appendix m1: historic adf&g baranof project … u o p ly vol. fw suooly deep fw supoly shallow...
TRANSCRIPT
bull
Natural Stocks Alsek
Proposed Projec t s ~ Ufil
Hatchery Stocks
1
2 3 4 5 6
Carroll Inl et (re l eas (Swan La ke)
Neets Bay Whitman Lake Baranof Warm Springs Orchard Lake Thomas Bay (release)
1iq K
I] Little Pa~(F] Port Armstrong (P
FIGURE LOCATION OF STATE(S) PRIVATE(P) ANO FE OERAL(F) HATCHERIES IN SOUTHEAST ALASKA WITH PLANNED CHINOOK PRODUCTION (ADFampG 1084)
Li oimiddot~t vear SLJBJECTStock Interact +-middot- -- ---- - --middot- --- -middot - - - middot-middot -middotmiddotmiddot-middot - --+-middot - -middot-- - +- --- - - -middot + VERSI0N1st Draft
CRITERIA I MODE IWEIGHT I c ~z J8+--------------------+------+------+ near -t f~rmiddotmiddot rn harv v 5121
terrn harvest V 5Q)
adult stravin[1 V 25
J uveni 1 e cornoet V -t CJ
+--------------------+------+------+
t~ ~middotmiddot middot middot
middot middot_ r ~ ~J~~ l-Jt~ middotmiddotl~t ~~~-~ _middot_( middot
Ligi tvear ~U BJEC ~ S tocK i n t eract
C ~IT r1I CJ l-i nr- a r-tErr1 harv
+-------------------+-----------------+ ALTERl l(T I vES
------------------+-----------------+ Alternative A Moderate
Alterr-ative B Ylinirn a l
A 1 t err-a t i ve C
+---------------- ---+- ----------------+
~middot
VERSI0N 1st Dra ft
+-------------------+ IriirJact
+------------------ -+ 11 e g l i g i bl e 50
Mi nirnal 3 c5 Moderate z~ Hiqh I) Extreme
0
+--- ----------------+
rmiddot
-~
+-------------------+-----------------+ ALTERN 1T IV CS
---- --------------+-----------------+ A 1 t err-ia t i ve A Neg 1 i o i blbull=
Alternative B Neglir_Jible
Alternative C Ne q l i Cl i o l E
+--------- ----------+-----------------+
S UGJECTStoc K i nterac t VERSIONlst Draft
+-------------------+ Irnpcct
+-------------------+ Negligible 17)
IYlinirnal deg36 Moderate Z7 High 3 Extrerne 0
+-------------------+
_ lt
middotmiddot
VERSIONlst Dr aft C r~ I TC I~ I (Ji 1 a d _ t ~ t r ~ v i n 1
+-------------------+-----------------+ ALTERNATIVES WORDS
------------------+------- ----------+ Alternati v e A Hi gh I
I +-------------------+ A 1 t ernat i VF B II in i r1i 1 I rHJcct
+-------------------+ Alternat iv2 C Negligible Neg 1 i g i bl Pshy 2 ~-
Mini rna l IC Moderate 3 High b Ex treme O
+-------------------+ +-------------------+-----------------+
~ middotbull middotmiddot _ ~ -middotbull
~ e~r~middot_middotmiddot~----~ lt- --~- )-~- middot ~--~middot
Li grJt year
ci~ITEl~TCJII middot1uv c~ni~ c~111 1ultc t
+-------------------+--------- -------- + ALTEFIAT IVES JO fmS
------------------+-----------------+ Alternative A Moderate
Alternative B Minimal
A 1 t err-ct i ve C Ylinir11il
+-------------------+-----------------+
VERSIONlst Draft
ti 512 78-rshy
+-------------------+ Impact
+-------------------+ fieCJ 1 i 1i i bl 27if Minimal I 1 Moderate 13 Hioh 6 Egtlttrerne O
+-------------------+
middot ~=~- r (1middot(
i 1~ 72 ~ ( middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot
1middot1 t- middot1 middot middotmiddot middotmiddot-middot t -middot~middot ~shy r 1middotmiddot ( middot middot middot ( ~
7- middotshy
gt1
middotmiddot1 -~ bullcmiddot-i middot
J I_J ~ ~ l )
i
middot-------------~--shy
L j_ght year SUBJ ECTProduct Desi~ +--------------------+------+------+ VERSI0N1st Draft
CRITERIR I YIOD E WEIGHTEnclosure 4 +------------------- -+------+--- ---+ water chemistry V 1 IZl
e middotr1dern i c fish
ad eq fw s u o p ly
vol fw suooly
deep fw supoly
shallow fw
gravity fw
freshwater
saltwater
bull 121 srnolts
isolation
land-based
I bull
supo
51lOO
bull 1
1
fry
site
float i Y-1~ site
V 10 DR V 2121
N 21Z1
N 15
N 15
V 10
N 30
N 30
N 30
N lZI -
-cshyN i
N 25 +--------------------+---- --+------+
middot~middot~middot -~-middot
SLJBJECT Product Desion VERSIONls t Draft
CRITERION water chemistry
+-------------------+-----------------+ ALTERNATIVES WDRDS -----------------+-----------------+ Alternative A acceptable
I middot Alterrative B trEiatable
Alternative C untreatable
+-------------------+-----------------+
DRAFT +-------------------+
Water Chemistry +-------------------+
acceotable ID treatable 5 untreatable O
+-------------------+
1 - -~ middot ~middotrmiddot -
Liqhtyear SUBJECTProduct Desion VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERION endemic f i sh
+-------------------+-----------------+ ALTERNATIVES
middot-----------------+--------- --------+ Alternative A none
+-------------------+ Alternative B high-l evfl oath Endernic Fish
+-- -----------------+ Alternative C 1 os1-l eve 1 CJct h none 0
pat hogen-free 7 low-level oath high-l evel oath O
+-------------------+ +-------------------+-----------------+
middot middot bullmiddot bull ltmiddot middot middot ~ ~- ~middotmiddot~- ~
Liqhbullt year SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
fi_1CRITEJUDN adeq ciUODly
+----------- --------+-----------------+ ALTERNAT I VES
-----------------+------------ -----+ Alternative A Yes
+-------------------+ A 1 t erra t i v e B YesNo
+-------------------+ Alternative C Maybe Yes 2-0
Maybe 0 No 0
+-------------------+ +-------------------+-----------------+
~ - ( l I middot
-fr ~-(gt-middot middot _ -_ t ~
Li ght j ear SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERIOII vol fw suppl y
+--------- -----------+------------+ ALTERIIAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative R 15
Alternative B 7 +-----------------------------+
Al terl1at i v e C 3 VPtLUE RANGE +-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 20 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
+--------------------+---------- --+
middot1 middot -( r ~ $
Light j ear SU BJECTProduct Design
CRITERION deeo fw s upol y
+--------------------+---- - -------+ ALTEl~NRT IVES VRLUE
+--------------------+------------+ 15
Alternative B E
A 1 t erY-1at i ve C 13
+----- ------------- --+------------+
VERS 10N1st Draft
+-------------------- ---------+ W -)LUE RAJIGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 15 I LEAST DE SI RABLE 0
+-----------------------------+
_ ~
_ shy
Light ear SLJBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION shallow fw supp
+--------------------+------------+ RLTEF~NAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 15
Alternative B 3
Alternative C 8
+--------------------+------------+
VERSIONl s t Draft
+-----------------------------+ Vf~LUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 15 I LEAST DESIR~BLE 0 +-----------------------------+
~ bull _ ~11~middot ~
Light vear SUBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION qravity
+-------------------+------------ - - - - -+ ALTERIIAT IVES WOfm~
~ ------ ----------+----------- --- - --+ ~lternative A Yes
A 1 t err1a t i ve B IJ
Alterr1ative C Ma yb e
+-------------------+-----------------+
VERSIONlst Draft fw s up o
+---- ---------------+ YesNo
+-------------------+ Yes IO Ma yb e ~ 11 0
I I I
- middot1
+-------------------+
bull- -~ii bull middotbull ~middoty i~middot shy
Li ght year SUBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION freshwater 1
+--------------------+----------- - + ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 15 middot
Alternative B 30
Alternative C 20
+---------------- ----+------------+
VERSI ONls t Draft
+--------- - -------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +------------------ -----------+
middot i shy
imiddot -shy 1middott middot ~-- -~-~~-gt _~~-- middot ~~_~~middot_f~ -~
__ightye ar SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONi s t Draft
CRITERION saltwater 1
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERIJAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 20
Al terr1at i ve B 20
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+------------+
middot~ ~~ -middot lt~ --~
i~~i ttJ~l ~~ s
+----------------- ------------+ V(JLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
-l bull
- - ----~ ~(yen__~_ ~ middot- ~- bull bull y-~ -- ~-
_ight y~ar SLJB J ECTProduct Design
CRITERION 0 smolts
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alterrat ive A 4
Alternative B
Alternative C 20
I I
I
I
+--------------------+------------+
VERSIONl s t Draft
+-----------------------------+ ViLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
( t middot middot - middot
---~~-f~~~-~ rmiddotmiddot ~-L~~- -Ji -~middot~ middot- - -
i ght yemiddota r SUBJ ECT P r oduc t Design VERSIO Nl st Dra ft
CRITERION i s olation fr y
+--------------- -----+- - ------- - - -+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+------- ------------- +--- ---------+ Alternative A 3
A 1 t err-a t i ve B 3
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+--------- - - -+
~ - - r ~ -~ 1 bull - ~
~~gtt ~-~ rf_~-~~ ~t~ J
+------- ----------------------+ VALUE RANGE
+- ----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 10 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
middot
_ _
i~f~~~ middot (f middot~ -~- middot middotmiddot
ightyea r SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERION land-based site
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES tjALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative R
Alternative B 15
-tA1t erYa t i ve C CJ
+--------------------+------------+
- t middot middotmiddot 1
middotmiddot~~ ~- _~~ ti~ J
+-----------------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
_ _middot _ middot~~ - ~ ~ -bull
middot~ ~ - middot - middot middot middot_ __ J~ j---- middot middot ~ ~~ ti~- ~~ Jmiddot~~ )r~f _
CRITERION floatin g site
+-------------------- +- ------- ----+ AL TEFmRTIVES VALUE
+-------- ------------+------------+ Alternative A 10
IZI
A 1 t erY-a ti ve C 20
+--------------------+------------+
SUBJECTProduct De s iqn VERSI ONl st Draft
+----------------------------- + VALUE RAIJGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
Li ght y ear SUBJECTProduct Desig VERSI0N 1st Draf t
RU LE JIRJYI E lltULE +----------------- - +---- - ----------------- - - - - - - -------------- ---- ----- ------ shy H20 CHEMI STR Y I wa te r chemistrv MUST BE AT LEAS T treatable
CELIMINA ~ ION RUL E) y - -middot ~ t~ ~
middota - -~C-~~ _ t 1PRTHDLOGY ende ri1i c f i s h ltLJS~r EltI=- H -r L_EAS T l rbullw-leve l p a t hmiddot middotmiddotmiddotmiddot - t ~middot middot ~middot s
ltELI MI NATI ON RUL E)
+------------------+----------------------- - - ----------------- ----------------middot
) middot - (
Production Design Criteria - 250 Total Points
Major Assumption
In order to be evaluated a project must have a minimum level of
production of 10000 adults using the worst case assumptions of
marine survival
A Freshwater Source 100 pt Total
1 Quality 20 pt
a Water Chemistry
i Acceptable ~ t
ii Treatable 5 pt
iii Not treatable reject zero total
b Endemic Fish populations
i None 10 pt
ii Present but
pathogen free 0 t
iii Present with low level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with unknown status) 1 pt
iv Present with high level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with viral pathogen) reject zero total
2 Quantity 40 pt
a Adequate for proposal based
on 20 yr minimum flow
b Total volume available
scaling of all prorosals 6Jt
3 Temperature 30 pt
a Deep intake only uniform
l()y7 water temperature 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
b Shallow intake only ambient
surface water temperatures 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
c Deep and shallow intakes
variable water temperatures
available depending on
degree of temperature
ccntrol (Note on rrodel
this criteria is rated by
sumning a and b )
4 Gravity Delivery ~ t
a Yes 10 pt
b No 0 pt
B Strateqies (Culture Flexibility ) 100 pt Total
In this rating we are not comparing the relative merits of the
different strategies but are ranking according to the capability
of a project to utilize a variety of strategies In order to
qualify for a rating in one of the strategies a project must
release a miniJnum of 500000 fish in that strategy In Eating the
possible points in each strategy a number of roints are awarded
middot~~ - ~ i ~t~ ~-~
middotml -middot1t~--~
for minimum production l eJel aoc iticna l points up to the maximum
are then awarded based on level of production relative to other
projects using that strategy
Mir1irrrum Level Maximum Level
1 Yearling snolts
a Freshwater 20 30
b Seawater netpens 20 30
2 Age-zero snolts 20 30
3 Fry-stocking with isolation
incubation and rearing capability 5 10
C Physical Site Characteristics 50 pt Total
1 Potential for land-based siting Maximum 25 pts
a Flat land available
b Access
c Earthquake and avalanche hazard
d Soil characteristics
e Water supply characteristics
2 Potential for f loat complex in estuary Maximum 25 pt
a Stonn protection
b Anchor points
c Tidal fl0v
d Natural Freshwater influence
e Water supply characteristics
f Surface ar ea available
1
I - Ri5k Fact or An3lvs isshyl Ch1r0c ~ E~h ance~e~t Alternatives
tmiddotmiddotmiddot bull r-l1~ - ~ middot middotbull111 w bullmiddot middot vl rv -1lbulll-Imiddot
Tot3l Pr01ect C~ sc lJl per unit ~arv~s t
- rJal Sml t fr dex hrvEst r)bbilitv Index Harvest Prooabilitv A1rt ize Usable Pro1ect Arnual Oaeratiro Anrual C t Alternative PrJd Et in Best Case (best case) Worst Case (worst case ) Ca~ital Cost Life (v ear sl Cst fotal Best Case Wrst Case iii- ------------~~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------middot-- --------------shy e0-check 5 0il0 iJJ 0006 025 0 ~lil 075 $8388320 2a $100000 e0 f lB3 Ba3 20 $6 13 $7355 $53U
05-chec k 2 52LJ 10~0 0015 0 70 001 1 030 $83 863 20 2J $20J0il 00 $283383 2~ t i SB ilO 3E Ht (with lens)
05-check 2 5~10 0e0 0018 010 0008 090 $5445050 20 $2e0 000 00 $25445copySJ $5 51 $1 3~3 fll lii (
(wo lensi
10-chec~ 1 2s0 e00 0021 080 0013 020 $83 Be3 20 20 $150000 ~I~ $233883211 ltl 3l $ i l L~ ilr ]t
Enclosure 6
J LIGHTYEAR
Lightyear i s a software produ ct th at produ ce s a r anking nr pr i oritization of a set of alternatives based on a numerical sco ring system
To use the product it is first necessary to choose and define a set of alternatives In this application alternatives will be location-specific chinook culture techniques Elimination of non- eq uivalent alternatives fr om the start of the analysis simplifies subsequent evaluations but is not absolutely necessary At present only dummy alternatives (ie Hatchshyery A Hatchery B etc) have been entered into the model in order to allow for unbiased development of evaluation cri t eria the next step in the process
Criteria are the qualities or attributes used to evaluate the alternatives in a decision Each criterion has a mode ie Numeric (N) Graphic (G) or Verbal (V) and a weight The weight defines the relative importance of a single criterion to the overall outcome of the decision It is possible to define as many criteria as the decision requires or to add delete or change a criterion as necessary Lightyear readily permits the editing and modification of the decisions structure If significant changes are made to the set of criteria any values assigned in the following evaluation step will be eliminated
The final step in the basic decision process is evaluating the alternatives An individual criterion is selected and each al te rnative is evaluated in turn for that citerion At the end of the evaluation process it is also possible to define simple logical rules to wei ght or eliminate alternatives on the basis of their evaluations for specific criteria
Once the basic steps in the decision process have been completed Lightyear then displays the ranked outcome of the decision process and identifies the preferred alternative It then further permits detailed examination of the performance of an individual alternative on the basis of each criterion
Li oimiddot~t vear SLJBJECTStock Interact +-middot- -- ---- - --middot- --- -middot - - - middot-middot -middotmiddotmiddot-middot - --+-middot - -middot-- - +- --- - - -middot + VERSI0N1st Draft
CRITERIA I MODE IWEIGHT I c ~z J8+--------------------+------+------+ near -t f~rmiddotmiddot rn harv v 5121
terrn harvest V 5Q)
adult stravin[1 V 25
J uveni 1 e cornoet V -t CJ
+--------------------+------+------+
t~ ~middotmiddot middot middot
middot middot_ r ~ ~J~~ l-Jt~ middotmiddotl~t ~~~-~ _middot_( middot
Ligi tvear ~U BJEC ~ S tocK i n t eract
C ~IT r1I CJ l-i nr- a r-tErr1 harv
+-------------------+-----------------+ ALTERl l(T I vES
------------------+-----------------+ Alternative A Moderate
Alterr-ative B Ylinirn a l
A 1 t err-a t i ve C
+---------------- ---+- ----------------+
~middot
VERSI0N 1st Dra ft
+-------------------+ IriirJact
+------------------ -+ 11 e g l i g i bl e 50
Mi nirnal 3 c5 Moderate z~ Hiqh I) Extreme
0
+--- ----------------+
rmiddot
-~
+-------------------+-----------------+ ALTERN 1T IV CS
---- --------------+-----------------+ A 1 t err-ia t i ve A Neg 1 i o i blbull=
Alternative B Neglir_Jible
Alternative C Ne q l i Cl i o l E
+--------- ----------+-----------------+
S UGJECTStoc K i nterac t VERSIONlst Draft
+-------------------+ Irnpcct
+-------------------+ Negligible 17)
IYlinirnal deg36 Moderate Z7 High 3 Extrerne 0
+-------------------+
_ lt
middotmiddot
VERSIONlst Dr aft C r~ I TC I~ I (Ji 1 a d _ t ~ t r ~ v i n 1
+-------------------+-----------------+ ALTERNATIVES WORDS
------------------+------- ----------+ Alternati v e A Hi gh I
I +-------------------+ A 1 t ernat i VF B II in i r1i 1 I rHJcct
+-------------------+ Alternat iv2 C Negligible Neg 1 i g i bl Pshy 2 ~-
Mini rna l IC Moderate 3 High b Ex treme O
+-------------------+ +-------------------+-----------------+
~ middotbull middotmiddot _ ~ -middotbull
~ e~r~middot_middotmiddot~----~ lt- --~- )-~- middot ~--~middot
Li grJt year
ci~ITEl~TCJII middot1uv c~ni~ c~111 1ultc t
+-------------------+--------- -------- + ALTEFIAT IVES JO fmS
------------------+-----------------+ Alternative A Moderate
Alternative B Minimal
A 1 t err-ct i ve C Ylinir11il
+-------------------+-----------------+
VERSIONlst Draft
ti 512 78-rshy
+-------------------+ Impact
+-------------------+ fieCJ 1 i 1i i bl 27if Minimal I 1 Moderate 13 Hioh 6 Egtlttrerne O
+-------------------+
middot ~=~- r (1middot(
i 1~ 72 ~ ( middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot
1middot1 t- middot1 middot middotmiddot middotmiddot-middot t -middot~middot ~shy r 1middotmiddot ( middot middot middot ( ~
7- middotshy
gt1
middotmiddot1 -~ bullcmiddot-i middot
J I_J ~ ~ l )
i
middot-------------~--shy
L j_ght year SUBJ ECTProduct Desi~ +--------------------+------+------+ VERSI0N1st Draft
CRITERIR I YIOD E WEIGHTEnclosure 4 +------------------- -+------+--- ---+ water chemistry V 1 IZl
e middotr1dern i c fish
ad eq fw s u o p ly
vol fw suooly
deep fw supoly
shallow fw
gravity fw
freshwater
saltwater
bull 121 srnolts
isolation
land-based
I bull
supo
51lOO
bull 1
1
fry
site
float i Y-1~ site
V 10 DR V 2121
N 21Z1
N 15
N 15
V 10
N 30
N 30
N 30
N lZI -
-cshyN i
N 25 +--------------------+---- --+------+
middot~middot~middot -~-middot
SLJBJECT Product Desion VERSIONls t Draft
CRITERION water chemistry
+-------------------+-----------------+ ALTERNATIVES WDRDS -----------------+-----------------+ Alternative A acceptable
I middot Alterrative B trEiatable
Alternative C untreatable
+-------------------+-----------------+
DRAFT +-------------------+
Water Chemistry +-------------------+
acceotable ID treatable 5 untreatable O
+-------------------+
1 - -~ middot ~middotrmiddot -
Liqhtyear SUBJECTProduct Desion VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERION endemic f i sh
+-------------------+-----------------+ ALTERNATIVES
middot-----------------+--------- --------+ Alternative A none
+-------------------+ Alternative B high-l evfl oath Endernic Fish
+-- -----------------+ Alternative C 1 os1-l eve 1 CJct h none 0
pat hogen-free 7 low-level oath high-l evel oath O
+-------------------+ +-------------------+-----------------+
middot middot bullmiddot bull ltmiddot middot middot ~ ~- ~middotmiddot~- ~
Liqhbullt year SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
fi_1CRITEJUDN adeq ciUODly
+----------- --------+-----------------+ ALTERNAT I VES
-----------------+------------ -----+ Alternative A Yes
+-------------------+ A 1 t erra t i v e B YesNo
+-------------------+ Alternative C Maybe Yes 2-0
Maybe 0 No 0
+-------------------+ +-------------------+-----------------+
~ - ( l I middot
-fr ~-(gt-middot middot _ -_ t ~
Li ght j ear SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERIOII vol fw suppl y
+--------- -----------+------------+ ALTERIIAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative R 15
Alternative B 7 +-----------------------------+
Al terl1at i v e C 3 VPtLUE RANGE +-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 20 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
+--------------------+---------- --+
middot1 middot -( r ~ $
Light j ear SU BJECTProduct Design
CRITERION deeo fw s upol y
+--------------------+---- - -------+ ALTEl~NRT IVES VRLUE
+--------------------+------------+ 15
Alternative B E
A 1 t erY-1at i ve C 13
+----- ------------- --+------------+
VERS 10N1st Draft
+-------------------- ---------+ W -)LUE RAJIGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 15 I LEAST DE SI RABLE 0
+-----------------------------+
_ ~
_ shy
Light ear SLJBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION shallow fw supp
+--------------------+------------+ RLTEF~NAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 15
Alternative B 3
Alternative C 8
+--------------------+------------+
VERSIONl s t Draft
+-----------------------------+ Vf~LUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 15 I LEAST DESIR~BLE 0 +-----------------------------+
~ bull _ ~11~middot ~
Light vear SUBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION qravity
+-------------------+------------ - - - - -+ ALTERIIAT IVES WOfm~
~ ------ ----------+----------- --- - --+ ~lternative A Yes
A 1 t err1a t i ve B IJ
Alterr1ative C Ma yb e
+-------------------+-----------------+
VERSIONlst Draft fw s up o
+---- ---------------+ YesNo
+-------------------+ Yes IO Ma yb e ~ 11 0
I I I
- middot1
+-------------------+
bull- -~ii bull middotbull ~middoty i~middot shy
Li ght year SUBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION freshwater 1
+--------------------+----------- - + ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 15 middot
Alternative B 30
Alternative C 20
+---------------- ----+------------+
VERSI ONls t Draft
+--------- - -------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +------------------ -----------+
middot i shy
imiddot -shy 1middott middot ~-- -~-~~-gt _~~-- middot ~~_~~middot_f~ -~
__ightye ar SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONi s t Draft
CRITERION saltwater 1
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERIJAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 20
Al terr1at i ve B 20
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+------------+
middot~ ~~ -middot lt~ --~
i~~i ttJ~l ~~ s
+----------------- ------------+ V(JLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
-l bull
- - ----~ ~(yen__~_ ~ middot- ~- bull bull y-~ -- ~-
_ight y~ar SLJB J ECTProduct Design
CRITERION 0 smolts
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alterrat ive A 4
Alternative B
Alternative C 20
I I
I
I
+--------------------+------------+
VERSIONl s t Draft
+-----------------------------+ ViLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
( t middot middot - middot
---~~-f~~~-~ rmiddotmiddot ~-L~~- -Ji -~middot~ middot- - -
i ght yemiddota r SUBJ ECT P r oduc t Design VERSIO Nl st Dra ft
CRITERION i s olation fr y
+--------------- -----+- - ------- - - -+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+------- ------------- +--- ---------+ Alternative A 3
A 1 t err-a t i ve B 3
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+--------- - - -+
~ - - r ~ -~ 1 bull - ~
~~gtt ~-~ rf_~-~~ ~t~ J
+------- ----------------------+ VALUE RANGE
+- ----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 10 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
middot
_ _
i~f~~~ middot (f middot~ -~- middot middotmiddot
ightyea r SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERION land-based site
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES tjALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative R
Alternative B 15
-tA1t erYa t i ve C CJ
+--------------------+------------+
- t middot middotmiddot 1
middotmiddot~~ ~- _~~ ti~ J
+-----------------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
_ _middot _ middot~~ - ~ ~ -bull
middot~ ~ - middot - middot middot middot_ __ J~ j---- middot middot ~ ~~ ti~- ~~ Jmiddot~~ )r~f _
CRITERION floatin g site
+-------------------- +- ------- ----+ AL TEFmRTIVES VALUE
+-------- ------------+------------+ Alternative A 10
IZI
A 1 t erY-a ti ve C 20
+--------------------+------------+
SUBJECTProduct De s iqn VERSI ONl st Draft
+----------------------------- + VALUE RAIJGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
Li ght y ear SUBJECTProduct Desig VERSI0N 1st Draf t
RU LE JIRJYI E lltULE +----------------- - +---- - ----------------- - - - - - - -------------- ---- ----- ------ shy H20 CHEMI STR Y I wa te r chemistrv MUST BE AT LEAS T treatable
CELIMINA ~ ION RUL E) y - -middot ~ t~ ~
middota - -~C-~~ _ t 1PRTHDLOGY ende ri1i c f i s h ltLJS~r EltI=- H -r L_EAS T l rbullw-leve l p a t hmiddot middotmiddotmiddotmiddot - t ~middot middot ~middot s
ltELI MI NATI ON RUL E)
+------------------+----------------------- - - ----------------- ----------------middot
) middot - (
Production Design Criteria - 250 Total Points
Major Assumption
In order to be evaluated a project must have a minimum level of
production of 10000 adults using the worst case assumptions of
marine survival
A Freshwater Source 100 pt Total
1 Quality 20 pt
a Water Chemistry
i Acceptable ~ t
ii Treatable 5 pt
iii Not treatable reject zero total
b Endemic Fish populations
i None 10 pt
ii Present but
pathogen free 0 t
iii Present with low level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with unknown status) 1 pt
iv Present with high level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with viral pathogen) reject zero total
2 Quantity 40 pt
a Adequate for proposal based
on 20 yr minimum flow
b Total volume available
scaling of all prorosals 6Jt
3 Temperature 30 pt
a Deep intake only uniform
l()y7 water temperature 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
b Shallow intake only ambient
surface water temperatures 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
c Deep and shallow intakes
variable water temperatures
available depending on
degree of temperature
ccntrol (Note on rrodel
this criteria is rated by
sumning a and b )
4 Gravity Delivery ~ t
a Yes 10 pt
b No 0 pt
B Strateqies (Culture Flexibility ) 100 pt Total
In this rating we are not comparing the relative merits of the
different strategies but are ranking according to the capability
of a project to utilize a variety of strategies In order to
qualify for a rating in one of the strategies a project must
release a miniJnum of 500000 fish in that strategy In Eating the
possible points in each strategy a number of roints are awarded
middot~~ - ~ i ~t~ ~-~
middotml -middot1t~--~
for minimum production l eJel aoc iticna l points up to the maximum
are then awarded based on level of production relative to other
projects using that strategy
Mir1irrrum Level Maximum Level
1 Yearling snolts
a Freshwater 20 30
b Seawater netpens 20 30
2 Age-zero snolts 20 30
3 Fry-stocking with isolation
incubation and rearing capability 5 10
C Physical Site Characteristics 50 pt Total
1 Potential for land-based siting Maximum 25 pts
a Flat land available
b Access
c Earthquake and avalanche hazard
d Soil characteristics
e Water supply characteristics
2 Potential for f loat complex in estuary Maximum 25 pt
a Stonn protection
b Anchor points
c Tidal fl0v
d Natural Freshwater influence
e Water supply characteristics
f Surface ar ea available
1
I - Ri5k Fact or An3lvs isshyl Ch1r0c ~ E~h ance~e~t Alternatives
tmiddotmiddotmiddot bull r-l1~ - ~ middot middotbull111 w bullmiddot middot vl rv -1lbulll-Imiddot
Tot3l Pr01ect C~ sc lJl per unit ~arv~s t
- rJal Sml t fr dex hrvEst r)bbilitv Index Harvest Prooabilitv A1rt ize Usable Pro1ect Arnual Oaeratiro Anrual C t Alternative PrJd Et in Best Case (best case) Worst Case (worst case ) Ca~ital Cost Life (v ear sl Cst fotal Best Case Wrst Case iii- ------------~~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------middot-- --------------shy e0-check 5 0il0 iJJ 0006 025 0 ~lil 075 $8388320 2a $100000 e0 f lB3 Ba3 20 $6 13 $7355 $53U
05-chec k 2 52LJ 10~0 0015 0 70 001 1 030 $83 863 20 2J $20J0il 00 $283383 2~ t i SB ilO 3E Ht (with lens)
05-check 2 5~10 0e0 0018 010 0008 090 $5445050 20 $2e0 000 00 $25445copySJ $5 51 $1 3~3 fll lii (
(wo lensi
10-chec~ 1 2s0 e00 0021 080 0013 020 $83 Be3 20 20 $150000 ~I~ $233883211 ltl 3l $ i l L~ ilr ]t
Enclosure 6
J LIGHTYEAR
Lightyear i s a software produ ct th at produ ce s a r anking nr pr i oritization of a set of alternatives based on a numerical sco ring system
To use the product it is first necessary to choose and define a set of alternatives In this application alternatives will be location-specific chinook culture techniques Elimination of non- eq uivalent alternatives fr om the start of the analysis simplifies subsequent evaluations but is not absolutely necessary At present only dummy alternatives (ie Hatchshyery A Hatchery B etc) have been entered into the model in order to allow for unbiased development of evaluation cri t eria the next step in the process
Criteria are the qualities or attributes used to evaluate the alternatives in a decision Each criterion has a mode ie Numeric (N) Graphic (G) or Verbal (V) and a weight The weight defines the relative importance of a single criterion to the overall outcome of the decision It is possible to define as many criteria as the decision requires or to add delete or change a criterion as necessary Lightyear readily permits the editing and modification of the decisions structure If significant changes are made to the set of criteria any values assigned in the following evaluation step will be eliminated
The final step in the basic decision process is evaluating the alternatives An individual criterion is selected and each al te rnative is evaluated in turn for that citerion At the end of the evaluation process it is also possible to define simple logical rules to wei ght or eliminate alternatives on the basis of their evaluations for specific criteria
Once the basic steps in the decision process have been completed Lightyear then displays the ranked outcome of the decision process and identifies the preferred alternative It then further permits detailed examination of the performance of an individual alternative on the basis of each criterion
Ligi tvear ~U BJEC ~ S tocK i n t eract
C ~IT r1I CJ l-i nr- a r-tErr1 harv
+-------------------+-----------------+ ALTERl l(T I vES
------------------+-----------------+ Alternative A Moderate
Alterr-ative B Ylinirn a l
A 1 t err-a t i ve C
+---------------- ---+- ----------------+
~middot
VERSI0N 1st Dra ft
+-------------------+ IriirJact
+------------------ -+ 11 e g l i g i bl e 50
Mi nirnal 3 c5 Moderate z~ Hiqh I) Extreme
0
+--- ----------------+
rmiddot
-~
+-------------------+-----------------+ ALTERN 1T IV CS
---- --------------+-----------------+ A 1 t err-ia t i ve A Neg 1 i o i blbull=
Alternative B Neglir_Jible
Alternative C Ne q l i Cl i o l E
+--------- ----------+-----------------+
S UGJECTStoc K i nterac t VERSIONlst Draft
+-------------------+ Irnpcct
+-------------------+ Negligible 17)
IYlinirnal deg36 Moderate Z7 High 3 Extrerne 0
+-------------------+
_ lt
middotmiddot
VERSIONlst Dr aft C r~ I TC I~ I (Ji 1 a d _ t ~ t r ~ v i n 1
+-------------------+-----------------+ ALTERNATIVES WORDS
