DWQ-2024-006073

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: Samantha Heusser
DATE: August 28, 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
M E M O R A N D U M

TO: The Utah Water Quality Board

THROUGH: John K. Mackey, P.E., Director

FROM: Leanna Littler-Woolf, Assistant Director

DATE: August 28, 2024

SUBJECT: Petition for Rule Change- Proposed Amendments to Utah Administrative Code Rule 317

On July, 18, 2024, John K. Mackey, P.E. in his capacity as the Executive Secretary of the Utah Water Quality
Board (Board) received a petition titled “Petition for Rule Change-Proposed Amendments to Utah
Administrative Code Rule 317” submitted by Wasatch Front Water Quality Council (Petitioners)
(Attachment 1). Utah Code 63G-3-601 (6) requires the Board place a petition on its agenda for review within
45 days of the submission; and within 80 days either deny the petition in writing stating its reasons for denial
or initiate rulemaking proceedings. A copy of 63G-3-601 is provided as Attachment 2.

The Petitioners identified themselves as a coalition of wastewater treatment plants along the Wasatch Front
who are subject to Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (UPDES) permits. The Petitioners cited
concerns regarding permitting challenges their members had faced in recent permit renewal cycles as the
reason for their proposal. The Petitioners proposes adding the following requirements to Utah
Administrative Code R317-8 to address their concerns:

1. Require the Division of Water Quality (Division) to circulate a pre-publication Draft UPDES permit
30 days before the permit is released for public comment.;
2. Require the Division to include a schedule of compliance in all UPDES permits when a renewal or
modified permit for a publicly-owned treatment works results in effluent limitations more stringent
or imposes new effluent limitations.; and
3. Require that the Division issue final permit renewals at the end of the calendar year or reporting
period (e.g. quarter) rather than in the middle of the reporting period.

The Division has reviewed and evaluated the Petitioner's requests and determined that they would pose
significant operational challenges and would prevent the Division from implementing important protections
to water quality in a timely manner. A detailed review of each specific request is set forth below.

Page 2
Petition for Rule Change
Proposed Amendments to Utah Administrative Code Rule 317

30-Day Pre-Public Notice Draft

The request to require a 30-day pre-public notice review of Draft Permits by Permittees creates redundancies
and inefficiencies in the permitting process; impacts how quickly the Division can issue permits; and
ultimately unnecessarily delays important protections to water quality.

Although current regulations do not require that a Draft permit be provided to the Permittee prior to the
public comment period, the Division’s current policy is to provide the Draft Permit to the Permittee for
review for a minimum of 7 days prior to public notice to allow the Permittee to provide informal
comments. This review period is often extended upon request. Once the Draft Permit is published for public
comment, the Permittee then has an additional 30-day period to review the Draft permit and submit formal
comments through the public comment review process outlined in Utah Admin. Code R317-8. The
Permittee may also request an extension of the public comment period if they feel additional time to review
or comment is necessary. Prior to issuance of a Final Permit, the Division is required to consider and respond
to all formal comments submitted during the public comment period, including any comments from the
Permittee.

The Division reviewed available information, primarily from Permit Quality Review (PQR) Reports issued
by EPA, to determine what other States’ processes may be in regard to providing a pre-public notice review
to Permittees. The Division identified 18 other states that allow the applicant to review the Draft Permit
prior to public notice. The Division found that seven (7) of the States allowed for a review between 10 - 15
days; 1 allowed for 15-21 days; and 1 allowed for 30 days. The remaining eight (8) states did not specify
the time provided for review.

Chart 1. Data pulled from PQRs on other States pre-public notice reviews processes.

Page 3
Petition for Rule Change
Proposed Amendments to Utah Administrative Code Rule 317

Based on available information, it appears the Division’s current policy of providing a 7-day pre-public
notice review period (with the possibility for extension when requested) is consistent with most other states’
practices that provide this review period.

In addition, on several occasions the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has verbally stated they have
concerns with the Division’s current policy of allowing Permittees to review Draft Permits prior to public
notice and the Utah Legislature has repeatedly emphasized the importance of issuing permits quickly and
efficiently. Recognizing these concerns, the Division feels that its current 7-day pre-public notice review
policy best balances stakeholders’ differing interests in the permitting process. It ensures that the permitting
process moves quickly and efficiently through the required public comment process, while also allowing
flexibility for additional review time when requested by the Permittee. This policy also ensures that updated
Permit requirements directed at protecting water quality are implemented as soon as possible.

Compliance Schedules

The Petitioners requested that all permit renewals and modifications which contain more stringent or new
effluent limitations be required to include a Compliance Schedule. However, this practice would not comply
with EPA requirements and could unnecessarily delay implementation of important water quality
protections.

The EPA has issued guidance in the form of a memo titled “Compliance Schedules for Water Quality-Based
Effluent Limitations in NPDES Permits” (EPA Memo) to provide a framework for States to implement 40
CFR 122.47, the federal regulations associated with compliance schedules in National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permits (NPDES).

As indicated in the EPA memo, a compliance schedule is only appropriate in relation to more stringent or
new effluent limitations if it can be demonstrated that the Permittee cannot immediately comply with the
new effluent limitations on the effective date of the permit. In addition, compliance schedules cannot extend
the date for final compliance beyond the statutory deadlines established in the Clean Water Act. See 40 CFR
122.47 (a)(1). Consistent with these requirements, Utah Admin. Code R317-8-5.2 authorizes the Division to
include a schedule of compliance in UPDES Permits, when appropriate.

Requiring compliance schedules for all permit renewals which contain more stringent or new effluent
limitations would not be appropriate based on the EPA Memo. Furthermore, EPA expects compliance
schedules to require compliance with effluent limitations as soon as possible. In instances where the
Permittee was able to meet the effluent limits on the date of permit issuance, a compliance schedule would
be unnecessary and only serve to delay important protections to water quality. In order to ensure that the
Division complies with EPA requirements, an evaluation on whether a compliance schedule is appropriate
for inclusion in a permit needs to be completed by the Permit writer.

The Division recognizes that changes to permit effluent limitations may require facilities to change the way
they operate or complete upgrades in order to meet new requirements. The Division considers all requests
for compliance schedules from Permittees and evaluates whether including a compliance schedule is
appropriate. Of the 132 Individual Municipal and Industrial UPDES Permits, approximately 25 contain
compliance schedules (about 19%).

Final Permit Renewals Effective Dates
Page 4
Petition for Rule Change
Proposed Amendments to Utah Administrative Code Rule 317

The Petitioners request that the Division be required to issue final permit renewals at the end of the calendar
year or reporting period in order to simplify the reporting. Unfortunately, while this solution may make
reporting simpler for the permittee, it poses significant operational challenges for the Division, including
how the Division manages workload. The Division is also concerned that this requirement would not
be protective of water quality and would not address the concerns outlined in the Petitioners request.

Current Division staffing is reliant on the current structure of the permitting process. Individual UPDES
permits are typically issued on a 5-year basis. A similar number of permits expire each year (approximately
27), at different times throughout the year. Each of the five (5) permit writers are assigned a certain number
of permits, with attention to the number of permit renewals they may have assigned to them in a given
year. In addition, the Division has two (2) individuals in the Standards and Technical Services (STS) section
that develop Wasteload Analyses (WLA). Staggering permit renewal and expiration dates throughout the
year ensures that the Division is efficiently staffed to manage the permit workloads and other duties
associated with permit writing positions, including education and outreach; providing technical assistance;
and conducting compliance inspections.

The process to renew a permit generally starts one year prior to a permit renewal, when permit writers send
out a 1-year reminder of permit expiration. Renewal permit applications are then due 180 days prior
to expiration. Once a complete application is received, permit writers request a WLA from the Division’s
STS section and prepare a Draft permit. Permits then go through a rigorous internal review process and a
courtesy permittee review process prior to the public comment period.

If all permits were effective on the 1st of January, the Division would be receiving all of the applications for
renewal the following year in July. This means all of the reviews for complete applications would occur in
July and requests for a WLA would occur soon after. This would continue through the entirety of the
permitting process; concentrating all work associated with permit renewals into a small window of the year.
With the Division’s current staffing levels, it would be impossible to issue all expiring permits prior to
January 1st, which means many permits would be delayed a year, causing further operational challenges the
next renewal period, as well as significantly delaying important protections to water quality. Late
applications would further exacerbate this problem.

The Petitioners expressed concerns with the difficulty to implement and report changes on Discharge
Monitoring Reports (DMRs), when changes are made to a Permit in the middle of a reporting period.
Generally, the latest a Permittee becomes aware of changes to monitoring and reporting requirements
included in their draft permit is during their courtesy pre-pubic notice review. The Division feels the
Permittee has ample time to prepare to implement most changes to monitoring and reporting requirements
in their permit, since the time to prepare includes a minimum of a 7-day pre-public notice review period; a
30-day public comment period; and time associated with the administrative process to issue a permit prior
and after public-notice. The Permitee becomes aware of the changes through the draft permit process, well
before the monitoring and reporting requirements become effective. Additionally, if the Division was
sufficiently staffed to be able to issue permits 180 days from a complete application (prior to permit
expiration) under the request, then all permits would theoretically be signed by the Director in December and
effective January 1st. This would result in the same amount of time between when the Director signs the
permit and the effective date of the permit, leading to the Permitee having the same amount of time to
implement and report changes as they do now. The same would apply to quarterly renewals. Further
restricting when the Director could sign permits to avoid this occurrence would pose operational challenges
significant enough to make it nearly impossible to issue permits.

Page 5
Petition for Rule Change
Proposed Amendments to Utah Administrative Code Rule 317

Furthermore, while it’s true that some permits contain monitoring requirements on a quarterly or annual
basis, most pollutants of concern (POCs) are required to be monitored on a minimum of a monthly basis. All
UPDES permits include monthly reporting requirements and Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs) are due
on the 28th day of each month. Reporting associated with the Technology Based Phosphorus Effluent Limits
(TBPEL); reporting related to effluent limitations derived from some Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs); and a few others may have alternative reporting requirements, but it is not the norm.
The Petitioners stated concerns with the electronic system used for reporting not being updated in time for
new permitting requirements to be reported. The Division recognizes that not having the ability to enter DMR
data when reporting is due can be frustrating for Permittees. In the past year, the Division has improved this
process by issuing permits where the effective date is the 1st day of the month following the Director’s
signature, to make monitoring and reporting easier for Permittees; and allow time for the Division to update
the electronic reporting system to reflect the changes. The Division has also taken steps to improve the
internal process to have reporting limits updated and available for Permittees prior to the due date for the
first DMR under their new permit.

