DOCSLIB.ORG

Rocky Mountain Arsenal (Rma) Offpost Operable Unit

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rocky Mountain Arsenal (Rma) Offpost Operable Unit Rocky Mountain Arsenal Offpost Operable Unit Final Record of Decision Rocky Mountain Arsenal Commerce City, Colorado Prepared for Program Manager for Rocky Mountain Amenal Building 111, Rocky Mountain Arsenal Commerce City. Colorado 80022-2180 HLA Project No. 21905 402010 Contract No. DAAA05-92-D-0003 Delivery Order No. 0005 TIUS DOCUMENT IS IN7LNDED TO COMPLY WITH THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969. THE INFORMATION AND CONCLUSIONS PRESENTED IN TFUS REPORT REPRE- SENT THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY UNLESS EXPRESSLY MODIFMD BY A SUBSEQUENT DOCUMENT. TMS REPORT CONSTI- TUTES THE RELEVAN7 PORTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FOR TIES CERCLA OPERABLE December 19, 1995 Harding Lawson Associates z 11.= 1z Engineering and Environmental Services 707 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2400 Denver, CO 80202 - (303) 292-5365 M9604811 Recycled Paper CONTENTS **'-**-*- DS-1 DECLARATION STATEMENT ................................... I.o SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION ................................. 1-1 ... 1-2 1.1 Environmental Setting ................................. 1-2 1.2 Geology ......................................... 1-3 1.3 Hydrogeology .......................................... 2-1 2.0 SIIT HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES ............................. 2-1 2.1 Operational History ................................................ * * * * 2-2 2.2 Previous Investigations .......................................... 2-2 2.2.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Study Area .................. 2-3 2.2.2 U.S. Department of the Army Investigation ....................... - - 2-4 2.3 Boundary Containment Systems ................................... 2-5 2.3.1 North Boundary Containment System ........................... 2-6 2.3.2 Northwest Boundary Containment System ........................ 2-6 2.3.3 Irondale Containment System ................................. * * 2-7 2.4 Interim Response Actions .......................................... 2-7 2.4.1 Offpost Interim Response Action ............................... 2.5 History of CERCLA Enforcement Activities ............................... 2-8 3-1 3.0 HIGHLIGM OF COMmUNrff PARTICIPATION .............................. 4-1 4.0 SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE OFFPOST OPERABLE UNIT ......................... s.o SUINIMARY OF SIT`E CHARACTERISTICS .................................... 5-1 5.1 Sources of Contam ination ............................................ 5-1 5.2 Nature of Contam ination ............................................ 5-1- 5.3 Contamination Migration Pathways .................................... 5-2 5.4 Extent of Contam ination .............................................. 5-3 5.4.1 Groundw ater .............................................. 5-3 5.4.2 Surface W ater ............................................. 5-4 5.4.3 Stream-bottom Sediments .................................... 5-5 5.4.4 Surface and Subsurface Soil .................................. 5-5 5.4.5 Biota .................................................... 5-6 5.5 Potential Routes of Human and Environmental Exposure .................... 5-7 '21905 402010 Harding Lawson Associates 1107121895 R02 6-1 6.0 SUMMARY OF SrM RISKS ................................. 6-2 .......................... 6.1 Human Health Risks 6-2 of Chemicals of Concern .......................... 6.1.1 Identification ... 6-3 6.1.2 Exposure Assessment ...................... ............. 6-3 Offpost Study Area Exposure Assessment Zones 6.1.2.1 6-5 Offpost Study Area Potential Exposure Points .............. 6.1.2.2 6-6 potential Exposure Pathways and Routes .................. 6.1.2.3 6-8 6.1.2.4 Estimation of Chemical Intake .......................... ... 6-8 6.1.3 Toxicity Assessment .......................... *,*** .... 6-9 6.1.4 Risk Characterization ............................... 6-9 6.1.4.1 Carcinogenic Risks ................................... 6-10 6.1.4.2 Noncarcinogenic Effects .............................. 6-11 of Potential Ecological Effects ............................... 6.2 Estimation 6-11 M ethod ................................................. 6.2.1 6-13 6.2.2 Results ................................................. ****'*** .... 6-14 6.3 Conclusion .......................................... ALTERNATIVES ............... 7-1 7.0 DESCRIPTION OF GROUNDWATER REMMIATION 7-4 7.1 Common Elements of Alternatives ..................................... .............. 7-6 identification of Groundwater Alternatives: North Plume Group 7.2 7-6 7.2.1 Alternative N-1: No Action ................................... 7.2.2 Alternative N-2: Continued Operation of the North ...... 7-6 Boundary Containment System With Improvements as Necessary System 7-7 7.2.3 Alternative N-4: Offpost Groundwater Intercept and Treatment 7.2.4 Alternative N-5: Expansion of the Offpost Groundwater Intercept and Treatment System .............................. 