HomeMy WebLinkAboutPeconic Bay Pathogens TMDL 2006 ' FINAL REPORT
for
' Peconic Bay Pathogens TMDL
Prepared for:
' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Oceans and Coastal Protection Division
Prepared by
Battelle
397 Washington Street
Duxbury, MA 02332
1
September 2006
Battelle
The Business of Innovation
1
Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
' Executive Summary
' This document was provided to support the development of total maximum daily loads (TME)Ls)
associated with fecal and total coliforms to a series of estuarine receiving waters within the greater
Peconic estuary area in New York. The basis for the TMDL analysis lies within New York's 303(d) list
of water segments that exhibit impaired conditions. The impairments are associated with numerical water
quality standards for pathogens in New York's class SA water bodies.
t This analysis is focused on 25 individual water bodies listed on New York's Priority Water Bodies List
(PWL) (although 5 of these water bodies share the same PWL number). This assessment is broken into 3
primary steps: (1) collect and analyze pathogen monitoring data from state and county sources and
' determine the degree and extent of impairment within the study area; (2) provide an assessment of
contributing sources of bacteria to each of the 25 water bodies; and (3) determine the degree of bacterial
load reductions that would be necessary to achieve positive water quality conditions (i.e., non-
impairment) in each water body.
Water quality data were collected from NY State and Suffolk County and analyzed based on National
Shellfish Sanitary Program (NSSP) guidance where possible. In some cases where data were limited
' additional criteria were developed for the purpose of completing a TMDL analysis.
An EPA-approved model, the Watershed Treatment Model (WTM), was applied to estimate relative
t sources of fecal coliform for each water body. Pathogen loading was based primarily on general land use
literature values (anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic sources are not separated out). Separate
waterfowl and domestic pet loading estimates were also used. Stormwater drainage maps were provided
by the Peconic Estuary Program and modified as necessary to appropriate drainage scales associated with
each of the 25 PWL water bodies. Some drainage areas were subdivided further based on site-specific
conditions such as geomorphology and spatial distribution of sampling points. The WTM was used in
' combination with regional and local information on contributing sources of coliforms, but many of the
model coefficients were based on default, national values where site-specific data were limited.
Additional contributing sources such as sediment resuspension, wrack mats, waterfowl and other wildlife
' were evaluated and applied in a limited fashion. Suffolk County high resolution land parcel/land use data
were used to drive the WTM. The resulting bacterial loads were then estimated as mass loads on an
annual basis.
Based on a review of all available water quality data TMDL analyses were not conducted on all 25 water
bodies. In some cases sufficient data was not available and in one case no exceedances were found based
on all available data. These cases are illustrated in the table below.
' TMDLs and associated load reductions were determined using the statistical rollback method, which is a
linear reduction relationship between monitoring stations exhibiting impairment and the contributing
' drainage areas (i.e., watersheds). A margin of safety (MOS) was implicitly applied through a number of
conservative assumptions and explicitly applied as 10% of the ultimate loading capacity.
' This analysis has determined that the most significant contributors of pathogens to the water bodies
within this study are nonpoint sources, particularly stormwater runoff containing waterfowl, wildlife,
domestic pet, and livestock waste, as well as direct deposition of waterfowl waste. Stormwater runoff
' through municipal stormwater conveyance systems (MS4s) has been estimated and is relatively
significant in most communities that are within MS4 regulations. Others sources such as septic systems,
illicit marine vessel discharges, and other illicit activities may contribute pathogen loads at local and
infrequent scales; however,these are not believed to be considerable sources at this time.
Battelle
1
Final Report for '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
TMDL Development
Status '
Priority Water Water Body xt completes
Bodies List No. y rva=Not completes sue to
incomplete data
N,=Not completed due to
non-exceedance
1701-0050 Dering Harbor x
1701-0234 BuddsPond x
1701-0049 Stirling Creek and Basin x '
1701-0235 Town/Jockey Creeks and tidal tributaries x
1701-0236 Goose Creek x
1701-0162 Hashamomuck Pond x '
1701-0245 Richmond Creek and tidal tributaries x
1701-0247 Tidal tributaries,Great Peconic Bay, Na
Northshore,GPB-97 Downs Creek
1701-0247 Tidal tributaries,Great Peconic Bay, x '
Northshore,GPB-99(Deep Hole Creek
1701-0247 Tidal tributaries,Great Peconic Bay, Na
Northshore,GPB-98 Halls Creek '
Tidal tributaries,Great Peconic Bay,
1701-0247 Northshore,GPB-99-P492(Unnamed Na
Pond) '
1701-0247 Tidal tributaries,Great Peconic Bay, x
Northshore,GPB-100 James Creek
1701-0030 Flanders Bay,east/center and tributaries x
1701-0272 Reeves Bay and tidal tributaries x '
1701-0051 Sebonac Creek/Bullhead Bay and tidal x
tributaries
1701-0354 Scallop Pond N, '
1701-0037 North Sea Harbor and tributaries x
1701-0048 Wooley Pond x
1701-0237 No ac Creek and tidal tributaries x
1701-0035 Sag Harbor and Sag Harbor Cove x '
1701-0046 Northwest Creek and tidal tributaries x
1701-0047 Acabonac Harbor x
1701-0031 Montauk Lake x ,
1701-0169 Oster Pond/Lake Muncho ue Na
1701-0253 1 Little Sebonac Creek x
Using these TMDLs, New York State, with support from the Peconic Estuary Program Management '
Conference and Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan process (i.e., triennial updates), '
should prioritize subwatersheds and develop and implement detailed pathogen reduction plans. Also,
TMDLs should be revisited and updated if new information (e.g., Peconic Estuary Program Waterfowl
Study) warrants.
Battelle '
' Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
' TABLE OF CONTENTS
' 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background................................................................................................................ 1
' 1.2 Study Area Description.............................................................................................. 4
2.0 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION......................................................................................... 5
2.1 Problem Definition..................................................................................................... 5
' 3.0 APPLICABLE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ....................................................... 32
3.1 National Shellfish Sanitation Program Standards.................................................... 32
' 3.2 NYSDEC Water Quality Regulations...................................................................... 35
3.3 Standard Used for Shellfish TMDLs ....................................................................... 35
4.0 WATER QUALITY AND WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION............................. 36
' 4.1 Water Quality Data.................................................................................................. 36
4.1.1 NYSDEC Data............................................................................................. 37
4.1.2 Suffolk County Data.................................................................................... 37
' 4.1.3 Data Analysis............................................................................................... 38
4.2 Land Use.................................................................................................................. 42
' 4.3 Climate..................................................................................................................... 46
4.4 Watershed Contributing Zones................................................................................ 46
5.0 SOURCE ASSESSMENT................................................................................................ 48
5.1 Point Sources ........................................................................................................... 48
5.2 Non-Point Sources...................................................................................................49
5.2.1 Agricultural Sources .................................................................................... 50
' 5.2.2 Marine Vessels and Marinas........................................................................ 50
5.2.3 Urban/Residential Sources........................................................................... 51
5.2.4 Waterfowl .................................................................................................... 51
' 5.2.5 Beach Wrack................................................................................................ 52
5.2.6 Marine Sediment Resuspension................................................................... 52
5.3 Summary of Pollution Sources ................................................................................ 52
' 5.3.1 Bacterial Source Tracking............................................................................ 52
6.0 MODELING APPROACH............................................................................................... 54
' 6.1 Statistical Rollback Method..................................................................................... 54
6.2 Watershed Treatment Model.................................................................................... 54
6.2.1 Modeling of Primary Sources...................................................................... 56
' 6.2.2 Modeling of Secondary Sources.................................................................. 57
6.2.3 Load Characterization.................................................................................. 58
7.0 LOAD ALLOCATIONS .................................................................................................. 59
' 7.1 Background.............................................................................................................. 59
7.2 Seasonal Variations and Critical Conditions ........................................................... 59
7.2.1 Margin of Safety.......................................................................................... 59
' 7.3 Allocation Scenario.................................................................................................. 60
7.3.1 Dering Harbor(1701-0050)......................................................................... 61
7.3.2 Budds Pond (1701-0234)............................................................................. 62
' Battelle
Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
7.3.3 Stirling Creek(1701-0049).......................................................................... 63 '
7.3.4 Town and Jockey Creeks (1701-0235)........................................................ 64
7.3.5 Goose Creek (1701-0236)............................................................................ 65 '
7.3.6 Hashamomuck Pond(1701-0162) ............................................................... 66
7.3.7 Richmond Creek(1701-0245) ..................................................................... 67
7.3.8 Downs Creek (1701-0247)........................................................................... 68
7.3.9 Deep Hole Creek and Unnamed Pond (1701-0247).................................... 69
7.3.10 Halls Creek(1701-0247).............................................................................. 70
7.3.11 James Creek (1701-0247)............................................................................ 70 '
7.3.12 Flanders Bay (1701-0030) ........................................................................... 71
7.3.13 Reeves Bay(1701-0272).............................................................................. 72
7.3.14 Sebonac Creek(1701-0051) ........................................................................ 73 '
7.3.15 Scallop Pond (1701-0354) ........................................................................... 74
7.3.16 North Sea Harbor(1701-0037).................................................................... 75
7.3.17 Wooley Pond(1701-0048)........................................................................... 77 ,
7.3.18 Noyac Creek (1701-0237)............................................................................ 78
7.3.19 Sag Harbor(1701-0035).............................................................................. 79
7.3.20 Northwest Creek (1701-0046) ..................................................................... 80 '
7.3.21 Acabonac Harbor(1701-0031).................................................................... 81
7.3.22 Lake Montauk(1701-0031)......................................................................... 84
7.3.23 Oyster Pond(1701-0169)............................................................................. 86 '
7.3.24 Little Sebonac Creek (1701-0253)............................................................... 86
8.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ........................................................................................... 88 '
8.1 Nonpoint Source Reduction..................................................................................... 88
8.2 Urban Storm Water.................................................................................................. 89
8.3 Waterfowl ................................................................................................................ 90 '
8.4 Septic Systems......................................................................................................... 91
8.5 Marinas/Transient Boats.......................................................................................... 91
8.6 Zoning Enhancements.............................................................................................. 92 t
9.0 REASONABLE ASSURANCE FOR IMPLEMENTATION.......................................... 95
9.1 Follow-Up Monitoring............................................................................................. 96
9.2 No Discharge Zone.................................................................................................. 96 '
9.3 Implementation of Phase II Stormwater Regulations.............................................. 96
9.3.1 Additional Requirements Based on This TMDL......................................... 98 '
10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION............................................................................................. 99
11.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 100
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Water Quality Data Analysis Summary 1
Attachment 2: Marina and Pumpout Facility Data
1
Battelle '
w
' Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
' LIST OF TABLES
' Table 1-1. Water Bodies in the 303(d) List Within the Peconic Bay Study Area. ......................................2
Table 2-1. Crosswalk Table of Selected Peconic Bay 303(d) Waters with Shellfish Growing Areas and
theNYCRR. .......................................................................................................................................6
Table 3-1. Changes in Indicator Organisms Used for Classification of Harvest Areas.............................32
Table 3-2. NSSP Standards for Shellfish Harvesting Areas Affected by Point and Nonpoint Pollution
Sources. ............................................................................................................................................34
Table 4-1. Summary of Data Types and Sources Used in Water Quality and Watershed
Characterization................................................................................................................................36
Table 4-2. NYSDEC Data Overview of APC Sampling Within This Study.............................................38
' Table 4-3. Summary of Stations in Each 303(d)Water Body that Exhibits Exceedances for Fecal and
TotalColiform..................................................................................................................................40
Table 4-4. Fifteen Land Use Categories Associated with the Suffolk County Department of Planning
' Land Use...........................................................................................................................................43
Table4-5. Watershed Land Use.................................................................................................................44
Table 4-6. Precipitation Data(in inches) from the Brookhaven National Laboratory, the Riverhead
Research Farm, and in Bridgehampton, New York..........................................................................46
' Table 5-1. Summary of Suffolk County Agricultural Data........................................................................50
Table 5-2. Summary of E. coli detection in 4 of the 25 study area water bodies as reported by
Hasbrouck(2003).............................................................................................................................53
' Table 6-1. Watershed Treatment Model Default Values for Primary Sources..........................................55
Table 6-2. Watershed Treatment Model Default Values for Secondary Sources.......................................56
Table 6-3. Summary of Secondary Sources Associated with the WTM Model. ........................................58
' Table 7-1. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Dering Harbor........................................................................61
Table 7-2. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet Target
TMDL Loads in Dering Harbor........................................................................................................61
Table 7-3. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Budds Pond............................................................................62
Table 7-4. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet Target
TMDLLoads in Budds Pond............................................................................................................62
' Table 7-5. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Stirling Creek.........................................................................63
Table 7-6. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet Target
TMDLLoads in Stirling Creek ........................................................................................................63
Table 7-7. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Town and Jockey Creeks.......................................................64
' Table 7-8. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet Target
TMDL Loads in Town and Jockey Creeks.......................................................................................64
Table 7-9. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Goose Creek...........................................................................65
' Table 7-10. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet
Target TMDL Loads in Goose Creek...............................................................................................65
Table 7-11. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Hashamomuck Pond............................................................66
' Table 7-12a. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet
Target TMDL Loads in Hashamomuck Pond,Zone HP-1...............................................................66
Table 7-12b. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet
' Target TMDL Loads in Hashamomuck Pond,Zone HP-2...............................................................67
Table 7-13. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Richmond Creek..................................................................67
Table 7-14. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet
Target TMDL Loads in Richmond Creek........................................................................................68
Table 7-15. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Downs Creek .......................................................................68
Table 7-16. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Deep Hole Creek and Unnamed Pond.................................69
Battelle
Final Report for '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Table 7-17. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet ,
Target TMDL Loads in Deep Hole Creek........................................................................................69
Table 7-18. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Halls Creek. .........................................................................70 ,
Table 7-19. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to James Creek.........................................................................70
Table 7-20. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet
Target TMDL Loads in James Creek...............................................................................................71 '
Table 7-21. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Flanders Bay........................................................................71
Table 7-22. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet
Target TMDL Loads in Flanders Bay..............................................................................................72
Table 7-23. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Reeves Bay..........................................................................72 '
Table 7-24. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet
TargetTMDL Loads in Reeves Bay.................................................................................................73
Table 7-25. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Sebonac Creek.....................................................................73 '
Table 7-26. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet
Target TMDL Loads in Sebonac Creek ...........................................................................................74
Table 7-27. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Scallop Pond........................................................................74 '
Table 7-28. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to North Sea Harbor.................................................................75
Table 7-29a. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet
Target TMDL Loads in North Sea Harbor, Zone NSH-1.................................................................75 '
Table 7-29b. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet
Target TMDL Loads in North Sea Harbor, Zone NSH-2.................................................................76
Table 7-29a Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet ,
Target TMDL Loads in North Sea Harbor,Zone NSH-3.................................................................76
Table 7-29d. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet
Target TMDL Loads in North Sea Harbor,Zone NSH-5.................................................................77
Table 7-30. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Wooley Pond.......................................................................77 ,
Table 7-31. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet
Target TMDL Loads in Wooley Pond..............................................................................................78
Table 7-32. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Noyac Creek........................................................................78 '
Table 7-33. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet
Target TMDL Loads in Noyac Creek,Zone NC-1...........................................................................79
Table 7-34. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Sag Harbor...........................................................................79 '
Table 7-35. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet
Target TMDL Loads in Sag Harbor,Zone SH-2..............................................................................80
Table 7-36. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Northwest Creek..................................................................80 '
Table 7-37. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet
Target TMDL Loads in Northwest Creek. .......................................................................................81
Table 7-38. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Acabonae.............................................................................81 '
Table 7-39a. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet
Target TMDL Loads in Acabonac Harbor, Zone AH-2...................................................................82
Table 7-39b. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet
Target TMDL Loads in Acabonac Harbor, Zone AH-3...................................................................82 '
Table 7-39c. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet
Target TMDL Loads in Acabonac Harbor,Zone AH-4...................................................................83
Table 7-39d. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet '
Target TMDL Loads in Acabonac Harbor, Zone AH-5...................................................................83
Table 7-40. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Montauk Lake......................................................................84
Table 7-41a. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet ,
Target TMDL Loads in Montauk Lake,Zone LM-1........................................................................84
Table 7-41b. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet
Target TMDL Loads in Montauk Lake,Zone LM-2........................................................................85 '
Battelle
vi ,fie� .,�.„oJ .,,..„
' Final Reportfor
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Table 7-42. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Oyster Pond .........................................................................86
Table 7-43. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Little Sebonac Creek............................................................86
' Table 7-44. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet
Target TMDL Loads in Little Sebonac Creek..................................................................................86
LIST OF FIGURES
' Figure 1-1. Locations of the 25 Peconic Bay Water Bodies (Refer to Table 1-1 for PWL numbers). ........3
Figure 2-1. Dering Harbor 303(d). Classification indicating uncertified(closed) SA waters, NYS and
Suffolk County sampling stations, stormdrain conveyances, and outfall locations. Gray boundary
indicates stormwater contributing zones..........................................................................................8
Figure 2-2. Budds Pond 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified (seasonal) SA waters,NYS
and Suffolk County sampling stations, stormdrain conveyances, and outfall locations. Gray
' boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones..........................................................................9
Figure 2-3. Stirling Creek and Basin 303(d). Classification indicating uncertified(closed) SA waters,
NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations, stormdrain conveyances, and outfall locations. Gray
boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones........................................................................ 10
' Figure 2-4. Town/Jockey Creeks 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified(seasonal) and
uncertified(closed) SA waters, NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations, stormdrain
conveyances, and outfall locations. Gray boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones..... 11
Figure 2-5. Goose Creek 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified(seasonal) SA waters,
NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations, stormdrain conveyances, and outfall locations. Gray
boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones........................................................................12
' Figure 2-6. Hashamomuck 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified(seasonal)and
uncertified (closed) SA waters,NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations, stormdrain
conveyances, and outfall locations. Gray boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones.....13
' Figure 2-7. Richmond Creek 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified(seasonal) SA waters,
NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations, stormdrain conveyances, and outfall locations. Gray
boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones........................................................................14
' Figure 2-8. Downs Creek 303(d). Classification indicating SA waters,NYS and Suffolk County
sampling stations, stormdrain conveyances, and outfall locations. Gray boundary indicates
stormwatercontributing zones....................................................................................................... 15
Figure 2-9. Deep Hole Creek(and"Unnamed Pond") 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally
certified(seasonal) SA waters,NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations, stormdrain
conveyances, and outfall locations. Gray boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones..... 16
Figure 2-10. Halls Creek 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified (seasonal) SA waters,
t NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations, stormdrain conveyances, and outfall locations. Gray
boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones........................................................................ 17
Figure 2-11. James Creek 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified(seasonal) SA waters,
' NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations, stormdrain conveyances, and outfall locations. Gray
boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones........................................................................ 18
Figure 2-12. Flanders and Reeves Bays 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified(seasonal)
' and uncertified(closed) SA waters,NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations, stormdrain
conveyances, and outfall locations. Gray boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones..... 19
Figure 2-13. Sebonac Creek/Bullhead Bay 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified
(seasonal) SA waters,NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations, stormdrain conveyances, and
outfall locations. Gray boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones..................................20
Battelle
vii 76e Bu.inen of Innovation
Fina[Report for '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Figure 2-14. Scallop Pond 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified(seasonal) SA waters, '
NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations, stormdrain conveyances, and outfall locations. Gray
boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones........................................................................21 '
Figure 2-15. North Sea Harbor 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified(seasonal) and
uncertified(closed) SA waters,NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations, stormdrain
conveyances, and outfall locations. Gray boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones.....22 '
Figure 2-16. Wooley Pond 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified(seasonal) SA waters,
NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations, stormdrain conveyances, and outfall locations. Gray
boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones........................................................................23 '
Figure 2-17. Noyac Creek 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified(seasonal) SA waters,
NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations, stormdrain conveyances, and outfall locations. Gray
boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones........................................................................24
Figure 2-18. Sag Harbor 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified(seasonal) and uncertified '
(closed) SA waters,NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations, stormdrain conveyances, and
outfall locations. Gray boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones..................................25
Figure 2-19. Northwest Creek 303(d). Classification indicating uncertified(closed) SA waters,NYS and ,
Suffolk County sampling stations, stormdrain conveyances,and outfall locations. Gray boundary
indicates stormwater contributing zones........................................................................................26
Figure 2-20. Acabonac Harbor 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified(seasonal)and ,
uncertified (closed) SA waters,NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations, stormdrain
conveyances, and outfall locations. Gray boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones.....27
Figure 2-21. Montauk Lake 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified (seasonal)and '
uncertified(closed) SA waters,NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations, stormdrain
conveyances, and outfall locations. Gray boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones.....28
Figure 2-22. Oyster Pond/Lake Munchogue 303(d). Classification indicating uncertified(closed) SA '
waters. NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations, stormdrain conveyances, and outfall
locations do not exist within Oyster Pond and associated contributing zone. Gray boundary
indicates stormwater contributing zones........................................................................................29
Figure 2-23. Little Sebonac Creek 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified(seasonal) SA '
waters, NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations, stormdrain conveyances, and outfall
locations. Gray boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones. ............................................30
MOW
viii
Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA)as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, Public Law
100-4, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA/EPA) Water Quality Planning
and Management Regulations (40 CFR, Part 130) requires each state to identify those waters within its
boundaries not meeting water quality standards for any given pollutant applicable to the water's
designated uses. Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) are required to be developed for all pollutants
violating or causing violation of applicable water quality standards for each impaired water body. A
TMDL determines the maximum amount of pollutant that a water body is capable of assimilating while
continuing to meet the existing water quality standards. Such loads are established for all the point and
nonpoint sources of pollution that cause the impairment at levels necessary to meet the applicable
standards with consideration given to seasonal variations and margin of safety. Therefore, TMDLs
provide the framework that allows states to establish and implement pollution control and management
plans with the ultimate goal indicated in Section 101(a)(2) of the CWA: "water quality which provides for
the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, and recreation in and on the water,
wherever attainable" (USEPA, 1991).
On the state's 2004 303(d) list, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
' (NYSDEC) listed 25 separate embayments and tributaries in the Peconic Bay estuary as candidates for
TMDL development based on impairments due to pathogen levels (NYSDEC, 2004). These 25 water
bodies are listed in Table 1-1 and their locations within Peconic Bay are shown in Figure 1-1. The
' shellfish closure areas in each water body are divided into zones which are further described in Section 2.
TMDLs are developed for those zones that are either uncertified/conditionally certified or seasonally
certified for shellfish harvesting. See below for the definitions of the various types of shellfish area
' closures/certifications.
The NYSDEC maintains several types of shellfish area closure classifications. Closed shellfish areas can
be categorized as administrative closures or water quality closures. Administrative closures are
' permanently off limits to shellfishing and include areas surrounding known sources of pathogens (e.g.,
sewage treatment plant outfalls or high density mooring locations). Water quality closures include areas
that have failed to meet the National Shellfish Sanitation Program's (NSSP) standards for open shellfish
' areas. Water quality closures can be further divided into three sub-categories:
Year-round closures: These areas do not meet the NSSP standards at any time of the year and
are closed to shellfishing.
• Seasonal closures: These areas do not meet NSSP standards during a certain time of year
(usually during May to October) and therefore are only open to shellfishing during specific times
of the year.
' • Conditional closures: These areas are usually classified as uncertified, but may be certified by
NYSDEC generally from mid-December through mid-April when nonpoint source pollution is
reduced. Before an uncertified shellfishing area can be designated as conditionally certified,
NYSDEC performs water quality evaluations to determine the amount of rainfall and runoff an
area can receive and still meet water quality standards for shellfishing. During the operation of a
conditional program, rainfall is measured daily in the vicinity of the conditional harvest area.
' Shellfish harvesters are allowed to work in the area on a day-to-day basis during dry weather and
moderate rainfall conditions, when the daily rainfall reading is less than the threshold amount.
When the daily threshold amount is exceeded,the area is closed for a period of seven days and re-
opened (certified) on the eighth day if the daily rainfalls during the closed period do not exceed
Battelle
1
Fina[Report for '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
the threshold amount. The fact that the threshold rainfall for many of the Peconic Bay water '
bodies with conditional certification has typically been around 0.25 inches demonstrates how
sensitive water quality in these areas is to the effects of bacteria-laden storm water runoff in '
combination with other potential sources (e.g., failing on site disposal systems, boater waste,
direct waterfowl inputs). Since conditionally certified areas are actually closed areas whose
designation can change from year-to-year, any sampling station located within a conditionally '
certified area at the writing of this report is treated as being in a closed area.
The scope of this study is limited to New York shellfishing waters classified as Class SA that are listed in '
the 303(d) list as impacted by pathogens in the Peconic Estuary. The Class SA waters included in this
study are listed in Table 1-1 and illustrated in Section 2 (Figures 2-1 through 2-23). These figures also
includes shellfish closure areas and stormwater conveyance systems. The locations of shellfish closure '
areas were made available from the NYSDEC Shellfisheries Section. The information illustrated on
stormwater conveyance systems was the best information available from Suffolk County at the time of
this report, and may be updated as more information becomes available in the future. ,
Table 1-1. Water Bodies in the 303(d) List Within the Peconic Bay Study Area.
Priority Water Water Body ,
Bodies List No.
1701-0050 Dering Harbor
1701-0234 BuddsPond '
1701-0049 Stirling Creek and Basin
1701-0235 Town/Jockey Creeks and tidal tributaries
1701-0236 Goose Creek '
1701-0162 Hashamomuck Pond
1701-0245 Richmond Creek and tidal tributaries
1701-0247 Tidal tributaries,Great Peconic Bay, ,
Northshore,GPB-97 Downs Creek
1701-0247 Tidal tributaries,Great Peconic Bay,
Northshore,GPB-99(Deep Hole Creek
1701-0247 Tidal tributaries,Great Peconic Bay, ,
Northshore,GPB-98 Halls Creek
1701-0247 Tidal tributaries,Great Peconic Bay,
Northshore,GPB-99-P492 Unnamed PondL__
1701-0247 Tidal tributaries,Great Peconic Bay,
Northshore,GPB-100 James Creek
1701-0030 Flanders Bay,east/center and tributaries
1701-0272 Reeves Bay and tidal tributaries ,
1701-0051 Sebonac Creek/Bullhead Bay and tidal
tributaries
1701-0354 allop Pond ,
1701-0037 North Sea Harbor and tributaries
1701-0048 Tooley Pond
1701-0237 No ac Creek and tidal tributaries '
1701-0035 SaR Harbor and Sag Harbor Cove
1701-0046 Northwest Creek and tidal tributaries
1701-0047 Acabonac Harbor
1701-0031 Montauk Lake '
1701-0169 Oster Pond/Lake Muncho ue
1701-0253 Little Sebonac Creek
Battelle '
lh,n—i--fI.n....ti.
2 ,
b
Oil m
a
c z ^a
N p
y�
_ b
O
n
m
7
e
e
y
K `
-
v�
by
1701 07 + E4701 OObO ' � 3 701-0169
701-023 v E`
w 1*01-023 .
791-0�17
1-00301046,
y T�
17 1 Q7 t �7 �W3 r
a i
1701-0 1401 Ug47
7 --
' 701.0046
t� 701 53
01-0037
A yJ. ,
c T�r 70 x'-0030
TOI-0272 01-0051 v s
r54'
ce
H T
r
0 2.5 5 1
Miles c
_ v
wa N
a
Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
The zones that are subjected to administrative closures will continue to be closed as discussed in
Section 2.
1.2 Study Area Description
The Peconic Bay estuary is located between the North and South Forks of Long Island and consists of '
approximately 100 separate embayments and harbors. The towns that surround the estuary have
management authority over the shellfish resources within their respective boundaries. Table 1-1 lists the '
25 water bodies covered in this TMDL report. Figure 1-1 is a map of the Peconic Bay estuary region,
with each of the 25 water bodies indicated. Additional figures that illustrate further details for each
individual water body are presented in Section 2.
The Peconic Estuary, as defined by the Peconic Estuary Program (PEP), consists of approximately '
158,000 acres of surface water. Of the approximately 126,000 acres of land in the Peconic watershed,
roughly half is developed (including agricultural land and golf courses), over 20% is available for ,
development, and over 30% is protected open space (as of 2001). PEP's Comprehensive Conservation
and Management Plan (CCMP) (PEP, 2001) indicates that stormwater runoff from roads, open areas, and
undeveloped land is the greatest contributor of nonpoint source pathogenic pollutants to Peconic Bay and '
its embayments. In June 2002, the entire Peconic Estuary (all open waters, harbors, creeks west of an
imaginary line from Orient Point to Montauk Point) was approved as a designated Vessel Waste No
Discharge Zone (NDZ)t. Due to this NDZ designation, boat-derived waste is undoubtedly a less '
significant nonpoint source than runoff. Sewage treatment plants (STPs) (e.g., Riverhead, Sag Harbor,
Brookhaven National Laboratory, Shelter Island Heights, Calverton Enterprise Park), Atlantis Marine
World in Riverhead, Corwin Duck Farm located along Meetinghouse Creek', and the municipal separate '
storm sewer systems (MS4s) in Southampton and Riverhead are among the point sources with the
potential to contribute pathogens to the estuary. The STPs employ year-round sodium hypochlorite
(Shelter Island Heights) or ultraviolet (Riverhead, Sag Harbor, and Brookhaven National Laboratory) '
disinfection, which kills coliforms, but not necessarily all viruses. While the majority of the Peconic area
is unsewered and is serviced by onsite disposal systems, there is limited evidence to suggest that
inadequately sited or functioning systems are causing or contributing to water quality problems, though it
remains a possibility. Atlantis Marine World only discharges approximately 2,000 gallons per day and ,
pretreats its discharge using ozone or chlorine. The Corwin Duck Farm is currently constructing an
anaerobic/aerobic wastewater treatment system to replace a man-made wetland treatment system.
Therefore, nonpoint sources, particularly stormwater runoff containing waterfowl, wildlife, domestic pct, '
and livestock waste, as well as direct deposition of waterfowl waste, are the most significant contributors
of pathogens to Peconic Bay and are likely responsible for the closing of any shellfish areas in the 25
water bodies included in this report. '
While a vessel is inside a NDZ,the discharge valve of a Type I or Type 11 marine sanitation device(MSD)(which ,
treats the sewage before discharging it)must be visibly closed,preventing wastes from being discharged into
surrounding waters. A padlock or a non-releasable wire tie can be used to secure the valve,or the valve handle can '
be completely removed. A Type III MSD has a holding tank and is permitted in a NDZ as long as pumpout facilities
are used to empty the tank.
'Meetinghouse Creek is not one of the water bodies addressed in this report,although it empties into Flanders Bay
north. Battelle
4 ,
Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
' 2.0 PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
2.1 Problem Definition
' Shellfish harvesting is the designated use for the 25 Peconic Bay water bodies described in this report.
Molluscan shellfish, such as oysters and clams, are suspension feeders. They effectively filter the water
around them to feed on microscopic organisms and other particulates suspended in the water column. If
the waters are polluted, pathogens (e.g., viruses or bacteria)that are harmful to humans can potentially be
retained in the shellfish. Because oysters and clams are often eaten raw or partially cooked, if they are
harvested from waters that are polluted, they have the potential to cause serious illness or death to
' shellfish consumers. However, because pathogens in a shellfish area may be present in low numbers and
difficult to identify, other, more plentiful yet non-harmful bacteria that are commonly associated with
pathogens are monitored instead. The detection of these pathogen indicators is assumed to be a reliable
' sign that dangerous pathogens themselves may also be present. Bacteria associated with human and
animal waste (e.g., total and fecal coliforms) are often monitored as pathogen indicators in shellfish
growing areas.
' New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has listed 25 Peconic estuary
water bodies (as described in Table 1-1) in the 2004 303(d) list(NYSDEC, 2004) among the water bodies
closed for shellfish harvesting due to pathogen impairment. Table 2-1 further provides a crosswalk
between the priority water body list (PWL) name and number, water index number (WIN), shellfish
growing area (SGA), and the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) references.
Throughout this report, the water bodies will be referred to by their PWL name and number, and they will
be addressed in the same order as presented in Table 2-1. Below are brief characterizations of shellfish
harvesting conditions in each water body. Also included are figures that depict New York state Class SA
waters and the certification category (e.g., seasonal, closed) for these waters. Since conditionally open
' areas change designation based on various factors such as storm events and other conditions, they are
included within the `closed' sections. For development of the Peconic Estuary Stormwater Assessment
and Planning Tool(Horsely and Witten, 2003), the Peconic BayKeeper collected storm drain conveyance
' and outfall information from village, town, county, and state agencies in 2000. These attributes are
included on the figures below. Field verifications by Peconic BayKeeper were conducted and Horsely
and Witten digitized the dataset. The storm drain and outfall information is a first-order assessment to
help characterize regional stormwater inputs. Storm drain outfalls include various pipes ranging from 4 to
48 inches and constructed of materials such as metal, plastic, PVC, and concrete. Drainage ditches are
also defined as storndrain outfalls. The GIS coverages depicted in the following figures are based on the
' best information available as of the writing of this report. These coverages should not be used as the sole
reference for site-specific stormwater initiatives. Local, county, and state agencies should be consulted for
the most current information.
