DWQ-2025-003598

392 E Winchester St., Ste 300, Salt Lake City, UT 84107 801 886 9052 www.jub.com

Dear Ken,

I hope this finds you well. Enclosed with this submittal is the complete Environmental Review
document for the Provo WATRR Center Project. This Environmental Review has been
completed pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and is
submitted on behalf of Provo City. It is provided for your review to meet NEPA requirements,
and to determine whether the project meets the regulatory justification to qualify for a
Categorical Exclusion under 40 CFR 6.204 Sec. a.1.ii of the Environmental Protection Agency’s
(EPA) Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act.

The Provo WATRR Center Project Team would like to request your review of the enclosed
document, and notification from UDWQ as to the NEPA determination for this project, or if
additional environmental review would be required. If you have any questions during your
review, please contact me at [e-mail] or via phone at 385-222-1436. Thank you for
your assistance through this process.

Respectfully,

___________________________
Autumn Foushee, Senior Biologist
J-U-B Engineers, Inc.

Encl: Provo WATRR Center Project Environmental Review
DATE: June 18, 2020
TO: Ken Hoffman, P.E., Environmental Engineer, Utah Division of Water Quality
CC: Gary Vance, P.E., J-U-B Engineers Inc; Cory Christiansen, P.E., Water Works
Engineers; Rebecca Andrus, Water Resources Principal Engineer, Provo City
FROM: Autumn Foushee, Senior Biologist, J-U-B Engineers, Inc.
SUBJECT: Environmental Review Document for the 2020 Provo City Public Works Department-
Provo Water Advanced Treatment and Resource Recovery (WATRR) Center Project
MEMORANDUM

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
for the
PROVO CITY WATER ADVANCED TREATMENT AND RESOURCE
RECOVERY CENTER
(PROVO CITY WATRR CENTER)
Provo City, Utah

Prepared for
Utah Division of Water Quality (UDWQ)
Multi-Agency State Office Building
195 North 1950 West, DEQ Third Floor
Salt Lake City, UT 84114

Provo City
Public Works Department
1377 S 350 E
Provo, UT 84606

Prepared by
J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.
392 E Winchester St., Suite 300
Salt Lake City, UT 84107

JUNE 2020

Provo City WATRR Center Project ii June 2020
Environmental Review
Cover Sheet

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
Applicant: Provo City
Address: 351 W Center Street, Provo, UT 84601
UDWQ Project Number: XXXXX

CONTACT PERSON
Name: Rebecca Andrus, P.E.
Address: 1377 S 350 E, Provo, UT 84606
Telephone Number: 801-852-7788

ABSTRACT
The Proposed Provo City Wastewater Treatment and Resource Recovery Center Project (Proposed
Project) would improve the Provo City Water Reclamation Facility (PCWRF) by refurbishing, repurposing,
and reusing existing facilities, as well as removing existing infrastructure from service and installing new
wastewater treatment infrastructure. The Proposed Project would occur within Provo City, and is
contained within the existing PCWRF site (approximately 26.5 acres). The Proposed Project is not
anticipated to result in any significant impacts to environmental resources within the Proposed Project
Action Area (Action Area).

Provo City WATRR Center Project iii June 2020
Environmental Review

Table of Contents
Cover Sheet ................................................................................................................................................... ii
1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED OF THE PROJECT ......................................................................................... 1
1.2 EXISTING FACILITIES ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................. 2
2 ALTERNATIVES ....................................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED PRIOR TO THE PLANNING PROCESS ..................... 7
2.2 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED .................................................................................. 7
2.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative ..................................................................................... 8
2.2.2 Alternative 2: Upgrade / Operation of Existing Facility ........................................................ 8
2.2.3 Alternative 3: Membrane Bioreactor Treatment Facility...................................................... 8
2.3 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE / PROPOSED PROJECT ......................................................................... 9
3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .................................................................................................................. 11
3.1 PLANNING AREA AND PROJECT AREA ......................................................................................... 11
3.1.1 Action Area .......................................................................................................................... 11
3.1.2 Physical Aspects: Topography, Geology and Soils .............................................................. 11
3.1.3 Climate ................................................................................................................................ 11
3.1.4 Population Growth .............................................................................................................. 11
3.2 HOUSING / INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT .................................................... 12
3.3 UTILITIES / TRANSPORTATION .................................................................................................... 12
3.4 SOCIOECONOMICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE .................................................................. 12
3.5 LAND USE .................................................................................................................................... 13
3.6 FLOODPLAINS .............................................................................................................................. 14
3.7 WETLANDS .................................................................................................................................. 14
3.8 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ........................................................................................................... 14
3.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES: HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................... 14
3.10 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: THREATENED, ENDANGERED AND CRTICIAL SPECIES AND HABITATS
15
3.11 RECREATION / OPEN SPACE ........................................................................................................ 15
3.12 FARMLAND RESOURCES: LAND USE / IMPORTANT FARMLAND / FORMALLY CLASSIFIED LAND
15

Provo City WATRR Center Project iv June 2020
Environmental Review
3.13 AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................................ 16
3.14 WATER RESOURCES: SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER ................................................... 16
3.15 PUBLIC HEALTH (INCLUDING NOISE) .......................................................................................... 17
3.16 SOLID WASTE (INCLUDING SLUDGE) ........................................................................................... 17
3.17 ENERGY ....................................................................................................................................... 17
4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .................................................................................................... 18
4.1 HOUSING / INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT .................................................... 18
4.2 UTILITIES / TRANSPORTATION .................................................................................................... 18
4.3 SOCIOECONOMICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE .................................................................. 19
4.4 LAND USE .................................................................................................................................... 19
4.5 FLOODPLAINS .............................................................................................................................. 20
4.6 WETLANDS .................................................................................................................................. 20
4.7 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ........................................................................................................... 21
4.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES: HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ............................... 21
4.9 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: THREATENED, ENDANGERED AND CRITICAL SPECIES AND HABITATS
22
4.10 RECREATION / OPEN SPACE ........................................................................................................ 23
4.11 FARMLAND RESOURCES: LAND USE / IMPORTANT FARMLAND / FORMALLY CLASSIFIED LAND
23
4.12 AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................................ 24
4.13 WATER RESOURCES: SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER ................................................... 26
4.14 PUBLIC HEALTH (INCLUDING NOISE) .......................................................................................... 27
4.15 SOLID WASTE (INCLUDING SLUDGE) ........................................................................................... 28
4.16 ENERGY ....................................................................................................................................... 28
5 CORRESPONDENCE AND COORDINATION .......................................................................................... 30
5.1 PUBLIC ......................................................................................................................................... 30
5.2 AGENCIES .................................................................................................................................... 30
6 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 32
7 LIST OF PREPARERS ............................................................................................................................. 33

List of Figures
Figure 1.1. Vicinity Map ............................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 1.2. PCWRF Service Area* ................................................................................................................. 4

Provo City WATRR Center Project v June 2020
Environmental Review
Figure 1.3. Provo City Annexation Map* ..................................................................................................... 5
Figure 1.4. Project Location Map ................................................................................................................. 6
Figure 2.1. Preferred Alternative for the Proposed Project ..................................................................... 10

List of Tables
Table 2.1. Cost Comparison and Net Present Value of Alternatives 1-3 .................................................... 7
Table 3.1. Forecasted Population Growth in the Provo City Area. ........................................................... 12
Table 3.2. Social Profile within a 0.5-mile radius of the Action Area1 ...................................................... 13
Table 3.3. Farmland Rating of Mapped Soils in the Action Area .............................................................. 15
Table 4.1. Emissions Levels Associated with Primary Construction Equipment ...................................... 25
Table 4.2. Estimated Net Emissions Levels for 20 Construction Days ...................................................... 25
Table 4.3. Estimated Net Emissions Levels for 200 Construction Days .................................................... 25
Appendices
Appendix A – Agency Scoping and Public Involvement
Appendix B – Water Resources Assessment
Appendix C – Cultural Resource Inventory
Appendix D – Biological Evaluation
Appendix E – Web Soil Survey

Provo City WATRR Center Project
Environmental Review 1 June 2020

1 INTRODUCTION
With a population of approximately 120,000, Provo City is the third most populous city in the state of
Utah. Provo City is located south of Orem City and north of Springville City. Utah Lake marks the western
boundary of the Provo City limits and the Wasatch Mountains delineate its eastern limits (Figure 1.1).
Given its western and eastern boundaries, expansion in Provo City is limited and many areas within the
City are previously developed. The Provo City Water Reclamation Facility (PCWRF) services the area
illustrated on Figure 1.2 and may eventually include the seven annexation areas illustrated on Figure 1.3.
Future water demands are expected to grow, and the reuse of effluent as a water resource may be
necessary to meet these increased demands for water resources.
1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED OF THE PROJECT
The Provo Water Reclamation Facilities Master Plan (WRF Master Plan) evaluated the current condition
and critical needs of the PCWRF plant facilities, as well as the current and future flows and loads and
expected pollutant discharge requirements. The Provo WRF Master Plan concluded that approximately
80% of the PCWRF facilities need immediate attention to comply with permitting requirements, safety
standards, and operation and capacity needs. Specifically, it will be difficult for PCWRF to comply with
new regulatory requirements for Technology-Based Phosphorus Effluent Limits (TBPEL) within the next
several years. As of 2020, the TBPEL is 1 mg/L. Under a variance with the Utah Division of Water Quality
(DWQ), the PCWRF can discharge up to 3.5 mg/L until January 1, 2025. It is anticipated that future
regulations requiring more stringent phosphorus limits as well as new discharge limits for Total Inorganic
Nitrogen may be promulgated in the future.
The WRF Master Plan found that the cost of upgrading the PCWRF facilities to address risk of failure and
regulatory compliance would be similar to building an entirely new facility. Based on this information,
Provo City initiated the planning process for completing the Provo Water Advanced Treatment and
Resource Recovery Center (Provo WATRR Center). From the Provo WRF Master Plan, the Provo Water
Advanced Treatment and Resource Recovery Center Phase 1 2020 Construction Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)
was developed (Water Works Engineers and Arcadis US 2020). Based on recommendations in the WRF
Master Plan and CFP, and in an effort to achieve future and anticipated regulatory standards for effluent,
Provo City intends to construct the proposed Provo WATRR Center Project (Proposed Project).
1.2 EXISTING FACILITIES
The PCWRF was constructed in 1956 and included headworks, primary clarifiers, trickling filters, and
secondary clarifiers. In 1976, in conjunction with community development and regulatory requirements,
the PCWRF upgraded its facilities to include aeration basins for conventional activated sludge (CAS). In
2014, the PCWRF transitioned from chlorination to ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. Most recently, in 2019,
the PCWRF decommissioned its trickling filters and focused on expanding, repairing, upgrading, and
refurbishing existing equipment in preparation for the Proposed Project. The location of the PCWRF is
illustrated in Figure 1.4.
Prior to the 2019 updates to the PCWRF, the average monthly flow capacity of the PCWRF was 21 million
gallons per day (mgd). After the recent 2019 updates, the average monthly treatment capacity was
reduced to approximately 16 mgd. In general, the PCWRF treatment process includes screening and grit
removal, primary sedimentation, aeration, final sedimentation, gravity filtration, and UV disinfection.
Effluent is currently discharged to Mill Race Canal, which has connectivity with Utah Lake, specifically

Provo City WATRR Center Project
Environmental Review 2 June 2020

Provo Bay. Solids that are produced from the treatment process are land applied or composted at sites
operated by Farmland Reserve, Inc. (FRI) located approximately 35 miles southwest of the PCWRF.
1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
To address concerns with the risk of failure associated with aged infrastructure and to adhere to future
and anticipated effluent discharge regulatory requirements, Provo City is evaluating the environmental
implications of proposed improvements to the PCWRF. The Proposed Project would transition the existing
PCWRF into the improved WATRR Center by refurbishing, repurposing, and reusing existing facilities, as
well as removing existing infrastructure from service and installing new wastewater treatment
infrastructure.
Under the Proposed Project, the trickling filters and the existing secondary clarifiers would be demolished
to create space for the new treatment process. The existing final clarifiers, filter building, and backwash
tank would be decommissioned, and a new power distribution system would be constructed. The majority
of the plant’s influent would flow to the existing influent junction structure, where the flow would be
directed to the existing headworks facilities. A new, in-plant lift station would be constructed to receive
additional sanitary sewer flows from the area southwest of the facility. Flow received at the new lift
station would be pumped directly to the existing headworks facility.
The existing coarse screening, grit removal, and primary clarification facilities would continue to be used.
The solids processing facilities would be refurbished as necessary for continued use, including the primary
sludge pump station, primary and secondary digesters, dissolved air flotation thickener (DAFT) tank, and
dewatering facility. A biosolids aeration struvite control system would be added to the existing solids
stream process to promote the removal of phosphorous from the plant and to prevent struvite scaling.
A major component of the Proposed Project is the installation of a membrane bioreactor system, which
would include new process basins, associated piping and equipment, and the repurposing of the four
existing aeration basins for equalization and surge storage. A fine screen facility would be constructed
upstream of the membranes to protect them from damage caused by small debris accumulation. The fine
screen facility would be placed downstream of the existing primary clarifiers, and a bypass line would
allow the clarifiers to be bypassed by directing primary influent from the headworks to the fine screen
facility. The flare would also be relocated to a site near the existing drying beds because its current
position does not meet safety requirements. Generally, the existing infrastructure for UV disinfection
would be maintained. Construction of the Proposed Project would be anticipated to begin in August 2020
and be complete by the end of 2023, pending environmental, design, and construction approvals.

Provo City WATRR Center Project
Environmental Review 3 June 2020

Figure 1.1. Vicinity Map

Provo City WATRR Center Project
Environmental Review 4 June 2020

Figure 1.2. PCWRF Service Area*
Note*: Figure 1.2 was obtained from the PCWRF CFP (Water Works Engineers and Arcadis US 2020).

Provo City WATRR Center Project
Environmental Review 5 June 2020

Figure 1.3. Provo City Annexation Map*
Note*: Figure 1.3 was obtained from the PCWRF CFP (Water Works Engineers and Arcadis US 2020).

Provo City WATRR Center Project
Environmental Review 6 June 2020

Figure 1.4. Project Location Map

Provo City WATRR Center Project
Environmental Review 7 June 2020

2 ALTERNATIVES
The alternatives considered for the development of the Proposed Project are discussed in the following
sections. Alternatives were evaluated based on their ability to accommodate budgetary constraints,
purpose and need, permitting requirements, and future water demands, as well as maintenance of
current operations, and constructability.
2.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED PRIOR TO THE PLANNING PROCESS
One alternative that was considered but ultimately dismissed from further analysis is the Regionalization
Alternative. Under the Regionalization Alternative, Provo City along with Spanish Fork, Springville, and
Mapleton would construct a regional facility located at one of four potential locations. The four potential
locations were: 1) the existing PCWRF site; 2) a site on the west side of Provo near the airport; 3) a site
west of Springville; and, 4) the site west of Springville that would serve the municipalities excluding Provo
City (i.e. Spanish Fork, Springville, and Mapleton only).
The feasibility of each of the four sites was evaluated based on the following criteria: conveyance
hydraulics; emerging technologies; sustainability; environmental issues; public acceptability;
development timing; phased construction; constructability; financial and economic considerations; and,
risks. The evaluation determined that the most advantageous option for each municipality was to upgrade
or replace their current water reclamation infrastructure instead of constructing a regional facility. Given
the disadvantages, high costs, and environmental impacts associated with each of the four locations
considered for the Regionalization Alternative, the Regionalization Alternative has been dismissed from
further analysis in this Environmental Review.
2.2 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED
This Environmental Review evaluates three alternatives that were considered in the planning process for
the Proposed Project: Alternative 1 (No Action), Alternative 2 (Upgrade Existing Facilities), and Alternative
3 (Membrane Bioreactor Treatment Facility). Table 2.1 compares the 20-year net present value, or total
construction and operation cost, of the three alternatives evaluated for the Proposed Project. Table 2.1
was gathered from information in the CFP. The three alternatives are discussed in more detail in the
following sections.
Table 2.1. Cost Comparison and Net Present Value of Alternatives 1-3
Category Alternative 1
No Action
Alternative 2
Upgrade Existing
Facilities
Alternative 3
Membrane Bioreactor
Treatment Facility
Capital Costs (All Upgrades
through Buildout Capacity)
$0 $304,000,000 $289,000,000
Operations and
Maintenance Costs
$600,000 $650,000 $1,750,000
Chemical Costs $120,000 $130,000 $140,000
Energy Costs $1,310,000 $1,830,000 $3,770,000
Net Present Value $33,300,000 $346,000,000 $382,000,000

Provo City WATRR Center Project
Environmental Review 8 June 2020

2.2.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative
Alternative 1, also called the No Action Alternative, represents the alternative if the PCWRF infrastructure
was maintained and not refurbished, improved or upgraded. If this alternative was implemented, the
PCWRF would not be able to comply with future and anticipated water quality discharge standards and
would not address the risk of failure. Ultimately, selection of Alternative 1 would result in Provo City
violating its Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (UPDES) permit and potentially posing a
significant public health and safety risk. Under Alternative 1, the CFP estimates that the cost of all
upgrades through buildout capacity would be nonexistent, since this alternative would not upgrade the
PCWRF facilities. The estimated cost of operations and maintenance would be $600,000. Chemical costs
are estimated at $120,000 and energy costs are estimated at $1.31 million. Overall, Alternative 1 has the
smallest net present value for a 20-year design life, amounting to $33.3 million.
2.2.2 Alternative 2: Upgrade / Operation of Existing Facility
Alternative 2 would upgrade the existing facilities at the PCWRF to comply with upcoming and anticipated
regulations. While Alternative 2 would ensure the City does not violate its discharge permit, Alternative 2
would not improve the PCWRF infrastructure that poses significant public and health concerns as the
continued use of aged infrastructure creates a risk of equipment failure, and this alternative would not
incorporate modern treatment techniques into the treatment process. This alternative has the greatest
capital costs for all upgrades through buildout capacity, totaling $304 million. The cost of operations and
maintenance of equipment for Alternative 2 is slightly higher than that of Alternative 1 and approximately
half the cost of operations and maintenance of Alternative 3. The capital cost of implementing Alternative
2 is the greatest of the three Alternatives, though it has a smaller net present value than Alternative 3.
2.2.3 Alternative 3: Membrane Bioreactor Treatment Facility
Alternative 3 would improve the PCWRF by refurbishing, repurposing, and reusing existing facilities, as
well as removing existing infrastructure from service and installing new wastewater treatment
infrastructure. Alternative 3 would include the installation of membrane bioreactor technology. This
alternative is comprised of three phases that are described in more detail in the following sections. Under
Alternative 3, the City would comply with upcoming and anticipated regulatory requirements,
decommission aged infrastructure that poses a public health and safety risk, and produce high quality
effluent that may be used as a revenue generating water resource. Alternative 3 has a lower capital cost
than Alternative 2, totaling $289 million. The cost of operation and maintenance, chemicals, and energy
input is the highest of the three alternatives considered; the total net present value for Alternative 3 is
$382 million.
2.2.3.1 Phase 1
Under Phase 1 of Alternative 3, the trickling filters and the existing secondary clarifiers would be
demolished to create space for the new treatment process. The existing final clarifiers, filter building, and
backwash tank would be decommissioned, and a new power distribution system would be constructed.
The majority of the plant’s influent would flow to the existing influent junction structure, where the flow
would be directed to the existing headworks facilities. A new, in-plant lift station would be constructed to
receive additional sanitary sewer flows from the area southwest of the facility. Flow received at the new
lift stations would be pumped directly to the existing headworks facility.
The existing coarse screening and grit removal facilities would continue to be used. The solids processing
facilities would be refurbished as necessary for continued use, including the primary sludge pump station,

Provo City WATRR Center Project
Environmental Review 9 June 2020

primary and secondary digesters, dissolved air flotation thickener (DAFT) tank, and dewatering facility. A
biosolids aeration struvite control system would be added to the existing solids stream process to promote
the removal of phosphorous from the plant and to prevent struvite scaling.
A major component of the Proposed Project is the installation of a membrane bioreactor system, which
would include new process basins, associated piping and equipment, and the repurposing of the four
existing aeration basins for equalization and surge storage.
2.2.3.2 Phase 2
Phase 2 of Alternative 3 would decommission the existing solids handling facilities and install new solids
handling facilities, which would include gravity sludge thickeners (GST), DAF thickener, centrate pump
station, GST and DAF pump station, digesters, digester building, solids handling tank, sludge transfer
station, and solids dewatering facility.
2.2.3.3 Phase 3
Phase 3 of Alternative 3 represents this alternative at full buildout; the AAD for the complete project
would be 21 mgd. As part of Phase 3, two additional bioreactors would be needed to meet the estimated
buildout capacity.
2.3 PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE / PROPOSED PROJECT
During the alternative screening process, it was determined that Alternative 3 best met the project’s
purpose and need, water quality requirements, and water conservation objectives. The City is unable to
currently implement Phases 2 and 3 of Alternative 3 because a funding source for the two phases has not
been identified. Due to these funding limitations, Phase 1 of Alternative 3 was selected as the Preferred
Alternative. Phases 2 and 3 may be implemented at a later date if funding becomes available. The
implementation of Phases 2 and 3 are outside of the scope of this environmental review and additional
evaluation would likely be required prior to the construction of those phases.
The Preferred Alternative (Phase 1 of Alternative 3) will be referred to as the Proposed Project from this
point forward. Executing the Proposed Project would allow the PCWRF to transition from the existing
liquid stream process to the membrane bioreactor process. Construction of the Proposed Project would
be anticipated to begin in 2020 and be complete by the end of 2023, pending design and construction
approvals. Figure 2.1. illustrates the layout of the Preferred Alternative.

