CLEAN WATERSHEDS NEEDS SURVEY 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Needs This document supplements the Clean Watersheds Needs Survey (CWNS) 2008 Report to Congress by summarizing documented needs data by various major watershed basins and EPA program areas. EPA and the States have made a concerted effort to gather information on a watershed basis consistent with the basin planning or watershed management concept. This document highlights CWNS 2008 needs documented within the following regional and EPA Program areas: CWNS 2008 Area Needs versus CWNS 2004 Needs . . . page 2 Needs by Watershed page 3 Coastal versus Inland Needs page 18 EPA's Targeted Watersheds Grant Program page 23 EPA's National Estuary Program page 28 Gulf of Mexico Drainage Basin page 36 Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin Page 42 Great Lakes Drainage Basin Page 47 Columbia River Basin page 53 Border 2012 Area page 59 Documented needs in the CWNS 2008 Report to Congress 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 the Report to Congress. Documentation criteria ensured the legitimacy of needs and the accuracy of cost and technical information in the Report to Congress. 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. Needs in this document include all documented needs in the Report to Congress. This includes both the Official Needs in the Report's main body and the Other Documented Needs in the Report's Appendix B. 1 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Needs versus CWNS 2004 Needs CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Needs versus CWNS 2004 Needs Highlights Areas with the largest percent increases since 2004: The Columbia River Basin ($2.5 billion; 52 percent); The Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin ($8.0 billion; 33 percent); and EPA's National Estuary Program ($17.3 billion; 22 percent) Tables & Maps: Figure 1 shows the regional and EPA program area needs reported in 2008 compared to the needs documented in 2004 Discussion Figure 1 compares the 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area needs with that of the CWNS 2004. As in 2004, the 2008 CWNS results show the Gulf of Mexico as having the highest needs ($106.6 billion) of all the regional and EPA program areas. With the exception of the needs related to the Great Lakes, which decreased by $0.6 billion (3 percent) and the Border 2012 Program which remained at $3.7 billion, each program reported an increase in needs since the 2004 CWNS. 2008 2004 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 Needs Reported (billion dollars) National Estuary Program ' Gulf of Mexico Chesapeake Bay Great Lakes Columbia River Basin Border 2012 Figure 1. Total documented CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area needs compared to that of CWNS 2004 (January 2008 dollars in billions). 2 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs by Watershed Needs by Watershed1 Highlights Documented needs compared to percentage of national watersheds: 90 percent of the needs were reported from 36 percent of the Nation's watersheds Needs per capita: 45 percent of watersheds documented needs exceeding $1,000/person; 17 percent of watersheds reported $501-$1,000/person; 38 percent of watersheds documented needs less than $500/person Tables & Maps: Figure 2 shows the documented needs in the CWNS 2008 according to watershed boundaries at the subregion level for the continental United States; Figure 3 illustrates the documented needs per capita; Figure 4 shows the proportion of the U.S. population served by advanced treatment or served by facilities that do not discharge to surface waters; and Table 1 summarizes the CWNS 2008 assessment of total needs by watershed region, subregion, and basin Discussion Figure 2 shows the documented needs in the CWNS 2008 according to watershed boundaries at the subregion level for the continental United States. The CWNS 2008 results indicate that most of the needs reported are in a small number of watersheds: 90 percent of the documented needs are in 36 percent of the Nation's watersheds. As expected, these needs are geographically distributed in patterns similar to the State patterns described in the Report to Congress. The ratio of documented needs to population (i.e., needs per capita) accounts for differences in population. Within the continental United States, 45 percent of the watersheds shown in Figure 3 have documented per capita needs exceeding $1,000/person, while 17 percent have documented per capita needs ranging from $500/person to 1,000/person. The remaining watersheds (38 percent) have documented per capita needs of less than $500/person. The number of people served by advanced treatment increased from 7.8 million people in 1972 to 113.0 million people in 2008. Figure 4 shows the proportion of the U.S. population served by advanced treatment or served by facilities that do not discharge to surface waters. The Great Lakes region, the South Central region, Florida, and portions of the Southwest have the highest proportion of their population served by treatment facilities that provide advanced treatment or by facilities that do not discharge to surface waters. 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. 1 Watersheds are identified by Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUCs), a grouping of numbers ranging from two to sixteen digits long. 3 ------- Needs by Watershed CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Figure 2. Geographic distribution of total documented needs by 4-digit watershed (January 2008 dollars in billions). Figure 3. Geographic distribution of total documented needs on a per capita basis by 4-digit watershed (January 2008 dollars). 4 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs by Watershed Figure 4. Geographic distribution of the proportion of the population receiving advanced treatment including facilities that do not discharge to surface waters by 4-digit watershed (January 2008). 5 ------- Needs by Watershed CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Table 1. Total documented needs reported by watershed region (January 2008 dollars in billions) Arkansas-White-Red Rivers Region Subregion (4-digit watershed) Basin (6-digit watershed) Total (2008 dollars, millions) Arkansas-Keystone Arkansas-Keystone 21 Lower Arkansas Lower Arkansas-Fourche La Fave 144 Robert S. Kerr Reservoir 666 Lower Canadian Lower Canadian 51 Middle Canadian 7 Lower Cimarron Lower Cimarron 51 Middle Arkansas Middle Arkansas 508 Neosho-Verdigris Neosho 200 Verdigris 532 North Canadian Lower Beaver Lower North Canadian 71 Upper Beaver 18 Red-Washita Red-Lake Texoma 70 Red-Pease 29 Washita 8 Red Headwaters Prairie Dog Town Fork Red 1 Salt Fork Red 1 Red-Sulphur Big Cypress-Sulphur 47 Red-Little 92 Red-Saline 244 Upper Arkansas Upper Arkansas 337 Upper Canadian Upper Canadian 1 Upper Cimarron Upper Cimarron 20 Upper White Upper White 593 Arkansas-White-Red Rivers Region Sum 3,714 California Region Subregion (4-digit watershed) Basin (6-digit watershed) Total (2008 dollars, millions) Central California Coastal Central California Coastal 891 Klamath-Northern California Coastal Klamath 60 Northern California Coastal 78 North Lahontan North Lahontan 3 Northern Mojave-Mono Lake Northern Mojave 1,465 Sacramento Lower Sacramento 4,601 6 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs by Watershed Table 1. Total documented needs reported by watershed region (January 2008 dollars in billions) (continued) California Region Subregion (4-digit watershed) Basin (6-digit watershed) Total (2008 dollars, millions) Upper Sacramento 8 San Francisco Bay San Francisco Bay 6,532 San Joaquin San Joaquin 1,089 Southern California Coastal Laguna-San Diego Coastal 2,202 Santa Ana 2,992 Ventura-San Gabriel Coastal 8,218 Southern Mojave-Salton Sea Salton Sea 94 Southern Mojave 157 Tulare-Buena Vista Lakes Tulare-Buena Vista Lakes 703 California Region Sum 29,091 Great Basin Region Subregion (4-digit watershed) Basin (6-digit watershed) Total (2008 dollars, millions) Bear Lower Bear 1,378 Upper Bear 4 Black Rock Desert-Humboldt Black Rock Desert 1 Humboldt 5 Central Lahontan Carson 73 Truckee 1,866 Walker 11 Central Nevada Desert Basins Central Nevada Desert Basins 1 Escalante Desert-Sevier Lake Escalante Desert-Sevier Lake 76 Great Salt Lake Great Salt Lake 142 Jordan 844 Weber 225 Great Basin Region Sum 4,628 Great Lakes Region Subregion (4-digit watershed) Basin (6-digit watershed) Total (2008 dollars, millions) Eastern Lake Erie-Lake Erie Eastern Lake Erie 1,343 Lake Erie 66 Northeastern Lake Michigan-Lake Michigan Lake Michigan 56 Northeastern Lake Michigan 512 ------- Needs by Watershed CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Table 1. Total documented needs reported by watershed region (January 2008 dollars in billions) (continued) Great Lakes Region Subregion (4-digit watershed) Basin (6-digit watershed) Total (2008 dollars, millions) Northeastern Lake Ontario-Lake Ontario- St. Lawrence Lake Ontario 9 Northeastern Lake Ontario 143 St. Lawrence 361 Northwestern Lake Huron Northwestern Lake Huron 133 Northwestern Lake Michigan Fox 879 Northwestern Lake Michigan 226 Southeastern Lake Michigan Southeastern Lake Michigan 1,749 Southeastern Lake Ontario Oswego 1,038 Southeastern Lake Ontario 256 Southern Lake Erie Southern Lake Erie 4,251 Southern Lake Superior-Lake Superior Lake Superior 8 Southcentral Lake Superior 118 Southeastern Lake Superior 37 Southwestern Lake Huron-Lake Huron Lake Huron 2 Saginaw 455 Southwestern Lake Huron 142 Southwestern Lake Michigan Southwestern Lake Michigan 4,585 Southwestern Lake Ontario Southwestern Lake Ontario 278 St. Clair-Detroit St. Clair-Detroit 4,124 Western Lake Erie Western Lake Erie 2,065 Western Lake Superior Western Lake Superior 160 Southwestern Lake Superior 37 St. Louis 440 Great Lakes Region Sum 23,470 Hawaii Region Subregion (4-digit watershed) Basin (6-digit watershed) Total (2008 dollars, millions) Hawaii Hawaii 120 Kauai Kauai 81 Maui Maui 239 Molokai Molokai Oahu Oahu 1,320 Hawaii Region Sum 1,760 8 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs by Watershed Table 1. Total documented needs reported by watershed region (January 2008 dollars in billions) (continued) Lower Colorado River Region Subregion (4-digit watershed) Basin (6-digit watershed) Total (2008 dollars, millions) Little Colorado Little Colorado 41 Lower Colorado Bill Williams 14 Lower Colorado 161 Lower Colorado-Lake Mead Lower Colorado-Lake Mead 2,417 Lower Gila Lower Gila 145 Lower Gila-Agua Fria 2,098 Middle Gila Middle Gila 463 San Pedro-Willcox 15 Santa Cruz 836 Salt Salt 1,135 Verde 333 Upper Gila Upper Gila 20 Lower Colorado River Region Sum 7,679 Lower Mississippi River Region Subregion (4-digit watershed) Basin (6-digit watershed) Total (2008 dollars, millions) Boeuf-Tensas Boeuf-Tensas 6 Louisiana Coastal Atchafalaya-Vermilion 92 Calcasieu-Mermentau 131 Lower Mississippi Central Louisiana Coastal 1,161 Lake Pontchartrain 207 Lower Mississippi-New Orleans 1,341 Lower Mississippi-Big Black Big Black-Homochitto 478 Lower Mississippi-Natchez 30 Lower Mississippi-St. Francis Lower Arkansas 7 Lower Mississippi-Helena Lower White 26 St. Francis 71 Lower Mississippi-Yazoo Lower Mississippi-Greenville 1 Yazoo 578 Lower Mississippi-Hatchie