SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2008
Report to Congress
EPA-832-R-10-002
-------
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Acknowledgments
The success of the CWNS 2008 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 survey. Members of the CWNS 2008 National
Workgroup are denoted by an asterisk.
Region 1 - Katie Connors*
Connecticut - Dennis Greci
Maine - David Breau* and Steve Mclaughlin
Massachusetts - Patrick Rogers
New Hampshire - Sharon Nail
Rhode Island - Jay Manning
Vermont - Nopadon Sundarabhaya
Region 2 - Ray Kvalheim*
New Jersey - Katen Patel* and Scott Shymon*
New York - Jason Denno* and David Gogolla
Puerto Rico - Elvin Carrasquillo
Region 3 - Ramon Albizu and Catherine King*
Delaware - Greg Pope*
Maryland - Ta-Shon Yu
Pennsylvania - Veronica Kasi, David Mittner,
and Richard Wright*
Virginia - Bill Bishop
West Virginia - Rosalie Brodersen*, Diana
Wallace*, and Carrie Grimm*
Region 4 - Cheryl Epsy
Alabama - William Lott
Florida - Gary Powell and Thomas Montgomery
Georgia - Bob Scott
Kentucky - Jill Bertelson*
Mississippi - Tom Webb*
North Carolina - Mark Hubbard* and
Steve Tsadwa*
South Carolina - George Bryan
Tennessee - Felicia Freeman
Region 5 - William Tansey*
Illinois - Heidi Allen and Chris Davis
Indiana - Shelley Love and Amy Henninger
Michigan - Mark Conradi*, Sonya Butler*, and
Peter Vincent
Minnesota - Jim Anderson
Ohio - Margaret Klepic*
Wisconsin - Rebecca Scott
Region 6 - Susanne Mann*
Arkansas - Dave Fenter
Louisiana - William Bartlett
New Mexico - Jennifer Prada
Oklahoma - Myles Mungle
Texas - Alan Williams
Region 7 - Rao Surampalli and
Kelly Beard-Tittone*
Iowa - Gabe Lee
Kansas - Rod Geisler
Missouri - Doug Garrett* and Kirby Finders*
Nebraska - Susan Hoppel
Region 8 - Brian Friel and Adrienne Rivera*
Colorado - Erick Worker
Montana - Robert Ashton*
North Dakota - Jeff Hauge
South Dakota - James Anderson
Utah - Paul Krauth
Region 9 - Howard Kahan and Juanita Licata*
American Samoa - Brad Rea
Arizona - Jon Bernreuter*
California - Karthy Bare and Jeff Albrecht*
Guam - John Benavente
Hawaii - April Matsumura
Nevada - Adele Basham
Northern Mariana Islands - Kenneth Esplin
Region 10 - Michelle Tucker*
Alaska - Beth Verrelli and Susan Randlett*
Idaho - Nancy Bowser*
Oregon - Angela Parker
Washington - Jeanna Ridner, Emily Morris*, and
David Dunn
-------
-------
CONTENTS
Executive Summary v
Chapter 1: Scope and Methods 1-1
Types of Needs in This Report 1-2
Time Frame for Needs in This Report 1-3
Data Entry Procedures 1-3
CWNS 2008 Data Entry Portal (DEP) 1-4
Documentation of Needs 1-4
Documentation Criteria 1-5
Acceptable Document Types 1-5
Additional Documentation Options for Small Communities 1-7
Data Quality Assurance 1-7
Chapter 2: Results: National Needs 2-1
Trends and Analyses by CWNS 2008 Category 2-6
Wastewater Treatment, Pipe Repair, and New Pipes (Categories I through IV) 2-6
Wastewater Treatment (Categories I and II) 2-10
Pipe Repairs and New Pipes (Categories III and IV) 2-12
Recycled Water Distribution (Category X) 2-14
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Correction (Category V) 2-16
Stormwater Management (Category VI) 2-18
Urban and Rural Communities Needs 2-20
Small Community Needs 2-21
Other Documented Needs 2-24
Unofficial Cost Estimates 2-24
Tribal Needs 2-24
States' Needs Documentation Efforts 2-24
Minnesota Future Wastewater Treatment Needs and Capital Costs 2-25
New York Wastewater Infrastructure Needs Report 2-25
Oregon Inventory of Infrastructure Needs 2-26
Pennsylvania Governor's Sustainable Infrastructure Task Force Report 2-26
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Chapter 3: Concluding Remarks 3-1
Changes in Needs Since 2004 3-1
Trends in the Nation's Ability to Provide Wastewater Treatment 3-2
Funding of Needs 3-4
Sustainable Infrastructure Program 3-6
Management Strategies 3-6
Water and Energy Efficiency 3-7
Efficiency through Collaboration 3-7
Sustainable Pricing 3-7
Closing the Wastewater Infrastructure Funding Gap 3-7
Potential Influences on Future Surveys 3-7
Glossary Glossary-1
Appendix A: Other Documented Needs: Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems
and Nonpoint Source (NFS) Pollution Control A-l
Appendix B: CWNS 2008 Documented Needs by State B-l
Appendix C: CWNS 2008 Total Small Community Documented Needs C-l
Appendix D: CWNS 2008 Comparison of Small Community Facilities' Needs
and Total Needs D-l
Appendix E: CWNS 2008 Unofficial Cost Estimates by State E-l
Appendix F: Total Indian Health Service Wastewater Needs F-l
Appendix G: State Revolving Fund Eligible Needs G-l
Appendix H: CWNS 2004 Documented Needs by State H-l
Appendix I: Summary of CWNS 2008 Technical Information 1-1
Appendix J: CWNS 2008 Needs Categories J-l
Appendix K: List of Acceptable Document Types K-l
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Figures
Figure ES-1. CWNS 2008 total documented needs vi
Figure ES-2. Population served by POTWs nationwide for select years between 1940 and 2008 and projected
(if all needs are met), organized by wastewater treatment type ix
Figure 2-1. CWNS 2008 total documented needs 2-1
Figure 2-2. Distribution of total documented needs by State 2-2
Figure 2-3. Distribution of per capita documented needs by State 2-5
Figure 2-4. Total needs nationwide for the 2000-2008 CWNS organized by category 2-7
Figure 2-5. Distribution of wastewater treatment, pipe repair, and new pipes (Categories I through IV)
needs by State 2-8
Figure 2-6. Distribution of wastewater treatment (Categories I and II) needs by State 2-11
Figure 2-7. Distribution of pipe repairs and new pipes (Categories III and IV) needs by State 2-13
Figure 2-8. Distribution of recycled water distribution (Category X) needs by State 2-15
Figure 2-9. Distribution of combined sewer overflow correction (Category V) needs by State 2-17
Figure 2-10. Distribution of stormwater management (Category VI) needs by State 2-19
Figure 2-11. Geographic distribution of small community needs 2-22
Figure 2-12. Comparison of small versus large community needs and technical information from existing
and projected facilities 2-23
Figure 2-13. Number of projected centralized wastewater treatment and collection facilities by ranges of
population served with needs if all documented needs are met 2-23
Figure 3-1. Population served by POTWs nationwide for select years between 1940 and 2008 and projected
(if all needs are met), organized by wastewater treatment type 3-3
Figure 3-2. Relative distributions of SRF funding assistance and CWNS documented needs by category 3-4
Figure 3-3. Local government wastewater expenditures 3-5
Figure A-l. Distribution of nonpoint source pollution control (Category VII) needs by State A-3
Figure A-2. Distribution of decentralized wastewater treatment systems (Category XII) needs by State A-7
Tables
Table 1-1. CWNS 2008 needs categories 1-2
Table 1-2. Cost curves in the CWNS 2008 DEP 1-5
Table 1-3. Approved types of documentation and associated needs in CWNS 2008 1-6
Table 2-1. CWNS 2008 total needs by category 2-4
Table 2-2. CWNS 2008 total needs by survey year 2-7
Table 3-1. Improvements in treatment level of the nation's municipal wastewater treatment facilities 3-3
Table A-l. CWNS 2008 total NPS needs by category A-4
Table A-2. CWNS 2008 total NPS needs by category and survey year A-5
Table B-l. CWNS 2008 total documented needs by category and State for the CWNS 2008
period (up to 20 years) B-2
MI
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table B-2. CWNS 2008 total documented needs for stormwater management by category and State for
the CWNS 2008 period (up to 20 years) B-4
Table B-3. CWNS 2008 total other documented needs for NPS pollution control projects and decentralized
wastewater treatment systems by category and State for the CWNS 2008 period (up to 20 years) B-6
Table C-l. CWNS 2008 total small community needs C-2
Table C-2. CWNS 2008 total small community needs: facilities serving populations of 3,500 to 10,000 people .... C-4
Table C-3. CWNS 2008 total small community needs: facilities serving populations of 1,000 to 3,500 people C-6
Table C-4. CWNS 2008 total small community needs: facility serving population of fewer than 1,000 people C-8
Table C-5. CWNS 2008 total small community other documented needs C-10
Table D-l. CWNS 2008 comparison of small community facilities' needs and total needs D-2
Table D-2. CWNS 2008 comparison of small community facilities' needs and total needs: facility serving
population of 3,500 to 10,000 people D-4
Table D-3. CWNS 2008 comparison of small community facilities' needs and total needs: facility serving
population of 1,000 to 3,500 people D-6
Table D-4. CWNS 2008 comparison of small community facilities' needs and total needs: facility serving
population of fewer than 1,000 people D-8
Table E-l. CWNS 2008 unofficial cost estimates E-2
Table E-2. CWNS 2008 total unofficial cost estimates for stormwater management E-4
Table E-3. CWNS 2008 total unofficial cost estimates for nonpoint point source pollution control projects E-6
Table E-4. CWNS 2008 total unofficial cost estimates for small community facilities E-8
Table F-l. Total Indian Health Service wastewater needs F-l
Table G-l. CWNS 2008 total State Revolving Fund eligible needs G-2
Table H-l. CWNS 2004 total needs H-2
Table H-2. CWNS 2004 other documented needs H-4
Table 1-1. CWNS 2008 number of operational treatment facilities and pipe systems in 2008 and number
of operational treatment facilities and pipe systems if all documented needs are met 1-2
Table 1-2. CWNS 2008 number of treatment facilities by flow range 1-4
Table 1-3. CWNS 2008 number of treatment facilities by level of treatment 1-5
Table 1-4. CWNS 2008 number of treatment facilities and population served per State by level of treatment
if all documented needs are met 1-6
Table 1-5. CWNS 2008 number of facilities with CSO correction needs and total CSO correction
needs: 2004 and 2008 1-8
Table 1-6. CWNS 2008 number of facilities with stormwater management needs and total stormwater
management needs 1-10
Table 1-7. CWNS 2008 number of treatment facilities and population served per State by level of treatment
for year of 2008 1-12
Table 1-8. Technical data and costs for facilities with less-than-secondary effluent levels that do not
have 301(h) waivers 1-14
Table J-l. CWNS 2008 needs categories J-2
Table K-l. Acceptable document types K-2
IV
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The total reported water quality needs for the nation as of January 1, 2008, are $298.1 billion1
(Figure ES-1). This figure represents capital needs for up to a 20-year period for publicly owned
wastewater pipes and treatment facilities; combined sewer overflow (CSO) correction; and
stormwater management. In addition to presenting needs, this Clean Watersheds Needs Survey
(CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress (hereinafter referred to as "this Report") also summarizes technical
information such as flows, populations served, and treatment levels provided by facilities. The data in
this Report were summarized from a comprehensive census survey of more than 34,000 wastewater
facilities and water quality projects.
Scope and Methods
This Report is a collaborative effort between the States, the District of Columbia, U.S. Territories
(collectively referred to as States for the remainder of this Report) and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). From September 2005 through December 2007, the CWNS 2008 National
Workgroup (whose members are denoted by an asterisk in the acknowledgements) provided input
on the survey methods.
Needs in this Report include the unfunded capital costs of projects as of January 1, 2008 that
• Address a water quality or a water quality-related public health problem existing as of
January 1, 2008, or expected to occur within the next 20 years
• Meet the seven CWNS documentation criteria
Documentation criteria and needs categories are described in Chapter 1 of this Report. Document-
ation criteria ensured the legitimacy of needs and the accuracy of cost and technical information in
this Report. To meet the criteria, a description and location of a water quality or water related public
health problem, as well as site-specific pollution abatement measures with detailed cost information
was required. Needs that did not meet these documentation criteria are classified as Unofficial Cost
Estimates.
1 All needs amounts in this Report are shown in January 2008 dollars.
-------
Executive Summary
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Figure ES-1. CWNS 2008 total documented needs (January 2008 dollars in billions).
National Results by CWNS 2008 Category
Wastewater Treatment, Pipe Repairs, and New Pipes
(Categories I through IV)
The needs for Wastewater Treatment, Pipe Repairs, and New Pipes are $187.9 billion, an increase
of $28.6 billion (18 percent) since 2004. Of this increase, $16.3 billion is for Advanced Wastewater
Treatment (Category II) needs, $7.0 billion is for Secondary Wastewater Treatment (Category I) needs,
and $4.8 billion is for Pipe Repair (Category III) needs.
These needs increases are mainly for improvements to rehabilitate aging infrastructure, to meet
more protective water quality standards, and to respond to and prepare for population growth. New
York ($17.0 billion), California ($16.3 billion), Florida ($9.4 billion), and New Jersey ($6.3 billion)
reported almost half (47 percent) of the Secondary Treatment (Category I) and Advanced Treatment
(Category II) needs. Similarly, nearly half (47 percent) of the Pipe Repair (Category III) and New
Pipe (Category IV) needs were reported by California ($7.9 billion), Florida ($6.5 billion), New York
($5.0 billion), Ohio ($4.4 billion), Texas ($4.2 billion), Puerto Rico ($3.7 billion), North Carolina
($3.7 billion), and Massachusetts ($3.6 billion).
VI
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Executive Summary
Recycled Water Distribution (Category X)
The needs for Recycled Water Distribution are $4.4 billion, a decrease of $0.7 billion (14 percent)
since 2004. California ($1.7 billion) and Florida ($1.2 billion) account for 66 percent of needs.
Decreases in States' reported needs were mainly related to limited resources to enter needs, limited
document availability, and difficulty with cross-program coordination. State increases in needs are
a result of an increased recognition that recycled wastewater can be beneficial in meeting water
quality standards, accommodating population growth, and saving money.
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Correction (Category V)
The needs for Combined Sewer Overflow Correction are $63.6 billion, a decrease of $1.4 billion
(2 percent) since 2004. Illinois ($10.9 billion), New Jersey ($9.3 billion), Pennsylvania ($8.7 billion),
Ohio ($7.5 billion), New York ($6.6 billion), and Indiana ($5.0 billion) reported 74 percent of the
needs. They also account for 565 of the 767 facilities with CSO Correction (Category V) needs. The
States that reported increases indicate that the greater needs are from an increase in the availability
of appropriate documents, primarily completed Long-Term Control Plans (LTCPs). Decreases in needs
are from a variety of factors, including insufficient and outdated documentation; newly developed
LTCPs showing less costs than were previously estimated with cost curves; and the allocation of
significant funding for CSO projects since 2004.
Stormwater Management (Category VI)
The needs for Stormwater Management are $42.3 billion, including $7.6 billion for Conveyance
Infrastructure (Category VI-A), $7.4 billion for Treatment Systems (Category VI-B), and $17.4 billion
for Green Infrastructure (Category VI-C). New Jersey ($15.6 billion), Pennsylvania ($6.0 billion),
California ($3.8 billion), Maryland ($3.8 billion), Texas ($3.1 billion), Florida ($2.5 billion), and New
York ($1.1 billion) reported 85 percent of the needs. The $42.3 billion in Stormwater management
needs represents an increase of $16.9 billion (67 percent) since 2004. Of the $42.3 billion in
Stormwater management needs, $33.0 billion is in regulated communities, and $9.3 billion is in
unregulated communities. The main reasons for increases in these needs are improved EPA and State
communication across programs; States' increased abilities to document Stormwater management
needs; and emerging efforts to use green infrastructure as a supplement to traditional Stormwater
conveyance and treatment systems. States that reported decreases in Stormwater needs cited lack of
time and money to document the needs, as well as low availability of appropriate documentation.
Small Community Needs
The needs for small communities are approximately $22.7 billion, representing about 8 percent of
the $298.1 billion total documented needs. Pipe Repair and New Pipe (Categories III and IV) needs,
Wastewater Treatment (Categories I & II) needs, and CSO Correction (Category V) needs for small
communities are $11.4 billion, $8.5 billion, and $2.7 billion, respectively. Pennsylvania ($2.9 billion),
New York ($1.5 billion), Iowa ($1.5 billion), Utah ($1.4 billion), Illinois ($1.2 billion), West Virginia
($1.0 billion), and Ohio ($1.0 billion) account for 50 percent of the small community needs. Eight
additional States reported between $0.5 billion and $1.0 billion in small community needs.
VII
-------
Executive Summary
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
State Highlights
New Jersey, California, and New York, all with close to $30 billion in needs, reported the largest
total needs. Florida, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas each have needs in excess of $10 billion.
New Jersey, California, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Iowa, and Utah are the
States with the largest increases in needs since 2004, each with an increase of more than $2 billion.2
More than half (58 percent) of the total needs reported are concentrated in the eight States reporting
needs in excess of $10 billion. Twenty-three States each reported less than 1 percent of the total
needs. Appendix B (Table B-1) presents the total needs for all categories by State. The District of
Columbia ($4,315), New Jersey ($3,750), Guam ($2,089), Nebraska ($1,813), West Virginia ($1,663),
New York ($1,527), and Maryland ($1,505) reported the largest needs per capita.
Other Documented Needs
Needs that met CWNS documentation requirements but are not defined in CWA section 516(b)(1)(B)
are summarized in Appendix A and Appendix B, Table B-3. These appendices includes Nonpoint
Source (NPS) Pollution Control (Category VII) needs and Decentralized Wastewater Treatment
(Category XII) needs that are associated with implementing NPS management programs under
section 319 of the CWA and Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs) for
estuaries under section 320 of the CWA.
Unofficial Cost Estimates
Forty-seven States reported Unofficial Cost Estimates of $36.8 billion. Unofficial Cost Estimates did
not meet this Report's Chapter 1 definition of needs. States entered those cost estimates for purposes
other than this Report, such as State-level planning and communication with State legislatures and
other groups involved with addressing and preventing water quality problems.
Tribal Needs
EPA does not track Tribal needs because the Indian Health Service (IMS) conducts a Sanitation
Deficiency Survey of tribal needs for wastewater, drinking water, and solid waste and provides a
report to Congress annually under Public Law (P.L.) 86-121. As of November 2007, tribal wastewater
needs totaled $719.2 million. The largest needs were reported in Alaska ($282 million), Arizona ($110
million), New Mexico ($78 million), and California ($59 million).
2 In comparing 2004 needs to 2008 needs, the 2004 needs total include Category VII-D NPS Urban Pollution Control needs thatwere reported as
unofficial need in Appendix F of the CWNS 2004 Report to Congress.
VIM
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Executive Summary
Trends in the Nation's Ability to Provide Wastewater
Treatment
While this and prior CWNS reports show significant increases in needs, the nation is still making
significant progress in providing wastewater treatment. Figure ES-2 shows that the number of people
provided with advanced wastewater treatment increased dramatically (from 7.8 million people in
1972 to 113.0 million people in 2008). Moreover, the population served by less-than-secondary
treatment decreased from more than 50 million in 1972 to 3.8 million in 2008.
In comparison to 2004, an additional 3.6 million people now receive centralized collection
and wastewater treatment, for a current total of 226.4 million people or 74 percent of the U.S.
population. There are now 2,251 non-discharging3 facilities, an increase of 3 percent since 2004.
Such non-discharging facilities now serve 16.9 million people, or 5.5 percent of the U.S. population.
If the Wastewater Treatment (Categories I and II) needs 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 6 percent from 14,625 to 15,451. The population being served by those
facilities is projected to increase by 26 percent. The number of facilities that provide less-than-
secondary treatment is projected to decline from 30 to 19 facilities, but the populations served
by those facilities are projected to increase from 3.75 million to 3.88 million people. Overall, it is
projected that a total of 15,618 facilities will serve a future population of 284.2 million people, or
79 percent of the U.S. population.
No Discharge
Advanced
Secondary
Less Than Secondary
Raw
mill
1940
1950
1962 1968 1972
1978 1982
Year
1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 Projected
Figure ES-2. Population served by POTWs nationwide for select years between 1940 and 2008 and projected (if all
needs are met), organized by wastewater treatment type.
Source: U.S. Public Health Service and EPA Clean Watersheds Needs Surveys
3 Non-discharging refers to facilities that do not discharge effluent to surface waters but instead reuse effluent for beneficial purposes (e.g., spray
irrigation, ground water recharge).
IX
-------
Executive Summary
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Funding of Needs
Although local ratepayers ultimately fund most wastewater treatment needs, other funding assistance
is available. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) is one of many supplementary federal,
State and local funding sources. From July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2008, EPA provided an
annual average of $1.1 billion in grants to State CWSRF programs.4 States combined the CWSRF
funds with State-match ing funds, bond proceeds, and loan repayments to provide assistance to
local communities, mostly in the form of loans. In the same period, this assistance amounted to
approximately $5.5 billion per year. According to U.S. Census Bureau estimates5 for the most recent
4-year period available (2002-2006), local governments expended approximately $15 billion per
year to address capital wastewater needs and approximately $2 billion per year to address capital
stormwater needs. Over the past 20 years, the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) portion of total
local wastewater expenditures grew from 50 percent to 60 percent. This is an indication of the
increasing O&M needs related to aging wastewater infrastructure and to increasing material and
energy costs. While local capital expenditures have remained flat over the past 20 years, they have
increased over the past 10 years. In general, capital renewal projects have not kept pace with the
increasing need to rehabilitate or replace aging infrastructure.
Sustainable Infrastructure Program
EPA's Sustainable Infrastructure Program emphasizes the need for individual utilities to close their
infrastructure gap by finding efficiencies that reduce their overall infrastructure costs, while adopting
pricing structures that will produce the revenues to meet their needs. Many utilities are adopting
Asset Management and other management strategies that reduce costs by optimizing the timing
and approach to infrastructure renewal and replacement. Significant cost reductions can also be
realized through programs targeting water and energy efficiency. Additionally, collaboration between
utilities in an area or watershed can produce efficiencies that reduce costs. Finally, utilities are
increasingly implementing sustainable pricing structures. Such structures take into account the long-
term infrastructure needs of a system and are designed to generate sufficient revenues to meet utility
customers' needs.
Potential Influences on Future Surveys
Over the next two years, the EPA and State CWNS 2012 Workgroup will plan how to evolve CWNS
to meet emerging needs and to enhance public data access. Potential changes to the CWNS 2012
include tracking wastewater treatment plant energy efficiency projects and climate change-related
needs. In addition, the EPA and State CWNS 2012 Workgroup will continue efforts to address
underreporting of needs.
4 During a comparable 4-year period (October 1, 2004, through September 30, 2008), Congress provided an additional annual average of $0.1 billion in
Special Appropriation Act Project earmark grants for wastewater treatment, stormwater management, and IMPS pollution control projects.
5 Based on data from U.S. Census Bureau, Governments Division's State and Local Government Finances Survey
(http://www.census.gov/govs/www/estimate.html).
-------
Chapter 1
SCOPE AND METHODS
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prepared this Clean Watersheds
Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress, hereinafter referred to as "this Report," in
compliance with Clean Water Act (CWA) section 516(b)(1)(B). This Report assesses the capital
investment necessary for the nation's wastewater pipes and treatment facilities and municipal
stormwater management projects to meet CWA water quality objectives.
This Report is a collaborative effort among the States, the District of Columbia, U.S. Territories
(collectively referred to as "States" for the remainder of this Report), and EPA. From September 2005
through December 2007, the CWNS 2008 national Workgroup (whose members are denoted by
an asterisk in the acknowledgements) provided input on the survey methods. This is the 15th survey
since the 1972 CWA. The 14th survey addressed needs as of January 1, 2004.
Peoria Butler Drive Water Reclamation Facility, Arizona. Courtesy of Water Infrastructure Finance Authority
(Wl FA) of Arizona.
1-1
-------
Chapter 1: Scope and Methods
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Types of Needs in This Report
Needs in this report include the unfunded capital costs of projects as of January 1, 20085, that
• Address a water quality or a water quality related public health problem existing as of
January 1, 2008, or expected to occur within the next 20 years
• Meet the seven documentation criteria described on page 1-5
Needs in this Report are summarized using the needs categories in Table 1-1 and Appendix J. This
Report does not include all needs related to water quality and water quality-related public health
problems. As in past surveys, this Report does not include information about wastewater facilities
that are privately owned or that serve privately owned industrial facilities, military installations,
national parks, or other federal facilities. Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are also not
included. Needs that met CWNS documentation requirements but are not defined in CWA
section 516(b)(1)(B), including Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution Control (Category VII) needs and
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment (Category XII) needs, are summarized in Appendix A and
Appendix B, Table B-3. For State planning purposes, States could submit Unofficial Cost Estimates
for projects that did not meet this Report's definition of needs. Unofficial Cost Estimates are reported
separately in Chapter 2 (page 2-24) and Appendix E. Technical data (e.g., populations served, flows,
effluent treatment levels) associated with facilities with Unofficial Cost Estimates are included
throughout this Report in various tables and charts.
Table 1-1. CWNS 2008 needs categories
Section 212" Wastewater
Treatment and Collection
Section 212" Wet-Weather
Water Management
Wastewater Treatment
Secondary wastewater treatment (I)
Advanced wastewater treatment (II)
Pipe Repairs
Infiltration/inflow correction (III-A)
Sewer replacement/rehabilitation (III-B)
New Pipes
Collector sewers (IV-A)
Interceptor sewers (IV-B)
Recycled Water Distribution (X)
Combined Sewer Overflow Correction (V)
Stormwater Management13
Conveyance Infrastructure (VI-A)
Treatment Systems (VI-B)
Green Infrastructure (VI-C)
General Stormwater Management (VI-D)
Consistent with CWA section 212 funding assistance eligibilities, official needs in Categories I through VI (except VI-C)
and Category X are limited to publicly owned treatment works.
Stormwater management subcategories are new for CWNS 2008.
All needs in this Report are shown in January 2008 dollars.
1-2
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Chapter 1: Scope and Methods
The CWNS 2008 did not request needs data for American Indian and native villages, hereinafter
referred to as Tribal needs. EPA does not track Tribal needs because the Indian Health Service (IMS)
conducts a separate survey and provides a report to Congress annually under Public Law 86-121.
The IMS Tribal needs are summarized on page 2-24 and in Appendix F. A special set-aside of the
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) appropriation provides funding for Tribal needs on the
basis of a priority list of projects, updated annually by the IMS.
Time Frame for Needs in This Report
For inclusion in this Report, a need had to address a water quality or water quality related public
health problem that existed as of January 1, 2008, or was expected to occur within the next 20 years.
This Report compiles short-term and long-term needs that could be documented in accordance with
documentation criteria on page 1-5. During the 1970s and 1980s, wastewater infrastructure planning
primarily used a 20-year planning horizon (as influenced by a Title II Construction Grants Program
requirement). More recently, wastewater infrastructure planning horizons vary considerably across
the United States. States and local communities have greater flexibility for managing construction
activities, and this planning horizon now ranges from 5 years or less to 20 years or more. Because
CWNS Reports to Congress rely on State and local documents of varying time horizons, the reports
over the past 20 years have not estimated the complete 20-year needs for the nation. For this Report,
documentation methods were adjusted (pages 1-4 and 1-5) to more fully estimate the complete
20-year needs. Costs beyond 20 years have been excluded from this Report.
Data Entry Procedures
EPA and the CWNS 2008 National Workgroup set the CWNS 2008 data entry objectives of:
• Updating and entering new documented costs using the most current planning documents
available
• Addressing historically underreported needs for small communities, decentralized
wastewater treatment (septic) systems, stormwater management projects, and NPS pollution
control projects
• Emphasizing the use of Long-Term Control Plans (LTCPs) or other acceptable documentation
for Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) needs
• Indicating which documented needs are related to Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs)
• Identifying which portions of needs are eligible for assistance under national CWSRF rules7
1 The CWSRF-eligible portions of needs are shown in Appendix G.
1-3
-------
Chapter 1: Scope and Methods
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
To help achieve these objectives, EPA and the CWNS 2008 National Workgroup developed a new
Data Entry Portal (DEP), a detailed CWNS 2008 User Manual, and outreach materials focused
on improving the reporting of historically underreported needs. EPA provided training to local
communities and States via a webcast series (August 2007-April 2008) and to States at a national
kickoff meeting (January 2008). EPA also provided data from the CWNS 2004 as a baseline for the
CWNS 2008 data entry effort. States entered data into the CWNS 2008 DEP from February 5, 2008,
through March 20, 2009.
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 and e-mail.
CWNS 2008 Data Entry Portal (DEP)
The CWNS 2008 DEP allowed States to enter detailed information about each facility, such as facility
descriptions, funding needs, locations, and wastewater systems' levels of treatment and populations
served. The DEP provided several data entry and review advantages over previous CWNS data entry
systems, including the ability to do the following:
• Have multiple users, across multiple organizations, within each State
• Designate which State users have which access rights to which data records
• Copy data, such as National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) data, from other Examples Of DEP Entries
systems to minimize required data entry
D Wastewater Treatment Plant
• Click on an interactive Internet map to capture .... . _ .. .. c .
