UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 2
290 BROADWAY
NEWYORK, NY 10007-1866
3/10/2022
Mr. Mark Klotz
Director
Division of Water
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
625 Broadway
Albany, New York 12233-3500
Dear Mr. Klotz:
Thank you for submitting New York's 2018 Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) list, dated
November 13, 2020 (with a revised submission received on December 07, 2020, and a supplement to the
submission received on February 10th, 2022). In accordance with Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act
and Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 130.7, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) conducted a complete review of New York's Section 303(d) list and supporting
documentation and information. The enclosed supporting documentation describes the statutory and
regulatory requirements and EPA's review of New York's compliance with them.
Section 303(d) of the CWA and EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR § 130.7, require the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) to identify waters within its
boundaries for which technology-based and other controls are not stringent enough to implement any
water quality standards applicable to those waters and for which Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
must be developed. Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR § 130.7(b)(4), NYSDEC is required to identify
the pollutants causing the impairment of the listed waters. Section 303(d) further requires NYSDEC to
establish a priority ranking for the listed waters, taking into account the severity of the pollution and the
designated uses of the listed waters. Finally, NYSDEC is required to identify the waters targeted for
TMDL development over the next two years.
New York's 2018 Section 303(d) list identifies 835 waterbody/pollutant combinations requiring
TMDLs. Of these, NYSDEC identified six (6) as high priority for TMDL/Restoration Strategy
Development through 2018. Two of these 6 waterbody/pollutant combinations have been addressed by
TMDLs approved in 2019. An alternative restoration plan is in place for one of these 6
waterbody/pollutant combinations. NYSDEC identified an additional fourteen (14) waterbody/pollutant
combinations as high priority for TMDL/Restoration Strategy Development through 2022. Alternative
restoration plans are in place for six of these waterbody/pollutant combinations.
NYSDEC announced the availability of the draft 2018 Section 303(d) list in the State's Environmental
Notice Bulletin, on June 20, 2018, and provided a 45-day comment period, which ended on August 6,
2018. NYSDEC prepared a response to comments summary document.
Based upon EPA's review of the submittal, EPA is partially approving, partially disapproving, and has
further action pending on the New York 2018 303(d) list. Specifically, EPA is approving the New York
2018 303(d) list with respect to the eight hundred thirty-five (835) waterbody/pollutant combinations
New York included on the list as requiring a total maximum daily load (TMDL). EPA is disapproving
the New York 2018 303(d) list because EPA has determined that New York did not include twenty-two
http//www.epa.gov
-------
(22) waterbody/pollutant combinations on the 2018 303(d) list that meet 303(d) listing requirements.
EPA has further action pending with regard to one hundred and fifty-six (156) waterbody/pollutant
combinations. These waterbody/pollutant combinations are described in further detail in the attached
supporting documentation.
By this letter and attached supporting documentation, EPA is adding the 22 waterbody/pollutant
combinations referenced above to the New York 2018 303(d) list. Pursuant to 40 CFR 130.7(d)(2), EPA
will open a public comment period in order to receive comments on the addition of these 22
waterbody/pollutant combinations. After examining comments received from the public, EPA will make
any appropriate revisions to the New York 2018 Section 303(d) list. After considering public comment
and making any revisions EPA deems appropriate, EPA will transmit its listings to the State.
I appreciate the informative discussions our staff had with NYSDEC regarding the New York 2018
303(d) list, as we collaboratively move forward in implementing the requirements under Section 303(d)
of the CWA. In addition, EPA encourages NYSDEC to submit an Integrated Report in accordance with
EPA guidance, to improve transparency and for added clarity of future submissions. We are also looking
forward to working with NYSDEC's water quality program to address environmental justice and
account for climate change impacts. Please feel free to contact me at 212-637-4125, or your staff may
contact Dr. Daniel Gurdak at 212-637-3634 if there are any questions.
Sincerely,
IAV/IPP Digitally signed by
JMVICR JAVIER LAUREANO
I AIJRFANO Date 2022 03 10
l_/-\UI\IZ/-\|\| W 14:46:56 -05'00'
Javier Laureano, Ph.D.
Director
Water Division
Enclosure
-------
Supporting Documentation for Review and Partial Approval/Partial
Disapproval of New York State's 2018 303(d) List
Pursuant to Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), New York State (the State or New
York or NYSDEC) submitted its "New York State 2018 Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters
Requiring a TMDL/Other Strategy" (the New York 2018 303(d) list) to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for approval or disapproval. The submission was received on Nov 13,
2020, a revised submission was received on December 07, 2020, and a supplement to the
submission was received on February 10th, 2022.1 The State also submitted to EPA, documents
entitled "2018 DELISTED Waters (NOT Included on the 2018 Section 303(d) List)" (2018
Delisted Waters), "Response to Comments on The Final Proposed 2018 NYS 303(d) List of
Impaired Waters Requiring a TMDL" (Response to Comments), and "List of Integrated Report
(IR) Category 4a/b/c Waters- April 2020)" (IR Category 4 waters). The State did not submit to
EPA an Integrated Report that includes and categorizes all assessed waters for the purposes of
satisfying the reporting requirements of both Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the CWA. EPA has
reviewed the New York 2018 303(d) list and supporting documentation. The New York 2018
303(d) list and supporting documentation is referred to below collectively as the "submission."
EPA reviewed the submission based upon whether the State developed its list in compliance with
Section 303(d) of the CWA and EPA's implementing regulations. This included whether the
State assembled and evaluated all existing and readily available water quality-related data and
information, and reasonably identified waters required to be listed. For the reasons set forth
below, EPA is partially approving, partially disapproving, and has further action pending on the
New York 2018 303(d) list. Specifically, EPA is approving the New York 2018 303(d) list with
respect to the eight hundred thirty-five (835) waterbody/pollutant combinations New York
included on the list as requiring a total maximum daily load (TMDL). EPA is disapproving the
New York 2018 303(d) list because EPA has determined that New York did not include twenty-
two (22) waterbody/pollutant combinations on the 2018 303(d) list that meet 303(d) listing
requirements. These 22 waterbody/pollutant combinations comprise the following:
A. Four (4) waterbody/pollutant combinations delisted from the New York 2016 303(d) list
where data and/or information indicate that the applicable water quality criterion for
odors is not met.
B. Nine (9) waterbody/pollutant combinations delisted from the New York 2016 303(d) list
where data and/or information indicate that the applicable water quality criterion/criteria
for floatables is/are not met.
1 The supplement received on February 10th, 2022 added the following nine (9) waterbody/pollutant combinations
that were excluded from the New York 2018 303(d) list in error: Harbor Brook, Lower, and tribs (0702-0002),
Ammonia; Onondaga Creek, Middle, and tribs (0702-0004), Ammonia; Geddes Brook and tribs (0702 0007),
Ammonia; Harbor Brook, Lower, and tribs (0702 0002), Phosphorus; Onondaga Creek, Middle, and tribs (0702
0004), Phosphorus; Ninemile Creek, Lower, and tribs (0702 0005), Phosphorus; Eastchester Bay (1702-0007),
Pathogens; Harbor Brook, Lower, and tribs (0702 0002), Pathogens; Ninemile Creek, Lower, and tribs (0702 0005),
Pathogens.
1
-------
C. Two (2) waterbody/pollutant combinations delisted from the New York 2016 303(d) list
where data and/or information indicate that the applicable water quality criterion for
dissolved oxygen is not met.
D. One (1) waterbody/pollutant combination delisted from the New York 2016 303(d) list
where data and/or information indicate the presence of harmful algal blooms (HABs),
which in turn, indicates that an applicable water quality standard is not met. New York
did not demonstrate that no pollutant is causing the impairment and inappropriately
moved this waterbody/pollutant combination to Integrated Report Category 4c2 .
E. One (1) waterbody/pollutant combination for an assessment unit under 6.4 acres delisted
from the New York 2016 303(d) list where data and/or information indicate that the
applicable narrative water quality criterion for dissolved oxygen is not met.
F. One (1) waterbody/pollutant combination delisted from the New York 2014 303(d) list
and included in Integrated Report Category 4c where data and/or information indicate
that the applicable narrative water quality criterion for nutrients is not met and New York
did not demonstrate that no pollutant is causing the impairment.
G. Three (3) waterbody/pollutant combinations where data and/or information indicate the
presence of harmful algal blooms (HABs), which in turn, indicates that an applicable
water quality standard is not met. New York did not demonstrate that no pollutant is
causing the impairment and inappropriately included these waters in Integrated Report
Category 4c.
H. One (1) waterbody/pollutant combination where data and/or information indicate the
presence of harmful algal blooms (HABs), which in turn, indicates that an applicable
water quality standard is not met. New York did include not this waterbody/pollutant
combination on the New York 2018 303(d) list or in any Integrated Report Category.
These waterbody/pollutant combinations are described in further detail in the respective section
of this document below.
EPA has further action pending with regard to one hundred and fifty-six (156)
waterbody/pollutant combinations:
(1) Five (5) waterbody/pollutant combinations that are designated for shellfishing that New
York did not include on the New York 2018 303(d) list despite not being certified for
(and therefore closed to) shellfishing.
(2) Seventy-two (72) waterbody/pollutant combinations that New York did not include on
the New York 2018 303(d) list, and instead, included in Integrated Report Category 4c.
(3) Sixty-five (65) waterbody/pollutant combinations that New York delisted from the New
York 2016 303(d) list due to a change to their segmentation.
(4) Fourteen (14) waterbody/pollutant combinations that are classified as Class I or Class SD
waters where EPA will work with the State to assess data and/or information to determine
whether the applicable standards, with respect to pathogens, are met.
2 Integrated Report Category 4c includes waters where there is a demonstration that the failure to meet an applicable
water quality standard is not caused by a pollutant, but instead is caused by other types of pollution, where the
pollution does not result from a pollutant and a TMDL is not required (Guidance for 2006Assessment, Listing and
Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314 of the Clean Water Act (July 29, 2005))
2
-------
These waterbody/pollutant combinations are described in further detail in the respective section
of this document below. EPA is committed to working with the State to resolve these issues and
to determine what additional waterbody/pollutant combinations, if any, must be included on the
303(d) list.
The Agency's action on the State's 2018 Section 303(d) list does not apply to any waters, or
portions thereof, that are within Indian Country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 1151. EPA,
therefore, is taking no action to approve or disapprove the State's list with respect to any waters
within Indian Country. EPA, or eligible Indian Tribes, as appropriate, will retain responsibilities
under CWA Section 303(d) for those waters.
Identification of Water Qua! litecl Segments for Inclusion on the 303(d) List
Section 303(d)(1) of the CWA directs states to identify those waters within their jurisdiction for
which effluent limitations required by Section 301(b)(1)(A) and (B) are not stringent enough to
implement any applicable water quality standards, and to establish a priority ranking for those
waters, taking into account the severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of those waters.
The Section 303(d) listing requirement applies to waters impaired by point and/or nonpoint
sources, pursuant to EPA's long-standing interpretation of Section 303(d).
EPA regulations do not require states to list waters where the following controls are adequate to
implement applicable standards: (1) technology-based effluent limitations required by the CWA;
(2) more stringent effluent limitations required by state or local authority; and (3) other pollution
control requirements required by state, local or federal authority. See, 40 C.F.R. §130.7(b)(1).
Assemble and Evaluate All Existingand Readily Available Water Ouality-Rela' ta
and Information
In developing 303(d) lists, states are required to assemble and evaluate all existing and readily
available water quality-related data and information including, at a minimum, consideration of
existing and readily available data and information about the following categories of waters: (1)
waters identified as partially meeting or not meeting designated uses, or as threatened, in the
state's most recent CWA Section 305(b) report; (2) waters for which dilution calculations or
predictive modeling indicate nonattainment of applicable standards; (3) waters for which water
quality problems have been reported by governmental agencies, members of the public or
academic institutions; and (4) waters identified as impaired or threatened in any Section 319
nonpoint assessment submitted to EPA. See, 40 C.F.R. § 130.7(b)(5). In addition to these
minimum categories, states are required to consider any other data and information that is
existing and readily available. EPA's guidance describes categories of water quality-related data
3
-------
and information that may be existing and readily available.3 While states are required to evaluate
all existing and readily available water quality-related data and information, states may decide to
not rely on particular data or information in determining whether to list particular waters
provided they have a reasonable, technical explanation for their decision.
