USEPA Office of Water - TMDL Program Results Analysis Fact Sheet - July 17, 2009
Fact Sheet: Integrated Reporting (IR)—
Improved Reporting for CWA Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314
Required Reporting For States
The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states, territories, and authorized tribes (collectively termed "states" in this fact
sheet) to submit to EPA the following three reports on their waters:
• Section 303(d) - by April 1 of all even numbered years, a list of impaired and threatened waters still
requiring TMDLs; identification of the impairing pollutant(s); and priority ranking of these waters, including
waters targeted for TMDL development within the next two years.
• Section 305(b) - by April 1 of all even numbered years, a description of the water quality of all waters of
the state (including rivers/streams, lakes, estuaries/oceans and wetlands). States may also include in the
section 305(b) submittal a description of the nature and extent of groundwater quality.
• Section 314- in each 305(b) submittal, an assessment of significant publicly owned lakes including
extent of point and nonpoint source impacts due to toxics, conventional pollutants and acidification.
Recommended Integrated Report Format
Since the 2002 reporting cycle, EPA has encouraged states to prepare a single, Integrated Report that satisfies the
reporting requirements above. EPA's recommended Integrated Reporting (IR) format (see IR guidance at
http://www.epa.qov/owow/tmdl/quidance.htmltf2) reduces inefficiency, burden and redundancy in reporting requirements,
and provides greater accountability on the status of all state monitored waters. In the IR guidance, EPA recommends the
states use the following five reporting categories to report on the water quality status of all waters in their state:
Category Description
1 All designated uses (DU) are supported, no use is threatened
Available data and/or information indicate that some, but not all of the DUs are supported
There is insufficient available data and/or information to make a DU support determination
4*
Available data and/or information indicate that at least one DU is not being supported or is threatened, but a
TMDL is not needed
4a*
A TMDL is established
4b*
Other required control measures are expected to result in attainment of an applicable water quality standard in a
reasonable period of time
4c*
Non-attainment of any applicable water quality standard is the result of pollution and is not caused by a pollutant
Available data and/or information indicate that at least one DU is not being supported or is threatened, and a
TMDL is needed
5m*
Non-attainment of any applicable water quality standard for mercury is the result of mainly atmospheric
deposition sources and comprehensive mercury reduction programs are in place to address the impairment
Waters in Category 4 and 5 are impaired or threatened; Category 5 represents the state's Section 303(d) list.
Progress through Integrated Reporting
The five categories of the IR format provides greater accountability on the status of all monitored waters in a State, not
just impaired or threatened waters. The streamlined IR approach also allows states to submit their reports in a timelier
manner and helps EPA expeditiously review state 303(d) lists. However, states are not required to integrate their reports.
For the 2008 reporting cycle, more than 40 states have submitted Integrated Reports. EPA has been tracking the
timeliness of state submissions and has seen over three times as many lists submitted by the April 1 deadline for the 2008
Reporting Cycle as compared to the 2006 Reporting Cycle. Additionally, EPA is tracking the time it takes to review state
submissions and has seem dramatic improvements in the average number of days it takes to review a state's list.
It should be noted that states are sometimes unable to submit lists by the April 1 deadline for a number of reasons. Many
times, states and EPA regional offices work together to address issues with listing decisions or assessment
methodologies on draft 303(d) lists and these discussions are not resolved by the April 1 deadline. 303(d) reports also
have to undergo a public review process, depending on the level of public involvement some states must spend
considerable time reviewing and responding to public comments and concerns. States also have had difficulties in
allocating staff resources to produce a 303(d) report or Integrated Report every two years. Similarly, the EPA review
period may be drawn out due to requests for additional data, pending litigation or changes in water quality standards that
prevent a list from being approved within the recommended 30 day time frame. Special circumstances may always arise,
but nevertheless, the IR format has greatly improved timely state submission and EPA review.
-------
USEPA Office of Water - TMDL Program Results Analysis Fact Sheet - July 17, 2009
States Using the Integrated Report Format
Below are several maps showing an increase in the number of states that use the recommended Integrated Report format
from cycle to cycle during 2004, 2006 and 2008 (status as of June 1, 2009).
State 303(d) List Submissions to EPA using the
Integrated Report Format in 2004*
HI
CNMI
0
-,-.-
' Status as of June 1, 2009
I I List Submitted in IR format (30)
| , lit Not Submitted in IR format (26)
Format refers to hard copy submission only This mnp don not r
itwua iiu »«UUt in ATTAINS
For the 2006
reporting cycle, 1 4
more states used
the Integrated
Reporting Format
for their 303(d) list
submissions to EPA
than in the 2004
reporting cycle*.
In the 2008 cycle,
four additional
states have thus far
used the IR Format
for their 303(d) list
submissions to EPA
compared with the
2006 reporting
cycle*.
State 303(d) List Submissions to EPA using the
Integrated Report Format in 2006*
&
y\
•Cv-
HI
P
CNM1
GU
AS
I I List Submitted in IR formal (44)
| | lit Not Submitted in IR format (9)
| | Final list not yet submitted (3)
•Status as of June 1, 2009
l TetVrctc lurlicopylllbmlllioll
ed iati a'.-jjUtlr in ATTAINS
State 303(d) List Submissions to EPA using the
Integrated Report Format in 2008*
CNMI
>
•~
AS
I I List Submitted in K format (43)
| | List Not Submtoed jn IR format (3)
| | Final list not yet submitted (10)
«tus fit of Jim* 1, 2009
urr rtitri I*
?K4 darj i
About the TMDL Program Results Analysis Project. The EPA Office
of Water's National TMDL Program created the TMDL Program
Results Analysis Project to assess the environmental outcomes and
programmatic progress of the TMDL Program, analyze probable
causes for these findings, and interpret the implications for potential
program improvements. Analysis products include project reports,
published papers, a Web site, and this fact sheet series. For more
Information please visit: http://www. eva. eov/owow/tmdl/results or
contact the project leader at norton.douelas(a)eva.eov.
Notice: This fact sheet contains general information about a program
of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. It does not constitute
Agency policy, regulations or guidance nor supersede or modify
existing policy, regulations or guidance in any way.
------- |