My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
FLOOD03721
CWCB
>
Floodplain Documents
>
Backfile
>
3001-4000
>
FLOOD03721
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/25/2010 6:28:06 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 11:57:53 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Floodplain Documents
County
Denver
Community
Glendale
Basin
South Platte
Title
Project Waters Phase 2 Site Comparison and Ranking Process - Glendale
Date
10/1/1996
Prepared For
Glendale
Prepared By
Dames & Moore and Chalres Anders
Floodplain - Doc Type
Flood Mitigation/Flood Warning/Watershed Restoration
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Site Comparison and Ranking Process <br /> <br />Once the relative importance of the site selection factors was established by the CWG, each of the <br />candidate sites was rated on a scale of one to nine against its respective site selection factor. <br />Individual rating criteria were established for each of the site selection factors in order to assure <br />consistent and fair site evaluations. The actual candidate site ratings for both the reclamation and <br />recharge facility is shown in Table I. The individual rating criteria and the final candidate site <br />ratings were reviewed and approved by a subcommittee of the project team (Glendale City Engineer, <br />Glendale's Project Manager, and Project Manager from Dames & Moore and Malcolm Pirnie). In <br />addition to rating each site against the site selection factors, the estimated cost to acquire and develop <br />each candidate site was prepared. <br /> <br />The individual site ratings and the projected cost to acquire and operate each of the candidate sites <br />was placed in an evaluation matrix. The ratings were multiplied against the relative weight for each <br />of the site selection factors to obtain an overall score which represents the operational effectiveness <br />of each site. The evaluation matrix is presented in Table I. The relative operational effectiveness <br />is illustrated in the following charts. <br /> <br />Reclamation Facility - Operational Effectiveness <br /> <br />150 <br /> <br /> <br />100 <br /> <br />50 <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />WRFSJ: WRF7 WRF9 WRl'5E WRF12W <br />'WRF8W WRPl2E WRFIE WRlles WRJI'l <br /> <br />Note: WRF = Water Reclamation Facility. The numbers are derived from land parcel or section <br />numbers. <br /> <br />I~~~~RE <br /> <br />O,\OFF\123\DECIOE\WATER51.00c <br /> <br />Project WATERS Phase 2 <br />October 1996 <br /> <br />10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.