DWQ-2025-002860

Provo City Public Works Department
Provo WATRR Center
Phase 1 2020 Construction

|

PROVO WATER ADVANCED TREATMENT AND RESOURCE RECOVERY CENTER
PHASE 1 2020 CONSTRUCTION
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
Date: January 10, 2020
Prepared By: Water Works Engineers
Arcadis US
Reviewed By: Cory Christiansen, P.E.

Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 8
2. Introduction and Background ........................................................................................................... 10
2.1. Provo City ....................................................................................................................................... 10
2.2. Provo City Water Reclamation Facility (PCWRF) ........................................................................... 11
2.3. Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... 11
3. Public Participation Plan ................................................................................................................... 13
4. Existing and Future Conditions ......................................................................................................... 13
4.1. Project Need and Planning Area Identification ............................................................................. 14
4.2. Existing Environment of the Planning Area ................................................................................... 17
4.3. Existing Wastewater Flows and Treatment Systems ..................................................................... 17
4.4. Effluent Limits ................................................................................................................................ 21
4.5. Infiltration and Inflow (I/I) ............................................................................................................. 21
4.5.1. Sewer Use Ordinance / Resolution and Sewer Maintenance Program .................................. 23
4.6. Future Condition ............................................................................................................................ 23
4.6.1. Population and Land Use Projections ..................................................................................... 23
4.6.2. Forecasts of Flows and Waste Loads ...................................................................................... 27
4.6.3. Flow Reduction ....................................................................................................................... 29
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN

1/10/2020, Page 2

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

4.6.4. Waste Load Analysis ............................................................................................................... 29
5. Environmental Review ...................................................................................................................... 30
5.1. Environmental Information ........................................................................................................... 30
5.1.1. Surface and Groundwater Hydrology ..................................................................................... 31
5.1.2. Physiography, Topography, Geology and Soils ....................................................................... 31
5.1.3. Weather and Climate .............................................................................................................. 36
5.2. Environmentally Sensitive Areas ................................................................................................... 38
5.2.1. Historical & Archaeological ..................................................................................................... 38
5.2.2. Flood Plains ............................................................................................................................. 39
5.2.3. Wetlands ................................................................................................................................. 41
5.2.4. Agricultural .............................................................................................................................. 43
5.2.5. Wild and Scenic Rivers ............................................................................................................ 43
5.2.6. Fish and Wildlife Protection: Flora, Fauna, and Natural Communities .................................. 44
5.2.7. Air Quality ............................................................................................................................... 45
5.3. Water Quality and Quantity ........................................................................................................... 47
5.4. Direct and Indirect Impacts ............................................................................................................ 52
5.4.1. Public Health ........................................................................................................................... 52
5.5. Mitigating Adverse Impacts ........................................................................................................... 53
6. Development of Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 53
6.1. Development of Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 53
6.1.1. No Action ................................................................................................................................ 53
6.1.2. Upgrade / Operation of Existing Facility ................................................................................. 54
6.1.3. Total Containment .................................................................................................................. 55
6.1.4. Biological or Physical/Chemical Treatment & Discharge to Surface Waters .......................... 55
6.1.5. Land Application ..................................................................................................................... 56
6.1.6. Small Alternative Wastewater Systems .................................................................................. 57
6.1.7. Innovative and Alternative Treatment Processes .................................................................. 57
6.1.8. Sludge Handling and Disposal ................................................................................................. 57
6.2. Optimum Operation of Existing Facilities ...................................................................................... 59
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN

1/10/2020, Page 3

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

6.3. Regionalization ............................................................................................................................... 59
6.4. Unsewered Areas ........................................................................................................................... 60
6.5. Conventional Collection System and Sewer Alignments ............................................................... 60
6.6. Wastewater Management Techniques ......................................................................................... 61
6.6.1. Conventional Technologies ..................................................................................................... 61
6.6.2. Alternative Technologies ........................................................................................................ 61
6.6.3. Innovative Technology ............................................................................................................ 61
6.6.4. Innovative and Alternative Cost Preference ........................................................................... 62
6.6.5. Staged Construction ................................................................................................................ 62
6.6.6. Multiple Purpose Projects ....................................................................................................... 63
7. Evaluation of Principal Alternatives and Plan Adoption ................................................................... 63
7.1. Alternative Evaluation.................................................................................................................... 64
7.2. Evaluation of Monetary Costs ........................................................................................................ 64
7.2.1. Sunk Costs ............................................................................................................................... 65
7.2.2. Cost Escalation Factors ........................................................................................................... 65
7.2.3. Allocation of Costs for Multiple Purpose Projects .................................................................. 65
7.2.4. Revenue Generation ............................................................................................................... 66
7.3. Demonstration of Financial Capability ........................................................................................... 66
7.4. Capital Financing Plan .................................................................................................................... 67
7.5. Environmental Evaluation .............................................................................................................. 68
7.6. Evaluation of Reliability ................................................................................................................. 69
7.7. Evaluation of Energy Requirements .............................................................................................. 70
7.8. Evaluation of Implementability ...................................................................................................... 71
7.8.1. Future Expansion .................................................................................................................... 71
7.9. Evaluation of Recreational Opportunities ..................................................................................... 71
7.10. Comparison of Alternatives ......................................................................................................... 71
7.10.1. Alternative 1: No Action ....................................................................................................... 72
7.10.2. Alternative 2: Upgrade / Operation of Existing Facility ........................................................ 73
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN

1/10/2020, Page 4

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

7.10.3. Alternative 3: Biological or Physical/Chemical Treatment & Discharge to Surface Waters:
Membrane Bioreactor Option .......................................................................................................... 73
7.11. Views of Public and Concerned Interest Groups ......................................................................... 74
8. Recommended Alternative ............................................................................................................... 74
8.1. Justification and Description of Selected Plan ............................................................................... 74
8.2. Design of Selected Plan .................................................................................................................. 75
8.2.1. Preferred Project Advantages ................................................................................................. 75
8.2.2. Complete Liquid Stream Project (Preferred Project) .............................................................. 75
8.2.3. Phased Liquid Stream Project ................................................................................................. 77
8.3. Cost Estimates for the Selected Plan ............................................................................................. 86
8.4. Energy Requirements of the Selected Plan ................................................................................... 87
8.5. Environmental Impacts of Selected Plan ....................................................................................... 87
8.6. Arrangements for Implementation ................................................................................................ 87
8.6.1. Intermunicipal Service Agreements ........................................................................................ 87
8.6.2. Civil Rights Compliance ........................................................................................................... 88
8.6.3. Operation and Maintenance Requirements ........................................................................... 88
8.6.4. Pre-treatment Program .......................................................................................................... 88
8.7. Land Acquisition ............................................................................................................................. 88

List of Tables
Table 1-1 – Total Net Present Value Estimate for Alternatives .................................................................. 9
Table 2-1 – Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................. 12
Table 4-1 - Risk Assessment Results ......................................................................................................... 14
Table 4-2 - Anticipated Future Nutrient Regulations for Treated Municipal Wastewater Discharge ...... 14
Table 4-3 – Industrial / Commercial Users with Onsite Pretreatment Facilties ....................................... 17
Table 4-4 – Current Provo City Effluent Limitations from UPDES Permit #UT0021717 ........................... 21
Table 4-5 – Wastewater Collection System Flow Projections through Buildout Population ................... 22
Table 4-6 – Population Projections for Key Years Based on MAG Projections ......................................... 24
Table 4-7 – Average Annual and Per Capita Flows 2011-2018 ................................................................. 27
Table 4-8 – Projected Flows for Key Design Years .................................................................................... 27
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN

1/10/2020, Page 5

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Table 4-9 – Historical Loadings at Existing Provo City Water Reclamation Facility .................................. 28
Table 4-10 – Summary of Wastewater Flows and Characteristics for Maximum Monthly Values .......... 29
Table 4-11 – Mill Race Receiving Stream Beneficial Use Designations1 ................................................... 30
Table 5-1 - Utah Prevailing Wind Direction .............................................................................................. 37
Table 5-2 – Threatened and Endangered Species in Provo City Planning Area ....................................... 44
Table 5-3 - Population Growth Rates Based on MAG Projections............................................................ 46
Table 5-4 – National Ambient Air Quiality Standards1 ............................................................................. 46
Table 5-5 - Active Wells / General Location of Canyon Springs for Provo City Water Production .......... 49
Table 6-1 – Summary of Planned Improvements and Estimated Costs ................................................... 54
Table 6-2 – Capital Costs and 20-Year Net Present Value of Treatment Systems1 .................................. 56
Table 6-3 –Field Area Requirements for Typical Land Application Treatment Systems .......................... 56
Table 7-1 – Total Cost Associated with Each Alternative ......................................................................... 65
Table 7-2 – Evaluation of Improved Environmental Impacts of Alternatives ........................................... 68
Table 7-3 - EPA Mechanical, Electric, and Fluid System and Component Reliability Classes ................... 69
Table 8-1 – Total Estimated Cost for Proposed Construction Phasing Plan ............................................ 86
List of Figures
Figure 4-1 - Provo City General Plan Map ................................................................................................. 16
Figure 4-2 – Sewer System Service Area and Trunk Line Collection Areas (from Wastewater Collection
System 2010 Master Plan) ........................................................................................................................ 19
Figure 4-3 - Wastewater Collection Facilities (from Wastewater Collection System 2010 Master Plan) 20
Figure 4-4 - Provo City Annexation Policy Map ........................................................................................ 26
Figure 5-1 – Physiographic Provivince Map .............................................................................................. 32
Figure 5-2 – Provo City Topographical Map ............................................................................................. 32
Figure 5-3 - Soil Types in Project Planning Area ....................................................................................... 34
Figure 5-4 – Seismic Map of the Provo City Service SArea ....................................................................... 35
Figure 5-5 - Monthly Climate Statistics, Provo Utah (1981-2018) ............................................................ 36
Figure 5-6 – Sites with Historic / Archaeological Significance .................................................................. 39
Figure 5-7 - Provo City Flood Plain Map ................................................................................................... 40
Figure 5-8 - Wetland Areas within Provo (left) and at the Provo WATRR Center Site (right) .................. 42
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN

1/10/2020, Page 6

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Figure 5-9 - Provo City Agricultural Lands................................................................................................. 43
Figure 5-10 - Utah Wild and Scenic Rivers ................................................................................................ 44
Figure 5-11 – Active Wells / General Location of Canyon Springs for Provo City Water Production ...... 49
Figure 8-1 – Proposed Site Layout – Phase 1, Preferred Project .............................................................. 79
Figure 8-2 – Proposed Site Layout – Phase 2, Preferred Project .............................................................. 80
Figure 8-3 – Proposed Site Layout – Future Expansion, Preferred Project .............................................. 81
Figure 8-4 – Proposed Site Layout – Phase 1, Phased Liquid Stream Project .......................................... 82
Figure 8-5 – Proposed Site Layout – Phase 2, Phased Liquid Stream Project .......................................... 83
Figure 8-6 - Proposed Site Layout – Phase 3, Phased Liquid Stream Project ........................................... 84
Figure 8-7 - Proposed Site Layout – Future Expansion, Phased Liquid Stream Project............................ 85
Figure 8-8 - 20-year Repayment Plan for Selected Alternative Assuming $120M Available Funds ......... 86
Figure 8-9 - 20-year Repayment Plan for Selected Alternative Assuming $77.8M Available Funds ........ 87
Appendixes
Public Participation Plan
Project Drivers Technical Memorandum
Preliminary Design Report
Siting Technical Memorandum
Provo City General Plan, Adopted May 21, 2019
2019 Water Conservation Plan
Utah Water Quality Board Meeting Packet, November 6, 2019
Utah’s Final 2016 Integrated Report
Wastewater Collection System 2010 Master Plan
2019 Provo City Impact Fee Analysis and Impact Fee Facilities Plan
2010 Water System Master Plan
Flows and Loads Technical Memorandum
National Register of Historic Places Listings for Utah County
Provo Water Reclamation Facilities Master Plan
Regional Water Reclamation Facility Feasibility Study (Draft)
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN

1/10/2020, Page 7

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Process Selection Technical Memorandum
Provo Water Reclamation Algae Market Report
Provo City Public Works 2018 Water Quality Report
2019 Provo City Storm Drain Master Plan
List of Appendix Tables
TABLE O-1 – Provo Comparison Matrix for Regionalization Alternatives
TABLE O-2 – Springville Comparison Matrix for Regionalization Alternatives
TABLE O-3 – Mapleton Comparison Matrix for Regionalization Alternatives
TABLE O-4 – Spanish Fork Comparison Matrix for Regionalization Alternatives
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 8

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

1. Executive Summary
Provo City, Utah (the City) has a buildout population of 197,000, and according to current population
growth projections, is not expected to reach this capacity until approximately 2136. Using influent flows
and loads data from the plant for the period between 2010 and 2018, the projected influent average
annual day flow rate at buildout is expected to be approximately 21 mgd, similar to the existing
permitted monthly average flow capacity of 21 mgd. However, the existing Provo City Water
Reclamation Facility (PCWRF) will not meet future and anticipated regulatory requirements. The
Technology-Based Phosphorus Effluent Limit (TBPEL) of 1 mg/L effective in 2020 is the most pressing of
these regulatory requirements. A variance granted to the City by the Department of Water Quality
(DWQ) allows the PCWRF to discharge phosphorus at a maximum of 3.5 mg/L from January 1, 2020 until
January 1, 2025. During this allotted time, the City will begin the phased implementation of a new water
reclamation facility and complete the Provo Water Advanced Treatment and Resource Recovery
(WATRR) Center Phase 1 2020 Construction project to meet the TBPEL biologically. Other anticipated
regulatory changes include a total Inorganic nitrogen (TIN) limit of 10 mg/L or less, and potentially stricter
effluent phosphorus limits pending the results of the Utah Lake Study being conducted by the Utah
Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
The Provo WATRR Center design is the result of five years of planning. The plant will replace the existing
PCWRF with a state-of-the-art treatment process capable of producing effluent quality that meets all
present and anticipated regulatory requirements, and far exceeds the water quality produced by the
current process. The Phase 1 2020 Construction Project will incorporate construction of new facilities,
retirement of obsolete facilities, repairs, upgrades and refurbishments necessary to reduce pollutants in
the wastewater to meet future and anticipated regulatory limits, address risk of failure of critical assets
in poor condition and provide adequate capacity and redundancy. Several project alternatives were
evaluated by the City over the course of the planning process, including three principle alternatives:
• Alternative 1, taking no action;
• Alternative 2, upgrading and rehabilitating the existing facility; and
• Alternative 3, constructing a new biological treatment facility using either Conventional
Activated Sludge (CAS), Membrane Bioreactor (MBR), or Aerobic Granular Sludge (AGS)
secondary treatment technology.
Alternatives 2 and 3 include biosolids aeration and centrate equalization following anaerobic digestion.
These processes will support nutrient removal and biosolids stabilization and reduce return stream
loadings to the headworks. The associated 20-year net present value (NPV) of each alternative serving
the community’s buildout capacity can be seen in Table 1-1.
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 9

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Table 1-1 – Total Net Present Value Estimate for Alternatives
Alternative 1:
No Action
Alternative 2:
Upgrade of Existing
Facilities
Alternative 3:
New Biological
Treatment
Process (MBR)
Capital Costs for All Upgrades
through Buildout Capacity
$0.00 $304M1 $289M2
Operations and Maintenance of
Equipment
$0.60M $0.65M $1.75M
Chemical Costs $0.12M $0.13M $0.14M
Energy $1.31M $1.83M $3.77M
TOTAL Net Present Value3: $33.3M $346M $382M
1. From Provo Water Reclamation Facilities Master Plan (APPENDIX N), April 2018 Draft: Estimated Capital Cost of
$266.5M in 2017 dollars, escalated in accordance with current market conditions.
2. From Process Selection TM (APPENDIX P): Estimated Capital Costs in 2018 dollars have been escalated in
accordance with current market conditions.
3. NPV calculated for a 20-year design life.
The No Action alternative is not suitable for implementation. It will not allow the City to meet the new
and anticipated regulations for nutrients and does not address the risk of failure associated with the
aged infrastructure currently in use at the Provo WRF. Selection of the No Action alternative will result
in violation of the City’s discharge permit, and failure of equipment and structures that will eliminate the
facility’s ability to treat the wastewater and may create a significant risk to the health and safety of the
public and plant operators.
Alternative 2, the refurbishment and upgrade of the existing treatment process, relies heavily on the
continued use of existing structures, equipment and buried infrastructure. As discussed above, the
continued use of aged infrastructure creates a significant risk of failure and may result in a catastrophic
failure. Although the 20-Year NPV of Alternative 3 exceed that of Alternative 2, the capital costs
associated with this alternative exceed the cost of constructing a new facility (see Table 1-1). The
refurbishment of the existing treatment process will allow for modifications to address new and
anticipated regulations, but these modifications will not incorporate improvements in wastewater
treatment processes that are associated with newer modern designs. This alternative is not
recommended based on its inability to adequately address the risk of failure, and inability to utilize
treatment processes identified as most advantageous to the City.
Alternative 3, the design and construction of a new treatment process including MBR provides the City
with a modern treatment process that will result in the highest water quality of the options evaluated.
This will allow the City to utilize its treated effluent as a water resource and possibly develop this
resource to create revenue in the future. The new treatment system will allow for the phased elimination
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 10

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

of aged infrastructure, significantly reducing the facility’s risk of failure. The capital cost associated with
the recommended technology, MBR, is comparable to those estimated for competing processes, and the
selection of MBR will result in the highest effluent water quality. This alternative is recommended as the
highest value option for the City and will result in the highest long-term benefit.
2. Introduction and Background
2.1. Provo City
Provo City, Utah (the City) is the third largest city in Utah with a population of approximately 120,000.
The City is located east of Utah Lake (Northeast of the Provo Bay area) and is bordered on the east by
the Wasatch Mountains and to the north and south by the Orem City and Springville City, respectively.
The municipality is largely developed and generally land locked. Therefore, geographic expansion is
limited. The City sewer collection system extends into and serves all developed areas of the City.
Municipal ordinance requires that all new municipal developments connect to the City’s municipal sewer
collection system. This requirement extends to all individual users that can reasonably be connected. A
pretreatment ordinance is in place, allowing the City to regulate sewer system users who produce
wastewater that is high in strength or in which toxic constituents are present.
The Provo City Water Reclamation Facility (PCWRF) services the area within existing City limits shown in
Figure 4-1, and may expand to include the seven annexation areas shown in Figure 4-4. Municipal
development plans include expanding development on the City’s West Side neighborhoods located west
of I-15, expanding into annexation areas (if incorporated), and developing high-density housing. Many
undeveloped lands within the City limits and the potential annexation areas are challenging to develop
due to geographic features, constructability issues, or environmental sensitivity. Thus, many of these
areas have limited growth potential.
The City contains wetlands, 100-year flood plains, sites of historic significance, protected species, and is
in a non-attainment area for particulate pollutions, PM2.5 and PM10, due largely to winter temperature
inversions. The PCWRF is located in an area that has been zoned for public works facilities since the plant
was constructed in 1956. The PCWRF site does not contain environmentally sensitive lands or protected
species. The plant complies with all statutory and local emission limits, and overall effluent loadings to
receiving surface waters are not anticipated to exceed current permit limits even as the community
continues to develop. Continued use of the site is expected to have minimal harmful environmental
impacts and will likely have positive impacts on receiving waters by contributing lower nutrient loadings
to receiving waters with the completion of the Provo Water Advanced Treatment and Resource Recovery
(WATRR) Center Phase 1 2020 Construction Project.
The City and existing PCWRF are largely located in a seismically active area where liquefaction is likely to
result from seismic activity. A geotechnical analysis including development of a site ground
improvements plan is critical to constructing adequate structural support. Geotechnical analysis has
been performed and will continue as a site plan is developed prior to construction to prevent significant
settling in the event of a seismic event that results in liquefaction.
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 11