In addition to assembling and evaluating all existing and readily available water quality-related
data and information, EPA regulations, at 40 C.F.R. § 130.7(b)(6), require states to submit
documentation in support of determinations to list or not list its waters. This documentation must
be submitted together with the list and must include, at a minimum: (1) a description of the
methodology used to develop the list; (2) a description of the data and information used to
identify waters; (3) documentation to support decisions not to use particular data and
information, as well as documentation to support decisions to list or not list waters; and (4) any
other reasonable information requested by EPA, including good cause for not including a water
or waters on the list.
Pursuant to Section 303(d)(2) of the CWA and 40 C.F.R. § 130.7(d)(2), New York is required to
incorporate all waterbody/pollutant combinations that EPA has previously listed on the New
York 303(d) list subsequent to a disapproval, into its water quality management plan and include
them on all future lists, unless, after assembling and evaluating all existing and readily available
water quality-related data and information, New York reasonably concludes that a water(s) is not
impaired or otherwise does not require a TMDL, New York submits documentation to EPA in
support of a determination not to list a water(s) and EPA approves a subsequent list submission.
Consistent with EPA's guidance, Guidelines for Preparation of the Comprehensive State Water
Quality Assessments (305(b) Reports) and Electronic Updates - EPA841-B-97-002A and
EPA841-B-97-002B, 1997, and Guidance for 2006 Assessment Listing and Reporting
Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d). 305(b). and 314 of the Clean Water Act July 29,
2005 ("EPA's 2006 Integrated Report Guidance"), the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) developed a Consolidated Assessment and Listing
Methodology (CALM) to integrate the monitoring and assessment activities under Sections
305(b) and 303(d). The NYSDEC's CALM describes the process for evaluating and
consolidating monitoring data and information. The CALM contains three sub-parts: Monitoring
Strategy, Assessment Methodology and Listing Methodology. The Listing Methodology
describes the process for developing the 303(d) list from evaluation and assessment of data
gathered through the Monitoring Strategy and the Assessment Methodology. The State's CALM
is updated periodically, generally in concert with the federal biennial assessment and listing
cycle. EPA does not approve or disapprove the State's CALM.
The foundation for the State's listing process (both 305(b) and 303(d)) is the State's Water
Inventory/Priority Waterbodies List (WI/PWL), which is based on the results of the State's
monitoring and application of its assessment methodologies. Waters listed on the 303(d) list are
3 Guidance for Water Quality-Based Decisions: The TMDL Process, EPA Office of Water, 1991, EPA 440-4-91-
001.
4
-------
drawn directly from the WI/PWL. The WI/PWL is a comprehensive inventory of waterbodies
throughout the State, including those waters known or suspected to have designated uses with
some degree of impairment or which are threatened by potential impairment. Designated use
impairments are determined by evaluation of all available information on the waterbodies,
including: use restriction orders (drinking water restrictions, bathing beach closures, fish
consumption and shellfishing advisories); comparison of data from the NYSDEC ambient
monitoring network, other agencies and local or public/citizen monitoring programs with
parameter-specific water quality standards; the use of surrogate indicators; and qualitative
perception and observational information (stream habitat assessments, recreation use or fishery
resource surveys and citizen complaints).
The WI/PWL categorizes waters according to the severity of the problem (precluded, impaired,
stressed, threatened, no known impact/impairment or unassessed waters) and the level of
documentation of the problem (known, suspected, possible). Based upon WI/PWL
categorization, the State determines which category described in EPA's Integrated Report
Guidance the water is to be placed. Waterbody segments listed as "precluded" or "impaired" due
to pollutants are listed under Section 303(d), or Category 5, as described in EPA's 2006
Integrated Report Guidance. Where known, the State's list identifies the pollutants causing the
impairment for each listed segment.
Public input for the WI/PWL is provided through the Water Management Advisory Committee,
the Statewide Nonpoint Source Committee, county water quality coordinating committees,
citizen's advisory committees for Remedial Action Plans and Lake Management Plans and other
interest groups. The WI/WPL also includes input from a public outreach program conducted by
local county and soil and water conservation districts working in conjunction with the State. The
State solicited data indicating impairment of waters in the May 10, 2017 Environmental News
Bulletin (ENB). The State requested that all data submissions be received by September 29,
2017, to allow the State sufficient time for the review and consideration of all data and
information.
NYSDEC organizes the 303(d) list in separate sections, allowing NYSDEC to manage its 303(d)
list to meet its different programmatic needs. The following describes the structure and
nomenclature of NYSDEC's 303(d) list:
Part 1: Individual Waterbody Segments with Impairments Requiring TMDL
Development
Part 2: Multiple/Categorical Waterbody Segments with Impairments Requiring TMDL
Development
Part 2a: Waterbody Segments Impaired by Atmospheric Deposition/Acid Rain
Part 2b: Waterbody Segments Impaired by Fish Consumption Advisories
Part 2c: Waterbody Segments Impaired by Shellfishing Restrictions
Part 3: Waterbodies for which TMDLs are/may be Deferred
Part 3a: Waterbodies Requiring Verification of Impairment
Part 3b: Waterbodies Requiring Verification of Cause/Pollutant/Source
5
-------
Part 3c: Waterbodies Awaiting Development/Evaluation of Other Restoration
Efforts
The 2018 303(d) list is comprised of 835 waterbody/pollutant combinations as designated by
NYSDEC:
• Part 1 includes 225 waterbody/pollutant combinations
• Part 2a includes 57 waterbody/pollutant combinations
• Part 2b includes 213 waterbody/pollutant combinations
• Part 2c includes 77 waterbody/pollutant combinations
• Part 3a includes 80 waterbody/pollutant combinations
• Part 3b includes 95 waterbody/pollutant combinations
• Part 3c includes 88 waterbody/pollutant combinations
EPA has reviewed the State's submission, as well as its description of the data and information
considered, its methodology for classifying waters, and the WI/PWL. EPA has also compared the
waterbody/pollutant combinations on the New York 2018 303(d) list and the impaired/delisted
waterbody/pollutant combinations not included on the 2018 303(d) list with the
waterbody/pollutant combinations on the New York 2016 303(d) list.
EPA investigated interstate waters to ensure assessment and listing consistency between New
York and other border states. Differences in listing of interstate waters were noted in Vermont,
Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania. Because states have different
waterbody classifications and water quality standards, and because data may not be available for
an entire waterbody, these differences are not necessarily inconsistent with regulatory
requirements under 40 C.F.R. § 130.7. None of the states that border New York submitted
comments on the draft New York 2018 303(d) list.
With respect to the 835 waterbody/pollutant combinations New York included on the New York
2018 303(d) list, the State properly assembled and evaluated all existing and readily available
data and information, including data and information relating to the categories of waters
specified in 40 C.F.R. § 130.7(b)(5), and identified these waterbody/pollutant combinations on
the New York 2018 303(d) list. This includes waters where parameters and/ or assessment units
were changed since the 2016 list (see below for more details).
With respect to the 22 waterbody/pollutant combinations that meet 303(d) listing requirements
that are not included on the New York 2018 303(d) list, EPA has concluded that New York did
not properly assemble and evaluate all existing and readily available data and information and
failed to include these waters on the New York 2018 303(d) list. More detail is provided for each
of these waterbody/pollutant combinations in the respective section of this document below.
6
-------
Changes to Causes of Impairments or Assessment Units
For two-hundred seven (207) of the 835 waterbody/pollutant combinations included on the New
York 2018 303(d) list, the State updated the parameter(s) (see Table 1) identified on the list, to
better reflect the cause of the impairment and New York's applicable water quality standards,
and for which EPA is in agreement. Note, in some cases the listing was "split" to reflect the two
separate impairments, resulting in additional waterbody/pollutant combinations on the New York
2018 303(d) list.
Table 1: Summary of cause of impairment changes from the New York 2016 to the New York
2018 303(d) lists (number of waterbody/ pollutant combinations enclosed in parenthesis)
From [in 2016]
To [in 2018]
"Dissolved Oxygen" (4)
"Low D.O." (4)a
"DO/Oxygen Demand" (2)
"Low D.O." (2)
"DO/Oxygen Demand" (13)
"Oxygen Demand" (13)a
"Floatables" (23)
"Garbage & Refuse" (23)
"Floatables" (4)
"Oils & Floating Sub" (4)
"Pathogens"(112)
"Fecal Coliform" (112)
"Nitrogen/ Low D.O." (6)
"Low D.O." (6) b
"Nitrogen/Low D.O." (1)
"Nitrogen" (1)c
"Oxygen Demand" (20) d
"Low D.O." (20)
"Phosphorus/Low D.O." (19)
"Phosphorus" (19)
"Phosphorus/Low D.O." (1)e
"Phosphorus" (1)
"Low D.O." (1)
"Silt/Sediment" (1)
"Unknown" (1)f
" Waterbodies listed for "Low D.O " are distinguished from waterbodies listed for "Dissolved Oxygen " as follows: for waterbodies listed
for "Low D.O. NYSDEC has determined that a nutrient pollutant is also known to be present and is the likely cause of the dissolved
oxygen impairment.
b These six waterbodies are also listed for "Nitrogen " (they were added to the New York 2016 list for Nitrogen by EPA subsequent to
disapproval)
c This waterbody is also listed for "Low D.O. " (it was added to the New York 2016 list for "Oxygen Demand" by EPA subsequent to
disapproval)
d These waterbody/pollutant combinations were added to the New York 2016 list by EPA subsequent to disapproval (19 of these
waterbody/pollutant combinations are also listed for "Phosphorus" and 1 is also listed for "Nitrogen ")
e This listing was split to reflect the two separate impairments.
?The cause of impairment for this waterbody/pollutant combination was modified because, "An updated assessment for this waterbody
indicated causes and sources of impairments to this water are not fully understood and it is most appropriate to place it in Part 3b until
more sampling is conducted. " Quote taken from footnote on 2018 303(d) list.
New York changed the segmentation of seventy-five (75) assessment units by resegmenting and
incorporating assessment units less than 6.4 acres into another assessment unit. The impairment
was maintained on the New York 2018 303(d) list if the following criterion was met for the new
combined assessment unit: if the smaller, impaired assessment unit comprised more than 20% of
the total area of the new (i.e., combined) assessment unit OR if the assessment unit for which the
7
-------
smaller unit was combined into, was already listed for the same impairment. The ten (10)
waterbody/pollutant combinations specified in Table 2 below, were not delisted from the New
York 2016 303(d) list, as the smaller impaired assessment unit is still on the New York 2018
303(d) list due to being combined into an already listed assessment unit. Assessment units where
the smaller, impaired waterbody comprised less than 20% of the total areas of the new (i.e.,
combined) assessment unit were not listed by New York (65 segments) and are discussed in a
subsequent section of this document, "Waters New York Did Not Include on the 303(d) List
Where Further Action is Pending by EPA" (also see Appendix B: Resegmented assessment units
for which further action is pending by EPA).
Table 2: Changed segmentation from the 2016 list, but impairment for waterbody/pollutant
combination on the New York 2018 303(d) list.
NYS index
number
2016 Assessment Unit
2016
Pollutant/Cause
2018 Assessment
Unit
2018 Pollutant/Cause
(MW1.2) S 1-
8- 1-1
Springville Creek,
Upper, and tribs (1701-
0186)
Unknown (biol
imp)
Richmond Creek,
Upper, and tribs
(1701-0043)
Unknown (biol imp)
C (portion 2b)
Willsboro Bay (1001-
0015)
PCBs
L. Champlain,
Middle, Willsboro
Bay (1000-0002)b
PCBs
(MW3.6) LIS-
13
Byram River, Lower
(1702-0132)
Pathogens
Port Chester
Harbor/Lower
Byram River
(1702-0260)°
Fecal Coliform
-
Spring Pond/Lake
(1701-0230)3
Chlordane
Upper Yaphank
Lake (1701-0323)
Chlordane
SL-1- 162-28-
P231
Rock Pond (0903-
0013)
pH
Mountain Pond,
more (0903-0176)
Acid/Base (pH)
SL-25-115-
P307
Lost Pond (0905-0040)
pH
Dillon Pond (0905-
0186)
Acid/Base (pH)
C-15-51- 2 ..
P79
Unnamed P #2-079
(1003-0027)
pH
Towbridge Brook
and tribs (1003-
0070)
C-15-51-2 ..
P80
Unnamed P #2-080
(1003-0028)
pH
Acid/Base (pH)
C-15-51-2 ..
