Document ID: EPA-HQ-OECA-2005-0062-0016
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2007-09-19T04:00Z

Total Cost Analysis

Revised 40 CFR Part 6

The Agency is amending its procedures for implementing the requirements
of the CEQ Regulations for NEPA.  Those subject to the final NEPA rule
include EPA employees who must comply with NEPA and certain grant or
permit applicants who must submit environmental information
documentation to EPA for their proposed projects.  The final NEPA
regulations would consolidate and standardize the environmental review
process applicable to all EPA actions subject to NEPA.  Three different
levels of documentation exist: CE, EA/FONSI, and EIS/ROD.  This
documentation is project-specific and is a one-time submission.

We estimate the following for each type of documentation using the final
rule, using $75/hour for contractor costs:

RESPONDENT	CE	EA/FONSI	EIS/ROD

Grant Applicant	Hours	Cost	Hours	Cost	Hours	Cost

Contractor Hrs/Cost	40	$3,000 	200	$15,000 	2,400	$300,000 

Direct Hrs/Labor Cost	5	275	60	3,300	440	24,200

O&M

17

40

280

TOTAL	45	$3,292 	260	$18,340 	2,840	$324,480 

 

 

 

(1 per 3-yrs)

Permit Applicant	Hours	Cost	Hours	Cost	Hours	Cost

Contractor Hrs/Cost	None	None	400	$50,000 	2,400	$300,000 

Direct Hrs/Labor Cost	None	None	60	3,900	440	28,600

O&M	None	None

40

280

TOTAL	None	None	460	$53,940 	2,840	$328,880 

*The EIS/ROD cost for grant applicants can be annualized at $108,160.

EPA anticipates that approximately 300 grants will be awarded annually. 
Under the final rule, we estimate that about 60% of these projects will
be documented with a CE, and 40% with an EA/FONSI.  EPA also estimates
that one project will have an EIS/ROD completed during a three-year
period.  EPA estimates that permit applicants will have about 11
projects documented with an EA/FONSI, and 1 project documented with an
EIS/ROD.  We do not expect that any permit applicants will use a CE to
document their project.

Using this information, we calculate the following figures for each type
of documentation for each applicant:

Grant applicant:	180 CEs  x  $3,292	=	   $592,560

			120 EAs  x  $18,340	=	$2,200,800

			1 EIS       x  $108,160	=	   $108,160

Permit applicant:	11 EAs    x  $53,940	=	   $593,340

			1 EIS       x  $328,880	=	   $328,880

TOTAL AMOUNT				=	$3,823,740

Under the previously approved collection burden, the individual cost for
each type of documentation is the same.  However, in that burden, we
estimated that 50% of the grants for projects were documented with a CE,
and 50% were documented with an EA/FONSI.  There was still 1 EIS/ROD per
three-year period, and project estimates for permit applicants were
approximately the same (11 projects documented with an EA/FONSI; 1
project documented with an EIS/ROD).  This leads to the following total
burden under the previously approved collection burden:

Grant applicant:	150 CEs  x  $3,292	=	   $493,800

			150 EAs  x  $18,340	=	$2,751,000

			1 EIS	    x  $108,160	=	   $108,160

Permit applicant:	11 EAs    x  $53,940	=	   $593,340

			1 EIS       x  $328,880	=	   $328,880

TOTAL AMOUNT				=	$4,275,180

Accordingly, the final rule would decrease the total annual amount spent
on documentation from $4,275,180 to $3,823,740, which is a yearly
savings of $451,440.

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 RFA/SBREFA Screening Analysis of Impacts on Small
Entities

for the Final Rule at 40 CFR Part 6:

“Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and

Assessing the Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA Actions"

Table of Contents

												Page

1.  	Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	    1

2.  	Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	    1

	2(a)	Title of This Screening Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	    1

	2(b)	Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	    1

	2(c)	Need/Authority for EPA’s Implementing Procedures and Final
Rule…..	    3

	2(d)	Actions Typically Subject to EPA’s Part 6 Regulations . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .	    3

	2(e)	Entities Typically Subject to EPA’s Part 6 Regulations . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .	    5

	2(f)	Environmental Information Required . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .	    6

3. 	Definitions of Small Entities Used in This RFA/SBREFA Screening
Analysis . . .	  10

	3(a)	Small Business Definition for This Screening Analysis . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .	  10

	3(b)	Small Government Definition for This Screening Analysis . . . . .
. . . . . . .	  11

	3(c)	Small Organizations Definition for This Screening Analysis . . . .
. . . . . .	  12

4.  	RFA/SBREFA Screening Analysis of Impacts on Small Entities . . . .
. . . . . . . . .	  13

	4(a)	Screening Analysis Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .	  13

	4(b)	Estimating the One-Time Cost for Entities  . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .	  15

5.	Screening Analysis of Economic Impacts on Small Businesses . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .	  21

	5(a)	Small Businesses Considered in This Screening Analysis . . . . . .
. . . . . .	  21

	5(b)	Calculation of Estimated One-Time Cost Impact on Small Businesses
. .	  27

	5(c)	Summary of Small Businesses Experiencing an Economic Impact

		Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	  28

6.	Screening Analysis of Economic Impacts on Small Governments . . . . .
. . . . . . .	  30

	6(a)	Small Governments Considered in This Screening Analysis  . . . . .
. . . . .	  30

	6(b)	Calculation of Estimated One-Time Cost Impact on Small Governments
  30

	6(c)	Summary of Small Governments Experiencing an Economic Impact

		Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	  33

7.	Small Entity Flexibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	  34

8.	Statement of Impact on Small Entities Experiencing an Economic Impact

	Condition and Finding of No Significant Impact on a Substantial Number

	of Small Entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	  37

Part B.	Statistical Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .	              43

Tables

Table 1.	Summary of Information Submitted by Applicants for CEs,
EAs/FONSIs,

		and EISs/RODs

Table 2.	Anticipated Business Types, NAICS Codes and Small Business
Designations

Table 3.	Annual Total STAG Grants Awarded, Fiscal Years1992 Through 2004

Table 4.	Summary of Estimated Contractor Costs for Permit and Grant
Applicants

		and Estimated Number of Projects

Table 5.	One-Year and Out-Year Total Annual Estimated Contractor Costs
and

		Hours for Permit Applicants and Grantees

Table 6.	One-Time Estimated Cost for a Permit Applicant or Grantee

Table 7.	Summary of Estimated One-Time Total Costs for a Year

Table 8.	Business Size by Number of Employees and NAICS Size Definition
for

		Code 211111 (Gas and Oil Exploration)

Table 9.	Business Size by Number of Employees and NAICS Size Definition
for

		Code 212221, 212222, 212231 and 212234 (Hardrock Mining)

Table 10.	Business Size by Dollar Amount of Revenues/Sales and NAICS
Size

		Definition for Code 112120 (Dairy Milk and Cheese Production)

Table 11.	Business Size by Number of Employees and NAICS Size Definition
for

		Code 311712 (Seafood Production)

Table 12.	Business Size by Dollar Amount of Revenues/Sales and NAICS

		Size Definition for Codes 112310, 112320, 112330, 112340, 112112,

		112210 (CAFOs)

Table 13.	Summary of Business Types With Anticipated Small Businesses

Table 14.	One-Time Estimated Costs for Special District Grant Applicants

Attachments

Attachment 1.	Exemptions from NEPA for Certain EPA Actions and EPA’s 

		Voluntary NEPA Policy

Attachment 2.	Estimates of Contractor Costs and Hours for Grantees and
Permit Applicants

Attachment 3.	STAG Projects for 2002 Through 2004 - Summary of Active
Projects

		and SBA Size Designation

Attachment 4.	STAG Projects for 2002 Through 2004 - “Income Test”
Estimate of

		Cost Impact on Small Governments

Acronyms

aka			Also known as

BP			British Petroleum

CAFOs		Concentrated animal feeding operations

CE			Categorical exclusion

CEQ Regulations	Council on Environmental Quality Regulations at 40 CFR
parts 1500 through 1508

CCR			Central Contractor Registration

CSO			Combined sewer overflow

D&B			Dun and Bradstreet

EA			Environmental assessment

EID			Environmental information document

EIS			Environmental impact statement

EPA			Environmental Protection Agency

GP			General permit

HQ			Headquarters

FONSI			Finding of no significant impact

MPRSA		Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act

MS4			Municipal separate storm sewer system

NAICS		North American Industry Classification System

NEPA			National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NPDES		National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

O&M			Operation and maintenance

Part 6			40 CFR Part 6

RFA			Regulatory Flexibility Act

RFA/SBREFA	Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996

ROD			Record of Decision

SAAPP		Special Appropriations Act Projects and Program

SBA			Small Business Administration

SBREFA	 	Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of 1996

STAG			State and Tribal Assistance Grants

U.S.C.			United States Code	

Screening Analysis of Impacts on Small Entities

for the Final Rule at 40 CFR Part 6:

“Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act and

Assessing the Environmental Effects Abroad of EPA Actions"

1.  	Introduction

 	The Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (RFA/SBREFA, 5. U.S.C. 601
et seq.), generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small governments, and small
organizations.

	The RFA/SBREFA requirements to prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis or a certification of no significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities applies to proposed rules subject
to notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute, and final rules promulgated under
the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements of the Administrative
Procedure Act.  It is EPA’s policy to make an assessment of the
rule’s impact on any small entities, to engage the potentially
regulated entities in a dialog regarding the rule, and minimize the
impact to the extent feasible.  However, in view of the requirements of
SBREFA, a regulatory flexibility analysis as specified by the RFA is not
required simply because the rule has some impact on some number of small
entities.  Instead, such analyses are required only in cases where the
Agency cannot certify that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

2.  	Background Information

	2(a)	Title of This Screening Analysis. “Procedures for Implementing
the National Environmental Policy Act and Assessing the Environmental
Effects Abroad of EPA Actions”

	2(b)	Abstract.  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is
amending its procedures for implementing the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).  The final rule also
includes minor, technical amendments to the Agency’s procedures for
implementing Executive Order 12114, “Environmental Effects Abroad of
Major Federal Actions.”

	EPA’s Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act.  The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C.
4321-4347, establishes the federal government’s national policy for
protection of the environment.  The Council on Environmental Quality
Regulations (CEQ Regulations) at 40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508
establish procedures implementing the national policy.  The CEQ
Regulations (40 CFR 1505.1) require federal agencies to adopt and, as
needed, revise their own implementing procedures to supplement the CEQ
Regulations and to ensure their decision-making processes are consistent
with NEPA.

	The Agency is amending its procedures for implementing the requirements
of the CEQ Regulations for NEPA.  The final rule amends EPA’s NEPA
implementing procedures by:  (1) consolidating and standardizing the
procedural provisions and requirements of the Agency’s environmental
review process under NEPA; (2) clarifying the general procedures
associated with categorical exclusions, consolidating the categories of
actions subject to categorical exclusion, amending existing and adding
new categorical exclusions, and consolidating and amending existing and
adding new extraordinary circumstances; (3) consolidating and amending
the listing of actions that generally require an environmental impact
statement; (4) clarifying the procedural requirements for consideration
of applicable environmental review laws and executive orders; and (5)
incorporating other proposed revisions consistent with CEQ’s
Regulations.

	Those subject to the final NEPA rule include EPA employees who must
comply with NEPA and certain grant or permit applicants who must submit
environmental information documentation to EPA for their proposed
projects.  The final NEPA regulations consolidate and standardize the
environmental review process applicable to all EPA actions subject to
NEPA, including those actions now specifically addressed in the
regulations and other actions subject to NEPA but not specifically
addressed in the regulations (e.g., certain grants awarded for special
projects authorized by Congress through the Agency’s annual
Appropriations Act).1

	Compliance with the NEPA regulations is the responsibility of EPA's
Responsible Officials.  For applicant-proposed actions, certain
procedures apply to applicants (that is grantees and permit applicants)
who must submit environmental information to EPA as part of the
environmental review process.  The EPA Responsible Official is
responsible for the environmental review process, including any
categorical exclusion determination or the scope, accuracy, and contents
of a final environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact
statement (EIS) and any supporting documents.  The applicant contributes
by submitting environmental information to EPA as part of the
environmental review process.

	For actions subject to NEPA, the Responsible Official may determine
that the proposed action does not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment and may, therefore, be
categorically excluded from further NEPA review.  If the proposed action
is not categorically excluded, the Responsible Official may prepare an
EA in order to determine whether to prepare an EIS or a finding of no
significant impact (FONSI).  If necessary, the Responsible Official must
prepare an EIS if the proposed action will have a significant effect on
the human environment.  For applicant-proposed actions, the applicant
may submit information to the Responsible Official regarding the
applicability of a categorical exclusion and request a determination by
the Responsible Official.  Unless the applicant-proposed action is
categorically excluded, the Responsible Official may gather the
information and prepare the NEPA documents without assistance from the
applicant, or have the applicant prepare an environmental information
document (EID) or a draft EA and supporting documents or implement a
third-party contract agreement with the applicant.

	EPA’s Procedures for Implementing Executive Order 12114.  Part 6 also
includes EPA’s procedures, “Assessing the Environmental Effects
Abroad of EPA Actions,” that implement Executive Order 12114,
“Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions" (see 46 FR
3364).  EPA’s Executive Order 12114 procedures further the purpose of
NEPA and provide that EPA may be guided by its NEPA procedures to the
extent they are applicable.2  Therefore, when EPA conducts an
environmental assessment pursuant to its Executive Order 12114
procedures, the Agency generally follows its NEPA procedures.  As with
EPA’s current Executive Order 12114 implementing procedures,
compliance with the procedures would be the responsibility of EPA’s
Responsible Officials and, for applicant-proposed actions, applicants
may be required to provide environmental information to EPA as part of
the environmental review process.  For this RFA/SBREFA screening
analysis, the entity burden, including small entities, for
applicant-proposed actions subject to either NEPA or Executive Order
12114 is addressed through the NEPA process.

	2(c)	Need/Authority for EPA’s Implementing Procedures and Final Rule.
 The CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1505.1) require federal agencies to adopt
and, as needed, revise their own implementing procedures to supplement
the CEQ Regulations.  The purpose of the final rule is to meet the
procedural requirements of the CEQ Regulations for NEPA.  The final
regulations also include minor, technical amendments to EPA’s
environmental review procedures implementing Executive Order 12114.  EPA
is collecting information from certain applicants as part of the process
of complying with either NEPA or Executive Order 12114.

	2(d)	Actions Typically Subject to EPA’s Part 6 Regulations.  EPA’s
NEPA regulations apply to the actions of EPA that are subject to NEPA in
order to ensure that environmental information is available to the
Agency’s decision-makers and the public before decisions are made and
before actions are taken.  This includes actions such as wastewater
treatment construction grants under Title II of the Clean Water Act,
EPA’s issuance of new source National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits, certain research and development projects, EPA
actions involving renovations at or new construction of EPA facilities,
and certain grants awarded for special projects authorized by Congress
through the Agency’s annual Appropriations Act.  EPA actions subject
to NEPA that are based on applicant proposals may include any of these
except EPA actions for construction of special purpose facilities or
facility renovations of EPA facilities.

	The Part 6 regulations also include EPA’s procedures implementing
Executive Order 12114.  These procedures ensure that environmental
information is available to the Agency’s decision-makers and other
appropriate Federal agencies and officials for actions subject to
Executive Order 12114.  EPA actions typically subject to Executive Order
12114 include major EPA actions which affect the environment of a
foreign nation or the global commons and may include:  major research or
demonstration projects, ocean dumping activities carried out under
section 102 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (33
U.S.C. 1401 et seq.), major permitting or licensing of facilities by
EPA,3 Wastewater Treatment Construction Grant Program under section 201
of the Clean Water Act when activities addressed in the facility plan
would have environmental effects abroad, and other activities as
determined by EPA.

	Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants Program facilities or new
source NPDES permits to be issued by EPA for facilities in the U.S.
bordering Mexico or Canada are subject to EPA’s NEPA implementing
procedures.  If these facilities could have significant environmental
effects abroad, generally they would also be subject to EPA’s
procedures implementing Executive Order 12114.  In addition, EPA has
determined that certain grants awarded for special projects identified
in the STAG account authorized by Congress through the Agency’s annual
Appropriations Act are subject to NEPA.  STAG special projects in the
U.S. bordering Mexico or Canada and that could have significant
environmental effects abroad generally would also be subject to EPA’s
procedures implementing Executive Order 12114.

	Further, certain actions subject to EPA’s Executive Order 12114
implementing procedures are not subject to EPA’s NEPA implementing
procedures (see Attachment 1).  EPA’s Executive Order 12114
implementing procedures (with only minor, technical amendments) provide
that: (a) for ocean dumping activities, the information submitted under
40 CFR part 221 is sufficient to satisfy the environmental assessment
requirements; and (b) for permits issued under section 3005 of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, section 402 of the Clean Water
Act, and section 165 of the Clean Air Act, the information submitted by
applicants for such permits or approvals under the applicable
consolidated permit regulations (40 CFR parts 122 and 124) and
Prevention of Significant Deterioration regulations (40 CFR part 52)
satisfy the environmental document requirements of Executive Order
12114.

	In summary, the applicant costs for any applicant-proposed actions,
including permitting or licensing, under these authorities are already
addressed under these programs and are not further addressed in this
RFA/SBREFA screening analysis.  However, the applicant costs for any EPA
action subject to NEPA and/or Executive Order 12114 that are based on an
applicant proposal, including Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants
Program facilities, STAG actions subject to NEPA and new source NPDES
permits issued by EPA, are addressed in this RFA/SBREFA screening
analysis.  EPA’s Executive Order 12114 implementing procedures further
the purpose of NEPA and provide that EPA may be guided by the CEQ
Regulations to the extent they are applicable.  Therefore, when EPA
conducts an environmental assessment pursuant to its Executive Order
12114 implementing regulations, the Agency generally follows the CEQ
Regulations and the procedures in EPA’s NEPA implementing regulations.
 For these reasons, for applicant-proposed actions subject to either
NEPA or Executive Order 12114 (and that are not addressed in other EPA
programs), the remainder of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis will
evaluate the entity costs, including small entities, only with regard to
EPA’s NEPA implementing procedures.

	2(e)	Entities Typically Subject to EPA’s Part 6 Regulations.  Those
subject to the final rule include EPA employees who must comply with
NEPA or Executive Order 12114, and certain grant or permit applicants
who must submit environmental information documentation to EPA for their
projects.  “Applicants” (e.g., grant or permit applicants) are the
entities that may provide such environmental information to EPA,
including small businesses and small governmental jurisdictions.  For
purposes of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, EPA considers entities
to be two types of applicants:

Grant applicants applying to EPA for funding of special projects
authorized by Congress through the Agency’s annual Appropriations Act.
 These applicants are generally governmental jurisdictions.4

Permit applicants applying to EPA for issuance of new source NPDES
permits under §402 of the CWA.  EPA issues new source NPDES permits
only in states and U.S. territories that have not assumed authority for
this program (i.e., New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Puerto Rico, New
Mexico, Oklahoma (for concentrated animal feeding operations only),
Alaska, and Idaho), the District of Columbia, off-shore waters (e.g.,
the inter-continental shelf for Texas, all outer-continental shelf
areas, all deep-water port areas), and on federally-recognized Indian
tribal lands.  These permit applicants are not limited to a specific
business sector.  EPA has permitted, and anticipates continued permit
activity, with projects typically involving:  oil and gas extraction
from off-shore waters, hardrock mining (recently gold, silver, lead and
zinc, and copper), dairy cattle and milk production, seafood processing,
and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), including poultry,
cattle, hogs and pigs.

										NAICS Code5

	Crude petroleum and natural gas extraction				211111

	Hardrock mining

		Gold ore mining						212221

		Silver ore mining						212222

		Lead ore and zinc ore mining					212231

		Copper ore and nickel ore mining				212234

	Dairy cattle and milk production					112120

	Seafood fresh and frozen processing					311712

	Poultry and egg production

		Chicken egg production					112310

		Broilers and other meat type chicken production		112320

		Turkey production						112330

		Poultry hatcheries						112340

	Cattle feedlots								112112

	Hog and pig farming							112210

	2(f)	Environmental Information Required.  For EPA actions subject to
NEPA, the Responsible Official may determine that the proposed action
does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the
human environment and may, therefore, be categorically excluded from
further NEPA review.  If the proposed action is not categorically
excluded, the Responsible Official may prepare an EA in order to
determine whether to prepare an EIS or a FONSI.  The Responsible
Official prepares an EIS if the proposed action will have a significant
effect on the human environment.  For EPA actions subject to NEPA that
are based on applicant proposals, the Responsible Official may gather
the information and prepare the NEPA documents without environmental
information submitted by the applicant, or have the applicant prepare an
EID, or a draft EA and supporting documents, or implement a third-party
agreement with the applicant.6, 7

	The level of NEPA documentation and the project-specific information
the Responsible Official needs for decision-making is determined by the
potential for environmental impact of the action, or the facility to be
permitted or the project to be funded by the action rather than the
dollar amount of the project or whether the applicant is a grantee or
permit applicant.8  Table 1 summarizes the information to be submitted
by an applicant for a categorical exclusion (CE) determination, an EA
and FONSI, and an EIS and Record of Decision (ROD).

Table 1.  Summary of Information Submitted by Applicants for CEs,
EAs/FONSIs, and EISs/RODs

Categorical Exclusion (CE) means a category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment and have been found by EPA to have no such effect.  To find
that a proposed action is categorically excluded, the Responsible
Official needs to determine that the proposed action fits within a
categorical exclusion that is listed in the regulations, and the
proposed action does not involve any extraordinary circumstances as
listed in the regulations.  “Extraordinary circumstances” are those
circumstances in which a normally excluded action may have a significant
environmental effect.  Based on review of information in the
applicant’s application and other available information, the
Responsible Official notifies the applicant if the action is
categorically excluded, or if EPA needs additional information to
support the application of a categorical exclusion.

Information Submitted by Applicant:  The applicant may provide
statements or documents to the Responsible Official to verify that the
proposed action would not involve any of the listed extraordinary
circumstances.

For example, the applicant might submit information to support a
categorical exclusion determination for an action that meets the
criteria for “Actions in unsewered communities relating to the use of
proposed wastewater on-site technologies where such technologies replace
existing systems.”  If the project area is known to be near a property
with nationally significant historic value, the applicant would likely
enclose a letter from the State Historic Preservation Officer that
confirms the proposed project will not have a significant environmental
effect on the historic property.  The applicant letter may also verify
there are no wetlands in the project area.

Environmental Assessments (EAs) need to include sufficient information
and analysis for the Responsible Official to determine whether to
prepare an EIS or to issue a FONSI.

  

Information Submitted by Applicant: The applicant submits an EID of
sufficient scope to enable the Responsible Official to prepare an EA,
and then determine whether to issue a FONSI or prepare an EIS.  At the
discretion of the Responsible Official, the applicant may prepare a
draft EA and supporting documents in lieu of an EID.

 An EID for an EA, or a draft EA and supporting documents, generally
will:  (1) include brief discussions of the need for the proposed
action; the alternatives, including the no action alternative;
description of the affected environment; and the environmental impacts
of the proposed action and alternatives; (2) include a listing or
summarize any coordination or consultation undertaken with any federal
agency, state or local government, or federally-recognized Indian tribe,
including compliance with applicable laws and executive orders; (3)
identify and describe any mitigation measures that must be considered,
including any mitigation measures that must be adopted to ensure the
action will not have significant impacts; and (4) incorporate documents
by reference.

Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) are generally prepared for major
actions that may significantly affect the quality of the human
environment, or when an EA indicates that significant impacts may occur
that cannot be reduced or eliminated by changes to or mitigation of the
proposed action.  A Record of Decision (ROD) documents the decision of
the Responsible Official.

Information Submitted by Applicant: The applicant submits an EID of
sufficient scope to enable the Responsible Official to prepare an EIS
and ROD.  In lieu of submitting documentation, the Responsible Official
and the applicant may enter into a third-party contract agreement.  The
information needed for an EIS parallels the information needed for an EA
with a focus on assessment of significant environmental issues and
alternatives.

 An EID for an EIS generally will: (1) provide EPA with information the
Agency will use to prepare an EIS; (2) analyze all reasonable
alternatives and the no action alternative; (3) describe the potentially
affected environment including, as appropriate, the size and location of
new and existing facilities, land requirements, operation and
maintenance requirements, auxiliary structures such as pipelines or
transmission lines, and construction schedules; (4) summarize any
coordination or consultation undertaken with any federal agency, state
or local government, or federally-recognized Indian tribe, including
compliance with applicable laws and executive orders; (5) the draft EIS
must summarize any public meetings during the scoping process, and the
final EIS must summarize the public participation process held after
publication of the draft EIS; (6) the draft EIS must consider
substantive comments received during the scoping process, and the final
EIS must summarize all comments on the draft EIS and respond to any
substantive comments and explain any changes to a revised draft EIS or
the final EIS and the reasons for the changes; and (7) include the names
and qualifications of the persons primarily responsible for preparing
the EIS including significant background papers.

	Under the rule, applicants submit project-specific information only for
applicant-proposed actions that are subject to EPA’s NEPA implementing
procedures.  The information compiled is a one-time submission in
narrative text format from applicants for grant assistance for specific
projects subject to NEPA, or for new source NPDES permits to be issued
by EPA.  There are no ongoing reporting, recordkeeping or
file-maintenance requirements for applicants.9

	Whether the NEPA documents are based on environmental information
developed by the Responsible Official or submitted by the applicant, the
NEPA review and resulting documents generally rely on the use of
existing data and information, including data and information from other
federal agencies, state or local governments, or federally-recognized
Indian tribes with jurisdiction by law or special expertise.

	Whether the NEPA documents are prepared directly by the Responsible
Official or based on environmental information submitted by the
applicant, the quality of the information provided by an applicant must
be sufficient to enable the Responsible Official to make a decision. 
This is accomplished under EPA’s NEPA implementing procedures through:
 (1) early coordination and cooperation with federal agencies, state and
local governments, and federally-recognized Indian tribes with
jurisdiction by law or special expertise (see final rule § 6.202); and
(2) the public participation process associated with actions other than
those categorically excluded10 (see final rule § 6.203).11  When the
environmental information is provided by the applicant, the Responsible
Official is responsible for the statements, analyses, and conclusions of
the EA or EIS and any supporting documents.

3. 	Definitions of Small Entities Used in This RFA/SBREFA Screening
Analysis

	The RFA/SBREFA defines small entities as including:

	• small businesses

	• small governments, and

	• small organizations.

	The RFA/SBREFA further defines each type of small entity as detailed
below.  These are the definitions used by EPA in this RFA/SBREFA
screening analysis.

	3(a)	Small Business Definition for This Screening Analysis.  The
RFA/SBREFA references the definition of “small business” found in
the Small Business Act, which authorizes the Small Business
Administration (SBA) to define “small business” by regulation.  The
SBA’s “small business” definitions are codified at 13 CFR 121.201
by category of business using the North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) codes.12  The SBA definition of a “small business”
applies to a firm’s parent company and all affiliates as a single
entity.

	The NAICS codes for business types that have previously applied to EPA
for new source NPDES permits and the small business designation for each
business type are listed in Table 2.  For purposes of this RFA/SBREFA
screening analysis, EPA assumes these are the same business types likely
to apply to EPA in the out-years for new source NPDES permits and, under
the final rule, EPA will conduct environmental reviews for these actions
directly or with applicant assistance through submission of
environmental information or draft EAs or EISs and supporting documents
(see Section 2(f) and Attachment 2).

Table 2.  Anticipated Business Types, NAICS Codes and Small Business
Designations13

Anticipated Business Typesa	NAICS Codes	Small Business Designations

Crude petroleum and natural gas extraction	211111	500 Employees

Hardrock mining

     Gold ore mining

     Silver ore mining

     Lead ore and zinc ore mining

     Copper ore and nickel ore mining	

212221

212222

212231

212234	

500 Employees

500 Employees

500 Employees

500 Employees

Dairy cattle and milk production	112120	$750,000

Seafood fresh and frozen processing	311712	500 Employees

Poultry and egg production

     Chicken egg production

     Broilers and other meat type chicken production

     Turkey production

     Poultry hatcheries	

112310

112320

112330

112340	

$11,500,000

$750,000

$750,000

$750,000

Cattle feedlots	112112	$2,000,000

Hog and pig farming		112210	$750,000

aBecause there is no set universe of permit applicants, this is a
representative rather than an exhaustive list.

	3(b)	Small Government Definition for This Screening Analysis.  The
RFA/SBREFA defines “small governmental jurisdiction” as the
government of a city, county, town, school district or special district
with a population of less than 50,000.  For purposes of this RFA/SBREFA
screening analysis and as stated in Section 2(e), grant applicants
applying to EPA for funding of special projects authorized by Congress
through the Agency’s annual Appropriations Act are one of the two
types of entities that would submit environmental information to EPA
under the regulations.  As further stated, these entities are generally
governmental jurisdictions and are, therefore, the governmental
jurisdiction entities for this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis.  Based on
information on the number of STAG projects awarded for the period 1992
through 2004 as presented in Table 3 (also see footnote 4), EPA assumes
governmental entities are likely to continue to be the applicants for
these projects in the out-years and, under the proposed rule, EPA will
conduct environmental reviews for these actions without applicant
assistance or with applicant assistance through submission of
environmental information or draft EAs or EISs and supporting documents.

Table 3.  Annual Total STAG Grants Awarded, Fiscal Years 1992 Through
200414

Year	Number of Awards	Year	Number of Awards	Year	Number of Awards

1992		17

1993		24

1994		  9

1995		52	1996		  28

1997		  40

1998		104

1999		144	2000		232

2001		256

2002		298

2003		308

2004		206

	For the three-year period, 2002 through 2004, EPA has had approximately
600 active STAG grants in its 10 Regional offices (see Attachments 3 and
4).15  The governmental jurisdictions (e.g., entities) include: 
boroughs, cities, counties, parishes, special districts, towns,
townships, and villages as identified through the U.S. Census Bureau.16

	3(c)	Small Organizations Definition for This Screening Analysis.  The
RFA/SBREFA defines “small organizations” as any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant
in its field.  Each year, EPA awards approximately $4 billion in grants.
 Of that amount, approximately 89% is awarded to states,
federally-recognized Indian tribes, and local governments for STAG
projects and implementation of environmental programs.17  About 6% are
awarded to non-profit organizations and special interest groups and
about 4% to educational institutions for a broad range of purposes
including, for example, community outreach and education, workshops and
conferences, training, and cooperative agreements to non-profit senior
organizations to support EPA’s Senior Environmental Employee program. 
These grants are generally awarded under specific statutory authorities
that are exempt from NEPA (see Attachment 1).  For purposes of this
RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, a small organization is not likely to
receive a grant from EPA for an action subject to NEPA under EPA’s
regulations; therefore, small organizations are not included in this
screening analysis.

4.  	RFA/SBREFA Screening Analysis of Impacts on Small Entities

	4(a)	Screening Analysis Considerations.  The purpose of this RFA/SBREFA
screening analysis is to determine if the final rule may have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
EPA’s regulations are applicable to EPA actions subject to NEPA,
including those proposed by applicants.  Because the projects are
proposed by the applicants, including small businesses and small
governments, EPA does not know what projects will be proposed, when they
will be proposed, or what level of NEPA review will be required for each
individual project.  In this regard, EPA’s NEPA review process is
reactive to an applicant’s request.  These factors are built into this
screening assessment, including assumptions about the entities likely to
be subject to the regulations, the types of projects they are likely to
propose, and the degree of possible economic impact based on the NEPA
review process and the three levels of environmental documentation
possible under this process.

	As discussed in Section 3, this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis assesses
the economic impact on small businesses and small governments.  The
screening analyses for these small entities include, but are not limited
to, the following considerations:

! EPA’s NEPA implementing regulations apply to the actions of EPA that
are subject to NEPA.  Compliance with the regulations is the
responsibility of EPA’s Responsible Officials.  For EPA actions
subject to NEPA that are based on applicant proposals, permit applicants
or grantees must submit environmental information to EPA as part of the
environmental review process unless the Responsible Official decides to
prepare the NEPA documents without assistance from the applicant.18

! As summarized in Table 1, the Responsible Official may determine that
the action is categorically excluded, or prepare an EA in order to
determine whether to prepare an EIS or issue a FONSI, or prepare an EIS
and ROD.  The level of NEPA documentation and the project-specific
information the Responsible Official needs for decision-making is
determined by the potential for environmental impact of the action, or
the facility to be permitted or the project to be funded by the action
rather than the dollar amount of the project or whether the applicant is
a permit applicant or a grantee (see footnote 8).

! As stated in Section 2(f), whether the NEPA documents are based on
environmental information developed by the Responsible Official or
submitted by the applicant, the NEPA review and resulting documents
generally rely on the use of existing data and information, including
data and information from other federal agencies, state or local
governments, or federally-recognized Indian tribes with jurisdiction by
law or special expertise.  Also, the quality of the information provided
by an applicant must be sufficient to enable the Responsible Official to
make a decision, and is accomplished through:  (1) early coordination
and cooperation with other federal agencies, state and local
governments, and federally-recognized Indian tribes with jurisdiction by
law or special expertise; and (2) the public participation process
associated with actions other than those categorically excluded.

! When environmental information is provided by the applicant, the
Responsible Official is responsible for the statements, analyses, and
conclusions of the EA or EIS and any supporting documents.

! The environmental information submitted by permit applicants and
grantees for their actions that are subject to NEPA is project-specific,
one-time only, and does not involve repeated submission of
compliance-related or other information by the regulated entities.

Permit applicants are those applying to EPA for issuance of new source
NPDES permits under §402 of the CWA.  EPA issues NPDES permits only in
states and U.S. territories that have assumed authority for this
program, the District of Columbia, off-shore waters, and on
federally-recognized Indian tribal lands (where the tribe has not
assumed this authority).  Permit applicants are not limited to a
specific business sector(s), and EPA anticipates continued permit
activity with projects typically involving:  oil and gas extraction from
off-shore waters, hardrock mining, dairy cattle and milk production,
seafood processing, and CAFOs.

Grant applicants are those applying to EPA for special projects
identified in the STAG account authorized by Congress through the
Agency’s annual Appropriations Act.  These applicants are generally
governmental jurisdictions.

! The content of the environmental information submitted by an applicant
for a draft EA and supporting documents and an EID for a draft EA and
supporting documents is similar.  There may be a financial difference
for grantees in that EPA financial assistance generally may be used to
prepare an EID but not to prepare a draft EA and supporting documents.19
 New source NPDES permit applicants are not eligible for EPA financial
assistance.  The applicant may also enter into a third-party agreement
whereby the applicant engages and pays for the services of a contractor
to prepare the EA and supporting documents on behalf of EPA.  EPA’s
experience with applicants has generally been that they contract
directly for preparation of an EID or a draft EA and supporting
documents.20  Therefore, for purposes of estimating the maximum costs to
entities, the calculations will be based on preparation of a draft EA by
a contractor whose services will be paid for by the applicant.  See
Attachment 2.

! The content of the environmental information submitted by an applicant
for a draft EIS and supporting documents and an EID for a draft EIS and
supporting documents is similar.  For grantees, third-party contractor
costs may be eligible for cost reimbursement (see footnote 19).  New
source NPDES permit applicants are not eligible for EPA financial
assistance.  Although an applicant may contract for preparation of an
EID for a draft EIS, because EISs are generally more complex than EAs in
terms of the issues to be addressed and the associated analyses, it has
generally been EPA’s experience that applicants will enter into a
third-party agreement with EPA for preparation of the EIS and supporting
documents.  Therefore, for purposes of estimating the maximum costs to
entities, EPA assumes the applicant will enter into a third-party
agreement for the environmental review process and preparation of the
documents for the project.21  See Attachment 2.

	4(b)	Estimating the One-Time Cost for Entities.  For purposes of this
RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, EPA has estimated the one-time cost to
entities for preparing and submitting environmental documentation to the
Responsible Official for use in the environmental review of the
applicant’s proposed project.  The screening analysis also estimates
the likelihood of a project being documented with one of the three
levels of documentation, a CE or an EA/FONSI or an EIS/ROD.  These
estimates are based on information from EPA’s Regional Office NEPA
practitioners and their experience working with grantees and permit
applicants, and is summarized in Attachment 2.

