My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
PRRIP Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting Agenda
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
7001-8000
>
PRRIP Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting Agenda
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/25/2014 2:52:51 PM
Creation date
3/1/2013 11:28:15 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Platte River Recovery Implementation Program (PRRIP) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting Packet including minutes, documents, schedule, etc. July 10, 2008
State
NE
CO
WY
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Date
7/10/2008
Author
Platte River Recovery Implementation Program
Title
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Meeting Packet for July 10, 2008
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
113
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
SPRRIP - ED OFFICE FINAL 6 06/24/2008 <br />1 PLATTE RIVER RECOVERYM IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM <br />2 Questions /Comments on Whooping Crane Data Analysis Report <br />3 <br />4 • Initially the decoys were not to be used as a detection trial but to train the observers. This <br />5 was for several reasons including things like do painted decoys have the same detection <br />6 probability as a live bird or group of birds? Is it really independent if the same contractor <br />7 places them that reports them and after some time all observers recognize they will only be <br />8 on conservation lands? I think those issues should be mentioned but more importantly is that <br />9 due to the random nature of placement, decoys got stuck in areas of trees, very narrow <br />10 channels etc., where they are hard to detect but whooping cranes may not go. Therefore if <br />11 we are going to use decoys for detection trials we need to analyze the effects of land cover, <br />12 channel width, etc. on the detection probability of the decoys and compare that to where <br />13 cranes were found. <br />14 <br />15 • I am probably missing something on this one but, many of the models indicate a large portion <br />16 of open water is a good predictor of use. However, Table 6 does not show open water ever <br />17 being used. While the water may be in the landscape if the birds never use it is it really be <br />18 selected for? <br />19 <br />20 • What is relative probability of use? If we make an unobstructed view large enough to have a <br />21 relative probability of use of 1 are we guaranteed to see a crane there or is it that there is <br />• 22 twice the chance of seeing one in an area that has an unobstructed view with a corresponding <br />23 value of 0.5. <br />24 <br />25 • Based on comment number 3 above I would like to see histograms of actual use broken down <br />26 by say 50 or 100 foot intervals and some simple ratios of use verses availability for those <br />27 relative use probabilities. While the given functions are nice lines and give the top end of <br />28 what seems to be important to whooping cranes I would like to see some discussion of <br />29 how they can be used to design management. We can strive to achieve the very peak of these <br />30 functions but if we cannot get there due to geology, hydrology whatever we need to at least <br />31 make sure we are not building something cranes avoid. <br />32 <br />33 • When cranes spent more than one night and changed channel use sites was it always to wider <br />34 channels? <br />35 <br />36 • How many of the 165 transects used in the HECRAS model were measured, interpolated <br />37 and /or synthesized? <br />38 <br />39 • I think I have it figured out but the description of how available points on the local scale were <br />40 obtained could use some clarification. <br />41 <br />42 • Was area clear of visual obstruction actually measured or calculated from average distance to <br />.43 obstruction? And are these only channel measurements or in agricultural areas also. <br />44 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.