DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment for Rehabilitation of the Levee System in the Title: Tijuana River Flood Control Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment for Rehabilitation of the Levee System in the Title: Tijuana River Flood Control Project Environmental Assessment for Rehabilitation of the Levee System in the Title: Tijuana River Flood Control Project Version: DRAFT Date: December 2016 Prepared for: International Boundary and Water Commission 4171 N Mesa St., Suite C310 El Paso, TX 79902 Prepared by: 848 W. Hadley Ave. Las Cruces, NM 88005 Contract Number: IBM09D0008 Task Order Number: IBM10T0048 Environmental Assessment for Rehabilitation of the Levee System in the Tijuana River Flood Control Project Draft TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose and Need for Action ........................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2.1 USIBWC Authority ............................................................................................ 1-1 1.2.2 Flood Control Project Description ...................................................................... 1-3 1.2.2.1 History and Development ................................................................... 1-3 1.2.2.2 Description of the Levees in the Tijuana River FCP .......................... 1-5 1.3 Consultations and Public Involvement ............................................................................ 1-5 1.3.1 Agency Consultation........................................................................................... 1-5 1.3.2 Public Involvement ............................................................................................. 1-6 1.3.2.1 Scoping ............................................................................................... 1-6 1.3.2.2 Draft EA Review ................................................................................ 1-6 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES .................................. 2-1 2.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 North Levee Enlargement ................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 North Levee Embankment Protection ................................................................. 2-2 2.1.3 Rodent Burrow Repair and Mitigation ............................................................... 2-2 2.1.4 Removal of Sediment and Debris ....................................................................... 2-5 2.2 No Action Alternative ...................................................................................................... 2-5 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ................ 3-1 3.1 Water Resources .............................................................................................................. 3-2 3.1.1 Affected Environment ......................................................................................... 3-2 3.1.1.1 Flood Control ..................................................................................... 3-2 3.1.1.2 Hydrology ........................................................................................... 3-3 3.1.1.3 Groundwater Resources ..................................................................... 3-3 3.1.1.4 Water Quality ..................................................................................... 3-5 3.1.2 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................. 3-6 3.1.2.1 Proposed Action ................................................................................. 3-6 3.1.2.2 No Action Alternative ........................................................................ 3-7 3.2 Biological Resources ....................................................................................................... 3-7 3.2.1 Affected Environment ......................................................................................... 3-7 3.2.1.1 Vegetation .......................................................................................... 3-7 3.2.1.2 Wildlife ............................................................................................... 3-8 3.2.1.3 Threatened and Endangered Species .................................................. 3-9 3.2.1.4 Aquatic Ecosystems ......................................................................... 3-15 3.2.1.5 Unique or Sensitive Areas ................................................................ 3-15 3.2.1.6 Wetlands ........................................................................................... 3-15 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................... 3-16 3.2.2.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................... 3-16 i Environmental Assessment for Rehabilitation of the Levee System in the Tijuana River Flood Control Project Draft 3.2.2.2 No Action Alternative ...................................................................... 3-18 3.3 Land Use ........................................................................................................................ 3-19 3.3.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-19 3.3.1.1 Residential and Commercial............................................................. 3-19 3.3.1.2 Agricultural ...................................................................................... 3-19 3.3.1.3 Recreational and Natural Resource Areas ........................................ 3-21 3.3.1.4 Other Significant Land Uses in the Project Vicinity ........................ 3-21 3.3.1.5 Land Use Planning Documents ........................................................ 3-22 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................... 3-23 3.3.2.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................... 3-23 3.3.2.2 No Action Alternative ...................................................................... 3-23 3.4 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 3-23 3.4.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-23 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................... 3-24 3.4.2.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................... 