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

2.2. Provo City Water Reclamation Facility (PCWRF)
Construction of the existing Provo City Water Reclamation Facility (PCWRF) was initially completed in
1956. The original plant consisted of headworks, primary clarification, trickling filters and secondary
clarification. The plant was expanded and upgraded as the community developed and regulatory
changes went into effect. These expansions and upgrades included a major expansion in 1976 that added
aeration basins for conventional activated sludge (CAS) in series with the trickling filters to meet effluent
ammonia limits, and chlorine disinfection; 2014 upgrades that transitioned the plant to UV disinfection
from chlorine disinfection; 2019 decommissioning of trickling filters resulting in a conventional CAS
treatment process; and various other expansions, repairs, upgrades, and refurbishments to maintain
equipment and structures. With the removal of the trickling filters from service, today’s plant has an
average monthly capacity of approximately 16 mgd, and consists of headworks, primary clarification,
secondary treatment CAS process, secondary clarification, gravity filters, and UV disinfection. Solids from
primary and secondary clarification are anaerobically digested, dewatered and land applied to
agricultural land approximately 35 miles from the plant.
Aging plant assets, anticipated regulatory changes, and various other drivers have prompted the City to
build the new Provo WATRR Center. This process began with the Provo Water Reclamation Facilities
Master Plan (WRF Master Plan), which evaluated the condition and criticality of plant assets, existing
and projected flows and loads, anticipated regulatory nutrient limitations, and other related factors. The
WRF Master Plan provided upgrade recommendations with a phased implementation plan and cost
estimate to address anticipated community growth and regulatory changes.
The WRF Master Plan found that approximately 80% of the PCWRF assets require immediate upgrades
to meet permit requirements, safety standards, operability, and treatment capacity requirements. The
WRF Master Plan and associated analyses showed that the cost to upgrade the existing facility are similar
to the estimated cost of constructing a new facility. Given The WRF Master Plan’s findings, the City
decided to construct an entirely new facility. The City considered multiple sites for the plant, including
the existing PCWRF location and evaluated building a regional facility to serve Provo, Mapleton, Spanish
Fork, and Springville. Various treatment technologies have been evaluated for their effectiveness, cost,
operability, and cost-effectiveness in meeting the City’s treatment goals and regulatory requirements.
This document summarizes the City’s planning efforts for constructing the Provo WATRR Center. It
includes efforts to ascertain the project need, future capacity requirements, the project’s impact on the
environment and on the public, evaluation of various treatment alternatives in terms of cost and other
metrics. The document concludes with the selected alternative, the associated costs, and an
implementation plan for the alternative including phasing and funding of the project, and arrangements
that must be made.
2.3. Acronyms and Abbreviations
Table 2-1 provides a list of acronyms and abbreviations in the Capital Facilities Plan.
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 12

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Table 2-1 – Acronyms and Abbreviations
Abbreviation or Acronym Word or Phrase
AAD Annual Average Daily Flow Rate
CLEARAS ABNR CLEARAS Advanced Biological Nutrient Recovery
ADMM Average Day Maximum Monthly Flow Rate
AS Activated Sludge
ASR Aquifer Storage and Recovery
BNR Biological Nutrient Removal
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
CEC Contaminants of Emerging Concern
COD Chemical Oxygen Demand
DAF Dissolved Air Flotation
DAFT Dissolved Air Flotation Thickener
DEQ State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality
DO Dissolved Oxygen
DWQ State of Utah Division of Water Quality
EBPR Enhanced Biological Phosphorus Removal
EPA US Environmental Protection Agency
ERU Equivalent Residential Unit
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FOG Fats, Oils, and Grease
gpcd gallons per capita day
HAB Harmful Algal Bloom
I/I Inflow and Infiltration
MAG Mountainland Association of Governments
MBR Membrane Bioreactor
mg/L Milligrams per Liter
MGD Million Gallons per Day
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NdeN Nitrification / Denitrification
NH3-N Ammonia as Nitrogen
Ortho-P Orthophosphates
PCB polychlorinated biphenyls
PCWRF Provo City Water Reclamation Facility
PDF Peak Daily Flow Rate
PDR Preliminary Design Report
PHF Peak Hourly Flow Rate
RAS Return Activated Sludge
RNG Renewable Natural Gas
RO Reverse Osmosis
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 13

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Abbreviation or Acronym Word or Phrase
SFR State Revolving Fund
SRT Solids Retention Time
TAN Total Ammonia Nitrogen
TBPEL Technology Based Phosphorus Effluent Limit
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TF Trickling Filter
TIN Total Inorganic Nitrogen
TM Technical Memorandum
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TN Total Nitrogen
TP Total Phosphorus
TRC Total Residual Chlorine
TSS Total Suspended Solids
UPDES Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
UV Ultra-Violet
WAS Waste Activated Sludge
WRF Water Reclamation Facility
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
3. Public Participation Plan
A public participation has been developed by the Langdon Group, Inc., and public outreach activities
have commenced (APPENDIX A). The City is committed to working with the people within its community
to select the best alternative and is poised to address any concerns and questions that the community
may have with respect to the Provo WATRR Center. The final Public Participation Plan will incorporate
City, State and Federal guidelines for wastewater treatment projects, as well as public participation plan
guidelines under the State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan Program.
Wastewater treatment projects are generally associated with low public approval based on public
perception associated with nuisance odors and public health related concerns. However, public
controversy with respect to the Provo WATRR Center project is expected to be minimal as it will be
constructed at the existing site and designed to optimize appearance and air quality while minimizing
noise and odors. The construction of the new facility is expected to minimally impact the community as
it will occur within the existing property lines.
4. Existing and Future Conditions
Section 4 and its subsections detail existing and future community conditions including the condition of
the existing PCWRF, anticipated effluent limits and regulatory controls, current and projected
population, flows and loads, zoning and land projections, and community economic and social profile.
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 14

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

4.1. Project Need and Planning Area Identification
The Project Drivers technical memorandum (TM), which is included herein as APPENDIX B, addresses the
various drivers leading to the implementation of the Provo WATRR Center. These drivers include the
City’s vision and sustainability goals as well as budgetary constraints. One key project driver is the WRF
Master Plan’s risk assessment that identified approximately 80% of all plant assets being in imminent
need of upgrade or replacement. The results of that assessment are summarized in Table 4-1. These
upgrades are intended to address plant assets at high risk of failure and to prioritize the repairs and
refurbishments according to how critical an asset is to the operability, safety, flexibility, redundancy, and
permit compliance.
Table 4-1 - Risk Assessment Results
Ranking Category Category Definition Cost
1 Immediate Replacement High risk of failure and high-criticality $67.9M
2 High Priority
Replacement
High risk of failure and medium criticality or medium
risk of failure and high criticality
$27.8M
3 Schedule Replacement or
Upgrades
Medium risk of failure and medium criticality or high
risk of failure and low criticality
$23.4M
Regulatory changes are another major project driver, as they affect permitted effluent limits that the
existing facility is incapable of meeting. Current and anticipated DWQ nutrient limits and approximate
promulgation timelines are shown in Table 4-2, and discussed in the following sections.
Table 4-2 - Anticipated Future Nutrient Regulations for Treated Municipal Wastewater Discharge
Nutrient Anticipated Limit Key Dates and Considerations
Phosphorus (P)
Phosphorus
Rule

1 mg/L TP
0.1-0.5 mg/L TP

Promulgated 2015; effective 2020
Lower limit possible dependent on the ongoing environmental
evaluation of Utah Lake and Provo Bay
Nitrogen (N)
Ammonia Rule

Max: 8 mg/L¹
Average: 3 mg/L²

Match current UPDES permit
Limit is dependent on pH, temperature and sensitive species in
receiving waters
Total Inorganic
Nitrogen (TIN)
Max: 10 mg/L TIN rule is expected to go into effect by 2035 based on the
ongoing environmental assessment of Utah Lake and Provo Bay
1. Daily maximum during Summer Months (July – September)
2. Monthly average during Summer Months (July – September)
Meeting anticipated nutrient limits will require significant improvements to the current process
including expanding bioreactor capacities and adding a biological process and/or chemical facility for
phosphorus removal. Improvements to the hydraulic design and health and safety features are required
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 15

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

to address criticality and risk of failure, and a site security system is also recommended. See the Project
Drivers TM in APPENDIX B for full details about project need.
As part of the design of the new facility, a 2018 siting study was performed to determine the most
advantageous site for a new facility. The siting study identified four potential sites and evaluated their
suitability in terms of decision criteria developed with City staff. The study indicated there is no clear
advantage to using the existing site over a site near the Provo airport, but it was recommended to
relocate the plant to the new site to reduce the layout and constructability constraints on the design and
construction teams. However, as more information came available with respect to site constraints,
funding limitations and permitting impacts on schedule, this recommendation was reevaluated. Based
on reevaluation, the recommendation is for the new facility to be constructed at the existing site.
Considerations governing this final recommendation are further discussed in the Siting TM included
herein as APPENDIX D.
The City planning area is indicated in Figure 4-1 with City borders indicated in yellow, including land use
designations applicable to the City’s general plan.
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 16

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Figure 4-1 - Provo City General Plan Map
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 17

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.
4.2. Existing Environment of the Planning Area
The following documents and records were reviewed to ascertain the existing environment of the City
water sources and water reclamation facility receiving waters discussed in the following sections:
• Water Quality Management Plans – The 2015 and 2019 (Draft) Water Conservation Plans are
included herein as APPENDIX F
• State Priority System and Project Priority Lists – From the 11/6/2019 Utah Water Quality Board
Meeting Packet
• Biennial Water Quality Report (305(b)) – Most recently EPA accepted report included in the
Utah’s Final 2016 Integrated Report (APPENDIX H)
• Quality Assurance – As verified from available municipal and state sources
4.3. Existing Wastewater Flows and Treatment Systems
The existing PCWRF serves the City’s collection system, which collects wastewater flow from the entirety
of the City except for a few older septic systems for residences that have not been brought online. The
City is in the process of identifying these systems and connecting them to the collection system as
described in Chapter 10.03 of the Provo City municipal code. Provo’s collection system also includes
some residences that are in Orem and a handful of homes in Provo currently flow into Orem’s system
pending some capital projects that will bring this flow back into Provo’s system. Additionally, there are
specific industrial / commercial users that pretreat their wastewater in accordance with Chapter 10.04
of the Provo City municipal code. Pretreatment includes installation of under-sink grease traps used
throughout the restaurant and hotel industry; storm water diversions; sand and oil traps used in auto
body shops, parking areas, airport hangers, and other municipal users that may contribute high levels of
motor oils and grit. In addition to these pretreatment installations, five industrial users have onsite
treatment facilities summarized in Table 4-3. Duncan Aviation’s facility has an onsite zero-discharge
permit for its paint shop. The facility uses evaporation basins to avoid discharge to the municipal
collection system entirely. Domestic waste from the restrooms and floor drains in the maintenance area
is collected by the municipal system.
Table 4-3 – Industrial / Commercial Users with Onsite Pretreatment Facilties
User Name Location
Utah Railway 1221 Colorado Ave., Provo, UT 84606
Union Pacific Railroad 901 Colorado Ave., Provo, UT 84606
Industrial Plating / Alpine
Creations / Peak Finishing
1773 S. East Bay Blvd, Provo, UT 84606
Powder River Livestock Handling
Equipment
485 E. 1130 S., Provo, UT 84606
Duncan Aviation 262 South 3800 West, Provo, UT 84601
The City is subject to the following Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (UPDES) permits:
• Major Municipal Permit #UT0021717
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 18

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.
• Biosolids Permit #UTL021717
• Storm Water Permit #UTR000000
The current PCWRF has a monthly average capacity of 16 mgd (flows are discussed in more detail in
Section 4.6). Wastewater treatment at the plant consists of initial screening and grit removal, primary
sedimentation, aeration, final sedimentation, gravity filtration, and Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection. The CAS
process is operated to provide nitrification to meet the PCWRF current discharge ammonia limits. Solids
handling processes include WAS thickening via dissolved air flotation (DAF), primary and secondary
anaerobic digestion and solids dewatering using centrifuges. Drying beds are utilized periodically for
various operational support functions but are not typically used for solids dewatering. Dewatered solids
are either land applied or composted. Ferric salts are added for odor control in the collection system
(one location) upstream of the headworks facility. Ferric sulfate is also added to the digested biosolids
upstream of the dewatering centrifuges to control struvite formation in the dewatering equipment and
piping.
The biosolids land application and compost sites are both located in the same area, approximately 35
miles Southwest of the PCWRF. The land application site is a farming enterprise in Southern Utah County
operated by Farmland Reserve, Inc. (FRI). The composting facility is managed by the South Utah Valley
Solids Waste District. These facilities have been used by PCWRF for land application and composting for
many years. They are in full compliance with EPA guidelines and municipal and countywide ordinances
that govern their use. The biosolids handling operation will not change significantly with the construction
of the new Provo WATRR Center, and will similarly be designed to meet all regulatory and resource
protection guidelines.
With the exception of Inflow and Infiltration (I/I), which is discussed in Section 4.5, the municipal sewer
collection system is completely separate from the storm sewer system, which channels stormwater to
basins throughout the City to be detained until it can be safely discharged or retained and allowed to
percolate into the groundwater system. The extents of the City’s sanitary sewer collection system are
detailed in Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3 from the Wastewater Collection System 2010 Master Plan
(APPENDIX I). Improvements to the system have included reducing the number of lift stations to
consolidate flows and improve system hydraulics, particularly in the City’s West Side (west of I-15). The
facilities will serve undeveloped areas in the City’s West Side and will potentially serve undeveloped
areas in the annexation areas shown in Figure 4-4.

CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 19

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Figure 4-2 – Sewer System Service Area and Trunk Line Collection Areas (from Wastewater Collection System 2010 Master Plan)
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 20

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Figure 4-3 - Wastewater Collection Facilities (from Wastewater Collection System 2010 Master Plan)
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 21

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

4.4. Effluent Limits
Table 4-4 displays the City’s currently permitted effluent limits.
Table 4-4 – Current Provo City Effluent Limitations from UPDES Permit #UT0021717

The DWQ is in the process of finalizing three rules related to nutrients in treated wastewater discharges.
These will be imposed in addition to the existing UPDES permit requirements for the PCWRF. Current
and anticipated DWQ nutrient limits and approximate promulgation timelines are shown in Table 4-2.
The TBPEL discharge limit of 1 mg/L goes into effect in 2020. The City was granted a variance until January
1, 2025 to allow sufficient time to make improvements necessary to meet the TBPEL.
4.5. Infiltration and Inflow (I/I)
An I/I analysis was performed in 2000 and 2008 and was reported in the City’s Wastewater Collection
System 2010 Master Plan (APPENDIX I). The results were used to determine the collection system
capacity required to serve community growth through its buildout population. Starting in fiscal year
2019, the City has allocated an annual $0.5M for collection system repairs and upgrades to reduce I/I
flows. Upgrades to the sewer collection system flow monitoring and lift station SCADA systems allow
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 22

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

these projects to target areas most in need of improvements as system flow capacity is reached or age
and damage related degradation occurs. The City’s 2019 Provo City Impact Fee Analysis and Impact Fee
Facilities Plan (IFA & IFFP) (APPENDIX J) estimates that these projects will result in a reduced growth in
I/I flow rates. The ratio of the I/I growth rate to domestic wastewater production growth rate is
estimated to be about 0.15:1 resulting in I/I flows being a diminishing portion of the total wastewater
influent. Data from the IFA & IFPP are reproduced on the left side of Table 4-5 to illustrate this.
Population estimates used for this report have been recently updated. Therefore, values from the report
have been proportionally adjusted for current population and flow projections and are represented on
the right side of Table 4-5.
Table 4-5 – Wastewater Collection System Flow Projections through Buildout Population
Year
Service Area Projections Reproduced
from 2019 Provo City Impact Fee Analysis
and Impact Fee Facilities Plan1
Service Area Projections Updated Based
on Current Flow Projections2
Max Month
Domestic
Wastewater
Production
(mgd)
Max Month
Infiltration2
(mgd)
Max Month,
Average
Daily Flow
(mgd)
Max Month
Domestic
Wastewater
Production
(mgd)
Max Month
Infiltration2
(mgd)
Max Month,
Average
Daily Flow
(mgd)
2019 9.56 9.84 19.4 7.64 7.86 15.5
2020 9.66 9.86 19.52 7.82 7.98 15.8
2021 9.76 9.87 19.63 7.96 8.04 16
2022 9.86 9.89 19.75 8.14 8.16 16.3
2023 9.96 9.9 19.86 8.27 8.23 16.5
2024 10.06 9.92 19.98 8.41 8.29 16.7
2025 10.16 9.93 20.09 8.60 8.40 17
2026 10.26 9.95 20.21 8.73 8.47 17.2
2027 10.36 9.96 20.32 8.92 8.58 17.5
2028 10.45 9.98 20.43 9.05 8.65 17.7
2029 10.55 9.99 20.55 9.24 8.76 18
2030 10.65 10.01 20.66 9.43 8.87 18.3
20353 11.153 10.083 21.233 10.03 9.07 19.1
2040 11.65 10.16 21.81 10.68 9.32 20
Buildout 15.11 10.68 25.79 14.82 10.48 25.3
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 23

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

1. Growth in infiltration is at a ratio of approximately 0.15:1 for future domestic production
2. Values are proportionally adjusted from values in the IFA & IFPP based on updated population and flow
projections
3. 2035 Estimates were not included in the IFA & IFPP but were added as it is a key year in the Provo WATRR Center
facilities plan. Max Month Domestic Wastewater production was linearly interpolated from previous and
proximal values and Infiltration was estimated based on the 0.15:1 ratio assumed.
4.5.1. Sewer Use Ordinance / Resolution and Sewer Maintenance Program
The Provo City Sewer Use Ordinance is documented in Chapter 10.03 of the City’s municipal code. This
code requires that buildings used for residential occupancy within 300 feet of an available sewer line are
connected to the centralized sewer collection system within three years of construction of the line. All
new developments must include extension of sewer lines into the new development area at the
developer’s expense. Privies, cesspools and septic tanks may not be constructed in City limits and use of
small decentralized systems must be discontinued unless the Director of the Water Resources
Department deems extension of the sewer mainline as unreasonable and if all public health standards
can be met. The code prohibits routing stormwater into the sanitary sewer system and prohibits
discharge of pollutants listed in Chapter 10.04. If a user produces prohibited pollutants, pretreatment is
required under the provisions of municipal code Chapter 10.04.
Chapter 10.03 also requires that the sewer use rates are based on culinary use rates and include a base
charge plus a charge based on the flow discharged. It establishes surcharges for discharges with high
concentrations of BOD, TSS, and Fats, Oils and Grease (FOG).
4.6. Future Condition
The following sections describe community projections and planned development within the City. In
keeping with the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, construction of the
Provo WATRR Center is part of area wide improvements for responsible development, sustainable
resource management, watershed protection, water rights and availability, and appropriate expansion
of municipal services. Projections in this section include population, sewer flows, land use, and the
effects of the new facility on household economics.
4.6.1. Population and Land Use Projections
The population projections are based on those by the Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG),
which were updated in 2018. The 2018 MAG report has not been finalized and published, but the
population projections for 2017, 2020, 2030, 2040, and 2050 were made available. Populations were
estimated using calculated geometric growth rates for key years including 2018, 2022 when Phase 1 of
the project is expected to be commissioned, 2035 when Phase 2 of the project is expected to be
commissioned, and 2065 for the purpose of comparing to county-wide growth estimates. The buildout
population for Provo is estimated to be 197,000 people based on community land use plans, available
resources, and geographical limitations. These values are summarized in Table 4-6.
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 24