Implementing the proposed rule change would ultimately result in no change to the amount of time a
Permittee has to adjust to changes in monitoring requirements, while significantly complicating the
Division’s permitting process and workload.

Summary of Division Concerns

The requests submitted by the petitioner both individually and collectively would require the Division to
manage the UPDES permitting program in a way that is not protective of water quality due to the significant
delays in permit issuances and effective dates of important water quality protections in permits. Significantly
delaying implementation of permitting requirements that protect water quality is a disservice to the Citizens
of Utah. In addition to water quality concerns, the Division has concerns with the logistics of implementation
of some of the requests and its ability to operate with the current level of staffing.

The Division seeks to protect water quality through balanced regulation and is always open to conversations
with permittees to determine the best way to do so. The Division will reach out to the Petitioners to discuss
their concerns and potential solutions to address them. The Division strives to continuously improve and is
receptive of ideas and feedback to improve the UPDES Permitting Process.

Recommendation

The Division recommends that the Board deny the Petitioner's request for rulemaking, primarily on the basis
that the requests would cause significant delays in the permitting process, result in unnecessary and
unacceptable delays in implementation of important water quality requirements, and hinder the Division's
ability to protect the Waters of the State.

ATTACHMENT
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO R317-16 PUBLIC NOTICE

Commenter
Name Topic
Rule
Section
Number
and Page
Number Suggested Revisions Response
US
Magnesium
General R317-16 Do your rules specifically address the requirements of 73-33-203
Measuring volume and quality of water?
(3)(a) 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 pursuant to
Section 73-32-203, shall make a rule, in accordance with Title 63G,
Chapter 3, Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act, 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.
(b) If a person discharges water or brine that exceeds the limit
imposed under Subsection (3)(a), the Division of Water Quality may
modify, revoke and reissue, or terminate any permit issued by the
Division of Water Quality related to the discharge.
(4) A person shall keep a record required under this section for a
period of at least five years from the day on which the record is
made.

I see the permit application and monitoring requirements, but not a
specific reference to setting individual discharge salinity limits.
Utah Admin. Code R317-16 is limited
to specifically addressing the
requirements from Great Salt Lake
Amendments, H.B. 513, 2023 Gen.
Sess. (Ut. 2023). This rule does not
address the requirements in Utah
Code § 73-33-203 stemming from
Great Salt Lake Revisions, H.B. 453,
2024 Gen. Sess. (Ut. 2024). The
Division of Water Quality will work
with the Water Quality Board to
address the requirements regarding
salinity limits for discharges in a
separate rule on or before June 1,
2025.

No changes to the rule were made as
a result of this comment.
League of
Women
Voters
General R317-16 I have looked over the revised draft rules, and it looks like it
addresses one of my concerns - that any water used by the operator
is returned to the lake so that there is no net loss of water in GSL. Is
this correct?
Utah Admin. Code R317-16 does not
require a demonstration of no net loss
of water in Great Salt Lake. A prior
draft of the rule language did include
such a requirement. However, Great
Salt Lake Revisions, H.B. 453, 2024
Gen. Sess. (Ut. 2024) removed the
requirement that the operator
demonstrate no net loss.

The rule does require the operator to
report on water and brine depletion.
This reporting requirement will assist
the Division with evaluating potential
short and long-term negative impacts
to chemistry and biota of Great Salt
Lake.

No changes to the rule were made as
a result of this comment.

Effective 5/12/2020 63G-3-601. Interested parties -- Petition for agency action.
(1) As used in this section, "initiate rulemaking proceedings" means the filing, for the purposes of publication in accordance with Subsection 63G-3-301(4), of an agency's proposed rule to implement a
petition for the making, amendment, or repeal of a rule as provided in this section. (2) An interested person may petition an agency to request the making, amendment, or repeal of a rule. (3) The office shall prescribe by rule the form for petitions and the procedure for their submission, consideration, and disposition.
(4) A statement shall accompany the proposed rule, or proposed amendment or repeal of a rule, demonstrating that the proposed action is within the jurisdiction of the agency and appropriate to the powers of the agency. (5) Within 60 days after submission of a petition, the agency shall either deny the petition in writing, stating its reasons for the denial, or initiate rulemaking proceedings.
(6)(a) If the petition is submitted to a board that has been granted rulemaking authority by the Legislature, the board shall, within 45 days of the submission of the petition, place the petition on its agenda for review. (b)Within 80 days of the submission of the petition, the board shall either: (i) deny the petition in writing stating its reasons for denial; or (ii) initiate rulemaking proceedings. (7) If the agency or board has not provided the petitioner written notice that the agency has denied the petition or initiated rulemaking proceedings within the time limitations specified in Subsection (5) or (6) respectively, the petitioner may seek a writ of mandamus in state district court.
Amended by Chapter 408, 2020 General Session
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:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
M E M O R A N D U M
Utah Water Quality Board
John Mackey, P.E., Division Director
Ben Holcomb, Standards & Tech Services Section Manager
August 28, 2024
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 periodMay 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 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:
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Board Action:
M E M O R A N D U M
Utah Water Quality Board
John Mackey, P.E., Division Director
Ben Holcomb, Standards & Tech Services Section Manager
August 28, 2024
Rulemaking Actions: Request to Adopt: R317-16 GSL Mineral
Extraction Facility Operator Certification Approval
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 Robert Fehr Michela Harris Joseph Havasi Trevor Heaton Jill Jones Kimberly D. Shelley John K. Mackey
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, P.E.
FROM: Andrew Pompeo, P.E.
DATE: Aug 28, 2024
SUBJECT: Scope of Work Modification Approval for CICWCD & Authorization of $595,800 in Southern Utah Reuse ARPA Grant Funds Board Motion for Amendment to CICWCD’s Grant Agreement
The Central Iron County Water Conservation District (CICWCD) has entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) with Cedar City to participate in Cedar City’s Effluent Filtration project which was reviewed during the April 23, 2024 Board meeting. CICWCD has continuing plans to substitute Type I wastewater for aquifer sourced irrigation water on the Cedar Valley project, but the timing for those plans do not conform to the schedule that ARPA projects require. Therefore,
the CICWCD ARPA agreement needs the Scope of Work amended. Staff is supportive of this
change. Staff recommends the following motion: update the Scope of Work in CICWCD’s ARPA Grant Agreement.

Staff recommends the following language for the Board Motion: The Board authorizes the Scope of Work in CICWCD’s ARPA Grant agreement be replaced with:
“This project includes the construction of tertiary treatment filters at the Cedar City Wastewater Treatment Plant for the production of wastewater effluent meeting Utah Type I reuse water quality standard.”

Page 2

Authorization of $595,800 in Southern Utah Reuse ARPA Grant Funds
The Water Quality Board has available funds in the amount of $595,800 from the Southern Utah Reuse ARPA Grant Program. To request additional funding, project applicants answered the following questions:

1. Please provide an update on your project status, such as: a. Current status of design b. Has the project submitted plans and specifications? c. Has the project bid?
d. Is the project under construction?
2. Please provide an update on the estimated cost of the project a. Provide the source of the estimated cost
3. Please provide an update on funds available for the project
a. Provide details of source and amount of each funds A total of 7 applications were received from 5 applicants: 5 for previously authorized projects, and 1 for a new project. The application for the Intermediary Pump Station Project is in Attachment 1.
The original applications are included in Attachment 2. A summary of the applicants is shown here:

Staff Discussion
Staff is supportive of authorizing additional funds to projects where the grant funds would have the
most impact in terms of total project cost and water quality benefit. Cedar City & Central Iron County Water Conservation District – Tertiary Filtration The main aquifer under Cedar City is being depleted. Cedar City has been warned by the Division
of Water Rights that if the aquifer continues to be depleted that water rights for the City will begin being curtailed in 2035. Currently wastewater effluent from Cedar City’s WWTP is being land applied to an agricultural area in the North end of the valley as Type II effluent. This has been going on since the initial construction of the wastewater treatment plant. Cedar City is in the process of adding a filtration unit to the back end of their wastewater treatment plant. This is their ARPA
funded project. The quality of the effluent must be improved to Type I because Cedar City wants to use the water for irrigation in the City where it needs to be suitable for human contact. The irrigation would displace water coming from the Cedar Valley aquifer that is in a stage of being depleted.
Applicant Project Description Updated Project
Cost
ARPA
Funding
Other Grant
Funds
% of Project
Grant Funded
Plans and
Specs?
In
Construction?
Project
Score
Cedar City $1,354,000
CICWCD $500,000
WCWCD Chief Toquer Reservoir $54,061,468.52 $4,976,000 $11,614,750 31%Yes Yes 70
Ash Creek SSD Confluence Park Treatment Plant
Filtration & Disinfection $3,565,411 $1,688,200 0 47%Yes Yes 67
St. George City Graveyard Wash $17,000,000 $1,934,000 $13,066,000 88%Yes No 50
WCWCD Dry Wash Reservoir $16,945,508 $2,369,000 0 14%No No 50
WCWCD TSWS Pump Station $1,986,375 $0 0 0 No No 50
70Tertiary Filtration & Disinfection $5,432,596 $0 34%Yes No
Page 3

This project not only presents the greatest benefit to water quality but will produce high quality
tertiary treated recycled wastewater. The relatively lower cost compared to other projects means the additional funding will have a greater impact on completing the project. In total this project is receiving $1,854,000 in ARPA grant funds. Staff is very supportive of the project and upgrade of a wastewater treatment plant.