3-24 3.4.2.2 No Action Alternative ...................................................................... 3-25 3.5 Socioeconomic Resources and Transportation .............................................................. 3-25 3.5.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-25 3.5.1.1 Regional Economics ......................................................................... 3-25 3.5.1.2 Environmental Justice ...................................................................... 3-27 3.5.1.3 Transportation .................................................................................. 3-28 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................... 3-29 3.5.2.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................... 3-29 3.5.2.2 No Action Alternative ...................................................................... 3-30 3.6 Environmental Health .................................................................................................... 3-30 3.6.1 Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 3-30 3.6.1.1 Air Quality ........................................................................................ 3-30 3.6.1.2 Noise ................................................................................................. 3-31 3.6.1.3 Public Health and Environmental Hazards ....................................... 3-32 3.6.2 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................... 3-34 3.6.2.1 Proposed Action ............................................................................... 3-34 3.6.2.2 No Action Alternative ...................................................................... 3-37 4.0 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES ......................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................................................... 4-1 4.1.1 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ........................................... 4-1 4.1.2 Cumulative Impacts Summary ............................................................................ 4-1 4.1.2.1 Proposed Action ................................................................................. 4-1 4.1.2.2 No Action Alternative ........................................................................ 4-3 4.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Improvements to the Tijuana River Flood Control Project
    Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Improvements to the Tijuana River Flood Control Project Lead Agency: United States Section International Boundary and Water Commission El Paso, Texas Cooperating Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District, California Technical Support: August 2007 PARSONS Austin, Texas Cover Sheet PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT IMPROVEMENTS TO THE TIJUANA RIVER FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT (X) Draft ( ) Final Lead Agency The USIBWC will apply the programmatic evaluation as an overall guidance for future United States Section, International environmental evaluations of individual Boundary and Water Commission improvement projects, the implementation (USIBWC) of which is anticipated or possible within a El Paso, Texas 20-year timeframe. Cooperating Agencies Other Requirements Served U.S. Army Corps of Engineers This PEIS is intended to serve other Abstract environmental review and consultation requirements pursuant to 40 CFR The USIBWC anticipates the need to 1502.25(a) improve capabilities or functionality of the Tijuana River Flood Control Project. Comments Submittal Improvement measures associated with the The Draft PEIS will be available for a project core mission of flood protection and 45-day public review period. Comments boundary stabilization are evaluated under should be directed by September 24, 2007 the Enhanced Operation and Maintenance to: (EOM) Alternative, while measures in support of local or regional initiatives for Mr. Daniel Borunda increased utilization of the project or to Environmental Management Division improve environmental conditions are USIBWC evaluated under the Multipurpose Project 4171 North Mesa St., C-100 Management (MPM) Alternative. El Paso, Texas 79902 This Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) evaluates potential Date of Draft Availability to USEPA and environmental consequences alternatives the Public: under consideration for improvement of the Tijuana River Flood Control Project.
    [Show full text]
  • Physical Geography of Southeast Asia
    Physical Geography of Southeast Asia Creating an Annotated Sketch Map of Southeast Asia By Michelle Crane Teacher Consultant for the Texas Alliance for Geographic Education Texas Alliance for Geographic Education; http://www.geo.txstate.edu/tage/ September 2013 Guiding Question (5 min.) . What processes are responsible for the creation and distribution of the landforms and climates found in Southeast Asia? Texas Alliance for Geographic Education; http://www.geo.txstate.edu/tage/ September 2013 2 Draw a sketch map (10 min.) . This should be a general sketch . do not try to make your map exactly match the book. Just draw the outline of the region . do not add any features at this time. Use a regular pencil first, so you can erase. Once you are done, trace over it with a black colored pencil. Leave a 1” border around your page. Texas Alliance for Geographic Education; http://www.geo.txstate.edu/tage/ September 2013 3 Texas Alliance for Geographic Education; http://www.geo.txstate.edu/tage/ September 2013 4 Looking at your outline map, what two landforms do you see that seem to dominate this region? Predict how these two landforms would affect the people who live in this region? Texas Alliance for Geographic Education; http://www.geo.txstate.edu/tage/ September 2013 5 Peninsulas & Islands . Mainland SE Asia consists of . Insular SE Asia consists of two large peninsulas thousands of islands . Malay Peninsula . Label these islands in black: . Indochina Peninsula . Sumatra . Label these peninsulas in . Java brown . Sulawesi (Celebes) . Borneo (Kalimantan) . Luzon Texas Alliance for Geographic Education; http://www.geo.txstate.edu/tage/ September 2013 6 Draw a line on your map to indicate the division between insular and mainland SE Asia.