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Table 4-6 – Population Projections for Key Years Based on MAG Projections
Year
(MAG / Census Bureau)
Population
(MAG / Census Bureau)
2017 MAG Projection 117,335
2018 Estimated1 119,184
2020 MAG Projection 122,971
2022 Estimated1 126,601
2030 MAG Projection 142,223
2035 Estimated1 148,664
2040 MAG Projection 155,397
2050 MAG Projection 159,265
2065 Estimated 165,248
Buildout, Estimated 2136 197,000
1. Key Year for Analysis
According to 2017 Population Projections by County developed by the University of Utah’s Kem C.
Gardner Policy institute for the Utah State Governor’s office, Utah County’s population is expected to
increase by 77% between 2015 and 2065. The population projections listed in Table 4-6 indicate a 44%
increase in the City’s population during the same period. The City’s population is expected to increase at
a lower rate than the rest of Utah County because it is an established and largely developed community
with natural borders that limit its geographic expansion. The City is bordered on the north and south by
Orem and Springville (respectively) and on the east and west by the Wasatch Mountains and Utah Lake
(respectively).
As a land-locked municipality, the efficient management of resources is becoming a significant focus of
municipal improvement efforts. The City’s West Side and much of the areas in potential annexation areas
(see Figure 4-4) are largely undeveloped and contain large swaths of developmentally sensitive lands.
Therefore, land in the City has become a commodity and much of the anticipated growth in the existing
City limits is expected to result from densification efforts within already developed portions of the
community rather than expansion into undeveloped areas. Planning and development in the City is
heavily dependent on feedback from residents of the City’s various neighborhoods, and in consideration
of scarce resources and economic concerns.
The Provo WATRR Center will not displace any homes or businesses as a result of construction because
it will be constructed at the existing site. Similarly, construction will not significantly affect transportation
patterns or environmentally sensitive areas. As the facility does not increase the current plant capacity,
it will not change planned development as described in the Provo City General Plan (APPENDIX E). As
such, the facility will not result in changes to recreational, industrial, or energy development, nor will it
result in housing developments that create strains on utilities and public services. It is not expected to
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 25

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

have any impact on land values. It is a facility designed to improve the sustainability of the community
while protecting the quality of downstream water bodies, groundwater, and environmentally sensitive
lands. It will be constructed on the existing site, which has housed the facility since 1956. Nuisance sound
and odors are well controlled at the existing facility and this practice will continue as part of the design
of the new facility. Overall, minimal negative impact on the community is expected.
Land use plans are shown on the general planning map in Figure 4-11, which indicates the site of the
existing PCWRF as Public Facilities, whose lands are not considered environmentally or developmentally
sensitive (as discussed in greater detail in Section 5). All developmentally sensitive lands identified by
the City within current City limits (and potential annexation areas) are also indicated on this map. These
areas have been identified as developmentally sensitive due to environmental sensitivity, geological
hazards, or potential challenges associated with constructability and code requirements. Though many
of these areas are planned for potential municipal development, further study is required to determine
whether the land is suitable for development or whether the negative environmental impacts of
development can be suitably mitigated.
A few areas may be annexed into the City over the next several years as the community continues to
grow and develop. Many of these areas are currently undeveloped and expected to be developed in the
event of annexation. The potential annexation areas are shown in the annexation map in Figure 4-42.
This map shows the intended uses for each annexation property, and the challenges associated with
each. Many environmentally or developmentally sensitive areas are contained within the annexation
areas, as indicated in Figure 4-1. Any development within these annexation areas will be served by the
Provo WATRR Center, and will therefore result in improvement or expansion of the existing sewer
collection system. However, a full analysis of the environmental impact of developing these areas has
not been performed nor is future development in these areas assured. Environmentally sensitive areas
within the City and adjacent annexation areas are discussed in Section 5.2.

1 Map from Provo City General Plan Section 1.2.9: https://provo.municipal.codes/GenPlan/1.2.9
2 Map from Provo City General Plan Section 1.2.10: https://provo.municipal.codes/GenPlan/1.2.10
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 26

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Figure 4-4 - Provo City Annexation Policy Map
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 27

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

4.6.2. Forecasts of Flows and Waste Loads
Population estimates from 2011 through 2018 were combined with daily flow data from corresponding
years to determine average annual per capita flows. The average was determined for all eight years.
These flows are summarized in Table 4-7.
Table 4-7 – Average Annual and Per Capita Flows 2011-2018
Year Population1 AAD
(mgd)
AAD Per Capita
(gpcd)
2011 115,218 15.5 134.5
2012 115,574 12.8 110.8
2013 116,395 12.6 108.3
2014 115,639 12.4 107.2
2015 114,862 10.9 94.9
2016 116,822 11.4 97.6
2017 117,335 12.4 105.7
2018 119,184 11 92.3
Eight-Year Average: 106.4
The eight-year average was rounded up to an AAD per capita loading of 107 gpcd. This per capita flow
was used to project AAD flows through buildout. ADMM, PDF, and PHF flows were also projected
through buildout using calculated factors for 2011 to 2018 for these flow conditions. The calculation of
these factors is discussed in the Flows and Loads TM is included herein as APPENDIX L. Equivalent
Residential Units (ERUs) were calculated using the average per capita flow of 107 gpcd and the average
household size of 3.2 per the U.S. Census3. Flows / ERUs for key years are shown in Table 4-8.
Table 4-8 – Projected Flows for Key Design Years
Parameter, Unit Design Flow
Factor
Projected 2022
Values
Projected 2035
Values
Buildout
Values
Population Estimates Based
on MAG Projections
126,600 148,700 197,000
Equivalent Residential Units
(ERU)2
342 39,688 46,563 61,563
AAD, mgd 1 13.6 15.9 21.1
ADMM, mgd 1.2 16.3 19.1 25.3

3 U.S. Census Bureau (2018), “Quick Facts, Provo City, Utah”. Access date August 29, 2019.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/provocityutah/PST045218
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 28

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Parameter, Unit Design Flow
Factor
Projected 2022
Values
Projected 2035
Values
Buildout
Values
PDF, mgd 1.8 24.5 28.7 37.9
PHF1, mgd 2.4 32.6 38.3 50.6
Hydraulic Design Flow, mgd - 16 16 24
1. The PHF used in the design of all facilities is the adjusted PHF as discussed in the Flows and Loads TM.
2. Estimates Based on Average Per Capita Flow of 107 gpcd and Calculated in Flows and Loads TM and 3.2 persons
per household per U.S. Census Bureau data3. 342 gallons Wastewater Produced per Day per ERU was used for
this calculation.
Flow projections are extrapolated from current wastewater flows and population projections. They are
inclusive of day use visitors and university student usage, which are assumed to increase proportionally
with population. Municipal day use attractions are not projected to change significantly and are intrinsic
to the calculation of projected flows, as are seasonal flow changes that are captured in average day
maximum month (ADMM) flow calculations.
Seasonal and diurnal flows are evaluated in the Flows and Loads TM (APPENDIX Land are incorporated
into plant design accordingly. Historical loadings for key wastewater constituents are summarized in
Table 4-9.
Table 4-9 – Historical Loadings at Existing Provo City Water Reclamation Facility
Average Day Maximum Month - 92nd Percentile Loadings
COD BOD5 TSS NH3-N TKN Ortho-P TP
Year ppd ppd ppd ppd ppd ppd ppd
2011 55,699 24,431 24,321 411 685
2012 56,516 30,451 25,417 317 521
2013 58,831 31,263 25,903 410 680
2014 53,228 24,000 31,732 2,792 3,723 - -
2015 46,574 23,666 23,965 2,792 4,137 299 463
2016 49,338 20,152 25,736 2,689 4,137 310 516
2017 52,037 19,406 24,795 2,585 4,033 296 553
2018 47,207 20,258 19,928 2,896 4,343 285 541
These loadings were used to determine per capita loadings and to project loading rates to the plant for
the design of the Provo WATRR Center as summarized in Table 4-10.
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 29

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Table 4-10 – Summary of Wastewater Flows and Characteristics for Maximum Monthly Values
Parameter Phase 1 Loading, ppd Buildout Loading, ppd
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 69,000 92,000
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) 29,000 39,000
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 36,000 48,000
Ammonia (NH3) 3,700 4,900
Total Kjedahl Nitrogen (TKN) 5,600 7,400
Orthophosphate (Ortho-P) 450 600
Total Phosphorus (TP) 780 1,000
Refer to the Flows and Loads TM attached herein as APPENDIX L for further details about population,
flows, and loads.
4.6.3. Flow Reduction
Flow reduction programs with respect to the sewer collection system include public education / outreach
efforts. The Provo City Public Works 2018 Water Quality Report (APPENDIX R) includes suggestions for
water conservation such as:
• Using low-flow shower heads and reducing the length of time showering
• Minimizing baths in favor of showers for more conservative water usage
• Retrofitting toilets for lower flows or reducing tank capacity
• Replacing appliances such as clothes washers and dishwashers with lower flow counterparts
• Adjusting clothes washing machine settings to the proper load size for optimal water usage
• Using a dishwasher rather than handwashing dishes
Additional wastewater flow reduction policies that the City employs include:
• Maintaining and improving a stormwater drainage system separate from the wastewater
collection system
• Encouraging proper storm drainage / storm filtration systems for newly constructed
commercial developments that include large parking areas
• Monitoring the collection system for leaks that allow increased I/I flows
• Allocation of $0.5M annually for I/I upgrades based on monitoring system results
4.6.4. Waste Load Analysis
The most recent Waste Load Analysis was conducted in 2015 in connection with the permit renewal
process. Another will be required in 2021 with the next upcoming permitting cycle. To maintain the
beneficial use of receiving waters, the analysis is used to determine the allowable water quality point
source discharges. Per the City’s UPDES permit, the PCWRF discharges to the Mill Race Canal, which has
the beneficial uses shown in Table 4-11.
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 30

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Table 4-11 – Mill Race Receiving Stream Beneficial Use Designations1
Stream
Classification
Description
Class 2B Protected for infrequent primary contact recreation. Also protected for
secondary contact recreation where there is a low likelihood of ingestion of
water or a low degree of bodily contact with the water. Examples include, but
are not limited to wading, hunting and fishing
Class 3B Protected for warm water species of game fish and other warm water aquatic
life, including the necessary aquatic organisms in their food chain
Class 4 Protected for agricultural uses including irrigation of crops and stock watering
1. Information from UPDES Permit No. UT0021717 ADDENDUM: 2015 Wasteload Analysis and Antidegradation Level
I Review – Final
At the time of the Waste Load Analysis, the Mill Race was not listed as impaired for any of these beneficial
uses and the downstream water body, Utah Lake, was listed as impaired for Total Dissolved Solids (TDS),
TP and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in fish tissue. Results of the Waste Load analysis identify TSS,
DO, BOD, TP, TN, TAN, pH, and total residual chlorine (TRC) as parameters of concern for the UPDES
permit writers. Combined with modeling efforts, this analysis was used to develop the effluent
limitations discussed in Section 4.4.
Since the Waste Load Analysis, pursuant to the findings of the 2016 Integrated report (APPENDIX H), the
Provo Bay portion of Utah Lake was listed as impaired for its 3B classification due to pH and Total
Ammonia Nitrogen (TAN) but has been delisted for TDS. The remainder of Utah Lake remains impaired
for its Class 3B and 4 Classifications due to TDS, PCBs in fish tissue, and TP. However, as of the 2016
Integrated Report, the lake was also listed as impaired for its Class 2B status due to Harmful Algal Blooms
(HAB).
5. Environmental Review
The Provo WATRR Center is to be constructed at the existing PCWRF site. Because the plant has been in
operation since 1956, the extents of the plant’s environmental impacts are well understood.
Furthermore, the discharge loadings to receiving waters are expected to be improved by community
goals that will result in the selection of sophisticated treatment processes capable of producing a higher
quality effluent. Future groundwater recharge or water reuse expansions may further reduce nutrient
loadings to receiving waters. For these reasons, an analysis is currently being performed to determine
the applicability of Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) from an environmental review. Pending the results of
this analysis, a Finding of no Significant Impact (FONSI) is anticipated.
5.1. Environmental Information
The following sections detail the physical environment of the Provo City service area.
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 31

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

5.1.1. Surface and Groundwater Hydrology
The Utah Lake Basin describes the watersheds critical to the City, with the Provo River basin being the
most significant. The City is located in the lower reach of the Provo River basin, which originates in the
high Uintah Mountain range. Flow from the high Uintahs to Jordanelle Reservoir is considered the upper
section of the Provo River. Flows between Jordanelle and Deer Creek Reservoir are considered the
middle Provo River, and the lower portion of the Provo River flows from Deer Creek through the City to
the Provo Bay area of Utah Lake. The Utah Lake Basin receives an annual average of 18 inches of
precipitation, the majority of which flows by way of rivers and streams to Utah Lake. Over half of inflows
to Utah Lake are discharged to the Jordan River, and 42% are lost to evaporation due to the shallowness
and relatively large surface area of the lake. Approximately 7% of flows from Utah Lake infiltrate into the
underlying aquifers. Utah Lake is not a major recharge source to confined aquifers in surrounding cities
as the water level of the lake is below the water level of these aquifers. Instead, this 7% of groundwater
flows is largely conveyed to unconfined aquifers that seep into the Jordan River or seep into Salt Lake
Valley Aquifers.
The main sources of drinking water for the City are groundwater springs in Provo Canyon and Rock
Canyon. Additional groundwater is produced from deep water wells throughout the City as indicated in
Section 5.3, which discusses water quality and quantity. Wetlands and floodplains exist around the Provo
River and near the shores of Utah Lake (see Section 5.2). Utah Lake is the surface water discharge point
for various wastewater treatment plants and stormwater systems in Utah County, including the existing
PCWRF. An average of 308,000 acre-ft of water flows annually via Utah Lake to the Jordan River tributary
that terminates at the Great Salt Lake.
5.1.2. Physiography, Topography, Geology and Soils
The City is located at the border between two physiographic provinces: The Basin and Range Province
and the Middle Rocky Mountains, as can be seen in Figure 5-1. The Basin and Range Province is
characterized by north-south fault-tilted mountain ranges. The mountain ranges are separated by broad
basins (typically 12-31 miles apart) and bounded on one or both sides by faults. The basins are lacustrine
sediment filled, and rock formations within the province vary widely in age and composition. The
mountains of this province typically have a steep slope on one side and a gentle slope on the other
reflecting the tilted fault block.
The Middle Rocky Mountains Province, by contrast, consists of a mountainous terrain with stream valleys
and alluvial basins. The Wasatch range portion contains mostly sedimentary and silica plutonic rocks.
The borders of the two physiographic regions are shown in the topographic map in Figure 5-2.
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 32

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Figure 5-1 – Physiographic Provivince Map

Figure 5-2 – Provo City Topographical Map
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 33

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

The Provo WATRR Center Project is located in Utah Valley, west of the Wasatch Mountain Front, and
east of the Provo Bay of Utah Lake. A geotechnical survey performed at the site indicates the geology of
the area was formed by numerous tectonic and volcanic events that caused thrusting, folding, and
intrusion of rock layers, as well as glacial and fluvial scouring. The lifting event that formed the Wasatch
Mountains occurred 12-17 million years ago. Seismic events, runoff from mountain streams into Utah
Valley, and erosion and deposition from Lake Bonneville and two other large lake events have provided
the wide variety of sediment deposits. Sediments near the mountain front are predominantly sand and
gravel. Sediments toward the center of the valley contain clay, silt, and fine sand deposits. A map of the
project planning area soil composition can be seen in Figure 5-3 from the geotechnical study performed
for this project.
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 34

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Figure 5-3 - Soil Types in Project Planning Area
The Provo City service area is located in a seismically active region. Earthquakes are possible anywhere
in Utah but are most likely to occur along the Wasatch Front, which includes the City. The map shown
in Figure 5-4, developed by MAG, indicates areas of high landslide or liquefaction potential, as well as
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 35

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

nearby fault lines. The service area contains areas with high landslide potential in the Northern and
Eastern parts of the City. Fault lines pass through this same area. The site of the wastewater treatment
plant is relatively flat and free of impeding geological features. The City logo indicates the location of the
PCWRF site, which is in an area of high liquefaction. A geotechnical study conducted at the site indicated
that although liquefaction is likely during a seismic event, the lateral spreading typically associated with
liquefaction is not likely to occur because the site is relatively flat and without free face features.
However, significant settling may occur as a result of liquefaction during seismic events.

Figure 5-4 – Seismic Map of the Provo City Service SArea
Mitigation of these risk areas will require working closely with the project’s geotechnical team to develop
a structural design and ground improvements plan that will prevent excessive settling in the event of
seismic activity. A deep foundation system will improve seismic performance but may be costly. A
shallow foundation plan will require ground improvements for improved seismic performance, including
the use of stone columns or Rammed Aggregate Pier (RAP) systems, which may be a cost-effective option
compared with a deep foundation system.
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 36

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

5.1.3. Weather and Climate
The City is in a semi-arid region with an annual rainfall of approximately 18 inches, based on data from
the National Weather Service (NWS) over the period from 1981 to 2018. Monthly average high
temperatures in summer are 82.5°F (daytime high temperature of 108°F), and monthly average winter
low temperatures are 19.7°F (low temperature of -20°F) as shown in Figure 5-5.