WCWCD – Chief Toquer Reservoir
WCWCD is constructing a reservoir to hold Type I treated effluent and surface water from Ash Creek to be used in the Toquerville Secondary Water System (TSWS). Type I treated effluent will
be pumped to the TSWS Upper Pond, and then will be pumped to the Chief Toquer Reservoir for
winter storage.
The Chief Toquer Reservoir project will store recycled wastewater from the Ash Creek SSD Confluence Park Treatment Plant as well as diverted surface water. This project is receiving
$4,976,000 in ARPA grant funds and $11,614,750 in WaterSmart grant funds. Staff is supportive
of the project. Ash Creek SSD - Confluence Park Treatment Plant
Ash Creek Special Service District is in the process of constructing a new treatment plant which
will produce Type I treated wastewater for reuse. The Confluence Park Wastewater Treatment Reuse Facility will provide 1.5 million gallons per day of reuse capacity for the communities of Toquerville and La Verkin. This project will take treated effluent from the soon to be constructed treatment plant and feed it through the required disinfection and filtration processes to provide Type
I reuse water for the two communities. The project will include the purchase and installation of
filtration and disinfection equipment along with the building to house and protect the equipment. Additional information regarding the project is available in the original Board Packet from December 22, 2022 see Attachment 3.
This project not only has the greatest benefit to water quality but brings a great new service to the
community and will produce high quality tertiary treated recycled wastewater. The relatively lower cost compared to other projects mean additional funding will have a greater impact on completing the project. In total this project is receiving $1,688,200 in ARPA grant funds. Staff is very supportive of the project and upgrade of a wastewater treatment plant.

WCWCD – Dry Wash Reservoir
WCWCD has been authorized $2,369,000 to construct a reservoir to hold Type I treated effluent and surface runoff to be used in St. George City’s secondary irrigation system. Type I treated
effluent will be pumped from St. George WRF to the reservoir. The water will be used for irrigation
in the town of St. George, Ivins, and Santa Clara.
The Dry Wash Reservoir project will store recycled wastewater from the St George Wastewater Treatment Plant as well as diverted surface water. This project is receiving $2,369,000 in ARPA
grant funds. Staff is supportive of the project.

Page 4

St George – Graveyard Wash Reservoir
St. George has been authorized $1,934,000 to construct the Graveyard Wash Reservoir to store Type I Reuse water from St. George WRF. The reservoir will hold Type I Reuse as well as surface water from rainfall and seasonal runoff. The stored water will be used for irrigation in St. George, Ivins,
and Santa Clara.
The Graveyard Wash Reservoir project will store recycled wastewater from the St George WRF as well as diverted surface water. This project is receiving $1,934,000 in ARPA grant funds and $13,066,000 of grant funds a legislative appropriation. The grant program required 30% of local
funds. Staff believes the legislative appropriation can be considered by the Board to meet the local
contribution requirement. Staff is supportive of the project.
WCWCD – TSWS Pump Station
Washington County Water Conservation District (WCWCD) is planning to build a pump station
which will convey Type I treated effluent from the Ash Creek Confluence Park Treatment Plant and secondary irrigation water from the Toquerville Secondary Water System (TSWS) Upper Pond to the Chief Toquer Reservoir. Type I treated effluent will be pumped from Confluence Park to the TSWS Upper Pond, where the water will either flow by gravity to the irrigation system, or will be
pumped by the new pump station to Chief Toquer Reservoir. The total estimated cost of the pump
station project is $1,986,375.00. This project is receiving $0 in ARPA grant funds. Staff is supportive of the project. However, if the Board wishes to bring additional funding to Confluence Park Treatment Plant or Chief Toquer Reservoir, Staff would be more supportive of
amending those existing ARPA Agreements than creating an additional new project.

Summary of Southern Utah Reuse ARPA Grant Program Funding Currently the grant program has funded: four planning projects at a total of $415,000 or 3% of total
funding, three wastewater treatment plant upgrades at a total of $4,710,200 or 31% of total funding,
and three reservoir projects at $9,279,000 or 62% of total funding. Staff Recommendation
Staff’s recommendation is to split the funds equally one of three ways: equally between all five
existing projects, equally between all five individual applicants, or equally between the two treatment plant upgrades requesting additional funding. If funds are split equally between individual applicants then staff would recommend directing a WCWCD authorization to the Chief Toquer Reservoir project.

Page 5

Board Motion for Authorization of the $595,800 in available funds
Staff recommends the following motion: the Board authorize funding in the amount of $XXX,XXX as ARPA grant funding to the ___________ to project __________ under the following special conditions:

1. The District must agree to participate annually in the Municipal Wastewater Planning Program (MWPP). 2. The District must develop, commit to adopt, and implement a capital asset management plan
that is consistent with EPA’s Fiscal Sustainability Plan guidance.

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 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: August 28, 2024
SUBJECT: Sherwood Shores Deauthorization

On December 14, 2022, the Utah 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 the Division of Water Quality (Division); 6. No later than by May 15, 2024 evidence of the formation of the Sherwood Shores Subdivision Body Politic shall be submitted to the Division;
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 the Division. 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 projects.
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 Robert Fehr Michela Harris Joseph Havasi Trevor Heaton Jill Jones Kimberly D. Shelley John K. Mackey SPENCER J. COX Governor DEIDRE HENDERSON Lieutenant Governor
WATER QUALITY BOARD
REQUEST FOR HARDSHIP PLANNING ADVANCE FOR
WASTEWATER CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN

APPLICANT: Town of Fairfield
103 East Main Street Fairfield, UT 84013
(801)-766-3509
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Mayor Hollie McKinney
PO Box 271 Cedar Valley, UT 84013
(801)-766-3509
TREASURER/RECORDER: Stephanie Shelley
CONSULTING ENGINEER: Eric Neil, P.E.
Bowen Collins & Associates
(801)-495-2224
CITY ATTORNEY: Todd Sheeran
(801)-446-5323

APPLICANT’S REQUEST
The Town of Fairfield is requesting a hardship planning advance in the amount of $33,290 to pay
for a Sewer Master Plan which will review the existing sewer collection and treatment facilities and
the impact of future growth on these facilities as well as include an Impact Fee Facilities Plan and
Impact Fee Analysis.
Page 2

APPLICANT’S LOCATION
The Town of Fairfield is about 5 miles southwest of Eagle Mountain, and is in Utah County.

PROJECT NEED
The Town of Fairfield is expecting several new nonresidential developments to begin construction
within its boundaries over the next several years. No centralized wastewater collection or treatment
exists in the Town, with all current residents utilizing septic systems for wastewater disposal. In
response to the expected growth, Town leaders would like to plan for future collection and treatment
of wastewater by hiring Bowen Collins and Associates to create a Sewer Master Plan. The planning
studies proposed in this application are critical for Fairfield Town to complete at this time in order
to grow as developers approach the Town for utility needs now and in the future. Without a planning
advance, Fairfield Town does not have the funds on hand to prepare the Sewer Master Plan, IFFP,
or IFA at this time. Funding these plans through the Town’s approximately 155 existing residents
is not practical, as it would be a financial hardship to many of these residents (at approximately
$170 per resident).

Page 3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Sewer Master Plan will provide the Town direction about the future extent and cost
of a collections system. It will also consider alternatives for wastewater treatment and recommend
the most finically sustainable treatment option for the Town. The study included in this application
will also complete an Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP) and Impact Fee Analysis (IFA), which will
allow the Town to be better financially prepared to begin planning and construction of a new sewer
system.

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
The estimated plan completion date is before summer 2025.

COST ESTIMATE
Fairfield Town is requesting $33,290 from the Water Quality Board.

STAFF COMMENTS
This is a small rural community with limited capital reserves. The planning advance would allow
the Town to perform the necessary assessment to determine the most cost-effective way to
implement a sewer collection and treatment system. This could have a positive effect on
groundwater water quality in the area.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board authorizes a planning grant of $33,290 to the Town of Fairfield with
the following special conditions:
1. The Division of Water Quality must approve the engineering agreement and plan of study before the advance will be executed.

2. This funding is a grant and will not be repaid.
DWQ-2024-005905

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 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
WATER QUALITY BOARD
FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROJECT
INTRODUCTION

APPLICANT:
North Fork Special Service District (NFSSD)
8838 Alpine Loop Scenic Byway Sundance, UT 84604 Telephone: [phone]
PRESIDING OFFICIAL Dr. Stephen Minton, President of the Board
CONTACT: Chris Wright, Public Works Director
TREASURER: Emily Johnson, District Clerk
CONSULTING ENGINEER:
Ryan Taylor, Lead Engineer Adurra 2175 W 3000 S Suite 200 Heber City, UT
[phone]
BOND COUNSEL: None

FINANCIAL ADVISOR Joe Martin, CPA NFSSD [phone]
APPLICANT’S REQUEST
NFSSD is requesting funding from the Utah Water Quality Board (Board) in the amount of $3,551,000 to
increase the capacity of the current facility to meet permit requirements.

Page 2
APPLICANT’S LOCATION
NFSSD serves Sundance, UT, Sundance Ski Resort, and the surrounding area. Sundance is located in Utah
County.

PROJECT BACKGROUND
NFSSD completed a Preliminary Engineering Report in 2023 to examine the best options for future
upgrades for the existing Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF). The WWTF began operation in 2008
and consists of headworks, biological treatment with membrane bioreactors, and solids dewatering. The
facility is unable to adequately treat the wastewater due to large amounts of fat, oil, and grease (FOG).

PROJECT NEED
The existing facility capacity is insufficient to meet the current community demands, specifically higher
levels of FOG and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) are limiting the hydraulic capacity and limiting the
facility’s ability to meet permit limits. The anticipated growth will result in exceedance of current permit
limits without an upgrade. Therefore, NFSSD will upgrade the facility with an additional membrane basin
and a new primary dissolved air flotation (DAF) system.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The upgrade to the system will include coagulation and polymer tanks, a primary sludge storage tank, one
pre-air zone tank, and two swing zone tanks. These upgrades are intended to improve the facility’s nutrient
removal process by removing FOG which will increase the capacity of the system.

The project was bid during July of 2024 with a low bid of $9,250,000. It is important to note that NFSSD
bid the project without federal requirements of the Clean Water State Revolving Funds so the project can
only utilize Utah Wastewater Loan Fund or Hardship Grant Fund without being rebid.

Page 3
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED
NFSSD developed a preliminary engineering report with multiple recommendations to improve the
treatment system. Those alternatives include the installation of a flow trap, equalization tank installation,
and blower modification.