	For an applicant-proposed action, the applicant would generally submit
information to the EPA Responsible Official as part of the environmental
review process as delineated in Section 2(f), Table 1.  As discussed in
Section 4(a), EPA assumes the applicant will use a contractor to compile
and prepare the environmental information to be submitted to the
Responsible Official.  For the applicant, this includes the time and
costs needed to:

	1. Procure contractor services.

2. Review instructions (such as the regulations and any program-specific
guidelines the 

    Responsible Official may also provide) and/or meet with the
Responsible Official.

	3. Research data sources.

	4. Complete and review the collection of environmental information.

	5. Transmit the information to the Responsible Official.

	6. Meet with the Responsible Official on the need for any revisions to
the environmental 

    information, and prepare and submit any necessary revisions to the
information.

	In summary, EPA assumes an applicant would expend time and incur
contractor costs to submit:  (1) information to support application of a
categorical exclusion with environmental information prepared directly
by the applicant’s contractor, or (2) a draft EA and supporting
documents prepared directly by the applicant’s contractor, or (3) a
draft and final EIS and supporting documents prepared by the
applicant’s contractor under a third-party agreement with EPA.

	Entities include permit applicants applying to EPA for issuance of new
source NPDES permits under §402 CWA.  EPA issues these permits only in
states and U.S. territories that have not assumed authority for this
program.  Because most states have now assumed the NPDES program, few
new source NPDES permits are issued by EPA.  Regions 4, 6 and 10
currently handle the majority of these projects.  As presented in
Section 2(e), most projects involve oil and gas extraction in off-shore
waters areas, hardrock mining, concentrated animal feeding operations
(CAFOs), dairy farming, and seafood processing.  None of these projects
have been documented with a CE, and EPA does not anticipate any projects
will be documented initially with a CE.  Further, EPA anticipates that
annually, about 11 projects will be documented with EAs/FONSIs.  In
addition, EPA anticipates one project will have an EIS/ROD completed
annually.  EPA’s estimates of a permit applicant’s contractor costs
and permit applicant hours, the estimated number of projects, and other
assumptions, are presented in Attachment 2 and are summarized in Table 4
for submission of environmental information for EA/FONSI and EIS/ROD
documentation.

Table 4. Summary of Estimated Contractor Costs for Permit and Grant
Applicants and Estimated Number of Projects

	CE Documents Project

Current	 Out-Yr Period	EA/FONSI Documents Project

Current	     Out-Year Period	EIS/ROD Documents Project

Current		Out-Year Period

Permit Applicant	None	        None

	$20-75,000	$50,000*

not estimated	60 hours

66 per 6-years	11 per year

* Contractor: $125/hour

$125/hr x 400 hrs = $50,000	$0-300,000-1M	$300,000*

not estimated	440 hours

1 per year	1 per year

*Contractor: $125/hour

$125/hr x 2400 hrs = $300,000

Grant Applicant	$1-4,000        $3,000*

1-5 hours       5 hrs

265	        300 total

50%	        60% = 180

*Contractor:  $75/hour

$75/hr x 40 hrs = $3,000	$5-25,000	$15,000*

not estimated	60 hrs

265	              300 total

50%		40% = 120

*Contractor: $75/hour

$75/hr x 200 hrs =  $15,000	$200-300,000	$300,000*

not estimated	440 hrs

1 per 3 yrs	1 per 3 yrs

*Contractor: $125/hour

$125/hr x 2400 hrs = $300,000

	Entities also include grant applicants applying to EPA for funding of
special projects identified in the STAG account authorized by Congress
through the Agency’s annual Appropriations Act.  These applicants are
generally governmental jurisdictions.  The number of such grants
authorized by Congress, and subsequently awarded by EPA, has generally
been increasing annually with about 25 awarded in 1993, about 100
awarded in 1998, and about 300 awarded each year in 2002 and 2003 as
presented in Table 3; for the 3-year period 2002 through 2004, about 800
have been awarded by EPA.  Recognizing that the number of STAG grant
awards has been increasing annually, for purposes of this RFA/SBREFA
screening analysis, EPA anticipates that approximately 300 STAG grants
will be awarded annually.  Under the previous rule, EPA estimated that
about 50% of the STAG projects were documented with a CE, and about 50%
with an EA/FONSI.  Under this final rule, EPA anticipates that the STAG
projects documented with CEs may increase 5% to 10%.  Thus, based on
EPA’s experience, under the final rule, EPA anticipates there will be
approximately 300 grantee projects annually with about 60% of these
projects documented with a CE, and about 40% with an EA/FONSI.  In
addition, EPA estimates that one project (less than one percent of the
total annual grantee projects) will have an EIS/ROD completed during a
3-year period.  EPA’s estimates of a grantee’s contractor costs and
applicant hours, the estimated number of projects, and other
assumptions, are presented in Attachment 2 and are summarized in Table
4.

	EPA does not anticipate any applicant capital or start up costs.22 
Operating and maintenance (O&M) costs are the recurring dollar amount of
cost associated with O&M or purchasing services.  EPA assumes the O&M
costs associated with the paperwork requirements for entities would be
costs for photocopying and mailing the compiled environmental
information for a CE, EA or EIS.  For a CE, EPA assumes up to 20 pages
may be copied at 10¢ per page, or $2.00.  For maximum cost estimate
purposes, EPA assumes the documentation is express mailed at a cost of
$15.00, for a total cost of $17.00 per CE.  For an EA, EPA assumes 100
pages will be submitted at a cost of $10.00 for copying and $30.00 for
express mail for a total cost of $40.00 per EA.  For an EIS, EPA assumes
800 pages will be submitted (4 x 200 pages per EIS - preliminary draft
EIS, draft EIS, preliminary final EIS, final EIS) at a cost of $80.00
for copying and $200.00 for express mail (4 x $50 per draft) for a total
cost of $280.00 per EIS.  See Attachment 2.

	Based on the above assumptions and estimates for permit applicants and
grantees, Table 5 lists the estimated out-year annual contractor costs
and hours, and hours, direct labor and O&M costs for permit applicants
and grantees.  The direct labor rate, including benefits, for civilian
worker (professional) applicants is assumed to be $43; loaded at 50% for
other non-benefits overhead and including profit, this rate is about
$65.  Permit applicants are assumed to be civilian worker applicants. 
The direct labor rate, including benefits, for state and local
government applicants is assumed to be $44; loaded at 25% for other
non-benefits overhead, this rate is $55.  The direct labor rate for
federally-recognized Indian tribe applicants is assumed to be the same
as for state and local government applicants.  Grantee applicants are
assumed to be state and local governments and federally-recognized
Indian tribes.  (Labor rates, including benefits, from the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation -
September 2005,” http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.toc.htm.)

Table 5. One-Year and Out-Year Total Annual Estimated Costs and Hours
for Permit Applicants and Grantees

Entities	CE Projects	EA/FONSI Projects	EIS/ROD Projects	Annual Totals

Permitees

Number of Projects

Contractor Hours

Contractor Costs

Permitee Hours

Permitee Labor Costs

O&M Costs

Totals on One-Time Proj. Basis	

None

None

None

None

None

	

None

(None)	

11 projects/year

11 proj x 400 hrs/proj =

4,400 hours

11 proj x $50,000/proj = $550,000

11 proj x 60 hrs/proj =

660 hours

660 hours x $65/hour =

$42,900

11 proj x $40/proj = $440

400 + 60 = 460 hours

$50,000 + ($65 x 60) + $40 = $53,940	

1 project/year

1 proj x 2,400 hrs/proj =

2,400 hours

1 proj x $300,000/proj = $300,000

1 proj x 440 hrs/proj =

440 hours

440 hours x $65/hour =

$28,600

1 proj x $280/proj = $280

2,400 + 440 = 2,840 hrs

$300,000 + ($65 x 440) + $280 = $328,880	

12 projects

6,800 hours

$850,000

1,100 hours

$  71,500

$       720

Grantees

Number of Projects

Contractor Hours

Contractor Costs

Grantee Hours

Grantee Labor Costs

O&M Costs

Totals on One-Time Proj. Basis	

60% x 300 proj = 180projects

180 proj x 40 hrs/proj = 7,200 hours

180 proj x $3,000/proj = $540,000

180 proj x 5 hrs/proj

= 900 hours

900 hours x $55/hr

= $49,500

180 proj x $17/proj = $3,060

40 + 5 = 45 hrs/proj

$3,000 + ($55 x 5) + $17 = $3,292/project	

40% x 300 proj =

120 projects

120 proj x 200 hrs/proj 

= 24,000 hours

120 proj x $15,000/proj = $1,800,000

120 proj x 60 hr/proj

= 7,200 hours

7,200 hours x $55/hr

= $396,000

120 proj x $40/proj =

$4,800

200 + 60 = 260 hrs/proj

$15,000 + ($55 x 60) + $40 = $18,340/project	

(None annually, one per 3-yrs; 3-yr costs spread to estimate annual
costs)

(1proj x 2,400hrs/proj)/3

= 800 hours annually

(1proj x $300,000/proj)/3 = $100,000 annually

(1proj x 440hrs/proj)/3

= 147 hours annually

147 hours x $55/hr

= $8,085 annually

(1proj x $280/proj)/3 = $97

2400+440=2,840 hr/proj

$300,000 + ($55 x 440) + $280 = $324,480	

300 projects

(+ one/3yrs)

32,000 hrs

$2,440,000

8,247 hours

$   453,585

$       7,957

	The estimated one-time cost, including contractor costs and hours,
direct labor costs and hours, and O&M costs, for a permit applicant or
grantee submitting environmental information to EPA’s Responsible
Official for a CE determination or an EA/FONSI or an EIS/ROD is
summarized in Table 6.

Table 6.  One-Time Estimated Cost for a Permit Applicant or Grantee

Entities	CE Projects	EA/FONSI Projects	EIS/ROD Projects

Permitees

Grantees	None

$3,292/project

45 hours/project

60% of 300 projects	$53,940/project

460 hours/project

11 projects/year

$18,340/project

260 hours/project

40% of 300 projects	$328,880/project

2,840 hours/project

1 project/year

$324,480/project

2,840 hours/project

1 project/3-year period

	The information submitted by entities is one-time only for
applicant-proposed actions.  Based on EPA’s experience, under this
final rule, EPA anticipates there will be approximately 300 grantee
projects annually with about 60% of these projects documented with a CE,
and about 40% with an EA/FONSI.  In addition, EPA estimates that one
project (less than one percent of the total annual grantee projects)
will have an EIS/ROD completed during a three-year period.  For permit
applicants, EPA anticipates there will be approximately 12 projects
annually with about 11 of the projects documented with an EA/FONSI.  In
addition, EPA anticipates one project will have an EIS/ROD completed
annually.  None will be documented initially with a CE.  Table 7
summarizes the estimated one-time total cost that may be incurred during
any given year (e.g., annually) by an estimated 312 applicants,
including contractor costs and hours, direct labor costs and hours, and
O&M costs.

Table 7.  Summary of Estimated One-Time Total Costs for a Year

	Entities and One-Time Total Costs for a Year

     Contractor Cost

     Direct Labor Cost

     O&M

     Number of Projects

Sub-Totals

Annualized EIS Cost*

Totals	Permit Applicant Costs	Grant Applicant Costs

$    850,000			$2,340,000

        71,500			     445,500

             720			         7,860

12			300

$    922,220			$2,793,360

                                                                        
                $108,160         

312 Projects	$3,823,740

*Approximately 1 EIS/ROD will be completed every 3 years; the annualized
cost for this has been included.

5.	Screening Analysis of Economic Impacts on Small Businesses.

	5(a)	Small Businesses Considered in This Screening Analysis.  To assess
the potential impacts of the rule on small businesses, EPA assessed the
potential impacts the final rule may have on small businesses that may
apply for a new source NPDES permit to be issued by EPA.  EPA
anticipates the business types described in Section 2(e) are the same
business types likely to apply to EPA in the out-years for new source
NPDES permits, and that EPA will conduct NEPA reviews for these actions
without applicant assistance or with applicant assistance through
submission of environmental information or draft EAs and supporting
documents or an EIS prepared by a contractor under a third-party
agreement with EPA.  Regions 4, 6 and 10 currently handle the majority
of these projects and EPA anticipates this will continue to be the case
in the out-years.  Projects are anticipated to continue to involve crude
oil and natural gas extraction in off-shore waters areas, hardrock
mining, dairy farming, seafood processing, and CAFOs.

	EPA anticipates continued NPDES permit activity for crude oil and
natural gas extraction in off-shore waters for energy development
purposes.  Based on past experience, businesses are likely to include: 
Chevron Corporation, Shell Exploration and Production (a subsidiary of
the Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Companies), Exxon Mobil Corporation, and
BP (British Petroleum).  Because of the nature of the business
operations, any other businesses are expected to be generally of the
same size.

	

The “small business” definition for NAICS code 211111, crude
petroleum and natural gas extraction, is 500 employees.  An Internet
search of these companies, summarized in Table 8, shows that none of
these businesses are small businesses.  For purposes of this RFA/SBREFA
screening analysis, EPA assumes there will not be any small businesses
in this category applying to EPA for a new source NPDES permit in the
out-years.

Table 8.  Business Size by Number of Employees and NAICS Size Definition
for Code 211111

Business	Number of Employees and Internet Reference	NAICS Size
Definition

Chevron Corporation

(second-largest US integrated oil company (behind Exxon Mobil): From
hoovers.com website)	56,000 employees (2004)

http://www.hoovers.com/chevron-corporation	

500 employees

Shell Exploration and Production

(excludes the other four core businesses of the Royal Dutch/Shell Group
of Companies)	28,500 employees (2005)

http://www.shell.com “Welcome to Shell Exploration and Production”	

500 employees

Exxon Mobil Corporation

(ten core companies worldwide; largest energy resource base of any
non-government company: From exxonmobil website)

(second-largest integrated oil company ahead of Royal Dutch/Shell but
behind BP: From hoovers.com website)	85,900 employees (2004)

http://www.hoovers.com/exxon-mobil 

120,000 employees world-wide  (1998 news figures in
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/)

http://www2.exxonmobil.com/corporate/	

500 employees

BP (British Petroleum)	102,900 employees (December 2004)

http://www.bp.com “BP Facts and Figures”	

500 employees

	EPA anticipates continued NPDES permit activity for hardrock mining in
Alaska and Idaho.  Based on past experience, businesses are likely to
include:  Coeur Alaska (a subsidiary of Coeur d’Alene Mines
Corporation), Teck Resources (now merged with Cominco Ltd. to form Teck
Cominco Limited), and Kennecott Minerals Corporation (a subsidiary of
Rio Tinto Group).  Because of the nature of the business operations, any
other businesses are expected to be generally of the same size.

	The “small business” definition is 500 employees for NAICS codes
212221, gold ore mining; 212222, silver ore mining; 212231, lead ore and
zinc ore mining; and 212234, copper ore and nickel ore mining.  An
Internet search of these companies, summarized in Table 9, shows that
none of these businesses are small businesses.  For purposes of this
RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, EPA assumes there will not be any small
businesses in this category applying to EPA for a new source NPDES
permit in the out-years.

Table 9.  Business Size by Number of Employees and NAICS Size Definition
for Codes 212221, 212222, 212231 and 212234

Business	Number of Employees and Internet Reference	NAICS Size
Definition

Coeur Alaska, a subsidiary of Coeur d’Alene Mines Corporation

(world’s largest primary silver producer and a significant low-cost
gold producer)	837 employees (2004; Coeur d’Alene Mines Corporation
and its subsidiaries)

Coeur d’Alene Mines Corporation 2004 Annual Report at:
http://www.coeur.com “Investor Relations”	

500 employees

Teck Resources, merged with Cominco Ltd. to form Teck Cominco Limited

(zinc and lead mining)	6,710 employees (2004)

http://www.hoovers.com/teck-cominco/	

500 employees

Kennecott Minerals Corporation, a subsidiary of Rio Tinto Group

(copper mining)	652 employees (in partnership with Placer Dome U.S.)

http://www.kennecottminerals.com/KMC-Glance.htm

33,000 employees (2004) Rio Tinto Group

http://www.hoovers.com/rio-tinto	

500 employees

	EPA anticipates continued NPDES permit activity for dairy cattle
farming CAFOs and milk and cheese production operations in New Mexico,
Oklahoma (for CAFO-related operations only), Alaska and Idaho.  Based on
past experience and because of the nature of the business operations,
EPA anticipates any future businesses seeking new source NPDES permits
are likely to be generally of the same size as those permitted in the
past.  These businesses have included:  dairy farms in New Mexico
operated by Jones Dairy, Rio Vista Dairy (aka Real Vista Dairy), Wright
Farms, Opportunity Dairy, and H.A.W. Farms; and West Farm Foods and
Sorrento Lactalis in the Northwest.

	The “small business” definition for NAICS code 112120, dairy cattle
and milk production, is $750,000 in revenues/sales.  A Dun & Bradstreet
(D&B) and an Internet search of these companies, summarized in Table 10,
shows that Jones Dairy, H.A.W. Farms, West Farm Foods and Sorrento
Lactalis (a subsidiary of France’s Groupe Lactalis) are not small
businesses; D&B verified that Rio Vista Dairy (aka Real Vista Dairy),
Wright Farms, Inc., and Opportunity Dairy LLC are small businesses.  In
the out-years, EPA anticipates it is possible that other businesses such
as any of those evaluated could apply to EPA for a new source NPDES
permit.  For purposes of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, EPA assumes
there may be at least one small business in this category applying to
EPA for a new source NPDES permit.

Table 10.  Business Size by Dollar Amount of Revenues/Sales and NAICS
Size Definition for Code 112120

Business	Revenues/Sales and Reference	NAICS Size Definition

 Jones Dairy	$58.0 million  Sales

http://www.hoovers.com/jones-dairy-farm 	$750,000 Rev/Sales

Rio Vista Dairy

(aka Real Vista Dairy)	$700,000  Sales

Dun & Bradstreet: 87-720-0204

http://www.hoovers.com	$750,000 Rev/Sales

Wright Farms, Inc.	$60,000 Sales

Dun & Bradstreet: 18-833-3330

http://www.hoovers.com	$750,000 Rev/Sales

Opportunity Dairy LLC	$130,000 Sales

Dun & Bradstreet: 18-393-9482

http://www.hoovers.com	$750,000 Rev/Sales

H.A.W. Farms	$1,400,000  Sales

Dun & Bradstreet: 03-342-7720

http://www.hoovers.com	$750,000 Rev/Sales

West Farm Foods	$1.1 billion  Sales

http://www.darigold.com/at_a_glance.asp 	$750,000 Rev/Sales

Sorrento Lactalis, Inc.

(Acquired by France’s Groupe Lactalis in 1992)	$800.00 million 
Revenue (2004)

http://biz/yahoo.com.ic/112/112876.html

$1,437,517,800 Sales   (Groupe Lactalis)

Dun & Bradstreet: 39-180-3186

http://www.hoovers.com	$750,000 Rev/Sales

	EPA anticipates continued NPDES permit activity for seafood processing
operations in Alaska and Idaho.  Based on past experience and because of
the nature of the business operations, EPA anticipates any future
businesses seeking new source NPDES permits are likely to be generally
of the same size as those permitted in the past.  These businesses have
included: Alaska Glacier Seafood Company (a subsidiary of Alaska Glacier
Seafoods, Inc.) and Kwikpak Fisheries, LLC.

	The “small business” definition for NAICS code 311712, seafood
fresh and frozen processing, is 500 employees.  A Dun & Bradstreet (D&B)
and an Internet search of these companies, summarized in Table 11,
indicates that both Alaska Glacier Seafoods Company and Kwikpak
Fisheries, LLC, are small businesses; Alaska Glacier Seafoods Company is
a subsidiary of Alaska Glacier Seafoods, Inc.  In the out-years, EPA
anticipates it is possible that other businesses such as these could
apply to EPA for a new source NPDES permit.  For purposes of this
RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, EPA assumes there may be at least one
small business in this category applying to EPA for a new source NPDES
permit.

Table 11.  Business Size by Number of Employees and NAICS Size
Definition for Code 311712

Business	Number of Employees and Internet Reference	NAICS Size
Definition

Alaska Glacier Seafoods Company, a subsidiary of Alaska Glacier
Seafoods, Incorporated	10 employees Branch and HQ

Dun & Bradstreet: 07-330-0720 (Branch) and 01-102-2345 (HQ)

http://www.hoovers.com	500 employees

Kwikpak Fisheries, LLC	About 120 employees (2004)

From: “Kwikpak Employment” chart, Yukon Delta Fisheries Development
Association, Fourth Quarter 2004 Report, October 1, 2004 - December 31,
2004;
http://www.dced.state.ak.us/bsc/CDQ/pub/CDQ_YDFDA_Qtr4_Report_04.pdf

Company Website located - employee information not located on Website

http://kwikpakfisheries.com , nor on
http://www.coopamerica.org/ppubs/greenpages/  Search keyword: kwikpak
fisheries	500 employees

	EPA anticipates continued NPDES permit activity for concentrated animal
feeding operations (CAFOs).  CAFOs, including cattle, hogs, pigs and
chickens, are covered under a general permit in Alaska and Idaho;
individual NEPA reviews are not required.  Based on past experience and
because of the nature of the business operations, EPA anticipates any
future businesses seeking new source NPDES permits are likely to be
generally of the same size as those permitted in the past.  These
businesses have included: Tyson Foods, Inc., for chicken and hog CAFOs
in Oklahoma and operations related to dairy farms in New Mexico and
Oklahoma (see above discussion of dairy cattle farming CAFOs and milk
and cheese production operations).

	The “small business” definition for NAICS code 112310, chicken egg
production is $11,500,000 in revenues/sales, and for codes 112320,
112330, and 112340, broilers, turkey production and poultry hatcheries,
the definition is $750,000 in revenues/sales.  For code 112112, cattle
feedlots, the definition is $2,000,000 in revenue/sales, and for code
112210, hog and pig farming, the definition is $750,000 in
revenues/sales.  A Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) and an Internet search of
these companies, summarized in Table 12, shows that Tyson Foods, Inc.,
Jones Dairy, West Farm Foods and Sorrento Lactalis (a subsidiary of
France’s Groupe Lactalis) are not small businesses; D&B verified that
H.A.W. Farms, Rio Vista Dairy (aka Real Vista Dairy), Wright Farms,
Inc., and Opportunity Dairy LLC are small businesses when considered as
CAFOs as the primary business operation rather than dairy farming and
milk production as their primary operation.  In the out-years, EPA
anticipates it is possible that other businesses such as any of those
evaluated could apply to EPA for a new source NPDES permit.  For
purposes of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, EPA assumes there may be
at least one small business in this category applying to EPA for a new
source NPDES permit.

Table 12.  Business Size by Dollar Amount of Revenues/Sales and NAICS
Size Definition for

Codes 112310, 112320, 112330, 112340, 112112, 112210

Business	Revenues/Sales and Reference	NAICS Size Definition

Tyson Foods, Incorporated

(Worlds largest processor and marketer of chicken, beef and pork; Tyson
is the second-largest food company in Fortune 500)	$26.4 billion  Sales
(2004)

http://ir.tysonfoodsinc.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=65476&p=irol-irhome
(September 12, 2005)	$11,500,000 Rev/Sales

(egg production)

$2,000,000 Rev/Sales

(cattle feedlots)

$750,000 Rev/Sales

(all other codes)

Jones Dairy	$58.0 million  Sales

http://www.hoovers.com/jones-dairy-farm 	$2,000,000 Rev/Sales

(cattle feedlots)

Rio Vista Dairy

(aka Real Vista Dairy)	$700,000  Sales

Dun & Bradstreet: 87-720-0204

http://www.hoovers.com	$2,000,000 Rev/Sales

(cattle feedlots)

Wright Farms, Inc.	$60,000 Sales

http://www.hoovers.com	$2,000,000 Rev/Sales

(cattle feedlots)

Opportunity Dairy LLC	$130,000 Sales

http://www.hoovers.com	$2,000,000 Rev/Sales

(cattle feedlots)

H.A.W. Farms	$1,400,000  Sales

Dun & Bradstreet: 03-342-7720	$2,000,000 Rev/Sales

(cattle feedlots)

West Farm Foods	$1.1 billion  Sales

http://www.darigold.com/at_a_glance.asp	$2,000,000 Rev/Sales

(cattle feedlots)

Sorrento Lactalis, Inc.

(Acquired by France’s Groupe Lactalis in 1992)	$800.00 million 
Revenue (2004)

http://biz/yahoo.com.ic/112/112876.html 

$1,437,517,800 Sales (Groupe Lactalis)

http://www.hoovers.com	$2,00,000 Rev/Sales

(cattle feedlots)

	In summary, this screening analysis considered five types of business
operations that have previously applied to EPA for new source NPDES
permits; these five business types encompass 13 NAICS codes with
hardrock mining including four NAICS codes and CAFOs including six NAICS
codes.  The Agency anticipates these will continue to be the types of
businesses applying to EPA for NPDES permits in the out-years.  Although
these are one-time actions23 for NEPA review purposes, EPA believes that
in the out-years the types of businesses will be the same as the
business types analyzed in this screening analysis.  Table 13 summarizes
the RFA/SBREFA screening analysis for small businesses.

Table 13.  Summary of Business Types With Anticipated Small Businesses

Business Type(s) and NAICS Code(s)	NAICS Size Definition	Small
Businesses Anticipated in Out-Yearsa

Crude oil and natural gas extraction

211111 - Crude petroleum and natural gas extraction	

500 employees	4 of 4 businesses - not small businesses

EPA assumes there will not be any small businesses in this category in
the out-years

Hardrock mining (recently gold/silver)

212221 - Gold ore mining

212222 - Silver ore mining	

500 Employees	3 of 3 businesses - not small businesses

EPA assumes there will not be any small businesses in this category in
the out-years

Milk and cheese production operations

112120 - Dairy cattle and milk production	

$750,000 Revenue/Sales	4 of 7 businesses - not small businesses

3 of 7 businesses - small business

 

EPA assumes there will be at least one small business in this category
in the out-years

Seafood processing operations

311712 - Seafood fresh and frozen processing	

500 Employees	2 of 2 businesses - small businesses

EPA assumes there will be at least one small business in this category
in the out-years

Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)

112310 - Chicken egg production

112320 - Broilers and other meat type

                chicken production

112330 - Turkey production

112340 - Poultry hatcheries

112112 - Cattle feedlots

112210 - Hog and pig farming

(Also see 112120 - Dairy cattle and milk production)	

$11,500,000 Rev/Sales

$750,000 Revenue/Sales

$750,000 Revenue/Sales

$750,000 Revenue/Sales

$2,000,000 Rev/Sales

$750,000 Revenue/Sales	4 of 8 businesses - not small businesses

4 of 8 businesses - small business

EPA assumes there will be at least one small business in this category
in the out-years

aFor purposes of this screening analysis, EPA assessed a total of 24
businesses representing five types of businesses that may require an
environmental review of an new source NPDES permit to be issued by EPA. 
Of these 24 businesses, nine are small businesses.  Assuming
approximately 12 permit assessments annually, EPA estimates
approximately four of this 12 will be small businesses.

	5(b)	Calculation of Estimated One-Time Cost Impact on Small Businesses.
 Permit applicants apply to EPA for initial new source NPDES permits
when necessary based on their business operation needs.  There is no set
universe of initial permit applicants.  Further, the level of NEPA
documentation and the project-specific information the Responsible
Official needs for decision-making is determined by the potential for
environmental impact of the action, or the facility to be permitted or
the project to be funded by the action rather than the dollar amount of
the project or whether the applicant is a permit applicant or a grantee.
 Thus, EPA cannot assume the level of NEPA documentation that would be
required for a specific project.  However, based on past years’
experience, EPA assumes that there will be approximately 12 new source
NPDES permit applications annually with about 11 of these projects
documented with EAs/FONSIs.  In addition, EPA anticipates one project
will have an EIS/ROD completed annually.  None will be documented
initially with a CE.

	Based on consideration of permit applicants in previous years, EPA
assumes that for approximately 12 annual projects, about eight will be
for large business permit applicants and about four will be for small
business permit applicants.  Based on analysis of grant applicants in
previous years (see Section 6), EPA assumes that of approximately 300
annual grants, about 90 will be for large governments, about 170 for
small governments, and about 40 for special districts.  Thus, for a
total of approximately 312 annual projects, the total estimated annual
number of small entities is about 174.

	It has been EPA’s experience (see Attachment 2) that EISs/RODs are
generally required for new source NPDES permit actions associated with
crude oil and natural gas extraction in off-shore waters and with
hardrock mining in Alaska and Idaho.  As summarized in Table 13, none of
the permit applicants considered in this screening analysis, or
anticipated in the out-years, are small businesses.  Therefore, the
estimated cost of $328,880 for an EIS (see Table 6) (or even an
estimated one-time cost of over a million dollars for new EISs for a
mining project or an oil and gas extraction project with multiple
complex issues that EPA understands permit applicants may have
experienced) would not be a significant economic impact on a small
business.

	It has been EPA’s experience (see Attachment 2) that EAs/FONSIs are
generally required for new source NPDES permit actions associated with
milk and cheese production, seafood processing, and CAFOs.24  As
summarized in Table 13, small business permit applicants were 
identified, and EPA assumes there will be at least one small business in
these business types in the out-years.  Small businesses incurring a
one-time cost of $53,940 (see Table 6) for submission of environmental
documentation to EPA for its use in preparing an EA/FONSI experience an
economic impact condition of greater than 3% if this cost is taken only
in the first business year incurred, and an economic impact condition
between 1% and 3% when this cost is spread over a three or five year
business period.  The estimated one-time only economic impact on a small
business with annual revenues/sales of $750,000 would be:25

		($53,940/$750,000) x 100	=	7.2% of the revenues/sales for the one year
in which the permit action is undertaken at the applicant’s request

		Spreading this one-time $53,940 cost over a 3- or 5-year business
period:

		($53,940/($750,000 x 3 years) x 100 =	2.4% of the 3-year
revenues/sales

		($53,940/($750,000 x 5 years) x 100 =	1.4% of the 5-year
revenues/sales

It has been EPA’s experience that EAs/FONSIs document these types of
business operations and EPA anticipates this will continue in the
out-years.  However, for purposes of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis,
should an EIS be required for the NPDES permit for the business
operation, the estimated one-time only economic impact on a small
business with annual revenues/sales of $750,000 would be greater than 3%
whether this expense is taken in the initial year or spread over a three
or five year business period:

		($328,880/$750,000) x 100	=	44% of the revenues/sales for the one year
in which the permit action is undertaken at the applicant’s request

		Spreading this one-time $328,880 cost over a 3- or 5-year business
period:

		($328,880/($750,000 x 3 years) x 100 =	15% of the 3-year
revenues/sales

		($328,880/($750,000 x 5 years) x 100 =	8.8% of the 5-year
revenues/sales

	5(c)	Summary of Small Businesses Experiencing an Economic Impact
Condition.

	In summary, this screening analysis considered the five types of
business operations that have previously applied to EPA for new source
NPDES permits; these five business types encompass 13 NAICS codes with
hardrock mining including four NAICS codes and CAFOs including six NAICS
codes.  The Agency anticipates these will continue to be the types of
businesses applying to EPA for NPDES permits in the out-years, and that
the majority of this permit activity will occur in EPA Regions 4, 6 and
10.  Two of these business types, crude oil and natural gas extraction,
and hardrock mining, do not involve small business permit applicants. 
The small businesses that could be impacted are those involved with milk
and cheese production, seafood processing, and CAFOs.  For the 10
distinct businesses included in this screening analysis involved with
these business types, five are large businesses and five are small
businesses.  The economic impact of the compliance costs (e.g.,
submission of environmental documentation for EPA’s use in preparing a
CE determination or an EA/FONSI or an EIS/ROD) to small business
entities (e.g., permit applicants) was evaluated.  Based on analysis of
permit applicants in previous years, EPA assumes that for approximately
12 annual projects, about eight will be for large business permit
applicants and about four will be for small business permit
applicants.26

	CE Determination:  To date, EPA has never determined that a new source
NPDES permit initially meets the criteria for categorical exclusion. 
EPA believes the NEPA documentation for new source NPDES permits
initially issued by EPA will continue to be EAs/FONSIs or EISs/RODs.

	EA/FONSI Documentation:  Based on analysis of previous businesses that
have applied to EPA for new source NPDES permits, assuming approximately
12 permit applications annually with about 11 of these documented with
an EA/FONSI, and assuming that similar types and numbers of businesses
may apply in the out-years, EPA believes that approximately four small
businesses could experience a one-time economic impact condition of 3%
or greater for the one-time costs associated with submitting
environmental information to EPA for an EA/FONSI.

	EIS/ROD Documentation: Based on analysis of previous businesses that
have applied to EPA for new source NPDES permits, assuming approximately
12 permit applications annually with about one of these documented with
an EIS/ROD, and assuming that similar types and numbers of businesses
may apply in the out-years, EPA anticipates that EIS-level documentation
would likely not be required for any small businesses.  However, for
purposes of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, should an EIS be
required for the NPDES permit for at least one but no more than four
small businesses, these small businesses could experience a one-time
economic impact condition of 3% or greater for the one-time costs
associated with submitting environmental information to EPA for an
EIS/ROD.

6.	Screening Analysis of Economic Impacts on Small Governments

	6(a)	Small Governments Considered in This Screening Analysis.  To
assess the potential impacts of the final rule on small governments, EPA
assessed the potential impacts the final rule may have on small
governments that may apply to EPA for STAG grants for actions subject to
NEPA (see Sections 2(e) and 4(a), and footnote 4).  EPA assumes that the
government types listed as grant applicants in EPA’s Special
Appropriations Act Projects and Program (SAAPP) database system
(maintained by EPA’s Office of Water) will remain the same in the
out-years.  These grants have been, and are anticipated to continue to
be, issued to government entities in all 10 EPA Regions.  As discussed
in Section 3(b), a “small governmental jurisdiction” is the
government of a city, county, town, school district or special district
with a population of less than 50,000.

	Grant applicants apply to EPA generally for STAG grants the government
jurisdictions have identified to Congress through the Congressional
appropriations process and that are subsequently listed in EPA’s
Appropriations Act.  There is no set universe of grant applicants. 
Further, the level of NEPA documentation and the project-specific
information the Responsible Official needs for decision-making is
determined by the potential for environmental impact of the action, or
the facility to be permitted or the project to be funded by the action
rather than the dollar amount of the project or whether the applicant is
a permit applicant or a grantee.  Thus, EPA cannot assume the level of
NEPA documentation that would be required for a specific project. 
However, based on past years’ experience, under the final rule, EPA
anticipates there will be approximately 300 grantee projects annually
with about 60% of these projects documented with a CE, and about 40%
with an EA/FONSI.  In addition, EPA estimates that one project (less
than one percent of the total annual grantee projects) will have an
EIS/ROD completed during a three-year period.

	Based on analysis of grant applicants in previous years (see Attachment
4), EPA anticipates that of approximately 300 annual grantees, about 90
will be large governments, about 170 small governments, and about 40
special districts.  Based on analysis of permit applicants in previous
years (see Section 5), EPA anticipates that for approximately 12 annual
projects, about eight will be for large business permit applicants and
about four will be for small business permit applicants.  For a total of
approximately 312 annual projects, the total estimated annual number of
small entities is about 174.

