Laserfiche WebLink
<br />t.O <br /> <br />~. <br />. , <br /> <br />CXl <br />C'", <br />c. <br />C <br /> <br />5. Plan 7: New Waddell + Cliff + New/Modified Roosevelt + <br />New/Modified Stewart Mountain Dams (environmental enhancement <br /> <br />This plan is the same as Plan 6, but would be operated to, <br />emphasize opportunities for environmental enhancement. A portion of the water <br />supply generated at Cl iff, Roosevelt and New Waddell Dams would be used for <br />recreation and fish and wildlife conservation. Due to system losses for these <br />purposes, the increase in CAP water supply is 114,000 af per year. Recreation <br />plans are the same as for Plan 6. <br /> <br />~;:?-: <br />'.f?~ <br /> <br />6. Plan 8: No CAWCS Action <br /> <br />The No Action alternative provides the baseline against which all <br />other plans are compared (future-without-the project). With this option, CAP <br />would be constructed, but no CAWCS regulatory storage or flood control would be <br />provided. SOD studies would, however, continue; SOD solutions may differ from <br />the Cliff/Roosevelt combination in CAWCS/SOD plans. Plan 8 also includes the <br />following assumptions: Twelve bridges in metropolitan Phoenix would be <br />constructed or modified by state and local governments to withstand flows of <br />200,000 cfs. Floodplain management would occur, includi~g enforcement of <br />existing laws and regulations. Channelization around existing facilities at <br />the airport would be conducted. Limited channel clearing in the Gila River <br />would be undertaken. Flood warning systems would be improved. Several control <br />facil ities on area rivers would be constructed. A Tempe Rio Salado Project <br />would be implemented; the overall Rio Salado concept was assumed not to be <br />developed because it is dependent upon ~pstream flood control. <br /> <br />C. Comparative Analysis of Alternatives <br /> <br />Twenty-one evaluation criteria were developed during the CAWCS Stage <br />III to provide a framework for determining which candidate plans were <br />appropriate for consideration as the proposed action. Although all of the <br />criteria were critical to the plan evaluation process, the CAWCS planning team <br />identified the factors which most significantly discriminated among <br />alternatives, and aggregated them into the fOllowing categories: performance <br />(ability to meet CAWCS objectives), economics, environmental impacts, social <br />impacts, and public acceptability. Performance of the plans has been discussed <br />in the earlier description of alternatives. Public acceptability is discussed <br />below in Section D. The environmental, social, and economic impacts of <br />alternatives are presented in more detail in Chapter IV. <br /> <br />Table 2 provides a comparative display of the advantages and <br />disadvantages of each plan relative to the significant evaluation criteria <br />identified by the CAWCS study team. <br /> <br />As shown in Table 2, Plans 1, 3, 6, and 7 provide high levels of flood <br />protect i on and solve dam safety problems. Pl an 2 also solves dam safety <br />problems but provides less flood protection. Plan 8 does not meet objectives <br />for flood protection, but it does provide for continued studies to develop a <br />plan to make Salt and Verde River dams safe. <br /> <br />:.;'-.... <br />l;)~~;0 <br /> <br />6 <br />