Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004
Report to Congress
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Acknowledgments
The success of the CWNS 2004 Report to Congress is the result of the hard work and dedication of many
persons. Particular recognition goes to the EPA Regional and State Coordinators for their active support,
perseverance, and continuing interest in the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey. Members of the CWNS
2004 National Workgroup are denoted by an asterisk.
Region 1 - Katie Connors
Connecticut - Dennis Greci
Maine - David Breau*
Massachussets - Ping Yee*
New Hampshire - Sharon Nail
Rhode Island - Jay Manning*
Vermont - Nopadon Sundarabhaya
Region 2 - Ray Kvalheim*
New Jersey - Katen Patel*
New York - David Geisinger* and Jason Denno
Puerto Rico - Elvin Carrasquillo and Roberto
Berrios
Region 3 - Don Neihus*
Delaware - Greg Pope
Maryland - Stella Hajimihalis-Jenkins
Pennsylvania - Ron Mease*
Virginia - Walter Gills
West Virginia - Rosalie Broderson* and Dianna
Wallace*
Region 4 - Ben Chen*
Alabama - Cory Price
Florida - Gary Powell*
Georgia - Bob Scott*
Kentucky - Jill Bertelson*
Mississippi - Tom Webb*
North Carolina - Mark Hubbard*
South Carolina - Bridget Clarke*
Tennessee - Felicia Freeman
Region 6 - Susanne Mann*
Arkansas - Dave Fenter
Louisiana - Robert Lott
New Mexico - Ramona Rael and Jennifer Prada
Oklahoma - Mike Madden
Texas - Alan Williams
Region 7 - Kelly Beard-Tittone*
Iowa - Gabe Lee*
Kansas - Rod Geisler*
Missouri - Doug Garrett* and Kirby Finders*
Nebraska - Susan Hoppel
Region 8 - Adrienne Rivera*
Colorado - Donna Davis*
Montana - Ron Ashton*
North Dakota - Jeff Hauge
South Dakota - James Anderson
Utah - Paul Krauth
Region 9 -Loretta Venegas
Arizona - Jon Bernreuter
California - Jeff Albrecht*
Hawaii - Sina Pruder
Nevada - Kelly Willimas
Region 10 - Michelle Tucker*
Idaho - Nancy Bowser*
Oregon - Jennifer Weaver*
Washington - Eric Luengo*
Region 5 - William Tansey*
Illinois - Heidi Allen*
Indiana - Shelley Love*
Michigan - Martha Waszak *
Minnesota - Jim Anderson*
Ohio - Margaret Klepic*
Wisconsin - Rebecca Scott
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Contents
ACRONYMS vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ix
Scope and Methods ix
National Results ix
State Highlights ix
Wastewater Treatment, Collection and Conveyance x
Stormwater Management Programs x
Recycled Water Distribution xi
Small Community Needs xi
Other Documented Needs xi
Separate State Estimates xi
Concluding Remarks xii
Changes in Needs Since 2000 xii
Trends in the Nation's Ability to Provide Secondary and Advanced Wastewater Treatment xii
Funding the Needs xii
Sustainable Infrastructure Initiative xiii
Other Future Influences on the Survey xiii
CHAPTER 1 SCOPE AND METHODS 1-1
Types of Needs in This Report 1-1
Time Frame for Needs in This Report 1-3
Data Entry Procedures 1-3
CWNS 2004 Database 1-4
Documentation of Needs 1-4
Documentation Criteria 1-4
Acceptable Document Types 1-5
Cost Curves 1-5
Additional Documentation Options for Small Communities 1-6
Data Quality Assurance 1-7
Other Documented Needs 1-7
Separate State Estimates 1-7
CHAPTER 2 RESULTS: NATIONAL NEEDS 2-1
Total National Needs and State Highlights 2-1
Trends and Analyses by CWNS 2004 Category 2-4
Wastewater Treatment, Collection, and Conveyance (Categories I through V) 2-4
Wastewater Treatment 2-6
Collection and Conveyance 2-7
Combined Sewer Overflows 2-8
Municipal Stormwater Management Programs 2-9
Recycled Water Distribution 2-11
Urban and Rural Communities Needs 2-11
Small Community Needs 2-11
Other Documented Needs 2-13
Separate State Estimates 2-14
CHAPTERS CONCLUDING REMARKS 3-1
Changes in Needs Since 2000 3-1
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Trends in the Nation's Ability to Provide Wastewater Treatment 3-1
Funding of Needs 3-3
Sustainable Infrastructure Initiative 3-4
Relationship of CWNS to the Sustainable Infrastructure Initiative 3-5
Other Potential Influences on Future Surveys 3-5
GLOSSARY
REFERENCES
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF CWNS 2004 COST ESTIMATES
APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF CWNS 2000 AND 1996 NEEDS SURVEY COST ESTIMATES
APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF CWNS 2004 TECHNICAL INFORMATION
APPENDIX D CWNS DATABASE
APPENDIX E NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL-DOCUMENTED AND MODELED
ESTIMATES
APPENDIX F CWNS 2004 NEEDS CATEGORIES
APPENDIX G LIST OF ACCEPTABLE DOCUMENTATION TYPES
APPENDIX H POLLUTANT LOADING CHANGES
FIGURES
Figure ES-1. CWNS 2004 total documented needs (January 2004 dollars) x
Figure ES-2. Population served by POTWs nationwide for select years xiii
Figure 2-1. CWNS 2004 total documented needs 2-1
Figure 2-2. Distribution of total documented needs by State 2-3
Figure 2-3. Distribution of per capita documented needs by State 2-3
Figure 2-4. Total needs nationwide forthe 1996-2004 CWNS organized by category 2-4
Figure 2-5. Distribution of combined sewer overflow correction (Category V) needs by State 2-8
Figure 2-6. Distribution of stormwater management program (Category VI) needs by State 2-10
Figure 2-7. Geographic distribution of small community needs 2-12
Figure 2-8. Comparison of small versus large community needs and technical information
from existing and projected facilities 2-13
Figure 2-9. Number of projected centralized wastewater treatment and collection facilities by
ranges of population served with needs if all documented needs are met 2-13
Figure 3-1. Population served by POTWs nationwide for select years and projected 3-2
APPENDIX E NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL-DOCUMENTED AND MODELED
ESTIMATES
Figure E-1. Distribution of nonpoint source pollution control needs by State E-1
APPENDIX H POLLUTANT LOADING CHANGES
Figure H-1a. Influent loading of total BODU and CBOD5 nationwide for select years between
1940 and 2004 H-2
Figure H-1 b. Influent loading of CBOD5 to POTWs nationwide for select years between 1940
and 2004 organized by wastewater treatment type H-3
Figure H-1 c. Influent loading of BODU to POTWs nationwide for select years between
1940 and 2004 organized by wastewater treatment type H-3
Figure H-2a. Effluent loading of total BODU and CBOD5 from POTWs nationwide for
select years between 1940 and 2004 H-4
Figure H-2b. Effluent loading of CBOD5 from POTWs nationwide for select years
between 1940 and 2004 organized by wastewater treatment type H-4
IV
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Figure H-2c. Effluent loading BODU from POTWs nationwide for select years
between 1940 and 2004 organized by wastewater treatment type H-5
Figure H-3. Total POTW influent and effluent CBOD5 loading and corresponding
CBOD5 removal efficiency for select years H-5
Figure H-4. Total POTW influent and effluent BODU loading and corresponding
BODu removal efficiency for select years between 1940 and 2004 H-6
Figure H-5. POTW influent and effluent BODU loading and removal efficiency for select
years between 1940 and 2000 and projected POTW influent and effluent
BODU loading and removal efficiency for 2016 and 2025 H-7
TABLES
Table 1-1. CWNS 2004 Needs Categories 1-2
Table 1-2. Approved Types of Documentation and Associated Needs in CWNS 2004 1-6
Table 2-1. Total Documented Needs Reported in the CWNS 2004 2-2
Table 2-2. Comparison of Total Needs for the 1996-2004 CWNS 2-5
Table 2-3. Category I and II (Wastewater Treatment) Needs 2-7
APPENDIX A SUMMARY OF CWNS 2004 COST ESTIMATES
Table A-1. CWNS 2004 Total Needs A-1
Table A-2. CWNS 2004 Total Needs for NPS Pollution Control Projects A-3
Table A-3. CWNS 2004 Comparison of Small Community Facilities' Needs and Total Needs A-5
Table A-4. CWNS 2004 Comparison of Small Community Facilities' Needs and
Total Needs: Facilities Serving Populations of 3,500 to 10,000 People A-7
Table A-5. CWNS 2004 Comparison of Small Community Facilities' Needs and
Total Needs: Facilities Serving Populations of 1,000 to 3,500 People A-9
Table A-6. CWNS 2004 Comparison of Small Community Facilities' Needs and
Total Needs: Facilities Serving Populations of Fewer Than 1,000 People A-11
Table A-7a. CWNS 2004 Total Small Community Needs A-13
Table A-7b. CWNS 2004 Total Other Documented Small Community Needs A-15
Table A-8a. CWNS 2004 Total Small Community Needs: Facilities Serving
Populations of 3,500 to 10,000 People A-17
Table A-8b. CWNS 2004 Total Other Documented Small Community Needs:
Facilities Serving Populations of 3,500 to 10,000 People A-19
Table A-9a. CWNS 2004 Total Small Community Needs: Facilities Serving
Populations of 1,000 to 3,500 People A-21
Table A-9b. CWNS 2004 Total Other Documented Small Community Needs:
Facilities Serving Populations of 1,000 to 3,500 People A-23
Table A-10a. CWNS 2004 Total Small Community Needs: Facilities Serving
Populations of Fewer Than 1,000 People A-25
Table A-1 Ob. CWNS 2004 Total Other Documented Small Community Needs:
Facilities Serving Populations of Fewer Than 1,000 People A-27
Table A-11. CWNS 2004 Total Separate State Estimates A-29
Table A-12. CWNS 2004 Total Separate State Estimates for NPS Pollution Control Projects .... A-31
Table A-13. CWNS 2004 Total Separate State Estimates for Small Community Facilities A-33
APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF CWNS 2000 AND CWNS 1996 COST ESTIMATES
Table B-1. CWNS 2000 Total Needs B-1
Table B-2. CWNS 2000 Total Needs for NPS Pollution Control Projects B-3
Table B-3. CWNS 2000 Total Separate State Estimates B-5
Table B-4. CWNS 1996 Total Documented and Modeled Needs B-7
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF CWNS 2004 TECHNICAL INFORMATION
Table C-1. Number of Operational Treatment Facilities and Collection Systems in 2004
and Number of Operational Treatment Facilities and Collection Systems If
All Documented Needs Are Met C-1
Table C-2. Number of Treatment Facilities by Flow Range C-2
Table C-3. Number of Treatment Facilities by Level of Treatment C-3
Table C-4. Number of Facilities With CSO Correction Needs and Total CSO
Correction Needs: 2000 and 2004 C-4
Table C-5. Number of Facilities With MS4 Stormwater Management Program
Needs and Total MS4 Stormwater Management Program Needs C-6
Table C-6. Facilities With CSO Cost Curve Needs Exceeding $120 Million C-8
Table C-7. Number of Treatment Facilities and Population Served per State by
Level of Treatment for Year 2004 C-10
Table C-8. Number of Treatment Facilities and Population Served per State by
Level of Treatment If All Documented Needs Are Met C-12
Table 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 CWNS DATABASE
Table D-1. Data Elements in the CWNS 2004 D-1
APPENDIX E NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION CONTROL-DOCUMENTED AND MODELED
ESTIMATES
Table E-1. NPS Pollution Control Needs Documented for CWNS 2004 E-2
Table E-1. Comparison of Total Other Needs for the 1996-2004 CWNS E-3
Table E-3. Modeled Nonpoint Source Needs Identified for Iowa E-6
Table E-4. Modeled Nonpoint Source Needs Identified for Kansas E-8
Table E-5. Estimated Nonpoint Source Needs Identified for New Jersey E-10
Table E-6. Modeled Nonpoint Source Needs Identified for the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed within Virginia E-12
Table E-7. Modeled Nonpoint Source Needs for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
within West Virginia E-13
APPENDIX F CWNS 2004 NEEDS CATEGORIES
Table F-1. CWNS 2004 Needs Categories F-1
Table F-2. CWNS 2004 Other Documented Needs Categories F-3
APPENDIX G LIST OF ACCEPTABLE DOCUMENTATION TYPES
Table G-1. CWNS 2004 List of Acceptable Documentation Types G-1
VI
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Acronyms
BMP best management practice
BOD5 5-day biochemical oxygen demand
CAFO concentrated animal feeding operation
CCMP Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
CSO combined sewer overflow
CWA Clean Water Act
CWNS Clean Watersheds Needs Survey
CWSRF Clean Water State Revolving Fund
EMS environmental management systems
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
GIS geographic information system
HUC hydrologic unit code
IHS Indian Health Service
I/I infiltration and inflow
ISDS individual sewage disposal system
IUP Intended Use Plan
LTCP [Combined Sewer Overflow] Long-term Control Plan
mgd million gallons per day
MS4 municipal separate storm sewer system
NEP National Estuary Program
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPS nonpoint source
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NRI National Resources Inventory
NWQIR National Water Quality Inventory Report
O&M operation and maintenance
PCS Permit Compliance System
POR Point of Record
POTW publicly owned treatment works
QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan
RCAP Rural Community Assistance Partnership
SCC [Kansas] State Conservation Commission
January 2007
VII
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
SRF State Revolving Fund
SSE Separate State Estimate
SSES Sewer System Evaluation Survey
SSO sanitary sewer overflow
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
WMA Watershed Management Area
WWTP wastewater treatment plant
January 2008
viii
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Executive Summary
The total publicly owned treatment works needs for the Nation as of January 1, 2004, are $202.5 billion
(Figure ES-1). This figure represents documented needs for up to a 20 year period. In addition to
presenting needs, this Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2004 Report to Congress (hereinafter
referred to as "this Report") also summarizes technical information such as flow, population and effluent
for projects related to publicly owned municipal waste water collection and treatment, combined sewer
overflow (CSO) correction, municipal stormwater management, and recycled water distribution. The data
in this Report were summarized from a comprehensive census survey of more than 30,000 water quality
programs and projects which are generally eligible for funding under the Clean Water State Revolving
Fund (CWSRF) program.1
Scope and Methods
This Report was a collaborative effort between 49 States, the District
of Columbia, Puerto Rico2 (collectively referred to as States for the
remainder of this Report) and EPA. Using recommendations of the
CWNS 2004 National Workgroup (whose members are denoted by
an asterisk in the acknowledgements), EPA defined a need as a
project, with associated costs, that addresses a water quality or public
health problem.
To be included as a documented need in Chapter 2 of this Report, a
need must have existed as of January 1, 2004 and must have met the
documentation criteria set forth in Chapter 1. These documentation
criteria ensured the legitimacy of needs and the accuracy of cost and
technical information in this Report by requiring a description and
location of a water quality or public health problem, as well as site-
specific pollution abatement measures with detailed cost
information. Needs that did not meet these documentation criteria, as
well as needs that are not defined in CWA Section 516(b)(l)(B), are
included in Appendix A, Tables A-2, A-l 1, A-12, and A-13.
EPA prepared this Report to
meet the requirements set forth
in section 516(b)(l) of the Clean
Water Act (CWA):
"The [EPA] Administrator, in
cooperation with the States,
... shall make... .(B) a detailed
estimate... of the cost of
construction of all needed
publicly owned treatment
works in all of the States..."
This is the 14th survey. The first
occurred in 1972, and the 13th
survey addressed needs as of
January 1, 2000.
National Results
State Highlights
The largest reported total publicly owned wastewater treatment works needs, both more than $20 billion,
occur in New York and California. Florida, Illinois and Ohio each have needs in excess of $10 billion.
The States with the largest needs per capita are the District of Columbia ($3,670), Hawaii ($1,660) and
West Virginia ($1,400). Over three-fourths (76.8 percent) of the total needs reported are concentrated in
1 The use of CWSRF eligibility rules in determining eligibility for the CWNS 2004 is independent of, and does not affect, States'
annual determinations on which projects are eligible for CWSRF funding. There are some CWSRF-eligible projects that are not
captured in the CWNS, as well as a few exceptional needs in CWNS that are not necessarily eligible for CWSRF funding.
Although CWSRF eligibility is defined in the CWA and clarified by national EPA guidance, individual States might have
policies not to fund certain kinds of projects. If those projects meet national eligibility criteria, however, they may be included in
the CWNS.
2 Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2004.
January 2008
IX
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
18 States; 20 States each reported less than 1 percent of the total needs. Appendix A, Table A-l presents
the total needs for all categories and by State. Figure ES-1 presents the national needs by category.
Category X:
Recycled Water
Distribution \ Categories I and II:
$4.38,2.1% \ Wastewater Treatment
Systems
CategoryVI: /^ ^^ $69.18,34.1%
Storm Water
Management
Programs
$9.08, 4.4%
Category V:
Combined Sewer
Overflow Correction
$54.88, 27.1%
Categories III and IV:
Wastewater Collection
and Conveyance
$65.38, 32.2%
Figure ES-1. CWNS 2004 total documented needs (January 2004 dollars).
Wastewater Treatment, Collection and Conveyance
The national needs for the wastewater treatment and collection categories (Categories I through V) are
$189.2 billion. The needs for wastewater treatment (Categories I and II) include the capital costs of
replacement, rehabilitation, expansion, upgrade or process improvement of existing treatment plants and
construction of new treatment plants. Needs for wastewater collection and conveyance (Categories III and
IV) include capital costs for replacement, rehabilitation or expansion of existing collection systems and
construction of new collection systems. Needs for CSO (Category V) include measures for preventing or
controlling periodic discharges of a mixture of stormwater and untreated wastewater that occur when the
capacity of a sewer system is exceeded during a rainstorm.
The largest wastewater treatment and collection needs were reported by New York, California, Illinois
and Ohio, each with more than $10 billion. Minnesota, Oklahoma, Idaho, Oregon, Tennessee and
Colorado experienced increases in Category I-V needs of more than 50 percent between 2000 and 2004.
Notably, Puerto Rico, which did not participate in the CWNS 2000, reported $3.7 billion in Category I-V
needs.
Stormwater Management Programs
Twenty-eight States and the District of Columbia reported $9.0 billion in stormwater management
program needs (Category VI). These needs include the capital costs for developing and implementing
municipal stormwater management programs to meet the requirements of Phases I and II of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4)
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
regulations.3 These needs generally do not include projects such as installing or rehabilitating storm
sewers, some of which are included in the SSEs in Appendix A, Table A-l 1.
The largest stormwater management program needs were reported by Texas, Florida, Arizona and
Minnesota, each with more than $0.9 billion in needs. Florida, Minnesota and Texas experienced the
largest increase in these needs.
Recycled Water Distribution
Recycled water distribution (Category X) is a new category designed to report on the increasing trend
toward using recycled water for beneficial uses such as irrigation. Fifteen States reported $4.3 billion in
recycled water distribution (Category X) needs. California ($1.9 billion) and Florida ($1.7 billion)
account for 84 percent of the Category X needs.
Small Community Needs
Small communities4 have documented needs of approximately $17.0 billion, representing about 9 percent
of the $193.5 billion in documented wastewater treatment and collection system needs for the Nation.
Small community needs are $5.0 billion for wastewater treatment (Categories I and II); $10.4 billion for
collection and conveyance (Categories III and IV), and $1.6 billion for CSO correction (Category V).
Pennsylvania, West Virginia and New York reported small community needs of more than $1.0 billion
each. Maryland ($167 million) followed by Colorado ($158 million) reported the largest increases in
small community needs. Illinois, Minnesota, Alabama, Wyoming, Ohio and Rhode Island each reported
an increase in small community needs ranging from $80 million to $135 million.
Other Documented Needs
Needs that met CWNS documentation requirements but are not defined in CWA Section 516(b)(l)(B) are
summarized in Appendix A, Table A-2. This table includes nonpoint source (NFS) pollution control
(Category VII) needs that are associated with implementing NFS management programs under section
319 of the Clean Water Act (CWA,) as well as developing and implementing Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs) for estuaries under section 320 of the CWA.
Separate State Estimates
Needs that did not meet CWNS documentation criteria were recorded as Separate State Estimates (SSEs)
in Appendix A, Table A-l 1. In addition to containing needs in the previously described categories, SSEs
also contain needs related to confined animal-point source (Category VIII) and mining-point source
(Category IX). Confined animal-point source (Category VIII) summarizes needs to address point source
pollution from animal production activities that are subject to the concentrated animal feeding operations
(CAFO) regulations. Mining-point source (Category IX) addresses problems caused by point source
pollution from mining and quarrying activities. Estuary Management (Category XI) needs include a
limited number of estuary management best management practices (BMPs) that were not eligible within
3 Some example Category VI costs that might be eligible are the cost for development of ordinances to implement erosion and
sediment control practices and post-construction storm water management standards, development and production of materials
used for public outreach and involvement, and design and construction of stormwater management ponds.
4 Small communities are defined as communities with a population of fewer than 10,000 people and an average daily wastewater
flow of less than 1 million gallons.
January 2008
xi
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
other needs categories. Florida and New Jersey reported $63 million and $15 million in estuary
management (Category XI) needs, respectively.
Concluding Remarks
Changes in Needs Since 2000
This Report reflects an increase since CWNS 2000 in publicly owned treatment works (POTWs) needs of
$16.1 billion (8.6 percent). The largest increases in national needs are associated with Category I and II
wastewater treatment needs ($5.4 billion increase), Category III-A and III-B sewer repair needs ($3.5
billion increase), and Category VI storm water management program needs ($2.8 billion). The new
Category X, recycled water distribution, accounts for $4.3 billion in needs.
The increases in wastewater treatment needs and in sewer repair needs are due to a variety of factors.
These include rehabilitation of aging infrastructure, facility improvements to meet more protective water
quality standards, and in some cases, providing additional treatment capacity for handling wet-weather
flows. Most (94 percent) of this increase can be attributed to needs increases of more than $100 million
each in only 92 of the 10,152 facilities with reported needs. An additional 78 facilities had needs that
decreased by at least $100 million each.
The increase in storm water management program needs is due to greater availability of planning
documents (Appendix G lists and describes document types) as well as increased intrastate coordination
between various agencies in reporting these needs. However, these needs are still underreported. Only 28
States and the District of Columbia submitted stormwater management program needs data.
Trends in the Nation's Ability to Provide Secondary and Advanced Wastewater
Treatment
Although this Report presents increasing needs, the Nation's secondary and advanced wastewater
treatment capacity has improved dramatically since the CWA was enacted in 1972 (Figure ES-2). For
example, the population receiving secondary or advanced treatment from POTWs increased from 84.1
million to 205.0 million, while the population receiving primary or no treatment from POTWs decreased
from 51.9 million to 3.3 million. The increasing ability to provide secondary and advanced wastewater
treatment is projected to continue if needs in this Report are met. Approximately 285 million people are
projected to receive secondary or advanced treatment by 2024.
Funding the Needs
Although local ratepayers ultimately fund most wastewater treatment needs, the CWSRF is one of many
supplementary Federal, State and local funding sources. From July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2004, EPA
provided an annual average of $1.3 billion in grants to State CWSRF programs to assist with point and
nonpoint source pollution control needs. In the same period, States combined these CWSRF funds with
State matching funds, bond proceeds and loan repayments to provide assistance, mostly in the form of
loans, of approximately $4.4 billion per year to local communities. The gap between facilities' funding
and their total needs is addressed not only by other Federal, State and local funding sources, but also is
expected to be increasingly addressed by activities related to EPA's Sustainable Infrastructure Initiative.
January 2008
xii
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
300
250
o
DNo Discharge
D Advanced
Secondary
DLess Than Secondary
Raw
1940
1950
1962
1968 1972
1978 1982
Year
1988 1992 1996 2000 2004
Projected
Figure ES-2. Population served by POTWs nationwide for select years between 1940 and
2004 and projected (if all needs are met), organized by wastewater treatment type.
Source: U.S. Public Health Service and USEPA Clean Watersheds Needs Surveys.
Sustainable Infrastructure Initiative
In response to the EPA's Gap Analysis and other recent 20-year estimations of wastewater treatment
needs, the EPA Administrator convened a forum in January 2003Closing the Gap: Innovative
Responses for Sustainable Water Infrastructure. Using input from industry, government and academia
obtained through this forum, EPA developed the Sustainable Infrastructure Initiative. The goal of the
initiative is to reduce the infrastructure funding gap through a four part strategy focused on advanced
facility management practices, water efficiency promotion, full-cost pricing and a watershed management
approach.
The focus on improving CWNS geographic data has made the CWNS 2004 needs and technical data very
useful in support of the watershed approach and other aspects of the Sustainable Infrastructure Initiative.
With reliable CWNS geographic data, environmental professionals and the public can use CWNS needs
and technical data with other environmental data for permitting, impaired water remediation, technology
selection, project prioritization and other activities related to cost-efficient, watershed-based protection of
water quality and public health.
This trend will continue in future surveys by integrating needs data with emerging efforts such as the
CWSRF environmental benefits measurement effort, which seeks to estimate project-specific, water
quality benefits. Needs data will also be integrated into Internet-based water quality models and other
decision-support tools that support State and local protection of water quality and public health.
Other Future Influences on the Survey
The survey may also evolve in response to individual/decentralized sewage treatment and wastewater
treatment plant security needs. EPA's 2003-2008 Strategic Plan recognizes that decentralized systems are
a key component of the Nation's wastewater infrastructure. Therefore, EPA will provide national
January 2008
XIII
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
direction and support to improve the performance of decentralized systems by promoting the concept of
continuous management and facilitating upgraded professional standards of practice. The CWNS 2004 's
focus on improving the overall level of reporting of wet-weather-related needs will also continue.
January 2008
xiv
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Chapter 1 Scope and Methods
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has prepared the Clean Watersheds Needs
Survey (CWNS) 2004 Report to Congress, hereinafter referred to as "this Report," in compliance with
section 5 16(b)(l)(B) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). This is the 14th survey. The first occurred in 1972,
and the 13th survey addressed needs as of January 1, 2000.
This Report includes a presentation and analysis of the capital cjms R fe c ss and
investment necessary to meet the Nation s wastewater treatment
and collection system needs, as well as its municipal stormwater
management program and recycled water distribution needs. _, . ,,,.,.,. n , ,
Section 516(b)(l) of the Clean
This Report is a collaborative effort between 49 States, the District Water Act (CWA):
of Columbia, Puerto Rico5 (collectively referred to as States for the ,_, _.,., . .
remainder of this Report) and EPA. e [EPA] Administrator, in
cooperation with the States,
The CWNS 2004 National Workgroup (whose members are . . . shall make . . . (B) a detailed
denoted by an asterisk in the acknowledgements) developed a set estimate . . . of the cost of
of guidelines and criteria for gathering, documenting and entering construction of all needed publicly
data. The CWNS 2004 National Workgroup set the primary owned treatment works in all of the
obj ective of updating and entering new documented costs using the States ..."
most current planning documents available. This emphasis on
using current documents extends the effort begun in 2000 to rely
exclusively on documented needs. Another objective was continuing to expand the use of CWNS as a tool
for States to plan, evaluate and set priorities regarding their needs. This objective was supported by
previous extensive State efforts and encouraged new efforts to improve geographic, permit and other
technical data in the survey. Special emphasis was placed on documenting CSO needs and improving the
level of stormwater reporting.
Types of Needs in This Report
Using recommendations of the CWNS 2004 National Workgroup, EPA defined a need as a project, with
associated costs, that addresses a water quality or public health problem existing as of January 1, 2004.
CWNS project eligibility rules are generally based on eligibility rules for project funding under the Clean
Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program.6 Chapter 2 summarizes the national needs for POTWs,
as defined in CWA Section 516(b)(l)(B), using CWSRF funding eligibility categories (Table 1-1).
Detailed descriptions of the CWNS 2004 needs categories are provided in Appendix F, Table F-l.
5 Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2004.
6 The use of CWSRF eligibility rules in determining eligibility for the CWNS 2004 is independent of, and does not affect, States'
annual determinations on which projects are eligible for CWSRF funding. There are some CWSRF-eligible projects that are not
captured in the CWNS, as well as a few exceptional needs in CWNS that are not necessarily eligible for CWSRF funding.
Although CWSRF eligibility is defined in the CWA and clarified by national EPA guidance, individual States might have
policies not to fund certain kinds of projects. If those projects meet national eligibility criteria, however, they may be included in
the CWNS. Additionally, the main body of this Report focuses on needs related to POTWs as directed by section 516(b)(l)(B) of
the CWA. However, other types of activities, such as NFS, are eligible for CWSRF funding.
January 2008
1-1
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Table 1-1. CWNS 2004 Needs Categories
CWA Section 2 12
Wastewater
Treatment &
Collection
CWA Section 2 12
Wet-weather
Category I:
Category II:
Category III-A:
Category III-B:
Category IV-A:
Category IV-B:
Category X:
Category V:
Category VI:
Secondary wastewater treatment3
Advanced wastewater treatment13
Infiltration/inflow correction
Sewer replacement/rehabilitation
New collector sewers and appurtenances
New interceptor sewers and appurtenances
Recycled Water Distribution0
Combined sewer overflow correction
Stormwater management programs
a In previous surveys, Category I included individual septic system and decentralized sewage treatment need
b This category may also include additional process units to increase level of treatment to allow for water reuse.
0 New category for CWNS 2004, previously reported as Categories I, VII-D and VII-E
This Report also summarizes the technical data (e.g., population, flow and effluent data, where
applicable) for every facility included in the CWNS 2004. The national-level results and analyses of the
needs and technical data are included in Chapter 2. The relationship of CWNS needs to funding is
discussed in Chapter 3. CWNS 2004 needs and
technical data (e.g., population, flow) are
presented in Appendices A and C, respectively.
Appendix B summarizes the CWNS 2000 and
CWNS 1996 needs information.
This Report, however, does not include all
needs related to water quality and public health
problems. As in past surveys, information
about privately owned wastewater facilities or
wastewater treatment facilities that serve
privately owned industrial facilities, military
installations, national parks or other Federal
facilities was not collected. These facilities are
not eligible for funding under State CWSRF
programs.
Similarly, the CWNS 2004 did not request data
for needs and facilities that serve American
Indians and native villages, hereinafter referred
to as Tribal needs.7 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 provides funding for
Tribal needs on the basis of a priority list of
projects, updated annually by the IHS.
CWNS History and Relationship to the
CWSRF
In 1972 EPA began collecting information about
needs to meet the requirements of sections
516(b)(l)(B) and 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 focused on providing an estimate of
current capacity and future needs for publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs). Between 1972 and 1996,
$61.1 billion was awarded to municipalities through
EPA's Construction Grants Program.
In 1987 Congress added Title VI to the CWA to
extend Federal aid for wastewater treatment plant
construction and to provide grants to States to
capitalize the CWSRF. The amendments resulted in a
transition toward State and local government
responsibility for financing clean water projects.
As of June 30, 2004, capitalization grants under the
CWSRF Program totaling $21.9 billion had been
awarded to State CWSRF programs. States in turn
provided assistance of $47.9 billion, mostly in the
form of loans to communities.
7 Needs for 34 of the 562 Federally recognized Tribal facilities were voluntarily reported by States to the CWNS. To avoid
confusion with needs reported in IHS annual surveys (www.ihs.gov), Tribal needs are not included in this Report.
1-2
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Time Frame for Needs in This Report
For inclusion in this Report, a need had to address a water quality or public health problem that existed as
of January 1, 2004. This Report compiled short-term and long-term needs that could be documented in
accordance with nationally uniform standards.
