Difference between revisions of "ENVS 560/L Watershed Systems - Working"

From CCoWS Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Main new contribs 2014:)
(Updates worked on in 2014:)
Line 41: Line 41:
*[[Lower Salinas River Watershed]]  '''Phase 1: Afreen'''
*[[Lower Salinas River Watershed]]  '''Phase 1: Afreen'''
*[[Gabilan Range]] '''Phase 1: Afreen'''
*[[Gabilan Range]] '''Phase 1: Afreen'''
*[[Basin-Indians Fire Erosion and Debris Flows]]'''Phase 1: Tera'''
==Leftover ideas after 2014:==
==Leftover ideas after 2014:==

Revision as of 22:12, 6 April 2014

This page is a working area for the ENVS 560 class.

Main new contribs 2014:

Minor new contribs 2014:

Updates worked on in 2014:

Leftover ideas after 2014:

  • Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP)
    • Who they are
    • What they do
    • Who are members
    • Student chapter
    • Recent events
  • PG Diversion project & DEIR
  • Hollister Hills - site summary
  • Other:
    • Water Supply for the Cal Am service area (focus on current impediments to the proposed portfolio approach)
    • Water metering as a means of understanding agricultural water use.
    • Understanding "water policy cycles"---Water supply and Policies that are viable in drought years, but untenable in years of plenty (new big dams in CA, etc).
    • Impacts of the new Salinas River channel maintenance program.
    • Movement toward public takeover of Cal Am water supply system.
    • Is there a physical inventory of extant groundwater resources to fuel existing (or proposed) Fort Ord reuse plans. This could be a close scrutiny of the Monterey Downs EIR.
    • How does the planned desal impact Fort Ord reuse?
    • Potential water use projects that would secure the now tenuous MCWRA rights to about 168,000 af/yr of Salinas Valley water.
    • When new subdivisions are permitted, they must demonstrate a sustainable water supply. Apparently, that approach is flawed, since many areas are in overdraft. What are the minimum criteria for demonstrating "sustainable" water supply and why does it fail in many cases?

Leftover ideas after 2013:

  • CEQA phase 2: Sheldon
    • CEQA approaches to each of the main CEQA areas:
      • Visual / aesthetic
      • Transport
      • Wetlands
      • etc.
    • Firms that do CEQA, tabulated by project, role, specialty, client etc.
  • Land use planning in Central Coast
    • County General Plan
    • County Long-Range Development Plan
    • Marina General Plan
    • Seaside General Plan
    • AMBAG Metropolitan Transportation Plan
    • TAMC Regional Transportation Plan
    • Former CA-led County Redevelopment Agencies and new 'Successor' agencies.
    • Fort Ord
      • BRAC / Fort Ord Cleanup
      • History of consistency determinations made with respect to Fort Ord Reuse Plan
  • Viewshed policy (county critical viewshed, approaches taken in CEQA projects)
  • Water rights - How do water rights work?
    • e.g. for projects in CEQA right now (Ferrini, Downs)
  • Drainage studies
    • e.g. Canyon del Rey and current contract to Balance & Whitson
  • Ag Waiver & TMDLs:
    • Can always use more updating with new developments
  • Stakeholder pages:
    • Marina Coast Water District, e.g. its role in Fort Ord re-use
    • MPWMD, e.g. its role in Canyon del Rey drainage study update
    • TAMC
    • AMBAG
  • Specific Watersheds
  • Wildlife:
    • Wildlife habitat corridor planning - State-level efforts, Regional effort led by CalTrans, Local survey led by BSLT, ...


This page may contain student's work completed as part of assigned coursework. It may not be accurate. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion or policy of CSUMB, its staff, or students.