DWQ-2024-004702

In compliance with the American Disabilities Act, individuals with special needs (including auxiliary communicative aids and services) should contact Larene Wyss, Office of Human resources, at [phone], TDD [phone], or by email at [e-mail] at least five working days prior to the scheduled meeting.
195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT
Mailing Address: PO Box 144870 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870
Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • TDD [phone]
www.deq.utah.gov
Printed on 100% recycled paper
State of Utah

Department of Environmental Quality
Kimberly D. Shelley Executive Director DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY John K. Mackey, P.E. Director
Water Quality Board James Webb, Chair Michelle Kaufusi, Vice Chair Carly Castle Michela Harris Joseph Havasi Trevor Heaton Robert Fehr Jill Jones Kimberly D. Shelley John K. Mackey Executive Secretary
SPENCER J. COX Governor DEIDRE HENDERSON Lieutenant Governor
Utah Water Quality Board Meeting MASOB & Via Zoom 195 North 1950 West Salt Lake City, Ut 84116 June 26, 2024
Board Meeting Begins at 8:30 AM AGENDA Water Quality Board Meeting – Call to Order & Roll Call Jim Webb Minutes: Approval of Minutes for April 23, 2024 Water Quality Board Meeting Jim Webb Executive Secretary Report John K. Mackey Watershed Protection: 1. 2024 Integrated Report Alan Ochoa 2. Nonpoint Source Program Annual Report Paul Burnett Rule Making: 1. Rulemaking Actions: R317-16 GSL Mineral Extraction Facility Operator Certification Approval/Summary of Public Comments & Responses Ben Holcomb 2. Request to Initiate Informal Rulemaking Necessary to Address HB453 Ben Holcomb Compliance & Enforcement: 1. Request Approval of Administrative Settlement Agreement-Spanish Fork Corporation Justine Marshall Funding: 1. Re-Authorization of Available Southern Reuse ARPA Grant Balance Andrew Pompeo 2. Sherwood Shores Deauthorization George Meados Other: 1. Results From the 2023 Triennial Review of Utah’s Water Quality Standards Jake Vander Lann
Page 2 June 26,2024
Water Quality Board Agenda Public Comment Period Meeting Adjournment Jim Webb Next Meeting August 28, 2024 at 8:30 am MASOB & Via Zoom 195 North 1950 West Salt Lake City, Ut 84116 DWQ-2024-004701

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT Mailing Address: PO Box 144870 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870 Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • TDD [phone]
www.deq.utah.gov
Printed on 100% recycled paper
State of Utah

Department of Environmental Quality
Kimberly D. Shelley Executive Director DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY John K. Mackey, P.E. Director
Water Quality Board James Webb, Chair Michelle Kaufusi, Vice Chair Carly Castle Michela Harris Joseph Havasi Trevor Heaton Robert Fehr Jill Jones Kimberly D. Shelley John K. Mackey Executive Secretary
SPENCER J. COX Governor DEIDRE HENDERSON Lieutenant Governor
Utah Water Quality Board Meeting Dixie Convention Center & Via Zoom 1835 S. Convention Center Dr. St. George, Utah 84790 and Via Zoom April 23, 2024 Board Meeting Begins at 2:00 PM UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Jim Webb Michela Harris Mayor Kaufusi Trevor Heaton
Robert Fehr
Jill Jones Joe Havasi John Mackey Excused Kim Shelley
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT & ONLINE Brendon Quirk Clanci Hawks
Ken Hoffman Beth Wondimu Linsey Shafer Robert Beers Allie Rockhill Glen Lischeske Jeff Komell

Emily Canton Tessa Scheuer Sammy Heusser
Andrew Pompeo Jeff Studenka

Judy Etherington
Dave Pierson Harry Campbell Porter Henze
Sam Taylor

Page 2 April 23, 2024
Water Quality Board Minutes
OTHERS PRESENT & ONLINE Matt Goodrich
Chad Burrell Gary Vance
Paul Bittman
Michael Chandler Steve Jackson Curtis Page
M. Simmons Jill Burton Russel Seeley Mayor Shane Baton
Kendra Norman

Mr. Webb, Chair, called the Meeting to order at 2:00 PM. ROLL CALL Mr. Webb took roll call for the members of the Board. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF March 27, 2024 BOARD MEETING Mr. Webb moved to approve the minutes of the March 27, 2024 Board meeting. Motion: Ms. Jones motioned to accept the minutes. Ms. Harris seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously to approve the March 27, 2024 meeting minutes. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY REPORT Mr. Mackey addressed the Board regarding the following:

• State/Division News: o Mr. Mackey expressed his appreciation to WEAU for hosting the WQ Board Meeting.
o Mr. Mackey mentioned KC Becker with the EPA recently visited Utah. She met with Division of Water Quality and Provo City personnel at the City’s new state-of-the-art
wastewater treatment plant site. The new facility will benefit the City and Utah Lake as critical infrastructure that protects both growth and water quality. o Mr. Mackey reviewed two PFAS rulemaking topics:
 EPA finalized a critical rule to designate two widely used PFAS—PFOA and PFOS—as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation & Liability Act. This step improves transparency and
accountability to clean up PFAS contamination in communities. In addition to the final rule, EPA issued a separate CERCLA enforcement discretion policy to clarify that EPA will focus its enforcement on parties who significantly contribute to the release of PFAS chemicals into the environment.
 EPA issued the first-ever national, legally enforceable drinking water standard to protect communities from exposure to harmful PFAS. The final rule will reduce PFAS exposure for approximately 100 million people, prevent deaths and reduce serious illnesses. While the standard is for the drinking water side, water quality is
Page 3 April 23, 2024
Water Quality Board Minutes
affected because what goes in the water must come out. o Mr. Mackey mentioned the EPA Region 8 Water & Wastewater Security Summit that was
held in Salt Lake City on April 18-19, 2024. The focus was on protecting water systems from a variety of threats & hazards, including physical attacks, cyberattacks, aging infrastructure and natural disasters. Additional information can be located on the America’s Cyber Defense Agency’s webpage, https://www.cisa.gov/water. FUNDING Financial Status Report: Ms. Hernandez presented the financial status report to the Board as indicated in the packet. Cedar City ARPA Reauthorization: Mr. Campbell presented on behalf of Cedar City for reauthorization. Cedar City is requesting a scope of work amendment to the December 14, 2022 authorization for the
inclusion of construction of filtration and UV disinfection at their wastewater treatment plant. Motion: Ms. Jones motioned to amend the December 14, 2022 authorization to allow Cedar City to request reimbursement for the construction of a project including both filtration & disinfection of the production of treated effluent meeting Type I standards.
Mr. Heaton seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Ash Creek SSD (ACSSD) Authorization: Mr. Lischeske presented on behalf of ACSSD to request funding from the WQ Board in the amount of $6,876,00 for the construction of a regional sewer lift station and pressure sewer force main to connect the Town of Virgin to the ACSSD collection system in La Verkin,
UT. Motion: Ms. Jones motioned to authorize funding to ACSSD in the amount of $6,876,000 as a loan at an interest rate of 0% repayable over 30 years with the special conditions recommended by staff as indicated in the packet. Mr. Havasi seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Corrine City Planning Advance: Mr. Hoffman presented on behalf of Corinne City to request a Hardship Planning Advance in the amount of $102,900 for preparation of a Preliminary Engineer Report related to the improvements of its sanitary sewer collection system and wastewater lagoon treatment system.
Motion: Ms. Harris motioned to authorize funding to Corrine City in the amount of $102,900 as a Planning Advance with the special conditions recommended by staff as indicated in the packet. Ms. Jones seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Page 4 April 23, 2024
Water Quality Board Minutes Lewiston City Reauthorization: Mr. Hoffman presented on behalf of Lewiston City to request reauthorization. Lewiston returned to the Board as required under a special condition of the
October 25, 2023 authorization. Staff recommended the Board amend the October 25, 2023 authorization with revised special conditions as presented in the packet. Motion: Mr. Heaton motioned to reauthorize the funding package following the staff recommendations and special conditions as presented in the packet. Mayor Kaufusi seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. RULE MAKING: Rulemaking Actions R317-16 GSL Mineral Extraction Facility Operator Certification Approval/Summary of Public Comments & Responses: Mr. Harris & Mr. Holcomb requested approval
of the proposed amendments and response to comments; and staff approval to submit the revised R317-16 to the Office of Administrative Rules before May 1, 2024 in order to publish another public comment period beginning May 15, 2024.
Motion: Mr. Havasi motioned to approve the request to release the proposed amendments of the draft rule for public review.
Mr. Fehr seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. COMPLIANCE & ENFORCEMENT: Presentation of the Division of Water Quality’s Penalty Policy: Ms. Sousa & Ms. Heusser provided the Board with a slide show presentation of DWQ’s Penalty Policy. OTHER: Water Operator Certification Program 2023 Annual Report: Mr. Burrell, Chair of the Wastewater Operator Certification Council, provided the Board with the 2023 Utah Wastewater Operator Certification Council Annual Report. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments were presented.
MEETING ADJOURNMENT Motion: Ms. Jones motioned to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Havasi seconded the motion to adjourn the meeting.
Page 5 April 23, 2024
Water Quality Board Minutes Next Meeting – May 22, 2024 at 8:30 am MASOB & Via Zoom 195 North 1950 West Salt Lake City, Utah 84116 Via Zoom https://us02web.zoom.us/j/7074990271 ___________________________________ James Webb, Chair Utah Water Quality Board

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT Mailing Address: PO Box 144870 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870 Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • TDD [phone]
www.deq.utah.gov Printed on 100% recycled paper
State of Utah

Department of Environmental Quality
Kimberly D. Shelley Executive Director DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY John K. Mackey, P.E. Director
Water Quality Board James Webb, Chair Michelle Kaufusi, Vice Chair Carly Castle Michela Harris Joseph Havasi Trevor Heaton Robert Fehr Jill Jones Kimberly D. Shelley John K. Mackey Executive Secretary
SPENCER J. COX Governor DEIDRE HENDERSON Lieutenant Governor

M E M O R A N D U M TO: Water Quality Board

THROUGH: John Mackey, Director FROM: Jodi Gardberg, Watershed Protection Section Manager
DATE: June 26, 2024
SUBJECT: 2024 Integrated Report
The Utah Division of Water Quality (DWQ) assesses the surface waters of the State (e.g.,
rivers/streams, lakes/reservoirs) and reports on their condition in the Integrated Report. To accomplish this, DWQ assembles and evaluates all existing and readily available water quality data over a six year period to determine if assessed waterbodies support their designated beneficial uses according to Utah’s water quality standards (Utah Administrative Code R317-2). Beneficial
uses assessed include drinking water, recreation, aquatic life, agriculture, and the Great Salt Lake.
The Integrated Report is submitted every two years for Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval and includes the 305(b)-assessment report and the 303(d) list of impaired waters. The Assessment Methodology guides how DWQ performs water quality assessments. The 2024 Integrated Report was submitted to EPA on April 1, 2024 and approved by EPA on April 30, 2024.
Alan Ochoa will present a summary of the 2024 Integrated Report. For more information, please
visit the 2024 Integrated Report website at https://deq.utah.gov/water-quality/2024-integrated-report that includes an interactive map of the results.

DWQ-2024-004530

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT Mailing Address: PO Box 144870 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870 Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • TDD [phone]
www.deq.utah.gov Printed on 100% recycled paper
State of Utah

Department of Environmental Quality
Kimberly D. Shelley Executive Director DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY John K. Mackey, P.E. Director
Water Quality Board James Webb, Chair Michelle Kaufusi, Vice Chair Carly Castle Michela Harris Joseph Havasi Trevor Heaton Robert Fehr Jill Jones Kimberly D. Shelley John K. Mackey Executive Secretary
SPENCER J. COX Governor DEIDRE HENDERSON Lieutenant Governor

M E M O R A N D U M TO: Water Quality Board

THROUGH: John Mackey, Director FROM: Jodi Gardberg, Watershed Protection Section Manager
DATE: June 26, 2024
SUBJECT: State Nonpoint Source Program Annual Report Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 and FY 24 Projects Overview

The Utah Division of Water Quality receives grant funds to implement nonpoint source pollution control projects throughout the state. These grants include Section 319(h) funds from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and State Nonpoint Source funds authorized by the Water Quality Board. Every year an annual report is submitted to EPA on the accomplishments of
the State’s Nonpoint Source Program. Paul Burnett will present a summary of the FY23 annual
report including an overview of the projects selected for FY24.

DWQ-2023-004531

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT Mailing Address: PO Box 144870 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870 Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • TDD [phone]
www.deq.utah.gov Printed on 100% recycled paper
State of Utah

Department of
Environmental Quality
Kimberly D. Shelley Executive Director DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY John K. Mackey, P.E. Director
Water Quality Board James Webb, Chair Michelle Kaufusi, Vice Chair Carly Castle Michela Harris Joseph Havasi Trevor Heaton Robert Fehr Jill Jones Kimberly D. Shelley John K. Mackey Executive Secretary
SPENCER J. COX Governor DEIDRE HENDERSON Lieutenant Governor
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Utah Water Quality Board THROUGH: John Mackey, P.E., Division Director
FROM: Ben Holcomb, Standards & Tech Services Section Manager
DATE: June 26, 2024 SUBJECT: Rulemaking Actions: Request to Adopt: R317-16 GSL Mineral
Extraction Facility Operator Certification Approval
Board Action: Staff recommends that the Water Quality Board adopt R317-16 as proposed in the May 15, 2024 Bulletin as a Board Order effective immediately.
Background
During the 2023 Utah legislative session, the legislature passed HB 513 “Great Salt Lake Amendments”, which requires the Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) approval of operator certification that a proposed mineral extraction project will “not negatively impact the biota
or chemistry of Great Salt Lake”. The Water Quality Board (Board) approved the initiation of formal
rulemaking at the January 24, 2024 Board meeting. This was followed by the publication of the draft rules by the Office of Administrative Rules (OAR) on February 15, 2024 for a 30-day comment period ending on March 15, 2024.
At the April 23, 2024 Board meeting, staff provided a summary of the public comments received
on the draft rule and the Division of Water Quality’s responses. Resulting changes to R317-16 were determined substantive and required an additional 30-day public comment period from May 15, 2024 to June 15, 2024. No additional public comments were received during this period. Staff recommends that the Water Quality Board adopt R317-16 as proposed in the May 15, 2024 Bulletin
as a Board Order effective immediately.
State of Utah Administrative Rule Analysis Revised May 2023
NOTICE OF CHANGE IN PROPOSED RULE
Title No. - Rule No. - Section No.
Rule or Section Number: R317-16 Filing ID: Office Use Only
Date of Previous Publication: 02/15/2024
Agency Information
1. Department: Environmental Quality
Agency: Division of Water Quality
Room number: DEQ 3rd floor
Building: Multi Agency State Office Building
Street address: 195 N 1950 W
City, state and zip: Salt Lake City, UT 84116
Mailing address: PO Box 144870
City, state and zip: Salt Lake City, UT, 84114-4870
Contact persons:
Name: Phone: Email:
James Harris 801-541-3069 [e-mail]

Please address questions regarding information on this notice to the persons listed above.
General Information
2. Rule or section catchline:
R317-16. Great Salt Lake Mineral Extraction Facility Operator Certification Approval.
3. Reason for this change:
Changes are proposed in response to comments received during public comment period.
4. Summary of this change:
Changes in proposed rule include refinements to definitions, minor additions to the feasibility assessment requirements, changes to citations to ensure compatibility with related rules and general edits for clarity.
Fiscal Information
5. Provide an estimate and written explanation of the aggregate anticipated cost or savings to:
A) State budget:
There is no anticipated cost or savings impact to the state budget since the proposed changes are primarily for the purposes of clarification and consistency in response to comments received during the initial comment period.
B) Local government:
There is no anticipated cost or savings impact to local government since proposed changes are primarily for the purposes of clarification and consistency in response to comments received during the initial comment period.
C) Small businesses ("small business" means a business employing 1-49 persons):
This rule modification is not anticipated to impact small business cost or savings, since the proposed changes are primarily for the purposes of clarification and consistency in response to comments received during the initial comment period.
D) Non-small businesses ("non-small business" means a business employing 50 or more persons):
This rule modification is not anticipated to impact non-small business cost or savings, since the proposed changes are primarily for the purposes of clarification and consistency in response to comments received during the initial comment period.
E) Persons other than small businesses, non-small businesses, or state or local government entities ("person" means any individual, partnership, corporation, association, governmental entity, or public or private organization of any character other than an agency):
Persons other than small businesses, non-small businesses, or state or local government entities will not be financially affected, since the proposed changes are primarily for the purposes of clarification and consistency in response to comments received during the initial comment period.
F) Compliance costs for affected persons:
These changes are in response to comments received during the initial comment period and intended to provide clarification and consistency with related rules. There are no additional anticipated compliance costs for affected persons due to the proposed changes.
G) Regulatory Impact Summary Table (This table only includes fiscal impacts that could be measured. If there are inestimable fiscal impacts, they will not be included in this table. Inestimable impacts will be included in narratives above.)
Regulatory Impact Table
Fiscal Cost FY2024 FY2025 FY2026
State Government $0 $0 $0
Local Governments $0 $0 $0
Small Businesses $0 $0 $0
Non-Small Businesses $0 $0 $0
Other Persons $0 $0 $0
Total Fiscal Cost $0 $0 $0
Fiscal Benefits FY2024 FY2025 FY2026
State Government $0 $0 $0
Local Governments $0 $0 $0
Small Businesses $0 $0 $0
Non-Small Businesses $0 $0 $0
Other Persons $0 $0 $0
Total Fiscal Benefits $0 $0 $0
Net Fiscal Benefits $0 $0 $0
H) Department head comments on fiscal impact and approval of regulatory impact analysis:
The Executive Director of the Department of Environmental Quality, Kimberly Shelley, has reviewed and approved this regulatory impact analysis.
Citation Information
6. Provide citations to the statutory authority for the rule. If there is also a federal requirement for the rule, provide a citation to that requirement:
Subsection 65A-6-4(6)(b)

Incorporations by Reference Information
7. Incorporations by Reference (if this rule incorporates more than two items by reference, please include additional tables):
A) This rule adds, updates, or removes the following title of materials incorporated by references (a copy of materials incorporated by reference must be submitted to the Office of Administrative Rules; if none, leave blank):
Official Title of Materials Incorporated (from title page)
Publisher
Issue Date
Issue or Version

B) This rule adds, updates, or removes the following title of materials incorporated by references (a copy of materials incorporated by reference must be submitted to the Office of Administrative Rules; if none, leave blank):
Official Title of Materials Incorporated
(from title page)
Publisher
Issue Date
Issue or Version
Public Notice Information
8. The public may submit written or oral comments to the agency identified in box 1. (The public may also request a hearing by submitting a written request to the agency. See Section 63G-3-302 and Rule R15-1 for more information.)
A) Comments will be accepted until: 06/17/2024
B) A public hearing (optional) will be held:
Date (mm/dd/yyyy): Time (hh:mm AM/PM): Place (physical address or URL):

To the agency: If more space is needed for a physical address or URL, refer readers to Box 4 in General Information. If more than two hearings will take place, continue to add rows.

