DOCSLIB.ORG

Appendix 9F Sanitary Sewer Overflow Level of Protection Definitions And

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Appendix 9F Sanitary Sewer Overflow Level of Protection Definitions And 2020 Facilities Plan Facilities Plan Report Appendix 9F Sanitary Sewer Overflow Level of Protection Definitions and Recommendation 9F-i 2020 Facilities Plan Facilities Plan Report Table of Contents APPENDIX 9F: SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW LEVEL OF PROTECTION DEFINITION AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................9F-1 9F.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................9F-2 9F.2 Definitions......................................................................................................................9F-2 9F.2.1 Sanitary Sewer Overflow Definition .............................................................................9F-2 9F.2.2 Level of Protection Definition .......................................................................................9F-3 9F.3 Approaches and Methods for Defining Level of Protection..........................................9F-3 9F.3.1 Approaches ....................................................................................................................9F-3 9F.3.2 Methods..........................................................................................................................9F-5 9F.4 Applicable Law..............................................................................................................9F-8 9F.4.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Current Federal Rules and Withdrawn Draft of Sanitary Sewer Overflow Rule ......................................................................................9F-8 9F.4.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Water Quality Standards for Coastal and Great Lakes Recreation Waters ...............................................................................................9F-9 9F.4.3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Watershed Approach...................................9F-9 9F4.4 State of Wisconsin – Sanitary Sewer Overflow Requirements ...................................9F-12 9F.5 Previous Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District Level of Protection Standards 9F-13 9F.5.1 Water Pollution Abatement Program...........................................................................9F-13 9F.5.2 The Milwaukee Harbor Estuary Study (1987).............................................................9F-14 9F.5.3 2010 Facilities Plan Sizing Criteria .............................................................................9F-14 9F.5.4 2020 Facilities Plan Level of Protection/Design Criteria Tools ..................................9F-15 9F.6 Data on Other Metro Areas’ Level of Protection/Design Criteria...............................9F-15 9F.6.1 Wisconsin Agencies.....................................................................................................9F-15 9F.6.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 .......................................................9F-17 9F.6.3 Non-U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5...............................................9F-20 9F.6.4 AMSA Wet Weather Survey Final Report, May 2003................................................9F-23 9F.6.5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Study – 1998 ................................................9F-25 9F.6.6 Summary of Available Data on Level of Protection....................................................9F-28 9F.6.7 Recommended Approach, Method and Standard for the 2020 Facilities Plan............9F-28 9F-ii 2020 Facilities Plan Facilities Plan Report Appendix 9F Figures 9F-1 USEPA Watershed Approach......................................................................................9F-11 Appendix 9F Tables 9F-1 Level of Protection Approaches.....................................................................................9F-4 9F-2 Comparison of Level of Protection Methods.................................................................9F-6 9F-3 USEPA Region 5 Level of Protection Data.................................................................9F-18 9F-4 Level of Protection/Design Criteria in Metro Areas Outside of USEPA Region 5.....9F-21 9F-5 Year 1998 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Sanitary Sewer Overflow Survey ..........................................................................................................................9F-26 9F-iii 2020 Facilities Plan Facilities Plan Report Appendix 9F: Sanitary Sewer Overflow Level of Protection Definitions and Recommendation 9F.1 Introduction The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) is developing its 2020 Facilities Plan (2020 FP) in conjunction with the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC) Regional Water Quality Management Plan Update (RWQMPU); this is referred to as the Water Quality Initiative (WQI) for the region. This planning effort employs the watershed approach, in which the primary focus is to determine the facilities, programs, operational improvements and policies (FPOPs) that result in the most cost effective improvement in water quality and address stakeholder inspired goals and objectives. One of the goals and objectives of the WQI is to meet the regulatory requirements as set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). A key regulatory goal that has evolved from the current regulations involves the selection of a level of protection (LOP), or design criteria, for sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). This appendix presents the recommendation of the 2020 technical team (the team of consultants providing technical analysis to both the RWQMPU and the 2020 FP) with respect to LOP for SSOs. It presents a definition for LOP, describes the current laws and regulations governing SSO LOP, reviews historical decisions by MMSD in establishing LOP, and summarizes approaches taken by other wastewater authorities in circumstances similar to MMSD. This appendix concludes with a recommended approach for determining LOP for the WQI. 9F.2 Definitions This section provides definitions for SSOs and LOP. 9F.2.1 Sanitary Sewer Overflow Definition In general, SSOs are discharges of untreated wastewater from a sanitary sewer system. Current WDNR and USEPA regulations do not clearly define SSOs; however, the term “discharge” as currently defined under Wisconsin regulations includes any release of pollutants from the wastewater system that reach waters of the state, including groundwater. In addition, the term “bypass” is defined under federal regulations as “the intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility.” (40 CFR sec. 122.41(m)(1)(i)). Under this regulation, bypasses in the form of SSOs are prohibited under the Clean Water Act (CWA), subject to “exceptional circumstances” and “no feasible alternative” language incorporated into discharge permits pursuant to federal and state regulations. The general regulatory approach to SSOs can be described as “prohibition with exceptions.” The basic purpose of the LOP definition is to define the feasible level of control of SSOs for which the wastewater system should be planned, designed and built. 9F-1 2020 Facilities Plan Facilities Plan Report The LOS is determined by defining the peak wastewater flow to be accommodated and the desired (or required) LOP against overflows or exceedances of water quality objectives. The peak wastewater flow to be accommodated is a function of many factors including population, land use, sewers system condition, and the many weather factors involved including antecedent conditions. 9F.2.2 Level of Protection Definition In general, LOP means the protection against sanitary sewer overflows provided by the conveyance, storage, and treatment systems. In principle, a definition of LOP should be directly related to the probability of an SSO; however, in practice, common definitions for LOP are often indirectly related to the risk of the outcome. Defining the LOP for a particular wastewater treatment system requires an approach, a method, and a standard for the desired outcome. The approach provides the context for the LOP definition; it is a general statement of the priorities and values to be used in the process of defining the LOP. The LOP methodology sets forth an analytical method that can be applied to evaluate the performance of the system. The standard is a specific definition of the performance goal in numerical terms. For example, the approach may be to comply with regulatory requirements. The analytical method may be to use a rainfall design storm to size facilities. The standard may be 5-year recurrence interval for the input rainfall using a 24-hour duration. The following sections provide more detail on these aspects of LOP definition. 9F.3 Approaches and Methods for Defining Level of Protection This section details LOP approaches and methods. 9F.3.1 Approaches An LOP definition starts with an approach that is a statement of the values and priorities that guide the subsequent methods and standards. There are at least four types of approaches for selecting the LOP. Some are scientifically based, while others are not. The LOP approaches are typically one of the following: ♦ Regulatory requirements ♦ Stakeholder expectations (rate payers, environmentalists, etc.) ♦ Cost effective point of diminishing return (so called “knee-of-the-curve” determination) ♦ Water quality standards Table 9F-1 provides a comparison of strengths and weaknesses of each of these LOP approaches. 9F-2 LOP Approaches Example Strengths Weaknesses Regulatory
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities
    RECOMMENDED STANDARDS for WASTEWATER FACILITIES POLICIES FOR THE DESIGN, REVIEW, AND APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT FACILITIES 2014 EDITION A REPORT OF THE WASTEWATER COMMITTEE OF THE GREAT LAKES - UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BOARD OF STATE AND PROVINCIAL PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGERS MEMBER STATES AND PROVINCE ILLINOIS NEW YORK INDIANA OHIO IOWA ONTARIO MICHIGAN PENNSYLVANIA MINNESOTA WISCONSIN MISSOURI PUBLISHED BY: Health Research, Inc., Health Education Services Division P.O. Box 7126 Albany, N.Y. 12224 Phone: (518) 439-7286 Visit Our Web Site http://www.healthresearch.org/store/ten-state-standards Copyright © 2014 by the Great Lakes - Upper Mississippi River Board of State and Provincial Public Health and Environmental Managers This document, or portions thereof, may be reproduced without permission if credit is given to the Board and to this publication as a source. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE FOREWORD ..................................................................................................................................... v 10 ENGINEERING REPORTS AND FACILITY PLANS 10. General ............................................................................................................................. 10-1 11. Engineering Report Or Facility Plan ................................................................................ 10-1 12. Pre-Design Meeting ....................................................................................................... 10-12
