DOCSLIB.ORG

Flood Mitigation Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Flood Mitigation Plan Butte County Flood Mitigation Plan Butte County January 2006 Prepared by: BUTTE COUNTY FLOOD MITIGATION PLA N January 2006 Prepared by: TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................... ix SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 1-1 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................... 1-1 Climate ................................................................................................................................. 1-1 Physical Features................................................................................................................. 1-1 Population and Economy ..................................................................................................... 1-1 Watersheds ........................................................................................................................... 1-1 GOALS OF THE FLOOD MITIGATION PLAN ............................................................................... 1-3 BUTTE COUNTY WATERSHEDS OVERVIEW ............................................................................. 1-4 Big Chico Creek Watershed ................................................................................................. 1-4 Butte Creek Watershed ........................................................................................................ 1-4 Cherokee Watershed ............................................................................................................ 1-4 Feather River/Lower Honcut Creek Watershed .................................................................. 1-4 Lake Oroville/Upper Feather River Watershed ................................................................... 1-5 Little Chico Creek Watershed .............................................................................................. 1-5 Pine Creek Watershed.......................................................................................................... 1-5 EXISTING BUTTE COUNTY FLOOD REGULATIONS ................................................................... 1-6 SECTION 2.0 PLANNING PROCESS ................................................................................... 2-1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ............................................................................................................ 2-1 AGENCY COORDINATION ........................................................................................................ 2-2 LOCAL CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................... 2-2 SECTION 3.0 RISK ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................... 3-1 BIG CHICO CREEK WATERSHED ............................................................................................. 3-2 BUTTE CREEK WATERSHED .................................................................................................... 3-4 CHEROKEE WATERSHED ......................................................................................................... 3-5 FEATHER RIVER/LOWER HONCUT CREEK WATERSHED .......................................................... 3-7 LAKE OROVILLE/UPPER FEATHER RIVER WATERSHED .......................................................... 3-9 ii Table of Contents January 2006 LITTLE CHICO CREEK WATERSHED ...................................................................................... 3-10 PINE CREEK WATERSHED ..................................................................................................... 3-11 OTHER FLOOD-RELATED HAZARDS: BRIDGES ..................................................................... 3-12 OTHER FLOOD-RELATED HAZARDS: LAND USE PLANNING ................................................. 3-13 OTHER FLOOD-RELATED HAZARDS: LOCAL DRAINAGE ...................................................... 3-15 ASSESSING VULNERABILITY: IDENTIFYING ASSETS ............................................................. 3-16 Critical Facilities ............................................................................................................... 3-16 Improvements Parcel Assets .............................................................................................. 3-17 ASSESSING VULNERABILITY: ESTIMATING POTENTIAL LOSSES ........................................... 3-48 Flood Insurance Premiums and Claims ............................................................................ 3-48 Repetitive Losses ................................................................................................................ 3-48 Damage Survey Reports ..................................................................................................... 3-51 Potential Losses Estimate .................................................................................................. 3-51 MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL RISK ASSESSMENT ......................................................................... 3-52 SECTION 4.0 MITIGATION MEASURES........................................................................... 4-1 BIG CHICO CREEK WATERSHED: LINDO CHANNEL DIVERSION .............................................. 