P81
Marsh Pond (1003-
0020)
pH
SLC-32-6-31-
P87
Mountain Pond (0902-
0019)
pH
Mountain Ponds
(0902-0108)
Acid/Base (pH)
a This segment is also nominally referred to as "Spring Pond" and as assessment unit "1701-002 " across documents and listings
b This segment was listed for this impairment in 2016
c This segment was listed for "pathogens " in 2016 and the parameter was updated to "fecal coliform "
8
-------
Delisted Waterbodv/Pollutant Combinations
New York delisted thirty-two (32) 4'5 waterbody/pollutant combinations from the New York
2016 303(d) list. EPA regulations, at 40 C.F.R. § 130.7(b)(6), require states to submit, together
with their list, documentation in support of determinations not to list waters. Pursuant to 40
C.F.R. § 130.7(b)(6)(iv), when requested by EPA, a state "must demonstrate good cause for not
including a water or waters on the list." EPA, throughout its review of the New York 2018
303(d) list, requested from New York, a demonstration of good cause for not including
waterbody/pollutant combinations previously included on the 303(d) list. Consistent with 40
C.F.R. § 130.7(b), good cause, as described in EPA's Integrated Report Guidance6, may be
based on the following:
• The assessment and interpretation of more recent or more accurate data in the record
demonstrate that the applicable water quality standard(s) is met;
• The results of more sophisticated water quality modeling demonstrate that the applicable
water quality standard(s) is met;
• Flaws in the original analysis of data and information led to the segment being incorrectly
listed;
• A demonstration, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 130.7(b)(l)(ii), that there are effluent limitations
required by state or local authorities that are more stringent than technology-based effluent
limitations, required by the CWA, and that these more stringent effluent limitations will
result in the attainment of water quality standards for the pollutant causing the impairment;
• A demonstration, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 130.7(b)(l)(iii), that there are other pollution
control requirements required by state, local, or federal authority that will result in attainment
of water quality standards for a specific pollutant(s) within a reasonable amount of time (i.e.,
Integrated Report Category 4b);
• A demonstration that the failure to meet an applicable water quality standard is not caused by
a pollutant, but instead is caused by other types of pollution where the pollution does not
result from a pollutant and a TMDL is not required (i.e., Integrated Report Category 4c);
• Documentation that the state included on a previous section 303(d) list, an impaired segment
that was not required to be listed by EPA regulations, e.g., segments where there is no
pollutant associated with the impairment (i.e., Integrated Report Category 4c);
• Approval or establishment by EPA of a TMDL since the last 303(d) list;
• A state inappropriately listed a segment that is within Indian country, as defined in 18 U.S.C.
section 1151; or
• Other relevant information that supports the decision not to include the segment on the
303(d) list.
4 Including: a) waterbody/pollutant combinations the state included in Enclosure #3: "2018 Delisted Waters NOT
Included on the 2018 303(d) list", and b) additional waterbody/pollutant combinations that do not appear anywhere
in New York's submission.
5 Excluding: a) waterbody/pollutant combinations noted in Enclosure 3 but parameter or assessment unit changes did
not result in the waterbody/pollutant combination being delisted, and b) all waterbody/pollutant combinations for
which further action by EPA is pending.
6 Guidance for 2006Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314
of the Clean Water Act (July 29, 2005).
9
-------
1. New York appropriately delisted fourteen (14) waterbody/pollutant combinations from the
New York 2018 303(d) list based on one of the following reasons:
A. Approval or establishment by EPA of a TMDL since the New York 2016 303(d) list.
New York delisted seven (7) waterbody/pollutant combinations due to the completion and
EPA approval of TMDLs (see Table 3).
Table 3: Delisted due to approved TMDLs
NYS index number
Waterbodv (Assessment Unit)
Pollutant/Cause
Pa 63 13 23 P131
Bear Lake (0202-0008)
Phosphorus
SL- 1 (portion 6a)/P3Sb
Stark fall Reservoir (0903-0073)
Mercury
SL-1- 65-26-P54
Willis Pond (0903-0105)
Mercurv
M- 240-82-63-19-9-P589
Engleville Pond (1202- 0009)
Phosphorus
H-240- 180 (portion 4)/P79 9
Hinkley Reservoir (1203-0022)
Mercury
H-31-P44 -23 -P59 6 - P62a
Lake Carmel (1302-0006)
Phosphorus
11-31-P44-23-P59-5-P61a
Palmer Lake (1302-0103)
Phosphorus
B. New York's assessment and interpretation of more recent or more accurate data
demonstrate that the applicable water quality standard is met.
New York delisted four (4) waterbody/pollutant combinations due to its reassessment of
data and/or information where that data and/or information indicate water quality
standard attainment (see Table 4).
Table 4: Delisted due to more recent/accurate data
NYS index number
Waterbodv (Assessment Unit)
Pollutant/Cause
Ont 66-12-12- P154-3
Ley Creek and tribs (0702-0001)
Cyanide
Ont 19- 81-58-25-P874
Brook Trout Lake (0801-0009)
Acid/Base (pH)
H-391 (portion 3)/P374
Schroon Lake (1104-0002)
PCBs
1-1- 240-227
Ninemile Creek, Lower, and tribs
(1201-0014)
Pathogens
C. The original basis for listing was incorrect.
New York delisted three (3) waterbody/pollutant combinations due to incorrect,
insufficient or inadequate data and/or information to determine the water quality status at
the time of listing, and therefore determined that the original basis for listing was
incorrect (see Table 5).
10
-------
Table 5: Delisted because the original basis for listing was incorrect.
NYS index number
Waterbodv (Assessment Unit)
Pollutant/Cause
Ont 117-14
Red Creek and Tribs (0402-0024)
Unknown (biol impacts)
Ont 117-57
Jaycox Creek and tribs (0402-0064)
Phosphorus
Ont 117-57
Jaycox Creek and tribs (0402-0064)
Silt/Sediment
2. New York improperly delisted seventeen (17) waterbody/pollutant combinations from the
2016 303(d) list that EPA has determined meet 303(d) listing requirements because data and
information indicate that the applicable water quality standard is not met:
A. New York delisted four (4) waterbody/pollutant combinations from the New York 2016
303(d) list where data and/or information indicate that the applicable water quality
criterion for odors is not met.
New York's narrative water quality criterion for odors is: "none in amounts that will
adversely affect the taste, color or odor thereof, or impair the waters for their best uses."
In New York's response to comments document, New York explains that its basis for
delisting these waters is that "there is no quantitative data available to support any of
these listings." Despite this general statement about data representativeness, New York
did not discuss, identify or address the specific data that was used to support the original
listing. New York's previous determination that these waters were impaired by odors, as
evidenced by their inclusion on the New York 2016 303(d) list as impaired by odors, is
information indicating that the applicable water quality standard for odors is not met in
these waters.
New York did not provide new data and/or information indicating that the applicable
water quality standard for odors is met in these waters (see Table 6), nor did it provide an
updated analysis of the data and/or information that supported its earlier determination
that odors are present "in amounts that... adversely affect the taste, color or odor thereof'
or "impair the waters for their best uses." Because data and/or information indicates that
the applicable water quality standard for odors is not met and New York did not
demonstrate good cause for not including these waterbody/pollutant combinations on the
list, EPA is partially disapproving the New York 2018 303(d) list with respect to these
waters.
11
-------
Table 6: Waters for which the applicable water quality criterion for odors is not met.
Waterbodv (Assessment Unit)
Pollutant/Cause
Hendrix Creek (1701-0006)
Odors
Gowanus Canal (1701-0011)
Odors
Paerdegat Basin (1701-0363)
Odors
Hutchinson River, Lower, andtribs (1702-0003)
Odors
B. New York delisted nine (9) waterbody/pollutant combinations from the New York 2016
303(d) list where data and/or information indicate that the applicable water quality
criterion/criteria for floatables is/are not met.
New York states, in its response to comments document, that "NYSDEC currently has
two narrative WQS that can be associated with the generic term 'Floatables:' 'oil and
floating substances' and 'garbage, cinders, ashes, oils, sludge and other refuse.' New
York's water quality criterion for "oil and floating substances" is "no residue attributable
to sewage, industrial wastes or other wastes, nor visible oil film nor globules of grease."
New York's water quality criterion for "garbage, cinders, ashes, oils, sludge and other
refuse" is "none in any amounts." New York explains that its basis for delisting these
waters is "a lack of data" to support these listings (see Table 7). Despite this general
statement about data, New York did not discuss, identify or address the specific data that
was used to support the original listing. New York's previous determination that these
waterbody/pollutant combinations were impaired by floatables, as evidenced by their
inclusion on the New York 2016 303(d) list as impaired by floatables, is information
indicating that the applicable water quality standard(s) for floatables is not met.
New York did not provide new data and/or information indicating that the applicable
water quality standard for floatables is met, nor did it provide an updated analysis of the
data and/or information that supported its earlier determination that the waters were
impaired for floatables. Because data and/or information indicates that the applicable
water quality standard(s) for floatables is/are not met and New York did not demonstrate
good cause for not including these waterbody/pollutant combinations on the list, EPA is
partially disapproving the New York 2018 303(d) list, with respect to these waters.
12
-------
Table 7: Waters for which the applicable water quality criterion/criteria for floatables
is/are not met.
NYS index number
Waterbodv (Assessment Unit)
Pollutant/Cause
(MW3 .1) LIS (portion 2a)
Larchmont Harbor (1702-0116)
Floatables
(MW3.3) LIS (portion 2b)
Mamaroneck Harbor (1702-0125)
Floatables
(MW3.4) LIS (portion 2c)
Milton Harbor/Lower Blind
Brook (1702-0063)
Floatables
H-240 (portion 13)
Mohawk River, Main Stem
(1201-0010)
Floatables
H-240 (portion 14)
Mohawk River, Main Stem
(1201-0094)
Floatables
(MW3.6) LIS (portion 2d)
Port Chester Harbor (1702-0260)
Floatables
H-4
Saw Mill River (1301-0007)
Floatables
H-240 (portion 12b)
Utica Harbor (1201-0228)
Floatables
(MW3.1) LIS (portion lb)
New Rochelle Harbor (1702-
0259)*
Floatables
* New York did not include, anywhere in its 2018 submission, t
waterbody/pollutant combination that was on the 2016 303(d) lis
disapproval
lis
st through EPA
C. New York delisted two (2) waters (Spring Creek and Paerdegat Basin) from the New York
2016 303(d) list impaired by Low Dissolved Oxygen.
New York's applicable water quality criterion for dissolved oxygen in these waters is that
dissolved oxygen "shall not be less than 4.0 mg/L at any time." In New York's response
to comments document, New York explains that its basis for delisting these waters is that
there is: (1) 98% compliance between 2015-2017 with the 4.0 mg/L D.O. standard in
Spring Creek, and (2) 99% compliance between 2014-2017 with the 4.0 mg/L D.O.
standard in Paerdegat Basin. Because New York's applicable water quality criterion for
dissolved oxygen is expressed as "shall not be less than 4.0 mg/L at any time" (emphasis
added), the criterion must be met 100% of the time. Any other interpretation would not
be consistent with the expression of this criterion. In other words, percent attainment
rules are not appropriately applied if their application is not consistent with the manner in
which the applicable water quality criteria are expressed.7 Because data and/or
information indicate that the applicable water quality criterion for dissolved oxygen in
these waters is not met and New York did not demonstrate good cause for not including
7 Use of a percent rule for interpreting water quality data is usually not consistent with water quality criteria
expressed either as: 1) instantaneous maxima not to be surpassed at any time, or 2) average concentrations over
specified times. In the case of "instantaneous maxima (or minima) never to occur" criteria, use of a percent rule
typically leads to the belief that segment conditions are equal or better than specified by the criteria. Guidance for
2006Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314 of the Clean
Water Act (July 29, 2005).
13
-------
these waterbody/pollutant combinations on the list, EPA is partially disapproving the
New York 2018 303(d) list (see Table 8).
Table 8: Waters for which the applicable water quality criterion for Dissolved Oxygen is
not met.
