REGION VIII
JORDAN RIVER BASIN
DECEMBER 4, 1972
-------
-jozDAti Rl \)£R
TABLE 0!; CONTENTS
SUBJECT SECTION
Narrative A
Basin Load Summary B
Planned Accomplishments C
Point Source Loads § Locations D
Ambient Water Quality Status E
Tactical Solution F
Point Source Reductions Required G
-------
Bate irom u.s. Gaoiogicai Sur«ay sioia Boundary of drainage basin
Data man, 1 859 . (Call 1:000.000
Transmountain diversion
Arrow shows direction of flow
Waterfowl-management area
Jordan River basin.
-------
SECTION A
NARRATIVE
-------
UTAH LAKE-JORDAN RIVER ACCOMPLISHMENT PLAN
Figure 9
1. Priority Area Identification
Utah Lake - Jordan River Accomplishment Plan for Water
Quality encompasses the headwaters to the Great Salt Lake in-
cluding all of Salt Lake and Utah Counties. The plan covers
940 stream miles and 150 square miles of surface water (Utah Lake).
II, Problem Assessment
The Basin includes the two largest cities in Utah,
Salt Lake City and Provo. (Total Basin population is 704,000).
In addition it involves one of the fastest growing urban areas
in Region VIII (2.5%/year). Major problems include:
a. The pressures from recreational/second home
developments threaten water quality in the
major culinary watersheds of Salt Lake County.
b. Water quality in the mainstem of the Jordan River
and all of Utah Lake does not meet the standards
established for the basin. There is a total of 200
stream miles and 150 square miles of
surface waters (Utah Lake) that are in vio-
lation of the "C" classification.
c. Present wastewater treatment efficiency does not
meet state effluent standards and they generally
violate instream standards. Provision will have
to be made in most plants to provide advanced
treatment to meet standards.
d. All industrial discharges have been identified and
conanitals for abatement are being pursued. The
commitment actions will immediately be changed to
permit actions under the new legislation as soon
as guidelines are available. The impact of in-
dustrial discharges are most severe in Utah Lake
where U.S. Steel at Geneva, the No. 1 discharger
in the basin, is located.
e. Regionalization in the basin has historically been
accomplished with some degree of success. However,
the opportunity exists where further consolidation
of facilities will result in several miles of stream
enhancement and economic gain to the Federal govern-
ment and to local entities.
f. Current data supports the need for both continued
operation and maintenance review and training for
wastewater treatment plant operators. As state
-------
resources become available, these programs should
be taken over almost entirely by the state.
go Non-Point Source Pollution Is a critical problem
throughout much of the basin. Utah Lake has a
Hiivure turbldLty problem attributed to agricultural
return flows to the Spanish Fork River. Non-point
sources are not considered in this plan because of
a lack of tools for correcting the problem and
because of a lack of data.
h. The basin is an intra-state entity and, hence, en-
forcement actions are constrained. Since Utah Lake
and the Jordan River are defined as navigable water-
ways, under the new Water Quality Act amendments,
the EPA will be involved in enforcement actions
through municipal permit actions. Legislation will
involve the agency in more detail and thereby pro-
vide EPA with additional tools for achieving the
objectives.
III. Agency Objectives
a. The water quality of the Utah Lake-Jordan River Basin is
to meet existing instream 'C' standards by June 30, 1976.
b. Immediate and visible reductions in water quality degrada
tion are to be achieved for major stream reaches by the
end of the second quarter of FY 75. This is the date
when all domestic discharges must meet a class "D"
effluent standard.
IV. Approach
The objectives outlined in Part III above are to be achieved
through the time-phased efforts of several different programs
within the Region. Coordination and updating of the program and
reporting of the program accomplishments will be through the Air
and Water Division, Planning Branch (PE 2B 3149).
Achievement of pollutant reductions or commitments from
municipal sources during this time period will require major input
from: the Air and Water Division in the areas of water quality
planning (2B 3149), construction grant assistance, review and
inspection (PE 2B8162), and assistance and review of treatment
plant operation and maintenance practices; the Surveillance and
Analysis Division in the areas of technical support and analysis
of treatment plant operation (PE 2B 2148) and water quality
surveillance and data storage (PE 2B 2149). Lesser but still
important and substantial inputs must come from: Air and Water
Division's Manpower Development and Training Branch (PE 2B 7160
and 7161), Program Grants Branch (2B 4153), and the Interagency
Assistance and Evaluation Branch, environmental impact assessment
-------
Page 3
and review (PE 2B 6117); the Public Affairs Division (i'E 5T 2215)
the Management Division, Grants Administration (PE 2B 8316*) and
the Enforcement Division, Water Quality Enforcement (PE 2B 1123;.
Industrial source pollution problems will be dealt with
primarily through the Enforcement Divisions Refuse Act Permit
Branch (PE 2B 2124) in cooperation with the Surveillance and Analysis
Division's Surveillance Branch (PE 2B 2149) and the Air and Water
Division's Planning Branch (PE 2B 3149).
Primary coordination contacts outside of EPA include the Utah
Bureau of Environmental Health, Utah, Salt Lake and Davis counties,
Utah State Planning Office, the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, the effected local sewer districts and governments,
and the 3(c) consultants for the basin plan.
The general objectives to be met as outlined above, consist of
a combination of short-term, interim, and long-term goals and
accomplishment dates. Early commitments and reductions will come
primarily from past efforts by planning, construction grants
operations and the environmental impact review groups.. Interim
and long-term solutions based upon operation and maintenance,
upgrading of treatment facilities and operator training will be
undertaken.
-------
SECTION B
BASIN LOAD SUMMARY
-------
PAGE 1 of 10 .I'ALOJUTY. M-'JJL M
-------
PAGE 2 of 10
7. Increases in pollution discharges expected: (based on an overall estimate of
10% annual grant).
Year of Actual Increase
FY 73
FY 74
FY 75
FY 76
lbs/day
lbs/day
1bs/day
lbs/day
BOD5
1934
3313
5157
7179
8. Total reductions to be obtained—sum
of 5 and 6 above:
Year of Actual Reduction
FY 73
FY 74
FY 75
FY_76
1bs/day
lbs/day
lbs/day
lbs/day
bod5
577
5817
3725
20, y5
3. Total reductions required—sum of 4 and 7 above:
Year of Actual Reduction
FY 73
FY 74
FY 75
FY 76
lbs/day
1bs/day
lbs/day
lbs/day
bod5
17,947
19,624
18,228
20,244
1
*10. Year in which minimum acceptable water quality levels are to be achieved—
compare 8 and 9 above: FY 1976
~Programs are underway to determine treatment design needs and adequacy of adopted
water nuality standards. If ..implementation, date to. meet. ' C' standards is not moved
ugi i._itanqarqs jfor _ce_rt_ai_n_ _sJtjre§jn reacnes_ wi TT_not_be_met_5y_Fy _76L
11. If figures for items 2 through 7 above are not available, please provide
estimate of when they will become available through monitoring and other
activities: The only parameter reportable at this time is BOD5. By 1 May 73,
additional parameters will be made available through the 3(c) basin planning
effort.
Are Items 3, 5, and 6 above derived from detailed discharger inventories7
Yes
12. Key pollutants, if any, for which a weight or other quantity measure is
not- appropriate:
(Note special problems and comments)
Figure 10 - Continued
-------
KMbb j or iu
PRIORITY BASIN WORK SHEET Date 9/12
STQku Minor basin-
ID No. "1507
Name of Basin GREAT SALT LAKE MINOR BASIN Region Vifll
State(s) Utah
1. Area covered: utah Lake-Jordan River (Jordan River from Utah Lake to the
Surplus Canal).
2. Water quality objectives:
(a) (b) EPA Objective: (c)
Current Minimum Acceptable Actual Level at Accuracy
criteria Ambient Level Worst Time of Yr. (% +)
Parameter (see WQS) (See Table 4) (See Table 2) ("ReQicmal est.)
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 + %
B0D5 5 5 40 10
Total Col i. 5,000/100 ml. 5,000/100 ml. 750,000/100 ml. 10
3. Estimated pollution load—all sources (average FY 72):
Load Accuracy (% ±)
(See Table 4)
pounds/day + %
B0D5 8461 TO
Total Coli. N/A N/A
4. Estimated pollution load reduction required to meet EPA water quality
objectives derived from 2(c) - 2(b):
Required Reduction Accuracy (% +)
( t of Table 4)
pounds/day + %
B0D5 7260 10
5. Reduction firmly committed by FY 72 and prior year actions:
Year of Actual Reduction
FY 73 .
FY 74
FY 75
FY 76 '
lbs/day
lbs/day
1bs/day
lbs/day
bod5
•
228
1464
1623
1-79.8
6. Additional reductions to be obtained by FY 73 and FY 74 commitments:
Year of Actual Reduction
FY 73
FY 74
FY 75
FY 76
(See Table 4)
lbs/day
1bs/day
lbs/day
lbs/day
0
0
400
9747
-------
_PA_GE _4 _qf J_0_
7 Increases in pollution discharges expected:
Year of Actual Increase
FY 73
FY 74
FY 75
FY 76
lbs/day
lbs/day
1bs/day
lbs/day
845
1771
2791
3914
S, Total reductions to be obtained—sum of 5 and 6 above:
bod5
Year of Actual Reducti
on
FY 73
FY 74
FY 75
FY 76
1bs/day
lbs/day
lbs/day
lbs/day
228
1464
2023
11 ,245
Total reductions required—sum of 4 and 7 abover
Year of Actual Reduction
FY 73
FY 74
FY 75
FY 76
1bs/day
1bs/day
lbs/day
lbs/day
bod5
8173
9099
10,121
11,245
10. Year in which minimum acceptable water quality levels are to be achieved--
compare 8 and 9 above:
FY 76
If figures for items 2 through 7 above are not available, please provide
estimate of when they will become available through monitoring and other
activities: n//\
Are Items 3, 5, and 6 above derived from detailed discharger inventories?
Yes_
12. Key pollutants, if any, for whicji a weight or.other quantity measure is
not appropriate: '
(Note special problems and comments)
Figure 10 - Continued
-------
PflRF 5 of 10
PRIORITY BASIN WORK SHEET Date September 1972
STORET Minor Basin
ID No. 1507
Name of Basin GREAT SALT LAKE MINOR BASIN Region VIII
State(s) Utah
1. Area covered: Utah Lake-Jordan River (Utah Lake)
Water quality objectives:
(a)
Current
criteria
WQSl
Parameter
BOD5
Total
(see
mg/1
Coli. 5,000/100 ml
(b) EPA Objective:
Minimum Acceptable
Ambient Level
(See
Table
mg/1
"47
(c)
Actua"! Level at Accuracy
Worst Time of Yr. (% +)
(See Table 2) ("Regional est.)
mg/1 +_ %
5 Approx. 10-15
5,000/100 ml. No Data
25
3. Estimated pollution load—all sources (average FY 72):
Load Accuracy (% ±)
(See Table 4)
pounds/day + %
BOD5 5958 10
Total Coli. N/A N/A
4. Estimated pollution load reduction required to meet EPA water quality
objectives derived from 2(c) - 2(b):
Required Reduction Accuracy {% +)
( * of Table 4)
pounds/day + %
BODc 4648 10
5. Reduction firmly committed by FY 72 and prior year actions:
Year of Actual Reduction
FY 73
FY 74
FY 75
FY 76
^bs/day
lbs/day
lbs/day
1-bs/day
BOD5
0
728
813
907
6. Additional reductions to be obtained by FY 73 and FY 74 commitments:
Year of Actual Reduction
FY 73
FY 74
FY 75
FY 76
(See Table 4)
lbs/day
lbs /day
lbs/day
lbs/day
BOD5
0
0
292
5719
-------
PAGE 6 of 10
7. Increases in pollution discharge expected:
Year of Actual Increase
FY 73
FY 74
FY 75
FY 76
lbs/day
lbs/day
1bs/day
lbs/day
bod5
598
1134
1724
2364
8, Total reductions to be obtained—sum of 5 and 6 above:
Year of Actual Reduction
FY 73
FY 74
FY_75
FY .76
lbs/day
lbs/day
lbs/day
1bs/day
0
728
1105
6626
9, Total reductions required—sum of 4 and 7 above.
Year of Actual Reduction
FY 73
FY 74
FY 75
FY 76
lbs/day
lbs/day
lbs/day
lbs/day
4860
5396
5996
6626
t
!0. Year in which minimum acceptable water quality levels are to be achieved--
compare 8 and 9 above: FY 76
11. If figures for items 2 through 7 above are not available, please provide
estimate of when they will become available through monitoring and other
activities: N/A
Are Items 3, 5, and 6 above derived from detailed discharger inventories?
Yes
12.. Key pollutants, if any, for whict) a weight or other quantity measure is
not appropriate:
(Note special problems and comments)
Figure 10 - Continued
-------
EAGEJLqU fl.
PRIORITY BASIN WORK SHEET Date September 1972
STORET Minor Basin
ID No. 1507
Name of Basin GREAT SALT LAKE MINOR BASIN Region VIII
State(s) Utah
1. Area covered: Utah Lake-Jordan River (Provo River Basin)
2. Water quality objectives:
(a)
Current
cri teria
Parameter
B0D5
Total Coli
(see WQS)
mg/1
5
5,000/100 ml
(b) EPA Objective:
Minimum Acceptable
Ambient Level
(See Table 4)
mg/1
5
5,000/100 ml.
(c)
Acti'%1 Level at Accuracy
Worst Time of Yr. (% +)
(See Table 2) ("Regional est.)
mg/1 + %
65 10
930,000/100 ml. 10
3. Estimated pollution 1oad--al1 sources (average FY 72)
Load Accuracy (X ±)
+ %
BODc
(See Table 4)
pounds/day
590
10
4. Estimated pollution load reduction required to meet EPA water quality
objectives derived from 2(c) - 2(b):
BODc
Required Reduction
( t of Table 4)
pounds/day
387
Accuracy (% +)
+ %
10
5. Reduction firmly committed by FY 72 and prior year actions
Year of Actual Reduction
BODc
FY 73
FY 74
FY 75
FY 76
lbs/day
lbs/day
lbs/day
lbs/day
0
97
108
121
Additional reductions to be obtained by FY 73 and FY 74 commitments:
Year of Actual Reduction
FY 73
FY 74
FY 75
FY 76
(See Table 4)
lbs/day
lbs/day
lbs/day
lbs/day
bod5
0
0
5
493
-------
-PAfiE.il .v/JP.
7. Iricrfar.os in |)D 11 lit 1 r»n rl1r,r fwirrjc, cy.\>ft i.prj:
Year of Ac.lu.'il Jncrfrast?
TXJl
'IV 74
" UJi'
"IY W
lbs/day
lbs/day
1bs/day
lbs/day
bod5
49
103
162
111
8.
Total reductions to be obtained—sum of 5 and 6 above:
Year of Actual Reduction
FY 73
FY 74
F_Y _75
FY75
1bs/day
lbs/day
lbs/day
lbs/day
BOD5
0
97
113
614
S. Total reductions required-
-sum of 4 and 7 above:"
Year of Actual Reduction
FY 73
FY 74
FY 75
FY 76
lbs/day
1bs/day
lbs/day
lbs/day
bod5
436
490
549
w-
614
i
10. Year in which minimum acceptable water quality levels are to be achieved-
compare 8 and 9 above: FY 76
11. If figures for items 2 through 7 above are not available, please provide
estimate of when they will become available through monitoring and other
activities: FY 76
Are Items 3, 5, and 6 above derived from detailed discharger inventories?
Yes
12. Key pollutants, if any, for which a weight or other quantity measure is
not- appropriate-:
(Note special problems and conments)
Figure 10 - Continued
-------
PML.±JiL.m
PRIORITY BASIN WORK SHEET Date.
S'lORhT Minor uasm
ID No. 1507
Name of Basin GREAT SALT LAKE MINOR BASIN Region VIII
State(s) Utah
1. Area covered: Utah Lake-Jordan River (Jordan River from 2100 South to mouth
including Surplus Canal and State Industrial Canal).
2. Water quality objectives:
(a) (b) EPA Objective: (c)
Current Minimum Acceptable Actual Level at Accuracy
criteria Ambient Level Worst Time of Yr. (% +)
Parameter (see WQS) (See Table 4) (See Table 2) (Regional est.)
mg/1 mg/1 mg/1 + %
BOD5
Total Coli.
