DOCSLIB.ORG

Table of Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Table of Contents Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. Table of Contents Section Page Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. 11 1. Introduction .........................................................................................................................1 1 1.1 Site Background .......................................................................................................... 11 1.1.1 Overview and Problem Statement ..................................................................... 11 1.1.2 Regulatory Background ..................................................................................... 44 1.1.3 Recent Community Involvement ....................................................................... 88 1.2 Project Area Definition ................................................................................................. 99 1.3 Purpose and Overview ............................................................................................. 1111 1.4 Document Organization ........................................................................................... 1212 2. Summary of Previous Work ............................................................................................. 1414 2.1 Historical Documents, 1957-1997 ............................................................................ 1414 2.2 1997 Ehlig and Yen Feasibility Study ....................................................................... 1717 2.3 2000 Leighton Feasibility Study ............................................................................... 2020 3. Physical Characteristics of the PBLC Vicinity .................................................................. 2222 3.1 Topography ............................................................................................................. 2222 3.2 Watershed Hydrology .............................................................................................. 2424 3.3 Soils ......................................................................................................................... 2626 3.4 Geology ................................................................................................................... 2929 3.5 Landslide Characterization ....................................................................................... 3131 3.6 Hydrogeology........................................................................................................... 3434 3.6.1 Groundwater Recharge ................................................................................. 3535 3.6.2 Groundwater Occurrence .................................................................................. 38 3.6.3 Water Wells .................................................................................................. 4040 3.7 Geotechnical Modeling ............................................................................................ 4141 4. Feasibility Study .............................................................................................................. 4545 4.1 ARARs ..................................................................................................................... 4545 4.1.1 Definitions ..................................................................................................... 4545 4.1.2 Identified ARARs ........................................................................................... 4646 4.2 Remedial Action Objective ....................................................................................... 4747 4.3 General Response Actions ...................................................................................... 4848 4.3.1 Stormwater Control ........................................................................................... 49 4.3.1 Subsurface Dewatering ..................................................................................... 49 4.3.2 Stormwater Control ........................................................................................... 49 4.3.1 Engineered3 ................................................ Enineered Slope Stabilization Measures 51 4.3.24 Eliminate Septic System Discharge ................................................................... 52 4.3.5 Coastal Erosion Control .................................................................................... 53 4.4 Identification and Screening of Technology Alternatives .......................................... 5353 4.4.1 Stormwater Control Option 1 – Repair Existing Corrugated Piping System ....... 53 4.4.1.1 Description ......................................................................................53 53 4.4.1.2 Screening Summary ............................................................................54 i Daniel B. Stephens & Associates, Inc. Table of Contents (Continued) Section Page 4.4.2 Stormwater Control Option 2 – Install Concrete Channels ................................ 54 4.4.2.1 Description ..........................................................................................54 4.4.2.2 Screening Summary ............................................................................54 4.4.3 Stormwater Control Option 3 – Install Liner and Channel System ..................... 55 4.4.3.1 Description ..........................................................................................55 4.4.3.2 Screening Summary ............................................................................55 4.4.4 Stormwater Control Option 4 – Seal Surface Fractures ..................................... 56 4.4.4.1 Description ..........................................................................................56 4.4.4.2 Screening Summary ............................................................................56 4.4.5 Subsurface Dewatering Option 1 – Groundwater Extraction Pits ................... 5656 4.4.5.1 Description ......................................................................................56 56 4.4.5.2 Screening Summary ............................................................................57 4.4.6 Subsurface Dewatering Option 2 – Groundwater Extraction Wells .................... 57 4.4.6.1 Description ..........................................................................................57 4.4.6.2 Screening Summary ........................................................................57 57 4.4.7 Subsurface Dewatering Option 3 – Directional Subsurface Drains ................ 