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 />Residents <br /> <br />I <br />rn <br />p <br />o <br />r <br />t <br />a <br />n <br />c <br />e <br /> <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />There was particular surprise that those CWG members who lived in the study area appeared to be <br />less concerned about the impact on residents than those who viewed the siting factor from other <br />perspectives (shown on the chart below). The discussion revealed that the members who lived in the <br />study area were apparently less concerned for two reasons. First, the CWG participants who were <br />viewing the siting process from other perspectives were ranking the impact on residents high relative <br />to the other siting factors. They were not fully considering that sites near these more sensitive land <br />uses had already been eliminated. The site selection process had progressed through two previous <br />screenings and these screenings had eliminated areas near residential developments, schools, <br />churches, and parks-areas considered to have the potential for the greatest negative impact. Secondly, <br />several of the CWG participants living in the study area represented agriculture and, due to their <br />familiarity with water management projects, they were not as concerned about impacts on residents. <br /> <br /> <br />DAMES & MOORE <br /> <br />Project WATERS Phase 2 <br />October 1996 <br /> <br />"Dit.MES&MOOAEGIlOlJICXlJoWH:f <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />O:\OFF\123\DECIDE\WATERS1.DOC <br />