Provo City WATRR Center Project
Environmental Review 10 June 2020

Figure 2.1. Preferred Alternative for the Proposed Project

Provo City WATRR Center Project
Environmental Review 11 June 2020

3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Chapter 3 addresses the affected environment, discusses whether the proposed improvements would
impact the affected environment, and relays mitigation measures and best management practices (BMPs)
for potential impacts.
To gather a more comprehensive understanding of the potential environmental categories that might
require mitigation, management, or additional planning, an environmental scoping letter was sent out to
agencies and members of the public with an interest in the Proposed Project on April 17, 2020. Appendix
A includes letters to, and the contact information of, local, state, and federal agencies contacted with an
interest in the Proposed Project. Appendix A also provides the communication from the agencies
responding to letters requesting comments for the Proposed Project.
3.1 PLANNING AREA AND PROJECT AREA
3.1.1 Action Area
Provo City is situated at the western base of the Wasatch Mountain Range, east of Utah Lake between
Orem and Springville in Utah County, Utah. The Proposed Project Action Area is located at 40°12'46.7"
North Latitude and 111°38'59.9" West Longitude. In the Salt Lake Base and Meridian Survey, the Action
Area is located in Section 18, Township 7 South, Range 3 East.
The Action Area for the Proposed Project includes the existing property containing the PCWRF. The
current property boundary encompasses approximately 26.5 acres. This property comprises the entirety
of the existing PCWRF and would contain all elements of the Proposed Project. The Action Area is
surrounded by existing built-up infrastructure and is approximately 0.5 miles east of Interstate 15. The
Action Area is illustrated in Figure 2.1.
3.1.2 Physical Aspects: Topography, Geology and Soils
The Action Area is located between Utah Lake and the nearby Wasatch Mountains. The geology in this
area consists of a wide range of soil and rock types. Soils near the mountains consist primarily of sand and
gravel, while soils near the Action Area generally consist of clay, silt, and fine sands.
Potential geologic hazards in the Action Area are largely related to the area’s location near the Wasatch
Mountains and the associated Wasatch Fault, which is one of the most active faults in Utah.
The topography of the Action Area is generally flat, as it has previously been developed for wastewater
infrastructure. The elevation within the Action Area is approximately 4,500 feet above mean sea level.
3.1.3 Climate
The Action Area is located within a humid continental climate (Kottek, et al. 2006). High temperatures in
the summer reach the mid to high 90s (degrees Fahrenheit) while the overnight winter temperatures can
reach as low as several degrees below zero (Fahrenheit). The average annual high temperature is
approximately 94.3 degrees Fahrenheit, while the average annual low temperature is approximately 22.2
degrees Fahrenheit. The average annual precipitation is approximately 18.73 inches (NOAA 2020).
3.1.4 Population Growth
Future population projections are a key aspect of facility planning. Historically, Provo City has experienced
population growth ranging from 2 to 4 percent. The City’s population according to the census data of 2010

Provo City WATRR Center Project
Environmental Review 12 June 2020

is 112,488 individuals. The City’s historic trend of growth is anticipated to continue in the coming years.
Future population estimates for Provo City from the Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG)
are included in the following table.
Table 3.1. Forecasted Population Growth in the Provo City Area.
Forecasted Population Growth in Provo City
Provo City 2010 2020* 2030 2040 2050
112,488 122,971 142,223 155,397 159,265
% increase --- 9.32 % 15.66% 9.26% 2.49%
Total percent increase = 41.58%
1Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG) accessed on 3/24/2020
*2020 number is an estimate. 2020 census data is not yet available.

The City’s population is forecasted to increase by 41.58% from 2010 to 2050. This high growth rate is
typical for the state of Utah. AOG predicts that by 2065, Utah County will have approximately 1.6 million
residents, putting the county’s estimated growth rate at 176%. According to the MAG, Utah County is
predicted to add more people than the rest of the Wasatch Front combined.
Despite its growing population, Provo City has already been largely developed, and a number of non-
residential entities exist in the city, which place a significant demand on water and wastewater facilities.
These non-residential demands include Brigham Young University (BYU), motels/hotels, schools, and a
wide range of commercial business and manufacturing.
3.2 HOUSING / INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
The Action Area is located within a developed commercial and industrial area. The land surrounding the
action area contains a wide variety of commercial and industrial development, however there are no
existing commercial or industrial facilities or planned development within the Action Area. The nearest
housing development is located approximately 0.4 miles northeast of the Action Area.
3.3 UTILITIES / TRANSPORTATION
As the Proposed Project is a wastewater treatment facilities project, the City’s existing wastewater
treatment facility is present within the Action Area. Existing public transportation facilities (i.e. bus stops)
are available within 0.1 miles to both the south and west of the Action Area, however the site does not
contain any transportation facilities.
3.4 SOCIOECONOMICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Provo City’s top three industries are healthcare, educational services, and retail (Provo City 2018). The
Action Area only contains the City’s existing wastewater treatment facility, and there are no residential or
commercial activities on the subject parcel. Industrial and commercial businesses cover the majority of
the land surrounding the Action Area, interspersed with some small pockets of residential areas. The
Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) EJSCREEN Mapping Tool was utilized to gather a better
understanding of the current social profile that exists within a 0.5 mile radius of the Action Area. The data
from EJSCREEN is included in the table below.

Provo City WATRR Center Project
Environmental Review 13 June 2020

Table 3.2. Social Profile within a 0.5-mile radius of the Action Area1
Parameter Number Percentage2
Total Population 1,494 -
Sex Male 727 49%
Female 767 51%
Age
0 – 4 years 223 15%
0 – 17 years 468 31%
18+ years 1026 69%
65+ years 55 4%
Race
Caucasian/White 1,263 85%
African-American/Black 50 3%
American Indian and Alaska Native 0 0%
Asian 52 3%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander 6 0.4%
Other 101 7%
Two or More Races 22 1%
Minority Population 555 37%
Households
by Tenure
Owner Occupied 231 46%
Renter Occupied 267 54%
Total 498 -
1Data from 2013-2017 American Community Survey Report
2Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.
According to additional data gathered from the 2013-2017 American Community Survey, approximately
25.4% of individuals were at or below the poverty level in Provo City, and the median household income
is approximately $44,312. Therefore, it is likely that an environmental justice population may exist in the
vicinity of the Action Area.
3.5 LAND USE
Land surrounding the Action Area is zoned for “industrial” uses, which according to Provo City’s land use
map, “provide areas in the City where light and heavy manufacturing firms and planned industrial-
commercial parks can engage in processing, assembling, manufacturing, warehousing, research
laboratories, commercial uses, professional offices and storage; and for incidental service facilities and
public facilities to serve these uses” (Provo City 2019).
The Action Area is located in an area designated by the City for “public facilities.” The City defines these
spaces as “areas for the establishment of facilities which, under public franchise, ownership, or private
enterprises operating for the public convenience and necessity, provide public services such as electricity,
gas, communication, transportation, water, sewage treatment, education, religious activities and other
public assembly, cultural facilities, parks, recreation, etc.” (Provo City 2019).
Future zoning designations in the vicinity of the Action Area are anticipated to remain the same as the
current designations.

Provo City WATRR Center Project
Environmental Review 14 June 2020

3.6 FLOODPLAINS
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the
Action Area is within two Flood Zone X areas. The majority of the Action Area is within Flood Zone X
(unshaded), which corresponds to areas that have been determined to have minimal flood potential area
outside of the 500-plus year flood level. The southwestern corner of the Action Area along East Bay Road
is within a shaded area that is designated as Zone X. This designation differs from unshaded Zone X in that
it is defined as “areas of 500-year flood; areas of 100-year flood with average depths of less than 1 foot
or with drainage area less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 100-year flood” (FEMA
1988; Appendix B). The portion of the Action Area within areas of 500-year flood currently contains the
existing UV disinfection facilities.
3.7 WETLANDS
The USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) suggests that the Action Area may contain several
palustrine, aquatic bed, artificially flooded, excavated wetlands (PABKx). The potential wetlands identified
by the NWI are overlaid on top of the existing clarifiers, UV disinfection basin, and decommissioned
trickling filter facilities. A water resources assessment (WRA) was conducted for the Action Area on March
24, 2020 (Appendix B). The objective of the WRA was to document Waters of the U.S., including wetlands,
if present within the Action Area. The field visit and WRA determined that the Action Area does not
contain wetlands, or other Waters of the U.S.
3.8 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
The Virgin River is the only river in the state of Utah that is protected under the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act. The Virgin River is located in southwestern Utah, near St. George, approximately 290 miles southwest
of the PCWRF. The Mill Race Canal, the effluent receiving waters of the PCWRF, is not hydraulically
connected to the Virgin River.
3.9 CULTURAL RESOURCES: HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
A cultural resource inventory was completed for the Proposed Project by Certus Environmental Solutions,
LLC. (Certus) in May 2020 in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)
and 36 CFR 800, Protection of Historic Properties, to document any potential historical and archaeological
resources within the Action Area (Appendix C). The inventory resulted in the identification of two cultural
resource sites in the Action Area, the Mill Race Ditch, and the PCWRF.
The Mill Race Ditch had been determined eligible as a whole during previous evaluations of the site,
however Certus recommended that the portion of the site in the current survey are is non-contributing
to the eligibility of the overall site due to the extensive realignment and design changes that occurred in
modern times. The PCWRF was newly documented during the current inventory and Certus
recommended that the property be ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places under all criteria.
If the determinations and recommendations discussed in the cultural resource inventory are adopted by
the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), it is anticipated that the Proposed Project would have no
impact on historical or archaeological resources.

Provo City WATRR Center Project
Environmental Review 15 June 2020

3.10 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: THREATENED, ENDANGERED AND CRTICIAL SPECIES AND
HABITATS
A Biological Evaluation (BE) was prepared for the Proposed Project in compliance with Section 7(a)(2) of
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1536 (c) to sufficiently document and review the Action Area
to assess the degree to which the Proposed Project may affect: federally threatened or endangered
species; species proposed for listing; designated and proposed critical habitat; and, Utah state sensitive
species managed under conservation agreements with the Federal Government (Appendix D).
As part of the BE, an Official Species List from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Information for
Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system was generated for the Action Area on February 4, 2020, and
updated June 18, 2020. The IPaC Report identified three ESA-listed species with the potential to occur in
the Action Area: the endangered June sucker (Chasmistes liorus), the threatened yellow-billed cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus) and the threatened Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis). No proposed or
designated critical habitat occurs within the Action Area.
The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) Utah Natural Heritage Database was also consulted to
determine records of ESA-listed and state sensitive species occurrence in the Action Area. According to
the Utah Natural Heritage Database, there are recent records of June sucker (2006) and historic records
of the yellow-billed cuckoo (1941) within 2-miles of the Action Area. The Utah Natural Heritage Database
also identified historic records of Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) and least chub (Iotichythys
phlegethontis) within 2-miles of the Action Area, dated 1980 and 1931 respectively. Both the Northern
goshawk and least chub receive special management under federal conservation agreements, and the
Northern goshawk is also afforded protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).
3.11 RECREATION / OPEN SPACE
The Action Area is comprised of the existing PCWRF and does not contain any recreation, open space, or
public access land. The Action Area is located near a variety of industrial and commercial facilities, with
limited opportunities for recreation and open space in the vicinity. The recreational opportunities nearest
to the Action Area are the East Bay Golf Course (0.2 miles south), and Bicentennial Park (0.8 miles east).
3.12 FARMLAND RESOURCES: LAND USE / IMPORTANT FARMLAND / FORMALLY
CLASSIFIED LAND
The land use within the Action Area is currently designated for public facilities, and the Action Area is
surrounded by industrial land uses on all sides. The USDA-NRCS Web Soil Survey was referenced to
determine the farmland rating of mapped soils in the Action Area (Appendix E). The soil farmland rating
can be found in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3. Farmland Rating of Mapped Soils in the Action Area
Soil Type Farmland Rating Percent of Action
Area
Chipman silty clay loam, moderately deep
water table
Farmland of statewide
importance 0.01%
Chipman-McBeth complex Farmland of statewide
importance 11.0%
McBeth silt loam, moderately saline Prime farmland if irrigated 37.7%
Pits and dumps Not prime farmland 4.4%

Provo City WATRR Center Project
Environmental Review 16 June 2020

Urban land Not prime farmland 0.8%
Vineyard fine sandy loam, moderately
saline, 0 to 2 percent slopes Not prime farmland 46.1%

While some of the soils within the Action Area meet the criteria for “farmland of statewide importance”
and “prime farmland if irrigated,” the land within the Action Area has already been developed for use by
public facilities. There are currently no existing or active agricultural lands within or immediately adjacent
to the Action Area.
Formally Classified Lands are those administered by federal, state, or local agencies or land that has been
given special protection through formal legislative designation. As the Proposed Project occurs on land
already owned by Provo City with the existing wastewater treatment facility and surrounded by existing
industrial infrastructure, there are no formally classified lands within or immediately adjacent to the
Action Area.
3.13 AIR QUALITY
The EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to defend public health and
environmental welfare against the negative effects of outdoor air pollution. NAAQS are based on health
and geared toward protecting sensitive or at-risk portions of the population, and have been established
for the following criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), sulfur
dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM), and lead (Pb).
Under the Clean Air Act, air quality conditions within all areas of a state are required to be designated
with respect to the NAAQS as “attainment,” “nonattainment,” or “unclassifiable.” Areas that do not
exceed the NAAQS are designated as attainment, while areas that exceed standards are designated as
nonattainment. Once a nonattainment area meets the NAAQS and has a maintenance plan approved, the
area can be re-designated as an attainment area by the EPA.
Currently, the Action Area is located in the Provo PM 2.5 nonattainment area, the Utah County PM 10
nonattainment area, the Southern Wasatch Front Ozone nonattainment area, and the Provo CO
maintenance area (UDAQ 2020).
3.14 WATER RESOURCES: SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER
The Action Area is situated within the Big Dry Creek subwatershed (Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC]
160202010500) of the greater Utah Lake Sub-Basin (HUC 16020201). This subwatershed drains an area of
approximately 57.9 square miles (14,319 acres) (EPA 2017). Provo City uses 17 wells and Canyon Springs
for culinary water; none of these water sources are located on PCWRF property. No sole source aquifers
are located in Provo City, or the Action Area. Provo City currently faces groundwater availability issues,
which has led to the desire for the PCWRF to produce “reuse quality effluent” that can be used to meet
the City’s water demand.
During the field visit conducted for the WRA, the Mill Race Canal, a channelized and armored stream, was
observed flowing outside and adjacent to the western border of the Action Area (Appendix B). Mill Race
Canal flows to Utah Lake and ultimately connects to the Great Salt Lake via the Jordan River. The effluent
discharge point associated with the wastewater facilities enters into Mill Race Canal immediately outside
the Action Area. The discharge location and piping would not be modified as part of the Proposed Project.

Provo City WATRR Center Project
Environmental Review 17 June 2020

No other water resources were observed in the Action Area. While the Action Area contains surface water
(i.e. raw sewage effluent), the wastewater treatment facilities are not considered Waters of the U.S.
3.15 PUBLIC HEALTH (INCLUDING NOISE)
The Action Area directly influences public health within Provo City and the surrounding area. The existing
PCWRF supports water quality and wastewater treatment for Provo City. Sound levels and odors at the
current site are consistent with the designated land use and the City noise ordinance (Provo City Code,
Chapter 14.17, Public Facilities Zone). There are no sensitive noise receptors within the Action Area.
3.16 SOLID WASTE (INCLUDING SLUDGE)
The Action Area currently houses Provo City’s facilities for wastewater treatment, which directly plays a
role in the City’s solid waste management. Currently, biosolids produced at the existing facility are land
applied at sites operated by Farmland Reserve, Inc. (FRI) located approximately 35 miles southwest of the
PCWRF. Solid waste not disposed of or treated at the PCWRF is managed by the Provo City Sanitation
Division, which provides garbage pickup, green yard waste recycling, and other solid waste community
services.
3.17 ENERGY
Electricity is supplied to the Action Area by Provo Power, also known as the City’s Energy Department.
Natural gas services are provided by Dominion Energy. Energy requirements for the Action Area are
generally associated with the energy required for the operation of wastewater treatment facilities and
associated lighting.

Provo City WATRR Center Project
Environmental Review 18 June 2020

4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.1 HOUSING / INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
The No Action Alternative would not alter the current PCWRF and would not result in any changes to the
surrounding area.
The Proposed Project would occur entirely on land already owned by Provo City. There are no houses,
businesses, or industrial facilities within the Action Area. There would be no homes or businesses
displaced as a result of any elements of the Proposed Project, and construction would not significantly
impact environmentally sensitive areas. The Proposed Project is also not anticipated to impact
transportation patterns associated with residential, industrial, and commercial development. Rather, the
Proposed Project would better serve Provo City by utilizing available space to improve the quality of
wastewater treatment and the overall quality of downstream waterbodies, groundwater, and
environmentally sensitive areas.
The Proposed Project would also not cause an expansion in development and would not create additional
strain on other utilities and services. The new WATRR Center would have the same overall plant capacity
as what currently exists, so there would be no additional strain on utilities or public services in the area.
The Proposed Project would not impact housing, industrial, and commercial development in the
surrounding area. The WATRR Center would instead improve the sustainability of the surrounding
community while protecting the quality of downstream waterbodies, which would result in a net benefit
for the individuals who live and work in the surrounding area.
4.1.1 Best Management Practices
Construction activities would be contained entirely within the existing PCWRF property. Coordination
with other utilities and emergency services (i.e. police, fire departments, etc.) serving the residential and
commercial areas in the surrounding area would occur prior to the implementation of any traffic control
measures, if necessary.
4.1.2 Mitigation
No mitigation is anticipated to be required as the Proposed Project would not result in significant impacts
to housing, industrial, and commercial development.
4.2 UTILITIES / TRANSPORTATION
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no changes to the existing PCWRF site. Overall, this
alternative would result in negative impacts to the City’s wastewater utility because the PCWRF will not
meet future and anticipated regulatory requirements for effluent discharge and aging infrastructure
replacement would not occur.
The Proposed Project is focused on improving Provo City’s existing wastewater treatment facilities, which
would enhance the City’s current wastewater utility. The Proposed Project would not increase the current
PCWRF’s plant treatment capacity, but would improve the effluent quality currently produced from the
PCWRF while meeting present and anticipated regulatory requirements. Current utilities available within
the Action Area are anticipated to adequately support the new elements included in the new WATRR
Center. The new, refurbished, and repaired facilities incorporated into the Proposed Project would also
address the risk of failure of several critical assets currently in poor condition.

Provo City WATRR Center Project
Environmental Review 19 June 2020

Short-term impacts to transportation have the potential to occur during construction of the new facilities
due to construction vehicles and equipment entering and exiting nearby roadways, however these
impacts would cease after completion of the Proposed Project.
4.2.1 Best Management Practices
Coordination with other local utilities, emergency services, and local transportation departments serving
the surrounding area would occur prior to the short-term disruption of services or the implementation of
any traffic control measures.
4.2.2 Mitigation
No mitigation is anticipated to be required as the Proposed Project would overall result in a net benefit
to utilities in the new WATRR Center’s service area.
4.3 SOCIOECONOMICS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no changes to the existing PCWRF site. As the existing
facility ages, the risk of failure of critical facility assets increases, also increasing the likelihood that
pollutants could enter downstream waterways potentially creating a safety hazard. Failure in any of these
areas results in increased costs for maintenance, mitigation, and reparations which would have a negative
impact on the socioeconomic conditions in the area.
The Proposed Project would improve upon the City’s existing wastewater utility and would be contained
to the existing PCWRF site. While there are minority and low-income populations in the vicinity of the
Action Area, there would be no displaced residents or businesses as a result of the Proposed Project, and
the facilities would not impact land values as there would be no expansion resulting from the
development. A scheduled funding plan for the Proposed Project was approved by the Provo City Council
and initiated in 2019, and implements a series of annual rate increases of 19%, 15%, 25%, 10%, and 9%
over a five-year period. These rate increases will be applied to all individuals served by the Proposed
Project. Rate increases would cease after the five year period and would remain at the final increase level,
and are not anticipated to result in disproportionate impacts to those in the service area of the Proposed
Project.
It is anticipated that there would be no significant or disproportionate negative impacts to minority or
low-income populations in the vicinity of the Proposed Project.
4.3.1 Best Management Practices
The surrounding community would be notified prior to the beginning of any construction activities.
4.3.2 Mitigation
No mitigation is anticipated to be required as the Proposed Project would not impact minority or low-
income populations.
4.4 LAND USE
The No Action Alternative would have no impact on land use. There would be no changes from existing
conditions.
The Proposed Project would remain compatible with current land use controls in the surrounding area.
As the Proposed Project would occur in an area designated for public facilities, it is anticipated that the

Provo City WATRR Center Project
Environmental Review 20 June 2020

Proposed Project would be consistent with current land use plans. The surrounding areas would be served
by the new WATRR facility, and would improve upon the current wastewater treatment services currently
available. No land use changes would be required, and the Proposed Project would be located away from
any mapped environmentally sensitive or developmentally sensitive areas. Nearby inhabited areas would
not be adversely impacted by the site, as there would be no additional expansion outside of the current
PCWRF property, and noise and odors would be managed in a manner that matches or improves existing
conditions and current levels of diligence. The Proposed Project would not contribute to changes of land
use classification.
4.4.1 Best Management Practices
Work associated with the Proposed Project would occur only within the boundaries of the existing PCWRF
site. Odor and noise associated with the new facility’s operation would be managed in a manner similar
to existing conditions and current levels of diligence.
4.4.2 Mitigation
No mitigation is anticipated to be required as there would be no impacts to land use as a result of the
Proposed Project.
4.5 FLOODPLAINS
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no changes to the existing PCWRF or ground disturbance
in the Action Area. The No Action Alternative would not alter the existing conditions of the site; therefore,
the No Action Alternative would have no impact on floodplains.
The portion of the Proposed Project which occurs in the 500-year flood zone contains the existing UV
disinfection facilities, which would remain in place for the duration of the Proposed Project and there are
no new structures proposed within the 500-year floodplain. Given that the existing facilities located in the
floodplain would remain in place and no new ground disturbance would occur in the 500-year floodplain,
the Proposed Project is anticipated to have no effect on floodplains within the Action Area.
4.5.1 Best Management Practices
Construction activities would be contained to the boundaries of the Action Area, and no ground
disturbance would occur in floodplains
4.5.2 Mitigation
No mitigation is anticipated to be required as there would be no impacts to floodplains as a result of the
Proposed Project.
4.6 WETLANDS
No wetlands are present within the Action Area; therefore, the No Action Alternative would have no
impact on wetlands.
The field visit and WRA determined that the Action Area does not contain wetlands, or other Waters of
the U.S. Given the lack of wetlands in the Action Area, the Proposed Project is anticipated to have no
impact on wetlands.