Unlike wastewater infrastructure planning during the 1970s and 1980s, which primarily used a 20-year
planning horizon (as influenced by this requirement of the Title II Construction Grants Program), more
recent wastewater infrastructure planning horizons vary considerably across the United States. With
greater flexibility granted to States and local communities for managing construction activities, this
planning horizon is now as short as 5 years or less and as long as 20 years or more.
This Report does not estimate complete 20-year needs for the Nation, because it relies on State and local
documents of varying time horizons rather than a uniform planning horizon. Other recent studies, such as
the Water Infrastructure Network Report (WIN 2000), EPA's Gap Analysis (USEPA 2002a), and the
Congressional Budget Office's Water Infrastructure Study (CBO 2002) have been developed to estimate
a more comprehensive picture of the Nation's needs. For this Report, costs beyond 20 years have been
excluded.
Data Entry Procedures
Building on prior surveys, the CWNS 2004 National Workgroup set the following priorities for
improving CWNS 2004 data:
Update existing costs and enter new costs for all categories of needs using the most current planning
documents available.
Emphasize the use of long-term control plans (LTCPs) or other acceptable documentation for CSO
needs, especially for facilities with previous CSO cost curve estimates exceeding $120 million.
Confirm linkages to the Permit Compliance System (PCS) by reviewing the permit data in the CWNS
database.
Identify documented needs related to sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) by indicating which needs in
other categories also address SSOs.
Improve documentation of stormwater and NPS needs and document all individual sewage disposal
system (ISDS) and decentralized treatment needs in the new Category VII-L.
Continue to expand the CWNS as a tool for States to plan, evaluate and set priorities regarding their
needs by maintaining technical data.
EPA and the CWNS 2004 National Workgroup developed data entry guidance and presented this to
States at a national start-up meeting in April 2004. EPA also provided data from the CWNS 2000 as a
baseline for the CWNS 2004 data entry effort. States entered data into the CWNS 2004 database from
May 1, 2004, through February 18, 2005.
To clarify issues raised by States throughout the data entry period, EPA held monthly conference calls,
provided additional training opportunities and delivered information to the States through the Internet,
e-mail, and written correspondence.
January 2008
1-3
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
CWNS 2004 Database
The CWNS 2004 database allowed States to enter
detailed information about each facility, such as
discharge locations, levels of treatment, populations
served and funding awards.
The CWNS 2004 database contains information on
33,852 facilities. Of these, 24,268 are existing or
projected facilities with centralized wastewater
treatment and collection (including 747 combined
sewer systems with documented needs), and 1,255
are municipal stormwater management program
facilities.
The information gathered by the States is organized
by two main categories of data: wastewater
treatment/collection systems and stormwater
management programs. Detailed descriptions of
these categories and a list of data elements are
provided in Appendix D.
CWNS Database
States entered and updated their needs data in the
CWNS database. The database contains detailed
information about each facility, including
geographic coordinates, population, flow
discharge locations, watershed boundaries and
funding information.
States use the database to continually update their
data, generate reports and download data into
their geographic information systems (GISs) to
create maps. These capabilities enable States to
use the CWNS database as a dynamic
management tool rather than simply a reporting
vehicle.
Documentation of Needs
CWNS reports prior to 2000 included needs based
on both documents as well as data models.
Beginning with the CWNS 2000 report and
continuing with this Report, rigorous documentation
was required to validate needs and to ensure the
quality of cost and technical information. In
addition, whereas modeling needs results in only
State- and national-level estimates, the
documentation of needs provides a rich source of
site-specific, high-quality data for EPA, States and
the public. This information is useful in a variety of
watershed-based analytical tools that support
efficient meeting of water quality and public health objectives
Facility
A location involved in water quality
management. A facility can be a wastewater
treatment plant, a wastewater sewer system, or a
municipal separate storm sewer system. Data in
the CWNS 2004 are collected and organized by
facility.
Documentation Criteria
EPA, in consultation with the CWNS 2004 National Workgroup, established seven criteria for States to
document each need:
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, included as a latitude/longitude point.
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 were not permitted; only site-specific data were acceptable to generate the costs.
1-4
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
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.
6. The total costs for all pollution-control measures and BMPs documented for a facility (all costs
were converted to January 1, 2004, dollars for this report.)
7. If a facility need was greater than $20 million (January 2004 dollar base), the documentation date
had to be January 1, 1998, or more current; for all other facility needs, the documentation date had
to be January 1, 1994, or more current.
For criterion 4, CWNS 2004 cost eligibility was based on a subset of CWSRF-eligible8 costs that meet
the definition of a need as addressing an existing water quality or public health problem. The Clean Water
State Revolving Fund Funding Framework (USEPA 1996) allows CWSRF funding of capital-only
projects. For point source projects, this term includes activities such as constructing wastewater treatment
facilities to meet water quality or NPDES permit requirements. Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs,
ineligible for CWSRF funding, were not included in this Report as needs.
Criterion 7 applied to both the cost data and the need justification of a water quality or public health
problem. The purpose and benefits of redocumentation of outdated facility information during each
survey is to maintain only current project cost information in the CWNS 2004, as well as to purge
projects that might have been completed or partially undertaken.
Acceptable Document Types
To maintain quality and consistency in documentation of needs from State to State, the CWNS 2004
National Workgroup approved a list of documentation types (Table 1-2 and Appendix G).
For acceptance of the CWSRF-eligible portions of costs for developing and implementing stormwater
management programs for municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s),9 States had to include evidence
that they were part of the municipality's MS4 program or a related planning document for achieving the
water quality objectives of the NPDES MS4 program.
Cost Curves
Once a State adequately documented a water quality or public health problem, EPA accepted the
documentation for the purposes of the CWNS 2004, regardless of whether a documented cost estimate
was available. States could use a separate document to justify cost estimates. When information was
inadequate for States to document a cost estimate, States could estimate costs by using nationally derived
and EPA-approved construction cost curves available in the CWNS 2004 database system. This approach
allowed States to use a wide variety of documents to justify needs rather than being restricted to those
containing cost data.
Cost curves were available to calculate costs for Categories I and II (new or replacement treatment facility
costs for increased capacity and/or increased level of treatment and disinfection), Category IV (sanitary
sewer collection system costs for new or expanded collector sewers and interceptor sewers), and Category
V (CSO correction costs). Chapter 2 provides additional discussion of the CSO cost curve.
8 The use of CWSRF eligibility rules in determining eligibility for the CWNS 2004 is independent of, and does not affect, States'
annual determinations on which projects are eligible for CWSRF funding. There are some CWSRF-eligible projects that are not
captured in the CWNS, as well as a few exceptional needs in CWNS that are not necessarily eligible for CWSRF funding.
Although CWSRF eligibility is defined in the CWA and clarified by national EPA guidance, individual States might have
policies not to fund certain kinds of projects. If those projects meet national eligibility criteria, however, they may be included in
the CWNS.
9 As required by Phase I and Phase II NPDES permits.
January 2008
1-5
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
The cost curves were unchanged from those available in the CWNS 2000 except for the adjustment for
the base year. The cost curves used technical data in the CWNS 2004 database, such as area multipliers,
along with appropriate user-provided input data, such as population served, to estimate a cost for the
specified project or need.
Table 1-2. Approved Types of Documentation for Official Needs in CWNS 2004
Document
Type
Code
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
21
22
28
29
30
31
36
98
99
Total
Document Type
Capital Improvement Plan
Infiltration/Inflow Analysis
Sewer System Evaluation Survey
Final Engineer's Estimate
Cost of Previous Comparable Construction
Facility Plan
Plan of Study
Intended Use Plan
State Approved Area- Wide or Regional Basin Plan
Federal/State Grant or SRF Loan Application Form
State Priority List
Diagnostic Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment Plant
Demonstrating Need to Construct
Administrative Order/Court Order/Consent Decree
Sanitary Survey or Certification of a Health Emergency
State-Approved Local/County Comprehensive Water & Sewer
Plan
State Approved Municipal Wasteload Management Plan
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
NPDES or State Permit Requirement (w/schedule)
Municipal Stormwater Management Plan
Funding Application (Population < 3,500)
State Needs Survey (Population < 3,500)
Model Survey (Population < 3,500)
Information from Assistance Provider (Population < 3,500)
Long-Term Control Plan (CSO Control Plan)
CSO Cost Curve (if LTCP is not available)
EPA-HQ Approved
January 2004
Dollars
(billions)
87.7
0.1
1.9
11.9
0.9
35.1
<0.1
9.8
3.1
4.7
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.2
2.6
0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.6
0.6
<0.1
7.3
29.3
5.7
202.5
Percentage
of Total
Need (%)
43.3%
<0.1%
0.9%
5.9%
0.4%
17.3%
<0.1%
4.8%
1.5%
2.3%
<0.1%
<0.1%
<0.1%
0.1%
1.3%
<0.1%
<0.1%
<0.1%
0.2%
0.1%
0.3%
0.3%
<0.1%
3.6%
14.5%
2.8%
Additional Documentation Options for Small Communities
In the past, national small community needs tended to be underestimated10 in CWNS reports because
small communities have fewer resources available for monitoring and facility evaluations, which form the
basis of the reports used to document needs. In an attempt to more fully capture the needs of small
communities, EPA and the CWNS 2004 National Workgroup established guidelines to allow small
communities to use alternative forms of documentation that were not acceptable from large communities.
10 Analysis of small community need reporting levels is included mDrinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure in
Appalachia: An Analysis of Capital Funding and Funding Gaps (Hughes et al. 2005)
1-6
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Small communities with a January 2004 population of fewer than 3,500 people were allowed to use
alternative documentation when standard documentation was not available.11 Alternative documentation
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.
Data Quality Assurance
EPA conducted a quality control and quality assurance review to ensure the precision and accuracy of the
data and to minimize the level of uncertainty of data submitted for this Report. To meet this objective,
EPA developed a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) in accordance with EPA's guidelines for
review of secondary technical and cost data (EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans
(EPA QA/R-5, EPA/240/B-01/003)). As part of this QAPP, EPA developed specific and well-defined
standard operating procedures for the review of facilities with various degrees of technical data and cost
estimates. The QAPP defined processes for EPA to monitor adherence to quality control procedures and
quality assurance requirements.
A team of reviewers used the QAPP operating procedures to review the data entered into the CWNS 2004
database by individual States. These procedures included comparing hard copy documentation with data
entered in the CWNS 2004 database, as well as ensuring consistency of technical and cost data. Where
necessary, the review team consulted with EPA State Revolving Fund experts to clarify CWSRF
eligibility requirements.
Other Documented Needs
Needs that met CWNS documentation requirements but are not defined in CWA section 516(b)(l)(B) are
summarized in Appendix A, Table A-2. This table includes nonpoint source (NPS) pollution control
(Category VII) needs that are associated with implementing NPS 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.
Separate State Estimates
In cases where available documentation did not meet all seven basic criteria or where the needs could not
be estimated using available cost curves, States could enter needs as Separate State Estimates (SSEs)
without EPA review. These estimates are entered for States' purposes other than this Report, such as State
level planning as well as communication with State legislatures and other groups involved with
addressing and preventing water quality problems.
SSEs are reported separately at the end of Chapter 2 and at the State level in Tables A-l 1 through A-13 in
Appendix A. Technical data (e.g., population, flow, effluent) associated with each SSE facility are
included throughout this Report in various tables and charts.
1' Standard document types are listed in Appendix G, Table G-l, 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.
January 2008
1-7
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
This page intentionally left blank
January 2008
1-8
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Chapter 2 Results: National Needs
Total National Needs and State Highlights
The total reported POTW needs for the Nation as of January 1, 2004, are $202.5 billion (Figure 2-1 and
Table 2-1). More than 65 percent of the Nation's needs are for wastewater treatment, collection, and
conveyance. As with the CWNS 2000, all the needs presented in this chapter are documented.12
Category X:
Recycled Water
Distribution \ Categories I and II:
$4.38,2.1% \ Wastewater Treatment
^ Systems
Category VI: /^ ^^ $69.18,34.1%
Storm Water
Management
Programs
$9.08, 4.4%
Category V:
Combined Sewer
Overflow Correction
$54.88,27.1%
Categories III and IV:
Wastewater Collection
and Conveyance
$65.38, 32.2%
Figure 2-1. CWNS 2004 total documented needs
(January 2004 dollars in billions).
1 The surveys performed in 1992 and 1996 presented a combination of documented and modeled needs.
January 2008
2-1
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Table 2-1. Total Documented Needs Reported in the CWNS 2004 (January 2004 Dollars in Billions)
Total Needs
Needs
I
II
III-A
III-B
IV-A
IV-B
V
VI
X
Category
Secondary wastewater treatment3
Advanced wastewater treatment13
Infiltration/inflow correction
Sewer replacement/rehabilitation
New collector sewers and appurtenances
New interceptor sewers and appurtenances
Combined sewer overflow correction
Stormwater management programs
Recycled water distribution0
Total Categories I-VI and X
$B
44.6
24.5
10.3
21.0
16.8
17.2
54.8
9.0
4.3
202.5
Percent
22.0%
12.1%
5.1%
10.4%
8.3%
8.5%
27.1%
4.4%
2.1%
100.0%
a In previous surveys, Category I included individual septic system and decentralized sewage treatment need
b This category may also include additional process units to increase level of treatment to allow for water reuse.
0 New category for CWNS 2004, previously reported as Categories I, VII-D and VII-E
Notes:
Costs for operation and maintenance are not included.
For needs by category and State, see Appendix A, Table A-l ,. Needs estimates presented in Table 2-1 might vary slightly from
those presented in the text and the appendices because of rounding.
Figure 2-2 displays the geographic distribution of the total documented needs by State. The largest
reported total publicly owned treatment work needs occur in New York and California, both
with more than $20 billion in needs. Florida, Illinois and Ohio each have needs in excess of $10 billion.
The States with the largest increases in publicly owned treatment works needs since 2000 are
Florida, California, Ohio, Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Oregon and Missouri, each with an increase
of more than $1 billion. Three-fourths (76.8 percent) of the total needs reported are concentrated in 18
States, while 20 States each reported less than 1 percent of the total needs. Appendix A (Table A-l)
presents the total needs for all categories by State.
Figure 2-3 displays per capita needs by State. The highest per capita needs tend to be in States in the Mid-
Atlantic and New England, as well as Hawaii, Arizona, Illinois and Ohio. The States with the largest
needs per capita are the District of Columbia ($3,670), Hawaii ($1,660) and West Virginia ($1,400).
While the District of Columbia, Hawaii, West Virginia and Rhode Island have per capita needs exceeding
$1,000 per person, none of these States rank among the 20 States with the highest total needs shown in
Figure 2-2.
January 2008
2-2
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Range
H *$15B
^ $5-$15B
^] $2-$5B
T: $0.5-$2B
Total Documented Needs = $ 202.5 Billion D * $°-5B
| None reported
^\ Did not participate
Note Alaska, American Samoa, Guam. Northern Mariana Islands
and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2004.
y
Figure 2-2. Distribution of total documented needs by State
(January 2004 dollars in billions).
Did not participate
Note. Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands
and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2004
Figure 2-3. Distribution of per capita documented needs by State
(January 2004 dollars/person).
2-3
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Trends and Analyses by CWNS 2004 Category
Wastewater Treatment, Collection, and Conveyance (Categories I through V)
The needs reported (in January 2004 dollars) for the wastewater treatment and collection categories
(Categories I through V) increased from $180.2 billion in the CWNS 2000 to $189.2 billion in this
Report. This is a $9.0 billion (or 5.0 percent) increase (Figure 2-4 and Table 2-2). Most (94 percent) of
this increase can be attributed to needs increases of more than $100 million each in only 92 of the 10,152
facilities with reported needs. An additional 78 facilities had needs that decreased by at least $100 million
each.
The most significant increase in needs related to wastewater treatment and collection are the following:
Category I, increased by $3.6 billion; Category III-A and III-B, by $3.5 billion; and Category II, by $1.8
billion. The $3.6 billion increase in Category I needs is effectively a $6.6 billion increase considering that
the $3.0 billion in individual septic system and decentralized sewage treatment needs, reported under
Category I in CWNS 2000, is now reported in Category VII-L. Increases in Categories I and II could be
due to a variety of issues. These include rehabilitation of aging infrastructure, facility improvements to
meet more protective water quality standards, and in some cases, providing additional treatment capacity
for handling wet-weather flows.
New needs (needs reported for the first time) account for $10.0 billion of the Category I needs, $7.6
billion of the Category II needs and $5.6 billion of the Category III-B needs. The amounts for projected
facilities are $2.1 billion in Category I needs and $3.6 billion in Category II needs. By definition,
Category III-B needs would be entered only for existing facilities.
II-B
IV-A
Category
IV-B
VI
Figure 2-4. Total needs nationwide for the 1996-2004 CWNS
organized by category (January 2004 dollars in billions).
2-4
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Table 2-2. Comparison of Total Needs for the 1996-2004 CWNS (January 2004 Dollars in Billions)
Needs Category
1996a
Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment and Conveyance Systems and
Management Programs
I Secondary wastewater treatment13
II Advanced wastewater treatment0
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 Stormwater management programs'1
X Recycled water distribution6
Total Needs for Categories I- VI and X
Treatment Categories I and II only
Collection and conveyance Categories III and IV only
Category I to V subtotal
32.8
21.6
4.1
8.6
13.3
13.3
55.2
9.1
158
54.4
39.3
148.9
2000a
Stormwater
41
22.7
9.1
18.7
15.9
16.5
56.3
6.2
186.4
63.7
60.2
180.2
2004
44.6
24.5
10.3
21.0
16.8
17.2
54.8
9.0
4.3
202.5
69.1
65.3
189.2
'00 -'04
$B
3.6
1.8
1.2
2.3
0.9
0.7
-1.5
2.8
4.3
16.1
5.4
5.1
9.0
change
%
8.8%
7.9%
13.2%
12.3%
5.7%
4.2%
-2.7%
45.2%
NA
8.6%
8.5%
8.5%
5.0%
a The needs from 1996 and 2000 were inflated to January 2004 dollars for comparison with CWNS 2004 data.
b In previous surveys Category I included individual septic system and decentralized sewage treatment need
0 This category may also include additional process units to increase level of treatment to allow for water reuse.
d Modeled needs in 1996.
e New category for CWNS 2004, previously reported as Categories I, VII-D and VII-E
January 2008
2-5
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Wastewater Treatment
Almost half of the $69.1 billion secondary and advanced
wastewater treatment needs were reported by New York
($11.9 billion), California ($11.5 billion), Florida ($4.6
billion), New Jersey ($3.3 billion) and Maryland ($3.0
billion). States with increases of more than 50 percent
since 2000 in Categories I and II include Oklahoma (147
percent), Oregon (88 percent), Tennessee (84 percent),
Idaho (70 percent), Kansas (65 percent), Washington (64
percent) and Colorado (60 percent). Notably, Puerto
Rico, which did not participate in the previous survey,
reported $1.0 billion in Category I and II needs.
Table 2-3 shows the total Category I and II needs and
their distribution related to infrastructure improvement
versus capital renewal for wastewater treatment plants.
The 28.8 percent ($19.9 billion) of projects resulting in
infrastructure improvements is a decrease from the 36.1
percent reported in 2000. Capital renewal projects also
accounted for 28.8 percent of needs, a decrease from the
32.4 percent reported in 2000.
The remaining $29.3 billion (42.4 percent) is associated
with projects that represent a combination of
infrastructure improvements and capital infrastructure
renewal, an increase from the 31.5 percent reported in
2000.
Infrastructure Improvements
Activities such as increasing the effluent
quality level (e.g., from secondary to
advanced treatment), increasing the plant
capacity to keep up with population growth,
and constructing new wastewater treatment
plants.
Capital Renewal Projects
Projects that sustain the current level of
performance of the plant by implementing
rehabilitation, refurbishing or replacing
capital assets to restore an asset, facility or
system to its original condition and function.
Such projects do not increase treatment
capacity or effluent quality level. Examples
include replacing coarse bubble diffusers with
fine bubble diffusers or switching from
disinfection by chlorination to ultraviolet
disinfection. Capital renewal does not
include costs for routine operation and
maintenance at wastewater treatment plants.
Secondary Treatment
A treatment level that will meet an effluent
quality of 30 mg/L (30-day average) of both
5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
and total suspended solids, although
secondary treatment levels required for some
lagoon systems might be less stringent. In
addition, the secondary treatment must
remove 85 percent of BOD5 and total
suspended solids from the influent
wastewater.
Advanced Treatment
A treatment level that is more stringent than
secondary or produces a significant reduction
in nonconventional or toxic pollutants
present in the wastewater effluent.
2-6
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Table 2-3. Category I and II (Wastewater Treatment) Needs (January 2004 Dollars in Billions)
Jan 2004 Percentage Number
Wastewater Treatment Plant Investment ($Billions) of Total of Facilities
Infrastructure improvements
Capital renewal
Combination of infrastructure improvements
and capital renewal
Total
19.9
19.9
29.3
69.1
28.8%
28.8%
42.4%
100.0%
2,527
2,224
887
5,638
Collection and Conveyance
More than 37 percent of the $65.3 billion in Category III
and IV needs was reported by California ($6.4 billion),
Florida ($4.4 billion), Ohio ($3.6 billion), Texas ($3.5
billion), New York ($3.3 billion) and North Carolina
($3.1 billion). States with increases of more than 50
percent since 2000 in Category III and IV needs include
Minnesota (199 percent), Idaho (144 percent), the
District of Columbia (102 percent), North Dakota (100
percent), Tennessee (89 percent), Wisconsin (75 percent)
and Oklahoma (73 percent). Notably, Puerto Rico, which
did not participate in the previous survey, reported $2.7
billion in Category III and IV needs.
Sewer Rehabilitation and Replacement
Needs
Category III-A and III-B needs are for
inflow/infiltration (I/I) correction and sewer
replacement or rehabilitation. I/I occurs when
flow from wet-weather conditions enters
collection systems through various means,
such as pipe cracks and broken joints.
New Sewer Needs
Category IV-A and IV-B needs are for new
collector and interceptor costs.
An assessment similar to the Category I and II needs
comparison above was also performed for Category III
and IV needs. Category III needs generally represent
capital renewal needs. Category IV needs usually represent infrastructure improvement. Exceptions
include some needs in Category IV-B that are related to projects (e.g., new relief sewers, sewer
separation) traditionally thought of as capital renewal projects.
Of the total Category III and IV needs of $65.3 billion, 47.9 percent of the needs are associated with
Category III. This compares with 46.2 and 32.3 percent for the CWNS 2000 and CWNS 1996,
respectively.
This pattern of an increasing proportion of Category III needs is further evidence that communities are
continuing to plan for the correction of problems related to SSOs,13 as well as ensuring the reliability of
the Nation's existing collection system infrastructure.
13 Note that in addition to Category IV-B (new interceptor sewer and appurtenances), some needs in Category I (secondary
wastewater treatment) and Category II (advanced wastewater treatment) might also address SSO problems.
2-7
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Combined Sewer Overflows
Of the $54.8 billion in needs to control CSOs, 75 percent
was reported by Illinois ($10.1 billion), New York ($6.6
billion), Ohio ($6.3 billion), Indiana ($5.4 billion),
Pennsylvania ($4.6 billion), Michigan ($4.3 billion) and
New Jersey ($3.8 billion). These reported needs are
similar to those of the CWNS 2000, in which the same
seven States accounted for 71.7 percent of the total
Category V needs. These seven States also account for
550 of the 747 facilities with Category V needs. Twenty-
three States and the District of Columbia account for the
remaining 197 CSO facilities with $13.7 billion in
Category V needs.
Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs)
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, and 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.
Unlike the increases reported in all other needs
categories, the total needs estimate for the control of
CSOs decreased by a total of $ 1.5 billion from the
CWNS 2000. The Category V needs for Ohio and
Michigan increased by $2.3 billion and $1.6 billion,
respectively, whereas the needs for Pennsylvania, Iowa and New Jersey decreased by more than $1 billion
each.
Figure 2-5 shows the distribution of Category V needs by State. Appendix C, Table C-4, presents the
number of facilities with Category V needs by State and the total Category V needs for the CWNS 2000
(inflated to January 2004 dollars) and the CWNS 2004.
Total CSO Needs = $54.8 Billion
Note: Alaska, American Samoa. Guam, Northern Mariana Islands
and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2004.
~| $2-$4B
~ $0.5-$2B
^ < S0.5B
None reported
= Did not participate
Figure 2-5. Distribution of CSO correction (Category V) needs by State
(January 2004 dollars in billions).
2-8
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
As with other needs categories, States were requested to enter documented needs when available. During
the CWNS 2004, States increased their use of LTCPs to enter cost estimates. Sixteen States documented
CSO (Category V) needs using LTCPs for 144 facilities, up from 34 facilities in the CWNS 2000. Needs
documented in LTCPs account for 13.3 percent (up from 7.7 percent) of the Category V needs reported in
this survey. LTCPs provide the most reliable estimates for CSO control based on the 1994 CSO Policy.
Appendix C, Table C-6, presents a list of 59 facilities, with CSO needs exceeding $120 million, that used
cost curves for estimating costs in this Report.
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 the CWNS 2004 was the same as
that used for the CWNS 1996 and CWNS 2000. The cost curve is based primarily on the Presumption
Approach in the 1994 CSO Policy.14 For the CWNS 1996, 66 percent of the CSO needs were documented
by using cost curves. This percentage decreased to 53.4 percent for the CWNS 2004.
In August 2004, EPA released Report to Congress: Impacts and Control ofCSOs and SSOs, hereinafter
called the CSO/SSO Report. In the report, EPA documented that 746 communities with CSOs in 31 States
and the District of Columbia have been issued 828 CSO NPDES permits that regulate 9,348 CSO discharge
points. In many cases, the facility associated with a CSO community or a CSO permit in the CSO/SSO
Report is one of the 747 facilities with CSO correction needs reported in the CWNS 2004. 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 with the number of CSO
permits or the number of CSO
communities reported in the CSO/SSO
Report.
Municipal Stormwater Management
Programs
Almost 79 percent of the $9.0 billion in
needs for developing and implementing
municipal Stormwater management
programs were reported by Texas ($2.8
billion), Florida ($2.2 billion), Arizona
($1.2 billion) and Minnesota ($0.9
billion). Category VI needs increased by
$2.8 billion from the CWNS 2000.
Large and medium MS4s account for 77.8
percent, or $7.0 billion, of the total
Stormwater management program needs.
Small MS4s account for the remaining 22.2
percent, or $2.0 billion in Stormwater
management program needs.
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 I MS4 requirements apply
to systems in incorporated areas or in counties that EPA has
identified as having MS4s serving populations of 100,000 or
more. They also apply to 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 December 8, 1999. It requires NPDES
permit coverage for storm water discharges from small MS4s,
which are systems in urbanized areas as defined by the U.S.
Census Bureau (USEPA 1999).
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 Phase II programs.
14 Under the 1994 CSO Control Policy Presumption Approach, a facility is presumed to provide an adequate level of control if it
(1) Has no more than an average of four overflow events per year, with permitting authority ability to allow up to two additional
overflow events per year; or (2) Eliminates or captures for treatment no less than 85 percent by volume of the combined sewage
collected during precipitation events; or (3) Eliminates or removes no less than the mass of the pollutants, identified as causing
water quality impairment through a sewer system characterization, monitoring and modeling effort (USEPA 1994).
2-9
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
The distribution of stormwater management program needs by State is presented in Figure 2-6. Appendix
A, Table A-l, presents the stormwater management program needs by State. Appendix C, Table C-5,
presents stormwater management program needs by State for large, medium and small MS4s.
Municipal stormwater management program needs in this Report were underreported, though to a
significantly lesser extent than for the CWNS 2000. Twenty-eight States and the District of Columbia
entered needs for 1,255 municipal stormwater management facilities in this Report. As of January 1,
2004, 1,018 Phase INDPES MS4 permits, covering 887 municipal entities in 44 States, had been issued.
EPA estimates that there are between 5,000 and 6,000 Phase II MS4 entities in the Nation, although only
a fraction of those were under permit as of January 1, 2004.
Lack of resources to document stormwater management program needs and the inability of States to
obtain the required data from various municipal entities were the main reasons for the States not including
their Phase I Stormwater Management Program needs.
Total Documented Storm Water
Management Program Needs = $ 9.0 Billion
Note Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands
and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2004
$0.2-$1 B
' $0.05-$0.2B
< $0.05B
None reported
Did not participate
Figure 2-6. Distribution of stormwater management program (Category VI)
needs by State (January 2004 dollars in billions).
2-10
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Recycled Water Distribution
Fifteen States reported $4.3 billion in recycled water
distribution (Category X) needs. California ($1.9 billion)
and Florida ($1.7 billion) accounted for 84 percent of the
Category X needs. With this category being new for this
Report, needs in this category are likely to increase in
future surveys as identified projects and documentation
become more available.
Urban and Rural Communities Needs
The breakdown of urban and rural total documented needs
is $133.6 billion (66 percent) and $68.9 billion (34
percent), respectively. The total urban needs for Categories
I through VI are $130.9 billion; the total rural needs for
these categories are about half as much, $67.3 billion.
For urban areas, 80 percent of the needs are in Categories
V ($42.6 billion), I ($30.1 billion), III-B ($15.0 billion), II
($13.1 billion) and III-A ($7.1 billion).
For rural areas, 80 percent of the needs are in Categories I
($14.5 billion), V ($12.2 billion), II ($11.4 billion), IV-A
($8.7 billion), and IV-B ($8.2 billion). These numbers
convey the greater relative needs for installing new pipes
in rural areas versus repairing pipes and addressing CSOs
in urban areas.
Recycled Water Distribution
These needs include any costs associated with
conveyance of the recycled water (wastewater
reused after removal of waste contributed by
humans) and any associated rehabilitation or
replacement needs. The costs of the pipes used
to convey treated water from the wastewater
facility to the drinking water facility are an
example of needs in this category.
Urbanized Areas
Data from the CWNS 2004 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
continental United States. An urbanized area,
as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau,
generally consists of a large central place and
adjacent densely settled census blocks (1,000
people per square mile for geographic core of
block groups or blocks, or 500 for adjacent
block groups and blocks) that together have a
total population of at least 2,500 for urban
clusters or at least 50,000 for urbanized areas.
Small Community Needs
Small communities have estimated needs of approximately
$17.0 billion (see Appendix A, Table A-3), representing
about 9 percent of the $193.5 billion documented needs in
Categories I-V and X.
Wastewater treatment needs (Categories I and II),
conveyance needs (Categories III and IV) and CSO
correction needs (Category V) for small communities are
$5.0 billion, $10.4 billion and $1.6 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 2-7 shows the distribution of small community needs by State. Pennsylvania ($1.5 billion), West
Virginia ($1.4 billion) and New York ($1.1 billion) account for 23.5 percent of the small community
needs. Nine additional States report between $0.5 billion and $1.0 billion in small community 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 or more of the facilities in four States (Iowa,
Kansas, Nebraska and West Virginia) serve small communities. Moreover, in eight additional States,
small community facilities constitute 80 to 90 percent of the publicly owned facilities.
Small Communities
Small, rural communities are defined as
communities with populations of fewer than
10,000 people and an average daily wastewater
flow of less than 1 million gallons. These
communities often lack the technical, financial,
and managerial capacity to optimally construct,
operate, manage and maintain wastewater
treatment facilities or systems.
2-11
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Figure 2-8 shows a comparison of the number of facilities, population served and needs for small and
large communities in the Nation. Figure 2-9 shows this information for three ranges of small community
populations served.
Although about 70 percent of centralized wastewater treatment and collection facilities serve small
communities, those facilities serve only 10 percent (27.2 million people) of the population served by
centralized collection. While 60.1 percent of non-small communities have documented needs, only 36.6
percent of small communities have documented needs, indicating potential underreporting.
