Laserfiche WebLink
<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 />Recharge Facility - Operational Effectiveness <br /> <br />150 <br /> <br /> <br />100 <br /> <br />50 <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />ARFI2 ARF7N ARFI6 ARF8 ARFSE ARF5W <br />ARF 78 ARF IE ARF 18 ARF 4 ARF I W <br /> <br />Note: ARF = Aquifer Recharge Facility <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />As previously discussed, the above rankings are calculated by multiplying the candidate site ratings <br />for each evaluation category by the weighted importance of that category and summing the products <br />of the site selection factors to obtain a total score for the reclamation facility and the recharge facility. <br />The scores were then normalized by dividing the individual site scores by the average score for each <br />type of facility and multiplying by 100. The score of 100 represents the average of all of the sites. A <br />score greater than 100 is above average and a score less than 100 is below average. <br /> <br />The cost of each of the candidate sites was also normalized by dividing the individual site costs by the <br />average cost of all of the candidate sites for each type of facility and multiplying by 100. Again, a <br />normalized score of 100 represents the average cost for candidate reclamation and recharge sites. A <br />score greater than 100 represents a cost greater than the average cost and a score of less than 100 is <br />below the average costs. <br /> <br /> <br />DAMES & MOORE <br /> <br />Project WATERS Phase 2 <br />October 1996 <br /> <br />A!WtolES&M()()lU:GllOlJPCC/MfIU'IlY <br /> <br />II <br /> <br />O:\OFF\123\DEC,DE\WATERS1.DOC <br />