Whooping Crane Baseline - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r Page 9. Channel Width, Water Width, Water Depth None of the cranes tracked by Howe stopped on the Platte River, which is not necessarily clear in some of the discussion. How do channel width and water width relate to wetland size measured at non - riverine wetlands. Howe (1985) and Austin and Richert (200 1) both point out that whooping cranes predominantly roost on non- riverine wetlands. A discussion of the most common habitat types used by whooping cranes during migration should be included in the discussion of stopover habitat. Include basic summary statistics (mean, max, min etc.) for all measured parameters. Some discussions about the limitations of how transect data is gathered should be included. These transects are often measured under different flow conditions and a fairly long time after the cranes use the spot. Also the probability that a cross - section of some small width actually goes through the spot where the crane stood is very small. I don't know if it is overly important but there is a paper by Ward and Anderson in one of the crane workshop proceedings that looks at habitat selection for water depth. Questions What do whooping cranes eat during migration? How long does it take a crane to migrate from Aransas to Wood Buffalo and vice a versa? On average how long do whooping cranes stay on the Platte River? What percentage of the population stops on the Platte River annually? How does the Platte River fit into the overall migration strategy/habitat selection by whooping cranes? These are often asked questions and are answerable from existing data. This information will also be very • important if the recovery objectives in the draft document the FWS put together remain similar to the last draft I saw. Habitat Definitions I kind of hate to bring this up but the focus of this Program has changed since the discussions about what a baseline should and should not be. The Technical Committee originally envisioned that we were not going to define habitat but instead let the species do it for use over the first increment. However the Program that is currently being developed does have habitat targets /definitions and the FWS has even presented models of how to achieve that habitat. Some of those definitions are not necessarily agreed upon and it is assumed will be modified or strengthened in the fixture through adaptive management. To do this one of the first steps will be to see if existing data support the targets /definitions, most likely through our peer- review process of this baseline. Therefore I believe this baseline should include those targets /definitions and the logic behind them, how much of each habitat type existed in 1997or as close as we can get, and how the available data on habitat use relates to those definitions. Past experience in this process tells me I am likely to see something totally different then I anticipated when I ask for these kinds of things so I included an example of what I am talking about. For example: Habitat Complex definition of whooping crane roosting habitat is: A channel area to be approximately 1150 feet wide by 2 miles long, confine normal flow between its immediate banks and at low flows it includes interconnected small channels and exposed sand or gravel bars and islands. Approximately 40% of the area less than 0.7 feet deep, 90 -100 percent of the channel wetted, velocity less than 4 mph, and with in 2 miles of wet meadows. In summary an unobstructed channel area of 113 ha (280acres), of which at least 102 ha (252 acres) should be water, of that water approximately 41 ha (101 acres) should be less than 0.7 feet deep. No reference on how these characteristics were derived could be located. Channel area around whooping crane roost sites could either be calculated or Richert may have done it in her dissertation (I do not have the time to calculate). Things such as normal flow, immediate banks, low flows, interconnected small channels,