fc-ii^jriiitir^^ ='-' j
^pjOF^I^jl^^ ;;:/^ :; *j
$'lj!y'i;!vfeUi^^^^ / " :""' I
"', .><'*' '.'* l;t'."''!'if r" ''','' 7i'* 'j'r^.'' '';<' = : -i'' 'J'i' f'-'-f?*'^''^''?'/.; ;\;'' .-^ ,!'*'"*'' '«", '-ii-:" ^f ^''":}" '^'' !"', '. '"' '" ''- - *'' * ''
'/ , '*';"'';-''-.,:> "''<. 'f ?:' II' Jn':'';V*"- -'*' ' ""'' '» ?;"'l:^,v,;?, : 'j: ~'\.,' li'"'--v ^^i**"it'. ": "'' .: " -"
: "' ' ".''-' ,,",'''' !"-;I -":*'-i: ~'\' 'Y- "t;'1 .'{''''":'*'':;'. .',"';
-------
Document is available for sale to the public through:
Educational Resource Information Center
Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics and
Environmental Education (ERIC/CSMEE)
1929 Kenny, Columbus, Ohio 43210-1015
National Technology Information Service,
5285 Port Royal, Springfield, Virginia 22161
COVER; Androscoggrn River
RIGHT INSETi Monterey Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant
LEFT INSET; Palm Desert Wastewater Reclamation Facility
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP 2 3 1997
THE ADMINISTRATOR
The Honorable Albert Gore, Jr.
President of the Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Mr. President:
Enclosed is the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) 1996 Clean Water Needs
Survey report on the "Assessment of Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities,
Correction of Combined Sewer Overflows, and Management of Storm Water and Nonpoint Source
Pollution in the United States." This report is required biennially by sections 205(a) and 516(b)(l)
of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and is a joint effort by the States and EPA.
The survey covers the broad range of water quality and public health problems eligible for
funding from the State Revolving Fund program under Title VI of the CWA. This includes the
collection and treatment of municipal wastewater, the control of combined sewer overflows, storm
water management, and the control of nonpoint source runoff.
The survey includes only those needs related to documented public health or water quality
problems. In some categories of need, notably storm water and nonpoint source pollution, States
have limited documentation of need or cost. In these cases, EPA used models to supplement the
documented needs.
The 1996 survey report also discusses the possibility of assessing needs on a watershed
basis in the future. This comprehensive approach may help identify the needs that would best
achieve water quality goals in a cost-effective manner.
I would be pleased to further discuss the results of this survey at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Carol M. Browner
Enclosure
Recycled/Recyclable Printed with Vegetable till Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (20% Postconsumer)
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SEP 2 3 199?
THE ADMINISTRATOR
The Honorable Newt Gingrich
Speaker of the House of
Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Speaker:
Enclosed is the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) 1996 Clean Water Needs
Survey report on the "Assessment of Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities,
Correction of Combined Sewer Overflows, and Management of Storm Water and Nonpoint Source
Pollution in the United States." This report is required biennially by sections 205(a) and 516(b)(l)
of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and is a joint effort by the States and EPA.
The survey covers the broad range of water quality and public health problems eligible for
funding from the State Revolving Fund program under Title VI of the CWA. This includes the
collection and treatment of municipal wastewater, the control of combined sewer overflows, storm
water management, and the control of nonpoint source runoff.
The survey includes only those needs related to documented public health or water quality
problems. In some categories of need, notably storm water and nonpoint source pollution, States
have limited documentation of need or cost. In these cases, EPA used models to supplement the
documented needs.
The 1996 survey report also discusses the possibility of assessing needs on a watershed basis
in the future. This comprehensive approach may help identify the needs that would best achieve
water quality goals in a cost-effective manner.
I would be pleased to further discuss the results of this survey at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Carol M. Browner
Enclosure
Recycled/Recyclable » Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper <20% Postconsumer)
-------
-------
1996
Clean Water Needs Survey
Report to Congress
Assessment of Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater
Treatment Facilities, Correction of Combined Sewer
Overflows, and Management of Storm Water and
Nonpoint Source Pollution in the United States
SEPTEMBER 1997
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-5837
V;
\
UI
a
-------
-------
Acknowledgments
The success of the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey is the result of
the hard work and dedicated contribution of many individuals.
Particular recognition goes to the EPA Regional and State Coordinators
for their active support, perseverance, and continuing interest in the Clean
Water Needs Survey.
Region I - John O'Connor
Connecticut - Dennis Greci
Maine - Dennis Purington
Massachusetts - Donald St. Marie
New Hampshire - Franz Vail
Rhode Island - Ray Pena
Vermont - Nopadon Sundarabhaya
Region II - Ray Kvalheim
New Jersey - David Shu
New York - David Geisinger
Puerto Rico - Roberto Berrios
Virgin Islands - Ann Abramson
Region III - Thomas O. Maher
Delaware - Terry Deputy
District of Columbia - Mohsin
Siddique
Maryland - Charlotte Holland
Pennsylvania - John Kerecz
Virginia - Walter Gills
West Virginia - Rosalie Broderson
Region IV - Ben Chen
Alabama - David Hutchinson
Florida - Gary Powell
Georgia - Randy Durham
Kentucky - Brent Stoudt
Mississippi - James MacLellan
North Carolina - Jim Behmer
South Carolina - Eugene Watts, Jr.
Tennessee - Steve Janes
Region V - William Tansey
Illinois - James Leinicke
Indiana - Paul Serguta
Michigan - Ena Lindberg
Minnesota - Deb Lindlief
Ohio - Margaret Klepic
Wisconsin - Becky Scott
Region VI - Gene Wossum
Arkansas - Dave Fenter
Louisiana - Catherine Lundergan
New Mexico - Ramona Rael
Oklahoma - Jack Pipkin
Texas - Bill Allen
Region VH - Kelly Beard-Tittone
Iowa - Fred Benson
Kansas - Rod Geisler
Missouri - Doug Garrett
Nebraska - Susan Hoppel
Region VIII - Minnie Adams
Colorado - Brian Ehrle
Montana - Gerri Reeves
North Dakota - Gary Reed
South Dakota - Jim Wendte
Utah - Paul Krauth
Wyoming - Mark Escobedo
Region IX - Loretta Vanegas
Arizona - Suzanne Price
California - Eric Torguson
Hawaii - Gus Gustafson
Nevada - James Williams
U.S. Territories - Loretta Vanegas
Region X - Lee Daneker
Alaska - Mike Burns
Idaho - Alan Stanford
Oregon - Martin Loring
Washington - Toni Canova
-------
Table of Contents
Eige
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
INTRODUCTION 4
What Is the Clean Water Needs Survey? 4
How Is the CWNS Used? 4
What Are the Objectives of the 1996 CWNS? 5
What Is the Scope of the CWNS? 5
What Is a "Need"? 5
What Are the Eligible Clean Water Needs Categories? 6
What Is the Priority of aNeed? 6
What Time Period Is Covered? 6
What Needs Were Reported and Documented? 7
What Needs Were Modeled? 7
What Is the Scale of the Sanitary Sewer Overflow Needs? 7
What Is the Relationship to the Drinking Water Needs Survey? 8
KEYRESULTS 9
What Are the 1996 Clean Water Needs? 9
How Have the Needs Changed? 10
How Are the Needs Distributed? 12
What Are the Needs for Small Communities? 14
What Are the Separate State Estimates? 16
What Is the Status of the Municipal Wastewater Treatment Infrastructure? 17
DOCUMENTATION OF NEEDS 20
What Is the Purpose of Documenting Needs? 20
What Levels of Documentation Were Accepted for Needs Justification? 20
What Were the Redocumentation Requirements? 20
How Did Documentation Requirements Differ for Small Communities? 20
How Were Needs Estimated if Supporting Documents Did Not
Contain Cost Data? 21
How Were the CSO Needs Calculated? 21
How Were On-site Reviews Used in Support of the CWNS? 22
What Was the Connection Between Documentation and the Separate
State Estimates? 22
-------
MODELING OF STORM WATER NEEDS .: 24
Why Were the Phase I Storm Water Program Needs Modeled? 24
What Are the Phase I SW Program Requirements? 24
What Are the Goals for SW in the 1996 CWNS? 25
What Is the Modeled Estimate for the 1996 Phase I SW Program Needs? 25
What Cost Estimating Methodology Was Used? : 25
What Are the Limitations of the SW Cost Modeling? 26
MODELING OF NONPOINT SOURCE NEEDS 27
Why Were Nonpoint Source Needs Modeled? 27
WhatlsNPS Pollution? 27
What Are the Goals for NPS in the 1996CWNS? 27
What Are Eligible NPS Needs? 28
What Is Included or Excluded from the Modeled NPS Estimates? 28
What Is the Modeled Estimate for NPS Control Needs? 28
How Were Cropland, Pastureland, and Rangeland Modeled? 29
How Were Confined Animal Facilities Modeled? 30
How Was Silviculture Modeled? 31
What Are the Limitations of NPS Control Modeling? 32
WATERSHED-BASED NEEDS ACCOUNTING 33
How Can Watershed-Based Needs Accounting Enhance
Water Quality-Based Planning? 33
Wisconsin: Yahara-Monona Watershed 33
Vermont: LaPlatte River Watershed 34
Tennessee: Richland Creek Watershed 36
What Can Be Concluded from These Case Studies? 37
CONCLUDING REMARKS 39
GLOSSARY 41
LIST OF ACRONYMS 51
APPENDICES 53
A - Summary of 1996 CWNS Cost Estimates A-l
B - Summary of 1992 CWNS Cost Estimates B-l
C - Summary of 1996 Technical Information C-l
D - Summary of 1996 CWNS Documentation Types D-l
-------
List of Tables
Table
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment
Facilities and Other Eligibilities 9
Summary of Documented Needs 10
Comparison of Total Needs 1988 through 1996 Clean Water
Needs Surveys } 1
Improvements in Treatment Level of Wastewater
Treatment Facilities 18
Infrastructure Improvements from Meeting Design Year Needs 18
Modeled Needs for Nonpoint Source Pollution Control 29
Yahara-Monona Watershed Needs 34
LaPlatte River Watershed Needs 35
Richland Creek Subwatershed Needs 36
IV
-------
List of Figures
ure
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
Page
Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment
Facilities and Other Eligibilities 2
Distribution of Documented and Modeled Needs 12
Distribution of Needs to Correct Combined Sewer Overflows 12
Distribution of Modeled Storm Water Needs 13
Distribution of Modeled Nonpoint Source Needs 13
Comparison of Documented Small Community Facility
Needs and Larger Community Facility Needs by Category 14
Distribution of Small Community Facility Needs 15
Percentage of Small Community Facilities When All
Documented Needs Are Met 15
Comparison of Small Community Facilities to the
Nation When All Documented Needs Are Met 16
Comparison of Documented Needs and Separate
State Estimates by Category 17
Location of the Yahara-Monona Watershed 34
Location of the LaPlatte River Watershed 35
Location of the Richland Creek Watershed 36
-------
-------
Report to Congress
Executive
Summary
The 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey, a
joint effort of the States and EPA, was
conducted to meet the requirements of
Sections 205(a) and 516(b)(l) of the
Clean Water Act.
This report presents the results
of the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency's (EPA's) 1996
Clean Water Needs Survey
(CWNS). It includes EPA's detailed
estimates of the capital costs eligible
for funding under the State Revolv-
ing Fund (SRF) provisions of the
1987 Amendments to the Clean Wa-
ter Act (CWA). The
CWNS covers publicly
owned, municipal waste-
water collection and treat-
ment facilities, facilities
for the control of com-
bined sewer overflows
(CSOs), activities ' de-
signed to control storm
water (SW) runoff and
nonpoint source (NPS)
pollution, and programs
designed to protect the
nation's estuaries.
The goal of the 1996 CWNS was to
provide a broad and valuable source
of water quality program informa-
tion. The primary objective was to
update and expand the documented
costs for all program categories eli-
gible for SRF funding. Another
objective was to improve the esti-
mates for the needs that depend on
cost curves and cost models. The
national CSO cost model used in the
1992 CWNS was replaced by site-
specific cost curves. Also, the 1992
cost model for the NPS management
programs to control runoff from
agriculture, confined animal facili-
ties, and silviculture was updated
with more current data for 1996. In
addition, a new national cost model
was developed to estimate the Phase
I municipal Storm Water (Phase I
SW) Program needs. Substantial
effort also went into improving the
technical information associated
with individual facilities and into
improving the needs estimates for
small communities.
The 1996 CWNS, the twelfth such
survey since the CWA was passed in
1972, is a cooperative effort between
EPA and the States. The heart of the
CWNS is the database that contains
technical and cost information on
approximately 16,000 publicly
owned wastewater treatment facili-
ties. The database also contains cost
and technical information for other
specific programs and projects that
target documented water quality or
public health problems. The CWNS
does not address private wastewater
treatment facilities that are, never-
theless, an integral part of the na-
tion's water quality infrastructure.
The 1996 CWNS does not include
needs for Indian tribes on reserva-
tions. A separate assessment is con-
ducted and presented to Congress
annually by the Indian Health Ser-
vice for the needs of Indians and
Alaska Native Villages.
The total 1996 documented and
modeled needs are estimated to be
$139.5 billion, to satisfy all program
categories eligible for SRF funding
for the design year (2016) popula-
tion. These needs are summarized
in Figure 1. The total includes $44.0
billion for wastewater treatment;
$10.3 billion for upgrading existing
wastewater collection systems;
$21.6 billion for new sewer con-
struction; and $44.7 billion for con-
trolling CSOs.
States reported documented needs in
the 1996 CWNS for all program
areas. However, the total needs
shown in Figure 1 include only the
-------
2
1996 OWNS
modeled estimates, rather than docu-
mented needs for those program
areas that EPA modeled. Models
were used to estimate SW and NFS
needs on a State-by-State basis for
the entire nation. These are areas in
which most States have little
documentation on specific projects.
The modeled needs estimates are
$7.4 billion for SW and $9.4 billion
for NFS projects. The supplemental
modeling does not include needs for
controlling various other types of
water quality problems, such as
abandoned mine drainage, septic
systems, contaminated sediments,
unintended stream modification, and
atmospheric deposition.
The water quality program needs for
small communities are significant.
The total documented needs for
communities with populations less
than 10,000 are $13.8 billion, repre-
senting 11 percent of the total docu-
mented needs for the nation. There
is a greater requirement in small
communities for basic infrastructure
when compared to the needs for
larger communities. Whereas sec-
ondary treatment (Category I) com-
prises 20 percent of the total docu-
mented needs for larger communi-
ties, the proportion is 28 percent for
small communities. New collector
sewers (Category IVA) account for
only 6 percent of the total docu-
mented need for larger communities
but represent 29 percent for small
communities. This reflects, in part,
the continuing efforts to extend
wastewater col lection and treatment
to small communities.
Nationally, 16,024 wastewater treat-
ment facilities are identified in the
1996 CWNS. These facilities pro-
vide service to 190 million people,
representing 73 percent of the total
population (258 million). Based on
State population estimates, when all
of the needs are met in 2016, there
will be 18,303 publicly owned
wastewater treatment facilities serv-
ing 275 million people, or 90 per-
cent of the projected population (3 05
million).
The 1996 CWNS results show a
continuing trend toward higher lev-
els of wastewater treatment. In
~ -'.<- *..-;*Sn^ ^>> ......
FIGURE 1
,;:^:;; (January 1996 Dollars in Billions)
f ia
VIIE
12%
IVB
8%
Si. NEEDS CATEGORY
TOTAL JNEE0S
rf If LE II ELIGIBLE PROJECTS
f
Secondary Treatment
.Advanced Treatment
Infiltration/Inflow Correction
Sewer Replacement/Rehabilitation
New Collector Sewers
New interceptor Sewers
Combined Sewer Overflows
Sform Water* , ,
|
il
II1A
IIIB
IVA
IVB
V
iY!
TOTAL CATEGORIES I-VI
26.5
17.5
3.3
7.0
10.8
10.8
44.7
f 7,4;,,,
128.0
i OTHER ELIGIBLE PROJECTS (Sections 319 and 320)
| V|JA:C , Njonpoint Source (agriculture and silviculture only)*
L VHD Urban Runoff
VJ|E G Gmund Water Estuaries, Wetlands
ps TOTAL CATEGORY vn
9.4
1.0
1.1
11,5
*W 11 K
139.5
f. Estimated Category VI needs documented
!«K« by the States are $3.2 Billion. Estimated Category VIlA-C needs
^documegted by the States are $0.5 Billion.
ijsn^ma^ntenaricjj^
iiilinn iraiW'taJlirtiWHIiWiM
: ..
-------
Report to Congress
1988, 1,789 (11 percent) pf the
15,591 operational facilities were
providing less than secondary treat-
ment. This declined to 868 (6 per-
cent) in 1992 and to 176 (1 percent)
in 1996. At the same time, there has
been a steady increase in the propor-
tion of facilities providing greater
than secondary treatment. In 1988,
22 percent of the 15,591 facilities
provided greater than secondary
treatment. This grew to 24 percent
in 1992. In 1996, 28 percent (4,428
out of 16,024) of the operational
treatment facilities are providing
greater than secondary treatment.
Sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) are
releases of raw sewage from a sani-
tary sewer collection system before
the headworksof a wastewater treat-
ment plant. The most immediate
health risks associated with SSOs
are bacteria, viruses, and other
pathogens. Accordingly, SSO prob-
lems have much in common with the
needs addressed by the CWNS.
SSO problems can be found
throughout the United States. Al-
though SSO needs are not identified
separately in the CWNS, some asso-
ciated costs to address SSO prob-
lems are included in Categories I,
III, and IV. In general, EPA be-
lieves that the needs estimates in
these categories related to SSOs
underestimate the total costs associ-
ated with preventing SSOs. There-
fore, the scale of the SSO problem is
currently being addressed by EPA
separately from the CWNS. EPA is
developing cost estimates for ad-
dressing SSOs on a national basis to
support the work of the SSO Federal
Advisory Committee and other
Agency work.
Historically, the needs in the CWNS
have been presented on a State-by-
State basis. In part this reflects the
responsibility that the States have in
achieving water quality standards
and other CWA goals. Recently,
however, substantial emphasis has
been placed on using the watershed
approach to address the water qual-
ity goals of the CWA more holisti-
cally. Rather than managing sources
of pollution within political bound-
aries or from a single type of dis-
charge, the watershed provides a
more comprehensive view for both
analysis and efficient use of
resources. EPA has issued several
guidance documents discussing how
a watershed approach helps attain
CWA goals. The watershed ap-
proach offers the prospect of more
efficiently managing the available
resources within a watershed by
optimizing investment in water qual-
ity improvement and improving
communication and coordination.
The 1996 CWNS information is
presented on a State-by-State basis.
However, the implications of orga-
nizing the same data on a watershed
basis are also explored. Later in this
report, three case studies are
presented that illustrate the nature of
organizing needs information by
watershed. The 1996 CWNS fore-
shadows the direction in which EPA
believes water quality management
will progress. While States continue
to have primary responsibility for
achieving CWA goals, these goals
may be best pursued on a watershed
basis.
While the CWNS is neither designed
nor intended to be used as a vehicle
for determining funding priority
under the SRF program, priority
setting is an important part of all
EPA programs and is key to the
success of addressing problems on a
watershed basis. Although EPA
encourages States to give priority to
projects that are necessary to ensure
compliance with the requirements of
the CWA, States may fund any proj-
ect on their State priority list, re-
gardless of its position on the list.
Over the past two years, EPA has
been working with their State coun-
terparts in the Clean Water SRF
program to outline options for en-
hanced planning and priority sys-
tems that would include nonpoint
source and estuary projects along
with more traditional wastewater
treatment projects. The objective of
this and other ongoing efforts is to
target SRF resources better to solve
high priority problems in the na-
tion's watersheds.
-------
1996 OWNS
Introduction
What Is the Clean Water Needs Survey?
The Environmental Protection
Agency's CWNS is required
by Sections 205(a) and 516(b)(l) of
the CWA. The CWNS is a summary
of the estimated capital costs for
water quality projects and other
activities eligible for SRF support as
authorized by the 1987 CWA
Amendments. These activities in-
clude both facilities and certain wa-
ter quality program elements. Activ-
ities include the plan-
ning, design, and
construction of pub-
licly owned waste-
water collection and
treatment systems
and projects controlling CSOs, SW,
and NFS pollutants. Other eligible
water quality program elements are
those that involve one-time expendi-
tures supporting the CWA goals,
such as program development and
implementation. Ongoing expendi-
tures, such as operation and main-
tenance (O&M) costs, are not
included. The 1996 CWNS, a joint
effort of the States and EPA, is the
twelfth such survey since the CWA
was enacted in 1972.
How Is the CWNS Used?
The CWNS has served as a basis for
Congressional allocation of funds
for the Construction Grants program
as established by the CWA in 1972,
and for capitalization grants for the
SRF program. Further, the CWNS
can help States and EPA plan how
they will attain and maintain CWA
goals. The needs estimates and
other information that are compiled
for the CWNS can help agencies
develop a comprehensive view of
the projects and other activities nec-
essary to comply with the CWA.
The SRF program gives States the
flexibility to fund projects that are
more comprehensive than those
eligible under Title II of the CWA,
including new or expanded treat-
ment facilities to accommodate pro-
jected population growth. States can
allocate SRF funding to a broader
range of projects to address the
problems that they consider most
significant in terms of achieving
water quality goals. This flexibility
provides the opportunity to develop
watershed-based water quality plans.
Aggregating needs by watershed can
provide a useful complement to
needs aggregated by jurisdictional
boundaries. Among other benefits,
identifying needs by watershed can
help to develop a strategy to opti-
mize the effectiveness of water qual-
ity investment in the watershed.
The CWNS is used to assist the Fed-
eral government and the States in
program planning, policy evaluation,
and program management. Private
firms, public interest groups, and
trade associations use CWNS infor-
mation in marketing, cost estimat-
ing, and policy formulation.
The CWNS database contains de-
tailed cost and technical information
on publicly owned wastewater treat-
ment and collection facilities nation-
wide, and includes data on facilities
with existing needs and on those for
which needs have already been met.
The primary purpose of this report is
to summarize the cost information
for existing needs.
-------
Report to Congress
What Are the Objectives of the
1996 CWNS?
The goal of the 1996 CWNS is to
provide a broad and valuable source
of water quality program informa-
tion. The primary objective is to
update and expand the documented
costs for all program categories eli-
gible for SRF funding. This in-
cluded a substantial redocumen-
tation effort for individual docu-
mented projects with needs greater
than $5 million and documentation
dated prior to 1990.
Another objective is to improve the
estimates for the needs that depend
on cost curves and cost models. In
the 1992 CWNS report, CSO needs
were estimated in part by a national
cost model. This model has been
replaced by CSO cost curves suit-
able for use on a site-specific basis.
These cost curves were used in con-
junction with documented needs to
arrive at the total CSO control
needs. The 1992 cost model for the
NFS management programs to con-
trol runoff from agriculture, con-
fined animal facilities, and silvicul-
ture was revised for greater accu-
racy. A new national cost model
was developed for estimating the
SW needs.
Finally, substantial effort went into
improving the technical information
associated with individual facilities,
particularly population and flow
data, and into improving the needs
estimates for small communities.
What Is the Scope of the CWNS?
The 1996 CWNS includes water
quality programs and projects eligi-
ble for funding under the SRF pro-
The CWNS defines the needs for ensuring clean water
gram in accordance with Title VI of
theCWA. It encompasses the docu-
mented capital costs required to
meet the needs of the nation's waste-
water collection and treatment infra-
structure in accordance with Section
212oftheCWA. It also covers the
NFS and National Estuary Programs
defined in Sections 319 and 320 of
the CWA, respectively. ;
This report also includes modeled
estimates for the Phase I SW Pro-
gram and NFS control programs, for
which documented information was
not available or was incomplete.
Modeling did not directly cover
eligibilities in all NFS areas, such as
ground water, estuaries, and wet-
lands. In these areas, only the docu-
mented needs are reported. The esti-
mates do not reflect the total costs
required to address problems in
these areas. For estuaries, EPA as-
sumed that the majority of the activ-
ities conducted under the Section
320 estuary programs are either
point source or NFS control activi-
ties and that their needs will be cap-
tured in Categories I-VI or by the
NFS model.
The needs for small communities are
emphasized in the 1996 CWNS.
While individually the small com-
munity needs are often overshad-
owed by those of larger population
centers, collectively they make up a
substantial portion (11 percent) of
the total documented needs and 71
percent of the total number of facili-
ties.
What Is a "Need"?
With respect to the CWNS, a "need"
is a cost estimate for a project eligi-
ble for SRF funding under the CWA.
It includes those costs associated
with the prevention or abatement of
a public health or water quality
problem. The cost estimates for the
needs identified in the 1996 CWNS
database were either reported by the
States or modeled by EPA.
Reported needs include costs for
facilities used in conveyance, stor-
age and treatment, and recycling and
-------
7996 OWNS
reclamation of municipal waste-
water. In addition, costs for struc-
tural and nonstructural measures and
costs to develop and implement
State and municipal SW and NFS
programs were included in the data-
base. For the modeled categories
(i.e., SW and NFS), EPA prepared
cost estimates for facilities and pro-
gram activities eligible for funding
under the SRF program.
Needs estimates for all categories do
not include annual costs for O&M.
They also do not include needs that
are ineligible for Federal assistance
under Title VI of the CWA, such as
house connections to sewers and
costs to acquire land that is not a
part of the treatment process.
What Are the Eligible Clean Water
Needs Categories?