K K D Wastewater Collection System
location data in the DEP
D CSO Control Facility
• Upload and annotate documents n Stormwater Management Facility
Detailed descriptions of data types in the CWNS n Septic Systems for a community
2008 DEP are available at www.epa.gov/cwns. n NFS Control Projects for a watershed
The CWNS 2008 DEP contains information
on 34,520 entries. Seventy percent (24,076) of these entries have wastewater treatment and
collection system information, 29 percent (10,155) have decentralized wastewater treatment system
information, 11 percent (3,661) have NPS control information, and 8 percent (2,798) have stormwater
management information.
Documentation of Needs
CWNS reports before 2000 included needs based on both documents and data models. Beginning
with the CWNS 2000 report, rigorous documentation was required to validate needs and to ensure
the quality of cost and technical information. The modeled needs resulted in only State- and national-
level estimates. The advantage of documenting needs is that it 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 efforts to meet water quality and public health objectives.
1-4
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Chapter 1: Scope and Methods
Documentation Criteria
EPA, in consultation with the CWNS 2008 National Workgroup, established seven criteria for States
to document each need:
1. A description of the current or potential water quality impairment and information on
its potential source. The problem description needed to include specific pollutant source
information and/or specific threats to the waterbody.
2. The location of the problem. A single latitude/longitude point or an area (e.g., polygon,
county, watershed) needed to be identified.
3. The solution to the problem. One or more specific pollution control measures or best
management practices (BMPs) needed to be identified.
4. The cost for each solution. The cost to implement each pollution control measure or
specified BMP needed to be provided.
5. The source of the cost. Documentation (e.g., engineer's estimates, costs from comparable
practices, estimates from equipment suppliers) for each solution needed to be identified.
6. The total cost. The total cost of all pollution control measures and BMPs documented for
the facility or project needed to be provided.
7. Current documentation. For records with total needs greater than $20 million (January
2008 dollar base), the documentation date of all documents needed to be January 1, 2002,
or more current. For all other needs, the documentation date needed to be January 1,
1998, or more current.
Acceptable Document Types
To maintain quality and consistency in documentation of needs
from State to State, EPA and the CWNS 2008 National Workgroup
developed a list of 43 approved types of documentation. To
more completely estimate the full 20-year needs (page 1-3),
EPA implemented an innovative methods process. States could
develop documentation outside the 43 approved types and
submit that documentation for EPA evaluation. If EPA determined
that the documentation met the documentation criteria, the
documentation could be used to estimate needs and costs.
Examples of innovative documentation methods are shown in
various side bars in Chapter 2.
A variety of cost curves were available in the DEP to estimate
costs in cases where the documents contained only a description
of the needs. Many of the Decentralized Wastewater Treatment
System cost curves were newly added for CWNS 2008. The list
of cost curves available for CWNS 2008 is presented in Table 1-2
and the approved types of documentation in Table 1-3 and
Appendix K.
Table 1-2. Cost curves in the CWNS 2008 DEP
lYasfeirafer Treatment Plants (Categories I & II)
Disinfection Only
Increase Level of Treatment
Increase Flow Capacity
Replacement of Treatment Plant
New Treatment Plant
Pipe Repairs and New Pipes (Categories III & IV)
Pipe Rehabilitation
Pipe Expansion
New Pipes
Combined Sewer Overflow (Category V)
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems
(Category XII)
Rehabilitate Onsite Wastewater Treatment System
Rehabilitate Clustered Systems
New Onsite Wastewater Treatment System
New Clustered Systems
1-5
-------
Chapter 1: Scope and Methods
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table 1-3. Approved types of documentation and associated needs in CWNS 2008
Document
type code
01
02
03
05
06
07
08
10
12
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31
32
33
40
41
42
43
44
60
71
72
98
99
^•UH
Document type
Intended Use Plan
State and Federal Loan and Grant Applications
CWSRF Loan Applications
Cost of Previous Comparable Construction
State-Approved Area-wide or Regional Basin Plan
State-Approved Local Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
Nutrient Criteria Studies
State Needs Surveys and other State forms
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
Facility Plan
Preliminary Engineer's Estimate
Final Engineer's Estimate
Sewer System Evaluation Documents
Diagnostic Evaluation
Sanitary Survey
State-Approved Municipal Wasteload Allocation Plan
New State or Federal Regulation
Administrative Orders, Court Orders, or Consent Decrees
NPDES or State Permit Requirement (with Schedule)
CSO Long-Term Control Plan (LTCP)
Approved CSO Long-Term Control Plan (LTCP)
Watershed-Based Plans
Section 319 Funded or EPA Reviewed Watershed-Based Plans
Approved State Annual 319 Workplans
Approved State 319 Project Implementation Plans
NPS Management Program/Assessment Report
Municipal Stormwater Management Plan
Small Community Needs Form
Information from an Assistance Provider
CSO Cost Curve Needs
EPA-HQ Approved
January 2008 dollars
(billions)
19.1
5.6
5.1
0.4
7.9
2.6
1.3
0.1
1.1
107.6
42.5
14.2
6.4
3.1
<0.1
0.4
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
0.4
20.1
4.8
1.4
0.3
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.8
3.4
<0.1
26.6
22.4
Percentage of total need
(%)
6.4
1.9
1.7
0.1
2.6
0.9
0.4
<0.1
0.4
36.1
14.3
4.8
2.1
1.0
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
6.7
1.6
0.5
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
<0.1
0.3
1.1
<0.1
8.9
7.5
1-6
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Chapter 1: Scope and Methods
Additional Documentation Options for Small Communities
In past CWNS reports, national small community needs were often underestimated, because small
communities have fewer resources available for facility evaluations and other formal documents
that explain needs and costs. To more fully capture the needs of small communities, EPA and the
CWNS 2008 National Workgroup established guidelines to allow communities of fewer than 10,000
people to use more streamlined forms of documentation. The streamlined documentation required a
description of the proposed project, an explanation of why the project was necessary (i.e., the water
quality-related public health or water quality problem), and an estimate of the needs (if available).
The information was submitted on a standardized survey form and signed by suitable community
and State officials. If cost estimates were not provided, the State could use cost curves to estimate
many 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 the QAPP, EPA developed specific and
well-defined standard operating procedures for the review of technical and cost data. The QAPP
defined processes for EPA to monitor adherence to quality control procedures and quality assurance
requirements.
A team of reviewers used the QAPP standard operating procedures to review the data entered into
the CWNS 2008 DEP by individual States. The procedures included comparing hard-copy and
electronic documentation with data entered in the CWNS 2008 DEP, as well as ensuring consistency
of technical and cost data. Where necessary, the review team consulted with EPA CWSRF experts to
clarify national CWSRF eligibility requirements.
1-7
-------
Chapter 1: Scope and Methods
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
1-8
-------
Chapter 2
RESULTS: NATIONAL NEEDS
The total reported water quality needs for the nation as of January 1, 2008, are $298.1 billion
(Figure 2-1 and Table 2-1). More than 60 percent of the nation's needs are for wastewater
treatment, pipe repairs, and new pipes. As with the CWNS 2000 and 2004 Reports, all the
needs presented in this chapter are documented.8
Figure 2-2 displays the geographic distribution of the total documented needs by State. New Jersey,
California, and New York, all with close to $30 billion in needs, reported the largest total needs.
Florida, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas each have needs in excess of $10 billion.
Category VI:
Stormwater
Management Programs
$42.38,14.2%
Category X:
Recycled Water
Distribution
$4.4B, 1.5%
Categories I and II:
Wastewater
Treatment Systems
Category V:
Combined Sewer
Overflow Correction
S82.6B, 27.7%
tegories III and IV:
Pipe Repair and New Pipes
Figure 2-1. CWNS 2008 total documented needs (January 2008 dollars in billions).
' The surveys performed in 1992 and 1996 presented a combination of documented and modeled needs.
2-1
-------
Chapter 2: Results: National Needs
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Total Documented Needs = $298.1 Billion
Figure 2-2. Distribution of total documented needs by State (January 2008 dollars in billions).
2-2
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Chapter 2: Results: National Needs
Puerto Rico
U.S. Virgin
Islands
Needs by State
>$20B
$10-$20B
$5-$10B
$2-$5B
$0.5-$2B
< $0.5B
Did not participate
2-3
-------
Chapter 2: Results: National Needs
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table 2-1. CWNS 2008 total needs by category (January 2008 dollars in
billions)
Total needs
Category
number Category name $B Percent
I Secondary Wastewater Treatment
II Advanced Wastewater Treatment
III-A Infiltration/Inflow (l/l)Correction
III-B Replacement/Rehabilitation of Sewers
IV-A New Collector Sewers
IV-B New Interceptor Sewers
V Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) correction
VI Stormwater Management
X Recycled Water Distribution
59.9
45.3
8.2
33.7
21.4
19.4
63.6
42.3
4.4
20.1
15.2
2.7
11.3
7.2
6.5
21.3
14.2
1.5
298.1 100.0
Note: Total may not equal sum of the parts due to individual rounding
New Jersey, California, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Iowa, and Utah, each
with an increase of more than $2 billion, are the States with the largest increases in needs since
2004.9 Idaho, Iowa, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, and Utah each reported needs
increases of greater than 100 percent.
More than half (58 percent) of the total needs reported
are concentrated in the eight States reporting needs in
excess of $10 billion. Twenty-three States each reported
less than 1 percent of the total needs. Appendix B
presents the total needs for all categories by State.
Figure 2-3 displays per capita needs by State. The District
of Columbia ($4,315), New Jersey ($3,750), Guam
($2,089), Nebraska ($1,813), West Virginia ($1,663), New
York ($1,527) and Maryland ($1,505) reported the largest
needs per capita. The District of Columbia, Maryland,
Nebraska, and Guam, each have per capita needs
exceeding $1,500 and do not rank among the 20 States
with the highest total needs shown in Figure 2-2.
CWNS 2008 Public Data Access
CWNS 2008 data and an
electronic copy of this Report are
available to the public on the EPA
Web site at www.epa.gov/CWNS.
The Web site also has a CWNS
Fact Sheet for each State and
summaries of CWNS data related
to EPA programs (e.g., National
Estuary Program) and large
watershed areas (e.g., Great Lakes
drainage basin).
9 In comparing 2004 needs to 2008 needs, the 2004 needs total include Category VII-D, NFS Urban Pollution Control needs, which were reported as
unofficial need in Appendix F of the CWNS 2004 Report to Congress.
2-4
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Chapter 2: Results: National Needs
Alaska
Northern
Mariana
Islands
American
Samoa
^ Guam
> $1,500
$1,000-$1,500
$500-$1,000
<$500
Did not participate
National Per Capita Need = $971
Figure 2-3. Distribution of per capita documented needs by State (January 2008 dollars/person).
2-5
-------
Chapter 2: Results: National Needs
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Trends and Analyses by CWNS 2008 Category10
Figure 2-4 and Table 2-2 summarize the changes in needs by category from 2000 to 2008.
Wastewater Treatment, Pipe Repair, and New Pipes
(Categories I through IV)
— Highlights
Total needs: $187.9 billion
Change in needs from 2004: Increased by $28.6 billion (18 percent)
Number of States reporting needs: 52
Categories with the largest increases since 2004: Advanced Wastewater Treatment (Category II)
($16.3 billion; 56 percent); Secondary Wastewater Treatment (Category I) ($7.0 billion;
13 percent); and Pipe Repairs (Category III) ($4.5 billion; 12 percent)
Tables & Maps: Figure 2-5 shows the distribution of Wastewater Treatment, Pipe Repair, and New
Pipes (Categories I through IV) needs by State
— Discussion
Increases in Advanced Wastewater Treatment (Category II), Pipe Repair (Category III), and
Secondary Wastewater Treatment (Category I) needs were from a variety of reasons. These include
improvements to rehabilitate aging infrastructure, meet more protective water quality standards, and
respond to and prepare for population growth.
Needs increases of $100 million or more in only 100 facilities account for total increases of
$34.7 billion in Category I through IV needs. The total Category I through IV needs at these facilities
are $56.6 billion (30 percent of the national needs in these categories). The 100 facilities serve
approximately 43 million people (14 percent of the U.S. population). For an additional 55 facilities,
needs decreased by at least $100 million each.
The needs for facilities projected to be constructed account for $6.1 billion (10 percent) of the
Secondary Wastewater Treatment (Category I) needs, $6.0 billion (13 percent) of the Advanced
Wastewater Treatment (Category II) needs, and $10.8 billion (26 percent) of the New Pipe
(Category IV) needs. By definition, Pipe Repair (Category III) needs could be entered for existing
facilities only.
Detailed descriptions of the CWNS 2008 needs categories are provided in Appendix J.
2-6
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Chapter 2: Results: National Needs
Figure 2-4. Total needs nationwide for the 2000-2008 CWNS organized by category (January 2008 dollars in billions).
Table 2-2. CWNS 2000-2008 total needs by survey year (January 2008 dollars in billions)
Change 2004 to
2008
1 Secondary Treatment
II Advanced Treatment
III-A Infiltration/Inflow Correction
III-B Sewer Replacement/Rehabilitation
IV-A New Collector Sewers
IV-B New Interceptor Sewers
V Combined Sewer Overflow
VI Stormwater Management
X Recycled Water Distribution
Total needs for Categories 1 to X
Treatment Categories 1 and II only
Pipe Repairs and New Pipes Categories III and IV only
Category 1 to V subtotal
48.6
26.9
10.8
22.2
18.8
19.6
66.7
7.3
220.9
75.5
71.4
213.6
52.9
29.0
12.2
24.9
19.9
20.4
65.0
25.4
5.1
254.8
81.9
77.4
224.3
59.9
45.3
8.2
33.7
21.4
19.4
63.6
42.3
4.4
298.1
105.2
82.7
251.5
7.0
16.3
-4.0
8.8
1.5
-1.0
-1.4
16.9
-0.7
43.3
23.3
5.3
27.2
13.2
56.2
-32.8
35.3
7.5
-4.9
-2.2
66.5
-13.7
17.0
28.4
6.8
12.1
Note: Total may not equal sum of the parts due to individual rounding
2-7
-------
Chapter 2: Results: National Needs
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
>$10B
$5-$10B
$3-$5B
$1-$3B
<$1B
None Reported
Did not participate
Total Categories I through IV Needs = $187.9 Billion
Figure 2-5. Distribution of wastewater treatment, pipe repair, and new pipes (Categories I through IV) needs by State
(January 2008 dollars in billions).
2-8
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Chapter 2: Results: National Needs
Village of Algonquin, Illinois. Aeration basin and secondary clarifier. Courtesy of EPA Region 5.
2-9
-------
Chapter 2: Results: National Needs
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Wastewater Treatment (Categories I and II)
— Highlights
Category Definition: The capital costs for treatment plants to meet Secondary Treatment
(Category I) and Advanced Treatment (Category II) standards
Total needs: $105.2 billion
Change in total needs from 2004: Increase of $23.3 billion (28 percent)
Number of States reporting needs: 51
States with highest reported needs: New York ($17.0 billion), California ($16.3 billion), Florida
($9.4 billion), and New Jersey ($6.3 billion) reported almost half (47 percent) of the needs.
States with the largest percent increases since 2004: Nevada (greater than 1,000 percent),
Utah (699 percent), Iowa (426 percent), Nebraska (283 percent), Massachusetts (215 percent),
Indiana (224 percent), Idaho (204 percent), Illinois (196 percent), and New Hampshire
(168 percent)
States with the largest percent decreases since 2004: Georgia (68 percent), Wyoming
(63 percent), and Hawaii (59 percent)
States with largest per capita needs: District of Columbia ($1,112), New York ($875), Utah ($833),
Guam ($741), New Jersey ($727), New Jersey ($727), and Nevada ($723)
Tables & Maps: Figure 2-6 shows the distribution of Wastewater Treatment (Categories I and II)
needs by State
— Discussion
States reported that the significant increase in needs in these categories was due to a variety of
factors. There was an increase in needs to accommodate growth and to repair or replace aging
infrastructure. In addition, States increased their level of effort to document needs in the categories.
For Advanced Treatment (Category II) needs, States reported that the actual needs increased to meet
more protective water quality standards and that more documentation was available.
Increases in Advanced Treatment (Category II) needs account for $16.3 billion (70 percent) of the
$23.3 billion increase in Wastewater Treatment needs. Total Advanced Treatment (Category II) needs
($45.3 billion) constitute a significantly higher percentage of Wastewater Treatment needs in 2008
(43 percent) than in 2004 (35 percent). This increase is because of increased implementation of
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permits with advanced treatment
requirements for protecting and restoring water quality. The Advanced Treatment (Category II)
needs associated with achieving effluent BOD of 20 milligrams per liter (mg/L) or less range from
$14.9 billion to $35.0 billion. The Advanced Treatment (Category II) needs associated with achieving
permit limits for nitrogen range from $2.3 billion to $17.8 billion, for phosphorus range from
$0.4 billion to $17.2 billion, and for ammonia range from $0.5 billion to $12.8 billion.
2-10
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Chapter 2: Results: National Needs
Northern
Mariana
Islands
American
Samoa
Range
>$5B
$2-$5B
$0.5-$2B
< $0.5B
None Reported
Did not participate
Total Categories I and II Needs = $105.3 Billion
Figure 2-6. Distribution of wastewater treatment (Categories I and II) needs by State (January 2008 dollars in billions).
Advanced Treatment Needed to Meet More Protective Water Quality Goals
Increasingly, wastewater treatment facilities need to increase their level of treatment to meet water quality goals in NPDES permits and Total
Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). As a result, Advanced Treatment needs account for 70 percent of the increase in wastewater treatment needs.
Iowa reported the highest Advanced Treatment needs for removing nitrogen at $1.1 billion. New water quality standards passed in 2006
require more stringent ammonia and nitrogen limits. Also, all streams in the State that previously had no or minimal limits are now designated
as streams needing protection. Iowa communities are reporting needs to meet those changes and anticipated future nutrient standards.
Washington and Nevada reported large Advanced Treatment needs associated with nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus). In Washington,
this is a result of one or more of the following: TMDL requirements; permit limits designed to protect impaired waterbodies that have not
yet completed TMDLs; the State's Puget Sound initiative; and State ground water standards that require nitrogen removal for discharge. In
Nevada, TMDLs for nitrogen and phosphorus require advanced treatment for large discharge, while state ground water discharge permits may
also require denitrification depending on the ground water basin, depth to ground water, and impacts of discharge.
Missouri identified NPDES permit compliance schedules that now require facilities to be upgraded to address ammonia. By reviewing past
projects, Missouri developed a range of costs to estimate needs for treatment plants serving different community sizes.
2-11
-------
Chapter 2: Results: National Needs
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Pipe Repairs and New Pipes (Categories III and IV)
— Highlights
Category Definition: The capital costs to rehabilitate and replace pipes, (Category III) and to
install new sewer pipes, interceptor sewers, and pumping stations (Category IV)
Total needs: $82.7 billion
Change in total needs from 2004: Increase of $5.3 billion (7 percent)
Number of States reporting needs: 51
States with highest reported needs: California ($7.9 billion), Florida ($6.5 billion), New York
($5.0 billion), Ohio ($4.4 billion), Texas ($4.2 billion), Puerto Rico ($3.7 billion), North Carolina
($3.7 billion), and Massachusetts ($3.2 billion) reported nearly half (47 percent) of the needs.
States with the largest percent increases since 2004: Massachusetts (317 percent), Indiana
(233 percent), Nebraska (345 percent), Nevada (224 percent), Iowa (194 percent), New
Hampshire (121 percent), and Delaware (103 percent)
States with the largest percent decreases since 2004: District of Columbia (100 percent),
Georgia (99 percent), and New Mexico (71 percent)
States with largest per capita needs: Guam ($1,348), Hawaii ($948), Puerto Rico ($933), Alabama
($622), Louisiana ($571), West Virginia ($561), and Wisconsin ($523)
Tables & Maps: Figure 2-7 shows the distribution of Pipe Repairs and New Pipes (Categories III
and IV) needs by State
— Discussion
Pipe Repair and New Pipe (Categories III and IV) needs increased, in part, because States improved
their effort to document needs, and more documents were available for this purpose. Pipe Repair
(Category III) needs are greater primarily because of actual needs increases to rehabilitate aging
infrastructure. New Pipe (Category IV) needs increases are both to replace aging infrastructure and
accommodate new growth.
Pipe Repair and New Pipe (Categories III and IV) needs are for infrastructure improvement or capital
renewal or both. Infrastructure improvements include activities such as increasing the pipe capacity
to keep up with population growth and constructing new pipes to provide service to new areas.
Capital renewal projects sustain the current level of performance of the plant by rehabilitating,
refurbishing, or replacing capital assets to their original condition and function. Pipe Repair
(Category III) needs generally represent capital renewal needs. New Pipe (Category IV) needs usually
represent infrastructure improvement needs. However, New Interceptor Sewers and Appurtenances
(Category IV-B) include some projects (e.g., new relief sewers, sewer separation) that are traditionally
thought of as capital renewal projects.
Of the $82.5 billion in Pipe Repair and New Pipe (Categories III and IV) needs, 51 percent of the
needs are associated with Pipe Repair (Category III). This compares with 48 and 46 percent for the
CWNS 2004 and CWNS 2000, respectively. This pattern of increasing Pipe Repair (Category III)
needs shows that communities are continuing to plan for the correction of problems related to
Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) and ensuring the reliability of the nation's existing collection
system infrastructure. States reported $18.3 billion (44 percent) in Pipe Repair (Category III) needs
related to addressing SSO problems. Additionally, $3.1 billion (5 percent) of the Secondary Treatment
(Category I) needs, $0.5 billion (1 percent) of the Advanced Treatment (Category II) needs, and
$4.8 billion (12 percent) of the New Pipe (Category IV) needs reported are related to addressing SSOs.
2-12
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Chapter 2: Results: National Needs
Northern
Mariana
Islands
Saipan
and
Tinian
Rota
American
Samoa
Range
>$4B
$2-$4B
$0.5-$2B
< $0.5B
None Reported
Did not participate
Total Categories III and IV Needs = $82.6 Billion
Figure 2-7. Distribution of pipe repairs and new pipes (Categories III and IV) needs by State (January 2008 dollars in billions).
Asset Management Helps Address the Nation's Aging Pipes
A large portion of the nation's wastewater pipe network was installed in the 1950s through the 1970s. As the nation's pipe network
ages, needs for repairing and rehabilitating pipes are increasing. Over the past several years, many communities and States have
responded to such increasing needs by initiating Asset Management programs and similar efforts that optimize how resources are
allocated to maintain pipe networks and other infrastructure.
As part of a Governor's Task Force on Sustainable Infrastructure, Pennsylvania made site visits to many small communities, guiding
those communities through an asset inventory and estimating repair and replacement needs. For small communities, Pennsylvania
reported the largest Pipe Repair needs ($347 million) and the largest New Pipe needs ($858 million).
New York City performed comprehensive asset management assessments for 12 wastewater facilities. The assessments, which
prioritized capital investments needed to meet regulatory requirements, were used to document $2.3 billion in Pipe Repair needs,
$9.0 billion in Wastewater Treatment needs, and $1.4 billion in CSO needs.
2-13
-------
Chapter 2: Results: National Needs
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Recycled Water Distribution (Category X)
— Highlights
Category Definition: The capital costs associated with the conveyance of the recycled water
(wastewater reused after removal of waste contributed by humans) and any associated
rehabilitation or replacement needs; it includes, for example, the costs of the pipes used to
convey treated water from a wastewater facility to a ground water recharge location
Total needs: $4.4 billion
Change in total needs from 2004: Decrease of $0.7 billion (14 percent)
Number of States reporting needs: 20
States with highest reported needs: California ($1.7 billion) and Florida ($1.2 billion) accounted
for 66 percent of needs
States with the largest percent increases since 2004: Texas (greater than 1,000 percent),
Washington (900 percent), North Carolina (345 percent), Utah (114 percent), and Hawaii
(51 percent)
States with the largest percent decreases since 2004: West Virginia (100 percent), Colorado
(45 percent), Florida (40 percent), Oregon (26 percent), and California (26 percent)
Tables & Maps: Figure 2-8 shows the distribution of Recycled Water Distribution (Category X)
needs by State
— Discussion
The overall decrease in needs were due to a variety of factors, such as limitations of resources to
enter needs, limited document availability, and difficulty with cross-program coordination with State
drinking water programs that support and fund many of these projects. State increases in needs were
a result of an increased recognition that recycled wastewater can be beneficial in meeting water
quality standards, accommodating population growth, and saving money.
Town of Oro Valley, Arizona. Reclaimed water pump station. Courtesy of Water Infrastructure
Finance Authority (WIFA) of Arizona.
2-14
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Chapter 2: Results: National Needs
Northern
Mariana
Islands
Saipan
and
Tinian
Rota
American
Samoa
Guam
Range
>$1B
$0.1-$1B
$0.01-$0.1B
< $0.01B
None Reported
Did not participate
Total Category X Needs = $4.4 Billion
Figure 2-8. Distribution of recycled water distribution (Category X) needs by State (January 2008 dollars in billions).
Recycling Wastewater to Meet Increasing Water Demands
Many States realize that wastewater reuse is beneficial, because it reduces the demands on available surface and ground waters.
In Florida, the legislature recognized that large areas do not have sufficient traditional water resources to meet the future needs of the
State's growing population, the environment, agriculture, and industry. A 2005 law created the Water Protection and Sustainability
Trust Fund (WPSTF), which encourages cooperation in developing alternative water supplies, including wastewater reuse.
In North Carolina, a number of factors drove the large increase in Recycled Water Distribution needs: TMDLs requiring surface
discharges reductions; regional droughts causing water shortages; local government rate structures encouraging use of reclaimed
water where available; and the State awarding priority points for reclaimed water projects in its grant programs. As a result,
municipalities, including Raleigh, are embracing recycled water distribution projects.
In Texas, cities are realizing that discharging wastewater to a stream or creek is wasting a valuable resource. Because of population
growth, available drinking water shortages are increasing. Recycled wastewater can be used for irrigating crops or golf courses
instead of using precious drinking water, or it can be sold to nearby cities to supplement their water supply.
2-15
-------
Chapter 2: Results: National Needs
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Correction (Category V)
— Highlights
Category Definition: The capital cost to prevent or control the periodic discharges of mixed
stormwater and untreated wastewater (combined sewer overflows) that occur when the
capacity of a sewer system is exceeded during a wet weather event
Total needs: $63.6 billion
Change in needs total from 2004: Decrease of $1.4 billion (2 percent)
Number of States reporting needs: 31
States with highest reported needs: Illinois ($10.9 billion), New Jersey ($9.3 billion), Pennsylvania
($8.7 billion), Ohio ($7.5 billion), New York ($6.6 billion), and Indiana ($5.0 billion) reported
74 percent of the needs. They also account for 565 of the 767 facilities with CSO Correction
(Category V) needs
States with the largest percent increases since 2004: New Jersey (83 percent), West Virginia
(61 percent), Pennsylvania (59 percent), and Connecticut (54 percent)
States with the largest percent decreases since 2004: Georgia (100 percent), Minnesota
(100 percent), Vermont (94 percent), Tennessee (72 percent), Michigan (70 percent), and
Oregon (57 percent)
Tables & Maps: Figure 2-9 shows the distribution of CSO Correction (Category V) needs by State.
Appendix I, Table I-5, presents the number of facilities with CSO Correction (Category V)
needs by State and the total CSO Correction (Category V) needs reported for the CWNS 2004
and 2008
— Discussion
Overall needs in this category remained nearly equal. Some States reported significant decreases
while others reported significant increases. The States that reported increases indicated the greater
needs were from an increase in the availability of appropriate documents, primarily completed Long-
Term Control Plans (LTCPs). Decreases in needs were from a variety of factors, including insufficient
and outdated documentation and newly developed LTCPs showing less costs than were previously
estimated with cost curves. In addition, Oregon reported that its decrease was a result of significant
funding for CSO projects since 2004.
As with other needs categories, States were requested to enter documented needs when available.
During the CWNS 2008, States increased their use of LTCPs to enter cost estimates. Nineteen States
documented CSO Correction (Category V) needs using LTCPs for 219 facilities, up from 144 facilities
in the CWNS 2004 and 34 facilities in CWNS 2000. Needs documented in LTCPs account for
32 percent (up from 13 percent in 2004) of the CSO Correction (Category V) needs reported in this
survey. LTCPs provide the most reliable estimates for CSO control based on the 1994 CSO Policy.
When LTCPs or other engineering and planning documents were not available, States used cost
curves11 to estimate CSO Correction (Category V) needs. For the CWNS 1996, 66 percent of the
CSO needs were documented by using cost curves. This percentage decreased to 53 percent for the
CWNS 2004 and 42 percent for CWNS 2008.
11 The cost curve methodology for the CWNS 2008 was the same as that used for the CWNS 1996, CWNS 2000, and CWNS 2004. The cost curve is
based primarily on the Presumption Approach in the 1994 CSO Policy.
2-16
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Chapter 2: Results: National Needs
Northern
Mariana
Islands
American
Samoa
Range
>$5B
$1-$5B
$0.5-$1B
< $0.5B
None Reported
Did not participate
Total CSO Needs = $63.6 Billion
Figure 2-9. Distribution of combined sewer overflow correction (Category V) needs by State (January 2008 dollars in billions).
Chicago and Washington, DC among 772 Cities Addressing CSOs
CSOs contain stormwater, untreated human and industrial waste, toxic materials, and debris. They are a major water pollution
concern for the approximately 772 cities in the United States that have combined sewer systems. Most communities with CSOs
are in the Northeast, the Great Lakes region, and the Pacific Northwest. Some of the nation's largest cities, including Chicago and
Washington, DC, are working to correct CSOs.
