State of Utah Matheson . Executive Director ... Kim Shelley, Brenda Johnson, Savannah Miller, ... Bittner, Jerry Rogers, Skyler Davies, Jim Harris, Emily Cantón, Ken Hoffman

State of Utah

GARY R. HERBERT Governor

SPENCER J. COX

Lieutenant Governor

Department of Environmental Quality

Alan Matheson

Executive Director

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY Erica Brown Gaddis, PhD

Director

Water Quality Board Myron E. Bateman, Chair

Jennifer Grant, Vice-Chair Clyde L. Bunker Steven K. Earley

Gregg A. Galecki Michael D. Luers

Alan Matheson David C. Ogden

Dr. James VanDerslice Dr. Erica Brown Gaddis

Executive Secretary

Utah Water Quality Board Meeting DEQ Board Room

195 N 1950 W Room 1015

Salt Lake City, UT 84116 March 28, 2018

Board Meeting Beings @ 9:30 a.m.

AGENDA A. Water Quality Board Meeting – Roll Call B. Minutes: Approval of minutes for February 28, 2018 Water Quality Board Meeting

…………………………………………………………………………….Myron Bateman C. Executive Secretary’s Report …………………………………………...….Erica Gaddis D. Other Business: 1. Kennecott Settlement Agreement……………………………………………Dan Hall 2. Feasibility Report for Storm Water LID Projects………...………Lisa Stevens 3. Wastewater Operator Certification Council Recognition Awards..Judy Etherington 4. 2017 Calvin K. Sudweeks Award………………..……………….Erica Gaddis

Next Meeting April 18, 2018 Dixie Convention Center

1835 S Convention Center Drive St. George, UT 84790

Revised 3/14/2018 In compliance with the American Disabilities Act, individuals with special needs (including auxiliary communicative aids and services) should contact Larene Wyss, Office of Human Resources, at (801) 536-4281, TDD (801) 536-4284, or by email at [email protected], at least five working days prior to the scheduled meeting.

195 North 1950 West • Salt Lake City, UT

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 144870 • Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870 Telephone (801) 536-4300 • Fax (801) 536-4301 • T.D.D. (801) 536-4284

www.deq.utah.gov Printed on 100% recycled paper

State of Utah


SPENCER J. COX

Lieutenant Governor


Alan Matheson

Executive Director


Director


Jennifer Grant, Vice-Chair Clyde L. Bunker Steven K. Earley

Gregg A. Galecki Michael D. Luers

Alan Matheson David C. Ogden

Dr. James VanDerslice Dr. Erica Brown Gaddis

Executive Secretary

MINUTES UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD 195 N 1950 W

Salt Lake City, UT 84116 February 28, 2018

UTAH WATER QUALITY BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Myron Bateman Clyde Bunker Steven Earley Alan Matheson David Ogden Jim VanDerslice Excused: Michael Luers, Jennifer Grant, Greg Galecki

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT Erica Gaddis, Kim Shelley, Brenda Johnson, Savannah Miller, Marsha Case, Chris

Bittner, Jerry Rogers, Skyler Davies, Jim Harris, Emily Cantón, Ken Hoffman, Carl Adams, Amy Dickey

OTHERS PRESENT

Name Organization Representing Ariel Calmes Western Resource Advocates Alex Buxton Zions Jay Olsen UDAF Mr. Bateman called the Board meeting to order at 9:30 AM and took roll call for the members of the Board and audience.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 4, 2017 MEETING

Motion: Mr. Bunker moved to approve the minutes of the December 4, 2017

meeting. Mr. Earley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.




Page 2

APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 24, 2018 MEETING Motion: Mr. Bunker moved to approve the minutes of the January 24, 2018

meeting. Dr. VanDerslice seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY REPORT

• Dr. Gaddis provided a Legislative update regarding current bills relative to the Board. o HB365 amends the original statute that requires any TMDL that

would cost facilities more than $10 million to go before a Legislative Committee and any TMDL that would cost facilities more than $100 million to go before the full Legislature for approval. The amendment adds “any WQB approved rule or water quality standard.” The first substitute narrowed the language to focus on nutrient and ammonia rules and standards. It also adds that the $10 million will be either 20 years of operational cost or a $10 million capital investment.

o HB381 is for an Agricultural Water Optimization Taskforce where DWQ will have one of seven votes. The purpose is to find innovative ideas to reduce water consumption and depletion in the agricultural sector. There is a $1.275 million budget coming from a number of restricted accounts.

o HB272 is for the Utah Lake Amendments. The bill directs to provide a mechanism to dispose of State land in exchange for the execution of a project that would result in the comprehensive restoration of Utah Lake. There is currently a proposal in the works to establish islands on the lake for development. The funding for the proposal would come from that development.

• TBPEL requests were due January 1st this year. The Division received requests from 25 different facilities, most being POTWs. 35 requests came in total: 9 “clearly unnecessary”, 18 “due diligence”, and 8 “innovative alternatives”. Water Quality also proactively issued 6 to facilities without requests due to a TMDL.

• The Utah Lake Water Quality Study Committee has met twice and is making progress, although it is slower than anticipated. Nominations to find scientists for the science panel are due Friday, March 2nd. The decision meeting is scheduled for March 12th.

• Salem City has also provided an update on the loan approved by the Board to upgrade to a mechanical facility. The project is now estimated to come in higher than originally anticipated, and the City is expected to come back to the Board to request more funds as well as extend the terms of the loan to keep the payments the same. It’s estimated to be $20 million for 30 years.