Hatchie-Obion 265 Lower Mississippi-Memphis 245 Lower Mississippi-Lake Maurepas Lake Maurepas 437 9 ------- Needs by Watershed CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Table 1. Total documented needs reported by watershed region (January 2008 dollars in billions) (continued) Lower Mississippi River Region Subregion (4-digit watershed) Basin (6-digit watershed) Total (2008 dollars, millions) Lower Grand 21 Lower Mississippi-Baton Rouge 1,144 Lower Red - Ouachita Lower Ouachita 88 Lower Red 65 Upper Ouachita 21 Lower Mississippi River Region Sum 6,417 Mid-Atlantic Region Subregion (4-digit watershed) Basin (6-digit watershed) Total (2008 dollars, millions) Delaware Lower Delaware 9,546 New Jersey Coastal 3,272 Upper Delaware 5,121 Lower Chesapeake James 2,514 Lower Chesapeake 1,166 Lower Hudson-Long Island Long Island 24,571 Lower Hudson 27,117 Potomac Potomac 10,818 Richelieu Richelieu 503 Susquehanna Lower Susquehanna 4,213 Upper Susquehanna 2,875 West Branch Susquehanna 1,904 Upper Chesapeake Upper Chesapeake 8,862 Upper Hudson Upper Hudson 2,925 Mid-Atlantic Region Sum 105,407 Missouri River Region Subregion (4-digit watershed) Basin (6-digit watershed) Total (2008 dollars, millions) Big Horn Big Horn 56 Chariton-Grand Chariton 37 Grand 30 Cheyenne Belle Fourche 21 Cheyenne 35 Elkhorn Elkhorn 193 10 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs by Watershed Table 1. Total documented needs reported by watershed region (January 2008 dollars in billions) (continued) Missouri River Region Subregion (4-digit watershed) Basin (6-digit watershed) Total (2008 dollars, millions) Gasconade-Osage Gasconade 32 Osage 175 James James 15 Kansas Big Blue 331 Kansas 1,327 Loup Loup 86 Lower Missouri Lower Missouri 1,220 Lower Missouri-Blackwater 1,606 Lower Yellowstone Lower Yellowstone 16 Milk Milk 31 Missouri Headwaters Missouri Headwaters 150 Missouri-Big Sioux Big Sioux 115 Lewis And Clark Lake 59 Missouri-Little Missouri Little Missouri 1 Missouri-Little Sioux Missouri-Little Sioux 1,623 Missouri-Marias Marias 23 Upper Missouri 62 Missouri-Musselshell Fort Peck Lake 13 Musselshell 3 Missouri-Nishnabotna Missouri-Nishnabotna 689 Missouri-Oahe Grand-Moreau 1 Missouri-Poplar Missouri-Poplar 10 Missouri-White Fort Randall Reservoir 1 White 12 Niobrara Niobrara 60 North Platte North Platte 191 Platte Lower Platte 1,761 Middle Platte 146 Powder-Tongue Powder 27 Tongue 22 Republican Republican 201 Smoky Hill Smoky Hill 66 11 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs by Watershed Table 1. Total documented needs reported by watershed region (January 2008 dollars in billions) (continued) Missouri River Region Subregion (4-digit watershed) Basin (6-digit watershed) Total (2008 dollars, millions) South Platte South Platte 859 Upper Yellowstone Upper Yellowstone 83 Missouri River Region Sum 11,390 New England Region Subregion (4-digit watershed) Basin (6-digit watershed) Total (2008 dollars, millions) Androscoggin Androscoggin 280 Connecticut Lower Connecticut 3,616 Upper Connecticut 185 Connecticut Coastal Connecticut Coastal 2,268 Kennebec Kennebec 385 Maine Coastal Maine Coastal 491 Massachusetts-Rhode Island Coastal Mass.-Rhode Island Coastal 6,056 Merrimack Merrimack 1,943 Penobscot Penobscot 219 Saco Saco 1,250 St. Francois St. Francois 3 St. John St. John 141 New England Region Sum 16,837 Ohio River Region Subregion (4-digit watershed) Basin (6-digit watershed) Total (2008 dollars, millions) Allegheny Allegheny 1,886 Big Sandy-Guyandotte Big Sandy 267 Guyandotte 149 Cumberland Lower Cumberland 456 Upper Cumberland 72 Great Miami Great Miami 1,786 Green Green 227 Kanawha Kanawha 1,085 Kentucky-Licking Kentucky 341 Licking 100 Lower Ohio Lower Ohio 213 12 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs by Watershed Table 1. Total documented needs reported by watershed region (January 2008 dollars in billions) (continued) Ohio River Region Subregion (4-digit watershed) Basin (6-digit watershed) Total (2008 dollars, millions) Lower Ohio-Salt 1,175 Middle Ohio Middle Ohio-Little Miami 3,565 Middle Ohio-Raccoon 815 Monongahela Monongahela 2,127 Muskingum Muskingum 495 Scioto Scioto 3,218 Upper Ohio Upper Ohio-Beaver 1,962 Upper Ohio-Little Kanawha 416 Wabash Patoka-White 4,151 Wabash 1,268 Ohio River Region Sum 25,774 Pacific Northwest Region Subregion (4-digit watershed) Basin (6-digit watershed) Total (2008 dollars, millions) Kootenai-Pend Oreille-Spokane Kootenai 7 Pend Oreille 335 Spokane 719 Lower Columbia Lower Columbia 917 Lower Snake Clearwater 23 Lower Snake 36 Salmon 11 Middle Columbia Deschutes 374 John Day 3 Middle Columbia 81 Middle Snake Middle Snake-Boise 545 Middle Snake-Powder 14 Oregon Closed basins Oregon Closed Basins Oregon-Washington Coastal Northern Oregon Coastal 30 Southern Oregon Coastal 177 Washington Coastal 123 Puget Sound Puget Sound 4,243 Upper Columbia Upper Columbia 35 Upper Snake Snake Headwaters 10 13 ------- Needs by Watershed CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Table 1. Total documented needs reported by watershed region (January 2008 dollars in billions) (continued) Pacific Northwest Region Subregion (4-digit watershed) Basin (6-digit watershed) Total (2008 dollars, millions) Upper Snake 437 Willamette Willamette 3,585 Yakima Yakima 3 Pacific Northwest Region Sum 11,708 Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands Region Subregion (4-digit watershed) Basin (6-digit watershed) Total (2008 dollars, millions) Puerto Rico Puerto Rico 4,720 Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands Region Sum 4,720 Rio Grande Region Subregion (4-digit watershed) Basin (6-digit watershed) Total (2008 dollars, millions) Lower Pecos Lower Pecos 30 Lower Rio Grande Lower Rio Grande 307 Rio Grande closed basins Rio Grande Closed Basins 2 Rio Grande headwaters Rio Grande Headwaters 22 Rio Grande-Amistad Rio Grande-Fort Quitman 365 Rio Grande-Elephant Butte Rio Grande-Elephant Butte 49 Upper Rio Grande 10 Rio Grande-Falcon Rio Grande-Falcon 138 Rio Grande-Mimbres Mimbres 2 Rio Grande-Caballo 8 Upper Pecos Upper Pecos 19 Rio Grande Region Sum 952 Souris-Red-Rainy Rivers Region Subregion (4-digit watershed) Basin (6-digit watershed) Total (2008 dollars, millions) Rainy Rainy 116 Red Lower Red 129 Upper Red 274 Souris-Red-Rainy Rivers Region Sum 519 14 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs by Watershed Table 1. Total documented needs reported by watershed region (January 2008 dollars in billions) (continued) South Atlantic-Gulf Region Subregion (4-digit watershed) Basin (6-digit watershed) Total (2008 dollars, millions) Alabama Alabama 872 Coosa-Tallapoosa 861 Altamaha-St. Marys Altamaha 33 St. Marys-Satilla 183 Apalachicola Apalachicola 324 Cape Fear Cape Fear 2,056 Choctawhatchee-Escambia Choctawhatchee 327 Escambia 118 Florida Panhandle Coastal 1,314 Chowan-Roanoke Albemarle-Chowan 344 Roanoke 352 Edisto-Santee Edisto 214 Santee 1,457 Mobile-Tombigbee Black Warrior-Tombigbee 1,487 Mobile Bay-Tombigbee 434 Neuse-Pamlico Neuse 1,399 Pamlico 465 Ochlockonee Ochlockonee 473 Ogeechee-Savannah Ogeechee 3 Savannah 55 Pascagoula Pascagoula 787 Peace-Tampa Bay Peace 1,162 Tampa Bay 4,160 Pearl Pearl 898 Pee Dee Lower Pee Dee 364 Upper Pee Dee 831 Southern Florida Kissimmee 966 Southern Florida 16,079 St. Johns East Florida Coastal 1,663 St. Johns 4,962 Suwannee Aucilla-Waccasassa 193 Suwannee 542 South Atlantic-Gulf Region Sum 45,377 15 ------- Needs by Watershed CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Table 1. Total documented needs reported by watershed region (January 2008 dollars in billions) (continued) Tennessee River Region Subregion (4-digit watershed) Basin (6-digit watershed) Total (2008 dollars, millions) Lower Tennessee Lower Tennessee 143 Middle Tennessee-Elk Middle Tennessee-Elk 745 Middle Tennessee-Hiwassee Middle Tennessee-Hiwassee 63 Upper Tennessee French Broad-Holston 515 Upper Tennessee 530 Tennessee River Region Sum 1,996 Texas-Gulf Region Subregion (4-digit watershed) Basin (6-digit watershed) Total (2008 dollars, millions) Brazos headwaters Brazos Headwaters 50 Central Texas Coastal Central Texas Coastal 54 Guadalupe 113 Lavaca 2 San Antonio 870 Galveston Bay-San Jacinto Galveston Bay-Sabine Lake 827 San Jacinto 3,239 Lower Brazos Little 318 Lower Brazos 115 Lower Colorado-San Bernard Coastal Lower Colorado 979 Middle Colorado-Concho 9 Middle Colorado-Llano 399 San Bernard Coastal 6 Middle Brazos Middle Brazos-Bosque 81 Middle Brazos-Clear Fork 32 Neches Neches 138 Nueces-Southwestern Texas Coastal Nueces 79 Southwestern Texas Coastal 593 Sabine Sabine 156 Trinity Lower Trinity 32 Upper Trinity 2,607 Upper Colorado Upper Colorado 15 Texas-Gulf Region Sum 10,716 16 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs by Watershed Table 1. Total documented needs reported by watershed region (January 2008 dollars in billions) (continued) Upper Colorado River Region Subregion (4-digit watershed) Basin (6-digit watershed) Total (2008 dollars, millions) Colorado Headwaters Colorado Headwaters 237 Great Divide-Upper Green Great Divide Closed Basin 1 Upper Green 39 Gunnison Gunnison 55 Lower Green Lower Green 22 San Juan Lower San Juan 3 Upper San Juan 59 Upper Colorado-Dirty Devil Upper Colorado-Dirty Devil 9 Upper Colorado-Dolores Upper Colorado-Dolores 15 White-Yampa White-Yampa 21 Upper Colorado River Region Sum 460 Upper Mississippi River Region Subregion (4-digit watershed) Basin (6-digit watershed) Total (2008 dollars, millions) Chippewa Chippewa 155 Des Moines Des Moines 1,967 Lower Illinois Lower Illinois 1,898 Minnesota Minnesota 1,262 Mississippi Headwaters Mississippi Headwaters 314 Upper Mississippi-Crow-Rum 2,799 Rock Rock 1,354 St. Croix St. Croix 314 Upper Illinois Upper Illinois 14,205 Upper Mississippi-Black-Root Upper Mississippi-Black-Root 510 Upper Mississippi-lowa-Skunk-Wapsipinicon Iowa 890 Upper Miss.