POSITION ON PROJECT PRIORITY LIST
NFSSD is currently ranked No. 11 of 14 on the FY 2024 Wastewater Treatment Project Priority List (PPL).

POPULATION GROWTH
The Sundance population is dominated by seasonal visitors. Estimates range from 28 to 750 people with
the Census website reporting 113 population for the Sundance census designated population. Growth rates
have historically been 2%. NFSSD serves approximately 665 ERUs.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND DEMONSTRATION OF PUBLIC SUPPORT
Public board meetings are held every month, which are advertised and held online to encourage residents
to attend. In addition, wastewater community meetings are held to provide additional information and the
district has presented this project at community events. The board fully supports the project, and their largest
user Sundance has been to all the meetings and supports the project. The community feedback from
meetings has been positive.

EFFORTS TO SECURE FINANCING FROM OTHER SOURCES
NFSSD has received grant funding from DEQ’s Utah Lake Preservation Fund ARPA Grant Program in the
amount of $3,000,000, the Governor’s Local Matching ARPA Grant Program in the amount of $4,000,000,
and a grant from the Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity in the amount of $1,000,000. While
managing the project for Utah Lake Preservation Fund Division staff identified the project was not likely
fully funded to proceed with construction and encouraged NFSSD to apply to the Board.

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Construction will be initiated in 2024 and will finish in 2025.

APPLICANT’S CURRENT USER CHARGE
Currently, NFSSD charges $86 per ERU. According to the Board’s criteria of 1.4% MAGI ($146,2501 for
Sundance), a rate of $170.63 per month for wastewater service should be exceeded for grant consideration.
NFSSD does not have an impact fee or hookup fee. Currently, NFSSD has a 20-year 3% loan for $3,810,000
with the Board from 2006 with an annual payment of approximately $215,000. According to Division
records, the last payment on this bond is due January 1, 2028.

COST ESTIMATE
The total cost of the project is estimated to be $11,641,000. A breakdown of these costs follows.
Legal/Bonding $30,000
Loan Origination Fee $36,000
Engineering – Design & CMS $1,500,000
Subsurface Discharge Expansion $1,000,000

1 https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2022.S1903?q=Sundance%20CDP,%20Utah&t=Income%20and%20Poverty
Page 4
Wastewater Treatment Plant $8,250,000
Contingency (10%) $825,000
Total Project Costs $11,641,000

COST SHARING
The total cost of project funding for the entire project is $11,641,000.
Funding Source Cost Sharing
Local Contribution $90,000
DEQ’s Utah Lake Preservation Fund ARPA Grant Program $3,000,000
Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity $1,000,000
Governor’s Local Matching ARPA Grant Program $4,000,000
Amount To Be Financed $3,551,000

ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST FOR SEWER SERVICE
Division staff developed static cost models (Attachment 1) to evaluate potential funding by the Board. The
cost model analyzes several possible funding options. The resulting Total Annual Sewer Cost is shown for
each funding option.

FINANCIAL BURDEN EVALUATION
In accordance with the Board’s Financial Burden Evaluation Policy for the Utah Wastewater Project
Assistance Program, Division staff utilized data from the United State Census Bureau (census) website
(https://data.census.gov/cedsci/) to calculate the Sundance’s Financial Need Indicator (FNI). The calculated
FNI is 2.12. Division staff compared this FNI to the percent modified MAGI in the Financial Burden Matrix
and displayed the Financial Burden in Attachment 1. Based on the Financial Burden Evaluation Policy for
the Utah Wastewater Project Assistance Program, the community has a Financial Burden of Low.

DIVISION STAFF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION
This report is a project introduction; Division staff recommendations will be provided at the October Board
Meeting. This project would need to be funded by either the Utah Wastewater Loan Fund or Hardship Grant
Fund due to the certifications that were in the bid package.

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

Project Costs Current Customer Base & User Charges
Legal/Bonding 30,000$ Initial Total Customer (ERU's)665
Loan Origination Fee 36,000$
Engineering - Other 250,000$ MAGI for NFSSD (2021): $146,250
Engineering - Planning 175,000$ Affordable Monthly Rate at 1.4%$170.63
Engineering - Design 675,000$ Impact Fee (per ERU):$0Engineering - CMS 400,000$ Current Monthly Fee (per ERU)$86.00
Subsurface Discharge Expansion 1,000,000$ Debt Service last Payment Jan 1, 2028 $215,000
Wastewater Treatment Plant 8,250,000$ Debt Service as of Jan 1, 2029 -$
Contingency (10%)825,000$ Annual O&M expense $565,269
Total Project Cost:11,641,000$
Project Funding Funding Conditions
Local Contribution 90,000$ Loan Repayment Term:20
UT Governor's Office of Economic Opportunity Grant 1,000,000$ Reserve Funding Period:6
ARPA - GOPB Local Match Grant 4,000,000$
ARPA - DEQ Utah Lake Preservation Fund Grant 3,000,000$
Amount to be Funded 3,551,000$
Total Project Cost:11,641,000$
ESTIMATED COST OF SEWER SERVICE (assuming first principal payment January 1, 2029)
- 0 3,551,000 3.30%4.50%0 0 272,987 565,269 -$ 838,256 105.04 0.86%LOW
- 3,551,000 0 3.30%4.50%245,352 61,338 0 565,269 -$ 871,959 109.27 0.90%LOW
- 3,551,000 0 2.80%4.50%234,291 58,573 0 565,269 -$ 858,133 107.54 0.88%LOW
- 3,551,000 0 2.30%4.50%223,505 55,876 0 565,269 -$ 844,651 105.85 0.87%LOW
- 3,551,000 0 1.80%4.50%212,999 53,250 0 565,269 -$ 831,517 104.20 0.85%LOW
- 3,551,000 0 1.30%4.50%202,776 50,694 0 565,269 -$ 818,739 102.60 0.84%LOW
- 3,551,000 0 0.80%4.50%192,840 48,210 0 565,269 -$ 806,319 101.04 0.83%LOW- 3,551,000 0 0.00%4.50%177,550 44,388 0 565,269 -$ 787,207 98.65 0.81%LOW
*Staff Estimate
Local Value State Value Score Weighting Factor Weighting
Score Table **
0.0%3.6%1.00 4 4.00 S2301 FNI Below 1.4%1.4% to
1.75%1.75% to 2.1%2.1% to 2.45 Above 2.45
14.9%9.1%2.16 2.5 5.40 S1701 Below 1.5 Low Low Medium Medium High
74,500$ 35,445$ 1.00 2.5 2.50 B19080 1.5 to 2.5 Low Medium Medium High High
68.0%18.6%1.00 1 1.00 B01003 Above 2.5 Medium Medium High High High
Financial Need Indicator (Sum of weighted Scores/10)1.29
2020 5 year ACS Table ** https://data.census.gov/cedsci/
Private Loan Debt Service
Monthly Sewer Cost/
ERU
Sewer Cost as % of MAGI
Threshold LQI
Population Growth Rate
Unemployment Rate
Modified MAGI
Poverty Rate
Financial
Burden
ATTACHMENT 1
NFSSD - Water Quality Board
20 Year Loan Static Cost Model
Financial Burden MatrixFNI Calculation
WQB Loan Interest Rate Private Loan Interest Rate* Hardship Grant Funds WQB UWLF Loan Private Loan Amount WQB Loan Debt Service WQB Loan Reserve Annual Sewer Existing Debt Service Total Annual Sewer Cost

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 Robert Fehr Michela Harris Joseph Havasi Trevor Heaton Jill Jones Kimberly D. Shelley John K. Mackey SPENCER J. COX Governor DEIDRE HENDERSON Lieutenant Governor
WATER QUALITY BOARD
FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
INTRODUCTION
APPLICANT: Beaver City
30 West 300 North Beaver, Utah 84713 Phone: [phone]
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Mayor Matt Robinson
Phone: [phone] CONTACT: Jason Brown, City Manager 30 West 300 North
P.O. Box 271
Beaver, Utah 84713 Phone: [phone] Email: [e-mail]
TREASURER/RECORDER: Patty Simard, City Recorder
Email: [e-mail] Stacey Phelps, Treasurer Email: [e-mail] Phone: [phone]

CONSULTING ENGINEER: Carson Demille, Engineer Jones and DeMille Engineering, Inc. Phone: [phone]
APPLICANT’S REQUEST Beaver City is requesting funding from the Water Quality Board in the amount of $6,551,325 to upgrade the sewer system by upgrading and reconstructing the lagoon system and a lift station. This amount is increased to $6,618,000 in the financial analysis to account for the loan origination fee and
the requirement that loans be awarded in $1,000 increments.
Beaver City August 28, 2024 Page 2 APPLICANT’S LOCATION Beaver City is located in Beaver County, approximately 200 miles south of Salt Lake City.

BACKGROUND Beaver City (the “City”) has a population of approximately 3,700 residents and is the main residential
and commercial hub for Beaver County.
The City owns and operates its sewer collection and treatment systems. The City has approximately 200,000 feet of sewer piping with the majority draining into a lift station pumping to a total containment sewer lagoon system. A small commercial area at the south end of the City has private
lift stations that also pump into the lagoon system. The lagoon site has two lift stations to allow
pumping into the system's upper holding cells. The lagoons were updated in 2001 and consist of 19.3-acres of primary cells, 28.1-acres of secondary cells, and 31.8-acres of holding cells. While the existing treatment system has the needed lagoon capacity to meet future demands there are
issues with the current design. The current primary cell inlets are located too close to the outlets,
leading to short circuiting of the cells. Several concrete structures such as flow splitters are deteriorated. The slope protection riprap is failing and no longer properly protects the embankments. Neither lagoon site lift station has the needed capacity for a 20-year design, and one lift station is unusable due to intake clogging. Testing of the lagoon influent has also shown that the existing lagoon
primary cells are not large enough to meet state regulated Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) loadings.