NYS index number
Waterbodv (Assessment Unit)
Pollutant/Cause
(MW8.5b) JB-249
Spring Creek (1701-0361)
Oxygen Demand
(MW8.6) JB-250a
Paerdegat Basin (1701-0363)
Oxygen Demand
I). New York delisted one (1) water (Owasco Lake) from the New York 2016 303(d) list
where data and/or information indicate the presence of harmful algal blooms (HABs),
which in turn, indicates that an applicable water quality standard is not met. New York did
not demonstrate that no pollutant is causing the impairment and inappropriately moved
this waterbody/pollutant combination to Integrated Report Category 4c
Data and/or information for this water indicate that an applicable water quality standard
is not met. The presence of algal blooms and harmful algal blooms indicate that the
applicable primary contact designated use of this water is not met. Data and/or
information indicate impairment of the narrative nutrients criterion is also likely8. In
2008, New York added Owasco Lake to the 303(d) list for "nutrients." On the 2016
303(d) list, New York changed the Cause/Pollutant to "cause unknown" with a footnote
stating:
"This listing is the result [of] frequent harmful algal blooms (HABs) that impair
recreational use (and threaten water supply use) in the Lake. Listings for
waterbodies impaired due to HABs are not listed with HABs as the
cause/pollutant because HABs is not a pollutant that can be regulated with a
TMDL. More typically, listings of waterbodies impaired by HABs identify
nutrients as the cause/pollutant however in this case the levels of phosphorus and
chlorophyll-c/ in the open lake waters are low and indicate that something other
than nutrient eutrophication is driving the occurrence of HABs. Therefore until
there is a better understanding of the cause(s) of HABs in this situation, the most
appropriate place to list this waterbody is Part 3b with the cause/pollutant noted as
Unknown."
In New York's 2016 303(d) list submission, New York identified "Oswaso Lake (0706-
0009) for Unknown" as one of the waterbody/pollutant combinations for
TMDL/Restoration Strategy Development through 2022.
8 New York's narrative nutrients criterion, at 6 NYCRR §703.2, is "[n]one in amounts that will result in growths of
algae, weeds and slimes that will impair the waters for their best usages."
14
-------
New York delisted this water in this (2018) listing cycle by removing it from the 303(d)
list and including it in Integrated Report Category 4c for "algal/weed growth." In its
response to comments document, New York acknowledges that Owasco Lake is impaired
due to Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) and states that the blooms cannot be explicitly
attributed to phosphorus. The State explains that data collected in 2017-2018 indicate that
phosphorus concentrations in the lake are less than 15 ug/L, which is less than New
York's guidance value for phosphorus (numeric translation for phosphorus of New
York's narrative nutrients criterion) of 20 ug/L. New York further states that it,
"considers HABs to be a condition of pollution, not a pollutant, and appropriate for
placement in IR Category 4c."
With respect to the appropriate use of Integrated Report Category 4c, "[sjegments should
be placed in Category 4c when the states demonstrates that the failure to meet an
applicable water quality standard is not caused by a pollutant, but instead is caused by
other types of pollution... .Pollution, as defined by the CWA, is 'the man-made or man-
induced alteration of the chemical, physical, biological, and radiological integrity of
water' (section 502(19)). In some cases, the pollution is caused by the presence of a
pollutant and a TMDL is required. In other cases, pollution does not result from a
pollutant and a TMDL is not required. States should schedule these segments for
monitoring to confirm that there continues to be no pollutant associated with the failure to
meet the water quality standard and to support water quality management actions
necessary to address the cause(s) of the impairment."9
EPA also notes that a segment must be included on the 303(d) list even when the cause is
not known. "[I]f a designated use is not supported and the segment is impaired or
threatened, the fact that the specific pollutant is not known does not provide a basis for
excluding the segment from Category 5. These segments must be listed unless the state
can demonstrate that no pollutant(s) causes or contributes to the impairment. Prior to
establishing a TMDL for such segments the pollutant causing the impairment must be
identified. If the assessment of the new data and information demonstrates that the use
impairment is not associated with a pollutant and is attributable only to other types of
pollution (e.g., flow or habitat alteration) the segment may be placed into Category 4c."10
NYSDEC's HABs Program includes HABs notification, archiving, and monitoring
research. NYSDEC assigns a HABs status to waterbodies on a four-level scale (see table
below) based on one or a combination of HABs reports and/or monitoring data.
NYSDEC's Suspicious Algal Bloom Report form allows anyone to submit information
including photographic evidence of HABs occurrences throughout the State using an
online platform11. Photographic evidence is evaluated to characterize the bloom and the
bloom is assigned either a status of "Suspicious Bloom" or "Confirmed Bloom." Water
sampling and monitoring data, where available, can be used to assign a status of
"Confirmed Bloom" (C) or a "Confirmed Bloom with High Toxins Bloom" (HT).
9 Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314
of the Clean Water Act (July 29, 2005)
10 Id.
11 See "Report it" at- https://www.dec.ny.gov/chemical/77118.html
15
-------
NYSDEC HABs status levels "C" and "HT" can be assigned based on the presence of
microcystins (see Table 9).
Table 9: Description of the four levels of Harmful Algal Bloom (HAB) status that
NYSDEC assigns under its HABs Program.*
Bloom Status & Description
No Bloom
Applied to a HAB report evaluated by NYSDEC HABs Program or NYSDOH staff to have a
low likelihood of a cyanobacteria bloom present. At least one of the following criteria must be
met: (1) visual evidence is not consistent with a cyanobacteria bloom; (2) Blue Green (BG)
chlorophyll levels < 25 (ig/L; (3) microscopic indication that sample is not dominated by
cyanobacteria or not present in bloom-like density; or (4) total microcystins < 4 (ig/L (only in
absence of the previous criteria being met).
Suspicious Bloom (S)
Applied to any HAB report received that NYSDEC or NYSDOH staff are unable to determine
conclusively as a cyanobacteria bloom because photos were not provided, or the report was
otherwise inconclusive.
Confirmed Bloom (C)
Applied to a HAB report received from the public or a trained participant in a HAB reporting
program that NYSDEC or NYSDOH staff determine, based on digital photographs or a
descriptive field report, is a cyanobacteria bloom; OR HAB report received by NYSDEC with
associated laboratory analytical results from a sampled bloom, that meet the following criteria:
(1) BG chlorophyll levels > 25 |ig/L:
(2) microscopic confirmation that majority of sample is cyanobacteria and in absence of
chlorophyll value, at a density indicative of bloom conditions;
(3) only in absence of the previous criteria being met: total microcystins > 4 |ig/L but < 20
|ig/L and digital photographs or a descriptive field report.
Confirmed with High Toxins Bloom (HT)
Applied to a HAB report received by NYSDEC with associated laboratory analytical results
from a sampled bloom, that meet the criteria of a Confirmed Bloom AND any of the following
criteria:
(1) total microcystins > 20 |ig/L (shoreline samples only);
(2) total microcystins >10 |ig/L (open water samples only);
(3) DEC and NYSDOH staff determine potential risk of exposure to anatoxin or another
cyanotoxin.
* Adapted from NYSDEC Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) Program Guide - version 3:
https://www.dec.nv.gov/docs/water pdf/habsprogramguide.pdf
According to information submitted by the Cayuga County Water Quality Management
Agency during the NYSDEC's data solicitation for the 2016 303(d) list, water purveyors
who purchased water from the Town of Owasco and the City of Auburn have been cited
by the Health Department for disinfection by-product (DBP) violations due to chlorine
reacting to excessive organic material present in the source water. Also, blue green algae
were seen in the City of Auburn's intake to its treatment plant, residents have been
16
-------
complaining about the taste and odor of their water and there were several beach closures
in 2015 due to algae blooms. Additionally, for HABs reports for Owasco Lake during
August 2013 and October 2017, NYSDEC applied the bloom status level: "Confirmed
with High Toxins Bloom."
As mentioned above, New York acknowledges and has determined that Owasco Lake is
experiencing "frequent harmful algal blooms (HABs) that impair recreational use (and
threaten water supply use)." Although New York determined that Owasco Lake is
impaired, New York has not demonstrated that no pollutant(s) is causing or contributing
to the impairment. Harmful algal blooms (HABs) and hypoxia are primarily a result of
high nutrient loading.12 Notwithstanding whether the phosphorus guidance value is the
appropriate endpoint for an attainment decision, only accounting for phosphorus may be
an overly simplistic model for managing algal blooms.13 Because data and/or information
indicates that the applicable primary contact recreation designated use in this water is not
met and New York did not demonstrate an adequate basis for not including this
waterbody/pollutant combination on the list, EPA is partially disapproving the New York
2018 303(d) list (see Table 10). Data and/or information indicate impairment of the
narrative nutrients criterion is also likely.
Table 10: Water for which the applicable primary contact recreation designated use is not
met.
NYS index number
Waterbodv (Assessment Unit)
Pollutant/Cause
Ont 66 -12-43-P212
Owasco Lake (0706-0009)14
HABs/ algal
E. New York delisted one (1) waterbody/pollutant combination from the New York 2016
303(d) list for an assessment unit under 6.4 acres from the New York 2016 303(d) list
where data and/or information indicate that the applicable water quality criterion for
dissolved oxygen is not met.
All waters in the state that are "waters of the United States" (as defined in 40 C.F.R. § 122.2)
should be assessed and reported on regardless of size.15 New York resegmented the
assessment units in Appendix A of the New York 2016 303(d) list by combining those
smaller assessment units into other assessment units, except for the assessment unit for this
waterbody/pollutant combination, and New York delisted this waterbody/pollutant
combination from the New York 2016 303(d) list. Since New York previously determined
that this water was impaired by dissolved oxygen and it was on the New York 2016 303(d)
list as impaired by dissolved oxygen, this information indicates that the applicable water
12 https://data.pnnl.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/IHTM Workshop Repoi pdf
13 1iIMs://mwj^
14 New York State Priority Waterbody List (PWL) factsheet is found at
https://www.dec.nv.gov/data/WOP/PWL/0706-0009.pdf
15 Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314
of the Clean Water Act (July 29, 2005)
17
-------
quality standard for dissolved oxygen is not met. New York did not provide new data
indicating that the applicable water quality standard for dissolved oxygen is met. Because
data and/or information indicates that the applicable water quality criterion for dissolved oxygen
in these waters is not met and New York did not demonstrate good cause for not including this
waterbody/pollutant combination on the list, EPA is partially disapproving the New York
2018 303(d) list (see Table 11).
Table 11: Water delisted where data and information indicate that the applicable water
quality criterion for dissolved oxygen is not met.
Old Assessment Unit
2016 Pollutant/Cause
New Assessment Unit
Milburn Pond (1701-
0053)
Low dissolved oxygen
No new segment specified.
Impaired waters not included on the New York 2 18 303(dVIist
1, New York did not include, on the New York 2018 303(d) list, one (1) water (Jones
Inlet/Jones Bay) that EPA listed on the New York 2014 303(d) list where data and/or
information indicate that the applicable narrative water quality criterion for nutrients is not
met. New York did not demonstrate that no pollutant is causing the impairment and
inappropriately included this water in Integrated Report Category 4c for "algal/weed
growth."
As noted, New York's narrative nutrients criterion is "[n]one in amounts that will result in
growths of algae, weeds and slimes that will impair the waters for their best usages." By e-
mail, dated February 19, 2014, EPA sent NYSDEC data and/or information indicating
nutrient impairment in Jones Inlet/Jones Bay. This e-mail included links to several
articles about excess amounts of algae washing up on the shores of Point Lookout Beach;
photographs of the algae; and blogs where boaters, fishers and visitors of Jones
Inlet/Jones Bay complained about the algae problem. The presence of algal growth is
often an indicator of excess nutrients.16 Based on the photographs, articles and citizen
complaints, EPA determined that the narrative criterion for nutrients is not met in Jones
Inlet/Jones Bay. Though the algal growth in Jones Inlet/Jones Bay may be caused by
nitrogen originating from sources in the adjacent waters of the Western Bays, the
narrative water quality criterion for nutrients is nevertheless not met in Jones Inlet/Jones
Bay. Because NYSDEC did not include this water on the New York 2014 303(d) list,
16 Guiding Principles on an Optional Approach for Developing and Implementing a Numeric Nutrient Criterion that
Integrates Causal and Response Parameters, (Sept. 2013), fattps://www.epa. gov/si tes/default/fi tes/20.1.3 -
09/documents/guiding-pri nciples.pdf (characterizing algal growth as one of the variables "most indicative of nutrient
pollution in streams" and an "ideal response indicator" of excess nutrients.)
18
-------
EPA partially disapproved New York's list and added this water to the New York 2014
303(d) list.