5
5,000/100 ml.
5 25
5,000/100 ml. 2,400,000/100 ml
10
10
Estimated pollution load—all sources (average FY 72):
Load Accuracy [% ±)
(See Table 4)
pounds/day + %
B0D5 4,460 10
Total Coli. N/A N/A
4. Estimated pollution load reduction required to meet EPA water quality
objectives derived from 2(c) - 2(b):
Required Reduction Accuracy [% +)
(t of Table 4)
pounds/day + %
BODe, 4,036 10
5c .Reduction firmly committed by FY 72 and prior year actions:
Year of Actual Reduction
FY 73
FY 74
FY 75
FY 76
lbs/day
lbs/day
lbs/day
lbs/day
BOD5
349
276
276
276
6, Additional reductions to be obtained by FY 73 and FY 74 commitments:
Year of Actual Reduction
FY 73
•FY 74 •
FY 75'.
FY 76
(See.Table 4J
lbs/day
lbs/day
lbs/day
lbs/day
0
3252
208
1434
-------
PAGE_i_o__of _i_o_
7. Increases in pollution discharges expected:
Year of Actual Increase
FY 73
FY 74
FY 75
FY 76
lbs/day
lbs/day
lbs/day
lbs/day
bod5
442
305
480
674
8. Total reductions to be obtained—sum of 5 and 6 above:
Year of Actual Reduction
FY 73
FY 74
FY 75
FY 76
lbs/day
lbs/day
lbs/day
lbs/day
bod5
349
3528
484
1710
9. Total reductions required--sum of 4 and 7 above*.
Year of Actual Reduction
FY 73
FY 74
FY 75
FY 76
lbs/day
lbs/day
lbs/day
lbs/day
bod5
4478
4639
1562
1755
10. Year in which minimum acceptable water quality levels are to be achieved—
compare 8 and 9 above: py 76
11. If figures for items 2 through 7 above are not available, please provide
estimate of when they will become available through monitoring and other
activities: N/A
Are Items 3, 5, and 6 above derived from detailed discharger inventories?
YES
12, Key pollutants, if any, for which a weight or other quantity measure is ,
not appropriate:
(Note special problems and comments)
Figure 10 - Continued
-------
SECTION C
PLANNED ACCOMPLISHMENTS
-------
PLANNED ACCOMPLv -.nENTS SCEED0LE
JiiUlW jU J .u ¦! *n mw J¦ -iiic-i
lo Type of Plan
a tx I Sub-Element
bJ JPart. Sub-Elem,
l|g ill 11
2. Program Sub—Elemeat Title Water Quality Planning
5. Geographical Area Title
3. Sub-Element No.
?fvmq-03
6. Geo. Area Code
4.Sheet No.
1 of 1
7.Priority
8.Code
9. No.
lOSchedDate
of Como.
11 - PLANNED ACCOMPLISHMENTS
:;-N
1
1 JUL 74
Monitor development of 3(c) basin plan. (5.5. 6.0)
2
1 DEC 73
Monitor and review 3(c) interim plan. Support recommendations. (1.0. 1.0)
3
1 DEC 74
Support reconrnendations of 3(c) fullv develoDed basin nlan. (0. ?.55)
4
1 JUL 73
Coordinate (with 3(c)) investigation nn nnn-pnint- snurrp pn"|i<|t-jnn (-2, .2)
5
30 APR 73
Monitor development of water quality math model. (1.0, 0)
5A
1 DEC 73
Utilize Math Model to Analyze Water Quality Impact. (.5, 1.0)
\\ Xs
6
30 JUN 76
Stimulate participation in pub. mtg. regarding total basin & basin mgmt. (1.0, 1.0) j
7
30 JUN 76
Planning review of projects. (2.60, 3.0) I
8
1 JUL 73
Influence State to meet 'C' standards by June 30, 1976. (.3, .3)
x\\
9
30 JUN 76
Coordinate EPA basin management with Salt Lake County's "Jordan River Cordinator" (.4, .4]
10
1 JUL 74
Initiate/coordinate and review study of water aualitv imnart nf Oni-r^i m-*h Pmjort
11
1 JUL 74
11 ~TJ * • b) j
Augment 3(c) effort and eutrophication study on W0 and biota in Utah 1 akP (.3. .3)
12
1 DEC 73
Initiate effluent monitoring and/or intensive water aualitv snrvpy nf 11 |
\V\S
at Geneva. (.Ub, .UbJ
\\\\
13
1 JUL 73
Monitor progress of Midvale WWTP construction grant as it applies to Utah State Prison.
WW
(. 05, u)
j 12. FY 1973
13. FY 1974
14. Prepared by & Date
15. Reviewed bv & Date
16.Approved forRPIO
^-1.15 (1 3.J90)
i.l .50 (18.C)b.
-
Planned Accomplishments
-------
?L&WEtfSfi ACCUKrlX JMENTS SCHEDULE
lo Type of Plan
a fx.1 Sub-Element
b .£13 Part. Sub-Elem.
eX IHpo. Area
j Water Pollution
2. Program Sub-Element Title Source Surveillance
3" No" -
4.Shci:£ N@0
1 cf 1 _
| j. Geographical Area Title
6. Geo. Area Code
7.Priority
§8. Code
9. No
10£chedDatel
of Como. 111. PLANNED ACCOMPLISHMENTS
KSS
1
1 JUL 73 j Coordinate (with 3(c)) investigation on non-point source pollution. (.1, -1)
K\V
2
1 DEC 74
Complement 0 & M Surveys with water quality studies (-25, .25)
tss>
3
1 DEC 73
Review 3(c) sampling program (.2, .25)
4
1 DEC 73
Review existing data and 3(c) objectives and initiate surveys as requested on
jvvs\
Deer Creek Reservoir and agricultural return flows. (.2, .5)
5
1 JUL 74
Augment 3(c) effort regarding eutrophication of Utah Lake. (.1, .5)
&S. \ \ V
6
1 JAN 74
•
Initiate intensive WQ Survey at U.S. Steel at Geneva. (.3, .5)
\\y
7
1 JUL 74
Coordinate respiration studies of bottom deposits and biota in Jordan River.(-05, .3)
8
30 JUN 76
Investigate impact of proposed Jordan River reservoirs. (Open) 1
j
\\\
A\\
WW
12. FY 1973
13. FY 1974
14. Prepared by & Date 15. Reviewed by & Date
16.Approved rorSPIO
[*..10 (1.20
p.
a. .20(2.4) b.
Planned Accomplishments
-------
PLANNED ACCOMPL. JtMENTS SCHEDULE
-------
PLANNED AC COMPLY ..rfENTS SCHEDULE
1. Type of Plan
a rx I Sub-Element
bJ JPart. Sub-Elem.
c.l JCeo., Area
2. Program Sub-Element Title Operation & Maintenance
5. Geographical Area Title
3.
MtBw* No-
6. Geo. Area Code
4.Sheet No. |
1 nf 7
7.Priority
8. Code
9. No.
10£chedDate
of Comp.
11. PLANNED ACCOMPLISHMENTS
1
1 DEC 74
Conduct 0 & M Surveys on 15 WWTP's (4.0, 4.5) |
k\\
2
1 DEC 74
1. Heber City j
3
1 DEC 74
2. Mi dway j
4
1 OCT 73
3. Provo
5
1 OCT 73
4. American Fork j
6
1 JUL 74
5. Sprinqville
7
1 JUL 74
6. Salem
8
1 .1111 74
7. Spanish Fork
9
1 npr 7?
R Drpm
10
1 JUL 74
9. Lehi I
11
1 JUL 74
10. Payson
1?
1 JUL 74
11. Pleasant Grove
n
1 ,HM T\
1? Mnrrav - —1
14
1 JAN 73
13. South Davis County SID, South Plant I
\W\
15
1 JAN 73
14. South Salt Lake
K\\\
16
1 JAN 73
15. South Davis Countv SID. North Plant
1 12. FY 1973
13. FY 1974
14. Prepared by & Date
15. Reviewed bv & Date
16.Approved fori?10
b.
a-.38(4.55) b.
Planned Accomplishments
-------
PLANNED ACCOMPLI .iMENTS SCHEDULE
I X. Type of
§ a Sub-
Plan
-Element
2. Program Sub-Element Title Operation & Maintenance
3. Sub-Element No.
?R8163-08
4.Sheet No. G
2 of 2
1 JPart. Sub-Elem.
¦ r_.l inpo. Arp/i
5. Geographical Area Title
6. Geo. Area Code
7.Priority J
8.Code
9. No
10£chedDate
of Como.
11 - PLANNED ACCOMPLISHMENTS
17
1 JUL 73
Insure implementation of recommendations of 0 & M Survpy |
18
1. Granqer-Hunter (.05, 0) J
JR\\
-.19
?. Salt 1akp fnuntv fnttnnwnnH (.05. 0)
?(]
21
4. TRI-Community (Midvale) (.10, 0)
|N\\
??
R (.10. 0}
23
1 JUL 73
Provide follow up assistance to Sand/ (-10, 0)
Vs\
24
30 JUN 76
Influence State to promote improved 0 14 M StnHiP<; (.05, .05)
\\S
\\\
A\\
12. FY 1973
13. FY 1974
14. Prepared by & Date
15. Reviewed by & Date
16.Approved forXPIC
b.
a. b.
Planned Accomplishments
-------
PLANNED ACCOMPL. . -cNTS SCHEDULE
-------
PLANNED ACCOMPL. .inENTS SCHEDULE
-------
PLANNED ACCOMPLI xENTS SCHEDULE
-------
PLAHNED ACCOMPL ZNTS SCHEDULE
1. Type of Plan
a -i x 1 Sub-Element
b.f J Part. Sub-Elem.
rJ lOn. Arc»
2. Program Sub-Element TitleManpower PI anning/Water
3- 80 - .
41hSftiK0-
5. Geographical Area Title
6. Geo. Area Code
7.Priority
3.Code
9. No.
lOSchedDate
of Coaio.
11- PLANNED ACCOMPLISHMENTS
1
1 JUL 73
Influence state to obtain mandatory waste treatment operator certification. (.22, 0)
k\\x
2
30 JUN 76
In-house manpower planning-employment and training projections. (.50, 0)
^SNN
xss
vX
\\\
\\v
\\V
Ws
\\\
\\\;
WW
12. FY 1973
13. FY 1974
14. Prepared by & Date
15. Reviewed bv & Date
16.ADDroved forRPIO
i..06(°«72)
¦ rw -liiwfya.
b/
a. 3 b.
1
Planned Accomplishments
-------
PLANNED ACCOMPL. .IMENTS SCHEDULE
-------
PLANNED ACCOMPL. JMENTS SCHEDULE
-------
PLANNED ACCOMPIA .wiENTS SCHEDULE
1. Type of Plan
a ' * ' Sub-Element
hJ JPart. Sub-Elem.
Art»a
2. Program Sub-Element Title Refuse Act Permits
5. Geographical Area Title
3. Sub-Element No.
3B2124-08
6. Geo. Area Code
4.Sheet No.
1 nf ?.
7.Priority
lQSchedDate
of Comp.
PLANNED ACCOMPLISHMENTS
1 JUL 74 Secure and review commitments*!n RAPP applications. (27.0, 32.0)
1 JUL 73 Request from industries and/or state water quality monitoring programs for all
industrial dischargers not presently being monitored. (15.0, 19.0)
1 DEC 73 Coordinate with RAPP state engineer to secure coironitment*from Clearview Trout Farm,
UT 205
15 SEP 73 Establish effluent temperature limit for Utah Power and Light, UT 079
Secure coronitment*from U.S. Steel at Geneva for effluent limits.
15 NOV 73 Secure commitment*for temperature limit from Reilly Tar and Chemical% UT186
" ¦ ¦ ¦¦¦¦ i ¦ ^ ¦ I i. -, , ¦¦¦ -¦ i — ¦ .!¦¦¦ i i . — ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ - ¦ * »
15 NOV 5 Secure commitment, if needed, on effluent limit for Pacific States Cast Iron Pipe.
Request monitoring program to determine effluent characteristics for Pacific States
Cast Iron Pipe, UT 274
Encourage monitoring program for Utah Division of Wildlife. UT 190
Insure monitoring program is initiated.
Monitor progress of abatement schedule for Key Industries. UT 227
Insure monitoring program for Key Industries is initiated.
Work with State of Utah and Utah Wool Pulling Company to devise interim abatement
measures.
FY 1974
a-4,25(51 .cj)b-
14. Prepared by & Date
15. Reviewed by & Date
16.Approved forRPIO
Planned Accomplishments
-------
PLANNED ACCOMPL^ _.£NTS SCHEDULE
1. Type of Plan
a ' ISub-Element
b.( J Part. Sub-Elem.
p-1 IGeo- Arpfl
2. Program Sub-Element Title Refuse Act Permits
5. Geographical Area Title
3. Sub-Element No.
3B2124-^08
6. Geo. Area Code
4. She^.t
7.Priority
8.Code 9.No
IQSchedDate
of Como.
PLANNED ACCOMPLISHMENTS
1 JAN 74
Secure commitment from Phillips Petroleum for best practicable or maintenance of
stream standards.
1 JAN 74
Secure and review commitment*from Utah Power and Light, UT 082 to limit thermal
discharge to 95° k
16 1 JAN 74
Secure and review commitment*for Utah Power and Light, UT 081 to limit thermal
discharge to ys° h. 1
17 1 DEC 73
Obtain water quality data on Denver and Rio Grande RR, UT 180
*Th£5& l&rcsry Of C!CMmlrTlient Will bs to permit actions immediately under the
new legislation as soon as guidelines are available.
FY 1973
13. FY 1974
a.
b.
14. Prepared by & Date
15. Reviewed by & Date
16.Approved forRPIO
Planned Accomplishments
-------
PLANNED ACCOMPLV JMENTS SCHEDULE
1. Type of Plan
a v I Sub-Element
b.f J Part. Sub-Elem
r.l Ififn. Area
2. Program Sub-Element Title
Construction Grants
Operations
5. Geographical Area Title
3. Subr:
ent No.
6. Geo. Area Code
f
O.
7.Priority
8. Code
;x
SS
9. No
10£chedDate
of Comp.
JUa.
PLANNED ACCOMPLISHMENTS
30 JUN 76
Review and process 20 construction grant applications. (5.60, 5.80)..
Conduct pre-application and pre-construction conferences on 8 projects,
1 NOV 73
1. Provo
(.05, .05)
1 NOV 73
2. American Fork (.05, .05)
1 JUL 73
3. Spanish Fork (.05, 0)
1 DEC 73
4. Lehi
(.05, 0)
1 NOV 73
5. Granger-Hunter (.05, .05)
1 NOV 73
6. Salt Lake County Cottonwood (.05, .05)
1 JUL 73
7. Sandy
(.05, 0)
1 SEP 73
8. Heber City
10
1 JUL 73
Insure compliance with 'D' standards through final inspprtinn nn Murray HHTP. ( nt>. n)
S 12. FY 1973
13. FY 1974
14. Prepared by & Date
15. Reviewed bv & Date
16.ADproved
[*•.50(6.0) b
1
a- .50(6.0) b-
Planned Accomplishments
-------
PLANNED ACCOMPLI:. CENTS' SCHEDULE
—1— ¦. T-ta r.'ji '.¦lhji. i- ¦ .1 .V-. ."J04"ar i. *i j— iw.1^
Planned AtfrnnnHeKmnnH
-------
PLANNED ACCOMPL. .1MENTS SCHEDULE
-------
PLANNED ACCOMPL. .iMENTS SCHEDULE
-------
PLANNED ACCOMPLIS 4TS SCHEDULE1
1. Type of Plan
a.m Sub-Element
b.D Part. Sub-Elem.
Geo. Area
9. No
10.Sched.Date
of Comp.
1 JAN 75
Regional
Program Sub-Element Title Management
5. Geographical Area Title
3. Sub-Element No.
5T1214-08
6. Geo. Area Code
4. Sheet No.
1 Of 1
7. Priority
11.
PLANNED ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Hake Press releases on basin problem and clean up progress as appropriate, (.o, .5)
1 JAN 74
Prepare public information materials regarding Jordan River Basin. (.22, .22)
FY 1973
b.
13.
