Clean Watersheds Needs
Survey 2000
Report to Congress
-------
t
4.
Cover photos
1. Photo by Sarah Minor, courtesy of USDA NRCS
2. Photo by Lynn Belts, courtesy of USDA NRCS
3. Photo courtesy of USGS
4. Photo by Al Goodman, Courtesy of USEPA OWM
5. Photo by Tim McCabe, courtesy of USDA NRCS
6. Photo courtesy of USGS
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs
Survey 2000
Report to Congress
August 2003
A
EPA-832-R-03-001
-------
-------
Contents
Acronyms ix
CWNS Terminology xi
Executive Summary xiii
Chapter 1: Introduction 1-1
What is the purpose of the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress? 1-1
Why did EPA change the name of the survey to the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey? 1-1
What is the scope of the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000? 1-1
How was the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 conducted? 1-4
What are the specific objectives of the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000? 1-5
What data are presented in this report to Congress? 1-5
Does EPA report documented and modeled needs in the Clean Watersheds Needs
Survey 2000? 1-6
How does the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 facilitate a watershed approach to
needs accounting? 1-6
What is the history of the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey and what is its relationship to the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund? 1-7
Chapter 2: Methods for Documenting Needs 2-1
What is the definition of a need? 2-1
What were the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 needs categories? 2-1
What time period was covered? 2-2
What are documented needs? 2-2
What were the documentation requirements? 2-3
What types of documentation were accepted? 2-3
What costs were considered eligible? 2-4
-------
11 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
What is the difference between documented needs and Separate State Estimates? 2-4
How did documentation requirements differ for small communities? 2-4
Chapter 3: Key Results 3-1
What are the total needs for the Nation? 3-1
What are the recent trends in the Nation's municipal wastewater treatment
infrastructure needs? 3-3
How have the wastewater treatment and collection system needs changed? 3-5
What are the needs for the correction of combined sewer overflows? 3-7
What are the needs for municipal storm water management programs? 3-8
What are the documented needs for nonpoint source pollution control? 3-10
What are the needs for urban and rural communities? 3-12
What are the needs for small communities? 3-13
What are the Separate State Estimates? 3-15
How does the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey compare with other needs initiatives? 3-16
Chapter 4: Sanitary Sewer Overflows 4-1
What are sanitary sewer overflows and why are they important? 4-1
What causes sanitary sewer overflows and how can they be reduced or prevented? 4-1
Is it possible that sanitary sewer overflows needs are already included in the documented
needs for Categories I, II, III, and IV? 4-1
Why did EPA use a model to develop sanitary sewer overflows needs estimates for this report? 4-2
What are the CWNS 2000 modeled needs estimates for sanitary sewer overflows? 4-2
What are the limitations of the modeled sanitary sewer overflow estimates? 4-3
Chapter 5: Watershed-Based Needs Accounting 5-1
How can watershed-based needs accounting enhance water quality-based planning and
priority setting? 5-1
How do coastal needs differ from inland needs? 5-2
Case Study: Long Island Sound drainage basin 5-6
What are some other benefits of taking a watershed approach to needs accounting? 5-8
Chapter 6: Concluding Remarks 6-1
-------
Contents
Glossary Glossary-!
Bibliography Bibliography-1
Appendix A - Summary of Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000
Cost Estimates A-1
Appendix B - Summary of 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey
Cost Estimates B-1
Appendix C - Summary of Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000
Technical Information C-1
Appendix D - Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Modeled Estimate D-1
Appendix E - Storm Water Management Program Modeled Estimates E-1
Appendix F - Summary of Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Cost
Estimates by Watershed F-1
Appendix G - Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Needs Categories G-1
Appendix H - List of Acceptable Documentation Types H-1
Appendix I - Summary of Tribal Cost Estimates and Technical Data 1-1
-------
IV Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Figures
ES-1 CWNS 2000 total documented needs xv
ES-2 Comparison of previously documented wastewater treatment needs and newly identified
wastewater treatment needs xv
ES-3 Total documented needs for NFS pollution control xvii
ES-4 Total modeled needs for NFS pollution control xvii
3-1 CWNS 2000 total documented needs 3-2
3-2 Geographic distribution of total documented needs 3-2
3-3 Geographic distribution of combined sewer overflow correction (Category V) needs 3-9
3-4 Geographic distribution of storm water management program (Category VI) needs 3-10
3-5 Geographic distribution of nonpoint source pollution control (Category VII-A through
VII-K) needs 3-11
3-6 Geographic distribution of small community needs 3-13
3-7 Small versus large community comparison for documented needs and technical
information from projected facilities, if these needs are met 3-14
3-8 Percentage of projected facilities, if all documented needs are met, by population range,
and their documented needs 3-15
4-1 State-level needs estimate for one wet weather SSO per collection system in 5 years 4-2
5-1 Geographic distribution of total documented needs by 4-digit watershed 5-2
5-2 Watersheds in United States classified as coastal by NOAA 5-3
5-3 Total documented needs in coastal and inland watersheds 5-4
5-4 Percentage of population receiving various forms of wastewater treatment 5-4
5-5 Geographic distribution of watersheds classified by population receiving greater than
secondary treatment 5-5
5-6 Geographic distribution of watersheds classified by present design capacity for treatment
facilities in operation in 2000 5-6
5-7 Long Island Sound watersheds 5-6
5-8 Location of Quinnipiac River watershed, facility locations, and watershed's needs 5-7
5-9 Total documented needs in Long Island Sound watersheds 5-8
Appendix D: Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Modeled Estimate
D-l Total modeled needs for NPS pollution control D-4
-------
Contents
Tables
ES-1 Total Documented Needs Reported in the CWNS 2000 xiv
ES-2 Comparison of the Number of Treatment Facilities and Level of Treatment in 1996 Clean
Water Needs Survey and CWNS 2000 xix
1-1 Data Elements in the CWNS 2000 1-3
2-1 CWNS 2000 Needs Categories 2-1
2-2 A Comparison of the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey and CWNS 2000 NFS Pollution
Control Needs Categories 2-2
3-1 Total Documented Needs Reported in the CWNS 2000 3-1
3-2 Improvements in Treatment Level of the Nation's Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Facilities 3-4
3-3 Projected Infrastructure Improvements from if All CWNS 2000 Needs Are Met 3-4
3-4 Comparison of Total Needs for the 1992 Needs Survey, 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey,
and CWNS 2000 3-6
3-5 Wastewater Treatment (Category I and II) Needs Entered During the CWNS 2000 3-7
3-6 NPS Pollution Control Needs Reported for CWNS 2000 3-12
4-1 State Level Estimates for Capital Investments to Restrict SSOs to 1 Wet Weather
Overflow per System in 5 Years 4-3
5-1 Level of Wastewater Treatment for Facilities Draining to Long Island Sound 5-8
Appendix A: Summary of Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Cost Estimates
A-l CWNS 2000 Total Needs A-2
A-2 CWNS 2000 Total Needs for NPS Pollution Control Projects A-4
A-3 CWNS 2000 Comparison of Small Community Facilities' Needs and Total Needs A-6
A-4 CWNS 2000 Comparison of Small Community Facilities' Needs and Total Needs: Facilities
Serving Populations of 3,500 to 10,000 People A-8
A-5 CWNS 2000 Comparison of Small Community Facilities' Needs and Total Needs: Facilities
Serving Populations of 1,000 to 3,500 People A-10
A-6 CWNS 2000 Comparison of Small Community Facilities' Needs and Total Needs: Facilities
Serving Populations of Fewer Than 1,000 People A-12
A-7 CWNS 2000 Total Small Community Needs A-14
A-8 CWNS 2000 Total Small Community Needs: Facilities Serving Populations of 3,500
to 10,000 People A-16
A-9 CWNS 2000 Total Small Community Needs: Facilities Serving Populations of 1,000
to 3,500 People A-18
-------
VI Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Tables (continued)
A-10 CWNS 2000 Total Small Community Needs: Facilities Serving Populations of Fewer
Than 1,000 People A-20
A-ll CWNS 2000 Total Separate State Estimates A-22
A-12 CWNS 2000 Total Separate State Estimates for NPS Pollution Control Projects A-24
A-13 CWNS 2000 Total Separate State Estimates for Small Community Facilities A-26
Appendix B: Summary of 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey Cost Estimates
B-l 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey Total Documented Needs B-2
B-2 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey Separate State Estimates B-4
Appendix C: Summary of Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Technical Information
C-l Number of Operational Treatment Facilities and Collection Systems in 2000 C-2
C-2 Number of Operational Treatment Facilities and Collection Systems If All Documented
Needs Are Met C-3
C-3 Number of Treatment Facilities by Flow Range C-4
C-4 Number of Treatment Facilities by Level of Treatment C-5
C-5 Number of Facilities With CSO Correction Needs and Total CSO Correction Needs: 1996
and 2000 C-6
C-6 Number of Facilities With MS4 Storm Water Needs and Total MS4 Needs C-8
C-7 Number of Treatment Facilities and Population Served per State by Level of Treatment
for Year 2000 C-10
C-8 Number of Treatment Facilities and Population Served per State by Level of Treatment
If All Documented Needs Are Met C-12
C-9 Technical Data and Costs for Facilities With Less-Than-Secondary Effluent Levels
That Do Not Have 301(h) Waivers C-14
Appendix D: Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Modeled Estimate
D-l Estimated CWSRF-Eligible Needs for Selected NPS Categories D-3
D-2 BMPs Used as Basis for Cost Estimates D-6
Appendix E: Storm Water Management Program Modeled Estimates
E-l CWNS 2000 Modeled Estimates for Storm Water Management Programs E-4
Appendix F: Summary of Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Cost Estimates by
Watershed
F-l CWNS 2000 Total Needs by Watershed F-2
-------
Contents Vll
Tables (continued)
Appendix G: Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Needs Categories
G-l CWNS 2000 Needs Categories G-2
Appendix H: List of Acceptable Documentation Types
H-l CWNS 2000 List of Acceptable Documentation Types H-2
Appendix I: Summary of Tribal Cost Estimates and Technical Data
1-1 CWNS 2000 Summary of Number of Tribal Facilities and Tribal Needs 1-2
1-2 CWNS 2000 Total Needs 1-3
1-3 CWNS 2000 Number of Tribal Operational Treatment Facilities and Collection
Systems in 2000 1-4
1-4 CWNS 2000 Number of Tribal Operational Treatment Facilities and Collection Systems
If All Documented Needs Are Met 1-4
1-5 CWNS 2000 Number of Tribal Treatment Facilities by Flow Range 1-5
1-6 CWNS 2000 Number of Tribal Treatment Facilities by Level of Treatment 1-6
-------
Acronyms
IX
A/F authority/facility number
BASINS Better Assessment Science Integrating
Point and Nonpoint Sources
BMP best management practice
BOD biochemical oxygen demand
CAFO concentrated animal feeding operation
CCMP Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan
CMOM capacity assurance, management,
operation and maintenance
CSO combined sewer overflow
CWA Clean Water Act
CWN S Clean Watersheds Needs Survey
CWSRF Clean Water State Revolving Fund
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
GIS geographic information system
IMS Indian Health Service
I/I infiltration and inflow
LISS Long Island Sound Study
LTCP [Combined Sewer Overflow] Long-Term
Control Plan
MCP Municipal Compliance Plan
mgd million gallons per day
MS4 municipal separate storm sewer system
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
NPS nonpoint source
O&M operation and maintenance
PCB polychlorinated biphenyl
PO R Point of Record
POTW publicly owned treatment works
SCADA supervisory control and data acquisition
SSE Separate State Estimate
SSES Sewer System Evaluation Survey
SSO sanitary sewer overflow
STORM Storage, Treatment, Overflow, Runoff
Model
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
Wl N Water Infrastructure Network
-------
XI
CWNS Terminology
CWNS: The Clean Watersheds Needs Survey. In this
report, CWNS refers to the 2000 survey.
CWNS needs categories: The nine categories used
in the CWNS 2000 to describe and report the need for
water pollution control projects.
CWNS database: The database by which States
enter and update their needs data. The newly
modernized CWNS database allows States to enter
detailed information about each facility, including
geographic coordinates, population, flow discharge
locations, watershed boundaries, and funding origins.
combined sewer overflow (CSO) correction:
Any measure taken to prevent or control combined
sewer overflows, which are overflows from sewer
systems that convey both domestic sanitary wastewater
and storm water. CSO corrections can be made to
storage, treatment, and/or conveyance facilities.
documented needs: Needs that have met the
CWNS 2000 documentation requirement and were
accepted by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Only documented needs are used to report the total
needs in this report.
facility: A project and location involved in water
quality management, such as a wastewater treatment
plant or sewer system, a municipal separate storm sewer
system, or a nonpoint source (NFS) pollution control
project. Although the term facility is typically thought
of as a wastewater treatment facility or some other
structure, for NFS pollution control it refers to a place
or the location of the project. Data in the CWNS 2000
were collected and organized by facility for all types of
water pollution control.
modeled need: Estimate or need developed
using a model (e.g., Sanitary Sewer Overflow model)
to compensate for needs categories where limited
information was available.
need: A water quality or public health problem and
an associated abatement cost that is eligible for funding
under the Clean Water State Revolving Fund.
nonpoint source pollution control projects:
Activities designed to prevent or reduce water pollution
from sources that are not readily identifiable (i.e.,
pollution that is not from a pipe or sewer). In the
CWNS 2000 these projects are mainly activities
commonly referred to as best management practices
(BMPs).
separate state estimate (SSE): Needs that have
not met the CWNS 2000 documentation requirements
described in Chapter 2.
storm water management programs: Programs
required by the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit program for
discharges from municipal separate storm sewer
systems. These programs generally include projects
and/or source control measures (structural and
nonstructural) that (1) reduce pollutants in runoff (from
commercial and residential areas) discharged from
storm sewers, (2) detect and remove illicit discharges
and improper disposal into storm sewers, (3) prevent or
reduce pollutants in runoff from municipally operated
-------
Xll Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
industrial facilities that discharge to municipal control storm water pollution from diffuse sources that
separate storm sewers, and (4) reduce pollutants in will ultimately be discharged via a municipal separate
construction site runoff discharged to municipal storm sewer can be considered part of a storm water
separate storm sewers. In addition, any activities that management program.
-------
Executive Summary
Xlll
Executive Summary
This report, the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000
Report to Congress, presents the results of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) survey of
water quality programs and projects eligible for funding
under the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF).
EPA prepared this report to meet the requirements
set forth in section 516 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Because of water quality problems associated with
nonpoint source (NFS) pollution, EPA has elected to
include NFS pollution control projects as well.
The Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2000 is
a collaborative effort between 48 States and the District
of Columbia, and EPA. States entered data into the
CWNS database over a 21-month period to be evaluated
and analyzed by EPA. The results of the data entry are
presented in this report.
The name of the survey was recently changed from the
Clean Water Needs Survey to the Clean Watersheds
Needs Survey to recognize the increasing number of
water pollution control activities, such as developing
Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) and setting
certain Safe Drinking Water Act objectives, that are
managed on a watershed basis. Among other benefits,
identifying needs by watershed promotes water
pollution control strategies that optimize water quality
investments in a watershed.
This report presents the capital costs for publicly
owned municipal wastewater collection and treatment,
combined sewer overflow (CSO) correction, municipal
storm water management, and NFS pollution control.
This report presents the cost data in the CWNS
database as "needs." A need is a water quality or public
health problem and an associated abatement cost that
is eligible for funding under the CWSRF. The needs
must have existed as of January 1, 2000, to be included
in the CWNS 2000. In addition, technical data, such
as population, flow, and effluent, are summarized and
presented in this report.
The CWNS 2000 Report to Congress presents the
total needs estimates in two ways. The first method
is based entirely on documented needs. These
documented needs are entered by a State and validated
by appropriate documentation. This is the first time,
since the beginning of the CWNS, that the report to
Congress presents only the documented total need
for the Nation. In past surveys, EPA used a second
method of determining needs estimates. That method
modeled needs data to supplement the survey results.
For this report EPA believes that the data entered into
the CWNS adequately represent the Nation's needs for
wastewater treatment and collection.
For diffuse sources of pollution (such as nonpoint sources,
sanitary sewer overflows [SSOs], and municipal storm
water), however, data limitations preclude complete
reliance at this time on a documented needs approach.
Therefore, this report includes a modeled national needs
estimate for these diffuse sources. (See Chapter 4 and
Appendices D and E for details.) EPA expects that during
the next decade, as improved information is derived in
the course of developing TMDLs and other watershed
plans, the States' and EPA's ability to document needs for
all source categories will improve. EPA expects, therefore,
that its estimates of documented needs will continue to
be improved, ultimately enabling complete replacement
of the modeled needs estimates by documented needs.
-------
XIV
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Objectives
Improved data quality and integrity was a primary
objective that both EPA and the States strove to meet
when documenting all needs in the CWNS 2000;
however, collecting documentation and needs data
for NFS pollution control, SSOs, CSOs, and storm
water was a particular focus for this survey. Also, in
keeping with the objective of improving data quality,
States were required to redocument certain needs
remaining from previous surveys. The CWNS National
Workgroup initiated this effort with the 1996 Clean
Water Needs Survey, and it proved to be successful
in eliminating needs in the database that had already
been met. Another important objective was the
requirement that every facility in the CWNS 2000
include geographic information. This objective was
important for helping States and EPA use data in the
CWNS 2000 database for other initiatives beyond this
report to Congress.
Results
The total CWSRF-eligible needs for the Nation as
of January 1, 2000, are $181.2 billion. These needs
are summarized in Table ES-1 and Figure ES-1. As
noted earlier, all of the needs shown in Table ES-1 are
documented needs. This is a key difference between the
CWNS 2000 and the previous surveys, which combined
the documented needs with modeled estimates. The
CWNS 2000 needs reflect an increase of $26.6 billion
(17.2 percent) from the previous survey. The total needs
reported ($181.2 billion) represent a simple summation
of expenditures that may be made at different points
in time over a multiyear planning horizon. No attempt
has been made to predict the time pattern of these
expenditures or to discount them to arrive at a present
value sum. The total needs are presented for wastewater
treatment, collection, and conveyance; CSO correction;
storm water management programs; and NFS pollution
control. A summary of the needs for each of these
categories follows.
Wastewater Treatment, Collection, and Conveyance.
The needs for wastewater treatment (Categories I
and II) are $57.2 billion, or 31.6 percent of the total
Table ES-1 . Total Documented Needs Reported in the
CWNS 2000 (January 2000 dollars
in billions)
j r . Total
Needs Category ^^
I Secondary wastewater treatment 36.8
II Advanced wastewater treatment 20.4
III-A Infiltration/inflow correction 8.2
III-B Sewer replacement/rehabilitation 16.8
IV-A New collector sewers and appurtenances 14.3
IV-B New interceptor sewers and appurtenances 14.8
V Combined sewer overflow correction 50.6
VI Storm water management programs 5.5
VII Nonpoint source pollution control 13.8
Grand Total (Categories I-VII) 181.2
Total treatment (Categories I and II only) 57.2
Total collection and conveyance
(Categories III and IV only) 54_j
Total wastewater and collection systems
(Categories I-V only) 161.9
Total Categories I-VI only 167.4
Notes:
1) NFS control modeled needs are $21.5 billion in January 2000 dollars
(Appendix D).
2) See Appendix A, Tables A-l and A-2, for needs by category and State.
Needs estimates presented in Table ES-1 might vary slightly from those in
the appendices because of rounding.
needs. Eligible wastewater treatment needs include the
capital costs of replacement, rehabilitation, expansion,
upgrade, or process improvement of treatment plants;
construction of new treatment plants; and construction,
replacement, or rehabilitation of individual on-site
systems and decentralized systems. Of the $57.2 billion
wastewater treatment needs in the CWNS 2000 data
collection effort, only $32.7 billion are new wastewater
treatment needs identified for the first time during the
CWNS 2000 data collection period. Figure ES-2 shows
how the new and previously identified wastewater
treatment needs are proposed to be expended in
infrastructure improvements and in capital renewal.
Needs for wastewater collection and conveyance
(Categories III and IV) account for $54.1 billion,
or 29.9 percent of the total needs. Wastewater
collection and conveyance needs include capital
-------
Executive Summary
XV
Categories I and II:
Wastewater Treatment Systems
$57.26,31.6%
Category VII:
Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control
$13.88,7.6%
Category VI:
Storm Water Management
Programs
$5.SB,3.0%
Category V:
Combined Sewer Overflow
Correction
$50.68,27.9%
Categories III and IV:
Wastewater Collection
and Conveyance
$54.18,29.9%
Figure ES-1. CWNS 2000 total documented needs (January 2000 dollars). This figure shows only documented needs. Note
that NFS pollution control modeled needs are $21.5 billion in January 2000 dollars (Appendix D).
Previously
Documented
Wostewoter
Treatment
Needs
$24.58
Newly
Identified
Wastewater
Treatment
Needs
$32.78
Infrastructure Improvements
$11.88
Capital Renewal
$10.68
Combination
$10.38
Figure ES-2. Comparison of previously documented wastewater treatment needs (from the 1996 and 2000 survey
databases) and newly identifed wastewater treatment needs (only in CWNS 2000 database)
(January 2000 dollars).
-------
XVI
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
costs for replacement, rehabilitation, or expansion of
existing collection systems, as well as construction
of new collection systems. These needs represent an
$18.8 billion (533 percent) increase from the previous
survey. The $4.5 billion increase for infiltration/inflow
(I/I) correction (Category III-A) and $9.1 billion
increase for sewer replacement and rehabilitation
(Category III-B) since the previous survey suggest
that communities are beginning to plan for
substantial capital renewal projects that indicate aging
infrastructure.
CSO Correction. The estimated cost to control CSOs
is $50.6 billion, an increase of $1.0 billion from the
amount shown in the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey.
The $50.6 billion estimate is primarily based on the
level of control presented under the "Presumption
Approach" in the 1994 CSO Control Policy. That
level of control is based on capturing 85 percent of the
flows that enter the combined sewer system during
wet weather events and providing those flows with
the equivalent of primary clarification, solids and
floatables disposal, and disinfection of the effluent.
Storm Water Management Programs. Nineteen States
and the District of Columbia reported $5.5 billion
(3 percent of total needs) in documented storm water
management program needs (Category VI). Despite
the increased availability of storm water management
program information, not all States submitted storm
water management program needs. As a result, the
storm water control needs presented in this report
underestimate the Nation's storm water management
program needs. These needs include the capital costs
for developing and implementing municipal storm
water management programs to meet the requirements
of Phases I and II of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) storm water regulations.
Because the storm water Phase II regulations were
finalized on December 8,1999, and did not take effect
until March 2003, municipalities with Phase II needs
identified as of January 1, 2000, were allowed to have
their projected needs entered into the CWNS 2000
database.
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control. The needs eligible
for inclusion in Category VII include those associated
with implementing NFS management programs
under section 319 of the CWA, as well as developing
and implementing Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plans (CCMPs) for estuaries under
section 320 of the CWA.
Thirty-two States and the District of Columbia
documented needs totaling $13.8 billion (7.6 percent of
total needs) for NFS pollution control (Category VII).
Urban and hydromodification NFS pollution control
needs (Categories VII-D and VII-K) account for the
largest portion of the total NFS pollution control needs
(Figure ES-3).
Unable to identify all sources of NFS pollution, many
States have not developed or identified documentation
for CWNS 2000 that represents all of their NFS needs.
For example, only 15 States documented needs for
cropland or animal agriculture despite the fact that
agriculture constitutes the most significant source
of NFS pollution in the United States according to
State 305(b) reports. Only 16 States estimated costs for
hydromodification (the second most reported source
of impairment to rivers and streams in State 305(b)
reports). Only 2 States estimated costs for silviculture
(forestry), and only 25 States estimated costs for urban
sources.
EPA has provided a separate modeled estimate for some
categories of NFS needs. Certain subcategories of NFS
needs (Ground Water, Brownfields, Storage Tanks,
and Sanitary Landfills) were not modeled because
of a lack of data. For the categories modeled, the full
array of best management practices and behavioral
changes were not accounted for because of data and
time restraints. The modeled NFS needs are shown
in Figure ES-4 and are discussed more thoroughly in
Appendix D.
Neither the documented estimate nor the modeled
estimate gives a complete picture of NFS needs. It
is inappropriate to add the modeled needs to the
-------
Executive Summary
XV11
VII-D:
Urban
S4.4B,31.7%
VII-C:
Silviculture
S0.04B,0.3%
VII-B:
Agriculture (Animals)
$0.76,4.7%
VII-A:
Agriculture (Cropland)
$0.56,3.5%
VII-E:
Ground Water Protection
(Unknown Source)
$0.96,6.3%
Marinas
$0.0026,0.01%
VII-G:
Resource Extraction
$0.046,0.3%
VII-H:
Brownfields
$0.46,2.6%
VIM:
Storage Tanks
$1.06,7.4%
VII-K:
Hydromodification
$4.16,29.5%
VII-J:
Sanitary Landfills
$1.86,13.3%
Figure ES-3. Total documented needs for NFS pollution control (Category VII) (January 2000 dollars). Note: This figure
shows only documented needs. The NFS pollution control modeled needs (Figure ES-4) are $21.5 billion in
January 2000 dollars (Appendix D).
VII-A:
Agriculture (Cropland)
$4.446,20.6%
VII-K:
Hydromodification
$0.4176,1.9%
VII-G:
Resource Extraction
$5.406,25.1%
VII-6:
Agriculture (Animals)
$1.516,7.0%
VII-C:
Silviculture
$0.0256,0.1%
VII-F:
Marinas
$0.00276,0.01%
VII-D:
Urban
$9.716,45.1%
Figure ES-4. Total modeled needs for NFS pollution control (January 2000 dollars). Note: CWNS 2000 NFS Need
Categories VII-E, H, I, and J were not modeled.
-------
XV111
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
documented needs estimate because of the overlap
between the two.
As State documentation improves, eventually the
documented estimate approach will provide an assess-
ment that allows EPA to thoroughly document all NFS
needs in the United States and to do so on a watershed
basis. EPA includes only the documented NFS needs
in its official needs estimates provided to Congress
in keeping with its long-standing policy of relying on
documented needs wherever possible.
Small Community Needs. In addition to the needs
documented in the CWNS 2000 for established need
categories, the survey also had the ability to estimate
the needs for small communities. Small communities,
defined as communities with a population of fewer
than 10,000 people and an average daily wastewater
flow of less than 1 million gallons, have documented
needs of approximately $16 billion, representing
about 10 percent of the $161.9 billion in documented
wastewater treatment and collection system needs
for the country. For small communities, the needs
for wastewater treatment (Categories I and II) are
$4.8 billion. Collection and conveyance needs
(Categories III and IV) are $9.4 billion, and CSO
correction needs (Category V) are $1.9 billion.
Improvements in Wastewater Infrastructure Since
the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey. Table ES-2
summarizes the increase in the number of facilities and
the level of treatment provided since the 1996 Clean
Water Needs Survey.
Other Needs Initiatives
WIN Report and Gap Analysis. Determining
estimated costs for the necessary investment in the
Nation's clean water infrastructure is an activity that
has recently been undertaken elsewhere within EPA's
Office of Water, as well as by associations of water and
wastewater service providers, local governments and
their ratepayers, and other interested parties. Two such
assessments are the Water Infrastructure Network
(WIN) Report and EPA's Clean Water and Drinking
Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis. The approaches used
in the WIN Report and the Gap Analysis are similar in
how they estimated the Nation's infrastructure. These
reports, however, are not directly comparable to the
CWNS 2000.
Both the WIN Report and Gap Analysis started with
numbers from the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey and
subtracted the amounts for Categories III and IV. The
then-current estimate for SSO correction ($81.9 billion)
was added. Also added were estimated needs for
renewal and replacement of existing infrastructure
based on a number of different assumptions. The
estimates for renewal and replacement were not
supported by the type of documentation EPA requires
for CWNS estimates. The wastewater need reported
by the WIN is $386 billion in 2001 dollars, which is
equivalent to $377 billion in January 2000 dollars.
The September 2002 EPA Gap Analysis resulted in a
wastewater need estimate ranging from $331 billion
to $450 billion with a midpoint value of $388 billion
($379 billion in January 2000 dollars).
Sanitary Sewer Overflows. SSOs can be caused by many
factors, including peak flows that exceed system capacity;
blockages; structural, mechanical, or electrical failure;
and third-party actions or activities. In this report
and in previous reports to Congress, some portion of
the documented needs for I/I correction (Category
III-A), sewer replacement/rehabilitation (Category
III-B), new relief sewers (included in Category IV-B),
and increased treatment plant capacity (Categories I
and II) can be attributed to SSO correction. During
the CWNS 2000,27 States identified 775 facilities with
SSO problems. EPA used a model to estimate the capital
costs associated with wet weather SSO correction. The
model is based on reducing wet weather overflows to
no more than one in a collection system every 5 years.
Data (e.g., population, flow) for the model were obtained
from the CWNS 2000 database. The modeled estimate
is $88.5 billion. The modeled estimate should not be
added to the CWNS 2000 documented needs because
the needs for Categories I, II, III, and IV might already
include costs to address SSOs.
-------
Executive Summary
XIX
Table ES-2. Comparison of the Number of Treatment Facilities and Level of Treatment in 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey
and CWNS 2000.
Type of Facility
Treatment facilities
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey
CWNS 2000
Less than secondary and partial treatment8
176
269
Secondary
9,3
9,156
Greater than secondary or no discharge
6,460
6,830
Total
16,024
16,255
Design capacity (mgd)
42,225
45,058
Population served by centralized systems (millions)
189.7
207.8
Total population served by centralized systems receiving secondary treatment
or better*1 (millions)
172.5
201.4
Population served by centralized systems receiving secondary treatment or
better*1 as percent of population receiving treatment (percent)
90.9%
96.9%
Number of collection systems
20,670
21,107
1 Flow goes to another facility for further treatment. This designation was not made in the 1996 survey. In that survey, these facilities were counted under their
actual treatment level.
' Includes population from treatment plants with no discharge to surface waters.
Future Trends in Water Pollution
Control
Program Planning and Evaluation. EPA encourages
States to target projects that are necessary to ensure
compliance with the requirements of the CWA. EPA also
promotes State use of enhanced planning and integrated
targeting tools that include NFS and estuary projects
along with wastewater treatment and collection system
projects. The objective of these and other ongoing efforts
is to manage CWSRF resources and other funds to
more efficiently and effectively address State-identified
high-priority problems in the watersheds of the United
States. Toward this goal, the CWNS database helps
States manage their data, create reports, and download
the data into geographic information systems to create
maps and analyze data. EPA encourages States to use
the CWNS database as a system to manage information
for planning and evaluation in addition to inputting
data for CWNS reports to Congress.
Watershed Management. The needs in the CWNS
are presented on a State-by-State basis, reflecting
the responsibility that States have in achieving water
quality standards and other CWA goals. Recently,
however, substantial emphasis has been placed on
using the watershed approach to address the water
quality goals of the CWA more holistically. This is
particularly the case as States continue to develop
TMDLs for impaired waters that must integrate
point and nonpoint source pollutant loading controls.
Rather than managing sources of pollution within
political boundaries or from a single type of discharge,
watershed management provides a more comprehensive
perspective for both analysis and efficient use of
resources. EPA and the States have made a concerted
effort in the CWNS 2000 to gather information on
a watershed basis, which is consistent with EPA's
watershed management approach. In Chapter 5 of
this report, national watershed analyses and a case
study from the Long Island Sound are presented to
illustrate the potential of the CWNS to organize needs
information by watershed.
Infrastructure Improvements versus Capital
Renewal. Since the early 1970s, EPA has documented
significant improvements in the treatment of
municipal wastewater. It is expected that in the future
municipalities will need to focus more on capital
renewal (rehabilitation and replacement) of existing
infrastructure than on infrastructure improvements
measured by increased population served and improved
levels of treatment. This is a reasonable progression
-------
XX
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
because much of the Nation's infrastructure has
reached, or soon will reach, the end of its design life.
CSO and SSO Correction. The Nation has made
progress toward planning for CSO and SSO correction.
For this survey, some States used Long-Term Control
Plans (LTCPs) to document their expected capital
expenditures for CSO correction. EPA anticipates
that more LTCPs will be completed before the next
survey, and as a result the quality of documented CSO
correction needs will be greatly improved.
In the 1996 survey EPA recognized that SSOs
occur throughout the United States and initiated
work to address SSO costs in coordination with
the SSO Federal Advisory Committee and other
EPA workgroups. The significant increase in I/I
correction (Category III-A) and sewer replacement
and rehabilitation (Category III-B) needs also
demonstrates that local agencies are planning for
SSO correction. Because of the disparity between the
modeled SSO costs described in this report and the
categories of needs that are characteristic of SSO needs,
EPA anticipates that more SSO needs will also be
documented in the next survey.
Storm Water Management Programs and NPS
Pollution Controls. Only a limited number of States
were able to document storm water management
program and NPS pollution control needs. The
reported needs underestimate the true national needs;
however, EPA anticipates that more States will be able
to document these needs in the next survey and will
work with States to remove the barriers that might have
prevented some States from including appropriate data
for these two categories in the CWNS 2000.
Individual On-site Systems. Information in the
CWNS database forecasts that 1,687 new treatment
facilities are needed. Of these, 634 would serve small
communities with fewer than 1,000 people. Another
209 facilities would serve 1,000 to 10,000 people
in communities where individual on-site systems
are to be abandoned. EPA expects that the actual
number of new conventional wastewater collection
and treatment systems constructed will drop as
more planning authorities recognize that properly
designed, constructed, and operated individual on-site
and decentralized systems are an appropriate and
permanent solution, rather than an interim solution, to
water pollution and public health problems.
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Chapter 1
Introduction
What is the purpose of the Clean
Watersheds Needs Survey 2000
Report to Congress?
The United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Office of Water, conducted the Clean
Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2000 and prepared
the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to
Congress, hereinafter referred to as "this report," to
meet the requirements set forth in the Clean Water
Act (CWA). Section 516 of the CWA requires reports
to Congress detailing State and national estimates and
comprehensive studies on costs for compliance with the
CWA.1 This report includes a presentation and analysis
of the capital investment necessary to meet the Nation's
wastewater treatment and collection system needs
and, to a limited extent, its municipal storm water
management program needs. EPA has also elected to
include nonpoint source pollution control needs.
Why did EPA change the name of
the survey to the Clean Watersheds
Needs Survey?
Recognizing the importance of making the data in
the CWNS 2000 consistent with EPA's and the States'
initiatives to manage data on a watershed level, EPA
modernized the CWNS database to require more detail
on the geographic location of each facility. In addition,
EPA changed the name of the survey from the Clean
Water Needs Survey to the Clean Watersheds Needs
Survey in keeping with the move to manage data at
the watershed level. Although the name has changed,
the acronym "CWNS" is still used, and this and
future CWNS reports to Congress will be sufficiently
similar to the 12 previous surveys to allow for valid
comparisons of most categories.
CWNS
The Clean Watersheds Needs Survey.
In this report, CWNS refers to the
2000 survey.
What is the scope of the Clean
Watersheds Needs Survey 2000?
EPA conducted the CWNS 2000 in partnership with
the States in an attempt to identify and document the
cost of projects needed to address water quality and
public health problems. Those projects include both
State Nonpoint Source Management Plans as defined in
section 319 of the CWA and Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plans (CCMPs) as defined in
section 320 of the CWA. Before the survey began, the
CWNS National Workgroup, which was composed of
representatives from EPA headquarters and regional
offices and 15 States, developed a set of guidelines and
criteria for gathering, documenting, and entering data.
The needs data included in this report have met the
criteria specified and are eligible for funding under the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program
established under Title VI of the CWA.
Because of limitations in the availability of needed
data, the documented needs developed as described
in the preceding paragraph do not fully account for
all needs with respect to diffuse sources of pollution,
including nonpoint source (NFS) pollution, sanitary
sewer overflows (SSOs), and municipal storm water
management programs. Therefore, for those categories
of pollution, EPA has developed a second set of needs
estimates based on the use of models, as described in
Chapter 4 and in Appendices D and E.