Beaver City
Map data ©2023 Google
Beaver City August 28, 2024 Page 3 Several areas of the City’s collection system have been identified to have condition and capacity problems. The force main from the City lift station across the Beaver River floodplain is aging and
needing more and more maintenance.
The City is currently beginning a self-funded project to replace 5,180 linear feet of 8-inch PVC sewer line and 1,000 linear feet of 4-inch PVC sewer laterals for an industrial park near the south freeway interchange. A second self-funded project to replace 950 linear feet of 8-inch PVC sewer line along
250 South will be completed in the near future. The two sewer improvement projects will cost the City
an estimated $300,000. PROJECT NEED
The existing lagoon system does not have sufficient primary cell capacity for current and future BOD
loading on the system. There are components of the lagoon and collection system that are failing and need to be replaced or upgraded. The City’s Sanitary Sewer Master Plan indicates that, while the existing wastewater collection system
has sufficient capacity for the current and 40-year growth projections, the existing force main from the
City lift station has had cracking and leaking issues creating maintenance problems for the City. This has resulted in the need for the existing 10-inch PVC pipe be replaced with a new 10-inch HDPE pipe to reduce these maintenance issues.
Additionally, even though the existing lagoons have enough hydraulic capacity to handle the projected
20-year growth, the current cells are in poor condition and the layout is not capable of handling the existing BOD loadings. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The project generally consists of sewer lagoon and force-main improvements.

More specifically, the project consists of rehabilitating and modifying the existing lagoons to provide
a 20-year design capacity for the lagoons; a total of 48 acres of primary lagoon cells are needed to
meet state BOD loading requirements. Combining the existing primary and secondary cells into two
larger primaries will provide this needed area. Construction on the new primary cells would include
new piping, inlets, outlets, splitter boxes, and a new lift station. The existing storage cells would be
converted to secondary cells and rehabilitated to ensure proper function over a 20-year design period.
The existing 10-inch force main from the City lift station across the Beaver River floodplain would be
replaced with a 10-inch HDPE pipe.

Beaver City August 28, 2024 Page 4 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED
In their Facility Plan the City Evaluated 5 alternatives including:
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Alternative 2: Rebuild Existing Lagoons and Start a Pretreatment Program Alternative 3: Rebuild Existing Lagoons and Add Aeration
Alternative 4: Move Lagoons West Across 2500 South
Alternative 5: Replace Lagoons with Mechanical Treatment POSITION ON PROJECT PRIORITY LIST
The City project is currently ranked No. 03 of 14 on the FY 2024 Project Priority List (PPL) IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Design will begin in 2024, Construction will begin in 2025 and is anticipated to be completed in 2026.
APPLICANTS CURRENT USER CHARGE The City charges a base rate of $22.00 per month per ERU with a flow-based charge per thousand gallons ($1.00/thousand gallons for use over $10,000 gallons per month). According to the Water
Quality Board’s (Board) criteria of 1.4% of MAGI ($41,600 for Beaver City), a rate of $48.53 per
month for wastewater service should be exceeded for grant consideration. COST ESTIMATE Project Costs
Admin/Legal/Bonding $ 10,000 Loan Origination Fee $ 66,180
Geotechnical $ 40,000
Environmental $ 40,000 Pre-Construction Engineering $ 397,000 Construction Engineering Services $ 458,000 Construction $ 5,308,325
Contingency $ 798,495
Total Project Cost: $ 7,118,000 COST SHARING
Funding Source Total % of Project
Local Contribution $ 500,000 7.1% WQB Request $ 6,618,000 92.9% Total Amount $ 7,118,000 100.0%
Beaver City August 28, 2024 Page 5 EFFORTS TO SECURE FINANCING FROM OTHER SOURCES
The City is currently applying to CIB for the funding. Currently, CIB’s meeting is scheduled for
September 5, 2024. It is likely the City will know the results of their CIB application during that meeting. Knowing the limited CIB funds, Division of Water Quality (Division) staff encouraged the City to apply to the Board as there is a good possibility that they will need funding from both sources to complete the project. The cost model has been prepared with only a single funding source, but as a
loan appears to be affordable it should not affect the affordability regardless of whether the project is
funded by CIB or Division as loan. The City also has $500,000 available as a local contribution. ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST FOR SEWER SERVICE
Division staff developed static cost models (Attachment 1) to evaluate funding by the Board. The cost
model analyzes several possible funding options. The resulting Total Annual Sewer Cost is shown for each funding option. FINANCIAL BURDEN EVALUATION

The cost for model shows the City may qualify for principal forgiveness consideration under the State Affordability Criteria as part of a funding package depending on the interest rate of the loan portion. In accordance with the Board’s Financial Burden Evaluation Policy for the Utah Wastewater Project Assistance Program, Division staff utilized data from the United State Census Bureau (census) website
(https://data.census.gov/cedsci/) to calculate the City’s Financial Need Indicator (FNI). The calculated
FNI is 1.34. Division Staff compared this FNI to the percent modified MAGI in the Financial Burden Matrix and displayed the Financial Burden in Attachment 1. Based on the Financial Burden Evaluation Policy for the Utah Wastewater Project Assistance Program, the community has a Financial Burden of Low.

As can be seen in the attachment an interest rate of 0.60% would result in a rate equal to 1.4% of MAGI. Therefore, the project is affordable as a loan. STAFF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The City Sewer Improvements project will address needed improvements to the sewer and lagoon system. This project is being introduced. Division Staff recommendations will be made in a later Board
meeting. A preliminary cost model is included as Attachment 1

DWQ-2024-005700 File: Beaver City, Municipal File
Beaver City August 28, 2024 Attachment 1

Sewer
10,000$ 1,440
66,180$
40,000$ MAGI (Beaver City 2021):41,600$
40,000$ 1.4% MAGI Sewer Bill:48.53$
397,000$
458,000$ *Current Sewer Bill 22.00$
5,308,325$ EXISTING DEBT -$
798,495$ O&M Expenses 596,180$
Total Project Cost:7,118,000$ * Does not include usage charge
Funding Conditions
30
500,000$
6,618,000$
7,118,000$
Grant Loan Interest Loan Annual Sewer Existing Total Annual Monthly Sewer Sewer Cost as a Financial
Amount Amount Rate Debt Service O&M Cost Debt Service Sewer Cost Cost/ERU % of MAGI Burden
-$ 6,618,000$ 0.00%$220,600 596,180$ -$ 816,780$ 47.27 1.36%Low
-$ 6,618,000$ 0.60%$241,709 596,180$ -$ 837,889$ 48.49 1.40%Low
-$ 6,618,000$ 2.00%$295,493 596,180$ -$ 891,673$ 51.60 1.49%Low
1,000,000$ 5,618,000$ 2.00%$250,843 596,180$ -$ 847,023$ 49.02 1.41%Low
-$ 6,618,000$ 2.50%$316,192 596,180$ -$ 912,372$ 52.80 1.52%Low
1,500,000$ 5,118,000$ 2.50%$244,526 596,180$ -$ 840,706$ 48.65 1.40%Low
-$ 6,618,000$ 3.50%$359,829 596,180$ -$ 956,009$ 55.32 1.60%Low
2,000,000$ 4,618,000$ 3.50%$251,087 596,180$ -$ 847,267$ 49.03 1.41%Low
-$ 6,618,000$ 4.00%$382,720 596,180$ -$ 978,900$ 56.65 1.63%Low
2,400,000$ 4,218,000$ 4.00%$243,927 596,180$ -$ 840,107$ 48.62 1.40%Low
Beaver City Financial Need Indicator Table 3 Financial Burden Matrix
Indicators Local Value StateValue Score Weighting Factor Weighted Score Modified MAGI
unemployment
rate 1.10%3.40%1.00 4.00 4.00 FNI Below 1.4%
1.4% to
1.75%
1.75% to
2.1%
2.1% to
2.45
Above
2.45
Poverty Rate 7.70%8.20%1.00 2.50 2.50 Below 1.5 Low Low Medium Medium High
Threshold LQI $35,500 $41,337 1.56 2.50 3.90 1.5 to 2.5 Low Medium Medium High High
Population
Growth Rate 17.3%18.7%3.00 1.00 3.00 Above 2.5 Medium Medium High High High
Financial Need Indicator (Sum of weighted Scores/10) 1.34
Loan Repayment Term:
Geotechnical
Pre-Construction Engineering
Environmental
Construction Engineering Services
Loan Origination Fee
Contingency
Project Funding
Local Contribution
CIB Funding Requsted
Construction
Total Project Cost:
ESTIMATED COST OF SEWER SERVICE
Beaver City
30 Year Static Cost Model
Project Costs
Admin/Legal/Bonding
(Attachment 1)
Total ERC
Current Customer Base & User Charges

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 Robert Fehr Michela Harris Joseph Havasi Trevor Heaton Jill Jones Kimberly D. Shelley John K. Mackey SPENCER J. COX Governor
DEIDRE HENDERSON Lieutenant Governor

WATER QUALITY BOARD REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF WASTEWATER COLLECTION & TREATMENT FEASIBILITY REPORT INTRODUCTIN
APPLICANT: Corinne City 2420 N 4000 W
Corinne, Utah 84307 Telephone: [phone]
PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Mayor Shane Baton CONTACT PERSON JL Nicholas Telephone: [phone] TREASURER/ RECORDER: Kendra Norman CONSULTING ENGINEER Joshua Nelson – Engineer Sunrise Engineering Telephone: [phone]
CITY ATTORNEY: Craig Smith, Partner Smith Hartvigsen Telephone: [phone]
BOND COUNSEL: Adam Long Smith Hartvigsen
Telephone: [phone] APPLICANT’S REQUEST Corinne City (Corinne) is requesting financial assistance in the amount $7,372,900 for collection and treatment system improvements.
Corinne City – Feasibility Introduction Report August 28, 2024 Page 2
APPLICANT’S LOCATION
Corinne is located in Box Elder County.
BACKGROUND: The collection and treatment systems serve Corinne with a current population of 867 people. The Corrine wastewater lagoons are permitted to discharge under a Division of Water Quality (Division) Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (UPDES) Permit (UT0020931), which was renewed in 2021. Corinne conducted a study of the collection and lagoon treatment systems to identify deficiencies. The study was conducted in 2020 and identified deficiencies in sewer pipes, insufficient headworks, and inadequate screening capability. Corrine secured funding from the Community Impact Board (CIB) to complete this study. Sunrise Engineering prepared a master plan for the Corrine in January 2024.
The current Corinne sewer collection system was installed in 1970 with pipe sizes ranging from 8” to 12” in size. The original system was constructed primarily of reinforced concrete pipe. The original system has experienced very limited changes and has only been expanded with growth. There are four main portions
of the Corinne sewer collection system. The first section is known as the Ag Park, which includes the industrial/commercial buildings around Mule
Ranch Road as well as the Walmart distribution center. These flows are pumped into a manhole that is near Mule Ranch Road and Hwy 13. The second area is the north side of Corinne which encompasses the residential areas north of Hwy 13 from roughly 4100 W to 3800 W, with flows general being conveyed to the south to the mainline along Hwy 13. The third area is the south side of Corinne from 4100 W to 3800 W with flows primarily being conveyed east to the mainline at 3800 W. The fourth area would be the Country Meadows Subdivision which has its own lift station to convey wastewater flows into a manhole
on 4100 W. The oldest areas (the north and south sides of Corinne) are being proposed to be replaced. These areas are the source of inflow and infiltration (I&I) that is contributing 35%-55% of the annual flows into the Corinne treatment lagoons. It is anticipated that if Corrine replaces these failing areas of infrastructure, then their Lagoons will be able to meet their discharge requirements.

