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 /> <br />in Gl ale <br />5 <br /> <br />I <br />m <br />p <br />o <br />r <br />t <br />a <br />n <br />c <br />e <br /> <br />< sident/property owner in stu _ rea <br /> <br />There was also substantial discussion and concern about the difference between the impact on <br />biological resources and the impact on cultural resources. As a result, the CWG agreed that these <br />concerns would be divided into two separate site selection factors for the second preference poll. It <br />was observed that since the study area was primarily agricultural, biological and cultural resources <br />would most likely have been impacted already by previous farming operations. <br /> <br />The need to maximize reuse opportunities was also discussed. Maximizing reuse was ranked third <br />behind impact on residents and compatibility with existing land use in the first preference poll. <br /> <br />After reviewing the results of the initial preference poll and sharing observations and concerns, the <br />CWG rated the site selection factors for siting the reclamation facility again. The results of the second <br />polling were significantly different as can be seen in the following chart. <br /> <br /> <br />DAMES & MOORE <br /> <br />Project WATERS Phose 2 <br />October 1996 <br /> <br />"c.r.Me!l6MOOREGllOUPCXlMf'AN)' <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />O:\OFf\123\DECIDE\WATERS1.OOC <br />