DOCSLIB.ORG

Santa Margarita River Conjunctive Use

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Santa Margarita River Conjunctive Use Santa Margarita River Conjunctive Use Pre-Feasibility Plan Formulation Study San Diego County, California Prepared by U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation and Stetson Engineers Inc. San Rafael, California Conjunctive Use Pre-Feasibility Plan Formulation Study Acknowledgments This study largely relied on work conducted by Stetson Engineers Inc. and presented in the following reports: Santa Margarita River Recharge and Recovery Enhancement Program: Permit 15000 Feasibility Study for Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, March 23, 2001. Conjunctive Use Project for the Lower Santa Margarita River Basin, Supplemental Study to the Santa Margarita River Recharge and Recovery Enhancement Program: Permit 15000 Feasibility Study for Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, February 2002. Technical Engineering Report, Constructed Treatment Wetland Feasibility Study, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California, March 2003. Draft: Three Dimensional Groundwater Flow Model of the San Mateo and San Onofre Basins, USMC Base Camp Pendleton, September 2004. Stetson Engineers Inc., was instrumental in the completion of this study by providing assistance in the development of the alternatives and project yields. Stetson also provided valuable support in answering questions and providing technical details to the Bureau of Reclamation engineering team. Their dedication and professionalism is greatly appreciated. iii Conjunctive Use Pre-Feasibility Plan Formulation Study Contents Acknowledgments ................................................................................................iii 1.0 Introduction..................................................................................................xiii 1.1 Authority..................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose of and Need for Project ................................................................. 2 1.3 Background................................................................................................. 2 Location of Study Area............................................................................... 2 Description of Existing Camp Pendleton Facilities.................................... 3 Santa Margarita River Diversion Structure........................................... 5 Lake O’Neill ......................................................................................... 6 Ground-Water Recharge Ponds ............................................................ 6 1.4 Legal History .............................................................................................. 7 1.5 Legal and Institutional Framework............................................................. 9 2.0 Water Resources ........................................................................................... 13 2.1 Ground Water............................................................................................ 13 2.2 Surface Water............................................................................................ 16 3.0 Water Requirements..................................................................................... 17 3.1 Camp Pendleton........................................................................................ 17 3.2 Fallbrook Public Utility District ............................................................... 17 4.0 Development of Pre-Feasibility Alternatives.............................................. 19 4.1 Previous Investigations ............................................................................. 19 4.2 Pre-Feasibility Alternatives Workshop..................................................... 19 4.3 Alternatives Eliminated from Further Consideration ............................... 20 Fallbrook and De Luz Dam....................................................................... 20 Other On-Stream Storage.......................................................................... 21 Seawater Desalination............................................................................... 21 Water Exchange With Oceanside ............................................................. 21 Brackish Water Desalination .................................................................... 21 Recovery and Recharge of Storm Water in Murrieta-Temecula Ground- Water Basin............................................................................................... 21 Enlargement of Lake O’Neill.................................................................... 21 5.0 Pre-Feasibility Alternatives.......................................................................... 23 5.1 Overview of Alternatives.......................................................................... 23 Concept 1— .............................................................................................. 23 Concept 2— .............................................................................................. 23 Concept 3— .............................................................................................. 24 Improvements to Existing Facilities ......................................................... 24 Obermeyer Diversion Structure .......................................................... 25 Ditch and Headgate Improvements..................................................... 25 Existing Recharge Pond Improvements (Pond Nos. 1-5) ................... 25 vii Santa Margarita River Potential New Project Facilities................................................................ 26 Advanced Water Treatment ................................................................ 26 Fallbrook Conveyance Pipeline .......................................................... 27 San Mateo Creek and San Onofre Creek Ground-Water Basins ........ 27 Water Exchanges with Orange County............................................... 28 Reclaimed Water Use, Treatment Wetlands, and Reservoir on NWS 28 Land Outfall Pipeline.................................................................... 28 Treatment Wetland........................................................................ 28 Dam and Storage Reservoir .......................................................... 29 Denitrified Pipeline to the Santa Margarita River ........................ 31 Reclaimed Water Use, Treatment Wetlands on Camp Pendleton ...... 31 Newton Canyon Ponds.................................................................. 31 Pueblitos Canyon .......................................................................... 