• The Board was also provided with an update on the Storm Water Initiatives Program funded through the South Davis Sewer District loan. The Division solicited communities for innovative, low impact development projects to use as demonstrations and will be bringing those projects to the Board in March.

• There have also been outreach events with home builders around that state to better understand concerns regarding the general construction storm water permit as well as the post-construction rule that will come into play in 2019. They shared concerns regarding issues with inconsistency in the way the MS4 permit is implemented and applied in different municipalities. The Division will be working internally to come up with a solution.

Page 3

FUNDING REQUESTS

Financial Reports: Ms. Cantón updated the Board on the 2017 Annual Report and the 2018 Intended Use Plan, as indicated in the packet.

Motion: Mr. Ogden moved to approve a 30-day Public Notice review of the Intended Use Plan. Dr. VanDerslice seconded, and the motion passed unanimously.

HB381 Agricultural Water Optimization Fund: Mr. Harris presented a request for the one-time Hardship Grant contribution of $100,000 for the Agricultural Water Optimization Fund that is proposed in HB381 to create a Task Force that will identify critical issues to agricultural water supply.

Motion: Mr. Earley moved to authorize a one-time contribution from the

Hardship Grant of $100,000 contingent on HB381 passing. Dr. VanDerslice seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously.

RULE MAKING

Request to initiate rulemaking to adopt TMDL by reference into R317-1-7: Ms. Dickey requested to initiate rulemaking after completing a TMDL study to address water quality impairments in the North Fork Virgin River.

Motion: Dr. VanDerslice moved to approve the request to initiate rulemaking. Mr. Earley seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously.

OTHER BUSINESS Invitation for Board members to serve as hearing officers for upcoming water quality standards public hearings: Mr. Bittner extended an invitation to the Board members to participate in upcoming public hearings for water quality standards across the state. Mr. Earley tentatively accepted for Vernal, Mr. Bateman tentatively accepted for Salt Lake City, and Mr. Bunker tentatively accepted for St. George. Mr. Bittner will present the invitation again in March. Appointment of Jim Harris as Acting Executive Secretary: Dr. Gaddis recommends that Jim Harris be appointed Acting Executive Secretary to the Water Quality Board in the event that she is unable to attend.

Motion: Mr. Earley moved to authorize the appointment of Jim Harris as Acting

Executive Secretary in the absence of Dr. Gaddis. Mr. Bunker seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously.

Page 4

Research Funding Plan Discussion: Mr. Harris introduced a proposal for funding to come from the Hardship Grant Fund totaling $200,000 annually for scientific research projects. In order to create this funding mechanism, the Board would need to approve a rule change to increase the amount from $1 million maximum to $1.2 million in rule R317-101-7. He will present the request to initiate rulemaking in March or April. To listen to the full recording of the Board meeting go to: http://www.utah.gov/pmn/index.html

Next Meeting – March 28, 2018

__________________________

Myron Bateman, Chair Utah Water Quality Board

http://www.utah.gov/pmn/index.html

State of Utah


SPENCER J. COX

Lieutenant Governor


Alan Matheson

Executive Director


Director

M E M O R A N D U M TO: Water Quality Board THROUGH: Erica Brown Gaddis, PhD, Director FROM: Brian Hamos, Environmental Scientist DATE: March 13, 2018 SUBJECT: Request for Approval of Settlement Agreement and Order of Consent with Rio

Tinto Kennecott Copper The Utah Water Quality Act, UCA 19-5-104 (3) (h) (i, ii), requires that any settlement negotiated by the Director in excess of $25,000 must be reviewed and approved or disapproved by the Water Quality Board. A Settlement Agreement and Order of Consent (SCO) has been negotiated with Rio Tinto Kennecott Copper (RTKC) to resolve several releases from RTKC’s tailings and process water pipelines and certain other facilities associated with RTKC’s operations. The releases being resolved occurred over a time period between July 2013 through July 2017. In total the Director of the Division of Water Quality (DWQ or “Division”) has issued Notice of Violations (NOVs) for 4 separate pipeline releases and identified 6 additional release events for which NOVs were not issued. The dates and details regarding each of the 10 releases are contained in the SCO which is attached for your reference. As a result of the above-mentioned releases, the Copperton Concentrator ground water discharge permit was modified (effective December 29, 2017) to include Best Available Technology standards, monitoring, operating and reporting requirements for the RTKC tailings and process water pipelines. The modified permit also includes a compliance schedule requiring RTKC to:

• Submit a Contaminant Investigation Plan for Director review and approval to investigate the following spill locations; i) H1.A and A.25 drop boxes; ii) Surge Basin 3B; and

iii) The area adjacent to and downgradient of the Magna reservoir and power plant.

• Submit a Ground Water Compliance Monitoring Plan for the corridor containing the tailings and process water pipelines;

• Install investigational and compliance monitoring wells presented in the above-mentioned plans upon approval by the Director; and

• Implement a Corrective Action Plan if required by the Director based on results of the contaminant investigation.

In addition, the parties have agreed to resolve the releases by entering into a SCO requiring RTKC to:

• Monitor a series of existing ground water monitoring wells located downgradient of a release caused by a breach in a storm water detention basin regulated under permit UGW350010;

• Pay a civil penalty of $67,667; and • Pay a separate administrative cost of $21,380.