5858 4.4.7.1 Description ......................................................................................58 58 4.4.7.2 Screening Summary ........................................................................58 58 4.4.8 Engineering Slope Stabilization - Buttressing (Engineered Fill) ..................... 5959 4.4.8.1 Description ......................................................................................59 59 4.4.8.2 Screening Summary ........................................................................60 60 4.4.9 Engineering Slope Stabilization Measures - Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall ................................................................................................................... 60 4.4.9.1 Description ......................................................................................60 60 4.4.9.2 Screening Summary ............................................................................61 4.4.10 Engineering Slope Stabilization Measures – Drilled Piers (CaissionsCaissons) ......................................................................................... 61 4.4.10.1 Description ..........................................................................................61 4.4.10.2 Screening Summary ............................................................................61 4.4.11 Centralized Sewer System ................................................................................ 62 4.4.11.1 Description ..........................................................................................62 4.4.11.2 Screening Summary ............................................................................62 4.4.12 Coastal Erosion Control (Breakwater) ............................................................... 63 4.4.12.1 Description ..........................................................................................63 4.4.12.2 Screening Summary ............................................................................63 4.4.13 Summary of Retained Technologies ................................................................. 63 4.5 Detailed Analysis of Remedial Technologies ............................................................... 63 4.5.1 Concrete Channels ........................................................................................... 64 4.5.2 Liner and Channel System ................................................................................ 65 4.5.3 Seal Surface Fractures ..................................................................................... 66 4.5.4 Groundwater Extraction Wells ........................................................................... 67 4.5.5 Directional Subsurface Drains ........................................................................... 68 4.5.6 Centralized Sewer System ................................................................................ 70 ii Daniel B. Stephens
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Geoysynthetic Reinforced Embankment Slopes Akshay Kumar Jha and Madhav Madhira
    Chapter Geoysynthetic Reinforced Embankment Slopes Akshay Kumar Jha and Madhav Madhira Abstract Slope failures lead to loss of life and damage to property. Slope instability of natural slope depends on natural and manmade factors such as excessive rainfall, earthquakes, deforestation, unplanned construction activity, etc. Manmade slopes are formed for embankments and cuttings. Steepening of slopes for construc- tion of rail/road embankments or for widening of existing roads is a necessity for development. Use of geosynthetics for steep slope construction considering design and environmental aspects could be a viable alternative to these issues. Methods developed for unreinforced slopes have been extended to analyze geosynthetic reinforced slopes accounting for the presence of reinforcement. Designing geosyn- thetic reinforced slope with minimum length of geosynthetics leads to economy. This chapter presents review of literature and design methodologies available for reinforced slopes with granular and marginal backfills. Optimization of reinforce- ment length from face end of the slope and slope - reinforcement interactions are also presented. Keywords: slopes, geosynthetics, reinforcement, optimization of length, marginal soils, steepening 1. Introduction Landslides in slopes and failures of embankment and cut slopes lead to loss of life and property. Several factors, natural and manmade, such as heavy rainfall, unplanned construction, deforestation, restricting waterways of rivers and their tributaries are major causes for instability of slopes. Factors controlling stability of natural slopes are type of soil, environmental conditions, groundwater, stress history, rainfall, cloud burst, earthquakes, etc. Landslide mortality rate exceeds one per 100 km2 per year in developing countries like India, China, Nepal, Peru, Venezuela, Philippines and Tajikistan [1, 2].
    [Show full text]
  • Effect of Precipitation on the Slope Stability of Landfills Gergő Albert1–Krisztina Beáta Faur2 INTRODUCTION
    Geosciences and Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 5 (2014), pp 155-163. Effect of precipitation on the slope stability of landfills Gergő Albert1–Krisztina Beáta Faur2 1MSc student - 2Department engineer;1,2Institute of Environmental Management, Department of Hydrogeology and Engineering Geology, H-3515 Miskolc-Egyetemváros, [email protected], [email protected] ABSTRACT Precipitation and pore water pressure increase can cause landslides not only on tropical climate, but also in Hungary. The determination of the effect of different amounts of precipitation is the main goal of this paper. The slope stability calculations were run by Soilvision’s coupled SVFlux and SVSlope modules. Due to the lack of knowledge of the input parameters several problem occurred by the evaluation of the results. Further investigation of the hydraulic and the geotechnical parameters of municipal solid wastes are suggested for more reliable calculations. INTRODUCTION Several large, sometimes fatal landfill failures in the world prove the effect of pore water pressure increase on slope stability. Since we have the opportunity to use the Soilvision software package, we tried to couple the SV Flux and the SV Slope modules to determine the effect of precipitation on landfills without cover systems (e.g. landfills under construction). The stability analysis of the failure (in February 2005) of the Leuwigajah dumpsite near Bandung, Indonesia proved that the failure most likely have been triggered by water pressure in the soft subsoil in combination with a severe damage of reinforcement particles due to a smoldering landfill fire. This result addresses a specific stability problem in tropical countries. Since precipitation is high (1500–2000 m per year), but non-uniform, both events may happen.