Needs estimates are presented for
the following categories of waste-
water treatment and water pollution
control projects:
Category I
Secondary Wastewater Treatment
Category II
Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Category UIA
Infiltration/Inflow Correction
Category IHB
Replacement/Rehabilitation of
Sewers
Category IVA
New Collector Sewers
Category IVB
New Interceptor Sewers
Category V
Combined Sewer Overflow
Control
Category VI
Storm Water Control (Phase I mu-
nicipal Storm Water Program)
Category VIIA
NPS Control: Agriculture (Crop-
land)
Category VIIB
NPS Control: Agriculture (Con-
fined Animal Facilities)
Category VHC
NPS Control: Silviculture
Category VHD
NPS Control: Urban Runoff
Category VIIE
NPS Control: Ground Water Pro-
tection
Category VIIF
NPS Control: EstuarineProtection
Category VHG
NPS Control: Wetlands Protection
Categories I-V were prominent in
the Construction Grants program.
Accordingly, these are often referred
to as "traditional" needs categories.
A more detailed explanation of all
these categories can be found in the
Glossary.
What Is the Priority of a Need?
The CWNS does not attempt to pri-
oritize the various categories of need
and is not intended to be used by
States as a vehicle for determining
the priority of eligible needs projects
to be funded. Under the SRF pro-
gram, States may fund any project
on their priority list regardless of its
position on the list. However, EPA
encourages the States, to the maxi-
mum extent practicable, to give pri-
ority to the needs that:
address the most serious risks to
human health; and
are necessary to ensure compli-
ance with requirements of the
CWA.
Over the past two years, the EPA
Clean Water SRF program staff has
been working with its State partners
to develop a document that would
clarify the range of projects that may
be funded with the SRF. The SRF
Funding Framework (EPA 832-B-
96-005, October 1996) is a policy
and guidance document that outlines
options for States to consider for
improving and enhancing their sys-
tems for planning and prioritizing
projects eligible for funding. The
Framework presents two broad op-
tions for States that would integrate
broader watershed planning activi-
ties to include NPS and estuary pro-
jects along with more traditional
wastewater treatment projects.
\
What Time Period Is Covered?
The eligible needs identified in this
report include existing needs as of
January 1, 1996. Historically, be-
cause of the nature of the Construc-
tion Grants program, wastewater
infrastructure needs were planned
and designed for a community for a
20-year period. This period approxi-
mates the design life for newly con-
structed facilities that are designed
to meet the requirements of the cur-
rent population plus the net popula-
-------
Report to Congress
tion change for the next 20 years.
Thus, for those facilities with an
existing need, estimates are reported
for the "design year" (2016).
Since the 1987 passage of the CWA
Amendments, however, communi-
ties often plan their infrastructure
needs for a shorter period. This
planning horizon for SW, NFS, and
other program areas may be only
five or ten years and States often
submit five- and ten-year planning
documents as the basis for docu-
menting a need. These are all re-
viewed in accordance with the estab-
lished documentation criteria.
What Needs Were Reported and
Documented?
As in prior CWNSs, EPA asked
States to update their needs for
waste water treatment and collection
on a facility-by-facility basis in ac-
cordance with established documen-
tation criteria for all categories of
need. A more detailed discussion of
the documentation process is pre-
sented later in this report in the sec-
tion entitled "Documentation of
Needs." Additionally, a special
effort was made in the 1996 CWNS
to improve the quality and national
consistency in the reporting of docu-
mented needs. Special criteria, de-
veloped jointly by EPA and the
CWNS Workgroup, required States
to redocument their needs greater
than $5 million if the documentation
was dated prior to 1990.
What Needs Were Modeled?
In past CWNSs, certain categories of
needs were not adequately reported,
often because the information to
complete the necessary planning was
lacking. There is reason to believe
that some needs continue to be un-
derestimated. For example, since
States and localities are still evaluat-
ing how to meet the requirements of
the Phase I SW Program, the docu-
mented needs do not fully reflect the
program costs. In the case of NFS
pollution, types of controls very
different from traditional wastewater
treatment infrastructure may be re-
quired. For these reasons, EPA de-
veloped modeled estimates for the
Phase I SW Program and selected
NFS programs to be able to present
more complete needs estimates in
the 1996 CWNS report. Ultimately,
the goal is to supplant modeled esti-
mates with documented needs.
Summaries of the modeling method-
ologies are presented in the sections
on modeled needs.
What Is the Scale of the Sanitary
Sewer Overflow Needs?
SSOs are releases of raw sewage
from a sanitary sewer collection
system before the headworks of a
wastewater treatment plant. SSO
problems can be found throughout
the United States. The most imme-
diate health risks associated with
SSOs are bacteria, viruses, and other
pathogens.
The scale of the SSO problems is
being studied by EPA. In efforts
separate from the CWNS, EPA is
developing cost estimates for ad-
dressing SSOs on a national basis to
support the work of the SSO Federal
Advisory Committee and other
Agency work.
The causes of and solutions to the
SSO problems are closely related to
the issues addressed by the CWNS.
SSOs can be caused by a variety of
factors, including blockages, system
failures (e.g., power outages at pump
stations or pipe collapses), high
flows caused by large volumes of
infiltration and inflow (I/I), and
inadequate pipe or pump capacity.
A comprehensive mix of measures is
needed to prevent SSOs, including:
Sewer and pump rehabilitation/
replacement;
I/I correction measures;
Expansion of sewer, interceptor,
and pump capacity to address ex-
isting capacity limitations and/or
to provide for future growth;
Expansion of treatment plant ca-
pacity;
Provision of backup facilities;
Preventive maintenance measures
(e.g., cleaning); and
Improved operational procedures.
Although SSO needs are not identi-
fied separately in the CWNS, many
costs associated with these measures
overlap with, and are included in,
needs Categories I, IIIA, IIIB, IVA,
and IVB. In many cases, docu-
mented needs in Categories IIIA and
IIIB are related to preventing SSOs
and related treatment plant comp-
liance problems. The overlap in
other categories is expected to be
less. In general, EPA believes that
the needs estimates in these catego-
ries related to SSOs underestimate
the total costs associated with pre-
venting SSOs for the following rea-
sons:
-------
8
Many municipalities have not
fully investigated their SSOs or
measures necessary to correct
them;
Some municipalities have not sub-
mitted documented needs for SSO
correction measures such as I/I
measures or sewer rehabilitation/
replacement because these types of
projects have traditionally been
given low priority; and
Some of the costs of addressing
SSOs are not capital related (e.g.,
preventive maintenance and opera-
tional measures) and are not eligi-
ble for funding under the SRF
program.
What Is the Relationship to the
Drinking Water Needs Survey?
There is a close parallel between the
CWNS and the Drinking Water
Needs Survey (DWNS). In the
CWNS, needs are associated with
meeting the requirements of the
CWA. In the DWNS, needs are
associated with meeting the require-
ments of the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) and maintaining the
infrastructure of drinking water sys-
tems. In considering the cost impli-
cations for water, wastewater, and
other water quality utilities, both
types of needs are generally addi-
tive. However, in certain cases,
improvements in water quality may
even reduce the need for drinking
water treatment.
1996 CWNS
-------
Report to Congress
Table 1 presents EPA's estimates
of the investment necessary to
address the nation's municipal water
quality needs. The table is a sum-
mary of both docu-
mented needs and mod-
eled estimates, with to-
tal SRF-eligible needs
What Are the 1996 Clean Water Needs? of $139.5 billion. The
needs for wastewater
treatment (Categories I and IT) and
collection (Categories m and
Key Results
IV) are $44.0 billion and $31.9 bil-
lion, respectively. Needs for CSO
controls (Category V) total $44.7
billion. The modeled needs for SW
(Category VI), estimated to be $7.4
billion, reflect the programs in those
communities required to obtain a
Phase I SW Program National Pol-
lutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit. The total NFS
needs are $11.5 billion, including
modeled and documented estimates.
TABLE 1
NEEDS FOR PUBLICLY OWNED WASTEWATER TREATMENT
FACILITIES AND OTHER ELIGIBILITIES
(January 1996 Dollars in Billions)
NEEDS CATEGORY
TOTAL NEEDS
II ELIGIBLE PROJECTS
1 Secondary Treatment 26.5
^Advanced Treatment 17.5
'Infiltration/Inflow Correction 3.3
Sewer Replacement/Rehabilitation 7.0
"New Collector Sewers 10.8
, New Interceptor Sewers 10.8
Combined Sewer Overflows 44.7
Storm Water* 7.4
A. CATEGORIES I-VI 128.0
iffpBJELIGIBLE PROJECTS (Sections 319 and 320)
IIA-C Nonpoint Source (agriculture and silviculture only)* 9.4
^^ Urban Runoff 1.0
i|#||£G7 "Ground Water, Estuaries, Wetlands 1.1
OJATEGORY VH 11.5
IR&ND TOTAL 139.5
^Lu.,,,,,-,,.,,-
Modeled needs only. Estimated Category VI needs documented by
J;he States are $3.2 Billion. Estimated Category VIIA-C needs
ocumented by the States are $0.5 Billion.
Costs for operation and maintenance are not eligible for SRF funding
d therefore are not included.
See Appendix A Table A-1 for State totals of needs by category.
-------
10
"" TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF DOCUMENTED NE^B's',""" "
(January 1996 Dollars in Billions)
" ''"
NEEDS CATEGORY
'*"'
""NEEDS
i-H
TITLE fl ELIGIBLE PROJECTS
J I Secondary Treatment
- II Advanced Treatment
'l IllA Infiltration/inflow Correction
s. II1B Sewer Replacement/Rehabilitation
* IVA New Collector Sewers
,. IVB New Interceptor Sewers
1 V Combined Sewer Overflows
, VI _ storm" Water
ii i-iiii i" i I"*" fiii i ii i "iii|iiiiii|i i|""i mi nil 1*1 1 Hi iii"ii iiiiii|iiiiil "i iipiiii" in
- TOTAL CATEGORIES I-VI
M OTHEf? ELIGIBLE, P.RCypCJS (Sections 319 and 320)
VtlA-C Nonpoint Source (agriculture and silviculture only)
' VIID Urban Runoff " '
VIIE-G Ground Water, Estuaries, Wetlands
^ TOTAL CATEGORY VII
GRAND TOTAL
i mi I i i n ii i n i in i n
26.5
17.5
7^0
10.8
10.8
44.7
3.2
II W n I "I1
123.8
""6.5
1.6
1.1
2.6
126.4
ill '
at
t
i
M
t
%t
i
!
i
I
I
l
I
- Costs for operation and maintenance are not eligible for SRF funding
and therefore are not Included.
Sea Appendix A Table A-2 for State totals of documented needs by
^ category. " rT~
ii ii in iii iiiiiiii ii in i i in inii|ii in i n n i n iiiiiiiii n i n n 1 1 in iiiii 111 inn mi linn mi ii mi i mi n i
Table 2 presents EPA's estimate of
total documented needs reported by
the States. The difference in needs
between Tables 1 and 2 is $13.1
billion, which represents the model-
ed needs for SW and NFS, in catego-
ries VI and VH A-C. The total
SRF-eligible documented needs are
$126.4 billion, which excludes the
modeled SW and NFS needs pre-
sented in Table 1. States provided
documented estimates of $3.2 billion
for SW projects and only $2.6 bil-
lion for other eligible projects (under
Sections 319 and 320 of the CWA)
to include NFS. Total documented
needs on a State-by-State basis are
provided in Appendix A.
How Have the Needs Changed?
Table 3 is a summary of the total
needs, by category, from each of the
last four CWNSs, in 1996 dollars.
From 1992 to 1996, the total needs
decreased by $15.5 billion. This
reflects, in part, progress made in
meeting the nation's water quality
infrastructure needs.
For a given facility, a reduction in
need may signify completion of pro-
ject construction, reduction in the
original project scale, or elimination
of the need for projects included in
previous CWNSs. In contrast, an
increase in need signifies entirely
new facilities being required or new
1996 CWNS
projects to upgrade or expand exist-
ing facilities.
Underlying factors that influence
these changes include continued
population growth, deterioration of
existing facilities, and increasingly
stringent water quality requirements.
Substantial changes in needs oc-
curred in four of the traditional
needs categories since the 1992
CWNS:
Category I:
$8.9 billion decrease
Category IIIB:
$2.9 billion increase
Category IVA:
$9.5 billion decrease
Category IVB:
$5.8 billion decrease
By contrast, there is little change in
total needs in Categories II, IDA, V,
and VII. While there are substantial
changes in Category VI, these reflect
the introduction and use of a newly
developed SW model and these 1996
needs are not directly comparable to
the 1992 needs.
Changes in needs also reflect efforts
to improve the quality of the data in
the CWNS database through a sub-
stantial redocumentation effort.
Because of this redocumentation
requirement, the States systemati-
cally updated their needs informa-
tion. This updated information indi-
cated that, for the most part, the
facilities subject to redocumentation
had either proceeded to construction
or still had needs based on more
recent documentation. Nevertheless,
there were a noteworthy number of
-------
Report to Congress
11
facilities where updated documenta-
tion could not be provided. There-
fore the needs for these facilities
showed a decrease between 1992
and 1996. In Category I, where the
largest overall decrease in needs was
found, the reduction in needs attrib-
utable to outdated documentation is
estimated to be $1 billion, out of a
total net decrease of $8.9 billion.
Analysis of the needs categories
with substantial change revealed a
distinct pattern. In each category:
A small proportion of the facilities
analyzed (less than 5 percent) are
very large and have changes
greater than $100 million each.
The impact of these very large
facilities on the overall change in
needs is substantial and dispropor-
tionate to the number of such facil-
ities. For example, in Category I,
the very large facilities resulted in
a net decrease in needs of about $8
billion, accounting for almost all
of the total change.
The number of facilities for which
new needs have been identified is
about the same as the number of
facilities for which previously
identified needs have been satis-
fied or otherwise reduced.
The majority of facilities have
changes in need of less than $25
million.
For those categories with a net
decrease in needs (I, IVA, and
IVB), the number of very large
facilities with reduced needs is
more than twice the number of
facilities with new or increased
needs. This indicates that previ-
ously identified projects are pro-
ceeding more rapidly than new
needs are being identified.
TABLE 3
COMPARISON OF TOTAL NEEDS
1988 THROUGH 1996 CLEAN WATER NEEDS SURVEYS
(January 1996 Dollars in Billions)
HIEEDS CATEGORY
ELIGIBLE PROJECTS
» i^ Secondary Treatment
"Advanced Treatment
Infiltration/Inflow Correction
;.; 1MB Sewer Replacement/Rehabilitation
* Ji4_ New Collector Sewers
JIJVB New Interceptor Sewers
Combined Sewer Overflows
{01* * Storm Water
I; OTHER ELIGIBLE PROJECTS (Sections 319 and 320)
-j^s-^W <₯ ,* * *
j; VUA-C Nonpoint Source (agriculture, silviculture only)
pJVjlD,,, Urban Runoff
p^Vllil-GL Ground Water, Estuaries, Wetlands
f TOTAL NEEDS
Treatment Categories I and II only
PS-tSw's* " '
^Collection, Conveyance Categories III and IV only
£ Category I to V subtotal
1988
33.2
6.2
3.6
4.5
17.1
18.5
20.2
103.3
39.4
43.7
103.3
CWNS
1990 1992
29.4
5.5
3.3
4.2
16.3
16.7
19.5
35.4
17.5
3.1
4.1
20.3
16.6
46.6*
0.1*
10.0*
1.3
94.9155.0
34.9
40.5
52.9
44.1
94.9143.6
1996
26.5
17.5
3.3
7.0
10.8
10.8
44.7
7.4'
9.4'
1.0
1.1
139.5
44.0
31.9
120.6
: Modeled needs.
pie that the 1990 estimates were derived using a methodology
different from that used in this and previous CWNSs. For 1990, the
EPA simply adjusted needs estimates for grant and loan awards and
inflation.
While new water quality or growth
requirements have resulted in new
needs, it is evident that during the
four years from 1992 to 1996, great
progress has been made in satisfying
previously identified needs.
-------
12
1996 OWNS
How Are the Needs Distributed?
Figure 2 presents the geographical
distribution of needs. As in the 1992
CWNS, the largest needs occur in
New York, Illinois, and California.
New York has $16 billion in needs,
while California and Illinois have
needs in excess of $11 billion. Six-
teen additional States have needs in
excess of $2 billion.
Needs continue to be generally
concentrated in the highly populated
northeastern States (New Jersey,
New York, and Pennsylvania) and in
the Great Lakes States (Illinois,
Michigan, and Ohio) as well as in
Florida and Texas. The less popu-
lated States, generally located in the
Rocky Mountains and the Plains,
have lower levels of needs.
Figure 3 presents the geographical
distribution of the needs to correct
CSO problems. Again, as in the
1992 CWNS, most CSO needs are
concentrated in the northeastern
States (Massachusetts, New Jersey,
New York, and Pennsylvania) and in
the Great Lakes States (Illinois, Indi-
ana, Michigan, and Ohio).
Illinois has the largest documented
CSO needs ($9.4 billion), indicating
that considerable effort has gone
into documenting this State's CSO
problems and into developing muni-
cipal CSO program plans. Indiana,
Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jer-
sey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsyl-
vania all have CSO needs in excess
of $2 billion. This geographical
concentration of CSO needs reflects
the age of the infrastructure in these
areas and the fact that combined
sewers were considered acceptable
practice at the time many older
sewer systems were built.
FIGURE 2
DISTRIBUTION OF DOCUMENTED AND MODELED NEEDS
(January 1996 Dollars in Billions)
Total Needs- $139.5 Billion
Range
>$10.0B
Q$2.0-$10.0B
$1.0-$2.0B
l.5-$1.0B
FIGURE 3
DISTRIBUTION OF NEEDS TO CORRECT COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
(January 1996 Dollars in Billions)
Total CSO Needs = $44.7 Billion
-------
Report to Congress
13
FIGURE 4
DISTRIBUTION OF MODELED STORM WATER NEEDS
(January 1996 Dollars in Billions)
Total SW Needs = $7.4 Billion
FIGURE 5
DISTRIBUTION OF MODELED NONPOINT SOURCE* NEEDS
(January 1996 Dollars in Billions)
Total NFS Needs = $9.4 Billion
*Category VIIA - C only
Figure 4 presents the geographical
distribution of the modeled SW
needs. The Phase I SW Program
requires designated municipalities
and counties to obtain NPDES per-
mits for the discharge from munici-
pal separate storm sewer systems
(MS4s).
Some of these jurisdictions' SW
needs are reflected in the total docu-
mented needs. However, this total
does not cover the entire SW needs
because, in other jurisdictions, they
are not documented. Accordingly,
EPA has developed a national model
of S W needs to provide a more com-
plete estimate. A discussion of the
SW modeling methodology and
results is presented in the "Modeling
of Storm Water Needs" section.
This modeling effort identifies total
SW needs of $7.4 billion. MostSW
needs are concentrated in the south
and the west, with both California
and Florida having modeled SW
needs in excess of $1 billion. Texas
has modeled SW needs of
$0.9 billion. The State-by-State
modeling results are presented in
Table A-4 in Appendix A.
EPA also modeled estimates for the
control of some categories,of NPS
pollution. Figure 5 presents the
geographical distribution of these
modeled NPS needs (Categories
VIIA through VIIC). A discussion
of the NPS modeling methodology is
presented in the "Modeling of Non-
point Source Needs" section. The
estimated needs that were modeled
are:
Category VIIA
Agriculture (Cropland): $3.8 bil-
lion
-------
14
1996 CWNS
Small Community Wastewater Treatment Plant
Category Vlffi
Agriculture (Confined Animal
Facilities): $2.1 billion
Category VIIC
Silviculture: $3.5 billion
The total modeled needs for Catego-
ries YEA, Vlffi, and VUG are $9.4
billion. Texas has the largest pro-
portion of NFS needs with total
needs of $0.7 billion. Eight other
States have modeled NFS needs of
greater than $0.3 billion, including
Alabama, California, Iowa, Minne-
sota, Mississippi, Oregon, Wash-
ington, and Wisconsin.
Table A-5 in Appendix A provides a
detailed presentation of NFS needs,
by category, for each State and U.S.
territory.
What Are the Needs for Small
Communities?
Many small communities lack the
resources to adequately document
their existing needs. Accordingly,
beginning with the 1992 CWNS,
EPA has made a special effort to
obtain a better representation of the
needs of small communities. For
purposes of the CWNS, a "small
community" has fewer than 10,000
people and a wastewater flow of no
more than 1 million gallons per day
(mgd). To address the needs of the
smallest communities, three popula-
tion ranges were examined:
(1) below 1,000; (2) between 1,000
and 3,500; and (3) between 3,500
and 10,000.
Figure 6 depicts the total docu-
mented needs for small communi-
ties, by category, comparing them
with the needs of larger communi-
ties. The documented small com-
munity needs are estimated to be
$13.8 billion, representing 11 per-
cent of the total documented needs
for the nation. In four categories,
the small community needs are a
higher proportion of the overall
need. These are: secondary treat-
ment ($3.9 billion, 15 percent), VL
correction ($0.7 billion, 21 percent),
FIGURE 6
COMPARISON OF DOCUMENTED SMALL COMMUNITY FACILITY
NEEDS AND LARGER COMMUNITY FACILITY NEEDS
BY CATEGORY
(January 1996 Dollars in Billions)
B Small Community Needs
D Larger Community Needs
IIIA
NIB IVA IVB
Category of Need
Total Documented Small Community Needs = $13.8 Billion
Total Documented Needs = $126.4 Billion
-------
Report to Congress
15
FIGURE 7
DISTRIBUTION OF SMALL COMMUNITY FACILITY NEEDS
(January 1996 Dollars in Billions)
Total Documented Small Community Facility Needs = $13.8 Billion
FIGURE 8
PERCENTAGE OF SMALL COMMUNITY FACILITIES
WHEN ALL DOCUMENTED NEEDS ARE MET
(Percentage of Total State Facilities)
Small Community Facilities = 20,983
Total Facilities ='29,727
Note: This figure includes collection and treatment systems.
Facility counts include multiple facilities for larger communities.
new collector sewers ($4.0 billion,
37 percent), and new interceptor
sewers ($1.9 billion, 18 percent).
New sewers and secondary treatment
in small communities are relatively
more important than the other cate-
gories when compared to overall
needs.
Figure 7 shows how small commu-
nity needs are distributed geographi-
cally. The States with small commu-
nity needs greater than $0.5 billion
are contiguous from New York and
North Carolina in the east to Wis-
consin and Illinois in the Midwest,
plus Texas.
Figure 8 shows the percentage of
wastewater treatment facilities in
each State that will serve small com-
munities when all documented needs
are met. With few exceptions, small
community facilities comprise a
large majority of the total number of
publicly owned facilities in each
State. It is noteworthy that 90 per-
cent or more of the facilities in six
States (Alaska, Iowa, Nebraska,
North Dakota, South Dakota, and
West Virginia) serve small com-
munities.
Alternative documentation was ac-
cepted for small community needs.
This is discussed in the "Documen-
tation of Needs" section. This alter-
native documentation enabled States
to document an additional $0.4 bil-
lion of small community needs in
Categories I - V. This is approxi-
mately 3 percent of the total docu-
mented small community needs.
The importance of this type of docu-
mentation is particularly significant
for the very small communities with
populations less than 1,000. Such
communities submitted more than 50
percent of the needs that were sup-
ported by alternative documentation.
-------
16
1996 CWNS
FIGURE 9
COMPARISON OF SMALL COMMUNITY FACILITIES TO THE
NATION WHEN ALL DOCUMENTED NEEDS ARE MET
Population under 10,000
B Population over 10,000
No. of Facilities
(collection and
treatment systems)
Population Served
(Millions)
Documented Needs
Category I to VII
(January 1996
$ in Billions)
Totals:
Number of Facilities = 29,727
Population Served = 261.4 M
Documented Needs = $126.4 B
Under 1,000- 3,500- Over
1,000 3,500 10,000 10,000
Figure 9 contrasts the documented
needs and facilities of small commu-
nities with total documented needs
and facilities for the nation as well
as with the population proposed to
be served. A majority (71 percent)
of the total number of treatment and
collection facilities will serve small
communities. These facilities will
serve 11 percent (30 million people)
of the total population and account
for 11 percent ($13.8 billion) of the
total documented needs. Figure 9
also shows how the small commu-
nity facilities are further divided into
those facilities serving populations
of 3,500 to 10,000; 1,000 to 3,500;
and less than 1,000. Consistent with
the overall findings, it is the smallest
facilities, those serving communities
with a population less than 1,000,
that represent the greatest percent
(36 percent) of the total number of
facilities.
State-by-State presentations of vari-
ous aspects of small community
needs are presented in Tables A-6
through A-13 and Table A-16 in
Appendix A.
What Are the Separate State Esti-
mates?
To maintain national consistency in
documentation of needs, EPA has
established strict standards govern-
ing the form and content of accept-
able needs documentation, as de-
scribed in the "Documentation of
Needs" section. In those instances
in which State documentation was
determined by EPA to be at variance
with these standards, the needs have
been reported as Separate State Esti-
mates (SSEs). In other cases, States
themselves recognized that fully
acceptable documentation was sim-
ply not available, but still wished to
have their needs recognized as being
a potential demand on State re-
sources. Such estimates were also
reported in .the SSEs.
The level of effort by each State
with respect to SSEs was voluntary.
Therefore, reported needs are not
all-inclusive or representative of the
total needs that would be reported as
SSEs if State resources allowed.
The States were allowed to report
SSEs for all of the SRF-eligible
categories (I - YE). Tables A-14, A-
15, and A-16 in Appendix A provide
a State-by-state presentation of the
total SSEs for each category. Nearly
all of the States reported some needs
that could not be documented using
the EPA documentation criteria.