4-2 BIG CHICO CREEK WATERSHED: SYCAMORE CREEK .............................................................. 4-3 BIG CHICO CREEK WATERSHED: ROCK CREEK-KEEFER SLOUGH SPLIT ................................... 4-4 BIG CHICO CREEK WATERSHED: CONFLUENCE OF BIG CHICO CREEK AND LINDO CHANNEL 4-5 BIG CHICO CREEK WATERSHED: ROCK CREEK ...................................................................... 4-6 BIG CHICO CREEK WATERSHED: SACRAMENTO RIVER .......................................................... 4-7 BUTTE CREEK WATERSHED: BUTTE CREEK LEVEES .............................................................. 4-8 CHEROKEE WATERSHED: CHEROKEE CANAL ......................................................................... 4-9 CHEROKEE WATERSHED: CHEMICAL FACILITIES STORAGE IN THE FEMA SFHA ................ 4-10 FEATHER RIVER/LOWER HONCUT CREEK WATERSHED: NORTH FORK OF DRY CREEK ........ 4-11 FEATHER RIVER/LOWER HONCUT CREEK WATERSHED: DRY CREEK TRIBUTARIES CONFLUENCE ........................................................................................................................ 4-12 iii Table of Contents January 2006 FEATHER RIVER/LOWER HONCUT CREEK WATERSHED: FEATHER RIVER ............................ 4-13 FEATHER RIVER/LOWER HONCUT CREEK WATERSHED: CITY OF OROVILLE STORMWATER DRAINAGE ............................................................................................................................ 4-14 FEATHE RIVER/LOWER HONCUT CREEK WATERSHED: WYMAN RAVINE .............................. 4-15 LAKE OROVILLE/UPPER FEATHER RIVER WATERSHED: CONCOW CREEK AND CIRBY CREEK ................................................................................................................................... 4-16 LITTLE CHICO CREEK WATERSHED: VEGETATION IN LITTLE CHICO CREEK ........................ 4-17 LITTLE CHICO CREEK WATERSHED: DEAD HORSE SLOUGH ................................................. 4-18 LITTLE CHICO CREEK WATERSHED: DRAINAGE IN LITTLE CHICO CREEK ............................ 4-19 LITTLE CHICO CREEK WATERSHED: UNCERTIFIED LEVEE .................................................... 4-20 PINE CREEK WATERSHED: PINE CREEK AND SINGER CREEK ................................................ 4-21 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND EVACUATION PLAN ......................................................... 4-22 Flood Threat Recognition .................................................................................................. 4-22 Flood Response .................................................................................................................. 4-32 Critical Facilities ............................................................................................................... 4-32 Shelters ............................................................................................................................... 4-32 Evacuation Routes ............................................................................................................. 4-35 Re-Entry to Evacuated Area .............................................................................................. 4-35 Post-Disaster Recovery and Mitigation ............................................................................. 4-35 COUNTYWIDE MITIGATION MEASURES: PUBLIC EDUCATION AND AWARENESS ................... 4-36 Map Information ................................................................................................................ 4-36 Outreach Projects and Educational Programs.................................................................. 4-36 Real Estate Disclosure ....................................................................................................... 4-37 Library ............................................................................................................................... 4-37 Technical Assistance .......................................................................................................... 4-37 COUNTYWIDE MITIGATION MEASURES: LAND USE PLANNING ............................................ 4-38 Butte County and Incorporated Cities General
Load more

Recommended publications
  • TYPICAL VALLEY INDIAN HOMES Vol. 2 No. 11 YUBA CITY, CALIFORNIA
    Vol. 2 No. 11 YUBA CITY, CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 17 1961 TYPICAL VALLEY INDIAN HOMES SUTTER COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY FALL MEETING OCTOBER 17, 1961 TUESDAY EVENING — 8 P.M. PLACE: Board of Supervisors Chambers County Office Building, 2nd Street PRESIDENT: Mrs. Florence Arritt PROGRAM CHAIRMAN: Randolph Schnabel PROGRAM SPEAKER: Waddell F. Smith President, National Pony Express Centennial Association TOPIC: The History of the Pony Express and Its Centennial BOARD OF DIRECTORS MINUTES October 5, 1961 The Board of Directors of Sutter County Historical Society met in regular session October 5, 1961 at 7:30 P.M. in the office of the County Superintendent. The meeting was called to order by Vice President, Mrs. Ida Littlejohn in the absence of the president, Mrs. Florence Arritt. Mrs. Arritt is on her vacation traveling in the southwest and visiting many spots of historic interest such as Tombstone, Arizona. The minutes of the July Board meeting and regular meeting were read and approved. The treasurer reported cash in the bank $737.33. Film Fund $447.00 and general fund $290.33. Mr. Ramey reported a membership of 111. Fifteen new members were secured at the county fair booth. The following bills were approved for payment: Valley Print Shop — Membership Cards, Stationery $41.70. County of Sutter — Bulletin pictures $6.20. Earl Ramey — Postage $3.50. Program Chairman, Randolph Schnabel reported the program had already been arranged for the annual dinner meeting in January. Mrs. Gibson presented an invitation to the Sutter County Historical Society to en- tertain the Symposium of Historical Societies of Northern California and Southern Oregon in the fall of 1962.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents Executive Summary