On February 23, 2015, EPA published a notice in the Federal Register (Federal Register,
Vol. 80, No. 35, pp. 9456-9457) announcing the partial approval/partial disapproval of
the New York 2014 303(d) list and opening a public comment period on EPA's addition
of Jones Inlet/Jones Bay to the New York 2014 303(d) list. After considering all
submissions and in accordance with the Clean Water Act and EPA regulations and
guidance, EPA confirmed that its addition of Jones Inlet/Jones Bay was appropriate. On
April 23, 2015, EPA transmitted this listing to NYSDEC.
New York did not include this waterbody/pollutant combination on the New York 2016
and 2018 303(d) lists. As noted, New York is required to incorporate all
waterbody/pollutant combinations that EPA adds to the 303(d) list into its water quality
management plan and include them on all future lists, unless, after assembling and
evaluating all existing and readily available water quality-related data and information,
New York reasonably concludes that the waters are not impaired or otherwise do not
require a TMDL, submits documentation to EPA in support of a determination not to list
a water(s), and EPA approves a subsequent list submission. New York did not submit any
new data and/or information along with its 2016 list indicating that the narrative nutrients
criterion in Jones Inlet/Jones Bay is met, however, because EPA, in error, approved the
2016 303(d) list without this waterbody/pollutant combination, this waterbody/pollutant
combination is no longer on the New York 303(d) list.
New York, in its response to comments document for the 2018 303(d) list, states that the
"ulva impacts observed are due to excessive macroalgae growth in adjacent waters of the
Western Bays, where nitrogen concentrations are 4-16 times higher than those found in
Jones Inlet/Bay. Excess ulva growing in the nitrogen-rich Western Bays then washes into
Jones Inlet/Bay due to the prevailing currents NYSDEC concluded that this waterbody
is impaired by algal/weed growth, but not nitrogen. The ulva conditions in Jones
Inlet/Bay is due to pollution, not a pollutant, and therefore more appropriately recorded in
Integrated Report Category 4c."
Noted above and repeated here, with respect to the appropriate use of Integrated Report
Category 4c, "[sjegments should be placed in Category 4c when the states demonstrates
that the failure to meet an applicable water quality standard is not caused by a pollutant,
but instead is caused by other types of pollution... .Pollution, as defined by the CWA, is
'the man-made or man-induced alteration of the chemical, physical, biological, and
radiological integrity of water' (section 502(19)). In some cases, the pollution is caused
by the presence of a pollutant and a TMDL is required. In other cases, pollution does not
result from a pollutant and a TMDL is not required. States should schedule these
segments for monitoring to confirm that there continues to be no pollutant associated
19
-------
with the failure to meet the water quality standard and to support water quality
management actions necessary to address the cause(s) of the impairment."17
A segment must be included on the 303(d) list even when the cause is not known. "[I]f a
designated use is not supported and the segment is impaired or threatened, the fact that
the specific pollutant is not known does not provide a basis for excluding the segment
from Category 5. These segments must be listed unless the state can demonstrate that no
pollutant(s) causes or contribute to the impairment. Prior to establishing a TMDL for
such segments the pollutant causing the impairment must be identified. If the assessment
of the new data and information demonstrates that the use impairment is not associated
with a pollutant and is attributable only to other types of pollution (e.g., flow or habitat
alteration) the segment may be placed into Category 4c."18
Although New York determined that Jones Inlet/Jones Bay is impaired, New York,
however, has not demonstrated that no pollutant(s) is causing or contributing to the
impairment. Only accounting for nitrogen may be an overly simplistic model for
managing algal blooms.19 Placement in Integrated Report Category 4c, therefore, is not
appropriate. Also, as noted in EPA's response to comments document after it added this
waterbody/pollutant combination to the New York 2014 303(d) list,
"[SJection 303(d) of the CWA requires a water to be listed if an applicable water
quality standard for the water is not met. The water must be listed whether or not
the source of the impairment originates within the waterbody itself. States must
list water quality-limited waters regardless of the type, location and/or level of
knowledge of the source. See, EPA's National Clarifying Guidance For 1998
State and Territory Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Listing Decisions (August 17,
1997). Further, despite the fact that bottom cover of Ulva is low in most of the
area, the algae accumulating along the shoreline causes impairment of
recreational use."20'21
Because data and/or information indicate that the narrative nutrients criterion for Jones
Inlet/Jones Bay is not met and New York did not demonstrate good cause for not
including this waterbody/pollutant combination on the list, EPA is partially disapproving
the New York 2018 303(d) list (see Table 12). The presence of algal blooms also
indicates that the applicable primary contact designated use of this water is not met.
17 Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314
of the Clean Water Act (July 29, 2005)
18 Id.
19 https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nandpfactsheet.pdf
20 Response Summary for EPA's Proposed Listing of Jones Inlet/Jones Bay on New York's 2014 303(d) list (April
23,2015)
21 EPA notes that New York appropriately includes Reynolds Channel East (1701-0215) and West (1701-0216) on
the 2018 303(d) list. New York, in footnote 12 on its 2018 303(d) list, states, "the impact of the transported
macroalgae [from adjacent waters] into the Channel and deposits along the shore result in the impairment of
uses [NJitrogen levels in the Channel will be addressed through the Western Bays Nitrogen TMDL and other
efforts to restore water quality and coastal habitat in Hempstead Bay and other adjacent waters."
20
-------
Table 12: Jones Met/Jones Bay assessment unit impaired by Nutrients.
NYS index number
Waterbodv (Assessment Unit)
Pollutant/Cause
(MW8.3) MDB (portion
7) JI/JB
Jones Inlet/Jones Bay (1701-0373)
Nutrients
2. New York did not include three (3) waters on the New York 2018 303(d) list where data and
information indicate the presence of HABs, which in turn, indicates that an applicable water
quality standard is not met. New York did not demonstrate that no pollutant is causing the
impairment and inappropriately included these waters in Integrated Report Category 4c.
Data and/or information for these waters indicate that an applicable water quality standard is
not met. The presence of algal blooms and harmful algal blooms indicate that the applicable
primary contact designated use of these waters is not met. Data and/or information indicate
impairment of the narrative nutrients criterion is also likely.22 New York, in its response to
comments document, states that these waters "experience impacts from HABs. However,
none of the subject waterbodies exceed the total phosphorus guidance value of 20 ug/L that
NYSDEC uses to protect aesthetic conditions that could affect the best uses of primary and
secondary contact recreation. Since this threshold is not exceeded in these waters, NYSDEC
considers the observed HABs to be a condition of pollution, not a pollutant, and appropriate
for placement in IR Category 4c." NYSDEC, under its HABs Program, has assigned a bloom
status level of "Confirmed" and "Confirmed with High Toxins" to each of these waters (see
Table 9 for New York's definition of HABs status levels).
Again, with respect to the appropriate use of Integrated Report Category 4c, segments should
be placed in Category 4c when the states demonstrates that the failure to meet an applicable
water quality standard is not caused by a pollutant, but instead is caused by other types of
pollution. New York acknowledges that there are HABs in these waters and has determined
that these waters are impaired, however, New York has not demonstrated that no pollutant(s)
is causing or contributing to the impairment. Notwithstanding whether the phosphorus
guidance value is the appropriate endpoint for attainment decision, only accounting for
phosphorus may be an overly simplistic model for managing algal blooms.23 As noted, the
fact that the specific pollutant is not known does not provide a basis for excluding the
segment from the 303(d) list. Because data and/or information indicates that the applicable
primary contact recreation designated use in these waters is not met and New York did not
demonstrate good cause for not including these waterbody/pollutant combinations on the list,
22 New York's narrative nutrients criterion, at 6 NYCRR §703.2, is "[n]one in amounts that will result in growths of
algae, weeds and slimes that will impair the waters for their best usages."
23 https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nandpfactsheet.pdf
21
-------
EPA is partially disapproving the New York 2018 303(d) list (see Table 13). Data and/or
information indicate impairment of the narrative nutrients criterion is also likely.
Table 13: Waters where the applicable primary contact recreation designated use is not met
and the associated HAB status assigned pursuant to New York's HABs Program
Period of record
from DEC HABs
Program
Waterbody Name
Bloom
Tvve(s) *
Location in New York's 2018 Submission
Pollutant
/ Cause
September 2012
to October 2016
Cazenovia Lake
(0703 -0021)24
C&HT
4c, "Algal/ Weed Growth"
HABs/
Algal
April 2015 to
October 2017
Canandaigua Lake
(0704-0001)25
C&HT
4c, "Algal/ Weed Growth"
HABs/
Algal
June 2012 to
October 2017
Roaring Brook
Lake (1301-
0037)26
C&HT
4c, "Algal/ Weed Growth"
HABs/
Algal
* Data source: https://data.nv.gov/Energv-Environment/Harmful-Algal-Blooms-bv-Waterbody-
Sum ma rv -Be g i nni n/9 5 mv-w i i m
3. New York did not include on the ! )3(d) list, one (1) water (Lake Como) where data
and/or information indicate the presence of HABs, which in turn, indicates that an applicable
water quality standard is not met. New York did not include Lake Como on the 303(d) list or
any Integrated Report Category.
Data and/or information for this water indicates that an applicable water quality standard is
not met. The presence of algal blooms and harmful algal blooms indicate that the applicable
primary contact designated use of this water is not met. Data and/or information indicate
impairment of the narrative nutrients criterion is also likely.27 As mentioned by EPA in its
comments on the 2018 Draft 303(d) list, "[djuring the 2016 listing cycle, the EPA was aware
that Lake Como (0705-0029) is impaired due to the presence of harmful algal blooms in
2015. According to information sent to the NYSDEC during the [2016] data solicitation
period, the Cayuga County Health Department, on multiple occasions, advised the public to
avoid swimming or otherwise expose themselves to the lake due to the blooms. This
indicates that the narrative nutrient standard is not being met." 28
In its response to comments document for the New York 2018 303(d) list, New York states
that "phosphorus data.. .nears the threshold for impairment, but the other trophic state metrics
24 New York State Priority Waterbody List (PWL) factsheet is found at
https://www.dec.nv.gov/dataAVOP/PWL/0703-0Q21.pdf.
25 New York State Priority Waterbody List (PWL) factsheet is found at
https://www.dec.nv.gov/dataAVOP/PWL/0704-0001.pdf.
26 New York State Priority Waterbody List (PWL) factsheet is found at
https://www.dec.nv.gov/dataAVOP/PWL/1301-0Q37.pdf.
27 New York's narrative nutrients criterion, at 6 NYCRR §703.2, is "[n]one in amounts that will result in growths of
algae, weeds and slimes that will impair the waters for their best usages."
28 Comments on the Draft New York State 2018 303(d) List: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region
2 to New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) (August 6, 2018)
22
-------
indicate phosphorus in not causing the HABs [and the] phosphorus guidance value
(numeric translator of the narrative Phosphorus WQS) of 20 ug/L [is met]." It further states
that "NYSDEC considers HABs to be a condition of pollution, not a pollutant, and
appropriate for placement in IR Category 4c." New York, nevertheless, has not included this
water anywhere in its submission. NYSDEC, under its HABs Program, has assigned a bloom
status level of "Confirmed" and "Confirmed with High Toxins" to this water (see Table 9 for
New York's definition of HABs status levels).
New York acknowledges that there are HABs in this lake and has determined that the water
is impaired, however, New York did not demonstrate that no pollutant(s) is causing or
contributing to the impairment. Notwithstanding whether the phosphorus guidance value is
the appropriate endpoint for attainment decision, only accounting for phosphorus may be an
overly simplistic model for managing algal blooms.29 Again, as noted, the fact that the
specific pollutant is not known does not provide a basis for excluding the segment from the
303(d) list. Because there is data and/or information that indicate that the applicable primary
contact recreation designated use in this water is not met and New York did not demonstrate
good cause for not including this waterbody/pollutant combinations on the list, EPA is
partially disapproving the New York 2018 303(d) list (see Table 14). Data and/or information
indicate impairment of the narrative nutrients criteria is also likely.
Table 14: The applicable primary contact recreation designated use in Lake Como is not met
and the associated HAB status assigned pursuant to New York's HABs Program
Period of record from DEC
HABs Program
Waterbodv Name
Bloom
Tvve(s)*
Location in New York's
2018 Submission
Pollutant
/Cause
July 2013 to October 2015
Lake Como
(0705-0029)30
C&HT
Not included on 2018 list**
HABs/
Algal
* Data source: https://data.nv.gov/Energv-Environment/Harmful-Algal-Blooms-bv-Waterbodv-Summarv-
Beginnin/95mv-wiim
** As per NYSDEC communication and the NYSDEC response to comments, NYSDEC intended to include
this water in Integrated Report Category 4c.