-Skunk-Wapsipinicon 753 Upper Mississippi-Kaskaskia-Meramec Kaskaskia 272 Upper Mississippi-Meramec 4,157 Upper Mississippi-Maquoketa-Plum Upper Mississippi-Maquoketa-Plum 202 Upper Mississippi-Salt Upper Mississippi-Salt 426 Wisconsin Wisconsin 289 Upper Mississippi River Region Sum 31,768 17 ------- Coastal versus Inland Needs CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Coastal versus Inland Needs Highlights Total needs: Coastal, $192.7 billion; Inland, $152.1 billion Percentage of total CWNS 2008 needs: Coastal, 56 percent; Inland, 44 percent Changes in needs from 2004: Coastal, increased by $52.4 billion (37 percent); Inland, increased by $15.8 billion (12 percent) Categories with the largest percent increases since 2004 (Coastal): Stormwater Management (Category VI) ($20.2 billion; 273 percent); Advanced Wastewater Treatment (Category II) ($8.2 billion; 50 percent); and New Collector Sewers (Category IV-A) ($3.0 billion; 35 percent) Categories with the largest percent increases since 2004 (Inland): Stormwater Management (Category VI) ($11.5 billion; 362 percent); Advanced Wastewater Treatment (Category II) ($8.2 billion; 67 percent); and Recycled Water Distribution (Category X) ($0.5 billion; 53 percent) Tables & Maps: Figure 5 maps the coastal watersheds; Figure 6 shows the total documented needs for coastal and inland watersheds; Figure 7 displays population receiving treatment from coastal and inland watersheds, based on the quality of effluent treatment; Figure 8 compares the differences between the CWNS 2008 coastal and inland needs with those reported in 2004; and Table 2 documents the total coastal and inland needs by category Discussion Figure 5 shows needs for coastal watersheds2. Although coastal watersheds make up only 13 percent of the land area in the continental United States3, the $192.7 billion in coastal needs account for about 56 percent of total National needs. Coastal watersheds account for most of the needs in Wastewater Treatment (Categories I and II), Sewer Replacement/ Rehabilitation (Category lll-B), Stormwater Management (Category VI), Nonpoint Source Pollution (NPS) Control (Category VII), Recycled Water Distribution (Category X), and Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems (Category XII); while Inland watersheds account for most of the needs in Infiltration/ Inflow Correction (Category lll-A), Collector Sewers (Category IV-A), Interceptor Sewers (Category IV-B), and Combined Sewer Overflow Correction (Category V) (Figure 6). The average coastal and inland needs per capita are $1,700 and $1,400, respectively. Coastal Watersheds Although coastal areas are economically and ecologically productive and diverse, they face increasing pressure to produce a high-quality environment for commerce, industry, tourism, and development. Land in coastal watersheds is the most developed in the Nation. It now supports more than 53 percent (163 million) of the population and is expected to increase by more than 7 percent (12 million) by 2015 (W&PE, 2003). As the coastal population continues to grow, it becomes increasingly important to assess, document, and manage the needs of coastal watersheds. The National Coastal Condition Report III (NCCR III), the third in a series of assessments, describes environmental conditions in coastal areas based on data from over 2,000 sites. The report presents summaries of data from monitoring, assessment, and advisory programs to create a benchmark of coastal conditions from which future progress can be measured. Indicators were calculated for water quality, sediment quality, benthic index, coastal quality, and fish tissue contamination. The CWNS 2008 provides data with a level of detail similar to that of the NCCR III. Therefore, those indicators can be used in conjunction with CWNS 2008 data to prioritize projects or track progress as needs are addressed. 2 Coastal watersheds are defined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (N0AA) using 8-digit watershed HUCs. 3 Approximately 252 million acres of the 2.4 billion acres of land area in the continental United States. ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Coastal versus Inland Needs Coastal Watershed Needs >$1B $0.25-$lB < $0.25B | None reported Figure 5. Watersheds in United States classified as coastal by NOAA (January 2008 dollars in billions). c o ฃ 25,000 (0 jo 20,000 o a Categories: Secondary wastewater treatment ( Advanced wastewater treatment (II Infiltration/inflow correction (lll-A) Sewer replacement/rehabilitation ( Collector sewers (IV-A) -B) Category Interceptor sewers (IV-B) Combined sewer overflow correction (V) Stormwater management (VI) Nonpoint source pollution control (VII) Recycled water distribution (X) Decentralized wastewater treatment systems (XII) Figure 6. Total documented needs in coastal and inland watersheds. 19 ------- Coastal versus Inland Needs CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Table 2. Total documented needs reported within coastal and inland watersheds (January 2008 dollars in billions) Coastal Needs Inland Needs Needs Category $B Percent $B Percent Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment and Conveyance Systems and Stormwater Management Programs 1 Secondary wastewater treatment 38.2 20% 21.7 14% II Advanced wastewater treatment 24.8 13% 20.6 14% lll-A Infiltration/inflow correction 3.3 2% 4.9 3% lll-B Sewer replacement/rehabilitation 18.8 10% 14.8 10% IV-A New collector sewers 10.0 5% 11.4 7% IV-B New interceptor sewers 5.9 3% 13.5 9% V Combined sewer overflow correction 31.2 16% 32.3 21% VI Stormwater management programs 27.6 14% 14.7 10% X Recycled water distribution 3.0 2% 1.4 1% XII Decentralized wastewater treatment systems 16.7 9% 7.2 5% Total Categories l-VI, X, and XII 179.1 94% 142.5 94% Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Vll-A Agriculture (cropland) 0.9 0.5% 0.7 0.5% Vll-B Agriculture (animals) 0.2 0% 0.8 0.6% Vll-C Silviculture <0.1 0% 0.2 0% Vll-E Ground water protection 2.0 1% 2.0 1% Vll-F Marinas <0.1 0% <0.1 0% Vll-G Resource extraction <0.1 0% 0.4 0.3% Vll-H Brownfields 1.3 0.7% 0.7 0.5% Vll-I Storage tanks 2.3 1% 0.7 0.5% Vll-J Sanitary landfills 0.8 0.4% 0.4 0.3% Vll-K Hydromodification 5.4 3% 3.9 3% Vll-M Other estuary management activities <0.1 0% <0.1 0% Total Category VII 13.2 6% 9.6 6% Grand Total 192.7 152.1 Notes: - Costs for operation and maintenance are not included. - For the 2008 CWNS, Urban Water (Category Vii-D) is reported under Stormwater Management (Category VI), Decentralized Sewage Treatment was reported under Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems (Category XII); and a new subcategory, Green Infrastructure (Vl-C) was added to Wastewater Management (Category VI). - Needs estimates presented in this table might vary slightly from those presented elsewhere because of rounding. 20 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Coastal versus Inland Needs Figure 7 displays the number of people receiving each of the four levels of wastewater treatment, distinguished according to location in either coastal or inland watersheds. Less-than-secondary treatment is more prevalent in coastal watersheds (3 percent of the total coastal population of 116.6 million receiving treatment) than in inland watersheds (0.1 percent of the total inland population of 109.9 million receiving treatment). The reason for the difference is that the Clean Water Act (CWA) section 301(h) program grants waivers from the act's secondary treatment requirements to facilities whose discharge to marine waters will not adversely affect the environment. Notes: - No discharge refers to facilities that do not discharge effluent to surface waters (e.g., spray irrigation, ground water recharge). Figure 7. Population receiving various forms of wastewater treatment. 21 ------- Coastal versus Inland Needs CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Figure 8 illustrates the relationship between the CWNS 04 and the CWNS 08 coastal and inland needs. While both areas reported an increase in needs, coastal needs increased significantly ($52.4 billion dollars, 37 percent) since 2004. Figure 8. Total documented CWNS 2008 Coastal and Inland needs compared to that of CWNS 2004 (January 2008 dollars in billions). 22 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs Related to EPA's Targeted Watersheds Grant Program Needs Related to EPA's Targeted Watersheds Grant Program Highlights Total needs: $11.0 billion Percentage of total CWNS 2008 needs: 3 percent Tables & Maps: Figure 9 maps the geographic distribution of the total documented needs by targeted 8-digit watershed; and Table 3 presents the total documented needs within the Targeted Watershed Grants Program; Table 4 presents the total documented needs reported by targeted 8-digit watershed; Table 5 presents the total documented needs for all categories within the targeted watersheds; and Table 6 presents the total documented needs for all categories within the targeted watersheds Discussion The total CWNS 2008 needs reported for projects in the targeted watersheds during 2007 and 2008 are $11.0 billion, or 3 percent of the national need (Table 3). Figure 9 displays the geographic distribution of the total documented needs by targeted watershed. The largest total needs occur in the Saw Mill River and the Connecticut River watersheds, which have $5.3 billion and $3.5 billion in needs, respectively (Table 4). Honey Creek, Lake Champlain, Elizabeth River, and the Santa Cruz River watersheds have needs ranging from $0.3 billion to $0.8 billion. The remaining watersheds account for $0.2 billion in needs. Table 5 and Table 6 present the total documented needs for all categories and watersheds. EPA's Targeted Watersheds Grant Program Established in 2003, the Targeted Watersheds Grant Program is a competitive grant program designed to encourage successful community-based approaches and management techniques to protect and restore the Nation's waters. The watershed organizations receiving grants exhibit strong partnerships with a wide variety of support, creative socioeconomic approaches to water restoration and protection, and explicit monitoring and environmentally based performance measures. To date, EPA has awarded nearly $50 million in grants to 61 watershed organizations across the country. It is important to note that the project requirements for funding under this grant program are different from those for inclusion as a CWNS need. In fact, some CWNS costs are specifically excluded from being funded through this grant program. 23 ------- Needs Related to EPA's Targeted Watersheds Grant Program CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries A Needs In Targeted Watersheds Grants Program > $1B $0.25-$lB < S0.25B \ > None reported Needs in Targeted Watersheds Grants Program = $10.95 Billion Figure 9. Geographic distribution of the total documented needs by targeted 8-digit watershed (January 2008 dollars in billions). 24 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs Related to EPA's Targeted Watersheds Grant Program Table 3. Total documented needs for projects within the Targeted Watershed Grants Program during 2007 and 2008 (January 2008 dollars in billions) Total Needs Needs Category $B Percent Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment and Conveyance Systems and Stormwater Management Programs 1 Secondary wastewater treatment 1.2 ll% II Advanced wastewater treatment 1.2 ll% lll-A Infiltration/inflow correction 0.5 5% lll-B Sewer replacement/rehabilitation 1.3 11% IV-A New collector sewers 0.4 4% IV-B New interceptor sewers 0.5 5% V Combined sewer overflow correction 5.1 46% VI Stormwater management programs 0.3 3% X Recycled water distribution - - XII Decentralized wastewater treatment systems 0.1 1% Total Categories l-VI, X, and XII 10.3 94% Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Vll-A Agriculture (cropland) <0.1 0.1% Vll-B Agriculture (animals) <0.1 0.1% Vll-C Silviculture <0.1 0.3% Vll-E Ground water protection <0.1 0.4% Vll-F Marinas 0 0% Vll-G Resource extraction 0 0% Vll-H Brownfields 0.2 2% Vll-I Storage tanks <0.1 0.2% Vll-J Sanitary landfills <0.1 0.3% Vll-K Hydromodification <0.1 0.4% Vll-M Other estuary management activities - - Total Category VII 0.4 4% Grand Total 11.0 Notes: - Costs for operation and maintenance are not included. - For the 2008 CWNS, Urban Water (Category Vii-D) is reported under Stormwater Management (Category VI), Decentralized Sewage Treatment was reported under Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems (Category XII); and a new subcategory, Green Infrastructure (Vi-C) was added to Wastewater Management (Category VI). - Needs estimates presented in this table might vary slightly from those presented elsewhere because of rounding. 