7-10 .......... 7-12 7.3 identification of Groundwater Alternatives: Northwest Plume Group 7-12 7.3.1 Alternative N-1: No Action .................................. 7.3.2 Alternative NW-2: Continued Operation of the Northwest Boundary Containment System With Improvements as Necessary ..... 7-13 8-1 8.o COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OFALTERNATWES ............................... 8-2 8.1 Comparative Analysis of Remedial Alternatives ........................... 8-3 8.1.1 Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment ............ 8.1.2 Compliance With AppLcable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements - 8-4 8.1.3 Long-term Effectiveness and Permanence ......................... 8-5 8.1.4 Reduction in Toxicity. Mobility. or Volume ....................... 8-6 8.1.5 Short-term Effectiveness ..................................... 8-6 8.1.6 Im plementability ........................................... 8-7 8.1.7 Cost .................................................... 8-9 8.1.8 State Acceptance .......................................... 8-10 8.1.9 Community Acceptance ..................................... 8-11 8.2 Conclusions of the Comparative Analysis of Alternatives ................... 8-11 ii Harding Lawson Associates 21905 402010 1107121895 R02 9-1 9.o IDENTIFICATION OF THE SELECT REMEDY ............................... System ......... 9-1 9.1 Alternative N-4: Offpost Groundwater Intercept and Treatment 9.2 Alternative NW-2: Continued Operation of the Northwest Boundary 9-3 Containment System with Improvements as Necessary ...................... 9-5 9.3 Additional Components of the Selected Remedy ........................... 9-6 9.4 Cost of Selected Remedy ............................................ 9-6 9.5 Lim itations ....................................................... 9.6 Criteria for Shutting Down Boundary and Offpost. Containment Groundwater 9-7 System s ......................................................... 10-1 10.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS ......................................... ....... 10-1 10.1 Consistency with the Statutory Requirements of CERCLA in Section 121 10-1 10.1.1 Protection of Hinnan. Health and the Environment ................. 10-2 10-1.2 Compliance With Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements 10-3 10.1.3 Cost Effectiveness ......................................... 10-4 10-1.4 Utilization cf Permanent Solutions to the Maximum Extent Practicable . 10-4 10.2 Consistency with the National Contingency Plan ......................... 10-5 10.3 Sum m ary ....................................................... 11-1 11.0 DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES ............................. 12-1 12.0 G LO SSARY .......................................................... 13-1 13.0 BIBU OGRALPHY ....................................................... TABLES 6.1 Offj--551 ();-'rdble Urlit Groundwater Chemicals of Concern 6.2 Offt"m ()I--rdble Unit Surface-Water Chemicals of Concern 6.3 DI--r-Alle Unit Sediment Chemicals of Concern in First Creek 6.4 0ifix,st ()I--rable Unit Sod Chemicals of Concern 6.5 Suruman of Ldnd-Use Scenarios and Exposure Routes by Zone 6.6 R- 1--r--n, - I)-,u-s and Slope Factors for Chemicals of Concern Route 6.7 Surrinjar% of Rt-asonable Maximum Exposure Carcinogenic Risks by Zone and Exposure 6.8 Sunimar% of Adult Reasonable Maximum Exposure Noncarcinogenic Han d. Indices by Target Orgd,l dn I Lxposure Assessment Zone Treatment 7.1 COntdinnient System Remediation Coals for the Offpost Groundwater Intercept and S,.,stem 7.2 Containment Svstem Remediation Goals for the North Boundary Containment System 7.3 Containment System Remediation Coals for the Northwest Boundary Containment System 7.4 Groundwater Alternatives for the North and Northwest Plume Groups 8.1 Summarv of the Detailed Analysis and Ranking of Groundwater Alternatives for the North Plume Group 8.2 Summary of the Detailed Analysis and Ranking of Groundwater Alternatives for the Northwest Plume Group iii '21905 402010 Harding Lawson Associates 1107121995 R02 Remedy 9.1 Estimated Costs of the Offpost Operable Unit Selected and Other Applicable -or Relevant and Appropriate 10.1 Summary Evaluation of Chemical-specific Requirements for the Offpost Operable Unit Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements 10.2 Summary Evaluation of Action-specific for the Offpo'st Operable Unit or Relevant and Appropriate 10.3 Summary Evaluation of Location-specificApplicable Requirements for the Oftpost Operable Unit FIGURES and Offpost Study Area 1.1 Rocky Mountain Arsenal Operable Units 2.1 Locations of Contaminant Source Areas 5.1 Contaminant Migration Pathways Zones 6.1 Offpost Study Area Exposure
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Plan Template