Figure 10 provides a comparison of
the documented total needs and
SSEs by category. The SSEs repre-
sent a total of $34.1 billion in addi-
tion to those needs meeting the EPA
documentation criteria. The propor-
tion of this amount reported for
small communities was $6.2 billion,
or about 18 percent of the total SSE
needs. The types of needs that have
been reported as SSEs by the indi-
vidual States generally fall into the
following groups:
Construction of centralized waste-
water treatment facilities for un-
sewered communities that have not
been adequately documented;
-------
Report to Congress
17
Upgrade or expansion of waste-
water treatment systems based on
anticipated changes to State regu-
lations or water quality criteria;
Replacement of existing facilities
that are currently operating at a
satisfactory level but are projected
to be replaced in the next 20 years;
and
NFS, CSO, and SW control prob-
lems for which formal studies doc-
umenting a water quality or public
health problem have not yet been
completed.
Realizing that documentation criteria
for NFS activities were evolving,
EPA encouraged the States to submit
all NFS documentation for review.
All documentation was reviewed by
EPA in consultation with State rep-
resentatives in an effort to establish
criteria and documentation require-
ments for NPS program needs. As a
result, the States reported more than
$1.3 billion in NPS needs as SSEs,
in addition to the $2.6 billion in NPS
needs that satisfied the accepted
documentation criteria. As indivi-
FIGURE10
COMPARISON OF DOCUMENTED NEEDS AND
SEPARATE STATE ESTIMATES BY CATEGORY
(January 1996 Dollars in Billions)
n Separate State Estimates
Documented Needs
Category of Need
Total Documented Needs = $126.4 Billion
Total Separate State Estimates = $34.1 Billion
Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant
dual States progress in developing increasing both documented and
their NPS programs, it is anticipated SSE needs for NPS pollution con-
that more detailed documentation trol.
will be available in the future, thus
What Is the Status of the Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Infrastruc-
ture?
Tables 4 and 5 present the recent
and anticipated trends in treatment
technology in the United States. In
1988, the CWNS reported a total of
15,591 operational publicly owned
wastewater treatment facilities. This
number increased to 15,613 in 1992
and to 16,024 in 1996, a 2.8 percent
increase over the eight-year period.
The factors leading to these
increases are summarized below.
First, there was a significant effort to
ensure that the data were compre-
hensive and current. The States in-
-------
18
1996 CWNS
TABLE 4
IMPROVEMENTS IN TREATMENT LEVEL
OF WASTEWATER TREATMENt FACILITIES
LEVEL OF
TREATMENT
* ,1988
Number
of
Facilities
Non-discharge 1,854
Less than Secondary 1,789
Secondary 8,536
Greater than Secondary 3,412
Total Facilities 15,591
1992
Number
of
Facilities
i,98i
868
9,086
3,678
15,613
Change
1988-
1992
-51.5%^
+6.4%
+7.8%
+0.1%
1996
Number
of
Facilities
2,032
1*6
9,388
4,428
16,024
Change
1988-
1996
+9.6%
-90.2%
+10.0%
+29.8%
+2.8%
Change
1992-
1996
+2.6%
-79.7%
+3.3%
+20.4%
+2.6%
Note: "Non-discharge" refers to facilities that do not discharge effluent to
surface waters (e.g., spray irrigation, ground water recharge). A secondary
treatment level Is defined as an effluent BOD of between 25 and 30 mg/1.
vested a significant amount of time
in identifying and updating both new
and existing projects.
Second, States examined individual
facilities to determine if previously
proposed projects had been built, or
if subsequent planning documents
had shown consolidation or splitting
of specific construction projects.
Depending on the magnitude of
these changes, the number of facili-
ties in individual States may have in-
creased or decreased.
A third factor contributing to the
change in the number of operational
facilities was project completion.
There was significant facility con-
struction, including expansions and
upgrades, in many States from 1992
to 1996. This is reflected both in the
number of grant/loan cost reductions
recorded in the 1996 database and in
the increase in the number of facili-
ties providing treatment at secondary
and advanced treatment levels.
The overall result is a net increase in
the number of active treatment facil-
ities from 1992 to 1996. In addition,
the 1996 CWNS reports that increas-
ing numbers of treatment facilities
are proposed to be built. Thus, these
data reflect two of the objectives of
the CWNS. First, these data show
the continuing commitment to pro-
vide treatment to all areas of the
United States. Second, these data
reflect the improvement of the
technical information stored in the
database.
As is evident from Table 4, the level
of treatment has improved signifi-
cantly over the last eight years. The
number of facilities providing less
than secondary treatment has
declined by 90 percent since 1988,
while the number of facilities pro-
viding secondary treatment has
increased by 10 percent. The num-
ber of facilities providing advanced
wastewater treatment increased by
almost 30 percent since 1988.
Table 5 projects the continued im-
provement in wastewater treatment
infrastructure to the year 2016 based
on the 1996 CWNS documented
needs. The number of facilities
providing less than secondary treat-
TABLE5
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS FROM MEETING
DESIGN YEAR NEEDS
IMPROVEMENT
INDICATOR
Number of treatment facilities providing
secondary or more advanced treatment
Number of treatment facilities providing
less than secondary treatment
Total design capacity of treatment
facilities (million gallons per day)
Total population served by wastewater
treatment facilities (millions)
Total number of operational treatment
facilities
FROM
1996
15,848
176
42,225
190
16,024
TO
2016
18,242
61*
48,787
275
. 18,303
CHANGE
+15.1%
-65.3%
+15.5%
+44.7%
>14.2%
* Includes facilities granted Section 301 (h) ocean discharge waivers arid
interim treatment facilities discharging to other facilities meeting
secondary treatment or better.
-------
Report to Congress
ment is projected to decline by
65 percent between 1996 and 2016,
while the number of facilities pro-
viding secondary or more advanced
treatment is projected to increase by
15 percent. Once all of the needs are
met, there are projected to be a total
of 18,303 operational facilities serv-
ing a population of 275 million
people.
19
-------
20
1996 CWNS
Documentation
The cost estimates included in
the CWNS are associated with
facilities eligible for funding under
the SRF program. For each facility,
the States are required to show both
the need's existence and the cost
necessary to satisfy that need. The
purpose of documenting the needs
and costs for each State is to ensure
the national consistency and credi-
bility of the
data for inclu-
sion in the
CWNS data-
base.
of Needs
All needs docu-
Whatls the Purpose of Documenting Needs? mentation was
required to
meet certain basic criteria. Specifi-
cally, the documentation (1) had to
show that there was an existing need
to prevent or abate a water quality
or public health problem, and (2)
had to be project specific. For ex-
ample, documentation describing a
general, county-wide problem of
septic system failures due to poor
soils would be deemed unsuitable to
document the needs of a particular
town in that county. EPA reviewed
all documentation submitted by the
States to ensure that the documenta-
tion complied with these criteria.
What Levels of Documentation
Were Accepted for Needs Justifica-
tion?
States could use a wide variety of
documentation to report needs. Ta-
ble D-l in Appendix D lists the 31
EPA-approved types of documenta-
tion for the 1996 CWNS and indi-
cates whether they were acceptable
for justification of need and/or cost.
Generally, if a document was one of
the approved document types, it was
accepted for justification of need if
it included sufficient details con-
cerning the proposed project (i.e., a
definition of the problem, a descrip-
tion of the solution to the problem,
and cost estimates when appropri-
ate).
EPA strongly encouraged States to
submit any available documentation
of needs and costs for SW and NPS
program needs. Needs and costs that
could not be documented to the ex-
tent required by the EPA standards
are discussed later in the section
entitled "What Was the Connection
Between Documentation and the
Separate State Estimates?"
What Were the Redocumentation
Requirements?
A main objective of the 1996 CWNS
is to improve the validity and accu-
racy of the needs data in the CWNS
database. For this reason, States
were required to redocument the
larger needs that appeared in the
1992 CWNS that they still consid-
ered valid. The States and EPA
decided that any need greater than
$5 million (1996 dollar base) which
was supported by documentation
dated earlier than January 1, 1990,
had to be redocumented for the 1996
CWNS.
How Did Documentation Require-
ments Differ for Small Communi-
ties?
It is difficult for some small com-
munities to document needs and
costs for projects because, in many
cases, local governments do not have
the resources required to develop the
necessary detailed planning and
engineering studies. For this reason,
EPA established alternative, less
extensive documentation require-
-------
Report to Congress
21
ments for facilities associated with
small communities.
In general, alternative documenta-
tion for small communities required:
a description of the proposed pro-
ject; an explanation of why the pro-
ject was necessary (e.g., public
health or water quality problem);
and a statement of how the project
would benefit the community. Com-
monly, this information was submit-
ted on a standardized survey form
that required signatures from suit-
able community and State officials.
The alternative documentation could
also contain a preliminary cost esti-
mate. However, if it did not, cost
curves were used to estimate the
need, as described in the next sec-
tion.
How Were Needs Estimated if Sup-
porting Documents Did Not Con-
tain Cost Data?
Once a State adequately documented
a need, EPA accepted it for purposes
of the CWNS, regardless of whether
a documented cost estimate was
available. This allowed States to use
a wider variety of documents for
needs justification rather than being
restricted only to those containing
cost data. For example, NPDES
permits and administrative orders
were permissible to document a
water quality need even though these
typically include no cost informa-
tion.
For documented needs without cost
estimates, EPA-approved cost curves
were available to calculate the needs
for secondary treatment, advanced
treatment, new collector sewers,, new
interceptor sewers, septic tank up-
grades, and CSO abatement. A more
extensive explanation of the CSO
cost curves follows in the next sec-
tion.
How Were the CSO Needs Calcu-
lated?
Currently, about 950 communities
nationwide have combined sewer
systems designed to carry both mu-
nicipal wastewater and storm water.
As point sources, CSOs are regu-
lated under the CWA. In 1994, EPA
concluded a negotiated dialogue
with State, municipal, and environ-
mental organizations that resulted in
a CSO Control Policy. The CSO
Control Policy offers a "presump-
tive" approach which allows a mu-
nicipality three options to control
their CSOs: (1) limiting, on average,
the number of overflow events to
between four and seven per year,
(2) eliminating or capturing for a
minimum of primary treatment no
less than 85 percent by volume of
the annual rainfall flow through the
system, or (3) eliminating or reduc-
ing the mass of pollutants equivalent
to the above 85 percent volume con-
trol. In addition, the presumptive
approach establishes a minimum of
primary clarification, solids and
floatables disposal, and, if appropri-
ate, disinfection.
As part of the 1996 CWNS
redocumentation effort, EPA re-
viewed all facilities in the CWNS
database that had documented Cate-
gory V (CSO) needs or that were
identified as CSO facilities. EPA
then compared these facilities with
the list of CSO facilities with State
NPDES permits. In this way, the
CWNS database was corrected to
eliminate incorrectly identified
CSOs and to reflect accurately CSO
problems that had been solved.
Since the 1992 CWNS, the CSO
communities have made significant
progress in documenting their needs
for CSO control to reduce the water
quality and human health effects of
Facility for controlling CSOs
-------
1996 CWNS
CSOs and to comply with EPA's
CSO Control Policy. At the same
time, many CSO communities, par-
ticularly smaller-sized communities,
were unable to adequately document
the cost for CSO controls. For the
199,6 CWNS, EPA used a cost curve,
based on the CSO model that was
developed during the 1992 CWNS,
to help provide these costs. Costs
were estimated for all individual
CSO facilities in communities with
CSO needs that were unable to docu-
ment fully the cost of meeting the
CSO Control Policy objectives.
The cost curve methodology was
based on the CSO Control Policy
option that requires the elimination
or capture for primary treatment of
no less than 85 percent of the wet
weather flow by volume. The cost
curve uses rainfall patterns for each
CSO community and a runoff coeffi-
cient to calculate flows resulting
from storm events and to estimate
the community-based flow requiring
CSO control measures. The cost of
the facilities required to provide
additional treatment consisting of
primary sedimentation, chlorine
disinfection, and dechlorination was
then estimated with the cost curves.
This method is an improvement over
the estimation method used for the
1992 CWNS which did not allow for
developing costs on an individual
facility basis.
How Were On-site Reviews Used in
Support of the CWNS?
In years past, EPA would conduct
on-site visits to States as part of the
review and verification of the needs
reported in the CWNS. EPA CWNS
officials visited Texas and California
as part of the 1996 CWNS quality
assurance process. These officials
performed a general review of how
the data were collected and how the
needs were documented for these
two States. The review covered tra-
ditional needs, the SW and NFS
categories of SRF-eligible projects,
and facilities requiring redocumenta-
tion in the 1996 CWNS. For spe-
cific facilities, the two States pro-
vided EPA with documentation
meeting approved criteria, such as
capital improvement plans, facility
plans, and State priority lists.
During these on-site reviews, EPA
met with State CWNS coordinators
to examine and discuss the docu-
mentation Texas and California sub-
mitted to support their needs, partic-
ularly documentation that demon-
strated needs to prevent or abate a
water quality or public health prob-
lem. These on-site reviews gave the
State CWNS coordinators the oppor-
tunity to discuss details of this
CWNS in depth, and provided the
EPA officials a better understanding
of where States needed assistance in
documenting needs.
Both States have substantial needs
and had large redocumentation re-
quirements targeted in the 1996
CWNS clean-up effort. Some facili-
ties required additional information
and the EPA officials described the
documentation needed to meet the
redocumentation criteria. EPA offi-
cials also met with each of the
State's NPS officials and discussed
the documentation methods used to
support their NPS needs.
Finally, the EPA officials visited a
major waste water treatment facility
in each of the two States. The ma-
jority of both facilities visited were
constructed with Federal grant and
SRF loan dollars, and have had
documented needs reported since the
first survey in 1973. Both facilities
have documented needs in the 1996
CWNS to serve continued growth.
In California, EPA visited the Sacra-
mento Regional County Sanitation
District (SRCSD). This facility is
located on a 900-acre site, and has
an average flow of 180 mgd and a
peak flow of 400 mgd. This acti-
vated sludge facility reclaims water
from the treated wastewater for non-
potable irrigation use on golf courses
and parks. SRCSD was formed in
1973, replacing 17 treatment facili-
ties, and currently serves 1 million
residents across 220 square miles.
In Texas, EPA officials visited the
Walnut Creek Wastewater Treat-
ment facility owned by and serving
the City of Austin. This facility was
constructed in 1973 for a total cost
of $57 million, of which $31 million
was provided by construction grant
funds. It is unique in that it was one
of the first facilities to be con-
structed with all of its process com-
ponents underground. The Walnut
Creek facility now serves 240,000
people, has an average flow capacity
of 60 mgd, and treats its wastewater
to advanced treatment standards.
What Was the Connection Between
Documentation and the Separate
State Estimates?
When EPA determined that State
documentation was at variance with
the EPA-defined criteria for needs
documentation, the needs were re-
ported as SSEs. Additionally, EPA
allowed States to submit separate
estimates for needs that they believe
are valid, but are not supported by
documents meeting EPA's criteria.
These needs estimates are not re-
ported as CWNS needs, but as SSEs.
-------
Report to Congress
States are permitted to report any
needs estimates they feel were justi-
fied in the CWNS SSEs without
EPA review.
23
-------
24
7996 OWNS
Modeling of
Storm Water
Meeds
In the 1996 OWNS, EPA used a
model to estimate the SW
(Category VI) needs. While SW
represents a substantial part of the
total water quality problem, few
States have systematically docu-
mented their SW needs. EPA
developed a model to help build a
more complete picture
of these needs.
What Are the Phase I
SW Program Require-
ments?
Why Were the Phase I Storm Water
Program Needs Modeled?
Pollutants in SW dis-
charges from urban ar-
eas are a significant
source of degradation
of the nation's waters.
SW runoff can impair
the beneficial use of water resources
and pose health risks. Pollutants
commonly found in SW runoff in-
clude pathogens, nitrogen, phospho-
rus, sediment, heavy metals, pesti-
cides, herbicides, and synthetic or-
ganic compounds. Further, pollut-
ants in SW runoff can deplete a
waterbody's oxygen level. In addi-
tion to pollutants, the increased
quantity of SW discharged from
rapidly urbanizing areas also poses a
threat to aquatic ecosystems by
physically altering the receiving
waterbody.
To help improve the quality of SW
discharges, Congress amended the
CWA in 1987 to add Section 402(p).
This section directs EPA to establish
phased NPDES permit requirements
for SW discharges. Accordingly,
EPA published the Phase I SW Pro-
gram permit application require-
ments on November 16, 1990.
These requirements applied to cer-
tain categories of SW discharges
associated with industrial activity,
and SW discharges from MS4s serv-
ing populations of 100,000 or more.
At this time, EPA is evaluating the
requirements for Phase II SW
sources, generally covering those
urban or urbanized areas with
smaller populations.
MS4s that are covered by the Phase
I SW Program regulations include:
storm sewer systems located in in-
corporated places with populations
of 100,000 or more; systems located
in 47 counties identified by EPA as
having populations of over 100,000
in unincorporated, urbanized areas;
and systems that are designated by
the EPA Administrator or the State.
Those MS4s identified under the
Phase I SW Program regulations
were required to submit an NPDES
permit application. Approximately
266 Phase I SW Program NPDES
permits will be issued, covering
about 850 municipal entities. A few
small communities are included in
the program because they are associ-
ated with larger systems or because
they are designated by the State.
Part 1 of the permit application re-
quires information about any exist-
ing SW management programs and
what means are available for con-
trolling pollutants in SW discharges.
Part 1 also requires a field screening
analysis of major outfalls to detect
any illicit connections to the storm
sewer system. Building on the Part
1 information, Part 2 of the permit
application requires a limited
amount of representative discharge
characterization data, and a descrip-
tion of a proposed SW management
program. EPA is committed to the
goal that all Phase I municipal SW
Program permits will be issued by
the end of September 1997.
-------
Report to Congress
25
Section 402(p)(3)of the CWA speci-
fies that Phase I SW Program per-
mits must meet a new statutory stan-
dard that requires controls to reduce
the discharge of pollutants to the
maximum extent practicable. MS4
permits must also ensure compliance
with State water quality standards.
According to EPA's Interim Permit-
ting Approach for Water Quality
Based Effluent Limits in Storm Wa-
ter Permits (August 1, 1996), SW
permits should require MS4s to de-
velop and implement site-specific
SW management programs based on
best management practice (BMP)
requirements rather than numeric
water quality-based limitations.
While this policy applies only to
EPA, the Agency also encourages
States to adopt similar policies for
SW permits. The NPDES permit-
ting authority (EPA or the State) and
the permittee under the Phase I SW
Program will jointly develop compo-
nents of an MS4 SW management
program to provide for attainment of
water quality standards.
What Are the Goals for SW in the
1996 CWNS?
For the 1996 CWNS, EPA used a
two-pronged approach to estimate
the SW needs. First, EPA obtained
available technical data to estimate
the documented needs. Second,
EPA developed a model to generate
national needs estimates. The goal
for SW in the 1996 CWNS is both to
estimate the SW needs for the 1996
CWNS and to build a base for future
refinements and additions as better
planning and cost information be-
come available. In addition, the SW
model for the 1996 CWNS was de-
signed to reflect more accurately
SW management costs under the
Phase I SW Program, especially
costs for structural controls and
BMPs that may be eligible for SRF
funding. Under the 1992 CWNS,
only the costs of implementing
NPDES municipal SW programs on
a nationwide basis were estimated.
For the 1996 CWNS, the model was
expanded based on available infor-
mation on SW controls and BMPs
proposed in MS4 SW management
programs to produce a refined esti-
mate of both State-by-State and
national SW needs. >
The SRF-eligible portions of the
Phase I SW Program consist of capi-
tal costs for developing and imple-
menting municipal SW management
programs. Capital costs include:
SW retention ponds can also provide habitat benefits
construction costs for structural
controls and BMPs; program devel-
opment costs; and program imple-
mentation costs. Examples of the
latter costs include: drafting new
ordinances or regulations; preparing
training materials and training staff;
and producing public education ma-
terials.
What Is the Modeled Estimate for
the 1996 Phase I SW Program
Needs?
The modeled estimate of the SW
needs is $7.4 billion. This repre-
sents only the estimated SRF-eligi-
ble portion of the costs that the
MS4s are expected to incur to de-
velop and implement a SW manage-
ment program in response to the
Phase I SW Program regulations.
While not included in the model,
O&M costs for the continued opera-
tion of MS4 SW management pro-
grams as well as O&M costs for SW
controls and BMPs are significant.
State-documented needs under the
Program amount to $3.2 billion.
The distribution of modeled SW
needs is depicted in Figure 4 in the
"Key Results" section. A State-by-
state tabulation is presented in Table
A-4 of Appendix A.
What Cost Estimating Methodology
Was Used?
The objective of the model was to
estimate both State-by-state and
national SW needs, but not to pre-
dict the needs for individual MS4s.
Estimated needs for the Phase I SW
program were modeled as follows:
Develop decision rules based on
climatic criteria to create a set of
SW management approach groups
-------
26
7996 OWNS
representing broad climatic charac-
teristics that determine the choice
of SW controls or BMPs;
* Assign each MS4 to a SW man-
agement approach group by ap-
plying the decision rules based on
climatic criteria to each MS4;
Assign appropriate SW controls
or BMPs to each S W management
approach group;
Estimate the scale of the applica-
ble S W controls or BMPs for each
MS4 in a SW management ap-
proach group;
Use cost formulas, developed for
each SW control or BMP, to
estimate the capital cost during a
20-year period for each applicable
SW control or BMP, for each
MS4, in January 1996 dollars;
Sum the costs of all the applicable
SW controls or BMPs for an MS4
to estimate total capital costs; and
Aggregate costs nationally and by
State.
The model used to estimate the
Phase I SW needs was peer review-
ed by a panel of outside experts.
Several points related to the O&M
costs, estimated by the model, were
raised by the peer review and did not
affect the modeled capital needs
presented in this report. The second
major area receiving comment is
that this report presents only one
estimate of needs instead of a range.
EPA agrees that, depending on the
complexity of each individual SW
problem and the variability of local
circumstances, a range rather than a
single estimate could be developed.
However, given the objective of the
CWNS to estimate the needs for
pollution control, one set of assump-
tions was selected for use in the
report. If the model was to be used
for economic analysis, then a num-
ber of assumptions would have been
utilized to develop upper and lower
cost bounds.
What Are the Limitations of the
SW Cost Modeling?
The following types of costs were
not included in the SW needs
modeling due to insufficient infor-
mation or ineligibility for SRF fund-
ing:
O&M costs for SW management
(ineligible);
Land acquisition costs (ineligi-
ble);
Permitting and mitigation costs
(ineligible);
Capital costs for some SW con-
trols or BMPs that are not widely
used or had insufficient cost infor-
mation;
Developer-financed SW controls
or BMPs and other private costs.
(For some SW controls, such as
erosion and sediment controls for
construction site runoff, most cap-
ital costs are borne by developers
and private costs are ineligible for
SRF funding. However, public
costs for establishing a program
and for training municipal inspec-
tors to review private erosion and
sediment controls would be capi-
tal costs eligible for SRF funding.
These were included in estimated
SW needs.);
Costs to provide SW controls or
BMPs for future development. (It
would be difficult to predict the
size and location of future devel-
opment throughout the nation. In
addition, many of those SW con-
trols or BMPs would probably be
developer-financed and ineligible
for SRF funding.);
Costs for designated MS4s that
are not associated with cities or
counties (e.g., departments of
transportation and special dis-
tricts);
Costs associated with developing
Part 1 and Part 2 S W NPDES per-
mit applications;
Costs associated with SW permits
for industrial activities owned and
operated by municipalities;
Costs associated with SW permits
for construction activities under
the Phase I SW Program;
Costs associated with the indus-
trial component of the Phase I SW
Program; and
Costs associated with the Phase II
SW Program.
-------
Report to Congress
27
Modeling of
Nonpoint
Source Needs
In the 1996 CWNS, EPA used a
model to estimate the needs for
controlling certain categories of NFS
pollution. While a large part of the
nation's water quality problem is
attributable to NFS pollution, few
States have systematically docu-
mented their NFS needs. EPA
prepared an NPS
needs model to help
build a more complete
picture of the total
water quality needs.
Why Were Nonpoint Source Needs
Modeled?
What Is NPS Pollu-
tion?
NPS pollution is
caused by rainfall or
snowmelt moving
over and through the
ground. As the runoff moves over
or through the soil, it picks up and
carries away natural pollutants and
pollutants resulting from human
activity, eventually depositing them
into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal
waters, and ground waters. In addi-
tion, habitat alteration and
hydrologic modification (changes in
hydrologic characteristics) can have
adverse effects on the biological and
physical integrity of surface waters.
NPS pollution is not regulated by
NPDES permits.
Sources of NPS pollution include
agriculture, silviculture, atmospheric
deposition, channelization, construc-
tion, contaminated sediments,; con-
taminated ground water, runoff from
highways, hydrologic and habitat
modification, land development,
land disposal, marinas, onsite^ dis-
posal systems, recreational activi-
ties, removal of riparian vegetation,
resource extraction, shoreline mod-
ification, and streambank destabi-
lization. Agriculture is the leading
source of impairment in the nation's
rivers, affecting 60 percent of the
impaired river miles assessed in the
United States, according to EPA's
1994 305(b) report. Other sources
of NPS pollution affecting impaired
river miles include urban runoff (12
percent of impaired river miles),
hydromodification or habitat alter-
ation (17 percent), mining or
resource extraction (11 percent), and
silviculture (9 percent).
The distinction between NPS and
diffuse point sources is sometimes
unclear. Although diffuse runoff is
usually treated as NPS pollution,
runoff that enters and is discharged
from storm sewer systems is treated
as a point source discharge and
hence is subject to the CWA permit
requirements. In contrast, NPS dis-
chargers are not subject to Federal
permit requirements. Under Section
6217 of the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments
(CZAPvA), municipal and commer-
cial SW dischargers in the coastal
zone that are not covered by the
Phase I SW Program must comply
with the requirements of the
CZARA. States are encouraged to
develop consistent approaches in
dealing with urban SW runoff.
What Are the Goals for NPS in
the 1996 CWNS?