Of the 1,552 new wastewater treatment facilities identified in the CWNS 2004, 827 facilities will serve
small communities where individual onsite systems are expected to be abandoned. The majority (75
percent) of the new small community treatment plants that are replacing individual onsite systems will
serve populations of fewer than 1,000 people. The 827 facilities will provide service to approximately
681,715 people and account for $0.6 billion in Category I and II needs and $1.4 billion in Category IV-A
and IV-B needs.
Total Documented Small Community
Facility Needs = $17.0 Billion
Note Alaska. American Samoa, Guam. Northern Mariana Islands
and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2004
B$0.5-$1B !
$0.2-$0.5B
"" $0.1-$0.2B
^J < $0.1B
^] None reported
j Did not participate
Figure 2-7. Geographic distribution of small community needs
(January 2004 dollars in billions).
2-12
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Projected Wastewater
Treatment and Collection
Facilities (21,847 total)
Projected Population Served
(271.8 million total)
Needs for Categories I-V,
and X ($193.5 billion total)
This figure contains technical data for facilities that were updated or verified by States
and accepted by EPA in the CWNS 2004. Facilities from States that did not
participate in the survey or those facilities that were not updated for lack of resources
are not included in the figure. Because of these analysis methods, the numbers in
this figure cannot be directly compared with the numbers in Appendix C.
Figure 2-8. Comparison of small versus large community needs and
technical information from existing and projected facilities.
6,483 Facilities
Serving More than
10,000 People Each
5,642 Facilities
Serving
1,000-3,500 People Each
15,364 Facilities
Serving Small
Communities
6,919 Facilities
Serving Fewer than
1,000 People Each
2,803 Facilities
Serving 3,500-
10,000 People Each
Figure 2-9. Number of projected centralized wastewater treatment and collection facilities
by ranges of population served with needs if all documented needs are met.
Other Documented Needs
Appendix A, Table A-2 and Appendix E summarize $38.3 billion in NFS needs that met CWNS
documentation requirements and are not defined under CWA section 516(b)(l)(B). This includes $3.0
billion in needs to address failing individual septic and decentralized wastewater treatment systems.15
Needs to address failing septic and decentralized wastewater treatment systems were reported in Category I in previous
surveys.
2-13
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Separate State Estimates
Forty-three States reported SSEs of $40.2 billion. SSEs are needs that did not meet CWNS documentation
criteria but were entered for State purposes other than this Report, such as State-level planning as well as
communication with State legislatures and other groups involved with addressing and preventing water
quality problems. Tables A-l 1, A-12 and A-13 in Appendix A present the total SSEs for each category,
State by State.
January 2008
2-14
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Chapters Concluding Remarks
Changes in Needs Since 2000
Between January 1, 2000, and January 1, 2004, reported POTW needs increased from $186.4 billion to
$202.5 billion, atotal increase of $16.1 billion or 8.6 percent. The largest portions of this increase are
associated with Category I and II wastewater treatment needs ($5.4 billion increase), Category III-A and
III-B sewer repair needs ($3.5 billion increase), and Category VI stormwater management program needs
($2.8 billion). Category X recycled water distribution, a new category in the CWNS 2004, added $4.3
billion in needs.
The increases in wastewater treatment needs and in sewer repair needs are due to a variety of factors. The
factors include rehabilitation of aging infrastructure, facility improvements to meet more protective water
quality standards and, in some cases, providing additional treatment capacity for handling wet-weather
flows. Recycled water distribution, a newly added category, recognizes the greater need for water
conservation, recycling and reuse in many States.
The increase in stormwater management program needs is mainly due to increased implementation of the
NPDES Stormwater Program and the related greater availability of stormwater management planning
documents.
With each survey, a more comprehensive picture of the Nation's needs is developed. Nevertheless, the
level of effort that States put forth in reporting their CWNS 2004 data varied considerably. The
availability of resources (e.g., staff, time, information) in each State affected the data quality. The data
quality, in turn, affected the completeness of the total needs reported nationally in the CWNS 2004.
Trends in the Nation's Ability to Provide Wastewater Treatment
Given the increasing needs presented in this Report and the even larger needs estimated in other reports,
one might ask how well the Nation is providing secondary and advanced wastewater treatment.
Influenced by CWA goals and associated funding mechanisms, significant progress has been made to
improve wastewater treatment across the Nation.
Figure 3-1 shows that although the number of people served by facilities with secondary treatment
increased only moderately between 1972 and 2004 (an increase of 10.9 million people), the number of
people provided with advanced wastewater treatment increased dramatically (from 7.8 million people in
1972 to 108.5 million people in 2004). Moreover, the population served by less-than-secondary treatment
decreased from more than 50 million in 1972 to 3.3 million in 2004.
January 2008
3-1
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
300
250
DNo Discharge
D Advanced
Secondary
DLess Than Secondary
Raw
1940
1950
1962
1968 1972
1978 1982
Year
1988 1992 1996 2000 2004
Projected
Figure 3-1. Population served by POTWs nationwide for select years between 1940 and
2004 and projected (if all needs are met), organized by wastewater treatment type.
Source: U.S. Public Health Service and USEPA Clean Watersheds Needs Surveys
Table 3-1 presents the current status of the level of treatment based on data presented in this Report and
past surveys.16 In comparison to 2000, an additional 15.0 million people now receive centralized
collection and wastewater treatment. Municipal wastewater treatment plants that provide secondary or
better levels of treatment serve 219.6 million, or 73.8 percent of the U.S. population. The population
served by less-than-secondary treatment has been reduced from 6.4 million people to 3.3 million people.
There are now 2,188 non-discharging facilities that serve 14.6 million people, or 4.9 percent of the U.S.
population. More details about the change in plant influent and effluent loadings to surface waters are
provided in EPA's report Progress in Water Quality, An Evaluation of the National Investment in
Municipal Wastewater Treatment. See Appendix H of this Report.
Figure 3-1 and Table 3-1 show the projected improvements in wastewater treatment infrastructure if the
secondary and advanced wastewater treatment needs (Categories I and II) specified in this Report are met.
The number of non-discharging facilities and facilities that provide secondary or more advanced
treatment is projected to increase by 7.8 percent from 16,325 to 17,598. The population being served by
these facilities is projected to increase by 29.6 percent.
On the basis of the needs presented, it is projected that a total of 17,851 operational facilities will serve a
future population of 286.2 million people, or 81.6 percent of the U.S. population. EPA expects that the
projected increase in centralized treatment facilities will not be as large as suggested by the data because
more planning authorities are recognizing that properly designed, constructed and operated onsite
wastewater treatment systems should be considered a permanent part of the wastewater infrastructure
rather than just an interim solution.
' Other related technical data discussed in this section are provided in Appendix C, Table C-3.
3-2
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Table 3-1. Improvements in Treatment Level of the Nation's Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Level of Treatment
Less than secondary13
Secondary
Greater than
secondary
No discharge0
Partial treatment"1
Total
Population Served in Millions Population _ . , , _ , , .
/, Proiected Population
(Number of Facilities) Change ^ 200!i_2024
1996 2000a 2004a 2024 2000-2004
17.2
(176)
81.9
(9,388)
82.9
(4,428)
7.7
(2,032)
~
189.7
(16,024)
6.4
(47)
QQ o
oo. L
(9,156)
100.9
(4,892)
12.3
(1,938)
(222)
207.8
(16,255)
3.3
(40)
96.5
(9,221)
108.5
(4,916)
14.6
(2,188)
(218)
222.8
(16,583)
1.7 -48.4%
(26)
109.4 9.4%
(9,446)
149.9 7.5%
(5,607)
25.3 18.7%
(2,545)
(227)
286.2 7.2%
(17,851)
-48.5%
13.4%
38.2%
73.3%
~
285%
a Where necessary, this table contains best available information from States and Territories that did not have the resources
to complete the updating of the data or did not participate in the CWNS 2000 or 2004. In such circumstances, information
for this table was taken from previous surveys.
b Includes facilities granted section 301(h) waivers from secondary treatment for discharges to marine waters. As of January
1, 2004, waivers for 34 facilities in the CWNS 2004 database had been granted or were pending.
0No discharge refers to facilities that do not discharge effluent to surface waters (e.g., ground water recharge).
d The number of facilities includes facilities that provide partial treatment and that direct partially treated wastewater to
another facility for further treatment. The population associated with these facilities is omitted from this table to avoid
double counting.
The number of facilities that provide less-than-secondary treatment is projected to decline from 40
facilities serving 3.3 million people to 20 facilities serving 1.7 million people, nearly all of whom will be
served by facilities with CWA 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.
With much of the country being served or projected to be served by secondary wastewater treatment or better,
continued improvements in infrastructure might be better measured not by population served and improved
levels of treatment but by measures of sustainable infrastructure (e.g., condition of infrastructure,
sustainability of infrastructure funding strategy). 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.
Funding of Needs
Although local ratepayers ultimately fund most wastewater treatment needs, other funding is available.
The CWSRF is one of many supplementary Federal, State and local funding sources. A wide variety of
Federal sources are described in EPA's Catalogue of Federal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection
(http ://cfpub .epa.gov/fedfund/).
From July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2004, EPA provided an annual average of $1.3 billion in grants to
State CWSJiF programs to assist with point and NPS pollution control needs. In the same period, States
combined these CWSRJ funds with State matching funds, bond proceeds and loan repayments to provide
assistance to local communities, mostly in the form of loans. The assistance amounted to approximately
$4.4 billion per year.
January 2008
3-3
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Sustainable Infrastructure Initiative
Following the release of EPA's 2002 Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis a
national meeting was held, titled Closing the Gap: Innovative Responses for Sustainable Water
Infrastructure, in which participants recognized that current spending and operational practices would
need to change to avoid the emergence of a funding gap that would hamper efforts to provide future clean
water. The participants further recognized that Federal funding is and will remain limited and that
initiatives to adequately address the potential emerging gap will need to focus on improved management
and innovative approaches for reducing the cost of infrastructure.
The concept of sustainable infrastructure, announced at the January 2003 meeting, consists of four
pillars:
Full Cost Pricing of Water. There are strong economic arguments for shifting more of the cost of water
from taxes to rates, and they are closely linked with efficient water use. Utilities that implement pricing
structures that recover the full cost of providing service are promoting economically efficient and
environmentally sound water use decisions by customers. The Congressional Budget Office's Future
Investment in Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure report (November 2002) estimated that
future infrastructure investment needs could be paid by ratepayers and that this investment would increase
water bills from 0.5 percent of income to 0.9 percent of income, on average. If these rate increases create
problems for low-income or fixed-income households, a wide variety of mechanisms are available to
mitigate the impacts, such as rate reductions or local subsidies to these households in the form of life-line
water rates.
Better Management. Proven management methods are available to reduce the cost of providing clean
water and improving performance. One of these is asset management. This is a data-driven approach to
prioritizing investments in infrastructure so that they meet customer expectations. Armed with detailed
information on the age, condition and performance of infrastructure, systems would be able to repair or
replace infrastructure as needed to meet performance standards. This would optimize investment. Savings
from asset management approaches are often in the range of 10 percent of the capital investment. Ten
percent of the estimated infrastructure needs in this assessment ($202.5 billion) would be $20.3 billion
over 20 years, or $1.0 billion per year. A related method is environmental management systems (EMS).
This involves comprehensive assessment of the utility's operations for continual improvement, resulting
in better performance and lower cost.
Efficient Water Use. Much of the needed investment reported in this Report consists of installing or
rehabilitating new collection pipes and treatment plants to meet the needs of the existing U.S. population.
These projects are sized to accommodate reasonably anticipated growth. Decreasing water use, however,
might reduce the projected increase in design capacity, thereby reducing investment needs. EPA estimates
that there could be a 20 percent reduction in water use if simple conservation methods were introduced.
This might translate to smaller capacity plants, which in turn would have reduced capital and operating
costs.
Watershed Approach. There is great potential for cost savings in what EPA has broadly described as the
watershed approach to management. This term refers to policies that include broad stakeholder
involvement, hydrologically defined geographic boundaries and coordinated management across all
policies that affect water. Specific practices may include incentives for pollutant reduction, purchasing
easements to minimize or eliminate pollutant sources and converting land uses where such approaches are
cost effective.
No single initiative will answer the question of how to pay for the infrastructure needs identified in this
assessment. Yet, each has great potential, and none has been fully exploited. Taken together, and used in a
January 2008
3-4
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
coordinated fashion with the significant levels of financial assistance available at the Federal and State
levels, they provide an outline of how to pay for these infrastructure needs.
Relationship of OWNS to the Sustainable Infrastructure Initiative
The CWNS supports the Sustainable Infrastructure Initiative by encouraging the documentation of long-
term needs and by providing needs and technical information for each facility. Significant advances have
been made in improving the needs geographic data. The improvements enable the use of needs data with
water quality standards, NPDES permits, impaired waters and other environmental program data in
Internet mapping tools, as well as in off-line analyses. Using CWNS 2004 data in these tools and analyses
supports technology and project selection, NPDES permitting, TMDL analyses and other watershed-
based projects that support efficient meeting of water quality and public health objectives.
This trend will likely increase in future surveys by integrating needs data with emerging efforts like the
CWSRF environmental benefits measurement effort, which seeks to estimate project-specific water
quality benefits. Needs data will also be integrated into Internet-based water quality models and other
decision support tools that support State and local environmental management. As implementation of the
Sustainable Management Initiative activities accelerates over the next few years, the CWNS will likely
evolve to further support those efforts.
Other Potential Influences on Future Surveys
Future CWNS data collection will be enhanced by further capitalizing on new Internet data collection and
electronic document management technologies, as well as by continuing to integrate CWNS data with
other data related to facilities. These efforts are aimed at reducing data collection costs while increasing
the quality of the data.
January 2008
3-5
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
This page intentionally left blank
January 2008
3-6
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Glossary
NOTE: Definitions are provided to help the reader understand the terms used throughout this
Report. Many of these terms are defined in the Clean Water Act or EPA's implementing
regulations, which contain legally binding requirements. The definitions provided in this document
are not intended to substitute for the legally binding definitions provided in the Clean Water Act or
implementing regulations.
301(h) Waiver from Secondary Treatment for Marine Discharges
A modification of secondary treatment requirements for POTWs that discharge to marine waters as
authorized under section 301(h) of the Clean Water Act. The 301(h) waiver requires monitoring and
reporting to ensure that balanced indigenous populations of biological communities are maintained in
proximity to the discharge, and it allows recreational activities in and on the water.
advanced treatment
A level of treatment that is more stringent than secondary or produces a significant reduction in
conventional, nonconventional or toxic pollutants present in the wastewater treated by a facility. See
Appendix F, Table F-l, Category II.
asset management system
A set of procedures and management practices designed to help wastewater treatment facilities manage
their installations, focusing on activities with major environmental impacts.
best management practice (BMP)
Schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures and other management
practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of waters of the United States. BMPs also include treatment
requirements, operating procedures and practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or
waste disposal, or drainage from raw material storage.
brownfields
Land that might be contaminated by a hazardous substance or pollutant, which may complicate its
expansion, redevelopment or reuse. See Appendix F, Table F-2, Category VII-H.
capital renewal
Practices that 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. Capital renewal does not include costs for routine operation and maintenance at wastewater
treatment plants.
January 2008
Glossary-1
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
A State-managed revolving fund that provides loans for specific water pollution control purposes.
coastal watersheds
Watersheds that drain to the ocean or to an estuary or bay as defined by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) using 8-digit watersheds.
collection system
A system of collector and/or interceptor sewers that collect 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 F, Table F-l,
Category IV-A.
combined sewer overflow (CSO)
Discharge of a mixture of stormwater and untreated wastewater that occurs when the capacity of a
combined sewer system is exceeded during a rainstorm. See Appendix F, Table F-l, Category V.
combined sewer system
A sewer system designed to convey both domestic sanitary wastewater and stormwater.
community
With respect to wastewater treatment, a group of residences, businesses or industries sharing a common
treatment or conveyance facility.
Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan (CCMP)
One purpose of the National Estuary Program conference under section 320 of the Clean Water Act is to
develop a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). The CCMP recommends
priority corrective actions and compliance schedules for addressing point and nonpoint sources of
pollution to restore and maintain water quality, recreational activities in the estuary, and assure that the
designated uses of the estuary are protected
concentrated animal facility (feedlot)
A facility for the controlled feeding of animals that tends to concentrate large amounts of animal waste
which, if they cannot be absorbed by the soil, might be carried to nearby streams or lakes by rainfall
runoff. Large facilities (e.g., having more than 1,000 confined cattle) are considered point sources that
may be required to have permits under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program. In general, smaller facilities are also considered to be point sources subject to NPDES
January 2008
Glossary-2
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
permitting if they meet certain criteria for their method of discharge or if they are designated as point
sources.
conveyance needs
The cost estimate to construct, expand or upgrade sewer collection systems for transporting wastewater to
treatment facilities. See Appendix F, Table F-l, Categories IV-A and IV-B.
decentralized treatment system
Onsite or cluster wastewater system used to treat and dispose of relatively small volumes of wastewater,
usually from dwellings and businesses located relatively close together. Onsite and cluster systems are
also commonly used in combination.
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 2004, the design
year is 2024.
documented need
A project that addresses a water quality or public health problem existing as of January 1, 2004, with
associated abatement costs that meet CWNS documentation requirements in Chapter 1 of this Report.
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 waterbody. See watershed.
environmental data systems
Tools that store, manage and deliver descriptive environmental information and allow data analysis. Some
of EPA's environmental data management systems are the following:
EnviroFacts: A single point of access to select EPA environmental data. The Web site provides
information from several EPA databases containing data on environmental activities that might affect
air, water and land anywhere in the United States.
EnviroMapper for Water. A Web-based geographic information system (GIS) application that
dynamically displays information about bodies of water in the United States. This interactive tool
enables the creation of customized GIS maps that portray the Nation's surface waters along with a
collection of environmental data. The application can be used to view environmental information
from the national level down to the community level (within 1 mile). It also has the capability to pan,
zoom, label and print maps.
Ask WATERS: Part of EPA's WATERS services, which are database and Web-based services that
provide user-friendly interfaces to complex analyses. These selected services make extensive use of
digital locational information and integrate other WATERS program data. Designed as modular units,
January 2008
Glossary-3
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
the services are being developed within a common architecture, and each service will be available as
it is completed. Ask WATERS generates cross-program calculations and provides insight into
overlaps between programs.
BASINS (Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources): A multipurpose
environmental analysis system that integrates a GIS, national watershed data, and state-of-the-art
environmental assessment and modeling tools into one convenient package.
environmental management systems (EMS)
A set of processes and practices that enable an organization to reduce its environmental impacts and
increase its operating efficiency.
estuarine management
Activities necessary to develop and implement Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans 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 thin zone along a coastline in which freshwater systems and rivers meet and mix with a salty ocean
(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 (NPS) pollution control
project. Although the term facility is typically construed as a wastewater treatment facility or some other
structure, for NPS pollution control, it refers to a place. The types of NPS pollution control projects vary
considerably, ranging from installing a pumpout system at a single marina to conducting countywide
conservation tillage projects on numerous farms. Data in the CWNS 2004 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.
January 2008
Glossary-4
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
ground water protection
Activities addressed in a State's ground water protection strategy that are a part of the Nonpoint 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 research,
planning, groundwater assessments, 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 municipal wastewater treatment facility, the portion of the facility in which equalization
of the influent wastewater occurs.
herbicide
A chemical substance designed to kill or inhibit the growth of plants, especially weeds.
hydromodification
Alteration of the hydrologic characteristics of coastal and noncoastal waters, which in turn could cause
degradation of water resources. In the case of streams, the process whereby a stream channel or bank is
eroded by flowing water. Hydromodification includes channelization and channel modification, dams,
and stream bank/shoreline erosion, which typically result in the suspension of sediments in the
watercourse. Needs to address water quality problems associated with hydromodifications are included in
Category VII-K. See Appendix F, Table F-2.
hypoxia
Oxygen deficiency in aquatic ecosystems, which is a symptom of eutrophication. Eutrophication is the
process in which a waterbody becomes rich in organic nutrients such as phosphorous and nitrogen from
runoff, treatment plant discharges and other sources, thereby promoting the excessive growth of algae.
The rapid growth of algae depletes the waterbody 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 sources such as drains, storm
sewers and other improper entries into the system (inflow). See Appendix F, Table F-l, Category III-A.
infrastructure improvement
An upgrade or replacement of wastewater collection and treatment structures and other CWNS-eligible
infrastructure.
January 2008
Glossary-5
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
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 F, Table F-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 Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)
Any pipe; ditch or gully; or system of pipes, ditches or gullies that is owned or operated by a government
entity and used for collecting and conveying stormwater and is not a POTW or a combined sewer.
Domestic, industrial and commercial sanitary sewage is collected and conveyed in systems separate from
MS4s.
Municipal Stormwater Management Plan
A plan that describes a proposed municipal stormwater management program as part of a municipality's
NPDES stormwater permit application. It includes a description of structural and source control measures
that are to be implemented to (1) reduce pollutants in runoff from commercial and residential areas that is
discharged from the storm sewer, (2) detect and remove illicit discharges and improper disposal into
storm sewers, (3) monitor pollutants in runoff from industrial facilities that discharge to municipal
separate storm sewers, (4) reduce pollutants in construction site runoff that is discharged to municipal
separate storm sewers, and (5) enhance municipal maintenance, public education and public involvement.
National Estuary Program
A program established by Congress under section 320 of the Clean Water Act in 1987 to improve the
quality of estuaries of national importance. For selected estuaries, the Administrator is to convene a
management conference to develop a comprehensive conservation and management plan for the estuary
recommending priority corrective actions to restore and maintain water quality of the estuary.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
The national program for issuing, modifying, revoking and reissuing, terminating, monitoring and
enforcing permits, and imposing and enforcing pretreatment requirements, under sections 307, 402, 318
and 405 of the Clean Water Act. This term includes State or interstate programs that have been approved
or authorized by EPA under section 402(b) of the Clean Water Act. See 40 C.F.R. §123.
need
A project that addresses a water quality or public health problem existing as of January 1, 2004, with
associated abatement costs.
January 2008
Glossary-6
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
nonpoint sources
Pollution sources that are diffuse and from which pollutants do not have a single point of origin or are not
introduced into a receiving stream from a specific outlet. The pollutants are generally carried off the land
by stormwater runoff. Nonpoint source (NFS) pollution may include runoff from agriculture, silviculture,
urban development, mining, construction, dams and channels, inappropriate land disposal of waste,
marinas and saltwater intrusion. See Appendix F, Table F-2, Category VII.
nutrient
An element or compound that is essential for growth and development of an organism; for example,
carbon, nitrogen or phosphorus.
onsite wastewater treatment system
Any combination of unit processes or best management practices designed to receive, treat and dispose of
wastewater from individual structures (homes, businesses and so forth). Some 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
Any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance from which pollutants are or may be discharged to
waters of the United States. The term point source does not include return flows from irrigated
agriculture or agricultural storm water runoff. Wastewater treatment plant outfalls and combined sewer
system overflow points of discharge are typical point sources.
primary treatment
The first major stage of wastewater treatment (i.e., after grit removal), which includes removal of floating
debris and solids by screening and sedimentation.
publicly owned treatment works (POTW)
A treatment facility, as defined in section 212 of the Clean Water Act, which is owned by a State or
municipality. A POTW includes any devices and systems used in the storage, treatment, recycling and
reclamation of municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature. It also includes sewers, pipes and
other conveyances only if they convey wastewater to a POTW treatment plant.
recycled water distribution
The costs associated with conveyance of the recycled water (wastewater reused after removal of waste
contributed by humans) and any associated rehabilitation or replacement needs. See Appendix F, Table F-
1, Category X.
January 2008
Glossary-7
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
redocumentation
The process by which documentation dated before 1994 supporting an individual facility's needs was
updated or revised for the CWNS 2004. Facilities with needs in excess of $20 million had to be updated
or revised as necessary by documentation dated January 1, 1998, or later. For nonpoint source needs, the
above cutoff dates were 1990 and 1994, respectively.
replacement/rehabilitation of sewers
Reinforcement or reconstruction of structurally deteriorating sewers (beyond normal maintenance). See
Appendix F, Table F-l, Category III-B.
riparian vegetation
Vegetation that is present on the banks of a river or stream or on the shore of a lake.
sanitary sewer
A municipal sewer designed to carry only domestic sanitary sewage and industrial wastes to a municipal
wastewater treatment plant.
sanitary sewer overflow (SSO)
A release of raw domestic sewage (and in some cases, pretreated industrial wastes) from a separate sewer
system before the sanitary wastewater reaches the municipal wastewater treatment facility.
secondary wastewater treatment
The minimum level of treatment that must be achieved for discharges from all municipal wastewater
treatment facilities except those facilities granted ocean discharge 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 produce an effluent quality of 30 mg/L of both 5-day biochemical oxygen
demand (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, although adjustments allowing lower
percentage removals are authorized in some circumstances. See Appendix F, Table F-l, Category I.
separate sewer system/sanitary sewer system
A sewer system designed to exclude stormwater and used to convey only domestic, industrial and
commercial sanitary wastewater (and in some cases, pretreated industrial wastes).
Separate State Estimates (SSE)
Costs that are not included in EPA's needs for the CWNS 2004 because the costs are justified with
documents other than the established documentation types or they have no written documentation. These
estimates are entered for States' purposes other than this Report, such as State level planning as well as
January 2008
Glossary-8
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
communication with State legislatures and other groups involved with addressing and preventing water
quality problems.
silviculture
The care and cultivation of forest trees (e.g., forestry). See Appendix F, Table F-2, 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.
stormwater
Storm water runoff, snowmelt runoff, and surface runoff and drainage. See Appendix F, Table F-l,
Category VI.
Sustainable Infrastructure Initiative
Initiative developed in response to the Gap Analysis and other recent 20-year estimations of wastewater
treatment needs to reduce the infrastructure funding gap. The program was developed using input from
industry, government and academia obtained at the January 2003 forum Closing the Gap: Innovative
Responses for Sustainable Water Infrastructure.
treatment facility
A structure designed to treat wastewater, stormwater or combined sewer overflows before their discharge
to the environment. Treatment is accomplished by subjecting the wastewater to a combination of physical,
chemical and 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 Stormwater Permit
Program. Includes runoff from construction activities occupying less than 1 acre. See Appendix F, Table
F-2, Category VII-D.
urbanized area (UA)
A densely settled territory that contains 50,000 or more people.
January 2008
Glossary-9
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
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 it 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 and/or the designated use
of the receiving water.
water quality criteria
Specific levels of water quality that, if achieved, are expected to render a body of water suitable for its
designated use. The criteria are based on specific levels of pollutants that would make the water
unsuitable for specific designated uses, such as drinking, swimming, farming, fish production or industrial
processes.
water quality standards
State-adopted and EPA-approved or EPA-promulgated ambient standards for waterbodies. Water quality
standards consist of a designated use, or goal, for a waterbody; criteria, which are narrative or numeric
levels or values necessary to support a particular use; and an antidegradation policy to protect existing
uses and high-quality waters.
water reuse
The reuse of wastewater after removal of waste contributed by humans.
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 waterbody.
watershed, hydrologic unit codes
The United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Territories (including the U.S.
Virgin Islands) are divided into 21 major 2-digit hydrologic unit codes or hydrologic regions. These 21
hydrologic regions are subdivided into 222 4-digit watersheds. The contiguous United States contains 204
4-digit watersheds. These 4-digit watersheds are further subdivided into 6- and 8-digit watersheds. In
some portions of the United States, further subdivision of 8-digit watersheds to the 10- and 12-digit levels
is available.
January 2008
Glossary-10
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
wetland protection
Activities to protect and restore wetlands that are an integral part of aNonpoint 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. Clean Water Act section 404,
which regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, is another
mechanism for protecting wetlands.
January 2008
Glossary-11
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
This page intentionally left blank
January 2008
Glossary-12
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
References
CBO (Congressional Budget Office). 2002. Future Investment in Drinking Water and Wastewater
Infrastructure. The Congress of the United States, Congressional Budget Office, Washington DC.
Culliton, T.J. 1998. Population: Distribution, Density and Growth. In State of the Coast Report. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD.
USDA(U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2004. 2004 Iowa Agricultural Statistics Bulletin. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, Iowa Filed Office, Des Moines, IA.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1994. Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. Fed. Register, 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). 1999. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
SystemRegulations for Revision of the Water Pollution Control Program Addressing Stormwater
Discharges. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. Fed. Register.,
Decembers, 1999, 64:68722.
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
Infrastructure 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. Recommendations for Clean and Safe Water in the 21st
Century. .
January 2008
References-1
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
This page intentionally left blank
January 2008
References-2
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Appendix A
Summary ofCWNS 2004 Cost Estimates
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
This page intentionally left blank
January 2008
-------
Tables A-1
A-1
Table A-1 summarizes by State the CWNS 2004 assessment of total needs for wastewater treatment and conveyance facilities,
storm water management programs and recycled water distribution. 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). Recycled water distribution (Category X) includes all
costs associated with the conveyance of recycled water (wastewater reuse after removal of waste contributed by humans) and any
associated rehabilitation/replacement costs criteria, which include the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program
project funding eligibility rules established under Title VI of the CWA. Needs estimates presented in Table A-1 might vary
slightly from those presented in Tables 2-1 and 2-2 and the text because of independent rounding.
Table A-1. CWNS 2004 Total Needs (January 2004 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
3,513
NR
6,107
408
20,503
2,240
2,598
134
2,030
12,900
2,351
2,085
463
13,405
5,867
955
2,061
2,842
3,327
854
5,872
3,158
6,015
3,638
993
4,840
540
1,328
I
113
NR
1,257
32
7,546
326
407
35
84
34
68
655
203
1,120
86
199
711
601
622
236
857
673
894
1,115
86
1,010
223
136
II
1,044
NR
1,131
122
3,993
1,446
803
27
454
4,596
110
38
80
148
126
96
160
55
128
12
2,159
27
33
28
165
13
36
99
III-A
162
NR
68
66
95
9
97
4
0
311
1,107
525
6
49
21
21
227
193
1,455
19
165
31
98
122
67
1,245
21
11
III-B
1,626
NR
392
2
3,477
157
47
11
176
960
23
491
37
1,615
180
85
25
227
410
50
868
72
317
429
286
414
80
24
IV-A
450
NR
869
71
715
93
193
31
0
1,752
3
101
46
174
53
26
59
785
325
128
481
300
297
89
213
180
103
28
IV-B
118
NR
850
115
2,091
95
212
5
0
1,392
18
162
72
199
28
99
415
773
387
32
480
250
42
935
176
519
77
82
V
0
NR
0
0
255
0
839
21
1,307
0
1,022
0
0
10,100
5,361
427
464
181
0
374
430
1,805
4,334
9
0
1,459
0
928
VI
0
NR
1,175
0
391
100
0
0
9
2,183
0
0
19
0
12
2
0
27
0
3
431
0
0
911
0
0
0
20
X Tot. I-V
0
NR
365
0
1,940
14
0
0
0
1,672
0
113
Oa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,513
NR
4,567
408
18,172
2,126
2,598
134
2,021
9,045
2,351
1,972
444
13,405
5,855
953
2,061
2,815
3,327
851
5,440
3,158
6,015
2,727
993
4,840
540
1,308
-------
Tables A-1
A-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
American Samoa
Guam
N. Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
304
570
9,315
160
21,841
5,100
50
11,761
1,047
2,949
7,196
1,166
713
67
1,037
8,488
581
167
4,710
3,939
2,541
3,893
189
NR
NR
NR
3,655
NR
202,466
7
136
2,902
70
11,232
311
4
1,503
243
922
781
83
199
17
202
1,584
174
43
672
1,883
348
948
99
NR
NR
NR
867
NR
44,559
117
33
431
5
700
1,651
0
409
56
535
294
87
369
12
26
581
64
39
1,698
35
11
92
8
NR
NR
NR
97
NR
24,479
0
8
340
Oa
68
281
0
1,950
0
17
348
16
4
0
220
326
2
1
124
133
152
89
25
NR
NR
NR
1
NR
10,300
10
59
755
39
2,415
281
9
209
278
553
151
63
19
3
129
1,017
66
8
687
280
38
1,413
1
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
20,964
26
20
616
27
696
1,107
0
856
74
19
822
224
63
35
80
908
113
42
488
170
726
399
50
NR
NR
NR
1,685
NR
16,811
86
53
332
19
145
1,419
37
546
197
3
143
52
44
0
95
1,221
144
7
529
732
482
317
5
NR
NR
NR
1,005
NR
17,237
0
261
3,772
0
6,563
3
0
6,284
0
834
4,639
636
0
0
285
0
0
27
512
515
767
406
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
54,820
11
0
94
0
22
1
0
4
199
61
18
5
15
Oa
0
2,839
0
0
0
179
14
229
1
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
8,975
47
0
73
0
0
46
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
12
18
0
0
12
3
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
4,321
246
570
9,148
160
21,819
5,053
50
11,757
848
2,883
7,178
1,161
698
67
1,037
5,637
563
167
4,710
3,748
2,524
3,664
188
NR
NR
NR
3,655
NR
189,170
Categories
I Secondary wastewater treatment IV-A New collector sewers and appurtenances
II Advanced wastewater treatment IV-B New interceptor sewers and appurtenances
III-A Infiltration/inflow correction V Combined sewer overflow correction
III-B Sewer replacement/rehabilitation VI Storm water management programs
X Recycled water distribution
Notes:
NR = not reported. Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS
2004. Arizona, California, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota did not have the resources to
complete the updating of their data. All other states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico completed more than 97 percent of the data entry
or had fewer than 10 facilities that were not updated.
Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
Table A-2
A-3
Table A-2 summarizes the CWNS 2004 assessment of other documented needs for NPS pollution control projects by State. These needs include
the capital investment necessary to implement activities in approved State NPS 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 CWNS
documentation and data criteria, which include the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program project funding eligibility rules
established under Title VI of the CWA.
Table A-2. CWNS 2004 Total Needs for NPS Pollution Control Projects (January 2004 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 lersey
New Mexico
New York
A
0
NR
7
75
40
0
7
0
0
10
0
0
68
35
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
274
61
38
0
0
0
0
2
1
53
B
0
NR
Oa
385
19
0
6
0
0
1
0
0
28
0
3
0
0
0
0
24
Oa
0
8
140
212
31
0
0
0
0
4
0
96
C
0
NR
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
Oa
0
0
0
0
44
0
0
11
0
13
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
111
D
0
NR
65
Oa
46
125
489
0
4
3,933
0
0
13
0
2
0
0
0
2
18
4
0
107
0
0
681
46
17
0
0
181
0
328
E
0
NR
5
0
359
0
0
0
0
2,635
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
547
0
0
502
2
706
F
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
7
G
0
NR
7
7
0
49
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
Oa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
0
H
0
NR
40
0
0
0
6
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
995
0
0
0
0
0
0
474
6
158
I
0
NR
32
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57
8
0
559
13
0
531
0
224
0
0
2
0
13
J
0
NR
28
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
149
6
0
105
0
25
0
13
0
8
1,026
0
624
K
0
NR
3
Oa
607
1
300
0
2
2,676
0
0
43
17
Oa
0
0
0
830
6
76
5
257
314
1,198
389
0
0
2
0
1,465
0
519
L
0
NR
3
0
5
2
228
0
0
18
0
0
Oa
Oa
769
52
0
0
0
19
8
0
2
1,017
79
1
0
24
0
1
67
0
22
Total
0
NR
190
471
1,076
177
1,036
0
10
9,285
0
0
162
52
778
52
0
1
832
168
245
11
980
2,858
1,563
1,703
46
825
2
9
3,724
9
2,637
-------
Table A-2
A-4
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
0
0
590
0
0
269
0
0
4
0
4
1
0
0
2
0
79
3
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
1,663
Oa
0
30
0
0
322
0
0
11
0
0
4
0
0
6
0
132
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
1,462
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
196
17
0
127
0
Oa
5,083
2
11
1
0
0
Oa
0
0
10
0
1,066
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
12,378
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
12
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
4,768
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
10
0
0
24
0
0
65
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
160
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
1,721
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
37
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
1,494
3
0
0
0
0
0
119
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
26
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
2,137
49
0
115
0
0
110
54
2
0
0
94
1
0
0
6
0
169
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
9,310
1
0
290
0
1
Oa
14
0
Oa
Oa
331
0
5
0
2
5
18
3
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
2,987
71
0
1,177
0
1
5,851
190
13
19
Oa
429
6
5
0
40
5
1,508
69
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
38,286
Categories
A Agriculture (cropland)
B Agriculture (animals)
C Silviculture
D Urban
E Ground water protection (unknown source)
F Marinas
G Resource extraction
H Brownfields
I Storage tanks
J Sanitary landfills
K Hydromodification
L Individual/decentralized sewage treatment
Notes:
NR = not reported. Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2004. Arizona,
California, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota did not have the resources to complete the updating of their data. All
other states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico completed more than 97 percent of the data entry or had fewer than 10 facilities that were not updated.
Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
Table A-3
A-5
Table A-3 provides a summary of all publicly owned small community wastewater treatment and collection facilities identified in the CWNS 2004 by State. For the purpose of
this table, wastewater treatment and collection facilities refer to centralized wastewater treatment plants, centralized wastewater collection systems, decentralized systems,
individual onsite 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 still include the costs for Category VII-L needs and
therefore vary slightly from those presented in Figure 2-7. Total in this table may vary from 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 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,
52 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.
Column 3 shows the projected small community population receiving centralized collection and the percentage of the total state population. The last column shows the projected
small community wastewater treatment and collection system documented needs as of January 1, 2004, and the respective percentage of the total CWNS 2004 wastewater
treatment and collection system documented needs.
Table A-3. CWNS 2004 Comparison of Small Community Facilities' Needs and Total Needs (January 2004 Dollars in Millions)
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
All Projected Small Community
Facilities
Number
151
NR
169
443
301
325
115
37
0
116
61
18
229
714
433
920
799
300
311
165
274
141
24
298
660
866
208
522
57
87
503
40
Percent
52
NR
63
83
43
72
52
67
0
28
52
53
83
68
76
91
92
75
74
77
76
52
32
78
88
83
89
94
63
66
61
56
Projected Small Community
Facilities With Documented Needs
Number Percent
114
NR
158
107
69
204
36
10
0
73
7
6
54
157
134
192
192
235
136
73
188
40
19
242
360
203
92
169
6
31
358
26
50
NR
63
84
25
75
29
59
0
24
30
29
67
44
61
81
76
72
62
63
70
31
28
78
87
72
79
91
26
47
58
55
Projected Small Community
Populations
Number Percent
305,749
NR
306,216
663,831
696,390
495,966
436,456
91,842
0
384,253
10
NR
4
26
2
10
17
11
0
2
180,450 3
79,913
259,759
1,585,004
1,665,837
849,013
871,720
599,723
558,030
421,299
310,340
526,137
81,455
1,091,692
822,226
982,667
234,988
429,856
104,273
308,479
1,582,516
97,502
6
19
12
35
30
31
15
14
50
7
10
1
27
30
16
28
28
5
39
18
6
Documented Needs for
Communities
$ Million
201
NR
440
170
353
408
252
51
0
Small
Percent
6
NR
9
42
2
19
9
38
0
370 3
8
41
164
732
1,064
231
283
673
216
262
671
195
79
1,443
413
305
218
171
75
75
573
40
<1
2
37
5
16
23
14
24
6
30
12
6
1
39
39
6
40
13
26
13
6
25
-------
Table A-3
A-6
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
1,100
440
0
1,050
437
209
1,626
14
92
11
223
1,629
193
84
286
222
625
907
120
NR
NR
NR
3
NR
18,558
75
56
0
77
86
73
80
29
45
79
65
73
52
74
69
55
91
85
74
NR
NR
NR
7
NR
74
318
196
0
466
73
49
401
9
31
11
52
429
22
36
149
55
238
489
74
NR
NR
NR
3
NR
6,792
59
53
0
71
82
63
73
26
40
79
47
67
20
60
61
39
84
77
75
NR
NR
NR
7
NR
63
2,825,600
783,772
0
1,425,458
589,033
394,802
3,446,528
64,923
239,645
18,311
501,433
3,635,461
162,404
207,489
556,134
472,553
780,204
1,248,271
135,906
NR
NR
NR
19,279
NR
34,530,788
17
13
0
14
20
11
32
8
6
3
11
13
5
51
7
7
49
26
20
NR
NR
NR
1
NR
12
1,119
835
0
991
78
188
1,503
95
71
17
72
772
35
64
672
220
1,431
729
94
NR
NR
NR
48
NR
19,211
5
16
0
8
9
7
21
8
10
25
7
13
6
37
14
6
57
20
49
NR
NR
NR
1
NR
10
Notes:
NR = not reported. Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2004. Arizona, California, Georgia,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota did not have the resources to complete the updating of their data. All other states, the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico completed more than 97 percent of the data entry or had fewer than 10 facilities that were not updated.
Individual onsite and decentralized systems might be reported at the county level and therefore a single facility might represent one or more communities that are considered
small communities for the purposes of the CWNS. As a result, it is likely that the number of small communities in these states are under-reported.
-------
Table A-4
A-7
Table A-4 provides the subset of Table A-3 data for the needs for small community facilities estimated to be serving populations in the range of
3,500 to 10,000 people if all documented needs are met.
Table A-4. CWNS 2004 Comparison of Small Community Facilities' Needs and Total Needs: Facilities Serving Populations of 3,500 to 10,000 People (January
2004 Dollars in Millions)
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana3
Iowa
Kansas3
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota3
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
All Projected Small Community
Facilities
Number
23
NR
24
56
70
42
55
13
0
47
21
12
22
146
101
45
55
60
51
42
27
66
7
93
71
78
17
21
9
40
206
9
301
69
0
115
43
34
360
Percent
8
NR
9
11
10
9
25
24
0
11
18
35
8
14
18
4
6
15
12
20
7
24
9
24
9
8
7
4
10
30
25
13
21
9
0
8
8
12
18
Projected Small Community
Facilities With Documented Needs
Number Percent
18
NR
23
18
13
26
21
5
0
26
8
NR
9
14
5
10
17
29
0
9
3 13
4
10
46
64
19
12
13
29
7 3
25
50
25
25
24
22
7
87
31
28
14
15
2
17
125
7
81
36
0
62
10
9
103
10
15
11
22
9
17
10
28
8
10
12
8
9
26
20
15
15
10
0
10
11
12
19
Projected Small Community
Populations
Number
125,802
NR
128,662
304,677
405,627
216,039
336,743
65,890
0
270,170
106,939
70,998
95,552
846,708
1,241,446
237,101
296,367
309,809
270,518
235,798
Percent
4
NR
2
12
1
4
13
8
0
1
2
6
7
6
26
8
10
8
7
28
152,224 3
412,674
53,686
825,191
378,838
391,953
86,680
119,945
8
1
21
14
6
10
8
51,041 3
245,201
1,272,678
51,224
1,636,338
358,270
0
603,952
227,981
196,241
1,900,783
31
14
3
10
6
0
6
8
5
18
Documented Needs for
Communities
$ Million
Small
Percent
33 1
NR
NR
164 3
27
7
87 <1
121
179
29
0
187
6
6
22
0
2
3 <1
33
73
2
16
410 3
839
20
132
259
76
86
239
13
2
6
9
2
10
4
87 3
20 <1
1,011
91
92
93
56
46
62
351
22
398
232
0
275
14
49
493
27
8
2
17
4
16
11
4
14
2
5
0
2
2
2
7
-------
Table A-4
A-8
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
9
29
1
44
378
15
22
54
48
70
94
9
NR
NR
NR
2
NR
3,226
19
14
7
13
17
4
19
13
12
10
9
6
NR
NR
NR
5
NR
13
5
9
1
11
108
7
13
30
12
44
71
9
NR
NR
NR
2
NR
1,411
14
12
7
10
17
6
22
12
9
15
11
9
NR
NR
NR
5
NR
13
59,279
151,178
3,879
257,806
2,004,565
7
4
1
6
7
97,774 3
113,585
278,884
267,946
306,444
537,272
48,166
NR
NR
NR
16,637
NR
18,673,161
28
4
4
19
11
7
NR
NR
NR
1
NR
6
76
29
8
21
390
8
41
212
104
555
198
33
NR
NR
NR
30
NR
8,094
7
4
12
2
7
1
24
5
3
22
5
17
NR
NR
NR
1
NR
4
Notes:
NR = not reported. Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2004. Arizona, California, Georgia,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota did not have the resources to complete the updating of their data. All other states, the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico completed more man 97 percent of the data entry or had fewer than 10 facilities mat were not updated.
a
Individual onsite and decentralized systems might be reported at the county level and therefore a single facility might represent one or more communities that are considered
small communities for the purposes of the CWNS. As a result, it is likely mat the number of small communities in these states are under-reported. Also, county-level facilities
serving more than 10,000 people are included in mis table.
-------
Table A-5
A-9
Table A-5 provides the subset of Table A-3 data for the needs for small community facilities estimated to be serving populations in the range of
1,000 to 3,500 people if all documented needs are met.
Table A-5. CWNS 2004 Comparison of Small Community Facilities' Needs and Total Needs: Facilities Serving Populations of 1,000 to 3,500 People (January
2004 Dollars in Millions)
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
Minnesota3
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska3
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
All Projected Small Community
Facilities
Number
82
NR
62
151
118
109
42
10
0
51
30
5
66
308
177
196
211
119
122
80
53
45
13
99
155
208
57
109
22
26
129
20
530
175
0
313
137
83
Percent
28
NR
23
28
17
24
19
18
0
12
25
15
24
29
31
19
24
30
29
37
15
17
17
26
21
20
24
20
24
20
16
28
36
22
0
23
27
29
Projected Small Community
Facilities With Documented Needs
Number Percent
64
NR
60
47
33
74
9
3
0
33
28
NR
24
37
12
27
7
18
0
11
3 13
2
24
69
46
79
62
99
58
38
44
15
8
81
90
48
34
60
4
8
86
11
152
85
0
139
23
25
10
30
20
21
33
24
30
26
33
16
12
12
26
22
17
29
32
17
12
14
23
28
23
0
21
26
32
Projected Small Community
Populations
Number Percent
149,201
NR
141,782
259,349
240,295
210,608
89,032
21,075
0
5
NR
2
10
1
4
4
2
0
102,664 <1
66,206
8,515
108,835
585,165
330,364
346,593
397,073
223,283
223,063
167,267
102,505
94,506
1
1
8
4
7
12
14
6
5
20
2
2
26,275 <1
207,423
280,828
382,079
102,083
181,245
43,796
54,423
5
10
6
12
12
2
7
276,496 3
40,586
1,051,420
329,600
0
581,033
248,707
155,565
2
6
5
0
6
9
4
Documented Needs for
Communities
$ Million
Small
Percent
122 3
NR
NR
170 3
92
197
184
49
16
0
156
23
1
9
2
12
0
1
3 <1
7 <1
41
242
184
123
79
247
77
140
215
9
2
3
12
4
9
2
16
4
105 3
54
264
150
99
81
73
28
10
1
7
14
2
15
5
10
2
168 2
13
503
341
0
8
2
7
0
371 3
38
4
94 3
-------
Table A-5
A-10
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
658
4
40
5
103
692
8
41
122
83
187
273
34
NR
NR
NR
1
NR
6,364
32
8
20
36
30
31
2
36
29
21
27
26
21
NR
NR
NR
2
NR
25
135
4
8
5
29
186
4
18
59
27
93
180
21
NR
NR
NR
1
NR
2,486
24
11
10
36
26
29
4
30
24
19
33
28
21
NR
NR
NR
2
NR
23
1,250,475
5,194
81,186
12,353
199,177
1,345,946
12
1
2
2
4
5
14,788 <1
81,027
20
227,502 3
157,398
323,841
493,041
62,561
NR
NR
NR
2
20
10
9
NR
NR
NR
2,642 <1
NR
12,086,071
NR
4
643
18
29
7
40
291
9
17
263
90
552
303
30
NR
NR
NR
9
2
4
10
4
5
2
10
6
2
22
8
16
NR
NR
NR
18 <1
NR
7,046
NR
4
Notes:
NR = not reported. Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2004. Arizona, California, Georgia,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota did not have the resources to complete the updating of their data. All other states, the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico completed more than 97 percent of the data entry or had fewer than 10 facilities mat were not updated.
Individual onsite and decentralized systems might be reported at the county level and therefore a single facility might represent one or more communities that are considered
small communities for the purposes of the CWNS. As a result, it is likely mat the number of small communities in these states are under-reported.
-------
Table A-6
A-11
Table A-6 provides the subset of Table A-3 data for the needs for small community facilities estimated to be serving populations of fewer than 1,000
people if all documented needs are met.
Table A-6. CWNS 2004 Comparison of Small Community Facilities' Needs and Total Needs: Facilities Serving Populations of Fewer Than 1,000 People
(January 2004 Dollars in Millions)
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
Oklahoma
Oregon
All Projected Small Community
Facilities
Number
46
NR
83
236
113
174
18
14
0
18
10
1
141
260
155
679
533
121
138
43
194
30
4
106
434
580
134
392
26
21
168
11
269
196
0
622
257
92
Percent
16
NR
31
44
16
38
8
25
0
4
8
3
51
25
27
67
61
30
33
20
54
11
5
28
58
56
57
71
29
16
21
15
18
25
0
45
50
32
Projected Small Community
Facilities With Documented Needs
Number Percent
32
NR
75
42
23
104
6
2
0
14
1
0
20
42
24
106
105
86
53
10
120
3
4
74
239
127
44
94
0
6
147
8
85
75
0
265
40
15
14
NR
30
33
8
38
5
12
0
5
4
0
25
12
11
45
41
26
24
9
45
2
6
24
58
45
38
51
0
9
24
17
16
20
0
41
45
19
Projected Small Community
Populations
Number Percent
30,746
NR
1
NR
35,772 <1
99,805
4
50,468 <1
69,319
1
10,681 <1
4,877
0
1
0
11,419 <1
7,305 <1
400 <1
55,372
153,131
94,027
265,319
178,280
66,631
64,449
18,234
55,611
4
1
2
10
6
2
2
2
1
18,957 <1
1,494 <1
59,078
162,560
208,635
46,225
128,666
1
6
3
6
8
9,436 <1
8,855
1
33,342 <1
5,692 <1
137,842
95,902
0
240,473
112,345
42,996
1
2
0
2
4
1
Documented Needs for
Communities
$ Million
44
NR
105
53
69
104
26
6
0
Small
Percent
1
NR
2
13
<1
5
1
4
0
29 <1
1 <1
0
50
82
43
88
73
166
65
37
216
0
11
1
1
9
4
6
2
4
4
2 <1
6 <1
171
173
117
45
5
16
2
8
41 3
0
3
53
5
218
262
0
0
1
1
3
1
5
0
344 3
26
44
3
2
-------
Table A-6
A-12
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
608
1
23
5
76
559
170
21
110
91
368
540
77
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
8,968
30
2
11
36
22
25
46
18
26
23
53
51
48
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
36
163
0
14
5
12
135
11
5
60
16
101
238
44
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
2,895
29
0
18
36
11
21
10
8
24
11
36
37
44
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
27
295,270 3
450 <1
7,281 <1
2,079 <1
44,450
284,950
49,842
12,877
49,748
47,209
149,919
217,958
25,179
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
3,771,556
1
1
2
3
1
1
9
5
4
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
1
366
0
12
2
13
93
19
5
0
2
3
1
2
3
6 3
197
25
325
230
30
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
4,085
4
1
13
6
16
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
2
Notes:
NR = not reported. Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2004. Arizona, California, Georgia,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota did not have the resources to complete the updating of their data. All other states, the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico completed more than 97 percent of the data entry or had fewer than 10 facilities mat were not updated.
Individual onsite and decentralized systems might be reported at the county level and therefore a single facility might represent one or more communities that are considered
small communities for the purposes of the CWNS.
-------
Tables A-7
A-13
Table A-7 a summarizes the CWNS 2004 assessment of total needs for small communities by State for wastewater treatment and
collection facilities (Categories I through V) and Recycled Water Distribution (Category X). Tables A-8a, A-9a, and A-lOa
provide further breakdown of small community information based on different population ranges.
Table A-7a. CWNS 2004 Total Small Community Needs (January 2004 Dollars in Millions)
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
Need
201
NR
438
170
348
406
212
51
0
370
8
41
164
732
295
179
283
673
216
243
663
195
77
451
354
304
218
147
75
74
513
40
Percent of
T«*-ol IT ^
Need
0.1
NR
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
<0.1
0
0.2
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.1
<0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
Category of Need
I
16
NR
61
10
145
169
42
4
0
4
1
17
71
128
27
87
94
136
34
87
114
18
20
192
53
83
101
61
0
32
44
8
II
21
NR
75
25
32
67
27
11
0
132
3
10
1
23
6
33
20
12
35
5
163
3
0
7
17
6
3
34
25
8
56
Oa
III-A
30
NR
20
20
5
5
6
2
0
16
Oa
0
5
17
5
5
25
30
15
15
36
2
2
53
39
4
10
3
0
1
59
Oa
III-B
55
NR
5
1
49
37
2
-\
5
0
24
0
3
13
18
7
14
o
5
oo
JJ
24
13
59
26
4
64
41
19
38
10
0
9
167
11
IV-A
72
NR
225
60
86
73
79
31
0
164
2
11
33
105
46
17
27
376
73
50
137
127
29
56
158
144
43
26
5
8
125
17
IV-B
7
NR
51
54
29
54
56
0
0
28
2
0
41
32
11
4
114
86
35
19
116
19
0
79
46
48
23
13
45
16
55
4
V
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
409
193
19
0
0
0
54
38
0
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
X
0
NR
1
0
2
1
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
Tot. I-V
201
NR
437
170
346
405
212
51
0
368
8
41
164
732
295
179
283
673
216
243
663
195
77
451
354
304
218
147
75
74
511
40
-------
Tables A-7
A-14
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
1,098
835
0
970
78
187
1,503
83
71
17
72
688
35
62
672
220
1,428
711
91
NR
NR
NR
48
NR
17,010
0.5
0.4
0
0.5
<0.1
0.1
0.7
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.3
<0.1
<0.1
0.3
0.1
0.7
0.4
<0.1
NR
NR
NR
<0.1
NR
8.4
297
68
0
169
33
104
207
31
5
11
20
152
7
17
131
106
161
232
31
NR
NR
NR
36
NR
3,677
33
64
0
63
22
3
55
1
13
0
1
43
0
11
89
Oa
7
25
1
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
1,291
30
54
0
39
0
7
23
Oa
Oa
0
16
50
0
0
13
20
29
31
11
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
753
105
63
0
8
12
61
34
7
o
5
o
5
o
5
60
1
6
21
31
13
147
1
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
1,331
424
386
0
318
11
12
741
36
37
o
J
29
225
9
23
293
25
635
227
42
NR
NR
NR
9
NR
5,890
62
194
0
143
0
Oa
100
8
13
0
o
5
157
18
5
125
20
423
49
5
NR
NR
NR
o
5
NR
2,415
147
0
0
230
0
0
343
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
157
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
1,635
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
18
1,098
829
0
970
78
187
1,503
83
71
17
72
687
35
62
672
220
1,425
711
91
NR
NR
NR
48
NR
16,992
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
X Recycled water distribution
VII-L Individual/decentralized sewage
treatment
Notes:
NR = not reported. Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS
2004. Arizona, California, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota did not have the resources to
complete the updating of their data. All other states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico completed more than 97 percent of the data entry
or had fewer than 10 facilities that were not updated.
a
Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
Table A-7b summarizes the CWNS 2004 assessment of total other documented needs for small communities by State for
Individual/Decentralized Sewage Treatment (Category VII-L), Tables A-8b, A-9b, and A-lOb provide further breakdown of small
community information based on different population ranges.
-------
Tables A-7 A-15
Table A-7b. CWNS 2004 Total Other Documented Small Community Needs (January 2004 Dollars in Millions)
Category of Need
State VII-L
Alabama 0_
Alaska NR
Arizona 2_
Arkansas 0_
California 5_
Colorado 2_
Connecticut 40
Delaware 0_
District of Columbia 0_
Florida 0_
Georgia 0_
Hawaii 0_
Idaho Oa
Illinois Oa
Indianab 769
Iowa 52_
Kansas 0_
Kentucky 0_
Louisiana 0_
Maine 19_
Maryland 8_
Massachusetts 0_
Michigan 2_
Minnesotab 992
Mississippi 59
Missouri 1_
Montana 0_
Nebraskab 24_
Nevada 0_
New Hampshire 1_
New Jersey 60
New Mexico 0
-------
Tables A-7 A-16
New York 21
North Carolina 0
North Dakota 0
Ohio 21
Oklahoma 0
Oregon 1
Pennsylvania Oa
Rhode Island 12
South Carolina 0
South Dakota Oa
Tennessee Oa
Texas 84
Utah 0
Vermont 2
Virginia 0
Washington Oa
West Virginia 3
Wisconsin 18
Wyoming 3
American Samoa NR
Guam NR
N. Mariana Islands NR
Puerto Rico 0
Virgin Islands NR
Total 2,201
Notes:
NR = not reported. Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS
2004. Arizona, California, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota did not have the resources to
complete the updating of their data. All other states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico completed more than 97 percent of the data entry
or had fewer than 10 facilities that were not updated.
a
Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
b
Individual onsite and decentralized systems might be reported at the county level and therefore a single facility might represent one or more
communities that are considered small communities for the purposes of the CWNS.
-------
Tables A-8
A-17
Table A-8a provides the subset of Table A-7a 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-8a. CWNS 2004 Total Small Community Needs: Facilities Serving Populations of 3,500 to 10,000 People
(January 2004 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
Total
33
NR
164
27
87
121
142
29
0
187
3
33
73
410
70
20
132
259
76
81
239
87
18
114
85
92
93
47
46
62
334
I
4
NR
27
2
31
45
26
2
0
4
0
12
38
55
2
6
33
42
10
29
29
5
9
47
2
29
35
8
0
27
31
II
4
NR
32
7
15
34
20
4
0
57
3
10
0
16
3
6
7
1
12
5
66
1
0
4
12
2
2
18
10
8
25
m-A
i
NR
19
7
0
Oa
2
2
0
11
0
0
5
9
2
0
4
15
2
6
13
1
2
20
11
2
1
Oa
0
1
39
m-B
7
NR
1
1
13
8
1
3
0
15
0
3
3
10
1
4
Oa
20
8
5
40
0
3
22
20
8
14
Oa
0
7
128
IV-A
15
NR
74
5
28
19
55
18
0
83
Oa
8
7
4
14
0
4
153
25
12
39
67
3
12
30
33
26
17
4
5
66
IV-B
2
NR
10
5
0
15
38
0
0
15
0
0
20
16
5
4
84
28
19
7
37
13
0
9
10
18
15
4
32
14
43
V
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
300
43
0
0
0
0
17
15
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
0
NR
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Tot. I-V
33
NR
163
27
87
121
142
29
0
185
3
33
73
410
70
20
132
259
76
81
239
87
18
114
85
92
93
47
46
62
332
-------
Tables A-8
A-18
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
22
392
232
0
273
14
49
493
75
29
8
21
322
8
41
212
104
555
198
33
NR
NR
NR
30
NR
6,275
4
104
4
0
39
8
21
60
28
5
8
2
65
Oa
7
58
45
72
73
15
NR
NR
NR
22
NR
1,230
Oa
5
20
0
16
2
1
36
0
9
0
0
23
0
11
40
0
5
5
1
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
558
0
13
16
0
14
0
1
12
0
Oa
0
7
28
0
0
5
4
6
12
4
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
297
5
25
34
0
3
4
23
21
4
Oa
0
3
30
1
4
10
18
3
54
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
587
9
151
99
0
68
0
3
165
35
15
0
8
100
1
17
57
9
250
45
11
NR
NR
NR
6
NR
1,875
4
23
57
0
35
0
0
44
8
0
0
1
76
6
2
42
10
168
9
2
NR
NR
NR
2
NR
952
0
71
0
0
98
0
0
155
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
51
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
769
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
7
22
392
230
0
273
14
49
493
75
29
8
21
322
8
41
212
104
555
198
33
NR
NR
NR
30
NR
6,268
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
X Recycled water distribution
Notes:
NR = not reported. Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands did not participate in
the CWNS 2004. Arizona, California, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota did not
have the resources to complete the updating of their data. All other states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico completed
more than 97 percent of the data entry or had fewer than 10 facilities that were not updated.
Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
Tables A-8 A-19
Table A-8b provides the subset of Table A-7b data for the other documented needs for small community facilities
estimated to be serving populations in the range of 3,500 to 10,000 people.
Table A-8b. OWNS 2004 Total Other Documented Small Community Needs: Facilities Serving Populations of 3,500
to 10,000 People (January 2004 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
Nebraska15
vn-L
0
NR
0
0
0
0
37
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
769
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
2
897
6
0
0
9
-------
Tables A-8 A-20
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico _
New York 6_
North Carolina Q_
North Dakota Q_
Ohio 2_
Oklahoma Q_
Oregon _
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island _
South Carolina Q_
South Dakota Q_
Tennessee _
Texas ^_
Utah ^_
Vermont
Virginia _
Washington _
West Virginia _
Wisconsin _
Wyoming _
American Samoa NR
Guam NR
N. Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
NR
NR
Notes:
NR = not reported. Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands did not participate in
the CWNS 2004. Arizona, California, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota did not
have the resources to complete the updating of their data. All other states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico completed
more than 97 percent of the data entry or had fewer than 10 facilities that were not updated.
Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
Individual onsite and decentralized systems might be reported at the county level and therefore a single facility might represent
one or more communities that are considered small communities for the purposes of the CWNS. County-level facilities serving
more than 10,000 people are included in this table.