Illinois reported the highest amount of CSO needs ($10.9 billion). Much of that need (68 percent; $7.4 billion) is for Chicago and its
older suburbs. The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC) initiated the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan
(TARP) Project to alleviate the polluting and local flooding effects of CSOs by providing holding capacity for 18 billion gallons of
combined sewage in tunnels and reservoirs until it can to be pumped to the plant for full treatment.
Washington, DC, reported $1.9 billion in needs to reduce CSOs by a projected 96 percent over the next 20 years. The plan includes a
variety of improvements throughout the city, including constructing three tunnels: an 8-mile tunnel system to control Anacostia River
overflows, a 3-mile tunnel system to control Potomac River overflows, and a mile-long tunnel system to control Piney Branch and
Rock Creek overflows. The tunnels will contain the combined sewage until it can be treated.
2-17
-------
Chapter 2: Results: National Needs
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Stormwater Management (Category VI)
— Highlights
Category Definition: Capital costs to plan and implement structural and nonstructural measures to
control the runoff water resulting from precipitation (stormwater) in NPDES Phase I, Phase II, and
non-traditional (e.g., universities, prisons, school districts) municipal separate storm sewer systems
(MS4), as well as unregulated communities (reported in CWNS 2004 as VII-D: NPS-Urban)
Total needs: $42.3 billion
Change in total needs from 2004: Increase of $16.9 billion (67 percent)
Number of States reporting needs: 38
States with highest reported needs: New Jersey ($15.6 billion), Pennsylvania ($6.0 billion), California
($3.8 billion), Maryland ($3.8 billion), Texas ($3.1 billion), Florida ($2.5 billion), and New York
($1.1 billion) reported 85 percent of the needs
States with the largest percent increases since 2004:12 Louisiana, New Jersey, Nevada, Wyoming,
and Iowa all reported greater than 1,000 percent increases
States with the largest percent decreases since 2004: Connecticut (100 percent), District of
Columbia (100 percent), Kentucky (100 percent), Idaho (76 percent), Arizona (69 percent), Florida
(66 percent), Wisconsin (61 percent), Montana (56 percent), Colorado (56 percent), and Utah (53
percent)
Tables & Maps: Figure 2-10 presents the distribution of stormwater management needs by State
Appendix B, Table B-1, presents the stormwater management needs by State, and Table B-2,
presents the stormwater management needs for each subcategory by State. Appendix I, Table I-6,
presents stormwater management needs by State for Phase I, Phase II, and Nontraditional MS4s, as
well as Unregulated Communities
— Discussion
The increases in Stormwater Management (Category VI) needs are mostly because of improved EPA
and State communication across programs; States' increased effort and ability to document stormwater
management needs; and emerging efforts to use green infrastructure as a supplement to traditional
stormwater conveyance and treatment systems. Even though the amount of Stormwater Management
(Category VI) needs reported increased significantly in this Report from CWNS 2004, the needs in
this category remain underreported. Thirty-eight States submitted data for 1,560 municipal stormwater
management facilities and 688 unregulated facilities in this Report. As of September 30, 2008, EPA
estimates that 7,080 facilities were covered by an NPDES MS4 individual or general permits. Therefore,
only 22 percent of MS4 facilities submitted data. Lack of resources, both time and money, to document
stormwater management needs and the inability of States to obtain the required documentation were the
main reasons for the States not including their Stormwater Management needs.
Beginning in CWNS 2008, needs were reported in the following four subcategories: Stormwater
Conveyance Infrastructure (Category VI-A) ($7.6 billion; 18 percent); Stormwater Treatment Systems
(Category VI-B) ($7.4 billion; 18 percent); Green Infrastructure (Category VI-C) ($17.4 billion; 41 percent);
General Stormwater Management (Category VI-D) ($2.9 billion; 7 percent). In prior surveys, all needs
were reported as Stormwater Management (Category VI) needs. Many of these needs ($7.0 billion;
17 percent) are still valid for the Report.
Also beginning in CWNS 2008, needs in this category include both regulatory and non-regulatory
stormwater management needs. NPDES Phase I MS4s account for 26 percent, or $11.2 billion, of the
total Stormwater Management (Category VI) needs, and NPDES Phase II MS4s account for 51 percent,
or $21.6 billion in needs. Nontraditional NPDES MS4s and Unregulated Communities account for
$0.2 billion (less than 1 percent) and $9.3 billion (22 percent) in needs respectively.
12 Because of changes in needs categories between CWNS 2004 and CWNS 2008, the total needs from CWNS 2004 Categories VI and VII-D were
compared with Category VI needs for CWNS 2008.
2-18
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Chapter 2: Results: National Needs
Northern
Mariana
Islands
American
Samoa
Guam
Range
>$5B
$1-$5B
$0.2-$1B
< $0.2B
None Reported
Did not participate
Total Stormwater Management Needs = $42.3 Billion
Figure 2-10. Distribution of stormwater management (Category VI) needs by State (January 2008 dollars in billions).
Green Infrastructure Increasingly Needed for Stormwater Management
Many States are planning to implement green infrastructure management approaches and technologies as part of their
comprehensive plan to capture and reuse stormwater. Some of the benefits of green infrastructure are reduced and delayed
stormwater runoff volumes, enhanced ground water recharge, stormwater pollutant reductions, and reduced sewer overflow events.
Green infrastructure approaches include: preservation and restoration of natural landscape features (such as floodplains and
wetlands), rain gardens, porous pavements, green roofs, infiltration planters, trees and tree boxes, and rainwater harvesting (e.g.,
cisterns, rain barrels).
Maryland's Tributary Strategy Statewide Implementation Plan and the ten Tributary Strategies were developed to meet the nutrient
reduction goals for the Chesapeake Bay watershed. These comprehensive plans include stormwater management practices and, in
particular, promote green infrastructure. Mentioned in the plan are urban tree canopies; green infrastructure practices in local parks;
living roof, bioretention facility, and permeable paver demonstration projects; and riparian buffer and tree plantings on private, non-
agricultural lands. The Tributary Strategies document over $1.2 billion in Green Infrastructure (Category VI-C) needs.
2-19
-------
Chapter 2: Results: National Needs
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Urban and Rural Communities Needs
Data from the CWNS 2008 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.
The U.S. Census Bureau defines an urbanized area as 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.
The breakdown of urban and rural total documented needs is $189.0 billion (63 percent) and
$109.1 billion (37 percent), respectively. The total urban needs for Wastewater Treatment
(Categories I through V) are $172.2 billion; the total rural needs for these categories are less than half
as much, $79.3 billion.
For urban areas, 67 percent of the needs are in the following categories: CSO Correction (Category V)
($54.3 billion), Secondary Treatment (Category I) ($43.5 billion), and Pipe Repair (Category III)
($29.0 billion). For rural areas, 85 percent of the needs are in Stormwater Management (Category VI)
($26.9 billion), Advanced Treatment (Category II) ($22.0 billion), and New Pipes (Category IV)
($18.7 billion). The numbers convey the greater relative needs for addressing CSOs and repairing pipes
in urban areas versus installing new pipes in rural areas.
The city of Huntsville, Alabama.
2-20
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Chapter 2: Results: National Needs
Small Community Needs
For this Report, small communities are defined as communities with populations of fewer than
10,000 people. Such communities sometimes lack the technical, financial, and managerial capacity
to optimally construct, operate, manage, and maintain wastewater treatment facilities or systems.
Small communities' estimated needs total approximately $22.7 billion, representing about 8 percent
of the $298.1 billion total official needs. Pipe Repair and New Pipe (Categories III and IV) needs,
Wastewater Treatment (Categories I & II) needs, and CSO Correction (Category V) needs for small
communities are $11.4 billion, $8.5 billion, and $2.7 billion, respectively. State-by-State presentations
of various aspects of small community needs are provided in Appendix C, Tables C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4,
and C-5 and Appendix D, Tables D-1, D-2, D-3, and D-4.
Figure 2-11 shows the distribution of small community needs by State. Pennsylvania ($2.9 billion),
New York ($1.5 billion), Iowa ($1.5 billion), Utah ($1.4 billion), Illinois ($1.2 billion), West Virginia
($1.0 billion), and Ohio ($1.0 billion) accounted for approximately 50 percent of the small community
needs. Eight additional States reported 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. In three States (Nebraska, Kansas, and Iowa), 90 percent or
more of the facilities serve small communities. In nine additional States, small community facilities
constituted 80 to 90 percent of the publicly owned facilities.
Figure 2-12 shows a comparison of the number of facilities' population served and needs for small
and large communities in the nation. Figure 2-13 shows this information for three ranges of small
community populations served.
About 69 percent (14,963 facilities) of centralized wastewater treatment and collection facilities serve
small communities; those facilities serve only 10 percent (28.9 million people) of the population
receiving centralized collection.
Of new wastewater treatment facilities projected to be constructed, 817 facilities will serve small
communities. The majority (62 percent) of those treatment plants will serve populations of fewer
than 1,000 people. The 817 facilities will provide service to approximately 1.0 million people and
account for $3.2 billion in needs.
2-21
-------
Chapter 2: Results: National Needs
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Northern
Mariana
Islands
(S Sai
V an
Saipan
and
Tinian
Rota
American
Samoa
Range
>$1B
$0.5-$1B
$0.2-$0.5B
$0.1-$0.2B
< $0.1B
None Reported
Did not participate
Total Small Community Needs = $22.7 Billion
Figure 2-11. Geographic distribution of small community needs (January 2008 dollars in billions).
Small Community Form Assists Communities to Report Needs
Many small communities do not have the resources available to provide the more formal, detailed documentation that is required by
CWNS. Small communities often have extremely small staffs, such as an operator and city clerk that may work part-time. If formal
CWNS approved documentation was not available, small communities (population fewer than 10,000) could use a Small Community
Form to document needs and costs.
EPA worked with States to enhance the Small Community Form for CWNS 2008. The CWNS DEP generated a Small Community Form,
populated with CWNS 2004 data, for each small community. States could send the Small Community Needs Form to the small
community for updates and signatures. The small community could then fax the survey back to a central number, and an electronic
copy of the survey was provided to the State via the CWNS DEP. More than 3,000 Small Community Needs Forms were submitted in
this manner. Iowa and North Carolina used this document type to report $1.3 billion and $0.4 billion in needs, respectively.
2-22
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Chapter 2: Results: National Needs
Projected Wastewater
Treatment and Collection
Facilities (21,594 total)
Projected
Population Served
(292.8 million total)
Needs for
Categories I-V and X
($255.9 billion total)
Large Communities
Small Communities
Figure 2-12. Comparison of small versus large community needs and technical information from
existing and projected facilities.
Figure 2-13. Number of projected centralized wastewater treatment and collection facilities by ranges of population
served with needs if all documented needs are met.
2-23
-------
Chapter 2: Results: National Needs
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Other Documented Needs
Appendix A and Appendix B, Table B-3 summarize $22.8 billion in NPS Pollution Control
(Category VII) and $23.9 billion in Decentralized Wastewater Treatment (Category XII) needs that
met CWNS documentation requirements but are not defined under CWA section 516(b)(1)(B).
These needs are associated with implementing NPS management programs under section 319 of
the CWA and Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs) for estuaries under
section 320 of the CWA.
Unofficial Cost Estimates
Forty-seven States reported Unofficial Cost Estimates totaling $36.8 billion. Those cost estimates do
not meet this Report's definition of needs. States entered the cost estimates for purposes other than
this Report, such as for State-level planning and communication with State legislatures and other
groups involved with addressing and preventing water quality problems. Appendix E presents the
total Unofficial Cost Estimates for each category by State.
Tribal Needs
EPA did not request needs data from tribes for CWNS 2008. Indian Health Service (IMS) conducts
a separate survey and provides a report to Congress annually under Public Law (P.L.) 86-121. P.L.
86-121, signed on July 31, 1959, authorizes IMS, Sanitation Facilities Construction (SFC) Program, to
construct essential sanitation facilities for American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) homes and
communities. The mission of the SFC Program works with the AI/AN people to eliminate sanitation
facility deficiencies in Indian homes and communities. One way that SFC Program accomplishes
this goal is to work in partnership with the tribes to develop and maintain an inventory of sanitation
deficiencies in AI/AN communities for use by IMS and to inform Congress.
In 2007 tribal wastewater needs totaled $719.2 million. The largest needs were reported in Alaska
($282 million), Arizona ($110 million), New Mexico ($78 million), and California ($59 million). The
results of the 2007 Sanitation Deficiency Survey are summarized in Appendix F.
States' Needs Documentation Efforts
This section highlights how some States recently collected and analyzed information beyond that
tracked in CWNS for their own internal management purposes. Such State-specific efforts also
provide EPA and States opportunities to evaluate survey methods for their potential to improve future
CWNS efforts.
2-24
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Chapter 2: Results: National Needs
Minnesota Future Wastewater Treatment Needs and Capital
Costs
In 2008 the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, in response to a State statute, prepared a report
that estimates
• Future infrastructure needs and capital costs
• Cost increases to residential users resulting from currently planned wastewater infrastructure
projects
• The affordability of residential costs, as defined by Minnesota
• How the EPA's Impaired Waters—TMDL program will affect wastewater treatment facilities
expansions and effluent limits
The report is at http://www.pca.state.mn.us.
New York Wastewater Infrastructure Needs Report
In 2008 New York's Department of Environmental Conservation and Environmental Facilities
Corporation reviewed the CWNS 2004 along with other existing data that focused on O&M costs,
restoring water quality, and other projected infrastructure needs. The result of this effort was a report
that concluded:
• Federal, State, and local governments will need to establish stronger partnerships toward a
long-term solution.
• Components for a sustainable funding program could include: the CWSRF; low-interest loan
programs; federal grants; State grants; hardship community grants; and adequate local rates
sufficient to address current and projected funding requirements.
• Considerations for developing the program should include asset management, innovative
technology, fairness, future infrastructure challenges, the relationship of infrastructure to
smart growth and economic development, and local government efficiency.
The report concluded with the Department of Environmental Conservation's intent to work with the
State legislature on developing a sustainable wastewater infrastructure funding program. The report is
at http://www.dec.ny.gov.
2-25
-------
Chapter 2: Results: National Needs
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Oregon Inventory of Infrastructure Needs
In 2008 the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department used a Web-based
system to collect infrastructure capital needs information from regional investment boards, cities,
counties, ports, special districts, tribes, and other organizations. The department used this data to
develop a report that estimates
• Total infrastructure capital needs
• Drinking water and wastewater infrastructure capital needs
• Priority levels for each infrastructure project
The department used the priority rankings to allot Oregon legislature funding to projects. The report
is at http://econ.oregon.gov/ECDD.
Pennsylvania Governor's Sustainable Infrastructure Task Force
Report
As part of the Task Force Report, Pennsylvania implemented the nation's first State-specific clean
water and drinking water infrastructure gap analysis in 2008. Pennsylvania performed detailed data
collection through site visits to approximately 175 drinking water and wastewater facilities. The gap
analysis estimated the entire 20-year cost to operate, maintain, and replace all the drinking water
and wastewater systems in the State. It compared that cost to the revenues available to utilities (as
well as available governmental subsidies) that could be expected to pay for the costs. Revenues were
calculated as-is and at increasing percentages of median household income (0.5-2.5 percent). The
Task Force Report estimates
• Total needs to upgrade, operate, and maintain existing drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure
• Existing user rates and current State and federal subsidies would generate $69.8 billion and
$2.1 billion respectively if projected over the next 20 years
• The funding gap between total drinking water and wastewater needs and projected funding
over the next 20 years
The report recommends the following for Pennsylvania to address the projected funding gap
• Increase locally generated revenues so that they are sufficient to meet utility customers'
needs
• Reduce costs by pursuing effective system management, asset management, efficient
operation, regionalization and rightsizing of systems, and maximizing innovative and
nonstructural solutions
Pennsylvania is continuing to collect detailed gap analysis data from drinking water and wastewater
facilities to help inform a variety of State environmental program decisions. The report is
at http://www.depweb.state.pa.us.
2-26
-------
Chapter 3
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Changes in Needs Since 2004
Between January 1, 2004, and January 1, 2008, reported water quality needs increased from
$254.7 billion to $298.1 billion, a total increase of $43.4 billion or 17 percent. The largest portions
of this increase are associated with Wastewater Treatment (Category I and II) needs ($23.4 billion
increase), and Stormwater Management (Category VI) needs ($16.9 billion increase).
Wastewater Treatment Plant, Jacksonville, North Carolina.
3-1
-------
Chapter 3: Concluding Remarks
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
The increases in Wastewater Treatment 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 expanding capacity to accommodate population growth.
The increases in Stormwater Management needs are mostly due to emerging needs to provide green
infrastructure for stormwater management. Improved EPA and State communication across programs
and States' increased abilities to document stormwater management needs were also important
factors.
Trends in the Nation's Ability to Provide Wastewater
Treatment
While this and earlier Reports show significant increases in needs, the nation is still making
significant progress in providing wastewater treatment. Figure 3-1 shows that the number of people
provided with advanced wastewater treatment increased dramatically (from 7.8 million people in
1972 to 113.0 million people in 2008). Moreover, the population served by less-than-secondary
treatment decreased from more than 50 million in 1972 to 3.8 million in 2008.
Table 3-1 presents the current status of the level of treatment based on data presented in this Report
and past surveys.13 In comparison to 2004, an additional 3.6 million people now receive centralized
collection and wastewater treatment, for a total of 226.4 million people (or 74 percent of the U.S.
population). Municipal wastewater treatment plants that provide secondary or more advanced levels
of treatment serve 222.5 million people (or 73 percent of the U.S. population) up slightly from 219.6
million people in 2004 (down from the 74 percent of the population in 2004). The population served
by less-than-secondary treatment increased from 3.3 million people to 3.8 million people. Nearly all
these people are served by facilities with CWA section 301 (h) waivers.14 There are now 2,251 non-
discharging15 facilities, an increase of 3 percent since 2004. These non-discharging facilities serve
16.9 million people, or 5.5 percent of the U.S. population.
Figure 3-1 and Table 3-1 show the projected improvements in wastewater treatment infrastructure if
the 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 6 percent from 14,625 to 15,451. The population being served by such
facilities is projected to increase by 26 percent. The number of facilities that provide less-than-
secondary treatment is projected to decline from 30 to 19 facilities, but the populations served
by these facilities are projected to increase from 3.75 million to 3.88 million people. Overall, it is
projected that a total of 15,618 operational facilities will serve a future population of 284.2 million
people, or 79 percent of the U.S. population.
13 Other related technical data discussed in this section are provided in Appendix I, Table 1-3.
14 CWA section 301(h) 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.
15 Non-discharging refers to facilities that do not discharge effluent to surface waters but instead reuse effluent for beneficial purposes (e.g., spray
irrigation, ground water recharge).
3-2
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Chapter 3: Concluding Remarks
~a>
0
=
1
•o
>
0>
tfi
c
.0
m
a.
o
Q.
320
270
220
170
120
70
20
0
No Discharge
Advanced
Secondary
Less Than Secondary
mill
1940 1950 1962 1968 1972 1978 1982 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 Projected
Year
Figure 3-1. Population served by POTWs nationwide for select years between 1940 and 2008 and projected (if all needs
are met), organized by wastewater treatment type.
Source: U.S. Public Health Service and EPA Clean Watersheds Needs Surveys
Table 3-1. Improvements in treatment level of the nation's municipal wastewater treatment facilities
Population served in millions
(number of facilities)
Projected
Population population
Level of treatment 1972
Less than Secondary*
Secondary
Greater than Secondary
No Discharge
Partial Treatment0
Total
40.3
(2,451)
32.5
(2,838)
45.7
(2,719)
0
(0)
( )
118.5
(8,008)
6.4
(47)
88.2
(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)
3.8
(30)
92.7
(7,302)
113.0
(5,072)
16.9
(2,251)
(115)
226.4
(14,770)
2028 2004-2008 2008-2028
3.9
(19)
89.1
(7,015)
161.2
(5,909)
30.0
(2,526)
(140)
284.2
(15,609)
13.5%
-4.0%
4.1%
16.4%
-
1.6%
3.4%
-3.8%
42.7%
76.8%
-
25.5%
a For States that did not completely update data for or did not participate in CWNS 2000 or 2004, 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, 2008, waivers for 34 facilities in
the CWNS 2008 database had been granted or were pending.
0 Partial treatment facilities are included in the less than secondary facilities in 1972.
3-3
-------
Chapter 3: Concluding Remarks
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Funding of Needs
Although local ratepayers ultimately fund most wastewater treatment needs, other funding assistance
is available. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) is one of many supplementary federal,
State and local grant and loan programs described in EPA's Catalogue of Federal Funding Sources for
Watershed Protection (http://cfpub.epa.gov/fedfund/).
From July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2008, EPA provided an annual average of $1.1 billion in grants
to State CWSRF programs to assist with point source and NPS pollution control needs. States
combined these CWSRF funds with State matching funds, bond proceeds, and loan repayments
to provide assistance to local communities, mostly in the form of loans. In the same period, the
assistance amounted to approximately $5.5 billion per year. The Figure 3-2 pie charts show the
relative distributions of SRF funding assistance and CWNS documented needs by category.
SRF Funding Assistance
(Average Annual 2004-2008)
CWNS 2008 Documented Needs
,V-B IV-A
6% 6%
Figure 3-2. Relative distributions of SRF funding assistance and CWNS documented needs by category.
3-4
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Chapter 3: Concluding Remarks
According to U.S. Census Bureau estimates15 for the most recent 4-year period available (2002-
2006), local governments expended approximately $15 billion per year to address capital wastewater
needs and approximately $2 billion per year to address capital stormwater needs. Figure 3-3 shows
the 20-year history and 20-year extrapolations of local government capital and O&M expenditures,
in constant 2008 dollars. Over the past 20 years, the O&M portion of total local wastewater
expenditures grew from 50 percent to 60 percent. This is an indication of the increasing O&M needs
related to aging wastewater infrastructure and to increasing material and energy costs. While local
capital expenditures have remained flat over the the past 20 years, they have increased over the
past 10 years. In general, capital renewal projects have not kept pace with the increasing need to
rehabilitate or replace aging infrastructure. For example, Pipe Repair capital needs have increased by
31 percent since 2000 (Table 2-2).
The America Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 allocated $4.0 billion in grants to State
CWSRF programs. This funding, as well as all other federal, State, and local funding subsequent to
January 1, 2008, will be reflected in needs reported in the CWNS 2012 Report to Congress.
en
jo
"5
Q
00
o
o
CM
W)
C
O
CD
_c
0)
±!
T3
0)
a
x
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-H- Total
-•- O&M
Capital
— - Trend Lines
1987
1992
1997
2002 2007
Year
2012
2017
2022
2027
Figure 3-3. Local government wastewater expenditures.
16 Based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Governments Division's State and Local Government Finances Survey
(http://www.census.gov/govs/www/estimate.html).
3-5
-------
Chapter 3: Concluding Remarks
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Sustainable Infrastructure Program
In comparing the flat trend in local government wastewater capital expenditures in Figure 3-3 with
the increasing trend in wastewater capital needs in Figure 2-4 and Table 2-2, it is clear that the
nation is experiencing a wastewater capital funding gap. The nation's aging wastewater infrastructure
increasingly requires renewal and replacement. EPA's 2002 Clean Water and Drinking Water
Infrastructure Cap Analysis^7 first documented this long-term challenge and was the springboard
for EPA's Sustainable Infrastructure Program (www.epa.gov/waterinfrastructure). The program
emphasizes the need for individual utilities to close their infrastructure gap by finding efficiencies
that reduce their overall infrastructure costs, while adopting pricing structures that will produce the
revenues to meet their needs.
Management Strategies
Many utilities are adopting Asset Management plans and strategies, which reduce costs by optimizing
the timing and approach to infrastructure renewal and replacement. Replacing infrastructure too early
or too late raises costs. Asset Management also provides the means to make long-term plans on the
basis of an inventory and condition assessment of all the assets that make up a wastewater system.
An Environmental Management System (EMS) is a related approach that a utility can put in place to
continually improve its performance while lowering costs and overall environmental footprint.
City of Williams, Arizona. Construction of Clarifier. Courtesy of Water Infrastructure Finance Authority (WIFA)
of Arizona.
17 The Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis, EPA-816-R-02-020. Information available at
http://www.epa.gov/waterinfrastructure/infrastructuregap.html.
3-6
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Chapter 3: Concluding Remarks
Water and Energy Efficiency
Significant cost reductions can also be realized through programs targeting water and energy
efficiency. Using less water reduces a community's wastewater treatment needs and its energy
needs. Energy management programs can directly reduce operations costs and also reduce a utility's
carbon footprint. Some utilities have even been able to generate enough of their own energy so that
they are close to having eliminated the need to purchase energy from the grid.
Efficiency through Collaboration
Collaboration between utilities in an area or watershed can produce efficiencies that reduce costs.
The level of collaboration can range from discounts on bulk chemical purchases, to sharing the cost
of a staff engineer, to consolidating utility management. While all utilities can achieve efficiencies
through collaboration, it can be especially beneficial in smaller or disadvantaged communities where
the rate base might not support the high expenses associated with infrastructure renewal.
Sustainable Pricing
The U.S. Conference of Mayors' Water Council has estimated that 95 percent of funding for
water and wastewater infrastructure has been, and will continue to be, local.18 Sustainable pricing
structures take into account the long-term infrastructure needs of a system and are structured to
raise revenues to support the needs of the community. Slow, steady increases in water and sewer
rates are needed to keep pace with inflation. Utilities that have deferred increases might need to
compensate with larger increases. Pricing structures can also be made sensitive to low- or fixed-
income households by establishing lifeline rates or local subsidies for those in need.
Closing the Wastewater Infrastructure Funding Gap
The closing of the wastewater infrastructure funding gap at both the local and national levels will
require an all-available-methods approach, and the mix of solutions will vary across different
communities and parts of the country. While the federal government will continue to play a role
in subsidizing investments through the State Revolving Loan programs, long-term infrastructure
sustainability can best be achieved through institutionalizing the approaches and attitudes that will
close the gap in each community.
Potential Influences on Future Surveys
Over the next two years, the EPA and State CWNS 2012 Workgroup will plan how to evolve CWNS
to meet emerging needs and to enhance public data access. Potential changes to the CWNS 2012
include tracking wastewater treatment plant energy efficiency projects and climate change-related
needs. The EPA and State CWNS 2012 Workgroup will continue efforts to address underreporting
of needs such as conducting additional outreach and program coordination as well as implementing
more efficient data collection systems and processes.
18 Who Pays for the Water Pipes, Pumps and Treatment Works? - Local Government Expenditures on Sewer and Water - 1991 to 2005. United States
Conference of Mayors, Mayors Water Council (2007). (http://usmayors.org/urbanwater/07expenditures.pdf).
3-7
-------
Chapter 3: Concluding Remarks
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
3-8
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Glossary
NOTE: Definitions are provided to help the reader understand the terms used throughout the 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 here are not intended to substitute for
those legally binding definitions in the Clean Water Act or implementing regulations.
301(h) Waiver from Secondary Treatment for
Marine Discharges
A modification of secondary treatment requirements
for publicly owned wastewater treatment plants
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 to allow for recreational activities in
and on the water.
advanced treatment
A level of treatment that is more stringent than
secondary treatment or that produces a significant
reduction in nonconventional or toxic pollutants
present in the wastewater treated by a facility. See
Appendix], Table J-1, Category II.
ammonia
A water pollutant that dissolved water is toxic to
fish and can be converted to nitrates, which are
dangerous to humans.
asset management
A set of procedures and management practices
designed to help wastewater treatment facilities
optimize how resources are allocated to maintain
infrastructure.
best management practice (BMP)
A practice or combination of practices determined
to be an effective and practicable (including
technological, economic, and institutional
considerations) means of controlling point and
nonpoint source pollutants at levels compatible with
environmental quality goals.
brownfields
Land that might be contaminated by a hazardous
substance or pollutant, which could complicate its
expansion, redevelopment, or reuse. See Appendix],
Table J-1, Category VII-H.
capital investment
Money used to purchase fixed assets, such as land,
machinery, or buildings, rather than used to cover a
business's day-to-day operating expenses.
capital renewal
Practices that sustain a 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.
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
A federally funded, State-managed revolving fund
that provides low-cost financing for a wide variety
of water quality projects including all types of
nonpoint source, watershed protection or restoration,
and estuary management projects, as well as more
traditional municipal wastewater treatment projects.
clustered (community) system
A type of decentralized wastewater treatment system
that is a combination of unit processes under some
form of common ownership designed to collect
wastewater from two or more dwellings or buildings
and convey it to a treatment and dispersal system on
a suitable site near the dwellings or buildings.
Glossary -1
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
combined sewer overflow (CSO)
The 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 J, Table J-1, Category V.
combined sewer system
A sewer system designed to convey both domestic
sanitary wastewater and stormwater.
Data Entry Portal (DEP)
The Internet-based data entry system used by States
to submit needs and costs information to EPA for
CWNS 2008.
decentralized wastewater treatment system
Onsite or clustered wastewater treatment systems
used to treat and dispose of relatively small volumes
of wastewater, usually from dwellings and businesses
that are relatively close together. See Appendix J,
Table J-1, Category XII.
disinfection
A wastewater treatment unit process or set of
processes using chemicals (commonly chlorine,
chloramine, or ozone) or a physical process (e.g.,
ultraviolet light) to kill microorganisms such as
bacteria, viruses, and protozoa.
environmental management systems (EMS)
A set of processes and practices that enable an
organization to reduce its environmental impacts
and increase its operating efficiency.
facility
An entry into the CWNS DEP that identifies
wastewater treatment, stormwater management, or
decentralized wastewater treatment system needs
and costs. Each facility includes a description of
needs, costs, location, and other relevant technical
information.
green infrastructure
An array of products, technologies, and practices
that use natural systems—or engineered systems
that mimic natural processes—to enhance overall
environmental quality and provide utility services.