    [Show full text]
  • Reliability-Based Optimization Design of Geosynthetic Reinforced Embankment Slopes
    Scholars' Mine Doctoral Dissertations Student Theses and Dissertations Summer 2015 Reliability-based optimization design of geosynthetic reinforced embankment slopes Michelle (Mingyan) Deng Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/doctoral_dissertations Part of the Civil Engineering Commons Department: Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering Recommended Citation Deng, Michelle (Mingyan), "Reliability-based optimization design of geosynthetic reinforced embankment slopes" (2015). Doctoral Dissertations. 2407. https://scholarsmine.mst.edu/doctoral_dissertations/2407 This thesis is brought to you by Scholars' Mine, a service of the Missouri S&T Library and Learning Resources. This work is protected by U. S. Copyright Law. Unauthorized use including reproduction for redistribution requires the permission of the copyright holder. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RELIABILITY-BASED OPTIMIZATION DESIGN OF GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCED EMBANKMENT SLOPES by MICHELLE (MINGYAN) DENG A DISSERTATION Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the MISSOURI UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in CIVIL ENGINEERING 2015 Approved Ronaldo Luna, Advisor Bate Bate Xiaoming He Norbert Maerz Cesar Mendoza © 2015 Michelle (Mingyan) Deng All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT This study examines the optimization design of geosynthetic reinforced embank- ment slopes (GRES) considering both economic benefits and technical safety require- ments. In engineering design, cost is always a big concern. To minimize the cost, engineers tend to seek an optimal combination of design parameters among the considered alterna- tives while ensuring the optimal solution is safe. Reliability-based optimization (RBO) is such a technique that provides engineers the optimal design with the minimum cost while all technical design requirements are satisfied.
    [Show full text]
  • SVSLOPE® Support for Multi-Plane Analysis (MPA™)
    PRODUCT DATA SHEET SVSLOPE® Support for Multi-Plane Analysis (MPA™) SVSLOPE is the most advanced 3D slope stability analysis and slip surface search methods. The entire plane configuration process is designed so software available, with advanced searching methods that it is quick to perform on one or many planes at once. For example, the slope limits that are implemented to correctly determine the location may be defined for all planes at once by simply drawing a polygon that encloses the of the critical slip surface. The software provides you with area of interest on the 3D model. The slip surface search method is then automated, powerful 2D or 3D analysis for increased accuracy when with some options available to the user. calculating the factor of safety. Advanced probabilistic analysis or accommodation of spatial variation is possible Although there are multiple ways to create planes, the most common one, which with the software. SVSLOPE can be combined with was used in this case, is to simply select a point on each of the two banks. Planes SVFLUX™ to import pore-water pressures or SVSOLID™GT are then created along the slope automatically, at configurable distance intervals. to import soil stress conditions. The direction for each plane is automatically set based on the surface geometry. Each plane can be set to use multiple similar directions so that the critical direction Design and Analyze Different Locations Simultaneously is more likely to be found. Slope stability analysis is often targeted at topographically complex sites with features that vary greatly in three dimensions, or seemingly simple Results Collected and Aggregated into the Original 3D Model surface topology with strong and weak internal layers that vary across the for Visualization site.