Corinne City – Feasibility Introduction Report August 28, 2024 Page 3
PROJECT NEED:
The project is needed to address high levels of I&I in the sewer collection system caused by deteriorated concrete collection lines. Reducing system flows will help Corrine meet the Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) requirements from the UPDES discharge permit.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Corrine has prioritized the following recommended improvements as part of the project: 1. Collection line upgrades and replacement;
2. Pump Station; and
3. Force Main
POSITION ON PROJECT PRIORITY LIST:
Corinne is ranked No.4 of 14 on the FY 2024 Wastewater Treatment Project Priority List (PPL).
POPULATION GROWTH
Based on the 2020 US Census Data the population of Corrine is projected to have a positive
growth rate of 1.75%. Current populations and associated ERUs are shown in the table
below along with the 20-year projections.

1ERU = Equivalent Residential Connection. ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED Corrine has evaluated the following alternatives: 1. No action and continue to use the existing collection and treatment lagoon system. 2. Replace of old sewer pipes and upgrade of lagoon headworks.
The recommended alternative is No. 2, which are replacement of failed sewer pipelines and improvement of lagoon headwork and screen system. IMPLEMETAION SCHULDE
Apply to WQB for Construction Funding: June 2024 Start Construction March 2025 Complete Construction September 2026
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND DEMONSTRATION OF PUBLIC SUPPORT: Corrine held a public meeting in January 2024 to discuss the master plans, system-wide repair and replacement needs as required by the Utah Wastewater State Revolving Fund (SRF) program. Corrine will hold a final public hearing upon securing funding from the Board.

Year Population ERU1
Current 2024 867 328
Design 2042 1,256 447
Corinne City – Feasibility Introduction Report August 28, 2024 Page 4
APPLICANT’S CURRENT USER CHARGE:
Operation & Maintenance – Annual $ 160,000 Existing Sewer Debt Service $ 0 Current ERC 328
Current Monthly Cost / ERU $ 78.00
Corinne recently raised their sewer user rate to $78 per month.
COST ESTIMATE DWQ Loan Origination Fee $73,000
Legal - Bonding $50,000
Permitting $30,000
Planning Advance DWQ $102,900
Engineering - Design $1,176,000
Construction Lift Station $35,000
Collection System $4,756,000
Force Main $347,000
Contingency $773,000
Total Project Cost: $7,342,900
COST SHARING: The following is the summary of cost sharing is proposed for this project: Funding Source Cost Sharing Percent of Project
Local Contribution $0 0%
WQB or USDA-RD Funding $7,372,900 100%
Total: $7,372,900 100%

ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST FOR SEWER SERVICE: According to the Board’ s affordability criteria a sewer user rate should exceed 1.4% of MAGI to be
considered for grant funds. Corrine’ s 2021 MAGI is $50,700 and which means rates should exceed $ 59.15 per month/ ERU for grant consideration. A static cost model was prepared and included as Attachment 1. The cost model analyzes several possible funding options including funding packages with 20-year or 30-
year loans, and principal forgiveness. In addition, funding from U.S. Department of Agriculture - Rural Development (USDA- RD) loan-to-grant ratio of 80%/20% and loan terms of 40-years at 3.25% was analyzed. These scenarios show a sewer rate of $154.39 per month without assistance from the Board or USDA-RD. Additional scenarios in the cost model result in a monthly sewer user fee of between $ 78 - $139 per month. FINANCIAL NEED INDICATOR:
In accordance with Board guidance Division staff calculated a Financial Need Indicator (FNI) in the cost
model. Division staff utilized data from the United State Census Bureau (census) website1 to collect Corrine’ s indicator values and State of Utah average indicator values. Table 1 applied the range scoring

1 https:// data.census. gov/cedsci/

Corinne City – Feasibility Introduction Report August 28, 2024 Page 5
criteria to determine a score for each indicator in relation to the State average value. The calculation of the scores and the financial burden matrix resulted in an FNI of 1.56. Division staff compared this FNI to the
modified % MAGI to calculate the Financial Burden. Based on the Financial Burden Evaluation Policy for the Utah Wastewater Project Assistance Program, the proposal project would result in the community having a Financial Burden of High. EFFORTS TO SECURE FINANCING FROM OTHER SOURCES: The total cost of the project is $7,372,900. Corrine is requesting $7,372,900 from the Board to fund a construction. Corrine also is in the process of applying for construction assistance and is working on securing project construction funding through the USDA-RD. DIVISION STAFF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION: The Division supports the Corrine’s request for funding as it believes that the project is essential to help collection and lagoon treatment system improvements.
This is a project introduction, and staff recommendations will be provided at a later Board meeting.

Corinne Feasibility Introduction Report File:SRF- Corinne City, Administration
Corinne City – Feasibility Introduction Report August 28, 2024
Page 6

Corinne City - Water Quality Board & 30 Year Loan Static Cost Model
(Attachment 1)
Project Cost DWQ Loan Origination Fee & Legal $73,000 Current Customer Base & User Charges Permitting $30,000 Initial Total Customer (ERU's)328 Planning Advance DWQ $102,900 MAGI for Corinne City (2021): $50,700
Legal & Bonding $50,000 Affordable Monthly Rate at 1.4%$59.15
Engineering - Design & CMS $1,176,000 Impact Fee (per ERU):$15,200 Construction Lift Station $35,000 Current Monthly Fee (per ERU)$78.00
Collection System $4,756,000 Existing Debt $0
Force Main $347,000 Annual O&M $160,000 Contingency $773,000 Total Project Cost:$7,342,900 Funding ConditionsLoan Repayment Term:30 Project Funding Reserve Funding Period:10
Requested Funding $7,342,900 USDA-RD Funding ConditionsCorinna City Fund USDA-RD Interest Rate 3.250%Total Project Cost:7,342,900$
ESTIMATED COST OF SEWER SERVICE
WQB Principal Forgiveness WQB Loan WQB Loan Interest Rate RD Grant RD Loan WQB Loan Debt Service
WQB
Loan
Reserve
USDA
Loan Debt
Service
Total Annual Sewer Cost Monthly Sewer Cost/ ERU
Sewer Cost
as % of
MAGI
Financial Burden
- 7,342,900 3.30%0 0 389,302 58,395 0 607,697 154.39 3.65%High
1,000,000 6,342,900 3.30%0 0 336,285 50,443 0 546,727 138.90 3.29%High
2,000,000 5,342,900 3.30%0 0 283,267 42,490 0 485,757 123.41 2.92%High
3,000,000 4,342,900 3.30%0 0 230,250 34,537 0 424,787 107.92 2.55%Medium
3,600,000 3,742,900 3.30%0 0 198,439 29,766 0 388,205 98.63 2.33%Medium
Cofunding WQB and USDA-RD
- 0 0.00%1,468,580 5,874,320 0 0 330,636 490,636 124.65 2.95%High
1,000,000 500,000 0.00%1,168,580 4,674,320 16,667 2,500 263,094 442,260 112.36 2.66%High
2,000,000 500,000 0.00%968,580 3,874,320 16,667 2,500 218,066 397,232 100.92 2.39%High
3,000,000 500,000 0.00%768,580 3,074,320 16,667 2,500 173,038 352,205 89.48 2.12%High
4,000,000 500,000 0.00%568,580 2,274,320 16,667 2,500 128,010 307,177 78.04 1.85%Medium
Financial Need Indicator Table 1 Financial Burden Matrix
Indicators Local Value State Value Score Weighting Factor Weighted Score Modified MAGI
unemployment rate 2.7%3.4%1.65 4.00 6.60 FNI Below 1.4%1.4% to 1.75%1.75% to 2.1%2.1% to 2.45%Above 2.45%
Poverty Rate 6.2%8.5%1.00 2.50 2.50 Below 1.5 Low Low Medium Medium High
Threshold LQI $37,125.00 $41,337.00 1.41 2.50 3.53 1.5 to 2.5 Low Medium Medium High HighPopulation Growth Rate 0.8%1.9%3.00 1.00 3.00 Above 2.5 Medium Medium High High High
Financial Need Indicator (Sum of weighted Scores/10) 1.56
2022 5 year ACS Table **
Page 1 Water Quality Board – August 28, 2024 Feasibility Report - Grantsville WWTP Construction
WATER QUALITY BOARD FEASIBILTY REPORT FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROJECT INTRODUCTION APPLICANT: Grantsville City 429 E Main Street Grantsville, UT 84029
Telephone: [phone]

PRESIDING OFFICIAL: Neil A. Critchlow, Mayor
CONTACT: Sherrie Broadbent, Finance Director Email: [e-mail] TREASURER/RECORDER: Crystal Oldwage, Treasurer
CONSULTING ENGINEER: Matt Laurendau, Project Manager Jones and DeMille Engineering
775 W 1200 N, Ste. 200A Springville, UT 84663 Telephone: [phone] BOND COUNCIL: Darcy Stevens
Gilmore & Bell FINANCIAL ADVISOR: Alex Buxton Telephone: [phone]
APPLICANT’S REQUEST Grantsville City (Grantsville) is requesting funding from the Water Quality Board (Board) in the amount $34,230,000 for the construction of a new fine
bubble diffuser biological nutrient removal (BNR) treatment facility with tertiary filtration and disinfection.