Such techniques use soils and vegetation to recycle
stormwater runoff and promote its infiltration and
evapotranspiration.. Examples include green roofs,
porous pavement, rain gardens, and vegetated
swales. See Appendix J, Table J-1, Category VI-C.
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, it is 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. See
Appendix J, Table J-1, Category VII-K.
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 J, Table J-1,
Category III-A.
interceptor sewer
A major sewer line that receives wastewater flows
from collector sewers. It carries wastewater directly
to the treatment facility or to another interceptor. See
Appendix J, Table J-1, Category IV-B.
municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4)
Any pipe, ditch, or gully—or a system of them—
that is owned or operated by a governmental entity
and used exclusively for collecting and conveying
stormwater. Domestic, industrial, and commercial
sanitary sewage is collected and conveyed in
separate systems.
Glossary - 2
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
National Estuary Program
An EPA 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, EPA is directed
to develop plans for attaining or maintaining water
quality. This includes protection of public water
supplies and the protection and propagation of a
balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish,
and wildlife, and allows recreational activities, in and
on water, requires that control of point and nonpoint
sources of pollution to supplement existing controls
of pollution.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)
A permit program established under section 402 of
the Clean Water Act that controls water pollution by
regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into
waters of the United States.
need
The unfunded capital costs of projects that address
a water quality or water quality-related public health
problem existing as of January 1, 2008, or expected
to occur within the next 20 years.
new pipe needs
The cost estimate to construct, expand, or upgrade
sewer collection systems for transporting wastewater
to treatment facilities. See Appendix J, Table J-1,
Categories IV-A and IV-B.
nitrogen
A nutrient that is found in fertilizer, animal waste,
discharges from wastewater treatment plants, and
overflow from septic systems and that, in high levels,
causes harmful algal blooms and eutrophication in
waterbodies.
non-discharging facility
A facility that does not discharge effluent to surface
water but, instead, reuses effluent for beneficial
purposes (e.g., spray irrigation, ground water
recharge).
nontraditional Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System (MS4)
An MS4 regulated under the NPDES permit program
and owned by nonmunicipal, public entities (e.g.,
universities, departments of transportation, prisons,
school districts).
nonpoint source (NPS) pollution
Nonpoint source pollution, unlike pollution from,
for example, industrial and sewage treatment plants,
comes from many diffuse sources. NPS pollution
is caused by rainfall or snowmelt moving over and
through the ground. As the runoff moves, it picks
up and carries away natural and human-made
pollutants, finally depositing them into lakes, rivers,
wetlands, coastal waters, and even our underground
sources of drinking water. See Appendix J, Table J-1,
Category VII.
official need
The unfunded capital costs of projects as of
January 1, 2008 that (1) address a water quality
or water quality-related public health problem
existing as of January 1, 2008 or expected to occur
within the next 20 years and (2) meet the CWNS
documentation requirements outlined in Chapter 1
of this Report. Official Needs can only be reported
in Categories I, II, III, IV, V, VI, and X.
onsite wastewater treatment system
A type of decentralized wastewater treatment system
that is a combination of natural and mechanical
processes designed to collect, treat, and disperse
or reclaim wastewater from a single dwelling
or building. Septic tanks and holding tanks are
examples.
operation and maintenance (O&M)
The day-to-day activities and expenses necessary for
an infrastructure system (e.g., pipes, equipment) to
perform its intended function.
Glossary - 3
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
other documented needs
Needs that met CWNS documentation
requirements but are not defined in CWA
section 516(b)(1)(B).
Phase I Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
(MS4)
An MS4 regulated under the NPDES Phase I permit
program. Phase I permits are required for medium
(population 100,000-249,999) and large (population
250,000 or more) MS4s in incorporated places or
counties with populations of 100,000 or more.
Phase II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System (MS4)
An MS4 regulated under the NPDES Phase II permit
program. Phase II permits are required for small
MS4s (population 99,999 or less) in urbanized areas
(UAs), as defined by the Bureau of the Census, and
small MS4s outside a UA that are designated by
NPDES permitting authorities.
phosphorus
A nutrient that is found in fertilizer, animal waste,
discharges from wastewater treatment plants, and
overflow from septic systems and that, in high levels,
causes harmful algal blooms and eutrophication in
waterbodies.
pipe repair
Reinforcement or reconstruction of structurally
deteriorating sewers (beyond normal maintenance).
See Appendix J, Table J-1, Category III-B.
point source pollution
Pollution that has a single point of origin or is
introduced into a receiving stream through a specific
outlet. Wastewater treatment plant outfalls and
combined sewer overflow points of discharge are
typical point sources of pollution.
project
An entry into the CWNS DEP that identifies NPS
pollution control needs and costs. Each facility
includes a description of needs, costs, location, and
other relevant technical information.
recycled water distribution
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],
Table J-1, Category X.
sanitary sewer
A municipal sewer designed to carry only domestic
sanitary sewage and industrial wastes to a
wastewater treatment plant.
sanitary sewer overflow (SSO)
A release from a separate sewer system of raw
domestic sewage (and in some cases, pretreated
industrial wastes) before it reaches the 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. Secondary treatment
typically requires a treatment level that will produce
an effluent quality of 30 milligrams per liter 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], Table J-1, Category I.
Glossary - 4
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
separate sewer system/sanitary sewer system
A sewer system designed to exclude stormwater and
convey only domestic, industrial, and commercial
sanitary wastewater (and in some cases, pretreated
industrial wastes).
silviculture
Care and cultivation of forest trees (e.g., forestry). See
Appendix J, Table J-1, Category VII-C.
small community
A community with a population of fewer than
10,000 people.
storm sewer
A sewer that carries only runoff from storm events.
stormwater
Precipitation from rain and snowmelt events
that flows over land or impervious surfaces and
accumulates debris, chemicals, sediment or other
pollutants that could adversely affect water quality if
it is discharged untreated. See Appendix], Table J-1,
Category VI.
unofficial cost estimates
Costs that are not included in EPA's needs for the
CWNS 2008 because they do not meet CWNS
documentation criteria. Such estimates are entered
for States' purposes other than this Report, such as
for State-level planning and communication with
State legislatures and other groups involved with
addressing and preventing water quality problems.
urbanized area (UA)
An urbanized area is a land area comprising one or
more places—central place(s)—and the adjacent
densely settled surrounding area—urban fringe—that
together have a residential population of at least
50,000 and an overall population density of at least
1,000 people per square mile.
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.
Glossary - 5
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
-------
APPENDICES
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
-------
Appendix A
OTHER DOCUMENTED NEEDS:
DECENTRALIZED WASTEWATER
TREATMENT SYSTEMS AND NONPOINT
SOURCE (NPS) POLLUTION CONTROL
Other Documented Needs
Needs that met CWNS documentation requirements but are not defined in CWA section 516(b)(1)(B)
are summarized below and in Appendix B, Table B-3. They include Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution
Control (Category VII) needs and Decentralized Wastewater Treatment (Category XII) needs that
are associated with implementing NPS management programs under section 319 of the CWA and
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs) for estuaries under section 320 of
the CWA.
A-1
-------
Appendix A: Other Documented Needs: Decentralized Wastewater
Treatment Systems and Nonpoint Source (NFS) Pollution Control
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Nonpoint Source Pollution (NFS) Control Needs (Category VII)
— Highlights
Category Definition: The capital costs to address pollutants that do not have a single point of
origin or are not introduced into a receiving stream from a specific outlet; NPS pollution
sources are diffuse and can be a result of runoff, precipitation, atmospheric deposition,
drainage, seepage, or hydrological modification
Total needs: $22.8 billion
Change in total needs from 2004:1 Decrease of $4.3 billion (16 percent)
Number of States reporting needs: 38
States with highest reported needs: New York ($5.6 billion), Michigan ($3.3 billion), Florida
($2.1 billion), New Jersey ($1.8 billion), Mississippi ($1.8 billion), Nebraska ($1.4 billion), and
Oregon ($1.1 billion) reported 75 percent of the needs
States with the largest percent increases: Nevada (greater than 1,000 percent), Massachusetts
(662 percent), North Carolina (271 percent), Michigan (222 percent), New York (105 percent),
Wyoming (104 percent), and Indiana (91 percent)
States with the largest percent decreases since 2004: South Carolina (100 percent), Washington
(100 percent), Colorado (99 percent), District of Columbia (99 percent), Ohio (98 percent),
New Hampshire (93 percent), and California (91 percent)
Tables & Maps: Figure A-1 shows the distribution of NPS Pollution Control (Category VII) needs
by State. Table A-1 summarizes the national NPS Pollution Control (Category VII) needs by
subcategory. Appendix B, Table B-3, presents the total NPS pollution other documented needs
by State and the NPS Pollution Control (Category VII) needs for each subcategory by State
Conservation stripcropping in northeast Iowa.
1 Because of changes in needs categories between CWNS 2004 and CWNS 2008, the total needs from CWNS 2004 Categories VII-A to VII-C, VII-E to VII-K, and
XI were compared with Category VII needs for CWNS 2008. CWNS 2004 Category VII-L is reported in Category XII and CWNS 2004 Category VII-D is reported
in Category VI.
A-2
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Appendix A: Other Documented Needs: Decentralized Wastewater
Treatment Systems and Nonpoint Source (NFS) Pollution Control
Northern
Mariana
Islands
Saipan
and
Tinian
Rota
American
Samoa
Range
>$2B
$1-$2B
$0.1-$1B
< $0.1B
None Reported
Did not participate
Total Nonpoint Source Needs = $22.8 Billion
Figure A-1. Distribution of nonpoint source pollution control (Category VII) needs by State (January 2008 dollars in billions).
Innovative Approaches Document More NFS Pollution Control Needs
Several States used innovative methods to document NPS Pollution Control Needs. For example
Michigan used a comprehensive list of sites contaminated from underground storage tanks releasing petroleum and hazardous
materials provided by the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) program to document NPS-Storage Tank (Category Vll-l)
needs statewide. Using the costs of previously funded cleanups to estimate future costs, Michigan reported $3.0 billion in needs
to remediate 9,252 sites.
Oregon used geographic information system (GIS) analysis to identify the acres of riparian vegetation restoration needed to meet
water quality standards set for the temperature and bacteria TMDL in the Willamette Basin. On the basis of past similar projects,
average per acre costs were estimated for urban and rural areas. In total, Oregon reported $1.0 billion in NPS-Hydromodification
(Category VII-K) needs to meet the water quality impairments in the basin.
A-3
-------
Appendix A: Other Documented Needs: Decentralized Wastewater
Treatment Systems and Nonpoint Source (NFS) Pollution Control
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
— Discussion
Because of the large variety of sources for NPS pollution, NPS needs are reported in 11
subcategories, listed in Table A-1. It is important to note that the subcategories have changed
from CWNS 2004 to CWNS 2008. The needs reported in the category NPS Control—Urban
(Subcategory VII-D) in 2004 are included in the Stormwater Program Management (Category VI)
needs of this Report. The needs reported in the category NPS Control—Individual/Decentralized
Sewage Treatment (Subcategory VII-L) in 2004 are reported as Decentralized Wastewater Treatment
(Category XII) needs in this Report. Needs reported as Estuary Management (Category XI) in 2004
are now reported as NPS Control-Other Estuary Management Activities (Subcategory VII-M). In
comparing this Report's NPS subcategories with their corresponding categories and subcategories in
the CWNS 2004 Report, there is a $4.3 billion decrease in NPS needs since 2004.
Hydromodification (Subcategory VII-K) ($9.3 billion), Ground Water Protection (Subcategory VII-E)
($3.8 billion), and Storage Tanks (Subcategory Vll-l) ($3.0 billion) account for 71 percent of the
total documented NPS needs. The greatest increases in NPS Pollution Control (Category VII) needs
are in Resource Extraction (Subcategory VII-G) (147 percent), Storage Tanks (Subcategory Vll-l)
(70 percent), and Silviculture (Subcategory VII-C) (20 percent). Table A-2 shows a comparison
of CWNS 2000 and CWNS 2004 NPS Pollution Control documented needs with CWNS 2008
documented needs.
Table A-1. CWNS 2008 total NPS needs by category (January 2008 dollars in
billions)
Category
number Category name
VII-A NPS-Agriculture (cropland)
VII-B NPS-Agriculture (animals)
VII-C NPS-Silviculture
VII-E NPS-Ground Water - Unknown Source
VII-F NPS-Marinas
VII-G NPS-Resource Extraction
VII-H NPS-Brownfields
Vll-l NPS-Storage Tanks
VII-J NPS-Sanitary Landfills
VII-K NPS-Hydromodification
VII-M Other Estuary Management Activities
$B Percent
1.6
1.0
0.3
3.8
<0.1
0.5
2.0
3.0
1.2
9.3
0.1
7.0
4.4
1.3
16.7
<0.1
2.2
8.8
13.2
5.3
40.8
0.4
Total NPS Needs 22 8 100 0
1
A-4
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Appendix A: Other Documented Needs: Decentralized Wastewater
Treatment Systems and Nonpoint Source (NFS) Pollution Control
Table A-2. CWNS 2008 total NFS needs by category and survey year (January 2008 dollars in billions)3
VII-A NPS-Agriculture (cropland)
2.0
1.6
-0.4
-20.6
VII-B NPS-Agriculture (animals)
0.8
1.8
1.0
-0.8
-42.7
VII-C NPS-Silviculture
0.1
0.2
0.3
16.9
VII-E NPS-Ground Water-Unknown Source
1.2
5.7
3.8
-1.9
-33.3
VII-F NPS-Marinas
-41.7
VII-G NPS-Resource Extraction
0.2
0.5
0.2
98.7
VII-H NPS-Brownfields
0.5
2.0
2.0
0.0
Vll-l NPS-Storage Tanks
1.3
1.8
3.0
1.2
69.2
VII-J NPS-Sanitary Landfills
2.4
2.5
1.2
-1.3
-51.3
VII-K NPS-Hydromodification
5.3
11.0
9.3
-1.8
-15.9
VII-M Other Estuary Management Activities'1
0.1
0.1
0.0
VII Total NPS Needs
12.2
27.3
22.8
-4.5
-16.6
s Because of changes in needs categories between CWNS 2004 and CWNS 2008, the total needs from CWNS 2004 categories VII-A to VII-C,
VII-E to VII-K, and XI were compared with Category VII needs for CWNS 2008.
J This amount was reported as Category XI: Estuary Management in CWNS 2004.
The large increases are a result of a few States greatly increasing their needs in a particular
subcategory, rather than increased reporting from all States. Increases in needs were also from
greater effort to document needs, increase availability of documentation, and use of innovative
methods (see examples in box). The decrease in needs reported for CWNS 2008 and continued
underreporting of NPS control needs is a result of limits on time to collect data and a lack of
appropriate documentation. In addition, States reported that lack of participation from State NPS
program staff limited their ability to report needs.
Acid mine drainage flows into
Possum Hollow, a Morris Creek
tributary. West Virginia.
A-5
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Appendix A: Other Documented Needs: Decentralized Wastewater
Treatment Systems and Nonpoint Source (NFS) Pollution Control
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems (Category XII)
— Highlights
Category Definition: Capital costs associated with the rehabilitation and replacement of onsite
(septic) wastewater treatment systems (OWTS) and clustered (community) systems
Total needs: $23.9 billion
Change in total needs from 2004:2 $20.3 billion (564 percent), the largest increase of any needs
category reported
Number of States reporting needs: 26
States with highest reported needs: Florida ($10.3 billion), Maryland ($5.0 billion), New Jersey
($2.2 billion), Maine ($1.3 billion), Minnesota ($1.3 billion), and Ohio ($1.3 billion) accounted
for 89 percent of the needs
States with the largest percent increases since 2004: Maryland, Florida, Missouri, Maine, West
Virginia, and New Jersey all reported greater than 1,000 percent increases
States with the largest percent decreases since 2004: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho,
Illinois, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin
all reported 100 percent decreases
Tables & Maps: Figure A-2 shows the distribution of Decentralized Wastewater Treatment
Systems (Category XII) needs by State
— Discussion
Before and during CWNS 2008, EPA and States increased communication with State agencies
responsible for overseeing decentralized wastewater treatment. As a result, significant progress was
made in reporting decentralized wastewater treatment needs. However, there is still underreporting
of needs in this category. Only half of States reported needs in the category. The population served
by decentralized wastewater systems reported in the CWNS is 27.9 million3 people. This represents
approximately 50 percent of the current U.S. population being served by decentralized wastewater
systems.4 In addition to likely underreporting decentralized system needs by local communities,
States had difficulty obtaining documents that met the CWNS 2008 documentation criteria and
coordinating needs reporting with other State agencies.
State needs increases in this category were because of States' increased level of effort to collect
and report needs, increased access to data to document needs, and increased use of innovative
documentation methods. For example, States increased their use of data from statewide permit
databases and community surveys to identify the number of decentralized wastewater systems that
need to be repaired, replaced, and newly installed by municipality. In addition, cost curves to estimate
the costs of repairing, replacing, and installing new systems were added for CWNS 2008. These cost
curves were used to document needs totaling $14.4 billion (60 percent of the total needs) in 896
facilities. Also, some States successfully coordinated the collection and entry of data with the State
agency responsible for the decentralized program, usually the departments of health (see examples in
the box). Finally, the cost of installing new decentralized systems to address growth was newly eligible
for CWNS 2008. New growth accounted for $11.2 billion (47 percent) of the reported needs.
2 Because of changes in needs categories between CWNS 2004 and CWNS 2008, the needs from CWNS 2004 Category VII-L were compared with
Category XII needs for CWNS 2008.
3 Almost all (99.7 percent) of the reported decentralized system population is served by OWTS.
4 Based on data from the 2007 American Housing Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, Housing and Household Division.
A-6
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Appendix A: Other Documented Needs: Decentralized Wastewater
Treatment Systems and Nonpoint Source (NFS) Pollution Control
Northern
Mariana
Islands
American
Samoa
Range
>$5B
$1-$5B
$0.1-$1B
< $0.1B
None Reported
Did not participate
Total Category XII Needs = $23.9 Billion
Figure A-2. Distribution of decentralized wastewater treatment systems (Category XII) needs by State
(January 2008 dollars in billions).
Interagency Cooperation Results in Greater Needs Reporting
One of the biggest challenges to accurately documenting these needs is that generally different State agencies manage the Decentralized
Wastewater Treatment Systems program and the CWNS data collection effort. Two States exemplify how working cooperatively across State
agencies can improve needs reporting.
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) and the Ohio Department of Health (ODH) conducted a joint survey of municipal boards of
health to collect data regarding Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS) operations, failure rates, and solutions for addressing failing
OWTS. In addition, OEPA and ODH conducted joint outreach to answer questions about and help complete the survey. As a result, Ohio
reported $1.3 billion in Decentralized Wastewater Treatment System needs, a 267 percent increase from 2004.
The Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services worked with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources to directly enter the
State's OWTS needs into the CWNS Data Entry Portal (DEP). Using needs data collected from a survey of county health departments and
costs estimated using CWNS cost curves, Missouri's Decentralized Wastewater Treatment System needs increased from approximately $0.9
million in 2004 to $260 million in 2008.
A-7
-------
Appendix A: Other Documented Needs: Decentralized Wastewater
Treatment Systems and Nonpoint Source (NFS) Pollution Control
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Installation of an onsite (septic) wastewater treatment system.
Small communities (population fewer than 10,000 people) reported $4.8 billion (20 percent) of
the $23.9 billion total Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems (Category XII) needs. Sixty
new clustered systems are planned for small communities where abandonment of individual onsite
systems is expected. Those 60 facilities will serve approximately 23,000 people.
Communities are finding that decentralized wastewater systems sometimes prove to be the least
expensive, 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
recognizes that decentralized systems are a key component of the nation's wastewater infrastructure.
EPA's Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems Program Strategy5 provides goals and planned
actions to improve the performance of such systems by promoting the concept of continuous
management and facilitating upgraded professional standards of practice.
EPA's Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems Program Strategy is at http://ww.epa.gov/owm/septic.
A-8
-------
Appendix B
CWNS 2008
DOCUMENTED NEEDS BY STATE
B-1
-------
Appendix B: CWNS 2008 Documented Needs by State
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table B-1. CWNS 2008 total documented needs by category and State for the CWNS 2008 period (up to 20 years)
(January 2008 dollars in millions)
State Total 1
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
4,425
NR
5,229
470
29,910
1,472
3,572
222
2,545
19,567
89
1,757
1,377
17,503
7,120
3,429
3,246
2,117
4,032
1,031
8,470
7,951
3,715
4,110
1,417
5,750
587
3,222
2,913
1,249
32,508
103
29,715
6,551
NR
14,221
1,298
3,778
669
NR
358
15
12,171
356
677
21
173
0
31
290
438
4,089
335
233
761
317
1,303
300
1,069
728
867
787
146
1,072
272
665
101
450
1,829
4
15,779
188
NR
1,302
280
1,559
^m
864
NR
1,936
130
4,105
708
448
54
483
9,366
37
50
581
363
478
1,608
634
137
81
24
1,807
1,885
24
138
201
108
48
403
1,762
86
4,470
67
1,243
2,355
NR
254
56
418
Category of need
287
NR
7
72
55
3
549
1
0
135
0
31
30
110
21
89
377
37
1,055
50
174
19
43
151
73
1,212
22
13
0
39
314
0
153
380
NR
687
1
66
1,470
NR
450
64
5,476
108
50
36
0
1,529
2
538
107
1,377
359
365
252
131
958
117
778
1,111
737
1,181
377
429
119
62
193
161
949
29
3,644
522
NR
2,199
409
488
481
NR
677
101
867
119
129
77
0
3,013
10
99
120
381
506
83
35
484
392
170
154
2,033
53
106
375
118
58
19
191
47
822
1
922
1,057
NR
840
84
299
653
NR
990
88
1,528
52
191
8
0
1,828
1
547
92
269
227
269
573
699
100
37
268
64
126
760
245
557
44
671
86
120
223
0
235
1,713
NR
629
233
195
1
NR
0
0
233
0
1,528
25
1,889
0
0
0
0
10,877
5,041
748
522
312
0
307
463
2,044
1,555
0
0
1,689
0
1,318
0
281
8,176
1
6,648
4
NR
7,516
0
427
^
0
NR
460
Oa
3,769
117
0
0
0
2,498
8
0
9
37
153
34
92
0
122
26
3,755
41
310
987
0
565
24
71
515
65
15,626
0
1,091
87
NR
794
235
321
•
Oa
NR
351
0
1,706
9
0
0
0
1,198
0
202
Oa
0
0
0
0
0
21
0
2
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
65
0
99
1
0
245
NR
0
0
5
•rjTrllE
4,425
NR
4,418
470
24,435
1,346
3,572
222
2,545
15,871
81
1,555
1,368
17,466
6,967
3,395
3,154
2,117
3,889
1,005
4,713
7,884
3,405
3,123
1,417
5,185
563
3,151
2,333
1,184
16,783
102
28,624
6,219
NR
13,427
1,063
3,452
B-2
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Appendix B: CWNS 2008 Documented Needs by State
Table B-1. CWNS 2008 total documented needs by category and State for the CWNS 2008 period (up to 20 years)
(January 2008 dollars in millions) (continued)
,« •
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
17,939
NR
566
106
1,364
11,539
2,939
218
6,848
5,262
3,014
6,361
156
NR
364
21
4,753
NR
918
NR
132
0
443
2,575
302
62
1,522
1,712
339
1,821
41
NR
129
2
277
NR
^H
393
NR
269
48
25
1,283
1,950
58
1,804
649
74
597
7
NR
0
0
769
NR
^H
349
NR
4
0
193
331
Oa
2
366
95
36
250
0
NR
Oa
0
304
NR
•
570
NR
25
23
201
1,296
104
10
1,427
696
387
1,867
42
NR
168
15
50
NR
Category of need
800
NR
47
17
123
836
132
76
733
926
355
321
23
NR
67
4
1,975
NR
161
NR
60
12
83
1,768
406
8
380
131
239
500
5
NR
0
0
1,355
NR
8,747
NR
0
0
96
0
0
2
616
584
1,467
412
0
NR
0
0
23
NR
•
6,001
NR
29
6
191
3,145
Oa
0
0
329
117
593
37
NR
0
0
0
NR
0
NR
0
0
9
305
45
0
0
140
0
0
1
NR
0
0
0
NR
11,938
NR
537
100
1,164
8,089
2,894
218
6,848
4,793
2,897
5,768
118
NR
364
21
4,753
NR
298,121 59,910 45,338 8,186 33,658 21,358 19,429 63,552 42,260 4,430 251,432
Categories
I Secondary wastewater treatment
11 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 Stormwater management
(see Table B-2 for totals by
subcategory)
X Recycled water distribution
Notes:
NR = not reported. Alaska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2008.
"Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
Table B-1 summarizes by State the CWNS 2008 assessment of total needs for wastewater treatment, pipe
repair, new pipes, stormwater management, and recycled water distribution. The needs represent the
capital investment necessary to plan, design, build, replace or rehabilitate publicly owned wastewater
treatment facilities and associated pipes (Categories I through V) and establish and implement stormwater
management best practices (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. Table B-1 might vary slightly from those
presented in the main body of the report because of independent rounding.
B-3
-------
Appendix B: CWNS 2008 Documented Needs by State
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table B-2. CWNS 2008 total documented needs for stormwater management by category and State for the
CWNS 2008 period (up to 20 years) (January 2008 dollars in millions)
Category of need
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
0
NR
25
Oa
0
32
0
0
0
5
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
3
11
0
565
5
2
0
0
Oa
0
46
22
NR
0
235
0
0
NR
384
0
733
77
0
0
0
713
0
0
1
31
29
11
84
0
121
0
10
22
2
565
0
0
19
32
66
51
483
0
600
27
NR
12
0
263
0
NR
3
0
1,762
0
0
0
0
1,702
0
0
2
3
16
4
6
0
0
0
1,293
17
202
390
0
0
0
4
224
10
107
0
40
13
NR
782
0
45
0
NR
0
0
284
0
0
0
0
1
7
0
2
1
2
4
2
0
0
4
1,270
Oa
31
16
0
0
0
15
224
2
14,928
0
331
8
NR
0
0
10
0
NR
48
Oa
990
8
0
0
0
77
Oa
0
1
2
107
16
1
0
Oa
22
1,181
1
72
5
0
0
0
19
0
2
108
0
74
17
NR
1
0
4
0
NR
460
Oa
3,769
117
0
0
0
2,498
8
0
9
37
153
34
92
0
122
26
3,755
41
310
987
0
565
24
71
515
65
15,626
0
1,091
87
NR
794
235
321
B-4
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Appendix B: CWNS 2008 Documented Needs by State
Table B-2. CWNS 2008 total documented needs for stormwater management by category and State for the
CWNS 2008 period (up to 20 years) (January 2008 dollars in millions) (continued)
H „
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
5,997
NR
12
0
0
16
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
^^H
i
NR
18
5
146
2,774
Oa
0
0
225
10
9
33
NR
0
0
0
NR
Category of need
0
NR
0
1
10
266
0
0
0
47
0
473
4
NR
0
0
0
NR
2
NR
0
0
20
61
0
0
0
35
108
60
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
^^m
0
NR
0
0
15
28
0
0
0
23
0
51
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
6,001
NR
29
6
191
3,145
Oa
0
0
329
117
593
37
NR
0
0
0
NR
7,426 17,428 2,873 42,260
Categories
VI-A Conveyance Infrastructure
VI-B Treatment Systems
VI-C Green Infrastructure
VI-D General Stormwater Management
Notes:
NR = not reported. Alaska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2008.
"Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
Table B-2 summarizes the CWNS 2008 assessment of documented needs for stormwater management
projects by State. These needs include the costs to plan and implement structural and nonstructural
measures to control the runoff water resulting from precipitation (stormwater) in National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase I, Phase II, and non-traditional (e.g., universities, prisons,
school districts) municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4), as well as unregulated communities
(reported in CWNS 2004 as VII-D: NPS-Urban).
