8018 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

duration (June-September), hydrological connection to river during runoff (May and June), wetland feature (yes/no), suitability for fish or water control structures, presently diked or rip-rapped (yes/no), and potential for a network of sites (within 25 river miles of known historical or current razorback sucker use)(Appendix H; Table H.1.). Step 2: Because many of the bottomland sites had not been visited prior to the prioritization process, five of the initial criteria considered were discarded. The five criteria eliminated were, 1) area, 2) wetland feature, 3) suitability for fish or water control structures, 4) presently diked or rip- rapped, and 5) water duration. Other criteria necessary to prioritize sites such as screening for contaminants, densities of non-native fishes and their species composition, and geomorphology would require site visits. Because there was not enough time to visit all sites prior to the high water of 1994, criteria were chosen that could be used with available photograph4c imagery to determine bottomland sites where preliminary hydrology screening would be conducted in the spring of 1994. From the initial nine criteria, four selection criteria with common characteristics among bottomland sites were chosen. These four criteria were used to evaluate, score, and rank bottomland sites for planning the 1994 hydrology studies. These four selection criteria are considered preliminary and could be revised, substituted, or supplemented if warranted by site visits. If alternative or additional criteria are developed, all bottomland sites listed in this inventory would have to be re- scored, re-ranked, and a new prioritization list generated. The four selection criteria used were: A. Status of land ownership Bi. Green River: proximity to a known or planned razorback sucker spawning area Bz. Colorado River: proximity to recent adult razorback sucker captures (1974-1993) C. Having a June hydrological connection to the river D. Potential for a network (complex) of bottomland sites Step 3: The selection criteria were compared against each other to obtain a weighting factor. A paired analysis allowed a comparison of one criterion against the other three criteria. A point value was subjectively assigned to each selection criteria as follows: 4 = major importance 3 = medium importance 2 = minor importance 1 = no preference Each team member, assigned a point value for each selection criterion. The point values of team member were totaled and averaged. The average was rounded to the nearest whole number to give a total average point value. Next, the selection criteria were classified with the highest total average point value being the most important selection criteria and the lowest total average point value being the least important criteria (Table 1). 8