    [Show full text]
  • Irrigation Return Flow Or Discrete Discharge? Why Water Pollution from Cranberry Bogs Should Fall Within the Clean Water Act’S Npdes Program
    GAL.HANSON.DOC 4/30/2007 10:08:35 AM IRRIGATION RETURN FLOW OR DISCRETE DISCHARGE? WHY WATER POLLUTION FROM CRANBERRY BOGS SHOULD FALL WITHIN THE CLEAN WATER ACT’S NPDES PROGRAM BY * ** ANDREW C. HANSON & DAVID C. BENDER Despite license plates proclaiming it as the “dairy state,” Wisconsin is the top cranberry producing state in the nation. Cranberry operations are unique in that they are agricultural operations that require vast quantities of water. Water discharged to lakes, wetlands, and rivers through ditches and canals during the production process can contain the phosphorus fertilizers and residues of pesticides that were applied during the growing season, which can cause serious water quality problems. Although the cranberry industry has not historically been subject to the Clean Water Act, cranberry bog discharges appear to fit squarely within the purview of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program under that statute. In 2004, the Wisconsin attorney general filed a public nuisance lawsuit against a cranberry grower, alleging that the grower discharged bog water laced with phosphorus to the lake. However, provided that cranberry bog discharges do not fall within the “irrigation return flow” exemption from the Clean Water Act, the NPDES permit program may be a more cost-effective approach to addressing the water quality problems that can be caused by cranberry bog discharges. I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 340 II. POLLUTANT DISCHARGES FROM COMMERCIAL CRANBERRY PRODUCTION ...................... 342 III. STATE V. ZAWISTOWSKI AND THE ATTEMPT TO USE PUBLIC NUISANCE AUTHORITY TO CONTROL POLLUTANT DISCHARGES FROM CRANBERRY BOGS ................................... 345 IV. OVERVIEW OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT ........................................................................... 347 V.
    [Show full text]
  • Troubleshooting Activated Sludge Processes Introduction
    Troubleshooting Activated Sludge Processes Introduction Excess Foam High Effluent Suspended Solids High Effluent Soluble BOD or Ammonia Low effluent pH Introduction Review of the literature shows that the activated sludge process has experienced operational problems since its inception. Although they did not experience settling problems with their activated sludge, Ardern and Lockett (Ardern and Lockett, 1914a) did note increased turbidity and reduced nitrification with reduced temperatures. By the early 1920s continuous-flow systems were having to deal with the scourge of activated sludge, bulking (Ardem and Lockett, 1914b, Martin 1927) and effluent suspended solids problems. Martin (1927) also describes effluent quality problems due to toxic and/or high-organic- strength industrial wastes. Oxygen demanding materials would bleedthrough the process. More recently, Jenkins, Richard and Daigger (1993) discussed severe foaming problems in activated sludge systems. Experience shows that controlling the activated sludge process is still difficult for many plants in the United States. However, improved process control can be obtained by systematically looking at the problems and their potential causes. Once the cause is defined, control actions can be initiated to eliminate the problem. Problems associated with the activated sludge process can usually be related to four conditions (Schuyler, 1995). Any of these can occur by themselves or with any of the other conditions. The first is foam. So much foam can accumulate that it becomes a safety problem by spilling out onto walkways. It becomes a regulatory problem as it spills from clarifier surfaces into the effluent. The second, high effluent suspended solids, can be caused by many things. It is the most common problem found in activated sludge systems.
    [Show full text]
  • A Method for Estimating Ground-Water Return Flow
    A METHOD FOR ESTIMATING GROUND-WATER RETURN FLOW TO THE COLORADO RIVER IN THE PARKER AREA, ARIZONA AND* CALIFORNIA By S. A. Leake U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 84-4229 Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Tucson, Arizona September 1984 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WILLIAM P. CLARK, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information Copies of this report can be write to: purchased from: District Chief Open-File Services Section U.S. Geological Survey Western Distribution Branch Box FB-44 U.S. Geological Survey Federal Building Box 25425, Federal Center 301 West Congress Street Denver, Colorado 80225 Tucson, Arizona 85701 Telephone: (303) 236-7476 CONTENTS Page Abstract ........................................................... 1 I introduction ........................................................ 1 Purpose and scope ............................................ 2 Relation to other reports ...................................... 2 Acknowledgments .............................................. 6 Hydrology.......................................................... 6 The Colorado River ........................................... 6 The flood plain and underlying alluvial aquifer ................ 8 Method ............................................................. 14 Step 1 Delineate subareas of ground-water drainage .......... 14 Step 2 Estimate diversions to irrigated land .................. 18 Step 3 Estimate consumptive use .............................