------------------+------- ----------+ Alternati v e A Hi gh I
I +-------------------+ A 1 t ernat i VF B II in i r1i 1 I rHJcct
+-------------------+ Alternat iv2 C Negligible Neg 1 i g i bl Pshy 2 ~-
Mini rna l IC Moderate 3 High b Ex treme O
+-------------------+ +-------------------+-----------------+
~ middotbull middotmiddot _ ~ -middotbull
~ e~r~middot_middotmiddot~----~ lt- --~- )-~- middot ~--~middot
Li grJt year
ci~ITEl~TCJII middot1uv c~ni~ c~111 1ultc t
+-------------------+--------- -------- + ALTEFIAT IVES JO fmS
------------------+-----------------+ Alternative A Moderate
Alternative B Minimal
A 1 t err-ct i ve C Ylinir11il
+-------------------+-----------------+
VERSIONlst Draft
ti 512 78-rshy
+-------------------+ Impact
+-------------------+ fieCJ 1 i 1i i bl 27if Minimal I 1 Moderate 13 Hioh 6 Egtlttrerne O
+-------------------+
middot ~=~- r (1middot(
i 1~ 72 ~ ( middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot
1middot1 t- middot1 middot middotmiddot middotmiddot-middot t -middot~middot ~shy r 1middotmiddot ( middot middot middot ( ~
7- middotshy
gt1
middotmiddot1 -~ bullcmiddot-i middot
J I_J ~ ~ l )
i
middot-------------~--shy
L j_ght year SUBJ ECTProduct Desi~ +--------------------+------+------+ VERSI0N1st Draft
CRITERIR I YIOD E WEIGHTEnclosure 4 +------------------- -+------+--- ---+ water chemistry V 1 IZl
e middotr1dern i c fish
ad eq fw s u o p ly
vol fw suooly
deep fw supoly
shallow fw
gravity fw
freshwater
saltwater
bull 121 srnolts
isolation
land-based
I bull
supo
51lOO
bull 1
1
fry
site
float i Y-1~ site
V 10 DR V 2121
N 21Z1
N 15
N 15
V 10
N 30
N 30
N 30
N lZI -
-cshyN i
N 25 +--------------------+---- --+------+
middot~middot~middot -~-middot
SLJBJECT Product Desion VERSIONls t Draft
CRITERION water chemistry
+-------------------+-----------------+ ALTERNATIVES WDRDS -----------------+-----------------+ Alternative A acceptable
I middot Alterrative B trEiatable
Alternative C untreatable
+-------------------+-----------------+
DRAFT +-------------------+
Water Chemistry +-------------------+
acceotable ID treatable 5 untreatable O
+-------------------+
1 - -~ middot ~middotrmiddot -
Liqhtyear SUBJECTProduct Desion VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERION endemic f i sh
+-------------------+-----------------+ ALTERNATIVES
middot-----------------+--------- --------+ Alternative A none
+-------------------+ Alternative B high-l evfl oath Endernic Fish
+-- -----------------+ Alternative C 1 os1-l eve 1 CJct h none 0
pat hogen-free 7 low-level oath high-l evel oath O
+-------------------+ +-------------------+-----------------+
middot middot bullmiddot bull ltmiddot middot middot ~ ~- ~middotmiddot~- ~
Liqhbullt year SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
fi_1CRITEJUDN adeq ciUODly
+----------- --------+-----------------+ ALTERNAT I VES
-----------------+------------ -----+ Alternative A Yes
+-------------------+ A 1 t erra t i v e B YesNo
+-------------------+ Alternative C Maybe Yes 2-0
Maybe 0 No 0
+-------------------+ +-------------------+-----------------+
~ - ( l I middot
-fr ~-(gt-middot middot _ -_ t ~
Li ght j ear SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERIOII vol fw suppl y
+--------- -----------+------------+ ALTERIIAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative R 15
Alternative B 7 +-----------------------------+
Al terl1at i v e C 3 VPtLUE RANGE +-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 20 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
+--------------------+---------- --+
middot1 middot -( r ~ $
Light j ear SU BJECTProduct Design
CRITERION deeo fw s upol y
+--------------------+---- - -------+ ALTEl~NRT IVES VRLUE
+--------------------+------------+ 15
Alternative B E
A 1 t erY-1at i ve C 13
+----- ------------- --+------------+
VERS 10N1st Draft
+-------------------- ---------+ W -)LUE RAJIGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 15 I LEAST DE SI RABLE 0
+-----------------------------+
_ ~
_ shy
Light ear SLJBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION shallow fw supp
+--------------------+------------+ RLTEF~NAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 15
Alternative B 3
Alternative C 8
+--------------------+------------+
VERSIONl s t Draft
+-----------------------------+ Vf~LUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 15 I LEAST DESIR~BLE 0 +-----------------------------+
~ bull _ ~11~middot ~
Light vear SUBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION qravity
+-------------------+------------ - - - - -+ ALTERIIAT IVES WOfm~
~ ------ ----------+----------- --- - --+ ~lternative A Yes
A 1 t err1a t i ve B IJ
Alterr1ative C Ma yb e
+-------------------+-----------------+
VERSIONlst Draft fw s up o
+---- ---------------+ YesNo
+-------------------+ Yes IO Ma yb e ~ 11 0
I I I
- middot1
+-------------------+
bull- -~ii bull middotbull ~middoty i~middot shy
Li ght year SUBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION freshwater 1
+--------------------+----------- - + ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 15 middot
Alternative B 30
Alternative C 20
+---------------- ----+------------+
VERSI ONls t Draft
+--------- - -------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +------------------ -----------+
middot i shy
imiddot -shy 1middott middot ~-- -~-~~-gt _~~-- middot ~~_~~middot_f~ -~
__ightye ar SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONi s t Draft
CRITERION saltwater 1
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERIJAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 20
Al terr1at i ve B 20
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+------------+
middot~ ~~ -middot lt~ --~
i~~i ttJ~l ~~ s
+----------------- ------------+ V(JLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
-l bull
- - ----~ ~(yen__~_ ~ middot- ~- bull bull y-~ -- ~-
_ight y~ar SLJB J ECTProduct Design
CRITERION 0 smolts
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alterrat ive A 4
Alternative B
Alternative C 20
I I
I
I
+--------------------+------------+
VERSIONl s t Draft
+-----------------------------+ ViLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
( t middot middot - middot
---~~-f~~~-~ rmiddotmiddot ~-L~~- -Ji -~middot~ middot- - -
i ght yemiddota r SUBJ ECT P r oduc t Design VERSIO Nl st Dra ft
CRITERION i s olation fr y
+--------------- -----+- - ------- - - -+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+------- ------------- +--- ---------+ Alternative A 3
A 1 t err-a t i ve B 3
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+--------- - - -+
~ - - r ~ -~ 1 bull - ~
~~gtt ~-~ rf_~-~~ ~t~ J
+------- ----------------------+ VALUE RANGE
+- ----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 10 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
middot
_ _
i~f~~~ middot (f middot~ -~- middot middotmiddot
ightyea r SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERION land-based site
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES tjALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative R
Alternative B 15
-tA1t erYa t i ve C CJ
+--------------------+------------+
- t middot middotmiddot 1
middotmiddot~~ ~- _~~ ti~ J
+-----------------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
_ _middot _ middot~~ - ~ ~ -bull
middot~ ~ - middot - middot middot middot_ __ J~ j---- middot middot ~ ~~ ti~- ~~ Jmiddot~~ )r~f _
CRITERION floatin g site
+-------------------- +- ------- ----+ AL TEFmRTIVES VALUE
+-------- ------------+------------+ Alternative A 10
IZI
A 1 t erY-a ti ve C 20
+--------------------+------------+
SUBJECTProduct De s iqn VERSI ONl st Draft
+----------------------------- + VALUE RAIJGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
Li ght y ear SUBJECTProduct Desig VERSI0N 1st Draf t
RU LE JIRJYI E lltULE +----------------- - +---- - ----------------- - - - - - - -------------- ---- ----- ------ shy H20 CHEMI STR Y I wa te r chemistrv MUST BE AT LEAS T treatable
CELIMINA ~ ION RUL E) y - -middot ~ t~ ~
middota - -~C-~~ _ t 1PRTHDLOGY ende ri1i c f i s h ltLJS~r EltI=- H -r L_EAS T l rbullw-leve l p a t hmiddot middotmiddotmiddotmiddot - t ~middot middot ~middot s
ltELI MI NATI ON RUL E)
+------------------+----------------------- - - ----------------- ----------------middot
) middot - (
Production Design Criteria - 250 Total Points
Major Assumption
In order to be evaluated a project must have a minimum level of
production of 10000 adults using the worst case assumptions of
marine survival
A Freshwater Source 100 pt Total
1 Quality 20 pt
a Water Chemistry
i Acceptable ~ t
ii Treatable 5 pt
iii Not treatable reject zero total
b Endemic Fish populations
i None 10 pt
ii Present but
pathogen free 0 t
iii Present with low level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with unknown status) 1 pt
iv Present with high level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with viral pathogen) reject zero total
2 Quantity 40 pt
a Adequate for proposal based
on 20 yr minimum flow
b Total volume available
scaling of all prorosals 6Jt
3 Temperature 30 pt
a Deep intake only uniform
l()y7 water temperature 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
b Shallow intake only ambient
surface water temperatures 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
c Deep and shallow intakes
variable water temperatures
available depending on
degree of temperature
ccntrol (Note on rrodel
this criteria is rated by
sumning a and b )
4 Gravity Delivery ~ t
a Yes 10 pt
b No 0 pt
B Strateqies (Culture Flexibility ) 100 pt Total
In this rating we are not comparing the relative merits of the
different strategies but are ranking according to the capability
of a project to utilize a variety of strategies In order to
qualify for a rating in one of the strategies a project must
release a miniJnum of 500000 fish in that strategy In Eating the
possible points in each strategy a number of roints are awarded
middot~~ - ~ i ~t~ ~-~
middotml -middot1t~--~
for minimum production l eJel aoc iticna l points up to the maximum
are then awarded based on level of production relative to other
projects using that strategy
Mir1irrrum Level Maximum Level
1 Yearling snolts
a Freshwater 20 30
b Seawater netpens 20 30
2 Age-zero snolts 20 30
3 Fry-stocking with isolation
incubation and rearing capability 5 10
C Physical Site Characteristics 50 pt Total
1 Potential for land-based siting Maximum 25 pts
a Flat land available
b Access
c Earthquake and avalanche hazard
d Soil characteristics
e Water supply characteristics
2 Potential for f loat complex in estuary Maximum 25 pt
a Stonn protection
b Anchor points
c Tidal fl0v
d Natural Freshwater influence
e Water supply characteristics
f Surface ar ea available
1
I - Ri5k Fact or An3lvs isshyl Ch1r0c ~ E~h ance~e~t Alternatives
tmiddotmiddotmiddot bull r-l1~ - ~ middot middotbull111 w bullmiddot middot vl rv -1lbulll-Imiddot
Tot3l Pr01ect C~ sc lJl per unit ~arv~s t
- rJal Sml t fr dex hrvEst r)bbilitv Index Harvest Prooabilitv A1rt ize Usable Pro1ect Arnual Oaeratiro Anrual C t Alternative PrJd Et in Best Case (best case) Worst Case (worst case ) Ca~ital Cost Life (v ear sl Cst fotal Best Case Wrst Case iii- ------------~~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------middot-- --------------shy e0-check 5 0il0 iJJ 0006 025 0 ~lil 075 $8388320 2a $100000 e0 f lB3 Ba3 20 $6 13 $7355 $53U
05-chec k 2 52LJ 10~0 0015 0 70 001 1 030 $83 863 20 2J $20J0il 00 $283383 2~ t i SB ilO 3E Ht (with lens)
05-check 2 5~10 0e0 0018 010 0008 090 $5445050 20 $2e0 000 00 $25445copySJ $5 51 $1 3~3 fll lii (
(wo lensi
10-chec~ 1 2s0 e00 0021 080 0013 020 $83 Be3 20 20 $150000 ~I~ $233883211 ltl 3l $ i l L~ ilr ]t
Enclosure 6
J LIGHTYEAR
Lightyear i s a software produ ct th at produ ce s a r anking nr pr i oritization of a set of alternatives based on a numerical sco ring system
To use the product it is first necessary to choose and define a set of alternatives In this application alternatives will be location-specific chinook culture techniques Elimination of non- eq uivalent alternatives fr om the start of the analysis simplifies subsequent evaluations but is not absolutely necessary At present only dummy alternatives (ie Hatchshyery A Hatchery B etc) have been entered into the model in order to allow for unbiased development of evaluation cri t eria the next step in the process
Criteria are the qualities or attributes used to evaluate the alternatives in a decision Each criterion has a mode ie Numeric (N) Graphic (G) or Verbal (V) and a weight The weight defines the relative importance of a single criterion to the overall outcome of the decision It is possible to define as many criteria as the decision requires or to add delete or change a criterion as necessary Lightyear readily permits the editing and modification of the decisions structure If significant changes are made to the set of criteria any values assigned in the following evaluation step will be eliminated
The final step in the basic decision process is evaluating the alternatives An individual criterion is selected and each al te rnative is evaluated in turn for that citerion At the end of the evaluation process it is also possible to define simple logical rules to wei ght or eliminate alternatives on the basis of their evaluations for specific criteria
Once the basic steps in the decision process have been completed Lightyear then displays the ranked outcome of the decision process and identifies the preferred alternative It then further permits detailed examination of the performance of an individual alternative on the basis of each criterion
+-------------------+-----------------+ ALTERN 1T IV CS
---- --------------+-----------------+ A 1 t err-ia t i ve A Neg 1 i o i blbull=
Alternative B Neglir_Jible
Alternative C Ne q l i Cl i o l E
+--------- ----------+-----------------+
S UGJECTStoc K i nterac t VERSIONlst Draft
+-------------------+ Irnpcct
+-------------------+ Negligible 17)
IYlinirnal deg36 Moderate Z7 High 3 Extrerne 0
+-------------------+
_ lt
middotmiddot
VERSIONlst Dr aft C r~ I TC I~ I (Ji 1 a d _ t ~ t r ~ v i n 1
+-------------------+-----------------+ ALTERNATIVES WORDS
------------------+------- ----------+ Alternati v e A Hi gh I
I +-------------------+ A 1 t ernat i VF B II in i r1i 1 I rHJcct
+-------------------+ Alternat iv2 C Negligible Neg 1 i g i bl Pshy 2 ~-
Mini rna l IC Moderate 3 High b Ex treme O
+-------------------+ +-------------------+-----------------+
~ middotbull middotmiddot _ ~ -middotbull
~ e~r~middot_middotmiddot~----~ lt- --~- )-~- middot ~--~middot
Li grJt year
ci~ITEl~TCJII middot1uv c~ni~ c~111 1ultc t
+-------------------+--------- -------- + ALTEFIAT IVES JO fmS
------------------+-----------------+ Alternative A Moderate
Alternative B Minimal
A 1 t err-ct i ve C Ylinir11il
+-------------------+-----------------+
VERSIONlst Draft
ti 512 78-rshy
+-------------------+ Impact
+-------------------+ fieCJ 1 i 1i i bl 27if Minimal I 1 Moderate 13 Hioh 6 Egtlttrerne O
+-------------------+
middot ~=~- r (1middot(
i 1~ 72 ~ ( middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot
1middot1 t- middot1 middot middotmiddot middotmiddot-middot t -middot~middot ~shy r 1middotmiddot ( middot middot middot ( ~
7- middotshy
gt1
middotmiddot1 -~ bullcmiddot-i middot
J I_J ~ ~ l )
i
middot-------------~--shy
L j_ght year SUBJ ECTProduct Desi~ +--------------------+------+------+ VERSI0N1st Draft
CRITERIR I YIOD E WEIGHTEnclosure 4 +------------------- -+------+--- ---+ water chemistry V 1 IZl
e middotr1dern i c fish
ad eq fw s u o p ly
vol fw suooly
deep fw supoly
shallow fw
gravity fw
freshwater
saltwater
bull 121 srnolts
isolation
land-based
I bull
supo
51lOO
bull 1
1
fry
site
float i Y-1~ site
V 10 DR V 2121
N 21Z1
N 15
N 15
V 10
N 30
N 30
N 30
N lZI -
-cshyN i
N 25 +--------------------+---- --+------+
middot~middot~middot -~-middot
SLJBJECT Product Desion VERSIONls t Draft
CRITERION water chemistry
+-------------------+-----------------+ ALTERNATIVES WDRDS -----------------+-----------------+ Alternative A acceptable
I middot Alterrative B trEiatable
Alternative C untreatable
+-------------------+-----------------+
DRAFT +-------------------+
Water Chemistry +-------------------+
acceotable ID treatable 5 untreatable O
+-------------------+
1 - -~ middot ~middotrmiddot -
Liqhtyear SUBJECTProduct Desion VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERION endemic f i sh
+-------------------+-----------------+ ALTERNATIVES
middot-----------------+--------- --------+ Alternative A none
+-------------------+ Alternative B high-l evfl oath Endernic Fish
+-- -----------------+ Alternative C 1 os1-l eve 1 CJct h none 0
pat hogen-free 7 low-level oath high-l evel oath O
+-------------------+ +-------------------+-----------------+
middot middot bullmiddot bull ltmiddot middot middot ~ ~- ~middotmiddot~- ~
Liqhbullt year SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
fi_1CRITEJUDN adeq ciUODly
+----------- --------+-----------------+ ALTERNAT I VES
-----------------+------------ -----+ Alternative A Yes
+-------------------+ A 1 t erra t i v e B YesNo
+-------------------+ Alternative C Maybe Yes 2-0
Maybe 0 No 0
+-------------------+ +-------------------+-----------------+
~ - ( l I middot
-fr ~-(gt-middot middot _ -_ t ~
Li ght j ear SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERIOII vol fw suppl y
+--------- -----------+------------+ ALTERIIAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative R 15
Alternative B 7 +-----------------------------+
Al terl1at i v e C 3 VPtLUE RANGE +-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 20 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
+--------------------+---------- --+
middot1 middot -( r ~ $
Light j ear SU BJECTProduct Design
CRITERION deeo fw s upol y
+--------------------+---- - -------+ ALTEl~NRT IVES VRLUE
+--------------------+------------+ 15
Alternative B E
A 1 t erY-1at i ve C 13
+----- ------------- --+------------+
VERS 10N1st Draft
+-------------------- ---------+ W -)LUE RAJIGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 15 I LEAST DE SI RABLE 0
+-----------------------------+
_ ~
_ shy
Light ear SLJBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION shallow fw supp
+--------------------+------------+ RLTEF~NAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 15
Alternative B 3
Alternative C 8
+--------------------+------------+
VERSIONl s t Draft
+-----------------------------+ Vf~LUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 15 I LEAST DESIR~BLE 0 +-----------------------------+
~ bull _ ~11~middot ~
Light vear SUBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION qravity
+-------------------+------------ - - - - -+ ALTERIIAT IVES WOfm~
~ ------ ----------+----------- --- - --+ ~lternative A Yes
A 1 t err1a t i ve B IJ
Alterr1ative C Ma yb e
+-------------------+-----------------+
VERSIONlst Draft fw s up o
+---- ---------------+ YesNo
+-------------------+ Yes IO Ma yb e ~ 11 0
I I I
- middot1
+-------------------+
bull- -~ii bull middotbull ~middoty i~middot shy
Li ght year SUBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION freshwater 1
+--------------------+----------- - + ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 15 middot
Alternative B 30
Alternative C 20
+---------------- ----+------------+
VERSI ONls t Draft
+--------- - -------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +------------------ -----------+
middot i shy
imiddot -shy 1middott middot ~-- -~-~~-gt _~~-- middot ~~_~~middot_f~ -~
__ightye ar SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONi s t Draft
CRITERION saltwater 1
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERIJAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 20
Al terr1at i ve B 20
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+------------+
middot~ ~~ -middot lt~ --~
i~~i ttJ~l ~~ s
+----------------- ------------+ V(JLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
-l bull
- - ----~ ~(yen__~_ ~ middot- ~- bull bull y-~ -- ~-
_ight y~ar SLJB J ECTProduct Design
CRITERION 0 smolts
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alterrat ive A 4
Alternative B
Alternative C 20
I I
I
I
+--------------------+------------+
VERSIONl s t Draft
+-----------------------------+ ViLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
( t middot middot - middot
---~~-f~~~-~ rmiddotmiddot ~-L~~- -Ji -~middot~ middot- - -
i ght yemiddota r SUBJ ECT P r oduc t Design VERSIO Nl st Dra ft
CRITERION i s olation fr y
+--------------- -----+- - ------- - - -+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+------- ------------- +--- ---------+ Alternative A 3
A 1 t err-a t i ve B 3
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+--------- - - -+
~ - - r ~ -~ 1 bull - ~
~~gtt ~-~ rf_~-~~ ~t~ J
+------- ----------------------+ VALUE RANGE
+- ----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 10 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
middot
_ _
i~f~~~ middot (f middot~ -~- middot middotmiddot
ightyea r SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERION land-based site
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES tjALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative R
Alternative B 15
-tA1t erYa t i ve C CJ
+--------------------+------------+
- t middot middotmiddot 1
middotmiddot~~ ~- _~~ ti~ J
+-----------------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
_ _middot _ middot~~ - ~ ~ -bull
middot~ ~ - middot - middot middot middot_ __ J~ j---- middot middot ~ ~~ ti~- ~~ Jmiddot~~ )r~f _
CRITERION floatin g site
+-------------------- +- ------- ----+ AL TEFmRTIVES VALUE
+-------- ------------+------------+ Alternative A 10
IZI
A 1 t erY-a ti ve C 20
+--------------------+------------+
SUBJECTProduct De s iqn VERSI ONl st Draft
+----------------------------- + VALUE RAIJGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
Li ght y ear SUBJECTProduct Desig VERSI0N 1st Draf t
RU LE JIRJYI E lltULE +----------------- - +---- - ----------------- - - - - - - -------------- ---- ----- ------ shy H20 CHEMI STR Y I wa te r chemistrv MUST BE AT LEAS T treatable
CELIMINA ~ ION RUL E) y - -middot ~ t~ ~
middota - -~C-~~ _ t 1PRTHDLOGY ende ri1i c f i s h ltLJS~r EltI=- H -r L_EAS T l rbullw-leve l p a t hmiddot middotmiddotmiddotmiddot - t ~middot middot ~middot s
ltELI MI NATI ON RUL E)
+------------------+----------------------- - - ----------------- ----------------middot
) middot - (
Production Design Criteria - 250 Total Points
Major Assumption
In order to be evaluated a project must have a minimum level of
production of 10000 adults using the worst case assumptions of
marine survival
A Freshwater Source 100 pt Total
1 Quality 20 pt
a Water Chemistry
i Acceptable ~ t
ii Treatable 5 pt
iii Not treatable reject zero total
b Endemic Fish populations
i None 10 pt
ii Present but
pathogen free 0 t
iii Present with low level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with unknown status) 1 pt
iv Present with high level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with viral pathogen) reject zero total
2 Quantity 40 pt
a Adequate for proposal based
on 20 yr minimum flow
b Total volume available
scaling of all prorosals 6Jt
3 Temperature 30 pt
a Deep intake only uniform
l()y7 water temperature 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
b Shallow intake only ambient
surface water temperatures 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
c Deep and shallow intakes
variable water temperatures
available depending on
degree of temperature
ccntrol (Note on rrodel
this criteria is rated by
sumning a and b )
4 Gravity Delivery ~ t
a Yes 10 pt
b No 0 pt
B Strateqies (Culture Flexibility ) 100 pt Total
In this rating we are not comparing the relative merits of the
different strategies but are ranking according to the capability
of a project to utilize a variety of strategies In order to
qualify for a rating in one of the strategies a project must
release a miniJnum of 500000 fish in that strategy In Eating the
possible points in each strategy a number of roints are awarded
middot~~ - ~ i ~t~ ~-~
middotml -middot1t~--~
for minimum production l eJel aoc iticna l points up to the maximum
are then awarded based on level of production relative to other
projects using that strategy
Mir1irrrum Level Maximum Level
1 Yearling snolts
a Freshwater 20 30
b Seawater netpens 20 30
2 Age-zero snolts 20 30
3 Fry-stocking with isolation
incubation and rearing capability 5 10
C Physical Site Characteristics 50 pt Total
1 Potential for land-based siting Maximum 25 pts
a Flat land available
b Access
c Earthquake and avalanche hazard
d Soil characteristics
e Water supply characteristics
2 Potential for f loat complex in estuary Maximum 25 pt
a Stonn protection
b Anchor points
c Tidal fl0v
d Natural Freshwater influence
e Water supply characteristics
f Surface ar ea available
1
I - Ri5k Fact or An3lvs isshyl Ch1r0c ~ E~h ance~e~t Alternatives
tmiddotmiddotmiddot bull r-l1~ - ~ middot middotbull111 w bullmiddot middot vl rv -1lbulll-Imiddot
Tot3l Pr01ect C~ sc lJl per unit ~arv~s t
- rJal Sml t fr dex hrvEst r)bbilitv Index Harvest Prooabilitv A1rt ize Usable Pro1ect Arnual Oaeratiro Anrual C t Alternative PrJd Et in Best Case (best case) Worst Case (worst case ) Ca~ital Cost Life (v ear sl Cst fotal Best Case Wrst Case iii- ------------~~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------middot-- --------------shy e0-check 5 0il0 iJJ 0006 025 0 ~lil 075 $8388320 2a $100000 e0 f lB3 Ba3 20 $6 13 $7355 $53U
05-chec k 2 52LJ 10~0 0015 0 70 001 1 030 $83 863 20 2J $20J0il 00 $283383 2~ t i SB ilO 3E Ht (with lens)
05-check 2 5~10 0e0 0018 010 0008 090 $5445050 20 $2e0 000 00 $25445copySJ $5 51 $1 3~3 fll lii (
(wo lensi
10-chec~ 1 2s0 e00 0021 080 0013 020 $83 Be3 20 20 $150000 ~I~ $233883211 ltl 3l $ i l L~ ilr ]t
Enclosure 6
J LIGHTYEAR
Lightyear i s a software produ ct th at produ ce s a r anking nr pr i oritization of a set of alternatives based on a numerical sco ring system
To use the product it is first necessary to choose and define a set of alternatives In this application alternatives will be location-specific chinook culture techniques Elimination of non- eq uivalent alternatives fr om the start of the analysis simplifies subsequent evaluations but is not absolutely necessary At present only dummy alternatives (ie Hatchshyery A Hatchery B etc) have been entered into the model in order to allow for unbiased development of evaluation cri t eria the next step in the process
Criteria are the qualities or attributes used to evaluate the alternatives in a decision Each criterion has a mode ie Numeric (N) Graphic (G) or Verbal (V) and a weight The weight defines the relative importance of a single criterion to the overall outcome of the decision It is possible to define as many criteria as the decision requires or to add delete or change a criterion as necessary Lightyear readily permits the editing and modification of the decisions structure If significant changes are made to the set of criteria any values assigned in the following evaluation step will be eliminated
The final step in the basic decision process is evaluating the alternatives An individual criterion is selected and each al te rnative is evaluated in turn for that citerion At the end of the evaluation process it is also possible to define simple logical rules to wei ght or eliminate alternatives on the basis of their evaluations for specific criteria
Once the basic steps in the decision process have been completed Lightyear then displays the ranked outcome of the decision process and identifies the preferred alternative It then further permits detailed examination of the performance of an individual alternative on the basis of each criterion
VERSIONlst Dr aft C r~ I TC I~ I (Ji 1 a d _ t ~ t r ~ v i n 1
+-------------------+-----------------+ ALTERNATIVES WORDS
------------------+------- ----------+ Alternati v e A Hi gh I
I +-------------------+ A 1 t ernat i VF B II in i r1i 1 I rHJcct
+-------------------+ Alternat iv2 C Negligible Neg 1 i g i bl Pshy 2 ~-
Mini rna l IC Moderate 3 High b Ex treme O
+-------------------+ +-------------------+-----------------+
~ middotbull middotmiddot _ ~ -middotbull
~ e~r~middot_middotmiddot~----~ lt- --~- )-~- middot ~--~middot
Li grJt year
ci~ITEl~TCJII middot1uv c~ni~ c~111 1ultc t
+-------------------+--------- -------- + ALTEFIAT IVES JO fmS
------------------+-----------------+ Alternative A Moderate
Alternative B Minimal
A 1 t err-ct i ve C Ylinir11il
+-------------------+-----------------+
VERSIONlst Draft
ti 512 78-rshy
+-------------------+ Impact
+-------------------+ fieCJ 1 i 1i i bl 27if Minimal I 1 Moderate 13 Hioh 6 Egtlttrerne O
+-------------------+
middot ~=~- r (1middot(
i 1~ 72 ~ ( middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot
1middot1 t- middot1 middot middotmiddot middotmiddot-middot t -middot~middot ~shy r 1middotmiddot ( middot middot middot ( ~
7- middotshy
gt1
middotmiddot1 -~ bullcmiddot-i middot
J I_J ~ ~ l )
i
middot-------------~--shy
L j_ght year SUBJ ECTProduct Desi~ +--------------------+------+------+ VERSI0N1st Draft
CRITERIR I YIOD E WEIGHTEnclosure 4 +------------------- -+------+--- ---+ water chemistry V 1 IZl
e middotr1dern i c fish
ad eq fw s u o p ly
vol fw suooly
deep fw supoly
shallow fw
gravity fw
freshwater
saltwater
bull 121 srnolts
isolation
land-based
I bull
supo
51lOO
bull 1
1
fry
site
float i Y-1~ site
V 10 DR V 2121
N 21Z1
N 15
N 15
V 10
N 30
N 30
N 30
N lZI -
-cshyN i
N 25 +--------------------+---- --+------+
middot~middot~middot -~-middot
SLJBJECT Product Desion VERSIONls t Draft
CRITERION water chemistry
+-------------------+-----------------+ ALTERNATIVES WDRDS -----------------+-----------------+ Alternative A acceptable
I middot Alterrative B trEiatable
Alternative C untreatable
+-------------------+-----------------+
DRAFT +-------------------+
Water Chemistry +-------------------+
acceotable ID treatable 5 untreatable O
+-------------------+
1 - -~ middot ~middotrmiddot -
Liqhtyear SUBJECTProduct Desion VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERION endemic f i sh
+-------------------+-----------------+ ALTERNATIVES
middot-----------------+--------- --------+ Alternative A none
+-------------------+ Alternative B high-l evfl oath Endernic Fish
+-- -----------------+ Alternative C 1 os1-l eve 1 CJct h none 0
pat hogen-free 7 low-level oath high-l evel oath O
+-------------------+ +-------------------+-----------------+
middot middot bullmiddot bull ltmiddot middot middot ~ ~- ~middotmiddot~- ~
Liqhbullt year SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
fi_1CRITEJUDN adeq ciUODly
+----------- --------+-----------------+ ALTERNAT I VES
-----------------+------------ -----+ Alternative A Yes
+-------------------+ A 1 t erra t i v e B YesNo
+-------------------+ Alternative C Maybe Yes 2-0
Maybe 0 No 0
+-------------------+ +-------------------+-----------------+
~ - ( l I middot
-fr ~-(gt-middot middot _ -_ t ~
Li ght j ear SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERIOII vol fw suppl y
+--------- -----------+------------+ ALTERIIAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative R 15
Alternative B 7 +-----------------------------+
Al terl1at i v e C 3 VPtLUE RANGE +-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 20 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
+--------------------+---------- --+
middot1 middot -( r ~ $
Light j ear SU BJECTProduct Design
CRITERION deeo fw s upol y
+--------------------+---- - -------+ ALTEl~NRT IVES VRLUE
+--------------------+------------+ 15
Alternative B E
A 1 t erY-1at i ve C 13
+----- ------------- --+------------+
VERS 10N1st Draft
+-------------------- ---------+ W -)LUE RAJIGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 15 I LEAST DE SI RABLE 0
