Laserfiche WebLink
<br />May 2003 <br /> <br />~~ \}hOWS the range and distribution of weights assigned to each attribute by the group of <br />stllkeholders. Some clear groupings of weights can be seen in this figure, as well as significant <br />outliers. All participants placed a similar and relatively high weight on humpback chub in the <br />LCR, but one participant placed a much lower value on establishing a mainstem population, <br />This highlights an area where further dialogue may be constructive. The low weight may reflect <br />the participant's true values; however, it also may be a case where further dialogue among <br />participants would increase understanding of the relative importance of a second population, <br />and values may converge, In other cases, there is general agreement about relative values (for <br />example, wildlife and boating access/safety are consistently weighted lower than chub, sand <br />and Lees Ferry rainbow trout), Note first that this reflects the weight assigned given the swing <br />across the range of possible outcomes, which according to the impact estimates do not include <br />catastrophic outcomes for either of these attributes, This general agreement suggests that <br />further debate about the relative value of these resources may not be necessary. <br /> <br />Figure 2 Range and Distribution of Weights Across Stakeholders <br /> <br />35 <br />30 . <br /> ~ . <br />25 . . HBC LCR <br /> . . <br /> . . HBC Mainstem <br /> . . . . <br />20 . Rainbow <br />! . <br /> . . . <br /> . . . Sand <br /> . . ~ I . <br />15 . ; . ' Wildlife <br /> , <br /> . . . . Power <br /> ~ l . <br />10 . t ~ Boati ng <br /> . . <br /> . <br />5 . , <br /> t <br />0 <br /> <br />Figure 3 summarizes the ranks assigned by stakeholders to each option by each method. <br />Options ranked 1 or 2 are colored green, 3 or 4 are yellow, 5, 6, or 7 are white and 8 or 9 are <br />red. From this we could conclude that the TeD option received a lot of support, both by direct <br />and weighted methods and may be a candidate for further exploration. Direct ranks for Flow <br />Option B were variable, but this option was ranked either first or second by all stakeholders by <br />the weighted method, suggesting it is also a candidate for further consideration. Flow Option A <br />while receiving few first or second place ranks, did not elicit a high degree of opposition. The <br />remaining options did not score well by either method, and, in a real rather than pilot <br />evaluation, might be eliminated from further consideration. <br /> <br />GCOAMP MAlA Pilot: <br />May 2003 Workshop Report <br /> <br />7 <br />