	6(b)	Calculation of Estimated One-Time Cost Impact on Small
Governments.  For purposes of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, EPA
used the information in the SAAPP system for the three-year period, 2002
through 2004.  Within this time-frame, EPA first identified the active
grants, eliminating those that are inactive or closed out.  In order to
identify individual grant actions, EPA then combined years for which
funding was appropriated for the same type of project (e.g., wastewater,
drinking water, CSO (combined sewer overflow), MS4 (municipal separate
storm sewer system), other, or not classified27).  Individual projects
were thus identified on this basis.  This methodology also identifies
government entities receiving grants for multiple projects and for which
individual NEPA reviews would be required.  The U.S. Census Bureau
website (http://www.census.gov) was the source of the population
information, including total population, household population,28 average
household size, and median household income.  Population statistics are
not available for special districts.  The Census Bureau’s annual
“general revenue” information for special districts was used in this
screening analysis.  Approximately 600 projects were identified as
managed by EPA’s Regions for this three-year period with about 178
large government grantees, about 339 small government grantees, and
about 82 special districts.  These were then annualized to approximately
300 projects with about 90 large government grantees, about 170 small
government grantees, and about 40 special districts.

	Attachment 3 lists the grantee name, the government type, the
population and SBA size designation, the grant amount, and project type
by year.  EPA notes, however, that the NEPA environmental review is not
dependent on the dollar amount of the project but rather the potential
for environmental impacts.  Attachment 4 lists the grantees on the basis
of combined years for which funding was appropriated for the same
project type (as described above).  EPA recommends either a “Revenue
Test” (annualized compliance costs as a percentage of annual
government revenues) or an “Income Test” (annualized compliance
costs to household (per capita) as a percentage of median household (per
capita) income) for evaluating the economic impact of a rule on small
governments.  Revenues were not available on an individual government
entity basis; therefore, for this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, EPA
used the “Income Test.”  As noted above, household population and
average household size are available for all government entities on the
Census Bureau website, except for special districts.  These numbers were
used to calculate number of households (e.g., household
population/average household size = number of households).  The
estimated one time cost was then calculated for the government entities
based on their submission to EPA of environmental documentation for
EPA’s use in preparing a CE determination or an EA/FONSI or an
EIS/ROD.  The specific type of NEPA documentation for each listed
project is not known (e.g., the NEPA process may not yet have been
initiated for some of the projects, or an EA that is underway may lead
to either a FONSI or the need for an EIS), nor is it necessary for this
screening analysis.  What does need to be determined is the potential
for small government entities to experience an economic impact
condition.  By calculating the estimated cost for each of the three
types of NEPA documentation (e.g., the compliance cost) per household as
a percentage of median household income, EPA determined the likelihood
of a small government entity experiencing an economic impact condition.

(Cost for CE or EA or EIS-related documentation)   x 100	= Documentation
cost as a % of

(No. Households) x (Median Household Income)		    per capita median
income

Whether or not a small government entity experiences an economic impact
condition related to the one-time submission of environmental
documentation for any of the three levels of NEPA review is dependent on
the relative relationship between the number of households and the
median household income (e.g., there is not a defined limit on either;
if one is high, the other may be low with no impact, but a low number of
households and low median household income is more likely to result in
an economic impact condition).  Attachment 4 lists the results of these
calculations for the three-year period 2002 through 2004, and
annualization of these results, for governmental entities.

	Household statistics are not available for special districts.  However,
general revenue information is available on an annual basis for certain
years.  To determine whether special districts may be experiencing an
economic impact condition, EPA used the general revenues information
available on the Census Bureau website for the year 2002.  During the
2002 through 2004 time-frame, 30 special district projects were
initially active in 2002 (30 in 2002, 33 in 2003 and 19 in 2004; 82
total projects).  For the year 2002, EPA calculated the one-time
compliance costs for special districts as follows assuming that in the
year 2002, a special district’s general revenues were $63,859,780.  In
the out-years, EPA assumes a special district’s general revenues will
increase to about $65,000,000.  Based on these assumptions, Table 14
summarizes the estimated one-time compliance costs for special districts
for the three levels of NEPA documentation for 2002 and for an out-year.
 (Assuming maximum costs, EPA used the same document costs for both sets
of calculations.  In 2002, about 50% of projects were documented with
CEs, and 50% with EAs/FONSIs.  One EIS/ROD was completed in a 3-year
period.  In the out-years, EPA anticipates 60% of the projects will be
documented with CEs, and 40% with EAs/FONSIs.  EPA anticipates one
EIS/ROD will be completed in a three-year period.)  For both the 2002
and the out-year projection, special districts experience an economic
impact condition less than 1% for submitting information to EPA for its
use in preparing any of the three levels of NEPA documentation.

Table 14. One-Time Estimated Costs for Special District Grant Applicants

Year	CE Determination	EA/FONSI Determination	EIS/EA Determination

2002	    $3,292      x 100 = 0.0052%

$63,859,780 	    $18,340    x 100 = 0.029%

$63,859,780	   $324,480   x 100 = 0.51%

$63,859,780

Out-Year	    $3,292      x 100 = 0.0051%

$65,000,000	    $18,340    x 100 = 0.028%

$65,000,000	    $324,480  x 100 = 0.50%

$65,000,000

	Based on EPA’s experience, in any given year, EPA anticipates there
may be approximately 300 projects undergoing environmental review for
government entities of which about 90 are large governments, about 170
are small governments, and about 40 are special districts.  Review of
Attachment 4 and Table 14 shows that for governmental entities:

None of the governmental entities, including small governments,
experienced an economic impact condition equal to or greater than 1% for
one-time submission of environmental documentation related to a CE
determination.

EPA estimates that possibly two small governments may experience an
economic impact condition equal to or greater than 1%, but less than 3%,
if required to submit one-time environmental documentation for EPA’s
use in preparing an EA/FONSI.  However, this needs to be considered in
the context that in the out-years:  for an anticipated 300 annual
projects, 60% of these projects are anticipated to be documented with a
CE and 40% documented with an EA/FONSI.  Further, these two grantees
represent approximately 1.1% of all small entities (about 4 small
businesses and about 170 small governments, or approximately 174)
subject to the final rule.

EPA estimates that possibly about 57 small governments may experience an
economic impact condition equal to or greater than 1% but less than 3%,
and about 22 small governments may experience an economic impact
condition equal to or greater than 3% if required to submit one-time
environmental documentation for EPA’s use in preparing an EIS/ROD. 
However, only one EIS/ROD per three-year period is anticipated (less
than one percent of the total annual grantee projects), so the impact
potential needs to be considered in the total context of approximately
300 annual projects spread over large governments, small governments,
and special districts and the likelihood of any small government having
such a project during a three-year time period.  Further, the 57
grantees represent about 33% and the 22 grantees represent about 13% of
all small entities (about 4 small businesses and about 170 small
governments, or approximately 174) subject to the final rule.

	6(c)	Summary of Small Governments Experiencing an Economic Impact
Condition.  In summary, this screening analysis considered the active
STAG grants and the government entity grantees within the time-frame
2002 through 2004.  During this three-year period, there have been
approximately 600 active STAG grants in EPA’s 10 Regional Offices.  Of
these, 178 are large government grantees, 339 are small government
grantees, and 82 are special district grantees.  On an annual basis in
the out-years, EPA anticipates there will be approximately 300 STAG
grants, with about 90 for large government grantees, about 170 for small
government grantees, and about 40 for special districts.  As described
in Section 6(b), an “Income Test” was used to calculate the economic
impact for large and small governments, and a “Revenue Test” for the
year 2002 and for an out-year projection for special districts.  An
economic impact condition was considered to exist at 1% or greater, or
3% or greater, using these tests.  The economic impact of the compliance
costs (e.g., submission of environmental documentation to EPA as part of
the environmental review process for a CE determination or an EA/FONSI
or an EIS/ROD) to small government entities (e.g., STAG grant
applicants) was evaluated.

	CE Determination:  Under the final rule, EPA anticipates that 60% of
approximately 300 projects annually will be documented with a CE
determination.  Based on analysis of previous government entities that
have applied to EPA for STAG grants, the economic impact for all
government entities was less than 1% for submission of environmental
information in support of a CE determination.

	EA/FONSI Determination:  Under the final rule, EPA anticipates that 40%
of approximately 300 projects annually will be documented with an
EA/FONSI.  Based on analysis of previous government entities that have
applied to EPA for STAG grants and assuming approximately 300 projects
annually with similar types and numbers of governments applying in the
out-years, EPA estimates two small governments could experience an
economic impact condition of greater than 1%, but less than 3%, for the
one-time costs associated with submitting environmental information to
EPA for an EA/FONSI.

	EIS/ROD Determination:  Under the final rule, EPA anticipates that an
EIS/ROD may be prepared for one project (less than one percent of the
total annual grantee projects) during a three-year period.  Based on
analysis of previous government entities that have applied to EPA for
STAG grants and assuming approximately 300 projects annually with
similar types and numbers of governments applying in the out-years, EPA
estimates that for environmental documentation submitted one time to EPA
for its use in preparing an EIS/ROD, 57 small governments could
experience an economic impact condition greater than 1% but less than
3%, and 22 small governments could experience an economic impact
condition greater than 3%.  However, only one EIS/ROD per three-year
period is anticipated, so rather than this potential impact being on
about 79 small governments, the impact potential needs to be considered
in the total context of approximately 300 projects annually spread over
large governments, small governments, and special districts.

	7.  Small Entity Flexibility.

	The purpose of the RFA/SBREFA is “to fit regulatory and informational
requirements to the scale of the business, organizations and
governmental jurisdictions subject to the regulation” where
appropriate and applicable.  The RFA/SBREFA does not require an agency
to necessarily minimize a rule’s impact on small entities if there are
legal, policy, factual or other reasons for not doing so.  The
RFA/SBREFA requires only that agencies determine, to the extent
feasible, the rule’s economic impact on small entities, explore
regulatory options for reducing any significant economic impact on a
substantial number of such entities, and explain their ultimate choice
of regulatory approach.

	As part of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis that demonstrates the
final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, EPA also considered the NEPA documentation
procedures applicable to small entities in terms of the RFA’s
directive that a rule:

“reduces to the extent practicable and appropriate the burden on
persons who shall provide information to or for the agency, including
with respect to small entities, as defined in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601(6)), the use of such techniques as:

(1) establishing differing compliance and reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to those who
are to respond;

Environmental information must be submitted by an applicant only for EPA
actions subject to NEPA that are based on applicant proposals unless EPA
will prepare the NEPA documents without assistance from the applicant. 
The information to be submitted is required only when an applicant
applies for a new source NPDES permit to be issued by EPA or for a grant
for an action subject to NEPA, a one-time application process.  The
Responsible Official, however, may ask the applicant to provide
additional information if the Responsible Official needs it to prepare
the EA or EIS.  There are no schedules in the regulations for this
information submission process.

		(2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance
and reporting requirements; or

EPA believes that because the final rule requires one-time NEPA
assessment of environmental impacts of the applicant’s proposed
action, the effects on any small entities will be limited to the cost of
preparing the documentation to support this assessment.  Further, the
documentation requirements are no greater than necessary to ensure that
the Responsible Official can prepare the level of NEPA documentation
necessary for decision-making commiserate with the potential for
environmental impacts associated with the project.  Based on EPA’s
experience, EPA anticipates that most entities’ projects will require
either a CE determination or EA/FONSI documentation.  Also based on
EPA’s experience, EPA anticipates that an EIS/ROD may be required for
one new source NPDES permit action each year for an action proposed by a
business entity, and that one EIS/ROD may be required once every three
years for a STAG project for a governmental entity.

		(3) an exemption from coverage of the collection of information, or
any part thereof.”

The environmental information submitted by an applicant under the final
rule is one-time only for applicant-proposed actions; e.g., actions
proposed by grantees seeking funding assistance from EPA or for an NPDES
permit application initiated by the permit applicant.  In either case,
EPA assumes the action will directly benefit the applicant (such as a
grantee seeking STAG funding for renovation of a community drinking
water system, or a permit applicant seeking an NPDES permit from EPA to
further the applicant’s business interests).  Nonetheless, if the
applicant cannot afford to provide the required environmental
information to EPA, then EPA would undertake the environmental review
without input from the applicant.29  Further, grantees may be
grant-eligible for certain costs associated with providing environmental
information to EPA.30  Permit applicants are not eligible for EPA
financial assistance.

	Although this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to
reduce the impact of this rule on small entities.  EPA has attempted to
reduce the cost to all entities, including small entities, through the
following provisions of the final rule:

Section 6.300:  An EID is not required when the action is categorically
excluded, or the applicant will prepare a draft EA and supporting
documents.  The Responsible Official may prepare the NEPA documents
without environmental information submitted by the applicant.

Section 6.302:

The Responsible Official may prepare generic guidance for categories of
actions involving a large number of applicants; and must ensure early
involvement of applicants, consult with the applicant and provide
guidance describing the scope and level of environmental information
required, and provide guidance on a project-by-project basis to any
applicant seeking assistance.

The Responsible Official must consider the extent to which the applicant
is capable of providing the required information, may not require the
applicant to gather data or perform analyses that unnecessarily
duplicate either existing data or the results of existing analyses
available to EPA, and must limit the request for environmental
information to that necessary for the environmental review.

Section 6.303:  An applicant may enter into a third-party agreement with
EPA.  For grantees, third-party contractor costs may be eligible for
cost reimbursement.  (New source NPDES permit applicants are not
eligible for EPA financial assistance.)

	In summary, EPA’s regulations are applicable to EPA actions subject
to NEPA, including certain entity-proposed projects.  Because the
projects are proposed by the entities, including small businesses and
small governments, EPA does not know what projects will be proposed,
when they will be proposed, or what level of NEPA review will be
required for each individual project.  In this regard, EPA’s NEPA
review process is reactive to an applicant’s request.  These factors
are built into this screening assessment, including assumptions about
the entities likely to be subject to the regulations, the types of
projects they are likely to propose, and the degree of possible economic
impact based on the NEPA review process and the three levels of
environmental documentation possible under this process using available
historical information as future indicators.

8.	Statement of Impact on Small Entities Experiencing an Economic Impact
Condition and Finding of No Significant Economic Impact on a Substantial
Number of Small Entities

	The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is amending its
procedures for implementing the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).  The final rule also includes
minor, technical amendments to the Agency’s procedures for
implementing Executive Order 12114, “Environmental Effects Abroad of
Major Federal Actions.”

	Certain applicants must submit environmental information to EPA as part
of the process of complying with either NEPA or Executive Order 12114. 
EPA’s Executive Order 12114 procedures further the purpose of NEPA and
provide that EPA may be guided by these procedures to the extent they
are applicable.  Therefore, when EPA conducts an environmental
assessment pursuant to its Executive Order 12114 procedures, the Agency
generally follows its NEPA procedures.

	Those subject to the final NEPA rule include EPA employees who must
comply with NEPA and certain grant and permit applicants who must submit
environmental information to EPA for their proposed projects.  The EPA
Responsible Official is responsible for the environmental review
process, including any categorical exclusion determination or the scope,
accuracy, and contents of a final environmental assessment (EA) or
environmental impact statement (EIS) and any supporting documents.  The
applicant contributes by submitting environmental information to EPA as
part of the environmental review process.  There is no set universe of
grant or permit applicants.  The information submitted by grant or
permit applicants is one-time only on a per-project basis for EPA
actions subject to NEPA that are based on applicant proposals.  Grantees
(primarily grants for special projects identified in EPA’s State and
Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) account) or permit applicants (for new
source NPDES permits issued by EPA) are required to provide
environmental information to EPA as part of the environmental review
process unless the EPA Responsible Official decides to prepare the NEPA
documents without assistance from the applicant.  If the applicant
cannot afford to provide the required environmental information to EPA,
then EPA would undertake the environmental review without input from the
applicant.  Further, certain grantees may be grant-eligible for certain
costs associated with providing environmental information to EPA; permit
applicants are not eligible for EPA financial assistance.

	The NEPA review for a project may result in a categorical exclusion
(CE), or an EA documented with a finding of no significant impact
(EA/FONSI), or an EIS documented with a record of decision (EIS/ROD). 
(EPA assumes a project may be documented with a CE only for
grantee-proposed projects.  EPA does not anticipate that an initial new
source NPDES permit application would be documented with a CE.)  For any
specific project, only one of these levels of documentation is generally
prepared.  Applicants may submit an environmental information document
(EID) to EPA as part of the environmental review process.  Alternately,
an applicant may submit a draft EA or a draft EIS and supporting
documents.  Applicants may prepare and submit the information directly,
or may enter a third-party contract agreement with EPA for preparation
of an EA or EIS and supporting documentation.  For purposes of
determining the maximum costs to applicants, EPA assumed that grant and
permit applicants would expend time and incur contractor costs to
submit:  (1) information to support application of a CE with
environmental information prepared directly by the applicant’s
contractor; or (2) a draft EA and supporting documents prepared directly
by the applicant’s contractor; or (3) a draft and final EIS and
supporting documents prepared by the applicant’s contractor under a
third-party agreement with EPA.

	Businesses, including small businesses, are applicants applying to EPA
for a new source NPDES permit under §402 of the CWA.  EPA issues new
source NPDES permits only in states and U.S. territories that have not
assumed authority for this program, the District of Columbia, off-shore
waters, and on federally-recognized Indian tribal lands (where the tribe
has not assumed this authority).  Permit applicants are not limited to a
specific business sector.  EPA has permitted, and anticipates continued
permit activity, with projects typically involving:  oil and gas
extraction from off-shore waters, hardrock mining (recently gold,
silver, lead and zinc, and copper), dairy cattle and milk production,
seafood processing, and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs)
including poultry, cattle, hogs and pigs.

	EPA used the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) “small
business” definitions codified at 13 CFR 121.201 by category of
business using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
codes; a “small business” applies to a firm’s parent company and
all affiliates as a single entity.  EPA used the NAICS codes for
business types that have previously applied to EPA for new source NPDES
permits and the SBA small business designation for each business type
because EPA anticipates these are the same business types likely to
apply to EPA in the out-years for new source NPDES permits.

	Governments, including small governments, are grant applicants applying
to EPA for funding of STAG grants and include state and local
governments, federally-recognized Indian tribes and special districts. 
Approximately 75% of EPA’s grants are under the STAG appropriations
account.  Certain line items in the STAG appropriations account are not
subject to NEPA.  Grantee actions subject to NEPA are predominately
under the STAG appropriations account, including consideration of the
Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants Program and other actions
subject to NEPA, including those under the Agency’s Environmental
Programs and Management (EPM) account.  EPA used the RFA/SBREFA
definition of a “small governmental jurisdiction,” the government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; EPA also included federally-recognized
Indian tribes that applied for STAG grants in the analysis.

	The RFA/SBREFA defines “small organizations” as any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant
in its field.  Each year, EPA awards approximately $4 billion in grants.
 Of that amount, approximately 89% is awarded to states,
federally-recognized Indian tribes, and local governments for STAG
projects and implementation of environmental programs; most of these
grants are awarded to governmental jurisdictions for special projects
identified in the STAG account.  About 6% are awarded to non-profit
organizations and special interest groups and about 4% to educational
institutions for a broad range of purposes including, for example,
community outreach and education, workshops and conferences, training,
and cooperative agreements to non-profit senior organizations to support
EPA’s Senior Environmental Employee program.  These grants are
generally awarded under specific statutory authorities that are exempt
from NEPA (see Attachment 1).  A small organization is not likely to
receive a grant from EPA for an action subject to NEPA under EPA’s
regulations; therefore, small organizations were not included in EPA’s
small entity impact analysis.

	Based on EPA’s experience, under the final rule, EPA anticipates that
annually there will be approximately 300 grantee projects with about 60%
of these projects documented with a CE, and about 40% with an EA/FONSI. 
In addition, EPA estimates that one project (less than one percent of
the total annual grantee projects) will have an EIS/ROD completed during
a three-year period.  For permit applicants, EPA anticipates there will
be approximately 12 projects annually with about 11 of the projects
documented with an EA/FONSI.  In addition, EPA anticipates one project
will have an EIS/ROD completed annually.  None will be documented
initially with a CE.  EPA estimated the one-time costs for applicants to
prepare the environmental documentation by including contractor hours
and costs, direct labor hours and costs, and O&M for documentation
submitted to EPA to support a CE determination, or an EA/FONSI, or an
EIS/ROD.  For a grantee, EPA estimates an applicant’s one-time costs
for submitting environmental information will be: $3,292 for CE
documentation, or $18,340 for EA/FONSI documentation, or $324,480 for
EIS/ROD documentation.  For a permit applicant, EPA estimates an
applicant’s one-time costs for submitting environmental information
will be:  $53,940 for EA/FONSI documentation, or $328,880 for EIS/ROD
documentation.  These figures may vary depending on the complexity of
issues associated with the project and the availability of relevant
information, particularly for EISs.  (For example, EPA’s experience
with a limited number of EISs has included one-time costs ranging from
nominal for information submitted by letter to supplement an existing
oil and gas extraction EIS  to over a million dollars for new EISs for a
mining project and an oil and gas extraction project with multiple
complex issues.)  EPA believes these calculations are representative of
most projects.

	Under the final rule, the total annual cost for applicants to submit
environmental information to EPA is estimated at $3,823,740 for
contractor hours and costs, direct labor hours and costs, and O&M costs.
 This cost reflects the annual submission of documentation for an
anticipated 312 applicant-proposed projects that may be documented with
a CE, or an EA/FONSI, or an EIS/ROD.  Based on EPA’s experience, under
the final rule, EPA anticipates that annually there will be
approximately 300 grantee projects with about 60% of these projects
documented with a CE, and about 40% with an EA/FONSI.  In addition, EPA
anticipates that one project (less than one percent of the total annual
grantee projects) will have an EIS/ROD completed during a three-year
period.  For permit applicants, EPA anticipates there will be
approximately 12 projects annually with about 11 documented with an
EA/FONSI.  In addition, EPA anticipates one project will have an EIS/ROD
completed annually.  None will be documented initially with a CE.

	EPA’s analysis of the five types of business operations that have
previously applied to EPA for new source NPDES permits was considered
representative of out-year projects and business entities.  EPA found
there have been no small businesses involved with oil and gas extraction
or hardrock mining, nor are any anticipated in the out-years because of
the nature of these businesses.  These projects are generally documented
with an EIS/ROD.  The small businesses that could be impacted are those
involved with dairy cattle and cheese production, seafood processing,
and CAFOs.  Based on EPA’s experience, new source NPDES permit
projects for these types of businesses are generally documented with
EAs/FONSIs.  For environmental documentation submitted by a permit
applicant to EPA for its use in preparing an EA/FONSI, EPA estimates
that one or more small businesses could experience a one-year, one-time
economic impact condition of 3% or greater.  For environmental
documentation submitted by a permit applicant to EPA for its use in
preparing an EIS/ROD, EPA estimates that one or more small businesses
could experience a one-year, one-time economic impact condition of 3% or
greater.

	EPA’s analysis considered the active STAG grants and grantees within
the time-frame 2002 through 2004 as representative of out-year projects
and governmental entities.  During this three-year period, about 57% of
the grantees were small government jurisdictions (other jurisdictions:
about 30% large governments, and about 14% special districts).  An
“Income Test” was used to determine if any small governments
(excluding special districts) may experience an economic impact
condition, and a “Revenue Test” for the year 2002 and for an
out-year projection was used for special districts.  An economic impact
condition was considered to exist at 1% or greater using these tests. 
The economic impact for all government entities was less than 1% for
submission of environmental documentation in support of a CE
determination.  For environmental documentation submitted to EPA for its
use in preparing an EA/FONSI, EPA estimates that possibly two small
governments may experience an economic impact condition equal to or
greater than 1%, but less than 3%, if required to submit one-time
environmental documentation for EPA’s use in preparing an EA/FONSI. 
However, this needs to be considered in the context that in the
out-years:  for an anticipated 300 annual projects, 60% of these
projects are anticipated to be documented with a CE and 40% documented
with an EA/FONSI.  Further, these two grantees represents approximately
1.1% of all small entities (e.g., about 4 small businesses and about 170
small governments, or approximately 174) subject to the final rule.

	Based on EPA’s experience, under the final rule, EPA anticipates that
an EIS/ROD may be prepared for one project (less than one percent of the
total annual grantee projects) during a three-year period.  EPA
estimates that for environmental documentation submitted one time to EPA
for its use in preparing an EIS/ROD, 57 small governments could
experience an economic impact condition greater than 1% but less than
3%, and 22 small governments could experience an economic impact
condition greater than 3%.  However, only one EIS/ROD per three-year
period is anticipated, so rather than this potential impact being on
about 79 small governments, the impact potential needs to be considered
in the total context of approximately 300 projects annually spread over
large governments, small governments, and special districts.

	EPA believes the final rule reduces to the extent practicable the
burden on entities, including small entities, through certain provisions
in the proposed rule and other considerations.  Environmental
information must be submitted by an applicant only for
applicant-proposed actions subject to NEPA unless EPA will prepare the
NEPA documents directly without assistance from the applicant.  The
information to be submitted is required only when an applicant applies
for a new source NPDES permit to be issued by EPA or for a grant for an
action subject to NEPA, a one-time application process.  The Responsible
Official, however, may ask the applicant to provide additional
information if the Responsible Official needs it to prepare the EA or
EIS.  There are no schedules in the regulations for this information
submission process.  EPA anticipates that because the final rule
requires one-time NEPA assessment of environmental impacts of the
applicant’s proposed action, the effects on any small entities will be
limited to the cost of preparing the documentation to support this
assessment.  Further, the documentation requirements are no greater than
necessary to ensure that the Responsible Official can prepare the level
of NEPA documentation necessary for decision-making commiserate with the
potential for environmental impacts associated with the project.  Based
on EPA’s past experience, EPA anticipates that most entities’
projects will require either CE or EA/FONSI level documentation.  EPA
anticipates that an EIS/ROD may be required for one new source NPDES
permit action each year for a business entity, and that one EIS/ROD may
be required once every three years for a STAG grant project for a
governmental entity.  The environmental information submitted by an
applicant under the final rule is one-time only for applicant-proposed
actions; e.g., actions proposed by grantees seeking funding assistance
from EPA or for an NPDES permit application initiated by the permit
applicant.  In either case, EPA assumes the action will directly benefit
the applicant (such as a grantee seeking STAG funding for renovation of
a community drinking water system, or a permit applicant seeking an
NPDES permit from EPA to further the applicant’s business interests). 
Nonetheless, if the applicant cannot afford to provide the required
environmental information to EPA, then EPA would undertake the
environmental review without input from the applicant.  (Applicants
would normally be requested to demonstrate financial hardship, including
inability to provide the requested environmental information.)  Further,
grantees may be grant-eligible for certain costs associated with
providing environmental information to EPA.  Permit applicants are not
eligible for EPA financial assistance.

	Although this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, EPA nonetheless has tried to
reduce the impact of this rule on small entities.  EPA has also
attempted to reduce the cost on all entities, including small entities,
through the following provisions of the rule:  Section 6.300 provides
that an EID is not required when the action is categorically excluded,
or the applicant will prepare a draft EA and supporting documents.  The
Responsible Official may prepare the NEPA documents directly without
assistance from the applicant.  Section 6.302 provides that the
Responsible Official may prepare generic guidance for categories of
actions involving a large number of applicants; and must ensure early
involvement of applicants, consult with the applicant and provide
guidance describing the scope and level of environmental information
required, and provide guidance on a project-by-project basis to any
applicant seeking assistance.  This Section also provides that the
Responsible Official must consider the extent to which the applicant is
capable of providing the required information, may not require the
applicant to gather data or perform analyses that unnecessarily
duplicate either existing data or the results of existing analyses
available to EPA, and must limit the request for environmental
information to that necessary for the environmental review.  Section
6.303 provides that an applicant may enter into a third-party agreement
with EPA.  For grantees, third-party contractor costs may be
grant-eligible.  Permit applicants are not eligible for EPA financial
assistance.

	EPA certifies that the final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.  Based on EPA’s
experience, EPA anticipates that annually there will be approximately
170 small governments applying to EPA for STAG grants for projects
subject to NEPA, and four small businesses applying to EPA for new
source NPDES permits for a total of approximately 174 small entities out
of approximately 312 total entities.  Of the 174 small entities possibly
affected by this rule, we have determined that the economic impact of
submitting one-time environmental documentation to support a CE
determination would be less than 1% of annual revenues for all small
entities; and that six small entities (3.4%) could experience an
economic impact of 1-3%, and up to four small entities (2%) could
experience an economic impact of greater than 3% for the one-time costs
associated with submitting EA-related environmental documentation. 
Additionally, we have also determined that approximately 57 of the 174
small entities (33%) could experience an economic impact of 1-3%, and up
to 26 of the 174 small entities (15%) could experience an economic
impact of greater than 3% for the one-time costs associated with
submitting EIS-related environmental documentation.  In all, these
approximately 83 small entities represent about 48% of the estimated 174
total number of small entities that could experience an one-time
economic impact of 1-3% or greater of annual revenues.  Of these 83
small entities, 79 are likely to be governmental grant applicants and
could be grant-eligible for EPA financial assistance with only one EIS
anticipated per three years with this likelihood spread over 300 total
grant applicants, including small and large governments, including
federally-recognized Indian tribes, and special districts.

PART B OF THE SCREENING ANALYSIS

STATISTICAL SURVEY

	This RFA/SBREFA screening analysis does not use or is otherwise based
on a statistical survey.

ATTACHMENT 1 TO THE SCREENING ANALYSIS

Exemption from NEPA for Certain EPA Actions and

EPA's Voluntary NEPA Policy and Procedures

Exemptions from NEPA for Certain EPA Actions

	Certain EPA actions are exempt from the procedural requirements of
NEPA, including the CEQ Regulations.  Congress has provided specific
statutory exemptions for certain EPA actions taken under the Clean Water
Act (CWA) and all EPA actions taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 
Specifically, under CWA Section 511(c)(1), EPA is exempt from preparing
EISs for all actions taken under the CWA except for issuance of NPDES
permits under CWA Section 402 for  “new sources” as defined in
Section 306, and for Federal financial assistance provided for assisting
construction of publicly owned treatment works under CWA Section 201 (33
U.S.C. 1371(c)).  Under the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination
Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 793(c)(1)), all actions taken under the CAA are
deemed not to be major federal actions significantly affecting the
environment.

	Further, the courts have exempted certain EPA actions from the
procedural requirements of NEPA through the functional equivalence
doctrine.  Under the functional equivalence doctrine, courts have found
EPA to be exempt from the procedural requirements of NEPA for certain
actions under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA); the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and
the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA).  The
courts reasoned that EPA actions under these statutes are functionally
equivalent to the analysis required under NEPA because they are
undertaken with full consideration of environmental impacts and
opportunities for public involvement.  See, e.g., EDF v. EPA, 489 F.2d
1247 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (FIFRA); State of Alabama v. EPA, 911 F. 2d 499
(11th Cir. 1990) (RCRA); Warren County v. North Carolina, 528 F. Supp.
276 (E.D. N.C. 1981) (TSCA); Western Nebraska Resources Council v. US
EPA, 943 F.2d 867 (8th Cir. 1991) (SDWA); Maryland v. Train, 415 F.
Supp. 116 (D. Md. 1976) (MPRSA).

	Agency actions exempt from the requirements of NEPA remain exempt under
this final rule.  If a question arises regarding the applicability of
the NEPA requirements to certain actions, the Responsible Official
should consult with the NEPA Official and the Office of General Counsel.

EPA's Voluntary NEPA Policy and Procedures

	In 1974, EPA Administrator Russell Train determined that the Agency
could voluntarily prepare EISs for certain regulatory activities that
were exempt from NEPA.  In 1998, Administrator Carol Browner amended
this policy to permit the preparation of non-EIS NEPA documents for
certain EPA regulatory actions.  The Agency’s current "Notice of
Policy and Procedures for Voluntary Preparation of National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documents" (see 63 FR 58045) sets out
the policy and procedures EPA uses when preparing environmental review
documents under the Voluntary NEPA Policy.  This final rule does not
make any changes to the voluntary NEPA policy and procedures.  However,
the final rule can serve as a framework for the preparation of voluntary
NEPA documents.

ATTACHMENT 2 TO THE SCREENING ANALYSIS

Estimates of Contractor Costs and Hours for Grantees and Permit
Applicants

Background Information

	The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) is amending its
procedures for implementing the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).  The final rule also includes
minor, technical amendments to the Agency’s procedures for
implementing Executive Order 12114, “Environmental Effects Abroad of
Major Federal Actions.”31

	Those subject to EPA’s final NEPA rule include EPA employees who must
comply with NEPA32 and certain grant and permit applicants who must
submit environmental information to EPA for their proposed projects. 
The EPA Responsible Official is responsible for the environmental review
process, including any categorical exclusion (CE) determination or the
scope, accuracy, and contents of a final environmental assessment (EA)
and supporting documents, or environmental impact statement (EIS) and
supporting documents.  Unless the EPA Responsible Official decides to
prepare the NEPA documents without assistance from the applicant, the
applicant contributes by submitting environmental information to EPA as
part of the environmental review process.  If the applicant cannot
afford to provide the required environmental information to EPA, then
EPA would undertake the environmental review without input from the
applicant.

	As discussed in Section 2(e) of this screening analysis, entities
include grant applicants applying to EPA for funding of special projects
identified in the Agency’s STAG account, and permit applicants
applying to EPA for issuance of new source NPDES permits.  Applicants
incur contractor hours and costs and direct labor hours and costs
related to the environmental information they prepare and submit to EPA.
 Applicants may prepare the documents directly or task a contractor with
their preparation, or the applicant may enter into a third-party
contract agreement with EPA for preparation of an environmental
information document (EID), or EA or EIS and supporting documents. 
Grantees may be grant-eligible for costs associated with providing
environmental information to EPA, including third-party contract costs;
permit applicants are not eligible for EPA financial assistance.

	EPA’s NEPA practitioners in its Regional Offices are primarily
responsible for reviewing applicant-submitted environmental information
and for preparing the NEPA documents for STAG grants and EPA-issued new
source NPDES permits.  Because the projects are proposed by the
entities, including small businesses and small governments, EPA does not
know what projects will be proposed, when they will be proposed, or what
level of NEPA review will be required for each individual project.  In
this regard, EPA’s NEPA review process is reactive to an applicant’s
request.  The applicants (both grantees and permit applicants) vary and
are not a set universe of entities with ongoing or periodic information
submissions.  Therefore, the cost estimates for applicant projects are
based on best professional estimates provided by EPA’s Regional Office
NEPA practitioners and are based on the types of projects historically
encountered and assumptions about project types in the out-years.

Summary Highlights from EPA Information Sources and EPA Assumptions:

For STAG Grants and Grantees:

EPA’s NEPA compliance actions are nearly always associated with EPA
actions subject to NEPA that are based on applicant proposals, primarily
for STAG grants (including consideration of the Wastewater Treatment
Construction Grants Program and other actions subject to NEPA, including
grants issued under the Agency’s Environmental Programs and Management
(EPM) account). For the 3-year period 2002 through 2004, about 800 STAG
grants were awarded with about 270 awarded annually (see Appendix Table
1-2).33  Recognizing that the number of STAG awards has been increasing
annually (see Appendix Table 1-1), for purposes of this RFA/SBREFA
screening analysis, EPA estimates that approximately 900 STAG grants
will be awarded during any 3-year period in the out-years, with
approximately 300 awarded annually.

STAG awards by Regions 3, 4, 5 and 9 represent 56% of the total awards
for the 3-year period 2002 through 2004 (e.g., 453 of 810 projects);
with Region 1 included, this represents 65% of the total awards (e.g.,
529 of 810 projects).  These five Regions also represent about 60% of
the total dollars awarded for the 3-year period 2002 through 2004 (e.g.,
$371.2M of $604.9M awarded, or 61%).  (See Tables 1-2 and 1-3.) 
However, the NEPA documentation prepared for an EPA action subject to
NEPA is based on the potential for environmental impacts of the action,
or the facility to be permitted or the project to be funded by the
action and not with the dollar amount awarded for the project.