Battelle
6 13—in--f In—VaRon
' 5
Final Report for '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Table 2-1. Crosswalk Table of Selected Peconic Bay 303(d)Waters with Shellfish Growing Areas
and the NYCRR. ,
New York State list Shellfish Growing Area New York[Statel Codes,Rules,
(PWL=Priority Waterter body List;
WIN=Water Index Number) (SGA) and Regulations(NYCRR) ,
PWL Name and SGA Item Reference
Number WIN Year # SGA Name Part # Class map
Dering Harbor (MW6.1b)GB-SIS(-
(1701-0050) DH) Shelter Island 1998 924 47 SA* Q-30se '
Budds Pond(1701- (MW6.1b)GB-SIS- 18 Sound South
0234) 80c-P418a 2002 924 75 SA Q-30sw
Stirling Creek and (MW6.1b)GB-SIS- 1998 52 Stirling Basin 924 62 SA Q-30se
Basin(1701-0049) 78
and tidal
keyCrib Creeks (MW6.lb)GB-SIS- ,
and tidal 35) (1701- 83a,83b 2002 924 79 SA Q-30sw
0235) 22 Southold Bay
Goose Creek(1701- (MW6.1b)GB-SIS- 2002 924 82 SA Q-30sw
0236) 84-P423 '
Hashamomuck Pond (MW6.1b)GB-SIS- 1998 23 Hashamomuck
(1701-0162) P420 Pond 924 76 SA Q-30sw '
Richmond Creek and (MW6.lc)GB..LPB- Little Peconic
tidal[ribs(1701- 90 2002 26 Bay924 121 SA Q-30sw
'
0245)
Tidal Tribs, Gr
Peconic Bay,Downs 924 147 SA Q30sw;
Ck(1701-0247) R-30nw
Tidal Tribs,Gr
Peconic Bay,Deep 924 152 SA R-29ne
Hole Ck(1701-0247) '
Tidal Tribs, Gr (MW6.1d) Great Peconic
Peconic Bay,Halls GB..GPB-97 thru 2002 28 Bay 924 149 SA R-29ne '
Ck(1701-0247) 104
Tidal Tribs,Gr
Peconic Bay,
Unnamed(1701- 924 153 SA R-29ne '
0247)
Tidal Tribs,Gr
James Ck(1701- 924 155 SA R-29ne
0247)
Battelle '
6 '
' Final Report for
Peconic Bay TML September 2006
Table 2-1. Crosswalk Table of Selected Peconic Bay 303(d)Waters with Shellfish Growing Areas
and the NYCRR,continued.
New York State 303(d)list Shellfish Growing Area New York [State] Codes,Rules,
(PWL=Priority Water body List;
WIN=Water Index Number) (SGA) and Regulations(NYCRR)
PWL Name and SGA Item Reference
Number WIN Year # SGA Name Part # Class map
Flanders Bay,
' east/center,and tribs (MW6.1e)FB 1998 29 Flanders Bay 921 1 SA 2
(1701-0030)
Reeves Bay and tidal (MW6.3a)GB..FB- 2002 29 Flanders Bay 921 60 SA 2
tribs(1701-0272) RB
Sebonac Cr/Bullhead
Bay and tidal[ribs G -P648 Sebonac Creek SA 1998 924 176 SA
.GPB-122 R-30nw
(1701-0051) GB. PB-1262
' Complex
Scallop Pond(1701- (MW6.3b) 2002 924 178 SA R-30nw
0354) GB..GPB-122a-P652
North Sea Harbor (MW6.3c)GB..LPB-
and tribs(1701- 123-P659 1998 63 North Sea 924 130 SA R-30nw
0037)
Wooley Pond(1701- (MW6.3c)GB..LPB- 1998 64 Wooley Pond 924 138 SA R-30nw
0048) 124-P665
Noyac Creek and (MW6.3d)GB-SIS- R-30ne;Q-
tidal tribs(1701- 126 2002 21 Noyac Bay 924 85 SA 30se
0237)
' Sag Harbor and Sag (MW6.3d)GB-SIS- Q-30se;R-
Harbor Cove(1701- SHB,SHC 1998 19 Sag Harbor 924 98 SA 30ne
0035)
Northwest Creek and (MV/6.3e)GB-SIS- Q-30se;R-
tidal tribs(1701- NH-136 1998 17 Northwest Harbor 924 32 SA 30ne;Q-31sw
0046)
' Acabonac Harbor (MW6.3f)GB-AH 1998 14 Acabonac Harbor 924 42 SA Q-31sw
(1701-0047)
Montauk Lake (MW6.3g)BIS..P761 1998 13 Montauk Harbor 924 188 SA Q-32sw
(1701-0031)
Oyster Pond/Lake
Munchogue(1701- (MW6.3g)BIS..P764 1998 70 Oyster Pond 924 192 SA Q-32sw
0169)
Little Sebonac Creek (MW6.3b) 2002 62 Sebonac Creek 924 177 SA R-30nw
(1701-0253) GB..GPB-122a-P651 Complex
* Class SA waters are surface saline waters. The best usages of Class SA waters are shellfishing for market purposes,
' primary and secondary contact recreation,and fishing. See New York State Codes,Rules,and Regulations(NYCRR)
Title 6,Chapter X,§701.
1
Battelle
7
Final Report for 1
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Dering Harbor (1701-0050): Listed as one of the impaired water bodies in NYS's 303(d) list, Dering
Harbor is located on the northwest coast of Shelter Island. Dering Harbor is classified as uncertified.
From December 28, 2005 through May 14, 2006, the waters of Dering Harbor normally designated as '
closed were classified as conditionally certified, with the exception of Chase Creek (tributary south of
Station 5.2 in Figure 2-1). This conditional designation is not automatic and is established on an annual
basis. Conditional areas remain open to shellfishing, provided that the Shelter Island Heights STP '
continues normal operations and treatment activities.
!r Dering Harbor (1701-0050) ,
® NY 303(d)Monitoring Stations '
• Suffolk County Monitoring Stations
SA Classified
Closed ,
'\ PEP_Stormdrain Outfalls
Stormdrain Conveyance
N '
WF. '
Kilometer '
0 0.25 0.5 1
Figure 2-1. Dering Harbor 303(d). Classification indicating uncertified (closed)SA waters,NYS ,
and Suffolk County sampling stations,stormdrain conveyances, and outfall locations. Gray ,
boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones.
Battelle '
8 '
' Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Budds Pond: Budds Pond is a semi-enclosed water body situated on the North Fork, bordering Shelter
Island Sound. The pond is designated as seasonally certified for shellfishing from November 1 until May
14.
Budds Pond (1701-0234)
® NY 303(4)Monitoring Stations
• Suffolk County Monitoring Stations
0 SA Classified �r
Seasonal .
r PEP_Stormdrain_Outfalls
Stormdraln Conveyance
r
a
' S
Kilometers
' 0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Figure 2-2. Budds Pond 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified(seasonal) SA waters,
NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations, stormdrain conveyances,and outfall locations.Gray
boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones.
Battelle
' 9
Final Report far '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Stirling Creek and Basin: Stirling Creek is located on the southern edge of the North Fork, facing
Shelter Island. The water body is designated as uncertified. ,
Stirling Creek and Basin (1701-0049) '
® NV 303(d)Monitonng Stations
A Suffolk County Monitoring Stations '
n SA Classified
Closed
c PEP_Stormdrain_Outfalls '
Stormdrain Conveyance
N
® ,
6 7®
5 -
II _
it 2 N
All
® WF,
ttl s
A
Kilometers '
.$� 0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Figure 2-3. Stirling Creek and Basin 303(d). Classification indicating uncertified (closed) SA
waters,NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations, stormdrain conveyances, and outfall locations.
Gray boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones.
Battelle
«e�.,o..
10 '
' Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Town/Jockey Creeks and tidal tributaries: The Town and Jockey Creeks and their tributaries border
Southold Bay within Shelter Island Sound. Town Creek, its tributaries, and parts of Jockey Creek are
' seasonally certified from January 1 through April 14. Jockey Creek, however, is uncertified from its
headwaters easterly to specific manmade landmarks on either side of the creek.
Town/Jockey Creeks (1701-0235) Kilometers
1701-0235 N
' ® NY 303(d)Monitoring Stations 0 0.25 0.5 1 wT*
e
Suffolk County Monitoring Stations s
SA Classified
Closure Status
STATUS
Closed
' _1I Seasonal
— PEP Stormdrain_Outfalls
Stormdrain Conveyance
TJC- 1 �
1 10
2.3
1
2.5
JC-2
10
Figure 2-4. Town/Jockey Creeks 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified (seasonal)
and uncertified (closed) SA waters,NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations, stormdrain
conveyances, and outfall locations. Gray boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones.
Battelle
II
Final Report for '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Goose Creek: Goose Creek is located south of Town and Jockey Creeks, also emptying into Southold
Bay. Goose Creek is seasonally certified for shellfishing between January 1 and April 14, inclusive. '
106 '
ED
i--�, G5
1
G4
Goose Creek (1701-0236) '
N ® NY 303(d)Monitoring Stations
-41
Lah F.
W'
Suffolk County Monitoring Stations
SA Classified
S
Kilometers ---'Seasonal
0 0.25 0.5 1 r PEP_Stovndrain_Outtalls '
Stormtlrain Conveyance
Figure 2-5. Goose Creek 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified(seasonal) SA waters, '
NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations,stormdrain conveyances, and outfall locations. Gray
boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones.
Battelle '
12 '
Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Hashamomuck Pond: Hashamomuck Pond is a large water body located on the North Fork that empties
into a protected basin that includes Budds Pond, among other water bodies, and that borders Shelter
' Island Sound. Hashamomuck Pond is seasonally certified for shellfishing between December 1 and April
30. The creek that flows into Hashamomuck Pond(Long Creek),however,is uncertified for shellfishing.
From December 21, 2005 through April 30, 2006,the waters of Hashamomuck Pond normally designated
' as closed were classified as conditionally certified, with the exception of the Clay Pit (enclosed pond in
Zone HP-2 in Figure 2-6). This conditional designation is not automatic and is established on an annual
basis. Conditional areas remain open to shellfishing provided that not more that 0.35 inches of rainfall is
' recorded in a 24-hour period.
N
' WE
s
350 S
6
ED
MED
1 H P 3 ` 340 ® '\
® � T� 8.1
HP-1 � J 81
V Hashamomuck Pond (1701-0162)
' ® NV 303(d)Monitoring Stations
Suffolk County Monitoring Stations
` SA Classified
Closure Status
STATUS
Closed
Seasonal
Kilometers
0 0.25 0.5 1 - PEP-Storm -
drain Outfalls
' —Stormdrain Conveyance
Figure 2-6. Hashamomuck 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified(seasonal) and
' uncertifled(closed) SA waters,NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations, stormdrain
conveyances,and outfall locations. Gray boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones.
i Battelle
' 13
Final Report for 1
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
1
Richmond Creek and tidal tributaries: Richmond Creek and its tidal tributaries he farther west on the
North Fork than the previously described water bodies, bordering Little Peconic Bay. All the water 1
bodies are seasonally certified for shellfishing between November 1 and March 31.
Richmond Creek (1701-0245) 1
® NY 303(d)Monitoring Stations
• Suffolk County Monitoring Stations 1
0SA Classified
Seasonal
r PEP_Stormdrain_OuNalls 1
Stormdrain Conveyance
I:
i
1
`)il 1
7.4
N > l
WE J 1
s 105
Kilometers •
0 0.25 0.5 1 1
Figure 2-7. Richmond Creek 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified (seasonal) SA 1
waters,NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations,stormdrain conveyances,and outfall locations.
Gray boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones.
1
1
1
Battelle 1
n,,n—mr...,/]--ti-
14
—,. ti-14 1
1 Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
1 Tidal tributaries of Great Peconic Bay—Downs Creek, Deep Hole Creek (and "Unnamed Pond"),
Halls Creek, and James Creek: These five water bodies are various small tidal tributaries that empty
1 into Great Peconic Bay on the North Fork. James Creek, Deep Hole Creek, and Halls Creek are all
seasonally certified for shellfishing between December I and April 30. Unnamed Pond is the lagoon-like
water body immediately north of Deep Hole Creek. Downs Creek is currently certified.
1 Downs Creek (1701-0247) Kilometers
0 0.25 0.5 1
® NY 303(d)Monitoring Stations
1 • Suffolk County Monitoring Stations
U SA Classified
r PEP_Stormdrain_Outfalls
1 Stormdrain Conveyance
N
1 W*F.
S
i
1
1 �
1
1 Figure 2-8. Downs Creek 303(d). Classification indicating SA waters,NYS and Suffolk County
sampling stations,stormdrain conveyances, and outfall locations. Gray boundary indicates
stormwater contributing zones.
1
1
1
1 Battelle
A, u-,,,.... +I.............
,,
1 I5
Final Report for '
Peconic Bay TML September 2006
Deep Hole Creek and '
Unnamed Pond (1701-0247) '
® NY 303(4)Monitoring Stations
A Suffolk County Monitoring Stations
SA Classified
Seasonal
P E P_Stormdrain_Outfalls
Stormorain Conveyance ,
00
1
ED
— _ 93 �1
N '
�5 'Kilometers
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Figure 2-9. Deep Hole Creek(and "Unnamed Pond")303(d). Classification indicating seasonally '
certified (seasonal) SA waters,NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations, stormdrain
conveyances, and outfall locations. Gray boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones. '
Battelle '
16 '
' Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Halls Creek (1701-0247)
' ® NY 303(d)Monitoring Stations
• Suffolk County Monitoring Stations
n SA Classified
' Seasonal
-- PEP_Stormdrain_Outfalls
Stormdrain Conveyance
N
J
W�F.
Kilometers
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
' Figure 2-10. Halls Creek 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified (seasonal) SA waters,
' NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations,stormdrain conveyances, and outfall locations. Gray
boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones.
1
Battelle
I&13...;0...of Inn—aw.
17
Fina!Report far '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
James Creek (1701-0247) '
® NY 303(d)Monitoring Stations ,
• Suffolk County Monitoring Stations
nSA Classified
r_ Seasonal _ '
-- PEP Stormdmin Outfalls
Stomdrain Conveyance
/7
N �
W pigl r: `� l
�S C
Kilometers '
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
Figure 2-11. James Creek 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified(seasonal) SA
waters,NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations, stormdrain conveyances, and outfall locations.
Gray boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones. '
1
t
Battelle '
Iry r ate...
18
Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Flanders Bay, eastleenter, and tributaries: Flanders Bay and its tidal tributaries are located around the
mouth of the Peconic River at the juncture of the North and South Forks. All of Flanders Bay (stretching
from the northernmost tip of Goose Creek Point to the southernmost tip of Simmons Point) and its
tributaries are uncertified for shellfrshing.
Reeves Bay and tidal tributaries: Reeves Bay is an embayment located immediately south of the mouth
of the Peconic River. The shellfrshing areas in Reeves Bay and its tributaries are uncertified. From
January 16, 2006 through April 15, 2006, the waters of Reeves Bay normally designated as closed were
classified as conditionally certified. This conditional designation is not automatic and is established on an
annual basis. Conditional areas remain open to shellfrshing, provided that not more that 0.05 inches of
rainfall is recorded in a 24-hour period.
Flanders Bay (1701-0030)
Reeves Bay (1701-0272)
®
_�
NY 303(tl)Monitoring Stations
• Suffolk County Monitoring Stations �,—`"'^S`
�� 19
SAClassifietl n` 'c,N� 8i 1A 24
Closure Status EE)
2 ED
k 6A 9
STATUS 200 ® 2A
' Closed ® 7® 10 211 0
Seasonal 6B `E) 17014
PEP_Stormdrain_Outfalls 4' 19
22
Stormdrain Conveyance `, E) 190
_ AO •
12 20A® ® 6 15 160
1017C ; •
dB 0
qtr 6) ® ® 19
' rt ED
1�3 1'6C U 16%
J,,,,(N,1�
W*E
Kibmetars
0 0. 00.6 1.2
s
' Figure 2-12. Flanders and Reeves Bays 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified
(seasonal) and uncertified(closed) SA waters,NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations,
' stormdrain conveyances, and outfall locations. Gray boundary indicates stormwater contributing
zones.
Battelle
' 19
Final Report for ,
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Sebonac Creek/Bullhead Bay and tidal tributaries: The Sebonac Creek/Bullhead Bay complex lies on '
the South Fork and borders Great Peconic Bay. The entire complex is seasonally certified for shellfishing
between December 1 and April 30. ,
Sebonac Creek(1701-0051) \ i
® Monitoring Stations
Su
• Suffolk
01k Co County Monitoring Stations
n
$A Classified �\
Seasonal 149 '
PEP—Stormdrain_Outfalls i • %
Stormdrain Conveyance ,\ '
�)
W�F
s 2 �
290 '
Kilometers ,
0 0.25 0.5 1
Figure 2-13. Sebonac Creek/Bullhead Bay 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified '
(seasonal) SA waters,NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations,stormdrain conveyances, and ,
outfall locations. Gray boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones.
i
1
1
Battelle
20 '
' Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Scallop Pond: Scallop Pond is connected to the Sebonac Creek/Bullhead Bay complex along the South
Fork and is also certified for shellfishing between the dates of December 1 and April 30.
Scallop Pond (1701-0354)
' (D NY 303(d)Monitoring Stations
Suffolk County Monitoring Stations
SA Classified
Seasonal
-1, PEP Stormdrain Outfalls —
Storrndrain Conveyance
7 49
� g
1 J
i
i
N �
J `-
WE �� Y
s6 /
Kilometers
0 0.125 0.25 0.5
i
' Figure 2-14. Scallop Pond 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified (seasonal) SA
waters,NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations,stormdrain conveyances, and outfall locations.
' Gray boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones.
1
1
Battelle
21
Final Report for '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
North Sea Harbor and tributaries: North Sea Harbor and its tributaries lie to the east of the Sebonac '
Creek/Bullhead Bay complex on the South Fork and empty into Little Peconic Bay. Davis Creek, which
flows from Turtle Cove into the North Sea Harbor, is seasonally certified and may be harvested for '
shellfish between December I and April 30. From December 20, 2004 through April 23, 2005, the North
Sea Harbor waters normally designated as closed were classified as conditionally certified (with the
exception of Turtle Cove(Zone NSH-3 in Figure 2-15)and Alewife Creek(the tributary in Zone NSH-1). '
An update for the 2005-2006 season on the conditional status of these waters was unavailable. This
conditional designation is not automatic and is established on an annual basis. Conditional areas remain
open to shellffshing,provided that not more that 0.25 inches of rainfall is recorded in a 24-hour period. ,
North Sea Harbor(1701-0037)
NY 303(d)Monitoring Stations
• Suffolk County Monitoring Stations
SA Classified
Closure Status
STATUS J
—_ 16.1 NSH-3
Closed f ,
Seasonal --1 \` ¢H'a
- PEP_Stormdmin_OuOalls
Stormdnitin Conveyance 5A 5®
® Al 04 '
NSH 5 ® 12
2 2A s
1
® 3A NZ NSH-�9
10
/j SH-1
Cil
}
\...i .1 �
r
N S
y� Kilometers
47 J 0 0.25 0.5 1
MEMO
( � Y
Figure 2-15. North Sea Harbor 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified (seasonal) and
uncertified(closed) SA waters,NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations,stormdrain '
conveyances, and outfall locations. Gray boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones.
1
Mine
22 '
Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Wooley Pond: Wooley Pond lies along the South Fork,northeast of North Sea Harbor. Wooley Pond is
seasonally certified for shellfish harvesting between December 1 and April 30.
' Wooley Pond (1701-0048)
® NY 303(d)Monitoring Stations
• Suffolk County Monitoring Stations
n SA Classified
-{ ]Seasonal
PEP Stormdrain_Outfalls
Stormdrain Conveyance 1
N
' W -- Ii 20 1
\.
s ED
® 4
1
11
7
Kilometers
0 0.25 0.5 1
Figure 2-16. Wooley Pond 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified (seasonal) SA
waters,NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations,stormdrain conveyances,and outfall locations.
' Gray boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones.
1
i
1
Battelle
' 23
Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Noyac Creek and tidal tributaries: Noyac Creek lies northeast of Wooley Pond along the South Fork, '
just east of Jessup's Neck, a long peninsula that juts into Peconic Bay. Noyac Creek is certified for
shellfishing between December 1 and April 3O. '
Noyac Creek (1701-0237)
Kilometers ,
® NV 303(d)Monitoring Stations 0 0.25 0.5 1
• Suffolk County Monitoring Stations
n SA Classified
Seasonal
-r PEP_Stormdmin_Outfalls
Stormdrain Conveyance '
8.3
8.2 _ `3 0 8.1
� 1
8
N
I,
µ" E
5
Figure 2-17. Noyac Creek 3O3(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified(seasonal) SA
waters,NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations,stormdrain conveyances, and outfall locations.
Gray boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones.
Battelle �1
24
1
Final Reportfor
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
' Sag Harbor and Sag Harbor Cove: Sag Harbor Cove is located east of Noyac Creek on the South Fork,
bordering Noyac Bay on the west(but without an outlet)and emptying into Sag Harbor on the east. Sag
' Harbor itself, from the mouth of Sag Harbor Cove to the breakwaters,is uncertified for shellfish
harvesting. Portions of Sag Harbor Cove are also uncertified,including upper Paynes Creek in the
western section of the cove complex and a portion of Upper Sag Harbor Cove,adjacent to Bluff Point.
' The two parts of Sag Harbor Cove that are seasonally certified for shellfishing from November 1 until
May 14 are the Redwood Canal and the easternmost section of the cove,before it empties into Sag
Harbor.From December 19,2005 through April 30,2006,the waters of the Sag Harbor Complex
t normally designated as closed were classified as conditionally certified,with the exception of Sag Harbor
Proper. This conditional designation is not automatic and is established on an annual basis. Conditional
areas remain open to shellfishing,provided that not more that 0.40 inches of rainfall is recorded in a 24-
' hour period.
Sag Harbor (1701-0035)
' 11 NY 303ldl Monitoring Stations
• Suffolk County Monitoring Stations
BA Classified
Closure Status
STATUS
®
Closed 5 ^
Seasonal _
1
PEP Stormdmin Outfalls ® ®-
..,
Stormdrain Conveyance 1 ® 4�
_f ]►
W.?WF SH - 3 10
' s ® 10.1
6
28 8 �r-
® _129
' 6 ® 9.1�
1 ® R
/ 7C �) S'H - 2
' 7 7A
6.1
Kilometers
----
0 0.25 0.5 1
Figure 2-18. Sag Harbor 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified(seasonal) and
uncertified (closed) SA waters,NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations, stormdrain
' conveyances, and outfall locations. Gray boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones.
metre
A.-0u.in...o/Inm,.aiw
' 25
Final Report for '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Northwest Creek and tidal tributaries: Northwest Creek lies to the east of Sag Harbor along the South '
Fork of Long Island. The creek and its tributaries are normally uncertified for shellfish harvesting.
However,between December 20 and April 30,the water body(with the exception of two small areas)is '
conditionally certified as long as precipitation over a seven day timespan does not exceed 0.25 inches.
The two areas that remain uncertified for harvesting are unnamed tributary systems in the easternmost
part of the creek. From January 9,2006 through April 30,2006, the waters of Northwest Creek normally '
designated as closed were classified as conditionally certified. This conditional designation is not
automatic and is established on an annual basis. Conditional areas remain open to shellfishing,provided
that not more that 0.40 inches of rainfall is recorded in a 24-hour period. ,
Northwest Creek (1701-0046)
® NY 303(d)Monitoring Stations - ------ - '
A Suffolk County Monitoring Stations 131 12 -
n SA Classified 2
ED
' ?Closed 13 11
® _
'r PEP_Stormdrain_Outtalis ; 14 15
Stormdrain Conveyance Y
10 �
� pa..
U
5,
w
Kilometers
0 0.25 0.5 1
Figure 2-19. Northwest Creek 303(d). Classification indicating uncertified (closed) SA waters, '
NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations,stormdrain conveyances,and outfall locations. Gray '
boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones.
Battelle '
26
' Final Reportfor
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
' Acabonac Harbor: Acabonac Harbor is one of the most easterly of the water bodies covered by this
TMDL report,being located on the South Fork,facing Block Island Sound. Between December 20 and
April 30,the northernmost sections of Acabonac Harbor as well as the southernmost tributary system are
conditionally certified for shellfishing,provided precipitation does not exceed 0.3 inches during a seven
day timespan. The remaining part of Acabonac Harbor south of Sage Island is seasonally certified
' between December I and April 30.From December 12,2005 through April 30,2006, the waters of
Acabonac Harbor normally designated as closed were classified as conditionally certified. This
conditional designation is not automatic and is established on an annual basis. Conditional areas remain
' open to shellfishing,provided that not more that 0.30 inches of rainfall is recorded in a 24-hour period.
Acabonac Harbor (1701-0047)
® NY 303(4)Monitoring Stations I
Suffolk County Monitoring Stations ®'c
- AH-1 AS
' SA Classified i
Closure Status (D 14-5
STATUS A10
Closed A l l
Seasonal -
r
PEP_Stormdrain_Outfalls A H-Az12
' Sto"drain Conveyance
F A13
' 14 �.t
A A�S�� 4 A6.
A33 W� 4 i . ®A3
1 N 2'.
W R
' s
Kilometers
0 0.25 0.5 1
' v
Figure 2-20. Acabonac Harbor 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified (seasonal)and
' uncertified(closed) SA waters,NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations, stormdrain
conveyances,and outfall locations. Gray boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones.
1
'
BMW
' 27
Final Report for '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Montauk Lake: Montauk Lake lies near the extreme tip of the South Fork, with an outlet to Block Island ,
Sound. The region of Montauk Lake between the jetties marking the entrance to the lake and the northern
tip of Star Island(along with the western side of the island)is uncertified for shellfish harvesting. Other '
sections of the lake,however,are seasonally certified,including the area directly south of the uncertified
section(and to the east of Star Island)and the area surrounding the Montauk Lake Marina and Club,
which are open for shellfishing between October 16 and May 14. Another section(the southernmost tip '
of the lake)is certified from December 15 until March 30.
Montauck Lake (1701-0031) '
® NY 303(d)Monitoring Stations
• Suffolk County Monitoring Stations '
SA Classified L
Closure Status 41Pt6®13 ®0 ED
STATUS17_�- 9 ED- `® 6 5
Closed LM - 'I S ® 9 7 4 4A '
Seasonal 18S.
PEP_Stormdrain_Outtalls 22 19 25 1352ED 4
Stormdrain Conveyance �A A _♦- '
d�
ED 21
8B
wMe 29® 27
LM - _
s
® '31
39® 1
30(?)
Kilometers
0 0.250.5 1 '
v
Figure 2-21. Montauk Lake 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified(seasonal) and '
uncertified(closed) SA waters,NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations,stormdrain
conveyances,and outfall locations. Gray boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones.
Battelle ,
„u IS .� ..,:
28 '
' Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
' Oyster Pond/Lake Munchogue: Oyster Pond is located adjacent to Montauk Lake,with a small outlet to
Block Island Sound. The entire lake is uncertified for shellfish harvesting.
' Oyster Pond (1701-0169) 'v
' 03 NY 303(,1)Monitoring Stations W
Suffolk County Monitoring Stations s
F7 SA Classifed 0 0.251a0.5ters 1
F Closed
PEP Stormdrain Outfalls
Stormdrain Conveyance
' ® ® ®
11 ®106 5 ®
' 9 ® 4 4A l
® 7
8
ED ED
25 13524
A
1 ® 3
26 21
8B
® 27
29
31
_ 0®
' Figure 2-22. Oyster Pond/Lake Munchogue 303(d). Classification indicating uncertified(closed)
SA waters. NPS and Suffolk County sampling stations,stormidrain conveyances, and outfall
t locations do not exist within Oyster Pond and associated contributing zone. Gray boundary
indicates stormwater contributing zones.
II
68Mtelle
W.,o
' 29
Final Report for '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Little Sebonac Creek: Little Sebonac Creek is a section of the Sebonac Creek/Bullhead Bay complex '
and is seasonally certified for shellfishing between December 1 and April 30.
Little Sebonac Creek (1701-0253) '
9 y
® NV 303(d)Monitoring Stations 7' ( 3 '
• Suffolk County Monitoring Stations
SA Classified
Seasonal � ®
'
- PEP Stormdrain Outfalls
Stormdrain Conveyance
e-
J
N ,i w E
1 S
• s
i� Kilometers '
\� ® 0 0.25 0.5 1
Figure 2-23. Little Sebonac Creek 303(d). Classification indicating seasonally certified(seasonal) '
SA waters,NYS and Suffolk County sampling stations, stormdrain conveyances,and outfall
locations. Gray boundary indicates stormwater contributing zones. '
NYSDEC maintains administrative closures around sewage treatment plant (STP) outfalls. Although
water quality within the administrative closure might meet the bacteriological criteria for certified '
shellfishing areas, the closures are necessary in the event of STP failure or malfunction, such as loss of
disinfection. These closures serve as buffer zones between the actual point source (the STP outfall) and
the nearest certified shellfishing areas. The closures are of sufficient size that untreated or inadequately '
treated sewage would be contained for long enough for NYSDEC officials to notify shellfish harvesters to
stop harvesting in the adjacent certified waters.
Similarly, NYSDEC also maintains administrative closures within and around marinas and boat mooring '
areas due to the presence of marine sanitation devices (MSD) onboard boats. The guidelines of the
National Shellfish Sanitation Program(NSSP,2003)require closures within all marinas having more than
10 boats and also areas adjacent to the marinas that may be affected by MSD discharge. The size of the ,
closures around marinas or mooring areas is based on a number of variables, including: the number of
WNW
30
' Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
' boats with MSDs, the number of people occupying the boats, the availability of shore-based toilets, the
tidal range and current in the area, etc.
' The TMDL developed in this study will address impairment at the remaining uncertified and seasonally
uncertified areas within SA-classified water bodies and develop load allocations for point and nonpoint
' sources to achieve the water quality goals for shellfish harvesting in the 25 water bodies. This will be
done through a thorough evaluation of state and county water quality data (total and fecal coliform),
determination of percent reduction(if needed)to statistically achieve coliform standards, an evaluation of
' likely sources of coliform loads to each impaired water body, and recommendations toward achieving
necessary load reductions.
1
1
1
Bweue
' 31
Final Report for '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
3.0 APPLICABLE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS '
3.1 National Shellfish Sanitation Program Standards '
New York State participates in the National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP) which recommends
strict bacteriological water quality standards for shellfishing areas to be designated as approved, or '
certified, for the harvest of shellfish for human consumption [Note: New York State's water quality
standards for certified shellfish lands are specified in 6 NYCRR, Part 47, "Certification of Shellfish
Lands."] '
The standards are developed for specific indicator organisms, which are assumed to indicate the presence
of human pathogenic organisms associated with fecal material from warn blooded animals. '
NSSP guidelines (2003) allow either total or fecal coliform standards for growing area classification.
Two sampling strategies, adverse pollution condition (APC) and systematic random sampling (SRS) are ,
acceptable per NSSP guidelines for total or fecal coliform determination. For APC sampling, a minimum
of the 15 most recent samples collected under APC (with a minimum of five annually) are required to
classify growing areas. These sampling stations are to be established adjacent to actual or potential '
sources of pollution. For SRS sampling, a minimum of the 30 most recent samples (with a minimum of
six annually),collected under various environmental conditions during the certified period, are required to
classify growing areas affected by pollution sources. Remote areas are required to have a minimum of 15
samples (with a minimum of two samples collected annually) to classify growing areas. Although the '
NSSP guidance dictates that transitioning from APC to SRS should only allow up to 15 of the most recent
APC samples prior to SRS collection to be used for a transition period not to exceed three years, there
were some stations where more than 15 APC samples were used for the statistical analyses in order to '
reach the 30 sample minimum.
Prior to June 1998, NYS used both total and fecal coliforms as indicator organisms for classifying '
shellfish harvest areas. Between June 1998 and January 2001,however, only total coliforms were used as
indicators, due to laboratory staffing shortages. After January 2001, the laboratory resumed testing for
both coliforms, but as of February 13, 2003, the lab has only been testing for fecal coliforms. Table 3-1 '
tabulates these temporal changes in the indicator organisms used by New York State.
Table 3-1. Changes in Indicator Organisms Used for Classification of Harvest Areas.
Total Coliforms Fecal Coliforms '
Before June 1998 X X
June 1998-January 2001 X '
January 2001-February2003 X X
February 2003-present X
The type of sampling used to test NYS shellfish harvesting areas has also changed over the years. Prior to '
January 1997, NYS used APC sampling for determining whether the embayments and tributaries of
Peconic Bay estuary met NYS and NSSP standards for certified areas. APCs were considered to exist '
when rainfall is greater than 0.25 inches but less than 3.0 inches in one or more of the days during the 96
hours (4 days) prior to sampling. APC sampling was conducted only during outgoing tides. Although
APC sampling was primarily phased out in 1997 (in favor of SRS sampling, as described below), some '
limited APC sampling is still done in areas uncertified for shellfish harvesting. APC sampling is targeted
to limited post-rainfall (0.05" - 1.5") conditions. It is performed in those areas in which the local Towns
have requested that NYSDEC perform a water quality study to determine if the area is suitable for a
Batteue 1
32
Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
rainfall related conditional harvesting program. If the results of this limited APC sampling are
acceptable,the shellfishing area may be opened to harvesting on a conditional basis.