Provo City WATRR Center Project
Environmental Review 21 June 2020

4.6.1 Best Management Practices
Construction activities would be contained to the boundaries of the Action Area, and any wetlands in the
near vicinity of the Action Area would not be disturbed.
4.6.2 Mitigation
No mitigation is anticipated to be required as there would be no impacts to wetlands as a result of the
Proposed Project.
4.7 WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS
No Wild and Scenic Rivers are present within the Action Area; therefore, the No Action Alternative would
have no impact on Wild and Scenic Rivers.
Given that the Virgin River and Mill Race Canal are separated by nearly 300 miles and that they are not
hydraulically connected, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to impact Wild and Scenic Rivers.
4.7.1 Best Management Practices
Construction activities would be contained to the boundaries of the Action Area.
4.7.2 Mitigation
No mitigation is anticipated to be required as there would be no impacts to Wild and Scenic Rivers as a
result of the Proposed Project.
4.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES: HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The cultural resource inventory documented two cultural resource sites in the Action Area: the Mill Race
Ditch, and the PCWRF. The Mill Race Ditch had been determined eligible as a whole during previous
evaluations of the site, however Certus recommended that the portion of the site in the current survey
area is non-contributing to the eligibility of the overall site due to the extensive realignment and design
changes that occurred in modern times. The PCWRF was newly documented during the current inventory
and Certus recommended that the property be ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places under
all criteria.
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no changes to the existing PCWRF or ground disturbance
in the Action Area. The No Action Alternative would not cause significant impacts to historical or
archaeological resources.
The Utah SHPO and the UDWQ will make all determinations of eligibility and effect for the Proposed
Project. If the determinations and recommendations discussed in the cultural resource inventory are
adopted by the SHPO, it is anticipated that the Proposed Project would have no impact on historical or
archaeological resources.
4.8.1 Best Management Practices
If, during any portion of the Proposed Project, any materials such as stone tools, shell, bone, fire-cracked
rock, charcoal, pottery, glass, metal, or human remains are uncovered, work in the immediate vicinity will
stop at once and the Utah SHPO will be notified.
4.8.2 Mitigation
The Proposed Project is not anticipated to result in any significant impacts to historical and archaeological
resources. Therefore, no mitigation no mitigation is anticipated to be required.

Provo City WATRR Center Project
Environmental Review 22 June 2020

4.9 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: THREATENED, ENDANGERED AND CRITICAL SPECIES AND
HABITATS
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no changes to the existing PCWRF or ground disturbance
in the Action Area. The No Action Alternative would not alter the existing conditions of the site; therefore,
the No Action Alternative would have no impact on biological resources.
The BE determined that the Action Area does not represent suitable habitat for June sucker, yellow-billed
cuckoo, Ute ladies’-tresses, Northern goshawk, and least chub. After considering the available scientific
information regarding the biological requirements for the protected species, the environmental baseline
for the Action Area, and the proposed BMPs, the BE concluded that the Proposed Project would have no
effect on the June sucker, yellow-billed cuckoo, Ute ladies’-tresses, Northern goshawk, and least chub.
4.9.1 Best Management Practices
As stated in the BE for the Proposed Project, construction BMPs are standard requirements and would be
required during the implementation of the Proposed Project. These may include, but are not limited to,
soil erosion control devices, noxious weed prevention and control, as well as Standard Operating
Procedures required by the DWQ. The following BMPs are designed to protect water quality and minimize
disturbance to soils and vegetation.
Erosion and sediment controls would include, but are not limited to, the following:
• A site specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared and approved
prior to construction activities.
• Construction activities would be limited to pre-approved locations within the Action Area.
• Construction activities would not impact or enter any surface waters.
• Temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) structures including silt fences, hay bales, and
fiber wattles would be installed, where appropriate, to minimize erosion and runoff from active
construction areas.
• Disturbed areas would be graded and revegetated with an appropriate seed mix for the treatment
facility grounds, where appropriate, to aid in minimized future erosion and runoff.
Chemical pollution control measures would include, but are not limited to, the following:
• An approved SWPPP, including a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan,
would be prepared and implemented prior to construction activities.
• All construction equipment would be decontaminated with high pressure water/steam prior to
mobilization to the project site to remove surface oil, grease, dirt, and plant material. Proper
decontamination is critical to prevent the spread and establishment of noxious weeds and non-
native invasive species. Construction equipment would be decontaminated prior to demobilizing
from the site to prevent transportation of viable plant material from the Action Area.
• Construction equipment would be maintained in a leak free condition to prevent soil and
groundwater contamination in the Action Area. Equipment would be inspected daily to check for
leaking or malfunctioning equipment. Equipment fueling would be conducted at an approved
staging area fitted with an impermeable surface to contain potential spills and unintended fuel
releases.

Provo City WATRR Center Project
Environmental Review 23 June 2020

• Fuels, oils, lubricants, and other chemicals would be stored and used according to local, state, and
federal regulations.
• Adequate measures and controls must be in place to ensure that petroleum hydrocarbons, toxic
chemicals, and other environmentally deleterious materials are not accumulated, stored in
excessive quantities, disposed, or otherwise released in the Action Area.
• Emergency spill response personnel and procedures would be identified prior to construction
activities. A spill response kit would be maintained in active work areas and personnel trained in
emergency spill response would be on site during construction activities.
4.9.2 Mitigation
No mitigation is anticipated to be required as there would be no impacts to biological resources as a result
of the Proposed Project.
4.10 RECREATION / OPEN SPACE
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no changes to the recreational areas and open spaces in
the vicinity of existing PCWRF. Water quality downstream from the PCWRF would continue to degrade
due to the current facilities inability to meet current and anticipated regulatory requirements for effluent
discharge.
No recreational open space, parks, or areas of recognized scenic or recreational value would be impacted
by the Proposed Project. All Proposed Project elements would be contained within the area encompassed
by the existing PCWRF, and no additional expansion into open spaces or recreational areas would occur
as a result of the Proposed Project. The surrounding recreational opportunities would be served by the
Proposed Project, and are not anticipated to be impacted by the Proposed Project. Therefore, there would
be no effect on recreation or open space as a result of the Proposed Project.
4.10.1 Best Management Practices
All project elements would be contained to the area encompassed by the existing PCWRF site.
4.10.2 Mitigation
No mitigation is anticipated to be required as there would be no impacts to recreation or open space as a
result of the Proposed Project.
4.11 FARMLAND RESOURCES: LAND USE / IMPORTANT FARMLAND / FORMALLY
CLASSIFIED LAND
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no development, and the PCWRF would continue to
operate in its current state. No farmland resources would be impacted, as there are no existing farmland
resources on the PCWRF property.
The Proposed Project would have no impact on farmland resources, as there are no existing farmland
resources in the Action Area. While there are some soils that could be considered prime farmland or
farmland of statewide importance within the Action Area, the area has already been developed for
existing wastewater facilities. There would be no new areas directly or indirectly converted from farmland
as a result of the Proposed Project. Additionally, there would be no increase in effluent levels as a result
of the Proposed Project, meaning there would be no increases in the overall quantity of waters or solids

Provo City WATRR Center Project
Environmental Review 24 June 2020

leaving the site. Overall, the Proposed Project would improve water quality levels downstream from the
Action Area, which could improve the viability of farmland in the surrounding area.
4.11.1 Best Management Practices
No Proposed Project elements would occur outside of the existing PCWRF property. There would be no
increases in the overall level of effluent leaving the new facility.
4.11.2 Mitigation
No mitigation is anticipated to be required as there would be no impacts to farmland resources as a result
of the Proposed Project.
4.12 AIR QUALITY
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no development and no changes in overall air quality in
the vicinity of the PCWRF site.
The Action Area is located in the Provo PM 2.5 nonattainment area, the Utah County PM 10
nonattainment area, the Southern Wasatch Front nonattainment area, and the Provo CO maintenance
area. In these areas, projects that utilize federal funds are subject to General Conformity Rule. The
applicability of the General Conformity Rule comes in two parts. The first part involves determining
whether a project is located within a nonattainment or maintenance area, and the second involves
determining whether the project is either exempt from the General Conformity or presumed to conform
(PTC) to the applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP), which defines air quality regulations for
nonattainment or maintenance areas. In determining whether the project is exempt or PTC, the de
minimis levels for the applicable criteria pollutants (PM 2.5, PM 10, and CO) are measured against the
anticipated project-related air quality emissions. If the project-related emissions are less than the de
minimis level, then the project is considered to be too small to adversely affect the air quality status of
the area, and the project is automatically considered to conform with the current nonattainment and
maintenance area requirements.
Construction of the Proposed Project is anticipated to occur beginning in August 2020 and ending in 2023.
During this window, construction activities are anticipated to occur over the course of 10-hour working
days. Equipment expected to be utilized during construction of the Proposed Project consists of
bulldozers, rollers, excavators, compactors, graders, backhoes, and other construction equipment. For
this analysis, the assumption is that a construction fleet of approximately nine vehicles/pieces of
equipment would be running continuously at the same time throughout the entire workday.
The de minimis thresholds for PM 2.5, PM 10, and CO in nonattainment or maintenance areas is 100 metric
tons/year for each pollutant. For this analysis, emissions levels were estimated for CO, Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs), NO2, SO2, PM 10, and PM 2.5. Lead emissions are no longer a factor due to EPA
requirements regarding the use of unleaded fuel. For the purpose of the evaluation for General
Conformity, attention was placed on PM 2.5, PM 10, and CO due to the Proposed Project’s location within
nonattainment and maintenance areas for these pollutants. Table 4.1 highlights estimated emissions
levels for primary construction equipment likely associated with the Proposed Project.

Provo City WATRR Center Project
Environmental Review 25 June 2020

Table 4.1. Emissions Levels Associated with Primary Construction Equipment
Pollutant Level per Piece of Construction Equipment (g/operating hour)
Pollutant
Type Bulldozer Roller Grader Excavator Loader/
Backhoe
Water
Truck Compactor Skid
Steer Trencher
CO 276 133 153 141 143 751 1255 311 152
VOCs 48 20 35 29 75 154 39 60 21
NO2 638 253 399 333 426 1945 11 289 270
SO2 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0
PM 10 42 21 29 26 63 84 3 47 21
PM 2.5 40 20 29 25 61 82 3 46 21
Source: https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emission-factors.
Table 4.2 represents a combined total of 1,800 equipment operating hours, assuming that each of the
primary pieces of construction equipment would run continuously for the entire 10 hour shift during an
example four-week period (assuming five construction days a week).
Table 4.2. Estimated Net Emissions Levels for 20 Construction Days
Vehicle
Estimated
Running
Hours
Net Emissions Per Criteria Pollutant (Metric Tons)
CO VOCs NO2 SO2 PM 10 PM 2.5
Bulldozer 200 0.056 0.001 0.128 0.0002 0.008 0.008
Roller 200 0.027 0.004 0.051 0.000 0.004 0.004
Grader 200 0.031 0.007 0.080 0.0002 0.006 0.006
Excavator 200 0.028 0.006 0.067 0.0002 0.005 0.005
Loader/
Backhoe 200 0.029 0.015 0.085 0.000 0.013 0.012
Water
Truck 200 0.150 0.031 0.389 0.0004 0.017 0.016
Compactor 200 0.251 0.008 0.002 0.000 0.0006 0.0006
Skid Steer 200 0.062 0.012 0.058 0.000 0.009 0.009
Trencher 200 0.030 0.004 0.054 0.000 0.004 0.004
Totals: 1800 0.664 0.088 0.914 0.001 0.0666 0.0646

Given the climate where the Proposed Project is located, work cannot be completed for each day of the
year (365 days). The anticipated maximum number of construction days in a given year is approximately
260 working days. Table 4.3 depicts the overall potential levels of criteria pollutants if each of the primary
pieces of equipment were run throughout every 10-hour shift in the 260-day construction season (totaling
2,000 hours for each piece of equipment, or 18,000 hours of total equipment running time). The 260-day
construction outlook represents a liberal estimate of how the Proposed Project could unfold.
Table 4.3. Estimated Net Emissions Levels for 260 Construction Days
Criteria Pollutant CO VOCs NO2 SO2 PM 10 PM 2.5
Metric Tons of Total
Emissions (18,000
Equipment Hours)
8.63 1.14 11.88 0.01 0.87 0.84
Below or Above 100
MT/Year Threshold Below Below Below Below Below Below

Provo City WATRR Center Project
Environmental Review 26 June 2020

Assuming that the primary construction fleet would run constantly for each of the 10-hour workdays
throughout a 260-day schedule, the total levels of each criteria pollutant produced would still be well
below the 100 MT/Year de minimis threshold for the CO, PM 10, and PM 2.5 nonattainment and
maintenance areas. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be presumed to conform (PTC) to the
applicable SIP, would not exceed the NAAQS, and is not anticipated to cause significant impacts to air
quality.
4.12.1 Best Management Practices
The project specifications will include temporary erosion control measures, such as watering trucks, to
minimize airborne dust resulting from ground-disturbing activities. Project specifications will also include
control measures necessary to meet permitting requirements for general construction as well as state and
federal air quality requirements, such as asbestos inspections and application of a tackifier to long-term
stockpiles.
4.12.2 Mitigation
No mitigation is anticipated to be required as the Proposed Project would not cause significant impacts
to air quality.
4.13 WATER RESOURCES: SURFACE WATER AND GROUNDWATER
Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no changes to the existing PCWRF. With the future and
anticipated regulatory requirements, Provo City would violate its UPDES permit and would not be capable
of supplementing forecasted water demands with reuse water. Therefore, the No Action Alternative
would have a negative impact on water resources in the surrounding area.
Provo City faces a variety of water resource concerns, including inability to meet projected water demand.
Implementation of the Proposed Project, along with a 25% reduction in per capita water use would allow
the City to meet its projected water demand. In addition to water supply deficiencies, for many years,
Utah Lake has been used as a discharge point for various treatment plants throughout the area, including
the PCWRF. As a result of the constant influx of treated and untreated effluent, Utah Lake experiences
high nutrient loading and eutrophic conditions. The purpose of the Proposed Project is to adhere to future
and anticipated effluent discharge requirements and to produce a high quality effluent that can be used
for reuse purposes. Therefore, the Proposed Project is expected to improve effluent quality and ultimately
improve water quality in Utah Lake. The discharge point for the PCWRF is situated outside of the Action
Area, and the Action Area does not contain Waters of the U.S. Given the lack of water resources in the
Action Area and the purpose of the Proposed Project, the Proposed Project is expected to have no impact
on water resources in the Action Area and a net positive impact on water resources outside of the Action
Area.
4.13.1 Best Management Practices
Erosion control and chemical pollution BMPs would be implemented to protect water quality in the
Proposed Project’s vicinity.
Erosion and sediment controls would include, but are not limited to, the following:
• A site specific SWPPP would be prepared and approved prior to construction activities.
• Construction activities would be limited to pre-approved locations within the Action Area.
• Construction activities would not impact or enter any surface waters.

Provo City WATRR Center Project
Environmental Review 27 June 2020

• Temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) structures including silt fences, hay bales, and
fiber wattles would be installed, where appropriate, to minimize erosion and runoff from active
construction areas.
• Disturbed areas would be graded and revegetated with an appropriate seed mix for the treatment
facility grounds, where appropriate, to aid in minimized future erosion and runoff.
Chemical pollution control measures would include, but are not limited to, the following:
• An approved SWPPP, including a SPCC plan, would be prepared and implemented prior to
construction activities.
• All construction equipment would be decontaminated with high pressure water/steam prior to
mobilization to the project site to remove surface oil, grease, dirt, and plant material.
• Construction equipment would be maintained in a leak free condition to prevent soil and
groundwater contamination in the Action Area. Equipment would be inspected daily to check for
leaking or malfunctioning equipment. Equipment fueling would be conducted at an approved
staging area fitted with an impermeable surface to contain potential spills and unintended fuel
releases.
• Fuels, oils, lubricants, and other chemicals would be stored and used according to local, state, and
federal regulations.
• Adequate measures and controls must be in place to ensure that petroleum hydrocarbons, toxic
chemicals, and other environmentally deleterious materials are not accumulated, stored in
excessive quantities, disposed, or otherwise released in the Action Area.
• Emergency spill response personnel and procedures would be identified prior to construction
activities. A spill response kit would be maintained in active work areas and personnel trained in
emergency spill response would be on site during construction activities.
4.13.2 Mitigation
No mitigation is anticipated to be required as there would be no impacts to water resources as a result of
the Proposed Project.
4.14 PUBLIC HEALTH (INCLUDING NOISE)
The No Action Alternative would not result in any changes to the existing public health services and noise
levels in the vicinity of the PCWRF site. However, the current PCWRF site is not anticipated to meet existing
and future regulatory requirements, which would negatively impact downstream water quality, and
therefore public health, in the surrounding area. Noise levels would remain at their current levels.
The Proposed Project would occur entirely within the footprint of the existing PCWRF site, and would not
expand into the surrounding area. The Proposed Project would directly improve the City’s ability to treat
wastewater. The new project elements would allow for a new treatment process capable of producing
effluent quality that would meet or exceed current and anticipated future regulatory requirements. The
improved effluent quality would also improve water quality downstream from the Proposed Project,
which would represent an overall improvement in public health in the vicinity of the Proposed Project,
and within the nearby Utah Lake.
The Proposed Project would include odor control facilities at the headworks and fine screening facilities
to reduce the risk of vector (e.g. mosquito) attraction. The solids handling facilities would be fully enclosed

Provo City WATRR Center Project
Environmental Review 28 June 2020

and covered to prevent release of fugitive odors and biogas. There are also no known public health
problems associated with sewer services or disposal, and there is no reasonable expectation that the new
WATRR center would lead to an increased risk to public health and safety. As the site would remain on
the current parcel and would not involve expanded development, noise is anticipated to remain similar
to current levels. There may be short-term noise increases during construction, however these noise
increases would cease after construction completion. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not anticipated
to cause negative impacts to public health (including noise) in the vicinity of the Proposed Project area.
4.14.1 Best Management Practices
A site specific SWPPP, including a SPCC plan would be prepared and approved prior to construction
activities. Construction activities would be limited to pre-approved locations within the Action Area.
Construction activities would not impact or enter any surface waters.
Construction noise provisions would be included in the Proposed Project’s plans and specifications, and
would be adhered to for the entirety of the project.
4.14.2 Mitigation
No mitigation is anticipated to be required as the Proposed Project would improve the overall quality of
effluent discharged from the new facility, and there would be no negative impacts to public health.
4.15 SOLID WASTE (INCLUDING SLUDGE)
The No Action Alternative would not result in any changes to the existing PCWRF site, which plays a direct
role in the City’s solid waste management process. While the existing facilities meet the current and
forecasted annual flow rates, the existing facilities would not meet future regulatory requirements
regarding effluent quality.
The Proposed Project would update the City’s existing wastewater facilities, which would allow the City
to meet existing and anticipated future regulatory requirements for effluent discharge. Class B biosolids
would continue to be produced by the new WATRR Center, however these biosolids would continue to
be composted and land applied offsite by a private entity. The solids handling facilities on site at the
WATRR Center would be fully enclosed and covered to prevent the release of odors and biogas, which
would be combusted or captured to supply energy to the plant. Overall, the improvements in the system
would represent an improvement in the City’s ability to manage solid wastes and sludge resulting from
wastewater treatment. Therefore, there would be no impacts to solid waste as a result of the Proposed
Project.
4.15.1 Best Management Practices
Solid waste resulting from construction would be disposed of at an approved, offsite facility in accordance
with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations.
4.15.2 Mitigation
No mitigation is anticipated to be required as the Proposed Project would have no effect on solid waste
management.
4.16 ENERGY
The No Action Alternative would not change the existing energy requirements. Power would be utilized
at the PCWRF at its current rate.