9. This rule change MAY become effective on: 06/26/2024
NOTE: The date above is the date the agency anticipates making the rule or its changes effective. It is NOT the effective date.
Agency Authorization Information
To the agency: Information requested on this form is required by Section 63G-3-303. Incomplete forms will be returned to the agency for completion, possibly delaying publication in the Utah State Bulletin and delaying the first possible effective date.
Agency head or designee and title: John K. Mackey, Director, Division of Water Quality Date: 04/30/2024
R317. Environmental Quality, Water Quality. R317-16. Great Salt Lake Mineral Extraction Facility Operator Certification Approval. R317-16-1. Purpose and Authority. (1) Authority. This rule is promulgated pursuant to Section 65A-6-4. (2) Purpose. To implement administrative rules for approval of operator certification according to Section 65A-6-4 and to protect the biota and chemistry of Great Salt Lake from possible negative impacts in connection with brine processing and mineral extraction activities. R317-16-2. Definitions. The following definitions apply for purposes of this rule only: (1) "Application for Operator Certification Approval" or "Application" means a request for approval of an operator's certification that its operations will not negatively impact biota or chemistry of Great Salt Lake, and includes the specific information detailed in Sections R317-16-3 and R317-16-5. (2) "Biota" means all plants, fungi, animals, protists, bacteria, and archaea in Great Salt Lake. (3) "Brine Depletion" means the volume of brine water consumed through processing and operations, calculated by subtracting the volume of returned water from the volume of brine water. (4) "Brine Water" means water diverted from Great Salt Lake. (5) "Certification Decision" includes the following: (a) "Operator Certification Approval" means a permit order, as defined in Subsection 19-1-301.5(1)(f)(i), indicating the director's approval of an operator's certification. (b) "Operator Certification Denial" means a permit order, as defined in Subsection 19-1-301.5(1)(f)(i), indicating the director's denial of an operator's certification. (6) "Chemistry" means the properties, composition, and structure of the elements and compounds, and interactions thereof, making up the waters, brines, and substrate of Great Salt Lake. (7) "Director" means the director of the Utah Division of Water Quality. (8) "Discharge" means any water, substance, or pollution placed into a receiving water; which may include any combination of treated, processed,[ mitigation,] or returned waters. (9) "Division" means the Utah Division of Water Quality. (10) "Draft Certification Decision" means a document indicating the director's preliminary decision to approve or deny an operator's certification. A draft certification decision is not a permit order. (11) "Externally Sourced Water" means water diverted from sources other than Great Salt Lake and used for processing and operations.
(12) "Feasibility Assessment" means the same as that term defined in [Section]Title R652[-21-200]. (13) "FFSL" means the Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands. (14) "Foreign materials" means materials added to a discharge or a commercial process. (15) "GSL" means Great Salt Lake. (16) ["Mitigation Water" means the water diverted from sources other than Great Salt Lake and delivered to Great Salt Lake to compensate for brine depletion, pursuant to Section 65A-6-4. Mitigation water may not include wastewater reuse.
(17) ]"Negative Impact" includes any activity or action that: (a) causes pollution, or negatively alters the salinity or other aspects of water chemistry in Great Salt Lake; (b) negatively alters the volume or timing of water flows to Great Salt Lake, or water levels in Great Salt Lake or Great Salt Lake wetlands; (c) reduces, degrades, or otherwise negatively alters habitat in and around Great Salt Lake; or (d) results in harmful physiological impacts to Great Salt Lake biota, including disruptions to survival, reproduction, or
growth. (17[8]) "Operator" means a person submitting an application for operator certification approval to pursue extraction of Great Salt Lake elements or minerals to the Division of Water Quality. (18[9]) "Operator Certification" means a statement by an operator that its operation will not negatively impact the biota or chemistry of Great Salt Lake. (19[20]) "Pollution" means the same as that term is used in Section 19-5-102.
(20[1]) "Returned Water" means any water discharged into Great Salt Lake from commercial operations. (21[2]) "Total Water" means the sum of externally sourced water and brine water. (22[3]) "UPDES" means Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. (23[4]) "Water Depletion" means the volume of total water consumed through processing and operations, calculated by subtracting the volume of returned water from the volume of [brine]total water. R317-16-3. Feasibility Assessment -- Certification Approval by Rule. (1) The operator shall request a pre-filing meeting with the division and with FFSL at least 30 days before submitting a feasibility application with FFSL. The division and FFSL may jointly waive or shorten the requirement for a pre-filing meeting request. (2) For the feasibility assessment only, a UPDES permit is considered a feasibility assessment certification approval by rule. (a) The term of a UPDES permit issued for the feasibility assessment shall be the duration of the feasibility assessment.
(b) If the operation is non-discharging during the feasibility assessment and does not require a UPDES permit, the operator shall nonetheless comply with Subsection R317-16-3(3). (i) The director will issue a certification decision using the procedures listed in Sections R317-16-6 and R317-16-7. (ii) The term of a feasibility assessment certification approval shall be the duration of the feasibility assessment.
(3) To obtain feasibility assessment certification approval by rule, the operator shall submit, on a form provided by the division:
(a) information listed in this section pertaining to the feasibility assessment; and (b) an application for a UPDES permit. (4) Feasibility assessment information required: (a) project information:
(i) mass balance of principal GSL salinity constituents, including all target and non-target minerals across the principal mineral processing steps; (ii) a water balance at design flow, low flow conditions, and across a range of lake levels; (iii) generated waste containment and disposal infrastructure descriptions, including residuals and disposal methods;
(iv) location and acreage of lakebed used for project facilities during the feasibility assessment and operations phases, if different;
(v) supporting documentation submitted to federal agencies, including maps, plans, specifications, project dimensions, copies of associated federal applications, biological and engineering studies, environmental assessment or environmental impact statements, or alternative analyses, as applicable; (vi) estimated water depletion and brine depletion; and (vii) plan to determine rate of extraction for the targeted and non-targeted minerals or elements and estimated rate of depletion of the targeted and non-targeted minerals or elements in GSL; (b) withdrawal information: (i) names and locations of the brine water and externally sourced water where withdrawals will occur, including the precise latitude and longitude to the fifth decimal place in decimal degrees and to the tenth of a degree in degrees-minutes-seconds notation; (ii) detailed information on the quantity of brine water and externally sourced water withdrawn;[ and] (iii) detailed information on the timing of the withdrawals; and (iv) detailed description of the operator's plan for measuring the amount of brine water, externally sourced water, and returned water. (c) discharge information: (i) characterization of the physical, chemical, biological, thermal, and other pertinent properties of the discharge; at a minimum: pH, total alkalinity, total dissolved solids, total suspended solids, sulfate, nitrate, nitrite, carbonate, bicarbonate, chloride,
hydroxide, chemical oxygen demand, biological oxygen demand, silica, zinc, magnesium, sodium, calcium, potassium, boron, bromine, aluminum, iron, and silicon; range of temperatures expected in effluent; density range of effluent to be discharged; and quantity of foreign materials that would be discharged to the GSL on an annual basis; (ii) for operations that are non-discharging during the feasibility assessment, a determination of whether discharge will occur during the operations phase and an evaluation of how the operator will obtain information to characterize its operations discharge during the feasibility assessment.
(d) impacted habitat: (i) description of existing GSL habitat and biota in and around the area of operation; (ii) description of the potential physical impact to habitat and biota in and around the withdrawal and discharge locations; (iii) evaluation of the least degrading reasonable alternatives; (iv) plan to mitigate any negative impacts of the proposed operation; and (v) plan to ensure existing beneficial uses will be maintained and protected.
(e) monitoring and inspection plan: (i) a description of the methods and means to monitor the quality and characteristics of the discharge and the operation of the equipment or facilities employed in control of any proposed discharge; (ii) plan to monitor and address long-term cumulative effects of withdrawals and discharges associated with the operation on the biota and chemistry of the GSL including available baseline data; and (iii) a map showing the locations of proposed monitoring points.
(f) evidence supporting the operator certification: (i) consideration of both short-term effects and long-term impacts of the project; (ii) examples of evidence supporting a certification may include: (A) a quantitative comparison of influent and effluent volume and chemical composition; (B) modeled annual impacts to salinity or concentrations of other [important ]chemical parameters in GSL; (C) evaluation of impacts to GSL biota including:
(I) a quantitative comparison of effluent chemical concentrations to applicable water quality standards; or (II) other scientifically defensible biological response thresholds; (D) other scientifically defensible means for evaluating project impacts on GSL chemistry and biota. R317-16-4. Operations Application Procedures. (1) The operator shall request a pre-filing meeting with the division and with FFSL at least 30 days before submitting an
application for operator certification approval. The division and FFSL may jointly waive or shorten the requirement for a pre-filing meeting request. (2) The operator shall submit an application for operator certification approval simultaneously with the application to FFSL pursuant to Subsection 65A-6-4(6)(b)(iii).
(3) Applications for operator certification approval shall be submitted on the form provided by the division. Unless extended in writing by the division, the operator must obtain all information submitted with the application within one year of filing the
application. (4) The operator shall submit a UPDES application simultaneously with the application for operator certification approval. UPDES permit approval is not a certification decision. The director shall issue a certification decision separate from a UPDES permit. (5) Within 45 days of receiving the application for operator certification approval, the division will notify the operator
whether the application is complete. If an application is incomplete, the division shall notify the operator of the missing information. (a) An operator may submit the missing information within 45 days after the division's notice of incompleteness. (b) The division may administratively deny an incomplete application not remedied within 45 days, and the operator must resubmit a new application for operator certification approval.
(6) The operator shall notify the director in writing of changes that may affect the application for operator certification. (7) If an operator who is required to obtain an operator certification approval fails to do so, the director may process an
application for operator certification approval after-the-fact. An application after-the-fact shall be reviewed under the same standards as a timely application for operator certification approval. The director may require full restoration or other actions as a pre-condition of processing the application. An operator submitting an after-the-fact application shall have the burden of proving what the original baseline conditions were, and an application may be denied in the absence of such proof.
(8) The operator is responsible for payment of hourly fees, established pursuant to Subsection 19-1-201(6)(i). The operator shall submit a fee retainer, specified in the application form, together with its application for certification approval. The division will
not begin review of the application for certification approval until it has received the fee retainer. The division will invoice the operator on a routine basis, and may stop review of the application for nonpayment. R317-16-5. Operations Application Content.
Unless otherwise determined in writing by the director, the application for operator certification approval shall include the following:
(1) all information required under Subsection R317-16-3(4), revised and updated to reflect the scale of the operations design; (2) a summary of any changes made as a result of the feasibility assessment;
(3) a summary of findings establishing the operator's feasibility assessment had no negative impact on the biota or chemistry of GSL;
(4) all data and data analysis related to GSL biota and chemistry derived from the feasibility assessment; (5) a UPDES permit application; (6) any other information related to the operation's impact to the biota or chemistry of GSL, as requested by the director; and (7) a statement that the proposed project will not negatively impact the biota or chemistry of GSL. R317-16-6. Draft Certification Decision.
(1) Within 60 days of receiving a complete application for operator certification approval, the director shall issue a draft certification decision. (2) The draft certification decision shall be subject to a public notice and comment period of at least 30 days. (3) The division will publish the public notice using the following methods: (a) Utah Department of Environmental Quality website; and (b) the Utah Public Notices website.
(4) The director may, at the director's discretion, hold a public hearing to take oral comments if: (a) the director receives a request in writing not more than 15 days after the publication date of the draft certification decision; and (b) the request is from:
(i) another state agency; (ii) ten interested persons; or
(iii) an interested association having not fewer than ten members. (5) Public notice of a public hearing shall be given at least seven days in advance of the hearing. Public notice of a hearing may be combined and provided at the same time as public notice of any of the following: (a) a draft certification decision issued under this rule;
(b) a draft UPDES permit issued under Rule R317-8; or (c) a draft water quality certification issued under Rule R317-15.
(6) The director shall consider the comments received during the public notice and comment period in finalizing the certification decision.
R317-16-7. Certification Decision.
(1) After review of the application for operator certification approval and consideration of comments received during the public notice period, the director shall issue one of the following certification decisions:
(a) operator certification approval; or (b) operator certification denial.
(i) If the director issues an operator certification denial, the denial shall include reasons for denial. (ii) If the director issues an operator certification denial, the director will notify FFSL of the denial.
(2) The certification decision shall include a summary of the comments received during the public notice and comment period and state whether any changes were made to the certification decision as a result of the comments.
R317-16-8. Term of Operator Certification Approval.
(1) An operator certification approval shall be effective for a term of ten years. (2) An operator shall submit an application for operator certification approval to renew its operator certification approval no
later than 180 days before the expiration of the certification approval. (a) If an operator certification approval lapses before the director issues a certification decision on a timely renewal
application, the operator certification approval will continue until the director issues a certification decision on the renewal application.
(b) Review of the operator's application to renew its operator certification approval will follow all procedures specified in this rule.
(c) Failure to submit an application for operator certification approval to renew shall, on the certification approval's expiration date, result in a lapse of the operator certification approval. (d) The director will notify the operator and FFSL of the lapse. The director's notification is not a permit order. R317-16-9. Reevaluation of Operator Certification Approval. (1) If any of the following occur, the director may notify the operator that it must resubmit, within 60 days, an application for
operator certification approval for reevaluation: (a) the operator's failure to fully disclose all relevant facts in the application; (b) the operator's misrepresentation of any relevant fact at any time; (c) existence of evidence that the operation is negatively impacting the biota or chemistry of GSL; (d) request for a major modification in the operator's UPDES permit as defined by Subsection R317-8-5[.6](6); (e) lapse of the operator's certification approval; or (f) the emergency trigger as defined in Subsection 65A-17-101(5)[R652-21-1403]. (2) The reevaluation will follow all procedures specified in this rule. R317-16-10. Transfer of Operator Certification Approval For Non-Discharging Operations.
(1) For non-discharging operations, the operator shall give written notice to the director of any transfer of the operator certification approval at least 30 days in advance of the effective date of the transfer. (2) The notice shall include a written agreement between the existing and new operator establishing a specific date for transfer of certification responsibility. (3) The notice shall contain the following contact information: (a) legal name, permanent address and telephone number;
(b) name and permanent address of the operator's registered agent in Utah; (c) name, address, email address and telephone number of the primary contact for the application, including the person to whom requests for additional information should be addressed; and (d) signature of the operator; a corporate application must be signed by an officer of the corporation. R317-16-11. Effect of Operator Certification Approval on Other Required Permits.
(1) Operator certification approval does not exempt the operator from complying with or obtaining any other permits required by federal, state, or local law. (2) An operator certification approval is required in addition to a UPDES permit for facilities subject to this rule; however, reporting required by the operator certification approval may also be required through the UPDES permit, at the director's discretion.
KEY: Water Quality Date of Last Change: 2024 Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 65A-6-4 !--dar--

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT Mailing Address: PO Box 144870 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870 Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • TDD [phone]
www.deq.utah.gov Printed on 100% recycled paper
State of Utah

Department of
Environmental Quality
Kimberly D. Shelley Executive Director DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY John K. Mackey, P.E. Director
Water Quality Board James Webb, Chair Michelle Kaufusi, Vice Chair Carly Castle Michela Harris Joseph Havasi Trevor Heaton Robert Fehr Jill Jones Kimberly D. Shelley John K. Mackey Executive Secretary
SPENCER J. COX Governor DEIDRE HENDERSON Lieutenant Governor
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Utah Water Quality Board THROUGH: John Mackey, P.E., Division Director
FROM: Ben Holcomb, Standards & Tech Services Section Manager
DATE: June 26, 2024 SUBJECT: Request to initiate informal rulemaking necessary to address HB453
Background During the 2024 Utah legislative session, the legislature passed HB 453 “Great Salt Lake
Revisions”, which addresses various Great Salt Lake related activities and improvements. Pertinent
to the Division of Water Quality (DWQ), the bill requires that “on or before June 1, 2025, the Division of Water Quality, in consultation with the Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands, and in cooperation with the Great Salt Lake commissioner… shall make a rule… setting a limit for the salinity of water or brine that a person may discharge into the Great Salt Lake as part of the mineral
or element extraction process.” DWQ has begun scoping the potential approaches to comply with
the bill and is requesting approval from the Board to begin informal rulemaking and stakeholder engagement to develop draft rule language. We anticipate having a draft rule sometime in the Fall of 2024 for informal public comment.
DWQ seeks to engage with interested stakeholders over the next few months and DWQ requests
the Board nominate 2-3 individuals from its members who would be willing to participate in the stakeholder engagement process. Proposed Rulemaking Timeline

