Silver Creek - Division of Water Quality - Utah.gov

Silver Creek Watershed TMDL Final Report
uncertainty as to the seasonal flows from the drain, however sufficient data exists to estimate
the annual load attributable to that source. Since the annual load from Prospector Drain is
significant and most likely larger than the total of the three sources identified currently in the
TMDL, UDWQ feels it is appropriate to include load estimates for the Prospector Drain in
the TMDL. Section 6.0 has been modified accordingly.
15. Concern was noted by one commenter about the reference to a 5 year implementation
schedule and the uncertainty of obtaining the needed financial resources to effect clean up.
Another commenter expressed concern that the TMDL did not provide stakeholders with
information on the resources available to assist in clean up projects and that it is UDEQ’s
responsibility to provide and or assist in obtaining clean up grants.
Response – The scope and potential cost of implementing the clean up measures necessary to
achieve the endpoints of the Silver Creek TMDL is quite daunting. UDWQ agrees that the
five year estimate included in the TMDL is not realistic. The wording of Section 10.4 has
been modified to reflect a more realistic time frame of 10 years.
UDWQ does not agree that the responsibility for obtaining financial resources to effect clean
up rests solely with UDWQ. UDWQ very much appreciates the cooperation of all of the
stakeholders involved in this process and is committed to supporting and assisting where
possible the clean up efforts needed. UDWQ will continue to work cooperatively with
stakeholders and other local, state, and federal agencies to address the various projects
needed to remedy the water quality impairments that currently exist in Silver Creek.
16. One comment requested a change be made to section 8.3 regarding the time frame for
implementing effluent limits for the Silver Creek Water Reclamation Facility. The current
TMDL indicates that point source effluent limits should not be imposed until a 75% reduction in
upstream non-point sources is achieved. The commenter requested that the 75% reduction be
calculated in a different manner resulting in even more clean up being achieved before the point
source effluent limits were imposed.
Response – UDWQ believes that the current calculation of clean up needed is accurate and
adequate.
17. One commenter noted that the evaluation of load per distance depicted in section 4.4 and
Table 9 results in a diminished importance being given to the stream reach between Richardson
Flat and station 492680 (above Atkinson) when in fact this stream reach results in the overall
largest load contribution of any.
Response - UDWQ agrees with the comment. The segment of the stream between
Richardson and the above Atkinson station contributes approximately 5000 lbs. per year of
zinc. The next largest contribution of 3000 lbs. per year is in the reach between the Park City
monitoring station and Richardson Flat. The text in section 4.3 has been modified to address
this comment.
94