Figure 5-5 - Monthly Climate Statistics, Provo Utah (1981-2018)
Prevailing winds are in the Northwest direction on an annual basis, but the direction varies slightly month
to month as shown in Table 5-1.
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 37

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Table 5-1 - Utah Prevailing Wind Direction
Utah Prevailing Wind Direction
Weather Station Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
Bryce Canyon AP, UT (KBCE). W W W W W W W W W W W W W
Canyonlands AP-Moab, UT (KCN) NW W W W W SW SE E W W W NW W
Cedar City AP, UT (KCDC). SSW SW SSW SSW SSW SSW SW SSW SSW SW N SSW SSW
Logan Airport, UT (KLGU). W N N N N N N N S N N N N N
Milford Airport, UT (KMLF). S SSW S SSW S SSW SSW S S S S S S
Ogden Airport, UT (KOGD). W SSE S SSE S S S S S S S S S S
Ogden-Hill AFB, UT (KHIF). E E E E E E E E E E E E E
Price-Carbon County AP, UT N N N N N N N N N N N N N
Provo Muni AP, YT (KPVU). W NW NW NW NW NW NW SE SE SE SE SSE SSE NW
Salt Lake City AP, UT (KSLC) S S SSE SSE SSE S SSE SSE SSE SE SE S SSE
St. George Muni AP, UT (KSGU) E ENE ENE W W W W ENE ENE ENE E E ENE
Vernal Airport, UT (KVEL). W W WNW W W W W W W W WNW W W
Wendover AP, UT (KENV). WIN NW NW E NW E E E E E E E E E
Data From The Western Regional Climate Center: https://wrcc.dri.edu/Climate/comp_table_show.php?stype=wind_dir_avg
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 38

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan DRAFT 201223.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Several weather conditions that cause short-term water and air quality problems occur in the planning
area for the Provo WATRR Center. These conditions include heavy winds, thunderstorms, heat waves
and drought conditions that promote the spread of wildfire, cold waves that lead to temperature
inversions, and heavy precipitation events that lead to urban runoff and flooding. These will not impair
the feasibility of constructing the project. However, the design must incorporate features to address
extreme weather events. Basins will be adequately designed to accommodate peak flow conditions.
Odor and emissions control measures will be incorporated to reduce plant emissions. Facilities will be
constructed to meet 2018 International Building Codes.
In addition to the capture of biogas and nuisance odor, plant processes are designed to accommodate
seasonal fluctuations in temperature and precipitation without exceeding permitted effluent limits.
Equalization basins will moderate flow through the plant to minimize the impact of flow and load
fluctuations on water quality and emissions. Construction of the project may have short-term effects on
air quality that will be addressed during the permitting process. Once construction is complete, the
project is not expected to have more significant impacts on air quality than the existing plant.
5.2. Environmentally Sensitive Areas
The following sections detail environmentally sensitive areas within the City’s planning area. Because
the existing PCWRF site is currently owned and operated as a wastewater treatment facility, the site is
already zoned as public facilities land. Within the area of construction, there are minimal
environmentally sensitive features. The proposed Provo WATRR Center does not modify or eliminate
recreational open space, parks or areas of scenic or recreational value. It is therefore unnecessary to
attempt to combine the project with parks and other recreational projects. Land use designations and
areas designated by the City as environmentally sensitive can be seen in Figure 4-1.
5.2.1. Historical & Archaeological
The map shown in Figure 5-6 from MAG shows the historic sites on the National Register of Historic
Places. Additionally, APPENDIX M lists all sites on the National Register of Historic Places that are located
within Utah County. Most of the historic sites in the City are within the historic district outlined in red in
Figure 5-6. None of the registered properties are near or in the site for the Provo WATRR Center, and
construction of the plant will not impact existing historic places.
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 39

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan DRAFT 201223.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Figure 5-6 – Sites with Historic / Archaeological Significance
5.2.2. Flood Plains
The City planning area contains 100-year flood plains, particularly near Utah Lake and along the Provo
River. Figure 5-7 is a map of the 100-year and 500-year flood plains in and around the City as determined
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The existing PCWRF site is indicated by the City
logo, and an image in the top left-hand corner shows an enlarged view of the plant site with the
floodplain areas superimposed. As this image indicates, the Provo WATRR Center site will not be
constructed directly on a 100-year flood plain. However, the Southern and Western portions of the site
are in a 100-year flood plain. No new processes will be constructed in this area. The current / future UV
disinfection facility is constructed on this area of the site, but the elevation of the channel walls exceeds
the 500-year floodplain elevation.

CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 40

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Figure 5-7 - Provo City Flood Plain Map
Provo City Floodplain map obtained from http://maps.provo.org/downloads/provo_flood_plain_map.pdf
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 41

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

5.2.3. Wetlands
The City planning area contains wetlands as shown in Figure 5-8. These wetlands are predominantly
along the shoreline of the Provo River and Utah Lake and the inland intrusion of the lake east and
southeast of Provo Bay. The PCWRF site contains no natural wetlands. The image on the righthand side
of Figure 5-8 indicates the site designations from the National Wetland Inventory. This site indicates each
of the PCWRF treatment processes as Freshwater Ponds with a designation of PABKx. This designation
indicates Palustrine (small, shallow, freshwater basin) Aquatic Beds Artificially Flooded and Excavated by
humans. This designation of wetland is entirely dependent on an artificially provided water source, such
as by siphons or pumps, and is not considered a reliable water regime. A Section 404 Permit is not
anticipated as necessary, as all onsite designations by the National Wetland Inventory are associated
with active treatment processes rather than natural or permanent wetlands. The project will not result
in any direct or indirect expansion into natural or permanent wetland areas.

CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 42

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx

Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Figure 5-8 - Wetland Areas within Provo (left) and at the Provo WATRR Center Site (right)
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 43

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

5.2.4. Agricultural
There are no protected agricultural lands within the current municipal borders of the City; although,
some residential farmland of unique or statewide importance is contained within City limits. Scattered
lands throughout the City, if cultivated and irrigated, may be suitable for prime agricultural land. The
City has enacted municipal policies that protect land zoned as agricultural from being subdivided and
converted from agricultural use and has designated applicable farmlands as developmentally sensitive
(see Figure 4-1) and in need of further study before development may occur. However, none of these
zoned areas are within the plant site. The Provo WATRR Center project will not result in direct or indirect
impacts on agricultural lands, which are indicated in Figure 5-9 developed by MAG.

Figure 5-9 - Provo City Agricultural Lands
5.2.5. Wild and Scenic Rivers
The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System has only one designation in Utah, the Virgin River, in
Southwestern Utah. The Provo WATRR Center and the associated service area will not affect this area,
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 44

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

which is too distant from the planning area to be impacted and is not hydraulically connected to the
effluent receiving waters of the Provo WATRR Center.

Figure 5-10 - Utah Wild and Scenic Rivers
5.2.6. Fish and Wildlife Protection: Flora, Fauna, and Natural Communities
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service a Total of nine (9) threatened and endangered species are
found in the vicinity of Utah County. Of those, four (4) species are found within the City planning area.
Most of the species do not have critical habitats within the City except for the June sucker, which has a
critical habitat in the lower reach of the Provo River between Deer Creek Reservoir to Utah Lake. The
threatened and endangered species that may be found in the City’s planning area are summarized in
Table 5-2.
Table 5-2 – Threatened and Endangered Species in Provo City Planning Area
Group Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Population Status Critical Habitats
Birds
Yellow-
billed
Cuckoo
Coccyzus
americanus
Western U.S.
DPS Threatened
No critical
habitats in
planning area
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 45

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Group Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Population Status Critical Habitats
Fishes
June
sucker
Chasmistes
liorus
Wherever
found
Endangered
(Pending
Reclassification
as Threatened)
Lower reach of
Provo River =
Critical Habitat
Flowering Plants
Ute
ladies'-
tresses
Spiranthes
diluvialis
Wherever
found Threatened
No published
critical habitats
Mammals
Canada
Lynx
Lynx
canadensis
Wherever
Found in
Contiguous
U.S. Threatened
No Critical
Habitats in
planning area
Information from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Threatened and Endangered Species by County Report
(https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/reports/species-by-current-range-county?fips=49049)
The Provo WATRR Center facility is not expected to have any impact on threatened and endangered
species, habitats of endangered species, or migratory routes, wintering, or calving areas. Because the
site has already been developed for its intended use, the impacts from the facility have been realized.
Although the planning area does contain one critical habitat (the lower reach of the Provo River), that
habitat is not in an area where the construction of the Provo WATRR Center will take place and will not
be impacted by construction of the plant.
Though Provo Bay is not classified as a critical habitat for the June sucker, it has been identified as an
important post-spawning habitat. Provo Bay is downstream of the Provo WATRR Center discharge point.
The Provo WATRR Center design will result in a higher effluent quality that the current PCWRF effluent.
It will not negatively impact the bay’s current water quality (See Section 4.6.2).
5.2.7. Air Quality
The Provo WATRR Center planning area is in an area that the Utah State Air Quality Implementation Plan
(SIP) applies.
The SIP estimates Utah population growth at an annual rate of 1.5%. Using the MAG population
projections discussed in Section 4.6.1, the annual geometric growth rates (assuming a constant rate
within each period) are shown in Table 5-3. Only one period slightly exceeds the SIP estimate: the period
from 2017 to 2020, but this rate also precedes the period of growth relevant to construction of the Provo
WATRR Center. Growth rates in each subsequent period are anticipated to decline. This is because the
City is an area that is largely developed and expansion geographically limited by mountains, water
bodies, and neighboring municipalities.
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 46

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Table 5-3 - Population Growth Rates Based on MAG Projections
Population at
Beginning of Period
Population at End
of Period
Number of Years Annual Growth Rate
2017 – 2020 117,335 122,971 3 1.58%
2020 – 2030 112,971 142,223 10 1.47%
2030 – 2040 142,223 155,397 10 0.89%
2040 – 2050 155,397 159,265 10 0.25%
The construction of the Provo WATRR Center will not increase plant capacity, and odor control measures
are intrinsic to the project’s design to prevent odor nuisance issues. A study performed in conjunction
with the recent regionalization study (see APPENDIX O) found that nuisance odors are not problematic
around the current plant and sludge disposal areas, and the Provo WATRR Center is expected to maintain
or exceed current performance.
As the City’s population grows, wastewater loads are expected to increase proportionally. This is
correlated with an increase in plant emissions. However, a greater portion of the produced biogases are
expected to be utilized for energy production in the future, reducing the portion of waste gas that is
burned off.
National ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) that govern allowable emissions are listed in Table 5-4.
The City is classified as a non-attainment area for PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. As with the current plant,
all direct emissions from the Provo WATRR Center will meet federal, state, and local emissions standards,
and will not impede the City’s attainment of emissions standards. All emissions are localized and
sufficiently distant from state borders that there is no reasonable expectation of negative impact on
bordering states.
Table 5-4 – National Ambient Air Quiality Standards1
Pollutant Primary/Secondary Averaging Time Level Form
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Primary
8 hours 9 ppm Not to be exceeded more
than once per year 1 hour 35 ppm
Lead (Pb)2 Primary and
Secondary
Rolling 3 month
average 0.15 μg/m3 Not to be exceeded
Nitrogen
Dioxide (NO2)
Primary 1 hour 100 ppb
98th percentile of 1-hour
daily maximum
concentrations, averaged
over 3 years
Primary and
Secondary3 1 year 53 ppb Annual Mean
Ozone (O3) Primary and
Secondary4 8 hours 0.070 ppm
Annual fourth-highest
daily maximum 8-hour
concentration, averaged
over 3 years
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 47

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Pollutant Primary/Secondary Averaging Time Level Form
Particle
Pollution
(PM)
PM2.5
Primary 1 year 12.0 μg/m3 annual mean, averaged
over 3 years
Secondary 1 year 15.0 μg/m3 annual mean, averaged
over 3 years
Primary and
Secondary 24 hours 35 μg/m3 98th percentile, averaged
over 3 years
PM10 Primary and
Secondary 24 hours 150 μg/m3
Not to be exceeded more
than once per year on
average over 3 years
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
Primary5 1 hour 75 ppb5
99th percentile of 1-hour
daily maximum
concentrations, averaged
over 3 years
Secondary 3 hours 0.5 ppm Not to be exceeded more
than once per year
1. Table from https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table.
2. In areas designated nonattainment for the Pb standards prior to the promulgation of the current (2008)
standards, and for which implementation plans to attain or maintain the current (2008) standards have not
been submitted and approved, the previous standards (1.5 µg/m3 as a calendar quarter average) also remain in
effect.
3. The level of the annual NO2 standard is 0.053 ppm. It is shown here in terms of ppb for the purposes of clearer
comparison to the 1-hour standard level.
4. Final rule signed October 1, 2015, and effective December 28, 2015. The previous (2008) O3 standards
additionally remain in effect in some areas. Revocation of the previous (2008) O3 standards and transitioning to
the current (2015) standards will be addressed in the implementation rule for the current standards.
5. The previous SO2 standards (0.14 ppm 24-hour and 0.03 ppm annual) will additionally remain in effect in certain
areas: (1) any area for which it is not yet 1 year since the effective date of designation under the current (2010)
standards, and (2)any area for which an implementation plan providing for attainment of the current (2010)
standard has not been submitted and approved and which is designated nonattainment under the previous SO2
standards or is not meeting the requirements of a SIP call under the previous SO2 standards (40 CFR 50.4(3)). A
SIP call is an EPA action requiring a state to resubmit all or part of its State Implementation Plan to demonstrate
attainment of the required NAAQS.
5.3. Water Quality and Quantity
Water Quality and Quantity data have been obtained from the City’s 2010 Water System Master Plan
(APPENDIX K) and the 2019 Water Conservation Management Plan. The latter was adopted in late 2019,
and a draft copy can be found in APPENDIX F.
Figure 5-11 and Table 5-5 show the location of the seventeen existing wells in the City as indicated in the
City’s 2010 Water System Master Plan, and the general location of Canyon Springs, a natural water
source that the City uses to develop its culinary water supply. The Fort Utah well is drilled, but due to
low water quality is not utilized for the City’s water supply. The City Center Well is currently used for
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 48

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

cooling purposes only. The fifteen remaining wells are used to supply culinary water to the City, including
the BYU Well for Helaman Halls, which is owned by BYU and operated by the City. The 2010 Water
System Master Plan indicates an additional eight wells that may be drilled and developed to service
future community needs. In addition, municipal water originating from springs located in Provo Canyon
and Rock Canyon are available, including water obtained by exchanges for Provo River water rights.
Additional spring water development is planned at the Big Springs area in the South Fork of Provo Canyon
to service future community development. The City owns rights to a portion of the storage capacity at
Deer Creek and Jordanelle Reservoirs (located up Provo Canyon) and has a contract that allows them up
to 1,800 acre-feet/year of Central Utah Project (CUP) water stored in Jordanelle Reservoir. As of 2010,
the dry year production capacity of all the sources is 49,135 acre-feet/year, which is projected to be
approximately 56,215 acre-feet/year once all projected water sources are developed to meet Buildout
capacity.

CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 49

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Figure 5-11 – Active Wells / General Location of Canyon Springs for Provo City Water Production
Table 5-5 - Active Wells / General Location of Canyon Springs for Provo City Water Production
Name Location Pumping
Capacity
(gpm)
Notes
Rock Canyon Well 2000 N. West Temple Dr. 3,400 Redrilled 2019, new
equipment to be installed to
put it back into service
North Well 2230 North 350 West 5,000 Active
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 50

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Name Location Pumping
Capacity
(gpm)
Notes
Edgemont Well 3600 North 200 East 4,000 Active
Brough Well 1300 Columbia Lane 1,200 Active
4800 North Well 4,800 North Approx. 350 West 2,300 Active
5600 North Well 5600 North 300 West 1,100 Active
City Center Well City Center n/a Active, for cooling only
3700 North Well 3700 North 350 West 3,750 Active
88 Well 800 North 800 West 2,100 Active
Utility Well 700 North 225 West 1,100 Active
Slate Canyon Well 742 South Slate Canyon Drive 450 Active
Fort Utah Fort Utah n/a Drilled; Not used due to
Water Quality issues
Riverwoods 4750 North University Ave. 1,300 Active
Canyon Road 2737 North Canyon Road 2,500 Active
Timpview 750 East 3280 North 900 Active
BYU Well (Helaman
Halls)
2100 North 3rd East 2,200 Active
Thorn Well 754 South Slate Canyon 400 Active
Intermediate TBD Drilling Halted
Harmon Park 200 South 850 East Future
Bicentennial Well 1600 E. 1440 S. Future
Kiwanis 1019 N. 1100 E. Future
Lion Park 950 W. 1280 N. Drilled. Not in Service
Exchange Park 900 N. 700 W. Future
Westridge 1720 W. 1460 N. Under Design
North Intermediate TBD Future
The discharge point for the PCWRF is the Mill Race Canal, which flows to Provo Bay and Utah Lake,
discharges to the Jordan River and ultimately discharges into the Great Salt Lake. Utah Lake has long
been the discharge point for treated and untreated municipal and industrial wastewater treatment
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 51

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

plants in surrounding areas, as well as for stormwater and nonpoint source urban runoff. This has caused
eutrophic conditions in the lake resulting from high nutrient loadings. A current Utah Lake Water Quality
Study is being conducted by Utah’s DWQ to determine appropriate nutrient loading limits that are
protective of Utah Lake’s designated beneficial uses. For wastewater treatment facilities, the Utah Lake
study may result in TP limits well below the current TBPEL limit of 1 mg/L and is anticipated to result in
TIN limits of 10 mg/L or less.
The new Provo WATRR Center has been designed to meet existing and anticipated effluent standards
for the receiving waters and carries the operational flexibility and design modularity to address more
stringent nutrient limits as they come about. The effluent discharged from the newly constructed facility
is expected to be of higher quality than current PCWRF effluent and sufficient to reduce overall loadings
to Provo Bay with respect to current permit limits. This is due to the addition of membrane filtration and
a chemical dosing facility for phosphorus removal, which are intrinsic to the plant’s design. The addition
of membrane filtration will not only promote higher quality effluent discharged to receiving waters but
may also allow the future development of water reuse applications. This may further reduce the total
loading to receiving waters in the future. Therefore, there is no reasonable expectation that the receiving
stream water quality will be changed or that groundwater supplies will be negatively impacted.
The City’s public policy of responsible development includes policies and practices designed to protect
and rehabilitate its water bodies. Sediment pollution and urban stormwater runoff are major nonpoint
sources of water-body impairment, particularly in urban areas. Pollutants in undeveloped environments
are absorbed and naturally filtered through soil before being discharged to surface water bodies.
However, in highly developed urban areas, pollutants are concentrated on impervious surfaces such as
parking lots and driveways and urban stormwater runoff then washes the pollutants, concentrated and
unfiltered, to surface water bodies. The City’s stormwater system is separate from its sanitary sewage
collection system. The City has developed and followed a Master Stormwater Facilities plan that provides
specific recommendations for channeling direct urban runoff to detention basins until it can be safely
discharged or retained and allowed to percolate into the shallow groundwater aquifer. Furthermore, the
City’s Storm Drain Master Plan (APPENDIX S) calls for new development of large impervious surfaces
such as parking lots to be designed to provide retention and filtration of stormwater runoff prior to
discharge. The City employs a policy of providing public information and educational materials about the
importance of proper disposal of chemicals and municipal participation in Household Hazardous Waste
disposal programs. These programs are intended to reduce the negative impacts of nonpoint water
quality problems as continued community development takes place.
The City has adequate water rights to service the community through its buildout capacity assuming its
conservation goals are met. Of greater concern is the availability of wet water for withdrawal from
aquifers. The legal availability of water rights may be adversely affected by the practical availability of
wet water to supply those rights. This is a guiding reason that a key project driver (see APPENDIX B) for
the Provo WATRR Center is to produce reuse quality effluent that can be used as a resource to meet the
community’s increasing water demand.
Even with the incorporation of reuse measures, the City will not meet its projected water demand if it
does not meet its conservation goal of reducing per capita water use by 25%. To that end, the City
maintains an aggressive maintenance plan, investing $0.5M per year in replacement of its culinary water
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 52