29 https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/nandpfactsheet.pdf
30 New York State Priority Waterbody List (PWL) factsheet is found at
https://www.dec.nv.gov/data/WOP/PWL/0705-0Q29.pdf.
23
-------
Wat< in k Did Not Include on the New York 2018 303(d) List Where Further
Action is Pending by EPA
Waters for which further action is pending by EPA maintain the listing status under the New
York 2016 303(d) list, until action is taken by EPA on these waters.
1. New York did not include on the New York 2018 303(d) list, five (5) waters designated for
shellfishing that are not certified for (or are otherwise closed to) shellfishing.
In a memorandum dated October 24, 2000, EPA included recommendations on the use of
fish and shellfish consumption advisories and certain shellfish growing area classifications in
determining attainment of water quality standards and listing impaired waterbodies under
Section 303(d) of the CWA. In this memorandum, EPA indicates that "[it] generally believes
that fish and shellfish consumption advisories and certain shellfish growing area
classifications based on waterbody specific information demonstrate impairment of CWA
section 101(a) 'fishable' uses. This applies to fish and shellfish consumption advisories and
certain shellfish area classifications for all pollutants that constitute potential risks to human
health, regardless of the source of the pollutant." 31
The National Shellfish Sanitation Program (NSSP)32 is the federal/state cooperative program
recognized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Interstate Shellfish
Sanitation Conference (ISSC)33 for the sanitary control of shellfish produced and sold for
human consumption. The purpose of the NSSP is to promote and improve the sanitation of
shellfish (oysters, clams, mussels and scallops) moving in interstate commerce through
federal/state cooperation and uniformity of State shellfish programs. The NSSP Guide for the
Control of Molluscan Shellfish (2017 Model Ordinance)34 is intended to provide guidance
and represents the FDA's current thinking on the safe and sanitary control of the growing,
processing, and shipping of molluscan shellfish for human consumption. Through a state's
participation in the NSSP and membership in the ISSC, the state agrees to enforce the Model
Ordinance as the criteria which are minimally necessary for the sanitary control of molluscan
shellfish. New York both participates in the NSSP and is a founding member of the ISSC.35
31 https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-01/documents/standards-shelLFish.pdf
32 https://www.fda.gov/food/federalstate-food-programs/national-shellfish-san.itation-prograin-nssp
33 The LSSC was formed in L982 to foster and promote sheLLfish sanitation through the cooperation of state and
federal regulatory agencies, the shellfish industry, and the academic community. FDA has a formal Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with the LSSC that outlines each other's responsibilities.
34https://www.fda.gov/media/117080/download
35 https://www.dec.nv.gov/ontdoor/9161.html
24
-------
Under the NSSP, states can classify waterbodies designated for shellfishing use as either:
"Approved" 36; "Conditionally Approved" 37; "Restricted" 38; "Conditionally Restricted" 39;
and/or "Prohibited." In particular, under NSSP, "Prohibited" means a classification used to
identify a growing area where the harvest of shellstock for any purpose, except depletion,
gathering of seed or nursery culture for aquaculture, is not permitted.
New York does not classify waterbodies designated for shellfishing consistent with the NSSP
classifications. New York, rather, classifies waters designated for shellfishing as: "Certified"
(open); "Seasonally uncertified"40; "Uncertified" (closed) and "Temporary Emergency
Closures."41 When shellfishing areas are closed for administrative reasons, New York
classifies these waters as "Uncertified" (also known as administrative closures). These
administrative closures are not based on water quality data. The 5 waters on Table 15 of this
document are classified as Class SA42 waters and New York has classified them as
"Uncertified."
Further action is pending by EPA on these 5 waters. EPA is committed to working with New
York to determine whether these waters are impaired and if so, are appropriate for inclusion
on the 303(d) list. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 130.7(b)(6)(iv), EPA requests that New York
demonstrate good cause for not including these waters on the list. In particular, EPA requests
that New York explain, in detail, why these waters are closed to shellfishing, specifically, the
"administrative reasons" leading to their status as "Uncertified," and why New York believes
that these waters, that are designated for shellfishing yet closed to shellfishing, should not be
included on the New York 303(d) list.
36 "Approved" means a classification used to identify a growing area where harvest for direct marketing is allowed.
37 "Conditionally Approved" means a classification used to identify a growing area which meets the criteria for the
approved classification except under certain conditions described in a management plan.
38 "Restricted" means a classification used to identify a growing area where harvesting shall be by special license
and the shellstock, following harvest, is subjected to a suitable and effective treatment process through relaying or
depuration.
39 "Conditionally Restricted" means a classification used to identify a growing area that meets the criteria for the
restricted classification except under certain conditions described in a management plan.
40 https://www.dec.nv.gov/oiitdoor/103483.html
41 https://www.dec.nv.gov/oiitdoor/7765.html
42 The best usages of Class SA waters are shellfishing for market purposes, primary and secondary contact
recreation and fishing. These waters shall be suitable for fish, shellfish and wildlife propagation and survival (see
New York's 6 NYCRR 701.10).
25
-------
Table 15: Waters designated for shellfish!ng for which further action is pending by EPA.
Waterbodv (Assessment Unit)
2016 List Status (Pollutant)
Spring Pond/Lake (1701-0230) *
Impaired, 5 (Pathogens)
Dering Harbor (1701-0050)
4a (Pathogens)
Budds Pond (1701-0234)
4a (Pathogens)
Wickham Creek andtribs (1701-0378)
Impaired, 5 (Pathogens)
West Harbor, Fishers Island (1702-0046)
4a (Pathogens)
* Spring Pond (1701-0230) is a Class SA waterbody and is listed for Pathogens on the New York 2016 303(d)
list. New York resegmented Spring Pond/Lake (1701-0230) during the 2018 cycle and it is now part of the
Upper Yaphank Lake (1701-0323) segment. Upper Yaphank Lake (1701-0323) is a Class B(T) waterbody as per
the 2018 New York 303(d) list submission. Spring Pond (1701-0230) was listed for Chlordane in 2016 and in
2018 Upper Yaphank Lake (1701-0323) was listed for Chlordane; Upper Yaphank Lake (1701-0323) was not for
Chlordane in 2016.
2. New York did not include seventy-two (72) impaired waters on the New York 2018 303(d)
list and instead included them in Integrated Report Category 4c.
The following table summarizes the causes/pollutants of 72 waters that New York included
on Integrated Report Category 4c based on a determination that these waters are impaired
and development of a TMDL is not necessary (Appendix A: Impaired waters on Integrated
Report Category 4c for which further action is pending by EPA (72) of this document
tabulates all 72 4c waterbody/pollutant combinations):
Table 16: Summary of the number of impaired waters grouped by causes/pollutants on
Integrated Report Category 4c for which further action is pending by EPA.
Causes/Pollutants
Number of waters
Algal/Weed Growth
69*
Aquatic vegetation
1
Aquatic weeds
1
Odors
1
* New York has identified on Integrated Report Category 4c, a total of 74 waters for "algal/
weed growth." Described earlier in this document, EPA determined that five (5) of these
waterbodies on Integrated Report Category 4c waters for "algal/ weed growth" meet 303(d)
listing requirements and are therefore excluded from the waters for which further action is
pending by EPA.
Noted above and repeated here, with respect to the appropriate use of Integrated Report
Category 4c, "[sjegments should be placed in Category 4c when the states demonstrates that
the failure to meet an applicable water quality standard is not caused by a pollutant, but
instead is caused by other types of pollution... .Pollution, as defined by the CWA, is 'the
man-made or man-induced alteration of the chemical, physical, biological, and radiological
integrity of water' (section 502(19)). In some cases, the pollution is caused by the presence
of a pollutant and a TMDL is required. In other cases, pollution does not result from a
26
-------
pollutant and a TMDL is not required. States should schedule these segments for monitoring
to confirm that there continues to be no pollutant associated with the failure to meet the water
quality standard and to support water quality management actions necessary to address the
cause(s) of the impairment."43
Also noted, a segment must be included on the 303(d) list even when the cause is not known.
"[I]f a designated use is not supported and the segment is impaired or threatened, the fact that
the specific pollutant is not known does not provide a basis for excluding the segment from
Category 5. These segments must be listed unless the state can demonstrate that no
pollutant(s) causes or contribute to the impairment. Prior to establishing a TMDL for such
segments, the pollutant causing the impairment must be identified. If the assessment of the
new data and information demonstrates that the use impairment is not associated with a
pollutant and is attributable only to other types of pollution (e.g., flow or habitat alteration),
the segment may be placed into Category 4c."44
Further action is pending by EPA on these 72 waters identified on Integrated Report
Category 4c to determine if these impaired waters are in the appropriate category and
whether there is good cause for not including these waters on the 303(d) list (see Table 16).
EPA is committed to working with New York to determine whether any of these
waterbody/pollutant combinations are appropriate for inclusion on the 303(d) list. Pursuant to
40 C.F.R. § 130.7(b)(6)(iv), EPA requests that New York demonstrate good cause for not
including these waters on the list, including a demonstration that any failure to meet water
quality standards is not caused by a pollutant, but instead caused by other types of pollution.
3. New York changed the segmentation of sixty-five (65) assessment units that were on the
New York 2 3(d) list by incorporating them into another assessment unit and did not
include the new assessment unit on the New York 2018 303(d) list
New York changed the segmentation of seventy-five (75) assessment units by resegmenting
and incorporating assessment units less than 6.4 acres into another assessment unit. The
impairments of ten of these assessment units were taken on by the new assessment unit (see
Table 2 above). Sixty-five (65) of the assessment units were smaller, impaired waterbodies
that comprised less than 20% of the total area of the new (i.e., combined) assessment unit and
were not listed by New York, amounting to a total of 65 assessment units (see Appendix B:
Resegmented assessment units for which further action is pending by EPA).
43 Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314
of the Clean Water Act (July 29, 2005)
44 Id.
27
-------
All waters in the state that are "waters of the United States" (as defined in 40 C.F.R. § 122.2)
should be assessed and reported on regardless of size.45 While there is no single approach to
the development of a segmentation methodology, EPA does provide some guidance which is
summarized here.46 It is important that the selected segmentation approach be consistent with
the state's water quality standards and be capable of providing a spatial scale that is adequate
to characterize the water quality standards attainment status of the segment. Segments should
not span more than one water quality standard. The individual size of segments will vary
based upon assessment methodologies. Segments should, however, be larger than a sampling
station but small enough to represent a homogenous standard attainment within individual
segments.
Further action is pending by EPA on the 65 waterbody/pollutant combinations identified on
the New York 2016 303(d) list that New York resegmented and did not include the
assessment unit to which the water was combined, on the New York 2018 303(d) list (see
Appendix B: Resegmented assessment units for which further action is pending by EPA).
EPA is committed to working with New York to determine whether any of these
waterbody/pollutant combinations are appropriate for inclusion on the 303(d) list. Pursuant to
40 C.F.R. § 130.7(b)(6)(iv), EPA requests that New York demonstrate good cause for not
including these waters on the list.
4. EPA will work with the State to assess data and/or information to determine if fourteen (14)
waterbody/pollutant combinations that New York did not include on the 2018 303(d) list or
delisted from the 2016 303(d) list do or do not meet the applicable standards, with respect to
pathogens
Further action is pending by EPA on these waterbody/pollutant combinations for the 14
waters in Table 17. EPA will work with New York to determine whether these waters are
impaired and if so, are appropriate for inclusion on the New York 303(d) list. See note in the
table below regarding Spring Creek, which continues to be on the New York 303(d) list
pending further action by EPA. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 130.7(b)(6)(iv), EPA requests that
New York demonstrate good cause for not including these waters on the list.
45 Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314
of the Clean Water Act (July 29, 2005)
46 Guidance for 2006 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314
of the Clean Water Act (July 29, 2005)
28
-------
Table 17: Class I and SI) waters for which further action is pending by EPA.
