Table 1: Evaluation Criteria and Questions Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Questions 1) The proposed measure is Has the proponent provided a sufficient description of the project such that the Committee can adequately likely to be technically understand the nature of the proposal? (Section 2.2.2) feasible. Is the proposed description and information provided adequate to enable the Committee to understand the nature and technical feasibility of the proposal? (Section 2.2.2) Is the information provided by the proponent sufficient to identify the potential links to other measures and any potential risks? (Section 2.2.7) Is the information provided by the proponent sufficient to identify the complementary actions that are required to support the proposal and any potential risks? (Section 2.2.8) 2) The proposed measure is likely Are the estimated costs reasonable when compared to the qualitative estimate of the potential supply to be cost effective considering contribution or likely improved delivery of environmental water? (Section’s 2.2.3 & 2.2.10) the qualitative estimate of the Has the proponent provided an estimate of capital costs and indicated whether there would be on-going potential supply contribution or costs and other costs associated with the development, operation and maintenance and proposed funding likely improved delivery of arrangements? (Section 2.2.10) environmental water. 3) The proposed measure is With regard to proposed supply measures, is there potential for the measure to deliver a supply likely to achieve intended contribution? (Section 2.2.3) outcomes. Is the approach applied to estimate the potential supply contribution reasonable? (Section 2.2.3) With regard to proposed constraint measures are there likely to be demonstrable improvements in environmental water delivery? (Section 2.2.4) Are anticipated environmental benefits well-articulated or is further information required? (Section 2.2.4)
Table 1: Evaluation Criteria and Questions Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Questions 1) The proposed measure is likely to be technically feasible. Has the proponent provided a sufficient description of the project such that the Committee can adequately understand the nature of the proposal? (Section 2.2.2) Is the proposed description and information provided adequate to enable the Committee to understand the nature and technical feasibility of the proposal? (Section 2.2.2) Is the information provided by the proponent sufficient to identify the potential links to other measures and any potential risks? (Section 2.2.7) Is the information provided by the proponent sufficient to identify the complementary actions that are required to support the proposal and any potential risks? (Section 2.2.8) 2) The proposed measure is likely to be cost effective considering the qualitative estimate of the potential supply contribution or likely improved delivery of environmental water. Are the estimated costs reasonable when compared to the qualitative estimate of the potential supply contribution or likely improved delivery of environmental water? (Section’s 2.2.3 & 2.2.10) Has the proponent provided an estimate of capital costs and indicated whether there would be on-going costs and other costs associated with the development, operation and maintenance and proposed funding arrangements? (Section 2.2.10) 3) The proposed measure is likely to achieve intended outcomes. With regard to proposed supply measures, is there potential for the measure to deliver a supply contribution? (Section 2.2.3) Is the approach applied to estimate the potential supply contribution reasonable? (Section 2.2.3) With regard to proposed constraint measures are there likely to be demonstrable improvements in environmental water delivery? (Section 2.2.4) Are anticipated environmental benefits well-articulated or is further information required? (Section 2.2.4)
Phase1-Assessment-Guidelines.docx