APPLICANT’S LOCATION
The project is located in Grantsville, Tooele County, on City-owned property near the existing Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP).

PROJECT BACKGROUND
In 2022, Grantsville conducted a WWTP Study to evaluate options for upgrading and expanding their WWTP. Grantsville’s existing WWTP was
determined to be at 95% capacity, with significant upgrades required to meet increasing demand and more stringent effluent nutrient requirements. An alternatives analysis was performed for possible upgrades to or replacement of the existing treatment facility, and the preferred alternative was the construction of a new BNR activated sludge treatment facility with tertiary filtration. In April 2023, Grantsville was awarded a $1,000,000 loan for the design of the new facility.
POPULATION GROWTH “Growth projections for the next 10-20 years have been analyzed and discussed by multiple parties, and range from 9-10% (Ensign, 2022), to 2.9% by the Governor's Office, to less than 2.4% (K.C.
Gardner, 2022). Actual growth based on measured wastewater influent flow for the past 3 years has
averaged 5.1 %.”1 Staff used a conservative 3.4% growth rate for impact fee modeling. Year Population ERCs
2024 14,008 4,670
2032 18,302 6,104
2042 25,566 8,524
1Source: Grantsville Wastewater Treatment Plant Study, November 2022, AQUA Engineering ERC = Equivalent Residential Connections
PROJECT NEED
Grantsville is a small community experiencing substantial growth. Grantsville estimates that its population will grow from a current population of approximately 13,547 to over 45,000 in the next 20 years.
The existing WWTP has a design capacity of 1.5 MGD, but is limited in its actual capacity due to effluent nutrient limits. WWTP expansion is required to meet nutrient requirements and accommodate future growth.

The new treatment facility will include new biological treatment processes that will allow treated effluent to meet new permit effluent phosphorus limits. The new plant will also accommodate the anticipated growth in the area and have future expansion capabilities. ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED

An alternatives analysis was included in the 2022 WWTP Study. The analysis included four primary alternatives: BNR Oxidation Ditch, BNR Fine Bubble Diffusers, BNR Membrane Bioreactor (MBR), and a Parallel Lagoon and BNR Fine Bubble Diffuser system. From the four alternatives, Grantsville determined that the preferred alternative was a fine bubble diffuser activated sludge treatment facility.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project will include the construction of a new 3 MGD (average daily flow), 7 MGD (peak hourly flow) WWTP on city-owned property near the existing treatment facility. Facilities will include a new headworks building, anaerobic basins, anoxic basins, fine bubble diffuser aeration basins, blower equipment building, secondary clarifiers, and tertiary equipment to meet Type I reuse requirements.
COST ESTIMATE The total estimated construction cost of the project is $34,633,000, with a total project cost of $34,633,000. The request for funding is for the total project cost. A new cost estimate has been run for the funding application, but was not available to Division of Water Quality (Division) staff. Division staff
pulled the 2022 estimate for fine bubble diffusers from the 2022 facilities plan.

Fine Bubble Diffusers
Item Cost Construction Contingency
(25%)
Engineering &
CMS
Total
Influent Pump Station $1,267,266 $316,817 $226,298 $1,810,380
Headworks $3,216,213 $804,053 $574,324 $4,594,590
Aeration Basin Process $5,016,512 $1,254,128 $895,806 $7,166,445
Secondary Clarifiers $3,292,289 $823,072 $587,909 $4,703,270
Tertiary Filtration $1,485,884 $371,471 $265,337 $2,122,692
Disinfection (UV) $1,429,428 $357,357 $255,255 $2,042,040
Sludge Dewatering $1,951,950 $487,988 $348,563 $2,788,500
Dredge Old Lagoons $350,000 $87,500 $62,500 $500,000 Total 2022 Estimate $25,727,917
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND DEMONSTRATION OF PUBLIC SUPPORT
A public hearing was held on December 6, 2023, presenting the new WWTP. There were no comments.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

The design phase is currently at 30%. Construction is anticipated to begin in 2025 and completed in 2027. APPLICANTS CURRENT USER CHARGE
Current residential sewer rates are $30.91 per month, with commercial rates at a base level of $36.26 per month + a $1.95 per 1,000 gal usage fee.
Grantsville completed a sewer rate and impact fee study in 2024, which proposed a rate increase to $62.12 per month for residential and $55.47 per month + a $3.83 per 1,000 gal usage fee for commercial. ALTERNATIVE FUNDING SOURCES

U.S. Department of Agriculture - Rural Development (USDA-RD) was contacted on June 28, and due to population and income level, Grantsville does not qualify for their direct loan or grant program. Grantsville has set aside some funding for the project, which will be used to help with the engineering phase.
Grantsville has a financial adviser from Zion Bank Public Finance. It has been estimated the City could secure funding on the private market at 4%-4.5%
with a term of 20 years. This funding would come with additional fees for insurance and bond rating. DIVISION STAFF COMMENTS
Division staff is supportive of Grantsville’s efforts to increase the capacity of their facility to meet anticipated demand due to growth, as well as updating
their treatment facility to meet phosphorus effluent requirements. The construction of this treatment facility should meet both of those goals. Grantsville has performed a sewer rate study which, when implemented, will aid in repaying construction funding for this project. Since Grantsville is over 10,000 in population and not in a producing county, Grantsville currently does not qualify for funding from USDA-RD or CIB.
It is anticipated that the Board is the primary source of funding outside of the private market.
Division staff believes since this would be a new treatment plant the Grantsville engineer could likely demonstrate the useful life of the capital assts
majority to be 30 years. Looking at the cost model, if the Board brought a 30 year loan this would be the best funding package for the project. As only partial funding is likely to be available the Board might consider reducing the interest rate and could keep the overall same monthly rate with the combination of private/public funding.
DIVISION STAFF RECOMMENDATION
This is only a project introduction. Division staff recommendations will be made in a later Board meeting.
DWQ-2024-005803

Project Costs Current Customer Base & User Charges
Legal/Bonding 30,000$ Initial Total Customer (ERU's)4,516
DWQ Loan Origination Fee 340,000$ MAGI for Grantsville (2020): $50,000
Construction, Engineering, Contingency Costs 34,263,000$ Affordable Monthly Rate at 1.4%$58.33
Impact Fee (per ERU):$0
Total Project Cost:34,633,000$ Current Monthly Fee (per ERU)$30.00 avg monthly bill
Debt Service $210,715
Project Funding Annual O&M expense $417,392
Local Contribution -$
Amount to be Funded 34,633,000$ WQB Funding Conditions Private Funding Conditions
WQB Grant -$ Loan Repayment Term:Varies Loan Repayment Term:20
Total Project Cost:34,633,000$ Reserve Funding Period:6 Reserve Funding Period:NA
ESTIMATED COST OF SEWER SERVICE
WQB 20 year term loan
0 34,633,000 4.50%0 0 2,662,452 417,392 $210,715 3,290,559 60.72 1.46%MEDIUM
- 34,633,000 0 3.80%4.50%2,503,431 625,858 0 417,392 $210,715 3,757,395 69.33 1.66%MEDIUM
- 34,633,000 0 2.00%4.50%2,118,041 529,510 0 417,392 $210,715 3,275,658 60.45 1.45%MEDIUM
- 15,000,000 19,633,000 1.00%4.50%831,230 207,807 1,509,309 417,392 $210,715 3,176,453 58.61 1.41%MEDIUM
WQB 30 year term loan
- 34,633,000 0 3.80%4.50%1,954,480 488,620 0 417,392 $210,715 3,071,207 56.67 1.36%LOW
- 15,000,000 19,633,000 2.80%4.50%745,637 186,409 1,509,309 417,392 $210,715 3,069,463 56.64 1.36%LOW
- 10,000,000 24,633,000 1.90%4.50%440,383 110,096 1,893,690 417,392 $210,715 3,072,276 56.69 1.36%LOW
Local Value State Value Score Weighting Factor Weighting Score Table **
4.5%3.6%2.45 4 9.80 S2301 FNI Below 1.4%1.4% to
1.75%
1.75% to
2.1%2.1% to 2.45 Above 2.45
5.0%9.1%1.00 2.5 2.50 S1701 Below 1.5 Low Low Medium Medium High
47,762$ 35,445$ 1.00 2.5 2.50 B19080 1.5 to 2.5 Low Medium Medium High High
27.0%18.6%1.00 1 1.00 B01003 Above 2.5 Medium Medium High High High
Financial Need Indicator (Sum of weighted Scores/10)1.58
2020 5 year ACS Table ** https://data.census.gov/cedsci/
Monthly
Sewer Cost/
ERU
Sewer Cost
as % of
MAGI
Threshold LQI
Population Growth Rate
Unemployment Rate
Modified MAGI
Poverty Rate
Grantsville - Water Quality Board
20 Year & 30 Year Loan Static Cost Model
Financial Burden MatrixFNI Calculation
WQB Loan
Interest Rate
Private Loan
Interest Rate*
Principal
Forgiveness WQB Loan Private Loan
Amount
Financial
Burden
WQB Loan
Debt Service
WQB Loan
Reserve
Annual
Sewer
Existing Debt
Service
Total Annual
Sewer Cost
Private Loan
Debt Service

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 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
WATER QUALITY BOARD
FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROJECT
INTRODUCTION

APPLICANT:
Provo City
351 W Center
Provo, UT 84601
Telephone: [phone]

PRESIDING OFFICIAL Michelle Kaufusi, Mayor

CONTACT: Gordon Haight, Public Works Director

TREASURER: Dan Follett (Treasurer) & Heidi Allman (Recorder)

CONSULTING ENGINEER:
Jenny Calderon, PE, Consulting Engineer
Water Works Engineer
[phone]

BOND COUNSEL:
Eric Hunter, Partner
Chapman and Cutler
[phone]

FINANCIAL ADVISOR
Brian Baker, Vice President
Zions Public Finance
[phone]

APPLICANT’S REQUEST
Provo City (Provo) is requesting funding from the Utah Water Quality Board (Board) in the amount of
$50,530,000 to construct a third bioreactor to expand the plants treatment capacity, collections building,
construct an expanded administration building, and to address aging infrastructure and equipment.