The 1987 CWA Amendments allow
States to use then- SRF to fund se-
lected non-Federal NPS control ac-
tivities that are contained in ap-
proved Section 319 NPS Manage-
ment Plans. Section 319 of the
CWA addresses NPS pollution by
providing grant funds to help solve
NPS problems and by requiring
States to develop NPS Management
Plans to address these problems.
-------
28
7996 OWNS
Agricultural NFS needs are part of the CWNS
The NFS goals of the 1996 CWNS
are to capture as many NFS needs as
feasible through reporting those
needs documented by the States and
to supplement these needs through
modeling.
What Are Eligible NFS Needs?
The SRF can fund projects designed
to alleviate pollution caused by a
wide variety of diffuse sources, in-
cluding agriculture, silviculture, and
abandoned mines. Eligible NFS
control projects include virtually any
activity that a State has identified in
its NFS Management Plan. Such
activities include projects to control
runoff from agricultural land;
conservation tillage and other pro-
jects to address soil erosion; devel-
opment of streambank buffer zones;
and wetlands protection and restor-
ation. Documented NFS needs
greater than $0.5 million for agricul-
ture and silviculture were reported
by 10 States in the 1996 CWNS as
shown in Table A-3 in Appendix A.
Since few States have developed
comprehensive estimates for NFS
control, EPA developed a model to
estimate national costs for agricul-
tural and silvicultural controls. This
model is similar to the model used in
the 1992 CWNS, with the differen-
ces noted below.
What Is Included or Excluded
from the Modeled NFS Estimates?
The modeled estimates include ac-
tivities to develop and implement
NFS management programs to con-
trol runoff from:
Agriculture (cropland, pastureland,
and rangeland);
Confined animal facilities with
fewer than 1,000 animal units
(AU); and
Silviculture.
Because of the lack of nationwide
information, EPA did not develop a
modeled needs estimate for other
sources of NFS pollution. The fol-
lowing areas were excluded from the
needs modeling due to insufficient
data:
Abandoned mines;
Inappropriate
wastes;
land disposal of
Channelization and hydromodifi-
cation;
Atmospheric deposition;
Construction;
Marinas;
Runoff from roads, highways, and
bridges;
Urban/suburban areas not covered
by Phase I SW Program permits;
and
Remediation of contaminatedsedi-
ments causing a water quality
problem.
These sources of NFS pollution
could represent significant needs for
SRF funding. In addition, other NFS
costs that were excluded are recur-
ring O&M costs as well as technical
assistance, engineering, and related
services that are often provided to
farmers or others free of charge by
Federal and State agencies.
What Is the Modeled Estimate for
NFS Control Needs?
The modeled estimate of the NFS
control needs is $9.4 billion. Table
6 summarizes the estimates by cate-
gory and compares them to the 1992
modeled needs (converted to 1996
dollars). Table A-5 in Appendix A
-------
Report to Congress
29
contains State-by-State modeled
estimates for each of the NFS cate-
gories modeled.
The estimated needs for controlling
runoff from cropland, pastureland,
and rangeland is $3.8 billion. The
1996 needs for agricultural land of
$3.8 billion are slightly less than the
needs modeled in the 1992 CWNS
of approximately $4.2 billion
(inflated to 1996 dollars). The area
of cropland reported in the 1992
Natural Resources Inventory (NRJ)
was approximately 10 percent, or 40
million acres less than the 1987 NRI
value used in the 1992 CWNS. This
drop may be attributed to the fact
that conservation reserve program
(CRP) land was not considered as
cropland in the 1992 NRI, but was
considered as such in the 1987 NRI.
The 1996 estimated needs for con-
fined animal facilities of $2.1 billion
are lower than the 1992 needs of
$3.1 billion (adjusted to 1996 dol-
lars). The lower needs are primarily
due to the reduced number of animal
feedlots containing fewer than ;1,000
AU. This reduction is attributable to
the trend in the animal industry to-
ward larger operations. Operations
with more than 1,000 AU are con-
sidered to be point sources and
therefore are ineligible for funding
as NFS projects. Compared ito the
1987 Census of Agriculture, the total
number of farms reported in the
1992 Census were 13.4 percent
fewer for broilers, 39.2 percent
fewer for layers, and approximately
22 percent fewer for beef, dairy, and
swine. Similarly, within each live-
stock category, the number of ani-
mals also decreased for a majority of
the farm sizes.
The annual national cost for imple-
menting forestry BMPs was esti-
mated to be $316 million. The 20-
year period cost was determined to
be approximately $3.5 billion. The
1996 CWNS estimate for silvicul-
ture of $3.5 billion is larger than the
1992 estimate of $2.7 billion (ad-
justed to 1996 dollars). The differ-
ence between the 1992 and: 1996
TABLE 6
MODELED NEEDS
FOR NONPO1NT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL
(January 1996 Dollars in Billions)
NEEDS CATEGORY
1992 CWNS 1996 CWNS
VHA - Agricultural Land
(Cropland, Pastureland,
and Rangeland)
.-VI IB.- -Confined Animal
Facilities
(<1,OOOAU)
VI|C - Silviculture
GRAND TOTAL
4.2
3.1
2.7
10.0
3.8
2.1
3.5
9.4
needs estimates can b,e attributed
partially to the increase in total area
of timberland harvested in the Unit-
ed States, but mostly to the increase
in average BMP implementation
cost per acre of timberland harvested
in each State. The number of States
that have a formal regulatory struc-
ture for forestry operations increased
from 1992 to 1996, thereby
increasing BMP implementation
costs.
The methodologies used to develop
the modeled estimates are presented
in the paragraphs that follow. These
methodologies are similar to those
used in the 1992 CWNS, with some
refinements, and use of the most
recent data.
How Were Cropland, Pastureland,
and Rangeland Modeled?
Runoff from crop production and
grazing land carries primarily sedi-
njents, salts, nutrients, and pesticides
to the downstream receiving waters.
Sediments generally result from
erosion of cropland and grazing
land. Excessive application of
chemical fertilizer or animal manure
on land frequently results in high
concentrations of nitrogen and phos-
phorus in runoff or in leaching of
nitrogen to ground water. Pesticide
applications on cropland and pas-
tures can introduce toxic pollutants
into both surface water and ground
water.
The cost estimating methodology
addressed the control of erosion and
pollutant export from cropland and
grazing land. This methodology is
based on applying a best manage-
ment system (BMS), which com-
bines soil conservation practices and
other management measures that,
-------
30
1996 OWNS
when applied, will achieve NFS
pollution control through the
reduced transport of sediments, nu-
trients, and chemicals into surface
and ground water.
Erosion control measures in the
model were based on the implemen-
tation of soil conservation practice
groups identified by the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture's (USDA's)
Farm Service Agency. Water qual-
ity management was incorporated
into the model by applying addi-
tional control measures, such as
nutrient management, pesticide
management, and irrigation water
management.
The model estimated costs by deter-
mining an appropriate set of BMPs
and estimating the implementation
costs." This was accomplished as
follows:
Review NRI data. This national
database provides data on area of
farm land, crop type, soil erosion
rate, soil loss tolerance, slope, and
conservation practices in use in
1992. (The NRI is compiled by
the USDA every five years. The
1996 CWNS used the latest avail-
able 1992 NRI data. The 1992
CWNS used the 1987 NRI data.)
Develop a best management sys-
tem. If land required erosion con-
trol, conservation practice groups
were selected to reduce soil ero-
sion to the soil loss tolerance level
specified for that land. Additional
measures to provide water quality
management were also selected to
complete the BMS.
* Determine needs for cropland,
pastureland, and rangeland.
Total capital costs of erosion con-
trol and water quality management
were computed for cropland,
pastureland, and rangeland in each
State.
The cost estimating methodology
used for the 1992 CWNS was also
applied in the 1996 CWNS. The
national databases used, however,
were updated to reflect the most
recent data available.
How Were Confined Animal Fa-
cilities Modeled?
A confined animal facility is a lot or
facility where animals have been,
are, or will be stabled or confined
and fed or maintained for a total of
45 days or more in any 12-month
period. Crops, vegetation forage
growth, or post-harvest residues are
not sustained in the normal growing
season over any portion of the lot or
facility.
Runoff from confined animal
facilities may contain nutrients,
oxygen-demanding substances, or-
ganic solids, salts, pathogens, and
sediments. Runoff includes process-
generated wastewater and precipita-
tion that comes into contact with
manure, litter, or other material used
in or resulting from the production
of animals.
For the purposes of the 1996 CWNS,
costs were estimated only for con-
fined animal operations with fewer
than 1,000 AU. Confined animal
operations (feedlots) with 1,000 AU
or more are considered point
sources, and are not eligible for
funding under the Section 319 pro-
gram. Therefore, the large opera-
tions cannot receive SRF loans.
Under certain circumstances, facili-
ties with less than 1,000 AU can be
regulated as point sources, which
could result in an overestimation of
these needs.
The methodology used to develop
EPA's estimate was based on the use
of model feedlot facilities, which
were intended to represent typical
facility sizes within each livestock
category. Livestock categories con-
sidered were beef feedlots, dairies,
swine feedlots, and broiler and layer
houses. The approach was similar to
that used in the economic analysis
for the CZARA, and cost data from
that analysis were used in develop-
ing the 1996 CWNS cost estimates.
The methodology was based on the
assumption that facility runoff was
going to be controlled primarily
through diversion for runoff contain-
ment and channelization of on-site
effluent to the ultimate control struc-
tures. All runoff collected in these
control structures was assumed to be
used for irrigation.
The following steps were used to
estimate the cost of controlling NFS
pollution from feedlot operations:
Identify model feedlots. Model
feedlots were defined to represent
typical sizes within each livestock
category.
Develop NFS management plan.
NFS runoff control measures were
identified and a typical manage-
ment plan was selected for the
model feedlots in each livestock
category.
Estimate needs for confined ani-
mal facilities. The number of
-------
Report to Congress
31
livestock operations in each model
feedlot was obtained from the 1992
Census of Agriculture data for each
State (which is the latest data avail-
able; the 1992 CWNS used 1987
data). The total cost of implement-
ing the NFS management plan was
then estimated using this national
database. Estimates for two control
options were developed. Option 1
included lined retention ponds and
irrigation for ultimate disposal.
Option 2 also included irrigation for
ultimate disposal but used filter
strips in lieu of lined retention
ponds. The estimate presented in
this report is for Option 1. This is
considered by the agricultural com-
munity to be the more effective
approach, although it has the higher
cost of the two options.
There was no change in the cost
estimating methodology for the 1996
CWNS. However, the national data-
bases used were updated to reflect
the most recent data available.
EPA also modeled the needs for
controlling runoff from confined
animal facilities based on the
USDA's definition of an animal
unit, or AU. An AU is a unit of
measurement which allows compari-
son between various animal types
(e.g., cattle, dairy, poultry, etc.).
EPA's definition of an AU is based
on the NPDES permit regulations.
The USDA revised these AU defini-
tions based on the weight of the
animals. If this revised definition
were used, the number of facilities
eligible for SRF funding would in-
crease and result in total needs of
$2.8 billion for confined animal
facilities (compared to the EPA esti-
mate of $2.1 billion reported).
How Was Silviculture Modeled?
Silvicultural activities can degrade
water and habitat quality if sufficient
care is not taken to prevent adverse
effects. Sediment from erosion due
to the presence of access roads; and
harvesting activities, temperature
increases due to riparian shade re-
moval, and pesticides and fertilizers
used during timber operations are
some of the major pollutants ex-
ported from timber-harvesting sites
to receiving waters.
The methodology used to estimate
the costs of controlling NPS pollu-
tion from silvicultural activities
employed the following com-
ponents:
Develop estimates of annual
forestland area harvested per
State. The area of forestland har-
vested annually was computed by
using the U.S. Forest Service's
Forestry Resources of the United
States, 1992. The distribution of
the timberland area in relation to
the type of terrain, however, was
developed by considering the geo-
graphical characteristics of each
State. Only privately owned
forestlands were considered (Fed-
eral lands are ineligible for SRP
loans).
Identify silvicultural best man-
agement practices. Silvicultural
BMPs were identified to control
erosion from roads built to gain
access to harvesting sites, to con-
trol the introduction of pesticides
into watercourses, to maintain the
stability of stream banks, and to
ensure the revegetation , of
harvested sites, among other pur-
poses. BMPs identified were
similar to those used for CZARA
but were more refined.
Identify typical comprehensive
management plans. Typical
comprehensive management plans
were identified for controlling
pollution and adverse habitat im-
pacts for various site and timber
characteristics.
Develop cost estimates for man-
agement plans. Estimates for the
cost per acre of implementing
BMPs were developed for various
types of forest management units
(FMUs). These estimates indicated
that the greatest variations in BMP
implementation costs were caused
by the general slope of the FMU
and the degree of regulatory con-
trol practiced in the State.
Estimate needs for silvicultural
activities. Total costs of manag-
ing NPS pollution from silvi-
cultural activities were estimated
for each State.
In the 1992 CWNS, the factors influ-
encing BMP implementation costs
were assumed to be the general
slope of the harvested land and the
presence or absence of streams,
rivers, and other waterbodies in the
area. The 1996 CWNS identified
the terrain of the harvest site and the
degree of regulatory stringency of
the States as the dominant factors
influencing the cost of implementing
BMPs. Proximity to a waterbody
appeared to be less significant than
those factors. In addition, the data
used for the silvicultural modeling
were updated to reflect the most
recent data available.
-------
32
1996 OWNS
What Are the Limitations of NFS
Control Modeling?
The estimates presented in the 1996
CWNS represent EPA's effort to
assess needs nationally for selected
aspects of NFS control. The esti-
mates represent only a portion of the
total expected costs for NFS activi-
ties (specifically, agricultural land,
confined animal facilities, and
silviculture). Estimates will be re-
fined and enhanced in future
CWNSs, with documented NFS
needs reported on a watershed basis.
Several cautions on the use of this
information are appropriate:
The estimates for confined animal
facilities were prepared assuming
no controls were in place. There-
fore the estimates may overstate
the real needs.
Estimates for NFS BMPs were
based on practices and require-
ments developed under the
CZARA. Examples of these prac-
tices include appropriate erosion
control, nutrient management
planning, containment of runoff
from confined animal facilities,
and preharvest planning for
silviculture.
Some SRF-eligible areas with po-
tentially very high costs, such as
NFS runoff from abandoned
mines, were not included.
The estimates for agricultural con-
trols, confined animal controls,
and silvicultural controls are for
capital investment or initial imple-
mentation of NFS controls, not for
ongoing costs of O&M. O&M
costs are not eligible for SRF
funds but nevertheless represent a
portion of the costs for NFS con-
trol.
Areas with a large number of con-
fined animal facilities, including
permitted facilities with more than
1,000 AU, may have underesti-
mated needs. This is because of
the lack of land for spreading ma-
nure and the higher cost of
transporting the manure to land
adequate for spreading. These
areas can also have large phospho-
rus inputs already in the soil, fur-
ther increasing the cost of spread-
ing manure.
-------
Report to Congress
33
Watershed-
Based Needs
Accounting
How Can Watershed-Based Needs
Accounting Enhance Water Quality-
Based Planning?
The reporting of needs in prior
CWNSs has focused on indi-
vidual facilities, aggregated by State.
As water quality management be-
comes more sophisticated, there will
be a greater emphasis on the water-
shed as a water quality planning unit
to attain water quality goals. This
emphasis is expected to provide a
more comprehensive
and efficient basis for
water quality planning.
This section presents
three examples, to
demonstrate how mult-
iple pollution sources
can be addressed to-
gether. The next
CWNS will explore the
watershed approach in
greater detail.
The term -watershed
refers to a geographic
area in which water, sediments, and
dissolved materials drain to a com-
mon outlet: a point on a larger
stream, a lake, an underlying aqui-
fer, an estuary, or an ocean. This
area is also called the drainage basin
of the receiving waterbody. A
watershed-based management ap-
proach allows an agency to consider
not only the water resource itself,
but also the land from which the
water drains and activities that are
undertaken on that land. This type
of holistic planning helps agencies
target the principal water quality
problems regardless of their source.
The watershed approach makes
sense for financial, environmental,
and community-building reasons. It
facilitates program integration, pro-
motes public participation, and fo-
cuses energy on environmental re-
sults. Coordinating efforts across
traditional program areas (for exam-
ple, drinking water protection, pollu-
tion control, fish and wildlife habitat
protection, water supply, transporta-
tion, and power generation) allows
for planners to look at all the issues
within watersheds. This results in a
better understanding of the cumula-
tive impact of various human activi-
ties.
There are several reasons to report
needs on a watershed basis. Many
States are moving toward basing
their water quali.ty work on water-
sheds. This allows the State to as-
sess both the point and nonpoint
pollution sources in the watershed,
and to address them in the most
cost-effectiveway. With limited re-
sources at all levels of government,
watershed-based planning and as-
sessment allow States to focus on
their highest priorities in a holistic
manner.
The following case studies show the
benefits of accounting for needs on
a watershed basis. Watershed-based
needs accounting links the land use
in the watershed, all the potential
sources of pollution in the water-
shed, and the eligible needs to the
waterbody. The State then has an
idea of the effort required to meet
water quality standards for that par-
ticular waterbody.
Wisconsin:
Watershed
Yahara-Monona
The Yahara-Monona watershed, de-
picted in Figure 11, is a 60,160-acre
(94 square mile) drainage area lo-
cated entirely within Dane County,
Wisconsin. More than 60 percent
of the land use in the watershed is
classified as urban or urbanizing.
The remaining land use is consid-
ered rural, with agricultural lands
-------
34
1996 OWNS
being prevalent in the southern part
of the watershed. The watershed
includes parts of three cities (Mad-
ison, Monona, and Fitchburg), one
village, and four towns. The City of
Madison accounts for approximately
half of the total land area in the wa-
tershed. The average annual precip-
itation is approximately 31 inches.
Water quality problems in the water-
shed include low gradients and low
flows, channel straightening, sedi-
mentation, and excessive aquatic
plants. The three largest lakes in the
watershed are all classified as eutro-
phic (nutrient rich). Previously, the
water quality of the lakes has been
affected by municipal and industrial
sewage discharges, which have now
been diverted around the lakes. The
levels of phosphorus, sediments, and
metals all need to be reduced.
Models were used to estimate the
amount of various pollutants that
might be discharged from urban and
agricultural lands. The pollutant
load estimates were used to develop
.,-. * .* 4 TABLE?
- «>. YA^ARA-MQNONA WATERSHED NEEDS
'(1996 Doflars)
, CATEGORY
' I - Secondary' Treatment ' ' "" ""
II - Advanced Treatment
JVJ ^Storm Water t\ " _ 1"
t VII - Rural Nonpoint Source Pollution
~t y.!Ft 4>f r i*t i« j **» "J ii *
TOTAL NEEDS
NEED
25,251,000
723,000
25,011 ',000
385,000
51,370,000
I
»
1
!
I
i
&
^"7 -------- - -- j
pollution reduction targets in the
watershed to meet water quality
goals.
The needs identified for the Yahara-
Monona watershed are listed in Ta-
ble 7. The needs for wastewater
treatment (Categories I and II) are
for the Nine Springs wastewater
treatment facility, which treats the
waste from the Madison Metropoli-
tan Sewer District. The SW needs
include those referenced in the City
FIGURE 11
LOCATION OF THE YAHARA-MONONA WATERSHED
of Madison's Phase I SW permit.
Finally, the needs that are required
to control rural NPS pollution, pri-
marily agricultural, are presented.
Calculating these needs on a water-
shed basis allows the State to evalu-
ate the cost of different controls, and
their expected effect on water qual-
ity, to determine the best approach
to solving their water quality prob-
lems.
Vermont: LaPlatte River
Watershed
The LaPlatte River drains a 33,100-
acre (51.7 square mile) watershed in
southwestern Chittenden County,
Vermont. The watershed is depicted
in Figure 12. Approximately 45
percent of the land use is agricul-
tural, 34 percent is forested, and less
than 10 percent is residential. The
remaining land uses are open, wet-
land, water, or transportation. The
total population residing in towns in
the watershed is fewer than 6,000.
The average annual precipitation is
33.5 inches.
-------
Report to Congress
35
FIGURE 12
LOCATION OF THE LAPLATTE RIVER WATERSHED
The primary water quality impair-
ment in the LaPlatte River, and in
Lake Champlain into which it
drains, is excessive phosphorus.
Phosphorus levels are sufficiently
high to cause severe eutrophication
and impairments to recreational use.
Currently, two municipal waste-
water treatment facilities and one
industrial facility discharge into the
watershed. Runoff from agricultural
and urban areas also contributes to
excessive phosphorus loadings.
A phosphorus loading study of Lake
Champlain from the 31 major tribu-
taries flowing into the lake was con-
ducted. Phosphorus load reductions
were assigned to each lake segment
subwatershed to achieve the estab-
lished in-lake water quality stan-
dards for phosphorus. A model was
developed to estimate the total phos-
phorus load from crop/pastureland,
animal facilities, and urban areas.
Four strategies were developed to
achieve a 20 percent phosphorus
reduction. The estimated needs for
these four strategies were then com-
puted.
The public was involved through a
local steering committee that pro-
vided input and served as a "reality
check" for output and other results.
Meetings were conducted to inform
the public regarding project goals
and objectives, progress, and find-
ings.
As shown in Table 8, Scenario 1
allocated the entire load reduction to
agriculture at an estimated cost of
$1.95 million. Scenario 2 modeled
the cost as if an equal percentage of
the phosphorus reduction were taken
from both agriculture and urban
areas. Scenario 3 modeled the cost
if half of the phosphorus reduction
was from agriculture and half was
from urban areas. Finally, Scenario
4 modeled the cost if both agricul-
ture and urban areas contributed an
equal dollar amount for the phos-
phorus reduction.
Scenario 1, in which the entire re-
duction is taken from the agricul-
tural land, is the least costly sce-
nario. This is because of the lower
cost of some agricultural controls
compared to urban controls. In this
case, assessing needs on a watershed
basis allows for a comparison of
various pollution sources affecting a
waterbody. This provides a holistic
approach to control those sources.
TABLE8
LAPLATTE RIVER WATERSHED NEEDS
(1996 Dollars)
PHOSPHORUS LOAD REDUCTION
SCENARIO AGRICULTURAL URBAN TOTAL
(kg/yr) (kg/yr) CAPITAL COSTS
pf:!^
*"S* ' *-*' _
^mxt^fMi^v 2
3M3tt*w~^-'3
^fe- ^TO^fcS^^
f^^ * '^
i^i5r^«4
!f^,,fc,-^S.~^f.^^' ^
1325
1025
750
625
0
300
575
700
1,950,000
2,800,000
4,500,000
6,000,000
-------
36
1996 OWNS
Tennessee:
Watershed
Richland Creek
The Richland Creek Watershed,
depicted in Figure 13, is a 311,125-
acre (486 square mile) drainage area
located in Giles, Lawrence, Mar-
shall, and Maury Counties. The
watershed is inhabited by approxi-
mately 10,000 people, of whom 90
percent depend on its water for do-
mestic use. Approximately 60
percent of the land cover is agricul-
tural row crops and pasture. The
remaining land cover comprises
forest (38 percent) and urban (2
percent).
The largest urban area is Pulaski,
which encompasses 1.2 percent of
the watershed. Annual precipitation
is 55 inches, with the heaviest rain-
fall in the winter and spring.
Water quality problems are primar-
ily from NFS pollution. Runoff
from agriculturalplots contributesto
increased sediraentationand nutrient
UBWATERSHED NEEDS
Tertjary tre7a|m^ntyn.itrQgen and 62
,
62 460.700
-!
29,280,000
:''< '&>'-<} W"? .rir.-ll-J-, ,VI1 ', .l-'l-,rH^->J,
10,900,000
-, .. -.,.,-,.,-,, - - - . , . --,,.
78
il, #" rtliii'''!!!!1, il*i',,iHjif,,»h!i:!Hllh'l«!'l!l!!*l1||,ilirt11 V
Tertiary treatment/nitrogen and
phosphorus removal and reforestation
78 40,180,000
-------
Report to Congress
based on a Watershed Quality Index
(WQI) derived from the developed
model (a higher WQI score indicates
better water quality). A single storm
event of 1 inch was used in all sce-
narios. The results show that a rela-
tively low-cost option, such as add-
ing buffer strips around waterbodies,
would have about the same impact
on the watershed as upgrading the
treatment plant to tertiary treatment.
These changes were also compared
to a scenario in which all land in the
watershed would be reforested,
which would achieve the best possi-
ble water quality.
What Can Be Concluded from
These Case Studies?
Assessing needs on a watershed
basis encourages integrated plan-
ning, encompassing all the sources
within a watershed. As these exam-
ples show, various scenarios can be
evaluated, with the cost and water
quality improvement to the water-
shed estimated. This allows States
to address their water quality con-
cerns in the most cost-effective
manner and can help form the basis
for such management approaches as
waste load allocations and effluent
trading. Future CWNSs will pro-
vide an opportunity tq integrate
multiple heeds on a watershed basis.
The goal will be to identify the level
of needs required to achieve water
quality compliance for individual
watersheds.
37
-------
-------
Report to Congress
Concluding
Remarks
The 1996 CWNS has built on the
accomplishments of past sur-
veys. Both the breadth and depth of
the CWNS have increased. The
States provided the staffing to up-
date the quality of the cost and tech-
nical information in the database.
This involved extensive redocu-
mentation and data quality improve-
ment efforts which succeeded in
eliminating obsolete data, updating
ongoing project information, and
ensuring the cur-
rentness of the
CWNS database.
Increased attention
was given to; the
needs of small com-
munities, which
contain the majority
of wastewater treat-
ment facilities.
The 1996 CWNS incorporated
several major improvements in
estimating the needs related to CSO,
S W, and NFS controls. This reflects
EPA's increasing concern about wet
weather contributions to the nation's
water quality problems. Cost curves
were developed to estimate better
site-specific CSO needs. The
CWNS results show that the States
are giving increasing attention to
SW and NFS problems. The
documented SW and NFS needs
have increased. Many States,
however, have not yet systematically
documented their SW and NFS
needs. Accordingly, EPA developed
a national SW needs model and
refined the NFS model that was
introduced in the 1992 CWNS.
