uncertainties in the likelihood, timing, and magnitude of delayed salinity impacts reaching the river. Further detail on the risks and issues analysis is provided in Appendix 7 with a summary presented in Table 12. Summary Table 12 provides a description of the qualitative scoring used for the assessment of the options for SIS operations. Each option and the component of its assessment (i.e. total costs, annualised savings, impact on targets, risks / issues) has been given a qualitative score based on the in Table 12. Table 12 Description of the qualitative scoring for SIS operations Score Assessment +4 Much better than base case +2 Moderately better than base case 0 Base case -1 Moderately worse than base case -2 Much worse than base case In preparing an overall qualitative assessment score for each option, fifty percent of the weighting has been placed on costs (twenty-five percent for each of total and annualised savings), percent of the weighting on the impact on targets to 2030, and twenty-five percent of the weighting on other risks and issues. The overall qualitative assessment scores suggest that from a cost-effectiveness perspective: option 2 (86%) provides a slightly more cost-effective approach than the base case options 3 (77%) and 4 (50%) are slightly less cost-effective approaches than the base case. When considering this assessment, it is important to note that further work is required to develop more accurate costs associated with reducing SIS operations, as these costs depend on the outcome of the investigation to determine the optimal configuration of SISs. Furthermore, there is significant uncertainty associated with the predicted impact on targets and timing and magnitude of risks examined. This assessment does not account for development activities currently underway and further new accountable actions by jurisdictions that create a debit on the register and that are offset by existing credits, uncertainties of delayed salinity impacts, climate variability, or floodplain salt mobilisation due to environmental watering. Thus, further work should be considered to better understand the costs, risks, and impact on targets before any transformative changes are made to current SIS operations, and in the meantime a more precautionary approach may be appropriate. As highlighted in the Chapter 6
uncertainties in the likelihood, timing, and magnitude of delayed salinity impacts reaching the river. Further detail on the risks and issues analysis is provided in Appendix 7 with a summary presented in Table 12. Summary Table 12 provides a description of the qualitative scoring used for the assessment of the options for SIS operations. Each option and the component of its assessment (i.e. total costs, annualised savings, impact on targets, risks / issues) has been given a qualitative score based on the in Table 12. Table 12 Description of the qualitative scoring for SIS operations Score Assessment +4 Much better than base case +2 Moderately better than base case 0 Base case -1 Moderately worse than base case -2 Much worse than base case In preparing an overall qualitative assessment score for each option, fifty percent of the weighting has been placed on costs (twenty-five percent for each of total and annualised savings), percent of the weighting on the impact on targets to 2030, and twenty-five percent of the weighting on other risks and issues. The overall qualitative assessment scores suggest that from a cost-effectiveness perspective: option 2 (86%) provides a slightly more cost-effective approach than the base case options 3 (77%) and 4 (50%) are slightly less cost-effective approaches than the base case. When considering this assessment, it is important to note that further work is required to develop more accurate costs associated with reducing SIS operations, as these costs depend on the outcome of the investigation to determine the optimal configuration of SISs. Furthermore, there is significant uncertainty associated with the predicted impact on targets and timing and magnitude of risks examined. This assessment does not account for development activities currently underway and further new accountable actions by jurisdictions that create a debit on the register and that are offset by existing credits, uncertainties of delayed salinity impacts, climate variability, or floodplain salt mobilisation due to environmental watering. Thus, further work should be considered to better understand the costs, risks, and impact on targets before any transformative changes are made to current SIS operations, and in the meantime a more precautionary approach may be appropriate. As highlighted in the Chapter 6
general-review-salinity-management.docx