Provo City WATRR Center Project
Environmental Review 29 June 2020

The Proposed Project is anticipated to require approximately 3-4 times more energy than the existing
PCWRF site. Additional energy would be generated by the Proposed Project in the form of heat energy
from the combustion or capture of biogas resulting from the improved WATRR Center facilities. In the
future, as wastewater loads grow alongside the population, an increased amount of produced biogas is
anticipated to be utilized for energy production, potentially reducing the overall energy requirements at
the new facility.
4.16.1 Best Management Practices
Coordination with local utility and power companies would occur throughout the entirety of the Proposed
Project. Energy efficient design elements, such as LED lighting, would be installed wherever practical. To
offset the increased energy costs, biogas would be captured during anaerobic digestion and utilized to
mitigate the plant’s onsite natural gas demand, supply the local utility provider for distribution through
the common grid, and partially fuel the City fleet on an adjacent site.
4.16.2 Mitigation
No mitigation is anticipated to be required as there would be no negative impacts to energy supply as a
result of the Proposed Project.

Provo City WATRR Center Project
Environmental Review 30 June 2020

5 CORRESPONDENCE AND COORDINATION
Public and agency involvement is a vital component of the environmental review process. To gather a
more comprehensive understanding of the potential environmental categories that might require
mitigation, management, or additional planning, an environmental scoping letter was sent out to agencies
and members of the public with an interest in the Proposed Project on April 17, 2020. A copy of the
scoping list and agency mailing list may be found in Appendix A. The following sections detail additional
information pertaining to public and agency correspondence and coordination related to the Proposed
Project.
5.1 PUBLIC
A public involvement plan was created for the Proposed Project identifying outreach and engagement
strategies, and planned activities for the public involvement effort. As part of the public involvement, a
City-managed project hotline and email address was established to answer public questions, an
informational booth was set up at a community event to engage with the public, and door-to-door
stakeholder canvassing was completed. Provo City staff also regularly updated the public at City Council
meetings regarding site selection, treatment process options, phasing, and rate adjustments, as well as
visiting neighborhood chair coordination meetings.
A major component of the public involvement effort for the Proposed Project will be an open house and
public comment for the review of this environmental evaluation document. The purpose of the public
open house will be to inform the public of the project, answer any questions and receive comments on
the proposed project. Comments will be accepted at the open house and during the 30-day public
comment period. All comments received during the public comment period will be addressed and
included in the public involvement summary located in Appendix A.
5.2 AGENCIES
Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies were involved in project formulation and given the opportunity
to comment on the Proposed Project. A project scoping letter was mailed to various agencies on April 17,
2020 (Appendix A). To date, no comments have been received. The following agencies received a scoping
letter:
• Federal
o U.S Army Corps of Engineers –
Utah Regulatory Office
o USFWS – Utah Ecological Services
Field Office

o USDA/NRCS – Utah State Office

Provo City WATRR Center Project
Environmental Review 31 June 2020

• State & Local
o Utah Department of
Environmental Quality (UDEQ)
▪ Division of Water Quality
▪ Division of Air Quality
▪ Division of Drinking
Water
▪ Division of Waste
Management and
Radiation Control
▪ Division of Environmental
Response and
Remediation

o Utah Division of Emergency
Services and Homeland Security
▪ Division of Emergency
Management
o Utah Division of State History
▪ State Preservation Office
o Utah Department of Natural
Resources
▪ Utah Department of
Wildlife Resources

Provo City WATRR Center Project
Environmental Review 32 June 2020

6 REFERENCES
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. “WATERS GeoViewer.” Accessed March 30, 2020.
www.epa.gov/waterdata/waters-geoviewer.
EPA. 2019. “Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors (AP-42).” Accessed March 20, 2020.
www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-quantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emissions-factors.
EPA. 2019. “Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (EJSCREEN).” Version 2019. Accessed
March 26, 2020. www.ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1988. “Flood Insurance Rate Map 4901590016C.”
Accessed February 5, 2020. msc.fema.gov/portal/home.
Kottek, M., et. al. 2006. “World Map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated.” Accessed
May 15, 2020. http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/present.htm.
Mountainland Association of Governments (AOG). 2017. “Small Area Population and Employment
Projects.” Accessed March 24, 2020.
https://mountainland.org/img/Data/Projections/MAG%20Small%20Area%20Population%20Proj
ections%202019.pdf
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2020. “AgACIS – Climate Data”. Accessed
May 15, 2020. http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/
Provo City. 2018. Involved – Provo City Annual Report. Accessed February 4, 2020.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/g2t4i4guzm1btyx/involved_2019_digital.pdf?dl=0
Provo City. 2019. “Provo City General Plan Map.” Accessed February 4, 2020.
https://www.provo.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=2238
State of Utah – Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ). “Nonattainment Area Locator.” Accessed February
4, 2020.
https://utahdeq.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=dcc4eacb53a942f2a4b74
a36ae5ea118
State of Utah – Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). “Utah Natural Heritage Program.” Accessed
February 4, 2020. https://dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/ucdc/
U.S. Census Bureau. 2017. “2013 – 2017 American Community Survey.” Accessed February 4, 2020.
https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper/
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)-Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2019. “Web Soil
Survey.” Accessed February 4, 2020. websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). “Official Species List.” Information for Planning and Consultation
(IPaC). Accessed June 18, 2020. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/
USFWS. 2019. “National Wetland Inventory.” National Wetland Inventory (NWI), On-line National
Wetlands Inventory. Accessed February 5, 2020. www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/mapper.html.
Water Works Engineers and Arcadis US. 2020. Provo Water Advanced Treatment and Resource Recovery
Center Phase 1 2020 Construction: Capital Facilities Plan. Provo City Public Works Department.

Provo City WATRR Center Project
Environmental Review 33 June 2020

7 LIST OF PREPARERS
Name Project Role Organization
Gary Vance, P.E. Project Manager J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.
Marti Hoge Environmental Oversight J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.
Autumn Foushee Environmental Lead/Senior
Biologist
J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.
Zachary Scott Environmental Planner J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.
Lexie Yoder Environmental Planner J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.
Cory Christiansen, P.E. Project Manager Water Works Engineers
Sheri Murray Ellis Archaeologist/Cultural Historian Certus Environmental Solutions,
LLC.

Appendix A – Agency Scoping and Public
Involvement

April 6, 2020
Mr./Ms John/Jane Doe
_____________
555 Main Street
_____, UT 84000
Subject: Environmental Review Document for the 2020 Provo City Public Works Department-Provo Water
Advanced Treatment and Resource Recovery (WATRR) Center Project
Dear _______,
Provo City is performing a review of the possible environmental impacts of the proposed 2020 WATRR Center Project
(Proposed Project) in Provo City, Utah County, Utah. The environmental review is being performed pursuant to the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the Utah Division of Water Quality (UDWQ). The
purpose of this letter is to provide opportunity for agencies to identify issues or concerns that should be addressed
during the development of this project.
The Proposed Project would replace the existing Provo City Water Reclamation Facility (PCWRF) with a new, cutting-
edge treatment process capable of producing effluent quality that meets or exceeds all existing and
anticipated future regulatory requirements. The Proposed Project will incorporate construction of new facilities,
retirement or demolition of obsolete facilities, and various repairs, upgrades, and refurbishments required to
improve treatment and meet existing and anticipated future regulatory limits. A project description with more
detailed information is enclosed.
Provo City requests that your agency review the Proposed Project for potential impacts within the project
area. Please provide any recommendations you have to mitigate or avoid potential impacts to specific resources or
areas, if applicable. Written comments or questions concerning the Proposed Project should be addressed to:
Autumn Foushee
J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.
392 E Winchester St., Ste 300
Salt Lake City, UT 84107
We would appreciate a response within 30 days of the date of this letter. If you need any further information or wish
to discuss the project, please contact me by phone at 801-886-9052 or by email at [e-mail]. Thank you
for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Autumn Foushee, Senior Biologist
J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.
Enc: Project Description and Proposed Project Exhibit

www.jub.com J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.
Provo City 2020 WATRR Center Project

Project Description

The Proposed Project improvements associated with the Provo City 2020 WATRR Center Project would replace the
existing Provo City Water Reclamation Facility (PCWRF) with a new, cutting edge treatment process that improves
effluent water quality and is designed to comply with all existing and anticipated future regulatory requirements.
The Proposed Project will incorporate construction of new facilities, retirement of obsolete facilities, and various
repairs, upgrades, and refurbishments required to improve treatment and meet existing and anticipated future
regulatory limits. The improvements described below would not increase the treatment capacity over the design
flow rate of the existing facility. Additionally, the Proposed Project elements would all occur within the boundaries
of the existing site and are described in detail in the following sections.

Facilities Removed from Service
The trickling filters along with the existing secondary clarifiers would be demolished to make room for the new
treatment process. The existing operations building, headworks facilities, influent pump station, primary clarifiers,
primary sludge pump station, filter building, blower building, and backwash tank would also be decommissioned.

New Facilities
The existing coarse screens, grit removal system, influent pump station, primary clarifiers, primary sludge pump
station, and operations building would all be removed from service and replaced with similar facilities. A new power
distribution system would be added as part of the Proposed Project. A new in-plant lift station would be added to
the facility to receive additional sanitary sewer flows from the area southwest of the reclamation facility. To promote
the removal of phosphorus from the plant, and to prevent struvite scaling, a biosolids aeration struvite control
system would be added to the existing solids stream process.

The major component of the Proposed Project is the construction of a membrane bioreactor system. This system
would also require the construction of a fine screen facility upstream of the membranes to protect them from
damage caused by small debris. Three bioreactors would be constructed downstream of the fine screen facility, with
two valve vaults controlling flow to each of the three bioreactors. Effluent from the bioreactors would be conveyed
to the membrane tanks. A new chemical storage and feed facility located near the membrane basins would house
the chemicals required for membrane maintenance and recovery cleaning procedures, and a new blower building
would be constructed to provide air for the biological process and membrane air scour.

Repurposed Existing Facilities
The four existing aeration basins would be repurposed for use as equalization/surge basins to support the stable
operation of the system. The flow control system would control the flow of primary effluent into the new
bioreactors to eliminate daily peaks, and flow that exceeds the daily peak would be directed into the equalization
basin. When plant influent is low, primary effluent stored in the equalization basin would gravity flow back to the
influent pump station to supplement influent rates and maintain a steady flow to the bioreactors.

Refurbished Existing Facilities
The solids processing facilities would be refurbished as necessary for continued use. These elements include the
primary and secondary digesters, dissolved air flotation facilities (DAF), and dewatering facility.

Maintain Existing Facilities
All existing infrastructure for ultraviolet (UV) disinfection and the effluent outfall at Mill Race would be maintained.

Provo WATRR Contact List Friday, May 15, 2020
Environmental Review Scoping Letter
Indicates request for comments needs to be mailed to this agency
Indicates request for comments sent and response was RECEIVED
Indicates request for comments sent and response was NOT RECEIVED
Agency Requiring
Contact
Contact
Person/Title Department Reason Address Phone Email Date Scoping Letter Sent
w/ Exhibit and Project Desc.Notes/Communication
Utah Department of Environmental Quality Ken Hoffman; P.E; Environmental Engineer Utah Division of Water Quality Water Quality P.O. Box 144870
Salk Lake City, UT 84114-4870 [phone] waterquality.utah.gov
Utah Department of Environmental Quality Bryce Bird; Director Division of Air Quality Air Quality P.O. Box 144820
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4820 [phone] [e-mail]
Utah Department of Environmental Quality Marie Owens; Director Division of Drinking Water Water Quality P.O. Box 144830
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4830 [phone] [e-mail]
Utah Department of Environmental Quality Ty L. Howard; Director Division of Waste Management
and Radiation Control Waste Management Control P.O. Box 144880
Salt Lake City, UT 84414-4880 [phone] [e-mail]
Utah Department of Environmental Quality Brent Everett; Director Division of Environmental Response
and Remediation
Environmental Incidents/Hazardous
Sites/Materials
P.O. Box 144840
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4840 [phone] [e-mail]
US Army Corps of Engineers Jason Gipson; Branch Chief Utah Regulatory Office Wetlands/Floodplains/404 Permits 533 West 2600 South, Suite 150
Bountiful UT 84010 [phone] [e-mail]
Utah Division of Emergency Services
and Homeland Security Kathy Holder; State Floodplain Manager Division of Emergency Management Floodplains 1110 State Office Building
Salt Lake City, UT 84114 [phone] [e-mail]
Utah Division of State History Chris Hansen; Preservation Planner,
Section 106 Compliance Utah State Historic Preservation Office
Section 106 compliance; historical,
cultural, archaeological
properties/sites
300 S Rio Grande Street
Salt Lake City, UT 84101 [phone] [e-mail]
US Fish and Wildlife Service Paul Abate; Acting Deputy Field Supervisor Utah Ecological Services Field Office Fish, wildlife, and plants 2369 Orton Circle, Suite 50
West Valley City, UT 84119 [phone] [e-mail]
USDA/NRCS Bir Thapa; State Soil Scientist Utah State Office Land use/Farmland; Soil surveys for
wetlands and floodplains 125 South State Street, Room 4402
Salt Lake City, UT 84138-1100
[phone] [e-mail]
Utah Department of Natural Resources Mike Fowlks; UDWR Director Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Fish, wildlife, and plants 1594 W North Temple
Salt Lake City, UT 84116 [phone] [e-mail]
1
Autumn Foushee
From:Thapa, Bir - NRCS, Salt Lake City, UT <[e-mail]>
Sent:Monday, May 18, 2020 1:55 PM
To:Autumn Foushee
Cc:Gary Vance
Subject:RE: 2020 Provo Water Advanced Treatment and Resource Recovery (WATRR) Center Project: Scoping
[External Email]  
Good Afternoon Autumn! 
Since your project  do not contain Prime, Unique, Statewide or Local Important Farmland (as you checked “No” on Form 
AD‐1006), Farm Protection Policy Act does not apply. Also your project will replace old reclamation system with 
advanced cutting edge technology, no new area will be affected. Moreover, your project is located within the urban area 
and waste water treatment. Therefore your project from NRCS is cleared to move forward. Wish you a good luck for the 
successful implementation of the  project.  

Thank you, 

Bir Thapa, ph. D.
NRCS Utah State Office
State Soil Scientist
125 S. State Street. Suite 4010
Salt Lake City, UT 84138
Work: 801-524-4573
[e-mail]  

From: Autumn Foushee <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 2:24 PM 
To: Thapa, Bir ‐ NRCS, Salt Lake City, UT <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Gary Vance <[e-mail]> 
Subject: RE: 2020 Provo Water Advanced Treatment and Resource Recovery (WATRR) Center Project: Scoping 

Bir, 

Thanks so much for your response. Please find the AD1006 form attached and a map of the project location. The map is 
the same map as was included in the Scoping Letter.  Please let me know if you have any further questions. 

Thank you, 
Autumn 

AUTUMN FOUSHEE 
Senior Biologist 

2
J‐U‐B ENGINEERS, Inc.  
p 801 886 9052 Ext 8332  c  385 222 1436 

From: Thapa, Bir ‐ NRCS, Salt Lake City, UT <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 11:52 AM 
To: Autumn Foushee <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Gary Vance <[e-mail]> 
Subject: RE: 2020 Provo Water Advanced Treatment and Resource Recovery (WATRR) Center Project: Scoping 

[External Email]  

Hello Autumn, 
Good morning! 

Regarding the Provo City reclamation Improvements Project, Farm Protection Policy Act (FPPA) applies if any one of the 
following three activities meets the condition: 
1.            Federal funds are involved 
2.            Irreversible conversion of prime, unique important farmland to non‐agricultural use 
3.            None of the following exemptions to FPPA apply 

Exemptions (land) 
• Land not considered “farmland” under FPPA – Land already “developed” or already irreversibly converted • US Census 
urban areas maps • Existing “footprint” including rights‐of‐way – Land already committed to urban development – Land 
committed to water storage 

NRCS is not a regulatory agency and it does not provide any opinion on the conversion issue. However, there is a set 
procedure to follow if FPPA applies. I suggest, please fill out Parts I and III of form AD‐1006 (attached) and submit 
appropriately scaled maps indicating the location of the project site. Also describe  activities you are proposing. Then I 
will decide what to do the next step. If you want to talk further, kindly call me at 385‐315‐6248. 

Thank you, 

Bir 
Thank you, 

Bir Thapa, ph. D.
NRCS Utah State Office
State Soil Scientist
125 S. State Street. Suite 4010
Salt Lake City, UT 84138
Work: 801-524-4573
[e-mail]  

3
From: Autumn Foushee <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 12:45 PM 
To: Thapa, Bir ‐ NRCS, Salt Lake City, UT <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Gary Vance <[e-mail]> 
Subject: 2020 Provo Water Advanced Treatment and Resource Recovery (WATRR) Center Project: Scoping 

Dear Mr. Thapa, 

Provo City is performing an environmental review of the proposed 2020 WATRR Center Project. Please see the attached 
Scoping Letter for further details. The environmental review is being performed pursuant to the requirements of the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the Utah Division of Water Quality (UDWQ). Provo City requests that your 
agency review the Proposed Project for potential environmental considerations within the project area. We would 
appreciate a response within 30 days of the date of this email and attached letter. Comments can be returned directly to 
me. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me. Due to changes in work patterns related to Covid‐19, 
we are emailing and physically mailing letters to resource agencies, so your office will also receive a copy of the letter 
attached to this email. 

We appreciate your assistance and attention to this notice. Thank you! 

Best regards, 

Autumn 

AUTUMN FOUSHEE  
Senior Biologist 

J‐U‐B ENGINEERS, Inc.  
392 E. Winchester St., Suite 300, Salt Lake City, UT  84107 
e  [e-mail] w  www.jub.com    
p 801 886 9052 Ext 8332  f  801 886 9123  c  385 222 1436 

This e‐mail and any attachments involving J‐U‐B or a subsidiary business may contain information that is confidential 
and/or proprietary. Prior to use, you agree to the provisions found on the Electronic Documents/Data License, which can 
be accessed from the footer on the J‐U‐B home page. If you believe you received this email in error, please reply to that 
effect and then delete all copies. 

This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any 
unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the law and 
subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the 
sender and delete the email immediately.  
This e‐mail and any attachments involving J‐U‐B or a subsidiary business may contain information that is confidential 
and/or proprietary. Prior to use, you agree to the provisions found on the Electronic Documents/Data License, which can 
be accessed from the footer on the J‐U‐B home page. If you believe you received this email in error, please reply to that 
effect and then delete all copies. 
1
Autumn Foushee
From:Ty Howard <[e-mail]>
Sent:Friday, April 17, 2020 12:57 PM
To:Autumn Foushee
Cc:Gary Vance
Subject:Re: 2020 Provo Water Advanced Treatment and Resource Recovery (WATRR) Center Project: Scoping
[External Email]  
Hello Autumn,  

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Since this project is being performed for the Division of Water Quality 
(DWQ), a sister division with Waste Management and Radiation Control in the same department, we will take a look at 
the project and coordinate any comments we may have directly with DWQ, deferring to them as the contact on the 
project. This will allow more efficiency to your process. 

Regards, 

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 12:39 PM Autumn Foushee <[e-mail]> wrote: 
Dear Mr. Howard, 

Provo City is performing an environmental review of the proposed 2020 WATRR Center Project. Please see the attached 
Scoping Letter for further details. The environmental review is being performed pursuant to the requirements of the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the Utah Division of Water Quality (UDWQ). Provo City requests that your 
agency review the Proposed Project for potential environmental considerations within the project area. We would 
appreciate a response within 30 days of the date of this email and attached letter. Comments can be returned directly 
to me. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me. Due to changes in work patterns related to 
Covid‐19, we are emailing and physically mailing letters to resource agencies, so your office will also receive a copy of 
the letter attached to this email. 

We appreciate your assistance and attention to this notice. Thank you! 

Best regards, 

Autumn 

AUTUMN FOUSHEE  
2
Senior Biologist 

J‐U‐B ENGINEERS, Inc.  
392 E. Winchester St., Suite 300, Salt Lake City, UT  84107 
e  [e-mail] w  www.jub.com    
p 801 886 9052 Ext 8332  f  801 886 9123  c  385 222 1436 

This e‐mail and any attachments involving J‐U‐B or a subsidiary business may contain information that is confidential 
and/or proprietary. Prior to use, you agree to the provisions found on the Electronic Documents/Data License, which 
can be accessed from the footer on the J‐U‐B home page. If you believe you received this email in error, please reply to 
that effect and then delete all copies. 

‐‐  
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

Ty L. Howard
Director
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
P: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
wasteandradiation.utah.gov

Emails to and from this email address may be considered public records and thus subject to Utah
GRAMA requirements.  
1
Autumn Foushee
From:Kathy Holder <[e-mail]>
Sent:Friday, May 1, 2020 2:14 PM
To:Autumn Foushee
Cc:Gary Vance
Subject:Re: FW: 2020 Provo Water Advanced Treatment and Resource Recovery (WATTR) Center Project:
Scoping
[External Email]  
Yes you have answered my questions. You are not doing any work in the SFHA, so you should be fine.  

Kathy Holder, CFM, MBA 
State Floodplain Manager 
Division of Emergency Management 

[phone] Office 
[phone] Cell 

On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 10:11 AM Autumn Foushee <[e-mail]> wrote: 
Hi Kathy, 

I am following up with you to ensure that we answered your question satisfactorily. See the email I sent to you on April 
20th and the attached FEMA rate map that shows the facility/project location. 

Please let us know if this has answered your questions, or if you would need any additional information. 

Thanks so much for your assistance. 