' Beginning in 1998, NYS began to utilize SRS to test the waters of shellfish harvesting areas. SRS
sampling events are scheduled randomly in advance (also only during outgoing tides) to develop a
' collection of data that includes water quality during different weather conditions.
Thresholds to determine harvest area compliance with coliform standards listed in the NSSP are
' calculated using geometric mean (MPN, or Xge.m.) and 90'h percentile values (Xgo). A geometric mean
is used versus an average or typical mean to dampen the effect of very high or low values which
oftentimes occurs in fecal sampling; as levels can vary anywhere from 10 to 10,000 fold over a given
period. The 90`s percentile takes into account the variability factor which assumes 90 percent of the
samples were collected under uniform conditions (variability only due to the test procedure and the
additional allowance for some additional variability arising from changing conditions in the water being
sampled). This statistical method assumes no more than 10 percent of the samples derived under uniform
' conditions will exceed the MPN standards. Some shellfish water sampling data may be collected
following intermittent pollution events which increases the variability when combined with data collected
under normal conditions. As variability is increased, the 901" percentile will reflect the increased
' variability and will protect against the potential public health problems that may result when shellfish are
consumed from growing waters that are adversely affected by intermittent pollution events and
improperly classified.
The standards for when APC-sampled water bodies and SRS-sampled water bodies are designated as
certified for shellfish harvesting are described in Table 3-2. APC data collected between 1987 and 1996
at all the water bodies, and being collected now at selected water bodies, are reviewed and analyzed based
on the standards in Table 3-2. NSSP Standards listed in the table below apply to each station.
1
Nveue
' 33
Final Report for '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Table 3-2. NSSP Standards for Shellfish Harvesting Areas Affected by Point and Nonpoint '
Pollution Sources.
Sampling Technique Indicators NSSP Standards* '
*Note: values are based on a 3-tube,decimal dilution test.
The median of samples Not more than 10%of the '
APC Sampling Total coliform shall not exceed 70 samples may exceed 330
MPN/100ml MPN/100ml
The median of samples Not more than 10%of the ,
Fecal coliform shall not exceed 14 samples shall exceed 49
MPN/100ml MPN/100ml
Geometric mean of The estimated 90` percentile
SRS Sampling Total coliform samples shall not exceed (X90)value shall not exceed 330 '
70 MPN/100ml MPN/100ml
Geometric mean of The estimated 90` percentile
Fecal coliform samples shall not exceed (X90)value shall not exceed 49 '
14 MPN/100m1 MPN/100ml
Remote Geometric mean of Not more than 10%of the
Classification* Total Coliform samples shall not exceed samples shall exceed 330
70 MPN/100ml MPN/100ml '
Geometric mean of Not more than 10%of the
Fecal Coliform samples shall not exceed samples shall exceed 49
14 MPN/IOOmI MPN/100m1 '
*A shellfish growing area that is classified as remote has no human habitation and is not impacted by any actual or potential
pollution sources.Remote areas must be sampled at least twice annually.
Xgwmean and X90 are calculated as below: '
xgeomean = Anti log[(l 10g(Xi)) /n]
i=1 ,where Xi, ... X. are the coliform concentrations from the SRS sampling. The estimated 90th
percentile is computed as:
X90 = Anti log[(Sing)*1.28 + XAVG1eg]
where Slog is the standard deviation of the logarithms of the MPN values and XAVGiog is the mean '
of the logarithms of the MPN values comprising the data set (also known as the log mean or the
arithmetic average of the logarithms - the geometric mean is the antilog of XAVGIog). Slog is
calculated as follows: '
n
Slog = (lGg(Xf) —
Avc,og)2 (n- 1)
,_l
Although the NYS water quality standard for Class SA is expressed as a median value of 70 MPN/100ml, '
the same numerical value is used as geometric mean criterion for SRS data. According to NSSP
guidelines (NSSP, 2003), these two are equivalent in terms of public protection. '
Battelle
Mau..—finmvatwn
34
Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
3.2 NYSDEC Water Quality Regulations
NYSDEC maintains water quality regulations for surface water and groundwater as Title 6, Chapter X
Sections 700-706, last amended August 4, 1999. Contained within these regulations are standards for
' coliform (Section 703.4). The New York Commissioner of Environmental Conservation determines
which waters are acceptable for shellfishing. Water quality closures (year-round, conditional and
seasonal)are defined in Section 1.1.
' The determination of conformance is based on whether the waters meet appropriate standards. The
standard for total coliform in SA waters as outlined in Title 6, Chapter X, Section 703.4: the median most
' probable number (MPN) value in any series of representative samples shall not be in excess of 70.
However, since 2003, the NYSDEC shellfish sanitation program classifies shellfish harvest areas based
on fecal coliform standards. Fecal coliform standards are not currently addressed within NYSDEC water
' quality regulations. The National Shellfish Sanitation Program has developed the following guidelines
regarding fecal coliform: for an area to be certified, the geometric mean should not exceed 14 FC/100ml
and the 90`" percentile value should not exceed 49 FC/100m1. These standards apply to each station. A
station on a closure line should also meet certified criteria.
3.3 Standard Used for Shellfish TMDLs
' The NSSP program standards are used by the state's shellfish program to determine whether or not
shellfish waters are open for harvesting. Since shellfish harvesting is the designated use for the 25 water
bodies covered in this report, the standards used to determine the usability of the shellfish harvesting
' waters are used in the TMDL. As noted in Section 3-1, the NYS shellfish standard of"a median value of
70MPN/100ML"is equivalent to NSSP standards of a geometric mean criterion for SRS data. Therefore,
the NSSP standards are used as the endpoint in achieving acceptable water quality in the water bodies.
' Since NYSDEC's shellfish sanitation program now only analyzes water samples for fecal coliform
bacteria, in the future the assessment of the effectiveness of achieving the TMDLs will have to be based
on fecal coliform data.
' WeRe
A.
' 35
Final Report for '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
4.0 WATER QUALITY AND WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION '
A wide range of data and information were used to characterize the Peconic Bay water bodies and their ,
corresponding watersheds, or contributing zones. The categories of data used include physiographic data
that describe the physical conditions of the watershed, environmental monitoring data that identify '
potential pollution sources and their contributions, and ambient water quality monitoring data. Table 4-1
summarizes the various data types and data sources used in this characterization. Some of these data
types are described in the subsequent sections.
Table 4-1. Summary of Data Types and Sources Used in Water Quality and Watershed
Characterization. '
Data Category Description Data Source(s)
Land Use The Nature Conservancy' '
Watershed Weather Information National Climatic Data Center
Physiographic Data Stream Flows USGS
Storm Water Drainage Outfalls Suffolk County '
Environmental 303(d)Listed Waters NYSDEC
Monitoring Data Ambient Water Quality NYSDEC '
Monitoring Data Suffolk County
�—1
4.1 Water Quality Data '
The water quality data relevant for development of TMDLs in the study area were assembled from a ,
series of databases originating from the NYSDEC and Suffolk County. Attachment 1 contains the
geomean and 90`h percentile statistical values for both fecal and total coliform. The entire dataset for each
sample station was used to calculate the geomean and 90`h percentile for fecal and total coliform at the '
stations. Calculations were performed for sampling stations which did not contain the minimum 30
samples, per NSSP guidelines, and are indicated as such in Attachment 1. Additional calculations were
also performed for areas classified with seasonal closures, determining the geomean and 90`"percentile of '
fecal and total coliform during the closed period (Attachment 1). Subsequently, the stations within each
water body that possess values that exceed state standards for shellfish harvesting areas are identified.
These water bodies may be subject to further study necessary to establish TMDLs. These include load
reduction analyses, watershed modeling of sources, and the determination of acceptable TMDLs. As ,
described in Section 1.1, any sampling station that was located within a conditionally certified area at the
writing of this report is treated as being within a closed area.
'These land use data were originally developed by the Suffolk County Planning Department in 1997 and '
subsequently updated by the Nature Conservancy in 2001. '
Battelle
rx.BuM fln—. n
36
Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
4.1.1 NYSDEC Data
The NYSDEC shellfish sanitation program has typically collected 8 to 16 samples per year since 1986 at
ambient water quality monitoring stations throughout Peconic Bay. Since 1986,NYSDEC has examined
water samples for total and fecal coliform bacteria, although not necessarily simultaneously(see Table 3-
' 1 for clarification). Prior to 1997, samples were collected using APC sampling. Since January 1997,
NYSDEC samples have been collected using systematic random sampling (SRS) (see Section 3.1 for
further clarification). The datasets provided by NYSDEC contain monitoring for both fecal and total
' coliform,with a lack of fecal coliform readings from mid-1998 through 2000, and an end to total coliform
measurements occurring between 2002 and 2003.
The NYSDEC total coliform data is generally constrained by a minimum detection limit of 3
MPN/100mL and a maximum limit of 2,400 MPN/100mL. Indeterminate sample results below the
sensitivity of the MPN procedure used by NYSDEC are reported as <3 MPN/100ml. Sample results
' above the sensitivity of the MPN procedure are reported as.2400 MPN/100ml. For purposes of data
analyses, NYSDEC converts <3 MPN/100m1 values to 2.9 MPN/100ml and.2400 MPN/100m1 values to
2501 MPN/100ml. Data within some of the sampling stations recorded a "0" reading. These "0" values
have been confirmed by NYSDEC to represent no data collection during that sampling date. Therefore,
"0"s were not used during the analysis.
Differences existed among the frequency, time of year of the sampling, and type of sampling (SRS versus
APC) which affected the use of the data. Refer to Section 3.1 for NSSP standards. A summary of the
datasets by shellfish growing area and the range of data collection dates are shown in Table 4-2. The
timeframes of the compiled data sampling sets varied among sampling stations (see Column 2, Table 4-
2). Some of the monitoring stations within each water body did not have the required 30 samples post
1997. As samples prior to 1997 were collected under APC conditions, these stations have a component of
data which is reflective of APC conditions. Stations having APC sampling within the data analysis are
' noted in the two right columns of Table 4-2. A large portion of the stations having APC measurements
are the ones positioned in closed areas. Geomean and 90'h percentile values were also determined during
the "closed" periods of seasonally certified stations, which typically required a longer timeframe to
' accumulate the minimum 30 samples. Calculations of stations below the 30 minimum samples are
indicated in Attachment 1 and their sample sizes are given.
4.1.2 Suffolk County Data
Suffolk County has conducted long-term monitoring for both total and fecal coliform at stations
throughout the Peconic Estuary dating back to 1976. The County identifies their sampling stations using
' the prefix `060' followed by a three-digit station number. In this report, the County sampling stations are
identified using only the station number. Some County stations ceased monitoring in 1989 (e.g., 150,
160, 190, 200). These stations were not included in the exceedance analyses because the data were
determined to be too old and not relevant to recent conditions. The total and fecal coliform detection
minimums used by the County differed from NYSDEC protocol. The detection minimum as reported by
Suffolk County was `<20'. If a result was reported as `<20', it was not used in the exceedance
calculations because the actual value is not known and using an assumed value may artificially inflate or
deflate the statistical results. As is noted in the Attachment 1 tables, all of the County stations had fewer
than the standard minimum requirement of 30 samples.
Metre
' 37
Final Report for '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Table 4-2. NYSDEC Data Overview of APC Sampling Within This Study. '
Shellfish Growing Area Data Ran a ears Stations with APC Stations with APC '
Name Fecal Total Fecal Coliform Total Coliform
Sampling* Sam lin *
Shelter Island Sound 1997-2004 1997-2002 None None '
Stirling Basin 2001-2004 1999-2002 None None
Southold Bay
(Goose Creek,Town&
Jockey Creeks,Inner Jockey 1997-2004 1997-2002 None None ,
Creek
Hashamomuck
(Hashamomuck,Long Creek, 1997-2004 1997-2004 None None '
Mill Creek,&Budd's Pond
Little Peconic Bay
(Richmond Creek&North No Data No Data N/A N/A '
Sea
Great Peconic Bay
(James Creek&Deep Hole 1988-2004 1988-2002 8a, 9c 8a, 9c '
Creek
Flanders Bay SGA 29 1997-2004 1988-2002 None 1
Flanders Bay SGA 29C 4, 6a, 6b, 7-10, 12, 14, 4, 6a, 6b, 7-10, 12, 14,
(Flanders Bay&Reeves 1988-2004 1988-2002
Ba 15, 16C, 26, 17C, 19, 18 15, 16C, 26, 19, 18 '
Sebonac Creeks
(Sebonac Creek,Bullhead 1997-2004 1987-2002 None None '
Bay, Scallop Pond
North Sea Harbor 1990-2004 1990-2003 5, 6 5, 6
Wooley Pond 1988-2004 1988-2002 None None '
No ac Bay 1988-2004 1988-2002 8, 8.1 None
Sag Harbor 1986-2004 1986-2003 1.1, 1.2,4 1.1, 1.2,4
Northwest Harbor(Outer
Northwest Creek) 1990-2004 1990-2003 5, 6, 7, 8 5, 6, 7, 8 '
Acabonac Harbor 1997-2004 1997-2002 None None
Montauk Harbor 1988-2004 1 1988-2002 2, 5-11, 30 2, 5-11, 30 ,
*Stations listed here include primarily data prior to 1997 where sampling was conducted under APC.
4.1.3 Data Analysis '
The data from both NYSDEC and Suffolk County were screened for relevance and acceptability and
statistical analyses were performed based on the following set of rules: '
• Sampling stations must be located within Class SA waters within the water bodies listed in Table
1-1;
• If a station had 30 or more samples taken during the SRS period (1997-present), then all of those ,
SRS samples were used to calculate exceedances.
• If a station had fewer than 30 samples taken during the SRS period,then samples taken during the '
APC period(pre-1997)were included in the calculations,until a sample size of 30 was reached.
Battelle
71.
38 ,
Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
• If a station had fewer than 30 samples taken overall (i.e., during both the SRS and APC periods),
then all of the samples, regardless of whether they were APC or SRS, were used in the
' calculations.
• At both state and county stations that were located in seasonally certified shellfish areas, the
exceedances were calculated using only data taken during the closed period of the year.
• At both state and county stations that were located in uncertified shellfish areas, the exceedances
were calculated using data taken throughout the year,regardless of season.
' • Some Suffolk County sampling data were expressed as `< 20' or `< 2', indicating the detection
minimum. Since the actual measurement is not known and choosing one would be random and
arbitrary,these data were not included in the exceedance calculations.
' • Some Suffolk County sampling stations had data only from 1976 until 1989, with no results from
more recent times. Exceedances were not calculated from these stations, in order to prevent
irrelevant historic data from affecting the exceedance results. Other stations had data taken only
' during the timespan of a few days in 1995. Due to the narrow scope of this sampling scheme,
exceedances were not calculated for these stations.
Following these rules, statistical analyses were conducted on all relevant NYSDEC and Suffolk County
data associated with monitoring stations located within the appropriate Class SA boundary of each water
body listed in Table 1-1.
Maps of NYSDEC and Suffolk County sampling locations within each water body are provided in
Section 2.0. As depicted on the maps, each water body contains a variety of different shellfish
classification areas(i.e., closed, seasonally certified)and,naturally,the sampling stations are located in
' differently classified waters. Conditionally open areas are not shown separately on the maps because
their designation changes on an annual basis. Any areas that may be conditionally certified are included
within the `closed' sections of the maps (see Section 1.1 for clarification).
' Attachment 1 provides the results of the analysis of NYSDEC and County water quality data and includes
the geomean and 90th percentile statistical values for both fecal and total coliform. As stated in Section 3,
these values are equivalent in terms of public protection. Those data sets that fail to meet the minimum
requirements of acceptability associated with quantifying coliform exceedances are noted. Ultimately,the
water bodies that possess one or more stations that indicate impairment(i.e.,total or fecal coliform levels
in excess of state standards)are selected for further analysis in accordance with the TMDL process.
The 90`h percentile value for fecal coliform measurements exceeded the NSSP thresholds most often, and
was therefore, determined to be the most sensitive indicator for this study. According to the NYSDEC,
closures of shellfish lands are rarely based on water quality at a station failing to meet the geometric mean
component of the total or fecal coliform standards. Typically water quality problems at a station were
determined by the failure to meet the estimated 9e percentile component of the standard. Failure to meet
the 90`h percentile component of the standard means that water quality at the station is more variable than
the inherent variability of the most probable number (MPN) method used for examining samples.
Therefore, TMDL standards and modeling will be conducted using primarily fecal coliform data. Table
4-3 shows the water bodies and the stations within them that exceeded any of the NSSP standards for both
fecal and total coliform, although those stations that exceeded the NSSP 90th percentile threshold of 49
MPN for fecal coliform are most noteworthy. Table 4-3 identifies the water bodies for which subsequent
TMDL analyses will be performed. Water bodies or zones not listed within Table 4-3 will not undergo
TMDL analysis due to either lack of sufficient data for analysis or lack of coliform exceedances (refer to
Attachment 1). Water bodies not exceeding the applicable standards included Dering Harbor and Scallop
Pond. Existing loads in Dering Harbor, however, were very close to exceedances levels, and therefore, a
Battelle
7La,..;..e..f���,..
39
Final Report for '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
TMDL was developed. Water bodies without sufficient data for analysis included Downs Creek, Halls
Creek, Unnamed Pond, and Oyster Pond. Individual zones within larger water bodies also may not have
exhibited exceedances, and therefore were not included in Table 4-3. These zones include TJC-2, NH-4, '
NC-2, SH-1, SH-3, SH-4, and AH-1.
Table 4-3. Summary of Stations in Each 303(d)Water Body that Exhibits Exceedances for Fecal
and Total Coliform. '
Fecal Coliform(MPN/100 ml) Total Coliform(MPN/100 ml)
PWL Water Geommn>14 MPN Gwmean>70 MPN
Body Name Zone 901°Percentile>49 MPN 90' Percentile>330 MPN
S '
Gwmean p g n
Station percentile Station
Sampling
Geomean 90 percentae
Budds Pond
17001-0231-0234 N/A 109 28.7 124 14 '
- -
Stirling Creek
and Basin N/A - - - TC-3 412 19
1701-0049 '
Town/Jockey TJ-1 2.1 19.1 180.9 24 - _ _
Creeks and TJ-1 2.3 21 93 25
tidal tributaries
1701-0235 TJ-1 2.5 20.9 78 24 - '
N/A G2 - 115.8 27 -
N/A G3 16.1 141 27 -
Goose Creek N/A G4 16.3 151.8 27 '
(1701-0236) -
N/A FC1 3 - 51 27
N/A G6 59 26
HP-1 FC-1 204 35 TC-1 460 40Hash '
HP-1 FC-1.1 14.5 460 36 TC-1.1 460 42
Pond(1 01- HP-1 FC-1.2 - 53.7 40
Pond(1701- - '
0162) HP-1 - - - TCA 350 46
HP-2 350 25.2 3 _ _
HP-2 340 20 3 '
Richmond N/A FC-7.4 17.1 93 30
Creek and tidal N/A FC-
tributaries 7AA - - -
(1701-0245) N/A FC-7.4B 23.9 95.7 30 '
Tidal
Tributaries-
Gr Peconic Bay,Deep N/A FC-9C 18.1 - 30 ,
- - -
Hole Ck
1701-0247
Tidal '
Tributaries-
Gr James Ck N/A FC-8A 22.9 93 30
-
1701-0247 '
N/A FC-613 - 53.7 30
Flanders Bay, N/A FC-7 66.9 30
east/ctributaries nter
and N/A FC-26 76.8 30 '
tributaries - -
(1701-0030) N/A FC-15 168 49
N/A 170 34.4 86 10
Balfe�le
40 '
Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Table 4-3. Summary of Stations in Each 303(d)Water Body that Exhibits Exceedances for Fecal
and Total Coliform,continued.
' *FC-12
orm(MPN/100 m►) Total Coliform(MPN/100 ml)
ean>_14 MPN Geomean>_70 MPN
PWLWat¢r Zonercentile>_49MPN 90"Percentile>_330MPN
Body Name9oa Sampling 90°
omeaa percentile n Station Geomean Percentile n
Reeves Bay 75 30
' and tidal N/A FC-17C 15.7 75 30
tributaries
(1701-0272) N/A FC-20A 19.4 240 30
' N/A 210 78.3 478 10
Sebonac Creek N/A FC-2 19.1 85.8 17
/Bullhead Bay
and tidal'
tributaries N/A 148 49 58 2
1701-0051
NH-1 FC-3 22.8 240 40 TC-3 87.3 460 42
NH-1 - - - TC-3.1 140.6 418.3 2
North Sea NH-2 FC-4.2 71.8 52
Harbor and NH-2 FC-9 93 51
' tributaries
(1701-0037) NH-2 FC-10 93 51
NH-3 FC-7 26.2 225.3 30 TC-7 438 30
NH-5 104 30.1 67 8 - -
' N/A FC-2 - 93 30 - -
Wooley Pond N/A FC-3 32.5 240 30 TC-3 78.3 1100 30
(1701-0048) N/A FC-4 33.1 240 30 TC4 - 460 30
' N/A 300 31.7 60 6 - -
Noyac Creek
and Tidal NC-1 310 26.4 56 5
' Tribs.(1701-
0237
Sag Harbor
' and Sag SH-2 FC-9 78 44 - -
Harbor Cove
1701-0035
N/A FC-4 - 195.9 34 TC-4 460 40
' N/A FC-5 15.4 262 30 TC-5 524 30
N/A FC-6 19.1 460 30 TC-6 72.5 1240.1 30
Northwest N/A FC-7 21.7 460 30 TC-7 - 460 30
' Harbor and N/A FC-8 24.2 460 30 TC-8 - 1100 30
tidal tributaries
(1701-0046) N/A FC-9 213 34 TC-9 460 41
N/A FC-10 65.4 34 -
' N/A FC-15 7834 - - - -
N/A 131 36.9 140 14
Battelle
' 41
Final Report for '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Table 4-3. Summary of Stations in Each 303(d)Water Body that Exhibits Exceedances for Fecal '
and Total Coliform,continued.
Fecal Coliform(MPN/100 ml) Total Coliform(MPN/100 ml) '
PWL Water Geomean a 14 MPN Geomean>70 MPN
Body Name Zone 90*Percentile>_49 MPN 90°Percentile_330 MPN
Sampling Geomean "ft Sampling Geomean 901h n '
Station percentile n Station percentile
AH-2 133 21.5 80 11
AH-2 FC-13 - 73 45 - - -
AH-3 FC-15 81.7 460 24 TC-15 308.4 2501 30 ,
AH-3 FC-16 24.4 195.9 24 TC-16 - 460 30
AH-4 FC-33 28.7 460 24 TC-33 524 30
AH-4 FC-34 38.6 460 28 TC-34 - 524 30 '
Acabonac AH-4 FC-35 31 460 24 TC-35 71.2 1100 30
Harbor(1701- AH-4 FC-36 29.6 240 24 TC-36 - 460 30 '
0047) AH4 FC-4 46.3 652 28 TC-4 460 30
AH-4 FC-5 23.8 240 24 TC-5 1100 30
AH-4 FC-6 20.7 306 28 TC-6 460 30 '
AH4 FC-6.1 22.9 213 24 TC-6.1 716 27
AH-5 FC-I 17.6 240 52 TC-1 1100 55
AH-5 FC-2 14.3 240 52 - - '
AH-5 FC-3 39.2 460 24 TC-3 1100 30
LM-1 FC-14 - - - TC-14 416 46
LM-1 FC-17 93 37 - - '
Montauk Lake LM-2 FC-9 TC-9 460 30
(1701-0031) LM-2 FC-11 98.7 30 TC-11 81.3 1100 30
LM-3 FC-28 53 30 ,
LM-3 135 25.3 11
Little Sebonac
Creek(1701- N/A FC-3 14.2 93 17 TC-3 460 30 '
0253
4.2 Land Use t
The analysis of land use information is necessary to determine the likely sources of pathogens to
receiving waters. The relative magnitude of pathogen transport from sources within the watershed can be '
assessed by evaluating land uses within specific contributing zones. For this study, land use information
is used in a watershed model (Section 6) to determine relative pathogen loads to each impaired water
body. '
Land use data were immediately available through the EPA BASINS program; however, these data are
based on a relatively coarse spatial scale. This was of concern because some of the Peconic Bay water
bodies, and contributing watersheds, are relatively small in size and the resolution difference in the '
BASINS land use data could limit confidence levels of the pathogen loading analysis. However, land use
data have been developed by The Nature Conservancy for Suffolk County based on a finer scale of
resolution. These land use data are based on aggregations of parcel attributes originally developed for the '
Suffolk County Real EstateTax Map. The categories available within the Suffolk County GIS maps were
BMW
42
1
' Final Report for
Pecanic Bay TMDL September 2006
' aggregated into 15 general land use categories as part of an effort to establish accurate GIS data at the tax
map scale(Suffolk County Department of Planning, 2000). The 15 categories are defined in Table 4-4.
' Table 44.Fifteen Land Use Categories Associated with the Suffolk County Department of
' Planning Land Use.
Cat. Description Description
' 1 Low Density Residential < 1 dwelling unit(d.u.)/acre
2 Medium Density Residential > 1 to<5 d.u./acre
3 High Density Residential >_5 d.u./acre
' 4 Commercial Hotels,retail and office
buildings, sports areas,marinas
' Storage/warehouse facilities,
5 Industrial mining/quarrying operations, gas
or water pipelines
Schools, churches,hospitals,
6 Institutional government offices,military
installations, 'ails
' 7 Recreation/Open Space Golf courses,parks,conservation
land, camps,cemeteries
8 Agriculture Livestock,field crops, orchards,
poultry farms
' Vacant lots,abandoned
9 Vacant agricultural land,private forest
lands
' 10 Transportation Roads,highways, tunnels,
railroad
Power generation facilities,water
' 11 Utilities supply, communication
infrastructure,utility pipelines
12 Waste Handling&Management Landfills, sewage treatment
' Oysterlands,private or
13 Surface Waters government owned land under
water
14 Not documented Probably open coastal waters
15 Not documented Probably forested land'
Table 4-5 summarizes the 1999 land use acreage for each contributing watershed in the study areas
(Section 4.1.3).
°See discussion of these categories in Section 6.2.1.
Battelle
' 43
b
Table 4-5. Watershed Land Use
ACREAGE o c
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 a
bV' a ,�' a a e a i •a° e S a e e
Water Body
.Q C
F a a a eo 3 e
d m
e 33 F E .00 t d a > d 5 q o w p p
a d x u ao
Dering Harbor 69.34 41.01 8.36 13.49 0.54 1.22 22.50 38.98 30.42 0.36 235.99 3.91
Budds Pond 1.59 14.44 9.67 1.96 F70.1394.04
10.45 7.31 15.80
Stirling Creek 2.83 34.22 24.25 23.97 4.24 6.5031.72 23.42 0.02 39.47
Town/Jockey Creeks
TJC-1 49.40 136.95 10.2 14.6 11.8926.00 44.24 1.26 70.84
TJC-2 33.94 53.53 2.5 7.89 0.97 45.06 12.98 20.83 0.02 12.43 1.00
Goose Creek 64.39 204.64 2.89 2.36 6.978 60.00 59.00 0.35 88.50 12.77
Hashamomuck
HP-1 15.42 77.51 3.7 4.89 0.846 34.00 28.74 37.65 0.79
HP-2 32.43 43.53 2.36 3.19 7.37 4 112.13 28.48 0.47 140.71 3L71
Richmond Creek 59.31 20.62 0.21 0.39 7.16 67.63 20.23 15.42 0.75 82.66 4.18
Downs Creek 38.58 7.85 27.75 16.02 5.05 22.07 19.47
Deep Hole Creek 30.07 110.88 1.31 2.27 16.12 18.04 25.65 1.78 43.96 1.91
Halls Creek 24.47 10.95 0.18 12.46 2.96 6.26 4.38 7.15 23.74
Unnamed Pond 6.95 24.33 0.15 3.12 6.88 6.59 12.92 1.91
James Creek 37.74 67.85 3.12 10.85 0.16 4.72 23.93 18.80 0.16 26.02
Flanders Bay 269.65 457.82 114.21 197.41 59.15 95.95 3949.6 66.35 587.53 483.51 57.75 0.59 2928.25 167.08 37.27
Reeves Bay 58.00 139.47 45.66 13.64 2.63 147.29 137.96 72.49 398.00
Sebonac Creek 20.05 13.38 3.45 65.27 15.92 67.21 184.91
Scallop Pond 6.84 12.75 5.25 0.80 6.19 124.87
North Sea Harbor
rn
NSH-1 39.67 50.28 10.69 5.39 0.07 tp283.21
8 38.77 30.3 41.82
NSH-2 41.53 65.9 0.4 2 74.89 20.98 26.03
NSH-3 11.00 49.86 0.030.0035 10.89 15.46 7.03 mNSH-4 62.67 8.9 1.22 0.282 36.29 9.35 20.32NSH-5 12.39 26.64 5.72.6256 20.57 19.08 124.71
b ?
Table 4-5. Watershed Land Use,continued.
O Q
ACREAGE pa
n pa
1 2 3 4 5 677
6 8C 9A 1°ac0 11
�a 12' 13a 1e°4 10_5
b�a
PG 4
Water Body
c
d 3
> O c
09 0
a L
Wooley Pond 44.49 63.3 1.68 1.57 0.93 2.13 45.67 28.54 37.42
Noyac Creek 35.57 31.85 0.49 0.43 0.79 122.41 19.59 11.28 114.04
Sag Harbor
SH-1 4.83 24.08 1.50 1.07 16.20 4.25 13.29 28.35
SH-2 8.97 19.86 5.27 0.62 1.70 11.08 2.31 9.52 14.04
SH-3 66.98 175.84 30.45 7.51 32.79 19.83 41.91 64.15 386.86
SH-4 2.20 9.59 6.46 17.49 4.72 6.56 12.26 14.86 0.86 30.57
Northwest Creek 106.98 3.93 0.53 3.55 408.84 56.08 31.73 18.07
A Acabonac Harbor
AH-1 27.64 121.61 0.55 17.9 26.33 31.83 18.79
AH-2 81.34 65.25 0.19 101.33 39.44 22.25 141.45
AH-3 24.00 10.71 0.38 1.76 6.52 56.35 27.03 9.56 28.45
AH-4 67.10 6.1 118.6 14.86 10.28 87.82
AH-5 38.43 18.29 0.32 20.18 5.58 7.02 20.79
Montauk Lake
LM-1 10.22 64.58 26.27 52.43 4.88 2.05 110.24 42.79 64.68 4.00 74.59
LM-2 15.41 1.12 20.68 0.56 99.48 8.34 27.21 66.42
LM-3 287.80 433.8 45.66 22.57 406.84 29.59 317.20 325.7 7.3 922.96 177.04
Oyster Pond39.06 8.66 1,341.37 77.15 63.55
Little Sebonac Creek 150.38 29.52 1.26 1.74 542.81 127.09 29.32 276.87 7.42
m
m
PCI
9
a
m
N
O
O
a I
Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
' 4.3 Climate
' Official climatic data from the National Climatic Data Center recorded since January 1971 were available
from Riverhead Research Farm and Bridgehampton, New York (Station Numbers: 307134 and 300889,
respectively), as well as from Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL). The Riverhead Research Farm
Station is located near the mouth of the Peconic River and should be somewhat representative of
conditions at the western end of the Peconic estuary. The Bridgehampton station is located midway along
the south fork of Long Island and is the most easterly station on Long Island with available recent rainfall
data. BNL is located in Upton, NY, west of the Peconic Estuary mouth. Table 4-6 summarizes the
annual precipitation averages for each station throughout the period of record that is coincident with the
water quality data analysis. The wettest year across all stations was 2003 and the driest year for every
station but Bridgehampton was 1997.
' Table 4-6. Precipitation Data(in inches)from the Brookhaven National Laboratory,the Riverhead
Research Farm,and in Bridgehampton,New York.
' Brookhaven Riverhead
Year National Research Bridgehampton Average
Laboratory Farm
' 1997 40.04 38.38 47.47 41.96
1998 56.61 42.89 55.79 51.76
1999 51.72 48.58 43.91 48.07
' 2000 54.37 43.19 43.29 46.95
2001 45.55 46.59 49.27 47.14
2002 52.07 46.50 52.50 50.36
' 2003 63.11 57.50 60.10 60.24
2004 35.86 44.34 53.46 48.90
AVERAGE 49.92 46.00 50.72 -
' 4.4 Watershed Contributing Zones
' Total and fecal coliform delivery to the Peconic Estuary is believed to be primarily driven by storm water
transport due to the relatively high hydraulic conductivity of the soils and aquifer materials in this region
of New York. This results in high rates of surface water infiltration of surface waters and the recharge of
' groundwater, which acts as a net sink for pathogens. However, precipitation landing on impervious
surfaces such as rooftops, parking lots, and roads is often routed through storm water infrastructure to
either infiltration beds or directly to receiving water bodies. Infiltration beds are effective in upper
' watersheds where the distance between the land's surface and the water table (vadose zone) can be
significant. However, in urbanized coastal areas, storm water systems are often designed to discharge
into tidal creeks and estuaries to avoid the risk of flooding due to the relatively lower infiltration capacity.