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

system mainline to minimize water loss in aging and degrading pipelines. Acoustic sound equipment and
an advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) system are used to detect and identify leaks as well as
provide feedback to users about their use habits. The SCADA system is also being updated to provide a
higher degree of control and detection. Secondary water is currently being used for irrigation at five city
parks, the BYU campus, around the existing PCWRF, and at the East Bay Golf Course. Future secondary
uses are being considered as opportunities come available. Rain sensing equipment is used at City parks
to detect rainfall and cycle off irrigation systems when sufficient rainfall is available. Seasonal rate
structures, soon to be replaced with a tiered rate structure, and public awareness programs are used to
discourage overuse of water. City ordinances forbid water wastage and allow water use restrictions to
be placed in the event of water scarcity. Upcoming municipal water conservation projects may include
xeriscaping of all city projects, tiered rate structures, continued metering and monitoring of the
distribution system, and water reuse projects.
The project is not expected to cause significant transfer of one watershed sub-basin to another, nor are
negative impacts on downstream habitats expected as a result of flow changes. The plant’s capacity is
not expected to exceed currently permitted flows until the community approaches its buildout capacity,
which is not expected until after the year 2100.
5.4. Direct and Indirect Impacts
Direct and indirect environmental impacts associated with the construction of the Provo WATRR Center
are discussed in each of the previous sections. In summary, environmental impacts are expected to be
minimal. The site was originally developed as a wastewater treatment facility in 1956, and most of the
environmental impact associated with the site is considered to have already taken place. The site
contains no permanent wetlands, protected agricultural lands, wild and scenic rivers, critical habitats or
historic sites. The existing UV facility is on a FEMA-defined 100-year floodplain, but the channel walls
exceed the 500-year floodplain elevation. The facility is not planned for reconstruction as part of this
project. The plant capacity will not be increased as a result of facility construction, and effluent quality
is expected to improve with respect to the currently permitted effluent limits, especially with the
implementation of treatment processes to meet new and anticipated effluent nutrient limits. Therefore,
the impact on downstream surface and groundwater bodies is expected to be negligible or positive.
5.4.1. Public Health
Construction of the Provo WATRR Center will include odor control facilities at the headworks, and fine
screening facilities, where nuisance odors are likely to occur. The solids stream process will consist of
anaerobic digesters for biosolids stabilization. Class B biosolids will continue to be produced, which have
specific limitations associated with pathogen reduction and vector attraction reduction that mitigate
vector attraction at the plant and at the biosolids composting area. The composting area is also equipped
with an odor control facility to further reduce the risk vector attraction. The solids handling facilities will
be fully enclosed and covered to prevent release of fugitive odors and biogas. Biogas will be combusted
or captured to supply heat energy to the plant. Odor control facilities will be expanded. No known public
health problems associated with inadequate sewer services or disposal are known. There are no unique
public health risks associated with the construction of the Provo WATRR Center, nor is there any
reasonable expectation of increased risk to public health and safety. Furthermore, the improved and
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 53

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

updated system may increase the overall effectiveness of odor and vector attraction measures. In
addition, any public health risk presented by recreational use of Provo Bay and Utah Lake due to poor
water quality or harmful algal blooms will not be exacerbated by future plant operation.
Utah County regulates noise for public works zones under the same classification as industrial. Areas
zoned as industrial are permitted noise levels of up to 80 decibels (dB) at a distance of 25 feet from the
source of the noise for 24 hours a day. The City’s noise ordinance limits the noise level for industrial
zones to 85 dB at a distance of 50 feet from the source of the noise. This limitation applies to continuous
noises that are a normal part of “business and commerce.” The existing PCWRF is currently in compliance
with all city and county noise ordinances, and the sounds produced by the new Provo WATRR Center are
not expected to change. Construction of the Provo WATRR Center may result in some temporary noise
disturbance. However, all sound provisions will be addressed as part of the construction permitting
process.
5.5. Mitigating Adverse Impacts
Because the impacts of the Provo WATRR Center are expected to be minimal or positive, mitigation of
adverse impacts will be limited to employing responsible construction practices, implementing effective
and efficient equipment, and maintaining strict compliance with all building permits and environmental
laws.
6. Development of Alternatives
The alternatives analyzed for implementation of the Provo WATRR Center design are included in the
following subsections. The service area is projected to grow and expand as detailed in Section 4.6.
Effluent water quality, as dictated by anticipated regulatory changes, has been a key driver of the need
for a new or upgraded facility. The City’s future water resource management will necessitate the
eventual reuse of water resources in order to meet future demands. As such, the plant’s effluent water
quality is a key consideration in each of the evaluated alternatives. In addition to water quality
objectives, are the community’s water conservation objectives. Budgetary constraints are an important
consideration of any municipal improvement project, as are permitting, maintenance of current
operations, and constructability issues. The following sections detail all considered alternatives,
including a discussion of the key advantages and disadvantages associated with them.
6.1. Development of Alternatives
6.1.1. No Action
The No Action alternative involves making no efforts to replace, upgrade, and expand operations at the
current plant, with the exception of ordinary repairs and maintenance necessary for continued
operation. Anticipated regulatory changes, projected flows and loads, and a condition and risk
assessment of the existing plant’s liquid- and solid-stream processes were the critical factors evaluated
to determine the viability of a no action alternative. This alternative is evaluated in detail and discussed
in Section 7.10.1.
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 54

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

6.1.2. Upgrade / Operation of Existing Facility
The alternative to upgrade the existing PCWRF is an expansion of the No Action alternative. As with the
No Action alternative, this alternative includes all maintenance and repairs necessary to allow continued
plant operation and addresses the safety of existing processes and facilities, required plant capacity, the
time and money spent on maintaining unreliable equipment, the availability of spare equipment for
critical plant processes, and the ability of current processes to reasonably meet anticipated regulatory
requirements and permitted effluent limitations.
The WRF Master Plan (APPENDIX N) was prepared for Provo City in 2014. It identified future regulations,
capacity needs, and risk of failure and criticality and provides planning documents with a proposed
budget and process designed to meet key objectives and regulatory requirements. The finding of the
WRF Master Plan was that significant upgrades to nearly every facility are required to meet current and
anticipated discharge requirements and to mitigate the risk of failure of critical structures and
equipment. The WRF Master Plan outlined a phased approach to performing the necessary upgrade and
refurbishment project. A summary of each of the project drivers, planned phases, and recommended
improvements is provided in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1 – Summary of Planned Improvements and Estimated Costs
Phase
Anticipated
Completion
Date
Phase 1
2020
Phase 2
2025
Buildout
Approx. 2060
AAF (MGD) 16.0 18.0 21
ADMM (MGD) 17.4 19.4 22.7
PHF (MGD) 33.6 37.8 44.1
Primary Drivers • Phosphorus Rule
• Capacity
• Replace Trickling Filters
• Operational
Improvements
• Equipment Maintenance
and Refurbishment
• Nitrogen Rule
• Possible Modification
to Phosphorus Rule
• Capacity
• Equipment
Maintenance and
Refurbishment
• Capacity
• Equipment and Facility
Maintenance and
Refurbishment
Process
Replacement,
Upgrades &
Expansion
• Chemical Feed
• Centrate Return
Equalization
• Aeration System
Replacement
• Use all existing ABs
(4+0)
• Add one Final Clarifier
(4+1)
• Use both anaerobic
digesters (2+0)
• Convert to MLE for
Nitrogen Removal
• Add one Aeration Basin
(5+0)
• Add on Final Clarifier
(5+1)
• Add one Anaerobic
Digester (3+0)
• Equipment
Replacement
• Optional Items
• Add one Aeration Basin
(6+0)
• Add one Final Clarifier
(6+1)
• Equipment and Facility
Replacement
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 55

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Phase
Anticipated
Completion
Date
Phase 1
2020
Phase 2
2025
Buildout
Approx. 2060
• Equipment Replacement
• Optional Items
o Operations Building
o Biogas Utilization
o Trickling Filter
Demolition
o Add Anaerobic Zone
for Enhanced
Biological P Removal
This alternative was evaluated in-depth as part of the WRF Master Plan, and a discussion evaluating the
alternative in detail is in Section 7.10.2.
6.1.3. Total Containment
Total containment basins, or evaporation basins, are used to contain all WWTP effluent for evaporation,
and infrequent discharge as necessary, usually once or twice per year. This option was not considered
as a viable solution for the City. The periodic discharges from the containment basins are meant to
coincide with runoff events in order to absorb the loading shocks that will otherwise affect receiving
waters. For a plant with inflows as large as Provo City’s (24 mgd expected when buildout capacity is
reached), this approach is impractical. Insufficient land exists on the current site to construct a facility
with a surface area sufficient to promote adequate evaporation. In Northern Utah, winter evaporation
is limited due to cold ambient temperatures. With such large daily flows, collection and periodic
discharge of wastewater, will overwhelm receiving waters and cause flooding.
6.1.4. Biological or Physical/Chemical Treatment & Discharge to Surface Waters
Three main liquid stream biological treatment processes were considered for the Provo WATRR Center:
Conventional Activated Sludge (CAS), Membrane Bioreactor (MBR), and Aerobic Granular Sludge (AGS).
Their relative merits are discussed in the Process Selection TM, which is included in this document as
APPENDIX P.
In consideration of the project drivers and treatment goals, each of these options was evaluated
including BNR processes for NdeN and biological phosphorus removal (with an ancillary chemical
phosphorus removal facility for use during system upsets or if the TBPEL is reduced below 1 mg/L).
Traditional coarse screening and grit removal technologies were included with primary clarifiers
downstream of grit removal and followed by fine screening facilities and the bioreactors. Tertiary
filtration was added to the CAS and AGS options to meet community treatment and sustainability goals
and to promote future reuse of plant effluent. The addition of tertiary filtration is not required for the
MBR system, that includes membrane filtration. UV disinfection was included because it was recently
constructed and is typically the most effective disinfection process for systems with tertiary filtration.
Effluent from the liquid stream process is assumed to be discharged to the Mill Race, which ultimately
discharges to Utah Lake. This is consistent with the current PCWRF UPDES permitted effluent loadings.
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 56

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

As evaluated, each of the three systems was designed as capable of achieving a similarly high-quality
effluent and all three fit the available footprint. The MBR carries an overall lower capital cost and a
lower overall 20-year NPV as shown in Table 6-2. An MBR liquid stream process was selected and is
discussed further in Section 8. The costs associated with MBR are likewise discussed in further detail in
Section 7.2.
Table 6-2 – Capital Costs and 20-Year Net Present Value of Treatment Systems1
Conventional
Activated Sludge
(CAS) Process
Membrane
Bioreactor
(MBR) Process
Aerobic Granular
Sludge
(AGS) Process
Estimated Capital Costs $325M $265M $283M
20-Year Net Present Value of Project $382M $338M $355M
1. Information from Process Selection Technical Memorandum (APPENDIX P) Table 3-2
6.1.5. Land Application
Land Application, as defined by EPA Manual 625/1-81-013, is a treatment method in which wastewater
is land applied and the water is treated as it flows through the soil and root systems it passes through.
Typical land treatment processes include Slow Rate processes, Rapid Infiltration Basins, and Overland
Flow processes. Land application systems are limited by the hydraulic capacity of the land and the
nitrogen removal capability of the treatment vegetation. This type of system is typically suitable for small
service areas with relatively low flows and/or large undeveloped plots of land available in areas that are
not environmentally sensitive. This is not applicable to the City, which is a land-locked municipality with
its undeveloped lands predominantly in developmentally sensitive areas (refer to Sections 4 & 5).
Land application was not considered as a viable treatment alternative for the City because the site of the
existing plant has insufficient area (about 66 acres) to implement such a system (See Table 6-3). The City
does not own land of sufficient size and environmental resilience to recommend such development.
Additionally, while the City’s relatively shallow water table does not specifically preclude construction of
a land application system, it does present challenges associated with installing undrains to promote
adequate drainage of applied water.
Table 6-3 –Field Area Requirements for Typical Land Application Treatment Systems
Field Area Required Per EPA Guidance Slow Rate Rapid
Infiltration
Overland Flow
Field Area Required per mgd, hectares1 23 – 280 3 – 23 7 – 44
Field Area Required per mgd, acres 57 – 692 7 – 57 16 – 109
Phase 1 (16 mgd) Field Area Required, acres 909 – 11,070 119 – 909 257 – 1,740
Buildout (24 mgd) Field Area Required, acres 1,364 – 16,605 178 – 1,364 385 – 2,609
1. From EPA Manual 625/1-81-013 Table 1-1 Comparison of Typical Design Features for Land Treatment Processes
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 57

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

6.1.6. Small Alternative Wastewater Systems
Small Alternative Wastewater systems, such as septic systems, were not considered for the City. These
systems are often well-suited to non-urban areas in which a centralized sewer collection and treatment
system is not developed or is impractical. The City is a largely developed municipality, with a centralized
collection and treatment system that reaches all developed areas. Furthermore, extension of the
collection system is a requirement for new municipal developments. The City ordinance Chapter 10.03
specifically prohibits the construction of privies, cesspools and septic systems in all areas within City
limits except those areas to which extension of the centralized collection system has been deemed
unreasonable by the Director of the Water Resources Department. The space, infrastructure, and capital
expenditure required to decentralize the established sewer service make it an impractical option for
wastewater treatment.
6.1.7. Innovative and Alternative Treatment Processes
Innovative and alternative treatment processes can provide solutions to many common and uncommon
treatment problems. They may provide treatment for emerging contaminants, address new regulatory
concerns, footprint limitations, and may even address budgetary concerns. However, selection of
alternative treatment technologies can be challenging. They often have limited full-scale installations to
gauge their effectiveness. Operational challenges with proprietary equipment may still exist and a cost-
effective means of producing and distributing process equipment may not be fully developed. For these
reasons, the use of innovative alternatives for treatment should be considered cautiously. At times,
innovative approaches may be necessary to meet project goals, but typically the use of proven and well
understood treatment technologies is preferred.
The CLEARAS ABNR technology for nutrient removal using algal biomass was considered for the Provo
WATRR Center. However, a full-scale cost analysis and piloting study were never performed. The ABNR
technology is promising, but as an emerging technology, algal treatment technologies are not fully
refined. There are limited pilot-scale studies and only a few full-scale applications exist to recommend
process effectiveness. Moreover, these applications are fairly new as the technology was established in
2011. Demonstration installations of the CLEARAS system have not produced consistent results with
respect to the reliable removal of phosphorus. Furthermore, the process carries high capital costs, high
energy demand, and requires a large overall footprint (though its scalable and modular design may
alleviate footprint constraints). The high capital and energy costs associated with the system are
ostensibly offset by the sale of algal biomass produced during treatment. However, WaterWorks
performed a market analysis to evaluate the viability of algal markets and found them to be young and
volatile with uncertain future yields (see APPENDIX Q). For these reasons, consideration of the
technology was abandoned in the short-term for nutrient removal. As the technology is further
developed and refined, it may be reconsidered for future project phases as a polishing step for nutrient
removal should nutrient limits be further reduced.
6.1.8. Sludge Handling and Disposal
The existing solids stream process requires upgrades and refurbishment for continued operation during
Phase 1 improvements. The solids stream process does not require expansion during the Phase 1
improvements even in consideration of the additional solids that will be produced by implementing
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 58

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

nutrient removal technologies. No testing has been done to determine the volume and characteristics
of the sludge, but extensive process modeling has been performed using BioWin software for
wastewater process modeling. Primary sludge fermentation within gravity thickeners is recommended
for inclusion in the solids stream process to promote and control adequate carbon loading to
downstream liquid stream processes and to thicken solids and reduce the hydraulic loading to solids
stream processes. Continued use of anaerobic digestion is recommended for solids stabilization to allow
the production of Class B biosolids for land application and to promote the utilization of methane-rich
biogas to mitigate the plant’s energy demand.
Land application and composting sites will remain the same as those currently used, and acquisition of
additional lands is not anticipated as necessary. These sites are described in Section 4.3 and have been
using soil amendments from PCWRF since 2012, when soil characteristics and environmental sensitivity
were evaluated by site operators. The biosolids agreement was designed in consideration of minimum /
maximum and optimal land application rates necessary to promote optimal agricultural operation
without exceeding rates that will result in negative impact to the environment and groundwater aquifer.
Accordingly, test/monitoring wells are not anticipated as necessary. The biosolids agreements, soil
amendments, and land applications are in full compliance with EPA guidelines and federal, countywide,
and municipal ordinances that govern their use, including limitations regarding Cadmium and other
metals, PCBs, and impacts on groundwater aquifers. The biosolids handling operation will not change
significantly with the construction of the new Provo WATRR Center, and will similarly be designed to
meet all regulatory and resource protection guidelines. As the new facility is designed, all regulatory
requirements will continue to be met.
With the implementation of biological phosphorus removal technologies in the liquid stream process,
additional biosolid stabilization may be required to address the potential for struvite formation, and to
promote the effective removal of phosphorus from the plant. For this, a biosolids aeration system was
considered and is described in Section 6.1.8.1. Also, to prevent nutrient-rich sidestream slug loadings at
the headworks from interfering with the plant’s ability to meet effluent limits, centrate equalization has
been considered and is discussed in Section 6.1.8.2.
6.1.8.1. Biosolids Aeration
Biosolids aeration is a proven method of sequestering phosphate minerals (such as struvite) to the solid
phase for removal and disposal or recovery. The process utilizes aeration to drive off carbon dioxide gas
from digested solids thereby increasing system pH and promoting conditions favorable to the formation
of struvite. Maximizing struvite formation during this process minimizes the potential for struvite scaling
in downstream processes where operations may be impaired and plant equipment may be damaged.
Magnesium is often the limiting factor in struvite formation, so a magnesium addition is typically
required to sufficiently reduce phosphorus concentrations to support effective enhanced biological
phosphorus removal (EBPR).
Biosolids aeration improves the effectiveness of dewatering efforts, reducing polymer dosing
requirements. Furthermore, by promoting struvite formation in the biosolids, phosphorus is sequestered
to the solids phase for removal rather than being recycled to the headworks with the centrate. The
process can also be modified for phosphate recovery if a local market for phosphorus resale is developed.
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 59

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

6.1.8.2. Centrate Equalization
Anaerobic digestion produces a sidestream rick in ammonia and phosphorus. Biosolids aeration
effectively limits sidestream phosphorous but has a limited effectiveness in the reduction of ammonia
in the solids sidestream. Though some ammonia stripping occurs during aeration, and struvite formation
consumes some ammonia, these mechanisms are not sufficient to significantly reduce the high
concentration of soluble ammonia in the plant’s solids handling processes. Therefore, if the process is
selected, equalization of return centrate stream may be required to reduce ammonia in the return
stream.
Centrate equalization is currently employed at the PCWRF to reduce the loading of ammonia and
phosphorus to the headworks. Centrate equalization requires a centrate storage system with enough
capacity to provide operational flexibility allowing centrate to be returned to the liquid stream when it
will have the least impact on the treatment system performance. It is relatively simple to operate, if
struvite control is included and can be incorporated at a relatively low cost.
6.2. Optimum Operation of Existing Facilities
Optimal operation of existing facilities cannot meet current and pending regulatory changes with aging
critical assets. While the current plant capacity is sufficient for projected community growth, meeting
permitted effluent limits will require expansion of the existing bioreactor capacity and a chemical
phosphorus removal facility. The plant lacks current safety and security features. Due to age, many of
the facilities lack the reliability to offer adequate redundancy and operational flexibility. Current plant
hydraulics require multiple pump stations for adequate flow, placing a higher than necessary energy
demand if a new influent pump station were installed as well as increasing the risk of failure by increasing
the number of potential points of failure.
6.3. Regionalization
As the City has pursued its plans to construct the Provo WATRR Center, the Utah DWQ encouraged the
City to consider participating in a regional facility evaluation to serve the cities of Provo, Spanish Fork,
Springville, and Mapleton. A study was completed in 2019 evaluating the feasibility of a regional facility
located at four potential locations versus upgrading and expanding the existing water reclamation
facilities that serve each municipality (a draft copy of the report is included herein as APPENDIX O).
Regional facility site location alternatives evaluated included:
1. The existing PCWRF site
2. A site on the west side of Provo near the airport
3. A site west of Springville
4. The site west of Springville serving the municipalities excluding Provo City
The potential sites were evaluated for their feasibility based on the following criteria:
• Conveyance System Hydraulics
• Emerging Technologies
• Sustainability
• Environmental Issues
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 60