    [Show full text]
  • Imaging Laurentide Ice Sheet Drainage Into the Deep Sea: Impact on Sediments and Bottom Water
    Imaging Laurentide Ice Sheet Drainage into the Deep Sea: Impact on Sediments and Bottom Water Reinhard Hesse*, Ingo Klaucke, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2A7, Canada William B. F. Ryan, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University, Palisades, NY 10964-8000 Margo B. Edwards, Hawaii Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822 David J. W. Piper, Geological Survey of Canada—Atlantic, Bedford Institute of Oceanography, Dartmouth, Nova Scotia B2Y 4A2, Canada NAMOC Study Group† ABSTRACT the western Atlantic, some 5000 to 6000 State-of-the-art sidescan-sonar imagery provides a bird’s-eye view of the giant km from their source. submarine drainage system of the Northwest Atlantic Mid-Ocean Channel Drainage of the ice sheet involved (NAMOC) in the Labrador Sea and reveals the far-reaching effects of drainage of the repeated collapse of the ice dome over Pleistocene Laurentide Ice Sheet into the deep sea. Two large-scale depositional Hudson Bay, releasing vast numbers of ice- systems resulting from this drainage, one mud dominated and the other sand bergs from the Hudson Strait ice stream in dominated, are juxtaposed. The mud-dominated system is associated with the short time spans. The repeat interval was meandering NAMOC, whereas the sand-dominated one forms a giant submarine on the order of 104 yr. These dramatic ice- braid plain, which onlaps the eastern NAMOC levee. This dichotomy is the result of rafting events, named Heinrich events grain-size separation on an enormous scale, induced by ice-margin sifting off the (Broecker et al., 1992), occurred through- Hudson Strait outlet.
    [Show full text]
  • May 18, 2012 Projection of the CARB 2008 Emissions Inventory For
    May 18, 2012 Projection of the CARB 2008 Emissions Inventory for Northern Mexico to Future Years INTRODUCTION In ERG (2009), the baseline 1999 national emissions inventory for Mexico was projected to the years 2008, 2012, and 2030. These projections were used to extrapolate the year 2008 emissions inventory for Baja California (CARB, 2012) to the years 2023 and 2030 for air quality analyses within southern California. In their analyses, ERG (2009) used projections of population growth, industrial development, and land use planning to estimate future emissions; in many cases, by individual source classification code (SCC). However, this level of detail is beyond the scope of what can be done in the short term. Also, while the emissions inventory generated for Baja California by the CARB (2012) used ERG’s year 2008 inventory as a starting point, the final inventory was appreciably different. In this analysis, the relative changes in emissions growth quantified by ERG for the years 1999, 2008, and 2030 were used to prepare emissions-response curves, which were then used to scale the CARB 2008 inventory to future years. PREPARATION OF EMISSIONS RESPONSE FUNCTIONS The emissions inventories developed by ERG (2009) for the years 1999, 2008, 2012, and 2030 were provided in four broadly defined groups: on-road, non-road, point, and non-point emissions. Within these groups, emissions for CO, NOx, SOx, COT (VOC), PM10 (PM), and NH3 were provided by State and by Municipality. To avoid being confounded by differences in spatial distributions and source classifications, emissions within each group were summed by State and Municipality.