25 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs Related to EPA's Targeted Watersheds Grant Program Table 4. Total documented needs reported by targeted S-digit watershed (January 2008 dollars in billions) Watershed Total Needs Watershed Betsie River, Platte (Ml) <0.1 Mission Creek (MT) <0.1 Clear Creek (CO) <0.1 Nisqually River (WA) Connecticut River (CO) 3.5 Saluda-Reedy Rivers (SC) <0.1 Elizabeth River (VA) 0.5 Santa Cruz River (AZ, Mexico) 0.8 Honey Creek (OH) 0.3 Saw Mill River (NY) 5.3 Lake Champlain (NY,VT) 0.4 Torreon Wash (NM) Lake Helena (MT) <0.1 Upper Klamath (OR) <0.1 Marais des Cygnes Basin (KS,M0) <0.1 Table 5. CWNS 2008 total needs within the Targeted Watersheds Grant Program (January 2008 dollars in millions) Category of Need Targeted Watersheds State(s) Total Betsie River, Platte Ml 33 1 1 2 29 2 Clear Creek CO 30 7 3 3 5 12 0 18 Connecticut River CO 3,498 390 550 467 316 71 49 1,509 6 84 56 3,352 Elizabeth River VA 526 11 24 412 64 15 526 Honey Creek OH 259 5 1 3 1 19 11 160 59 200 Lake Champlain NY, VT 357 35 29 11 15 70 9 81 43 57 7 250 Lake Helena MT 25 9 3 3 4 4 2 23 Marais des Cygnes Basin KS, M0 27 5 10 1 0 3 6 1 1 25 Mission Creek MT 10 6 1 2 1 10 Nisqually River WA Saluda-Reedy Rivers SC 31 13 13 2 2 1 31 Santa Cruz River AZ, Mexico 832 54 283 57 49 380 9 823 Saw Mill River NY 5,305 647 282 23 441 135 45 3,321 224 185 2 4,894 Torreon Wash NM Upper Klamath OR 19 19 Total 10,952 1,183 1,172 534 1,251 423 520 5,071 289 384 Notes: - Blank fields indicate "no data". - Zero indicates "<0.5". Categories: Secondary wastewater treatment (I) Advanced wastewater treatment (II) infiltration/inflow correction (III-A) Sewer replacement/rehabilitation (lll-B) Collector sewers (IV-A) Interceptor sewers (IV-B) Combined sewer overflow correction (V) Stormwater management (VI) Nonpoint source pollution control (VII) Recycled water distribution (X) Decentralized wastewater treatment systems (XIi) 26 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs Related to EPA's Targeted Watersheds Grant Program Table 6. CWNS 2008 nonpoint source needs within the Targeted Watersheds Grant Program (January 2008 dollars in millions) Category of Need Estuary Program State(s) Vll-A Vll-B Vll-C Vll-E Vll-F Vll-G Vll-H VIII Vll-J Vll-K Vll-M Total VII Betsie River, Platte Ml 2 2 14 10 28 Clear Creek CO 0 0 Connecticut River CO 7 0 69 1 7 84 Elizabeth River VA Honey Creek OH Lake Champlain NY, VT 1 4 31 9 5 7 57 Lake Helena MT Marais des Cygnes Basin KS, M0 1 1 Mission Creek MT Nisqually River WA Saluda-Reedy Rivers SC Santa Cruz River AZ, Mexico 0 2 4 3 9 Saw Mill River NY 7 24 123 28 3 185 Torreon Wash NM Upper Klamath OR 19 19 Total 11 6 31 40 0 0 194 18 37 46 0 383 Notes: - Blank fields indicate "no data". - Zero indicates "<0.5". Categories: Agriculture (cropland) (Vll-A) Agriculture (animals) (Vll-B) Silviculture (Vll-C) Ground water protection (Vll-E) Marinas (Vll-F) Resource extraction (Vll-G Brownfields (Vll-H) Storage tanks (VII-1) Sanitary landfills (Vll-J) Hydromodification (Vll-K) Other estuary management activities (Vll-M) 27 ------- Needs Related to EPA's National Estuary Program CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs Related to EPA's National Estuary Program Highlights Total needs: $94.6 billion Percentage of total CWNS 2008 needs: 27 percent Changes in needs from 2004: Increased by $17.3 billion (22 percent) Categories with the largest percent increases since 2004: Advanced Wastewater Treatment (Category II) ($5.6 billion; 78 percent); Secondary Wastewater Treatment (Category I) ($13.2 billion; 56 percent); and Sewer Replacement/Rehabilitation (Category lll-B) ($3.3 billion; 45 percent) Tables & Maps: Table 7 shows the total documented needs for facilities in the 28 designated National Estuary Programs (NEPs); Figure 10 and Table 8 present the geographic distribution of the total documented needs by estuary; Table 9 and Table 10 present the total documented needs for all categories and NEPs Discussion As shown in Table 7, the total documented needs for facilities in the 28 designated NEPs as of January 1, 2008, are $94.6 billion, or 27 percent of the National need. (Note that the Chesapeake Bay is not designated under the National Estuary Program, and therefore its needs are not included here.) The land area related to these estuaries is 4 percent of the total land area of the Nation. Figure 10 and Table 8 present the geographic distribution of the total documented needs by NEP. The largest total needs occur in the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary, which has $40.9 billion in needs. The San Francisco Estuary and the Long Island Sound have $10.7 billion and $4.8 billion in total needs, respectively. Ten other estuaries (Tampa Bay, Galveston Bay, Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds, Indian River Lagoon, Lower Columbia River Estuary, Massachusetts Bays, Charlotte Harbor, Puget Sound, Delaware Estuary, and Santa Monica Bay) have between $1.5 billion and $7.6 billion in needs. The remaining 14 estuaries account for $5.9 billion in needs. Table 9 and Table 10 present the total documented needs for all categories and NEPs. The National Estuary Program Estuaries and the land surrounding them are places of transition from land to sea and from fresh water to salt water. Although influenced by the tides, estuaries are protected from the full force of ocean waves, winds and storms by the reefs, barrier islands or fingers of land, mud or sand that define an estuary's seaward boundary. The tidal, sheltered waters of estuaries support unique communities of plants and animals that are specially adapted for life at the margin of the sea. Estuarine environments are among the most productive on earth, creating more organic matter each year than comparably sized areas of forest, grassland, or agricultural land. Many different habitat types are present in and around estuaries. They include shallow open waters, freshwater and salt marshes, sandy beaches, mud and sand flats, rocky shores, oyster reefs, mangrove forests, river deltas, tidal pools, sea grass and kelp beds, and wooded swamps. The mission of EPA's National Estuary Program (NEP) is to restore and protect America's nationally significant estuaries. Congress established the NEP in 1987 to improve the quality of estuaries of National importance through the protection of public water supplies and the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife. The program promotes recreational activities, in and on the water, and utilizes additional control of point and nonpoint sources of pollution beyond existing pollution controls. Each designated estuary program establishes a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) and convenes a management conference to develop a plan for coordinating the implementation of the CCMP among Federal, State, and local agencies. The goal of the CCMP is to institutionalize the recommendations made in the plan by identifying the "implementers" and providing a framework for coordinating their efforts. The implementers may include existing agencies and organizations or new entities, as recommended in the CCMP. 28 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs Related to EPA's National Estuary Program New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary / Lower Columbia River Estuary San Francisco Estuary Galveston Bay Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine Complex Charlotte'ฎ Harbor /T_ Sarasota Bay Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries Tillamook Bay Indian River Lagoon \ asco Bay New Hampshire Estuaries Massachusetts Bays Buzzards Bay Narragansett Bay Long Island Sound Pe'conic Estuary Barnegat Bay Delaware Estuary Delaware Inland Bays Maryland Coastal Bays Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds National Estuary Program Needs > $10B $1-$10B <$1B San Juan Bay / ฆD- Puerto Rico Figure 10. Geographic distribution of the total documented needs by National Estuary Program (January 2008 dollars in billions). 29 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs Related to EPA's National Estuary Program Table 7. Total documented needs reported within National Estuary Program boundaries (January 2008 dollars in billions) Total Needs Needs Category $B Percent Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment and Conveyance Systems and Stormwater Management Programs 1 Secondary wastewater treatment 27.7 29% 11 Adva need wastewater treatment 12.0 13% lll-A Infiltration/inflow correction 1.3 1% lll-B Sewer replacement/rehabilitation 8.7 9% IV-A New collector sewers 4.4 5% IV-B New interceptor sewers 3.5 4% V Combined sewer overflow correction 19.0 20% VI Stormwater management programs 4.7 5% X Recycled water distribution 1.8 2% XII Decentralized wastewater treatment systems 5.8 6% Total Categories l-VI, X, and XII 88.9 94% Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Vll-A Agriculture (cropland) 0.1 0% Vll-B Agriculture (animals) <0.1 0% Vll-C Silviculture - - Vll-E Ground water protection 0.9 0.9% Vll-F Marinas <0.1 0% Vll-G Resource extraction <0.1 0% Vll-H Brownfields 1.3 1% Vll-I Storage tanks <0.1 0% Vll-J Sanitary landfills 0.7 0.7% Vll-K Hydromodification 2.6 3% Vll-M Other estuary management activities 0.1 0% Total Category VII 5.7 6% Grand Total 94.6 Notes: - Costs for operation and maintenance are not included. - For the 2008 CWNS, Urban Water (Category Vii-D) is reported under Stormwater Management (Category VI), Decentralized Sewage Treatment was reported under Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems (Category XII); and a new subcategory, Green Infrastructure (Vi-C) was added to Wastewater Management (Category VI). - Needs estimates presented in this table might vary slightly from those presented elsewhere because of rounding. 