In the future, more extensive
documentation, especially address-
ing SW and NFS problems, will
improve the needs estimation for a
broader range of SRF-eligible
39
programs and projects. EPA also
expects to continue expanding the
range of water quality problems
included in the CWNS. States will
be encouraged to augment further
their documentation of the wet
weather conditions that contribute to
their water quality problems. Addi-
tional refinements will be made to
the SW and NFS modeling to
supplement the documented needs
further.
The use of watersheds for organizing
needs information will enhance both
EPA's and the States' understanding
of the overall water quality require-
ments. The watershed approach
makes sense for both environmental
and financial reasons because it
facilitates program integration and
focuses energy on holistic environ-
mental results. Coordinating efforts
across traditional program areas
allows for a comprehensive look at
all of the issues within watersheds,
which results in a more complete
understanding of the cumulative
impact of various human activities.
Analysis of needs by watershed
offers the prospect of defining more
specifically the investment required
to meet the CWA goals. Such
analysis can also help determine
how water quality investments can
be optimized. Looking ahead, EPA
expects that future CWNSs will
become even more comprehensive,
encompassing the full spectrum of
the nation's water quality problems.
-------
-------
Report to Congress
41
Glossary
301(h) Ocean Discharge Waiver
A variance (authorized under Section 301(h) of the CWA) from secondary
treatment requirement for treatment facilities discharging to bays or estuaries.
Advanced Treatment
See Categories of Needs: Category II.
Animal Unit (All)
NOTE: Definitions are provided to
A unit of measurement for any animal feeding operation. 1,000
, , . , , , , animal units is equal to 1,000 slaughter and feeder cattle or 714
help the reader understand the terms daiiy cattle or ^ swine weighing over 25 kilograms (approxi.
used but are not necessarily to be used mately 55 pounds) or 10,000 sheep or 500 horses.
for legal purposes.
Atmospheric Deposition
A process by which airborne particles (sometimes pollutants) are deposited on
the ground. After their deposition, these particles may be transferred to surface
waters by storm water runoff.
Best Management Practice (BMP)
A practice or combination of practices that are determined to be an effective and
practicable (including technological, economic, and institutional considerations)
means of controlling point and nonpoint pollutants at levels compatible with
environmental quality goals.
Best Management System (BMS)
A combination of conservation practices or management measures that, when
applied, will achieve desired nonpoint source pollution control through reduced
transport of sediment, nutrients, and chemicals into surface and ground water.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD/BOD5)
Amount of oxygen consumed by aerobic bacteria to decompose organic matter.
Used to measure extent of pollution by sewage or industrial waste. BOD5 refers
to the 5-day test to determine BOD.
Categories of Needs
Needs estimates address the following categories:
I. Secondary Treatment (Category I)
The minimum level of treatment that must be maintained by all treatment
facilities except those facilities granted ocean discharge waivers under section
-------
42
Glossary
1996 OWNS
301(h) of the CWA. Treatment levels are specific in terms of the concentration
of conventional pollutants in the wastewater effluent discharged from a facility
after treatment. Secondary treatmenttypically requires a treatment level that will
produce an effluent quality of 30 mg/l of both BOD5 and total suspended solids
(TSS), although secondary treatment levels required for some lagoon systems
may be less stringent than this. In addition, the secondary treatment must
remove 85 percent of BOD5 and TSS from the influent wastewater. Needs to
attain incremental reductions in conventional pollutant concentrations beyond
secondary treatment requirements are included in Category II.
2. Advanced Treatment (Category II)
A level of treatment more stringent than secondary treatment or a significant
reduction in nonconventional pollutants present in the wastewater treated by a
facility. Needs reported in this category are necessary to attain incremental
reductions in pollutant concentrations beyond basic secondary treatment.
3. Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) Correction (Category IIIA)
Control of the problem of penetration into a sewer system of water other than
wastewater from the ground through such means as defective pipes or manholes
(infiltration) or from sources such as drains, storm sewers, and other improper
entries into the system (inflow). Included in this category are costs for correction
of sewer system infiltration/inflow problems. Costs also are reported for
preliminary sewer system analysis and for detailed sewer system evaluation
surveys.
4. Replacement/Rehabilitation of Sewers (Category IIIB)
Reinforcement or reconstruction of structurally deteriorating sewers. This
category includes cost estimates for rehabilitation of existing sewer systems
beyond those for normal maintenance. Costs are reported if the corrective
actions are necessary to maintain the structural integrity of the system.
5. Collector Sewers (Category IVA)
Pipes used to collect and carry wastewater from a sanitary or industrial
wastewater source to an interceptor sewer that will convey the wastewater to a
treatment facility. The needs in this category include the costs of constructing
new collector sewer systems and appurtenances.
6. Interceptor Sewers (Category IVB)
Major sewer lines receiving wastewater flows from collector sewers. The
interceptor sewer carries wastewater directly to the treatment facility or to
another interceptor. The needs in this category include costs for constructing
new interceptor sewers and pumping stations necessary for conveying waste-
water from collection sewer systems to a treatment facility or to another
interceptor sewer.
-------
Report to Congress
Glossary
43
7. Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Controls (Category V)
Facilities or measures to achieve water quality objectives by preventing or
controlling periodic discharges of a mixture of storm water and untreated
wastewater (combined sewer overflows) that occur when the capacity of a sewer
system is exceeded during a rainstorm. This category does not include costs for
overflow control allocatable to flood control or drainage improvement, or for
treatment or control of storm water in separate storm and drainage systems.
8. Storm Water (SW) (Category VI)
Activities to plan and implement municipal storm water management programs
pursuant to NPDES permits for discharges from MS4s. These include structural
and nonstructural measures that (1) reduce pollutants from runoff from
commercial and residential areas that are served by the storm sewer, (2) detect
and remove illicit discharges and improper disposal into storm sewers, (3)
monitor pollutants in runoff from industrial facilities that flow into municipal
separate storm sewer systems, and (4) reduce pollutants in construction site
runoff.
9. Nonpoint Source (NFS) Pollution Controls (Category VII)
Activities to plan and implement programs to control NFS pollution of both
surface water and ground water. : These include structural and nonstructural
measures to reduce or eliminate pollutants from both urban (non-Phase I SW)
and rural areas. This category is further divided into: (A) agricultural cropland
sources; (B) agricultural animal sources; (C) silviculture sources; (D) urban
sources (excluding those covered in Category VI); (E) ground water protection;
(F) estuary protection; and (G) wetland protection.
Collection System
A system of collector and/or interceptor sewers collecting wastewater from a
community.
Collector Sewers
See Categories of Needs: Category IVA.
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)
See Categories of Needs: Category V.
Combined Sewer Systems
Sewer systems designed to convey both domestic sanitary wastewater and storm
water.
-------
44
1996 OWNS
Glossary
Community
In the wastewater treatment sense, a group of residences, businesses, and/or
industries sharing a common treatment and/or conveyance facility.
Confined Animal Facility (Feedlot)
A facility for the controlled feeding of animals that tends to concentrate large
amounts of animal waste that cannot be absorbed by the soil and hence may be
carried to nearby streams or lakes by rainfall runoff. Facilities with less than
1,000 AU are generally considered nonpoint sources. Facilities with more than
1,000 AU or facilities with water quality problems which discharge directly to
waters of the United States are considered point sources and are regulated
through NPDES permitting.
Conservation Practice Group
A combination of practices identified by the Farm Services Agency of the USDA
to address erosion control and water quality for agricultural land.
Conveyance Needs
The cost estimate to construct, expand, or upgrade sewer systems for transporting
wastewater to treatment facilities. See Categories of Needs: Categories IVA and
IVB.
Designated Use
The use designated to a stream or body of water which subsequently dictates the
water quality standards necessary to meet that use.
Design Year Needs
The cost estimate for building publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities
eligible for assistance under the C WA to serve the population expected within 20
years. For the 1996 CWNS, the design year is 2016.
Drainage Basin
See Watershed.
Estuarine Protection
Activities necessaryto develop and implementComprehensiveConservationand
Management Plans (CCMP) for protecting estuaries under the National Estuary
Program. Estuarine protection activities focus on restoring and maintaining the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the estuary and controlling
nonpoint sources of pollution.
-------
Report to Congress
Glossary
45
Eutrophication
The process whereby a waterbody becomes rich in organic nutrients, particularly
phosphate and nitrate, that promote the growth of algae. The rapid growth of
algae depletes the waterbody of .oxygen and impedes the survival of other
species.
Facilities Plans
Plans and studies that directly relate to the construction of treatment works
necessary to comply with the CWA. A facilities plan investigates needs and
provides information on the cost effectiveness of alternatives. A recommended
plan and an environmental assessment of the recommendations are also pre-
sented in a facilities plan. A facilitiesplan includesa description of the treatment
works for which construction drawings and specifications are to be prepared.
The description includes preliminary engineering data, cost estimates for design
and construction of the treatment works, and a schedule for completion of design
and construction.
Fertilizer
Any organic or inorganic material of natural or synthetic origin that is added to
soil to supply elements essential to plant growth.
Forest Management Unit (FMU)
A parcel of forest land that is harvested, regenerated, and managed as a single
entity. Its area, shape, and boundaries are determined by operational consider
ations, such as forest cover type, forest age, density of trees, timber merchant-
ability, soil productivity, and presence of natural boundaries, such as ridge tops,
streams, and roads.
Ground Water Protection
Activities addressed in a State's ground water protection strategy that must be a
part of the nonpoint source management program under Section 319(i) of the
CWA to build State institutional capabilities to protect ground water resources
from nonpoint sources of contamination. Activities include demonstrations,
enforcement, technical assistance, education, and training. Wellhead protection
and underground injection control for Class V wells, as well as water conserva-
tion programs, may be included.
Headworks
With respect to a treatment facility, the initial component into which the influent
wastewater flows.
-------
46
1996 CWNS
Glossary
Herbicide
A chemical substance designed to kill or inhibit the growth of plants, especially
weeds.
Hydromodiflcation
Alteration of the hydrologic characteristics of coastal and noncoastal waters,
which in turn could cause degradation of water resources. In the case of a stream
channel this is the process whereby a stream bank is eroded by flowing water.
This typically results in the suspension of sediments in the water course.
Infiltration/Inflow Correction
See Categories of Needs: Category HIA.
Interceptor Sewers
See Categories of Needs: Category IVB.
Lagoon
With respect to wastewater treatment, a pond in which algae, sunlight, and
oxygen interact to restore wastewater to a quality often equal to that of the
effluent from the secondary treatment stage. Lagoons are widely used by small
communities to provide wastewater treatment.
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)
Any pipe, ditch or gully, or system of pipes, ditches, or gullies, that is owned or
operated by a governmental entity and used for collecting and conveying storm
water.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
A provision of the CWA that prohibits discharge of pollutants into waters of the
United States unless a special permit is issued by EPA, a State, or (where
delegated) a Tribal government on an Indian reservation.
National Resources Inventory (NRI)
A national database for all non-Federal rural lands that provides information on
the status, condition, and trends of soil, water, arid related resources.
Needs
The estimated costs for constructing publicly owned wastewater conveyance or
treatment facilities or funding activities that are eligible for SRF assistance under
the CWA.
-------
Report to Congress
Glossary
47
Needs for Traditional Eligibilities (Categories I-V)
Documented cost estimates for the seven categories of needs for publicly owned
wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities (Categories I, II, IIIA, IIIB, IVA,
IVB and V). These needs are limited to the costs eligible for Federal financial
assistance under Title II of the CWA. See also Categories of Needs.
Nonpoint Sources
Pollution sources that are diffuse and do not have a single point of origin or are
not introduced into a receiving stream from a specific outlet. The pollutants are
generally carried off the land by storm water runoff. Sources of NFS pollution
include runoff from agriculture, silviculture, urban development, mining,
construction, dams and channels, inappropriate land disposal of waste, marinas,
and saltwater intrusion.
Nutrient
An element or compound which is essential for growth and development of an
organism: for example, carbon, nitrogen, or phosphorus.
Pesticide
Any chemical agent used for control of plant or animal pests. Pesticides include
insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, nematocides, and rodenticides.
Point Source
A pollution source that has a single point of origin or is introduced into a
receiving stream from a specific outlet. Wastewater treatment plant outfalls and
CSO points of discharge are typically point sources of pollution.
Primary Treatment
The first stage of wastewater treatment, including removal of floating debris and
solids by screening and sedimentation.
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
A wastewatertreatmentfacility owned by a public entity, such as a city, a county,
or a special sanitary district.
Redocumentation
The process by which documentation dated prior to 1990 supporting an
individual facility's needs in excess of $5 million was updated and/or revised for
the 1996 CWNS.
-------
48
1996 OWNS
Glossary
Replacement/Rehabilitation of Sewers
See Categories of Needs: Category IIIB.
Riparian Vegetation
Vegetation that is present on the banks of a river or stream or on the shore of a
lake.
Sanitary Sewer
A sewer designed to carry only domestic sanitary sewage and no storm water.
Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO)
A discharge of raw domestic sewage from a separate sewer system before the
headworks of a wastewater treatment facility.
Secondary Treatment
See Categories of Needs: Category I.
Separate Sewer System/Sanitary Sewer System
A sewer system, designed to exclude storm water, used to convey domestic
sanitary wastewater.
Separate State Estimates (SSEs)
Needs that are not included in the 1996 EPA estimates for the CWNS because
they are justified with documents other than the established documentation types
or they have no written documentation.
Silviculture
Care and cultivation of forest trees (e.g., forestry).
Small Community
A community with less than 10,000 population and total wastewater flow of less
than 1 mgd.
State Revolving Fund (SRF)
A State-managed revolving fund providing loans for specific water pollution
control purposes. Under the SRF program, States and municipalities are
primarily responsible for financing, constructing, and managing wastewater
treatment facilities. The SRF program is based on the 1987 Amendments to the
CWA which replaced the Construction Grants program with the SRF program.
-------
Report to Congress
Glossary
49
Storm Sewer
A sewer carrying only runoff from storm events.
Storm Water
Runoff water resulting from precipitation. See Categories of Needs:
Category VI.
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
A measure of the amount of small, particulate solid pollutants that are suspended
in wastewater.
Treatment Facility
A structure designed to treat wastewater, storm water, or combined sewer
overflows prior to discharging to the environment. Treatment is accomplished
by subjecting the wastewater to a combination of physical, chemical, and/or
biological processes that reduce the concentration of contaminants.
Urban Runoff
Wet weather runoff from urbanized areas not included in the Phase I Storm
Water Permit program. Includes potential Phase II Storm Water discharges,
hydromodification, runoff from construction activities, and runoff from marinas.
Wastewater
Dissolved or suspended waterborne waste material. Sanitary or domestic
wastewater refers to liquid material collected from residences, offices, and
institutions. Industrial wastewater refers to wastewater from manufacturing
facilities. Municipal wastewater is a general term applied to any liquid treated
in a municipal treatment facility and usually includes a mixture of sanitary and
pretreated industrial wastes.
Wastewater Infrastructure
The pipes and appurtenances for the collection, treatment, and disposal of sewage
in a community. The level of treatment will depend on the size of the commu
nity, the type of discharge, and/or the designated use of the receiving water.
Water Quality Criteria
Specific levels of water quality that, if achieved, are expected to render a body
of water suitable for its designated use. The criteria are based on specific levels
of pollutants that would make the water harmful if used for drinking, swimming,
farming, fish production, or industrial processes.
-------
50
Glossary
7996 OWNS
Water Quality Standards
State-adopted and EPA-approved ambient standards for waterbodies. The
standards cover the use of the waterbody and the water quality criteria that must
be met to protect the designated use or uses.
Watershed
A geographic area in which water, sediments, and dissolved materials drain to a
common outlet, typicallya point on a larger stream, a lake, an underlying aquifer,
an estuary, or an ocean. A watershed is also sometimes referred to as the
"drainage basin" of the receiving waterbody.
Wetlands Protection
Activities to protect and restore wetlands that are an integral part of a nonpoint
source management program or part of implementation or development of
comprehensive estuary conservation and management plans.
-------
Report to Congress
51
List of Acronyms
AU Animal Unit
BMP Best Management Practice
BMS Best Management System
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
CCMP Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act
CRP Conservation Reserve Program
CSO Combined Sewer Overflow
C WA Clean Water Act
CWNS Clean Water Needs Survey
CZARA Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments
DWNS Drinking Water Needs Survey
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FMU Forest Management Unit
I/I Infiltration and Inflow
MCP Municipal Compliance Plan
mgd Million Gallons per Day
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPS Nonpoint Source
NRI National Resources Inventory
O&M Operation and Maintenance
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SRCSD Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District
SRF State Revolving Fund
SSE Separate State Estimate
SSES Sewer System Evaluation Survey
SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow
SW Storm Water
TSS Total Suspended Solids
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USGS United States Geological Survey
WQI Watershed Quality Index
-------
-------
Report to Congress
53
Appendices
These Appendices provide detailed information on costs, operational treatment
facilities, and documentation criteria. Appendix A presents cost data by State from the
1996 CWNS. Appendix B contains cost data by State from the 1992 CWNS.
Appendix C contains selected technical data from the 1996 CWNS. Appendix D
contains a summary of acceptable documentation for the 1996 CWNS.
-------
54
1996 OWNS
List of
Appendix
Tables
Appendix A: Summary of 1996 CWNS Cost Estimates A-l
A-l Total Documented and Modeled Needs for Publicly Owned
Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Other SRF Eligibilities A-2
A-2 Total Documented Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater
Treatment Facilities and Other SRF Eligibilities A-4
A-3 Documented Needs for Nonpoint Source SRF-Eligible Projects ... A-6
A-4 Modeled Needs for Storm Water A-8
A-5 Modeled Needs for Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
(Agriculture, Confined Animal Facilities, and Silviculture) A-9
A-6 Comparison of Small Community Facilities and Needs
to the Nation A-10
A-7 Comparison of Small Community Facilities and Needs
to the Nation (Facilities Serving Populations from
3,500 to 10,000 Persons) A-12
A-8 Comparison of Small Community Facilities and Needs
to the Nation (Facilities Serving Populations from
1,000 to 3,500 Persons) A-14
A-9 Comparison of Small Community Facilities and Needs
to the Nation (Facilities Serving Populations
Under 1,000 Persons) A-16
A-10 Total Small Community Documented Needs for Publicly
Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities
and Other SRF Eligibilities A-18
A-ll Total Small Community Documented Needs for Publicly
Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Other
SRF Eligibilities (Facilities Serving Populations
from 3,500 to 10,000 Persons) A-20
A-12 Total Small Community Documented Needs for Publicly
Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Other
SRF Eligibilities (Facilities Serving Populations
from 1,000 to 3,500 Persons) A-22
A-13 Total Small Community Documented Needs for Publicly
Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Other
SRF Eligibilities (Facilities Serving Populations
Under 1,000 Persons) A-24
A-14 Separate State Estimates A-26
A-15 Separate State Estimates for Nonpoint Source Projects A-28
A-16 Separate State Estimates for Small Community Facilities A-30
-------
Report to Congress
55
Appendix B: Summary of 1992 CWNS Cost Estimates B-l
B-l Total Documented Needs for Publicly
Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Other
SRF Eligibilities B-2
B-2 Separate State Estimates ; B-4
Appendix C: Summary of 1996 Technical Information C-l
C-l Number of Operational Treatment Facilities and Collection
Systems in 1996 C-2
C-2 Number of Operational Treatment Facilities and Collection
Systems When All Documented Needs Are Met C-3
C-3 Number of Treatment Facilities by Flow Range C-4
C-4 Number of Treatment Facilities by Level of Treatment C-5
C-5 Number of Combined Sewer Facilities C-6
Appendix D: Summary of 1996 CWNS Documentation Types D-l
D-l List of Acceptable Document Types D-2
-------
-------
Report to Congress
A-1
Appendix A:
Summary of 1996 CWNS Cost Estimates
-------
A-2
1996 OWNS
Table A-1
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey*
Total Documented and Modeled Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities
And Other SRF Eligibilities
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
Table A-1 summarizes the 1996 EPA assessment of total documented and modeled needs by State for traditional
and other SRF eligibilities to satisfy the design year (2016) population. All values are presented in millions of January
1996 dollars.
The total documented and modeled needs represent the capital investment necessary to build publicly owned
Wastewater treatment facilities (Categories I through V) needed to serve the design year population and satisfy other
types of needs eligible for funding under the SRF program. These other eligible needs are storm water (Category
VI) and nonpoint source pollution control (Category VII), which includes ground water, estuarine, and wetlands
protection. These needs include all planning, design, and construction activities eligible for funding under Title II and
Title VI of the Clean Water Act.
Needs estimates presented in Table A-1 may vary slightly from those presented in Figure 1 and in Tables 1, 2, and
3 due to independent rounding and exclusion of modeled needs.
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Total
1,458
648
2,520
581
11,482
652
1,788
267
624
6,258
2,278
910
441
11,228
5,267
1,245
1,669
2,502
1,073
901
1,676
3,746
5,143
1,125
1,138
3,199
303
I
166
395
729
120
4,975
132
253
22
70
1,253
121
235
153
486
130
137
231
492
164
110
317
815
631
453
233
504
48
II
98
0
551
20
1,824
221
693
10
20
1,603
766
0
16
237
78
24
143
26
155
4
219
51
12
28
81
29
4
IIIA
4
0*
9
10
37
2
42
2
0
11
29
0
1
55
40
25
126
108
30
23
8
45
14
34
83
255
6
Category of Need
1MB IVA IVB
242
33
68
37
983
53
12
1
0
160
15
458
11
364
25
31
33
89
164
12
141
36
78
70
67
237
13
145
36
607
45
230
24
173
37
0
879
28
69
54
174
114
76
54
404
127
76
205
400
151
94
189
135
26
133
0
186
30
627
9
154
32
0
740
212
70
78
265
89
53
260
340
74
45
222
341
327
75
133
257
10
V
0
16
0
0
1,094
12
437
112
444
0
367
0
0
9,383
4,463
475
531
838
0
488
114
2,023
3,723
26
0
887
1
VI
327
28
136
36
1,200
107
10
43
18
1,158
454
51
9
9
110
33
101
71
172
0
302
18
34
25
38
162
0
VII
343
140
234
283
512
92
14
8
72
454
286
27
119
255
218
391
190
134
187
143
148
17
173
320
314
733
195
Total
0-V)
788
480
2,150
262
9,770
453
1,764
216
534
4,646
1,538
832
313
10,964
4,939
821
1,378
2,297
714
758
1,226
3,711
4,936
780
786
2,304
108
-------
Report to Congress
A-3
Table A-1 Continued
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey*
Total Documented and Modeled Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities
And Other SRF Eligibilities
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
Category of Need
State
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Amer. Samoa
Guam
No. Marianas
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
Categories: I
II
IIIA
NIB
IVA
Total
750
84
765
6,958
242
15,956
4,131
238
7,403
698
2,492
6,302
1,209
1,753
304
1,313
6,351
429
362
4,311
1,710
1,686
2,285
80
41
48
49
1,304
91
139,467
I
112
9
73
1,984
47
3,377 5,
278 1,
64
830
71
605
926
125
582
36
143
1,366
136
49
740 1,
284
241
418
16
5
36
25
515
70
II
40
0
28
257
29
955
134
0
248
76
291
161
59
258
1
65
732
0
53
066
5
23
102
9
0
0
0
3
0
26,538 17,508
IIIA
6
2
8
248
4
74
136
0
748
95
63
15
2
15
0*
57
519
0
3
155
81
28
33
1
0
0*
0
40
1
3,333
1MB
6
3
16
247
27
1,166
81
20
191
17
109
42
24
28
26
138
873
27
1
160
19
27
257
3
0
0
0*
18
20
6,979
Secondary Treatment
Advanced Treatment
Infiltration/Inflow Correction
Sewer Replacement/Rehabilitation
New Collector Sewers
IVA
15
6
41
745
36
327
1,206
0
358
13
64
701
328
265
12
136
354
81
35
514
55
300
259
5
32
7
6
335
0
10,788
IVB
V
VI
VII
IVB
96
16
161
351
11
351
918
1
534
46
57
185
147
376
17
214
884
59
14
577
136
258
176
4
4
5
18
393
0
10,771
V
245
0
415
3,016
0
3,990
1
0
4,199
0
682
3,978
517
0
14
99
0
0
162
556
540
772
53
0
0
0
0
0
0
44,673 7
VI
25
38
0
0
19
80
161
0
97
199
129
46
0
85
7
281
895
32
0
385
207
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
0
,368
VII
205
10
23
110
69
636
216
153
198
181
492
248
7
144
191
180
728
94
45
158
383
37
957
42
0
0
0
0
0
11,509
Total
d-V)
520
36
742
6,848
154
15,240
3,754
85
7,108
318
1,871
6,008
1,202
1,524
106
852
4,728
303
317
3,768
1,120
1,649
1,298
38
41
48
49
1,304
91
120,590
New Interceptor Sewers
Combined Sewer Overflows
Storm
Water
Nonpoint Sources
t Palau not considered in 1996 CWNS due to tree association.
* Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
A~4
1996 OWNS
Table A-2
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey1"
Total Documented Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Other SRF Eligibilities
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
Table A-2 summarizes the 1996 EPA assessment of total documented needs by State for traditional and other SRF
eligibilities to satisfy the design year (2016) population. All values are presented in millions of January 1996 dollars.
The total documented needs represent the capital investment necessary to build publicly owned wastewater
treatment facilities (Categories I through V) needed to serve the design year population and satisfy other types of
needs eligible for funding under the SRF program. These other eligible needs are storm water (Category VI) and
nonpoint source pollution control (Category VII), which includes ground water, estuarine, and wetlands protection.