-------
Tables A-9
A-21
Table A-9a provides the subset of Table A-7a 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-9a. CWNS 2004 Total Small Community Needs: Facilities Serving Populations of 1,000 to 3,500 People
(January 2004 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
Total
122
NR
170
92
197
184
49
16
0
156
3
7
41
242
184
102
79
247
77
131
215
105
54
172
131
99
81
60
28
10
154
I
8
NR
22
4
83
82
14
2
0
0
1
5
20
51
17
51
36
54
10
38
45
11
8
80
21
28
43
28
0
3
8
II
12
NR
28
14
14
19
4
7
0
64
0
0
1
7
2
20
13
7
16
0
80
3
0
2
3
3
0
14
15
1
31
m-A
26
NR
Oa
12
Oa
2
2
0
0
5
Oa
0
Oa
8
2
3
18
10
9
9
14
1
0
14
21
2
4
1
0
0
18
m-B
35
NR
4
Oa
30
26
0
0
0
7
0
0
6
7
3
7
2
7
11
5
16
25
0
21
16
10
14
4
0
2
37
IV-A
38
NR
91
33
45
28
17
7
0
70
1
2
6
63
21
2
5
135
21
32
27
59
25
29
56
44
13
5
Oa
2
49
IV-B
3
NR
25
29
24
26
12
0
0
9
1
0
8
10
5
Oa
5
34
10
11
10
6
0
26
14
12
7
8
13
2
6
V
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
96
134
19
0
0
0
36
23
0
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
X
0
NR
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tot. I-V
122
NR
170
92
196
183
49
16
0
155
3
7
41
242
184
102
79
247
77
131
215
105
54
172
131
99
81
60
28
10
154
-------
Tables A-9
A-22
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
13
503
341
0
365
38
93
643
7
29
7
40
277
9
17
263
90
552
301
30
NR
NR
NR
18
NR
6,844
3
147
39
0
74
14
69
89
3
Oa
1
12
64
2
8
55
49
71
100
8
NR
NR
NR
14
NR
1,595
Oa
23
34
0
27
17
2
13
1
4
0
1
19
0
1
44
Oa
2
11
Oa
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
579
Oa
14
22
0
17
0
6
10
Oa
0
0
8
16
0
0
6
11
16
14
6
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
327
6
35
21
0
3
6
15
10
2
2
3
0
28
0
1
2
10
7
65
Oa
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
511
4
205
145
0
90
1
1
316
1
10
3
17
84
2
5
108
11
212
95
15
NR
NR
NR
3
NR
2,254
Oa
22
76
0
41
0
0
31
0
13
0
2
65
5
2
48
9
135
16
1
NR
NR
NR
1
NR
783
0
57
0
0
113
0
0
174
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
106
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
784
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
11
13
503
337
0
365
38
93
643
7
29
7
40
276
9
17
263
90
549
301
30
NR
NR
NR
18
NR
6,833
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
X Recycled water distribution
Notes:
NR = not reported. Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands did not participate in
the CWNS 2004. Arizona, California, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota did not
have the resources to complete the updating of their data. All other states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico completed
more than 97 percent of the data entry or had fewer than 10 facilities that were not updated.
Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
Tables A-9 A-23
Table A-9b provides the subset of Table A-7b data for the other documented needs for small community facilities
estimated to be serving populations in the range of 1,000 to 3,500 people.
Table A-9b. CWNS 2004 Total Other Documented Small Community Needs: Facilities Serving Populations of 1,000
to 3,500 People (January 2004 Dollars in Millions)
Category of Need
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana15
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota15
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
vn-L
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
21
0
0
0
9
0
0
Oa
92
19
0
0
13
0
-------
Tables A-9 A-24
New Hampshire Oa
New Jersey 14
New Mexico 0
New York Oa
North Carolina 0
North Dakota 0
Ohio 6
Oklahoma 0
Oregon 1
Pennsylvania 0
Rhode Island 11
South Carolina 0
South Dakota 0
Tennessee 0
Texas 14
Utah 0
Vermont 0
Virginia 0
Washington Oa
West Virginia 0
Wisconsin 2
Wyoming 0
American Samoa NR
Guam NR
N. Mariana Islands NR
Puerto Rico 0
Virgin Islands NR
Total 202
Notes:
NR = not reported. Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands did not participate in
the CWNS 2004. Arizona, California, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota did not
have the resources to complete the updating of their data. All other states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico completed
more than 97 percent of the data entry or had fewer than 10 facilities that were not updated.
Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
Individual onsite and decentralized systems might be reported at the county level and therefore a single facility might represent
one or more communities that are considered small communities for the purposes of the CWNS.
-------
Tables A-10
A-25
Table A-lOa provides the subset of Table A-7a data for the needs for small community facilities estimated to be serving
populations of fewer than 1,000 people.
Table A-lOa. CWNS 2004 Total Small Community Needs: Facilities Serving Populations of Fewer Than 1,000 People
(January 2004 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
Total
44
NR
103
53
64
102
23
6
0
29
1
0
50
82
43
56
73
166
65
32
208
2
6
168
138
116
45
40
0
2
25
I
o
3
NR
12
5
31
42
3
0
0
0
0
0
13
23
8
30
25
40
14
21
40
1
3
65
30
26
23
25
0
2
6
II
4
NR
14
4
3
15
3
0
0
11
0
0
0
1
2
7
1
4
7
0
17
0
0
1
2
2
1
2
0
0
0
III-A
o
3
NR
0
1
5
2
2
0
0
Oa
0
0
Oa
0
2
2
o
3
4
4
0
9
Oa
0
20
7
Oa
5
2
0
Oa
2
III-B
12
NR
Oa
Oa
6
3
1
0
0
2
0
0
4
1
3
3
1
6
6
3
4
1
1
21
5
2
10
5
0
0
2
IV-A
20
NR
60
22
13
26
8
6
0
12
0
0
20
38
11
14
18
88
28
6
70
Oa
2
16
72
67
5
4
0
0
9
IV-B
2
NR
17
21
5
13
6
0
0
4
1
0
13
5
1
Oa
25
24
6
1
68
0
0
45
22
19
1
2
0
0
6
V
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
16
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
0
NR
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
Oa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tot. I-V
44
NR
103
53
63
101
23
6
0
29
1
0
50
82
43
56
73
166
65
32
208
2
6
168
138
116
45
40
0
2
25
-------
Tables A-10
A-26
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
5
203
262
0
331
26
44
366
0
12
2
13
91
19
4
197
25
322
214
27
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
3,905
1
46
25
0
57
11
13
58
0
0
2
7
23
6
1
18
12
18
59
8
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
856
0
5
10
0
20
3
0
5
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
5
0
Oa
10
Oa
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
161
Oa
3
16
0
7
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
6
0
0
2
5
7
5
1
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
129
Oa
44
8
0
2
2
22
3
0
0
0
0
2
Oa
1
8
2
4
28
1
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
229
4
68
142
0
159
10
9
260
0
12
Oa
4
41
6
1
128
5
173
88
16
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
1,761
0
17
61
0
67
0
Oa
24
0
0
0
0
17
7
1
36
1
120
24
1
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
683
0
20
0
0
19
0
0
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
84
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
2
5
203
262
0
331
26
44
366
0
12
2
13
91
19
4
197
25
322
214
27
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
3,903
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
X Recycled water distribution
Notes
NR = not reported. Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS
2004. Arizona, California, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota did not have the resources to
complete the updating of their data. All other states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico completed more than 97 percent of the data
entry or had fewer than 10 facilities that were not updated.
a
Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
Tables A-10 A-27
Table A-lOb provides the subset of Table A-7b data for the other documented needs for small community facilities estimated to
be serving populations of fewer than 1,000 people.
Table A-lOb. CWNS 2004 Total Other Documented Small Community Needs: Facilities Serving Populations of Fewer Than
1,000 People (January 2004 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
VII-L
0
NR
2
0
5
2
o
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
32
0
0
0
5
Maryland %
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
0
0
o
5
35
1
0
1
0
1
-------
Tables A-10 A-28
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Guam
N. Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
15
Pennsylvania
Tennessee _
^
Texas _ _
Utah _ ^_
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
O
West Virginia
Wisconsin
O
Wyoming _
NT?
American Samoa
NR
NR
Total _ 180 _
Notes
NR = not reported. Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS
2004. Arizona, California, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota did not have the resources to
complete the updating of their data. All other states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico completed more than 97 percent of the data
entry or had fewer than 10 facilities that were not updated.
a
Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
b
Individual onsite and decentralized systems might be reported at the county level and therefore a single facility might represent one or
more communities that are considered small communities for the purposes of the CWNS.
-------
Table A-11
A-29
Table A-1 1 summarizes the total SSEs, 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 2004 or had no written documentation. The SSEs are optional and are in addition to the documented needs.
Table A-ll. CWNS 2004 Total Separate State Estimates (January 2004 Dollars in Millions)
Category of SSE
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
Oklahoma
Oregon
Total
4
NR
432
0
1,274
66
65
49
0
0
285
0
0
19
42
11,159
3,648
0
30
42
791
11
39
629
35
22
2
3
0
0
11,077
58
1,001
672
0
83
3
5
I
0
NR
41
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
4
12
0
0
0
13
4
243
0
0
130
3
10
1
1
0
0
637
47
15
21
0
23
0
3
II
0
NR
34
0
12
0
0
0
0
Oa
239
0
0
2
4
0
0
0
0
0
137
0
0
12
14
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
185
0
8
2
Oa
III-A
0
NR
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
5
8
0
Oa
0
7
7
9
1
17
11
4
0
1
0
0
0
3
6
0
9
0
1
0
0
III-B
4
NR
1
0
195
0
1
49
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
2
0
87
1
0
26
5
0
Oa
0
0
0
168
0
44
28
0
22
0
2
IV-A
0
NR
4
0
0
0
31
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
Oa
2
18
144
3
0
19
1
7
Oa
0
0
0
68
2
4
265
0
8
0
0
IV-B
0
NR
5
0
145
0
11
0
0
0
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
6
9
93
6
3
24
8
1
Oa
Oa
0
0
10
3
0
164
0
Oa
1
0
V
0
NR
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
397
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
VI
0
NR
339
0
892
66
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
0
0
0
48
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
147
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
VII
0
NR
Oa
0
7
0
22
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
18
11,159
3,613
0
0
4
30
0
19
391
0
4
0
2
0
0
9,531
0
933
0
0
21
0
0
VIII
0
NR
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
0
0
78
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
IX
0
NR
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
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
0
NR
8
0
2
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
Oa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Tot. I-V
4
NR
85
0
373
0
43
49
0
Oa
285
0
0
19
24
0
Oa
Oa
30
38
713
11
20
222
35
18
2
1
0
0
1,313
58
63
672
0
62
3
5
-------
Table A-11
A-30
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
131
186
5
21
0
233
248
26
6,542
94
887
250
24
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
40,193
53
0
0
0
0
48
61
3
0
0
114
75
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
1,599
15
0
5
0
0
0
83
13
0
0
6
4
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
805
1
Oa
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
7
Oa
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
101
6
4
0
0
0
0
23
0
0
0
4
45
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
722
21
144
0
0
0
10
38
0
0
0
273
67
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
1,133
14
22
Oa
0
0
Oa
42
0
0
0
224
7
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
824
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
13
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
423
0
0
0
21
0
173
0
0
0
94
0
42
24
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
1,897
18
16
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
6,542
0
246
10
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
32,586
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
85
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
10
113
170
5
0
0
58
248
26
0
0
641
198
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
5,607
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 Projects
VIII Confined animals-point source
IX Mining-point source
X Recycled water distribution
XI Estuary management
NR = not reported. Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2004. Arizona, California,
Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota did not have the resources to complete the updating of their data. All other states, the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico completed more than 97 percent of the data entry or had fewer than 10 facilities that were not updated.
Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
TableA-12
A-31
Table A-12 summarizes CWNS 2004 SSEs for NFS-related activities.
Table A-12. CWNS 2004 Total Separate State Estimates for NFS Pollution Control Projects (January
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
A
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
11,145
1,911
0
0
0
0
0
1
94
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,338
0
12
0
0
B
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
0
14
831
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
72
0
0
0
0
0
0
75
0
0
0
0
c
0
NR
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
129
0
0
0
0
D
0
NR
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
5,363
0
500
0
0
Other
E
0
NR
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
2,272
0
0
0
0
2004 Dollars in Millions)
Documented Category of SSE
F
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
H
0
NR
Oa
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
58
0
0
0
0
I
0
NR
Oa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
276
0
0
0
0
J
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
Oa
0
0
K
0
NR
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
373
0
0
0
0
0
15
200
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
421
0
0
L
0
NR
0
0
0
0
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
498
0
0
4
2
0
0
Oa
0
4
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
0
0
0
Total
0
NR
Oa
0
7
0
22
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
18
11,159
3,613
0
0
4
30
0
19
391
0
4
0
2
0
0
9,531
0
933
0
0
-------
TableA-12
A-32
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
3
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
410
0
3
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
14,935
2
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
187
0
14
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
1,204
Oa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
131
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,796
0
97
7
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
11,782
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
2,272
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
10
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
59
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
290
0
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
74
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
77
0
2
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
1,096
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
70
0
130
3
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
733
21
0
0
18
16
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
6,542
0
246
10
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
32,586
Categories
A Agriculture (cropland)
B Agriculture (animals)
C Silviculture
D Urban
E Ground water protection (unknown source)
F Marinas
G Resource extraction
H Brownfields
I Storage tanks
J Sanitary landfills
K Hydromodification
L Individual/decentralized sewage treatment
NR = not reported. Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2004. Arizona,
California, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota did not have the resources to complete the updating of their data. All
other states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico completed more than 97 percent of the data entry or had fewer than 10 facilities that were not updated.
Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
TableA-13
A-33
Table A-l 3 summarizes the SSEs for small communities. These needs are shown by category of need in each State and U.S. Territory.
needs are optional and are in addition to the documented needs.
Table A-13. OWNS 2004 Total Separate State Estimates for Small Community Facilities (January 2004 Dollars in Millions)
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Fouisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota11
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska11
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
]
Total
Need
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
5
0
498
0
1
36
29
0
0
85
27
10
1
1
0
0
32
0
3
68
3ercent of
r«*-ii TT s
SSEs
0
NR
0
0
<0.1
0
0
0
0
<0.1
<0.1
0
0
<0.1
<0.1
0
1
<0.1
<0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0
0
0
0
<0.1
0
The SSE
Category of SSE
I
0
NR
0
0
Oa
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
0
Oa
2
0
0
0
Oa
4
4
0
0
38
1
4
Oa
1
0
0
9
0
0
5
II
0
NR
0
0
Oa
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
13
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
III-A
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
0
0
2
0
Oa
0
0
2
0
0
0
7
3
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
III-B
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
14
5
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
1
IV-A
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Oa
1
17
13
0
0
11
1
1
Oa
0
0
0
9
0
3
47
IV-B
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
Oa
9
9
0
0
7
4
1
Oa
Oa
0
0
1
0
0
13
V
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
VII-L
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
498
0
0
4
2
0
0
Oa
0
4
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
0
0
X
0
NR
0
0
Oa
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
Tot. I-V
0
NR
0
0
Oa
0
0
0
0
Oa
1
0
0
1
5
0
Oa
Oa
1
32
27
0
0
85
27
6
1
1
0
0
32
0
3
68
-------
TableA-13
A-34
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
0
12
0
2
56
0
0
0
0
1
15
1
1
0
736
85
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
1,707
0
<0.1
0
<0.1
0
0
0
0
0
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0
2
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
4
0
5
0
1
15
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
108
7
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
205
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
6
Oa
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
37
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
0
0
5
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
23
0
Oa
0
1
4
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
3
1
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
38
0
6
0
0
21
0
0
0
0
1
6
0
0
0
258
67
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
463
0
Oa
0
0
14
0
0
0
0
Oa
7
0
0
0
213
7
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
286
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
13
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
130
3
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
642
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
Oa
0
12
0
2
56
0
0
0
0
1
15
1
0
0
606
82
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
1,065
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
VII-L Individual/decentralized sewage treatment
X Recycled water distribution
NR = not reported. Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2004. Arizona,
California, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota did not have the resources to complete the updating of their data.
All other states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico completed more than 97 percent of the data entry or had fewer than 10 facilities that were not
updated.
Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
b
Individual onsite and decentralized systems might be reported at the county level and therefore a single facility might represent one or more communities
that are considered small communities for the purposes of the CWNS.
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Appendix B
Summary ofCWNS 2000 and CWNS1996
Cost Estimates
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
This page intentionally left blank
January 2008
-------
Table B-1
B-1
Table B-1 summarizes the results of the CWNS 2000 of documented needs by State. All values from the CWNS 2000 have been
adjusted to millions of January 2004 dollars. These design year needs were derived from those documented during the CWNS 2000.
This table is provided for use in comparing the results of the CWNS 2000 and 2004.
In general, Table B-1 is comparable to Table A-l for categories I-V. In addition, Category II has been expanded to include
additional process units to increase the level of treatment to allow for water reuse and in 2000 Category I included individual septic
system and decentralized sewage treatment need. It should be noted that Percent Change (2000-2004) is a comparison of total
CWNS 2000 needs (categories I through VI) to total CWNS 2004 needs (categories I through VI and X).
For nonpoint source pollution control needs (Category VII) see Table B-2.
Table B-1. CWNS 2000 Total Needs (January 2004 Dollars in Millions)
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
Percent
Total 2000-2004
3,029
622
6,803
347
15,145
1,436
2,510
319
1,642
7,489
2,601
1,941
232
13,186
8,035
2,177
1,580
3,112
2,639
1,084
5,050
5,196
4,555
1,514
952
3,825
522
1,330
NR
16
NA
-10
18
35
56
4
-58
24
72
-10
7
100
2
-27
-56
30
-9
26
-21
16
-39
32
140
4
27
3
-0.2
NR
Category of Need
I
15
341
808
41
4,360
204
444
37
339
333
126
640
133
885
697
268
415
728
457
196
1,379
974
932
735
103
807
189
166
NR
II
1,059
8
2,636
131
4,173
904
1,028
26
41
3,176
229
21
33
115
191
24
112
113
162
8
932
277
81
113
143
24
78
62
NR
III-A
151
7
141
24
124
5
95
0
16
144
1,118
525
3
30
72
26
237
215
1,300
3
104
66
120
46
174
801
16
8
NR
III-B
1,301
72
267
27
3,468
199
18
75
71
626
28
491
20
1,341
467
88
2
311
241
34
823
102
341
313
169
331
61
13
NR
IV-A
430
182
355
45
91
18
190
64
0
1,326
10
98
21
106
324
40
72
842
268
98
453
737
335
51
204
335
111
12
NR
IV-B
73
7
1,203
79
2,063
41
179
4
0
1,127
68
166
22
188
196
21
301
659
211
18
411
452
33
116
159
214
67
84
NR
V
0
5
0
0
475
11
556
113
1,134
0
1,022
0
0
10,521
6,088
1,708
441
241
0
727
440
2,588
2,713
6
0
1,313
0
958
NR
VI Total I-V
0
0
1,393
0
391
54
0
0
41
757
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
3
0
0
508
0
0
134
0
0
0
27
NR
3,029
622
5,410
347
14,754
1,382
2,510
319
1,601
6,732
2,601
1,941
232
13,186
8,035
2,175
1,580
3,109
2,639
1,084
4,542
5,196
4,555
1,380
952
3,825
522
1,303
NR
-------
Table B-1
B-2
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
936
11,163
223
21,154
6,590
57
9,013
649
1,644
8,792
1,539
1,455
139
673
10,144
933
163
3,920
3,049
2,817
2,478
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
186,404
-39
-17
-28
3
-23
-12
30
61
79
-18
-24
-51
-52
54
-16
-38
2
20
29
-10
57
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
9
141
3,137
105
10,970
471
30
1,358
94
601
941
122
614
18
73
2,237
386
51
810
1,113
332
654
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
41,010
53
410
17
864
1,934
Oa
435
27
172
227
125
372
33
51
905
82
36
865
57
13
157
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
22,735
8
377
10
84
324
3
1,662
1
5
135
13
1
0
54
262
Oa
1
124
251
149
60
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
9,095
37
679
47
2,307
228
19
124
230
728
133
58
14
49
119
1,473
108
1
399
151
53
407
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
18,664
7
1,121
20
599
1,920
0
807
36
18
1,072
384
315
14
64
686
109
37
575
220
770
289
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
15,881
150
457
24
192
1,709
1
593
50
37
219
132
139
7
40
2,104
242
3
635
580
532
514
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
16,522
540
4,882
0
6,120
3
0
4,034
0
83
6,047
705
0
2
272
0
0
34
512
677
968
380
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
56,319
0
100
0
18
1
4
0
211
0
18
0
0
16
0
2,477
6
0
0
0
0
17
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
6,178
936
11,063
223
21,136
6,589
53
9,013
438
1,644
8,774
1,539
1,455
123
673
7,667
927
163
3,920
3,049
2,817
2,461
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
180,226
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
Notes:
NR = not reported. American Samoa, Guam, Nevada, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Wyoming did not
participate in the CWNS 2000. California, Colorado, New York and South Dakota did not have the resources to complete the updating of these
data.
NA = not available in 2004. Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the
CWNS 2004.
Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
Table B-2
B-3
Table B-2 summarizes the results of the CWNS 2000 of documented NFS pollution control projects by State. All values from the CWNS
2000 have been adjusted to millions of January 2004 dollars. These design year needs were derived from those documented during the
CWNS 2000. This table is provided for use in comparing the results of the CWNS 2000 and 2004.
Table B-2 is comparable to Table A-2 for all categories of needs. Note, that individual/decentralized treatment costs are now reported in
Category VII -L instead of Categories I, VII-D and VII-E.
Table B-2. CWNS 2000 Total Needs for NFS Pollution Control Projects (January 2004 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
A
0
0
26
60
40
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
9
0
0
NR
0
2
B
0
0
3
125
49
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
24
Oa
0
0
187
0
16
0
0
NR
0
4
C
0
0
Oa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
48
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
0
NR
0
0
D
0
0
68
15
29
56
50
0
0
2,708
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
8
2
0
0
11
0
226
53
0
NR
0
165
E
0
0
Oa
0
323
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
0
0
0
NR
0
479
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
NR
0
0
G
0
0
0
7
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
NR
0
Oa
H
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
324
0
0
0
0
NR
0
11
I
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
57
8
0
0
533
0
531
0
0
NR
0
0
J
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
196
6
0
0
0
26
0
0
NR
73
994
K Total VII
0
0
1
4
446
0
42
0
2
900
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
6
63
5
0
2
0
924
0
0
NR
0
1,463
0
0
98
211
892
58
106
0
2
3,608
0
0
0
50
7
0
0
1
2
143
269
11
0
1,068
0
1,738
53
0
NR
73
3,118
-------
Table B-2
B-4
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
0
66
0
0
190
0
0
9
0
0
4
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
77
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
539
0
128
0
0
29
0
0
9
0
0
12
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
131
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
726
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
49
0
115
8
1
392
0
0
164
0
0
2
0
46
1
2
0
3
0
790
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
4,919
2
141
0
Oa
5
0
0
0
2
0
Oa
0
Oa
0
0
0
0
0
12
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
967
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
0
0
0
0
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
43
6
29
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
396
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
1,134
0
697
0
0
0
0
0
0
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2,039
0
400
0
0
57
0
0
0
0
3
2
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
194
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
4,532
8
1,582
8
1
698
0
0
182
36
3
20
0
46
12
2
0
3
0
1,237
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
15,346
Categories
A Agriculture (cropland)
B Agriculture (animals)
C Silviculture
D Urban
E Ground water protection (unknown source)
F Marinas
G Resource extraction
H Brownfields
I Storage tanks
J Sanitary landfills
K Hydromodification
Notes:
NR = not reported. American Samoa, Guam, Nevada, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Wyoming did not participate in
the CWNS 2000. California, Colorado, New York and South Dakota did not have the resources to complete the updating of these data.
Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
Table B-3
B-5
Table B-3 summarizes the States' 2000 assessments of needs that either were justified with documents outside the established
documentation criteria of the CWNS 2000 or had no written documentation. The SSEs were optional and were in addition to the
documented needs (see Tables B-l and B-2). All values from the CWNS 2000 have been adjusted to millions of January 2004 dollars. This
table is provided for use in comparing the results of the CWNS 2000 and 2004.
In general, Table B-3 is comparable to Table A-l 1 for all categories of needs. Category II has been expanded to include additional process
units to increase the level of treatment to allow for water reuse. Note, that individual/decentralized treatment costs are now reported in
Category VII-L instead of Categories I, VII-D and VII -E.
Table B-3. CWNS 2000 Total Separate State Estimates (January 2004 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
Total
0
33
0
0
4
28
74
0
0
0
642
0
1
3
40
0
Oa
Oa
5
58
559
31
32
320
88
17
9
Oa
NR
1
I
0
14
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
62
0
1
3
14
0
Oa
0
0
9
83
2
4
204
19
15
5
0
NR
0
II
0
0
0
0
0
28
2
0
0
0
379
0
0
Oa
8
0
0
0
0
0
84
0
0
7
5
0
0
0
NR
0
III-A
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
16
0
Oa
0
3
8
8
20
18
40
17
0
0
0
NR
0
III-B
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
Oa
0
0
0
2
0
99
0
7
16
0
0
Oa
0
NR
0
IV-A
0
16
0
0
0
0
47
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
27
123
3
0
2
16
0
4
0
NR
1
IV-B
0
2
0
0
0
0
25
0
0
0
179
0
0
0
1
0
0
Oa
0
10
73
6
3
30
31
2
Oa
0
NR
Oa
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
VI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
48
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
NR
0
VII
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
4
41
0
0
21
0
0
0
0
NR
0
VIII
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
Total I-V
0
33
0
0
2
28
74
0
0
0
642
0
1
3
39
0
Oa
Oa
5
54
470
31
32
299
88
17
9
0
NR
1
-------
Table B-3
B-6
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
318
0
511
76
12
873
6
119
474
Oa
0
Oa
0
20
20
1
0
Oa
747
9
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
5,131
0
0
9
12
0
80
0
57
191
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
Oa
245
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1,033
0
0
0
32
0
48
5
15
43
0
0
0
0
Oa
11
1
0
0
8
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
676
Oa
0
0
10
4
38
0
26
4
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
7
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
231
8
0
2
2
8
26
0
6
6
Oa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
190
0
0
0
10
0
24
0
7
132
0
0
0
0
2
4
0
0
Oa
252
5
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
686
0
0
0
10
0
22
1
5
74
0
0
Oa
0
12
3
0
0
0
231
2
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
722
23
0
0
0
0
67
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
96
8
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
56
277
0
500
0
0
568
0
3
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
1,437
2
0
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
31
0
11
76
12
305
6
116
456
Oa
0
Oa
0
18
20
1
0
Oa
747
7
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
3,634
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
VIII Confined animals-point source
NR = not reported. American Samoa, Guam, Nevada, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Wyoming did not participate in
the CWNS 2000. California, Colorado, New York and South Dakota did not have the resources to complete the updating of these data.
Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
Table B-4
B-7
Table B-4 summarizes the results of the CWNS 1996 of documented and modeled needs by State. All values have been adjusted
to millions of January 2004 dollars. In general, Table B-4 is comparable to Table A-l for categories I-V. In addition, Category II
has been expanded to include additional process units to increase the level of treatment to allow for water reuse. Also, for the
1996 survey, Category VI needs were based on modeled estimates. It should be noted that Percent Change (1996-2004) is a
comparison of total CWNS 1996 needs (categories I through VI) to total CWNS 2004 needs (categories I through VI and X).
Table B-4. CWNS 1996 Total Documented and Modeled Needs (January 2004 Dollars in Millions)
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
1,378
628
2,826
369
13,555
693
2,190
318
681
7,172
2,461
1,091
396
13,560
6,239
1,056
1,825
2,928
1,095
938
1,889
4,609
6,142
996
1,020
3,047
132
672
Percent
1996-2004
155
NA
116
11
51
223
19
-58
198
80
-4
91
17
-1
-6
-10
13
-3
204
-9
211
-31
-2
265
-3
59
309
98
Category of Need
I
205
488
901
148
6,147
163
312
27
86
1,548
149
291
189
600
160
169
286
608
203
136
392
1,007
780
560
288
622
59
138
II
121
0
681
25
2,254
274
857
12
24
1,981
946
0
19
293
96
30
176
32
191
5
271
63
15
35
101
36
5
50
III-A
5
Oa
11
13
45
2
52
2
0
14
36
0
1
68
50
31
155
134
37
29
10
56
17
42
102
315
7
8
III-B
299
41
85
46
1,215
66
14
1
0
198
18
566
14
449
31
38
40
110
203
15
174
45
97
86
83
293
16
7
IV-A
179
44
750
56
284
30
214
46
0
1,086
35
85
66
215
141
94
66
499
157
94
254
494
187
117
234
167
32
18
IV-B
165
0
230
37
775
11
190
39
0
914
262
86
96
328
110
66
321
421
91
56
274
422
403
93
165
318
12
118
V
0
20
0
0
1,352
15
539
138
549
0
454
0
0
11,596
5,515
587
656
1,036
0
603
141
2,500
4,601
32
0
1,096
1
302
VI
404
35
168
44
1,483
132
12
53
22
1,431
561
63
11
11
136
41
125
88
213
0
373
22
42
31
47
200
0
31
Tot. I-V
974
593
2,658
325
12,072
561
2,178
265
659
5,741
1,900
1,028
385
13,549
6,103
1,015
1,700
2,840
882
938
1,516
4,587
6,100
965
973
2,847
132
641
-------
Table B-4
B-8
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 PJco
Virgin Islands
Total
91
919
8,463
213
18,931
4,838
105
8,902
637
2,470
7,479
1,484
1,988
140
1,401
6,949
415
392
5,132
1,643
2,038
1,640
47
51
60
60
1,611
113
158,118
234
-38
10
-25
15
5
-52
32
64
19
-4
-21
-64
-52
-26
22
40
-57
-8
140
25
137
302
NA
NA
NA
127
NA
28
11
91
2,452
58
4,173
343
79
1,025
88
747
1,144
155
719
44
177
1,688
169
60
914
351
298
516
20
6
45
31
637
87
32,790
0
35
317
36
7,359
1,401
0
306
93
359
199
73
319
1
80
905
0
66
1,318
7
28
126
11
0
0
0
4
0
21,636
3
10
306
5
91
169
0
924
117
78
18
2
18
Oa
71
641
0
4
191
101
35
41
1
0
Oa
0
49
2
4,119
4
20
306
33
1,441
101
25
235
21
135
52
29
35
32
171
1,079
33
1
198
24
34
318
4
0
0
Oa
22
24
8,627
7
51
921
45
404
1,490
0
443
16
79
866
405
327
15
168
437
100
43
635
68
370
320
6
40
9
7
413
0
13,329
19
199
434
13
433
1,134
1
660
56
70
228
182
465
21
264
1,093
73
18
713
168
319
217
5
5
6
22
486
0
13,307
0
513
3,727
0
4,931
1
0
5,189
0
843
4,915
638
0
18
123
0
0
200
687
668
954
65
0
0
0
0
0
0
55,205
47
0
0
23
99
199
0
120
246
159
57
0
105
9
347
1,106
40
0
476
256
0
37
0
0
0
0
0
0
9,105
44
919
8,463
190
18,832
4,639
105
8,782
391
2,311
7,422
1,484
1,883
131
1,054
5,843
375
392
4,656
1,387
2,038
1,603
47
51
60
60
1,611
113
149,013
Categories
I Secondary wastewater treatment
II Advanced wastewater treatment
III-A Infiltration/inflow correction
Notes:
NA = not available in 2004. Alaska,
CWNS 2004.
Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
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
American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Appendix C
Summary ofCWNS2004 Technical
Information
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
This page intentionally left blank
January 2008
-------
Table C-1
C-1
Table C-1 summarizes the number of treatment facilities and collection systems in operation in 2004 in each State and U.S. Territory and
the number of treatment facilities and collection systems projected to be in operation in each State and U. S. Territory if all documented
needs are met.
Table C-1. Number of Operational Treatment Facilities and Collection Systems in 2004 and Number of Operational Treatment Facilities and
Collection Systems If All Documented Needs Are Meta
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
Operational in 2004
Treatment
Facilities
275
45
113
349
619
315
91
19
1
322
350
21
182
721
411
730
634
244
353
139
155
128
396
514
317
730
199
468
55
Collection
Systems
278
46
130
387
852
393
141
49
1
372
404
21
227
1,016
488
760
674
279
380
177
210
235
665
662
374
813
206
476
61
Operational If All
Documented Needs Are
Met
Treatment
Facilities
281
50
234
368
666
330
96
19
1
346
347
27
186
770
418
744
665
308
366
143
176
135
404
518
411
755
210
475
60
Collection
Systems
286
51
255
418
911
436
159
53
1
399
405
27
237
1,076
501
775
720
376
411
186
286
255
674
685
533
896
219
486
73
Operational in 2004
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
Treatment
Facilities
86
155
63
580
455
282
780
493
213
849
20
173
272
243
1,379
101
84
225
239
215
595
121
2
7
2
41
12
Collection
Systems
117
562
72
937
594
285
1,046
499
262
1,610
33
192
276
288
1,729
168
100
304
376
303
869
141
2
7
2
41
12
Total"
16,583
21,604
Operational If All
Documented Needs Are
Met
Treatment
Facilities
87
166
65
641
486
282
852
496
213
970
21
168
283
249
1,454
121
85
250
242
405
619
121
2
6
4
42
12
Collection
Systems
120
585
75
1,027
686
287
1,253
505
265
1,838
37
204
287
297
1,857
192
103
383
379
631
990
141
2
7
4
42
12
17,851
23,999
Notes:
* Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2004. Arizona, California, Georgia,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota did not have the resources to complete the updating of their data. All other states, the District
of Columbia and Puerto Rico completed more than 97 percent of the data entry or had fewer than 10 facilities that were not updated.