+-----------------------------+
_ ~
_ shy
Light ear SLJBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION shallow fw supp
+--------------------+------------+ RLTEF~NAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 15
Alternative B 3
Alternative C 8
+--------------------+------------+
VERSIONl s t Draft
+-----------------------------+ Vf~LUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 15 I LEAST DESIR~BLE 0 +-----------------------------+
~ bull _ ~11~middot ~
Light vear SUBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION qravity
+-------------------+------------ - - - - -+ ALTERIIAT IVES WOfm~
~ ------ ----------+----------- --- - --+ ~lternative A Yes
A 1 t err1a t i ve B IJ
Alterr1ative C Ma yb e
+-------------------+-----------------+
VERSIONlst Draft fw s up o
+---- ---------------+ YesNo
+-------------------+ Yes IO Ma yb e ~ 11 0
I I I
- middot1
+-------------------+
bull- -~ii bull middotbull ~middoty i~middot shy
Li ght year SUBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION freshwater 1
+--------------------+----------- - + ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 15 middot
Alternative B 30
Alternative C 20
+---------------- ----+------------+
VERSI ONls t Draft
+--------- - -------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +------------------ -----------+
middot i shy
imiddot -shy 1middott middot ~-- -~-~~-gt _~~-- middot ~~_~~middot_f~ -~
__ightye ar SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONi s t Draft
CRITERION saltwater 1
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERIJAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 20
Al terr1at i ve B 20
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+------------+
middot~ ~~ -middot lt~ --~
i~~i ttJ~l ~~ s
+----------------- ------------+ V(JLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
-l bull
- - ----~ ~(yen__~_ ~ middot- ~- bull bull y-~ -- ~-
_ight y~ar SLJB J ECTProduct Design
CRITERION 0 smolts
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alterrat ive A 4
Alternative B
Alternative C 20
I I
I
I
+--------------------+------------+
VERSIONl s t Draft
+-----------------------------+ ViLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
( t middot middot - middot
---~~-f~~~-~ rmiddotmiddot ~-L~~- -Ji -~middot~ middot- - -
i ght yemiddota r SUBJ ECT P r oduc t Design VERSIO Nl st Dra ft
CRITERION i s olation fr y
+--------------- -----+- - ------- - - -+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+------- ------------- +--- ---------+ Alternative A 3
A 1 t err-a t i ve B 3
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+--------- - - -+
~ - - r ~ -~ 1 bull - ~
~~gtt ~-~ rf_~-~~ ~t~ J
+------- ----------------------+ VALUE RANGE
+- ----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 10 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
middot
_ _
i~f~~~ middot (f middot~ -~- middot middotmiddot
ightyea r SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERION land-based site
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES tjALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative R
Alternative B 15
-tA1t erYa t i ve C CJ
+--------------------+------------+
- t middot middotmiddot 1
middotmiddot~~ ~- _~~ ti~ J
+-----------------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
_ _middot _ middot~~ - ~ ~ -bull
middot~ ~ - middot - middot middot middot_ __ J~ j---- middot middot ~ ~~ ti~- ~~ Jmiddot~~ )r~f _
CRITERION floatin g site
+-------------------- +- ------- ----+ AL TEFmRTIVES VALUE
+-------- ------------+------------+ Alternative A 10
IZI
A 1 t erY-a ti ve C 20
+--------------------+------------+
SUBJECTProduct De s iqn VERSI ONl st Draft
+----------------------------- + VALUE RAIJGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
Li ght y ear SUBJECTProduct Desig VERSI0N 1st Draf t
RU LE JIRJYI E lltULE +----------------- - +---- - ----------------- - - - - - - -------------- ---- ----- ------ shy H20 CHEMI STR Y I wa te r chemistrv MUST BE AT LEAS T treatable
CELIMINA ~ ION RUL E) y - -middot ~ t~ ~
middota - -~C-~~ _ t 1PRTHDLOGY ende ri1i c f i s h ltLJS~r EltI=- H -r L_EAS T l rbullw-leve l p a t hmiddot middotmiddotmiddotmiddot - t ~middot middot ~middot s
ltELI MI NATI ON RUL E)
+------------------+----------------------- - - ----------------- ----------------middot
) middot - (
Production Design Criteria - 250 Total Points
Major Assumption
In order to be evaluated a project must have a minimum level of
production of 10000 adults using the worst case assumptions of
marine survival
A Freshwater Source 100 pt Total
1 Quality 20 pt
a Water Chemistry
i Acceptable ~ t
ii Treatable 5 pt
iii Not treatable reject zero total
b Endemic Fish populations
i None 10 pt
ii Present but
pathogen free 0 t
iii Present with low level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with unknown status) 1 pt
iv Present with high level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with viral pathogen) reject zero total
2 Quantity 40 pt
a Adequate for proposal based
on 20 yr minimum flow
b Total volume available
scaling of all prorosals 6Jt
3 Temperature 30 pt
a Deep intake only uniform
l()y7 water temperature 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
b Shallow intake only ambient
surface water temperatures 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
c Deep and shallow intakes
variable water temperatures
available depending on
degree of temperature
ccntrol (Note on rrodel
this criteria is rated by
sumning a and b )
4 Gravity Delivery ~ t
a Yes 10 pt
b No 0 pt
B Strateqies (Culture Flexibility ) 100 pt Total
In this rating we are not comparing the relative merits of the
different strategies but are ranking according to the capability
of a project to utilize a variety of strategies In order to
qualify for a rating in one of the strategies a project must
release a miniJnum of 500000 fish in that strategy In Eating the
possible points in each strategy a number of roints are awarded
middot~~ - ~ i ~t~ ~-~
middotml -middot1t~--~
for minimum production l eJel aoc iticna l points up to the maximum
are then awarded based on level of production relative to other
projects using that strategy
Mir1irrrum Level Maximum Level
1 Yearling snolts
a Freshwater 20 30
b Seawater netpens 20 30
2 Age-zero snolts 20 30
3 Fry-stocking with isolation
incubation and rearing capability 5 10
C Physical Site Characteristics 50 pt Total
1 Potential for land-based siting Maximum 25 pts
a Flat land available
b Access
c Earthquake and avalanche hazard
d Soil characteristics
e Water supply characteristics
2 Potential for f loat complex in estuary Maximum 25 pt
a Stonn protection
b Anchor points
c Tidal fl0v
d Natural Freshwater influence
e Water supply characteristics
f Surface ar ea available
1
I - Ri5k Fact or An3lvs isshyl Ch1r0c ~ E~h ance~e~t Alternatives
tmiddotmiddotmiddot bull r-l1~ - ~ middot middotbull111 w bullmiddot middot vl rv -1lbulll-Imiddot
Tot3l Pr01ect C~ sc lJl per unit ~arv~s t
- rJal Sml t fr dex hrvEst r)bbilitv Index Harvest Prooabilitv A1rt ize Usable Pro1ect Arnual Oaeratiro Anrual C t Alternative PrJd Et in Best Case (best case) Worst Case (worst case ) Ca~ital Cost Life (v ear sl Cst fotal Best Case Wrst Case iii- ------------~~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------middot-- --------------shy e0-check 5 0il0 iJJ 0006 025 0 ~lil 075 $8388320 2a $100000 e0 f lB3 Ba3 20 $6 13 $7355 $53U
05-chec k 2 52LJ 10~0 0015 0 70 001 1 030 $83 863 20 2J $20J0il 00 $283383 2~ t i SB ilO 3E Ht (with lens)
05-check 2 5~10 0e0 0018 010 0008 090 $5445050 20 $2e0 000 00 $25445copySJ $5 51 $1 3~3 fll lii (
(wo lensi
10-chec~ 1 2s0 e00 0021 080 0013 020 $83 Be3 20 20 $150000 ~I~ $233883211 ltl 3l $ i l L~ ilr ]t
Enclosure 6
J LIGHTYEAR
Lightyear i s a software produ ct th at produ ce s a r anking nr pr i oritization of a set of alternatives based on a numerical sco ring system
To use the product it is first necessary to choose and define a set of alternatives In this application alternatives will be location-specific chinook culture techniques Elimination of non- eq uivalent alternatives fr om the start of the analysis simplifies subsequent evaluations but is not absolutely necessary At present only dummy alternatives (ie Hatchshyery A Hatchery B etc) have been entered into the model in order to allow for unbiased development of evaluation cri t eria the next step in the process
Criteria are the qualities or attributes used to evaluate the alternatives in a decision Each criterion has a mode ie Numeric (N) Graphic (G) or Verbal (V) and a weight The weight defines the relative importance of a single criterion to the overall outcome of the decision It is possible to define as many criteria as the decision requires or to add delete or change a criterion as necessary Lightyear readily permits the editing and modification of the decisions structure If significant changes are made to the set of criteria any values assigned in the following evaluation step will be eliminated
The final step in the basic decision process is evaluating the alternatives An individual criterion is selected and each al te rnative is evaluated in turn for that citerion At the end of the evaluation process it is also possible to define simple logical rules to wei ght or eliminate alternatives on the basis of their evaluations for specific criteria
Once the basic steps in the decision process have been completed Lightyear then displays the ranked outcome of the decision process and identifies the preferred alternative It then further permits detailed examination of the performance of an individual alternative on the basis of each criterion
Li grJt year
ci~ITEl~TCJII middot1uv c~ni~ c~111 1ultc t
+-------------------+--------- -------- + ALTEFIAT IVES JO fmS
------------------+-----------------+ Alternative A Moderate
Alternative B Minimal
A 1 t err-ct i ve C Ylinir11il
+-------------------+-----------------+
VERSIONlst Draft
ti 512 78-rshy
+-------------------+ Impact
+-------------------+ fieCJ 1 i 1i i bl 27if Minimal I 1 Moderate 13 Hioh 6 Egtlttrerne O
+-------------------+
middot ~=~- r (1middot(
i 1~ 72 ~ ( middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot
1middot1 t- middot1 middot middotmiddot middotmiddot-middot t -middot~middot ~shy r 1middotmiddot ( middot middot middot ( ~
7- middotshy
gt1
middotmiddot1 -~ bullcmiddot-i middot
J I_J ~ ~ l )
i
middot-------------~--shy
L j_ght year SUBJ ECTProduct Desi~ +--------------------+------+------+ VERSI0N1st Draft
CRITERIR I YIOD E WEIGHTEnclosure 4 +------------------- -+------+--- ---+ water chemistry V 1 IZl
e middotr1dern i c fish
ad eq fw s u o p ly
vol fw suooly
deep fw supoly
shallow fw
gravity fw
freshwater
saltwater
bull 121 srnolts
isolation
land-based
I bull
supo
51lOO
bull 1
1
fry
site
float i Y-1~ site
V 10 DR V 2121
N 21Z1
N 15
N 15
V 10
N 30
N 30
N 30
N lZI -
-cshyN i
N 25 +--------------------+---- --+------+
middot~middot~middot -~-middot
SLJBJECT Product Desion VERSIONls t Draft
CRITERION water chemistry
+-------------------+-----------------+ ALTERNATIVES WDRDS -----------------+-----------------+ Alternative A acceptable
I middot Alterrative B trEiatable
Alternative C untreatable
+-------------------+-----------------+
DRAFT +-------------------+
Water Chemistry +-------------------+
acceotable ID treatable 5 untreatable O
+-------------------+
1 - -~ middot ~middotrmiddot -
Liqhtyear SUBJECTProduct Desion VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERION endemic f i sh
+-------------------+-----------------+ ALTERNATIVES
middot-----------------+--------- --------+ Alternative A none
+-------------------+ Alternative B high-l evfl oath Endernic Fish
+-- -----------------+ Alternative C 1 os1-l eve 1 CJct h none 0
pat hogen-free 7 low-level oath high-l evel oath O
+-------------------+ +-------------------+-----------------+
middot middot bullmiddot bull ltmiddot middot middot ~ ~- ~middotmiddot~- ~
Liqhbullt year SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
fi_1CRITEJUDN adeq ciUODly
+----------- --------+-----------------+ ALTERNAT I VES
-----------------+------------ -----+ Alternative A Yes
+-------------------+ A 1 t erra t i v e B YesNo
+-------------------+ Alternative C Maybe Yes 2-0
Maybe 0 No 0
+-------------------+ +-------------------+-----------------+
~ - ( l I middot
-fr ~-(gt-middot middot _ -_ t ~
Li ght j ear SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERIOII vol fw suppl y
+--------- -----------+------------+ ALTERIIAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative R 15
Alternative B 7 +-----------------------------+
Al terl1at i v e C 3 VPtLUE RANGE +-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 20 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
+--------------------+---------- --+
middot1 middot -( r ~ $
Light j ear SU BJECTProduct Design
CRITERION deeo fw s upol y
+--------------------+---- - -------+ ALTEl~NRT IVES VRLUE
+--------------------+------------+ 15
Alternative B E
A 1 t erY-1at i ve C 13
+----- ------------- --+------------+
VERS 10N1st Draft
+-------------------- ---------+ W -)LUE RAJIGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 15 I LEAST DE SI RABLE 0
+-----------------------------+
_ ~
_ shy
Light ear SLJBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION shallow fw supp
+--------------------+------------+ RLTEF~NAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 15
Alternative B 3
Alternative C 8
+--------------------+------------+
VERSIONl s t Draft
+-----------------------------+ Vf~LUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 15 I LEAST DESIR~BLE 0 +-----------------------------+
~ bull _ ~11~middot ~
Light vear SUBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION qravity
+-------------------+------------ - - - - -+ ALTERIIAT IVES WOfm~
~ ------ ----------+----------- --- - --+ ~lternative A Yes
A 1 t err1a t i ve B IJ
Alterr1ative C Ma yb e
+-------------------+-----------------+
VERSIONlst Draft fw s up o
+---- ---------------+ YesNo
+-------------------+ Yes IO Ma yb e ~ 11 0
I I I
- middot1
+-------------------+
bull- -~ii bull middotbull ~middoty i~middot shy
Li ght year SUBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION freshwater 1
+--------------------+----------- - + ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 15 middot
Alternative B 30
Alternative C 20
+---------------- ----+------------+
VERSI ONls t Draft
+--------- - -------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +------------------ -----------+
middot i shy
imiddot -shy 1middott middot ~-- -~-~~-gt _~~-- middot ~~_~~middot_f~ -~
__ightye ar SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONi s t Draft
CRITERION saltwater 1
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERIJAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 20
Al terr1at i ve B 20
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+------------+
middot~ ~~ -middot lt~ --~
i~~i ttJ~l ~~ s
+----------------- ------------+ V(JLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
-l bull
- - ----~ ~(yen__~_ ~ middot- ~- bull bull y-~ -- ~-
_ight y~ar SLJB J ECTProduct Design
CRITERION 0 smolts
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alterrat ive A 4
Alternative B
Alternative C 20
I I
I
I
+--------------------+------------+
VERSIONl s t Draft
+-----------------------------+ ViLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
( t middot middot - middot
---~~-f~~~-~ rmiddotmiddot ~-L~~- -Ji -~middot~ middot- - -
i ght yemiddota r SUBJ ECT P r oduc t Design VERSIO Nl st Dra ft
CRITERION i s olation fr y
+--------------- -----+- - ------- - - -+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+------- ------------- +--- ---------+ Alternative A 3
A 1 t err-a t i ve B 3
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+--------- - - -+
~ - - r ~ -~ 1 bull - ~
~~gtt ~-~ rf_~-~~ ~t~ J
+------- ----------------------+ VALUE RANGE
+- ----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 10 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
middot
_ _
i~f~~~ middot (f middot~ -~- middot middotmiddot
ightyea r SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERION land-based site
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES tjALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative R
Alternative B 15
-tA1t erYa t i ve C CJ
+--------------------+------------+
- t middot middotmiddot 1
middotmiddot~~ ~- _~~ ti~ J
+-----------------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
_ _middot _ middot~~ - ~ ~ -bull
middot~ ~ - middot - middot middot middot_ __ J~ j---- middot middot ~ ~~ ti~- ~~ Jmiddot~~ )r~f _
CRITERION floatin g site
+-------------------- +- ------- ----+ AL TEFmRTIVES VALUE
+-------- ------------+------------+ Alternative A 10
IZI
A 1 t erY-a ti ve C 20
+--------------------+------------+
SUBJECTProduct De s iqn VERSI ONl st Draft
+----------------------------- + VALUE RAIJGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
Li ght y ear SUBJECTProduct Desig VERSI0N 1st Draf t
RU LE JIRJYI E lltULE +----------------- - +---- - ----------------- - - - - - - -------------- ---- ----- ------ shy H20 CHEMI STR Y I wa te r chemistrv MUST BE AT LEAS T treatable
CELIMINA ~ ION RUL E) y - -middot ~ t~ ~
middota - -~C-~~ _ t 1PRTHDLOGY ende ri1i c f i s h ltLJS~r EltI=- H -r L_EAS T l rbullw-leve l p a t hmiddot middotmiddotmiddotmiddot - t ~middot middot ~middot s
ltELI MI NATI ON RUL E)
+------------------+----------------------- - - ----------------- ----------------middot
) middot - (
Production Design Criteria - 250 Total Points
Major Assumption
In order to be evaluated a project must have a minimum level of
production of 10000 adults using the worst case assumptions of
marine survival
A Freshwater Source 100 pt Total
1 Quality 20 pt
a Water Chemistry
i Acceptable ~ t
ii Treatable 5 pt
iii Not treatable reject zero total
b Endemic Fish populations
i None 10 pt
ii Present but
pathogen free 0 t
iii Present with low level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with unknown status) 1 pt
iv Present with high level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with viral pathogen) reject zero total
2 Quantity 40 pt
a Adequate for proposal based
on 20 yr minimum flow
b Total volume available
scaling of all prorosals 6Jt
3 Temperature 30 pt
a Deep intake only uniform
l()y7 water temperature 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
b Shallow intake only ambient
surface water temperatures 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
c Deep and shallow intakes
variable water temperatures
available depending on
degree of temperature
ccntrol (Note on rrodel
this criteria is rated by
sumning a and b )
4 Gravity Delivery ~ t
a Yes 10 pt
b No 0 pt
B Strateqies (Culture Flexibility ) 100 pt Total
In this rating we are not comparing the relative merits of the
different strategies but are ranking according to the capability
of a project to utilize a variety of strategies In order to
qualify for a rating in one of the strategies a project must
release a miniJnum of 500000 fish in that strategy In Eating the
possible points in each strategy a number of roints are awarded
middot~~ - ~ i ~t~ ~-~
middotml -middot1t~--~
for minimum production l eJel aoc iticna l points up to the maximum
are then awarded based on level of production relative to other
projects using that strategy
Mir1irrrum Level Maximum Level
1 Yearling snolts
a Freshwater 20 30
b Seawater netpens 20 30
2 Age-zero snolts 20 30
3 Fry-stocking with isolation
incubation and rearing capability 5 10
C Physical Site Characteristics 50 pt Total
1 Potential for land-based siting Maximum 25 pts
a Flat land available
b Access
c Earthquake and avalanche hazard
d Soil characteristics
e Water supply characteristics
2 Potential for f loat complex in estuary Maximum 25 pt
a Stonn protection
b Anchor points
c Tidal fl0v
d Natural Freshwater influence
e Water supply characteristics
f Surface ar ea available
1
I - Ri5k Fact or An3lvs isshyl Ch1r0c ~ E~h ance~e~t Alternatives
tmiddotmiddotmiddot bull r-l1~ - ~ middot middotbull111 w bullmiddot middot vl rv -1lbulll-Imiddot
Tot3l Pr01ect C~ sc lJl per unit ~arv~s t
- rJal Sml t fr dex hrvEst r)bbilitv Index Harvest Prooabilitv A1rt ize Usable Pro1ect Arnual Oaeratiro Anrual C t Alternative PrJd Et in Best Case (best case) Worst Case (worst case ) Ca~ital Cost Life (v ear sl Cst fotal Best Case Wrst Case iii- ------------~~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------middot-- --------------shy e0-check 5 0il0 iJJ 0006 025 0 ~lil 075 $8388320 2a $100000 e0 f lB3 Ba3 20 $6 13 $7355 $53U
05-chec k 2 52LJ 10~0 0015 0 70 001 1 030 $83 863 20 2J $20J0il 00 $283383 2~ t i SB ilO 3E Ht (with lens)
05-check 2 5~10 0e0 0018 010 0008 090 $5445050 20 $2e0 000 00 $25445copySJ $5 51 $1 3~3 fll lii (
(wo lensi
10-chec~ 1 2s0 e00 0021 080 0013 020 $83 Be3 20 20 $150000 ~I~ $233883211 ltl 3l $ i l L~ ilr ]t
Enclosure 6
J LIGHTYEAR
Lightyear i s a software produ ct th at produ ce s a r anking nr pr i oritization of a set of alternatives based on a numerical sco ring system
To use the product it is first necessary to choose and define a set of alternatives In this application alternatives will be location-specific chinook culture techniques Elimination of non- eq uivalent alternatives fr om the start of the analysis simplifies subsequent evaluations but is not absolutely necessary At present only dummy alternatives (ie Hatchshyery A Hatchery B etc) have been entered into the model in order to allow for unbiased development of evaluation cri t eria the next step in the process
Criteria are the qualities or attributes used to evaluate the alternatives in a decision Each criterion has a mode ie Numeric (N) Graphic (G) or Verbal (V) and a weight The weight defines the relative importance of a single criterion to the overall outcome of the decision It is possible to define as many criteria as the decision requires or to add delete or change a criterion as necessary Lightyear readily permits the editing and modification of the decisions structure If significant changes are made to the set of criteria any values assigned in the following evaluation step will be eliminated
The final step in the basic decision process is evaluating the alternatives An individual criterion is selected and each al te rnative is evaluated in turn for that citerion At the end of the evaluation process it is also possible to define simple logical rules to wei ght or eliminate alternatives on the basis of their evaluations for specific criteria
Once the basic steps in the decision process have been completed Lightyear then displays the ranked outcome of the decision process and identifies the preferred alternative It then further permits detailed examination of the performance of an individual alternative on the basis of each criterion
middot ~=~- r (1middot(
i 1~ 72 ~ ( middotmiddotmiddotmiddotmiddot
1middot1 t- middot1 middot middotmiddot middotmiddot-middot t -middot~middot ~shy r 1middotmiddot ( middot middot middot ( ~
7- middotshy
gt1
middotmiddot1 -~ bullcmiddot-i middot
J I_J ~ ~ l )
i
middot-------------~--shy
L j_ght year SUBJ ECTProduct Desi~ +--------------------+------+------+ VERSI0N1st Draft
CRITERIR I YIOD E WEIGHTEnclosure 4 +------------------- -+------+--- ---+ water chemistry V 1 IZl
e middotr1dern i c fish
ad eq fw s u o p ly
vol fw suooly
deep fw supoly
shallow fw
gravity fw
freshwater
saltwater
bull 121 srnolts
isolation
land-based
I bull
supo
51lOO
bull 1
1
fry
site
float i Y-1~ site
V 10 DR V 2121
N 21Z1
N 15
N 15
V 10
N 30
N 30
N 30
N lZI -
-cshyN i
N 25 +--------------------+---- --+------+
middot~middot~middot -~-middot
SLJBJECT Product Desion VERSIONls t Draft
CRITERION water chemistry
+-------------------+-----------------+ ALTERNATIVES WDRDS -----------------+-----------------+ Alternative A acceptable
I middot Alterrative B trEiatable
Alternative C untreatable
+-------------------+-----------------+
DRAFT +-------------------+
Water Chemistry +-------------------+
acceotable ID treatable 5 untreatable O
+-------------------+
1 - -~ middot ~middotrmiddot -
Liqhtyear SUBJECTProduct Desion VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERION endemic f i sh
+-------------------+-----------------+ ALTERNATIVES
middot-----------------+--------- --------+ Alternative A none
+-------------------+ Alternative B high-l evfl oath Endernic Fish
+-- -----------------+ Alternative C 1 os1-l eve 1 CJct h none 0
pat hogen-free 7 low-level oath high-l evel oath O
+-------------------+ +-------------------+-----------------+
middot middot bullmiddot bull ltmiddot middot middot ~ ~- ~middotmiddot~- ~
Liqhbullt year SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
fi_1CRITEJUDN adeq ciUODly
+----------- --------+-----------------+ ALTERNAT I VES
-----------------+------------ -----+ Alternative A Yes
+-------------------+ A 1 t erra t i v e B YesNo
+-------------------+ Alternative C Maybe Yes 2-0
Maybe 0 No 0
+-------------------+ +-------------------+-----------------+
~ - ( l I middot
-fr ~-(gt-middot middot _ -_ t ~
Li ght j ear SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERIOII vol fw suppl y
+--------- -----------+------------+ ALTERIIAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative R 15
Alternative B 7 +-----------------------------+
Al terl1at i v e C 3 VPtLUE RANGE +-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 20 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
+--------------------+---------- --+
middot1 middot -( r ~ $
Light j ear SU BJECTProduct Design
CRITERION deeo fw s upol y
+--------------------+---- - -------+ ALTEl~NRT IVES VRLUE
+--------------------+------------+ 15
Alternative B E
A 1 t erY-1at i ve C 13
+----- ------------- --+------------+
VERS 10N1st Draft
+-------------------- ---------+ W -)LUE RAJIGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 15 I LEAST DE SI RABLE 0
+-----------------------------+
_ ~
_ shy
Light ear SLJBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION shallow fw supp
+--------------------+------------+ RLTEF~NAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 15
Alternative B 3
Alternative C 8
+--------------------+------------+
VERSIONl s t Draft
+-----------------------------+ Vf~LUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 15 I LEAST DESIR~BLE 0 +-----------------------------+
~ bull _ ~11~middot ~
Light vear SUBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION qravity
+-------------------+------------ - - - - -+ ALTERIIAT IVES WOfm~
~ ------ ----------+----------- --- - --+ ~lternative A Yes
A 1 t err1a t i ve B IJ
Alterr1ative C Ma yb e
+-------------------+-----------------+
VERSIONlst Draft fw s up o
+---- ---------------+ YesNo
+-------------------+ Yes IO Ma yb e ~ 11 0
I I I
- middot1
+-------------------+
bull- -~ii bull middotbull ~middoty i~middot shy
Li ght year SUBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION freshwater 1
+--------------------+----------- - + ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 15 middot
Alternative B 30
Alternative C 20
+---------------- ----+------------+
VERSI ONls t Draft
+--------- - -------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +------------------ -----------+
middot i shy
imiddot -shy 1middott middot ~-- -~-~~-gt _~~-- middot ~~_~~middot_f~ -~
__ightye ar SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONi s t Draft
CRITERION saltwater 1
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERIJAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 20
Al terr1at i ve B 20
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+------------+
middot~ ~~ -middot lt~ --~
i~~i ttJ~l ~~ s
+----------------- ------------+ V(JLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
-l bull
- - ----~ ~(yen__~_ ~ middot- ~- bull bull y-~ -- ~-
_ight y~ar SLJB J ECTProduct Design
CRITERION 0 smolts
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alterrat ive A 4
Alternative B
Alternative C 20
I I
I
I
+--------------------+------------+
VERSIONl s t Draft
+-----------------------------+ ViLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
( t middot middot - middot
---~~-f~~~-~ rmiddotmiddot ~-L~~- -Ji -~middot~ middot- - -
i ght yemiddota r SUBJ ECT P r oduc t Design VERSIO Nl st Dra ft
CRITERION i s olation fr y
+--------------- -----+- - ------- - - -+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+------- ------------- +--- ---------+ Alternative A 3
A 1 t err-a t i ve B 3
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+--------- - - -+
~ - - r ~ -~ 1 bull - ~
~~gtt ~-~ rf_~-~~ ~t~ J
+------- ----------------------+ VALUE RANGE
+- ----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 10 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
middot
_ _
i~f~~~ middot (f middot~ -~- middot middotmiddot
ightyea r SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERION land-based site
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES tjALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative R
Alternative B 15
-tA1t erYa t i ve C CJ
+--------------------+------------+
- t middot middotmiddot 1
middotmiddot~~ ~- _~~ ti~ J
+-----------------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
_ _middot _ middot~~ - ~ ~ -bull
middot~ ~ - middot - middot middot middot_ __ J~ j---- middot middot ~ ~~ ti~- ~~ Jmiddot~~ )r~f _
CRITERION floatin g site
+-------------------- +- ------- ----+ AL TEFmRTIVES VALUE
+-------- ------------+------------+ Alternative A 10
IZI
A 1 t erY-a ti ve C 20
+--------------------+------------+
SUBJECTProduct De s iqn VERSI ONl st Draft
+----------------------------- + VALUE RAIJGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
Li ght y ear SUBJECTProduct Desig VERSI0N 1st Draf t
RU LE JIRJYI E lltULE +----------------- - +---- - ----------------- - - - - - - -------------- ---- ----- ------ shy H20 CHEMI STR Y I wa te r chemistrv MUST BE AT LEAS T treatable
CELIMINA ~ ION RUL E) y - -middot ~ t~ ~
middota - -~C-~~ _ t 1PRTHDLOGY ende ri1i c f i s h ltLJS~r EltI=- H -r L_EAS T l rbullw-leve l p a t hmiddot middotmiddotmiddotmiddot - t ~middot middot ~middot s
ltELI MI NATI ON RUL E)
+------------------+----------------------- - - ----------------- ----------------middot
) middot - (
Production Design Criteria - 250 Total Points
Major Assumption
In order to be evaluated a project must have a minimum level of
production of 10000 adults using the worst case assumptions of
marine survival
A Freshwater Source 100 pt Total
1 Quality 20 pt
a Water Chemistry
i Acceptable ~ t
ii Treatable 5 pt
iii Not treatable reject zero total
b Endemic Fish populations
i None 10 pt
ii Present but
pathogen free 0 t
iii Present with low level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with unknown status) 1 pt
iv Present with high level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with viral pathogen) reject zero total
2 Quantity 40 pt
a Adequate for proposal based
on 20 yr minimum flow
b Total volume available
scaling of all prorosals 6Jt
3 Temperature 30 pt
a Deep intake only uniform
l()y7 water temperature 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
b Shallow intake only ambient
surface water temperatures 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
c Deep and shallow intakes
variable water temperatures
available depending on
degree of temperature
ccntrol (Note on rrodel
this criteria is rated by
sumning a and b )
4 Gravity Delivery ~ t
a Yes 10 pt
b No 0 pt
B Strateqies (Culture Flexibility ) 100 pt Total
In this rating we are not comparing the relative merits of the
different strategies but are ranking according to the capability
of a project to utilize a variety of strategies In order to
qualify for a rating in one of the strategies a project must