FY 1974
a. . 06(.72)
b.
14. Prepared by & Date
15. Reviewed by & Date
16. Approved for RPIO
Planned Accomplishments
-------
PRIORITY BASIM ACCOMPLISHMENTS: SEMI-AI.'JJUAL PHEPARAT
eeco mi
First HALF. 19 Z1
=: P8FPAflFDBY: Max H. Dodson
MILESTONES REPORT
Water Resources Planner
DATE CHRMiTTPn- Septer
BASIM: JORDAN
1972
TEL 837-4963
SE
fiC
(Name)
[Title]
APPROVED BY:,
(Name]
(Title)
(Initials)
MILESTONES
DATE MILESTONE
ATTAINED or TO BE
ATTAINED
LIST A(iY MISSING OR INADEQUATE PREPARATIONS AI!D INDICATE
FCB EACH PERIOD IN CURRENT STATUS. DISCUSS THOSE NEEDING
HEADQUARTERS ATTENTION, INCLUDING REASONS, CORRECTIVE
MEASURES, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE PROGRESS. USE
SUPPLEMENTARY SHEETS AS NECESSARY.
critical ivq data c:tai::ed
To be attained
1 July 73
3(c) consultant to obtain dissolved oxygen data, TSS,
TDS and nutrient data.
CRITICAL EFFLUENT DATA OGTAIKED
1 October 72
NECESSARY t'ODELI.'IS COMPLETED
To be attained
April 1973
Modeling program in contractual state. Table com-
pleted April 1973.
1CCFR/FULLY DEVELOPED PLA.\'S FOS A£EA
Arn.GvzD a::o r;o r^visic::s needed
To be attained
1 April 1973
Contractual completion date is 1 December 73. Revisions
will be made and plan approved by 1 April 1973
STATE PriiCrilT 1ES FOE 1 £ 5 YEAR f.EEOS
cor.'For.;.:ED with Accc:.:rLis;::::HT plan
. To be attained
1 July 73
State will be encouraged to establish implementation.
EFFLIUT GUIDELINES FOR CRITICAL SOURCES
AIV.JL'.SLE
1 October 1972
Available through RAPP applications and commitment
letters and state standards.
Y^Q caiTEKSA COVERING ALL CRITICAL Pf.EAUETEBS
III AHEA /.rmCVED Ai!D K3 REVISIONS DEEDED
1 October 72
"C1 Water Quality Standards involve BOD5, DO,pH,
Temperature and Toxics.
use D:Si::iatio!;s /,::d ibiseekabatioh
statements for ahea y/mess
approved a:id r:o revisions ::eeded
No
There is a degradation policy for the State but the
implementation of the 'C1 standards'.is considered adequal
IKPLEf.!EKTATI3!t SCHEDULES COVERKS THE AREA'S
DISCHARGERS APPROVED AMD CONFORMED WITH
ACCOMPLISHMENT PLAN
No
'C' standards.must be met by discharger/by
December 31, 1978.
P.-l— J—
-------
SECTION D
POINT SOURCE LOADS AND LOCATIONS
-------
BASIN PRIORITIES
Priority Number Priority Value Discharger
1 10 U.S. Steel of Geneva, UT 181
10 Utah Wool Pulling, UT 159
10 Granger-Hunter WWTP
10 Salt Lake County
Cottonwood WWTP
2 9.5 Phillips Petroleum, UT 211
3 8.0 Provo WWTP
4 6.0 American Fork WWTP
5 5.0 Utah Power & Light, UT 079
5.0 Utah Power & Light, UT 082
6 3.5 Murray WWTP
3.5 Reilly Tar & Chem., UT 186
7 3.0 Salt Lake Sub. #1 WWTP
3.0 Pacific States Cast
Iron Pipe, UT 274
8 2.0 Springville WWTP
2.0 Salem WWTP
9 1.5 TRI-Community WWTP
1.5 S. Davis County, North WWTP
1.5 S. Salt Lake WWTP
1.5 S. Davis Co., South WWTP
1.5 Spanish Fork WWTP
1.5 Heber City WWTP
1.5 Orem WWTP
1.5 Lehi WWTP
1.5 Payson WWTP
10 1.0 Sandy WWTP
1.0 Pleasant Grove WWTP
11 0.5 Utah Div. of Wildlife
(Scott Ave. Fish Hatchery),UT 196
0.5 Utah Power & Light, UT 081
0.5 Clearview Trout Farm, UT 205
0.5 Denver & Rio Grande RR, UT 180
-------
-2-
Priorit.y Number Priority Value Discharger
12 0.0 Key Industries, UT 227
0.0 Midway WWTP
0.0 Springdell WWTP
0.0 Utah State Prison WWTP
-------
PRIORITY SYSTEM
% of Total Basin
Priority Value Discharge BOD (lbs)
0 <50
0.5 "=1% or suspect ^50
1 1% =*200
3 5% ^1000
5 10% >2000
Priority Value Total Coli. Grease & Oil (lbs) Toxic Metals (
.5 ="20,000 or susp. Suspect
1 =*75,000 ^24 Suspect
3 =-250,000 ^50 >250
5 *-1 ,000,000 "100 -3-500
Priority Value Ave. Temperature (° above 80°F)
.5 >1
1 > 5
3 >10
5 >30
-------
JORDAN RIVER FROM 2100 SOUTH TO THE GREAT SALT LAKE
RM Ri ver Mi le
-------
I
NORTH
JORDAN RIVER (UTAH LAKE TO THE SURPLUS CANAL)
RM 18.21
(TJ
¦O
s-
o
-D
RM 20.55
ter
WWTP RM 20.84
Scott Avenue
State Hatchery
UT 190 n RM 3.3, 20.25
Mill Creek
1
<
r\i
o\
SLC Suburban #1 WWTP
RM .65,
,53
1 RM
I 20.
VVit
tro Waste Ditch
<
Granger-Hunter
2E
C£
Q.
£
3 O
xi ^r
o CVJ
o
2 «
C r—
O C\J
+-> .
+J
c-j 2
fC
o
•
o
cvj
oB
m.
(A "O
~a ro
C Q)
Csj
hh x:
CM
-M
aj o
f—
^ to
Z3
Big Cottonwood Creek
iRM 24.61
Murray WWTP RM 24.61
<
i RM 28.04
Midvale WWTP RM 28.03
28.03
Z]Sandy WWTP RM 31.49
m 36.80
Corner Canvon
<
Creek
RM 40.47
Utah State Prison
WWTP RM .68, 39.9
-------
UTAH LAKE
RM 54.55
Payson WWTP r ^
RM 5.8 ^
RM 6.78
Salem WWTP
—" RM 6.88
-------
PROVO RIVER
-------
EA3LS I - MAJOR POLLUTION' i;OU?.CES & ZFFLUECT 'LOADS PAGE 1 of 4
UTAH LAKE-JORDAN RIVER BASl'N--nOMFTPr •
Index:
River Mi le
Na,ie of Discharger
(recei vi nq waters ) - ____________ .
izjcio:;
MOD
FK
MAX
G'k-
Avera ae
TD3
TD5
:n!,=r
¦ 0 •
• GP.G-N'
Mg/1-
iPTAL
. t04
Lb/Day
(F1XAL)
(TOTAL)
ikci.
100 mg./
CP.EASE
h
oil
TCaIC
I'SZA IS
r/TiSS
'."oxiilo
F
/
£0'j?.:es i
b "
-------
IA3IS I - iifijoS POLLUTION f.'OUSCES & EFJIUSSI LOADS
UTAH LAKE-JORDAN RIVER 3ASU)--DOMESTIC • _
PAGE 2 of A
-------
TA3L2 I - MJOH POllUTIOU SOURCES &'EFFLUSOT LOADS
UTAH LAKE-JORDAN RIVER BASl'N—nOKPSTIC
PAGE 3 of 4
-''.uCior^L-
xz'czc;;
rcssmiz
nc\:
M CD
?K
MAX
u'?J
Averaae
BODrf
~
?D3
1
3G5
;r;!-rr.
O.-.G-IJ
Mg/1
TOTAL-
Lb/Day
(FECAL)
(TOTAL)
'£ACT.
100 tng./
CREASE
OIL
TOXIC
i-srALs
OT-'sa
';o.v.i^£
/
soirczs &
a ire ax:. —'
/
/
RM 20.84
Granger-Hunter WWTP
(Jordan River)
Yes
5.0
7.6
62
53
2090
No Data
No Data
No Data
34.8
1450
No Data^
/l ,948,2
0
50
0
0
"/
RM .21
Salt Lake Co. WWTP
(Big Cottonwood Creek)
Yes
4.1
7.3
58
53
49 mg/1¦
2015
No Data
No Data
No Data
40.5
/ 1383
No Data/
A ac
0
7
0
0
7
RM 24.65
Murray WWTP
(Jordan River)
Yes
2.7
7.4
60
55
1056
No Data
No Da_t'a
No Data
23^//
KoJJaXa'
0
0
0
3 .y
/6
RM 20.3
Salt Lake City WWTP Sub.;
(Jordan River)
1 Yes
11.0
7.7
60
52
1849
No Data
No Data
No Data
17.5
1607
No Data/
/i0 ,400
0
0
a
J
RM 23.03
Tri-Community WWTP
Midvaie-Jordan River)
Ves
3.8
7.6
60
51
891
No -Data
% Data
No Data
13.8
436
No Date''
/13,IOC
0
0
0
7
RK 31.49
Sandy WWTP
(Jordan River)
Yes
1.63
7.4
62
51
530
No Da ta j
No Data
No [£ta
35.0 mpy
y' 475
No Da£a/
/fe.712
0
0
0
T
J
1
i <
i
i
-------
IA3L2 I - WVJ OP. POLLUTION' ;;0'J?.CES i ZFFVJ2'TS LOADS
PAGE 4 of 4
UTAH LAKE-JORDAN RIVER BAS;'N--OOHESTir.
.•'.soiorCAL-
rz/cio:;
:vossrsu:
raw
¦ MOD
PR
MAX
SEX?
0 ^
Averaqe
TD3
1
IDS
1
:!i:->rff
J •
G5.G-N
Kg/1
TOTAL
P04
Lb/Day
(FECAL)
(total)
£act.
100 mg./
CH171SE
h
OIL
TOXIC¦
kSTALS
" gcis.1 •
Toy.ii. 3
F
/
. wVrr.rv sources i n.y..
/
/
/
RM 33.91
Utah State Prison WWTP
(Corner Canyon Creek)
Yes
7.5
58 /
/ 50
17 mg/l
20#/day
No Data
No Data •
No Data
No Da^a
/445.000
0
0
o /
0 ! /
i/12
RM 5.81
S. Davis Co. Sewer Imor.t
(Jordan River)
ist.
Questionable
1.25
7.5
50
259
No Data
No Data
Wo Data-
25.6
,/ 2.66
No Data/
/^OOO
0
0
0
1.5/
/9
RM 18.13
S. Salt Lake WWTP
(Jordan Ri ver)
Yes
2.64
7.9
56
y/ 52
318
No Data
No Da.ta
No Data
8.5
186
No Data/
// 1,900
0
0
0
RM 2.33
S.Davis Co.Sewer Impr.Dis
(State Canal) WWTP
Questionable
3.97
7.6
60/
18.7 mg/l
618
No Data
No Data
No Data
17.6 /
/581
No Datji/
/38.000
0
0
0
i
1 „
i '
1
!
-------
COM'
A T 1 0 N SHEET
(Sopj.
r-< -¦.¦•>
boD,,
F'f 1*1 c<>*^ tr^
a
t>i«Aor5fr
£-7 >r<-*ji/
Lt>),' uJi~>Tt
' fj*K u)*fTP
U.i 57>// f r /*¦/
¦ fa/yr/»
iJtJTP
U)uSTf>
!i'ff lar-AsiOkit jTiGb
r«ic-Ac C^tf
. Tn* P,fk irffli
§fan.it) trtwTf _
3" Sl/fm uitTTp
•"¦ P«yr»J uieJTP
J _ To-TAL-
; -S^i-Wy uJUJTf
1 (/fbA Ai«/
X£r-<<-'mi*:JiJiTt uuti»
: ff\orr,,J U>LjTf
" K'i 2r it jit r f( uT^rj
I 6r*ri~sr—if?
l£o/f /*&& Jtf j IJUff/
C(ih h, arf if
t _ . «7" /"?»
5 T&>77» ^
¦
J
: A' UX.tSo
ihfi*i £}•**¦ An s
; ^r: o?i^
WY>'l fbuir
I L-^nt wrf>
H/j wan
»iWV Coun-ty
¦S i P, tJortb uJuifr
;
J*.
Lkbtr e.TjvtJTP
CCflA
/¦ ,y,T" ltt. dTj
CUtrvll**) TrouT
-Form UT_JL0*
Sort05 4d I
//iiduJjy k)ujt?
,f.
&/){iKl_ JTaTAL
p nljte 1L
<73
*¦(%' 1
/o 5
/5* 3
0
OOO
O
0 y& in-
. 5-
?y"
0
*/ A/ ^7
0 0 /»i
'•<"?
5-5
0
/OO
O
O O *jO!
c?O.J"
s&i
0
O O 4)
C?
0 0 hv
3.3 . .
H50
0
d 0 c5
O
0 /a/ i1j
//.¦?
0
000
O
O J! 21*
.it.
0
C5
O & <3
O O 0
•fo'
0
O
O OO
O
OOO
AL ._
J HI
a
/"? ny
0
O
0 ^ 0
O i3J
.-fr..
(J
0 0 0
0
O ti
W3.»l-
^V$
O
f«?3 <•» 0 0
y,/ .
'&YZ
"
S'.o
/i9/
<»
vi/ j/y r7fl
0
0 ' 0
If, f _.
',3*1
d> ^ «
0
^ ,£ - v"/
/,3 3
O
c)
3. _.
AJ dtit-
// _
_//..: // .. J!
<0
O fl O
l-Li
;3j
O
da c>
0
0 6 2. ssy
• 6»
'0
£>
a "0 0
a
c> 0 O
O
o~
0' O 0
a
0 <3 0
<3r
Si*f5
O O 0
0 ST^t 0 &
/af"
£'1
0
0 0 O
O
y /r 3V3
/.or.
ioi __
pisl ^t O
0
OOO
. ^
3
0
£3 0 <5
0
0 r n
33.0^
3*1
0
5" V ft
rlS'S* T"*«r
' 15 y &7t
/>V 6/i rs~s
' 1 S'*y*. yV^ /¦ 7^
11-, I !WI jf'/
0 O £J o
J/ && /of /vi
'r$.^n r
*1~f'
Zi'7 J ,
o vi jjr
j/ 3V /^y
g/ >'0/
o -in
a /j i tff
s~z 3 -ft.- 5^8
0 St 3 7°
OOO
OOO
/«3 Hf e^B
O foo JJ»
0 /' 0^
-7J3 j las'
O /Aff ///
~7 <:> o o
a /a/ «ii
sn J-sr '-"7
o " ' '
0 yjj fl
0 icy £¦•¦/ jar 1
c e> ~srj
OOO <">
i3s Kif "^i>5 II1V
// /' H... . //
C O ii'y'
t? OOO
O O -> o
1} O O
<5 b" Sil
*-y
O e> 1 -if 1S1
3^ M v?-/ cr/6
0 o
o O o O
000a
o e> s~ 7
o 9'/ "3 , '' y
/f-/ jei-i ym
, -I-: /-•
-;3 v '2<-
/^7
^&5~
VVJ
J 372
'V
o
/f7 /^y"
ya6 yr/ j"-v
Y^r ^7 vi
rn W6U
2US~ JfJi "
O O Q
> So
/7
fit
/066
o
~$9e>
>3 Vj
3
Hbj
o o o o
yw r/f -Hi t>it
2*-3 ill T" 32 3
Sr i 3 73- r~
1,V-4 *'>•'- —-
i~33 (.vt Vox-IK
2, <2 o o
f/f /-v>7 ^
/"^y "7i .3*S ""T
a o cj o
JYV -T:0
^•C-'fJ •>".•
/yjf /if? £**/
CJ o o
fiij !}«l;oi(ij |i(jw{
/7 j *<
-3j si/3/i sri 3/ 3
O OO O J ^
O o c) o tnsitj.
3Z °
;vy 3 -'6f
37 2P7 HI i2)
5^/ 7// £/,?