Totals include best available information from States and Territories that did not have the resources to complete the updating of the data or did not participate in the
CWNS 2004 in order to maintain continuity with previous Reports to Congress. Forty operational treatment plants and 43 projected treatment plants were excluded
from this table because the data related to population, flow and effluent levels were not complete.
-------
Table C-2
C-2
Table C-2 shows, for five flow ranges, the number of treatment facilities in operation in 2004 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-2. Number of Treatment Facilities by Flow Range
Treatment Facilities in Operation in 2004a
Existing Flow Range (mgd)
Number of Facilities
Total Existing Flow (mgd) Present Design Capacity (mgd)
0.000 to 0.100
6,830
298
580
0.101 to 1.000
6,431
2,327
3,923
1.001 to 10.000
2,771
8,766
13,225
10.001 to 100.000
503
13,233
17,769
100.001 and greater
41
9,033
10,939
Other"
Total0
16,583
33,657
46,438
Treatment Facilities in Operation If All Documented Needs Are Meta
Existing Flow Range (mgd)
Number of Facilities
Total Future Design Flow Capacity
(mgd)
0.000 to 0.100
6,107
295
0.101 to 1.000
7,252
2,795
1.001 to 10.000
3,638
12,566
10.001 to 100.000
778
20,293
100.001 and greater
68
15,697
Other
Total0
17,851
51,646
Notes:
a Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2004. Arizona, California, Georgia, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota did not have the resources to complete the updating of their data. All other states, the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico completed more than 97 percent of the data entry or had fewer than 10 facilities that were not updated.
b Flow data for these facilities were unavailable.
c Totals include best available information from States and Territories that did not have the resources to complete the updating of the data or did not participate in the CWNS
2004 in order to maintain continuity with previous Reports to Congress. Forty operational and 43 projected treatment plants were excluded from this table because the data
related to population, flow and effluent levels were not complete.
-------
Table C-3
C-3
Table C-3 shows, by level of treatment, the number of treatment facilities in operation in 2004 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 2004 and 2024
U.S. population, respectively.
Table C-3. Number of Treatment Facilities by Level of Treatment
Treatment Facilities in Operation in 2004a
Level of Treatment
Less than Secondary
Secondary
Greater than Secondary
No Discharge0
Partial Treatment
Total6
Number of
Facilities
40
9,221
4,916
2,188
218
16,583
Existing Flow
(mgd)
441
14,622
16,522
1,565
507
33,657
Present Design Number of People Percent of U.S.
Capacity (mgd) Served Population
570
19,894
23,046
2,296
632
46,438
3,306,921
96,469,710
108,506,467
14,557,817
-
222,840,915
1.1
32.4
36.5
4.9
-
74.9
Treatment Facilities in Operation If All Documented Needs Are Met3
Level of Treatment
Less than Secondary
Secondary
Greater than Secondary
No Discharge0
Partial Treatment
Total6
Number of
Facilities
26
9,446
5,607
2,545
227
17,851
Future Design
Capacity (mgd)
313
20,607
26,822
3,059
845
51,646
Number of People
Served
1,656,716
109,360,794
149,943,142
25,269,984
-
286,230,636
Percent of U.S.
Population
0.5
31.2
42.7
7.2
-
81.6
* Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2004. Arizona, California, Georgia,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota did not have the resources to complete the updating of their data. All other states, the District of
Columbia and Puerto Rico completed more than 97 percent of the data entry or had fewer than 10 facilities that were not updated.
Less-than-secondary facilities include facilities granted or pending section 301(h) waivers from secondary treatment for discharges to marine waters.
c 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.
These facilities provide some treatment to wastewater and discharge their effluents to other wastewater facilities for further treatment and discharge. The population
associated with these facilities is omitted from this table to avoid double accounting.
e Totals include best available information from States and Territories that did not have the resources to complete the updating of the data or did not participate in the
CWNS 2004 in order to maintain continuity with previous Reports to Congress. Forty operational and 43 projected treatment plants were excluded from this table
because the data related to population, flow and effluent levels were not complete.
-------
Table C-4 C-4
Table C-4 presents the number of CSO facilities with documented
Table C-4. Number of Facilities With CSO Correction Needs and
2004 dollars in millions)
Number of Facilities
State CSO Needs in
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
needs identified during the CWNS
Total CSO Correction Needs: 2000
with Number of Facilities with
2000 CSO Needs in 2004
0
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
0
MR
0
0
3
0
5
1
1
0
2
0
0
111
107
7
3
8
0
42
10
19
18
1
0
8
0
2
0
2000 CSO Needs
($ Millions)
0
5
0
0
475
11
556
113
1,134
0
1,022
0
0
10,521
6,088
1,708
441
241
0
727
440
2,588
2,713
6
0
1,313
0
958
0
2000 and CWNS 2004.
and 2004 (January
2004 CSO Needs
($ Millions)
0
MR
0
0
255
0
839
21
1,307
0
1,022
0
0
10,100
5,361
427
464
181
0
374
430
1,805
4,334
9
0
1,459
0
928
0
-------
Table C-4 C-5
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
4
39
0
83
1
0
109
0
2
123
3
0
1
2
0
0
4
3
11
45
3
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
799
4
37
0
75
1
0
105
0
2
97
3
0
0
2
0
0
2
3
27
38
3
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
747
540
4,882
0
6,120
3
0
4,034
0
83
6,047
705
0
2
272
0
0
34
512
677
968
380
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
56,319
261
3,772
0
6,563
3
0
6,284
0
834
4,639
636
0
0
285
0
0
27
512
515
767
406
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
54,820
NR = not reported. Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS
2004. Arizona, California, Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota did not have the resources to
complete the updating of their data. All other states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico completed more than 97 percent of the data
entry or had fewer than 10 facilities that were not updated.
-------
Table C-5
C-6
Table C-5 presents the number of storm water facilities with needs identified in the CWNS 2004 by the size of the MS4.
Table C-5. Number of Facilities With MS4 Storm Water Management Program Needs and Total MS4 Storm Water Management Program Needs
(January 2004 dollars in millions)
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
Small MS4 Facilities (<100,000 people)
Number of Facilities"
0
NR
12
0
14
19
0
0
0
88
0
0
1
0
97
1
0
0
0
2
1
0
0
190
0
0
Needs ($ Millions)
0
NR
95
0
167
72
0
0
0
286
0
0
19
0
10
2
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
911
0
0
Medium MS4 Facilities (100,000 through
249,999 people)
Number of Facilities" Needs ($
0
NR
4
0
6
12
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
Millions)
0
NR
135
0
66
28
0
0
0
546
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
63
0
0
0
0
0
Large MS4 Facilities (>250,000 people)
Number of Facilities"
0
NR
6
0
7
0
0
0
1
43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
Needs ($ Millions)
0
NR
944
0
158
0
0
0
9
1,351
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
0
0
367
0
0
0
0
0
-------
Table C-5
C-7
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
0
0
0
0
563
0
9
0
0
5
0
0
8
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
2
38
2
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
1,062
0
0
0
0
87
0
8
0
0
4
0
0
12
5
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
41
14
208
1
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
1,961
0
1
0
0
8
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
7
0
1
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
72
0
20
0
0
Ob
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
Ob
0
63
0
0
0
113
0
15
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
1,058
0
0
2
0
16
0
2
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
31
0
0
0
1
0
2
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
121
0
0
11
0
7
0
14
0
0
0
199
61
0
0
0
0
0
2,776
0
0
0
26
0
5
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
5,955
Notes:
NR = not reported. Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2004. Arizona, California,
Georgia, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota did not have the resources to complete the updating of their data. All other states, the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico completed more than 97 percent of the data entry or had fewer than 10 facilities that were not updated.
* 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 2004 database, and one facility can cover multiple MS4s or multiple facilities can cover one MS4.
Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
-------
Table C-6
C-8
Table C-6 presents the facilities represented in the CWNS 2004 that use the CSO cost curve to document a CSO
need greater than $120 million. Collectively, the CSO needs in these 59 facilities represent $18.6 billion of the total
$54.8 billion (34 percent) in documented CSO needs that are reported in the CWNS 2004.
Table C-6. Facilities With CSO Cost Curve Needs Exceeding $120 Million
State
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Illinois
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Indiana
Iowa
Iowa
Kansas
Kansas
Maryland
Michigan
Michigan
Facility Name
Arlington Hts. Col. Sys.l
Aurora Col. Sys.
Chicago Central Col. Sys.
Chicago Northside Col. Sys.
Chicago South Col. Sys.
Des Plaines Col. Sys.
East St. Louis Sewers
Elgin Sewers
Joliet - Eastside STP
PeruWWTP
Rock Island Main STP
Skokie CS
Springfield Sd Spring Cr.
East Chicago STP
Eastside WWTP
Evansville Westside WWTP
Fort Wayne WPCP
Gary Sanitary District
Lafayette WWTP
Michigan City STP
Moss Island Road Plant
South Bend WWTP
Southport WWTP
Burlington WWTP
Muscatine WWTP
KCK WWTP # 1 -KP WWTP
Topeka Oakland WWTP
Back River WWTP
Lansing WWTP
Saginaw STP
Responsible Entity
Arlington Heights, Vil. Of
Aurora, City Of
Chicago, City Of
Chicago, City Of
Chicago, City Of
Des Plaines, City Of
City Of East St. Louis
City Of Elgin
Joliet, City Of
Peru, City of
Rock Island, City Of
Skokie, Village of
Springfield Sanitary Dist
East Chicago, City Of
Evansville, City Of
Evansville, City of
Fort Wayne Board Of Public
Gary Sanitary District
Lafayette, City Of
Michigan City
Anderson, City Of
South Bend Board of Public
Indianapolis San. Dist.
Burlington, City of
Muscatine, City Of
Kansas City, City of
Topeka, City of
Baltimore, City Of
City Of Lansing
Saginaw DPW
County
Cook
Kane
Cook
Cook
Cook
Cook
St. Clair
Kane
Will
La Salle
Rock Island
Cook
Sangamon
Lake
Vanderburgh
Vanderburgh
Allen
Lake
Tippecanoe
La Porte
Madison
St. Joseph
Marion
Des Moines
Muscatine
Wyandotte
Shawnee
Baltimore
Ingham
Saginaw
-------
Table C-6
C-9
Missouri
Nebraska
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
New York
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Wisconsin
St Joseph WWTP
Missouri River STP
Bergen County Utilities Authority
Camden County MUA
Elizabeth City CSO
Jersey City Mun. Util. Auth.
Joint Meeting Of Essex & Union
Newark City CSO - PVSC
Paterson Cs.
Albany (C) San & Comb. Sewers
New York (C) - Bowery Bay WPCP
New York (C) - Coney Island WPCP
New York (C) - Hunts Point WPCP
New York (C) - Jamaica WPCP
New York (C) - Newton Creek WPCP
New York (C) - North River WPCP
New York (C) - Oakwood Beach WPCP
New York (C) - Owls Head WPCP
New York (C) - Port Richmond WPCP
New York (C) - Tallman Island WPCP
New York (C) - Wards Island WPCP
Utica (C) San S. & CSO Outfall
Youngstown WWTP & Sewer System
Bethlehem City STP
Harrisburg Authority STP
Philadelphia Water Dept (NE)
Philadelphia Water Dept (SE)
Philadelphia Water Dept (SW)
Milwaukee, City of - CS
St Joseph, City Of
Omaha, City of
Bergen County Utilities Authority
Camden Co MUA
Elizabeth, City Of, Public Works
Jersey City MUA
JM Of Essex & Union
Passaic Valley S.C.
Paterson, City Of
Albany, City Of (Albany MWF Authority)
NYC DEP
NYC DEP
NYC DEP
NYC DEP
NYC DEP
NYC DEP
NYC DEP
NYC DEP
NYC DEP
NYC DEP
NYC DEP
Utica, City Of
City Of Youngstown
Bethlehem Authority, City
Harrisburg Authority
Philadelphia Water Dept - WPC Division
Philadelphia Water Dept - WPC Division
Philadelphia Water Dept
Milwaukee, City of
Buchanan
Douglas
Bergen
Camden
Union
Hudson
Union
Essex
Passaic
Albany
Queens
Kings
Bronx
Queens
Kings
New York
Richmond
Kings
Richmond
Queens
New York
Oneida
Mahoning
Northampton
Dauphin
Philadelphia
Philadelphia
Philadelphia
Milwaukee
-------
Table C-7
C-10
Table C-7 shows, by treatment level, the number of facilities in operation in 2004 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 2004
Number of Facilities Providing Listed Effluent Level3
Less than Greater than
State Secondary1" Secondary Secondary No Discharge0
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
0
5
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
131
30
16
118
186
221
43
9
0
0
203
5
113
417
127
716
356
149
173
115
75
77
204
425
208
629
108
255
8
67
91
39
387
270
129
0
19
221
84
42
42
13
1
111
96
3
7
297
274
10
79
91
173
2
73
35
120
80
84
79
6
23
3
4
57
3
156
142
7
9
74
9
334
36
6
4
0
209
41
12
59
2
0
1
196
1
1
10
5
10
68
4
3
19
83
188
44
11
1
19
31
37
Population Served by Listed Effluent Level3
Less than
Secondary1"
0
207,994
0
0
1,942,488
0
0
0
0
0
0
344,706
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9,303
0
19,762
0
25
0
0
0
0
0
20,617
0
1,626
0
0
Secondary
751,759
108,879
116,384
725,025
17,829,141
1,333,330
1,062,280
8,822
0
0
1,594,624
139,609
583,756
707,927
389,859
2,092,494
670,941
1,566,266
2,248,137
626,778
949,514
4,372,683
1,277,066
1,166,010
1,132,063
3,694,485
399,771
947,956
245,905
590,051
6,553,273
894,678
12,140,214
914,904
Greater than
Secondary No Discharge0
1,996,926
0
3,257,943
852,736
8,731,071
2,303,870
1,010,189
666,349
1,298,601
6,586,411
2,881,293
207,958
299,893
10,077,113
3,654,009
194,071
1,255,624
912,458
971,231
16,038
2,040,001
859,775
6,227,896
2,219,811
641,674
431,110
92,390
206,946
916,572
34,878
1,209,075
7,150
3,133,991
2,697,631
6,651
21,920
1,551,600
12,155
3,876,394
14,437
2,645
25,444
0
6,309,507
114,309
89,512
56,724
2,257
0
209
101,710
435
207
7,215
3,920
25,025
108,121
3,513
1,272
2,482
57,617
82,587
300,957
6,838
34,307
216,866
110,284
118,428
-------
Table C-7
C-11
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
Total6
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
2
0
5
1
40
254
172
238
133
419
18
105
234
157
506
47
49
154
198
143
292
89
0
2
2
35
10
9,221
1
604
54
31
420
2
51
9
78
667
5
31
63
7
64
265
3
0
0
0
1
1
4,916
27
3
200
48
7
0
11
29
7
182
49
4
1
31
2
37
14
0
2
0
0
0
2,188
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,000
0
0
1,070
0
0
0
0
861
0
0
5,511
62,639
0
666,788
19,531
3,306,921
559,545
1,267,225
1,661,004
1,822,176
5,871,941
700,818
1,700,794
271,567
2,007,226
2,509,633
1,800,130
99,181
2,360,084
3,683,763
623,922
692,285
306,246
0
9,236
0
630,056
58,294
96,469,710
21,531
7,454,278
818,547
977,731
4,156,749
10,184
696,221
168,006
1,519,925
16,761,753
200,925
208,843
2,506,387
1,054,599
375,042
3,452,096
84,439
0
0
0
146,477
50
108,506,467
5,909
1,074
149,803
105,085
9,371
0
50,361
13,002
10,646
679,461
161,259
1,792
1,067
47,319
1,117
42,691
8,037
0
4,275
0
0
0
14,557,817
Notes:
a Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2004. Arizona, California, Georgia,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota did not have the resources to complete the updating of their data. All other states, the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico completed more than 97 percent of the data entry or had fewer than 10 facilities that were not updated.
Less-than-secondary facilities include facilities granted or pending section 301(h) waivers from secondary treatment for discharges to marine waters.
c 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.
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 Totals include best available information from States and Territories that did not have the resources to complete the updating of the data or did not participate in
the CWNS 2004 in order to maintain continuity with previous Reports to Congress. Forty operational treatment plants were excluded from this table because the
data related to population, flow and effluent levels were not complete.
-------
Table C-8
C-12
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 Faculties Providing Listed Effluent Level3
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
Less than
Secondary1"
0
5
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Secondary
128
31
8
120
177
218
10
2
0
0
191
5
109
441
129
725
342
196
139
111
73
74
208
405
297
648
109
236
8
60
76
36
404
Greater than
Secondary No Discharge0
136
0
31
233
108
57
78
12
1
115
109
3
10
317
279
14
114
101
224
8
87
43
122
101
96
87
8
44
3
11
73
7
187
9
13
191
11
372
38
8
5
0
227
41
18
63
6
0
1
205
4
1
12
14
13
70
8
2
18
90
194
47
14
10
21
42
Population Served by
Less than
Secondary1"
0
346,571
0
0
76,400
0
0
0
0
0
0
420,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12,269
0
35,923
0
25
0
0
0
0
0
24,075
0
0
0
Secondary
868,468
211,131
334,851
1,073,936
20,886,580
1,744,660
113,845
11,165
0
0
1,807,604
225,800
779,924
947,039
459,540
2,547,242
573,540
2,381,558
2,796,891
745,622
308,731
3,983,629
1,361,675
1,213,299
1,005,136
5,261,042
562,216
870,485
451,211
628,720
6,356,941
1,057,283
12,107,809
Listed Effluent Level
Greater than
Secondary No
2,321,466
0
4,122,257
1,422,597
12,337,759
3,000,234
2,393,873
796,144
1,446,672
9,608,736
4,591,246
390,258
450,905
12,163,555
4,203,758
242,392
2,073,467
1,572,554
1,320,391
63,850
3,364,222
1,132,686
6,717,059
2,666,868
1,679,237
750,536
168,113
566,677
1,129,160
112,417
2,370,312
113,452
3,745,768
a
Discharge0
12,483
42,808
3,961,730
26,244
5,327,451
27,865
17,975
39,024
0
11,400,195
168,255
237,979
96,523
3,497
0
192
117,511
1,927
220
19,502
19,838
51,384
124,612
5,417
702
3,490
92,171
96,699
455,472
9,903
97,956
235,359
307,620
-------
Table C-8
C-13
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
Total6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
4
0
26
245
252
173
222
129
496
15
94
240
161
521
43
43
160
199
308
287
87
0
4
4
37
10
9,446
172
3
674
66
34
459
6
60
11
77
720
10
37
73
8
94
276
5
0
0
0
1
2
5,607
62
27
5
207
50
8
0
11
32
8
186
67
5
7
31
0
55
14
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
39,200
0
0
702,253
0
2,545 1,656,716
816,516
677,369
1,457,966
1,827,399
2,203,257
5,753,995
596,673
2,381,001
321,189
2,514,147
3,479,870
1,860,710
119,752
2,911,238
4,942,843
1,056,031
720,245
431,386
0
112,910
0
1,443,854
54,870
109,360,794
4,838,052
33,978
8,844,799
911,938
1,356,819
4,854,311
196,658
1,479,333
328,011
1,909,373
24,393,691
912,394
282,414
4,288,677
1,331,252
501,509
4,047,263
106,408
0
0
0
247,855
39,786
149,943,142
325,392
6,834
1,672
173,411
186,310
13,177
0
112,284
14,676
20,025
937,880
335,314
3,352
9,667
51,513
0
60,001
11,927
0
4,545
0
0
0
25,269,984
Notes:
a Alaska, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2004. Arizona, California, Georgia,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota did not have the resources to complete the updating of their data. All other states, the
District of Columbia and Puerto Rico completed more than 97 percent of the data entry or had fewer than 10 facilities that were not updated.
Less-than-secondary facilities include facilities granted or pending section 301(h) waivers from secondary treatment for discharges to marine waters.
c 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.
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 Totals include best available information from States and Territories that did not have the resources to complete the updating of the data or did not participate in
the CWNS 2004 in order to maintain continuity with previous Reports to Congress. Forty-three projected treatment plants were excluded from this table because
the data related to population, flow and effluent levels were not complete.
-------
Table C-9
C-14
Table C-9 presents the treatment facilities represented in the CWNS 2004 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, design flow 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, 2004.
Table C-9. Technical Data and Costs for Facilities With Less-Than-Secondary Effluent Levels That Do Not Have 30 l(h) Waivers
State
MN
NM
SC
TX
TX
WV
WV
VI
Facility Name
Barry Imhoff
Tank
Springer
Treatment
Plang
BJWSA/Shell
Point
Rio Del Sol
WWTP
Taft ISO - San
Antonio Water
System
Brushfork Area
Collection
System
Chattaroy PSD
STP
St. Thomas
WWTF
Documented
Category
Present Future I Needs
Present Future Population Population (January
Present Future Design Flow Design Flow Receiving Receiving 2004
Effluent Effluent (mgd) (mgd) Treatment Treatment S millions)
Primary
Primary (45mg/l<
(45mg/l< BOD) BOD) 0.01 0.01 25 25
Primary
(45mg/l< BOD) Secondary 0.26 0.26 1,626 2,036
Primary
(45mg/l< BOD) Secondary 0.4 0.4 4,000 4,000
Primary
(45mg/l< BOD) 0.08 0 540
Primary
(45mg/l< BOD) 0.9 0 530
Primary
(45mg/KBOD) 0.196 0 55
Primary
(45mg/KBOD) 0.17 0 806
Primary
(45mg/l< BOD) Secondary 3.4 3.5 22,831 26,212
0.1
0.1
37.0
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Appendix D
CWNS Database
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
This page intentionally left blank
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
CWNS Database
The CWNS 2004 database is a centralized, relational database that resides on EPA's computers in
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. States can enter data into the database through a customized data
entry system and retrieve data through Web-based reports or queries using their own software. The
CWNS 2004 database is also integrated with other EPA data systems such as EnviroMapper,
AskWATERS and WebRIT.
Table D-l lists the data elements that could be entered for each facility in the CWNS 2004 database.
(Detailed data element definitions are available at www.epa.gov/EDR.) Descriptions of the data gathered
for four broad categories follow.
Table D-l. Data Elements in the CWNS 2004
Facility Summary"
Authority /Facility (A/F)
Number (CWNS 2004 Number)
Facility Name
Natures'3 (Present and/or
Projected) and Changes
System Name0
"Privately Owned" Flag
"Interim Treatment Plant" Flag0
Discharges to Another Facility
Facility Identification Number
(FIN)
Needs"
Needs Category
Eligible Needs
Documentation Information
Separate State Estimates0
Operation and Maintenance
Costs0
Geographic"
Latitude and Longitude "Point of
Record" (FOR)
FOR County
Watershed
Congressional District
Boundaries (includes a category
for estuaries designated under the
National Estuary Program)
Technical
Population (and "Small
Community Exception" Flag)d
Flow Capacities of Treatment
Plants'1
Discharge Method(s) and
Location(s)d
Effluent Datad and Concentration
Details
Unit Process or BMP
Descriptions0
Combined Sewer Details'1
Responsible Entity Information
(and "Tribal" Flag)
Permit Numbers and Types6
Biosolids Handling Data
Pollution Problem Descriptions f
Miscellaneous Comments
a Unless otherwise indicated, data elements under these categories were required for every facility in the CWNS 2004.
b Natures define the main components of a facility (e.g., wastewater treatment plant, collection sewer, agriculture-
cropland).
0 Data elements that were not mandatory for the CWNS 2004. The States entered data for these fields voluntarily.
d Data elements that were required for wastewater treatment and collection systems, when applicable.
e Data element that was required for facilities with stormwater management program needs and facilities discharging to
surface waters.
f States identified costs for addressing SSO problems under this data element.
Wastewater Treatment and Collection Systems. The CWNS 2004 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 212 of the CWA. Eligible costs include the
replacement, rehabilitation, or expansion of collection systems and treatment facilities; construction of
new treatment facilities; correction or elimination of CSOs; and construction of decentralized treatment
systems. In addition to the needs, technical data such as flow and treatment levels for treatment facilities,
population, unit process, discharge location and geographic data were collected on each wastewater
treatment facility, collection system or decentralized system included in the CWNS 2004.
The CWNS 2004 does not have a distinct needs category for SSOs. To effectively control SSOs, one or
more of the following are needed: building storage facilities to contain wet-weather flows during wet-
D-1
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
weather events, reducing sewer infiltration/inflow (I/I) through sewer replacement/rehabilitation, or
building additional treatment facilities to treat wet-weather flows. Therefore, some of the needs in the
following categories are related to SSO needs: needs for secondary wastewater treatment (Category I),
advanced wastewater treatment (Category II), sewer replacement/rehabilitation and I/I correction
(Category III) and new sewers and appurtenances (Category IV). States could voluntarily designate cost
information from needs Categories I through IV that specifically address SSO problems.
Stormwater Management Programs. The documented eligible needs for this category include the capital
costs for meeting requirements of the MS4 component of the Stormwater Phase I and IINPDES
regulations. Only costs to establish and implement programmatic areas and specific projects under
municipal Stormwater management programs required by an NPDES permit are eligible needs under this
category. Examples of appropriate costs are public education, outreach and involvement programs and
specific projects that increase public awareness of Stormwater quality issues; illicit discharge
identification and elimination programs and specific projects; construction and post-construction
programs and specific BMPs; and municipal pollution prevention program development and
implementation activities. Examples of Stormwater activities that are not allowable Category VI needs are
flood control projects that do not have a water quality enhancement component and the installation of new
storm sewers or the rehabilitation of existing storm sewers that are not specifically identified as
addressing a program element in a municipality's Stormwater management program. Stormwater
management facilities were required to have geographic location and permit data entered in addition to
needs information. Because some Phase II MS4 permits had not been issued by the close of data entry for
CWNS 2004, States were allowed to use a placeholder NPDES permit number to include data for such
MS4s as necessary to complete Category VI needs entry in the CWNS 2004 database.
Nonpoint Source Control Projects. Although not required by section 516(b)(l)(B) of the CWA, States
submitted documented needs for implementing NPS management programs under section 319 and
implementing CCMPs for estuaries under section 320 of the CWA. NPS pollution control projects are
generally CWSRF-eligible17 and must have been included under a State's approved Nonpoint Source
Management Plan (section 319) or in an approved CCMP (section 320). CWSRF financing is available
for a broad range of NPS pollution control activities, such as implementing agricultural BMPs, removing
and abating leaking underground storage tanks, and replacing or rehabilitating failed septic systems with
new onsite systems or other decentralized systems serving one or more properties. In addition, section
320 allows financing of a broader range of activities found in CCMPs, such as habitat restoration. For
each NPS pollution control facility in the CWNS 2004, EPA required a geographic location along with
the needs data. NPS control project needs were held to the same documentation criteria as traditional
wastewater treatment and collection system needs. The seven basic documentation criteria are described
in Chapter 2 of this Report.
Estuary Management. Although not required by section 516(b)(l)(B) of the CWA, States submitted
documented needs for most activities within in CCMPs prepared for estuaries designated under section
320 of the CWA. However, many activities that were considered point or NPS technologies were
included in the appropriate needs category rather than in Category XI. Category XI was initiated to track a
limited number of estuary management activities that may not be appropriately included in other needs
categories. Typical estuary BMPs are habitat protection for aquatic species, fisheries/oyster bed/shellfish
restocking or restoration and fish ladders, rejuvenation of submerged aquatic vegetation, artificial reef
17 The use of CWSRF eligibility rules in determining eligibility for the CWNS 2004 is independent of, and does not affect, States'
annual determinations on which projects are eligible for CWSRF funding. There are some CWSRF-eligible projects that are not
captured in the CWNS, as well as a few exceptional needs in CWNS that are not necessarily eligible for CWSRF funding.
Although CWSRF eligibility is defined in the CWA and clarified by national EPA guidance, individual States might have
policies not to fund certain kinds of projects. If those projects meet national eligibility criteria, however, they may be included in
the CWNS.
January 2008
D-2
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
establishment, control of invasive introduced vegetative and aquatic species, and water control structures
for flow regime and salinity.
January 2008
D-3
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
This page intentionally left blank
January 2008
D-4
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Appendix E
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Documented Needs and Modeled Estimates
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
This page intentionally left blank
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Documented Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Needs
While NFS needs are not within the scope of CWA section 516(b)(l)(B), 41 States and the District of
Columbia documented $38.3 billion in NFS needs. This is an increase from the 33 States and the District
of Columbia that documented $15.3 billion in NFS needs in the CWNS 2000. Figure E-l shows the
distribution of NFS pollution control needs by State. Table E-l summarizes the national NFS pollution
control needs, while Appendix A, Table A-2, presents these needs by State.
More than 63 percent of the $38.3 billion for NFS pollution control needs were documented by Florida
($9.3 billion), Pennsylvania ($5.9 billion), New Jersey ($3.7 billion), Minnesota ($2.9 billion) and New
York ($2.6 billion). Seven StatesMissouri, Mississippi, Wisconsin, Ohio, California, Connecticut and
Michigandocumented from $ 1 billion to $ 1.7 billion each in NFS pollution control needs. Each of 11
other States documented NFS pollution control needs of greater than $0.1 billion.
In some cases, plans already exist to address the documented NFS needs through other Federal or State
funding mechanisms.
Total Documented Nonpoint Source
Needs = $38,3 Billion
^] None reported
] Did not participate
Note: Alaska, American Samoa. Guam, Northern Mariana Islands
and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2004
Figure E-l. Distribution of nonpoint source pollution control (Category
VII) needs by State (January 2004 dollars in billions).
Urban ($12.4 billion), hydromodification ($9.3 billion), ground water protection ($4.8 billion) and
individual/decentralized sewage treatment ($3.0 billion) needs account for 76.8 percent of the total
documented NFS needs.
Of the $3.0 billion reported Category VII-L needs, $2.2 billion is for small communities with populations
fewer than 10,000 people. Twenty-one new decentralized systems are planned for small communities
where abandonment of individual onsite systems is expected. These 21 facilities will serve approximately
19,734 people. Communities are finding that decentralized wastewater systems sometimes prove to be the
E-1
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
least-cost permanent solution to protect water quality and public health. Alternatively, communities are
also implementing hybrid solutions, which consist of a conventional system for the most concentrated
developed areas and decentralized systems for the less densely developed areas. EPA's 2003-2008
Strategic Plan states that decentralized systems are a key component of the Nation's wastewater
infrastructure. EPA will provide national direction and support to improve the performance of such
systems by promoting the concept of continuous management and facilitating upgraded professional
standards of practice.