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

• Public Acceptability
• Development Timing
• Phased Construction
• Constructability
• Financial and Economic Considerations
• Risks
TABLE O-1 through TABLE O-4 in APPENDIX O show a comparison matrix of each alternative’s effect on
each of the four municipalities. For each municipality, the alternative with the most positive and least
negative comparative results was upgrading the existing water reclamation facilities that currently serve
each municipality rather than constructing a regional facility to serve all four municipalities. Based on
this, the final recommendation of the study was for the municipalities to upgrade / replace their current
water reclamation facilities rather than to construct a regional facility.
6.4. Unsewered Areas
There are no inhabited areas within the City that are not served by the municipal sanitary sewer
collection system, except for a few individual users that may still use septic systems, particularly in the
Canyon Road area on the City’s East Side (east of I-15). As discussed in Section 4.5.1 and 6.1.6, municipal
ordinance Chapter 10.03 forbids the use of septic systems within city limits. Therefore, as individual
users are identified, efforts are made to connect these users to the collection system.
The West Side (west of I-15) is a largely undeveloped area of the City, but planned development in this
area is driving capacity and hydraulic upgrades to accommodate future users. Other unsewered areas
include areas that will potentially be annexed to the City (see Figure 4-4). Although these areas are being
considered for annexation, development in these areas may be limited by environmental sensitivity and
constructability issues as discussed in Section 5.
6.5. Conventional Collection System and Sewer Alignments
Upgrades and improvements to the collection system are not included as part of the Provo WATRR
Center project. A Wastewater Collection System 2010 Master Plan (APPENDIX I) was competed on behalf
of the City that recommended improvements and upgrades to be completed as the community expands,
including installing infrastructure in the unsewered areas in the community (discussed in Section 6.4).
The 2010 Master Plan was evaluated as part of the 2019 Impact Fee Analysis and Impact Fee Facilities
Plan (APPENDIX J). This document describes the current ten-year plan for collection system upgrades
based on the 2010 recommendations. The recommendations include upgrades for expanding capacity,
improving hydraulics for gravity flow, reducing the number of lift stations (particularly west of I-15),
improving the flow monitoring and SCADA systems, and using $0.5M for annual repairs to reduce I/I
flows.
The City’s West Side has the greatest development potential within current City limits. This area’s lift
station and pipe capacity deficiencies are priority projects being addressed by the City over the next
decade. Planned development may also take place up Provo Canyon. Installation of a 10-inch sewer line
between 5000 and 5600 North on Canyon Road will help the City to accommodate development in this
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 61

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

area and will also bring sewer services to septic system users in the Canyon Road Area. There is the
potential for growth in the annexation areas discussed in Section 4.6.1.
6.6. Wastewater Management Techniques
Managing the development of the new Provo WATRR Center in the most cost-effective manner
considering treatment goals and community growth is integral to the project. Selecting a technology
involves evaluation of conventional, alternative and innovative technologies. Consideration of current
and future community goals leads to projects that serve multiple purposes for the community. Selection
of a path forward involves careful consideration of the most advantageous project implementation
phasing plan. These topics are discussed in the following sections with respect to Section 6.1.
6.6.1. Conventional Technologies
Conventional treatment technologies are well understood and proven methods for reliable systems.
These technologies are often the most economical in terms of capital cost, annual costs, and operability.
For these reasons, the use of conventional technologies is considered, and usually preferred for
treatment of typical wastewater constituents. Examples of conventional treatment technologies include
conventional activated sludge (CAS), discussed in APPENDIX P, Process Selection Technical
Memorandum. As regulatory changes occur, they may include requirements, such as nutrient removal
requirements, that are difficult to meet using conventional treatment processes. Alternative
technologies or system modifications may then be required to meet effluent limits and treatment goals.
6.6.2. Alternative Technologies
Alternatives to CAS technology are typically considered when wastewater constituent profiles are
unusual or when regulatory changes reduce the effectiveness of conventional technology to meet permit
limits, especially when site footprint is limited. Alternative technologies typically require greater capital
expenditure than conventional technologies but may offer a more cost-effective approach overall, based
on a facility’s unique goals. Alternatives to CAS technology may include a membrane bioreactor (MBR)
process. MBR is a process that is well-understood and effective, produces a high-quality effluent, and
reduces footprint relative to most other technologies. MBR is discussed briefly in detail in APPENDIX P
Process Selection Technical Memorandum.
6.6.3. Innovative Technology
Innovative treatment technologies include the aerobic granular sludge (AGS) process offered by Nereda.
This type of system is not used extensively in the United States but is well proven in European
applications. AGS offers an innovative approach with the advent of regulatory effluent nutrient limits.
The technology uses granules with layered microbial films where aerobic, anoxic and anaerobic
conditions develop and cultivate desired microbial communities to enhance nutrient removal. This
allows the removal of nutrients without separate zones in bioreactors to promote these conditions
thereby reducing the overall bioreactor footprint. AGS is discussed briefly in Section 6.1.4 and in greater
detail in APPENDIX P Process Selection Technical Memorandum.
Innovative technologies may also include new technologies that were developed to address emerging
contaminants of concern. Examples include the CLEARAS ABNR system discussed in Section 6.1.7. New
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 62

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

technologies often carry the promise of an effective solution to new challenges, but also carry more risk
as they are not yet well understood and operational challenges have not been addressed. The challenges
and unknowns with the CLEARAS ABNR system include high overall costs, inconsistent results, and an
unguaranteed revenue source (see APPENDIX Q).
6.6.4. Innovative and Alternative Cost Preference
Alternatives to CAS and innovative technologies do not always carry a higher overall cost than
conventional treatment. In Section 6.1.4, CAS, AGS, and MBR are compared and CAS was found to be
the least cost-effective option. There are several reasons for this. First, the Provo WATRR Center site has
poor soil quality that requires extensive site preparation for structural stability. The comparatively
smaller footprints of MBR and AGS systems offer a cost advantage by reducing the overall cost of site
preparation. The MBR offers the additional advantage of producing a very high-quality effluent as
compared to CAS and AGS technologies as membrane filtration is an intrinsic feature of the system’s
design. The City’s treatment goals include producing a high-quality effluent to potentially develop water
recharge or reuse projects in the future to meet projected community water demands. When AGS and
CAS systems are modified with tertiary systems to produce similarly high-quality effluent, they become
less cost-effective. Therefore, MBR offers the best advantage in terms of cost-effectiveness.
6.6.5. Staged Construction
Staged construction is typically employed to balance project need with available funds. Single phase
construction may often result in lower overall costs by consolidating mobilizations. Sunk costs may also
be reduced by limiting costs associated with the following items:
• Construction of temporary facilities that will be decommissioned during future phases
• Temporary connection of new facilities to existing facilities that will be decommissioned during
future phases
• Repairs and upgrades necessary for the continued use of existing facilities that are ultimately
intended for replacement
• Diminished ability to improve plant flow pathways and hydraulics due to constraints introduced
by designing processes to operate with both existing process facilities and their future
replacements
Some of these challenges may be overcome with careful planning. Despite these challenges, staged
construction is often preferred as it reduces the immediate capital expenditures. The financial resources
needed for a project may require time to develop and some upgrades more urgent. Staging also allows
the financial burden that is passed on to the system’s users to be applied more gradually if rates are used
to pay for improvements. Finally, staged construction also maintains the plant’s continued operation by
bringing new system processes online at different times and allowing their operation to be optimized
with minimal interruption to plant operations.
For the City, staged construction allows improvements to begin while additional funds are developed for
upgrades during future phases. The capital cost associated with an updated liquid stream process was
estimated at $120M to $150M. This exceeds the available funding for the first construction package.
Staging allows the most critical processes to be upgraded first thereby promoting safety, operability, and
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 63

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

regulatory compliance, while allowing additional funds to be developed for future upgrades. Staging will
be discussed further in Section 8.
6.6.6. Multiple Purpose Projects
The Provo WATRR Center is a multiple purpose project. The City’s Water Conservation Management Plan
discusses the importance of developing a water reuse plan. Providing enough water resources for
community growth and development necessitates both the reduction of water use through water
conservation and supplementation from wastewater effluent for reuse. In the interest of sustainability
and responsible resource management, a key project driver for the City (see APPENDIX B) is producing a
high quality effluent that may be used in the future to develop a water reuse program. The MBR system
is the most cost-effective means of meeting the City’s treatment goals and providing functionality to the
community, including:
• Providing sanitary sewer service to municipal users, thus promoting public health
• Resource Protection Projects
o Reducing over loadings to impaired receiving waters through improved effluent quality
o Potential groundwater recharge program
o Reduced impact on groundwater quality
• Water Conservation Projects
o Mitigation of water demand by potentially supplying reuse water where potable water is
not required
o Potential groundwater recharge program
While the current facility design does not include development of future reuse systems, it does provide
a framework for their future development. The Provo WATRR Center, like the existing PCWRF, is
designed for surface water discharge to the Mill Race that discharges into the Provo Bay area connected
to Utah Lake. This is the intended discharge point for the Provo WATRR Center until all or a portion of
the plant effluent can be diverted for reuse and/or groundwater recharge projects. Plant effluent quality
will be improved both due to regulatory nutrient limitations and the City’s sustainability goals. This will
reduce overall loadings to Utah Lake, which will contribute to Utah Lake remediation efforts and reduce
negative impacts on downstream users (see Section 5.1.1 for information about pathway and fate of
wastewater in the groundwater environment). The City’s ultimate intention is to divert all or a portion
of its effluent for secondary reuse.
7. Evaluation of Principal Alternatives and Plan Adoption
In this section, the various aspects of the plant upgrades are evaluated with respect to three principal
alternatives that have been selected for further evaluation. This evaluation will assess solid and liquid
stream treatment processes in terms of each alternative’s practicability, costs, phasing, funding,
environmental impacts, future expansion capability, reliability, and other considerations. These factors
have been used to guide the decision-making process and design. After the relative merits of each
alternative is discussed, the recommended alternative will then be discussed in greater detail in Section
8.
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 64

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

7.1. Alternative Evaluation
Section 6 outlines various treatment technologies considered for evaluation for the construction of the
Provo WATRR Center. Many of these alternatives were eliminated due to practicability and cost. Three
liquid stream alternatives were selected for further evaluation and are evaluated in greater detail in the
following sections:
• Alternative 1, No Action;
• Alternative 2, Upgrade / Operation of Existing Facility; and
• Alternative 3, New Biological Treatment Facility & Discharge to Surface Waters.
In addition, the sludge handling and biosolids disposal techniques detailed in Section 6.1.8 include the
following:
• Anaerobic Digestion: This existing biosolids stabilization process is applied to Alternatives 1, 2, &
3;
• Biosolids Aeration: This technology mitigates the risk of struvite scale damage in downstream
piping and equipment as part of Alternatives 2 & 3;
• Centrate Equalization: This technology is applied to Alternatives 2 & 3 and is used to equalize
return sidestreams rich in ammonia and phosphorus from dewatering processes to minimize the
impact of slug loadings of nutrients to the headworks and risk process destabilization or reduced
effluent quality.
7.2. Evaluation of Monetary Costs
The costs associated with the various options are listed in Table 7-1. Alternative 1 describes the current
treatment process. Alternative 2 upgrades the existing process by expanding the bioreactors to include
anaerobic and anoxic zones and includes biosolids aeration and centrate equalization. These carry added
chemical and energy requirements. Alternative 2 involves upgrading equipment and processes to ensure
the plant staff safety, plant operability, and permit compliance. The operating expenses are not expected
to differ significantly between Alternatives 1 and 2. Alternative 3 assumes a new liquid stream process
that includes fine screens and a membrane bioreactor with BNR.
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 65

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Table 7-1 – Total Cost Associated with Each Alternative
Alternative 1:
No Action
Alternative 2:
Upgrade of Existing
Facilities
Alternative 3:
New Biological
Treatment
Process (MBR)
Capital Costs for All Upgrades
through Buildout Capacity
$0.00 $304M1 $289M2
Operations and Maintenance of
Equipment
$0.60M $0.65M $1.75M
Chemical Costs $0.12M $0.13M $0.14M
Energy $1.31M $1.83M $3.77M
TOTAL Net Present Value3: $33.3M $346M $382M
1. From Provo Water Reclamation Facilities Master Plan (APPENDIX N), April 2018 Draft: Estimated Capital Cost of
$266.5M in 2017 dollars, escalated in accordance with current market conditions.
2. From Process Selection TM (APPENDIX P): Estimated Capital Costs in 2018 dollars have been escalated in
accordance with current market conditions.
3. NPV calculated for a 20-year design life.
7.2.1. Sunk Costs
Sunk costs are any upgrade or maintenance costs associated with facilities or equipment that are
intended for temporary reuse, rather than with facilities or equipment that will be utilized until the end
of their useful life. Alternative 1, no action, carries no capital costs and no sunk costs. Alternatives 2 and
3 may include temporary facilities as a phasing plan is put into effect. The design will optimize available
funding and constructability to minimize sunk costs.
7.2.2. Cost Escalation Factors
The annual cost escalation factor for energy and other annual operations expenses of 3% is assumed. An
annual discount rate of 2% is assumed.
7.2.3. Allocation of Costs for Multiple Purpose Projects
Multiple purpose projects, as discussed in Section 6.6.6, are intended future projects that may be
facilitated by current project design. The City’s Project Drivers (see APPENDIX B) and Water Conservation
Management Plans (APPENDIX F) discuss the future community goals of using treated wastewater for
reuse to mitigate water demand and accommodate future growth. The Provo WATRR Center project
alternatives do not have features specific to future wastewater use for multiple purpose projects. Rather,
the plant is to be designed to accommodate future expansion for potential reuse projects where
possible. Alternative 1 lacks several key components necessary to meet this goal, including not meeting
current and anticipated regulatory requirements. Alternative 2 produces a high-quality effluent capable
of achieving reuse quality with the future addition of tertiary filtration. The alternative does not include
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 66

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

reuse features but is designed with the flexibility to expand for those purposes. Alternative 3 may be
capable of producing reuse quality effluent without further modification. None of the design alternatives
include features for multiple purpose projects in the Phase 1 2020 Construction project and there are no
allocated costs for multiple purpose projects.
7.2.4. Revenue Generation
Alternatives that incorporate the potential revenue generation were considered and are detailed in this
section.
7.2.4.1. Phosphorus Recovery
Phosphorus removal is necessary due to regulatory changes. As a scarce nutrient in the production of
fertilizer, there are potential markets for the sale of recovered phosphorus. This is only possible with
biological phosphorus removal, as metal coagulants render precipitated phosphorus in biosolids non-
bioavailable for plants. The biosolids aeration system considered as part of the solids treatment process
has the potential to be utilized as a phosphorus recovery mechanism should a local market develop but
is not considered a viable revenue stream at present.
7.2.4.2. Biogas Utilization
Another method of generating revenue is by capturing and utilizing biogas produced during anaerobic
digestion. Biogas rich in methane can be captured and used to:
• Mitigate the plant’s onsite natural gas demand;
• Supply to a local utility provider for distribution through the common grid; or
• Partially fuel the City fleet on an adjacent site.
The existing PCWRF and future project will use biogas for the mitigation of its onsite energy demand.
This does not represent a revenue stream but rather an opportunity to payback the initial investment.
Biogas utilization may be expanded as part of future phases to include the sale of biogas to local utilities,
or for utilization for the City fleet. Expanding biogas utilization will require the installation of an RNG
facility in future project phases.
7.2.4.3. Water Reuse
The City’s sustainability goals depend on water conservation and reuse efforts. The City’s goal is to
produce a high-quality effluent that will promote the development of Type I secondary effluent
distribution systems for reuse applications such as municipal, commercial, and agricultural irrigation.
Reuse measures will reduce municipal demand on the potable water system and potentially provide a
revenue source should the plant become capable of producing and selling surplus water to neighboring
entities.
7.3. Demonstration of Financial Capability
Provo City has recently been assigned an Aa1 rating by Moody’s Investors Service, indicating its strong
financial standing and ability to obtain financing on planned expenditures. The Moody evaluation noted:
“Since the 2000 census, the city's population increased nearly 14% to an estimated 119,775 (2009)
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 67

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

residents. The second most populous city in the state, Provo also serves as the home to Brigham Young
University (BYU), which provides some stability to the local economy with a large student population
exceeding 30,500. In addition to BYU, large employers in the city include healthcare, technology-related
entities and local government. From 2003 through 2008, full market values increased steadily at an
average of 9.0% annually, including an above average 22.6% growth in 2007 due to a reassessment cycle.
As a result of the national recession full market declined in 2009 (5.6%) and slightly in 2010 (1.2%). The
2010 full market value is still sizeable and above the national Aa1 city median at $6.9 billion and the
largest taxpayers comprise 7.8% of 2010 assessed value.”
Provo City has funded capital improvements at the Provo WRF for over 70 years using direct capital funds
and bonding when necessary.
7.4. Capital Financing Plan
Provo City has developed a funding plan that includes the funding of capital improvements through
utility service sales, impact fees and when necessary, bond revenue. The City has initiated a series of
annual rate increases of 19%, 15%, 25%, 10% and 9% that began to be implemented in fiscal year 2019.
These rate increases will increase the City revenues to meet the funding requirements for capital
expenditures and the debt service of the anticipated bonds.
In October 2019, the City requested funding of $120M from the State Revolving Fund. Along with City
Funds, this funding amount would allow the City to construct the necessary improvements identified by
the project team as the Phase 1, Preferred Project (Figure 8-1) with an estimated cost of $149M. The
Phase 1, Preferred Project would allow the City to eliminate at risk facilities as quickly as possible and
create the ability for the City to meet both current and anticipated future regulations. Based on the
funding and financing plan for this project, the City would contribute $23M of municipal capital funds
and acquire an additional $6M in bonds from a source other than the SRF. This additional funding could
be obtained through the City’s capital funds, or through additional financing in the form of a short-term
loan.
Due to higher than usual requests for funding to the Water Quality Board, there are not enough funds
available in the SRF to meet the City’s request. The City secured funding of $77.8M from the SRF at an
interest rate of 0.5% including $2M in grant funding. The City has adjusted the project scope to allow for
the most critical portions of the project to be constructed in the current project, with other scope items
delayed until the City can generate the necessary funds. The estimated capital cost for the first phase of
the adjusted project is $117M. Based on the funding and financing plan for this project, the City will
contribute $23M of municipal capital funds and acquire an additional $16M in bonds for completion of
the initial phase of the project. Subsequent phases of the project will cost approximately $40M and will
be funded with revenue from utility service sales and impact fees. It is anticipated that the second phase
of the project will be delayed approximately 5 years and the project will cost an additional $5M due to
the need for temporary facilities and cost escalation.
The phasing of the projects as described above are further explained in Section 8.2.
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 68