The total amount of the Settlement Agreement and Order of Consent (SCO) is $89,047. The Division also considered the following three issues among the Criteria in 317-1-8 as follows:

• Minimization and or prevention of future releases through the permitting of the tailings and process water return lines through the modification of the Copperton Ground Water Permit as described above;

• The requirement that KUC undertake investigations (and propose corrective action if necessary) of the ground water in areas with repeated releases to determine what, if any, actual discharge to ground water has occurred; and

• The ability to revisit the penalty calculations if the results of the ground water investigations provide factual data demonstrating a release to ground water and any actual environmental harm.

The public comment period for the proposed SCO ran from February 8, 2018 through March 12, 2018. A comment letter was submitted by one party. The comments and subsequent responses are attached. None of the comments were substantive; therefore the SCO has not been modified. The proposed SCO represents a fair and reasonable settlement. It is the Staff’s recommendation that this settlement be approved. Attachments: 1. Settlement Agreement and Order of Consent (DWQ-2018-001424) 2. Comments and Responses (DWQ-2018-002866) 3. Public Notice (DWQ-2018-001425) 4. Copy of R317-1-8 (DWQ-2018-002886)

R317. Environmental Quality, Water Quality. R317-1-8. Penalty Criteria for Civil Settlement Negotiations. 8.1 Introduction. Section 19-5-115 of the Water Quality Act provides for penalties of up to $10,000 per day for violations of the act or any permit, rule, or order adopted under it and up to $25,000 per day for willful violations. Because the law does not provide for assessment of administrative penalties, the Attorney General initiates legal proceedings to recover penalties where appropriate. 8.2 Purpose And Applicability. These criteria outline the principles used by the State in civil settlement negotiations with water pollution sources for violations of the UWPCA and/or any permit, rule or order adopted under it. It is designed to be used as a logical basis to determine a reasonable and appropriate penalty for all types of violations to promote a more swift resolution of environmental problems and enforcement actions. To guide settlement negotiations on the penalty issue, the following principles apply: (1) penalties should be based on the nature and extent of the violation; (2) penalties should at a minimum, recover the economic benefit of noncompliance; (3) penalties should be large enough to deter noncompliance; and (4) penalties should be consistent in an effort to provide fair and equitable treatment of the regulated community. In determining whether a civil penalty should be sought, the State will consider the magnitude of the violations; the degree of actual environmental harm or the potential for such harm created by the violation(s); response and/or investigative costs incurred by the State or others; any economic advantage the violator may have gained through noncompliance; recidivism of the violator; good faith efforts of the violator; ability of the violator to pay; and the possible deterrent effect of a penalty to prevent future violations. 8.3 Penalty Calculation Methodology. The statutory maximum penalty should first be calculated, for comparison purposes, to determine the potential maximum penalty liability of the violator. The penalty which the State seeks in settlement may not exceed this statutory maximum amount. The civil penalty figure for settlement purposes should then be calculated based on the following formula: CIVIL PENALTY = PENALTY + ADJUSTMENTS - ECONOMIC AND LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS PENALTY: Violations are grouped into four main penalty categories based upon the nature and severity of the violation. A penalty range is associated with each category. The following factors will be taken into account to determine where the penalty amount will fall within each range: A. History of compliance or noncompliance. History of

noncompliance includes consideration of previous violations and degree of recidivism. B. Degree of willfulness and/or negligence. Factors to be considered include how much control the violator had over and the foreseeability of the events constituting the violation, whether the violator made or could have made reasonable efforts to prevent the violation, whether the violator knew of the legal requirements which were violated, and degree of recalcitrance. C. Good faith efforts to comply. Good faith takes into account the openness in dealing with the violations, promptness in correction of problems, and the degree of cooperation with the State. Category A - $7,000 to $10,000 per day. Violations with high impact on public health and the environment to include: 1. Discharges which result in documented public health effects and/or significant environmental damage. 2. Any type of violation not mentioned above severe enough to warrant a penalty assessment under category A. Category B - $2,000 to $7,000 per day. Major violations of the Utah Water Pollution Control Act, associated regulations, permits or orders to include: 1. Discharges which likely caused or potentially would cause (undocumented) public health effects or significant environmental damage. 2. Creation of a serious hazard to public health or the environment. 3. Illegal discharges containing significant quantities or concentrations of toxic or hazardous materials. 4. Any type of violation not mentioned previously which warrants a penalty assessment under Category B. Category C - $500 to $2,000 per day. Violations of the Utah Water Pollution Control Act, associated regulations, permits or orders to include: 1. Significant excursion of permit effluent limits. 2. Substantial non-compliance with the requirements of a compliance schedule. 3. Substantial non-compliance with monitoring and reporting requirements. 4. Illegal discharge containing significant quantities or concentrations of non toxic or non hazardous materials. 5. Any type of violation not mentioned previously which warrants a penalty assessment under Category C. Category D - up to $500 per day. Minor violations of the Utah Water Pollution Control Act, associated regulations, permits or orders to include: 1. Minor excursion of permit effluent limits.