release a miniJnum of 500000 fish in that strategy In Eating the
possible points in each strategy a number of roints are awarded
middot~~ - ~ i ~t~ ~-~
middotml -middot1t~--~
for minimum production l eJel aoc iticna l points up to the maximum
are then awarded based on level of production relative to other
projects using that strategy
Mir1irrrum Level Maximum Level
1 Yearling snolts
a Freshwater 20 30
b Seawater netpens 20 30
2 Age-zero snolts 20 30
3 Fry-stocking with isolation
incubation and rearing capability 5 10
C Physical Site Characteristics 50 pt Total
1 Potential for land-based siting Maximum 25 pts
a Flat land available
b Access
c Earthquake and avalanche hazard
d Soil characteristics
e Water supply characteristics
2 Potential for f loat complex in estuary Maximum 25 pt
a Stonn protection
b Anchor points
c Tidal fl0v
d Natural Freshwater influence
e Water supply characteristics
f Surface ar ea available
1
I - Ri5k Fact or An3lvs isshyl Ch1r0c ~ E~h ance~e~t Alternatives
tmiddotmiddotmiddot bull r-l1~ - ~ middot middotbull111 w bullmiddot middot vl rv -1lbulll-Imiddot
Tot3l Pr01ect C~ sc lJl per unit ~arv~s t
- rJal Sml t fr dex hrvEst r)bbilitv Index Harvest Prooabilitv A1rt ize Usable Pro1ect Arnual Oaeratiro Anrual C t Alternative PrJd Et in Best Case (best case) Worst Case (worst case ) Ca~ital Cost Life (v ear sl Cst fotal Best Case Wrst Case iii- ------------~~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------middot-- --------------shy e0-check 5 0il0 iJJ 0006 025 0 ~lil 075 $8388320 2a $100000 e0 f lB3 Ba3 20 $6 13 $7355 $53U
05-chec k 2 52LJ 10~0 0015 0 70 001 1 030 $83 863 20 2J $20J0il 00 $283383 2~ t i SB ilO 3E Ht (with lens)
05-check 2 5~10 0e0 0018 010 0008 090 $5445050 20 $2e0 000 00 $25445copySJ $5 51 $1 3~3 fll lii (
(wo lensi
10-chec~ 1 2s0 e00 0021 080 0013 020 $83 Be3 20 20 $150000 ~I~ $233883211 ltl 3l $ i l L~ ilr ]t
Enclosure 6
J LIGHTYEAR
Lightyear i s a software produ ct th at produ ce s a r anking nr pr i oritization of a set of alternatives based on a numerical sco ring system
To use the product it is first necessary to choose and define a set of alternatives In this application alternatives will be location-specific chinook culture techniques Elimination of non- eq uivalent alternatives fr om the start of the analysis simplifies subsequent evaluations but is not absolutely necessary At present only dummy alternatives (ie Hatchshyery A Hatchery B etc) have been entered into the model in order to allow for unbiased development of evaluation cri t eria the next step in the process
Criteria are the qualities or attributes used to evaluate the alternatives in a decision Each criterion has a mode ie Numeric (N) Graphic (G) or Verbal (V) and a weight The weight defines the relative importance of a single criterion to the overall outcome of the decision It is possible to define as many criteria as the decision requires or to add delete or change a criterion as necessary Lightyear readily permits the editing and modification of the decisions structure If significant changes are made to the set of criteria any values assigned in the following evaluation step will be eliminated
The final step in the basic decision process is evaluating the alternatives An individual criterion is selected and each al te rnative is evaluated in turn for that citerion At the end of the evaluation process it is also possible to define simple logical rules to wei ght or eliminate alternatives on the basis of their evaluations for specific criteria
Once the basic steps in the decision process have been completed Lightyear then displays the ranked outcome of the decision process and identifies the preferred alternative It then further permits detailed examination of the performance of an individual alternative on the basis of each criterion
L j_ght year SUBJ ECTProduct Desi~ +--------------------+------+------+ VERSI0N1st Draft
CRITERIR I YIOD E WEIGHTEnclosure 4 +------------------- -+------+--- ---+ water chemistry V 1 IZl
e middotr1dern i c fish
ad eq fw s u o p ly
vol fw suooly
deep fw supoly
shallow fw
gravity fw
freshwater
saltwater
bull 121 srnolts
isolation
land-based
I bull
supo
51lOO
bull 1
1
fry
site
float i Y-1~ site
V 10 DR V 2121
N 21Z1
N 15
N 15
V 10
N 30
N 30
N 30
N lZI -
-cshyN i
N 25 +--------------------+---- --+------+
middot~middot~middot -~-middot
SLJBJECT Product Desion VERSIONls t Draft
CRITERION water chemistry
+-------------------+-----------------+ ALTERNATIVES WDRDS -----------------+-----------------+ Alternative A acceptable
I middot Alterrative B trEiatable
Alternative C untreatable
+-------------------+-----------------+
DRAFT +-------------------+
Water Chemistry +-------------------+
acceotable ID treatable 5 untreatable O
+-------------------+
1 - -~ middot ~middotrmiddot -
Liqhtyear SUBJECTProduct Desion VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERION endemic f i sh
+-------------------+-----------------+ ALTERNATIVES
middot-----------------+--------- --------+ Alternative A none
+-------------------+ Alternative B high-l evfl oath Endernic Fish
+-- -----------------+ Alternative C 1 os1-l eve 1 CJct h none 0
pat hogen-free 7 low-level oath high-l evel oath O
+-------------------+ +-------------------+-----------------+
middot middot bullmiddot bull ltmiddot middot middot ~ ~- ~middotmiddot~- ~
Liqhbullt year SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
fi_1CRITEJUDN adeq ciUODly
+----------- --------+-----------------+ ALTERNAT I VES
-----------------+------------ -----+ Alternative A Yes
+-------------------+ A 1 t erra t i v e B YesNo
+-------------------+ Alternative C Maybe Yes 2-0
Maybe 0 No 0
+-------------------+ +-------------------+-----------------+
~ - ( l I middot
-fr ~-(gt-middot middot _ -_ t ~
Li ght j ear SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERIOII vol fw suppl y
+--------- -----------+------------+ ALTERIIAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative R 15
Alternative B 7 +-----------------------------+
Al terl1at i v e C 3 VPtLUE RANGE +-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 20 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
+--------------------+---------- --+
middot1 middot -( r ~ $
Light j ear SU BJECTProduct Design
CRITERION deeo fw s upol y
+--------------------+---- - -------+ ALTEl~NRT IVES VRLUE
+--------------------+------------+ 15
Alternative B E
A 1 t erY-1at i ve C 13
+----- ------------- --+------------+
VERS 10N1st Draft
+-------------------- ---------+ W -)LUE RAJIGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 15 I LEAST DE SI RABLE 0
+-----------------------------+
_ ~
_ shy
Light ear SLJBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION shallow fw supp
+--------------------+------------+ RLTEF~NAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 15
Alternative B 3
Alternative C 8
+--------------------+------------+
VERSIONl s t Draft
+-----------------------------+ Vf~LUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 15 I LEAST DESIR~BLE 0 +-----------------------------+
~ bull _ ~11~middot ~
Light vear SUBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION qravity
+-------------------+------------ - - - - -+ ALTERIIAT IVES WOfm~
~ ------ ----------+----------- --- - --+ ~lternative A Yes
A 1 t err1a t i ve B IJ
Alterr1ative C Ma yb e
+-------------------+-----------------+
VERSIONlst Draft fw s up o
+---- ---------------+ YesNo
+-------------------+ Yes IO Ma yb e ~ 11 0
I I I
- middot1
+-------------------+
bull- -~ii bull middotbull ~middoty i~middot shy
Li ght year SUBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION freshwater 1
+--------------------+----------- - + ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 15 middot
Alternative B 30
Alternative C 20
+---------------- ----+------------+
VERSI ONls t Draft
+--------- - -------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +------------------ -----------+
middot i shy
imiddot -shy 1middott middot ~-- -~-~~-gt _~~-- middot ~~_~~middot_f~ -~
__ightye ar SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONi s t Draft
CRITERION saltwater 1
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERIJAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 20
Al terr1at i ve B 20
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+------------+
middot~ ~~ -middot lt~ --~
i~~i ttJ~l ~~ s
+----------------- ------------+ V(JLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
-l bull
- - ----~ ~(yen__~_ ~ middot- ~- bull bull y-~ -- ~-
_ight y~ar SLJB J ECTProduct Design
CRITERION 0 smolts
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alterrat ive A 4
Alternative B
Alternative C 20
I I
I
I
+--------------------+------------+
VERSIONl s t Draft
+-----------------------------+ ViLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
( t middot middot - middot
---~~-f~~~-~ rmiddotmiddot ~-L~~- -Ji -~middot~ middot- - -
i ght yemiddota r SUBJ ECT P r oduc t Design VERSIO Nl st Dra ft
CRITERION i s olation fr y
+--------------- -----+- - ------- - - -+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+------- ------------- +--- ---------+ Alternative A 3
A 1 t err-a t i ve B 3
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+--------- - - -+
~ - - r ~ -~ 1 bull - ~
~~gtt ~-~ rf_~-~~ ~t~ J
+------- ----------------------+ VALUE RANGE
+- ----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 10 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
middot
_ _
i~f~~~ middot (f middot~ -~- middot middotmiddot
ightyea r SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERION land-based site
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES tjALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative R
Alternative B 15
-tA1t erYa t i ve C CJ
+--------------------+------------+
- t middot middotmiddot 1
middotmiddot~~ ~- _~~ ti~ J
+-----------------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
_ _middot _ middot~~ - ~ ~ -bull
middot~ ~ - middot - middot middot middot_ __ J~ j---- middot middot ~ ~~ ti~- ~~ Jmiddot~~ )r~f _
CRITERION floatin g site
+-------------------- +- ------- ----+ AL TEFmRTIVES VALUE
+-------- ------------+------------+ Alternative A 10
IZI
A 1 t erY-a ti ve C 20
+--------------------+------------+
SUBJECTProduct De s iqn VERSI ONl st Draft
+----------------------------- + VALUE RAIJGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
Li ght y ear SUBJECTProduct Desig VERSI0N 1st Draf t
RU LE JIRJYI E lltULE +----------------- - +---- - ----------------- - - - - - - -------------- ---- ----- ------ shy H20 CHEMI STR Y I wa te r chemistrv MUST BE AT LEAS T treatable
CELIMINA ~ ION RUL E) y - -middot ~ t~ ~
middota - -~C-~~ _ t 1PRTHDLOGY ende ri1i c f i s h ltLJS~r EltI=- H -r L_EAS T l rbullw-leve l p a t hmiddot middotmiddotmiddotmiddot - t ~middot middot ~middot s
ltELI MI NATI ON RUL E)
+------------------+----------------------- - - ----------------- ----------------middot
) middot - (
Production Design Criteria - 250 Total Points
Major Assumption
In order to be evaluated a project must have a minimum level of
production of 10000 adults using the worst case assumptions of
marine survival
A Freshwater Source 100 pt Total
1 Quality 20 pt
a Water Chemistry
i Acceptable ~ t
ii Treatable 5 pt
iii Not treatable reject zero total
b Endemic Fish populations
i None 10 pt
ii Present but
pathogen free 0 t
iii Present with low level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with unknown status) 1 pt
iv Present with high level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with viral pathogen) reject zero total
2 Quantity 40 pt
a Adequate for proposal based
on 20 yr minimum flow
b Total volume available
scaling of all prorosals 6Jt
3 Temperature 30 pt
a Deep intake only uniform
l()y7 water temperature 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
b Shallow intake only ambient
surface water temperatures 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
c Deep and shallow intakes
variable water temperatures
available depending on
degree of temperature
ccntrol (Note on rrodel
this criteria is rated by
sumning a and b )
4 Gravity Delivery ~ t
a Yes 10 pt
b No 0 pt
B Strateqies (Culture Flexibility ) 100 pt Total
In this rating we are not comparing the relative merits of the
different strategies but are ranking according to the capability
of a project to utilize a variety of strategies In order to
qualify for a rating in one of the strategies a project must
release a miniJnum of 500000 fish in that strategy In Eating the
possible points in each strategy a number of roints are awarded
middot~~ - ~ i ~t~ ~-~
middotml -middot1t~--~
for minimum production l eJel aoc iticna l points up to the maximum
are then awarded based on level of production relative to other
projects using that strategy
Mir1irrrum Level Maximum Level
1 Yearling snolts
a Freshwater 20 30
b Seawater netpens 20 30
2 Age-zero snolts 20 30
3 Fry-stocking with isolation
incubation and rearing capability 5 10
C Physical Site Characteristics 50 pt Total
1 Potential for land-based siting Maximum 25 pts
a Flat land available
b Access
c Earthquake and avalanche hazard
d Soil characteristics
e Water supply characteristics
2 Potential for f loat complex in estuary Maximum 25 pt
a Stonn protection
b Anchor points
c Tidal fl0v
d Natural Freshwater influence
e Water supply characteristics
f Surface ar ea available
1
I - Ri5k Fact or An3lvs isshyl Ch1r0c ~ E~h ance~e~t Alternatives
tmiddotmiddotmiddot bull r-l1~ - ~ middot middotbull111 w bullmiddot middot vl rv -1lbulll-Imiddot
Tot3l Pr01ect C~ sc lJl per unit ~arv~s t
- rJal Sml t fr dex hrvEst r)bbilitv Index Harvest Prooabilitv A1rt ize Usable Pro1ect Arnual Oaeratiro Anrual C t Alternative PrJd Et in Best Case (best case) Worst Case (worst case ) Ca~ital Cost Life (v ear sl Cst fotal Best Case Wrst Case iii- ------------~~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------middot-- --------------shy e0-check 5 0il0 iJJ 0006 025 0 ~lil 075 $8388320 2a $100000 e0 f lB3 Ba3 20 $6 13 $7355 $53U
05-chec k 2 52LJ 10~0 0015 0 70 001 1 030 $83 863 20 2J $20J0il 00 $283383 2~ t i SB ilO 3E Ht (with lens)
05-check 2 5~10 0e0 0018 010 0008 090 $5445050 20 $2e0 000 00 $25445copySJ $5 51 $1 3~3 fll lii (
(wo lensi
10-chec~ 1 2s0 e00 0021 080 0013 020 $83 Be3 20 20 $150000 ~I~ $233883211 ltl 3l $ i l L~ ilr ]t
Enclosure 6
J LIGHTYEAR
Lightyear i s a software produ ct th at produ ce s a r anking nr pr i oritization of a set of alternatives based on a numerical sco ring system
To use the product it is first necessary to choose and define a set of alternatives In this application alternatives will be location-specific chinook culture techniques Elimination of non- eq uivalent alternatives fr om the start of the analysis simplifies subsequent evaluations but is not absolutely necessary At present only dummy alternatives (ie Hatchshyery A Hatchery B etc) have been entered into the model in order to allow for unbiased development of evaluation cri t eria the next step in the process
Criteria are the qualities or attributes used to evaluate the alternatives in a decision Each criterion has a mode ie Numeric (N) Graphic (G) or Verbal (V) and a weight The weight defines the relative importance of a single criterion to the overall outcome of the decision It is possible to define as many criteria as the decision requires or to add delete or change a criterion as necessary Lightyear readily permits the editing and modification of the decisions structure If significant changes are made to the set of criteria any values assigned in the following evaluation step will be eliminated
The final step in the basic decision process is evaluating the alternatives An individual criterion is selected and each al te rnative is evaluated in turn for that citerion At the end of the evaluation process it is also possible to define simple logical rules to wei ght or eliminate alternatives on the basis of their evaluations for specific criteria
Once the basic steps in the decision process have been completed Lightyear then displays the ranked outcome of the decision process and identifies the preferred alternative It then further permits detailed examination of the performance of an individual alternative on the basis of each criterion
SLJBJECT Product Desion VERSIONls t Draft
CRITERION water chemistry
+-------------------+-----------------+ ALTERNATIVES WDRDS -----------------+-----------------+ Alternative A acceptable
I middot Alterrative B trEiatable
Alternative C untreatable
+-------------------+-----------------+
DRAFT +-------------------+
Water Chemistry +-------------------+
acceotable ID treatable 5 untreatable O
+-------------------+
1 - -~ middot ~middotrmiddot -
Liqhtyear SUBJECTProduct Desion VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERION endemic f i sh
+-------------------+-----------------+ ALTERNATIVES
middot-----------------+--------- --------+ Alternative A none
+-------------------+ Alternative B high-l evfl oath Endernic Fish
+-- -----------------+ Alternative C 1 os1-l eve 1 CJct h none 0
pat hogen-free 7 low-level oath high-l evel oath O
+-------------------+ +-------------------+-----------------+
middot middot bullmiddot bull ltmiddot middot middot ~ ~- ~middotmiddot~- ~
Liqhbullt year SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
fi_1CRITEJUDN adeq ciUODly
+----------- --------+-----------------+ ALTERNAT I VES
-----------------+------------ -----+ Alternative A Yes
+-------------------+ A 1 t erra t i v e B YesNo
+-------------------+ Alternative C Maybe Yes 2-0
Maybe 0 No 0
+-------------------+ +-------------------+-----------------+
~ - ( l I middot
-fr ~-(gt-middot middot _ -_ t ~
Li ght j ear SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERIOII vol fw suppl y
+--------- -----------+------------+ ALTERIIAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative R 15
Alternative B 7 +-----------------------------+
Al terl1at i v e C 3 VPtLUE RANGE +-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 20 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
+--------------------+---------- --+
middot1 middot -( r ~ $
Light j ear SU BJECTProduct Design
CRITERION deeo fw s upol y
+--------------------+---- - -------+ ALTEl~NRT IVES VRLUE
+--------------------+------------+ 15
Alternative B E
A 1 t erY-1at i ve C 13
+----- ------------- --+------------+
VERS 10N1st Draft
+-------------------- ---------+ W -)LUE RAJIGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 15 I LEAST DE SI RABLE 0
+-----------------------------+
_ ~
_ shy
Light ear SLJBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION shallow fw supp
+--------------------+------------+ RLTEF~NAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 15
Alternative B 3
Alternative C 8
+--------------------+------------+
VERSIONl s t Draft
+-----------------------------+ Vf~LUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 15 I LEAST DESIR~BLE 0 +-----------------------------+
~ bull _ ~11~middot ~
Light vear SUBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION qravity
+-------------------+------------ - - - - -+ ALTERIIAT IVES WOfm~
~ ------ ----------+----------- --- - --+ ~lternative A Yes
A 1 t err1a t i ve B IJ
Alterr1ative C Ma yb e
+-------------------+-----------------+
VERSIONlst Draft fw s up o
+---- ---------------+ YesNo
+-------------------+ Yes IO Ma yb e ~ 11 0
I I I
- middot1
+-------------------+
bull- -~ii bull middotbull ~middoty i~middot shy
Li ght year SUBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION freshwater 1
+--------------------+----------- - + ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 15 middot
Alternative B 30
Alternative C 20
+---------------- ----+------------+
VERSI ONls t Draft
+--------- - -------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +------------------ -----------+
middot i shy
imiddot -shy 1middott middot ~-- -~-~~-gt _~~-- middot ~~_~~middot_f~ -~
__ightye ar SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONi s t Draft
CRITERION saltwater 1
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERIJAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 20
Al terr1at i ve B 20
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+------------+
middot~ ~~ -middot lt~ --~
i~~i ttJ~l ~~ s
+----------------- ------------+ V(JLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
-l bull
- - ----~ ~(yen__~_ ~ middot- ~- bull bull y-~ -- ~-
_ight y~ar SLJB J ECTProduct Design
CRITERION 0 smolts
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alterrat ive A 4
Alternative B
Alternative C 20
I I
I
I
+--------------------+------------+
VERSIONl s t Draft
+-----------------------------+ ViLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
( t middot middot - middot
---~~-f~~~-~ rmiddotmiddot ~-L~~- -Ji -~middot~ middot- - -
i ght yemiddota r SUBJ ECT P r oduc t Design VERSIO Nl st Dra ft
CRITERION i s olation fr y
+--------------- -----+- - ------- - - -+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+------- ------------- +--- ---------+ Alternative A 3
A 1 t err-a t i ve B 3
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+--------- - - -+
~ - - r ~ -~ 1 bull - ~
~~gtt ~-~ rf_~-~~ ~t~ J
+------- ----------------------+ VALUE RANGE
+- ----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 10 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
middot
_ _
i~f~~~ middot (f middot~ -~- middot middotmiddot
ightyea r SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERION land-based site
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES tjALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative R
Alternative B 15
-tA1t erYa t i ve C CJ
+--------------------+------------+
- t middot middotmiddot 1
middotmiddot~~ ~- _~~ ti~ J
+-----------------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
_ _middot _ middot~~ - ~ ~ -bull
middot~ ~ - middot - middot middot middot_ __ J~ j---- middot middot ~ ~~ ti~- ~~ Jmiddot~~ )r~f _
CRITERION floatin g site
+-------------------- +- ------- ----+ AL TEFmRTIVES VALUE
+-------- ------------+------------+ Alternative A 10
IZI
A 1 t erY-a ti ve C 20
+--------------------+------------+
SUBJECTProduct De s iqn VERSI ONl st Draft
+----------------------------- + VALUE RAIJGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
Li ght y ear SUBJECTProduct Desig VERSI0N 1st Draf t
RU LE JIRJYI E lltULE +----------------- - +---- - ----------------- - - - - - - -------------- ---- ----- ------ shy H20 CHEMI STR Y I wa te r chemistrv MUST BE AT LEAS T treatable
CELIMINA ~ ION RUL E) y - -middot ~ t~ ~
middota - -~C-~~ _ t 1PRTHDLOGY ende ri1i c f i s h ltLJS~r EltI=- H -r L_EAS T l rbullw-leve l p a t hmiddot middotmiddotmiddotmiddot - t ~middot middot ~middot s
ltELI MI NATI ON RUL E)
+------------------+----------------------- - - ----------------- ----------------middot
) middot - (
Production Design Criteria - 250 Total Points
Major Assumption
In order to be evaluated a project must have a minimum level of
production of 10000 adults using the worst case assumptions of
marine survival
A Freshwater Source 100 pt Total
1 Quality 20 pt
a Water Chemistry
i Acceptable ~ t
ii Treatable 5 pt
iii Not treatable reject zero total
b Endemic Fish populations
i None 10 pt
ii Present but
pathogen free 0 t
iii Present with low level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with unknown status) 1 pt
iv Present with high level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with viral pathogen) reject zero total
2 Quantity 40 pt
a Adequate for proposal based
on 20 yr minimum flow
b Total volume available
scaling of all prorosals 6Jt
3 Temperature 30 pt
a Deep intake only uniform
l()y7 water temperature 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
b Shallow intake only ambient
surface water temperatures 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
c Deep and shallow intakes
variable water temperatures
available depending on
degree of temperature
ccntrol (Note on rrodel
this criteria is rated by
sumning a and b )
4 Gravity Delivery ~ t
a Yes 10 pt
b No 0 pt
B Strateqies (Culture Flexibility ) 100 pt Total
In this rating we are not comparing the relative merits of the
different strategies but are ranking according to the capability
of a project to utilize a variety of strategies In order to
qualify for a rating in one of the strategies a project must
release a miniJnum of 500000 fish in that strategy In Eating the
possible points in each strategy a number of roints are awarded
middot~~ - ~ i ~t~ ~-~
middotml -middot1t~--~
for minimum production l eJel aoc iticna l points up to the maximum
are then awarded based on level of production relative to other
projects using that strategy
Mir1irrrum Level Maximum Level
1 Yearling snolts
a Freshwater 20 30
b Seawater netpens 20 30
2 Age-zero snolts 20 30
3 Fry-stocking with isolation
incubation and rearing capability 5 10
C Physical Site Characteristics 50 pt Total
1 Potential for land-based siting Maximum 25 pts
a Flat land available
b Access
c Earthquake and avalanche hazard
d Soil characteristics
e Water supply characteristics
2 Potential for f loat complex in estuary Maximum 25 pt
a Stonn protection
b Anchor points
c Tidal fl0v
d Natural Freshwater influence
e Water supply characteristics
f Surface ar ea available
1
I - Ri5k Fact or An3lvs isshyl Ch1r0c ~ E~h ance~e~t Alternatives
tmiddotmiddotmiddot bull r-l1~ - ~ middot middotbull111 w bullmiddot middot vl rv -1lbulll-Imiddot
Tot3l Pr01ect C~ sc lJl per unit ~arv~s t
- rJal Sml t fr dex hrvEst r)bbilitv Index Harvest Prooabilitv A1rt ize Usable Pro1ect Arnual Oaeratiro Anrual C t Alternative PrJd Et in Best Case (best case) Worst Case (worst case ) Ca~ital Cost Life (v ear sl Cst fotal Best Case Wrst Case iii- ------------~~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------middot-- --------------shy e0-check 5 0il0 iJJ 0006 025 0 ~lil 075 $8388320 2a $100000 e0 f lB3 Ba3 20 $6 13 $7355 $53U
05-chec k 2 52LJ 10~0 0015 0 70 001 1 030 $83 863 20 2J $20J0il 00 $283383 2~ t i SB ilO 3E Ht (with lens)
05-check 2 5~10 0e0 0018 010 0008 090 $5445050 20 $2e0 000 00 $25445copySJ $5 51 $1 3~3 fll lii (
(wo lensi
10-chec~ 1 2s0 e00 0021 080 0013 020 $83 Be3 20 20 $150000 ~I~ $233883211 ltl 3l $ i l L~ ilr ]t
Enclosure 6
J LIGHTYEAR
Lightyear i s a software produ ct th at produ ce s a r anking nr pr i oritization of a set of alternatives based on a numerical sco ring system
To use the product it is first necessary to choose and define a set of alternatives In this application alternatives will be location-specific chinook culture techniques Elimination of non- eq uivalent alternatives fr om the start of the analysis simplifies subsequent evaluations but is not absolutely necessary At present only dummy alternatives (ie Hatchshyery A Hatchery B etc) have been entered into the model in order to allow for unbiased development of evaluation cri t eria the next step in the process
Criteria are the qualities or attributes used to evaluate the alternatives in a decision Each criterion has a mode ie Numeric (N) Graphic (G) or Verbal (V) and a weight The weight defines the relative importance of a single criterion to the overall outcome of the decision It is possible to define as many criteria as the decision requires or to add delete or change a criterion as necessary Lightyear readily permits the editing and modification of the decisions structure If significant changes are made to the set of criteria any values assigned in the following evaluation step will be eliminated
The final step in the basic decision process is evaluating the alternatives An individual criterion is selected and each al te rnative is evaluated in turn for that citerion At the end of the evaluation process it is also possible to define simple logical rules to wei ght or eliminate alternatives on the basis of their evaluations for specific criteria
Once the basic steps in the decision process have been completed Lightyear then displays the ranked outcome of the decision process and identifies the preferred alternative It then further permits detailed examination of the performance of an individual alternative on the basis of each criterion
Liqhtyear SUBJECTProduct Desion VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERION endemic f i sh
+-------------------+-----------------+ ALTERNATIVES
middot-----------------+--------- --------+ Alternative A none
+-------------------+ Alternative B high-l evfl oath Endernic Fish
+-- -----------------+ Alternative C 1 os1-l eve 1 CJct h none 0
pat hogen-free 7 low-level oath high-l evel oath O
+-------------------+ +-------------------+-----------------+
middot middot bullmiddot bull ltmiddot middot middot ~ ~- ~middotmiddot~- ~
Liqhbullt year SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
fi_1CRITEJUDN adeq ciUODly
+----------- --------+-----------------+ ALTERNAT I VES
-----------------+------------ -----+ Alternative A Yes
+-------------------+ A 1 t erra t i v e B YesNo
+-------------------+ Alternative C Maybe Yes 2-0
Maybe 0 No 0
+-------------------+ +-------------------+-----------------+
~ - ( l I middot
-fr ~-(gt-middot middot _ -_ t ~
Li ght j ear SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERIOII vol fw suppl y
+--------- -----------+------------+ ALTERIIAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative R 15
Alternative B 7 +-----------------------------+
Al terl1at i v e C 3 VPtLUE RANGE +-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 20 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
+--------------------+---------- --+
middot1 middot -( r ~ $
Light j ear SU BJECTProduct Design
CRITERION deeo fw s upol y
+--------------------+---- - -------+ ALTEl~NRT IVES VRLUE
+--------------------+------------+ 15
Alternative B E
A 1 t erY-1at i ve C 13
+----- ------------- --+------------+
VERS 10N1st Draft
+-------------------- ---------+ W -)LUE RAJIGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 15 I LEAST DE SI RABLE 0
+-----------------------------+
_ ~
_ shy
Light ear SLJBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION shallow fw supp
+--------------------+------------+ RLTEF~NAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 15
Alternative B 3
Alternative C 8
+--------------------+------------+
VERSIONl s t Draft
+-----------------------------+ Vf~LUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 15 I LEAST DESIR~BLE 0 +-----------------------------+
~ bull _ ~11~middot ~
Light vear SUBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION qravity
+-------------------+------------ - - - - -+ ALTERIIAT IVES WOfm~
~ ------ ----------+----------- --- - --+ ~lternative A Yes
A 1 t err1a t i ve B IJ
Alterr1ative C Ma yb e
+-------------------+-----------------+
VERSIONlst Draft fw s up o
+---- ---------------+ YesNo
+-------------------+ Yes IO Ma yb e ~ 11 0
I I I
- middot1
+-------------------+
bull- -~ii bull middotbull ~middoty i~middot shy
Li ght year SUBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION freshwater 1
+--------------------+----------- - + ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 15 middot
Alternative B 30
Alternative C 20
+---------------- ----+------------+
VERSI ONls t Draft
+--------- - -------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +------------------ -----------+
middot i shy
imiddot -shy 1middott middot ~-- -~-~~-gt _~~-- middot ~~_~~middot_f~ -~
__ightye ar SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONi s t Draft
CRITERION saltwater 1
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERIJAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 20
Al terr1at i ve B 20
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+------------+
middot~ ~~ -middot lt~ --~
i~~i ttJ~l ~~ s
+----------------- ------------+ V(JLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