Page 2
APPLICANT’S LOCATION
Provo City is located in Utah County.

PROJECT BACKGROUND
Major upgrades to replace the current 1950’s treatment plant are underway. Construction of two membrane
bioreactor treatment trains is near completion. The current project was funded by the Board with
$92,800,000 in total funding comprised of a 20-year $85,800,000 loan at 0.75% interest and $7,000,000
principal forgiveness. This funding was originally authorized December 4, 2018, with additional funds for
cost escalation authorized January 26, 2022. The total contracted construction cost of the current project is
approximately $114,300,000.

Most of the upgrades identified in this 2024 application were part of the original project but removed from
the design due to costs. The additional work from this project would bring project estimates to
$169,400,000.

PROJECT NEED
Provo currently discharges treated effluent to Mill Race Creek which flows to Provo Bay in Utah Lake.
Mill Race Creek is listed as Category 5 (not supporting) on the 2024 Integrated Report1 for E. coli and
Benthic Macroinvertebrates Bioassessments. Provo Bay is listed in the 2024 Integrated Report as Category
5 (not supporting) for Eutrophication, Harmful Algal Blooms, pH, PCBs in Fish Tissue, Total Ammonia
(as N), and Total Phosphorus. The improvement in effluent water quality discharged from this project will
significantly improve the water quality discharged from the reclamation facility and have a positive impact
on the quality of the water in Provo Bay and Utah Lake.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Provo would like to expand the reclamation plant that is currently under construction. The following
upgrades are considered high priority upgrades to the existing facilities and equipment to extend the
capacity and life of assets. Provo is planning to construct an expanded administration building with a lab
and maintenance shop to replace the existing building which is outdated and undersized; a new collection
building to store large equipment; and a third bioreactor and equipment to the membrane tank.

1 https://lf-public.deq.utah.gov/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=87957&repo=Public&searchid=4009fab5-d508-42a2-9060-0c0af3a14ddb
Page 3
These upgrades would allow Provo to repurpose their existing aeration basins as surge overflow
containment and decommission their final clarifiers, aeration basin pump station, and blower building.

ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED.
Provo developed a Capital Facility Plan that outlined three alternatives: no action; upgrade existing facility;
and construction of a new biological treatment facility that discharges to surface waters.

POSITION ON PROJECT PRIORITY LIST
Provo is currently ranked No. 2 of 14 on the FY 2024 Wastewater Treatment Project Priority List (PPL).

POPULATION GROWTH
Based on the 2020 US Census data the 2020 population was 125,931. According to the State’s projections
Provo has a positive growth rate of 11.9% from 2010 to 2020. This results in a build out population of
176,450 people in 2050.

Year Population
2020 125,931
2040 157,600
2050 176,450

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND DEMONSTRATION OF PUBLIC SUPPORT
Provo has held an informational budget presentation with the Provo City Council. Additionally, Provo
provided tours of the facility to the Public Works, Provo City Mayor, Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the Division of Water Quality (Division), and local news outlets to discuss infrastructure upgrades.
The Public Works Director, Finance Director, and Mayor have supported pursuing potential funding options
with the Division.

EFFORTS TO SECURE FINANCING FROM OTHER SOURCES
Provo has increased user rates annually since 2014, amounting to a 332% increase to the base rate. They
have changed the rate structure to charge by unit and updated sewer impact fees. Provo investigated the
potential for Water Infrastructure Finance Innovation Act (WIFIA) funding for the project and applied for
funding from the State’s $50 million American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) matching grant program. Provo
was unable to secure funds under either of these options.

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Construction was initiated in 2019. The new project would begin in 2025 and finish in 2027.

APPLICANT’S CURRENT USER CHARGE
Currently, Provo charges approximately $86 per ERU. According to the Board’s criteria of 1.4% MAGI
($34,500 for Provo), a rate of $40.25 per month for wastewater service should be exceeded for grant
consideration. Their impact fee is $4,450.26 and there is no hookup fee.

Page 4

COST ESTIMATE
The total cost of the project is estimated to be $50,530,000.00. A breakdown of these costs follows.
Legal/Bonding $30,000
Loan Origination Fee $500,000
Engineering – Design & CMS $368,000
Wastewater Treatment Plant Upgrades $44,070,000
Contingency (13.6%) $5,562,000
Total Project Costs $50,530,000

Provo has bid the current project with Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) requirements from
2018. Unfortunately, these requirements have change for the inclusion of Build America, Buy America Act
(BABA) requirement. Due to this change the project could not be funded out of EPA Capitalization Grants
as an equivalency project. Thus, fund would have to be drawn from revolved balances or match (aka second
round funds). This may cause some limitation on authorization of principal forgiveness funds from the
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL).

COST SHARING
The total cost of project funding for the entire project is $50,000,000.
Funding Source Cost Sharing Percent of Project
Amount To Be Financed $50,000,000 100%

ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST FOR SEWER SERVICE
Division staff developed static cost models (Attachment 1) to evaluate funding by the Board. The cost
model analyzes several possible funding options. The resulting Total Annual Sewer Cost is shown for each
funding option.

FINANCIAL BURDEN EVALUATION

The cost model shows Provo may qualify for principal forgiveness consideration under the State
Affordability Criteria as part of a funding package depending on the interest rate of the loan portion. In
accordance with the Board’s Financial Burden Evaluation Policy for the Utah Wastewater Project
Assistance Program, Division staff utilized data from the United State Census Bureau (census) website
(https://data.census.gov/cedsci/) to calculate the Provo’s Financial Need Indicator (FNI). The calculated
FNI is 2.25. Division staff compared this FNI to the percent modified MAGI in the Financial Burden Matrix
and displayed the Financial Burden in Attachment 1. Based on the Financial Burden Evaluation Policy for
the Utah Wastewater Project Assistance Program, the community has a Financial Burden of Medium.

DIVISION STAFF COMMENTS
This report is a project introduction. Division staff recommendations will be made in a later Board meeting.

Project Costs Current Customer Base & User Charges
Legal/Bonding 30,000$ Initial Total Customer (ERU's)33,424
Loan Origination Fee 500,000$ MAGI for Provo (2021): $34,500
Engineering - Design & CMS 368,000$ Affordable Monthly Rate at 1.4%$40.25Wastewater Treatment Plant 44,070,000$
Impact Fee (per ERU):$4,450
Current Monthly Fee (per ERU)$86.00
-$
Wastewater Treatment Plant Debt Service 6,286,652.00$
Contingency (13%)5,562,000$ Annual O&M expense 9,500,000.00$
Total Project Cost:50,530,000$
Project Funding Funding Conditions
Loan Repayment Term:20
Reserve Funding Period:6
Amount to be Funded 50,530,000$ Private Market Loan
Loan Repayment Term:20
Total Project Cost:50,530,000$ Reserve Funding Period:-
ESTIMATED COST OF SEWER SERVICE
- 0 50,530,000 3.30%3.70%0 0 3,619,989 9,500,000 6,286,652 19,406,641 48.38 1.68%MEDIUM
- 50,530,000 0 3.30%3.70%3,491,310 872,828 0 9,500,000 6,286,652 20,150,790 50.24 1.75%MEDIUM
1,000,000 49,530,000 0 3.30%3.70%3,422,216 855,554 0 9,500,000 6,286,652 20,064,422 50.02 1.74%MEDIUM50,530,000 0 1.30%3.70%2,885,457 721,364 0 9,500,000 6,286,652 19,393,473 48.35 1.68%MEDIUM- 23,000,000 27,530,000 3.30%3.70%1,589,158 397,289 1,972,260 9,500,000 6,286,652 19,745,359 49.23 1.71%MEDIUM
- 12,000,000 38,530,000 3.30%3.70%829,126 207,281 2,760,304 9,500,000 6,286,652 19,583,364 48.83 1.70%MEDIUM
- 6,000,000 44,530,000 3.30%3.70%414,563 103,641 3,190,147 9,500,000 6,286,652 19,495,002 48.61 1.69%MEDIUM
- 500,000 50,030,000 3.30%3.70%34,547 8,637 3,584,169 9,500,000 6,286,652 19,414,005 48.40 1.68%MEDIUM
1,000,000 500,000 49,030,000 3.30%3.70%34,547 8,637 3,512,529 9,500,000 6,286,652 19,342,364 48.22 1.68%MEDIUM
1,685,800 500,000 48,344,200 3.30%3.70%34,547 8,637 3,463,398 9,500,000 6,286,652 19,293,233 48.10 1.67%MEDIUM*Stated in Application
Local Value State Value Score Weighting Factor Weighting
Score Table **
3.2%3.6%1.80 4 7.20 S2301 FNI Below 1.4%1.4% to 1.75%1.75% to 2.1%2.1% to 2.45 Above 2.45
24.3%9.1%3.00 2.5 7.50 S1701 Below 1.5 Low Low Medium Medium High
26,377$ 35,445$ 2.02 2.5 5.05 B19080 1.5 to 2.5 Low Medium Medium High High
2.0%18.6%2.78 1 2.78 B01003 Above 2.5 Medium Medium High High High
Financial Need Indicator (Sum of weighted Scores/10)2.25
2020 5 year ACS Table ** https://data.census.gov/cedsci/
ATTACHMENT 1
Provo - Water Quality Board
20 Year Loan Static Cost Model
Financial Burden MatrixFNI Calculation
WQB Loan
Interest Rate Private Loan Interest Rate* Principal
Forgiveness WQB Loan Private Loan
Amount Financial Burden WQB Loan
Debt Service
WQB Loan
Reserve
Annual
Sewer
Existing Debt
Service
Total Annual
Sewer Cost
Private Loan
Debt Service
Monthly Sewer
Cost/ ERU
Sewer Cost as % of MAGI
Threshold LQI
Population Growth Rate
Unemployment Rate
Modified MAGI
Poverty Rate