    [Show full text]
  • 10 States Standards
    RECOMMENDED STANDARDS for WASTEWATER FACILITIES POLICIES FOR THE DESIGN, REVIEW, AND APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT FACILITIES 2014 EDITION A REPORT OF THE WASTEWATER COMMITTEE OF THE GREAT LAKES - UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BOARD OF STATE AND PROVINCIAL PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGERS MEMBER STATES AND PROVINCE ILLINOIS NEW YORK INDIANA OHIO IOWA ONTARIO MICHIGAN PENNSYLVANIA MINNESOTA WISCONSIN MISSOURI PUBLISHED BY: Health Research, Inc., Health Education Services Division P.O. Box 7126 Albany, N.Y. 12224 Phone: (518) 439-7286 Visit Our Web Site http://www.healthresearch.org/store/ten-state-standards Copyright © 2014 by the Great Lakes - Upper Mississippi River Board of State and Provincial Public Health and Environmental Managers This document, or portions thereof, may be reproduced without permission if credit is given to the Board and to this publication as a source. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE FOREWORD ..................................................................................................................................... v 10 ENGINEERING REPORTS AND FACILITY PLANS 10. General ............................................................................................................................. 10-1 11. Engineering Report Or Facility Plan ................................................................................ 10-1 12. Pre-Design Meeting ....................................................................................................... 10-12
    [Show full text]
  • Npdes Permit No
    NPDES PERMIT NO. NM0030848 FACT SHEET FOR THE DRAFT NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT TO DISCHARGE TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES APPLICANT City of Santa Fe Buckman Direct Diversion 341 Caja del Rio Road Santa Fe, NM 87506 ISSUING OFFICE U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75270 PREPARED BY Ruben Alayon-Gonzalez Environmental Engineer Permitting Section (WDPE) Water Division VOICE: 214-665-2718 EMAIL: [email protected] DATE PREPARED May 29, 2019 PERMIT ACTION Proposed reissuance of the current NPDES permit issued July 29, 2014, with an effective date of September 1, 2014, and an expiration date of August 31, 2019. RECEIVING WATER – BASIN Rio Grande Permit No. NM0030848 Fact Sheet Page 2 of 16 DOCUMENT ABBREVIATIONS In the document that follows, various abbreviations are used. They are as follows: 4Q3 Lowest four-day average flow rate expected to occur once every three years BAT Best available technology economically achievable BCT Best conventional pollutant control technology BPT Best practicable control technology currently available BMP Best management plan BOD Biochemical oxygen demand (five-day unless noted otherwise) BPJ Best professional judgment CBOD Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (five-day unless noted otherwise) CD Critical dilution CFR Code of Federal Regulations Cfs Cubic feet per second COD Chemical oxygen demand COE United States Corp of Engineers CWA Clean Water Act DMR Discharge monitoring report ELG Effluent limitations guidelines
    [Show full text]
  • Reuse of Treated Waste Water in Irrigated Agriculture
    Arab Countries Water Utilities Association 1 Safe Use of Treated Wastewater in Agriculture Jordan Case Study Prepared for ACWUA by Eng. Nayef Seder (JVA) Eng. Sameer Abdel-Jabbar(GIZ) December 2011 Arab Countries Water Utilities Association 2 Table of Content 1 INTRODUCTION 3 2 WATER BUDGET 3 2.1 Current Water Resources 4 2.2 Additional Future Water Resources 4 3 LAWS AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING WASTEWATER AND WATER REUSE 5 3.1 Summary 5 3.2 Overview of Jordanian Policies and Laws 6 3.3 Jordanian Standards 7 3.4 The future of laws and standards 9 4 WASTE WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 9 4.1.1 Influents and Effluents of WWTP 10 4.1.2 Existing Wastewater Treatment Plants 11 4.1.3 Planned Future Wastewater Treatment Plants 12 5 REUSE TECHNOLOGY 14 5.1 Treated Domestic Wastewater 14 5.1.1 Irrigated area in Jordan 14 5.1.2 Consumption of water at premises and vicinities of WWTP 15 5.1.3 Crop pattern irrigated with treated water 16 5.1.4 Irrigation Technologies 16 6 ACTORS AND STAKEHOLDERS 16 7. JORDANIAN NATIONAL PLAN FOR RISK MONITORING AND RISK MANAGMENT FOR THE USE OF TREATED WASTEWATER 18 8 FUTURE PERSPECTIVES AND CHALLENGES 25 9 LIST OF REFERENCES 26 Arab Countries Water Utilities Association 3 1 Introduction The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is an arid to semi-arid country, with a land area of approximately 90,000 km2. The population is 6 million with a recent average growth rate of about 2.2% due to natural and non-voluntary migration.