January 2025: Request WQB to initiate formal rulemaking: February 2025: 30-day public comment period May 2025: Request WQB to formally adopt R317-16 into rule

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT Mailing Address: PO Box 144870 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870 Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • TDD [phone]
www.deq.utah.gov Printed on 100% recycled paper
State of Utah

Department of Environmental Quality
Kimberly D. Shelley Executive Director DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY John K. Mackey, P.E. Director
Water Quality Board Steven K. Earley, Chair James Webb, Vice Chair Carly Castle Brandon Gordon Michela Harris Joseph Havasi Trevor Heaton Michael D. Luers Kimberly D. Shelley John K. Mackey Executive Secretary
SPENCER J. COX Governor DEIDRE HENDERSON Lieutenant Governor
M E M O R A N D U M TO: Water Quality Board THROUGH: John K. Mackey, P.E., Director
FROM: Justine Marshall DATE: June 26, 2024
SUBJECT: Request for Approval of Administrative Settlement Agreement
Spanish Fork City Corporation, Docket No. M23-04 The Utah Water Quality Act, Utah Code Section 19-5-104(3)(g) requires any settlement negotiated by the Director with a civil penalty of $25,000 or more must be reviewed and approved or
disapproved by the Utah Water Quality Board (“Board”). The Division is requesting Board approval
to execute a settlement with Spanish Fork City Corporation. Spanish Fork City Corporation (“Spanish Fork”) is a municipality located in Utah County, Utah, and is the legal owner and operator of the Spanish Fork Wastewater Treatment Plant (“Facility”)
located at 2160 North 150 East, Spanish Fork, Utah 84660 in Utah County. The Facility is
authorized to discharge into Dry Creek and to the Provo Bay area of Utah Lake through UPDES Permit No. UT0020109 (“Permit”). On November 8, 2023, the Director issued Notice of Violation and Compliance Order (“NOV/CO”)
M23-04 to Spanish Fork City for violations of the Permit occurring during years 2020-2023; largely
for effluent limit violations (dissolved oxygen, ammonia, E. coli, total suspended solids and biochemical oxygen demand) as well as late discharge monitoring reports. To formally resolve the violations, the Division and Spanish Fork have negotiated a civil penalty of
$35,860.00 as stipulated in the Administrative Settlement Agreement (“ASA”) M23-04. Attached
for your reference is the proposed ASA.
Page 2
The terms of the financial settlement in Docket No. M23-04 are as follows:
Penalty $34,760.00
Administrative Cost Reimbursement to DWQ $1,100.00 Total Civil Penalty $35,860.00

The public comment period for the proposed Administrative Settlement Agreement was open from April 26, 2024 to May 28, 2024. No public comments were received. (https://deq.utah.gov/water-quality/spanish-fork-wastewater-treatment-plant).
The proposed ASA represents what the Division believes to be a fair and reasonable settlement. It
is the Division’s recommendation that this settlement be granted Board approval for execution by the Director.

DWQ-2024-004256
UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
IN THE MATTER OF:
Spanish Fork City Corporation
WastewaterTreatmentPlantUPDESPermitNo. UT0020109
ADMINISTRATIVE SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT
DocketNo. M23-04ThisAdministrativeSettlementAgreement ("Settlement") isenteredintovoluntarilybyandbetweentheDirectoroftheUtahDivisionofWaterQuality ("Director"), undertheDirector'slegalauthoritiesdescribedbelowandSpanishForkCityCorporation ("SpanishFork") initscapacityastheowneroroperatorlegallyresponsiblefortheoperationoftheSpanishForkWastewaterTreatmentPlantlocatedat2160North150East, SpanishFork, Utah84660 ("Facility"), jointlyreferredtohereafteras "theParties." ByenteringintothisAgreement, thePartieswish, withoutfurtheradministrativeorjudicialproceedings, tostipulatetocivilpenaltiesandassociatedadministrativecostsarisingoutofallegedviolationsoftheUtahWaterQualityAct, UtahCode§ 19-5-10l
et seq. (
the "Act"), andcorrespondingregulationsintheUtahAdmin. CodeR3l7-l-l
etseq. ("
WaterQualityRules") andR305-7-10I
et seq.
l.TheDirectorhasauthoritytoadministertheActpursuanttoUtahCode§ 19-l-105(1)(e),andtoenforcetheWaterQualityRulesthroughtheissuanceoforders, asspecifiedinUtahCode §§ 19-5-106(2)( d) and19-5-111. TheDirectoralsohasauthoritytosettleanycivilactioninitiatedtocompelcompliancewiththeActandimplementingregulationspursuanttoUtahCode § 19-5-106(2)(k).2.SpanishForkisa "person" asthattermisdefine.dinUtahCode § 19-1-103( 4).
3.
ForthepurposesofthisSettlement, thePartiesagreetoandstipulatetothefindingsandviolationsidentifiedintheNovember8, 2023NoticeofViolationandComplianceOrder("NOV/CO"), DocketNo. M23-04, andasdescribedbelow.4.PursuanttotheNOV/CO, paragraphE.3., onDecember4, 2023, SpanishForksubmittedawrittenresponsedescribingtheirevaluationofwhatcausedthecitedviolations, aswellasdescribingindetailtheactionstakenandtobeimplementedtoattainfullcompliancewiththeirUtahPollutantDischargeEliminationSystem ("UPDES") Permit.5.OnJanuary27, 2022, SpanishForkcommunicatedtotheDivisionthattheyanticipatetheFacilitywillmeettheeffluentlimitsfordissolvedoxygenbutthatammoniaconcentrationswillcontinuetobeachallengeuntilthenewWaterReclamationFacility("WRF") isconstructed.6.OnFebruary5, 2024, SpanishForksubmittedarequesttotheDivisiontoadjustthe
Spanish Fork City CorporationDocketNo. M23-04 Page 2 of4compliancescheduleintheUPDESPermittomatchtheconstructiontimelineforthenewWRF, due to be completedin Summerof 2025. 7.UPDES Permit Part I.C.2.a. contains effluent concentration limitations for pollutantdischargesfromOutfall001attheFacility. Since the issuance ofthe NOV/CO, theFacilityhasexperiencedthefollowinglimitationexceedances (identified in
bold italics):
Report Monitoring Pollutant Effluent Reported % Certification Period End Parameter Limitation Value Exceedanc
Date Date e
PERMIT EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 01, 2022 (EXP. JANUARY 31, 2027) 11/22/2023 10/ 31/2023 Dissolved Oxygen 5.0 mg/L
4.4 mg/L
12% (Daily Minimum) 11/22/2023 10/ 31/2023 Ammonia, as N 18.0 mg/L
19.6mg/L
9% (Daily Maximum) 12/ 20/2023 11/30/2023 Dissolved Oxygen 5.0 mg/L
4.0mg/L
20% (Dailv Minimum) 12/20/2023 11/ 30/2023 Ammonia, as N 18.0 mg/L
23.8 mg/L
32% (Dailv Maximum) 01/17/2024 12/31/2023 Dissolved Oxygen 5.0 mg/L
4.8mg/L
4% (Dailv Minimum) 01/17/2024 12/ 31/2023 Ammonia, as N 18.0 mg/L
28.8 mg/L
60% (Daily Maximum) 01/17/2024 12/31/2023 Ammonia, as N 6.0 mg/L
24.3 mg/L
306% (Max Monthly Ave) 8.The Parties voluntarily enter into this Settlement to resolve the NOV/CO and theadditionalexceedanceslistedinparagraph7withoutthenecessityoffurtheradministrative orjudicialproceedings.9.Spanish Fork agrees to pay a civil penalty in the amount of $
35,860.00,
based ontheDivision's application of the penalty policy outlined in Utah Admin. Code R317-1-8.10.This Settlement and penalty is subject to a thirty (30) day notice and comment period. ThePartieseachreservetherighttowithdrawfromthisSettlementifcommentsreceivedduringthenoticeperiodresultinamodificationtothete1msandconditions.11.The "EffectiveDate" shall be the date this Settlement is executed by the Director. TheDirectorwillnotsignthisSettlementuntilaftertheDivisionhasprovidedpublicnoticeoftheproposedSettlementandhassolicitedandreviewedanypubliccommentsreceived.12.This Settlement includes a civil penalty in excess of $25,000 and therefore mustbepresentedto, reviewed by, and approved or disapproved by the Water Quality Board("Board") in accordance with Utah Code § 19-5-104(3)(h). Final execution ofthisSettlementbytheDirectorshallnotoccuruntilitisapprovedbytheBoard. TheSettlementwillbepresentedtotheBoardforfinalactionaftertheDivisionhasprovidedpublicnoticeoftheproposedSettlementandhassolicitedandreviewedanypubliccommentsreceived.
Spanish Fork City Corporation
Docket No. M23-04 Page 3 of 4
All public comments, and the Director's responses, shall be provided to the Board in
connection with the Director's request forfinal action.
13.Spanish Fork agrees that within thirty (30) calendar days of receiving the signed and final
Settlement fromthe Director, Spanish Fork shall submit payment in the amount specified
in paragraph 12 above, using one of the following methods:
a.CHECK -Payable to the Division of Water Quality. The payment shall be sent to:
Division of Water Quality
PO Box 144870
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4870
b.OTHER -For other available payment options, please contact the Division of
Water Quality Finance staff [e-mail]
14.If, forany reason, Spanish Fork failsto pay the penalty within thirty (30) calendar days and
thereby defaults, the Director reserves the right to request the Board rescind its approval of
this Order under Utah Code § 19-5-104(4)(a).
a.Prior to requesting that the Board rescind its approval of this Order, the Director
shall provide written notice to Spanish Fork of its defaultand will provide fourteen
14)calendar days to cure the default by remitting payment. If payment is not
received within the fourteen ( 14) calendar day cure period and, following Board
action, the Director is authorized, without providing further written notice to
Spanish Fork, to begin a civil action for all appropriate relief provided under the
Act, including seeking the full penalty amount of $10,000 per violation per day, as
authorized under the Act.
15.Spanish Fork agrees to the terms, conditions, and requirements of this Settlement. By
signing this Settlement, Spanish Fork understands, acknowledges, and agrees that it waives:
1)the opportunity foran administrative hearing pursuant to Utah Code § 19-1-301; (2) the
right to contest the ftnding(s) in the NOV/CO; and (3) the opportunity for judicial review.
16.The Parties mutually agree that this Settlement is entered in good faithand is an appropriate
means to resolve the matters specified herein.
17.The violations described herein will constitute part of Spanish Fork compliance history
where such history is relevant, including any subsequent violations. Spanish Fork
understands and agrees that this Settlement is not and cannot be raised as a defense to any
other action to enforce any federal, state or local law.
18.This Settlement, when final, is binding upon Spanish Fork and any corporate subsidiaries
or parents, their officers, directors, employees, successors in interest, and assigns. The
undersigned warrants that it is authorized to legally bind their respective principals to this
Settlement.
FOR THE UTAH DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
K.
FOR SPANISH FORK CITY CORPORATION

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT Mailing Address: PO Box 144870 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870 Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • TDD [phone]
www.deq.utah.gov Printed on 100% recycled paper
State of Utah

Department of
Environmental Quality
Kimberly D. Shelley Executive Director DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY John K. Mackey, P.E. Director
Water Quality Board James Webb, Chair Michelle Kaufusi, Vice Chair Carly Castle Michela Harris Joseph Havasi Trevor Heaton Robert Fehr Jill Jones Kimberly D. Shelley John K. Mackey Executive Secretary
SPENCER J. COX Governor DEIDRE HENDERSON Lieutenant Governor
TO: Water Quality Board
THROUGH: John K. Mackey, P.E. & Leanna Littler-Woolf
FROM: Andrew Pompeo, P.E. & Ken Hoffman, P.E.
DATE: June 26, 2024
SUBJECT: Re-authorization of available Southern Utah Reuse ARPA Grant Balance
This memo was prepared in anticipation that the Water Quality Board will move to deauthorize $595,000 in Southern Utah Reuse ARPA Grant Fund from the Sherwood Shores Project. There are also $800 that were not appropriated initially during the December 14, 2022 meeting. The deauthorization would leave $595,800 in available balance in the Southern Utah Reuse ARPA Grant
Program. Staff identified three options for re-authorization of these funds. 1. Open a new grant solicitation for the available balances of $595,800 for applications.
a. Applications due by August 14, 2024. b. Require all applications to have complete plans and specifications in compliance with R317-3-1.4. c. Applicant must demonstrate their project will bid and execute construction contracts by December 31, 2024.
2. Open a new grant solicitation for previously authorized Southern Utah Reuse projects that would appear at the September Board meeting to request additional funds. a. Applications due by August 14, 2024. b. Require all applications have complete plans and specs in compliance with R317-3-
1.4. c. Applicant must demonstrate project will bid and execute construction contracts awarded by December 31, 2024. 3. The Board could select a project of directly from the previously authorized projects and
authorize additional funding.
Page 2
The table below shows all previously authorized Southern Utah Reuse projects along with their total project cost and amount of authorized funds. Total project costs may have changed.

Applicant Project Title Authorized Funding Total Project
Ash Creek SSD Filters and Ultraviolet Treatment $1,688,200 $2,413,200
Cedar City Filtration, Reuse Pump Station and Pipeline $1,354,000 $15,000,000
CICWCD Storage and Reuse Land Application $500,000 $1,500,000
Fairview Type I Reuse System $1,168,000 $3,200,000
Kanab Reuse Planning Study $125,000 $145,000
Moroni Reuse Planning Study $90,000 $90,000
Mt. Pleasant Reuse Planning Study $125,000 $125,000
St. George Graveyard Wash Reuse Storage Reservoir $1,934,000 $17,000,000
Torrey Town Reuse Planning Study $75,000 $75,000
WCWCD Dry Wash Reuse Storage Reservoir $2,369,000 $17,500,000
WCWCD Toquer Reservoir Reuse Storage Reservoir $4,976,000 $36,570,000
TOTAL $14,404,200
Sherwood Shores MBR Treatment and Land Application $595,000 $850,000
Staff Discussion
Of all the previously funded projects listed above, there are four projects that were not fully funded at the time of authorization. These projects are: Cedar City, St. George (Graveyard Wash Reservoir), and both of WCWCD’s projects (Chief Toquer Reservoir and Dry Wash Reservoir). Also, it may be possible that a new eligible project exists that could apply. If other eligible projects exist and are “shovel ready” with ready plans and specifications, then staff believes they should be considered
for funding evaluation. Thus, staff believes conducting a new solicitation is appropriate. Staff Recommendation Staff requests Board approval to move proceed with a grant solicitation for $595,800 in available
balances for Grant Program eligible projects inclusive of previously funded and new Southern Utah Reuse projects. The grant solicitation will have the following requirements: 1. Applications due by August 14, 2024. 2. Require all applications have complete plans and specs in compliance with R317-3-1.4.
3. Applicant must demonstrate project will bid and execute construction contracts awarded by December 31, 2024. 4. Meet all previous grant program requirements from original solicitation. Project will be presented by applicants during the September Board Meeting.

State of Utah

Department of Environmental Quality
Kimberly D. Shelley Executive Director DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY John K. Mackey, P.E. Director
SPENCER J. COX Governor DEIDRE HENDERSON Lieutenant Governor
Water Quality Board James Webb, Chair Michelle Kaufusi, Vice Chair Carly Castle Michela Harris Joseph Havasi Trevor Heaton Robert Fehr Jill Jones Kimberly D. Shelley John K. Mackey Executive Secretary
TO: Water Quality Board
THROUGH: John K. Mackey, P.E.
FROM: George Meados & Ken Hoffman, P.E.
DATE: June 26, 2024
SUBJECT: Sherwood Shores Deauthorization

On December 14, 2022, the Water Quality Board (Board) authorized $595,000 of America Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds for the community of Sherwood Shores near Delta, Utah for construction of a community sewer system. The December 14, 2022 Board Packet is included as Attachment A. On January 24, 2024 the ARPA funding was re-authorized with the following special conditions:
1. The Sherwood Shores Subdivision Body Politic must agree to participate annually in the Municipal Wastewater Planning Program (MWPP); 2. The Sherwood Shores Subdivision Body Politic must develop; commit to adopt; and implement a capital asset management plan that is consistent with EPA's Fiscal Sustainability Plan guidance; 3. Full funding secured by the end of the December 15, 2024 Board meeting;
4. All users connect to sewer system; 5. No later than by May 1, 2024 Millard County shall submit a complete Capital Facilities Plan to DWQ; 6. No later than by May 15, 2024 evidence of the formation of the Sherwood Shores Subdivision Body Politic shall be submitted to DWQ; 7. No later than July 15, 2024; Sherwood Shores Body Politic shall submit a sewer rate resolution; and
8. No later than August 1, 2024, the Sherwood Shores Body Politic shall submit stamped plans and
specifications for construction of the preferred alternative to DWQ. Sherwood Shores was unable to garner public support for this project to meet the special conditions. Attachment B is an email from Millard County discontinuing funding. At this time Sherwood Shores no longer has a path forward
to pursue a project that will meet the ARPA deadlines set by the US Department of Treasury. The Division spoke
with Millard County regarding any costs incurred while pursuing this project, but they do not wish to pursue any funds for these costs. Staff Recommendation
Staff requests the Board motion to deauthorize the $595,000 of Southern Utah Reuse ARPA Grant Program funds from Sherwood Shores.