2. Minor violations of compliance schedule requirements. 3. Minor violations of reporting requirements. 4. Illegal discharges not covered in Categories A, B and C. 5. Any type of violations not mentioned previously which warrants a penalty assessment under category D. ADJUSTMENTS: The civil penalty shall be calculated by adding the following adjustments to the penalty amount determined above: 1) economic benefit gained as a result of non-compliance; 2) investigative costs incurred by the State and/or other governmental levels; 3) documented monetary costs associated with environmental damage. ECONOMIC AND LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: An adjustment downward may be made or a delayed payment schedule may be used based on a documented inability of the violator to pay. Also, an adjustment downward may be made in consideration of the potential for protracted litigation, an attempt to ascertain the maximum penalty the court is likely to award, and/or the strength of the case. 8.4 Mitigation Projects. In some exceptional cases, it may be appropriate to allow the reduction of the penalty assessment in recognition of the violator's good faith undertaking of an environmentally beneficial mitigation project. The following criteria should be used in determining the eligibility of such projects: A. The project must be in addition to all regulatory compliance obligations; B. The project preferably should closely address the environmental effects of the violation; C. The actual cost to the violator, after consideration of tax benefits, must reflect a deterrent effect; D. The project must primarily benefit the environment rather than benefit the violator; E. The project must be judicially enforceable; F. The project must not generate positive public perception for violations of the law. 8.5 Intent Of Criteria/Information Requests. The criteria and procedures in this section are intended solely for the guidance of the State. They are not intended, and cannot be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party in litigation with the State.

Division of Water Quality

Utah Department of Environmental Quality

Request for Public Comment

Purpose of Public Comment

The Utah Department of Environmental Quality is soliciting comments on a draft Stipulation and Consent Order

(SCO) to resolve several Notices of Violation and Compliance Orders (NOV/CO) described below under authority

of the Utah Water Quality Act, Utah Code Ann. §§ 19-5-101 to 19-5-123 including sections 19-5-104, 19-5-106,

19-5-111 and 19-5-115, and in accordance with Utah Administrative Procedures Act, Utah Code Ann. §§ 63G-4-

101 to 63G-4-601.

Site Information

Responsible Party Name: Rio Tinto Kennecott Copper (RTKC)

Facility Location: Salt Lake County, Utah

The SCO that the Utah Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is soliciting comments on relates to several releases from

RTKC’s tailings and process water pipelines and certain other facilities associated with RTKC’s operations. In

total the Director of DWQ has issued NOVs for 4 separate pipeline releases and identified 6 additional release

events for which NOVs were not issued. The dates and details regarding each of the 10 releases are contained in

the SCO.

As a result of the above-mentioned releases, the Copperton Concentrator ground water discharge permit was

modified (effective December 2017) to include Best Available Technology standards, monitoring, operating and

reporting requirements for the RTKC tailings and process water pipelines. The modified permit also includes a

compliance schedule requiring RTKC to:

Submit a Contaminant Investigation Plan for Director review and approval to investigate the following

spill locations;

i) H1.A and A.25 drop boxes;

ii) Surge Basin 3B; and

iii) The area adjacent to and downgradient of the Magna reservoir and power plant.

Submit a Ground Water Compliance Monitoring Plan for the corridor containing the tailings and process

water pipelines;

Install investigational and compliance monitoring wells presented in the above-mentioned plans upon

approval by the Director; and

Implement a Corrective Action Plan if required by the Director based on results of the contaminant

investigation.

In addition, the parties have agreed to resolve the releases by entering into a SCO requiring RTKC to:

Monitor a series of existing ground water monitoring wells located downgradient of a release caused by a

breach in a storm water detention basin regulated under permit UGW350010;

Pay a penalty of $67,667; and

Pay a separate administrative cost of $21,380.

Because the penalty exceeds $25,000 the Utah Water Quality Board must also review and approve the amount.

Public Comments

The public is invited to review and comment on the SCO. At the conclusion of the comment period, the SCO will

either be finalized as presented or modified, based on public feedback and approval by the Utah Water Quality

Board.

Public comments are invited any time prior to Monday, March 12, 2018. Written comments may be directed to

the Division of Water Quality, P.O. Box 144870, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4870. All comments received prior to

Monday, March 12, 2018, will be considered in the formulation of the final SCO.

Additional Information

The SCO is available for review online at: http://www.waterquality.utah.gov/PublicNotices/index.htm

Related documents are available for review during normal business hours at the Division of Water Quality, 195 N.

1950 W., Salt Lake City. Additional information may be obtained upon request by calling Brian Hamos at (801)

536-4384 or [email protected] or by writing the aforementioned address.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals with special needs (including auxiliary

communicative aids and services) should contact Dana Powers, Office of Human Resources at (801) 536-4413

(TDD 536-4414).

http://www.waterquality.utah.gov/PublicNotices/index.htm

mailto:[email protected]

Rio Tinto Kennecott Copper (RTKC)

Ground Water Discharge Permit No. UGW350017

Comment Response Summary

Utah Division of Water Quality (DWQ)

March 2018

1

DWQ Response to Comments

The text of the comments are restated verbatim in italics.

Response to comments received on Public Notice of draft Stipulation and Consent Order (SCO): A comment letter was submitted via email signed by Terry Marasco, Debbie Sigman, Kathy Van Dame, and Ivan Weber dated Monday March 11, 2018. DWQ has taken the liberty of separating the letter into two different comments to focus on each of the details. Comment 1