31 Off-Stream Reservoir Site on Camp Pendleton.................................. 32 Direct Diversion from Recharge Ponds .............................................. 33 Brine Line to Pacific Ocean................................................................ 33 In-stream Check Structures................................................................. 35 5.2 Alternative 1A........................................................................................... 41 Description................................................................................................ 41 Details ....................................................................................................... 41 Sources...................................................................................................... 42 5.3 Alternative 1B........................................................................................... 44 Description................................................................................................ 44 Details ....................................................................................................... 44 Sources...................................................................................................... 44 5.4 Alternative 1C........................................................................................... 46 Description................................................................................................ 46 Details ....................................................................................................... 46 Sources...................................................................................................... 46 5.5 Alternative 1D........................................................................................... 48 Description................................................................................................ 48 Details ....................................................................................................... 48 Sources...................................................................................................... 48 5.6 Alternative 1E ........................................................................................... 50 Description................................................................................................ 50 Details ....................................................................................................... 50 Sources...................................................................................................... 50 5.7 Alternative 1F ........................................................................................... 52 Description................................................................................................ 52 Details ....................................................................................................... 52 Sources.....................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • OWASA WATER EMERGENCY FEB 2017 WHY THIS MATTERS to DURHAM MARCH 9Th, 2017 / J
    OWASA WATER EMERGENCY FEB 2017 WHY THIS MATTERS to DURHAM MARCH 9th, 2017 / J. CHRISTOPHER SALTER Durham WTP Source Water Lake Michie Elevation: 341.20 feet mean sea level Little River Reservoir Elevation: 354.70 feet, msl Lake Michie & LR Reservoir are full at 341.00 & 355 msl respectively Terminal Reservoirs & Treatment Plants Raw (untreated) water from Durham’s 2 reservoirs/lakes is pumped into terminal reservoirs located at the city’s 2 water treatment plants. The Brown Water Treatment Plant (WTP) terminal reservoir holds approximately 90 million gallons and the Williams WTP terminal reservoir holds approximately 45 million gallons. These volumes represent a 2 to 3 day supply of water for the 2 treatment plants Brown WTP City Government Office Williams WTP 1615 Infinity Rd 1405 Hillandale Rd Williams WTP Under construction, 1917 Beatrice & Graham Maynard, "Romance Nuts," boating on the Durham reservoir with the clubhouse in the background. (Courtesy Durham County Library) Construction of the west wing, 1926. (Courtesy Durham County Library) William Piatt atop the completed structure, 1927. (Courtesy Durham County Library) Construction of the 1949-50 addition (Courtesy Barry Norman) Completed 1949-50 addition (Courtesy The Herald-Sun Newspaper Aerial of the water treatment plant and reservoir, 1950s (Courtesy Durham County Library / North Carolina Collection) 1917, 1927, and 1950 portions of the treatment plant, 04.04.09 (thanks to K. Johnson for climbing on top of the sign to take this picture for me.) Coagulation, Flocculation, Sedimentation Currently, both treatment plants use a chemical called ferric sulfate (Fe3+) as a coagulant Filtration After water has gone through the flocculation and sedimentation process to remove the sediment/particulate matter, it flows through filters composed of layers of crushed anthracite coal, sand and gravel.
    [Show full text]
  • Portland's Water Sources
    Mailed June, 2006 u From Commissioner Leonard “From forest to faucet, Portland delivers the best drinking water in the world.” u The Bull Run Watershed “... 80-170 inches of rainfall a year.” u Portland’s Drinking Water Quality “... continues to meet all state and federal regulations.” Letter From the Commissioner From forest to faucet, Portland delivers the best drinking water in the world. I am pleased to share the annual monitoring results for Portland’s drinking water system. It is important that the city’s drinking water customers know that they, their Portland’s Water Sources families and businesses receive high quality drinking water. Portland protects this water supply through monitoring, treatment, investment and long-term planning. Working with citizens, the city implements programs and projects that maintain the Portland drinking water system and strengthen it. The Bull Run water source and backup groundwater facilities are some of Portland’s most valuable resources. Protecting these essential resources and maintaining the water system are vital public services – and top priorities for the Water Bureau. The City of Portland is committed to continuing to provide the best drinking water in the world. Randy leonard Commissioner-In-Charge Annual Water THE BULL RUN WatERSHED all freshwater ecosystems and are present in the Bull Run supply at very low levels. The Bull Quality Report The Bull Run Watershed is a surface water Run supply complies with all applicable state and supply located in the Mt. Hood National Forest. federal regulations for source water, including If this information looks familiar, A geological ridge separates the watershed the 1989 Surface Water Treatment Rule filtration- it should.