-l bull
- - ----~ ~(yen__~_ ~ middot- ~- bull bull y-~ -- ~-
_ight y~ar SLJB J ECTProduct Design
CRITERION 0 smolts
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alterrat ive A 4
Alternative B
Alternative C 20
I I
I
I
+--------------------+------------+
VERSIONl s t Draft
+-----------------------------+ ViLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
( t middot middot - middot
---~~-f~~~-~ rmiddotmiddot ~-L~~- -Ji -~middot~ middot- - -
i ght yemiddota r SUBJ ECT P r oduc t Design VERSIO Nl st Dra ft
CRITERION i s olation fr y
+--------------- -----+- - ------- - - -+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+------- ------------- +--- ---------+ Alternative A 3
A 1 t err-a t i ve B 3
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+--------- - - -+
~ - - r ~ -~ 1 bull - ~
~~gtt ~-~ rf_~-~~ ~t~ J
+------- ----------------------+ VALUE RANGE
+- ----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 10 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
middot
_ _
i~f~~~ middot (f middot~ -~- middot middotmiddot
ightyea r SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERION land-based site
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES tjALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative R
Alternative B 15
-tA1t erYa t i ve C CJ
+--------------------+------------+
- t middot middotmiddot 1
middotmiddot~~ ~- _~~ ti~ J
+-----------------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
_ _middot _ middot~~ - ~ ~ -bull
middot~ ~ - middot - middot middot middot_ __ J~ j---- middot middot ~ ~~ ti~- ~~ Jmiddot~~ )r~f _
CRITERION floatin g site
+-------------------- +- ------- ----+ AL TEFmRTIVES VALUE
+-------- ------------+------------+ Alternative A 10
IZI
A 1 t erY-a ti ve C 20
+--------------------+------------+
SUBJECTProduct De s iqn VERSI ONl st Draft
+----------------------------- + VALUE RAIJGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
Li ght y ear SUBJECTProduct Desig VERSI0N 1st Draf t
RU LE JIRJYI E lltULE +----------------- - +---- - ----------------- - - - - - - -------------- ---- ----- ------ shy H20 CHEMI STR Y I wa te r chemistrv MUST BE AT LEAS T treatable
CELIMINA ~ ION RUL E) y - -middot ~ t~ ~
middota - -~C-~~ _ t 1PRTHDLOGY ende ri1i c f i s h ltLJS~r EltI=- H -r L_EAS T l rbullw-leve l p a t hmiddot middotmiddotmiddotmiddot - t ~middot middot ~middot s
ltELI MI NATI ON RUL E)
+------------------+----------------------- - - ----------------- ----------------middot
) middot - (
Production Design Criteria - 250 Total Points
Major Assumption
In order to be evaluated a project must have a minimum level of
production of 10000 adults using the worst case assumptions of
marine survival
A Freshwater Source 100 pt Total
1 Quality 20 pt
a Water Chemistry
i Acceptable ~ t
ii Treatable 5 pt
iii Not treatable reject zero total
b Endemic Fish populations
i None 10 pt
ii Present but
pathogen free 0 t
iii Present with low level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with unknown status) 1 pt
iv Present with high level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with viral pathogen) reject zero total
2 Quantity 40 pt
a Adequate for proposal based
on 20 yr minimum flow
b Total volume available
scaling of all prorosals 6Jt
3 Temperature 30 pt
a Deep intake only uniform
l()y7 water temperature 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
b Shallow intake only ambient
surface water temperatures 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
c Deep and shallow intakes
variable water temperatures
available depending on
degree of temperature
ccntrol (Note on rrodel
this criteria is rated by
sumning a and b )
4 Gravity Delivery ~ t
a Yes 10 pt
b No 0 pt
B Strateqies (Culture Flexibility ) 100 pt Total
In this rating we are not comparing the relative merits of the
different strategies but are ranking according to the capability
of a project to utilize a variety of strategies In order to
qualify for a rating in one of the strategies a project must
release a miniJnum of 500000 fish in that strategy In Eating the
possible points in each strategy a number of roints are awarded
middot~~ - ~ i ~t~ ~-~
middotml -middot1t~--~
for minimum production l eJel aoc iticna l points up to the maximum
are then awarded based on level of production relative to other
projects using that strategy
Mir1irrrum Level Maximum Level
1 Yearling snolts
a Freshwater 20 30
b Seawater netpens 20 30
2 Age-zero snolts 20 30
3 Fry-stocking with isolation
incubation and rearing capability 5 10
C Physical Site Characteristics 50 pt Total
1 Potential for land-based siting Maximum 25 pts
a Flat land available
b Access
c Earthquake and avalanche hazard
d Soil characteristics
e Water supply characteristics
2 Potential for f loat complex in estuary Maximum 25 pt
a Stonn protection
b Anchor points
c Tidal fl0v
d Natural Freshwater influence
e Water supply characteristics
f Surface ar ea available
1
I - Ri5k Fact or An3lvs isshyl Ch1r0c ~ E~h ance~e~t Alternatives
tmiddotmiddotmiddot bull r-l1~ - ~ middot middotbull111 w bullmiddot middot vl rv -1lbulll-Imiddot
Tot3l Pr01ect C~ sc lJl per unit ~arv~s t
- rJal Sml t fr dex hrvEst r)bbilitv Index Harvest Prooabilitv A1rt ize Usable Pro1ect Arnual Oaeratiro Anrual C t Alternative PrJd Et in Best Case (best case) Worst Case (worst case ) Ca~ital Cost Life (v ear sl Cst fotal Best Case Wrst Case iii- ------------~~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------middot-- --------------shy e0-check 5 0il0 iJJ 0006 025 0 ~lil 075 $8388320 2a $100000 e0 f lB3 Ba3 20 $6 13 $7355 $53U
05-chec k 2 52LJ 10~0 0015 0 70 001 1 030 $83 863 20 2J $20J0il 00 $283383 2~ t i SB ilO 3E Ht (with lens)
05-check 2 5~10 0e0 0018 010 0008 090 $5445050 20 $2e0 000 00 $25445copySJ $5 51 $1 3~3 fll lii (
(wo lensi
10-chec~ 1 2s0 e00 0021 080 0013 020 $83 Be3 20 20 $150000 ~I~ $233883211 ltl 3l $ i l L~ ilr ]t
Enclosure 6
J LIGHTYEAR
Lightyear i s a software produ ct th at produ ce s a r anking nr pr i oritization of a set of alternatives based on a numerical sco ring system
To use the product it is first necessary to choose and define a set of alternatives In this application alternatives will be location-specific chinook culture techniques Elimination of non- eq uivalent alternatives fr om the start of the analysis simplifies subsequent evaluations but is not absolutely necessary At present only dummy alternatives (ie Hatchshyery A Hatchery B etc) have been entered into the model in order to allow for unbiased development of evaluation cri t eria the next step in the process
Criteria are the qualities or attributes used to evaluate the alternatives in a decision Each criterion has a mode ie Numeric (N) Graphic (G) or Verbal (V) and a weight The weight defines the relative importance of a single criterion to the overall outcome of the decision It is possible to define as many criteria as the decision requires or to add delete or change a criterion as necessary Lightyear readily permits the editing and modification of the decisions structure If significant changes are made to the set of criteria any values assigned in the following evaluation step will be eliminated
The final step in the basic decision process is evaluating the alternatives An individual criterion is selected and each al te rnative is evaluated in turn for that citerion At the end of the evaluation process it is also possible to define simple logical rules to wei ght or eliminate alternatives on the basis of their evaluations for specific criteria
Once the basic steps in the decision process have been completed Lightyear then displays the ranked outcome of the decision process and identifies the preferred alternative It then further permits detailed examination of the performance of an individual alternative on the basis of each criterion
Liqhbullt year SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
fi_1CRITEJUDN adeq ciUODly
+----------- --------+-----------------+ ALTERNAT I VES
-----------------+------------ -----+ Alternative A Yes
+-------------------+ A 1 t erra t i v e B YesNo
+-------------------+ Alternative C Maybe Yes 2-0
Maybe 0 No 0
+-------------------+ +-------------------+-----------------+
~ - ( l I middot
-fr ~-(gt-middot middot _ -_ t ~
Li ght j ear SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERIOII vol fw suppl y
+--------- -----------+------------+ ALTERIIAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative R 15
Alternative B 7 +-----------------------------+
Al terl1at i v e C 3 VPtLUE RANGE +-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 20 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
+--------------------+---------- --+
middot1 middot -( r ~ $
Light j ear SU BJECTProduct Design
CRITERION deeo fw s upol y
+--------------------+---- - -------+ ALTEl~NRT IVES VRLUE
+--------------------+------------+ 15
Alternative B E
A 1 t erY-1at i ve C 13
+----- ------------- --+------------+
VERS 10N1st Draft
+-------------------- ---------+ W -)LUE RAJIGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 15 I LEAST DE SI RABLE 0
+-----------------------------+
_ ~
_ shy
Light ear SLJBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION shallow fw supp
+--------------------+------------+ RLTEF~NAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 15
Alternative B 3
Alternative C 8
+--------------------+------------+
VERSIONl s t Draft
+-----------------------------+ Vf~LUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 15 I LEAST DESIR~BLE 0 +-----------------------------+
~ bull _ ~11~middot ~
Light vear SUBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION qravity
+-------------------+------------ - - - - -+ ALTERIIAT IVES WOfm~
~ ------ ----------+----------- --- - --+ ~lternative A Yes
A 1 t err1a t i ve B IJ
Alterr1ative C Ma yb e
+-------------------+-----------------+
VERSIONlst Draft fw s up o
+---- ---------------+ YesNo
+-------------------+ Yes IO Ma yb e ~ 11 0
I I I
- middot1
+-------------------+
bull- -~ii bull middotbull ~middoty i~middot shy
Li ght year SUBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION freshwater 1
+--------------------+----------- - + ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 15 middot
Alternative B 30
Alternative C 20
+---------------- ----+------------+
VERSI ONls t Draft
+--------- - -------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +------------------ -----------+
middot i shy
imiddot -shy 1middott middot ~-- -~-~~-gt _~~-- middot ~~_~~middot_f~ -~
__ightye ar SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONi s t Draft
CRITERION saltwater 1
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERIJAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 20
Al terr1at i ve B 20
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+------------+
middot~ ~~ -middot lt~ --~
i~~i ttJ~l ~~ s
+----------------- ------------+ V(JLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
-l bull
- - ----~ ~(yen__~_ ~ middot- ~- bull bull y-~ -- ~-
_ight y~ar SLJB J ECTProduct Design
CRITERION 0 smolts
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alterrat ive A 4
Alternative B
Alternative C 20
I I
I
I
+--------------------+------------+
VERSIONl s t Draft
+-----------------------------+ ViLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
( t middot middot - middot
---~~-f~~~-~ rmiddotmiddot ~-L~~- -Ji -~middot~ middot- - -
i ght yemiddota r SUBJ ECT P r oduc t Design VERSIO Nl st Dra ft
CRITERION i s olation fr y
+--------------- -----+- - ------- - - -+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+------- ------------- +--- ---------+ Alternative A 3
A 1 t err-a t i ve B 3
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+--------- - - -+
~ - - r ~ -~ 1 bull - ~
~~gtt ~-~ rf_~-~~ ~t~ J
+------- ----------------------+ VALUE RANGE
+- ----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 10 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
middot
_ _
i~f~~~ middot (f middot~ -~- middot middotmiddot
ightyea r SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERION land-based site
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES tjALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative R
Alternative B 15
-tA1t erYa t i ve C CJ
+--------------------+------------+
- t middot middotmiddot 1
middotmiddot~~ ~- _~~ ti~ J
+-----------------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
_ _middot _ middot~~ - ~ ~ -bull
middot~ ~ - middot - middot middot middot_ __ J~ j---- middot middot ~ ~~ ti~- ~~ Jmiddot~~ )r~f _
CRITERION floatin g site
+-------------------- +- ------- ----+ AL TEFmRTIVES VALUE
+-------- ------------+------------+ Alternative A 10
IZI
A 1 t erY-a ti ve C 20
+--------------------+------------+
SUBJECTProduct De s iqn VERSI ONl st Draft
+----------------------------- + VALUE RAIJGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
Li ght y ear SUBJECTProduct Desig VERSI0N 1st Draf t
RU LE JIRJYI E lltULE +----------------- - +---- - ----------------- - - - - - - -------------- ---- ----- ------ shy H20 CHEMI STR Y I wa te r chemistrv MUST BE AT LEAS T treatable
CELIMINA ~ ION RUL E) y - -middot ~ t~ ~
middota - -~C-~~ _ t 1PRTHDLOGY ende ri1i c f i s h ltLJS~r EltI=- H -r L_EAS T l rbullw-leve l p a t hmiddot middotmiddotmiddotmiddot - t ~middot middot ~middot s
ltELI MI NATI ON RUL E)
+------------------+----------------------- - - ----------------- ----------------middot
) middot - (
Production Design Criteria - 250 Total Points
Major Assumption
In order to be evaluated a project must have a minimum level of
production of 10000 adults using the worst case assumptions of
marine survival
A Freshwater Source 100 pt Total
1 Quality 20 pt
a Water Chemistry
i Acceptable ~ t
ii Treatable 5 pt
iii Not treatable reject zero total
b Endemic Fish populations
i None 10 pt
ii Present but
pathogen free 0 t
iii Present with low level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with unknown status) 1 pt
iv Present with high level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with viral pathogen) reject zero total
2 Quantity 40 pt
a Adequate for proposal based
on 20 yr minimum flow
b Total volume available
scaling of all prorosals 6Jt
3 Temperature 30 pt
a Deep intake only uniform
l()y7 water temperature 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
b Shallow intake only ambient
surface water temperatures 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
c Deep and shallow intakes
variable water temperatures
available depending on
degree of temperature
ccntrol (Note on rrodel
this criteria is rated by
sumning a and b )
4 Gravity Delivery ~ t
a Yes 10 pt
b No 0 pt
B Strateqies (Culture Flexibility ) 100 pt Total
In this rating we are not comparing the relative merits of the
different strategies but are ranking according to the capability
of a project to utilize a variety of strategies In order to
qualify for a rating in one of the strategies a project must
release a miniJnum of 500000 fish in that strategy In Eating the
possible points in each strategy a number of roints are awarded
middot~~ - ~ i ~t~ ~-~
middotml -middot1t~--~
for minimum production l eJel aoc iticna l points up to the maximum
are then awarded based on level of production relative to other
projects using that strategy
Mir1irrrum Level Maximum Level
1 Yearling snolts
a Freshwater 20 30
b Seawater netpens 20 30
2 Age-zero snolts 20 30
3 Fry-stocking with isolation
incubation and rearing capability 5 10
C Physical Site Characteristics 50 pt Total
1 Potential for land-based siting Maximum 25 pts
a Flat land available
b Access
c Earthquake and avalanche hazard
d Soil characteristics
e Water supply characteristics
2 Potential for f loat complex in estuary Maximum 25 pt
a Stonn protection
b Anchor points
c Tidal fl0v
d Natural Freshwater influence
e Water supply characteristics
f Surface ar ea available
1
I - Ri5k Fact or An3lvs isshyl Ch1r0c ~ E~h ance~e~t Alternatives
tmiddotmiddotmiddot bull r-l1~ - ~ middot middotbull111 w bullmiddot middot vl rv -1lbulll-Imiddot
Tot3l Pr01ect C~ sc lJl per unit ~arv~s t
- rJal Sml t fr dex hrvEst r)bbilitv Index Harvest Prooabilitv A1rt ize Usable Pro1ect Arnual Oaeratiro Anrual C t Alternative PrJd Et in Best Case (best case) Worst Case (worst case ) Ca~ital Cost Life (v ear sl Cst fotal Best Case Wrst Case iii- ------------~~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------middot-- --------------shy e0-check 5 0il0 iJJ 0006 025 0 ~lil 075 $8388320 2a $100000 e0 f lB3 Ba3 20 $6 13 $7355 $53U
05-chec k 2 52LJ 10~0 0015 0 70 001 1 030 $83 863 20 2J $20J0il 00 $283383 2~ t i SB ilO 3E Ht (with lens)
05-check 2 5~10 0e0 0018 010 0008 090 $5445050 20 $2e0 000 00 $25445copySJ $5 51 $1 3~3 fll lii (
(wo lensi
10-chec~ 1 2s0 e00 0021 080 0013 020 $83 Be3 20 20 $150000 ~I~ $233883211 ltl 3l $ i l L~ ilr ]t
Enclosure 6
J LIGHTYEAR
Lightyear i s a software produ ct th at produ ce s a r anking nr pr i oritization of a set of alternatives based on a numerical sco ring system
To use the product it is first necessary to choose and define a set of alternatives In this application alternatives will be location-specific chinook culture techniques Elimination of non- eq uivalent alternatives fr om the start of the analysis simplifies subsequent evaluations but is not absolutely necessary At present only dummy alternatives (ie Hatchshyery A Hatchery B etc) have been entered into the model in order to allow for unbiased development of evaluation cri t eria the next step in the process
Criteria are the qualities or attributes used to evaluate the alternatives in a decision Each criterion has a mode ie Numeric (N) Graphic (G) or Verbal (V) and a weight The weight defines the relative importance of a single criterion to the overall outcome of the decision It is possible to define as many criteria as the decision requires or to add delete or change a criterion as necessary Lightyear readily permits the editing and modification of the decisions structure If significant changes are made to the set of criteria any values assigned in the following evaluation step will be eliminated
The final step in the basic decision process is evaluating the alternatives An individual criterion is selected and each al te rnative is evaluated in turn for that citerion At the end of the evaluation process it is also possible to define simple logical rules to wei ght or eliminate alternatives on the basis of their evaluations for specific criteria
Once the basic steps in the decision process have been completed Lightyear then displays the ranked outcome of the decision process and identifies the preferred alternative It then further permits detailed examination of the performance of an individual alternative on the basis of each criterion
Li ght j ear SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERIOII vol fw suppl y
+--------- -----------+------------+ ALTERIIAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative R 15
Alternative B 7 +-----------------------------+
Al terl1at i v e C 3 VPtLUE RANGE +-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 20 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
+--------------------+---------- --+
middot1 middot -( r ~ $
Light j ear SU BJECTProduct Design
CRITERION deeo fw s upol y
+--------------------+---- - -------+ ALTEl~NRT IVES VRLUE
+--------------------+------------+ 15
Alternative B E
A 1 t erY-1at i ve C 13
+----- ------------- --+------------+
VERS 10N1st Draft
+-------------------- ---------+ W -)LUE RAJIGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 15 I LEAST DE SI RABLE 0
+-----------------------------+
_ ~
_ shy
Light ear SLJBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION shallow fw supp
+--------------------+------------+ RLTEF~NAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 15
Alternative B 3
Alternative C 8
+--------------------+------------+
VERSIONl s t Draft
+-----------------------------+ Vf~LUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 15 I LEAST DESIR~BLE 0 +-----------------------------+
~ bull _ ~11~middot ~
Light vear SUBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION qravity
+-------------------+------------ - - - - -+ ALTERIIAT IVES WOfm~
~ ------ ----------+----------- --- - --+ ~lternative A Yes
A 1 t err1a t i ve B IJ
Alterr1ative C Ma yb e
+-------------------+-----------------+
VERSIONlst Draft fw s up o
+---- ---------------+ YesNo
+-------------------+ Yes IO Ma yb e ~ 11 0
I I I
- middot1
+-------------------+
bull- -~ii bull middotbull ~middoty i~middot shy
Li ght year SUBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION freshwater 1
+--------------------+----------- - + ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 15 middot
Alternative B 30
Alternative C 20
+---------------- ----+------------+
VERSI ONls t Draft
+--------- - -------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +------------------ -----------+
middot i shy
imiddot -shy 1middott middot ~-- -~-~~-gt _~~-- middot ~~_~~middot_f~ -~
__ightye ar SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONi s t Draft
CRITERION saltwater 1
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERIJAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 20
Al terr1at i ve B 20
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+------------+
middot~ ~~ -middot lt~ --~
i~~i ttJ~l ~~ s
+----------------- ------------+ V(JLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
-l bull
- - ----~ ~(yen__~_ ~ middot- ~- bull bull y-~ -- ~-
_ight y~ar SLJB J ECTProduct Design
CRITERION 0 smolts
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alterrat ive A 4
Alternative B
Alternative C 20
I I
I
I
+--------------------+------------+
VERSIONl s t Draft
+-----------------------------+ ViLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
( t middot middot - middot
---~~-f~~~-~ rmiddotmiddot ~-L~~- -Ji -~middot~ middot- - -
i ght yemiddota r SUBJ ECT P r oduc t Design VERSIO Nl st Dra ft
CRITERION i s olation fr y
+--------------- -----+- - ------- - - -+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+------- ------------- +--- ---------+ Alternative A 3
A 1 t err-a t i ve B 3
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+--------- - - -+
~ - - r ~ -~ 1 bull - ~
~~gtt ~-~ rf_~-~~ ~t~ J
+------- ----------------------+ VALUE RANGE
+- ----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 10 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
middot
_ _
i~f~~~ middot (f middot~ -~- middot middotmiddot
ightyea r SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERION land-based site
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES tjALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative R
Alternative B 15
-tA1t erYa t i ve C CJ
+--------------------+------------+
- t middot middotmiddot 1
middotmiddot~~ ~- _~~ ti~ J
+-----------------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
_ _middot _ middot~~ - ~ ~ -bull
middot~ ~ - middot - middot middot middot_ __ J~ j---- middot middot ~ ~~ ti~- ~~ Jmiddot~~ )r~f _
CRITERION floatin g site
+-------------------- +- ------- ----+ AL TEFmRTIVES VALUE
+-------- ------------+------------+ Alternative A 10
IZI
A 1 t erY-a ti ve C 20
+--------------------+------------+
SUBJECTProduct De s iqn VERSI ONl st Draft
+----------------------------- + VALUE RAIJGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
Li ght y ear SUBJECTProduct Desig VERSI0N 1st Draf t
RU LE JIRJYI E lltULE +----------------- - +---- - ----------------- - - - - - - -------------- ---- ----- ------ shy H20 CHEMI STR Y I wa te r chemistrv MUST BE AT LEAS T treatable
CELIMINA ~ ION RUL E) y - -middot ~ t~ ~
middota - -~C-~~ _ t 1PRTHDLOGY ende ri1i c f i s h ltLJS~r EltI=- H -r L_EAS T l rbullw-leve l p a t hmiddot middotmiddotmiddotmiddot - t ~middot middot ~middot s
ltELI MI NATI ON RUL E)
+------------------+----------------------- - - ----------------- ----------------middot
) middot - (
Production Design Criteria - 250 Total Points
Major Assumption
In order to be evaluated a project must have a minimum level of
production of 10000 adults using the worst case assumptions of
marine survival
A Freshwater Source 100 pt Total
1 Quality 20 pt
a Water Chemistry
i Acceptable ~ t
ii Treatable 5 pt
iii Not treatable reject zero total
b Endemic Fish populations
i None 10 pt
ii Present but
pathogen free 0 t
iii Present with low level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with unknown status) 1 pt
iv Present with high level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with viral pathogen) reject zero total
2 Quantity 40 pt
a Adequate for proposal based
on 20 yr minimum flow
b Total volume available
scaling of all prorosals 6Jt
3 Temperature 30 pt
a Deep intake only uniform
l()y7 water temperature 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
b Shallow intake only ambient
surface water temperatures 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
c Deep and shallow intakes
variable water temperatures
available depending on
degree of temperature
ccntrol (Note on rrodel
this criteria is rated by
sumning a and b )
4 Gravity Delivery ~ t
a Yes 10 pt
b No 0 pt
B Strateqies (Culture Flexibility ) 100 pt Total
In this rating we are not comparing the relative merits of the
different strategies but are ranking according to the capability
of a project to utilize a variety of strategies In order to
qualify for a rating in one of the strategies a project must
release a miniJnum of 500000 fish in that strategy In Eating the
possible points in each strategy a number of roints are awarded
middot~~ - ~ i ~t~ ~-~
middotml -middot1t~--~
for minimum production l eJel aoc iticna l points up to the maximum
are then awarded based on level of production relative to other
projects using that strategy
Mir1irrrum Level Maximum Level
1 Yearling snolts
a Freshwater 20 30
b Seawater netpens 20 30
2 Age-zero snolts 20 30
3 Fry-stocking with isolation
incubation and rearing capability 5 10
C Physical Site Characteristics 50 pt Total
1 Potential for land-based siting Maximum 25 pts
a Flat land available
b Access
c Earthquake and avalanche hazard
d Soil characteristics
e Water supply characteristics
2 Potential for f loat complex in estuary Maximum 25 pt
a Stonn protection
b Anchor points
c Tidal fl0v
d Natural Freshwater influence
e Water supply characteristics
f Surface ar ea available
1
I - Ri5k Fact or An3lvs isshyl Ch1r0c ~ E~h ance~e~t Alternatives
tmiddotmiddotmiddot bull r-l1~ - ~ middot middotbull111 w bullmiddot middot vl rv -1lbulll-Imiddot
Tot3l Pr01ect C~ sc lJl per unit ~arv~s t
- rJal Sml t fr dex hrvEst r)bbilitv Index Harvest Prooabilitv A1rt ize Usable Pro1ect Arnual Oaeratiro Anrual C t Alternative PrJd Et in Best Case (best case) Worst Case (worst case ) Ca~ital Cost Life (v ear sl Cst fotal Best Case Wrst Case iii- ------------~~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------middot-- --------------shy e0-check 5 0il0 iJJ 0006 025 0 ~lil 075 $8388320 2a $100000 e0 f lB3 Ba3 20 $6 13 $7355 $53U
05-chec k 2 52LJ 10~0 0015 0 70 001 1 030 $83 863 20 2J $20J0il 00 $283383 2~ t i SB ilO 3E Ht (with lens)
05-check 2 5~10 0e0 0018 010 0008 090 $5445050 20 $2e0 000 00 $25445copySJ $5 51 $1 3~3 fll lii (
(wo lensi
10-chec~ 1 2s0 e00 0021 080 0013 020 $83 Be3 20 20 $150000 ~I~ $233883211 ltl 3l $ i l L~ ilr ]t
Enclosure 6
J LIGHTYEAR
Lightyear i s a software produ ct th at produ ce s a r anking nr pr i oritization of a set of alternatives based on a numerical sco ring system
To use the product it is first necessary to choose and define a set of alternatives In this application alternatives will be location-specific chinook culture techniques Elimination of non- eq uivalent alternatives fr om the start of the analysis simplifies subsequent evaluations but is not absolutely necessary At present only dummy alternatives (ie Hatchshyery A Hatchery B etc) have been entered into the model in order to allow for unbiased development of evaluation cri t eria the next step in the process
Criteria are the qualities or attributes used to evaluate the alternatives in a decision Each criterion has a mode ie Numeric (N) Graphic (G) or Verbal (V) and a weight The weight defines the relative importance of a single criterion to the overall outcome of the decision It is possible to define as many criteria as the decision requires or to add delete or change a criterion as necessary Lightyear readily permits the editing and modification of the decisions structure If significant changes are made to the set of criteria any values assigned in the following evaluation step will be eliminated
The final step in the basic decision process is evaluating the alternatives An individual criterion is selected and each al te rnative is evaluated in turn for that citerion At the end of the evaluation process it is also possible to define simple logical rules to wei ght or eliminate alternatives on the basis of their evaluations for specific criteria
Once the basic steps in the decision process have been completed Lightyear then displays the ranked outcome of the decision process and identifies the preferred alternative It then further permits detailed examination of the performance of an individual alternative on the basis of each criterion
Light j ear SU BJECTProduct Design
CRITERION deeo fw s upol y
+--------------------+---- - -------+ ALTEl~NRT IVES VRLUE
+--------------------+------------+ 15
Alternative B E
A 1 t erY-1at i ve C 13
+----- ------------- --+------------+
VERS 10N1st Draft
+-------------------- ---------+ W -)LUE RAJIGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 15 I LEAST DE SI RABLE 0
+-----------------------------+
_ ~
_ shy
Light ear SLJBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION shallow fw supp
+--------------------+------------+ RLTEF~NAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 15
Alternative B 3
Alternative C 8
+--------------------+------------+
VERSIONl s t Draft
+-----------------------------+ Vf~LUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 15 I LEAST DESIR~BLE 0 +-----------------------------+
~ bull _ ~11~middot ~
Light vear SUBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION qravity
+-------------------+------------ - - - - -+ ALTERIIAT IVES WOfm~
~ ------ ----------+----------- --- - --+ ~lternative A Yes
A 1 t err1a t i ve B IJ
Alterr1ative C Ma yb e
+-------------------+-----------------+
VERSIONlst Draft fw s up o
+---- ---------------+ YesNo
+-------------------+ Yes IO Ma yb e ~ 11 0
I I I
- middot1
+-------------------+
bull- -~ii bull middotbull ~middoty i~middot shy
Li ght year SUBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION freshwater 1
+--------------------+----------- - + ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 15 middot
Alternative B 30
Alternative C 20
+---------------- ----+------------+
VERSI ONls t Draft
+--------- - -------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +------------------ -----------+
middot i shy
imiddot -shy 1middott middot ~-- -~-~~-gt _~~-- middot ~~_~~middot_f~ -~
__ightye ar SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONi s t Draft
CRITERION saltwater 1
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERIJAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 20
Al terr1at i ve B 20
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+------------+
middot~ ~~ -middot lt~ --~
i~~i ttJ~l ~~ s
+----------------- ------------+ V(JLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
-l bull
- - ----~ ~(yen__~_ ~ middot- ~- bull bull y-~ -- ~-
_ight y~ar SLJB J ECTProduct Design
CRITERION 0 smolts
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alterrat ive A 4
Alternative B
Alternative C 20
I I
I
I
+--------------------+------------+
VERSIONl s t Draft
+-----------------------------+ ViLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