Rather than delineating topographically-based whole watersheds, a series of contributing zones, or
subwatersheds, have been delineated for each of the Peconic Bay water bodies that are based on existing
' Peconic Bay storm water contributing zones. These zones were provided by the Peconic Estuary Program
(PEP). These delineations are based on an existing stormwater contributing zone map of the entire
Peconic Bay watershed (Suffolk County, NY). All of the water bodies in this study required slight
modification to this bay-wide contributing zone due to their relatively small size. Water body-specific
contributing zones were delineated on a GIS by overlaying the Peconic Bay stormwater contributing area
over spatially rectified USGS quad maps (supplied by EPA Region 2). Subsequent delineations of each
contributing zone were based on local topography and road networks.
' elle
7&auw. "41n�at;
46
Final Report for ,
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Each zone is shown, with respect to sampling locations and closure status, in Section 2. ,
1
1
Battelle '
47
t
' Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
5.0 SOURCE ASSESSMENT
' This section identifies the potential sources of fecal coliforms in the study area discharging into the
Peconic Bay estuarine system. Sources of information include GIS data and literature provided by EPA
' Region 2, NYSDEC, and the PEP. The Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment and Monitoring
Program (BTCAMP) study conducted by the Suffolk County Department of Health (1992), and
previously summarized by HydroQual (2003), also assisted in characterizing the relationship between
' point and nonpoint source loadings and in-stream responses at the monitoring stations located throughout
the Peconic Bay study area.
' Based on the historic water quality monitoring, the NYSDEC has indicated that the water quality
standards were generally exceeded in a number of water bodies within Peconic Bay (see Section 4). The
standards were often met in the open water except the areas in the vicinity of storm water outfalls, STP
effluent outfalls and tributaries (e.g.,Flanders Bay).
' Point sources of pollution are those that discharge flows and pollutant loads to a water body from a fixed
location or through a single point of entry such as a discrete pipe or ditch. The major point sources in the
' study area include: (1) STPs that receive and treat domestic/commercial/industrial wastewater; (2)
commercial and industrial plants whose discharges are permitted such as duck farms; and(3)urban storm
water from permanent drainage areas such as those with Phase 1 or Phase 2 storm water permits.
' Non-point sources encompass those pollution sources that have no single identifiable point of entry for
the contamination. One example is wildlife which is often a major source of bacterial contamination to
the surface waters with large open spaces/forests and wildlife population. Other potential nonpoint
sources include contributions from poorly designed, or failing, septic systems and cesspools; marinas;
boating activities; and limited bacterial contamination from ground water. Storm water from
' municipalities not covered by Phase 1 or Phase 2 storm water permits is considered a nonpoint source for
this study.
The following sections summarize the likely point and nonpoint sources of pollution in the study area.
5.1 Point Sources
There are five STPs with surface water discharges regulated by NYSDEC through State Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) that contribute directly to the Peconic estuary system. Located
in Riverhead, the Calverton Enterprise Park (formerly Grumman Aerospace) outfall flows into McKay
Lake which feeds Swan Pond which feeds the freshwater (non-tidal) Peconic River. The Town of
Riverhead is currently in the design phase of a planned upgrade for the Calverton STP, which includes
upgrading the STP to provide nitrogen removal and relocating the outfall to discharge to groundwater
' rather than surface water. The Brookhaven National Laboratory STP discharges to the freshwater (non-
tidal) Peconic River and has recently been upgraded to employ ultraviolet disinfection. The Riverhead
STP effluent is combined with the Riverhead/Southampton Scavenger Waste Facility. This facility has
' also been recently upgraded and the effluent is subjected to ultraviolet disinfection prior to being
discharged to the tidal portion of the Peconic River. Discharge from the Sag Harbor STP outfall is located
outside of the Sag Harbor study area has resulted in an administrative closure of an area immediately
seaward of the harbor's mouth. This facility has recently been upgraded and employs ultraviolet
disinfection. Data on the potential for tidal transport of pollutants from this point source to inner Sag
Harbor are currently not available. The Shelter Island Heights STP is a small sequencing batch reactor
(SBR) that uses sodium hypochlorite disinfection and is capable of treating up to 72,000 gallons per day
' Battelle
48
Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
(gpd). In addition to the five STPs, Atlantis Marine World discharges approximately 2,000 gallons per '
day and pretreats its discharge using ozone or chlorine prior to discharge to the tidal Peconic River.
There are no combined sewers5 in the entire area. A majority of the Peconic Watershed is served by ,
septic systems and a portion of the Towns of Brookhaven, Riverhead, and Southampton within the
watershed are served by separate sanitary and storm sewers. The village of Greenport is also sewered,but
the STP discharge is to Long Island Sound. '
The towns of Riverhead and Southampton are both regulated under the EPA's Phase II Stormwater
Program, as are the New York State Department of Transportation and the Suffolk County Department of '
Public Works, within these towns. As of March 2003, the municipal separate storm sewer systems
(MS4s) that serve these two towns were required to have a NPDES permit and a management plan that
prevents pollutant-laden stormwater from being discharged into nearby water bodies and impacting water
quality. The outfalls from these MS4s are considered point sources to the Peconic Estuary. ,
Duck farms have typically been the active permitted industrial discharges in the study area. By 1976,
most of the duck farms that discharged into the Peconic system went out of business. Although the '
Corwin Duck Farm is the sole remaining duck farm in operation in the Peconic Watershed, it no longer
directly discharges processing waste to surface water as of the late 1980s. This farm is located north of
Hubbard Avenue in the upstream reach of Meetinghouse Creek, and has a renewed SPDES permit that '
prohibits discharge except in the case of a 10 year, 24-hour rainfall event. Limited monitoring conducted
by NYSDEC and SCDHS has shown high levels of total coliform bacteria in the Meetinghouse Creek,
particularly after the rain events. This is potentially due to surface runoff from Corwin duck farm during '
high rainfall events along with other sources such as urban storm water from the creek's drainage area.
The PEP has delineated groundwater subbasins that discharge to the Peconic Estuary. Heatherwood Golf
Club at Calverton has a groundwater discharge in the vicinity of the western Peconic River. In addition, '
nine operating or closed landfills are identified as possible point sources of contamination. The industrial
discharges or landfills have been shown in the BTCAMP studies to have adversely affected groundwater
and surface water ecosystems. Although the groundwater discharges and landfills may contribute other '
pollutants such as nutrients,these are minor sources for pollutants such as pathogens.
The extent and intensity of storm water runoff was investigated by the Long Island 208 Wastewater '
Management Treatment Plan(LIRPB, 1978). The Long Island Segment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff
Program(LI NURP) further explored the problem of storm water runoff as it relates to local groundwater
and surface water quality (LIRPB, 1982). Both the 208 and LI NURP studies identified storm water '
runoff as the major source of bacterial loadings to surface waters in Suffolk County.
5.2 Non-Point Sources '
The nonpoint sources that typically contribute pathogens into estuarine systems include failing on-site
sewage disposal (septic) system; storm water runoff from developed areas not covered by Phase I or
Phase 2 Stormwater permits; runoff from agricultural areas and open space/forest; direct '
waterfowl/wildlife inputs; and boats and marinas. Relative contributions from each type of source are
significantly site-specific in nature,particularly in localized areas of study.
5 Combined sewers are historic sewer systems designed to contain stormwater and sanitary sewage in the same pipe. '
Under normal weather conditions,combined sewers transport the wastewater directly to a treatment plant.
However,during periods of heavy precipitation,these systems are designed to occasionally overflow and discharge
the stormwater and raw sewage directly into nearby water bodies. '
Bmene
rh.Bw�...a/1......c�..
49
' Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
5.2.1 Agricultural Sources
Although county-wide data on estimated livestock abundance has been compiled, no site-specific data
have been analyzed. Table 5-1 summarizes the Suffolk County agricultural data. Site-specific
information on livestock populations (i.e., representative of individual contributing areas) is not available
which makes estimating these sources difficult.
' Table 5-1. Summary of Suffolk County Agricultural Data.
t Suffolk ounty
Type of Livestock 1997 Number 2002 Number
Total Cattle and Calves 188 232
' Total Hogs and Pis 553 175
Poultry
Layers 20 weeks or older 3,719 3,544
' Broilers not available not available
Pullets not available 11146
Turkeys not available 270
' Horses and Ponies not available 1,391
Sheep and Lambs 392 182
Total Number of Farms (crops and livestock) 721 651
' SOURCE: USDA,2002
5.2.2 Marine Vessels and Marinas
Increased development throughout the coastal zone in conjunction with increasing demand for
recreational marina facilities has created the need to protect sensitive coastal environments while
' enhancing multiple uses of valuable coastal resources. In 1993, the Peconic Estuary Program
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (PEP, 2001) conservatively estimated that
approximately 1,150 establishments within the Peconic watershed were estuarine dependent (e.g.,
commercial fishing, marinas, boat repair, hotels/motels, and other businesses aimed at tourists and/or
recreationists). The estimated asset values (in 1995 dollars) of recreational fishing and boating were
assessed to be $276 million and $210 million, respectively.
' In June 2002, the Peconic Estuary was officially approved as a designated Vessel Waste No Discharge
Zone (NDZ)by the EPA (67 FR 39720). While a vessel is inside a NDZ, the discharge valve of a Type I
or Type II marine sanitation device (MSD) (Type I and II MSDs treat the sewage before discharging it)
' must be visibly closed, preventing wastes from being discharged into surrounding waters. A padlock or a
non-releasable wire tie can be used to secure the valve, or the valve handle can be completely removed.
A Type III MSD has a holding tank and is permitted in a NDZ as long as pumpout facilities are used to
' empty the tank. An ongoing public education plan was designed to inform boaters that discharging raw or
treated sewage within the NDZ is illegal and that all sewage from a Type III MSD must be held onboard
the vessel until a pumpout facility or specialized boat can empty the holding tank. For violations of the
NDZ law, section 33-e of New York State's Navigation Law provides for fines of up to $500 for a first
discharge offense and $1,000 for further violations. According to the 2000 Peconic Estuary "Petition for
Determination Regarding Adequacy of the Number of Vessel Waste Pumpout Facilities in a Water Body
to Support a No Discharge Zone" ,there are enough pumpout facilities in the greater Peconic Estuary area
to service between 10,800 and 21,600 vessels with Type III MSDs. Vessel counts conducted for the same
petition estimated that, in 2000, there were between 7,200 and 11,247 boats in the Estuary on a given
' WeRe
50
Final Report for '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
summer weekend (Table 2 in Attachment 2), and not every one of these vessels has a Type III MSD '
onboard. It should be noted that there is transient boating (people who take day trips from Connecticut,
New York City and other ports around Long Island) which is difficult to quantify due to lack of data. '
Based on the available information, the EPA concluded that more than enough pumpouts exist within the
Peconic Estuary to support a NDZ designation. Given the 2002 NDZ designation and the sufficient
pumpout facilities available, it is unlikely that vessel-derived human waste is a major source of coliform '
bacteria in Peconic Estuary waters. Even though sewage originating from vessels is thought to be a minor
contributing source, it is believed that marine vessel waste disposal systems are efficient and illicit
discharges are likely diminishing over time. The difficulty in estimating loading from this source makes '
modeling it futile, however, the NDZ and the increasing effectiveness of pumpout facilities likely renders
value estimates for discharges from this source unnecessary.
Data on land-based and mobile pumpout facilities serving the Peconic Estuary were compiled for the '
2000 Peconic Estuary "Petition for Determination Regarding Adequacy of the Number of Vessel Waste
Pumpout Facilities in a Water Body to Support a No Discharge Zone". The facilities, as well as their
location and their pumpout capacity, are presented in Table I in Attachment 2. To estimate the number of ,
vessels using the Peconic Estuary on a regular or transient basis, this NDZ petition also compiled
information on the number of slips, moorings, and private docks within several water bodies. These data
are shown in Table 2 in Attachment 2. Finally, Table 3 in Attachment 2 presents the number of gallons of t
vessel waste pumped out by the several pumpout boats operating within the Estuary between 1995 and
2002.
5.2.3 Urban/Residential Sources '
Urban and residential sources of fecal and total coliform bacteria are dependent upon a few primary
factors. These include residential density and the associated impervious surface area within a '
contributing zone, domestic pet populations, wildlife populations, and the effectiveness of onsite
wastewater disposal systems. The modeling approach (Watershed Treatment Model (WTM)) applied in
this study assumes default values of"urban"or"residential" source and runoff coefficients to yield a bulk '
annual fecal coliform load to each receiving water in the study. These default values are based on
extensive literature review and comparative studies within the U.S. (Caraco, 2001). See Section 6.0 for
further information on the WTM and its default values. '
Several thousand dogs and other pets are also estimated to be present (personal communication:
NYSDEC, 2003). According to the Long Island Power Authority's 2004 Population Census, the five
towns surrounding the Peconic Estuary had approximately 52,881 year-round households (LIPA, 2004). '
In its 2004-2005 Statistical Abstract,the United States Census Bureau made a national estimate that about
36% of households have dogs, and each household has an average of 1.6 dogs (U.S. Census Bureau,
2004). From these approximations, it can be assumed there are about 30,500 dogs in the five towns '
surrounding the Peconic Estuary.
5.2.4 Waterfowl '
Large waterfowl populations are present during the migration and winter seasons. Smaller,but significant,
numbers of waterfowl are present throughout the year. Several sources including NYSDEC, Suffolk
County Department of Health Services (SCDHS), and the local Audubon Society were contacted to get an '
estimate of the number of birds,but this data was not readily available.
Horsely and Witten(2003)provided a series of site-specific analyses of fecal coliform loads and transport ,
within the Peconic Bay area. In these studies, they rely on information reported by Weiskel et al. (1996)
in their estimation of waterfowl contributions to coastal waters. Based on their analysis, they assume that
Battelle '
51
1 Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
one can account for about 0.3 waterfowl per acre of surface water. They then multiply the area by this
"occupancy rate" and again by the estimated fecal coliform load associated with waterfowl waste
' generation (applied an average of 108 FC/day/bird). Because no additional site-specific rates of
waterfowl presence in the Peconic Bay area are available, this loading algorithm is applied consistently
across the 25 water bodies in this study. This annually integrated rate does not represent event-driven
abundances in fecal coliform detection in these water bodies, especially in local conditions (i.e., particular
feeding or breeding areas). Based on personal communication with local scientists and managers, the
paucity of waterfowl and other wildlife data suggest that further research in this area is necessary to
reduce uncertainties in relative magnitudes of these load sources (Dr. Robert Nuzzi, personal
communication).
Additional information on waterfowl contributions to some of the water bodies within the study area is
' described in Section 5.3.1.
5.2.5 Beach Wrack
' Beach wrack is the mat of organic material that often lines recent high tide lines along the coastal zone.
These mats largely consist of resident aquatic vegetation that has either died or been pruned by tidal,
' storm, or animal disturbance. Wrack mats can harbor bacterial populations and can also provide
environments for growth and redistribution of bacteria. Weiskel el al. (1996) estimated that wrack
yielded approximately 1.25 x 106 FC/kg. However, no site-specific data on the abundance, or variability,
of wrack biomass is currently available and literature values are extremely variable. For example, Dugan
' et al. (2003)reported observations of 1,200 to 2,179 kg/m/year of kelp wrack in South Africa and 473 kg
(wet) of macrophyte wrack per meter per year in a California coastal zone. These values are clearly not
applicable to Peconic Bay, but demonstrate the large ranges in wrack production and deposition. In a
' recent analysis of several embayments in Peconic Bay Horsely and Witten (2003) reported a general lack
of information on wrack deposition rates; however, they surmised that this could be an important source
of bacteria to Peconic Bay water bodies. Therefore, more analysis is required to establish the spatial and
' temporal contributions of beach wrack as a source of bacteria in the Peconic Bay embayments.
5.2.6 Marine Sediment Resuspension
' The resuspension of bacteria present in coastal sediments can potentially be a significant source to
shallow, localized areas. However, the resuspension is highly variable (Weiskel et al., 1996) and can be
quite difficult to predict due to a variety of confounding factors. Rates reported by Valiela et al. (1991)
' and further discussed by Horsely and Witten(2003)range from 7 to 18 FC/100 mL seawater.
5.3 Summary of Pollution Sources
Based on the review of past studies conducted by NYSDEC and SCDHS, the bays within the Peconic
Estuary are primarily affected by urban storm water runoff (which carries waterfowl, wildlife, and
' domestic pet waste into the Estuary) and direct waterfowl and wildlife inputs, followed by STPs, failing
septic systems, and boater waste. In the absence of quantifiable and accurate data on many of these
sources, limited data reported in literature from previous studies and experience gained from similar
' nation-wide studies were used to develop reasonable estimates of pollutant loads. These assumptions are
discussed throughout the following section on modeling approach.
' 5.3.1 Bacterial Source Tracking
The Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County has developed an E. coli bacteria library of
potential sources in the Peconic Estuary area. This library is being used to estimate predominant sources
Battelle
52
Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
of E. coli bacteria in surface waters, through DNA analyses, and help in the development of a more t
accurate characterization of bacterial sources in specific areas under various environmental conditions.
The sampling and analysis effort associated with this study spanned from 1999 to 2002 and results have '
been reported in Hasbrouck (2004), Identification of E. coli Sources for the Peconic Estuary Watershed
for Effective Mitigation of Nonpoint Source Pollution. This effort included 4 of the 25 water bodies '
identified in this TMDL study:
(1) Sag Harbor
(2) Hashamomuck Pond '
(3) Northwest Creek
(4) Reeves Bay '
The results suggest that while there are a variety of predominant sources of E. coli in the Peconic Bay
estuarine systems, the majority of samples indicate that waterfowl and other coastal inhabitants (e.g., '
muskrat and fox) typically rank among the highest in both wet events (i.e., rain events) and dry periods.
Table 5-2 summarizes the stations that occur within the 4 water bodies listed above.
Table 5-2. Summary of E. coli detection in 4 of the 25 study area water bodies as reported by
Hasbrouck(2003). Values represent percentages of total observations that are associated with each
defined source category during wet and dry conditions. '
Human Waterfowl Other Unknown
Water Body Station Date WettDry % % Dog% Wildlife % %
Sag Harbor 9 Aug1999 Dry 0 100 0 0 0 '
Sag Harbor 9 Oct 1999 Wet 0 0 4.5 95.5 0
Sag Harbor 9 Oct 1999 Dry 0 55.5 0 22.2 22.2
Sag Harbor 9 Nov 1999 Wet 0 0 0 0 100 '
Reeves Bay(Goose 18C Nov 2001 Dry 0 33.3 11.1 33.3 22.2
Creek
Reeves Bay(Goose 18C Nov 2001 Wet 8.3 91.6 0 0 0
Creek '
Hashamomuck Pond 1.1 Sep 1999 Wet 5.2 0 21.1 21.1 52.6
Hashamomuck Pond 1.1 Oct 1999 Dry 0 77.7 0 0 22.2
Hashamomuck Pond 1.1 Nov 1999 Wet 0 0 0 25 75 '
Hashamomuck Pond 2.1 Dec 2001 Wet 0 0 100 0 0
Hashamomuck Pond 2 Dec 2001 Dry 0 66.6 0 0 33.3
Hashamomuck Pond 2 Dec 2001 1 Wet 0 1 100 0 0 0 '
Hashamomuck Pond2 Jan 2002 D 0 0 0 100 0
Northwest Creek 3 Nov 2001 Wet 66.6 8.3 0 8.3 16.6
Northwest Creek 3 July 2000 Dry 0 100 0 0 0 '
Northwest Creek 3 Aug2000 Wet 0 0 0 0 100
Northwest Creek 3 Nov 2001 Wet 0 100 0 0 1 0
Battelle '
53
Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
6.0 MODELING APPROACH
' The most critical component of TMDL development is the establishment of the relationship between
source loadings and the impacts on the receiving water body. This relationship will assist in the screening
' and selection of appropriate watershed management options that will eventually achieve the desired water
quality goals.
' Some of the core principles in selecting modeling approaches for the Peconic Bay water bodies include:
(1)the TMDL must be based on scientific analysis and reasonable and acceptable assumptions. All major
assumptions must have been based on available data and experience gained from similar watersheds; (2)
the TMDL must use the best available data. All available data in the appropriate watersheds were
' reviewed and used in the assessment wherever possible; and(3)methods should be clear and as simple as
possible to facilitate explanation to stakeholders. All methods and major assumptions used here are
described in detail and presented in a format accessible to a wide range of audiences.
' To achieve these objectives, a Watershed Treatment Model (WTM; Caraco, 2001) has been utilized for
characterizing the 25 Peconic Bay water bodies. Some of these water bodies either did not exhibit
' exceedances of coliform standards or they lacked data essential to determine impairment (see Section 4,
Table 4-3). However, all 25 water bodies were included in the WTM source assessment. Most of the
water bodies in question have one certification status (uncertified, conditionally certified, or seasonally
' certified) for the entire water body. However, several water bodies contained more than one type of
certification status and therefore have been divided into local zones to simplify the TMDL analysis. Each
of these zones within these water bodies are addressed through separate TMDLs.
6.1 Statistical Rollback Method
The statistical rollback method (Ott, 1995) was applied as a method to estimate the reductions in fecal
' coliform load necessary to meet the water quality standards of 14 MPN/100 mL (geomean) and 49
MPN/100 mL (90th percentile). This method is appropriate when the observed data follow a lognormal
distribution (i.e., most observed values are relatively low while a few are significantly higher) which is
' the case with bacteria population distributions in aquatic environments. Compliance with the most
restrictive of the dual fecal coliform criteria determines the reduction necessary. The method compares
the observed geomean and 90`h percentile values to the corresponding water quality standards. The
' reduction needed for each target value to be reached is determined by calculating the rollback factor
Mttb.k)• For example,the method for determining the geomean rollback factor follows:
' Froub.k=(Observed geomean—water quality standard)/(Observed geomean)
The same method is applied for the 90`h percentile values and standards and the most restrictive of the two
' (i.e.,the greatest percent reduction required) is chosen as the target reduction.
F,,Ilb�k=(Observed 90`h percentile—water quality standard)/(Observed 90`h percentile)
1 6.2 Watershed Treatment Model
' The NYSDEC has water quality data from 203 separate sampling stations spread among the 25 water
bodies covered by this TMDL. The locations of these sampling stations are presented in Section 2 which
contains maps of all 25 water bodies, the sampling stations (NYSDEC and Suffolk County), shellfish
' Battelle
54
Final Reportfor ,
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
closure status, and stormwater contributing zones. The Watershed Treatment Model (Caraco, 2001) has ,
been used to characterize each of the contributing areas associated with the 25 water bodies whether or
not they indicate violations of either fecal or total coliform standards. The application of the WTM is '
simple yet detailed enough in terms of pollution source characterization. A series of spreadsheets
quantifies the loading of fecal coliform bacteria (it does not consider total coliform) based on land use,
precipitation, and fate and transport information, where available. The model is designed as a planning '
level tool for watersheds that do not have sufficient data or resources necessary for complex modeling
applications. The WTM has several tiers of data specificity; however,this general model has the capacity
to be modified to accommodate site-specific characteristics or variable data quantity and quality. In most
cases, fecal coliform loading estimates can be produced using readily available land use data. The '
spreadsheets calculate an annual fecal coliform load through the application of a series of algorithms that
are based on statistical relationships associated with the fate and transport of bacteria from sources to
receiving waters. These algorithms are based on empirical relationships and comparative studies over a '
wide array of watershed/water body systems (Caraco, 2001). Inputs into the model are aggregated into
primary and secondary sources, described below.
Primary sources in WTM include general land use categories that are assigned either a coefficient that is '
then multiplied by an annual runoff volume to calculate an annual load (e.g., urban land uses) or an
annual unit load that is applied as a function of land use (e.g.,rural land uses). See Tables 6-1 and 6-2 for '
a listing of the WTM model default values. These coefficients were chosen based upon research that is
summarized in TM's user manual (Caraco, 2001). Secondary sources represent a more refined set of
W
model inputs and can include more specific information such as combined sewer overflows or the '
presence of livestock and wildlife within a watershed. Similar to the primary source calculations, the
secondary sources are assigned a loading coefficient based on the extent of the land use activity.
Depending on data availability, specific data for point source discharges may be placed in this section of
the model as well as head counts for various livestock animals. Watershed areas with specific data on '
watershed management strategies can use the model to calculate load reductions that are `discounted'
based on the extent and success of implementation. The presence of Best Management Practices (BMPs)
such as detention basins or buffer strips,or the use of public education regarding the management of '
animal waste can be accounted for in existing and future loading scenarios.
Table 6-1. Watershed Treatment Model Default Values for Primary Sources
See Table 44 for definitions of land use cate ories '
Land Use Impervious
Cover % '
Low density residential 11
Medium density residential 21
High density residential 33 '
Multifamily 44
Commercial 72
Roadway 80 '
Industrial 53
Forest 0
Rural 0
* These rates assume a fecal coliform concentration of '
20,000 MPN/100m1. for areas with impervious surfaces.
metre '
rt
55
1 Final Report for
Peconic Bay TML September 2006
Table 6-2.Watershed Treatment Model Default Values for Secondary Sources.
' General Sewage Use
Individuals/Dwelling Unit 2.7
' Water Use cd 70
Fecal coliform concentration in 10,000,000
wastewater MPN/100m1
The goal of applying WTM is to characterize all the point and nonpoint sources of fecal coliform and to
determine their relative annually averaged contributions to the water bodies of interest within the Peconic
Bay estuary. The derived loading values will serve as the reference point from which reductions could be
made toward the TMDL target. Since flow and water quality data for creeks and storm water were not
' available, the point and nonpoint sources, including storm water(including urban and residential sources)
and waterfowl are assessed based on available information. Additional potential nonpoint sources do
exist (beach wrack, marine sediment resuspension) but the lack of site-specific or even regional data
preclude their consideration at this scale of study. Site-specific studies of local conditions may be
' necessary to elucidate the potential for these additional sources, particularly if DNA source-tracking
studies indicate strong evidence for these sources (See Section 5.3).
Percent reductions required to achieve the water quality goals are derived by analyzing the water quality
data using the statistical rollback method(Ott, 1995). Once the targeted reductions for point and nonpoint
sources are derived, specific and general management strategies can be identified for the watersheds of
' interest.
6.2.1 Modeling of Primary Sources
A land use analysis was performed for the drainage areas to the Peconic Bay water bodies and described
in Section 4 of this report. The overall land use map was intersected with the drainage areas for each of
the water bodies under current TMDL consideration, and land use distribution within these water bodies
' were determined. The stormwater contributing areas, as determined by the Peconic Estuary Program,
were used as the drainage area for each subwatershed. Wetlands and surface water areas were omitted
from the analysis because the spreadsheet model considers these land uses as non-contributing sources of
pathogens.
The WTM requires an annual rate of precipitation for the study areas. Precipitation data from the
National Climatic Data Center were available for the Riverhead Research Farm and Bridgehampton
stations (Station Numbers: 307134 and 300889, respectively). As described in Section 4, the Riverhead
and Bridgehampton stations are assumed to be adequately representative of conditions at most of the
' water bodies within the study area.
Primary source inputs required by the WTM include the following:
' • Residential
o Low Density Residential (LDR)(<I dwelling unit(du)/acre)
o Medium Density Residential(MDR) (1-4 du/acre)
' o High Density Residential(HDR)(>4 du/acre)
e Gallons per capita per day.
mew
56
Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
o Multifamily t
• Commercial
• Roadway '
• Industrial
• Forest ,
• Rural
• Open Water '
• Vacant Lots
• Annual Rainfall(inches)
The Suffolk County land use data is based on a tax assessor parcel scale. The individual tax assessor ,
codes have been aggregated into 13 more general land use categories (Table 4-4). Further aggregation of
some of these categories was performed to adequately meet the input requirements of the WTM model. '
Institutional is grouped with Commercial and Industrial contains Utilities and Waste Handling &
Management classes. Two unclassified categories (14 and 15) were not documented in the Suffolk
County land use report and were found to be infrequent in the study area. However, when these
unclassified categories (BTCAMP codes) were encountered they were found to often occur as open '
coastal waters or forested areas, respectively, when compared to regional land use data and USGS
topographic maps. These classifications should be reconciled by the creators of the data. The open water
areas were omitted for reasons explained above, and the forested areas were incorporated into the WTM '
input values where necessary.
6.2.2 Modeling of Secondary Sources ,
Secondary sources available for input into the WTM are shown in Table 6-3. Several of these secondary
sources were found to be inappropriate or unnecessary for this study. The number of households were '
attained from county parcel data(described above). The rate of septic failure was set at zero in the model,
therefore the percent of unsewered households was not a required input. Partially treated or untreated
sewage can be released to surface waters due to sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) or combined sewer
overflows (CSOs). However, none exist in the Peconic Bay study area and, therefore, not factored into ,
the WTM. Marinas do exist within Peconic Bay, however, as described in Section 5.2.2, the No
Discharge Zone (NDZ) designation and the increasing effectiveness of pumpout facilities renders value
estimates for discharges from this source unnecessary. Waterfowl estimates have been made '
independently of the WTM and incorporated into the final calculation of fecal coliform loads to each
water body. These are based on "occupancy rates"reported by Horsely and Witten(2003) and references
within. Although some livestock exist in some of the contributing zones in the study area, only county- '
wide estimates were available and, therefore, difficult to apply at the local scale. More study is required
to assess the role of livestock in several of the water bodies, particularly in light of some of the E. coli
source-tracking results reported by Hasbrouck (2004) (See Section 5.3). Sewage treatment plants (STPs) '
were accounted for in Flanders Bay only, and maximum permitted flows were applied as input. Fecal
coliform concentrations in STP flows were set at 200 MPN/100 mL which is the SPDES permit
requirement.
1
Mew
57
Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Table 6-3. Summary of Secondary Sources Associated with the WTM Model.
' CSOs Marinas Livestock/Wildlife Non-Stormwater Point
#of Un- Source
Miles
House- Sewered Median Sewer- Sewershed Berths
SSOs
t
hold Units of Storm shed Imper- Season Water Flow FC
Horses
Units (%) Event Area vious Length Fowl (MGD) (MPN/100mL)
(inches) (acres) Cover(%)
Note: Those sources directly applied in this study are shown in bold. Other potential sources were evaluated but
found not to be directly relevant to the load assessment(e.g.,no CSOs present).
6.2.3 Load Characterization
' The primary and secondary sources listed above were applied to the WTM to determine their relative
distribution within each of the water bodies.
' The WTM uses default values for source loadings where the user does not have site-specific data. Default
values for terrestrial loading were set at 20,000 MPN/100 mL of surface runoff and influenced by
additional factors such as land uses and their relative areas, precipitation and impervious surfaces. Rates
' of pet and waterfowl loads, and loads that are not yet quantifiable (e.g., wrack), are described in
Section 5.
1
eue
58
Final Report for '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
7.0 LOAD ALLOCATIONS
7.1 Background ,
The objective of a TMDL plan is to allocate allowable loads among the various pathogen sources so that
the appropriate management actions can be taken to achieve the desired water quality results. The specific '
objective of the TMDLs for the Peconic Bay water bodies is to determine the required reductions in fecal
coliform loadings from various nonpoint and point sources in order to meet the two water quality
standards of 14 MPN/100mL as geometric mean and a 90 percentile value of less than 49 MPN/100mL. '
In cases where fecal coliform data were limited, total coliform data were applied, if possible. This
occurred in only one instance: Stirling Creek. The incorporation of different sources into the TMDL is
defined in the following equation(USEPA, 1999): '
TMDL=WLA+LA+MOS
where: t
WLA =waste load allocation(point sources)
LA =load allocation(nonpoint sources),and
MOS =margin of safety. ,
In addition, the selection of critical conditions that increase the overall protectiveness of the TMDL is an '
important element in the TMDL development process, along with consideration of seasonal variation and
a margin of safety. These elements are described in the following sections.
7.2 Seasonal Variations and Critical Conditions '
Fecal coliform bacteria concentrations can vary on a seasonal basis in some parts of the study area. The
seasonality of shellfish bed closures reflects the cyclical nature of fecal coliform loads to receiving '
waters. Therefore, the closure periods (typically from May 1 through October 31) were chosen for
analysis with the expectation that the pollution management plans developed for this period will protect
the water body during the winter period (typically from November 1 through April 30). Although the ,
May 1-October 31 timeframe was examined here, the shellfish area closure schedules in some of the
water bodies may vary slightly from these dates (see Section 2.0 for discussion on the specific closure
dates for individual water bodies). '
In addition to being the period in which SRS sampling data are available,the 1997-2004 period contains a
mix of wet years (above the long-term average) and average years. The year 2003 exhibited highest
seasonal as well as annual precipitation among these seven years, therefore, was chosen as the critical '
year for TMDL development.
7.2.1 Margin of Safety '
The margin of safety (MOS) is included in the TMDL development process to account for any uncertainty
on loadings and the fate and transport of fecal coliform in the watershed. There are two basic approaches '
for incorporating the MOS (USEPA, 1999):
• Implicit incorporation of MOS using conservative model assumptions to develop allocations, or
• Explicit incorporation of MOS as a portion of the total TMDL and the remainder is used for the '
allocations.
