WSP12584 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1219/1214/92 13:41 e URS CONSULTRNT DENUER e 1211217 ~ , 'Oil1843 . ' .,. SITE EVALUATION AND FINAL SCREENING ~\.,,;.~iltl;t. .j;:i~\(ihe pUrpose ofthls~n _ was to screen., the 16 sites listed in Tabe CD ...~II..~~~C~"~."'::-'~"'" .. ',' .n, ,.' ,,^ \~i~;:; ';7~l':':F':~>~d recolumend the tt:lree gites which WQYld Be used for devalupment oHhe / coooeptlJat hatGhe,.,' desigA. AS ~Ith the initial site screening ~sk, the s~te. aluation and screening criteria used for evaluat~e remaining 16 sites yves base .. n Input from the'TAC and t~ The screening methodology used was a ollows: o Visit each of the sites to confirm and supplement site' information gathered from the data sheets and other sources. . __.~ue r . ~~~ Develop more detailed slte criteria In'the areas of water supply, waterl\ quality, site physical factors, biological considerations, site locatlonal factors ana estimated \1"'-.~ I costs. . ~ o Develop a criteria ra based upon the technical criteria, ~~ initi~1 sc ,een,lng were taken toa -hi^r .Jevel of ;Ist.it, andj , . y s e Sl .. The criteria were grouped Into six major categories: water source wate ~uall site physical factors, biQloglcal considerations, locational factors and probable cost.- ryJl Co.- pc,: -t- llui.-v<- os:)_,~~ ~ ?c-~8>'r ~ ;&.0""", ..0 ,<J,,(. ~ ~ :~\:~~::~~~k)~fl;:;i=::;::;~9~~I:e : e~~~::~~t:~~::~~ and subsequent ranking Of the sites. Key guidelines used in setting the value for e~ of the criteria antJ t~ $00* were--that the maximum possible point total for any site was set at 100, and the criteria categories (e.g. water source, biological considerations) ~ 9Fe-welghted such that there ~ limit to the maximum number of points which can be achieved for any criteria category and subcategory. · OP~ ~ ~ The intent of limiting the value for anyone criteria and the! total score was so no,slte would receive an inordinate number of rating pOints for a given criteria category. \For. example, if a site h~d ~n excellent water supply J the T AC ~Id: not want the point v~lue\ for the water supply cntena to be so high as to appear supenor: to a second site which \'lad other features whose score which, when averaged, made It ia superior site. In addition, a site could also receive a fatal flaw rating if a site condition was determined to be not _ acceptable. The six rating categories and the evaluation point values for each are shown irltable 3.~hi conca t was late odified because the three pr~ferr:~ .sItes were all (J) located In the sa e re 0 of the ate, the C B determi it would be most b neficlal to develop fea ibility, lev d igns e ree es water source : warm groundwater, col undwater and surface wate . this:man e top ree sites 6 ~#-L ~S"~