RE: ADMINISTRATIVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND ORDER OF CONSENT [AOC] Docket Nos. UGW14-02, UGW14-07. UGW14-12, UGW16-04, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter. As allowed by Utah R317-1-8. Penalty Criteria for Civil Settlement Negotiations in Sect 8.4 we request that sufficient time & flexibility be extended to allow the develop a mitigation project in place of the total penalty $67,667 as specified in the draft AOC. We propose that RTKC use the stipulated fine to fund a study of the feasibility of a Utah autoclaved aerated concrete industry utilizing tailings from the north impoundment. We have discussed this proposal with several individuals in RTKC, and there is willingness to review past investigations and potentially develop such a mitigation project if DWQ process & sufficient time were available. As you may know, the north impoundment tailings make a superb, arguably sustainable building material called AAC --- autoclaved aerated concrete --- because of the coincidence that copper tailings, specifically, are ground to the right size range, and consist of the right kind of minerals, to become the mineral filler in AAC. Combined with a little cement, some lime and some alumina, they produce a frothy cement foam with about 60% mineral filler (face-powder consistency silica dust). Hardened, cut to size and‘autoclave’cured (steam and high pressure), AAC weighs about 1/5 the mass of normal concrete, with no large aggregate at all. It’s fireproof, soundproof, strong even in quakes, mold-resistant, water-resistant, and an excellent insulator. It’s been the dominant building material of Europe for a century, except that there, they have to custom-grind the mineral filler. Here, we have at least two billion tons of it pre-ground. Alumina extracted from ground water treatment could also be used. It would possibly be the most sustainable building material anywhere. 1.1 DWQ Response The decision to use a supplemental environmental project (SEP) to offset part of the penalty is at the discretion of the violator, the Division of Water Quality (DWQ) does not have the authority to require a mitigation project. In this instance RTKC has chosen to pay the full penalty amount and not pursue a SEP. RTKC has indicated to DWQ that they evaluated a facility similar to that being proposed approximately 8 years ago and the capital costs to construct the factory were determined to be prohibitive. This type of project is something RTKC may re-evaluate during mine closure activities. Additionally, it is unclear whether this project would satisfy each of the eligibility criteria listed under R317-1-8.4 (Mitigation Projects). Settlement Agreement Action: None

2

Comment 2 If such a project is feasible, Utah could have a new industry producing much needed construction materials from a waste stream, while reducing the impacts of north tailing impoundment. Using the penalty to investigate this potential industry would provide much greater benefit to Utah than simply increasing the General Fund by $67,667. Thank you for your attention to this proposal. We are eager to provide information on AAC & any assistance we can offer as you consider our request.

2.1 DWQ Response In accordance with Utah Code Section 19-1-303(5), the legislature has mandated that all civil penalties be deposited into the General Fund. Once deposited, neither the Board nor the Director has authority to determine how civil penalties are utilized. While the Board’s rules allow for environmental mitigation projects in lieu of penalties under certain circumstances, this scenario is optional and the Director cannot mandate that a project be undertaken in lieu of penalties. Settlement Agreement Action: None

3

State of Utah


SPENCER J. COX

Lieutenant Governor


Alan Matheson

Executive Director


Director

MEMORANDUM TO: Utah Water Quality Board THROUGH: Erica Brown Gaddis, Director FROM: Lisa Stevens, Storm Water Specialist DATE: March 5, 2018 SUBJECT: Request to approve funding for Storm Water LID Projects On February 22, 2017, the Utah Water Quality Board granted approval to the South Davis Sewer District (SDSD) for a loan which included $2,500,000 in principal reserved for SRF eligible nonpoint source project funding. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) requested proposals for eligible projects that utilized low impact development (LID) storm water controls and benefited South Davis County and the Jordan River with the intention of awarding $1,000,000 of the $2,500,000 to these projects. The deadline for these proposals was February 1, 2018. Eight projects were submitted and ranked by a team of DWQ members and a SDSD representative. DWQ staff recommends that the Board approve the use of the funds reserved in the SDSD funding package for SRF eligible nonpoint source project funding for the top three ranked projects at the amount provided below:

1. Fund the development of bioswales at the University of Utah demonstration site for the requested amount of $341,000.

2. Fund the meandering channel settling basin in Woods Cross for the requested amount of $347,400.

3. Fund the LID components of the Sandy City Public Works facility for 56% of the requested amount, a total of $311,600.

Attachments:

1. The Feasibility Report for Storm Water LID Projects.




Date Received: February 1, 2018 Presented to WQB: March 28, 2018

WATER QUALITY BOARD FEASIBILITY REPORT FOR STORM WATER LID PROJECTS

APPROVAL

APPLICANT:

South Davis Sewer District 1800 W 1200 N West Bountiful, UT 84087

PRESIDING OFFICIAL:

Dee C. Hansen, P.E., Chairman of the Board

TREASURER/RECORDER:

Dal D. Wayment P.E., Treasurer

CONSULTING ENGINEER: Multiple – See Below

APPLICANT’S REQUEST:

The South Davis Sewer District (SDSD) is requesting Water Quality Board approval of three projects to be implemented under the nonpoint source funding component that was authorized in conjunction with the District’s construction assistance loan. The three recommended projects have a combined cost to the District of $1,000,000 and are:

1. University of Utah bioswale demonstration project; 2. Woods Cross City storm water settling basin; 3. Sandy City low impact development storm water controls.

APPLICANT’S LOCATION: South Davis Sewer District is located in Davis County and provides wastewater services to the southern half of Davis County; consisting of Bountiful, Centerville, North Salt Lake, West Bountiful, Woods Cross, and the unincorporated areas south of Lund Lane. Storm water projects in Kaysville, Layton, Sandy, Salt Lake City, Clinton, Riverton, Cottonwood Heights, and Woods Cross were submitted for funding consideration. These locations are starred on the below map with recommended projects to fund labeled with the projects’ location. MAP OF APPLICANT’S LOCATION

FIGURE 1 – PROPOSED PROJECT LOCATIONS

South Davis Sewer District

Woods Cross

Sandy

University of Utah

Map data ©2018 Google

PROJECT NEED:

As part of SDSD’s funding package for their tertiary wastewater treatment extension, SDSD included $2,500,000 in loan to fund SRF eligible nonpoint source projects. To assist SDSD with locating appropriate projects, the DWQ solicited proposals for projects that utilized low impact development (LID) storm water practices. LID practices attempt to mimic a site’s predevelopment hydrology by managing rainfall at the source. This can be accomplished using techniques that infiltrate, filter, store, evaporate, and detain runoff at the site instead of a traditional conveyance system that utilizes expensive infrastructure and discharge large quantities of untreated storm water to surface waters. LID storm water practices are becoming widespread across the US; however, there is a lack of LID and local data for these practices in Utah. DWQ recognized the need to encourage this type of development to promote storm water management in a manner that reduces the potential for pollutants to enter into surface waters through storm water and have an adverse effect on water quality. Projects proposals were required to be submitted by February 1, 2018. A scoring system was provided to applicants ahead of time (see Table 1 below) with preference given to projects proposing innovative LID components that benefited South Davis County and the Jordan River. The Jordan River is currently undergoing a total maximum daily load (TMDL) study because of the river’s impaired water quality. A group of six members of DWQ and Matt Myers from SDSD met on February 14, 2018 to review all the project proposals and score each one. Proposal scores were used to prioritize projects and recommend awards.

TABLE 1 – PROJECT SCORING SYSTEM

Scoring Category Max Points (100 total)

Benefit to Davis County and the Jordan River 20 Utilization of innovative low impact development (LID) technology 15 Anticipated water quality benefits 15 Ability to monitor and quantify water quality improvement 10 Educational or outreach elements 10 Cost vs. benefit (e.g. $/lb of pollutant reduced, $/acre) 5 Matching funds contributed by others to the project 5 Local Project support/endorsement/cooperation 5 Project feasibility 5 Technical quality of proposal 5 Schedule and readiness to proceed (permits, commitments, etc.) 5

The eight projects submitted for consideration are diverse in their water quality benefits. Three of the projects (Kaysville, Nature Conservancy - Layton, and Woods Cross) did not have LID components but were considered for their water quality benefit.

A summary of each project is provided in the Project Description section below. Table 2 shows the funding requested and the ranking of projects.

TABLE 2 – PROJECT RANKING

Project Title Requested Funds Ranking University of Utah – Landscape Lab Bioswales $341,000 1 Woods Cross – Settling Basin $347,400 2 Sandy –Public Works LID Components $553,235 3 Cottonwood Heights – Public Works Bioretention $38,590 4 Kaysville and Nature Conservancy – Wetland $214,000 5 Nature Conservancy – Layton Freeport Drain Wetland $403,010 6 Clinton – Rain Gardens $245,127 7 (tie) Riverton – Swales and Drywells $363,551 7 (tie)

PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS: For this report DWQ Staff has provided detailed descriptions for those projects for which funding has been recommended. A more basic description is provided for those projects which funding has not been recommended at this time.

University of Utah Landscape Lab Bioswales

Requested Funds:$341,000 Ranking (out of 8): 1

The Landscape Lab at the Williams Building is a watershed landscape revitalization project and educational/demonstration/test site for storm water green infrastructure. It is located on the University of Utah campus immediately next to the Red Butte Creek, a tributary to the Jordan River. The project proposes to install a bioretention swale system and native landscaping on an acre of land. This would replace the heavily watered turf grass to capture and treat runoff from the roof of the Williams Building while reducing irrigation demand on site. Storm water is currently being directed into storm drains with direct discharge into the creek with no opportunity for treatment. Due to the high percentage of impervious surface, Red Butte Creek is now deeply incised, inaccessible, and tends to collect trash and debris. The biorention system will filter storm water and allow for infiltration to reduce streambank erosion and reduce pollutants. Monitoring will be included to provide data to demonstrate that LID and green infrastructure are viable in northern Utah despite the hot dry climate. Monitoring stations have already been installed along the creek and have four years of baseline water quality data. The site is visible from the road and will have educational signage.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND DEMONSTRATION OF PUBLIC SUPPORT:

The proposed project supports the Red Butte Creek Strategic Vision which is a watershed management plan developed by the University of Utah with community input. The Landscape Lab Master Plan was developed through collaboration with VODA Planning and Design, University of Utah Facilities, Planning, Red Butte Garden, Salt Lake City Public Utilities, and Salt Lake County Watershed Planning and Restoration. Another key partner is the University of Utah Real Estate Administration which manages the Williams Building property and has offered matching funds toward the project.

IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE:

Construction Beings: 5/1/2018

Project Completion: 4/30/2020

COST ESTIMATE:

The estimated cost of the proposed project is outlined in the following table. It includes the construction and post-construction monitoring to be conducted by University of Utah faculty and students.

Item Costs Matching Funds Construction (Labor, Materials, Equipment) $280,000 Administration $31,000 Contingency $30,000 Total $341,000 $325,000 Project Cost $666,000

COST SHARING:

$25,000 was received from the DWQ’s nonpoint source program in the summer of 2017. The University of Utah Real Estate Administration is providing $300,000 as a match for the project.

STAFF SUPPORT & RECOMMENDATIONS:

DWQ staff recommend that the Board approve this project for SDSD for the requested amount of $341,000. There is a great need for education and local data demonstrating the feasibility of LID in Utah. This project provides a demonstration site that is visible and easily accessed by the public. Furthermore, the significant amount of background water quality data and the resources to continue monitoring the effectiveness of the bioretention swales will provide valuable data that can be provided to other sites considering the use of LID.