Battelle '
59
Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
The MOS was included in this study as a combination of the implicit and explicit approaches for the
Peconic Bay estuarine systems as described in the following sections. A 10% explicit margin of safety
' was incorporated into the loading capacity.
A series of implicit approaches to increase the conservative (protective)nature of this analysis include the
' following:
• Use of seasonal data instead of the annual data for conservative assessment of water quality
conditions in seasonally certified water bodies.
' • Use of the year 2003 as critical condition in which precipitation was highest among the
approximate seven years spanning the water quality period of record.
' • Use of design (maximum) flows for the STP treatment facilities that contribute to
Flanders/Reeves Bay rather than flows from recent discharge monitoring reports that are typically
lower.
' 7.3 Allocation Scenario
' As described in Section 3, the geometric mean (14 MPN/100mL) and the 90`" percentile (49
MPN/100mL) criteria must be met in order to designate the water body for shellfish harvest. New York
state standards set no averaging period (but specifies a minimum number of samples to be used for
calculation of geometric mean and 90`" percentile values) on which to calculate these values from the
' historic water quality data for comparison with the standards. The SRS data and the data compiled by
NYSDEC in the past have shown that the geometric mean criterion is usually met and the 90th percentile
criterion is often the difficult target to meet.
' However,the estimated 90`"percentile of the fecal coliform standards does not indicate that fecal coliform
values at certified shellfishing areas are allowed to exceed the criteria ten percent of the time. Rather, the
901h percentile is a measure of water quality variation at a particular station compared to the variability
inherent in the multiple-tube, multiple-dilution MPN method for examining water samples. When the
variability of actual station data exceeds the inherent variability of the MPN procedure, there are likely to
be some environmental factors (e.g., pollution sources) affecting water quality at that station that make
the area unsuitable for shellfishing certification.
A statistical rollback method (Ott, 1995) describes a way to use the statistical characteristics of a set of
water quality parameter results to estimate the distribution of future results after abatement processes are
applied to sources. The method relies on basic dispersion and dilution assumptions and their effect on the
mean and standard deviation of bacteria sample results at a monitoring site downstream from a source.
' The rollback method then provides a statistical estimate of the new population after a chosen reduction
factor is applied to the existing pathogen source. In this load allocation process, compliance with the
most restrictive of the dual fecal coliform criteria will determine the bacteria reduction needed. The
target reductions developed for the Peconic Bay estuarine systems are provided in the following sections.
These sections contain two tables for each water body: (1) loads of fecal coliform from watershed and
waterfowl sources as determined through the application of the WTM and waterfowl occupancy and
' loading rates derived from Horsely and Witten (2003); and (2) summary of load reductions based on the
rollback method, including a 10%MOS explicitly applied to the loading capacity.
' For water bodies within the towns of Riverhead and Southampton,part of the load from urban stormwater
determined through the application of WTM was attributed to MS4s. These loads were treated as a part of
"waste load allocation" (WLA) category in accordance with EPA guidance. Based upon the field
reconnaissance, review of the land use and watersheds maps and using best professional judgment, a
Battelle
7A.o..;. .f,..o..t:-
60
Final Report for '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
percentage of the existing estimated load of MS4 was assigned to the conveyances. The remainder of the ,
stormwater load was assumed to flow directly from private properties to watercourse and is considered as
a component of nonpoint source load — "Load allocation" (LA). As nonpoint source load includes the ,
waterfowl load and runoff from rural land and the stormwater directly discharged to the watercourses
(treated as NPS), a reduction of 25 percent was assumed (based upon best professional judgment) to be
maximum that could be reasonably achieved. This percentage reduction was used to calculate the load
allocation(LA). ,
7.3.1 Dering Harbor(1701-0050)
Table 7-1. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Dering Harbor '
SOURCES Billion FC/year '
POINT SOURCES
Sewage Treatment Plant 1 0
RESIDENTL4L/URBAN LAND ,
MS4 Contribution 0
Non-MS4 Contribution 47,722
OTHER NONPOINT SOURCES
Rural Land - '
Forest 270
Waterfowl 2,628
TOTAL LOAD ' 'ons 50,620 '
Water Body ha 97.12
Billions FC Load/ha 521
"Urban land"is a combination of residential land,commercial land,industrial land,and roadways. '
'This source includes the load from domestic pets of 18,732 billion FC/year.
'0%of the residential/urban load was attributed to MS4 conveyances,based on a review of maps in Chapter 2 and
land use data.
4 100%of the residential/urban load was attributed to stormwater not flowing through MS4 conveyances. t
Table 7-2. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet
Target TMDL Loads in Dering Harbor '
Rollback Load
Load Reduction
Based on Condition Units Dering Reduction
Station 5.2
Harbor (billion FC/yr) '
Nonpoint Sources (billion FC/yr) 50,620
Existing Permitted Point Source
Conditions Contributions (billion FC/yr) 0 '
Total Existing Loads (billion FC/yr) 50,620 -
LA (billion FC/yr) 45,558 5,062 10 '
TMDL WLA (billion FC/yr) 0 - -
MOS (billion FC/yr) 5,062 - - ,
TMDL (billion FC/yr) 50,620 5,062 10
Note: The TMDL value reported in the table is the annually integrated value. The TMDL(daily)value is 138.68
billion FC/day. '
BWell '
61
' Final Reportfor
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
'Dering Harbor load reductions are based on the 10%MOS due to a relatively small margin of
assimilative capacity. That is,the existing conditions exhibit fecal coliform levels that are not in
' exceedance but are close. For protective reasons,the TMDL was set at the existing estimated loads and
the 10%MOS provides a load reduction necessary to maintain compliance with the numeric standards.
' 7.3.2 Budds Pond(1701-0234)
Table 7-3. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Budds Pond
' SOURCES Billion FC/year
POINT SOURCES
Sewa a Treatment Plant 1 0
' PF"ENTIAUURBAN LANA
MS4 Contribution 0
Non-MS4 Contribution 14,264
' OTHER NONPOINT SOURCES
Rural Land 607
Forest 30
Waterfowl 166
' TOTAL LOAD(Billions) 15,067
Water Body ha 6.07
Billions FC Load/ha 2,482
' "Urban land"is a combination of residential land,commercial land,industrial land,and roadways.
'This source includes the load from domestic pets of 3,784 billion FC/year.
3 0%of the residential/urban load was attributed to MS4 conveyances,based on a review of maps in Chapter 2 and
' land use data.
° 100%of the residential/urban load was attributed to stormwater not flowing through MS4 conveyances.
' Table 7-4. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet
Target TMDL Loads in Budds Pond
Load Load
Rollback BasedReduction
on Station 109 Condition Units Budds Pond (billion Reduction
FC/yr) (%)
' Nonpoint Sources (billion FC/yr) 15,067
Existing Permitted Point Source (billion FC/yr) 0
Conditions Contributions
Total Existing Loads (billion FC/yr) 15,067 - -
LA (billion FC/yr) 5,356 9,116 64.5
' WLA (billion FC/yr) 0 0 0
TMDL
MOS (billion FC/yr) 595
TMDL (billion FC/yr) 5,951 9,116 64.5
' Note: The TMDL value reported in the table is the annually integrated value. The TMDL(daily)value is 16.30
billion FC/day.
' BAelle
62
Final Report for '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
7.3.3 Stirling Creek(1701-0049) t
Table 7-5. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Stirling Creek '
SOURCES I Billion FC/year
POINT SOURCES
Sewage Treatment Plant 1 0 '
RESIDENTLUJURBAN LAND
MS4 Contribution 0
Non-MS4 Contribution 48,865 '
OTHER NONPOINT SOURCES
Rural Land
Forest 164 '
Waterfowl 563
TOTAL LOAD ons 49,592
Water Body a 20.64
Billions FC Load/ha 2,420 t
"Urban land"is a combination of residential land,commercial land,industrial land,and roadways.
'This source includes the load from domestic pets of 30,842 billion FC/year.
'0%of the residential/urban load was attributed to MS4 conveyances,based on a review of maps in Chapter 2 and ,
land use data.
4 100%of the residential/urban load was attributed to stormwater not flowing through MS4 conveyances.
Table 7-6. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet '
Target TMDL Loads in Stirling Creek
Load Load '
Rollback Based Stirling Reduction
on Station TC-3 Condition Units Creek (billion Reduction
FC/yr (%)
Nonpoint Sources (billion FC/yr) 49,592 -
Existing Permitted Point Source
Conditions Contributions (billion FC/yr) 0 '
Total Existing Loads (billion FC/yr) 49,592 - -
LA (billion FC/yr) 35,751 9,869 28 '
TMDL WLA (billion FC/yr) 0 0 0
MOS (billion FC/yr) 3,972 - -
TMDL (billion FC/yr) 39,723 9,869 28 '
Note: The TMDL value reported in the table is the annually integrated value. The TMDL(daily)value is 108.83
billion FC/day. '
Metre ,
'16 Bum—Jlve vatiaa
63
Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
1 7.3.4 Town and Jockey Creeks (1701-0235)
' Table 7-7. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Town and Jockey Creeks
SOURCES TJ-1 TJ-2
Billion FC/year Billion FC/year
' POM SOURCES
Sewage Treatment Plant 1 0 0
RES1DEIqTL4L4JRBAN LAND'
' MS4Contribution 0 0
Non-MS4 Contribution 80,798 59,844
OTHER NONPOINT SOURCES
' Rural Land - -
Forest 72 34
Waterfowl 805 148
TOTAL LOAD 81,675 60,026
' ons
Water Body ha 29.95 5.67
Billions FC Load/ha 2,727 10,587
' "Urban land"is a combination of residential land,commercial land,industrial land,and roadways.
2This source includes the load from domestic pets of 37,465(TJ-1)and 16,589(TJ-2)billion FC/year.
3 0%of the residential/urban load was attributed to MS4 conveyances,based on a review of maps in Chapter 2 and
land use data.
4 100%of the residential/urban load was attributed to stormwater not flowing through MS4 conveyances.
Table 7-8. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet
Target TMDL Loads in Town and Jockey Creeks
Town and Load Load
' Rollback Based Reduction
Condition Units Jockey Reduction
on Station 2.1 Creeks (billion
FC/yr)
Nonpoint Sources (billion FC/yr) 81,675
Existing Permitted Point Source (billion FC/yr) 0
Conditions Contributions
Total Existing Loads (billion FC/yr) 81,675
LA (billion FC/yr) 19,921 59,541 76
' WLA (billion FC/yr) 0 0 0
TMDL
MOS (billion FC/yr) 2,213
TMDL (billion FC/yr) 22,134 59,541 76
' Note: The TMDL value reported in the table is the annually integrated value. The TMDL(daily)value is 60.64
billion FC/day.
' Note: A TMDL was not calculated for Zone TJ-2 because,based on available water quality data,there
were no coliform concentration exceedances
' elle
64
Final Reportfor '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
7.3.5 Goose Creek(1701-0236) '
Table 7-9. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Goose Creek '
SOURCES I Billion FC/year
POINT SOURCES
Sewage Treatment Plant 1 0 '
RESMENTIAL/URBAN LAND
MS4 Contribution 0
Non-MS4 Contribution4 93,127 '
OTHER NONPOINT SOURCES
Rural Land 1,064
Forest 333 '
Waterfowl 1,065
TOTAL LOAD ons 951589
Water Body(ha 39.25
Billions FC Load/ha 2,435 '
""Urban land"is a combination of residential land,commercial land,industrial land,and roadways.
'This source includes the load from domestic pets of 49,858 billion FC/year.
3 0%of the residential/urban load was attributed to MS4 conveyances,based on a review of maps in Chapter 2 and '
land use data.
4 100%of the residential/urban load was attributed to stormwater not flowing through MS4 conveyances.
Table 7-10. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet ,
Target TMDL Loads in Goose Creek
Load Load '
Rollback Based Goose Reduction
on Station G4 Condition Units Creek (billion Reduction
FC/yr) (%)
Nonpoint Sources (billion FC/yr) 95,589 '
Existing Permitted Point Source million FC/yr) 0
Conditions Contributions
Total Existing Loads (billion FC/yr) 95,589 - ,
LA (billion FC/yr) 27,788 64,714 71
TMDL WLA (billion FC/yr) 0 0 0 '
MOS (billion FC/yr) 3,088 - -
TMDL (billion FC/yr) 30,875 64,714 71 '
Note: The TMDL value reported in the table is the annually integrated value. The TMDL(daily)value is 84.59
billion FC/day.
BattelleAe Rusin—of 1--tion
,
65
' Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
7.3.6 Hashamomuck Pond(1701-0162)
' Table 7-11. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Hashamomuck Pond
SOURCES HP-1 HP-2
Billion FC/ ear Billion FC/year
POINT SOURCES
Sewage Treatment Plant 1 0 0
' RESIDENTIAL/URBAN LAND
MS4 Contribution 0 0
Non-MS4 Contribution 40,238 36,995
' OTHER NONPOINT SOURCES
Rural Land 2,603 3,668
Forest 91 842
Waterfowl 392 1,500
' TOTAL LOAD 43,324 43,005
(Billions)
Water Body ha 14.57 55.44
Billions FC Load/ha 2,973 776
"Urban land"is a combination of residential land,commercial land,industrial land,and roadways.
2 This source includes the load from domestic pets of 16,556(HP-1)and 11,637(HP-2)billion FC/year.
'0%of the residential/urban load was attributed to MS4 conveyances,based on a review of maps in Chapter 2 and
' land use data.
100%of the residential/urban load was attributed to stormwater not flowing through MS4 conveyances.
' Table 7-12a. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to
Meet Target TMDL Loads in Hashamomuck Pond,Zone HP-1
1 Rollback Based Hashamomuck Load Load
on Station FC- Condition Units Pond ReductionReduction
' 1.1 (HP-1) (billion
FC/yr
Nonpoint Sources (billion FC/yr) 43,324
' Existing Permitted Point Source (billion FC/yr) 0
Conditions Contributions
Total Existing Loads (billion FC/yr) 43,324 -
' LA (billion FC/yr) 4,153 38,710 90
WLA (billion FC/yr) 0 0 0
TMDL
' MOS (billion FC/yr) 461
TMDL (billion FC/yr) 4,614 38,710 90
Note: The TMDL value reported in the table is the annually integrated value. The TMDL(daily)value is 12.64
' billion FC/day.
' Battelle
66
Final Report for '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Table 7-12b. '
Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet Target '
TMDL Loads in Hashamomuck Pond,Zone HP-2
Hashamomuck Load Load '
Rollback Based Reduction
on Station 350 Condition Units (IP 2) (billion Reduction
FC/yr) )
Nonpoint Sources (billion FC/yr) 43,005 '
Existing Permitted Point Source
Conditions Contributions (billion FC/yr) 0
Total Existing Loads (billion FC/yr) 43,005 - '
LA (billion FC/yr) 21,520 19,094 50
TMDL WLA (billion FC/yr) 0 0 0 ,
MOS (billion FC/yr) 2,391 - -
J. TN
IDL (billion FC/yr) 23,911 19,094 50 '
Note: The TMDL value reported in the table is the annually integrated value. The TMDL(daily)value is 65.51
billion FC/day.
7.3.7 Richmond Creek(1701-0245) '
Table 7-13. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Richmond Creek '
SOURCES I Billion FC/year
POINT SOURCES
Sewage Treatment Plant 1 0 ,
RESIDENTIAI✓URBAN LAND
MS4 Contribution 0
Non-MS4 Contribution 22,015 '
OTHER NONPOINT SOURCES
Rural Land 2,637
Forest 86 '
Waterfowl 913
TOTAL LOAD ons 25,651
Water Body ha 33.6
Billions FC Load/ha 763 ,
"Urban land"is a combination of residential land,commercial land,industrial land,and roadways.
'This source includes the load from domestic pets of 10,028 billion FC/year.
' 0%of the residential/urban load was attributed to MS4 conveyances,based on a review of maps in Chapter 2 and '
land use data.
" 100%of the residential/urban load was attributed to stormwater not flowing through MS4 conveyances.
BMW '76,
67
Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
' Table 7-14. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet
Target TMDL Loads in Richmond Creek
Load Load
No Station Data Richmond Reduction
Available Condition Units Creek (billion Reduction
FC/ r)) (%)
Nonpoint Sources (billion FC/yr) 25,651
' Existing Permitted Point Source (billion FC/yr) -
Conditions Contributions
Total Existing Loads (billion FC/yr) 25,651 - -
' LA (billion FC/yr) 4,317 20,854 83
WLA (billion FC/yr) 0 0 0
TMDL
MOS (billion FC/yr) 480 - -
TMDL (billion FC/yr) 4,797 20,854 83
' Note: The TMDL value reported in the table is the annually integrated value. The TMDL(daily)value is 13.14
billion FC/day.
7.3.8 Downs Creek(1701-0247)
' Table 7-15. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Downs Creek
SOURCES I Billion FC/year
POINT SOURCES
Sewage Treatment Plant 1 0
RESIDENTIAL/URBAN LAND
MS4 Contribution 0
Non-MS4 Contribution4 9,603
OTHER NONPOINT SOURCES
' Rural Land
Forest 333
Waterfowl 230
TOTAL LOAD(Billions) 10,166
Water Body ha 8.5
Billions FC Load/ha/ 1,196
' "Urban land"is a combination of residential land,commercial land,industrial land,and roadways.
'This source includes the load from domestic pets of 3,311 billion FC/year.
0%of the residential/urban load was attributed to MS4 conveyances,based on a review of maps in Chapter 2 and
land use data.
' a 100%of the residential/urban load was attributed to stormwater not flowing through MS4 conveyances.
Note: A TMDL was not calculated for Downs Creek due to the lack of data associated with the water
' body.
' Melle
68
Fina[Report far '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
7.3.9 Deep Hole Creek and Unnamed Pond(1701-0247) ,
Table 7-16. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Deep Hole Creek and Unnamed Pond ,
SOURCESDeep Hole Creek Unnamed Creek
Billion FC/ ear Billion FC/Year
POINT SOURCES '
Sewage Treatment Plant 1 0 0
RESIDENTIAL/URBAN LAND 14
MS4 Contribution 0 0 '
Non-MS4 Contribution 34,817 9,T9 I
OTHER NONPOEW SOURCES
Rural Land 507 122 '
Forest - -
Waterfowl 344 151
TOTAL LOAD 35,668
ono ,Water Body a 12.55 14.00
Billions FC Load/ha/yr 1 2,842 1 10,263
"Urban land"is a combination of residential land,commercial land,industrial land,and roadways. '
2 This source includes the load from domestic pets of 20,341 billion FC/year.
s 0%of the residential/urban load was attributed to MS4 conveyances,based on a review of maps in Chapter 2 and
land use data.
° 100%of the residential/urban load was attributed to stormwater not flowing through MS4 conveyances. '
Table 7-17. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet '
Target TMDL Loads in Deep Hole Creek
Rollback Based Load Load
Hole Reduction '
on Station FC- Condition Units Deep Reduction
9C Creek (billion (%)
FC/ r
Nonpoint Sources (billion FC/yr) 35,668 ,
Existing Permitted Point Source
Conditions Contributions (billion FC/yr) 0
Total Existing Loads (billion FC/yr) 35,668 - '
LA (billion FC/yr) 24,830 8,079 30
TMDL WLA (billion FC/yr) 0 0 0 '
MOS (billion FC/yr) 2,759 - -
TMDL (billion FC/yr) 27,589 8,079 30
Note: The TMDL value reported in the table is the annually integrated value. The TMDL(daily)value is 75.59 '
billion FC/day.
Note: A TMDL was not calculated for Unnamed Pond due to the lack of data associated with the water ,
body.
Battelle '
T
69
1 Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
' 7.3.10 Halls Creek(1701-0247)
' Table 7-18. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Halls Creek.
SOURCES I Billion FC/year
POINT SOURCES
Sewage Treatment Plant 1 0
RESIDENTIAL/URBAN LAND
MS4 Contribution 0
' Non-MS4 Contribution 8,716
OTHER NONPOINT SOURCES
Rural Land 116
' Forest 150
Waterfowl 90
TOTAL LOAD iBions 9,072
' Water Body ha 3.24
Billions FC Load/ha 2,800
"Urban land"is a combination of residential land,commercial land,industrial land,and roadways.
2 This source includes the load from domestic pets of 4,541 billion FC/year.
' '0%of the residential/urban load was attributed to MS4 conveyances,based on a review of maps in Chapter 2 and
land use data.
100%of the residential/urban load was attributed to stormwater not flowing through MS4 conveyances.
' Note: A TMDL was not calculated for Halls Creek due to the lack of data associated with the water body.
7.3.11 James Creek(1701-0247)
Table 7-19. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to James Creek
' SOURCES Billion FC/year
POINT SOURCES
Sewage Treatment Plant 1 0
RnMENTIAL/URBAN LAND
MS4 Contribution 0
Non-MS4 Contribution4 37,663
' OTHER NONPOINT SOURCES
Rural Land
Forest 57
Waterfowl 334
TOTAL LOAD(Mons)
Water Body ha 12.55
Billions FC Load/ha 3,032
' "Urban land"is a combination of residential land,commercial land,industrial land,and roadways.
2 This source includes the load from domestic pets of 21,760 billion FC/year.
'0%of the residential/urban load was attributed to MS4 conveyances,based on a review of maps in Chapter 2 and
' land use data.
4 100%of the residential/urban load was attributed to stormwater not flowing through MS4 conveyances.
' Battelle
rl�aW��..11w�.auun
70
Fina[Report for '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Table 7-20. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet '
Target TMDL Loads in James Creek
Rollback Based Load Load 1
on St FC- Condition Units James Creek (billion
A Reduction Reduction
FC/ r (� ) '
Nonpoint Sources (billion FC/yr) 38,054 -
Existing Permitted Point Source (billion FC/yr) 0 '
Conditions Contributions
Total Existing Loads (billion FC/yr) 38,054 - -
LA (billion FC/yr) 18,046 18,003 53 '
TMDL WLA (billion FC/yr) 0 0 0
MOS (billion FC/yr) 2,005 - - '
TMDL (billion FC/yr) 20,051 1 18,003 53
Note: The TMDL value reported in the table is the annually integrated value. The TMDL(daily)value is 54.93
billion FC/day. '
7.3.12 Flanders Bay(1701-0030) '
The WTM results for the watershed zones that are contributing to specific station exceedances are shown
in Table 7-21. The total fecal coliform load is estimated at 773,118 billion per year. Discharge from the '
three STPs are assumed to be at maximum permitted rates,but at the average observed fecal coliform
concentrations (200 MPN/100 mL; PEP, 2001). The assumed percentage of non-STP loads that are
associated with MS4 contributions is 75%.
Table 7-21. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Flanders Bay '
SOURCES Billion FC/year ,
POINT SOURCES
Sewage Treatment Plant 1 14,794
RESIDENTIAIJURBAN LAND-2'
MS4 Contribution 520,751
Non-MS4 Contribution 4 173,584
OTHER NONPOINT SOURCES '
Rural Land 2,588
Forest 49,400
Waterfowl 12,002
TOTAL LOAD illions 773,119 '
Water Body ha 443.54
Billions FC Load/ha 1,743
"Urban land"is a combination of residential land,commercial land,industrial land,and roadways. '
'This source includes the load from domestic pets of 164,807 billion FC/year.
'75%of the residential/urban load was attributed to MS4 conveyances,based on a review of maps in Chapter 2 and
land use data. '
4 25%of the residential/urban load was attributed to stormwater not flowing through MS4 conveyances.
Battelle '
Awau�m. fln�t«
71
' Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
' Table 7-22. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet
Target TMDL Loads in Flanders Bay
' Rollback Based Load Load
on Station FC- Condition Units Flanders Bay Reduction Reduction
' (billion
15 FC/ r ( )
Nonpoint Sources (billion FC/yr) 237,574
Existing Permitted Point Source
Conditions Contributions (billion FC/yr) 535,545
Total Existing Loads (billion FC/yr) 773,119 -
' LA (billion FC/yr) 178,180 59,393 25
WLA (billion FC/yr) 24,787* 495,964 98
TMDL
' MOS (billion FC/yr) 22,552 - -
TMDL (billion FC/yr) 225,519 547,600 74
*The WLA is apportioned to the STP(14,794 billion FC/year)and the MS4s(9,993 billion FC/year). This is
associated with the following flows and FC concentrations:
Riverhead STP(NPDES NY0078131): 1.3 MGD,200 MPN/100ml,total of 3,588 billion FC/year;
• Brookhaven National Laboratory(NPDES NY0005835): 2.3 MGD,200 MPN/100ml,total of 6,348
' billion FC/year;
Former NWIRP Calverton,NY(NPDES NY0025453): 1.76 MGD,200 MPN/100ml,total of 4,857.6
billion FC/year.
Note: The TMDL value reported in the table is the annually integrated value. The TMDL(daily)value is 617.86
' billion FC/day.
' 7.3.13 Reeves Bay(1701-0272)
Table 7-23. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Reeves Bay
' SOURCES I Billion FC/year
POINT SOURCES
Sewage Treatment Plant 1 0
' RESMENL'IAL/URBAN LAND
MS4 Contribution 120,351
Non-MS4 Contribution" 6,334
' OTHER NONPOINT SOURCES
Rural Land
Forest -
' Waterfowl 4,577
TOTAL LOAD(Billions) 131,262
Water Body ha 169.16
Billions FC Load/ha 776
' "Urban land"is a combination of residential land,commercial land,industrial land,and roadways.
'This source includes the load from domestic pets of 75,024 billion FC/year.
'95%of the residential/urban load was attributed to MS4 conveyances,based on a review of maps in Chapter 2 and
land use data.
°5%of the residential/urban load was attributed to stormwater not flowing through MS4 conveyances.
' Battelle
72
Final Report for '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Table 7-24. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet '
Target TMDL Loads in Reeves Bay
Load Load '
Rollback Based Reduction
on Station 210 Condition Units Reeves Bay (billion Reduction
Nonpoint Sources (billion FC/yr) 10,911
Existing Permitted Point Source (billion FC/yr) 120,351 '
Conditions Contributions
Total Existing Loads (billion FC/yr) 131,262
LA (billion FC/yr) 8,183 2,728 25 ,
TMDL WLA (billion FC/yr) 3,925 116,425 97
MOS (billion FC/yr) 1,345 - - ,
TMDL (billion FC/yr) 13,453 117,809 91
Note: The TMDL value reported in the table is the annually integrated value. The TMDL(daily)value is 36.86
billion FC/day. ,
7.3.14 Sebonac Creek(1701-0051)
Table 7-25. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Sebonac Creek '
SOURCES I Billion FC/year
POINT SOURCES '
Sewage Treatment Plant 0
RESIDENTLUJURBAN LAND
MS4 Contribution 3 11,541 '
Non-MS4 Contribution 4 3,847
OTHER NONPOINT SOURCES
Rural Land - '
Forest 41
Waterfowl 730
TOTAL LOAD ons 16,159
Water Body ha 27.11 ,
Billions FC Load/ha 596
"Urban land"is a combination of residential land,commercial land,industrial land,and roadways.
2 This source includes the load from domestic pets of 3,406 billion FC/year. '
3 75%of the residential/urban load was attributed to MS4 conveyances,based on a review of maps in Chapter 2 and
land use data.
°25%of the residential/urban load was attributed to stormwater not flowing through MS4 conveyances. ,
Battelle '
A.
73
' Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
' Table 7-26. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet
Target TMDL Loads in Sebonac Creek
' Load Load
Rollback Based Sebonac Reduction
Condition Units Reduction
' on Station FC-3 Creek (billion
FC/ r (%)
Nonpoint Sources (billion FC/yr) 4,618
' Existing Permitted Point Source
Conditions Contributions (billion FC/yr) 11,541
Total Existing Loads (billion FC/yr) 16,159 - -
' LA (billion FC/yr) 3,464 1,155 25
WLA (billion FC/yr) 4,842 6,699 58
TMDL
' MOS (billion FC/yr) 923 - -
TMDL (billion FC/yr) 9,229 6930 49
Note: The TMDL value reported in the table is the annually integrated value. The TMDL(daily)value is 25.28
billion FC/day.
7.3.15 Scallop Pond (1701-0354)
' Table 7-27. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Scallop Pond
SOURCES I Billion FC/year
POINT SOURCES
Sewage Treatment Plant 1 0
RESIDENTIAL/URBAN LAND
MS4 Contribution 1,597
Non-MS4 Contribution 14,381
OTHER NONPOINT SOURCES
' Rural Land -
Forest 3,399
Waterfowl 1,380
' TOTAL LOAD (Billions) 20,757
Water Body ha 51
Billions FC Load/ha/yr 407
"Urban land"is a combination of residential land,commercial land,industrial land,and roadways.
'This source includes the load from domestic pets of 5,960 billion FC/year.
3 10%of the residential/urban load was attributed to MS4 conveyances,based on a review of maps in Chapter 2 and
land use data.
°90%of the residential/urban load was attributed to stormwater not flowing through MS4 conveyances.
Note: A TMDL was not calculated for Scallop Pond because analysis of the monitoring data suggested
' that no exceedances exist. However, it must be noted that only 17 data points were available for analysis
and it is recommended that this water body be evaluated on an annual basis. However, MS4 contributions
were estimated based on 10% of residential land.
Baelle
74
Fina[Report for '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
7.3.16 North Sea Harbor(1701-0037) '
Table 7-28. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to North Sea Harbor7 ,
NSH-1 NSH-2 NSH-3 NSH4 NSH-5
SOURCES Billion Billion Billion Billion Billion
FC/year FC/year FC/year FC/year FC/year '
POINT SOURCES
Sewage Treatment 0 0 0 0 0
Plant '
RESIDENTIAL/URBAN LAND
MS4 Contribution 32,580 23,923 15,943 12,066 16,713
Non-MS4 Contribution 8,145 7,974 5,314 4,022 5,571
OTHER NONPOINT SOURCES '
Rural Land - - - - -
Forest 301 170 83 106 1,327
Waterfowl 464 307 83 287 1,369 '
TOTAL LOAD 41,490 32,374 21,423 16,481 24,980
(BUIlons)
Water Bod a 17 11.33 3.24 10.52 50.59 '
Billions FC Load/ha r 2,440 2,857 6,612 1,567 494
"Urban land"is a combination of residential land,commercial land,industrial land,and roadways.
2 This source includes the load from domestic pets of 22,706(NSH-1), 18,732(NSH-2),5,756(NSH-3),7,663
(NSH-4),and 11,826(NSH-5)billion FC/year. '
3 80%of the residential/urban load was attributed to MS4 conveyances,based on a review of maps in Chapter 2 and
land use data,and 20%of the residential/urban load was attributed to stormwater not flowing through MS4
conveyances. '
4 75%of the residential/urban load was attributed to MS4 conveyances,based on a review of maps in Chapter 2 and
land use data,and 25%of the residential/urban load was attributed to stormwater not flowing through MS4
conveyances.
Table 7-29a. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to '
Meet Target TMDL Loads in North Sea Harbor,Zone NSH-1 ,
Rollback Based North Sea Load Load
on Station FC- Condition Units Harbor ReductionReduction
3.1 (NSH-1) (billion
FC/yr)
Nonpoint Sources (billion FC/yr) 8,910
Existing Permitted Point Source (billion FC/yr) 32,580
Conditions Contributions
Total Existing Loads (billion FC/yr) 41,490 -
LA (billion FC/yr) 6,683 2,228 25 '
TMDL WLA (billion FC/yr) 831 31,749 97
MOS (billion FC/yr) 835 - - ,
TMDL (billion FC/yr) 8,349 33,141 82
Note: The TMDL value reported in the table is the annually integrated value. The TMDL(daily)value is 22.87 '
billion FC/day.
Battelle ,
76 Bu.;.-..f I.-mi..
75
Final Reportfor
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
' Table 7-29b. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to
Meet Target TMDL Loads in North Sea Harbor,Zone NSH-2
' Rollback Based North Sea Load Load
on Station FC- Condition Units Harbor Reduction Reduction
'
10 (NSH-2) (billion FC/
Nonpoint Sources (billion FC/yr) 8,451 r
Existing Permitted Point Source
' Conditions Contributions (billion FC/yr) 23,923
Total Existing Loads (billion FC/yr) 32,374 -
LA (billion FC/yr) 6,338 2,228 25
WLA (billion FC/yr) 9,014 15,859 62
TMDL
' MOS (billion FC/yr) 1,706 - -
TMDL (billion FC/yr) 17,058 15,316 53
Note: The TMDL value reported in the table is the annually integrated value. The TMDL(daily)value is 46.73
billion FC/day.
' Table 7-29c. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to
Meet Target TMDL Loads in North Sea Harbor,Zone NSH-3
North Sea Load Load
Rollback Based Harbor Reduction
on Station FC-7 Condition Units (NSH--3) (billion Reduction M
FC/yr)
Nonpoint Sources (billion FC/yr) 5,480
' Existing Permitted Point Source
Conditions Contributions (billion FC/yr) 15,943
Total Existing Loads (billion FC/yr) 21,423 - -
' LA (billion FC/yr) 4,110 1,370 25
WLA (billion FC/yr) 83 15,859 99
' TMDL
MOS (billion FC/yr) 466 -
TMDL (billion FC/yr) 4,659 16,764 80
' Note: The TMDL value reported in the table is the annually integrated value. The TMDL(daily)value is 12.76
billion FC/day.