B-5
-------
Appendix B: CWNS 2008 Documented Needs by State
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table B-3. CWNS 2008 total other documented needs for NFS pollution control projects and decentralized wastewater
treatment systems by category and State for the CWNS 2008 period (up to 20 years)
(January 2008 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
VII-A
0
NR
Oa
17
0
0
0
0
0
985
7
0
30
51
9
26
0
0
1
1
65
0
90
30
72
43
0
0
0
0
76
1
36
Oa
NR
2
0
16
VII-B
0
NR
1
367
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
37
1
2
0
0
0
0
20
161
0
21
16
251
29
0
0
0
0
4
0
43
1
NR
1
0
Oa
VII-C
0
NR
0
5
80
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
Oa
0
0
0
1
Oa
0
0
1
0
16
1
0
0
40
0
0
0
130
0
NR
Oa
0
0
Category of need
VII-E VII-F VII-G VII-H Vll-l VII-J
0
NR
Oa
0
0
0
85
0
0
15
0
0
Oa
0
Oa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
0
0
0
1,340
0
0
547
0
1,779
0
NR
0
0
5
0
NR
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
0
2
Oa
0
Oa
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
oa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
oa
0
2
1
NR
0
0
0
0
NR
3
8
0
Oa
0
0
0
40
0
0
1
1
Oa
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
0
0
NR
4
0
0
0
NR
6
0
0
0
356
0
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
593
0
0
0
0
0
0
828
0
198
Oa
NR
0
0
0
0
NR
8
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2,974
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
4
0
NR
0
0
0
0
NR
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
0
0
0
0
66
0
0
0
0
19
7
15
0
0
0
0
13
0
1
276
0
646
3
NR
0
0
0
^^^^ ^^^ Total VII
VII K VII-M Total VII XII &XII
0
NR
0
Oa
27
Oa
2
0
0
1,013
15
0
18
18
5
197
0
0
887
0
218
72
216
123
1,420
457
0
0
162
0
82
0
2,718
229
NR
8
0
1,080
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
9
0
NR
0
0
Oa
0
NR
27
396
106
Oa
443
0
Oa
2,079
32
0
88
73
15
288
0
1
891
21
465
99
3,319
766
1,759
530
0
1,354
202
1
1,821
1
5,565
234
NR
15
0
1,102
0
NR
0
0
0
0
288
0
0
10,283
2
2
0
0
561
3
0
5
0
1,323
4,971
767
1
1,294
154
260
0
0
0
0
2,232
0
165
6
NR
1,262
0
0
0
NR
27
396
106
0
731
0
Oa
12,362
34
2
88
73
576
291
0
6
891
1,344
5,436
866
3,320
2,060
1,913
790
0
1,354
202
1
4,053
1
5,730
240
NR
1,277
0
1102
B-6
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Appendix B: CWNS 2008 Documented Needs by State
Table B-3. CWNS 2008 total other documented needs for NFS pollution control projects and decentralized wastewater
treatment systems by category and State for the CWNS 2008 period (up to 20 years)
(January 2008 dollars in millions) (continued)
Category of need Tota|V||
State VII-A VII-B VII-C VII-E VII-F VII-G VII-H Vll-l VII-J VII-K VII-M Total VII XII &XII
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
33
NR
0
Oa
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
Oa
5
NR
0
0
0
NR
14
NR
0
7
0
0
2
0
0
0
17
16
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
0
NR
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
15
NR
0
0
0
NR
Total 1,600 1,021 278 3,790
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
203
NR
0
0
0
84
0
0
0
0
121
0
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
3
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
0
NR
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
NR
0
0
0
NR
0
NR
0
0
0
28
0
0
0
0
0
2
126
NR
0
0
0
NR
51
NR
0
8
0
31
0
0
0
0
2
208
0
NR
0
4
0
NR
0
NR
0
0
0
42
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
304
NR
0
16
0
191
2
0
0
0
143
241
160
NR
0
4
0
NR
Oa
NR
0
0
5
0
2
Oa
4
0
331
0
Oa
NR
0
Oa
0
NR
304
NR
0
16
5
191
4
Oa
4
0
474
241
160
NR
0
4
0
NR
6 470 2,015 3,008 1,211 9,271 82 22,754 23,921 46,675
Categories
VII-A Agriculture (cropland) VII-F Marinas
VII-B Agriculture (animals) VII-G Resource extraction
VII-C Silviculture VII-H Brownfields
VII-E Ground water protection (unknown source) Vll-l Storage tanks
VII-J Sanitary landfills
VII-K Hydromodification
VII-M Other estuary management activities
XII Decentralized wastewater treatment
systems
Notes:
NR = not reported. Alaska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2008.
a Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
Table B-3 summarizes the CWNS 2008 assessment of total documented needs for NPS pollution control projects
and decentralized wastewater treatment systems by State. These needs met CWNS documentation requirements
but are not defined under CWA section 517(b)(1)(B). They include the capital investment necessary to implement
NPS management plans under section 319 and Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs)
under section 320 of the Clean Water Act. The NPS pollution control Category (VII) includes costs for agriculture,
silviculture, ground water protection, marinas, resource extraction, brownfields, storage tanks, sanitary landfills,
hydromodification, and estuary management. Decentralized wastewater treatment systems (Category XII) includes
costs associated with the rehabilitation or replacement of onsite (septic) wastewater treatment systems (OWTS) or
clustered (community) systems.
B-7
-------
Appendix B: CWNS 2008 Documented Needs by State
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
B-8
-------
Appendix C
CWNS 2008 TOTAL SMALL
COMMUNITY DOCUMENTED NEEDS
C-1
-------
Appendix C: CWNS 2008 Total Small Community Documented Needs
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table C-1. CWNS 2008 total small community needs (January 2008 dollars in millions)
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
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
423
NR
146
279
426
517
182
88
0
435
8
46
262
1,183
437
1,455
197
407
173
290
613
441
102
416
640
312
228
148
153
256
602
20
1,537
682
NR
976
124
112
2,859
NR
10
NR
3
59
1
35
5
40
0
2
9
3
19
7
6
42
6
19
4
28
7
6
3
10
45
5
39
5
5
21
2
19
5
10
NR
7
10
3
16
NR
71
NR
35
12
139
184
25
0
0
0
7
19
80
278
48
107
64
73
31
100
141
56
32
191
101
114
120
57
24
119
62
3
398
49
NR
122
47
68
279
NR
56
NR
27
75
32
221
27
0
0
145
0
15
39
56
24
1,142
13
20
11
10
164
12
Oa
19
24
48
7
38
16
4
99
0
54
56
NR
43
27
13
79
NR
48
NR
Oa
24
17
1
6
0
0
16
0
0
20
36
13
30
24
24
3
30
30
0
17
39
35
3
12
4
0
15
61
0
52
64
NR
37
1
5
24
NR
117
NR
4
8
232
53
1
5
0
37
0
0
29
67
15
97
6
26
41
23
133
31
12
89
83
22
42
20
11
37
197
17
127
50
NR
23
39
13
323
NR
100
NR
60
87
0
43
62
75
0
208
0
11
70
220
44
43
7
202
86
68
25
342
17
45
285
94
33
15
91
15
129
0
638
307
NR
392
9
11
746
NR
31
NR
18
73
6
12
61
8
0
17
1
0
23
37
5
15
83
60
1
17
99
0
3
34
113
31
14
14
0
66
31
0
97
147
NR
184
0
2
112
NR
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
489
287
21
0
3
0
41
21
0
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
171
0
NR
174
0
0
1,295
NR
Oa
NR
0
0
Oa
3
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
7
0
0
7
NR
0
0
1
0
NR
423
NR
146
279
426
514
182
88
0
423
8
46
262
1,183
437
1,455
197
407
173
290
613
441
102
416
640
312
228
148
142
256
595
20
1,537
675
NR
976
124
111
2,859
NR
C-2
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Appendix C: CWNS 2008 Total Small Community Documented Needs
Table C-1. CWNS 2008 total small community needs (January 2008 dollars in millions) (continued)
Percent
Total of total
needs needs
Category of need
TotalI-V
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American Samoa
Guam
N. Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
B lands
76
38
132
858
1,362
114
815
173
981
791
70
NR
35
4
94
NR
13
36
10
7
46
52
12
3
33
12
45
NR
10
19
2
NR
4
0
44
208
15
7
96
75
124
283
28
NR
25
0
24
NR
17
19
6
70
1,256
22
141
9
17
126
4
NR
0
0
29
NR
0
0
34
34
0
1
20
3
16
60
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
Oa
8
4
91
18
3
58
35
201
171
17
NR
11
0
Oa
NR
27
11
37
189
35
74
413
24
283
112
19
NR
0
4
30
NR
28
0
7
254
38
6
87
9
189
39
3
NR
0
0
10
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
150
0
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
4,189 4,332 859 2,647 5,838 2,085 2,709 53
76
38
132
846
1,362
114
815
173
981
791
70
NR
35
4
94
NR
Categories
I Secondary wastewater treatment
11 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, North Dakota, Rhode Island, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2008.
"Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
Table C-1 summarizes the CWNS 2008 assessment of total needs for small communities by State for wastewater
treatment facilities and pipes (Categories I through V) and recycled water distribution (Category X). Small
communities are defined as communities with populations of fewer than 10,000 people. Tables C-2, C-3, and C-4
provide further breakdown of small community information based on different population ranges.
These small community design year needs have met the established documentation criteria and represent the capital
investment necessary to plan, design, build, replace, or rehabilitate publicly owned wastewater treatment facilities
needed to serve the projected estimated design year population of small communities.
These are the estimates for adequate wastewater treatment systems in compliance with the Clean Water Act for
those small communities that could document their needs.
C-3
-------
Appendix C: CWNS 2008 Total Small Community Documented Needs
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table C-2. CWNS 2008 total small community needs: facilities serving populations of 3,500 to 10,000 people
(January 2008 dollars in millions)
« •
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
70
NR
71
80
96
150
99
30
0
275
0
19
50
587
185
87
100
186
39
46
385
397
34
152
137
76
72
27
72
104
372
9
605
213
NR
241
15
NR
26
2
67
29
14
0
0
0
0
15
21
112
30
34
23
33
7
26
47
49
12
46
7
32
38
9
0
45
29
1
149
10
NR
24
9
NR
20
43
0
93
12
0
0
91
0
3
19
26
9
19
7
8
2
1
105
0
0
11
7
12
2
13
0
0
39
0
3
8
NR
7
4
NR
0
12
17
0
2
0
0
7
0
0
0
19
1
8
10
7
Oa
Oa
12
0
10
9
13
2
1
0
0
3
39
0
10
20
NR
21
Category of need
20
NR
0
4
12
15
0
5
0
15
0
0
4
32
4
17
Oa
14
23
7
115
31
8
46
38
8
11
4
0
23
143
8
33
16
NR
9
19
NR
16
10
0
11
34
19
0
146
0
0
7
24
31
5
3
91
7
2
1
318
2
20
53
12
14
Oa
69
11
93
0
262
105
NR
77
3
NR
9
9
0
2
36
6
0
10
0
0
0
14
4
5
57
33
0
2
88
0
0
20
19
9
6
Oa
0
23
22
0
35
52
NR
33
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
361
107
0
0
2
0
8
17
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
112
0
NR
71
0
NR
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
7
0
0
2
NR
0
^B
70
NR
71
80
96
150
99
30
0
269
0
19
50
587
185
87
100
186
39
46
385
397
34
152
137
76
72
27
69
104
365
9
605
211
NR
241
C-4
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Appendix C: CWNS 2008 Total Small Community Documented Needs
Table C-2. CWNS 2008 total small community needs: facilities serving populations of 3,500 to 10,000 people
(January 2008 dollars in millions) (continued)
To«a, ,
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
S lands
40
33
1,256
NR
37
9
58
314
58
78
286
63
354
211
26
NR
35
0
92
NR
19
12
101
NR
4
0
18
65
6
5
53
17
33
63
16
NR
25
0
24
NR
4
11
36
NR
14
9
0
32
21
6
80
0
3
34
4
NR
0
0
29
NR
0
2
15
NR
0
0
18
14
0
1
3
0
6
18
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
17
8
167
NR
Oa
0
1
37
6
Oa
46
26
57
56
2
NR
11
0
Oa
NR
_
0
Oa
151
NR
6
0
15
50
8
65
89
0
126
20
3
NR
0
0
30
NR
0
0
40
NR
12
0
7
117
17
0
14
0
86
20
2
NR
0
0
9
NR
0
0
746
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
43
0
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
n
40
33
1,256
NR
37
9
58
314
58
78
286
63
354
211
26
NR
35
0
92
NR
8,016 1,413 852 304 1,099 2,025 821 1,489 19 7,998
Categories
1 Secondary wastewater treatment III-B Sewer replacement/rehabilitation V Combined sewer overflow correction
II Advanced wastewater treatment IV-A New collector sewers and appurtenances X Recycled water distribution
III-A Infiltration/inflow correction IV-B New interceptor sewers and appurtenances
Notes:
NR = not reported. Alaska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2008.
"Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
Table C-2 provides the subset of Table C-1 data for the needs for small community facilities estimated to be
serving populations in the range of 3,500 to 10,000 people.
C-5
-------
Appendix C: CWNS 2008 Total Small Community Documented Needs
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table C-3. CWNS 2008 total small community needs: facilities serving populations of 1,000 to 3,500 people
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
281
NR
60
123
99
241
64
48
0
143
7
21
160
459
214
196
58
175
54
175
131
39
49
183
275
115
98
59
78
126
201
1
689
231
NR
373
44
NR
7
4
66
90
7
0
0
0
7
4
38
133
12
33
32
29
15
50
55
3
14
110
50
46
51
13
21
69
25
1
194
15
NR
62
40
NR
7
24
31
108
12
0
0
51
0
12
20
27
12
54
5
8
6
10
38
12
Oa
8
14
29
3
18
16
4
50
0
47
41
NR
24
41
NR
Oa
11
Oa
Oa
2
0
0
8
0
0
20
16
10
17
13
16
1
25
7
0
6
13
15
1
5
3
0
12
23
0
39
28
NR
12
85
NR
4
3
1
25
0
Oa
0
20
0
0
21
33
10
59
4
9
12
14
14
0
1
22
29
9
18
6
10
12
52
0
35
18
NR
13
55
NR
38
45
0
6
22
48
0
51
0
5
47
113
3
8
0
92
19
40
8
25
7
18
119
24
14
9
22
Oa
29
0
292
89
NR
113
16
NR
5
36
0
10
21
0
0
7
0
0
15
17
0
5
4
19
0
12
6
0
1
11
48
8
7
11
0
29
7
0
44
35
NR
51
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
121
167
21
0
1
0
24
4
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
38
0
NR
97
Oa
NR
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
5
NR
0
281
NR
60
123
99
239
64
48
0
137
7
21
160
459
214
196
58
175
54
175
131
39
49
183
275
115
98
59
70
126
201
1
689
226
NR
373
C-6
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Appendix C: CWNS 2008 Total Small Community Documented Needs
Table C-3. CWNS 2008 total small community needs: facilities serving populations of 1,000 to 3,500 people (continued)
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
49
67
1,161
NR
25
10
59
506
24
35
339
81
522
401
28
NR
0
4
1
NR
9
51
128
NR
Oa
0
18
129
4
1
36
37
72
163
8
NR
0
0
0
NR
20
0
37
NR
3
5
6
38
0
16
52
9
11
54
Oa
NR
0
0
0
NR
1
3
7
NR
0
0
15
19
0
0
15
3
7
29
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
17
4
107
NR
0
3
3
48
4
3
7
7
125
78
8
NR
0
0
0
NR
2
6
320
NR
6
1
17
127
7
9
180
17
120
63
11
NR
0
4
0
NR
0
2
47
NR
15
0
Oa
134
9
6
49
9
78
13
1
NR
0
0
1
NR
0
0
515
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
108
0
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
0
1
0
NR
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
49
66
1,161
NR
25
10
59
494
24
35
339
81
522
401
28
NR
0
4
1
NR
8,538 1,956 982 443 953 2,251 789 1,131 34 8,504
Categories
I Secondary wastewater treatment
11 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, North Dakota, Rhode Island, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2008.
"Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
Table C-3 provides the subset of Table C-1 data for the needs for small community facilities estimated to be
serving populations in the range of 1,000 to 3,500 people.
C-7
-------
Appendix C: CWNS 2008 Total Small Community Documented Needs
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table C-4. CWNS 2008 total small community needs: facility serving population of fewer than 1,000 people
(January 2008 dollars in millions)
State Total
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
72
NR
14
76
231
125
19
10
0
17
1
6
51
137
38
1,171
39
46
80
70
97
5
18
81
229
121
58
61
4
26
29
9
243
238
NR
362
^m
12
NR
3
6
6
65
3
0
0
0
0
0
21
33
7
40
9
11
10
24
39
5
6
35
45
36
31
35
2
5
8
0
54
24
NR
37
^H
8
NR
Oa
8
1
20
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
4
3
1,069
1
4
3
0
21
0
0
0
3
7
2
8
0
0
9
0
4
7
NR
12
^H
4
NR
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
Oa
0
0
1
1
3
5
Oa
0
1
5
11
0
Oa
17
7
1
7
1
0
Oa
Oa
0
3
17
NR
4
Category of need
12
NR
Oa
1
218
13
1
0
0
2
0
0
5
3
1
21
2
4
7
3
4
0
3
20
15
6
12
9
1
2
2
9
59
16
NR
1
25
NR
7
32
0
25
6
9
0
11
0
6
16
83
11
30
5
19
60
26
17
0
8
7
113
58
5
6
0
4
7
0
83
113
NR
202
11
NR
4
28
6
1
4
1
0
Oa
1
0
9
6
1
5
22
9
1
3
6
0
1
2
46
14
1
3
0
14
2
0
18
60
NR
100
^H
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
12
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
0
NR
6
^H
0
NR
0
0
Oa
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
oa
NR
0
^m
72
NR
14
76
231
125
19
10
0
17
1
6
51
137
38
1,171
39
46
80
70
97
5
18
81
229
121
58
61
4
26
29
9
243
237
NR
362
C-8
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Appendix C: CWNS 2008 Total Small Community Documented Needs
Table C-4. CWNS 2008 total small community needs: facility serving population of fewer than 1,000 people
(January 2008 dollars in millions) (continued)
Oregon
13
13
Pennsylvania
442
51
49
275
25
34
442
Rhode Island
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
South Carolina
15
15
15
South Dakota
19
10
19
Tennessee
15
15
Texas
39
14
12
38
Utah
1,281
1,235
20
13
1,281
Vermont
Virginia
191
144
24
191
Washington
29
20
Oa
29
West Virginia
105
18
19
37
25
105
Wisconsin
179
57
38
13
37
28
179
Wyoming
16
16
NR
American Samoa
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Guam
0
0
0
NR
N. Mariana Islands
Puerto Rico
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Categories
I Secondary wastewater treatment
11 Advanced wastewater treatment
III-A Infiltration/inflow correction
NR
NR
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, North Dakota, Rhode Island, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2008.
"Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
Table C-4 provides the subset of Table C-1 data for the needs for small community facilities estimated to be serving
populations of fewer than 1,000 people.
C-9
-------
Appendix C: CWNS 2008 Total Small Community Documented Needs
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table C-5. CWNS 2008 total small community other documented needs (January 2008 dollars in millions)
Other documented needs
State Small Community <10,000 3,500 to 10,000 people 1,000 to 3,500 people <1,000 people
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
0
NR
0
0
0
0
193
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
561
3
0
5
0
143
Oa
375
0
1,224
145
1
0
0
0
0
1,953
0
19
6
NR
30
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
116
0
0
0
Oa
0
0
0
557
0
0
0
0
103
0
269
0
1,199
18
0
0
0
0
0
257
0
3
0
NR
7
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
69
0
0
0
Oa
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
26
0
103
0
25
37
0
0
0
0
0
324
0
4
Oa
NR
11
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
3
0
5
0
14
Oa
3
0
1
91
1
0
0
0
0
1,372
0
12
5
NR
12
0
0
C-10
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Appendix C: CWNS 2008 Total Small Community Documented Needs
Table C-5. CWNS 2008 total small community other documented needs (January 2008 dollars in millions) (continued)
State
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
Other documented needs
Small Community <10,000 3,500 to 10,000 people 1,000 to 3,500 people
Oa
NR
0
0
2
0
2
Oa
4
0
122
0
Oa
NR
0
Oa
0
NR
0
NR
0
0
1
0
0
Oa
0
0
80
0
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
|
0
NR
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
30
0
0
NR
0
Oa
0
NR
<1,000 people
Oa
NR
0
0
Oa
0
2
0
3
0
12
0
Oa
NR
0
0
0
NR
Notes:
NR = not reported. Alaska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2008.
"Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
Table C-5 summarizes the CWNS 2004 assessment of total other documented needs for small communities by
State for Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems (Category XII), and provides further breakdown of small
community information on the basis of different population ranges.
C-11
-------
Appendix C: CWNS 2008 Total Small Community Documented Needs
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
C-12
-------
Appendix D
CWNS 2008 COMPARISON OF
SMALL COMMUNITY FACILITIES'
NEEDS AND TOTAL NEEDS
D-1
-------
Appendix D: CWNS 2008 Comparison
of Small Community Facilities' Needs and Total Needs
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table D-1. CWNS 2008 comparison of small community facilities' needs and total needs (January 2008 dollars in millions)
All projected
small community
facilities
Projected small
community facilities with
documented needs
Projected
small community
population
Documented needs
for small communities
piSli^H^^^^H
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
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
153
NR
58
470
477
220
118
24
0
129
225
11
191
692
432
892
796
219
151
171
165
164
535
239
642
878
107
526
44
92
456
8
1,094
433
NR
917
434
203
1,577
NR
51
NR
27
85
51
81
53
62
0
30
64
44
76
65
77
90
91
68
70
73
64
44
69
69
85
84
80
95
55
72
60
24
76
65
NR
75
86
70
80
NR
129
NR
27
145
23
209
29
12
0
70
3
5
46
242
79
245
83
70
107
73
116
16
26
109
300
273
97
198
17
48
165
4
293
176
NR
391
90
30
437
NR
HfflSfl
48
NR
22
84
12
82
28
50
0
21
27
29
59
47
48
79
54
55
65
60
63
15
35
59
80
77
80
92
38
59
40
17
58
52
NR
67
83
35
73
NR
319,782
NR
156,855
739,848
1,039,550
326,466
446,169
68,102
0
401,100
515,495
32,311
215,141
1,399,594
1,544,746
809,580
851,037
458,561
281,646
256,139
299,792
582,839
1,235,674
1,419,861
836,167
888,664
162,171
422,259
92,044
167,976
1,595,740
26,447
2,871,892
757,583
NR
1,255,963
602,036
376,695
3,387,280
NR
9
NR
2
24
2
16
13
8
0
2
13
3
11
10
27
27
29
13
8
27
6
9
16
31
28
17
20
24
2
20
16
3
15
11
NR
12
20
8
27
NR
423
NR
146
279
426
517
182
88
0
435
8
46
262
1,183
437
1,455
197
407
173
290
613
441
102
416
640
312
228
148
153
256
602
20
1,537
682
NR
976
124
112
2,859
NR
10
NR
3
59
2
38
5
40
0
3
10
3
19
7
6
43
6
19
4
29
13
6
3
13
47
6
40
5
7
22
4
19
5
11
NR
7
12
3
24
NR
D-2
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Appendix D: CWNS 2008 Comparison
of Small Community Facilities' Needs and Total Needs
Table D-1. CWNS 2008 comparison of small community facilities' needs and total needs (January 2008 dollars in millions) (continued)
All projected
small community
facilities
percent 01 an
facilities
Projected small
community facilities with
documented needs
Number
Projected
small community
population
Documented needs
for small communities
South Carolina
94
49
27
45
population
289,449
onars in
millions
76
total i
needs
14
South Dakota
20
77
20
77
28,483
38
38
Tennessee
227
65
84
50
552,928
11
132
11
Texas
1,454
71
260
52
3,417,821
12
858
10
Utah
155
49
34
30
213,791
1,362
46
Vermont
68
73
19
59
183,543
39
114
53
Virginia
300
71
144
63
600,714
815
12
Washington
77
42
30
27
176,408
173
West Virginia
348
78
212
78
708,606
41
981
34
Wisconsin
858
85
425
75
1,160,476
23
791
14
Wyoming
106
85
60
79
109,289
21
70
59
American Samoa
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Guam
50
50
12,156
35
10
N. Mariana Islands
64
33
19,250
17
25
Puerto Rico
25
35
26,468
94
Virgin Islands
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Notes:
NR = not reported. Alaska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2008.
Table D-1 provides a summary of all publicly owned small community wastewater treatment facilities and
pipes identified in the CWNS 2008 by State. For the purpose of this table, wastewater treatment facilities and
pipes refer to centralized wastewater treatment plants, centralized wastewater collection systems, and facilities
that treat and convey wastewater that do not fit in one of the previous classifications. Small communities are
defined as communities with populations of fewer than 10,000 people. Tables D-2, D-3 and D-4 provide further
breakdown of small community information based on different population ranges. Needs estimates presented
in Table D-1 vary slightly from those presented in Figure 2-11 and summed totals from Tables D-2, D-3 and D-4
due to independent rounding.
The first column of this table includes information on the projected number of small community wastewater
treatment facilities and pipes and the small community percentage of the total number of wastewater treatment
facilities and pipes 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 treatment facilities and pipes the State. For example, 51 percent of Alabama's projected wastewater
treatment facilities and pipes are for small communities. Column 2 depicts only the small community facilities
with documented wastewater treatment and pipe 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, 2008, and the respective percentage of the total CWNS
2008 wastewater treatment facilities and pipe documented needs.
D-3
-------
Appendix D: CWNS 2008 Comparison
of Small Community Facilities' Needs and Total Needs
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table D-2. CWNS 2008 comparison of small community facilities' needs and total needs:
facility serving population of 3,500 to 10,000 people (January 2008 dollars in millions)
All projected Projected small
small community community facilities with
facilities documented needs
Percent of
all small
community
facilities
Projected
small community
population
Documented needs
for small communities
Percent of all
facilities
Number3
Percent of January 2008 Percent of
total state dollars in total CWNS
Number3 population millions needs
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
21
NR
13
77
102
28
56
8
0
51
52
3
15
135
95
36
55
48
28
18
31
70
118
109
70
64
13
20
9
16
204
4
301
68
NR
7
NR
6
14
11
10
25
21
0
12
15
12
6
13
17
4
6
15
13
8
12
19
15
31
9
6
10
4
11
13
27
12
21
10
NR
18
NR
8
34
6
27
14
6
0
27
0
1
6
66
19
19
17
19
22
11
27
9
7
34
38
25
12
12
3
14
100
2
81
35
NR
7
NR
7
20
3
11
14
25
0
8
0
6
8
13
12
6
11
15
13
9
15
9
9
18
10
7
10
6
7
17
24
8
16
10
NR
107,177
NR
80,089
400,205
589,705
143,368
345,431
44,683
0
276,113
265,664
17,100
68,706
743,057
1,105,300
181,246
283,002
236,841
145,522
88,267
172,000
441,481
650,231
1,224,905
390,892
324,580
66,230
115,157
52,398
83,463
1,263,478
21,025
1,679,278
350,745
NR
3
NR
1
13
1
7
10
5
0
1
7
1
4
6
19
6
10
7
4
9
3
7
8
27
13
6
8
7
1
10
13
3
9
5
NR
70
NR
71
80
96
150
99
30
0
275
0
19
50
587
185
87
100
186
39
46
385
397
34
152
137
76
72
27
72
104
372
9
605
213
NR
2
NR
1
17
<1
11
3
14
0
2
0
1
4
3
3
3
3
9
1
5
8
5
1
5
10
1
13
1
3
9
2
9
2
3
NR
D-4
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Appendix D: CWNS 2008 Comparison
of Small Community Facilities' Needs and Total Needs
Table D-2. CWNS 2008 comparison of small community facilities' needs and total needs:
facility serving population of 3,500 to 10,000 people (January 2008 dollars in millions) (continued)
All projected Projected small
small community community facilities with
facilities documented needs
Projected
small community
population
Documented needs
for small communities
Percent of all
facilities
Number3
Percent of January 2008 Percent of
jommunity total state dollars in total CWNS
facilities Number3 population millions needs
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
103
45
33
356
NR
37
2
52
355
18
19
58
21
65
92
7
NR
3
2
3
NR
8
9
11
18
NR
19
8
15
17
6
20
14
11
15
9
6
NR
50
14
4
NR
J
47
14
7
134
NR
10
2
27
67
12
7
32
10
33
74
6
NR
3
0
3
NR
8
13
8
22
NR
17
8
16
13
10
22
14
9
12
13
8
NR
50
0
7
NR
540,470
242,481
181,002
1,884,113
NR
210,857
9,017
306,592
1,909,925
109,944
100,385
305,294
116,584
349,304
490,978
31,630
NR
12,156
9,750
20,331
NR
1,207 12 18,788,152
5
8
4
15
NR
5
2
6
7
3
21
4
2
20
10
6
NR
6
9
<1
NR
241
40
33
1,256
NR
37
9
58
314
58
78
286
63
354
211
26
NR
35
0
92
NR
2
4
1
11
NR
7
9
5
4
2
36
4
1
12
4
22
NR
10
0
2
NR |
Notes:
NR = not reported. Alaska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2008.
" Decentralized wastewater treatment 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. County level facilities serving
more than 10,000 people are included in this table.
Table D-2 provides the subset of Table D-1 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.
