Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001882 <br /> <br />e <br />'fl~ <br /> <br />e <br /> <br /> <br />.~ <br />~-k <br /> <br />I pose of this site evalu . n task was to screen the 16 sites and recommend the <br />~ efem3d sites which auld be used for development of the conceptual hatchery <br />. "\ d ig. As with the ite screening task, the site evaluation and screening criteria <br />~ I J: s for evaluation of the remaining 16 sites was based upon input from the T AC and the <br />~~rJj~' ;:Po study team. The screening methodology used was as follows: <br /> <br />-\ irClJ Visit each of the sites to confirm and supplement site information gathered from <br />, !P the data sheets and other sources. <br />:1'>\ , <br /> <br /> <br />Develop more detailed site criteria in the areas of water supply, water quality, site <br />physical factors, biological considerations, site locational factors and estimated <br />costs. <br /> <br />Develop a criteria rating system to be used for rating and ranking each of the sites, <br />based upon the technical criteria. <br /> <br />The criteria developed in the initial screening were taken to a higher level of detail and <br />were refined during numerous meetings with the T AC in order to identify each of the key <br />criteria necessary for hatchery site selection. The criteria were grouped into six major <br />categories: water source, water quality, site physical factors, biological considerations, <br />locational factors and probable cost. <br /> <br />After determining the criteria against which each of the proposed hatchery sites was to <br />be evaluated, a numerical rating scheme was developed to be used for site evaluation <br />and subsequent ranking of the sites. Key guidelines used in setting the value for each <br />of the criteria and the site score were that the maximum possible point total for any site <br />was set at 100, and the criteria categories (e.g. water source, biological considerations) <br />are weighted such that there is a limit to the maximum number of points which can be <br />achieved for any criteria category and subcategory. <br /> <br />The intent of limiting the value for anyone criteria and the total score was so no site J i <br />would receive an inordinate number of rating points for a given criteria category. In <br />addition, a site rating could also receive a fatal flaw if a site condition was determined to <br />be not acceptable. The six rating categories and the evaluation point values for each are <br />shown in Table 3. <br /> <br />CWCBl.ES <br /> <br />5 <br />