    [Show full text]
  • W • 32°38'47.76”N 117°8'52.44”
    public access 32°32’4”N 117°7’22”W • 32°38’47.76”N 117°8’52.44”W • 33°6’14”N 117°19’10”W • 33°22’45”N 117°34’21”W • 33°45’25.07”N 118°14’53.26”W • 33°45’31.13”N 118°20’45.04”W • 33°53’38”N 118°25’0”W • 33°55’17”N 118°24’22”W • 34°23’57”N 119°30’59”W • 34°27’38”N 120°1’27”W • 34°29’24.65”N 120°13’44.56”W • 34°58’1.2”N 120°39’0”W • 35°8’54”N 120°38’53”W • 35°20’50.42”N 120°49’33.31”W • 35°35’1”N 121°7’18”W • 36°18’22.68”N 121°54’5.76”W • 36°22’16.9”N 121°54’6.05”W • 36°31’1.56”N 121°56’33.36”W • 36°58’20”N 121°54’50”W • 36°33’59”N 121°56’48”W • 36°35’5.42”N 121°57’54.36”W • 37°0’42”N 122°11’27”W • 37°10’54”N 122°23’38”W • 37°41’48”N 122°29’57”W • 37°45’34”N 122°30’39”W • 37°46’48”N 122°30’49”W • 37°47’0”N 122°28’0”W • 37°49’30”N 122°19’03”W • 37°49’40”N 122°30’22”W • 37°54’2”N 122°38’40”W • 37°54’34”N 122°41’11”W • 38°3’59.73”N 122°53’3.98”W • 38°18’39.6”N 123°3’57.6”W • 38°22’8.39”N 123°4’25.28”W • 38°23’34.8”N 123°5’40.92”W • 39°13’25”N 123°46’7”W • 39°16’30”N 123°46’0”W • 39°25’48”N 123°25’48”W • 39°29’36”N 123°47’37”W • 39°33’10”N 123°46’1”W • 39°49’57”N 123°51’7”W • 39°55’12”N 123°56’24”W • 40°1’50”N 124°4’23”W • 40°39’29”N 124°12’59”W • 40°45’13.53”N 124°12’54.73”W 41°18’0”N 124°0’0”W • 41°45’21”N 124°12’6”W • 41°52’0”N 124°12’0”W • 41°59’33”N 124°12’36”W Public Access David Horvitz & Ed Steck In late December of 2010 and early Janu- Some articles already had images, in which ary of 2011, I drove the entire California I added mine to them.
    [Show full text]
  • Slope Stability Verification Report
    OptumG2 Verification of slope stability Optum Computational Engineering | Hejrevej 37, 3. floor | 2400 Kbh. NV. +45 30 11 63 55 | [email protected] Verification of slope stability Date: : September 2019 Rev. Date : Page : 2 Table of content 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 3 2 ACADS models ........................................................................................................................ 3 2.1 Simple slope ..................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Non-homogenous slope .................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Non-homogenous with seismic load .................................................................................. 6 2.4 Slope with water table and weak seam ............................................................................. 7 2.5 Slope subjected to external loading and pore-pressure defined by water table ................. 9 3 James Bay Dike ..................................................................................................................... 11 Page 2 of 12 Verification of slope stability Date: : September 2019 Rev. Date : Page : 3 1 Introduction The following document contains a number of common slope stability problems. These are solved using the Strength Reduction analysis in OptumG2. The results are compared to results from
    [Show full text]
  • 1.1 Geography 486/586 Splansky and Laris 2005 PALOS VERDES PENINSULA I. HISTORY
    1.1 Geography 486/586 Splansky and Laris 2005 PALOS VERDES PENINSULA I. HISTORY: DATES AND PLACE NAMES In 1602 Sebastian Vizcaino, sailing northward from Acapulco, re-named the bay east of the peninsula San Pedro Bay (viewed on the Feast Day of Saint Peter). Earlier, it had been named the "Bay of Smokes" by Juan Cabrillo. Vizcaino also referred to and charted the existence of the Palos Verdes (green stalks) observed to the west of the bay. In 1784, Rancho San Pedro was granted to Juan Jose Dominguez. This change in land ownership status represented the first private land grant in Alta California and it included the Palos Verdes peninsula. Subsequent carving up of the Rancho San Pedro created one portion named Rancho de Los Palos Verdes which was acquired by the son of Juan Jose Sepulveda. In 1792, George Vancouver, on his return voyage from the Canadian Pacific coast, met and liked Father Fermin Francisco de Lasuen while visiting the Carmel Mission. Vancouver also met and liked Friar Vicente Santa Maria while visiting the San Buenaventura Mission. In 1793, while rounding the Palos Verdes peninsula, he named and charted Points Vicente and Fermin after the two clerics. II. PALOS VERDES: GENERAL TERMINOLOGY AND INFORMATION The Palos Verdes Peninsula is a northwest trending dome-like ridge, 9 miles long and up to 5 miles wide. Its crest has gentling rolling topography at elevations ranging from 1480 to 1100 feet above sea level. Below this upland, remnants of a flight of Pleistocene marine terraces ring the peninsula and demonstrate it was an island during most of its geomorphic evolution.
