flights in spring and fall. If tree 

cutting during beetle flight season is necessary, green logs should not be stacked 

near living trees and freshly cut material should be removed from the site 

expediently (Boulder County, 2017b). The Master Plan also recommends 

diversifying the canopy by gradually removing ash trees, thus eliminating 

habitat for the invasive EAB, and replacing them with other native deciduous 

species (DoC, 2017). Hardwood tree removal would be managed in such a way 

as to prevent the spread of the EAB. 

Under the Master Plan, a pedestrian promenade would be the basis for 

connecting Building 1 on the north end of the campus to the new Management 

Resources Center on the western edge of the campus. Establishment of the 

promenade would include installation of native vegetation and a large treecovered plaza. DoC would also install a vegetated arroyo, which would function 

as an attractive vegetated area and as a stormwater management best 

management practice (BMP), along this pedestrian promenade. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not result in the disturbance of vegetated 

areas. However, the potential to further improve the existing landscaped areas in 

accordance with EO 13112 via removal of invasive species and replacement 

with native species would not be realized under the No-Action Alternative. 

4.2.2 Wildlife 

Affected Environment 

According to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, all living things are part of a 

complex, often delicately balanced network, with a great diversity of species 

that rely upon one another for survival. Wildlife not only plays a significant role 

in maintaining the equilibrium of an ecosystem, but also provides an effective 

way to assess the quality of the environment, and provides benefits for medicine, 

agriculture, economics, and other resources. According to the U.S. Congress, 

threatened and endangered species of wildlife are of “esthetic, ecological, 

educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its 

people.” As a result of the recognition of the vital role wildlife plays in 

supporting functional ecosystems, U.S. Congress enacted the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 to protect wildlife from extinction and in turn, protect 

natural ecosystems as a whole. 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act (BGEPA) afford protection to birds. Any intentional or 

unintentional activity that results in the killing of migratory birds, including 

eagles, is unlawful unless permitted by the USFWS. The Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Act was enacted in 1980 to authorize financial and technical 

assistance to the States for the development, revision, and implementation of 

conservation plans and programs for nongame fish and wildlife. The 1998 

amendment to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act mandated that the 

USFWS “identify species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory nongame 

birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become 

candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).” In response to 

this mandate, USFWS published the 2008 Birds of Conservation Concern 

report, which includes listings of bird species of conservation concern 

throughout the Nation, including some that are not otherwise protected under the 

MBTA of 1918 (USFWS, 2015). Colorado Parks and Wildlife submitted and 

received approval from the USFWS to implement the State Wildlife Action Plan 

(SWAP). The SWAP identifies the top priority species and habitats in the state 

with the highest demand for conservation efforts. The SWAP classifies species 

within the state into Tier 1 and Tier 2 categories, depending upon conservation 

priority (Tier 1 being the highest priority). 

Due to recent and severe declines in pollinators (such as honeybees) and the 

potential for associated devastating effects on ecosystems and the economy, 

President Barack Obama issued a Presidential Memorandum on June 20, 2014 

requiring that executive departments and agencies (including DoC) take 

immediate measures to support pollinators (The White House, 2014). Prescribed 

measures include planting pollinator-friendly vegetation and increasing flower 

diversity in plantings, limiting mowing practices, and avoiding the use of 

pesticides in sensitive pollinator habitats. 

As part of this EA, DoC requested an Official Species List from USFWS to 

fulfill the requirement under section 7(c) of the ESA. The list revealed that 

threatened or endangered species, and migratory birds, as well as Tier 1 and Tier 

2 conservation priority species may be present on the campus (USFWS, 2016a). 

Refer to Appendix A for correspondence with USFWS, including the list of 

migratory bird species potentially present on the campus. Refer to Table 4-1 for 

a list of state and federally listed threatened and endangered species that have 

the potential to be present on the campus or otherwise be impacted by activities 

on the campus. 

Vegetative buffers along Anderson Ditch and Skunk Creek and a freshwater 

forested/shrub wetland in the southwestern area of the campus may provide 

habitat for various wildlife species on the campus. The area of Skunk Creek 

exiting the campus is potential habitat for Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse, 

though tracking through the City of Boulder has not yet confirmed the species in 

this area (Swanson, 2016). Skunk Creek is shallow and ephemeral, indicating 

that the creek likely does not provide habitat for a diverse wildlife assemblage 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-8 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Carpenter and Brown, 2004). Refer to Section 4.4.1 (Surface Water) and 

Section 4.4.3 (Wetlands), respectively, of this report for additional information. 

Table 4-1. Threatened and Endangered Species that could be
 

Present or Otherwise Impacted by Activities on the Campus
 

Species Conservation Status 

Birds 

Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) Federally threatened; 

state threatened 

Piping plover (Charadrius melodus) Federally threatened; 

state threatened 

Least tern (Sternula antillarum) Federally endangered; 

state endangered 

Whooping crane (Grus Americana) Federally endangered; 

state endangered 

Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) State threatened 

Amphibians 

Boreal toad (Anaxyrus boreas) State endangered 

Fishes 

Greenback cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkia 

stomias) 

Federally threatened; 

state threatened 

Common shiner (Luxilus cornutus) State threatened 

Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus albus) Federally endangered; 

state endangered 

Mammals 

Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus 

hudsonius preblei) 

Federally threatened; 

state threatened 

Canada lynx (Lynx Canadensis) Federally threatened; 

state endangered 

The western area of the campus is located within the “Group Two Natural 

Ecosystem Zone”, which is considered important in providing ecosystem 

connections and buffers. Wildlife corridors for the open space parks are located 

to the west of the campus, but are not located on the campus. 

The USFWS conducted faunal surveys in 1992 on the campus which included 

Skunk Creek, Anderson Ditch, and areas adjacent to Kohler Mesa. According to 

the surveys, yellow-bellied marmots, black-tailed prairie dogs, cottontail rabbits, 

mice, and shrews were common within the campus; coyote, bobcat, and red fox 

were uncommon; and mountain lion, black bear, and beaver were likely rare 

transients in the campus (GSA, 1996). More recently, campus staff occasionally 

observe mountain lions and bobcats near the western edge of the developed 

portion of campus, while coyotes, foxes, and raptors are routinely seen foraging 

within the protected area near the prairie dog colony (discussed below). Other 

wildlife frequently seen around the developed portion of campus include deer, 

rabbits, raccoons, snakes, and black bears. City staff indicate that beaver, 

yellow-bellied marmot, and leopard frogs are now less common than in previous 

years (City of Boulder, 2016i). 

An extensive black-tailed prairie dog habitat is present within the protected area 

south of the NOAA facilities (Figure 4-3). Prairie dogs are ecosystem engineers 

that change the land to make it safer and more comfortable for their family 

groups. Prairie dog-modified landscapes provide food and shelter for many 

native wildlife species, including burrowing owls, black-footed ferrets, hawks, 

and eagles. The Colorado Natural Heritage Program lists the black-tailed prairie 

dog as vulnerable to extirpation and Colorado Parks and Wildlife considers it a 

state special concern species (City of Boulder, 2016c). In 2005, the Boulder City 

Council adopted a final wildlife protection ordinance that emphasizes 

minimization of human-prairie dog conflicts through non-lethal, non-removal 

methods. 

The City of Boulder’s OSMP has identified two active golden eagle nests 

slightly more than one mile west of the campus. These are alternative nesting 

sites for the same pair of eagles. OSMP also identified two peregrine falcon 

nests (separate pairs of falcons) and one prairie falcon nest approximately one 

mile west of the campus. Raptors are known to occasionally roost and forage 

within the campus, including within the prairie dog colony. 

Figure 4-3. Prairie Dog Habitat at the DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-9 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

Implementation of the Master Plan could result in minor impacts on wildlife. 

The temporary reduction in grassy vegetated areas discussed in Section 4.2.1 

(Vegetation) represents a minor reduction in potential wildlife and pollinator 

habitat. The Master Plan aims to minimize impacts on wildlife by consolidating 

facilities within previously developed areas. Much of the affected grassy areas to 

be disturbed under the Master Plan are routinely landscaped and offer less 

foraging and habitat value than other vegetated areas (e.g., large contiguous 

tracts and stream buffers) around the campus; however, construction of the 

proposed Childcare Center in an undeveloped portion of the western area of the 

campus could have a slightly higher potential for impacts on wildlife habitat. 

The size of vegetated areas that would be disturbed varies by Master Plan 

phasing package; some of the phasing packages add vegetated pervious surface 

while others reduce it. Refer to Section 4.5.3 (Stormwater Management) for 

additional information regarding pervious surface area at the campus. 

The Master Plan would avoid disturbance within the boundaries of the prairie 

dog colony located in the protected area. However, certain Master Plan elements 

would be located in close proximity to the colony (e.g., the NOAA expansion of 

Building 34 and the demolition of Building 25 and the associated parking lot). 

Given that prairie dog colonies are dynamic and colony growth on an annual 

basis is common, the colony boundaries could expand over the course of the 

Master Plan. Prior to implementing these projects, DoC would reassess the 

colony boundaries to determine whether a potential conflict exists with the 

planned development. If such a conflict exists, DoC would follow the decisionmaking process outlined in the city’s prairie dog protection ordinance to 

emphasize the use of non-lethal, non-removal methods for resolving the conflict. 

As discussed in Section 4.2.1 (Vegetation), non-native vegetation throughout the 

campus would be replaced by native grasses, evergreens, and other native 

vegetation to mimic native savannah vegetation. In addition, the Master Plan 

calls for planting additional trees to provide cover and shade throughout the 

campus. Replacement of non-native plants with native vegetation and planting 

of additional trees would ultimately improve wildlife and pollinator habitat. 

DoC would manage the ponderosa pine stands using established practices to 

prevent infestation by bark beetles. 

While minimal tree removal is anticipated for construction activities associated 

with the Master Plan, the removal of some trees may temporarily affect 

migratory bird populations and pollinators on the campus. Trees to be cleared 

may need to be surveyed to comply with the MBTA (16 U.S.C. §703). DoC 

would verify that no bird eggs and/or young protected under the MBTA are 

present. If DoC determines that eggs and/or young are present, tree clearing 

would proceed only after it is verified that the young have fledged. Ash trees 

removed from the property would be managed to prevent the spread of the EAB. 

Noise emissions from the construction activities conducted under the Master 

Plan may disturb wildlife in and around the project sites, including nesting 

migratory birds; however, these impacts would be temporary. As explained in 

Section 4.13 (Noise Levels), after the completion of construction, negligible 

changes in operational noise levels on the campus would be expected due to 

minor upgrades and expansions to campus facilities. Construction and 

operational activities would comply with all applicable local, state, and federal 

noise regulations. 

Though impacts on rare, threatened, or endangered species are possible 

associated with implementation of the Master Plan, they are unlikely since there 

are no critical habitats within the project areas. Also, since the Master Plan does 

not involve activities within surface waters, downstream impacts on the 

following threatened and endangered species are not anticipated: least tern, 

piping plover, whooping crane, and pallid sturgeon. If, during the course of 

planning or execution of any of the project elements in the Master Plan, 

threatened or endangered species are discovered on the campus, DoC would 

consult with USFWS and implement appropriate mitigation measures. 

As discussed in Section 4.4.1 (Surface Water) and Section 4.4.3 (Wetlands), 

implementation of the Master Plan could result in minor impacts on campus 

streams and wetlands due to runoff from construction sites. Runoff to streams 

could include sediment or other contaminants, which have the potential to 

adversely impact aquatic organisms that dwell in the streams. As discussed in 

Section 4.5.3 (Stormwater Management), DoC would implement stormwater 

management and pollution prevention measures during construction to reduce 

impacts on aquatic species that inhabit the campus streams. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not result in any impacts on wildlife or 

habitat. The potential to improve the campus by enhancing habitats for native 

wildlife and pollinators, however, would also not be realized under the NoAction Alternative. 

4.3 Topography, Geology, and Soils 

4.3.1 Topography 

Affected Environment 

Topography indicates the relative position and elevation of natural and manmade features within an area. Changes to the topography of an area can affect 

surface and subsurface water pathways and quantities, result in increased 

sedimentation, impact stormwater runoff, and ultimately affect water quality in 

nearby waterways and wetlands. Topography can also influence viewscape, 

landscape, noise trespass, and land use. 

The eastern edge of the DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus is located at an 

elevation of 5,405 feet, with two low points at the northeast and southeast 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-10 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

corners of the campus along Broadway where the elevation is 5,400 feet. The 

slope increases rapidly to the west of Skunk Creek, rising along Kohler Mesa to 

an elevation of 5,910 feet (DoC, 2017). The Flatirons formations are 

approximately 1.5 miles west of the central area of development at the campus. 

Although the developed portion of the campus is generally gently sloping, there 

is a slight change in topography to the west of Curie Circle where the proposed 

Childcare Center would be constructed under the Master Plan. A portion of this 

site has a steep rising slope of approximately 20 to 30%. The site of the 

proposed NOAA expansion is in an area where the ground drops away from the 

site at a slope of approximately 10 to 20%, leading down to a densely vegetated 

swale. 

Figure 4-4 illustrates the topographic contours in the vicinity of the campus. 

Refer to Exhibit 112 in the Master Plan for an illustration of the percent slope. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

Implementation of the Master Plan would result in localized changes to the site 

topography. These impacts would be minor, since construction would 

predominantly occur in developed areas. However, grading and excavating for 

the construction of new facilities including the new Childcare Center may be 

necessary, and fill may be required to stabilize the site for the NOAA expansion 

under the Master Plan. Implementation of the Master Plan may cause minor 

changes in drainage patterns in the immediate vicinity of the new facilities and 

may trigger an application for, and coverage by, a city-issued grading permit. 

The Master Plan would result in no impacts on Kohler Mesa. For a discussion 

on the impacts of the Master Plan on viewscapes, refer to Section 4.12.1 

(Viewscapes). 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not involve grading activities, and therefore, 

would not impact topography at the campus. 

4.3.2 Geology and Soils 

Affected Environment 

The geology of an area encompasses characteristic rocks, sediments, and land 

features and the forces affecting them. These geologic features provide the 

parent material for overlying soils through weathering and supplying of minerals 

and nutrients. Assessing the soil resources in an area can provide insight on 

environmental impacts of potential actions on that area and its surroundings. 

Alterations to the physical makeup of an area can lead to soil contamination, soil 

erosion, and detrimental impacts on water bodies in or near the area. 

The physical characteristics of soil can affect the suitability of the site for 

development and can present various pollution and safety concerns upon 

disturbance, such as high water erosion rates, wind-thrown hazards, and 

emissions of particulate matter. These concerns may require the establishment of 

mitigation and precautionary measures. 

The predominant soil type on the campus is Nederland (NdD), which covers 

over 80% of the site including all of the campus area east of Skunk Creek 

outside the MOA Protected Area. NdD soils are deep, well-drained, moderately 

permeable soils formed in very cobbly and gravely alluvium, derived principally 

from granite. Rock fragments within the soil typically range from 35 to 75%, 

and are mostly fine or very fine angular granite gravel (USDA, 1975). These 

soils, which allow slow to medium runoff, are generally conducive to 

development although the presence of stones and cobbles can impede some 

excavations. According to the National Cooperative Soil Survey, urban housing 

and development projects often take place on NdD soil and the principal native 

vegetation is blue grama, needle-and-thread grass, and western wheatgrass. The 

moist bulk density of the soil is between 1.25 and 1.50 grams/cm3 generally, a 

bulk density of more than 1.4 grams/cm3 or higher (depending on soil texture) 

can restrict vegetative growth (NRCS, 2015). 

The soils typically occur on 1 to 12% slopes, are said to be “hard setting” when 

dry, and have a slight erosion hazard (USDA, 1975). In terms of erosion, NRCS 

has assigned an erodibility rating to the soil of 0.05 on a scale from 0.02 to 0.69, 

where higher values indicate greater susceptibility to sheet and rill erosion by 

water (NRCS, 2015). NdD also has an assigned wind erodibility of 6 on a scale 

of 1 to 8, where lower values indicate greater susceptibility to wind erosion 

(NRCS, 2015). Wind erodibility groups are defined as groups made up of soils 

that have similar properties affecting their susceptibility to wind erosion in 

cultivated areas. 

Another type of soil, Terrace Escarpments (Te), is located along the south 

boundary east of Skunk Creek. Te soil is unconsolidated in nature and typically 

features steep slopes. The presence of silts and clays in Te soil can easily make 

them unstable when development activities occur on or near this landform. 

Under the Master Plan, construction activities would not occur in the area of the 

campus where Te soil is present. 

The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (7 U.S.C. §§ 4201 et seq.) aims to 

minimize the impact of federal actions on farmland and its conversion to 

nonagricultural uses. Accordingly, federal actions affecting soils with high 

agricultural potential would require consultation with the NRCS. However, none 

of the soil types within the campus are characterized as prime or unique 

farmland. Additionally, the Master Plan is located within an urbanized area and 

is therefore not subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act (see NRCS 

correspondence in Appendix A). 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-11 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Figure 4-4. Topographic Contours at the DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-12 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

The Master Plan would result in moderate soil disturbance associated with 

construction, demolition, and renovation projects that would impact previously 

disturbed soil. Soil surface and subsurface compaction may result from heavy 

machinery traffic around the campus as a result of Master Plan implementation. 

As noted in Section 4.3.1 (Topography), the Master Plan would require minimal 

grading since construction primarily occurs in previously developed areas. 

However, construction of the Childcare Center, NOAA expansion facility, and 

stormwater arroyo would be expected to require soil relocation due to 

excavation and construction activities in undeveloped areas. 

As mentioned in Section 4.5.3 (Stormwater Management), construction 

activities under the Master Plan would need to ensure coverage under the 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for 

Stormwater Discharges for Construction Activity in Colorado (COR10000F). 

This requires the development of a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) for 

construction activities disturbing one or more acres of land, whether individually 

or as part of a larger common plan of development. DoC would implement 

erosion and sediment control (ESC) measures during earth disturbance to 

minimize impacts on soil and water resources. Coverage under the campus’ 

Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Permit (COR042002) also requires the 

installation of post-construction BMPs for projects that disturb 1 acre or greater 

of land. Due to the permeable nature of the soil and associated infiltration rates, 

post-construction BMPs that focus on capturing and emphasizing stormwater 

infiltration should be assessed at the campus and deployed where feasible. Due 

to the lack of extensive grading, the soil characteristics (e.g., relatively low 

susceptibility to erosion by water and wind), and the use of ESC measures, the 

potential for extensive soil erosion under the Master Plan would be minimal. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not result in construction or demolition 

activities and thus would not result in additional soil disturbance or potential soil 

contamination, erosion, or compaction. 

4.4 Water Resources 

4.4.1 Surface Water 

Affected Environment 

Natural conditions (e.g., interactions with soil, sediments, rocks, groundwater, 

and the atmosphere) and human activities can impact the quality of surface 

water by affecting its chemical, physical, and biological characteristics. Human 

actions that may affect surface water quality include agricultural, industrial, and 

urban activities. Stormwater runoff from surrounding watersheds directly 

impacts surface water quality. 

Federal surface water regulations, including the Clean Water Act (CWA), Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA), focus on 

rights to water usage and the protection of water quality. The City of Boulder 

Municipal Code, Chapter 3, Item 9-3-9 includes regulations for development 

within streams, wetlands, and water bodies. The Colorado Division of Water 

Resources has authority for administration of the water rights in the state. 

Water rights in the state of Colorado are governed by “prior appropriation 

doctrine,” which controls who uses water, the amount that can be used, and 

types of uses allowed. This approach is also referred to as “first in time, first in 

right” meaning that the first person to take water from a source for beneficial use 

(industrial, agricultural, etc.) has the right to continue to use that quantity of 

water for that purpose. Water rights holders depend upon snowmelt and rainfall 

to supply beneficial uses of the water supply. Captured precipitation that is 

consumed “out of priority” may deprive water right holders of their right to use 

water from the natural stream. The Colorado Division of Water Resources is 

empowered to administer the water rights in the state according to said doctrine 

(Cabot et al., 2016). 

The campus is located within the 440-square mile Boulder Creek Watershed. 

Skunk Creek and Anderson Ditch both enter Bear Canyon Creek and flow to 

Boulder Creek. Boulder Creek empties into Saint Vrain Creek and ultimately 

discharges to the South Platte River (Murphy, 2006). Boulder Creek and its 

tributaries include diversions that remove water from streams for various uses 

including industrial, agricultural, and municipal purposes. Reservoirs are also 

used to store water since streamflow in Boulder Creek is primarily supplied by 

snowmelt and varies seasonally depending on snowpack (Murphy, 2006). 

Sections of Skunk Creek and Anderson Ditch, both of which are intermittent 

waterbodies, run through the campus. Skunk Creek extends in a northeasterly 

direction through the middle of the campus. The stream channel varies in width 

from 5 to 15 feet (1.5 to 4.6 meters), contains a gravel and cobble bed, and 

follows a riffle and pool sequence (GSA, 1996). Anderson Ditch is an irrigation 

ditch, located near the eastern border of the site, and extends to Bear Canyon 

Creek at Table Mesa Drive and Broadway and flows generally southerly (GSA, 

1996). The ditch proper is approximately 5 feet (1.5 meters) wide, and its 

southern half flows parallel to Broadway. The campus also encompasses a 

portion of a freshwater forested/shrub wetland; refer to Section 4.4.3 (Wetlands) 

for additional information. 

The CDPHE 303(d) list of impaired waters defines segments of streams and 

rivers within the Boulder Creek Watershed as impaired for E. coli and selenium. 

Stream segments within and immediately downstream of the campus, however, 

are not identified as impaired water bodies (USEPA, 2016a). 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-13 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As discussed in Section 4.5.3 (Stormwater Management), stormwater on the 

campus is ideally managed using natural detention areas to encourage 

infiltration or by using traditional structural BMPs, when necessary. Rainwater 

collection is not permitted on the campus. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

Implementation of the Master Plan would have the potential to impact surface 

waters due to runoff from construction activities and changes in the quality and 

quantity of post-construction stormwater runoff. DoC would implement ESC 

measures during all construction activities to prevent sediment transport to 

Skunk Creek and Anderson Ditch. The renovation and construction activities 

under the Master Plan would provide an opportunity for the design and 

implementation of post-construction BMPs and improved stormwater 

management techniques. This opportunity creates the potential to improve the 

overall quality of surface waters, groundwater, and stormwater at the campus. 

The increased campus population under the Master Plan could result in an 

overall increase in the volume of wastewater discharged to the City of Boulder 

sanitary sewer system, which ultimately discharges to Boulder Creek following 

treatment by the city. This potential increase should not affect water quality 

within Boulder Creek as the city would continue treating the sanitary wastewater 

in accordance with the applicable CDPHE permit. Also, increased cooling loads 

under the Master Plan could result in an increased volume of wastewater 

discharged to the campus stormwater system, portions of which discharge to 

Skunk Creek and Anderson Ditch. DoC would continue to comply with the 

applicable Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit for these 

discharges. 

Refer to Sections 4.5.2 (Wastewater) and 4.5.3 (Stormwater Management) for 

additional discussion of discharges to surface waters. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would have no impact on surface waters. However, 

the No-Action Alternative would also not implement Low Impact Development 

(LID) or improve existing stormwater management practices to meet the intent 

of local, state, and federal rules and regulations. 

4.4.2 Groundwater 

Affected Environment 

Groundwater is the most prevalent source of available freshwater that supports 

potable, agricultural, and industrial uses, especially in areas that lack access to 

surface water resources. Groundwater quality is impacted by interactions with 

soil, sediments, rocks, surface waters, and the atmosphere. Groundwater quality 

may also be significantly affected by agricultural, industrial urban, and other 

human actions. 

The campus does not receive its domestic water from onsite wells and is not 

located within 1,000 meters of a designated sole source aquifer (USEPA, 

2016a). Sources for the City of Boulder’s potable water include Barker 

Reservoir, Lakewood Reservoir, Boulder Reservoir, and Carter Lake. Boulder’s 

potable water is not supplied by a groundwater source (City of Boulder, 2016d). 

For more information regarding potable water at the campus, refer to Section 

4.5.1 (Potable Water Supply). 

In general, groundwater under the campus may be encountered from 20 to 40 

feet beneath the natural ground surface and is highest during the spring and 

summer due to snowmelt and runoff from the Flatirons. Building 1 (Wing 5) and 

the CUP each have a sump pump that runs year-round to eliminate groundwater 

intrusion into the buildings. The site utility tunnel also has sump pits. 

Groundwater from Building 81 drains to a stormwater detention basin near the 

northern pedestrian entrance of the campus. 

Surface topography is typically an indicator of groundwater flow, with 

groundwater flowing from higher to lower elevations. Based on the topography 

of the campus, groundwater is generally expected to flow from the southwestern 

area of the campus to the northeastern and southeastern corner of the campus, 

towards Broadway. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

Implementation of the Master Plan would not impact groundwater consumption. 

Construction and demolition activities associated with implementation of the 

Master Plan have the potential to impact groundwater. DoC would implement 

appropriate pollution prevention and erosion and sediment control measures 

during the execution of the Master Plan to avoid spills and exposure of 

groundwater to contamination. 

Renovation and construction activities under the Master Plan provide an 

opportunity for the installation of BMPs and the implementation of advanced 

stormwater management techniques, including the vegetated arroyo and postconstruction BMPs near the parking areas, which may contribute to enhanced 

groundwater recharge during storm events. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, there would be no change in groundwater 

consumption and no potential for impacts during construction. Stormwater 

management improvements and subsequent enhanced groundwater recharge on 

the campus would also not be realized under the No-Action Alternative. 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-14 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.4.3 Wetlands	 95% of the wetland area is vegetated with hackberry, chokecherry, box elder, 

Affected Environment 

Wetlands provide important ecological services, including the following: 

•	 Filtering nutrients, sediment, and pollutants from surface and
 

groundwater; 

•	 Absorbing excess floodwater and rainwater; 

•	 Protecting shorelines from erosion; and 

•	 Providing habitat for numerous plants and animals. 

Wetlands are federally protected by Section 404 of the CWA, EO 11990 

(Wetland Protection), RHA, and applicable local regulations and permit 

programs such as Chapter 9-3-9: Stream, Wetland & Water Body Protection of 

the City of Boulder Municipal Code. EO 11990, implemented in 1977, also 

protects wetlands and their associated ecosystem services. Though the state of 

Colorado does not have specific laws or regulations to protect wetland 

resources, it does recognize wetlands under the definition of “state waters” 

which are subject to the standards for water quality, 5 CCR 1002-31 (Colorado 

Natural Heritage Program, 2013). To afford additional protection, Section 9-3-9 

of the City of Boulder Municipal Code requires that a Stream, Wetland and 

Water Body Permit be obtained from the city prior to the commencement of 

construction and replacement activities within a wetland or wetland buffer area. 

According to the City of Boulder municipal code, the term “buffer area” is 

defined as an area around a wetland within which activities are likely to have an 

adverse impact upon wetland functions. The inner buffer area width is 25 feet 

from each point on the wetland or water body boundary; and the outer buffer 

area width shall be 25 feet from each point on the wetland. The outer buffer 

shall also be 25 feet from each point on the inner buffer area boundary. The 

municipal code encourages avoidance of activities that destroy water resources 

and adjacent buffers to ensure no net loss of wetlands. 

The USFWS developed the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), a wetland 

classification system used to identify wetlands throughout the U.S. The NWI is a 

very useful system for obtaining a large-scale understanding of approximate 

wetland locations. Since aerial photography forms the basis for the NWI, instead 

of field surveys, the data may include omission errors depending on seasonal 

and climatic variability. According to NWI data, a 7.72-acre freshwater 

forested/shrub wetland is located in the southwestern portion of the campus, 

surrounding Skunk Creek (USFWS, 2016b). Skunk Creek enters the site at the 

base of the Mesa and extends in the northeasterly direction through the middle 

of the NIST campus (GSA, 1996). According to a third-party evaluation, the 

wetland embodies a narrow creek that flows through a ravine lined with dense 

shrubs and trees (Carpenter and Browne, 2004). The primary water source for 

the Skunk Creek and the associated wetland is groundwater and approximately 

and mixed herbaceous shrubs (Carpenter and Browne, 2004). 