These needs include all planning, design, and construction activities eligible for funding under Title II and Title VI
of the Clean Water Act.
Needs estimates presented in Table A-2 may vary slightly from those presented in Figure 1 and in Tables 1, 2, and
3 due to independent rounding and exclusion of modeled needs.
Cateqorv of Need
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
DIst. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Total
788
486
2,231
262
11,767
456
1,764
216
606
5,363
1,538
832
313
11,007
4,939
849
1,378
2,306
714
759
1,370
3,713
4,936
807
786
2,803
118
I
166
395
729
120
4,975
132
253
22
70
1,253
121
235
153
486
130
137
231
492
164
110
317
815
631
453
233
504
48
II
98
0
551
20
1,824
221
693
10
20
1,603
766
0
16
237
78
24
143
26
155
4
219
51
12
28
81
29
4
IIIA
4
0*
9
10
37
2
42
2
0
11
29
0
1
55
40
25
126
108
30
23
8
45
14
34
83
255
6
IIIB
242
33
68
37
983
53
12
1
0
160
15
458
11
364
25
31
33
89
164
12
141
36
78
70
67
237
13
IVA
145
36
607
45
230
24
173
37
0
879
28
69
54
174
114
76
54
404
127
76
205
400
151
94
189
135
26
IVB
133
0
186
30
627
9
154
32
0
740
212
70
78
265
89
53
260
340
74
45
222
341
327
75
133
257
10
V
0
16
0
0
1,094
12
437
112
444
0
367
0
0
9,383
4,463
475
531
838
0
488
114
2,023
3,723
26
0
887
1
VI
0
0
49
0
1,986
0*
0
0
0
419
0
0
0
0
0
28
0
9
0
0
38
1
0
0
0
19
3
VII
0
6
32
0
11
3
0
0
72
298
0
0
0
43
0
0
0
0
0
1
106
1
0
27
0*
480
7
Total
d-V)
788
480
2,150
262
9,770
453
1,764
216
534
4,646
1,538
832
313
10,964
4,939
821
1,378
2,297
714
758
1,226
3,711
4,936
780
786
2,304
108
-------
Report to Congress
A-5
Table A-2 Continued
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey1"
Total Documented Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Other SRF Eligibilities
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
Category of
State
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Amer. Samoa
Guam
No. Marianas
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
560
36
742
6,935
161
15,863
3,931
93
7,254
318
1,919
6,055
1,208
1,539
128
866
4,728
307
317
3,931
1,164
1,649
2,024
38
41
48
49
1,304
91
Total 126,406
Categories: I
II
IMA
NIB
IVA
t Palau not considered
* Estimate is less than
1
112
9
73
1,984
47
3,377 5,
278 1,
64
830
71
605
926
125
582
36
143
1,366
136
49
740 1,
284
241
418
16
5
36
25
515
70
26,538 17,
II
40
0
28
257
29
955
134
0
248
76
291
161
59
258
1
65
732
0
53
066
5
23
102
9
0
0
0
3
0
508
I IMA
6
2
8
248
4
74 1
136
0
748
95
63
15
2
15
0*
57
519
0
3
155
81
28
33
1
0
0*
0
40
1
3,333 6
1MB
6
3
16
247
27
,166
81
20
191
17
109
42
24
28
26
138
873
27
1
160
19
27
257
3
0
0
0*
18
20
,979
Secondary Treatment
Advanced Treatment
Infiltration/Inflow Correction
Sewer Replacement/Rehabilitation
New Collector Sewers
in 1996
CWNS due to free
association.
IVA
15
6
41
745
36
327
1,206
0
358
13
64
701
328
265
12
136
354
81
35
514
55
300
259
5
32
7
6
335
0
10,788
IVB
V
VI
VII
Need
IVB
96
16
161
351 3,
11
351 3,
918
1
534 4,
46
57
185 3,
147
376
17
214
884
59
14
577
136
258
176
4
4
5
18
393
0
10,771 44,
V
245
0
415
016
0
990
1
0
199
0
682
978
517
0
14
99
0
0
162
556
540
772
53
0
0
0
0
0
0
673 3
VI
35
0
0
0
0
30
160
0*
129
0
45
15
0*
8
22
0
0
4
0
163
31
0
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
,229
VII
5
0
0
87
7
593
17
8
17
0
3
32
6
7
0
14
0
0
0
0
13
0
691
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,587
Total
d-V)
520
36
742
6,848
154
15,240
3,754
85
7,108
318
1,871
6,008
1,202
1,524
106
852
4,728
303
317
3,768
1,120
1,649
1,298
38
41
48
49
1,304
91
120,590
New Interceptor Sewers
Combined Sewer Overflows
Storm Water
Nonpoint Sources (see Table A-3
for totals by subcategory)
$0.5 million.
-------
A-6
1996 CWNS
Table A-3
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey*
Documented Needs for Nonpoint Source SRF-Eligible Projects
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
Table A-3 summarizes the 1996 EPA assessment of documented needs for the Nonpoint Source (NPS) SRF
eligibilities by State. All values are presented in millions of January 1996 dollars.
The documented needs for the SRF-eligible projects represent the capital investment necessary to implement
activities in approved State NPS Management Plans under Section 319 and to develop and implement conservation
and management plans under Section 320 (National Estuary Program) of the Clean Water Act. These needs have
met the established documentation criteria and are eligible for funding under Title VI of the Clean Water Act.
Needs estimates presented in Table A-3 may vary slightly from those presented in Figure 1 and in Tables 1, 2, and
3 due to independent rounding and exclusion of modeled needs.
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
DIst. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
A
0
0
22
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
6
0
B
0
0
1
0
0
0*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
15
0
Category
c
0
0
0*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
VII Needs
D
0
0
5
0
0
2
0
0
72
298
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
1
0*
4
0
E
0
6
0*
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
105
0
0
1
0
450
7
F
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0*
0
Total
0
6
32
0
11
3
0
0
72
298
0
0
0
43
0
0
0
0
0
1
106
1
0
27
0*
480
7
-------
Report to Congress
A-7
Table A-3 Continued
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey*
Documented Needs for Nonpoint Source SRF-Eligible Projects
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
Category VII Needs
State
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Amer. Samoa
Guam
No. Marianas
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
Category VII Subcategories:
A
0
0
0
0*
0
12
0
0
7
0
0
16
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
0
0
0
0
0
0
194
A
B
C
D
B
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
8
0
0
16
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
97
0
0
0
0
0
0
160
Agriculture
Agriculture
Silviculture
C
0
0
0
0
0
168
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
174
D
0*
0
0
67
0
1
6
5
1
0
0*
0
2
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
523
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,004 1
(cropland)
(confined animal facilities)
E
5
0
0
4
7
400
0
3
0*
0
0*
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0*
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
,012
E
F
G
F
0
0
0
16
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
Total
5
0
0
87
7
593
17
8
17
0
3
32
6
7
0
14
0
0
0
0
13
0
691
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,587
Ground Water
Estuaries
Wetlands
Urban Runoff
t Palau not considered in 1996 CWNS due to free association.
* Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
A-8
1996 CWNS
Table A-4
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey
Modeled Needs for Storm Water
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
Table A-4 summarizes the 1996 EPA assessment of modeled needs estimates, by State, for the Phase I Storm
Water Program.
The modeled needs for Storm Water represent the estimated capital investment necessary for municipalities of the
nation to meet the requirements of the Phase I Storm Water Program.
Needs estimates presented in Table A-4 may vary slightly from those presented in Figure 1 and in Tables 1 and 3
due to independent rounding.
State
Category VI
Modeled Needs
State
Category VI
Modeled Needs
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
327
28
136
36
1,200
107
10
43
18
1,158
454
51
9
9
110
33
101
71
172
*
302
18
34
25
38
162
*
25
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Amer. Samoa
Guam
No. Marianas
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
38
*
*
19
80
161
it
97
199
129
46
*
85
7
281
895
32
*
385
207
*
30
*
*
*
*
*
*
7,368
States and territories with no municipal separate storm sewer systems regulated under Phase I of the NPDES Storm Water
Program.
-------
Report to Congress
A-9
Table A-5
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey
Modeled Needs for Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
(Agriculture, Confined Animal Facilities, and Silviculture)
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
Table A-5 summarizes modeled estimates of needs by State for controlling nonpoint source pollution from
agricultural land, confined animal facilities, and silviculture.
NPS needs estimates presented in Table A-5 may vary slightly from those presented in Figure 1 and in Tables 1,
3, and 6 due to independent rounding.
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Agri- Confined
cultural Animal Silvi-
Land Facilities culture
39
0
208
79
142
70
3
4
-
29
45
24
47
158
135
183
147
65
49
4
16
3
53
127
48
139
113
132
21
0*
3
31
92
13
6
4
-
21
32
3
15
84
66
205
42
47
22
7
20
6
58
144
21
85
7
67
283
134
14
173
267
7
5
0*
-
106
209
0
57
13
17
3
1
22
116
131
6
7
62
46
245
55
68
1
Total
343
134
225
283
501
90
14
8
-
156
286
27
119
255
218
391
190
134
187
142
42
16
173
317
314
279
188
200
State
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Amer. Samoa
Guam
No. Marianas
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
Agri- Confined
cultural Animal
Land Facilities
9
1
16
46
53
49
127
102
89
218
52
0*
19
142
50
495
84
5
37
54
15
74
28
-
-
-
-
3,827
1
3
5
4
112
34
18
75
28
18
131
1
12
45
39
87
8
20
31
32
7
274
3
-
-
-
-
2,110
Silvi-
culture
0*
19
2
12
70
116
0*
20
64
253
65
0*
106
4
91
146
2
20
90
284
15
75
11
-
-
-
-
3,513
Total
10
23
23
62
235
199
145
197
181
489
248
1
137
191
180
728
94
45
158
370
37
423
42
-
-
-
-
9,450
Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
Not modeled (Puerto Rico and the territories were not modeled because of the lack of information on the cost of nonpoint
source controls in these unique climates).
-------
A-10
1996 CWNS
Table A-6
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey*
Comparison of Small Community Facilities and Needs to the Nation
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
Table A-6 provides a summary of all publicly owned small community wastewater collection and treatment facilities
identified in the 1996 CWNS by State, and the capital investment needed to satisfy the design year (2016) population
served by these facilities, as well as any associated Separate State Estimates (SSEs).
The facilities summary presents the total number of facilities that will serve small communities when all documented
needs are met, the total number of these facilities reporting documented needs, and their respective percentage of
the relative total facilities within each State. The needs summary presents the total documented needs (Categories
I - VII) for these small community wastewater treatment and collection facilities, and their reported SSEs. The small
community percentages are derived from the total documented and SSEs needs reported for each State, including
needs for SRF-eligible projects unassociated with treatment and collection facilities.
Needs estimates presented in Table A-6 may vary slightly from those presented in Figures 6 and 9 due to
independent rounding.
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
DIst. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Facilities
Small Community
Percent of Total
Facilities When All
Documented Needs
Are Met
Number Percent
357 71%
165 91%
325 61%
676 87%
526 54%
269 64%
92 42%
75 71%
0 0%
96 20%
582 73%
1 1 32%
210 85%
81 1 63%
396 75%
897 91%
614 89%
359 73%
439 75%
164 76%
212 49%
96 34%
512 65%
676 82%
640 87%
788 70%
196 84%
Small Community
Percent of Total
Facilities with
Documented Needs
Number Percent
233 81%
135 94%
75 36%
151 86%
182 52%
107 68%
25 25%
19 53%
0 0%
25 12%
88 49%
4 24%
55 66%
358 55%
281 73%
63 63%
183 75%
219 70%
201 78%
67 61%
112 40%
46 25%
126 59%
230 77%
298 84%
218 54%
52 70%
Needs
Small Community
Documented Needs Small Community
as Percent of Separate State
Total Estimates as
Documented Needs Percent of Total SSEs
$ Million Percent
253 32%
257 53%
192 9%
145 55%
340 3%
124 27%
79 4%
37 17%
0 0%
49 1%
84 5%
17 2%
74 24%
616 6%
647 13%
71 8%
135 10%
377 16%
245 34%
205 27%
96 7%
169 5%
294 6%
254 31%
309 39%
244 9%
64 54%
$ Million Percent
0 0%
12 48%
2 1%
423 59%
78 3%
1 2%
0 0%
53 41%
0 0%
0 0%
33 6%
103 8%
126 77%
17 2%
72 8%
1 4%
17 27%
171 50%
117 22%
74 10%
0* 0%
205 9%
5 19%
63 39%
58 25%
178 16%
24 69%
-------
Report to Congress
A-11
Table A-6 Continued
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey*
Comparison of Small Community Facilities and Needs to the Nation
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
State
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Amer. Samoa
Guam
No. Marianas
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
Facilities
Small Community
Percent of Total
Facilities When All
Documented Needs
Are Met
Number Percent
480 91%
55 66%
65 51%
359 52%
88 66%
1,004 73%
439 53%
372 97%
959 70%
449 83%
182 67%
1,624 75%
4 11%
184 51%
346 96%
247 62%
1,377 68%
242 54%
96 76%
378 68%
247 63%
632 90%
868 72%
88 62%
0 0%
3 43%
2 40%
0 0%
9 75%
20,983 71%
Small Community
Percent of Total
Facilities with
Documented Needs
Number Percent
77 72%
18 64%
39 45%
180 45%
25 60%
388 65%
316 67%
56 85%
426 71%
92 74%
42 42%
596 76%
2 8%
63 35%
70 84%
77 50%
515 67%
19 35%
41 65%
202 66%
82 59%
331 88%
436 64%
16 53%
0 0%
0 0%
2 40%
0 0%
9 75%
7,673 63%
Needs
Small Community
Documented Needs Small Community
as Percent of Separate State
Total Estimates as
Documented Needs
$ Million Percent
41 7%
14 39%
60 8%
492 7%
65 40%
699 4%
781 20%
20 22%
, 1,499 21%
74 23%
93 5%
1,430 24%
12 1%
82 5%
40 31%
107 12%
589 12%
36 12%
115 36%
589 15%
121 10%
950 58%
555 27%
8 21%
0 0%
0 0%
3 6%
0 0%
9 10%
13,861 11%
Percent of Total SSEs
$ Million Percent
7 4%
17 3%
72 17%
283 26%
0 0%
653 24%
152 4%
0 0%
288 29%
23 14%
3 14%
906 27%
0 0%
25 36%
3 33%
204 21%
296 16%
71 9%
41 56%
256 62%
15 2%
931 91%
53 7%
23 32%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
6,155 18%
Palau not considered in 1996 CWNS due to free association.
Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
A-12
1996 OWNS
Table A-7
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey1"
Comparison of Small Community Facilities and Needs to the Nation
(Facilities Serving Populations from 3,500 to 10,000 Persons)
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
Table A-7 provides the subset of Table A-6 data for the needs for small community facilities estimated to be serving
populations in the range of 3,500 to 10,000 persons when all documented needs are met.
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dlst. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Facilities
Small Community
Percent of Total Small Community
Facilities When All Percent of Total
Documented Needs Facilities with
Are Met Documented Needs
Number Percent
48 10%
6 3%
44 8%
56 7%
123 13%
23 5%
43 20%
12 11%
0 0%
35 7%
94 12%
8 24%
22 9%
131 10%
41 8%
41 4%
31 5%
60 12%
81 14%
42 19%
24 6%
53 19%
118 15%
63 8%
54 7%
68 6%
10 4%
Number Percent
25 9%
5 3%
24 12%
24 14%
44 13%
5 3%
12 12%
6 17%
0 0%
1 1 5%
36 20%
3 18%
13 16%
61 9%
29 8%
2 2%
22 9%
47 15%
30 12%
19 17%
7 2%
33 18%
17 8%
19 6%
38 11%
20 5%
3 4%
Needs
Small Community
Documented Needs Small Community
as Percent of Separate State
Total Estimates as
Documented Needs Percent of Total SSEs
$ Million Percent
43 5%
4 1%
126 6%
34 13%
113 1%
9 2%
51 3%
14 6%
0 0%
24 0%
41 3%
17 2%
19 6%
203 2%
213 4%
1 2 0%
39 3%
128 6%
79 11%
t
94 12%
24 2%
|
129 3%
46 1%
| 45 6%
82 10%
52 2%
6 5%
$ Million Percent
0 0%
0 0%
0* 0%
86 12%
38 1%
0 0%
0 0%
16 12%
0 0%
0 0%
10 2%
98 7%
106 65%
3 0%
20 2%
0 0%
1 2%
16 5%
36 7%
54 7%
0 0%
128 5%
0 0%
27 17%
26 11%
31 3%
0 0%
-------
Report to Congress
A-13
Table A-7 Continued
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey1"
Comparison of Small Community Facilities and Needs to the Nation
(Facilities Serving Populations from 3,500 to 10,000 Persons)
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
State
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Amer. Samoa
Guam
No. Marianas
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
Facilities
Small Community
Percent of Total
Facilities When All
Documented Needs
Are Met
Number Percent
21 4%
6 7%
19 15%
188 27%
10 7%
254 19%
99 12%
11 3%
156 11%
59 11%
25 9%
364 17%
3 8%
25 7%
11 3%
49 12%
308 15%
18 4%
19 15%
64 12%
47 12%
34 5%
48 4%
7 5%
0 0%
2 29%
0 0%
0 0%
1 8%
3,179 11%
Small Community
Percent of Total
Facilities with
Documented Needs
Number Percent
11 10%
1 4%
16 18%
102 25%
6 14%
91 15%
78 16%
6 9%
59 10%
15 12%
11 11%
132 17%
1 4%
1 1 6%
5 6%
21 14%
117 ,15%
3 6%
11 17%
45 15%
13 9%
25 7%
26 4%
5 17%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
1 8%
1,367 11%
Needs
Small Community
Documented Needs Small Community
as Percent of Separate State
Total Estimates as
Documented Needs Percent of Total SSEs
$ Million Percent
13 2%
1 3%
29 4%
; 316 5%
16 10%
193 1%
304 8%
1 1%
702 10%
20 6%
36 2%
491 8%
11 1%
18 1%
4 3%
44 5%
220 5%
7 2%
53 17%
192 5%
28 2%
229 14%
62 3%
3 8%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
1 1%
4,631 4%
$ Million Percent
2 1%
2 0%
25 6%
194 18%
0 0%
210 8%
63 2%
0 0%
140 14%
4 3%
3 14%
233 7%
0 0%
8 11%
2 22%
47 5%
173 10%
21 3%
20 27%
51 12%
0 0%
112 11%
16 2%
3 4%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
2,025 6%
Palau not considered in 1996 OWNS due to free association.
Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
A-14
1996 OWNS
Table A-8
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey*
Comparison of Small Community Facilities and Needs to the Nation
(Facilities Serving Populations from 1,000 to 3,500 Persons)
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
Table A-8 provides the subset of Table A-6 data for the needs for small community facilities estimated to be serving
populations in the range of 1,000 to 3,500 persons when all documented needs are met.
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
DIst. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Facilities
Small Community
Percent of Total
Facilities When All
Documented Needs
Are Met
Number Percent
152 30%
11 6%
60 11%
155 20%
215 22%
102 24%
36 17%
20 19%
0 0%
50 11%
176 22%
3 9%
59 24%
334 26%
189 36%
190 19%
165 24%
127 26%
175 30%
79 37%
48 11%
29 10%
258 33%
190 23%
144 20%
183 16%
50 21%
Small Community
Percent of Total
Facilities with
Documented Needs
Number Percent
89 31%
6 4%
25 12%
61 35%
76 22%
42 27%
7 7%
7 19%
0 0%
12 6%
34 19%
1 6%
20 24%
140 22%
143 37%
15 15%
78 32%
89 28%
75 29%
35 32%
12 ' 4%
9 5%
69 32%
50 17%
83 23%
57 14%
22 30%
Needs
Small Community
Documented Needs Small Community
as Percent of Separate State
Total Estimates as
Documented Needs Percent of Total SSEs
$ Million Percent
110 14%
4 1%
45 2%
61 23%
170 1%
85 19%
16 1%
14 6%
0 0%
23 0%
31 2%
0* 0%
28 9%
215 2%
351 7%
45 5%
67 5%
153 7%
87 12%
99 13%
13 1%
32 1%
179 4%
77 10%
108 14%
77 3%
35 30%
$ Million Percent
0 0%
0 0%
1 1%
150 21%
39 1%
0 0%
0 0%
12 9%
0 0%
0 0%
14 3%
5 0%
7 4%
12 1%
43 5%
1 4%
14 22%
63 18%
65 12%
20 3%
0 0%
46 2%
3 12%
24 15%
26 11%
6 1%
3 9%
-------
Report to Congress
A-15
Table A-8 Continued
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey*
Comparison of Small Community Facilities and Needs to the Nation
(Facilities Serving Populations from 1,000 to 3,500 Persons)
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
State
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Amer. Samoa
Guam
No. Marianas
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
Facilities
Small Community
Percent of Total
Facilities When All
Documented Needs
Are Met
Number Percent
117 22%
19 23%
25 20%
135 20%
34 25%
414 30%
188 23%
62 16%
337 25%
170 31%
68 25%
727 34%
0 0%
87 24%
61 17%
114 28%
598 30%
53 12%
50 40%
184 33%
111 28%
187 27%
267 22%
24 17%
0 0%
1 14%
2 40%
0 0%
5 42%
7,240 24%
Small Community
Percent of Total
Facilities with
Documented Needs
Number Percent
24 22%
6 21%
16 18%
60 15%
8 19%
162 27%
135 28%
27 41%
169 28%
44 35%
15 15%
263 34%
0 0%
40 22%
25 30%
41 27%
208 27%
7 13%
23 37%
93 30%
34 24%
98 26%
129 19%
7 23%
0 0%
0 0%
2 40%
0 0%
5 42%
2,898 24%
Needs
Small Community
Documented Needs
as Percent of
Total
Documented Needs
$ Million Percent
14 3%
5 14%
25 3%
158 2%
7 4%
316 2%
305 8%
15 16%
544 7%
37 12%
33 2%
693 11%
0 0%
56 4%
18 14%
52 6%
230 5%
19 6%
53 17%
297 8%
56 5%
372 23%
272 13%
3 8%
0 0%
0 0%
3 6%
0 0%
7 8%
5,715 5%
Small Community
Separate State
Estimates as
Percent of Total SSEs
$ Million Percent
4 2%
14 3%
44 10%
82 8%
0 0%
246 9%
64 2%
0 0%
97 10%
8 5%
0 0%
470 14%
0 0%
16 23%
1 11%
127 13%
64 4%
40 5%
21 29%
134 33%
9 1%
387 38%
21 3%
9 13%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
2,412 7%
Palau not considered in 1996 CWNS due to free association.
Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
A-16
1996 OWNS
Table A-9
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey1"
Comparison of Small Community Facilities and Needs to the Nation
(Facilities Serving Populations Under 1,000 Persons)
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
Table A-9 provides the subset of Table A-6 data for the needs for small community facilities estimated to be serving
populations under 1,000 persons when all documented needs are met.
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
DIst. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Facilities
Small Community
Percent of Total
Facilities When All
Documented Needs
Are Met
Number Percent
157 31%
148 82%
221 41%
465 60%
188 19%
144 34%
13 6%
43 41%
0 0%
1 1 2%
312 39%
0 0%
129 52%
346 27%
166 31%
666 67%
418 61%
172 35%
183 31%
43 20%
140 32%
14 5%
136 17%
423 51%
442 60%
537 48%
136 58%
Small Community
Percent of Total
Facilities with
Documented Needs
Number Percent
119 41%
124 86%
26 13%
66 38%
62 18%
60 38%
6 6%
6 17%
0 0%
2 1%
18 10%
0 0%
22 27%
157 24%
109 28%
46 46%
83 34%
83 26%
96 37%
13 12%
93 33%
4 2%
40 19%
161 54%
177 50%
141 35%
27 36%
Needs
Small Community
Documented Needs
as Percent of
Total
Documented Needs
$ Million Percent
100 13%
249 51%
21 1%
50 19%
57 0%
30 7%
12 1%
9 4%
0 0%
2 0%
12 1%
0 0%
27 9%
198 2%
83 2%
24 3%
29 2%
96 4%
79 11%
12 2%
59 4%
8 0%
69 1%
132 16%
119 15%
115 4%
23 19%
Small Community
Separate State
Estimates as
Percent of Total SSEs
$ Million Percent
0 0%
12 48%
1 1%
187 26%
1 0%
1 2%
0 0%
25 19%
0 0%
0 0%
9 2%
0 0%
13 8%
2 0%
9 1%
0* 0%
2 3%
92 27%
16 3%
0 0%
0* 0%
31 1%
2 8%
12 7%
6 3%
141 13%
21 60%
-------
Report to Congress
A-17
Table A-9 Continued
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey*
Comparison of Small Community Facilities and Needs to the Nation
(Facilities Serving Populations Under 1,000 Persons)
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
State
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Amer. Samoa
Guam
No. Marianas
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
Facilities
Small Community
Percent of Total
Facilities When All
Documented Needs
Are Met
Number Percent
342 65%
30 36%
21 17%
36 5%
44 33%
336 24%
152 18%
299 78%
466 34%
220 41%
89 33%
533 25%
1 3%
72 20%
274 76%
84 21%
471 23%
171 38%
27 21%
130 23%
89 23%
41 1 59%
553 46%
57 40%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
3 25%
10,564 36%
Small Community
Percent of Total
Facilities with
Documented Needs
Number Percent
42 39%
1 1 39%
7 8%
18 4%
1 1 26%
135 23%
103 22%
23 35%
198 33%
33 26%
16 16%
201 26%
1 4%
12 7%
40 48%
15 10%
190 25%
9 17%
7 11%
64 21%
35 25%
208 55%
281 42%
4 13%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
3 25%
3,408 28%
Needs
Small Community
Documented Needs
as Percent of
Total
Documented Needs
$ Million Percent
14 3%
8 22%
6 1%
18 0%
42 26%
; 190 1%
172 4%
4 4%
253 3%
17 5%
24 1%
246 4%
1 0%
8 1%
18 14%
11 1%
139 3%
10 3%
: 9 3%
100 3%
37 3%
349 21%
221 11%
2 5%
' 0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
1 1%
3,515 3%
Small Community
Separate State
Estimates as
Percent of Total SSEs
$ Million Percent
1 1%
1 0%
3 1%
7 1%
0 0%
197 7%
25 1%
0 0%
51 5%
1 1 7%
0 0%
203 6%
0 0%
1 1%
0 0%
30 3%
59 3%
10 1%
0 0%
71 17%
6 1%
432 42%
16 2%
11 15%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
0 0%
1,718 5%
Palau not considered in 1996 OWNS due to free association.
Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
A-18
1996 OWNS
Table A-10
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey1
Total Small Community Documented Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities
And Other SRF Eligibilities
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
Table A-10 summarizes the 1996 EPA assessment of documented design year needs for small communities by
State. The assessment includes needs for traditional eligibilities (Categories I-V), storm water control (Category VI),
and nonpoint sources (Category VII) to satisfy the design year (2016) population living in small communities. The
small community needs shown are derived by EPA from the total documented design year needs using criteria as
defined in the report section, "What Are the Needs for Small Communities?". All values are presented in millions of
January 1996 dollars.
These small community design year needs have met the established documentation criteria and represent the capital
investment necessary to build all publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities needed to serve the estimated
design year population of small communities. These are the funds necessary to provide adequate wastewater
treatment systems and storm water control in compliance with the Clean Water Act for those small communities that
could document their needs.
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Total
253
257
192
145
340
124
79
37
0
49
84
17
74
616
647
71
135
377
245
205
96
169
294
254
309
244
64
I
50
247
79
63
180
90
15
5
0
15
28
11
38
161
78
15
61
85
77
50
45
54
106
140
79
61
30
II
29
0
44
13
6
20
1
0
0
4
18
0
0
10
39
0*
9
14
24
2
5
13
3
8
11
0
4
IIIA
1
0
0*
2
11
2
1
0
0
6
5
0
0*
16
12
0*
21
15
2
6
2
3
2
14
35
5
2
Category of Need
1MB IVA IVB
5
1
12
0*
3
4
0
0*
0
0
2
2
5
62
7
2
4
9
2
5
2
0*
3
12
13
7
9
116
6
46
41
96
0
36
20
0
19
13
4
14
143
96
8
18
132
96
33
14
74
127
46
100
102
14
52
0
11
26
43
8
26
12
0
5
18
0
17
53
50
2
22
78
44
27
16
24
30
14
71
41
5
V
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
171
365
44
0
44
0
82
12
0
23
0
0
28
0
VI
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0*
VII
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
20
0*
0
0
Total
(I-V)
253
254
192
145
339
124
79
37
0
49
84
17
74
616
647
71
135
377
245
205
96
168
294
234
309
244
64
-------
Report to Congress
A-19
Table A-10 Continued
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey'
Total Small Community Documented Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities
And Other SRF Eligibilities
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
Category of Need
State
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Amer. Samoa
Guam
No. Marianas
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
Categories: I
II
IMA
NIB
Total I II
41 33 3
14 50
60 14 3
492 172 34
65 16 16
699 241 21
781 59 136
20 10 0
1,499 183 48
74 27 17
93 45 16
1,430 350 51
12 0* 0
82 34 4
40 22 1
107 19 5
589 234 50
36 11 0
115 14 21
589 116 52
121 53 1
950 181 14
555 211 42
8 60
0 00
0 00
3 30
0 0 0
9 40
13,861 3,926 812
Secondary Treatment
Advanced Treatment
Infiltration/Inflow Correction
IIIA
1
2
3
31
1
30
32
0
299
5
5
9
0
1
0*
16
12
0
4
28
14
19
8
0
0
0
0
0
0*
683
IIIB
0
2
1
33
2
19
23
8
7
1
6
9
0
2
2
12
5
2
0*
1
4
17
11
1
0
0
0
0
5
344
Sewer Replacement/Rehabilitation
IVA
2
2
26
139
28
184
338
0
222
10
14
573
12
21
4
28
166
19
30
246
21
250
222
0*
0
0
0*
0
0
3,971
IVB
V
VI
VII
IVB V
2 0
3 0
13 0
49 14
2 0
89 99
186 0
1 0
120 620
14 0
7 0
118 320
0 0
20 0
3 0*
27 0
122 0
4 0
9 37
146 0
23 0
193 276
61 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0* 0
0 0
0 0
1,908 2,135
VI
0*
0
0
0
0
0
1
0*
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
VII
0
0
0
20
0
16
6
1
0
0
0*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
68
Total
d-V)
41
14
60
472
65
683
774
19
1,499
74
93
1,430
12
82
32
107
589
36
115
589
116
950
555
8
0
0
3
0
9
13,779
New Interceptor Sewers
Combined Sewer Overflows
Storm Water
Nonpoint Sources
IVA New Collector Sewers
t Palau not considered in 1996 CWNS due to free association.
* Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
A-20
1996 OWNS
Table A-11
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey*
Total Small Community Documented Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities
And Other SRF Eligibilities (Facilities Serving Populations from 3,500 to 10,000 Persons)
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
Table A-11 provides the subset of Table A-10 data for the needs for small community facilities estimated to be
serving populations in the range of 3,500 to 10,000 persons.
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dlst. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Total
43
4
126
34
113
9
51
14
0
24
41
17
19
203
213
2
39
128
79
94
24
129
46
45
82
52
6
I
10
1
55
21
41
7
11
2
0
11
11
11
9
16
16
2
12
21
22
10
3
40
18
25
19
7
0*
II
6
0
41
7
6
0
1
0
0
2
8
0
0
1
15
0*
5
4
19
2
5
11
0*
1
2
0
2
IIIA
0*
0
0
1
0*
2
0
0
0
1
4
0
0*
8
2
0
2
9
2
3
1
3
1
6
12
2
0
Category of Need
1MB IVA IVB
2
1
8
0*
2
0
0
0*
0
0
2
2
1
25
1
0
3
5
1
4
0
0*
2
6
3
3
2
15
2
17
2
49
0
22
9
0
6
6
4
4
19
28
0
6
47
25
11
1
59
19
7
20
4
1
10
0
5
3
15
0
17
3
0
4
10
0
5
10
10
0
11
32
10
5
4
16
2
0
26
8
1
V
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
124
141
0
0
10
0
59
10
0
4
0
0
28
0
VI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0*
VII
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0*
0
0
Total
(I-V)
43
4
126
34
113
9
51
14
0
24
41
17
19
203
213
2
39
128
79
94
24
129
46
45
82
52
6
-------
Report to Congress
A-21
Table A-11 Continued
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey'
Total Small Community Documented Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities
And Other SRF Eligibilities (Facilities Serving Populations from 3,500 to 10,000 Persons)
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
Category of Need
State
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Amer. Samoa
Guam
No. Marianas
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
Categories: I
II
MIA
1MB
IVA
Total 1 II
13 10 3
1 0 0
29 63
316 108 12
16 70
193 34 9
304 12 76
1 1 0
702 23 10
20 47
36 19 8
491 109 31
11 00
18 64
4 1 0
44 82
220 93 33
7 20
53 49
192 34 3
28 12 1
229 26 4
62 34 12
3 20
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
1 0 0
4,631 956 365
Secondary Treatment
Advanced Treatment
Infiltration/Inflow Correction
IIIA
0
0
1
20
1
8
18
0
287
3
2
2
0
0*
0*
6
5
0
1
15
3
6
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
440
NIB
0
0
0
19
0*
5
14
0*
4
1
2
6
0
0
0*
5
1
0
0*
0
0
4
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
137
Sewer Replacement/Rehabilitation
New Collector Sewers
IVA
0
0*
9
92
7
43
111
0
36
0*
4
148
11
4
0*
5
48
4
24
73
5
32
7
0
0
0
0
0
:0
1,046
IVB
V
VI
VII
IVB V
0* 0
1 0
10 0
42 8
1 0
23 65
73 0
0 0
25 317
5 0
1 0
40 155
0 0
4 0
2 0
18 0
40 0
1 0
4 11
67 0
3 0
32 125
5 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
604 1,057
VI
0*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
VII
0
0
0
15
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
Total
d-V)
13
1
29
301
16
187
304
1
702
20
36
491
11
18
3
44
220
7
53
192
24
229
62
3
0
0
0
0
1
4,605
New Interceptor Sewers
Combined Sewer Overflows
Storm Water
Nonpoint Sources
t Palau not considered in 1996 CWNS due to free association.
* Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
A-22
1996 OWNS
TableA-12
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey*
Total Small Community Documented Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities
And Other SRF Eligibilities (Facilities Serving Populations from 1,000 to 3,500 Persons)
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
Table A-12 provides the subset of Table A-10 data for the needs for small community facilities estimated to be
serving populations in the range of 1,000 to 3,500 persons.
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
DIst. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Total
110
4
45
61
170
85
16
14
0
23
31
0*
28
215
351
45
67
153
87
99
13
32
179
77
108
77
35
I
18
2
16
27
110
60
2
2
0
4
12
0*
14
54
43
4
32
36
25
34
9
10
58
48
25
21
18
II
15
0
3
4
0*
19
0
0
0
2
7
0
0
9
20
0
4
5
5
0*
0
0*
1
4
7
0
2
IIIA
1
0
0*
1
9
0*
1
0
0
5
1
0
0*
7
10
0*
18
5
0*
3
1
0*
1
4
15
2
2
Category of Need
IIIB IVA IVB
3
0
4
0*
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
31
4
0*
1
3
1
1
2
0
1
5
7
3
2
52
0
17
18
30
0
8
7
0
11
5
0
5
53
40
1
3
45
37
19
1
14
77
10
31
39
8
21
0
5
11
19
3
5
5
0
1
6
0
7
21
26
1
9
25
19
19
0*
8
22
5
23
12
3
V
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
208
39
0
34
0
23
0
0
19
0
0
0
0
VI
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
VII
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Total
(I-V)
110
2
45
61
169
85
16
14
0
23
31
0*
28
215
351
45
67
153
87
99
13
32
179
76
108
77
35
-------
Report to Congress
A-23
Table A-12 Continued
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey'
Total Small Community Documented Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities
And Other SRF Eligibilities (Facilities Serving Populations from 1,000 to 3,500 Persons)
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
Category of Need
State
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Amer. Samoa
Guam
No. Marianas
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
Categories: I
II
IMA
IIIB
Total
14
5
25
158
7
316
305
15
544
37
33
693
0
56
18
52
230
19
53
297
56
372
272
3
0
0
3
0
7
5,715
I
13
2
4
60
4
122
28
6
89
14
18
168
0
. 24
12
9
91
6
8
55
22
45
98
2
0
0
3
0
4
1,591
II
0*
0
0
21
0
6
36
0
24
10
4
14
0
0*
0
3
14
0
11
40
0
3
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
315
IMA
1
1
2
10
0
17
11
0
11
2
2
7
0
1
0
9
6
0
3
11
8
10
3
0
0
0
0
0
0*
201
IIIB
0
0
1
12
2
13
9
7
3
0*
1
3
0
2
1
5
4
2
0*
1
0*
12
7
0*
0
0
0
0
3
162
Secondary Treatment
Advanced Treatment
Infiltration/Inflow Correction
Sewer
Replacement/Rehabilitation
IVA
0
1
16
41
1
88
146
o
81
6
6
300
0
14
1
18
67
9
3
135
11
87
112
0*
0
0
0*
0
0
1,674
IVB
V
VI
VII
IVB
0*
1
2
5
0
27
68
1
49
5
2
54
0
15
1
8
48
2
2
55
15
83
30
1
0
0
0*
0
0
750
V
0
0
0
6
0
34
0
0
287
0
0
147
0
0
0
0
0
0
26
0
0
132
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
995
VI
0*
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
VII
0
0
0
3
0
9
6
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
Total
d-V)
14
5
25
155
7
307
298
14
544
37
33
693
0
56
15
52
230
19
53
297
56
372
272
3
0
0
3
0
7
5,688
New Interceptor Sewers
Combined Sewer Overflows
Storm Water
Nonpoint
Sources
IVA New Collector Sewers
f Palau not considered in 1996 CWNS due to free association.
* Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
A-24
1996 OWNS
TableA-13
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey1"
Total Small Community Documented Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities
And Other SRF Eligibilities (Facilities Serving Populations under 1,000 Persons)
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
Table A-13 provides the subset of Table A-10 data for the needs for small community facilities estimated to be
serving populations of less than 1,000 persons.
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
DIst. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Total
100
249
21
50
57
30
12
9
0
2
12
0
27
198
83
24
29
96
79
12
59
8
69
132
119
115
23
I
22
244
8
15
29
23
2
1
0
0*
5
0
15
91
19
9
17
28
30
6
33
4
30
67
35
33
12
II
8
0
0*
2
0*
1
0*
0
0
0*
3
0
0
0*
4
0
0*
5
0*
0*
0*
2
2
3
2
0
0
Category of Need
IIIA 1MB IVA IVB
0*
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0*
0
0
1
0*
0*
1
1
0*
0*
0*
0
0*
4
8
1
0*
0*
0
0*
0
0*
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
6
2
2
0*
1
0*
0
0
0
0
1
3
1
5
49
4
12
21
17
0
6
4
0
2
2
0
5
71
28
7
9
40
34
3
12
1
31
29
49
59
5
21
0
1
12
9
5
4
4
0
0*
2
O
5
22
14
1
2
21
15
3
12
0
6
9
22
21
1
V
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
16
5
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
VI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0*
VII
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
19
0
0
0
Total
(I-V)
100
248
21
50
57
30
12
9
0
2
12
0
27
198
83
24
29
96
79
12
59
7
69
113
119
115
23
-------
Report to Congress
A-25
Table A-13 Continued
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey*
Total Small Community Documented Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities
And Other SRF Eligibilities (Facilities Serving Populations under 1,000 Persons)
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
Category of Need
State
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Amer. Samoa
Guam
No. Marianas
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
Categories: I
II
IMA
NIB
IVA
Total
14
8
6
18
42
190
172
4
253
17
24
246
1
8
18
11
139
10
9
100
37
349
221
2
0
0
0
0
1
3,515
I
10
3
4
4
5
85
19
3
71
9
8
73
0*
4
9
2
50
3
2
27
19
110
79
2
0
0
0
0
0
1,379
II
0*
0
0
1
16
6
24
0
14
0*
4
6
0
0*
1
0*
3
0
1
9
0
7
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
132
IIIA
0
1
0
1
0
5
3
0
1
0
1
0*
0
0*
0 .
1
1
0
0
2
3
3
2
0*
0
0
0
0
0
42
1MB
0*
2
0*
2
0
1
0*
1
0*
0*
3
0*
0
0
1
2
0*
0
0
0*
4
1
3
0*
0
0
0
0
1
45
Secondary Treatment
Advanced Treatment
Infiltration/Inflow Correction
Sewer Replacement/Rehabilitation
New Collector Sewers
IVA
2
1
1
6
20
53
81
0
105
4
4
125
1
3
3
5
51
6
3
38
5
131
103
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,251
IVB
V
VI
VII
IVB
2
1
1
2
1
39
45
0
46
4
4
24
0
1
0*
1
34
1
3
24
5
78
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
554
V
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
18
0
0
0*
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
83
VI
0*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0*
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
VII
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0*
0
0
0*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
Total
(I-V)
14
8
6
16
42
189
172
4
253
17
24
246
1
8
14
11
139
10
9
100
36
349
221
2
0
0
0
0
1
3,486
New Interceptor Sewers
Combined Sewer Overflows
Storm Water
Nonpoint Sources
t Palau not considered in 1996 CWNS due to free association.
* Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
A-26
1996 OWNS
TableA-14
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey*
Separate State Estimates
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
Table A-14 summarizes the States' assessment of needs to satisfy the design year (2016) population for selected
wastewater treatment facilities that the States believe to be legitimate but that either were justified with documents
outside the established documentation criteria of the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey or had no written
documentation. The Separate State Estimates are optional and in addition to the EPA estimates. All values are
presented in millions of January 1996 dollars.
These needs are shown in Table A-14 by category of need in each State and U.S. Territory.
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
DIst. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Total
17
25
152
715
2,629
52
757
130
0
2
549
1,343
163
963
879
27
63
341
537
759
5
2,353
26
161
229
1,127
35
I
5
6
23
190
1,561
1
97
45
0
0
90
364
126
86
89
13
1
69
126
7
1
171
20
77
51
93
16
II
9
0
14
70
4
50
481
0
0
0
149
0
3
34
47
0
33
25
40
0
0
61
0
13
47
0
0
IIIA
1
0
0
113
26
0
3
4
0
0
33
172
4
8
16
0
0
31
17
3
0
98
0*
9
37
0
0
Category of Need
1MB IVA IVB
0
0
0*
98
391
0
0
0
0
0*
20
467
7
18
7
0
0
53
22
0
0
8
1
10
34
0*
4
0
9
20
128
124
0
7
53
0
0
89
178
11
10
33
0
0
119
147
22
0
408
4
22
46
72
4
2
5
70
114
412
1
4
26
0
2
124
162
12
49
30
14
29
41
157
10
0
231
1
30
12
55
3
V
0
0
0
2
0
0
165
0
0
0
44
0
0
1
657
0
0
3
0
717
0
14
0
0
0
519
0
VI
0
0
10
0
111
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
0
4
1,300
0
0
2
0
7
VII
0
5
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
757
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
62
0
0
0*
388
1
Total
d-V)
17
20
127
715
2,518
52
757
128
0
2
549
1,343
163
206
879
27
63
341
509
759
1
991
26
161
227
739
27
-------
Report to Congress
A-27
Table A-14 Continued
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey*
Separate State Estimates
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
Category of Need
State
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Amer. Samoa
Guam
No. Marianas
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
Categories: I
Total
189
503
426
1,068
0
2,740
3,788
0
1,008
160
22
3,329
0
70
9
973
1,815
750
73
411
741
1,024
714
71
0
0
0
228
0
34,151
I
5
354
24
326
0
1,097
114
0
174
24
0
422
0
36
4
234
598
136
33
136
98
254
74
38
0
0
0
79
0
II
1
71
16
0
0
510
432
0
102
99
0
144
0
5
0
34
250
0
7
30
26
1
23
12
0
0
0
1
0
7,588 2,844
MIA
1
0*
15
6
0
72
53
0
68
20
10
7
0
3
0
130
45
0
0
24
76
21
0
7
0
0
0
5
0
1,138
IIIB
0*
1
9
264
0
132
29
0
35
3
11
12
0
0
2
125
118
19
0
12
55
37
0
10
0
0
0
1
0
2,015
Secondary Treatment
II Advanced Treatment
MIA
1MB
IVA
Infiltration/Inflow Correction
Sewer
Replacement/Rehabilitation
IVA
8
17
170
39
0
325
306
0
275
2
1
505
0
9
1
218
174
500
16
93
53
290
38
2
0
0
0
68
0
4,616
IVB
V
VI
VII
New Collector Sewers
IVB
0*
60
92
113
0
296
192
0
132
12
0
267
0
17
0*
216
630
91
8
65
309
389
7
2
0
0
0
74
0
4,568
V VI
160
0
100
285
0
274
0
0
180
0
0
1,925
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
1
123
32
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,210
14
0*
0
5
0
34
2,661
0
42
0
0
0
0
0*
2
16
0
4
1
50
1
0
572
0*
0
0
0
0
0
VII
0
0
0
30
0
0
1
0
0*
0
0
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,866 1,306
Total
d-V)
175
503
426
1,033
0
2,706
1,126
0
966
160
22
3,282
0
70
7
957
1,815
746
72
361
740
1,024
142
71
0
0
0
228
0
27,979
New Interceptor Sewers
Combined Sewer Overflows
Storm
Water
Nonpoint Sources (see Table A-1 5
For totals
by subcategory)
t Palau not considered in 1996 CWNS due to free association.
* Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
A-28
1996 OWNS
TableA-15
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey*
Separate State Estimates for Nonpoint Source Projects
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
Table A-15 summarizes States' 1996 estimated needs focnonpoint source related activities. The subcategory totals
provided here are summarized in the Category VII column of Table A-14.
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
A
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
757
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
B
0
0
0*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
Category VII
C
0
0
0*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Needs
D
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0* 50
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
E
0
5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0*
388
1
F
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
0
5
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
757
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
62
0
0
0*
388
1
-------
Report to Congress
A-29
Table A-15 Continued
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey1"
Separate State Estimates for Nonpoint Source Projects
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
Category VII Needs
State
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Amer. Samoa
Guam
No. Marianas
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
Category VII Subcategories:
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0*
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
769
A
B
C
D
B
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
52
Agriculture
Agriculture
Silviculture
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0*
(cropland)
D
0
0
0
30
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
89
(confined animal facilities)
E
0
0
0
0*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
395
E
F
G
F
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Ground Water
Estuaries
Wetlands
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Total
0
0
0
30
0
0
1
0
0*
0
0
47
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,306
Urban Runoff
t Palau not considered in 1996 CWNS due to free association.
Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
A-30
1996 CWNS
TableA-16
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey*
Separate State Estimates for Small Community Facilities
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
Table A-16 summarizes the States' assessment of needs to satisfy the design year (2016) population living in small
communities. The small community needs shown in Table A-16 were derived by EPA from the total Separate State
Estimates using criteria as defined in the report section, "What Are the Needs for Small Communities?". These needs
are shown by category of need in each State and U.S. Territory.
Separate State Estimates reported by the States are optional and are for selected wastewater treatment facilities
that the States believe to be legitimate but that either were justified with documents outside the established criteria
of the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey or had no written documentation. All values are presented in millions of
January 1996 dollars.
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
DIst. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Total
0
12
2
423
78
1
0
53
0
0
33
103
126
17
72
1
17
171
117
74
0*
205
5
63
58
178
24
I
0
4
2
146
10
1
0
4
0
0
3
40
115
9
20
1
1
52
21
0
0
51
1
20
6
67
14
II
0
0
0
44
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0*
4
0
16
12
16
0
0
19
0
14
2
0
0
IIIA
0
0
0
39
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0*
9
0
0
6
1
0*
0
4
0
6
11
0
0
Category of Need
1MB IVA IVB
0
0
0*
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
2
2
0
3
0
0
7
4
0
0
1
0
3
11
0
4
0
5
0*
104
45
0
0
33
0
0
7
35
5
7
14
0
0
74
.41
12
0
98
4
9
23
64
3
0
2
0*
67
23
0*
0
16
0
0
9
26
4
1
18
0
0
20
34
7
0
32
0*
11
5
47
3
V
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
55
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
VI
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0*
0
0
0
0
0
0*
VII
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
(I-V)
0
11
2
423
78
1
0
53
0
0
33
103
126
17
72
1
17
171
117
74
0
205
5
63
58
178
24
-------
Report to Congress
A-31
Table A-16 Continued
.1996 Clean Water Needs Survey*
Separate State Estimates for Small Community Facilities
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
Category of Need
State
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Amer. Samoa
No. Marianas
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
Categories: I
II
IMA
1MB
IVA
Total 1 II
7 4 1
17 10 2
72 13 1
283 270 0
0 00
653 260 13
152 16 30
0 00
288 65 18
23 17 5
3 00
906 301 87
0 00
25 10 1
3 1 0
204 67 9
296 91 15
71 23 0
41 67
256 93 22
15 1 0
931 247 2
53 17 1
23 18 0
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
0 00
6,155 2,118 349
Secondary Treatment
Advanced Treatment
Infiltration/Inflow Correction
IDA
1
0*
3
1
0
17
9
0
20
0
1
5
0
0*
0
22
2
0
0
16
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
191
IIIB
0*
1
1
0
0
17
3
0
12
0*
1
6
0
0
1
31
6
2
0
2
0
24
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
177
Sewer Replacement/Rehabilitation
New Collector Sewers
IVA
0*
3
32
0
0
174
66
0
123
0*
1
417
0
8
0
43
88
41
16
76
8
261
32
0*
0
0
0
0
0
1,972
IVB
V
VI
VII
IVB V
0* 0
1 0
22 0
0 0
0 0
144 28
28 0
0 0
35 15
1 0
0 0
79 11
0 0
6 0
0* 0
32 0
94 0
5 0
8 3
47 0
6 0
360 20
3 0
0* 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1,196 136
VI
1
0*
0
0
0
0
0*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0*
1
0
0
0
1
0
0*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
VII
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
Total
d-V)
6
17
72
271
0
653
152
0
288
23
3
906
0
25
2
204
296
71
40
256
15
931
53
23
0
0
0
0
0
6,139
New Interceptor Sewers
Combined Sewer Overflows
Storm Water
Nonpoint Sources
t Palau not considered in 1996 CWNS due to free association.
* Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
-------
Report to Congress
B-1
Appendix B:
Summary of 1992 CWNS Cost Estimates
-------
B-2
1996 CWNS
Table B-1
1992 Clean Water Needs Survey
Total Documented Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Other SRF Eligibilities
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
Table B-1 summarizes the results of EPA's 1992 CWNS of documented needs by State for the design year (2012)
population. All values from the 1992 CWNS have been adjusted to millions of January 1996 dollars.
These design year needs were derived from those documented during the 1992 CWNS. This table is provided as
a convenience to those who wish to compare the 1992 and 1996 CWNS results. Table B-1 is comparable to Table
A-2.
Needs presented in Table B-1 are not comparable for all categories as presented in Table 3 which also includes
modeled needs.