Assessment
Unit ID
Waterbody name
6 NYCRR
Class
Pollutant/Cause
1301-0006
Hudson River, Class I
864.6-1
I
Pathogens
1701-0001
Shellbank Basin
891.6-14
I
Pathogens
1701-0011
Gowanus Canal
890.6-7
SD
Pathogens
1701-0183
Newark Bay
890.6-14
SD
Pathogens
1701-0184
Kill Van Kull
890.6-15
SD
Pathogens
1701-0185
Erie Basin
890.6-6.1
SD
Pathogens
1701-0362
Fresh Creek
891.6-17
I
Pathogens
1701-0363
Paerdegat Basin
891.6-17
I
Pathogens
1702-0004
Harlem River
890.6-56
I
Pathogens
890.6-56.1
I
Pathogens
1702-0010
East River, Upper
890.6-53
I
Pathogens
935.6-1
I
935.6-2
I
1702-0011
East River, Lower
890.6-52
I
Pathogens
890.6-53
I
1702-0012
Westchester Creek
935.6-47
I
Pathogens
1702-0115
Minor Tribs to Upper East
River
935.6-1
I
Pathogens
935.6-2
I
935.6-4
SD
1701-0361*
Spring Creek
891.6-16
I
Pathogens
*New York delisted Spring Creek (1701-0361) as impaired by Pathogens, from the New York 2016 303(d)
list, however, because further action is pending by EPA on this waterbody/pollutant combination, Spring
Creek continues to be on the 303(d) list for Pathogens, because EPA approved the inclusion of this
waterbody/pollutant combination on the New York 2016 303(d) list.
29
-------
Additional EPA Comments on New York's Submission
1. New York, in its response to comments document, states that "USEPA recognizes NYC's
floatable control efforts on their Trash Free Water's website as an acceptable TMDL
substitute." EPA notes that it does not indicate on its website that NYC's floatable control
efforts are "an acceptable TMDL substitute," rather, EPA points to NYC and its 2015
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) permit as an example of a "jurisdiction actively
addressing trash through stormwater permits."47 Additionally, EPA does not indicate on
its website that NYC's floatable control efforts will result in meeting New York's applicable
water quality standards for floatables. Moreover, the NYC MS4 permit applies to the outfalls
of the MS4 system and therefore, protects the receiving waters to which the outfalls
discharge. NYC is not serviced wholly by an MS4 system and therefore all of the waters
surrounding NYC are not protected by the MS4 permit.
2. Referring to EPA's comment regarding New York's listing of certain impaired waters by
groups of pollutants (e.g., "pathogens," "other toxics," "pesticides"), New York, in its
response to comments document, stated "the data required to split out the grouped pollutants
into individual impairments supported by an underlying WQS is not immediately available to
NYSDEC...." Pursuant to Section 303(d) of the CWA, states must identify waters on the list
for which "any water quality standard applicable to such waters" is not met. Pursuant to 40
C.F.R. § 130.7(b)(4), states "shall identify the pollutants causing or expected to cause
violations of applicable water quality standards." EPA expects New York to assemble and
evaluate all existing and readily available data and information to identify the specific
pollutant(s) causing these impairments that will in turn, better identify the applicable water
quality standard(s) that is not met.
3. EPA reiterates a comment it submitted on New York's Draft 2018 303(d) list. Pursuant to 40
C.F.R. § 130.7(d), "each State shall submit to EPA lists required under paragraph (b) on
April 1 on every even-numbered year" and CWA Section 305(b)(1) requires states to prepare
and submit to EPA a water quality 305(b) report on April 1, 1976, and biennially thereafter.
States and territories, therefore, are required to submit both the 303(d) list and 305(b) report
on April 1 of every even numbered year. New York is one of the few remaining states to
submit the 303(d) list for EPA review and subsequently submit its 305(b) report after EPA's
review and approval deadline for the list.
Nearly all 56 states and territories submit a biennial Integrated Report (consolidated CWA
Section 303(d) list and 305(b) report) to EPA. EPA provides assistance to state and territorial
partners in the data management and migration of a state or territory's Integrated Report into
the Assessment, Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Tracking and Implementation System
(ATTAINS), which is an online database for accessing information about the Nation's
surface waters. As stated in EPA's 2018 Integrated Report Guidance, "EPA expects all IR
47 https://www.epa.gov/trash-free-waters/clean-water-act-and-trash-free-waters
30
-------
[Integrated Report] submissions (both attribute and geospatial data) will be submitted
electronically to the EPA via ATTAINS. This transition to an electronic IR submission
allows the EPA and states to process information in a timelier manner for use in the National
Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress; the variable portion of the Section 106 grant
allocation formula; water quality listing decisions; and analyses supporting actions to protect
and restore waters and track progress toward that goal."48 As NYSDEC and EPA work
together to migrate the CWA Section 303(d) list and 305(b) report into the electronic
ATTAINS database, EPA recommends future submissions of an electronic Integrated Report.
Through one consolidated 303(d) list and 305(b) report, NYSDEC will benefit not only from
a more streamlined process that minimizes the redundancy of reporting and reduces
inconsistency in 303(d) and 305(b) assessment determinations, but also from a timelier
submittal for EPA, a record of listing decisions and the ability to easily track waters from
cycle to cycle (including a basis for previously listed waters and waterbody restoration), and
provides transparency for all environmental partners and the public. EPA looks forward to
continuing this collaboration with NYSDEC using the ATTAINS database and encourages
electronic Integrated Report submissions for the future listing cycles.
4. For the waters listed on Part 3 a of New York's 2018 303(d) list that are impaired by "Low
D.O." and for which footnote 8 refers, New York states, "[mjorphology and other natural
conditions may contribute to periodic dissolved oxygen (D.O.) depletion at lower depths in
this water. However, bottom water conditions are not necessarily representative of the
waterbody as a whole and the aquatic life best use within this waterbody are fully supported."
New York's water quality criteria for dissolved oxygen applicable to these waters do not
contain an exception to meeting the criteria where natural conditions exist and cause an
exceedance. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. §131.11(a), states must adopt water quality criteria to
protect the designated use. Criteria, therefore, are set at levels to protect the designated use of
the water, and when criteria are not met, the designate use is not met.49
5. New York, in its response to comments document, states," Flanders Bay, West/Lower
Sawmill Creek (1701-0254), Meetinghouse/Terry Creek and tribs (1701-0256), and Peconic
River, Lower and tidal tribs (1701-0259) are Class SC waters and should no longer be
included as IR Category 4a waters for pathogen impairments. The subject waters had
coverage under the shell fishing TMDLs, because they were adjacent Class SA waters
impaired for pathogens The waters have been removed from IR Category 4a and assigned
to IR 3 until updated monitoring data is available." EPA notes that these waters were not
covered by the shell fishing TMDLs to which NYSDEC refers, however, EPA supports
NYSDEC"s commitment to obtaining updated monitoring data to adequately assess whether
these waters are impaired for pathogens.
48 Information Concerning 2018 Clean Water Act Sections 303(d), 305(b), and 314
Integrated Reporting and Listing Decisions (December 22, 2017)
49 EPA's 303(d) listing regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 130.7(b)(3) define a "water quality standard applicable to such
waters" and "applicable water quality standards" as "those water quality standards established under 303 of the Act,
including numeric criteria, narrative criteria, waterbody uses, and antidegradation requirements;" Guidance for 2004
Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections 303(d), 305(b) and 314 of the Clean Water
Act (July 21, 2003)
31
-------
6. On the New York 2018 303(d) list, New York states, "Section 303(d) of the Act also requires
states to identify Impaired Waters, where specific designated uses are not fully supported,
and for which the state must consider the development of a Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) or other strategy to reduce the input of the specific pollutant(s) that restrict
waterbody uses, in order to restore and protect such uses" (emphasis added). EPA notes that
TMDLs are required for all waters on the 303(d) list. Through the requirement, under Section
303(d) of the CWA, to rank waters on the 303(d) list for TMDL development, states have the
discretion to determine when it will develop a TMDL for each water. In making this
determination, it is reasonable for states to consider other restoration strategies, if any, that
are underway or planned for each water.
7. New York, in footnote 5 of the 2018 303(d) list, states, "[i]n addition to the contaminants for
which there are specific Health Advisories for the consumption of fish, other contaminants
have also been identified as contributing to the fish consumption impairment. These
substances may include mercury, dioxins/furan, PAHs, pesticides and other heavy metals."
Pursuant to Section 303(d) of the CWA, states must identify waters on the list for which "any
water quality standard applicable to such waters" is not met. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. §
130.7(b)(4), states "shall identify the pollutants causing or expected to cause violations of
applicable water quality standards." EPA expects New York to assemble and evaluate all
existing and readily available data and information to identify the specific pollutant(s)
causing these impairments that will in turn, better identify the applicable water quality
standard(s) that is not met, including mercury, dioxins/furan, PAHs and the specific
pesticides and other heavy metals.
8. New York, on Part 2b of the 2018 303(d) list, "Multiple Segment/Categorical Waterbody
Segments Impaired due to Fish Consumption Advisories," states, "[designation of waters as
impaired for fish consumption and inclusion in the Section 303(d) List is based on New York
State Department of Health advisories contained in its annual Chemicals in Sportfish and
Game publications. Where available water quality data for a waterbody is in conflict with
these health advisories, decisions regarding listing will reflect the health advisories. Because
the specific extent and conditions of the health advisories are reported more precisely/
frequently through these advisories than through the Section 303(d) List, the health
advisories provide better delineated and more timely information regarding fish consumption
recommendations for the waters of New York than does the Section 303(d) List."
Water quality data indicating that an applicable water quality standard is not met is existing
and readily available water quality data or information. EPA expects, therefore, that where
there is water quality data that indicates that an applicable water quality standard is not met
but there is no heath advisory for that water, New York will include the water on its 303(d)
list, unless it reasonably concludes that a water is not impaired or otherwise does not require
a TMDL, and New York submits documentation to EPA in support of a determination not to
list the water.
32
-------
9. New York, on Part 2c of the 2018 303(d) list, "Multiple Segment/Categorical Waterbody
Segments Impaired due to Shellfishing Restrictions," states, "[designation of waters as
impaired for shellfishing use and inclusion in the Section 303(d) List is based on shellfishing
certifications issued by NYSDEC Shellfisheries Program per 6 NYCRR Part 47.3 and the
National Shellfish Sanitation Program. Where available water quality data for a waterbody is
in conflict with its shellfishing certification status, decisions regarding listing will reflect the
shellfishing certification status. Because the specific extent and conditions of the closures are
reported more precisely/frequently through the shellfishing programs than through the
Section 303(d) List, these programs provide better delineated and more timely information
regarding shell fishing certification in the waters of New York than docs the Section 303(d)
List."
Water quality data indicating that an applicable water quality standard is not met is existing
and readily available water quality data or information. EPA expects, therefore, that where
there is water quality data that indicates that an applicable water quality standard is not met
but the water is not closed to shellfishing, New York will include the water on its 303(d) list,
unless it reasonably concludes that a water is not impaired or otherwise does not require a
TMDL, and New York submits documentation to EPA in support of a determination not to
list the water.
Priority Ranking
EPA regulations codify Section 303(d)(1)(A) of the CWA, which requires states to establish a
priority ranking for listed waters. EPA regulations, at 40 C.F.R. § 130.7(b)(4), require states to
prioritize waters on their Section 303(d) lists for TMDL development, and to identify those
waterbody segments targeted for TMDL development in the next two years. In prioritizing and
targeting waters, states must take into account the severity of the pollution and the uses of the
waters. See, Section 303(d)(1)(A) of the CWA. States may consider other factors relevant to
prioritizing waters for TMDL development, including immediate programmatic needs,
vulnerability of particular waters as aquatic habitats, recreation, economic and aesthetic
importance of particular waters, degree of public interest and support and state or national
policies and priorities. See, 57 Federal Register 33040, 33045 (July 24, 1992) and EPA's 1991
Guidance.
The State has identified the below six waterbody/pollutant combinations for "TMDL/restoration
strategy scheduled for development in 2018" and 14 waterbody/pollutant combinations for
"TMDL/restoration strategy scheduled for development over longer term, through 2022." See,
New York 2018 303(d) list. These two sets of waters are considered high priority for
TMDL/restoration strategy development, while the remaining waters on the 303(d) list have been
ranked as medium or low priority for TMDL/restoration strategy development.
33
-------
Six Waterbody/Pollutant Combinations Identified for TMDL/Restoration Strategy
Development through 2018:
Honeoye Lake (0402-0032) for Phosphorus50
Honeoye Lake (0402-0032) for Low D.O.
Conesus Lake (0402-0004) for Phosphorus51
Conesus Lake (0402-0004) for Low D.O.
Tidal Tribs to West Moriches Bay (1701-0312) for Nitrogen52
Tidal Tribs to West Moriches Bay (1701-0312) for Low D.O.