Three small areas (less than 0.1 acre/0.04 hectare) located in the protection zone 

on the northeast face of the Mesa also appear to meet the characteristics 

associated with palustrine wetland classification, but are not included in NWI 

data (GSA, 1996). 

Several stormwater management features throughout the site also contain 

wetland vegetation, but are not considered jurisdictional under the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE). During a 1996 consultation, the USACE stated 

that it had no jurisdiction regarding Anderson Ditch according to Section 404 of 

the CWA (GSA, 1996). 

Wetland delineations were not conducted as part of this EA. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

Construction, demolition, and renovation activities under the Master Plan would 

not occur within wetlands or wetland buffers. 

Construction of the new Childcare Center and parking garage could result in 

long-term changes in the quantity of stormwater runoff discharged to the 

wetland surrounding Skunk Creek and stormwater runoff could carry pollutants 

to the wetland. As discussed in Section 4.5.3 (Stormwater Management), DoC 

would employ stormwater BMPs to comply with federal requirements and EOs 

for sustainable stormwater management and reduce the potential for discharge of 

sediment or contaminant-laden stormwater to the wetland. 

The small palustrine wetlands at the northeast face of the Mesa would not be 

impacted under the Master Plan. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not impact wetlands. 

4.4.4 Floodplains 

Affected Environment 

Floodplains perform important natural functions, including moderating peak 

flows, maintaining water quality, recharging groundwater, and preventing 

erosion. In addition, floodplains provide wildlife habitat, recreational 

opportunities, and aesthetic benefits. The 100-year floodplain is defined as an 

area that is subject to a 1% or greater chance of flooding in any given year. 

To protect floodplains and minimize future flood damage, the federal 

regulations at 44 CFR 9 and EO 11988 (as amended by EO 12148) restrict 

development within the 100-year floodplain. Under EO 11988, all federal 

agencies must 1) determine if any of their actions would occur within a 

floodplain, 2) evaluate the potential effects of these actions, and 3) analyze 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-15	 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

alternatives to these actions. EO 13690 strengthens the previously established 

requirements by amending EO 11988 to ensure that federal agencies expand 

restrictions on development of the 100-year floodplain to a higher elevation and 

corresponding horizontal floodplain to address current and future flood risk. EO 

13690 amends EO 11988 to require that federal agencies establish floodplains as 

one of the following: 

•	 The elevation and flood hazard area that results from using a climateinformed science approach that uses the best-available actionable 

hydrologic and hydraulic data and methods that integrate current and 

future changes in flooding based on climate science; 

•	 The elevation and flood hazard area that results from using the 

freeboard value, reached by adding an additional two feet to the base 

flood elevation for non-critical actions; or 

•	 The area subject to flooding by the 0.2 percent annual chance flood 

(i.e., the 500-year flood). 

The City of Boulder developed local floodplain regulations in accordance with 

the Colorado Department of Natural Resources Water Conservation Board’s 

Rules and Regulations for Regulatory Floodplains. These rules and regulations 

intend to reduce the risk of damage in areas along the 15 major drainage ways 

that are prone to flooding within the city (City of Boulder, 2016e). Boulder 

County is also considered a local authority regarding floodplain development 

and is involved with conducting floodplain management and floodplain 

assessments, but does not oversee floodplain regulation for the area. 

During September 2013, the City of Boulder and surrounding areas received an 

unprecedented volume of rainfall (more than 18 inches of rainfall over an eightday period), causing flooding throughout the area, including at the campus (City 

of Boulder, 2016e). The city is in the process of updating the Skunk Creek 

floodplain maps based on updated topographic data, updated floodplain and 

high-hazard zone boundaries, and city improvements to help reduce flooding 

along Boulder Creek (City of Boulder, 2016e). The city is also updating maps 

delineating conveyance zones and high hazard zones within the floodplain. A 

conveyance zone is defined as an area equivalent to a 0.5-foot rise floodway. A 

high hazard zone is defined as the portion of the 100-year floodplain where 

flood depths equal or exceed four feet (City of Boulder, 2013). 

The currently effective boundaries of the 100-year floodplain within the campus 

include the northern corner of Building 81, a portion of Anderson Ditch and 

Compton Road north of Building 81, and the northern portion of Curie Circle 

(Figure 4-5). No portions of the campus are located within the current 500-year 

floodplain (Figure 4-6), and no structures on the campus are located within the 

current conveyance zone or high hazard zone (Figure 4-7, Figure 4-8). However, 

the most recently proposed updates to these floodplain boundaries by the City of 

Boulder would result in the following revisions: 

•	 The updated 100-year floodplain would no longer include any buildings 

or portions of Anderson Ditch or Compton Road within the campus, 

but would be expanded immediately outside of the campus boundary to 

include several private residences along King Avenue; and 

•	 The updated 500-year floodplain would be expanded to cover portions 

of the campus, including Buildings 1C, 1D, and 1E; a portion of Wings 

1, 3, and 5 of Building 1; and the parking lot to the north of Building 1 

(City of Boulder, 2017). 

The ongoing Skunk Creek study does not evaluate potential floodplain revisions 

upstream of Green Mountain Cemetery; therefore, it is unclear whether the 

currently effective floodplain boundaries would remain in effect in the 

southwest portion of the developed campus (e.g., in the vicinity of Curie Circle). 

Floodplain concerns also apply to Anderson Ditch. During their review of the 

Draft Master Plan and Draft EA, the City of Boulder commented that Anderson 

Ditch has been identified as being over capacity during two-year and five-year 

storm events, based on recent stormwater modeling and master planning efforts. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

Implementation of the Master Plan would involve the reconfiguration of Curie 

Circle within the existing 100-year floodplain and may trigger permitting or 

consultation with Boulder Planning and Development Services Center, 

specifically requiring coverage under a Floodplain Development Permit issued 

by the City. No other new construction proposed under the Master Plan would 

occur within the current 100-year floodplain. No construction proposed under 

the Master Plan would occur within the current conveyance zone or high hazard 

zone. 

According to the city’s proposed floodplain mapping, during a 100-year flood 

event, a small corner of the campus to the northeast of the parking lot north of 

Building 1 would flood. No new construction or renovation is proposed under 

the Master Plan in this area. Under the proposed floodplain mapping, a 500-year 

flood event would flood portions of Building 1 proposed for renovation under 

the Master Plan. However, no new facilities would be constructed within this 

revised 500-year floodplain or the conveyance zone or high hazard zone. 

As discussed in Section 4.5.3 (Stormwater Management), the Master Plan would 

result in an overall reduction in impervious surfaces within the campus; would 

provide a central arroyo to improve runoff storage capacity; and would 

incorporate a stormwater drainage system that can be designed to ensure no net 

increase in runoff from the campus to Skunk Creek or Anderson Ditch. 

Therefore, the Master Plan would not contribute to flooding concerns in the 

Skunk Creek floodplain or elsewhere near the campus. 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-16	 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Figure 4-5. Current and Proposed 100-Year Floodplains on the Campus 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-17 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Figure 4-6. Proposed 500-Year Floodplain on the Campus 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-18 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Figure 4-7. Current and Proposed Conveyance Zones on the Campus 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-19 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Figure 4-8. Current and Proposed High Hazard Zones on the Campus 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-20 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As noted previously, it is unclear whether the currently effective floodplain 

boundaries in the southwest portion of the developed campus will be affected by 

the recent Skunk Creek floodplain mapping updates. DoC will continue to 

coordinate with the city regarding floodplain updates and would ensure that new 

facilities constructed under the Master Plan are sited properly to avoid impacts 

to floodplains and to ensure consistency with federal regulations and EOs. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not involve any impacts or changes in 

activities within the current or proposed 100-year floodplain, 500-year 

floodplain, conveyance zone, or high hazard zone. Existing infrastructure and 

facilities within the floodplain would remain subject to flood risk. 

4.5 Utilities and Infrastructure 

4.5.1 Potable Water Supply 

Affected Environment 

Potable water is supplied to the DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus by the City 

of Boulder. In fiscal year (FY) 2014, the total water consumption at the campus 

was approximately 41.2 million gallons. The following are the primary drivers 

of potable water consumption at the campus (NIST, 2015): 

• Domestic water use by occupants (111,000 gpd); 

• Cooling tower make-up water (35,000 gpd); 

• Boiler feed water (10,000 to 33,000 gpd); and 

• Process/laboratory water (22,000 gpd). 

In laboratories that are not served by the campus chilled water system, personnel 

use a constant flow of domestic water for chilling. 

EO 13693 mandates federal agencies to reduce potable water use intensity by 

2% annually through FY 2025 as compared to the FY 2007 baseline year. This 

translates to agency-wide reductions of 16%, 26%, and 36% by FY 2015, FY 

2020, and FY 2025, respectively. In FY 2015, DoC achieved a department-wide 

31.2% reduction in potable water use intensity compared to 2007, surpassing 

both the FY 2015 and 2020 targets (DoC, 2016). Water use at the DoC Boulder 

Laboratories Campus, while it has declined over recent years, has not 

experienced the same magnitude of reductions as seen at the department level. 

The total use for the campus remains significantly higher than the FY 2020 goal 

of approximately 23.2 million gallons (a 26% reduction from the FY 2007 

baseline usage) (DoC, 2017). 

The existing potable water piping system is approximately 50% loaded and is in 

a loop configuration which adds capacity and provides an adequate level of 

system redundancy (DoC, 2017). However, portions of the potable water system 

are nearing or at the end of their useful life, and, as a result, there is a high 

probability of leaks occurring in the system. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

The Master Plan is expected to generate an overall minor increase or potential 

decrease in potable water demand. Increased potable water consumption 

associated with the construction of new facilities and corresponding increases in 

campus population, steam load, and cooling load, would be offset by the 

installation of water-efficient fixtures in new and renovated buildings. 

Furthermore, eliminating all single pass cooling for equipment, including 

consolidating laboratory space and connecting the laboratories to the chilled 

water system, would reduce the use of domestic water for chilling purposes. The 

Master Plan would also implement water conservation practices from the 

Guidebook of Best Practices for Municipal Water Conservation in Colorado, 

where appropriate (CWWA, 2010). These measures would help the DoC 

Boulder Laboratories Campus meet its goal of reducing water use intensity at 

the campus. 

New potable water lines would need to be installed to connect new facilities 

with the existing potable water infrastructure. The potable water piping in 

Building 1 would be replaced during renovations. The Master Plan also 

recommends that DoC repair and line all underground piping to minimize leaks. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not increase potable water consumption and 

would not result in any water efficiency improvements within the campus. 

Under the No-Action Alternative, DoC would not repair and line underground 

piping; therefore, the likelihood of water leaks along the old lines would 

increase over time as the existing infrastructure continues to age. 

4.5.2 Wastewater 

Affected Environment 

Sanitary, industrial, and other wastewater generated at the DoC Boulder 

Laboratories Campus is primarily discharged to the City of Boulder sanitary 

sewer system for treatment. DoC has been issued an industrial discharge permit 

(Permit No. 2017-2) by the City of Boulder that limits the allowable discharge 

of pollutants from research laboratories, offices, and support facilities. The CUP 

discharges wastewater associated with equipment washdown (7,000 to 15,000 

gpd), blowdown from boilers (up to 2,700 gpd) and cooling tower maintenance 

and cleaning associated with the closed-loop chilled water system (16,700-

gallon total volume discharged twice per year). The laboratories in Building 81 

dispose of inorganic acids and bases to a waste neutralization system, which 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-21 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

then discharges to the sanitary sewer system. There is also a scrubber that treats 

gases from the chemical vapor deposition processes in Building 81 

(approximately 3,600 gpd) (NIST, 2015). 

As discussed in Section 4.5.3 (Stormwater Management), the campus has also 

been issued a NPDES permit by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA), which allows the discharge of air conditioning condensate and 

irrigation water to the stormwater system but does not allow discharges 

associated with industrial or construction activity. 

According to 2014 metered outfall data, the campus discharged approximately 

195,000 gallons per day of wastewater to the sanitary sewer system. Based on 

these data and an assessment of topographical features, the existing sanitary 

sewer system has spare capacity (DoC, 2017). 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

The Master Plan is expected to result in an overall increase in wastewater 

generation due to increased campus population and increased cooling loads. 

Increased wastewater generation associated with more occupants would be 

offset somewhat by the installation of water-efficient fixtures in new and 

renovated buildings. The generation of wastewater would increase in 

conjunction with the increases in potable water use described in Section 4.5.1 

(Potable Water Supply). DoC would evaluate wastewater generation associated 

with new or modified laboratory activities to determine if the industrial 

discharge permit needs to be modified. 

Under the Master Plan, DoC would install new sanitary sewer lines to connect 

new facilities with the existing sanitary sewer infrastructure. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not increase wastewater discharge at the DoC 

Boulder Laboratories Campus and would not impact the existing wastewater 

infrastructure. 

4.5.3 Stormwater Management 

Affected Environment 

Stormwater runoff is generated when precipitation flows off land and 

impervious areas such as paved streets, parking lots, and building rooftops. 

Stormwater runoff can collect and transport pollutants such as oil and grease, 

chemicals, nutrients, metals, sediment, and bacteria as it travels across these 

surfaces. Soil erosion occurs when stormwater travels at velocities sufficient to 

transport sediment particles. Excessive stormwater runoff may also lead to 

flooding and infrastructure damage. Stormwater is typically managed on site by 

using conventional practices such as infiltration devices, filters, and sustainable 

practices such as LID techniques (USEPA, 2004). LID practices aim to maintain 

and restore the hydrologic and ecological functions of watersheds by managing 

stormwater as close to its source as possible. 

Impervious surfaces collect and accumulate pollutants and during high storm 

events, these pollutants are quickly washed off and rapidly delivered to aquatic 

systems. Monitoring and modeling studies have consistently indicated that urban 

pollutant loads are directly related to watershed imperviousness. Pervious 

surfaces allow for the absorption of stormwater, and ultimately allows for 

recharging of the groundwater table. 

The campus has several existing stormwater features to detain stormwater and 

promote its infiltration into the ground. Two detention basins are located in the 

southeastern corner of the campus and collect stormwater in series. Specifically, 

stormwater from the western basin overflows to the eastern basin if the water 

level reaches a sufficient height, and overflow from the eastern basin is piped off 

campus to Bear Canyon Creek to the east. These basins provide extensive 

infiltration capacity and rarely exhibit standing water. The campus has several 

smaller stormwater detention areas including two along Broadway and one by 

the northern pedestrian gate. DoC strives to minimize the presence of standing 

water in these basins due to nuisance and health concerns associated with 

mosquitos and geese. 

Stormwater generally flows from southwest to northeast across the campus. 

Stormwater that does not infiltrate on site is collected and transported via 

underground piping to the MS4 outfalls, which then discharge to Skunk Creek 

just north of the campus where the creek flows under Broadway. Stormwater 

collected on the campus is also conveyed offsite by Anderson Ditch and Skunk 

Creek to Bear Canyon Creek. Refer to Exhibit 113 of the Master Plan for an 

illustration of the hydrology and existing stormwater management features at the 

campus. 

The USEPA retains NPDES permitting and enforcement authority for federal 

facilities located in the State of Colorado. In accordance with the authority under 

the CWA, the USEPA issued DoC a permit (Permit No. COR042002) 

authorizing the discharge from all MS4 outfalls to receiving waters including 

Skunk Creek and Anderson Ditch and other associated waters of the United 

States within the exterior boundaries of the campus. 

The MS4 permit requires that the permittee design for and provide funding for 

the installation of permanent post-construction stormwater control measures 

designed to retain, detain, infiltrate or treat stormwater discharge from newly 

developed and redeveloped sites that disturb greater than or equal to one acre of 

land (whether individually or as part of a larger common plan of development) 

in a manner that is consistent with Control Measure Design Standards. The 

Control Measure Design Standards are composed of two main elements: the 

Water Quality Capture Volume (WQCV) Standard and the Infiltration Standard, 

developed by the State’s Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. The 

WQCV standard requires that a control measure be installed that is designed to 

provide treatment and/or infiltration of 0.6 inches of runoff while the Infiltration 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-22 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Standard requires the BMP to infiltrate, through practices such as LID, 0.5 

inches of runoff. 

DoC must comply with Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security 

Act of 2007 (EISA 2007). Under EISA 2007, federal agencies must "use site 

planning, design, construction, and maintenance strategies for the property to 

maintain or restore, to the maximum extent technically feasible, the 

predevelopment hydrology of the property with regard to the temperature, rate, 

volume, and duration of flow" for any project with a footprint greater than 5,000 

SF. Guidance on how to meet EISA 2007 is provided in the Technical Guidance 

on Implementing the Stormwater Runoff Requirements for Federal Projects 

under Section 438 of the Energy Independence and Security Act (USEPA, 

2009). 

EO 13693 section 3(f) requires that, beginning in FY 2016, agencies shall 

improve water use efficiency and management (including stormwater 

management) where life-cycle cost-effective. Specifically, the EO prescribes the 

installation of appropriate green infrastructure features on federally owned 

property to help with stormwater management. DoC’s Handbook for Strategic 

Sustainability Performance Plan, August 2013, provides additional guidance for 

complying with EO 13693. Although EO 13693 encourages rainwater 

harvesting, Colorado Water Rights prohibit the collection of rainwater at the 

campus. Refer to Section 4.4.1 (Surface Water) for additional information 

regarding Colorado’s Water Rights. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

Temporary Construction Impacts 

Under the Master Plan, construction and demolition activities at the campus 

would disturb land, creating the potential for erosion and sediment-laden 

discharges to Skunk Creek, Anderson Ditch, and the MS4 outfalls. DoC would 

develop all appropriate ESC and stormwater plans, and obtain all necessary 

permits, to ensure that these potential impacts are minimized during earth 

disturbance. 

The MS4 permit requires that both DoC and the construction contractor obtain 

appropriate permit coverage for regulated construction activities under the 

NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges for Construction Activity in 

Colorado, COR10000F (Construction General Permit or CGP). The MS4 permit 

defines “regulated construction activities” as development and re-development 

that results in a land disturbance of greater than or equal to one acre, whether 

individually or as part of a larger common plan of development. Demolition and 

construction projects identified in the Master Plan meet this definition and 

would be subject to permitting under the CGP. Per the requirements of the CGP, 

the construction contractor would develop a stormwater pollution prevention 

plan, including BMPs in accordance with good engineering practice such as the 

methods described in the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District’s Urban 

Storm Drainage Criteria Manual, Volume 3. The permit also requires the 

permittee to consult with appropriate city, county, and/or drainage district staff 

regarding the redevelopment or development project. Additionally, DoC would 

prepare a SWMP detailing how development under the Master Plan would meet 

the requirements of the campus MS4 permit. 

Long-Term Stormwater Management 

The implementation of the Master Plan would replace impervious surfaces 

throughout the campus with the installation of post-construction BMPs 

including LID, green infrastructure, and other stormwater control measures. 

Under the Master Plan, DoC would install a stormwater arroyo west of Building 

1, paralleling the central pedestrian promenade. Stormwater runoff from the 

developed portion of the campus would continue to flow to Anderson Ditch, 

Skunk Creek (both directly and via the MS4), and Bear Canyon Creek (via the 

detention basins in the southeastern corner of the campus). Figure 4-9 illustrates 

the stormwater conveyance network proposed under the Master Plan. Relative 

flow volumes of stormwater discharged to each receiving body would change 

depending on which phases of the Master Plan get constructed. Throughout 

implementation of the Master Plan, the efficacy of the stormwater detention 

basins, smaller detention features, vegetative swales, and piping conveying 

stormwater to the MS4 may need to be assessed and upgraded to support 

modifications to the campus, as needed. 

When designing the proposed parking garage adjacent to Building 81 (a site 

where stormwater runoff currently flows to Skunk Creek), DoC would ensure 

that the selected stormwater management approach does not result in a net 

increase the amount of runoff to Skunk Creek. This could be accomplished by 

primarily directing runoff from the garage to the central arroyo and by 

incorporating additional BMPs as necessary. Additionally, DoC would ensure 

the central arroyo would be designed not only to manage the potential for 

increased stormwater flows from proposed development, but also to allow for 

control of the discharge rate to Anderson Ditch through design features such as 

check dams. The proposed stormwater conveyance network also emphasizes the 

use of the two large detention basins to manage runoff from new development 

located south of the proposed arroyo. The goal of this approach is to decrease 

the overall flow rate of stormwater runoff into Anderson Ditch from developed 

areas within the campus. 

Under the Master Plan, various BMPs would be installed at the parking lot near 

the proposed Security Center. Installation of the arroyo and the incorporation of 

various BMPs would have minor net improvements to stormwater quality. In 

order to comply with federal requirements and EOs for sustainable stormwater 

management, the proposed Master Plan would likely need to incorporate 

additional stormwater management BMPs, control measures, and LID 

technologies beyond those currently identified in the Master Plan. These BMPs 

may include a combination of infiltration technologies in addition to LID 

features such as raingardens, bioswales, and infiltration trenches installed 

throughout the facility. Regardless of the combination of BMPs chosen for 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-23 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Figure 4-9. Proposed Stormwater Conveyance Network under the Master Plan 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-24 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

implementation under the Master Plan, DoC would ensure that these BMPs are Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

properly designed and maintained to mitigate the potential health and nuisance 

concerns associated with the detention of standing water. Stormwater plans and 

designs would specifically document compliance with the design requirements 

identified in the campus MS4 permit. 

Completion of the full Master Plan would reduce impervious areas within the 

campus by approximately 4.8% (from 2,242,700 SF to 2,135,200 SF). In 

addition, the Master Plan suggests replacing the large parking lot near Building 

33 with a parking garage, which would further reduce impervious surfaces 

within the campus. The reduction and replacement of impervious surfaces 

provides many benefits for stormwater management, including impeding 

stormwater flow, reducing soil erosion during rain events, improving runoff 

water quality, and increasing groundwater recharge. 

As described in Section 3.1 (Proposed Action) and illustrated in Appendix B, 

development under the Master Plan is conceptualized as five independent and 

interchangeable phases, and the possibility exists that only certain phases could 

become realized through development. Depending on which phases are 

completed, the net change in impervious areas within the campus could range 

anywhere from a 7.4% reduction (if only the Childcare, Management Resources 

Center, and Research Building phasing packages are completed) to a 1.5% 

increase (if only the NOAA expansion and Visitor Center phase packages are 

completed). Table 4-2 summarizes the impact of the implementation of each 

phasing package on the overall impervious footprint of the campus. 

Implementation of the No-Action Alternative would not involve construction, 

renovation, or demolition; therefore, no additional stormwater impact would 

occur at the campus. The No-Action Alternative would not improve existing 

stormwater management practices to meet the intent of local and federal rules 

and regulations regarding sustainable management of stormwater. 

4.5.4 Energy Systems 

The electrical infrastructure at the DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus provides 

the energy needed to operate the facilities on campus, while heating and cooling 

systems consume energy sources in the form of electricity and fossil fuels. EO 

13693 establishes a target to reduce energy-use intensity by 25% by FY 2025 

from an FY 2015 baseline. DoC Departmental Administrative Order 217-16: 

Sustainability and Environmental Management establishes this target as DoC 

policy. 

4.5.4.1 Electricity 

Affected Environment 

The primary uses of electricity at the DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus are to 

operate the lighting systems; laboratory equipment; heating, ventilation, and air 

conditioning (HVAC) systems; and cooling towers and chillers at the CUP. 

Building 41 houses the automatic source transfer switch for two incoming 

medium voltage feeds from Xcel Energy, which provides electricity service to 

the entire campus. The existing onsite infrastructure, including the utility feeders 

and switchgears, is sized to support a peak load significantly larger than the peak 

load of 5,462 kilowatts (6,828 kilovolt amperes) recorded in July 2016. DoC is 

currently evaluating different concepts for replacement of the existing 

switchgear at Building 41. 

Backup power is provided by 21 individual generators that provide limited life 

safety and standby power supply for specific programmatic needs. These 

generators are fueled by natural gas or diesel and range in size from 7.5 kW to 

1,656 kW. Certain sensitive pieces of equipment are served by uninterruptible 

power supplies. 

Many buildings within the campus were constructed in the 1950s and 1960s. 

These, as well as the numerous temporary buildings and structures around 

campus, lack energy efficiency in their infrastructure systems and building 

envelopes. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

Under the Master Plan, the DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus electrical 

demand would be expected to increase by 1-2% due to the operation of lighting 

systems, laboratory equipment, and HVAC systems associated with the new 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-25 Final Environmental Assessment 

Table 4-2. Change in Impervious Areas by Master Plan Phasing 
 

Package
 

Phasing Package 

Impervious Areas within Phasing Package 

Areas (SF) 

Existing Proposed Net Change 

Management Resources 

Center 343,600 219,000 -124,600 

Childcare Center 119,000 94,700 -24,300 

NIST Research Buildings and 

Campus Center 391,600 373,900 -17,700 

NOAA Research Building 15,700 22,300 +6,600 

Visitor Center, Parking and 

Vehicle Screening 257,300 284,600 +27,300 

Total 1,127,200 994,500 -132,700 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

buildings. The existing electrical infrastructure has sufficient capacity to support 

this growth. However, the Master Plan recommends that building load densities 

be monitored closely as buildings are renovated and new buildings are added to 

ensure that the feeder capacity and redundancy are maintained. New emergency 

generators would be installed to support operations in the new buildings. Four 

emergency generators at buildings to be demolished under the Master Plan 

(Buildings 2, 4, 5, and 25) would be either removed or relocated to support new 

operations. 

The Master Plan recommends that site-wide projects incorporate energy 

conserving and solar technologies that will continue to evolve over the life of 

the Master Plan. Despite the increase in electrical demand, inefficient small and 

temporary buildings would be replaced by new and renovated buildings 

featuring improved energy efficiency. This consolidation of small inefficient 

buildings would help DoC meet its agency-wide goal of reducing energy 

intensity at facilities. DoC would target net-zero energy use for both the 

Childcare Center and the Management Resources Center. Furthermore, the 

Master Plan includes solar photovoltaic energy systems on selected building 

roofs (Management Resources Center, Childcare Center, and Campus Center) 

and over parking areas, as well as a solar panel field on the former site of 

Building 25 after it is demolished. The solar energy systems would reduce the 

quantity of electricity consumed from the grid and help the planned consolidated 

support facility achieve net-zero energy consumption. Refer to Section 4.6 

(Sustainable Development) for additional information regarding sustainable 

design strategies. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not impact electrical infrastructure or demand. 

Under the No-Action Alternative, DoC would continue to operate energy 

inefficient facilities and, therefore, would not improve energy efficiency 

throughout the campus. 

4.5.4.2 Heating and Cooling 

Affected Environment 

The CUP (Building 42) provides chilled water and steam to support the HVAC 

systems at most of NIST’s laboratory buildings, specifically Buildings 1, 2, 3, 

24 and 81 (only steam to Building 1). Laboratories in other buildings are 

supplied with these services locally, as needed. The chilled water and steam are 

delivered via an underground piping system located in tunnels. The CUP and 

utility tunnels were constructed in several phases with the first phase being put 

into service in 2005. 

The CUP contains four 1,500-ton chillers and three boilers rated at 900 boiler 

horsepower (BHP). [Note: One ton of refrigeration is equivalent to the energy 

removal rate that will freeze one ton of water at 32 degrees Fahrenheit in one 

day, or approximately 12,000 Btu/hr.] Typically, DoC operates only two of 

these three boilers in cooler months and fuel consumption slows significantly in 

warmer months. The CUP also contains two 350-BHP boilers, but these boilers 

are not actively used and are not considered in the analysis of the CUP steam 

generation capacity. A project is under consideration to remove these boilers and 

install a new deaerator in their location to improve the reliability of the feed 

water system and the plant. The CUP and utility tunnels are consistent with 

current technology and have significant remaining life. 