Woods Cross Settling Basin


This project is designed to remove pollutants and nutrients from the County Surplus channel near Legacy Parkway before it reaches the Jordan River and Farmington Bay. Flows in the canal are from the drainage of Woods Cross, West Bountiful, and Bountiful. It proposes to construct a 1,290 linear foot meandering channel settling basin with a traveling screen and wash down pump to collect floatable debris. The pump and screen will be solar powered. Additionally, a weir will be installed to measure flow and provide a water quality sampling location. The sediments that collect in the settling basin will be dredged out annually. The project is designed by J-U-B Engineers and plans and specifications are currently 30% complete. A storm water sample was collected on September 21, 2017 to determine pre-construction baseline water quality. Follow-up monitoring in the spring and fall after construction is proposed to determine the effectiveness of the basin. The site will have an educational sign posted in public view. A second phase to this project is also planned to extend the channel an additional 3,000 feet; however, this funding request is just for Phase 1. The project is part of the City’s effort to improve water quality and has been in the Woods Cross City Storm Water Master Plan for several years.


Letters of support for this project were provided from the Davis County Commission, Bountiful City, West Bountiful City, and the Davis County Health Department. Nature Conservancy is the current owner of the property and is both in favor of the project and willing to sell the property to Woods Cross. Bountiful City has expressed willingness to accept the floatable debris from the basin for placement in their landfill.


Construction Beings: May 2018

Project Completion: January 2019

COST ESTIMATE:

The estimated cost of the proposed project is outlined in the following table. It includes the Phase I construction, educational signage, and post-construction water quality sampling.

Item Costs Matching Funds Construction $ 262,031%0 Property Purchase $ 0% 0 $ 79,380% Contingency (25%) $ 85,352% 0 % Total $ 347,400 $ 79,380 Project Cost $ 426,780

COST SHARING:

Woods Cross would be contributing $79,380 to purchase the property for the settling basin.


DWQ staff recommend that the Board approve this project for SDSD for the requested amount of $347,400. While this project is not technically a demonstration of LID, it has a large amount of local support and expected water quality benefits. This was the only project submitted that would directly benefit South Davis Sewer District customers due to its location and it would be easy for SDSD to monitor the progress of the project during construction.

Sandy Public Works LID Components


A fire in the Sandy City Public Works facility in 2017 necessitated the reconstruction of the facility. With this construction, Sandy City proposed using LID methods to improve storm water quality. Storm water is a concern on this site due to the pollutants typically found at public works facilities and the proximity of the Jordan River a quarter mile away. The site layout was designed by JRCA Architects and Ensign Engineers. Michael Baker International was brought in to incorporate the LID best management practices to be used on site. Preliminary drawings have been completed and include the use of bioswales, bioretention areas, rain gardens, pervious concrete, underground detention storage, routing roof drains and hard surface areas to landscaped areas, and the use of structural treatment devices. Monitoring before and after these LID components is proposed for solids, nutrients, metals, and dissolved oxygen. The LID components are expected to be used as an example for future development and will be visible to the public, contractors, and developers that visit the site. Educational signage will also be placed around the site to further the promotion of LID and allow for self-guided tours.


The project is supported by staff, the administration, and the City. Many of the LID best management practices follow the Blueprint Jordan River recommendations that were developed by the Jordan River Commission for the river corridor.


Construction Beings: March 2018

Project Completion: 2019

COST ESTIMATE:

The estimated cost of the proposed project is outlined in the following table. It includes the design and construction of the LID components, educational signage, and post-construction water quality monitoring.

Item Costs Matching Funds Engineering $ 50,800% Monitoring $ 50,000% 0 Construction Oversight $ 35,000% 0 Construction $ 417,935% 0 Total $ 553,235 % Project Cost $ 553,235

COST SHARING:

In the original project proposal Sandy City did not offer a match for the construction of the storm drainage system. The City was paying for all other costs associated with the Public Works construction that were not directly related to the LID best management practices. A revised cost estimate with a match was provided when DWQ when they discussed the option of partial funding with Sandy. Revised costs are presented in the following section.


DWQ staff recommend that the Board approve this project for SDSD for approximately 56% of the requested amount for a total of $311,600. This is the amount of funds that remain of the $1,000,000 that had been proposed for storm water LID projects if the top two ranking projects are also funded. This project has the ability to showcase and test several different types of LID in a public location while helping protect pollutants that are typically at a public works facility from being discharged to the Jordan River. Upon being notified that only partial funding was being recommended to the Board, the applicant trimmed some of the LID construction and monitoring costs and proposed to fund the remaining balance (an additional $175,535 match) to keep all proposed LID components within the original design. The revised proposed costs are below.

Item Costs Matching Funds Engineering $ 44,700% Monitoring $ 10,000% 0 Construction Oversight $ 10,000% 0 Construction $ 246,900% 0 $ 175,535% Total $ 311,600 Project Cost $ 487,135

Cottonwood Heights Public Works Bioretention


Cottonwood Heights is constructing a Public Works Yard at a location with an existing detention pond and drainage system. They proposed to covert this into a bioretention cell which will

provided treatment of storm water through filtration of soil and Utelite layers and pollutant uptake through deep rooted vegetation. Monitoring wells would be installed to observe flows. Gilson Engineering provided design drawings for the project. Monitoring for the project did not include collecting water quality data and the expected impact to water quality was smaller due to the fact that a detention pond was already present. DWQ staff recommended that the applicant apply for Utah Water Quality Improvement Nonpoint Source grant funding to fund this low cost project.