D-5
-------
Appendix D: CWNS 2008 Comparison
of Small Community Facilities' Needs and Total Needs
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table D-3. CWNS 2008 comparison of small community facilities' needs and total needs:
facility serving population of 1,000 to 3,500 people (January 2008 dollars in millions)
All projected Projected small
small community community facilities with
facilities documented needs
Percent of
all small
community
facilities
Projected
small community
population
Documented needs
for small communities
Percent of all
facilities
Number3
Percent of January 2008 Percent of
total state dollars in total CWNS
Number3 population millions needs
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
97
NR
30
142
188
72
42
9
0
57
106
7
60
267
183
213
210
95
59
72
51
56
256
75
160
182
40
105
16
36
139
2
531
167
NR
32
NR
14
26
20
27
19
23
0
13
30
28
24
25
32
21
24
30
27
31
20
15
33
22
21
17
30
19
20
28
18
6
37
25
NR
82
NR
14
56
9
68
10
4
0
29
2
3
22
116
42
90
32
36
44
36
37
6
12
39
100
64
38
59
9
22
55
1
142
78
NR
31
NR
12
33
5
27
10
17
0
9
18
18
28
22
25
29
21
28
27
30
20
6
16
21
27
18
31
27
20
27
13
4
28
23
NR
190,004
NR
67,442
238,117
365,242
133,844
89,759
20,410
0
112,981
210,234
14,300
101,413
493,499
345,884
377,616
391,815
183,097
106,961
137,463
95,530
120,631
496,031
163,895
290,281
345,543
74,746
175,714
31,846
70,288
288,577
4,094
1,057,160
310,745
NR
6
NR
1
8
1
7
3
2
0
1
5
1
5
4
6
13
13
5
3
14
2
2
6
4
10
7
9
10
1
8
3
1
5
4
NR
281
NR
60
123
99
241
64
48
0
143
7
21
160
459
214
196
58
175
54
175
131
39
49
183
275
115
98
59
78
126
201
1
689
231
NR
6
NR
1
26
<1
18
2
22
0
1
9
1
12
3
3
6
2
8
1
17
3
0
1
6
20
2
17
2
3
11
1
1
2
4
NR
D-6
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Appendix D: CWNS 2008 Comparison
of Small Community Facilities' Needs and Total Needs
Table D-3. CWNS 2008 comparison of small community facilities' needs and total needs:
facility serving population of 1,000 to 3,500 people (January 2008 dollars in millions) (continued)
All projected Projected small
small community community facilities with
facilities documented needs
Projected
small community
population
Documented needs
for small communities
Percent of all
facilities
Number3
Percent of January 2008 Percent of
jommunity total state dollars in total CWNS
facilities Number3 population millions needs
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
283
139
83
638
NR
34
7
105
652
38
41
125
23
162
262
27
NR
0
5
2
NR
23
27
29
33
NR
18
27
30
32
12
44
30
13
36
26
22
NR
0
36
3
NR
130
30
13
152
NR
4
7
41
136
12
12
57
10
117
170
23
NR
0
1
1
NR
22
28
15
25
NR
7
27
24
27
10
38
25
9
43
30
30
NR
0
33
2
NR
521,434
250,791
154,974
1,221,694
NR
71,613
14,363
204,652
1,271,782
67,910
78,313
237,321
42,831
307,761
463,051
50,239
NR
0
8,400
3,527
NR
2,273 23 12,075,818
5
8
3
10
NR
2
4
4
5
2
17
3
1
18
9
10
NR
0
8
<1
NR
373
49
67
1,161
NR
25
10
59
506
24
35
339
81
522
401
28
NR
0
4
1
NR
3
5
2
10
NR
5
10
5
6
1
16
5
2
18
7
24
NR
0
25
<1
NR |
Notes:
NR = not reported. Alaska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2008.
"Decentralized wastewater treatment 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. County level facilities serving
more than 10,000 people are included in this table.
Table D-3 provides the subset of Table D-1 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.
D-7
-------
Appendix D: CWNS 2008 Comparison
of Small Community Facilities' Needs and Total Needs
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table D-4. CWNS 2008 comparison of small community facilities' needs and total needs:
facility serving population of fewer than 1,000 people (January 2008 dollars in millions)
All projected Projected small
small community community facilities with
facilities documented needs
Percent of
all small
community
facilities
Projected
small community
population
Documented needs
for small communities
Percent of all
facilities
Number3
Percent of January 2008 Percent of
total state dollars in total CWNS
Number3 population millions needs
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
35
NR
15
251
187
120
20
7
0
21
67
1
116
290
154
643
531
76
64
81
83
38
161
55
412
632
54
401
19
40
113
2
262
198
NR
12
NR
7
45
20
44
9
18
0
5
19
4
46
27
27
65
61
24
30
34
32
10
21
16
55
61
41
72
24
31
15
6
18
30
NR
29
NR
5
55
8
114
5
2
0
14
1
1
18
60
18
136
34
15
41
26
52
1
7
36
162
184
47
127
5
12
10
1
70
63
NR
11
NR
4
32
4
45
5
8
0
4
9
6
23
12
11
44
22
12
25
21
28
1
9
20
43
52
39
59
11
15
2
4
14
18
NR
22,601
NR
9,324
101,526
84,603
49,254
10,979
3,009
0
12,006
39,597
911
45,022
163,038
93,562
250,718
176,220
38,623
29,163
30,409
32,262
20,727
89,412
31,061
154,994
218,541
21,195
131,388
7,800
14,225
43,685
1,328
135,454
96,093
NR
1
NR
<1
3
<1
2
<1
<1
0
<1
1
<1
2
1
2
8
6
1
1
3
1
<1
1
1
5
4
3
8
<1
2
<1
<1
1
1
NR
72
NR
14
76
231
125
19
10
0
17
1
6
51
137
38
1,171
39
46
80
70
97
5
18
81
229
121
58
61
4
26
29
9
243
238
NR
2
NR
<1
16
1
9
1
5
0
<1
1
<1
4
1
1
35
1
2
2
7
2
<1
1
3
17
2
10
2
<1
2
<1
9
1
4
NR
D-8
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Appendix D: CWNS 2008 Comparison
of Small Community Facilities' Needs and Total Needs
Table D-4. CWNS 2008 comparison of small community facilities' needs and total needs:
facility serving population of fewer than 1,000 people (January 2008 dollars in millions) (continued)
All projected Projected small
small community community facilities with
facilities documented needs
Projected
small community
population
Documented needs
for small communities
Percent of all
facilities
Number3
Percent of January 2008 Percent of
jommunity total state dollars in total CWNS
facilities Number3 population millions needs
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
531
250
87
583
NR
23
11
70
447
99
8
117
33
121
504
72
NR
0
2
20
NR
44
49
30
30
NR
12
42
20
22
31
9
28
18
27
50
58
NR
0
14
28
NR
214
46
10
151
NR
13
11
16
57
10
0
55
10
62
181
31
NR
0
0
0
NR
37
43
12
25
NR
22
42
9
11
9
0
24
9
23
32
41
NR
0
0
0
NR
194,059
108,764
40,719
281,473
NR
6,979
5,103
41,684
236,114
35,937
4,845
58,099
16,993
51,541
206,447
27,420
NR
0
1,100
2,610
NR
2,226 23 3,478,617
2
4
1
2
NR
<1
1
1
1
1
1
1
<1
3
4
5
NR
0
1
<1
NR
362
35
13
442
NR
15
19
15
39
1,281
0
191
29
105
179
16
NR
0
0
0
NR
3
3
<1
4
NR
3
19
1
<1
44
0
3
1
4
3
13
NR
0
0
0
NR |
Notes:
NR = not reported. Alaska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2008.
"Decentralized wastewater treatment 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. County level facilities serving
more than 10,000 people are included in this table.
Table D-4 provides the subset of Table D-1 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.
D-9
-------
Appendix D: CWNS 2008 Comparison
of Small Community Facilities' Needs and Total Needs
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
D-10
-------
Appendix E
CWNS 2008 UNOFFICIAL
COST ESTIMATES BY STATE
E-1
-------
Appendix E: OWNS 2008 Unofficial Cost Estimates by State
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table E-1. CWNS 2008 unofficial cost estimates (January 2008 dollars in millions)
Category of unofficial need
State Total ^|
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
68
NR
696
0
106
49
125
22
17
119
318
44
Oa
9
20
111
4,572
477
4
0
196
1,096
0
5,683
146
3
Oa
1
27
9
5,542
73
2,090
1,528
NR
65
10
NR
68
0
49
2
12
7
0
0
27
12
0
0
9
22
81
96
2
0
49
122
0
287
25
0
Oa
Oa
7
0
257
24
797
148
NR
0
23
NR
126
0
54
16
13
0
0
0
259
0
0
0
0
18
53
5
0
0
40
57
0
57
2
3
0
0
8
0
144
36
0
217
NR
0
6
NR
0
0
0
0
13
Oa
0
0
8
0
0
0
Oa
10
13
16
0
0
8
13
0
19
Oa
0
0
0
0
0
33
0
9
21
NR
0
19
NR
65
0
3
11
2
8
0
33
4
15
0
9
0
41
7
31
2
0
20
113
0
62
59
0
Oa
0
8
0
82
3
2
129
NR
0
6
NR
148
0
0
2
7
7
0
4
10
17
0
0
0
9
42
172
0
0
20
261
0
48
39
0
0
1
0
0
66
5
3
690
NR
0
•Total Total Total
V VI VII VIII
4
NR
220
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
5
46
77
0
0
9
14
0
110
16
0
0
0
4
0
75
0
2
237
NR
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
79
0
0
2
202
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,136
Oa
0
0
NR
65
0
NR
51
0
0
2
30
0
17
76
0
0
0
0
0
6
47
1
0
0
28
22
0
257
0
0
0
0
0
0
130
0
2
20
NR
Oa
0
NR
9
0
0
2
37
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
10
0
3,692
0
0
0
20
55
0
4,722
0
0
0
0
0
9
3,506
0
1,255
57
NR
0
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
92
0
18
0
NR
0
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
NR
0
0
NR
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
Oa
0
6
NR
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
591
0
0
0
Oa
233
0
121
5
0
0
0
0
0
15
5
Oa
2
NR
0
0
NR
0
0
0
14
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
1
NR
0
68
NR
627
0
106
31
58
22
0
37
318
44
0
9
9
105
242
476
4
0
148
782
0
583
141
3
Oa
1
27
0
1,793
68
813
1,442
NR
65
E-2
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Appendix E: CWNS 2008 Unofficial Cost Estimates by State
Table E-1. CWNS 2008 unofficial cost estimates (January 2008 dollars in millions) (continued)
Category of unofficial need
Total Total Total
•jigrM •rnFTB 1 1 1 1 1
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
151
930
234
NR
37
24
12
2,604
84
32
6,870
25
13
1,422
0
NR
0
138
942
NR
0
123
60
NR
1
0
10
527
6
9
0
12
3
20
0
NR
0
25
2
NR
31
0
2
NR
21
7
1
284
6
9
0
3
1
0
0
NR
0
0
66
NR
0
Oa
0
NR
0
0
1
87
0
1
0
5
Oa
Oa
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
0
537
9
NR
8
6
0
473
12
3
0
5
Oa
Oa
0
NR
0
14
0
NR
0
90
13
NR
3
4
0
270
15
4
0
0
3
125
0
NR
0
53
1
NR
0
0
8
NR
4
0
0
799
44
3
0
Oa
2
41
0
NR
0
43
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
4
0
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
0
180
40
NR
0
2
0
94
0
0
6,870
0
0
709
0
NR
0
0
214
NR
0
0
102
NR
0
5
0
64
0
0
0
0
0
504
0
NR
0
0
277
NR
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
2
NR
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
1
Oa
0
0
0
23
0
NR
0
3
312
NR
120
Oa
Oa
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
68
NR
31
750
92
NR
37
17
12
2,440
83
32
0
25
13
186
0
NR
0
135
69
NR
Total 36,734 2,911 1,562 263 1,795 2,138 1,784 1,491 8,798 14,326 112 0 30 1,311 213 11,944
Categories
I Secondary wastewater treatment
11 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 Stormwater management (see Table E-2 for totals
bysubcategory)
VII NFS pollution control
X Recycled water distribution
XII Decentralized wastewater treatment systems
Notes:
NR = not reported. Alaska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2008.
"Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
Table E-1 summarizes the total Unofficial Cost Estimates, which are needs entered by the State that did not meet
this Report's Chapter 1 definition of needs. Unofficial Cost Estimates are optional and are in addition to the
documented needs.
E-3
-------
Appendix E: OWNS 2008 Unofficial Cost Estimates by State
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table E-2. CWNS 2008 total unofficial cost estimates for stormwater management
(January 2008 dollars in millions)
Category of unofficial need
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
0
NR
Oa
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
42
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
0
Oa
0
NR
0
0
NR
22
0
0
0
30
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
1
0
0
0
7
0
149
0
0
0
0
0
0
74
0
1
7
NR
Oa
7H«
0
NR
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
75
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
18
14
0
103
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
1
4
NR
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Oa
0
0
0
10
Oa
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
3
NR
0
0
NR
27
0
0
0
0
0
10
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
Oa
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
oa
6
NR
Oa
0
NR
51
0
0
2
30
0
17
76
0
0
0
0
0
6
47
1
0
0
28
22
0
257
0
0
0
0
0
0
130
0
2
20
NR
Oa
E-4
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Appendix E: CWNS 2008 Unofficial Cost Estimates by State
Table E-2. CWNS 2008 total unofficial cost estimates for stormwater management
(January 2008 dollars in millions) (continued)
State ^^m
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
0
0
40
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,870
0
0
709
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
uateg
0
180
0
NR
0
2
0
88
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
168
NR
ory of unofficia
VI-B
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
3
NR
need
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
Oa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
22
NR
BfjTrll
0
oa
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
21
NR
0
180
40
NR
0
2
0
94
0
0
6,870
0
0
709
0
NR
0
0
214
NR
1
Categories
VI-A Conveyance Infrastructure
VI-B Treatment Systems
VI-C Green Infrastructure
VI-D General Stormwater Management
Notes:
NR = not reported. Alaska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2008.
"Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
Table E-2 summarizes CWNS 2008 Unofficial Cost Estimates for Stormwater Management projects
related activities. The subcategory totals provided here are summarized in the Category VI column
of Table E-1.
E-5
-------
Appendix E: OWNS 2008 Unofficial Cost Estimates by State
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table E-3. CWNS 2008 total unofficial cost estimates for nonpoint point source pollution control projects
(January 2008 dollars in millions)
H
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
0
NR
Oa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
2,265
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
990
0
14
Oa
NR
0
•
0
NR
Oa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
0
0
985
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
59
0
3
0
NR
0
•
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
105
0
0
0
NR
0
•
0
NR
Oa
0
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
2,050
0
68
0
NR
0
Category of unofficial need
0
NR
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
NR
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
NR
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
oa
0
4,714
0
0
0
0
0
0
217
0
0
Oa
NR
0
•
0
NR
3
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
59
0
1
0
NR
0
•
0
NR
3
0
0
0
37
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
54
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
21
0
12
0
NR
0
•
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
442
0
0
0
14
1
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
1,157
57
NR
0
HuH IfjlFnl
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
NR
0
0
NR
9
0
0
2
37
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
10
0
3,692
0
0
0
20
55
0
4,722
0
0
0
0
0
9
3,506
0
1,255
57
NR
0
E-6
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Appendix E: CWNS 2008 Unofficial Cost Estimates by State
Table E-3. CWNS 2008 total unofficial cost estimates for nonpoint point source pollution control projects
(January 2008 dollars in millions) (continued)
mm •
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
0
0
11
NR
0
Oa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
92
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
0
0
11
NR
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
148
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
^m
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
^m
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
0
NR
0
0
9
NR
Category of unofficial need
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
0
0
56
NR
0
0
0
64
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
3
NR
^m
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
Oa
NR
^m
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
107
NR
•
0
0
24
NR
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
250
0
NR
0
0
157
NR
M Tota,
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
1
NR
0
0
102
NR
0
5
0
64
0
0
0
0
0
504
0
NR
0
0
277
NR
3,383 1,211 105 2,143 Oa 121 4,936 63 249 2,114 1 14,326
Categories
A Agriculture (cropland)
B Agriculture (animals)
C Silviculture
E Ground water protection (unknown source)
F Marinas
G Resource extraction
H Brownfields
I Storage tanks
J Sanitary landfills
K Hydromodification
M Other estuary management activities
Notes:
NR = not reported. Alaska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2008.
"Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
Table E-3 summarizes CWNS 2004 Unofficial Cost Estimates for NPS-related activities. The subcategory totals
provided here are summarized in the Category VII column of Table E-1.
E-7
-------
Appendix E: OWNS 2008 Unofficial Cost Estimates by State
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table E-4. CWNS 2008 total unofficial cost estimates for small community facilities
(January 2008 dollars in millions)
Percent
Total of total
State needs needs
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
29
NR
90
0
54
8
17
9
0
Oa
20
20
0
0
Oa
72
680
149
4
0
99
113
0
255
74
3
0
1
19
0
54
Oa
12
43
NR
13
0
51
16
14
41
0
<1
6
45
0
0
<1
65
15
31
100
0
51
10
0
4
51
100
0
100
70
0
1
<1
1
•
5
NR
7
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
3
8
0
0
0
17
15
32
2
0
30
4
0
59
9
0
0
Oa
7
0
14
Oa
6
H
2
NR
51
0
54
0
5
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
14
3
5
0
0
27
0
0
6
0
3
0
0
5
0
16
0
0
H
4
NR
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
Oa
7
8
10
0
0
8
0
0
9
Oa
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
3
Category of unofficial need
III-B IV-A IV-B V
11
NR
2
0
0
4
Oa
2
0
Oa
2
0
0
0
0
25
2
6
2
0
10
4
0
26
13
0
0
0
5
0
17
0
0
4
NR
27
0
0
2
2
7
0
0
6
12
0
0
0
6
33
75
0
0
16
50
0
15
31
0
0
1
0
0
2
0
3
3
NR
3
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
3
28
21
0
0
7
0
0
23
16
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
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
0
0
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
1
0
0
mm
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
591
0
0
0
0
55
0
117
5
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
Oa
H
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
_
29
NR
90
0
54
8
17
9
0
Oa
20
20
0
0
Oa
72
89
149
4
0
99
58
0
138
69
3
0
1
19
0
53
Oa
12
E-8
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Appendix E: CWNS 2008 Unofficial Cost Estimates by State
Table E-4. CWNS 2008 total unofficial cost estimates for small community facilities
(January 2008 dollars in millions) (continued)
North Carolina
Percent
Total of total
needs needs
156
10
20
Category of unofficial need
IV-A IV-B V
87
27
154
North Dakota
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
<1
Pennsylvania
41
18
13
13
41
Rhode Island
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
South Carolina
22
South Dakota
13
54
13
Tennessee
<1
Texas
143
25
43
47
19
142
Utah
12
14
11
Vermont
15
47
15
Virginia
Washington
18
72
10
18
West Virginia
38
Wisconsin
208
15
19
125
41
23
185
Wyoming
American Samoa
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
Guam
N. Mariana Islands
65
47
13
26
19
62
2
NR
Puerto Rico
16
14
Virgin Islands
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Categories
I Secondary wastewater treatment
11 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 NFS pollution control
X Recycled water distribution
XII Decentralized wastewater treatment systems
NR
811 0 1,669
Notes:
NR = not reported. Alaska, North Dakota,
"Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
Rhode Island, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2008.
Table E-4 summarizes the Unofficial Cost Estimates for small communities. These needs are shown by category of
need in each State. The Unofficial Needs are optional and are in addition to the documented needs.
E-9
-------
Appendix E: OWNS 2008 Unofficial Cost Estimates by State
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
E-10
-------
Appendix F
TOTAL INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
WASTE WATER NEEDS
Table F-1. Total Indian Health Service wastewater needs (November 2007 dollars)
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
California
Colorado
Florida
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Maine
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Montana
2,430,505
281,960,038
109,615,791
58,807,121
1,535,500
5,140,754
3,539,787
100,000
364,623
2,643,520
1,240,740
152,000
1,299,150
19,203,210
8,082,000
12,420,080
Nebraska
Nevada
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Oregon
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Utah
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
IfflflH
872,000
519,000
78,395,068
7,193,000
20,502,200
13,868,000
16,758,341
5,200,700
190,000
25,647,422
1,833,000
3,811,315
17,426,479
17,224,490
1,252,000
719,227,834
F-1
-------
Appendix F: Total Indian Health Service Wastewater Needs
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
F-2
-------
Appendix G
STATE REVOLVING FUND
ELIGIBLE NEEDS
G-1
-------
Appendix G: State Revolving Fund Eligible Needs
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table G-1. CWNS 2008 total State Revolving Fund eligible needs (January 2008 dollars in millions)
Category of SRF eligible need
audit
Total results* I
III-A III-B IV-A IV-B
Total Total
VI VII
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
4,425
NR
5,256
860
30,012
1,470
4,303
222
2,545
23,787
122
1,759
1,465
17,571
7,693
3,720
3,246
2,123
4,923
2,368
13,906
8,817
7,035
6,169
3,325
6,341
578
4,576
3,115
1,208
34,906
85
35,445
6,791
NR
15,451
100.00%
NR
99.72%
99.99%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
99.97%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
99.52%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
99.98%
99.90%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
NR
100.00%
669
NR
358
14
12,171
356
677
21
173
0
31
290
438
4,088
335
233
761
317
1,303
300
1,069
728
867
786
146
1,071
263
665
101
449
1,829
2
15,779
188
NR
1,301
864
NR
1,936
129
4,105
706
448
54
483
9,356
37
50
581
363
478
1,608
634
137
81
24
1,807
1,885
24
138
199
108
48
403
1,762
85
4,470
60
1,243
2,355
NR
254
287
NR
7
69
55
3
549
1
0
135
0
31
30
110
21
89
377
37
1,055
50
174
19
43
151
73
1,212
22
13
0
39
314
0
153
380
NR
685
1,470
NR
450
64
5,476
108
50
36
0
1,529
2
538
107
1,377
359
365
252
131
958
117
778
1,111
737
1,181
376
429
119
62
193
160
948
21
3,644
522
NR
2,195
481
NR
677
100
867
119
129
77
0
3,013
10
99
120
381
506
83
35
484
392
170
154
2,033
53
106
375
117
58
19
191
42
822
Oa
922
1,057
NR
837
653
NR
990
88
1,528
52
191
8
0
1,828
1
547
92
269
226
269
573
699
100
30
268
64
126
760
243
555
44
671
86
116
223
0
235
1,713
NR
605
1
NR
0
0
233
0
1,528
25
1,889
0
0
0
0
10,876
5,041
748
522
312
0
307
463
2,044
1,555
0
0
1,689
0
1,318
0
253
8,176
1
6,648
4
NR
7,509
0
NR
460
Oa
3,765
117
0
0
0
2,498
8
0
9
36
151
34
92
0
122
26
3,755
41
310
987
0
565
24
71
515
63
15,626
0
1,091
87
NR
788
0
NR
27
396
106
Oa
443
0
Oa
2,079
31
0
88
71
15
288
0
1
891
21
465
99
3,319
766
1,759
530
0
1,354
202
1
1,742
Oa
5,565
234
NR
15
Oa
NR
351
0
1,706
9
0
0
0
1,198
0
202
Oa
0
0
0
0
0
21
0
2
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
65
0
99
1
0
245
NR
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
288
0
0
2,151
2
2
0
0
561
3
0
5
0
1,323
4,971
767
1
1,294
154
65
0
0
0
0
657
0
165
6
NR
1,262
4,425
NR
4,418
464
24,435
1,344
3,572
222
2,545
15,861
81
1,555
1,368
17,464
6,966
3,395
3,154
2,117
3,889
998
4,713
7,884
3,405
3,122
1,412
5,181
554
3,151
2,333
1,144
16,782
84
28,624
6,219
NR
13,386
G-2
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Appendix G: State Revolving Fund Eligible Needs
Table G-1. CWNS 2008 total State Revolving Fund eligible needs (January 2008 dollars in millions)(continued)
Category of SRF eligible need
State
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
American
Samoa
Guam
N. Mariana
Islands
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Total
Total
1,298
4,880
18,243
NR
566
121
1,369
11,713
2,943
203
6,781
5,249
3,488
6,602
316
NR
364
25
4,751
NR
334,530
H
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
NR
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
99.74%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
NR
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%
NR
99.99%
280
1,559
918
NR
132
0
443
2,575
302
59
1,522
1,706
339
1,821
41
NR
129
2
Til
NR
59,884
56
418
393
NR
269
48
25
1,283
1,950
55
1,801
642
74
597
7
NR
0
0
768
NR
45,301
III-A
1
66
349
NR
4
0
193
331
Oa
2
366
95
36
250
0
NR
Oa
0
304
NR
8,181
III-B
409
488
570
NR
25
23
201
1,296
104
9
1,427
696
387
1,867
42
NR
168
15
49
NR
33,641
IV-A
84
299
800
NR
47
17
123
836
132
69
710
926
355
321
23
NR
67
4
1,975
NR
21,317
IV-B
233
195
161
NR
60
12
83
1,768
406
7
335
131
239
500
5
NR
0
0
1,355
NR
19,343
0
427
8,747
NR
0
0
96
0
0
2
616
584
1,467
412
0
NR
0
0
23
NR
63,516
Total
VI
235
321
6,001
NR
29
6
191
3,145
Oa
0
0
329
117
593
37
NR
0
0
0
NR
42,245
Total
VII
0
1,102
304
NR
0
15
0
174
2
0
0
0
143
241
160
NR
0
4
0
NR
22,653
•
0
5
0
NR
0
0
9
305
45
0
0
140
0
0
1
NR
0
0
0
NR
4,430
0
0
Oa
NR
0
0
5
0
2
Oa
4
0
331
0
Oa
NR
0
Oa
0
NR
14,019
Total
I-V
1,063
3,452
11,938
NR
537
100
1,164
8,089
2,894
203
6,777
4,780
2,897
5,768
118
NR
364
21
4,751
NR
251,184
Categories
I Secondary wastewater treatment
11 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 Stormwater management
VII NFS pollution control
X Recycled water distribution
XII Decentralized wastewater treatment systems
Notes:
NR = not reported. Alaska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2008.
"Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
Table G-1 summarizes by State the CWNS 2008 assessment of Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)
eligible needs for wastewater treatment, pipe repairs, new pipes, stormwater management, NPS pollution
control, recycled water distribution, and decentralized wastewater treatment systems. These needs include
all planning, design, and construction activities eligible for funding under the CWSRF in accordance with
Title VI of the Clean Water Act. Table G-1 is a sub-set of the official needs presented in Table B-1 and other
documented needs presented in Table B-3.
G-3
-------
Appendix G: State Revolving Fund Eligible Needs
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
G-4
-------
Appendix H
CWNS 2004
DOCUMENTED NEEDS BY STATE
H-1
-------
Appendix H: OWNS 2004 Documented Needs by State
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table H-1. CWNS 2004 total needs (January 2008 dollars in millions)
Percent
State Total 2004-2008 1
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
4,164
NR
7,318
483
24,359
2,804
3,660
159
2,412
19,954
2,786
2,471
565
15,889
6,956
1,132
2,444
3,368
3,946
1,034
6,966
3,744
7,257
4,313
1,177
6,543
695
1,593
361
675
11,257
190
26,279
6,066
60
14,093
1,242
3,496
6
NA
-29
-3
23
-48
-2
40
6
-2
-97
-29
144
10
2
203
33
-37
2
<1
22
112
-49
-5
20
-12
-16
102
707
85
189
-46
13
8
NA
1
5
8
134
NR
1,490
38
8,945
386
482
41
100
40
81
776
241
1,328
102
236
843
712
737
280
1,016
798
1,060
1,322
102
1,197
264
161
8
161
3,440
83
13,314
369
5
1,782
288
1,093
^
1,238
NR
1,341
145
4,733
1,714
952
32
538
5,448
130
45
95
175
149
114
190
65
152
14
2,559
32
39
33
196
15
43
117
139
39
511
6
830
1,957
Oa
485
66
634
^
192
NR
81
78
113
11
115
5
Oa
369
1,312
622
7
58
25
25
269
229
1,725
23
196
37
116
145
79
1,476
25
13
Oa
9
403
Oa
81
333
Oa
2,311
Oa
20
^
1,927
NR
465
2
4,121
186
56
13
209
1,138
27
582
44
1,914
213
101
30
269
486
59
1,029
85
376
509
339
491
95
28
12
70
895
46
2,863
333
11
248
330
655
Category of need
IV-A IV-B V
533
NR
1,030
84
848
110
229
37
Oa
2,077
4
120
55
206
63
31
70
930
385
152
570
356
352
105
252
213
122
33
31
24
730
32
825
1,312
Oa
1,015
88
23
140
NR
1,008
136
2,479
113
251
6
Oa
1,650
21
192
85
236
33
117
492
916
459
38
569
296
50
1,108
209
615
91
97
102
63
394
23
172
1,682
44
647
234
4
Oa
NR
Oa
Oa
302
Oa
995
25
1,549
Oa
1,211
Oa
Oa
11,972
6,355
506
550
215
Oa
443
510
2,140
5,137
11
Oa
1,729
Oa
1,100
Oa
309
4,471
Oa
7,779
4
Oa
7,449
Oa
989
•
oa
NR
1,470
Oa
518
267
580
Oa
16
7,250
Oa
Oa
38
Oa
16
2
Oa
32
2
25
516
Oa
127
1,080
Oa
807
55
44
13
Oa
326
Oa
415
21
Oa
156
236
72
X Total I-V
Oa
NR
433
Oa
2,300
17
Oa
Oa
Oa
1,982
Oa
134
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
1
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
56
Oa
87
Oa
Oa
55
Oa
Oa
Oa
6
4,164
NR
5,415
483
21,541
2,520
3,080
159
2,396
10,722
2,786
2,337
527
15,889
6,940
1,130
2,444
3,336
3,944
1,009
6,449
3,744
7,130
3,233
1,177
5,736
640
1,549
292
675
10,844
190
25,864
5,990
60
13,937
1,006
3,418
H-2
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Appendix H: CWNS 2004 Documented Needs by State
Table H-1. CWNS 2004 total needs (January 2008 dollars in millions) (continued)
Percent Category of need
change
State Total 2004-2008 1 II III-A III-B IV-A IV-B V VI X Total I-V
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
14,555
1,385
859
80
1,230
10,060
688
197
5,583
4,681
3,013
5,878
223
NR
NR
NR
4,332
NR
23
NA
-34
33
11
15
327
11
23
12
<1
8
-30
NA
NR
NR
10
NA
926
98
236
20
239
1,878
206
51
797
2,232
413
1,124
117
NR
NR
NR
1,028
NR
348
103
437
14
31
689
76
46
2,013
41
13
109
9
NR
NR
NR
115
NR
413
19
5
Oa
261
386
2
1
147
158
180
105
30
NR
NR
NR
1
NR
179
75
23
4
153
1,205
78
9
814
332
45
1,675
1
NR
NR
NR
Oa
NR
974
266
75
41
95
1,076
134
50
578
202
861
473
59
NR
NR
NR
1,997
NR
170
62
52
Oa
113
1,447
171
8
627
868
571
376
6
NR
NR
NR
1,191
NR
5,499
754
Oa
Oa
338
Oa
Oa
32
607
610
909
481
Oa
NR
NR
NR
Oa
NR
6,046
8
31
1
Oa
3,365
Oa
Oa
Oa
224
17
1,535
1
NR
NR
NR
Oa
NR
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
Oa
14
21
Oa
Oa
14
4
Oa
Oa
NR
NR
NR
Oa
NR
8,509
1,377
828
79
1,230
6,681
667
197
5,583
4,443
2,992
4,343
222
NR
NR
NR
4,332
NR
17 52,820 29,015 12,211 24,850 19,928 20,434 64,981 25,312 5,124 224,239
Categories
I Secondary wastewater treatment
11 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 Stormwater management
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.
