FLOOD03721 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I. 1 I I I I I I I Site Comparison and Ranking Process Based on the site selection factors established by the CWG, the individual ratings for each of the site selection factors and the estimated cost, WRF 16 represents the greatest relative value, followed by WRF 7, WRF 18, WRF 8E, and WRF 13. WRF 16 is ranked eighth in operational effectiveness with a normalized score of 103.38, but was the least costly site of all the candidate sites with a normalized cost score of 41.32. The reclamation site ranked the highest in operational effectiveness was WRF 8E with a normalized score of 118.56, however, WRF 8E is ranked fourth on relative value because of its higher cost score of 103.38. Recharge Facility - Normalized Operational Effectiveness vs Normalized Costs >0 . NOrJIoalli,d Optlntional F.fIectivcnes5 ,>0 100 t!: Nonu.1b:ed Costs: , ARl,f ARlSW hRP8 AR1'7S 1UU'1W ARP12 ARPI15 ARP'5E ARr1.1'f ARF18 ARrU:: Three recharge sites appear to represent substantially greater value than the others. These sites are ARF 7S, ARF 12 and ARF IE. As can be seen above, ARF 7S was ranked the highest for relative value. It has the second highest operational effectiveness ranking with a normalized score of 120.67, slightly behind ARF 12, which has a operational effectiveness score of 126.29. However, ARF 7S slightly behind ARF 12, 2hich had an operational effectiveness score of 126.29. However, ARF 7S had the lowest normalized cost score of56.74. ARF 12, has the third lowest cost score at 70.25. As a result, the relative value of ARF 7S is 63.93 followed closely by ARF 12 at 56.05. ARF IE has a relative value of 33.36 based on an operational effectiveness score 102.97, which is slightly above average, and the 2nd lowest cost score of 69.62. DAMES & MOORE Project WATERS Phase 2 October 1996 AIWroES&IolOOREGAOUPOONI'fIHJ 14 O:\OfF\ 123\DECIDE\WATERS1.DOC