Best, 
Autumn 

AUTUMN FOUSHEE 
Senior Biologist 
2

J‐U‐B ENGINEERS, Inc.  
p 801 886 9052 Ext 8332  c  385 222 1436 

From: Autumn Foushee  
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2020 12:39 PM 
To: Kathy Holder <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Gary Vance <[e-mail]> 
Subject: RE: 2020 Provo Water Advanced Treatment and Resource Recovery (WATTR) Center Project: Scoping 

Hi Kathy, 

Unfortunately, FEMA has no digital data available for this area of Provo, so we were not able to overlay it with our GIS 
map. However, the proposed project does not extend beyond the existing footprint of the wastewater treatment 
facility. As such, I have attached a PDF of the firmette from the FEMA website, which shows the existing facility and 
that it is not located in an SFHA. A portion of the existing site is located in the 500‐year floodplain, however the 
proposed project would have no actions in that area. 

Please let me know if this information addresses your questions. Thank you so much! 

Best, 

Autumn 

AUTUMN FOUSHEE 
Senior Biologist 

J‐U‐B ENGINEERS, Inc.  
p 801 886 9052 Ext 8332  c  385 222 1436 

3
From: Kathy Holder <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 1:00 PM 
To: Autumn Foushee <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Gary Vance <[e-mail]> 
Subject: Re: 2020 Provo Water Advanced Treatment and Resource Recovery (WATTR) Center Project: Scoping 

[External Email]  
Yes could you please do that and get it to me. Thank you! 

Kathy Holder, CFM, MBA 
State Floodplain Manager 
Division of Emergency Management 

[phone] Office 
[phone] Cell 

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 12:59 PM Autumn Foushee <[e-mail]> wrote: 
Kathy, 

Thanks so much for your response. Our review of the SFHA mapping showed that all project ground disturbance and 
proposed construction would occur outside FEMA SFHAs. If you would like for us to provide an overlay, we could get 
that to you early next week. It should be noted that a portion of the existing facility is located in the 500‐year 
floodplain. The proposed project however, would have no actions in the 500‐year floodplain or other SFHA. 

Thank you! 

Autumn 

AUTUMN FOUSHEE 
4
Senior Biologist 

J‐U‐B ENGINEERS, Inc.  
p 801 886 9052 Ext 8332  c  385 222 1436 

From: Kathy Holder <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Friday, April 17, 2020 12:47 PM 
To: Autumn Foushee <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Gary Vance <[e-mail]> 
Subject: Re: 2020 Provo Water Advanced Treatment and Resource Recovery (WATTR) Center Project: Scoping 

[External Email]  
Autumn, 

Thank you for your email. I did not see on your map that there was an overlay of the FEMA SFHA.  Is this structure in 
or touching an SFHA. If so could you please show an overlay of this? 

Kathy Holder, CFM, MBA 
State Floodplain Manager 
Division of Emergency Management 

[phone] Office 
[phone] Cell 

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 12:43 PM Autumn Foushee <[e-mail]> wrote: 
Dear Ms. Holder, 
5

Provo City is performing an environmental review of the proposed 2020 WATRR Center Project. Please see the 
attached Scoping Letter for further details. The environmental review is being performed pursuant to the 
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the Utah Division of Water Quality (UDWQ). Provo 
City requests that your agency review the Proposed Project for potential environmental considerations within the 
project area. We would appreciate a response within 30 days of the date of this email and attached letter. Comments 
can be returned directly to me. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me. Due to changes in 
work patterns related to Covid‐19, we are emailing and physically mailing letters to resource agencies, so your office 
will also receive a copy of the letter attached to this email. 

We appreciate your assistance and attention to this notice. Thank you! 

Best regards, 

Autumn 

AUTUMN FOUSHEE  
Senior Biologist 

J‐U‐B ENGINEERS, Inc.  
392 E. Winchester St., Suite 300, Salt Lake City, UT  84107 
e  [e-mail] w  www.jub.com    
p 801 886 9052 Ext 8332  f  801 886 9123  c  385 222 1436 

This e‐mail and any attachments involving J‐U‐B or a subsidiary business may contain information that is confidential 
and/or proprietary. Prior to use, you agree to the provisions found on the Electronic Documents/Data License, which 
can be accessed from the footer on the J‐U‐B home page. If you believe you received this email in error, please reply 
to that effect and then delete all copies. 
This e‐mail and any attachments involving J‐U‐B or a subsidiary business may contain information that is confidential 
and/or proprietary. Prior to use, you agree to the provisions found on the Electronic Documents/Data License, which 
can be accessed from the footer on the J‐U‐B home page. If you believe you received this email in error, please reply 
to that effect and then delete all copies. 
6
This e‐mail and any attachments involving J‐U‐B or a subsidiary business may contain information that is confidential 
and/or proprietary. Prior to use, you agree to the provisions found on the Electronic Documents/Data License, which 
can be accessed from the footer on the J‐U‐B home page. If you believe you received this email in error, please reply to 
that effect and then delete all copies. 
1
Autumn Foushee
From:Christopher Hansen <[e-mail]>
Sent:Friday, April 17, 2020 4:05 PM
To:Autumn Foushee
Cc:Christopher Merritt
Subject:Re: 2020 Provo Water Advanced Treatment and Resource Recovery (WATRR) Center Project: Scoping
[External Email]  
Hi, Autumn,   
Thanks for the submission of information regarding this project. It does not look like the property has been surveyed or 
evaluated regarding its historic eligibility; we have nothing on file in our office, making it difficult to comment on the 
undertaking's effect. I would recommend that a basic historic architectural survey be completed on the buildings to 
document them and determine whether or not they are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Let me know 
if you have any questions. 

Regards, 

Chris H. 

‐‐ 
Christopher L. Hansen 
Deputy SHPO/Preservation Planner  
Utah State Historic Preservation Office 
Utah Division of State History 
300 S. Rio Grande Street 
Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 
Phone: (801) 245‐7239 
Email: [e-mail] 

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 12:44 PM Autumn Foushee <[e-mail]> wrote: 
Dear Mr. Hansen, 

Provo City is performing an environmental review of the proposed 2020 WATRR Center Project. Please see the attached 
Scoping Letter for further details. The environmental review is being performed pursuant to the requirements of the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the Utah Division of Water Quality (UDWQ). Provo City requests that your 
agency review the Proposed Project for potential environmental considerations within the project area. We would 
appreciate a response within 30 days of the date of this email and attached letter. Comments can be returned directly 
to me. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me. Due to changes in work patterns related to 
Covid‐19, we are emailing and physically mailing letters to resource agencies, so your office will also receive a copy of 
the letter attached to this email. 

2
We appreciate your assistance and attention to this notice. Thank you! 

Best regards, 

Autumn 

AUTUMN FOUSHEE  
Senior Biologist 

J‐U‐B ENGINEERS, Inc.  
392 E. Winchester St., Suite 300, Salt Lake City, UT  84107 
e  [e-mail] w  www.jub.com    
p 801 886 9052 Ext 8332  f  801 886 9123  c  385 222 1436 

This e‐mail and any attachments involving J‐U‐B or a subsidiary business may contain information that is confidential 
and/or proprietary. Prior to use, you agree to the provisions found on the Electronic Documents/Data License, which 
can be accessed from the footer on the J‐U‐B home page. If you believe you received this email in error, please reply to 
that effect and then delete all copies. 
Appendix B – Water Resources Assessment

Water Resources Assessment
Provo City Water Advanced Treatment and Resource Recovery Center
(Provo WATRR Center)
Utah County, Utah

Prepared for

Utah Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
195 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84116

Prepared by

J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.
392 E. Winchester St. Suite 300
Salt Lake City, UT 84107

March 2020
Provo City WATRR Center Project ii
Water Resources Assessment
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Description of the Proposed Action......................................................................................................... 1
2 Methods ................................................................................................................................................ 1
3 Environmental Setting & Evaluation ..................................................................................................... 2
4 Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 3
5 References ............................................................................................................................................ 4

Appendices
Appendix A: Vicinity Map & Project Exhibit
Appendix B: Photo Inventory
Appendix C: FEMA FIRM
Appendix D: Soil Maps
Appendix E: NWI Map
Provo City WATRR Center Project 1
Water Resources Assessment
1 Introduction
J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. (J-U-B) conducted a water resources assessment (WRA) on March 24, 2020 for the
Proposed Provo City Water Advanced Treatment and Resource Recovery Center (Provo WATRR Center)
(Proposed Project) located in Utah County, Utah. The Proposed Project occurs in Provo City, and is
specifically contained within Section 18, Township 7 South, Range 3 East Salt Lake Meridian (Vicinity Map,
Appendix 1).
The need for the Proposed Project is to improve Provo City’s Water Reclamation Facility (PCWRF) and to
replace aging infrastructure in order to meet current and future regulatory requirements for pollutant
discharges. This WRA was prepared on behalf of Provo City for the Utah Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
The objective of this WRA was to document Waters of the U.S., including wetlands, if present within the
Proposed Project Action Area (Action Area).
Description of the Proposed Action
The Proposed Project would improve the PCWRF by refurbishing, repurposing, and reusing existing
facilities, as well as removing existing infrastructure from service and installing new wastewater treatment
infrastructure. Under the Proposed Project, the trickling filters and the existing secondary clarifiers would
be demolished to create space for the new treatment process. The existing final clarifiers, filter building,
and backwash tank would be decommissioned, and a new power distribution system would be
constructed. The majority of the plant’s influent would flow to the existing influent junction structure,
where the flow would be directed to the existing headworks facilities. A new, in-plant lift station would
be constructed to receive additional sanitary sewer flows from the area southwest of the facility. Flow
received at the new lift station would be pumped directly to the existing headworks facility.
The existing coarse screening, grit removal, and primary clarification facilities would continue to be used.
The solids processing facilities would be refurbished as necessary for continued use, including the primary
sludge pump station, primary and secondary digesters, dissolved air flotation thickener (DAFT) tank, and
dewatering facility. A biosolids aeration struvite control system would be added to the existing solids
stream process to promote the removal of phosphorous from the plant and to prevent struvite scaling.
A major component of the Proposed Project is the installation of a membrane bioreactor system, which
would include new process basins, associated piping and equipment, and the repurposing of the four
existing aeration basins for equalization and surge storage. A fine screen facility would be constructed
upstream of the membranes to protect them from damage caused by small debris accumulation. The fine
screen facility would be placed downstream of the existing primary clarifiers, and a bypass line would
allow the clarifiers to be bypassed by directing primary influent from the headworks to the fine screen
facility. The flare would also be relocated to a site near the existing drying beds because its current
position does not meet safety requirements. Generally, the existing infrastructure for UV disinfection
would be maintained. Construction of the Proposed Project would be anticipated to begin in August 2020
and be complete by the end of 2023, pending environmental, design, and construction approvals.
2 Methods
The WRA was conducted in accordance with the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) Wetland
Delineation Manual and the Arid West Region Supplement (Version 2.0). Based on aerial imagery, the U.S.
Provo City WATRR Center Project 2
Water Resources Assessment
Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), and site conditions in the field,
any location with the potential to contain Waters of the U.S., or to support wetlands, was surveyed
further. The entire Action Area was assessed based on topography, presence or absence of dominant
hydrophytic vegetation, and surface hydrology. If vegetation were to indicate any potential for hydric
conditions, a soil pit sampling would be conducted and the results documented in accordance with the
USACE Arid West Region Supplement.
3 Environmental Setting & Evaluation
The Action Area is situated within Utah Valley, west of the Wasatch Mountain Front and east of Utah
Lake’s Provo Bay. The Proposed Project is located within the Big Dry Creek subwatershed (Hydrologic Unit
Code [HUC] 160202010500) of the greater Utah Lake Sub-Basin (HUC 16020201). This subwatershed
drains an area of approximately 57.9 square miles (14,319 acres) (EPA 2017). The PCWRF currently
discharges effluent into Mill Race Canal, which flows to Utah Lake, and ultimately connects to the Great
Salt Lake via the Jordan River.
The climate within the Proposed Project vicinity is considered arid, with an average of 18.73 inches of
precipitation. In 2019, the Provo BYU, UT WETS weather station received 17.02 inches of precipitation.
The average temperature is 53.8⁰F, with average highs reaching 94.3⁰F in the summer and average lows
falling to 22.2⁰F in the winter months. The Provo BYU weather station typically receives 50.9 inches of
snowfall annually (FIPS 49049; NOAA Regional Climate Centers 2019).
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the
Action Area is within two Flood Zone X areas (Appendix C). The majority of the Action Area is within Flood
Zone X (unshaded), which corresponds to areas that have been determined to have minimal flood
potential and are outside of the 500-plus year flood level. The southwestern corner of the Action Area
along East Bay Road is within a shaded area that is designated as Zone X. This designation differs from
unshaded Zone X in that it is defined as “areas of 500-year flood; areas of 100-year flood with average
depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage area less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees
from 100-year flood” (FEMA 1988). The portion of the Action Area within areas of 500-year flood contains
the existing UV disinfection facilities, which would remain in place. Therefore, the Proposed Project is not
anticipated to impact floodplains within the Action Area.
Soils in the Action Area are predominantly loamy in texture. The dominant soil types in the Action Area
are Vineyard fine sandy loam, moderately saline, 0 to 2 percent slopes (46.1%) and McBeth silt loam,
moderately saline (37.7%). The remaining soils in the Action Area are pits and dumps (4.4%), urban land
(0.8%), Chipman-McBeth complex (11.0%), and Chipman silty clay loam, moderately deep water table
(<0.1%) (Soils Map, Appendix D). Approximately 50.5% of soils in the Action Area are not hydric (rating of
0 out of 100). The remaining soils are considered hydric (rating of 5 or 100).
The Proposed Project ranges in elevation from approximately 4,494 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) to
approximately 4,501 feet AMSL. Land use in the surrounding area consists of industrial, commercial, and
educational uses. For representative photos of the Action Area, refer to the Photo Inventory (Appendix
B).
The Action Area is currently disturbed by the presence of and development associated with the PCWRF.
The Mill Race Canal, a channelized and armored stream, flows outside and adjacent to the western border
Provo City WATRR Center Project 3
Water Resources Assessment
of the Action Area. The effluent discharge point associated with the wastewater facilities enters into Mill
Race Canal outside the Action Area. No other water resources were observed in the Action Area.
Vegetation in the Action Area was dominated by maintained Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), box elder
(Acer negundo), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and various other ornamental trees. All Proposed
Project staging areas would be located within the Action Area and situated in an upland position. Staging
areas were comprised of gravel lots or areas dominated by maintained Kentucky bluegrass.
The USFWS NWI suggests that the Action Area may contain several palustrine, aquatic bed, artificially
flooded, excavated wetlands (PABKx). The potential wetlands identified by the NWI are overlaid on top of
the existing clarifiers, UV disinfection basin, and decommissioned trickling filter facilities. While the Action
Area contains surface water (i.e. effluent), the wastewater treatment facilities are not considered Waters
of the U.S., or wetlands. The field visit determined that the Action Area does not contain wetlands, or
other Waters of the U.S.
4 Summary
The Proposed Project would improve the PCWRF by refurbishing, repurposing, and reusing existing
facilities, as well as removing existing infrastructure from service and installing new wastewater treatment
infrastructure. A major component of the Proposed Project is the construction of a new bioreactor
membrane system. The need for the Proposed Project is to improve the PCWRF and to replace aging
infrastructure in order to meet current and future regulatory requirements for pollutant discharges.
Water and effluent collections associated with the wastewater facilities (i.e. clarifiers, UV disinfection
basin) was observed in the Action Area, however no Waters of the U.S. or wetlands were present.
Therefore, the Proposed Project is not anticipated to impact Waters of the U.S., including wetlands. It
should be noted that the final authority regarding impacts to Waters of the U.S., and permit authorizations
rests with the appropriate regulatory agencies.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact Autumn Foushee. She may be reached at
[e-mail], or on her office phone at 801-886-9052.
Provo City WATRR Center Project 4
Water Resources Assessment
5 References
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. “WATERS GeoViewer.” Accessed February 5, 2020.
www.epa.gov/waterdata/waters-geoviewer.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1988. “Flood Insurance Rate Map 4901590016C.”
Accessed February 5, 2020. msc.fema.gov/portal/home.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Regional Climate Centers. “WETS Station:
Provo BYU, UT.” Accessed February 5, 2020. agacis.rcc-acis.org/?fips=49049.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Wetland Delineation Manual. Vicksburg, MS:
Environmental Laboratory.
USACE. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West
Region (Version 2.0). Vicksburg, MS: Environmental Laboratory (U.S.).
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)-Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2019. “Web Soil
Survey.” Accessed February 4, 2020. websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/.
USFWS. 2019. “National Wetland Inventory.” National Wetland Inventory (NWI), On-line National
Wetlands Inventory. Accessed February 5, 2020. www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/mapper.html.
Water Resources Assessment Appendix A – Vicinity Map & Project
Exhibit

New Pipeline
Existing Pipeline
Removed Pipeline
New Facility
Repurposed Existing Facility
Refurbished Existing Facility
Reused Existing Facility
Removed from Service
Future
¯
0 50 100 150 200
Feet
1 in = 200 ft
Provo WATRR Center
Preferred Alternative
S E

B
a
y

B
l
v
d
S 3
5
0

E
&
Existing Aeration
Basins Repurposed
as Surge Storage/
Equalization Basins
&Existing Blower Building
Existing Final Clarifiers
&
Existing
Backwash
Tank
Existing
Chlorine
Building Existing
Filter
Building
&Existing
Operations
Building
Existing UV
Disinfection
Operations
Building &
Chem
Storage
Membranes
&
New
Blower
Building
&
Power
Distribution
Building
&Struvite
Control
System
Fine/Primary
Screens
&
Existing Plant
Power Building
&
Existing Primary Digesters
&
Existing DAF
&
Existing Secondary
Digesters
&
Existing Solids
Dewatering
&
Existing Influent
Pump Station
&Existing Coarse Screens
Coarse Screens
&In-Plant
Lift Station
Existing
Primary
Clarifier
No. 1
Existing
Primary
Clarifier
No. 2
Influent
Pump
Station
60" ML
48" PR
M
24" EQR
&Existing Grit Basins
24"

S
P
E
Future
Bioreactors and
Membranes
89
189
15
Water Resources Assessment Appendix B – Photo Inventory

Photo Inventory
The following photos were taken during a site visit conducted on March 24, 2020.

Photo 1: Vegetation in the Action Area was dominated by mowed Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis),
box elder (Acer negundo), and ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), and various other ornamental trees.
These trees would be removed as part of the Proposed Project.

Photo 2: The Operations Building would be removed from service as part of the Proposed Project.

Photo 3: In 2019, the Provo City Water Reclamation Facility (PCWRF) decommissioned the trickling filters
that are shown in this photo. The new bioreactor membrane system would be placed in this location.

Photo 4: The existing lift station building would remain as part of the Proposed Project.

Photo 5: The primary clarifiers shown in this photo would be removed from service as part of the
Proposed Project.

Photo 6: The existing trickling filters would be demolished as part of the Proposed Project.

Photo 7: The pump house would be replaced as part of the Proposed Project.

Photo 8: The existing drying beds would remain in operation for the duration of the Proposed Project.

Photo 9: The aeration basins would be repurposed as equalization and surge storage for the new
bioreactor membrane treatment process.

Photo 10: The final clarifiers would be removed from service as part of the Proposed Project.

Photo 11: The storage buildings would be removed from service but not demolished as part of the
Proposed Project.

Photo 12: The effluent discharge point would not change as part of the Proposed Project.

Photo 13: The existing UV disinfection, chloride and filter buildings would remain in service as part of
the Proposed Project.

Photo 14: The PCWRF discharges effluent into the Mill Race Canal, an armored, channelized stream that
flows into Utah Lake.

