My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Whooping Crane Migrational Habitat Use Draft (2)
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
1001-2000
>
Whooping Crane Migrational Habitat Use Draft (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:37:13 PM
Creation date
6/3/2009 9:41:23 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8461.100
Description
Adaptive Management Workgroup
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Date
8/6/2008
Author
Shay Howlin, Clayton Derby, Dale Strickland, Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc.
Title
Whooping Crane Migrational Habitat Use Draft
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
showed a preference for agricultural lands, presumably for feeding, but this preference was <br />limited to those lands in proximity to preferred channel widths and depths. <br />The predictive capabilities of the habitat models are limited and we caution that specific <br />estimated values should be viewed in light of the width of the corresponding confidence <br />intervals. Other models, with different predictor variables, would lead to slightly different <br />conclusions. We do support the use of this model to indicate general direction of increasing or <br />decreasing probability. <br />RECOMMENDATIONS <br />1) In regards to the detectability trails, Pollock et al (2002) assert that detection probabilities <br />are not constant for wildlife monitoring and detection probabilities should be estimated as <br />part of a scientifically rigorous monitoring design. We agree with this approach and <br />recommend continuing the implementation of the detectability trials each survey season. <br />2) Habitat selection analyses should be reanalyzed when updated data become available. <br />Examples of current data that would be useful include GIS coverages of: <br />a. vegetation community types (our analysis used land use/land cover from the 1998 <br />photographs), <br />b. areas that have received Program management for whooping crane habitat, and <br />c. areas that have received other land management practices for whooping crane <br />habitat development/restoration (i.e., management of conservation lands not a part <br />of the Program). <br />3) HECRAS appears to be a suitable approach to estimate channel characteristics at in- <br />channel use sites and available locations at the time of crane use. We recommend this <br />approach for future analyses, although with the inclusion of the entire study area. We <br />agree with the data collection recommendations made by Fotherby and Russell (2008), <br />future measurements of the channel should be made with survey grade GPS and tied to <br />vertical control. <br />4) The index of use should be used to evaluate the occurrence of whooping cranes in the <br />study area in response to Program management. The interpretation of these results would <br />be improved if an estimate of crane use could be determined for one or more additional <br />locations along the migration route. <br />18
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.