    [Show full text]
  • Spatial Variability of Levees As Measured Using the CPT
    2nd International Symposium on Cone Penetration Testing, Huntington Beach, CA, USA, May 2010 Spatial Variability of Levees as Measured Using the CPT R.E.S. Moss Assistant Professor, Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo J. C. Hollenback Graduate Researcher, U.C. Berkeley J. Ng Undergraduate Researcher, Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo ABSTRACT: The spatial variability of a soil deposit is something that is commonly discussed but difficult to quantify. The heterogeneity as a function of lateral distance can be critical to the design of long engineered structures such as highways, bridges, levees, and other lifelines. This paper presents a methodology for using CPT mea- surements to quantifying the spatial variability of cone tip resistance along a levee in the California Bay Delta. The results, presented in the form of a general relative va- riogram, identify the distance at which the maximum spatial variability is achieved for a given soil strata. This information helps define minimally correlated stretches of levee for proper failure and risk analysis. Presented herein are methods of interpret- ing, calculating, and analyzing CPT data to arrive at the quantified spatial variability with respect to different static and seismic failure modes common to levee systems. 1 INTRODUCTION Spatial variability of engineering properties in soil strata is inherent to the nature of soil. Spatial variability is controlled primarily by the depositional environment where high energy systems usually deposit materials with high spatial variability (e.g. al- luvial gravels) and low energy systems usually deposit materials with low spatial va- riability (e.g. lacustrine clays). This spatial variability is generally taken into account in geotechnical design in a qualitative empirical manner through appropriately spaced borings to assess the changing subsurface conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • LIESSE Où Klaxonner Pour Faire Chier P. 17 LA POSTE Schwaller De Rien P. 16 DÉCROISSANCE Un Art Consommé P. 7 FOOT Bilan Et P
    Vendredi 22 juin 2018 // No 369 // 9e année CHF 4.– // Abonnement annuel CHF 160.– // www.vigousse.ch FOOT DÉCROISSANCE LA POSTE LIESSE Bilan et perspectives Un art consommé Schwaller Où klaxonner pour PP. 2, 3, 4, 14 P. 7 de rien P. 16 faire chier P. 17 JAA – 1001 Lausanne P.P./Journal – Poste CH SA – Poste Lausanne P.P./Journal JAA – 1001 2 C’EST PAS POUR DIRE ! POINT V 3 opposants se font mystérieusement empoisonner, un Etat qui inonde le Y a faute, ou bien ? reste du monde de fake news, de faits Parité bien alternatifs, de théories du complot et FOOT NEWS On nous cache tout, on nous dit rien ! La vérité est de désinformation stupide, une clique malmenée de partout, sauf, heureusement, dans le seul domaine qui truque toutes les élections depuis qui compte : le football. des années, bref, le royaume du faux ordonnée… et de la magouille. Mais pour le foot, faut pas déconner quand même : on Séverine André Ce lundi, tandis que les petits Suisses mais y a hors-jeu là ! » ; « Hé ! Quel peut parfaitement faire confiance à se remettaient à peine de la nuit de connard, il l’a poussé ! » ; ou « Quel ces mythos. Car le football, c’est la t soudain, dimanche 17 juin, après des folie faisant suite au glorieux match enculé, il s’est laissé tomber ! » Très vérité. nul contre le Brésil, les élèves fran- clairement, c’est le cas que p si, et siècles d’iniquité, la Suisse s’enthousiasme çais gambergeaient sec devant leur seulement si, il y a effectivement Autre preuve que la vérité, c’est pour l’égalité.
    [Show full text]
  • Date: Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:43 AM
    From: Jones, Allen To: Hall, Vince; Shepard, Tom; McCormack, Irene; DRBOB Subject: AJ"s edits to first draft of State of the City address Date: Saturday, January 05, 2013 4:29:20 PM Attachments: Attached are my revised additions to the SoC in response to our discussion today. Allen ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Tom Shepard <[email protected]> Date: Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:43 AM Subject: First draft of State of the City speech To: Vince Hall < > Attached is a first draft of the State of the City speech. As I mentioned when we first discussed this, the draft should be viewed as a framework, not a completed document. I’ve highlighted in yellow paragraphs that are still needed but that are outside my areas of expertise. Among these, I’ve already asked Chris Frahm to give us a paragraph on water policy, which she has promised by next week. Also, please note that it has been a custom in some previous SoCs to solicit suggestions from the council members about specific initiatives they would like the mayor to call out and for which they would like to be recognized. Not sure if you want to do this, but if so the appropriate place would be right after Bob’s recognition of them in the current draft. To expedite the process of completing this, I suggest we schedule a meeting with Bob sometime this next week to go over the draft, get his feedback, and make assignments for additional items that need to be added. I stand ready to revise, add, delete (or in any other way you direct) take responsibility for ensuring Bob ends up with a final product with which he is satisfied.