Water Resources Assessment Appendix C – FEMA FIRM

Water Resources Assessment Appendix D – Soil Maps

Soil Map—Utah County, Utah - Central Part
(Provo WATRR Center)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3/30/2020
Page 1 of 3
44
5
1
4
4
0
44
5
1
5
2
0
44
5
1
6
0
0
44
5
1
6
8
0
44
5
1
7
6
0
44
5
1
8
4
0
44
5
1
3
6
0
44
5
1
4
4
0
44
5
1
5
2
0
44
5
1
6
0
0
44
5
1
6
8
0
44
5
1
7
6
0
44
5
1
8
4
0
444290 444370 444450 444530 444610 444690 444770 444850 444930 445010
444290 444370 444450 444530 444610 444690 444770 444850 444930 445010
40° 12' 54'' N
11
1
°

3
9
'

1
7
'
'

W
40° 12' 54'' N
11
1
°

3
8
'

4
5
'
'

W
40° 12' 38'' N
11
1
°

3
9
'

1
7
'
'

W
40° 12' 38'' N
11
1
°

3
8
'

4
5
'
'

W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84
0 150 300 600 900
Feet
0 50 100 200 300
Meters
Map Scale: 1:3,440 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:20,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Utah County, Utah - Central Part
Survey Area Data: Version 12, Sep 16, 2019
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 30, 2018—Aug
29, 2018
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Soil Map—Utah County, Utah - Central Part
(Provo WATRR Center)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3/30/2020
Page 2 of 3
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
Cm Chipman silty clay loam,
moderately deep water table
0.0 0.0%
Cp Chipman-McBeth complex 3.8 11.0%
Mn McBeth silt loam, moderately
saline
13.1 37.7%
PK Pits and dumps 1.5 4.4%
UL Urban land 0.3 0.8%
VsA Vineyard fine sandy loam,
moderately saline, 0 to 2
percent slopes
16.0 46.1%
Totals for Area of Interest 34.8 100.0%
Soil Map—Utah County, Utah - Central Part Provo WATRR Center
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3/30/2020
Page 3 of 3
Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Utah County, Utah - Central Part
(Provo WATRR Center)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3/30/2020
Page 1 of 5
44
5
1
4
4
0
44
5
1
5
2
0
44
5
1
6
0
0
44
5
1
6
8
0
44
5
1
7
6
0
44
5
1
8
4
0
44
5
1
3
6
0
44
5
1
4
4
0
44
5
1
5
2
0
44
5
1
6
0
0
44
5
1
6
8
0
44
5
1
7
6
0
44
5
1
8
4
0
444290 444370 444450 444530 444610 444690 444770 444850 444930 445010
444290 444370 444450 444530 444610 444690 444770 444850 444930 445010
40° 12' 54'' N
11
1
°

3
9
'

1
7
'
'

W
40° 12' 54'' N
11
1
°

3
8
'

4
5
'
'

W
40° 12' 38'' N
11
1
°

3
9
'

1
7
'
'

W
40° 12' 38'' N
11
1
°

3
8
'

4
5
'
'

W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84
0 150 300 600 900
Feet
0 50 100 200 300
Meters
Map Scale: 1:3,440 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Rating Polygons
Hydric (100%)
Hydric (66 to 99%)
Hydric (33 to 65%)
Hydric (1 to 32%)
Not Hydric (0%)
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Lines
Hydric (100%)
Hydric (66 to 99%)
Hydric (33 to 65%)
Hydric (1 to 32%)
Not Hydric (0%)
Not rated or not available
Soil Rating Points
Hydric (100%)
Hydric (66 to 99%)
Hydric (33 to 65%)
Hydric (1 to 32%)
Not Hydric (0%)
Not rated or not available
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:20,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Utah County, Utah - Central Part
Survey Area Data: Version 12, Sep 16, 2019
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 30, 2018—Aug
29, 2018
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Utah County, Utah - Central Part
(Provo WATRR Center)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3/30/2020
Page 2 of 5
Hydric Rating by Map Unit
Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
Cm Chipman silty clay loam,
moderately deep
water table
5 0.0 0.0%
Cp Chipman-McBeth
complex
40 3.8 11.0%
Mn McBeth silt loam,
moderately saline
100 13.1 37.7%
PK Pits and dumps 0 1.5 4.4%
UL Urban land 0 0.3 0.8%
VsA Vineyard fine sandy
loam, moderately
saline, 0 to 2 percent
slopes
0 16.0 46.1%
Totals for Area of Interest 34.8 100.0%
Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Utah County, Utah - Central Part Provo WATRR Center
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3/30/2020
Page 3 of 5
Description
This rating indicates the percentage of map units that meets the criteria for hydric
soils. Map units are composed of one or more map unit components or soil
types, each of which is rated as hydric soil or not hydric. Map units that are made
up dominantly of hydric soils may have small areas of minor nonhydric
components in the higher positions on the landform, and map units that are made
up dominantly of nonhydric soils may have small areas of minor hydric
components in the lower positions on the landform. Each map unit is rated based
on its respective components and the percentage of each component within the
map unit.
The thematic map is color coded based on the composition of hydric
components. The five color classes are separated as 100 percent hydric
components, 66 to 99 percent hydric components, 33 to 65 percent hydric
components, 1 to 32 percent hydric components, and less than one percent
hydric components.
In Web Soil Survey, the Summary by Map Unit table that is displayed below the
map pane contains a column named 'Rating'. In this column the percentage of
each map unit that is classified as hydric is displayed.
Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils
(NTCHS) as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding
long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the
upper part (Federal Register, 1994). Under natural conditions, these soils are
either saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to support
the growth and reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation.
The NTCHS definition identifies general soil properties that are associated with
wetness. In order to determine whether a specific soil is a hydric soil or nonhydric
soil, however, more specific information, such as information about the depth and
duration of the water table, is needed. Thus, criteria that identify those estimated
soil properties unique to hydric soils have been established (Federal Register,
2002). These criteria are used to identify map unit components that normally are
associated with wetlands. The criteria used are selected estimated soil properties
that are described in "Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 1999) and "Keys to Soil
Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 2006) and in the "Soil Survey Manual" (Soil Survey
Division Staff, 1993).
If soils are wet enough for a long enough period of time to be considered hydric,
they should exhibit certain properties that can be easily observed in the field.
These visible properties are indicators of hydric soils. The indicators used to
make onsite determinations of hydric soils are specified in "Field Indicators of
Hydric Soils in the United States" (Hurt and Vasilas, 2006).
References:
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Utah County, Utah - Central Part Provo WATRR Center
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3/30/2020
Page 4 of 5
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric
soils in the United States.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18.
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for
making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources
Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436.
Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Rating Options
Aggregation Method: Percent Present
Aggregation is the process by which a set of component attribute values is
reduced to a single value that represents the map unit as a whole.
A map unit is typically composed of one or more "components". A component is
either some type of soil or some nonsoil entity, e.g., rock outcrop. For the
attribute being aggregated, the first step of the aggregation process is to derive
one attribute value for each of a map unit's components. From this set of
component attributes, the next step of the aggregation process derives a single
value that represents the map unit as a whole. Once a single value for each map
unit is derived, a thematic map for soil map units can be rendered. Aggregation
must be done because, on any soil map, map units are delineated but
components are not.
For each of a map unit's components, a corresponding percent composition is
recorded. A percent composition of 60 indicates that the corresponding
component typically makes up approximately 60% of the map unit. Percent
composition is a critical factor in some, but not all, aggregation methods.
The aggregation method "Percent Present" returns the cumulative percent
composition of all components of a map unit for which a certain condition is true.
For example, attribute "Hydric Rating by Map Unit" returns the cumulative
percent composition of all components of a map unit where the corresponding
hydric rating is "Yes". Conditions may be simple or complex. At runtime, the user
may be able to specify all, some or none of the conditions in question.
Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified
Components whose percent composition is below the cutoff value will not be
considered. If no cutoff value is specified, all components in the database will be
considered. The data for some contrasting soils of minor extent may not be in the
database, and therefore are not considered.
Tie-break Rule: Lower
The tie-break rule indicates which value should be selected from a set of multiple
candidate values, or which value should be selected in the event of a percent
composition tie.
Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Utah County, Utah - Central Part Provo WATRR Center
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3/30/2020
Page 5 of 5
Water Resource Assessment Appendix E – NWI Map
Provo City WATRR Center
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Standards and Support Team,[e-mail]
Wetlands
Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
Estuarine and Marine Wetland
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
Lake
Other
Riverine
February 5, 2020
0 0.1 0.20.05 mi
0 0.15 0.30.075 km
1:7,218
This page was produced by the NWI mapperNational Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the Wetlands Mapper web site.
Appendix C – Cultural Resource Inventory
COVER PAGE
Must Accompany All Project Reports
Submitted to the Utah SHPO

Report Title: A Cultural Resource Inventory for the Water Advanced Treatment and Resource Recovery (WATRR)
Center Project, Provo, Utah County, Utah
UDSH Project Number: U20HY0300 Org. Project Number: JUB73
Report Date: May 13, 2020 County(ies): Utah
Report Author(s): Sheri Murray Ellis Principal Investigator: Sheri Murray Ellis
Record Search Date(s): April 22, 2020 Field Supervisor(s): Sheri Murray Ellis
Intensive Acres Surveyed (<15m intervals): 26.5 ac. Recon Acres Surveyed (<15m intervals): 0 ac.
USGS 7.5’ Series Map Reference(s): Provo, UT

Sites Reported Count Smithsonian Trinomials
Revisits (no updated site forms) 0
Updates (updated site forms attached) 1 42UT1608
New recordings (site forms attached) 0
Total Count of Archaeological Sites in APE 1 42UT1608
Historic Structures (structures forms Attached) 1 Provo City Water Reclamation Facility
Total National Register Eligible Sites 1 42UT1608 (non-contributing segment)
*Please list all site numbers per category. Number strings are acceptable (e.g. “42TO1-13; 42TO15”). Cells should expand to
accommodate extensive lists.
Checklist of Required Items for Submittal to SHPO
☒ “Born Digital” Report in a PDF/A format
☒ SHPO Cover Sheet
☒ File Name is the UDSH Project Number with no hyphens or landowner suffixes
☒ “Born Digital” Site forms in PDF/A format
☒ UASF with embedded maps and photos
☒ File name is Smithsonian Trinomial without leading zeros (e.g. 42TO13 not 42TO00013)
☒ Photo requirements (including size and quality)
☒ Archaeological Site Tabular Data
☒ Single spreadsheet for each project
☒ Follows UTSHPO template (info here: https://goo.gl/7SLMqj)
☒ GIS data
☒ Zipped polygon shapefile or geodatabase of survey (if different from APE) or other activity
area with required field names and variable intensity denoted
☒ Zipped polygon shapefile or geodatabase of site boundaries with a the required field name

A Cultural Resource Inventory for the
Water Advanced Treatment and Resource Recovery (WATRR)
Center Project,
Provo, Utah County, Utah

Prepared for

J-U-B Engineers, Inc.
and
Provo City

Prepared by

Sheri Murray Ellis, MS, RPA
Owner/Consultant

Certus Environmental Solutions, LLC
Salt Lake City, Utah
801.230.7260

PLPCO Permit No. 47
Utah Antiquities Report No. U20HY0300

Certus Project Number: JUB73

May 13, 2020

Provo WATRR Center
U20HY0300
Page | i

PROJECT DATA SHEET
Report Title: A Cultural Resource Inventory for the Water Advanced Treatment and Resource Recovery (WATRR) Center
Project, Provo, Utah County, Utah
State Report No.: U20HY0300
Project Description: Provo City proposes to replace the existing Provo City Water Reclamation Facility
(PCWRF) with a new, cutting-edge treatment process capable of producing effluent quality that meets or
exceeds all existing and anticipated future regulatory requirements. Components of the PCWRF were
constructed during the historical period. The proposed project would entail removal of some existing
buildings and structures, construction of new buildings and structures, installation of new subsurface
pipelines, and replacement of existing equipment inside some buildings, among other changes. The
improvements, referred to as the Water Advanced Treatment and Resource Recovery (WATRR)
Center Project, falls under the jurisdiction of the Utah Division of Water Quality (UDWQ) and would be
subject to federal regulations, including 36 CFR 800 for the consideration of historic properties during
implementation of the undertaking.
Survey Area: The survey area for cultural resources was defined as a large polygonal area encompassing
most of the existing water reclamation facility. This area, which contains all lands, buildings, and structures
that could be directly impacted by the proposed facility improvements, encompasses 26.5 acres.
Agencies: Provo City, Utah Division of Drinking Water
Location: Provo, Utah County; T. 7 S, R. 3 E, Sec. 18
Land Ownership: Municipal and Private
Date(s) of Fieldwork: April 28, 2020
Methods: Intensive-level archaeological survey & selective reconnaissance-level structures survey
Acres Surveyed: 26.5 acres
Total # of Cultural Resources in Survey Area: 1 (42UT1608; Provo City Water Reclamation Facility)
NRHP Eligible Resources: 1 (42UT1608 – non-contributing segment)

Provo WATRR Center
U20HY0300
Page | ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Project Data Sheet ......................................................................................................................................... i
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... ii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................................ ii
Project Description and Definition of the Undertaking ................................................................................ 1
Personnel Qualifications ............................................................................................................................... 1
Cultural Resources Area of Potential Effects and Survey Area ..................................................................... 1
Project Setting ............................................................................................................................................... 5
Past Surveys and Known Cultural Resource Sites ......................................................................................... 6
Field Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 7
Findings ......................................................................................................................................................... 7
Site 42UT1608: Mill Race Ditch ................................................................................................................. 7
Provo City Water Reclamation Facility ...................................................................................................... 9
Summary and Recommendations ............................................................................................................... 11
References Cited ......................................................................................................................................... 12

List of Figures
Figure 1. General location of the proposed project ..................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Limits of cultural resources survey area; topographic map .......................................................... 3
Figure 3. Limits of cultural resources survey area; aerial map ..................................................................... 4
Figure 4. Overview of survey area; view to the northeast ........................................................................... 5
Figure 5. Overview of survey; view to the north .......................................................................................... 6
Figure 6. Cultural resource survey results .................................................................................................... 8
Figure 7. Site 42UT1608 at outfall location; view to the south .................................................................... 9
Figure 8. PCWRF; secondary pump station building; view to the southeast.............................................. 10

Provo WATRR Center
U20HY0300
Page | 1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DEFINITION OF THE UNDERTAKING
Provo City proposes to replace the existing Provo City Water Reclamation Facility (see Figure 1 for
location) with a new, cutting-edge treatment process capable of producing effluent quality that meets or
exceeds all existing and anticipated future regulatory requirements. Components of the PCWRF were
constructed during the historical period. The proposed project would entail removal of some existing
buildings and structures, construction of new buildings and structures, installation of new subsurface
pipelines, and replacement of existing equipment inside some buildings, among other changes. The
improvements, referred to as the Water Advanced Treatment and Resource Recovery (WATRR)
Center Project, falls under the jurisdiction of the Utah Division of Water Quality (UDWQ), which is
responsible for ensuring compliance with the applicable federal regulations, including 36 CFR 800 for
the consideration of historic properties during implementation of the project. Approval of the proposed
improvements by the UDWQ—to the extent they are subject to federal funding and federal
environmental regulations—would constitute an undertaking per 36 CFR 800.
Certus Environmental Consultants (Certus) was contracted by J-U-B Engineers, Inc. (JUB) to conduct
an assessment of potential impacts from the undertaking on historic properties per the above-referenced
regulations. JUB is serving as the primary environmental and permitting consultant for Provo City, while
Water Works Engineers, LLC is serving as the design and engineering lead. The results of the assessment
by Certus are presented herein.
Fieldwork, which was carried out April 28, 2020, consisted of an intensive-level survey for archaeological
resources and a selective reconnaissance-level survey for historical buildings and structures. The cultural
resources assessment was carried out under Utah State Antiquities Report No. U20HY0300.
PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
Sheri Murray Ellis, Principal Investigator for Certus under State of Utah Public Lands Policy
Coordination Office Permit No. 47, conducted fieldwork for the project and served as the principal
investigator. Ms. Ellis meets all standards for professional qualifications for both archaeology and
architectural history and for both prehistoric and historic period resources. Ms. Ellis holds an M.S. in
American Studies (a multi-disciplinary degree that includes archaeology and history). Ms. Ellis has nearly
30 years professional experience in cultural resource assessments in Utah and the western United States.
CULTURAL RESOURCES AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS AND SURVEY AREA
The survey area for cultural resources was defined as a large polygonal area encompassing most of the
existing water reclamation facility (see Figures 2 and 3). This area, which contains all lands, buildings,
and structures that could be directly impacted by the proposed facility improvements, encompasses 26.5
acres. The UDWQ, in consultation with the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and other
consulting parties, as appropriate, will determine the final area of potential effects (APE) for the
undertaking.
The survey area is located in Township 7 South, Range 3 East, Section 18 of the Salt Lake Base and
Meridian (see Figure 2). This area can be found on USGS 7.5 minute topographic map Provo, Utah.
Provo WATRR Center
U20HY0300
Page | 2

Figure 1. General location of the proposed project
Provo WATRR Center
U20HY0300
Page | 3

Figure 2. Limits of cultural resources survey area; topographic map
Provo WATRR Center
U20HY0300
Page | 4

Figure 3. Limits of cultural resources survey area; aerial map
Provo WATRR Center
U20HY0300
Page | 5

PROJECT SETTING
Broadly, the project area is located in the south-central part of the Utah Valley and in the southern part
of the community of Provo. More specifically, the project site occupies the existing municipal water
reclamation facility, which is characterized by a large complex of buildings and structures and large open
spaces covered in lawn grasses and pavement. Portions of the reclamation facility were constructed
during the mid-1950s. Another round of substantial construction occurred during the late-1970s, and
additional buildings and structures have been added over time since then.
The terrain of the project site is generally flat with slight man-made mounds and berms constructed to
accommodate water treatment facilities. Elevation of the site is approximately 4500 feet above sea level.
Lands surrounding the site are developed for industrial and commercial uses. Vegetation on-site
comprises introduced lawn grasses, trees, and ornamental plants as well as invasive weeds (in lesser used
portions of the area).
Photographic overviews of the survey area are provided in Figures 4 and 5.

Figure 4. Overview of survey area; view to the northeast
Provo WATRR Center
U20HY0300
Page | 6

Figure 5. Overview of survey; view to the north
PAST SURVEYS AND KNOWN CULTURAL RESOURCE SITES
Certus conducted a search of the online site and project files of the Utah Division of State History
(UDSH) on April 22, 2020. The file search encompassed an area extending 1/4 mile in all directions
from the edge of the survey area and was accomplished using the UDSH online systems, Sego and HUB.
The file search was conducted to:
a) identify any areas of the survey area that may not require additional field inventory;
b) identify any previously documented sites in the survey area that should be considered relative
to potential project impacts; and
c) assess the potential for encountering cultural resources during the field survey for the project
and obtain information about the types of cultural resources likely to be present.
According to UDSH records, no prior regulatory-based cultural resource assessments have taken place
within 1/4 mile of the current survey area; however, two cultural resource sites—both historical
railroads—have been documented within that area. These are sites 42UT1029 and 42UT1101, which are
the Union Pacific/Utah Southern Railroad and Denver & Rio Grande Western Marysvale Branch
Railroad, respectively. Both sites are located east of and outside the current survey area.
The file search also indicates that a portion of the Mill Race Ditch (42UT1608) extends through the
survey area but has not been documented previously. Other segments of this ditch have been
Provo WATRR Center
U20HY0300
Page | 7

documented elsewhere in the general area. See the Findings section of this report for more information
on this site.
FIELD METHODS
Certus applied intensive-level archaeological survey methods and selective reconnaissance-level
structures survey methods accepted by the Utah State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and other
agencies in Utah to identify cultural resources that could be affected by the undertaking. Sheri Murray
Ellis of Certus inventoried the survey area for by walking parallel transects spaced no more than 15
meters (50 feet) apart. Navigation within the survey areas was accomplished using aerial photographs,
natural landmarks, and a handheld GPS unit capable of sub-meter accuracy. A 50-year age cutoff using
2020 as the base year was employed to identify resources requiring consideration under 36 CFR 800.
For the purpose of this project, the following criteria set forth by the Bureau of Land Management and
accepted throughout Utah were used to define a resource as an archaeological site:
 At least 10 artifacts of a single class (e.g., 10 sherds) within a 10-meter diameter area, except
when all pieces appear to originate from a single source (e.g., one ceramic pot or one glass
bottle)
 At least 15 artifacts that include at least 2 classes of artifact types (e.g., sherds, nails, glass) within
a 10-meter area
 One or more archaeological features in temporal association with any number of artifacts
 Two or more temporally associated archaeological features without artifacts

FINDINGS
Certus identified a single archaeological site (the Mill Race Ditch/42UT1608) and components of one
historical structures complex (the Provo City Water Reclamation Facility) in the survey area for the
WATRR Center Project. The locations of the documented resources are shown in Figure 6, and
descriptions and National Register evaluations are provided below.
Site 42UT1608: Mill Race Ditch
Site 42UT1608 is the Mill Race Ditch. The ditch intersects the current survey area where an existing
outfall pipeline from the Provo City Water Reclamation Facility empties into it on the west side of East
Bay Boulevard. Certus documented approximately 0.40 mile of the ditch on the west side of East Bay
Boulevard. In this area, the ditch appears as a large open channel measuring approximately 36 feet wide
between the tops of the banks (see Figure 7). The depth is estimated at between 5 and 6 feet. This is
substantially larger than other segments of the Mill Race documented elsewhere in the Provo area. Most
of the channel is unlined, but sections have been armored with boulder riprap, and a cast-in-place
concrete headwall supports the east bank of the channel where the outfall pipeline enters. Two modern
box culverts cross the ditch along the documented segment and provide access into a modern business
complex located west of the ditch. Topographic maps and air photos dating from the historical period
into the modern era indicate that this segment of the Mill Race Ditch was completely realigned between
1950 and 1969 and either realigned again or substantially altered sometime thereafter. As such, it appears
this segment lacks integrity of location, design, and workmanship.