J41? ty>i' If!,-}. I0SC Site
VJi Vi"f ryj ^>7 Vfa
O O O 0 Q
o 0 O O / C 0
O ^>
^7
3 ¦/»
r 7"
y.2-
y. o
?r»
£.3?
S/.'/f
S * 1!
2*>*
^y
SI
So.ty
^.3
/ ?.;o
/2 3
/3,3
3 •?»
/".«-/
¦?.r
? <•?
ri.7
w/
j^.r
7 yrflc
Cbr"**"". I,***3
ptr [Oo** ' ^ 0 it
rf ("'H
6/,«»0
jro/
lib
*J3 <3i-fi-
r*Z,1oO
so*
/to, J °0
/J3 d*ft-
21S~o
Pi, io«
t',t>"
/I*, Jt •/«
:/oo
nzoo
¥1°3
Vo d*~fu
rut d»/*.
fjodsf*.
Y.OOJ
2/0°
2'*looo
3 3,000
/\T0 c/dT1"^
/5~0o
fjj
73^ <7
/3/
'to
IU>
30/
-fbifc I
peP"
*r
vfitp'
1#*
/io
-------
SECTION E
AMBIENT WATER QUALITY STATUS
-------
.SBaOS' ^AS{JLACCO^PUSK?^ENTS:,AWilJAL„WQJCCOnPllSHy£NTS fi£r
EES* __VI.II
CALENDAR YEAR 1S72_
DATE $gt^Tn8_Se2tgfnhHr 197?,
FfiEPASED Rv Max H. Dodson ...
(Name)
Water Resources Planner
(Title)
tci B37-49fi3
g AWSCVZD BY:
A8EA
TOW.S
ALL FJCItfY CAS IMS
(Kame)
Utah Lake-,
Jo~r(Jan~Ri ver
(Title)
{Initials)
POPULATION
RIVER t;::LES OS AHEA
EQUIVALENT FOR LAKES,
ESTUARIES. ETC.
eeets sTh;:3;.iios Ji:ot at st.^qascsJ' basiu totals l^ats aho/or ahea^
{-.ILES A:;3/0K | (MILES AiiO/Ca * "
704,282
' 740 miles
r
200 miles (Utah
150 Sq.Bi. Lake
•).
940 mi l-es
AREA Ih
150 sq. miles
f I If nh I itlrn)'
f ^ OF
-------
TABLE II
7: o i d t ¦ on s of 'C classifications.
- AMBIENT WATER QUALITY AT NEAREST DOWNSTREAM MONITORING STATION
WORST POSSIBLE FOR 1971
PAGE 1 of 4
a^3:c - kg/l ui;s.ts applicable
1 e(s)
FLOW
cfs
j PII
°F
B0D5
nig/1
TDS
TS3
KI3-H
C?.C-:\T
TOTAL
"D
(?b4.)
( fzcal)
(TOTAL)
rAc?.
GREASE
u OIL
TOXIC
KlLTALS
OTHER
TOXICS
c-v-vr.
FL3..r
.''¦ize :,«3tar Sources and
-- .—Oh
All vio-
late 'C'
classific
pvrspt =\(
1. Snake Creek below
Mid-ay 'TP Outfall
RM 26.50 , .39
No Data
7.8
62.o{ 3.9
1
1
No Data
No Data
No Data
0
23,000
43,000
No Data
0
0
No Data
2. Spring Creek below
Heber City WWTP
RM 28.25 : 1.15
No Data
No Data
7.3
59.0 J ^65.Oj
No Data
No Data
No Data
3.0
430,000
930,000
No Data
0
0
¦¦
3. Consolidates Streams
below Lehi,WWTP
RM .73
No Data
8.25
65.0
©
No Data
No Data
No Data
0
15,000
43.000
No Data
0
0
11
4. Lindol HOI low below
Pleasant Gorve WWTP
RM 2.55
No Data
8.0
61 .0
©
No Data
No Data
No Data
0
4-300
23.000
No Data
0
0'
It
5. Mill Race Stream below
Provo WWTP
RM 4.2
No Data
8.2
68.0
©
No Data
No Data
No Data
0
75,000
930,000
No Data
0
0
"
5. Dry Creek b^low Spanish
Fork WWTP /
RM 6.14
No Data
8.0
65.0
@
No Data
No Data
No Data
0
4.300
93,000
No Data
0
0
"
7. Spring Creek below
Spring v'lie WWTP
No Data
7.7
49
(26*33)
No Data
No Data
No Data
No Data
No. Data
1 ,604,002
No 'Data
0
0
11
-------
TABLE II - AMBIENT WATER QUALITY AT NEAREST DOWNSTREAM MONITORING STATION
PAGE 2 of 4
WORST POSSIBLE FOR 1971
basic - rc/L v.yxwc. /.rpLicM!L£
FLOW
Cfs
PH
o^T
*
.
BOD5 1 TD5
mg/1 j
1 . _
TS3
org-:.1
TOTAL
(P0*>
(TOTAL)
GP-SASE
1 OIL
to:< ic
yS-TALS
GTiiER
TOXICS
ST?3.
? LO.!
l.'aste !"'£L3r Sources arid ;(.H. i j
| (
1
1
1
!
8. Beer Creek below
Pays on WWTP
Rf 1 5.8
No Data
8.4
70.0
4.3
No Data
No Data
Mo Data
0
9 ,300
93,000
No Data
0
0
No Data
9. Beer Creek below Salem j
WWT? |No Data
RM 6.78 j
8.3
68.0
©
No Data
No Data
No Data
9.4
93,000
150,000
No Data
0
0
No Data
10. Jordan River below
AC Dump Plant
RM 54.55/
601
s.s
40
0
No Data
No Data
No Data
0
No Data
2,400
No Data
0
0
No Data
11 . Jordan R.iver at
Bluffdale Rd.
RM 40.47
i
No Data J 8.4
i
4.2
©
No Data
No Data
No Data
.1
No Data
1 ,100
No Data
0
0
No Data
12. Jordan River at Draper-
Riverton Rd.
RM 36.S
No Data
8.25
48
©!
-\ !
No Data
No Data
No Data
0
No Data
24,000
No Data
0
0
No Data
13. Jordan River below
Sandy WWTP
RM 31.33
No Data
8.2
48
©
No Data
No Data
No Data
0
¦
No Data
24,000
No Data
0
0
No Data
14. Receiving Stream
below Midvale WWTP
RM ?a.m. ni
No Data
7.9
50
r\
l40.Oj
No Data
No Data
No Data
0
No Data
46,000
Mo Data
0
0
No Data
-------
TABLE II - AMBIENT WATER QUALITY AT NEAREST DOWNSTREAM MONITORING STATION
WORST POSSIBLE FOR 1971
PAGE 3 of 4
basic - ;-:g/l u;awlicauls
flow
cfs
PH
T^-lP
°F
bod5
rcg/1
\
TDS
TS3
NHo-K
OSC-N
TOTAL
P
(PO4)
(F2CAL)
(TOTAL)
JV}C?.
"
GttE/iSE
£ OIL
TOXIC
METALS
OTHER
TOXICS
EA32
FLO'.-.'
uaste V.'acar Sources aod fi.M.
PCrrr (head-raters;)
'
15. Jordan River below
Murray WWTP
RM 24.63
No Data
8.1
54
^2^0^
No Data
No Data
No Data
4.8
No Data
240.0C0
No Data
0
0
No Data
16. Big Cottonwood Creek
below SL Cottonwood WWTP
RM 24.0, .01
No Data
7.8
66.0
©
No Data
to Data
No Data
0
No Data
23,000
No Data
0
0
No Data
17. Jordan below Granger-
Hunter WWTP
RM 20.55'
No Data
8.1
50.0
j No Data
to Data
No Data
i .2
No Data
750,000
No Data
0
0
No Data
18. VITRO Waste Ditch above
Jordan River
RM 20.53, .01
1
/
^o Data 1 7.7
50
0
No Data
vlo Data
No Data
26.0
No Data
11 ,000 '
No Data
0
0
No Data
19. Hill Creek at 900 West
RM 20.25, .26
to Data
8.3
42.0
3.9
No Data
to Data
No Data
0
No Data
1 TO ,000
No Data
0
0
No Data
20. Jordan Riyer at 2100 S.
RM 18.21 /
310'
8. 1
48.0
©
No Data
Jo Data
No Data
3.5
No Date
2,400,000
No Data
0
0
No Data
21. Jordan River below
S. Salt Lake WWTP
RM 16.1
150
8.2
48.0
0
No Data
No Data
No Data
0
No • Data
2,400,000
No Data
0
0
No Data
1
|
-------
TABLE II - AMBIENT WATER QUALITY AT NEAREST DOWNSTREAM MONITORING STATION
WORST POSSIBLE FOR 1971
PAGE 4 of 4
-------
SECTION F
TACTICAL SOLUTION
-------
TABLE III - INTEGRATED BASIN TACTICAL SOLUTION AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
I. OVERALL basin summary
PAGE 1
SITUATION ANALYSIS
The Utah Lake-Jordan River basin is a
semi-arid interior drainage basin located
entirely within the State of Utah. Prior
to FY 73 this intra-state basin had no
assigned water quality standards. How-
ever, on June 23, 1972, the State of Utah
Water Pollution Control Committee and the
Utah State Board of Health adopted
classifications for all unclassified
waters in the State. A 'C classi fi ca ti or
now applies to all waters ^n the Utah -
Lake-Jordan River basin. The State has
assigned an implementation date of
December 31. 1978. The major parameters
for these instream standards are:
BOD5 - 5 mg/1, DO - 5.5 (6.0 for desig-
nated cold water fishery), total coli-
form - 5,000/100 ml., pH - 6.5 - 8.5.
All waters in the basin are assigned
the 'CC1 (cold water fishery) classi-
fication wi th the exception of Utah
Lake and the Jordan River-from Utah
Lake to the Utah County line. These
exceptions are assigned the classifi-
cation of CW (warm water fishery).
Most of the usable water in the basin
originates in the Wasatch Mountains on
the eastern edge of the basin and flows
into the Salt Lake Valley and Utah
Lake Valley. As the water flows through
the canyons it is subject to degradation
by agricultural and recreational
activities. Intensive recreational/
second home development is Drogressing
rapidly in these canyon 1 a rids and is
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
BY SUB TASK t, ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY
1. Monitor development of 3(c) Basin Plan.
Emphasize regiona 1 ization potential. Provide
planning assistance if requested. (Planning
Branch)
A. Monitor development of 3(c) interim plan.
Insure that projects on one-year needs
list are included with consideration
given to regi^nalization and water
quality standards. Support recommen-
dations of approved plan.
B. Support recommendations of 3(c) fully
developed basin plan. Coordinate con-
tinuing planning program. Provide up-
dating assistance when required.
2. Coordinate (with 3[cJ) investigation on non-
point source pollution: Included should be
a water budget study. (Planning Branch,
Surveillance Branch)
3. Conduct O&M surveys on remaining wastewater
treatment plants. (O&M Section, Manpower
and Development Branch)
A. Complement O&M surveys with water quality
studies. (Technical Support Branch)
4. Influence State to promote improved O&M
studies on all treatment works in basin.
(O&M Section)
5. Secure and review commitments* in RAPP appli-
cations for best practicable treatment or
maintenance of stream standards, whichever
higher. (Permits Branch)
DATES
INITIATION COMPLETION
1 DEC 71
1 MAY 73
1 DEC 73
1 JUL 7
1 OCT 72
1 OCT 72
1 JAN 72
1 JUL 72
*These ac
under the
1 JUL 74
1 DEC 74
1 JUL 73
1 DEC 74
1 DEC 74
30 JUN 76
JUL 74
PROGRAM
ELEMENT
2B3149
1 DEC 73 2B3149
ti
ons will
new legisl
2B3149
2B3149
2B2148
2B8163
2B7160
1B2148
2B8163
3B2124
be
changed
ation as
5.;
1.0
MANPOWER REQUIRED
(PROF - MAN - MPS)
FY 73 FY 74- FY 75 FY 76
.2
4.0
.24
.2b
.05
27.0
to permfi
oon as
6.0
1.0
2 .55
4.5
.24
.25
.05
32.0
t actic
juidel 1r
0
2.55
24
.25
.05
ns 1 mmi
es are
fdiately
avai labia
-------
TABLE III - INTEGRATED BASTN TACTICAL SOLUTION AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
I. OVERALL BASIN SUMMARY - Continued
PAGE 2
SITUATION ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
BY SUB TASK 6. ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY
DATES
INITIATION COMPLETION
PROGRAM
ELEMENT
MANPOWER REQUIRED
FY 73
FY 74-
FY 75
FY 76
3B2124
15.0
19.0
0.3
0:3 —
2B7158
2.04
2.04
1
1
237161
.22
0
0
0
2B71S1
.50
0
0
0
2B1143
2.0
0
0
0
2B3149
1.0
0
0
0
2B1143
1.0
2.0
0
0
2B3149
0.5
1.0
0
0
2B1143
0.0
1 .0
1.0
n
2B3149
0.0
1.0
5T1214
. 5
. 5
.5
0
subject of a Salt Lake County initiated
master development plan.
Water entering the valleys is subject
to chemical and biological degradation
from diverse non-ooint sources mostly
-¦n the form of agricultural return
flow and from several point sources. A
total of 34 major dischargers are known
to discharge wastes in the basin.
Twenty-two of these dischargers are
domestic wastewater treatment plants
serving an estimated population of
650,000. Twelve of the dischargers
are industrial and have all aoplied for
a Refuse Act Permit.
Specific problems relating to these
point sources of pollution are organic
material and bacteria being discharged
by overloaded and poorly operated
municipal wastewater treatment plants.
This specific problem is compounded by
ever-increasing pressures created by
individual urban population growth
rates from 3 to 11% per year.
Other specific problems are return flow
from agricultural irrigation and resi-
dential gardening operations, storm
inlets discharging wastes from un-
specified areas and the discharge of
industrial wastes containing oil and
grease, toxic metals and other con-
taminantes.
6. Request from industries and/or state and
aid in the establisnment of water quality
monitoring programs for all industrial
dischargers not presently being monitored.
(Permits Branch)
7. Conduct operator tr-.inmg program for waste-
water treatment facilities as needed.
(Manpower Branch)
8. Influence State to obtain mandatory waste
treatment operator certification. (Manpower
Development Branch)
9. In-house manpower planning--employment and
training projections (WWT operators).
(Manpower Development Branch)
10. Monitor development of water quality math
model. (Planning Branch)
A. Utilize math model to analyze water
quality impact of alternative water
quality management plans. (3(c) study)
B. Continue to utilize math model in
evaluating management programs.
11. Make press releases on basin problem and
clean up progress as appropriate.
(Public Affairs)
12. Carry out necessary enforcement actions in
support of permit program.
1 JUL 72
I JUL 72
1 JUL 72
JUL 11
1 JUL 72
1 JUL 73
30 JUN 76
1 JUL 73
30 JUN 76
30 APR 73
1 OCT 72
30 JUN 76
1 JAN 73 1 JAN 75 5T1214
3B1123
0.04
0.04
0.04
-------
TABLE III - INTEGRATED BASIN TACTICAL SOLUTION AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
PAGE 3
I. OVERALL BASIN SUMMARY - Continued
SITUATION ANALYSIS
Active Drograms are now underway to
allev^te or abate water quality prob-
lems in the bas^. At the present time,
an E5A funded 3(c) basin Dlan is under-
way (since December 1, 1971) to dev'se
solutions to the aforementioned problems,
ana to determine the reauirements for
meeting the 'C' classification. A 3(c)
interim clan outlining projects needed
before the December 1 , 1 973 completion
date will be completed prior to May 1,
1973.
In addition to the 3(c) program, a
"Parkway" proposal for the Jordan River
is being actively Dursued by Salt Lake
City and Salt Lake County. The proposal
would make several stream miles along
the Jordan a recreational park.
A th^rd program relating to basin water
Quality management is an EPA funded
water quality modeling project which
is in a contractual stage at this time.
This model will complement the 3(c)
basin plan.
An Institutional problem that confronts
the EPA at this time is the State
approved implementation date for the
'C' standard. This December 31, 1978
date is considered a date for the
existing treatment facilities to pro-
vide advanced treatment. It will be an
objective of the EPA to influence the
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
BY SUB TASK & ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY
12. Prepare oublic information materials re-
garding Jordan River Basin. (Public Affairs
Branch)
13. Stimulate participation in public meetings
regarding total basin and basin management.