Attachment A: December 14, 2022 Board Packet

State of Utah

Department of Environmental Quality
Kimberly D. Shelley Executive Director DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY John K. Mackey, P.E. Director
SPENCER J. COX Governor DEIDRE HENDERSON Lieutenant Governor
Water Quality Board James Webb, Chair Michelle Kaufusi, Vice Chair Carly Castle Michela Harris Joseph Havasi Trevor Heaton Robert Fehr Jill Jones Kimberly D. Shelley John K. Mackey Executive Secretary
WATER QUALITY BOARD
SOUTHERN UTAH REUSE ARPA GRANT
REAUTHORIZATION

APPLICANT’S REQUEST - REAUTHORIZATION
Millard County is requesting the reauthorization of $595,000 ARPA Grant funding originally
authorized during the December 14, 2022 Water Quality Board (Board) Meeting to construct a
collection system and wastewater treatment facility for reuse.

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT Mailing Address: PO Box 144870 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870 Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • TDD [phone]
www.deq.utah.gov
Printed on 100% recycled paper
APPLICANT: Sherwood Shores Delta, Utah 84624
PRESIDING OFFICIAL No Body Politic Formed

CONTACT:
Adam Richins
Millard County Planner [phone]
TREASURER: No Body Politic Formed

CONSULTING ENGINEER:
Carson DeMille, Project Manager Jones & DeMille Engineering 1535 South 100 West Richfield, Utah 84701 [phone]
BOND COUNSEL None
FINANCIAL ADVISOR None
Page 2
APPLICANT’S LOCATION
Sherwood Shores is located on a peninsula in Gunnison Bend Reservoir in Millard County
approximately 1 mile west of Delta City boundaries.

PROJECT BACKGROUND
Sherwood Shores Subdivision was created in the 1960s. The subdivision is located on a peninsula
of the Gunnison Bend Reservoir. This peninsula has 500 platted lots. Currently, there are
approximately 125 onsite (septic) systems with the potential of 375 additional systems. A
wastewater feasibility study was developed on August 30, 2023 to assess alternatives to septic
systems for the subdivision, but this feasibility study did not meet the EPA’s Fiscal Sustainability
Plan guidance that was required in the special conditions of the ARPA grant.
PROJECT NEED
Currently, Sherwood Shores does not have a centralized wastewater treatment system. The
residents of Sherwood Shores all operate with onsite systems. This project would remove these
onsite systems which would reduce contamination into the reservoir from leaching of the
individual onsite systems.
Page 3

ARPA PROJECT FUNDED
In the 2022 legislative session, $15 million dollars of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) grant
funds were allocated for “wastewater reuse projects in Southern Utah with priority for projects
that mitigate the impacts of drought on rural communities and the agricultural sector.” Millard
County applied to the Southern Utah Reuse ARPA Grant program. During the December 14, 2022
Board Meeting $595,000 in funding was authorized for construction of a collection system and
membrane bioreactor treatment facility. The treated effluent would be land applied.
BOARD ARPA AUTHORIZATION
The minutes from the December 2022 Board meeting state:
“Sherwood Shores
Motion: Mr. Webb moved that the Board authorize funding in the amount of $595,000 as
ARPA grant funding to the Sherwood Shores Subdivision Body Politic under the following
special conditions:
1. The Sherwood Shores Subdivision Body Politic must agree to participate annually in the
Municipal Wastewater Planning Program (MWPP).
2. The Sherwood Shores Subdivision Body Politic must develop, commit to adopt, and
implement a capital asset management plan that is consistent with EPA’s Fiscal
Sustainability Plan guidance.
3. Full funding by September 1, 2023,
4. All users connect to sewer system.
Mr. Gordon seconded the motion. The motion passed with a majority vote of Mr. Webb,
Mr. Gordon, Mr. Heaton and Mr. Luers and a nay vote from Mr. Earley.”1

Sherwood Shores Subdivision Body Politic has not received an ARPA Grant Agreement as the
required body politic has yet to be identified. Board special condition #3 has also yet to be met.
Thus, at this time staff could not execute an ARPA agreement without a new Board motion.

1 https://documents.deq.utah.gov/water-quality/board/2023/DWQ-2023-000955.pdf
Page 4
FEASIBLITY REPORT - ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED
Millard County provided the Division with Sherwood Shores Wastewater Feasibility Report
(Report) on September 26, 2023. The Report evaluated four alternatives:
1. Installing a septic tank effluent pumping (STEP) system for primary treatment and a
Membrane Bioreactor for secondary treatment at a secondary site for the wastewater.
This includes replacing all septic tanks and installing effluent pumps.
2. Installation of a STEP system by retrofitting existing septic tanks to send wastewater
to a centralized treatment plant that uses a fixed film reactor to treat the wastewater.
3. Construction of a centralized membrane bioreactor treatment plant. This would include
the abandoning of existing septic systems and replacing them with individual sewer
grinder pumps that will pump the wastewater from each home into a pressurized
transmission line to the membrane bioreactor.
4. Installation of individual membrane bioreactor systems at each household. The filtered
wastewater would then be piped into a collection system to be discharged into the
reservoir.
The table below outline the cost breakdowns of each alternative for 250 connections.
Table 1: Summary of Alternatives

Alt #
Private Property Work
General Construction Centralized Treatment
Contingency Engineering Total
1 $1,260,000 $1,059,000 $867,000 $800,000 $675,000 $4,661,000
2 $1,037,000 $1,008,000 $867,000 $728,000 $635,000 $4,275,000
3 $5,537,500 $3,529,500 $1,750,000 $2,704,000 $2,385,000 $15,906,000
4 $9,952,000 $0 $0 $2,488,000 $1,965,000 $14,405,000

Each alternative contains significant work on private property these expenses will need a deeper
review for eligibility under Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) requirements. In many
cases these costs are the home owner’s responsibility to complete. In addition, instead of reuse
by land application the Report proposes discharge of treated effluent to the Gunnison Bend
Reservoir as reuse. Further, any approval of a water reuse project requires State Engineer
approval prior to approval by the Director of Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
Page 5
Finally, the Report’s focus was only on reuse alternatives and to be eligible for additional CWSRF
funding assistance all alternatives must be analyzed such as construction of a sewer line and
connection to an existing treatment plant.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
No alternative has been selected at this time as no body politic has formed to recommend an
alternative.
POPULATION GROWTH
Based on the 125 onsite systems in Sherwood Shores an average of 3.5 people per household was
used to determine the population of 439 people. According to the State’s projections the Town of
Delta has a growth rate of 8.2% from 2010 to 2020. This results in a build out population for
Sherwood Shores of 556 people in 2050.
Year Population
2020 439
2040 514
2050 556
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND DEMONSTRATION OF PUBLIC SUPPORT
Millard County is working with Sherwood Shores to develop a body politic.
EFFORTS TO SECURE FINANCING FROM OTHER SOURCES
At this time full funding has not been secured and there have not been additional efforts to secure
financing from other sources.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
All infrastructure projects funded by the Water Quality Board have ARPA agreements which
include the following special condition:
“The Grantee must secure an approval to award from the Division prior to signing the
construction contract.”
All agreements must be signed by December 31, 2024 or funding will be lost and returned to the
Federal Government. Staff evaluated the possible feasibility of the proposed project to allow a
reauthorization. The following schedule was drafted:
Page 6
1. April 1, 2024; Submit UPDES Permit Application to the DWQ. (if needed)
a. UPDES permit applications are due 6 months prior to a Director action.
b. Construction permits cannot be issued until permitting is complete.
2. May 1, 2024; Submit Capital Facilities Plan to the DWQ.
3. May 15, 2024; Submit Design Advance Application and proof of a formed body politic to
the DWQ.
4. June 26, 2024; Attend the Board Meeting for the Design Advance Application.
5. July 1, 2024; Submit a funding application to the DWQ.
6. July 15, 2024; Submit a passed sewer rate resolution.
7. August 1, 2024; Submit stamped plans and specifications to the DWQ.
8. October 1, 2024; DWQ issues Construction Permit
9. October 15, 2024; bid project
10. December 15, 2024; Attend the Board Meeting for any required supplemental funding.
APPLICANT’S CURRENT USER CHARGE
Currently, Sherwood Shores does not have any user fees as they have not developed a body politic.
Sherwood Shores is located near Delta. Therefore, the City of Delta was used to determine the
MAGI ($47,900). Thus, for principal forgiveness the month rate would have to exceed $55.88 per
month per ERU.
COST SHARING FOR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Cost sharing is not being considered at this point of the project.

STAFF COMMENTS
Staff is concerned if a viable project exists. In addition, the alternative for connection to the Delta
or Hinkley wastewater treatment plants would not be eligible for the ARPA funding. Staff
understands Sherwood Shores is currently connected to Delta’s culinary water system.
Sherwood Shores is an unsewered community so as a CWSRF project has good potential and
historically the Board has supported pursuit of construction of collection systems in unsewered
communities.
Page 7
The best way to plan for the future would be to extend the Wastewater Feasibility Study to a
comprehensive Capital Facility Plan including a cost-effective analysis that reviews the installation
of a treatment system along with a review of construction of a collection system to connect to a
Delta City or Hinkley City’s wastewater treatment plant. Jones and Demille Engineers provide a
quick estimate of $40,000 to complete this work.

Staff encouraged Millard County to submit a Planning Advance Application but it was not able to
be completed in time for the January meeting. If the Board supports the approach Millard County
could reappear during the February 2024 Board meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board reauthorize funding in the amount of $595,000 as ARPA grant
funding to the Sherwood Shores Subdivision Body Politic under the following special conditions:
1. The Sherwood Shores Subdivision Body Politic must agree to participate annually in the
Municipal Wastewater Planning Program (MWPP).
2. The Sherwood Shores Subdivision Body Politic must develop, commit to adopt, and
implement a capital asset management plan that is consistent with EPA’s Fiscal
Sustainability Plan guidance.
3. Full funding secured by the end of the December 15, 2024 Board meeting.
4. All users connect to sewer system.
5. No later than by May 1, 2024 Millard County shall submit a complete Capital Facilities
Plan to DWQ.
6. No later than by May 15, 2024 evidence of the formation of the Sherwood Shores
Subdivision body politic shall be submitted to DWQ.
7. No later than July 15, 2024; Sherwood Shores Body Politic shall submit a sewer rate
resolution.
8. No later than August 1, 2024, the Sherwood Shores body politic shall submit stamped plans
and specifications for construction of the preferred alternative to DWQ.

Page 8

Attachment B: Email from Willard County

Page 9

ATTACHMENT B

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT Mailing Address: PO Box 144870 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870 Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] • TDD [phone]
www.deq.utah.gov Printed on 100% recycled paper
State of Utah

Department of
Environmental Quality
Kimberly D. Shelley Executive Director DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY John K. Mackey, P.E. Director
Water Quality Board James Webb, Chair Michelle Kaufusi, Vice Chair Carly Castle Michela Harris Joseph Havasi Trevor Heaton Robert Fehr Jill Jones Kimberly D. Shelley John K. Mackey Executive Secretary
SPENCER J. COX Governor DEIDRE HENDERSON Lieutenant Governor
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Utah Water Quality Board THROUGH: John Mackey, P.E., Director Utah Division of Water Quality
FROM: Jake Vander Laan
DATE: June 26, 2024 SUBJECT: Results from the 2023 Triennial Review of Utah’s Water Quality Standards

To meet obligations under the Clean Water Act, the Utah Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is required to review Utah’s Water Quality Standards (WQS) in Utah Administrative Code R317-2 at least once every three years. DWQ has completed the 2023 Triennial Review of Utah’s WQS, following stakeholder and public outreach. DWQ performed a comprehensive review of all of
Utah’s water quality policies and criteria, including a comparison of the state’s WQS to nationally
recommended standards, to identify and prioritize needed additions and updates. DWQ also sought input through a collaborative engagement process with stakeholders; state and federal agencies; and the public to identify any recommended changes to Utah’s WQS.
DWQ has reviewed and responded to all comments and criteria recommendations; and provided an
up to date priority list for WQS changes. Though the review identifies and prioritizes future WQS changes, no new or updated WQS are proposed for immediate adoption as part of the 2023 Triennial Review. The 2023 Triennial Review identifies short-term goals for WQS changes expected before the 2026 Triennial Review; interim goals to support future water quality standards changes; and
long-term priorities.
A report summarizing the results of Utah’s 2023 Triennial Review is attached. The document includes a summary of the process and findings from the review; comments received and DWQ’s responses; information regarding DWQ’s public engagement including public notices, postcards,
and a public hearing summary; and DWQ’s updated WQS priority list. The results of the review
will also be submitted to EPA.

2023 Triennial Review of
Utah’s Water Quality
Standards
Table of contents
Summary.............................................................................................................................................. 3
Response to comments...................................................................................................................... 4
Aquatic life criteria - Ammonia ......................................................................................................... 4
Comment (USEPA): ................................................................................................................... 4
Response: .................................................................................................................................. 4
Comment (Richards): ................................................................................................................. 5
Response: .................................................................................................................................. 5
Aquatic life criteria - Selenium ......................................................................................................... 6
Comment (USEPA): ................................................................................................................... 6
Response: .................................................................................................................................. 6
Comment (Simmons): ................................................................................................................ 7
Response: .................................................................................................................................. 7
Great Salt Lake, Farmington and Bear River Bays Aquatic Life Criteria .......................................... 7
Comment (USEPA): ................................................................................................................... 7
Response: .................................................................................................................................. 8
Comment (Richards): ................................................................................................................. 8
Response: .................................................................................................................................. 9
Aquatic life criteria - iron .................................................................................................................. 9
Comment (USEPA): ................................................................................................................... 9
Response: .................................................................................................................................. 9
Human health criteria - MCL based criteria ................................................................................... 10
Comment (USEPA): ................................................................................................................. 10
Response: ................................................................................................................................ 10

Human health criteria - methylmercury .......................................................................................... 11
Comment (USEPA): ................................................................................................................. 11
Response: ................................................................................................................................ 11
Comment (Simmons): .............................................................................................................. 11
Response: ................................................................................................................................ 11
Recreational use criteria - microcystins and cylindrospermopsin .................................................. 12
Comment (USEPA): ................................................................................................................. 12
Response: ................................................................................................................................ 13
Numeric nutrient criteria for lakes and reservoirs .......................................................................... 13
Comment: ................................................................................................................................. 13
Response: ................................................................................................................................ 13
Colorado River salinity standards .................................................................................................. 13
Comment (USEPA): ................................................................................................................. 13
Response: ................................................................................................................................ 14
Wetland water quality standards .................................................................................................... 14
Comment (USEPA): ................................................................................................................. 14
Response: ................................................................................................................................ 14
Provo River Watershed and Heber Valley Aquifer ......................................................................... 15
Comment (Simmons): .............................................................................................................. 15
Response: ................................................................................................................................ 16
Comment (Franco): .................................................................................................................. 16
Response: ................................................................................................................................ 17
Appendices ........................................................................................................................................ 17

Summary
To meet obligations under the Clean Water Act, the Utah Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is required
to review Utah’s Water Quality Standards in Utah Administrative Code R317-2 at least once every three
years.
For the 2023 Triennial Review, DWQ performed a comprehensive review of all of Utah’s water quality
policies and criteria, including a comparison of the state’s water quality standards to nationally
recommended standards to identify and prioritize needed additions and updates. DWQ also sought
input through a collaborative engagement process with stakeholder; partner state and federal agencies;
and the public to identify any recommended changes to Utah’s water quality standards. DWQ’s 2023
Triennial Review identifies short-term goals for water quality standards changes expected before the
2026 Triennial Review; interim goals to support future water quality standards changes; and long-term
priorities.
DWQ opened the 2023 Triennial Review comment period via public notice (Appendix 1) on October 30,
2023, soliciting comments on Utah’s water quality standards and recommended changes. The notice
was posted on Utah’s public notice webpage, DWQ’s webpage, and published in local newspapers.
Comments were also solicited through outreach to Utah’s Water Quality Board, DWQ’s Water Quality
Standards Workgroup, and postcards sent to municipalities throughout the state (Appendix 2).
Comments were accepted until close of business on December 15, 2023. A public hearing was held on
December 14, 2023, hosted at the Multi Agency State Office Building in Salt Lake City with virtual
access provided.
DWQ received four sets of written comments (appendix 3). No comments were received during the
public hearing (appendix 4). DWQ has evaluated and responded to all comments and updated the
water quality standards prioritization table (appendix 5).
DWQ has reviewed all criteria recommendations. Though the review identifies and prioritizes future
standards changes, no new or updated standards are proposed for immediate adoption as part of the
2023 Triennial Review. No new data or information were identified that would require revisions to
currently designated beneficial uses or existing site-specific standards. The Environmental Protection
Agency has published new criteria for nutrients in lakes and reservoirs since DWQ’s 2020 Triennial
Review. State adoption of these criteria will require substantial technical and administrative work
including data collection, statistical analysis, and public and stakeholder outreach. As part of the 2023
Triennial Review, DWQ has prioritized initial technical work to support future adoption of these or other
defensible criteria, but is not currently proposing them for adoption.
These materials have been reviewed by Utah’s Water Quality Standards Workgroup and will be
presented to the Utah Water Quality Board.

