Laserfiche WebLink
<br />39 <br /> <br />1 reservoir will almost certainly cause reactivation of some of <br />2 these systems and although catastrophic landaliding into the <br />3 reservoir is not anticipated, slow landsliding on a major <br />4 scale is very likely. This would displace water out of the <br />S reservoir. This will require constant attention by heavy <br />"6 earth moving equipment and the slight possibility of a dam <br />7 spillover is present. To put it bluntly, the reservoir site <br />8 is in highly unstable rock and is going to create significant <br />9 problems which may easily require costly maintenance and <br />10 mitigation procedures. <br />11 Secondly, there appeared to be major considerations <br />12 in the geology of the tunnel that are ei ther not stated in <br />13 the Draft Environmental Statement or not understood by the <br />14 Bureau. It is stated that the tunnel bore will start out in <br />IS mancos shale in Little Soap Ji'ark (which is true) and probably <br />~ 16 continue for the most of. the tunnel, . although some uncertaint' <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />17 <br /> <br />is expressed due to the fact that the tunnel bore will be <br /> <br />18 closely parallel to an unconformity with the West Elk breccia <br />19 However, west of Curecanti Creek the Elk Creek breccia rests <br />20 directly on the pre-Cambrian metamorphic complex and most of <br />21 <br /> <br />the tunnel will probably be bored in either of these two rock, , <br /> <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br /> <br />not the mancos shale. <br /> <br />These rocks are highly fractured and <br /> <br />altered and will present significant engineering difficulties <br /> <br />Althouth the draft statements show no estimates of costs, I <br /> <br /> <br />would suggest that the above mentioned difficulties will <br />