    MARCH 2012 SACRAMENTO VALLEY WATER QUALITY COALITION Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan Annual Monitoring Report 2011 Prepared by: LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... v Summary of Monitoring Program ............................................................................................... v Management Practices and Actions Taken ................................................................................ vi Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................................................... vii Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Description of the Watershed ...................................................................................................... 3 Monitoring Objectives .................................................................................................................. 4 Sampling Site Descriptions .......................................................................................................... 6 Sampling Site Locations and Land Uses .................................................................................... 7 Site Descriptions ......................................................................................................................... 9 Butte/Yuba/Sutter Subwatershed ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Emigration of Juvenile Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha) in the Feather
    State of California The Resources Agency Department of Water Resources Division of Environmental Services Emigration of Juvenile Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Feather River, 2002-2004. May 2005 Table of Contents Table of Contents.............................................................................................................ii List of Tables...................................................................................................................iii List of Figures..................................................................................................................iv Summary......................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 2 Methods .......................................................................................................................... 3 Study Area ................................................................................................................... 3 Field Collection Methods .............................................................................................. 3 Trap Efficiency and Emigration Estimate...................................................................... 5 Results ............................................................................................................................ 9 RST Catch and Species Composition .........................................................................
    [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]
  • Existing Program Summary Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead
    EXISTING PROGRAM SUMMARY CENTRAL VALLEY SALMON AND STEELHEAD MONITORING PROGRAMS Photos: Tim Heyne, Doug Killam, Doug Demko, Colleen Harvey Arrison Contributors: Interagency Ecological Program Salmonid Escapement Project Work Team Interagency Ecological Program Juvenile Monitoring Project Work Team Edited by: Alice Low Department of Fish and Game May 2007 Contents I - Central Valley Adult Salmonid Escapement Monitoring Programs Central Valley-wide Chinook salmon and steelhead angler survey………………………………………. I-2 Upper Sacramento River Basin Mainstem Sacramento River All Chinook runs – aerial redd survey.………………………………………… I-5 Fall, winter, spring-run Chinook – ladder counts at RBDD…………………… I-11 Fall, late fall-run Chinook carcass survey…………………………....……….. I-14 Winter-run Chinook carcass survey……..………………………..…………… I-17 Upper Sacramento River Basin Tributaries Antelope Creek – Spring-run Chinook snorkel survey………………………..I-21 Beegum Creek – Spring-run Chinook snorkel survey………………………... I-24 Mill Creek – Spring-run Chinook redd survey………...………………..……. I-27 Spring-run Chinook hydroacoustic study………………………..I-30 Fall-run Chinook carcass survey……………..………………….I-33 Deer Creek – Spring-run Chinook snorkel survey……………..…..…………. I-36 Fall-run Chinook carcass survey……..………………………….I-39 Clear Creek –Fall-run Chinook carcass survey………………………………...I-42 Fall-run Chinook redd mapping…………….…………………...I-45 Spring-run Chinook snorkel survey………………………...…...I-47 Late-fall Chinook and steelhead redd survey………………..…. I-50 Cow Creek – Fall-run Chinook video monitoring…………………………….