30 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs Related to EPA's National Estuary Program Table 8. Total documented needs reported by designated estuaries under the National Estuary Program (January 2008 dollars in billions) Estuary Total Needs Estuary Albemarle-Pamlico Sounds (VA, NC) 2.1 Massachusetts Bays (MA) 2.9 Barataria-Terrebonne Estuarine Complex (LA) 0.4 Mobile Bay (AL) 0.4 Barnegat Bay (NJ) 0.4 Narragansett Bay (MA, Rl) 0.8 Buzzards Bay (MA) 0.5 New Hampshire Estuaries (NH) 0.3 Casco Bay (ME) 0.5 New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary (NJ, NY) 40.9 Charlotte Harbor (FL) 2.8 Peconic Estuary (NY) 0.4 Coastal Bend Bays and Estuaries (TX) 0.4 Puget Sound (WA) 4.2 Delaware Estuary (DE, MD, NJ, PA) 5.4 San Francisco Estuary (CA) 10.7 Delaware Inland Bays (DE) 0.1 San Juan Bay (PR) 0.2 Galveston Bay (TX) 1.7 Santa Monica Bay (CA) 7.6 Indian River Lagoon (FL) 2.2 Sarasota Bay (FL) 0.9 Long Island Sound (CT, NY) 4.8 Tampa Bay (FL) 1.5 Lower Columbia River Estuary (OR, WA) 2.3 Tillamook Bay (OR) <0.1 Maryland Coastal Bays (MD) <0.1 31 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs Related to EPA's National Estuary Program Table 9. CWNS 2008 total needs within the National Estuary Program (January 2008 dollars in millions) Category of Need Estuary Program State(s) Total 1 II lll-A 1MB IV-A IV-B V Total VI Total VII X XII Total l-V Albemarle- Pamlico Sounds VA, NC 2,111 51 418 156 301 333 739 27 24 62 0 1,998 Barataria- Terrebonne Estuarlne Complex LA 357 336 1 9 8 1 2 355 Barnegat Bay NJ 448 45 16 14 46 62 1 0 18 11 235 184 Buzzards Bay MA 484 90 3 322 58 11 473 Casco Bay ME 474 68 0 4 73 91 2 2 234 236 Charlotte Harbor FL 2,849 364 7 30 29 44 136 60 46 2,133 474 Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries TX 368 105 43 55 42 24 64 33 2 333 Delaware Estuary DE, MD, NJ, PA 5,376 350 124 61 284 216 60 3,063 4 674 33 507 4,158 Delaware Inland Bays DE 123 4 52 12 54 1 123 Galveston Bay TX 1,671 337 261 22 366 315 277 16 12 65 1,578 Indian River Lagoon FL 2,213 317 27 9 11 501 748 40 560 364 Long Island Sound CT, NY 4,775 734 568 549 53 160 235 1,528 5 655 288 3,827 Lower Columbia River Estuary OR, WA 2,340 865 286 5 255 268 147 427 87 0 2,253 Maryland Coastal Bays MD 43 23 6 2 9 0 3 40 Massachusetts Bays MA 2,869 156 703 3 188 258 1,331 3 19 0 208 2,639 Mobile Bay AL 362 71 52 12 126 86 15 362 Morro Bay CA Narragansett Bay MA, Rl 833 90 390 11 15 234 36 0 57 776 New Hampshire Estuaries NH 264 111 30 8 25 2 15 50 23 241 32 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs Related to EPA's National Estuary Program Table 9. CWNS 2008 total needs within the National Estuary Program (January 2008 dollars in millions) (continued) Category of Neet Estuary Program State(s) Total 1 II lll-A lll-B IV-A IV-B V Total VI Total VII X XII Total l-V New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary NJ, NY 40,928 14,983 5,140 231 3,682 581 170 11,570 895 2,976 21 679 36,357 Peconic Estuary NY 423 5 2 0 1 10 405 8 PugetSound WA 4,238 1,354 352 81 617 727 98 560 323 126 3,789 San Francisco Estuary CA 10,707 4,628 1,756 1,901 294 646 233 10 1,239 9,458 San Juan Bay PR 231 16 48 77 90 231 Santa Monica Bay CA 7,585 3,260 611 336 791 2,579 8 4,998 Sarasota Bay FL 860 64 17 97 223 2 53 6 398 403 Tampa Bay FL 1,530 457 18 264 15 84 54 26 153 459 838 Tillamook Bay OR 24 24 0 24 Total 94,486 27,706 12,016 1,298 8,682 4,379 3,492 18,947 4,728 5,657 1,812 5,769 76,520 Notes: - Blank fields indicate "no data". - Zero indicates "<0.5". Categories: Secondary wastewater treatment (I) Advanced wastewater treatment (II) infiltration/inflow correction (III-A) Sewer replacement/rehabilitation (lll-B) Collector sewers (IV-A) interceptor sewers (IV-B) Combined sewer overflow correction (V) Stormwater management (VI) Nonpoint source pollution control (VII) Recycled water distribution (X) Decentralized wastewater treatment systems (XII) 33 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs Related to EPA's National Estuary Program Table 10. CWNS 2008 nonpoint source needs within the National Estuary Program (January 2008 dollars in millions) Category of Need Estuary Program State(s) VII-A Vll-B Vll-C Vll-E Vll-F Vll-G Vll-H VIII VII-J Vll-K VMM Total VII Albemarle- Pamlico Sounds VA, NC 0 0 24 24 Barataria- Terrebonne Estuarlne Complex LA 2 2 Barnegat Bay NJ 1 5 0 2 3 3 4 18 Buzzards Bay MA Casco Bay ME 2 2 Charlotte Harbor FL 60 60 Coastal Bend Bays & Estuaries TX 1 32 33 Delaware Estuary DE, MD, NJ, PA 33 3 85 32 268 0 231 21 673 Delaware Inland Bays DE Galveston Bay TX 1 4 8 13 Indian River Lagoon FL 20 728 748 Long Island Sound CT, NY 100 2 356 177 20 655 Lower Columbia River Estuary OR, WA 0 0 0 Maryland Coastal Bays MD MD 3 3 Massachusetts Bays MA 19 19 Mobile Bay AL Morro Bay CA Narragansett Bay MA, Rl New Hampshire Estuaries NH 34 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs Related to EPA's National Estuary Program Table 10. CWNS 2008 nonpoint source needs within the National Estuary Program (January 2008 dollars in millions) (continued) Category of Need Estuary Program State(s) Vll-A Vll-B Vll-C Vll-E Vll-F Vll-G Vll-H VIII Vll-J Vll-K Vll-M Total VII New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary NJ, NY 22 0 333 0 651 3 302 1,662 2 2,975 Peconic Estuary NY 0 330 1 13 60 1 405 Puget Sound WA San Francisco Estuary CA San Juan Bay PR Santa Monica Bay CA Sarasota Bay FL Tampa Bay FL 18 8 26 Tillamook Bay OR 0 0 Total 76 ฆ 854 2 32 1,277 4 729 2,603 74 5,656 Notes: - Blank fields indicate "no data". - Zero indicates "<0.5". Categories: Agriculture (cropland) (Vll-A) Agriculture (animals) (Vll-B) Silviculture (Vll-C) Ground water protection (Vll-E) Marinas (Vll-F) Resource extraction (Vll-G Brownfields (Vll-H) Storage tanks (VII-1) Sanitary landfills (Vll-J) Hydromodification (Vll-K) Other estuary management activities (Vll-M) 35 ------- Needs Related to the Gulf of Mexico Drainage Basin CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs Related to the Gulf of Mexico Drainage Basin Highlights Total needs: $106.6 billion Percentage of total CWNS 2008 needs: 31 percent Changes in needs from 2004: Increased by $7.5 billion (8 percent) Categories with the largest percent increases since 2004: Advanced Wastewater Treatment (Category II) ($2.5 billion; 38 percent); Sewer Replacement/Rehabilitation (Category lll-B) ($3.4 billion; 37 percent); Secondary Wastewater Treatment (Category I) ($4.0 billion; 33 percent); and Stormwater Management (Category VI) ($1.7 billion; 33 percent) Tables & Maps: Figure 11 and Table 11 show the total documented needs for facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Drainage Basin; Table 12 and Table 13 show the total documented needs by watershed and by State; Table 14 and Table 15 present the total documented needs for all major river basins, by category, within the Gulf of Mexico Drainage Basin Discussion The total documented needs for facilities in the Gulf of Mexico Drainage Basin as of January 1, 2008, are $106.6 billion, or 31 percent of the National need (Figure 11 and Table 11). The land area related to these needs is 56 percent of the total land area of the Nation. Table 12 and Table 13 show the total documented needs by watershed and by State, respectively. The largest total needs occur in the Upper Mississippi River Basin and the Ohio River Basin, with $31.8 billion and $25.8 billion in needs, respectively. The Texas-Gulf, the Missouri River Basin, and the South Atlantic- Gulf Basin, have total needs ranging from $10.7 billion to $14.0 billion. These five river basins account for 88 percent of the total needs in the Gulf of Mexico drainage basin. Table 14 and Table 15 present the total documented needs for all major river basins, by category, within the Gulf of Mexico Drainage Basin. Gulf of Mexico Drainage Basin The Gulf of Mexico Drainage Basin is the largest watershed in the United States, encompassing all or part of 33 States. A hypoxic zone (oxygen deficiency) forms annually on the Gulf of Mexico's Texas-Louisiana continental shelf and is virtually devoid of marine life. It is a result of excess nutrients delivered from the Mississippi River in combination with seasonal layering of Gulf waters. These nutrients are from a many sources in the watershed including: fertilizers applied to agricultural fields, golf courses, and suburban lawns; deposition of nitrogen from the atmosphere; erosion of soil containing nutrients; and sewage treatment plant discharges. The hypoxia in the Mississippi River Basin has been growing significantly over the years and is now estimated to encompass about 7,000 square miles, twice the size it was in 1993. EPA formed the Gulf of Mexico Program in 1988 as a nonregulatory, inclusive partnership to provide a broad geographic focus on the major environmental issues in the Gulf. It has identified six priorities for action: water quality for healthy beaches and shellfish beds, habitat conservation and restoration, ecosystems integration and assessment, nutrient reduction and nutrient impacts, coastal community resiliency, and environmental education. 36 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs Related to the Gulf of Mexico Drainage Basin Figure 11. Gulf of Mexico drainage basin needs (January 2008 dollars in billions). 37 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs Related to the Gulf of Mexico Drainage Basin Table 11. Total documented needs reported within the Gulf of Mexico drainage basin (January 2008 dollars in billions) Total Needs Needs Category $B Percent Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment and Conveyance Systems and Stormwater Management Programs I Secondary wastewater treatment 16.2 15% II Advanced wastewater treatment 9.0 8% lll-A Infiltration/inflow correction 5.0 5% lll-B Sewer replacement/rehabilitation 12.6 12% IV-A New collector sewers 6.6 6% IV-B New interceptor sewers 8.5 8% V Combined sewer overflow correction 27.1 25% VI Stormwater management programs 7.1 6% X Recycled water distribution 0.7 1% XII Decentralized wastewater treatment systems 7.0 7% Total Categories l-VI, X, and XII 99.8 93% Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Vll-A Agriculture (cropland) 0.2 0.3% Vll-B Agriculture (animals) 0.7 1% Vll-C Silviculture <0.1 0% Vll-E Ground water protection 1.4 1% Vll-F Marinas <0.1 0% Vll-G Resource extraction 0.2 0.3% Vll-H Brownfields 0.6 1% Vll-I Storage tanks <0.1 0% Vll-J Sanitary landfills 0.2 0.2% Vll-K Hydromodification 3.3 3% Vll-M Other estuary management activities 0.1 0% Total Category VII 6.8 7% Grand Total 106.6 Notes: - Costs for operation and maintenance are not included. - For the 2008 CWNS, Urban Water (Category Vii-D) is reported under Stormwater Management (Category VI), Decentralized Sewage Treatment was reported under Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems (Category XII); and a new subcategory, Green Infrastructure (Vi-C) was added to Wastewater Management (Category VI). - Needs estimates presented in this table might vary slightly from those presented elsewhere because of rounding. 38 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs Related to the Gulf of Mexico Drainage Basin Table 12. Total documented needs reported by watershed within the Gulf of Mexico drainage basin (January 2008 dollars in billions) Watershed Total Needs Watershed Total Needs Arkansas-White-Red Rivers 3.7 South Atlantic-Gulf 14.0 Lower Mississippi River 6.4 Tennessee River 2.0 Missouri River 11.4 Texas-Gulf 10.7 Ohio River 25.8 Upper Mississippi River 31.8 Rio Grande 1.0 Table 13. Total documented needs reported by State within the Gulf of Mexico drainage basin (January 2008 dollars in billions). State Total Needs State Total Needs Alabama 4.4 North Carolina 0.3 Arkansas 0.9 North Dakota - Colorado 1.1 Nebraska 4.6 Florida 8.1 New Mexico 0.1 Georgia 0.1 New York 0.1 Iowa 3.7 Ohio 9.7 Illinois 17.3 Oklahoma 1.3 Indiana 6.1 Pennsylvania 4.4 Kansas 3.2 South Dakota 0.1 Kentucky 2.1 Tennessee 1.4 Louisiana 4.9 Texas 11.7 Maryland <0.1 Virginia 0.5 Minnesota 5.1 Wisconsin 1.8 Missouri 6.5 West Virginia 3.3 Mississippi 3.3 Wyoming 0.3 Montana 0.4 39 ------- Needs Related to the Gulf of Mexico Drainage Basin CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Table 14. CWNS 2008 total needs within the Gulf of Mexico drainage area (January 2008 dollars in millions) Category of Need Watershed Name Total 1 II lll-A lll-B IV-A IV-B V Total VI Total VII X XII Total l-V Arkansas-White- Red Rivers 3,712 706 618 95 675 295 456 339 413 4 111 2,845 Lower Mississippi River 6,418 1,367 205 1,154 918 493 240 246 1,716 22 57 4,377 Missouri River 11,391 2,258 1,332 842 822 206 1,451 2,191 439 1,739 6 105 9,102 Ohio River 25,772 2,214 726 1,001 3,149 2,362 1,745 11,787 995 226 8 1,559 22,984 Rio Grande 951 246 181 4 110 166 198 1 20 24 1 906 South Atlantic-Gulf 13,952 633 2,372 