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

7.5. Environmental Evaluation
Alternative 1 carries the most negative environmental impacts of the three alternatives. Without
upgrades and refurbishments, the plant will not meet permit effluent limits. The 1 mg/L TP limit goes
into effect in January 1, 2020. The City has gained a variance to the TBPEL rule until 2025 to allow the
City time to pursue and develop an upgrade plan to meet the limit. Besides the current TBPEL rule, even
lower TP effluent limits may result from the DWQ’s current Utah Lake TMDL Study. Furthermore,
implementation of a TIN limit of 10 mg/L or less is anticipated. Alternative 1 does not result in hydraulic
improvements that may reduce plant pumping (energy) requirements and does not result in improved
water quality that may contribute to the plant’s long-term sustainability and water conservation goals.
Alternative 2, by contrast, addresses all current and anticipated effluent limitations by incorporating a
BNR process. There is not a significant increase in overall energy demand, except for the additional
biosolids aeration process and centrate equalization. Overall loadings to receiving waters will be
decreased by meeting nutrient limitations but the water quality will not meet reuse standards without
the addition of tertiary filtration. Therefore, Alternative 2 does not promote the City’s sustainability
objectives, though it does not preclude their future development. Also, recommended improvements to
the plant hydraulics are not included in Alternative 2. Therefore, energy demand is not decreased.
Alternative 3 is the most beneficial option for environmental protection of the alternatives. Alternative
3 meets all current and future regulatory requirements, reduces overall loadings to receiving waters and
groundwater, and improves plant hydraulics for reduced pumping energy, and optimizes the City’s
position for meeting its sustainability goals. Alternative 3 will allow the City to produce high-quality
effluent that may be reused in the future to mitigate its community water demand or sold to neighboring
municipalities to gain additional revenue. The only negative environmental impact associated with this
alternative is that compared to conventional treatment, MBR has a relatively high energy demand
associated with membrane air scour and permeate pumping. A summary of the evaluation of improved
environmental impacts of the principle alternatives is shown in Table 7-2.
Table 7-2 – Evaluation of Improved Environmental Impacts of Alternatives
Alternative 1:
No Action
Alternative 2:
Upgrade of Existing
Facilities
Alternative 3:
New Treatment
Process:
Membrane
Bioreactor (MBR)
Meets Current / Anticipated
Discharge Limits
✓ ✓
Improved Hydraulics for Reduced
Pumping / Energy Demand
✓
High-Quality Effluent for Reduced
Impact / Promotes Water Reuse
✓
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 69

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Alternative 1:
No Action
Alternative 2:
Upgrade of Existing
Facilities
Alternative 3:
New Treatment
Process:
Membrane
Bioreactor (MBR)
No overall increase in Energy
Demand ✓
Reduced Overall Loadings to
Receiving Waters
✓ ✓
Reduced Overall Impact on
Groundwater Supply
✓ ✓
7.6. Evaluation of Reliability
Reliability, as defined in EPA-430-99-74-001 Design Criteria for Mechanical, Electric, and Fluid System
and Component Reliability is “a measurement of the ability of a component or system to perform its
designated function without failure.” This document includes three reliability classes (Class I, Class II, and
Class III) based on the classification of the receiving waters. These are summarized in Table 7-3.
Table 7-3 - EPA Mechanical, Electric, and Fluid System and Component Reliability Classes
Reliability
Class
Classification of Receiving Waters Examples
Class I Navigable Waters which could be
permanently or unacceptably damaged by
effluent which was degraded in quality for
only a few hours.
Near drinking water reservoirs;
Into shellfish waters;
Near areas used for water contact sports
Class II Navigable waters which would not be
permanently or unacceptably damaged by
short-term effluent quality degradation but
could be damaged by continued (on the
order of several days) effluent quality
degradation.
Recreational waters
Class III Works not otherwise classified as Class I or
Class 2

The Mill Race serves as the current and anticipated PCWRF discharge point and is designated for
beneficial use as a warm water fishery, for secondary contact recreation, and for agricultural use such as
irrigation and livestock watering. As an impaired water body designated for recreational use, Class II
reliability criteria must be met. The criteria are generally in place to protect the system against failure
by providing a design with sufficient redundancy to achieve proper operation if a unit is in need of repair
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 70

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

or replacement, including; processes that can be isolated if they must be removed from service;
sufficient spare space and access to equipment for adequate repair, maintenance, or replacement; a
backup power source sufficient to operate vital system components during peak wastewater flow
conditions including lighting and ventilation (except for “vital components used to support the secondary
processes… [that] need not be included as long as treatment equivalent to sedimentation and
disinfection is provided”4).
Alternative 1 does not meet reliability requirements as it does not produce an effluent quality sufficient
to meet the current TBPEL rule limiting effluent phosphorus to 1 mg/L. Furthermore, the nature of the
aging infrastructure limits the plant’s ability to ensure that any repairs made will be adequate to protect
receiving waters from degradation.
Alternatives 2 and 3 both have adequate redundancy for continued operation if failure of a critical
component occurs. Both designs include isolation capabilities to remove a critical component from
service for repairs and maintenance. Access to equipment and facilities in need of repair and
maintenance are design features. However, access for Alternative 2 is limited by the space constraints
of existing facilities and their current locations. Alternative 3 has the added advantage of employing
gravity flow to the largest extent possible by improving the plant’s hydraulic profile. This will reduce the
plant’s reliance on pumping, improving its overall reliability with respect to hydraulic considerations.
7.7. Evaluation of Energy Requirements
The estimated cost of power demand for each alternative is shown in Table 7-1. Alternatives 1 and 2
carry similar overall power demands except that Alternative 2 includes BNR, biosolids aeration system,
and centrate equalization that increase the annual energy demand. Though Alternative 1 does not
represent a notable increase in energy demand compared to current demand, this system is not capable
of meeting anticipated regulatory requirements regarding nutrient removal. The additional energy
demanded by Alternative 2, provides the effective removal of phosphorus in the system, and protects
the downstream system components from nuisance struvite damage. Use of the biosolids aeration
system may also allow the City to recover and sell phosphorus (as struvite) should a local market develop
in the future.
The energy costs associated with MBR Alternative 3 are significant including the biosolids aeration
system, aeration requirements for membrane air scouring, and pumping energy required for flow
through the membranes. The increased cost of the membrane system is offset by the production of
reuse quality effluent that improves the environmental impact on surface and groundwater stores. It
also positions the City for development of a water reuse system. In addition to helping the City meet its
sustainability goals, this may also provide an additional revenue source from selling it to neighboring
communities.

4EPA Technical Bulletin EPA-430-99-74-001 Design Criteria for Mechanical, Electric, and Fluid System and Component
Reliability
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 71

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

7.8. Evaluation of Implementability
All three alternatives represent an implementable approach for the existing PCWRF. Use of an existing
site for its current intended purpose alleviates issues associated with permitting, land acquisition,
zoning, and public acceptance. The City already has a pretreatment ordinance in place that benefits the
alternative chosen (Provo City municipal code Chapter 10.04). The City has an excellent record for
completion of projects and contracts, and adequate funding exists to implement any of the three
alternatives, if properly phased. Because no action is required for Alternative 1, no implementability,
constructability, or funding issues exist except that the alternative will not meet current and anticipated
regulatory effluent limits.
The City has secured funding as outlined in Section 7.3.
The Phase 1 2020 Construction project associated with Alternative 3 are discussed in detail in the
Preliminary Design Report (PDR, see APPENDIX C) and are estimated to cost between $105M - $128M
depending on the extent of construction to be completed during the initial project phase. The new
biological treatment process must be completed by the expiration of the City’s TBPEL variance in January
2025. In order to avoid exceeding available funding, the Phase 1 2020 Construction project will be divided
into two or more packages to allow time for additional funds to be developed. Additional funds
developed between 2020-2025 will be used offset current budgetary constraints.
7.8.1. Future Expansion
Future expansion is included in the 20-year NPV estimates. Except for Alternative 1, the alternatives are
designed with straightforward expansion capability through projected community buildout conditions.
The PDR (APPENDIX C) focuses on the preliminary design of Alternative 3 and notes that all critical
facilities will be designed to be easily expanded past the buildout capacity if additional capacity is ever
needed.
7.9. Evaluation of Recreational Opportunities
The Provo WATRR Center is designed for the treatment of sewage and other human waste that enters
the sewer collection system. Its construction is on the site of the existing PCWRF facility and does not
result in the conversion of any existing recreational lands. As a wastewater treatment facility, the Provo
WATRR Center is not conducive to opportunities for recreational use. The site treats toxic wastewater,
houses dangerous chemicals, and contains high voltage facilities, among other risks that inhibit public
recreation in addition to security issues. Use of the site for recreational development may pose potential
public health, safety, and security risks. Operators who work on site are trained professionals with
extensive training and experience with these facilities. Guided tours are sometimes given for educational
purposes, but recreational use of the facility is not recommended.
7.10. Comparison of Alternatives
Given the various factors detailed in Section 7.1 through Section 7.9, the following sections summarize
the evaluation of Alternatives 1 through 3 for the new Provo WATRR Center project.
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 72

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

7.10.1. Alternative 1: No Action
The existing PCWRF has a monthly average hydraulic capacity of 21 mgd, which is approximately equal
to the unadjusted capacity required for the buildout population as described in Section 4.6.1. With
respect to hydraulic capacity, no expansion is required. However, the anticipated nutrient limitations
discussed in Section 4.6.2 and summarized in Table 4-2 will interfere with the plant’s capability to meet
permit requirements.
Meeting the current TBPEL discharge limit will require the incorporation of either a chemical phosphorus
removal system or of anaerobic basins for biological phosphorus removal in order to meet the TBPEL
concentration of 1.0 mg/L or less, neither of which constitute a no action approach. The City has a
variance that exempts the City from meeting the TBPEL limit until 2025. However, this variance was
granted considering the City’s efforts to address nutrient standards and future water quality regulations,
aging infrastructure, and risk and criticality of failure, none of which are addressed by a no action
approach.
The existing PCWRF treatment train includes aeration for ammonia reduction, and the plant is currently
meeting regulatory limits for ammonia (See Table 4-4). However, the treatment process does not
include anoxic zones for denitrification, which are necessary to meet the anticipated TIN limit. This
limitation is anticipated pending the completion of the Utah Lake Study and it is therefore critical that
for the City to plan accordingly.
Biological nutrient removal and chemical phosphorus removal will increase total solids production. The
evaluation of the existing PCWRF biosolids digestion and dewatering processes indicated that the
facilities have sufficient capacity to meet the increased solids loading resulting from BNR. However,
phosphorus release within the anaerobic digestion system was identified as a key limiting factor in the
effectiveness of a biological phosphorus removal approach. Increased phosphorus uptake within the
liquid stream will also increase in phosphorus released from sludge in the anaerobic digesters and
promote nuisance struvite formation in dewatering equipment and piping. The current struvite control
method of ferric sulfate addition is effective in addressing this issue in the absence of improved nutrient
removal processes. However, there are no permanent ferric sulfate feed facilities and the process is
burdensome on operators.
The current practice of anaerobic digestion and dewatering for the production of Class B biosolids for
land application has been extremely cost effective and the continued availability of the remote
composting facility has been identified as an important long-term option for solids disposal and will be
maintained.
Another factor to consider in evaluating a No Action alternative is the risk assessment completed for the
PCWRF in 2014, which revealed that approximately 57% of the plant’s assets are critical assets at
imminent risk of failure. An additional 23% of the PCWRF assets are recommended for high-priority
replacement in the next 1 to 3 years. Combined, approximately 80% of the PCWRF assets need
immediate or near-term replacement, improvement, upgrade, or expansion. Both the risk assessment
and regulatory drivers are discussed in Section 3, and in further detail in the Project Drivers TM in
APPENDIX B.
The PCWRF is able meet the hydraulic capacity required to meet 20-year population and flow projections
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 73

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

but it is not capable of meeting current and anticipated effluent limits. Significant modifications to the
plant’s liquid stream process must be made to meet current and anticipated effluent limits. These
changes are included in Alternative 2. Many of the existing at-risk assets are critical to plant operation
and their failure will impact operator or public health and safety, ability to meet permit, or reliable plant
operation. Therefore, it is impractical to employ a no action alternative.
7.10.2. Alternative 2: Upgrade / Operation of Existing Facility
Alternative 2 addresses upgrades to critical assets necessary to ensure adequate safety, redundancy,
and operability. The alternative does not include improvements recommended to improve hydraulics
and gravity flow, which reduce pumping and energy requirements throughout the plant. This alternative
adequately meets all anticipated regulatory requirements with respect to permitted effluent limits and
improves the plant’s effluent quality. Alternative 2 reduces the negative environmental impacts on the
environment caused by the plant compared to Alternative 1. The estimated capital cost of the upgrades
recommended through 2025 do not exceed the funds that the City has available for the project.
This option does not include tertiary filtration and does not progress the City’s sustainability goals.
Because the City’s water conservation goals do not sufficiently mitigate demand to meet long water
usage projections5, these goals must be met in the future and will require additional projects. Advances
towards reuse objectives may be made in the future when funding becomes available. More funds, time,
and infrastructure will be needed for this option to install future reuse facilities than Alternative 3.
7.10.3. Alternative 3: Biological or Physical/Chemical Treatment & Discharge to Surface
Waters: Membrane Bioreactor Option
Alternative 3 meets all current and anticipated regulatory limits. The MBR removes essentially all
suspended solids and significantly reduces effluent BOD concentrations with respect to the current
PCWRF. This will result in a positive environmental impact on surface receiving waters and downstream
groundwater quality. In addition, this alternative meets the City’s sustainability goals with respect to
producing a secondary reuse quality effluent with minor or no future modifications to the treatment
process. MBR carries a lower 20-year NPV (see Section 6.1.4 and 6.6.4) than CAS and AGS technology.
This is partially due to the smaller footprint and associated site preparation costs and to the membrane
filtration system.
A membrane filtration system has substantially higher energy demand than Alternatives 1 and 2
associated with air scour and permeate pumping. The annual maintenance costs are also higher due to
the membrane replacement costs expected about every 10 years or so. The capital investment is
somewhat lower than Alternative 2.
The overall 20-year NPV exceeds Alternative 2 by approximately $35M because of the higher O&M costs.
However, the additional monies are correlated with a higher quality effluent, reduced environmental
impacts, and result in improved operability associated with improved plant hydraulics.

5 From Provo City’s 2019 Water Conservation Plan (APPENDIX F), which was adopted in late 2019.
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 74

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

7.11. Views of Public and Concerned Interest Groups
Public Participation has been minimal at this stage of the design but is not expected to yield significantly
negative feedback. All three alternatives include using the current PCWRF site. Public controversy over
the existing site is expected to be minimal. The current site has been used for the City’s wastewater
treatment since 1956, so much of the community impact has occurred over the past several decades.
Odor control is in place, the plant is compliant with the City’s Noise Ordinance Chapter 9.06 and with all
applicable air quality regulations.
Alternative 1 will have no effect on neighboring businesses and residences due to construction, as it is a
no action alternative. However, it is not a viable option as it will not meet current and future regulations.
Alternatives 2 and 3 will not result in negative feedback from the public due to its environmental impact.
Due to improved effluent quality, these alternatives are expected to positively impact receiving waters
and downstream surface and groundwater bodies. The facility will not be constructed on or near
environmentally sensitive lands nor negatively impact those lands. Construction may interfere with local
commerce and traffic during construction, but the design will mitigate these effects to the greatest
extent possible.
8. Recommended Alternative
The recommended alternative for this project is Alternative 3, the design and construction of a new
treatment process including membrane bioreactors (MBR). The justification and reasoning for this
recommendation is included in the sections below.
8.1. Justification and Description of Selected Plan
As discussed in previous sections, the No Action alternative is not suitable for implementation. It will not
allow the City to meet the new and anticipated regulations for nutrients and does not address the risk
of failure associated with the aged infrastructure currently in use at the Provo WRF. Selection of the No
Action alternative will result in violation of the City’s discharge permit, and failure of equipment and
structures that will eliminate the facility’s ability to treat the wastewater and may create a significant
risk to the health and safety of the public and plant operators.
Alternative 2, the refurbishment of the existing treatment process, relies heavily on the continued use
of existing structures, equipment and buried infrastructure. As discussed above, the continued use of
aged infrastructure creates a significant risk of failure and may result in a catastrophic failure. The capital
costs associated with this alternative exceed the cost of constructing a new facility. The refurbishment
of the existing treatment process will allow for modifications to address new and anticipated regulations,
but these modifications will not incorporate improvements in wastewater treatment processes that are
associated with newer modern designs. This alternative is not recommended based on its inability to
adequately address the risk of failure, an inability to utilize treatment processes identified as most
advantageous to the City.
Alternative 3, the design and construction of a new treatment process including MBR provides the City
with a modern treatment process that will result in the highest water quality of the options evaluated.
This will allow the City to utilize its treated effluent as a water resource and possibly develop this
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 75

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

resource to create revenue in the future. The new treatment system will allow for the phased elimination
of aged infrastructure, significantly reducing the facility’s risk of failure. The capital cost associated with
the recommended technology, MBR, is comparable to those estimated for competing processes, but the
selection of MBR will result in the highest effluent water quality. This alternative is recommended as the
highest value option for the City and will result in the highest long-term benefit.
8.2. Design of Selected Plan
The selected plan will be implemented in accordance with the City’s ability to obtain adequate funding.
The preferred plan would require the acquisition of approximately $120M of bond revenue and would
result in the replacement of the entire liquid stream of the facility in one single phase project. If the full
funding is not obtained, the liquid stream will need to be replaced with new facilities using a phased
approach. These two strategies for design and implementation of the project are outlined in the
following sections.
8.2.1. Preferred Project Advantages
As discussed in this report, one objective of this project is to eliminate existing facilities that present a
risk of failure due to age and/or condition as early in the project as possible. This will help to ensure that
the City is able to continue to meet water quality discharge standards, minimize upsets and improve
reliability of the process. The Preferred Project will allow the entire liquid stream process to be
decommissioned within the next four years as opposed to ten years in the Phased Liquid Stream Project
approach. The earlier transition from existing to new facilities will also minimize the cost of
refurbishment necessary to keep the existing facilities in operation as well as eliminate sunk costs into
temporary facilities required to operate the new processes while utilizing the existing facilities.
This reduction of risk and elimination of approximately $5M to $10M in sunk costs is preferred by the
City and evaluations into options that will provide the necessary funds to pursue this option are in
progress.
8.2.2. Complete Liquid Stream Project (Preferred Project)
The site layouts associated with the preferred plan for the Provo WATRR Center can be seen in Figure
8-1 through Figure 8-3
8.2.2.1. Phase 1, Preferred Project
The Phase 1 project shown in Figure 8-1, will include decommissioning and replacement of the existing
influent junction structure, headworks, primary clarifiers, and primary sludge pumping station. A new
operations building will be constructed and the old one abandoned. A new influent junction structure
will be constructed, which will receive the sanitary sewer flow that was formerly received by the existing
influent junction box. New coarse screens and grit removal facilities will be constructed. Piping will be
installed to convey flow from the plant lift station and new influent junction structure to the new
headworks facilities. The primary clarifiers will be replaced by a primary screening facility, or with new
primary clarifiers.
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 76