For STAG projects, the Regions estimate that previously, about 50% are
documented with CEs, and about 50% with EAs/FONSIs.  Most Regions
anticipate that under the final rule, the projects documented with CEs
may increase by 5% to 10%.  EPA estimates that grantee spending ranges
from about $1,000 to $4,000 in contractor costs, and uses about 1-5
hours grantee time to prepare and submit CE-related information.  For
purposes of this screening analysis, EPA assumes that the grantee will
submit information to support a CE determination with the information
compiled directly by the applicant’s contractor.  EPA estimates the
grantee contractor cost at $3,000 ($75/hour x 40 hours per CE-related
information), with about 5 hours grantee time and submission of about 20
pages of information, including copied information, per CE.  EPA
anticipates under the final rule about 60% of the projects will be
documented with a CE.

For STAG projects, the Regions estimate that currently, about 50% are
documented with EAs/FONSIs.  Most Regions anticipate that under the
final rule, the projects documented with EAs/FONSIs may decrease by 5%
to 10% (consistent with above increase estimates for CEs).  EPA
estimates that grantee spending ranges from about $5,000 to $25,000 in
contractor costs, and that the pages submitted, including copied
information, ranges from about 5 to 250 pages.  For purposes of this
screening analysis, EPA assumes a grantee will submit a draft EA and
supporting documents prepared directly by the applicant’s contractor. 
EPA estimates the grantee contractor cost at $15,000 ($75/hour x 200
hours per draft EA and supporting documents), with 60 hours grantee time
(e.g., half of EPA’s estimated hours for direct preparation) and 100
pages submitted per draft EA and supporting documents.  EPA anticipates
under the final rule about 40% of the projects will be documented with
an EA/FONSI.

Few of the STAG projects are documented with an EIS/ROD.  EPA’s EIS
filing system indicates there were six EISs completed for STAG projects
during the 10-year period 1994 through 2003, or less than one EIS
competed every three years.  Of about 1,471 projects completed during
this 10-year period, the six EISs completed represent about 0.4% of the
projects.  Estimated grantee costs for these projects range from about
$200,000 to $300,000 for a contractor-prepared EIS or for a contractor
under a third-party agreement.  For purposes of this screening analysis,
EPA anticipates one EIS will be completed on a 3-year basis under a
third-party contract agreement at a grantee contractor cost of $300,000
($125/hour x 2400 hours), with 440 hours grantee time (e.g., the same as
EPA’s estimated hours for direct preparation) and 800 pages submitted
(4 drafts x 200 pages/draft - preliminary draft EIS, draft EIS,
preliminary final EIS, and final EIS).

For New Source NPDES Permits and Permit Applicants:

EPA issues new source NPDES permits only in states and U.S. territories
that have not assumed authority for this program (i.e., New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Puerto Rico, New Mexico, Oklahoma (for concentrated
animal feeding operations only), Alaska, and Idaho), the District of
Columbia, off-shore waters (e.g., the inter-continental shelf for Texas,
all outer-continental shelf areas, all deep-water port areas), and on
federally-recognized Indian tribal lands (where the tribe has not
assumed this authority).  Because most states have now assumed the NPDES
program, there are few NPDES permits being issued by EPA.  Regions 4, 6
and 10 currently handle the majority of these projects (see Appendix
Table 1-5).  Generally, EPA Regional Offices would issue NPDES permits
for facilities on federally-recognized Indian tribal lands (unless the
tribe has assumed this authority).

Region 4: Nearly all oil and gas extraction NPDES permit activity in the
Gulf of Mexico is covered by a general permit; individual NEPA reviews
are not required.  Only activities not covered under the general permit
would need to be assessed under NEPA and permitted.  In the last five
years, Chevron Corporation received a permit.  For this EIS, Chevron
provided certain information by letter, and EPA supplemented an EIS
prepared by the Minerals Management Service at a direct contractor cost
to EPA of $40,000 to $45,000.  For another project in the Gulf involving
re-gasification, the U.S. Coast Guard is the responsible agency and EPA
is a Cooperating Agency with plans to either adopt the USCG EIS or
incorporate this EIS by reference into an EPA EIS for EPA’s assessment
of the NPDES permit action.  Chevron may need to provide certain
information by letter, and EPA may have some direct contractor costs.

Region 6: NPDES permits for oil and gas extraction activities in the
Gulf of Mexico have involved Shell Exploration and Production and Exxon
Mobil Corporation.  EISs for these projects were conducted under
third-party agreements.  EAs generally are prepared for concentrated
animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in Oklahoma, and for dairy farms in
New Mexico.  Permit applicants have included:  Tyson Foods, Inc., for
chicken and hog CAFOs, and dairy farms in New Mexico operated by Jones
Dairy, Rio Vista Dairy, Wright Farms, Opportunity Dairy, and H.A.W.
Farms.

Region 10: EISs for oil and gas extraction NPDES permits in off-shore
waters have involved Exxon Mobile Corporation and BP (British
Petroleum).  EISs for mining projects, including gold, silver, zinc and
lead, and copper, have involved Coeur Alaska, Teck Resources, and
Kennecott Minerals Company.  EAs for milk production and cheese
processing have involved West Farm Foods and Sorrento Lactalis.  Seafood
processing is covered under a general permit; however, individual NEPA
reviews are required and are generally EAs prepared in-house from
applicants’ EIDs.  Seafood processing EAs have been completed for
companies such as Alaska Glacier Seafood Company and KwikPak Fisheries. 
CAFOs (including cattle, hogs, pigs and chickens) are covered under a
general permit; individual NEPA reviews are not required.

The NEPA reviews for NPDES permit projects are generally documented with
EAs/FONSIs or EISs/RODs.

None of the NPDES permit projects were documented with a CE and, for
purposes of this screening analysis, EPA does not anticipate that future
projects will be documented initially with a CE.

Considering that most states have now assumed the NPDES program, for
NPDES permit projects, Region 4 estimates one EA per three years, or two
per six years; Region 6 estimates five EAs per two years, or 15 per six
years; and Region 10 estimates eight per year, or 48 per six years. 
This totals to 65 EAs per six years.  EPA also assumes that one other
project may be documented with an EA in one of the other Regions for a
total of 66 EAs per six years, or about 11 EAs annually.  EPA estimates
that permit applicant contractor costs range from about $20,000 to
$75,000.  For purposes of this screening analysis, EPA anticipates
preparation of 11 EAs/FONSIs and supporting documents annually.  The
permit applicant’s contractor costs are estimated at $50,000, with 60
hours permit applicant time (e.g., half of EPA’s estimated hours for
direct preparation) and submission of 100 pages, including copied
information.

EPA’s EIS filing system indicates there were 14 EISs completed for new
source NPDES permit projects during the 13-year period 1990 through
2003, or about one competed every year.  EPA notes that most of these
were for projects in states that have now assumed the NPDES program and
were for a range of project types including:  phosphate mining, power
generation facilities, surface lignite and coal mining, and plastics
manufacturing.  Estimated applicant costs for these projects range from
nominal (Region 4, Chevron - two projects), to third-party contractor
costs ranging from an estimated $1M for a limited number of projects
with multiple complex issues (Region 10, BP and Teck Resources) to
$150,000 to $500,000 for projects such as oil and gas extraction
(Regions 6 and 10).  As noted above, EPA has used its contractors to
prepare EISs by adopting or supplementing another EIS at costs ranging
from $25,000 to $225,000.  For purposes of this screening analysis and
based on anticipated energy-related activities, EPA anticipates one EIS
will be completed annually under a third-party agreement at a permit
applicant contractor estimated cost of $300,000 ($125/hour x 2400
hours), with 440 hours permit applicant time (e.g., the same as EPA’s
estimated hours for direct preparation) and 800 pages submitted (4
drafts x 200 pages/draft - preliminary draft EIS, draft EIS, preliminary
final EIS, and final EIS).  For direct preparation of an EIS/ROD based
on EPA’s experience with adoption or supplementation of another EIS,
EPA’s contractor costs are estimated to be $50,000 and 440 hours of
EPA time per EIS/ROD.

General Summary Information for Applicant-Proposed Actions:

The content of the environmental information submitted by an applicant
for a draft EA and supporting documents and an EID for a draft EA is
similar, and the content of the environmental information submitted for
a draft EIS and supporting documents and an EID for a draft EIS is
similar.  For grantees, there may be a financial difference in that a
grantee generally may use EPA financial assistance to prepare an EID but
not to prepare a draft EA and supporting documents although, for
grantees, certain third-party contract costs may be grant-eligible. 
Grantee contractor costs may be grant-eligible under appropriate grant
conditions, including certain procurement criteria and contractor
requirements.  Permit applicants are not eligible for EPA financial
assistance.

It has been EPA’s experience that applicants generally use in-house
engineering contractors or otherwise contract directly for preparation
of environmental information to support a CE determination (grantees
only), and for EIDs or draft EAs and supporting documents, usually
without seeking cost reimbursement (grantees only).  Because EISs are
generally more complex than EAs in terms of the issues to be addressed
and the associated analyses, it has generally been EPA’s experience
that applicants will enter into a third-party agreement with EPA for
preparation of an EIS and supporting documents.

EPA assumes the applicant’s burden includes the time and costs needed
for the following activities.

Procure contractor services.

Review instructions (such as the regulations and any program-specific
guidelines the Responsible Official may also provide) and/or meet with
the Responsible Official.

Research data sources.

Complete and review the collection of environmental information.

Transmit the information to the Responsible Official.

Meet with the Responsible Official on the need for any revisions to the
environmental information, and prepare and submit any necessary
revisions to the information.

EPA-Related Contractor Costs and Hours for Applicant-Proposed Actions:

EPA may review the environmental information submitted by an applicant
and prepare the NEPA documents directly or task its contractors with
providing technical assistance with the review and preparation of the
NEPA documents.  EPA may also prepare the NEPA documents without
requesting environmental information from the applicant.  The number of
applicant-proposed actions for which EPA prepares the NEPA documents
without assistance from the applicant is quite limited.

EPA estimates it prepared about five CEs per year for STAG projects
using information in the grant application and acquired through direct
coordination with other agencies (such as State Historic Preservation
Officer and/or State wildlife agency).34  EPA estimates this process
takes about 40 hours per CE determination.

Although EPA rarely prepares EAs/FONSIs for STAG or NPDES permit
projects without assistance from the applicant, EPA estimates spending
$35,000 to $50,000 in contractor costs, with 80 to 120 hours of EPA time
for direct preparation of EAs/FONSIs.

EPA has, and assumes it will continue to prepare EISs for NPDES permit
projects in conjunction with other federal agencies.  In these cases,
EPA is usually a Cooperating Agency and either adopts the lead
agency’s EIS or supplements and re-issues it.  EPA may also supplement
one of its own EISs for a project.  EPA generally uses a contractor in
these cases with contractor costs ranging from $25,000 to $225,000;
EPA’s contractor costs for adoption or supplementation of another EIS
are estimated to generally be $50,000 with 440 hours of EPA time per
EIS/ROD.

For purposes of this screening analysis, for preparation of NEPA
documents for applicant-proposed projects without assistance from the
applicant, EPA estimates 40 hours per CE determination for five CEs for
STAG projects per year with no contractor costs; 120 hours for an
EA/FONSI with contractor costs of $50,000 for one EA/FONSI on a 3-year
basis; and 440 hours for an EIS/ROD with contractor costs of $50,000 for
one (adopted or supplemented) EIS/ROD on a 3-year basis.

Attachment 2 - List of Tables

	Table 1-1.	Annual Total STAG Awards from Fiscal Year Appropriations,
1992 Through 2003

	Table 1-2. 	Summary of STAG Awards by Region for the 3-Year Period 2002
Through 2004

	Table 1-3.	Rank Order of Regions Based on Average Number of STAG Awards
Per Year and Percent of Total Awards by Regions by Number of Projects
and Amounts Awarded (Millions of Dollars)

Table 1-4.	Estimated Hours for Applicants and EPA for Preparation of
NEPA Documentation

	Table 1-5.	EPA’s Regional NEPA Practitioner’s Estimated Contractor
Costs for Applicant-Proposed Projects

Table 1-1. Annual Total STAG Awards from Fiscal Year Appropriations,
1992 Through 2003

Year	Awards

1992	17

1993	24

1994	9

1995	52

1996	28

1997	40

1998	104

1999	144

2000	232

2001	256

2002	298

2003	308

Table 1-2. Summary of STAG Awards by Region for the 3-Year Period 2002
Through 2004

Region	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	HQ	Annual Total

FY 2002	27	24	34	61	45	25	16	18	35	12	1	298

FY 2003	24	25	41	59	42	26	17	24	38	11	1	308

FY 2004	25	19	23	24	20	17	18	21	31	8	0	206

Total	76	68	98	144	107	68	51	63	104	31	2	812

Projects/year	25	23	33	48	36	23	17	21	35	10	< 1	271

% of Total	9	8	12	18	13	8	6	8	13	4	1

	

Table 1-3. Rank Order of Regions Based on Average Number of STAG Awards
per Year and Percent of Total Awards by Regions by Number of Projects
and Amounts Awarded (Millions of Dollars)

Region	Total Awards	Total $ Awarded	Awards/year	$ Awarded/year	% of
Total Awards	% of Total $ Awarded

4	144	$121.2	48	$40.4	18%	20%

5	107	69.5	36	23.2	13	11

9	104	56.4	35	18.8	13	9

3	98	76.6	33	25.5	12	13

1	76	47.5	25	15.8	9	8

2 and 6	68 each	76.3 and 49.7	23 each	25.4 and 16.6	8 each	13 and 8

8	63	47.4	21	15.8	8	8

7	51	43.3	17	14.4	6	7

10	31	17.0	10	5.7	4	3

Total	810	$604.9	271	$204.6

Table 1-4.  Estimated Hours for Applicants and EPA for Preparation of
NEPA Documentation

	CE Documents Project	EA/FONSI Documents Project	EIS/ROD Documents
Project

Applicants	1-5 hours,     assume 5 hours	120 hrs for EPA/2     = 60
hours	Same as EPA     = 440 hours

EPA	Applicant submits info:     30 hours

Direct preparation:             40 hours	Applicant submits info:    120
hours

Direct preparation:            170 hours	Applicant submits info:     440
hours

Direct preparation:            480 hours

Table 1-5.  EPA’s Regional NEPA Practitioner’s Estimated Contractor
Costs for Applicant-Proposed Projects

Region 1	STAG Projects

General: Multiple listing in SAAPP System of same community means these
are either separate projects with NEPA assessment needed for each or
incremental funding for a project already assessed.  CEs likely to
increase 5-10% under proposed rule - 75-80% CEs, 20-25% EAs/FONSIs

Categorical Exclusions

Applicant: Letter provides information, confirms no extraordinary
circumstances. Prepared by applicant’s contractor: $2-3,000.  Majority
of projects are CEs.

Environmental Assessments

Applicant: EID environmental information that is similar draft EA,
prepared by applicant’s contractor; $10-15,000 typical, 5-25 pages
including copied material

Environmental Impact Statements

Applicant: None prepared for STAG projects

EPA Contact: David Chin	Region 1	NPDES Projects

General:

Categorical Exclusions

Applicant: None for NPDES projects

Environmental Assessments

Applicant: Only one project in last 10 years, prior to January 2001 when
State of Maine authorized (power plant).  Applicant contractor costs
unknown.

Environmental Impact Statements

Applicant: None prepared for NPDES projects

EPA Contact: Roger Jansen

Region 2	STAG Projects

General: Multiple listing in SAAPP System of same community means these
are either separate projects with NEPA assessment needed for each or
incremental funding for a project already assessed.  CEs likely to
remain same under proposed rule - 95% CEs, 5% EAs/FONSIs

Categorical Exclusions

Applicant: Letter requests CE, confirms no extraordinary circumstances.
Prepared by applicant’s contractor: $2-3,000. Most projects are
documented with a CE.

Environmental Assessments

Applicant: EID prepared by applicant’s contractor; $20-25,000, 200-250
pages including copied material.  Very few EAs.

Environmental Impact Statements

Applicant: None prepared for STAG projects

EPA Contact: Bill Lawler	Region 2	NPDES Projects

General:

Categorical Exclusions

Applicant: None for NPDES projects

Environmental Assessments

Applicant: Only one project (aquiculture), not completed.  EID prepared
by applicant contractor; estimate $20-35,000.

Environmental Impact Statements

Applicant: None prepared for NPDES projects

EPA Contact: Bill Lawler

Region 3	STAG Projects

General: Multiple listing in SAAPP System of same community means these
are either separate projects with NEPA assessment needed for each or
incremental funding for a project already assessed.  CEs likely to
increase 10% under proposed rule to 60% CEs, 40% EAs/FONSIs

Categorical Exclusions

Applicant: Letter provides CE information, confirms no extraordinary
circumstances. Prepared by applicant’s contractor: $2-3,000.

Environmental Assessments

Applicant: EID prepared by applicant’s contractor; $15,000 typical,
50-100 pages including copied material

Environmental Impact Statements

Applicant: None prepared for STAG projects

EPA Contact: Charles Fogg	Region 3	 NPDES Projects

General:  NEPA assessments would be only for new source NPDES permits
issued in the District of Columbia; none in last 10 years

Categorical Exclusions

Applicant: None for NPDES projects

Environmental Assessments

Applicant: None prepared for NPDES projects

Environmental Impact Statements

Applicant: None prepared for NPDES projects

EPA Contact: Tom Slenkamp

Region 4	STAG Projects

General: Multiple listing in SAAPP System of same community means these
are either separate projects with NEPA assessment needed for each or
incremental funding for a project already assessed.  CEs likely to
increase under proposed rule; currently 30% CEs, 70% EAs/FONSIs 

Categorical Exclusions

Applicant: Applicant provides basic information by phone; if needed,
letter from resource agency confirms no extraordinary circumstances.  No
applicant contractor cost.

Environmental Assessments

Applicant: EID prepared by applicant’s contractor, info similar to
draft EA; $15,000 typical, 200-250 pages including copied material

Environmental Impact Statements

Applicant: 3rd Party Agreements; $200-300,000

EPA Contact: John Hamilton	Region 4	NPDES Projects

General: All states have assumed NPDES program; Region would conduct
NEPA assessment and issue new source NPDES permit for facilities in
off-shore waters and for facilities on federally-recognized Indian
tribal lands.  Oil and gas extraction in Gulf of Mexico now covered by
general permit (GP); NEPA assessment on individual projects not needed. 
Activities not covered under GP require NEPA assessment and permit.  One
O&G project before GP in last 5 years for Chevron, another underway for
Chevron re-gasification facility.

Categorical Exclusions

Applicant: None for NPDES projects

Environmental Assessments

Applicant: About one EA per three years.  Estimate $35-50,000.

Environmental Impact Statements

Applicant: 3rd Party Agreements; $300-400,000.    EPA has also
supplemented EIS by Minerals Management Service and likely will adopt a
Coast Guard EIS at EPA expense, nominal cost to applicant

EPA Contact: John Hamilton

Region 5	STAG Projects

General: Multiple listing in SAAPP System of same community means these
are either separate projects with NEPA assessment needed for each or
incremental funding for a project already assessed.  CEs likely to
increase 5-10% under proposed rule to 55-60% CEs, 40-45% EAs/FONSIs

Categorical Exclusions

Applicant: Letter provides CE information, confirms no extraordinary
circumstances. Prepared by applicant’s contractor: $2-3,000.

Environmental Assessments

Applicant: Draft EA and supporting documents by applicant’s
contractor: $15,000 typical, 50 pages or less including copied material

Environmental Impact Statements

Applicant: None prepared for STAG projects

EPA Contact: Kenneth Westlake	Region 5	NPDES Projects

General:  All states have assumed NPDES program; Region would conduct
NEPA assessment and issue new source NPDES permit only for facilities on
federally-recognized Indian tribal lands

Categorical Exclusions

Applicant: None for NPDES projects

Environmental Assessments

Applicant: None for NPDES projects

Environmental Impact Statements

Applicant: None prepared for NPDES projects

EPA Contact: Kenneth Westlake

Region 6	STAG Projects

General: Multiple listing in SAAPP System of same community means these
are either separate projects with NEPA assessment needed for each or
incremental funding for a project already assessed.  CEs likely to
increase 5% under proposed rule to 65% CEs, 35% EAs/FONSIs

Categorical Exclusions

Applicant: Letter requests CE and confirms no extraordinary
circumstances. Prepared by applicant’s contractor: $1-2,000.

Environmental Assessments

Applicant: Draft EA or EID with environmental information similar to
draft EA, prepared by applicant’s contractor: $7-15,000 typical, 50
pages including copied material

Environmental Impact Statements

Applicant: None prepared for STAG projects

EPA Contact: Hector Pena	Region 6	NPDES Projects

General: States have assumed NPDES program except NM and confined animal
feeding operations (CAFOs) only in OK; Region would also conduct NEPA
assessment and issue new source NPDES permit for facilities on
federally-recognized Indian tribal lands

Categorical Exclusions

Applicant: None for NPDES projects

Environmental Assessments

Applicant: About 5 EAs per 2 years; draft EA or EID (essentially the
same information as needed for draft EA), prepared by applicant’s
contractor; estimate $15-25,000.  EAs generally for CAFOs in OK and
dairy operations

Environmental Impact Statements

Applicant: 3rd Party Agreements; $250-300,000.  EISs generally for
offshore oil & gas extraction in off-shore waters (and before state
delegations for coal mines, petrochemical manufacturing).

EPA Contact: Hector Pena

Region 7	STAG Projects

General: Multiple listing in SAAPP System of same community means these
are either separate projects with NEPA assessment needed for each or
incremental funding for a project already assessed.  CEs likely to
remain same under proposed rule unless small community limitation
changes;  33% CEs, 67% EAs/FONSIs

Categorical Exclusions

Applicant: Information beyond that in grant application generally not
required.

Environmental Assessments

Applicant: EID prepared by applicant’s contractor: $5,000, about 50
pages including copied material

Environmental Impact Statements

Applicant: None prepared for STAG project s.  One time, EPA directly
prepared a supplement to 1979 EPA EIS for wastewater treatment plant
upgrade at EPA expense, no cost to applicant.

EPA Contact: Joe Cothern	Region 7	NPDES Projects

General:  All states have assumed NPDES program; Region would conduct
NEPA assessment and issue new source NPDES permit only for facilities on
federally-recognized Indian tribal lands; project likely to be CAFOs on
Indian lands.

Categorical Exclusions

Applicant: None for NPDES projects

Environmental Assessments

Applicant: None prepared for NPDES projects

Environmental Impact Statements

Applicant: None prepared for NPDES projects

EPA Contact: Joe Cothern

Region 8	STAG Projects

General: Multiple listing in SAAPP System of same community means these
are either separate projects with NEPA assessment needed for each or
incremental funding for a project already assessed.  CEs likely to
increase 20-30% under proposed rule to 40-50% CEs, 50-60% EAs/FONSIs

Categorical Exclusions

Applicant: Applicant or contractor  provides basic information by phone;
letter verifies and confirms no extraordinary circumstances. Prepared by
applicant’s contractor: $2-3,000.

Environmental Assessments

Applicant: Draft EA prepared by applicant’s contractor; $10-15,000,
50-100 pages including copied material

Environmental Impact Statements

Applicant: None prepared for STAG projects

EPA Contact: Dana Allen	Region 8	NPDES Projects

General:  All states have assumed NPDES program; Region would conduct
NEPA assessment for new source NPDES permit only for facilities on
federally-recognized Indian tribal lands

Categorical Exclusions

Applicant: None for NPDES projects

Environmental Assessments

Applicant: None for NPDES projects

Environmental Impact Statements

Applicant: EPA is cooperating agency with BIA for petroleum refinery on
tribal lands at EPA expense.

EPA Contact: Dana Allen

Region 9	STAG Projects

General: Multiple listing in SAAPP System of same community means these
are either separate projects with NEPA assessment needed for each or
incremental funding for a project already assessed.  CEs likely to
remain same under proposed rule unless small community limitation
changed , and Regional issues with SHPO and ESA coordination; 10% CEs,
87% EAs/FONSIs, 3% EISs/RODs

Categorical Exclusions

Applicant: Grant application describes project; letter to confirm no
extraordinary circumstances. Prepared by applicant’s contractor:
$3-4,000.

Environmental Assessments

Applicant: Draft EA or EID with environmental information similar to an
EA, prepared by applicant’s contractor: $20,000, 25-75 pages including
copied material

Environmental Impact Statements

Applicant: EID prepared by applicant’s contractor, $200-300,000

EPA Contact: Joe Jung	Region 9	NPDES Projects

General:  All states have assumed NPDES program; Region would conduct
NEPA assessment for new source NPDES permit only for facilities on
federally-recognized Indian tribal lands and in the Pacific Island
Territories where the NPDES program has not been assumed (e.g., Guam,
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa).  Oil and
gas platforms in federal waters likely would involve EPA cooperating
with another federal agency for the NEPA assessment process.

Categorical Exclusions

Applicant: None for NPDES projects

Environmental Assessments

Applicant: None for NPDES projects.

Environmental Impact Statements

Applicant: NPDES permit for a copper mine in Arizona before the State
assumed the NPDES program in 2002; EPA was cooperating agency with the
Forest Service with limited/unknown cost to applicant

EPA Contact: Doug Eberhardt

Region 10	STAG Projects

General: Multiple listing in SAAPP System of same community means these
are either separate projects with NEPA assessment needed for each or
incremental funding for a project already assessed.  CEs likely to
increase 5% under proposed rule to 45% CEs, 55% EAs/FONSIs

Categorical Exclusions

Applicant: Letter provides CE information, confirms no extraordinary
circumstances. Prepared by applicant’s contractor: $2-3,000.

Environmental Assessments

Applicant: Draft EA and supporting documents prepared by applicant’s
contractor; $10-15,000

Environmental Impact Statements

Applicant: None prepared for STAG projects

EPA Contact: Hanh Shaw	Region 10	NPDES Projects

General: States have assumed NPDES program except AK and ID; Region
would conduct NEPA assessment and issue new source NPDES permit for
off-shore waters projects and facilities on federally-recognized Indian
tribal lands.  General Permit (GP) for CAFOs, individual NEPA assessment
not needed.  EAs and EISs for projects have included: seafood
processing, milk/cheese production and processing, CAFOs, hard rock
mining (recently gold, silver, zinc and lead, and copper), and oil & gas
extraction.

Categorical Exclusions

Applicant: None for NPDES projects

Environmental Assessments

Applicant: About three per year; 3rd Party Contract Agreement:
$50-150,000.  GP for seafood processing; EIDs converted to EAs by EPA,
about 5 per year

Environmental Impact Statements

Applicant: 3rd Party Contract Agreement: $150-500,000; major projects
for gold mining and oil/gas extraction have cost about $1M

EPA Contact: Hanh Shaw

ATTACHMENT 3:  STAG Projects for 2002 Through 2004 - Summary of Active
Projects and SBA Size Designation

From:  EPA’s Office of Water SAAPP computer system, “Total Grants
for All States in All Regions for Years 2002-2004.”  This chart
excludes projects in SAAPP that are “Closed Out” or “Unawarded”
and assumed to be inactive.  A governmental entity may receive STAG
funds in more than one fiscal year.  In these cases, the funds are
either incremental funds for the same project with the NEPA assessment
completed for the project during the initial funding process, or new
projects that require separate NEPA assessments (see Attachment 2).  In
this project listing, the same projects with incremental funding in the
same or subsequent years are not combined in order to retain the grant
amount listing for informational purposes and to list the project type
designated for funding with each appropriation (e.g., New Britain is
listed and counted as a small entity twice even though funding in 2004
is incremental funding for the Drinking Water project initially funded
in 2003).

Project type “Other” means a project type other than the listed
types.  “CSO” means Combined Sewer Overflow and “MS4" means
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System.

REGION 1

Connecticut

2002

2004

2003

2004

2004

2003

2004

2003	

Grantee Name

Waterbury

Town of East Hampton

New Britain

New Britain

Town of Prospect

Southington

Southington

Vernon	

Government Type

City

Town

City

City

Town

Town

Town

Town	

Population   SBA Size Designation

50,000

      13,352	 50,000

      71,538	50,000

      71,538	50,000

        8,707	 50,000

      39,728	 50,000

      39,728	 50,000

      28,063	 50,000

     5 entities	 50,000

     3 entities	50,000

     0 entities	Special Dist.	

Grant Amount

$     252,227

       867,800

       867,300

       482,100

       192,900

       433,700

       530,400

         50,400

$  3,676,827 total

    2,075,200 small

    1,601,627 large

  	    0 SpDst	

Project Type

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Wastewater

CT and MA

2002

2003	

Pioneer Valley

MA: Pioneer Valley	

Special District

Special District	

 50,000

     0 entities	50,000

     2 entities	Special Dist.	

$     470,500

       624,480

$  1,094,980 total

    0 small

    0 large

    1,094,980 SpDst	

Wastewater

Not Classified

Maine

2003

2003

2004

2004

2004

2004

2003	

Augusta

Corinna

Gardiner, City of

Indian Township

Indian Township

Machias, City of

Saco	

City

Town

City

Township-Reservation

Township-Reservation

Town

City	

      18,560	 50,000

        2,145	 50,000

        6,198	 50,000

           676	 50,000

           676	 50,000

        2,353	 50,000

      16,822	 50,000

     7 entities	 50,000

     0 entities	50,000

     0 entities	Special Dist.	

$     433,700

       867,300

       482,100

           7,500

       241,100

       241,100

       433,700

$  2,706,500 total

    2,706,500 small

  	    0 large

    0 SpDst	

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Massachusetts

2004

2002

2002

2003

2003

2003

2004

2004

2004

2003

2002

2004

2004

2004

2004	

Boston

New Bedford

New Bedford

Fall River

New Bedford

Brockton, City of

Brockton, City of

Essex

Lynn

Lawrence, City of

Lowell, City of

Lowell, City of

Fall River, City of

New Bedford

Pioneer Valley	

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

Town

City

City

City

City

City

City

Special District	

50,000

      93,768	50,000

      93,768	50,000

      91,938	50,000

      93,768	50,000

      94,304	50,000

      94,304	50,000

        3,267	 50,000

      89,050	50,000

      72,043	50,000

    105,167	50,000

    105,167	50,000

      91,938	50,000

      93,768	50,000

     1 entities	 50,000

   13 entities	50,000

     1 entities	Special Dist.	

$     192,900

       616,064

         63,811

       433,650

       433,650

       173,500

       433,900

         14,838

         14,838

         80,683  

       339,500

       241,100

       530,350

         68,106

       385,680

$  4,022,570 total

         14,838 small

    3,622,052 large

       385,680 SpDst	

Drinking Water

CSO

Wastewater

CSO

CSO

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

CSO

CSO

CSO

CSO

Wastewater

New Hampshire

2002

2002

2003

2004

2004

2003

2004

2002

2003

2004

2002

2002

2003

2004

2002

2002

2003	

Berlin, City of

Berlin, City of

Berlin, City of

Berlin, City of

Colebrook, Town of

Exeter, Town of

Jaffrey, Town of

Manchester, City of

Manchester, City of

Manchester, City of

Nashua, City of

Nashua, City of

Portsmouth, City of

Rollingsford, Town of

Salem

Salem

Somersworth, City of	

City

City

City

City

Town

Town

Town

City

City

City

City

City

City

Town

Town

Town

City	

 50,000

     10,331	 50,000

     10,331	 50,000

     10,331	 50,000

       2,321	 50,000

     14,058	 50,000

       5,476	 50,000

   107,006	50,000

   107,006	50,000

   107,006	50,000

     86,605	50,000

     86,605	50,000

     20,784	 50,000

       2,648	 50,000

     28,112	 50,000

     28,112	 50,000

     11,477	 50,000

   12 entities	 50,000

     5 entities	50,000

     0 entities	Special Dist.	

$       45,000

    1,455,000

       894,100

       497,000

       220,000

       346,900

       347,900

    3,500,000

       447,050

       482,100

         27,000

       873,000

       536,500

       298,200

         15,000

       485,000

       447,100

$10,916,850 total

    5,587,700 small

    5,329,150 large

                  0 SpDist	

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Wastewater

CSO

CSO

CSO

CSO

CSO

CSO

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Rhode Island

2003

2004

2004

2003

2004

2002

2002

2002

2002

2003	

Coventry, Town of

East Providence

Lincoln

Narragansett Bay

Narragansett Bay

Narragansett Bay

Narragansett Bay

Warren, Town of

Warren, Town of

Woonsocket, City of	

Town

City

Town

Special District

Special District

Special District

Special District

Town

Town

City	

     33,668	 50,000

     48,688	 50,000

     20,898	 50,000

     11,360	 50,000

     11,360	 50,000

     43,224	 50,000

 

    6 entities	 50,000

     0 entities	50,000

     4 entities	Special Dist.	

$     309,455

         50,000

       168,700

    2,168,300

    1,398,200

         97,500

    3,152,500

         15,000

       485,000

       433,700

$  8,278,355 total

    1,461,855 small

                  0 large

    6,816,500 SpDist	

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Drinking Water

CSO

CSO

CSO

CSO

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Vermont

2003

2004

2002

2002

2003

2003

2003	

Champlain Water

Champlain Water

St. Johnsbury, Town of

Pownal, Town of

Richmond, Town of

Warren

Warren	

Special District

Special District

Town

Town

Town

Town

Town	

 50,000

       3,560	 50,000

       4,090	 50,000

       1,681	 50,000

       1,681	 50,000

 

     5 entities	 50,000

     0 entities	50,000

     2 entities	Special Dist.	

$  1,474,500

    1,446,400

       970,000

    2,425,000

    1,127,500

       601,000

       700,000

$  8,744,400 total

    5,823,500 small

                  0 large

    2,920,900 SpDist	

MS4

MS4

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

REGION 2

New Jersey

2003

2004

2002

2003

2004

2003

2003

2002

2003

2004

2002

2003	

Camden County

Camden, City of

Fanwood

Jefferson Township

New Jersey Meadowlands

New Providence

North Hudson SA

Passaic Valley

Passaic Valley

Passaic Valley

Vernon Township

Vernon Township	

County

City

Borough

Township

Special District

Borough

Special District

Special District

Special District

Special District

Township

Township	

     508,932	50,000

       79,904	50,000

         7,174	 50,000

       19,717	 50,000

       11,907	 50,000

       24,686	 50,000

       24,686	 50,000

 

     5 entities	 50,000

     2 entities	50,000

     5 entities	Special Dist.	

$ 1,301,000

      964,300

      388,000

      867,300

      385,700

      377,300

      216,800

   2,425,000

   2,168,300

      482,100

      970,000

      433,700

$10,979,500 total

    3,036,300 small

    2,265,300 large

    5,677,900 SpDist	

Wastewater

Wastewater

MS4

Wastewater

Wetlands

Wastewater

CSO

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

New York

2002

2003

2002

2004

2002

2004

2002

2003

2004

2004

2004

2003

2002

2003

2002

2003

2002

2003

2004

2003	

Akron, Village of

Buffalo, City of

Cayuga County

Cayuga County

Clarence, Town of

Corning, City of

East Fishkill, Town of

Floyd, Town of

Fulton County

Greece, Town of

Hamburg, Village of

Hamburg, Town of

T&V of Harrison/Harrison

Fulton, City of

Larchmont, Village of

Monroe County

NYSDEC

NYSDEC

NYSDEC

North Hempstead, Town	

Village

City

County

County

Town

Town

Town

Town

County

Town

Village

Town

Town

City

Village

County

Special District

Special District

Special District

Town	

 50,000

     292,648	50,000

       81,963	50,000

       81,963	50,000

       26,123	 50,000

         6,426	 50,000

       25,589	 50,000

         3,869	 50,000

       55,073	50,000

       94,141	50,000

       10,116	 50,000

       56,259	50,000

       24,154	 50,000

       11,855	 50,000

         6,485	 50,000

     735,343	50,000

     222,611	50,000	

$    485,000

      867,300

   1,455,000

   1,446,400

   1,746,000

      241,100

      654,800

      216,800

      313,400

      385,700

      385,700

      433,700

      873,000

      433,700

      291,000

      867,300

   2,910,000

   5,204,000

   4,821,400

      650,500	

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Nonpoint

MS4

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

MS4

New York - cont.