Coordinate and attend if required. (Planning
Branch)
14. Review and process 20 construction grant
applications. (Municipal Facilities Branch)
A. Administrative review of projects.
(Grants Administration Branch)
B. Environmental Impact Review of projects.
(Interagency Assistance & Eval. Branch)
C. Planning Review of Projects. (Planning
Branch)
D. Milestones:
(1) Existing wastewater treatment
facilities upgraded to meet
Class 'D1 standards.
(2) 3(c) fully developed plan com-
pleted. Legislative authority
is devised, if needed, for
implementation of recommendations.
(3) Awarding of EPA Construction Grant
funds for advanced waste treatment
to meet 'C' standard.
DATES
INITIATION
1 JAN 73
1 JUL 72
1 JUL 72
1 JUL 72
1 JUL 72
1 JUL 72
1 JUL 72
COMPLETION
1 JAN 74
30 JUf! 76
30 JUN 76
30 JUN 76
30 JUN 76
30 JUN 76
1 JUL 74
1 JUL 74
30 JUN 76
PROGRAM
ELEMENT
5T1214
2B3149
2dol 62
2B8316
2B6117
2B3149
FY 73
.22
1 .0
5.60
1 .0
1.0
2.60
MANPOWER REQUIRED
(PROF -. HAN - MPS)
FY 74-
.22
FY 75
5.80
1.0
.5
3.0
1.0
6.0
| 1.0
! i .0
3.0
-------
TABLE
III - INTEGRATED BASIN TACTICAL SOLUTION AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
I. OVERALL BASIN SUMMARY - Continued
PAGE 4
SITUATION ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
BY SUB TASK & ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY
DATES
INITIATION COMPLETION
PROGRAM
ELEMENT
MANPOWER REQUIRED
(PROF - MAN - .MPS)
FY 73 FY 74- FY 75 I FY 76
State to achieve advanced treatment by
June 30, 1976, where necessary to meet
ambient standards.
A second institutional problem confront-
ing EPA is the fact that the basin is
an intrastate water and hence constrains
possible enforcement actions. Since this
may be considered navigable waterways,
tentative legislation may involve the
agency in more detail and1 thereby pro-
vide EPA with additional tools for
achieving the objectives.
REGIONAL GOALS FOR THE BASIN:
The State of Utah's Water Pollution Control
Committee on June 23, 1972 adopted intra-
state standards for water quality. The
Utah Lake-Jordan River Basin and all waters
therein were assigned the classification 'C .
An implementation date of December 31, 1978
was established. In addition to this stand-
ard, an interim measure was initiated where-
by all dischargers must have secondary treat-
ment (defined as Class 'D') by December 31,
1974. Although considered stringent, they
were considered realistic goals. It has
been generally agreed both by EPA and the
State of Utah that treatment required to
meet the 'C' standard must be higher than
secondary and secondly, that sometime in
the near future it may reqirire an effluent
1 i mi tation.
Based on current water quality data, vio-
lations of the 'C' standard rarely occurs
15. Coordinate State program plan with basin
management (needs list, implementation
dates, standards, certifications).
(Program Grants Branch)
16. Influence State to achieve 'C' Water
Quality Standards by June 30, 1 976. Would
include commitments to construct advanced
wastewater treatment facilities.
17. Review and assist in preparation of
Environmental Impact Statement for 3(c)
basin plan.
18. Coordinate EPA basin management with
Salt Lake County's "Jordan River Coordinator'
and other "Parkway" advocates.
19. Coordinate STORET Program with 3(c) con-
sultants and State. Process, store and
retrieve data as necessary. (Surveillance Br.
20. Investigate all primary sources as spill
accidents occur. (Tech. Support Branch)
21. Coordinate hazardous sdi1 Is program with
Salt Lake City Mutual Aid Group (Technical
Support Branch)
22. Carry out necessary enforcement actions in
support of permit program (Enforcement
Di vi si on)
1 JUL 72 130 JUN 76
1 OCT 72
1 JAN 73
1 JUL 72
1 JUL 72
1 JUL 72
1 JUL 72
1 OCT 72
1 JUL 73
1 JAN 74
30 JUN 76
1 JUL 74
30 JUN 76
30 JUN 71
30 JUN 76
2B4153
2B3149
2B6117
2B3149
2B2146
2B1144
2B1144
3B1123
.48 .48 .48 .48
.3
.50 1.0
.4
2.04
1.0
6.0
.3
1.0
.20 1 .20 0 ! 0
6.0
0 l 0
.4 ! .4 .4
2.04
1 .0
6.0
-------
TABLE
III - INTEGRATED BASIN TACTICAL SOLUTION AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
PAGE 5
I. OVERALL BASIN SUMMARY - Continued
SITUATION ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
• BY SUB TASK & ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY
DATES
PROGRAM
ELEMENT
MANPOWER REQUIRED
(PROF - MAX - flOS)
INITIATION
COMPLETION
FY 73
FY 74-
FY 75
FY 76
in the higher tributary areas of the Jordan
River and Utah Lake. The major violations
in the basin occur on the Jordan River from
Bluffdale Road to the mouth, and on Utah
Lake or its immediate tributaries. On the
Jordan River, effluent from wastewater
treatment plants consitutes a majority of
the flow in certain reaches of the stream.
Hence, it is generally agreed by the State
Bureau of Environmental Health and the EPA
that effluent from these plants should be
as close to the 'C' standard as possible.
Water quality Droblems in Utah Lake are
attributed to domestic and industrial
discharges, non-point sources of contami-
nates and to the fact that the lake is,
relatively SDeaking, a still water body.
Based on the slow turnover or discharge of
Utah Lake, treatment requirements for dis-
chargers will have to be based on at least
'C' quality effluent.
The regional goals for the Utah Lake-Jordan
River Basin are to meet the instream water
quality standard of 'C'.
It is the purpose of a currently funded
Section 3(c) planning effort to determine
treatment needs for each discharger,
regionalization alternatives, and adequacy
of water quality standards. Tentative plans
outlining needs will be available by May 1,
1973. Until that time, the'Accomplishment
plan estimates what total reductions will be
made based on the funding and construction
of Advancement Treatment facilities.
-------
TABLE III - INTEGRATED BASIN TACTICAL SOLUTION AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
PAGE 6
I. OVERALL BASIN SUMMARY - Continued
SITUATION ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
BY SUB TASK & ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY
DATES
INITIATION
COMPLETION
PROGRAM
ELEMENT
FY 73 FY 74- FY 75 FY 76
MANPOWER REQUIRED
(PROF - HAN - MPS)
Based on aforementioned considerations,
required reductions that are outlined in tne
Accomplishment Plan are based on a require-
ment for a 'C' quality effluent. It must
be recognized, however, that for some areas
of the basin (to be determined by 3(c) con-
sultant), a 1C' effluent for each discharger
may not De required to meet the instream
standard.
-------
TABLE III - INTEGRATED BASIN TACTICAL SOLUTION AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
II. PROVO RIVER
PAGE 7
SITUATION ANALYSIS
The Provo River is the major tributary
to Utah Lake. As of July 1, 1972, there
were no established water quality
monitoring stations on the main stem
of the Provo River. The USGS is in
the Drocess of establishing a station
on the lower stem. There are three
domestic wastewater treatment plants
discharging into the Provo Basin and
two industries. All domestic waste-
water treatment plants do not meet
EPA objectives and one industry does
not meet objectives. The Provo River
(Deer Creek Reservoir) is an integral
part of the Central Utah Project,
a transbasin diversion of water from
the Colorado River Basin in Utah.
Water quality impact of the specific
proposals are relatively unknown.
A. Clearview Trout Farm, UT 205
Suspected organic loading to
stream creating possible water
quality degradation. Central
Utah Project will inundate area
prior to 1975 with storage reser-
voir.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
BY SUB TASK & ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY
(See Subtasks for entire Basin)
1. Review 3(c) sampling program suggesting
areas where increased studies may be
indicated. (Technical Support Branch)
2. Review existing data and 3(c) objectives
and initiate surveys as requested in
regards to eutrophication of Deer Creek
Reservoir, and agricultural return flows.
(Technical Support Branch)
3. Initiate and/or coordinate and review study
of water quality impact of Central Utah
Project (may involve 3(c) effort).
(Planning Branch, Interagency Assistance
and Evaluation Branch)
4. Award construction grants on secondary and/or
advanced wastewater treatment facilities.
(Municipal Facilities Branch)
1. Coordinate with RAPP State Engineer to pro-
mulgate effluent requirements for interim
period. Stress need for abatement commit-
ments to State Game and Fish and Bureau of
Environmental Health. (Permits Branch)
DATES
INITIATION COMPLETION
1 JUL 72
1 JAN 73
1 NOV 72
1 JUL 72
1 SEP 72
1 DEC 73
1 DEC 73
1 JUL 74
30 JUN 76
1 DEC 73
PROGRAM
ELEMENT
2B2148
2B2148
2B3149
2B5117
2B8152
3B2124
FY 73 FY 74- FY 75 FY 76
.2
1 .0
.54
.1
i nclude
MANPOWER REQUIRED
(PROF - MAN - MPS)
.25
.5
.54
.1
i in bas
10 2 .11
(Included l n Bii
0
.5
.1
i n s urn
0
sin Su
.1
iitia ry)
0
nmar^
-------
TABLE III - INTEGRATED BASIN TACTICAL SOLUTION AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
PAGE 8
II. PROVO RIVER - Continued
RECOMIENDED ACTIOl.'S
DATES
SITUATION ANALYSIS
¦ BY SUB TASK & ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY
INITIATION
COMPLETION
B. Heber City WWTP
1. Make construction grant offer for increased
1 NOV 72
1 SEP 73
capacity with provision for increased effic-
Overloaded trickling filter plant
iency to meet water quality standards; con-
not meeting EPA objectives or
duct pre-application assistance to determine
Class ' D' effluent standards.
design criteria. (Municipal Facilities Branch)
Regioralization potential is poor.
Growth potential is high. On one-
2. Support recommendations of 3(c) interim basin
1 MAY 73
1 DEC 73
year needs list. Reductions re-
plan. (Planning Branch)
quired:
3. Conduct 0&M survey. (0&M Section)
1 JUL 73
1 JUL 74
FY 73 432= BODc
74 485#
75 543# "
76 607#
28,000/100 ml. of total coliform
for FY 73-76.
C. Midway WWTP
1. Support recommendations of 3(c) fully
1 DEC 73
1 DEC 74
developed basin plan. (Planning Branch)
Small trickling filter Dlant not
meeting EPA objectives or Class ' D'
2. Conduct 0&M Survey. (0&M Section)
1 JAN 73
1 JAN 74
effluent standards. Regional ization
potential is poor. Population
growth, potential is high. On five-
year needs list. Reductions re-
qui red:
FY 73 4# of B0D5
74 5#
75 6#
76 7# 11 ,
3,300/100 ml. of total coliform
for FY 73-76.
PROGRAM
ELEMENT
FY 73
MANPOWER REQUIRED
(PROF - MAN - MPS)
FY 74-
FY 75
FY 76
2B8162
2B3149
2B8163
2B3149
2B8163
.2
1 Incl uc
.05
(Incluc
0
' Includ
.1
ed in
b,i
0
sin su
.05
ed in
bii
0
st n su
0
nmary)
0
runary)
.25
d in be
0
sin sui
0
ijunary)
0 .2 .2 0
(Included in bajsin s urinary)
.3
(Includi
05
d in ba
0
sin s
unn:
0
ma ry)
-------
TABLE III - INTEGRATED BASIN TACTICAL SOLUTION AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS PAGE 9
II. PROVO RIVER - Continued
SITUATION ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
BY SUB TASK & ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY
DA
INITIATION
TES
COMPLETION
PROGRAM
ELEMENT
MANPOWER REQUIRED
(PROF - MAN - MQS)
FY 73
FY 74-| FY 75
FY 76
D. Sprinqdell WWTP
Discharging Septic tank. Loadings
to Provo River are insignificant.
Served population is 60 people.
E. Utah Power and Light, UT 079
Does not meet EPA objectives
(temperature discharge ranges
from 80-155°F). Discharges into
Provo River and Provo Bench Canal.
1. Support recommendations of 3(c) fully de-
veloped basin plan. (Planning Branch)
1. Establish effluent temperature limit to 95°F.
Secure commitment to add nothing but heat
to effluent. Request study of impact on
mixing characteristics. Stress need to meet
State standards. (Permits Branch)
1 DEC 73
15 SEP 72
1 DEC 74
15 SEP 73
2B3149
3B2124
0 '
(Inclu
summ
2.0
(Includ
summa
.2 .2.
ied in tasin
iry - IE)
3.0 o
;d in basin
\y)
0" "
0
-------
TABLE III - INTEGRATED BASIN TACTICAL SOLUTION AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
PAGE 10
III. UTAH LAKE
SITUATION ANALYSIS
recommended actions
BY SUB TASK & ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY
DATES
INITIATION COMPLETION
PROGRAM
ELEMENT
MANPOWER REQUIRED
(PROF - MAN - MPS)
FY 73 FY 74-
FY 75
FY 76
Utah Lake and Tributaries other than
the Provo River.
Water quality in Utah Lake does not
meet EPA objectives. Turbidity is a
severe problem which is attributed to
the lake's shallowness, poor watershed
management and domestic, industrial
discharges. BODq values are frequently
above 10 mg/1. Agricultural return
flow is also a contributing factor to
water quality degradation. The lake
is listed as a target area in EPA1 s
national eutrophication control program.
There are nine WWTP's and three in-
dustries discharging into Utah Lake or
lower stems of tributaries. All waste-
water treatment plants and two indus-
tries do not presently meet EPA's
objectives or Class 1D' effluent
standards.
A. U. S. Steel at Geneva, UT 181
The Basin's No. 1 discharger, not
meeting EPA's objectives under
several parameters. At the present
time, the waste treatment process
approaches "best practicable
treatment."
EPA objectives are to eliminate
135# of grease and'oil per day,
37 pounds of toxic metals and
501 pounds of BOD5 by June 30, 1976.
1.
3.
Augment 3(c) effort and eutrophication study
as necessary to achieve workable knowledge
of water quality and biota in lake. (Planning
Branch and Technical Support Branch)
Secure commitments by State, industries and
municipalities to achieve water quality
standards. May include commitments to con-
struct advanced wastewater treatment facilities.
(Planning Branch)
Award construction grants on secondary and/or
advanced wastewater treatment facilities.
"(Municipal Facilities Branch)
1 JAN 73 I JUL 74
1 JAN 73
1 JUL 72
1.
2.
Secure commitment to meet effluent limitations
and State standards. Request effluent
monitoring. (Permits Branch)
Initiate effluent monitoring and/or intensive
water quality survey if requested. Coordi-
nate with 3(c) consultant and State of Utah.
(Planning Branch and Surveillance Branch
and Technical Support Branch)
1 SEP 72
1 SEP 72
1 JUL 72
1 JAN 75
30 JUN 76
2B3149
2B2148
2B3149
2B8162
1 SEP 73
1 JUN 74
1 DEC 73
3B2124
2B2148
2B3149
.3
.1
. 1
(Inclu
summa
.1
ijled in b
¦y - No.
.7
(Inclu
summa
3.0
0
asin
IB)
ded in b
ry)
7
as i n
4.0
(Included in b
summary)
.3
.05
.5
.05
jsin
.7
-------
TABLE III - INTEGRATED BASIN TACTICAL SOLUTION AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
PAGE 11
SITUATION ANALYSIS
B. Provo WWTP
Trickling filter plant that is de-
signed for less than secondary
treatment. Largest treatment plant
discharging into Utah Lake. Impact
on water quality is significant.
Total reductions required to meet
EPA objecti ves:
FY 73 2332# of B0D5
74 2615#
75 2926§
76 3268#
Total coliform - 958,000/100 ml.
FY 73-76. On five-year needs
list and under commitment to
achieve secondary.