The current peak cooling load is approximately 2,200 tons of refrigeration 

(tons), but this does not include Building 1 loads since the building is not 

connected to the campus chilled water system. The existing steam and chilled 

water production and distribution systems have significant additional capacity, 

as indicated by their firm capacities of 62,000 pph (1,800 BHP) and 4,500 tons, 

respectively. The firm capacity represents the system output without the 

availability of the largest single generation unit (e.g., with three of the four 

chillers in operation). 

As discussed in Section 4.5.1 (Potable Water Supply), potable water is used for 

make-up water in the steam production and cooling tower systems. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

Under the Master Plan, the existing CUP would supply the new and renovated 

NIST laboratory facilities with chilled water and steam. The Childcare Center 

and the Management Resources Center would be either provided with dedicated 

heating and cooling systems (with consideration given to geothermal systems) or 

connected to the campus steam and chilled water system because of their close 

proximity to the CUP. As discussed in Section 4.5.4.1 (Electricity), the Master 

Plan would be expected to increase the electrical (including cooling) demand on 

the campus by 1-2% and to increase the heating demand on the campus by 1-

3%. No upgrades to CUP infrastructure are needed to support the planned 

heating and cooling loads. 

Increases in heating and cooling demand would be offset somewhat by 

replacement of inefficient and under-insulated small and temporary buildings 

with new buildings featuring improved insulation and HVAC efficiency. DoC 

would use natural and passive ventilation, heat recovery systems, and decoupled 

ventilation/cooling, where feasible, to improve HVAC energy efficiency. This 

would help DoC meet its agency-wide goal of reducing energy intensity at 

facilities. 

Impacts on potable water demands due to increased heating and cooling loads 

are discussed in Section 4.5.1 (Potable Water Supply). Impacts on air emissions 

and greenhouse gases (GHGs) are discussed in Sections 4.9 (Air Quality) and 

4.10 (Climate Change). 

The existing buildings to be retained in the rest of the campus would continue to 

have dedicated HVAC systems. 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-26 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not implement the facility space expansion 

associated with the Proposed Action and therefore would not impact heating and 

cooling demand or systems. However, the DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus 

would continue to operate facilities with energy inefficient HVAC systems. 

4.6 Sustainable Development 

Affected Environment 

Sustainable development is the practice of modifying or creating structures and 

processes that are environmentally responsible and resource-efficient throughout 

their lifecycles. Environmental stewardship and sustainable development are 

crucial to DoC’s ability to fulfill its mission of creating conditions for economic 

growth and opportunity by promoting innovation, entrepreneurship, 

competitiveness, and stewardship (DoC, 2013). 

EO 13693, issued March 19, 2015, requires that 15% of existing buildings 

greater than 5,000 SF meet the revised Guiding Principles for Federal 

Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable Buildings (Guiding Principles) 

by FY 2025 and that federal agencies continue towards 100% compliance for the 

complete building inventory. The Guiding Principles require buildings to 

implement or achieve a combination of sustainable requirements such as 

optimizing energy performance, protecting and conserving water, enhancing the 

indoor environmental quality, and reducing the environmental impacts of 

materials. As discussed in Section 4.5.1 (Potable Water Supply), EO 13693 

requires federal agencies to reduce their potable water consumption. 

According to the draft document, Boulder’s Climate Commitment, the City of 

Boulder has established a goal of reducing its energy-related emissions by 80% 

or more from 2005 to 2050 (City of Boulder, 2015b). In order to reach this goal, 

the city has compiled a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that emphasizes the need to 

diversify the city’s energy supply by switching to no and low carbon renewable 

energy sources (City of Boulder, 2015b). 

The City of Boulder Water Conservation Program aims to work with residents 

and businesses to conserve water, both indoors and outdoors. As part of this 

effort, the city works with Partners for a Clean Environment (PACE), which 

provides free expert advice, incentives, and certification programs to assist 

businesses in gaining recognition and measuring their progress in energy, waste, 

water, and transportation efficiency efforts (PACE, 2015). PACE conducts 

indoor water audits, provides rebate opportunities, and disseminates information 

regarding water conservation throughout the County (PACE, 2015). According 

to the Boulder County Comprehensive Plan, the city and county will promote 

conservation of various water resources through water quality protection, public 

involvement and education, monitoring, and policies that promote applicable 

water usage (City of Boulder, 2010). 

DoC strives to achieve sustainable development by installing high-performance 

facilities and utilizing low-impact development principles (DoC, 2013). DoC 

annually updates its Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan (SSPP) in 

accordance with EO 13693. The SSPP identifies how DoC incorporates 

sustainability into its goal of growing the national economy, furthering energy 

security, and protecting the health of the environment (DoC, 2016). Topics 

addressed in the SSPP include greenhouse gases, sustainable development and 

acquisition, water efficiency, pollution prevention and waste elimination, 

electronics stewardship, and innovation (DoC, 2013). 

In order to achieve the potable water consumption reduction targets, DoC strives 

to initiate low-cost options that reduce water consumption with a short payback 

period of less than 10 years (DoC, 2013). Between 2007 and 2010, water 

consumption in DoC facilities nationwide decreased from approximately 42 

gallons per square foot to 33.6 gallons per square foot (DoC, 2013). For 

additional information regarding the DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus water 

supply, refer to Section 4.5.1 (Potable Water Supply). 

Other than the most recent buildings (33, 34, 42, and 81), the campus buildings 

were not designed or constructed with sustainable goals or features. A 

significant challenge confronting this Master Plan is moving the campus towards 

a sustainable future. According to a sustainability study of the campus 

performed in 2013, the following areas of the campus need improvement: 

HVAC upgrades; increasing the energy efficiency of several buildings on 

campus; and mechanical, energy efficiency, and electrical upgrades for 

Buildings 11, 21, 23, 24, the CUP and the Radio Building (Nelson Engineering 

Co., 2013). DoC is currently working through the list and has implemented 

many of the recommendations. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

The Master Plan would result in an overall improvement to campus 

sustainability. As a core component of the Master Plan, DoC would strive to 

increase the efficiency of the campus by replacing and consolidating small, 

inefficient buildings and upgrading outdated equipment. DoC would replace 

existing inefficient and inadequate facilities with more efficient and comfortable 

facilities; upgrade equipment; and utilize sustainable systems, such as efficient 

HVAC systems, exhaust energy recovery, and decoupled ventilation/cooling 

systems (DoC, 2017). Construction and renovation under the Master Plan would 

be conducted in compliance with EOs, federal requirements, and DoCsustainability goals. A goal of the Master Plan is to exceed DoC’s baseline 

requirement of achieving Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design 

(LEED) Silver certification for each new or renovated building. 

The greatest opportunity for the implementation of sustainable and energy 

efficient design is in association with new construction, specifically, the 

Childcare Center, Management Resources Center, Campus Center, and NOAA 

Expansion. DoC would target net-zero energy use for both the Childcare Center 

and the Management Resources Center, and would design the Campus Center to 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-27 Final Environmental Assessment 
meet the highest LEED certification level possible. The Management Resources 

Center and Childcare Center would include installation of efficient technologies 

(e.g., ample daylighting and energy-efficient exterior wall and roofing systems). 

Energy efficient design strategies could include use of natural ventilation, 

improvement of the building envelope, lighting load reduction, and plug load 

reduction. To help achieve these green certification goals for new construction, 

the Master Plan would also include the installation of PV systems throughout the 

campus, including solar panels on the roofs of selected new buildings, over 

parking areas, and on the Building 25 site following its demolition. DoC also 

would consider incorporating more advanced PV systems into project designs as 

PV technology continues to evolve. For more information regarding updates to 

the campus energy systems, refer to Section 4.5.4 (Energy Systems). 

The Master Plan also promotes sustainable development by proposing adaptive 

reuse of an aging laboratory building (Building 24) as part of the Campus 

Center. Benefits of adaptive reuse, as compared to redevelopment, can include 

reduced generation of construction-related waste via the reuse of structural 

elements and recycling of building materials. 

Stormwater quality and management would be improved under the Master Plan 

due to the installation of the vegetated arroyo and post-construction BMPs near 

parking structures. Refer to Section 4.5.3 (Stormwater Management) for 

additional information. 

Under the Master Plan, DoC would reconfigure the parking lot to the north of 

the campus entrance to allow visitors to park vehicles outside of the secure 

perimeter and to walk onto the campus, as well as reconfigure the drives around 

the Security Center. This would reduce vehicle congestion at the Security Center 

and gate. DoC would also remove the central roadway between Buildings 3 and 

81, which would promote the central part of the campus as a more pedestrian 

and bicycle-oriented space. Additionally, all new parking areas constructed 

under the Master Plan would include vehicle charging stations to provide 

electricity for plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs). These changes may reduce 

overall greenhouse gas emissions and fossil fuel consumption, and could 

contribute to improved air quality. 

Construction activities at the campus would temporarily impact soil and 

vegetation, and would generate waste. DoC would recycle construction and 

demolition debris to the extent practicable and ensure that other non-recyclable 

materials are properly disposed. Construction would require the commitment of 

a wide range of raw materials, including wood, metal, glass, and fossil fuels. 

The fabrication and manufacture of construction materials requires large 

quantities of energy and natural resources. In general, construction materials are 

readily available, and the construction of new facilities would not have an 

adverse effect on continued availability of these resources. Operation of the 

proposed facilities and transportation of additional employees to the campus 

would also require the commitment of fossil fuels to operate generators, 

vehicles, and other fuel-burning equipment. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overall, the long-term improvements in sustainability of the campus associated 

with implementation of the Master Plan, combined with the continued 

preservation of open spaces on the campus, are expected to greatly outweigh 

short-term and continuing commitments of readily available resources. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not result in any changes to campus 

infrastructure. The energy demand at the campus would not change. The 

potential to increase energy efficiency, improve stormwater management, and 

improve the overall sustainability of the campus in accordance with EO 13693 

would not be realized under the No-Action Alternative. 

4.7 Solid and Hazardous Waste 

Affected Environment 

Solid waste is defined as any garbage, refuse, sludge, or other discarded material 

including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous materials resulting from 

industrial, commercial, agricultural, or community activities. USEPA defines 

hazardous waste as a solid waste that exhibits a characteristic of ignitability, 

corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity, or is specifically listed as a hazardous waste. 

Hazardous and nonhazardous solid wastes are regulated by federal, state, and 

Boulder County laws. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

authorizes USEPA to control hazardous waste from “cradle to grave.” This 

lifecycle includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal 

of waste. Subtitle D of RCRA encourages states to initiate and oversee the 

implementation of solid waste management plans in order to promote recycling 

practices. USEPA has delegated authority to CDPHE to implement hazardous 

waste regulations and oversight. As a result, CDPHE has developed solid waste 

regulations (6 CCR 1007-2) and hazardous waste regulations (6 CCR 1007-3). 

EO 13693 (Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade) and EO 

12873 (Federal Acquisition, Recycling, and Waste Prevention) set goals for the 

federal government to conduct operations in a manner that is sound in terms of 

energy efficiency, toxic chemical reduction, recycling, sustainability, and water 

conservation. In addition, the USEPA’s Guidelines for Thermal Processing of 

Solid Wastes (40 CFR 240) and Guidelines for the Storage and Collection of 

Residential, Commercial, and Institutional Solid Waste (40 CFR 243) provide 

specifications for the treatment and disposal of municipal solid waste. 

DoC reviewed available databases for solid and hazardous waste sites in the 

general area around the DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus. Environmental 

databases used in this review include the National Priorities List database; 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Information System database; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

Information database; and USEPA’s NEPAssist mapping tool. This review 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-28 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

revealed that there are no nearby solid or hazardous waste sites with potential to 

impact the campus. 

Facilities at the DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus generate various types of 

hazardous, non-hazardous, and universal wastes (which are hazardous wastes 

that are very commonly used and have less stringent disposal requirements). 

Due to the quantity of hazardous waste generated, the campus meets the 

definition of a small quantity hazardous waste generator, defined by 40 CFR 262 

as a facility that generates between 100 and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste and 

less than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste in a month. 

According to the cross services agreement, one of NIST’s responsibilities at the 

campus includes hazardous and regulated waste management. As a component 

of this responsibility, NIST oversees the storage of waste in Building 23, which 

is a 180-day accumulation site for hazardous waste. This two-room building has 

secondary containment systems to collect waste in the event of a leak or spill. 

Hazardous waste is stored in cabinets or in drums, while radioactive materials 

are stored in a dedicated safe (DoC, 2017). 

The NIST Boulder Safety, Health, and Environment Division (BSHED) 

coordinates requests for the collection and transfer of hazardous and universal 

wastes to Building 23 by a third-party contractor. The BSHED has developed 

standard operating procedures and specific criteria for the collection, labeling, 

and transportation of hazardous and universal waste generated at the campus 

(NIST, 2009). NIST then transfers the waste to permitted treatment, storage, 

disposal or recycling facilities and retains proper documentation. 

Solid non-hazardous waste from the campus is collected and disposed of at a 

local landfill. Construction contractors are responsible handling construction 

debris in accordance with CDPHE regulations for solid and hazardous waste. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

The implementation of the Master Plan would generate construction and 

demolition waste, which would require collection, staging, and removal from the 

campus. Wastes would be handled and disposed of in accordance with Colorado 

Department of Public Health and Environment regulations. Recycling of 

construction and demolition debris would be implemented to the extent 

practicable. Demolition of older facilities may involve the removal of materials 

containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), lead, or asbestos. Disposal 

methods would be addressed under the construction permit, including the cost of 

sampling, transporting, and discharging of said wastes to an appropriate facility 

in compliance with CDPHE regulations (DoC, 2016). 

The Master Plan would retain Building 23 as the hazardous waste storage 

building. Operations in the various proposed administrative, support, and 

laboratory facilities would be expected to generate similar types of wastes as 

existing operations within the campus; however, the quantity of these wastes 

could increase slightly, given the projected increase in staff and operational 

space. In this scenario, DoC would evaluate the capacity and continued 

suitability of Building 23 as a hazardous waste storage building and could 

consider improvements to the building in an action separate from the Master 

Plan. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would result in no changes in the generation, 

storage, or disposal of solid or hazardous waste. The No-Action Alternative 

would not involve the removal of hazardous building materials including 

asbestos, lead, and PCBs. 

4.8 Transportation 

4.8.1 Vehicle Circulation and Parking 

Affected Environment 

The DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus has a single vehicular entrance located 

on Broadway (Colorado State Highway 93). This entrance is used by all 

employees, visitors, and deliveries arriving by automobile and truck. Two loop 

roads branch off from the entrance to form the primary circulation pattern for 

the campus. One loop, consisting of Compton Road and Marconi Road, circles 

the majority of the laboratory buildings. The second loop, defined by Curie 

Circle, provides access to the NOAA building parking area and to the western 

portion of the campus, where the CUP and most of the administrative and 

support facilities are located. Parking areas are distributed throughout the 

campus near each building and are easily accessible from the loop roads. There 

are currently 1,430 parking spaces on campus. Per agreements with the City of 

Boulder and a collective of Native American tribes, the total number of parking 

spaces allowed on campus is restricted to 1,802. 

Visitors and their vehicles are screened at the Security Center, which is located 

at the entrance to the campus. Congestion is a problem in this area and space and 

maneuvering room are limited. Congestion can also occur at Building 22 when 

trucks are making deliveries, because the parking lot is narrow and the trucks 

can extend into the roadway. There are several intersections on campus that lack 

directional signage, which can lead to confusion for visitors. The exit from the 

Childcare Center is also potentially dangerous due to a blind spot at a curve on 

Curie Circle. 

The City of Boulder has an effective public transportation system and robust 

bicycle path network. Both of these serve the DoC Boulder Laboratories 

Campus and many DoC employees use public transportation or the bicycle paths 

to commute to work. DoC provides subsidies and incentives to encourage 

employees to commute using public transit, vanpool, or bicycles. 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-29 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

Under the Master Plan, DoC would reconfigure the parking lot to the north of 

the entrance to allow visitors to park their vehicles outside of the security 

perimeter and to walk into the campus. This would reduce vehicle congestion 

and queuing at the entrance and the Security Center, especially during 

conferences. DoC would also reconfigure the Security Center and its drives to 

streamline the screening process and allow for improved vehicle circulation and 

maneuvering. The Master Plan includes widening the road at Building 22 to 

eliminate congestion associated with trucks blocking the road. The relocation of 

the Childcare Center would eliminate hazards associated with exiting the current 

parking area. 

A key feature of the Master Plan is the removal of the central roadway between 

Building 3 and Building 81, and vehicle traffic limitations on a portion Compton 

Road. These changes would promote the central part of the campus as a more 

pedestrian and bicycle oriented space. 

Due to an increase of approximately 202 DoC personnel over the course of the 

Master Plan, there would be a slight increase in privately owned vehicles 

(POVs) entering and exiting the campus during peak hours. While the Master 

Plan anticipates an increase in personnel, there would be a potential reduction in 

intra-campus POV use due to consolidation of facilities within the campus, 

construction of the new parking area by the Security Center (which, for 

occupants of Building 1, would require less driving through the campus as 

compared to the current parking lot), and improved pedestrian connectivity. 

DoC would construct a multi-level parking structure to support the new 

laboratory buildings and reduce the impervious surface on the campus (as 

compared to constructing a surface lot). DoC would limit the total number of 

parking spaces to comply with the City of Boulder and tribal agreements. The 

Master Plan would encourage the use of PEVs instead of fossil fuel vehicles by 

including vehicle charging stations in all new parking areas. 

The Master Plan would also result in temporary increases in traffic during 

construction and demolition activities. Construction activities could also 

temporarily affect parking availability by closing off lots or occupying lots with 

construction vehicles and equipment. As described in Section 3.1.2, DoC would 

coordinate construction activities and create temporary parking and staging 

areas to ensure that vehicles are not forced to park off campus, park in grassy 

areas, or cause other impacts due to a temporary lack of parking capacity. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not impact the local transportation network or 

traffic levels and would not change vehicle use or parking availability within the 

campus. There would be no improvement, however, to campus ingress or 

vehicle circulation within the campus. 

4.8.2 Public and Alternative Transportation 

Affected Environment 

The City of Boulder and surrounding region has a strong public transportation 

network. The Regional Transportation District (RTD) operates four separate bus 

and light rail route systems within 8 of the 12 counties in the Denver-AuroraBoulder Combined Statistical Area. The SkyRide system connects the Denver 

International Airport to regional population centers; the Local/Limited routes 

provide service to local areas; the Express Routes link commuter corridors; and 

the Regional Routes connect population centers (DoC, 2017). 

FasTracks, administered by the RTD, is a public transportation expansion 

program currently under construction. The new commuter rail, light rail, and 

express bus services will add 122 miles of new light and commuter rail, 18 miles 

of bus rapid transit, new transit stations, enhanced bus/rail connections and 

additional routes, new Park-n-Ride locations, and 21,000 new parking spaces at 

rail and bus stations (RTD, 2016a). The longest of the FasTrack projects, the 

Northwest Rail Line, is planned to be a 41-mile fixed-guideway transit line to 

Longmont from Denver passing through Boulder. The first segment of this line 

operating from Westminster to Denver Union Station opened in July 2016 

(RTD, 2017). 

The Department of Transportation’s Mass Transit Subsidy Program, known as 

EcoPass, is a program designed to increase the use of public transportation 

among federal employees. EcoPass provides incentives for employees to choose 

public transportation by allowing payment of the pass through pre-taxed dollars, 

thereby reducing payroll taxes (RTD, 2016b). 

According to a 2015 survey, 9% of employees at the DoC Boulder Laboratories 

Campus commute to work by bus. There are six RTD bus lines with routes 

along Broadway and along 27th Way, each stopping at the two sheltered bus 

stops along Broadway: one is located towards the northeast corner of the campus 

near Building 1, and the other is immediately south of the main campus 

entrance. From the bus stops, there are no direct walkways or paths onto the 

campus. Refer to Exhibit 120 in the Master Plan for an illustration of circulation 

features at the campus, including the bus stops. 

Bicycle commuting is a popular mode of transportation in the Boulder area. 

Approximately 18% of campus employees commute to work by bicycle. As 

discussed in Section 4.1.4 (Trails), the campus has a strong network of bicycle 

routes. However, the campus currently does not provide adequate protected 

bicycle storage such as bicycle racks, lockers, and bike rooms, and the local bike 

sharing program B-Cycle recently chose to remove the bike sharing station 

located near the campus entrance (DoC, 2017). Pedestrian circulation is also an 

important mode of transportation, both between facilities on campus and 

commuting from off campus. Commuters who enter by foot from Broadway, 

either as pedestrians or bus riders who get off at one of the two bus stops, have 

an approximately one-quarter mile walk (roughly five minutes) to the farthest 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-30 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

buildings in the Laboratory District. The Support District is an approximately 

one-half mile walk, roughly 10 minutes from Broadway. Most of this walk is 

slightly uphill. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

The Master Plan would increase the number of campus employees by 

approximately 200 people over the course of 20 years. This increase would be 

expected to only slightly increase commuting and public transportation ridership 

to and from the campus. With the inception of commuter incentive programs, 

such as EcoPass, and the expansion of FasTracks, public transportation to the 

campus could see an increase in ridership. The Master Plan would provide easier 

access from the bus stops to the campus by providing additional paved 

pedestrian access points near Building 1 and north of the new Visitor Center 

parking lot, shortening the walking distance for many campus employees who 

commute by bus. 

The Master Plan would support and enhance the already established bicycle 

commuting system by preserving bicycle routes and paths on campus; 

promoting features such as bicycle parking, secure and integrated bicycle 

storage, and shower and locker facilities to improve convenience of access and 

promote bicycle commuting; and recommending improvements to the bicycle 

path near the campus entrance to improve safety. 

Under the Master Plan, the majority of campus employees would continue to 

work within a five-to-ten-minute walk of the bus stops or the campus entrance 

on Broadway. Some buildings, such as the Childcare Center, would be relocated 

farther from Broadway. Walking to this building from Broadway would take 

approximately three minutes longer than the walk to the existing Childcare 

Center. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not impact public transportation facilities or 

ridership and would not affect commuters who bike or walk to the campus. 

4.9 Air Quality 

Affected Environment 

Air quality refers to the degree of pollution in the air, often assessed by 

measuring concentrations of pollutants and comparing them to health-based 

limits set by the USEPA. Airborne pollutants originate from a variety of sources 

including anthropogenic (man-made) or natural (e.g., forest fires). Most 

anthropogenic emissions arise from fossil fuel combustion. 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

The Clean Air Act (CAA) designated USEPA the authority to set National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to limit the concentration of 

pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment (40 Code of 

Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 50). The NAAQS regulate six specific 

pollutants, commonly referred to as “criteria pollutants” that include ozone (O3), 

particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb) (USEPA, 2016b). The NAAQS limit PM levels 

according to particle size, with separate standards for coarse (PM10) and fine 

(PM2.5) particulate matter. Refer to Appendix C, Table C-1 for the current 

NAAQS as of July 2016 (USEPA, 2016c). 

If a region’s air pollutant concentrations are not in violation of the NAAQS, 

USEPA designates the area to be in attainment. For areas USEPA designates as 

nonattainment, there are several categories from marginal to severe that USEPA 

could assign depending on the severity of the exceedance. A nonattainment 

designation requires that a region submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that 

addresses how the NAAQS will be met in a future year. USEPA later determines 

whether the region has met the SIP goals, and if so, USEPA changes the 

designation from nonattainment area to maintenance area. Boulder County is an 

8-hr ozone (2008) nonattainment area and a CO and PM10 maintenance area 

(USEPA, 2016d). The Colorado Air Quality Control Commission has approved 

a SIP for ozone for the Denver Metro Area, which includes Boulder County, as 

well maintenance plans for CO and PM10. Boulder County is an attainment area 

for PM2.5, SO2, NO2, and lead (40 CFR 81.306). 

The CAA General Conformity Rule (GCR) requires that federal actions taking 

place in nonattainment areas must conform to the region’s SIP for reducing 

airborne concentrations of the nonattainment pollutant(s). Because the campus is 

located in an ozone nonattainment area and a CO and PM10 maintenance area, 

this EA includes a review of the emissions that would be expected from the 

construction and operational activities under the Proposed Action to determine 

whether they would exceed de minimis levels and trigger a SIP conformity 

determination. The de minimis level for each of Boulder County’s nonattainment 

or maintenance criteria pollutants and their precursors [nitrogen oxides (NOx), 

volatile organic compound (VOC), CO, and PM10] is 100 tons per year. 

Under Regulation No. 3, “Stationary Source Permitting and Air Pollutant 

Emission Notice Requirements,” the CDPHE Air Pollution Control Division 

requires that facilities submit an Air Pollutant Emission Notice (APEN) when 

there is a significant change in emissions. Since Boulder County is an ozone 

nonattainment area, a change in VOC or NOx emissions of one ton or 5%, 

whichever is greater, above the level reported on the last APEN submission 

would be considered a significant change (CDPHE, 2015). The APEN form also 

serves as the Application for Construction Permit for applicable emission units. 

Land development activities of at least 25 contiguous acres or more than six 

months in duration also would require an APEN and may be required to obtain 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-31 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

an air permit depending on estimated emissions. In addition, a start-up notice 

must be submitted thirty days prior to beginning a land development project. 

Emission Sources 

Operations at the DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus generate air emissions 

from multiple sources, including onsite stationary sources (boilers, generators, 

fume hoods) and mobile sources (vehicles). The CDPHE Air Pollution Control 

Division has issued NIST a construction permit (Permit No. 09BO0159) that 

covers five boilers and one emergency generator. The construction permit serves 

as a minor source operating permit and establishes emission limits for CO and 

NOx for the six permitted emission sources. This is the only air permit that 

currently applies to operations at the campus. 

The largest onsite stationary emission sources include five natural gas-fired 

boilers at the CUP (Building 42) for steam generation. Three boilers have heat 

input ratings of 38 million Btu (MMBtu) per hour and the other two boilers have 

heat input ratings of 14.65 MMBtu per hour. The boilers produce emissions of 

NOx, CO, VOCs, SO2, and PM during regular operation. All five boilers at the 

CUP are subject to opacity standards and SO2 limitations under the NSPS for 

Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units (40 CFR Part 

60 Subpart Dc). The operating permit includes limits on the annual natural gas 

consumption for each of the five boilers. In 2015, the CUP boilers consumed 

141 million standard cubic feet (MM scf) of natural gas, less than 20% of the 

combined limits for the five boilers, while servicing 800,272 GSF of facility 

space. Multiple smaller boilers are located at individual facilities throughout the 

campus, including Buildings 2, 3, 21, 22, and 25. 

The permitted emergency generator has a 2,200-horsepower (hp) engine and is 

located adjacent to Building 81. The permit limits the annual operation of the 

generator to 300 hours. The emergency generator is subject to “Tier 2” USEPA 

emission standards for nonroad engines above 750 hp. The Tier 2 emission 

standards establish emission limits for multiple pollutants, including CO, PM, 

and NOx. Another generator is located adjacent to Building 81 with a 1,005 hp 

engine. A total of 19 other emergency generators with engines ranging from 10 

hp to 134 hp support operations in individual buildings throughout the rest of the 

campus and are fueled by either natural gas or diesel. 

Other minor stationary emissions sources include fuel storage tanks and fume 

hoods. The diesel-fueled emergency generator systems are supported by five 

aboveground fuel oil tanks, ranging in size from 145 gal to 6,000 gal. Two 

1,000-gal aboveground tanks, one containing diesel and one containing gasoline, 

are located at the north end of Building 21 and are attached to fuel dispensers. 

