Laserfiche WebLink
<br />December 2003 <br /> <br />Figure 1 Comparison of Ranks by Direct and by Swing Weighting Methods for TWG 3 <br /> <br />Comparison of Direct Ranking versus Ranking based on Swing <br />Weights <br /> <br /> Alternatives located Jm the 45 <br /> degree line have the same <br /> rank using either method of <br /> evaluation. <br /> Alternatives located .o1f the 45 <br /> degree line have different <br /> ranks depending on the <br /> .6. /::, evaluation rrefhod used. <br /> Alternatives <br /> . MLFF <br /> ... SASF <br /> . P <br /> . MLFF + FSF + BHBF <br /> 0 P + FSF+ BHBF <br /> o p... MLFF+ FSF+ BHBF <br /> 0 P+ BHBF Anytime <br /> t; P + TCD8 <br /> 0 P + TCD8 + MECH <br /> 0 P+SFffiH+TCD8+MECH <br /> + P+ FSF/BH + TCD8 + ruRB <br />10 11 12 + P + MECH <br /> - 45 degree line <br /> <br /> 121 <br /> 11 <br /> 10 <br /> 9 <br /> 8 <br />U 7 <br />! <br />C <br />'" 6 <br />" <br />... <br />c <br />.. 5 <br />0: <br /> 4 0 <br /> 3 <br /> 2 <br /> <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />+ <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />+ <br /> <br />o <br />o 2 3 456 789 <br />Rank by Swing Weights <br /> <br />Figure 2 shows the range and distribution of weights assigned to each attribute by the group of <br />stakeholders. It is a function of both the lower level weight assigned to each attribute within <br />an endpoint category, and the weight assigned to the endpoint category. Figure 3 shows the <br />weights assigned to the endpoint categories. Without the benefit of dialogue about these <br />values, it is difficult to draw any conclusions from them. Some observations: <br />At the higher level (endpoint) level, Chub and Sand Deposition consistently weighted high. <br />At the attribute level, Lake Powell Access and LF Trout User Days consistently weighted <br />low. <br />Some weighted the very large financial impact to power lower than the small financ.ial <br />impact to taxpayers. <br />There are significant differences in relative weights assigned to rainbow trout abundance <br />versus size; this seems like something that should be resolved by trout/guide user groups <br />rather than TWG as a whole. <br />There are significant differences in assigned weights (e.g., ranging from 0 to about 25%) on <br />cultural sites, wildlife and recreation. However, it is not yet clear without discussion <br />whether these are due to true value differences or differences in interpretation of the <br /> <br />10 <br />GCDAMP MATA: <br />December 2003 Workshop Report <br />