Laserfiche WebLink
SPRRIP - ED OFFICE FINAL 6 06/24/2008 <br />45 • When this paper refers to depth is it always they average depth of the channel as calculated <br />46 by (area of the channel /wetted top width) information from transects and not where the crane <br />47 actually used. If this is the case I would question why or how a crane evaluates that <br />48 parameter. Also with the function as shown in figure 16 the relative predicted probability of <br />49 use would continue to increase even as the entire channel became too deep for a crane to <br />50 stand in. <br />51 <br />52 • In the discussion of trends in use, you indicate that habitat is insufficient to allow more <br />53 cranes to land. Yet we have had cranes successfully utilize many different areas of the river <br />54 (Figure 2) over the years and at no time do I remember all those areas having cranes at the <br />55 same. Is there some other data that would lead you to believe that at any given time all <br />56 available habitat is being used? <br />57 <br />58 • I think it would also be worthwhile to discuss what the effect on this analysis technique is if <br />59 cranes are random in the selection of stopover habitats or if other factors such as time of day <br />60 or wind direction influence selection more than the physical landscape features. <br />61 <br />62 • Was distance to visual obstruction not in the models because it is highly correlated with <br />63 unobstructed view? <br />64 <br />•65 • There are some pretty major differences in values for use sites when just systematic sites are <br />66 used versed when the opportunistic sites are included. Any thoughts on why? <br />67 <br />68 • The vast majority of whooping cranes select NOT to stop in the river, so how do you account <br />69 for that in your resource selection model? <br />70 <br />71 • How far up and down the river can you consider habitat as being available for a crane as it <br />72 flies in? Do you assume the bird can see 10 miles and thus selects whatever the variable it <br />73 selects for in that 10 miles? <br />74 ( b <br />75 • Page 14. first line... "...a slight increase in size of the Aransas- Io migrating <br />76 population during this same time ". The A -W flock grew fro 126 birds m 2001, o 237 in <br />77 2006 ... that's a 35% increase! Even if you look at the 2005 numbers (215) it is still a 220/, <br />78 increase ...I don't consider that a "slight increase" and I would think that would change the <br />79 conclusion given there. I would look at that and say that over this time period there was a <br />80 decrease in use of the river. <br />81 <br />82 • The National Research Council showed an increase in use of the river as compared to the <br />83 total population... and WEST shows in Figure 6 that the A -WB population has an increasing <br />84 trend and the river use looks to be slightly negative over the O1 — 06 period ... how would that <br />85 change the NRC analyses? <br />86 <br />87 • I would also like to see an overall conclusion that ties all this together. <br />