Fume hoods provide ventilation for laboratory spaces in multiple buildings, 

including a clean lab in Building 81 that uses acetone. 

Mobile emission sources associated with DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus 

activities include personal vehicles for ongoing employee commuting to and 

from work, as well as intra-campus travel, and grounds maintenance equipment 

and vehicles. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

The Master Plan would have the potential to directly and indirectly affect air 

quality at the DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus as a result of the following 

activities: 

•	 Onsite stationary sources: Changes in operation of boilers and 

emergency generators, and new or relocated laboratory activities. 

•	 Mobile sources: Changes in employee commuting. 

•	 Temporary activities: Construction, demolition, and renovation 

activities. 

The following subsections describe these air quality impacts in more detail. 

Onsite Stationary Sources 

Under the Master Plan, there is expected to be a minor increase in air emissions 

of NOx, CO, VOCs, SO2, and PM from boilers at the CUP if utility service from 

the CUP is expanded to new facilities. The existing boilers have adequate 

capacity to service a potential increase in steam load from the new facilities. The 

CUP boiler output and fuel consumption are expected to increase proportionally 

with the steam load changes. Operation of the boilers would comply with the 

existing (or subsequent) operating permit. Increased air emissions from the CUP 

boilers or boilers associated with newly constructed buildings would be partially 

offset by removal of multiple boilers from facilities that would be demolished 

and the construction of more energy efficient facilities. The boilers would 

continue to use low-NOx burners in compliance with Reasonably Available 

Control Technology requirements. A summary of projected criteria pollutant 

emissions from operation of the boilers under the Master Plan is presented in 

Appendix C, Table C-11. 

The Master Plan would install new generators at each proposed facility to 

provide redundant backup power during emergencies. Emissions associated with 

these new generators would be offset by the elimination of emissions from 

emergency generators at facilities that would be demolished under the Master 

Plan. Thus, it is expected that changes in emergency generator fuel consumption 

and the associated emissions would be negligible. The existing emergency 

generators would continue to comply with USEPA Tier 2 emission standards. 

The permitted emission units at the DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus are not 

expected to exceed the operational or emission limits established in the permit. 

DoC would submit an APEN for the applicable emission units or for applicable 

changes in operations of existing equipment. 

The cooling towers and chillers associated with chilled water production are 

electric powered, and DoC estimates that the Master Plan would increase 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-32	 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

campus-wide electrical demand by approximately 1-2%. This could potentially 

result in increased fuel consumption by the sources that supply electricity to the 

regional network and lead to off-site increases in air emissions. 

It is expected that changes in VOC emissions due to the installation of additional 

fume hoods in various labs would be negligible. 

Mobile Sources 

The Master Plan would increase the number of personnel commuting to and 

working at the DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus by approximately 12% (from 

1,761 to 1,973) over the course of a 20-year period (DoC, 2017). Emissions 

from vehicle use are expected to increase by approximately this same 

percentage, or potentially by a lower percentage, assuming a continued growth 

in the adoption of low-emission vehicles. Refer to Section 4.8 (Transportation) 

for details regarding the expected changes in vehicular use resulting from the 

Master Plan. A summary of projected criteria pollutant emissions from mobile 

sources under the Master Plan is presented in Appendix C, Table C-13. 

Temporary Activities 

Construction, demolition, and renovation (CDR) activities required for the 

Master Plan would result in temporary minor emissions of NOx, VOC, CO, PM, 

and SO2 from the use of on-road vehicles, such as delivery vehicles, tractor 

trailers, and dump trucks, as well as nonroad construction vehicles, such as 

excavators, cranes, track loaders, backhoes, and bulldozers over the course of an 

approximately 20-year period. The maximum annual projected NOx, VOC, CO, 

PM, and SO2 emissions from construction activities and the methodology used 

to calculate these emissions can be found in Appendix C. 

CDR activities often cause fugitive dust (PM) emissions that could have a 

temporary impact on local air quality. Dust emissions during building 

construction are associated with land clearing, ground excavation, grading, and 

the construction of the building itself. Emissions may vary substantially from 

day to day, depending upon the level of activity, specific type of activity, and 

weather conditions. The quantity of dust emissions from construction operations 

is proportional to the area of land where the activity is taking place, as well as 

the level of construction activity. 

DoC is required to use all practical measures or operating procedures necessary 

to minimize fugitive dust, per Section III.D of Colorado Air Quality Control 

Commission’s Regulation No. 1, “Particulate Matter, Smoke, Carbon Monoxide, 

and Sulfur Oxides.” DoC would use the recommended best practices outlined in 

the Fugitive Dust Best Management Practices guide developed by Boulder 

County Public Health, where appropriate (BCPH, 2016). DoC may be required 

to obtain an APEN from CDPHE depending on the size of the 

construction/demolition site and duration of activity. DoC would follow dust 

suppression guidelines included in permit requirements. 

If any lead-containing materials, asbestos-containing materials, or equipment 

that contains ozone-depleting substances are encountered during construction, 

DoC would remove and dispose of these materials and equipment in accordance 

with all applicable regulations to ensure air quality is not impacted. 

GCR Analysis and Emissions Summary 

DoC has prepared a GCR Applicability Analysis for the Master Plan (Appendix 

C). This analysis conservatively estimates the emissions of nonattainment 

criteria pollutants during construction and operation of the affected facilities for 

each calendar year affected by the Master Plan. This analysis demonstrates that 

the Master Plan would result in emissions well below the de minimis thresholds 

each calendar year for nonattainment criteria pollutants and their precursors 

(NOx, VOC, PM10, and CO). The Master Plan is therefore not subject to GCR 

requirements and a conformity determination is not required. The air quality 

effects of criteria pollutants at the DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus and 

beyond the campus boundary would be minimal under the Master Plan and 

would not interfere with regional efforts to meet the NAAQS. 

Table 4-3 summarizes the net changes in emissions of nonattainment criteria 

pollutants and their precursors under the Master Plan. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would result in no changes in campus air quality 

compared to the baseline. The existing emissions-producing operations would 

continue at their current locations in accordance with the installation’s minor 

source operating permit and applicable standards. 

Table 4-3. Summary of Changes in Criteria Pollutant Emissions under 

the Master Plan 

Activity 

Emissions (Tons) a 

NOx VOC CO PM10 

Increase in operating and mobile 

source emissions (annual, recurring) b 

0.9 0.3 3.8 0.2 

CDR activities (non-recurring) c 20.1 11.2 14.0 132 

Notes:
 

a – This table includes only those criteria pollutants covered by the GCR 

Applicability Analysis. See Appendix C.
 

b – This represents a conservative estimate of the annual increase in emissions
 

that would occur following full implementation of the Master Plan. See
 

Appendix C.
 

c – This represents emissions from all CDR activities, including fuel 

consumption, surface disturbance, and painting activities. See Appendix C.
 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-33 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.10 Climate Change 

Affected Environment 

Climate change refers to any significant change in the measures of climate 

lasting for an extended period of time. In other words, climate change includes 

major changes in temperature, precipitation, or wind patterns, among others, that 

occur over several decades or longer. This occurs naturally over time, but 

evidence has shown that climate change is occurring at an accelerated rate due 

to the increase of the average global surface temperature, also known as global 

warming. The evidence for rapid climate change includes the rate of sea level 

rise, global temperature rise, warming oceans, shrinking ice sheets, declining 

Arctic sea ice, glacial retreat, extreme weather events, ocean acidification, and 

decreased snow cover (NASA, 2016). 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

The recent and ongoing warming of Earth’s atmosphere is largely caused by 

human activities. The burning of fossil fuels and other industrial processes 

release significant amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHGs into the 

lower atmosphere. GHGs contribute to global warming by absorbing infrared 

radiation emitted from the earth’s surface and then radiating much of this energy 

back to the earth’s surface. 

USEPA classifies GHG emissions and reduction targets as Scope 1 (direct 

emissions), Scope 2 (indirect emissions from purchased energy), or Scope 3 

(other indirect emissions). Scope 1 emissions include emissions from direct 

fossil fuel combustion such as in the operation of boilers, generators, 

incinerators, and vehicles operated by the organization, as well as fugitive 

emissions of refrigerants and other GHGs (e.g., fire suppressants). Scope 2 

emissions include upstream emissions from purchased electricity, steam, 

heating, and cooling. Scope 3 emissions include all other indirect emissions not 

included in Scope 2, such as emissions from employee commuting, employee 

business travel, transmission and distribution losses associated with purchased 

electricity, methane emissions from contracted solid waste disposal, methane 

and nitrous oxide emissions from contracted wastewater treatment, and upstream 

emissions associated with purchased products and services. 

In accordance with EO 13514, DoC established a 21% reduction target for 

agency-wide Scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions and a 6% reduction target for 

agency-wide Scope 3 GHG emissions in absolute terms by FY 2020, relative to 

the FY 2008 baseline. DoC also has proposed GHG reduction targets through 

FY 2025 in accordance with EO 13693; these targets are pending approval by 

CEQ and the Office of Management and Budget. 

Operations at the DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus generate GHG emissions 

from multiple sources, including operation of boilers, emergency generators, and 

DoC fleet vehicles (Scope 1); purchase of electricity (Scope 2); and employee 

commuting and business travel, transmission and distribution losses from 

purchased electricity, and methane emissions from contracted solid waste 

disposal (Scope 3). DoC purchases electricity for the campus from the Xcel 

Energy Public Service Company of Colorado (PSCo), which has a power supply 

portfolio consisting of a mix of coal-fired and natural gas-fired generation (78%) 

and carbon-free generation (22%) (Xcel Energy, 2016). 

Effects of Climate Change 

General climate change effects that have been observed and are projected in the 

future include more frequent and heavier rains and storms, increased flooding 

and drought, more severe and frequent heat waves, worsened air quality, sealevel rise, and negative impacts on ecosystems and wildlife (CEQ, 2016). 

Colorado is currently being affected by climate change in the following ways: 

warmer winters that result in a thinner snowpack and earlier snowmelt and 

runoff in the spring; a decrease in precipitation and water supply; longer 

droughts; increases in wildfires; insect infestations in pine forests and aspen 

stands; and health problems with the increase of ozone (Boulder County, 2016). 

While current and future emission control measures should help to reduce future 

impacts on climate change, GHGs already in the atmosphere will continue to 

cause climate change for many years to come (CEQ, 2016). In Colorado, this is 

expected to result in progressively hotter and drier conditions, further 

exacerbating the effects described above and straining both the natural 

environment and urban areas (USGCRP, 2016). 

Accordingly, climate change adaptation and resilience, which are defined as 

adjustments to natural or human systems in response to actual or expected 

climate changes, are important considerations when planning an action (CEQ, 

2016). Climate change impacts of particular relevance to the DoC Boulder 

Laboratories Campus include reductions in snowmelt and precipitation, which 

could reduce water availability in Skunk Creek, Anderson Ditch, and the City of 

Boulder potable water system; prolonged droughts, which could affect 

vegetation on campus; more severe and frequent heat waves, which could affect 

cooling demand on the CUP; and increased risk of wildfires, given the 

expansive forested areas in Boulder Mountain Park immediately west of the 

campus. DoC considers these climate change factors when planning future 

actions at the campus. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Under the Master Plan, steam generation activities and operation of the new 

facilities, including increased electricity consumption and periodic emergency 

generator use, would generate recurring direct and indirect (Scope 1, 2, and 3) 

GHG emissions. The overall increase in climate-controlled floor space would 

require a minor increase (approximately 1-3%) in the campus steam load, 

emergency generator capacity, and purchases of electricity. This would result in 

increased fuel consumption by boilers and generators throughout the campus, 

and potentially could result in increased fuel consumption by the sources that 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-34 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

supply electricity to the PSCo regional network, leading to increases in direct 

and indirect GHG emissions. These increases would be mitigated by the 

construction of more energy efficient facilities and the potential reduction in the 

overall energy intensity of campus facilities. Installation of the solar field 

following demolition of Building 25 would further offset GHG emissions from 

the campus. NIST would also continue to procure Renewable Energy Credits 

each year to mitigate impacts from GHG emissions on global climate change. 

Construction, renovation, and demolition activities under the Master Plan would 

temporarily generate direct (Scope 1) GHG emissions from construction 

equipment. DoC estimates that construction, renovation, and demolition 

activities would release approximately 9,200 tons of CO2-equivalent emissions 

over the duration of the Master Plan. These activities also would generate 

indirect (Scope 3) GHG emissions from contracted solid waste disposal. 

While the Master Plan would increase the number of personnel commuting to 

and working at the campus, DoC assumes that this represents a relocation of 

existing commuter-related GHG emissions (i.e., the Master Plan would not 

“create” new commuters). Details regarding the current and future commuting 

methods and routes of these new campus personnel do not exist, and the increase 

or decrease in associated GHG emissions cannot be calculated. Also, Scope 1 

GHG emissions associated with the travel of DoC fleet vehicles between 

facilities throughout the campus are anticipated to be approximately equal to or 

less than the current emissions, due to the improved consolidation of campus 

facilities under the Master Plan. 

Effects of Climate Change 

As discussed in Section 4.5.1 (Potable Water Supply) and Section 4.2.1 

(Vegetation), the Master Plan would incorporate various water efficiency 

improvements throughout the campus and would reduce irrigation demand by 

replacing existing water-intensive plants with low-maintenance grasses and 

other native vegetation. While the goal of these efforts is to reduce dependency 

on the City of Boulder potable water system and Anderson Ditch, full 

implementation of the Master Plan could result in a minor increase in overall 

potable water demand. Given the continued effects of climate change on water 

availability, this would potentially contribute to an increasing strain on regional 

public water sources. However, the use of drought-resistant landscaping would 

improve the resilience of the campus vegetation during prolonged droughts, thus 

reducing localized climate change effects within the campus. 

As discussed in Section 4.5.4.2 (Heating and Cooling), the Master Plan could 

result in an increased demand for chilled water from the CUP. More severe and 

frequent heat waves due to continued climate change could further increase this 

projected cooling need, leading to additional electrical demand and the 

associated GHG emissions and potentially contributing to further climate 

change. 

Under the Master Plan, new construction would be located in the existing 

developed eastern portion of the campus. This area is separated from the 

forested areas west of campus by expansive grassy vegetated areas, thus 

reducing the risk associated with climate change-driven wildfires. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would result in no changes in GHG emissions at the 

campus and would not increase contributions to climate change. However, the 

No-Action Alternative would not achieve the potential improvements in energy 

and water efficiency described under the Master Plan and would not reduce the 

potential impacts of climate change-driven flooding within the campus. 

Localized climate change effects within the campus are expected to increase 

over time. Under the No-Action Alternative, the existing drought-prone nonnative landscape vegetation would become less resilient as droughts associated 

with climate change become more prolonged and severe. 

4.11 Cultural and Historic Resources 

4.11.1 Architectural Resources 

Affected Environment 

Historic properties include prehistoric or historic districts, sites, buildings, 

structures, or objects that are significant in American history, architecture, 

archeology, engineering, and culture. Historic properties serve as resources, as 

they provide valuable information about the history of human life and cultures. 

To ensure the protection of historic resources, the U.S. Congress passed the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) in 1966 and then amended the 

NHPA in 1976, 1980, and 1992. The NHPA established the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and authorized the creation and maintenance 

of the National Register of Historic Places (“the National Register”). The 

National Register is composed of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and 

objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archeology, 

engineering, and culture. 

Typically, properties considered eligible for inclusion in the National Register 

are at least 50 years old. A property is eligible for inclusion in the National 

Register if it 1) possesses the integrity of location, design, setting, materials, 

workmanship, feeling, and association, and 2) meets at least one of the 

following National Register Criteria for Evaluation (NPS, 2002): 

1.	 It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to 

the broad pattern of U.S. history (Criterion A). 

2.	 It is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past 

(Criterion B). 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-35	 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.	 It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method 

of construction; it represents the work of a master; it possesses high 

artistic values; or it represents a significant and distinguishable entity 

whose components may lack individual distinction (Criterion C). 

4.	 It has yielded or may be likely to yield important information in 

prehistory or history (Criterion D). 

Section 106 of the NHPA, which is implemented under 36 CFR 800, requires 

federal agencies to consider the effects of undertakings (i.e., actions) on any 

historic property, and to afford the ACHP a reasonable opportunity to comment 

on such undertakings. An adverse effect is anything that could alter the historic 

fabric (i.e., characteristics) that makes the property eligible. Examples of 

adverse effects may include changes to the property or alterations to landscape, 

noise levels, visual characteristics, traffic patterns, or land use near the property, 

depending on how these changes specifically impact the property. 

The NHPA also authorized the creation of a State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO) for each state. The SHPO participates in statewide historic preservation 

planning and surveying activities; nominates properties for the National 

Register; provides advice, assistance, training, and public outreach; and 

participates in Section 106 undertaking reviews. In Colorado, the Office of 

Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP, a division of History Colorado) 

serves as the SHPO. 

Additionally, the OAHP administers its own program for properties that are of 

significance to American history and culture. The Colorado State Register of 

Historic Properties (“the Colorado State Register”) includes all properties from 

the National Register that are located in Colorado, plus additional properties that 

are considered significant in Colorado history and culture. Properties listed in 

the Colorado State Register are afforded certain regulatory protections. 

The City of Boulder Historic Preservation program has also identified local 

landmarks and historic districts that have been determined to have a special 

character and historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value to the city. 

There are currently 10 historic districts and 175 individual landmarks, totaling 

over 1,300 designated properties. All exterior changes to a designated property 

require design review and approval through a Landmark Alteration Certificate 

(City of Boulder, 2016f). 

The majority of buildings at the DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus were 

constructed between 1989 and 2013 and thus are less than 50 years old. The 

following features at the campus are more than 50 years old: Building 1, 

Building 2, Building 3, Building 4/5, Building 8, Building 9, Building 11, 

Building 21, Building 22, and Anderson Ditch. Anderson Ditch has been 

determined eligible for listing in the National Register for its representation of 

early irrigation efforts in Boulder County. DoC and the OAHP agree that 

Building 1 is eligible for listing in the National Register under Criterion A and 

possibly for Criterion C. Although Buildings 2, 3, and 4 were previously 

recommended potentially eligible for their association with the Atomic Energy 

Commission, in September 2015 the OAHP concluded that these buildings were 

not eligible. None of the other buildings on the campus that are more than 50 

years old were determined to be eligible for the National Register. In addition, 

none of the buildings on the campus that are less than 50 years old appear to 

satisfy the National Register criterion for exceptional significance (NIST, 2016). 

Additional historic properties are found in the vicinity of the DoC Boulder 

Laboratories campus. The Mount St. Gertrude Academy, Chautauqua 

Auditorium, and Colorado Chautauqua Park are all located northwest of campus 

within a mile of the campus boundary and are listed in both the National 

Register and Colorado State Register. The Nelson House, which is listed on the 

Colorado State Register, and the University Place, 16th Street, and Floral Park 

local historic districts are also within a mile of the campus boundary to the 

northwest. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

Renovation and demolition activities under the Master Plan would affect historic 

Building 1. In accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA, DoC is currently in 

consultations with OAHP to determine if renovations to Building 1 under the 

Master Plan would cause adverse effects. DoC acknowledges that future 

renovations to Building 1 will be governed by NHPA and the Secretary of the 

Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (36 CFR 67). 

No impacts on Anderson Ditch or historic properties outside of the campus are 

anticipated. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not involve direct or indirect impacts on 

potentially historic properties at NIST or in the surrounding area. Therefore, 

there would be no adverse effect to historic resources. 

4.11.2 Archeological Resources 

Affected Environment 

Archeological resources are material remains of past life or activities. Some 

examples include pottery, bottles, weapons, tools, rock carvings, gravesites, and 

other evidence of prior inhabitation. Archeological sites that retain sufficient 

integrity may be eligible for the National Register under Criterion D. 

In 1993, GSA sponsored a cultural resource survey conducted by the National 

Park Service’s Interagency Archeological Services at the 55-acre project site for 

the planned NOAA facilities and associated fiber optic cable corridor in the 

southern portion of the campus. The survey identified the Anderson Ditch as the 

only cultural resource in the project area. Another cultural resources survey in 

1989 identified two prehistoric sites along the planned fiber optic cable corridor 

to the southwest of the current NOAA facilities area; these sites are now a tribal 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-36	 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

protected area. The surveys also identified several boulders and rock piles, but 

concluded that these rock piles were of recent origin and the result of early 

agricultural endeavors and field clearing activities that occurred after the campus 

was dedicated in 1954 (Butler, 1993). 

Extensive development and fill throughout the central core of the campus have 

extensively altered the ground surface and significantly reduced the potential for 

encountering archeological resources during earthwork. The planned sites of the 

Childcare Center and NOAA Research Building are not currently developed but 

are adjacent to previously developed areas and may be composed of fill from 

previous construction activities. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

The Proposed Action would not involve any earth disturbance within tribal 

protected areas, archeologically sensitive areas, or any previously identified 

archeological sites. The Proposed Action would not adversely affect any 

archeological sites listed or eligible for listing on the National Register. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

Under the No-Action Alternative, DoC would not perform any earth 

disturbance. The No-Action Alternative would not adversely affect any 

archeological sites listed or eligible for listing on the National Register. 

4.12 Visual Impacts 

4.12.1 Viewscapes 

Affected Environment 

Viewscapes are affected by physical characteristics including the following: 

• Vegetation, which may conceal or complement views; 

• Building characteristics, such as height and architectural features; and 

• Topography. 

Development projects have the potential to modify viewscapes by changing one 

or more of these physical characteristics. 

The viewscape of the campus is characterized by the stunning backdrop of 

Kohler Mesa and the Flatirons and as such is of great interest to members of 

adjacent communities, and to occupants of vehicles travelling by on Broadway. 

To ensure preservation of the treasured viewscape, DoC and the City of Boulder 

established an MOA in May 1998 to formalize an understanding that no DoC 

buildings may exceed a height of 55 feet above ground level and that new 

construction will not obstruct views of the top one-third of Kohler Mesa 

(formerly known as Long Mesa) for a person standing on Broadway. The top 

one-third of the mesa is defined as the mesa visibility line at an elevation of 

5,704.4 feet above sea level. Under the MOA, buildings shall not intrude on the 

view protection plane from Broadway and 27th Street assuming the eye level at 

5,400 feet above sea level. Figure 4-10 demonstrates the view of the campus, 

Flatirons, and Kohler Mesa from Broadway. 

Figure 4-10. View of the Campus, Flatirons, and Kohler Mesa from Broadway 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-37 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

The MOA described above reduces the potential for visual impacts on adjacent 

residential neighborhoods by ensuring that views of the Flatirons and Kohler 

Mesa will remain largely unobstructed. Construction of new, replaced, or 

renovated buildings and structures under the Master Plan would comply with the 

MOA and therefore minimize the impact of the Master Plan on the viewscape. 

Buildings would not exceed 55 feet and would not obstruct visibility of the top 

one-third of Kohler Mesa when viewed from Broadway and 27th Street. 

Construction equipment may temporarily impact the viewscape from 

surrounding areas. 

The Proposed Action would improve the viewscape on the campus by replacing 

dated buildings with new buildings designed to incorporate the natural aesthetic 

of the surroundings. While the placement and orientation of the research 

buildings may not allow full views of the Flatirons by spectators within, the 

design and locations of shared-use facilities (e.g., conference rooms and 

cafeterias) would strive to facilitate views of the Flatirons as well as 

aesthetically pleasing landscaped green areas. The construction of the campus 

green would allow sweeping views towards the Flatirons from within the 

campus. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not impact viewscapes. The No-Action 

Alternative would also not enhance the viewscape on the campus and its 

surroundings. Older, dated buildings would remain and would not be replaced 

with newer, more aesthetically pleasing architecture. 

4.12.2 Light Pollution 

Affected Environment 

Exterior lighting of parking lots, roads, buildings, and pathways is often used to 

enhance the safety and security of persons and property. Exterior lighting may 

also be used to emphasize features of architectural and historic significance and 

enhance the enjoyment of outdoor areas. 

Excessive and inappropriate exterior lighting, however, can generate light 

pollution. The International Dark Sky Association (IDA) identifies four main 

elements of light pollution (IDA, 2016): 

•	 Urban Sky Glow – the brightening of night sky over inhabited areas, 

reducing the visibility of stars; 

•	 Light Trespass – light falling where it is not intended, wanted, or 

needed, such as light from a streetlight entering a residential window; 

•	 Glare – excessive brightness that can cause visual discomfort and 

decreased visibility; and 

•	 Clutter – bright, confusing, and excessive groupings of light sources. 

Clutter contributes to urban sky glow, light trespass, and glare. 

Furthermore, light pollution associated with over-illumination or inefficient 

fixtures can contribute to excess energy consumption. 

Several standards and guidelines exist for designing effective and appropriate 

exterior lighting systems, as follows: The IDA Outdoor Lighting Code 

Handbook (version 1.14, December 2000/September 2002), The Illuminating 

Engineering Society (IES) Lighting Handbook (tenth edition, 2011), The United 

States Green Building Council (USGBC), and LEED Reference Guide for Green 

Building Design and Construction (2009). 

In 2003, the City of Boulder codified outdoor lighting standards that are 

designed to reduce light pollution, promote energy conservation, and improve 

safety and security (City of Boulder, 2016g). Objectives of the ordinance 

include the following: 

•	 Establishing maximum allowable lighting levels based on zoning and 

use; 

•	 Minimizing light/dark contrast by requiring uniform lighting; and 

•	 Requiring all light in excess of 2,400 lumens to be “white light;" and 

•	 Requiring full cut-off light fixtures and shielding to reduce glare, light 

pollution, and light trespass. 

All new multi-unit dwellings and non-residential projects must comply with the 

ordinance. Property owners with existing outdoor lighting must comply with the 

ordinance by 2018. 

There are overhead streetlights installed on the campus along streets, pathways 

and parking lots for safety and security purposes. This lighting is directed 

downward and complies with the City of Boulder outdoor lighting ordinance. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

The Master Plan is not expected to generate any substantial changes in light 

trespass outside the campus boundary from new exterior lighting. The Proposed 

Action would incorporate a sustainable design approach. Redesigned lighting 

features would be energy efficient and would minimize impacts on light 

pollution. 

The Proposed Action could result in minor temporary impacts on light trespass 

due to use of supplemental lighting (e.g., temporary portable lighting) during 

construction activities. DoC would conduct construction activities during 

daylight hours, primarily to limit noise during off hours. Temporary construction 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-38	 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lighting may be used to illuminate work areas in the nighttime to ensure safety 

and security at unoccupied work sites. If applicable, DoC would mitigate this 

temporary lighting by ensuring construction contractors direct lighting away 

from the campus boundary whenever feasible. 

The construction, renovation, or replacement of new facilities and parking areas 

under the Master Plan would require the installation of additional lighting 

systems for these areas to ensure that the safety and security of the campus is 

maintained. To minimize light pollution impacts, DoC would ensure that all new 

exterior lighting systems installed under the Master Plan are directed and sized 

appropriately, with full cut-off luminaires for streetlights; are designed in 

accordance with current IES and IDA guidance and the Boulder County Outdoor 

Lighting Ordinance; and generate light with a color temperature that is 

appropriate for reducing nighttime light pollution. Some of the new facilities 

under the Master Plan, such as the NOAA expansion at Building 34 and the new 

Childcare Center, would be visible from private residences on Dartmouth 

Avenue along the southern boundary of the campus. When designing these 

facilities, DoC would evaluate whether additional design and landscaping 

measures would be necessary to mitigate light trespass into adjacent residential 

properties. The Master Plan also incorporates strategic tree plantings in areas 

such as the protected area south of Building 33 to intercept light trespass outside 

the campus boundary. 