Response to comments
Aquatic life criteria - Ammonia
Comment (USEPA):
We acknowledge and support the Division recommending Utah update its existing ammonia criteria by
considering EPA’s 2013 ammonia criteria recommendations, and a potential adjustment based on the
presence/absence of certain species sensitive to ammonia exposure. It is our understanding that a
survey to evaluate the historic and expected occurrence of freshwater mussels and sensitive snails in
state waterbodies will be completed beforehand. Information obtained from this study will be needed
for any potential adjustments to the 2013 recommended ammonia criteria. As you know, recalculation
of the national ammonia criteria recommendations based on the ammonia toxicity of species
occurrence in Utah waters is only possible where it is documented that more sensitive species are not
currently occurring and not expected to be able to return to those waters. For example, UDWQ would
need to provide a rationale when developing site-specific ammonia criteria based on the absence of
certain unionid mussels and suitable habitat (including suitable hosts such as salmonids) in all affected
segments pursuant to EPA recommendations (see: Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria for
Ammonia – Freshwater, 2013). We understand that UDWQ will discuss the results of the freshwater
mussels and snails study, and any other supporting documentation with the WQS Workgroup prior to
proposing revisions to Utah’s existing ammonia criteria. The EPA is available to provide additional
technical support to aid in the adoption and implementation of the 2013 recommended ammonia
criteria.
Response:
Thank you for supporting DWQ’s prioritization of updated ammonia criteria to protect aquatic life in Utah
and for providing additional information regarding criteria recalculation procedures. Utah and Colorado
water quality agencies partnered to conduct an historical survey of mussels and snails in our respective
states (Final Report). Utah is not within the distributional ranges of the unionid mussel species used in
the derivation of national recommended ammonia criteria. However, other unionid species do occur in
Utah. DWQ’s current plan for recalculation is to generate state-wide ammonia criteria that are protective
of Utah taxa, including unionids, by substituting toxicity data available for Utah unionid species for those
in the national recommendations, then recalculating the criteria, assuming the presence of Utah-
specific unionid taxa state-wide. DWQ is currently finalizing draft implementation guidance for ammonia
criteria. As suggested in the comment, all work related to adopting updated ammonia criteria will be
discussed with Utah’s Water Quality Standards Workgroup, and adoption of proposed criteria will follow
appropriate rulemaking procedures including review by Utah’s Water Quality Board, a public comment
period, and request for EPA approval.

DWQ does not anticipate expanding or altering existing site-specific, unionid-absent, ammonia criteria
as part of adopting the 2013 recommendations state-wide. Any recalculation of the ammonia criteria
will follow appropriate procedures for documenting resident and representative taxa.
Comment (Richards):
Utah Division of Water Quality (UDWQ) developed ammonia criteria and regulations based on EPA’s
outdated 2013 criteria. As UDWQ states, these ammonia criteria values were based on toxicity test
results using sensitive mussels from SE USA, not the two mussel taxa that occur in Utah (Table 1).
These stringent UDWQ ammonia criteria resulted in many wastewater treatment facilities contracting
mollusk experts to survey for presence/absence of mussels over large areas of Utah at substantial
monetary cost and time expenditure. Criteria also raised concerns and contributed to upgrade planning
of facilities to meet ammonia criteria, increasing monetary and time expenditures. UDWQ then
conducted recalculation of ammonia criteria based on toxicity tests conducted on mussel taxa that
occur in Utah, specifically Anodonta californiensis/nutalliana (Table 1) (CVCWA 2020). The CVCWA
(2020) toxicity test showed that A. californiensis/nutalliana was much less sensitive to ammonia than
mussel taxa from SE USA and values used by EPA 2013 and UTDWQ (Table 1) and that A.
californiensis/nutalliana was 164% less sensitive to ammonia than another Anodonta sp. within the
same genus.
EPA bases its Recalculation Procedure on “The underlying premise …. that taxonomy has value in
predicting sensitivity” (USEPA 2013a). EPA also based its entire Aquatic life ambient water quality
criteria for ammonia – freshwater 2013 document on this premise (USEPA 2013b). By 2017, UDWQ
was well aware that taxonomy was not often consistent with phylogeny, and that neither were good
predictors of sensitivity to toxicants, including ammonia (e.g., Richards 2016) and in a final report
UDWQ (2017) stated that: “First, taxonomic relationships may not be consistent with phylogenetic
relationships, and both are frequently modified based on new genetic or other information.” “Third, and
perhaps most importantly, phylogenetic similarity may not predict toxicological similarity (Blomberg et
al. 2003; Losos 2008). The probability of toxicological similarity is presumably greatest when taxa are
identical at the species or genus level due to shared life-history, morphological, or physiological traits
(USEPA 2013a, b). However, traits related to toxicological susceptibility may evolve at rates not
reflected in overall phylogenetic (or taxonomic) similarity.” As the CVCWA (2020) report illustrates, EPA
recalculation procedures are highly complex and subject to potentially erroneous and unrepresentative
values. For example, if a species occurs in a water body and has not been tested for a toxicant then
values from a surrogate species that has been tested are used, in some instances even if that surrogate
species is far removed taxonomically and phylogenetically. This is contrary to what UDWQ has
knowledge of (see preceding paragraphs). Application of unrealistic recalculated criteria values by
UDWQ can subsequently elicit costly wastewater facility upgrades and increased consulting costs.
Response:
Utah’s current state-wide ammonia criteria are based on EPA’s 1999 recommended criteria. In 2013,

EPA provided updated ammonia criteria that supersede the 1999 criteria recommendations. Utah has
previously adopted a site-specific recalculation of EPA’s 2013 recommended ammonia criteria for
certain sections of the Jordan River, but has not adopted the 2013 recommendations state-wide. The
update to ammonia criteria proposed in the 2023 Triennial Review is to incorporate the 2013
recommended criteria state-wide, recalculating the national recommendations based on available
toxicity data for resident taxa in Utah. Thank you for providing additional information regarding ammonia
toxicity to mussels and taxonomic considerations for potential criteria recalculations. All work related to
adopting updated ammonia criteria will be discussed with Utah’s Water Quality Standards Workgroup.
Adoption of proposed criteria will follow appropriate rulemaking procedures including review by Utah’s
Water Quality Board, a public comment period, and request for EPA approval.
Aquatic life criteria - Selenium
Comment (USEPA):
The Water Quality Unit supports UDWQ’s recommendation to consider adopting the 2016 selenium
criterion. The updated criterion reflects the latest scientific knowledge, which indicates that selenium
toxicity to aquatic life is primarily based on organisms consuming selenium-contaminated food rather
than exposure only to selenium dissolved in water. The final criterion is expressed both in terms of fish
tissue concentration (egg/ovary, whole body, or muscle) and water concentration (lentic, lotic). (See
Table 1 below.) It is our understanding that UDWQ is considering a recalculation of the 2016 selenium
criterion based on the presence/ absence of certain selenium-sensitive aquatic species occurring in
Utah waters. We also understand that UDWQ plans to discuss the results of any supporting
documentation with the WQS Workgroup prior to proposing revisions to Utah’s existing selenium
criteria. We recommend review of the criterion document, the Technical Support for Adopting and
Implementing EPA’s 2016 Selenium Criterion in Water Quality Standards, and EPA’s Revised Deletion
Process for the Site-Specific Recalculation Procedure for Aquatic Life Criteria. The EPA suggests Utah
review these documents, with the 2016 criteria, and develop a statewide plan to adopt and implement
the updated selenium criterion before recommending any revisions to the Board. EPA guidance also
recommends that states wishing to develop site-specific selenium fish tissue criterion elements based
on the revised deletion process should engage their EPA Regional office early in the process to ensure
the development of sound scientific analyses. The EPA is available to provide additional technical
support to aid in the adoption and implementation of the 2016 recommended selenium criterion.
Response:
Thank you for supporting DWQ’s prioritization of updated selenium criteria to protect aquatic life in Utah
and for providing additional information regarding the recommended criteria and criteria recalculation
procedures. DWQ is currently updating draft technical support documents for selenium criteria to clearly
identify and provide appropriate evidence for determinations of presence or absence of taxa used to
recalculate the recommended criteria. Any recalculation of the selenium criteria will follow appropriate

procedures for documenting resident and representative taxa; and taxa deletions. As suggested in the
comment, all work related to adopting updated selenium criteria will be discussed with Utah’s Water
Quality Standards Workgroup. Adoption of proposed criteria will follow appropriate rulemaking
procedures including review by Utah’s Water Quality Board, a public comment period, and request for
EPA approval.
Comment (Simmons):
The proposed changes for selenium are particularly problematic if they weaken rather than strengthen
oversight and rapid detection of water contamination by these chemicals through using a less sensitive
assay method. For example, weakening oversight by using tissue analysis rather than column analysis
seems to be the explicit goal for selenium as stated in the report. This is unfortunate and should not be
done. Instead, I recommend having both column testing and tissue testing. In any event, the most
sensitive method of detecting contamination should always be used, not the least sensitive. With regard
to the Provo River Shed and this rare aquifer, such an approach is essential.
Response:
EPA provided updated recommended aquatic life criteria for selenium in 2016. DWQ has reviewed
these recommendations and determined that Utah should update selenium criteria to ensure that Utah’s
criteria appropriately reflect nationally recommended criteria and the best available science. Updating
these criteria will enhance DWQ’s ability to protect aquatic life.
The updated recommended selenium criterion reflects the latest scientific knowledge indicating that
selenium toxicity to aquatic life primarily occurs due to ingestion of contaminated food. The final criteria
are expressed in terms of both fish tissue and water concentrations. Utah’s existing selenium criteria
for domestic source and agricultural use classifications will be unaffected by updated aquatic life
criteria, and routine water quality monitoring will still include water column selenium analysis.
All work related to adopting updated selenium criteria will be discussed with Utah’s Water Quality
Standards Workgroup. Adoption of updated criteria will follow all required rulemaking procedures
including review by Utah’s Water Quality Board, a public comment period, and request for EPA
approval.
Great Salt Lake, Farmington and Bear River Bays Aquatic
Life Criteria
Comment (USEPA):
We support UDWQ’s recommendation to pilot adoption of aluminum, ammonia, copper and selenium
criteria protecting aquatic life in Farmington and Bear River Bays. UDWQ has made significant strides

in strengthening CWA programs as they apply to Great Salt Lake (GSL) through stakeholder
coordination, scientific studies and monitoring, and improved implementation in programs such as
discharge permits. We applaud UDWQ’s substantial efforts invested into these program areas and their
long-term benefits to protect GSL’s unique habitats. The EPA provides a variety of support to UDWQ’s
ongoing efforts including metals toxicity studies under hypersaline conditions, fisheries and other
biological population studies throughout the varied GSL habitats, and continued water quality
monitoring. The unique ecology, chemistry, and hydrologic modifications of GSL have traditionally been
thought to preclude application of state-wide criteria to GSL. Although this likely remains true for the
hypersaline portions of GSL, the products from these recent studies have improved our understanding
of the similarities and differences in the aquatic life using the different bays, especially those with less
saline waters. We support continued dedicated efforts to develop water quality criteria applicable to
portions of GSL. We recommend that Utah continue this work so that soon the existing uses in GSL
can be fully protected under 40 C.F.R. § 131.10(i) and 131.11. The EPA is available to provide
additional technical support to aid in the adoption and implementation of these criteria.
Response:
Thank you for supporting DWQ’s efforts to develop and adopt numeric criteria for aquatic life in
Farmington and Bear River Bays of Great Salt Lake and for offering continued technical support. DWQ
looks forward to continued collaboration with EPA in working towards numeric criteria in Great Salt
Lake.
Comment (Richards):
The additional biological surveys that UDWQ has for Farmington Bay (FB) and Bear River Bay (BRB)
have macroinvertebrate data that only taxonomically identify to genus level or subfamily level but no
species level taxonomy (Armstrong and Wurtsbaugh 2019). This level of taxonomy will have the same
effects on recalculation as did for ammonia, i.e., toxicity criteria not representative of the taxa that occur
in FB and BRB (see Item 1). The same problem will result if the macroinvertebrate species that UDWQ
has in its database for FB or BRB have not been tested for the four toxicants listed in Table 2. Criteria
values from surrogate species that have been tested will need to be used, in some instances even if
those surrogate species are far removed taxonomically and phylogenetically. After reviewing the taxa
list for FB and BRB, I assume there will be a substantial number of taxa that have not been evaluated
for these toxicants. Again, this is contrary to what UDWQ has knowledge of (see preceding
paragraphs). Application of unrealistic recalculated criteria values by UDWQ for FB and BRB can
subsequently elicit costly wastewater facility upgrades and increased consulting costs.
Recommendation
Given the likely inaccuracies in recalculation procedures that I have outlined in this letter, I recommend
that UDWQ carefully evaluates any recalculation given these concerns. UDWQ should generate error
rates (e.g., confidence intervals) for recalculation if species found in FB and BRB are not same as those
that have toxicity values but do not occur in these ecosystems using appropriate resampling (e.g.,

bootstrap, jackknife) or other statistical methods. In addition, recent research suggests that species
traits including three major trait categories, external exposure, intrinsic sensitivity, and population
sustainability may be more useful for ecotoxicological evaluations (Liang et al. 2024, Rubach et. al.
2011). Unrealistically low criteria values based on EPA recalculation procedure could have large
economic costs, particularly for wastewater treatment facilities; unrealistically high criteria values could
result in under protection of our cherished water bodies in Utah, including Farmington Bay and Bear
River Bay.
Response:
Thank you for providing information and recommendations regarding the species deletion and criterion
recalculation procedures. This work is not yet completed, so particular species that may be deleted and
the effects on criteria are currently unknown. All work related to recalculating criteria for Farmington
and Bear River Bays will be discussed with DWQ’s Water Quality Standards Workgroup, and subject
to review from Utah’s Water Quality Board, a public comment period, and EPA approval. These
recommendations will be considered as this work proceeds through that process.
Aquatic life criteria - iron
Comment (USEPA):
The EPA continues to recommend that Utah review its existing iron criterion for consistency with EPA’s
CWA § 304(a) criteria recommendations. Utah’s aquatic life criterion for iron is currently expressed as
dissolved when EPA’s recommendation is 1,000 µg/L total recoverable iron. It is important to express
the criterion as total recoverable given the toxicity of iron hydroxide and ferric oxide (iron precipitates
or floc) to benthic organisms and the reduction of suitable spawning habitat due to excessive iron floc.
We are not aware of any data or analyses to support that 1,000 µg/L as dissolved iron is protective of
aquatic life. Therefore, we suggest that Utah revise the existing iron criterion to total recoverable to
account for the toxicity that results from precipitated iron.
Response:
DWQ is aware that precipitated iron can adversely affect aquatic life, especially benthic organisms, and
will continue to internally evaluate the potential need for changes to iron criteria. However, DWQ has
not prioritized iron criteria for updates at this time because we have concluded that Utah’s current iron
criteria and implementation procedures are protective of aquatic life uses. Permit effluent limits are
based on 1,000 µg/L total recoverable iron because no dissolved-to-total recoverable concentration
translator is specified. Utah also routinely assesses water quality using benthic macroinvertebrates.
Benthic macroinvertebrates are expected to be sensitive to any adverse effects from iron flocculation.
Locations where the existing criteria aren’t sufficiently protective can be identified by the biological
assessments and addressed through the total maximum daily load program.

Human health criteria - MCL based criteria
Comment (USEPA):
In 2015, the EPA published final updated ambient water quality criteria for the protection of human
health for 94 chemical pollutants. These updated recommendations reflect the latest scientific
information and EPA policies, including updated body weight, drinking water consumption rate, fish
consumption rate, bioaccumulation factors, health toxicity values, and relative source contributions.
The EPA acknowledges and supports UDWQ’s and the Board’s significant efforts in adopting most of
these updated human health criteria recommendations during the 2018 Utah WQS triennial review. We
note that for some of the parameters in EPA’s new/updated CWA § 304(a) human health criteria
recommendations, Utah has adopted the more stringent Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
established by the EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The EPA supports retaining MCLs where
those values are more stringent than the 304(a) criteria recommendations. For a pollutant for which the
EPA has not published a recommended CWA § 304(a) criterion for "water + organisms" and for which
the EPA has promulgated a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG), the EPA generally
recommends the MCLG for noncarcinogenic pollutants, or a criterion derived by recalculating the
MCLG at an acceptable cancer risk level. The EPA does not recommend that the MCL be used where
consideration of available treatment technology, costs, or availability of analytical methodologies has
resulted in a MCL that is less protective than a MCLG. The EPA recommends that UDWQ review the
criteria in Table 2.14.6 that are based on a MCL to ensure consistency with the recommendations
above.
Response:
DWQ recently updated over 100 human health criteria in accordance with the EPA’s 2015 updates to
304(a) recommended human health criteria, and has concluded that these criteria are protective
because they assume both direct human consumption of water and fish consumption. Some of the
Class 1C criteria in Utah Admin. Code R317-2-14 Table 2.14.1 are based on the Safe Drinking Water
Act maximum contaminant levels (MCLs). The MCLs are also protective of the Class 1C use because
under the Safe Drinking Water Act, MCLs are at the point of consumption whereas DWQ applies these
criteria to Utah surface waters prior to any treatment. DWQ continues to coordinate with the Utah
Division of Drinking Water to ensure that Utah’s Class 1C surface waters are protected.
Although DWQ concludes that existing criteria are protective of human health, given the potential for
discrepancies between recommended human health criteria, MCLs, MCLGs, and state adopted criteria,
DWQ agrees that additional review of the human health criteria in Utah Admin. Code R317-2 table
2.14.6 in the context of EPA’s 304(a) recommended human health criteria and EPA’s promulgated
MCLs and MCLGs is appropriate. DWQ will conduct an internal review of these criteria to identify any
potential needed changes and consider these updates for future water quality standards update
priorities. As resources permit, DWQ will work with EPA to address specific human health criteria that
do not meet federal requirements.