The CWNS 2000, however, does not include all needs
related to water quality and public health problems.
The amount of data entered into the CWNS 2000 was
limited by the resources available to the participating
States.2 As in past surveys, information about privately
1 Section 516, paragraphs (2) and (4), specifically requires the following: "The Administrator, in cooperation with the States.. .shall make a detailed estimate, biennially revised, of the cost of
construction of all needed publicly owned treatment works; in each of the States.. .and shall submit such detailed estimate and such comprehensive study of such cost to the Congress...".
2 American Samoa, Guam, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Wyoming did not participate in CWNS 2000.
1-1
-------
1-2
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
owned wastewater facilities or wastewater treatment
facilities that serve industrial facilities, military
installations, and national parks was not gathered for
this survey because those facilities are not eligible for
funding under CWSRF programs.
The CWNS 2000 did not request data for needs and
facilities that serve American Indians, hereinafter
referred to as Tribal needs. Some States, however,
reported such data in the CWNS 2000.3 EPA does
not include or report Tribal needs because the Indian
Health Service (IHS) conducts a separate survey and
provides a report to Congress annually under Public
Law 86-121. The IHS reports on wastewater treatment
systems, improvement of community drinking water
supplies, and solid waste disposal facilities. A special
set-aside of the CWSRF appropriation uses a priority
list of projects, updated annually by the IHS, to provide
funding for Tribal needs.
Need
A water quality or public health
problem and an associated abatement
cost that is eligible for funding under
the CWSRF.
The CWNS 2000 defined a need as a water quality or
public health problem and an associated abatement
cost that is eligible for funding under the CWSRF.
The needs data reported in the CWNS 2000 had to
exist as of January 1, 2000. The information gathered
by the States belonged to three broad categories: data
on wastewater treatment and collection systems, data
on storm water management programs, and data on
NFS pollution control projects. Table 1-1 lists the
data elements that could be entered for each facility
in the CWNS 2000 database. Descriptions of the data
gathered for each category follow.
Wastewater Treatment and Collection Systems. The
CWNS 2000 includes data on the documented capital
costs required to meet the needs of the Nation's
publicly owned wastewater collection and treatment
infrastructure in accordance with section 516 of
the CWA. Eligible costs include the replacement,
rehabilitation, or expansion of collection systems and
treatment plants; construction of new treatment plants;
correction or elimination of combined sewer overflows
(CSOs); and replacement or rehabilitation of individual
on-site systems and construction of decentralized
treatment systems. In addition to the needs, technical
data such as flow and treatment levels for treatment
plants, population, unit process, discharge location,
and geographic data were collected on each wastewater
treatment plant, collection system, individual on-
site system, or decentralized system included in the
CWNS 2000.
To complement the wastewater treatment and collection
system data entered in the CWNS 2000, EPA used data
from the survey to model the cost of correcting wet
weather sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) in response to
the Wet Weather Water Quality Act of 2000. This act
authorized a grant program to address SSO and CSO
problems. The act states that the allocation of funds
to the States is to be based on needs identified in the
most recent CWNS. EPA developed this model because
SSOs are not a specific need category in the CWNS
2000. Although funding for the new grant program
was not appropriated, this report includes State-level
modeled cost estimates for the control of SSOs, as well
as documented cost estimates for the correction and
elimination of CSOs.
Storm Water Management Programs. The documented
eligible needs for this category include the capital costs
for meeting the municipal requirements of the Storm
Water Phase I and II National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) regulations. Only those
storm water management programs with municipal
separate storm sewer systems (MS4) that are covered
by an NPDES permit can submit their needs under
this category. The portion of an MS4 Phase I or II
storm water management program that is eligible as
a documented need in the CWNS 2000 consists of
3 The CWNS 2000 data for Tribal facilities are summarized in Appendix I.
-------
Chapter I: Introduction
1-3
Table 1 -1. Data Elements in the CWNS 2000
Facility Summary"
• Authority/Facility (A/F) Number
• Facility Name
• Natures (Present and/or Projected)
and Changes
• System Nameb
• "Privately Owned" Flag
• "Interim Treatment Plant" Flagb
Needs"
• Needs Category
• CWSRF-Eligible Needs
• Documentation Information
• Separate State Estimates'3
• Operation and Maintenance Costsb
• Funding Information
Geographic"
• Latitude and Longitude "Point of
Record" (FOR)
• FOR County
• Watershed
• Congressional District
• Boundaries
Technical
• Population (and "Small Community
Exception" Flag)c
• Flow Capacities of Treatment Plants0
• Discharge Method(s) and
Location(s)c
• Effluent Datac
• Concentration Details'3
• Unit Process or BMP Descriptions'3
• Combined Sewer Details
• Responsible Entity Information (and
"Tribal Flag")
• Permit Numbers and Types*
• Biosolids Handling Datab
• Pollution Problem Descriptions b>e
• Miscellaneous Comments'3
a Unless otherwise indicated, data elements under these categories were required for every facility in the CWNS 2000.
b Data elements that were not mandatory for the CWNS 2000. The States entered data for these fields voluntarily.
c These data elements were required for wastewater treatment and collection systems.
d This data element was required for facilities with storm water management program needs.
e States identified SSOs under this data element.
needs for developing and implementing the program.
Because the storm water regulations for Phase II were
finalized in December 1999 (64 Federal Register 68722
et seq., December 8,1999), municipalities with Phase
II needs identified as of January 1, 2000, were allowed
to have their projected needs entered into the CWNS
2000 database even though the regulations did not
go into effect until March 2003. Needs for Phase II
MS4s must include evidence that the municipality was
identified in the regulation or could be designated
based on being in an urbanized area. In the CWNS
2000, few Phase IIMS4 municipalities had their needs
identified; it is anticipated, however, that in the next
CWNS many more Phase II municipalities will identify
their needs. Storm water facilities were required to
enter geographic location and permit data in addition
to needs information.
Nonpoint Source Control Projects. The CWNS
2000 includes documented needs for implementing
NFS management programs under section 319 and
implementing CCMPs for estuaries under section 320
of the CWA. NFS pollution control projects included
in the CWNS 2000 must have been included under
a State's approved Nonpoint Source Management
Plan (section 319) or must have been included in an
approved CCMP (section 320). CWSRF financing is
available for a broad range of traditional NFS pollution
control activities, such as implementing agricultural
best management practices (BMPs), replacing leaking
underground storage tanks, or replacing privately
owned failed septic systems with new on-site systems.
In addition, section 320 allows financing of a broader
range of activities found in CCMPs, such as habitat
restoration. For each NFS pollution control facility in
the CWNS 2000, EPA required a geographic location
along with the needs data. In addition, EPA conducted
an alternative NFS modeled needs analysis, which is
described in Appendix D.
-------
1-4
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
CWNS database
The database by which States enter and update
their needs data. The newly modernized
CWNS database allows States to enter detailed
information about each facility, including
geographic coordinates, population, flow
discharge locations, watershed boundaries, and
funding origins.
How was the Clean Watersheds
Needs Survey 2000 conducted?
Forty-eight States and the District of Columbia4
participated in the CWNS 2000. Guidance developed
by EPA and the CWNS National Workgroup was
presented to the States at a national start-up meeting in
March 2000 and at several training workshops given by
EPA throughout the data collection period. Although
EPA and the CWNS National Workgroup set guidelines
for the survey, they also frequently received input from
the States participating in the survey. To maintain
consistency and ensure the quality of information
gathered during the survey, EPA and the National
Workgroup held monthly conference calls to clarify
issues and develop necessary responses. EPA also
provided information to the States through the Internet,
e-mail, and written correspondence. It was through these
discussions that EPA and the States determined, for
example, that SSOs were difficult to document and that
modeling of wet weather SSO costs would be needed.
During the course of the survey, EPA concluded that
costs for correcting SSOs were included in only some
of the needs documented by the States and that the
results from the SSO model would show a more complete
picture of the costs to control wet weather SSOs. The
CWNS National Workgroup and EPA also evaluated the
possible use of cost models for storm water management
program needs and NFS pollution control needs. These
needs categories tend to be difficult to document using
the established documentation criteria; therefore, this
report also includes alternative model-based analyses in
Appendices D and E.
In coordination with a subcommittee of the CWNS
National Workgroup, EPA modernized the CWNS
database to be used by States in updating their needs
data. The new CWNS database allows States to enter
detailed information about each facility, specifically
discharge locations (by latitude and longitude),
watershed boundaries, and funding awards. The States
are able to link directly into the database, continually
update their data, generate reports, and download the
data into a geographic information system (GIS) to
create maps. These capabilities enable States to use
the CWNS as a management tool rather than simply
a reporting vehicle. The criteria for submitting and
updating information described earlier, as well as the
level of State participation in the CWNS 2000, have
continued to improve the quality of the data in the
CWNS database.
The CWNS 2000 data collection period (April 1, 2000,
to January 4, 2002) was an extensive 21-month effort
by EPA and the States. The States were primarily
responsible for gathering and updating the data
included in the CWNS 2000. In March 2000 EPA
provided an inventory of data from the 1996 Clean
Water Needs Survey to each State to begin the CWNS
2000 data-collection effort. One of the most frequently
used data-collection methods was distribution of an
"in-State" survey form to the communities in the State.
In addition, State coordinators worked with the various
program offices in their States to ensure that the most
accurate data were compiled. Data in the CWNS 2000
were organized by facility for all types of water pollution
control, including storm water management programs
and NFS pollution control projects. For each facility
in the database, a State entered the needs and technical
data specific to that facility. Although the term facility
typically refers to a wastewater treatment facility or
some other structure, for NFS pollution control it refers
to a place. The types of NFS pollution control projects
vary considerably, ranging from installing a pumpout
system at a single marina to implementing county-wide
conservation tillage programs on numerous farms.
The CWNS database contains information on 30,142
facilities. Of these, 27,702 are wastewater treatment
'American Samoa, Guam, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Wyoming did not participate in CWNS 2000.
-------
Chapter I: Introduction
1-5
and collection facilities (including CSOs), 2,088 are
NFS pollution control projects, and 352 are storm water
management program facilities.
Once the States had gathered all the required
documentation and entered the data into the CWNS
database, they submitted selected documentation to EPA
for review and acceptance. EPA evaluated the technical
and needs data entered for each facility. The review
process adhered to the policy and procedures established
at the beginning of the CWNS 2000 to evaluate and
accept needs estimates and enhance national consistency
and data integrity. Participation was another key factor
that affected the quality of CWNS 2000 data. The level
of effort that States put forth in reporting their CWNS
2000 data varied considerably. Thus, availability of
resources (e.g., staff, time, information) to each State
further affected the data quality and the total needs
reported nationally in the CWNS 2000. EPA used
monthly conference calls, the Internet, News Alerts,
and e-mail to promote participation in the survey, as
well as to assist the States with technical difficulties
encountered when entering data.
What are the specific objectives
of the Clean Watersheds Needs
Survey 2000?
The primary objective of every CWNS is to improve
on the information from previous surveys, thereby
capturing a more accurate representation of the
national needs. The following are the key objectives of
the CWNS 2000:
• Update and improve the validity, accuracy, and
quality of all needs information by redocumenting
outdated information from the 1996 survey.
• Improve the documentation of needs for NFS
pollution control, storm water management
programs, and the correction of SSOs and CSOs.
• Provide geographic data for all facilities, including
latitude, longitude, Congressional district,
and watershed boundaries used to support a
watershed-based needs analysis.
Documented needs
Needs that have met the CWNS 2000
documentation requirement and were
accepted by EPA. Only documented
needs are used to report the total
needs in this report.
• Update and improve the quality of technical data
such as population, flow, treatment level, and
discharge method and location.
• Raise awareness of the CWNS among State
commissioners and program managers, and
emphasize its importance as a management tool
for priority planning, funding, and watershed-
based management.
What data are presented in this
report to Congress?
The needs data from each EPA-accepted facility are
presented in this report. All needs included in the
survey had to exist on January 1, 2000. As mentioned
earlier, EPA and the States made a concerted effort to
improve data quality by evaluating the needs carried
over from previous Clean Water Needs Surveys. States
followed a strict redocumentation protocol that required
documentation for every need up to $20 million in the
CWNS 2000 to be dated no later than January 1,1990.
An additional requirement was placed on facilities with
total needs greater than $20 million: documentation
for these needs could not be dated prior to January 1,
1994. (A more detailed discussion of the documentation
criteria is included in Chapter 2.) Only needs eligible
for CWSRF funding are included in the CWNS 2000;
however, not all water quality improvement projects
were included in the CWNS 2000. Furthermore, data
on projects entered into the CWNS 2000 database that
did not meet documentation criteria were included
separately in this report as Separate State Estimates
(SSEs). This report also summarizes the technical
data (e.g., population, flow, effluent) for every facility
included in the CWNS 2000.
-------
1-6
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Modeled needs
Estimate or need developed using
a model to compensate for needs
categories where limited information
was available.
Key results and analyses of the needs and technical
data are included in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 presents the
wet weather SSO model. Summaries of the CWNS 2000
data, 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey data, and CWNS
2000 technical data (population, flow, and so forth) are
presented in Appendices A, B, and C, respectively.
Does EPA report documented
and modeled needs in the Clean
Watersheds Needs Survey 2000?
Unlike previous Clean Water Needs Surveys reports to
Congress, this report does not combine documented
needs with modeled needs. This is the first report,
since the beginning of the Clean Water Needs Survey,
in which the needs estimates included in the report rely
exclusively on documented needs. For the CWNS 2000,
EPA believes that the data entered into the CWNS
database adequately represented the Nation's needs
for wastewater collection and treatment. For other
sources of pollution, such as NFS pollution, SSOs,
and municipal storm water management programs,
documentation was scarce or simply did not exist.
Therefore, this report includes modeled national
estimates for these needs categories for comparison
purposes only. A discussion of the models follow.
Chapter 4 provides a more detailed description of
the wet weather SSO model and the results from the
modeling exercise. The CWNS 2000 has no needs
category for wet weather SSOs. SSO needs are typically
included in needs for secondary wastewater treatment
(Category I), sewer replacement/rehabilitation and
infiltration/inflow (I/I) correction (Category III),
and new sewers and appurtenances (Category IV).
EPA modeled SSO needs using CWNS data to better
represent the SSO needs of the country. The SSO
model provides State-level estimates and includes
capital costs for a combination of increasing treatment
capacity, decreasing I/I, and increasing storage.
The NFS model in Appendix D modeled NFS pollution
control needs at the national level. This model provides
a broader view of the country's NFS needs, and the
estimates from the model come closer to capturing
actual total NFS needs in all States than does the
documented approach. Nevertheless, it provides only a
national estimate and does not disaggregate the needs
by States. The national estimates of needs included in
the NFS model provide a broader spectrum of NFS
pollution control categories, including urban runoff,
resource extraction, marinas, and hydromodification,
which were not provided in the NFS modeled needs
reported in the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey.
The storm water model built on the modeling
methodology used in the 1996 Clean Water Needs
Survey. The model includes the costs for Phase I and
Phase II municipal storm water management programs
after deducting Phase I needs that should have been
met. A more detailed description of the model and
the results from the modeling exercise are included in
Appendix E.
How does the Clean Watersheds
Needs Survey 2000 facilitate a
watershed approach to needs
accounting?
EPA and the States have made a concerted effort to
gather information on a watershed basis consistent with
the watershed management concept. Unlike political
boundaries, the watershed provides a comprehensive
basis for both analysis and efficient use of resources.
One of the objectives for the CWNS 2000 was to gather
more geographic information about facilities, including
latitude and longitude, as well as upstream and
downstream relationships between facilities. Chapter
5 describes national watershed analyses and provides
a case study from the Long Island Sound in the
northeastern United States to illustrate the potential of
-------
Chapter I: Introduction
1-7
the CWNS to manage need information by watershed.
A summary of the CWNS 2000 data by watershed is
presented in Appendix F, Table F-l.
What is the history of the Clean
Watersheds Needs Survey and
what is its relationship to the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund?
In 1972 EPA began collecting information about needs
to meet the requirements of section 205(a) of the CWA
in support of the Construction Grants Program. EPA
conducted 11 biennial surveys between 1972 and 1992.
For the duration of the Title II Construction Grants
Program, the survey of needs focused on providing an
estimate of additional publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs) needed, as well as an inventory of existing
wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities in the
United States. Between 1972 and 1996, $61.1 billion was
awarded to municipalities through EPA's Construction
Grants Program. In 1987 Congress extended Federal aid
for wastewater treatment construction under Title VI of
the CWA and provided grants to capitalize the CWSRF
The amendments resulted in a transition toward State
and local government responsibility for financing clean
water projects. As of January 1, 2000, capitalization
grants under the CWSRF Program totaling $16.2 billion
had been awarded to States. States in turn provided
assistance of $28.2 billion, mostly in the form of loans,
to municipalities. By June 20, 2002, capitalization grants
awarded to the States totaled $19.5 billion, and States in
turn provided assistance of $38.7 billion.
Following the 1987 CWA Amendments and the
establishment of Title VI and the CWSRF Program,
the scope of the 1992 Needs Survey was broadened
by adding new needs categories for municipal storm
water management programs and NFS pollution
control projects to reflect those new funding
opportunities. With the inception of the Drinking
Water Infrastructure Needs Survey in 1995, EPA
changed the frequency of CWNS updates from every
2 years to every 4 years. EPA continued to expand
the scope of the survey as water quality problems
were nationally recognized. The CWNS 2000 also
continued the effort begun by the 1996 Clean Water
Needs Survey to improve on the needs data reported for
storm water management programs and NFS pollution
control facilities, in addition to the needs for the
Nation's wastewater treatment and collection system
infrastructure.
-------
1-8 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Chapter 2
Methods for Documenting Needs
This chapter describes the approach used to review
the documentation of needs reported in the CWNS
2000. EPA and the States worked together to
determine the specific requirements and criteria for
the documentation submitted. The needs reported
by the States in the CWNS 2000 had to be eligible
for funding under the CWSRF. In addition, the
CWNS 2000 eligibility requirements developed by
the CWNS National Workgroup included specific
needs category definitions, six documentation criteria,
and 36 documentation types. Descriptions of the
needs categories and document types are provided in
Appendices G and H.
What is the definition of a need?
As used in the CWNS 2000, a need is a water quality or
public health problem and an associated abatement cost
eligible for funding under the CWSRF. Needs that were
not eligible for Federal assistance under Title VI of the
CWA, such as operation and maintenance (O&M) costs,
house connections to sewers, and costs to acquire land
that is not used as part of the treatment process, were
not reported as eligible needs in the CWNS 2000. The
CWNS 2000 also did not include needs for American
Indian reservations because the Indian Health Service
conducts a separate survey and provides a report to
Congress annually under Public Law 86-121.
What were the Clean Watersheds
Needs Survey 2000 needs
categories?
The CWNS 2000 used nine categories to describe and
report the needs for water pollution control projects.
Table 2-1 lists the nine categories. Categories I through
IV were used for wastewater treatment and collection
Table 2-1. CWNS 2000 Needs Categories
Category I: Secondary Wastewater Treatment
Category II: Advanced Wastewater Treatment
Category III-A: Infiltration/Inflow Correction
Category III-B: Sewer Replacement/Rehabilitation
Category IV-A: New Collector Sewers and Appurtenances
Category IV-B: New Interceptor Sewers and Appurtenances
Category V: Combined Sewer Overflow Correction
Category VI: Storm Water Management Programs
Category VII-A: NFS Control: Agriculture (Cropland)
Category VII-B: NFS Control: Agriculture (Animals)
Category VII-C: NFS Control: Silviculture
Category VII-D: NFS Control: Urban
Category VII-E: NFS Control: Ground Water Protection
(Unknown Source)
Category VII-F: NFS Control: Marinas
Category VII-G: NFS Control: Resource Extraction
Category VII-H: NFS Control: Brownfields
Category VII-I: NFS Control: Storage Tanks
Category VII-J: NFS Control: Sanitary Landfills
Category VII-K: NFS Control: Hydromodification
Category VIII: Confined Animal-Point Source8
Category IX: Mining-Point Source8
a Categories VIII and IX were generally not CWSRF-eligible and were recorded
as SSEs.
needs; Categories V and VI were for wet weather
needs; and Category VII, which was divided into 11
subcategories, was for NFS needs. For the CWNS
2000, Category VII was expanded (since the 1996 Clean
Water Needs Survey) to better capture needs associated
with NFS pollution. These changes are highlighted
in Table 2-2. Category VIII, Confined Animal-Point
Source, and Category IX, Mining-Point Source, were
2-1
-------
2-2
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table 2-2. A Comparison of the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey and CWNS 2000 NFS Pollution Control Needs Categories
Category 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey Category CWNS 2000 Category
Category VII-A NFS Control: Agriculture (Cropland) Same as in 1996
Category VII-B
NFS Control: Agriculture (Animals)
Same as in 1996
Category VII-C
NFS Control: Silviculture
Same as in 1996
Category VII-D
NFS Control: Urban
Same as in 1996
Category VII-E
NFS Control: Ground Water Protection (Unknown Source)
Same as in 1996
Category VII-F
NFS Control: Estuaries
NFS Control: Marinas
Category VII-G
NFS Control: Wetlands Protection
NFS Control: Resource Extraction
Category VII-H
Not present in 1996
NFS Control: Brownfields
Category VIM
Not present in 1996
NFS Control: Storage Tanks
Category VII-J
Not present in 1996
NFS Control: Sanitary Landfills
Category VII-K
Not present in 1996
NFS Control: Hydromodification
recorded as SSEs in the CWNS 2000 database because
those facilities were not CWSRF-eligible unless they
were publicly owned. More detailed descriptions of the
CWNS 2000 needs categories are provided in Appendix
G, Table G-l.
What time period was covered?
The CWNS 2000 took a snapshot in time, compiling
short-term and long-term needs that could be
documented in accordance with nationally uniform
standards. All needs reported in the CWNS 2000
existed as of January 1, 2000, and were eligible for
CWSRF assistance under the CWA. Unlike wastewater
infrastructure planning during the 1970s and 1980s,
which used a 20-year planning horizon (as a result of
the Title II Construction Grants Program), current
wastewater infrastructure planning horizons vary
considerably across the United States. After the
CWSRF program was established, communities began
to plan and estimate their wastewater infrastructure
projects over a shorter period of time. Now this
planning horizon is often only 5 or 10 years. A few
States, however, project their needs for up to a 20-year
period. As a result, the CWNS 2000 cannot provide a
comprehensive estimate of national or State wastewater
needs in a uniform planning horizon. Other recent
studies, such as the Water Infrastructure Network
Report and EPA's Gap Analysis (see Chapter 3), have
been developed to provide a more comprehensive
picture of the Nation's needs. It should be noted that
the aggregate capital expenditures contained in this
report represent a simple summation of expenditures
that might be made at different points in time over a
multiyear planning horizon. No attempt has been made
to predict the time pattern of these expenditures or to
discount them to arrive at a present value sum.
What are documented needs?
For the CWNS 2000, States were required to justify
an existing water quality or public health problem
for a facility by providing EPA with written studies,
plans, or other information describing a solution to
the identified problem. Such documentation had
to meet criteria that EPA and the CWNS National
Workgroup had established to ensure the national
consistency and credibility of the data included in this
report. In addition, the documentation could include
a cost estimate, although submission of separate
documentation for cost data was acceptable. Similar
to the requirements for needs documentation, cost
estimates had to meet certain criteria to ensure national
consistency and the credibility of the data. These
requirements are summarized under "What costs were
considered eligible?" later in this chapter. The CWNS
-------
Chapter 2: Methods for Documenting Needs
2-3
National Workgroup also developed the following
criteria for redocumentation of outdated needs: for
documenting needs greater than $20 million (January
2000 dollar base), the documentation date had to
be January 1,1994, or later; for all other needs, the
documentation date had to be January 1,1990, or later.
The redocumentation requirement applied to both the
cost data and justification of a water quality or public
health problem.
What were the documentation
requirements?
For conducting the CWNS 2000, it was necessary to
have consistent documentation criteria for accepting
and reporting a facility's needs. For each facility, the
water quality or public health problems had to be
current, and the documentation had to include project-
specific data. EPA, in consultation with the CWNS
National Workgroup, established six documentation
criteria, adopted from the CWSRF Program, that the
States were required to use to justify the needs for a
facility in the CWNS 2000:
1. A description of the water quality impairment and
information on the potential source. The problem
description should include specific pollutant
source information; a general statement about
water quality impairment does not meet this
criterion.
2. The location of the problem, which should be
included as a latitude/longitude point; in the
case of a watershed (for NFS projects), it may be
entered as a polygon.
3. One or more specific pollution control measures
or BMPs used to address the problem.
4. The cost to implement each pollution control
measure or BMP. General estimates for the
problem area are not permitted; only site-specific
data may be used to generate the costs.
5. The source of the costs (e.g., an engineer's
estimate, facility plan, cost of comparable
practices, estimates from equipment suppliers) for
each solution.
Facility
A project and location involved in water quality management,
such as a wastewater treatment plant or sewer system, a
municipal separate storm sewer system, or an NFS pollution
control project. Although the termfacility is typically thought
of as wastewater treatment facility or some other structure, for
NFS pollution control it refers to a place. Data in the CWNS
2000 were collected and organized by facility for all types of
water pollution control.
6. The total costs for all pollution control measures
and BMPs documented for a facility. (All costs
are converted to January 1, 2000, dollars for the
CWNS 2000 Report to Congress)
The documentation submitted for all types of facility
needs in the CWNS 2000, including storm water
management program and NFS pollution control
needs, was required to meet the six criteria. Meeting
the criteria could be demanding on the States'
resources and resulted in the submission of many types
of documents for review.
What types of documentation were
accepted?
To maintain consistency in documentation of needs
from State to State, the CWNS National Workgroup
approved a list of 36 acceptable types of documentation.
Table H-l in Appendix H lists and describes the
approved types of documentation for the CWNS 2000.
Generally, if a document was one of the approved
document types, EPA accepted it for needs justification
as long as it included sufficient details concerning the
proposed project—a definition of the problem and a
description of the solution to the problem.
Once a State adequately documented a water
quality or public health problem, EPA accepted the
documentation for the purposes of the CWNS 2000,
regardless of whether a documented cost estimate
was available. States could use a separate document to
-------
2-4
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
justify cost estimates. This approach allowed States to
use a wide variety of documents to justify needs rather
than being restricted to only those containing cost data.
Nationally derived and EPA-approved construction
cost curves were available in the CWNS 2000 database
system to calculate a cost when information was
insufficient to support and document a cost estimate.
The cost curves were available to calculate costs for
Categories I, II, IV, and V, which include new treatment
plants, increased treatment plant capacity, increased
level of treatment, new collector sewers, new interceptor
sewers, septic tank upgrades, and CSO abatement. The
cost curves in the CWNS 2000 were unchanged from
those available in the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey
except for the adjustment for the base year.
What costs were considered
eligible?
The Clean Water State Revolving Fund Funding
Framework, which EPA issued in October 1996,
requires that all projects must be "capital" projects,
such as constructing wastewater treatment facilities to
meet water quality or NPDES permit requirements, or
planting trees and shrubs, purchasing equipment, and
conducting environmental cleanups for projects that
control nonpoint sources of pollution (USEPA, 1996).
O&M costs, ineligible for CWSRF funding, were not
included in the CWNS 2000 needs.
Eligible costs for municipal storm water management
programs (Category VI) included the CWSRF-eligible
portions of both the Phase I and Phase II storm
water programs. Phase II MS4s were not required to
be covered by an NPDES storm water permit until
March 10,2003. The documentation submitted for those
facilities had to include evidence that the municipality
was identified in the regulation or was potentially
designated based on being in an urbanized area.
Eligible costs for the NFS pollution control cost
categories (in Category VII) were specifically related to
the types of NFS pollution sources. For a cost estimate
to be accepted into the CWNS 2000, the documentation
had to clearly indicate the types of BMPs used, the
number of BMPs used per facility, the cost for each
BMP, and the specific location of the NFS pollution.
Typical NFS pollution control projects entered into
the CWNS 2000 include implementing agriculture
BMPs, replacing leaking underground storage tanks,
and replacing privately owned failed septic systems and
installing new on-site systems.
What is the difference between
documented needs and Separate
State Estimates?
In cases where documentation for the needs did not
meet all six basic criteria or where the needs could not
be estimated using the cost curves, EPA reported the
documented needs as SSEs with the concurrence of
the States. For the purposes of this report, SSE needs
are not reported in the total needs displayed in the
key results (Chapter 3); however, SSEs are reported
separately in Chapter 3, and at the State level in Tables
A-ll through A-13 in Appendix A. SSE designation
implies only that the documented needs were not
available (or did not meet the CWNS 2000 eligibility
criteria) for a particular project. In addition, designating
cost information as an SSE for a facility did not prevent
the reporting of other technical data (e.g., population,
flow, effluent) associated with the facility. States were
permitted to report any needs estimates they deemed
justified in the CWNS as SSEs without EPA review.
How did documentation
requirements differ for small
communities?
Small communities tend to have fewer resources
available for monitoring and facility evaluations,
which form the basis of the reports—facility
plans, engineer reports, and capital improvement
plans—used as documentation for the CWNS
2000. As a result, national small community needs
tend to be underestimated in this report because
small communities often did not have acceptable
documentation of their needs.
To more fully capture the needs of small communities,
EPA and the CWNS National Workgroup established
-------
Chapter 2: Methods for Documenting Needs
2-5
guidelines to allow small communities to use alternative
forms of documentation that were not acceptable from
larger communities. Small communities with a January
2000 population of fewer than 3,500 people were
allowed to use alternative documentation when standard
documentation was not available.1 In general, alternative
documentation for small communities required a
description of the proposed project, an explanation of
why the project was necessary (e.g., public health or water
quality problem), and a statement of how the project
would benefit the community. This information was
submitted on a standardized survey form that required
signatures from suitable community and State officials.
As with standard documents, if cost estimates were not
provided, the State could use construction cost curves
for Categories I, II, IV, and V to estimate the costs.
Standard document types are listed in Appendix H, Table H-1, document types 1 through 27. Alternative documents available for communities with current populations of fewer than 3,500 people
are listed as document types 28 through 31 in the same table.
-------
2-6 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Chapter 3
Key Results
What are the total needs for the
Nation?
The total CWSRF-eligible needs for the Nation as
of January 1, 2000, are $181.2 billion (Table 3-1).
Appendix A (Tables A-l and A-2) presents the total
CWSRF-eligible needs for all categories and by State.
Unlike the previous two surveys (1992 and 1996), which
combined documented and modeled needs, all of the
needs presented in this chapter are documented.1 The
needs for wastewater treatment (Categories I and II) are
$57.2 billion, or 31.6 percent of the total needs. Needs
for wastewater collection (Categories III and IV) amount
to $54.1 billion, or 29.9 percent of the total needs.
Category V (Combined Sewer Overflow Correction)
needs are $50.6 billion (27.9 percent), and Category VI
(storm water management programs) needs are $5.5
billion (3.0 percent). Nonpoint source pollution control
needs (Category VII) total $13.8 billion (7.6 percent).
These needs are presented in Figure 3-1. As discussed
later, the storm water management program and
NFS pollution control needs presented in this report
underestimate the Nation's needs because only a limited
number of States were able to dedicate resources toward
identifying and reporting those needs.
Figure 3-2 displays the geographic distribution of the
total documented needs by State. The largest total needs
occur in New York and California, which is similar
to the results of the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey.
New York has $20.4 billion in needs, while California
has more than $14.4 billion in needs. New Jersey and
Illinois each have needs in excess of $10 billion.
Three-fourths (75.5 percent) of the total needs reported
are concentrated in 16 States, while 22 States and the
Need
A water quality or public health problem
and an associated abatement cost that is
eligible for funding under the CWSRF.
Table 3-1. Total Documented Needs Reported in the
CWNS 2000 (January 2000 dollars
in billions)
Needs
Category
Total
Needs
Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment and Collection Systems and
Storm Water Management Programs
I Secondary wastewater treatment 36.i
II
Advanced wastewater treatment
20.4
III-A Infiltration/inflow correction
III-B Sewer replacement/rehabilitation
16.8
IV-A New collector sewers and appurtenances
14.3
IV-B New interceptor sewers and appurtenances
14.8
V
Combined sewer overflow correction
50.6
VI
Storm water management programs
5.5
Total Categories I-VI 167.4
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
VII-A Agriculture (cropland)
0.5
VII-B Agriculture (animals)
0.7
VII-C Silviculture
0.04
VII-D Urban
4.4
VII-E Ground water protection (unknown source)
0.9
VII-F Marinas
0.002
VII-G Resource extraction
0.04
VII-H Brownfields
0.4
VII-I Storage tanks
1.0
VII-J Sanitary landfills
1.8
VII-K Hydromodification
4.1
Total Category VII 13.8
Grand Total 181.2
Notes:
1) Nonpoint source pollution control modeled needs are $21.5 billion in
January 2000 dollars (Appendix D).
2) Costs for operation and maintenance are not CWSRF-eligible and
therefore are not included.
3) See Appendix A, Tables A-l and A-2, for needs by category and State.
Needs estimates presented in Table 3-1 may vary slightly from those
presented in the text because of rounding.
A separate discussion of the SSO model is presented in Chapter 4. The NFS pollution control model is described in Appendix D, and the storm water model is discussed in Appendix E.
3-1
-------
3-2
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Categories I and II:
Wastewater Treatment Systems
S57.2B,31.6%
Category VII:
Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control
513.88,7.6%
Category VI:
Storm Water Management
SSJB,3.0%
Categories III and IV:
Wastewaler Collection
and Conveyance
S54.1B,29.«%
CotegoiyV:
Combined Sewer Overflow
Correction
S50.6B, 27.9%
Figure 3 -1. CWNS 2000 total documented needs (January 2000 dollars). The figure shows only documented needs.
Note that nonpoint source pollution control modeled needs are $21.5 billion in January 2000 dollars
(Appendix D).
Total Documented Needs = $181.2 Billion
Note: American Samoa, Guam, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico,
Virgin Islands, and Wyoming did not participate in the CWNS 2000.
Range
>$10B
$2-$10B
$1-$2B
$0.5-$1B
<$0.5B
None reported
Did not participate
Figure 3-2. Geographic distribution of total documented needs (January 2000 dollars in billions).
-------
Chapter 3: Key Results
3-3
District of Columbia report less than 1 percent of the
total needs each.
What are the recent trends in the
Nation's municipal wastewater
treatment infrastructure needs?
In 1972 more than 4,800 facilities were providing less
than secondary treatment or discharging raw sewage
into the Nation's waters. As a result of the CWA
and its associated funding mechanisms, significant
progress has been made to improve wastewater
treatment across the Nation. Construction Grants
provided municipalities with $61.1 billion from 1972
though 1996 toward meeting the goals of the CWA.
In addition, $16.2 billion had been awarded to States
through the CWSRF Program as of January 1, 2000.
In turn, the States provided assistance of $28.2 billion
to municipalities, mainly through loans. Tables
3-2 and 3-3 present the current status of the level
of treatment based on past needs surveys and the
anticipated progress based on the needs reported in
this report.2 To report this progress, the States invest
a significant effort in each survey to identify new
projects and update previously identified projects.
States also examine individual facilities to determine
whether proposed projects have been built and whether
subsequent planning documents show consolidation or
splitting of specific construction projects.
The 1992 Needs Survey reported
an inventory of 15,613 operational
treatment plants serving
approximately 180.6 million
people. About 32.2 percent and 26.4
percent of the U.S. population were
served by secondary and greater-
than-secondary treatment plants,
respectively. About 8.4 percent
of the population was served by
868 facilities providing less-than-
secondary treatment. In 1996 the
number of operational facilities
increased to 16,024; in 2000, to
16,255. Since 1992 the number of
facilities providing less-than-secondary treatment has
declined by 94.5 percent, and the population served
by these facilities has been reduced from 21.7 million
people to 6.4 million people. In comparison to 1992,
an additional 27.2 million people receive centralized
collection and wastewater treatment, and 69 percent of
the U.S. population is served by municipal wastewater
treatment plants that provide secondary or better levels
of treatment.