2004

2002

2002

2003

2003

2003

2004

2004

2002

2004

2004

2003

2002

2003

2004

2003

2003

2003

2004

2004

2002

2003	

Jordan, Village of

Onodaga Lake

Onodaga Lake

Onodaga Lake

Onadaga Lake

Oswego, City of

Oswego, City of

Pelham, Village of

Rockland County

Rockland County

Rockland County

Rye, City of

Halfmoon

Saratoga County

Sennett, Town of

South Shore

Syracuse, City of

Walden, Village of

Wayne County

Wayne County

Whitney Point

Whitney Point	

Village

Special District

Special District

Special District

Special District

City

City

Village

County

County

County

City

Town

County

Town

Special District

City

Village

County

County

Village

Village	

         1,314	 50,000

       17,954	 50,000

       17,954	 50,000

         6,400	 50,000

     286,753	50,000

     286,753	50,000

     286,753	50,000

       14,955	 50,000

       18,474	 50,000

     200,635	50,000

         3,244	 50,000

     147,306	50,000

         6,164	 50,000

       93,765	50,000

       93,765	50,000

            965	 50,000

            965	 50,000

   19 entities	 50,000

   15 entities	50,000

     8 entities	Special Dist.	

$    192,900

   7,760,000

   1,740,000

   7,591,900

   2,801,000

      867,300

      241,100

      109,000

      873,000

      675,000

      385,700

      433,700

      470,500

      867,300

      192,900

      433,700

   1,734,700

      867,300

      578,600

      221,800

      470,500

      216,800

$54,451,500 total

    9,434,100 small

  11,755,400 large

  33,262,000 SpDist	

Wastewater

CSO

Nonpoint

CSO

Nonpoint

CSO

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

MS4

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Puerto Rico	None active

Virgin Islands	None active

REGION 3

Delaware

2004	

Wilmington, City of	

City	

       72,664	50,000

     0 entities	 50,000

     1 entities	50,000

     0 entities	Special Dist.	

$ 1,060,700

$ 1,060,700 total

   0 small

   1,060,700 large

   0 SpDist	

Wastewater

District of Columbia

2002

2004	

D.C. WASA

Metro Washington	

City

City	

     553,523	50,000

     553,523	50,000

     0 entities	 50,000

     2 entities	50,000

     0 entities	Special Dist.	

$ 1,746,000

      385,700

$ 2,131,700 total

   0 small

   0 large   

   2,131,700 Sp Dist 	

CSO

Drinking Water

Maryland

2003

2003

2004

2002

2004

2003

2003

2003

2002

2003

2004

2003	

Baltimore, City of

Elkton, Town of

Elkton, Town of

Harford County

Hurlock, Town of

LaPlata

LaPlata

Rockville, City of

Salisbury, City of

Washington Suburban

Washington Suburban

Indian Head	

City

Town

Town

County

Town

Town

Town

City

City

Special District

Special District

Town	

50,000

       11,893	 50,000

       11,893	 50,000

     218,590	50,000

         1,874	 50,000

         6,551	 50,000

         6,551	 50,000

       47,388	 50,000

       23,743	 50,000

         3,422	 50,000

     8 entities	 50,000

     2 entities	50,000

     2 entities	Special Dist.	

$ 3,469,300

      433,700

      192,900

      470,450

      482,100

      264,000

      205,260

   1,084,200

   4,656,000

      433,700

      385,700

   1,734,700

$13,812,010 total

    9,052,860 small

    3,939,750 large

       819,400 SpDist	

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Pennsylvania

2002

2002

2004

2003

2002

2002

2004	

Big Beaver, Borough of

Charleroi, Borough of

Cheltenham Township

Chestnut Ridge

Corry, City of

Coudersport, Borough of

Coudersport, Borough of	

Borough

Borough

Township

Special District

City

Borough

Borough	

 50,000

         4,871	 50,000

       36,875	 50,000

         6,834	 50,000

         2,650	 50,000

         2,650	 50,000	

$     470,500

       242,500

       192,900

       303,600

       873,000

       970,000

       578,600	

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

CSO

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Pennsylvania - cont

2003

2003

2003

2003

2004

2003

2004

2004

2003

2004

2004

2002

2003

2002

2003

2004

2004

2002

2003

2002

2003

2003	

Derry Borough

Derry Township

Eastern Snyder County

Franklin, City of

Granville Township

Hermitage, City of

Kulpmont-Marion Heights

Laporte Borough

Lycoming County

Lycoming County

Paint Borough

Pocono Jackson Point

Pulaski Township

Robinson Township

Sharpsville, Borough of

Springettsbury Township

Summit Township

Three Rivers Wet Weather

Three Rivers Wet Weather

Titusville, City of

Upper Allen Township

Wellsboro, Borough of	

Borough

Special District

Special District

Special District

Special District

City

Special District

Borough

County

County

Borough

Special District

Special District

Special District

Borough

Township

Special District

Special District

Special District

City

Township

Borough	

 50,000

       16,157	 50,000

            290	 50,000

     120,044	50,000

     120,044	50,000

         1,103	 50,000

         4,500	 50,000

       23,883	 50,000

         6,146	 50,000

       15,338	 50,000

         3,328	 50,000

   15 entities	 50,000

     2 entities	50,000

   12 entities	Special Dist.	

$     433,700

    1,301,000

       867,300

       433,700

       192,900

       369,900

       385,700

       144,600

       433,700

       433,900

       120,500

       145,500

       433,700

       470,500

         98,500

         96,400

       241,100

    2,813,000

    2,168,300

       873,000

       867,300

         81,127

$17,036,427 total

    6,412,527 small

       867,600 large

    9,756,300 SpDist	

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

CSO

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

CSO

CSO

CSO

Wastewater

CSO

Virginia

2002

2003

2002

2003

2004

2003

2004

2003

2003

2004

2003

2003

2004

2002

2003

2002

2003

2004

2004

2002

2003

2004

2002

2002

2003

2003

2003	

Alexandria, City of

Alexandria, City of

Caroline County

Buckingham County

Chatham, Town of

Chesterfield County

Chesterfield County

Cumberland County

Dale Service Corp.

Dale Service Corp.

Dublin, Town of

Fairfax County

Fairfax County

Fluvanna County

Fluvanna County

Franklin County

Franklin County

Franklin County

Henry County

Lynchburg, City of

Lynchburg, City of

Lynchburg, City of

Norfolk, City of

Norfolk, City of

Norfolk, City of

Norfolk, City of

Orange, Town of	

City

City

County

County

Town

County

County

County

Special District

Special District

Town

County

County

County

County

County

County

County

County

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

Town	

     128,283	50,000

     128,283	50,000

       22,121	 50,000

       15,623	 50,000

         1,338	 50,000

     259,903	50,000

     259,903	50,000

         9,017	 50,000

         2,288	 50,000

     969,749	50,000

     969,749	50,000

       20,047	 50,000

       20,047	 50,000

       47,286	 50,000

       47,286	 50,000

       47,286	 50,000

       57,930	50,000

       65,269	50,000

       65,269	50,000

       65,269	50,000

     234,403	50,000

     234,403	50,000

     234,403	50,000

     234,403	50,000

         4,123	 50,000	

$     873,000

       650,500

       679,000

       260,200

       144,600

       455,300

       385,700

       173,500

       867,300

    1,157,100

       867,300

       824,000

       723,200

       194,000

       346,900

       194,000

       260,200

       757,000

       424,300

    1,309,500

       867,300

       289,300

       213,400

       271,600

       173,500

       173,500

       303,600	

CSO

CSO

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Wastewater

CSO

CSO

CSO

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Virginia - cont

2004

2004

2002

2002

2002

2002	

Portsmouth, City of

Portsmouth, City of

Prince William County

Smyth County

South Boston, Town of

Keysville, Town of	

City

City

County

County

Town

Town	

     100,565	50,000

     100,565	50,000

     280,813	50,000

       33,081	 50,000

         8,491	 50,000

            817	 50,000

   14 entities	 50,000

   17 entities	50,000

     2 entities	Special Dist.	

$     385,700

       241,100

    1,746,000

       654,800

    1,784,800

    1,690,700

$20,338,900 total

    8,307,600 small

  10,006,900 large

    2,024,400 SpDist	

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

CSO

Wastewater

West Virginia

2002

2003

2003

2003

2002

2002

2004

2003

2003

2002

2002

2003

2003

2003

2002	

Barbour County

Beach Bottom, Village of

Grafton, City of

Grafton, City of

Hancock County

Eastern Inwood Watershed

Marshall County

Midland PSD

Moundsville, City of

New Martinsville

Ohio County PSD

Putnam County

Sisterville, City of

Wellsburg, City of

Wheeling, City of	

County

Special District

City

City

County

Special District

County

Special District

City

City

County

County

Special District

City

City	

       15,557	 50,000

         5,489	 50,000

         5,489	 50,000

       32,667	 50,000

       35.519	 50,000

         9,998	 50,000

         5,984	 50,000

       47,427	 50,000

       51,589	50,000

         2,891	 50,000

       31,419	 50,000

   10 entities	 50,000

     1 entities	50,000

     4 entities	Special Dist.	

$     307,500

       550,800

    1,869,100

    1,778,000

    4,850,000

       654,800

       843,700

       229,800

    2,168,300

       339,500

       970,000

     260,200

       438,900

       485,700

    2,425,000

$18,171,300 total

  16,036,800 small

       260,200 large

    1,874,300 SpDist	

Wastewater

Drinking Water

CSO

CSO

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

 CSO

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

REGION 4

Alabama

2002

2004

2002

2002

2002

2003

2004

2003

2003

2003

2004

2004

2002

2003

2004

2002

2002

2004

2002

2003

2004

2002

2002

2003

2002

2003	

Blount County

Brent Water & Sewer

Brewton, City of

Citronelle, Town of

Clay County

Coosa Valley

Coosa Valley

Cullman County

Foley, City of

Eva

Fayette Water Works

Florence, City of

Franklin County

Franklin County

Franklin County

Grant

Hartselle Utilities

Hartselle Utilities

Huntsville, City of

Huntsville, City of

Jackson County

Jackson, City of

Jackson, City of

Jackson, City of

Limestone

Limestone	

County

Special District

City

City

County

Special District

Special District

County

City

Town

Special District

City

County

County

County

Town

Special District

Special District

City

City

County

City

City

City

County

County	

       51,024	50,000

         5,498	 50,000

         3,659	 50,000

       14,254	 50,000

       77,483	50,000

         7,590	 50,000

            491	 50,000

       36,264	 50,000

       31,223	 50,000

       31,223	 50,000

       31,223	 50,000

            665	 50,000

     158,216	50,000

     158,216	50,000

       53,926	50,000

         5,419	 50,000

         5,419	 50,000

         5,419	 50,000

       65,676	50,000

       65,676	50,000	

$     436,500

       241,100

       727,500

       970,000

       470,500

       303,600

       684,750

       130,100

       607,100

       154,500

         96,400

       964,300

       242,500

       260,200

       458,000

       582,000

       970,000

       482,100

       970,000

       650,500

       385,700

       970,000

       485,000

       563,800

       485,000

       173,500	

Wastewater

Wastewater

Other

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

 Other

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Alabama - cont

2003

2002

2003

2003

2002

2003

2003

2003

2003

2002

2002

2003

2002

2002

2002

2004

2004

2004

2004

2002

2003

2004	

Littleville, Town of

Luverne, City of

Marion County

Mobile Area

Mobile County

Mobile County

Monroeville, City of

Muscle Shoals

Notasulga, Town of

Rainsville

Shelby County

Citronelle, Town of

Sumiton

Tuscaloosa

Tuscambia, City of

Upper Bear

Citronelle, Town of

Water & Sewer

West Morgan-East

West Morgan-East

West Morgan-East

Camden, City of	

Town

City

County

Special District

County

County

City

City

Town

City

County

City

City

City

Special District

Special District

City

Special District

Special District

Special District

Special District

Town	

            978	 50,000

         2,635	 50,000

       31,214	 50,000

     399,843	50,000

     399,843	50,000

         6,862	 50,000

       11,924	 50,000

            916	 50,000

         4,499	 50,000

     143,293	50,000

         3,659	 50,000

         2,665	 50,000

       77,906	50,000

         3,659	50,000

         2,257	 50,000

   24 entities	 50,000

   11 entities	50,000

   13 entities	Special Dist.	

$     238,500

       111,600

        12,272

       563,800

       485,000

       253,210

       216,800

       260,200

       281,900

    1,843,000

       873,000

    1,040,800

       291,000

       485,000

       970,000

       819,600

       192,900

         96,400

       168,700

       485,000

       173,500

         96,400

$23,423,232 total

 12,040,772 small

   5,327,510 large

    6,054,950 SpDist	

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Florida

2002

2003

2002

2003

2002

2002

2004

2003

2002

2002

2002

2002

2003

2002

2003

2002

2003

2002

2003

2004

2002

2003

2003

2003

2002

2003	

Boca Raton, City of

Boca Raton, City of

Clearwater, City of

Clearwater, City of

Orlando, City of 

Hillsborough County

Homestead, City of

Lighthouse Point, City of

Miami-Dade County

North Miami, City of

North Miami, City of

Opa-locka, City of

Opa-locka, city of

Sarasota County

Sarasota County

South Miami, City of

South Miami, City of

Tampa Bay

Tampa Bay

Tampa Bay

St. Johns County

Tarpon Springs, City of

Taylor County

Volusian Water

West Palm Beach, City of

West Palm Beach, City of	

City

City

City

City

City

County

City

City

County

City

City

City

City

County

County

City

City

Special District

Special District

Special District

County

City

County

Special District

City

City	

50,000

       74,764	50,000

     108,787	50,000

     108,787	50,000

     185,951	50,000

     998,948	50,000

       31,909	 50,000

       10,767	 50,000

  2,253,362	50,000

       40,786	 50,000

       40,786	 50,000

       14,951	 50,000

       14,951	 50,000

     325,957	50,000

     325,957	50,000

       10,741	 50,000

       10,741	 50,000

     123,135	50,000

       21,003	 50,000

       19,256	 50,000

       82,103	50,000

       82,103	50,000

   10 entities	 50,000

   12 entities	50,000

     4 entities	Special Dist.	

$     873,000

       433,700

       693,800

       433,700

    1,940,000

       470,500

       771,400

       216,800

    3,880,000

       485,000

       485,000

       776,000

       130,100

       873,000

       433,700

       485,000

       130,100

    9,360,500

    7,589,100

    9,642,800

       470,500

         28,944

       780,600

       867,300

       654,800

       433,700

$43,339,044 total

    4,288,944 small

  11,590,400 large

  27,459,700 SpDist	

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Other

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Georgia

2004

2003

2004

2004

2003

2003

2002	

Forsyth, City of

Gwinnett County

Gwinnett County

Helena, City of

Gainesville, City of

Roswell, City of

Roswell, City of	

City

County

County

City

City

City

City	

 50,000

     588,448	50,000

     588,448	50,000

         2,307	 50,000

       25,578	 50,000

       79,334	50,000

       79,334	50,000

     3 entities	 50,000

     4 entities	50,000

     0 entities	Special Dist.	

$  1,205,300

       650,500

       578,600

       106,100

         75,000

       650,500

    1,940,000

$  5,206,000 total

    1,386,400 small

    3,819,600 large

                  0 SpDist	

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Other

Nonpoint

Kentucky

2003

2003

2002

2002

2002

2002

2002

2003	

Carrollton, City of

Cynthiana, City of

Daviess County

Hodgenville, City of

Lawrenceburg, City of

London, City of

Somerset, City of

Spencer County	

City

City

County

City

City

City

City

County	

 50,000

         6,258	 50,000

       91,545	50,000

         2,874	 50,000

         9,014	 50,000

         5,692	 50,000

       11,352	 50,000

       11,766	 50,000

     7 entities	 50,000

     1 entities	50,000

     0 entities	Special Dist.	

$     216,800

    1,604,600

       970,000

       582,000

       291,000

    1,358,000

    3,492,000

       216,800

$  8,731,200 total

    7,761,200 small

       970,000 large

                  0 SpDist	

Wastewater

Wastewater

Other

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Mississippi

2003

2004

2003

2003

2004

2002

2002

2003

2003

2003

2003

2003

2002

2002

2002

2003	

Corinth, City of

Farmington, Town of

Flowood, City of

Gulfport, City of

Gulfport, City of

Jackson, City of

Jefferson County

Jefferson County

Lake, Town of

Louisville, City of

McComb, City of

Meridian, City of

Ocean Springs, City of

Picayune, City of

Tupelo, City of

Tupelo, City of	

City

Town

City

City

City

City

County

County

Town

City

City

City

City

City

City

City	

 50,000

         1,810	 50,000

         4,750	 50,000

       71,127	50,000

       71,127	50,000

     184,256	50,000

         9,740	 50,000

         9,740	 50,000

            408	 50,000

         7,006	 50,000

       13,337	 50,000

       39,968	 50,000

       17,225	 50,000

       10,535	 50,000

       34,211	 50,000

       34,211	 50,000

   13 entities	 50,000

     3 entities	50,000

     0 entities	Special Dist.	

$     477,000

       146,634

    1,318,332

       260,200

       192,900

       470,500

    3,880,000

       867,300

         62,400

       588,000

       260,200

       867,300

    2,910,000

       567,500

       873,000

       433,700

$15,174,966 total

  14,251,366 small

       923,600 large

                  0 SpDist	

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

North Carolina

2003

2002

2003

2002

2003

2003

2003

2002

2003

2002

2003

2004

2002	

Cary, Town of

Cherokee County

Granite Falls, Town of

Henderson, City of

Henderson, City of

Highlands, Town of

Mooresville, Town of

Mooresville, Town of

Neuse Regional Water

Pittsboro, Town of

Richmond  County

Richmond County

Union County	

Town

County

Town

City

City

Town

Town

Town

Special District

Town

County

County

County

	

50,000

       24,298	 50,000

         4,612	 50,000

       16,095	 50,000

       16,095	 50,000

            909	 50,000

       18,823	 50,000

       18,823	 50,000

         2,226	 50,000

       46,564	 50,000

       46,564	 50,000

     123,677	50,000

   10 entities	 50,000

     2 entities	50,000

     1 entities	Special Dist.	

$     346,900

    1,261,000

       173,500

    1,440,500

       433,700

       433,700

       346,900

       470,500

       867,300

       970,000

       650,500

       144,600

       654,700

$  8,193,800 total

    6,324,900 small

    1,001,600 large

       867,300 SpDist	

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

South Carolina

2002

2003

2004

2003

2003

2002

2002

2003

2002

2002

2002

2004

2003

2002	

Berkeley  County

Berkeley County

Charleston, City of

Charleston, City of

Charlotte

Florence, City of

Greenville County

Jackson, Town of

Laurens County

Laurens County

Mount Pleasant

Myrtle Beach, City of

Myrtle Beach, City of

West Georgetown	

County

County

City

City

Special District

City

County

Town

County

County

Town

City

City

Special District	

     142,651	50,000

     142,651	50,000

       96,650	50,000

       96,650	50,000

       30,248	 50,000

     379,616	50,000

         1,625	 50,000

       69,567	50,000

       69,567	50,000

       47,609	 50,000

       22,759	 50,000

       22,759	 50,000

     5 entities	 50,000

     7 entities	50,000

     2 entities	Special Dist.	

$     470,500

       433,700

    1,350,000

       867,300

       433,700

       873,000

    1,940,000

       164,800

       970,000

       873,000

       970,000

       385,700

       433,700

    1,940,000

$12,105,400 total

    2,827,200 small

    6,904,500 large

    2,373,700 SpDist	

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Tennessee

2003

2004

2002

2003

2002

2002	

Athens Utilities

Meigs County

North Bledsoe

River Road Utility

Dunlap, City of

Watauga River Authority	

Special District

County

Special District

Special District

City

Special District	

 50,000

         4,173	 50,000

     2 entities	 50,000

     0 entities	50,000

     4 entities	Special Dist.	

$  1,301,000

       241,100

       519,000

       390,300

       194,000

       873,000

$  3,518,400 total

       435,100 small

                  0 large

    3,083,300 SpDist	

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

REGION 5

Illinois

2003

2004

2002

2003

2004

2003

2004

2003

2004

2003

2003

2003

2003

2002

2003

2004

2002

2003

2003

2002

2002

2002

2002

2003

2002

2003	

Breese, City of

Breese, City of

Clark-Edgar

Dallas Rural

Downs, Village of

DuPage County

Forsyth, City of

Galena, City of

Galena, City of

Georgetown, City of

Granville, Village of

Hamilton, City of

Holland Regional Water

Johnsburg, Village of

Johnsburg, Village of

Johnsburg, Village of

Justice, Village of

La Grange Park, Village of

Lake County

Lawrenceville, City of

Macomb, City of

Metamora, Village of

Moline, City of

Moline, City of

Monmoth

Montgomery, Village of	

City

City

Special District

Special District

Village

County

City

City

City

City

Village

City

Special District

Village

Village

Village

Village

Village

County

City

City

Village

City

City

City

Village	

 50,000

         4,048	 50,000

            776	 50,000

     904,161	50,000

         2,434	 50,000

         3,460	 50,000

         3,460	 50,000

         3,628	 50,000

         1,414	 50,000

         3,029	 50,000

         5,391	 50,000

         5,391	 50,000

         5,391	 50,000

       12,193	 50,000

       13,295	 50,000

     644,356	50,000

         4,745	 50,000

       18,558	 50,000

         2,700	 50,000

       43,768	 50,000

       43,768	 50,000

         9,841	 50,000

         5,471	 50,000	

$     346,900

       289,300

       485,000

       173,500

       313,400

       431,000

       482,100

       433,700

       482,100

       433,700

       433,700

       173,500

       433,700

       470,500

       433,700

       337,500

       242,500

       216,800

       433,700

       970,000

       485,000

       873,000

       470,500

       433,700

       485,000

       607,100	

Drinking water

Not Classified

Drinking Water

Not Classified

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Not Classified

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Not Classified

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Not Classified

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Other

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Illinois - cont

2002

2002

2004

2004	

Orland Park, Village of

Paris, City of

Springfield, City of

Virginia, City of	

Village

City

City

City	

       51,077	50,000

         9,077	 50,000

     111,454	50,000

         1,728	 50,000

   23 entities	 50,000

     4 entities	50,000

     3 entities	Special Dist.	

$     470,500

       485,000

       337,500

       482,100

$13,145,700 total

  10,380,800 small

    1,672,700 large

    1,092,200 SpDist	

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Not Classified

Indiana

2002

2003

2002

2003

2002

2003

2003

2002	

Carmel, City of

Carmel, City of

Fort Wayne, City of

Hobart, City of

Merrillville

Tell City

Vigo County

Westfield, Town of	

City

City

City

City

Town

City

County

Town	

       37,733	 50,000

       37,733	 50,000

     205,727	50,000

       25,363	 50,000

       30,560	 50,000

         7,845	 50,000

     105,848	50,000

         9,293	 50,000

     6 entities	 50,000

     2 entities	50,000

     0 entities	Special Dist.	

$     291,000

       650,500

       873,000

       650,500

       470,500

         22,550

       433,700

       611,100

$  4,002,850 total

    2,696,150 small

    1,306,700 large

                  0 SpDist	

Wastewater

Drinking Water

MS4

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Michigan

2002

2002

2003

2003

2002

2002

2002

2003

2002

2003

2004

2004

2004

2002

2002

2003

2003

2002

2003

2004

2003

2004	

Almont, Village of

Bad Axe, City of

Bad Axe, City of

Detroit, City of

Detroit, City of

Farmington, City of

Genesee County

Genesee County

Grand Rapids, City of

Grand Rapids, City of

Grand Rapids, City of

Grand Traverse County

Huron

Negaunee, City of

Oakland County

Oakland County

Port Huron, City of

Wayne County

Wayne County

Saginaw Chippewa Tribe

Saginaw, City of 

Wayne County	

Village

City

City

City

City

City

County

County

City

City

City

County

County

City

County

County

City

County

County

Special District

City

County	

 50,000

         3,462	 50,000

         3,462	 50,000

     951,270	50,000

     951,270	50,000

       10,423	 50,000

     436,141	50,000

     436,141	50,000

     197,800	50,000

     197,800	50,000

     197,800	50,000

       77,654	50,000

       36,079	 50,000

         4,576	 50,000

  1,194,156	50,000

  1,194,156	50,000

       32,338	 50,000

  2,061,162	50,000

  2,061,162	50,000

       61,799	50,000

  2,061,162	50,000

     7 entities	 50,000

   14 entities	50,000

     1 entities	Special Dist.	

$     654,800

       873,000

       260,200

       346,900

       470,500

    1,455,000

       970,000

       433,700

       873,000

       650,500

       723,200

       241,100

       964,300

    2,910,000

    2,109,800

       867,300

       867,300

    1,746,000

       867,300

       192,900

       731,299

       964,300

$20,172,399 total

    7,984,600 small

  11,994,899 large

       192,900 SpDist	

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Not Classified

Not Classified

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

CSO

Not Classified

Not Classified

Not Classified

Drinking Water

Wastewater

CSO

CSO

Wastewater

Other

Other

Not Classified

Not Classified

Other

Minnesota

2002

2004	

Mille Lacs

Mille Lacs	

County

County/Tribe	

22,330	 50,000

22,330	 50,000

     2 entities	 50,000

     0 entities	50,000

     0 entities	Special Dist.	

$     970,000

    1,012,500

$  1,982,500 total

    1,982,500 small

                  0  large

                  0 SpDist	

Wastewater

Wastewater

Ohio

2002

2002

2003

2003

2002

2003

2002

2002

2002

2004

2004

2003	

Akron, City of

Akron, City of

Akron, City of

Amanda, Village of

Byesville

Cincinnati, City of

Clark County

Delphos, City of

Fulton County

Fulton County

Galion, City of

Greene County	

City

City

City

Village

Village

City

County

City

County

County

City

County	

50,000

     217,074	50,000

     217,074	50,000

            707	 50,000

         2,574	 50,000

     331,285	50,000

     144,742	50,000

         6,944	 50,000

       42,084	 50,000

       42,084	 50,000

       11,341	 50,000

     147,886	50,000	

$     470,500

       970,000

       867,300

       173,500

       485,000

       433,700

    1,676,474

       465,600

       679,000

       482,100

       103,000

       346,900	

CSO

CSO

CSO

Drinking Water

Not Classified

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Not Classified

Ohio - cont

2004

2002

2002

2002

2002

2003

2004

2003

2003

2003

2003

2002

2003

2003

2002

2003

2004

2004

2003

2002

2003

2004

2002

2002	

Haskins, Village of

Lancaster, City of

Laurelville, Village of

Luckey, Village of

Martins Ferry, City of

Massillon, City of

Millersburg, Village of

Morristown, Village of

Morristown, Village of

Napoleon, City of

North Canton, City of

Ottawa County

Pickaway County

Pomeroy, Village of

Port Clinton, City of

Port Clinton, City of

Shawnee Hills subdivision

Somerset, Village of

Spring Valley, Village of

Toledo, City of

Toledo, City of

Toledo, City of

Trumbell County

Urbana, City of	

Village

City

Village

Village

City

City

Village

Village

Village

City

City

County

County

Village

City

City

Special District

Village

Village

City

City

City

County

City	

            638	 50,000

       35,335	 50,000 

           533	 50,000

            998	 50,000

         7,226	 50,000

       31,325	 50,000

         3,326	 50,000

            299	 50,000

            299	 50,000

         9,318	 50,000

       16,369	 50,000

       40,985	 50,000

       52,727	50,000

         1,966	 50,000

         6,391	 50,000

         6,391	 50,000

         1,549	 50,000

            510	 50,000

     313,619	50,000

     313,619	50,000

     313,619	50,000

     225,116	50,000

       11,613	 50,000

   24 entities	 50,000

   11 entities	50,000

     1 entities	Special Dist.	

$     289,300

       720,700

       376,000

       727,500

       698,400

       192,500

       289,300

       650,500

       173,500

       325,200

       867,300

       727,500

         86,700

       650,500

       485,000

       607,100

    1,928,600

       482,100

       433,700

    1,261,000

    1,561,200

       964,300

       296,450

         82,635

$22,030,059 total

  11,166,935 small

    8,934,524 large

    1,928,600 SpDist	

Not Classified

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Not Classified

Wastewater

Wastewater

Not Classified

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wastewater

CSO

Not Classified

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wisconsin

2002

2003

2002

2003

2003	

Brokaw, City of

Curtiss, Village of

Racine, City of

Racine, City of

Wisconsin Rapids, City of	

Village

Village

City

City

City	

 50,000

            198	 50,000

       81,855	50,000

       81,855	50,000

       18,435	 50,000

     3 entities	 50,000

     2 entities	50,000

     0 entities	Special Dist.	

$     970,000

       325,200

       970,000

       867,300

    1,040,800

$  4,173,300 total

    2,336,000 small

    1,837,300 large

                  0 SpDist	

Not Classified

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Not Classified

REGION 6

Arkansas

2004	

Fort Chaffee	

Special District	

     0 entities	 50,000

     0 entities	50,000

     1 entities	Special Dist.	

$     289,300

$     289,300 total

                  0 small

                  0 large

       289,300 SpDist	

Not Classified

Louisiana

2002

2002

2004

2002

2003

2003

2003

2003

2004

2002

2003

2004

2002

2003

2003

2004

2003

2004

2003

2002

2003

2003

2002

2003

2003

2004

2002	

Bayou Lafourche

Denham Springs, City of

Denham springs, City of

Baton Rouge, City of

Baton Rouge, City of

Hammond, City of

Jefferson Parish

Lake Charles, City of

Monroe, City of

New Iberia

New Iberia

New Orleans, City of

New Orleans, City of

New Orleans, City of

Shreveport, City of

Shreveport, City of

Slidell, City of

South Central

St. Bernard Parish

St. Charles Parish

St. Charles Parish

St. James Parish

St. John the Baptist Parish

St. John the Baptist Parish

St. Martin Parish

St. Martinville, City of

Thibodaux, City of	

Special District

City

City

City

City

City

Parish

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

Special District

Parish

Parish

Parish

Parish

Parish

Parish

Parish

City

City	

 50,000

         8,757	 50,000

     227,818	50,000

     227,818	50,000

       17,639	 50,000

     455,466	50,000

       71,757	50,000

       53,107	50,000

       32,623	 50,000

       32,623	 50,000

     484,674	50,000

     484,674	50,000

     484,674	50,000

     200,145	50,000

     200,145	50,000

       25,695	 50,000

       67,229	50,000

       48,072	 50,000

       48,072	 50,000

       21,216	 50,000

       43,044	 50,000

       43,044	 50,000

       48,583	 50,000

         6,989	 50,000

       14,431	 50,000

   14 entities	 50,000

   11 entities	50,000

     2 entities	Special Dist.	

$     194,000

       470,500

       192,900

       485,000

       758,900

       433,700

       758,900

       758,900

       723,200

       291,000

       173,500

       385,700

    1,940,000

       867,300

       433,650

       771,400

       216,800

       771,400

       216,800

       873,000

       216,800

         86,700

       194,000

       867,300

       173,500

       675,000

         97,000

$14,026,850 total

    4,961,700 small

    8,099,750 large

       965,400 SpDist	

Drinking Water

Wastewater

 Not Classified

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Not Classified

Not Classified

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Not Classified

Wastewater

Not Classified

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Not Classified

Wastewater

New Mexico

2002

2003

2004

2002

2003

2002

2003

2004

2002

2003

2004

2002

2003

2003

2002

2002	

Carnuel Mutual

Alamogordo

Bernalillo County

Bernalillo County

Bernalillo County

Belen, City of

Belen, City of

Bernalillo County

Dona Ana Mutual

Espanola, City of

Espanola, City of

Gallup, City of

Gallup, City of

Greater Chimayo Mutual

Ruidoso, Village of

Santa Fe County	

Special District

City

County

County

County

City

City

County

Special District

City

City

City

City

Special District

Village

County	

       35,582	 50,000

     556,678	50,000

     556,678	50,000

     556,678	50,000

         6,901	 50,000

         6,901	 50,000

     556,678	50,000

         9,688	 50,000

         9,688	 50,000

       20,209	 50,000

       20,209	 50,000

         7,698	 50,000

     129,292	50,000

     8 entities	 50,000

     5 entities	50,000

     3 entities	Special Dist.	

$       97,000

       867,300

    1,928,600

    3,686,000

    1,734,700

       873,000

       433,700

       578,600

    1,164,000

       867,300

       964,300

       727,500

       433,700

       173,500

    1,309,500

       291,000

$16,129,700 total

    5,609,000 small

    9,086,200 large

    1,434,500 SpDist	

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Not Classified

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Not Classified

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Oklahoma

2002

2002

2003

2004

2004	

Lawton, City of

Norman, City of

Norman, City of

Norman, City of

Seminole, City of

	

City

City

City

City

City	

       92,757	50,000

       95,694	50,000

       95,694	50,000

       95,694	50,000

         6,899	 50,000

     1 entities	 50,000

     4 entities	50,000

     0 entities	Special Dist.	

$  1,940,000

       873,000

    1,301,000

       192,900

       192,900

$  4,499,800 total

       192,900 small

    4,306,900 large

                  0 SpDist	

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Not Classified

Texas

2004

2002

2002

2002

2002

2003

2003

2003

2004

2004

2003

2003

2003

2004

2002

2004	

Austin, City of

Beaumont, City of

Clifton City of

Meridian, City of

Brownsville

Brownsville

Dallas, City of

Eagle Pass, City of

Goldthwaite, City of

Harris County

Meridian, City of

Port Authur, City of

San Antonio

San Antonio

Tamina Water

Waco, City of	

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

County

City

Special District

City

City

Special District

City	

     656,562	50,000

     113,866	50,000

         3,542	 50,000

         1,491	 50,000

     139,722	50,000

     139,722	50,000

  1,188,580	50,000

       22,413	 50,000

         1,802	 50,000

  3,400,578	50,000

         1,491	 50,000

  1,144,646	50,000

  1,144,646	50,000

     113,726	50,000

     5 entities	 50,000

     9 entities	50,000

     2 entities	Special Dist.	

$  2,073,200

       470,500

       327,400

       327,400

    2,000,000

    1,987,000

       867,300

       867,300

       192,900

       192,900

       433,700

       260,200

    1,734,700

    1,253,600

       242,500

       385,700

$13,616,300 total

    2,148,700 small

  10,964,900 large

       502,700 SpDist	

Not Classified

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Other

Other

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Not Classified

Drinking Water

Not Classified

Wastewater

Not Classified

REGION 7

Iowa

2004

2002

2003

2004

2002

2003

2004

2004

2004

2003	

Carroll, City of

Des Moines, City of

Des Moines, City of

Des Moines, City of

Mason City, City of

Mason City, City of

Mason City, City of

Postville, City of

Sioux City, City of

West Liberty, City of	

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City	

       10,106	 50,000

     198,682	50,000

     198,682	50,000

     198,682	50,000

       29,172	 50,000

       29,172	 50,000

       29,172	 50,000

         2,273	 50,000

       85,013	50,000

         3,332	 50,000

     6 entities	 50,000

     4 entities	50,000

     0 entities	Special Dist.	

$192,900

1,925,500

867,300

289,300

2,328,000

2,168,300

578,600

192,900

1,639,300

433,700

$10,615,800 total

    5,894,400 small

    4,721,400 large

                  0 SpDist	

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Kansas

2002

2004

2003

2004

2002

2003

2002	

Russell, City of

Hutchinson, City of

Herington, City of

Newton, City of

Ottawa, City of

Ottawa, City of

Wichita, City of	

City

City

City

City

City

City

City	

 50,000

       40,787	 50,000

         2,563	 50,000

       17,190	 50,000

       11,921	 50,000

       11,921	 50,000

     344,284	50,000

     6 entities	 50,000

     1 entities	50,000

     0 entities	Special Dist.	