    [Show full text]
  • 11B CONVERTING to CHLORAMINES
    CONVERTING TO CHLORAMINES IMPORTANCE OF DISINFECTION GIARDIA DISINFECTION KILLS OR POSSIBLE PATHOGENS INACTIVATES ANY INCLUDE ENTERIC PATHOGENS THAT PASS VIRUSES AND BACTERIA, THROUGH THE WATER E. COLI, PROTOZOA, TREATMENT AND GIARDIA AND FILTERING PROCESS CRYPTOSPORIDIUM DISINFECTION • PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES ARE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A RESIDUAL DISINFECTING AGENT THROUGHOUT THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM, IN WHICH WATER MAY REMAIN FOR DAYS BEFORE REACHING THE CONSUMER • THERE ARE TWO KINDS OF DISINFECTIONS • PRIMARY DISINFECTION ACHIEVES THE DESIRED LEVEL OF MICROORGANISM KILL OR INACTIVATION • SECONDARY DISINFECTION MAINTAINS A DISINFECTANT RESIDUAL IN THE FINISHED WATER THAT PREVENTS THE REGROWTH OF MICROORGANISMS INSIDE THE WATER MAINS. WHY SWITCH DISINFECTION METHODS • DISINFECTION BYPRODUCTS (DBP’S) • SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT (SDWA) • TRIHALOMETHANES (THMS) AND • LOWERED DBP LIMITS FROM 100 HALOACETIC ACIDS (HAAS) MICROGRAM PER LITER FOR THMS • FORMED WHEN CHLORINE REACTS WITH • NEW LIMITS ORGANIC AND INORGANIC COMPOUNDS • 80 MICROGRAMS PER LITER FOR THMS IN THE WATER • 60 MICROGRAMS PER LITER FOR HAAS • SUSPECTED CARCINOGENS Our system must comply with the new rule by the fall of 2015 Chloramines historically are a cost effective solution HISTORY OF CHLORAMINATION • Was common in the 1920’s – 1940’s • Used in Ottawa, Ontario in 1916 • Used in Denver, CO in 1917 • Used in Greenville, TN in 1926 • Growth in popularity 1929 – 1939 • Free Residual Breakpoint Concept discovered in 1939 • Use of Chloramination decreased during WWII – demand increases
    [Show full text]
  • Online Monitoring Chloramination Process
    Online Monitoring Chloramination Process Presented at OAWWA NE District Meetings May 3, 2018 Wei Zhang and Scott Kahle ASA Analytics Waukesha, WI 53186 Technical Sources Optimizing Chloramine Treatment AWWA Research Foundation 1993 and 2004 Laboratory Experiments and Experiences at Hundreds Chloramination Facilities using ChemScan chloramination Analyzers Chlorination Pathogens Safe Water Chlorine Hypochlorous Acid + + Hypochlorite Chlorine has prevent the spread of waterborne diseases such as cholera, dysentery, typhoid etc …. Chlorination First use for Water Disinfection in late 1800’s Benefits: Strong oxidizer for disinfection Persistent residual to the tap Disadvantages: Strong oxidizer that reacts with many inorganics and organics Potential taste and odor issues Under some conditions, decays rapidly Disinfection Byproducts - DPBs Hypochlorous Natural Organic THM and HAA Acid (HOCl) Matter (NOM) (Carcinogens) + + Strong Oxidizer DBP Reduction Remove Organic Precursors that are reactive with chlorine (filters, membranes, ion exchange, etc… remove TOC ) Decrease the amount of hypochlorous acid available in the reaction (this can be accomplished via chloramination) Decrease the time of contact between the organic material and hypochlorous acid (also accomplished via chloramination) Chloramine Formation NH3 + HOCl NH2Cl + H20 Monochloramine Monochloramine + HOCl NH2Cl + H20 Dichloramine (Strong Odor Weak Disinfectant) Dichloramine + HOCl NCl3 + H20 Trichloramine (Strong Odor and Taste Weak Disinfectant) Organo-chloramines are can also be formed in the presences of organics Chloramines vs. Chlorine More Stable - Longer Lived Residuals Less Reactive (reduced DBP formation) Minimizes Objective Taste and Odor (As long as Di-chloramine and Tri-chloramine are not produced) Disinfection Byproducts Natural Organic Minimal DBPs Monochloramine Matter (NOM) + + Weaker Oxidizer History of Chloramines Initially used in the early 1900s when it was found that chlorine-ammonia addition could save cost by reducing chlorine used.