Human health criteria - methylmercury
Comment (USEPA):
We acknowledge and support the Division recommending Utah adopt the 2001 methylmercury fish
tissue-based criterion for the protection of people eating fish and shellfish. This criterion, 0.3 mg/kg fish
tissue wet weight, was EPA’s first water quality criterion expressed as a fish and shellfish tissue value
rather than as an ambient water column value. In April 2010, the EPA finalized technical guidance on
how to implement the fish tissue-based criterion. As discussed in Chapter 3 of the guidance document,
the EPA recommends working with stakeholders and the public to develop an implementation plan prior
to moving forward with a rulemaking proposal for the Board. The Water Quality Unit recognizes the
logistics and outreach involved in implementing this criterion, and we are available to assist the Division
in this effort.
Response:
Thank you for supporting DWQ’s prioritization of updated methylmercury criteria and for providing
additional information regarding EPA’s recommended criteria and technical guidance. DWQ currently
incorporates EPA’s recommended methylmercury fish consumption criterion of 0.3 mg/kg fish tissue
wet weight into Utah’s edible tissue advisory program for fish and waterfowl to protect public health
from methylmercury exposure. Adding methylmercury criteria to Utah’s water quality standards will
align criteria with the advisory program and enhance DWQ’s ability to protect human health from
methylmercury exposure. All work related to adopting updated methylmercury criteria will be discussed
with Utah’s Water Quality Standards Workgroup, and DWQ appreciates EPA’s engagement and
technical assistance with that group on this issue.
Comment (Simmons):
The proposed changes for methyl mercury are particularly problematic if they weaken rather than
strengthen oversight and rapid detection of water contamination by these chemicals through using a
less sensitive assay method. This is unfortunate and should not be done. Instead,I recommend having
both column testing and tissue testing. In any event, the most sensitive method of detecting
contamination should always be used, not the least sensitive. With regard to the Provo River Shed and
this rare aquifer, such an approach is essential.
Response:
EPA provided national recommended criteria for methylmercury in 2001. DWQ has reviewed these
recommendations and determined that Utah should adopt the recommended methylmercury criteria to
ensure that Utah’s criteria appropriately reflect nationally recommended criteria and the best available

science and information. Adopting this criterion will enhance DWQ’s ability to protect human health.
Methylmercury is the primary toxic and bioaccumulative form of mercury in the environment. EPA’s
nationally recommended methylmercury criteria were developed to protect human health from the
consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish and are therefore based on concentrations in tissues
of fish and shellfish. Methylmercury tissue criteria would be adopted in addition to Utah’s existing
mercury water criteria for domestic source and aquatic life uses.
All work related to adopting the recommended methylmercury criteria will be discussed with Utah’s
Water Quality Standards Workgroup. Adoption of proposed criteria will follow all required rulemaking
procedures including review by Utah’s Water Quality Board, a public comment period, and request for
EPA approval.
Recreational use criteria - microcystins and
cylindrospermopsin
Comment (USEPA):
The Water Quality Unit supports UDWQ’s recommendation to adopt the microcystins and
cylindrospermopsin criteria for the protection of human health. The EPA released national
recommendations for the Human Health Recreational Ambient Water Quality Criteria/Swimming
Advisories for Microcystins and Cylindrospermopsin (AWQC/SA) in May 2019. These AWQC/SA
accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge on the potential human health effects from recreational
exposure to these two cyanotoxins. (See Table 2 below.) Primary contact recreation is protected in
water bodies at or below the recommended concentrations of microcystins and cylindrospermopsin.
The EPA acknowledges and commends that UDWQ already uses the information provided in these
recommendations since it developed triggers for posting swimming advisories.
As indicated in EPA’s fact sheet, cyanobacteria are naturally occurring photosynthetic bacteria found
in freshwater and marine habitats. Under certain environmental conditions, such as elevated levels of
nutrients, warmer temperatures, still water, and plentiful sunlight, cyanobacteria can rapidly multiply to
form “harmful algal blooms” (HABs). We acknowledge that HAB events appear to be occurring in Utah
at increasing frequency over time, and UDWQ has developed and implemented significant monitoring,
public notification and coordination protocols to address them. These HABs can result in adverse health
effects to humans and animals. Exposure to elevated levels of microcystins can potentially lead to liver
damage, and cylindrospermopsin toxicity can affect the kidneys and liver. EPA’s recommended
magnitude for microcystins and cylindrospermopsin is as follows:
For both cyanotoxins, the recommended duration and frequency depend on their application as a water
quality criterion or a swimming advisory, as described in the criteria document and the fact sheet.
Please note that the EPA also published national drinking water health advisories for these cyanotoxins.
Also, the EPA has published Implementation Guidance, Fact Sheets and FAQs that are available along
with the criteria recommendations document. We support UDWQ’s recommendation that the Board

adopt EPA’s recommended recreational water quality criteria for these cyanotoxins into R317-2 to
improve protection of public health.
Response:
Thank you for supporting DWQ prioritizing adoption of cyanotoxin criteria and for providing additional
information regarding EPA’s recommended criteria and technical guidance. Currently, EPA’s
recommended cyanotoxin criteria, along with other indicators of harmful algal bloom risk to human
health, are incorporated into DWQ’s recreational health advisory program and water quality
assessments. Adopting cyanotoxin criteria into Utah’s water quality standards will align criteria with the
recreational health advisory program and enhance DWQ’s protection of human health from exposure
to cyanotoxins. All work related to adopting updated cyanotoxin criteria will be discussed with Utah’s
Water Quality Standards Workgroup, and DWQ appreciates EPA’s engagement and technical
assistance with that group on this issue.
Numeric nutrient criteria for lakes and reservoirs
Comment (USEPA):
The Water Quality Unit supports the Division’s proposals to continue efforts developing numeric criteria
for nutrients in Utah Lake, and piloting application of EPA’s 2021 Numeric Nutrient Criteria for Lakes
and Reservoirs. We are available to continue assisting the Division in these efforts.
Response:
Thank you for supporting DWQ’s ongoing efforts to develop numeric nutrient criteria for Utah Lake and
in Utah’s lakes and reservoirs. DWQ appreciates EPA’s engagement and technical assistance on these
issues.
Colorado River salinity standards
Comment (USEPA):
We support UDWQ’s recommendation to adopt by reference the updated 2023 Colorado River Salinity
Standards. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) reviews the numeric criteria and
Plan of Implementation for controlling salinity within its seven member states, including Utah, and
publishes its recommendations every three years. The EPA supports adopting by reference the
Forum’s 2023 Colorado River Salinity Standards into R317-2-4.

Response:
Thank you for supporting DWQ’s recommendation to adopt the updated 2023 Colorado River Salinity
Standards.

Wetland water quality standards
Comment (USEPA):
With the assistance of EPA Wetland Program Development Grants (WPDGs), the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality and collaborating colleagues have developed a robust wetlands program that
has produced wetland mapping tools, sampling standard operating procedures (SOPs) specific to
Utah’s wetland types, assessment tools, characterization of the highest attainable condition for
impounded wetlands, and a CWA § 401 certification program. With over one million dollars in WPDGs
(including match) used to specifically address WQS for wetlands, Utah has made significant advances
in developing the policy and scientific foundations for wetland WQS protective of these important
habitats. The EPA is particularly encouraged by these efforts. However, the EPA notes that though
significant policy and scientific advances have occurred, wetlands WQS have not been adopted into
R317-2. The EPA recommends that Utah prioritize making the necessary final steps to draft and adopt
WQS protective of its wetland ecosystems. In 2016, the EPA published an online tool, with interactive
templates to facilitate the development of protective WQS for wetlands. The templates are separated
into the three components: designated uses, criteria, and antidegradation. Customizing all three
components to the needs of the state and its wetland resources will generate a narrative statement that
serves as a wetland-specific WQS that will ensure consistent application of CWA provisions to
wetlands. The EPA recommends that Utah review existing wetland data with the online material and
consider the development and adoption of a narrative criterion that will provide robust protection of its
wetlands and their functions, either as a whole or based on specific wetland types.
Response:
As noted in the comment, DWQ, in cooperation with partner agencies, particularly EPA, has made
substantial progress building the scientific basis for wetland protections in Utah. However, DWQ
believes there is some confusion from EPA regarding water quality standards and protections for
wetlands in Utah. All national wildlife refuges and state waterfowl management areas in Utah have
numeric criteria applied to them through designated uses 2B, 3A, 3B, 3C, or 3D (UAC R317-2-13.11).
These constitute a significant surface area of high value wetlands in Utah. For unclassified wetlands,
discharge permits have presumed default use classifications and numeric criteria of 2B, 3D use classes.
In addition, all waters of the state, including wetlands, have protections under the narrative standard,
401 water quality certifications, and antidegradation policy. Finally, DWQ continues to collaborate with

the Utah Department of Natural Resources in developing appropriate wetland health assessment
methods.
However, applying numeric criteria to wetlands presents substantial challenges, because wetlands
naturally and routinely fall outside of the ranges of parameters that were developed conventionally for
lakes and rivers, such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, and pH. We request that EPA provide clear
recommendations to states regarding wetland-specific numeric criteria. We would appreciate knowing
how other states have developed and replaced conventional numeric criteria with appropriate and
protective wetland criteria and how those have been applied to permits and assessments.
DWQ’s last application for Wetland Program Development Grant funding, which included steps
necessary for adopting wetland-specific water quality criteria by completing a Use Attainability Analysis,
a necessary process to justify criteria replacement, was rejected by EPA. Subsequently, that program
was allocated to another Utah state agency. This has significantly impacted DWQ’s ability to move
forward with wetland-specific standards.
Provo River Watershed and Heber Valley Aquifer
Comment (Simmons):
I write to address some concerns I have with the State’s Triennial Water assessment plans. I have
particular concerns about the Provo River Watershed and, specifically, the pristine and rare Class 1a
aquifer that underlies Heber Valley. The health of the aquifer depends on the health of the surface
waters that feed and overlay it. I am very concerned about the ever increasing pressures put not just
on water usage, but on water treatment and cleanliness. Heber Valley, home of this critical class 1a
aquifer with an unconsolidated, porous, top is particularly sensitive to damage as recognized by
Wasatch County’s environmental studies.
The following are key water quality concerns:
The Heber Valley North Fields Class IA pristine aquifer is a key resource serving drinking water to
residents of the Heber Valley.
Protection of the aquifer water quality is critical. Polluted aquifers are very hard to restore.
Water quality of the Heber Valley drinking water aquifer is linked to the water quality of surface waters
including the Provo River.
The portion of the Heber Valley Groundwater Classification Map which includes the north end of North
Fields is reproduced in Figure 1. The Class 1A Aquifer is shown mapped with green shading on Figure
1. There are several wells in the area which rely on the excellent water quality of the aquifer. The red
dots on Figure 1 show wells inventoried in 1991. The subsoils in the area are very cobbly and have
high permeability but low ability to absorb and treat pollutants.

Please assure that changes in Water Quality standards will continue to protect the pristine water quality
of the Heber Valley North Fields.
Response:
Thank you for identifying your concerns regarding groundwater protections and DWQ’s proposed
updates to water quality standards for methylmercury and selenium. The Triennial Review is specifically
limited to Utah Administrative Code R317-2 which designates uses and water quality standards for
surface waters in Utah. Groundwater rules are contained in R317-6. Comments regarding groundwater
have been referred to DWQ’s Groundwater Section Manager. Surface waters in this area are protected
as 1C domestic source waters.
Comment (Franco):
As Mayor of Heber City I'm definitely concerned and committed about maintaining our City's water
supply from the Class IA aquifer beneath the Heber Valley floor in Wasatch County. I'm sending these
public comments to show our City's actions to recognize and protect the unique geology for our Class
IA aquifer and water supply based on existing Utah Administrative Code R317 Standards.
Three years ago I advocated for our City to adopt MS4 Stormwater Standards before being required
by the State because the amount of density we were approving then would lead to that state
requirement. Our City then took two years to develop the MS4 stormwater management standards at
great expense in order to protect the aquifer drinking source and not adversely affect contiguous
wetlands to the City, especially within the North Fields. The North Fields, their many wetlands, and
most of Heber Valley are also part of that contiguous, unprotected Class IA aquifer per Utah
Administrative Code R317 standards.
Now our City requires MS4 stormwater infrastructure in all of our developments even though we are
not required to by the State. I believe that Wasatch County also requires strict stormwater requirements
for these same purposes.
Please understand that Heber City's commitment to protecting this unprotected aquifer cannot be
understated with this expensive, proactive stormwater management program.
We collaborated extensively with the Valley's Irrigation Companies, CUP, Wasatch County, the Utah
River Mitigation and Conservation Commission, the Provo River Water Users Association, etc., in
developing this proactive MS4 stormwater management plan.
Our City also contributed money to a new wetlands mapping survey for the North Fields and Provo
River Corridor with the Utah Geological Survey (UGS) in 2022. This completed survey showed
increased amounts of wetlands and riparian areas which are now documented for applicable
protections.
Our City also increased its Sensitive Lands protection with a new ordinance in 2023 allowing buffers

and greater protections in addition to the MS4 Stormwater management standards.
In all of these proactive steps, we relied on the current R317 Utah Administrative Code standards and
would only want to maintain or improve those standards; not diminish them in any way. Please
understand Heber City's commitment to ensure and maintain state and local standards for water quality
given the high rate of growth within our area. Our State must maintain the highest standards in Utah
Administrative Code R317 to protect our natural resources and their quality, especially water, given the
impacts of continuing growth. This is the only way to have sustainable, responsible growth within our
State.
Response:
Thank you for identifying your concerns regarding stormwater requirements, groundwater protections,
and maintaining appropriate water quality standards for Utah. DWQ appreciates Heber City’s proactive
efforts to protect water quality. The Triennial Review is specifically limited to Utah Administrative Code
R317-2 which designates uses and water quality standards for surface waters in Utah. Stormwater and
groundwater rules are contained in R317-8 and R317-6. Comments regarding stormwater and
groundwater have been referred to the managers of those programs.
The goal of the triennial review is to identify and prioritize water quality standards updates necessary
to protect the beneficial uses of Utah’s surface waters. DWQ strives to ensure that water quality
standards are up to date and appropriately reflect nationally recommended criteria, state-specific water
quality issues, and the best available science and information. Thank you for highlighting the ongoing
need to meet these goals.
Appendices
Appendix 1. 2023 Triennial Review public notice
Appendix 2. 2023 Triennial Review postcard
Appendix 3. Written comments received
Appendix 4. Public hearing summary
Appendix 5. 2023 Triennial Review water quality standards priority list
Appendix1.2023 TriennialReview Public
Notice
195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144870 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870 Telephone [phone] • Fax [phone] TDD [phone] www.deq.utah.gov Printed on 100% recycled paper
State of Utah

Department of
Environmental Quality
Kimberly D. ShelleyExecutive Director
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITYJohn K. Mackey, P.E.Director
SPENCER J. COX Governor
DEIDRE HENDERSONLieutenant Governor
October 30, 2023
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY PUBLIC NOTICE OF 2023 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS TRIENNIAL REVIEW
PURPOSE OF PUBLIC NOTICE The purpose of this notice is to declare a public comment period to solicit public and stakeholder comments on Utah’s water quality standards and revisions to be considered for the 2023 triennial
review.
BACKGROUND To meet obligations under the Clean Water Act, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is required to review Utah’s Water Quality Standards in Utah Administrative Code R317-2
(adminrules.utah.gov/public/rule/R317-2/Current%20Rules) at least once every three years. As
part of this review, DWQ is soliciting input from the public and interested parties regarding standards topics to be considered during the review including any specific recommended changes to Utah’s Standards of Quality for Waters of the State. When appropriate, the rationale and any supporting information should be included with the recommendations.
The DWQ will discuss the comments with the Utah Water Quality Standards Workgroup, inform the Utah Water Quality Board at a regularly scheduled meeting, and issue comment responses. More information, including a list of revisions currently being considered is available at deq.utah.gov/water-quality/triennial-review-water-quality.
PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments are invited any time prior to the deadline of the close of business on December 15, 2023. Written comments can be submitted by email to: Jake Vander Laan at [e-mail], or by mail to: Jake Vander Laan, Utah Division of Water Quality, P.O. Box
144870, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4870.
Page 2

PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing to receive comments will be held on December 14, 2023, 6:00-7:00 PM, in the Red Rocks Conference Room 3132 on the 3rd floor at the Multi Agency State Office Building,
195 North 1950 West, Salt Lake City, UT with virtual access available at meeting link https://utah-
gov.zoom.us/j/87582829743?pwd=WVdlWUtZdjc0UzBOblJ1RERqMXpMdz09
DWQ-2023-125039
Appendix2.2023TriennialReview Postcard
FIRST-CLASS MAILUS POSTAGEPAIDSLC, UTPERMIT NO. 4621
Division of Water QualityDEPARTMENT of ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
P.O. Box 144870
Salt Lake City, Utah
84114-4870
Return Service Requested
Notice of Public Comment Period
for Utah Administrative Code R317-2: Standards of Quality for Waters of the State
The Utah Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is conducting the 2023 Triennial Review of Utah’s Water Quality Standards.
DWQ is asking for comments from the public and stakeholders about recommended changes to Utah Administrative Code R317-2 Standards of Quality for Waters of the State.
To submit comments and find more info including supporting documents, visit
Individuals with special needs (including auxiliary communicating aids and services) should contact the DEQ
Oce of Human Resources at [phone] or T.D.D. [phone].
Questions? Contact Jake Vander Laan, [e-mail]
Dec. 14, 2023, 6-7 PMRed Rocks Conference Room 31323rd floor Multi Agency State Oce Building195 North 1950 West, Salt Lake City, UT
bit.ly/40kuRuR (case-sensitive)
Written comments accepted until 6pm Dec. 15, 2023
WaterQuality.utah.gov
PUBLIC HEARING
REMOTE OPTION
Appendix3.2023TriennialReviewComments
Received
Ref: 8WD-CWQ
Jake Vander Laan
Utah Division of Water Quality
[e-mail]
Subject: EPA’s Priorities for Utah’s 2023 Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards
Dear Mr. Vander Laan:
Thank you for notifying the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 Water Quality Unit of
the State of Utah’s upcoming triennial review of its water quality standards (WQS). This letter provides
the EPA’s comments in response to the Utah Division of Water Quality’s (UDWQ or Division) public
notice1 requesting scoping-level comments for the triennial review of Utah Administrative Code R317-
2, Standards of Quality for Waters of the State. Our comments address the information and supporting
materials included in the public notice and currently posted on the UDWQ website.2 Public comments
are being solicited from October 30 through December 15, 2023, and a public hearing will be held
December 14, 2023 at 6:00PM. It is EPA’s understanding that UDWQ will summarize and discuss all
comments received with the Utah Water Quality Standards Workgroup (Workgroup) before updating
the Utah Water Quality Board (Board) with proposed WQS revisions from the 2023 triennial review.
EPA’s Role
Consistent with the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the EPA’s WQS Regulation at 40 C.F.R. § 131.21, new
or revised WQS do not become applicable for CWA purposes until approved by the EPA. Pursuant to
CWA § 303(c) requirements, states and authorized tribes must submit such WQS changes to EPA for
review, and EPA must approve or disapprove the revisions. The EPA has a duty to promptly promulgate
federal WQS where necessary to remedy a disapproved WQS, and in any case where the Administrator
determines that an EPA promulgation action is necessary to meet the requirements of the CWA. The
EPA Region 8 strives to work closely with states and authorized tribes throughout each WQS review,
development, and revision process so that new and revised WQS can be approved.
The EPA acknowledges UDWQ’s and the Board’s significant ongoing work revising Utah’s WQS and
standard operating procedures to meet the requirements of the WQS Regulation (40 C.F.R. Part 131)
and CWA. Our comments below are designed to identify opportunities for UDWQ and the Board to
1 See DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY, UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, PUBLIC NOTICE OF 2023 Water
Quality Standards Triennial Review, October 30, 2023, and supporting materials.
2 https://deq.utah.gov/water-quality/triennial-review-water-quality.