    [Show full text]
  • Surface Irrigation Return Flows Vary
    flooded throughout the growing season; 2.36 ac-ftlac were lost by seepage.) Surface irrigation the major crops in PDD are tomato, cot- Although the concentration of TDS ton, and other row and field crops, which in the spill water increased 1.7-foId, the return flowsvary are normally furrow irrigated. unit mass emission rate (Iblac) was only GCID captures and reuses about 44 44 percent of that brought in by the sup- percent of its drain waters within the dis- ply water, which is in line with the dis- trict and discharges the rest into the trict-wide 61 percent mass emission of Kenneth K. Tanji Colusa Basin Drain (CBD), where it is re- salts. Note that concentration of sus- Muhammad M. lqbal used downstream before final discharge pended solids was reduced by about one- Ann F. Quek back into the Sacramento River. PDD half, and the mass by nearly one-tenth. Ronald M.Van De Pol and the neighboring Central California As for nutrients, the nitrogen con- Linda P. Wagenet Irrigation District capture and reuse centration in the drain water was about Roger Fujii about 20 percent of PDDs surface drain- 1% times greater, but only 38 percent of Rudy J. Schnagl age (not counting reuse at farm levels) the nitrogen brought in by the water was Dave A. Prewitt and discharge the remainder into the discharged. It should be noted that about Grasslands Water District, where it is re- 90 percent of the total nitrogen was in uch attention is being focused on used in irrigated pastures and waterfowl the form of organic nitrogen, which im- M irrigation return flows as a result habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Annual Report of Water Use, Water Diversion and Return Flow for the City of New Berlin, Wisconsin
    2018 ANNUAL REPORT OF WATER USE, WATER DIVERSION AND RETURN FLOW FOR THE CITY OF NEW BERLIN, WISCONSIN CITY OF NEW BERLIN WAUKESHA COUNTY, WISCONSIN MARCH 2019 Prepared By: City of New Berlin Utility 3805 S Casper Drive New Berlin, Wisconsin 53151 Submitted: February 19, 2019 © 2010 Copyright Ruekert & Mielke, Inc. 2018 Annual Diversion Report, New Berlin, WI TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 3 SECTION 1 - THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF WATER PURCHASED FROM THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE ................................................................................................... 3 SECTION 2 -THE AMOUNT OF WATER SOLD TO EACH CATEGORY AND SUBCATEGORY OF CUSTOMER ON A QUARTERLY BASIS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS ................................................................................................................... 4 SECTION 3 -THE AMOUNT OF WATER SOLD TO EACH CATEGORY AND SUBCATEGORY OF CUSTOMER ON A QUARTERLY BASIS WITHIN THE APPROVED DIVERSION AREA .................................................................................... 4 SECTION 4 - THE AMOUNT OF WATER DIVERTED TO THE APPROVED DIVERSION AREA ON A MONTHLY BASIS (TO BE ESTIMATED BY THE CITY) ............................................................................................................................... 4 SECTION 5 -THE AMOUNT OF WATER PUMPED FROM EACH MUNICIPAL WELL WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS ON A QUARTERLY BASIS, NOTING THE BASIN IN WHICH EACH WELL IS LOCATED .............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Recirculating Gravel Filter Systems
    Recommended Standards and Guidance for Performance, Application, Design, and Operation & Maintenance Recirculating Gravel Filter Systems February 2021 Recommended Standards and Guidance for Performance, Application, Design, and Operation & Maintenance Recirculating Gravel Filter Systems February 2021 For information or additional copies of this report contact: Wastewater Management Program Physical address: 101 Israel Road SE, Tumwater, WA 98501 Mailing Address: PO Box 47824, Olympia, Washington 98504-7824 Phone: (360) 236-3330 FAX: (360) 236-2257 Webpage: www.doh.wa.gov/wastewater Email: [email protected] Umair A. Shah, MD, MPH Secretary of Health To request this