$     970,000

    1,928,600

       433,700

       433,900

       470,500

       260,200

       485,000

$  4,981,900 total

    4,496,900 small

       485,000 large

                  0 SpDist	

Drinking Water

Other

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Missouri

2002

2003

2003

2002

2002

2003

2004

2003

2003

2002

2003

2004

2002

2003

2002

2004

2004

2004

2004

2002

2003

2004

2004

2003

2003

2002

2004	

Bates County

Bolivar, City of

Caldwell county

Camden County

Cape Girardeau, City of

Clarence Cannon

Duckett Creek

Dudley, City of

Jefferson County

Jefferson County

Joplin, City of

Joplin, City of

Kansas City, City of

Duckett Creek

Lebanon, City of

Lebanon, City of

Monroe City, City of

Pacific, City of

Peculiar, City of

University of Missouri

St. Joseph, City of

St. Joseph, City of

Steelville, city of

Warrensburg, City of

Warrenton, City of

Kansas City, City of

Wright City, City of	

County

City

County

County

City

Special District

Special District

City

County

County

City

City

City

Special District

City

City

City

City

City

Special District

City

City

City

City

City

City

City	

       16,653	 50,000

         9,143	 50,000

         8,969	 50,000

       37,051	 50,000

       35,349	 50,000

            289	 50,000

     198,099	50,000

     198,099	50,000

       45,504	 50,000

       45,504	 50,000

     441,545	50,000

       12,155	 50,000

       12,155	 50,000

         2,588	 50,000

         5,482	 50,000

         2,604	 50,000

       73,990	50,000

       73,990	50,000

         1,429	 50,000

       16,340	 50,000

         5,281	 50,000

     441,545	50,000

         1,532	 50,000

   17 entities	 50,000

     6 entities	50,000

     4 entities	Special Dist.	

$     388,000

       390,300

       303,600

    1,455,000

    1,455,000

       433,700

       289,300

       372,000

    1,734,700

       242,500

    1,734,700

    1,446,400

    1,940,000

       433,700

    1,455,000

       723,200

       723,200

       675,000

       482,150

       242,500

       963,700

       964,300

       144,600

       216,800

       303,600

    1,940,000

       385,700

$21,838,650 total

  12,654,250 small

    7,785,200 large

    1,399,200 SpDist	

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Wastewater

MS4

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

MS4

Wastewater

MS4

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

MS4

Drinking Water

Nebraska

2002

2003

2004

2004	

Lincoln, City of

Lincoln, City of

Lincoln, City of

South Sioux City, City of	

City

City

City

City	

50,000

     225,581	50,000

     225,581	50,000

       11,925	50,000

     1 entities	 50,000

     3 entities	50,000

     0 entities	Special Dist.	

$     970,000

       346,900

       361,600

       385,700

$  2,064,200 total

       385,700 small

    1,678,500 large

                 0  SpDist	

Wastewater

CSO

CSO

Wastewater

REGION 8

Colorado

2004

2002

2003

2003

2002	

Englewood/Littleton

Montrose, City of

Mountain Village

Mountain Village

Nucla	

Special District

City

Town

Town

Town	

 50,000

            978	 50,000

            978	 50,000

            734	 50,000

     4 entities	 50,000

     0 entities	50,000

     1 entities	Special Dist.	

$     964,300

       970,000

       181,400

       265,323

    1,440,500

$ 3,821,523 total

    2,857,223 small

                  0 large

       964,300 SpDist	

Wastewater

Wastewater

Other

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Montana

2003

2003

2002

2004

2004

2002

2004

2003

2004

2004

2003

2004	

Belgrade, City of

Conrad, City of

Florence County

Hamilton, City of

Helena, City of

Lewis and Clark County

Manhattan, City of

Missoula, City of

MO River Watershed

Red Lodge, City of

Upper/Lower River

Wisdom, City of	

City

City

Special District

City

City

County

Town

City

Special District

City

Special District

City	

         5,728	 50,000

         2,753	 50,000

         3,705	 50,000

       25,780	 50,000

       55,716	50,000

         1,396	 50,000

       57,053	50,000

         2,177	 50,000

            114	 50,000

     7 entities	 50,000

     2 entities	50,000

     3 entities	Special Dist.	

$  1,301,000

    1,301,000

    1,940,000

       385,700

       289,300

    1,455,000

       337,500

    1,301,000

       964,300

       337,500

       867,300

       289,300

$10,768,900 total

    4,241,300 small

    2,756,000 large

    3,771,600 SpDist	

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking water

Wastewater

Wastewater

North Dakota

2004

2004

2003

2004

2002

2003

2004

2004

2002	

Devils Lake, City of

Dickey Rural

Grafton, City of

Grafton, City of

Grand Forks, City of

Park River, City of

Park River, City of

Riverdale, City of

Williston	

City

Special District

City

City

City

City

City

City

City	

 50,000

         4,516	 50,000

         4,516	 50,000

       49,321	 50,000

         1,535	 50,000

         1,535	 50,000

            273	 50,000

       12,512	 50,000

     8 entities	 50,000

     0 entities	50,000

     1 entities	Special Dist.	

$     530,400

       289,300

       867,300

       867,800

       970,000

    1,734,700

       482,100

       530,400

    1,940,000

$  8,212,000 total

    7,922,700 small

                  0 large

       289,300 SpDist	

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

South Dakota

2002

2003

2003

2004

2003

2003

2004

2003

2003

2004

2002

2003

2004

2002	

Aberdeen

Box Elder

Centerville, City of

Corsica, City of

Dakota Dunes

Deadwood, City of

DeSmet, City of

Elk Point, City of

Groton, City of

Hartford, City of

Hill City

Huron, City of

Lennox, City of

North Sioux City	

City

City

City

City

Special District

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City	

       24,658	 50,000

         2,841	 50,000

            910	 50,000

            644	 50,000

         1,380	 50,000

         1,164	 50,000

         1,714	 50,000

         1,356	 50,000

         1,844	 50,000

            780	 50,000

       11,893	 50,000

         2,037	 50,000

         2,288	 50,000

   13 entities	 50,000

     0 entities	50,000

     1 entities	Special Dist.	

$  2,000,000

       447,100

       670,600

       994,100

       295,200

       357,600

         99,400

       447,100

       447,100

       994,100

    1,200,000

       447,100

       994,100

       900,000

$10,293,500 total

    9,998,300 small

                  0 large

       295,200 SpDist	

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Utah

2003

2004

2002

2002

2003

2002

2004

2003

2004

2004

2002

2002

2003

2004

2003

2003

2002

2003

2003	

Blanding

Daggett County

Jordan Valley

Logan City

Monticello

Ogden, City of

Orem

Park City

Park City

Riverton, City of

Sandy City

Sandy City

Sandy City

Sandy City

South Salt Lake, City of

St. George, City of

Tooele City

Tooele City

Wendover	

City

County

Special District

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City	

 50,000

            921	 50,000

       42,670	 50,000

         1,958	 50,000

       77,226	50,000

       84,324	50,000

         7,371	 50,000

         7,371	 50,000

       25,011	 50,000

       88,418	50,000

       88,418	50,000

       88,418	50,000

       88,418	50,000

       22,038	 50,000

       49,663	 50,000

       22,502	 50,000

       22,502	 50,000

         1,537	 50,000

   12 entities	 50,000

     6 entities	50,000

     1 entities	Special Dist.	

$     650,000

       578,600

       679,000

       698,400

    2,168,300

       970,000

       482,100

       433,700

       867,800

       482,100

       242,500

       970,000

       216,800

       650,900

       216,800

       216,800

       388,000

       433,000

    1,693,800

$13,038,600 total

    8,827,300 small

    3,532,300 large

       679,000 SpDist	

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Wetlands

Drinking Water

MS4

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

MS4

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Not Classified

Not Classified

Wastewater

REGION 9

Arizona

2002

2004

2003

2003

2004

2003

2004

2004	

Arizona Water

Avondale, City of

Litchfield Park

Safford, City of

Safford, City of

Scottsdale, City of

Scottsdale, City of

White Mountain Apache	

Special District

City

City

City

City

City

City

Special District/Tribe	

 50,000

         3,810	 50,000

         9,232	 50,000

         9,232	 50,000

     202,705	50,000

     202,705	50,000

     4 entities	 50,000

     2 entities	50,000

     2 entities	Special Dist.	

$  1,000,000

       578,600

       433,700

    1,301,000

       580,500

       433,700

       964,300

       289,300

$  5,581,100 total

    2,893,800 small

    1,398,000 large

    1,289,300 SpDist	

Wastewater

Not Classified

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

California

2002

2003

2002

2003

2004

2004

2002

2003

2003

2002

2004

2003

2004

2003

2004	

Apple Valley, Town of

Apple Valley, Town of

Arcadia, City of

Arcadia, City of

Arcadia, City of

Bell, City of

Brea, City of

Brea, City of

Brisbane, City of

Colton, City of

Colton, City of

Cudahy, City of

Cudahy, City of

Eureka, City of

Folsom, City of	

Town

Town

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City	

       54,239	50,000      

       54,239	50,000

       53,054	50,000

       53,054	50,000

       53,054	50,000

       36,664	 50,000

       35,410	 50,000      

       35,410	 50,000

         3,597	 50,000

       47,662	 50,000

       47,662	 50,000

       24,208	 50,000

       24,208	 50,000

       26,128	 50,000

       51,884	50,000	

$     485,000

         86,700

    1,746,000

    1,301,000

    1,591,100

       192,900

       654,800

       216,800

       433,700

       388,000

       192,900

       216,800

       192,900

       433,700

       385,700	

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

MS4

Not Classified

Wastewater

Wastewater

Not Classified

Wastewater

California - cont

2004

2002

2004

2002

2002

2003

2003

2002

2002

2004

2003

2002

2004

2003

2002

2003

2004

2002

2003

2002

2003

2003

2004

2003

2003

2004

2003

2002	

Fort Bragg, City of 

Garden Grove, City of

Gardena, City of

Hesperia, City of

Huntington Beach, City of

Huntington Beach, City of

Laguna Beach, City of

Laguna Beach, City of

Lathrop, City of

Lodi, City of

Downey, City of

Los Banos, City of

Los Osos

Marin County

Mariposa County

Maywood, City of

Mission Springs 

Mission Springs

Mission Springs

Modesto, City of

Newport Beach, City of

Norwalk, City of

Norwalk, City of

Oceanside, City of

Oceanside, City of

Olivenhain Municipal

Olivenhain Municipal

Oxnard

Pico Rivera, City of	

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

County

County

City

Special District

Special District

Special District

City

City

City

City

City

City

Special District

Special District

City

City	

         

 50,000

     165,196	50,000

       57,746	50,000

       62,582	50,000

     189,594	50,000

     189,594	50,000

       23,727	 50,000      

       23,727	 50,000

       10,445	 50,000

       56,999	50,000

     107,323	50,000

       25,869	 50,000

       14,351	 50,000

     247,289	50,000

       17,130	 50,000

       28,083	 50,000

     188,856	50,000

       70,032	50,000

     103,298	50,000

     103,298	50,000

     161,029	50,000

     161,029	50,000

     170,358	50,000

       63,428	50,000	

$     241,100

       350,000

       241,100

       242,500

       873,000

       867,300

       607,100

       873,000

       523,800

       385,700

       433,700

       485,000

       192,900

       216,800

       242,500

       216,800

       482,100

       873,000

       650,500

       242,500

       867,300

       216,800

       192,900

       238,500

       238,500

       771,400

    1,647,900

       485,000

       242,500	

Not Classified

Other

Other

Other

Wastewater

MS4

Wastewater

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

MS4

Nonpoint

Not Classified

Not Classified

Wastewater

Wastewater

Not Classified

Drinking Water

Not Classified

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Other

Other

Other

Other

Drinking Water

Not Classified

Other

Wastewater

California - cont

2002

2003

2002

2003

2004

2003

2004

2002

2003

2004

2004

2004

2002

2002

2004

2004

2004

2003

2004

2002

2003

2004

2003

2004

2003

2002	

Placer County

Placer County

Redding, City of

Redding, City of

Redding, City of	

Ripon, City of

Roseville, City of

Sacramento, City of

Sacramento, City of

San Bernardino, City of

San Diego

Santa Ana, City of

South Gate, City of

Tuolumme Utilities

Ukiah, City of

Vallejo, City of

Ventura County

Ventura County

Ventura County

Ventura County

Ventura County

West Valley Water

Whittier, City of

Whittier, City of

Willits, City of

Yucaipi Valley	

County

County

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

City

Special District

City

City

County

County

County

County

County

Special District

City

City

City

Special District	  

50,000

     248,399	50,000

       80,865	50,000

       80,865	50,000

       80,865	50,000

       10,146	 50,000

       79,921	50,000

     407,018	50,000

     407,018	50,000

     185,401	50,000

  1,223,400	50,000

     337,977	50,000

       96,375	50,000

       15,497	 50,000

     116,760	50,000

     753,197	50,000

     753,197	50,000

     753,197	50,000

     753,197	50,000

     753,197	50,000

       83,680	50,000

       83,680	50,000

         5,073	 50,000

   20 entities	 50,000

   42 entities	50,000

     8 entities	Special Dist.	

$     824,500

    1,734,700

       470,500

       433,700

       385,700

       433,700

       337,500

    1,139,800

       867,300

       482,100

       723,200

       482,100

       654,800

       145,500

       482,100

       337,500

       385,700

       520,400

       192,900

       242,500

       216,800

       482,100

       433,700

       385,700

       303,600

       485,000

$36,242,300 total

    7,524,100 small

  22,525,900 large

    6,192,300 SpDist	

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Not Classified

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

CSO

Wastewater

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Not Classified

Wastewater

Wastewater

Not Classified

Nonpoint

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Not classified

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Not Classified

Guam

2002	

Guam Waterworks	

Special District	

     0 entities	 50,000

     0 entities	50,000

     1 entities	Special Dist.	

$     485,000

$     485,000 total

                  0 small

                  0 large

       485,000 SpDist	

Drinking Water

Hawaii

2002

2003

2003	

Hawaii, County of

Hawaii, County of

Honolulu Board of Water	

County

County

County	

     148,677	50,000

     148,677	50,000

     876,156	50,000

     0 entities	 50,000

     3 entities	50,000

     0 entities	Special Dist.	

$     970,000

         76,000

       433,700

$  1,479,700 total

                  0 small

                  0 large

                  0 SpDist	

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Wastewater

Nevada

2003

2004

2004

2002

2002

2004

2003

2003

2003

2004	

Carson Water

Clark County

Hawthorne, Town of

Henderson, City of

Henderson, City of

Henderson, City of

Las Vegas, City of

Washoe County

Washoe County

Washoe County	

Special District

County

Town

City

City

City

City

County

County

County	

50,000

         3,311	 50,000

     175,381	50,000

     175,381	50,000

     175,381	50,000

     478,434	50,000

     339,486	50,000

     339,486	50,000

     339,486	50,000

     1 entities	 50,000

     8 entities	50,000

     1 entities	Special Dist.	

$     954,100

       578,600

         96,400

       282,800

           8,188

       168,700

       260,200

       418,700

       348,900

       964,300

$ 4,080,888 total

        96,400 small

    3,030,388 large

       954,100 SpDist	

Drinking Water

Wastewater

Not Classified

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Wastewater

Other

Other

Drinking Water

REGION 10

Alaska

2004

2002

2002	

North Pole

Petersburg

Wasilla	

City

City

City	

 50,000

         3,224	 50,000

         5,469	 50,000

     3 entities	 50,000

     0 entities	50,000

     0 entities	Special Dist.	

$     964,300

    1,746,000

    1,455,000

$  4,165,300 total

    4,165,300 small

                  0 large

                  0 SpDist	

Not Classified

Not Classified

Not Classified

Idaho

2002

2003

2002

2003

2004

2002

2003

2003

2002

2004

2004	

Bancroft, City of

Bancroft, City of

Burley, City of

Burley, City of

Burley, City of

Cape Horn Area

Bayview W.

Coolin Sewer

Filer, City of

Filer, City of

McCammon, City of

Middleton, City of	

City

City

City

City

City

Special District

Special District

City

City

City

City	

 50,000

            382	 50,000

         9,316	 50,000

         9,316	 50,000

         9,316	 50,000

         1,620	 50,000

         1,620	 50,000

            805	 50,000

         2,978	 50,000

     9 entities	 50,000

     0 entities	50,000

     2 entities	Special Dist.	

$     727,500

       650,500

       727,500

       867,300

       482,100

       242,500

       867,300

       216,800

       242,500

       482,100

       385,700

$  5,891,800 total

    4,782,000 small

                  0 large

    1,109,800 SpDist	

Not Classified

Not Classified

Wastewater

Not Classified

Not Classified

Drinking Water

Not Classified

Not Classified

Not Classified

Not Classified

Not Classified

Oregon

2003

2002

2003

2003

2002

2002

2003

2002

2003

2004	

Albany, City of

Clackamas County

Gold Hill

Deschutes

Wheeler

Medford, City of

North Plains, City of

Portland, City of

Tillamook County

Tillamook County	

City

County

Town

County

County

City

City

City

County

County	

       40,852	 50,000

     338,391	50,000

         1,073	 50,000

     115,367	50,000

         1,547	 50,000

       63,154	50,000

         1,605	 50,000

     529,121	50,000

       24,262	 50,000

       24,262	 50,000

     6 entities	 50,000

     4 entities	50,000

     0 entities	Special Dist.	

$     433,700

       470,000

       520,400

       433,700

       970,000

       373,400

       260,200

    1,212,500

       260,200

       192,900

$  5,127,000 total

    2,637,400 small

    2,489,600 large

                 0 SpDist	

Not Classified

Not Classified

Not Classified

Not Classified

Not Classified

Wastewater

Not Classified

Wastewater

Not Classified

Not Classified

Washington

2003

2004

2002

2004	

Blaine, City of

Duvall, City of

Everett, City of

Grand Coulee, City of	

City

City

City

City	

         3,770	 50,000

         4,616	 50,000

       91,488	50,000

            897	 50,000

     3 entities	 50,000

     1 entities	50,000

     0 entities	Special Dist.	

$     216,800

       385,700

       242,500

       192,900

$  1,037,900 total

       795,400 small

       242,500 large

                  0 SpDist	

Wastewater

Wastewater

CSO

Drinking Water

Headquarters

2002

2003	

Table Rock Lake

Upper Rio Grande Valley	

Special District

Special District	

     0 entities	 50,000

     0 entities	50,000

     2 entities	Special Dist.	

$  1,940,000

       867,300

$  2,807,300 total

                  0 small

                  0 large

   2,807,300 SpDist	

Wastewater

Wastewater

ATTACHMENT 4:  STAG Projects for 2002 Through 2004 - “Income Test”
Estimate of Cost Impact on Small Governments

“Income Test” - Annualized cost for NEPA process to household (per
capita) as a percentage of median household (per capita) income

Grants in same/subsequent years to same entity for same project type
combined for the entity in this chart

Household Population - U.S. Bureau of Census website                    
                                      EPA NEPA process estimated costs: 
                       CE    =$    3,292; 60% of projects

Average Household Size - U.S. Bureau of Census website	      EA/FONSI =$
 18,340; 40% of projects

Number of Households = Household Population/Average Household Size     	
     EIS/ROD   =$324,480; 1 project/3 years

Median Household Income - U.S. Bureau of Census website	(Annualized:
$108,160)

Cost as % of median household income = ((NEPA process est. cost/No.
Households) / Median Household Income) x 100 = %

				 symbol means “less than”

 symbol means “greater than”	Estimated cost as a % of median
household income is listed in bold if greater than 1%

= symbol means “equal to”	Estimated cost as a % of median household
income is listed in bold if equal to 1%

				Household statistics are not available for Special Districts

REGION 1

Connecticut

2002

2004

       2003, 2004

2004

       2003, 2004

2003	

Grantee Name

Waterbury

Town of East Hampton

New Britain

Town of Prospect

Southington

Vernon	

Household Population

105,057

10,856

68,467	

8,561

39,132

27,720	Average

Household Size

2.46

2.63

2.40	

2.83

2.59

2.26	

Number of

Households

42,706

4,128

28,528

3,025

15,109

12,265	Median

Household

Income

34,285

66,326

34,185

67,560	

60,538

47,816	

Estimated % for CE

0.00022%     1%

0.0012%       1%

0.00034%     1%

0.0016%       1%

0.00036%     1%

0.00056%     1%	

Estimated % for EA/FONSI

0.0013%     1%

0.0067%     1%

0.0019%     1%

0.0090%     1%

0.0020%     1%

0.0031%     1%	

Estimated % for EIS/ROD

0.022%       1%

0.12%         1%

0.033%       1%

0.16%         1%

0.035%       1%

0.055%       1%	

CT and MA

      2002, 2003	

Pioneer Valley	

NA	

NA	

NA	

NA	

Household statistics not available	

Household statistics NA	

Household statistics NA

Maine

2003

2003

2004

       2004, 2004 2004

2003	

Augusta

Corinna

Gardiner, City of

Indian Township

Machias, City of

Saco	

17,970

2,145

6,040

676	

1,968

16,581	

2.10   

2.55

2.41

2.91

2.10	

2.44	

8,557

841

2,506

232

937

6,795	

29,921

32,115

35,103

23,125

24,318	

45,105	

1%

0.012%           1%

0.0037%         1%

0.061%           1%

0.014%           1%

0.0011%         1%	

0.0072%     1%

0.068%       1%

0.021%       1%

0.34%         1%

0.080%       1%

0.0060%     1%	

0.13%         1%

1.20%         1%

0.37%         1%

6.05%         3%

1.42%         1%

0.10%         1%

Massachusetts

2004

     2002, 03, 04

2002

2003

       2003, 2004

2004

2004

2003

       2002, 2004

2004

2004	

Boston

New Bedford

New Bedford

Fall River

Brockton, City of

Essex

Lynn

Lawrence, City of

Lowell, City of

Fall River, City of

Pioneer Valley	

554,064

91,782

91,782

90,047

92,428

3,267

87,706

70,999

101,326

90,047

NA	

2.31 

2.40

2.40

2.32

2.74

2.49

2.62

2.90

2.67

2.32

NA	

239,854

38,242

38,242

38,813

33,733

1,312

33,475

24,482

37,950

1%

0.00031%       1%

0.00031%       1%

0.00029%       1%

0.00025%       1%

0.0042%         1%

0.00026%       1%

0.00048%       1%

0.00022%       1%

0.00029%       1%

Household statistics not available	

0.00019%   1%

0.0017%     1%

0.0017%     1%

0.0016%     1%

0.0014%     1%

0.023%       1%

0.0015%     1%

0.0027%     1%

0.0012%     1%

0.0016%     1%

Household statistics NA	

0.0034%     1%

0.031%       1%

0.031%       1%

0.029%       1%

0.024%       1%

0.42%         1%

0.026%       1%

0.047%       1%

0.022%       1%

0.029%       1%

Household statistics NA

New Hampshire

2002, 02,03,04

2004

2003

2004

     2002, 03, 04

       2002, 2002

2003

2004

       2002, 2002

2003	

Berlin, City of

Colebrook, Town of

Exeter, Town of

Jaffrey, Town of

Manchester, City of

Nashua, City of

Portsmouth, City of

Rollinsford, Town of

Salem

Somersworth, City of	

10,133

2,282

13,687

5,303

104,314

85,202

20,177

2,648

27,971

11,444	

2.22

2.20

2.32

2.50

2.36

2.46

2.04

2.56

2.69

2.44	

4,564

1,037

5,900

2,121

44,201

34,635

9,891

1,034

10,398

4,690	

29,647

32,244

49,618

45,033

40,774

51,969

45,195

48,588

58,090

42,739	

1%

0.0098%         1%

0.0011%         1%

0.0034%         1%

0.00018%       1%

0.00018%       1%

0.00074%       1%

0.0066%         1%

0.00054%       1%

0.0016%         1%	

0.014%       1%

0.055%       1%

0.0063%     1%

0.019%       1%

0.0010%     1%

0.0010%     1%

0.0041%     1%

0.036%       1%

0.0030%     1%

0.0091%     1%	

0.24%         1%

0.97%         1%

0.11%         1%

0.34%         1%

0.018%       1%

0.018%       1%

0.072%       1%

0.64%         1%

0.054%       1%

0.16%         1%

Rhode Island

2003

2004

2004

  2002,02,03,04

       2002, 2002

2003	

Coventry, Town of

East Providence

Lincoln

Narragansett Bay

Warren, Town of

Woonsocket, City of	

33,126

47,933

20,704

NA

11,092

42,149	

2.63  

2.33

2.51

NA

2.36

2.37	

12,595

20,572

8,249

NA

4,700

17,784	

51,987

39,108

47,815

NA

41,285

30,819	

0.00050%       1%

0.00041%       1%

0.00083%       1%

Household statistics not available

0.0017%         1%

0.00060%       1%	

0.0028%     1%

0.0023%     1%

0.0046%     1%

Household statistics NA

0.0094%     1%

0.0033%     1%	

0.050%       1%

0.040%       1%

0.082%       1%

Household statistics NA

0.17%         1%

0.059%       1%

Vermont

       2003, 2004

2002

2002

2003

       2003, 2003	

Champlain Water

St. Johnsbury, Town of

Pownal, Town of

Richmond, Town of

Warren	

NA

7,192

3,560

4,075

1,681	

NA

2.25

2.59

2.71

2.27	

NA

3,196

1,374

1,504

740	

NA

29,269

39,149

57,750

47,438	

Household statistics not available

0.0035%         1%

0.0061%         1%

0.0038%         1%

0.0094%         1%	

Household statistics NA

0.020%       1%

0.034%       1%

0.021%       1%

0.052%       1%	

Household statistics NA

0.35%         1%

0.60%         1%

0.37%         1%

0.92%         1%

REGION 2

New Jersey

2003

2004

2002

2003

2004

2003

2003

 

     2002, 03, 04

       2002, 2003	

Camden County

Camden, City of

Fanwood

Jefferson Township

NJ Meadowlands

New Providence

North Hudson SA

Passaic Valley

Vernon Township	

498,526

75,529

7,092

19,661

NA

11,755

NA

NA

24,680	

2.68

3.12

2.76

2.76

NA

2.67

NA

NA

2.95	

186,017

24,208

2,570

7,124

NA

4,403

NA

NA

8,366	

48,097

23,421

85,233

68,837

NA

90,964

NA

NA

67,566	

1%

0.00058%       1%

0.0015%         1%

0.00067%       1%

Household statistics not available

0.00082%       1%

Household statistics not available

Household statistics not available

0.00058%       1%	

0.00020%   1%

0.0032%     1%

0.0084%     1%

0.0037%     1%

Household statistics NA

0.0046%     1%

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NA

0.0032%     1%	

0.0036%     1%

0.057%       1%

0.15%         1%

0.066%       1%

Household statistics NA

0.081%       1%

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NA

0.057%       1%

New York

2002

2003

       2002, 2004

2002

2004

2002

2003

2004

2004

2004

2003

2002

2003

2002

2003

     2002, 03, 04

2003

2004

       2002, 2003

       2002, 2003

2003

2004

2004	

Akron, Village of

Buffalo, City of

Cayuga County

Clarence, Town of

Corning, City of

East Fishkill, Town of

Floyd, Town of

Fulton County

Greece, Town of

Hamburg, Village of

Hamburg, Town of

T&V Harrison/Harrison

Fulton, City of

Larchmont, Village of

Monroe County

NYSDEC

North Hempstead, Town 

Jordan, Village of

Onodaga Lake

Onodaga Lake

Oswego, City of

Oswego, City of

Pelham, Village of	

3,074

281,522

77,162

25,614

10,701

25,544

3,869

53,146

93,148

10,014

55,290

22,868

11,714

6,438

708,834

NA

218,244

1,314

NA

NA

17,095

17,095

6,392	

2.34

2.29

2.53

2.80

2.14

3.10

2.78

2.43

2.52

2.50

2.51

2.72

2.38

2.66

2.47

NA

2.84

2.63

NA

NA

2.33

2.33

2.79	

1,314

122,935

30,499

9,148

5,000

8,240

1,392

21,871

36,963

4,006

22,028

8,407

4,922

2,420

286,977

NA

76,846

500

NA

NA

7,337

7,337

2,291	

35,313

24,536

37,487

68,003

32,780

78,394

40,192

33,663

48,355

51,239

47,888

80,738

29,054

123,238

44,891

NA

81,039

34,728

NA

NA

28,248

28,248

82,430	

1%

0.00011%       1%

0.00029%       1%

0.00053%       1%

0.0020%         1%

0.00051%       1%

0.0059%         1%

0.00045%       1%

0.00018%       1%

0.0016%         1%

0.00031%       1%

0.00048%       1%

0.0023%         1%

0.0011%         1%

0.000026%     1%

Household statistics not available

0.000053%     1%

0.019%           1%

Household statistics not available

Household statistics not available

0.0016%         1%

0.0016%         1%

0.0017%         1%	

0.040%       1%

0.00061%   1%

0.0016%     1%

0.0029%     1%

0.011%       1%

0.0028%     1%

0.033%       1%

0.0025%     1%

0.0010%     1%

0.0089%     1%

0.0017%     1%

0.0027%     1%

0.013%       1%

0.0061%     1%

0.00014%   1%

Household statistics NA

0.00029%   1%

0.10%         1%

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NA

0.0088%     1%

0.0088%     1%

0.0097%     1%	

0.70%         1%

0.011%       1%

0.028%       1%

0.052%       1%

0.020%       1%

0.050%       1%

0.58%         1%

0.044%       1%

0.018%       1%

0.16%         1%

0.031%       1%

0.048%       1%

0.23%         1%

0.11%         1%

0.0025%     1%

Household statistics NA

0.0052%     1%

1.9%          1%

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NA

0.16%         1%

0.16%         1%

0.17%         1%

New York - cont.

     2002, 04, 04

2003

2002

2003

2004

2003

2003

2003

2004

2004

       2002, 2003	

Rockland County

Rye, City of

Halfmoon

Saratoga County

Sennett, Town of

South Shore

Syracuse, City of

Walden, Village of

Wayne County

Wayne County

Whitney Point	

279,104

14,950

18,284

196,326

2,979

NA

136,317

6,135

92,036

92,036

965	

3.01

2.78

2.35

2.51

2.75

NA

2.29

2.79

2.64

2.64

2.43	

92,726

5,378

7,780

78,218

1,083

NA 

  

59,527

2,199

34,862

34,862

397	

67,971

110,894

46,234

49,460

50,282

NA

25,000

43,507

44,157

44,157

34,934	

1%

0.00055%       1%

0.00092%       1%

0.000085%     1%

0.0060%         1%

Household statistics not available

0.00022%       1%

0.0034%         1%

0.00021%       1%

0.00021%       1%

0.023%           1%	

0.00029%   1%

0.0031%     1%

0.0051%     1%

0.00047%   1%

0.034%       1%

Household statistics NA

0.012%       1%

0.019%       1%

0.0012%     1%

0.0012%     1%

0.13%         1%	

0.0051%     1%

0.054%       1%

0.090%       1%

0.0083%     1%

0.60%         1%

Household statistics NA

0.022%       1%

0.34%         1%

0.021%       1%

0.021%       1%

2.3%          1%

Puerto Rico	None active

	Virgin Islands	None active

	REGION 3

Delaware

2004	

Wilmington, City of	

68,436	

2.39	

28,634	

35,116	

0.00032%       1%	

0.0018%     1%	

0.032%       1%

Dist of Columbia

2002

2004	

D.C. WASA

Metro Washington	

536,497

536,497	

2.16

2.16	

248,378

248,378	

40,127

40,127	

0.000033%     1%

0.000033%     1%	

0.00018%   1%

0.00018%   1%	

0.0032%     1%

0.0032%     1%

Maryland

2003

       2003, 2004

2002

2004

2003

2003

2003

2002

2003

2004

2003	

Baltimore, City of

Elkton, Town of

Harford County

Hurlock, Town of

LaPlata

LaPlata

Rockville, City of

Salisbury, City of

Washington Suburban

Washington Suburban

Indian Head	

625,401

11,358

217,028

1,863

5,838

5,838

45,746

21,353

NA

NA

3,421	

2.42

2.55

2.72

2.62

2.63

2.63

2.65

2.36

NA

NA

2.80	

258,430

4,454

79,790

711

2,220

2,220

17,263

9,048

NA

NA

1,222	

30,078

38,171

57,234

32,935

56,490

56,490

68,074

29,191

NA

NA

42,702	

1%

0.0019%         1%

0.000072%     1%

0.014%           1%

0.0026%         1%

0.0026%         1%

0.00028%       1%

0.0012%         1%

Household statistics not available

Household statistics not available

0.0063%         1%	

0.00024%   1%

0.011%       1%

0.00040%   1%

0.078%       1%

0.015%       1%

0.015%       1%

0.0016%     1%

0.0069%     1%

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NA

0.035%       1%	

0.0042%     1%

0.19%         1%

0.0071%     1%

1.4%           1%

0.25%         1%

0.25%         1%

0.028%       1%

0.12%         1%

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NA

0.62%         1%

Pennsylvania

2002

2002

2004

2003

2002

       2002, 2004

2003

2003

2003

	

Big Beaver, Borough of

Charleroi, Borough of

Cheltenham Township

Chestnut Ridge

Corry, City of

Coudersport, Borough

Derry Borough

Derry Township

Eastern Snyder County

	

2,143

4,759

35,478

NA

6,632

2,589

2,975

NA

NA

	

2.47

2.11

2.47

NA

2.49

2.35

2.41

NA

NA

	

868

2,255

14,364

NA

2,663

1,102

1,234

NA

NA

	

1%

0.0062%         1%

0.00037%       1%

Household statistics not available

0.0040%         1%

0.0083%         1%

0.0090%         1%

Household statistics not available

Household statistics not available	

0.057%       1%

0.034%       1%

0.0021%     1%

Household statistics NA

0.022%       1%

0.046%       1%

0.050%       1%

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NA	

1.0%         1%

0.61%         1%

0.037%       1%

Household statistics NA

0.39%         1%

0.82%         1%

0.88%         1%

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NA

Pennsylvania

2003

2004

2003

2004

2004

2003

2004

2004

2002

2003

2002

2003

2004

2004

       2002, 2003

2003

2003

2003	

Franklin, City of

Granville Township

Hermitage, City of

Kulpmont-Marion Hts

Laporte Borough

Lycoming County

Lycoming County

Paint Borough

Pocono Jackson Point

Pulaski Township

Robinson Township

Sharpsville, Borough of

Springettsbury Twnship

Summit Township

3 Rivers Wet Weather

Titusville, City of

Upper Allen Township

Wellsboro, Borough of	

NA

NA

15,802

NA

207

114,531

114,531

919

NA

NA

NA

4,496

21,749

NA

NA

5,766

12,464

3,189	

NA

NA

2.32

NA

2.18

2.44

2.44

2.31

NA

NA

NA

2.35

2.36

NA

NA

2.29

2.46

2.17	

NA

NA

6,811

NA

95

46,939

46,939

398

NA

NA

NA

1,913

9,216

1%

Household statistics not available

0.079%             1%

0.00021%         1%

0.00021%         1%

0.029%             1%

Household statistics not available

Household statistics not available

Household statistics not available

0.0053%         1%

0.00073%       1%

Household statistics not available

Household statistics not available

0.0050%         1%

0.0012%         1%

0.0074%         1%	

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NA

0.0068%     1%

Household statistics NA

0.44%         1%

0.0011%     1%

0.0011%     1%

0.16%         1%

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NA

0.029%       1%

0.0040%     1%

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NA

0.028%       1%

0.0066%     1%

0.041%       1%	

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NA

0.12%         1%

Household statistics NA

7.8%          3%

0.020%       1%

0.020%       1%

2.8%          1%

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NA

0.52%         1%

0.072%       1%

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NA

0.50%         1%

0.12%         1%

0.73%         1%

Virginia

       2002, 2003

2002

2003

2004

       2003, 2004

2003

       2003, 2004

2003

2003

2004

       2002, 2003

     2002, 03, 04

2004

     2002, 03, 04

  2002,02,03,03

2003

       2004, 2004

2002

2002

2002

2002	

Alexandria, City of

Caroline County

Buckingham County

Chatham, Town of

Chesterfield County

Cumberland County

Dale Service Corp.

