Laserfiche WebLink
<br />i. <br /> <br />:. <br /> <br />I. <br /> <br />Alternate "e" would require approximately 12 acres of U.S. Forest Service <br />land. However; after members of the District Board recently met with Forest <br />Service personnel, it was decided not to pursue this option as the selected <br />alternative at this time, particularly in view of an anticipated prolonged and <br />uncertain permitting effort. ' <br /> <br />In Alternate "D", the Crow Lane Reservoirs would occupy privately owned <br />property which would have to be purchased by the District, and the respective <br />land areas required for each is approximately estimated as follows: <br /> <br />Cr.ow Lane #1-20' Dam-2 acres <br />Crow Lane #1-35' Dam-4 acres ) <br /> <br />Crow Lane # 2-20' Dam-2 acres <br /> <br />Crow Lane #2-35' Dam-4 acres (plus thepurchase of an existing residence) <br /> <br />An allowanc~ was made in the estimate for each of these Alternates to acquire <br />the property needed, based on current real estate activities in the community. <br /> <br />F-CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS <br />**************************** <br /> <br />The most formidable problem for all of the Alternates considered in the Plan- <br />ning Document is the presence of rock, basically sub-surface formations, as <br />. well as those which project above the surface. <br /> <br />At the time of the preparation of the Planning Document by McLaughlin Wa- <br />ter Engineers, the only information available to them on sub-surface rock was <br />for Alternates "A" and "B" which included the enlargement of Crescent Lake. <br />Refractive seismic readings were taken directly beneath the floor of the Lake, <br />and also on the adjacent Powelson property onto which the Lake would be ex- <br />tended, to establish the sub-service elevation of the rock. <br /> <br />No seismic work was done for Alternate "C" , involving the reservoir on For- <br />est Service property , but in that particular situation, numerous rock out-crops <br />were visible at the site of the proposed reservoir, and some of these are de- <br />picted in the photos included in the discussion on this Alternate in Section VI <br />of the Planning Document. <br /> <br />Similarly, no seismic work was done in the general area of the Crow Lane <br />Reservoirs included in Alternate "D", and here McLaughlin was advised to <br />make an arbitrary assumption to expect rock 10' below the ground surface, <br />which would have to be confirmed by actual sub-surface exploration. <br /> <br />19 <br />