NA = not available in 2008. Alaska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2008.
a Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
Table H-1 summarizes the results of the CWNS 2004 of documented needs by State. All values from the CWNS
2004 have been adjusted to millions of January 2008 dollars. These design year needs were derived from those
documented during the CWNS 2004. This table is provided for use in comparing the results of the CWNS 2004
and 2008.
In general, Table H-1 is comparable to Table B-1. Category VI has been expanded to include additional costs in
areas not regulated by NPDES stormwater permits.
H-3
-------
Appendix H: OWNS 2004 Documented Needs by State
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table H-2. CWNS 2004 other documented needs (January 2008 dollars in millions)
Percent Category of need
change
State Total 2004-2008 VII-A VII-B VII-C VII-E VII-F VII-G VII-H
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
0
NR
148
557
1,220
61
649
0
8
6,344
0
0
176
63
920
62
0
1
983
177
286
13
1,036
3,387
1,854
1,210
0
958
3
11
4,201
10
2,736
63
0
1,244
0
1
0
NA
-82
-29
-91
-100
13
0
-99
95
0
0
-50
16
-37
369
0
500
-9
659
1,801
6,562
220
-39
3
-35
0
41
6,633
-91
-4
-90
109
281
NA
3
0
110,100
0
NR
8
89
47
0
9
0
0
11
0
0
80
42
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
325
72
45
0
0
0
0
2
1
63
0
0
699
0
0
0
NR
Oa
456
22
0
7
0
0
2
0
0
33
0
3
0
0
0
0
29
Oa
0
10
166
251
37
0
0
0
0
5
0
114
1
0
36
0
0
0
NR
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
Oa
0
0
0
0
52
0
0
13
0
16
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
132
0
0
2
0
0
0
NR
6
0
425
0
0
0
0
3,123
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
649
0
0
595
3
836
0
0
0
0
0
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
9
1
0
0
0
0
0
NR
9
8
0
58
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
Oa
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
0
0
0
28
0
0
0
NR
47
0
0
0
7
0
0
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,179
0
0
0
0
0
0
562
7
188
0
0
0
0
0
^^•^^•^^•^^H
Vll-l VII-J VII-K VII-L
0
NR
38
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
68
10
0
663
15
0
630
0
266
0
0
3
0
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
177
7
0
124
0
30
0
15
0
9
1,216
0
739
3
0
0
0
0
0
NR
3
Oa
719
2
356
0
3
3,171
0
0
52
21
Oa
0
0
0
983
7
90
6
305
372
1,420
461
0
0
3
0
1,737
0
615
58
0
136
0
0
0
NR
4
0
6
2
270
0
0
22
0
0
Oa
Oa
912
62
0
0
0
22
10
0
3
1,205
94
1
0
28
0
2
79
0
26
1
0
343
0
1
H-4
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Appendix H: CWNS 2004 Documented Needs by State
Table H-2. CWNS 2004 other documented needs (January 2008 dollars in millions) (continued)
Percent Category of need
change
Total 2004-2008 VII-A VII-B VII-C VII-E VII-F VII-G VII-H
VII-J VM-K VII-L
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
913
223
2
21
Oa
508
7
5
0
35
6
523
81
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
-67
NA
-100
-24
925
-62
-43
-93
-100
-100
7,800
-54
93
NA
NR
NR
0
NA
319
0
0
5
0
4
1
0
0
2
0
93
4
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
382
0
0
12
0
0
5
0
0
7
0
156
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
14
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
52 1,969 1,733 233 5,651
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
77
0
0
0
0
0
Oa
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
0
0
43
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
0
141
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
31
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
131
64
2
0
0
111
1
0
0
8
0
200
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
Oa
17
0
Oa
Oa
392
0
5
0
3
6
22
3
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
12 190 2,041 1,771 2,533 11,034 3,541
Categories
VII-A Agriculture (cropland)
VII-B Agriculture (animals)
VII-C Silviculture
VII-E Ground water protection (unknown source)
II-F Marinas
II-G Resource extraction
II-H Brownfields
'll-l Storage tanks
I-J Sanitary landfills
I-K Hydromodification
I-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.
NA = not available in 2008. Alaska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2008.
a Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
Table H-2 summarizes the results of the CWNS 2004 of other documented needs by State. All values from
the CWNS 2004 have been adjusted to millions of January 2008 dollars. These design year needs were
derived from those documented during the CWNS 2004. This table is provided for use in comparing the
results of the CWNS 2004 and 2008.
In general, Table H-2 is comparable to Table B-3.
H-5
-------
Appendix H: OWNS 2004 Documented Needs by State
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
H-6
-------
Appendix I
SUMMARY OF CWNS 2008
TECHNICAL INFORMATION
1-1
-------
Appendix I: Summary of CWNS 2008 Technical Information
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table 1-1. CWNS 2008 number of operational treatment facilities and pipe systems in 2008 and number of
operational treatment facilities and pipe systems if all documented needs are met
• ,«;::::
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
286
NR
121
362
570
235
91
18
1
359
306
22
168
675
418
763
628
243
166
136
167
124
391
139
315
746
114
468
48
88
156
27
582
330
NR
723
al in 2008 documented needs are met
291
NR
134
408
801
250
139
34
1
409
337
22
204
959
495
800
679
279
194
174
225
235
700
274
377
844
121
478
68
119
554
33
942
493
NR
989
293
NR
181
383
623
255
93
17
1
379
306
24
172
743
422
779
660
244
166
139
173
132
393
142
413
742
124
479
54
86
164
27
645
353
NR
769
301
NR
195
443
858
270
154
38
1
430
338
25
211
1,040
499
820
722
300
212
180
244
242
702
280
533
893
133
492
75
119
572
34
1,037
560
NR
1,187
1-2
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Appendix I: Summary of CWNS 2008 Technical Information
Table 1-1. CWNS 2008 number of operational treatment facilities and pipe systems in 2008 and number of
operational treatment facilities and pipe systems if all documented needs are met (continued)
Oklahoma
Operational in 2008
reatment fac
490
498
Operational if all
documented needs are met
ment facilities
495
502
Oregon
215
262
215
268
Pennsylvania
830
1,605
913
1,779
Rhode Island
NR
NR
NR
NR
South Carolina
165
183
154
192
South Dakota
25
25
26
26
Tennessee
244
289
251
301
Texas
1,326
1,691
1,411
1,805
Utah
106
176
121
197
Vermont
73
82
73
85
Virginia
228
316
240
393
Washington
92
179
98
184
West Virginia
257
337
273
377
Wisconsin
591
861
613
968
Wyoming
97
116
101
122
American Samoa
NR
NR
NR
NR
Guam
N. Mariana Islands
15
Puerto Rico
47
47
47
48
Notes:
NR = not reported. Alaska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2008.
Table 1-1 summarizes the number of wastewater treatment facilities and pipe systems in operation in
2008 in each State and the number of wastewater treatment facilities and pipe systems projected to be in
operation in each State if all documented needs are met.
This table contains technical data only for facilities that were accepted by EPA. This table does not include
data from facilities that were not updated by States in the CWNS 2008, either because the state did not
participate in this survey or because the State did not have resources to update the facilities. Because of
these analysis methods, numbers in this figure cannot be directly compared to other tables in Appendix I.
1-3
-------
Appendix I: Summary of CWNS 2008 Technical Information
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table 1-2. CWNS 2008 number of treatment facilities by flow range
Existing flow range
(mgd)
o.ooo to o.ioo
Treatment facilities in operation in 2008
5,703
257
Present
design capacity
(mgd)
490
0.101 to 1.000
5,863
2,150
3,685
1.001 to 10.000
2,690
8,538
13,082
10.001 to 100.000
480
12,847
17,267
38
8,553
10,344
Treatment facilities in operation if all documented needs are met
Existing flow r
(mgd)
o.ooo to o.ioo
4,738
ialfuture
238
0.101 to 1.000
6,519
2,590
1.001 to 10.000
3,524
12,417
10.001 to 100.000
758
19,291
100.001 and greater
70
15,765
Other"
Notes:
"Alaska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2008.
11 Flow data for these facilities were unavailable.
Table 1-2 shows, for five flow ranges, the number of treatment facilities in
operation in 2008 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.
There is a slight reduction in the flows presented on this table when compared
to its equivalent table in the CWNS 2004 Report (Table C-2). This is the result of
some states removing facilities from the database that are no longer in operation.
Comparing only those facilities reported in 2004 and 2008 shows a 0.8 percent
increase in the total existing flow, a 1.3 percent increase in the present design
capacity, and a 0.6 percent increase in the total future design flow capacity.
1-4
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Appendix I: Summary of CWNS 2008 Technical Information
Table 1-3. CWNS 2008 number of treatment facilities by level of treatment
Treatment facilities in operation in 2008
Less than Secondary11
Secondary
Greater than Secondary
No Discharge0
Partial Treatment11
7,015
5,909
2,526
140
497
16,334
29,032
3,576
863
3,880,548
89,100,487
161,163,736
29,956,126
1,606
1.1
24.7
44.6
8.3
Notes:
"Alaska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2008.
bLess-than-secondary facilities include facilities granted or pending section 301(h) waivers from secondary treatment for discharges to marine waters.
'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.
dThese 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.
'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 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 1-3 shows, by level of treatment, the number of treatment facilities in operation in 2008
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 2008 and 2028 U.S. population, respectively.
Percent of U.S.
population
1-5
-------
Appendix I: Summary of CWNS 2008 Technical Information
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table 1-4. CWNS 2008 number of treatment facilities and population served per State by level of treatment
if all documented needs are met
Number of facilities providing listed effluent level Population served by listed effluent level
Less than Greater than No Less than Greater than No
State secondary3 Secondary secondary discharge11 secondary3 Secondary secondary discharge1*
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia0
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
0
NR
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
10
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
123
NR
6
105
135
119
8
3
0
0
168
6
87
401
136
689
331
115
62
110
43
63
179
64
317
575
72
207
4
62
60
5
391
126
NR
150
154
NR
27
264
106
54
80
10
1
107
95
1
27
322
282
77
118
126
100
9
105
41
155
49
89
136
12
55
6
11
92
13
211
165
NR
615
11
NR
146
13
372
77
5
4
0
266
41
16
56
14
2
1
206
1
1
10
21
20
59
29
3
28
37
216
39
13
8
9
39
56
NR
3
0
NR
0
0
2,168,408
0
0
0
0
0
0
420,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
300
7,082
0
67,918
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
776,833
NR
116,148
1,232,511
17,235,421
722,059
101,645
16,196
0
0
1,205,179
561,300
543,194
901,891
544,176
2,313,945
421,643
1,572,426
2,385,035
566,599
63,461
3,873,684
520,160
565,067
1,073,992
4,123,603
510,832
811,600
65,600
664,473
2,205,397
143,442
11,526,268
942,900
NR
1,235,944
2,327,224
NR
4,523,080
1,773,514
17,411,929
813,629
2,376,563
809,790
1,680,411
6,551,506
2,381,213
17,258
1,296,946
12,363,709
4,345,355
655,424
2,065,536
1,840,860
788,534
58,502
3,466,387
1,119,738
6,676,330
2,928,204
1,626,819
966,069
236,523
769,065
3,875,560
104,871
6,680,145
287,475
4,757,857
5,481,088
NR
8,737,253
19,846
NR
5,049,934
30,850
5,712,832
494,377
3,595
41,212
0
13,299,994
160,905
239,179
89,303
35,131
469
192
117,024
435
205,388
18,087
29,208
156,931
116,657
82,305
3,191
7,550
61,657
102,144
663,589
11,452
72,719
196,650
138,899
294,005
NR
1,354
1-6
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Appendix I: Summary of CWNS 2008 Technical Information
Table 1-4. CWNS 2008 number of treatment facilities and population served per State by level of treatment
if all documented needs are met (continued)
Number of facilities providing listed effluent level Population served by listed effluent level
Less than Greater than No Less than Greater than No
State secondary8 Secondary secondary discharge11 secondary3 Secondary secondary discharge1*
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
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
3
NR
193
128
364
NR
71
13
203
472
27
29
129
78
182
101
73
NR
3
3
24
NR
85
36
537
NR
70
6
32
733
23
38
105
4
91
405
11
NR
0
0
18
NR
215
51
4
NR
12
7
13
189
62
6
4
12
0
107
17
NR
3
0
2
NR
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
1,216,840
NR
1,147,377
2,417,912
6,324,933
NR
1,782,956
309,473
3,260,733
3,093,643
828,403
76,934
2,179,640
5,343,594
660,246
122,991
376,795
NR
203,362
108,533
1,320,338
NR
1,638,235
1,714,003
5,299,897
NR
2,008,293
56,842
1,602,574
22,982,852
2,083,356
297,394
5,582,063
287,225
608,028
4,702,456
129,283
NR
0
0
376,868
NR
180,439
227,134
9,517
NR
149,031
7,678
43,785
1,244,632
242,319
3,992
6,378
132,671
0
112,138
16,613
NR
12,156
0
110,579
NR
7,015 5,909 2,526 3,880,548 89,100,487 161,163,736 29,956,126
Notes:
NR = not reported. Alaska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2008.
al_ess-than-secondary facilities include facilities granted or pending section 301(h) waivers from secondary treatment for discharges to marine waters.
^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.
cThe 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.
Table 1-4 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.
1-7
-------
Appendix I: Summary of CWNS 2008 Technical Information
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table 1-5. CWNS 2008 number of facilities with CSO correction needs and total CSO correction needs:
2004 and 2008 (January 2008 dollars in millions)
Number Number
of facilities with of facilities with 2004 CSO needs 2008 CSO needs
State CSO needs in 2004 CSO needs in 2008 ($ millions) ($ millions)
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
0
NR
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
4
37
0
75
1
0
105
1
NR
0
0
1
0
8
1
1
0
0
0
0
112
100
11
3
4
0
33
8
14
16
0
0
8
0
3
0
4
33
3
71
1
NR
93
Oa
NR
Oa
Oa
302
Oa
995
25
1,549
Oa
1,211
Oa
Oa
11,972
6,355
506
550
215
Oa
443
510
2,140
5,137
11
Oa
1,729
Oa
1,100
Oa
309
4,471
Oa
7,779
4
Oa
7,449
1
NR
0
0
233
0
1,528
25
1,889
0
0
0
0
10,877
5,041
748
522
312
0
307
463
2,044
1,555
0
0
1,689
0
1,318
0
281
8,176
1
6,648
4
NR
7,516
1-8
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Appendix I: Summary of CWNS 2008 Technical Information
Table 1-5. CWNS 2008 number of facilities with CSO correction needs and total CSO correction needs:
2004 and 2008 (January 2008 dollars in millions) (continued)
Number Number
of facilities with of facilities with 2004 CSO needs 2008 CSO needs
State CSO needs in 2004 CSO needs in 2008 ($ millions) ($ millions)
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
0
2
97
3
0
0
2
0
0
2
3
27
38
3
0
NR
NR
NR
0
NR
0
2
156
NR
0
0
5
0
0
1
4
24
40
5
0
NR
0
0
1
NR
^^FTty^l
oa
989
5,499
754
Oa
Oa
338
Oa
Oa
32
607
610
909
481
Oa
NR
NR
NR
Oa
NR
0
427
8,747
NR
0
0
96
0
0
2
616
584
1,467
412
0
NR
0
0
23
NR
Notes:
NR = not reported. Alaska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2008.
a Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
Table 1-5 presents the number of CSO facilities with documented needs identified during the
CWNS 2004 and CWNS 2008.
1-9
-------
Appendix I: Summary of CWNS 2008 Technical Information
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table 1-6. CWNS 2008 number of facilities with stormwater management needs and total stormwater management
needs (January 2008 dollars in millions)
Unregulated MS4 facilities Phase 1 MS4 facilities Phase II MS4 facilities Nontraditional MS4 facilities
Number of Needs Number of Needs Number of Needs Number of Needs
State facilities3 ($ millions) facilities3 ($ millions) facilities3 ($ millions) facilities3 ($ millions)
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
0
NR
0
0
0
54
0
0
0
15
17
0
27
1
3
0
2
0
2
21
15
51
45
0
0
17
9
38
1
22
0
0
158
25
NR
0
0
NR
0
0
0
106
0
0
0
20
8
0
9
1
7
0
10
0
1
26
1,358
40
310
0
0
565
24
27
449
28
0
0
134
45
NR
0
0
NR
8
0
8
2
0
0
0
73
0
0
0
5
1
0
1
0
0
0
11
0
0
2
0
0
0
2
1
0
31
0
7
4
NR
0
0
NR
361
0
2,747
11
0
0
0
1,666
0
0
0
14
43
0
76
0
0
0
2,261
0
0
5
0
0
0
43
66
0
130
0
877
26
NR
0
0
NR
8
2
7
2
0
0
0
50
0
0
0
4
112
23
1
0
0
0
4
1
0
187
0
0
0
2
0
20
568
0
47
2
NR
9
0
NR
99
0"
1,022
1
0
0
0
806
0
0
0
20
102
34
5
0
0
0
135
1
0
982
0
0
0
1
0
33
15,467
0
80
16
NR
794
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
2
1
12
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
NR
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
1
3
1
0
0
0
121
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
30
0
0
0
NR
0
1-10
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Appendix I: Summary of CWNS 2008 Technical Information
Table 1-6. CWNS 2008 number of facilities with stormwater management needs and total stormwater management
needs (January 2008 dollars in millions) (continued)
Unregulated MS4 facilities Phase 1 MS4 facilities Phase II MS4 facilities Nontraditional MS4 facilities
Number of
State facilities3
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
0
3
91
NR
2
5
0
1
1
0
0
0
8
41
12
NR
0
0
0
NR
Needs Number of Needs
($ millions) facilities3 ($ millions)
0
2
5,988
NR
12
4
0
16
Ob
0
0
0
108
52
20
NR
0
0
0
NR
2
3
0
NR
0
1
2
19
0
0
0
3
0
16
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
235
93
0
NR
0
2
191
2,050
0
0
0
164
0
115
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
Number of Needs Number of Needs
facilities3 ($ millions) facilities3 ($ millions)
0
2
7
NR
1
0
0
3
0
0
0
12
1
100
4
NR
0
0
0
NR
0
226
13
NR
18
0
0
1,079
0
0
0
166
10
427
17
NR
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
9,370 202 11,176 1,179 21,554 20
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
0
0
0
NR
^^^^^^^^^
Notes:
NR = not reported. Alaska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2008.
"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
2008 database, and one facility can cover multiple MS4s or multiple facilities can cover one MS4.
^Estimate is less than $0.5 million.
Table 1-6 presents the number of stormwater facilities with needs identified in the CWNS 2008 by the type of
the MS4.
1-11
-------
Appendix I: Summary of CWNS 2008 Technical Information
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table 1-7. CWNS 2008 number of treatment facilities and population served per State by level of treatment for
year of 2008
Number of facilities
providing listed effluent level
Population served by listed effluent level
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of
Columbia0
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
Less
than
secondary3
3
NR
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
12
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
NR
Secondary
152
NR
17
104
139
121
32
5
0
2
176
6
98
384
140
703
325
117
68
113
62
77
178
80
229
635
73
220
5
69
84
10
370
140
NR
Greater
than
secondary
117
NR
17
247
89
38
53
9
1
107
86
1
13
285
274
47
101
120
97
3
88
27
155
32
75
86
8
40
6
3
65
8
179
146
NR
1 Less than secondary9
No
discharge"
9
NR
86
11
332
72
6
4
0
246
41
14
55
4
1
1
199
1
0
7
12
13
58
26
3
23
31
207
36
13
4
9
30
39
NR
Population
served
830
NR
0
0
1,942,489
0
0
0
0
0
0
344,706
0
0
0
0
0
0
275
11,043
0
50,326
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20,617
0
0
0
0
NR
Percent
of total
population
<0.1
NR
0.0
0.0
5.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
26.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
<0.1
0.8
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NR
Secondary Greater than secondary No Discharge"
Population
served
882,574
NR
2,124,469
668,179
18,691,625
631,283
611,279
19,220
0
2,047,000
986,379
344,011
530,059
726,682
497,308
2,176,587
418,335
1,184,448
2,097,638
582,591
175,038
3,765,115
485,747
630,849
1,190,133
3,796,209
364,646
756,521
419,317
619,585
6,277,784
188,334
11,574,292
894,515
NR
Percent
of total
population
19.0
NR
33.1
23.5
51.1
12.9
17.5
2.2
0.0
11.2
10.3
26.8
35.1
5.6
7.8
72.7
15.0
27.9
47.8
44.3
3.1
58.1
4.8
12.1
40.6
64.4
37.9
42.6
16.3
47.2
72.4
9.5
59.5
9.8
NR
Population
served
1,669,438
NR
831,411
987,307
10,555,037
668,971
1,454,238
684,934
1,624,543
4,058,535
1,621,233
279
496,573
10,656,756
3,920,273
393,971
1,696,951
1,206,985
587,976
23,848
2,868,111
721,994
6,620,924
2,472,032
617,868
471,691
103,505
475,099
2,357,472
11,782
1,501,915
158,338
4,178,653
3,292,015
NR
Percent
of total
population
35.9
NR
12.9
34.7
28.9
13.7
41.6
79.0
275.4
22.2
16.9
<0.1
32.9
82.8
61.7
13.2
60.8
28.4
13.4
1.8
51.0
11.1
66.0
47.5
21.1
8.0
10.8
26.7
91.5
0.9
17.3
8.0
21.5
36.0
NR
Population
served
8,507
NR
2,457,705
13,690
4,059,128
477,984
3,515
25,444
0
6,871,354
106,666
128,860
58,754
11,257
175
209
102,278
435
0
3,172
16,913
48,827
99,241
37,768
1,272
4,112
37,527
88,063
247,311
9,159
61,990
180,737
109,616
109,606
NR
Percent
of total
population
0.2
NR
38.2
0.5
11.1
9.8
0.1
2.9
0.0
37.6
1.1
10.0
3.9
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
3.7
<0.1
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.8
1.0
0.7
<0.1
0.1
3.9
5.0
9.6
0.7
0.7
9.2
0.6
1.2
NR
Percent
total
55.2
NR
84.2
58.7
96.4
36.4
59.2
84.1
275.4
71.1
28.3
63.8
71.9
88.6
69.5
85.9
79.5
56.2
61.2
47.2
54.4
70.7
71.9
60.4
61.8
72.5
52.6
74.3
117.3
50.3
90.5
26.7
81.5
47.0
NR
1-12
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Appendix I: Summary of CWNS 2008 Technical Information
Table 1-7. CWNS 2008 number of treatment facilities and population served per State by level of treatment for
year of 2008 (continued)
Number of facilities
providing listed effluent level
Population served by listed effluent level
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
Less
than
secondary"
0
0
1
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
2
0
4
NR
Secondary
146
205
132
333
NR
77
14
203
461
35
35
152
76
190
193
72
NR
1
2
41
NR
Greater
than
secondary
575
73
33
488
NR
65
4
31
672
17
33
72
3
65
308
8
NR
0
0
1
NR
1 Less than secondary" Secondary
No
discharge"
2
211
49
3
NR
12
7
10
184
52
5
1
9
2
90
17
NR
3
0
1
NR
Population
served
0
0
47,630
0
NR
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR
145,036
0
1,188,835
NR
Percent
of total
population
0.0
0.0
1.3
0.0
NR
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
NR
83.0
0.0
30.1
NR
Population
served
1,076,291
1,073,626
2,103,148
6,587,453
NR
1,553,799
211,643
2,546,455
2,182,005
758,167
80,327
1,759,181
3,978,425
594,642
194,688
339,376
NR
13,156
70,000
1,170,471
NR
Percent
of total
population
9.4
29.6
55.9
53.0
NR
35.0
26.5
41.2
9.1
28.1
12.9
22.7
61.2
32.8
3.5
64.3
NR
7.5
81.8
29.6
NR
Population
served
7,696,860
1,394,725
1,279,516
4,656,801
NR
1,173,434
20,042
1,310,711
16,230,356
1,529,731
202,520
3,633,462
291,741
460,477
3,973,557
75,356
NR
0
0
27,187
NR
Percent
of total
population
67.0
38.5
34.0
37.5
NR
26.4
2.5
21.2
67.4
56.6
32.6
47.0
4.5
25.4
70.8
14.3
NR
0.0
0.0
0.7
NR
Population
served
956
157,180
140,854
5,757
NR
96,537
7,457
19,935
823,811
180,655
2,530
1,867
11,847
55
88,416
15,993
NR
10,876
0
527
NR
Percent
of total
population
<0.1
4.3
3.7
<0.1
NR
2.2
0.9
0.3
3.4
6.7
0.4
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
1.6
3.0
NR
6.2
0.0
<0.1
NR
Percent
total
76.4
72.4
94.9
90.5
NR
63.6
29.9
62.7
79.9
91.3
46.0
69.8
65.9
58.2
75.8
81.6
NR
96.7
81.8
60.4
NR
7,302 5,071 2,251 3,751,787 1.2 92,650,605 30.2 112,947,134 36.8 16,946,528 5.5 73.7
Notes:
NR = not reported. Alaska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands did not participate in the CWNS 2008.
al_ess-than-secondary facilities include facilities granted or pending section 301(h) waivers from secondary treatment for discharges to marine waters.
^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.
cThe 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.
Table 1-7 shows, by treatment level, the number of facilities in operation in 2008 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.
1-13
-------
Appendix I: Summary of CWNS 2008 Technical Information
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table 1-8. Technical data and costs for facilities with less-than-secondary effluent levels that do not have 301(h) waivers
Documented
Category I
Present Future Present Future Needs
design design population population (January
flow flow receiving peceiving 2008
(mgd) (mgd) treatment treatment $ millions)
State Facility name
Present effluent
Future
effluent
AL
AL
AL
LA
NH
OR
PR
Hollywood Lagoon
Priceville WWTP
Garden City WWTP
Village of Tickfaw
Portsmouth WWTF
Albany STP
Mayaguez Regional WWTP
Primary (45mg/l< BOD)
Primary (45 mg/L < BOD)
Advanced Primary
Advanced Primary
Advanced Primary
Advanced Primary
Primary (45mg/l< BOD)
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Advanced
Primary
Secondary
Secondary
Advanced
Treatment
0.125
0.25
0.15
0.1
4.5
8.7
28.0
0.125
0.25
0.15
0.1
4.5
11.0
28.0
280
230
320
275
20617
47630
114939
950
1670
762
300
24075
68810
134341
0.2
1.0
1.2
0.0
59.6
21.5
0.0
Table 1-8 presents the treatment facilities represented in the CWNS 2008 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
Secondary Treatment (Category I) needs for the facility. Technical data are of January 1, 2008.
1-14
-------
Appendix J
CWNS 2008 NEEDS CATEGORIES
J-1
-------
Appendix J: OWNS 2008 Needs Categories
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table J-1. CWNS 2008 needs categories
2008 Category
number Category name
Official Needs6
Description
Secondary Wastewater
Treatment
This category includes needs and costs necessary to meet 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
(CWA). Secondary treatment typically requires a treatment level that produces an effluent
quality of 30 mg/L of both 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) and total suspended
solids (secondary treatment levels required for some lagoon systems may be less stringent). In
addition, the secondary treatment must remove 85 percent of BOD5 and total suspended solids
from the influent wastewater.
Advanced Wastewater
Treatment
This category includes needs and costs necessary to attain a level of treatment that is more
stringent than secondary treatment or produce a significant reduction in nonconventional or
toxic pollutants present in the wastewater treated by a facility. A facility is considered to have
Advanced Wastewater Treatment if its permit includes one or more of the following: biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD) less than 20mg/L; nitrogen removal; phosphorus removal; ammonia
removal; metal removal; synthetic organic removal.
Infiltration/ Inflow (I/I)
Correction
This subcategory includes needs and costs for correction of sewer system infiltration/inflow
problems. Infiltration includes controlling the penetration of water into a sanitary or combined
sewer system from the ground through defective pipes or manholes. Inflow includes controlling
the penetration of water into the system from drains, storm sewers, and other improper
entries. It also includes costs for preliminary sewer system analysis and detailed sewer system
evaluation surveys.
Sewer Replacement/
Rehabilitation
This subcategory includes needs and costs for the maintenance, reinforcement, or
reconstruction of structurally deteriorating sanitary or combined sewers. The corrective actions
must be necessary to maintain the structural integrity of the system.
IV-A
New Collector Sewers
and Appurtenances
This subcategory includes needs and costs of new 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.
IV-B
New Interceptor Sewers
and Appurtenances
This subcategory includes needs and costs for constructing new interceptor sewers and pumping
stations to convey wastewater from collection sewer systems to a treatment facility or to another
interceptor sewer. Needs and costs for relief sewers are included in this category.