Dublin, Town of

Fairfax County

Fairfax County

Fluvanna County

Franklin County

Henry County

Lynchburg, City of

Norfolk, City of

Orange, Town of

Portsmouth, City of

Prince William County

Smyth County

South Boston, Town of

Keysville, Town of	

126,382

21,543

13,424

1,232

255,664

8,981

NA

1,939

959,452

959,452

19,116

46,240

57,493

58,718

211,114

3,670

95,751

278,424

31,996

7,912

729	

2.04

2.69

2.52

2.22

2.73

2.55

NA

2.13

2.74

2.74

2.59

2.44 

2.40

2.30

2.45

2.28

2.51

2.94

2.37

2.26

2.03	

61,952

8,008

5,327

555

93,650

3,522

NA

910

350,165

350,165

7,381

18,951

23,955

1%

0.0010%         1%

0.0021%         1%

0.015%           1%

0.000060%     1%

0.0029%         1%

Household statistics not available

0.013%           1%

0.000012%     1%

0.000012%     1%

0.00096%       1%

0.00046%       1%

0.00043%       1%

0.00040%       1%

0.00012%       1%

0.0072%         1%

0.00026%       1%

0.000053%     1%

0.00081%       1%

0.0036%         1%

0.036%           1%	

0.00053%   1%

0.0057%     1%

0.012%       1%

0.085%       1%

0.00033%   1%

0.016%       1%

Household statistics NA

0.072%       1%

0.000065% 1%

0.000065% 1%

0.0054%     1%

0.0025%     1%

0.0024%     1%

0.0022%     1%

0.00067%   1%

0.040%       1%

0.0014%     1%

0.00029%   1%

0.0046%     1%

0.020%       1%

0.20%         1%	

0.0093%     1%

0.10%         1%

0.20%         1%

1.5%          1%

0.0059%     1%

0.29%         1%

Household statistics NA

1.3%          1%

0.0011%     1%

0.0011%     1%

0.095%       1%

0.045%       1%

0.042%       1%

0.039%       1%

0.012%       1%

0.70%         1%

0.025%       1%

0.0052%     1%

0.080%       1%

0.36%         1%

3.5%          3%

West Virginia

2002

2003

       2003, 2003

2002

2002

2004

2003

2003

2002

2002

2003

2003

2003

2002	

Barbour County

Beach Bottom, Village

Grafton, City of

Hancock County

Estrn Inwood Watershed

Marshall County

Midland PSD

Moundsville, City of

New Martinsville

Ohio County PSD

Putnam County

Sisterville, City of

Wellsburg, City of

Wheeling, City of	

15,127

NA

5,313

32,316

NA

34,662

NA

9,400

5,816

44,757

51,288

NA

2,882

29,797	

2.47

NA

2.33

2.36

NA

2.44

NA

2.28

2.34

2.27

2.56

NA

2.12

2.17	

6,124

NA

2,280

13,693

NA

14,206

NA

4,123

2,485

19,716

20,034

NA

1,359

13,731	

24,729

NA

21,981

33,759

NA

30,989

NA

23,107

33,750

30,836

41,892

NA

27,298

27,388	

0.0022%         1%

Household statistics not available

0.0066%         1%

0.00071%       1%

Household statistics not available

0.00075%       1%

Household statistics not available

0.0034%         1%

0.0039%         1%

0.00054%       1%

0.00039%       1%

Household statistics not available

0.0089%         1%

0.00088%       1%	

0.012%       1%

Household statistics NA

0.036%       1%

0.0040%     1%

Household statistics NA

0.0042%     1%

Household statistics NA

0.019%       1%

0.022%       1%

0.0030%     1%

0.0022%     1%

Household statistics NA

0.049%       1%

0.0049%     1%	

0.21%         1%

Household statistics NA

0.65%         1%

0.070%       1%

Household statistics NA

0.074%       1%

Household statistics NA

0.34%         1%

0.39%         1%

0.053%       1%

0.039%       1%

Household statistics NA

0.87%         1%

0.086%       1%

REGION 4

Alabama

2002

2004

2002

     2002, 03, 04

2002

       2003, 2004

2003

2003

2003	

Blount County

Brent Water & Sewer

Brewton, City of

Citronelle, Town of

Clay County

Coosa Valley

Cullman County

Foley, City of

Eva	

50,414

NA

5,218

3,596

13,988

NA

76,485

7,355

491	

2.62

NA

2.35

2.73

2.43

NA

2.49

2.35

2.53	

19,242

NA

2,220

1,317

5,756

NA

30,717

3,130

194	

35,241

NA

34,234

31,739

27,885

NA

32,256

31,596

38,958	

1%

Household statistics not available

0.0043%         1%

0.0079%         1%

0.0020%         1%

Household statistics not available

0.00033%       1%

0.0033%         1%

0.044%           1%	

0.0027%     1%

Household statistics NA

0.024%       1%

0.044%       1%

0.011%       1%

Household statistics NA

0.0018%     1%

0.018%       1%

0.24%         1%	

0.048%       1%

Household statistics NA

0.43%         1%

0.78%         1%

0.20%         1%

Household statistics NA

0.033%       1%

0.33%         1%

4.3%          3%

Alabama - cont

2004

2004

     2002, 03, 04

2002

       2002, 2004

2002

2003

2004

2002

       2002, 2003

       2002, 2003

2003

2002

2003

2003

       2002, 2003

2003

2003

2003

2002

2002

2002

2002

2002

2004

2004

     2002, 03, 04

2004	

Fayette Water Works

Florence, City of

Franklin County

Grant

Hartselle Utilities

Huntsville, City of

Huntsville, City of

Jackson County

Jackson, City of

Jackson, City of

Limestone

Littleville, Town of

Luverne, City of

Marion County

Mobile Area

Mobile County

Monroeville, City of

Muscle Shoals

Notasulga, Town of

Rainsville

Shelby County

Sumiton

Tuscaloosa

Tuscambia, City of

Upper Bear

Water & Sewer

West Morgan-East

Camden, City of	

NA

34,787

30,821

665	

NA

152,641

152,641

53,347

5,319	

5,319

63,033

978

2,475

30,307

NA

391,775

6,621

11,694

916

4,499

141,618

2,622

69,804

NA

NA

NA

NA

2,124	

NA

2.20

2.51

2.38

NA

2.29

2.29

2.47 

2.54       

2.54

2.55

2.48

2.24

2.39

NA	

2.61

2.46

2.48

2.33

2.39

2.59

2.39

2.22

NA

NA

NA

NA

2.45	

NA

15,812

12,279

279

NA

66,655

66,655

21,598

2,094

2,094

24,719

394

1,105

12,681

NA

150,105

2,691

4,715

393

1,882

54,679

1,097

31,443

NA

NA

NA

NA

867	

NA

28,330

27,177

37,188

NA

41,074

41,074

32,020

34,806

34,806

37,405

32,583

22,457

27,475

NA

33,710

28,229

40,216

31,307

29,505

55,440

26,364

27,731

NA

NA

NA

NA

25,750	 

Household statistics not available

0.00073%       1%

0.00099%       1%

0.032%           1%

Household statistics not available

0.00012%       1%

0.00012%       1%

0.00048%       1%

0.0045%         1%

0.0045%         1%

0.00036%       1%

0.026%           1%

0.013%           1%

0.00094%       1%

Household statistics not available

0.000065%     1%

0.0043%         1%

0.0017%         1%

0.027%           1%

0.0059%         1%

0.00011%       1%

0.011%           1%

0.00038%       1%

Household statistics not available

Household statistics not available

Household statistics not available

Household statistics not available

0.015%           1%	

Household statistics NA

0.0041%     1%

0.0055%     1%

0.18%         1%

Household statistics NA

0.00067%   1%

0.00067%   1%

0.0026%     1%

0.025%       1%

0.025%       1%

0.0020%     1%

0.14%         1%

0.074%       1%

0.0053%     1%

Household statistics NA

0.00036%   1%

0.024%       1%

0.0097%     1%

0.15%         1%

0.033%       1%

0.00060%   1%

0.063%       1%

0.0021%     1%

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NA

0.082%       1%	

Household statistics NA

0.072%       1%

0.097%       1%

3.1%          3%

Household statistics NA

0.012%       1%

0.012%       1%

0.047%       1%

0.44%         1%

0.44%         1%

0.035%       1%

2.5%          1%

1.3%          1%

0.093%       1%

Household statistics NA

0.0064%     1%

0.43%         1%

0.17%         1%

2.6%          1%

0.58%         1%

0.011%       1%

1.1%          1%

0.037%       1%

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NS

1.4%          1%

Florida

       2002, 2003

2002

2003

2002

2002

2004

2003

2002

2002

2002

       2002, 2003

       2002, 2003

       2002, 2003

     2002, 03, 04

2002

2003

2003

2003

       2002, 2003	

Boca Raton, City of

Clearwater, City of

Clearwater, City of

Orlando, City of 

Hillsborough County

Homestead, City of

Lighthouse Point, City

Miami-Dade County

North Miami, City of

North Miami, City of

Opa-locka, City of

Sarasota County

South Miami, City of

Tampa Bay

St. Johns County

Tarpon Springs, City of

Taylor County

Volusian Water

West Palm Beach, City	

71,958

104,924

104,924

181,910

981,521

31,334

10,767

2,207,391

58,625

58,625

14,523

319,484

10,630

NA

120,942

20,589

18,039

NA

78,468	

2.26	

2.17

2.17

2.25

2.51

3.10

2.08

2.84

2.85

2.85

2.972.13

2.13

2.47

NA

2.44

2.27

2.51

NA

2.26     	

31,840

48,352

48,352

80,849

391,044

10,108

5,176

777,250

20,570

20,570

4,890

149,992

4,304

NA

49,566

9,070

7,187

NA

34,720	

60,248

36,494

36,494

35,732

40,663

26,775

53,038

35,966

29,778

29,778

19,631

41,957

42,488

NA

50,099

38,251

30,032

NA

36,774	

0.00017%       1%

0.00019%       1%

0.00019%       1%

0.00011%       1%

0.000021%     1%

0.0012%         1%

0.0012%         1%

0.000012%     1%

0.00054%       1%

0.00054%       1%

0.0034%         1%

0.000052%     1%

0.0018%         1%

Household statistics not available

0.00013%       1%

0.00095%       1%

0.0015%         1%

Household statistics not available

0.00026%       1%	

0.00096%   1%

0.0010%     1%

0.0010%     1%

0.00063%   1%

0.00012%   1%

0.0068%     1%

0.0067%     1%

0.000066% 1%

0.0030%     1%

0.0030%     1%

0.019%       1%

0.00029%   1%

0.010%       1%

Household statistics NA

0.00074%   1%

0.0053%     1%

0.0085%     1%

Household statistics NA

0.0014%     1%	

0.017%       1%

0.018%       1%

0.018%       1%

0.011%       1%

0.0020%     1%

0.12%         1%

0.12%         1%

0.0012%     1%

0.053%       1%

0.053%       1%

0.34%         1%

0.0052%     1%

0.18%         1%

Household statistics NA

0.013%       1%

0.094%       1%

0.15%         1%

Household statistics NA

0.025%       1%

Georgia

2004

       2003, 2004

2004

2003

2003

2002	

Forsyth, City of

Gwinnett County

Helena, City of

Gainesville, City of

Roswell, City of

Roswell, City of	

3,748

582,063

1,238

23,818

78,706

78,706	

2.57

2.88

2.38

2.79

2.61

2.61	

1,458

202,105

520

8,537

30,156

30,156	

30,523

60,537

22,212

36,605

71,726

71,726	

0.0074%         1%

0.000027%     1%

0.028%           1%

0.0010%         1%

0.00015%       1%

0.00015%       1%	

0.041%       1%

0.00015%   1%

0.16%         1%

0.0057%     1%

0.00085%   1%

0.00085%   1%	

0.73%         1%

0.0016%     1%

2.8%          1%

0.10%         1%

0.015%       1%

0.015%       1%

Kentucky

2003

2003

2002

2002

2002

2002

2002

2003	

Carrollton, City of

Cynthiana, City of

Daviess County

Hodgenville, City of

Lawrenceburg, City of

London, City of

Somerset, City of

Spencer County	

3,663

6,023

88,950

2,680

8,909

5,177

10,295

11,647	

2.29

2.24

2.47

2.17

2.51

2.16

2.13

2.74	

1,600

2,689

36,012

1,235

3,549

2,397

4,833

4,251	

29,818

28,519

36,813

25,132

41,329

27,283

22,362

47,042	

"

#

T

U

‘

’

Â

Ã

Ô

Õ

 

¥

"

¸,

Ž„

^…

"

#

3

9

>

D

I

O

T

ñÿ$	

l

t

x

‡

‘

ª

®

±

·

»

Â

È

Ë

Ì

Ï

Ð

Ô

Þ

æ

ê

ó

ù

摧举ÚÖ欀⑤

摧举ÚÖ欀⥤

Æ

Æ

@

Æ

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

ô

@

@

@

\

\

\

ô

ô

@

Æ

@

„¸

^„¸

Æ

”ÿ?

”ÿ?

”ÿ?

”ÿ?

”ÿ?

”ÿS

”ÿS

”ÿS

”ÿS

”ÿS

”ÿS

 

&

&

'

(

”ÿS

”ÿ

”ÿ

”ÿ

”ÿ

”ÿ

”ÿ

@

@

@

š

š

š

š

hÞ

਀Ħ䘋

$

•

hÞ

옍

옍

-

J

L

z

|

¦

¨

Ö

Ø

@

h

–

Ä

ò

.

\

^

Š

¶

¸

è

kd

Ÿ

 

}

‚

ƒ

‰

Î

ç

N

;

°

ÿ

„@

^„@

1%

0.0043%         1%

0.00025%       1%

0.011%           1%

0.0022%         1%

0.0050%         1%

0.0030%         1%

0.0016%         1%	

0.038%       1%

0.024%       1%

0.0014%     1%

0.059%       1%

0.012%       1%

0.028%       1%

0.017%       1%

0.0092%     1%	

0.68%         1%

0.42%         1%

0.024%       1%

1.0%         1%

0.22%         1%

0.50%         1%

0.30%         1%

0.16%         1%

Mississippi

2003

2004

2003

2003

2004

2002

       2002, 2003

2003

2003

2003

2003

2002

2002

       2002, 2003	

Corinth, City of

Farmington, Town of

Flowood, City of

Gulfport, City of

Gulfport, City of

Jackson, City of

Jefferson County

Lake, Town of

Louisville, City of

McComb, City of

Meridian, City of

Ocean Springs, City of

Picayune, City of

Tupelo, City of	

13,619

1,810

4,750

67,703

67,703

177,055

9,104

408

6,736

12,982

38,113

17,032

10,418

33,097	

2.19

2.64

2.23

2.51

2.51

2.61

2.75

2.78

2.55 

 2.47

2.39

2.56

2.54

2.47    	

6,219

686

2,130

26,973

26,973

67,837

3,310

147

2,642

5,256

15,947

6,653

4,102

13,400	

23,436

37,074

40,333

32,779

32,779

30,414

18,447

28,333

27,485

22,644

25,085

45,885

26,958

38,401	

0.0022%         1%

0.013%           1%

0.0038%         1%

0.00037%       1%

0.00037%       1%

0.00016%       1%

0.0054%         1%

0.079%           1%

0.0045%         1%

0.0028%         1%

0.00082%       1%

0.0011%         1%

0.0030%         1%

0.00064%       1%	

0.012%       1%

0.072%       1%

0.021%       1%

0.0021%     1%

0.0021%     1%

0.00089%   1%

0.030%       1%

0.44%         1%

0.025%       1%

0.015%       1%

0.0046%     1%

0.0060%     1%

0.016%       1%

0.0036%     1%	

0.22%         1%

1.3%          1%

0.38%         1%

0.037%       1%

0.037%       1%

0.016%       1%

0.53%         1%

7.8%          3%

0.44%         1%

0.27%         1%

0.081%       1%

0.11%         1%

0.29%         1%

0.063%       1%

North Carolina

2003

2002

2003

       2002, 2003

2003

       2002, 2003

2003

2002

       2003, 2004

2002	

Cary, Town of

Cherokee County

Granite Falls, Town of

Henderson, City of

Highlands, Town of

Mooresville, Town of

Neuse Regional Water

Pittsboro, Town of

Richmond  County

Union County	

93,967

24,014

4,444

15,631

909

18,443

NA

1,997

44,862

122,011	

2.69

2.32

2.53

2.47

2.04

2.58

NA

2.34

2.51

2.81	

34,932

10,351

17,565

6,328

446

7,148

NA

853

17,873

43,420	

75,122

27,992

38,596

23,745

33,750

42,943

NA

35,800

28,830

50,638	

0.00012%       1%

0.0011%         1%

0.00048%       1%

0.0022%         1%

0.022%           1%

0.0011%         1%

Household statistics not available

0.011%           1%

0.00064%       1%

0.00015%       1%	

0.00070%   1%

0.0063%     1%

0.0027%     1%

0.012%       1%

0.12%         1%

0.0060%     1%

Household statistics NA

0.060%       1%

0.0036%     1%

0.00083%   1%	

0.012%       1%

0.11%         1%

0.048%       1%

0.22%         1%

2.2%          1%

0.10%         1%

Household statistics NA

1.1%          1%

0.063%       1%

0.015%       1%

South Carolina

       2002, 2003

       2003, 2004

2003

2002

2002

2003

       2002, 2002

2002

       2003, 2004

2002	

Berkeley  County

Charleston, City of

Charlotte

Florence, City of

Greenville County

Jackson, Town of

Laurens County

Mount Pleasant

Myrtle Beach, City of

West Georgetown	

137,209

91,140

NA

29,093

368,791

1,625

66,939

46,944

22,600

NA	

2.75

2.23

NA

2.44

2.47

2.40

2.55

2.47

2.17

NA	

49,894

40,870

NA

11,923

149,308

677

26,250

19,006

10,415

NA	

39,908

35,295

NA

35,388

41,149

35,924

33,933

61,054

35,498

NA

	

0.00016%       1%

0.00023%       1%

Household statistics not available

0.00078%       1%

0.000054%     1%

0.014%           1%

0.00037%       1%

0.00028%       1%

0.00089%       1%

Household statistics not available	

0.00092%   1%

0.0013%     1%

Household statistics NA

0.0043%     1%

0.00030%   1%

0.075%       1%

0.0020%     1%

0.0016%     1%

0.0050%     1%

Household statistics NA	

0.016%       1%

0.022%       1%

Household statistics NA

0.077%       1%

0.0053%     1%

1.3%          1%

0.036%       1%

0.028%       1%

0.088%       1%

Household statistics NA

Tennessee

2003

2004

2002

2003

2002

2002	

Athens Utilities

Meigs County

North Bledsoe

River Road Utility

Dunlap, City of

Watauga River Auth.	

NA

10,972

NA

NA

4,048

NA	

NA

2.55

NA

NA

2.47

NA	

NA

4,303

NA

NA

1,639

NA	

NA

29,354

NA

NA

30,647

NA	

Household statistics not available

0.0026%         1%

Household statistics not available

Household statistics not available

0.0066%         1%

Household statistics not available	

Household statistics NA

0.014%       1%

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NA

0.036%       1%

Household statistics NA	

Household statistics NA

0.26%         1%

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NA

0.64%         1%

Household statistics NA

REGION 5

Illinois

2003

2004

2002

2003

2004

2003

2004

    2003, 2004

2003

2003

2003

2003

       2002, 2003

2004

2002

2003

2003

2002

2002

2002

       2002, 2003

2002

2003

2002

2002

2004

2004	

Breese, City of

Breese, City of

Clark-Edgar

Dallas Rural

Downs, Village of

DuPage County

Forsyth, City of

Galena, City of

Georgetown, City of

Granville, Village of

Hamilton, City of

Holland Regional Water

Johnsburg, Village of

Johnsburg, Village of

Justice, Village of

La Grange Park, Village

Lake County

Lawrenceville, City of

Macomb, City of

Metamora, Village of

Moline, City of

Monmouth

Montgomery, Village of

Orland Park, Village of

Paris, City of

Springfield, City of

Virginia, City of	

3,950

3,950

NA

NA

776

889,048

2,418

3,371

3,628

1,414

2,921

NA

5,377

5,377

12,176

12,954

623,378

4,371

13,839

2,558

43,418

8,731

5,455

50,640

8,854

108,898

1,670	

2.61

2.61

NA

NA

2.73

2.73

2.68

2.15

2.47

2.39

2.39

NA

3.06

3.06

2.77

2.38

2.88

2.16

2.10

2.44

2.35

2.37

2.52

2.71

2.29

2.24

2.31	

1,513

1,513

NA

NA

284

325,659

902

1,568

1,469

592

1,222

NA

1,757

1,757

4,396

5,443

216,461

2,024

6,590

1,048

18,476

3,684

2,165

18,686

3,866

48,615

723	

47,639

47,639

NA

NA

53,750

67,887

69,000

36,103

33,852

41,548

40,179

NA

69,864

69,864

50,254

58,918

66,973

24,951

25,994

46,691

39,363

33,641

51,028

67,574

30,902

39,388

35,741	

0.0046%         1%

0.0046%         1%

Household statistics not available

Household statistics not available

0.022%           1%

0.000015%     1%

0.0053%         1%

0.0058%         1%

0.0066%         1%

0.013%           1%

0.0067%         1%

Household statistics not available

0.0027%         1%

0.0027%         1%

0.0015%         1%

0.0010%         1%

0.000023%     1%

0.0065%         1%

0.0019%         1%

0.0067%         1%

0.00045%       1%

0.0026%         1%

0.0030%         1%

0.00026%       1%

0.0028%         1%

0.00017%       1%

0.013%           1%	

0.025%       1%

0.025%       1%

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NA

0.12%         1%

0.000083% 1%

0.029%       1%

0.032%       1%

0.037%       1%

0.074%       1%

0.037%       1%

Household statistics NA

0.015%       1%

0.015%       1%

0.0083%     1%

0.0057%     1%

0.00013%   1%

0.036%       1%

0.011%       1%

0.037%       1%

0.0025%     1%

0.015%       1%

0.017%       1%

0.0014%     1%

0.015%       1%

0.00096%   1%

0.071%       1%	

0.45%         1%

0.45%         1%

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NA

2.1%          1%

0.0015%     1%

0.52%         1%

0.57%         1%

0.65%         1%

1.3%          1%

0.66%         1%

Household statistics NA

0.26%         1%

0.26%         1%

0.15%         1%

0.10%         1%

0.0022%     1%

0.64%         1%

0.19%         1%

0.66%         1%

0.045%       1%

0.26%         1%

0.29%         1%

0.026%       1%

0.27%         1%

0.017%       1%

1.2%          1%

Indiana

2002

2003

2002

2003

2002

2003

2003

2002	

Carmel, City of

Carmel, City of

Fort Wayne, City of

Hobart, City of

Merrillville

Tell City

Vigo County

Westfield, Town of	

37,212

37,212

200,691

25,115

30,005

7,674

97,666

9,210	

2.74

2.74

2.41

2.55

2.57

2.25

2.38

2.72	

13,581

13,581

83,274

9,849

11,675

3,411

41,036

3,386	

81,583

81,583

36,518

47,759

49,545

31,045

33,184

52,963	

0.00030%       1%

0.00030%       1%

0.00011%       1%

0.00070%       1%

0.00057%       1%

0.0031%         1%

0.00024%       1%

0.0018%         1%	

0.0016%     1%

0.0016%     1%

0.00060%   1%

0.0039%     1%

0.0032%     1%

0.017%       1%

0.0013%     1%

0.010%       1%	

0.029%       1%

0.029%       1%

0.011%       1%

0.069%       1%

0.056%       1%

0.31%         1%

0.024%       1%

0.18%         1%

Michigan

2002

       2002, 2003

       2002, 2003

2002

       2002, 2003

2002

       2003, 2004

2004

2004

2002

       2002, 2003

2003

     2002, 03, 04

2004

2003	

Almont, Village of

Bad Axe, City of

Detroit, City of

Farmington, City of

Genesee County

Grand Rapids, City of

Grand Rapids, City of

Grand Traverse County

Huron

Negaunee, City of

Oakland County

Port Huron, City of

Wayne County

Saginaw Chippewa Trb

Saginaw, City of 	

2,791

3,276

931,569

10,287

430,794

188,106

188,106

75,831

35,397

4,478

1,180,408

31,499

2,028,544

NA

60,361	

2.73 

2.31

2.77

2.13

2.54

2.57

2.57

2.49

2.42

2.30

2.51

2.43

2.64

NA

2.60	

1,022

1,418

336,306

4,830

169,604

73,193

73,193

30,454

14,627

1,947

470,282

12,962

768,388

NA

23,216	

53,984

32,125

29,526

56,442

41,951

37,224

37,224

43,169

35,315

33,117

61,907

31,327

40,776

NA

26,485	

0.0060%         1%

0.0072%         1%

0.000033%     1%

0.0012%         1%

0.000046%     1%

0.00012%       1%

0.00012%       1%

0.00025%       1%

0.00064%       1%

0.0051%         1%

0.000011%     1%

0.00081%       1%

0.000010%     1%

Household statistics not available

0.00054%       1%	

0.033%       1%

0.040%       1%

0.00018%   1%

0.0067%     1%

0.00026%   1%

0.00067%   1%

0.00067%   1%

0.0014%     1%

0.0036%     1%

0.028%       1%

0.000063% 1%

0.0045%     1%

0.000058% 1%

Household statistics NA

0.0030%     1%	

0.59%         1%

0.71%         1%

0.0033%     1%

0.12%         1%

0.0046%     1%

0.012%       1%

0.012%       1%

0.025%       1%

0.063%       1%

0.50%         1%

0.0011%     1%

0.080%       1%

0.0010%     1%

Household statistics NA

0.053%       1%

Minnesota

       2002, 2004	

Mille Lacs	

21,815	

2.53	

8,622	

36,977	

0.0010%         1%	

0.0058%       1%	

0.10%         1%

Ohio

     2002, 02, 03

2003

2002

2003

2002

2002

       2002, 2004

2004

2003

2004

2002

2002

2002

2002

2003

2004

       2003, 2003

2003

2003

2002

2003

2003

2002

2003

2004

2004

2003

     2002, 03, 04

2002

2002	

Akron, City of

Amanda, Village of

Byesville

Cincinnati, City of

Clark County

Delphos, City of

Fulton County

Galion, City of

Greene County

Haskins, Village of

Lancaster, City of

Laurelville, Village of

Luckey, Village of

Martins Ferry, City of

Massillon, City of

Millersburg, Village of

Morristown, Village of

Napoleon, City of

North Canton, City of

Ottawa County

Pickaway County

Pomeroy, Village of

Port Clinton, City of

Port Clinton, City of

Shawnee Hills subdiv

Somerset, Village of

Spring Valley, Village

Toledo, City of

Trumbull County

Urbana, City of	

212,166

707

2,574

317,849

140,825

6,844

41,654

11,200

140,105

638

34,885

533

998

7,158

30,472

2,949

299

9,106

15,528

40,348

46,230

1,937

6,315

6,315

NA

1,452

510

306,724

221,028

11,143	

2.35

2.76

2.42

2.15

2.49

2.52

2.69

2.34

2.53

2.65

2.35

2.08

2.80

2.24

2.40

2.43

2.45

2.39

2.18

2.45

2.63

2.32

2.27

2.27

NA

2.37

2.62

2.38

2.48

2.29	

90,283

256

1,063

147,669

565,556

2,716

15,485

4,786

55,377

241

14,845

256

356

3,196

12,697

1,214

122

3,810

7,123

16,505

17,588

835

2,782

2,782

NA

613

195

128,876

89,124

4,866	

31,835

40,114

28,136

29,493

40,340

35,817

44,074

31,513

48,656

45,625

33,321

24,250

47,917

23,960

32,734

33,809

34,375

37,467

42,013

44,224

42,832

19,971

35,564

35,564

NA

29,844

42,500

32,546

38,298

33,702	

0.00011%       1%

0.032%           1%

0.011%           1%

0.000076%     1%

0.000014%     1%

0.0034%         1%

0.00048%       1%

0.0022%         1%

0.00012%       1%

0.030%           1%

0.00066%       1%

0.053%           1%

0.019%           1%

0.0043%         1%

0.00079%       1%

0.0080%         1%

0.078%           1%

0.0023%         1%

0.0011%         1%

0.00045%       1%

0.00044%       1%

0.020%           1%

0.0033%         1%

0.0033%         1%

Household statistics not available

0.018%           1%

0.040%           1%

0.000078%     1%

0.000096%     1%

0.0020%         1%	

0.00064%   1%

0.18%         1%

0.061%       1%

0.00042%   1%

0.000080% 1%

0.019%       1%

0.0027%     1%

0.012%       1%

0.00068%   1%

0.17%         1%

0.0037%     1%

0.29%         1%

0.11%         1%

0.024%       1%

0.0044%     1%

0.045%       1%

0.44%         1%

0.013%       1%

0.0061%     1%

0.0025%     1%

0.0024%     1%

0.11%         1%

0.018%       1%

0.018%       1%

Household statistics NA

0.10%         1%

0.22%         1%

0.00044%   1%

0.00054%   1%

0.011%       1%	

0.011%       1%

3.2%          3%

1.1%          1%

0.0074%     1%

0.0014%     1%

0.33%         1%

0.048%       1%

0.22%         1%

0.012%       1%

3.0%         1%

0.066%       1%

5.2%          3%

1.9%          1%

0.42%         1%

0.078%       1%

0.79%         1%

7.7%          3%

0.23%         1%

0.11%         1%

0.044%       1%

0.043%       1%

1.9%          1%

0.33%         1%

0.33%         1%

Household statistics NA

1.8%          1%

3.9%          3%

0.0077%     1%

0.0075%     1%

0.20%         1%

Wisconsin

2002

2003

       2002, 2003

2003	

Brokaw, City of

Curtiss, Village of

Racine, City of

Wisconsin Rapids, City	

107

198

79,983

18,024	

2.28

2.91

2.54

2.26	

47

68

31,489

7,975	

27,083

29,250

37,164

34,956	

0.26%             1%

0.16%             1%

0.00028%       1%

0.0012%         1%	

1.4%          1%

0.92%         1%

0.0016%     1%

0.0066%     1%	

25%           3%

16%           3%

0.028%       1%

0.12%         1%

REGION 6

Arkansas

2004	

Fort Chaffee	

NA

	

NA

    	