Table 3-3 shows the projected improvements in
wastewater treatment infrastructure if the secondary
and advanced wastewater treatment needs (Categories
I and II) are met. Information for this table was
taken from the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey when
States did not have the resources to update data for all
their facilities or when States and territories did not
participate in the CWNS 2000. The number of facilities
providing secondary or more advanced treatment is
projected to increase by 8.2 percent from 14,048 to
15,202. Based on the needs presented, EPA projects
that a total of 17,674 operational facilities will serve a
future population of 269 million people, or 83 percent
of the U.S. population. EPA expects that the projected
increase in centralized collection and treatment
systems might be lower than expected for the next
survey as more planning authorities recognize that
properly designed, constructed, and operated on-site
Photo by Lynn Belts, courtesy of USDA NRCS
Other related technical data discussed in this section are provided in Appendix C, Table C-4.
-------
3-4
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table 3-2. Improvements in Treatment Level of the Nation's Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Level of Treatment
No Discharge8
1992 Number
of Facilities
1,981
1996 Number
of Facilities
2,032
Change
1992-1996
2.6%
2000 Number
of Facilities
1,938
Change
1992-2000
-2.2%
Change
1996-2000
-4.6%
Less Than Secondary13
868
176
-79.7%
47
-94.5%
-73.3%
Secondary
9,086
9,388
3.3%
9,156
0.8%
-2.5%
Greater Than Secondary
3,678
4,428
20.4%
4,892
33.0%
10.5%
Total Facilities
15,613
16,024
2.6%
16,255C
4.1%
1.4%
Note: A secondary treatment level is defined as meeting an effluent quality of 30 mg/L for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids.
a No discharge refers to facilities that do not discharge effluent to surface waters (e.g., spray irrigation, ground water recharge).
b Includes facilities granted section 301 (h) waivers from secondary treatment for discharges to marine waters. As of January 1, 2000, waivers for 34 facilities in
the CWNS 2000 database had been granted or were pending.
c The number of facilities includes 222 facilities that provide partial treatment and whose flow goes to another facility for further treatment.
Table 3-3. Projected Infrastructure Improvements If All CWNS 2000 Needs Are Met
Indicator
Total number of operational treatment facilities
Existing
16,255b
Projected"
17,674b
Change
8.7%
Treatment facilities providing secondary or more advanced treatment
14,048
15,202
8.2%
Treatment facilities providing less-than-secondary treatment
47
27
-42.6%
Treatment facilities with granted or pending section 301(h) waivers
34
26
-23.5%
Treatment facilities without section 301(h) waivers
13
-92.3%
Total design capacity of treatment facilities (in mgd)
45,058
50,041
11.1%
Total population served by wastewater treatment facilities (in millions)
207.8
269.0
29.5%
Note: This table contains information from EPA-reviewed and accepted facilities and information from facilities that were not reviewed by EPA. EPA did not
review facilities for which States did not have the resources to update their data or facilities in States and territories that did not participate in the CWNS 2000.
In such circumstances, information for this table was taken from the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey.
a Projected infrastructure levels if all needs are met.
b These numbers include totals for facilities that are no discharge or provide only partial treatment.
Photo courtesy of Virginia Department of Health
-------
Chapter 3: Key Results
3-5
systems should be considered a permanent part of
the wastewater infrastructure rather than an interim
solution.
The number of facilities that provide less-than-
secondary treatment is projected to decline from 47
facilities serving 6.4 million people to 27 facilities
serving 3.9 million people, nearly all of whom
(99.99 percent) will be served by facilities with section
301(h) waivers. Section 301(h) of the CWA provides
an opportunity for a facility that discharges to marine
waters to obtain a waiver from the act's secondary
treatment requirements, provided the facility can show
compliance with a number of stringent criteria intended
to ensure that the less-than-secondary discharge will
not adversely affect the marine environment.
As the Nation moves into the new millennium, continued
improvements in infrastructure might be measured not
by population served and improved levels of treatment
but by measures of capital infrastructure renewal (that
is, projects that focus on rehabilitation, replacement, and
process improvement of existing infrastructure). This is
a reasonable progression because a significant portion
of the Nation's infrastructure has reached, or soon will
reach, the end of its projected useful life.
How have the wastewater
treatment and collection needs
changed?
The needs reported, in January 2000 dollars, for
the wastewater treatment and collection categories
(Categories I through V) increased from $133.7 billion
to $161.9 billion, a $28.2 billion (or 21.1 percent)
increase from the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey to
the CWNS 2000 (Table 3-4). This change reflects, in
part, facility improvements for meeting increasingly
stringent water quality standards for treatment plant
effluents, SSO correction, and maintenance of existing
infrastructure. Four needs categories account for the
most significant increase in needs since the 1996 Clean
Water Needs Survey: Category I increased by $7.4
billion; Category III-A, by $4.5 billion; Category III-B,
by $9.1 billion; and Category IV-B, by $2.9 billion.
Secondary treatment
A treatment level that meets an effluent quality of 30 mg/L (30-
day average) of both BOD5 and total suspended solids.
Advanced treatment
A treatment level that is more stringent than secondary or
produces a significant reduction in nonconventional pollutants
present in the wastewater effluent.
Analysis of the CWNS 2000 needs categories with
substantial changes in need from 1996 revealed a
distinct pattern. Overall, 125 wastewater treatment
and collection system facilities had total needs that
increased by more than $100 million over their total
reported needs in 1996. The increased needs from
these facilities account for $38.7 billion (24 percent) of
the total wastewater treatment and collection system
needs in the CWNS 2000. A small proportion of the
facilities analyzed (less than 5 percent) have increases
greater than $100 million in at least one need category
from the same category need in the 1996 Clean
Water Needs Survey. The impact of these facilities
on the overall increase in needs is substantial and
disproportionate to the number of facilities reporting
needs. For example, the increase of secondary
wastewater treatment (Category I) needs from facilities
where Category I needs increased by $100 million
accounted for 22.1 percent of the total Category I needs
but represented only 0.4 percent of the total number of
facilities reporting Category I needs.
About $19.0 billion in Category I (secondary wastewater
treatment) needs and $13.7 billion in Category II
(advanced wastewater treatment) needs are new needs
entered for the CWNS 2000. These needs, totaling
$32.7 billion, are a subset of the $57.2 billion in
Category I and II needs reported in Table 3-4. The
remaining $17.8 billion in Category I needs and $6.7
billion in Category II needs were entered for the
same facilities in the 1996 Clean Water Need Survey
and updated for the CWNS 2000. These needs are
either carried forward or associated with projects that
-------
3-6
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table 3-4. Comparison of Total Needs for the 1992 Needs Survey, 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey, and CWNS 2000
(January 2000 dollars in billions)
Needs Category 1992"
Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment and Collection Systems and Storm Water Management Programs
Secondary wastewater treatment
39.3
1996"
29.4
2000
II
Advanced wastewater treatment
19.4
19.4
20.4
III-A Infiltration/inflow correction
3.4
3.7
8.2
III-B Sewer replacement/rehabilitation
4.6
7.7
16.8
IV-A New collector sewers and appurtenances
22.5
12.0
14.3
IV-B New interceptor sewers and appurtenances
18.4
11.9
14.8
V
Combined sewer overflow correction
51.7b
49.6
50.6
VI Storm water management programs
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Projects
VII-A Agriculture (cropland)
O.lb
4.7b
8.2b
4.2b
5.5
0.5
VII-B Agriculture (animals)
3.4b
2.3b
0.7
VII-C Silviculture
3.0b
3.9b
0.04
VII-D Urban
1.1
4.4
VII-E Ground water protection: unknown source
1.4
1.1
0.9
Estuaries0
0.01
0.04
Wetlands0
0.04
0.01
VII-F Marinas
0.002
VII-G Resource extraction
0.04
VII-H Brownfields
0.4
VII-I Storage tanks
1.0
VII-J Sanitary landfills
1.8
VII-K Hydromodification
Total Needs I
Treatment Categories I and II only
172.0
58.7
154.6
48.8
4.1
181.2
57.2
Collection and conveyance Categories III and IV only
48.9
35.3
54.1
Category I to V subtotal
159.3
133.7
161.9
1 The needs from 1992 and 1996 were inflated to January 2000 dollars for comparison with CWNS 2000 data.
b Modeled needs.
c Documented needs for estuaries and wetlands were provided by States during the 1992 and 1996 surveys, but they are no longer reported as individual
categories.
-------
Chapter 3: Key Results
3-7
provided updated cost estimates for Category I or II. Of
the $32.7 billion in new Category I and II needs, 54.4
percent of the needs are from California, New York,
Arizona, Texas, Florida, and Maryland.
Approximately 36.1 percent ($11.8 billion) of the
$32.7 billion is associated with projects that result
in infrastructure improvements to improve the
performance of the plant, such as increasing the effluent
level (e.g., from secondary to advanced treatment), or
increasing the plant capacity to keep up with population
growth (Table 3-5). Infrastructure improvements also
include the construction of new wastewater treatment
plants. Capital renewal projects accounted for 32.4
percent ($10.6 billion) of the $32.7 billion in new needs.
Capital renewal projects sustain the current level of
performance of the plant by implementing rehabilitation,
refurbishing, or replacing capital assets to restore an
asset, facility, or system to its original condition and
function, without increasing treatment capacity or
effluent level. Examples include replacing coarse bubble
diffusers with fine bubble diffusers or switching from
disinfection by chlorination to ultraviolet disinfection,
or any other project that does not significantly enhance
the performance of the plant. Capital renewal does not
include costs for routine operation and maintenance
at the wastewater treatment plant. The remaining
$10.3 billion (31.5 percent) is associated with projects
that represent a combination of infrastructure
improvements and capital infrastructure renewal.
Category III-A and III-B needs are for I/I correction
and sewer replacement and rehabilitation. I/I occurs
when flow from wet weather conditions enters
collection systems through various means, such as pipe
cracks and broken joints. Sixty-seven percent of the
Category III-A needs were reported for facilities that
also require rehabilitation or replacement to correct
the documented I/I problems. Facilities requiring
rehabilitation or replacement of sewers made up $10.4
billion (62 percent) of the total Category III-B needs of
$16.8 billion. The remainder of the Category III-A and
III-B needs are for facilities that require improvements
in addition to rehabilitation and replacement, such
Table 3-5. Wastewater Treatment (Category I and II)
Needs Entered During the CWNS 2000
(January 2000 dollars in billions)
Wastewater Treatment
Plant Investment
Infrastructure improvements
January Percent Number
2000 Dollars of of
(billions) Total Facilities
11.8
36.1
1,942
Capital renewal
10.6
32.4
1,571
Combination of
infrastructure improvements
and capital renewal
10.3
31.5
492
Total
32.7
100.0
4,005
as replacing worn-out pumps or adding supervisory
control and data acquisition (SCADA) computer
systems. The increase in Category III-A and III-B
needs since the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey
demonstrates that communities are beginning to plan
for the correction of problems that are symptomatic
of SSOs and, to a lesser extent, CSOs. A total of
$3.5 billion in Category III-A needs was reported
for facilities that States identified as having SSO
problems. To further investigate the total capital costs
of correcting SSOs for the CWNS 2000, EPA developed
an SSO model, which is described in Chapter 4.
What are the needs for the
correction of combined sewer
overflows?
Wet weather events are known to cause a variety of water
quality problems throughout the Nation. Under various
circumstances, precipitation in the form of snow or rain
generates runoff that can be contaminated by a number
of different pollutant sources (e.g., industrial operations,
roadways, land use practices). Where combined sewer
systems are in use, wet weather contributes to CSOs.
CSOs contain not only storm water but also untreated
human and industrial waste, toxic materials, and debris.
These materials can be a major water pollution concern
for cities with combined sewer systems.
In December 2001 EPA released a report to Congress
titled Implementation and Enforcement of the Combined
-------
3-8
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Photo courtesy ofUSEPA OWM
Sewer Overflow Control Policy, hereinafter called the
CSO Report. In the CSO Report, EPA documented
that 772 communities with CSOs in 31 States and the
District of Columbia have been issued 859 CSO NPDES
permits that regulate 9,471 CSO discharge points
(USEPA, 2001a). In many cases, the facility associated
with a CSO community or a CSO permit in the CSO
Report is one of the 799 facilities from 333 states and
the District of Columbia with CSO correction needs
reported in the CWNS 2000. However, because of the
complexity associated with permitting CSOs and the
varied ownership, in particular for satellite collection
systems, the number of facilities reported here cannot
be directly compared to either the number of CSO
permits or the number of CSO communities reported
in the CSO Report.
As with other needs categories, States were requested
to enter documented needs when available. During
the CWNS 2000, States began to enter cost estimates
from Long-Term Control Plans (LTCPs). Thirty-four
facilities from 10 states documented CSO (Category V)
needs using LTCPs. Needs documented in LTCPs
account for 7.7 percent of the Category V needs
reported in this survey. LTCPs provide the most
reliable estimates for the CSO control "Presumption
Approach" in the 1994 CSO Policy. (See explanation in
the following paragraph.)
When LTCPs or other engineering and planning
documents were not available, States could use cost
curves to estimate Category V needs. The cost curve
methodology for CWNS 2000 was the same as that used
in the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey. The cost curves
are based on the approach in the 1994 CSO Policy. The
approach calls for capturing 85 percent of the flows that
enter the combined sewer system during wet weather
events and providing those flows with the equivalent
of primary clarification, solids and floatables disposal,
and disinfection of the effluent (USEPA, 1994).
EPA is reporting a documented need of $50.6 billion
for control of CSOs. As indicated above, this estimate
is based primarily on the "Presumption Approach" in
the 1994 CSO Policy. Figure 3-3 shows the geographic
distribution of Category V needs. In the CWNS 2000,
799 facilities in 33 states and the District of Columbia
reported Category V needs. The largest Category V
needs continue to be concentrated in Illinois, Indiana,
Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,
and Pennsylvania. These eight States account for 76.3
percent of the total Category V needs. These results
are similar to those of the 1996 Clean Water Need
Survey, in which the same eight States accounted for
77.8 percent of the total Category V needs. Appendix
C, Table C-5, presents the number of facilities with
Category V needs by State and the total Category V
needs for the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey (inflated
to January 2000 dollars) and the CWNS 2000.
What are the needs for municipal
storm water management
programs?
In response to the 1987 Amendments to the CWA,
EPA published regulations implementing Phase I of
the NPDES Storm Water Program in 1990. Under
Phase I, EPA required NPDES permit coverage for
storm water discharges from "medium" and "large"
MS4s. The Phase IMS4 requirements are applicable
to systems located in incorporated areas or in counties
that EPA has identified as having MS4s serving
populations of more than 100,000 and systems that
the EPA Administrator or the State has designated.
The Phase II Final Rule, also a result of the 1987 CWA
Amendments, was published in the Federal Register on
Colorado and North Carolina are not listed in the Implementation and Enforcement of the Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy (December 2001); however, they have identified Category V needs for
CSO correction in the CWNS 2000.
-------
Chapter 3: Key Results
3-9
Total CSO Correction Needs = $50.6 Billion
Note: American Samoa, Guam, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rica,
Virgin Islands, and Wyoming did not participate in the OWNS 2000.
$2-$4B
$0.5-$2B
<$0.5B
None reported
Did not participate
Figure 3-3. Geographic distribution of combined sewer overflow correction (Category V) needs
(January 2000 dollars in billions).
December 8,1999. It requires NPDES permit coverage
for storm water discharges from "small" MS4s, defined
as systems serving populations ranging from 99,999
people to a lower limit based on the U.S. Census
Bureau's definition of an urbanized area (USEPA,
1999).4
Twenty States reported $5.5 billion in needs for
developing and implementing municipal storm water
management programs (Category VI) under Phases I
and II during the CWNS 2000. Appendix A, Table A-l,
presents the storm water management program needs
by State.
Large and medium MS4s account for $4.9 billion, or 89
percent of the total storm water management program
needs. Small MS4s account for the remaining 11 percent
or $0.6 billion in storm water management program
needs, and these needs may include both Phase I and
Phase II costs.5 The geographic distribution of storm
water management program needs is presented in
Figure 3-4. Texas, Arizona, Florida, Maryland, and
California reported $2.23 billion, $1.25 billion, $0.68
billion, $0.46 billion, and $0.35 billion in storm water
management program needs, respectively. These five
States, from a total of 20 States reporting documented
storm water needs, account for 90.3 percent of the total
. -, . .?;*;.:>?;
Photo courtesy of the City of San Diego, CA
The U.S. Census Bureau currently defines urbanized area as a densely settled territory that contains 50,000 or more people.
Phase I regulations are applicable to large and medium MS4s, as well as some small MS4s (serving populations of fewer than 100,000 people) that participated in Phase I for various reasons. Some small
MS4s are included in the Phase I program as "co-permittees" because they are interconnected with nearby medium or large MS4s. Small MS4s already in the Phase I program will not be required to develop a
Phase II program.
-------
3-10
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Total Documented Storm Water Management
Program Needs = $5.5 Billion
Note: American Samoa, Guam, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Pueno Rico,
Virgin Islands, and Wyoming did noi participate in the CWNS 2000.
Range
~ >$500M
$2SO-$500M
S50-$250M
<$50M
None reported
Did not participate
Figure 3-4. Geographic distribution of storm water management program (Category VI) needs
(January 2000 dollars in millions).
storm water management program needs documented
in the CWNS 2000.
As of February 2000 approximately 1,017 Phase IMS4
storm water program NPDES permits, covering 886
municipal entities (USEPA, 2000a) in 43 states, had been
issued or were in the final stages of being issued. A total
of 119 municipal entities in 14 States have documented
Phase I storm water management needs in the CWNS
2000. Moreover, 19 additional Phase I municipal
entities in some of those 14 States and 5 additional
States documented their needs ($2.5 billion, January
2000 dollars) for storm water management programs
during the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey. The storm
water facilities in the CWNS 2000 represents 16 percent
of the 886 municipal entities covered by Phase I NPDES
permits, indicating that not all of the Phase I needs have
been fully captured by this survey. Lack of resources to
document storm water management program needs in the
format required for the CWNS 2000 and the inability of
States to obtain the required data from various municipal
entities are possible reasons for the 745 municipal entities'
not including their Phase I storm water management
needs in either the 1996 survey or the CWNS 2000.
In addition to the lack of documented needs for Phase
I storm water management programs, it is likely that
some States did not have documentation of Phase II
storm water management program needs available
for submission as part of the CWNS 2000 because the
deadline for permit coverage for MS4s under the Phase
II program is March 10, 2003.
What are the documented needs for
nonpoint source pollution control?
The States have reported for many years that NFS
pollution is the most significant source of remaining
water quality impairment in the United States. In
EPA's most recently published National Water Quality
Inventory, which summarizes the State water quality
reports submitted to the Agency under section 305(b)
of the Clean Water Act, the States have, for example,
-------
Chapter 3: Key Results
3-11
identified agriculture as causing or contributing to
48 percent of remaining water body impairments in the
United States (USEPA, 2002b). The States have also
listed hydrologic modification, habitat modification,
urban runoff, forestry, and resource extraction
as top contributors of water quality impairment.
NFS pollution is also a significant contributor
to impairments of lakes and coastal estuaries.
Nevertheless, despite the evident significance of NFS
pollution, the cost of remediating NFS pollution has
remained difficult to quantify.
During the 1992 and 1996 surveys, the documentation
of NFS pollution control (Category VII) needs was very
limited; EPA reported modeled needs in those surveys
for three need categories (Table 3-4). For the CWNS
2000, EPA and the States made a concerted effort to
report documented NFS pollution control needs. As
with previous surveys, documenting NFS pollution
control projects for this survey presented a challenge to
the States. The States found that obtaining information
to justify water quality or public health problems for
individual projects and providing acceptable estimates
of the costs to alleviate the pollution problem were
often difficult or that the available information did not
meet the CWNS 2000 documentation requirements.
Thirty-three States provided documented needs
totaling $13.8 billion for NFS pollution control (7.6
percent of total needs), which is an increase of $10.9
billion from the $2.9 billion (January 2000 dollars) in
documented needs reported in the 1996 Clean Water
Needs Survey. This shows that an increasing number
of States are succeeding in their efforts to document
NFS pollution control needs. The number of States
reporting NFS pollution control needs increased from
28 States in the previous survey to 33 States in this
survey. Figure 3-5 shows the geographic distribution of
NFS pollution control needs. Florida and New Jersey
had the largest NFS pollution control needs, with
$3.2 billion and $2.8 billion, respectively. Missouri,
Wisconsin, and New York also had more than $1 billion
Total Documented NPS Pollution Control Needs = $13.8 Billion
Note: American Samoa, Guam, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico,
Virgin Islands, and Wyoming did not participate in the CWNS 2000.
Range
>$1B
S0.2-S1B
$0.1-$0.2B
<$0.1B
None reported
Did not participate
Figure 3-5. Geographic distribution of nonpoint source pollution control (Category VII-A through VII-K) needs
(January 2000 dollars in billions).
-------
3-12
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Photo courtesy ofUSDA NRCS
each in NFS pollution control needs, and four other
States (Maryland, Minnesota, California, and Ohio)
each had NFS pollution control needs of greater than
$0.2 billion. NFS pollution control needs in the urban,
hydromodification, sanitary landfills, and storage tanks
categories account for approximately 82.3 percent of the
total needs reported for Category VII (Table 3-6). Less
than $1 billion in needs was reported for the remaining
NFS pollution control categories (Table 3-6). Appendix
A, Table A-2, presents the NFS pollution control needs
by State and NFS pollution control category.
Only five NFS pollution control need categories with
identical characteristics were reported for both the
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey and the CWNS 2000:
• Agriculture-Cropland (Category VII-A)
• Agriculture-Animals (Category VII-B)
• Silviculture (Category VII-C)
• Urban (Category VII-D)
• Ground Water Protection-Unknown Source
(Category VII-E)
NFS pollution control needs for these five categories
increased by $4.1 billion in the CWNS 2000. The
increase in NFS pollution control needs can be
attributed, in part, to an increase of $0.3 billion for
Category VII-A, $0.5 billion for Category VII-B, and
$3.5 billion for Category VII-D. Needs for Category
VII-C, however, decreased by $0.16 billion between the
Table 3-6. NFS Pollution Control Needs Reported in
the CWNS 2000 (January 2000 dollars in
billions).
NFS Pollution Control Need Category
Agriculture-Cropland (VII-A)
Total Percent
Needs of Total
0.5
3.5
Agriculture-Animals (VII-B)
0.7
4.7
Silviculture (VII-C)
0.04
0.3
Urban (VII-D)
4.4
32.0
Ground Water Protection-Unknown Source
(VII-E)
0.9
6.3
Marinas (VII-F)
0.002 0.01
Resource Extension (VII-G)
0.04 0.3
Brownfields (VII-H)
0.4
2.6
Storage Tanks (VIM)
1.0
7.4
Sanitary Landfills (VII-J)
13.3
Hydromodification (VII-K)
4.1
29.5
Total
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey and the CWNS 2000;
Category VII-E needs remained the same.
What are the needs for urban and
rural communities?
Geographic data from the CWNS 2000 and information
on urbanized areas from the U.S. Census Bureau were
used to determine the breakdown of needs in urban
and rural areas in the contiguous United States.6
An urbanized area, as currently defined by the U.S.
Census Bureau, consists of densely settled territory
that contains 50,000 or more people. The breakdown
of urban and rural total7 documented needs is $118.1
Photo byJeffVanuga, courtesy ofUSDA NRCS
6 Urbanized areas from the U.S. Census Bureau were delineated to provide a better separation of urban and rural territory, population, and housing in the vicinity of large places. The geographic coordinates of
needs locations were intersected with the urbanized area coverage.
7 The total urban and rural documented needs ($118.1 billion) do not equal the total documented needs ($181.2 billion) because of geographic data limitations in the CWNS 2000. Thus, a difference of
$63.1 billion is not accounted for in the urban and rural documented needs.
-------
Chapter 3: Key Results
3-13
billion (67.1 percent) and $57.8 billion (32.9 percent)
respectively. The total urban needs for Categories I
through VI are $112.4 billion; the total rural needs for
these categories are less than half as much, $53 billion.
For urban areas, a majority of the needs are under
Categories V ($40.8 billion), I ($24.8 billion), III-B
($13.1 billion), and II ($11.2 billion). Categories III-A,
IV-A and B, and VI each have less than $10 billion in
urban area needs. A majority of the needs for rural
areas are in Category I, $11.5 billion; Categories II, IV-
A, and V each have approximately $9 billion in needs.
Almost equal amounts of NFS pollution control needs
were documented for urban and rural areas: urban
areas account for $5.6 billion, and rural areas account
for $4.6 billion in needs.
What are the needs for small
communities?
Small communities, defined as communities with
populations of fewer than 10,000 people and an average
daily wastewater flow of less than 1 million gallons,
have estimated needs of approximately $16 billion
(see Appendix A, Table A-3), representing about 10
percent of the $161.9 billion documented wastewater
treatment and collection system (Categories I through
V) needs for the country. Wastewater treatment needs
(Categories I and II), conveyance needs (Categories III
and IV), and CSO correction needs (Category V) for
small communities are $4.8 billion, $9.4 billion, and
$1.9 billion, respectively. State-by-State presentations
of various aspects of small community needs are
provided in Tables A-3 through A-10 and Table A-13 in
Appendix A.
Figure 3-6 shows the geographic distribution of small
community needs by State. Two-thirds of the wastewater
treatment and collection facilities with documented
needs are for serving small communities. Thirty-four
percent of small communities have documented needs.
With few exceptions, small community facilities are a
large majority of the total number of publicly owned
facilities in each State. It is noteworthy that 90 percent
I $O.S-$1B
^\ $0.2-$O.SB
~] $0.1-$0.2B
Total Documented Small Community Facility Needs = $16.1 Billion g^Es <$01B
Note: American Samoa, Guam, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico,
Virgin Islands, and Wyoming did not participate in the CWNS 2000.
| | None reported
| | Did not participate
Figure 3-6. Geographic distribution of small community needs (January 2000 dollars in billions).
-------
3-14
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
or more of the facilities in five States (Alaska, Kansas,
Nebraska, North Dakota, and West Virginia) serve
small communities. Moreover, in 10 additional States
small community facilities constitute 80 to 90 percent
of the publicly owned facilities.
increases to approximately 21 percent. For the other
small community levels (between 1,000 and 3,500
and between 3,500 and 10,000 people), 6 percent and
5 percent of the facilities are not projected to have
centralized treatment and collection systems.
Figure 3-7 shows a comparison of the number of
facilities, population served, and needs for small and
large communities in the Nation. About 74 percent of
wastewater treatment and collection facilities serve
small communities, yet those facilities serve only 12
percent (32 million people) of the total population.
Approximately 13 percent of the facilities that will
serve small communities (2,514 out of 19,036 facilities)
are not projected to have centralized collection and
treatment systems. These communities will be served
mostly by individual on-site systems. For communities
with populations of fewer than 1,000 people, the
percentage of facilities that are not projected to
have centralized collection and treatment systems
Of the 1,687 new treatment facilities identified
in the CWNS 2000, 843 facilities will serve small
communities where abandonment of individual on-site
system is expected to occur. The majority (75 percent)
of the new small community treatment plants that
are replacing individual on-site systems will serve
populations of fewer than 1,000 people. The 843
facilities will provide service to approximately 707,000
people and account for $0.6 billion in Category I and
II needs and $1.2 billion in Category IV-A and IV-B
needs. Twenty-one new decentralized systems are
planned for small communities where abandonment of
individual on-site system is expected to occur. These
21 facilities will serve approximately 20,000 people
8
I
3
I
100%-
80%-
60%-
40%-
20%-
Projected Wastewater Treatment
and Collection Facilities (25,705 total)
Projected Population Served
(261.3 million total)
Needs for Categories I to V
($161.9 million total)
This figure contains technical data only for facilities that were accepted by EPA. This figure
does not include data from facilities that were not updated by States in the CWNS 2000,
either because the State did not participate in this survey or because the State did not have
resources to update the facilities. Because of these analysis methods, numbers in this figure
cannot be directly compared to Appendix C or Table 3-3.
I Large Communities
_i Small Communities
Figure 3-7. Small versus large community comparison for documented needs and technical information from projected
facilities, if these needs are met.
-------
Chapter 3: Key Results
3-15
and account for $0.04 billion in needs (Categories I, II,
IV-A, and IV-B).
Approximately 37 percent of the facilities in the Nation
serve communities with populations of fewer than
1,000 people (Figure 3-8). The documented need for
wastewater treatment and collection systems for these
facilities is $3.8 billion, constituting 24 percent of
the total documented need of $16 billion for all small
communities. For communities serving between 1,000
and 3,500 people, the documented need for wastewater
treatment and collection systems is $6.6 billion, which
represents 41 percent of the total documented need for
small communities. Finally, for communities that serve
between 3,500 and 10,000 people, the documented need
is $5.7 billion, or 35 percent of the total need for small
communities.
What are the Separate State
Estimates?
To maintain national consistency when documenting
needs, the CWNS National Workgroup established
strict standards governing the form and content of
acceptable need documentation, as described previously
in Chapter 2. In those instances in which EPA
determined that State documentation did not meet the
required criteria, the needs were reported as SSEs. In
other cases, States themselves recognized that fully
acceptable documentation was simply not available,
but they still wished to have their needs recognized
as being a potential demand on State resources; such
estimates also were reported as SSEs.
Nearly all of the States reported some needs that did
not meet the documentation criteria established by
the CWNS National Workgroup. The types of needs
reported for the CWNS 2000 as SSEs in this report
generally fall into the following groups:
• Documentation that did not meet the criteria for
acceptable documentation as per the CWNS 2000
guidelines.
• Unsewered communities where a public health
or water quality problem has not been properly
identified and documented.
26% of facilities
S145.8 billion1
12% of facilities
S5.7 billion1
37% of facilities
S3.8 billion1
25% of facilities
$6.6 billion1
More lhan 10,000 p eop 1 L-
3,500-10,000 people
1,000-3,500 people
Fewer than 1,000 people
"Note: Reflects only Categories I through V
Figure 3-8. Percentage of projected facilities, if all documented needs are met, by population range, and their
documented needs.
-------
3-16
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Separate State Estimate
Needs that have not met the CWNS 2000
documentation requirements described
in Chapter 2.
• NFS pollution control, CSO correction, and storm
water control problems for which formal studies
documenting a water quality or public health
problem have not yet been completed.
• Upgrade or expansion of wastewater treatment
systems based on anticipated changes to State
regulations or water quality standards.
The level of effort put forth by each State to include
SSEs in the CWNS 2000 was voluntary. Therefore,
the reported SSEs do not represent the total need that
would be reported if State resources permitted a more
thorough assessment. The States could report SSEs
for all of the categories (I through VII). Tables A-ll,
A-12, and A-13 in Appendix A provide a State-by-State
presentation of the total SSEs for each category. The
SSEs represent a total of $4.6 billion in addition to those
needs meeting the EPA documentation criteria. The
largest SSEs are for Category VII ($1.3 billion) and for
Category I ($0.9 billion); these two categories make up
48 percent of the SSEs. The smallest reported SSEs are
for Categories V and VI, which account for only $0.09
billion and $0.05 billion of the total $4.6 billion in
SSEs. The other categories with SSEs are Categories II
($0.61 billion), III-A ($0.21 billion), III-B ($0.17 billion),
IV-A ($0.62 billion), and IV-B ($0.65 billion). Category
VIII, Confined Animal-Point Source, and Category IX,
Mining-Point Source, were added to the CWNS 2000
to enhance the States' ability to monitor their pollution
control efforts. Needs related to Categories VIII and
IX are recorded as SSEs in the CWNS 2000 database
because those categories are not CWSRF-eligible.
Realizing that documentation criteria for NFS pollution
control activities continue to evolve, EPA encouraged
the States to submit all NFS pollution control
documentation for review, including the cases where
needs would be reported as SSEs. As a result, 11 States
reported $1.3 billion in NFS pollution control needs as
SSEs, in addition to the $13.8 billion in NFS pollution
control needs that satisfied the required documentation
criteria. As individual States progress in developing
their NFS pollution control programs, it is anticipated
that more detailed, specific documentation and cost data
will become available, thus increasing both documented
needs and SSEs for NFS pollution control in the future.
The State of New York submitted a proposed project
for dredging and disposal of polychlorinated biphenyl
(PCB)-contaminated sediments from the Hudson
River costing $0.45 billion for inclusion as an eligible
NFS category need in the CWNS 2000. These needs
were not included in the CWNS 2000 NFS needs
because this project had already been included under
the Superfund priority list; however, these needs were
included as an SSE need for Category VII-D. Moreover,
a nonmunicipal entity was identified as a potentially
responsible party for the cleanup. EPA's decision
regarding the current policy of including projects from
the Superfund priority list was made too late to include
these needs in the CWNS 2000. EPA plans to address
this issue with the National Workgroup as part of the
planning process for the next needs survey.
Twenty-nine States reported SSEs totaling $1.6 billion
for small communities. This estimate is 10 percent
of the total documented need for small communities,
$16.1 billion. In comparison, the total amount of
SSEs for small and non-small communities is $4.6
billion and constitutes less than 3 percent of the total
documented need of $181.2 billion. Details of the
preceding estimates for individual categories at the
State level are presented in Appendix A, Table A-13.
How does the Clean Watersheds
Needs Survey compare with other
needs initiatives?
Determining estimated costs for the necessary
investment in the Nation's clean water infrastructure is
-------
Chapter 3: Key Results
3-17
an activity that has recently been undertaken by EPA's
Office of Water, as well as by associations of water
and wastewater service providers, local governments
and their ratepayers, and other interested parties. The
following discussion of these other "needs" assessment
activities is intended to provide additional background
and context for this report to Congress.
Water Infrastructure Network Report. The Water
Infrastructure Network (WIN) is a broad-based
coalition of local elected officials; drinking water and
wastewater service providers; state environmental and
health administrators; and engineering, construction,
and environmental associations. The WIN projected
the needs for a 20-year period from 2000 through 2019.
The wastewater need reported by the WIN is $386
billion in 2001 dollars, which is equivalent to $377
billion in January 2000 dollars (WIN, 2000).
The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure
Gap Analysis. EPA conducted a study to identify
whether there is a gap between the projected
investment needed over the next 20 years (2000
through 2019) and current levels of spending for
wastewater and drinking water (USEPA, 2002a). The
purpose of the study was to gain a better understanding
of the full range of financial challenges faced by the
wastewater and drinking water industry. The scope
of the report was limited to a description of the
characteristics of the water and wastewater industry
and a discussion of methods for calculating the capital
and operation and maintenance gaps. The analysis
found that a significant funding gap could develop if
the Nation's wastewater and drinking water systems
continue to maintain current spending and operation
practices. The gap largely disappears if municipalities
increase spending at a real rate of growth of 3 percent
(above the rate of inflation) per year. The Gap Analysis
estimated wastewater needs ranging from $331 billion
to $450 billion. The resulting midpoint is a need of
$388 billion ($379 billion in January 2000 dollars).
The approaches used in the Gap Analysis and the WIN
Report are similar. Both started with numbers from
the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey and subtracted the
amounts for Categories III and IV. An early estimate
for SSO correction ($81.9 billion) was added. Also added
were estimated needs for renewal and replacement of
existing infrastructure based on a number of different
assumptions. The WIN Report used a value of 1/30 of the
Net Capital Stock as a forecast of the costs associated with
renewal and replacement of the existing system. The Gap
Analysis presents several alternative scenarios to address
the amount of overlap between SSO and replacement
needs. The Gap Analysis also includes a range of
estimates for the rate of replacement of the existing
capital stock, then takes the midpoint estimate from
the range. The estimates for renewal and replacement
in both reports were not supported by the type of
documentation EPA requires for CWNS estimates.