353 2,193 1,164 904 1 503 1,155 390 4,284 7,620 Tennessee River 1,996 506 136 202 347 485 237 1 18 60 4 1,914 Texas-Gulf 10,716 2,289 1,148 320 1,197 655 1,527 3,126 149 305 7,136 Upper Mississippi River 31,767 5,985 2,290 1,042 3,226 770 1,766 13,089 1,394 1,293 912 28,168 Total 106,675 16,204 9,008 5,013 12,637 6,596 8,524 27,070 7,080 6,775 736 7,032 85,052 Notes: - Blank fields indicate "no data". - Zero indicates "<0.5". Categories: Secondary wastewater treatment (I) Advanced wastewater treatment (II) infiltration/inflow correction (lll-A) Sewer replacement/rehabilitation (lll-B) Collector sewers (IV-A) Interceptor sewers (IV-B) Combined sewer overflow correction (V) Stormwater management (VI) Nonpoint source pollution control (VII) Recycled water distribution (X) Decentralized wastewater treatment systems (XII) 40 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs Related to the Gulf of Mexico Drainage Basin Table 15. CWNS 2008 nonpoint source needs within the Gulf of Mexico drainage area (January 2008 dollars in millions) Category of Need Total Watershed Name Vll-A Vll-B Vll-C Vll-E Vll-F Vll-G Vll-H VIII Vll-J Vll-K Vll-M VII Arkansas-White-Red Rivers 18 373 0 19 1 1 412 Lower Mississippi River 66 83 13 8 1,545 1,715 Missouri River 37 28 0 1,355 1 1 9 130 178 1,739 Ohio River 15 3 0 1 1 153 6 45 224 Rio Grande 1 13 11 25 South Atlantic-Gulf 15 171 8 14 2 15 922 8 1,155 Tennessee River 0 4 0 1 55 60 Texas-Gulf 2 3 52 1 17 32 42 149 Upper Mississippi River 99 24 2 540 4 58 566 1,293 Total 252 686 23 1,374 4 246 556 15 222 3,344 50 6,772| Notes: - Blank fields indicate "no data". - Zero indicates "<0.5". Categories: Agriculture (cropland) (Vll-A) Agriculture (animals) (Vll-B) Silviculture (Vll-C) Ground water protection (Vll-E) Marinas (Vll-F) Resource extraction (Vll-G Brownfields (Vll-H) Storage tanks (Vll-I) Sanitary landfills (Vll-J) Hydromodification (Vll-K) Other estuary management activities (Vli-M) 41 ------- Needs Related to the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs Related to the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin Highlights Total needs: $32.1 billion Percentage of total CWNS 2008 needs: 9 percent Changes in needs from 2004: Increased by $8.0 billion (33 percent) Categories with the largest percent increases since 2004: Stormwater Management (Category VI) ($9.4 billion; 1,988 percent); Secondary Wastewater Treatment (Category I) ($0.9 billion; 44 percent); and Combined Sewer Overflow Correction (Category V) ($1.0 billion; 27 percent) Tables & Maps: Figure 12 and Table 16 show the total needs reported for facilities in the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin; Table 17 and Table 18 display the total documented needs by watershed and by State; Table 19 and Table 20 present the total documented needs for all categories and watersheds Discussion The total reported for facilities in the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin as of January 1, 2008, are $32.1 billion, or 9 percent of the National need (Figure 12 and Table 16). The land area related to these needs is 2 percent of the total land area of the Nation. Table 17 and Table 18 display the total documented needs by watershed and by State, respectively. The largest total needs occur in the Potomac watershed, which has $10.8 billion in needs. The James, Upper Susquehanna, Lower Susquehanna, and Upper Chesapeake watersheds have needs ranging from $2.5 billion to $8.6 billion. Approximately 9 percent of the needs are in the remaining watersheds. Table 19 and Table 20 present the total documented needs for all categories and watersheds. Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin The Chesapeake Bay Program is the unique regional partnership that has been facilitating the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay since the signing of the historic Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1983 and the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. A primary goal of the program is to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment loads to support living resources throughout the bay's ecosystem. In May 2009, President Obama issued the Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration Executive Order declaring the Chesapeake Bay a "national treasure". The executive order calls for a "renewed commitment" to restoring, protecting, and improving the bay as well as its resources. As a result, the Federal Leadership Committee (Committee) was established to develop and oversee the implementation of restoration strategies and programs for the bay. The Committee, chaired by the EPA, involves the collaboration of several Federal Agencies including, but not limited to, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Transportation. Working together, the Committee is developing actionable plans to protect and sustain the Chesapeake Bay. 42 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs Related to the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin 43 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs Related to the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin Table 16. Total documented needs reported within the Chesapeake Bay drainage basin (January 2008 dollars in billions) Total Needs Needs Category $B Percent Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment and Conveyance Systems and Stormwater Management Programs I Secondary wastewater treatment 2.9 9% 11 Adva need wastewater treatment 4.5 14% lll-A Infiltration/inflow correction 0.4 1% lll-B Sewer replacement/rehabilitation 2.3 7% IV-A New collector sewers 1.0 3% IV-B New interceptor sewers 0.7 2% V Combined sewer overflow correction 4.8 15% VI Stormwater management programs 9.9 30% X Recycled water distribution <0.1 0% XII Decentralized wastewater treatment systems 4.9 15% Total Categories l-VI, X, and XII 31.4 96% Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Vll-A Agriculture (cropland) 0.1 0.3% Vll-B Agriculture (animals) 0.2 1% Vll-C Silviculture - - Vll-E Ground water protection <0.1 0% Vll-F Marinas <0.1 0% Vll-G Resource extraction 0.2 0.4% Vll-H Brownfields - - Vll-I Storage tanks <0.1 0% Vll-J Sanitary landfills 0.02 0% Vll-K Hydromodification 0.3 1% Vll-M Other estuary management activities - - Total Category VII 0.8 3% Grand Total 32.2 Notes: - Costs for operation and maintenance are not included. - For the 2008 CWNS, Urban Water (Category Vii-D) is reported under Stormwater Management (Category VI), Decentralized Sewage Treatment was reported under Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems (Category XII); and a new subcategory, Green Infrastructure (Vi-C) was added to Wastewater Management (Category VI). - Needs estimates presented in this table might vary slightly from those presented elsewhere because of rounding. 44 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs Related to the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin Table 17. Total documented needs reported by watershed within the Chesapeake Bay drainage basin (January 2008 dollars in billions) Watershed Total Needs Watershed James 2.5 Upper Chesapeake 8.6 Lower Chesapeake 1.1 Upper Susquehanna 2.9 Lower Susquehanna 4.2 West Branch Susquehanna 1.9 Potomac 10.8 Table 18. Total documented needs reported by State within the Chesapeake Bay drainage basin (January 2008 dollars in billions) State Total Needs State District of Columbia 2.5 Pennsylvania 9.0 Delaware <0.1 Virginia 5.9 Maryland 13.7 West Virginia 0.5 New York 0.4 Table 19. CWNS 2008 total needs within the Chesapeake Bay drainage area (January 2008 dollars in millions Category of Need Total Total Watershed Name Total 1 II lll-A 1MB IV-A IV-B V Total VI VII X XII l-V James 2,514 215 593 51 728 219 103 605 2,514 Lower Chesapeake 1,137 325 360 91 193 105 63 1,137 Lower Susquehanna 4,213 90 204 3 93 192 20 912 2,649 50 1,514 Potomac 10,817 1,464 2,104 104 554 125 275 2,053 1,747 158 2,233 6,679 Upper Chesapeake 8,605 618 1,056 124 622 127 181 308 2,539 337 2 2,691 3,036 Upper Susquehanna 2,875 146 98 8 73 156 16 722 1,605 51 0 1,219 West Branch Susquehanna 1,905 25 49 5 37 90 10 238 1,298 153 454 Total 32,066 2,883 4,464 386 2,300 1,014 668 4,838 9,838 749 2 4,924 16,553 Notes: Categories: - Blank fields indicate "no data". Secondary wastewater treatment (i) - Zero indicates "<0.5". Advanced wastewater treatment (ii) Infiltration/inflow correction (lll-A) Sewer replacement/rehabilitation (iil-B) Collector sewers (IV-A) Interceptor sewers (IV-B) Combined sewer overflow correction (V) Stormwater management (VI) Nonpoint source pollution control (VII) Recycled water distribution (X) Decentralized wastewater treatment systems (Xli) 45 ------- Needs Related to the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Table 20. CWNS 2008 nonpoint source needs within the Chesapeake Bay drainage area (January 2008 dollars in millions) Category of Need Watershed Name Vll-A Vll-B Vll-C Vll-E Vll-F Vll-G Vll-H VIII Vll-J Vll-K Vll-M Total VII James Lower Chesapeake Lower Susquehanna 14 6 16 i 14 51 Potomac 33 75 2 0 9 39 158 Upper Chesapeake 48 102 0 6 181 337 Upper Susquehanna 7 16 7 6 1 14 51 West Branch Susquehanna 5 7 122 18 152 Total 107 7 0 146 16 Notes: - Blank fields indicate "no data" - Zero indicates "<0.5". Categories: Agriculture (cropland) (Vll-A) Agriculture (animals) (Vll-B) Silviculture (Vll-C) Ground water protection (Vll-E) Marinas (Vll-F) Resource extraction (Vll-G) Brownfields (Vll-H) Storage tanks (Vll-I) Sanitary landfills (Vll-J) Hydromodification (Vll-K) Other estuary management activities (Vli-M) 46 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs Related to the Great Lakes Drainage Basin Needs Related to the Great Lakes Drainage Basin Highlights Total needs: $23.5 billion Percentage of total CWNS 2008 needs: 7 percent Changes in needs from 2004: Decreased by $0.6 billion (2 percent) Categories with the largest percent increases since 2004: Stormwater Management (Category VI) ($0.6 billion; 181 percent); Advanced Wastewater Treatment (Category II) ($0.2 billion; 48 percent); and Sewer Replacement/Rehabilitation (Category lll-B) ($0.8 billion; 36 percent) Tables & Maps: Figure 13 and Table 21 show the total needs reported for facilities in the Great Lakes Drainage Basin; Table 22 and Table 23 present the total documented needs by watershed and State; Table 24 and Table 25 present the total documented needs for all categories and watersheds Discussion The total reported for facilities in the Great Lakes Drainage Basin as of January 1, 2008, are $23.5 billion, or 7 percent of the National need (Figure 13 and Table 21). The land area related to these needs is 4 percent of the total land area of the Nation. Table 22 and Table 23 present the total documented needs by watershed and State, respectively. Over half (56 percent) of the total needs occur in the St. Clair-Detroit, Southern Lake Erie and Southwestern Lake Michigan watersheds, which have needs of $4.1 billion to $4.9 billion, respectively. The Eastern Lake Erie, Southeastern Lake Michigan, and Western Lake Erie watersheds have needs ranging from $1.3 billion to $2.1 billion. The remaining 21 watersheds account for $9.0 billion (38 percent) of the total need in the Great Lakes Drainage Basin. Table 24 and Table 25 present the total documented needs for all categories and watersheds. EPA's Great Lakes Program The Great Lakes-Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie and Ontario-make up the nation's largest fresh surface water ecosystem. The Great Lakes Interagency Task Force (IATF), chaired and coordinated by EPA, was created in May of 2004 under a presidential executive order to implement federal efforts to protect and restore the Great Lakes. The IATF focuses on environmental outcomes like cleaner water and sustainable fisheries, and target measurable results. To date, the IATF has set the framework for a shared commitment to protecting and restoring the Great Lakes by establishing several strategies, initiatives, and implementation plans to sustain the lakes now and into the future (http://www.glrc.us/). In 2009, President BarackObama made restoring the Great Lakes a national priority when he signed the Great Lakes Restoration Funding Initiative into law. The initiative, which includes and unprecedented $475 million in funding, focuses on addressing the most significant problems in the region, including invasive aquatic species, non-point source pollution, and contaminated sediment. 