NA	

NA	

Household statistics not available	

Household statistics NA	

Household statistics NA

Louisiana

2002

2002

2004

       2002, 2003

2003

2003

2003

2004

2002

2003

     2002, 03, 04

2003

2004

2003

2004

2003

       2002, 2003

2003

       2002, 2003

2003

2004

2002	

Bayou Lafourche

Denham Springs, City

Denham Springs, City

Baton Rouge, City of

Hammond, City of

Jefferson Parish

Lake Charles, City of

Monroe, City of

New Iberia

New Iberia

New Orleans, City of

Shreveport, City of

Shreveport, City of

Slidell, City of

South Central

St. Bernard Parish

St. Charles Parish

St. James Parish

St. John the Baptist Par

St. Martin Parish

St. Martinville, City of

Thibodaux, City of	

NA

8,757

8,757

215,365

15,674

451,109

68,187

49,401

31,691

31,691

467,033

194,754

194,754

25,348

NA

66,441

47,642

20,951

42,601

47,791

6,652

13,297	

NA

2.65

2.65

2.42

2.51

2.56

2.44

2.54

2.70

2.70

2.48

2.48

2.48

2.67

NA

2.64

2.90

3.00

2.98

2.78

2.67

2.42        	

NA

3,304

3,304

88,994

6,245

17,621

27,945

19,449

11,737

11,737

188,320

78,530

78,530

9,494

NA

25,167

16,428

6,984

14,296

17,191

2,491

5,495	

NA

41,296

41,296

30,368

24,067

38,435

30,774

25,864

26,079

26,079

27,133

30,526

30,526

42,856

NA

35,939

45,139

35,277

39,456

30,701

19,600

26,697	

Household statistics not available

0.0024%         1%

0.0024%         1%

0.00012%       1%

0.0022%         1%

0.00049%       1%

0.00038%       1%

0.00065%       1%

0.0011%         1%

0.0011%         1%

0.000064%     1%

0.00014%       1%

0.00014%       1%

0.00081%       1%

Household statistics not available

0.00036%       1%

0.00044%       1%

0.0013%         1%

0.00058%       1%

0.000672%       1%

0.0067%         1%

0.0022%         1%	

Household statistics NA

0.013%       1%

0.013%       1%

0.00068%   1%

0.012%       1%

0.0027%     1%

0.0021%     1%

0.0035%     1%

0.0060%     1%

0.0060%     1%

0.00036%   1%

0.00076%   1%

0.00076%   1%

0.0045%     1%

Household statistics NA

0.0020%     1%

0.0025%     1%

0.0074%     1%

0.0032%     1%

0.0035%     1%

0.038%       1%

0.012%       1%	

Household statistics NA

0.24%         1%

0.24%         1%

0.012%       1%

0.22%         1%

0.048%       1%

0.038%       1%

0.064%       1%

0.11%         1%

0.11%         1%

0.0064%     1%

0.014%       1%

0.014%       1%

0.080%       1%

Household statistics NA

0.036%       1%

0.044%       1%

0.13%         1%

0.058%       1%

0.061%       1%

0.66%         1%

0.22%         1%

New Mexico

2002

2003

       2004, 2004

       2002, 2003

       2002, 2003

2002

       2003, 2004

       2002, 2003

2003

2002

2002	

Carnuel Mutual

Alamogordo

Bernalillo County

Bernalillo County

Belen, City of

Dona Ana Mutual

Espanola, City of

Gallup, City of

Greater Chimayo Mut’l

Ruidoso, Village of

Santa Fe County	

NA

35,156

546,051

546,051

6,766

NA

9,620

19,434

NA

7,616

126,916	

NA

2.57

2.47

2.47

2.61

NA

2.56

2.85

NA

2.22

2.42      	

NA

13,679

221,073

221,073

2,592

NA

3,758

6,819

NA

3,431

52,445	

NA

30,928

38,788

38,788

26,754

NA

27,144

34,868

NA

37,107

42,207	

Household statistics not available

0.00078%       1%

0.000038%     1%

0.000038%     1%

0.0047%         1%

Household statistics not available

0.0032%         1%

0.0014%         1%

Household statistics not available

0.0026%         1%

0.00015%       1%	

Household statistics NA

0.0043%     1%

0.00021%   1%

0.00021%   1%

0.026%       1%

Household statistics NA

0.018%       1%

0.0077%     1%

Household statistics NA

0.014%       1%

0.00083%   1%	

Household statistics NA

0.077%       1%

0.0038%     1%

0.0038%     1%

0.47%         1%

Household statistics NA

0.32%         1%

0.14%         1%

Household statistics NA

0.25%         1%

0.015%       1%

Oklahoma

2002

     2002, 03, 04

2004	

Lawton, City of

Norman, City of

Seminole, City of	

82,973

89,623

6,749	

2.61

2.31

2.45	

31,790

38,798

2,755	

32,521

36,713

25,120	

0.00032%       1%

0.00023%       1%

0.0048%         1%	

0.0018%     1%

0.0013%     1%

0.026%       1%	

0.031%       1%

0.023%       1%

0.47%         1%

Texas

2004

2002

2002

2002

       2002, 2003

2003

2003

2004

2004

2003

2003

2003

2004

2002

2004	

Austin, City of

Beaumont, City of

Clifton City of

Meridian, City of

Brownsville

Dallas, City of

Eagle Pass, City of

Goldthwaite, City of

Harris County

Meridian, City of

Port Authur, City of

San Antonio

San Antonio

Tamina Water

Waco, City of	

636,432

110,797

3,191

1,368

138,031

1,167,416

22,309

1,653

3,358,444

1,368

NA

1,121,466

1,121,466

NA

105,283	

2.40

2.50

2.46

2.66

3.62

2.58

3.22

2.23

2.79

2.66

NA

2.77

2.77

NA

2.49	

265,180

44,319

1,297

514

38,130

452,487

6,928

741

1,203,743

514

NA

404,861

404,861

NA	

42,282	

42,689

32,559

29,867

32,750

24,468

37,628

23,623

26,731

42,598

32,750

NA

36,214

36,214

NA

26,264	

0.000029%     1%

0.00023%       1%

0.0085%         1%

0.020%           1%

0.00035%       1%

0.000019%     1%

0.0020%         1%

0.017%           1%

0.0000064%   1%

0.020%           1%

Household statistics not available

0.000022%     1%

0.000022%     1%

Household statistics not available

0.00030%       1%	

0.00016%   1%

0.0013%     1%

0.047%       1%

0.11%         1%

0.0020%     1%

0.00011%   1%

0.011%       1%

0.092%       1%

0.000036% 1%

0.11%         1%

Household statistics NA

0.00012%   1%

0.00012%   1%

Household statistics NA

0.0014%     1%	

0.0028%     1%

0.022%       1%

0.84%         1%

1.9%          1%

0.035%       1%

0.0019%     1%

0.20%         1%

1.6%          1%

0.00063%   1%

1.9%          1%

Household statistics NA

0.0022%     1%

0.0022%     1%

Household statistics NA

0.029%       1%

REGION 7

Iowa

2004

     2002, 03, 04

     2002, 03, 04

2004

2004

2003	

Carroll, City of

Des Moines, City of

Mason City, City of

Postville, City of

Sioux City, City of

West Liberty, City of	

9,835

192,145

28,047

2,198

82,339

3,269	

2.36

2.39

2.27

2.78

2.57

2.84	

4,167

80,395

12,356

791

32,038

1,151	

39,853

38,408

33,852

32,667

37,429

37,925	

0.0020%         1%

0.00011%       1%

0.00079%       1%

0.013%           1%

0.00027%       1%

0.0075%         1%	

0.011%       1%

0.00059%   1%

0.0044%     1%

0.071%       1%

0.0015%     1%

0.042%       1%	

0.20%         1%

0.010%       1%

0.078%       1%

1.2%          1%

0.027%       1%

0.74%         1%

Kansas

2002

2004

2003

2004

       2002, 2003

2002	

Russell, City of

Hutchinson, City of

Herington, City of

Newton, City of

Ottawa, City of

Wichita, City of	

4,524

37,813

2,486

16,634

11,413

339,407	

2.20

2.31

2.21

2.43

2.43

2.44	

2,056

16,369

1,125

6,845

4,697

13,910	

26,217

32,645

28,333

38,236

34,071

39,939	

0.0061%         1%

0.00062%       1%

0.010%           1%

0.0012%         1%

0.0020%         1%

0.00059%       1%	

0.034%       1%

0.0034%     1%

0.058%       1%

0.0070%     1%

0.011%       1%

0.0033%     1%	

0.60%         1%

0.061%       1%

1.0%          1%

0.12%         1%

0.20%         1%

0.058%       1%

Missouri

2002

2003

2003

2002

2002

2003

       2003, 2004

2003

2003

2002

2003

2004

2002

       2002, 2004

2004

2004

2004

2002

       2003, 2004

2004

2003

2003

2002

2004	

Bates County

Bolivar, City of

Caldwell county

Camden County

Cape Girardeau, City of

Clarence Cannon

Duckett Creek

Dudley, City of

Jefferson County

Jefferson County

Joplin, City of

Joplin, City of

Kansas City, City of

Lebanon, City of

Monroe City, City of

Pacific, City of

Peculiar, City of

University of Missouri

St. Joseph, City of

Steelville, City of

Warrensburg, City of

Warrenton, City of

Kansas City, City of

Wright City, City of	

16,374

7,751

8,850

36,429

32,279

NA

NA

289

196,069

196,069

43,598

43,598

432,449

11,784

2,493

5,373

2,604

NA

69,372

1,340

13,607

5,135

432,449

1,532	

2.51  

2.34

2.51

2.31

2.24

NA

NA

2.47

2.74

2.74

2.28

2.28

2.35

2.30

2.35

2.48

2.73

NA

2.39

2.18

2.29

2.59

2.35

2.52	

6,524

3,312

3,526

15,770

14,410

NA

NA

117

71,558

71,558

19,122

19,122

184,021

5,123

1,061

2,166

954

NA

29,026

615

5,942

1,983

184,021

608	

30,731

24,609

31,240

35,840

32,452

NA

NA

23,542

46,338

46,338

30,555

30,555

37,198

27,668

30,377

39,554

44,769

NA

32,663

19,596

29,332

34,022

37,198

30,179	

0.0016%         1%

0.0040%         1%

0.0030%         1%

0.00058%       1%

0.00070%       1%

Household statistics not available

Household statistics not available

0.12%             1%

0.000099%     1%

0.000099%     1%

0.00056%       1%

0.00056%       1%

0.000048%     1%

0.0023%         1%

0.010%           1%

0.0038%         1%

0.0077%         1%

Household statistics not available

0.00035%       1%

0.027%           1%

0.0019%         1%

0.0049%         1%

0.000048%     1%

0.018%           1%	

0.0091%     1%

0.022%       1%

0.017%       1%

0.0032%     1%

0.0039%     1%

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NA

0.66%         1%

0.00055%   1%

0.00055%   1%

0.0031%     1%

0.0031%     1%

0.00027%   1%

0.013%       1%

0.057%       1%

0.021%       1%

0.043%       1%

Household statistics NA

0.0019%     1%

0.15%         1%

0.010%       1%

0.027%       1%

0.00027%   1%

0.10%         1%	

0.16%         1%

0.40%         1%

0.29%         1%

0.057%       1%

0.069%         1%

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NA

12%           3%

0.098%       1%

0.098%       1%

0.056%       1%

0.056%       1%

0.0047%     1%

0.23%         1%

1.0%         1%

0.38%         1%

0.76%         1%

Household statistics NA

0.034%       1%

2.7%          1%

0.19%         1%

0.48%         1%

0.0047%     1%

1.8%          1%

Nebraska

2002

       2003, 2004

2004	

Lincoln, City of

Lincoln, City of

South Sioux City, City	

213,938

213,938

11,716	

2.36

2.36

2.72  	

90,652

90,652

4,307	

40,605

40,605

36,493	

0.000089%     1%

0.000089%     1%

0.0021%         1%	

0.00050%   1%

0.00050%   1%

0.012%       1%	

0.0088%     1%

0.0088%     1%

0.21%         1%

REGION 8

Colorado

2004

2002

2003

2003

2002	

Englewood/Littleton

Montrose, City of

Mountain Village

Mountain Village

Nucla	

NA

11,988

978

978

734	

NA

2.29

1.88

1.88

2.36	

NA

5,235

520

520

311	

NA

33,750

30,663

30,663

28,466	

Household statistics not available

0.0019%         1%

0.021%           1%

0.021%           1%

0.037%           1%	

Household statistics NA

0.010%       1%

0.12%         1%

0.12%         1%

0.21%         1%	

Household statistics NA

0.18%         1%

2.0%          1%

2.0%          1%

3.7%          3%

Montana

2003

2003

2002

2004

2004

2002

2004

2003

2004

2004

2003

2004	

Belgrade, City of

Conrad, City of

Florence County

Hamilton, City of

Helena, City of

Lewis and Clark County

Manhattan, City of

Missoula, City of

MO River Watershed

Red Lodge, City of

Upper/Lower River

Wisdom, City of	

5,709

2,691

NA

3,461

24,684

54,470

1,396

53,767

NA

2,082

NA

113	

2.68

2.33

NA

1.95

2.14

2.38

2.52

2.23

NA

2.04

NA

1.85	

2,130

1,155

NA

1,775

11,534

22,886

554

24,111

NA

1,020

NA

61	

37,392

29,432

NA

22,013

34,416

37,360

38,242

30,366

NA

31,750

NA

24,583	

0.0041%         1%

0.0097%         1%

Household statistics not available

0.0084%         1%

0.00083%       1%

0.00038%       1%

0.016%           1%

0.00045%       1%

Household statistics not available

0.010%           1%

Household statistics not available

0.22%             1%	

0.023%       1%

0.054%       1%

Household statistics NA

0.047%       1%

0.0046%     1%

0.0021%     1%

0.086%       1%

0.0025%     1%

Household statistics NA

0.057%       1%

Household statistics NA

1.2%          1%	

0.41%         1%

0.95%         1%

Household statistics NA

0.83%         1%

0.082%       1%

0.038%       1%

1.5%          1%

0.044%       1%

Household statistics NA

1.0%         1%

Household statistics NA

22%           3%

North Dakota

2004

2004

       2003, 2004

2002

       2003, 2004

2004

2002	

Devils Lake, City of

Dickey Rural

Grafton, City of

Grand Forks, City of

Park River, City of

Riverdale, City of

Williston	

6,819

NA

4,234

45,504

1,436

273

12,076	

2.18

NA

2.35

2.31

2.18

2.53

2.30      	

3,128

NA

1,802

19,699

659

108

5,250	

31,250

NA

33,231

34,194

30,347

48,333

29,962	

0.0034%         1%

Household statistics not available

0.0055%         1%

0.00049%       1%

0.016%           1%

0.063%           1%

0.0021%         1%	

0.019%       1%

Household statistics NA

0.031%       1%

0.0027%     1%

0.092%       1%

0.35%         1%

0.012%       1%	

0.33%         1%

Household statistics NA

0.54%         1%

0.048%       1%

1.6%          1%

6.2%          3%

0.21%         1%

South Dakota

2002

2003

2003

2004

2003

2003

2004

2003

2003

2004

2002

2003

2004

2002	

Aberdeen

Box Elder

Centerville, City of

Corsica, City of

Dakota Dunes

Deadwood, City of

De Smet, City of

Elk Point, City of

Groton, City of

Hartford, City of

Hill City

Huron, City of

Lennox, City of

North Sioux City	

23,330

2,840

864

579

NA

1,348

1,097

1,658

1,285

1,833

780

11,450

1,966

2,288	

2.21

2.86

2.23

2.24

NA

2.01

2.09

2.43

2.45

2.77

2.62

2.18

2.42

2.50	

10,556

993

387

258

NA

671

525

682

524

662

298

5,252

812

915	

33,276

32,344

29,615

27,589

NA

28,641

27,760

41,157

38,125

48,333

32,500

29,097

35,217

39,333	

0.00094%       1%

0.010%           1%

0.029%           1%

0.046%           1%

Household statistics not available

0.017%           1%

0.022%           1%

0.012%           1%

0.016%           1%

0.010%           1%

0.034%           1%

0.0022%         1%

0.012%           1%

0.0091%         1%	

0.0052%     1%

0.057%       1%

0.16%         1%

0.26%         1%

Household statistics NA

0.095%       1%

0.12%         1%

0.065%       1%

0.092%       1%

0.057%       1%

0.19%         1%

0.012%       1%

0.064%       1%

0.051%       1%	

0.092%       1%

1.0%         1%

2.8%          1%

4.6%          3%

Household statistics NA

1.7%          1%

2.2%          1%

1.2%          1%

1.6%          1%

1.0%         1%

3.4%          3%

0.21%         1%

1.1%          1%

0.90%         1%

Utah

2003

2004

2002

2002

2003

2002

2004

       2003, 2004

2004

2002

     2002, 03, 04

2003

2003

       2002, 2003

2003	

Blanding

Daggett County

Jordan Valley

Logan City

Monticello

Ogden, City of

Orem

Park City

Riverton, City of

Sandy City

Sandy City

South Salt Lake, City of

St. George, City of

Tooele City

Wendover	

3,068

843

NA

40,532

1,875

74,870

83,573

7,358

24,956

87,894

87,894

19,817

48,804

22,207

1,537	

3.46

2.48

NA

2.92

3.09

2.73

3.57

2.72

3.93

3.42

3.42

2.47

2.81

2.98

3.56	

887

340

NA

13,881

607

27,425

30,613

2,705

6,350

25,700

25,700

8,023

17,368

7,452

432	

32,991

30,833

NA

30,778

35,929

34,047

47,529

65,800

63,980

66,458

66,458

29,801

36,505

43,862

31,196	

0.011%           1%

0.031%           1%

Household statistics not available

0.00077%       1%

0.015%           1%

0.00035%       1%

0.00023%       1%

0.0018%         1%

0.00081%       1%

0.00019%       1%

0.00019%       1%

0.0014%         1%

0.00052%       1%

0.0010%         1%

0.024%           1%	

0.063%       1%

0.17%         1%

Household statistics NA

0.0043%     1%

0.084%       1%

0.0020%     1%

0.0013%     1%

0.010%       1%

0.0045%     1%

0.0011%     1%

0.0011%     1%

0.0077%     1%

0.0029%     1%

0.0056%     1%

0.14%         1%	

1.1%          1%

3.1%          3%

Household statistics NA

0.076%       1%

1.5%          1%

0.035%       1%

0.022%       1%

0.18%         1%

0.080%       1%

0.019%       1%

0.019%       1%

0.14%         1%

0.051%       1%

0.099%       1%

2.4%          1%

REGION 9

Arizona

2002

2004

2003

       2003, 2004

       2003, 2004

2004

	

Arizona Water

Avondale, City of

Litchfield Park

Safford, City of

Scottsdale, City of

White Mountain Apache

	

NA

35,737

3,780

9,000

201,028

NA	

NA

3.36

2.51

2.70

2.22

NA	

NA

10,636

1,506

3,333

90,553

NA	

NA

49,153

71,875

29,899

57,484

NA	

Household statistics not available

0.00063%       1%

0.0030%         1%

0.0033%         1%

0.000063%     1%

Household statistics not available	

Household statistics NA

0.0035%     1%

0.017%       1%

0.018%       1%

0.00035%   1%

Household statistics NA	

Household statistics NA

0.062%       1%

0.30%         1%

0.32%         1%

0.0062%     1%

Household statistics NA

California

       2002, 2003

     2002, 03, 04

2004

       2002, 2003

2003

2002

2004

       2003, 2004

2003

2004

2004

2002

2004

2002

2002

2003

       2002, 2003

2002

2004

2003	

Apple Valley, Town of

Arcadia, City of

Bell, City of

Brea, City of

Brisbane, City of

Colton, City of

Colton, City of

Cudahy, City of

Eureka, City of

Folsom, City of

Fort Bragg, City of 

Garden Grove, City of

Gardena, City of

Hesperia, City of

Huntington Beach, City

Huntington Beach, City

Laguna Beach, City of

Lathrop, City of

Lodi, City of

Downey, City of	

53,876

52,473

36,126

35,282

3,557

47,398

47,398

24,196

24,773

44,940

6,688

162,962

56,942

62,251

188,802

188,802

23,605

10,435

55,975

105,558	

2.90

2.74

4.05

2.70

2.20

3.26

3.26

4.47

2.26

2.61

2.35

3.56

2.80

3.12

2.56

2.56

2.05

3.59

2.71

3.11	

18,578

19,151

8,920

13,067

1,617

14,540

14,540

5,413

10,962

17,218

2,846

45,776

20,336

19,952

73,751

73,751

11,515

29,067

20,655

33,941	

40,421

56,100

29,946

59,759

63,684

35,777

35,777

29,040

25,849

73,175

28,539

47,754

38,988

40,201

64,824

64,824

75,808

55,037

39,570

45,667	

0.00044%       1%

0.00031%       1%

0.0012%         1%

0.00042%       1%

0.0032%         1%

0.00063%       1%

0.00063%       1%

0.0021%         1%

0.0012%         1%

0.00026%       1%

0.0040%         1%

0.00015%       1%

0.00042%       1%

0.00041%       1%

0.000069%     1%

0.000069%     1%

0.00038%       1%

0.00020%       1%

0.00040%       1%

0.00021%       1%	

0.0024%     1%

0.0017%     1%

0.0069%     1%

0.0023%     1%

0.018%       1%

0.0035%     1%

0.0035%     1%

0.012%       1%

0.0065%     1%

0.0014%     1%

0.022%       1%

0.00084%   1%

0.0023%     1%

0.0023%     1%

0.00038%   1%

0.00038%   1%

0.0021%     1%

0.0011%     1%

0.0022%     1%

0.0012%     1%	

0.043%       1%

0.030%       1%

0.12%         1%

0.042%       1%

0.32%         1%

0.062%       1%

0.062%       1%

0.21%         1%

0.11%         1%

0.026%       1%

0.40%         1%

0.015%       1%

0.041%       1%

0.040%       1%

0.0068%     1%

0.0068%     1%

0.037%       1%

0.020%       1%

0.040%       1%

0.021%       1%

California - cont

2002

2004

2003

2002

2003

2002

	

       2003, 2004

2002

2003

       2003, 2004

       2003, 2003

       2003, 2004

2002

2002

       2002, 2003

       2002, 2003

2004

2003

2004

2002

2003

2004

2004

2004

 	2002

2002	

Los Banos, City of

Los Osos

Marin County

Mariposa County

Maywood, City of

Mission Springs 

Mission Springs

Modesto, City of

Newport Beach, City of

Norwalk, City of

Oceanside, City of

Olivenhain Municipal

Oxnard

Pico Rivera, City of

Placer County

Redding, City of

Redding, City of

Ripon, City of

Roseville, City of

Sacramento, City of

Sacramento, City of

San Bernardino, City of

San Diego

Santa Ana, City of

South Gate, City of

Tuolumme Utilities	

25,694

14,277

235,803

15,704

27,989

NA

NA

185,648

69,092

101,949

159,749

NA

167,761

63,078

245,511

78,488

78,488

10,035

78,993

398,016

398,016

179,552

1,177,582

332,353

96,234

NA	

3.33

2.42

2.34

2.37

4.33

NA

NA

2.86

2.09

3.79

2.83

NA

3.85

3.83

2.63

2.44

2.44

2.98

2.57

2.57

2.57

3.19

2.61

4.55

4.15

NA	

7,716

5,600

100,770

6,626

6,464

NA

NA

64,912

33,058

26,899

56,448

NA

43,574

16,469

93,350

32,167

32,167

3,367

30,736

154,870

154,870

56,286

451,181

73,045

23,189

NA	

43,690

46,558

71,306

34,626

30,480

NA

NA

40,394

83,455

46,047

46,301

NA

48,603

41,564

57,535

34,194

34,194

56,979

57,367

37,049

37,049

31,140

45,733

43,412

35,695

NA	

0.00098%       1%

0.0013%         1%

0.000046%     1%

0.0014%         1%

0.0017%         1%

Household statistics not available

Household statistics not available

0.00012%       1%

0.00012%       1%

0.00026%       1%

0.00012%       1%

Household statistics not available

0.00016%       1%

0.00048%       1%

0.000061%     1%

0.00030%       1%

0.00030%       1%

0.0017%         1%

0.00019%       1%

0.000057%     1%

0.000057%     1%

0.00019%       1%

0.000016%     1%

0.00010%       1%

0.00040%       1%

Household statistics not available	

0.0054%     1%

0.0070%     1%

0.00026%   1%

0.0080%     1%

0.0093%     1%

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NA

0.00070%   1%

0.00066%   1%

0.0015%     1%

0.00070%   1%

Household statistics NA

0.00086%   1%

0.0027%     1%

0.00034%   1%

0.0017%     1%

0.0017%     1%

0.0096%     1%

0.0010%     1%

0.00032%   1%

0.00032%   1%

0.0010%     1%

0.000089% 1%

0.00058%   1%

0.0022%     1%

Household statistics NA	

0.096%       1%

0.12%         1%

0.0045%     1%

0.14%         1%

0.16%         1%

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NA

0.012%       1%

0.012%       1%

0.026%       1%

0.012%       1%

Household statistics NA

0.015%       1%

0.047%       1%

0.0060%     1%

0.030%       1%

0.030%       1%

0.17%         1%

0.018%       1%

0.0056%     1%

0.0056%     1%

0.018%       1%

0.0016%     1%

0.010%       1%

0.039%       1%

Household statistics NA

California - cont

2004

2004

2004

2003

     2002, 03, 04

2004

       2003, 2004

2003

2002	

Ukiah, City of

Vallejo, City of

Ventura County

Ventura County

Ventura County

West Valley Water

Whittier, City of

Willits, City of

Yucaipi Valley	

14,763

115,015

739,985

739,985

739,985

NA

81,3322

4,947

NA	

2.47

2.90

3.04

3.04

3.04

NA

2.88

2.56

NA	

5,977

39,660

243,416

243,416

243,416

NA

28,240

1,932

NA

	

32,707

50,030

59,666

59,666

59,666

NA

49,256

26,283

NA

	

0.0017%         1%

0.00016%       1%

0.000023%     1%

0.000023%     1%

0.000023%     1%

Household statistics not available

0.00024%       1%

0.0065%         1%

Household statistics not available	

0.0094%     1%

0.00092%   1%

0.00013%   1%

0.00013%   1%

0.00013%   1%

Household statistics NA

0.0013%     1%

0.036%       1%

Household statistics NA	

0.16%         1%

0.016%       1%

0.0022%     1%

0.0022%     1%

0.0022%     1%

Household statistics NA

0.023%       1%

0.64%         1%

Household statistics NA

Guam

2002	

Guam Waterworks	

NA	

NA	

NA	

NA	

Household statistics not available	

Household statistics NA	

Household statistics NA

Hawaii

2002

2003

2003	

Hawaii, County of

Hawaii, County of

Honolulu Bd of Water	

145,873

145,873

845,211	

2.75

2.75

2.95	

53,045

53,045

28,651	

39,805

39,805

51,914	

0.00016%       1%

0.00016%       1%

0.00022%       1%	

0.00086%   1%

0.00086%   1%

0.0012%     1%	

0.015%       1%

0.015%       1%

0.022%       1%

Nevada

2003

2004

2004

     2002, 02, 04

2003

       2003, 2003

2004	

Carson Water

Clark County

Hawthorne, Town of

Henderson, City of

Las Vegas, City of

Washoe County

Washoe County	

NA

1,356,350

3,290

174,355

470,249

334,076

334,076	

NA

2.65

2.25

2.63

2.66

2.53

2.53 	

NA

511,830

1,462

66,295

176,785

132,046

132,046	

NA

44,616

34,413

55,949

44,069

45,815

45,815	

Household statistics not available

0.000014%     1%

0.0065%         1%

0.000089%     1%

0.000042%     1%

0.000054%     1%

0.000054%     1%	

Household statistics NA

0.000080% 1%

0.036%       1%

0.00049%   1%

0.00024%   1%

0.00030%   1%

0.00030%   1%	

Household statistics NA

0.0014%     1%

0.64%         1%

0.0087%     1%

0.0042%     1%

0.0054%     1%

0.0054%     1%

REGION 10

Alaska

2004

2002

2002	

North Pole

Petersburg

Wasilla	

1,561

3,178

5,464	

2.58

2.56

2.76	

605

1,241

1,980	

44,583

49,028

48,226	

0.012%           1%

0.0054%         1%

0.0034%         1%	

0.068%       1%

0.030%       1%

0.019%       1%	

1.2%          1%

0.53%         1%

0.34%         1%

Idaho

       2002, 2003

2002

       2003, 2004

2002

2003

       2002, 2003

2004

2004	

Bancroft, City of

Burley, City of

Burley, City of

Cape Horn/Bayview W.

Coolin Sewer

Filer, City of

McCammon, City of

Middleton, City of	

382

9,043

9,043

NA

NA

1,620

805

2,978	

2.65

2.75

2.75

NA

NA

2.58

2.97

2.93	

144

3,288

3,288

NA

NA

628

271

1,016	

26,458

27,981

27,981

NA

NA

31,336

32,500

32,665	

0.086%           1%

0.0036%         1%

0.0036%         1%

Household statistics not available

Household statistics not available

0.017%           1%

0.037%           1%

0.0099%         1%	

0.48%         1%

0.020%       1%

0.020%       1%

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NA

0.093%       1%

0.21%         1%

0.055%       1%	

8.5%          3%

0.35%         1%

0.35%         1%

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NA

1.6%          1%

3.7%          3%

0.98%         1%

Oregon

2003

2002

2003

2003

2002

2002

2003

2002

       2003, 2004	

Albany, City of

Clackamas County

Gold Hill

Deschutes

Wheeler

Medford, City of

North Plains, City of

Portland, City of

Tillamook County	

40,165

335,513

1,073

114,146

1,516

61,869

1,605

514,129

23,796	

2.49

2.62

2.56

2.50

2.32

2.47

2.70

2.30

2.33	

16,130

128,058

419

45,658

653

25,048

594

223,534

10,213	

39,409

52,080

32,500

41,847

28,750

36,481

49,563

40,146

34,269	

0.00052%       1%

0.000049%     1%

0.024%           1%

0.00017%       1%

0.018%           1%

0.00036%       1%

0.011%           1%

0.000037%     1%

0.00094%       1%	

0.0029%     1%

0.00027%   1%

0.13%         1%

0.00096%   1%

0.098%       1%

0.0020%     1%

0.062%       1%

0.00020%   1%

0.0052%     1%	

0.051%       1%

0.0049%     1%

2.4%          1%

0.017%       1%

1.7%          1%

0.036%       1%

1.1%          1%

0.0036%     1%

0.093%       1%

Washington

2003

2004

2002

2004	

Blaine, City of

Duvall, City of

Everett, City of

Grand Coulee, City of	

3,715

4,591

87,285

873	

2.48

2.88

2.40

2.13    	

1,498

1,594

36,369

410	

36,900

71,300

40,100

21,818	

0.0060%         1%

0.0029%         1%

0.00022%       1%

0.036%           1%	

0.033%       1%

0.016%       1%

0.0012%     1%

0.20%         1%	

0.59%         1%

0.28%         1%

0.022%       1%

3.6%          3%

Headquarters

2002

2003	

Table Rock Lake

U. Rio Grande Valley	

NA

NA

	

NA

NA	

NA

NA	

NA

NA	

Household statistics not available

Household statistics not available	

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NA	

Household statistics NA

Household statistics NA

			

			No. Grants by Regions		No. Grants by HQ	Total Grants	% of Total
Grants			% of Grants by Regions Only

Large Governments		178				0		       178		178/601 x 100 = 29.6% ≈ 30%
178/599 x 100 = 29.7% ≈ 30%

Small Governments		339				0		       339		339/601 x 100 = 56.4% ≈ 56%
339/599 x 100 = 56.6% ≈ 57%

Special Districts			82				2		         84		  82/601 x 100 = 13.6% ≈ 14%
  82/599 x 100 = 13.7% ≈ 14%

										           2		    2/601 x 100 =   0.3% ≈   0%	

Totals				599				2		       601			              99.9% ≈ 100%		         
    100% ≈ 101%

				“Income Test” ≥ 1% and 3% for Small Government Entities for
Submission of Environmental Documentation Related to:

					CE Determination		EA/FONSI			EIS/ROD

				Cost is:  ≥1%	≥3%		Cost is:  ≥1%	≥3%		Cost is:  	≥1%	≥3%

Number of Small Governments		0	0			2	0			57	22

Summary Information Annualized for Regions Only

~ 600 grants per 3-year period = ~300 grants/year		Large Governments:	~
300 grants/year x 30% = ~   90 grants annually to large governments

	3 years						Small Governments:	~ 300 grants/year x 57% = ~ 170 grants
annually to small governments

							Special Districts:		~ 300 grants/year x 14% = ~   40 grants
annually to special districts

							(Small Businesses)				(  ~  4 small business permit applicants
annually)

				

	1Certain EPA actions are exempt from the procedural requirements of
NEPA and the CEQ Regulations.  See Attachment 1.

	2The courts have determined, and CEQ has issued guidelines, that NEPA
does not apply to Federal agency actions significantly affecting the
environment of the global commons or the environment of a foreign nation
not participating with the United States and not otherwise involved in
the action.  The Executive Order is “... solely for the purpose of
establishing internal procedures for Federal agencies to consider the
significant effects of their actions on the environment outside the
[U.S.], its territories and possessions ...” [Executive 0rder 12114,
Section 3-1]

	3This may include such actions as EPA-issued permits for hazardous
waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities under section 3005 of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6925), NPDES
permits under section 402 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1342), and
prevention of significant deterioration approvals under Part C of the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7470 et seq.). 

	4Approximately 75% of EPA’s grants are under the STAG appropriations
account.  Certain line items in the STAG appropriations account are not
subject to NEPA (see Attachment 1).  Grantee actions subject to NEPA are
predominately under the STAG appropriations account (including
consideration of the Wastewater Treatment Construction Grants Program
and other actions subject to NEPA, including those under the Agency’s
Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) account).

	5North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes, NAICS
2002,  http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/naics.html, and
http://www.sba.gov/size/sizetable2002.html.

	6If an EA or EIS is to be prepared for an action subject to NEPA, the
Responsible Official and the applicant may enter into an agreement
whereby the applicant engages and pays for the services of a third-party
contractor to prepare an EA or EIS and any supporting documents.  The
Responsible Official has sole authority for approval and modification of
the statements, analyses, and conclusions of the EA or EIS and any
supporting documents.   Because EISs are generally more complex than EAs
in terms of the issues to be addressed and the associated analyses, it
has generally been EPA’s experience that grantees and permit
applicants will enter into third-party agreements with EPA for
preparation of the EIS and supporting documents.  (See Attachment 2.)

	7For grantees, there may be a financial difference in that a grantee
generally may use EPA financial assistance to prepare an EID but not to
prepare a draft EA and supporting documents; for grantees, third-party
contractor costs for preparing an EID may also be grant-eligible.  It
has been EPA’s experience that grantees contract directly for
preparation of environmental information or use in-house engineering
contractors to prepare CE and draft EA documentation, usually without
seeking cost reimbursement (see Attachment 2).  Permit applicants are
not eligible for EPA financial assistance.

	8For example, a grantee action for renovation of an existing wastewater
treatment or drinking water supply system may be categorically excluded.
 An EA may be required for a grantee action to construct a new sewage
treatment system in a small governmental jurisdiction; or to assess a
new source NPDES permit for a discharge from a concentrated animal
feeding operation for chickens, cattle, hogs or pigs.  An EIS may be
required for a grantee action to construct a new sewage treatment plant
with potential for significant impacts to wetlands, or cultural or
archaeological features; or to assess a new source NPDES permit for
discharges from an oil and gas extraction facility, or mining operation,
or a concentrated animal feeding operation with potential for
significant impacts to wetlands, or cultural or archaeological features,
or threatened or endangered species.

	9The applicant would not be required to develop, acquire, install, or
utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting,
validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining
information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and
requirements; or train personnel to be able to respond to a collection
of information.

	10Categorical exclusions are subject to notice and comment rulemaking
and, thus, public scrutiny.

	11EPA’s Peer Review Guidelines recognize the public review process
for NEPA documents.  Also, EPA’s Quality System may apply to certain
information gathering activities undertaken directly by EPA.

	12http://www.sba.gov/size/sizetable2002.html

	13http://www.sba.gov/size/sizetable2002.html

	14EPA’s Office of Water computer system report, “Special
Appropriations Act Projects and Program, Count of Grants Awarded by
Fiscal Year.”

	15EPA Headquarters also has two active grants representing 0.3% of the
total 601 grants.  Because the majority of the grant actions occur in
the Regions, the 599 regional grants are the base for this RFA/SBREFA
screening analysis.

	16http://www.census.gov/.  Borough and parish jurisdictions are
“county” designations in certain states.

	17As stated in Section 2(e) and footnote 4, most grants issued by EPA
are awarded to governmental jurisdictions for special projects
identified in the STAG account authorized by Congress through the
Agency’s annual Appropriations Act.  See Section 3(b) for the
definition of small government used in this screening analysis.

	18See further discussion in Section 7 regarding applicant financial
hardship, including inability to provide the requested environmental
information.

	19Under appropriate grant conditions, grantees generally may use EPA
financial assistance to prepare an EID but not to prepare a draft EA and
supporting documents.  Third-party contract costs for an EID may also be
grant-eligible.  For grantee contractor costs to be reimbursable,
grantees must meet certain contractor requirements, including
procurement criteria.

	20It has been EPA’s experience that applicants often use in-house
engineering contractors for preparing CE- and EA-related environmental
documents usually without seeking cost reimbursement.

	21EPA believes the calculations for this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis
are representative of most projects.  EPA’s experience with a limited
number of EISs has included one-time costs ranging from nominal for
information submitted by letter to supplement an existing oil and gas
extraction EIS to over a million dollars for new EISs for a mining
project and an oil and gas extraction project with multiple complex
issues.  (See Attachment 2.)

	22One-time capital/start-up costs usually include any produced physical
good needed to provide the necessary information.  Start-up capital must
be purchased for the specific purpose of satisfying EPA's reporting or
recordkeeping requirements.  Capital goods include computers, machinery,
or equipment.  Start-up capital costs are usually incurred at the
beginning of an information collection period and are usually incurred
only once.

	23EPA’s NEPA review for permit renewals is generally based on
information submitted by the applicant in the permit renewal application
and other information generally available to EPA.  If the permit
parameters have changed, this would be considered a new, one-time action
for purposes of the NEPA review process.

	24In the case of dairy operations, it is assumed one permit would be
issued for the entire operation; e.g., any discharges from the milk
production as well as discharges from the CAFO area.  However, for
purposes of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, the dairy operators are
used in the evaluation of the economic impacts for dairy operations and
again for CAFOs for purposes of demonstrating the full range of business
operations, including small businesses, that may be involved in the
NPDES permit process.

	25Annual revenues/sales information is not available for the two small
business seafood processors.  For purposes of this RFA/SBREFA screening
analysis, it is assumed their annual revenue/sales would be no more than
$750,000.

	26Based on analysis of grant applicants in previous years (see Section
6), EPA anticipates that of approximately 300 annual grantees, about 90
will be large governments, about 170 small governments, and about 40
special districts.  For a total of approximately 312 annual projects,
the total estimated annual number of small entities is about 174.

	27“Not classified” generally means the project type the monies were
appropriated for has not yet been identified.  The project may be a new
type or may be incremental funding for a previously funded project.  For
purposes of this RFA/SBREFA screening analysis, EPA assumed these monies
were appropriated for a new project type in order to include more
projects and thus more governmental entities, including the possibility
of small governments, in this screening analysis.

	28Attachment 3 lists total population and Attachment 4 lists household
population.  These figures are not the same because the total population
includes all who live in the census area while household population
excludes “quarters populations” (e.g., those in institutions
(incarcerated, mental institutions, nursing homes) and non-institutional
populations (college dorms, military barracks, group homes, missions and
shelters)).

	29Applicants would normally be requested to demonstrate financial
hardship, including inability to provide the requested environmental
information.  If so demonstrated, then EPA would undertake the
environmental review necessary for the grant or permit action.

	30Under appropriate grant conditions, grantees generally may use EPA
financial assistance to prepare an EID but not to prepare a draft EA and
supporting documents.  Third-party contractor costs for an EID may also
be grant-eligible.  For grantee contractor costs to be reimbursable,
grantees must meet certain contractor requirements, including
procurement criteria.

	31As discussed in Section 2(d) of this screening analysis, EPA is
collecting information from certain applicants as part of the process of
complying with either NEPA or Executive Order 12114.  EPA’s Executive
Order 12114 procedures further the purpose of NEPA and provide that EPA
may be guided by these procedures to the extent they are applicable. 
Therefore, when EPA conducts an environmental assessment pursuant to its
Executive Order 12114 procedures, the Agency generally follows its NEPA
procedures.  For purposes of this analysis, applicant-proposed actions
subject to either NEPA or Executive Order 12114 (and that are not
addressed in other EPA programs), are addressed through the NEPA
assessment process.

	32Certain EPA actions are exempt from NEPA as discussed in Attachment
1.

	33EPA’s Office of Water SAAPP computer system report, “Special
Appropriations Act Projects and Program, Count of Grants Awarded, by
Fiscal Year.”

	34Because this number is less than 1% of the total estimated annual
number of STAG projects (e.g., 5 out of 300), these 5 projects are not
subtracted from the 300 total in the applicant cost calculations.

  PAGE   v 

  PAGE   52 

  PAGE   54 

  PAGE   61 

  PAGE   103 

  PAGE   130