-------
3-18 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Chapter 4
Sanitary Sewer Overflows
What are sanitary sewer overflows
and why are they important?
Sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) are releases of raw
sewage from a sanitary sewer collection system before
the wastewater reaches the headworks of a wastewater
treatment plant. The most immediate health risks
associated with SSOs are the release of bacteria,
viruses, and other pathogens onto streets and into
receiving waters.
What causes sanitary sewer
overflows and how can they be
reduced or prevented?
SSOs can be caused by many factors, including peak
flows that exceed system capacity (wet weather SSOs);
blockages; I/I; structural, mechanical, or electrical
failure; and third-party actions or activities. Because
SSOs have so many causes, good practice would dictate
that municipalities implement a comprehensive set of
capital and noncapital measures to prevent them. These
measures can collectively be referred to as capacity
assurance, management, operation, and maintenance
(CMOM) programs.
SSOs caused by capacity problems in collection systems
are typically addressed through a combination of
capital improvements that increase the design capacity
of the collection system or treatment plant and remove
bottlenecks. Also important are flow reduction measures,
including I/I reduction and O&M activities that restore
the effective capacity to near the design capacity.
SSOs caused by blockages or structural, mechanical,
or electrical failures can be reduced through improved
collection system management and effective O&M
programs. Such programs can include relatively minor
capital improvements, such as providing backup pumps,
and noncapital measures like routine sewer cleaning.
Is it possible that sanitary
sewer overflows needs
are already included in
the documented needs for
Categories I, II, III, and IV?
There is no CWNS category specifically
for SSO correction. Some of the
documented costs reported by the
States, particularly in Categories I, II,
III, and IV, do include costs for SSO
correction. However, EPA was not able
to determine what portion of these
documented costs could be specifically
attributed to SSO control. For example,
a community might have an identified
Photo courtesy ofUSEPA OWM
4-1
-------
4-2
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
need to expand an existing treatment plant, but EPA
could not determine how much of that expansion is
needed to accommodate population growth and how
much is needed to address SSOs.
Why did EPA use a model to
develop sanitary sewer overflow
needs estimates for this report?
EPA used a model and included the model's results in
this report because the Agency was concerned that the
CWNS 2000 documented needs would not fully capture
the SSO needs for the Nation. Some municipalities
have indicated that they did not submit documented
needs for SSO correction, such as I/I correction or
sewer rehabilitation/replacement, because of the
perceived low priority of these projects. The model
is based on reducing wet weather overflows within a
collection system to one every 5 years. "One in 5 years"
is a level of control that could be reasonably estimated
by a model at this time using available information.
In addition, the model includes estimates of the cost
of reducing SSOs caused by conditions other than
wet weather, such as SSOs caused by blockages or
structural, mechanical, or electrical failures.
What are the CWNS 2000 modeled
needs estimates for sanitary sewer
overflows?
The national estimate for the capacity-related elements
of future SSO controls that correspond to achieving
one wet weather overflow in a collection system every
5 years is $88.5 billion. This estimate is provided only to
give a rough idea of the capital investment required. The
actual level of investment needed can be determined only
through a case-by-case analysis of each system. The costs
of improved system management and O&M activities
necessary to actually achieve the desired level of control
would be in addition to this estimated cost. The modeled
estimates are illustrated geographically in Figure 4-1, and
the State-by-State estimates are presented in Table 4-1.
Total Modeled SSO Needs = $88.5 Billion
Note: American Samoa, Guam, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico,
Virgin Islands, and Wyoming did not participate in the CWNS 2000.
>$2B
$1-$2B
$0.5-$1B
$0.1-$5B
<$0.1B
Did not participate
Figure 4-1. State-level needs estimate for one wet weather SSO per collection system in 5 years (January 2000
dollars in billions).
-------
Chapter 4: Sanitary Sewer Overflows
4-3
Table 4-1 . State-Level Estimates for Capital
Investments to Restrict SSOs to One Wet
Weather Overflow Per System in 5 Years8
January January
2000 2000
Dollars in Dollars in
State Millions State Millions
Alabama 2,440 New Hampshire 268
Alaska 187 New Jersey 3,044
Arizona 540 New Mexico 704
Arkansas 1,432 New York 3,313
California 3,321 North Carolina 2,471
Colorado 2,387 North Dakota 426
Connecticut 798 Ohio 3,688
Delaware 246 Oklahoma 2,533
Florida 5,788 Oregon 677
Georgia 2,995 Pennsylvania 3,813
Hawaii 722 Rhode Island 233
Idaho 287 South Carolina 1,797
Illinois 3,019 South Dakota 436
Indiana 1,040 Tennessee 1,837
Iowa 1,439 Texas 12,876
Kansas 1,292 Utah 454
Kentucky 1,036 Vermont 135
Louisiana 3,112 Virginia 2,237
Maine 239 Washington 923
Maryland 2,330 West Virginia 664
Massachusetts 1,023 Wisconsin 1,846
Michigan 2,456 Wyoming Ob
Minnesota 1,509 American Samoa Ob
Mississippi 1,346 N. Mariana Islands Ob
Missouri 1,847 Guam Ob
Montana 275 Puerto Rico Ob
Nebraska 971 Virgin Islands Ob
Nevada Ob Total 88,452
1 The modeled costs were based on information entered into the CWNS
database on or before September 5, 2001. This date was chosen because
EPA wanted to have estimates available for use in the allocation formula
the Agency was to develop for the grant program authorized by the Wet
Weather Water Quality Act of 2000. An estimate based on information
in the CWNS database a few months later, when the data entry period
officially ended (January 31, 2002), was not significantly different.
b American Samoa, Guam, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico,
Virgin Islands, and Wyoming did not participate in the CWNS 2000.
What are the limitations of the
modeled sanitary sewer overflow
estimates?
Caution must be exercised in using the modeled SSO
estimates for the following reasons:
• The modeled needs should not be added to
documented needs because the documented needs
for Categories I, II, III, and IV might already
include costs to address SSOs.
• The model was developed to provide national and
state-level estimates of SSO needs. It would be
inappropriate to use the model to develop facility-
by-facility estimates because facilities must be
evaluated individually.
• The model generated a capital cost estimate
for every separate sanitary sewer system for
which data were available from the CWNS 2000
database, regardless of whether other information
did not support the existence of SSO problems.
• The modeled cost reported here does not include
an estimate of the cost for improved collection
system management and O&M, which can be a
significant factor in reducing or eliminating SSOs.
• The model provided an estimate of a combination
of I/I correction, increased storage capacity, and
increased treatment capacity. It is not possible to
separate out the costs for each of these elements.
• The cost estimates provided by the model give
only a rough idea of the order of magnitude of
investment needed for municipal sanitary sewers.
• The model used only five rainfall regions for the
entire United States.
• The model assumed that additional storage is
available across the entire collection system.
-------
4-4 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Chapter 5
Watershed-Based Needs Accounting
How can watershed-based needs
accounting enhance water quality-
based planning and priority setting?
The reporting of needs in previous surveys had limited
geographic focus because data were reported as an
aggregation of individual facility information by State.
Many States are now moving toward developing and
enhancing their environmental protection programs
with a different geographic focus—the watershed.
The watershed protection approach to environmental
management is a strategy that focuses on hydrology,
sound science, and stakeholder/partner participation.
A watershed is a geographic area in which water,
sediments, and dissolved materials drain to a common
outlet such as a point on a larger stream, a lake, an
underlying aquifer, an estuary, or an ocean. Because
watersheds are defined by natural hydrology, not
artificial political boundaries, they represent the most
logical basis for managing water resources. A watershed-
based management approach allows an agency to consider
not only the water resource itself but also the land from
which the water drains and the activities undertaken on
that land. This type of planning helps agencies target
the principal water quality problems regardless of their
source. As a result, many water quality and ecosystem
problems can be solved more effectively at the watershed
level than at the individual waterbody or discharger level.
The watershed approach benefits the economy, the
environment, and communities. It facilitates program
integration, promotes public participation, and focuses
energy on environmental results. Coordinating
efforts across traditional program areas (for example,
drinking water protection, pollution control, fish and
wildlife habitat protection, transportation, and power
generation) allows managers to look at all the issues in
watersheds. The result is a better understanding of the
cumulative impact of many different human activities.
Users of the CWNS 2000 might want to obtain needs
information on a watershed basis for several reasons.
Setting water quality guidelines or standards at the
watershed level allows States to assess both the point
and nonpoint pollution sources in watersheds, track
funding requirements over time, conduct project-
specific analyses, and address problems in the most
cost-effective manner. With limited resources at all
levels of government, watershed-based planning and
assessment allows States to focus on their highest
environmental priorities. Using the CWNS database to
download data can facilitate this process.
Figure 5-1 shows the documented needs in the
CWNS 2000 according to watershed boundaries at the
subregion level. The CWNS 2000 results indicate that
most of the needs are in a small number of watersheds:
90 percent of documented needs are in 24 percent of the
Nation's watersheds.
Because the CWNS now has coordinate information as
well as watershed references, locations can be overlaid
on any scale of watershed. This flexibility allows
people at the Federal, State, and local levels to obtain
information in a usable format. For example, CWNS
data can be integrated with other EPA systems such as
Envirofacts, Enviromapper, Surf Your Watershed, and
water quality modeling systems like EPA's BASINS
(Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and
Nonpoint Source). CWNS data can also assist with
5-1
-------
5-2
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Note: American Samoa, Guam, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands* Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Wyoming did not
participate in the CWNS 2000. In this figure, needs are displayed for Nevada and Wyoming only because needs
from watersheds in participating states cross the state boundaries of Nevada and Wyoming.
Range of Needs
^^| >$1B
| | $0.25B-$1B
| | <$0.2SB
\ None reported
Figure 5-1. Geographic distribution of total documented needs by 4-digit watershed (January 2000 dollars in
billions).
the development of environmental indicators (e.g.,
pounds of pollutants removed from the environment)
and priority setting using other watershed-referenced
information, such as data on 303(d) impaired
waterbodies, and subsequent TMDL development.
The CWNS 2000 takes a geography-centered approach
because location provides essential information for
solving water quality problems. The ability to see on a
map the spatial relationships of factors that contribute
to priority issues and the management actions designed
to address those issues can be powerful. Once those
spatial relationships are established, questions about
the effectiveness of management actions arise.
The following coastal analysis and case study on Long
Island Sound show the benefits of accounting for
needs on a watershed basis. Watershed-based needs
accounting links the land uses in the watershed to all
the potential sources of pollution in the watershed
and to the eligible needs from the CWNS 2000 for the
waterbody. All of the tables and figures in this section
present cost estimates or technical data from the CWNS
2000. With this information, a State can determine the
total effort required to meet water quality standards
for a particular waterbody, assuming all needs are
addressed. Watershed management can offer a strong
foundation for uncovering the many stressors that affect
a watershed. The result is information better suited for
helping managers to determine what actions are needed
to protect or restore the resource.
How do coastal needs differ from
inland needs?
The georeferencing of needs data to the watershed
level permits various types of spatial analyses, one
of which examines coastal needs. Coastal areas are
economically and ecologically productive and diverse,
-------
Chapter 5: Watershed-Based Needs Accounting
5-3
yet they face increasing pressure to produce a high-
quality environment for commerce, industry, tourism,
and development. Coastal land is the most developed
in the Nation, supporting more than 53 percent of the
population. The coastal population is expected to grow at
a slightly faster pace and account for more people than the
rest of the Nation over the next 20 years. Between 1994
and 2015, the coastal population is projected to increase by
28 million people (20 percent), compared to a 22 million
(18 percent) increase in inland areas (Culliton, 1998).
The National Coastal Condition Report (USEPA,
2001b) describes environmental conditions in coastal
areas using information from 1990 to 2000. The
report presents summaries of data from monitoring,
assessment, and advisory programs to create a
benchmark of coastal conditions from which future
progress can be measured. Indicators were calculated
for water clarity, dissolved oxygen, coastal wetland
loss, eutrophic condition, sediment contamination,
benthic index, and fish tissue contamination. The
needs surveys can provide data with a level of detail
similar to that of the coastal condition report, such that
those indicators can be used in conjunction with needs
survey data to prioritize projects or track progress as
needs are addressed.
Figure 5-2 shows coastal watersheds, as defined by the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), in the United States. The CWNS 2000 data
for these coastal watersheds were compared with the
inland watershed data. Coastal watersheds have a
higher proportion of needs in Categories I, III-B, VI,
and VII (Figure 5-3). Although coastal watersheds take
up only 11 percent of the land area in the contiguous
United States (252 million acres of the 2.4 billion acres
of land area), they account for almost 50 percent of
total needs. Based on 2000 U.S. Census figures, per
capita needs are $685 and $565 for coastal and inland
populations.
Coastal Watershed Needs
>$1B
$0.05-$1B
<$0.05
Figure 5-2. Watersheds in United States classified as coastal by NOAA (January 2000 dollars in billions).
-------
5-4
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
$30-
$20-
o $10-
$0
III-A
III-B
IV-A
IV-B
VI
VII
Category
U Coastal Watersheds
I Inland Watersheds
Figure 5-3. Total documented needs in coastal and inland watersheds (January 2000 dollars in billions).
Technical data can also be analyzed by watershed.
Figure 5-4 displays the population receiving five levels
of wastewater treatment, distinguished according
to location in either coastal or inland watersheds.
Less-than-secondary treatment is more prevalent
in coastal watersheds (5 percent of the total coastal
population of 104.9 million receiving treatment)
than in inland watersheds (less than 1 percent of the
total inland population of 102.5 million receiving
treatment) because the CWA section 301(h) program
grants waivers from the act's secondary treatment
requirements to facilities whose discharge to marine
waters will not adversely affect the environment. Forty-
six percent of the 104.9 million coastal residents are
served by secondary treatment, while 37 percent of the
102.5 million inland residents are served by secondary
treatment. Fifteen percent more people in inland
watersheds receive advanced treatment: 56 percent
of the inland population receives treatment at an
advanced level, and 41 percent of the coastal population
receives advanced treatment. No discharge, a level
of treatment used to identify evaporative facilities, is
slightly less prevalent in inland watersheds (5 percent)
compared to coastal watersheds (6 percent). Partial
treatment, in which wastewater is sent to another
facility for further treatment, is also approximately the
same in both coastal watersheds (1 percent) and inland
watersheds (2 percent).
Figure 5-5 shows the geographic distribution of
watersheds that have populations receiving greater than
secondary treatment. Populations of more than 100,000
people receiving advanced wastewater treatment appear
clustered around major metropolitan areas.
The design capacity for treatment facilities in 2000 is
displayed by watershed in Figure 5-6. Again, the higher
range for design capacity is clustered around major
metropolitan areas. Inland watersheds provide a total
design capacity of 23,640 million gallons per day for
154 million people, while coastal watersheds provide a
total design capacity of 19,914 mgd for 130 million people.
-------
Chapter 5: Watershed-Based Needs Accounting
5-5
Coastal Watersheds
Inland Watersheds
I Partial Treatment
] No Discharge
] Less-Than-Secondary
Secondary
Advanced Treatment
Figure 5-4. Percentage of the population receiving various forms of wastewater treatment.
Most of the information in this fiuure is from the CWNS 2000; however, in circumstances where data were not
updated or stun did not participate in the CWNS 2000, data from the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey were used.
Population Receiving Greater
Than Secondary Treatment
by Watershed
^^| >400,000
| | 100,000-400,000
< 100,000
None reported
Figure 5-5. Geographic distribution of watersheds classified by population receiving greater than secondary treatment.
-------
5-6
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Total Present Design Capacity by Watershed
for Inland Watersheds = 24,313 mgd
for Coastal Watersheds = 20,746 mgd
Most of the information in ibis figure is from the CWNS 2000; however, in circumstances where daia were not
upiblfi! or slates did not psmii_-ipiile in [he C'-WNS 20(10, I]XIA fmm the 199ft Clean Wilier \VciU Survey were used-
Total Present Design
Capacity (mgd) by
Watershed "
^B >20°
| | 50-200
| | None reported
Figure 5-6. Geographic distribution of watersheds classified by total present design capacity for treatment facilities in
operation in 2000.
Case Study: Long Island Sound
drainage basin
The Long Island Sound exemplifies the broad-scale
influence of multiple watersheds on a single waterbody.
In 1987 the Long Island Sound was designated an
"Estuary of National Significance." The estuary provides
the regional economy more than $5 billion a year while
also offering feeding, breeding, nesting, and nursery
areas for animals and plants. More than 8 million
people live in the Long Island Sound area. Associated
development has increased some types of pollution,
altered land surfaces, reduced open spaces, and
restricted access to the Sound. The Long Island Sound
is an estuary that receives 90 percent of its fresh water
from three major rivers—the Thames, the Housatonic,
and the Connecticut. The Sound's watershed extends
into Canada and covers an area of about 16,000 square
miles (Figure 5-7). Despite significant improvements in
water quality and coastal zone management, the Sound
continues to have serious problems, particularly hypoxia
(oxygen deficiency), which is caused by excessive
nitrogen loading from sewage treatment plants and
polluted runoff into the Sound (LISS, 2001).
Long Island
Sound
Figure 5-7. Long Island Sound watersheds.
-------
Chapter 5: Watershed-Based Needs Accounting
5-7
The Long Island Sound Study (LISS) is a research
and management project begun in 1985 by the Federal
government, Connecticut, and New York. The
National Estuary Program, under the Clean Water
Act, now funds the LISS. The study is a cooperative
effort involving researchers, regulators, user groups,
and other concerned organizations and individuals
working to protect and improve the health of the Sound
by implementing a CCMP. The CCMP prescribed
dividing the Long Island Sound drainage basins into
zones for total nitrogen load management. One of these
zones encompasses the Quinnipiac River watershed,
which has a drainage area of 327,900 acres. The
location of the Quinnipiac River watershed and costs to
meet needs identified for it are shown in Figure 5-8.
In 1999 EPA began coordinating with the Connecticut,
Housatonic, and Thames River Basins; Block Island
Sound; and the New York Harbor States to identify
nitrogen sources, evaluate the impact of the nitrogen
loads on dissolved oxygen concentrations in the Long
Island Sound, and establish a nitrogen reduction
program and schedule. Managing needs on a watershed
basis will allow for prioritization and allocation of
efforts for implementing nitrogen load reduction.
Figure 5-9 shows the multiple watersheds that affect
the Sound and associated costs for projects to control
point and nonpoint source pollution. Table 5-1 draws
on data from the CWNS 2000 to show the level of
wastewater treatment for facilities draining to the Long
Island Sound.
Long Island Sound
Legend
\__ Rivers
1 Quinnipiac River watershed
Facility Nature
^ Combined sewer
Q Separate sewer
A Individual on-site system area
• Treatment plant
/T\ Nonpoint source discharge
^^ location
CWNS Need Categories
Secondary treatment
Advanced treatment
Infiltration/inflow correction
Sewer replacement/rehabilitation
New collectors and appurtenances
New interceptors and appurtances
CSO control
Storm water management programs
Nonpoint source pollution control
Total needs
Needs
($ Millions)
$137
$174
$7
$0
$14
$19
$289
$0
$16
$656
Figure 5-8. Location of Quinnipiac River watershed, facility locations, and watershed's needs (January 2000 dollars in
millions).
-------
5-8
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
| | State boundary
Watershed needs (Millions)
| | $25M-$100M
[~ ~1 <$10-$25M
<$10M
40 Miles
Figure 5-9. Total documented needs in Long Island Sound watersheds (January 2000 dollars in millions).
Table 5-1. Level of Wastewater Treatment for Facilities Draining to Long Island Sound
Advanced
Secondary Treatment No Discharge
Level of Treatment
Existing
Less Than
Secondary
Partial
Treatment
Total
Number of facilities
184
57
95
85
421
Design capacity (mgd)
2,217
354
2,579
Number of people served
8,784,320
2,045,961
98,236
10,928,517
Projected
Number of facilities
145
100
89
122
456
Design capacity (mgd)
1,981
561
21
2,563
Number of people served
7,123,036
3,900,688
257,483
11,281,207
What are some other benefits of
taking a watershed approach to
needs accounting?
By taking a watershed approach to needs accounting,
greater attention is placed on protecting or restoring
the resource and on achieving real ecological results
than on meeting administrative requirements. A more
thorough understanding of threats and conditions
in watersheds provides a stronger basis for targeting
priority concerns. The CWNS 2000 provides financial
and technical data useful for planning and priority
setting at a variety of geographic scales. These data can
be used to generate maps from the CWNS 2000, such
as Figures 5-5 and 5-6, to which maps generated with
data from future surveys can be compared to visualize
how wastewater trends in watersheds have changed
since the CWNS 2000. CWNS watershed data can also
help in developing program and technical tools such as
how-to guides, models, case studies, and environmental
indicators.
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Chapter 6
Concluding Remarks
All the needs presented in this report existed as of
January 1, 2000, and are eligible for CWSRF assistance
under the CWA. Unlike wastewater infrastructure
planning during the 1970s and 1980s, which used
a 20-year planning horizon, current wastewater
infrastructure planning horizons vary considerably
across the United States. Often this planning horizon is
now only 5 or 10 years. This report also differs from the
reports presented to Congress in the 1970s and 1980s
in that the information gathered by the States now
includes data on storm water management programs
and a wide variety of NFS pollution control projects in
addition to data on wastewater treatment and collection
systems. The planning horizons of the storm water and
NFS projects included in the CWNS 2000 range from
less than 5 years to 20 years or more.
The 21-month data collection period was an extensive
effort by EPA and the States. Although the level of
effort that States put forth in reporting their CWNS
2000 data varied considerably because of resource
and data availability, numerous advances were made
toward increasing the value of the CWNS 2000 data
beyond the CWA-mandated reporting requirements.
Photo courtesy ofUSDA NRCS
6-1
-------
6-2
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
EPA believes that more State water quality managers
will recognize the ancillary analytical opportunities
that the CWNS database provides and will begin using
the CWNS data to accomplish multiple objectives.
EPA also expects that some of the parameters in future
needs surveys will change as water quality management
programs continue to address a broader spectrum of
water quality problems. The issues described below
have emerged as key areas of emphasis during this
survey and are currently considered likely to drive the
scope and objectives of future surveys.
Watershed Management and Total Maximum Daily
Loads. The needs in the CWNS are presented on
a State-by-State basis, reflecting the responsibility
that States have in achieving water quality standards
and other CWA goals. Recently, however, substantial
emphasis has been placed on using the watershed
approach to address the water quality goals of the
CWA more holistically. This is particularly the case
as States continue to develop Total Maximum Daily
Loads (TMDLs) for impaired waters on a watershed
basis, integrating point and nonpoint source pollutant
loadings. Rather than managing sources of pollution
within political boundaries or from a single type of
discharge, the watershed approach provides a more
comprehensive perspective for both analysis and
efficient use of resources. For example, the CWNS
database can be used to summarize ongoing or planned
projects in a watershed to facilitate the development of
TMDL implementation plans.
EPA anticipates that more States will adopt the
watershed approach to more efficiently manage
available resources in a watershed and improve
communication and coordination among the multiple
agencies responsible for water pollution control. EPA
and the States have made a concerted effort in the
CWNS 2000 to gather information on a watershed basis
consistent with the watershed management concept.
In Chapter 5 of the report, national watershed analyses
and a case study from the Long Island Sound are
presented to illustrate the potential of the CWNS to
organize needs information by watershed.
New approaches for managing the investments in
municipal wastewater infrastructure. Since the early
1970s, Federal, State, and local governments have made
significant investments in wastewater infrastructure
systems. Most of these investments were directed
toward enlarging the capacity of sewers and treatment
plants to serve a growing population and to upgrade the
level of treatment to secondary treatment and beyond.
EPA expects that a large portion of future investments
might be directed to rehabilitation, replacement, and
other activities that maintain the original capacity
and treatment levels or increase efficiency. This is a
reasonable expectation because much of the Nation's
infrastructure (especially sewers) has reached, or
soon will reach, the end of its original design life.
New management techniques, including "asset
management" and "life cycle cost analysis" will enable
municipalities to make more intelligent investments in
their wastewater infrastructure.
Asset management is a technique that will enable
municipalities to determine the type of capital
investment to make and when to make it to maintain
the original capacity and function. The intent is to
make a series of small, but significant, investments
in operation and maintenance rather than letting a
system deteriorate to the point of catastrophic failure,
at which complete reconstruction might be required.
Life cycle cost analysis is an approach in which initial
investments in capital projects are determined based
on the cost to build, operate, and maintain the facility
over its entire useful life rather than on the initial
construction cost alone.
CSO and SSO Correction. The Nation has made
progress toward planning for CSO and SSO correction.
As this survey shows, some States have begun to use
long-term control plans to document expected capital
expenditures for CSO correction. EPA anticipates
that more long-term control plans will be completed
before the next survey, and as a result the quality of
the CSO correction needs will be greatly improved. In
the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey, EPA recognized
that SSOs occur throughout the United States and
-------
Chapter 6: Concluding Remarks
6-3
initiated work to address SSO costs in coordination
with the SSO Federal Advisory Committee and other
EPA workgroups. The significant increase in I/I
correction (Category III-A) and sewer replacement and
rehabilitation (Category III-B) needs also demonstrates
that local agencies are planning for SSO correction.
Because of the disparity between the modeled SSO
costs described in this report and the categories of
needs characteristic of SSO needs, EPA expects that
more SSO needs will be documented in the next survey.
Storm Water Management Programs and NFS
Pollution Controls. Only a limited number of States
were able to document storm water management
program and NFS pollution control needs. As a result,
the needs reported underestimate the actual national
needs in those categories. EPA anticipates that more
States will be able to document these needs in the
next survey, and the Agency will work with States to
remove the barriers that might have prevented some
States from including appropriate data for these two
categories in the CWNS 2000.
Use of Decentralized Waste-water Treatment and
Individual On-site Systems. In April 1997 EPA
responded to an inquiry by Congress, noting that
"Adequately managed decentralized wastewater systems
are a cost-effective and long-term option for meeting
public health and water quality objectives, particularly
in less-densely populated areas"
(USEPA, 1997a). No estimate of
national cost savings was given,
although an evaluation of case
studies in the study suggested
that decentralized systems are
cost-effective, particularly in rural
areas. Using both centralized and
decentralized wastewater systems
can be cost-effective in urban
fringe areas, depending on site
conditions and the distance to an
existing centralized system with
available capacity. The response
to Congress identified several
barriers to implementing these systems, including
public misconceptions and lack of public knowledge.
The work to remove these barriers is not yet completed.
Based on the needs presented in this report, EPA
projects that 1,687 new treatment facilities will be
constructed. Of these facilities, 634 facilities will serve
communities with fewer than 1,000 people where
abandonment of individual on-site systems is projected.
Another 209 facilities are projected for communities
with between 1,000 and 10,000 people. EPA expects
that the projected increase in centralized collection
and treatment systems might be lower in the next
survey as more planning authorities recognize that
properly designed, constructed, and operated on-site
or decentralized systems should be considered a
permanent part of the wastewater infrastructure rather
than an interim solution.
Planning and Targeting. EPA encourages States to
target projects that are necessary to ensure compliance
with the requirements of the CWA. EPA also promotes
States' use of enhanced planning and integrated
targeting tools that include NFS and estuary projects
along with wastewater treatment and collection system
projects. The objective of these and other ongoing
efforts is to manage CWSRF resources and other funds
to more efficiently and effectively address high-priority
problems in the watersheds of the United States.
Photo by Randall McCune, courtesy of Michigan Travel Bureau
-------
6-4 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Glossary
Note: Definitions are provided to help the reader understand the terms used throughout the report. They are
not intended to be used for legal purposes.
301 (h) Waiver of Secondary Treatment for
Marine Discharges
A variance (authorized under section 301(h) of
the Clean Water Act) from secondary treatment
requirements for treatment facilities that discharge to
marine waters.
advanced treatment
A level of treatment that is more stringent than
secondary treatment or produces a significant
reduction in nonconventional pollutants present in
the wastewater treated by a facility. Needs reported
in this category (Category II) are necessary to attain
incremental reductions in pollutant concentrations
beyond basic secondary treatment. See Appendix G,
Table G-l, Category II.
best management practice (BMP)
A practice or combination of practices determined to
be an effective and practicable (including technological,
economic, and institutional considerations) means of
controlling point and nonpoint source pollutants at
levels compatible with environmental quality goals.
brownfields
Land that was developed for industrial purposes
and then abandoned, which might have residual
contamination. See Appendix G, Table G-l,
Category VII-H.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
A State-managed revolving fund that provides loans
for specific water pollution control purposes. Under
the CWSRF Program, States and municipalities are
primarily responsible for financing, constructing,
and managing wastewater treatment facilities. The
CWSRF Program is based on the 1987 Amendments to
the Clean Water Act, which replaced the Construction
Grants program with the CWSRF Program.
collection system
A system of collector and/or interceptor sewers that
collects wastewater from a community.
collector sewers
Pipes used to collect and carry wastewater from a
sanitary or industrial wastewater source to an interceptor
sewer that conveys the wastewater to a treatment facility.
See Appendix G, Table G-l, Category IV-A.
combined sewer overflow (CSO)
Discharge of a mixture of storm water and untreated
wastewater that occurs when the capacity of a combined
sewer system is exceeded during a rainstorm. See
Appendix G, Table G-l, Category V.
combined sewer system
Sewer system designed to convey both domestic
sanitary wastewater and storm water.
community
With respect to wastewater treatment, a group of
residences, businesses, and/or industries sharing a
common treatment or conveyance facility.
Glossary-1
-------
Glossary-2
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP)
A management plan that summarizes findings, identifies
and establishes priorities for addressing environmental
problems, identifies environmental quality goals, and
presents action plans and compliance schedules for
pollution control and resource management.
concentrated animal facility (feedlot)
A facility for the controlled feeding of animals that
tends to concentrate large amounts of animal waste
that cannot be absorbed by the soil and therefore
might be carried to nearby streams or lakes by rainfall
runoff. Facilities with fewer than 1,000 animal units
are generally considered nonpoint sources. Facilities
with more than 1,000 animal units or facilities with
water quality problems that discharge directly to waters
of the United States are considered point sources and
are regulated through National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permitting.
conveyance needs
The cost estimate to construct, expand, or upgrade
sewer collection systems for transporting wastewater
to treatment facilities. See Appendix G, Table G-l,
Categories IV-A and IV-B.
design year needs
The cost estimate for building publicly owned wastewater
treatment facilities eligible for assistance under the Clean
Water Act to serve the population expected within 20
years. For the CWNS 2000, the design year is 2020.
drainage basin
A geographic area in which water, sediments, and
dissolved materials drain to a common outlet, typically
a point on a larger stream, a lake, an underlying
aquifer, an estuary, or an ocean. A watershed is also
sometimes referred to as the "drainage basin" of the
receiving water body. See watershed.
estuarine protection
Activities necessary to develop and implement
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans
(CCMPs) for protecting estuaries under the National
Estuary Program created by Clean Water Act section
320. Estuary protection activities focus on restoring
and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the estuary and controlling nonpoint
sources of pollution.
estuary
The zone along a coastline where freshwater systems
and rivers meet and mix with salty ocean waters (such as
a bay, mouth of a river, salt marsh, or lagoon).
facility
A project and location involved in water quality
management, such as a wastewater treatment plant or
sewer system, a municipal separate storm sewer system,
or a nonpoint source (NFS) pollution control project.
Although the term facility is typically construed as
wastewater treatment facility or some other structure,
for NFS pollution control it refers to a place. Data
in the CWNS 2000 were collected and organized by
facility for all types of water pollution control.
facility plan
Any plan or study that directly relates to the
construction of treatment works necessary to comply
with the Clean Water Act. A facility plan investigates
needs and provides information on the cost-
effectiveness of alternatives. A recommended plan and
an environmental assessment of the recommendations
are also presented in a facility plan. A facility plan
includes a description of the treatment works for
which construction drawings and specifications are
to be prepared. The description includes preliminary
engineering data, cost estimates for design and
construction of the treatment works, and a schedule for
completion of design and construction.
fertilizer
Any organic or inorganic material of natural or
synthetic origin that is added to soil to supply elements
essential to plant growth.
ground water protection
Activities addressed in a State's ground water
protection strategy that must be a part of the Nonpoint
-------
Glossary-3
Source Management Program under section 319(i)
of the Clean Water Act to build State institutional
capabilities to protect ground water resources from
nonpoint sources of contamination. Activities include
demonstrations, enforcement, technical assistance,
education, and training. Wellhead protection and
underground injection control for Class V wells, as well
as water conservation programs, may be included.
headworks
With respect to a treatment facility, the initial
component into which the influent wastewater flows.
herbicide
A chemical substance designed to kill or inhibit the
growth of plants, especially weeds.
hydromodification
Alteration of the hydrologic characteristics of
waters and of their aquatic habitat, including
flows, morphology, bottom sediments, and riparian
vegetation and related characteristics. Subcategories
of hydromodification include channelization and
channel modification, dams, and streambank and
shoreline erosion. Needs to address some aspects of
hydromodification are addressed in the CWNS 2000.
hypoxia
Oxygen deficiency in aquatic ecosystems, which is
a symptom of eutrophication. Eutrophication is the
process by which a water body becomes rich in organic
nutrients such as phosphate and nitrate from runoff,
treatment plant discharges, and other sources, thereby
promoting the growth of algae. The rapid growth of
algae depletes the water body of oxygen and impedes
the survival of other species.
infiltration/inflow correction
Control of the problem of penetration into a sewer
system of water other than wastewater from the ground
through such means as defective pipes or manholes
(infiltration) or from drains, storm sewers, and other
improper means of entry into the system (inflow). See
Appendix G, Table G-l, Category III-A.
interceptor sewer
A major sewer line that receives wastewater flows
from collector sewers. An interceptor sewer carries
wastewater directly to the treatment facility or to
another interceptor. See Appendix G, Table G-l,
Category IV-B.
lagoon
With respect to wastewater treatment, a pond in
which algae, sunlight, and oxygen interact to restore
wastewater to a quality often equal to that of the
effluent from the secondary treatment stage. Lagoons
are widely used by small communities to provide
wastewater treatment. A lagoon might not have a
discharge to surface waters under normal (dry-weather)
operation.
Municipal Compliance Plan (MCP)
A strategy that describes the necessary treatment
technology and estimated costs and also outlines
the proposed sources, methods, and schedules of
financing the wastewater treatment facility needed for
a municipality to achieve compliance with regulations
(including both construction and operation and
maintenance).
municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4)
Any pipe, ditch, or gully, or system of pipes, ditches,
or gullies, that is owned or operated by a governmental
body or other entity and used for collecting and
conveying storm water.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES)
A provision under sections 301 and 402 of the Clean
Water Act that prohibits discharge of pollutants into
waters of the United States unless authorized by a
permit issued by EPA or (where delegated) a State or a
Tribal government on an Indian reservation.
need
A water quality or public health problem and an
associated abatement cost that is eligible for funding
under the CWSRF.