    Chapter 3—Affected Environment © Rich Keen Hiking on the refuge This chapter describes the characteristics and The land ethic simply enlarges the bound- resources of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National aries of the community to include soils, Wildlife Refuge in the categories listed below and provides the basis for the environmental analysis waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: presented in chapter 4: the land. ■■ Physical Environment This sounds simple: do we not already sing ■■ Biological Environment our love for and obligation to the land of the ■■ Special Management Areas free and the home of the brave? Yes, but just ■■ Visitor Services what and whom do we love? Certainly not ■■ Communications and Outreach the soil, which we are sending helter-skelter ■■ Partnerships ■■ Human History and Cultural Resources downriver. Certainly not the waters, which ■■ Research and Science we assume have no function except to turn ■■ Infrastructure and Operations turbines, float barges, and carry off sewage. ■■ Access and Transportation Certainly not the plants, of which we exter- ■■ Socioeconomic Environment minate whole communities without batting an eye. Certainly not the animals, of which we have already extirpated many of the largest and most beautiful species. A land 3.1 Physical Environment ethic of course cannot prevent the altera- tion, management, and use of these This section describes the physical environment of ‘resources,’ but it does affirm their right to the refuge. Physical characteristics comprise physi- continued existence, and, at least in spots, ography, water resources, air quality, climate, night sky, and soundscapes. their continued existence in a natural state. Aldo Leopold 96 Final EIS—Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado Bresser soils make up the most common soil Physiography series on the refuge.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge: on a Rocky Road to Creating a Community Asset, 47 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1401 (2014)
    UIC Law Review Volume 47 Issue 4 Article 13 Summer 2014 The Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge: On a Rocky Road to Creating a Community Asset, 47 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1401 (2014) Rachel Salcido Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview Part of the Environmental Law Commons, Land Use Law Commons, and the Natural Resources Law Commons Recommended Citation Rachel Salcido, The Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge: On a Rocky Road to Creating a Community Asset, 47 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1401 (2014) https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview/vol47/iss4/13 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UIC Law Open Access Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in UIC Law Review by an authorized administrator of UIC Law Open Access Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE: ON A ROCKY ROAD TO CREATING A COMMUNITY ASSET RACHAEL E. SALCIDO* ∗ I. Introduction ....................................................................... 13991401 II. History of the RMA Refuge and its Conversion to a Community Asset ........................................................... 14021404 A. Background – History of the Region and the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. ................................................... 14021404 1. The Denver Region. ............................................ 14021404 2. A Nutshell History of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. ............................................................. 14051407
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Chemicals IV Learning Objectives Rocky Mountain Arsenal, CO Rocky Mountain Arsenal, CO RMA
    Principles of Environmental Toxicology Learning Objectives • Explore the environmental challenges of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Colorado as it transitions to a National Wildlife Refuge. Environmental Chemicals IV • Study the environmental effects, chemical fate and transport, receptors and remedial controls of the Chem-Dyne site in Hamilton, OH. Principles of Environmental Toxicology • Explore the environmental clean-up and transition Instructor: Gregory Möller, Ph.D. of Midway Island from a Naval Air Station to a sanctuary for over 2,000,000 nesting birds. University of Idaho 2 Principles of Environmental Toxicology Principles of Environmental Toxicology Rocky Mountain Arsenal, CO Rocky Mountain Arsenal, CO • Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA) is located approximately 10 miles NE of downtown Denver, CO. Rocky Mountain • In 1942, at the height of World War Arsenal II, the U.S. Army purchased the 17,000 acres of land on which to manufacture chemical weapons, such as mustard gas, white phosphorus and napalm. PMRMA Encarta PMRMA 3 4 Principles of Environmental Toxicology Principles of Environmental Toxicology RMA RMA • Between December 1942 and the end of the war in • Shell Chemical made pesticides, insecticides and 1945, the Arsenal made 155,000 tons of chlorine, herbicides at the Arsenal until 1982. In the mustard gas and arsenic trioxide, as well as 87,000 meantime, the Army produced nerve agent at the tons of chemical products. site from 1953 to 1957. EPA • Private industry was encouraged to lease facilities at RMA after the war. – Julius Hyman and Company (JHC) began producing pesticides in 1946. – In 1952, Shell Chemical Company acquired JHC and continued to produce agricultural pesticides on-site until 1982.