' Note: A TMDL was not calculated for Zone NSH-4 because,based on available water quality data, there
were no coliform concentration exceedances.
' eRe
76
Final Report for '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Table 7-29d. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to ,
Meet Target TMDL Loads in North Sea Harbor,Zone NSH-5
North Sea Load Load
Rollback Based Reduction
Condition Units Harbor Reduction
on Station 104
(NSH-5) (billion (%)
'Nonpoint Sources (billion FC/yr) 8,267 FC/yr)
Existing Permitted Point Source
Conditions Contributions (billion FC/yr) 16,713 ,
Total Existing Loads (billion FC/yr) 24,980 - -
LA (billion FC/yr) 6,200 2,067 25 ,
TMDL WLA (billion FC/yr) 4,274 12,439 74
MOS (billion FC/yr) 1,164 - - ,
TMDL (billion FC/yr) 11,638 13,342 58
Note: The TMDL value reported in the table is the annually integrated value. The TMDL(daily)value is 31.88
billion FC/day. ,
7.3.17 Wooley Pond (1701-0048) ,
Table 7-30. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Wooley Pond ,
SOURCES I Billion FC/year
POINT SOURCES '
Sewage Treatment Plant 1 0
RESH)ENTLkUURBAN LAND
MS4 Contribution 30,745
Non-MS4 Contrbution4 7,686 '
OTHER NONPOINT SOURCES
Rural Land -
Forest 26 '
Waterfowl 378
TOTAL LOAD(Billions) 38,835
Water Body 14.16 '
Billions FC Load/ha 2,743
"Urban land"is a combination of residential land,commercial land,industrial land,and roadways.
z This source includes the load from domestic pets of 15,421 billion FC/year.
3 80%of the residential/urban load was attributed to MS4 conveyances,based on a review of maps in Chapter 2 and '
land use data.
^20%of the residential/urban load was attributed to stormwater not flowing through MS4 conveyances.
Wele ,
A.B"d ...en—fi-
77
' Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
' Table 7-31. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet
' Target TMDL Loads in Wooley Pond
Load Load
Rollback Based Condition Units Wooley Pond Reduction Reduction
on Station FC4 (billion (%)
FC/ r
Nonpoint Sources (billion FC/yr) 8,090
Existing Permitted Point Source (billion FC/yr) 30,745
Conditions Contributions
Total Existing Loads (billion FC/yr) 38,835 - -
LA (billion FC/yr) 6,068 2,023 25
WLA (billion FC/yr) 993 29,752 97
TMDL
' MOS (billion FC/yr) 784 - -
TMDL (billion FC/yr) 7,845 30,990 82
' Note: The TMDL value reported in the table is the annually integrated value. The TMDL(daily)value is 21.49
billion FC/day.
' 7.3.18 Noyac Creek(1701-0237)
Table 7-32. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Noyac Creek
' SOURCES NC-1 NC-2
billion FC/year Billion FC/year
POINT SOURCES
'
Sewage Treatment Plant 0 0
RESIDENTIAL/URBAN LAND
NIS4Contdbution 14,150
' Non-MS4 Contribution 4,716
OTHER NONPOINT SOURCES
Rural Land - -
' Forest 863 606
Waterfowl 592 420
TOTAL LOAD 20,321 606
(BilRons)
Water Body a 21.85 15.38
Billions FC Load/ha 930 39
"Urban land"is a combination of residential land,commercial land, industrial land,and roadways.
' z This source includes the load from domestic pets of 8,893 billion FC/year.
3 75%of the residential/urban load was attributed to MS4 conveyances,based on a review of maps in Chapter 2 and
land use data.
' °25%of the residential/urban load was attributed to stonnwater not flowing through MS4 conveyances,
aw:M a le
78
1
Fina[Report far '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Table 7-33. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet '
Target TMDL Loads in Noyac Creek,Zone NC-1
Rollback Based Load Load '
on Station FC- Condition Creek Reduction
on Units (NC-1) (billion Reduction
FC/ r
Nonpoint Sources (billion FC/yr) 6,171
Existing Permitted Point Source (billion FC/yr) 14,150 '
Conditions Contributions
Total Existing Loads (billion FC/yr) 20,321 -
LA (billion FC/yr) 4,629 1,543 25 '
TMDL WLA (billion FC/yr) 5,070 9,080 64
MOS (billion FC/yr) 1,078 - - ,
TMDL (billion FC/yr) 10,777 9,544 52
Note: The TMDL value reported in the table is the annually integrated value. The TMDL(daily)value is 29.53
billion FC/day. ,
Note: A TMDL was not calculated for Zone NC-2 because,based on available water quality data, there
were no coliform concentration exceedances '
7.3.19 Sag Harbor(1701-0035)
Table 7-34. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Sag Harbor '
SH-1 SH-2 SH-3 SH4
SOURCES Billion FC/year Billion FC/year Billion FC/year Billion FC/year '
POINT SOURCES
Sewage Treatment Plant 0 0 0 0
RESIDENTIAL/URBAN LAND '
MS4 Contribution 11,250 10,547 87,659 20,185
Non-MS4 Contribution 4 3,750 3,516 29,220 6,728
OTHER NONPOINT SOURCES
Rural Land - - - - '
Forest 194 194 238 79
Waterfowl 307 152 4,216 343
TOTAL LOAD 15,501 14,409 121,333 27,335 '
(Billions)
Water Body a 11.33 5.67 155.8 12.55
Billions FC Load/ha/yr 1,368 2,541 779 2,178 '
' "Urban land"is a combination of residential land,commercial land,industrial land,and roadways.
'This source includes the load from domestic pets of 8,799(SH-1), 11,164(SH-2),68,780(SH-3),and 9,839(SH4)
billion FC/year.
' 75%of the residential/urban load was attributed to MS4 conveyances,based on a review of maps in Chapter 2 and '
land use data.
4 25%of the residential/urban load was attributed to stormwater not flowing through MS4 conveyances.
Note: A TMDL was not calculated for Zones SH-1, SH-3, and SH-4 because, based on available water '
quality data,there were no coliform concentration exceedances
BMW ,71.Bualnaa.flnno.afi .
79
' Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Table 7-35. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet
Target TMDL Loads in Sag Harbor,Zone SH-2
' Load Load
Rollback Based Sag Harbor Reduction
on Station FC-9 Condition Units (SH-2) (billion Reduction
Nonpoint Sources (billion FC/yr) 3,862 -
' Existing Permitted Point Source (billion FC/yr) 10,547
Conditions Contributions
Total Existing Loads (billion FC/yr) 14,409 -
' LA (billion FC/yr) 2,896 965 25
WLA (billion FC/yr) 5,250 5,297 50
TMDL
' MOS (billion FC/yr) 905 - -
TMDL (billion FC/yr) 9,051 5,358 43
Note: The TMDL value reported in the table is the annually integrated value. The TMDL(daily)value is 24.80
' billion FC/day.
7.3.20 Northwest Creek(1701-0046)
' Table 7-36. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Northwest Creek
SOURCES I Billion FC/year
POINT SOURCES
Sewage Treatment Plant 1 0
RESIDENTLWURBAN LAND
' MS4 Contribution 0
Non-MS4 Contribution 36,688
OTHER NONPOINT SOURCES
' Rural Land -
Forest 5,123
Waterfowl 1,772
' TOTAL LOAD(Billions) 43,593
Water Body ha 65.56
Billions FC Load/ha 665
"Urban land"is a combination of residential land,commercial land,industrial land,and roadways.
'
'This source includes the load from domestic pets of 10,543 billion FC/year.
0%of the residential/urban load was attributed to MS4 conveyances,based on a review of maps in Chapter 2 and
land use data.
' 4 100%of the residential/urban load was attributed to stormwater not flowing through MS4 conveyances.
elle
M aa.;,....of ln—atwn
80
Final Reportfor '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Table 7-37. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet '
Target TMDL Loads in Northwest Creek.
Load Load
Rollback Based Northwest Reductio
on Station FC-7 Condition Units Creek n(billionReduction
FC/ r (%) ,
Nonpoint Sources (billion FC/yr) 43,583
Existing Permitted Point Source (billion FC/yr) 0 '
Conditions Contributions
Total Existing Loads (billion FC/yr) 43,583 - -
LA (billion FC/yr) 4,177 38,941 90 '
TMDL WLA (billion FC/yr) 0 0 0
MOS (billion FC/yr) 464 - -
TMDL (billion FC/yr) 4,642 38,941 90
Note: The TMDL value reported in the table is the annually integrated value. The TMDL(daily)value is 12.72
billion FC/day. '
7.3.21 Acabonac Harbor(1701-0031)
Table 7-38. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Acabonac ,
AH-1 AH-2 AH-3 AH4 AH-5
SOURCES Billion Billion Billion Billion Billion '
FC/year FC/year FC/year FC/year FC/year
POINT SOURCES
Sewage Treatment 0 0 0 0 0 ,
Plant
RESIDENTIAL/URBAN LAND
MS4 Contribution 3 0 0 0 0 0 '
Non-MS4 Contribution 48,290 43,625 16,191 16,162 13,027
OTHER NONPOINT SOURCES
Rural Land - - - - -
Forest 215 1,216 676 1,423 242 ,
Waterfowl 219 1,599 318 934 241
TOTAL LOAD 48,724 46,440 17,185 18,519 13,510
inions '
Water Bod a r 68.09 59.08 11.74 34.40 8.9
Billions FC Load/ha ,023 1 786 1,464 538 1,518
"Urban land"is a combination of residential land,commercial land,industrial land,and roadways. '
'This source includes the load from domestic pets of 31,126(AH-1), 19,868(AH-2),4,257(AH-3),4,541 (AH-4),
and 7,569(AH-5)billion FC/year.
3 0%of the residential/urban load was attributed to MS4 conveyances,based on a review of maps in Chapter 2 and
land use data. '
° 100%of the residential/urban load was attributed to stormwater not flowing through MS4 conveyances.
Note: A TMDL was not calculated for Zone AH-1 because,based on available water quality data, there '
were no coliform concentration exceedances
BMW ,rh,
81
' Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Table 7-39a. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to
Meet Target TMDL Loads in Acabonac Harbor, Zone AH-2
' Acabonac Load Load
Rollback Based Condition Units Harbor Reduction Reduction
on Station 133 (AH-2) (bion (%)
FC/yr
Nonpoint Sources (billion FC/yr) 46,440
Existing Permitted Point Source (billion FC/yr) 0
' Conditions Contributions
Total Existing Loads (billion FC/yr) 46,440 -
' LA (billion FC/yr) 25,600 17,996 45
TMDL WLA (billion FC/yr) 0 0 0
' MOS (billion FC/yr) 2,844 - -
TMDL (billion FC/yr) 1 28,445 17,996 45
Note: The TMDL value reported in the table is the annually integrated value. The TMDL(daily)value is 77.93
billion FC/day.
' Table 7-39b. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to
Meet Target TMDL Loads in Acabonac Harbor,Zone AH-3
Rollback Based Acabonac Load Load
on Condition Units Harbor Reduction Reduction
Station FC-15 (AH-3) (billion M
FC/yr)
Nonpoint Sources (billion FC/yr) 17,185
Existing Permitted Point Source (billion FC/yr) 0
Conditions Contributions
' Total Existing Loads (billion FC/yr) 17,185 - -
LA (billion FC/yr) 1,647 15,355 90
TMDL WLA (billion FC/yr) 0 0 0
MOS (billion FC/yr) 183
TMDL (billion FC/yr) 1,830 15,355 90
Note: The TMDL value reported in the table is the annually integrated value. The TMDL(daily)value is 5.01
billion FC/day.
1
' Battelle
82
Final Reportfor '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Table 7-39c. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to '
Meet Target TMDL Loads in Acabonac Harbor,Zone AH-4
Rollback Based Acabonac Load Load
on Condition Units Harbor ReductionReduction
Station FC4 (AH4) (billion
FC/yr) ,
Nonpoint Sources (billion FC/yr) 18,519
Existing Permitted Point Source (billion FC/yr) 0 ,
Conditions Contributions
Total Existing Loads (billion FC/yr) 18,519 -
LA (billion FC/yr) 1,253 17,126 93 '
TMDL WLA (billion FC/yr) 0 0 0
MOS (billion FC/yr) 139 - - '
TMDL (billion FC/yr) 1,393 17,126 93
Note: The TMDL value reported in the table is the annually integrated value. The TMDL(daily)value is 3.82
billion FC/day. t
Table 7-39d. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to '
Meet Target TMDL Loads in Acabonac Harbor,Zone AH-5
Acabonac Load Load
Rollback Based Reduction '
Condition Units Harbor Reduction
on Station FC-1 (billion
(AH 5) FC/yr) (%)
Nonpoint Sources (billion FC/yr) 13,510 '
Existing Permitted Point Source (billion FC/yr) 0
Conditions Contributions
Total Existing Loads (billion FC/yr) 13,510 - - ,
LA (billion FC/yr) 1,295 12,071 90
TMDL WLA (billion FC/yr) 0 0 0 ,
MOS (billion FC/yr) 144 - -
TMDL (billion FC/yr) 1,439 12,071 90
Note: The TMDL value reported in the table is the annually integrated value. The TMDL(daily)value is 3.94 '
billion FC/day.
BaW1
n, le—ti-
83
' Final Reportfor
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
' 7.3.22 Lake Montauk(1701-0031)
Table 7-40. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Montauk Lake
LM-1 LM-2 LM-3
SOURCES Billion FC/year Billion FC/year Billion FC/year
' Sewage Treatment Plant 0 POINT SOURCES0 0
RESICENTIAL/URBAN LAND'
' MS4 Contributions 3 0 0 0
Non-MS4 Contributions 12 361,078
OTHER NONPOINT SOURCES
' Rural Land - 1,154
Forest 1,323 1,194 4,882
Waterfowl 911 794 10,041
TOTAL LOAD(Billions) 101 173 33 377,155
Waterlt a 33.59 29.54 371.1
Billions FC Load/ha 3,012 1,148 1,016
"Urban land"is a combination of residential land,commercial land,industrial land,and roadways.
'This source includes the load from domestic pets of 35,194(LM-1), 851 (LM-2),and 121,571 (LM-3)billion
FC/year.
'0%of the residential/urban load was attributed to MS4 conveyances,based on a review of maps in Chapter 2 and
' land use data.
° 100%of the residential/urban load was attributed to stormwater not flowing through MS4 conveyances.
' Table 7-41a. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to
Meet Target TMDL Loads in Montauk Lake,Zone LM-1
Rollback Based Lake Load Load
' on Condition Units Montauk Reduction(billion Reduction
Station FC-20 (LM-1) FC/yr) M
' Nonpoint Sources (billion FC/yr) 101,173
Existing Permitted Point Source (billion FC/yr) 0
Conditions Contributions
' Total Existing Loads (billion FC/yr) 101,173 - -
LA (billion FC/yr) 47,977 47,865 53
' WLA (billion FC/yr) 0 0 0
TMDL
MOS (billion FC/yr) 5,331
' TMDL (billion FC/yr) 53,308 47,865 53
Note: The TMDL value reported in the table is the annually integrated value. The TMDL(daily)value is 146.05
billion FC/day.
elle
84
Final Reportfor 1
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Table 7-41b. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to '
Meet Target TMDL Loads in Montauk Lake, Zone LM-2
Load Load '
Rollback Based Lake ReductionCondition Units Mont uk Reduction
on Station FC-5 (LM-2) (billion (%) ,
FC/yr)
Nonpoint Sources (billion FC/yr) 33,900
Existing Permitted Point Source (billion FC/yr) 0 '
Conditions Contributions
Total Existing Loads (billion FC/yr) 33,900 - -
LA (billion FC/yr) 15,148 17,069 55 '
TMDL WLA (billion FC/yr) 0 0 0
MOS (billion FC/yr) 1,683 - - '
TMDL (billion FC/yr) 16,831 17,069 55
Note: The TMDL value reported in the table is the annually integrated value. The TMDL(daily)value is 46.11 '
billion FC/day.
Table 7-41c. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to '
Meet Target TMDL Loads in Montauk Lake,Zone LM-3
Rollback Based Lake Load Load 1
on Condition Units Montauk Redu-tion
(billion Reduction
Station FC-30 (LM-3) FC/yr)
Nonpoint Sources (billion FC/yr) 377,155
Existing Permitted Point Source (billion FC/yr) 0 '
Conditions Contributions
Total Existing Loads (billion FC/yr) 377,155 -
LA (billion FC/yr) 187,710 168,588 50* '
TMDL WLA (billion FC/yr) 0 0 0
MOS (billion FC/yr) 20,857 - - '
TMDL (billion FC/yr) 208,567 168,588 50*
Note: The TMDL value reported in the table is the annually integrated value. The TMDL(daily)value is 571.42
billion FC/day. ,
*Note: Load reduction is based on the TC exceedence which was greater than the FC exceedance. The load
reduction based on FC exceedance is 81.6%. '
Me0e '
85
1 Fina[Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
7.3.23 Oyster Pond (1701-0169)
Table 7-42. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Oyster Pond
SOURCES I Billion FC/year
' POINT SOURCES
Sewage Treatment Plant 1 0
RESIDENTIAL/URBAN LAND
MS4 Contribution 0
Non-MS4 Contribution4 47,407
OTHER NONPOINT SOURCES
Rural Land
' Forest 16,096
Waterfowl 1,501
TOTAL LOAD illions 65,004
t
Water Body ha 55.44
Billions FC Load/ha/ 1,172
"Urban land"is a combination of residential land,commercial land,industrial land,and roadways.
'This source includes the load from domestic pets of 4,447 billion FC/year.
s 0%of the residential/urban load was attributed to MS4 conveyances,based on a review of maps in Chapter 2 and
land use data.
4 100%of the residential/urban load was attributed to stormwater not flowing through MS4 conveyances.
' Note: A TMDL was not calculated for Oyster Pond due to the lack of data associated with the water
body.
' 7.3.24 Little Sebonac Creek(1701-0253)
Table 7-43. WTM Fecal Coliform Loads to Little Sebonac Creek
' SOURCES I Billion FC/year
POINT SOURCES
Sewage Treatment Plant 1 0
RESIDENTIAL/URBAN LAND
MS4 Contribution22,397
' Non-MS4 Contribution 22,397
OTHER NONPOINT SOURCES
Rural Land
Forest 6,514
' Waterfowl 2,957
TOTAL LOAD(Billions) 54,265
Water Body ha 109.27
' Billions FC Load/ha 497
"Urban land"is a combination of residential land,commercial land,industrial land,and roadways.
'This source includes the load from domestic pets of 9,934 billion FC/year.
'50%of the residential/urban load was attributed to MS4 conveyances,based on a review of maps in Chapter 2 and
land use data.
"50%of the residential/urban load was attributed to stormwater not flowing through MS4 conveyances.
' Table 7-44. Summary of Current Fecal Coliform Loads and Percent Reductions Necessary to Meet
Target TMDL Loads in Little Sebonac Creek
' elle
A.a".;", f �..;..
86
Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Load '
Rollback Based Little Reduction Load
Condition Units $ ekC Reduction
C
on Station FC-3 Creek (billion
FC/yr)
Nonpoint Sources (billion FC/yr) 31,868
Existing Permitted Point Source '
(billion FC/ r) 22397
Conditions Contributions y
Total Existing Loads (billion FC/yr) 54,265 - -
LA (billion FC/yr) 23,901 7,967 25 '
WLA (billion FC/yr) 6,779 15,618 70
TMDL
MOS (billion FC/yr) 3,409 - - '
TMDL (billion FC/yr) 34,089 20,176 43
Note: The TMDL value reported in the table is the annually integrated value. The TMDL(daily)value is 93.40 '
billion FC/day.
t
1
Welle '
71.
87
Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
8.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
' One of the critical factors in the successful development and implementation of TMDLs is the
identification of potential management alternatives, such as best management practices (BMPs) and load
reduction from point sources, and screening and selection of final alternatives in collaboration with the
involved stakeholders. Extensive care must be exercised to identify any naturally-occurring pathogen
loads not associated with or exacerbated by human activities, and if they are significant in comparison to
' the controllable point and nonpoint sources of pollution, the option of prohibiting shellfish harvesting
through administrative closures may be explored.
All the ongoing watershed protection efforts, e.g., watershed characterization, restoration, and volunteer
monitoring, must be identified to take advantage of them in the TMDL development and implementation
process. Coordination of this process with state agencies, federal agencies, local governments, and
stakeholders such as the general public, environmental interest groups, and representatives from the point
' and nonpoint pollution sources will ensure that the proposed management alternatives are technically and
financially feasible.
As an example, the Suffolk County conducted the Brown-Tide Comprehensive Assessment and
Management Program (BTCAMP) in the Peconic Estuary between 1988 and 1992. This program's final
report was used as a primary source for the Peconic Estuary Program(PEP)Nomination Report(the PEP
commenced in 1993) and acts as the initial Brown Tide characterization for the PEP. The ambient water
quality conditions in Flanders Bay, located at the mouth of the Estuary,have been monitored extensively
by the County to support the development of a comprehensive hydrodynamic/water quality model for
' assessment of nutrient fate and transport. Total and fecal coliforms are among the parameters monitored
by the County. In addition, EPA Region 2 has funded microbial source tracking studies in the Estuary
conducted by Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County. Findings from these studies may assist in
the assessment of sources and potentially, the allocation of loads, i.e., development of targeted pollution
' reductions for all the point and nonpoint sources that contribute pathogen loads to the Estuary.
The receiving waters of the Peconic Estuary study areas are affected by several major generators of
nonpoint source pollution:
• Direct contributions from waterfowl and wildlife to surface waters
• Domestic pets, livestock,and wildlife wastes on the landscape
' • The potential for localized effects associated with failing septic systems (presently
undocumented).
• Marinas and boating
Storm water runoff is an important transmission vehicle for those pathogen wastes deposited on the
landscape, including flows from lawns, driveways, and roads. Appropriate management practices to
mitigate these environmental impacts range from management, to housekeeping measures, to structural
approaches. The implementation plan is discussed in the following sections with the specific management
plans for the respective sources of pollution.
8.1 Nonpoint Source Reduction
' The most effective mechanism for reducing nonpoint source pathogen loads to the Peconic Estuary will
focus on both reducing pathogen wastes itself and reducing stormwater volumes that reach surface waters.
Recommendations from the Peconic Estuary Program follow. They are applicable to all lands including
' mene
88
1
Final Report for i
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
those owned or managed as private residences, businesses, non-profit institutions, and governmental ,
entities. They are also applicable to year-round and seasonal residents,employees,and visitors.
• Protect or establish a buffer(100 meters wide,if possible) around all creeks,ponds,and bays. ,
• Minimize impervious surfaces on properties. Remove unused portions of driveway and outdoor
concrete and replace them with shrubs and trees.
• Disconnect impervious surface conduits. For example, a downspout from a roof leading to a '
driveway sends stormwater directly to the road and a storm drain. Move downspouts a few inches
to lawns or a rain garden and allow stormwater to infiltrate naturally.
• Create a rain garden. Rain gardens are designed to collect and infiltrate stormwater with moisture '
tolerant native plantings.
• Pick up pet waste, and dispose of it in the trash. '
• Don't feed waterfowl or create unnatural conditions where they congregate (e.g., lawns that
extend to the water's edge). Non-migratory Canada geese are especially a problem.
• Keep curbsides clean and free of leaves, grass clippings, sand, and litter that will wind up in catch
basins or surface waters.
Livestock may be an emerging issue in the Peconic watershed and owners should comply with all local '
requirements and best management practices and take steps to insure that livestock wastes are managed
properly and do not impact surface or groundwaters. Habitat restoration projects may also be an effective
means of reducing pathogen loads and direct stormwater contributions to surface waters, particularly in '
near shore areas. A particular focus for habitat restoration projects may be in areas where wetlands have
been extensively grid ditched for mosquito control purposes, potentially leading to the "short-circuiting"
of stormwaters to coastal waters without the benefit of the filtering capacity of these wetland systems.
This phenomenon has been discussed by the Peconic Estuary Program but the extent of the impact has not '
been documented.
8.2 Urban Storm Water ,
In order to reduce or eliminate the loading of coliform bacteria to surface waters through storm water,the
runoff can be treated with a variety of structural BMPs that can remove bacteria at different levels of
effectiveness. Most management strategies designed to treat storm water runoff structurally will
artificially introduce environments or chemicals that encourage bacteria decay. Other management
strategies will not necessarily kill bacteria, but can seclude them from sensitive areas such as shellfish '
harvesting beds. Selection of individual BMPs or combinations of BMPs will depend upon continued
evaluation of the subwatershed characteristics, the priorities of the Peconic Estuary Program and other
stakeholders, and the available funding for implementing the remedial projects. In general, strategies for '
bacteria removal will operate in three possible ways:
• Detention of storm water
• Infiltration of storm water ,
• Filtration with wetland vegetation
The use of any of these three strategies can produce favorable results depending on the characteristics of a '
contributing watershed. Further enhanced treatment can also be achieved by using more than one
technique at a single site. The management strategies chosen for a site will depend on several factors
including:
• size of the drainage area;
• amount of space available for treating runoff;
Battene '
89
' Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
' • complexity and costs associated with permitting;
• potential for harmful environmental effects from installing a particular treatment structure
' • desired removal rate for bacteria and other pollutants;
• cost of construction;
t • resources necessary for proper maintenance; and
• expected longevity of the structure.
' Storm water mitigation structures may be feasible with minimal disruption to the existing landscape,
although they are without utility unless properly maintained. The implementation of such a program must
include at least twice-yearly inspections of the facilities, preferably before and after the wettest season,
' and preparations for annual maintenance. Such work is likely to include cleaning, some replanting, and
general refurbishment. If such a program is in place, the annual work load should remain rather light, and
the BMP's effectiveness will be at a maximum.
' In addition to the above maintenance program, a monitoring program should be included to determine the
level of impact and reduction of pathogen inflow from the various tributaries that discharge to the study
areas. A single station located downstream of each implemented BMP would be sufficient. Samples taken
weekly, plus additional samples after storm events will be ideal. These data will supplement other
sampling programs taken in the water bodies included in the study area. The monitoring program should
' begin before construction of the discharge BMPs so that the impact/improvement can be correctly
gauged. Examples of urban BMPs are listed here for consideration:
Enhanced Extended Detention Basins—these are dry basins where storm water is temporarily collected
and retained during significant wet weather events. The main components of these basins are a sediment
forebay for trapping suspended solids and a micropool connected by a riprap channel to aid bacterial
decay.
' Wet Retention Ponds-these ponds utilize a permanent pool of water as the primary catchment for storm
water runoff. A shallow marsh or sediment forebay may be used in conjunction with the wet retention
pond to slow runoff velocity and enhance the overall settlement of sediments. If the turbidity can
be managed,high levels of bacteria decay could be expected from exposure to sunlight.
' Constructed Wetlands - these are artificially designed wetland systems that facilitate the settling of
sediments from runoff, the retention of potentially large amounts of runoff, and the uptake of pollutants
by wetland vegetation. These wetlands may be used in conjunction with other storm water BMPs for
enhanced mitigation. Different types of constructed wetlands such as shallow marsh systems, pond
systems, and pocket wetlands offer distinct advantages, and the watershed managers can determine which
is best suited to the local conditions.
Water Quality Swales - these BMPs differ from drainage channels in that they provide pollution
attenuation in addition to safe runoff conveyance. These are generally categorized into three types: dry
swales, wet swales and grassed or biofilter swales.
Horsley and Witten (2003) conducted a regional storm water assessment report for PEP that can be used
as the starting point for urban storm water management to achieve the desired reductions in bacteria loads
' in the study area's water bodies.
8.3 Waterfowl
Battelle
90
Final Report for '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
The deposits of fecal matter by resident and migrating waterfowl has an exacerbated impact on some of
the water bodies in the study area, particularly those embayments with reduced flushing and open space
for congregating birds. A particular problem of some local significance is migratory waterfowl that have '
become resident (Canada geese) and invasive species (mute swans). The Peconic Estuary Program has
received funding for studying the waterfowl population in and around Peconic Bay. This study will
provide site-specific information on numbers, species, and range of waterfowl that may contribute to ,
bacteria levels within the study area. Although the project has not yet begun, several general waterfowl
management measures can still be considered within the study area. These include:
• Elimination of open lawns along the water's edge that are inviting to roosting waterfowl; '
• Placement of noise generators at roosting or nesting sites to discourage birds from landing;
• The firing of blank cartridges over a period of time to make a roosting or nesting site
inhospitable; ,
• Destruction of nesting areas;
• Public education efforts to discourage people from feeding wild waterfowl; and '
• The shooting of birds.
Bird mitigation programs must be tailored to specific regions, and will have varying levels of success. In
addition, some species of waterfowl may be protected by law from harassment and/or hunting and these
legal determinations should be examined carefully on a site-by-site basis. Many options are available
short of hunting local fowl,which may be objectionable in settled areas. ,
8.4 Septic Systems
As discussed in Section 5, the BTCAMP study conducted by Suffolk County Department of Health '
Services (SCDHS, 1992)has documented the potential coliform loadings from the areas within the Towns
of Riverhead and Southampton. These areas are served by septic systems which can fail during wet
periods or when the ground water levels are high,resulting in an influx of organically contaminated water '
to the local soil that may interact with tidal waters. A complete sewering of the areas, and direction
via force-main to the STPs is one means of eliminating the impacts from densely settled areas served by
septic systems. Short of new drainage infrastructure, the potential for exfiltration from waste system to ,
the Flanders Bay or Reeves Bay or the tributaries that drain to these bays could be intercepted by a
modified French Drain system. This would comprise porous conduits (perforated pipe, or gravel filled
trench) placed along the perimeter of the settled areas to intercept groundwater flow between the settled ,
areas and the receiving waters. The drains would discharge into excavated basins, enclosed or open,
which could be periodically cleaned or pumped out. A small constructed wetland would be an appropriate
means of clarifying the discharge from the collecting trench. This sort of measure should be coupled with
an intensive inspection program to ensure that these practices would eventually achieve the desired '
reductions in pollutant loads.
The actual occurrence of failing septic systems in the Peconic watershed is however, thought to be small, '
and the need to pursue new or extensions of sewering may not be necessary. New development and
extensive redevelopment requires onsite disposal systems to comply with stringent siting and operational
requirements overseen by Suffolk County '
8.5 Marinas/Transient Boats
In June 2002, the Peconic Estuary was officially approved as a designated Vessel Waste No Discharge '
Zone (NDZ) by the EPA (67 FR 39720). An ongoing public education plan was designed to inform
boaters that discharging raw or treated sewage within the NDZ is illegal and that all sewage must be held '
Battelle
91
' Final Reportfor
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
onboard the vessel until a pumpout facility or specialized boat can empty the holding tank. For violations
of the NDZ law, section 33-e of New York State's Navigation Law provides for fines of up to $500 for a
' first discharge offense and $1,000 for further violations. Vessel-derived human waste is, therefore, not
likely to be a major source of coliform bacteria in the Estuary's waters. However, some boaters may be
unaware of or refuse to comply with the NDZ designation. Pollution originating from these vessels as
' well as from marinas can be further reduced by adopting appropriate mitigation techniques including:
• more extensive public awareness campaigns on illicit dumping of wastewater;
• introduction of local ordinances to penalize wastewater dumping;
' • the inclusion of NDZ areas on nautical charts;
• enhancement of public toilet facilities near the shore so that boat owners would minimize the use
' of their onboard toilet; and
• expansion of current pump-out programs including mobile and on-shore pump-out facilities.
' 8.6 Zoning Enhancements
In addition to the measures described above, the adoption and implementation of enhanced local zoning
requirements may successfully address some of the problems associated with pathogens and excess
stormwater. An in-place example already exists in the Town of East Hampton, which has established a
Harbor Protection Overlay District. The requirements imposed in this overlay district are in the CODE
OF THE TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON, NEW YORK, v22 Updated 01-20-2006, PART II GENERAL
' LEGISLATION, Chapter 255, ZONING, ARTICLE III, Overlay Districts, § 255-3-70. Harbor Protection
Overlay District. [Added 10-6-1995 by L.L. No. 12-1995 and also at htto://www.town.east-
hampton.ny.us/ As stated in this Town Code, among other provision, the Harbor Protection Overlay
' District will help prevent the entry of stormwater runoff into the Town's waters; gradually require the
upgrading of out-moded or inoperable septic systems; and preserve important indigenous vegetation. This
overlay district includes all properties that are immediately adjacent to surface waters. The other
' municipalities in the Peconic Estuary watershed should be encouraged to adopt similar local legislation.
The most applicable sections of this regulation are included here.
' § 255-3-75. Regulations. [Added 10-6-1995 by L.L.No. 12-1995]
In addition to any other provisions of this chapter which may apply to them, lots, lands, buildings,
' structures, uses and activities within the Harbor Protection Overlay District shall be subject to the
following restrictions and regulations:
A. Control of stormwater runoff. The following regulations shall apply to structures or activities which
produce or contribute to stormwater pollution of the Town's surface waters:
' (1) No parking lot or private driveway shall hereafter be constructed unless it has either an
unimproved surface (e.g., dirt, crushed shells) or an improved surface consisting of one or more of
the following materials: poured concrete, hot plant mix asphalt, rapid-curing cut-back asphalt or
' quartz gravel.
