Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />N <br />t., <br />.Is. <br />~ <br /> <br />III. WILDLIFE MONITORING & EVALUATION <br /> <br />A, Introduction <br /> <br />The McElmo Creek Area contains extensive <br />wetlands from over-irrigation, seepage from <br />canals, laterals, and ditches, and water ponding in <br />geological depressions. As irrigation systems and <br />management practices become more efficient <br />water supply to these wetlands will be <br />diminished, Losses of upland habitat will also <br />occur as fields are "squared up" and ditches are <br />removed, <br /> <br />Evaluations are being made to: <br />. Measure impacts of project implementation <br />on wetlands and upland habitat <br />. To assess the effectiveness of voluntary <br />aclions by landowners to replace habitat <br />losses. <br /> <br />B. Objectives and Methodology <br /> <br />Habitat quality is being determined by \ISing the <br />U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat Evaluation <br />Procedures (HEP). Habitat data gathered from <br />individual salinity contracts is being used to <br />calculate Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) values <br />for the following wildlife species: <br />. marsh wren <br />. mallard-winter <br />. mallard-breeding <br />. ring-necked pheasant <br />. greal-homed owl <br />. yellow warbler <br />. meadow vole <br />. common snipe. <br /> <br />The HSI is calculated for a panicular wildlife <br />species, This value multiplied by the acres of <br />cover type gives a Habitat Unit Value (HUV), <br />These models show the individual habitat <br />relationships critical to a species existence, With <br />this tool, a representative change to habitat <br />quality can be detennined. <br /> <br />The following vegetative cover types are being <br />evaluated: <br />. Cropland (AC) <br />. Annual Herbland (ANNHERB) <br />. Perennial Herbland (PERHERB) <br />. Woodland (WOODY) <br />. Pasture and Hayland (AP) <br />. Native RJlngeland (SSSB) <br />. Orchards and Vineyards (AO) <br />. Palustrine Emergent Wetlands (PEM) <br />. Streams, Rivers and Canals (RIVERSn) <br />. Lakes, Ponds and Reservoirs (LAKESn). <br /> <br />C, Additional Evaluations <br /> <br />The Colorado NRCS Wetland Evaluation <br />Procedures has been used to track changes in <br />wetland quality due to project implementation. <br />As of 1994 the Avian Richness Evaluation <br />Method (AREM) will be utilized to evaluate <br />existing, projected and applied wetland values <br />lost, altered or gained (see Appendix C). <br />Evenrually all wetland impact evaluations will be <br />converted to this method. <br /> <br />D. Tracking <br /> <br />A tracking system data base has been developed <br />to record cover types, wetland types and values, <br />HUV's and contracted wildlife replacement <br />practices by contract, A summary table (for <br />1990-1995) and narrative for each category can <br />be found in Appendix B and C. <br /> <br />E. Field Data and Monitoring <br /> <br />Between 1990 and 1995, 186 CRSC contracts <br />were cover type mapped, habitat data collected, <br />and HSI evaluations made. Up until 1993 this <br />had been expected on all contracts for existing, <br />planned and applied conditions. Due to the <br />increased workload and loss of staff the state <br />office decided in 1994 that cover typing and <br />evaluating two-thirds of the current years <br />contracts will accurately represent all contracts. <br />The results of the sampling will be extrapolated to <br />represent a 100% sample. This duplicates the <br />monitoring plan outlined in the McElmo Creek <br />ElS to a grealer degree, so that plan will be <br />dropped, <br /> <br />McElmo Creek Unit M&E 1995 Report <br />Page 7 <br />