WSP12584 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

001859 e e SITE EVALUATION AND FINAL SCREENING Originally the purpose of this site evaluation task was to screen the 16 sites listed in Table 2 and recommend the three preferred sites which would be used for development of the conceptual hatchery design. As with the initial site screening task, the site ...!v~ation and screening criteria used for evaluation of the remaining 16 sites was basedtUR'Dn input from ;< the T AC and the study team. The screening methodology used was as'iOllows: o Visit each of the sites to confirm and supplement site information gathered from the data sheets and other sources. o Develop more detailed .site criteria in the areas of water supply, water quality, site physical factors, biological considerations, site locational factors and estimated costs. o Develop a criteria rating system to be used for rating and ranking each of the sites, based upon the technical criteria. The criteria developed in the initial screening were taken to a higher level of detail and ~ined during (l~etings with the TAC in order to identify each of the key ;<. criteria necessary for hatchery site selection. The criteria were grouped into six major categories: water source, water quality, site physical factors, biological considerations, locational factors and probable cost. ~ I)fX i.- After determining the criteria against which each of the proposed hatchery sites was to be evaluated, a numerical rating scheme was developed to be used for site evaluation and subsequent ranking of the sites. Key guidelines used in setting the value for each of the criteria and the site score were that the maximum possible point total for any site was set at 100, and the criteria categories (e.g. water source, biological considerations) ~fe'JWeighted such that there is a limit to the maximum number of points which can be achieved for .any criteria category and subcategory. )<- .~ The intent of limiting the value for anyone criteria and the total score was sq,.JIo site r would receive an inordinate number of rating points for a given criteria category. For example, if a site had an excellent water supply, the TAC did not want the point value for the water supply criteria to be so high as to appear superior to a second site which had other features whose score which, when averaged, made it a superior site. In addition, a site could also receive a fatal flaw rating if a site condition was determined to be not acceptable. The six rating categories and the evaluation point values for each are shown in Table 3. This concept was later modified because the three refe sites were all located in the same region of the State, the CWCS determined it ould be most beneficial to develop feasibility level designs for the three types f water sources: warm groundwater, cold groundwater and surface water. In this anner, the top three sites )< 6 ~~ lI~cr .' .'~'._~'-~..:~.:O:.:~.._<...',~ .".'_ -'^"__ . . .;....,..,..-._,---~, .-_:_<--....~~., .~;......-....:". -'"