(2)No road, private driveway or parking lot with an improved surface shall hereafter be constructed
unless all stormwater generated by said structure is directed into one or more catchment basins. Said
catchment basin or basins shall have a combined volume (in cubic feet) equal to the surface area of
the road, driveway and/or parking area(in square feet), divided by six.
(3) Any road, private driveway or parking lot which is hereafter constructed with an improved
surface shall be maintained so that all stormwater generated by said structure is actually directed into
the catchment basin or basins required by the preceding subsection. Any catchment basin required by
the preceding subsection shall be kept clean and maintained so that it recharges stormwater into the
' ground without overflowing.
Baffelle
92
Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
(4) No pipe, culvert, drain or similar conduit may hereafter be constructed or installed which 1
discharges stormwater into wetlands(including surface waters).
(5 ) Every principal building or addition to a principal building which is hereafter constructed or '
erected shall be famished with gutters and leaders to direct stormwater from roofs into one or more
catchment basins. Said catchment basin or basins shall have a combined volume (in cubic feet) equal
to the surface area of the roof(in square feet),divided by six. '
(6) During construction work the disturbance of natural vegetation and land contours shall be
minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Project-limiting fencing, siltation mesh, strawbales or
similar devices for limiting land disturbance and retarding erosion and siltation shall be used during '
construction work and during any land clearing or grading in preparation for or associated with
construction work.
B. New sanitary septic systems. The following regulations shall govern the installation of all septic '
systems after this date, except for septic systems, which are installed to replace legally preexisting septic
systems:
(1) No such septic system shall be installed or constructed unless it is set back a minimum of 200 '
feet from the surface waters of Acabonac Creek, Fort Pond (including the arm of Fort Pond north of
Industrial Road), Georgica Pond, Great Pond (Lake Montauk), Hog Creek, Napeague Harbor,
Northwest Creek, Northwest Harbor, Steppingstones Pond, Three Mile Harbor, Tuthill Pond and/or '
Wainscott Pond and from the upland boundary of any wetlands contiguous to the foregoing bodies of
water. To the extent that any provision of Article IV imposes a lesser wetland setback for septic
systems, the requirements of this subsection shall be controlling with respect to lands within the '
Harbor Protection Overlay District.
(2)No septic system leaching pool shall hereafter be installed unless the bottom of the leaching pool
is situated a minimum of four feet above the groundwater table. '
C. Existing sanitary septic systems. Any septic system which legally exists on a residential property on
January 1, 1996, shall be replaced or upgraded in the following circumstances and to the following extent:
(1)Every septic system regulated by this subsection shall be replaced or upgraded if: '
(a) A natural resources special permit is required for work to be performed on the lot or parcel
containing the septic system;
(b) The work to be performed will increase the habitable floor area of a principal building on '
the lot or will increase the number of bathrooms within a building on the lot; and
(c) The septic system in question does not meet the minimum requirements of the Suffolk
County Department of Health Services for vertical separation to groundwater, for setback to '
surface waters or for septic system capacity, or in that it lacks a septic tank.
(2)Where this subsection requires that an existing septic system be replaced or upgraded,the new or
upgraded septic system shall meet the following requirements: ,
(a) It shall comply with the requirements of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services
for new septic systems and shall be installed under the supervision of the Sanitation Inspector;
and '
(b) It shall be set back a minimum of 150 feet from the upland boundary of all tidal wetlands
(including tidal surface waters) or, if that is not feasible, it shall be set back the maximum
practicable distance from the surface waters of Accabonac Creek, Fort Pond (including the arm
of Fort Pond north of Industrial Road)Georgica Pond, Great Pond (Lake Montauk), Hog Creek, '
Napeague Harbor, Northwest Creek, Northwest Harbor, Steppingstones Pond, Three Mile
Harbor, Tuthill Pond and/or Wainscott Pond and from the upland boundary of any wetlands
contiguous to the foregoing bodies of water, taking into consideration such factors as the '
physical constraints of the site and the location of nearby water supply wells.
Battelle '
93
' Fina!Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
D. Limited clearing of lots or parcels of land within the Harbor Protection Overlay District shall be
further restricted as set forth herein. [Amended 11-6-1998 by L.L. No. 36-1998; 6-8-2004 by L.L. No. 15-
2004]
(1) The total area of a lot which may be cleared of indigenous natural vegetation shall not exceed the
following amounts for any lot located wholly or partly within the overlay district:
' Lot Area(square feet) Maximum Clearing Permitted(square feet)
Residence Districts:
' Up to and including 39,999 10,000 or 35%of lot area,whichever is greater
From 40,000 to and including 280,000 10,000+(lot area* 12.5%)
Greater than 280,000 45,000
t Commercial Districts:
All lots 10,000 or 50%of lot area, whichever is greater
In calculating the amount of clearing permitted by this subsection on a flag lot or a lot which is burdened
' by a common driveway easement or access easement, the area of any flag strip or any common driveway
easement or access easement shall be excluded from lot area. Likewise, any clearing for driveway
purposes within the flag strip or within the common driveway easement or access easement shall not be
' counted into the permissible amount of clearing.
(2) Clearing in excess of 45,000 square feet on any lot in a residence district is prohibited unless the
' following requirements are met:
(a) The area of the lot, excluding the area of any flag strip but otherwise determined as set forth in
§ 255-1-20 hereof, exceeds 300,000 square feet; and
' (b) Site plan approval and a special permit have been first obtained from the Planning Board.
1
' Battelle
94
Final Report for 1
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
9.0 REASONABLE ASSURANCE FOR IMPLEMENTATION
This TMDL is for 20 waterbodies located in the Peconic Estuary Watershed — Dering Harbor, Budds '
Pond, Sterling Creek and Basin, Town/Jockey Creeks and tidal tributaries, Goose Creek, Hashamomuck
Pond, Richmond Creek and tidal tributaries, Deep Hole Creek, James Creek, Flanders Bay— cast/center '
and tributaries, Reeves Bay and tidal tributaries, Sebonac Creek/Bullhead Bay and tributaries, North Sea
Harbor and tributaries, Wooley Pond, Noyac Creek and tributaries, Sag Harbor and Sag Harbor Cove,
Northwest Creek and tributaries, Acabonac Harbor, Montauk Lake and Little Sebonac Creek. The
percentage distributions of pathogen loadings from various sources for these water bodies are indicated in '
the following table:
Pathogens Source All Embayments '
MS4 Contribution 35.2 %
Non-MS4 Contribution 57.9%
Forest Runoff 3.6% '
Waterfowl 2.2%
Rural Land 0.6%
Point Sources STPs 0.5% '
The major sources currently identified are the point sources of urban storm water and domestic pets, ,
making up 93% of pathogen loadings to Peconic estuary embayments. The remaining 7% of loadings are
not being targeted for reductions under the individual areas, but best management practices should be
used to reduce discharges to the maximum extent feasible as further described below. '
The Riverhead STP, Sag Harbor STP, and the Shelter Island Heights STP are covered by NYSDEC's
existing SPDES permits. These permits are reviewed and re-issued at regular intervals. These STPs '
should be maintained and operated in conformance with their State Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (SPDES) permits and minimize the amount of pathogens discharged to the maximum extent
feasible. '
As indicated in Section 5.2, Suffolk County has abundant livestock but no site-specific data was
available. It is also indicated that the County has 651 farms which house cattle and calves, hogs and pigs, '
poultry(pullets,turkeys, etc.),horses and ponies, sheep and lambs, and other livestock.
All farms and even individual horse owners should be educated regarding manure best management
practices. Horses produce large amounts of manure that can threaten local water quality, especially when '
receiving waters are shallow and poorly flushed. Good housekeeping practices for horses are similar to
those applied successfully to small dairy farm operations, and involve the close control of manure,
limiting the use of spreading, careful construction of composting areas,preventing horse traffic or grazing '
over small streams, and similar measures. The practices need not impose any large cost on the affected
parties, and often involve more careful use of existing facilities or adjustment of common practices. In
addition, levels of coliform bacteria may be reduced through waterfowl mitigation programs and through ,
storm water management mitigation strategies. If these types of areas are located within municipalities,
they should be addressed through their implementation of the Phase II stormwater program.
Balfene '
A.a.�....1�...«.ao�
95
' Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
' 9.1 Follow-Up Monitoring
' The NYSDEC will continue the shellfish monitoring program to ascertain the suitability of New York
State waters for shellfishing. The beach data frequently monitored by Suffolk County will continue to be
used in conjunction with the NYSDEC data to evaluate reductions in pathogen loads and the effectiveness
' of the TMDL in attaining and maintaining the water quality standards for shellfish harvesting. The above
data, along with any other data provided to NYSDEC will be used in NYSDECs assessment of the water
quality for these waterbodies during the development of the NYSDEC 303(d) list of impaired waters. The
' review of these data for the 303(d) report will be the tracking mechanism to determine if the TMDL is
moving water quality in the direction necessary to open the waters to shellfishing. (NOTE: As of
February 2003,NYSDEC began examining its water samples for shellfish harvest area classification with
' A-1 medium which only gives fecal coliform results)
The NYSDEC will establish compliance of the TMDL(s) and applicable water quality criteria through
monitoring prior to opening shellfish areas consistent with the National Shellfish Sanitation Program's
(NSSP)guidelines, and the NYS regulations and criteria.
9.2 No Discharge Zone
The Peconic Estuary has been designated by both EPA and by NYSDEC as a No-Discharge Zone. The
pollution from marinas and boat mooring areas in Peconic Estuary should be further reduced using
' appropriate mitigation techniques such as:
• Public awareness campaigns on illicit dumping of wastewater,
' Enhancement of onshore public toilet facilities minimizing the use of on-boat facilities,and
Expansion of current pumpout programs including the mobile and on-shore pumpout
facilities.
9.3 Implementation of Phase II Stormwater Regulations
' NYSDEC has expanded its permitting program to include a new federally mandated program to control
stormwater runoff and protect waterways.
According to the federal law, commonly known as Stormwater Phase II, permits will be required for
stormwater discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) in urbanized areas and for
construction activities disturbing one or more acres. To implement the law, the NYSDEC has developed
' two general SPDES permits, one for MS4s in urbanized areas and one for construction activities.
Operators of regulated small MS4s seeking authorization to discharge stormwater in compliance with the
federal Clean Water Act are required to apply for and secure coverage under the SPDES General Permit
for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems. Operators of regulated MS4s and construction activities
must obtained either a SPDES or a general permit no later than March 10, 2003 or prior to the
commencement of construction.
' The MS4 municipalities are required to develop, implement and enforce a stormwater management
program (SWMP). The SWMP must describe the Best Management Practices (BMPs) for each of the
minimum control measures:
1. Public education and outreach program to inform the public about the impacts of the stormwater
on the receiving water quality.
Battelle
96
Fina[Report for '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
2. Public involvement and participation. '
3. Illicit discharge detection and elimination.
4. Construction site stormwater runoff control program for sites disturbing one or more acres. '
5. Post-construction runoff control program for new development and redevelopment sites
disturbing one or more acres.
6. Pollution prevention and good housekeeping operation and maintenance program. ,
Operators must have developed the initial SWMP prior to March 10, 2003 and have provided adequate
resources to fully implement the SWMP no later than five years from the issuance date of the MS4 '
permit. Each of the regulated MS4s in this TMDL (see table below) has developed an initial SWMP and
has coverage under the general permit(GP-02-02). An MS4 may modify its SWMP at any time, although
any changes to a SWMP shall be reported to the NYSDEC in the MS4's annual report. MS4s are required
to make steady progress toward full implementation. '
Permittee SPDES# Date NOI Submitted
Town of Riverhead NYR20A020 03/04/2003 '
Town of Southampton NYR20A454 03/04/2003
Village of Sag Harbor NYR20A095 02/27/2003 '
Village of North Haven NYR20A500 12/15/2003
Suffolk County NYR20AI80 3/25/2003 '
NY DOT tNYR2O�A288 3/10/2003
NOI: Notice of Intent '
A SWMP is designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable (MEP) to '
protect water quality and to satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of the Environmental
Conservation Law and the Clean Water Act. MEP is a technology-based standard established by Congress
in the Clean Water Act. Since no precise definition of MEP exists, it allows for maximum flexibility on
the part of MS4 operators as they develop their programs. If stormwater is being discharged to a 303(d)- '
listed segment of a water body, the SWMP must ensure there is no resulting increase in the pollutant of
concern to the, receiving waters. Where required to meet water quality standards NYSDEC enforces
additional requirements based on WLAs determined through a TMDL. The MS4 must review the '
applicable TMDL to see if it includes requirements for control of stormwater discharges. If an MS4 is not
meeting the TMDL stormwater allocations, it must, within six (6) months of the TMDL's approval,
modify its SWMP to ensure that reduction of the pollutant of concern specified in the TMDL is achieved. '
Modifications must be considered for each of the six minimum measures. The revised management
program must include an updated schedule for implementation.
The MS4s that discharge to Flanders Bay (east/center and tributaries), North Sea Harbor, Noyac Creek '
and tidal tributaries, Reeves Bay and tidal tributaries, Sag Harbor and Sag Harbor Cove, Sebonac
Creek/Bullhead Bay and tidal tributaries and Wooley Pond are owned and operated by the municipalities
located around this waterbodies. Accordingly, all municipalities identified in the TMDL have submitted '
an application to gain coverage under New York's SPDES General Permit for Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer Systems:
NYSDEC will continue to work with these municipalities to identify funding sources and to evaluate '
locations and designs for stormwater control BMPs throughout the watershed. Under the State's
Weue '
97
' Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Environmental Protection Fund (EPF), $10.8 million were made available last year (2005) through an
application process to assist communities in implementing the Stormwater Phase II regulations and for
' non-agricultural nonpoint source abatement and control projects.
Currently, East Hampton, Southold and Town of Shelter Island are not part of an MS4 area, although
' these municipalities or local governments could be made part of the MS4 area after the approval of this
TMDL by EPA. The waterbodies covered under this TMDL that are located in these towns are as follows:
' A. East Hampton:
1. Outer Northwest Creek
2. Acabonac Harbor
1 3. Montauk Harbor
B. Southold:
1. Town/Jockey Creek
' 2. Hashamomuck Pond
C. Town of Shelter Island
' 1. Dering Harbor
This TMDL does not invoke additional requirements set forth in the SPDES General Permit for
' Stormwater Discharges from Construction Activity, Permit No. GP-02-01, applicable to facilities
satisfying Condition A of Part III.A.I.b.(1) for construction sites discharging to these waterbodies.
' 9.3.1 Additional Requirements Based on This TMDL
Under the SPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges from MS4s, Permit No. GP-02-02, Part
III.13.2, the MS4 dischargers must provide controls beyond the six minimum measures, such that
' economically feasible programs are developed and implemented to reduce known pathogens sources to a
level which will meet the pathogen standards necessary to open the waters to shellfishing based on NSSP
standards.
' Once sampling is obtained which meets the NSSP standards for this area, and if the sampling indicates
that the shellfish waters continue to violate shellfish standards, additional measures will be required such
' that pathogens are reduced to the extent necessary to meet the allocation set forth in this TMDL. As an
alternative to additional measures, if shellfishing waters continue to violate shellfish standards after
economically feasible programs have been put in place, the towns may perform a Use Attainability
Analysis to determine if the area's designated use can be changed to eliminate shellfishing.
1
Battelle
A.
98
Final Report for '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
10.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
NYSDEC and U.S. EPA Region 2 have worked together to prepare this total maximum daily load '
(TMDL) document to meet the requirements of Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.NYSDEC will
make this document available to the public, local agencies, and stakeholders for their review and '
feedback. The stakeholders will include, but are not limited to, the following municipal, government, and
non-government organizations: the Towns of Riverhead, Southampton, East Hampton, Southold, and
Shelter Island; Brookhaven National Laboratory, Riverhead, Sag Harbor, and NWIRP Calverton STPs;
local Audubon Societies; marina operators and boaters associations; and the Suffolk County Departments '
of Health and Public Works; and the New York State Department of Transportation.
NYSDEC published notice in the Environmental Notice Bulletin on July 19,2006 concerning the '
availability of this TMDL document and specified where the interested parties can obtain a copy of the
document either in electronic or in printed form. The public was given 30 days to submit comments to
NYSDEC.No public comments were received. '
1
1
1
1
t
Battelle '
r&s�A .on.....fi-
99
1 Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
' 11.0 REFERENCES
Caraco,D. 2001. Watershed Treatment Model,Version 3.1 User's Manual. Center for Watershed
' Protection.
Dugan,J.E.,D.M. Hubbard,M.D. McCrary, and M.O. Pierson. 2003. The response of macrofauna
' communities and shorebirds to macrophyte wrack subsidies on sandy beaches of southern
California. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 585:133-148.
Hasbrouck,E. 2004. Identification of E. coli Sources for the Peconic Estuary Watershed for Effective
tMitigation ofNonpoint Source Pollution
Horsley&Witten, Inc. 2003. Peconic Estuary Stormwater Assessment and Planning Tool: Final Report.
' October 2003. 29 pp.
Hydroqual. 2003. Final Pathogen TMDL Development for Oyster Bay Harbor and Mill Neck Creek,
Long Island,New York. U.S. EPA, Region 2.
Long Island Power Authority(LIPA). 2004. 2004 Long Island Population Survey. Uniondale,New York.
' Long Island Regional Planning Board(LIPRB). 1978. The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment
Management Plan (LI 208 Study),Volume II.
LIRPB. 1982. The Long Island Segment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program(NURP), December
1982.
' Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. 1991. Wastewater Engineering. McGraw-Hill,New York.
National Shellfish Sanitation Program(NSSP). 1986. Manual of Operations,Part 1,U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service,Food and Drug Administration,
1986 revision.
' NSSP. 2003. Guide for the Control of Molluscan Shellfish. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services,Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administration. 2003 revision.
' New York State Department of Environmental Conservation(NYSDEC). 2003. Final Pathogen Total
Maximum Daily Loads for Shellfish Waters in Oyster Bay Harbor and Mill Neck Creek,Nassau
County,New York. September 2003.
' NYSDEC. 2004. New York State 2004 303(d)List.NYSDEC,Division of Water,Albany,NY.
NURP. 1982. Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program,U.S. EPA, December 1983.
Ott, W. 1995. Environmental Statistics and Data Analysis, Lewis Publishers,New York,NY.
' Peconic Estuary Program(PEP). 1998. Point and Nonpoint Source Nitrogen Loading Overview. Suffolk
County Department of Planning.January 1998. Hauppauge,NY.
Battelle
A.
100
Final Report for ,
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Peconic Estuary Program(PEP). 2001. Final Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. '
February 2001.
Peconic Estuary Program(PEP). 2004. Peconic Estuary Program Critical Lands Protection Plan. Suffolk '
County Department of Planning,March 2004. Hauppauge,NY.
Schubert, C.E. 1999. Ground-water Flow Paths and Travel Time to Three Small Embayments Within the ,
Peconic Estuary,Eastern Suffolk County,New York. Water Resources Investigation Report 98-
4181. 41 pp.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services. 1983.North Fork Water Supply Plan.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services. 1992. Brown Tide Comprehensive Assessment '
and Management Program(BTCAMP), Volume II.
Suffolk County Department of Planning. 2000. 1999 Existing Land Use Inventory (Eastern Suffolk '
County).
Suffolk County Department of Planning. 2003. Survey Plan for Shellfish Cultivation Leasing in Peconic ,
and Gardiners Bays. Suffolk County Department of Health Services and Suffolk County
Department of Public Works. April 2003. 33 pp+appendices
Suffolk County Department of Planning. 2004. 2001 Existing Land Use Inventory. Long Island Sound '
Study, Suffolk County North Shore Watershed Management Program. April 2004. 16 pp.
Tetra Tech,Inc. 2000. Three-Dimensional Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model of Peconic Estuary. '
Suffolk County Department of Health Services. 522 pp.+appendices
U.S. Census Bureau. 2004. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2004-2005 (124 'Edition). '
Washington D.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2002. 2002 Census. National Agriculture Statistics Service. ,
United States Environmental Protection Agency(USEPA). 1991. Guidance for Water Quality-based
Decisions: The TMDL Process. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, '
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1997. Compendium of Tools for Watershed Assessment and TMDL Development,EPA 841-B-
97-006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. '
USEPA. 1999. Guidance for Water Quality-Based Decisions: The TMDL Process. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC. '
USEPA. 2001. Protocol for Developing Pathogen TMDLs. EPA 841-R-00-002.
USEPA. Office of Water, Washington,DC. USEPA,2002. Better Assessment Science Integrating Point '
and Non-point Sources(BASINS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and
Technology,Washington,DC. ,
Battelle ,
n.a..;.... /1...�..�.,
101
1
Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Weiskel,P.K., B.L. Howes, and G.R. Heufelder. 1996. Coliform contamination of a coastal embayment:
Sources and transport pathways. Environmental Science& Technology, 30:1872-81.
Valiela,I.,M. Alber,and M. LaMontagne. 1991. Fecal coliform loadings and stocks in Buttermilk Bay,
Massachusetts,USA, and management implications.Environmental Management. 15(5):659-674.
1
'
MOW
,xaau.:—safl—fion
102
i
Final Report for ,
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
Attachment 1 '
Water Quality Data Analysis Summary '
1
1
1
1
1
1
Battelle '
103
Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
t
1
1
Battelle
At e.;..../in—ti-
104
Final Report for Peconic Bay Pathogens TMDL '
Attachment 1 '
Water Quality Data Analysis Summary
Daring Harbor '
Dering Total TC 5 TC 5 1 TC 5 2
Geomean n = 30 '
90th Percentile n = 30
Geomean SRS 9.9 11.0 18.5
90th Percentile SRS 43.0 43.0 93.0 '
n 36 36 36
Dering Fecal 5 5.1 5.2
Geomean n = 30 '
90th Percentile n = 30
Geomean SRS 7.3 8.0 8.1
90th Percentile SRS 43.0 23.0 43.0 '
n 31 31 31
LEGEND
Column Headings: '
Grey: Uncertified areas
Light Blue: Seasonally certified areas (data analysis used only
monitoring data collected during uncertified period) '
Data:
Red: Exceeds Geomean NSSP Standards
Fecal - 14 MPN Geomean ,
Total -70 MPN Geomean
Purple: Exceeds 90th percentile NSSP Standard
Fecal -49 MPN ,
Total - 330 MPN
N/A= not enough samples to determine "most recent 30"
n = number of samples used for data analysis
Yellow: Limited Data (n = less that 30 samples) '
1
1
1 Final Report for Peconic Bay Pathogens TMDL
Attachment 1
Water Quality Data Analysis Summary
Budd's Pond
Budd's Total TC 13.1 TC 13.5 109
Geomean n = 30 8.6 N/A
90th Percentile n = 30 43.0 N/A
Geomean SRS 8.4 32.3
90th Percentile SRS 43.0 120
n 37 16
Budd's Fecal FC 13.1 FC 13.5 109
' Geomean n = 30 6.2 N/A N/A
90th Percentile n = 30 25.0 N/A N/A
Geomean SRS 6.0 5.8
' 90th Percentile SRS 23.0 19.0
n 31 3 14
' LEGEND
Column Headings:
Grey: Uncertified areas
' Light Blue: Seasonally certified areas (data analysis used only
monitoring data collected during uncertified period)
Data:
Red: Exceeds Geomean NSSP Standards
' Fecal - 14 MPN Geomean
Total - 70 MPN Geomean
Purple: Exceeds 90th percentile NSSP Standard
' Fecal -49 MPN
Total - 330 MPN
N/A= not enough samples to determine "most recent 30"
' n = number of samples used for data analysis
Yellow: Limited Data (n = less that 30 samples)
1
1
M M M M M M
Final Report for Peconic Bay Pathogens TMDL
Attachment 1
Water Quality Data Analaysis Summary
Stirling Creek& Basin
Stirling Total TC2 TC3 TC4 TC5 TC6 TC7 TC9 TC11
Geomean n = 30 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
90th Percentile n = 30 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Geomean SRS 6.4 23.9 12.9 19.4 17.4 16.5 8.5 16.0
90th Percentile SRS 23.0 82.4 212.0 43.0 93.0 93.0 239.8
n 19 19 19 19 19 19 19 17
Stirling Fecal FC2 FC3 FC4 FC5 FC6 FC7 FC9 FC11
Geomean n = 30
90th Percentile n = 30
Geomean SRS 5.3 6.4 4.4 5.9 6.2 5.3 5.2 5.1
90th Percentile SRS 37.4 41.0 9.0 22.2 43.0 22.2 22.2 23.0
n 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 30
LEGEND
Column Headings:
Grey: Uncertified areas
Light Blue: Seasonally certified areas (data analysis used only
monitoring data collected during uncertified period)
Data:
Red: Exceeds Geomean NSSP Standards
Fecal - 14 MPN Geomean
Total -70 MPN Geomean
Purple: Exceeds 90th percentile NSSP Standard
Fecal -49 MPN
Total - 330 MPN
N/A = not enough samples to determine "most recent 30"
n = number of samples used for data analysis
Yellow: Limited Data (n = less that 30 samples)
' Final Report for Peconic Bay Pathogens TMDL
' Attachment 1
Water Quality Data Analysis Summary
Town/Jockey Creeks
Town/Jockey Total 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.5
Geomean n = 30 N/A N/A N/A
90th Percentile n = 30 N/A N/A N/A
' Geomean SRS 23.8 28.4 28.7 36.4
90th Percentile SRS 93.0 240.0 93.0 106.5
n 26 45 26 26
Town/Jockey Fecal 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.5
Geomean n = 30 N/A N/A N/A
90th Percentile n = 30 N/A N/A N/A
Geomean SRS11.1 1.
' 90th Percentile SRS 43.0 93.0 78.0
n 24 41 25 24
LEGEND
Column Headings:
' Grey: Uncertified areas
Light Blue: Seasonally certified areas (data analysis used only
monitoring data collected during uncertified period)
Data:
Red: Exceeds Geomean NSSP Standards
Fecal - 14 MPN Geomean
Total - 70 MPN Geomean
Purple: Exceeds 90th percentile NSSP Standard
Fecal -49 MPN
Total -330 MPN
t N/A= not enough samples to determine "most recent 30"
n = number of samples used for data analysis
Yellow: Limited Data (n = less that 30 samples)
t
Final Report for Peconic Bay Pathogens TMDL
Attachment 1 '
Water Quality Data Analysis Summary
Goose Creek
Goose Total G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 '
Geomean n = 30
90th Percentile n = 30
Geomean SRS 20.5 17.0 19.4 33.6 24.8 20.3 ,
90th Percentile SRS 93.0 93.0 78.0 240.0 150.0 43.0
n 35 31 34 31 31 31
Goose Fecal G1 G2 G3 G4 FC1_3* G6
Geomean n = 30 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A '
90th Percentile n = 30 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Geomean SRS 10.5 13.5 12.7 11.6
90th Percentile SRS 43.0 59.0 '
n 33 27 27 27 27 26
*This station is not shown in Figure 2-5.
LEGEND '
Column Headings:
Grey: Uncertified areas
Light Blue: Seasonally certified areas (data analysis used only '
monitoring data collected during uncertified period)
Data:
Red: Exceeds Geomean NSSP Standards '
Fecal - 14 MPN Geomean
Total -70 MPN Geomean
Purple: Exceeds 90th percentile NSSP Standard '
Fecal -49 MPN
Total - 330 MPN
N/A= not enough samples to determine "most recent 30" '
n = number of samples used for data analysis
Yellow: Limited Data (n = less that 30 samples)
Final Report for Peconic Bay Pathogens TMDL
Attachment 1
Water Quality Data Analysis Summary
Hashamomuck Pond
Hashamomuck Total TC1 TC1_1 TC1_2 TC2 TC2_1 TC3 TC4 TC5 TC6 TC7 TC7_1
Geomean n = 30 N/A N/A N/A N/A
90th Percentile n = 30 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Geomean SRS 45.3 34.1 21.3 14.0 10.5 7.1 5.8 6.5 4.1 3.9 4.9
90th Percentile SRS 240.0 151.8 82.2 75.1 29.0 19.8 7.0 7.0 10.6
n 40 42 45 47 47 48 48 5 5 5 5
Hashamomuck Fecal FC1 FC1_1 FC1_2 FC2 FC2_1 FC3 FC4 FC5 FC6 FC7 FC7_1
Geomean n = 30 N/A N/A N/A N/A
90th Percentile n = 30 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Geomean SRS 13.4 8.5 6.9 4.8 5.0 3.6 4.2 3.8 4.7 3.8
90th Percentile SRS 43.0 23.0 23.0 8.4 11.6 8.4 11.5 8.4
n 35 36 40 41 41 44 44 7 7 7 7
LEGEND
Column Headings:
Grey: Uncertified areas
Light Blue: Seasonally certified areas (data analysis used only
monitoring data collected during uncertified period)
Data:
Red: Exceeds Geomean NSSP Standards
Fecal - 14 MPN Geomean
Total -70 MPN Geomean
Purple: Exceeds 90th percentile NSSP Standard
Fecal -49 MPN
Total -330 MPN
N/A = not enough samples to determine "most recent 30"
n = number of samples used for data analysis
Yellow: Limited Data (n = less that 30 samples)
Final Report for Peconic Bay Pathogens TMDL
Attachment 1
Water Quality Data Analysis Summary
Hashamomuck Pond
Hashamomuck Total TC8 TCS-1 TC9 TC10 TCA 350 340
Geomean n = 30 N/A N/A N/A 7.1 N/A N/A
90th Percentile n = 30 N/A N/A N/A 7.1 N/A N/A
Geomean SRS 5.4 3.3 6.5 7.4 15.6 31.7 24.4
90th Percentile SRS 12.0 4.0 12.6 17.4 40.0 40.0
n 5 5 5 5 46 6 7
Hashamomuck Fecal FC8 FC8 1 FC9 FC10 FC10 V FCA 350 340
Geomean n = 30 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
90th Percentile n = 30 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Geomean SRS 3.9 5.2 4.6 7.4 3.5 5.8
90th Percentile SRS 6.5 16.0 10.8 23.0 7.0 23.0 36.0 20.0
n 6 6 7 6 18 37 3 3
`This station is not shown in Figure 2-6.