2

further align Utah’s WQS with the EPA WQS Regulation, the EPA’s recommended water quality criteria
and policies, and make other program improvements.
Water Quality Criteria
The Water Quality Unit reviewed R317-2-14 and identified criteria with new or updated EPA CWA §
304(a) water quality criteria recommendations.3 We recognize the Division proposal to adopt some of
these new and updated criteria recommendations. We support the Division’s consideration of these
EPA national recommendations to better protect Utah surface waters with criteria that more
accurately predict and prevent impacts to aquatic ecosystems and people.

Aquatic Life Criteria

Ammonia – We acknowledge and support the Division recommending Utah update its existing
ammonia criteria by considering EPA’s 2013 ammonia criteria recommendations, and a potential
adjustment based on the presence/absence of certain species sensitive to ammonia exposure. It is our
understanding that a survey to evaluate the historic and expected occurrence of freshwater mussels
and sensitive snails in state waterbodies will be completed beforehand. Information obtained from this
study will be needed for any potential adjustments to the 2013 recommended ammonia criteria. As
you know, recalculation of the national ammonia criteria recommendations based on the ammonia
toxicity of species occurrence in Utah waters is only possible where it is documented that more
sensitive species are not currently occurring and not expected to be able to return to those waters. For
example, UDWQ would need to provide a rationale when developing site-specific ammonia criteria
based on the absence of certain unionid mussels and suitable habitat (including suitable hosts such as
salmonids) in all affected segments pursuant to EPA recommendations (see: Aquatic Life Ambient
Water Quality Criteria for Ammonia – Freshwater, 2013).4 We understand that UDWQ will discuss the
results of the freshwater mussels and snails study, and any other supporting documentation with the
WQS Workgroup prior to proposing revisions to Utah’s existing ammonia criteria. The EPA is available
to provide additional technical support to aid in the adoption and implementation of the 2013
recommended ammonia criteria.

Selenium – The Water Quality Unit supports UDWQ’s recommendation to consider adopting the 2016
selenium criterion.5 The updated criterion reflects the latest scientific knowledge, which indicates that
selenium toxicity to aquatic life is primarily based on organisms consuming selenium-contaminated
food rather than exposure only to selenium dissolved in water. The final criterion is expressed both in
terms of fish tissue concentration (egg/ovary, whole body, or muscle) and water concentration (lentic,
lotic). (See Table 1 below.)

It is our understanding that UDWQ is considering a recalculation of the 2016 selenium criterion based
on the presence/ absence of certain selenium-sensitive aquatic species occurring in Utah waters. We
also understand that UDWQ plans to discuss the results of any supporting documentation with the
WQS Workgroup prior to proposing revisions to Utah’s existing selenium criteria. We recommend
review of the criterion document,5 the Technical Support for Adopting and Implementing EPA’s 2016

3 https://www.epa.gov/wqc/national-recommended-water-quality-criteria.
4 EPA 822-R-18-002, April 2013. See also Appendix N. Site Specific Criteria for Ammonia.
5 https://www.epa.gov/wqc/aquatic-life-criterion-selenium.
3
Selenium Criterion in Water Quality Standards,6 and EPA’s Revised Deletion Process for the Site-Specific
Recalculation Procedure for Aquatic Life Criteria.7 The EPA suggests Utah review these documents, with
the 2016 criteria, and develop a statewide plan to adopt and implement the updated selenium
criterion before recommending any revisions to the Board. EPA guidance also recommends that states
wishing to develop site-specific selenium fish tissue criterion elements based on the revised deletion
process should engage their EPA Regional office early in the process to ensure the development of
sound scientific analyses. The EPA is available to provide additional technical support to aid in the
adoption and implementation of the 2016 recommended selenium criterion.
Table 1. Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criterion for Selenium in Freshwater 2016.
Chronic Selenium Short-term
Egg-Ovary¹
[mg/kg dw]
Whole Body¹
[mg/kg dw]
Muscle¹
[mg/kg dw]
Water Lentic¹
[ug/L]
Water Lotic¹
[ug/L]
Water¹
[ug/L]
15.1 8.5 11.3 1.5
(30 day)
3.1
(30 day)
Intermittent
exposure
equation
¹A note on hierarchy of table: when fish egg/ovary concentrations are measured, the values supersede any whole-body,
muscle or water column elements except in certain situations. Whole body or muscle measurements supersede any water
column element when both fish tissue and water concentrations are measured, except in certain situations. Water column
values are derived from the egg & ovary concentrations via bioaccumulation modeling. Water column values are the
applicable criterion element in the absence of fish tissue measurements, such as waters where fish have been extirpated or
where physical habitat and/or flow regime cannot sustain fish populations, or in waters with new discharges of selenium
where steady state has not been achieved between water and fish tissue at the site.
Great Salt Lake, Farmington and Bear River Bays Aquatic Life Criteria - We support UDWQ’s
recommendation to pilot adoption of aluminum, ammonia, copper and selenium criteria protecting
aquatic life in Farmington and Bear River Bays. UDWQ has made significant strides in strengthening
CWA programs as they apply to Great Salt Lake (GSL) through stakeholder coordination, scientific
studies and monitoring, and improved implementation in programs such as discharge permits. We
applaud UDWQ’s substantial efforts invested into these program areas and their long-term benefits to
protect GSL’s unique habitats. The EPA provides a variety of support to UDWQ’s ongoing efforts
including metals toxicity studies under hypersaline conditions, fisheries and other biological population
studies throughout the varied GSL habitats, and continued water quality monitoring. The unique
ecology, chemistry, and hydrologic modifications of GSL have traditionally been thought to preclude
application of state-wide criteria to GSL. Although this likely remains true for the hypersaline portions
of GSL, the products from these recent studies have improved our understanding of the similarities and
differences in the aquatic life using the different bays, especially those with less saline waters. We
support continued dedicated efforts to develop water quality criteria applicable to portions of GSL. We
recommend that Utah continue this work so that soon the existing uses in GSL can be fully protected
under 40 C.F.R. § 131.10(i) and 131.11. The EPA is available to provide additional technical support to
aid in the adoption and implementation of these criteria.
6 https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-10/selenium-adopting-tsd-draft-2021.
7 Revised Deletion Process for the Site-Specific Recalculation Procedure for Aquatic Life Criteria. EPA 823-R-13-001.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/revised_deletion_process_for_the_sitespecific_
recalculation_procedure_for_aquatic_life_criteria.

4

Iron - The EPA continues to recommend that Utah review its existing iron criterion for consistency with
EPA’s CWA § 304(a) criteria recommendations. Utah’s aquatic life criterion for iron is currently
expressed as dissolved when EPA’s recommendation is 1,000 µg/L total recoverable iron. It is
important to express the criterion as total recoverable given the toxicity of iron hydroxide and ferric
oxide (iron precipitates or floc) to benthic organisms and the reduction of suitable spawning habitat
due to excessive iron floc.8 We are not aware of any data or analyses to support that 1,000 µg/L as
dissolved iron is protective of aquatic life. Therefore, we suggest that Utah revise the existing iron
criterion to total recoverable to account for the toxicity that results from precipitated iron.

Human Health Criteria

In 2015, the EPA published final updated ambient water quality criteria for the protection of human
health for 94 chemical pollutants. These updated recommendations reflect the latest scientific
information and EPA policies, including updated body weight, drinking water consumption rate, fish
consumption rate, bioaccumulation factors, health toxicity values, and relative source contributions.9
The EPA acknowledges and supports UDWQ’s and the Board’s significant efforts in adopting most of
these updated human health criteria recommendations during the 2018 Utah WQS triennial review.

We note that for some of the parameters in EPA’s new/updated CWA § 304(a) human health criteria
recommendations, Utah has adopted the more stringent Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
established by the EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The EPA supports retaining MCLs where
those values are more stringent than the 304(a) criteria recommendations. For a pollutant for which
the EPA has not published a recommended CWA § 304(a) criterion for "water + organisms" and for
which the EPA has promulgated a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG), the EPA generally
recommends the MCLG for noncarcinogenic pollutants, or a criterion derived by recalculating the
MCLG at an acceptable cancer risk level. The EPA does not recommend that the MCL be used where
consideration of available treatment technology, costs, or availability of analytical methodologies has
resulted in a MCL that is less protective than a MCLG.10 The EPA recommends that UDWQ review the
criteria in Table 2.14.6 that are based on a MCL to ensure consistency with the recommendations
above.

Methylmercury – We acknowledge and support the Division recommending Utah adopt the 200111
methylmercury fish tissue-based criterion for the protection of people eating fish and shellfish. This
criterion, 0.3 mg/kg fish tissue wet weight, was EPA’s first water quality criterion expressed as a fish
and shellfish tissue value rather than as an ambient water column value. In April 2010, the EPA
finalized technical guidance on how to implement the fish tissue-based criterion.12 As discussed in
Chapter 3 of the guidance document, the EPA recommends working with stakeholders and the public

8 U.S. EPA. Quality Criteria for Water. July, 1976.
9 https://www.epa.gov/wqc/human-health-criteria-development-documents.
10 See 65 Fed. Reg. 66444, 66450-66451 (November 3, 2000) available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2000-11-
03/pdf/00-27924.pdf.
11 66 Fed. Reg. 1344, 1355, (January 8, 2001).
12 http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/methylmercury/.
5
to develop an implementation plan prior to moving forward with a rulemaking proposal for the Board.
The Water Quality Unit recognizes the logistics and outreach involved in implementing this criterion,
and we are available to assist the Division in this effort.
Recreational Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Microcystins and Cylindrospermopsin - The Water
Quality Unit supports UDWQ’s recommendation to adopt the microcystins and cylindrospermopsin
criteria for the protection of human health. The EPA released national recommendations for the
Human Health Recreational Ambient Water Quality Criteria/Swimming Advisories for Microcystins and
Cylindrospermopsin (AWQC/SA) in May 2019.13 These AWQC/SA accurately reflect the latest scientific
knowledge on the potential human health effects from recreational exposure to these two
cyanotoxins. (See Table 2 below.) Primary contact recreation is protected in water bodies at or below the
recommended concentrations of microcystins and cylindrospermopsin. The EPA acknowledges and
commends that UDWQ already uses the information provided in these recommendations since it
developed triggers for posting swimming advisories.
As indicated in EPA’s fact sheet,14 cyanobacteria are naturally occurring photosynthetic bacteria found
in freshwater and marine habitats. Under certain environmental conditions, such as elevated levels of
nutrients, warmer temperatures, still water, and plentiful sunlight, cyanobacteria can rapidly multiply
to form “harmful algal blooms” (HABs). We acknowledge that HAB events appear to be occurring in
Utah at increasing frequency over time, and UDWQ has developed and implemented significant
monitoring, public notification and coordination protocols to address them. These HABs can result in
adverse health effects to humans and animals. Exposure to elevated levels of microcystins can
potentially lead to liver damage, and cylindrospermopsin toxicity can affect the kidneys and liver. EPA’s
recommended magnitude for microcystins and cylindrospermopsin is as follows:
Table 2. EPA Recommended AWQC/SA for Microcystins and Cylindrospermopsin.
Recommended magnitude for cyanotoxins
Microcystins Cylindrospermopsin
8 ug/L 15 ug/L
For both cyanotoxins, the recommended duration and frequency depend on their application as a
water quality criterion or a swimming advisory, as described in the criteria document and the fact
sheet. Please note that the EPA also published national drinking water health advisories for these
cyanotoxins. Also, the EPA has published Implementation Guidance, Fact Sheets and FAQs that are
available along with the criteria recommendations document.15 We support UDWQ’s recommendation
that the Board adopt EPA’s recommended recreational water quality criteria for these cyanotoxins into
R317-2 to improve protection of public health.
The Water Quality Unit also supports the Division’s proposals to continue efforts developing numeric
criteria for nutrients in Utah Lake, and piloting application of EPA’s 2021 Numeric Nutrient Criteria for
Lakes and Reservoirs. We are available to continue assisting the Division in these efforts.
13 See https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-05/documents/hh-rec-criteria-habs-document-2019.pdf.
14 See https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-05/documents/hh-rec-criteria-habs-factsheet-2019.pdf.
15 https://www.epa.gov/wqc/recreational-water-quality-criteria-and-methods#rec3.

6

Colorado River Salinity Standards

We support UDWQ’s recommendation to adopt by reference the updated 2023 Colorado River Salinity
Standards. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) reviews the numeric criteria and
Plan of Implementation for controlling salinity within its seven member states, including Utah, and
publishes its recommendations every three years. The EPA supports adopting by reference the Forum’s
2023 Colorado River Salinity Standards into R317-2-4.

Wetland Water Quality Standards

With the assistance of EPA Wetland Program Development Grants (WPDGs), the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality and collaborating colleagues have developed a robust wetlands program that
has produced wetland mapping tools, sampling standard operating procedures (SOPs) specific to
Utah’s wetland types, assessment tools, characterization of the highest attainable condition for
impounded wetlands, and a CWA § 401 certification program.16 With over one million dollars in
WPDGs (including match) used to specifically address WQS for wetlands, Utah has made significant
advances in developing the policy and scientific foundations for wetland WQS protective of these
important habitats. The EPA is particularly encouraged by these efforts. However, the EPA notes that
though significant policy and scientific advances have occurred, wetlands WQS have not been adopted
into R317-2. The EPA recommends that Utah prioritize making the necessary final steps to draft and
adopt WQS protective of its wetland ecosystems.

In 2016, the EPA published an online tool, with interactive templates to facilitate the development of
protective WQS for wetlands.17 The templates are separated into the three components: designated
uses, criteria, and antidegradation. Customizing all three components to the needs of the state and its
wetland resources will generate a narrative statement that serves as a wetland-specific WQS that will
ensure consistent application of CWA provisions to wetlands. The EPA recommends that Utah review
existing wetland data with the online material and consider the development and adoption of a
narrative criterion that will provide robust protection of its wetlands and their functions, either as a
whole or based on specific wetland types.

Conclusion

We thank UDWQ and the Board for the opportunity to comment on the substance of the WQS triennial
review, and hope our comments are helpful in developing and refining the scope of the triennial
revisions. We acknowledge and commend ongoing efforts by UDWQ and the Board to maintain and
improve water quality in Utah. The EPA appreciates UDWQ’s and the Board’s efforts to ensure that
Utah’s rulemaking complies with the EPA’s WQS Regulation at 40 C.F.R. Part 131. Please note that the
Water Quality Unit’s comments are preliminary in nature and should not be interpreted as final EPA

16 https://deq.utah.gov/water-quality/wetlands-program/wetlands-program. 17 https://www.epa.gov/wqs-tech/templates-developing-wetland-water-quality-standards

7

decisions under CWA § 303(c). If there are questions concerning our comments, please contact George
Parrish (at 303-312-7027 or via email at [e-mail]).