-------
Glossary-4
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
nonpoint source (NPS)
Technically, a source of water pollution that is not
regulated as a point source. More colloquially, the
term nonpoint source refers to any source of water
pollution that results from land runoff, precipitation,
atmospheric deposition, drainage, seepage, or
hydrologic modification. The primary categories of
pollution treated as nonpoint sources are agriculture,
silviculture, urban runoff (including on-site wastewater
treatment systems, but excluding storm water
discharges regulated under section 402(p) of the
Clean Water Act), hydromodification, marinas and
recreational boating, and abandoned mines (except
where regulated by a permit issued under section 402 of
the Clean Water Act).
nutrient
An element or compound that is essential for the
growth and development of an organism; for example,
carbon, nitrogen, or phosphorus.
on-site wastewater treatment system
Any combination of unit processes or best management
practices designed to receive, treat, and dispose of
wastewater from individual structures (such as homes
and businesses). Examples are septic tanks and holding
tanks.
pesticide
Any chemical agent used to control plant or animal
pests. Pesticides include insecticides, herbicides,
fungicides, nematocides, and rodenticides.
point source
A single point of origin for pollutants or a specific
outlet through which pollutants are introduced into
a receiving water body. Wastewater treatment plant
outfalls and combined sewer overflow points of
discharge are typical point sources of pollution.
primary treatment
The first stage of wastewater treatment, which includes
removal of floating debris and solids by screening and
sedimentation.
publicly owned treatment works (POTW)
A wastewater treatment facility owned by a public entity,
such as a city, a county, or a special sanitary district.
redocumentation
The process by which documentation dated prior to
1990 supporting an individual facility's needs was
updated or revised for the CWNS 2000. Facilities with
needs in excess of $20 million had to be updated or
revised as necessary by documentation dated January 1,
1994, or later.
replacement/rehabilitation of sewers
Reinforcement or reconstruction of structurally
deteriorating sewers (beyond normal maintenance). See
Appendix G, Table G-l, Category III-B.
riparian vegetation
Vegetation present on the banks of a river or stream or
on the shore of a lake.
sanitary sewer
A sewer designed to carry only domestic sanitary
sewage and no storm water.
sanitary sewer overflow (SSO)
A discharge of raw domestic sewage from a separate
sewer system before the sanitary wastewater reaches the
headworks of a wastewater treatment facility.
secondary wastewater treatment
The minimum level of treatment that must be
maintained by all treatment facilities except those
facilities granted waivers under section 301 (h) of the
Clean Water Act. Treatment levels are specific in terms
of the concentration of conventional pollutants in the
wastewater effluent discharged from a facility after
treatment. Secondary treatment typically requires a
treatment level that will meet an effluent quality of
30 mg/L of both BOD5 and total suspended solids,
although secondary treatment levels required for some
lagoon systems might be less stringent. In addition,
the secondary treatment must remove 85 percent of
BOD5 and total suspended solids from the influent
wastewater. See Appendix G, Table G-l, Category I.
-------
Glossary-5
separate sewer system/sanitary sewer system
A sewer system designed to exclude storm water and
used to convey only domestic sanitary wastewater.
Separate State Estimates (SSE)
Needs that are not included in EPA's estimates for
the CWNS 2000 because the needs are justified with
documents other than the established documentation
types or they have no written documentation.
silviculture
Care and cultivation of forest trees (e.g., forestry). See
Appendix G, Table G-l, Category VII-C.
small community
A community with a population of fewer than 10,000
people and a total wastewater flow of less than 1 million
gallons per day.
storm sewer
A sewer that carries only runoff from storm events.
storm water
Runoff water resulting from precipitation. See
Appendix G, Table G-l, Category VI.
treatment facility
A structure designed to treat wastewater, storm water,
or flows from combined sewers prior to their discharge
to the environment. Treatment is accomplished by
subjecting the wastewater to a combination of physical,
chemical, and/or biological processes that reduce the
concentration of contaminants.
urban nonpoint source runoff
Wet weather runoff from urbanized areas not included
in Phase I or Phase II of the Storm Water Permit
Program. Includes runoff from construction activities
occupying less than 1 acre. See Appendix G, Table G-l,
Category VII-D.
urbanized area
As defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, densely settled
territory that contains 50,000 or more people.
wastewater
Dissolved or suspended waterborne waste material.
Sanitary or domestic wastewater refers to liquid
material collected from residences, offices, and
institutions. Industrial wastewater refers to wastewater
from manufacturing facilities. Municipal wastewater
is a general term applied to any liquid treated in a
municipal treatment facility and usually includes a
mixture of sanitary and pretreated industrial wastes.
wastewater infrastructure
The pipes and appurtenances for the collection,
treatment, and disposal of sewage in a community.
The level of treatment depends on the size of the
community, the type of discharge, or the designated
use of the receiving water.
water quality criteria
Specific levels of water quality that, if achieved, are
expected to render a body of water suitable for its
designated use. The criteria are based on specific levels
of pollutants that would make the water harmful if used
for purposes such as drinking, swimming, farming, fish
production, or industrial processes.
water quality standards
State-adopted and EPA-approved ambient standards for
water bodies. The standards cover the use of the water
body and the water quality criteria that must be met to
protect the designated use or uses.
watershed
A geographic area in which water, sediments, and
dissolved materials drain to a common outlet, typically a
point on a larger stream, a lake, an underlying aquifer, an
estuary, or an ocean. A watershed is sometimes referred
to as the "drainage basin" of the receiving water body.
wetland protection
Activities to protect and restore wetlands that are
an integral part of a Nonpoint Source Management
Program or part of implementation or development
of a Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan under the Clean Water Act section 320 National
Estuary Program.
-------
Glossary- 6 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Bibliography
Culliton, TJ. 1998. Population: Distribution, Density
and Growth. In State of the Coast Report. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), Silver Spring, MD.
IHS (Indian Health Service). N.d. Public Law 86-121:
Annual Report for 2000. Indian Health Service
Sanitation Facilities Program, .
LISS (Long Island Sound Study). 2001. Sound Health
2001—The Status and Trends in the Health of Long
Island Sound, .
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1993.
7992 Needs Survey: Report to Congress. EPA-832-R-
93-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1994.
Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, Washington, DC. Fed. Regist., April 19,
1994,59:18688.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
1996. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund
Funding Framework. EPA-832-B-96-005. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
1997a. Response to Congress on Use of Decentralized
Wastewater Treatment Systems. EPA-832-R-97-001b.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, Washington, DC. .
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1997b.
7996 Clean Water Needs Survey Report To Congress.
EPA-832-R-97-003. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
1999. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System—Regulations for Revision of the Water
Pollution Control Program Addressing Storm
Water Discharges. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. Fed.
Regist., Dec. 8,1999, 64:68722.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
2000a. Report to Congress on the Phase I Storm
Water Regulations. EPA-833-R-00-001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
2000b. Progress in Water Quality: An Evaluation
of the Nation's Investment in Municipal Wastewater
Treatment. EPA-832-R-00-008. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington,
DC. .
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency).
2000c. Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Needs
Report. Draft report. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of
Wastewater Management, Washington, DC.
Bibliography-1
-------
Bibliography-2
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001a.
Implementation and Enforcement of the Combined
Sewer Overflow Control Policy. Report to Congress.
EPA-833-R-01-003. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001b.
National Coastal Condition Report. EPA-620-R-
01-005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Research and Development/Office of
Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002a.
The Clean Water and Drinking Water GAP Analysis.
EPA-816-R-02-020. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2002b.
National Water Quality Inventory: 2000 Report.
EPA-841-F-02-001. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
WIN (Water Infrastructure Network). 2000. Clean
and Safe Water in the 21st Century. .
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Appendix A
Summary of
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000
Cost Estimates
A-l
-------
A-2
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table A-l summarizes by State the CWNS 2000 assessment of total needs for was
facilities, storm water management programs, and NFS pollution control projects
investment necessary to plan, design, build, replace, or rehabilitate publicly owne
collection facilities (Categories I through V) and establish and implement storm \
(Category VI). The NFS pollution control Category (VII) includes costs for agrict
ground water protection, marinas, resource extraction, brownfields, storage tanks
hydromodification. These needs include all planning, design, and construction a<
the CWSRF in accordance with Title VI of the Clean Water Act. Needs estimates
slightly from those presented in Tables ES-1, 3-1, and 3-4 and the text because of
Table A-1. CWNS 2000 Total Needs (January 2000 dollars in millions)
Category of Need
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Total
2,720
560
6,199
500
14,402
1,340
2,349
288
1,478
9,966
2,336
1,743
207
11,888
7,222
1,954
1,419
2,797
2,370
1,102
4,779
4,675
4,092
2,319
856
4,998
516
1,194
1
14
306
726
37
3,916
183
399
33
305
299
114
575
119
795
626
240
373
654
410
176
1,239
874
837
660
92
725
170
149
II
951
7
2,368
117
3,748
812
923
23
37
2,853
205
19
29
103
171
22
100
101
146
7
837
249
73
101
129
22
70
56
III-A
135
7
126
22
111
5
85
0
14
129
1,004
471
3
27
65
23
213
193
1,167
3
94
59
107
42
156
720
14
7
III-B
1,168
65
240
24
3,114
179
16
68
64
562
25
441
18
1,204
419
79
2
280
216
31
739
92
307
281
152
297
55
11
IV-A
386
163
319
41
82
16
170
58
0
1,191
9
88
18
95
291
36
65
756
240
88
407
662
301
45
184
301
100
11
IV-B
66
7
1,081
71
1,853
37
161
4
0
1,012
61
149
20
169
176
19
270
592
189
16
369
406
30
104
143
193
60
75
tewater treatmeni
. The needs repre
d wastewater trea
rater managemen
ilture, silvicultur
, sanitary landfil
:tivities eligible f<
presented in Tab
independent roui
V
0
5
0
0
426
9
500
102
1,019
0
918
0
0
9,450
5,468
1,534
396
217
0
653
396
2,324
2,437
6
0
1,180
0
861
VI
0
0
1,251
0
352
48
0
0
37
680
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
0
0
456
0
0
120
0
0
0
24
and collection
sent the capital
tment and
t programs
e, urban,
.s, and
Dr funding under
le A-l might vary
iding.
VII
0
0
88
188
800
51
95
0
2
3,240
0
0
0
45
6
0
0
1
2
128
242
9
0
960
0
1,560
47
0
Total (I-V)
2,720
560
4,860
312
13,250
1,241
2,254
288
1,439
6,046
2,336
1,743
207
11,843
7,216
1,953
1,419
2,793
2,368
974
4,081
4,666
4,092
1,239
856
3,438
469
1,170
continued
-------
Appendix A: Summary of Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Cost Estimates
A-3
Table A-1. (continued)
State Total
Nevada NR
New Hampshire 906
New Jersey 12,827
New Mexico 206
New York 20,422
North Carolina 5,927
North Dakota 52
Ohio 8,722
Oklahoma 586
Oregon 1,477
Pennsylvania 8,060
Rhode Island 1,415
South Carolina 1,309
South Dakota 142
Tennessee 604
Texas 9,152
Utah 848
Vermont 144
Virginia 3,519
Washington 2,744
West Virginia 2,529
Wisconsin 3,338
Wyoming NR
American Samoa NR
Guam NR
N. Mariana Islands NR
Puerto Rico NR
Virgin Islands NR
Total 181,198
Categories
I Secondary wastewater treatment
II Advanced wastewater treatment
III-A Infiltration/inflow correction
Note: NR = not reported. American Samoa
a Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
Category of Need
1 II
NR NR
127 47
2,818 368
94 15
9,853 776
423 1,737
27 0"
1,219 391
85 25
540 155
845 204
109 113
551 334
16 29
66 45
2,009 813
347 74
45 32
727 777
1,000 52
298 12
588 141
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
36,833 20,419
III-A III-B
NR NR
7 33
339 610
9 42
75 2,072
291 205
2 17
1,493 112
1 207
4 654
121 119
12 52
1 13
0 44
48 107
235 1,323
Oa 97
Oa Oa
111 358
226 136
134 47
54 365
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
8,165 16,762
III-B Sewer replacement/rehabilitation
IV-A New collector sewers and appurtenances
IV-B New interceptor sewers and appurtenances
IV-A IV-B V VI
NR NR NR NR
6 135 485 0
1,007 411 4,385 89
18 21 0 0
538 173 5,497 16
1,725 1,535 3 1
0104
725 533 3,623 0
33 45 0 190
16 34 74 0
963 197 5,431 17
345 119 633 0
283 125 0 0
13 6 2 14
58 36 244 0
616 1,890 0 2,225
98 217 0 5
33 2 31 0
516 570 460 0
198 521 608 0
691 478 869 0
260 462 342 16
NR NR NR NR
NR NR NR NR
NR NR NR NR
NR NR NR NR
NR NR NR NR
NR NR NR NR
14,265 14,844 50,588 5,549
VII Total (I-V)
NR NR
66
2,800
7
1,422
7
1
626
0
0
163
32
2
18
0
41
10
1
0
3
0
1,110
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
840
9,938
199
18,984
5,919
47
8,096
396
1,477
7,880
1,383
1,307
110
604
6,886
833
143
3,519
2,741
2,529
2,212
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
13,773 161,876
V Combined sewer overflow correction
VI Storm water management programs
VII NFS pollution control (see Table A-2 for totals by subcate
, Guam, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Wyoming did not partic
;ory)
pate in the CWNS 2000.
-------
A-4
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table A-2 summarizes the CWNS 2000 assessment of total documented needs for NFS pollution control projects
by State. The total documented needs for the CWSRF-eligible projects represent the capital investment necessary
to implement activities in approved State NFS Management Plans under section 319 and to develop and implement
a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan under section 320 of the Clean Water Act. These needs have
met the established documentation criteria and are eligible for funding under Title VI of the Clean Water Act.
Needs estimates presented in Table A-2 might vary slightly from those presented in Tables ES-1, 3-1, and 3-4; and
the text because of independent rounding.
Table A-2. CWNS 2000 Total Needs for NFS Pollution Control Projects (January 2000 dollars in millions)
Category VII Needs
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
A
0
0
23
54
36
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
8
0
0
B
0
0
3
112
44
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
22
Oa
0
0
168
0
14
0
0
c
0
0
oa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
0
0
0
0
0
oa
0
0
D
0
0
61
13
26
50
45
0
0
2,432
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
7
2
0
0
10
0
203
47
0
E
0
0
oa
0
290
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
oa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
oa
0
0
0
0
F
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
0
0
6
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
291
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
51
7
0
0
479
0
477
0
0
J
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
176
5
0
0
0
23
0
0
K
0
0
1
3
400
0
37
0
2
808
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
0
0
5
57
4
0
2
0
830
0
0
Total
0
0
88
188
800
51
95
0
2
3,240
0
0
0
45
6
0
0
1
2
128
242
9
0
960
0
1,560
47
0
continued
-------
Appendix A: Summary of Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Cost Estimates
A-5
Table A-2. (continued)
State
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
N. Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
Categories
A Agriculture (cropland)
B Agriculture (animals)
C Silviculture
D Urban
A
NR
0
1
0
59
0
0
170
0
0
8
0
0
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
69
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
480
B
NR
0
4
0
115
0
0
26
0
0
8
0
0
11
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
118
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
653
E
F
G
H
C D
NR NR
0 0
0 148
0 0
0 104
0 7
0 1
1 352
0 0
0 0
0 147
0 0
0 0
0 2
0 0
0 41
0 1
0 1
0 0
0 3
0 0
0 709
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
44 4,416
Category VII Needs
E
NR
0
430
2
127
0
Oa
4
0
0
0
1
0
oa
0
oa
0
0
0
0
0
11
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
866
F
NR
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2
Ground water protection (unknown source)
Marinas
Resource extraction
Brownfields
Notes:
1) NFS pollution control modeled needs are $21 .5 billion in January 2000 dollars (Appendix D).
2) NR = not reported. American Samoa, Guam, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Vir
a Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
G
NR
0
oa
0
0
0
0
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
38
H
NR
0
10
5
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
356
1
NR
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1,019
J
NR
66
893
0
626
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1,831
K
NR
0
1,314
0
359
0
0
51
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
174
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
4,068
Total
NR
66
2,800
7
1,422
7
1
626
0
0
163
32
2
18
0
41
10
1
0
3
0
1,110
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
13,773
I Storage tanks
J Sanitary landfills
K Hydromodification
>in Islands
and Wyoming did not participate in the CWNS 2000.
-------
A-6
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table A-3 provides a summary of all publicly owned small community wastewater treatment and collection facilities
identified in the CWNS 2000 by State, as well as any associated SSEs. For the purpose of this table, wastewater
treatment and collection facilities refers to centralized wastewater treatment plants, centralized wastewater
collection systems, decentralized systems, individual on-site system areas, and facilities that treat and convey
wastewater that do not fit in one of the previous classifications. Tables A-4, A-5, and A-6 provide further breakdown
of small community information based on different population ranges. Needs estimates presented in Table A-3
might vary slightly from those presented in Figure 3-7 and summed totals from Tables A-4, A-5, and A-6 due to
independent rounding.
The first column of this table includes information on the projected number of small community wastewater
treatment and collection system facilities and the small community percentage of the total number of wastewater
treatment and collection system facilities for each State. The number of facilities includes those with documented
needs or SSEs and those that did not report any needs. This percentage represents the small community facilities
compared to the total wastewater and collection system facilities in the State. For example, 55 percent of Alabama's
projected wastewater treatment and collection system facilities are for small communities. Column 2 depicts only
the small community facilities with documented wastewater treatment and collection system needs and reflects a
portion of all small community facilities with and without needs presented in Column 1. The remaining columns
show the small community wastewater treatment and collection system documented needs and SSEs as of January
1, 2000, and the respective percentage of the total CWNS 2000 wastewater treatment and collection system
documented needs and SSEs.
Table A-3. CWNS 2000 Comparison of Small Community Facilities' Needs and Total Needs (January 2000 dollars in
millions)
All
Projected
Projected Small
Community Facilities With
Documented
Needs for
Separate State
Estimates for
State
Alabama
Alaska
MIION lommumt
Number
158
219
y racmties
Percent
55
uocumentea
Number
77
91 136
Needs
Percent
51
91
Milan lommumnes
S Million Percent
85 3
295 53
Milan lommumnes
S Million
0
29
Percent
0
97
Arizona
178
66
164
66
380
Arkansas
440
83
69
77
100
32
California
79
35
43
24
216
Colorado
313
70
177
74
223
18
Connecticut
113
51
30
27
190
19
29
Delaware
39
71
14
64
78
27
District of Columbia
Florida
105
29
32
265
Georgia
247
60
21
39
36
13
Hawaii
18
53
29
35
Idaho
207
82
53
65
84
40
100
Illinois
738
69
130
45
536
100
Indiana
380
71
173
60
635
19
53
Iowa
882
89
171
76
196
10
Kansas
684
90
179
76
223
16
Kentucky
298
75
252
74
659
24
continued
-------
Appendix A: Summary of Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Cost Estimates
A-7
Table A-3. (continued)
All
Projected
Small Community Facilities
State
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
N. Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
Number Percent
305 74
160 75
280 77
104 36
545 71
751 87
643 87
840 84
207 88
508 94
NR NR
93 71
389 55
37 54
708 71
407 52
353 96
1,032 77
433 86
206 72
1,741 79
6 15
102 44
43 78
222 64
1,407 65
300 80
85 76
284 69
226 65
620 91
901 86
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
19,036 74
Projected Small
Community Facilities With
Documented Needs
Number Percent
115 59
68 60
Documented
Needs for
Small Communities
S Million Percent
134 6
319 33
219 74 445 11
58 29 333 7
34 39
239 85
228 82
184 4
297 24
300 35
218 72 281 8
86 79 181 39
127 86 109 9
NR NR NR NR
43 57 71 8
131 38 462 5
22 49 23 12
314 62
1,112 6
221 58 961 16
59 88 23 48
398 72 794 10
52 68 47 12
44 65
539 77
136 9
1,785 23
2730
9 11 20 2
24 69 25 24
18 46
582 68
68 54
12 48
35 6
752 11
122 15
37 26
159 66 648 18
63 56 200 7
255 84
423 85
NR NR
1,345 53
662 30
NR NR
NR NR NR NR
NR NR NR NR
NR NR NR NR
NR NR NR NR
NR NR NR NR
6,593 65 16,082 10
Separate State
Estimates for
Small Communities
S Million Percent
1 20
43 90
27 6
0 0
10 36
226 84
58 73
15 100
7 88
0 0
NR NR
1 100
0 0
0 0
7 70
19 28
0 0
56 20
0 0
59 56
277 68
0 0
0 0
0" 0
0 0
12 71
7 41
1 100
0 0
0" 0
663 99
6 100
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
1,579 48
Note: NR = not reported. American Samoa, Guam, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Wyoming did not participate in the CWNS 2000.
a Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
A-8
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table A-4 provides the subset of Table A-3 data for the needs for small community facilities <
populations in the range of 3,500 to 10,000 people if all documented needs are met.
Table A-4. CWNS 2000 Comparison of Small Community Facilities' Needs and Total Needs: Facil
of 3,500 to 10,000 People (January 2000 dollars in millions)
All Projected Small Documented
Projected Community Facilities With Needs for
Small Community Facilities Documented Needs Small Communities
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Number Percent
24 8
5 2
26 10
55 10
19 8
41 9
54 24
13 24
0 0
46 13
70 17
12 35
18 7
159 15
48 9
42 4
42 6
57 14
40 10
39 18
27 7
54 19
119 16
79 9
76 10
77 8
16 7
21 4
NR NR
36 27
208 29
9 13
156 16
80 10
10 3
109 8
Number Percent
12 8
3 2
23 9
7 8
17 9
24 10
15 13
5 23
0 0
29 14
8 15
4 19
6 7
39 13
30 10
8 4
22 9
51 15
18 9
20 18
22 7
35 18
10 11
15 5
29 10
29 10
13 12
12 8
NR NR
23 31
75 22
6 13
70 14
49 13
6 9
52 9
S Million Percent
19 1
17 3
115 2
9 3
105 1
83 7
136 6
31 11
0 0
142 2
9 0
28 2
15 7
307 3
179 2
16 1
123 9
233 8
44 2
121 12
117 3
190 4
55 1
53 4
104 12
70 2
81 17
28 2
NR NR
54 6
266 3
13 7
389 2
338 6
6 13
226 3
estimated to be serving
ities Serving Populations
Separate State
Estimates for
Small Communities
S Million Percent
0 0
15 50
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
11 17
0 0
0 0
0 0
9 2
0 0
0 0
3 100
2 6
0 0
Oa 0
0 0
1 20
35 73
7 2
0 0
3 11
69 26
29 36
3 20
0 0
0 0
NR NR
0 0
0 0
0 0
7 70
Oa 0
0 0
18 7
continued
-------
Appendix A: Summary of Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Cost Estimates
A-9
Table A-4. (continued)
All
Projected
Small Community Facilities
State
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
N. Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
Number Percent
35 7
40 14
397 18
4 10
31 13
7 13
47 14
337 16
41 11
19 17
51 12
49 14
65 10
85 8
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
3,095 12
Projected Small
Community Facilities With
Documented Needs
Number Percent
7 9
10 15
121 17
1 4
5 6
7 20
4 10
135 16
24 19
6 24
31 13
14 12
51 17
39 8
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
1,242 12
Note: NR = not reported. American Samoa, Guam, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico
a Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
Documented
Needs for
Small Communities
S Million Percent
6 2
50 3
552 7
1 0
15 1
8 8
17 3
332 5
56 7
26 18
215 6
74 3
497 20
119 5
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
5,690 4
Separate State
Estimates for
Small Communities
S Million Percent
0 0
9 9
83 20
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
9 53
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
39 6
0 0
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
352 11
Virgin Islands, and Wyoming did not participate in the CWNS 2000.
-------
A-10
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table A-5 provides the subset of Table A-3 data for the needs for small community facilities e
populations in the range of 1,000 to 3,500 people if all documented needs are met.
Table A-5. CWNS 2000 Comparison of Small Community Facilities' Needs and Total Needs: Facil
of 1,000 to 3,500 People (January 2000 dollars in millions)
All Projected Small Documented
Projected Community Facilities With Needs for
Small Community Facilities Documented Needs Small Communities
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Number Percent
86 30
14 6
65 24
150 28
24 11
102 23
42 19
10 18
0 0
45 13
112 27
5 15
61 24
319 30
175 33
188 19
160 21
128 32
126 31
80 37
54 15
29 10
273 36
198 23
141 19
206 20
59 25
102 19
NR NR
31 24
133 19
18 26
299 30
169 22
59 16
308 23
Number Percent
46 30
8 5
61 25
27 30
16 9
55 23
8 7
3 14
0 0
29 14
12 22
2 10
27 33
59 20
86 30
79 35
64 27
112 33
53 27
38 34
39 13
16 8
19 22
39 14
63 23
63 21
30 28
38 26
NR NR
8 11
41 12
9 20
134 26
102 27
23 34
113 21
S Million Percent
48 2
20 4
161 3
46 15
101 1
62 5
41 2
25 9
0 0
102 2
23 1
6 0
47 23
184 2
350 5
120 6
48 3
267 10
56 2
173 18
122 3
132 3
118 3
113 9
97 11
91 3
59 13
43 4
NR NR
11 1
150 2
5 3
455 2
425 7
9 19
301 4
stimated to be serving
ities Serving Populations
Separate State
Estimates for
Small Communities
S Million Percent
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
3 5
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
15 42
0 0
0 0
Oa 0
0 0
5 10
11 3
0 0
6 21
109 41
15 19
6 40
6 75
0 0
NR NR
1 100
0 0
0 0
0 0
14 21
0 0
15 5
continued
-------
Appendix A: Summary of Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Cost Estimates
A-ll
Table A-5. (continued)
All
Projected
Small Community Facilities
State
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
N. Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
Number Percent
132 26
75 26
737 33
1 3
50 22
13 24
98 28
599 28
61 16
42 38
125 30
83 24
186 27
277 26
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
6,450 25
Projected Small
Community Facilities With
Documented Needs
Number Percent
16 21
19 28
229 33
1 4
4 5
8 23
11 28
242 28
29 23
5 20
67 28
29 26
104 34
132 27
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
2,418 24
Note: NR = not reported. American Samoa, Guam, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico
a Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
Documented
Needs for
Small Communities
S Million Percent
19 5
56 4
897 11
2 0
4 0
11 11
17 3
273 4
47 6
8 6
263 7
108 4
544 22
303 14
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
6,563 4
Separate State
Estimates for
Small Communities
S Million Percent
0 0
25 24
148 36
0 0
0 0
Oa 0
0 0
3 18
5 29
1 100
0 0
0 0
153 23
5 83
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
548 17
Virgin Islands, and Wyoming did not participate in the CWNS 2000.
-------
A-12
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table A- 6 provides the subset of Table A-3 data for the needs for small community facilities <
populations of fewer than 1,000 people if all documented needs are met.
Table A-6. CWNS 2000 Comparison of Small Community Facilities' Needs and Total Needs: Facil
of Fewer Than 1,000 People (January 2000 dollars in millions)
All Projected Small Documented
Projected Community Facilities With Needs for
Small Community Facilities Documented Needs Small Communities
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Number Percent
48 17
200 83
87 32
235 45
36 16
170 38
17 8
16 29
0 0
14 4
65 16
1 3
128 51
260 24
157 29
652 66
482 64
113 29
139 34
41 19
199 55
21 7
153 20
474 55
426 58
557 55
132 56
385 72
NR NR
26 20
48 7
10 14
253 26
158 20
284 78
615 46
Number Percent
19 13
125 83
80 32
35 39
10 6
98 41
7 6
6 27
0 0
10 5
1 2
0 0
20 25
32 11
57 20
84 37
93 40
89 26
44 23
10 9
158 54
7 4
5 6
185 66
136 49
126 42
43 39
77 52
NR NR
12 16
15 4
7 16
110 22
70 18
30 45
233 42
S Million Percent
19 1
257 46
104 2
44 14
11 0
77 6
13 1
22 8
0 0
19 0
4 0
0 0
20 10
46 0
103 1
57 3
54 4
159 6
34 1
25 3
205 5
9 0
12 0
131 11
101 12
122 4
40 9
39 3
NR NR
5 1
44 0
4 2
266 1
197 3
8 17
268 3
estimated to be serving
ities Serving Populations
Separate State
Estimates for
Small Communities
S Million Percent
0 0
14 47
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
4 6
0 0
0 0
0 0
Oa 0
0 0
1 100
0 0
2 6
0 0
Oa 0
0 0
0 0
2 4
10 2
0 0
Oa 0
50 19
16 20
6 40
2 25
0 0
NR NR
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
4 6
0 0
22 8
continued
-------
Appendix A: Summary of Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Cost Estimates
A-13
Table A-6. (continued)
All
Projected
Small Community Facilities
State
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
N. Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
Number Percent
266 53
91 32
607 27
1 3
21 9
23 42
77 22
471 22
198 53
24 21
108 26
94 27
369 54
539 51
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
9,491 37
Projected Small
Community Facilities With
Documented Needs
Number Percent
29 38
15 22
189 27
0 0
0 0
9 26
3 8
205 24
15 12
1 4
61 25
20 18
100 33
252 51
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
2,933 29
Note: NR = not reported. American Samoa, Guam, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico
a Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
Documented
Needs for
Small Communities
S Million Percent
20 5
28 2
337 4
0 0
0 0
5 5
3 0
148 2
18 2
3 2
171 5
18 1
302 12
238 11
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
3,810 2
Separate State
Estimates for
Small Communities
S Million Percent
0 0
23 22
45 11
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 12
0 0
0 0
Oa 0
472 70
Oa 0
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
675 21
Virgin Islands, and Wyoming did not participate in the CWNS 2000.
-------
A-14
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table A-7 summarizes the CWNS 2000 assessment of total needs for small communities by State for wastewater
treatment and collection facilities (Categories I through V) and NFS Pollution Control (Category VII). EPA derived
the small community needs shown from the total needs using the criteria defined in Chapter 3 in the section "What
are the needs for small communities?" Tables A-8, A-9, and A-10 provide further breakdown of small community
information based on different population ranges.
These small community design year needs have met the established documentation criteria and represent the capital
investment necessary to plan, design, build, replace, or rehabilitate publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities
needed to serve the projected estimated design year population of small communities. These are the funds necessary
to provide adequate wastewater treatment systems and NFS pollution control in compliance with the Clean Water
Act for those small communities that could document their needs. Storm water management programs and most
NFS pollution control needs were not included in this table since by definition small community facilities require
population data. Facilities with storm water and NFS pollution control needs do not have population data; therefore,
those facilities cannot be considered as serving small communities. The exception is NFS pollution control needs
associated with individual on-site system disposal areas, where the needs could be included in VII-D (Urban) or
VII-E (Ground water protection (unknown source)).
Table A-7. CWNS 2000 Total Small Community Needs (January 2000 dollars in millions)
Category of Need
State
Alabama
Total
85
I
11
I-A
11
I-B
14
IV-A
42
IV-B
4
VII Total (I-V)
0 85
Alaska
295
132
1
20
130
0
295
Arizona
380
44
73
18
194
45
380
Arkansas
100
12
14
37
35
100
California
216
129
16
26
38
216
Colorado
223
121
49
10
13
27
222
Connecticut
190
61
19
66
38
190
Delaware
78
16
58
78
District of Columbia
Florida
265
24
83
12
16
114
16
265
Georgia
36
13
13
36
Hawaii
35
26
35
Idaho
84
39
15
17
84
Illinois
536
87
10
12
75
31
313
536
Indiana
635
91
29
20
30
100
37
328
635
Iowa
196
101
12
16
59
196
Kansas
223
64
21
23
21
93
223
Kentucky
659
150
15
25
35
332
101
659
Louisiana
134
24
34
13
10
26
27
134
Maine
319
67
11
54
16
163
319
Maryland
445
62
16
40
97
94
56
445
Massachusetts
333
50
53
23
174
28
333
continued
-------
Appendix A: Summary of Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Cost Estimates
A-15
Table A-7. (continued)
State
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
N. Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
Total
184
297
300
281
181
109
NR
71
462
23
1,112
961
23
794
47
136
1,785
3
20
25
35
752
122
37
648
200
1,345
662
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
16,082
Categories
I Secondary wastewater treatment
II Advanced wastewater treatment
III-A Infiltration/inflow correction
Note: NR = not reported. American Samoa,
a Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
1
41
207
59
73
81
79
NR
13
73
7
248
82
8
139
25
72
312
1
5
6
5
192
31
16
126
107
123
276
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
3,727
ii
4
24
14
2
5
9
NR
10
43
Oa
112
79
Oa
44
3
23
58
Oa
1
1
5
39
1
10
20
Oa
9
48
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1,105
Category of Need
III-A 1
15
14
31
3
9
1
NR
5
51
0"
60
72
1
32
1
1
43
0
0'
0
5
69
0"
0"
18
20
21
13
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
665
II-B
4
18
33
18
26
6
NR
3
90
7
41
53
13
7
12
25
15
0
2
9
4
80
5
Oa
5
49
16
33
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
846
III-B Sewer replacement/rehabilitation
IV-A New collector sewers and appurtenances
IV-B New interceptor sewers and appurtenances
Guam, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto R
IV-A
77
10
121
143
45
9
NR
4
141
6
412
446
0
231
6
12
839
1
12
7
12
203
41
10
315
24
606
244
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
5,591
IV-B
5
23
42
42
15
5
NR
36
59
3
106
229
1
96
Oa
3
111
0
0
0
4
169
44
1
164
0
411
48
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2,236
V
38
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
5
0
131
0
0
244
0
0
407
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
159
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1,906
V Combined sewer overflow correction
VII NFS pollution control
co, Virgin Islands, and Wyoming did not particip
VII
0
1
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
2
0
0°
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
oa
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
6
Total (I-V)
184
296
300
281
181
109
NR
71
462
23
1,110
961
23
793
47
136
1,785
2
20
25
35
752
122
37
648
200
1,345
662
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
16,076
ite in the CWNS 2000.
-------
A-16
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table A-8 provides the subset of Table A-7 data for the needs for small community facilities estimated to be serving
populations in the range of 3,500 to 10,000 people.
Table A-8. CWNS 2000 Total Small Community Needs: Facilities Serving Populations of 3,500 to 10,000 People
(January 2000 dollars in millions)
Category of Need
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Total
19
17
115
9
105
83
136
31
0
142
9
28
15
307
179
16
123
233
44
121
117
190
55
53
104
70
81
28
NR
54
266
13
389
1
1
4
12
2
43
33
46
0
0
19
4
21
7
32
28
12
27
43
9
12
18
17
12
15
8
23
30
18
NR
4
43
4
59
II
6
0
31
1
4
33
16
9
0
40
4
0
3
4
2
Oa
10
2
9
0
25
40
0
16
10
1
2
6
NR
10
28
Oa
28
III-A
Oa
Oa
17
Oa
3
Oa
4
0
0
5
1
0
1
9
4
0
15
14
1
Oa
3
5
5
6
8
2
1
0
NR
5
31
0
15
III-B
5
11
1
Oa
21
6
0
2
0
12
0
2
1
4
2
3
Oa
19
2
2
3
15
0
8
17
8
11
0
NR
2
44
4
14
IV-A
7
2
44
3
34
0
45
20
0
59
Oa
5
Oa
8
30
0
2
125
8
5
22
93
19
4
44
23
24
0
NR
1
74
2
156
IV-B
0
0
10
3
Oa
11
25
0
0
7
0
0
3
16
10
1
69
29
15
6
10
20
0
4
17
13
13
4
NR
32
46
3
32
V
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
234
103
0
0
1
0
96
36
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
85
VII Total (I-V)
0 19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
17
115
9
105
83
136
31
0
142
9
28
15
307
179
16
123
233
44
121
117
190
55
53
104
70
81
28
NR
54
266
13
389
continued
-------
Appendix A: Summary of Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Cost Estimates
A-17
Table A-8. (continued)
State Total
North Carolina 338
North Dakota 6
Ohio 226
Oklahoma 6
Oregon 50
Pennsylvania 552
Rhode Island 1
South Carolina 15
South Dakota 8
Tennessee 17
Texas 332
Utah 56
Vermont 26
Virginia 215
Washington 74
West Virginia 497
Wisconsin 119
Wyoming NR
American Samoa NR
Guam NR
N. Mariana Islands NR
Puerto Rico NR
Virgin Islands NR
Total 5,690
Categories
I Secondary wastewater treatment
II Advanced wastewater treatment
III-A Infiltration/inflow correction
Note: NR = not reported. American Samoa,
a Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
Category of Need
1 II III-A 1
12 34 29
200
37 15 21
400
30 4 Oa
74 23 15
000
5 1 Oa
200
1 1 2
78 18 34
8 0 Oa
11 8 0
49 8 1
31 0 5
51 4 7
38 19 3
NR NR NR
NR NR NR
NR NR NR
NR NR NR
NR NR NR
NR NR NR
1,039 475 272
II-B
32
4
4
1
16
9
0
0
3
4
34
2
Oa
Oa
29
5
9
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
371
III-B Sewer replacement/rehabilitation
IV-A New collector sewers and appurtenances
IV-B New interceptor sewers and appurtenances
Guam, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto R
IV-A
147
0
44
1
0
178
0
9
3
6
86
21
7
83
9
228
40
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1,721
IV-B
84
0
19
0
0
30
0
0
0
3
82
25
0
74
0
159
10
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
885
V
0
0
86
0
0
223
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
926
VII Total (I-V)
0 338
0 6
Oa 226
0 6
0 50
0 552
1 0
0 15
0 8
0 17
0 332
0 56
0 26
0 215
0 74
0 497
0 119
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
1 5,689
V Combined sewer overflow correction
VII NFS pollution control
co, Virgin Islands,
and Wyoming d
d not particip
ite in the CWNS 2000.