Reflected sunlight from solar panels installed under the Master Plan would have 

the potential to cause glare, creating a potential nuisance in the vicinity of the 

campus if the panels are not sited and designed appropriately. When designing 

specific solar panels under the Master Plan, DoC would ensure that the designs 

incorporate glare reduction measures (e.g., anti-reflective coatings and textured 

glass) and that the panels are sited in a manner to avoid creating excessive glare 

within or outside of the campus. 

Some new buildings constructed under the Master Plan may feature skylights 

and windows, thus increasing the potential for light trespass from interior 

lighting. This potential for light trespass would be mitigated through the 

continued use of automatic lighting controls for appropriate spaces. Similar to 

existing operations, interior lighting would be reduced after hours, and would 

turn off when spaces are not being used (DoC, 2017). 

The new lighting would have a minor impact on on-campus users. The lighting 

characteristics mentioned above would mitigate the potential impacts. 

Environmental Consequences – No Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not impact lighting at the campus. The NoAction Alternative would also not incorporate any elements of a sustainable 

design approach and would therefore not have potential to reduce existing light 

pollution from the campus. There would be no improvements to existing interior 

or exterior campus lighting. 

4.13 Noise Levels 

Affected Environment 

High noise levels that occur over a long duration can impact the health of 

exposed populations and be a nuisance to the surrounding community. The Aweighted decibel scale (dBA) is a logarithmic scale generally used to measure 

noise levels because it can account for the sensitivity of the human ear across the 

frequency spectrum. Table 4-4 compares decibel noise levels, common noise 

sources, and the relative perception of these noise levels. 

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulates 

workplace noise with standards for two different types of noise: constant and 

impulse. The OSHA limit for constant noise is 90 dBA for eight hours; however, 

the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommends a 

constant noise limit of 85 dBA for eight hours to minimize occupational noise 

induced hearing loss. The OSHA maximum sound level for impulse noise is 140 

dBA. In areas where workplace noise exceeds these sound levels, employers 

must provide workers with personal protective equipment to reduce noise 

exposure. 

State and local government agencies regulate noise within the community. Noise 

standards set by the state under the Colorado Noise Statute 25-12-103 limit the 

sound levels at 25 feet or further from the property line for residential, 

commercial, and industrial zones as summarized in Table 4-5. The DoC Boulder 

Laboratories Campus is primarily surrounded by residential areas with a small 

commercial area to the northwest. 

Between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm, the noise levels permitted in Table 4-5 may be 

increased by 10 dBA for up to 15 minutes per any one-hour period. Construction 

projects are subject to the maximum permissible noise levels specified for 

industrial zones pursuant to any applicable construction permit, or if no time 

limitation is imposed, then for a reasonable period of time for completion of the 

project. Boulder County also issued a noise ordinance (Ordinance No. 92-28) 

that reiterates the maximum permissible noise levels established by the State. 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-39 Final Environmental Assessment 
Table 4-4. Perception of Noise 

 

Noise Level Subjective Common Noise Source (dBA) Evaluation 

70 Outdoors in a commercial area. Loud 

60 Average of normal speech three feet away. Moderate 

50 Open office background noise. 

40 Quiet suburban environment at night. Faint 

30 Quiet rural environment at night. 

20 Concert hall background noise. Very Faint 

10 Human breathing. 

0 Threshold of hearing or audibility. Inaudible 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source: NIH, 2009. 

Table 4-5. Colorado State Maximum Permissible Noise Levels 

Levels for Receiving 

Noise Areas 

Daytime 

(7:00 a.m. – 7:00 p.m.) 

Nighttime 

(7:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m.) 

Residential 55 dBA 50 dBA 

Commercial 60 dBA 55 dBA 

Light Industrial 70 dBA 65 dBA 

Industrial 80 dBA 75 dBA 

Ambient noise levels at the campus are affected by noise generated both onsite 

and offsite. Minor noise associated with vehicular traffic on nearby roads, such 

as Broadway, is the primary source of noise in the area immediately surrounding 

the campus. The main sources of noise generated onsite and in proximity to the 

Proposed Action include the following (in decreasing order of noise level): 

•	 CUP operations (i.e., generators, boilers, cooling towers, and chillers); 

•	 HVAC equipment and emergency generators at individual buildings; 

•	 Grounds maintenance activities (i.e., lawn mowers and leaf blowers); 

and 

•	 Cars and other vehicles. 

DoC received noise complaints from off-campus neighbors in the past and 

conducted an investigation to identify the source of the noise. Noise sampling 

was performed, but noise readings did not exceed Boulder County or Colorado 

State noise limits. However, as noise complaints are identified, DoC works to 

actively address the concerns. 

Environmental Consequences – Proposed Action 

Under the Master Plan, the overall change to operational noise levels is expected 

to be negligible. The upgrade and expansion of facilities would introduce new 

minor noise sources on campus, including new laboratory activities, air-handling 

units, exhaust fans, and emergency generators. Increased steam and chilled 

water output at the CUP is not expected to generate a noticeable increase in 

noise inside or outside the facility. Workers within the CUP would continue to 

wear appropriate hearing protection in areas with noise-producing equipment. 

While the NOAA expansion at Building 34 would result in development closer 

to the campus boundary, the activities in this building would be largely 

administrative in nature with minimal potential for operational noise impacts. As 

the Building 34 expansion project enters the design phase and additional details 

become available regarding potential noise-generating activities, DoC would 

evaluate whether additional design and landscaping measures would be 

necessary to mitigate noise trespass into adjacent residential properties. 

Construction activities associated with the Master Plan would temporarily 

increase environmental noise levels in the vicinity of the project sites, primarily 

due to the use of heavy equipment. Equipment that may be used includes 

backhoes, bulldozers, and excavators. Construction equipment noise emission 

levels generally range between 74 to 101 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the 

source, depending on the type of equipment (FHWA, 2014). The construction 

noise would be temporary and would dissipate as the distance from the source 

increases. Thus, it is expected that residents in surrounding neighborhoods and 

visitors to the adjoining cemetery would not experience noise louder than the 

applicable noise limit. To further limit impacts on nearby residences, DoC 

would limit construction activities to normal daytime working hours (beginning 

no earlier than 7:00 a.m.). 

Construction personnel would take the necessary precautions (e.g., hearing 

protection) to ensure that they would not be exposed to noise louder than the 

OSHA standard of 90 dBA for 8 hours. 

Under the Master Plan, the ambient noise levels at DoC Boulder Laboratories 

Campus would remain within Colorado and Boulder County noise thresholds. 

Furthermore, any minor change in noise levels is not expected to affect the 

character of the site. 

Environmental Consequences – No-Action Alternative 

The No-Action Alternative would not affect ambient or interior noise levels 

associated with routine activities. The No-Action Alternative would not generate 

any temporary noise associated with construction activities. 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 4-40	 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

5
 Cumulative Effects
 

The Master Plan, in combination with the other past, present, or 

reasonably foreseeable actions at or near the campus, could 

contribute to cumulative improvements and impacts on certain 

environmental resources. Cumulative effects can result from 

individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place 

over a period of time. 

5.1 Evaluated Actions 

The following list identifies the other past, present, or reasonably 

foreseeable actions at or near the campus that were considered and 

evaluated in this cumulative improvements and impacts analysis. 

Each of these actions will precede implementation of any Master 

Plan elements. 

•	 Building 3 Renovation – Building 3 (Liquefier Building) 

is a one-story, concrete masonry structure of 

approximately 24,000 GSF that was constructed in 1952 

to provide laboratory and support space. The building will 

be expanded to become the headquarters of the CTL. The 

expanded building will include three stories of offices and 

computer labs in approximately 25,000 usable square feet, 

corresponding to 41,000-43,000 GSF. The renovation will 

remain primarily on the existing building footprint; 

however, slight deviation will be needed for an 

entrance/lobby, infrastructure, or a small addition. The 

deviation from the footprint should not exceed 1,000 SF. 

The current height of the building is 46.5 feet, which may 

be increased to no higher than 55 feet under the 

renovation. The renovated building is planned to meet 

LEED Silver certification or higher. Renovation is 

underway and expected to be completed in late 2017. The 

Master Plan, under a later separate effort, would construct 

an addition to Building 3 to support antenna laboratories 

(DoC, 2017). 

•	 Building 131 Relocation – Building 131 (Office Building) 

is a modular 1,440-SF structure situated on a concrete 

slab-on-grade adjacent to Building 3. The building 

contains six enclosed office spaces, meeting rooms, and 

restrooms. Heating and cooling are provided by exterior 

wall-mounted package units. During the Building 3 

renovations described above, Building 131 will be 

relocated to the grassy area in front of the CUP to provide 

temporary office space. The Master Plan, under a later 

separate effort, would demolish Building 131 (DoC, 

2017). 

•	 Building 1, Wing 3 and 6 Renovation – Building 1 (Radio 

Building), completed in 1954, is a concrete and stone 

panel building with six wings linked by a multi-story 

spine. Renovation of Wings 3 and 6 was recently 

completed with occupancy in 2017. Improvements 

included interior renovation, utility system replacement, 

exterior recladding and window replacement, and the 

addition of utility galley space with seismic 

reinforcements. The Master Plan, under a later separate 

effort, would renovate other wings of Building 1 (DoC, 

2017). 

•	 Temporary Central Computing Center Construction – The 

Central Computing Facility (CCF) is currently located in 

Wing 5 of Building 1. This function will be relocated into 

a temporary modular building in the grass in front of the 

CUP in 2016 to allow for future renovation of Wing 5 

under the Master Plan. The relocated CCF will be called 

the Boulder Computing Center (BCC) (DoC, 2017). 

Figure 5-1 illustrates the locations of each of these evaluated 

actions. 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 5-1	 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Figure 5-1. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Evaluated in Cumulative Effects Analysis 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 5-2 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.2	 Potential Actions Considered but Excluded from 

Analysis 

The following list identifies potential actions at or near the campus that were 

considered but not evaluated in this cumulative effects analysis because there is 

not enough certainty at this time regarding the scope and whether the projects 

could actually occur to conduct a meaningful analysis. 

•	 Security Improvements – DoC is currently conducting a security study 

of the campus. A NEPA analysis will be undertaken as part of this 

study, separate from this Master Plan and EA. 

•	 Baseline Zero Project – The Baseline Zero project called for 

redeveloping a 3.1-acre parcel near the intersection of Baseline Road 

and 27th Way (currently occupied by a gas station and liquor store) 

with a four-story office building and a 100-room hotel. This site is 

approximately a quarter mile from the campus. Due to public 

opposition and the potential for the city to pass a height moratorium 

ordinance, the developers have abandoned their plan to move forward 

on the Baseline Zero project (Biz West, 2015). 

•	 Medical Center Property – 385 Broadway is a medical office building 

adjacent to the campus. In October 2016, the City of Boulder Planning 

Board and the City Council approved a land use designation change for 

this property from Transitional Business to Low Density Residential. 

Currently, however, there are no known plans to redevelop this 

property (City of Boulder, 2016h). 

5.3	 Cumulative Improvements and Impacts 

Analysis 

Several resource areas could experience continuing environmental effects 

following completion of the actions described in Section 5.1 (Evaluated 

Actions). This analysis considers whether the Master Plan, when viewed in 

combination with the potential impacts or improvements under these other 

evaluated actions, could contribute to cumulative effects that result in the 

degradation or enhancement of important resources. 

Sustainable Development 

The other evaluated actions are consistent with the Master Plan goal of 

improving campus sustainability. As discussed in Section 4.6 (Sustainable 

Development), the Master Plan would replace existing inefficient and 

inadequate facilities with more efficient and comfortable facilities; upgrade 

equipment; and utilize sustainable systems, such as efficient HVAC systems, 

exhaust energy recovery, and decoupled ventilation/cooling systems (DoC, 

2017). Temporary relocation of the CCF and Building 131 would allow for 

sustainability-enhancing renovations to Buildings 1 and 3, respectively. Building 

1 and 3 renovations would modernize the facilities and provide improved 

services and environmental stability to the laboratories. 

Construction activities at the campus under other evaluated actions and the 

Master Plan would generate waste. DoC would, however, recycle construction 

and demolition debris to the extent practicable and ensure that other nonrecyclable materials are properly disposed to offset these impacts. Construction 

would also require the commitment of a wide range of raw materials. The 

fabrication and manufacture of construction materials requires large quantities 

of energy and natural resources. In general, construction materials are readily 

available, and the construction of new facilities and renovation of existing 

facilities would not have an adverse effect on continued availability of these 

resources. Operation of the proposed facilities and transportation of additional 

employees to the campus under the Master Plan would also require the 

commitment of fossil fuels for generators and other fuel-burning equipment. 

Overall, the long-term improvements in sustainability of the campus associated 

with implementation of the other evaluated actions combined with those of the 

Master Plan are expected to greatly outweigh commitments of readily available 

resources. 

Economic Resources 

The other evaluated actions are consistent with the Master Plan goal of 

improving productivity and available resources at the DoC Boulder Laboratories 

Campus, potentially leading to minor economic benefits as discussed in Section 

4.1.2 (Social and Economic Resources). Incidental procurement by construction 

workers temporarily visiting Boulder in association with implementation of the 

Master Plan and other evaluated actions would combine to add to the local 

economy. 

Vegetation 

Renovation of Building 3 (depending on the footprint modification) and 

construction of the temporary BCC would result in the removal of some grassy 

vegetation, and the vegetation impacts described in Section 4.2.1 (Vegetation) 

for the Master Plan would contribute to these impacts. DoC would, however, 

offset this reduction in grassy vegetation by the eventual removal of the 

temporary BCC and by planting native vegetation under the Master Plan, 

resulting in an overall minor cumulative impact on vegetation. 

Stormwater Management 

Renovation of Building 3 (depending on the footprint modification) and 

construction of the temporary BCC would slightly increase impervious area 

within the campus and thus impact stormwater runoff. While the impervious 

surface changes discussed in Section 4.5.3 (Stormwater Management) for the 

Master Plan would contribute to these impacts, most of the Master Plan phases 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 5-3	 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

would result in a net decrease in impervious surfaces on the campus and provide Solid and Hazardous Waste 

benefits for stormwater management. Benefits include impeding stormwater 

flow, reducing soil erosion during rain events, improving runoff water quality, 

and increasing groundwater recharge. DoC would install post-construction 

BMPs including LID, green infrastructure, and other stormwater control 

measures under the Master Plan, which would help to mitigate any cumulative 

impacts associated with increased impervious surfaces. Also, any increase in 

impervious surfaces would be offset by the eventual removal of the temporary 

BCC. 

Surface Water and Wildlife 

Stormwater runoff from the BCC and Building 131 could transfer sediment and 

contaminants to Anderson Ditch. Though these structures would be temporary, 

sediment and contaminants may persist in the water body thus creating potential 

for long-term impacts on water quality and aquatic habitat that could combine 

with impacts discussed in Section 4.4.1 (Surface Water) associated with Master 

Plan development. DoC would, however, minimize these impacts on surface 

waters and wildlife by implementing ESC measures to prevent sediment 

transport from construction and renovation sites. Implementation of the Master 

Plan has the potential to further improve surface water quality and aquatic 

habitat through post-construction BMPs and stormwater management 

techniques. 

Potable Water Supply and Wastewater 

Construction of the Building 3 expansion and the temporary BCC would result 

in an increase in the total climate-controlled square-footage on the campus, 

which would marginally increase steam and cooling loads, the associated use of 

potable water, and the associated generation of condensate wastewater. The 

increases in potable water demand and wastewater generation described in 

Section 4.5.1 (Potable Water Supply) and Section 4.5.2 (Wastewater), 

respectively, for the Master Plan would combine with these impacts. DoC 

would, however, minimize this increase in potable water demand and 

wastewater generation by installing water-efficient fixtures in new and 

renovated buildings and implementing other water conservation and efficiency 

measures. 

Electricity Demand 

Implementation of the other evaluated actions in combination with the Master 

Plan would increase electricity usage due to operation of lighting systems, 

laboratory equipment, and HVAC systems associated with the new and 

renovated buildings. DoC would, however, minimize this increase in electricity 

demand by implementing energy-efficient elements described in Section 4.5.4.1 

(Electricity). 

Construction of the other evaluated actions along with the Master Plan 

would generate solid and hazardous waste, resulting in a cumulative impact on 

landfills. DoC would, however, minimize this increase in solid and hazardous 

waste disposal by recycling construction and demolition debris to the extent 

practicable and ensuring that other non-recyclable materials are properly 

disposed. 

Architectural Resources 

Renovation activities under the other evaluated actions and the Master Plan 

would affect historic Building 1. DoC is in consultation with OAHP to develop 

an MOA that addresses the phased renovations of Building 1. DoC would ensure 

that all renovations to Building 1 comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s 

Standards for Rehabilitation (36 CFR 67), thereby minimizing potential for 

cumulative impacts on architectural resources. 

Viewscapes 

Renovation of Building 3 could involve increasing the height of the building 

from 46.5 feet to no higher than 55 feet. As discussed in Section 4.12.1 

(Viewscapes), an MOA between the City of Boulder and DoC requires that 

buildings not exceed a height of 55 feet above ground level and that new 

construction not obstruct views of the top one-third of Kohler Mesa for a person 

standing on Broadway. The Building 3 renovation and construction of new, 

replaced, or renovated buildings and structures under the Master Plan would 

comply with the MOA and thereby ensure that views of the Flatirons and Kohler 

Mesa from adjacent residential neighborhoods would remain largely 

unobstructed. 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 5-4 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6

6
 Literature Cited
 

1.	 Biz West. 2015. Developers Abandon Plan for Baseline 

Zero Project in Boulder. http://bizwest.com/developersabandon-plan-for-baseline-zero-project-in-boulder/. 

Accessed 26 July 2016. 

2.	 Boulder County. 2016. Impacts of Climate Change in 

Colorado. 

http://www.bouldercounty.org/env/sustainability/pages/en 

ergyclimate.aspx. Accessed 27 September 2016. 

3.	 Boulder County. 2017a. Boulder County Forest Health 

Initiative: Promoting Forest Sustainability through 

Education and Public Outreach. 

http://csfs.colostate.edu/forest-management/commonforest-insects-diseases/mountain-pine-beetle/. Accessed 

14 March 2017. 

4.	 Boulder County. 2017b. Bark Beetle Inspector 

Identification & Treatment Field Guide. 

http://www.bouldercounty.org/doc/forest/barkbeetlefieldg 

uide.pdf. Accessed 16 March 2017. 

5.	 Boulder County Public Health (BCPH). 2016. Fugitive 

Dust Best Management Practices. 

http://www.bouldercounty.org/doc/publichealth 

/dustbestmgmtpract.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2016. 

6.	 Boulder Economic Council (BEC). 2015. Market Profile. 

November 2015. http://bouldereconomiccouncil.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015-Boulder-Market-Profile.pdf. 

Accessed 15 July 2016. 

7.	 BEC. 2016. Research Economy. 

http://bouldereconomiccouncil.org/bouldereconomy/research-economy/#fed-labs. Accessed 11 June 

2016. 

8.	 Butler, W.B. 1993. Cultural Resource Inspection of the 

Proposed Building Site for the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration Boulder, Colorado. 

9.	 Cabot, Olson, Waskom, and Rein. April 2016. Rainwater 

Collection in Colorado, Colorado State University 

Extension. 

http://extension.colostate.edu/docs/pubs/natres/06707.pdf. 

Accessed 13 July 2016. 

10.	 Carpenter, A. and C. Browne. 2004. Function Evaluation 

Summaries for Individual Wetlands: City of Boulder, 

Colorado. https://wwwstatic.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/evaluation-summariesfor-individual-wetlands-1-201307011122.pdf. Accessed 

15 July 2016. 

11.	 City of Boulder. 2010. The Boulder Valley 

Comprehensive Plan. https://wwwstatic.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/boulder-valleycomprehensive-plan-2010-1-201410091122.pdf. 

Accessed 15 July 2016. 

12.	 City of Boulder. 2013. Boulder Creek Floodplain 

Mapping Study. https://wwwstatic.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/COBLDR02_Boulder_Cr 

eek_Floodplain_Mapping_Study_Report_2013-09-23-1-

201401081037.pdf. Accessed 28 September 2016. 

13.	 City of Boulder. 2015a. 2015 Boulder Community 

Profile. https://wwwstatic.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/2015-community-profileupdate-1-201511190845.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2016. 

14.	 City of Boulder. 2015b. Draft Boulder's Climate 

Commitment: Rising to the Climate Challenge, Powering 

a Vibrant Future. https://wwwstatic.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/11-24-

15_Climate_Commitment_PRINT_READY-1-

201605231619.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2016. 

15.	 City of Boulder. 2016a. Open Space and Mountain Parks 

(OSPM). https://bouldercolorado.gov/osmp. Accessed 11 

June 2016. 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 6-1	 Final Environmental Assessment 
16.	 City of Boulder. 2016b. Map of Open Space Trails. https://wwwstatic.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/NIST_ProtectedAreaSitePlan-1-

201507020909.pdf. Accessed 27 September 2016. 

17.	 City of Boulder. 2016c. Prairie Dogs. 

https://user.govoutreach.com/boulder/faq.php?cid=23415. Accessed 9 

August 2016. 

18.	 City of Boulder. 2016d. 2016 City of Boulder Water Quality Report. 

https://www-static.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/water-report.pdf. Accessed 

28 September 2016. 

19.	 City of Boulder. 2016e. Floodplain Development. 

https://bouldercolorado.gov/flood/floodplain-development. Accessed 25 

June 2016. 

20.	 City of Boulder. 2016f. City of Boulder Landmarks and Historic Districts. 

https://bouldercolorado.gov/historic-preservation/landmarked-buildingsand-historic-districts. Accessed 15 June 2016. 

21.	 City of Boulder. 2016g. Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. 

https://bouldercolorado.gov/plan-develop/outdoor-lighting-ordinance. 

Accessed 1 June 2016. 

22.	 City of Boulder. 2016h. BVCP Update: Requests for Land Use, Policy 

and Text Changes. https://bouldercolorado.gov/bvcp/bvcp-changes. 

Accessed 16 August 2016. 

23.	 City of Boulder. 2016i. Comments on the Draft DoC Boulder 

Laboratories Campus Master Plan and Environmental Assessment. 5 

December 2016. 

24.	 City of Boulder. 2017. Skunk Creek, Bluebell Canyon Creek, and King’s 

Gulch Floodplain Mapping Update. 

https://bouldercolorado.gov/flood/skunk-creek-floodplain-mappingupdate. Accessed 21 January 2017. 

25.	 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). 2015. 

Reporting Your Air Emissions and Applying for Air Permits. Revised 

May 2015. https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/AP_AirPermits-Step-By-Step.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2016. 

26.	 Colorado Natural Heritage Program. 2013. Wetlands Regulations. 

http://www.cnhp.colostate.edu/cwic/regulations.asp. Accessed 15 July 

2016. 

27.	 Colorado Natural Heritage Program. 2014. Colorado Rare Plant Guide. 

www.cnhp.colostate.edu. Accessed 15 July 2016. 

28.	 Colorado State University. 2017. Mountain Pine Beetle. 

http://csfs.colostate.edu/forest-management/common-forest-insectsdiseases/mountain-pine-beetle/. Accessed 14 March 2017. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

29.	 Colorado WaterWise and Aquacraft, Inc (CWWA). 2010. Guidebook of 

Best Practices for Municipal Water Conservation in Colorado. 

http://coloradowaterwise.org/Resources/Documents/BP%20Project/CWW 

%20Best%20Practices%20Guide%20-%20FINAL.pdf. Accessed 9 

August 2016. 

30.	 Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2016. Final Guidance for 

Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in National Environmental 

Policy Act Reviews. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/documents/nepa_f 

inal_ghg_guidance.pdf. Accessed 27 September 2016. 

31.	 Department of Commerce (DoC). 2013. Implementation Handbook for 

the Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan. 

http://www.osec.doc.gov/ofeq/Documents/OSEEP/Docs%20&%20Newslt 

rs/Documents/DOC_SSPP_Implementation_Handbook_August_2013.pdf 

. Accessed 15 July 2016. 

32.	 DoC. 2016. 2016 Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan. 

http://www.osec.doc.gov/ofeq/Documents/OSEEP/Docs%20&%20Newslt 

rs/Documents/DOC%202016%20SSPP%20(FINAL%20Posted%209.08.1 

6).pdf. Accessed 25 September 2016. 

33.	 DoC. 2017. Department of Commerce Boulder Laboratories Campus 

Master Plan. July 2017. 

34.	 Emerald Ash Borer Information Network. 2016. 

https://bouldercolorado.gov/parks-rec/emerald-ash-borer. Accessed 10 

July 2016. 

35.	 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2014. Highway Traffic Noise. 

Construction Noise Handbook. 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handboo 

k/handbook09.cfm. Accessed 14 July 2016. 

36.	 General Services Administration (GSA). 1996. Environmental Impact 

Statement GSA/NIST Proposed Actions: Boulder, Colorado. 

37.	 International Dark-Sky Association (IDA). 2016. IDA Practical Guide: 

Introduction to Light Pollution – What’s the Problem? 

http://www.globeatnight.org/dsr/dsee/IDA%20Resources/IDA%20Practic 

al%20Guides/IDA%20PG1%20-

%20Introduction%20to%20Light%20Pollution.pdf. Accessed 11 July 

2016. 

38.	 Murphy, S.F. 2006. State of the Watershed: Water Quality of Boulder 

Creek, Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey. 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1284/pdf/circ1284.pdf. Accessed 15 July 

2016. 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 6-2	 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

39.	 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2016. Climate 

change: How do we know? http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/. Accessed 27 

September 2016. 

40.	 National Institutes of Health (NIH). 2009. Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Master Plan. Rocky Mountain Laboratories Campus – 

Hamilton, Montana. March 2009. 

41.	 National Park Service (NPS). 2002. National Register Bulletin: How to 

Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. 

https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_2.htm. 

Accessed 1 July 2016. 

42.	 National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2015. Soil Survey 

Boulder County Area, Colorado. 

http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. 

Accessed 11 July 2016. 

43.	 Nelson Engineering Co. 2013. Facility Assessment, Sustainability Study. 

44.	 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). 2009. Standard 

Operating Procedures for Waste Collection and Consolidation. AET 

Environmental, INC. 4 November 2009. 

45.	 NIST. 2015. Wastewater Classification Survey. 

46.	 NIST. 2016. Historic Assessment Department of Commerce Boulder 

Laboratories for National Institute of Standards and Technology Boulder, 

Colorado. 

47.	 Partners for a Clean Environment (PACE). 2015. PACEPartners.com. 

Accessed 15 July 2016. 

48.	 Regional Transportation District (RTD). 2016a. FasTracks. 

http://www.rtd-fastracks.com/main_26. Accessed 13 July 2016. 

49.	 RTD. 2016b. EcoPass. http://www.rtd-denver.com/EcoPass.shtml. 

Accessed 13 July 2016. 

50.	 RTD. 2017. FasTracks. http://www.rtd-denver.com/Fastracks.shtml. 

Accessed 21 January 2017. 

51.	 Swanson, Heather. 2016. Personal communication (email) with Heather 

Swanson, Senior Wildlife Ecologist, Open Space and Mountain Parks, 

City of Boulder. 20 September 2016. 

52.	 The White House, 2014. Presidential Memorandum—Creating a Federal 

Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators. 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/06/20/presidentialmemorandum-creating-federal-strategy-promote-health-honey-b. 

Accessed 27 July 2016. 

53.	 University of Colorado Boulder (CU Boulder). 2003. Technology 

Community, Issue No. 46, May/June 2003. http://www.colorado.edu/ 

cubac/MayJuneNewsletter.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2016. 

54.	 U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. 2010 Census Interactive Population Search. 

http://www.census.gov/2010census/popmap/. Accessed 4 June 2016. 

55.	 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1975. Soil Survey of Boulder 

County Area, Colorado. 