Sincerely,

Andrew Todd
Supervisor, Water Quality Section

2/7/24, 12:31 PM Comment for Triennial Water Quality Studies- Please Accept - [e-mail] - State of Utah Mail
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#label/2023+Triennial+Review+Comment/FMfcgzGwJJWwHglVWPMMDsTtVtvmpHhM 1/1
<[e-mail]>
to me
Heidi Franco
Hello Division of Water Quality and Mr. Vander Laan;
As Mayor of Heber City I'm definitely concerned and commied about maintaining our City's water supply from the Class IA aquifer beneath the Heber Valley floor in
Wasatch County. I'm sending these public comments to show our City's acons to recognize and protect the unique geology for our Class IA aquifer and water supply
based on exisng Utah Administrave Code R317 Standards.
Three years ago I advocated for our City to adopt MS4 Stormwater Standards before being required by the State because the amount of density we were approving then
would lead to that state requirement. Our City then took two years to develop the MS4 stormwater management standards at great expense in order to protect the
aquifer drinking source and not adversely affect conguous wetlands to the City, especially within the North Fields. The North Fields, their many wetlands, and most of
Heber Valley are also part of that conguous, unprotected Class IA aquifer per Utah Administrave Code R317 standards.
Now our City requires MS4 stormwater infrastructure in all of our developments even though we are not required to by the State. I believe that Wasatch County also
requires strict stormwater requirements for these same purposes.
Please understand that Heber City's commitment to protecng this unprotected aquifer cannot be understated with this expensive, proacve stormwater management
program.
We collaborated extensively with the Valley's Irrigaon Companies, CUP, Wasatch County, the Utah River Migaon and Conservaon Commission, the Provo River
Water Users Associaon, etc., in developing this proacve MS4 stormwater management plan.
Our City also contributed money to a new wetlands mapping survey for the North Fields and Provo River Corridor with the Utah Geological Survey (UGS) in 2022. This
completed survey showed increased amounts of wetlands and riparian areas which are now documented for applicable protecons.
Our City also increased its Sensive Lands protecon with a new ordinance in 2023 allowing buffers and greater protecons in addion to the MS4 Stormwater
management standards.
In all of these proacve steps, we relied on the current R317 Utah Administrave Code standards and would only want to maintain or improve those standards; not
diminish them in any way.
Please understand Heber City's commitment to ensure and maintain state and local standards for water quality given the high rate of growth within our area. Our State
must maintain the highest standards in Utah Administrave Code R317 to protect our natural resources and their quality, especially water, given the impacts of
connuing growth. This is the only way to have sustainable, responsible growth within our State.
Thank you for accepng my public comments,
Heidi Franco

Heidi Franco
Mayor, Heber City
435-671-8244
[e-mail]
Transparency & Accountability to Citizens
2/7/24, 12:32 PM Comment on Triennial Water quality studies. - [e-mail] - State of Utah Mail
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#label/2023+Triennial+Review+Comment/FMfcgzGwJJTfMmqDDJjhwZnVgsnsvxfq 1/2
Dear Mr. Vander.
I write to address some concerns I have with the State’s Triennial Water assessment plans. I have particular
concerns about the Provo River Watershed and, specifically, the pristine and rare Class 1a aquifer that underlies
Heber Valley. The health of the aquifer depends on the health of the surface waters that feed and overlay it.
I am very concerned about the ever increasing pressures put not just on water usage, but on water treatment and
cleanliness. Heber Valley, home of this critical class 1a aquifer with an unconsolidated, porous, top is particularly
sensitive to damage as recognized by Wasatch County’s environmental studies.
The following are key water quality concerns:The Heber Valley North Fields Class IA prisne aquifer is a key resource serving drinking water to residents of theHeber Valley. Protecon of the aquifer water quality is crical. Polluted aquifers are very hard to restore.
Water quality of the Heber Valley drinking water aquifer is linked to the water quality of surface waters includingthe Provo River.
The poron of the Heber Valley Groundwater Classificaon Map which includes the north end of North Fields isreproduced in Figure 1. The Class 1A Aquifer is shown mapped with green shading on Figure 1. There are severalwells in the area which rely on the excellent water quality of the aquifer. The red dots on Figure 1 show wellsinventoried in 1991. The subsoils in the area are very cobbly and have high permeability but low ability to absorband treat pollutants.
Figure 1 - Poron of Ground Water Classificaon Map for Heber Valley
Please assure that changes in Water Quality standards will connue to protect the prisne water quality of the
Heber Valley North Fields.
The proposed changes for methyl mercury and selenium are parcularly problemac if they weaken rather thanstrengthen oversight and rapid detecon of water contaminaon by these chemicals through using a less sensiveassay method. For example, weakening oversight by using ssue analysis rather than column analysis seems to bethe explicit goal for selenium as stated in the report. This is unfortunate and should not be done. Instead,Irecommend having both column tesng and ssue tesng. In any event, the most sensive method of detecng
2/7/24, 12:32 PM Comment on Triennial Water quality studies. - [e-mail] - State of Utah Mail
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbl#label/2023+Triennial+Review+Comment/FMfcgzGwJJTfMmqDDJjhwZnVgsnsvxfq 2/2
contaminaon should always be used, not the least sensive. With regard to the Provo River Shed and this rare
aquifer, such an approach is essenal.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to respond on this important subject.
Sincerely,
Daniel L. Simmons, Ph.D.

OreoHelix Ecological “Dedicated to Evalua4ng and Protec4ng the World’s Ecological Health, Integrity, and Well Being…. One Snail
at a Time”

Date: November 29, 2023

To: Utah Division Water Quality
P. O. Box 144870,
Salt Lake City, UT
Attn: Jake Vander Laan

From: David C. Richards, Ph.D.
OreoHelix Ecological, Vineyard UT 84059
Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Regarding: DWQ 2023 Triennial Review
Water Quality Standards Priorities
Public Comment

Comments:

Item 1. EPA 2013 Ammonia Criteria

Utah Division of Water Quality (UDWQ) developed ammonia criteria and regulations based on EPA’s
outdated 2013 criteria. As UDWQ states, these ammonia criteria values were based on toxicity test results
using sensitive mussels from SE USA, not the two mussel taxa that occur in Utah (Table 1). These
stringent UDWQ ammonia criteria resulted in many wastewater treatment facilities contracting mollusk
experts to survey for presence/absence of mussels over large areas of Utah at substantial monetary cost
and time expenditure. Criteria also raised concerns and contributed to upgrade planning of facilities to
meet ammonia criteria, increasing monetary and time expenditures.

UDWQ then conducted recalculation of ammonia criteria based on toxicity tests conducted on mussel
taxa that occur in Utah, specifically Anodonta californiensis/nutalliana (Table 1) (CVCWA 2020). The
CVCWA (2020) toxicity test showed that A. californiensis/nutalliana was much less sensitive to ammonia
than mussel taxa from SE USA and values used by EPA 2013 and UTDWQ (Table 1) and that A.
californiensis/nutalliana was 164% less sensitive to ammonia than another Anodonta sp. within the same
genus.

Table 1. UDWQ Triennial Review 2023. EPA 2013 Ammonia Criteria.
EPA 2013
Ammonia
Criteria
The 2013 EPA criteria are more stringent than Utah's
current criteria if unionid mussels are present. Utah has 2
unionid species, but toxicity tests weren't available for
these specific species when EPA updated the criteria.
Testing was recently conducted for these 2 species in
California. Recalculating the 2013 EPA criteria using the
California toxicity data results in unionids- present
criteria for Utah that are similar to Utah's existing criteria.
Update implementation guidance,
request cost analysis from
affected facilities, propose criteria
to the Water Quality Board, adopt
and submit for EPA approval.

OreoHelix Ecological “Dedicated to Evalua4ng and Protec4ng the World’s Ecological Health, Integrity, and Well Being…. One Snail
at a Time”
EPA bases its Recalculation Procedure on “The underlying premise …. that taxonomy1 has value in
predicting sensitivity” (USEPA 2013a). EPA also based its entire Aquatic life ambient water quality
criteria for ammonia – freshwater 2013 document on this premise (USEPA 2013b).
By 2017, UDWQ was well aware that taxonomy was not often consistent with phylogeny, and that neither
were good predictors of sensitivity to toxicants, including ammonia (e.g., Richards 2016) and in a final
report UDWQ (2017) stated that:
“First, taxonomic relationships may not be consistent with phylogenetic relationships, and
both are frequently modified based on new genetic or other information.”
“Third, and perhaps most importantly, phylogenetic similarity may not predict toxicological
similarity (Blomberg et al. 2003; Losos 2008). The probability of toxicological similarity is
presumably greatest when taxa are identical at the species or genus level due to shared life-history,
morphological, or physiological traits (USEPA 2013a, b). However, traits related to toxicological
susceptibility may evolve at rates not reflected in overall phylogenetic (or taxonomic) similarity.”
As the CVCWA (2020) report illustrates, EPA recalculation procedures are highly complex and subject to
potentially erroneous and unrepresentative values. For example, if a species occurs in a water body and
has not been tested for a toxicant then values from a surrogate species that has been tested are used, in
some instances even if that surrogate species is far removed taxonomically and phylogenetically. This is
contrary to what UDWQ has knowledge of (see preceding paragraphs). Application of unrealistic
recalculated criteria values by UDWQ can subsequently elicit costly wastewater facility upgrades and
increased consulting costs.
Item 2. Great Salt Lake: Farmington and Bear River Bays
The additional biological surveys that UDWQ has for Farmington Bay (FB) and Bear River Bay (BRB)
have macroinvertebrate data that only taxonomically identify to genus level or subfamily level but no
species level taxonomy (Armstrong and Wurtsbaugh 2019). This level of taxonomy will have the same
effects on recalculation as did for ammonia, i.e., toxicity criteria not representative of the taxa that occur
in FB and BRB (see Item 1). The same problem will result if the macroinvertebrate species that UDWQ
has in its database for FB or BRB have not been tested for the four toxicants listed in Table 2. Criteria
values from surrogate species that have been tested will need to be used, in some instances even if those
surrogate species are far removed taxonomically and phylogenetically. After reviewing the taxa list for FB
and BRB, I assume there will be a substantial number of taxa that have not been evaluated for these
toxicants. Again, this is contrary to what UDWQ has knowledge of (see preceding paragraphs).
Application of unrealistic recalculated criteria values by UDWQ for FB and BRB can subsequently elicit
costly wastewater facility upgrades and increased consulting costs.
Table 2. UDWQ Triennial Review 2023. Great Salt Lake: Farmington and Bear River Bays.
Great Salt Lake:
Farmington and
Bear River Bays
Additional biological surveys have been conducted in Farmington
and Bear River Bays of Great Salt Lake (GSL), filling data gaps
identified in the GSL Aquatic Life Use survey. Recently updated
Update the GSL
Strategy. Pilot the
species deletion
1 EPA slightly confuses taxonomy with phylogeny. Taxonomy is typically defined as the science or technique of classification,
whereas phylogeny is typically defined as the development or evolution of a particular group of organisms.
OreoHelix Ecological “Dedicated to Evalua4ng and Protec4ng the World’s Ecological Health, Integrity, and Well Being…. One Snail
at a Time”

recommended criteria for aluminum, ammonia, selenium, and
copper provide appropriate species toxicity information for a
recalculation procedure. Combined, these factors provide a
potential pathway for adopting recalculated criteria for Farmington
and Bear River Bays.
procedure for 4
criteria.

Recommendation
Given the likely inaccuracies in recalculation procedures that I have outlined in this letter, I recommend
that UDWQ carefully evaluates any recalculation given these concerns. UDWQ should generate error
rates (e.g., confidence intervals) for recalculation if species found in FB and BRB are not same as those
that have toxicity values but do not occur in these ecosystems using appropriate resampling (e.g.,
bootstrap, jackknife) or other statistical methods. In addition, recent research suggests that species traits
including three major trait categories, external exposure, intrinsic sensitivity, and population sustainability
may be more useful for ecotoxicological evaluations (Liang et al. 2024, Rubach et. al. 2011).
Unrealistically low criteria values based on EPA recalculation procedure could have large economic costs,
particularly for wastewater treatment facilities; unrealistically high criteria values could result in under
protection of our cherished water bodies in Utah, including Farmington Bay and Bear River Bay.

Literature Cited

Armstrong, T. and W. A. Wurstbaugh. 2019. Impacts of Eutrophication on Benthic Invertebrates & Fish
Prey of Birds in Farmington and Bear River Bays of Great Salt Lake. Final Report to the Utah
Division of Forestry, Fire & State Lands.

CVCWA (Central Valley Clean Water Association). 2020. Phase IIc Freshwater Mussel Collaborative
Study for Wastewater Treatment Plants: Ammonia Criteria Recalculation Final Report. Pacific
EcoRisk etc.

Liang, R. et. al. 2024. Spatial variation in the sensitivity of freshwater macroinvertebrate assemblages to
chemical stressors. Water Research. 248, 120854.

Richards, D. C. 2016. Does Phylogeny Predict Sensitivity to Ammonia in Freshwater Animals using
USEPA Ammonia Criteria Data? Technical Memo. OreoHelix Consulting, Moab, UT. Prepared
for: Jordan River/Farmington Bay Water Quality Council. Salt Lake City, UT. 34 pages.

Rubach, M.N. et.al. 2011. A framework for traits-based assessment in ecotoxicology. Integrated
Environmental Assessment and Management. 7(2):172-86.

Utah DWQ. 2017. Utah and Colorado Water Surveys for Mussels and Snails. Final Report.

USEPA 2013a. Revised deletion process for the site-specific recalculation procedure for aquatic life
criteria. EPA-823-R-13-001.
USEPA. 2013b. Aquatic life ambient water quality criteria for ammonia-freshwater. EPA 822-R-13-001

Appendix4.2023TriennialReviewPublic
HearingSummary- Dec14,2023
A public hearing to accept comments on Utah’s water quality standards and recommended
changes was held at 6:00 PM on December 14, 2023, hosted at the Multi Agency State Office
Building in Salt Lake City with virtual access provided.
A member of Utah’s Water Quality Board, Joe Havasi, served as the hearing officer. Mr.
Havasi opened the hearing by providing background information regarding the purpose of
the hearing and the Triennial Review. The hearing was then open for comments for one
hour. George Parrish, EPA Region 8, conrmed receipt of EPA’s written comments and
provided a summary of the comments submitted. EPA’s written comments are available in
Appendix 3 and DWQ has responded to the written comments. Lisa Kirschner asked a
question about publication of the comments received for the 2023 Triennial Review. DWQ
explained that comments and draft responses will be shared and discussed with Utah’s
Water Quality Standards Workgroup and Water Quality Board, and that nal responses will
be published on DWQ’s website in a 2023 Triennial Review Report. Mr. Havasi asked a
question about the Great Salt Lake: Gilbert Bay standards priority. Ben Holcomb explained
that the current goal is to summarize and report on the results of past brine shrimp and
brine y toxicity testing and update DWQ’s Great Salt Lake strategy.
Mr. Havasi closed the meeting at 7:00 PM. DWQ did not receive additional formal comments
during the hearing. A recording of the hearing is available on request.
Appendix5.2023Triennial ReviewWater
QualityStandardsPriority List
Standards Issue Background Goal
EPA 2001
Methylmercury
Criteria
The methylmercury fish tissue criteria should be
added to Table 2.14.6. Adding the fish tissue
criterion will primarily affect assessments and
assessment methods need to be updated to
address implementation. Waters with current fish
consumption advisories will likely be identified as
impaired.
Propose revised standards to the
Water Quality Board, adopt and
submit for EPA approval.
EPA 2013
Ammonia Criteria
The 2013 EPA criteria are more stringent than
Utah's current criteria if unionid mussels are
present. Utah has 2 unionid species but toxicity
tests weren't available for these specific species
when EPA updated the criteria. Testing was
recently conducted for these 2 species in
California. Recalculating the 2013 EPA criteria
using the California toxicity data results in
unionids-present criteria for Utah that are similar
to Utah's existing criteria.
Update implementation
guidance, request cost analysis
from affected facilities, propose
criteria to the Water Quality
Board, adopt and submit for EPA
approval.
EPA 2019
Cyanotoxins:
microcystin &
cylindrospermopsin
Recommended criteria should be adopted for
recreational uses in table 2.14.1. The
recommended criteria are consistent with
cyanotoxin concentrations used in recreational
health advisories and WQ assessment methods.
Develop guidance document,
propose revised standards to the
Water Quality Board, adopt and
submit for EPA approval.
EPA 2016
Selenium Criteria
The 2016 EPA criteria is hierarchical with the fish
tissue criteria superseding water column criteria.
The water criteria are more stringent than Utah's
current criteria and selenium is common in Utah
surface and waste waters. More stringent
selenium criteria will impact existing discharge
permits that may require changes to treatment
processes. Idaho recently applied the species
deletion procedure to EPA's criteria resulting in
less stringent criteria. This process may be
appropriate to apply to Utah.
Prepare implementation
guidance that compiles existing
data, includes recommendations
for developing site-specific
translators, and a schedule for
adoption.
2023 Colorado
River Salinity
Standards update
In UAC R317-2-4, Utah WQ standards reference
the WQ standards—numeric criteria and
implementation plans—across seven coordinating
states to reduce salinity in the Colorado Basin.
The latest version of these
criteria and plans were updated
in 2023. Utah will update our
standards to acknowledge the
latest version.
Utah Lake Nutrient
Criteria
The Utah Lake Nutrient criteria are being
developed as part of a multi-year effort with a
steering committee and science panel.
Continue studies to support
development of numeric nutrient
criteria.
Great Salt Lake:
Farmington and
Bear River Bays
Additional biological surveys have been
conducted in Farmington and Bear River Bays of
Great Salt Lake, filling data gaps identified in the
GSL Aquatic Life Use survey. Recently updated
recommended criteria for aluminum, ammonia,
selenium, and copper provide appropriate species
toxicity information for a recalculation procedure.
Combined, these factors provide a potential
pathway for adopting recalculated criteria for
Farmington and Bear River Bays.
Update the Great Salt Lake
Strategy. Pilot the species
deletion procedure for 4 criteria.
Great Salt Lake:
Gilbert Bay
Chronic and acute toxicity tests have been
conducted for brine shrimp and brine flies for
arsenic, copper, lead, and zinc.
Summarize toxicity test results
and determine next steps.
Update the Great Salt Lake
Strategy.
EPA 2021 Lakes &
Reservoirs Nutrient
Criteria
Pilot model application to selected lakes and
reservoirs. Current candidates are Willard Bay
Reservoir, Mantua Reservoir, and Deer Creek
Reservoir. These would help evaluate existing
endpoints, potential point sources, and potential
criteria endpoints.
Perform pilot analyses.