In addition to the needs reported for individual/decentralized sewage treatment, $5.7 billion of the
centralized collection and wastewater treatment plant needs (Categories I through V) are associated with
solving individual/decentralized sewage treatment and other NPS problems. Ohio ($1.1 billion), West
Virginia ($0.9 billion), Pennsylvania ($0.6 billion) and Arizona ($0.4 billion) account for more than one-
half of these needs. Although the $5.7 billion represents only 5.5 percent of the national needs in
Categories I, II, IV-A and IV-B, eight StatesWest Virginia (59 percent), Arkansas (44 percent), Ohio
(34 percent), Mississippi (33 percent), Delaware (32 percent), Pennsylvania (31 percent), Nevada (31
percent) and Montana (25 percent)indicated that more than 25 percent of their Category I, II, IV-A and
IV-B needs are associated with solving NPS problems.
In previous surveys, because of the limited availability of NPS needs documentation, EPA developed and
applied national models to estimate NPS needs. In the CWNS 1996, EPA reported modeled needs for
cropland agriculture, animal agriculture and silviculture. These models relied on data from the National
Resources Inventory, the Census of Agriculture and other data sources for estimating the level of needs.
For the CWNS 2000, EPA and the States made a concerted effort to report documented NPS pollution
control needs. This effort included identifying six new NPS pollution control needs categories: marinas,
resource extraction, brownfields, storage tanks, sanitary landfills and hydromodification. EPA reported
only documented NPS needs. However, EPA included in appendices supplementary modeled estimates of
NPS needs for urban, marinas, resource extraction and hydromodification in addition to the categories
modeled in 1996.
Table E-l. NPS Pollution Control Needs Documented for CWNS 2004
(January 2004 Dollars in Billions)
NPS Pollution Control Need Category
Agriculture (cropland) (VII- A)
Agriculture (animals) (VII-B)
Silviculture (VII-C)
Urban (VII-D)
Ground water protection: unknown source (VII-E)
Marinas (VII-F)
Resource extraction (VII-G)
Brownfields (VII-H)
Storage tanks (VII-I)
Sanitary landfills (VII-J)
Hydromodification (VII-K)
Individual/decentralized sewage treatment (VII-L)
Total NPS needs
Total Needs
(SB)
1.7
1.5
0.2
12.4
4.8
0.01
0.2
1.7
1.5
2.1
9.3
3.0
38.3
Percentage
of Total
4.4%
3.9%
0.5%
32.3%
12.5%
<0.1%
0.5%
4.4%
3.9%
5.5%
24.2%
7.8%
For CWNS 2004, States used a variety of document types to identify needs and costs for NPS projects.
The most common document types were Capital Improvement Plans, Intended Use Plans, Final
January 2008
E-2
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Engineering Estimates, and Approved State 319 Project Workplans or Implementation Plans. A few
States were able to identify needs and costs based on Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Reports and
TMDL Implementation Plans. Needs for Category VII-L NPS individual/decentralized sewage treatment
were documented through facility plans and engineering reports. States also used community surveys that
identified the number of failing septic systems and the average repair and replacement costs. Several
States used existing State databases of specific NPS problems (such as miles of streams affected by acid
mine drainage, number of leaking storage tanks, or the State 303(d) list) to identify needs. Costs were
determined from unit costs developed by State engineers or from State standardized BMP costs.
For this Report, with the exception of agriculture (cropland and animals) and resource extraction, the
documented needs now exceed previously modeled estimates from the CWNS 2000. Table E-2 shows a
comparison of CWNS 1996 and CWNS 2000 NPS needs with CWNS 2004 documented needs.
Table E-2. Comparison of Total Other Needs for the 1996-2004 CWNS (January 2004 Dollars in Billions)
'00-'04 change
Needs Category
vn-A
vn-B
vn-c
VII-D
vn-E
VII-F
vn-o
vn-H
vn-i
VII-J
vn-K
VII-L
VIII
IX
XI
NFS - Agriculture (cropland/5
NPS - Agriculture (animals)b
NPS - Silviculture13
NPS - Urban
NPS - Ground water protection: unknown source
Estuaries0
Wetlands"
NPS - Marinas
NPS - Resource extraction
NPS - Brownfields
NPS - Storage tanks
NPS - Sanitary landfills
NPS - Hydromodification
NPS - Individual/decentralized sewage treatment
Confined animal-point sourced
Mining-point sourced
Estuary management
Total Needs for Other Categories
Category VII only
1996a
4.7
2.6
4.3
1.2
1.3
0.04
0.01
~
14.2
14.2
2000a
0.5
0.7
0.05
4.9
1
0.002
0.04
0.4
1.1
2
4.5
0
0
15.2
15.2
2004
1.7
1.5
0.2
12.4
4.8
0.01
0.2
1.7
1.5
2.1
9.3
3
0
0
0.1
38.5
38.3
$B
1.2
0.8
0.15
7.5
3.8
0.008
0.16
1.3
0.4
0.1
4.8
3
0
0
0.1
23.3
23.2
%
240%
114%
300%
153%
380%
NA
NA
400%
400%
325%
36.40%
5.00%
107%
NA
0%
0%
NA
153.5%
152.6%
a The needs from 1996 and 2000 were inflated to January 2004 dollars for comparison with CWNS 2004 data.
b Modeled needs in 1996.
0 Documented needs for estuaries and wetlands were provided by States during the CWNS 1996, but they are no longer reported as
individual categories.
d Needs in Categories VIII and IX include activities related to implementing CCMPs.
Although good progress has been made in documenting NPS pollution control projects, there is still
significant underreporting, illustrated by the following issues related to individual/decentralized sewage
treatment needs. Although the current individual septic system population reported in the CWNS has
nearly doubled from 7.7 million in 2000 to 15.6 million in 2004, this represents only approximately one-
fifth of the current U.S. population being served by onsite systems. In addition to likely underreporting of
E-3
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
septic system needs by local communities, States had difficulty obtaining or using documents that met the
CWNS 2004 documentation criteria.
State Modeled Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Estimates
During the CWNS 2004, Iowa, Kansas, Virginia and West Virginia submitted documents supporting the
use of various large-scale basin models to justify statewide needs and costs for NFS pollution control and
abatement activities. Each State used a unique approach which continues to underscore the significant
underreporting of the actual NFS needs in the United States. In addition to these four States, New Jersey
used estimated costs for developing and implementing watershed management plans based on available
data from completed watershed plans in the State. Each model, while having some interesting technical
merit, has aspects such as information that is not site-specific or activities that are not CWSRF eligible,
that warrant classifying these approaches as modeled estimates instead of documented needs.
EPA went to great lengths to encourage State CWNS 2004 coordinators to work with their NPS
counterparts in the States to document NPS needs. By categorizing these needs as modeled estimates,
EPA does not seek to discourage the States from such initiatives and collaboration in identifying NPS
needs.
EPA expects that during the preparatory stages for the CWNS 2008, the CWNS National Workgroup will
address the issue of States using modeled needs for NPS pollution abatement for future surveys. To that
end, strong consideration will be given to improving the methodologies and data sources used in these
State efforts to meet CWNS documentation criteria.
The following sections of this appendix present the methodologies that the five States used in estimating
their NPS needs. The needs presented here from the five States are reported as Separate State Estimates
(SSEs) in Appendix A, Tables A-l 1 and A-12.
January 2008
E-4
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Iowa's Nonpoint Source Needs
Introduction
Iowa is an agriculturally rich State. Over 60 percent of its land is in intensive row crop production, and
over 90 percent is in some type of agricultural production, including forage and pastureland. Iowa also
leads the Nation in the production of hogs and ranks as one the top 10 States for cattle and poultry
production (USDA 2004).
Because of Iowa's naturally rich soils and intensive agricultural production, its streams, rivers and lakes
have high levels of nutrients and sediment. Monitoring conducted over the past 5 years showed that 132
of Iowa's larger, publicly owned lakes had median summer total nitrogen (TN), total phosphorus (TP) and
chlorophyll a levels of 1,550, 89 and 21 parts per billion (ppb), respectively. As a basis of comparison,
the EPA Region 7 Regional Technical Advisory Group recommended values of 700, 35 and 8 ppb for
TN, TP and chlorophyll a, respectively, for lake water quality standards. Monitoring for streams and
rivers showed similar results: median all-season values for TN, TP and chlorophyll a were nearly three
times the criteria recommendations in EPA's ecoregion-based criteria guidance documents.
Iowa's nutrient budget, conducted as part of a multiyear nutrient management strategy, showed that over
90 percent of the nitrogen and over 80 percent of the phosphorus carried by Iowa's streams and rivers
come from nonpoint sources, with agriculture being the major nonpoint source. Iowa has also been
identified as a major contributor to the Mississippi River nitrogen loads, believed to be a factor in the size
of the Gulf of Mexico's hypoxic zone. Sediment also poses a significant water quality problem. The
median total suspended solids concentration for 80 monitoring sites on Iowa's streams and rivers is nearly
30 parts per million. Sediment has consistently been identified as a major pollutant for lakes, as well as
streams and rivers, and soil erosion from crop fields is closely linked to phosphorus transport to
waterbodies.
Full implementation of agricultural BMPs across the State to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment
loading is key to improving Iowa's water quality. This has been recognized for many decades. However,
the questions of what BMPs are needed to actually improve water quality statewide and what resources
are needed to implement these practices have not been answered with any accuracy.
Methodology
The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) contracted with Iowa State University's Center for
Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD) to assess the level of resources needed to fully implement a
suite of common agricultural BMPs across the State and estimate the water quality benefits of the
practices. In concept, this approach is similar to the CWA's technology-based approach used for point
sources in that the BMPs selected for evaluation were those considered practicable and economically
achievable.
CARD combined economic models and data on land use and conservation practices with the Soil and
Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), a watershed-based water quality model, to provide estimates of the
resources needed and the nutrient and sediment reduction benefits of the BMPs. The BMPs included land
set-aside, terraces, no-till and conservation till, contour farming, grassed waterways and nutrient
management. Criteria for implementing the BMPs on the land based on practical, realistic expectations of
what is achievable were developed. For instance, it was determined that land set-aside would be used to
retire cropland in riparian corridors and highly erodible areas but that the total set-aside acres would not
exceed 10 percent of the total cropland acres because this was thought to be a threshold of public
acceptance and economic achievability. All cropland with slopes exceeding 2 percent that were not retired
were then placed in conservation tillage (over 30 percent residue) or no till (over 60 percent residue).
January 2008
E-5
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
The water quality benefits of the BMPs placed on the landscape were estimated using SWAT. Reductions
of between 6 to 20 percent for nitrogen, 28 to 59 percent for phosphorus and 6 to 65 percent for sediment
from existing baseline conditions were targeted for the 13 watersheds in Iowa. Costs for the various
practices were obtained from a variety of sources, such as the Natural Resources Conservation Service's
(NRCS) Environmental Quality Incentives Program contracts and NRCS construction contracts. Three
types of costs were included in the economic model: (1) incentive costs, which are payments to producers,
normally limited to 1 to 3 years, to encourage them to adopt certain practices, especially if the practices
involve some perceived economic risk; (2) actual construction costs of the various hard practices, such as
terraces and waterways; and (3) land set-aside costs for the producer to take land out of row crop
production and place it in perennial grasses or other non-crop uses.
An implementation period of 10 years was chosen as a realistic goal to achieve full implementation of the
identified set of BMPs. The annualized program costs were then converted to a net present value using an
8 percent discount rate (Table E-3).
Table E-3. Modeled Nonpoint Source Needs Identified for Iowa (January 2004 Dollars)
Total NFS Needs VII-A
Facility Name" ($K) ($K)
98 facilities in 13 large watersheds throughout Iowa 11,145,050 11,145,050
a Because needs presented in the CWNS 2004 Database are identical for all 98 facilities, it is not possible to
aggregate the dollar amount in a reasonable manner at the 8- or 6-digit HUC level.
January 2008
E-6
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Kansas' Nonpoint Source Needs
Introduction
Kansas has a land area of 81,407 square miles and is drained by 12 major river basins. Land use in the
State is primarily agricultural, with 64,414 farmsteads throughout the State. Approximately 47,227,944
acres of land is in farms, and the average farm size is 733 acres. Unfortunately, geolocational and NFS
needs data are not available for most of the farmsteads in Kansas. However, some needs survey
information was compiled on a countywide basis. Subsequently, the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment (KDHE), Bureau of Water, Watershed Management Section, used existing data to complete
needs surveys for each of the 105 counties in Kansas. Statewide totals were also estimated. The following
is a summary of inventory categories, associated data sources and assumptions used to complete this
survey.
Methodology
Acres of Crop, Pasture and Range Land Needing Treatment. Approximately 58 percent of the total
land acres in Kansas are used for row crop agriculture. Row crop agriculture contributes a significant
amount of silt, pesticides and nutrients into the State's surface waterbodies. In 1997 the NRCS updated
the National Resources Inventory (NRI), which quantifies the number of acres of cropland. Agricultural
experts in Kansas determined the percentage of land reported in the NRI needing treatment for a given
county. The Kansas State Conservation Commission (SCC) administers a portion of the State Water Plan
Fund for cost sharing on certain conservation practices. As part of the cost-share program, the SCC tracks
land treatment costs by county. Land treatments may include conservation measures such as terraces,
grass waterways, and buffer strips. According to the SCC, the average cost to treat an acre of land is
approximately $125.
The NRI also quantifies the number of acres of pasture and rangeland. Agricultural experts in Kansas
determined the percentage of pasture and rangeland reported in the NRI needing treatment. Many BMPs
and water quality protection measures can help improve the quality of runoff from rangeland and pasture
land. According to the SCC, the most common treatment for rangeland and pastureland is the creation of
alternative water supplies. The SCC estimates that the average cost to provide alternative water supplies
in Kansas is approximately $25 per acre.
Livestock Facilities Requiring Treatment. The Watershed Management Section focused on
quantifying the nonpoint source abatement needs for cow/calf, beef cow and milk cow (dairy) operations.
The nonpoint source abatement needs for these types of facilities are extremely diverse. Some small
livestock facilities might need only a grass filter strip or alternative water supply, whereas other facilities
might require a total waste containment system (lagoon) or change in management practices. There is no
accurate statewide inventory of nonpoint source abatement needs for livestock facilities. The NRI,
however, does include a county-specific inventory of cow/calf, beef cow and milk cow farms. To
conservatively account for livestock facilities in this needs inventory, it was assumed that each livestock
facility in a given county required at least one water quality protection measure, structure, or BMP to
abate nonpoint source pollution. According to the SCC, $12,000 is the average cost to treat large livestock
facilities. It is assumed that large livestock facilities will require a structural waste containment system or
a lagoon. Often small livestock facilities can be treated by changing management practices, adding buffer
strips, or both. The average cost to treat small livestock facilities can vary dramatically. Nemaha County
has estimated that small livestock facilities could be treated at an average cost of $3,000. To account for
all livestock facilities (regardless of size) that need treatment, the Nonpoint Source Section decided to
average SCC's treatment costs, which is $7,500.
January 2008
E-7
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Failing Septic Systems. To complete this needs inventory, the following protocol was developed for
estimating the number of failing septic systems in a given county. U.S. Census data were reviewed to
determine the rural population in a given county. The U.S. Census data also indicated that there are
approximately three persons per rural household. By dividing the rural population by three, the number of
rural households was estimated for a given county. It was assumed that most of rural households use
septic systems. On the basis of Local Environmental Protection (LEP) program data, it was also assumed
that there is a statewide average septic system failure rate of 40 percent. The total number of septic
systems (equal to the number of rural households) was then multiplied by 0.40 to determine the number
of failing septic systems in a given county. According to the KDHE's LEP program, the statewide
average cost to upgrade or replace a failing septic system is approximately $4,500 per household.
Hydromodification (Stream Miles Needing Treatment). Hundreds of miles of Kansas stream and river
corridors are in a degraded condition. Many factors can degrade the condition of a stream corridor,
including lack of riparian vegetation, development and increased runoff within the watershed, and
farming up to the edge of the stream. For this needs inventory, the Nonpoint Source Section assumed that
approximately one-eighth of the State's stream miles are degraded and in need of treatment. Treatment for
degraded streams may include stream bank stabilization structures and riparian enhancement and
restoration. GIS data were used to calculate the total number of perennial stream miles in a given county,
and then that number was divided by 8 to determine the number of stream miles needing treatment. Both
the SCC and KDHE's Watershed Management Section have programs that focus on riparian restoration
and protection. On the basis of past project experience, the SCC estimates that stream banks can be
stabilized at an estimated average cost of $15 per linear foot. Thus, it would cost approximately $79,200
to treat one mile of stream.
Table E-4 presents the nonpoint source needs identified for the different CWNS 2004 cost categories for
Kansas.
Table E-4. Modeled Nonpoint Source Needs
Watershed
Missouri-Nishnabotna
Republican
Smoky Hill
Kansas River Basin, excluding the Big Blue,
Republican and Smoky Hill River Basins
Big Blue River Basin
Osage River Basin
Middle Arkansas
Upper Cimarron
Arkansas-Keystone
Verdigris River Basin
Neosho River Basin
Total
Identified for Kansas
VII-A
($K)
36,827
173,753
363,558
85,624
32,966
57,406
663,919
203,891
120,931
35,443
136,744
1,911,062
(January 2004 Dollars)
VII-B
($K)
24,633
68,206
148,691
94,927
27,778
66,995
148,342
30,699
64,109
53,452
103,197
831,029
VII-K
($K)
9,132
37,825
79,280
38,515
12,924
20,852
70,429
10,079
28,436
23,525
41,620
372,617
VII-L
($K)
16,329
21,633
57,700
90,540
21,429
36,509
129,747
14,335
30,239
21,773
58,058
498,292
E-8
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
New Jersey's Nonpoint Source Needs
Introduction
Over the past several years, EPA has issued guidance on the development of complete watershed-based
plans throughout the Nation. For a watershed-based plan to be considered complete, it must contain at
least nine predefined components. Those components are the foundation on which NFS pollution control
needs can be determined and implemented for the given watershed.
The specific needs for implementing watershed-based plans in New Jersey were taken from the Strategic
Water Quality Improvement Plan for Surface Water Quality Impairments of the Long Swamp Creek
Watershed, prepared in April 2003. This approved plan for the Long Swamp Creek watershed (LSCW) is
the most thorough approved plan that New Jersey has available at this time. Many other plans were
carefully perused and considered. However, no other plans provided sufficient detail on projects that need
to be implemented (type and number) to enable making the necessary determinations on a statewide level.
Methodology
New Jersey estimated the costs to develop watershed-based plans on the basis previously funded
watershed-based planning efforts, such as Regional Stormwater Management Plan grants funded under
the SPY 2004 section 319(h) pass-through grant program and proposals for watershed-based plans
received for the SPY 2005 319(h) pass-through grant program. These plans included the nine minimum
components specified in EPA's Supplemental Guidelines for the Award of Section 319 Nonpoint Source
Grants to States and Territories in FY 2000. The total project cost, including in-kind match, was divided
by the number of square miles covered by the project to obtain the cost per square mile. The costs per
square mile for all the projects were then averaged to obtain the cost per square mile to develop a
watershed-based plan. Once the average cost per square mile was determined, the cost was applied to the
square mileage of each Watershed Management Area (WMA) in the State.
New Jersey estimated the costs to implement previously approved watershed-based plans that do not meet
all of EPA's watershed-based planning requirements but are robust enough for determining NPS pollution
control needs. The most thorough approved plan was used as the basis for the specific needs for
implementation of watershed-based plans. The watersheds in New Jersey differ in NPS needs and the
methods used to address the needs. Consequently, some needs shown in the selected plan do not exist in
all watersheds throughout the State. However, those watersheds have needs specific to them that are not
reflected in the selected plan. Therefore, the unique needs for the selected plan can be taken into
consideration and costs applied across the State without compromising the accuracy of the cost estimates.
Nine categories of projects identified from the selected plan address NPS pollution control. They are Inlet
Filters, J^iparian Buffer Development, Education & Outreach Activities, Open Space and J^iparian
Corridor Preservation, Stormwater BMPs, Oil Skimmers, Sampling/monitoring, Goose Management, and
Stream bank Stabilization. To determine the cost to implement a previously approved watershed-based
plan, the costs for each project category were added. The result was a cost of $5,996,534. The selected
plan addresses an area of 6.3 square miles. Therefore, the cost per square mile, rounded to the nearest
hundred, is $951,800.
Because watershed-based plans do not precisely fit into any one NPS category used for the CWNS 2004,
the best categories in which to place these needs are VII-A NPS agriculture (cropland), VII-D NPS urban,
and VII-E NPS ground water, depending on the land use types present. The most recently available New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) GIS land use coverages for each WMA were
used to separate land uses into urban, agricultural, and ground water categories. Any non-agricultural land
uses were combined into the urban category. All land uses in the Pinelands area were placed in the ground
January 2008
E-9
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
water category, but no land uses outside the Pinelands were included in this category. The WMAs with
significant sections in the Pinelands are WMAs 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20. An assumption was made
that an equal amount of agricultural and urban land uses in each WMA are within the Pinelands. For
example, if half of the WMA is in the Pinelands, it is assumed that half of the agriculture land use in that
WMA is in the Pinelands and half of the urban land use in the WMA is in the Pinelands.
To extrapolate the plan implementation costs to the State level, GIS coverages were used to determine the
square miles in each WMA. Thus, the cost for plan implementation in the entire WMA could be
determined. Table E-5 provides the costs to implement a watershed-based plan in each WMA and breaks
the costs down into the CWNS 2004 categories of VII-A NPS agriculture (cropland), VII-D NPS urban,
and VII-E NPS ground water.
Table E-5. Estimated Nonpoint Source Needs Identified for New Jersey (January 2004 Dollars)
Name of Watershed Management Area (WMA)
WMA 1 - Upper Delaware
WMA 2 - Wallkill
WMA 3 - Pompton, Pequannock, Wanaque, Ramapo
WMA 4 - Lower Passaic, Saddle
WMA 5 - Hackensack, Hudson, Pascack
WMA 6 - Upper & Mid Passaic, Whippany, Rockaway
WMA 7 -Arthur Kill
WMA 8 - North & South Branch Raritan
WMA 9 - Lower Raritan, South River, Lawrence
WMA 10 - Millstone
WMA 1 1 - Central Delaware
WMA 12 - Monmouth
WMA 13 - Barnegat Bay
WMA 14 - Mullica
WMA 15 - Great Egg Harbor
WMA 16 - Cape May
WMA 17 - Maurice, Salem, Cohansey
WMA 18 - Lower Delaware
WMA 19 - Rancocas
WMA 20 - Assiscunk, Crosswicks, Doctors
Total
VII-A
($K)
159,780
42,277
1,485
369
481
10,109
154
136,675
36,604
95,770
98,525
56,165
9,443
7,108
10,088
16,008
289,603
138,825
6,698
81,329
1,197,496
VII-D
($K)
567,142
160,876
230,386
183,387
160,405
342,266
174,866
319,826
306,164
181,656
166,539
397,130
425,197
185,042
114,143
235,538
779,369
242,666
58,510
103,901
5,335,009
VII-E
($K)
333,499
553,694
487,123
74,549
133,203
276,770
61,378
1,920,216
E-10
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Virginia's Nonpoint Source Needs
Introduction
Approximately 52 percent of the Commonwealth of Virginia's land mass lies within the Chesapeake Bay
basin, representing 34 percent of the entire basin. Four major river basinsthe Shenandoah-Potomac,
Rappahannock, York, and Jamesas well as the bayside rivers and creeks of the Eastern Shore (the
Delmarva Peninsula) make up the bay's drainage area within Virginia. Consistent with the objective of
reducing nutrients and sediments in the five tributary basins of the Chesapeake Bay watershed in Virginia,
the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program and the Commonwealth of Virginia developed a model to estimate
the cost for implementing nonpoint source controls. It is anticipated that a successful nutrient and
sediment reduction strategy will have significant beneficial effects on water quality in the creeks, streams,
rivers and coastal embayments that feed the lower Chesapeake Bay and result in healthy and abundant
populations offish, shellfish, aquatic plants and other organisms. A total of $6.5 billion in capital costs
were estimated using the modeling approach among the following NPS cost categories: agriculture
(cropland) (VII-A), agriculture (animals) (VII-B), silviculture (VII-C), urban (VII-D), hydromodification
(VII-K) and individual/decentralized sewage treatment (VII-L).
Methodology
Using the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and Water Quality Models, nutrient and sediment load reduction
goals were determined for the Bay to meet new water quality criteria. Virginia's new allocations for
nitrogen and phosphorus are 51.4 million and 6 million pounds per year, respectively. These allocations
compare with the estimated nitrogen and phosphorus loadings in 2002 of 77.8 and 9.84 million pounds
per year. Sediment loadings were set to 1.94 million tons per year, in comparison to the 2.38 million tons
estimated in 2002. To meet these allocations, several pollution control management actions that integrated
point and NPS controls were analyzed with the models. Separate guidelines were developed to achieve
the reductions in nutrient and sediment originating from point and NPSs. This analysis included an
assessment of BMP implementation through 2002 (i.e., cropland acreage with nutrient management
plans) and the 2010 BMP implementation goal to achieve the reduction goals. The difference between the
2010 BMP goal and the 2002 progress is the basis for estimating costs. The NPS control strategy calls for
installing and maintaining BMPs on 92 percent of all available agricultural lands, 85 percent of all mixed
open lands, 74 percent of all urban lands and 60 percent of all septic systems within the Virginia portion
of the Chesapeake Bay watershed. For example, on the 2.87 million acres of treatable agricultural acres
(hay, pasture and cropland), the plan calls for an additional 0.4 million acres of tree planting or
implementation of forested buffers along streams. Multiplying this acreage by the unit cost information
yielded $0.37 billion in capital costs. Similarly, 1.70 million acres of urban land and 1.55 million acres of
mixed open acres were identified within the Bay area for the installation of selected BMPs.
Table E-6 presents the NPS needs identified for the four major river basins and bayside rivers and creeks
of the Eastern Shore. Note that a portion of the modeled cost estimates for urban runoff also includes
costs associated with municipalities covered by EPA's MS4 program and would not be tracked as an NPS
need.
January 2008
E-11
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Table E-6. Modeled NFS Needs Identified for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed within Virginia (January 2004
Dollars)
. _ . XT Total NFS Needs
River Basin Name ,,__.
OJv)
Shenandoah/Potomac
Basin
Rappahannock Basin
York Basin
James Basin
Eastern Shore
Watershed
Total
2,494,886
487,234
460,860
3,043,008
56,159
6,542,147
VII-A
($K)
157,039
27,824
25,635
193,571
5,889
409,958
VII-B
($K)
75,731
31,262
10,631
69,255
502
187,381
VII-C
($K)
187
187
374
935
37
1,720
VII-Da
($K)
2,197,992
412,474
412,474
2,731,122
42,089
5,796,151
VII-K
($K)
28,395
8,940
4,263
28,483
6,800
76,881
VII-L
($K)
35,542
6,547
7,483
19,642
842
70,056
a Includes costs associated with municipalities covered by EPA's MS4 program.
January 2008
E-12
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
West Virginia's Nonpoint Source Needs
Introduction
The Chesapeake Bay drainage area of West Virginia contains the counties of Berkeley, Grant, Hampshire,
Hardy, Jefferson, Mineral, Morgan, Pendleton, Preston and Tucker. Berkley, Jefferson and Morgan
counties on the eastern side of the State cover a land area of 763 square miles in the fastest growing
region in the State. Much of this area is being rapidly transformed into a bedroom community of the
Washington-Baltimore Metropolitan region. To the west, the five-county area of Hampshire, Hardy,
Grant, Mineral and Pendleton counties, with a land area of 2,722 square miles, is dominated by
agriculture. Large-scale poultry production and processing facilities, as well as a robust beef and cattle
market, predominate Preston and Tucker counties and contribute less than 0.5 percent of West Virginia's
total potential nutrient and sediment load.
The Potomac J^iver forms portions of the Maryland-West Virginia boundary (east-west boundary). The
North Branch of the Potomac makes up the western half of the boundary until it combines with the South
Branch, which is almost entirely in West Virginia, except for its headwaters. The watershed of the North
Branch and the combined Potomac J^iver are split between Maryland and West Virginia. The Chesapeake
Bay Program has determined that the Potomac River is one of the many rivers that contribute excess
nutrient and sediment loads to the bay. To correct this problem nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment
loading allocations for each State were evaluated, negotiated and finally agreed upon by each of the
Chesapeake Bay watershed States.
The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, in partnership with West Virginia
Conservation Agency and West Virginia Department of Agriculture, developed the West Virginia
Potomac Tributary Strategy to achieve the desired load reductions in nutrients and sediments. Together
with other partner States in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, West Virginia has targeted load reductions
of 33 percent for nitrogen, 35 percent for phosphorus and 6 percent for sediment between 2003 and
2010.
Methodology
A watershed-based model, developed for achieving predetermined load reductions for nitrogen,
phosphorus and sediment, together with performance data for BMPs in place in West Virginia, is used
to determine the type and number of BMPs necessary to achieve the targeted reductions. To reduce the
amount of sediment and nutrient loading from urban and mixed open sources, the West Virginia
Potomac Tributary Strategy proposed to implement urban nutrient management for 40 percent of urban
and 25 percent of mixed open lands by 2010. Cost estimates were developed for the different CWNS
2004 NPS cost categories.
Table E-7 presents the NPS needs identified for the Potomac Tributary.
Table E-7. Modeled NPS Needs for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed within West Virginia
(January 2004 Dollars)
VII-A VII-B VII-D VII-K
Watershed (SK) ($K) ($K) ($K)
Potomac River Tributary 2,780 13,863 96,610 1,701
January 2008
E-13
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
This page intentionally left blank
January 2008
E-14
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Appendix F
CWNS 2004 Needs Categories
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
This page intentionally left blank
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Table F-l. CWNS 2004 Needs Categories
Category Name
Description
I
Secondary Wastewater Treatment
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. Needs
to address failing septic and decentralized wastewater treatment
systems were reported in Category I in previous surveys.
II
Advanced Wastewater Treatment
A level of treatment that is more stringent than secondary treatment
or produces a significant reduction in nonconventional or toxic
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. Advanced treatment may include additional process units
to increase the level of treatment to the level of potable, or less than
potable but greater than that normally associated with surface
discharge needs. For 2004, this category may also include additional
process units to increase level of treatment to allow for water reuse.
III-A
Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) Correction
Control of the problem of penetration into a sanitary or combined
sewer system of water from the ground through such means as
defective pipes or manholes (infiltration) or from sources such as
drains, storm sewers, and other improper entries into the system
(inflow). Included in this category are costs for correction of sewer
system infiltration/inflow problems. Costs also are reported for
preliminary sewer system analysis and for detailed sewer system
evaluation surveys.
III-B
Sewer Replacement/Rehabilitation
Reinforcement or reconstruction of structurally deteriorating
sanitary or combined 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.
IV-A New Collector Sewers and
Appurtenances
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.
IV-B New Interceptor Sewers 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.
F-1
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Table F-l. CWNS 2004 Needs Categories (continued)
Category Name
Description
V
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)
Correction
Measures used to achieve water quality objectives by preventing
or controlling periodic discharges of a mixture of stormwater and
untreated wastewater (CSOs) 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
stormwater in separate storm and drainage systems.
VI
Stormwater Management Program
Stormwater is defined as runoff water resulting from
precipitation. This needs category includes activities to plan and
implement municipal stormwater 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 and
residential areas that are served by the storm sewer, (2) detect
and remove illicit discharges and improper disposal into storm
sewers, (3) monitor pollutants in runoff from industrial facilities
that flow into municipal separate storm sewer systems, and (4)
reduce pollutants in construction-site runoff discharged to
municipal separate storm sewers. Included is the control of
stormwater pollution from diffuse sources that is ultimately
discharged via a municipal separate storm sewer.