    [Show full text]
  • Methods to Assess Anthropogenic Bromide Loads from Coal-Fired Power Plants and Their Potential Effect on Downstream Drinking Water Utilities
    Methods to Assess Anthropogenic Bromide Loads from Coal-fired Power Plants and Their Potential Effect on Downstream Drinking Water Utilities Prepared by: Jeanne M. VanBriesen, Ph.D., P.E. December 2019 Project Funding: This project was funded by the American Water Works Association, utilizing the Water Industry Technical Action Fund (WITAF), project #024 and managed by Adam T. Carpenter. Ideal crop marks Dedicated to the World’s Most Important Resource ® Disclaimer: The authors, contributors, editors, and publisher do not assume responsibility for the validity of the content or any consequences of its use. In no event will AWWA or its contractors be liable for direct, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the use of information presented herein. In particular, AWWA and its contractors will not be responsible for any costs, including, but not limited to, those incurred as a result of lost revenue. AWWA does not claim copyright on any material used in this report which is owned by others and used with permission (e.g., figures with the notation “courtesy of…”) or used with attribution through a Creative Commons license. 2 | © Copyright 2019 American Water Works Association Executive Summary Anthropogenic bromide loads discharged to surface waters increase the concentration of bromide in rivers and lakes that are used as source waters for drinking water treatment plants. Elevated bromide in these source waters increases the formation of disinfection by products (DBPs), including trihalomethanes (THMs), which pose health risks to consumers of drinking water. Coal naturally contains bromide, and bromide can be added to coal to increase control of mercury and other air pollutants.
    [Show full text]
  • Chloramination, Lewiston & Auburn's First Year
    Chloramination, Lewiston & Auburn’s First Year June 8 & 15, 2010 Mary Jane Dillingham Water Quality Manager Auburn Water District & Lewiston Water Division Background • Auburn Water District • Lewiston Water Division 1st 1st DBP violation DBP violation HAA5 1st Qtr HAA5 4th Qtr 2002 2006 RAA = 62 ppb, already RAA = 65 ppb, 3 chloraminating more quarters over • March 1, 2006 switched to 60 ppb for RAA chloramines as primary • Notified customers disinfectant 11/17/03 – Switching to chloramines December 10, 2003 Preparing for Chloramines • Violation notices - included information about what was being planned to remediate the high HAA5 • Trustees and Councilors informed at regular meetings • Gave the office staff, who were in contact with the public, information to be able to help the public understand • Gave the crews information including operator training and handouts for reference • Got the Media involved • Critical Customers - Contacted (phone and letters) the Kidney Centers, Aquarium Supply Stores, Hospitals, Veterinarians, Industrial Users, Restaurants, Home Dialysis patients Media Headlines • Water Problem ‘Not Acute’ – February 16, 2003 • Editorial – Define Actual Threat – Sunday, February 16, 2003. “The average customer doesn’t know what haloacetic acids are, what maximum contaminant levels are or how the district controls disinfections by-products. However, they know what cancer is.” • Drinking water system considered – March 20, 2003 • District discusses clearing water contamination – April 16, 2003 • Water District gives contract
    [Show full text]
  • Chloramination Fact Sheet