56.	 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2004. Office of 

Research and Development. The Use of Best Management Practices in 

Urban Watersheds. 

http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=2000D1LM.txt. Accessed 

11 July 2016. 

57.	 USEPA. 2009. Technical Guidance on Implementing the Stormwater 

Runoff Requirements for Federal Projects under Section 438 of the 

Energy Independence and Security Act. 

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-

08/documents/epa_swm_guidance.pdf. Accessed 28 August 2016. 

58.	 USEPA. 2016a. NEPAssist. https://www.epa.gov/nepa/nepassist. 

Accessed 16 July 2016. 

59.	 USEPA. 2016b. Criteria Air Pollutants. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-airpollutants. Accessed 6 July 2016. 

60.	 USEPA. 2016c. NAAQS Table. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-airpollutants/naaqs-table. Accessed 6 July 2016. 

61.	 USEPA. 2016d. Green Book Nonattainment Areas. Colorado 

Nonattainment/Maintenance Status for Each County by Year for All 

Criteria Pollutants. 

https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_co.html. Accessed 6 

July 2016. Accessed 15 July 2016. 

62.	 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015. Migratory Bird Program: 

Birds of Conservation Concern. https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-andregulations/regulations.php. Accessed 27 July 2016. 

63.	 USFWS. 2016a. Official Species List. Provided 10 June 2016. 

64.	 USFWS. 2016b. National Wetlands Inventory-V2: Surface waters and 

wetlands. https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Wetlands-V2-ProductSummary.html. Accessed 15 July 2016. 

65.	 U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2016. National 

Climate Assessment: Southwest. 

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/regions/southwest. Accessed 27 

September 2016. 

66.	 Xcel Energy. 2016. 2015 Owned and Purchased Energy. 

https://www.xcelenergy.com/energy_portfolio/electricity/power_generatio 

n_fuel_mix_-_psco. Accessed 27 September 2016. 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 6-3	 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7

7
 List of Preparers
 

Name: Patrick Goodwin Name: Kettie Holland Rupnik 

Position: Project Manager Position: Environmental Scientist 

Firm: Eastern Research Group, Inc. Firm: PG Environmental 

Items: Overall EA coordination, analysis, review, and Items: Biological resources; topography, geology, and 

documentation soils; water resources; stormwater management; 

Experience: B.A. Environmental Science; 16 years of sustainable development; solid and hazardous 

experience in environmental and cultural waste 

resource studies and documentation Experience: B.S. Integrated Science and Technology; 6 years 

of experience in environmental compliance and 

Name: April Eilers enforcement tasks, focus on stormwater and 

Position: Environmental Scientist wastewater management 

Firm: Eastern Research Group, Inc. 

Items: Overall EA coordination, analysis, review, and Name: Leah Koch 

documentation Position: Environmental Analyst 

Experience: M.S. Biological Sciences/B.S. Biological Firm: Independent Consultant 

Sciences; 9 years of experience in environmental Items: Land use and socioeconomics, public 

impact analysis and natural resources transportation, climate change, visual impacts, 

management cumulative effects 

Experience: M.E.M. Environmental Management/B.A. 

Name: JJ Johnson Environmental Studies; 8 years of experience in 

Position: Environmental Engineer natural resource assessments, environmental 

Firm: Eastern Research Group, Inc. impact analysis, and environmental compliance 

Items: Utilities and infrastructure, wastewater, vehicle 

circulation and parking, air quality, cultural and Name: Jared McGrath 

historic resources, noise levels Position: GIS Analyst 

Experience: M.E.M. Engineering Management/B.E. Firm: Eastern Research Group, Inc. 

Environmental Engineering; 8 years of Items: GIS analysis, map development 

experience in environmental engineering, Experience: M.S. Environmental Engineering/B.S. Civil 

environmental impact analysis, planning, and air Engineering; 2 years of experience in GIS and 

emissions analysis environmental analysis 

Name: Allison DenBleyker Name: Sumayal Shrestha 

Position: Environmental Engineer Position: Graphics Design and Production Manager 

Firm: Eastern Research Group, Inc. Firm: Eastern Research Group, Inc. 

Items: Air quality, climate change Items: Graphic design, production 

Experience: M.S. Environmental and Water Resources Experience: M.A. in Environmental Science and Policy, B.A. 

Engineering/B.S. Civil Engineering; 9 years of in Fine Arts and Economics; 6 years of 

experience in emissions modeling and air quality experience in visual communication and 

planning support functional design 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 7-1 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

8

8 List of Agencies and Persons 

Consulted 

Agency: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Ecological 

Services Field Office 

Reason: Potential presence of rare, threatened, or endangered 

species on the campus. 

Agency: History Colorado, Office of Archaeology and Historic 

Preservation 

Reason: Potential impacts on historic resources. 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 8-1 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9

9
 Distribution List
 

Tribes 

Norma Gourneau, Superintendent
 

Wind River Agency, BIA (Medicine Wheel Coalition)
 

PO Box 158
 

Fort Washakie, Wyoming 82514
 

Amber Toppah, Chairperson
 

Kiowa Indian Tribe of Oklahoma
 

100 Kiowa Way, P.O. Box 369
 

Carnegie, Oklahoma 73015
 

Clement J. Frost, Chairman
 

Southern Ute Indian Tribe of the Southern Ute Reservation,
 

Colorado
 

356 Ouray Drive, P.O. Box 737
 

Ignacio, Colorado 81137
 

Darwin St. Clair Jr., Chairman
 

Eastern Shoshone Tribe
 

P.O. Box 538
 

Fort Washakie, Wyoming 82514
 

Eddie Hamilton, Governor 

Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, Oklahoma 

P.O. Box 38, 100 Red Moon Circle
 

Concho, Oklahoma 73022
 

John Yellow Bird Steele, President
 

Oglala Sioux Tribe 

P.O. Box 2070
 

Pine Ridge, South Dakota 57770
 

Llevando Fisher, President
 

Northern Cheyenne Agency, BIA
 

Hwy 39 N. Cheyenne Ave, PO Box 128
 

Lame Deer, Montana 59043
 

Lyman Guy, Chairman
 

Apache Tribe of Oklahoma
 

511 E. Colorado, PO Box 1330
 

Anadarko, Oklahoma 73005
 

Manuel Heart, Chairman
 

Ute Mountain Ute Tribe of the Ute Mountain Reservation
 

P.O. Box 248
 

Towaoc, Colorado 81334
 

Misty Nuttle, President
 

Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma
 

881 Little Dee Dr, P.O. Box 470
 

Pawnee, Oklahoma 74058
 

Shaun Chappoose, Chairman
 

Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah
 

(Formally NO. UTE TRIBE)
 

P.O. Box 190
 

Ft. Duchesne, Utah 84026
 

Verinda Reval, Superintendent
 

Jicarilla Agency, BIA
 

120 Seneca Street, P.O. Box 167
 

Dulce, New Mexico 87528
 

Wallace Coffey, Chairman
 

Comanche Nation, Oklahoma 

584 NW Bingo Road, PO Box 908
 

Lawton, Oklahoma 73502
 

William Kindle, President
 

Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation
 

P.O. Box 430
 

Rosebud, South Dakota 57570
 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 9-1 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City of Boulder 

Carl Castillo, Policy Advisor 

City of Boulder Planning Department 

1777 Broadway 

Boulder, Colorado 80302 

Lesli Ellis, Comprehensive Planning Manager 

City of Boulder Planning Department 

1777 Broadway 

Boulder, Colorado 80302 

Holly Opansky, Board Secretary 

Boulder Landmarks Board 

1777 Broadway – City Council Chambers 

Boulder, Colorado 80302 

Boulder County 

Land Use Planning Division 

PO Box 471 

Boulder, Colorado 80306 

Historic Preservation 

Steve Turner, AIA 

State Historic Preservation Officer 

History Colorado 

1200 Broadway 

Denver, Colorado 80203 

Gail Gray, President 

Historic Boulder 

1123 Spruce Street 

Boulder, Colorado 80302 

Regional Transportation District 

Susan Wood 

Regional Transportation District Planning 

1560 Broadway, Suite 700 

Denver, Colorado 80202 

Colorado Department of Transportation 

David Singer 

Environmental Policy & Biological Resources Section Manager/NEPA Program 

Manager 

4201 East Arkansas Avenue 

Denver, Colorado 80222 

Colorado Department of Natural Resources 

Dick Wolfe, State Engineer 

Colorado Division of Water Resources 

1313 Sherman St., Room 818 

Denver, Colorado 80203 

Colorado Water Conservation Board 

1313 Sherman St., Room 718 

Denver, Colorado 80203 

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 

Jim DiLeo, Air Pollution Office 

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South 

Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 

Project Manager 

Water Quality Control Division 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South 

Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Allen Green 

Denver Federal Center Building 56 

Room 2604 

PO Box 25426 

Denver, Colorado 80225-0426 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Denver Regulatory Office (Omaha District)
 

9307 South Wadsworth Blvd.
 

Littleton, Colorado 80128-6901
 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 9-2 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

Colorado Division of Wildlife 

Regional Manager 

Division of Wildlife - Northeast Regional Service Center 

6060 Broadway 

Denver, Colorado 80216 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Susan Linner 

Ecological Services 

Colorado Field Office 

P.O. Box 25486, DFC 

Denver, Colorado 80225-0486 

National Park Service 

Sue Masica, Regional Director 

National Park Service Intermountain Regional Office 

12795 West Alameda Parkway 

Denver, Colorado 80225 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan 9-3 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan Final Environmental Assessment 
 

APPENDIX A
 

CORRESPONDENCE
 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan Final Environmental Assessment 
 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan Final Environmental Assessment 
Consultation Code: 06E24000-2016-SLI-0781 June 10, 2016

Event Code: 06E24000-2016-E-01300

Project Name: EA for DoC Boulder Labs Campus Master Plan

Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project

location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project

To Whom It May Concern:

The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as

well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of

your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills

the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the

Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of

species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to

contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to

federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical

habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of

the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can

be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be

completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and

implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested

through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed

list.

The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and

the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2)

of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required

to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and

endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered

species and/or designated critical habitat.

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Colorado Ecological Services Field Office

134 UNION BOULEVARD, SUITE 670

LAKEWOOD, CO 80228

PHONE: (303)236-4773 FAX: (303)236-4005

URL: www.fws.gov/coloradoES; www.fws.gov/platteriver
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having

similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the

human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)

(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological

evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may

affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended

contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.

If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation,

that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the

agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service

recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed

within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7

consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered

Species Consultation Handbook" at:

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF

Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle

Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require

development of an eagle conservation plan

(http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects

should follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing

impacts to migratory birds and bats.

Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications

towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at:

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm;

http://www.towerkill.com; and

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/comtow.html.

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages

Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project

planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in

the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project

that you submit to our office.

Attachment

2
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 06/10/2016 06:33 AM

1

United States Department of Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: EA for DoC Boulder Labs Campus Master Plan

Official Species List

Provided by:

Colorado Ecological Services Field Office

DENVER FEDERAL CENTER

P.O. BOX 25486

DENVER, CO 80225

(303) 236-4773

http://www.fws.gov/coloradoES 

http://www.fws.gov/platteriver

Consultation Code: 06E24000-2016-SLI-0781

Event Code: 06E24000-2016-E-01300

Project Type: ** OTHER **

Project Name: EA for DoC Boulder Labs Campus Master Plan

Project Description: Eastern Research Group (ERG) as a subcontractor to Metropolitan Architects

& Planners, Inc. (MAP) is providing support for compiling an Environmental Assessment for the

DoC Campus Master Plan in Boulder, CO. The Master Plan will establish a framework for short and

long term growth and change within the campus, including consolidation, re-configuring,

renovation, and replacement of facilities and other infrastructure. We plan to complete the EA

during November 2016 and plan to have the draft report for the biological resources section

completed sometime in the upcoming months. We are reviewing a lot of documents for the EA and

would like to request an official species list to complete the biological resources portion of the EA.

The Boulder Labs campus includes multiple building, acts as a scientific research center, and is

approximately 206 acres in size. Approximately one-half of the land is set aside as a Protected Area,

which limits development on the campus. The site rises gently across the campus until it sharply

rises to Long Mesa. The campus includes a wetland area at the southwestern portion of the site. Two

intermittent streams are located on the property, Skunk Creek and Anderson Ditch.

Please Note: The FWS office may have modified the Project Name and/or Project Description, so it

may be different from what was submitted in your previous request. If the Consultation Code

matches, the FWS considers this to be the same project. Contact the office in the 'Provided by'

section of your previous Official Species list if you have any questions or concerns.
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 06/10/2016 06:33 AM

2

Project Location Map: 

Project Coordinates: MULTIPOLYGON (((-105.26103973388672 39.99599409774689, -

105.25601863861084 39.9890895809455, -105.25713443756102 39.98935262294526, -

105.25936603546143 39.989319742750695, -105.26301383972168 39.989188221814125, -

105.270094871521 39.98935262294526, -105.26378631591797 39.996816017539956, -

105.26103973388672 39.99599409774689)))

Project Counties: Boulder, CO

United States Department of Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: EA for DoC Boulder Labs Campus Master Plan
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 06/10/2016 06:33 AM

3

Endangered Species Act Species List

There are a total of 11 threatened or endangered species on your species list. Species on this list should be considered in

an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain

fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. Note that 5 of these species

should be considered only under certain conditions. Critical habitats listed under the Has Critical Habitat column may

or may not lie within your project area. See the Critical habitats within your project area section further below for

critical habitat that lies within your project. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.

Birds Status Has Critical Habitat Condition(s)

Least tern (Sterna antillarum) Endangered Water-related

 Population: interior pop. activities/use in the N.

Platte, S. Platte and

Laramie River Basins

may affect listed

species in Nebraska.

Mexican Spotted owl (Strix Threatened Final designated

occidentalis lucida)

 Population: Entire

Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) Threatened Final designated Water-related

 Population: except Great Lakes watershed activities/use in the N.

Platte, S. Platte and

Laramie River Basins

may affect listed

species in Nebraska.

Whooping crane (Grus americana) Endangered Final designated Water-related

 Population: except where EXPN activities/use in the N.

Platte, S. Platte and

Laramie River Basins

may affect listed

species in Nebraska.

United States Department of Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: EA for DoC Boulder Labs Campus Master Plan
Fishes

Greenback Cutthroat trout Threatened

(Oncorhynchus clarki stomias)

 Population: Entire

Pallid sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus Endangered Water-related

albus) activities/use in the N.

 Population: Entire Platte, S. Platte and

Laramie River Basins

may affect listed

species in Nebraska.

Flowering Plants

Colorado Butterfly plant (Gaura Threatened Final designated

neomexicana var. coloradensis)

Ute ladies'-tresses (Spiranthes Threatened

diluvialis)

Western Prairie Fringed Orchid Threatened Water-related

(Platanthera praeclara) activities/use in the N.

Platte, S. Platte and

Laramie River Basins

may affect listed

species in Nebraska.

Mammals

Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis) Threatened Final designated

 Population: Contiguous U.S. DPS

Preble's meadow jumping mouse Threatened Final designated

(Zapus hudsonius preblei)

 Population: wherever found

United States Department of Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: EA for DoC Boulder Labs Campus Master Plan

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 06/10/2016 06:33 AM

4
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 06/10/2016 06:33 AM

5

Critical habitats that lie within your project area

There are no critical habitats within your project area.

United States Department of Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: EA for DoC Boulder Labs Campus Master Plan
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 06/10/2016 06:33 AM - Appendix A

1

Appendix A: FWS National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries

There are no refuges or fish hatcheries within your project area.

United States Department of Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: EA for DoC Boulder Labs Campus Master Plan
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 06/10/2016 06:33 AM - Appendix B

1

Appendix B: FWS Migratory Birds

The protection of birds is regulated by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle

Protection Act (BGEPA). Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including

eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16

U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). The MBTA has no otherwise lawful activities. For more information regarding these Acts see:

http://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/laws-legislations/migratory-bird-treaty-act.php

http://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/laws-legislations/bald-and-golden-eagle-protection-act.php

All project proponents are responsible for complying with the appropriate regulations protecting birds when planning

and developing a project. To meet these conservation obligations, proponents should identify potential or existing

project-related impacts to migratory birds and their habitat and develop and implement conservation measures that

avoid, minimize, or compensate for these impacts. The Service's Birds of Conservation Concern (2008) report identifies

species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory nongame birds that, without additional conservation actions, are

likely to become listed under the Endangered Species Act as amended (16 U.S.C 1531 et seq.).

For information about Birds of Conservation Concern, go to:

http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/birds-of-conservation-concern.php

For information about conservation measures that help avoid or minimize impacts to birds, please visit:

http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/conservation-measures.php

To search and view summaries of year-round bird occurrence data within your project area, go to the Avian Knowledge

Network Histogram Tools at:

http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/akn-histogram-tools.php

Migratory birds of concern that may be affected by your project:

There are 25 birds on your Migratory birds of concern list.

Species Name Bird of Conservation Seasonal Occurrence in

Concern (BCC) Project Area

American bittern (Botaurus Yes Breeding

lentiginosus)

United States Department of Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: EA for DoC Boulder Labs Campus Master Plan
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 06/10/2016 06:33 AM - Appendix B

2

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus Yes Year-round

leucocephalus)

Black Rosy-Finch Yes Year-round

(Leucosticte atrata)

Black Swift (Cypseloides Yes Breeding

niger)

Brewer's Sparrow (Spizella Yes Breeding

breweri)

Brown-capped Rosy-Finch Yes Wintering

(Leucosticte australis)

Burrowing Owl (Athene Yes Breeding

cunicularia)

Cassin's Finch (Carpodacus Yes Year-round

cassinii)

Dickcissel (Spiza americana) Yes Breeding

Ferruginous hawk (Buteo Yes Year-round

regalis)

Flammulated owl (Otus Yes Breeding

flammeolus)

Golden eagle (Aquila Yes Year-round

chrysaetos)

Lewis's Woodpecker Yes Breeding

(Melanerpes lewis)

Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius Yes Breeding

ludovicianus)

Long-Billed curlew Yes Breeding

(Numenius americanus)

United States Department of Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: EA for DoC Boulder Labs Campus Master Plan
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 06/10/2016 06:33 AM - Appendix B

3

Mountain plover (Charadrius Yes Breeding

montanus)

Peregrine Falcon (Falco Yes Breeding

peregrinus)

Prairie Falcon (Falco Yes Year-round

mexicanus)

Sage Thrasher (Oreoscoptes Yes Breeding

montanus)

Short-eared Owl (Asio Yes Wintering

flammeus)

Swainson's hawk (Buteo Yes Breeding

swainsoni)

Virginia's Warbler Yes Breeding

(Vermivora virginiae)

Western grebe Yes Breeding

(aechmophorus occidentalis)

Williamson's Sapsucker Yes Breeding

(Sphyrapicus thyroideus)

Willow Flycatcher Yes Breeding

(Empidonax traillii)

United States Department of Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: EA for DoC Boulder Labs Campus Master Plan
http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 06/10/2016 06:33 AM - Appendix C

1

Appendix C: NWI Wetlands

Wetlands data for your project area was not available at the time of this species list request.

United States Department of Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: EA for DoC Boulder Labs Campus Master Plan
NOV - 7 2016 

October 26, 2016 

To Distribution List 

UNITEIJ STATES DEPARTMENT IJF COMMERCE 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Gaithersburg, Maryland 20888-

'ZD I 

Re: U.S. Department of Commerce Boulder Laboratories Draft Master Plan and Draft Environmental 

Assessment 

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) recently completed a Draft Master Plan and a 

Draft Environmental Assessment for the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) Boulder Laboratories 

campus located at 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO, 80305. At this time, NIST and DOC are requesting 

comments on these two documents from members ofthe public as well as local and regional 

jurisdictional entities. A CD with PDF copies of the Draft Master Plan and Draft Environmental 

Assessment is enclosed. These documents are also accessible on the web at: 

https: 1/www. n i st .gov I ofpm/bo u Ide r:m aster-pIan. 

Your organization is invited to submit comments via email to BldrLabsMPcommentsPublic@nist.gov or 

by mail to the following address: 

DOC Boulder Laboratories 

Master Plan Comments 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

325 Broadway, MS-194.00 

Boulder CO, 80305-3328 

Tlie last date for receiving comments is December 5, 2016. If we do not hear from you by that date, we 

will assume that you do not wish to comment. We appreciate your time and consideration in the review 

ofthese documents. 

& 

Acti g Ch' Facilities Management Officer 

Office o Facilities and Property Management 

Enclosures 

NlSI 
 

 

--

From: Kuster - CDPHE, Kent [mailto:kent.kuster@state.co.us] 

Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2016 12:56 PM
 

To: BldrLabsMPcommentsPublic <bldrlabsmpcommentspublic@nist.gov>
 

Subject: Master Plans comments
 

Clyde Messerly, 

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment has the attached a comment sheet 

with our comments on the DOC Boulder Laboratories Master Plan. Thank you for the 

opportunity to comment. 

Kent 

Kent Kuster 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment 

4300 Cherry Creek Drive South 

Denver, CO 80246-1530 

303-692-3662 | kent.kuster@state.co.us 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter Section Page Number Comment 

1 Table 1-1 1-9 

In the Air Quality section, under mitigation, suggest rephrasing 

sentence to "Removal and disposal of lead, asbestos-containing 

materials and ozone-depleting substances in accordance with 

applicable regulations." 

4 4.9 4-31 

In the final paragraph of the Temporary Activities Section, 

suggest rephrasing sentence to, "If any lead, asbestoscontaining materials or equipment that contains ozonedepleting substances are encountered during construction, 

DOC would remove and dispose of these materials and 

equipment in accordance with all applicable regulations to 

ensure air quality is not impacted." 

Non-specific comment 

Land development construction activities (earth moving) that 

are greater than 25 acres or more than six months in duration 

require an Air Pollutant Emissions Notice (APEN) from the Air 

Pollution Control Division and may be required to obtain an air 

permit depending on estimated emissions. In addition, a startup notice must be submitted thirty days prior to beginning a 

land development project. Depending on the duration of each 

construction progect, the developer may need to obtain an 

APEN. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

Denver Federal Center 

Building 56, Room 2604 

P.O. Box 25426 

Denver, CO 80225 

SUBJECT: Farmland Policy Protection Act	 December 5th, 2016 

Clyde Messerly, RA 

Acting Chief Facilities Management Office 

Office of Facilities and Property Management 

DOC Boulder Laboratories 

325 Broadway, MS-194.00 

Boulder, CO 80305-3328 

RE:	 US Department of Commerce Boulder laboratories Draft Master Plan and Draft Environmental 

Assessment 

Mr. Messerly, 

The Farmland Policy Protection Act is intended to minimize the impact Federal programs have on the 

unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use. It assures that to the extent 

possible federal programs are administered to be compatible with state, local units of government, and 

private programs and policies to protect farmland. 

For the purpose of FPPA, farmland includes prime farmland, unique farmland, and land of statewide or 

local importance. Farmland subject to FPPA requirements does not have to be currently used as cropland. 

Projects are subject to FPPA requirements if they may irreversibly convert farmland to non-agriculture 

use and are completed by a federal agency or with assistance from a federal agency. 

Your project occurs within the boundaries of an urbanized area, according to the Urbanized Area 

Reference Map produced by the United States Census Bureau in 2010, therefore it is not subject to FPPA. 

NRCS recommends using accepted erosion control practices throughout all phases of the project’s 

construction. 

If you have any further questions, please call at (720) 544-2855. 

Thank you, 

T. Riley Dayberry 

Asst. State Soil Scientist, NRCS, Denver CO 

cc: 

Eugene Backhaus State Resource Conservationist, NRCS, Denver CO 

Clinton Evans State Conservationist, NRCS, Denver CO 

William Shoup State Soil Scientist, NRCS, Denver CO 
    

 

CITY OF BOULDER 

OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER 

December 5, 2016 

Susan Cantilli, AIA 

Team Lead, Facilities Planning 

Capital Asset Management & Facilities Planning Group 

Office of Facilities & Property Management 

National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) 

Re: Comments on the Draft Master Plan and Environmental Assessment 

Dear Ms. Cantilli: 

Thank you for providing the City of Boulder the opportunity to submit the attached comments on the 

Department of Commerce’s (DOC) draft Master Plan and Environmental Assessment for its Boulder 

Laboratories Campus. The city is strongly supportive of the work conducted by DOC and appreciative of 

the positive economic and social impact it makes in our community. We are consequently encouraged with 

the farsighted plan to enhance the campus to better support DOC’s mission of advancing science and 

technology. 

We appreciate that the Master Plan respect the agreements in place between DOC and the city as well as all 

the efforts you have made to understand those agreements and to work with us in developing this plan. 

Please let me know if you have any questions about the attached comments. 

Sincerely, 

Carl Castillo 

Policy Advisor 

Attached 

P.O.	Box	791	∙		Boulder,	Colorado	80306‐0791		∙		www.bouldercolorado.gov		∙		(303)441‐3002		∙		Fax	(303)441‐4478
 
  

City	of	Boulder	Comments	on	the	draft	Master	Plan	

The DOC draft Master Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Boulder Laboratories Campus 

outlines many positive elements that align with city goals. The City of Boulder respectfully requests 

consideration of issues and suggestions identified in the areas listed below.  Some of the items are 

significant concerns around which city staff is happy to work with the DOC to explore changes. 

Additionally, we have included requests for clarifications in the plan.   

Topics	of	Comments	

 Joint Use Utility Corridor 

 Transportation and Access 

 Wastewater Utility

 Flood and Stormwater  

 Open Space & Mountain Parks  

 Urban Wildlife 

 Facility Design 

 Impacts to Nearby Neighbors (lighting, noise, construction) 

 Public Access and Tourism

 Public Art  

 Regional Analysis  

Additional	Information	for	the	Plan		

 Recent changes to the blue line

 Recent change to Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan land use designation for 385 

Broadway

Comments		

Joint Use Utility Corridor 

The Master Plan omits an important agreement in the description of agreements listed in Section 2.3.  It 

should include the joint use utility corridor for electrical distribution and telecommunications conduits.  

This easement contains significant infrastructure and we recommend it be specifically acknowledged.

Transportation

The site includes essential transportation connections and the need to accommodate and improve bike

paths is strongly emphasized.  The city’s Transportation staff raises the following issues regarding access 

and egress and bicycle safety.  

	 The proposed alignment includes a separate sidewalk connecting the intersection/crosswalk to 

the multi‐use path just north of the intersection.  Due to the indirect design of the proposed

multi‐use path alignment, cyclists will choose to utilize the sidewalk instead of the multi‐use 

path which will result in conflicts with pedestrians.  Additionally, the proposed sharp curves in 

the multi‐use path adjacent to Broadway presents an unsafe condition for north and 

southbound bicycle commuters (page 112 of the draft plan).  Staff previously met with DOC staff 

1 
   

last summer to discuss a variety of intersection design options; however, no single design option 

was agreed upon at that time.  Staff understands the DOC’s safety concerns regarding the 

current intersection design and looks forward to continuing discussions to determine a mutually 

agreeable and appropriate intersection design alternative.   

	 The Campus Master Plan map on p.83 shows a “Reject Lane” for trucks around the visitor 

parking area exiting on to Broadway using the Medical Center Drive. This means additional

vehicle traffic crossing the Broadway bike path at this location and making left hand turns, which

presents a significant safety issue for cyclists and pedestrians. Large trucks making left hand 

turns at this unsignalized intersection would likely block the bike path as they wait for a gap in 

traffic and these turns will be difficult during peak hours, presenting an additional safety issue 

for traffic on the corridor. 

	 The plan proposes to add parking and includes structured parking but does not contain any

Transportation Demand Management (TDM) efforts to manage the demand for parking. This

seems to be a major oversight given the sustainability emphasis in many other areas of the plan 

and ignores the potential to avoid the significant costs of building structured parking. The 

parking survey on p. 158 shows an occupancy of 73% and a ratio of occupied spaces/employee 

of only .59. The report recognizes that a significant number of employees arrive at campus via 

non‐SOV modes but does not discuss any strategies to increase this. Given the single entrance to 

the campus, a parking cash‐ out could be relatively easy to implement and is worth considering 

along with other TDM efforts. City staff respectfully offers assistance to explore potential TDM 

efforts. 