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
DIst. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Total
958
230
1,420
257
9,489
620
2,478
211
251
7,836
2,198
308
286
3,560
2,011
93
699
1,472
1,390
408
1,702
8,736
4,175
1,099
745
1,540
72
I
161
80
792
128
6,089
146
383
64
0
1,504
215
150
78
664
218
39
95
230
482
168
272
3,699
920
646
239
241
22
II
173
0
78
25
163
223
735
2
138
879
1,006
4
59
345
167
18
72
40
56
0*
826
28
7
147
80
2
0
MIA
57
6
2
31
145
0*
36
0
0
34
50
0
0*
93
59
0
43
89
57
25
26
67
192
20
84
115
0
Category of Need
1MB IVA IVB
41
0
2
3
798
1
26
9
0
37
40
0
2
400
30
0*
57
22
40
12
79
33
31
28
67
86
1
376
24
205
38
773
28
390
89
0
3,415
89
79
81
201
395
1
57
663
460
91
275
846
623
50
127
81
33
150
120
341
32
886
28
232
45
0
962
539
75
66
276
141
29
357
393
295
56
190
989
587
68
148
140
16
V
0
0
0
0
628
0*
676
2
90
5
259
0
0
1,581
1,001
6
18
35
0
56
34
3,074
1,815
140
0
871
0
VI
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
1,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
VII
0
0
0
0
0
194
0
0
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
Total
0-V)
958
230
1,420
257
9,482
426
2,478
211
228
6,836
2,198
308
286
3,560
2,011
93
699
1,472
1,390
408
1,702
8,736
4,175
1,099
745
1,536
72
-------
Report to Congress
B-3
Table B-1 Continued
1992 Clean Water Needs Survey
Total Documented Needs for Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Other SRF Eligibilities
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
Category of
State
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Amer. Samoa
Guam
No. Marianas
Palau
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
Categories: I
Total
278
186
965
5,379
140
26,146
4,569
43
5,755
521
1,649
3,454
1,060
767
123
2,086
5,257
258
184
3,849
3,418
1,364
1,199
1,579
41
52
49
18
1,750
81
126,464
1 II
109 1
88 44
118 11
2,213 304
49 0*
5,676 6,408
358 1,723
17 0
1,412 280
199 119
485 416
676 147
161 65
277 123
41 0
251 375
2,038 717
128 0
69 22
519 1,212
1,092 28
405 47
512 144
5 0
5 0
37 0
25 0
17 0
616 6
60 2
35,383 17,467
IIIA
1
2
11
256
1
201
126
0
407
15
14
13
2
20
1
165
221
0
1
142
159
33
62
1
0
0*
0
0
46
1
3,132
IIIB IVA
35
3
5
370
19
613
53
26
393
14
158
21
10
5
33
53
100
0
1
189
97
34
2
1
0
0
3
26
318
455
38
2,608
1,211'
0
709
36
330
1,094
292
149
15
355
533
96
19
529
578,
510
284
14
32
10
0* 6
0
18
18
4,116
Secondary Treatment
II Advanced Treatment
IMA
1MB
IVA
Infiltration/Inflow Correction
Sewer Replacement/Rehabilitation
0
539
0
20,279
IVB
V
VI
VII
New Collector Sewers
Need
IVB V
44 69
23 0
235 267
311 1,458
33 0
2,044 7,962
1,028 1
0* 0
418 1,844
138 0
124 122
184 1,319
161 369
193 0
26 2
475 318
1,648 0
34 0
8 64
579 516
750 690
311 24
189 6
1 0
4 0
5 0
18 0
1 0
499 26
0 0
16,645 25,348 2,
VI
14
0
0
8
0
621
22
0
128
0
0*
0
0
0
5
47
0
0
0
163
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
015
VII
2
0*
0
4
0
13
47
0
164
0
0
0
0
0
0
47
0
0
0
0
24
0
0
1,557
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,079
Total
(I-V)
262
186
965
5,367
140
25,512
4,500
43
5,463
521
1,649
3,454
1,060
767
118
1,992
5,257
258
184
3,686
3,394
1,364
1,199
22
41
52
49
18
1,750
81
122,370
New Interceptor Sewers
Combined Sewer Overflows
Storm Water
Nonpoint Sources*
Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
t Sum of 1992 CWNS subtotals for NPS and other SRF eligibilities newly defined in the 1987 CWA amendments.
-------
B-4
1996 CWNS
Table B-2
1992 Clean Water Needs Survey
Separate State Estimates
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
Table B-2 summarizes the States' 1992 assessment of needs to satisfy the design year (2012) population for
selected wastewater treatment facilities that the States believe to be legitimate, but that either were justified with
documents outside the established documentation criteria of the 1992 CWNS or had no written documentation. The
Separate State Estimates were optional and were in addition to the EPA estimates (see Table B-1).
All values from the 1992 CWNS have been adjusted to January 1996 dollars in millions. These estimates are
provided as a convenience to those who wish to compare the 1992 and 1996 CWNS results. See Table A-14 for
comparable 1996 estimates for Categories I-VI (SSE Category VII needs were not reported in 1992).
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
DIst. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Total
10
0
87
802
781
15
887
0
113
0
129
1,305
173
81
70
3
77
300
126
819
8
508
22
254
6
703
25
1
0
0
23
215
533
1
137
0
0
0
1
989
134
53
29
3
1
88
30
5
1
114
18
113
0
68
11
II
10
0
0
79
42
0
551
0
113
0
19
0
0
9
20
0
72
30
32
0
0
66
0
1
0
0
0*
Category of Need
IIIA IIIB IVA
0
0
0
128
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
5
1
4
0
4
1
0
0*
0
17
0
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
111
163
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
7
2
4
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
31
2
0
0*
0
0
0
142
36
0
8
0
0
0
1
174
13
10
0
0
0
122
33
4
1
182
4
25
0
35
8
DVB
0
0
64
125
7
1
5
0
0
0
45
142
14
5
2
0
0
55
30
0*
0
129
0*
14
2
14
3
V
0
0
0
2
0
0
186
0
0
0
50
0
0
1
11
0
0
3
0
810
0
0
0
48
0
586
0
VI
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
2
0
3
Total
(I-V)
10
0
87
802
781
2
887
0
113
0
129
1,305
173
81
70
3
77
300
126
819
2
508
22
254
4
703
22
-------
Report to Congress
8-5
Table B-2 Continued
1992 Clean Water Needs Survey
Separate State Estimates
(January 1996 Dollars in Millions)
Cateqorv
State
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Amer. Samoa
Guam
No. Marianas
Palau
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
Categories: I
II
IMA
1MB
* Estimate is less than
Total
361
621
238
332
0
2,904 1
3,434
0
1,243
0
26
2,362
0
21
14
1,649
925
1,106
36
363
149
1,127
673
93
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
17
426
37
313
0
,225
46
0
87
0
0
478
0
8
6
666
344
206
4
136
55
267
7
38
0
0
0
0
0
0
24,981 6,933
II
32
117
19
0
0
480
250
0
51
0
0
154
0
0
0
67
100
0
8
23
0*
10
1
23
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,379
IIIA
0*
0*
16
0
0
77
10
0
54
0
12
7
0
2
0
119
31
0
0
20
2
3
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
556
Secondary Treatment
Advanced Treatment
Infiltration/Inflow Correction
Sewer Replacement/Rehabilitation
$0.5 million.
NIB
0*
1
9
0
0
133
0
0
41
0
13
12
0
0
6
43
31
0
0
4
0
22
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
651
IVA
IVB
V
VI
of Need
IVA IVB
0*
17
28
0
0
349
68
0
135
0
1
547
0
6
0
229
115
862
15
72
0
522
15
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,781
1
60
23
0
0
288
55
0
500
0
0
274
0
5
0*
190
304
38
2
50
91
258
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,801
V
294
0
106
19
0
314
. 0
0
372
0
0
890
0
0
0
287
0
0
6
1
0
36
0
0*
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,022
VI
17
0*
0
0
0
38
3,005
0
3
0
0
0
0
0*
2
48
0
0
1
57
1
9
647
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,858
Total
d-V)
344
621
238
332
0
2,866
429
0
1,240
0
26
2,362
0
21
12
1,601
925
1,106
35
306
148
1,118
26
87
0
0
0
0
0
0
21,123
New Collector Sewers
New Interceptor Sewers
Combined Sewer Overflows
Storm Water
-------
-------
Report to Congress
C-1
Appendix C:
Summary of 1996 Technical Information
NOTE: Some States did not update all of the
technical data used to generate Tables C-1 through
C-5.
-------
C-2
1996 CWNS
Table C-1
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey
Number of Operational Treatment Facilities and
Collection Systems in 1996
Table C-1 summarizes the number of treatment facilities and collection systems in operation in 1996 in each State
and U.S. Territory.
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Treatment
Facilities
273
49
144
315
588
300
91
17
1
268
379
25
166
726
393
726
576
236
309
141
164
122
391
511
301
652
175
449
Collection
Systems
310
54
157
359
793
354
135
35
1
317
486
25
191
1,005
447
759
608
288
364
174
219
216
645
634
344
708
182
516
State
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Amer. Samoa
Guam
No. Marianas
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Treatment
Facilities
55
84
145
106
517
485
297
685
497
208
740
20
207
281
246
1,311
108
92
242
258
204
592
103
2
7
2
30
12
Collection
Systems
58
115
516
118
929
574
302
927
514
240
1,410
29
246
284
310
1,576
182
102
345
329
278
787
120
2
7
2
30
12
Total
16,024
20,670
-------
Report to Congress
C-3
Table C-2
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey
Number of Operational Treatment Facilities and Collection Systems
When All Documented Needs Are Met
Table C-2 summarizes the number of treatment facilities and collection systems planned to be in operation in each
State and U.S. Territory when all documented needs are met.
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Treatment
Facilities
436
58
184
370
643
315
104
19
1
292
343
33
189
819
434
739
600
317
426
161
189
137
441
532
373
716
193
454
Collection
Systems
483
61
206
430
869
382
161
49
1
345
495
33
219
1,125
510
773
648
392
492
198
322
257
740
665
470
842
211
525
State
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Amer. Samoa
Guam
No. Marianas
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Treatment
Facilities
65
88
153
116
652
543
297
797
501
216
977
22
234
290
254
1,540
122
96
298
271
452
644
103
2
6
4
30
12
Collection
Systems
69
124
553
132
1,128
741
302
1,137
533
253
1,794
33
289
293
331
1,849
208
110
447
353
631
982
120
2
7
4
30
12
Total
18,303
24,371
-------
C-4
1996 CWNS
Table C-3
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey
Number of Treatment Facilities by Flow Range
Table C-3 shows, for five flow ranges, the number of treatment facilities in operation in 1996 and projected to be in
operation when all documented needs are met. The number of facilities and their cumulative flow (in millions of
gallons per day) are shown for each of the flow ranges.
TREATMENT FACILITIES IN OPERATION IN 1996
Existing Flow Range (mgd)
0.000 to 0.1 00
0.101 to 1.000
1.001 to 10.000
10.001 to 100.000
100.001 and greater
Other*
Total
Number of
Facilities
6,444
6,476
2,573
446
47
38
16,024
Total Existing Flow
(mgd)
287
2,323
7,780
11,666
10,119
-
32,175
TREATMENT FACILITIES IN OPERATION WHEN ALL DOCUMENTED NEEDS ARE MET
Design Flow Range (mgd)
Number of
Facilities
Total Future Design
Flow Capacity (mgd)
0.000 to 0.100
0.101 to 1.000
1.001 to 10.000
10.001 to 100.000
100.001 and greater
Other*
6,449
7,522
3,528
727
69
8
320
2,794
11,478
19,093
15,102
Total
18,303
48,787
*Note: Flow data were unavailable for these facilities.
-------
Report to Congress
C-5
Table C-4
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey
Number of Treatment Facilities by Level of Treatment
Table C-4 shows, by level of treatment, the number of treatment facilities in operation in 1996 and projected to be
in operation when all documented needs are met. The number of facilities, their cumulative capacities (in millions
of gallons per day), and the population served are shown for each level of treatment.
TREATMENT FACILITIES IN OPERATION IN 1996
Level of Treatment
Less than Secondary Treatment
Secondary Treatment
Greater than Secondary Treatment
No Discharge
Total
Number
of
Facilities
176
9,388
4,428
2,032
16,024
Present
Design
Capacity
(mgd)
3,054
17,734
20,016
1,421
42,225
""
Number of
People
Served
17,177,492
81 ,944,349
82,928,182
7,660,876
189,710,899
Percent of
U.S.
Population
6.5
31.0
31.4
2.9
71.8
TREATMENT FACILITIES IN OPERATION WHEN ALL DOCUMENTED NEEDS ARE MET
Level of Treatment
Number
of
Facilities
Future
Design
Capacity
(mgd)
Number
of People
Served
Percent of
U.S.
Population
Less than Secondary Treatment
Secondary Treatment
Greater than Secondary Treatment
No Discharge
61
9,738
6,135
2,369
601
17,795
28,588
1,803
5,513,147
102,321,429
152,724,017
14,163,722
1.8
32.9
49.0
4.5
Total
18,303
48,787
274,722,315
88.2
-------
C-6
1996 OWNS
Table C-5
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey
Number of Combined Sewer Facilities
Table C-5 presents the number of combined sewer facilities identified during the 1996 CWNS.
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Number of
Facilities
0
1
0
0
4
1
10
2
1
0
6
0
0
104
119
16
3
24
0
46
8
28
48
2
0
12
1
3
State
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Amer. Samoa
Guam
No. Marianas
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Number of
Facilities
0
5
37
0
64
1
0
110
0
5
110
3
0
3
3
0
0
20
4
16
57
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
880
-------
Report to Congress
D-1
Appendix D:
Summary of 1996 CWNS Documentation Types
-------
D-2
1996 OWNS
Table D-1
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey
List of Acceptable Documentation Types
Table D-1 lists the 31 document types that were acceptable for justifying needs and/or costs for the 1996 Clean
Water Needs Survey.
Allowable for
DOCUMENTATION TYPE Justification of
Need Cost
1. Capital Improvement Plan Yes Yesa
A capital plan must adequately address why the project is needed and provide costs
which are project specific.
2. Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) Analysis Yes Yes
An I/I analysis is a document that identifies excessive flow problems due to infiltration
or inflow into the sewage conveyance system. The I/I analysis itself may be contained
within a Facility Plan, a Sewer System Evaluation Survey, or a Combined Sewer
Overflow Report.
3. Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) Yes Yes
An SSES is a document that contains the results of a sewer system survey, manhole
inspection, smoke testing, and flow monitoring. It is used to evaluate the physical
condition of a sewer system and identifies areas of combined sewers, downspout
connections, and locations where the sewer system is at capacity. In many cases a
CSO study is placed in this category.
4. Final Engineer's Estimate Yes
The final engineer's report is typically submitted as a result of a detailed facility design.
5. Cost of Previous Comparable Construction No
This document may be used to justify costs if stringent guidelines are followed and the
costs are project specific.
6. Facilities Plan Yes
Excerpts from a facilities plan are acceptable forms of documentation to justify a need
and to update cost estimates.
7. Plan of Study Yes
This documentation type must be an official project description. A plan of study
precedes a facilities plan.
Yes
Yesa
Yes
No
-------
Report to Congress
D-3
Table D-1 Continued
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey
List of Acceptable Documentation Types
DOCUMENTATION TYPE
Allowable for
Justification of
Need
Cost
8. State Priority List/Intended Use Plan Yes
The 1-year fundable plus 4-year planning portion of the FY1996 or 1997 list may be
used to document need as long as it was accepted by the Region. The cost estimate
report on the priority list may be used to document a cost estimate for the facility if the
project is in the fundable portion of the priority list. Projects on the fundable portion of
the current intended use plan may also be used for cost estimates.
9. State-Approved Area-Wide or Regional Basin Plan Yes
CWA Section 208 and 303 Regional Basin Plans are broad-based water quality
management plans written to identify future planning for areas within a State. Only
Section 208 and 303 documents that contain site-specific information and a description
of a need can be accepted as documentation of need. Documentation of cost is
assessed on a case-by-case basis depending on the amount of detail reported and the
source of the information.
10. Federal or State Grant Application Form or SRF Loan Application Yes
Federal or equivalent State grant applications or SRF applications may be used to
document needs and to update costs for the categories in which the grant money is
requested. Applications should contain sufficient clearly written narrative that defines
the specific project and the water quality and/or public health problem. If an equivalent
State grant program application is used as documentation, the form must be submitted.
11. Municipal Compliance Plan (MCP) Yes
A MCP is developed when a municipality needs to construct a wastewater treatment
facility to achieve compliance. The MCP should describe thfe necessary treatment
technology and estimated cost, outline the proposed sources and methods of financing
the proposed facility (both construction and operation and maintenance), and provide
a schedule for achieving compliance as soon as possible.
12. Diagnostic Evaluation Results of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants Yes
Demonstrating Need for Construction
A diagnostic evaluation is usually performed when a facility cannot achieve effluent
discharge permit limits or when it experiences design, operational, analytical, or
financial problems that limit the performance of the facility. This type of evaluation may
be used to document a need if the results indicate that construction is necessary to
achieve compliance.
See
Noteb
Yesa
Yes
Yes
No
-------
D-4
1996 CWNS
Table D-1 Continued
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey
List of Acceptable Documentation Types
DOCUMENTATION TYPE
Allowable for
Justification of
Need
Cost
13. Administration Order / Court Order / Consent Decree Demonstrating Need to
Construct
These official documents are usually issued as the result of continued violation of an
NPDES permit or other pollution control requirements. The order or decree must state
a need for construction to correct the violation in order to document the need. Cost
curves will be used to calculate associated costs.
14. Sanitary Survey or Certification from a Health Official
A Sanitary Survey is a logical, investigative approach to gather information to evaluate
the condition of existing on-site wastewater systems. The sanitary survey must
document high area-wide failure rates that are considered serious enough to be a
health hazard (such as ground water contamination caused by malfunctioning septic
tanks) in order to document a need. The documentation must clearly state that on-site
failures are contributing to a water pollution or health-related problem. This
documentation will be reviewed by EPA on a case-by-case basis.
15. State-Approved Local/County Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plans
These plans are similar to State-Approved Area-Wide Basin Plans. These local plans
also cover fairly large areas and might not contain project-specific information. These
local plans must clearly identify a water quality or health-related problem and must be
project specific to be acceptable as documentation.
16. State Certification of Excessive Flow
This document may be used to demonstrate that a need exists for infiltration/inflow
correction.
17. State Approved Municipal Wasteload Allocation Plan
A Municipal Wasteload Allocation Plan is a water quality analysis done to determine
the level of treatment required by a specific project, which is ultimately translated into
an effluent limitation for the NPDES permit. These plans can be used to justify the
need for a treatment plant enlargement or upgrade as long as the study identifies a
specific sewage treatment point source and appropriate design flows and treatment
levels. This plan can be used to document a need and may be used to update costs
if the project descriptions identify specific costs.
18. For EPA Use Only
States should not use this documentation code.
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yesa
Yes
No
Yes Yesa
Not Not
Available Available
for State for State
Use Use
-------
Report to Congress
Table D-1 Continued
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey
List of Acceptable Documentation Types
D-5
DOCUMENTATION TYPE
Allowable for
Justification of
Need
Cost
19. Full Grant/Loan Award
and
20. Partial Grant/Loan Award
The costs in the CWNS database should be reduced based on the grant awards or
SRF loans. If the total needs have been satisfied, the needs should be reduced to zero
and a "19" entered in the documentation type. If only a part of the needs have been
satisfied, the needs estimate should be reduced by the grant or loan amount, with the
difference entered in the correct needs category and a "20" (partial grant/loan award)
entered as the documentation type.
21. NPDES or State Permit Requirements (with Schedule) Yes No
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is a permitting program
implemented under authority of the CWA that is designed to control point source
discharges of pollution. Facilities not meeting effluent limitations and on compliance
schedules or facilities requiredto plan because they are at or near plant capacity may
submit documentation under documentation type 21.
22. Municipal Storm Water Management Plan Yes Noc
A Municipal Storm Water Management Plan is a plan submitted as a proposed
municipal storm water management program as part of a municipality's NPDES storm
water permit application. It includes a description of structural and source control
measures that are to be implemented to (1) reduce pollutants in runoff from commercial
and residential areas that are discharged from the storm sewer, (2) detect and remove
illicit discharges and improper disposal into storm sewers, (3) monitor pollutants in
runoff from industrial facilities that discharge to municipal separate storm sewers, and
(4) reduce pollutants in construction site runoff that is discharged to municipal separate
storm sewers.
23. Nonpoint Source Management Plan/Assessment Report Yes No0
A Nonpoint Source Management Plan is a 4-year plan developed by a State to address
nonpoint source pollution problems. Elements in the program include: identification
of the best management practices and measures to reduce pollutant loading; programs
to achieve implementation; a schedule with annual milestones, costs, and identification
(text continued on next page)
-------
D-6
Table D-1 Continued
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey
List of Acceptable Documentation Types
1996 CWNS
DOCUMENTATION TYPE
Allowable for
Justification of
Need
Cost
No0
23. Nonpoint Source Management Plan/Assessment Report Continued Yes No0
of specific projects; certification that the laws of the State will provide adequate
authority to implement the plan; and sources of funding and assistance. A Nonpoint
Source Assessment Report assesses the extent of pollution due to diffuse or nonpoint
sources within a State. The report identifies navigable waters that require nonpoint
source controls to achieve CWA water quality standards, sources and amounts of such
pollution, and State and local control programs. It also describes the process that will
be used to identify best management practices. EPA will consider other
documentation, such as nonpoint source grant applications and State's surveys, on a
case-by-case basis.
24. Nonpoint Source Management Plan/Ground Water Protection Strategy Yes
States can use a Comprehensive Ground Water Protection Strategy to document NPS
needs if the strategy is part of a Nonpoint Source Management Program. The goals
of this major Federal initiative addressing ground water protection are to strengthen
State ground water programs; deal with significant, poorly addressed ground water
problems; create a policy framework within EPA for the guidance of ground water
policy; and strengthen the ground water organization within EPA. Included in such a
strategy are programs established under the SDWA such as regulation of the injection
of wastes into deep wells, the Wellhead Protection Program, and the Sole Source
Aquifer program. Provisions in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
for leaking underground storage tanks, goals in the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) for contaminated ground water
sites, and State grant programs in the CWA for ground water protection activities are
covered by this strategy.
25. Nonpoint Source Management Plan/Well-Head Protection Program and Plan Yes No0
A well-head Protection Plan can be used to document NPS needs if it is part of a
Nonpoint Source Management Program. As part of its overall ground water protection
strategy, each State must delineate well-head protection areas for wells or well fields
used for public water supply. Contaminant sources within the well-head protection area
must be identified and a management plan developed to protect the water supply in
that area from contamination. Contingency plans for each public water supply system
must be developed to ensure an appropriate response in the event that contamination
occurs, and standards must be established for locating new wells so as to minimize the
potential for contamination of the water supply.
-------
Report to Congress
D-7
Table D-1 Continued
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey
List of Acceptable Documentation Types
DOCUMENTATION TYPE
Allowable for
Justification of
Need Cost
26. Nonpoint Source Management Plan/Delegated Underground Injection Control Yes
Program Plan
States can document needs to address NPS aspects of a Delegated Underground
Injection Control Program Plan if it is part of the State's Nonpoint Source Management
Program. As part of the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA and State Underground
Injection Control Programs were established to protect potential underground sources
of drinking water from contamination by injection wells.
27. Estuary Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan Yes
A Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan (CCMP) is a management plan
developed for an estuary that has been nominated for the CWA section 320 National
Estuary Program. The CCMP summarizes findings, identifies and establishes a priority
for addressing problems, determines environmental quality goals and objectives,
identifies action plans and compliance schedules for pollution control and resource
management, and ensures that designated uses of the estuary are protected.
28. Funding Applications (applicable only for communities with populations <3,500) Yes
All applications for funding (with signed agency review sheets, e.g., Rural Economic
and Community Development - formerly Farmers Home Administration, Community
Development Block Grant - Housing and Urban Development) other than SRF are
acceptable for need. The application is acceptable for cost if an engineering report is
reviewed by qualified state project staff. (See documentation type 10 for SRF loan
applications.)
29. State Needs Surveys (applicable only for communities with populations <3,500) Yes
All State Needs Surveys are acceptable for documenting need if:
A local government official's signature is included ("local" means city, community,
town, borough, village, or county).
Information describing the-problem is attached.
Information describing prior or ongoing planning efforts and descriptions of the
cost-effective control option are offered.
State Need Surveys are acceptable for documenting cost if a cost estimate that has
been prepared and signed by an engineer or engineer circuit rider is attached. The
cost estimate need not be as detailed as that found in a facility plan, but must include
the engineer's rationale for the estimate. Qualified state project staff must also sign a
statement of cost reasonableness after reviewing the estimate.
30. Model Survey (applicable only for communities with populations <1,000)
Use of a standard or "model" survey form (only for populations <1,000) is acceptable
for documenting need (and cost) as long as signatures are included. If costs are not
included, cost curves will be used.
Noc
No0
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
-------
D-8
1996 CWNS
Table D-1 Continued
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey
List of Acceptable Documentation Types
DOCUMENTATION TYPE
Allowable for
Justification of
Need
Cost
31. Information from an Assistance Provider (applicable only for communities with Yes No
populations <3,500)
A statement of need from a technical assistance provider (State training center, health
department, circuit rider, etc.) with soils/geologic report would document need for
communities. Local official and provider signatures must be included. Cost curves will
be used to document costs. Remember that cost curves are based on simple
regressions of data in the CWNS and represent "comparable costs" even though the
cost curves might not include all allowable costs.
a Documentation will be reviewed by the contractor to make sure that costs are within acceptance ranges.
b Only the 1 -year fundable portion can be used to justify cost.
c Documentation may have information that can be used to justify cost. Cost justification for Categories I-VII
must be project specific, and distributable among Categories I-VII.
------- |