    [Show full text]
  • Deterministic and Probabilistic 3D Analysis of Slope Rupture at BR 116 PR/SP Highway in Unsaturated Soil
    MATEC Web of Conferences 337 , 03014 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/202133703014 PanAm-UNSAT 2021 Deterministic and probabilistic 3D analysis of slope rupture at BR 116 PR/SP highway in unsaturated soil Bianca Riselo1*, Larissa Passini2, and Alessander Kormann2 1MSc. Student, Graduate Program in Civil Construction Engineering, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba 81531, Brazil 2Professor, Graduate Program in Civil Construction Engineering, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba 81531, Brazil Abstract. This research was developed with the purpose of presenting a deterministic and probabilistic assessment of the stability of slope located in state of São Paulo-Brazil, in the area denominated Serra Pelada, BR 116 PR/SP, with the incorporation of different suction scenarios in the unsaturated soil. The methodology was composed by 2D and 3D modelling of the slope, in the SoilVision’s SVSlope software, with the imposition of two water levels on the slope, one of 6.5 meters deep and another of 7.5 meters. The results demonstrate the variability of the probability of rupture, the safety factor, and the quantification of mobilized mass volume, in the six suction scenarios. As a result, it is possible to conclude with the analysis that the greater the surface suction in the unsaturated soil, the greater the safety factors of the slope and the lower the probability of rupture. It is also prudent to add that the incorporation of the variability of the geotechnical parameters in the probability analysis of stability, together with the 3D modelling of the slope, allow a more reliable analysis, presenting results of greater applicability in subsequent analyses.
    [Show full text]
  • Software Used in Slope Stability Analysis Tejas D
    IJSRD - International Journal for Scientific Research & Development| Vol. 3, Issue 02, 2015 | ISSN (online): 2321-0613 Software Used in Slope Stability Analysis Tejas D. Parmar1 Prof (Dr.) S. P.Dave2 1PG Student 2Professor 1,2Department of Applied Mechanics 1,2L.D. College of Engineering, Ahmedabad, India Abstract— The slope stability is a very important problem in surface. Bishop (1955) advanced the first method geotechnical engineering. Slope stability analysis using introducing a new relationship for the base normal force. computers is an easy task for engineers when the slope The equation for the FOS hence became non‐linear. At the configuration and the soil parameters are known. However, same time, Janbu (1954a) developed a simplified method for the selection of the slope stability analysis method is not an non‐circular failure surfaces, dividing a potential sliding easy task and effort should be made to collect the field mass into several vertical slices. The generalized procedure conditions and the failure observations in order to of slices (GPS) was developed at the same time as a further understand the failure mechanism, which determines the development of the simplified method (Janbu 1973). Later, slope stability method that should be used in the analysis. Morgenstern‐Price (1965), Spencer (1967), Sarma (1973) Two dimensional slope stability methods are the most and several others made further contributions with different common used methods among engineers due to their assumptions for the interslice forces. simplicity. Today, both limit equilibrium method (LEM) and 2) Finite Element Method (FEM): finite element method (FEM) based software are commonly The safety factor computed using the LEM is not uniquely used in geotechnical computations.