-------
A-18
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table A-9 provides the subset of Table A-7 data for the needs for small community facilities estimated to be serving
populations in the range of 1,000 to 3,500 people.
Table A-9. CWNS 2000 Total Small Community Needs: Facilities Serving Populations of 1,000 to 3,500 People
(January 2000 dollars in millions)
Category of Need
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Total
48
20
161
46
101
62
41
25
0
102
23
6
47
184
350
120
48
267
56
173
122
132
118
113
97
91
59
43
NR
11
150
5
455
1
Oa
17
19
4
80
42
12
2
0
3
9
4
20
40
47
58
20
66
6
40
22
27
23
92
23
24
27
34
NR
7
22
2
124
II
3
0
28
7
12
13
3
7
0
37
6
0
1
6
14
3
11
9
17
7
34
11
4
2
1
1
3
2
NR
0
13
Oa
47
III-A
10
0
1
1
oa
2
2
0
0
6
2
0
2
3
13
0
6
10
11
1
10
Oa
10
4
20
1
4
1
NR
0
15
Oa
29
III-B
6
1
3
Oa
5
2
0
0
0
4
Oa
0
4
4
12
6
1
11
7
8
12
8
2
8
13
9
7
3
NR
1
33
2
15
IV-A
26
2
91
19
4
Oa
15
16
0
46
5
2
10
48
39
2
5
125
10
40
18
79
55
3
31
47
16
2
NR
2
57
1
153
IV-B
3
0
19
15
0
3
9
0
0
6
1
0
10
11
14
1
5
46
5
10
7
7
5
4
9
9
2
1
NR
1
6
Oa
41
V
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
72
211
50
0
0
0
67
19
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
4
0
45
VII
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
1
Total (I-V)
48
20
161
46
101
62
41
25
0
102
23
6
47
184
350
120
48
267
56
173
122
132
118
113
97
91
59
43
NR
11
150
5
454
continued
-------
Appendix A: Summary of Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Cost Estimates
A-19
Table A-9. (continued)
State
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
N. Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
Total
425
9
301
19
56
897
2
4
11
17
273
47
8
263
108
544
303
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
6,563
Categories
I Secondary wastewater treatment
II Advanced wastewater treatment
III-A Infiltration/inflow correction
Note: NR = not reported. American Samoa,
a Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
Category of Need
1 II III-A 1
49 35 30
4 0 Oa
44 14 8
10 Oa 1
31 15 Oa
162 23 19
1 Oa 0
0 Oa 0
1 0 0
3 5 3
71 18 25
19 1 0
4 1 Oa
50 12 13
69 0 11
59 5 6
146 21 7
NR NR NR
NR NR NR
NR NR NR
NR NR NR
NR NR NR
NR NR NR
1,639 452 287
II-B
19
5
2
8
7
5
0
2
5
0
37
3
Oa
1
18
6
17
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
322
III-B Sewer replacement/rehabilitation
IV-A New collector sewers and appurtenances
IV-B New interceptor sewers and appurtenances
Guam, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto R
IV-A
198
0
62
0"
2
453
1
2
3
5
64
13
3
130
10
214
99
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2,228
IV-B
94
Oa
30
0
1
62
0
0
0
1
58
11
0
57
0
139
13
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
716
V
0
0
140
0
0
173
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
115
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
917
VII Total (I-V)
0 425
0 9
1 300
0 19
0 56
0 897
0 2
0 4
0 11
0 17
0 273
0 47
0 8
0 263
0 108
0 544
0 303
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
2 6,561
V Combined sewer overflow correction
VII NFS pollution control
co, Virgin Islands,
and Wyoming d
d not particip
ite in the CWNS 2000.
-------
A-20
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table A-10 provides the subset of Table A-7 data for the needs for small community facilities estimated to be serving
populations of fewer than 1,000 people.
Table A-10. CWNS 2000 Total Small Community Needs: Facilities Serving Populations of Fewer Than 1,000 People
(January 2000 dollars in millions)
Category of Need
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Total
19
257
104
44
11
77
13
22
0
19
4
0
20
46
103
57
54
159
34
25
205
9
12
131
101
122
40
39
NR
5
44
4
266
1
2
111
12
6
7
46
3
0
0
2
0
0
11
15
16
30
17
41
8
15
39
5
6
100
28
26
23
27
NR
2
8
1
65
II
3
7
14
6
Oa
2
Oa
0
0
5
3
0
0
0
13
1
1
4
8
0
3
2
0
6
2
Oa
0
1
NR
0
2
0
37
III-A
1
Oa
Oa
oa
4
1
oa
0
0
oa
0
0
oa
0
2
Oa
2
2
2
0
3
Oa
0
4
3
1
4
1
NR
Oa
5
Oa
16
III-B
3
8
2
0
Oa
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
15
2
Oa
5
1
1
25
1
2
2
4
2
8
2
NR
0
13
Oa
11
IV-A
9
126
59
16
0
12
6
22
0
10
0
0
4
19
30
14
14
82
8
9
57
1
4
3
47
73
5
7
NR
Oa
9
3
103
IV-B
1
5
17
16
0
13
4
0
0
2
1
0
4
4
13
1
20
25
7
0
78
0
0
15
17
20
Oa
1
NR
3
7
0
33
V
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
14
9
0
0
0
Oa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
oa
0
0
VII
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
oa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
1
Total (I-V)
19
257
104
44
11
76
13
22
0
19
4
0
20
46
103
57
54
159
34
25
205
9
12
130
101
122
40
39
NR
5
44
4
265
continued
-------
Appendix A: Summary of Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Cost Estimates
A-21
Table A-10. (continued)
State Total
North Carolina 197
North Dakota 8
Ohio 268
Oklahoma 20
Oregon 28
Pennsylvania 337
Rhode Island 0
South Carolina 0
South Dakota 5
Tennessee 3
Texas 148
Utah 18
Vermont 3
Virginia 171
Washington 18
West Virginia 302
Wisconsin 238
Wyoming NR
American Samoa NR
Guam NR
N. Mariana Islands NR
Puerto Rico NR
Virgin Islands NR
Total 3,810
Categories
I Secondary wastewater treatment
II Advanced wastewater treatment
III-A Infiltration/inflow correction
Note: NR = not reported. American Samoa,
a Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
Category of Need
1 II III-A 1
21 11 12
3 Oa Oa
58 15 3
10 3 Oa
11 4 Oa
76 12 8
000
000
3 1 0
1 0 0
43 3 10
400
Oa 1 0
27 0 4
7 Oa 4
13 Oa 7
91 8 3
NR NR NR
NR NR NR
NR NR NR
NR NR NR
NR NR NR
NR NR NR
1,040 178 102
II-B
2
4
1
3
2
1
0
0
1
0
9
oa
0
4
2
5
7
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
152
III-B Sewer replacement/rehabilitation
IV-A New collector sewers and appurtenances
IV-B New interceptor sewers and appurtenances
Guam, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto R
IV-A
101
0
125
4
10
209
0
0
Oa
1
54
6
1
103
5
164
105
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1,640
IV-B
50
1
47
0"
1
20
0
0
0
1
29
8
1
33
0
113
24
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
635
V
0
0
19
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
oa
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
60
VII Total (I-V)
0 197
Oa 8
0 268
0 20
0 28
0 337
0 0
0 0
0 5
0 3
Oa 148
0 18
0 3
0 171
0 18
0 302
0 238
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
3 3,807
V Combined sewer overflow correction
VII NFS pollution control
co, Virgin Islands,
and Wyoming d
d not particip
ite in the CWNS 2000.
-------
A-22
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table A-ll summarizes the total SSE needs, which are the needs that the States believe to be legitimate but that
either were justified with documents outside the established documentation criteria of the CWNS 2000 or had no
written documentation. The SSEs are optional and are in addition to the documented needs.
Table A-11. CWNS 2000 Total Separate State Estimates (January 2000 dollars in millions)
Category of Need
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Total
0
30
0
0
4
25
66
0
0
0
577
0
1
3
36
0
0"
Oa
5
52
501
28
28
286
80
15
7
Oa
NR
1
285
0
1
0
13
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
56
0
1
3
13
0
Oa
0
0
8
74
2
3
183
17
13
4
0
NR
0
0
0
II
0
0
0
0
0
25
2
0
0
0
340
0
0
oa
7
0
0
0
0
0
75
0
0
6
5
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
III-A
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
14
0
Oa
0
3
8
7
18
16
36
15
0
0
0
NR
0
Oa
0
III-B
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
oa
0
0
0
2
0
89
0
7
14
0
0
oa
0
NR
0
7
0
IV-A
0
15
0
0
0
0
42
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
oa
0
24
111
3
0
2
15
0
3
0
NR
1
0
0
IV-B
0
1
0
0
0
0
22
0
0
0
161
0
0
0
1
0
0
oa
0
9
65
5
2
27
28
2
Oa
0
NR
Oa
0
0
V
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
21
0
VI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
oa
NR
0
7
0
VII
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
37
0
0
18
0
0
0
0
NR
0
248
0
VIM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
2
0
IX
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
Total
(i-v)
0
30
0
0
2
25
66
0
0
0
577
0
1
3
35
0
0"
Oa
5
49
421
28
28
268
80
15
7
0
NR
1
28
0
continued
-------
Appendix A: Summary of Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Cost Estimates
A-23
Table A-11. (continued)
State Total
New York 459
North Carolina 68
North Dakota 11
Ohio 784
Oklahoma 5
Oregon 106
Pennsylvania 425
Rhode Island Oa
South Carolina 0
South Dakota Oa
Tennessee 0
Texas 19
Utah 17
Vermont 1
Virginia 0
Washington Oa
West Virginia 670
Wisconsin 8
Wyoming NR
American Samoa NR
Guam NR
N. Mariana Islands NR
Puerto Rico NR
Virgin Islands NR
Total 4,603
Categories
I Secondary wastewater treatment
II Advanced wastewater treatment
III-A Infiltration/inflow correction
III-B Sewer replacement/rehabilitation
Category of Need
1
8
11
0
72
0
51
171
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
Oa
220
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
927
IV-A
IV-B
V
VI
Note: NR = not reported. American Samoa, Guam,
a Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
II
0
28
0
43
4
14
39
0
0
0
0
0=
10
1
0
0
7
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
606
III-A III-B
0 2
9 2
4 7
34 24
0 0
23 6
4 5
0 Oa
0 0
0 0
0 0
3 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
6 4
0 0
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
208 173
IV-A
0
9
0
21
0
6
118
0
0
0
0
2
3
0
0
oa
226
4
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
615
New collector sewers and appurtenances
New interceptor sewers and appurtenances
Combined sewer overflow correction
Storm water management programs
Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto R
IV-B
0
9
0
20
1
4
67
0
0
0'
0
11
2
0
0
0
207
2
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
646
V
0
0
0
60
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
oa
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
86
VI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
50
VII
449
0
0
510
0
2
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1,288
VII NFS pollution control
VIII Confined animals - point source
IX Mining - point source
VIM
Oa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
4
IX
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
Total
(I-V)
10
68
11
274
5
104
409
Oa
0
0'
0
17
17
1
0
Oa
670
6
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
3,261
co, Virgin Islands, and Wyoming did not participate in the CWNS 2000.
-------
A-24
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table A-12 summarizes CWNS 2000 SSEs for NFS-related activities. The subcategory totals provided here are
summarized in the Category VII column of Table A-ll.
Table A-12. CWNS 2000 Total Separate State Estimates for NFS Pollution Control Projects
(January 2000 dollars in millions)
Category VII Needs
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
oa
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
B
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
oa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
67
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
449
E
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
oa
0
0
0
0
NR
0
181
0
0
F
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
G
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
J
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
K
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
oa
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
Total
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
37
0
0
18
0
0
0
0
NR
0
248
0
449
continued
-------
Appendix A: Summary of Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Cost Estimates
A-25
Table A-12. (continued)
State
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
N. Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
Categories
A Agriculture (cropland)
B Agriculture (animals)
C Silviculture
D Urban
A
0
0
3
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
12
B C
0 0
0 0
2 Oa
0 0
0 0
8 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
NR NR
77 Oa
D
0
0
502
0
0'
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
961
Category VI (Needs
E
0
0
0
0
0
oa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
181
F
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
E Ground water protection (unknown source)
F Marinas
G Resource extraction
H Brownfields
Note: NR = not reported. American Samoa,
a Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
Guam, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico,
G
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
15
J
0
0
oa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
37
K
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
4
Total
0
0
510
0
2
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1,288
I Storage tanks
J Sanitary landfills
K Hydromodification
Virgin Islands, and Wyoming c
lid not participate in the CWNS 2000.
-------
A-26 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table A-13 summarizes the SSE needs for small communities. EPA derived small community needs shown in this
table from the total SSEs using the criteria defined in Chapter 3 in the report section "What Are the Needs for
Small Communities?" These needs are shown by category of need in each State and U.S. Territory. The SSE needs
are are optional and are in addition to the documented needs.
Table A-13. CWNS 2000 Total Separate State Estimates for Small Community Facilities (January 2000 dollars in millions)
Category of Need
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Total
0
29
0
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
13
0
1
3
19
0
0"
oa
1
43
27
0
10
226
58
15
7
0
NR
1
0
0
1
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
3
4
0
Oa
0
0
8
7
0
3
162
11
13
4
0
NR
0
0
0
II
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
oa
0
0
oa
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
III-A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
9
0
Oa
0
1
3
Oa
0
Oa
33
9
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
III-B
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
oa
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
7
9
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
IV-A
0
15
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
23
11
0
0
2
14
0
3
0
NR
1
0
0
IV-B
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
oa
0
9
8
0
0
17
21
2
Oa
0
NR
Oa
0
0
V
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
VII Total (I-V)
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
29
0
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
13
0
1
3
19
0
Oa
oa
1
43
27
0
10
226
58
15
7
0
NR
1
0
0
continued
-------
Appendix A: Summary of Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Cost Estimates
A-27
Table A-13. (continued)
Category of Need
State Total
New York 7
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
N. Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total 1
19
0
56
0
59
277
0
0
Oa
0
12
7
1
0
oa
663
6
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
,579
Categories
I Secondary wastewater treatment
II Advanced wastewater treatment
III-A Infiltration/inflow correction
Note: NR = not reported. American Samoa,
a Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
1
7
6
0
19
0
33
101
0
0
0
0
0'
2
0
0
0°
218
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
616
II
0
0
0
5
0
3
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
7
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
33
III-A 1
0
4
0
7
0
9
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
85
II-B
0
1
0
1
0
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
33
III-B Sewer replacement/rehabilitation V
IV-A New collector sewers and appurtenances VII
IV-B New interceptor sewers and appurtenances
Guam, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Vir
IV-A
0
5
0
8
0
6
102
0
0
0
0
2
3
0
0
Oa
224
4
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
440
IV-B
0
3
0
16
0
4
56
0
0
Oa
0
10
2
0
0
0
206
2
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
367
V
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
5
Combined sewer overflow correction
NFS pollution control
VII Total (I-V)
0 7
0
0
0
0
0"
0"
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0"
19
0
56
0
59
277
0
0
0"
0
12
7
1
0
0"
663
6
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1,579
>in Islands, and Wyoming did not participate in the CWNS 2000.
-------
A-28 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Appendix B
Summary of
1996 Clean Water Needs Survey
Cost Estimates
B-l
-------
B-2
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table B-l summarizes the results of the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey of documented needs by State. All values
from the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey have been adjusted to millions of January 2000 dollars. These design year
needs were derived from those documented during the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey. This table is provided for
use in comparing the results of the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey and the CWNS 2000.
Table B-l is comparable to Table A-l for 2000 estimates for Categories I through VI. Category VII needs are not
directly comparable because the Category VII subcategories changed between the surveys.
Table B-1 . 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey Total Documented Needs (January 2000 dollars in millions)
Category of Need
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
Total
875
540
2,478
290
13,062
507
1,956
238
672
5,952
1,706
924
347
12,217
5,480
944
1,527
2,559
792
843
1,521
4,123
5,480
897
875
3,111
132
622
39
1
184
439
809
133
5,521
146
280
24
77
1,391
134
261
170
539
144
152
257
546
182
122
352
905
701
503
259
559
53
124
10
II
108
0
611
22
2,025
246
769
11
22
1,779
850
0
17
263
86
27
158
29
172
5
243
57
14
31
90
33
5
45
0
III-A
5
Oa
10
11
41
2
46
2
0
12
32
0
1
61
45
28
140
120
33
26
9
50
15
38
92
283
6
7
2
III-B
269
37
76
41
1,091
59
13
1
0
178
16
508
13
404
28
35
36
99
182
13
156
40
87
78
75
263
15
7
4
IV-A
161
40
674
50
255
27
192
41
0
975
31
77
60
193
126
85
59
448
141
84
228
444
168
105
210
150
29
16
6
IV-B
148
0
207
33
696
10
171
35
0
821
235
78
86
294
98
59
288
378
82
50
246
379
362
84
148
285
11
106
17
V
0
18
0
0
1,215
13
485
124
493
0
408
0
0
10,415
4,953
527
589
930
0
542
127
2,246
4,133
29
0
985
1
272
0
VI
0
0
55
0
2,205
0'
0
0
0
465
0
0
0
0
0
31
0
9
0
0
42
1
0
0
0
21
4
39
0
VII
0
6
36
0
13
4
0
0
80
331
0
0
0
48
0
0
0
0
0
1
118
1
0
29
1
532
8
6
0
Total (I-V)
875
534
2,387
290
10,844
503
1,956
238
592
5,156
1,706
924
347
12,169
5,480
913
1,527
2,550
792
842
1,361
4,121
5,480
868
874
2,558
120
577
39
continued
-------
Appendix B: Summary of 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey Cost Estimates
B-3
Table B-1. (continued)
State
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
N. Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
Total
825
7,697
178
17,607
4,362
103
8,048
352
2,129
6,720
1,339
1,708
142
962
5,248
342
352
4,363
1,294
1,830
2,246
42
45
53
54
1,448
101
140,299
Categories
I Secondary wastewater treatment
II Advanced wastewater treatment
III-A Infiltration/inflow correction
1
81
2,202
52
3,748
308
71
921
79
671
1,028
139
646
39
159
1,516
151
54
821
315
268
464
18
5
40
28
572
78
29,451
III-B
IV-A
IV-B
II
31
285
32
6,610
1,258
0
275
84
323
179
65
287
1
72
813
0
59
1,184
6
25
113
10
0
0
0
4
0
19,434
III-A
9
275
4
82
151
0
830
105
70
16
2
16
Oa
63
576
0
4
172
90
31
36
1
0
Oa
0
44
1
3,695
Category of Need
III-B
18
275
30
1,295
90
22
211
19
121
47
26
31
29
153
969
30
1
177
21
30
285
3
0
0
oa
20
22
7,749
Sewer replacement/rehabilitation
^ew collector sewers and appurtenances
^ew interceptor sewers and appurtenances
IV-A
46
827
40
363
1,338
0
398
14
71
778
364
294
14
151
393
90
39
571
61
332
288
5
36
8
6
371
0
11,973
V
VI
VII
IV-B
179
389
12
389
1,019
1
592
51
63
205
163
418
19
238
981
66
16
640
151
287
195
5
4
5
20
437
0
11,952
V
461
3,348
0
4,429
1
0
4,660
0
757
4,415
573
0
16
110
0
0
179
617
600
857
59
0
0
0
0
0
0
49,587
VI
0
0
0
33
178
Oa
143
0
50
17
Oa
9
24
0
0
5
0
181
35
0
39
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,586
VII
0
96
8
658
19
9
18
0
3
35
7
7
0
16
0
0
0
0
15
0
767
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,872
Total (I-V)
825
7,601
170
16,916
4,165
94
7,887
352
2,076
6,668
1,332
1,692
118
946
5,248
337
352
4,182
1,244
1,830
1,440
42
45
53
54
1,448
101
133,841
Combined sewer overflow correction
Storm water management programs
NFS pollution control
a Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
B-4
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table B-2 summarizes the States' 1996 assessments of needs that either were justified with documents outside the
established documentation criteria of the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey or had no written documentation. The
SSEs were optional and were in addition to the documented needs (see Table B-l). These estimates are provided for
use in comparing the results of the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey and the CWNS 2000. All values from the 1996
Clean Water Needs Survey have been adjusted to January 2000 dollars in millions.
Table B-2 is comparable to Table A-ll for 2000 estimates for Categories I through VI. Needs for Category VII are not
directly comparable because the Category VII subcategories changed between the surveys.
Table B-2. 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey Separate State Estimates (January 2000 dollars in millions)
Category of Need
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
Total
18
27
169
793
2,917
57
840
144
0
2
610
1,491
181
1,068
976
29
70
377
597
842
5
2,609
29
179
255
1,250
38
209
557
1
5
6
25
211
1,732
1
108
50
0
0
100
404
140
95
99
14
1
76
139
7
1
190
23
86
57
103
17
5
393
II
10
0
16
77
4
55
533
0
0
0
165
0
3
38
52
0
37
28
45
0
0
67
0
14
52
0
0
1
79
III-A
1
0
0
125
29
0
4
4
0
0
37
191
4
9
18
0
0
34
19
4
0
108
Oa
10
42
0
0
1
oa
III-B
0
0
oa
109
434
0
0
0
0
oa
22
519
8
20
8
0
0
59
25
0
0
9
1
11
38
Oa
4
Oa
1
IV-A
0
10
22
142
138
0
7
59
0
0
99
197
13
11
36
0
0
132
163
25
0
452
4
25
51
80
4
9
18
IV-B
2
5
78
127
457
1
5
29
0
2
138
180
13
54
34
15
32
45
175
11
0
256
1
33
13
61
4
Oa
66
V
0
0
0
2
0
0
183
0
0
0
49
0
0
1
729
0
0
3
0
795
0
15
0
0
0
576
0
178
0
VI
0
0
11
0
123
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31
0
4
1,443
0
0
2
0
8
15
Oa
VII
0
6
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
840
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
69
0
0
oa
430
1
0
0
Total (I-V)
18
21
141
793
2,794
57
840
142
0
2
610
1,491
181
228
976
29
70
377
566
842
1
1,097
29
179
253
820
29
194
557
continued
-------
Appendix B: Summary of 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey Cost Estimates
B-5
Table B -2. (continued)
State
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
N. Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
Total
474
1,186
0
3,041
4,206
0
1,117
179
25
3,693
0
77
10
1,078
2,013
835
81
455
822
1,138
794
78
0
0
0
253
0
37,894
Categories
I Secondary wastewater treatment
II Advanced wastewater treatment
III-A Infiltration/inflow correction
1
27
362
0
1,217
126
0
193
27
0
468
0
40
5
259
663
151
37
151
109
282
82
42
0
0
0
88
0
8,417
III-B
IV-A
IV-B
II
18
0
0
566
480
0
113
109
0
160
0
6
0
38
277
0
8
33
29
2
26
13
0
0
0
1
0
3,155
III-A
17
7
0
80
59
0
75
22
11
7
0
3
0
144
50
0
0
26
84
24
0
8
0
0
0
6
0
1,263 2
Category of Need
II-B
10
294
0
147
33
0
39
4
13
14
0
0
2
138
131
22
0
13
61
41
0
11
0
0
0
1
0
,242
Sewer replacement/rehabilitation
New collector sewers and appurtenances
New interceptor sewers and appurtenances
IV-A
189
43
0
360
340
0
305
3
1
560
0
9
1
242
193
555
17
103
58
321
43
2
0
0
0
75
0
5,117
V
VI
VII
IV-B
102
125
0
329
213
0
146
14
0
296
0
19
Oa
240
699
102
9
72
343
432
8
2
0
0
0
82
0
5,070
V
111
317
0
304
0
0
200
0
0
2,136
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
1
137
36
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,782
VI
0
5
0
38
2,954
0
46
0
0
0
0
oa
2
17
0
5
1
56
1
0
635
Oa
0
0
0
0
0
5,399
VII
0
33
0
0
1
0
oa
0
0
52
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,449
Total (I-V)
474
1,148
0
3,003
1,251
0
1,071
179
25
3,641
0
77
8
1,061
2,013
830
80
399
821
1,138
159
78
0
0
0
253
0
31,046
Combined sewer overflow correction
Storm water management programs
NFS pollution control
a Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
B - 6 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Appendix C
Summary of
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000
Technical Information
C-l
-------
C-2
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table C-l summarizes the number of treatment facilities a
and U.S. Territory.
Table C-1 . Number of Operational Treatment Facilities and
Treatment Collection
State Facilities Systems
Alabama 272 275
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California8
Colorado8
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada*1
45
118
335
586
311
91
18
1
277
352
21
168
721
404
726
634
224
355
137
156
126
396
514
303
678
194
464
51
46
132
367
797
391
137
42
1
317
403
21
207
1,018
482
756
673
255
382
171
201
230
663
655
352
751
204
469
56
nd collection systems in operation in 2000 in each State
Collection Systems in 2000
Treatment Collection
State Facilities Systems
New Hampshire 85 117
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York8
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota8
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming*1
American Samoa*1
Guamb
N. Mariana Islands*1
Puerto Ricob
Virgin Islands*1
156
55
588
491
282
765
489
207
779
21
186
271
246
1,363
97
81
227
235
212
592
96
2
7
2
30
12
575
64
1,048
617
284
1,008
495
254
1,553
34
206
274
281
1,675
164
97
290
331
289
823
121
2
7
2
30
12
Total
a California, Colorado, New York, and South Dakota did not have the resources to complete the updating of these data.
b Results presented in this table for American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Nevada, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands,
survey because these States and Territories did not participate in the CWNS 2000.
16,255 21,107
and Wyoming are from the
1996
-------
Appendix C: Summary of Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Technical Information
C-3
Table C-2 summarizes the number of treatment facilities a
State and U.S. Territory if all documented needs are met.
Table C-2. Number of Operational Treatment Facilities anc
Treatment Collection
State Facilities Systems
Alabama 279 285
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California8
Colorado8
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada*1
50
232
360
579
331
99
18
1
302
345
27
177
754
424
744
665
301
371
145
180
141
403
518
372
729
208
475
52
51
258
406
799
430
159
49
1
346
405
27
219
1,056
510
775
712
369
405
184
303
267
673
661
475
848
218
483
56
nd collection systems projected to be in operation in each
Collection Systems If All Documented Needs Are Met
Treatment Collection
State Facilities Systems
New Hampshire 85 120
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York8
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota8
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming*1
American Samoa*1
Guamb
N. Mariana Islands*1
Puerto Ricob
Virgin Islands*1
Total
164
58
657
518
282
837
487
219
1,013
20
187
273
251
1,469
114
84
254
240
404
628
96
2
6
2
30
12
600
68
1,175
702
286
1,213
496
270
1,936
36
222
276
286
1,850
188
100
383
337
626
974
121
2
7
2
30
12
17,674 23,748
a California, Colorado, New York, and South Dakota did not have the resources to complete the updating of these data.
b Results presented in this table for American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Nevada, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Wyoming are from the
survey because these States and Territories did not participate in the CWNS 2000.
1996
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table C-3 shows, for five flow ranges, the number of treatment facilities in operation in 2000 and the number
projected to be in operation if all documented needs are met. The number of facilities and their cumulative flow (in
millions of gallons per day) are shown for each of the flow ranges.
Table C-3. Number of Treatment Facilities by Flow Range
Treatment Facilities in Operation in 2000"
-------
Appendix C: Summary of Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Technical Information
C-5
Table C-4 shows, by level of treatment, the number of treatment facilities in operation in 2000 and the number
projected to be in operation if all documented needs are met. The number of facilities, their cumulative capacities
(in millions of gallons per day), and the population served are shown for each level of treatment. The population
served number is then presented as a percentage of the total 2000 U.S. population.
Table C-4. Number of Treatment Facilities by Level of Treatment
Treatment Facilities in Operation in 2000"'b
Level of Treatment
Less than Secondary'
Number of
Facilities
47
Present Design
Capacity (mgd)
1,023
Number of
People Served
6,426,062
Percent of
U.S. Population
2.3
Secondary
9,156
19,268
88,221,896
32.0
Greater than Secondary
4,892
22,165
100,882,207
36.6
No Discharge"1
1,938
2,039
12,283,047
4.5
Partial Treatment'
222
563
Total
16,255
45,058
207,813,212£
75.4
Level of Treatment
Less than Secondary0
Treatment Facilities in Operation in 2000 If All Documented Needs Are Met°'b
Number of Future Design Capacity
Facilities
27
481
Number of
People Served
3,851,000
Percent of
U.S. Population
1.2
Secondary
9,463
20,008
103,716,058
31.9
Greater than Secondary
5,739
26,239
140,251,554
43.2
No Discharge"1
2,221
2,579
21,224,596
6.5
Partial Treatment'
224
734
Total
17,674
50,041
269,043,208£
a California, Colorado, New York, and South Dakota did not have the resources to complete the updating of these data.
b Results presented in this table for American Samoa, Guam, Nevada, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Wyoming are from the 1996
survey because these States and Territories did not participate in the CWNS 2000.
c Less-than-secondary facilities include facilities granted or pending section 301(h) waivers from secondary treatment for discharges to marine waters.
d No-discharge facilities do not discharge treated wastewater to the Nation's waterways. These facilities dispose of wastewater via methods such as industrial reuse,
irrigation, or evaporation.
e These facilities provide some treatment to wastewater and discharge their effluents to wastewater facilities for further treatment and discharge.
fThis table does not include the results for approximately 3.3 million people (present) and 3.5 million people (future) that are receiving centralized collection
because the data related to flow and effluent levels were not complete for the CWNS 2000.
-------
C-6
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table C-5 presents the number of CSO facilities with documented needs identified during the 1996 Clean Water
Needs Survey and the CWNS 2000.
Table C-5. Number of Facilities With CSO Correction Needs and Total CSO Correction Needs: 1996 and 2000
(January 2000 dollars in millions)
Number of Facilities with Number of Facilities with 1996 CSO Needs 2000 CSO Needs
State CSO Needs in 1996 CSO Needs in 2000 (S Millions) (S Millions)
Alabama 0000
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada8
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
1
0
0
4
1
10
2
1
0
7
0
0
104
119
16
3
15
0
46
7
28
48
1
0
12
1
3
0
5
37
0
64
1
1
0
0
1
1
6
1
1
0
2
0
0
105
107
14
3
12
0
48
8
25
21
1
0
7
0
2
0
4
39
0
83
1
18
0
0
1,215
13
485
124
493
0
408
0
0
10,415
4,953
527
589
930
0
542
127
2,246
4,133
29
0
985
1
272
0
461
3,348
0
4,429
1
5
0
0
426
9
500
102
1,019
0
918
0
0
9,450
5,468
1,534
396
217
0
653
396
2,324
2,437
6
0
1,180
0
861
NR
485
4,385
0
5,497
3
continued
-------
Appendix C: Summary of Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Technical Information
C-7
Table C-5. (continued)
Number of Facilities with Number of Facilities with
State CSO Needs in 1996 CSO Needs in 2000
North Dakota 0 0
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming8
American Samoa8
Guam8
N. Mariana Islands8
Puerto Rico8
Virgin Islands8
Total
110
0
5
110
3
0
3
3
0
0
20
4
16
56
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
869
Note: NR = not reported. American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Nevada,
CWNS 2000.
a Results presented in this table for American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands,
survey because these States and Territories did not participate in the CWNS 2000.
109
0
2
123
3
0
1
2
0
0
4
3
11
45
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
799
1996 CSO Needs
(S Millions)
0
4,660
0
757
4,415
573
0
16
110
0
0
179
617
600
857
59
0
0
0
0
0
0
49,587
2000 CSO Needs
(S Millions)
0
3,623
0
74
5,431
633
0
2
244
0
0
31
460
608
869
342
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
50,588
Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Wyoming did not participate in the
Nevada, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Wyoming are from the 1996
-------
C-8
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table C-6 presents the number of storm water facilities with ne
the MS4.
Table C-6. Number of Facilities With MS4 Storm Water Needs and 1
Small MS4 Facilities Medium
(<100,000 people) (100,000 throu
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
Number of Number ol
Facilities0 Needs (S Millions) Facilities0
000
000
7 137 5
000
18 182 5
10 20 1
000
0 0 1 0
000
46 150 20
000
000
0 0 1 0
000
000
1 1 0
000
0 0 1
000
000
1 Ob 1 6
000
000
290
000
000
000
7 7 1 1
NR NR NR
000
47 89 0
0 0 1 0
eds identified in the CWNS 2000 by the size of
otal MS4 Needs (January 2000 dollars in millions)
MS4 Facilities Large MS4 Facilities
gh 249,999 people) (>250,000 people)
Number of
Needs (S Millions) Facilities0 Needs (S Millions)
000
0 0
174 5
0 1 0
45 5
14 1
0 0
0 1 0
0 1
325 17
0 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 0
0 0
0 1 0
0 0
3 0
0 0
0 1 0
47 5
0 0
0 0
0 1 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
17 0
NR NR
0 0
0 0
0 1 0
0
941
0
124
14
0
0
37
205
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
409
0
0
111
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
continued
-------
Appendix C: Summary of Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Technical Information
C-9
Table C-6. (continued)
Small MS4 Facilities Medium MS4 F
(<100,000 people) (100,000 through 24'
Number of Number of
State Facilities" Needs (S Millions) Facilities" Ne
New York 650
North Carolina 002
North Dakota 340
Ohio 000
Oklahoma 000
Oregon 000
Pennsylvania 0 0 10
Rhode Island 000
South Carolina 000
South Dakota 7 14 0
Tennessee 000
Texas 0 0 1
Utah 0 0 1
Vermont 000
Virginia 000
Washington 000
West Virginia 000
Wisconsin 5 16 0
Wyoming NR NR NR
American Samoa NR NR NR
Guam NR NR NR
N. Mariana Islands NR NR NR
Puerto Rico NR NR NR
Virgin Islands NR NR NR
Total 160 634 53
icilities Large MS4 Facilities
>,999 people) (>250,000 people)
Number of
eds (S Millions) Facilities" Needs (S Millions)
0 2 11
1 1 Ob
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 1 190
0 0 0
17 0 0
0 1 0 0
0 0 0
0 1 0 0
0 1 0 0
21 31 2,204
5 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
000
0 0 0
0 1 0 0
NR NR NR
NR NR NR
NR NR NR
NR NR NR
NR NR NR
NR NR NR
669 70 4,246
Note: NR = not reported. American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Nevada, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Wyoming did not participate in the
CWNS 2000.
1 The number of facilities on this table does not reflect the number of MS4s in a particular state. The number of facilities reflects how many records were
entered into the CWNS 2000 database, and one facility can cover multiple MS4s or multiple facilities can cover one MS4.
b Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
C-10
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table C-7 shows, by treatment level, the number of facilities in operation in 2000 and the population served at the
State level. The number of facilities and population served are shown for each level of treatment and for each State
and U.S. Territory.