    [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]
  • 11404500 North Fork Feather River at Pulga, CA Sacramento River Basin
    Water-Data Report 2011 11404500 North Fork Feather River at Pulga, CA Sacramento River Basin LOCATION.--Lat 39°47′40″, long 121°27′02″ referenced to North American Datum of 1927, in SE ¼ NE ¼ sec.6, T.22 N., R.5 E., Butte County, CA, Hydrologic Unit 18020121, Plumas National Forest, on left bank between railroad and highway bridges, 0.6 mi downstream from Flea Valley Creek and Pulga, and 1.6 mi downstream from Poe Dam. DRAINAGE AREA.--1,953 mi². SURFACE-WATER RECORDS PERIOD OF RECORD.--October 1910 to current year. Monthly discharge only for some periods and yearly estimates for water years 1911 and 1938, published in WSP 1315-A. Prior to October 1960, published as "at Big Bar." CHEMICAL DATA: Water years 1963-66, 1972, 1977. WATER TEMPERATURE: Water years 1963-83. REVISED RECORDS.--WSP 931: 1938 (instantaneous maximum discharge), 1940. WSP 1515: 1935. WDR CA-77-4: 1976 (yearly summaries). GAGE.--Water-stage recorder. Datum of gage is 1,305.62 ft above NGVD of 1929. Prior to Oct. 1, 1937, at site 1.1 mi upstream at different datum. Oct. 1, 1937, to Sept. 30, 1958, at present site at datum 5.00 ft higher. COOPERATION.--Records, including diversion to Poe Powerplant (station 11404900), were collected by Pacific Gas and Electric Co., under general supervision of the U.S. Geological Survey, in connection with Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project no. 2107. REMARKS.--Flow regulated by Lake Almanor, Bucks Lake, Butt Valley Reservoir (stations 11399000, 11403500, and 11401050, respectively), Mountain Meadows Reservoir, and five forebays, combined capacity, 1,386,000 acre-ft.
    [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]
  • Geology and Groun D Water Features of the Butte Valley Region Siskiyou County California
    Geology and Groun d Water Features of the Butte Valley Region Siskiyou County California By P. R. WOOD GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1491 Prepared in cooperation with the California Department offf^ater Resources UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1960 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FRED A. SEATON, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director The U.S. Geological Survey Library catalog card for this publication appears after page 151. For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington 25, D.C. CONTENTS Page Abstract___.__-_-____________-____________-_____----_----------- 1 Introduction.___---____-______________________--_----------------- 3 Purpose and scope of the work._..._____________________----.._-- 3 Location of area.-_-___-_____________-______--_------_--------- 4 Culture and accessibility. ________-___.___-______-----_--------- 4 Previous investigations.________-_____-______-_-_---_----------- 4 Acknowledgments _________________-___-____-__------_--------- 6 Well-numbering system____-______________-______------_------- 6 Method of investigation._____-______________-__-----_---------- 7 Physical features of the area..___________________._____-___-.---_--- 10 Topography and drainage. __________________-____----_-----_--- 10 Cascade Range.--___________-__________-_-_---_-_--------- 10 Butte Valley_-___----._-_----_---_--_---_----------------- 11 Red Rock Valley area________-_--__---_-------------------- H Oklahoma district. _____________________-___---------------
    [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]
  • The Western Environmental Technology Office (WETO) Butte, Montana ^Jj&Gs^ «*Sim«
    DOE/EM-0217 Office of Environmental Management Office of Technology Development The Western Environmental Technology Office (WETO) Butte, Montana ^jj&gS^ «*sim« •4 4 1 Technology Summary October 1994 i DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENrT I S UNLIMITED DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, make any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document. THE WESTERN ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY OFFICE (WETO) BUTTE, MONTANA TECHNOLOGY SUMMARY TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword iii Introduction iv 1.0 Office of Technology Development-Sponsored Projects 1 Heavy Metals Contaminated Soil Project 1.1 Heavy-Metals-Contaminated Soil Project 3 1.2 Heavy
    [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]