    [Show full text]
  • GEOMORPHIC LANDFORM DESIGN PRINCIPLES APPLIED to an ABANDONED COAL REFUSE PILE in CENTRAL APPALACHIA1 Leslie C
    Journal American Society of Mining and Reclamation, 2017 Vol.6, No.2 GEOMORPHIC LANDFORM DESIGN PRINCIPLES APPLIED TO AN ABANDONED COAL REFUSE PILE IN CENTRAL APPALACHIA1 Leslie C. Hopkinson2, Jeffrey T. Lorimer, Jeffrey R. Stevens, Harold Russell, Jennifer Hause, John D. Quaranta, Paul F. Ziemkiewicz Abstract. Geomorphic landform design is a reclamation technique that may offer opportunities to improve aspects of mine reclamation in Central Appalachia. The design approach is based on constructing a steady-state, mature landform condition and takes into account the long-term climatic conditions, soil types, terrain grade, and vegetation. Geomorphic reclamation has been applied successfully in semi- arid regions but has not yet been applied in Central Appalachia. This work describes a demonstration study where geomorphic landforming techniques are being applied to a coarse coal refuse pile in southern West Virginia, USA. The reclamation design includes four geomorphic watersheds that radially drain runoff from the pile. Each watershed has one central draining channel and incorporates compound slope profiles similarly to naturally eroded slopes. Planar slopes were also included to maintain the impacted area. The intent is to reduce infiltration rates which will decrease water quality treatment costs at the site. The excavation cut and fill volumes balanced to approximately 250,000 yd3. This volume is comparable to those of more conventional refuse pile reclamation designs. If proven successful then this technique can be part of a cost-effective solution to improve water quality at active and future refuse facilities, abandoned mine lands, bond forfeiture sites, landfills, and major earthmoving activities within the region. Additional Key Words: demonstration site, channel design, short paper fiber _______________________________ 1 Paper presented at the 2017 National Meeting of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation, Morgantown, WV What’s Next for Reclamation April 9-13, 2017.
    [Show full text]
  • Response Surface Methods for Slope Reliability Analysis: Review and Comparison
    Engineering Geology 203 (2016) 3–14 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Engineering Geology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enggeo Response surface methods for slope reliability analysis: Review and comparison Dian-Qing Li a,DongZhenga,Zi-JunCaoa,⁎, Xiao-Song Tang a, Kok-Kwang Phoon b a State Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Hydropower Engineering Science, Key Laboratory of Rock Mechanics in Hydraulic Structural Engineering (Ministry of Education), Wuhan University, 8 Donghu South Road, Wuhan 430072, PR China b Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, National University of Singapore, Blk E1A, #07-03, 1 Engineering Drive 2, Singapore 117576, Singapore article info abstract Article history: This paper reviews previous studies on developments and applications of response surface methods (RSMs) in Received 1 June 2015 different slope reliability problems. Based on the review, four types of soil slope reliability analysis problems Received in revised form 9 August 2015 are identified from the literature, including single-layered soil slope reliability problem ignoring spatial variabil- Accepted 15 September 2015 ity, single-layered soil slope reliability problem considering spatial variability, multiple-layered soil slope reliabil- Available online 24 September 2015 ity problem ignoring spatial variability, and multiple-layered soil slope reliability problem considering spatial variability, which are referred to as “Type I–IV problems” in this study. Then, the computational efficiency and Keywords: Slope stability accuracy of four commonly-used RSMs (namely single quadratic polynomial-based response surface method Uncertainty (SQRSM), single stochastic response surface method (SSRSM), multiple quadratic polynomial-based response Reliability analysis surface method (MQRSM), and multiple stochastic response surface method (MSRSM)) are systematically Response surface method compared for cohesive and c–ϕ slopes, and their feasibility and validity in the four types of slope reliability Computational efficiency problems are discussed.
    [Show full text]
  • Alta Vicente Habitat Restoration Plan 1
    D R A F T 2007 HABITAT RESTORATION PLAN for Alta Vicente Ecological Reserve in the Portuguese Bend Nature Preserve for the Rancho Palos Verdes Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan Prepared for: THE CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES 30940 Hawthorne Boulevard Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275 Prepared by: PALOS VERDES PENINSULA LAND CONSERVANCY 916 Silver Spur Road #207 Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274-3826 Contact: Andrea Vona In Coordination with: 605 Third Street Encinitas, CA 92024 Contact: Andy Thomson (760) 479-4282 Draft 2007 Habitat Restoration Plan Alta Vicente Ecological Reserve TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................... iv 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................1 2.0 SITE SUITABILITY ANALYSIS ...........................................................................4 2.1 Portuguese Bend Nature Preserve Ecological Reserves ..............................................4 2.2 Evaluation Criteria.................................................................................................................4 2.2 Site Selection..........................................................................................................................6 3.0 Existing conditions- Proposed Restoration site ..................................................7 3.1 Site Description .....................................................................................................................7
    [Show full text]