	 The Staff supports maintaining the existing curb‐cut / driveway that provides access to the 385 

Broadway property. 

Water 

There are five large water transmission lines that cross the NIST site ranging from 14” to 30” in 

diameter. The existing Grant of Irrevocable Easement in Real Property dated December 8, 1993 

appears to cover the majority of these facilities under provision 11 in the easement language. 

However, there are portions of the 20” PCCP waterline and the 14” steel waterline that are located 

outside of the 1993 easement area. The city requests clarification that provision 11 applies to city 

owned waterlines and requests identification of existing or additional agreements, amendments and 

easements as necessary to cover these lines in their entirety.

Wastewater Utility

Sanitary sewer discharges from this site enter the city’s trunk sewer line in 28th St. This trunk sewer 

line has been identified as a significant source of inflow and infiltration into the sanitary sewer 

system during wet weather events. This master plan indicates sanitary sewer capacity on the site is 

estimated at 50% capacity and include no plans to upgrade capacity.   In order to determine the 

2 
   

   

  

    

amount in inflow and infiltration that this site may be contributing to the sanitary sewer system the 

city requests that a flow monitoring analysis be conducted and temporary flow meter be used to

verify whether the sewers on the site are contributing to the inflow and infiltration problem. For 

additional information on this item please contact the city Public Works Department Development 

Review Division.

Flood and Stormwater

	 The NIST property was included in recent flood mapping and analysis of Skunk Creek as most of 

the site drains to Skunk Creek with some of the southern part of the site draining to Bear Creek.  

Utilities staff may have concern about changes to stormwater drainage if the redevelopment in

some way changed the watershed boundaries. This is the link: 

https://maps.bouldercolorado.gov/flood‐zones/ to the most current flood plain mapping, which

is on our website. It can be found under “new mapping”.   

	 The plan states that stormwater from the site is discharged to both Skunk Creek and the 

Anderson Ditch which crosses the site. The Anderson Ditch has been identified in recent 

stormwater modeling and master planning efforts as being over capacity during the 2‐year and 

5‐year storm events. To meet the needs of the stormwater system and also the limitations of 

the Anderson Ditch any increased stormwater discharges should be directed away from the 

Andersons Ditch. In addition, opportunities to redirect current stormwater discharge to the 

Anderson Ditch should be explored as a part of implementing this master plan.  

Open Space & Mountain Parks

The following revisions to the document are recommended by Open Space and Mountain Parks staff to 

provide clarification and accuracy about trails, trail system cooperation, and descriptions of the natural 

environment. 

	 Page 66; Essential Patterns; 1.; second to last line:

a.	 Should be Rocky Mountain juniper  

(not cedars). 

b.	 At the end of this paragraph add the following statement: Consult with OSMP for 

recommendations on native plants appropriate for sites adjacent to the Protected Area 

and open space to create a more natural transition to Zone 1.

	 Page 126; 11.11; open space and parks: Amend paragraph to read: The DoC property is 

integrated into the trail and open space system maintained by the City of Boulder Open Space 

and Mountain Parks Department (OSMP). OSMP’s Kohler Mesa trail system abuts the property 

to the west, and OSMP’s Tippet property and the Four Pines trailhead to the north. Trails from 

both these areas cross the property, and trail modifications/ upgrades are planned by the City. 

3 
   

   

  

     

   

	 Page 132; first column; last paragraph: Add this sentence to the end of this paragraph: Today,

beaver, yellow‐bellied marmot and leopard frogs are less common and peregrine falcons, prairie 

falcons, and golden eagles are known to be nesting in the Flatirons to the west. 

	 Page 138; Campus Trails; Amend paragraph to read: The City’s Open Space and Mountain Parks 

Department (OSMP) maintains hiking trails on adjacent open space lands. The trail systems 

through the campus Protected Area make use of DoC’s Kusch Road. It links the campus 

roadways to Long Mesa and OSMP trails to the west. Four Pines trail at the western edge of the

property connects from OSMP’s Kohler Mesa Trail to the Tippitt Open Space along the north 

property line.  

NIST is engaged in a collaborative project with OSMP to create a designated physically and

environmentally sustainable trail system. The city is responsible for maintaining the Protected 

Area and is concerned with issues of erosion, landscape protection and safety. Following are

recently completed and anticipated actions:  

Completed 

• Constructed 3 new trail connections to Greenways multi‐use path to Kusch Road, closing 

and restoring related undesignated social trails.  

• Worked with the Anderson Ditch Company to design and install a crossing.  

Anticipated

 Designate trails between Skunk Creek and Broadway, closing undesignated trails and 

restoring them to their natural state.  

 Evaluate options to cross Skunk Creek.

• Designate trail connections to Four Pines and Kohler Mesa. 

 Install appropriate signs at designated trail entry points.
 

	 Page 138; Exhibit 121: City of Boulder Proposed Trails: Note: This map needs updating.  OSMP 

can provide updated/current trail information if desired.   

Map corrections: 

 In the map legend, change “Proposed Bridge” to “Proposed Crossing”.  Skunk Creek 

crossing could include options other than a bridge.

 Add “Completed Crossing” to the legend and show the Anderson Ditch crossing as 

completed instead of proposed. 

 The yellow “Re‐Route” trails west of Deer Valley Rd are not shown correctly.  Two 

connecting trails from Deer Valley Rd to Skunk Canyon have been completed (re‐routed)

and one remains to be re‐routed.

4 
     

   

  

  

  

Exhibit 121
 

 Fuchsia circle shows area of missing “Re‐

Route” trail.  See trail image to the right.   

 Lime green circle shows trail that has not 

been designated or re‐routed and needs to 

be shown on the map as “Designate”.

Highlight below on map shows a 

constructed trail connection that is not 

included on Exhibit 121.  This trails 

needs to be added and shown as a “Re‐

Route” trail on Exhibit 121. 

Urban Wildlife 

The draft EA notes (page 4‐8) “existing prairie dog colonies would not be disturbed.” However, prairie 

dog colonies are dynamic, and colony growth on an annual basis is common.  The Master Plan is 

proposing new construction (NOAA laboratory) in the area of the existing prairie dog colony north of 

Dartmouth Ave. Prairie dog colony boundaries may change through the development and 

implementation of the Master Plan. Should the colony boundaries change, the city recommends 

consulting our “six step” decision making process, Urban Wildlife Management Plan, and Wildlife 

Protection Ordinances.  Additional information on the city’s approach to managing prairie dogs when

they are in conflict with human land uses can be found at:  www.urbanwildlifeplan.net

Facility Design

The city recommends including designing building systems to be more resilient in light of temperatures 

in the region projected to increase 2 to 6 degrees F by 2050; this could include both passive (shading;

lower heat island effects) and active (upsizing HVAC systems) design elements. 

The plan does not include information on electric vehicle charging systems being provided for both cars 

and bikes.  Increasing the system for EV charging is a city goal. A recommended resource is the DOE’s 

Workplace EV Charging Challenge to promote more electric vehicle use and plan electrical loads for the 

increase in EV adoption.

5 
   

   

  

  

   

Impacts to Nearby Neighbors (Lighting, Noise, Construction)  

The city strongly encourages compliance with the outdoor lighting ordinance to minimize impacts to 

nearby neighbors and minimize overall light pollution. More information about the outdoor lighting 

ordinance can be found here: https://bouldercolorado.gov/plan‐develop/outdoor‐lighting‐ordinance

The city encourages the DOC to minimize noise impacts that have been identified by neighbors to the

north of the site. In addition, the city recommends assessing construction disruptions and minimizing

impacts to Broadway and nearby residential neighbors. 

Public Access and Tourism

The ability to enter the public area of the campus without vehicle screening will improve accessibility for 

visitors and community members and may become an additional visitor destination, conference space, 

and cultural asset. It would be helpful to know how many new visitors would be expected each year and

if that increase is at a level that is expected to affect traffic volume or other impacts on the

neighborhood. Also, will the conference center and meeting facilities located in the public area be 

available for use by outside groups such as industry conferences, the city, or local non‐profit 

organizations?  The city’s Office of Arts and Culture working with Boulder’s Convention and Visitors 

Bureau would be very interested in assisting your staff on this.  

Public Art  

Public art is mentioned in the plan only in reference to the lighting.  We assume, but cannot tell from 

the master plan, that there will be other Federal public art commissions triggered by the project.  It 

would improve the document to have information on public art such as funding levels, sites, discrete 

projects, process, and plans for maintenance and interpretation. The city’s public art coordinator should 

be included for consultation or collaboration.  

Regional Analysis  

There are a few areas of the Regional Analysis section that could use a bit of editing. Suggestions include

more clarity in 11.2 Geopolitical Divisions (CSA vs. MSA), 11.3 Demographics and Socio‐economics 

(population trends, education), 11.4 Institutional Environment (number of labs in city) and 11.5 Business 

Environment (number of employers).

Additional Information for	the	Plan	

Changes to the Blue Line

In November, city voters approved changes to clarify the location of the blue line, the line indicating the

westward boundary where the city will supply water for domestic, commercial, or industrial uses. The 

6 
area described in the Master Plan is not in close vicinity of the blue    line or near the development area. 

This information is provided as informational.   

Land Use Designation Change to 385 Broadway  

A land use designation change from Transitional Business (TB) to Low Density Residential (LR) for 385 

was recently approved by the Planning Board and City Council.  This change acknowledges the potential 

loss of existing access through the NIST property and neighborhood’s expressed compatibility concerns. 

The city supports maintaining the existing curb‐cut / driveway that provides access to the property.  

7 
 

APPENDIX B
 

PHASING DIAGRAMS
 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan Final Environmental Assessment 
 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Figure B-1. NIST Research Buildings and Campus Center Phase 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan B-1 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Figure B-2. Visitor Center, Parking, and Vehicle Screening Phase 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan B-2 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Figure B-3. Management Resources Center Phase 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan B-3 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Figure B-4. NOAA R esearch Building Phase 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan B-4 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Figure B-5. Childcare Center Phase 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan B-5 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan Final Environmental Assessment 
 

APPENDIX C
 

GENERAL CONFORMITY RULE APPLICABILITY ANALYSIS
 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan Final Environmental Assessment 
 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary 

The General Conformity Rule (GCR) was established to ensure that federal activities do not hamper local efforts to control air pollution. In particular, the GCR 

implements Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act, which prohibits federal agencies, departments, or instrumentalities from engaging in, supporting, licensing, or approving 

any action that does not conform to an approved state or federal implementation plan. The purpose of the GCR Applicability Analysis is to determine whether the 

Proposed Action—execution of a Master Plan for the DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus—is subject to the federal GCR. 

The Proposed Action would demolish approximately 154,000 GSF of aging and deteriorating facilities, including some temporary buildings. These facilities would be 

replaced and expanded by the construction of new facilities, totaling approximately 319,000 GSF and the renovation of approximately 226,000 GSF. The Proposed Action 

would also construct a three-story parking garage and reconfigure pavement and sidewalks throughout the campus to support the new facilities. The Proposed Action 

would occur in five distinct phasing packages over a 20-year period. These activities would result in emissions due to the use of equipment and vehicles during 

construction activities and building demolition. In addition, the construction of new facilities that would be serviced by the campus Central Utility Plant (CUP) would 

result in annual operating emissions from increased heating and cooling demand. Conversely, the demolition of the aging facilities would eliminate emissions from 

operation of boilers and emergency generators at these facilities. Using USEPA’s Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator, this analysis estimated the resulting emissions of 

nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and volatile organic compounds. These calculations demonstrate that the emissions resulting from the Proposed 

Action would be below the de minimis levels defined for those pollutants in the Applicability Section of the GCR for the years 2018 through 2032. Therefore, the GCR is 

not applicable to the Proposed Action. 

Introduction 

The purpose of this analysis is to determine whether the Proposed Action— 

execution of a Master Plan for the Department of Commerce (DoC) Boulder 

Laboratories Campus in Boulder, Colorado—is subject to the federal General 

Conformity Rule (GCR) established in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 

Part 51, Subpart W, Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to 

State or Federal Implementation Plans. The GCR was established to ensure that 

federal activities do not hamper local efforts to control air pollution. In 

particular, Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) prohibits federal 

agencies, departments, or instrumentalities from engaging in, supporting, 

licensing, or approving any action that does not conform to an approved state or 

federal implementation plan. This analysis will determine under which of the 

following areas the Proposed Action will fall: 

•	 Not subject to the rule – The action does not emit criteria pollutants or 

precursors for which the area is designated as a nonattainment or 

maintenance area—all procurement actions are excluded from the 

GCR. 

•	 Exempt or below de minimis levels – Emissions from the action are 

below de minimis levels and are not regionally significant, or the action 

is exempt. 

•	 Does not meet de minimis levels or is regionally significant – 

Emissions from the action exceed de minimis levels—a Conformity 

Determination must be prepared for such actions. 

This analysis is organized into the following sections: 

•	 Background – Information on applicable air emission programs and 

limitations, including de minimis levels. 

•	 Proposed Action – A description of the Master Plan at the DoC Boulder 

Laboratories Campus. 

•	 Emissions Calculation Methods and Results – Procedures and results 

for estimating emissions associated with the Proposed Action. 

•	 Conclusion – Assessment of whether the GCR is applicable to the 

Proposed Action. 

Background 

As part of the implementation of the CAA Amendments, the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide 

(CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less 

than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM10) and 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5), 

ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and lead (Pb) (USEPA, 2016a). USEPA 

defines ambient air in 40 CFR Part 50.1(e) as “that portion of the atmosphere, 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan C-1	 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

Criteria Pollutant Averaging Time Level a 

Ozone (O3) 8-hour 0.070 ppm b 

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 24-hour 35.0 ug/m3 

Annual Mean 3 12.0 ug/m

Particulate Matter (PM10) 24-hour 150 ug/m3 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1-hour 35.0 ppm 

8-hour 9.0 ppm 

Lead (Pb) 3-month 0.15 ug/m3 

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 1-hour 100 ppb 

Annual Mean 53 ppb 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 1-hour 75 ppb 

3-hour 0.5 ppm 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

external to buildings, to which the general public has access.” Table C-1 shows 

the current NAAQS concentration limits as of July 2016 (USEPA, 2016c). 

Table C-1. National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

Notes: 

a – All of the standards are primary standards, which provide public health 

protection, except for the 3-hour SO2 limit, which is a secondary standard and 

provides public welfare protection. Units of measure are parts per million 

(ppm) by volume, parts per billion (ppb) by volume, and micrograms per cubic 

meter of air (ug/m3). 

b – A final rule signed October 1, 2015, and effective December 28, 2015 

established a more stringent 8-hour standard of 0.070 ppm. The previous 

(2008) ozone standards of 0.075 ppm remain in effect in some areas. 

The CAA divides the U.S. into geographic areas called “air quality control 

regions” (AQCR). These AQCRs are established areas such as counties, 

urbanized areas, and consolidated metropolitan statistical areas. An AQCR in 

which levels of a criteria air pollutant meet the health-based NAAQS is 

designated an attainment area for the pollutant, while an area that does not meet 

the NAAQS is designated a nonattainment area for the pollutant. An area that 

was once designated a nonattainment area but was later reclassified as an 

attainment area is known as a maintenance area. Nonattainment and 

maintenance areas can be further classified as extreme, severe, serious, 

moderate, or marginal. An AQCR may have an acceptable level for one criteria 

air pollutant but may have unacceptable levels for other criteria air pollutants. 

Thus, an area could be attainment, maintenance, and/or nonattainment at the 

same time for different pollutants. 

Each nonattainment AQCR is responsible for submitting a State Implementation 

Plan (SIP), which specifies the manner in which NAAQS will be achieved and 

maintained. Maintenance areas must adhere to a maintenance plan for the 

specific pollutant for which the area was initially designated nonattainment. 

The DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus is located in Boulder County, Colorado. 

Boulder County is part of the Denver Metro/North Front Range (DM/NFR) area, 

which is managed by the Regional Air Quality Council (RAQC). USEPA has 

designated Boulder County a moderate nonattainment area for 8-hour ozone, a 

maintenance area for CO and PM10 (USEPA, 2016c), and an attainment area for 

PM2.5, SO2, NO2, and lead (40 CFR 81.306). Based on a USEPA ruling 

published May 4, 2016, the DM/NFR area is required to achieve attainment of 

the NAAQS by July 20, 2018 based on 2015-2017 ozone season data (RAQC, 

2016a). 

On June 30, 2016, the RAQC approved the Moderate Area Ozone SIP for the 

Denver Metro and North Front Range Nonattainment Area, which addresses 

how the area will achieve attainment with the 8-hour ozone standard. The SIP 

was submitted to the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission (AQCC) on 

July 7, 2016 for public hearing and approval (RAQC, 2016a). The SIP was 

approved by AQCC on November 17, 2016 (RAQC, 2016b). 

The Applicability Analysis Section of the GCR, 40 CFR 93.153, states that 

Federal actions are required to perform a conformity determination for each 

nonattainment criteria pollutant (or precursor to those pollutants) if the total of 

direct and indirect emissions of those pollutants would equal or exceed the de 

minimis levels defined in that section. Table C-2 identifies the de minimis levels 

that would apply to actions in Boulder County, Colorado. This GCR 

applicability analysis will determine whether the Proposed Action has the 

potential to result in emissions above the levels listed in Table C-2. 

USEPA promulgated revisions to the GCR on March 24, 2010. The revised rule 

removes requirements for federal agencies to conduct conformity determinations 

for “regionally significant” actions that have emissions greater than 10 percent 

of the emissions inventory for a nonattainment area if expected pollutant 

emissions do not exceed de minimis levels. Therefore, this applicability analysis 

does not evaluate the Proposed Action for “regional significance.” 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan C-2 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table C-2. Boulder County Attainment Status and General Conformity Rule De Minimis Thresholds 

Criteria Pollutant Classification of Boulder County 

Pollutant or 

Precursor of 

Concern 

De Minimis 

Emission Rate 

(tons/yr) a, b 

Ozone (O3) Nonattainment of the 1997 standard (marginal) NOx 100 

Nonattainment of the 2008 standard (moderate) VOC 100 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment (maintenance area) CO 100 

Particulate Matter (PM10) Attainment (maintenance area) PM10 100 

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Attainment PM2.5 N/A 

NOx N/A 

SO2 N/A 

Lead (Pb) Attainment Pb N/A 

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment NO2 N/A 

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment SO2 N/A 

Notes:
 

a – De minimis levels are emission rates specified in 40 CFR 93.153(b), which may not be exceeded by federal 

actions taking place in nonattainment and maintenance areas. Federal actions in nonattainment areas for PM2.5
 

must also consider the de minimis levels for PM2.5 precursors, including NOx and SO2.
 

b – N/A designates that Boulder County is an attainment area for that pollutant and de minimis levels are therefore
 

not applicable for that pollutant.
 

Proposed Action 

The need for the DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan, and the 

campus improvements prescribed therein, is driven by both institutional policy 

and the inability of existing facilities to support current and projected mission 

requirements at the campus. New and renovated facilities are necessary to 

replace aging facilities that do not provide adequate space or appropriate 

configuration to accommodate the projected research programs at the campus. 

The Master Plan would demolish approximately 154,000 GSF of insufficient 

facilities. These facilities would be replaced and expanded by the construction of 

new facilities, totaling approximately 319,000 GSF, including new research 

buildings, a Management Resources Center, a new Childcare Center, and a 

Campus Center. The Master Plan would also construct a 75,000-GSF three-story 

parking garage and reconfigure pavement and sidewalks throughout the campus 

to support the new facilities. 

The Master Plan would occur in the following five distinct phasing packages 

over a 20-year period: 

•	 Visitor Center, Parking and Vehicle Screening; 

•	 National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Research 

Buildings and Campus Center; 

•	 Management Resources Center; 

•	 Childcare Center; and 

•	 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Research 

Building. 

See Table C-3 for a summary of construction and demolition activities, 

including the associated square footage and assumed construction schedule for 

each project phase. To ensure a conservative analysis, DoC assumed an 

aggressive schedule that includes completion of all Master Plan construction 

activities in a less-than-20-year period. 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan C-3	 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table C-3. Phased Construction Schedule under the Master Plan 

Visitor Center, 

Parking and Vehicle 

Screening 

(2018-2019) 

NIST Research 

Buildings and 

Campus Center 

(2019-2021) 

Management 

Resources Center 

(2025-2026) 

Childcare Center 

(2027) 

NOAA Research 

Building 

(2032) Total 

Construction (SF) 

Buildings (New) 10,800 277,500 a 60,000 13,000 32,600 393,900 

Buildings (Renovation) 600 192,000 -- 32,700 -- 225,300 

Pavement/ Sidewalks 138,100 115,600 73,400 53,200 8,400 388,700 

Demolition (SF) 

Buildings -- 98,121 47,551 7,776 -- 153,448 

Pavement/ Sidewalks 46,000 143,000 134,000 57,600 5,300 385,900 

Notes:
 

This is an assumed construction schedule, specifically for the purposes of this GCR applicability analysis.
 

a – The NIST Research Buildings new buildings construction square footage includes the new parking garage (75,000 SF) and the Building 24 addition/renovation (3,000 

SF).
 

Emissions Calculation Methods and Results 

Because USEPA has designated the DM/NFR area a moderate nonattainment 

area for ozone and a maintenance area for CO and PM10, this applicability 

analysis estimates emissions of ozone precursors (VOCs and NOx), CO, and 

PM10 associated with the Master Plan. This analysis considers the changes in 

emissions resulting from temporary construction and demolition activities 

(including equipment and vehicle use, surface disturbance, and painting 

activities); operation of campus boilers; and relocation of new staff to the DoC 

Boulder Laboratories Campus. 

Construction and Demolition Equipment Emissions 

Emissions associated with construction and demolition under the Master Plan 

would originate from mobile sources such as excavators, bulldozers, loaders, 

dump trucks, and privately owned vehicles (POVs). Emissions from these 

vehicles were estimated using USEPA’s Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator 

(MOVES), which models both on-road (e.g., dump trucks and POVs) and 

nonroad vehicles (e.g., excavators, bulldozers, loaders). USEPA developed 

MOVES to help states develop estimates of current and future emission 

inventories for on-road motor vehicles and nonroad equipment. MOVES can 

calculate emission inventories from the default database or user inputs at the 

county or sub-county scale. For this analysis, MOVES was used to develop 

emission factors outside the model in units of either grams of pollutant per mile 

traveled for on-road vehicles or grams of pollutant per horsepower-hour for 

nonroad equipment. These emission factors reflect all US mobile source 

emissions regulations specific to each calendar year in the analysis. 

MOVES requires the user to select settings in an input file (termed a “run 

specification” file) through the following navigation panels of the model’s 

graphical user interface: 

•	 Scale: On-road or Nonroad model; National, County, or Project scale; 

and Inventory or Emission Rate calculation mode. 

•	 Time Spans: Year(s), month(s), day(s), and hour(s). 

•	 Geographic Bounds: Nation, state(s), and county(ies). 

•	 Vehicles/Equipment: Fuels and source use type (on-road) or sector 

(nonroad). 

•	 Road Type: Road type(s) for on-road only. 

•	 Pollutants and Processes: Combinations of pollutants and emission 

processes (e.g., VOC from running exhaust). 

•	 Manage Input Datasets: Optional input database tables to override 

default data. 

•	 Strategies: Optional checkbox to compute Rate-of-Progress “No Clean 

Air Act Amendments” Emissions. 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan C-4	 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 General Output: Create output database name, select units, and choose 

activity types to report. 

•	 Output Emissions Detail: Choose aggregation options for the output. 

•	 Advanced Performance Features: These options are not needed for 

most analyses. 

The MOVES selections for this GCR analysis are specified in Table C-4. 

The activity and emissions corresponding to the on-road and nonroad fleets for 

the Master Plan are shown in Table C-5 and Table C-6, below. The model year 

of the vehicles used in construction and demolition was assumed to be five years 

before the start of each construction phase. The model years of the passenger 

fleet associated with new employees reflects the national average mix of vehicle 

ages in each calendar year. The emission standards, technology types, and fleet 

turnover effects are all built into MOVES and result in reduced emissions on a 

per unit activity basis in future years. The vehicle types, number of vehicles, 

mileage, and operating hours were based on information gathered from 

comparable federal demolition and construction projects. On-road and nonroad 

input files were created for each year of construction and demolition to model 

these scenarios. 