Combined Sewer
Overflow (CSO)
Correction
This category includes needs and costs to prevent or control the periodic discharges of mixed
stormwater and untreated wastewater (combined sewer overflows) that occur when the capacity
of a sewer system is exceeded during a wet-weather event. This category does not include needs
and costs for overflow control allocated to flood control, drainage improvement, or the treatment
or control of stormwater in separate storm systems.
VI
Stormwater Management
Program (pre-2008
needs only)
This category includes needs and costs to plan and implement structural and nonstructural
measures to control the runoff water resulting from precipitation (stormwater). It includes
controlling stormwater pollution from diffuse sources by (1) reducing pollutants from runoff
from commercial and residential areas that are served by the storm sewers, (2) detecting and
removing illicit discharges and improper disposal into storm sewers, (3) monitoring pollutants in
runoff from industrial facilities that flow into municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s),
and (4) reducing pollutants in construction site runoff discharged to MS4s.
Needs and costs were reported for Phase I, Phase II, and nontraditional (e.g., universities,
prisons, school districts) MS4s. Unregulated communities needs and costs could also be
reported in this category (formerly reported in VII-D: NPS-Urban).
Only pre-2008 needs and costs are in Category VI. For 2008 and future surveys, Stormwater
Management Program needs and costs were reported in subcategories A-D described below.
6 The unfunded capital costs of projects as of January 1, 2008 that (1) address a water quality or water quality-related public health problem existing
as of January 1, 2008 or expected to occur within the next 20 years and (2) meet the CWNS documentation requirements outlined in Chapter 1 of this
Report. Official Needs can only be reported in Categories I, II, III, IV, V, VI, and X.
J-2
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Appendix J: CWNS 2008 Needs Categories
Table J-1. CWNS 2008 needs categories (continued)
2008 Category
number Category name
VI-A
Stormwater Conveyance
Infrastructure
Description
This subcategory includes needs and costs to address the Stormwater Management Program
activities associated with the planning, design, and construction of conveying stormwater via
pipes, inlets, road side ditches, and other similar mechanisms.
VI-B
Stormwater Treatment
Systems
This subcategory includes needs and costs to address the Stormwater Management Program
activities associated with the planning, design, and construction of treating stormwater with wet
ponds, dry ponds, manufactured devices, and other similar means.
VI-C
Green Infrastructure
This subcategory includes needs and costs to address the Stormwater Management Program
activities associated with the planning, design, and construction of low impact development
and green infrastructure, such as bioretention, constructed wetlands, permeable pavement, rain
gardens, green roofs, cisterns, rain barrels, vegetated swales, restoration of riparian buffers and
flood plains, and such. Projects in this category can be both publicly owned and privately owned.
VI-D
General Stormwater
Management
This subcategory includes needs and costs to address the Stormwater Management Program
activities associated with implementing a stormwater management program, such as
geographic information systems (GIS) and tracking systems, equipment (e.g., street sweepers,
vacuum trucks), stormwater education program start-up costs (e.g., setting up a stormwater
public education center, building a traveling stormwater education display), and stormwater
management plan development.
Recycled Water
Distribution
This category includes needs and costs associated with conveyance of treated wastewater that is
being reused (recycled water), including associated rehabilitation/replacement needs. Examples
are pipes to convey treated water from the wastewater facility to the drinking water distribution
system or the drinking water treatment facility and equipment for application of effluent on
publicly owned land.
The needs and costs associated with additional unit processes to increase the level of treatment
to potable or less than potable but greater than that normally associated with surface discharge
needs are reported in Category II.
Other Documented Needs'
VII
Nonpoint Source (NPS)
Pollution Control
This category includes need and costs to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to
address Nonpoint Source Pollution (NPS). NPS pollution is pollution that is not introduced into
a receiving stream at a specific point. NPS pollution sources are diffuse and may be a result of
runoff, precipitation, atmospheric deposition, drainage, seepage, or hydrological modification.
VII-A
NPS Control: Agriculture
(Cropland)
This category includes needs and costs to address NPS pollution control activities associated
with agricultural activities related to croplands, such as plowing, pesticide spraying, irrigation,
fertilizing, planting and harvesting. Some examples of BMPs used to address these needs are
conservation tillage, nutrient management, and irrigation water management.
VII-B
NPS Control: Agriculture
(Animals)
This category includes needs and costs that address NPS pollution control activities associated
with agricultural activities related to animal production, such as confined animal facilities
and grazing. Some typical BMPs 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 (NPDES) permit, such needs
are classified as Category VIII, Confined Animals (Point Source).
VII-C
NPS Control: Silviculture
This category includes needs and costs that address NPS pollution control activities associated
with forestry activities, such as removing streamside vegetation, road construction and use,
timber harvesting, and mechanical preparation for planting trees. Some typical BMPs used to
address silviculture needs are pre-harvest planning, streamside buffers, road management,
revegetation of disturbed areas and structural practices, and equipment (e.g., sediment control
structures, timber harvesting equipment).
7 Needs that met CWNS documentation requirements but are not defined in CWA section 516(b)(l)(B). Other Documented Needs can only be reported in
Categories VII and XII.
J-3
-------
Appendix J: OWNS 2008 Needs Categories
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table J-1. CWNS 2008 needs categories (continued)
2008 Category
number Category name
VII-E
NPS Control: Ground
Water Protection
(Unknown Source)
Description
This category includes needs and costs that address ground water protection NPS pollution
control activities, 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, is reported in that more
specific category.
VII-F
NPS Control: Marinas
This category includes needs and costs that address NPS pollution control activities 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 BMPs used to address
needs at marinas are bulk heading, pump out systems, and oil containment booms.
VII-G
NPS Control: Resource
Extraction
This category includes needs and costs that address NPS pollution control activities associated
with mining and quarrying activities. Some typical BMPs used to address resource extraction
needs are detention berms, adit (mine entrance) 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
NPS Control: Brownfields
This category includes needs and costs that address NPS pollution control activities associated
with abandoned industrial sites that might have residual contamination (Brownfields). All costs,
regardless of the activity, for work at Brownfield sites should be included in this category. Some
typical BMPs used to address needs at Brownfield sites are ground water monitoring wells,
in situ treatment of contaminated soils and ground water, and capping to prevent stormwater
infiltration.
Vll-l
NPS Control: Storage
Tanks
This category includes needs and costs that address NPS pollution control activities associated
with tanks designed to hold gasoline, other petroleum products, or chemicals. The tanks can be
above or below ground level. Some typical BMPs 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 such facilities or measures are part of addressing NPS needs at Brownfields, the costs go in
Category VII-H, Brownfields.
VII-J
NPS Control: Sanitary
Landfills
This category includes needs and costs that address NPS pollution control activities associated
with sanitary landfills. Some typical BMPs used to address needs at landfills are leachate
collection, on-site treatment, gas collection and control, capping and closure.
VII-K
NPS Control:
Hydromodification
This category includes needs and costs to address the degradation of water resources as a
result of altering the hydrological characteristics of coastal and noncoastal waters. For a stream
channel, hydromodification is the process of the stream bank being eroded by flowing water, and
typically results in the suspension of sediments in the watercourse. Examples of such activities
include channelization and channel modification, dams, and stream bank and shoreline erosion.
Some typical BMPs 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 in this category.
J-4
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Appendix J: CWNS 2008 Needs Categories
Table J-1. CWNS 2008 needs categories (continued)
2008 Category
number Category name
VII-M
NPS Control: Other
Estuary Management
Activities
Description
This category is used only for management activities in the study areas of the 28 National
Estuary Programs (NEPs) designated under CWA section 320. It includes needs and
costs associated with a limited number of estuary management activities that may not be
appropriately included in other needs categories. Some typical estuary BMPs are habitat
protection for aquatic species; fisheries, oyster bed, and shellfish restocking and restoration;
fish ladders; rejuvenation of submerged aquatic vegetation; artificial reef establishment; control
of invasive vegetative and aquatic species; and water control structures for flow regime and
salinity.
Most activities included in the NEP's Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans are
wastewater, stormwater, decentralized wastewater treatment, or NPS pollution control activities
and are therefore tracked in those more specific categories rather than this miscellaneous other
activity subcategory.
XII
Decentralized
Wastewater Treatment
Systems
This category includes needs and costs associated with the rehabilitation or replacement of
onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS) or clustered (community) systems. It also includes
the treatment portion of other decentralized sewage disposal technologies. Costs related to
developing and implementing onsite management districts are included (but not the costs of
ongoing operations of such districts). Costs could also include the limited collection systems
associated with the decentralized system. Public ownership is not required for decentralized
systems.
This category does not include needs and costs to change a service area from decentralized
wastewater treatment to a publicly owned centralized treatment system. Needs to construct a
publicly owned centralized collection and treatment system should be reported in Category I,
Secondary Wastewater Treatment or Category II, Advanced Wastewater Treatment. Needs to
install sewers to connect the service area to an existing collection system are reported in
Category IV-A, New Collector Sewers and Appurtenances and Category IV-B, New Interceptor
Sewers and Appurtenances.
Unofficial Cost Estimates8
VIM
Confined Animals (Point
Source)
This category includes needs and costs to address point source pollution from animal production
activities that are subject to the concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) regulations and
have a NPDES permit. Needs and costs reported in this category are unofficial.
IX
Mining (Point Source)
This category includes needs and costs to address point source pollution from mining and
quarrying activities that have an identified owner. Needs and costs reported in this category are
unofficial.
XIII
Planning
This category includes needs and costs for developing plans to address water quality and water
quality-related public health problems. Examples include Watershed-Based Plans (including 319
Watershed-Based Plans) and Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plans. Needs and costs
reported in this category are unofficial.
Costs that are not included in EPA's needs for the CWNS 2008 because they do not meet CWNS documentation criteria. Such estimates are entered
for States' purposes other than this Report, such as for State-level planning and communication with State legislatures and other groups involved with
addressing and preventing water quality problems. Costs in categories VIII, IX, and XIII are always considered Unofficial Cost Estimates. In addition,
costs in all other categories may be Unofficial Cost Estimates.
J-5
-------
Appendix J: OWNS 2008 Needs Categories
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
J-6
-------
Appendix K
LIST OF ACCEPTABLE
DOCUMENT TYPES
K-1
-------
Appendix K: List of Acceptable Document Types
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table K-1 lists the document types that were acceptable for justifying needs or costs for the
CWNS 2008. It also provides the percentage of total needs that were documented with each
document type.
Table K-1. Acceptable document types
Allowable for
justification of..
Documentation type
Percent of
total
documented
needs in
Table B-l
01. Intended Use Plan
The Intended Use Plan (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 Clean Water State Revolving
Fund (CWSRF) money. To be eligible for CWSRF funding, a Clean Water Act (CWA) section 212 project
listed in the IUP must be on the State Priority List.
02. State and Federal Loan and Grant Applications
Federal or equivalent State grant applications may be used to document needs and costs for the
categories for which the grant or loan money is requested. Applications should contain a clearly
written narrative that defines the specific project and the water quality or public health problem.
The application's supporting documentation were required be submitted. Examples are the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) 319 Nonpoint Source Grants, Housing and Urban
Development's Community Development Block Grant, and Rural Utilities Service funding.
03. CWSRF Loan Applications
CWSRF applications were allowed to be used to document needs and costs for the categories for which
the loan money is requested. Applications needed to contain a clearly written narrative that defines the
specific project and the water quality or public health problem.
04. Nongovernmental Grant Applications (04)
Grant applications written for nongovernmental organizations may be used to document needs
and costs for the categories for which the grant money is requested. The applicant could be either
a local government or a nongovernmental organization. Applications needed to contain a clearly
written narrative that defines the specific project and the water quality or public health problem. All
supporting documentation to the grant application were required to be submitted. Some examples are
applications to foundations and other non-governmental funders at the local, state (e.g., Maryland's
Chesapeake Bay Trust), regional (e.g., Charles Stewart Mott Foundation), and national level (e.g.,
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation).
05. Cost of Previous Comparable Construction
This estimate of cost needed to be based on at least three projects that were bid or completed within
the past 2 years; were similar in size, scope, and geographic area; and had detailed construction cost
data available.
06. State-Approved Area-wide or Regional Basin Plan
CWA section 208 and 303(e) Regional Basin Plans are broad-based water quality management
plans written primarily to identify future planning for areas within a State. Such reports study large
areas such as basins or counties and usually recommend general solutions to current or anticipated
wastewater needs within the planning area. Only section 208 and 303(e) documents that contain
site-specific information and a description of a need were accepted as documentation of need.
Documentation of cost was assessed on a case-by-case basis depending on the amount of detail
reported and the source of the information.
07. State-Approved Local Comprehensive Water and Sewer Plan (07)
These plans are similar to State-Approved Area-wide Basin Plans (06). Such local plans also cover
fairly large areas and might not contain project-specific information. The plans must clearly identify
a water quality or health-related problem and needed to be project-specific to be acceptable as
documentation.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
6.4
1.9
1.7
0.0
0.1
2.6
0.9
K-2
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Appendix K: List of Acceptable Document Types
Table K-1. Acceptable document types (continued)
Allowable for
justification of..
Documentation type
Percent of
total
documented
needs in
Table B-l
08. Total Maximum Daily Load (08)
A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is an estimation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that an
impaired waterbody (listed on a State's 303(d) list) can receive and still meet water quality standards.
It includes an allocation of the allowable pollutant discharge amount from different sources. Project-
specific needs should be identified.
TMDL Reports or TMDL Implementation Plans containing cost data were reviewed on a case-by-case
basis. Costs reported in TMDL implementation plans are usually estimated by (1) identifying/quantify-
ing the corrective actions that are needed; (2) researching the unit costs; and (3) multiplying the unit
cost by the number of units required.
09. National Estuary Program Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
A Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) is a management plan developed for an
estuary that has been nominated for the CWA section 320 National Estuary Program (NEP). The CCMP
summarizes findings, determines environmental quality goals and objectives, identifies and establishes
priorities for addressing problems, identifies action plans and compliance schedules for pollution
control and resource management, and ensures that designated uses of the estuary are protected.
10. Nutrient Criteria Studies
CWA section 304(a) directs EPA to develop scientific information on pollutants and to publish criteria
guidance. The criteria guidance, often expressed as pollutant concentration levels, will result in
attainment of a State's designated use for the waterbody (e.g. fishing, swimming). The concentration
levels generally are the same for all types of waterbodies nationwide. States consider such EPA criteria
guidance when they adopt water quality standards for waterbodies. A water quality standard commonly
includes a designated use for a waterbody and criteria (i.e., concentration levels) for a range of pollut-
ants that will ensure that the waterbody will support the designated use.
11. Impaired Waters or TMDL Listing
EPA maintains a database of impaired waters and impaired waters with TMDLs. Facilities/projects dis-
charging into impaired waters can justify their needs if the projects specifically address the pollutant
causing the impairment.
12. State Needs Surveys & Other State Forms
States needed to send State-specific forms (document type 12) to the EPA Regional Clean Watersheds
Needs Survey (CWNS) Coordinator and EPA headquarters for approval before the States may use such
forms for data collection.
For communities with populations of fewer than 10,000 persons, State Need Surveys were acceptable
for documenting cost if a cost estimate that has been prepared and signed by an engineer or engineer
circuit rider is attached and other acceptable documentation types are not available. The cost estimate
did not need to be as detailed as that found in a facility plan, but it needed to include the engineer's
rationale for the estimate.
For specific communities with populations of 3,500 or fewer and under extraordinary circumstances,
States could apply to EPA headquarters for pre-approval on ability for a State-registered engineer (PE)
or circuit rider to sign the cost or need justification for document type 12.
20. Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
A Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), sometimes referred to as a Master Plan, is a fiscal planning
document used by local governments (e.g., authorities, cities, counties, districts) designed to antici-
pate capital improvement projects and schedule them over a period of time. The planning period of
CIPs can span from 1 to 20 years. Most CIPs contain project- and cost-specific information. A CIP was
an acceptable form of documentation to justify a need and the appropriate project-specific costs.
However, a CIP could only be used to justify a need only if it addresses why the project is needed.
21. Facility Plan
The Facility Plan contains project-specific information. Typically, several alternatives are presented,
including one recommended alternative. Only information covering the recommended alternative could
be used to document a need and a cost estimate.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Noa
Noa
No
No
Noa
Yes
Yes
0.4
<0.1
0.0
0.0
0.4
36.1
14.3
K-3
-------
Appendix K: List of Acceptable Document Types
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table K-1. Acceptable document types (continued)
Allowable for
justification of..
Documentation type
Percent of
total
documented
needs in
Table B-l
22. Preliminary Engineer's Estimate
A Preliminary Engineer's Estimate is a preliminary engineering study to assess the scope and feasibility
of the project before more detailed planning occurs. This documentation type encompasses documents
ranging from a memo to a formal Engineer's Preliminary Estimate or Engineer's Preliminary Study. As
long as the need is project-specific and the document identifies a current problem, the document was
acceptable. The Preliminary Engineer's Estimate document needed to be an official project description
that precedes a facility plan or a Final Engineer's Estimate.
23. Final Engineer's Estimate
A Final Engineer's Estimate contains a specific description of the project scope and a list of work to
be done, along with detailed itemized costs. Note that this document is not the same as a Preliminary
Engineer's Estimate. A Final Engineer's Estimate is an excellent source of accurate cost information
and is typically submitted as a result of detailed facility design. Lowest responsive, responsible bids
are equivalent to Final Engineer's Estimates.
24. Sewer System Evaluation Documents
Sewer System Evaluation Documents include Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) Analysis and Sewer System
Evaluation Survey (SSES).
An I/I Analysis is a document that identifies excessive flow problems due to I/I into the sewerage.
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 (e.g.,
identifies areas of combined sewers, downspout connections, and locations where the sewer system is
at capacity) and recommend solutions (e.g., replacing areas with larger-diameter pipe, grouting joints,
and separating sewers in areas of combined sewers).
25. Diagnostic Evaluation
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
facility's performance. This type of evaluation could be used to document a need if the results indicate
that construction is necessary to achieve compliance.
26. Sanitary Survey
A sanitary survey is a logical, investigative approach to gather information to evaluate the condition of
existing Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS). These surveys are performed to document the
condition of existing OWTS for facility planning purposes and to locate sources of water pollution and
public health problems.
The sanitary survey needed to document high, areawide failure rates that are considered serious
enough to be a health hazard (such as ground water contamination caused by malfunctioning OWTS)
to document a need. The documentation needed to clearly state that OWTS failures are contributing to
a water pollution or health-related problem. The fact that an area has soils unsuitable for OWTS was
not sufficient to document the need for sewers or a treatment plant. Communities with populations
of fewer than 10,000 were able to use a letter from a registered State or county Sanitarian or
Professional Engineer with documentation or other evidence from a site visit that supports the
determination of need. EPA will review such documentation on a case-by-case basis.
27. State-Approved Municipal Wasteload Allocation Plan
A Municipal Wasteload Allocation Plan is a water quality analysis done to determine the level of
treatment required by a specific project, which is ultimately translated into an effluent limits or best
management practice (BMP) in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
This plan could be used to justify the need for a treatment plant enlargement or upgrade as long as
the study identifies a specific wastewater treatment point source and appropriate design flows and
treatment levels. This plan could be used to document a need and may be used to update costs if the
project descriptions identify specific costs.
28. New Municipal, State, or Federal Regulation (28)
This documentation was only for new municipal, State, or federal regulations. This documentation
needed to include a copy of the regulation and a signed, written statement from a qualified municipal
or State employee indicating which facilities are affected. States needed only to reference federal
regulations and did not need to submit them.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
4.8
2.1
1.0
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
K-4
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Appendix K: List of Acceptable Document Types
Table K-1. Acceptable document types (continued)
Allowable for
justification of..
Documentation type
Percent of
total
documented
needs in
Table B-l
29. Future or Proposed Municipal, State, or Federal Regulation (29)
This documentation was for future or proposed municipal, State, or federal regulations that are in the
process of being enacted. This documentation needed to include a copy of the regulation and a signed,
written statement from a qualified municipal or State employee indicating which facilities are affected.
This document type is only for Unofficial needs.
30. Administrative Orders, Court Orders, or Consent Decrees
These official documents are usually issued as the result of continued violation of an NPDES permit or
other pollution control requirements. The order or decree needed to state a need for construction to
correct the violation in order to document the need.
31. NPDES or State Permit Requirement (with Schedule)
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is a permitting program implemented
under authority of the CWA that is designed to control point source discharges of pollution. All point
sources discharging to waters of the United States are required to have an NPDES permit establish-
ing effluent limitations (and other permit conditions) designed to protect the designated uses of the
receiving waterbody. Municipal and industrial stormwater point sources are included in this permitting
system, as well as ocean dischargers. Facilities may submit this documentation type if they (1) are not
meeting effluent limitations and are on compliance schedules or (2) are required to plan because they
are at or near plant capacity.
32. Combined Sewer Overflow Long-Term Control Plan (LTCP)
EPA requires communities with combined sewer systems to comply with the Combined Sewer Overflows
(CSO) Control Policy. To achieve this, most communities are required to develop and implement
Long-Term Control Plans (LTCPs) that will ultimately provide for full compliance with the CWA,
including attainment of water quality standards. LTCPs may be used to justify needs and costs for
Category V (Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Correction) needs only. Communities needed to submit
documentation to EPA. Only LTCPs not yet approved by the State or EPA were considered as this
document type; plans approved by either EPA or the State are document type 33.
33. Approved Combined Sewer Overflow Long-Term Control Plan (LTCP)
EPA requires communities with combined sewer systems to comply with the CSO Control Policy. To
achieve this, most communities are required to develop and implement LTCPs that will ultimately
provide for full compliance with the CWA, including attainment of water quality standards. Approved
LTCPs could be used to justify needs and costs for Category V (Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)
Correction) needs only.
40. Watershed-Based Plans
Watershed-Based Plans that have not received CWA section 319 grant funding or that EPA has not
reviewed could be used to document needs and costs if they meet the seven CWNS documentation
criteria.
41. Section 319 Funded or EPA Reviewed Watershed-Based Plans
A 319 Watershed-Based Plan is a plan that meets all nine minimum elements prescribed in EPA's
Supplemental Guidelines for the Award of Section 319 Nonpoint Source Grants to States and
Territories in F/2003 which is at: www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Section319/319guide03.html.
42. Approved State Annual 319 Work Plans
These are NPS Management Program Work Plans and project implementation plans approved for
section 319(h) funding. State Annual 319(h) Workplans are essentially the 319(h) grant applications
that states need to develop and have approved to obtain money from EPA.
43. Approved State 319 Project Implementation Plans
These are NPS Management Program Work Plans and project implementation plans approved for
section 319(h) funding. 319(h) Project Implementation Plans are specific plans for each NPS project
on which the state has proposed to spend money.
Unofficial
Only
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Noa
Yes
0.0
0.1
0.1
6.7
1.6
0.5
0.1
<0.1
<0.1
K-5
-------
Appendix K: List of Acceptable Document Types
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
Table K-1. Acceptable document types (continued)
Allowable for
justification of..
Documentation type
44. Nonpoint Source Management Program/Assessment Report
An NPS Management Program is a 4-year plan developed by a State to address NPS pollution
problems. Elements in the program include identifying the BMPs and measures to reduce pollutant
loading, programs to achieve implementation, a schedule with annual milestones, costs and identi-
fication of specific projects, certification that the laws of the state will provide adequate authority to
implement the plan, and sources of funding and assistance. An NPS Assessment Report assesses the
extent of pollution due to diffuse or NPS pollution in a State. The report identifies navigable waters that
require NPS controls to achieve CWA water quality standards, sources and amounts of such pollution,
and State and local control programs. It also describes the process that will be used to identify BMPs.
Percent of
total
documented
needs in
Table B-l
Yes
Noa
45. Nonpoint Source Management Program/Ground Water Protection Strategy Report
States could use a Comprehensive Ground Water Protection Strategy report to document NPS pollution
needs if the strategy is part of an NPS Management Program. The goals of this major federal initiative
addressing ground water protection are to strengthen State ground water programs; deal with signifi-
cant, poorly addressed ground water problems; create a policy framework within EPA for guiding 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 (SDWA) such as regulation of the injection
of wastes into deep wells, the Wellhead Protection Program, and the Sole Source Aquifer program.
Provisions in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for leaking underground storage
tanks, goals in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
for contaminated ground water sites, and State grant programs in the CWA for ground water protection
activities are covered by this strategy
Yes
Noa
0.0
46. Nonpoint Source Management Program/Wellhead Protection Program and Plan
A Wellhead Protection Plan may be used to document NPS needs if it is part of an NPS Management
Program. As part of at state's overall ground water protection strategy, a State must delineate well-
head protection areas for wells or well fields used for public water supply. Contaminant sources in 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 if contamination occurs, and standards must be estab-
lished for locating new wells so as to minimize the potential for contamination of the water supply.
Yes
Noa
0.0
47. Nonpoint Source Management Program/Delegated Underground Injection Control
Program Plan
A State may document needs to address NPS pollution aspects of a Delegated Underground Injection
Control Program Plan, if the plan is part of the State's NPS Management Program. As part of the
SDWA, EPA and State Underground Injection Control Programs were established to protect potential
underground sources of drinking water from contamination by injection wells.
Yes
Noa
0.0
48. Source Water Assessment/Source Water Protection Plans
Under the SDWA, States are required to develop comprehensive Source Water Assessment Programs
(SWAP) that identify the areas that supply public tap water; inventory contaminants and assess water
system susceptibility to contamination; and inform the public of the results.
Source Water Assessments identify the major potential sources of contamination to drinking water
supplies. This information is used to determine how susceptible the water system is to contamination
and could be helpful in justifying CWNS needs. States must use the system- or town-specific assess-
ment, not the statewide summary, to justify the needs.
Yes
No
0.0
49. NRCS Conservation Plans and Farm Plans
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Farm Plans and Conservation Plans are documents
developed by NRCS (or Conservation Districts) and farmers or landowners. They are a series of actions
developed to meet a farmer's goals while protecting water quality and the natural resources. Some
of the things considered in a plan are farm size, soils type, slope of the land, proximity to streams or
waterbodies, type of livestock or crops, the farmer's goals, resources such as machinery or buildings
and finances available. Farm Plans and Conservation Plans recommend practices to improve farm
productivity, reduce the effect on the natural resources, and address potential water quality concerns.
Yes
Noa
0.0
K-6
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress •
Appendix K: List of Acceptable Document Types
Table K-1. Acceptable document types (continued)
Allowable for
justification of..
Documentation type
Percent of
total
documented
needs in
Table B-l
50. Electronic Field Office Technical Guide (eFOTOG)
Electronic Field Office Technical Guide (eFOTOG) is the primary scientific references for NRCS. It
contain technical information about the conservation of soil, water, air, and related plant and animal
resources. eFOTOGs are localized so that they apply specifically to the geographic area for which they
are prepared. Section 1 of the eFOTOG contains conservation practice costs, which might include the
unit cost of some agricultural BMPs. See www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/efotg/.
51. State/Federal Agricultural Cost-Share Program Cost Tables
To address agriculture's contribution to the NPS water pollution problem, some State and federal
programs provide financial incentives to farmers to install BMPs on their property. The Agriculture Cost
Share Program is one of the most common financial incentives used. Participating farmers receive
a percentage of predetermined average costs of installed BMPs with the remaining fraction paid by
farmers directly or through in-kind contributions. Each program has cost tables of the predetermined
average costs for BMPs or summaries of projects implemented by county.
52. Professional Appraisals
The purchase of land or easements-usage rights-are increasingly being used to protect water quality
or human health by preserving a determined level of ecosystem functions. Appraisals of the land
or easements to be purchased could be used to justify costs, provided that the need is justified by
additional document(s).
60. Municipal Stormwater Management Plan
A Municipal Storm Water Management Plan is a plan submitted as part of a municipality's NPDES
stormwater permit application. It includes a description of the structural and source control measures
to be implemented to (1) reduce pollutants in runoff from commercial and residential areas that are dis-
charged 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.
71. Small Community Needs Form
For communities with populations of fewer than 10,000, using a standard survey form developed by
EPA was acceptable for documenting need (and cost) as long as signatures are included. If costs are
not included, cost curves could be used.
For specific communities with populations of 3,500 or fewer and under extraordinary circumstances,
States could apply to EPA headquarters for preapproval if a State-registered engineer (PE) or circuit
rider signs the cost or need justification for document type 71.
72. Information from an Assistance Provider
For communities with populations of fewer than 10,000, a statement of need from a technical
assistance provider (e.g., state training center, health department, circuit rider), along with a soils/
geologic report and health department report, could document need. Local official and service provider
signatures needed to be included. Cost curves can be used to document costs.
98. CSO Cost Curve Needs (98)
States could use cost curves only when no other documents justifying needs in Category V, Combined
Sewer Overflow (CSO) Correction, were available. CSO cost curves are in the Data Entry Portal.
Although cost curves are not actually documents, they are an approximation of costs to control CSOs.
99. EPA-headquarters Approved
Unique documents required special EPA headquarters approval. If a document met all criteria but
was not listed as a Preapproved Document, States needed to send at least two examples to their EPA
Regional CWNS Coordinator for review before data entry. If the EPA Regional CWNS Coordinator believed
that the documents might be acceptable, he or she will forwarded them to EPA headquarters for final
determination.
No (with
exceptions)
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
NA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Noa
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
1.1
<0.1
8.9
7.5
NA = not applicable.
a Documentation might have information that may be used to justify cost. Cost must be project-specific and distributable among categories.
K-7
-------
Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Wastewater Management
Municipal Support Division
Sustainable Management Branch
Washington, DC 20460
www.epa.gov/owm/
EPA-832-R-10-002
------- |