Table C-7. Number of Treatment Facilities and Population Served per State by Level of Treatment for Year 2000
Number of Facilities Providing Listed Effluent Level Population Served by Listed Effluent Level
Less than Greater than
State Secondary" Secondary Secondary No Discharge11
Alabama 0 130 129 8
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California'
Colorado'
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia"1
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada'
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
5
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
12
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
30
17
118
182
246
49
3
0
17
227
5
107
415
125
707
355
123
184
116
75
77
204
411
195
578
107
298
44
70
94
57
0 9
18 81
207 9
77 309
38 22
38 4
11 4
1 0
84 175
80 35
2 12
5 55
301 1
274 0
9 3
79 197
94 0
163 1
2 7
75 6
35 7
120 68
100 0
75 1
77 21
5 80
19 146
3 4
2 10
55 1
1 17
Less than
Secondary" Secondary
0 732,009
207,994 108,879
0 111,767
0 726,471
4,198,270 12,159,009
0 1,556,854
0 1,266,574
0 10,476
0 0
0 238,764
0 1,721,572
532,378 139,609
0 562,008
0 683,543
0 410,940
0 1,925,926
0 694,512
0 1,242,187
3,000 2,268,451
9,303 624,604
0 949,367
20,074 4,235,095
0 1,254,599
42 967,813
0 1,139,734
0 3,757,717
0 397,988
0 977,825
0 139,996
25,409 555,435
0 6,762,536
0 898,530
Greater than
Secondary No Discharge11
1,994,219 7,593
0
2,215,703
803,753
7,919,130
2,142,434
813,536
728,997
1,298,601
6,155,714
2,594,389
20,286
265,812
9,811,768
3,416,852
181,763
1,277,425
921,134
878,478
16,038
2,045,325
822,135
6,161,491
2,073,977
507,809
451,630
89,635
155,078
252,229
17,890
1,090,502
7,150
21,920
1,378,004
12,155
3,577,181
7,788
1,210
13,070
0
4,931,819
89,249
89,512
60,303
572
0
1,393
101,964
0
207
5,956
3,920
17,043
108,121
0
524
2,663
63,564
64,166
237,442
7,984
34,307
135,338
continued
-------
Appendix C: Summary of Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Technical Information
C-ll
Table C-7.
State
New Yorkc
(continued)
Number of Facilities Providing Listed Effluent Level
Less than
Secondary"
0
Secondary
360
Greater than
Secondary
178
No Discharge11
27
Population Served
Less than
Secondary"
0
Secondary
11,273,282
by Listed Effluent Level
Greater than
Secondary
3,748,413
No Discharge11
116,814
North Carolina
313
134
33
0 1,056,606 2,576,092
112,989
North Dakota
254
27
0
468,946
21,531
5,909
Ohio
169
593
1,401,922 7,404,543
956
Oklahoma
249
39
199
1,716,478
712,679
151,004
Oregon
101
67
37
625
1,333,432 1,219,279
33,050
Pennsylvania
360
397
1,476 6,237,683 4,157,929
2,314
Rhode Island
19
0
687,805
10,184
South Carolina
123
53
0 1,769,072
549,626
30,628
South Dakota'
234
29
0
268,874
164,144
14,467
Tennessee
110
130
1,459,559 1,700,862
4,193
Texas
524
661
160
1,070
2,538,924 14,025,086
640,857
Utah
49
44
1,636,148
190,027
134,011
Vermont
48
31
0
90,497
193,684
722
Virginia
157
60
0 2,166,150 2,318,144
1,373
Washington
201
27
0
2,847,237
894,801
31,127
West Virginia
142
63
2,205
581,527
374,677
0
Wisconsin
283
279
26
573,346 3,250,360
20,360
Wyoming'
78
14
244,075
87,923
3,030
American Samoa'
5,511
0
0
Guam'
62,639
9,236
4,275
N. Mariana Islands'
0
1,118
0
0
Puerto Rico'
22
1,336,535
581,405
151,290
Virgin Islands'
10
19,531
58,294
50
Total
47
9,156
4,892
1,938 6,426,062 88,221,896 100,882,207
12,283,047
a Less-than-secondary facilities include facilities granted or pending section 301(h) waivers from secondary treatment for discharges to marine waters.
b No-discharge facilities do not discharge treated wastewater to the Nation's waterways. These facilities dispose of wastewater via methods such as industrial
reuse, irrigation, or evaporation.
c California, Colorado, New York, and South Dakota did not have the resources to the complete updating of these data.
d The reported population served for the District of Columbia includes populations from Maryland and Virginia that receive wastewater treatment at the Blue
Plains facility in the District of Columbia.
e Results presented in this table for American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Nevada, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Wyoming are from the 1996
survey because these States and Territories did not participate in the CWNS 2000.
-------
C-12
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table C-8 shows, by treatment level, the number of facilities that will be in operation if all documented needs are
met and the population served at State level. The number of facilities and population served are shown for each level
of treatment and for each State and U.S. Territory.
Table C-8. Number of Treatment Facilities and Population Served per State by Level of Treatment If All Documented
Needs Are Met
Number of Facilities Providing Listed Effluent Level Population Served by Listed Effluent Level
Less than Greater than
State Secondary" Secondary Secondary No Discharge11
Alabama 0 128 135 10
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California'
Colorado'
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia"1
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada'
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
5
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
31
9
122
171
254
22
3
0
18
190
7
114
438
123
718
338
177
137
120
79
77
207
397
250
623
110
283
45
61
79
33
0 13
32 188
229 9
85 310
51 20
70 7
11 4
1 0
88 195
114 35
2 16
9 52
310 2
294 0
15 3
119 204
107 5
230 1
4 9
88 13
45 13
122 70
116 2
100 4
83 21
9 86
36 154
3 4
9 13
70 8
5 20
Less than
Secondary" Secondary
0 850,278
346,571 211,131
0 70,767
0 1,071,716
2,618,003 16,439,258
0 1,932,072
0 492,536
0 14,294
0 0
0 338,758
0 1,798,412
768,000 231,900
0 763,978
0 921,010
0 460,829
0 2,263,449
0 613,118
0 2,099,101
0 2,587,405
11,338 780,367
0 293,355
32,368 3,707,305
0 1,332,723
70 1,000,278
0 960,652
0 5,198,472
0 500,250
0 903,404
0 292,934
35,450 725,157
0 7,138,560
0 1,058,474
Greater than
Secondary No Discharge11
2,330,863 18,170
0
2,729,902
1,395,634
10,261,833
2,709,427
2,022,618
791,212
1,446,672
8,846,624
4,613,062
42,258
434,133
11,723,762
4,131,955
289,360
2,113,860
1,540,928
1,257,299
25,914
3,447,507
1,119,261
6,626,003
2,608,888
1,627,486
668,613
197,470
542,114
285,015
108,043
1,623,823
113,452
42,808
3,167,290
20,200
5,208,425
9,363
9,910
14,179
0
8,882,498
130,884
231,879
91,246
863
0
1,595
124,192
9,883
220
16,977
7,048
56,924
124,612
587
2,652
4,530
95,212
76,484
365,653
14,975
101,959
159,168
continued
-------
Appendix C: Summary of Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Technical Information
C-13
Table C-8. (continued)
Number of Facilities Providing Listed Effluent Level
State
New Yorkc
Less than
Secondary
Greater than
Secondary Secondary No Discharge11
Population Served by Listed Effluent Level
Less than Greater than
Secondary" Secondary Secondary No Discharge11
392
214
32
0 10,760,456
5,189,868
291,070
North Carolina
262
186
55
0
719,930 4,799,511
374,303
North Dakota
252
27
566,119
33,978
6,834
Ohio
175
659
1,502,828 8,676,938
1,156
Oklahoma
243
43
201
1,848,131
792,888
160,835
Oregon
99
76
43
164
1,747,092
1,793,014
49,482
Pennsylvania
500
481
6,505,193 4,978,940
4,665
Rhode Island
14
585,710
191,301
South Carolina
106
73
2,339,472 1,625,231
49,951
South Dakota'
233
31
364,006
296,726
16,541
Tennessee
111
133
1,808,794 2,418,761
5,516
Texas
551
719
175
3,607,777 20,948,926
907,461
Utah
48
56
2,040,695
466,271
256,001
Vermont
45
37
115,109
260,306
1,020
Virginia
168
77
2,720,537 4,338,245
4,797
Washington
203
30
4,127,624 1,092,419
61,861
West Virginia
305
98
983,278
494,256
0
Wisconsin
272
310
38
583,944 3,688,193
32,476
Wyoming'
77
14
355,741
130,372
5,532
American Samoa'
39,200
0
0
Guam'
0
112,910
4,545
N. Mariana Islands'
37,139
0
Puerto Rico'
27
0 3,176,760
321,090
Virgin Islands'
10
0
54,870
39,786
Total
27
9,463
5,739
2,221 3,851,000 103,716,058 140,251,554 21,224,596
a Less-than-secondary facilities include facilities granted or pending section 301(h) waivers from secondary treatment for discharges to marine waters.
b No-discharge facilities do not discharge treated wastewater to the Nation's waterways. These facilities dispose of wastewater via methods such as industrial
reuse, irrigation, or evaporation.
c California, Colorado, New York, and South Dakota did not have the resources to complete the updating of these data.
d The reported population served for the District of Columbia includes populations from Maryland and Virginia that receive wastewater treatment at the Blue
Plains facility in the District of Columbia.
e Results presented in this table for American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Nevada, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Wyoming are from the 1996
survey because these States and Territories did not participate in the CWNS 2000.
-------
C-14
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table C-9 presents the treatment facilities represented in the CWNS 2000 as having less than secondary effluent
discharges and no 301(h) waivers from secondary treatment for discharges to marine waters. The present and
future effluent levels, flow design, and population receiving treatment are shown for each facility, in addition to the
Category I needs for the facility. Technical data are of January 1, 2000.
Table C-9. Technical Data and Costs for Facilities With Less-Than-Secondary Effluent Levels That Do Not Have 301(h)
Waivers
State Facility Name
Present Effluent
Future Effluent
Present Future Present Future
Flow Flow Population Population
Design Design Receiving Receiving
(mgd) (rood) Treatment Treatment
Documented
Category
I Needs
(January
2000
S millions)
CA Gustine WWTP8
Advanced Primary Secondary
1.18
4,044 6,435
3.1
CA Joint WPCPb'c
Advanced Primary Secondary
400
400 2,660,000 3,000,000
Kelley Land
LA Subdivision'
OR Dufur STPC
Advanced Primary Secondary
0.05
0.202
3,017 3,450
Advanced Primary Secondary
0.043
0.043
625
825
0.5
MN
Barry Imhoff
Tankd
Primary
(45 mg/L< BOD)
Primary
(45 mg/L
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Appendix D
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Modeled Estimate
D-l
-------
D-2
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Why were nonpoint source needs
modeled?
Estimating the overall costs of addressing NFS
pollution throughout the United States has long
constituted a major challenge to EPA and to other
groups. The States have reported for many years
that NFS pollution is the most significant source of
remaining water quality impairments in the United
States. In EPA's most recently published National
Water Quality Inventory, which summarizes the State
water quality reports submitted to the Agency under
section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act, the States
have, for example, identified agriculture as causing
or contributing to 48 percent of remaining waterbody
impairments in the United States. The States also
list hydrologic modification, habitat modification,
urban runoff, forestry, and resource extraction as
top contributors to water quality impairment. NFS
pollution is a significant contributor to impairments of
lakes and coastal estuaries as well.
Despite the evident significance of NFS pollution,
the cost of remediating such pollution has remained
difficult to quantify. The chief difficulty lies in the
vast number of potential sources of NFS pollution,
including more than 300 million acres of agricultural
production managed by well over a million producers
and production entities; hundreds of millions of acres
of forestland and rangeland; many thousands of small
communities that contribute urban NFS pollution; tens
of thousands of abandoned mines; tens of millions of
septic tanks, cesspools, and other on-site wastewater
treatment systems; and many other significant sources
of pollution. Not all of these sources are causing
pollution problems or require remediation; however, a
great many of these sources do need new or improved
practices to control NFS pollution.
Given the vast array of sources of NFS pollution, to date
States have been unable to identify all of them. Similarly,
States have not been able to develop or identify to the
degree necessary other documentation required for
the "documented needs" approach used in the CWNS
2000, as discussed in Section 2 of this report (e.g.,
description of the water quality impairment, its location,
BMPs used to address the problem, and the cost of each
BMP). For example (as shown in Appendix A, Table
A-2, of this report), by using the documented needs
approach, only 15 States were able to estimate any costs
for cropland or animal agriculture, despite the fact that
agriculture constitutes the most significant source of
NFS pollution in the Nation. Similarly, only 16 States
were able to estimate costs for hydromodification (the
second most reported source of impairment to rivers and
streams in State 305(b) reports); only 2 States were able
to estimate costs for silviculture (forestry); and only
half could do so for urban sources.
To address this analytical shortcoming, EPA has
supplemented the documented needs approach used in
the CWNS 2000 with the continued use of a modeled
approach that estimates the current expenditures to
prevent and control NFS pollution from selected source
categories. The modeled approach thus estimates the
additional resources ("needs") necessary to address the
identified NFS problem(s) in only those select categories.
The modeled approach in the CWNS 2000 is broader
than the modeled approach used in the 1996 Clean Water
Needs Survey, including several source categories not
previously included; it now includes seven major source
categories. Although this modeled approach is still
limited, EPA believes it captures a substantial portion
of the Nation's total NFS capital needs and therefore
provides critical information that readers of this report
should consider in conjunction with the documented
needs discussed earlier in this document.
It is important to note that ultimately a documented
approach will provide a more accurate and complete
assessment of national NFS needs, as well as better
information at the State and watershed levels. During
the next 10 to 15 years, EPA expects that State
programs will generate the sort of improved data
needed. States are developing TMDLs for all impaired
waters, which will identify the NFS pollutant loads
(and therefore the ultimate load reductions) needed
to achieve water quality standards in each impaired
waterbody. Moreover, using Section 319 funds and
-------
Appendix D: Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Modeled Estimate
D-3
other funding sources, States are now beginning
to develop watershed-based plans for watersheds
significantly affected by NFS pollution. Such plans
describe the pollutant sources, the pollutant load
reductions to be achieved from relevant categories and
subcategories of nonpoint sources in the watershed,
and the BMPs to be implemented. States will use
these watershed-based plans as the basis for their
implementation activities in impaired watersheds,
working in partnership with other Federal and State
agencies and with local communities to solve their NFS
problems. Thus, EPA hopes eventually to be able to
thoroughly document all NFS needs across the United
States, and to do so on a watershed-by-watershed basis.
Finally, it must be noted that for two reasons the
modeled NFS needs represent only a partial picture
of the true total NFS needs. First, certain source
categories were omitted altogether because of a lack
of data with which to obtain an acceptable modeled
estimate. Second, even for the categories modeled, the
full array of BMPs and behavioral changes that would
be needed to fully address the Nation's NFS problems
within those source categories have not been accounted
for because of data and time constraints.
What are the NPS modeled needs
results?
Table D-l and Figure D-l present estimated total
capital needs. Categories VII-D and VII-G together
contribute approximately $15.0 billion to the total
modeled NPS capital needs estimate. Approximately
98 percent ($9.4 billion) of the total capital needs for
Category VII-D ($9.63 billion) are for implementing
on-site wastewater treatment systems. Categories VII-A
and VII-B, with needs estimated to be approximately
$5.9 billion, account for the largest remaining share of
the total capital needs.
How were NPS needs estimated for
the CWNS 2000?
The CWNS 2000 expands the total number of NPS
categories beyond what was modeled in the 1996 Clean
Water Needs Survey. The 1996 survey modeled only
Table D-1. Estimated CWSRF-Eligible Needs for
Selected NPS Categories (January 2000 dollars in billions)
Estimated Total Percent of
CWNS Category Capital Needs Total
VII-A Agriculture (Cropland)8 4.44 20.6
VII-B Agriculture (Animals)
1.51
7.0
VII-C Silviculture
0.025
0.1
VII-D Urban
9.71
45.1
VII-F Marinas
0.0027
0.01
VII-G Resource Extraction
5.40
25.1
VII-K Hydromodification8
0.417
1.9
Total
21.50
100.0
1 The value presented is the midpoint of the needs range determined by the
analysis.
agricultural cropland, animal feeding operations, and
silviculture.
It is important to note that only CWSRF-eligible needs
were modeled. For example, operation and maintenance
costs for BMPs are not eligible for CWSRF funding and
therefore were not included in the modeling analysis.
Furthermore, in some cases, such as silviculture and
resource extraction, needs pertain to sources on Federal
land. Needs on Federal lands, however, were generally not
included in the analysis because such needs presumably
would be addressed by Federal agencies and not by the
CWSRF. (Hydromodification is an exception to this
rule; refer to the explanation for the Hydromodification
category at number 6 in the list below.)
For the purposes of this analysis, the categories are
defined as follows:
1. Agriculture (cropland) includes those croplands
identified in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
(USDA) National Resources Inventory with an erosion
level higher than T. (The T value is the maximum
average annual soil loss that will permit current
production levels to be maintained economically and
indefinitely.)
2. Agriculture (animals) was defined as animal feedlots
with fewer than 500 animal units. That number had
been chosen in accordance with one of the options
-------
D-4
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
VII-A:
Agriculture (Cropland)
$4.448,20.6%
VII-K:
nydromodiiicotion
S0.417B,1.9%
VII-6:
Resource Extraction
$5.406,25.1%
VII-B:
Agriculture (Animals)
$1.51B,7.0%
VII-C:
Silviculture
$0.0258,0.1%
VII-F:
Marinas
$0.00278,0.01%
VII-D:
Urban
$9.718,45.1%
Figure D-1. Total modeled needs for NFS pollution control (January 2000 dollars). Note: CWNS 2000 NFS Need
Categories VII-E, H, I, and J were not modeled.
in the proposed Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operation (CAFO) rule (68 FR 7176). The final
CAFO rule defined a CAFO as an operation with
1,000 or more animal units. This change does not
substantially alter the modeled NFS needs estimate
for agriculture (animals).
3. Silviculture includes only needs to address timber
harvest. Costs for maintenance of forest roads, which
is considered operation and maintenance and thus
not CWSRF-eligible, are actually considerable,
and would have greatly inflated the estimate for
silviculture. Furthermore, the estimated compliance
rate for implementation of timber harvest practices
under current regulatory schemes is fairly high, thus
lowering the total additional needs figure.
4. Urban includes NFS needs associated with on-site
wastewater treatment systems, existing residential
development, and construction sites covering less
than 1 acre. The on-site wastewater treatment
system analysis includes only the need for repairing
or replacing leaking systems, not for building new
systems in new subdivisions. This is because the
latter need is not included in Category VII-D of
the documented NFS needs but is subsumed under
Categories I and II. The residential construction
site limit is placed at 1 acre because this is the
permitting limit under the Storm Water Phase II
rule (and therefore areas larger than 1 acre do not
qualify as nonpoint sources).
5. Resource Extraction includes only abandoned coal
mines because that was the only category of resource
extraction for which the data available to model
needs were adequate.
6. Hydromodification includes only dissolved oxygen
mitigation for dams. However, because EPA was
unable to separate Federal dams from private dams
because of the format in which data were available,
the estimate for dams includes Federal dams even
though those would not be addressed through
CWSRF funds. This category does not attempt
to address the much broader range of hydrologic
modification and habitat modification, although
States have identified these as their second and third
most important sources of impairment to rivers and
-------
Appendix D: Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Modeled Estimate
D-5
streams. Those sources were not modeled because
of a lack of quality data to support such an analysis.
Inclusion of those sources would likely inflate the
total for the hydromodification category alone into
the tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars.
The major water pollution problems associated with the
source categories addressed by the practices costed for
the modeled NFS approach are the following:
• Erosion and sediment runoff (agriculture,
silviculture, abandoned mine lands, and
residential construction).
• Pathogen and nutrient export (agriculture and on-
site wastewater treatment systems).
• Acid mine drainage (abandoned mine lands).
• Depletion of dissolved oxygen (dams).
• Fuel spills (petroleum hydrocarbons from
marinas).
It is important to note that the source categories for
the modeled NFS needs do not exactly match those
for the documented NFS needs. This is because the
modeled NFS needs were largely based on information
accumulated in prior years by EPA for particular
source categories, and from information sources where
sufficient data were available to actually scale-up NFS
need estimates to the national level. Therefore, the
following categories are not included in the modeled
NFS needs, although a few States were able to provide
some documented needs for these categories to EPA:
• Ground Water Protection: Unknown Source
(VII-E)
• Brownfields (VII-H)
• Storage Tanks (VII-I)
• Sanitary Landfills (VII-J)
What was the basic methodology
used to model NPS needs?
Although the specific methodologies used to determine
needs differ to some extent among the NPS categories,
the methodology for each category followed five steps.
1. Estimate the magnitude of the problem.
2. Identify applicable BMPs.
3. Estimate unit costs for the BMPs and multiply
by the number of BMPs or acreage required to
alleviate the NPS pollution.
4. Estimate total public and private sector
expenditures incurred to date.
5. Subtract expenditures incurred (step 4) from costs
(step 3) to estimate total needs.
How was the magnitude of the problem
estimated for each NPS pollution
category?
To estimate the magnitude of the problem, each source
category analysis identified the number of facilities or
acres that generate NPS pollution and could negatively
affect water quality. The number and size of each
source of pollution were estimated using various
data sources, including the USDA's National Resource
Inventory, USDA's 1997 Census of Agriculture, various
Federal and State silviculture databases, the U.S.
Department of the Interior's Abandoned Mine Lands
database, the National Small Flows Clearinghouse, and
the Tennessee Valley Authority.
How were BMPs identified for each NPS
pollution category?
The second step involved identifying a set of applicable
BMPs for each NPS category. The selected BMPs were
chosen because of their acceptance by government
agencies, as indicated in guidance issued by USDA
and EPA, and confirmed through expert interviews.1
The BMPs evaluated do not necessarily represent the
only applicable management practices for each source
category. Rather, they reflect management practices
that government agencies have accepted, that are
widely used, and for which at least some reliable cost
data are available. The BMPs used to estimate costs to
control pollutants from each source category are shown
in Table D-2.
BMPs for animal feeding operations were selected using the least-cost model that was being used to support development of what were then the proposed (but are now the final) effluent limitations
guidelines for these facilities.
-------
D-6
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
How were total costs estimated for each
NFS pollution category?
The third step entailed estimating costs for each BMP
and then applying those unit costs to the relevant NFS
categories. Where a range of BMP costs was found for a
specific practice, an average cost was used. For on-site
wastewater treatment system analysis, average costs of
repair and replacement were estimated based on the
estimated number of failing systems. For abandoned
coal mine lands, unit costs are not necessarily relevant;
instead the analysis used estimated costs for cleaning
up abandoned coal mine land sites identified by the
States as posing threats to the environment.
Some BMP unit costs and management practices were
adjusted for regional differences where data supporting
such variation were available. This was particularly
true for estimating silviculture BMP unit costs. For
agriculture, conservation tillage costs were estimated
using national unit costs, although variations in BMP
usage by crop type were taken into account. Regional
BMP cost differences were not considered in analyses
of marinas and dams.
Where cost data on BMPs were limited or unreliable,
best professional judgment was used by consulting with
experts at the USDA, the Conservation Technology
Information Center, the U.S. Forest Service, and the
U.S. Department of the Interior.
Total national costs were estimated by multiplying
BMP unit costs by the number of acres of land to which
BMPs would be applied for cropland and silviculture
and the number of NFS facilities for animal feeding
operations.
How were total expenditures estimated
for each NFS pollution category?
The fourth step involved estimating total public and
private expenditures already incurred for BMPs that
have been implemented to address NFS pollution
problems. Those expenditures had funded a broad
Table D-2. BMPs Used as Basis for Cost Estimates
Types of BMPs
NFS Category
Agriculture (cropland)
Erosion and Sediment Control
conservation tillage, conservation buffers,
and crop nutrient management
Pathogens and Nutrients Other
crop nutrient management plans NA
Agriculture (animals)
NA
comprehensive nutrient management
plans and facility upgrades
NA
Silviculture
pre-harvest planning, selective haul road
location, water turnouts, water bars,
streamside management zones, culverts,
fords, temporary bridges, seeding, and
mulching
NA
NA
Urban Development
(On-site Wastewater
Treatment Systems)
NA
replacement and repair
NA
Urban Development
(Residential Construction)
silt fences, construction entrances, and
seeding
NA
NA
Marinas8
NA
NA
booms, drain guards,
and drain inlet filters
Resource Extraction*1
NA
NA
site reclamation
Hydromodification (Dams) NA
NA
low dissolved oxygen
mitigation
Note: NA = not applicable.
1 Marina BMPs are designed primarily to prevent spillage of petroleum hydrocarbon products.
b Site reclamation for abandoned coal mines is meant primarily to address acid mine drainage as well as sediment runoff.
-------
Appendix D: Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Modeled Estimate
D-7
array of endeavors, ranging from developing nutrient
management plans to retrofitting dams with equipment
to increase dissolved oxygen levels.
The expenditures included costs incurred by owners
or operators to implement structural and nonstructural
BMPs and funds appropriated by the public sector
to create incentives for operators to implement such
practices.2 Structural BMPs are engineered structures
designed to control or alter runoff. The structural
BMPs evaluated for agriculture and silviculture NFS
control include conservation tillage,3 riparian buffers,
silt fences, and dips and bars. Nonstructural BMPs
include changes in the way operators implement
pollution control practices to minimize the generation
of NFS pollutants. Nonstructural BMPs in the CWNS
2000 include nutrient management planning for
cropland and animal feeding operations.
The accuracy of expenditure estimates varied among
categories. For example, accurately estimating
expenditures incurred for cropland pollution control
measures posed methodological challenges because
much of the required information was not readily
available. Also, because EPA was not able to separate
needs for federally operated dams from needs for
privately operated dams, federally operated dam needs
are included in Appendix D of the CWNS 2000 (even
though these dams would not use CWSRF funding).
Public expenditures for NFS pollution control,
especially at the local level, are often not explicitly
reported in published budgets. Private expenditures
were even less available and had to be estimated by
starting with the frequency of current practices and
then applying BMP unit costs. Abandoned mine land
reclamation was an exception because most of those
efforts are funded through a single program created
under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation
Act. Reclamation expenditures are tracked through
the Abandoned Mine Land Inventory System, which is
available to the public.4
As mentioned previously, where usage data on BMPs
were limited or unreliable, best professional judgment
was used by consulting with experts at the USDA, the
Conservation Technology Information Center, the
U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Department of the
Interior.
What are the major limitations of
the NPS modeled needs analysis?
The modeled NPS needs do not capture all potential
pollution problems for the categories analyzed. For
example, categories evaluated might contribute to other
surface water pollution problems, such as heavy metals and
pathogen contamination, but time and budget constraints
precluded consideration of those pollutants. It should
be noted, however, that the animal feeding operation
analysis in the CWNS 2000 evaluates facility upgrades
that can reduce bacterial pathogen contamination of
water, although it does not explicitly estimate costs for
a suite of BMPs that would comprehensively control
pathogens. Similarly, the agriculture analysis could
not identify BMPs specifically designed to minimize
pesticide runoff, although the BMPs used for erosion
and sediment runoff can reduce export of pesticides to
the surrounding environment. Finally, as mentioned
above, the hydromodification category does not attempt
to address the much broader range of hydrologic
modification and habitat modification, although States
have identified these as their second and third most
important sources of impairment to rivers and streams.
Those sources were not modeled because of a lack of
data to support such an analysis.
2 For abandoned mine lands, these expenditures would be used to reclaim sites; for failing on-site wastewater treatment systems, these expenditures would be used to repair or replace existing systems.
3 Although conservation tillage does not involve building a structure, it does involve altering the operator's equipment and hence results in some capital expenditures.
4 Although these mining funds help to pay for pollution mitigation projects, abandoned mines were included in the CWNS 2000 because the funds might not be available in a timely fashion or in a sufficient
amount to fully mitigate the pollution from abandoned coal mines. Therefore, CWSRF funds might still be of use.
-------
D-8 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Appendix E
Storm Water Management Program
Modeled Estimates
E-l
-------
E-2
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
What are the CWNS 2000 storm
water modeled needs?
The total modeled national storm water needs are
$8.4 billion. This figure represents only the estimated
CWSRF-eligible portion of the costs that municipal
separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) are expected
to incur to develop and implement storm water
management programs in response to the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
MS4 Storm Water Program regulations for Phases I
and II. Although administrative costs for the ongoing
operation of MS4 storm water management programs,
as well as operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for
storm water controls and best management practices
(BMPs), are significant, those costs are not included in
the model. State-by-state modeled results are presented
in Table E-l at the end of this appendix.
Why were storm water needs
modeled for the CWNS 2000?
Although storm water represents a substantial part
of the total water quality problem, few States have
systematically documented their storm water needs.
Therefore, EPA modeled these needs to gain an
understanding of the magnitude of the financial needs
for storm water management programs.
EPA developed Storm Water Program regulations
for pollution from MS4s. The Phase I regulations,
initiated in 1990, include MS4s located in incorporated
places with populations of 100,000 or more; systems
located in the 47 counties identified by EPA as having
populations of more than 100,000 in unincorporated,
urbanized areas; and systems designated MS4s by
the EPA Administrator or the State. MS4s identified
under the Phase I Storm Water Program regulations
were required to submit NPDES permit applications.
As of February 2000 approximately 1,017 Phase I MS4
Storm Water Program NPDES permits, covering 886
municipal entities, had been issued or were in the final
stages of being issued.1 A few small communities are
included in the program because they are associated
with larger systems or because they have been
designated by the State. Phase II MS4s consist of
systems serving a population of fewer than 100,000 in
urbanized areas with a population density of at least
1,000 persons per square mile and systems that are
designated by the EPA Administrator or the State.
More than 5,000 MS4s were designated as Phase II
systems, although Phase IIMS4 permit applications
were not due until March 10, 2003.
The Phase IIMS4 Storm Water Program requires
permittees to develop a storm water management
program that addresses six minimum control
measures: (1) Public Education and Outreach,
(2) Public Involvement and Participation, (3) Illicit
Discharge Detection and Elimination, (4) Construction
Site Runoff Control, (5) Program to Control Pollutants
in Runoff from New Development and Significant
Redevelopment, and (6) Pollution Prevention from
Municipal Activities.
What methodology was used to
model storm water needs?
To estimate the 2000 needs for Phases I and II of
the Storm Water Program, EPA largely relied on
modeling efforts completed for the 1996 Clean Water
Needs Survey and the 1998 storm water Phase II
final regulations. Those efforts were used as the basis
for the CWNS 2000 modeled Category VI needs for
two reasons: (1) better data on Phase I needs are not
currently available, and (2) Phase II permits had not yet
been issued, and therefore EPA's modeled needs are the
best estimates currently available.
How were the Phase I storm
water needs estimated?
To estimate the Phase I storm water needs for the
CWNS 2000, EPA used the same modeling approach
used in the 1996 Clean Water Needs Survey and also
subtracted out needs that should have been met by
the Phase I cities. These needs largely represented
one-time training costs and one-time costs to develop
ordinances or regulations. The resulting needs were
then inflated to the January 1, 2000, base year for
reporting needs.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report to Congress on the Phase I Storm Water Regulations, February 2000.
-------
Appendix E: Storm Water Management Program Modeled Estimates
E-3
The Phase IMS4 modeling methodology from 1996
estimated both state-by-state and national storm water
needs, but it did not predict the needs for individual
MS4s. The estimated needs for the Phase IMS4 Storm
Water Program were modeled as follows:
1. Develop decision rules based on climatic criteria
to create a set of storm water management
approach groups representing broad climatic
characteristics that determine the choice of storm
water controls or BMPs.
2. Assign each MS4 to a storm water management
approach group by applying the decision rules
based on climatic criteria to each MS4.
3. Assign appropriate storm water controls or BMPs
to each storm water management approach group.
4. Estimate the scale of the applicable storm water
controls or BMPs for each MS4 in a storm water
management approach group.
5. Use cost formulas, developed for each storm water
control or BMP, to estimate the capital cost during
a 20-year period for each applicable storm water
control or BMP, for each MS4, in January 2000
dollars.
6. Sum the costs of all the applicable storm water
controls or BMPs for an MS4 to estimate total
capital costs.
7. Aggregate costs nationally and by State.
A panel of outside experts reviewed the model used to
estimate the Phase IMS4 storm water needs. The peer
review generated several comments related to the O&M
costs as estimated by the model, but this did not affect
the modeled capital needs presented in this report.
Another major peer review comment is that this report
presents only one estimate of needs instead of a range.
EPA agrees that, depending on the complexity of each
individual storm water problem and the variability
of local circumstances, a range rather than a single
estimate could be developed. Given the objective of
the CWNS 2000 to estimate the needs for pollution
control, one set of assumptions was selected for use in
the report. If the model had been used for economic
analysis, a number of different assumptions would have
been used to develop upper and lower cost bounds.
How were the Phase II storm
water needs estimated?
The Phase IIMS4 needs for the CWNS 2000 were
based largely on EPA's economic analysis completed
for the final Phase II rule in 1999. This economic
analysis estimated that the Phase II regulations would
cost $3.50 per person per year based on 1998 data.
EPA updated the population data to determine the
total population affected by Phase II and applied these
compliance costs (inflated to a 2000 need) to estimate
2000 Phase IIMS4 needs.
To update the Phase II population from a 1998 to a
2000 estimate, EPA used the 1990 U.S. Census coverage
of urbanized areas to identify Phase II cities. Phase I
geographic areas and combined sewer overflow (CSO)
cities were factored out of the population summation
for Phase II. Because the 2000 urbanized area would
not be available until summer 2002, the population
figures were increased by 25 percent to account for
growth in the urbanized area since 1990. Therefore,
EPA estimates that 75 million people will be affected
by Phase IPs designation of urbanized areas.
Phase II also potentially regulates cities outside
urbanized areas, including cities with a population of
at least 10,000. The Phase II final regulation contained
a list of these potentially regulated cities based on the
1990 Census. To account for growth in these cities
since 1990 and to include other cities that might be
regulated under Phase II, EPA inflated these numbers
by 20 percent. When the potentially eligible Phase II
population is added, the total population affected by
Phase II is 89 million.
Therefore, based on a Phase II population of 89 million,
the 2000 Phase IIMS4 need for the CWNS 2000 is
$333 million. This estimate is similar to the 1998 EPA
Phase II Rule estimate for the cost of compliance, $297
million.
-------
E-4
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table E-l summarizes the EPA 2000 assessment of management programs represent the estimated capital
modeled needs estimates, by State, for Phase I and investment necessary for the municipalities to meet the
Phase II of the NPDES Municipal Storm Water requirements of Phase I and Phase II Municipal Storm
Program. The modeled estimates for storm water Water Management Programs.
Table E-1. CWNS 2000
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Modeled Estimates for Storm Watei
Phase 1 Need Phase II Need
358 5
31
149
39
1,315
117
11
47
20
1,268
493
56
10
10
121
36
111
78
188
0
331
20
37
27
42
178
0
0
3
4
17
9
4
0
0
10
4
0
2
20
8
4
6
4
5
0
1
10
12
12
4
10
2
• Management Programs (January 2000 dollars in millions)
State Phase 1 Need Phase II Needs
Nebraska 27 2
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
42
0
0
21
88
176
0
106
218
141
50
0
93
8
308
981
35
0
422
227
33
0
0
0
0
18
2
22
17
1
15
9
5
14
1
5
1
5
32
4
0
4
5
11
1
3
Total
TOTAL Phase I and II
8,063
333
8,396
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Appendix F
Summary of
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000
Cost Estimates by Watershed
F-l
-------
F-2
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table F-l summarizes the CWNS 2000 assessment of total needs by watershed region, subregion, and accounting
unit for wastewater treatment and collection facilities, storm water facilities, and NFS pollution control. The needs
represent the capital investment necessary to plan, design, build, replace, or rehabilitate publicly owned wastewater
treatment and collection facilities (Categories I through V) and establish and implement storm water management
programs (Category VI). The NFS pollution control (Category VII) needs include costs for agriculture, silviculture,
urban, ground water protection, marinas, resource extraction, brownfields, storage tanks, sanitary landfills, and
hydromodification. Needs estimates presented in Table F-l vary from those presented in Tables ES-1, 3-1, and 3-4;
the text; and Appendix A-l because not all facilities were successfully georeferenced to a watershed.