document in another format, call 1-800-525-0127. Deaf or hard of hearing customers, please call 711 (Washington Relay) or email [email protected]. Para solicitar este documento en otro formato, llame al 1-800-525-0127. Clientes sordos o con problemas de audición, favor de llamar al 711 (servicio de relé de Washington) o enviar un correo electrónico a [email protected]. DOH 337-011 Recirculating Gravel Filter Systems - Recommended Standards and Guidance Effective Date: February 1, 2021 Contents Page Preface .............................................................................................................................................5 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................7 1. Recirculating Gravel Filter (RFG) ...........................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 33 Groundwater Recharge Chapter 33 Groundwater Recharge Part 631 National Engineering Handbook
    United States Department of Part 631 Agriculture National Engineering Handbook Natural Resources Conservation Service Chapter 33 Groundwater Recharge Chapter 33 Groundwater Recharge Part 631 National Engineering Handbook Issued January 2010 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all pro- grams.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for commu- nication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250–9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. (210–VI–NEH, Amend. 34, January 2010) Preface The NRCS National Engineering Handbook (NEH), Part 631.33, Groundwa- ter Recharge, is derived from the following publication: • Technical Release No. 36, Ground Water Recharge, released by NRCS, June 1967 Note the following changes (canceled documents are replaced by the new documents): Canceled documents • NEH, Section 18, Ground Water (June 1978) • Technical Release No. 36, Ground-Water Recharge (June 1967) • NEH, Part 631, Chapter 33, Investigations for Ground Water Re- sources Development (November 1998) New documents NEH chapters in Part 631: • 631.30, Groundwater Hydrology and Geology • 631.31, Groundwater Investigations • 631.32, Well Design and Spring Development • 631.33, Groundwater Recharge (210–VI–NEH, Amend.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimating Return Flows in North Georgia-A Gis Based Ap- Proach
    ESTIMATING RETURN FLOWS IN NORTH GEORGIA-A GIS BASED AP- PROACH David Sample1, Peter deGolian2, and Ben Bentkowski3 AUTHORS: Principal Water Resources Engineer1, Supervisory Geologist3, Brown and Caldwell, 990 Hammond Drive, Suite 400, Atlanta, GA 30328, and Hydrologist2, DHI Water and Environment, 2909 W. Bay to Bay Blvd., Suite 206,Tampa, FL 33629 REFERENCE: Proceedings of the 2007 Georgia Water Resources Conference, held March 27–29, 2007, at the University of Georgia. Abstract. Water supplies in northern Georgia have Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint (ACF) and Alabama- become increasingly stressed due to rapid population Coosa-Tallapoosa (ACT) compact negotiations. The ne- growth and subsequent withdrawals for municipal and gotiators had reached a tentative agreement that flows industrial (M&I) use. Because of the lack of sewerage from decentralized systems such as LAS and septic sys- infrastructure, much of this new growth will likely be tems were 100% consumptive for purposes of water sup- served by decentralized wastewater systems. Due to ply allocation, focusing primarily on low flow periods. A many factors, including a lack of information regarding key performance metric of the MNGWPD plans was the location, size, hydrogeologic condition, soils, distance to requirement to return 70% of water withdrawal back to the surface water, distance to groundwater, etc., only cursory Chattahoochee Basin; based upon 2030 water supply assessments of the wastewater return flows and perform- withdrawals and wastewater discharges, interbasin trans- ance of these systems has been performed. Statewide wa- fers, and consumptive uses. The plans developed an esti- ter policy has consistently assumed that these returns are mate of septic systems based upon extrapolation of a rela- negligible.
    [Show full text]