Total estimated annual temporary emissions from construction and demolition 

for the Master Plan are shown in Table C-7. 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan C-5	 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

MOVES Navigation Panel Model Parameter GCR Analysis Setting 

Scale Model On-road, Nonroad 

Domain/Scale National 

Calculation Type Inventory 

Time Spans Time Aggregation Level Year (on-road) and Day (nonroad) 

Years 2018 through 2032 

Months All 12 

Days Weekday and Weekend 

Hours All 24 

Geographic Bounds Region County 

States and Counties Boulder, Colorado 

Vehicles/Equipment Fuels Gasoline, E85, Diesel, and Nonroad Diesel 

Source Use Types (on-road) Passenger Car, Passenger Truck, Light 

Commercial Truck, Single Unit Short-haul 

Truck, and Combination Unit Short-haul Truck 

Sectors (nonroad) Industrial, Construction 

Road Type Selected Road Types All (on-road) 

Manage Input Datasets Database/tables input N/A 

Strategies Rate-of-Progress N/A 

Output Units Grams, Joules, Miles 

Activity (on-road) Distance Traveled, Population 

Time Year (on-road), Day (nonroad) 

Location County 

Aggregation Levels Model Year, Fuel Type, Source Use Type (onroad), SCC (nonroad), HP class (nonroad) 

Advanced Performance Features N/A N/A 

Table C-4. MOVES Input File Selections 

Acronyms: Horsepower (HP), not applicable (N/A), source classification code (SCC). 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan C-6 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Emissions (Tons/Year) 

Year MOVES Vehicle Class Annual Miles NOx VOC CO PM10 

Light Commercial Truck 16,117 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 

Single Unit Short-haul Truck 8,684 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 2018 Combination Unit Short-haul Truck 4,568 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Total 2018 29,370 0.02 0.00 0.09 0.00 

Light Commercial Truck 309,120 0.06 0.05 1.04 0.02 

Single Unit Short-haul Truck 133,437 0.13 0.03 0.46 0.02 

2019 Combination Unit Short-haul Truck 14,468 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 

Total 2019 457,025 0.21 0.07 1.50 0.04 

Light Commercial Truck 293,003 0.05 0.04 0.98 0.01 

Single Unit Short-haul Truck 124,752 0.12 0.03 0.43 0.02 

2020 Combination Unit Short-haul Truck 9,900 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 

Total 2020 427,655 0.20 0.07 1.42 0.03 

Light Commercial Truck 293,003 0.05 0.04 0.98 0.01 

Single Unit Short-haul Truck 124,752 0.12 0.02 0.44 0.02 

2021 Combination Unit Short-haul Truck 9,900 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 

Total 2021 427,655 0.20 0.07 1.43 0.03 

Light Commercial Truck 293,003 0.06 0.04 0.80 0.01 

Single Unit Short-haul Truck 124,752 0.12 0.02 0.44 0.02 2022 Combination Unit Short-haul Truck 9,900 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 

Total 2022 427,655 0.20 0.07 1.24 0.03 

Light Commercial Truck 168,353 0.02 0.02 0.31 0.01 

Single Unit Short-haul Truck 84,974 0.07 0.02 0.29 0.01 2025 Combination Unit Short-haul Truck 8,964 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 

Total 2025 262,290 0.10 0.04 0.61 0.02 

Light Commercial Truck 168,353 0.02 0.02 0.29 0.01 

Single Unit Short-haul Truck 84,974 0.07 0.02 0.29 0.01 2026 Combination Unit Short-haul Truck 8,964 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 

Total 2026 262,290 0.10 0.04 0.58 0.02 

Light Commercial Truck 118,094 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.01 

Single Unit Short-haul Truck 51,012 0.04 0.01 0.17 0.01 2027 Combination Unit Short-haul Truck 6,379 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Total 2027 175,485 0.06 0.02 0.36 0.01 

Light Commercial Truck 79,554 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.00 

Single Unit Short-haul Truck 39,270 0.03 0.01 0.13 0.01 2032 Combination Unit Short-haul Truck 2,704 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Total 2032 121,528 0.04 0.02 0.24 0.01 

Table C-5. On-Road Construction and Demolition Vehicle Activity and Estimated Emissions 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan C-7 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Emissions (Tons/Year) 

Year Equipment Type SCC Max HP Load Factor Annual Hours NOx VOC CO PM10 

Air Compressor 2270006015 16 0.43 1,368 0.05 0.01 0.03 0.00 

Asphalt Paver 2270002021 175 0.59 552 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.00 

Backhoe 2270002066 175 0.21 1,038 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.00 

Bulldozer 2270002069 175 0.59 1,406 0.22 0.02 0.02 0.00 

Crane 2270002045 175 0.43 365 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Excavator 2270002036 600 0.59 108 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.00 

2018 Generator 2270006005 40 0.43 1,368 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Loader 2270002066 175 0.21 - - - - -

Roller 2270002015 100 0.59 108 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Skid Steer Loader 2270002072 75 0.21 1,038 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.00 

Steel Track Loader 2270002066 50 0.21 368 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Vibratory Compactor 2270002015 6 0.59 108 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 

2018 Totals: 7,827 0.70 0.07 0.13 0.01 

Air Compressor 2270006015 16 0.43 29,538 1.00 0.11 0.55 0.09 

Asphalt Paver 2270002021 175 0.59 784 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 

Backhoe 2270002066 175 0.21 2,815 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.00 

Bulldozer 2270002069 175 0.59 3,755 0.12 0.07 0.06 0.00 

Crane 2270002045 175 0.43 4,972 0.12 0.06 0.04 0.00 

Excavator 2270002036 600 0.59 1,496 0.16 0.09 0.08 0.01 

2019 Generator 2270006005 40 0.43 29,538 1.68 0.08 0.09 0.01 

Loader 2270002066 175 0.21 324 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Roller 2270002015 100 0.59 1,496 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.00 

Skid Steer Loader 2270002072 75 0.21 2,981 0.16 0.01 0.03 0.00 

Steel Track Loader 2270002066 50 0.21 1,921 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.00 

Vibratory Compactor 2270002015 6 0.59 1,496 0.42 0.06 0.46 0.04 

2019 Totals: 81,113 3.82 0.54 1.40 0.16 

Air Compressor 2270006015 16 0.43 28,170 0.95 0.11 0.52 0.08 

Asphalt Paver 2270002021 175 0.59 231 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Backhoe 2270002066 175 0.21 1,777 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.00 

Bulldozer 2270002069 175 0.59 2,349 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.00 

Crane 2270002045 175 0.43 4,607 0.11 0.06 0.04 0.00 

Excavator 2270002036 600 0.59 1,388 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.01 

2020 Generator 2270006005 40 0.43 28,170 1.61 0.08 0.08 0.01 

Loader 2270002066 175 0.21 324 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Roller 2270002015 100 0.59 1,388 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.00 

Skid Steer Loader 2270002072 75 0.21 1,943 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.00 

Steel Track Loader 2270002066 50 0.21 1,553 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.00 

Vibratory Compactor 2270002015 6 0.59 1,388 0.39 0.06 0.43 0.04 

2020 Totals: 73,286 3.50 0.47 1.27 0.14 

Table C-6. Nonroad Equipment Activity and Estimated Emissions 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan C-8 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Emissions (Tons/Year) 

Year Equipment Type SCC Max HP Load Factor Annual Hours NOx VOC CO PM10 

Air Compressor 2270006015 16 0.43 28,170 0.95 0.11 0.52 0.08 

Asphalt Paver 2270002021 175 0.59 231 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Backhoe 2270002066 175 0.21 1,777 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.00 

Bulldozer 2270002069 175 0.59 2,349 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.00 

Crane 2270002045 175 0.43 4,607 0.11 0.06 0.04 0.00 

Excavator 2270002036 600 0.59 1,388 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.01 

2021 Generator 2270006005 40 0.43 28,170 1.61 0.08 0.08 0.01 

Loader 2270002066 175 0.21 324 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Roller 2270002015 100 0.59 1,388 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.00 

Skid Steer Loader 2270002072 75 0.21 1,943 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.00 

Steel Track Loader 2270002066 50 0.21 1,553 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.00 

Vibratory Compactor 2270002015 6 0.59 1,388 0.39 0.06 0.43 0.04 

2021 Totals: 73,286 3.50 0.47 1.27 0.14 

Air Compressor 2270006015 16 0.43 28,170 0.95 0.11 0.52 0.08 

Asphalt Paver 2270002021 175 0.59 231 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Backhoe 2270002066 175 0.21 1,777 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.00 

Bulldozer 2270002069 175 0.59 2,349 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.00 

Crane 2270002045 175 0.43 4,607 0.11 0.06 0.04 0.00 

Excavator 2270002036 600 0.59 1,388 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.01 

2022 Generator 2270006005 40 0.43 28,170 1.61 0.08 0.08 0.01 

Loader 2270002066 175 0.21 324 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Roller 2270002015 100 0.59 1,388 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.00 

Skid Steer Loader 2270002072 75 0.21 1,943 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.00 

Steel Track Loader 2270002066 50 0.21 1,553 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.00 

Vibratory Compactor 2270002015 6 0.59 1,388 0.39 0.06 0.43 0.04 

2022 Totals: 73,286 3.50 0.47 1.27 0.14 

Air Compressor 2270006015 16 0.43 7,200 0.24 0.03 0.13 0.02 

Asphalt Paver 2270002021 175 0.59 294 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 

Backhoe 2270002066 175 0.21 1,094 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 

Bulldozer 2270002069 175 0.59 2,166 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.00 

Crane 2270002045 175 0.43 2,082 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.00 

Excavator 2270002036 600 0.59 600 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.00 

2025 Generator 2270006005 40 0.43 7,200 0.41 0.02 0.02 0.00 

Loader 2270002066 175 0.21 314 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Roller 2270002015 100 0.59 600 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 

Skid Steer Loader 2270002072 75 0.21 1,256 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.00 

Steel Track Loader 2270002066 50 0.21 2,023 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.00 

Vibratory Compactor 2270002015 6 0.59 600 0.17 0.02 0.18 0.02 

2025 Totals: 25,429 1.18 0.20 0.48 0.05 

Table C-6. Nonroad Equipment Activity and Estimated Emissions 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan C-9 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Emissions (Tons/Year) 

Year Equipment Type SCC Max HP Load Factor Annual Hours NOx VOC CO PM10 

Air Compressor 2270006015 16 0.43 7,200 0.24 0.03 0.13 0.02 

Asphalt Paver 2270002021 175 0.59 294 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 

Backhoe 2270002066 175 0.21 1,094 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 

Bulldozer 2270002069 175 0.59 2,166 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.00 

Crane 2270002045 175 0.43 2,082 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.00 

Excavator 2270002036 600 0.59 600 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.00 

2026 Generator 2270006005 40 0.43 7,200 0.41 0.02 0.02 0.00 

Loader 2270002066 175 0.21 314 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Roller 2270002015 100 0.59 600 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 

Skid Steer Loader 2270002072 75 0.21 1,256 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.00 

Steel Track Loader 2270002066 50 0.21 2,023 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.00 

Vibratory Compactor 2270002015 6 0.59 600 0.17 0.02 0.18 0.02 

2026 Totals: 25,429 1.18 0.20 0.48 0.05 

Air Compressor 2270006015 16 0.43 10,968 0.37 0.04 0.20 0.03 

Asphalt Paver 2270002021 175 0.59 426 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 

Backhoe 2270002066 175 0.21 976 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 

Bulldozer 2270002069 175 0.59 1,898 0.06 0.03 0.03 0.00 

Crane 2270002045 175 0.43 2,978 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.00 

Excavator 2270002036 600 0.59 260 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 

2027 Generator 2270006005 40 0.43 10,968 0.63 0.03 0.03 0.00 

Loader 2270002066 175 0.21 103 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Roller 2270002015 100 0.59 260 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 

Skid Steer Loader 2270002072 75 0.21 1,029 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.00 

Steel Track Loader 2270002066 50 0.21 1,233 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 

Vibratory Compactor 2270002015 6 0.59 260 0.07 0.01 0.08 0.01 

2027 Totals: 31,358 1.36 0.19 0.43 0.05 

Air Compressor 2270006015 16 0.43 7,824 0.27 0.03 0.14 0.02 

Asphalt Paver 2270002021 175 0.59 67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Backhoe 2270002066 175 0.21 765 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 

Bulldozer 2270002069 175 0.59 850 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 

Crane 2270002045 175 0.43 2,086 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.00 

Excavator 2270002036 600 0.59 652 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.00 

2032 Generator 2270006005 40 0.43 7,824 0.45 0.02 0.02 0.00 

Loader 2270002066 175 0.21 - - - - -

Roller 2270002015 100 0.59 652 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 

Skid Steer Loader 2270002072 75 0.21 765 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.00 

Steel Track Loader 2270002066 50 0.21 85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 

Vibratory Compactor 2270002015 6 0.59 652 0.18 0.03 0.20 0.02 

2032 Totals: 22,223 1.11 0.17 0.47 0.05 

Table C-6. Nonroad Equipment Activity and Estimated Emissions 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan C-10 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Table C-7. Total Estimated Construction and Demolition Equipment Emissions under the
 

Master Plan
 

Emissions (tons) 

Year Emission Source NOx VOC CO PM10 

On-road 0.02 0.00 0.09 0.00 

2018 Nonroad 0.70 0.07 0.13 0.01 

2018 Totals: 0.72 0.07 0.21 0.01 

On-road 0.21 0.07 1.50 0.04 

2019 Nonroad 3.82 0.54 1.40 0.16 

2019 Totals: 4.03 0.61 2.90 0.19 

On-road 0.20 0.07 1.42 0.03 

2020 Nonroad 3.50 0.47 1.27 0.14 

2020 Totals: 3.70 0.54 2.69 0.18 

On-road 0.20 0.07 1.43 0.03 

2021 Nonroad 3.50 0.47 1.27 0.14 

2021 Totals: 3.70 0.53 2.70 0.18 

On-road 0.20 0.07 1.24 0.03 

2022 Nonroad 3.50 0.47 1.27 0.14 

2022 Totals: 3.70 0.53 2.51 0.18 

On-road 0.10 0.04 0.61 0.02 

2025 Nonroad 1.18 0.20 0.48 0.05 

2025 Totals: 1.28 0.24 1.09 0.07 

On-road 0.10 0.04 0.58 0.02 

2026 Nonroad 1.18 0.20 0.48 0.05 

2026 Totals: 1.28 0.24 1.06 0.07 

On-road 0.06 0.02 0.36 0.01 

2027 Nonroad 1.36 0.19 0.43 0.05 

2027 Totals: 1.42 0.21 0.79 0.06 

On-road 0.04 0.02 0.24 0.01 

2032 Nonroad 1.11 0.17 0.47 0.05 

2032 Totals: 1.15 0.19 0.71 0.06 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan C-11 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Surface Disturbance (Fugitive PM Emissions) 

Construction activities have the potential to generate PM emissions during many 

operations, including land clearing, ground excavation, site preparation, and, in 

particular, equipment traffic on unpaved roads. The quantity of PM emissions 

from construction operations is proportional to the level of activity, duration of 

activity, and the area of land being worked. Emission factors derived from AP42 Sections 11.9 and 13.2 were used to calculate PM emissions associated with 

surface disturbance. Use of these emission factors is likely to overestimate PM 

emissions because they do not account for dust suppression methods such as 

those outlined in the Fugitive Dust Best Management Practices guide developed 

by Boulder County Public Health. 

PM emissions from surface disturbance due to construction equipment are 

summarized by phase in Table C-8. 

Painting Activities (VOC Emissions) 

VOCs are emitted as gases from a variety of construction materials, including 

paints and coatings. For the purposes of this analysis, it is conservatively 

assumed that the interior surface area requiring painting is three times the total 

building footprint, three coats of paint would be applied (one primer and two 

finish), and the average VOC content of the paint would be 1 pound of VOC per 

gallon of paint. 

VOC emissions from painting activities are summarized by phase in Table C-9. 

Operating Emissions 

Operating emissions changes were assessed by comparing the total emissions 

generated from boilers in FY 2015 with the projected annual emissions from the 

boilers during each phase of the Master Plan. 

In 2015, the CUP boilers consumed 141 million standard cubic feet (MM scf) of 

natural gas while servicing 800,272 gross square feet (GSF) of facility space. 

For this analysis, DoC assumed that other boilers not associated with the CUP 

operate at the same energy intensity (fuel consumed per unit of supported 

space), and that the change in campus-wide boiler emissions for each Master 

Plan phase would be proportional to the increase or decrease in facility space 

under that phase. These fuel consumption estimates are shown in Table C-10. 

This approach likely overestimates fuel consumption under the Master Plan, 

which would demolish aging facilities with boilers (e.g., Buildings 2 and 25) 

and incorporate energy efficiency improvements through renovation activities 

(e.g., Buildings 1, 3, and 24). Total estimated annual emissions from operation 

of the boilers and the net change in operating emissions as a result of the Master 

Plan are shown in Table C-11. 

Individual emergency generators are located throughout the campus to provide 

emergency power for life safety and standby power. The emergency generators 

operate up to one hour per week for regular testing to ensure system 

functionality. Additional emergency generators would be installed at each new 

facility constructed under the Master Plan. Emissions associated with these new 

generators would be offset by the elimination of emissions from emergency 

generators at facilities that would be demolished under the Master Plan. Thus, 

for this analysis it is assumed that changes in emergency generator fuel 

consumption and the associated emissions would be negligible. 

The Master Plan could result in a minor increase in VOC emissions due to the 

installation of additional fume hoods in various labs. Emissions estimates for 

fume hoods are not available. For this analysis, DoC assumed that any changes 

in VOC emissions associated with fume hoods would be negligible and would 

not influence the conclusion of this GCR applicability analysis. 

Employee Commuting Emissions 

The Master Plan would increase the number of personnel working at and 

commuting to the DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus by 212 personnel over a 

20-year period. The personnel increases are assumed to commence in the year 

following completion of the associated phasing package; for example, new 

personnel associated with facilities constructed in 2018 are accounted for in 

2019 and subsequent years. Table C-12 summarizes the personnel changes for 

each phasing package. 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan C-12 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Table C-8. Total Estimated Surface Disturbance (Fugitive PM10) Emissions under the
 

Master Plan
 

Phasing Package (Years) 

Total PM10 

Emissions (tons) 

PM10 Emissions 

Per Year (tons) 

Visitor Center, Parking and Vehicle Screening (2018-2019) 8.9 4.4 

NIST Research Buildings and Campus Center (2019-2022) 58.7 14.7 

Management Resources Center (2025-2026) 18.1 9.0 

Childcare Center (2027) 7.4 7.4 

NOAA Research Building (2032) 5.2 5.2 

Table C-9. Total Estimated VOC Emissions from Painting Activities under the
 

Master Plan
 

Phasing Package (Years) 

Total VOC 

Emissions (tons) 

VOC Emissions 

Per Year (tons) 

Visitor Center, Parking and Vehicle Screening (2018-2019) 0.2 0.1 

NIST Research Buildings and Campus Center (2019-2022) 5.9 1.5 

Management Resources Center (2025-2026) 0.9 0.5 

Childcare Center (2027) 0.7 0.7 

NOAA Research Building (2032) 0.5 0.5 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan C-13 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Table C-10. Summary of Existing and Projected Boiler Fuel Consumption under the Master Plan 

Metric Existing (2015) 

Visitor Center, 

Parking and Vehicle 

Screening 

(2018-2019) 

NIST Research 

Buildings and Campus 

Center 

(2019-2021) 

Management 

Resources Center 

(2025-2026) 

Childcare 

Center 

(2027) 

NOAA Research 

Building 

(2032) 

CUP Boilers 

Proposed Construction (GSF) N/A -- 202,500 60,000 -- --

Proposed Demolition (GSF) N/A -- (98,121) -- -- --

Area Serviced (GSF) 800,272 800,272 904,651 964,651 964,651 964,651 

Annual Fuel Consumption (MM scf) 141 141 159 170 170 170 

Independent Boilers 

Proposed Construction (GSF) N/A 10,800 -- -- 13,000 32,600 

Proposed Demolition (GSF) N/A -- -- (47,551) (7,776) --

Area Serviced (GSF) 453,902 464,702 464,702 417,151 422,375 454,975 

Annual Fuel Consumption (MM scf) 80 82 82 73 74 80 

Total 

Annual Fuel Consumption (MM scf) 221 223 241 243 244 250 

Notes:
 

Area Serviced and Annual Fuel Consumption values reflect the expected area that will be serviced and projected fuel consumption in the year following completion of
 

each phasing package. For example, the NIST Research Buildings and Campus Center phasing package is expected to be completed in 2021; therefore, the projected
 

annual fuel consumption for 2022 is presented under the NIST Research Buildings and Campus Center.
 

Gross square footage (GSF) data were obtained/extrapolated from the Draft DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan, Exhibit 39. 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan C-14 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Projected Operating Emissions (Tons/year) Net Change in Operating Emissions (Tons/year) 

Year NOx VOC CO PM10 NOx VOC CO PM10 

2015 (Actual) 5.5 0.6 9.3 0.8 -- -- -- --

2018 5.5 0.6 9.3 0.8 -- -- -- --

2019 5.5 0.6 9.3 0.8 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00 

2020 5.7 0.6 9.6 0.9 0.16 0.02 0.27 0.02 

2021 5.8 0.6 9.7 0.9 0.28 0.03 0.47 0.04 

2022 5.9 0.7 9.9 0.9 0.39 0.04 0.66 0.06 

2023-2025 6.0 0.7 10.1 0.9 0.51 0.06 0.85 0.08 

2026 6.1 0.7 10.2 0.9 0.53 0.06 0.90 0.08 

2027 6.1 0.7 10.2 0.9 0.56 0.06 0.94 0.09 

2028-2032 6.1 0.7 10.3 0.9 0.59 0.06 0.98 0.09 

Post-2032 6.3 0.7 10.5 1.0 0.73 0.08 1.22 0.11 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--

--

Table C-11. Operating Emissions (Projected and Net Changes) under the Master Plan 

Notes:
 

Emissions are assumed to commence in the year following completion of the associated phasing package. For example, operating emissions associated with facilities
 

constructed in 2018 are accounted for in 2019 and subsequent years.
 

Projected changes in operating emissions only reflect changes associated with the operation of boilers. Changes in emissions from emergency generators and other 

potential emission sources (e.g., VOCs from fume hoods) are expected to be negligible under the Proposed Action; therefore, these emission sources are not included in
 

this table.
 

Emissions factors from AP-42, Chapter 1.4 (natural gas combustion), a USEPA Compilation of Air Emission Factors, are used to calculate projected emissions: 50 lb
 

NOx/MM scf, 5.5 lb VOC/MM scf, 84 lb CO/MM scf, and 7.6 lb PM10/MM scf.
 

Table C The MOVES model was used to estimate the emissions associated with the -12. Personnel Added by Phasing Package under the Master 

additional personnel commuting to and from work. Approximately 53% of Plan 

personnel commute to the DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus via personal 

vehicles and the remainder of the personnel commute via bicycle, transit bus, 

carpool/vanpool, or walking. To develop a worst-case scenario emissions 

estimate, it is assumed that all 212 personnel would relocate to Boulder County 

from outside the DM/NFR AQCR, and that all 212 personnel would commute 

via personal vehicles without carpooling. 

Phasing Package (Years) 

Personnel 

Added 

Visitor Center, Parking and Vehicle Screening (2018-2019) 

NIST Research Buildings and Campus Center (2019-2022) 134 

Management Resources Center (2025-2026) 18 

Childcare Center (2027) 

NOAA Research Building (2032) 60 

According to a recent City of Boulder transportation survey, the average 

commute distance for single occupancy vehicles in 2011 was 13.0 miles 

(National Research Center, Inc., 2012). Therefore, each new employee is 

assumed to drive 13.0 miles one-way from their residence in the DM/NFR 

AQCR to the campus, for a total of 26 miles per weekday, 260 days per year. Notes: Using these assumptions, the staff increase of 212 people translates to a total of Personnel data were obtained from the Draft DoC Boulder Laboratories approximately 1.4 million more vehicle miles traveled (VMT) annually from Campus Master Plan, Exhibit 6. personnel commuting to work at the campus. 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan C-15 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

 

 

Year VMT Added 

Emissions (Tons/year) 

NOx VOC CO PM10 

2018 - - - - -

2019 - - - - -

2020 226,460 0.07 0.07 0.87 0.01 

2021 452,920 0.12 0.14 1.63 0.02 

2022 679,380 0.16 0.19 2.30 0.03 

2023-2025 905,840 0.15 0.20 2.51 0.04 

2026 966,680 0.15 0.20 2.51 0.04 

2027 1,027,520 0.14 0.20 2.49 0.05 

2028-2032 1,027,520 0.10 0.16 1.83 0.05 

Post-2032 1,433,120 0.14 0.22 2.55 0.06 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table C-13 summarizes the VMT and emissions associated with additional 

employee commuting under the Master Plan. 

Table C-13. Vehicle Miles Traveled and Emissions from On-road 

Vehicles of New Personnel 

Conclusion 

The projected levels of emissions generated by the Master Plan, resulting from 

construction and demolition activities and boiler operating changes, would be 

below de minimis thresholds for all phases, as summarized in Table C-14. 

Therefore, the GCR is not applicable to the Master Plan. 

References 

1.	 National Research Center, Inc. 2012. 2011 Boulder Valley Employee 

Survey for Transportation, Report of Results. June 2012. https://wwwstatic.bouldercolorado.gov/docs/2011-boulder-valley-employee-surveyfor-transportation-report-of-results-1-201305291119.pdf. Accessed 12 

August 2016. 

2.	 Regional Air Quality Council (RAQC). 2016a. Moderate Area Ozone 

SIP for the Denver Metro and North Front Range Nonattainment Area. 

7 July 2016. 

3.	 RAQC. 2016b. State Implementation Plans. 

http://raqc.org/documents/sip/. Accessed 4 August 2016. 

4.	 USEPA. 2016a. Criteria Air Pollutants. https://www.epa.gov/criteriaair-pollutants. Accessed 6 July 2016. 

5.	 USEPA. 2016b. NAAQS Table. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-airpollutants/naaqs-table. Accessed 6 July 2016. 

6.	 USEPA. 2016c. Green Book Nonattainment Areas. Colorado 

Nonattainment/Maintenance Status for Each County by Year for All 

Criteria Pollutants. 

https://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/anayo_co.html. Accessed 

15 July 2016. 

7.	 USEPA. 2016d. De Minimis Levels. https://www.epa.gov/generalconformity/de-minimis-emission-levels. Accessed 5 August 2016. 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan C-16	 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Construction and Demolition Activities 

Construction and Net Change in Total Net Change in 

Demolition Surface Net Change in Employee Emissions under 

Equipment Disturbance Painting Activity Operating Commuting Proposed Action De Minimis 

Year Pollutant Emissions (tons) Emissions (tons) Emissions (tons) Emissions (tons) Emissions (tons) (tons) Level (tons) 

NOx 0.7 -- -- -- -- 0.7 100 

VOC 0.1 -- 0.1 -- -- 0.2 100 

2018 

CO 0.2 -- -- -- -- 0.2 100 

PM10 0.0 4.4 -- -- -- 4.5 100 

NOx 4.0 -- -- 0.0 -- 4.1 100 

VOC 0.6 -- 1.6 0.0 -- 2.2 100 

2019 

CO 2.9 -- -- 0.0 -- 2.9 100 

PM10 0.2 19.1 -- 0.0 -- 19.3 100 

NOx 3.7 -- -- 0.2 0.1 3.9 100 

VOC 0.5 -- 1.5 0.0 0.1 2.1 100 

2020 

CO 2.7 -- -- 0.3 0.9 3.8 100 

PM10 0.2 14.7 -- 0.0 0.0 14.9 100 

NOx 3.7 -- -- 0.3 0.1 4.1 100 

VOC 0.5 -- 1.5 0.0 0.1 2.2 100 

2021 

CO 2.7 -- -- 0.5 1.6 4.8 100 

PM10 0.2 14.7 -- 0.0 0.0 14.9 100 

NOx 3.7 -- -- 0.4 0.2 4.3 100 

VOC 0.5 -- 1.5 0.0 0.2 2.2 100 

2022 

CO 2.5 -- -- 0.7 2.3 5.5 100 

PM10 0.2 14.7 -- 0.1 0.0 14.9 100 

NOx -- -- -- 0.5 0.2 0.7 100 

2023- VOC -- -- -- 0.1 0.2 0.3 100 

2024 CO -- -- -- 0.9 2.5 3.4 100 

PM10 -- -- -- 0.1 0.0 0.1 100 

Table C-14. Estimated Emissions from the Master Plan Compared to GCR De Minimis Thresholds 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan C-17 Final Environmental Assessment 
 

Table C-14. Estimated Emissions from the Master Plan Compared to GCR De Minimis Thresholds 

DoC Boulder Laboratories Campus Master Plan C-18 Final Environmental Assessment 

Construction and Demolition Activities 

Construction and Net Change in Total Net Change in 

Demolition Surface Net Change in Employee Emissions under 

Equipment Disturbance Painting Activity Operating Commuting Proposed Action De Minimis 

Year Pollutant Emissions (tons) Emissions (tons) Emissions (tons) Emissions (tons) Emissions (tons) (tons) Level (tons) 

NOx 1.3 -- -- 0.5 0.2 1.9 100 

VOC 0.2 -- 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.9 100 

2025 

CO 1.1 -- -- 0.9 2.5 4.5 100 

PM10 0.1 9.0 -- 0.1 0.0 9.2 100 

NOx 1.3 -- -- 0.5 0.1 2.0 100 

VOC 0.2 -- 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.9 100 

2026 

CO 1.1 -- -- 0.9 2.5 4.5 100 

PM10 0.1 9.0 -- 0.1 0.0 9.2 100 

NOx 1.4 -- -- 0.6 0.1 2.1 100 

VOC 0.2 -- 0.7 0.1 0.2 1.2 100 

2027 

CO 0.8 -- -- 0.9 2.5 4.2 100 

PM10 0.1 7.4 -- 0.1 0.0 7.6 100 

NOx -- -- -- 0.6 0.1 0.7 100 

2028- VOC -- -- -- 0.1 0.2 0.2 100 

2031 CO -- -- -- 1.0 1.8 2.8 100 

PM10 -- -- -- 0.1 0.0 0.1 100 

NOx 1.1 -- -- 0.6 0.1 1.8 100 

VOC 0.2 -- 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.9 100 

2032 

CO 0.7 -- -- 1.0 1.8 3.5 100 

PM10 0.1 5.2 -- 0.1 0.0 5.4 100 

NOx -- -- -- 0.7 0.1 0.9 100 

Post- VOC -- -- -- 0.1 0.2 0.3 100 

2032 CO -- -- -- 1.2 2.6 3.8 100 

PM10 -- -- -- 0.1 0.1 0.2 100 
Metropolitan Architects & Planners, Inc. 

Alexandria, VA 

Eastern Research Group, Inc. 

Chantilly, VA