    [Show full text]
  • Groundwater Issues in the Paleozoic Plateau a Taste of Karst, a Modicum of Geology, and a Whole Lot of Scenery
    GGroundwaterroundwater IssuesIssues inin tthehe PaleozoicPaleozoic PlateauPlateau A Taste of Karst, a Modicum of Geology, and a Whole Lot of Scenery Iowa Groundwater Association Field Trip Guidebook No. 1 Iowa Geological and Water Survey Guidebook Series No. 27 Dunning Spring, near Decorah in Winneshiek County, Iowa September 29, 2008 In Conjunction with the 53rd Annual Midwest Ground Water Conference Grand River Center, Dubuque, Iowa, September 30 – October 2, 2008 Groundwater Issues in the Paleozoic Plateau A Taste of Karst, a Modicum of Geology, and a Whole Lot of Scenery Iowa Groundwater Association Field Trip Guidebook No. 1 Iowa Geological and Water Survey Guidebook Series No. 27 In Conjunction with the 53rd Annual Midwest Ground Water Conference Grand River Center, Dubuque, Iowa, September 30 – October 2, 2008 With contributions by M.K. Anderson Robert McKay Iowa DNR-Water Supply Engineering Iowa DNR-Geological and Water Survey Bruce Blair Jeff Myrom Iowa DNR-Forestry Iowa DNR-Solid Waste Michael Bounk Eric O’Brien Iowa DNR-Geological and Water Survey Iowa DNR-Geological and Water Survey Karen Osterkamp Lora Friest Iowa DNR-Fisheries Northeast Iowa Resource Conservation and Development Jean C. Prior Iowa DNR-Geological and Water Survey James Hedges Luther College James Ranum Natural Resources Conservation Service John Hogeman Winneshiek County Landfi ll Operator Robert Rowden Iowa DNR-Geological and Water Survey Claire Hruby Iowa DNR-Geographic Information Systems Joe Sanfi lippo Iowa DNR-Manchester Field Offi ce Bill Kalishek Gary Siegwarth Iowa DNR-Fisheries Iowa DNR-Fisheries George E. Knudson Mary Skopec Luther College Iowa DNR-Geological and Water Survey Bob Libra Stephanie Surine Iowa DNR-Geological and Water Survey Iowa DNR-Geological and Water Survey Huaibao Liu Paul VanDorpe Iowa DNR-Geological and Water Survey Iowa DNR-Geological and Water Survey Iowa Department of Natural Resources Richard Leopold, Director September 2008 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .
    [Show full text]
  • Part 629 – Glossary of Landform and Geologic Terms
    Title 430 – National Soil Survey Handbook Part 629 – Glossary of Landform and Geologic Terms Subpart A – General Information 629.0 Definition and Purpose This glossary provides the NCSS soil survey program, soil scientists, and natural resource specialists with landform, geologic, and related terms and their definitions to— (1) Improve soil landscape description with a standard, single source landform and geologic glossary. (2) Enhance geomorphic content and clarity of soil map unit descriptions by use of accurate, defined terms. (3) Establish consistent geomorphic term usage in soil science and the National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS). (4) Provide standard geomorphic definitions for databases and soil survey technical publications. (5) Train soil scientists and related professionals in soils as landscape and geomorphic entities. 629.1 Responsibilities This glossary serves as the official NCSS reference for landform, geologic, and related terms. The staff of the National Soil Survey Center, located in Lincoln, NE, is responsible for maintaining and updating this glossary. Soil Science Division staff and NCSS participants are encouraged to propose additions and changes to the glossary for use in pedon descriptions, soil map unit descriptions, and soil survey publications. The Glossary of Geology (GG, 2005) serves as a major source for many glossary terms. The American Geologic Institute (AGI) granted the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) permission (in letters dated September 11, 1985, and September 22, 1993) to use existing definitions. Sources of, and modifications to, original definitions are explained immediately below. 629.2 Definitions A. Reference Codes Sources from which definitions were taken, whole or in part, are identified by a code (e.g., GG) following each definition.
    [Show full text]
  • Documentation of Design Deficiencies Santa Clara River Levee System (Scr-1) 1
    DOCUMENTATION OF DESIGN DEFICIENCIES SANTA CLARA RIVER LEVEE SYSTEM (SCR-1) 1. Project Description and Watershed Characteristics The Santa Clara River Levee (SCR-1) system is located in the city of Oxnard, in Ventura County, California. It is approximately 4.72 miles long, extending along the southeast bank of the Santa Clara River from Highway 101, at its downstream terminus, to the community of Saticoy, at its upstream terminus (see Figure 1). SCR-1 was originally designed in 1958 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to control the Corps’ predicted Standard Project Flood peak discharge of 225,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), a peak emanating from a partially regulated 1,600-square-mile Santa Clara River watershed. The height of SCR-1 varies from approximately 4 feet to 13 feet. The compacted fill embankment that forms SCR-1 has a top width of 18 feet. The levee embankment slopes are 2 horizontal to 1 vertical (2H:1V), on both the landward side and the riverward side. The riverward side of the embankment has a 1.5- to 2- foot-thick rock revetment, with a concrete facing at and near highway bridges. The rock revetment extends from the top of the embankment to varying depths. The lowest depth of the rock revetment is hereinafter referred to as the “toedown.” Construction of the SCR-1 project was completed in 1961. The levee was constructed adjacent to the active channel of the Santa Clara River. A review of historical aerial photography, dating as far back as 1927, indicates that before construction of the SCR-1, there were numerous locations along the project reach where the primary braid of the Santa Clara River impinged directly on the east and west banks of the river at rather abrupt flow angles.