X
Recycled Water Distribution
This was a new category for the CWNS 2004. It includes costs
associated with conveyance of the recycled water (wastewater
reused after removal of waste contributed by humans) and any
associated rehabilitation/replacement needs. Examples are costs
for pipes to convey treated water from the wastewater facility to
the property of the drinking water facility (either the drinking
water distribution system or the drinking water treatment facility)
and the purchase of the equipment for application of the effluent
if the land on which it is to be applied is publicly owned. The
costs associated with additional process units to increase the
level of treatment to the level of potable, or less than potable but
greater than that normally associated with surface discharge
needs, are reported in Category II.
F-2
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Table F-2. CWNS 2004 Other Documented Needs Categories
Category Name
Description
VII-A
NFS Control: Agriculture (Cropland)
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).
VII-B
NFS Control: Agriculture (Animals)
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.
VII-C
NFS Control: Silviculture
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).
VII-D
NFS Control: Urban
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. Some typical best
management practices that could be used to address urban needs
are wet ponds, construction site erosion and sediment controls,
sand filters and detention basin retrofit. Needs related to Federal
or State highways generally would be reported under this
category because State and Federal highways are State-owned.
Needs associated with the portions of a road that go through an
MS4 should be reported in Category VI, Stormwater
Management Program. Costs associated with managing urban
runoff in areas not covered by applicable phase I or II
Stormwater NPDES permits should be reported in this category.
VII-E NFS Control: Ground Water Protection
(Unknown Source)
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.
F-3
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Table F-2. CWNS 2004 Other Documented Needs Categories (continued)
Category Name
Description
VII-F
NFS Control: Marinas
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.
VII-G
NFS Control: Resource Extraction
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.
VII-H
NFS Control: Brownfields
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 contaminated
soils and ground water, and capping to prevent stormwater
infiltration.
VII-I
NFS Control: Storage Tanks
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.
VII-J
NFS Control: Sanitary Landfills
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.
F-4
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Table F-2. CWNS 2004 Other Documented Needs Categories (continued)
Category Name
Description
VII-K
NFS Control: Hydromodification
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.
VI-L NFS Control: Individual/Decentralized
Sewage Treatment
Costs associated with the rehabilitation or replacement of
individual or community sewage disposal systems and the
treatment portion of other decentralized sewage disposal
technologies. Costs related to the development and
implementation of on-site management districts may be included
(but not the costs of ongoing operations of such districts). If a
publicly owned centralized collection and treatment system is
constructed or if sewers are installed to connect the service area
to an existing collection system, the costs should be separately
reported in Categories I and IV-A, respectively. Public
ownership is not required for decentralized systems. Costs could
include the limited collection systems associated with the
decentralized system. This was a new category for CWNS 2004,
costs were previously reported as Categories I, VII-D and VII-E
VIII
Confined Animal-Point Source
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.
IX
Mining-Point Source
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.
XI
Estuary Management
This was a new category for the CWNS 2004. It includes costs
associated with a limited number of estuary management
activities that may not be appropriately included in other needs
categories. Some typical estuary best management practices are
habitat protection for aquatic species, fisheries/oyster
bed/shellfish restocking or restoration, fish ladders, rejuvenation
of submerged aquatic vegetation, artificial reef establishment,
control of invasive introduced vegetative and aquatic species,
and water control structures for flow regime and salinity. Most
activities included in Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plans prepared for estuaries designated under
section 320 would be considered point or nonpoint source
technologies and should be included in the appropriate category.
F-5
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
This page intentionally left blank
January 2008
F-6
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Appendix G
List of Acceptable Documentation Types
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
This page intentionally left blank
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Table G-l lists the document types that were acceptable for justifying needs or costs for the CWNS 2004.
It also provides the percentage of total needs that were documented with each document type.
Table G-l. CWNS 2004 List of Acceptable Documentation Types
Allowable for Percent of
Justification of Total
Documentation Type
Need Cost Documented
Needs in
Table A-l
1. Capital Improvement Plan Yes Yes 43.3
A capital improvement plan is a fiscal planning document used by cities that
usually spans 1 to 20 years. It contains project- and cost-specific information and is
sometimes referred to as a Master Plan. The capital improvement plan must
adequately address why the project is needed and provide costs that are project-
specific
2. Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) Analysis Yes Yes <0.1
An I/I analysis is a document that identifies excessive flow problems due to
infiltration or inflow into the sewage conveyance system. The I/I analysis itself may
be contained in a facility plan, a sewer system evaluation survey or a combined
sewer overflow report.
3. Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) Yes Yes 0.9
An SSES is a document that contains the results of a sewer system survey, manhole
inspection, smoke testing and flow monitoring. It is used to evaluate the physical
condition of a sewer system and identifies areas of combined sewers, downspout
connections and locations where the sewer system is at capacity. In many cases, a
combined sewer overflow study is placed in this category.
4. Final Engineer's Estimate Yes Yes 5.9
The final engineer's report is typically submitted as a result of a detailed facility
design. It contains a specific description of the project scope and a list of work to be
done with detailed itemized costs.
5. Cost of Previous Comparable Construction No Yes 0.4
This estimate of cost must be based on the cost of a recently completed project that
is similar in size, scope and location and for which detailed construction cost data
are available. This document may be used to justify costs if stringent guidelines are
followed and the costs are project-specific.
6. Facility Plan Yes Yes 17.3
Excerpts from a facility plan are acceptable forms of documentation to justify a
need and to update cost estimates. The facility plan contains project-specific
information, and typically several alternatives are presented, including one
recommended alternative. Only information covering the recommended alternative
may be used to document a need and a cost estimate.
7. Plan of Study Yes Noa <0.1
This documentation type must be an official project description. Any type of
preliminary engineering study done before more detailed planning to assess the
scope and feasibility of the project is categorized as a Plan of Study. It may be used
only to document the need.
G-1
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Table G-l. CWNS 2004 List of Acceptable Documentation Types (continued)
Allowable for
Justification of
Need
Cost
Documentation Type
Percent of
Total
Documented
Needs in
Table A-l
8. Intended Use Plan (IUP) Yes Yes 4.8
The IUP, which is prepared annually, uses State-assigned criteria to rank projects
for which Federal funding assistance is being sought during the current Federal
fiscal year. The primary purpose of the IUP is to identify proposed annual intended
uses of the amounts available to the CWSRF. A section 212 project listed in the
IUP must be on the State Priority List to be eligible for CWSRF funding; a section
319 or 320 activity is not required to be on the State Priority List unless the activity
is considered to be nontraditional NPS pursuant to the Funding Framework;
however, such activities must be listed on a State's IUP for funding to occur.
9. State-Approved Area-wide or Regional Basin Plan Yes Yes 1.5
The Clean Water Act's section 208 and 303 Regional Basin Plans are broad-based
water quality management plans written to identify future planning for areas in a
State. Only section 208 and 303 documents that contain site-specific information
and a description of a need may be accepted as documentation of need.
Documentation of cost is assessed case by case depending on the amount of detail
reported and the source of the information.
10. Grant Applications and CWSRF Loan Applications Yes Yes 2.3
Federal or equivalent State grant applications or CWSPJ7 applications may be used
to document needs and to update costs for the categories in which the grant or loan
money is requested. Applications should contain sufficient clearly written narrative
that defines the specific project and the water quality or public health problem. If an
equivalent State grant program application is used as documentation, the form must
be submitted.
11. State Project Priority List Yes No <0.1
The State Priority List ranks projects by State-assigned criteria for which Federal
funding assistance is being sought. States may select projects from the State
Priority List for inclusion in the Intended Use Plan (IUP) regardless of the rank of
the project on the State Priority List. States are not required to develop a new
CWSRF priority list each year; they may develop a single multiyear CWSRF
priority list, which could be considered their current list and the list need not be
updated annually. Because Refundable portion of the State Priority List is usually
included in a State's IUP and there is ambiguity in defining Refundable and
planning portion of the State Priority List, as well as the State-to-State variability in
the lists, only the State's current State Priority List may be used to justify need (and
not cost).
12. Diagnostic Evaluation Yes No <0.1
A diagnostic evaluation is usually performed when a facility cannot achieve
effluent discharge permit limits or when it experiences design, operational,
analytical or financial problems that limit the performance of the facility. This type
of evaluation may be used to document a need if the results indicate that
construction is necessary to achieve compliance.
13. Administration Order/Court Order/Consent Decree Yes No <0.1
These official documents are usually issued as the result of continued violation of a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit or other pollution control
requirements. The order or decree must state a need for construction to correct the
violation to document the need. Cost curves may be used to calculate associated
costs.
G-2
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Table G-l. CWNS 2004 List of Acceptable Documentation Types (continued)
Allowable for
Justification of
Need
Cost
Documentation Type
Percent of
Total
Documented
Needs in
Table A-l
14. Sanitary Survey Yes No 0.1
A Sanitary Survey is a logical, investigative approach to gather information to
evaluate the condition of existing onsite wastewater systems. The sanitary survey
must document high area-wide failure rates that are considered serious enough to be
a health hazard (such as ground water contamination caused by malfunctioning
septic tanks) to document a need. The documentation must clearly state that onsite
failures are contributing to a water pollution or health-related problem. EPA
reviews this documentation case by case.
15. State-Approved Local/County Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plans
These plans are similar to State-Approved Area-Wide Basin Plans. These local
plans also cover fairly large areas and might not contain project-specific
information. These local plans must clearly identify a water quality or health-
related problem and must be project-specific to be acceptable as documentation.
Yes
YesD
1.3
16. State Certification of Excessive Flow Yes No
This document may be used to demonstrate that a need exists for infiltration/inflow
correction.
17. State-Approved Municipal Wasteload Allocation Plan Yes Yesb <0.1
A Municipal Wasteload Allocation Plan is a water quality analysis used to
determine the level of treatment required by a specific project, which is ultimately
translated into an effluent limitation or BMP for the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System permit. These plans may be used to justify the need for a
treatment plant enlargement or upgrade as long as the study identifies a specific
sewage treatment point source and appropriate design flows and treatment levels.
This plan may be used to document a need and may be used to update costs if the
project descriptions identify specific costs.
18. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Yes Noc <0.1
A TMDL is an estimation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody
(one listed on a State's 303(d) list) can receive and still meet water quality
standards, and it includes an allocation of the allowable pollutant discharge amount
to different point and nonpoint sources. Project-specific needs should be identified.
If used to justify costs, TMDL Reports or TMDL Implementation Plans containing
cost data will be reviewed case by case.
21. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) or State Yes No <0.1
Permit Requirements (with Schedule)
NPDES is a permitting program implemented under authority of the Clean Water
Act and designed to control point source discharges of pollution. Facilities not
meeting effluent limitations and compliance schedules or facilities required to plan
because they are at or near plant capacity may submit documentation under
documentation type 21.
22. Municipal Stormwater Management Plan Yes No0 0.2
A Municipal Stormwater Management Plan is a plan that describes a proposed
municipal Stormwater management program as part of a municipality's NPDES
Stormwater permit application. It includes a description of structural and source
control measures that are to be implemented to (1) reduce pollutants in runoff from
commercial and residential areas that is discharged from the storm sewer, (2) detect
and remove illicit discharges and improper disposal into storm sewers, (3) monitor
pollutants in runoff from industrial facilities that discharge to municipal separate
storm sewers, (4) reduce pollutants in construction site runoff that is discharged to
municipal separate storm sewers, and (5) enhance municipal maintenance, public
education and public involvement.
G-3
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Table G-l. CWNS 2004 List of Acceptable Documentation Types (continued)
Documentation Type
Allowable for Percent of
Justification of Total
Need Cost Documented
Needs in
Table A-l
23. Nonpoint Source Management Plan/Assessment Report Yes No0
A Nonpoint Source Management Plan is a 4-year plan developed by a State to
address nonpoint source pollution problems. Elements of the plan include
identification of the best management practices and measures to reduce pollutant
loading; programs to achieve implementation; a schedule with annual milestones,
costs, and identification of specific projects; certification that the laws of the State
will provide adequate authority to implement the plan; and sources of funding and
assistance. A Nonpoint Source Assessment Report assesses the extent of pollution
due to diffuse or nonpoint sources within a State. The report identifies navigable
waters that require nonpoint source controls to achieve Clean Water Act water
quality standards, sources and amounts of such pollution, and State and local
control programs. It also describes the process that will be used to identify best
management practices. EPA will consider other documentation, such as nonpoint
source grant applications and States' surveys, case by case.
24. Nonpoint Source Management Plan/Ground Water Protection Strategy Yes No0
States may use a Comprehensive Ground Water Protection Strategy to document
nonpoint source needs if the strategy is part of a Nonpoint Source Management
Program. The goals of this major Federal initiative addressing ground water
protection are to strengthen State ground water programs; deal with significant,
poorly addressed ground water problems; create a policy framework within EPA
for the guidance of ground water policy; and strengthen the ground water
organization within EPA. Included in such a strategy are programs established
under the Safe Drinking Water Act such as regulation of the injection of wastes into
deep wells, the Wellhead Protection Program, and the Sole Source Aquifer
Program. Provisions in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act for leaking
underground storage tanks, goals in the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act for contaminated ground water sites, and State
grant programs in the Clean Water Act for ground water protection activities are
covered by this strategy.
25. Nonpoint Source Management Plan/Wellhead Protection Program and Yes No0
Plan
A Wellhead Protection Plan may be used to document nonpoint source needs if it is
part of a Nonpoint Source Management Program. As part of its overall ground
water protection strategy, each State must delineate wellhead protection areas for
wells or well fields used for public water supply. Contaminant sources within the
wellhead protection area must be identified and a management plan developed to
protect the water supply in that area from contamination. Contingency plans for
each public water supply system must be developed to ensure an appropriate
response in the event that contamination occurs, and standards must be established
for locating new wells so as to minimize the potential for contamination of the
water supply.
26. Nonpoint Source Management Plan/Delegated Underground Injection Yes No0
Control Program Plan
A State may document needs to address nonpoint source aspects of a Delegated
Underground Injection Control Program Plan if it is part of the State's Nonpoint
Source Management Program. As part of the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA and
State Underground Injection Control Programs were established to protect potential
underground sources of drinking water from contamination by injection wells.
G-4
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Table G-l. CWNS 2004 List of Acceptable Documentation Types (continued)
Allowable for
Justification of
Need
Cost
Documentation Type
Percent of
Total
Documented
Needs in
Table A-l
27. Estuary Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan (CCMP) Yes No0
A CCMP is a management plan developed for an estuary that has been nominated
for the Clean Water Act section 320 National Estuary Program. The CCMP
summarizes findings, identifies and establishes a priority for addressing problems,
determines environmental quality goals and objectives, identifies action plans and
compliance schedules for pollution control and resource management, and ensures
that designated uses of the estuary are protected.
28. Funding Applications (applicable only for communities with populations of Yes Yes 0.1
fewer than 3,500)
All applications for funding (with signed agency review sheets, e.g., Rural
Economic and Community Developmentformerly Farmers Home
Administration, Community Development Block GrantHousing and Urban
Development) other than State Revolving Funds are acceptable for need. The
application is acceptable for cost if an engineering report is reviewed by qualified
State project staff.
29. State Needs Surveys (applicable only for communities with populations of Yes Yes 0.3
fewer than 3,500)
All State Needs Surveys are acceptable for documenting need if:
A local government official's signature is included (local means city,
community, town, borough, village or county)
Information describing the problem is attached
Information describing prior or ongoing planning efforts and descriptions of the
cost-effective control option are offered
State Needs Surveys are acceptable for documenting cost if a cost estimate that has
been prepared and signed by an engineer or engineer circuit rider is attached. The
cost estimate need not be as detailed as that found in a facility plan, but it must
include the engineer's rationale for the estimate. Qualified State project staff must
also sign a Statement of Cost Reasonableness after reviewing the estimate.
30. Model Survey (applicable only for communities with populations of fewer Yes Yes 0.3
than 3,500)
Use of a standard or model survey form is acceptable for documenting need (and
cost) as long as appropriate signatures are included. If costs are not included, cost
curves may be used.
31. Information from an Assistance Provider (applicable only for communities Yes No <0.1
with populations of fewer than 3,500)
A statement of need from a technical assistance provider (e.g., State training center,
health department, circuit rider) along with a soils/geologic report may document
need for communities. Local official and provider signatures must be included.
Cost curves may be used to document costs.
32. Vulnerability Assessments for Homeland Security Needs Yes No0
This document may be used to assess needs and might have information that can be
used to justify costs. Cost justification for Categories I-VTI must be project-specific
and distributable among categories. The document should be submitted to the
contractor to determine whether the costs are eligible.
G-5
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Table G-l. CWNS 2004 List of Acceptable Documentation Types (continued)
Allowable for
Justification of
Need
Cost
Documentation Type
Percent of
Total
Documented
Needs in
Table A-l
35. New State or Federal Regulation Yes No
This documentation is for new State or Federal regulations, not future or proposed
ones. New regulation documentation documents a need but not cost. It is expected
that states use cost documentation such as Cost of Previous Comparable
Construction or, when appropriate, CWNS 2004 cost curves to develop costs. Note
that State-generated general cost factors applied to all affected facilities are not
acceptable for documenting costs.
36. Combined Sewer Overflow Long-Term Control Plan (LTCP) Yes Yes 3.6
A plan, comparable to a facility plan, that describes long-term control measures for
combined sewer overflows. Quality may vary across States. Documentation must
be submitted.
40. Approved State Annual 319 Workplans Yes No0
These are Nonpoint Source Management Program workplans approved for section
319(h) funding.
41. Approved State 319 Project Implementation Plans
These are Nonpoint Source Management Program project implementation plans
approved for section 319(h) funding.
Yes
Yes
98. Combined Sewer Overflow Cost Curves NA Yes 14.5
Though not actually a document, these cost curves are an approximation of costs to
control combined sewer overflows. Because combined sewer overflows are public
health threats, the needs to control them are automatically justified.
99. EPA-HQ Approved
These are documents preapproved by EPA headquarters. Some examples are
Nutrient Reduction Technology Cost Estimations for Point Sources in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed, 2001-2003 Community Preservation Plan for the
Town of Southampton and Blackstone River Fisheries Restoration Plan
Yes
Yes
2.8
NA = not applicable.
a Cost curves or other allowable documents for cost justification may be used to justify costs.
b EPA will review documentation to make sure that costs are within acceptance ranges.
0 Documentation might have information that may be used to justify cost. Cost must be project-specific and distributable among
Categories.
G-6
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Appendix H
Pollutant Loading Changes
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
This page intentionally left blank
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Pollutant Loading Changes
From 1940 to the present day, the combination of advancing wastewater treatment technology, increased
public concern, various State wastewater treatment regulations, and, finally, the 1972 CWA secondary
treatment mandate resulted in an increased number of POTWs with at least secondary and, in many cases,
greater than secondary levels of treatment. The total population in the United States grew rapidly in the
latter half of the 20th century, increasing from around 140 million people in 1940 to about 297 million in
2004. This population growth meant POTWs not only had to upgrade their treatment processes to increase
pollutant removal efficiency, but they had to accomplish it while dealing with increasing influent
wastewater loads. To view the steady increase in population served by centralized collection and
treatment, see Figure 3-1. This section examines trends concerning the Nation's expansion and upgrades
of POTWs and analyzes how increased use of secondary and greater than secondary treatment after the
1972 CWA affected the rate of effluent BOD loading to the Nation's waterways.
This analysis focuses on CBOD5, the BOD at 5 days that includes only the carbonaceous component of
oxygen consumption, as well as BODU, the ultimate BOD of the carbonaceous and nitrogenous
components of oxygen consumption at completion of both the carbonaceous decomposition and
nitrification processes. Including both CBOD5 and BODU is important becaue the oxygen consumed in
nitrification is about 30 percent of the oxygen consumed in carbonaceous oxidation of pure organic matter
(Chapra 1997).
The information sources for this analysis uses municipal
wastewater inventories published by the U.S. Public Health
Service from 1940 through 1968 (USPHS 1951;NCWQ 1976;
USEPA 1974) and USEPA's Clean Watersheds Needs Surveys
conducted since 1973. The results presented here are based on
the work presented by USEPA (2000) and updated through the
data reported in Appendix C of this report.
To compute influent and effluent loadings, numerous
assumptions are needed related on influent concentrations,
removal efficiencies and conversion factors. Major
assumptions are provided in the text box to the right.
Designed-based BOD5 removal efficiencies are minimum
requirements typically assigned by NPDES permits according
to the treatment process and treatment plant design
assumptions (Metcalf and Eddy 1991). Generally, they
represent conservative estimates of BOD5 removal
efficiencies. Many modern POTWs report a higher rate of
BOD5 removal than their permitted rate. This study, however,
focuses on designed-based BOD5 removal efficiencies because
it is assumed that these conservative rates would provide a
more effective and consistent comparison of BOD5 removal
over the entire historical period of record used in the analysis.
For more information justifying the assumptions used in these
calculations or the detailed calculations themselves, see
USEPA 2000.
Municipal Wastewater Inventories
1940-1968: U.S. Public Health Service
1972-2004: USEPA CWNS
Key Assumptions
Flow rate: 165 gallons per capita per day (gpcd)
Influent CBOD5 concentration: 215 mg/L
Influent TKN concentration: 30.3 mg/L
Influent NBOD loading: 0.191 Ib per capita per
day
NBODU = 4.57 [TKN]
BODU = [CBODU ] + [NBODU ]
[CBODJ / [CBOD5] conversion ratios
o Raw: 1.2
o Less than Secondary: 1.6
o Secondary: 2.84
o Greater than Secondary: 2.9
CBOD5 removal efficiency
o Raw: 0.0%
o Less than Secondary: 42.5%
o Secondary: 85.0%
o Greater than Secondary: 92.5%
Trends in Influent Loading. Figure H-la is a bar chart that presents a comparison of the total influent
CBOD5 and BODu loading from 1940 to 2004. Figures H-lb and H-lc display influent CBOD5 and BODu
loading data, respectively, organized by wastewater treatment type. The key observations from Figure
H-l include the following:
H-1
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Influent BOD loading to the Nation's POTWs more than tripled from 1940 to 2004, reflecting
population growth, increases in the number of facilities, and expanding service areas.
Influent CBOD5 loading increased from 9,508 metric tons per day in 1940 to 18,814 metric tons per
day in 1968. By 2004, influent CBOD5 loading stood at 29,925 metric tons per day, a 59 percent
increase from 1968.
Influent BODu loading increased from 17,532 metric tons per day in 1940 to 34,693 metric tons per
day in 1968. By 2004, influent BODu loading stood at 55,183 metric tons per day, a 59 percent
increase from 1968.
In 1940 72 percent of influent BODu loading nationwide was being treated by facilities with less than
secondary treatment (12,555 of 17,532 metric tons per day of BODJ. By 1968 39 percent of influent
BODu loading nationwide was being treated by facilities with less than secondary treatment (13,422
of 34,693 metric tons per day of BODJ. Thirty-two years after the 1972 CWA, only 1.5 percent of
influent BODu loading was being treated by facilities with less than secondary treatment (819 of
55,183 metric tons per day of BODJ.
1940 1950 1962 1968 1972 1978 1982 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004
Year
Figure H-la. Influent loading of total BODU and CBOD5 nationwide for
select years between 1940 and 2004.
H-2
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
30,000
1940 1950 1962 1968 1972 1978 1982 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004
Year
Figure H-lb. Influent loading of CBOD5to POTWs nationwide for select
years between 1940 and 2004 organized by wastewater treatment type.
60,000
.E ~
50,000
3 40,000
d §
So
£ i
S E
30,000
20,000
10,000
1940 1950 1962 1968 1972 1978 1982 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004
Year
Figure H-lc. Influent loading of BODU to POTWs nationwide for select
years between 1940 and 2004 organized by wastewater treatment type.
Trends in Effluent Loading. Figure H-2a is a bar chart that presents a comparison of the total effluent
CBOD5 and BODu loading from 1940 to 2004. Figures H-2b and H-2c display effluent CBOD5 and BODu
loading data, respectively, organized by wastewater treatment type. The key observations from Figure H-
2 include the following:
Effluent BOD loading from POTWs was significantly reduced between 1968 and 2004. In 1968, 4
years before the 1972 CWA, effluent CBOD5 and BODu loadings were 6,932 and 21,281 metric tons
per day, respectively. By 2004 CBOD5 and BODu loadings were reduced to 3,291 and 16,499 metric
tons per day, respectively. This represents a 53 percent decline in CBOD5 and a 22 percent decline in
BODu between 1968 and 2004. Notably, these declines were achieved even though influent CBOD5
and BODu loading to POTWs each increased by 59 percent during the same time period.
The proportion of effluent CBOD5 loading attributable to raw and less than secondary wastewater
treatment was reduced from about 94 percent in 1940 to 8 percent in 2004 (Figure H-2b). The
H-3
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
proportion of effluent BODu loading attributable to raw and less than secondary wastewater treatment
was reduced from about 84 percent in 1940 to 4 percent in 2004 (Figure H-2(c).
25,000
1940 1950 1962 1968 1972 1978 1982 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004
Year
Figure H-2a. Effluent loading of total BODU and CBOD5 from POTWs
nationwide for select years between 1940 and 2004.
10,000
1940 1950 1962 1968 1972 1978 1982 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004
Year
Figure H-2b. Effluent loading of CBOD5 from POTWs nationwide for
select years between 1940 and 2004 organized by wastewater
treatment type.
H-4
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
1940 1950 1962 1968 1972 1978 1982 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004
Year
Figure H-2c. Effluent loading BODU from POTWs nationwide for select
years between 1940 and 2004 organized by wastewater treatment type.
The analysis above indicates that tremendous progress was achieved between 1968 and 2004 in reducing
effluent BOD loading from POTWs into the Nation's waterways. Notably, this reduction occurred at the
same time the number of people served by POTWs was increasing rapidly. Figures H-3 and H-4 present
influent and effluent loadings together with removal efficiencies for CBOD5 and BODu, respectively. Key
observations from Figures H-3 and H-4 include the following:
BOD removal efficiency nationwide significantly increased between 1940 and 2004. In 1940 the
aggregate national removal efficiency stood at about 33 percent for CBOD5 and 20 percent for BODu.
By 1968 removal efficiencies had increased to 63 percent for CBOD5 and 39 percent for BODu. By
2004 they had further increased to 89 percent for CBOD5 and 70 percent for BODu.
The BOD removal efficiency increased substantially between 1972 and 1978, the 6-year period after
the passage of the CWA (from 64 to 74 percent for CBOD5 and from 41 to 52 percent for BODJ.
Between 1978 and 2004 removal efficiency increased an additional 15 percent for CBOD5 and 18
percent for BODu. Those larger increases in BODu removal efficiency reflect the ever-increasing role
of greater than secondary POTWs over this time period.
_ 30,000 -
I* 27,000 -
| 24,000
o 21,000
§ 18,000
~ 15,000
| 12,000
8 9,000
Influent CBOD.
Q Effluent CBOD,
O Removal Efficiency
1940 1950 1962 196B 1972 1978 1982 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004
Year
Figure H-3. Total POTW influent and effluent CBOD5 loading
and corresponding CBOD5 removal efficiency for select years.
H-5
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
1940 1950 1962 1968 1972 1978 1982 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004
Year
Figure H-4. Total POTW influent and effluent BODU loading and
corresponding BODU removal efficiency for select years
between 1940 and 2004.
Future Trends in BOD Effluent Loading. As shown in Chapter 4 (Figure 4-1), the population served by
secondary treatment facilities declined sharply between 1968 (85.6 million) and 1978 (56.3 million) and
then leveled off at about 82 million in the 1990s. In contrast, the number of people served by greater than
secondary treatment surged between 1968 and 1978 (0.3 to 49.1 million) and then increased steadily to
about 108.5 million in 2004. Unlike secondary treatment, advanced wastewater treatment enhances
biological processes to incorporate nitrification (ammonia removal) and denitrification (nitrate removal),
thus reducing the NBOD fraction of effluent BODu loading.
The data presented in the previous sections indicate that the increase in BOD removal efficiency between
1940 and 2004 resulted in significant reductions in BOD effluent loading to the Nation's waterways even
though the number of people served by POTWs greatly increased. Given that the population served by
POTWs is projected to continue to increase, what might the effluent BOD loadings be in the future?
Using the population projections provided in Appendix C (Table C-4), projections in influent and effluent
BOD loading rates and BOD removal efficiencies for 2004 and corresponding projections can be made.
Figure H-5 is a bar chart that extends the influent and effluent BODu loading totals and POTW removal
efficiencies originally presented in Figure H-4 well into the 21st century by adding columns for the years
2016 and 2025 to the chart. These projections are based on the following assumptions:
USEPA CWNS 1996 (USEPA 1997) estimates that 275 million people will be served by POTWs in
the year 2016. This figure is based on middle-level population projections from the Census Bureau
(USBC 1996) and the assumption that 88 percent of the population will be served by POTWs in
2016. Assuming that 88 percent of the population projected for 2025 is also served by POTWs, about
295 million people will be served by POTWs.
Design-based BODu removal efficiency will increase from a nationwide average of 70 percent in
2004 to 71 percent by 2016 on the basis of projections of population served by the different
categories of POTWs. This removal efficiency is assumed to remain at that level through 2025.
Influent wastewater flow will remain a constant 165 gpcd and influent BODu concentration will
remain a constant 396.5 mg/L for the projection period from 2004 to 2025.
H-6
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Key observations from Figure H-5 include the following:
Population growth from 2004 to 2016 will increase influent BODu loading nationwide to 68,030
metric tons per day, an increase of 23 percent. By 2025 influent loading will be about 73,179 metric
tons per day, a 33 percent increase from 2004.
Although the BODu removal efficiency is projected to increase from 70 to 71 percent by 2016, it is
predicted that effluent BODu loadings will increase from 16,499 metric tons per day in 2004 to
19,607 metric tons per day in 2016, an increase of 19 percent.
By 2025 the projected effluent BODu loading will be 21,090 metric tons per day, an increase of 28
percent from 2004.
By 2016 the overall BODu removal efficiency of 71 percent and increases in population will result in
a 19 percent increase of effluent loads relative to the 2004 loading rate. To maintain an effluent
BODu loading rate comparable to 1996 conditions through 2016, the national aggregate removal
efficiency would have to be increased from 71 to 77 percent. This would be equivalent to shifting the
projected population served from secondary to advanced secondary and advanced wastewater
treatment facilities.
80:000
70,000
5 60;000
01
u 50,1
Influent BODU
0 Effluent BODn
O Removal Efficiency
1940 1950 1962 1968 1972 1978 1982 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004
2016 2025
Figure H-5. POTW influent and effluent BODU loading and removal efficiency for select
years between 1940 and 2000 and projected POTW influent and effluent BODU loading and
removal efficiency for 2016 and 2025.
References
Chapra, S.C. 1997. Surface Water Quality Modeling. McGraw Hill, Inc., New York, NY.
Hughes, J., R. Whisnant, L. Weller, S. Eskaf, M. Richardson, S. Morrissey, and B. Altz-Stamm. 2005.
Drinking Water and Wastewater Infrastructure in Appalachia: An Analysis of Capital Funding and
Funding Gaps. The University of North Carolina Environmental Finance Center, School of
Government, Chapel Hill, NC.
H-7
January 2008
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2004 Report to Congress
Metcalf and Eddy. 1991. Wastewater engineering: Treatment, Disposal and Reuse. McGraw-Hill Series
in Water Resources and Environmental Engineering, New York, NY.
NCWQ (National Commission on Water Quality). 1976. Staff Report to the National Commission on
Water Quality. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
USEPA(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1974. National water quality inventory, 1974. EPA-
440/9-74-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water Planning and Standards,
Washington, DC.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Progress in Water Quality: An Evaluation of the
National Investment in Municipal Wastewater Treatment. EPA-832-R-00-008. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
USPHS (U.S. Public Health Service). 1951. Water pollution in the United States. A report on the polluted
conditions of our waters and what is needed to restore their quality. U.S. Federal Security Agency,
Public Health Service, Washington, DC.
January 2008
H-8
------- |