    Chloramination Q&A A few facts about chloramination. The Bonnyville Water Commission is changing its disinfection process from chlorination (chlorine only) to chloramination (adding chlorine and ammonia). Chloramination is a safe, proven water disinfection process that has been widely used in communities across Canada, the United States and Europe for several decades. The City of Edmonton has utilized chloramination for more than 25 years. Chloraminated water is safe for drinking by people and animals, cooking, bathing, laundry, gardening and all other general household uses. It can be used safely by women who are pregnant, for mixing baby formula, and for cleansing of cuts, scrapes and wounds. Frequently asked questions about the chloramination process. 01What is chloramination? Chloramination is the process of adding ammonia to drinking water which already has chlorine added as a disinfectant. The ammonia combines with the existing chlorine which is called free chlorine to create chloramines. 02Are chloramines new? No. Many cities in Alberta and throughout Canada have used chloramines for decades. Edmonton has used chloramination for over 25 years, and other cities including Athabasca, Stettler, and Fort McMurray. Almost 50% of the Alberta population uses chloraminated water. Page 4 of 8 03Why are we making the change to chloramines? The Bonnyville Regional Water Services Commission (BRWSC), made up of the Town and Municipal District of Bonnyville, have jointly decided to use chloramines for their ability to last in the distribution system, for their lack of taste and odor and for their safety. The further treated water must travel in the distribution system, the faster chlorine dissipates, making water more susceptible to harmful bacteria and Disinfection By-Products (DBPs).
    [Show full text]
  • Download PDF File Bull Run Filtration Pilot Study Report
    Pilot Study November 2020 Prepared by Final Pilot Study Report Prepared for November 202 0 This page intentionally left blank. Final Pilot Study Report Contents List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................................... v List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................................... xi List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................ xiv Acknowledgements ............................................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined. Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................... xix 1.0 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Pilot Plant Study Objectives ................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Test Conditions Summary ...................................................................................................... 1-2 1.4 Water Treatment Goals
    [Show full text]
  • Chloramine Production & Monitoring in Florida's Water Supply Systems
    Chloramine Production & Monitoring in Florida’s Water Supply Systems Robert D. McVay ource waters in many areas of the state weeks, during which superchlorinating with contain elevated levels of total organic car - free chlorine is used to destroy problematic or - Robert McVay, P.E., is the drinking water bon (TOC) which combines with free ganisms and unstable conditions in the water trainer for the Florida Rural Water Associa - Schlorine to produce disinfection byproducts system. When this happens, DBPs often exceed tion. His duties include assisting water (DBPs). These compounds are regulated at 80 regulatory limits, sloughing of pipeline growth treatment systems that experience disinfec - parts per billion and 60 parts per billion for total and sediments can occur, and customers re - tion byproduct problems and troubleshoot - trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids. Meeting ceive high concentrations of chlorine, often re - ing small- and medium-size water these low regulatory limits can be difficult when sulting in taste and odor complaints. treatment plants in Florida. This article was free chlorine is used as a disinfectant. Fortunately, the use of chloramines and the presented as a technical paper at the With the increase in regulatory attention control of problems in the distribution system FSAWWA Fall Conference in November such as the new Stage 2, Initial Distribution follow predictable patterns that can be identified 2007. System Evaluation, rules that require all pub - and corrected before conditions deteriorate to a lic water supply systems to report elevated point where problems occur. This article exam - DBP values, and given the problems meeting ines the concepts in the formation and the use of current rules, many water treatment systems chloramines and suggests pre-emptive tech - distribution system.