C. American Fork WWTP
Trickling filter plant that is
overloaded. On one-year needs
list. Total reductions required
to meet EPA objectives:
FY 73 365# of BOD
74 406#
75 451#
76 501#
rn UTAH LAKE - Continued
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
BY SUB TASK & ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY
1. Conduct 0&M Survey. (0&M Section)
2. Conduct pre-application and preconstruction
conference. Emphasize need for effluent
monitoring equipment. (Municipal Facilities
Branch)
3. Support recommendations of 3(c) fully de-
veloped basin plan. (Planning Branch)
1. Conduct 0&M Survey. (0&M Section)
2. Conduct pre-application and preconstruction
conference. (Municipal Facilities Branch)
3. Support recommendations of 3(c) interim
plan. (Planning Branch)
DATES
INITIATION COMPLETION
1 OCT 72
1 NOV 72
1 DEC 73
1 OCT 72
1 NOV 72
1 MAY 73
1 OCT 73
1 NOV 73
1 DEC 74
1 OCT 73
1 NOV 73
1 DEC 73
PROGRAM
ELEMENT
2B8163
2B8162
2B3149
2B8163
2B8162
2B3149
FY 73
.30
Incl ude>
.05
.05
i in bas
.05
[Inclu
sumi
.2
Jed in b
imary -
.30
Include {i
.05
.05
Includefi
MANPOWER REQUIRED
(PROF - MAN - MPS)
FY 74-
FY 75
¦ 0
in sumrfi,
.05
in bas
.05
.05
in bas
No. 1A)
. 2 .
asm
o. IB)
0
in su
mria
0
in summary,
FY 76
0"
lary)
0
1 ry)
FY 73-76 - 1 ,258,516 total coli-
form. Regionalization potential
with Pleasant Grove WWTP and Lehi
WWTP is excellent. Population
growth potential is high.
-------
TABLE III - INTEGRATED BASIN TYCTICAL SOLUTION AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
III. UTAH LAKE - Continued
PAGE 12
SITUATION ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
BY SUB TASK & ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY
DATES
INITIATION COMPLETION
PROGRAM
ELEMENT
FY 73 FY 74- FY 75 FY 76
MANPOWER REQUIRED
(PROF - MAN - MPS)
D. Rei 11 y Tar and Chemical, UT 186
For the BOD parameter, this industry
is meeting EPA objectives. It dis-
charges less than 5# of BOD in Spring
Creek, a tributary of Utah Lake. A
high temperature discharge in excess
of 95°F is reported.
E. Pacific States Cast Iron Pipe, UT 2 74
Secure commitment for temperature limit on
effluent of 95°F. Secure additional infor-
mation on effluent quality. (Permits Branch)
12 SEP 72
15 NOV 73 3B2124
3.0
Ire 1 u
del
3.0
in bas
0
in sumi
r la
0
ry)
1.
Meeting EPA objectives for BOD5 and
total coliform. However, discharges
of toxic metals and other pollutants
is suspect.
F. Springville WWTP
Trickling filter plant not meeting
EPA objectives or Class ' D1 effluent
requirements. On one to five-year
needs list. Reductions required to
meet EPA objectives:
Secure commitment, if needed, for effluent
limit on temperature, BOD, SS and oil and
grease. (Permits Branch)
'Request monitoring program to determine
effluent characteristics. (Permits Branch)
Support recommendations of 3(c) fully
developed plan. (Planning Branch)
Conduct 0&M Survey. (O&M Section)
12 SEP 72
12 SEP 72
1 DEC 73
1 JUL 73
15 NOV 73 3B2124
1 FEB 74 3B2124
1 DEC 74
1 JUL 74
2B3149
2B8163
3.0
Incl udeil
3.0
Include#
0
Included
0
Incl udedl
4.0
i n bas
3.0
in bas
.2
1 n bas
No
.25
i n bas
0
ary)
0
in summary)
.2
in sumrji
. IB)
0
1 n s unify
0
'ary,
0
lary)
FY 73 195# of BODc
74 223?
75 255§
76 290#
105,000/100 ml. of total col i form.
Regionalization potential is
fair. Population growth potential
is moderate.
-------
TABLE III - INTEGRATED BASIN TACTICAL SOLUTION AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
PAGE 13
III. UTAH LAKE - Continued
SITUATION ANALYSIS
G. Salem WWTP
Trickling filter plant not meeting
EPA objectives or Class 'D1 effluent
standards. Reductions required to
meet objecti ves :
FY 73 248# of B0D5
74 273# of B0D5
75 301# of B0D5
76 333# of B0D5
76,000/100 ml. total coliform for
FY 73-76. Plant located 1.08 miles
upstream from Payson WWTP. On five-
year needs list. Regionalization
potential is good. Population
growth potential is moderate.
H. Spanish Fork WWTP
Overloaded trickling'filter plant
not meeting EPA objectives or
Class 1D1 effluent standards.
Reductions required:
FY 73 472# B0D5
74 519#
75 571# "
76 628
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
BY SUB TASK & ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY
1. Support recommendations of 3(c) fully de-
veloped plan. (Planning Branch)
2. Conduct 0&M Survey. (0&M Section)
1. Conduct pre-application and pre-construction
conference. (Municipal Facilities Branch)
2. Support recommendations of interim 3(c) basin
plan. (Planning Branch)
3. Conduct 0&M Survey. (0&M Section)
DATES
INITIATION COMPLETION
1 DEC 73
1 JUL 73
1 JAN 73
1 MAY 73
1 JUL 73
1 DEC 74
1 JUL 74
1 JUL 73
1 DEC 73
1 JUL 74
PROGRAM
ELEMENT
2B3149
2B8163
2B8162 .05
2B3149
2B8163
FY 73
0
ncluded
0
ncluded
MANPOWER REQUIRED
(PROF - MAN -.MPS)
FY 74-
.2 "
in bas
.25
in basi
FY 75
.2
n summfi
0
n summfi
0 0
i
FY 76
0
ry)
0
ry)
.05
Include
0
Include
.05
i in bas
No.
.25
i in bas
in sump,
P A
0
ins umrta
0
la ry)
0
'ry)
22,600/100 ml. total coliform
FY 73-76. On one-year needs list
for increased capacity. Regional i-
zation potential is fa.ir. Popu-
lation growth potential is moderate.
-------
TABLE ill - INTEGRATED BASIN TACTICAL SOLUTION AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
PAGE 14
III. UTAH LAKE - Continued
SITUATION ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
BY SUB TASK & ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY
DATES
INITIATION COMPLETION
PROGRAM
ELEMENT
FY 73
MANPOWER REQUIRED
(PROF - MAN - MPS)
FY 74-
FY 75 I FY 76
I. Orem WWTP
Trickling filter plant not meeting
EPA objectives or Class 'D1 effluent
requirements. Reductions required:
FY 73 483? of BODr
74 541 #
75 604?
76 674=
58,900/100 ml. of total coliform
for FY 73-76. Regional ization
potential is fair. Population
growth potential is high.
J. Lehi WWTP
Trickling filter plant not meeting
EPA objectives or Class 'D1 effluent
requirements. On one-year needs
list. Reductions required:
FY 73 95# of B0D5
74 107#
75 120#
76 134#
1. Conduct O&M Survey. (0&M Section)
2. Support recommendations of 3(c) fully de-
veloped basin plan (Planning Branch)
1 JUL 73
1 DEC 73
1 DEC 73
1 DEC 74
2B8163
2B3149
0
(Inclu
0
(Inclu
sumi
irr a
.25
ded in t
.2
ded in 1
ry, No
0
asin s
.2
as l n
IB)
1. Support recommendation of 3(c) interim plan.
(Planning Branch)
2. Conduct pre-application and pre-construction
conference (Municipal Facilities Branch)
3. Conduct O&M Survey. (O&M Section)
1 MAY 73
JAN 73
1 JUL 73
1 DEC 73
1 JUL 73
1 JUL 74
2B3149
2B8162
2B8163
.05
(Inclu
sumrna
.05
0
(Inclu
surran
.05
Jed l n
ry, No
0
.25
:led in t
»ry)
0
asi n
1A)
0
0
asin
0
jmma ry)
0
94,000/100 ml. of total coliform
for FY 73-76. Regionalization
potential is excellent. Population
growth potential 15 moderate.
Consolidation with American Fork
WWTP and Pleasant Grove WWTP is
being considered.
-------
TABLE III - INTEGRATED BASIN TACTICAL SOLUTION AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS PAGE 15
III. UiAH LAKE - Continued
SITUATION AMALYSIS
RECOMMENDED ACTICNS
BY SUB TASK & ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY
DATES
PROGRAM
ELEMENT
: 1AKPOWER REQUIRED
(PROF - MAN - MOS)
INITIATION
COMPLETION
FY 73', FY 74-
FY 75
FY 76
K. Pa.yson WWTP
Trickling filter plant not meeting
EPA objectives. On five-year needs
list. Reductions required:
FY 73 55= of BODc
74 63 #
75 72=
76 82 =
185,000/100 ml. of total coliform
for FY 73-76. Regionalization
potential is excellent. Population
growth potential is moderate.
L. Pleasant Grove WWTP
Trickling filter plant not meeting
EPA objectives. On five-year needs
list. Reductions required:
FY 73 1732 of B0D5
74 195#
75 229#
76 ' 235 =
56,000/100 ml. of total coliform
for FY 73-76. Regionalization
potential is excellent. Consoli-
dation scheme for Pleasant Grove
Lehi and American Fork is being
considered. Population growth
potential is moderate.
1. Support recommendations of 3(c) fully de-
veloped basin plan. (Planning Branch)
2. Conduct O&M Survey. (O&M Section)
1. Support recommendations of 3(c) interim
basin olar>. (Plaining 2ranch)
2. Conduct O&M Survey. (O&M Section)
1 DEC 73
1 JUL 73
1 MAY 73
1 JUL 73
1 DEC 74
1 JUL 74
1 DEC 74
1 JUL 74
2B3149
2B8163
(
2B3149
2B8163
0
Include
0
Includec
.05
(Inclu
mar
0
(Include
.2
J in bas
.25
in bas
.05
Jed in t
1, No.
.25
d i n ba
.2
in surni
No. 11
0
in sumiT
0
asm s
A)
0
iin suit
o-
ia ry,
0
ary)
0
im-
0 •
nary)
-------
TABLE III - INTEGRATED BASIN TACTICAL SOLUTION AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS PAGE 16
IV. JORDAN RIVER FROM UTAH LAKE TO THE SURPLUS CANAL
SITUATION ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
BY SUB TASK & ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY
DATES
PROGRAM
ELEMENT
MANPOWER REQUIRED
(PROF - MAN - '!OS)
INITIATION
COMPLETION
FY 73
FY 74-
FY 75
FY 76
IV. The Jordan River from Utah Lake to the
Surplus Canal at 2100 S.. contains seven
domestic wastewater treatment plants
and two industrial discharges. Domestic
wastewater treatment plants do not meet
EPA objectives and five of them violate
Class ' D' effluent requirements. Both
industries meet EPA objectives for
coliform and BOD. Scott Avenue State
Fish Hatchery, however, is suspect
for large organic loadings to Mill
Creek. The lower half of this stream
reach has an extensive sludge deposit
on the river bottom. Although the
potential for a fishery exists at the
present time, it is minimal. One or
two all purpose dam sites are proposed
for the upper half of the stream reach
at or near Bluffdale Road. The majority
of the flow in the Jordan at the nar-
rows is diverted for agricufl tural use.
Return flows from irrigation usage
is a continuing source of additional
organic and inorganic pollutants to
the Jordan and its tributaries. EPA
has conducted a two-week intensive
water quality survey of the Jordan
River, completed September 1 , 1972.
0&M has completed surveys on five
wastewater treatment plants.
1. Coordinate respiration studies of bottom
deposits and biota in Jordan River.
(Technical Support Branch)
2. Investigate the impact of the reservoir(s)
before and after completion (pre- and post-
impoundment study) on the water quality of
the Jordan River. (Technical Support Branch)
3. Award construction grants on secondary and/or
advanced wastewater treatment facilities.
•(Municipal Facilities Branch)
1 JAN 73
• 1 JUL 72
1 JUL 74
30 JUN 76
30 JUN 76
2B2148
2B21 48
2B8162
(
.05
3
0'
P
.5
ncludec
.5
in bas
.5..
n summ
.5
jpy)
-------
TABLE III - INTEGRATED BASIN TACTICAL SOLUTION AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
IV. JORDAN RIVER FROM UTAH LAKE TO THE SURPLUS CANAL
PAGE 17
SITUATION ANALYSIS
A. Granger-Hunter WWTP
Trickling filter plant not meeting
EPA object!ves. Regionalization
potential with adjacent facilities
is excellent. An O&M survey was
completed by EPA in May 1973. On
one-year needs list for increased
capacity. Reductions required to
meet EPA objecti ves .
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
BY SUB TASK & ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY
1. Insure implementation of recommendations of
O&M Survey. (O&M Section)
2. Conduct pre-aopllcat ion conference. Stress
design needs for maintenance of water quality
standards. (Municioal Facilities Branch)
3. Support recommendations of 3(c) interim
basin plan. (Planning Branch)
DATES
INITIATION COMPLETION
NOV 72
JAN 73
MAV 73
1 JUL 73
1 NOV 73
1 DEC 73
PROGRAM
ELEMENT
2B8163
2B8162
2B3149
FY 73
.05
05
.05
(Inc
s
umn.
MANPOWER REQUIRED
(PROF - MAN - .".OS)
FY 74-
.05
.05
uded in
ary, No
FY 75 FY 76
0 0
0
basin
1A)
1,943,000/100 ml. total coliform
for Fr 73-76.
0&M Survey recommendations:
A. Emphasize operator training.
B. Additional testing should be
made.
C. Continue to improve maintenance, j
D. Investigate the need to in-
crease recirculation rates.
Population growth is high.
-------
TABLE III - INTEGRATED BASIN TACTICAL SOLUTION AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
IV. JORDAN RIVER FROM UTAH LAKE TO THE SURPLUS CANAL
PAGE 18
SITUATION ANALYSIS
B. Sail LaKe County Cottonwood WWTP
Trickling filter plant that has
violated Class ' D1 effluent stand-
ards in the past but an expansion
of the plant was completed in early
1972. Regionalization potential
with existing or a new plant is
good. 0&n survey conducted by EPA
completed May 1972. On one-year
needs list for increased capacity.
Required reductions:
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
BY SUB TASK & ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY
1. Insure implementation of recommendations of
O&M Survey. (Planning Branch and O&M Section)
2. Conduct pre-application conference. Stress
design needs for maintenance of water quality
standards.(Municipal Facilities Branch)
3. Support recommendations of 3(c) interim
basin plan. (Planning Branch)
DATES
INITIATION COMPLETION
1 NOV 72
1 JAN 73
1 MAY 73
1 JUL 73
1 NOV 73
1 DEC 73
PROGRAM
ELEMENT
2B8163
2B8162
2B3149
FY 73
.05
.05
.05
.05
.05
cluded
ummary,
MANPOWER REQUIRED
(PROF MAN - .MPS)
FY 74-
0
in basi
Mo. 1A)
FY 75
FY 73 2044? B0Ds
74 2266#
75 2510#
76 2778#
1 ,200,497/100 ml. of total coliform
for FY 73-76. Population growth
potential is high.
O&M Survey recommendations:
A. Increase chlorine residual tests.
B. Housekeeping and maintenance
should be improved.
C. Increase staff.
D. Increase recirculation.
E. Investigate infiltration problem.
-------
TABLE III - INTEGRATED BASIN TACTICAL SOLUTION AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
IV. JORDAN RIVER FROM UTHA LAKE TO THE SURPLUS-CANAL - Continued
SITUATION ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
BY SUB TASK 6. ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY
DATES
PROGRAM
ELEMENT
MANPOWER REQUIRED
(PROF MAN - JIOS)
INITIATION
COMPLETION
FY 73
FY 74-
FY 75
FY 76
C. Murray WWTP
Trickling filter plant. EPA grant
offer for increased capacity made
August 3, 1972. Presently does not
meet 'U' standards or EPA objectives.
Regionalization potential with
existing or new plant is good.
Required reductions:
FY 73 1059# B0D5
74 1176 =
75 1305#
76 1447#
30,500/100 ml. of total coliform for
FY 73-76. Population growth po-
tential is high.
