Reduce Frequency of Clean Water Act (CWA) Sections 303(d) and 305(b) Reports
[Recommendation W30]

 

Recommendations related to this priority area were submitted by states during the October 2006 data call by EPA:

• Arkansas - The purpose of the 303(d)/305(b) report is to keep a current inventory of streams within each state that have been identified as “impaired.” The report is required too frequently. It would make more sense to prepare the report every five years. Read Arkansas' original submission; see text highlighted in yellow (PDF) (1 pp, 15K).

• Colorado - Allow reporting every four years for 303(d) and 305(b) reports. Read Colorado's original submission; see text highlighted in yellow (PDF) (3pp, 67K).

• Delaware - The Integrated Assessment (303(d) Report and 305(b) List) should be submitted every five years. Measurement any more frequently does not make sense because water quality does not change very quickly. Those states with unassessed waters could use randomized designs to monitor those waters, using a watershed approach, over a 5-year period. Read Delaware's original submission (PDF) (1 pg, 41K).

• Hawaii - Hawaii would like to add its name to the twenty-one states asking to reduce the reporting frequency of the Integrated Report (five-year cycle). Read Hawaii's original submission (PDF) (1 pg, 16K).

• Illinois - The biennial assessment of condition of waters and listing of impaired waters is too frequent. Barring catastrophic events, water bodies do not change significantly over a two-year period. Change reporting frequency of five years. Read Illinois' original submission (PDF) (1 pg, 56K).

• Maine - The Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (303(d), 305(b), 314) should be modified and required less frequently. Much of the data is already provided in more detail in other documents (e.g., monitoring program description is already provided in more detail in the state’s Comprehensive Ambient Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Strategy). Most of the interest in the Integrated Report relates only to the 303(d) listing portion, which can be provided conveniently through the Assessment Database (ADB).  Eliminate all but this portion. Read Maine's original submission (PDF) (1 pg, 45K).

• Maryland - Change 303(d) and 305(b) reports from 2-year cycle to 3- or 4-year cycle. Read Maryland's original submission; see text highlighted in yellow (PDF) (3 pp, 29K).

• Massachusetts - The timelines identified in water quality measures are short timelines and does not reflect the timeframe required to see in-stream improvements.  Furthermore, these measures appear to assume that all waters are monitored every year.  In state, monitoring is completed on a 5 year rotating cycle and thus new data is not always available.  State recommends that EPA provide language that annual/ multi-year reporting requirements do not apply to those states where a watershed cycle is used.  EPA should use the present integrated list and conduct comparative analysis on the data provided in the current list. Read Massachusetts' original submission (PDF) (2 pp, 59K).

• Michigan - Change the 2-year reporting cycle to a 5-year reporting cycle. Read Michigan's original submission (PDF) (1 pg, 48K).

• Minnesota - Two-year reporting frequency for both the list and report provides little/no environmental benefit. A four-year cycle would greatly reduce burden. Read Minnesota's original submission (PDF) (2 pp, 50K).

• Mississippi - Modify requirements to allow the 303(d) to mesh with the basin rotation plan. 20% of impaired waters would be reported per year with a complete, statewide list every 5 years. Read Mississippi's original submission (PDF) (1 pg, 79K).

• Montana - Offset the reporting period for economics by one or two cycles (2-4 years) from the current reporting cycle (e.g., for 2006 Integrated Report, use years 2002-2004 as the period for economic benefit analysis). Furthermore, recognize that many restoration projects take 10 or more years to achieve measurable benefits. Read Montana's original submission (PDF) (1 pg, 50K).

• Nevada - A reporting frequency of 5 or 10 years would be more appropriate for the 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report and would be more meaningful to the state and the public. Read Nevada's original submission (PDF) (1 pg, 259K).

• New York - Basic data for the Integrated Report is available in ADB (and this data is updated annually). Most importantly, the condition of many water bodies is assessed periodically (i.e., every 5 years) and barring catastrophic events, water bodies do not significantly change over a two-year period. State concurs with recommendation from the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA) to institute a reporting frequency of five years, which coincides with both the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)/SPDES permit cycle and the state rotating basin monitoring scheme. Read New York's original submission (PDF) (1 pg, 51K).

• Ohio - Change reporting frequency from two years to five years. Saves on limited state resources. More in line with state’s rotating basin approach for monitoring. Water quality improvements are unlikely to occur in two years. Five-year frequency would allow state to devote more resources to making information publicly accessible. Read Ohio's original submission (PDF) (1 pg, 57K).

• Oklahoma - Biennial updates to the Integrated Reports are a burden. Read Oklahoma's original submission (PDF) (1 pg, 50K).

• South Dakota - The reporting burden for the Integrated Report is very large because it is required every two years. The development of watershed projects to improved impaired water bodies, the implementation of practices for water quality improvement, and the subsequent changes of water quality do not occur in two years. Change reporting frequency to every four years. Read South Dakota's original submission (PDF) (2 pp, 21K).

• Tennessee - Allow us to submit each year for those watersheds that have been completed or once per five years to correspond with our watershed rotation schedule. Read Tennessee's original submission (PDF) (1 pg, 653K).

• Utah - The Integrated Report cycle needs to be changed from a two-year cycle to a five-year cycle. To ensure that the waters are being protected, the state could send an update of the ADB every year. Read Utah's original submission #1 (PDF) (1 pg, 337K).

• Utah - EPA Assessment Group should work closely with its Standards Group to develop 303(d) listing criteria that is not as burdensome. Right now, state is required to list a water body as impaired on a single violation of a standard that is not based on a duration frequency.  A single violation does not necessarily mean impairment. Read Utah's original submission #2 (PDF) (1 pg, 338K).

• Vermont - State recommends a five-year 305(b) reporting cycle. Modification/reduction/extension of reporting requirements for the biennial portion of the reporting cycle would eliminate/reduce considerable administrative work that appears to be of low value to Federal agencies. Much of what is stated in the 305(b) report is already available in other reporting documents. State has purposefully de-coupled the biennial 303(d) list from the 305(b) report as the 303(d) list needs EPA approval and the 305(b) report does not. Read Vermont's original submission #1 (PDF) (1 pg, 51K).

• Vermont - State recommends a five-year 303(d) reporting cycle. Read Vermont's original submission #2 (PDF) (1 pg, 50K).

• Virginia - Reduce the frequency of the 303(d)/305(b) Water Quality Assessment Reports to no more than every four years. Read Virginia's original submission (PDF) (1 pg, 52K).

• Wisconsin - The Water Quality Report to Congress frequency should be decreased to once every four years. An interim report (short form) should be provided in the middle two years to report on progress which would satisfy the statutory requirement. Read Wisconsin's original submission (PDF) (1 pg, 48K).