Provo WATRR Center
U20HY0300
Page | 8

Figure 6. Cultural resource survey results
Provo WATRR Center
U20HY0300
Page | 9

The exact date of construction of the Mill Race Ditch remains somewhat unclear. Prior documentation
of segments of the ditch suggests it was placed into service sometime after 1903 (Altizer 2008). It
appears on topographic maps from 1948, clearly indicating its presence during the historical period. Per
its name, the Mill Race Ditch would have been constructed to serve one of the many industrial mills that
operated in Provo during the early-1900s and produced wool products, flour, and other products.
National Register Evaluation for Site 42UT1608
At least one segment of the Mill Race Ditch (42UT1608) has been documented previously in the
Provo area. This documentation (Altizer 2008) recommended the overall Mill Race site
ineligible for the National Register under all criteria. Certus agrees with this recommendation
due to an overall lack of historical integrity for the ditch. Nearly the entire original ditch through
Provo appears from aerial images to have been piped underground and realigned. Given these
conditions, the ditch site lacks integrity of location (for some sections), design, materials,
workmanship, and association. It also lacks integrity of setting and feeling due to modern
development on adjacent lands.
Provo City Water Reclamation Facility
The Provo City Water Reclamation Facility (PCWRF) is located on the east side of East Bay Boulevard
at 1685 South. The facility comprises a large complex of buildings, structures, and landscape features
dating to a wide range of time periods. It is an actively used and maintained facility. Portions of the
PCWRF were constructed during the mid-1950s (ca. 1954). Another round of substantial construction
occurred during the late-1970s (ca. 1976-1979), and additional buildings and structures have been added
over time since then. Of the estimated 41 features present at the site today, 10 appear to date to the
Figure 7. Site 42UT1608 at outfall location; view to the south
Provo WATRR Center
U20HY0300
Page | 10

historical period. These include four clarifying tanks, an influent pump station building, three smaller
pump houses, a secondary digester building and 2-tank structure, and the remains of abandoned drying
beds. The remaining 31 features were all constructed after 1976.
The four clarifying tanks are located in the center of the PCWRF site. They are arranged in offset pairs
of two, with the two northern tanks being slightly larger than the two southern tanks at 145 feet diameter
versus 130 feet diameter. The tanks are all constructed of cast-in-place concrete and are located on
slightly raised earthen “hills.” The tanks are open on the top (i.e., they have no roofs), and the interior
floors are shaped as inverted shallow cones.
The abandoned drying beds are located in the northeastern part of the PCWRF complex. The beds
comprise two columns of wide and shallow east-west trending trenches separated by earthen berms and
concrete paths. The bottoms of some of the trenches are paved with asphalt. Each trench measures
approximately 90 feet long by 35 feet wide by 2 feet deep. Historical air photos suggest that the southern
half of the trenches may have once had superstructures over them. These images also indicate additional
trenches were located in the northeast corner of the feature (i.e., comprising a partial third column of
beds). These drying beds have since been demolished.
All of the historical buildings—the influent pump station building, three smaller pump houses, and
secondary digester building—exhibit the same general architectural form and style. All are 1-story tall,
have either square or rectangular footprints, and have flat roofs with low parapets (see Figure 8 for an
example). All are constructed of tan/orange regular brick and exposed cast-in-place concrete framing
members and all also retain their
historical steel-framed warehouse- or
factory-style awning windows. None
of the buildings exhibit any notable
non-historic alterations. The influent
pump station is located in the
northwestern part of the PCWRF site,
while the secondary digester building
is located a short distance to the
northeast of it. The three smaller
pump houses are arranged in a line
through the central part of the site.
One pump house is located
immediately north of each set of
clarifying tanks, and the third is
located to the north of the
northernmost tank and due east of the
influent pump station building.
National Register Evaluation for the Provo City Water Reclamation Facility
This property is the Provo City Water Reclamation Facility. The property retains integrity of
location, materials, workmanship, and association and partial integrity of design, setting, and
feeling. The impacts to design, setting, and feeling derive from extensive development on the
property during the modern era resulting in modern features outnumbering historical features
3:1. Certus recommends this property ineligible for the National Register under all criteria for
the reasons outlined below.
Figure 8. PCWRF; secondary pump station building; view to the southeast
Provo WATRR Center
U20HY0300
Page | 11

The Provo City Water Reclamation Facility represents municipal/community development
activities during the historical period. The facility was constructed over time beginning in the
mid-1950s. This phased development illustrates the increased demand of a growing population
and the evolution of waste water treatment methods. The facility does not appear to be
associated with significant historical events or patterns of events but is, rather, a typical
manifestation of population growth and the attendant need for sanitation. The facility does not
represent an innovative or unique treatment plant for the historic period. As such, Certus
recommends the property ineligible for the National Register under Criterion A.
The Provo City Water Reclamation Facility was designed and constructed by municipal entities
rather than a specific individuals or groups of historical importance. Therefore, Certus
recommends the property ineligible for the National Register under Criterion B.
The Provo City Water Reclamation Facility contains approximately 41 features, including
buildings, structures, and objects (e.g., flare torches). Of these, only 10 date to the historical
period. While all of the individual historical features retain integrity of their design and materials,
none are significant examples of historical architectural or engineering types or styles, and their
method of construction is routine for the time period. Taken collectively, i.e., as a district, the
historical features have been diminished in prominence at the site by the modern features, which
far outnumber them. As such, Certus recommends the property ineligible for the National
Register under Criterion B.
The Provo City Water Reclamation Facility has not yielded, and does not appear to have the
potential to yield, information important to either expanding or refining our understanding of
past human behaviors, technologies, construction methods, etc. All known subsurface
components of the site are elements of specific infrastructure, such as pipelines and utilities.
There is no evidence of other, as yet unknown, subsurface cultural deposits associated with the
site. Therefore, Certus recommends the property ineligible for the National Register under
Criterion D.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Certus conducted a cultural resource survey under 36 CFR 800 regulations for the proposed Provo
WATRR Center Project. The survey resulted in the identification of two cultural resource sites in the
survey area—the Mill Race Ditch (42UT1608) and the Provo City Water Reclamation Facility. The Mill
Race Ditch (42UT1608) has been determined eligible as a whole during prior evaluations of the site.
Certus has recommended the portion of the site in the current survey area as non-contributing to the
eligibility of the overall ditch site due to extensive realignment and design changes during the modern
era. The Provo City Water Reclamation Facility was newly documented during the current undertaking.
Certus has recommended the property ineligible for the National Register under all criteria.
The UDWQ, in consultation with the Utah SHPO and other consulting parties, will make all final
determinations of eligibility and findings of effect for this undertaking. Such determinations and findings
will be issued under separate cover. Should the recommendations put forth by Certus herein be adopted
by the agencies, the proposed undertaking would not result in any adverse effects to known historic
properties.

Provo WATRR Center
U20HY0300
Page | 12

REFERENCES CITED
Altizer, K. 2008. Intermountain Antiquities Computer System Site Form for the Mill Race Ditch
(42UT1608). On file at the Utah State Historic Preservation Office, Salt Lake City.
Appendix D – Biological Evaluation

Biological Evaluation of the
Provo City Water Advanced Treatment and Resource Recovery Center
(Provo WATRR Center)
Utah County, Utah

Prepared for

Utah Division of Water Quality (DWQ)
195 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84116

Prepared by

J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.
392 E. Winchester St. Suite 300
Salt Lake City, UT 84107

March 2020
Provo City WATRR Center Project ii
Biological Evaluation
Table of Contents
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 1
2 Location of Project Area and Description of Proposed Action ............................................................. 1
Project Area .............................................................................................................................................. 1
Proposed Action ........................................................................................................................................ 1
3 Conservation Measures ........................................................................................................................ 2
Erosion & Sediment .................................................................................................................................. 2
Chemical Pollution .................................................................................................................................... 2
4 Methodology ......................................................................................................................................... 3
5 Existing Environmental Conditions ....................................................................................................... 3
6 Status of Species and Habitat ............................................................................................................... 3
Agency Coordination and Habitat ............................................................................................................. 3
Species Descriptions ................................................................................................................................. 4
June Sucker ............................................................................................................................................... 4
Yellow-Billed Cuckoo ................................................................................................................................. 4
Ute Ladies’-Tresses ................................................................................................................................... 5
Northern Goshawk .................................................................................................................................... 5
Least Chub ................................................................................................................................................. 5
7 Effects of the Action .............................................................................................................................. 6
June Sucker ............................................................................................................................................... 6
Yellow-Billed Cuckoo ................................................................................................................................. 6
Ute Ladies’-Tresses ................................................................................................................................... 6
Northern Goshawk .................................................................................................................................... 6
Least Chub ................................................................................................................................................. 6
8 Determination of Effects ....................................................................................................................... 7
9 Migratory Bird Treaty Act / Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ...................................................... 7
10 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 7
11 References ........................................................................................................................................ 9

Appendices
Appendix 1: Vicinity Map & Project Exhibit
Appendix 2: IPaC Report (Dated: June 18, 2020)
Appendix 3: Utah Natural Heritage Program Online Species Search Report
Provo City WATRR Center Project iii
Biological Evaluation
Appendix 4: Photo Inventory
Appendix 5: Soil Map
Provo City WATRR Center Project 1
Biological Evaluation
1 Introduction
This biological evaluation (BE) was prepared for the Proposed Provo City Water Advanced Treatment and
Resource Recovery Center (Provo WATRR Center) (Proposed Project) located in Utah County, Utah. This
BE was prepared on behalf of Provo City for the Utah Division of Water Quality (DWQ). This BE was
prepared in compliance with Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1536(c)) to
sufficiently document and review the Proposed Project’s Action Area (Action Area) to assess the degree
to which the Proposed Project may affect: federally threatened or endangered species; species proposed
for listing; designated and proposed critical habitat; and, Utah state sensitive species managed under
conservation agreements with the Federal Government. This BE serves as supporting documentation for
the Environmental Review of the Proposed Project, and as supporting rationale for effect determinations
for ESA consultation purposes.
2 Location of Project Area and Description of Proposed Action
Project Area
The Proposed Project is located within Provo City, and is contained entirely within the existing Provo City
Water Reclamation Facility (PCWRF). The Proposed Project is contained within Section 18, Township 7
South, Range 3 East Salt Lake Meridian in Utah County, Utah (Vicinity Map, Appendix 1).
Proposed Action
The Proposed Project would improve the PCWRF by refurbishing, repurposing, and reusing existing
facilities, as well as removing existing infrastructure from service and installing new wastewater treatment
infrastructure. Under the Proposed Project, the trickling filters and the existing secondary clarifiers would
be demolished to create space for the new treatment process. The existing final clarifiers, filter building,
and backwash tank would be decommissioned, and a new power distribution system would be
constructed. The majority of the Plant’s influent would flow to the existing influent junction structure,
where the flow would be directed to the existing headworks facilities. A new, in-plant lift station would
be constructed to receive additional sanitary sewer flows from the area southwest of the facility. Flow
received at the new lift station would be pumped directly to the existing headworks facility.
The existing coarse screening, grit removal, and primary clarification facilities would continue to be used.
The solids processing facilities would be refurbished as necessary for continued use, including the primary
sludge pump station, primary and secondary digesters, dissolved air flotation thickener (DAFT) tank, and
dewatering facility. A biosolids aeration struvite control system would be added to the existing solids
stream process to promote the removal of phosphorous from the plant and to prevent struvite scaling.
A major component of the Proposed Project is the installation of a membrane bioreactor system, which
would include new process basins, associated piping and equipment, and the repurposing of the four
existing aeration basins for equalization and surge storage. A fine screen facility would be constructed
upstream of the membranes to protect them from damage caused by small debris accumulation. The fine
screen facility would be placed downstream of the existing primary clarifiers, and a bypass line would
allow the clarifiers to be bypassed by directing primary influent from the headworks to the fine screen
facility. The flare would also be relocated to a site near the existing drying beds because its current
position does not meet safety requirements. Generally, the existing infrastructure for UV disinfection
Provo City WATRR Center Project 2
Biological Evaluation
would be maintained. Construction of the Proposed Project would be anticipated to begin in August 2020
and be complete by the end of 2023, pending environmental, design, and construction approvals.
3 Conservation Measures
Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) are standard requirements and would be required
during the implementation of the Proposed Project. These may include, but are not limited to, soil and
erosion control devices, noxious weed prevention and control, construction timing to minimize or avoid
breeding and nesting season for migratory birds, as well as Standard Operating Procedures required by
the DWQ. The following BMPs and conservation measures are intended to minimize effects on listed
species and their habitats, as well as to protect water quality and minimize disturbance to soils and
vegetation.
Erosion & Sediment
Erosion and sediment controls would include, but are not limited to, the following:
• A site-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared and approved
prior to construction activities.
• Construction activities would be limited to pre-approved locations within the Action Area.
• Construction activities would not impact or enter any surface waters.
• Temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) structures including silt fences, hay bales, and
fiber wattles would be installed, where appropriate, to minimize erosion and runoff from active
construction areas.
• Disturbed areas would be graded and revegetated with an appropriate seed mix for the treatment
facility grounds, where appropriate, to aid in minimizing future erosion and runoff.
Chemical Pollution
Chemical pollution control measures would include, but are not limited to, the following:
• An approved SWPPP, including a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan,
would be prepared and implemented prior to construction activities.
• All construction equipment would be decontaminated with high pressure water/steam prior to
mobilization to the project site to remove surface oil, grease, dirt, and plant material. Proper
decontamination is critical to prevent the spread and establishment of noxious weeds and non-
native invasive species. Construction equipment would be decontaminated prior to demobilizing
from the site to prevent transportation of viable plant material from the Action Area.
• Construction equipment would be maintained in a leak free condition to prevent soil and
groundwater contamination in the Action Area. Equipment would be inspected daily to check for
leaking or malfunctioning equipment. Equipment maintenance and repairs would be conducted
at an approved off-site facility. Equipment fueling would be conducted at an approved staging
area fitted with an impermeable surface to contain potential spills and unintended fuel releases.
• Fuels, oils, lubricants, and other chemicals would be stored and used according to local, state, and
federal regulations.
• Adequate measures and controls must be in place to ensure that petroleum hydrocarbons, toxic
chemicals, and other environmentally deleterious materials are not accumulated, stored in
excessive quantities, disposed, or otherwise released in the Action Area.
Provo City WATRR Center Project 3
Biological Evaluation
• Emergency spill response personnel and procedures would be identified prior to construction
activities. A spill response kit would be maintained in active work areas and personnel trained in
emergency spill response would be on site during construction activities.
4 Methodology
An Official Species List from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Information for Planning and
Consultation (IPaC) system was generated for the Action Area on February 4, 2020 and updated on June
18, 2020 (Appendix 2). The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources’ (UDWR) Utah Natural Heritage Program
Database was also consulted to determine records of ESA-listed and state sensitive species occurrence
in the Action Area (Appendix 3). A field survey was conducted by an environmental specialist with J-U-B
ENGINEERS, Inc. on March 24, 2020 to assess existing environmental conditions within the Action Area.
5 Existing Environmental Conditions
The Proposed Project ranges in elevation from approximately 4,494 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) to
approximately 4,501 feet AMSL. The Action Area is located on the PCWRF property. Land use in the
surrounding area consists of industrial, commercial, and educational uses. For representative photos of
the Action Area, refer to the Photo Inventory (Appendix 4).
The climate within the Proposed Project vicinity is considered arid, with an average of 18.73 inches of
precipitation. In 2019, the Provo BYU, UT WETS weather station received 17.02 inches of precipitation.
The average temperature is 53.8⁰F, with average highs reaching 94.3⁰F in the summer and average lows
falling to 22.2⁰F in the winter months. The Provo BYU weather station typically receives 50.9 inches of
snowfall annually (FIPS 49049; NOAA Regional Climate Centers 2019).
Vegetation in the Action Area was dominated by mowed Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), box elder
(Acer negundo), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) and various other ornamental trees. All Proposed
Project staging areas would be located within the Action Area and situated in an upland position. Staging
areas were comprised of gravel lots or areas dominated by maintained Kentucky bluegrass.
Soils in the Action Area are predominantly loamy in texture. The dominant soil types in the Action Area
are Vineyard fine sandy loam, moderately saline, 0 to 2 percent slopes (46.1%) and McBeth silt loam,
moderately saline (37.7%). The remaining soils in the Action Area are pits and dumps (4.4%), urban land
(0.8%), Chipman-McBeth complex (11.0%), and Chipman silty clay loam, moderately deep water table
(<0.1%) (Soil Map, Appendix 5).
6 Status of Species and Habitat
Agency Coordination and Habitat
Three ESA-listed species were identified by the IPaC Report (dated: June 18, 2020) as potentially
occurring in the Action Area: the endangered June sucker (Chasmistes liorus), and the threatened
yellowbilled cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) and Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis). No pro-
posed or designated critical habitat occurs in the Action Area. According to the Utah Natural Heritage
Database, there are recent records of June sucker within 2-miles of the Action Area (2006) and historic
records of yellow-billed cuckoo within 2-miles of the Action Area (1941) (Utah Natural Heritage
Search Report, Appendix 3). In addition, the Utah Natural Heritage Search Report documented
historic records of
Provo City WATRR Center Project 4
Biological Evaluation
Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) and least chub (Iotichythys phlegethontis) within 2-miles of the
Action Area. Based on these records, the last documented occurrence of Northern goshawk was in 1980
and the last documented occurrence of least chub was in 1931. Both species receive special management
under federal conservation agreements, and the Northern goshawk is also afforded protection under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).
Species Descriptions
The following sections briefly discuss June sucker, yellow-billed cuckoo, Ute ladies’-tresses, Northern
goshawk, and least chub.
June Sucker
The June sucker (Chasmistes liorus) is endemic to Utah Lake and the Provo River in Utah (UDWR 2020a;
USFWS 1999). In 1986, the USFWS listed the June sucker as endangered and designated critical habitat
for the species under the ESA (USFWS 1999; 51 FR 61). Flow alterations, pollution, drought, and
introduction of non-native fish have been identified as causes for decline (UDWR 2020a). As its name
suggests, the June sucker is a member of the sucker family; however, they are not bottom feeders
(NatureServe 2019). The species feeds primarily on zooplankton in the middle of the water column. June
suckers inhabit shallow and protected areas of Utah Lake, except when spawning (NatureServe 2019;
Sigler and Sigler 1987). Spawning occurs in June in shallower riffles over coarse gravel and cobbles within
lower portions of the Provo River (NatureServe 2019). Portions of the Provo River are considered critical
habitat for the species (USFWS 2020). The IPaC Report did not identify any proposed or designated final
critical habitat for the species in the Action Area.
Yellow-Billed Cuckoo
The yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) is listed as threatened under the ESA. The western
yellow-billed cuckoo (YBCU) is a federally threatened distinct population segment (DPS) of the species
that is understood to occur in 13 states, including Utah. As the name suggests, this avian species has a
yellow lower mandible. It has rufous wings that contrast against the gray-brown wing coverts and
upperparts. The underparts are white and they have large white spots on a long black undertail (Alsop
2001). It is a neotropical migrant, which winters in South America. Breeding often coincides with the
appearance of massive numbers of cicadas, caterpillars, or other large insects (Ehrlich et al. 1992). Its
incubation/nestling period is the shortest of any known bird because it is one of the last neotropical
migrants to arrive in North America and the chicks have very little rearing time before embarking on their
transcontinental migration. Cuckoos typically start their southerly migration by late August or early
September (Parrish et al. 1999).
Yellow-billed cuckoos are considered a riparian obligate and are usually found in large tracts of
cottonwood/willow habitats with dense sub-canopies (below 33 feet) (UDWR 2020a). Suitable breeding
and nesting habitat for the species must be at least 300-feet-wide and a minimum of 12 contiguous acres.
In 2014, the USFWS proposed the designation of 546,335 acres of critical habitat for the western yellow-
billed cuckoo in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Utah and Wyoming (179
FR 158). The IPaC Report did not identify any proposed or designated final critical habitat for the species
in the Action Area.
Provo City WATRR Center Project 5
Biological Evaluation
Ute Ladies’-Tresses
Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) was designated as threatened by the USFWS under the ESA in
January 1992 (USFWS 1995). Major threats to the species include habitat disruption, urbanization, and
stream channelization for agricultural development (UDWR 2020a). Ute ladies’-tresses is a member of the
orchid family. This perennial herb has small white or ivory flowers that spiral around the 3-15 cm tall spike
(USFWS 2020). Populations of the Ute ladies’-tresses have been found in Utah, Colorado, Wyoming,
Montana, Nevada, Idaho, and Washington (Fertig et al. 2005). The survey time for the species, as
identified by the USFWS, is mid-August through mid-September (USFWS 1995). It is found in wetlands and
riparian areas, including spring habitats, mesic meadows, river meanders and floodplains. They require
open habitats, and populations decline if dense trees and shrubs invade the habitat. The elevation ranges
in which populations have been found vary from 750 to 7,000 feet, with most populations existing above
4,000 feet. They are not tolerant of permanent standing water, and do not compete well with aggressive
species, such as reed canarygrass. No critical habitat has been proposed or designated for the Ute ladies’-
tresses.
Northern Goshawk
The Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) breeds in much of the Northern Hemisphere, and occasionally
winters outside (south) of its breeding range. This bird has a blue-gray back, a distinctive white eyebrow
with a black head, a white front with gray mottling, and a long, rounded tail (Alsop 2001). The species
prefers mature, relatively dense mountain forest and riparian zone habitats where nests are constructed,
and often re-used, in large trees with moderately high canopy closures (UDWR 2020a). Pairs tend to
occupy nesting areas from February to early-April, with some pairs remaining in nesting areas year-round
(Stone 2013). Females are very defensive of their nest site and will attack intruders, including humans
(Alsop 2001). Females lay and then incubate a single clutch of two to four eggs. Eggs hatch in 32-34 days,
and young fly at about five to six weeks of age, but they are still dependent on their parents for food until
they reach about ten weeks of age. Northern goshawks cruise low through forest trees to hunt and may
also perch and watch for prey. Prey consists of small to medium animals including rabbits, hares, squirrels,
and birds (UDWR 2020a). Northern goshawk is managed under a federal conservation agreement to
preclude the need for listing under the ESA. In 1980, the species was observed within a 2-mile radius of
the Action Area.
Least Chub
The least chub (Iotichthontis phlegethontis) is a minnow that is native to the Bonneville Basin and is
currently managed under a federal conservation agreement to preclude the need for listing under the
ESA. Its population has experienced declines that can be attributed to the introduction of non-native
fishes (UDWR 2020a). Least chub is a schooling fish, approximately 6 cm in length, which prefers slow
moving water and moderately-dense vegetation and clay, muck, mud, and peat substrate (NatureServe
2019). The species spawns during late spring and early summer; eggs will attach to vegetation or substrate
and begin to hatch two days later. The species feeds on algae and small invertebrates, including mosquito
larvae (UDWR 2020a).
Provo City WATRR Center Project 6
Biological Evaluation
7 Effects of the Action
June Sucker
Wastewater facilities are the only water resources present within the Action Area. A channelized and
armored stream was observed outside and adjacent to the western border of the Action Area. The stream
would not be anticipated to provide suitable habitat for the June sucker because of channelization,
armoring and multiple barriers to fish passage. The stream is also outside of the Action Area, and no
associated project action would occur in or near the stream. Given that the only water resources in the
Action Area are humanmade wastewater structures that contain effluent, the Action Area does not
contain suitable habitat for the June sucker. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be anticipated to have
no effect on the June sucker.
Yellow-Billed Cuckoo
YBCU require a dense mid-story with a mature overstory of willow/cottonwood that is at least 300 feet
wide and comprised of 12 contiguous acres. The Action Area is dominated by regularly maintained
Kentucky bluegrass, along with various ornamental trees and box elder scattered throughout the Action
Area. Therefore, the Action Area would not be considered suitable breeding or nesting habitat for the
species. Furthermore, there is no critical habitat identified for the YBCU within the Action Area. Based on
the lack of suitable habitat within the Action Area, it is anticipated that the Proposed Project would have
no effect on the yellow-billed cuckoo.
Ute Ladies’-Tresses
The Proposed Project is within a wastewater treatment plant facility; the Action Area is heavily disturbed
and consists of mowed grasses, ornamental trees, and wastewater facilities. A channelized stream was
observed outside of the Action Area and would not be impacted by the Proposed Project. No natural
wetlands or riparian areas are present in the Action Area. Given the heavily disturbed nature of the Action
Area and the lack of natural water resources or riparian areas, it is unlikely that Ute ladies’-tresses would
be present in the Action Area. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be anticipated to have no effect on
Ute ladies’-tresses.
Northern Goshawk
The species prefers mature, relatively dense mountain forest and riparian zone habitats where nests are
constructed. The Action Area is heavily disturbed by wastewater facility operations. Vegetation in the
Action Area is dominated by mowed Kentucky bluegrass, along with a handful of ornamental trees. The
Action Area does not represent suitable habitat for Northern goshawk due to the lack of dense forests
and riparian areas. Given the lack of suitable habitat in the Action Area for the species, is anticipated that
the Proposed Project would have no effect on Northern goshawk.
Least Chub
Wastewater facilities are the only water resources present within the Action Area. A channelized stream
was observed outside and adjacent to the western border of the Action Area. The adjacent stream would
not provide suitable habitat for the least chub because of channelization and armoring, no associated
project action would occur in or near the stream. Given that the only water resources in the Action Area
are humanmade wastewater structures that contain effluent, the Action Area does not contain suitable
habitat for the least chub. Therefore, the Proposed Project would be anticipated to have no effect on the
least chub.
Provo City WATRR Center Project 7
Biological Evaluation
8 Determination of Effects
After considering the available scientific information regarding the biological requirements and the status
of ESA-listed species considered in this BE, the environmental baseline for the Action Area and the
proposed BMPs, the potential effects of the Proposed Project, the following effect determinations for
June sucker, yellow-billed cuckoo, Ute ladies’-tresses, Northern goshawk, and least chub were made:
(1) For the June sucker, the determination of “no effect.”
(2) For the yellow-billed cuckoo, the determination of “no effect.”
(3) For the Ute ladies’-tresses, the determination of “no effect.”
(4) For the Northern goshawk, the determination of “no effect.”
(5) For the least chub, the determination of “no effect.”
9 Migratory Bird Treaty Act / Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The IPaC Report identified 10 avian species protected under the MBTA and/or the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (BGEPA) with the potential to occur within the Action Area: bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), Brewer’s sparrow (Spizella breweri), Clark’s grebe (Aechmophorus clarkii), golden eagle
(Aquila chrysaetos), green-tailed towhee (Pipilo chlorurus), lesser yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes), Lewis’s
woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis), Virginia warbler (Vermivora virginiae), willet (Tringa semipalmata), and
willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii). According to the Utah Natural Heritage Search Report, there are
historic records of Northern goshawk, a MBTA-protected species, within 2-miles of the Action Area. Field
investigations identified an inactive osprey nest/nesting perch constructed by Rocky Mountain Power
within the Action Area. While this nest is currently inactive, it is expected to become active in April. The
nest/nesting perch would not be moved by construction activities. Construction noise is anticipated to
cause temporary disruption to osprey using the nest/nesting perch. However, construction-related noise
disturbance is expected to be similar to background noise levels currently present at the PCWRF. Long-
term impacts to migratory birds and raptors potentially in the Action Area are not anticipated to result
from implementation of the Proposed Project. The Action Area shall be cleared for any migratory bird or
eagle nests prior to construction and removal of large trees. If a nest were identified within the Action
Area, the USFWS would be notified immediately to discuss the appropriate course of action.
10 Conclusion
The Proposed Provo City WATRR Center Project would improve the PCWRF by refurbishing, repurposing,
and reusing existing facilities, as well as removing existing infrastructure from service and installing new
wastewater treatment infrastructure. A critical component of the Proposed Project is the installation of a
new bioreactor membrane system. The Proposed Project would take place on the previously disturbed,
and actively used, PCWRF property. Based on a lack of suitable habitat conditions within the Action Area
for all species, and the proposed BMPs, it is anticipated that the Proposed Project would have “no effect”
on the June sucker, yellow-billed cuckoo, Ute ladies’-tresses, Northern goshawk, and least chub. No
proposed or final designated critical habitat is contained within the Action Area, therefore the Proposed
Project is expected to have “no effect” on ESA-listed species or any associated critical habitat, nor would
it be anticipated to have an effect on any species protected under federal conservation agreements.
Construction activities may cause temporary, short-term impacts to osprey utilizing the constructed
nest/nesting perch in the Action Area; however, long-term impacts associated with construction noise are
not anticipated. The Action Area would be cleared for any migratory bird and eagle nests prior to
Provo City WATRR Center Project 8
Biological Evaluation
construction and removal of large trees. It should be noted that the final authority regarding species effect
determinations rests with the appropriate regulatory authority.
Provo City WATRR Center Project 9
Biological Evaluation
11 References
Alsop, Fred J. 2001. Birds of North America, Western Region. DK Publishing, Inc. New York, New York.
Ehrlich, Paul R., David S. Dobkin, and Darryl Wheye. 1992. Birds in Jeopardy: the Imperiled and Extinct
Birds of the United States and Canada, including Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Stanford University
Press, Stanford, California. pp. 259.
United States Federal Regulations (Federal Register). 1986. Final Rule Determining June Sucker
(Chasmistes liorus) to be an Endangered Species with Critical Habitat. 51 Federal Register (FR) 61
pp. 10851-57. Monday, March 31, 1986. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Federal Register. 2014. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat
for the Western Distinct Population Segment of the Yellow-Billed Cuckoo. 179 FR 158 pp. 48548-
48652. Friday, August 15, 2014. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Fertig, Walter, Rick Black, and Paige Wolken. 2005. Rangewide Status Review of Ute Ladies’-tresses
(Spiranthes diluvialis). Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service & Central Utah Water
Conservancy District.
NatureServe. 2019. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [On-line]. Version 7.1.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Accessed February 4, 2020. www.natureserve.org/explorer.
NOAA Regional Climate Centers. “WETS Station: Provo BYU, UT.” Accessed February 4, 2020. agacis.rcc-
acis.org/?fips=49049.
Parrish, Jimmie R., Frank P. Howe, and Russell E. Norvell. 1999. Utah Partners in Flight draft conservation
strategy. UDWR publication number 99-40. Utah Partners in Flight Program, Utah Division of
Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City.
Provo City WATRR Center Project 10
Biological Evaluation
Sigler, W. F., and J. W. Sigler. 1987. Fishes of the Great Basin: a natural history. University of Nevada
Press, Reno.
State of Utah – Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR). “Utah Natural Heritage Program.” Accessed
February 4, 2020.
UDWR . Utah Conservation Data Center. Accessed February 4, 2020a.
dwrcdc.nr.utah.gov/ucdc/default.asp.
Stone, Katharine R. 2013. “Accipiter gentilis.” Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory
(Producer). Accessed February 4, 2020.
www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/bird/acge/all.html.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). “Official Species List.” Information for Planning and Consultation
(IPaC). Accessed February 4, 2020.
USFWS. “June sucker (Chasmistes liorus).” Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS). Accessed
February 4, 2020. ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?sId=4133.
USFWS. “Species Profile for Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis).” ECOS. Accessed February 4, 2020.
ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/profile/speciesProfile?sId=2159.
USFWS. 1995. Ute ladies’-tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) Draft Recovery Plan. USFWS, Denver, Colorado.
USFWS. 1999. June Sucker (Chasmistes liorus) Recovery Plan. Region 6, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Denver, Colorado.
Biological Evaluation Appendix 1 – Vicinity Map & Project Exhibit