Kaysville and Nature Conservancy Wetland Pretreatment


Kaysville City currently discharges their untreated storm water to a ditch which eventually ends up in the Great Salt Lake. They proposed the addition of a concrete settling structure to remove solids such as trash and sediment from the outfall and allow a portion of the water to be diverted to a proposed constructed wetland on property owned by Nature Conservancy. The constructed wetland cell could provide treatment for nutrients, sediments, and pollutants. Equinox Engineering provided the design drawings for the project. This project did not utilize LID and lacked an educational or outreach component.

Nature Conservancy Layton Freeport Wetland Pretreatment


Nature Conservancy proposed the construction of a pretreatment concrete settling basin leading to a constructed wetland. Storm water controls that were previously installed at this location had been destroyed by flooding and high flows. Nature Conservancy is worried that significant trash, sediment, and dissolved particulate matter from the introduction of this untreated storm water will affect the health along the Great Salt Lake Shorelines Preserve. The settling basin has been designed by Equinox Engineering and the wetland designs are in their beginning stages. This project did not utilize LID and lacked in local support as well as matching funds.

Clinton City Park Rain Gardens

Requested Funds:$245,127 Ranking (out of 8): 7 (tie)

In an effort to reduce the impact of pollutants in the storm drain system, Clinton proposed to purchase four acres of land upstream of an existing detention/retention basin and convert it to a park with an open channel that storm water could flow through. This channel would have adjacent rain gardens that would filter and infiltrate storm water when it flooded into them. The design plan was provided by J-U-B Engineers. Monitoring was proposed upstream and downstream of the park to determine effectiveness at pollutant removal. The cost vs benefit of this project appeared to be much higher and the application did not mention who owned the land or if there had been an agreement for sale.

Riverton Lucky Estates Swales and Drywells

Requested Funds:$363,551 Ranking (out of 8): 7 (tie)

A subdivision is currently being developed in Riverton that utilizes drywells for storm water infiltration. Riverton proposed trying three different types of swales that would increase storm water quality from these residential sites prior to entering the drywells. These swales would be constructed in Riverton’s right-of-way and maintained by the home owner. The three types of swales proposed utilized lawn, xeriscaping, or porous paving. By installing these options at different locations within the subdivision Riverton hoped to gain data on maintenance costs and water quality differences. Water quality would be measured by Utah State University’s Civil and Environmental Engineering Department and Utah Water Research Laboratory. DWQ staff liked the concept of trying three different LID variations and comparing them, however the project did not propose any educational or outreach components beyond the educating of the homeowners in the subdivision. The anticipated water quality benefit was low and there were concerns about the feasibility of the study and getting homeowners to cooperate. Lastly, Riverton did not provide a matching fund amount on their application.

OVERALL STAFF SUPPORT & RECOMMENDATIONS:

DWQ staff recommends that the Board approve the use of the funds reserved in the SDSD funding package for SRF eligible nonpoint source project funding for the following projects at the amount provided below:

1. Approve the University of Utah project to develop bioswales at the Williams Landscape Lab demonstration site for the requested amount of $341,000.

2. Approve the Woods Cross project to implement a meandering channel settling basin for the requested amount of $347,400.

3. Approve the Sandy City project to implement the LID components at the Public Works facility for 56% of the requested amount, a total of $311,600.

SDSD should not authorize funding these projects until:

1. They have closed the Water Quality Board loan that will support these projects; 2. Matching funds have been sufficiently committed for project implementation; 3. Project proponents commit and demonstrate the ability to provide sufficient funding and

resources for the operations, maintenance, replacement, and renewal of improvements for the life of the SDSD loan.

4. An approvable monitoring plan is submitted to the DWQ and a commitment is made that all monitoring data collected will be shared.

State of Utah


SPENCER J. COX

Lieutenant Governor


Alan Matheson

Executive Director

DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY Walter L. Baker, P.E.

Director


Shane E. Pace, Vice-Chair Clyde L. Bunker Steven K. Earley

Gregg A. Galecki Jennifer Grant

Michael D. Luers Alan Matheson

Dr. James VanDerslice Walter L. Baker

Executive Secretary

MEMORANDUM

TO: Utah Water Quality Board FROM: Erica Brown Gaddis, PhD Executive Secretary SUBJECT: 2017 Calvin K. Sudweeks Award DATE: March 9, 2018 I request that the Utah Water Quality Board appoint a three-member subcommittee from its membership to serve as the collection committee for the award of the 2016 Calvin K. Sudweeks Award. This award is presented annually to recognize outstanding leadership in the water quality field in Utah. Calvin K. Sudweeks served as Executive Secretary to this Board from 1970 to 1987. He began his employment with the state of Utah in 1952. He oversaw a period of significant improvements in Utah’s water quality and was instrumental in establishing many monitoring, assessment and water pollution abatement programs that continue today. Mr. Sudweeks was also a national leader serving as the president of Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators. So great was his contribution that since 1988 an award has been given annually by the Water Quality Board; the Calvin K. Sudweeks Award. Criteria

1. The recipient has shown leadership and achievement in the field of water pollution control and/or water quality improvement in the State of Utah. These achievements have been through their employment, through work with volunteer organizations, or as a private citizen. These achievements may have been exhibited at the local, state, or national level.

2. The recipient has shown qualities of professionalism, personal integrity, and dedication

to the goals and principles of improved water quality in the state of Utah.




Documents

State of Utah Matheson . Executive Director ... Kim Shelley, Brenda Johnson, Savannah Miller, ... Bittner, Jerry Rogers, Skyler Davies, Jim Harris, Emily Cantón, Ken Hoffman