1. Insure compliance with "D" standards through
final inspection. (Municipal Facilities
Branch)
2. Conduct 0&M Survey. (0&M Section)
3. Support recommendations of 3{c) fully de-
veloped basin plan. (Planning Branch)
1 MAY 73
1 OCT 72
1 DEC 73
1 JUL 73
1 JAN 73
1 DEC 74
2B8162
2B8163
2B3149
.05
.35
(Includ
0
(Includ
mar.
o -
0
id in ba
.2
>d in ba
No. 1
0
0
sin pi £
.2
sin sun
B)
o.
0
n)
0
i-
-------
TABLE III - INTEGRATED BASIN TACTICAL SOLUTION AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS PAGE 20
IV. JORDAN RIVER FROM UTAH LAKE TO THE SURPLUS CANAL - Continued
RECOMMENDED ACTIOl.'S
DATES
PROGRAM
MANPOWER REQUIRED
SITUATION ANALYSIS
BY SUB TASK & ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY
INITIATION
COMPLETION
ELEMENT
(PROF -
MAN -
;:os)
FY 73
FY 74-
FY 75
FY 76
D. Salt Lake City Suburban #1 WWTP
Trickling filter plant not meeting
EPA objectives. Regionalization
potential with existing or new
facilities is good. O&M survey
by EPA completed May 1972. On
five-year needs list. Required
reductions:
1. Insure implementation of recommendations of
O&M Survey. (O&M Section)
2. Support recommendations of 3(c) fully de-
veloped and interim basin plan. (Planning
Branch)
1 NOV 72
1 MAY 73
1 JUL 73
1 DEC 74
2B8163
2B3149
10
.05
(Includ
sum
0
.2
;d in ba
nary, No
0
.2
sin
. IB)
0-
0
FY 73 1573# BOD5
74 1777#
75 2001,t
75 2247#
5,400/100 ml. total col i form for
FY 73-75.
O&M Survey recomnendati ons :
A. Additional records should be
established on effluent.
B. Consideration should be given
to hi ring plant chemist.
Population growth potential is high.
-------
TABLE III - INTEGRATED BASIN TACTICAL SOLUTION AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS PAGE 21
IV. JORDAN RIVER FROM UTAH LAKE TO THE SURPLUS CANAL - Continued
SITUATION ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
BY SUB TASK & ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY
D/>
INITIATION
kTES
COMPLETION
PROGRAM
ELEMENT
MANPOWER REQUIRED
(PROF - HAN - MOS)
FY 73
FY 74-
FY 75
FY 76
E. TRI-Community WWTP
Trickling filter plant not meeting
Class ' D1 effluent requirements
and EPA objectives. O&M survey by
EPA completed in Hay 1972. On one-
year needs list for increased
capacity. Application pending
approval by EPA. Regionalization
with existing or new plant is good.
Required reductions:
FY 73 821H BODc
74 919#
75 1027# "
76 1 146# 11
48,100/100 ml. of total coliform
for FY 73-76. Population growth
potential is extremely high.
O&M Survey recommendations:
A. Study should be made on infil-
tration .
B. Chlorinators should be repaired.
C. Increase staff.
D. Training should be emphasized.
1. Insure implementation of recommendations
of O&M Survey. (O&M Section)
2. Support recommendation of 3(c) fully developed
basin plan. (Planning Branch)
1 NOV 72
1 DEC 73
1 JUL 73
1 DEC 74
2B8163
2B3149
.10
0
(Inc
sun
0
.2
luded i
ima ry, N
0
.2
l basin
D. IB)
o
0
-------
TABLE III - INTEGRATED BASIN TACTICAL SOLUTION AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
PAGE 22
IV. JORDAN RIVER FROM UTAH LAKE TO THE SURPLUS CANAL - Continued
SITUATION ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDED ACTIO.IS
BY SUB TASK & ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY
DATES
INITIATION COMPLETION
PROGRAM
ELEMENT
FY 73
MANPOWER REQUIRED
(PROF MAN - MPS)
FY 74-
FY 75
FY 76
F. Sandy WWTP
Activated sludge plant not meeting
Class 1D1 standards or EPA objectives
On one-year needs list for increased
capacity. Regional ization with
existing of new plant is good. O&M
Survey completed by EPA in May 1971.
Required reductions:
FY 73 583#
74 641#
75 705#
76 776#
BODc
1. Insure implementation of recommendations of 1 NOV 72
O&M Survey. (O&M Section)
2. Provide follow-up assistance concerning 1 JAN 73
operation. (O&M Section)
3. Conduct pre-appl ication and pre-construction 1 NOV 72
conference. (Municipal Facilities Branch)
4. Support recommendation of 3(c) interim basin | 1 MAY 73
plan. (Planning Branch).
1 JUL 73
1 JUL 73
1 JUL 73
1 DEC 73
2B8163
2B8163
288162
2B3149
.10
.10
.05
.05
(Includ
summa
.05
;d in b£
y, No.
0
sin
1A)
11,712/100 ml. of total coliform
for FY 73-76.
O&M Survey recommendations:
A. Improved on-site plant testing.
B. Increase plant staff.
C. Aeration tank should be returned
to service.
D. Training should be emphasized.
Population growth potential is high.
-------
TABLE III - INTEGRATED BASIN TACTICAL SOLUTION AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
IV. JORDAN RIVER FROM UTAH LAKE TO THE SURPLUS CANAL - Continued
PAGE 23
SITUATION ANALYSIS
G. Utah Division of Wildlife, UT 190
Scott Avenue State Fish Hatchery,
UT 196
Meets Class'D1 standards and EPA
objectives. However, industry is
suspect for periods of high organic
discharges to Mill Creek.
Key Industries, UT 227
Sand and gravel ope
into Big Cottonwood
industry meets Clas
and EPA objectives,
problems associated
have been noted in
stream. By way of
industry has begun
program: 1) Ponds
and 2) the major di
eliminated by FY 73
ration discharging
Canyon. This
s 'D' standards
However,
with turbidity
the receiving
commitment, the
an abatement
wi 11 be dredged
scharge will be
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
BY SUB TASK & ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY
I. Utah State Prison WWTP
Extended aeration plant that is
heavily overloaded. Does not meet
Class 'D' effluent standards or
EPA objectives. The wastes now
generated by the prison are to be
treated at the TRI-Community WWTP
by end of FY 73 or beginning of
FY 74.
Encourage monitoring program for receiving
waters. (Permits Branch)
Insure that monitoring program is initiated.
(Permits Branch)
Monitor progress of abatement schedule.
(Permits Branch)
Insure that monitoring program is initiated.
•(Permits Branch)
Monitor progress of construction grant.
(Planning Branch)
DATES
INITIATION
1 OCT 72
SEP 72
1 SEP 72
1 SEP 72
1 NOV 72
COMPLETION
1 JAN 74
1 JAN 7 4
30 JUN 7 4
1 JAN 7 L
1 JUL 73
PROGRAM
ELEMENT
3B2124
3B2124
3B2124
3B2124
2B3149
FY 73
3.0
(Inclu
mary
3.0
(Inclu
mary
3.0
(Inclu
4.0
ded in b
3.0
(Inclu
mary)
4.0
Jed in t
.05
MANPOWER REQUIRED
(PROF - MAN - .MPS)
FY 74-
4.0
Jed in t
4.0
Jed in t
)
FY 75
0
asin s
0-
um-
0
asin s
0
jsin si
0
mma ry 1
0
asin s
0
um-
FY 76
-------
TABLE III - INTEGRATED BASIN TACTICAL SOLUTION AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
PAGE 24
IV. JORDAN RIVER FROM UTAH LAKE TO THE SURPLUS CANAL - Continued
SITUATION ANALYSIS
V. The Jordan River, the Surplus Canal
and the State Industrial Canal contain
three domestic wastewater treatment
plants and five industrial dischargers.
Two plants meet Class 1D' effluent
standards but all three do not meet
EPA objectives. Three industries do
not meet ' D1 standards or EPA ob-
jectives and two industries discharge
undesirable thermal pollution to the
Jordan River. Again, this area of
the Jordan contains extensive deposits
of sludge. O&M surveys have not been
completed for the wastewater treatment
plants. Some portion of Jordan River
is to be part of a "Parkway" develop-
ment.
A. Utah Wool Pulling Company, UT
This industrial discharger does not
meet Class 'D' effluent require-
ments or EPA objectives. The land
presently occupied will tentatively
be condemned for expansions to the
existing international airport by
the end of FY 73. RAPP has requested
engineering studies on waste treat-
ment with completion of construction
on July 12, 1973 if industry is
still located at present site.
Reductions required for the interim
period:
FV 73 3252# of B0D5
1 ,251 ,812/100 ml. of total coliform
for FY 73.
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
BY SUB TASK & ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY
1. Award construction grants on secondary and/or
advanced wastewater treatment facilities.
(Municipal Facilities Branch)
1. Work with State and industry to devise
interim abatement measures to reduce effluent
to Class 'D' standards. (Permits Branch)
DATES
INITIATION COMPLETION
1 JUL 72
1 SEP 72
30 JUN 76
NOV 7 3
PROGRAM
ELEMENT
2B8162
3B2124
MANPOWER REQUIRED
(PROF - HAN - HQS)
FY 73 FY 74- FY 75 FY 76
(In
S
.2
luded i
imma ry)
3.0
(Incl
uds
.2
n basir
2.0
d in b
-------
TABLE III - INTEGRATED BASIN TACTICAL SOLUTION AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
PAGE 25
V. JORDAN RIVER RM 2100 SOUTH TO MOUTH INCLUDING SURPLUS CANAL & STATE MNDUSTRIAl CANAL - Continued
SITUATION ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
BY SUB TASK 6, ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY
DATES
INITIATION COMPLETION
PROGRAM
ELEMENT
FY 73 FY 74- FY 75 FY 76
MANPOWER REQUIRED
(PROF - MAN -.MPS)
B. Phillips Petroleum,, UT 211
This industrial discharger does not
meet Class 'D' effluent standards
nor EPA objectives. It discharges
into a diversion of the Jordan
River (State Industrial Canal) which
eventually is received by the Great
Salt Lake. Reductions required:
FY 73 229# of BODc
74 257#
75 287=?
76 321H
C. Utah Power and Light, UT 082
This industry does not meet
Class 'D1 effluent standards
or EPA objectives. Temperature
of effluent may reach 180°.
Reductions required:
Secure and review commitment letter for best
practical treatment and/or maintenance of
stream standards. (Permits Branch)
1 OCT 72
1 JAN 7 4
3B2124
3.0
Include
4.0
d l n ba
0
i n sumi
0
lary)
FY 73
74
75
76
3if of B0Dq
5#
8#
12#
Secure and review commitment by industry
to limit thermal discharge to 95°F.
(Permits Branch)
1 OCT 72
1 JAN 7 3
3B2124
3.0
Include
4.0t
i n bas
0
in su
mna
0
ry)
-------
TABLE III - INTEGRATED BASIN TACTICAL SOLUTION AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS
PAGE 26
V. JORDAN RIVER RM 2100 SOUTH TO MOUTH INCLUDING SURPLUS CANAL AND STATE TNOIISTRI Al CflNAI
- f.nnti nnprl
SITUATION ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
BY SUB TASK & ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY
DATES
INITIATION COMPLETION
PROGRAM
ELEMENT
FY 73
MANPOWER REQUIRED
(PROF - MAN - .MPS)
FY 74- FY 75
FY 76
D. Utah Power and Light, UT 081
This industry meets Class 'D'
effluent standards and EPA objectives
Temperature of effluent, however,
may involve a violation. This plant
is a standby operation and may be
inoperative in the near future.
E. South Davis County Sewer Improvement
District South WWTP
A trickling filter plant that does
not meet Class 1D1 effluent stand-
ards or EPA objectives. On five-
year needs list. Reductions re-
qui red:
FY 73 244# of BODc
74 274#
75 307#
76 343#
Regionalization potential is poor.
Population growth potential is high.
1.
Secure and review commitment by industry to
limit thermal discharge to 95°F.
(Permits Branch)
1 OCT 72
1 JAN 74
3B2124
3.C
Includi
ed
4.0
in ba
0
in surra
0"
ilnary)
2.
Conduct 0&M Survey. (O&M Section)
Support recommendations of 3(c) fully de-
veloped basin plan. (Planning Branch)
1 OCT 72
1 DEC 73
1 JAN 73
1 DEC 74
2B8163
2B3149
. 3C
Included
0
Included
0
in ba:
.2
in ba;
0
in sumi
.2
i n sumi
0
fa ry)
0
ijna ry)
-------
TABLE III - INTEGRATED BASIN TACTICAL SOLUTION AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS PAGE 27
V. JORDAN RIVER FM 2100 SOUTH TO MOUTH INCLUDING SURPLUS CANAL AND STATE INDUSTRIAL CANAL - Continued
SITUATION ANALYSIS
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
BY SUB TASK & ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY
DATES
INITIATION
COMPLETION
PROGRAM
ELEMENT
FY 73
MANPOWER REQUIRED
(PROF - MAN - MPS)
FY 74-
FY 75
FY 76
F. South Salt Lake WWTP
A trickling filter plant not meeting
Class 1D' effluents standards or
EPA objectives. Construction grant
offer for mechanical improvements
to be made September 1972. On five-
year needs Inst. Reductions
requi red:
FY 73 239# BOD,
74 274#
75 312#
76 354=
G. South Davis County Sewer Improve-
ment District, North WWTP
A trickling filter plant that does
meet Class 'D' effluent standards
but does not meet EPA objectives.
On one-year needs list. Reductions
requi red:
FY 73 514# of B0D5
74 582#
75 656#
76 737#
Conduct O&M Survey. (O&M Section)
Support recommendations of 3(c) fully de-
veloped basin plan. (Planning Branch)
1 OCT 72
1 DEC 73
1 JAN 73
1 DEC 74
2B8163
2B3149
. 3U .
Include
0
Includec
0
J in bas
.2
in bas
0
in sumi
.2
in sumn
0-
iijiary)
0
ary)
Conduct O&M Survey. (O&M Section)
Conduct preapplication and preconstruction
conference. (Municipal Facilities Branch)
Support recommendations of 3(c) interim
basin plan. (Planning Branch)
1 OCT 72
1 JAN 73
1 MAY 73
1 JAN 73
1 NOV 73
1 DEC 73
2B8163
2B8162
2B3149
.30
Include
.05
.05
Include
0
i in bas
.05
.05
i in bas
No.
0
i n s umi
0
itiary)
0
in sumflii
(A)
0
ary
Regional ization potential is poor.
Population growth potential is high.
-------
TABLE III - INTEGRATED BASIN TACTICAL SOLUTION AND RESOURCE REQUIREMENTS PAGE 28
V. JORDAN RIVER RM 2100 SOUTH TO MOUTH INCLUDING SURPLUS CANAL AND STATE INDUSTRIAL CANAL - Continued
SITUATION ANALYSIS
RECCM54ENDED ACTIONS
BY SUB TASK & ORGANIZATION RESPONSIBILITY
D/
INITIATION"
kTES
COMPLETION
PROGRAM
ELEMENT
MANPOWER REQUIRED
(PROF - MAN - MOS)
FY 73
FY 74-
FY 75
FY 76
H. Denver and Rio Grande Railroad, UT180
This industrial discharger does not
meet Class 1D1 effluent standards
and EPA objectives. Although there
is no reported BOD violations, one
is highly suspect. Reductions
reaui red:
2,500/100 ml. total coliform for
FY 73-76.
1. Obtain water quality data from State, 3(c),
industry or EPA initiated survey. (Permits
Branch)
1 OCT 72
1 DEC 7 3
3B2124
3.C
(Incli
2.0
ded in
0
3a s i n s
0
umma ry)
-------
SECTION G
POINT SOURCE REDUCTIONS REQUIRED
-------
TA3L3 IV - \-!\'V\K o,'JALITY I/i^i SiT TIU'OUGH CCX/I^TION OF ACTICi: ITIM3
INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OR CLUSTER OF SOURCES : CLEAR VIEW TROUT FARM UT .205
PAGE 1 of 9
71 oiwizTf- ?a Ri\:-zrrr,Rs
AGG.\.^u.'vTLD ACTIO.1 i.0
REiUIRDD FOR REDUCTION
?P.C3LV:T V.'ASTS LOADS
(2b r.r - ave)
(From TA3L2 III)
(Sao TABLF l)
bod5
I.IB.5.6., II.A.1
100//
Total Colifortn
II II .