New Pipeline
Existing Pipeline
Removed Pipeline
New Facility
Repurposed Existing Facility
Refurbished Existing Facility
Reused Existing Facility
Removed from Service
Future
¯
0 50 100 150 200
Feet
1 in = 200 ft
Provo WATRR Center
Preferred Alternative
S E

B
a
y

B
l
v
d
S 3
5
0

E
&
Existing Aeration
Basins Repurposed
as Surge Storage/
Equalization Basins
&Existing Blower Building
Existing Final Clarifiers
&
Existing
Backwash
Tank
Existing
Chlorine
Building Existing
Filter
Building
&Existing
Operations
Building
Existing UV
Disinfection
Operations
Building &
Chem
Storage
Membranes
&
New
Blower
Building
&
Power
Distribution
Building
&Struvite
Control
System
Fine/Primary
Screens
&
Existing Plant
Power Building
&
Existing Primary Digesters
&
Existing DAF
&
Existing Secondary
Digesters
&
Existing Solids
Dewatering
&
Existing Influent
Pump Station
&Existing Coarse Screens
Coarse Screens
&In-Plant
Lift Station
Existing
Primary
Clarifier
No. 1
Existing
Primary
Clarifier
No. 2
Influent
Pump
Station
60" ML
48" PR
M
24" EQR
&Existing Grit Basins
24"

S
P
E
Future
Bioreactors and
Membranes
89
189
15
Biological Evaluation Appendix 2 – IPaC Report (Dated: June 18, 2020)

June 18, 2020
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Utah Ecological Services Field Office
2369 West Orton Circle, Suite 50
West Valley City, UT 84119-7603
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
http://www.fws.gov
http://www.fws.gov/utahfieldoffice/
In Reply Refer To:
Consultation Code: 06E23000-2020-SLI-0380
Event Code: 06E23000-2020-E-01540
Project Name: Provo City WATRR Center

Subject:Updated list of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed
project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as
well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your
proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the
requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the
Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the
Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested
through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the
ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the
Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to
utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered
species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or
designated critical habitat.
06/18/2020 Event Code: 06E23000-2020-E-01540   2

▪
▪
▪
A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having
similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)
(c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological
evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may
affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended
contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.
If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that
listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the
agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service
recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed
within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7
consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered
Species Consultation Handbook" at:
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF
Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require
development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/
eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy
guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and
bats.
Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications
towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://
www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http://
www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/
comtow.html.
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in
the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project
that you submit to our office.
Attachment(s):
Official Species List
USFWS National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries
Migratory Birds
06/18/2020 Event Code: 06E23000-2020-E-01540   1

Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Utah Ecological Services Field Office
2369 West Orton Circle, Suite 50
West Valley City, UT 84119-7603
[phone]
06/18/2020 Event Code: 06E23000-2020-E-01540   2

Project Summary
Consultation Code:06E23000-2020-SLI-0380
Event Code:06E23000-2020-E-01540
Project Name:Provo City WATRR Center
Project Type:WASTEWATER FACILITY
Project Description:The Proposed Project would replace or improve the influent pump station,
headworks, operations building, primary clarifiers, trickling filters, and
components of the solids handling system while generally maintaining the
existing infrastructure for ultraviolet (UV) disinfection, plant water pump
station, and the majority of the solids handing system.
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/place/40.21279709734604N111.65041331444485W
Counties:Utah, UT
06/18/2020 Event Code: 06E23000-2020-E-01540   3

1.
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 3 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheries , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
Birds
NAME STATUS
Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus
Population: Western U.S. DPS
There is proposed critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3911
Species survey guidelines:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/guideline/survey/population/6901/office/65411.pdf
Threatened
Fishes
NAME STATUS
June Sucker Chasmistes liorus
There is final critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4133
Endangered
1
06/18/2020 Event Code: 06E23000-2020-E-01540   4

Flowering Plants
NAME STATUS
Ute Ladies'-tresses Spiranthes diluvialis
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2159
Species survey guidelines:
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/guideline/survey/population/1073/office/65411.pdf
Threatened
Critical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.
06/18/2020 Event Code: 06E23000-2020-E-01540   1

USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Lands And Fish
Hatcheries
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a
'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to
discuss any questions or concerns.
THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS OR FISH HATCHERIES WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA.
06/18/2020 Event Code: 06E23000-2020-E-01540   1

1.
2.
3.
Migratory Birds
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act .
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to
migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider
implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)
The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS
Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location.
To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see
the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that
every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders
and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data
mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For
projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative
occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional
information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory
bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found
below.
For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures
to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE
SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and
breeding in your project area.
NAME
BREEDING
SEASON
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus
This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention
because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types
of development or activities.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626
Breeds Dec 1 to
Aug 31
Brewer's Sparrow Spizella breweri
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions
(BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9291
Breeds May 15
to Aug 10
1
2
06/18/2020 Event Code: 06E23000-2020-E-01540   2

NAME
BREEDING
SEASON
Clark's Grebe Aechmophorus clarkii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
Breeds Jan 1 to
Dec 31
Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions
(BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1680
Breeds Dec 1 to
Aug 31
Green-tailed Towhee Pipilo chlorurus
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions
(BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9444
Breeds May 1 to
Aug 10
Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9679
Breeds
elsewhere
Lewis's Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9408
Breeds Apr 20
to Sep 30
Virginia's Warbler Vermivora virginiae
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9441
Breeds May 1 to
Jul 31
Willet Tringa semipalmata
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA
and Alaska.
Breeds Apr 20
to Aug 5
Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii
This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions
(BCRs) in the continental USA
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3482
Breeds May 20
to Aug 31
Probability Of Presence Summary
The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be
present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project
activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the
FAQ “Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report” before using or attempting
to interpret this report.
06/18/2020 Event Code: 06E23000-2020-E-01540   3

1.
2.
3.
no data survey effort breeding season probability of presence
Probability of Presence ()
Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your
project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week
months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see
below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher
confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high.
How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps:
The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in
the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for
that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee
was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is
0.25.
To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of
presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum
probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence
in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12
(0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on
week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2.
The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical
conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the
probability of presence score.
Breeding Season ()
Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across
its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project
area.
Survey Effort ()
Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys
performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of
surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys.
No Data ()
A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week.
Survey Timeframe
Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant
information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on
all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse.
06/18/2020 Event Code: 06E23000-2020-E-01540   4

▪
▪
▪
SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Bald Eagle
Non-BCC Vulnerable
Brewer's Sparrow
BCC - BCR
Clark's Grebe
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Golden Eagle
BCC - BCR
Green-tailed
Towhee
BCC - BCR
Lesser Yellowlegs
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Lewis's
Woodpecker
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Virginia's Warbler
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Willet
BCC Rangewide (CON)
Willow Flycatcher
BCC - BCR
Additional information can be found using the following links:
Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/
birds-of-conservation-concern.php
Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/
management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/
conservation-measures.php
Nationwide conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/
management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf
Migratory Birds FAQ
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts
to migratory birds.
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize
impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly
important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in
the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very
helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding
in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures and/or
06/18/2020 Event Code: 06E23000-2020-E-01540   5

permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of
infrastructure or bird species present on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified
location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern
(BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian
Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding,
and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as
occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as
warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act
requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or
development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your
project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list
of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds
potentially occurring in my specified location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data
provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing
collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets .
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information
becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and
how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me
about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my
project area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding,
wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab
of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of
interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your
migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your
project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds
elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
06/18/2020 Event Code: 06E23000-2020-E-01540   6

1.
2.
3.
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
"BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern
throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands,
Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
"BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation
Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and
"Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on
your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles)
potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities
(e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made,
in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC
species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can
implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles,
please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species
and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the
Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides
birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird
model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical
Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic
Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use
throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this
information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study
and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid
violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of
birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for
identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ “What does IPaC
use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location”. Please be
aware this report provides the “probability of presence” of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that
overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look
carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the “no
data” indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey
effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In
06/18/2020 Event Code: 06E23000-2020-E-01540   7

contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of
certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for
identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might
be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you
know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement
conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities,
should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ “Tell
me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory
birds” at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.
Biological Evaluation Appendix 3 – Utah Natural Heritage Program
Online Species List

Biological Evaluation Appendix 4 – Photo Inventory

Photo Inventory
The following photos were taken during a site visit conducted on March 24, 2020.

Photo 1: Vegetation in the Action Area was dominated by mowed Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis),
box elder (Acer negundo), and ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), and various other ornamental trees.
These trees would be removed as part of the Proposed Project.

Photo 2: The Operations Building would be removed from service as part of the Proposed Project.

Photo 3: In 2019, the Provo City Water Reclamation Facility (PCWRF) decommissioned the trickling filters
that are shown in this photo. The new bioreactor membrane system would be placed in this location.

Photo 4: The existing lift station building would remain as part of the Proposed Project.

Photo 5: The primary clarifiers shown in this photo would be removed from service as part of the
Proposed Project.

Photo 6: The existing trickling filters would be demolished as part of the Proposed Project.

Photo 7: The pump house would be replaced as part of the Proposed Project.

Photo 8: The existing drying beds would remain in operation for the duration of the Proposed Project.

Photo 9: The aeration basins would be repurposed as equalization and surge storage for the new
bioreactor membrane treatment process.

Photo 10: The final clarifiers would be removed from service as part of the Proposed Project.

Photo 11: The storage buildings would be removed from service but not demolished as part of the
Proposed Project.

Photo 12: The effluent discharge point would not change as part of the Proposed Project.

Photo 13: The existing UV disinfection, chloride and filter buildings would remain in service as part of
the Proposed Project.

Photo 14: The PCWRF discharges effluent into the Mill Race Canal, an armored, channelized stream that
flows into Utah Lake.

Biological Evaluation Appendix 5 – Soil Map
Soil Map—Utah County, Utah - Central Part
(Provo WATRR Center)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3/30/2020
Page 1 of 3
44
5
1
4
4
0
44
5
1
5
2
0
44
5
1
6
0
0
44
5
1
6
8
0
44
5
1
7
6
0
44
5
1
8
4
0
44
5
1
3
6
0
44
5
1
4
4
0
44
5
1
5
2
0
44
5
1
6
0
0
44
5
1
6
8
0
44
5
1
7
6
0
44
5
1
8
4
0
444290 444370 444450 444530 444610 444690 444770 444850 444930 445010
444290 444370 444450 444530 444610 444690 444770 444850 444930 445010
40° 12' 54'' N
11
1
°

3
9
'

1
7
'
'

W
40° 12' 54'' N
11
1
°

3
8
'

4
5
'
'

W
40° 12' 38'' N
11
1
°

3
9
'

1
7
'
'

W
40° 12' 38'' N
11
1
°

3
8
'

4
5
'
'

W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84
0 150 300 600 900
Feet
0 50 100 200 300
Meters
Map Scale: 1:3,440 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:20,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Utah County, Utah - Central Part
Survey Area Data: Version 12, Sep 16, 2019
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 30, 2018—Aug
29, 2018
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Soil Map—Utah County, Utah - Central Part
(Provo WATRR Center)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3/30/2020
Page 2 of 3
Appendix E – Web Soil Survey
Soil Map—Utah County, Utah - Central Part
(Provo WATRR Center)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3/30/2020
Page 1 of 3
44
5
1
4
4
0
44
5
1
5
2
0
44
5
1
6
0
0
44
5
1
6
8
0
44
5
1
7
6
0
44
5
1
8
4
0
44
5
1
3
6
0
44
5
1
4
4
0
44
5
1
5
2
0
44
5
1
6
0
0
44
5
1
6
8
0
44
5
1
7
6
0
44
5
1
8
4
0
444290 444370 444450 444530 444610 444690 444770 444850 444930 445010
444290 444370 444450 444530 444610 444690 444770 444850 444930 445010
40° 12' 54'' N
11
1
°

3
9
'

1
7
'
'

W
40° 12' 54'' N
11
1
°

3
8
'

4
5
'
'

W
40° 12' 38'' N
11
1
°

3
9
'

1
7
'
'

W
40° 12' 38'' N
11
1
°

3
8
'

4
5
'
'

W
N
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 12N WGS84
0 150 300 600 900
Feet
0 50 100 200 300
Meters
Map Scale: 1:3,440 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:20,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Utah County, Utah - Central Part
Survey Area Data: Version 12, Sep 16, 2019
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jul 30, 2018—Aug
29, 2018
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Soil Map—Utah County, Utah - Central Part
(Provo WATRR Center)
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3/30/2020
Page 2 of 3
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
Cm Chipman silty clay loam,
moderately deep water table
0.0 0.0%
Cp Chipman-McBeth complex 3.8 11.0%
Mn McBeth silt loam, moderately
saline
13.1 37.7%
PK Pits and dumps 1.5 4.4%
UL Urban land 0.3 0.8%
VsA Vineyard fine sandy loam,
moderately saline, 0 to 2
percent slopes
16.0 46.1%
Totals for Area of Interest 34.8 100.0%
Soil Map—Utah County, Utah - Central Part Provo WATRR Center
Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey
National Cooperative Soil Survey
3/30/2020
Page 3 of 3