( t middot middot - middot
---~~-f~~~-~ rmiddotmiddot ~-L~~- -Ji -~middot~ middot- - -
i ght yemiddota r SUBJ ECT P r oduc t Design VERSIO Nl st Dra ft
CRITERION i s olation fr y
+--------------- -----+- - ------- - - -+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+------- ------------- +--- ---------+ Alternative A 3
A 1 t err-a t i ve B 3
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+--------- - - -+
~ - - r ~ -~ 1 bull - ~
~~gtt ~-~ rf_~-~~ ~t~ J
+------- ----------------------+ VALUE RANGE
+- ----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 10 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
middot
_ _
i~f~~~ middot (f middot~ -~- middot middotmiddot
ightyea r SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERION land-based site
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES tjALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative R
Alternative B 15
-tA1t erYa t i ve C CJ
+--------------------+------------+
- t middot middotmiddot 1
middotmiddot~~ ~- _~~ ti~ J
+-----------------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
_ _middot _ middot~~ - ~ ~ -bull
middot~ ~ - middot - middot middot middot_ __ J~ j---- middot middot ~ ~~ ti~- ~~ Jmiddot~~ )r~f _
CRITERION floatin g site
+-------------------- +- ------- ----+ AL TEFmRTIVES VALUE
+-------- ------------+------------+ Alternative A 10
IZI
A 1 t erY-a ti ve C 20
+--------------------+------------+
SUBJECTProduct De s iqn VERSI ONl st Draft
+----------------------------- + VALUE RAIJGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
Li ght y ear SUBJECTProduct Desig VERSI0N 1st Draf t
RU LE JIRJYI E lltULE +----------------- - +---- - ----------------- - - - - - - -------------- ---- ----- ------ shy H20 CHEMI STR Y I wa te r chemistrv MUST BE AT LEAS T treatable
CELIMINA ~ ION RUL E) y - -middot ~ t~ ~
middota - -~C-~~ _ t 1PRTHDLOGY ende ri1i c f i s h ltLJS~r EltI=- H -r L_EAS T l rbullw-leve l p a t hmiddot middotmiddotmiddotmiddot - t ~middot middot ~middot s
ltELI MI NATI ON RUL E)
+------------------+----------------------- - - ----------------- ----------------middot
) middot - (
Production Design Criteria - 250 Total Points
Major Assumption
In order to be evaluated a project must have a minimum level of
production of 10000 adults using the worst case assumptions of
marine survival
A Freshwater Source 100 pt Total
1 Quality 20 pt
a Water Chemistry
i Acceptable ~ t
ii Treatable 5 pt
iii Not treatable reject zero total
b Endemic Fish populations
i None 10 pt
ii Present but
pathogen free 0 t
iii Present with low level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with unknown status) 1 pt
iv Present with high level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with viral pathogen) reject zero total
2 Quantity 40 pt
a Adequate for proposal based
on 20 yr minimum flow
b Total volume available
scaling of all prorosals 6Jt
3 Temperature 30 pt
a Deep intake only uniform
l()y7 water temperature 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
b Shallow intake only ambient
surface water temperatures 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
c Deep and shallow intakes
variable water temperatures
available depending on
degree of temperature
ccntrol (Note on rrodel
this criteria is rated by
sumning a and b )
4 Gravity Delivery ~ t
a Yes 10 pt
b No 0 pt
B Strateqies (Culture Flexibility ) 100 pt Total
In this rating we are not comparing the relative merits of the
different strategies but are ranking according to the capability
of a project to utilize a variety of strategies In order to
qualify for a rating in one of the strategies a project must
release a miniJnum of 500000 fish in that strategy In Eating the
possible points in each strategy a number of roints are awarded
middot~~ - ~ i ~t~ ~-~
middotml -middot1t~--~
for minimum production l eJel aoc iticna l points up to the maximum
are then awarded based on level of production relative to other
projects using that strategy
Mir1irrrum Level Maximum Level
1 Yearling snolts
a Freshwater 20 30
b Seawater netpens 20 30
2 Age-zero snolts 20 30
3 Fry-stocking with isolation
incubation and rearing capability 5 10
C Physical Site Characteristics 50 pt Total
1 Potential for land-based siting Maximum 25 pts
a Flat land available
b Access
c Earthquake and avalanche hazard
d Soil characteristics
e Water supply characteristics
2 Potential for f loat complex in estuary Maximum 25 pt
a Stonn protection
b Anchor points
c Tidal fl0v
d Natural Freshwater influence
e Water supply characteristics
f Surface ar ea available
1
I - Ri5k Fact or An3lvs isshyl Ch1r0c ~ E~h ance~e~t Alternatives
tmiddotmiddotmiddot bull r-l1~ - ~ middot middotbull111 w bullmiddot middot vl rv -1lbulll-Imiddot
Tot3l Pr01ect C~ sc lJl per unit ~arv~s t
- rJal Sml t fr dex hrvEst r)bbilitv Index Harvest Prooabilitv A1rt ize Usable Pro1ect Arnual Oaeratiro Anrual C t Alternative PrJd Et in Best Case (best case) Worst Case (worst case ) Ca~ital Cost Life (v ear sl Cst fotal Best Case Wrst Case iii- ------------~~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------middot-- --------------shy e0-check 5 0il0 iJJ 0006 025 0 ~lil 075 $8388320 2a $100000 e0 f lB3 Ba3 20 $6 13 $7355 $53U
05-chec k 2 52LJ 10~0 0015 0 70 001 1 030 $83 863 20 2J $20J0il 00 $283383 2~ t i SB ilO 3E Ht (with lens)
05-check 2 5~10 0e0 0018 010 0008 090 $5445050 20 $2e0 000 00 $25445copySJ $5 51 $1 3~3 fll lii (
(wo lensi
10-chec~ 1 2s0 e00 0021 080 0013 020 $83 Be3 20 20 $150000 ~I~ $233883211 ltl 3l $ i l L~ ilr ]t
Enclosure 6
J LIGHTYEAR
Lightyear i s a software produ ct th at produ ce s a r anking nr pr i oritization of a set of alternatives based on a numerical sco ring system
To use the product it is first necessary to choose and define a set of alternatives In this application alternatives will be location-specific chinook culture techniques Elimination of non- eq uivalent alternatives fr om the start of the analysis simplifies subsequent evaluations but is not absolutely necessary At present only dummy alternatives (ie Hatchshyery A Hatchery B etc) have been entered into the model in order to allow for unbiased development of evaluation cri t eria the next step in the process
Criteria are the qualities or attributes used to evaluate the alternatives in a decision Each criterion has a mode ie Numeric (N) Graphic (G) or Verbal (V) and a weight The weight defines the relative importance of a single criterion to the overall outcome of the decision It is possible to define as many criteria as the decision requires or to add delete or change a criterion as necessary Lightyear readily permits the editing and modification of the decisions structure If significant changes are made to the set of criteria any values assigned in the following evaluation step will be eliminated
The final step in the basic decision process is evaluating the alternatives An individual criterion is selected and each al te rnative is evaluated in turn for that citerion At the end of the evaluation process it is also possible to define simple logical rules to wei ght or eliminate alternatives on the basis of their evaluations for specific criteria
Once the basic steps in the decision process have been completed Lightyear then displays the ranked outcome of the decision process and identifies the preferred alternative It then further permits detailed examination of the performance of an individual alternative on the basis of each criterion
Light ear SLJBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION shallow fw supp
+--------------------+------------+ RLTEF~NAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 15
Alternative B 3
Alternative C 8
+--------------------+------------+
VERSIONl s t Draft
+-----------------------------+ Vf~LUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 15 I LEAST DESIR~BLE 0 +-----------------------------+
~ bull _ ~11~middot ~
Light vear SUBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION qravity
+-------------------+------------ - - - - -+ ALTERIIAT IVES WOfm~
~ ------ ----------+----------- --- - --+ ~lternative A Yes
A 1 t err1a t i ve B IJ
Alterr1ative C Ma yb e
+-------------------+-----------------+
VERSIONlst Draft fw s up o
+---- ---------------+ YesNo
+-------------------+ Yes IO Ma yb e ~ 11 0
I I I
- middot1
+-------------------+
bull- -~ii bull middotbull ~middoty i~middot shy
Li ght year SUBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION freshwater 1
+--------------------+----------- - + ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 15 middot
Alternative B 30
Alternative C 20
+---------------- ----+------------+
VERSI ONls t Draft
+--------- - -------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +------------------ -----------+
middot i shy
imiddot -shy 1middott middot ~-- -~-~~-gt _~~-- middot ~~_~~middot_f~ -~
__ightye ar SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONi s t Draft
CRITERION saltwater 1
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERIJAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 20
Al terr1at i ve B 20
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+------------+
middot~ ~~ -middot lt~ --~
i~~i ttJ~l ~~ s
+----------------- ------------+ V(JLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
-l bull
- - ----~ ~(yen__~_ ~ middot- ~- bull bull y-~ -- ~-
_ight y~ar SLJB J ECTProduct Design
CRITERION 0 smolts
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alterrat ive A 4
Alternative B
Alternative C 20
I I
I
I
+--------------------+------------+
VERSIONl s t Draft
+-----------------------------+ ViLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
( t middot middot - middot
---~~-f~~~-~ rmiddotmiddot ~-L~~- -Ji -~middot~ middot- - -
i ght yemiddota r SUBJ ECT P r oduc t Design VERSIO Nl st Dra ft
CRITERION i s olation fr y
+--------------- -----+- - ------- - - -+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+------- ------------- +--- ---------+ Alternative A 3
A 1 t err-a t i ve B 3
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+--------- - - -+
~ - - r ~ -~ 1 bull - ~
~~gtt ~-~ rf_~-~~ ~t~ J
+------- ----------------------+ VALUE RANGE
+- ----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 10 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
middot
_ _
i~f~~~ middot (f middot~ -~- middot middotmiddot
ightyea r SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERION land-based site
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES tjALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative R
Alternative B 15
-tA1t erYa t i ve C CJ
+--------------------+------------+
- t middot middotmiddot 1
middotmiddot~~ ~- _~~ ti~ J
+-----------------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
_ _middot _ middot~~ - ~ ~ -bull
middot~ ~ - middot - middot middot middot_ __ J~ j---- middot middot ~ ~~ ti~- ~~ Jmiddot~~ )r~f _
CRITERION floatin g site
+-------------------- +- ------- ----+ AL TEFmRTIVES VALUE
+-------- ------------+------------+ Alternative A 10
IZI
A 1 t erY-a ti ve C 20
+--------------------+------------+
SUBJECTProduct De s iqn VERSI ONl st Draft
+----------------------------- + VALUE RAIJGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
Li ght y ear SUBJECTProduct Desig VERSI0N 1st Draf t
RU LE JIRJYI E lltULE +----------------- - +---- - ----------------- - - - - - - -------------- ---- ----- ------ shy H20 CHEMI STR Y I wa te r chemistrv MUST BE AT LEAS T treatable
CELIMINA ~ ION RUL E) y - -middot ~ t~ ~
middota - -~C-~~ _ t 1PRTHDLOGY ende ri1i c f i s h ltLJS~r EltI=- H -r L_EAS T l rbullw-leve l p a t hmiddot middotmiddotmiddotmiddot - t ~middot middot ~middot s
ltELI MI NATI ON RUL E)
+------------------+----------------------- - - ----------------- ----------------middot
) middot - (
Production Design Criteria - 250 Total Points
Major Assumption
In order to be evaluated a project must have a minimum level of
production of 10000 adults using the worst case assumptions of
marine survival
A Freshwater Source 100 pt Total
1 Quality 20 pt
a Water Chemistry
i Acceptable ~ t
ii Treatable 5 pt
iii Not treatable reject zero total
b Endemic Fish populations
i None 10 pt
ii Present but
pathogen free 0 t
iii Present with low level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with unknown status) 1 pt
iv Present with high level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with viral pathogen) reject zero total
2 Quantity 40 pt
a Adequate for proposal based
on 20 yr minimum flow
b Total volume available
scaling of all prorosals 6Jt
3 Temperature 30 pt
a Deep intake only uniform
l()y7 water temperature 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
b Shallow intake only ambient
surface water temperatures 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
c Deep and shallow intakes
variable water temperatures
available depending on
degree of temperature
ccntrol (Note on rrodel
this criteria is rated by
sumning a and b )
4 Gravity Delivery ~ t
a Yes 10 pt
b No 0 pt
B Strateqies (Culture Flexibility ) 100 pt Total
In this rating we are not comparing the relative merits of the
different strategies but are ranking according to the capability
of a project to utilize a variety of strategies In order to
qualify for a rating in one of the strategies a project must
release a miniJnum of 500000 fish in that strategy In Eating the
possible points in each strategy a number of roints are awarded
middot~~ - ~ i ~t~ ~-~
middotml -middot1t~--~
for minimum production l eJel aoc iticna l points up to the maximum
are then awarded based on level of production relative to other
projects using that strategy
Mir1irrrum Level Maximum Level
1 Yearling snolts
a Freshwater 20 30
b Seawater netpens 20 30
2 Age-zero snolts 20 30
3 Fry-stocking with isolation
incubation and rearing capability 5 10
C Physical Site Characteristics 50 pt Total
1 Potential for land-based siting Maximum 25 pts
a Flat land available
b Access
c Earthquake and avalanche hazard
d Soil characteristics
e Water supply characteristics
2 Potential for f loat complex in estuary Maximum 25 pt
a Stonn protection
b Anchor points
c Tidal fl0v
d Natural Freshwater influence
e Water supply characteristics
f Surface ar ea available
1
I - Ri5k Fact or An3lvs isshyl Ch1r0c ~ E~h ance~e~t Alternatives
tmiddotmiddotmiddot bull r-l1~ - ~ middot middotbull111 w bullmiddot middot vl rv -1lbulll-Imiddot
Tot3l Pr01ect C~ sc lJl per unit ~arv~s t
- rJal Sml t fr dex hrvEst r)bbilitv Index Harvest Prooabilitv A1rt ize Usable Pro1ect Arnual Oaeratiro Anrual C t Alternative PrJd Et in Best Case (best case) Worst Case (worst case ) Ca~ital Cost Life (v ear sl Cst fotal Best Case Wrst Case iii- ------------~~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------middot-- --------------shy e0-check 5 0il0 iJJ 0006 025 0 ~lil 075 $8388320 2a $100000 e0 f lB3 Ba3 20 $6 13 $7355 $53U
05-chec k 2 52LJ 10~0 0015 0 70 001 1 030 $83 863 20 2J $20J0il 00 $283383 2~ t i SB ilO 3E Ht (with lens)
05-check 2 5~10 0e0 0018 010 0008 090 $5445050 20 $2e0 000 00 $25445copySJ $5 51 $1 3~3 fll lii (
(wo lensi
10-chec~ 1 2s0 e00 0021 080 0013 020 $83 Be3 20 20 $150000 ~I~ $233883211 ltl 3l $ i l L~ ilr ]t
Enclosure 6
J LIGHTYEAR
Lightyear i s a software produ ct th at produ ce s a r anking nr pr i oritization of a set of alternatives based on a numerical sco ring system
To use the product it is first necessary to choose and define a set of alternatives In this application alternatives will be location-specific chinook culture techniques Elimination of non- eq uivalent alternatives fr om the start of the analysis simplifies subsequent evaluations but is not absolutely necessary At present only dummy alternatives (ie Hatchshyery A Hatchery B etc) have been entered into the model in order to allow for unbiased development of evaluation cri t eria the next step in the process
Criteria are the qualities or attributes used to evaluate the alternatives in a decision Each criterion has a mode ie Numeric (N) Graphic (G) or Verbal (V) and a weight The weight defines the relative importance of a single criterion to the overall outcome of the decision It is possible to define as many criteria as the decision requires or to add delete or change a criterion as necessary Lightyear readily permits the editing and modification of the decisions structure If significant changes are made to the set of criteria any values assigned in the following evaluation step will be eliminated
The final step in the basic decision process is evaluating the alternatives An individual criterion is selected and each al te rnative is evaluated in turn for that citerion At the end of the evaluation process it is also possible to define simple logical rules to wei ght or eliminate alternatives on the basis of their evaluations for specific criteria
Once the basic steps in the decision process have been completed Lightyear then displays the ranked outcome of the decision process and identifies the preferred alternative It then further permits detailed examination of the performance of an individual alternative on the basis of each criterion
Light vear SUBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION qravity
+-------------------+------------ - - - - -+ ALTERIIAT IVES WOfm~
~ ------ ----------+----------- --- - --+ ~lternative A Yes
A 1 t err1a t i ve B IJ
Alterr1ative C Ma yb e
+-------------------+-----------------+
VERSIONlst Draft fw s up o
+---- ---------------+ YesNo
+-------------------+ Yes IO Ma yb e ~ 11 0
I I I
- middot1
+-------------------+
bull- -~ii bull middotbull ~middoty i~middot shy
Li ght year SUBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION freshwater 1
+--------------------+----------- - + ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 15 middot
Alternative B 30
Alternative C 20
+---------------- ----+------------+
VERSI ONls t Draft
+--------- - -------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +------------------ -----------+
middot i shy
imiddot -shy 1middott middot ~-- -~-~~-gt _~~-- middot ~~_~~middot_f~ -~
__ightye ar SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONi s t Draft
CRITERION saltwater 1
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERIJAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 20
Al terr1at i ve B 20
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+------------+
middot~ ~~ -middot lt~ --~
i~~i ttJ~l ~~ s
+----------------- ------------+ V(JLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
-l bull
- - ----~ ~(yen__~_ ~ middot- ~- bull bull y-~ -- ~-
_ight y~ar SLJB J ECTProduct Design
CRITERION 0 smolts
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alterrat ive A 4
Alternative B
Alternative C 20
I I
I
I
+--------------------+------------+
VERSIONl s t Draft
+-----------------------------+ ViLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
( t middot middot - middot
---~~-f~~~-~ rmiddotmiddot ~-L~~- -Ji -~middot~ middot- - -
i ght yemiddota r SUBJ ECT P r oduc t Design VERSIO Nl st Dra ft
CRITERION i s olation fr y
+--------------- -----+- - ------- - - -+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+------- ------------- +--- ---------+ Alternative A 3
A 1 t err-a t i ve B 3
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+--------- - - -+
~ - - r ~ -~ 1 bull - ~
~~gtt ~-~ rf_~-~~ ~t~ J
+------- ----------------------+ VALUE RANGE
+- ----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 10 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
middot
_ _
i~f~~~ middot (f middot~ -~- middot middotmiddot
ightyea r SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERION land-based site
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES tjALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative R
Alternative B 15
-tA1t erYa t i ve C CJ
+--------------------+------------+
- t middot middotmiddot 1
middotmiddot~~ ~- _~~ ti~ J
+-----------------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
_ _middot _ middot~~ - ~ ~ -bull
middot~ ~ - middot - middot middot middot_ __ J~ j---- middot middot ~ ~~ ti~- ~~ Jmiddot~~ )r~f _
CRITERION floatin g site
+-------------------- +- ------- ----+ AL TEFmRTIVES VALUE
+-------- ------------+------------+ Alternative A 10
IZI
A 1 t erY-a ti ve C 20
+--------------------+------------+
SUBJECTProduct De s iqn VERSI ONl st Draft
+----------------------------- + VALUE RAIJGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
Li ght y ear SUBJECTProduct Desig VERSI0N 1st Draf t
RU LE JIRJYI E lltULE +----------------- - +---- - ----------------- - - - - - - -------------- ---- ----- ------ shy H20 CHEMI STR Y I wa te r chemistrv MUST BE AT LEAS T treatable
CELIMINA ~ ION RUL E) y - -middot ~ t~ ~
middota - -~C-~~ _ t 1PRTHDLOGY ende ri1i c f i s h ltLJS~r EltI=- H -r L_EAS T l rbullw-leve l p a t hmiddot middotmiddotmiddotmiddot - t ~middot middot ~middot s
ltELI MI NATI ON RUL E)
+------------------+----------------------- - - ----------------- ----------------middot
) middot - (
Production Design Criteria - 250 Total Points
Major Assumption
In order to be evaluated a project must have a minimum level of
production of 10000 adults using the worst case assumptions of
marine survival
A Freshwater Source 100 pt Total
1 Quality 20 pt
a Water Chemistry
i Acceptable ~ t
ii Treatable 5 pt
iii Not treatable reject zero total
b Endemic Fish populations
i None 10 pt
ii Present but
pathogen free 0 t
iii Present with low level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with unknown status) 1 pt
iv Present with high level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with viral pathogen) reject zero total
2 Quantity 40 pt
a Adequate for proposal based
on 20 yr minimum flow
b Total volume available
scaling of all prorosals 6Jt
3 Temperature 30 pt
a Deep intake only uniform
l()y7 water temperature 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
b Shallow intake only ambient
surface water temperatures 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
c Deep and shallow intakes
variable water temperatures
available depending on
degree of temperature
ccntrol (Note on rrodel
this criteria is rated by
sumning a and b )
4 Gravity Delivery ~ t
a Yes 10 pt
b No 0 pt
B Strateqies (Culture Flexibility ) 100 pt Total
In this rating we are not comparing the relative merits of the
different strategies but are ranking according to the capability
of a project to utilize a variety of strategies In order to
qualify for a rating in one of the strategies a project must
release a miniJnum of 500000 fish in that strategy In Eating the
possible points in each strategy a number of roints are awarded
middot~~ - ~ i ~t~ ~-~
middotml -middot1t~--~
for minimum production l eJel aoc iticna l points up to the maximum
are then awarded based on level of production relative to other
projects using that strategy
Mir1irrrum Level Maximum Level
1 Yearling snolts
a Freshwater 20 30
b Seawater netpens 20 30
2 Age-zero snolts 20 30
3 Fry-stocking with isolation
incubation and rearing capability 5 10
C Physical Site Characteristics 50 pt Total
1 Potential for land-based siting Maximum 25 pts
a Flat land available
b Access
c Earthquake and avalanche hazard
d Soil characteristics
e Water supply characteristics
2 Potential for f loat complex in estuary Maximum 25 pt
a Stonn protection
b Anchor points
c Tidal fl0v
d Natural Freshwater influence
e Water supply characteristics
f Surface ar ea available
1
I - Ri5k Fact or An3lvs isshyl Ch1r0c ~ E~h ance~e~t Alternatives
tmiddotmiddotmiddot bull r-l1~ - ~ middot middotbull111 w bullmiddot middot vl rv -1lbulll-Imiddot
Tot3l Pr01ect C~ sc lJl per unit ~arv~s t
- rJal Sml t fr dex hrvEst r)bbilitv Index Harvest Prooabilitv A1rt ize Usable Pro1ect Arnual Oaeratiro Anrual C t Alternative PrJd Et in Best Case (best case) Worst Case (worst case ) Ca~ital Cost Life (v ear sl Cst fotal Best Case Wrst Case iii- ------------~~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------middot-- --------------shy e0-check 5 0il0 iJJ 0006 025 0 ~lil 075 $8388320 2a $100000 e0 f lB3 Ba3 20 $6 13 $7355 $53U
05-chec k 2 52LJ 10~0 0015 0 70 001 1 030 $83 863 20 2J $20J0il 00 $283383 2~ t i SB ilO 3E Ht (with lens)
05-check 2 5~10 0e0 0018 010 0008 090 $5445050 20 $2e0 000 00 $25445copySJ $5 51 $1 3~3 fll lii (
(wo lensi
10-chec~ 1 2s0 e00 0021 080 0013 020 $83 Be3 20 20 $150000 ~I~ $233883211 ltl 3l $ i l L~ ilr ]t
Enclosure 6
J LIGHTYEAR
Lightyear i s a software produ ct th at produ ce s a r anking nr pr i oritization of a set of alternatives based on a numerical sco ring system
To use the product it is first necessary to choose and define a set of alternatives In this application alternatives will be location-specific chinook culture techniques Elimination of non- eq uivalent alternatives fr om the start of the analysis simplifies subsequent evaluations but is not absolutely necessary At present only dummy alternatives (ie Hatchshyery A Hatchery B etc) have been entered into the model in order to allow for unbiased development of evaluation cri t eria the next step in the process
Criteria are the qualities or attributes used to evaluate the alternatives in a decision Each criterion has a mode ie Numeric (N) Graphic (G) or Verbal (V) and a weight The weight defines the relative importance of a single criterion to the overall outcome of the decision It is possible to define as many criteria as the decision requires or to add delete or change a criterion as necessary Lightyear readily permits the editing and modification of the decisions structure If significant changes are made to the set of criteria any values assigned in the following evaluation step will be eliminated
The final step in the basic decision process is evaluating the alternatives An individual criterion is selected and each al te rnative is evaluated in turn for that citerion At the end of the evaluation process it is also possible to define simple logical rules to wei ght or eliminate alternatives on the basis of their evaluations for specific criteria
Once the basic steps in the decision process have been completed Lightyear then displays the ranked outcome of the decision process and identifies the preferred alternative It then further permits detailed examination of the performance of an individual alternative on the basis of each criterion
Li ght year SUBJECTProduct Design
CRITERION freshwater 1
+--------------------+----------- - + ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 15 middot
Alternative B 30
Alternative C 20
+---------------- ----+------------+
VERSI ONls t Draft
+--------- - -------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +------------------ -----------+
middot i shy
imiddot -shy 1middott middot ~-- -~-~~-gt _~~-- middot ~~_~~middot_f~ -~
__ightye ar SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONi s t Draft
CRITERION saltwater 1
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERIJAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 20
Al terr1at i ve B 20
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+------------+
middot~ ~~ -middot lt~ --~
i~~i ttJ~l ~~ s
+----------------- ------------+ V(JLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
-l bull
- - ----~ ~(yen__~_ ~ middot- ~- bull bull y-~ -- ~-
_ight y~ar SLJB J ECTProduct Design
CRITERION 0 smolts
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alterrat ive A 4
Alternative B
Alternative C 20
I I
I
I
+--------------------+------------+
VERSIONl s t Draft
+-----------------------------+ ViLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
( t middot middot - middot
---~~-f~~~-~ rmiddotmiddot ~-L~~- -Ji -~middot~ middot- - -
i ght yemiddota r SUBJ ECT P r oduc t Design VERSIO Nl st Dra ft
CRITERION i s olation fr y
+--------------- -----+- - ------- - - -+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+------- ------------- +--- ---------+ Alternative A 3
A 1 t err-a t i ve B 3
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+--------- - - -+
~ - - r ~ -~ 1 bull - ~
~~gtt ~-~ rf_~-~~ ~t~ J
+------- ----------------------+ VALUE RANGE
+- ----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 10 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
middot
_ _
i~f~~~ middot (f middot~ -~- middot middotmiddot
ightyea r SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERION land-based site
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES tjALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative R
Alternative B 15
-tA1t erYa t i ve C CJ
+--------------------+------------+
- t middot middotmiddot 1
middotmiddot~~ ~- _~~ ti~ J
+-----------------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
_ _middot _ middot~~ - ~ ~ -bull
middot~ ~ - middot - middot middot middot_ __ J~ j---- middot middot ~ ~~ ti~- ~~ Jmiddot~~ )r~f _
CRITERION floatin g site
+-------------------- +- ------- ----+ AL TEFmRTIVES VALUE
+-------- ------------+------------+ Alternative A 10
IZI
A 1 t erY-a ti ve C 20
+--------------------+------------+
SUBJECTProduct De s iqn VERSI ONl st Draft
+----------------------------- + VALUE RAIJGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
Li ght y ear SUBJECTProduct Desig VERSI0N 1st Draf t
RU LE JIRJYI E lltULE +----------------- - +---- - ----------------- - - - - - - -------------- ---- ----- ------ shy H20 CHEMI STR Y I wa te r chemistrv MUST BE AT LEAS T treatable
CELIMINA ~ ION RUL E) y - -middot ~ t~ ~
middota - -~C-~~ _ t 1PRTHDLOGY ende ri1i c f i s h ltLJS~r EltI=- H -r L_EAS T l rbullw-leve l p a t hmiddot middotmiddotmiddotmiddot - t ~middot middot ~middot s
ltELI MI NATI ON RUL E)
+------------------+----------------------- - - ----------------- ----------------middot
) middot - (
Production Design Criteria - 250 Total Points
Major Assumption
In order to be evaluated a project must have a minimum level of
production of 10000 adults using the worst case assumptions of
marine survival
A Freshwater Source 100 pt Total
1 Quality 20 pt
a Water Chemistry
i Acceptable ~ t
ii Treatable 5 pt
iii Not treatable reject zero total
b Endemic Fish populations
i None 10 pt
ii Present but
pathogen free 0 t
iii Present with low level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with unknown status) 1 pt
iv Present with high level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with viral pathogen) reject zero total
2 Quantity 40 pt
a Adequate for proposal based
on 20 yr minimum flow
b Total volume available
scaling of all prorosals 6Jt
3 Temperature 30 pt
a Deep intake only uniform
l()y7 water temperature 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
b Shallow intake only ambient
surface water temperatures 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
c Deep and shallow intakes
variable water temperatures
available depending on
degree of temperature
ccntrol (Note on rrodel
this criteria is rated by
sumning a and b )
4 Gravity Delivery ~ t
a Yes 10 pt
b No 0 pt
B Strateqies (Culture Flexibility ) 100 pt Total
In this rating we are not comparing the relative merits of the
different strategies but are ranking according to the capability
of a project to utilize a variety of strategies In order to
qualify for a rating in one of the strategies a project must
release a miniJnum of 500000 fish in that strategy In Eating the
possible points in each strategy a number of roints are awarded
middot~~ - ~ i ~t~ ~-~
middotml -middot1t~--~
for minimum production l eJel aoc iticna l points up to the maximum
are then awarded based on level of production relative to other
projects using that strategy
Mir1irrrum Level Maximum Level
1 Yearling snolts
a Freshwater 20 30
b Seawater netpens 20 30
2 Age-zero snolts 20 30
3 Fry-stocking with isolation
incubation and rearing capability 5 10
C Physical Site Characteristics 50 pt Total
1 Potential for land-based siting Maximum 25 pts
a Flat land available
b Access
c Earthquake and avalanche hazard
d Soil characteristics