47 ------- Needs Related to the Great Lakes Drainage Basin CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Great Lakes Drainage Basin Needs > $1B II11IIII $0.25-$lB < $0,258 Watersheds: Eastern Lake Erie (1) Fox (2) Lake Erie (3) Lake Huron (4) Lake Michigan (5) Lake Ontario (6) Lake Superior (7) Northeastern Lake Michigan (8) Northeastern Lake Ontario (9) Northwestern Lake Huron (10) Northwestern Lake Michigan (11) Northwestern Lake Superior (12) Oswego (13) Saginaw (14) Southcentral Lake Superior (15) Southeastern Lake Michigan (16) Southeastern Lake Ontario (17) Southeastern Lake Superior (18) Southern Lake Erie (19) Southwestern Lake Huron (20) Southwestern Lake Michigan (21) Southwestern Lake Ontario (22) Southwestern Lake Superior (23) St. Ciair-Detroit (24) St. Lawrence (25) St. Louis (26) Western Lake Erie (27) Figure 13, Great Lakes drainage area needs (January 2008 dollars in billions). 48 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs Related to the Great Lakes Drainage Basin Table 21. Total documented needs reported within the Great Lakes drainage basin (January 2008 dollars in billions) Total Needs Needs Category $B Percent Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment and Conveyance Systems and Stormwater Management Programs I Secondary wastewater treatment 3.1 13% 11 Adva need wastewater treatment 0.7 3% lll-A Infiltration/inflow correction 0.5 3% lll-B Sewer replacement/rehabilitation 2.9 12% IV-A New collector sewers 0.7 3% IV-B New interceptor sewers 0.6 3% V Combined sewer overflow correction 9.4 40% VI Stormwater management programs 1.0 4% X Recycled water distribution - - XII Decentralized wastewater treatment systems 0.7 3% Total Categories l-VI, X, and XII 19.7 83% Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Vll-A Agriculture (cropland) 0.1 0.4% Vll-B Agriculture (animals) <0.1 0.2% Vll-C Silviculture <0.1 0.3% Vll-E Ground water protection <0.1 0.2% Vll-F Marinas - - Vll-G Resource extraction <0.1 0% Vll-H Brownfields <0.1 0.1% Vll-I Storage tanks 3.0 13% Vll-J Sanitary landfills <0.1 0.2% Vll-K Hydromodification 0.5 2% Vll-M Other estuary management activities - - Total Category VII 3.9 17% Grand Total 23.6 Notes: - Costs for operation and maintenance are not included. - For the 2008 CWNS, Urban Water (Category Vii-D) is reported under Stormwater Management (Category VI), Decentralized Sewage Treatment was reported under Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems (Category XII); and a new subcategory, Green Infrastructure (Vi-C) was added to Wastewater Management (Category VI). - Needs estimates presented in this table might vary slightly from those presented elsewhere because of rounding. 49 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs Related to the Great Lakes Drainage Basin Table 22. Total documented needs reported by watershed within the Great Lakes drainage basin (January 2008 dollars in billions) Watershed Total Needs Watershed Total Needs Eastern Lake Erie 1.3 Southcentral Lake Superior 0.1 Fox 0.9 Southeastern Lake Michigan 1.8 Lake Erie <0.1 Southeastern Lake Ontario 0.2 Lake Huron <0.1 Southeastern Lake Superior 0.3 Lake Michigan 0.1 Southern Lake Erie 4.2 Lake Ontario <0.1 Southwestern Lake Huron 0.1 Lake Superior <0.1 Southwestern Lake Michigan 4.9 Northeastern Lake Michigan 0.5 Southwestern Lake Ontario 0.3 Northeastern Lake Ontario 0.1 Southwestern Lake Superior <0.1 Northwestern Lake Huron 0.1 St. Clair-Detroit 4.1 Northwestern Lake Michigan 0.2 St. Lawrence 0.4 Northwestern Lake Superior 0.1 St. Louis 0.4 Oswego 1.0 Western Lake Erie 2.1 Saginaw 0.5 Table 23. Total documented needs reported by State within the Great Lakes drainage basin (January 2008 dollars in billions) State Total Needs State Illinois 0.2 New York 3.1 Indiana 1.6 Ohio 5.8 Michigan 7.0 Pennsylvania 0.3 Minnesota 0.5 Wisconsin 4.8 50 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs Related to the Great Lakes Drainage Basin Table 24. CWNS 2008 total needs within the Great Lakes drainage area (January 2008 dollars in millions) Category of Need Watershed Name Total I Eastern Lake Erie 1,343 156 11 20 118 85 34 829 32 58 0 1,253 Fox 878 165 320 31 124 31 37 167 3 708 Lake Erie 67 25 18 19 2 3 64 Lake Huron 1 1 0 1 Lake Michigan 56 12 3 41 56 Lake Ontario 8 4 2 1 1 7 Lake Superior 8 3 0 3 2 8 Northeastern Lake Michigan 512 16 0 3 49 20 424 68 Northeastern Lake Ontario 142 19 3 31 1 87 1 0 0 141 Northwestern Lake Huron 133 1 2 1 8 7 114 12 Northwestern Lake Michigan 226 44 14 15 39 14 6 39 55 132 Northwestern Lake Superior 160 77 18 65 0 95 Oswego 1,037 150 96 42 87 70 25 449 16 102 0 919 Saginaw 456 2 5 14 0 435 21 Southcentral Lake Superior 118 3 3 1 20 3 88 27 Southeastern Lake Michigan 1,751 118 3 45 21 10 714 13 815 12 911 Southeastern Lake Ontario 256 41 16 30 3 146 3 17 236 Southeastern Lake Superior 37 37 Southern Lake Erie 4,251 313 137 76 144 114 27 3,169 7 264 3,980 Southwestern Lake Huron 142 12 3 127 15 Southwestern Lake Michigan 4,584 1,003 42 154 1,413 37 301 1,208 208 217 1 4,158 Southwestern Lake Ontario 278 39 4 18 44 6 131 4 32 0 242 Southwestern Lake Superior 36 4 3 4 13 11 0 1 35 St. Clair-Detroit 4,124 710 23 32 683 34 58 1,151 271 1,162 2,691 St. Lawrence 361 23 0 12 17 2 188 1 118 242 St. Louis 440 49 22 2 57 1 63 117 3 126 194 Western Lake Erie 2,065 191 13 71 79 86 67 1,189 4 74 291 1,696 Total 23,470 3,100 681 539 2,900 654 637 9,401 979 3,882 n Notes: - Blank fields indicate "no data" - Zero indicates "<0.5". Categories: Secondary wastewater treatment (I) Advanced wastewater treatment (II) infiltration/inflow correction (III-A) Sewer replacement/rehabilitation (lll-B) Collector sewers (IV-A) interceptor sewers (IV-B) Combined sewer overflow correction (V) Stormwater management (VI) Nonpoint source pollution control (VII) Recycled water distribution (X) Decentralized wastewater treatment systems (XII) 51 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs Related to the Great Lakes Drainage Basin Table 25. CWNS 2008 nonpoint source needs within the Great Lakes drainage area (January 2008 dollars in millions) Category of Need Watershed Name Vll-A Vll-B Vll-C Vll-E Vll-F Vll-G Vll-H VIII Total Vll-J Vll-K Vll-M VII Eastern Lake Erie 4 2 3 5 0 43 57 Fox 0 2 0 1 3 Lake Erie Lake Huron Lake Michigan Lake Ontario 0 1 1 Lake Superior Northeastern Lake Michigan 30 3 0 0 0 318 72 423 Northeastern Lake Ontario 0 0 Northwestern Lake Huron 1 3 1 1 89 21 116 Northwestern Lake Michigan 0 6 0 0 48 1 55 Northwestern Lake Superior 0 0 0 0 Oswego 5 10 17 19 4 0 31 14 100 Saginaw 40 1 392 2 435 Southcentral Lake Superior 1 83 4 88 Southeastern Lake Michigan 15 5 0 768 26 814 Southeastern Lake Ontario 1 0 6 6 3 16 Southeastern Lake Superior 36 1 37 Southern Lake Erie Southwestern Lake Huron 1 2 112 12 127 Southwestern Lake Michigan 0 0 12 204 216 Southwestern Lake Ontario 2 4 22 4 32 Southwestern Lake Superior St. Clair-Detroit 4 6 1,060 15 77 1,162 St. Lawrence 1 60 1 55 117 St. Louis 3 3 Western Lake Erie 2 1 70 1 74 Total 105 46 78 51 2 21 2,977 53 543 Notes: - Blank fields indicate "no data" - Zero indicates "<0.5". Categories: Agriculture (cropland) (Vll-A) Agriculture (animals) (Vll-B) Silviculture (Vll-C) Ground water protection (VII-E) Marinas (Vll-F) Resource extraction (Vll-G) Brownfields (Vll-H) Storage tanks (VII-1) Sanitary landfills (Vll-J) Hydromodification (Vll-K) Other estuary management activities (Vll-M) 52 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs Related to the Columbia River Basin Needs Related to the Columbia River Basin Highlights Total needs: $7.2 billion Percentage of total CWNS 2008 needs: 2 percent Changes in needs from 2004: Increased by $2.5 billion (52 percent) Categories with the largest percent increases since 2004: New Collector Sewers (Category IV-A) ($0.5 billion; 406 percent); Nonpoint Source Pollution Control (Category VII) ($1.0 billion; 406 percent); and Stormwater Management (Category VI) ($0.3 billion; 238 percent) Tables & Maps: Figure 14 and Table 26 show the total documented needs for facilities in the Columbia River Basin; Table 27 and Table 28 present the total documented needs by watershed and by State; Table 29 and Table 30 present the total documented needs for all categories and watersheds Discussion The total documented needs for facilities in the Columbia River Basin as of January 1, 2008, are $7.2 billion, or 2 percent of the National need (Figure 14 and Table 26). The land area related to these needs is 7 percent of the total land area of the Nation. Table 27 and Table 28 present the total documented needs by watershed and by State, respectively. Almost two-thirds (62 percent) of the total needs occur in the Lower Columbia and Willamette watersheds, which have needs of $0.9 billion and $3.6 billion respectively. The remaining 15 watersheds account for $2.7 billion (38 percent) of the total needs reported for the Columbia River Basin. Table 29 and Table 30 present the total documented needs across all categories and watersheds. Columbia River Basin The Columbia River is the fourth-largest river in North America ranked by flow. The dominant water system in the Pacific Northwest, it drains 219,000 square miles in seven western States (Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming) as well as 39,500 square miles in British Columbia. The Columbia River Basin became a regional priority within EPA's strategic planning process in 2002 to give greater focus to resolving many water quality issues. Conventional and toxic pollutants significantly affect the once-abundant salmon fisheries and the people who depend on those fish for cultural and economic reasons. 53 ------- Needs Related to the Columbia River Basin CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Watersheds: Clearwater (1) Middle Columbia (7) Spokane (13) Deschutes (2) Middle Snake-Boise (8) Upper Columbia (14) John Day (3) Middle Snake-Powder (9) Upper Snake (15) Kootenai (4) Pend Oreille (10) Willamette (16) Lower Columbia (5) Salmon (11) Yakima (17) Lower Snake (6) Snake Headwaters (12) Figure 14. Columbia River drainage basin needs (January 2008 dollars in billions). 