    [Show full text]
  • Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge Habitat Management Plan
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge Habitat Management Plan 1 The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer a national network of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and future generations. CITATION: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Draft Habitat Management Plan : Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge. Commerce City, Colorado: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge. vi., 143 p. i Executive Summary Located approximately ten miles from downtown Denver, the land (15,988 acres) within the acquisition boundary of Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge (RMANWR) has a well-documented history of significant environmental disturbance and contamination. The primary causes of degradation were the manufacture of chemical weapons by the U.S. Army from the World War II through Vietnam eras and the production of pesticides by Shell Oil Company in the 1980’s. Given the extent and type of degradation, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified the need for these lands to be remediated in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA, also commonly known as Superfund) to ensure standards for human health and the environment are met prior to transferring ownership to the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) for management as a National Wildlife Refuge.
    [Show full text]
  • Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge
    ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ~IN~ .. / FISH AND WILDLIFE1 MANAGEMENT PLAN July 1997 ~ U.S. FI SH & WILDLIFE SERVICE ~-.::&:- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR ~It ~. ~ --· r r ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE r MANAGEMENT PLAN l ' r FISCAL YEAR 1998 r U.S. ! FISH A WILDLIFE SERVICE r r r r r r Kevin Blose, Deputy Program Manager U.S. Army Building 111 r Rocky Mountain Arsenal r Commerce City, CO 80022-2180 r Ray Rauch, Project Leader U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Building 111 r Rocky Mountain Arsenal r Commerce City, CO 80022-2180 r r ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE r FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLAN Fiscal Year 1998 r, r r r ' Prepared in Partial Fulfillment of requirements of the Cooperative ri Agreement for Conservation and Management of Fish and Wildlife Resources at Rocky Mountain Arsenal, r U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Army r July 1997 r r r by The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service r Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge Building 111 Rocky Mountain Arsenal r Commerce City, Colorado 80022-17 48 r r r r, ' C ,, ' TABLE OF CONTENTS r PAGE INTRODUCTION . ...................................................... 1 • TASK 1 - FISH AND WILDLIFE HEALTH STATUS MONITORING r, EFFORTS Task Introduction .................................................... 7 r Planning ........................................................... 9 Biomonitoring Program ............................................... 11 Songbird population trends, habitat use, and management. .................. 20 r Distribution, abundance, and management of the black-tailed prairie dog ........ 23 The effects of pyriproxyfen and pyrethrin treatments on fleas and other insects associated with black-tailed prairie dogs .........................27 r Population trends and management of mule deer and white-tailed deer........
