Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br />:'1 <br />Ct) <br />~~. <br /> <br />c <br /> <br />Regulatory storage advantages are strongest with Plans 3, 6, and 7 <br />because they include regulatory storage reservoirs to provide increased CAP <br />yield, added flexibility in the operation of CAP, and energy management <br />benefits. Plan 1 provides some increased yield because of water exchanges but <br />does not have the flexibility or energy management benefits that are associated <br />with a reservoir. Mainly because of energy management opportunities associated <br />with New Waddell Reservoir, Plan 6 provides the highest annual economic <br />benefits of any plan. Plan 8 does not meet project objectives for regulatory <br />storage. <br /> <br />t~. <br /> <br />Costs of the action alternatives in rank order from highest to lowest <br />are: Plan 3, 6 and 7, 1, 2. Plan 8 has no construction costs at this time, <br />but planning for dam safety would continue and ultimately the solution could <br />involve dam construction. <br /> <br />Environmental impacts associated with construction, operation, and <br />maintenance are most severe with Plan 3 because the plan includes Confluence <br />Dam and Reservoir. The reservoir would inundate sensitive habitat and areas of <br />human use, leading to severe impacts to endangered species, riparian habitat, <br />perennial stream habitat, stream recreation, water quality, and cultural <br />(prehistoric and historic) resources. Environmental impacts of Plan 6 include <br />losses of riparian habitat and, cultural resources; these same impacts would <br />occur with Plans 1 and 7, which would also adversely affect endangered species. <br />Plan 2 would have lesser impacts to riparian habitat and cultural resources <br />than Plan 6. Plan 8 would have no project related impacts, but the dam safety <br />solution found in continued studies could result in impacts that cannot be <br />predicted at this time. <br /> <br />Social impacts are primarily the consequences of relocation because of <br />land acquisition for dams and reservoirs. The most severe social impacts of <br />relocation occur with Plan 3, which would require the relocation of the Fort <br />McDowell Indian Community. No other plans would require the relocation of the <br />community. With all of the action plans, some residents who currently live <br />around the perimeter of Roosevelt lake and a family who operate a ranch near <br />Horseshoe Dam on the Verde River would be required to relocate. Although all <br />action plans require Roosevelt lake relocations, Plan 2 requires the fewest <br />number of people to relocate. <br /> <br />Quantification of impacts is provided in Chapter IV, where the <br />impacts, effects, and mitigation are summarized in Tables 4, 5, and 6. <br /> <br />D. The Proposed Action - Plan 6 <br /> <br />Plan 6 has been selected as the agency proposed action for CAWCS <br />because the plan meets project objectives, has strong public support, and does <br />not have many of the severe social and environmental impacts associated with <br />Plan 3. In particular, Plan 6 avoids impacts to the Fort McDowell Indian <br />Community while still providing high performance for flood protection and CAP <br />regulatory storage. While Plans 1, 2 and 7 also avoid impacts to the Fort <br />McDowell Community, they do not perform as well as does Plan 6. <br /> <br />Strong, broad-based public support for Plan 6 was identified by the <br />CAWeS public involvement program in Stage III, and included support of groups <br />who participated in public values assessment <br /> <br />8 <br />