54 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs Related to the Columbia River Basin Table 26. Total documented needs reported within the Columbia River basin (January 2008 dollars in billions) Total Needs Needs Category $B Percent Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment and Conveyance Systems and Stormwater Management Programs 1 Secondary wastewater treatment 2.2 31% 11 Adva need wastewater treatment 1.3 18% lll-A Infiltration/inflow correction 0.1 1% lll-B Sewer replacement/rehabilitation 0.6 9% IV-A New collector sewers 0.6 9% IV-B New interceptor sewers 0.3 5% V Combined sewer overflow correction 0.5 6% VI Stormwater management programs 0.3 5% X Recycled water distribution <0.1 0.3% XII Decentralized wastewater treatment systems - - Total Categories l-VI, X, and XII 5.1 83% Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Vll-A Agriculture (cropland) <0.1 0.5% Vll-B Agriculture (animals) <0.1 0.3% Vll-C Silviculture <0.1 0% Vll-E Ground water protection <0.1 0.1% Vll-F Marinas <0.1 0% Vll-G Resource extraction <0.1 0% Vll-H Brownfields - - Vll-I Storage tanks <0.1 0% Vll-J Sanitary landfills - Vll-K Hydromodification 1.1 15% Vll-M Other estuary management activities - - Total Category VII 1.2 16% Grand Total 7.2 Notes: - Costs for operation and maintenance are not included. - For the 2008 CWNS, Urban Water (Category Vii-D) is reported under Stormwater Management (Category VI), Decentralized Sewage Treatment was reported under Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems (Category XII); and a new subcategory, Green Infrastructure (Vi-C) was added to Wastewater Management (Category VI). - Needs estimates presented in this table might vary slightly from those presented elsewhere because of rounding. 55 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs Related to the Columbia River Basin Table 27. Total documented needs reported by watershed within the Columbia River basin (January 2008 dollars in billions) Watershed Total Needs Watershed Clearwater <0.1 Pend Oreille 0.3 Deschutes 0.4 Salmon <0.1 John Day <0.1 Snake Headwaters <0.1 Kootenai <0.1 Spokane 0.7 Lower Columbia 0.9 Upper Columbia <0.1 Lower Snake <0.1 Upper Snake 0.4 Middle Columbia <0.1 Willamette 3.6 Middle Snake-Boise 0.5 Yakima <0.1 Middle Snake-Powder <0.1 Table 28. Total documented needs reported byState within the Columbia River basin (January 2008 dollars in billions) State Total Needs State Idaho 1.4 Utah - Montana 0.2 Washington 0.9 Nevada - Wyoming <0.1 Oregon 4.6 56 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs Related to the Columbia River Basin Table 29. CWNS 2008 total documented needs within the Columbia River basin (January 2008 dollars in millions) Category of Need Total Total Watershed Name Total I II lll-A 1M B IV-A IV-B V Total VI VII X XII l-V Clearwater 22 17 0 0 0 6 17 Deschutes 375 54 8 4 69 225 15 135 John Day 3 2 1 3 Kootenai 7 4 0 0 3 0 7 Lower Columbia 917 251 0 85 126 28 427 0 917 Lower Snake 35 10 5 2 13 2 3 30 Middle Columbia 81 47 10 8 7 9 72 Middle Snake-Boise 545 245 234 3 8 24 9 4 18 0 523 Middle Snake-Powder 13 11 0 0 2 11 Pend Oreille 336 129 76 18 21 45 41 5 1 330 Salmon 10 10 0 0 0 0 10 Snake Headwaters 10 4 0 3 1 2 8 Spokane 719 55 428 16 76 91 3 24 6 6 14 693 Upper Columbia 36 16 9 3 6 1 1 35 Upper Snake 437 100 123 1 40 87 56 3 27 407 Willamette 3,587 1,251 403 57 358 246 119 96 1,052 5 2,434 Yakima 3 2 0 1 3 Total 7,136 2,208 1,288 97 620 643 328 451 342 1,140 19 Notes: Categories: - Blank fields indicate "no data". Secondary wastewater treatment (I) Interceptor sewers (IV-B) - Zero indicates "<0.5". Advanced wastewater treatment (II) Combined sewer overflow correction (V) Infiltration/inflow correction (lll-A) Stormwater management (VI) Sewer replacement/rehabilitation (lll-B) Nonpoint source pollution control (Vii) Collector sewers (IV-A) Recycled water distribution (X) Decentralized wastewater treatment systems (Xii) 57 ------- Needs Related to the Columbia River Basin CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Table 30. CWNS 2008 nonpoint source documented needs within the Columbia River basin (January 2008 dollars in millions) Category of Need Total Watershed Name Vll-A Vll-B Vll-C Vll-E Vll-F Vll-G Vll-H VII I Vll-J Vll-K Vll-M VII Clearwater 2 1 1 0 0 2 6 Deschutes 8 5 2 15 John Day Kootenai Lower Columbia 0 0 0 Lower Snake 1 1 0 1 3 Middle Columbia 8 1 9 Middle Snake-Boise 8 8 0 0 0 2 18 Middle Snake-Powder 2 0 0 2 Pend Oreille 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Salmon 0 0 0 0 0 0 Snake Headwaters 0 0 2 0 0 2 Spokane 0 1 0 0 4 5 Upper Columbia Upper Snake 9 13 0 0 0 5 27 Willamette 0 0 1,051 1,051 Yakima Total 38 24 1 5 0 0 2 0 1,068 1,138 Notes: - Blank fields indicate "no data" - Zero indicates "<0.5". Categories: Agriculture (cropland) (Vll-A) Agriculture (animals) (Vll-B) Silviculture (Vll-C) Ground water protection (Vll-E) Marinas (Vll-F) Resource extraction (Vll-G) Brownfields (Vll-H) Storage tanks (Vll-I) Sanitary landfills (Vll-J) Hydromodification (Vll-K) Other estuary management activities (Vli-M) 58 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs Related to the Border 2012 Area Needs Related to the Border 2012 Area Highlights Total needs: $3.7 billion Percentage of total CWNS 2008 needs: 1 percent Changes in needs from 2004: No change in the total needs reported Categories with the largest percent increases since 2004: New Interceptor Sewers (Category IV-B) ($0.3 billion; 87 percent); Secondary Wastewater Treatment (Category I) ($0.2 billion; 49 percent); and Sewer Replacement/Rehabilitation (Category lll-B) ($0.3 billion; 21 percent) Tables & Maps: Figure 15 illustrates the Border 2012 region; Table 31 shows the total documented needs for U.S. facilities in the Border 2012; Table 32 displays the total documented needs by State; Table 33 and Table 34 present the total documented needs for all categories and States Discussion The total documented needs for U.S. facilities in the Border 2012 area as of January 1, 2008, are $3.7 billion, or 1 percent of the National need (Table 31). The land area related to these needs is 3 percent of the total land area of the Nation. Approximately $0.1 billion of the $3.7 billion are associated with small communities (population fewer than 10,000). Table 32 displays the total documented needs by State. California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico's total needs are $2.1 billion, $1.0 billion, $0.6 billion and $2.0 million, respectively. Table 33 and Table 34 present the total documented needs for all categories and States. Border 2012 Program The U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program was established to protect the environment and public health in the U.S.-Mexico border region, defined as the area within 100 kilometers of the border. Figure 15 shows the U.S. portion of this area. The program's mission is to protect the environment and public health in the U.S.-Mexico border region, consistent with the principles of sustainable development. The water quality objectives of the program are to increase the number of homes connected to potable water supply, increase the number of homes connected to wastewater collection and treatment systems, and reduce the discharge of pollutants to local waterways. Specifically, Mexico's National Water Commission (CNA) and the EPA have provided funding and technical assistance for the planning, design, and construction of drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects. The International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) has also provided assistance and coordination in developing drinking water and wastewater infrastructure in the U.S.-Mexico border region. 59 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs Related to the Border 2012 Area Figure 15. Border 2012 region (includes all facilities within 100 km of the U.S.-Mexico border). 60 ------- CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Needs Related to the Border 2012 Area Table 31. Total documented needs within the Border 2012 area (January 2008 dollars in billions) Total Needs Needs Category $B Percent Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment and Conveyance Systems and Stormwater Management Programs I Secondary wastewater treatment 0.6 17% II Advanced wastewater treatment 0.3 8% lll-A Infiltration/inflow correction <0.1 0.5% lll-B Sewer replacement/rehabilitation 1.9 51% IV-A New collector sewers 0.2 5.7% IV-B New interceptor sewers 0.6 15% V Combined sewer overflow correction <0.1 0.1% VI Stormwater management programs <0.1 0.3% X Recycled water distribution <0.1 0.2 XII Decentralized wastewater treatment systems - - Total Categories l-VI, X, and XII 3.6 98% Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Vll-A Agriculture (cropland) - - Vll-B Agriculture (animals) <0.1 0.1% Vll-C Silviculture - - Vll-E Ground water protection <0.1 0.1% Vll-I Storage tanks <0.1 0.2% Vll-J Sanitary landfills <0.1 0.6% Vll-K Hydromodification <0.1 0.2% Vll-M Other estuary management activities - - Total Category VII 0.1 2% Grand Total 3.7 Notes: - Costs for operation and maintenance are not included. - For the 2008 CWNS, Urban Water (Category Vii-D) is reported under Stormwater Management (Category VI), Decentralized Sewage Treatment was reported under Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems (Category XII); and a new subcategory, Green Infrastructure (Vi-C) was added to Wastewater Management (Category VI). - Needs estimates presented in this table might vary slightly from those presented elsewhere because of rounding. 61 ------- Needs Related to the Border 2012 Area CWNS 2008 Regional and EPA Program Area Summaries Table 32. Total documented needs reported by State within the Border 2012 area (January 2008 dollars in billions) Total State Needs State Arizona 0.6 New Mexico <0.1 California 2.1 Texas 1.0 Table 33. Total documented needs within the Border 2012 Program area (January 2008 dollars in billions) Category of Need State Total 1 II lll-A lll-B IV-A IV-B V Total VI Total VII X XII Total l-V Arizona 591 41 89 0 62 34 337 9 15 4 563 California 2,082 293 29 16 1,741 1 2 2,080 New Mexico 5 1 2 1 0 1 4 Texas 981 304 160 2 85 176 225 29 952 Total 3,659 639 278 18 1,890 212 562 0 9 44 ' 3,599 Notes: - Blank fields indicate "no data". - Zero indicates "<0.5". Categories: Secondary wastewater treatment (I) Advanced wastewater treatment (II) infiltration/inflow correction (III-A) Sewer replacement/rehabilitation (lll-B) Collector sewers (IV-A) Interceptor sewers (IV-B) Combined sewer overflow correction (V) Stormwater management (VI) Nonpoint source pollution control (VII) Recycled water distribution (X) Decentralized wastewater treatment systems (XII) Table 34. Total nonpoint source documented needs within the Border 2012 Program area (January 2008 dollars in billions) Category of Need State Vll-A Vll-B Vll-C Vll-E Vll-F Vll-G Vll-H VIII Vll-J Vll-K Vll-M Total VII Arizona 0 3 4 8 15 California New Mexico Texas 1 13 11 4 29 Total H 13 3 4 19 ฆ ฆ9 Notes: - Blank fields indicate "no data" - Zero indicates "<0.5". Categories: Agriculture (cropland) (Vll-A) Agriculture (animals) (Vll-B) Silviculture (Vll-C) Ground water protection (Vll-E) Marinas (Vll-F) Resource extraction (Vll-G) Brownfields (Vll-H) Storage tanks (Vll-I) Sanitary landfills (Vll-J) Hydromodification (Vll-K) Other estuary management activities (Vll-M) 62 ------- |