    [Show full text]
  • Public Law 102-402 102D Congress an Act
    PUBLIC LAW 102-402—OCT. 9, 1992 106 STAT. 1961 Public Law 102-402 102d Congress An Act To direct the Secretary of the Army to transfer jurisdiction over the Rocky Mountain Oct. 9, 1992 Arsenal, Colorado, to the Secretary of the Interior. [H.R. 1435] Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, Rocky Mountain Arsenal SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND DEFINITIONS. National Wildlife Refuge (a) SHORT TITLE.—^This Act may be cited as the "Rocky Moun­ Act of 1992. tain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge Act of 1992". Real property. (b) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this Act: 16 use 668dd (1) The term "Arsenal means the Rocky Mountain Arsenal note. in the State of Colorado. (2) The term "refuge" means the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge established pursuant to section 4(a). (3) The term "hazardous substance" has the meaning given such term by section 101(14) of the Comprehensive Environ­ mental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601(14)). (4) The term "pollutant or contaminant" has the meaning given such term by section 101(33) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601(14)). (5) The term "response action" has the meaning given the term "response" by section 101(25) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9601(25)). (6) The term "person" has the meaning given that term by section 101(21) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Transforming a Munitions Facility Into Open Prairie, the Rocky Mountain
    An Astonishing Oasis: Transforming a Munitions Facility into Open Prairie THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL SUPERFUND SITE IN ADAMS COUNTY, COLORADO www.epa.gov Introduction Just outside of Denver, Colorado, Rocky Mountain Arsenal was established in 1942 to produce incendiary munitions and chemical warfare agents during World War II. Following the war, weapons production continued and a succession of other private and military facility uses included pesticide and rocket fuel production. In the early 1980s, the primary liquid waste and munitions disposal area was one of the most polluted sites in America. Today, the site has been transformed into a valuable wildlife refuge and community asset. This case study tells the remarkable story of the cleanup and reuse of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal Superfund site. When manufacturing activities ceased and sampling identified potential groundwater contamination in the 1980s, the future of this 26.6-square-mile site was unclear. The discovery of bald eagles roosting on site highlighted the area’s potential as a valuable part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wildlife Refuge system. Collaboration among EPA, the U.S. Army, Shell Oil Co., FWS, the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment (CDPHE), the Tri-County The site is part of a highly developed area just outside Denver, to the Health Department, the city of Commerce City, and many west of Denver International Airport. more public and private organizations, as well as local, state and national elected officials, over several decades resulted in parks and soccer fields, a 25,000-seat stadium, and room for the site’s successful cleanup and reuse.
    [Show full text]
  • The Environmental Message of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal Notional
    1 THE SITE AND ITS CONTEXT he environmental message of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal Notional Wildlife Refuge grows oul of what has occurred on this site through his­ Ttory, and what it is becoming through restoration. For this reoson, an understanding of the history of the site and its context-biologicol, cultural, and legislative-is crucial for planning and coring for fMe Refuge. CULTURAL HISTORY Stone Rokes from spearheads and knives, fire-cracked rocks used for cooking, hammer and grinding stones doting between 3,500 B.C. and 1,000 A.D. ore some of the evidence of prehistoric activities near the north ­ ern boundary of the Refuge. Even earlier, nomadic hunter-gatherers who migrated to North America between 40,000 and 12,000 B.C. camped at Henderson Hill . By the early 15005, Apache tribes occupied the area, fol· lowed by the Comanches, Utes, Arapahoes, and Northern Cheyennes. Eventually, ranchers, formers, and homesteaders displaced Native American papulations. From the mid-l BOOs, prairie settlers grazed cattle and raised crops such as com and wheat. By the 1930s, approximately 200 families lived on the Refuge site. {See Figure 1.1.) Farmers played a major role in changing the landscape-and encouraging wildlife-by build­ ing ditches and lakes and introducing water. figure 1.1 The Egli Family lived and farmed en the site of the future Rocky Movnklin Arsenol Nalionol Wildlife Refuge. (Photo courtesy of Egli family.) The outbreak of World War II radically had this capability. The Rocky Wiountain changed the lives on these seemingly remote Arsenol-os the only production source far this forms and ranches and the priorities of the whole gas outside of the Soviet Union---hod a significant country.
