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.

-------