e Water supply characteristics
2 Potential for f loat complex in estuary Maximum 25 pt
a Stonn protection
b Anchor points
c Tidal fl0v
d Natural Freshwater influence
e Water supply characteristics
f Surface ar ea available
1
I - Ri5k Fact or An3lvs isshyl Ch1r0c ~ E~h ance~e~t Alternatives
tmiddotmiddotmiddot bull r-l1~ - ~ middot middotbull111 w bullmiddot middot vl rv -1lbulll-Imiddot
Tot3l Pr01ect C~ sc lJl per unit ~arv~s t
- rJal Sml t fr dex hrvEst r)bbilitv Index Harvest Prooabilitv A1rt ize Usable Pro1ect Arnual Oaeratiro Anrual C t Alternative PrJd Et in Best Case (best case) Worst Case (worst case ) Ca~ital Cost Life (v ear sl Cst fotal Best Case Wrst Case iii- ------------~~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------middot-- --------------shy e0-check 5 0il0 iJJ 0006 025 0 ~lil 075 $8388320 2a $100000 e0 f lB3 Ba3 20 $6 13 $7355 $53U
05-chec k 2 52LJ 10~0 0015 0 70 001 1 030 $83 863 20 2J $20J0il 00 $283383 2~ t i SB ilO 3E Ht (with lens)
05-check 2 5~10 0e0 0018 010 0008 090 $5445050 20 $2e0 000 00 $25445copySJ $5 51 $1 3~3 fll lii (
(wo lensi
10-chec~ 1 2s0 e00 0021 080 0013 020 $83 Be3 20 20 $150000 ~I~ $233883211 ltl 3l $ i l L~ ilr ]t
Enclosure 6
J LIGHTYEAR
Lightyear i s a software produ ct th at produ ce s a r anking nr pr i oritization of a set of alternatives based on a numerical sco ring system
To use the product it is first necessary to choose and define a set of alternatives In this application alternatives will be location-specific chinook culture techniques Elimination of non- eq uivalent alternatives fr om the start of the analysis simplifies subsequent evaluations but is not absolutely necessary At present only dummy alternatives (ie Hatchshyery A Hatchery B etc) have been entered into the model in order to allow for unbiased development of evaluation cri t eria the next step in the process
Criteria are the qualities or attributes used to evaluate the alternatives in a decision Each criterion has a mode ie Numeric (N) Graphic (G) or Verbal (V) and a weight The weight defines the relative importance of a single criterion to the overall outcome of the decision It is possible to define as many criteria as the decision requires or to add delete or change a criterion as necessary Lightyear readily permits the editing and modification of the decisions structure If significant changes are made to the set of criteria any values assigned in the following evaluation step will be eliminated
The final step in the basic decision process is evaluating the alternatives An individual criterion is selected and each al te rnative is evaluated in turn for that citerion At the end of the evaluation process it is also possible to define simple logical rules to wei ght or eliminate alternatives on the basis of their evaluations for specific criteria
Once the basic steps in the decision process have been completed Lightyear then displays the ranked outcome of the decision process and identifies the preferred alternative It then further permits detailed examination of the performance of an individual alternative on the basis of each criterion
__ightye ar SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONi s t Draft
CRITERION saltwater 1
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERIJAT IVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative A 20
Al terr1at i ve B 20
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+------------+
middot~ ~~ -middot lt~ --~
i~~i ttJ~l ~~ s
+----------------- ------------+ V(JLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
-l bull
- - ----~ ~(yen__~_ ~ middot- ~- bull bull y-~ -- ~-
_ight y~ar SLJB J ECTProduct Design
CRITERION 0 smolts
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alterrat ive A 4
Alternative B
Alternative C 20
I I
I
I
+--------------------+------------+
VERSIONl s t Draft
+-----------------------------+ ViLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
( t middot middot - middot
---~~-f~~~-~ rmiddotmiddot ~-L~~- -Ji -~middot~ middot- - -
i ght yemiddota r SUBJ ECT P r oduc t Design VERSIO Nl st Dra ft
CRITERION i s olation fr y
+--------------- -----+- - ------- - - -+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+------- ------------- +--- ---------+ Alternative A 3
A 1 t err-a t i ve B 3
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+--------- - - -+
~ - - r ~ -~ 1 bull - ~
~~gtt ~-~ rf_~-~~ ~t~ J
+------- ----------------------+ VALUE RANGE
+- ----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 10 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
middot
_ _
i~f~~~ middot (f middot~ -~- middot middotmiddot
ightyea r SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERION land-based site
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES tjALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative R
Alternative B 15
-tA1t erYa t i ve C CJ
+--------------------+------------+
- t middot middotmiddot 1
middotmiddot~~ ~- _~~ ti~ J
+-----------------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
_ _middot _ middot~~ - ~ ~ -bull
middot~ ~ - middot - middot middot middot_ __ J~ j---- middot middot ~ ~~ ti~- ~~ Jmiddot~~ )r~f _
CRITERION floatin g site
+-------------------- +- ------- ----+ AL TEFmRTIVES VALUE
+-------- ------------+------------+ Alternative A 10
IZI
A 1 t erY-a ti ve C 20
+--------------------+------------+
SUBJECTProduct De s iqn VERSI ONl st Draft
+----------------------------- + VALUE RAIJGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
Li ght y ear SUBJECTProduct Desig VERSI0N 1st Draf t
RU LE JIRJYI E lltULE +----------------- - +---- - ----------------- - - - - - - -------------- ---- ----- ------ shy H20 CHEMI STR Y I wa te r chemistrv MUST BE AT LEAS T treatable
CELIMINA ~ ION RUL E) y - -middot ~ t~ ~
middota - -~C-~~ _ t 1PRTHDLOGY ende ri1i c f i s h ltLJS~r EltI=- H -r L_EAS T l rbullw-leve l p a t hmiddot middotmiddotmiddotmiddot - t ~middot middot ~middot s
ltELI MI NATI ON RUL E)
+------------------+----------------------- - - ----------------- ----------------middot
) middot - (
Production Design Criteria - 250 Total Points
Major Assumption
In order to be evaluated a project must have a minimum level of
production of 10000 adults using the worst case assumptions of
marine survival
A Freshwater Source 100 pt Total
1 Quality 20 pt
a Water Chemistry
i Acceptable ~ t
ii Treatable 5 pt
iii Not treatable reject zero total
b Endemic Fish populations
i None 10 pt
ii Present but
pathogen free 0 t
iii Present with low level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with unknown status) 1 pt
iv Present with high level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with viral pathogen) reject zero total
2 Quantity 40 pt
a Adequate for proposal based
on 20 yr minimum flow
b Total volume available
scaling of all prorosals 6Jt
3 Temperature 30 pt
a Deep intake only uniform
l()y7 water temperature 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
b Shallow intake only ambient
surface water temperatures 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
c Deep and shallow intakes
variable water temperatures
available depending on
degree of temperature
ccntrol (Note on rrodel
this criteria is rated by
sumning a and b )
4 Gravity Delivery ~ t
a Yes 10 pt
b No 0 pt
B Strateqies (Culture Flexibility ) 100 pt Total
In this rating we are not comparing the relative merits of the
different strategies but are ranking according to the capability
of a project to utilize a variety of strategies In order to
qualify for a rating in one of the strategies a project must
release a miniJnum of 500000 fish in that strategy In Eating the
possible points in each strategy a number of roints are awarded
middot~~ - ~ i ~t~ ~-~
middotml -middot1t~--~
for minimum production l eJel aoc iticna l points up to the maximum
are then awarded based on level of production relative to other
projects using that strategy
Mir1irrrum Level Maximum Level
1 Yearling snolts
a Freshwater 20 30
b Seawater netpens 20 30
2 Age-zero snolts 20 30
3 Fry-stocking with isolation
incubation and rearing capability 5 10
C Physical Site Characteristics 50 pt Total
1 Potential for land-based siting Maximum 25 pts
a Flat land available
b Access
c Earthquake and avalanche hazard
d Soil characteristics
e Water supply characteristics
2 Potential for f loat complex in estuary Maximum 25 pt
a Stonn protection
b Anchor points
c Tidal fl0v
d Natural Freshwater influence
e Water supply characteristics
f Surface ar ea available
1
I - Ri5k Fact or An3lvs isshyl Ch1r0c ~ E~h ance~e~t Alternatives
tmiddotmiddotmiddot bull r-l1~ - ~ middot middotbull111 w bullmiddot middot vl rv -1lbulll-Imiddot
Tot3l Pr01ect C~ sc lJl per unit ~arv~s t
- rJal Sml t fr dex hrvEst r)bbilitv Index Harvest Prooabilitv A1rt ize Usable Pro1ect Arnual Oaeratiro Anrual C t Alternative PrJd Et in Best Case (best case) Worst Case (worst case ) Ca~ital Cost Life (v ear sl Cst fotal Best Case Wrst Case iii- ------------~~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------middot-- --------------shy e0-check 5 0il0 iJJ 0006 025 0 ~lil 075 $8388320 2a $100000 e0 f lB3 Ba3 20 $6 13 $7355 $53U
05-chec k 2 52LJ 10~0 0015 0 70 001 1 030 $83 863 20 2J $20J0il 00 $283383 2~ t i SB ilO 3E Ht (with lens)
05-check 2 5~10 0e0 0018 010 0008 090 $5445050 20 $2e0 000 00 $25445copySJ $5 51 $1 3~3 fll lii (
(wo lensi
10-chec~ 1 2s0 e00 0021 080 0013 020 $83 Be3 20 20 $150000 ~I~ $233883211 ltl 3l $ i l L~ ilr ]t
Enclosure 6
J LIGHTYEAR
Lightyear i s a software produ ct th at produ ce s a r anking nr pr i oritization of a set of alternatives based on a numerical sco ring system
To use the product it is first necessary to choose and define a set of alternatives In this application alternatives will be location-specific chinook culture techniques Elimination of non- eq uivalent alternatives fr om the start of the analysis simplifies subsequent evaluations but is not absolutely necessary At present only dummy alternatives (ie Hatchshyery A Hatchery B etc) have been entered into the model in order to allow for unbiased development of evaluation cri t eria the next step in the process
Criteria are the qualities or attributes used to evaluate the alternatives in a decision Each criterion has a mode ie Numeric (N) Graphic (G) or Verbal (V) and a weight The weight defines the relative importance of a single criterion to the overall outcome of the decision It is possible to define as many criteria as the decision requires or to add delete or change a criterion as necessary Lightyear readily permits the editing and modification of the decisions structure If significant changes are made to the set of criteria any values assigned in the following evaluation step will be eliminated
The final step in the basic decision process is evaluating the alternatives An individual criterion is selected and each al te rnative is evaluated in turn for that citerion At the end of the evaluation process it is also possible to define simple logical rules to wei ght or eliminate alternatives on the basis of their evaluations for specific criteria
Once the basic steps in the decision process have been completed Lightyear then displays the ranked outcome of the decision process and identifies the preferred alternative It then further permits detailed examination of the performance of an individual alternative on the basis of each criterion
_ight y~ar SLJB J ECTProduct Design
CRITERION 0 smolts
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alterrat ive A 4
Alternative B
Alternative C 20
I I
I
I
+--------------------+------------+
VERSIONl s t Draft
+-----------------------------+ ViLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 30 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
( t middot middot - middot
---~~-f~~~-~ rmiddotmiddot ~-L~~- -Ji -~middot~ middot- - -
i ght yemiddota r SUBJ ECT P r oduc t Design VERSIO Nl st Dra ft
CRITERION i s olation fr y
+--------------- -----+- - ------- - - -+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+------- ------------- +--- ---------+ Alternative A 3
A 1 t err-a t i ve B 3
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+--------- - - -+
~ - - r ~ -~ 1 bull - ~
~~gtt ~-~ rf_~-~~ ~t~ J
+------- ----------------------+ VALUE RANGE
+- ----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 10 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
middot
_ _
i~f~~~ middot (f middot~ -~- middot middotmiddot
ightyea r SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERION land-based site
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES tjALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative R
Alternative B 15
-tA1t erYa t i ve C CJ
+--------------------+------------+
- t middot middotmiddot 1
middotmiddot~~ ~- _~~ ti~ J
+-----------------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
_ _middot _ middot~~ - ~ ~ -bull
middot~ ~ - middot - middot middot middot_ __ J~ j---- middot middot ~ ~~ ti~- ~~ Jmiddot~~ )r~f _
CRITERION floatin g site
+-------------------- +- ------- ----+ AL TEFmRTIVES VALUE
+-------- ------------+------------+ Alternative A 10
IZI
A 1 t erY-a ti ve C 20
+--------------------+------------+
SUBJECTProduct De s iqn VERSI ONl st Draft
+----------------------------- + VALUE RAIJGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
Li ght y ear SUBJECTProduct Desig VERSI0N 1st Draf t
RU LE JIRJYI E lltULE +----------------- - +---- - ----------------- - - - - - - -------------- ---- ----- ------ shy H20 CHEMI STR Y I wa te r chemistrv MUST BE AT LEAS T treatable
CELIMINA ~ ION RUL E) y - -middot ~ t~ ~
middota - -~C-~~ _ t 1PRTHDLOGY ende ri1i c f i s h ltLJS~r EltI=- H -r L_EAS T l rbullw-leve l p a t hmiddot middotmiddotmiddotmiddot - t ~middot middot ~middot s
ltELI MI NATI ON RUL E)
+------------------+----------------------- - - ----------------- ----------------middot
) middot - (
Production Design Criteria - 250 Total Points
Major Assumption
In order to be evaluated a project must have a minimum level of
production of 10000 adults using the worst case assumptions of
marine survival
A Freshwater Source 100 pt Total
1 Quality 20 pt
a Water Chemistry
i Acceptable ~ t
ii Treatable 5 pt
iii Not treatable reject zero total
b Endemic Fish populations
i None 10 pt
ii Present but
pathogen free 0 t
iii Present with low level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with unknown status) 1 pt
iv Present with high level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with viral pathogen) reject zero total
2 Quantity 40 pt
a Adequate for proposal based
on 20 yr minimum flow
b Total volume available
scaling of all prorosals 6Jt
3 Temperature 30 pt
a Deep intake only uniform
l()y7 water temperature 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
b Shallow intake only ambient
surface water temperatures 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
c Deep and shallow intakes
variable water temperatures
available depending on
degree of temperature
ccntrol (Note on rrodel
this criteria is rated by
sumning a and b )
4 Gravity Delivery ~ t
a Yes 10 pt
b No 0 pt
B Strateqies (Culture Flexibility ) 100 pt Total
In this rating we are not comparing the relative merits of the
different strategies but are ranking according to the capability
of a project to utilize a variety of strategies In order to
qualify for a rating in one of the strategies a project must
release a miniJnum of 500000 fish in that strategy In Eating the
possible points in each strategy a number of roints are awarded
middot~~ - ~ i ~t~ ~-~
middotml -middot1t~--~
for minimum production l eJel aoc iticna l points up to the maximum
are then awarded based on level of production relative to other
projects using that strategy
Mir1irrrum Level Maximum Level
1 Yearling snolts
a Freshwater 20 30
b Seawater netpens 20 30
2 Age-zero snolts 20 30
3 Fry-stocking with isolation
incubation and rearing capability 5 10
C Physical Site Characteristics 50 pt Total
1 Potential for land-based siting Maximum 25 pts
a Flat land available
b Access
c Earthquake and avalanche hazard
d Soil characteristics
e Water supply characteristics
2 Potential for f loat complex in estuary Maximum 25 pt
a Stonn protection
b Anchor points
c Tidal fl0v
d Natural Freshwater influence
e Water supply characteristics
f Surface ar ea available
1
I - Ri5k Fact or An3lvs isshyl Ch1r0c ~ E~h ance~e~t Alternatives
tmiddotmiddotmiddot bull r-l1~ - ~ middot middotbull111 w bullmiddot middot vl rv -1lbulll-Imiddot
Tot3l Pr01ect C~ sc lJl per unit ~arv~s t
- rJal Sml t fr dex hrvEst r)bbilitv Index Harvest Prooabilitv A1rt ize Usable Pro1ect Arnual Oaeratiro Anrual C t Alternative PrJd Et in Best Case (best case) Worst Case (worst case ) Ca~ital Cost Life (v ear sl Cst fotal Best Case Wrst Case iii- ------------~~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------middot-- --------------shy e0-check 5 0il0 iJJ 0006 025 0 ~lil 075 $8388320 2a $100000 e0 f lB3 Ba3 20 $6 13 $7355 $53U
05-chec k 2 52LJ 10~0 0015 0 70 001 1 030 $83 863 20 2J $20J0il 00 $283383 2~ t i SB ilO 3E Ht (with lens)
05-check 2 5~10 0e0 0018 010 0008 090 $5445050 20 $2e0 000 00 $25445copySJ $5 51 $1 3~3 fll lii (
(wo lensi
10-chec~ 1 2s0 e00 0021 080 0013 020 $83 Be3 20 20 $150000 ~I~ $233883211 ltl 3l $ i l L~ ilr ]t
Enclosure 6
J LIGHTYEAR
Lightyear i s a software produ ct th at produ ce s a r anking nr pr i oritization of a set of alternatives based on a numerical sco ring system
To use the product it is first necessary to choose and define a set of alternatives In this application alternatives will be location-specific chinook culture techniques Elimination of non- eq uivalent alternatives fr om the start of the analysis simplifies subsequent evaluations but is not absolutely necessary At present only dummy alternatives (ie Hatchshyery A Hatchery B etc) have been entered into the model in order to allow for unbiased development of evaluation cri t eria the next step in the process
Criteria are the qualities or attributes used to evaluate the alternatives in a decision Each criterion has a mode ie Numeric (N) Graphic (G) or Verbal (V) and a weight The weight defines the relative importance of a single criterion to the overall outcome of the decision It is possible to define as many criteria as the decision requires or to add delete or change a criterion as necessary Lightyear readily permits the editing and modification of the decisions structure If significant changes are made to the set of criteria any values assigned in the following evaluation step will be eliminated
The final step in the basic decision process is evaluating the alternatives An individual criterion is selected and each al te rnative is evaluated in turn for that citerion At the end of the evaluation process it is also possible to define simple logical rules to wei ght or eliminate alternatives on the basis of their evaluations for specific criteria
Once the basic steps in the decision process have been completed Lightyear then displays the ranked outcome of the decision process and identifies the preferred alternative It then further permits detailed examination of the performance of an individual alternative on the basis of each criterion
i ght yemiddota r SUBJ ECT P r oduc t Design VERSIO Nl st Dra ft
CRITERION i s olation fr y
+--------------- -----+- - ------- - - -+ ALTERNATIVES VALUE
+------- ------------- +--- ---------+ Alternative A 3
A 1 t err-a t i ve B 3
Alternative C 3
+--------------------+--------- - - -+
~ - - r ~ -~ 1 bull - ~
~~gtt ~-~ rf_~-~~ ~t~ J
+------- ----------------------+ VALUE RANGE
+- ----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 10 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
middot
_ _
i~f~~~ middot (f middot~ -~- middot middotmiddot
ightyea r SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERION land-based site
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES tjALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative R
Alternative B 15
-tA1t erYa t i ve C CJ
+--------------------+------------+
- t middot middotmiddot 1
middotmiddot~~ ~- _~~ ti~ J
+-----------------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
_ _middot _ middot~~ - ~ ~ -bull
middot~ ~ - middot - middot middot middot_ __ J~ j---- middot middot ~ ~~ ti~- ~~ Jmiddot~~ )r~f _
CRITERION floatin g site
+-------------------- +- ------- ----+ AL TEFmRTIVES VALUE
+-------- ------------+------------+ Alternative A 10
IZI
A 1 t erY-a ti ve C 20
+--------------------+------------+
SUBJECTProduct De s iqn VERSI ONl st Draft
+----------------------------- + VALUE RAIJGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
Li ght y ear SUBJECTProduct Desig VERSI0N 1st Draf t
RU LE JIRJYI E lltULE +----------------- - +---- - ----------------- - - - - - - -------------- ---- ----- ------ shy H20 CHEMI STR Y I wa te r chemistrv MUST BE AT LEAS T treatable
CELIMINA ~ ION RUL E) y - -middot ~ t~ ~
middota - -~C-~~ _ t 1PRTHDLOGY ende ri1i c f i s h ltLJS~r EltI=- H -r L_EAS T l rbullw-leve l p a t hmiddot middotmiddotmiddotmiddot - t ~middot middot ~middot s
ltELI MI NATI ON RUL E)
+------------------+----------------------- - - ----------------- ----------------middot
) middot - (
Production Design Criteria - 250 Total Points
Major Assumption
In order to be evaluated a project must have a minimum level of
production of 10000 adults using the worst case assumptions of
marine survival
A Freshwater Source 100 pt Total
1 Quality 20 pt
a Water Chemistry
i Acceptable ~ t
ii Treatable 5 pt
iii Not treatable reject zero total
b Endemic Fish populations
i None 10 pt
ii Present but
pathogen free 0 t
iii Present with low level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with unknown status) 1 pt
iv Present with high level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with viral pathogen) reject zero total
2 Quantity 40 pt
a Adequate for proposal based
on 20 yr minimum flow
b Total volume available
scaling of all prorosals 6Jt
3 Temperature 30 pt
a Deep intake only uniform
l()y7 water temperature 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
b Shallow intake only ambient
surface water temperatures 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
c Deep and shallow intakes
variable water temperatures
available depending on
degree of temperature
ccntrol (Note on rrodel
this criteria is rated by
sumning a and b )
4 Gravity Delivery ~ t
a Yes 10 pt
b No 0 pt
B Strateqies (Culture Flexibility ) 100 pt Total
In this rating we are not comparing the relative merits of the
different strategies but are ranking according to the capability
of a project to utilize a variety of strategies In order to
qualify for a rating in one of the strategies a project must
release a miniJnum of 500000 fish in that strategy In Eating the
possible points in each strategy a number of roints are awarded
middot~~ - ~ i ~t~ ~-~
middotml -middot1t~--~
for minimum production l eJel aoc iticna l points up to the maximum
are then awarded based on level of production relative to other
projects using that strategy
Mir1irrrum Level Maximum Level
1 Yearling snolts
a Freshwater 20 30
b Seawater netpens 20 30
2 Age-zero snolts 20 30
3 Fry-stocking with isolation
incubation and rearing capability 5 10
C Physical Site Characteristics 50 pt Total
1 Potential for land-based siting Maximum 25 pts
a Flat land available
b Access
c Earthquake and avalanche hazard
d Soil characteristics
e Water supply characteristics
2 Potential for f loat complex in estuary Maximum 25 pt
a Stonn protection
b Anchor points
c Tidal fl0v
d Natural Freshwater influence
e Water supply characteristics
f Surface ar ea available
1
I - Ri5k Fact or An3lvs isshyl Ch1r0c ~ E~h ance~e~t Alternatives
tmiddotmiddotmiddot bull r-l1~ - ~ middot middotbull111 w bullmiddot middot vl rv -1lbulll-Imiddot
Tot3l Pr01ect C~ sc lJl per unit ~arv~s t
- rJal Sml t fr dex hrvEst r)bbilitv Index Harvest Prooabilitv A1rt ize Usable Pro1ect Arnual Oaeratiro Anrual C t Alternative PrJd Et in Best Case (best case) Worst Case (worst case ) Ca~ital Cost Life (v ear sl Cst fotal Best Case Wrst Case iii- ------------~~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------middot-- --------------shy e0-check 5 0il0 iJJ 0006 025 0 ~lil 075 $8388320 2a $100000 e0 f lB3 Ba3 20 $6 13 $7355 $53U
05-chec k 2 52LJ 10~0 0015 0 70 001 1 030 $83 863 20 2J $20J0il 00 $283383 2~ t i SB ilO 3E Ht (with lens)
05-check 2 5~10 0e0 0018 010 0008 090 $5445050 20 $2e0 000 00 $25445copySJ $5 51 $1 3~3 fll lii (
(wo lensi
10-chec~ 1 2s0 e00 0021 080 0013 020 $83 Be3 20 20 $150000 ~I~ $233883211 ltl 3l $ i l L~ ilr ]t
Enclosure 6
J LIGHTYEAR
Lightyear i s a software produ ct th at produ ce s a r anking nr pr i oritization of a set of alternatives based on a numerical sco ring system
To use the product it is first necessary to choose and define a set of alternatives In this application alternatives will be location-specific chinook culture techniques Elimination of non- eq uivalent alternatives fr om the start of the analysis simplifies subsequent evaluations but is not absolutely necessary At present only dummy alternatives (ie Hatchshyery A Hatchery B etc) have been entered into the model in order to allow for unbiased development of evaluation cri t eria the next step in the process
Criteria are the qualities or attributes used to evaluate the alternatives in a decision Each criterion has a mode ie Numeric (N) Graphic (G) or Verbal (V) and a weight The weight defines the relative importance of a single criterion to the overall outcome of the decision It is possible to define as many criteria as the decision requires or to add delete or change a criterion as necessary Lightyear readily permits the editing and modification of the decisions structure If significant changes are made to the set of criteria any values assigned in the following evaluation step will be eliminated
The final step in the basic decision process is evaluating the alternatives An individual criterion is selected and each al te rnative is evaluated in turn for that citerion At the end of the evaluation process it is also possible to define simple logical rules to wei ght or eliminate alternatives on the basis of their evaluations for specific criteria
Once the basic steps in the decision process have been completed Lightyear then displays the ranked outcome of the decision process and identifies the preferred alternative It then further permits detailed examination of the performance of an individual alternative on the basis of each criterion
ightyea r SUBJECTProduct Design VERSIONlst Draft
CRITERION land-based site
+--------------------+------------+ ALTERNATIVES tjALUE
+--------------------+------------+ Alternative R
Alternative B 15
-tA1t erYa t i ve C CJ
+--------------------+------------+
- t middot middotmiddot 1
middotmiddot~~ ~- _~~ ti~ J
+-----------------------------+ VRLUE RANGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
_ _middot _ middot~~ - ~ ~ -bull
middot~ ~ - middot - middot middot middot_ __ J~ j---- middot middot ~ ~~ ti~- ~~ Jmiddot~~ )r~f _
CRITERION floatin g site
+-------------------- +- ------- ----+ AL TEFmRTIVES VALUE
+-------- ------------+------------+ Alternative A 10
IZI
A 1 t erY-a ti ve C 20
+--------------------+------------+
SUBJECTProduct De s iqn VERSI ONl st Draft
+----------------------------- + VALUE RAIJGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
Li ght y ear SUBJECTProduct Desig VERSI0N 1st Draf t
RU LE JIRJYI E lltULE +----------------- - +---- - ----------------- - - - - - - -------------- ---- ----- ------ shy H20 CHEMI STR Y I wa te r chemistrv MUST BE AT LEAS T treatable
CELIMINA ~ ION RUL E) y - -middot ~ t~ ~
middota - -~C-~~ _ t 1PRTHDLOGY ende ri1i c f i s h ltLJS~r EltI=- H -r L_EAS T l rbullw-leve l p a t hmiddot middotmiddotmiddotmiddot - t ~middot middot ~middot s
ltELI MI NATI ON RUL E)
+------------------+----------------------- - - ----------------- ----------------middot
) middot - (
Production Design Criteria - 250 Total Points
Major Assumption
In order to be evaluated a project must have a minimum level of
production of 10000 adults using the worst case assumptions of
marine survival
A Freshwater Source 100 pt Total
1 Quality 20 pt
a Water Chemistry
i Acceptable ~ t
ii Treatable 5 pt
iii Not treatable reject zero total
b Endemic Fish populations
i None 10 pt
ii Present but
pathogen free 0 t
iii Present with low level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with unknown status) 1 pt
iv Present with high level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with viral pathogen) reject zero total
2 Quantity 40 pt
a Adequate for proposal based
on 20 yr minimum flow
b Total volume available
scaling of all prorosals 6Jt
3 Temperature 30 pt
a Deep intake only uniform
l()y7 water temperature 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
b Shallow intake only ambient
surface water temperatures 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
c Deep and shallow intakes
variable water temperatures
available depending on
degree of temperature
ccntrol (Note on rrodel
this criteria is rated by
sumning a and b )
4 Gravity Delivery ~ t
a Yes 10 pt
b No 0 pt
B Strateqies (Culture Flexibility ) 100 pt Total
In this rating we are not comparing the relative merits of the
different strategies but are ranking according to the capability
of a project to utilize a variety of strategies In order to
qualify for a rating in one of the strategies a project must
release a miniJnum of 500000 fish in that strategy In Eating the
possible points in each strategy a number of roints are awarded
middot~~ - ~ i ~t~ ~-~
middotml -middot1t~--~
for minimum production l eJel aoc iticna l points up to the maximum
are then awarded based on level of production relative to other
projects using that strategy
Mir1irrrum Level Maximum Level
1 Yearling snolts
a Freshwater 20 30
b Seawater netpens 20 30
2 Age-zero snolts 20 30
3 Fry-stocking with isolation
incubation and rearing capability 5 10
C Physical Site Characteristics 50 pt Total
1 Potential for land-based siting Maximum 25 pts
a Flat land available
b Access
c Earthquake and avalanche hazard
d Soil characteristics
e Water supply characteristics
2 Potential for f loat complex in estuary Maximum 25 pt
a Stonn protection
b Anchor points
c Tidal fl0v
d Natural Freshwater influence
e Water supply characteristics
f Surface ar ea available
1
I - Ri5k Fact or An3lvs isshyl Ch1r0c ~ E~h ance~e~t Alternatives
tmiddotmiddotmiddot bull r-l1~ - ~ middot middotbull111 w bullmiddot middot vl rv -1lbulll-Imiddot
Tot3l Pr01ect C~ sc lJl per unit ~arv~s t
- rJal Sml t fr dex hrvEst r)bbilitv Index Harvest Prooabilitv A1rt ize Usable Pro1ect Arnual Oaeratiro Anrual C t Alternative PrJd Et in Best Case (best case) Worst Case (worst case ) Ca~ital Cost Life (v ear sl Cst fotal Best Case Wrst Case iii- ------------~~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------middot-- --------------shy e0-check 5 0il0 iJJ 0006 025 0 ~lil 075 $8388320 2a $100000 e0 f lB3 Ba3 20 $6 13 $7355 $53U
05-chec k 2 52LJ 10~0 0015 0 70 001 1 030 $83 863 20 2J $20J0il 00 $283383 2~ t i SB ilO 3E Ht (with lens)
05-check 2 5~10 0e0 0018 010 0008 090 $5445050 20 $2e0 000 00 $25445copySJ $5 51 $1 3~3 fll lii (
(wo lensi
10-chec~ 1 2s0 e00 0021 080 0013 020 $83 Be3 20 20 $150000 ~I~ $233883211 ltl 3l $ i l L~ ilr ]t
Enclosure 6
J LIGHTYEAR
Lightyear i s a software produ ct th at produ ce s a r anking nr pr i oritization of a set of alternatives based on a numerical sco ring system
To use the product it is first necessary to choose and define a set of alternatives In this application alternatives will be location-specific chinook culture techniques Elimination of non- eq uivalent alternatives fr om the start of the analysis simplifies subsequent evaluations but is not absolutely necessary At present only dummy alternatives (ie Hatchshyery A Hatchery B etc) have been entered into the model in order to allow for unbiased development of evaluation cri t eria the next step in the process