Table F-1. CWNS 2000 Total Needs by Watershed (January 2000 dollars in millions)
Region
ALASKA
Subregion (4-digit watershed)
Arctic Alaska
Northwest Alaska
Southcentral Alaska
Southeast Alaska
Southwest Alaska
Yukon Alaska
Accounting Unit (6 -digit watershed)
Barrow Alaska
Colville River
Eastern Arctic
Western Arctic
Kobuk-Selawik Rivers
Noatak River-Lisburne Peninsula
Northern Seward Peninsula
Norton Sound
Copper River
Kenai Peninsula
Knik Arm
Kodiak-Shelikof
Prince William Sound
Western Cook Inlet
Central Southeast Alaska
Northern Southeast Alaska
Southern Southeast Alaska
Aleutian Islands
Kvichak-Port Heiden
Lower Kuskokwim River
Nushagak River
Upper Kuskokwim River
Central Yukon
Chandalar-Christian Rivers
Koyukuk River
Lower Yukon
Porcupine River
Xanana River
Upper Yukon River
Total
12
1
1
1
6
2
24
25
5
15
213
4
6
Oa
1
18
8
14
3
92
Oa
8
14
3
6
36
1
13
16
Alaska Total
548
continued
-------
Appendix F: Summary of Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Cost Estimates by Watershed
F-3
Table F-1. (continued)
Region Subregion (4-digit watershed)
ARKANSAS-WHITE-RED Arkansas-Keystone
Lower Arkansas
Lower Canadian
Lower Cimarron
Middle Arkansas
Neosho-Verdigris
North Canadian
Red-Washita
Red headwaters
Red-Sulphur
Upper Arkansas
Upper Canadian
Upper Cimarron
Upper White
Arkansas-White-Red Total
CALIFORNIA Central California Coastal
Klamath-Northern California Coastal
North Lahontan
Northern Mojave-Mono Lake
Sacramento
San Francisco Bay
San Joaquin
Southern California Coastal
Southern Mojave-Salton Sea
Tulare-Buena Vista Lakes
California Total
Accounting Unit (6-digit watershed)
Arkansas-Keystone
Lower Arkansas-Fourche La Fave
Robert S. Kerr Reservoir
Lower Canadian
Middle Canadian
Lower Cimarron
Middle Arkansas
Neosho
Verdigris
Lower Beaver
Lower North Canadian
Upper Beaver
Red-Lake Texoma
Red-Pease
Washita
North Fork Red
Prairie Dog Town Fork Red
Salt Fork Red
Big Cypress-Sulphur
Red-Little
Red-Saline
Upper Arkansas
Upper Canadian
Upper Cimarron
Upper White
Central California Coastal
K la math
Northern California Coastal
North Lahontan
Mono-Owens Lakes
Northern Mojave
Lower Sacramento
Upper Sacramento
San Francisco Bay
San Joaquin
Laguna-San Diego Coastal
Santa Ana
Ventura-San Gabriel Coastal
Salton Sea
Tulare-Buena Vista Lakes
Total
6
28
396
44
6
28
335
100
101
4
42
Oa
83
4
1
3
6
Oa
42
51
435
240
3
2
369
2,329
116
13
220
10
1
118
1,712
31
3,343
525
706
1,984
5,328
28
228
14,363
continued
-------
F-4
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table F-1. (continued)
Region Subregion (4-digit watershed)
GREAT BASIN Bear
Black Rock Desert-Humboldt
Central Lahontan
Escalante Desert-Sevier Lake
Great Salt Lake
Great Basin Total
GREAT LAKES Eastern Lake Erie-Lake Erie
Northeastern Lake Michigan-Lake
Michigan
Northeastern Lake Ontario-Lake Ontario-
St. Lawrence
Northwestern Lake Huron
Northwestern Lake Michigan
Southeastern Lake Michigan
Southeastern Lake Ontario
Southern Lake Erie
Southern Lake Superior -Lake Superior
Southwestern Lake Huron-Lake Huron
Southwestern Lake Michigan
Southwestern Lake Ontario
St. Glair-Detroit
Western Lake Erie
Western Lake Superior
Great Lakes Total
HAWAII Hawaii
Kauai
Maui
Oahu
Hawaii Total
Accounting Unit (6 -digit watershed)
Lower Bear
Upper Bear
Black Rock Desert
Carson
Truckee
Escalante Desert-Sevier Lake
Great Salt Lake
Jordan
Weber
Eastern Lake Erie
Lake Erie
Lake Michigan
Northeastern Lake Michigan
Lake Ontario
Northeastern Lake Ontario
St. Lawrence
Northwestern Lake Huron
Fox
Northwestern Lake Michigan
Southeastern Lake Michigan
Oswego
Southeastern Lake Ontario
Southern Lake Erie
Lake Superior
Southcentral Lake Superior
Saginaw
Southwestern Lake Huron
Southwestern Lake Michigan
Southwestern Lake Ontario
St. Glair-Detroit
Western Lake Erie
Northwestern Lake Superior
Southwestern Lake Superior
St. Louis
Hawaii
Kauai
Maui
Oahu
Total
72
Oa
4
1
38
54
117
360
114
760
1,330
39
30
16
118
154
203
27
268
154
917
717
224
2,152
21
39
177
3
2,797
244
3,333
1,750
51
16
138
14,918
15
46
130
1,549
1,740
continued
-------
Appendix F: Summary of Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Cost Estimates by Watershed
F-5
Table F-1. (continued)
Region Subregion (4-digit watershed)
LOWER COLORADO Little Colorado
Lower Colorado
Lower Colorado-Lake Mead
Lower Gila
Middle Gila
Salt
Sonora
Upper Gila
Lower Colorado Total
LOWER MISSISSIPPI Boeuf-Tensas
Louisiana Coastal
Lower Mississippi
Lower Mississippi-Big Black
Lower Mississippi-St. Francis
Lower Mississippi-Yazoo
Lower Mississippi-Hatchie
Lower Mississippi-Lake Maurepas
Lower Red-Ouachita
Lower Mississippi Total
Accounting Unit (6-digit watershed)
Little Colorado
Bill Williams
Lower Colorado
Lower Colorado-Lake Mead
Lower Gila
Lower Gila-Agua Fria
Middle Gila
San Pedro-Willcox
Santa Cruz
Salt
Verde
Rio De Bavispe
Rio Sonoyta
Upper Gila
Boeuf-Tensas
Atchafalaya-Vermilion
Calcasieu-Mermentau
Central Louisiana Coastal
Lake Pontchartrain
Lower Mississippi-New Orleans
Big Black-Homochitto
Lower Mississippi-Natchez
Lower Arkansas
Lower White
St. Francis
Lower Mississippi-Greenville
Yazoo
Hatchie-Obion
Lower Mississippi-Memphis
Lake Maurepas
Lower Grand
Lower Mississippi-Baton Rouge
Lower Ouachita
Lower Red
Upper Ouachita
Total
227
1
769
130
8
1,273
317
76
564
2,715
187
14
1
56
6,338
16
105
81
244
17
521
43
10
8
8
34
3
110
156
8
52
6
728
170
39
14
2,373
continued
-------
F-6
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table F-1. (continued)
Region Subregion (4-digit watershed)
MID ATLANTIC Delaware
Lower Chesapeake
Lower Hudson-Long Island
Potomac
Richelieu
Susquehanna
Upper Chesapeake
Upper Hudson
Mid Atlantic Total
MISSOURI Big Horn
Chariton-Grand
Cheyenne
Elkhorn
Gasconade-Osage
James
Kansas
Loup
Lower Missouri
Lower Yellowstone
Milk
Missouri Headwaters
Missouri-Big Sioux
Missouri-Little Missouri
Missouri-Little Sioux
Missouri-Marias
Missouri-Musselshell
Accounting Unit (6 -digit watershed)
Lower Delaware
New Jersey Coastal
Upper Delaware
James
Lower Chesapeake
Long Island
Lower Hudson
Potomac
Richelieu
Lower Susquehanna
Upper Susquehanna
West Branch Susquehanna
Upper Chesapeake
Upper Hudson
Big Horn
Chariton
Grand
Belle Fourche
Cheyenne
Elkhorn
Gasconade
Osage
James
Big Blue
Kansas
Loup
Lower Missouri
Lower Missouri-Blackwater
Lower Yellowstone
Milk
Missouri Headwaters
Big Sioux
Lewis and Clark Lake
Lake Sakakawea
Little Missouri
Missouri-Little Sioux
Marias
Upper Missouri
Fort Peck Lake
Musselshell
Total
4,123
1,238
1,589
1,210
383
10,687
13,153
4,828
228
1,123
1,071
478
3,258
1,717
45,086
3
12
20
8
23
30
9
90
18
21
482
4
575
1,540
9
11
81
78
22
1
0'
1,012
18
120
4
2
continued
-------
Appendix F: Summary of Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Cost Estimates by Watershed
F-7
Table F-1. (continued)
Region Subregion (4-digit watershed)
MISSOURI (continued) Missouri-Nishnabotna
Missouri-Oahe
Missouri-Poplar
Missouri-White
Niobrara
North Platte
Platte
Powder-Tongue
Republican
Smoky Hill
South Platte
Upper Yellowstone
Missouri Total
NEW ENGLAND Androscoggin
Connecticut
Connecticut Coastal
Kennebec
Maine Coastal
Massachusetts-Rhode Island Coastal
Merrimack
Penobscot
Saco
St. John
New England Total
OHIO Allegheny
Big Sandy-Guyandotte
Cumberland
Great Miami
Green
Kanawha
Kentucky-Licking
Lower Ohio
Accounting Unit (6-digit watershed)
Missouri-Nishnabotna
Cannonball-Heart-Knife
Grand-Moreau
Lake Oahe
Missouri-Poplar
Fort Randall Reservoir
White
Niobrara
North Platte
Lower Platte
Middle Platte
Tongue
Republican
Smoky Hill
South Platte
Upper Yellowstone
Androscoggin
Lower Connecticut
Upper Connecticut
Connecticut Coastal
Kennebec
Maine Coastal
Massachusetts-Rhode Island Coastal
Merrimack
Penobscot
Saco
St. John
Allegheny
Big Sandy
Guyandotte
Lower Cumberland
Upper Cumberland
Great Miami
Green
Kanawha
Kentucky
Licking
Lower Ohio
Lower Ohio-Salt
Total
625
Oa
Oa
9
11
14
5
Oa
18
155
22
2
30
14
839
63
6,000
113
1,236
110
1,700
205
133
4,390
1,584
142
515
36
10,164
784
340
108
528
181
965
168
707
647
186
723
819
1
continued
-------
F-8
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table F-1. (continued)
Region Subregion (4-digit watershed)
OHIO (continued) Middle Ohio
Monongahela
Muskingum
Scioto
Upper Ohio
Wabash
Ohio Total
PACIFIC NORTHWEST Kootenai-Pend Oreille-Spokane
Lower Columbia
Lower Snake
Middle Columbia
Middle Snake
Oregon closed basins
Oregon-Washington Coastal
Puget Sound
Upper Columbia
Upper Snake
Willamette
Yakima
Pacific Northwest Total
RIO GRANDE Lower Pecos
Lower Rio Grande
Rio Grande closed basins
Rio Grande headwaters
Rio Grande-Amistad
Rio Grande-Elephant Butte
Rio Grande-Falcon
Accounting Unit (6 -digit watershed)
Middle Ohio-Little Miami
Middle Ohio-Raccoon
Monongahela
Muskingum
Scioto
Upper Ohio-Beaver
Upper Ohio-Little Kanawha
Patoka-White
Wabash
Kootenai
Pend Oreille
Spokane
Lower Columbia
Clearwater
Lower Snake
Salmon
Deschutes
John Day
Middle Columbia
Middle Snake-Boise
Middle Snake-Powder
Oregon closed basins
Northern Oregon Coastal
Southern Oregon Coastal
Washington Coastal
Puget Sound
Upper Columbia
Upper Snake
Willamette
Yakima
Lower Pecos
Lower Rio Grande
Rio Grande closed basins
Rio Grande headwaters
Rio Grande-Amistad
Rio Grande-Fort Quitman
Rio Grande-Elephant Butte
Upper Rio Grande
Rio Grande-Falcon
Total
2,234
305
1,429
377
1,329
2,563
322
2,136
1,568
18,419
7
192
107
879
7
9
0'
25
4
25
56
Oa
3
13
137
223
2,091
61
103
503
136
4,581
7
176
4
11
4
166
89
8
43
continued
-------
Appendix F: Summary of Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Cost Estimates by Watershed
F-9
Table F-1. (continued)
Region Subregion (4-digit watershed)
RIO GRANDE (continued) Rio Grande-Mimbres
Upper Pecos
Rio Grande Total
SOURIS-RED-RAINY Rainy
Red
Souris
Souris-Red-Rainy Total
SOUTH ATLANTIC-GULF Alabama
Altamaha-St. Marys
Apalachicola
Cape Fear
Choctawhatchee-Escambia
Chowan-Roanoke
Edisto-Santee
Mobile-Tombigbee
Neuse-Pamlico
Ochlockonee
Ogeechee-Savannah
Pascagoula
Peace-Tampa Bay
Pearl
Pee Dee
Southern Florida
St. Johns
Accounting Unit (6-digit watershed)
Mimbres
Rio Grande-Caballo
Upper Pecos
Rainy
Devils Lake-Sheyenne
Lower Red
Upper Red
Souris
Alabama
Coosa-Tallapoosa
Altamaha
St. Marys-Satilla
Apalachicola
Cape Fear
Choctawhatchee
Escambia
Florida Panhandle Coastal
Albemarle-Chowan
Roanoke
Edisto-South Carolina Coastal
Santee
Black Warrior -Tombigbee
Mobile Bay-Tombigbee
Neuse
Pamlico
Ochlockonee
Ogeechee
Savannah
Pascagoula
Peace
Tampa Bay
Pearl
Lower Pee Dee
Upper Pee Dee
Kissimmee
Southern Florida
East Florida Coastal
St. Johns
Total
9
3
19
539
16
9
57
68
2
152
217
228
91
20
2,190
1,569
25
16
164
202
325
89
1,881
2,127
91
1,178
510
64
14
56
298
186
580
241
338
798
51
4,342
211
956
continued
-------
F-10
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table F-1. (continued)
Region
SOUTH ATLANTIC-GULF
(continued)
South Atlantic-Gulf Total
TENNESSEE
Tennessee Total
TEXAS -GULF
Texas-Gulf Total
UPPER COLORADO
Upper Colorado Total
Subregion (4-digit watershed)
Suwannee
Lower Tennessee
Middle Tennessee-Elk
Middle Tennessee-Hiwassee
Upper Tennessee
Brazos headwaters
Central Texas Coastal
Galveston Bay-San Jacinto
Lower Brazos
Lower Colorado-San Bernard Coastal
Middle Brazos
Neches
Nueces-Southwestern Texas Coastal
Sabine
Trinity
Upper Colorado
Colorado headwaters
Gunnison
Lower Green
San Juan
Upper Colorado-Dirty Devil
Upper Colorado-Dolores
White-Yampa
Accounting Unit (6 -digit watershed)
Aucilla-Waccasassa
Suwannee
Lower Tennessee
Middle Tennessee-Elk
Middle Tennessee-Hiwassee
French Broad-Holston
Upper Tennessee
Brazos headwaters
Central Texas Coastal
Guadalupe
Lavaca
San Antonio
Galveston Bay-Sabine Lake
San Jacinto
Little
Lower Brazos
Lower Colorado
Middle Colorado-Concho
Middle Colorado-Llano
San Bernard Coastal
Middle Brazos-Bosque
Middle Brazos-Clear Fork
Neches
Nueces
Southwestern Texas Coastal
Sabine
Lower Trinity
Upper Trinity
Upper Colorado
Colorado headwaters
Gunnison
Lower Green
Lower San Juan
Upper San Juan
Upper Colorado-Dirty Devil
Upper Colorado-Dolores
White-Yampa
Total
33
106
19,200
74
105
38
325
211
753
17
16
47
5
563
314
3,486
156
119
685
22
34
8
44
8
100
95
366
50
28
1,635
10
7,808
188
11
11
15
31
5
7
13
281
continued
-------
Appendix F: Summary of Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Cost Estimates by Watershed
F-ll
Table F-1. (continued)
Region
UPPER MISSISSIPPI
Upper Mississippi Total
Subregion (4-digit watershed)
Chippewa
Des Moines
Lower Illinois
Minnesota
Mississippi Headwaters
Rock
St. Croix
Upper Illinois
Upper Mississippi-Black-Root
Upper Mississippi-Iowa-Skunk-
Wapsipinicon
Accounting Unit (6-digit watershed)
Chippewa
Des Moines
Lower Illinois
Minnesota
Mississippi Headwaters
Upper Mississippi-Crow-Rum
Rock
St. Croix
Upper Illinois
Upper Mississippi-Black-Root
Upper Mississippi-Kaskaskia-Meramec
Kaskaskia
Upper Mississippi-Meramec
Upper Mississippi-Maquoketa-Plum
Upper Mississippi-Maquoketa-Plum
Upper Mississippi-Salt
Upper Mississippi-Salt
Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Total
46
1,038
1,338
271
138
1,335
550
123
10,273
305
Iowa 167
Upper Mississippi-Skunk-Wapsipinicon 841
174
2,634
67
232
164
19,696
Grand Total
175,852
"Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
F-12 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Appendix G
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000
Needs Categories
G-l
-------
G-2
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table G-1. CWNS 2000 Needs Categories
Category Name
I Secondary
Wastewater
Treatment
Advanced
Wastewater
Treatment
III-A Infiltration/
Inflow (I/I)
Correction
VII-A
VII-B
Description
The minimum level of treatment that must be maintained by all treatment facilities except those facilities
granted waivers of Secondary Treatment for Marine Discharges under section 301(h) of the Clean
Water Act. Treatment levels are specific in terms of the concentration of conventional pollutants in the
Wastewater effluent discharged from a facility after treatment. Secondary treatment typically requires a
treatment level that will produce an effluent quality of 30 mg/L of both BOD5 and total suspended solids,
although secondary treatment levels required for some lagoon systems may be less stringent than this. In
addition, the secondary treatment must remove 85 percent of BOD5 and total suspended solids from the
influent Wastewater. Needs necessary to achieve a secondary treatment level should be included in this
category.
Costs associated with the construction of individual or community septic tanks and the treatment portion
of decentralized types of facilities should be included in Category I.
A level of treatment that is more stringent than secondary treatment or produces a significant reduction in
nonconventional pollutants present in the Wastewater treated by a facility. Needs reported in this category
are necessary to attain incremental reductions in pollutant concentrations beyond basic secondary
treatment.
Control of the problem of penetration into a sewer system of water other than Wastewater from the
ground through such means as defective pipes or manholes (infiltration) or from sources such as drains,
storm sewers, and other improper entries into the system (inflow). Included in this category are costs for
correction of sewer system infiltration/inflow problems. Costs are also reported for preliminary sewer
system analysis and for detailed sewer system evaluation surveys.
III-B Sewer Reinforcement or reconstruction of structurally deteriorating sewers. This category includes cost estimates
for rehabilitation of existing sewer systems beyond those for normal maintenance. Costs are reported if the
corrective actions are necessary to maintain the structural integrity of the system.
Sewer
Replacement/
Rehabilitation
IV-A New Collector
Sewers and
Appurtenances
IV-B New Interceptor
Sewers and
Appurtenances
Combined Sewer
Overflow (CSO)
Correction
VI Storm Water
Management
Programs
NFS Control:
Agriculture
(Cropland)
NFS Control:
Agriculture
(Animals)
Pipes used to collect and carry Wastewater from a sanitary or industrial Wastewater source to an interceptor
sewer that will convey the Wastewater to a treatment facility. The needs in this category include the costs of
constructing new collector sewer systems and appurtenances.
Major sewer lines receiving Wastewater flows from collector sewers. The interceptor sewer carries
Wastewater directly to the treatment facility or to another interceptor. The needs in this category include
costs for constructing new interceptor sewers and pumping stations necessary for conveying Wastewater
from collection sewer systems to a treatment facility or to another interceptor sewer. Costs for relief sewers
should be included in this category.
Measures used to achieve water quality objectives by preventing or controlling periodic discharges of a
mixture of storm water and untreated Wastewater (combined sewer overflows) that occur when the capacity
of a sewer system is exceeded during a rainstorm. This category does not include costs for overflow control
allocatable to flood control or drainage improvement, or for treatment or control of storm water in separate
storm and drainage systems.
Storm water is defined as runoff water resulting from precipitation. This needs category includes activities
to plan and implement municipal storm water management programs pursuant to National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permits for discharges from municipal separate storm sewer systems. These
include structural and nonstructural measures that (1) reduce pollutants from runoff from commercial,
industrial, and residential areas that are served by the storm sewer, (2) detect and remove illicit discharges
and improper disposal into storm sewers, (3) establish and implement public outreach and involvement
activities and prevent pollutants from entering municipal separate storm sewer systems, and (4) reduce
pollutants in construction site runoff.
All costs that address nonpoint source pollution control needs associated with agricultural activities
such as plowing, pesticide spraying, irrigation, fertilizing, planting and harvesting. Some typical best
management practices that could be used to address agriculture (cropland) needs are conservation tillage,
nutrient management, irrigation water management, and structural best management practices (e.g.,
terraces, waterways).
All costs that address NFS pollution control needs associated with agricultural activities related to animal
production such as confined animal facilities and grazing. Some typical best management practices that
could be used to address agriculture (animal) needs are animal waste storage facilities, animal waste
nutrient management, composting facilities, and planned grazing. If the facility has a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permit, these needs are classified as Category VIII, Confined Animal-
Point Source.
continued
-------
Appendix G: Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Needs Categories
G-3
Table G-1. (continued)
Category Name
VII-C NFS Control:
Silviculture
VII-D NFS Control:
Urban
VII-E NFS Control:
Ground Water
Protection
(Unknown Source)
Description
All costs that address NFS pollution control needs associated with forestry activities, such as removal
of streamside vegetation, road construction and use, timber harvesting, and mechanical preparation for
the planting of trees. Some typical best management practices that could be used to address silviculture
needs are preharvest planning, streamside buffers, road management, revegetation of disturbed areas and
structural practices, and equipment (e.g., sediment control structures, timber harvesting equipment).
All costs that address NFS pollution control needs associated with new or existing development in urban
or rural settings, such as erosion, sedimentation, and discharge of pollutants (e.g., inadequately treated
wastewater, oil, grease, road salts, and toxic chemicals) into water resources from construction sites, roads,
bridges, parking lots, and buildings. This category also includes the remediation of privately owned
individual sewage disposal systems. Some typical best management practices that could be used to address
urban needs are wet ponds, construction site erosion and sediment controls, sand filters, detention basin
retrofit, and new on-site sewage disposal systems. If the individual sewage disposal system is owned by a
public entity, the costs should be included in Category I, Secondary Treatment, instead.
All costs that address ground water protection NFS pollution control needs such as wellhead and recharge
area protection activities. Any need that can be attributed to a specific cause of ground water pollution,
such as leaking storage tanks, soil contamination in a brownfield, or leachate from a sanitary landfill,
should be reported in that more specific category.
VII-F NFS Control:
Marinas
VII-G NFS Control:
Resource
Extraction
VII-H NFS Control:
Brownfields
All costs that address NFS pollution control needs associated with boating and marinas, such as poorly
flushed waterways, boat maintenance activities, discharge of sewage from boats, and the physical alteration
of shoreline, wetlands, and aquatic habitat during the construction and operation of marinas. Some typical
best management practices that could be used to address needs at marinas are bulkheading, pumpout
systems, and oil containment booms.
All costs that address NFS pollution control needs associated with mining and quarrying activities. Some
typical best management practices that could be used to address resource extraction needs are detention
berms, adit closures, and seeding or revegetation. Any costs associated with facilities or measures that
address point source discharges from mining and quarrying activities that have an identified owner should
be included in Category IX, Mining-Point Source.
All costs that address NFS pollution control needs associated with land that was developed for industrial
purposes and then abandoned, which might have residual contamination. All costs for work at brownfields
should be included in Category VII-H regardless of the activity. Some typical best management practices
that could be used to address needs at brownfields are ground water monitoring wells, in situ treatment of
VIM
VII-J
VII-K
VIII
IX
NFS Control:
Storage Tanks
NFS Control:
Sanitary Landfills
NFS Control:
Hydromodification
Confined Animal-
Point Source
Mining-Point
Source
All costs that address NFS pollution control needs associated with tanks designed to hold gasoline or
other petroleum products or chemicals. The tanks may be located above or below ground level. Some
typical best management practices that could be used to address storage tank needs are spill containment
systems; in situ treatment of contaminated soils and ground water; and upgrade, rehabilitation, or
removal of petroleum/chemical storage tanks. If these facilities or measures are part of addressing NFS
needs at abandoned, idle, and underused industrial sites (brownfields), the costs go in Category VII-H,
Brownfields.
All costs that address NFS pollution control needs associated with sanitary landfills. Some typical best
management practices that could be used to address needs at landfills are leachate collection, on-site
treatment, gas collection and control, capping, and closure.
Costs that address NFS pollution control needs associated with best management practices for
any alteration of the hydrologic characteristics of coastal and noncoastal waters, which in turn
could cause degradation of water resources. Examples of such activities include channelization and
channel modification, dams, and stream bank and shoreline erosion. In the case of a stream channel,
hydromodification is the process whereby a stream bank is eroded by flowing water, typically resulting
in the suspension of sediments in the watercourse. Some typical best management practices that could
be used to address hydromodification needs are conservation easements, swales, filter strips, shore
erosion control, wetland development or restoration, and bank or channel (grade) stabilization. Any work
involving wetland or riparian area protection or restoration is included under this category.
Costs that address a combination of unit processes or best management practices designed to address water
quality or public health problems caused by point source pollution from animal production activities that
are subject to the concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) regulations.
Costs that address a combination of unit processes or best management practices designed to address
water quality and/or public health problems caused by point source pollution from mining and quarrying
activities.
-------
G-4 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Appendix I
Summary of
Tribal Cost Estimates and Technical
Data
-------
1-2
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Facilities with technical and n
included in this appendix. EP^
include this information in th
Facilities Construction Progra
the Tribal sanitation needs for
disposal facilities. EPA uses tt
sanitation needs. To eliminate
data included in the CWNS 2(
2000 database. As of January 2
and another 19 treatment facil
41 facilities reported no needs
facilities reported $7 million (
States is presented in Tables I-
Table 1-1 summarizes the CW
this table does not represent tl
to be entered into the CWNS \
Table 1-1. CWNS 2000 Sum
Number of
Facilities
Without Reported
State Needs
Alaska 0
Arizona 2
California 4
Maine 3
Montana 1
Nebraska 0
Nevada 1
New Mexico 1
New York 1
North Carolina 1
North Dakota 2
Oregon*1 0
South Dakota 8
Utah 6
Washington 10
Wisconsin 0
Wyoming 1
Total 41
eeds data reported for Native Americans, herein referred to as Tribal facilities, are
\ does not require States to enter data on Tribal facilities; however, 17 States chose to
j CWNS 2000. Under the Indian Sanitation Facilities Act (PL. 86-121), the Sanitation
m of the Indian Health Service (IHS) identifies and annually reports to Congress
improving community water supplies, wastewater treatment systems, and solid waste
ie annual needs estimates of the IHS to provide funding to Tribes to address their
the potential of duplicative reporting with the IHS report, EPA removed the Tribal
100 from this report to Congress. Data for 156 Tribal facilities are in the CWNS
000, 93 centralized treatment facilities and 97 collection systems were in operation,
ities and 24 collection systems were proposed for construction. Of the 156 facilities,
, 112 facilities reported needs totaling $124 million (January 2000 dollars); and 4
fanuary 2000 dollars) in SSEs. A summary of the Tribal cost data entered by the
1 and 1-2; a summary of the technical data is presented in Tables 1-3 through 1-6.
SfS 2000 assessment of Tribal facilities and their needs. The number of facilities on
ie total number of Tribal facilities in the Nation because Tribal data were not required
>000.
mary of Number of Tribal Facilities and Tribal Needs (January 2000 dollars in millions)
Facilities Facilities
With Documented Needs With Separate State Estimates Totals
Number
of Facilities Needs
0 0
97 105
0 0
0 0
8 1
1 8
NR NR
1 0'
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 Oa
0 0
0 0
0 0
4 10
NR NR
112 124
Number
of Facilities Needs
1 3
0 0
0 0
1 Oa
0 0
0 0
NR NR
1 3
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
NR NR
4 7
Number
of Facilities Needs
1 3
99 105
4 0
4 Oa
9 1
1 8
1 NR
3 3
1 0
1 0
2 0
lb 1
8 0
6 0
10 0
4 10
1 NR
156 131
Note: NR = not reported. Nevada and Wyoming did not participate in the CWNS 2000. Technical data for these states are from the 1996 survey.
1 Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
b Oregon has both documented and SSE needs for the same facility.
-------
Appendix I: Summary of Tribal Cost Estimates and Technical Data
1-3
Table 1-2 summarizes by State the CWNS 2000 assessment of total needs for wastewater treatment and collection
facilities, storm water facilities, and NFS pollution control facilities that are maintained by Tribal communities.
Needs reported in this table represent both documented needs and SSEs. The needs represent the capital investment
necessary to plan, design, build, replace, or rehabilitate publicly owned wastewater treatment and collection facilities
(Categories I through V); establish and implement storm water management programs (Category VI); and control
NFS pollution (Category VII).
Table 1-2. CWNS 2000 Total Needs (January 2000 dollars in millions)
Category of Need
State
Alaska
Total
3
I
I-A
1
I-B
Ob
IV-A
1
IV-B
0
V
0
VI
0
VII" Total (I-V)
0 3
Arizona
105
53
14
14
19
Ob
105
California
Maine
Ob
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oregon
South Dakota
Utah
Washington
Wisconsin
10
10
Wyoming
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Total
131
69
14
21
20
Ob
131
Categories
I Secondary wastewater treatment
II Advanced wastewater treatment
III-A Infiltration/inflow correction
III-B Sewer replacement/rehabilitation
IV-A New collector sewers and appurtenances
IV-B New interceptor sewers and appurtenances
V Combined sewer overflow correction
VI Storm water management programs
VII NFS pollution control
Note: NR = not reported. Nevada and Wyoming did not participate in the CWNS 2000.
« Only Subcategory VII-B (Agriculture-Animals) had Tribal needs in the CWNS 2000.
b Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
1-4
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table 1-3 summarizes the number of Tribal centralized
treatment facilities and collection systems in operation
in 2000 in each State.
Table 1-3. CWNS 2000 Number of Tribal
Operational Treatment Facilities and
Collection Systems in 2000
State Treatment Facilities Collection Systems
Alaska 1 1
Arizona 49 49
California8 2 3
Maine 4 4
Montana 9 9
Table 1-4 summarizes the number of Tribal centralized
treatment facilities and collection systems projected to
be in operation in each State if all needs are met.
Table 1-4. CWNS 2000 Number of Tribal Operational
Treatment Facilities and Collection
Systems If All Documented Needs Are Met
State Treatment Facilities Collection Systems
Alaska 1 1
Arizona 66
California8 2
Maine 4
Montana 9
Nebraska 1 1 Nebraska 1
Nevada*1 1 1 Nevada*1 1
New Mexico 3 3
New York8 0 0
North Carolina 1 1
North Dakota 2 2
Oregon 0 0
South Dakota8 8 8
Utah 4 4
New Mexico 3
New York8 0
North Carolina 1
North Dakota 2
Oregon 1
South Dakota8 8
Utah 4
Washington 6 8 Washington 6
Wisconsin 1 2 Wisconsin 2
Wyoming*1 1 1
Wyoming*1 1
Total 93 97 Total 112
a California, New York, and South Dakota did not have the resources to
complete the updating of these data.
b Results presented in this table for Nevada and Wyoming are from the
1996 survey because these states did not participate in the CWNS 2000.
70
3
4
9
1
1
3
0
1
2
1
8
4
8
4
1
121
a California, New York, and South Dakota did not have the resources to
complete the updating of these data.
b Results presented in this table for Nevada and Wyoming are from the
1996 survey because these states did not participate in the CWNS 2000.
-------
Appendix I: Summary of Tribal Cost Estimates and Technical Data 1-5
Table 1-5 shows, for five flow ranges, the number of Tribal treatment facilities in operation in 2000 and the number
projected to be in operation if all documented needs are met. The number of facilities and their cumulative flow (in
millions of gallons per day) are shown for each of the flow ranges.
Table 1-5. CWNS 2000 Number of Tribal Treatment Facilities by Flow Range
Treatment Facilities in Operation in 2000°'b
Existing Flow Range (mgd) Number of Facilities Total Existing Flow (mgd)
0.001 to 0.100 69 3
0.101 to 1.000 24 9
1.001 to 10.000 0 0
10.001 to 100.000 0 0
100.001 and greater 0 0
Other' 0
Total 93 12
Treatment Facilities In Operation If All Documented Needs Are Meta/b
Design Flow Range (mgd) Number of Facilities Total Future Design Flow Capacity (mgd)
0.001 to 0.100 72
0.101 to 1.000 35 11
1.001 to 10.000 5 7
10.001 to 100.000 0 0
100.001 and greater 0 0
Other1 0
Total 112 21
1 California, New York, and South Dakota did not have the resources to complete the updating of these data.
b Results presented in this table for Nevada and Wyoming are from the 1996 survey because these states did not participate in the CWNS 2000.
c Flow data for these facilities were unavailable.
-------
1-6
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2000 Report to Congress
Table 1-6 shows, by level of treatment, the number of Tribal centralized treatment facilities in operation in 2000 and
the number projected to be in operation if all needs are met. The number of facilities, their cumulative capacities (in
millions of gallons per day), and the population served are shown for each level of treatment. The population served
number is then presented as a percentage of the total 2000 and 2020 U.S. populations.
Table 1-6. CWNS 2000 Number of Tribal Treatment Facilities by Level of Treatment
Treatment Facilities in Operation in 2000°'b
Level of Treatment
Less than Secondary'
Number of Facilities
0
Future Design
Capacity (mgd)
Population Served
0
Percent of Total
2000 US Population
0
Secondary
Greater than Secondary
No Discharge"1
Partial Treatment'
Total
23
0
70
0
93
6
0
11
—
17
44,239
0
80,989
—
125,228
0
0
0
0
0
Level of Treatment
Treatment Facilities in Operation If All Documented Needs Are Met°'b
Future Design
Number of Facilities Capacity (mgd) Population Served
Percent of Total
2000 US Population
Less than Secondary0
0
0
0
Secondary
25
61,195
Greater than Secondary
0
No Discharge"1
87
15
128,523
Partial Treatment'
Total
112
21
189,718
1 California, New York, and South Dakota did not have the resources to complete the updating of these data.
b Results presented in this table for Nevada and Wyoming are from the 1996 survey because these states did not participate in the CWNS 2000.
c Less-than-secondary facilities include facilities with granted or pending section 301(h) waivers from secondary treatment for discharges to marine waters.
d No-discharge facilities do not discharge treated wastewater to the Nation's waterways. These facilities dispose of wastewater via methods such as industrial
reuse, irrigation, or evaporation.
e These facilities provide some treatment to wastewater and discharge their effluents to wastewater facilities for further treatment and discharge.
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Wastewater Management
Municipal Support Division
Municipal Technology Branch
Washington, DC 20460
www.epa.gov/owm/
------- |