Laserfiche WebLink
5. Is testing the hypothesis cost effective (dollars, other resources) and/or technically <br />feasible? <br />6. Is the hypothesis on a critical path to assist in developing future Program goals and <br />obj ectives? <br />7. Is the hypothesis critical to testing one of the two primary Strategies? <br />8. If the hypothesis is addressed, will it influence Program management? <br />9. Can Program actions be used to test the hypothesis or can research be conducted (can it <br />be measured) to investigate the issue/action/hypothesis? <br />10. Does the hypothesis address areas of disagreement? <br />Policy Guidelines (applied by the Governance Committee): <br />1. Is the proposed hypothesis testing within Program constraints (Program goals and <br />objectives, legal, compact, decrees, etc.)? <br />2. Is funding available and appropriate? <br />3. Are there other factors influencing hypothesis testing? <br />The AM Working Group initially discussed prioritizing all current hypotheses using the <br />guidelines above and relating them to the CEMs, but decided that time constraints did not allow <br />for this. Therefore, the group drafted broad hypotheses for the CEM's and included current links <br />on the CEMs. As currently stated, many of the hypotheses are not testable, but they convey the <br />general concepts and ideas regarding the topic(s). Further development, refinement, and <br />prioritization will be needed for hypotheses and relationship clearly identified in the CEMs. This <br />work will continue into the First Increment. <br />The AM Working Group took the initial step in the development of priority hypotheses by <br />describing broad relationships among functional components of each CEM. These broad <br />hypotheses were further refined by the development of specific hypotheses based on the <br />relationship among functional components of the system as illustrated in the of x-y graphs (see <br />attached figures [separate file for this review]). The x-y graphs illustrate the key relationships <br />upon which hypotheses are based. For example, Figure xx-xxx illustrates the three different <br />hypothesized relationships between habitat for target bird species and competing approaches to <br />channel management. In this example it is hypothesized that mechanicaUsediment/flow <br />management (i.e. clear/level/pulse) will result in improved habitat for the target bird species, that <br />mechanical means combined with non-Program managed flows will have an equivalent habitat <br />response, and that neither approach will have a measurable impact on habitat (the null <br />hypothesis). The hypotheses illustrated in the x-y graphs were then placed into a matrix that <br />illustrates the interaction of the major components of the physical environment, system inputs <br />and valued ecosystem components (sometimes called a looking outward matrix, see Figure 14). <br />Hypotheses were placed into eight categories including system, pallid sturgeon, tern and plover, <br />whooping crane, pallid sturgeon, flow, sediment, mechanical, and wet meadow [separate file for <br />this review]. Each matrix contains detailed information the AM Working Group considered <br />important for evaluating the relative need for testing of each hypothesis and the Working <br />Group's recommended priority for each hypothesis. The rational for the recommended priority is <br />also included. It is notable that an important hypothesis may receive a lower priority because <br />other hypotheses must be completed before a test is possible. <br />September 1, 2006 Adaptive Management Plan 18