Criteria are the qualities or attributes used to evaluate the alternatives in a decision Each criterion has a mode ie Numeric (N) Graphic (G) or Verbal (V) and a weight The weight defines the relative importance of a single criterion to the overall outcome of the decision It is possible to define as many criteria as the decision requires or to add delete or change a criterion as necessary Lightyear readily permits the editing and modification of the decisions structure If significant changes are made to the set of criteria any values assigned in the following evaluation step will be eliminated
The final step in the basic decision process is evaluating the alternatives An individual criterion is selected and each al te rnative is evaluated in turn for that citerion At the end of the evaluation process it is also possible to define simple logical rules to wei ght or eliminate alternatives on the basis of their evaluations for specific criteria
Once the basic steps in the decision process have been completed Lightyear then displays the ranked outcome of the decision process and identifies the preferred alternative It then further permits detailed examination of the performance of an individual alternative on the basis of each criterion
CRITERION floatin g site
+-------------------- +- ------- ----+ AL TEFmRTIVES VALUE
+-------- ------------+------------+ Alternative A 10
IZI
A 1 t erY-a ti ve C 20
+--------------------+------------+
SUBJECTProduct De s iqn VERSI ONl st Draft
+----------------------------- + VALUE RAIJGE
+-----------------------------+ I MOST DESIRABLE 25 I LEAST DESIRABLE 0 +-----------------------------+
Li ght y ear SUBJECTProduct Desig VERSI0N 1st Draf t
RU LE JIRJYI E lltULE +----------------- - +---- - ----------------- - - - - - - -------------- ---- ----- ------ shy H20 CHEMI STR Y I wa te r chemistrv MUST BE AT LEAS T treatable
CELIMINA ~ ION RUL E) y - -middot ~ t~ ~
middota - -~C-~~ _ t 1PRTHDLOGY ende ri1i c f i s h ltLJS~r EltI=- H -r L_EAS T l rbullw-leve l p a t hmiddot middotmiddotmiddotmiddot - t ~middot middot ~middot s
ltELI MI NATI ON RUL E)
+------------------+----------------------- - - ----------------- ----------------middot
) middot - (
Production Design Criteria - 250 Total Points
Major Assumption
In order to be evaluated a project must have a minimum level of
production of 10000 adults using the worst case assumptions of
marine survival
A Freshwater Source 100 pt Total
1 Quality 20 pt
a Water Chemistry
i Acceptable ~ t
ii Treatable 5 pt
iii Not treatable reject zero total
b Endemic Fish populations
i None 10 pt
ii Present but
pathogen free 0 t
iii Present with low level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with unknown status) 1 pt
iv Present with high level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with viral pathogen) reject zero total
2 Quantity 40 pt
a Adequate for proposal based
on 20 yr minimum flow
b Total volume available
scaling of all prorosals 6Jt
3 Temperature 30 pt
a Deep intake only uniform
l()y7 water temperature 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
b Shallow intake only ambient
surface water temperatures 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
c Deep and shallow intakes
variable water temperatures
available depending on
degree of temperature
ccntrol (Note on rrodel
this criteria is rated by
sumning a and b )
4 Gravity Delivery ~ t
a Yes 10 pt
b No 0 pt
B Strateqies (Culture Flexibility ) 100 pt Total
In this rating we are not comparing the relative merits of the
different strategies but are ranking according to the capability
of a project to utilize a variety of strategies In order to
qualify for a rating in one of the strategies a project must
release a miniJnum of 500000 fish in that strategy In Eating the
possible points in each strategy a number of roints are awarded
middot~~ - ~ i ~t~ ~-~
middotml -middot1t~--~
for minimum production l eJel aoc iticna l points up to the maximum
are then awarded based on level of production relative to other
projects using that strategy
Mir1irrrum Level Maximum Level
1 Yearling snolts
a Freshwater 20 30
b Seawater netpens 20 30
2 Age-zero snolts 20 30
3 Fry-stocking with isolation
incubation and rearing capability 5 10
C Physical Site Characteristics 50 pt Total
1 Potential for land-based siting Maximum 25 pts
a Flat land available
b Access
c Earthquake and avalanche hazard
d Soil characteristics
e Water supply characteristics
2 Potential for f loat complex in estuary Maximum 25 pt
a Stonn protection
b Anchor points
c Tidal fl0v
d Natural Freshwater influence
e Water supply characteristics
f Surface ar ea available
1
I - Ri5k Fact or An3lvs isshyl Ch1r0c ~ E~h ance~e~t Alternatives
tmiddotmiddotmiddot bull r-l1~ - ~ middot middotbull111 w bullmiddot middot vl rv -1lbulll-Imiddot
Tot3l Pr01ect C~ sc lJl per unit ~arv~s t
- rJal Sml t fr dex hrvEst r)bbilitv Index Harvest Prooabilitv A1rt ize Usable Pro1ect Arnual Oaeratiro Anrual C t Alternative PrJd Et in Best Case (best case) Worst Case (worst case ) Ca~ital Cost Life (v ear sl Cst fotal Best Case Wrst Case iii- ------------~~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------middot-- --------------shy e0-check 5 0il0 iJJ 0006 025 0 ~lil 075 $8388320 2a $100000 e0 f lB3 Ba3 20 $6 13 $7355 $53U
05-chec k 2 52LJ 10~0 0015 0 70 001 1 030 $83 863 20 2J $20J0il 00 $283383 2~ t i SB ilO 3E Ht (with lens)
05-check 2 5~10 0e0 0018 010 0008 090 $5445050 20 $2e0 000 00 $25445copySJ $5 51 $1 3~3 fll lii (
(wo lensi
10-chec~ 1 2s0 e00 0021 080 0013 020 $83 Be3 20 20 $150000 ~I~ $233883211 ltl 3l $ i l L~ ilr ]t
Enclosure 6
J LIGHTYEAR
Lightyear i s a software produ ct th at produ ce s a r anking nr pr i oritization of a set of alternatives based on a numerical sco ring system
To use the product it is first necessary to choose and define a set of alternatives In this application alternatives will be location-specific chinook culture techniques Elimination of non- eq uivalent alternatives fr om the start of the analysis simplifies subsequent evaluations but is not absolutely necessary At present only dummy alternatives (ie Hatchshyery A Hatchery B etc) have been entered into the model in order to allow for unbiased development of evaluation cri t eria the next step in the process
Criteria are the qualities or attributes used to evaluate the alternatives in a decision Each criterion has a mode ie Numeric (N) Graphic (G) or Verbal (V) and a weight The weight defines the relative importance of a single criterion to the overall outcome of the decision It is possible to define as many criteria as the decision requires or to add delete or change a criterion as necessary Lightyear readily permits the editing and modification of the decisions structure If significant changes are made to the set of criteria any values assigned in the following evaluation step will be eliminated
The final step in the basic decision process is evaluating the alternatives An individual criterion is selected and each al te rnative is evaluated in turn for that citerion At the end of the evaluation process it is also possible to define simple logical rules to wei ght or eliminate alternatives on the basis of their evaluations for specific criteria
Once the basic steps in the decision process have been completed Lightyear then displays the ranked outcome of the decision process and identifies the preferred alternative It then further permits detailed examination of the performance of an individual alternative on the basis of each criterion
Li ght y ear SUBJECTProduct Desig VERSI0N 1st Draf t
RU LE JIRJYI E lltULE +----------------- - +---- - ----------------- - - - - - - -------------- ---- ----- ------ shy H20 CHEMI STR Y I wa te r chemistrv MUST BE AT LEAS T treatable
CELIMINA ~ ION RUL E) y - -middot ~ t~ ~
middota - -~C-~~ _ t 1PRTHDLOGY ende ri1i c f i s h ltLJS~r EltI=- H -r L_EAS T l rbullw-leve l p a t hmiddot middotmiddotmiddotmiddot - t ~middot middot ~middot s
ltELI MI NATI ON RUL E)
+------------------+----------------------- - - ----------------- ----------------middot
) middot - (
Production Design Criteria - 250 Total Points
Major Assumption
In order to be evaluated a project must have a minimum level of
production of 10000 adults using the worst case assumptions of
marine survival
A Freshwater Source 100 pt Total
1 Quality 20 pt
a Water Chemistry
i Acceptable ~ t
ii Treatable 5 pt
iii Not treatable reject zero total
b Endemic Fish populations
i None 10 pt
ii Present but
pathogen free 0 t
iii Present with low level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with unknown status) 1 pt
iv Present with high level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with viral pathogen) reject zero total
2 Quantity 40 pt
a Adequate for proposal based
on 20 yr minimum flow
b Total volume available
scaling of all prorosals 6Jt
3 Temperature 30 pt
a Deep intake only uniform
l()y7 water temperature 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
b Shallow intake only ambient
surface water temperatures 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
c Deep and shallow intakes
variable water temperatures
available depending on
degree of temperature
ccntrol (Note on rrodel
this criteria is rated by
sumning a and b )
4 Gravity Delivery ~ t
a Yes 10 pt
b No 0 pt
B Strateqies (Culture Flexibility ) 100 pt Total
In this rating we are not comparing the relative merits of the
different strategies but are ranking according to the capability
of a project to utilize a variety of strategies In order to
qualify for a rating in one of the strategies a project must
release a miniJnum of 500000 fish in that strategy In Eating the
possible points in each strategy a number of roints are awarded
middot~~ - ~ i ~t~ ~-~
middotml -middot1t~--~
for minimum production l eJel aoc iticna l points up to the maximum
are then awarded based on level of production relative to other
projects using that strategy
Mir1irrrum Level Maximum Level
1 Yearling snolts
a Freshwater 20 30
b Seawater netpens 20 30
2 Age-zero snolts 20 30
3 Fry-stocking with isolation
incubation and rearing capability 5 10
C Physical Site Characteristics 50 pt Total
1 Potential for land-based siting Maximum 25 pts
a Flat land available
b Access
c Earthquake and avalanche hazard
d Soil characteristics
e Water supply characteristics
2 Potential for f loat complex in estuary Maximum 25 pt
a Stonn protection
b Anchor points
c Tidal fl0v
d Natural Freshwater influence
e Water supply characteristics
f Surface ar ea available
1
I - Ri5k Fact or An3lvs isshyl Ch1r0c ~ E~h ance~e~t Alternatives
tmiddotmiddotmiddot bull r-l1~ - ~ middot middotbull111 w bullmiddot middot vl rv -1lbulll-Imiddot
Tot3l Pr01ect C~ sc lJl per unit ~arv~s t
- rJal Sml t fr dex hrvEst r)bbilitv Index Harvest Prooabilitv A1rt ize Usable Pro1ect Arnual Oaeratiro Anrual C t Alternative PrJd Et in Best Case (best case) Worst Case (worst case ) Ca~ital Cost Life (v ear sl Cst fotal Best Case Wrst Case iii- ------------~~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------middot-- --------------shy e0-check 5 0il0 iJJ 0006 025 0 ~lil 075 $8388320 2a $100000 e0 f lB3 Ba3 20 $6 13 $7355 $53U
05-chec k 2 52LJ 10~0 0015 0 70 001 1 030 $83 863 20 2J $20J0il 00 $283383 2~ t i SB ilO 3E Ht (with lens)
05-check 2 5~10 0e0 0018 010 0008 090 $5445050 20 $2e0 000 00 $25445copySJ $5 51 $1 3~3 fll lii (
(wo lensi
10-chec~ 1 2s0 e00 0021 080 0013 020 $83 Be3 20 20 $150000 ~I~ $233883211 ltl 3l $ i l L~ ilr ]t
Enclosure 6
J LIGHTYEAR
Lightyear i s a software produ ct th at produ ce s a r anking nr pr i oritization of a set of alternatives based on a numerical sco ring system
To use the product it is first necessary to choose and define a set of alternatives In this application alternatives will be location-specific chinook culture techniques Elimination of non- eq uivalent alternatives fr om the start of the analysis simplifies subsequent evaluations but is not absolutely necessary At present only dummy alternatives (ie Hatchshyery A Hatchery B etc) have been entered into the model in order to allow for unbiased development of evaluation cri t eria the next step in the process
Criteria are the qualities or attributes used to evaluate the alternatives in a decision Each criterion has a mode ie Numeric (N) Graphic (G) or Verbal (V) and a weight The weight defines the relative importance of a single criterion to the overall outcome of the decision It is possible to define as many criteria as the decision requires or to add delete or change a criterion as necessary Lightyear readily permits the editing and modification of the decisions structure If significant changes are made to the set of criteria any values assigned in the following evaluation step will be eliminated
The final step in the basic decision process is evaluating the alternatives An individual criterion is selected and each al te rnative is evaluated in turn for that citerion At the end of the evaluation process it is also possible to define simple logical rules to wei ght or eliminate alternatives on the basis of their evaluations for specific criteria
Once the basic steps in the decision process have been completed Lightyear then displays the ranked outcome of the decision process and identifies the preferred alternative It then further permits detailed examination of the performance of an individual alternative on the basis of each criterion
Production Design Criteria - 250 Total Points
Major Assumption
In order to be evaluated a project must have a minimum level of
production of 10000 adults using the worst case assumptions of
marine survival
A Freshwater Source 100 pt Total
1 Quality 20 pt
a Water Chemistry
i Acceptable ~ t
ii Treatable 5 pt
iii Not treatable reject zero total
b Endemic Fish populations
i None 10 pt
ii Present but
pathogen free 0 t
iii Present with low level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with unknown status) 1 pt
iv Present with high level
of bacterial pathogen
(or with viral pathogen) reject zero total
2 Quantity 40 pt
a Adequate for proposal based
on 20 yr minimum flow
b Total volume available
scaling of all prorosals 6Jt
3 Temperature 30 pt
a Deep intake only uniform
l()y7 water temperature 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
b Shallow intake only ambient
surface water temperatures 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
c Deep and shallow intakes
variable water temperatures
available depending on
degree of temperature
ccntrol (Note on rrodel
this criteria is rated by
sumning a and b )
4 Gravity Delivery ~ t
a Yes 10 pt
b No 0 pt
B Strateqies (Culture Flexibility ) 100 pt Total
In this rating we are not comparing the relative merits of the
different strategies but are ranking according to the capability
of a project to utilize a variety of strategies In order to
qualify for a rating in one of the strategies a project must
release a miniJnum of 500000 fish in that strategy In Eating the
possible points in each strategy a number of roints are awarded
middot~~ - ~ i ~t~ ~-~
middotml -middot1t~--~
for minimum production l eJel aoc iticna l points up to the maximum
are then awarded based on level of production relative to other
projects using that strategy
Mir1irrrum Level Maximum Level
1 Yearling snolts
a Freshwater 20 30
b Seawater netpens 20 30
2 Age-zero snolts 20 30
3 Fry-stocking with isolation
incubation and rearing capability 5 10
C Physical Site Characteristics 50 pt Total
1 Potential for land-based siting Maximum 25 pts
a Flat land available
b Access
c Earthquake and avalanche hazard
d Soil characteristics
e Water supply characteristics
2 Potential for f loat complex in estuary Maximum 25 pt
a Stonn protection
b Anchor points
c Tidal fl0v
d Natural Freshwater influence
e Water supply characteristics
f Surface ar ea available
1
I - Ri5k Fact or An3lvs isshyl Ch1r0c ~ E~h ance~e~t Alternatives
tmiddotmiddotmiddot bull r-l1~ - ~ middot middotbull111 w bullmiddot middot vl rv -1lbulll-Imiddot
Tot3l Pr01ect C~ sc lJl per unit ~arv~s t
- rJal Sml t fr dex hrvEst r)bbilitv Index Harvest Prooabilitv A1rt ize Usable Pro1ect Arnual Oaeratiro Anrual C t Alternative PrJd Et in Best Case (best case) Worst Case (worst case ) Ca~ital Cost Life (v ear sl Cst fotal Best Case Wrst Case iii- ------------~~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------middot-- --------------shy e0-check 5 0il0 iJJ 0006 025 0 ~lil 075 $8388320 2a $100000 e0 f lB3 Ba3 20 $6 13 $7355 $53U
05-chec k 2 52LJ 10~0 0015 0 70 001 1 030 $83 863 20 2J $20J0il 00 $283383 2~ t i SB ilO 3E Ht (with lens)
05-check 2 5~10 0e0 0018 010 0008 090 $5445050 20 $2e0 000 00 $25445copySJ $5 51 $1 3~3 fll lii (
(wo lensi
10-chec~ 1 2s0 e00 0021 080 0013 020 $83 Be3 20 20 $150000 ~I~ $233883211 ltl 3l $ i l L~ ilr ]t
Enclosure 6
J LIGHTYEAR
Lightyear i s a software produ ct th at produ ce s a r anking nr pr i oritization of a set of alternatives based on a numerical sco ring system
To use the product it is first necessary to choose and define a set of alternatives In this application alternatives will be location-specific chinook culture techniques Elimination of non- eq uivalent alternatives fr om the start of the analysis simplifies subsequent evaluations but is not absolutely necessary At present only dummy alternatives (ie Hatchshyery A Hatchery B etc) have been entered into the model in order to allow for unbiased development of evaluation cri t eria the next step in the process
Criteria are the qualities or attributes used to evaluate the alternatives in a decision Each criterion has a mode ie Numeric (N) Graphic (G) or Verbal (V) and a weight The weight defines the relative importance of a single criterion to the overall outcome of the decision It is possible to define as many criteria as the decision requires or to add delete or change a criterion as necessary Lightyear readily permits the editing and modification of the decisions structure If significant changes are made to the set of criteria any values assigned in the following evaluation step will be eliminated
The final step in the basic decision process is evaluating the alternatives An individual criterion is selected and each al te rnative is evaluated in turn for that citerion At the end of the evaluation process it is also possible to define simple logical rules to wei ght or eliminate alternatives on the basis of their evaluations for specific criteria
Once the basic steps in the decision process have been completed Lightyear then displays the ranked outcome of the decision process and identifies the preferred alternative It then further permits detailed examination of the performance of an individual alternative on the basis of each criterion
b Total volume available
scaling of all prorosals 6Jt
3 Temperature 30 pt
a Deep intake only uniform
l()y7 water temperature 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
b Shallow intake only ambient
surface water temperatures 0-15 pt depending on
temperature regirre
c Deep and shallow intakes
variable water temperatures
available depending on
degree of temperature
ccntrol (Note on rrodel
this criteria is rated by
sumning a and b )
4 Gravity Delivery ~ t
a Yes 10 pt
b No 0 pt
B Strateqies (Culture Flexibility ) 100 pt Total
In this rating we are not comparing the relative merits of the
different strategies but are ranking according to the capability
of a project to utilize a variety of strategies In order to
qualify for a rating in one of the strategies a project must
release a miniJnum of 500000 fish in that strategy In Eating the
possible points in each strategy a number of roints are awarded
middot~~ - ~ i ~t~ ~-~
middotml -middot1t~--~
for minimum production l eJel aoc iticna l points up to the maximum
are then awarded based on level of production relative to other
projects using that strategy
Mir1irrrum Level Maximum Level
1 Yearling snolts
a Freshwater 20 30
b Seawater netpens 20 30
2 Age-zero snolts 20 30
3 Fry-stocking with isolation
incubation and rearing capability 5 10
C Physical Site Characteristics 50 pt Total
1 Potential for land-based siting Maximum 25 pts
a Flat land available
b Access
c Earthquake and avalanche hazard
d Soil characteristics
e Water supply characteristics
2 Potential for f loat complex in estuary Maximum 25 pt
a Stonn protection
b Anchor points
c Tidal fl0v
d Natural Freshwater influence
e Water supply characteristics
f Surface ar ea available
1
I - Ri5k Fact or An3lvs isshyl Ch1r0c ~ E~h ance~e~t Alternatives
tmiddotmiddotmiddot bull r-l1~ - ~ middot middotbull111 w bullmiddot middot vl rv -1lbulll-Imiddot
Tot3l Pr01ect C~ sc lJl per unit ~arv~s t
- rJal Sml t fr dex hrvEst r)bbilitv Index Harvest Prooabilitv A1rt ize Usable Pro1ect Arnual Oaeratiro Anrual C t Alternative PrJd Et in Best Case (best case) Worst Case (worst case ) Ca~ital Cost Life (v ear sl Cst fotal Best Case Wrst Case iii- ------------~~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------middot-- --------------shy e0-check 5 0il0 iJJ 0006 025 0 ~lil 075 $8388320 2a $100000 e0 f lB3 Ba3 20 $6 13 $7355 $53U
05-chec k 2 52LJ 10~0 0015 0 70 001 1 030 $83 863 20 2J $20J0il 00 $283383 2~ t i SB ilO 3E Ht (with lens)
05-check 2 5~10 0e0 0018 010 0008 090 $5445050 20 $2e0 000 00 $25445copySJ $5 51 $1 3~3 fll lii (
(wo lensi
10-chec~ 1 2s0 e00 0021 080 0013 020 $83 Be3 20 20 $150000 ~I~ $233883211 ltl 3l $ i l L~ ilr ]t
Enclosure 6
J LIGHTYEAR
Lightyear i s a software produ ct th at produ ce s a r anking nr pr i oritization of a set of alternatives based on a numerical sco ring system
To use the product it is first necessary to choose and define a set of alternatives In this application alternatives will be location-specific chinook culture techniques Elimination of non- eq uivalent alternatives fr om the start of the analysis simplifies subsequent evaluations but is not absolutely necessary At present only dummy alternatives (ie Hatchshyery A Hatchery B etc) have been entered into the model in order to allow for unbiased development of evaluation cri t eria the next step in the process
Criteria are the qualities or attributes used to evaluate the alternatives in a decision Each criterion has a mode ie Numeric (N) Graphic (G) or Verbal (V) and a weight The weight defines the relative importance of a single criterion to the overall outcome of the decision It is possible to define as many criteria as the decision requires or to add delete or change a criterion as necessary Lightyear readily permits the editing and modification of the decisions structure If significant changes are made to the set of criteria any values assigned in the following evaluation step will be eliminated
The final step in the basic decision process is evaluating the alternatives An individual criterion is selected and each al te rnative is evaluated in turn for that citerion At the end of the evaluation process it is also possible to define simple logical rules to wei ght or eliminate alternatives on the basis of their evaluations for specific criteria
Once the basic steps in the decision process have been completed Lightyear then displays the ranked outcome of the decision process and identifies the preferred alternative It then further permits detailed examination of the performance of an individual alternative on the basis of each criterion
middot~~ - ~ i ~t~ ~-~
middotml -middot1t~--~
for minimum production l eJel aoc iticna l points up to the maximum
are then awarded based on level of production relative to other
projects using that strategy
Mir1irrrum Level Maximum Level
1 Yearling snolts
a Freshwater 20 30
b Seawater netpens 20 30
2 Age-zero snolts 20 30
3 Fry-stocking with isolation
incubation and rearing capability 5 10
C Physical Site Characteristics 50 pt Total
1 Potential for land-based siting Maximum 25 pts
a Flat land available
b Access
c Earthquake and avalanche hazard
d Soil characteristics
e Water supply characteristics
2 Potential for f loat complex in estuary Maximum 25 pt
a Stonn protection
b Anchor points
c Tidal fl0v
d Natural Freshwater influence
e Water supply characteristics
f Surface ar ea available
1
I - Ri5k Fact or An3lvs isshyl Ch1r0c ~ E~h ance~e~t Alternatives
tmiddotmiddotmiddot bull r-l1~ - ~ middot middotbull111 w bullmiddot middot vl rv -1lbulll-Imiddot
Tot3l Pr01ect C~ sc lJl per unit ~arv~s t
- rJal Sml t fr dex hrvEst r)bbilitv Index Harvest Prooabilitv A1rt ize Usable Pro1ect Arnual Oaeratiro Anrual C t Alternative PrJd Et in Best Case (best case) Worst Case (worst case ) Ca~ital Cost Life (v ear sl Cst fotal Best Case Wrst Case iii- ------------~~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------middot-- --------------shy e0-check 5 0il0 iJJ 0006 025 0 ~lil 075 $8388320 2a $100000 e0 f lB3 Ba3 20 $6 13 $7355 $53U
05-chec k 2 52LJ 10~0 0015 0 70 001 1 030 $83 863 20 2J $20J0il 00 $283383 2~ t i SB ilO 3E Ht (with lens)
05-check 2 5~10 0e0 0018 010 0008 090 $5445050 20 $2e0 000 00 $25445copySJ $5 51 $1 3~3 fll lii (
(wo lensi
10-chec~ 1 2s0 e00 0021 080 0013 020 $83 Be3 20 20 $150000 ~I~ $233883211 ltl 3l $ i l L~ ilr ]t
Enclosure 6
J LIGHTYEAR
Lightyear i s a software produ ct th at produ ce s a r anking nr pr i oritization of a set of alternatives based on a numerical sco ring system
To use the product it is first necessary to choose and define a set of alternatives In this application alternatives will be location-specific chinook culture techniques Elimination of non- eq uivalent alternatives fr om the start of the analysis simplifies subsequent evaluations but is not absolutely necessary At present only dummy alternatives (ie Hatchshyery A Hatchery B etc) have been entered into the model in order to allow for unbiased development of evaluation cri t eria the next step in the process
Criteria are the qualities or attributes used to evaluate the alternatives in a decision Each criterion has a mode ie Numeric (N) Graphic (G) or Verbal (V) and a weight The weight defines the relative importance of a single criterion to the overall outcome of the decision It is possible to define as many criteria as the decision requires or to add delete or change a criterion as necessary Lightyear readily permits the editing and modification of the decisions structure If significant changes are made to the set of criteria any values assigned in the following evaluation step will be eliminated
The final step in the basic decision process is evaluating the alternatives An individual criterion is selected and each al te rnative is evaluated in turn for that citerion At the end of the evaluation process it is also possible to define simple logical rules to wei ght or eliminate alternatives on the basis of their evaluations for specific criteria
Once the basic steps in the decision process have been completed Lightyear then displays the ranked outcome of the decision process and identifies the preferred alternative It then further permits detailed examination of the performance of an individual alternative on the basis of each criterion
1
I - Ri5k Fact or An3lvs isshyl Ch1r0c ~ E~h ance~e~t Alternatives
tmiddotmiddotmiddot bull r-l1~ - ~ middot middotbull111 w bullmiddot middot vl rv -1lbulll-Imiddot
Tot3l Pr01ect C~ sc lJl per unit ~arv~s t
- rJal Sml t fr dex hrvEst r)bbilitv Index Harvest Prooabilitv A1rt ize Usable Pro1ect Arnual Oaeratiro Anrual C t Alternative PrJd Et in Best Case (best case) Worst Case (worst case ) Ca~ital Cost Life (v ear sl Cst fotal Best Case Wrst Case iii- ------------~~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------middot-- --------------shy e0-check 5 0il0 iJJ 0006 025 0 ~lil 075 $8388320 2a $100000 e0 f lB3 Ba3 20 $6 13 $7355 $53U
05-chec k 2 52LJ 10~0 0015 0 70 001 1 030 $83 863 20 2J $20J0il 00 $283383 2~ t i SB ilO 3E Ht (with lens)
05-check 2 5~10 0e0 0018 010 0008 090 $5445050 20 $2e0 000 00 $25445copySJ $5 51 $1 3~3 fll lii (
(wo lensi
10-chec~ 1 2s0 e00 0021 080 0013 020 $83 Be3 20 20 $150000 ~I~ $233883211 ltl 3l $ i l L~ ilr ]t
Enclosure 6
J LIGHTYEAR
Lightyear i s a software produ ct th at produ ce s a r anking nr pr i oritization of a set of alternatives based on a numerical sco ring system
To use the product it is first necessary to choose and define a set of alternatives In this application alternatives will be location-specific chinook culture techniques Elimination of non- eq uivalent alternatives fr om the start of the analysis simplifies subsequent evaluations but is not absolutely necessary At present only dummy alternatives (ie Hatchshyery A Hatchery B etc) have been entered into the model in order to allow for unbiased development of evaluation cri t eria the next step in the process
Criteria are the qualities or attributes used to evaluate the alternatives in a decision Each criterion has a mode ie Numeric (N) Graphic (G) or Verbal (V) and a weight The weight defines the relative importance of a single criterion to the overall outcome of the decision It is possible to define as many criteria as the decision requires or to add delete or change a criterion as necessary Lightyear readily permits the editing and modification of the decisions structure If significant changes are made to the set of criteria any values assigned in the following evaluation step will be eliminated
The final step in the basic decision process is evaluating the alternatives An individual criterion is selected and each al te rnative is evaluated in turn for that citerion At the end of the evaluation process it is also possible to define simple logical rules to wei ght or eliminate alternatives on the basis of their evaluations for specific criteria
Once the basic steps in the decision process have been completed Lightyear then displays the ranked outcome of the decision process and identifies the preferred alternative It then further permits detailed examination of the performance of an individual alternative on the basis of each criterion
Enclosure 6
J LIGHTYEAR
Lightyear i s a software produ ct th at produ ce s a r anking nr pr i oritization of a set of alternatives based on a numerical sco ring system
To use the product it is first necessary to choose and define a set of alternatives In this application alternatives will be location-specific chinook culture techniques Elimination of non- eq uivalent alternatives fr om the start of the analysis simplifies subsequent evaluations but is not absolutely necessary At present only dummy alternatives (ie Hatchshyery A Hatchery B etc) have been entered into the model in order to allow for unbiased development of evaluation cri t eria the next step in the process
Criteria are the qualities or attributes used to evaluate the alternatives in a decision Each criterion has a mode ie Numeric (N) Graphic (G) or Verbal (V) and a weight The weight defines the relative importance of a single criterion to the overall outcome of the decision It is possible to define as many criteria as the decision requires or to add delete or change a criterion as necessary Lightyear readily permits the editing and modification of the decisions structure If significant changes are made to the set of criteria any values assigned in the following evaluation step will be eliminated
The final step in the basic decision process is evaluating the alternatives An individual criterion is selected and each al te rnative is evaluated in turn for that citerion At the end of the evaluation process it is also possible to define simple logical rules to wei ght or eliminate alternatives on the basis of their evaluations for specific criteria
Once the basic steps in the decision process have been completed Lightyear then displays the ranked outcome of the decision process and identifies the preferred alternative It then further permits detailed examination of the performance of an individual alternative on the basis of each criterion