Laserfiche WebLink
<br />13 <br /> <br />CHAPTER IV. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION <br /> <br />General <br /> <br />During the development of the alternatives for selenium remediation for the Orchard Mesa <br />Wildlife Area. public scoping was conducted. A pre-stamped comment card was provided with the <br />74 copies of the newsletter thaI were distributed. Five responses were received. Following the <br />development of a final array of alternatives, the newsletter concept was again used to distribute the <br />infonnation and obtain input. The local irrigation district manager and others agreed this would be <br />appropriate based on the level of stakeholder interest. <br /> <br />The comment cards returned by the stakeholders showed Alternative 2 as the most favored but no <br />action was a close second. There was also a consensus that we should not do any harm to the <br />OMW A. The cominents were generally taken to be an encouragement to do the minimum <br />necessary to remove the hazard and make sure we do not create any new hazards or spend too <br />many dollars on something that the river will reclaim. This all fit with the ID Team's objectives. <br /> <br />Following the NIWQP's decision on whether to implement the Preferred Alternative. the <br />stakeholders were informed of the decision and the plan for implementation. again by newsletter. <br />Throughout the process, slakeholder input has been vital in helping the team make appropriate <br />decisions. <br /> <br />Interagency consultation included Reclamation, U.S. Geological Survey. Service, Army Corp of <br />Engineers, Colorado Division of Wildlife, and Mesa Land Trust. <br /> <br />Review Comments on Draft Environmental Assessment <br /> <br />In September 2000, the draft EA was distributed to agencies, organizations, and interested parties <br />listed in Appendix C. Four comments were received. <br /> <br />Comments from the Service and the Recovery Program concurred with the draft EA and supported <br />the implementation of the Preferred Alternative. Comments from the Colorado Division of <br />Wildlife (CDOW) questioned proposed action affects on potential suitable habitat for the <br />Southwestern willow flycatcher. The proposed action will disturb very few willows during <br />construction. The pipeline will bisect a small sland of willows adjacent to the Colorado River. <br />These willows should regenerate afler construclion. The flushing channel will remove some <br />tamarisk. The OMW A will continue to be managed as a wildlife area and over time, enhance <br />Southwestern willow flycatcher habitat. The CDOW comment also inquired if there was any <br />indication of the presence of bullfrogs and leopard frogs within the OMW A. Leopard frogs and <br />bullfrogs were documented in the middle drainage during the 1997 breeding bird survey and both <br />species continue to use Ihe Orchard Mesa Wildlife Area. <br />