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

The Trickling Filters that were taken offline in April 2019 and the existing secondary clarifiers are to be
demolished to make room for the new secondary treatment process. The existing final clarifiers, filter
building, and backwash tank are to be decommissioned. A new power distribution system will be added.
A new in-plant lift station will be added to the facility to receive additional sanitary sewer flows from the
area southwest of the reclamation facility. Flow received at the new lift station will be pumped directly
to the new headworks facility. The solids processing facilities are to be refurbished as necessary for
continued use, including the primary and secondary digesters, DAFT, and dewatering facility. To
promote the removal of phosphorus from the plant, and to prevent struvite scaling, a biosolids aeration
struvite control system will be added to the existing solids stream process. The major component of the
Phase 1 project is the addition of the membrane bioreactor system. A fine screen facility is required
upstream of the membranes to protect them from damage caused by small debris accumulation. The
fine screen facility will be placed downstream of the new primary clarifiers or primary screen facility. A
bypass line will allow the primary treatment process to be bypassed by directing primary influent from
the headworks to the fine screen facility.
Three bioreactors will be constructed downstream of the fine screen facility. Two valve vaults will control
flow to each of the three bioreactors. The plant’s four existing aeration basins will be repurposed for use
as equalization/surge basins to support the stable operation of the system. The flow control system will
control the flow of primary effluent into the bioreactors to eliminate daily peaks. Flow exceeding that
allowed to pass to the bioreactors will be directed to the equalization basin. When plant influent is low,
primary effluent stored in the equalization basin will gravity flow back to the influent pump station to
supplement influent rates and maintain a steady flow to the bioreactors. The bioreactors will consist of
RAS fermentation, anaerobic, anoxic, and aerobic zones that will promote the microbial removal of
solids, organics, nutrients and other wastewater constituents. The plant’s existing blower building will
be decommissioned, and a new blower building will be constructed to provide air for the biological
process and membrane air scour. Effluent from the bioreactors will be conveyed to the membrane tanks.
Permeate pumps will draw water through the membranes for discharge. A chemical storage and feed
facility located near the membrane basins will house the chemicals required for membrane maintenance
and recovery cleaning procedures. The chemical facility will also be used for the storage and feed of
metal salts for chemical phosphorus removal, if necessary. Permeate from the membrane system will be
conveyed to the existing UV disinfection facility for disinfection. Final effluent will continue to be
discharged to the Mill Race.
8.2.2.2. Phase 2, Preferred Project
The Phase 2 project, Figure 8-2, will include decommissioning the existing solids handling facilities. New
solids handling facilities will include the addition of gravity sludge tanks (GST), DAF Thickener, Centrate
Pump Station, GST and DAF Pump Station, Digesters and Digester Building, Solids Holding Tank and
Sludge Transfer Station.
8.2.2.3. Facility Expansion, Preferred Project
Future expansion of the facility, Figure 8-3, will be conducted as needed. It is anticipated that two
additional bioreactors will be required to meet the estimated buildout capacity of the Provo City service
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 77

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

area. Space is provided for a sixth bioreactor that may be necessary to accommodate higher than
expected growth in the City’s service area.
8.2.3. Phased Liquid Stream Project
Based on the currently anticipated funding limitations, this project will require replacement of the liquid
stream treatment process in two separate phases. The first phase will replace the secondary processes,
but the existing headworks and primary treatment processes will remain in service for approximately 5
years before they are replaced in the second phase of the project. The phasing for the later phases of
this project is similar to the phasing of the Preferred Project. The site layouts associated with the Phased
Liquid Stream Project plan for the Provo WATRR Center can be seen in Figure 8-4 through Figure 8-7.
8.2.3.1. Phase 1, Phased Liquid Stream Project
In Phase 1 is shown in Figure 8-4. In this phase, the Trickling Filters that were taken offline in April 2019
and the existing secondary clarifiers will be demolished to make room for the new treatment process.
The existing final clarifiers, filter building, and backwash tank will be decommissioned, and a new power
distribution system will be added. The majority of the plant’s influent will flow to the existing influent
junction structure where flow will be directed to the existing headworks facilities. A new in-plant lift
station will be added to the facility to receive additional sanitary sewer flows from the area southwest
of the reclamation facility. Flow received at the new lift station will be pumped directly to the existing
headworks facility. The existing coarse screening, grit removal, and primary clarification facilities will
continue to be used. The solids processing facilities are to be refurbished as necessary for continued use,
including the primary sludge pump station, primary and secondary digesters, DAFT, and dewatering
facility. To promote the removal of phosphorus from the plant and to prevent struvite scaling, a biosolids
aeration struvite control system will be added to the existing solids stream process. The major
component of the Phase 1 project is the addition of the membrane bioreactor system. A fine screen
facility is required upstream of the membranes to protect them from damage caused by small debris
accumulation. The fine screen facility will be placed downstream of the existing primary clarifiers. A
bypass line will allow the clarifiers to be bypassed by directing primary influent from the headworks to
the fine screen facility.
Three bioreactors will be constructed downstream of the fine screen facility. Two valve vaults will control
flow to each of the three bioreactors. The plant’s four existing aeration basins will be repurposed for use
as equalization/surge basins to support the stable operation of the system. The flow control system will
control the flow of primary effluent into the bioreactors to eliminate daily peaks. Flow exceeding that
allowed to pass to the bioreactors will be directed to the equalization basin. When plant influent is low,
primary effluent stored in the equalization basin will gravity flow back to the influent pump station to
supplement influent rates and maintain a steady flow to the bioreactors. The bioreactors will consist of
RAS fermentation, anaerobic, anoxic, and aerobic zones that will promote the microbial removal of
solids, organics, nutrients and other wastewater constituents. The plant’s existing blower building will
be decommissioned, and a new blower building will be constructed to provide air for the biological
process and membrane air scour. Effluent from the bioreactors will be conveyed to the membrane tanks.
Permeate pumps will draw water through the membranes for discharge. A chemical storage and feed
facility located near the membrane basins will house the chemicals required for membrane maintenance
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 78

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

and recovery cleaning procedures. The chemical facility will also be used for the storage and feed of
metal salts for chemical phosphorus removal, if necessary. Permeate from the membrane system will be
conveyed to the existing UV disinfection facility for disinfection. Final effluent will continue to be
discharged to the Mill Race.
8.2.3.2. Phase 2, Phased Liquid Stream Project
The Phase 2 project shown in will include decommissioning the existing influent junction structure,
headworks, primary clarifiers, and primary sludge pumping station. A new operations building will be
constructed and the old one abandoned. A new influent junction structure will be constructed, which
will receive the sanitary sewer flow that was formerly received by the existing influent junction box. New
coarse screens and grit removal facilities will be constructed. Piping will be installed to convey flow from
the plant lift station and new influent junction structure to the new headworks facilities. The primary
clarifiers will be replaced by a primary screening facility. Screened influent will flow to the bioreactors
as before.
8.2.3.3. Phase 3, Phased Liquid Stream Project
The Phase 3 project, Figure 8-6, will include decommissioning the existing solids handling facilities. New
solids handling facilities will include the addition of gravity sludge tanks (GST), DAF Thickener, Centrate
Pump Station, GST and DAF Pump Station, Digesters and Digester Building, Solids Holding Tank and
Sludge Transfer Station.
8.2.3.4. Facility Expansion, Phased Liquid Stream Project
Future expansion of the facility, Figure 8-7, will be conducted as needed. It is anticipated that two
additional bioreactors will be required to meet the estimated buildout capacity of the Provo City service
area. Space is provided for a sixth bioreactor that may be necessary to accommodate higher than
expected growth in the City’s service area.

CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 79

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Figure 8-1 – Proposed Site Layout – Phase 1, Preferred Project
24" EQR
24
"

S
P
E
LEGEND
REFURBISHED EXISTING FACILITY
REPURPOSED EXISTING FACILITY
REUSED EXISTING FACILITY
REMOVED FROM SERVICE
NEW FACILITY
CONSTRUCTED FOR A PREVIOUS PHASE
FUTURE FACILITY
OUTSIDE PROJECT
EXISTING PIPELINE
NEW PIPELINE
PIPELINE FOR A PREVIOUS PHASE
FUTURE PIPELINE
60" ML
FINE / PRIMARY
SCREENS
EXISTING
AERATION BASINS
REPURPOSED AS
SURGE STORAGE /
EQUALIZATION
BASINS
EXISTING
OPERATIONS
BUILDING
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 80

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Figure 8-2 – Proposed Site Layout – Phase 2, Preferred Project
24" EQR
24
"

S
P
E
LEGEND
REFURBISHED EXISTING FACILITY
REPURPOSED EXISTING FACILITY
REUSED EXISTING FACILITY
REMOVED FROM SERVICE
NEW FACILITY
CONSTRUCTED FOR A PREVIOUS PHASE
FUTURE FACILITY
OUTSIDE PROJECT
EXISTING PIPELINE
NEW PIPELINE
PIPELINE FOR A PREVIOUS PHASE
FUTURE PIPELINE
60" ML
FINE / PRIMARY
SCREENS
EXISTING
AERATION BASINS
REPURPOSED AS
SURGE STORAGE /
EQUALIZATION
BASINS
EXISTING
OPERATIONS
BUILDING
STRUVITE
CONTROL SYSTEM
POWER
DISTRIBUTION
BUILDING
CENTRATE
PUMP STATION
FLARE
VESSEL
H2S
VESSEL
SHT
GST AND DAF
PUMP STATION
FLOW
SPLITTER
BOX
DAF
SLUDGE
TRANSFER
STATION
DIGESTERS
THERMAL OXIDIZER
DIGESTER
BUILDING
DEWATERING
BUILDING
GST
RNG SKID
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 81

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Figure 8-3 – Proposed Site Layout – Future Expansion, Preferred Project
24" EQR
24
"

S
P
E
LEGEND
REFURBISHED EXISTING FACILITY
REPURPOSED EXISTING FACILITY
REUSED EXISTING FACILITY
REMOVED FROM SERVICE
NEW FACILITY
CONSTRUCTED FOR A PREVIOUS PHASE
FUTURE FACILITY
OUTSIDE PROJECT
EXISTING PIPELINE
NEW PIPELINE
PIPELINE FOR A PREVIOUS PHASE
FUTURE PIPELINE
60" ML
FINE / PRIMARY
SCREENS
EXISTING
AERATION BASINS
REPURPOSED AS
SURGE STORAGE /
EQUALIZATION
BASINS
EXISTING
OPERATIONS
BUILDING
STRUVITE
CONTROL SYSTEM
POWER
DISTRIBUTION
BUILDING
CENTRATE
PUMP STATION
FLARE
VESSEL
H2S
VESSEL
SHT
GST AND DAF
PUMP STATION
FLOW
SPLITTER
BOX
DAF
SLUDGE
TRANSFER
STATION
DIGESTERS
THERMAL OXIDIZER
DIGESTER
BUILDING
DEWATERING
BUILDING
GST
RNG SKID
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 82

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Figure 8-4 – Proposed Site Layout – Phase 1, Phased Liquid Stream Project
24" EQR
24
"

S
P
E
LEGEND
REFURBISHED EXISTING FACILITY
REPURPOSED EXISTING FACILITY
REUSED EXISTING FACILITY
REMOVED FROM SERVICE
NEW FACILITY
CONSTRUCTED FOR A PREVIOUS PHASE
FUTURE FACILITY
OUTSIDE PROJECT
EXISTING PIPELINE
NEW PIPELINE
PIPELINE FOR A PREVIOUS PHASE
FUTURE PIPELINE
60" ML
FINE
SCREENS
EXISTING
AERATION BASINS
REPURPOSED AS
SURGE STORAGE /
EQUALIZATION
BASINS
EXISTING
OPERATIONS
BUILDING
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 83

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Figure 8-5 – Proposed Site Layout – Phase 2, Phased Liquid Stream Project
24" EQR
24
"

S
P
E
LEGEND
REFURBISHED EXISTING FACILITY
REPURPOSED EXISTING FACILITY
REUSED EXISTING FACILITY
REMOVED FROM SERVICE
NEW FACILITY
CONSTRUCTED FOR A PREVIOUS PHASE
FUTURE FACILITY
OUTSIDE PROJECT
EXISTING PIPELINE
NEW PIPELINE
PIPELINE FOR A PREVIOUS PHASE
FUTURE PIPELINE
60" ML
FINE / PRIMARY
SCREENS
EXISTING
AERATION BASINS
REPURPOSED AS
SURGE STORAGE /
EQUALIZATION
BASINS
EXISTING
OPERATIONS
BUILDING
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 84

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Figure 8-6 - Proposed Site Layout – Phase 3, Phased Liquid Stream Project
24" EQR
24
"

S
P
E
LEGEND
REFURBISHED EXISTING FACILITY
REPURPOSED EXISTING FACILITY
REUSED EXISTING FACILITY
REMOVED FROM SERVICE
NEW FACILITY
CONSTRUCTED FOR A PREVIOUS PHASE
FUTURE FACILITY
OUTSIDE PROJECT
EXISTING PIPELINE
NEW PIPELINE
PIPELINE FOR A PREVIOUS PHASE
FUTURE PIPELINE
60" ML
FINE / PRIMARY
SCREENS
EXISTING
AERATION BASINS
REPURPOSED AS
SURGE STORAGE /
EQUALIZATION
BASINS
EXISTING
OPERATIONS
BUILDING
STRUVITE
CONTROL SYSTEM
POWER
DISTRIBUTION
BUILDING
CENTRATE
PUMP STATION
FLARE
VESSEL
H2S
VESSEL
SHT
GST AND DAF
PUMP STATION
FLOW
SPLITTER
BOX
DAF
SLUDGE
TRANSFER
STATION
DIGESTERS
THERMAL OXIDIZER
DIGESTER
BUILDING
DEWATERING
BUILDING
GST
RNG SKID
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 85

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Figure 8-7 - Proposed Site Layout – Future Expansion, Phased Liquid Stream Project
24" EQR
24
"

S
P
E
LEGEND
REFURBISHED EXISTING FACILITY
REPURPOSED EXISTING FACILITY
REUSED EXISTING FACILITY
REMOVED FROM SERVICE
NEW FACILITY
CONSTRUCTED FOR A PREVIOUS PHASE
FUTURE FACILITY
OUTSIDE PROJECT
EXISTING PIPELINE
NEW PIPELINE
PIPELINE FOR A PREVIOUS PHASE
FUTURE PIPELINE
60" ML
FINE / PRIMARY
SCREENS
EXISTING
AERATION BASINS
REPURPOSED AS
SURGE STORAGE /
EQUALIZATION
BASINS
EXISTING
OPERATIONS
BUILDING
STRUVITE
CONTROL SYSTEM
POWER
DISTRIBUTION
BUILDING
CENTRATE
PUMP STATION
FLARE
VESSEL
H2S
VESSEL
SHT
GST AND DAF
PUMP STATION
FLOW
SPLITTER
BOX
DAF
SLUDGE
TRANSFER
STATION
DIGESTERS
THERMAL OXIDIZER
DIGESTER
BUILDING
DEWATERING
BUILDING
GST
RNG SKID
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 86

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

8.3. Cost Estimates for the Selected Plan
Table 8-1 shows the estimated construction and administrative costs associated with the proposed
project for both the Preferred Project and the alternative Phased Liquid Stream Project.
Table 8-1 – Total Estimated Cost for Proposed Construction Phasing Plan
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Future Expansion
Preferred Project
Construction Costs: $138.4M $74.3M NA $35.5M
Administrative Costs: $10.8M $6.7M NA $8.1M
Total Cost: $149.2M $81.0M NA $43.6M
Preferred Project
Construction Costs: $106.9M $33.9M $74.3M $35.5M
Administrative Costs: $10.8M $3.1M $6.7M $8.1M
Total Cost: $117.7M $37.0M $81.0M $43.6M
The City’s fund balance associated with the proposed phasing and funding plan for the Preferred Project
is shown in Figure 8-8.

Figure 8-8 - 20-year Repayment Plan for Selected Alternative Assuming $120M Available Funds
The City’s fund balance associated with the proposed phasing and funding plan for the alternate project
using phased replacement of the liquid stream is shown in Figure 8-9.
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 87

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

Figure 8-9 - 20-year Repayment Plan for Selected Alternative Assuming $77.8M Available Funds
8.4. Energy Requirements of the Selected Plan
The energy requirements associated with this alternative are discussed in Section 7.2 and Table 7-1, and
are estimated at $3.77M annually. The increased energy costs associated with the MBR system are
permeate pumping costs and aeration costs associated with membrane scouring. Additional energy costs
are also associated with the addition of a biosolids aeration system.
8.5. Environmental Impacts of Selected Plan
As discussed previously in the evaluation of alternatives, the selected plan will be constructed on the
site of the existing treatment facility. This site has been utilized as a wastewater treatment facility for
nearly 70 years and no environmental impact is anticipated for its continued use. The water quality
produced by the upgraded facility will be significantly higher than that currently produced by the facility.
The treated effluent will be lower in solids and nutrients. The regulations promulgated by the Utah DWQ
to reduce phosphorus in wastewater discharges is intended to improve the health of the receiving
streams for wastewater effluent. Air quality is not anticipated to be significantly impacted by the facility
since all new generators will incorporate modern emission controls.
8.6. Arrangements for Implementation
The City has extensive experience in the implementation of plant improvements. Arrangements specific
to this project are outlined in the following sections.
8.6.1. Intermunicipal Service Agreements
The new facility will be constructed to serve the existing Provo City service area. No intermunicipal
service agreements are necessary.
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN 1/10/2020, Page 88

L:\Engineering\Projects\19-002 Provo WATRR Phase 1_{S}\09 Reports\07 Capital Facilities Plan\Capital Facilities Plan FINAL - 200110.docx
Water Works Engineers, LLC | Arcadis U.S., Inc.

8.6.2. Civil Rights Compliance
As discussed previously in this document, the construction of the new facility will be conducted in
accordance with all civil rights requirements.
8.6.3. Operation and Maintenance Requirements
The operation and maintenance of the new facility will be very similar to the requirements of the existing
facility. The biological process utilized is fundamentally similar and is well understood by plant
operations staff. The solids separation process is an improvement to the current use of sedimentation
and granular media filtration and will result in improved operability.
The maintenance requirements at the facility will be improved as aging equipment is replaced by new,
modern equipment. The equipment used is similar to that currently employed at the facility. Membrane
maintenance will be a key area for training and education of the operations staff. Accordingly, the
membrane supplier will be required to assist with training in operation and maintenance of the new
membranes.
It is anticipated that operations staffing requirements will be very similar to those currently in use at the
facility.
8.6.4. Pre-treatment Program
As discussed previously, the City has implemented and operates an approved pre-treatment program.
The selected alternative will have no impact on the established plan.
8.7. Land Acquisition
The Provo WATRR Center is to be constructed on the existing PCWRF site. The site is wholly owned by
Provo City, and expansion beyond the limits of the property is not required. Therefore, consideration of
the availability and acquisition of property was not required. Land acquisition was considered insofar as
the siting and regionalization studies (APPENDIX D and APPENDIX O, respectively).