    [Show full text]
  • Since Its Establishment in 1942, the Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA) Has Played a Unique Role in the Service of Our Nation
    ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL TIMELINE Since its establishment in 1942, the Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA) has played a unique role in the service of our nation. From Arsenal of Democracy to urban wildlife refuge, the RMA has been critical to achieving U.S. defense, space exploration, and environmental remediation and conservation goals. The timeline below highlights milestones from each decade. 1940s 1941- Japan attacks Pearl Harbor and the United States enters World War II. 1942- The U.S. Army establishes the Rocky Mountain Arsenal to produce chemical weapons as a war-time deterrent. The 17,000-acre site is 10 miles northeast of Denver. 1943- RMA employees work around the clock to manufacture mustard gas, Lewisite, chlorine gas and incendiary weapons. By year end, the United States has out-produced the Axis Powers by 150 percent. 1943- From 1943 to 1946, the Rose Hill Prisoners of War Camp houses captured German soldiers at the RMA. 1950s 1950- North Korea invades South Korea and the U.S. Army reactivates the RMA to produce chemical weapons and incendiary munitions for the Korean War and Vietnam Conflict. 1952- Shell Chemical Company purchases Julius Hyman and Company and continues to manufacture agricultural chemicals at the RMA until 1982. 1960s 1962- Treated liquid waste is injected into a deep well located more than 12,000 feet below the ground surface. 1966- Following reports of localized earthquake tremors, the U.S. Army concludes the deep well injection program. 1969- Powered by rocket fuel propellant manufactured at the RMA, Apollo 11 lands on the moon. 1970s 1973- The Vietnam Conflict ends, and demilitarization becomes the primary focus of the RMA.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge: on a Rocky Road to Creating a Community Asset Rachael E
    University of the Pacific Scholarly Commons McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles McGeorge School of Law Faculty Scholarship 2014 The Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge: On a Rocky Road To Creating a Community Asset Rachael E. Salcido Pacific cGeM orge School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/facultyarticles Part of the Environmental Law Commons Recommended Citation 47 John Marshall L. Rev. 1400 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the McGeorge School of Law Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in McGeorge School of Law Scholarly Articles by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE: ON A ROCKY ROAD TO CREATING A COMMUNITY ASSET RACHAEL E. SALCIDO* ∗ I. Introduction ....................................................................... 1399 II. History of the RMA Refuge and its Conversion to a Community Asset ........................................................... 1402 A. Background – History of the Region and the Rocky Mountain Arsenal.................................................... 1402 1. The Denver Region. ............................................ 1402 2. A Nutshell History of the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. ............................................................. 1405 B. Legal Backgr ound.................................................... 1407 III. Faux Nature and the RMA Refuge
    [Show full text]
  • Coyote Abundance and Food Habits at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge in 2005
    COYOTE ABUNDANCE AND FOOD HABITS AT THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE IN 2005 FINAL REPORT March 15, 2006 .. Noelle Ronan USFWS 2003 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge Commerce City, Colorado Project Lead: Noelle Ronan, USFWS Rocky Mountain Arsenal NWR, CO Project Assistants: Michelle Long, Metro State College, Denver, CO Michael Cunningham, Metro State College, Denver, CO Diane Buell, USFWS Rocky Mountain Arsenal NWR, CO Abstract: We examined relative abundance, absolute density, and seasonal (late-winter through early fall) food habits of coyotes at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge in Colorado from March through September 2005. We used scat deposition rates to evaluate relative abundance, distance sampling to estimate density, and scat analysis to evaluate food habits in two major habitat types: woodland-prairie in the south and prairie in the north. There was wide variation in relative abundance (scats/mile/day) per season and survey period. Abundance ranged from 0.44 in early March to a low of 0.01 in August. The southern area had 3 times more scat deposition compared to the northern area which was likely associated with differences in habitat and prey availability. The estimated population size during August was 19 coyotes (95% C.I. = 12-29) with a density of0.29 / krn 2 (95 % C.I. = 0.18-0.44). Coyote density had decreased by more than half compared with an estimate obtained in 1992. Food supplies have been noted as the predominant restraint on coyote populations, and fluctuating prey populations may be responsible.
    [Show full text]
  • Bison Grazing Ecology at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado
    Bison Grazing Ecology at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado Open-File Report 2013–1112 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey i Cover photographs: Close-up profile of buffalo bull, courtesy of Ryan Hagerty, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Grazing bison, courtesy of Steve Hillebrand, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ii Bison Grazing Ecology at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado By Stephen Germaine, Linda C. Zeigenfuss, and Kathryn A. Schoenecker Open-File Report 2013–1112 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey i U.S. Department of the Interior SALLY JEWELL, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2013 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Suggested citation: Germaine, Stephen, Zeigenfuss, L.C., and Schoenecker, K.A., 2013, Bison grazing ecology at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2013–1112, 20 p., http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1112/. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text.
    [Show full text]