No data
v.'asts loads i;^)uct:on
(SFS TA3LF III)
Fi
72 73
?R2S'JKT WATIiR QUALITY
"?V T^V I "?V
7^ 75 176
0 0
(So-s TABLE II)
Unknown
less Chan 5,000/100ml.
(7-dny - 10 y—:¦ :1c.
fssz :qs ta:l" ::i;
FY
72
FY
73
FY
INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OR CLUSTER OF SOURCES: HEBER CITY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OR CLUSTER OF SOURCES: MIDWAY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
BOD5
1.3.7.14. , 11.B.1.2
480//
1
i
1 :
432
485
543
607
b5 mg/1
-
40
30
20
5
Total Coliform
II II
33,000/100 ml.
!
>
28M
28.M
28M
28M
930,000/100 ml.
lOOt
5ufr
10M
5M
bod5
1.3.7 .14 , II.C.1.2
10//
Total Coliform
M II
8,300/100 ml.
. 3M
3. 9 mg/1
3.3K3.3N
3.3M
43,000/100 ml.
3.'9
30M
3.0
3.0
3.0
20M 10M
5M
INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OR CLUSTER OF SOURCES: SPRINGDELL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
bod5
I-.3.7.14, II.D.l
insignificant:
Total Coliform
II ' II
No data
Approx. 5.8 mg/1
Approx 24,000/100 nl.
5.0
20M
5.0
10M
5.0
5M
5
5M
/1
-------
TABLE IV - UATEil QUALITY L'
-------
TABLE IV - VATSR QUALITY IXPrt SIT THnOUGII CCML^IOS OF ACTIO!! ITEMS
INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OR CLUSTER OF SOURCES : RE ILLY TAR AND CHEMICAL UT 186
PAGE 3 of 9
''' ouali:7y-?ara::eters
jl'yj0,-,.'-.^7'i.' 11.D ACT-lO.\'
REQUIRED FOR REDUCTION
PRiiSEMT V.'ASTE LOADS
(2b hr - gvg)
Vu\S'^ LOADS r^-JCTION j PRCSiJKT V,rATiW QUALITY
(SEE TABLE III)
Ar.iiciP.-'.TEj
(7-dny - 10 fie
(SEE l^i.S TAlIE III
(From TABLE III)
(See TABLE l)
FY
72
FY
7.V
yv
7h
TV
75
^ .
/¦
to
(See TABLE II)
FY
72
FY
73
FY
7-
FY
75
r/
bods
I.IB.5.6, III.D.l
4 it
0
0
0
0 j Approx. 30 mg/1
25
20
JO
5
Total Coliform
II II
No data
Approx. 1,000,000/100 ml.
1
1M
2 5 ON
50M
5M
INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OR CLUSTER OF SOURCES: PACIFIC STATES CAST IRON PIPE, UT 274
bod5
I.IB.5.6. , III.E.1.2
7,
0
0
0
0
Approx. 6.0
6
6
6
5
Total Coliform
II tl
417/100 ml.
0
0
0
0
Approx. 3,000/100 ml.
3M
3M
3M
2M
INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OR CLUSTER OF SOURCES: SPRINGVILLE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
bod5
1.3.7.14., III.F.1.2
261#
Coliform
II II
110,000/100 ml.
INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OR CLUSTER OF SOURCES: SALEM
BOD5
1.3.7.14. , III.G.1.2
2 31//
Colif 0 rm
M II
81,000/100 ml.
1
1
195
>23
255
290
26 mg/1
25
20
10
5 |
1
J
|
105M
1,604,002/100 ml.
1M
250N
50M
5M
1
248
273 301 333
76M-
12.80 rag/1
150,000/100* ml.
12
125M
I I
10
lOOf
25M
5M
-------
TADL3 IV - WAT33 QUALITY iyj'fi' J?JT TILWCII CC^LSTXOS OF ACTiON ITEMS
INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OR CLUSTER OF SOURCE:;; SPANISH FORK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
PAGE 4 of 9
'7 ^iWLIFf-PARA'IDLERS
AGGREGATED ACTIO!1. IT.*1 IS
RRIUintD FOR REDUCTION
PRESENT WASTE LOADS
(2^ hr - ave)
WASTE LOADS REDUCTION
(SEE TA3LE III)
PRESENT WATER QUALITY
ai.ticip^.ted -.v.
(7-day - lO.y-r ficv
• (SEE "."^.5 K TAlLE III)
(From TABLE III)
(See TABLE l)
n
72
FY
73 ¦
*7V
714
ttv
75
FY
76
(See TABLE II)
FY
72
FY
73
TV
; 5
.
bod5
1.3.7.14. , III.K.l .2.3
429#
472 J519
571
628
14.0 mg/1
12
10
10
5
Coliform
11 II
27,600/100 ml.
!
12. 6lj
93,000/100 ml.
75M
50M
¦ 20M
4.
INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OR CLUSTER OF SOURCES: QREM WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
bod5
1.3.7.14., III.1.1.2
526#
483
1
1
541 1604
574
Approx. 5-10 mg/1
5
Coli form
1.3.7.14. , III.1.1 .2
63,900/100 ml.
[
>8.9tjl
1
Less than 5,000/100 ml.
1
5M
INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OR CLUSTER OF SOURCES: LEHI WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
bod5
1.3.7.14. , III J.l .2.3
O
1
1
;
i
1
95 '
107
120
134
5.8 mg/1
9.0
8.0
8.0
5.0
Co 11 f0 rm
1.3.7.14., Ill J.1.2.3
99,000/100 ml. 1
i
94M
-
-
-
43,000/100 ml.
40M
20M !lOM
1
5M
INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OR CLUSTER OF SOURCES: PAYSON WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
BOD5
1.3.7.14., III.K.l.2
71#
55
63
72
82
4.3 mg/1
4
3 .
2 ¦
2
Col i form
M II
190 ,000/100 ml .
185M
-
-
93,000/100-ml.
75M
50M
25M
5M
! |
1 1
1
-------
TABLE IV - WATER QUALITY IKPR' CEMENT THROUGH COMLETIOK OF ACTIOIJ-ITE-IS
INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OR CLUSTER OF SOURCES : PLEASANT GROVE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
PAGE 5 of 9
? 0u\LIT!-PARA.'-CTERS
AGGREGATED ACTIO.\ ITE5I3
REQUIRED TOR REDUCTION
PRESENT WASTE LOADS
(2k hr - ave)
VASTE LOADS REDUCTION FRESCKT WATER QUALITY
(SEE TABLE III)
a;.TICi?.'.T1_j .."juR .,l.
(7-day - 10 yo?r flc".
(SEE i."2S TABLE IIIV
FY
72
FY
7^
TV
7^
VV
75
FY
1 D
(Soe TABLE II)
FY
72
FY
73
Ti
1-
1 ->
s<
['. 1
173'
195
229
235
9.1-mg/1
9.0
9.0
3.0
5.0
56M
-
-
23 ,0.00/"100 ml.
20M
15M
I0M
5M
BOD5
Coli form
(From TABLE III)
(See TABLE I)
1.3.7.14. , III.L'J.2
198#
61 ,000/100 ml.
INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OR CLUSTER OF SOURCES: GRANGER-HUNTER WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLAN!
bod5
1.7.14., IV.A.1.2.3
2090#
Coli form
II IJ
10,400/100 ml.
INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OR CLUSTER OF SOURCES: SALT LAKE
BOD5
1.7.14. , IV.B.l.2.3
2015#
Coli form
11 II
10,400/100 ml
?044!'266 25102778
3. 4M
6.2 "jng/1
,000/100 ml.
?090
232cj2573|2851
7.5 mg/1
7.0
6.0
5.0
5.0
i.4M-
!
11 ,000/100 ml
10M
10M
5M'
5M
6.0
10i>1
i.o (5.1
5.0
10M ¦ 5M
1
5M
INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OR CLUSTER OF SOURCES:
-------
table iv - wat;?..i quality e® though cor-LirnoN o? actio:: its-3
INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OR CLUSTER OF SOURCE;: MURRAY WASTFUATFR TRFATMFNT [if ANT
PAGE 6 of 9
" OlnLI7Y-?ARA.'-;ETERS
AljG.'i i'ijD ACTIOr.
required for reduction
PRESET WASTE LOADS
(2h hr - avc)
VrASTE LOADS REOJCTIOX
( S^ij ill)
PRESEI-.T l-.'ATER QUALITY
a:.tici?.-tlj -....ii?. =.L
(7-doy - 10 fic
(SEE OS TAE1E III
(From TABLE III)
(See TABLE I)
FY
72
FY
71
J7V
7L
FY FY
75 76
(See TABLE II)
FY
72
FY
73
T£
7-
fy
75
TV
„ /¦
•
bod5
1.3.7.14. , IV .C .>1,. 2.3
1066#
1
^j"
"-O
O
r?
22.0 mg/1
20
1
15 jio
5
Coli form
II II
.. . ...
35,500
1059
£0.5t<
-- -|
1 240,000/100 ml .
:
:00M
150M 75M
5M
INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OR CLUSTER OF SOURCES: SALT LAKE SUBURBAN NO. 1 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
B0D5
1.7.14. , IV.D.l.2
1849#
Coli form
|,
10,400
574j 777
. 4M-
2001
2247
21.0 mg/1
11 ,000/100 ml
INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OR CLUSTER OF SOURCES: TR[-COMMUNITY fMidvalp) WASTFMATFR TRFATM/NT PLANT
20
10M
15
15
10M
5M
5M
bod5
1.7.14. , IV.E.1.2
891 #
Col i form
„
53,100/100 ml .
B21 9
18,100
19 1027
1146
40.0 mg/1
46,000/100 ml
25.0
40M
30.020.0 5.0
3 ON '20 M
5M
INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OR CLUSTER OF SOURCES: SANDY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
BOD5
1.7.14. , IV.F.l.2.3.4
1 1
1 1
1
O
CO
LO
J 583
641
705
776
7.3 mg/1
7.0
6.0
5,0
4.0
Coli form
II II
16,712/100 ml.
11 ,7
2—•
24,000/100 ml.
20M
15^
10M
5M
1
-------
TA3L3 IV - WATS?. QUALITY L'^i THOUGH CCiCf'LSTIOX OF ACTiOi: ITZ'-S
INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OH CLUSTER OF SOURCES: UTAH DIVISION OF WILDLIFE (Scott Ave) UT 196
PAGE 7 of 9
" OIV^ITY-PARA.'-STERS
AGG'.\^CATlD ACTIOj.T:£"IS
r23uir:d for reduction
PRuS^I1 WASTE LOADS
(2U hr - ave)
VA5TE LOADS ^JliCTIOS
(SEE TABLE III)
PHESE.VT l-.'ATEH QUALITY
(7-doy
(S"
.? >
10
Z
~j " : *
fie-.
in)
(From TABLE III)
(See TABLE I)
FY
72
T7V
73
TV
i. -
7k
yv
75
76
(See TABLE II)
FY
72
FY
73
7-
75
3
BOD5
I. IB. 5. 6., IV.GU.2
3//
0
0
0
0
0
3.9 mg/1 at RM 0.26
3.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
Coliform
It II
2100/100 ml. j -
0
0
0
0
HO.QO'O/IOO ml. @ RM 0.26
¦
100N
75M
25M
5M
INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OR CLUSTER OF SOURCES: KEY INDUSTRIES UT 227
BOD 5
I.1B.5.6.
IV.M.1.2
No Data
j
-1-
25 mg/l
-
.! L
! 1
Coliform
1 f
II
11 ti
-
-
-
46-,000/100 ml.
-
-
-
-
INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OR CLUSTER OF SOURCES: UTAH STATE PRISON
BOD5
IV.1.1
1
17// ;
1
2
0
0
0
4.5 mg/1
4.0
0
0
0
Total Coliform
ir 11
i
445,000/100 ml. j
~ 40M-
24,000/100 ml.
20M
| j
0 1 0 0
1 1
INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OR CLUSTER OF SOURCES: UTAH WOOL PULLING, UT 159 j
bod5
I.IB.5.6., V.A.I
2970//
3252
3251
0
0 | 25 mg/1
20
15
10
5
Total Coliform
II II
|
1,251,812/100 ml. !
1,25
.,8i:
0
0
2,.400,000/100 ml.
1M
50 ON
25M
5M
i
1
i
-------
TABLE IV - WATER QUALITY IKPrt n'K;.- "liT THROUGH CGaPLSTIO:'! OF ACTIOL' ITEsS
INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OR CLUSTER OF SOURCES: PHILLIPS PETROLEUM, UT 211
PAGE 8 of 9
niVvLirr-PARAICTEi-S
AGGREGATED ACTIO.1,' iT.'-'IS
REQUIRED FOR REDUCTION
PRESENT WASTE LOADS
(2^ hr - ave)
VASTS LOADS REJECTIONj ?RESE.\T V.'ATER QUALITY
(SEE TA3LE III)
(7-dny - 10 y:-?
(SEE i.T>S TALE
fie--
III)
(From TABLE III)
(Sse TABLE l)
FY
72
FY
73
~r\ f
7^
TV
75
TV
76
(See TA3L2 II)
FY
72
FY
73
i -
TL
—r
"¦'o
B0D5
' I.IB.5.6. , V.B.V
256II
229
257
287
321
Appr'ox. 6 mg/1
6
6
5
5
Total Coliform
„
No Data J
| Approx. 10,000/100 ml.
!
10M
ion
5M
5M
INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OR CLUSTER OF SOURCES: UTAH POWER & LIGHT, UT 082
bod5
I.IB.5.6. , V.C.I
29#
0
0
j
0 |o
1
11.4 mg/1
11
9
8
5
Total Coliform
II II
No Data
930,000/100 ml..
' 50M
3oor
50fa
5M
INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OR CLUSTER OF SOURCES: UTAH POWER AND LIGHT, UT 081
bod5
I.IB.5.6. , V.D.I
Insignificant
Total Coliform
„
No Data
0 0
11.4 mg/1
11
930,000/100 ml.
'50M
300M 5011
INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OR CLUSTER OF SOURCES:
-------
TABLE IV -
V.'ATSfl QUALITY
INDIVIDUAL SOURCE
OR CLUSTER OF SOURCE.';
- L'ALI 7Y- PARA.' 3TERS
>iGG.iSOA'i'aD ACTIO., -i
RElUIRi'D FOR RLHu'CTIOX
FRLSI^T V.'ASM LOADS
(2b hr - avc)
(From TABLB III)
(See TABLE I)
bod5
1.3.7.14.15. , V-.E.l
269#
Total Coliform
»
4800/100 ml.
PAGE 9 of 9
WASTii /LOADS MOLi CTION
(SFE TA3L2 III)
FY
72
TV
tI;
P.RSS^r .V/ATiiH QUALITY
VV
75
244
274
307
343
(See TABLE II)
10.3
1 ,100,000/100 ml.
A;.'ZICI?.-.TZj •'...V-.L?.
('7-day - 10 yo;;- fie.
(sail i^s k z:-^z ml
FY
72
FY
73
10
rr
fy
J_2
950M300M
75M
5M
INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OR CLUSTER OF SOURCES: SOUTH Sfll T I AKF MASTFWflTFR TRFflTMFMT PI ftMT
bod5
1.3.7.14. , V.F.I,2
318#
Total Coliform
¦ ¦ II
4900/100 ml.
INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OR CLUSTER OF SOURCES: SOUTH DAVIS COUNTY SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
239
¦i
)
274| 312
354
13.6 mg/1
13
10
8 j 5
2,400,000/100 ml.
1M
BOOM
50f>
5M
bod5
1.3.7.14. , IV.G.1.2.3
618#
Total Coliform
„
38,000/100 ml.
514
33M-
582
656
737
7.1 mg/1
24,000/100 ml.
20 M
10M '¦ 5M bM
INDIVIDUAL SOURCE OR CLUSTER OF SOURCES: DENVER & RIO GRANDE RR. UT 180
bod5
I.IB.5.6., V.H.I
No Data
0
0
0
0
9.2 mg/1
8
7
5
'
5
Total Coliform
¦ 1 II
7500
2.51"
2,400,000/100 ml.
1M
300F
50N
5M
i
------- |