Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Alternative 1: No Action <br /> <br />This alternative was considered unacceptable as it does not improve the existing storage capacity. By <br />taking no action now, the window of opportunity would be lost for moving large volumes of soil to the <br />neighboring property. The adjacent property is slated for development and will soon be occupied by <br />residential neighborhoods. <br /> <br />Alternative 2: Lake Bottom Excavation in Conjunction with Earth Fill at an Adjacent Prooertv <br /> <br />This alternative consists of the removal of approximately 3.7 million cubic yards of soil and sediment <br />from the lake bottom. Approximately 2.5 million cubic yards will be moved to a property adjacent to <br />the northeast shoreline of the lake. This material is to be placed on the adjacent property in preparation <br />of the site for residential development Up to 1.2 million cubic yards of material is to be hauled to a <br />nearby mine site. The material hauled to the mine will be processed through the existing plant to <br />produce sand and gravel products. <br /> <br />The materials excavated from the bottom of the reservoir will include approximately 9.5 feet oflake <br />bottom sediment and clayey overburden overlying a layer of sand and gravel with an average thickness <br />of approximately 12.5 feet A compacted earth slope liner is proposed to be constructed around the <br />perimeter of the excavation to reduce seepage losses between the reservoir and sand/gravel deposits. <br />This liner will extend down to a foundation of claystone which underlies the sand and gravel. <br /> <br />Excavation of the 3.7 million cubic yards of soil will increase the existing water storage capacity by <br />approximately 2,290 acre-feet. <br /> <br />This alternative .will increase the available water storage volume of the reservoir in a very economical <br />way by utilizing the excavated soils for construction on the adjacent property and removing the sand and <br />gravel for processing at the nearby aggregate mine. The total cost of this alternative is estimated to be <br />$5,100,000. <br /> <br />Alternative 3: Lake Bottom Excavation Indeoendent of the Adjacent Develooment <br /> <br />This alternative would involve the excavation and removal of lake bottom soils and sediments for haul <br />and placement at a location other than the adjacent property northeast of the lake. This alternative was <br />considered unacceptable do to the uncertainty regarding the need fOT such a large volume offill at <br />another property. In addition, the cost involved with the haul of the excavated material would likely <br />involve over-the-road transport and a greater haul distance, significantly adding to the cost to increase <br />the reservoir's storage. For example, assuming a haul cost of $0.15 per cubic yard per mile, hauling the <br />excavated soil to a site 10 miles away would add $1.50 per cubic yard or $3.75 million to the project <br />cost <br /> <br />Alternative 4: Increasinf! the Volume of Storaf!e bv Increasinf! the Heif!ht of the Dam Embankment <br /> <br />This alternative was eliminated from consideration because the reservoir is located in an urban setting, <br />and increasing the dam height and water surface level would adversely impact the numerous residential, <br />commercial, and municipal properties along the shore line. To generate an increase in storage similar to <br />Alternative 3 (Lake Bottom Excavation Independent of the Adjacent Development), the water surface <br />elevation would need to increase by approximately 13 feet This would require lengthening the dam <br /> <br />Feasibility Study <br />Kern Reservoir Enlargement <br /> <br />.2- <br /> <br />August 2002 <br />J:\0636_142\Windsor Lake FS.dD<: <br />