Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />changes in population numbers should not be the primary measure of success for the Program, <br />but rather an increase in quality habitat should be the measure. <br />6. Page 5, A3a: What type of "channel widening" are you referring to, mechanical or natural, and is <br />channel widening and island leveling considered the same? <br />7. Bottomland Habitat: We believe the definition of bottomland has a broader connotation than <br />native grasslands. For example, does bottomland habitat include croplands? The term wet <br />meadows or lowland grasslands would be more appropriate and is more widely understood by <br />biologists. <br />8. Vegetation encroachment (Table I, A3b): We do not see the utility of collecting data on plant <br />species composition, height and density following land management activities (e.g., river <br />clearing), because the treatment should be repeated at regular intervals. The goal is to- prevent <br />vegetation re- establishment, and any plants that do return, will be removed in subsequent , <br />clearings. <br />9. Project level land management (Table I, A3c): This list of data needs duplicates the general <br />monitoring, and therefore should be coordinated with the general monitoring program. In addition <br />to the volume of sediment added, it is important to compare this volume with the total sediment <br />load passing through the project area and how this sediment added varies with episodic high -flow <br />events. <br />10. Page 12 -13, Bottomland feeding: Why is data collected on channel morphology for this habitat, <br />and what is a "dry meadow?" We believe whooping crane time activity budgets should be <br />conducted in all habitats, not just grassland habitats. <br />11. Page 11,, Physical and biological diversity: What will be sampled 3X annually? Are you <br />expecting to continue with the work that the Trust and USGS have been doing in wet meadows? <br />If so, we believe that this work may be unnecessary because may have collected sufficient <br />baseline data from these studies. It may be more important to look at physical and biological <br />diversity in restored sites. <br />12. Page 14: It would be desirable to conduct regular whooping crane surveys, however, it may be <br />logistically impossible to continuously monitor for whooping crane use. For example, you may <br />not observe short-term stopovers. What did the two reviewers mean by confounding variables? <br />13. Page 16: Why the emphasis on pack ice, and what is considered pack ice? Why is pack ice <br />associated with terns and plovers and not for whooping cranes? <br />14. Page 18: In terms of data needs for piping plovers, why not collect data on food availability <br />(aquatic invertebrates) for piping plovers? <br />Thanks again for the opportunity to review the document. <br />Sincerely, <br />Craig A. Davis, Robert J. Henszey <br />Avian Ecologist, Wetland Ecologist <br />