LEGEND
Column Headings:
Grey: Uncertified areas
Light Blue: Seasonally certified areas (data analysis used only
monitoring data collected during uncertified period)
Data:
Red: Exceeds Geomean NSSP Standards
Fecal - 14 MPN Geomean
Total -70 MPN Geomean
Purple: Exceeds 90th percentile NSSP Standard
Fecal -49 MPN
Total -330 MPN
N/A = not enough samples to determine "most recent 30"
n = number of samples used for data analysis
Yellow: Limited Data (n = less that 30 samples)
1 Final Report for Peconic Bay Pathogens TMDL
Attachment 1
Water Quality Data Analysis Summary
1
Richmond Creek
Richmond Creek Total TC 7.4 1 TC 7.4A I TE-7.413 TC_7.5
Geomean n = 30
90th Percentile n = 30
t Geomean SRS Data Missing
90th Percentile SRS
SRS n
Richmond Creek Fecal FC_7.4 FC-7.4A FC 7.48 I FC_7.5
' Geomean n = 30
90th Percentile n = 30 93 262 Data
Geomean SRS
' 90th Percentile SRS Missing
SRS n 14 13 13
' LEGEND
Column Headings:
Grey: Uncertified areas
' Light Blue: Seasonally certified areas (data analysis used only
monitoring data collected during uncertified period)
Data:
Red: Exceeds Geomean NSSP Standards
' Fecal - 14 MPN Geomean
Total - 70 MPN Geomean
Purple: Exceeds 90th percentile NSSP Standard
Fecal -49 MPN
Total - 330 MPN
N/A= not enough samples to determine "most recent 30"
n = number of samples used for data analysis
Yellow: Limited Data (n = less that 30 samples)
1
1
Final Report for Peconic Bay Pathogens TMDL '
Attachment 1 '
Water Quality Data Analysis Summary
Great Peconic Bay &Tidal Tributaries '
GPB_SGA28 Total TC 8A TC 9C
Geomean n = 30 41.8 33.9
90th Percentile n = 30 240.0 240.0
Geomean SRS
90th Percentile SRS '
SRS n 26 26
GPB SGA28 Fecal FC 8A FC 9C
Geomean n = 30 '
90th Percentile n = 30 48.0
Geomean SRS
90th Percentile SRS '
SRS n 21 21
LEGEND ,
Column Headings:
Grey: Uncertified areas
Light Blue: Seasonally certified areas (data analysis used only
monitoring data collected during uncertified period) '
Data:
Red: Exceeds Geomean NSSP Standards
Fecal - 14 MPN Geomean '
Total - 70 MPN Geomean
Purple: Exceeds 90th percentile NSSP Standard
Fecal -49 MPN '
Total - 330 MPN
N/A = not enough samples to determine "most recent 30"
n = number of samples used for data analysis 1
Yellow: Limited Data (n = less that 30 samples)
1
1
1
1
t
Final Report for Peconic Bay Pathogens TMDL
Attachment 1
Water Quality Data Analysis Summary
Flanders Ba
Flanders SGA 29C Total TC 4 TC 6A TC 6B TC 7 TC 6 TC 9 TC 10 TC 26 TC 19
Geomean n=30 31.5 11.6 20.3 12.3 20.3 7.7 7.4 23.4 12.7
90th Percentile n=30 98.7 43.0 98.7 66.9 159.0 48.0 46.2 93.0 93.0
Geomean SRS
90th Percentile SRS
SRS n 11 11 11 23 11 23 25 26 23
Flanders SGA 29C Fecal FC 4 FC BA FC 6B FC 7 FC 8 FC 9 FC 10 FC 26 FC 19
Geomean n=30 8.0 6.1 10.3 100 9.2 6.0 4.5 12.1 8.4
90th Percentile n=30 23.0 39.4 66.ff- 48.0 43.0 15.8 43.0
Geomean SRS
90th Percentile SRS
SRS n 1 18 1 14 14 19 13 19 1 23 1 26 1 19
Flanders SGA 29 Total TC 21 TC 19 TC 19A TC 17 TC 16 TC 16D TC 15 TC 14 TC 2A I TC 2 TC to TC 24 170
Geomean n=30
90th Percentile n=30
Geomean SRS 6.2 8.7 15.2 13.8 19.9 12.9 21.3 7.9KFC2A
15.4 6.3 23.4 6.1 57.6
90th Percentile SRS 35.0 43.0 93.0 115.8 151.8 93.0 240.0 37.4 87.6 32.6 240.0 41.4 140.0
n 55 56 57 57 57 55 56 55 54 55 53 55 11
Flanders SGA 29 Fecal FC 21 FC 19 FC 19A FC 17 FC 16 FC 16D FC 15 FC 14 FC 1A FC 1 FC 24 170
Geomean n=30
90th Percentile n=30
Geomean SRS 4.4 5.2 6.7 5.9 9.7 6.8 13.8 5.467 4.1 6990th Percentile SRS 15.0 12.4 43.0 25.0 43.0 29.0 .0 23.0 9.0 39.4 6.4
In 1 51 1 50 1 53 1 50 1 50 1 46 1 49 1 53 1 47 1 48 53 1 50 1 53 1 10
LEGEND
Column Headings:
Grey:Uncertified areas
Light Blue:Seasonally certified areas (data analysis used only
mon8odng data collected during uncertified period)
Data:
Red:Exceeds Geomean NSSP Standards
Fecal-14 MPN Geomean
Total -70 MPN Geomean
Purple:Exceeds 90th percentile NSSP Standard
Fecal-49 MPN
Total-330 MPN
N/A=not enough samples to determine"most recent 30"
n=number of samples used for data analysis
Yellow:Limited Data(n=less that 30 samples)
Final Report for Peconic Bay Pathogens TMDL
Attachment 1
Water Quality Data Analysis Summary
Reeves Ba
Reeves Total TC 12 TC 14 TC 15 TC 16C TC 17C TC 18 TC 20A 210
Geomean n = 30 13.4 11.9 9.9 17.2
90th Percentile n = 30 48.0 48.0 48.0 93.0
Geomean SRS 11.9 20.2 24.3 55.1
90th Percentile SRS 76.8 93.0 159.0 228.0
SRS n 29 29 29 30 30 22 30 13
Reeves Fecal FC 12 FC 14 FC 15 FC 16C FC 17C FC 18 %20A210Geomean n = 30 11.0 9.2 6.6 8.8 135
90th Percentile n = 30 43.0 46.2 480Geomean SRS
90th Percentile SRS
SRSn 25 24 24 25 25 18
LEGEND
Column Headings:
Grey: Uncertified areas
Light Blue: Seasonally certified areas (data analysis used only
monitoring data collected during uncertified period)
Data:
Red: Exceeds Geomean NSSP Standards
Fecal - 14 MPN Geomean
Total -70 MPN Geomean
Purple: Exceeds 90th percentile NSSP Standard
Fecal -49 MPN
Total -330 MPN
NIA = not enough samples to determine"most recent 30"
n = number of samples used for data analysis
Yellow: Limited Data (n = less that 30 samples)
Final Report for Peconic Bay Pathogens TMDL
' Attachment 1
Water Quality Data Analysis Summary
Sebonac Creek/Bullhead Bay &Tributaries
Sebonac Total TC—2 148
Geomean n = 30 32.4
90th Percentile n = 30 240.0
' Geomean SRS 55.5
90th Percentile SRS 161.0
n 17 4
Sebonac Fecal FC 2 148
' Geomean n = 30 N/A
90th Percentile n = 30 N/A
Geomean SRS
' 90th Percentile SRS .8 58.0
n 17 2
LEGEND
Column Headings:
Grey: Uncertified areas
' Light Blue: Seasonally certified areas (data analysis used only
monitoring data collected during uncertified period)
Data:
Red: Exceeds Geomean NSSP Standards
' Fecal - 14 MPN Geomean
Total -70 MPN Geomean
Purple: Exceeds 90th percentile NSSP Standard
' Fecal -49 MPN
Total -330 MPN
N/A= not enough samples to determine"most recent 30"
n = number of samples used for data analysis
Yellow: Limited Data (n = less that 30 samples)
1
Final Report for Peconic Bay Pathogens TMD
L
Attachment 1 ,
Water Quality Data Analysis Summary
Scallop Pond ,
Scallop Total TC_7 TC 8
Geomean n = 30 10.3 8.6
90th Percentile n = 30 93.0 43.0
Geomean SRS
90th Percentile SRS '
n 17 17
Scallop Fecal FC_7 FC 8
Geomean n = 30 N/A N/A '
90th Percentile n = 30 N/A N/A
Geomean SRS 4.4 4.9
90th Percentile SRS 11.4 11.4 '
n 17 17
LEGEND '
Column Headings:
Grey: Uncertified areas
Light Blue: Seasonally certified areas (data analysis used only '
monitoring data collected during uncertified period)
Data:
Red: Exceeds Geomean NSSP Standards
Fecal - 14 MPN Geomean ,
Total - 70 MPN Geomean
Purple: Exceeds 90th percentile NSSP Standard
Fecal -49 MPN '
Total -330 MPN
N/A= not enough samples to determine "most recent 30"
n = number of samples used for data analysis ,
Yellow: Limited Data (n = less that 30 samples)
Final Report for Peconic Bay Pathogens TMDL
Attachment 1
Water Quality Data Analysis Summary
North Sea Harbor
North Sea Total TC 4 TC 4 1 TC 4 2 TC 9` TC 10 TC 4A TC 3 TC 13 TC 12 TC 2A TC 5A
Geomean n=30
90th Percentile n=30
Geomean SRS 16.6 15.6 18.3 23.2 23.2 9.5 8.5 7.9 8.9 7.4
90th Percentile SRS 93.0 115.8 240.0 127.2 228.0 93.0 43.0 41.8 43.0 31.0
n 60 57 56 55 55 60 42 47 44 42 47
North Sea Fecal FC 4 FC 4 1 FC 4 2 FC 9' FC 10 FC 4A FC 3 FC 13 FC 12 FC 2A FC 5A
Geomean n=30
90th Percentile n=30
Geomean SRS 8.6 7.3 8.6 12.0 10.4 5.3 6.4 5.8 5.6 5.4
90th Percentile SRS 43.0 23.0 71.8 93.0 .0 23.0 .0 23.0 23.0 18.2 15.0
n 61 52 52 51 51 55 40 57 41 4r 43
'This station is not shown in Figure 2-16.
LEGEND
Column Headings:
Grey: Uncertified areas
Light Blue: Seasonally certified areas (data analysis used only
monitoring data collected during uncertified period)
Data:
Red: Exceeds Geomean NSSP Standards
Fecal-14 MPN Geomean
Total -70 MPN Geomean
Purple: Exceeds 90th percentile NSSP Standard
Fecal-49 MPN
Total-330 MPN
N/A=not enough samples to determine"most recent 30"
n=number of samples used for data analysis
Yellow: Limited Data (n=less that 30 samples)
Final Report for Peconic Bay Pathogens TMDL
Attachment 1
Water Quality Data Analysis Summary
North Sea Harbor
North Sea Total TC 5 TC 6 TC 7 TC 11 TC 1 TC 2 IFC
3A TC 3 1 TC 14 104
Geomean n =30 10.9 28.3 67.9 56.2 N/A
90th Percentile n =30 43.0 107.7 240.0 N/A
Geomean SRS 7.0 6.1 4 14.0 34.6
90th Percentile SRS 23.0 23.0 4 93.0 40.0
n 27 15 12 21 44 43 2 57 12
North Sea Fecal FC-5 FC 6 FC 7 FC 11 FC 1 FC 2 3A FC 3 1 FC 14 104
Geomean n =30 7.6 N/A 12.8 N/A
90th Percentile n =30 43.0 N/A 43.0 N/A
Geomean SRS 11.0 5.4 5.1 7.7 4.0 7.5
90th Percentile SRS 41.0 18.2 9.0 43.0 4.0 43.0
n 25 12 12 23 47 47 57 2 52 8
LEGEND
Column Headings:
Grey: Uncertified areas
Light Blue: Seasonally certified areas (data analysis used only
monitoring data collected during uncertified period)
Data:
Red: Exceeds Geomean NSSP Standards
Fecal- 14 MPN Geomean
Total -70 MPN Geomean
Purple: Exceeds 90th percentile NSSP Standard
Fecal-49 MPN
Total -330 MPN
N/A=not enough samples to determine"most recent 30"
n =number of samples used for data analysis
Yellow: Limited Data (n = less that 30 samples)
Final Report for Peconic Bay Pathogens TMDL
' Attachment 1
Water Quality Data Analysis Summary
'
Wooley Pond
Wooley Total TC 2 TC 3 TC_4 300
Geomean n = 30 20.7 54.8
90th Percentile n = 30 262.0
Geomean SRS 39.2
90th Percentile SRS 74
' n 16 16 16 7
Wooley Fecal FC 2 FC 3 FC 4 300
Geomean n = 30 11.0
' 90th Percentile n = 30
Geomean SRS
90th Percentile SRS
' n 15 15 15 6
LEGEND
Column Headings:
Grey: Uncertified areas
Light Blue. Seasonally certified areas (data analysis used only
' monitoring data collected during uncertified period)
Data:
Red: Exceeds Geomean NSSP Standards
' Fecal - 14 MPN Geomean
Total - 70 MPN Geomean
Purple: Exceeds 90th percentile NSSP Standard
' Fecal -49 MPN
Total - 330 MPN
N/A = not enough samples to determine "most recent 30"
n = number of samples used for data analysis
Yellow: Limited Data (n = less that 30 samples)
Final Report for Peconic Bay Pathogens TMDL '
Attachment 1 '
Water Quality Data Analysis Summary
No ac Creek '
No ac Total TC 8 TC 8 1 TC 8_2 TC_8_3 310 '
Geomean n = 30 12.8 27.3
90th Percentile n = 30 93.0 129.7
Geomean SRS 11.7 5.5 46.2
90th Percentile SRS 93.0 23.0 136.0 '
n 16 16 48 42 7
No ac Fecal FC 8 FC 8 1 FC 8_2 FC-8-3 1 310
Geomean n = 30 7.9 12.2 '
90th Percentile n = 30 48.0 76.8
Geomean SRS 5.2 4.4
90th Percentile SRS 23.0 19.8 '
n 26 26 47 43 5
LEGEND '
Column Headings:
Grey: Uncertified areas
Light Blue: Seasonally certified areas (data analysis used only
monitoring data collected during uncertified period)
Data:
Red: Exceeds Geomean NSSP Standards
Fecal - 14 MPN Geomean ,
Total - 70 MPN Geomean
Purple: Exceeds 90th percentile NSSP Standard
Fecal -49 MPN '
Total - 330 MPN
N/A = not enough samples to determine "most recent 30"
n = number of samples used for data analysis ,
Yellow: Limited Data (n = less that 30 samples)
1
Final Report for Peconic Bay Pathogens TMDL
Attachment 1
Water Quality Data Analysis Summary
Sag Harbor
Sag Harbor Total TC 4 TC 1 2 TC 1A 1 TC_1 TC_5 TC 10 TC 10 1 TC 6 TC 6 2 TC 6 1 TC 7
Geomean n = 30 13.1 16.7
90th Percentile n = 30 107.7 93.0
Geomean SRS 6.9 6.7 6.5 5.4 5.7 5.5 6.9 12.0 7.4
90th Percentile SRS 43.0 41.0 43.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 43.0 151.8 23.0
n 49 22 22 42 41 44 50 41 46 47 41
Sag Harbor Fecal FC 4 FC 1 2 FC 1 1 FC 1 FC_5 FC 10 FC 10 1 FC 6 FC 6_2 FC 6 1 FC_7
Geomean n = 30 7.4 7.9
90th Percentile n = 30 39.4 46.2
Geomean SRS 6.0 3.9 5.2 4.4 4.6 4.5 5.0 6.3 7.0
90th Percentile SRS 43.0 7.1 18.6 9.0 14.2 19.0 18.8 33.0 43.0
n 50 20 20 45 45 44 43 46 54 46 46
LEGEND
Column Headings:
Grey: Uncertified areas
Light Blue: Seasonally certified areas (data analysis used only
monitoring data collected during uncertified period)
Data:
Red: Exceeds Geomean NSSP Standards
Fecal - 14 MPN Geomean
Total -70 MPN Geomean
Purple: Exceeds 90th percentile NSSP Standard
Fecal -49 MPN
Total -330 MPN
N/A= not enough samples to determine "most recent 30"
n = number of samples used for data analysis
Yellow: Limited Data (n = less that 30 samples)
Final Report for Peconic Bay Pathogens TMDL
Attachment 1
Water Quality Data Analysis Summary
Sag Harbor
Sag Harbor Total TC 9 TC 8 TC 7A TC_9_1 TC 713 TC 7C
Geomean n = 30
90th Percentile n = 30
Geomean SRS 14.7 6.7 5.8 5.8 7.1 7.5
90th Percentile SRS 204.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0 23.0
n 45 41 41 46 41 41
Sag Harbor Fecal FC 9 FC-8 FC 7A FC-9-1 FC-7B FC_7C
Geomean n = 30
90th Percentile n = 30
Geomean SRS 7.7 5.6 4.3 4.0 5.2 5.5
90th Percentile SRS 23.0 9.0 9.0 23.0 23.0
n 44 44 36 46 36 36
LEGEND
Column Headings:
Grey: Uncertified areas
Light Blue: Seasonally certified areas (data analysis used only
monitoring data collected during uncertified period)
Data:
Red: Exceeds Geomean NSSP Standards
Fecal - 14 MPN Geomean
Total - 70 MPN Geomean
Purple: Exceeds 90th percentile NSSP Standard
Fecal -49 MPN
Total -330 MPN
N/A= not enough samples to determine "most recent 30"
n = number of samples used for data analysis
Yellow: Limited Data (n = less that 30 samples)
Final Report for Peconic Bay Pathogens TMDL
Attachment 1
Water Quality Data Analysis Summary
Northwest Creek
Northwest Total TC 2 TC 4 TC 5 TC 6 TC 9 TC 10 TC 12 TC 3 TC 7 TC 8
Geomean n = 30 31.3 53.2 58.7
90th Percentile n = 30
Geomean SRS 8.8 20.9 33.4 15.5 11.1 9.7
90th Percentile SRS 93.0 240.0 132.9 127.5
n 41 40 29 27 41 41 44 44 26 25
Northwest Fecal FC 2 FC 4 FC 5 FC 6 IF 9 FC 10 FC 12 FC—3 FC 7 1 FC 8
Geomean n = 30
90th Percentile n = 30
Geomean SRS 6.3 9.1 10.5 6.5 6.5 6.2
90th Percentile SRS 35.0 34.2 20.6
n 35 34 25 23 34 34 34 34 20 22
LEGEND
Column Headings:
Grey: Uncertified areas
Light Blue: Seasonally certified areas (data analysis used only
monitoring data collected during uncertified period)
Data:
Red: Exceeds Geomean NSSP Standards
Fecal- 14 MPN Geomean
Total - 70 MPN Geomean
Purple: Exceeds 90th percentile NSSP Standard
Fecal -49 MPN
Total - 330 MPN
NIA= not enough samples to determine"most recent 30"
n = number of samples used for data analysis
Yellow: Limited Data (n = less that 30 samples)
Final Report for Peconic Bay Pathogens TMDL
Attachment 1
Water Quality Data Analysis Summary
Northwest Creek
Northwest Total TC 11 TC 13 TC 14 TC 15 131
Geomean n = 30
90th Percentile n = 30
Geomean SRS 11.2 9.5 11.4 17.3 49.9
90th Percentile SRS 150.0 93.0 98.7 240.0 158.0
n 40 41 40 40 15
Northwest Fecal FC 11 FC 13 FC 14 FC 15 131
Geomean n = 30
90th Percentile n = 30
Geomean SRS 5.4 5.9 6.5 7.3
90th Percentile SRS 23.0 43.0 23.0
n 31 31 31 34 14
LEGEND
Column Headings:
Grey: Uncertified areas
Light Blue: Seasonally certified areas (data analysis used only
monitoring data collected during uncertified period)
Data:
Red: Exceeds Geomean NSSP Standards
Fecal - 14 MPN Geomean
Total - 70 MPN Geomean
Purple: Exceeds 90th percentile NSSP Standard
Fecal -49 MPN
Total -330 MPN
N/A = not enough samples to determine"most recent 30"
n = number of samples used for data analysis
Yellow: Limited Data (n = less that 30 samples)
Final Report for Peconic Bay Pathogens TMDL
Attachment 1
Water Quality Data Analysis Summary
Acabonac Harbor
Acabonac Total TC 1 TC 2 TC 4 TC 5 TC 6tNIAN
TC TC 33 TC 34 TC 3 TC 13 TC 12 TC 11 TC 9
Geomean n=30 66.1 59.6 31.6 56.9 45.5 67.7
90th Percentile n=30 524.0
Geomean SRS 35.5 23.7 6.8 6.0 6.7 6.5
90th Percentile SRS 1100.0 240.0 83.0 35.8 42.2 43.0
n 55 56 27 27 27 27 27 27 43 43 43 58
Acabonac Fecal FC 1 FC 2 FC 4 FC 5 FC 6 FC 33 FC 34 FC 3 FC 13 FC 12 FC 11 FC 9
Geomean n=30 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
90th Percentile n=30 NIA N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Geomean SRS 7.2 58-430-
8 5.9 5.2
90th Percentile SRS 43.0 43.0 23.0
n 52 52 28 1 24 28 24 24 24 28 24 45 44 44 59
LEGEND
Column Headings:
Grey:Uncertified areas
Light Blue:Seasonally certified areas (data analysis used only
monitoring data collected during uncertified period)
Data:
Red:Exceeds Geomean NSSP Standards
Feral-14 MPN Geomean
Total -70 MPN Geomean
Purple:Exceeds 90th percentile NSSP Standard
Fecal-49 MPN
Total-330 MPN
N/A=not enough samples to determine"most recent 30"
n=number of samples used for data analysis
Yellow:Limited Data(n=less that 30 samples)
Final Report for Peconic Bay Pathogens TMDL
Attachment
Water Quality Data Analysis Summary
Acabonac Harbor
Acabonac Total TC 8 TC 10 gFC14
TC 35 TC 36 TC 6 1 133
Geomean n=30 65.2 N/A
90th Percentile n=30 N/A
Geomean SRS 7.1 7.6 52.3 34.2
90th Percentile SRS %70 43.0 716.0 2 126
n 58 44 25 24 27 13
Acabonac Fecal FC-8 FC 10 FC 35 FC 36 FC 6 1 133
Geomean n=30 N/A N/A N/A
90th Percentile n=30 N/A N/A N/A
Geomean SRS 4.8 5.5 296 22.9
90th Percentile SRS 23.0 43.0 0.0 213.0
n 51 38 24 24 24 11
LEGEND
Column Headings:
Grey:Uncertified areas
Light Blue:Seasonally certified areas (data analysis used only
monitoring data collected during uncerlified period)
Data:
Red:Exceeds Geomean NSSP Standards
Fecal-14 MPN Geomean
Total -70 MPN Geomean
Purple:Exceeds 90th percentile NSSP Standard
Feral-49 MPN
Total-330 MPN
N/A=not enough samples to determine"most recent 30"
n=number of samples used for data analysis
Yellow:Limited Data(n=less that 30 samples)
Final Report for Peconic Bay Pathogens TMDL
Attachment 1
Water Quality Data Analysis Summary
Montauk Lake
Montauk Total TC 2 TC_4 TC 5 TC 6 TC 7 TC 8 TC 9 TC10 TC 11 TC 13 TC 14
Geomean n = 30 19.9 11.2 22.6 10.9 20.3 25.5 29.0
90th Percentile n = 30 159.0 53.7 107.7 62.7 93.0 159.0
Geomean SRS 4.4 11.0 12.2
90th Percentile SRS 18.8 43.0
SRS n 17 66 16 16 17 17 16 16 16 45 46
Montauk Fecal FC 2 FC_4 FC 5 FC 6 FC 7 FC 8 FC 9 FC 10 FC-1 I FC-1 3 FC 14
Geomean n = 30 10.4 5.2 8.0 6.6 7.5 8.0 9.5 19.1
90th Percentile n = 30 48.0 9.0 43.0 25.0 23.0 43.0 43.0
Geomean SRS 3.4 6.5 5.1
90th Percentile SRS 4.0 23.0 9.0
n 17 40 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 37 37
LEGEND
Column Headings:
Grey: Uncertified areas
Light Blue: Seasonally certified areas (data analysis used only
monitoring data collected during uncertified period)
Data:
Red: Exceeds Geomean NSSP Standards
Fecal - 14 MPN Geomean
Total - 70 MPN Geomean
Purple: Exceeds 90th percentile NSSP Standard
Fecal -49 MPN
Total - 330 MPN
NIA = not enough samples to determine"most recent 30"
n = number of samples used for data analysis
Yellow: Limited Data(n = less that 30 samples)
Final Report for Peconic Bay Pathogens TMDL
Attachment 1
Water Quality Data Analysis Summary
Montauk Lake
Montauk Total TC 15 TC 16 TC 17 TC 18 TC 19 TC_20 TC 21 TC 22 TC 24 TC 25 TC 26
Geomean n = 30 -
90th Percentile n = 30
Geomean SRS 14.4 16.0 20.4 15.1 20.9 17.3 13.7 19.5 4.3 6.5 4.4
90th Percentile SRS 150.0 93.0 198.0 240.0 150.0 138.6 240.0 222.0 9.0 31.0 18.8
SRS n 43 43 44 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 44
Montauk Fecal FC 15 FC 16 FC-17 FC 18 FC 19 FC-20 FC 21 FC 22 FC 24 FC 25 FC 26
Geomean n = 30
90th Percentile n = 30
Geomean SRS 6.3 6.4 8.6 6.4 6.6 5.7 4.5 6.3 3.4 3.8 3.6
90th Percentile SRS 31.0 40.6 93.0 23.0 43.0 31.0 15.8 31.0 4.0 9.0 4.0
n 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 41 40 43
LEGEND
Column Headings:
Grey: Uncertified areas
Light Blue: Seasonally certified areas (data analysis used only
monitoring data collected during uncertified period)
Data:
Red: Exceeds Geomean NSSP Standards
Fecal - 14 MPN Geomean
Total -70 MPN Geomean
Purple: Exceeds 90th percentile NSSP Standard
Fecal -49 MPN
Total - 330 MPN
N/A = not enough samples to determine "most recent 30"
n = number of samples used for data analysis
Yellow: Limited Data (n = less that 30 samples)
Final Report for Peconic Bay Pathogens TMDL
Attachment 1
Water Quality Data Analysis Summary
Montauk Lake
Montauk Total TC 28 TC 29 TC 30 TC 31 TC 4A TC 8A TC 8B 135
Geomean n = 30 14.6
90th Percentile n = 30 328.0
Geomean SRS 4.4 5.2 6.1 5.0 7.2 5.8 36.6
90th Percentile SRS 13.8 22.8 25.0 17.4 72.0 37.0 122
SRS n 17 44 32 30 46 42 45 20
Montauk Fecal FC 28 FC 29 FC 30 FC 31 FC 4A M44
FC 8B 135
Geomean n = 30 7.6
90th Percentile-n -- 30
Geomean SRS 4.2 3.4 5.8 4.8 3.6
90th Percentile SRS 8.0 4.0 39.6 4.8 3.6 40
n 22 43 31 32 44 38 11
LEGEND
Column Headings:
Grey: Uncertified areas
Light Blue: Seasonally certified areas (data analysis used only
monitoring data collected during uncertified period)
Data:
Red: Exceeds Geomean NSSP Standards
Fecal - 14 MPN Geomean
Total -70 MPN Geomean
Purple: Exceeds 90th percentile NSSP Standard
Fecal -49 MPN
Total -330 MPN
N/A= not enough samples to determine "most recent 30"
n = number of samples used for data analysis
Yellow: Limited Data (n = less that 30 samples)
' Final Report for Peconic Bay Pathogens TMDL
Attachment 1
Water Quality Data Analysis Summary
Little Sebonac Creek
' Little Sebonac Total TC 1 TC 3 TC 4 TC 5 TC 6
Geomean n=30 8.2 27.7 15.2 13.9 9.4
90th Percentile n=30 43.0 460.0 107.7 48.0 76.8
Geomean SRS
' 90th Percentile SRS
SRS n 17 17 17 17 17
Little Sebonac Fecal FC 1 FC—3 FC—4 FC—5 FC 6
' Geomean n=30 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
90th Percentile n=30 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Geomean SRS 6.8 14.2 5.5 5.5 5.6
90th Percentile SRS 27.0 93.0 9.0 23.0 26.2
n 19 17 17 17 17
LEGEND
Column Headings:
Grey: Uncertified areas
Light Blue:Seasonally certified areas (data analysis used only
monitoring data collected during uncertified period)
Data:
Red: Exceeds Geomean NSSP Standards
Fecal- 14 MPN Geomean
Total -70 MPN Geomean
' Purple: Exceeds 90th percentile NSSP Standard
Fecal-49 MPN
Total-330 MPN
N/A=not enough samples to determine"most recent 30"
n=number of samples used for data analysis
Yellow: Limited Data(n=less that 30 samples)
Final Report for '
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
1
Attachment 2 '
Marina and Pumpout Facility Data '
Oweue '
A.B.,:�...on
105
' Final Report for
Peconic Bay TMDL September 2006
1
' Batteue
106
1
Final Reportfor '
Peconic Bay Shellfish TMDL September 2006
Table 1. Land-based and Mobile Pumpout Facilities in the Peconic Estuary '
Municipality and Water Marina/Dock/Boat '
p y
bod Name Pumpout Capacity
Village of Greenport—Stirling Basin Brewers Yacht Yard Unlimited(septic sstem
Village of Greenport—Greenport
Harbor Claudio's Marina Unlimited(town sewer) ,
Town of Southold—Sage Cove Brick Cove Marina 40 gallon holding tank
Town of SoutholdeeBudds G
Pond/Mill Creek oldsmith's Boat Shop 250 gallon holding tank ,
Town of SoutholdeeBudds
Pond/Mill Creek Port of Egypt 500 gallon holding tank
Town of Southold—Budds Albertson's Marine 250 gallons (septic system) '
Pond/Mill Creek
Town of Southold—Wickham Creek Cutchogue HarborMarina
Hararbboror 200 gallon holding tank ,
Town of Southoldtchogue New Suffolk Shipyard 275 gallon holding tank
Town of Southold—James Creek Stron 's Marina Unlimited(septic sstem '
Town of Riverhead—South Town Dock(municipal) 1000 gallon holding tank
James ort
Town of Riverhead—Great Peconic Great Peconic Bay Unlimited(septic system) '
Ba /Flanders Ba Marina
Town of Riverhead—Meetinghouse Larry's Lighthouse 500 gallon holding tank
Creek/Flanders Ba Marina '
Town of Riverhead—Peconic River Downtown Riverhead 1000 gallon holding tank
Town of Riverhead—Peconic River Treasure Cove Marina 500 gallon holding tank
Town of Southampton—Shinnecock Shinnecock Canal 1000 gallon holding tank '
Canal County Marina
Town of Southampton— Town Pumpout Boat#1 250 gallon boat
Westhampton Beach (municipal) '
Town of Southampton—Shinnecock Town Pumpout Boat#2
Canal west to Riverhead/Great (Hamptons Harbor 250 gallon boat
Peconic Bay Marina) (municipal) '
Town of Southampton—Red Creek Town Pumpout Boat#4
Pond to Cold Spring Pond/Great (Mariners Cove Marina) 250 gallon boat
Peconic Ba (municipal)
Town Pumpout Boat#3
Town of Southampton—Cold Spring '
Pond h Jessup Neck (Wooley Pond Bulkhead) 250 gallon boat
(municipal)
Village of Sag Harbor—Noyak to Town Pumpout Boat#5 '
West Neck Bay to Sag Harbor (Village Marina) 250 gallon boat
(municipal)
.Village of Sag Harbor—Sag Harbor Marine Park Docks 1500 gall on holding tank '
Town of East Hampton—Three Mile Town Pumpout Boat 300 gallon boat
Harbor Gann Road (municipal)
Town of East Hampton—Three Mile Darenberg Marine 300 gallon boat '
Harbor Pum out Boat
Battelle ,
71„33—iness of lnno..c....
1
' Final Reportfor
Peconic Bay Shellfish TMDL September 2006
Table 1. Land-based and Mobile Pumpout Facilities in the Peconic Estuary,continued
' Municipality and Water body Marina/Dock/BoatName Pumpout Capacity
Town of East Hampton—Three Mile 60 gallon unit emptied into 1000
Shagwong Marina
Harbor gallon septic sstem
Town of East Hampton—Three Mile East Hampton Point 50 gallon unit emptied into 1000
Harbor Marina gallon septic sstem
' Town of East Hampton—Three Mile Maidstone Harbor Vaccuflush unit emptied into
Harbor Marina 900 gallon septic sstem
Town of East Hampton—Three Mile Town Dock, Gann Road 2,376 gallon and 725 gallon
Harbor (municipal) holding tanks
' Town of East Hampton—Three Mile Harbor Marina 30 gallon portable unit
Harbor
Town of East Hampton—Montauk Montauk Sportsman's 60-80 gallon unit emptied into
Harbor Dock 1000 gallon septic sstem
Town of East Hampton—Montauk Town Dock, Star Island 2,376 gallon holding tank
Harbor (municipal)
Town of East Hampton—Montauk Gone Fishing Marina 60 gallon unit emptied into 1000
Harbor gallon septic sstem
Town of Shelter Island—Dering Picozzi's Dering Harbor 250 gallon holding tank
' Harbor Marina
Town of Shelter Island—Coecles Coecles Harbor Marina Unlimited (septic system)
Harbor
' Source: New York Sea Grant
1
1
1
t
1
Battelle
' 7As 13�.io«..of loo..ntion
Final Report for '
Peconic Bay Shellfish TMDL September 2006
Table 2. Number of Docks,Moorings, and Slips Available in the Peconic Estuary Area '
Private Total '
Water body Docks Moorings Marina Slips Recreational
Vessels
Orient Harbor 7 65 209 281 '
Green ort Harbor 175 69 782 1026
Southold Bay 238 106 975 1319
Hog Neck Bav 103 76 72 251 '
Cutchogue Harbor 253 110 336 699
Complex
Southold 127 65 257 449 '
Flanders Bay Complex 9 13 550 572
Red Creek Pond 53 134 0 187
Cold Spring Pond 19 0 322 341
Bullhead Bay/Sebonac 16 0 60 76 '
Complex
North Sea Harbor 0 35 218 253
Noyak Bay 21 134 145 300 '
Sag Harbor Complex 184 896 787 1867
Three Mile Harbor 64 153 1045 1262
Acabonac Harbor 0 56 0 56 '
Napeague Harbor 0 20 0 20
Fort Pond Bay 0 0 0 0
Montauk Lake 68 20 1186 1274
Dering Harbor 0 285 96 381
Coecles Harbor 0 237 50 287
West Neck Harbor 0 249 97 346 '
Total 11247
Source: New York Sea Grant
1
1
1
1
Baltene
1
1 Final Report for
Peconic Bay Shellfish TMDL September 2006
Table 3. Mobile Pumpout Facilities Data for Peconic Bay
' Operator of Area Covered Gallons Pumped
Pumpout Boat 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Southampton Town Westhampton 1,340 3,365 3,866 5,204 6261 8686 7,660 7,906
Pumpout Boat#1 Beach
Shinnecock
Southampton Town
Pumpout Boat#2 Canal west to 2,187 4,642 5,437 4,417 3,100 Inactive NA NA
' Riverhead
Cold Spring
Southampton Town
Pumpout Boat#3 Pond to Jessup Inactive 3,119 8,977 14,544 7,905 440 4,885 1,694
' Neck
Red Creek
Southampton Town
Pumpout Boat#4 Pond to Cold 447 1,535 2,873 3,110 3,472 4,203 4,184 NA
' Spring Pond
Noyak to West
Southampton Town
Pumpout Boat w NeckBayto 4,277 19,953 15,104 20,773 35,780 44,143 38,172 46,989
Sag Harbor
East Hampton Three Mile
(owned by town) Harbor NA NA NA NA NA 16,979 NA NA
'
Three Mile
Hampton
East
(D East a Marine) Harbor and NA NA NA NA 30,000 43,000 NA NA
' Montauk Lake
NA=not available
Source: Peconic Bay Estuary Program.
t
1
1
Battelle