    [Show full text]
  • Chloramination Frequently Asked Questions
    Chloramination Frequently Asked Questions Why put chlorine in the water? In any drinking water catchment, there are many factors that may affect the quality of the drinking water. All water that we source has the potential to contain contaminants, in particular microorganisms that can cause adverse health effects. Chlorination of the water is necessary to inactivate any Council employee conducting water testing microorganisms that may be in the water and to ensure the water is adequately disinfected and safe What about dialysis machines/aquarium to drink. fish? Water used in dialysis machines is currently What is Chloramination? filtered and this must continue. Monochloramines must be removed from the water using an Chloramination is one form of chlorine disinfection granular activated carbon filter that can be used for disinfection of drinking water. A small amount of ammonia is added just before Chloramines must be removed before water can the chlorine is added to the water. This creates a be used in fish ponds or aquariums. Local pet reaction and forms a new disinfectant known as shops and vets have a range of treatments such monochloramine. as waterconditioning agents and carbon filters that will make the chloraminated water safe for Why use Chloramination? aquarium fish. At Crescent Head, chloramination will be used to Can it be removed from the water? reduce the incidence of disinfection by-products (DBP’s) associated with chlorine-only treatment in Yes – by the use of a granular activated carbon this water supply. These DBP’s can be potentially filter, or in the case of aquariums, by using one of harmful to human health and should be minimised the agents recommended by a vet or pet shop.
    [Show full text]
  • Revised Total Coliform Rule Assessments and Corrective Actions Guidance Manual
    Revised Total Coliform Rule Assessments and Corrective Actions Guidance Manual Interim Final Office of Water (4606M) EPA 815-R-14-006 September 2014 DISCLAIMER This manual is intended to provide information to assist public water systems in complying with the Level 1 and Level 2 assessment and corrective action requirements under the Revised Total Coliform Rule (RTCR). This guidance is not a substitute for applicable legal requirements, nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it does not impose legally-binding requirements on any party, including EPA, States or the regulated community. While EPA has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the discussion in this guidance, the obligations of the regulated community are determined by statutes, regulations or other legally binding requirements. In the event of a conflict between the discussion in this document and any statute or regulation, this document would not be controlling. Interested parties are free to raise questions and objections to the guidance and the appropriateness of using it in a particular situation. Although this manual describes suggestions for complying with the RTCR requirements, the guidance presented here may not be appropriate for all situations and alternative approaches may provide satisfactory performance. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute an EPA endorsement or recommendation for use. EPA may decide to revise this guidance without public notice and comment period to reflect the changes to EPA’s approach to implementing the Revised Total Coliform Rule or to clarify or update text. Copies of this guidance can be downloaded from http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/tcr/regulation_revisions.cfm.
    [Show full text]
  • NPDES) PERMIT Permit Evaluation Review Report
    NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT Permit Evaluation Review Report Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 2020 SW Fourth Avenue, Suite 400 Portland, Oregon 97201 503-229-5263 FAX 503-229-6945 Final Permittee: City of Portland Facility Location: Bureau of Water Works 16400 NE Airport Way, Portland Oregon. 2010 N Interstate Ave. Portland OR 97227 Sources Covered: Numerous Receiving Stream: Columbia River, Johnson Creek, Columbia Slough, Bull Run River, Sandy River, and various other streams and creeks Source Category: Minor industrial Proposed Action: Permit modification File Information: Source Contact: WQ-Multnomah County Curt Ireland, PE File No. 70730 503/823-7598 EPA Reference No.: OR-003113-5 Application Date: 26 July 2005 Application No. 980672 Permit No. 101617 Preparer: Date Prepared: Elliot Zais, PhD, PE 15 October 2007 Water Quality Source Control Section Preparer, Signature: Northwest Region 503/229-5292 / - Portland Water Bureau Evaluation Report Page 2 of 23 Fact sheets are required by EPA regulations to include the following items when applicable. A brief description of the type of facility or activity which is the subject of the draft permit; The type and quantity of wastes, fluids, or pollutants which are proposed to be or are being treated, stored, disposed of, injected, emitted, or discharged. A brief summary ofthe basis for the draft permit conditions including references to applicable statutory or regulatory provisions and appropriate supporting references to the administrative record required by §124.9 (for EPA-issued permits); Reasons why any requested variances or alternatives to required standards do or do not appear justified; A description of the procedures for reaching a final decision on the draft permit including: (i)The beginning and ending dates of the comment period under §124.10 and the address where comments will be received; (ii) Procedures for requesting a hearing and the nature of that hearing; and (iii) Any other procedures by which the public may participate in the final decision.
    [Show full text]