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting Notice and Agenda
    MEETING NOTICE AND AGENDA COMMITTEE ON BINATIONAL REGIONAL OPPORTUNITIES (COBRO) The Committee on Binational Regional Opportunities (COBRO) may take action on any item appearing on this agenda. Tuesday, February 7, 2006 3 – 4:30 p.m. SANDAG, 7th Floor Conference Room 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101-4231 AGENDA HIGHLIGHTS • DRAFT BINATIONAL PLANNING CONTACTS GUIDE FOR THE SAN DIEGO – BAJA CALIFORNIA REGION • REPORT ON THE SAN DIEGO – BAJA CALIFORNIA MISSION TO MEXICO CITY • UPDATE ON THE OTAY MESA – MESA DE OTAY BINATIONAL CORRIDOR STRATEGIC PLAN MISSION STATEMENT The Committee on Binational Regional Opportunities (COBRO) will advise the Borders Committee of the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) concerning both short- and long-term binational related activities, issues, and actions; provide recommendations regarding binational border-related planning and development; and identify ways to assist and coordinate with existing efforts in the binational area. The COBRO will serve as a working group to the SANDAG Borders Committee to facilitate a better understanding of the binational border- related issues and needs of the California-Baja California region. Welcome to SANDAG! Members of the public may speak to the COBRO on any item at the time that the Committee is considering the item. Please complete a Speaker’s Slip which is located in the rear of the room and then present the slip to Committee staff. Also, members of the public are invited to address the Committee on any issue under the agenda item entitled Public Comments/Communications. Speakers are limited to three minutes. The COBRO may take action on any item appearing on the agenda.
    [Show full text]
  • Hogback Is Ridge Formed by Near- Vertical, Resistant Sedimentary Rock
    Chapter 16 Landscape Evolution: Geomorphology Topography is a Balance Between Erosion and Tectonic Uplift 1 Topography is a Balance Between Erosion and Tectonic Uplift 2 Relief • The relief in an area is the maximum difference between the highest and lowest elevation. – We have about 7000 feet of relief between Boulder and the Continental divide. Relief 3 Mountains and Valleys • A mountain is a large mass of rock that projects above surrounding terrain. • A mountain range is a continuous area of high elevation and high relief. • A valley is an area of low relief typically formed by and drained by a single stream. • A basin is a large low-lying area of low relief. In arid areas basins commonly have closed topography (no river outlet to the sea). Mountains • Typically occur in ranges. • Glaciated forms –Horn –Arête • Desert Mountains – Vertical Cliffs – Alluvial Fans 4 Mountain Landforms: Horn Deserts: Vertical Cliffs and Alluvial Fans 5 Valleys and Basins • River Valleys – U-shape (Glacial) – V-shape (Active Water erosion) – Flat-floored (depositional flood plain) • Tectonic (Fault) Valleys (Basins) – Tectonic origin – San Luis Valley – Jackson Hole – Great Basin U-shaped Valley: Glacial Erosion 6 V-shaped Valley: Active water erosion Flat-floored Valley: Depositional Flood Plain 7 Desert and Semi-arid Landforms • A plateau is a broad area of uplift with relatively little internal relief. • A mesa is a small (<10 km2)plateau bounded by cliffs, commonly in an area of flat-lying sedimentary rocks. • A butte is a small (<1000m2) hill bounded by cliffs Plateau, Mesa, Butte 8 Colorado National Monument Canyonlands 9 Desert and Semi-arid Landforms • A cuesta is an asymmetric ridge in dipping sedimentary rocks as the Flatirons.
    [Show full text]