Laserfiche WebLink
c. Those bridge segments with existing habitat that is not already being <br />protected for target species purposes by another entity and that appears <br />likely to be lost or degraded without Program protections <br />d. Those bridge segments that do not currently have any protected habitat. <br />6. Non-complex habitat with demonstrable benefits includes sandpits for tern <br />and plover nesting and non-riparian wetlands and wet meadows for whooping <br />crane roosting and foraging that currently or potentially have the <br />characteristics described in Table 2 of the Land Plan. <br />7. Existing Program lands include NPPD's Cottonwood Ranch (2,650 acres), <br />lands acquired by the State of Wyoming (470 acres), and any lands acquired <br />in the associated habitats by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation using <br />funds contributed prior to the Program as a result of ESA consultations and <br />other lands as determined by the Governance Committee. <br />Design Limitations and Constraints for determining Program Effectiveness <br />1. Program treatments (land and water) will not be applied in a random manner <br />so true experiments will not be possible. While true experiments are not <br />possible, manipulative research can occur that takes advantage of <br />experimental design features such as randomization and controls within <br />specific project areas. The effect of this limitation is that statistical inference <br />from study sites cannot be made to the entire central Platte River study area <br />and inference will be restricted to professional judgment based on a series of <br />independent studies supported by correlations observed among sites and from <br />monitoring data. <br />2. Studies will usually be limited to observations of existing conditions with and <br />without Program treatments resulting in a predominance of observational <br />studies as opposed to manipularive studies (i.e., designed studies where the <br />levels of treatments are changed). However, every opportunity will be used to <br />implement manipulative studies particularly with the management of Program <br />lands to test hypotheses regarding the clear/level/pulse management strategy <br />and non-complex habitats. In addition, certain approaches to observational <br />studies (e.g., use versus availability analysis of species habitat preference) can <br />increase the utility of these observational data. <br />3. Relatively modest management treatments (water during certain periods) will <br />reduce the power of experiments to detect an effect of the Program over the <br />entire area of interest if an effect actually exists. Nevertheless, smaller scale <br />manipulative experiments will allow relatively powerful experiments that can <br />detect treatment effects and patterns, and aid in the overall assessment of the <br />Program's effects during and at the end of the First Increment. <br />4. Some management treatments result in no detectable change in those lands <br />(e.g. acquisition and protection of suitable habitats). In this case the treatment <br />effect is conservation, although trends on these lands can be coritrasted with <br />trends on non-protected areas. <br />5. Relatively little control exists over the timing of treatments throughout the <br />entire area and time period of interest. The control of the timing of treatments <br />is less likely an issue in small scale manipulative studies.