Laserfiche WebLink
<br />G. Burton, WAPA, A3500 <br /> <br /> <br />P.01/02 <br /> <br />NOV-15-95 WED 09: 14 <br /> <br />November 14, 1995 <br /> <br />Leo LCD1SCh, Paul Thompson <br /> <br />Comments on Draft 1996 Le\'ee Removal Strategic Plan <br /> <br />1 apologize for these comments being late. Hopefully you will find them useful. The strntegy is <br />n good effort, but 1 flnd myself confused in a [ClW places. MOSl of my comments are intended to <br />help clarifY area~ of the document. <br /> <br />The Introduction on page 2 might include a descriptive tie-in to thc habitat development and <br />maintenance element in ilie ori(tinal RIP document and to the latest version of the RIPRAP. <br />These references provide the Program dircctive for this cffort. <br /> <br />The lust scnlene.: of the Introduction recognizes the "mOIl and error" elemem necessary for <br />floodplain wetland reclamation to be SllCcestful in enhwcing Cllnditions for endangered fish. It <br />also emphasi= one oflhe large fears in this program, !hat we will spend millions of CAP and <br />Program dollars buying and leasing land, or paying d=ages without knowing What will work. <br />Providlng some description here regarding a timed or phased approach similar to that discussed <br />in the first paragraph on p:lge 6 will dcflate same of the criticism. <br /> <br />The JElSt m'o sentences starting on page 3 are redundant am1 umfusing. Please revise. <br /> <br />It is imp{]!1~l1! to acicnowl<=dge and I am pleased 10 see me GDAL statement on page 5 emphasize <br />that this effort is conducted 10 support recovery of end<mgered fishes nuber Umn purely to restore <br />flooded bottomland habitat 10 !be system. <br /> <br />The two lists of Objectives on page 5 confuse !be reader as to the specific objective.~ of tl1is <br />document. It should be oppllrcnt that the LEVEE REMOV AL OBJECTIVES arc a subset of1be <br />FLOODPLAIN WETLAND RESTOR A nON OBJECTIVES. If this is not the intended <br />relotioll3hip then thAt i~ unclear, as well. <br /> <br />I did nOllind whac LEVEE REMOV AL OBJECTIVE 3. is addressed in Strategy or Bvaluation <br />sections. Old Charlie is listed as an a potential application site in BLOCK I, page 8, but <br />definition of "application sites" at thc top of page 6 docs not include "manipulated sites," nor do <br />1 find "timing and duration" od~~~ed a3 on evolUlltion /lPplicatiOIL <br /> <br />The SPECIFIC IIYPOTIlESES TO TEST apl"'lI! rwrrowly focused on OBJECTIVE 2. and do <br />not adequately explore the range of hypotheses available within. the strategy. AIe these intended <br />to be just the emt round of investigations initiated in 1996? <br /> <br />II ~(1uJd be informative for IDC nrn paragraph on page 6 to ptovide a shon explanation or <br />rationale describing why these four eriteria are impc:irt.:u1t in site selection, i.e. why is shove and <br />