EPA notes that Honeoye Lake (0402-0032) and Conesus Lake (0402-0004) are included on the
New York 2018 303(d) list as impaired for phosphorus, however, a TMDL for phosphorus for
Honeoye Lake (0402-0032) and Conesus Lake (0402-0004) was approved by EPA on August 15,
2019. These TMDLs were approved after June 20, 2018, the date NYSDEC provided notice of
availability of the draft New York 2018 303(d) list. EPA expects NYSDEC to delist these
waterbody/pollutant combinations in the 2020 303(d) listing cycle due to approval or
establishment by EPA of a TMDL (Integrated Report Category 4a).
14 Waterbody/Pollutant Combinations Identified for TMDL/Restoration Strategy
Development through 2022:
Owasco Inlet, Upper and tribs (0706-0014) for Nutrients
Cayuga Lake, Southern End (0705-0040) for Phosphorus
Steele Creek tribs (1201-0197) for Phosphorus
Ballou, Nail Creeks (1201-0203) for Phosphorus
Ballou, Nail Creeks (1201-0203) for Low D.O.
Great South Bay, East (1701-0039) for Nitrogen 53
Great South Bay, East (1701-0039) for Low D.O. 54
Great South Bay, Middle (1701-0040) for Nitrogen 55
Great South Bay, Middle (1701-0040) for Low D.O. 56
Great South Bay, West (1701-0173) for Nitrogen 57
Great South Bay, West (1701-0173) for Low D.O. 58
Lake Ronkonkoma (1701-0020) for Fecal Coliform
Lake Ronkonkoma (1701-0020) for Phosphorus
Hempstead Bay, Broad Channel (1701-0032) for Nitrogen
50 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Phosphorus in Conesus Lake, Livingston County, NY (dated August
2019)
51 Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for Phosphorus in Honeoye Lake, Ontario County, NY (dated August 2019)
52 Alternative Restoration Plan for Suffolk County Nitrogen Impaired Waters (ARP)" (no date), submitted to EPA
on April 20, 2021. Accepted by EPA under the 303(d) Program Vision on June 10, 2021.
53 Alternative Restoration Plan for Suffolk County Nitrogen Impaired Waters (ARP) (no date), submitted to EPA on
April 20, 2021. Accepted by EPA under the 303(d) Program Vision on June 10, 2021.
54 Id.
55 Id.
56 Id.
57 Id.
58 Id.
34
-------
According to NYSDEC's Listing Methodology documents, the State has satisfied the Section
303(d) requirement to take into account the severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of
such waters in establishing its priority ranking.59 The State's identification of high priority
waters is also based on factors such as the current understanding of the water quality problem
and sources, the availability of the necessary data to develop a TMDL and the value (i.e.,
presumed effectiveness) of a TMDL toward addressing the problem, and other factors.60 To
provide a more general sense of these factors and their impact on priorities, and the timing of
TMDL development, the waters on the 303(d) list are segregated into sub-parts, as described on
page 5 of this document. These sub-parts allow for clarification of widely differing conditions,
limitations and other circumstances that affect the scheduling and development of TMDLs or
other strategies.
Consistent with EPA's Vision for the 303(d) program61, EPA also welcomes the identification of
any specific waterbody/pollutant combinations targeted for alternative restoration strategies.
While a TMDL will remain the most dominant program analytic and informational tool to
address impairments, EPA recognizes that other tools or alternative strategies may be more
immediately beneficial or practicable to achieve water quality standards under certain
circumstances. Should New York proceed to address an impairment through an alternative
restoration strategy that does not meet the threshold for delisting to Integrated Report Category
4b, that waterbody/pollutant combination must remain on the 303(d) list until water quality
standards are attained. If water quality standards are not fully attained through the alternative
approach, development of the TMDL would remain necessary. In addition, the State identified
waters for potential TMDL development over the next two years.
Public. .Participation
The NYSDEC public participation process for developing its 2018 303(d) list included public
solicitation of data, requests for comment on the methods document and requests for comments
on the draft New York 2018 303(d) list. NYSDEC announced the availability of the draft New
York 2018 303(d) list in the State's June 20, 2018 Environmental Notice Bulletin (ENB) and
provided a public comment period, which ended on August 6, 2018. Following the conclusion of
the comment period, the State provided copies of all comments and responses received during
the data solicitation and public comment periods to EPA.
59 The New York State Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology- Section 305(b) Assessment
Methodology (March 2017); The New York State Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology -
Section 303(d) Listing Methodology (March 2015); VISION APPROACH to implement the Clean Water Act
303(d) Program and Clean Water Planning (December 2015)-
https://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/water_pdf/dowvision.pdf
60 Id.
61A Long-Term Vision for Assessment, Restoration, and Protection under the Clean Water Act Section 303(d)
Program (December 5, 2013).
35
-------
As part of its action on a state's 303(d) list, EPA reviews a state's responses to public comments
but does not take legal action on the responses directly and considers them only insofar as they
provide a record for the state's listing determinations. EPA has reviewed the public comments
received and NYSDEC's responses, and concludes that—except for those issues related to
EPA's disapproval and further action pending decisions discussed above—the State adequately
addressed the issues that commenters raised about the State's listing obligations under section
303(d) and EPA's implementing regulations. In addition, please refer to the section above
regarding "Additional EPA Comments on New York's Submission," for further EPA reactions to
the State's response to comments.
36
-------
Appendix A: Impaired waters on Integrated Report Category 4c for which further action is
3endi 2)
NYS index number
Waterbodv (Assessment Unit)
Pollutant/Cause
Ont 158..E-23-P152
Java Lake (0104-0004)
Algal/W eed
Growth
Pa-63-13- 4-P122 (portion
1)
Chautauqua Lake, South (0202-0020)
Algal/W eed
Growth
Pa-63-13- 4-P122 (portion
2)
Chautauqua Lake, North (0202-0072)
Algal/W eed
Growth
Pa-63-13-23-P131
Bear Lake (0201-0003)
Algal/W eed
Growth
Pa-63-13-P133
Lower Cassadaga Lake (0202-0003)
Algal/W eed
Growth
Pa-63-13-P133-3-P134
Middle Cassadaga Lake (0202-0002)
Algal/W eed
Growth
Pa-84- 2-P153
Findley Lake (0202-0004)
Algal/W eed
Growth
Ont 74/P76
Little Sodus Bay (0302-0017)
Algal/W eed
Growth
Ont 75/P77
Blind Sodus Bay (0302-0021)
Algal/W eed
Growth
Ont 122-P153
Buck Pond (0301-0017)
Algal/W eed
Growth
Ont 123-PI 54
Long Pond (0301-0015)
Algal/W eed
Growth
Ont 123-P154-2-P155
Cranberry Pond (0301-0016)
Algal/W eed
Growth
Ont 117- 27-P57
Honeoye Lake (0402-0032)
Algal/W eed
Growth
Ont 117- 40-P67
Conesus Lake (0402-0004)
Algal/W eed
Growth
Ont 117- 70-P115
Silver Lake (0403-0002)
Algal/W eed
Growth
Pa 3-58-20-P51
Lake Salubria (0502-0011)
Algal/W eed
Growth
Pa 3-58-31-7-P66
Smith Pond (0502-0012)
Algal/W eed
Growth
SR- 44-14-27 (portion
1)/P35a
Whitney Point Lake/Reservoir (0602-0004)
Algal/W eed
Growth
Ont 66- 3-P9
Lake Neatahwanta (0701-0018)
Algal/W eed
Growth
Ont 66-12-P296 (portion
4)
Cayuga Lake, Southern End (0705-0040)
Algal/W eed
Growth
SL-25- 7/P1
Black Lake Outlet/Black Lake (0906-0001)
Algal/W eed
Growth
37
-------
C (portion 4)
Lake Champlain, South Lake (1000-0004)
Algal/W eed
Growth
C (portion 5)
Lake Champlain, South Bay (1005-0014)
Algal/W eed
Growth
H-301-17-P79
Cossayuna Lake (1103-0002)
Algal/W eed
Growth
H-240- 11-P496/P498
Ann Lee (Shakers) Pond, Stump Pond (1201-
0096)
Algal/W eed
Growth
H-240- 22-P519
Collins Lake (1201-0077)
Algal/W eed
Growth
H-240- 82- 63-19-9-P589
Engleville Pond (1202-0009)
Algal/W eed
Growth
H-240- 82-104-P629
Summit Lake (1202-0014)
Algal/W eed
Growth
H-240-187-
Steele Creek tribs (1201-0197)
Algal/W eed
Growth
H- 31-P44-14-P50- 2- P50a
Lake Shenorock (1302-0083)
Algal/W eed
Growth
H- 31-P44-17- 5-P57a
Lake Lincolndale (1302-0089)
Algal/W eed
Growth
H-3 l-P44-23-P59-2-4-P59b
Lake Casse (1302-0100)
Algal/W eed
Growth
H-31-P44-23-P59- 6-
P62..P62a
Lake Carmel (1302-0006)
Algal/W eed
Growth
H- 31-P44-24- P89-10-P93
Peach Lake (1302-0004)
Algal/W eed
Growth
H- 31-P44-35-P109- 6-13-
P115a
Truesdale Lake (1302-0054)
Algal/W eed
Growth
H- 31-P44-54-P128a
Teatown Lake (1302-0150)
Algal/W eed
Growth
H- 49a-P160
Lake Meahagh (1301-0053)
Algal/W eed
Growth
H- 55- 1-P165
Wallace Pond (1301-0140)
Algal/W eed
Growth
H-55- 8-P175
Oscawana Lake (1301-0035)
Algal/W eed
Growth
H- 55-11-P179
Lake Mohegan (1301-0149)
Algal/W eed
Growth
H-188-P902
Robinson Pond (1308-0003)
Algal/W eed
Growth
H-193-29-P950a
Basic Creek Reservoir (1309-0001)
Algal/W eed
Growth
H-202-P8f
Sleepy Hollow Lake (1301-0059)
Algal/W eed
Growth
H-204- 2- 7-P24
Kinderhook Lake (1310-0002)
Algal/W eed
Growth
38
-------
H-204- 2- 7-P34
Nassau Lake (1310-0001)
Algal/W eed
Growth
H-204- 3- 8-32-P108a
Copake Lake (1310-0014)
Algal/W eed
Growth
H-221-4-P270- 1- 9-P276a
Duane Lake (1311-0006)
Algal/W eed
Growth
D-71-10- 6-P388,P389
Fly Pond, Deer Lake (1404-0038)
Algal/W eed
Growth
NJ- 1/P977a-13-
P984,P984a
Congers Lake, Swartout Lake (1501-0019)
Algal/W eed
Growth
NJ-P1026
Greenwood Lake (1501-0001)
Algal/W eed
Growth
Conn 15-12-21 -P1134
Rudd Pond (1601-0001)
Algal/W eed
Growth
(MW1.2)
SI..PI 039,PI 051.. 1053
Grasmere, Arbutus and Wolfes Lakes (1701-
0357)
Algal/W eed
Growth
(MW5.3) LIS-62-P296
Millers Pond (1702-0013)
Algal/W eed
Growth
(MW6.2) GB..FB-112
(port 1)
Peconic River, Lower, and tidal tribs (1701-
0259)
Algal/W eed
Growth
(MW6.3a) GB..FB-RB
Reeves Bay and tidal tribs (1701-0272)
Algal/W eed
Growth
(MW7.1b) AO-SB
Shinnecock Bay (and Inlet) (1701-0033)
Algal/W eed
Growth
(MW7.1c) AO-QB
QuantuckBay (1701-0042)
Algal/W eed
Growth
(MW7.2a) AO-MB (portion
1)
Moriches Bay, East (1701-0305)
Algal/W eed
Growth
(MW7.2a) AO-MB (portion
2)
Moriches Bay, West (1701-0038)
Algal/W eed
Growth
(MW7.3) AO-GSB
(portion 1)
Great South Bay, East (1701-0039)
Algal/W eed
Growth
(MW7.3) AO-GSB
(portion 2)
Great South Bay, Middle (1701-0040)
Algal/W eed
Growth
(MW7.3) AO-GSB
(portion 3)
Great South Bay, West (1701-0173)
Algal/W eed
Growth
(MW7.7) AO-GSB-
193..P304
Lake Ronkonkoma (1701-0020)
Algal/W eed
Growth
(MW8.3) MDB-RC
(portion 1)
Reynolds Channel, East (1701-0215)
Algal/W eed
Growth
(MW8.4) HB
Hempstead Bay (1701-0032)
Algal/W eed
Growth
(MW8.4) HB (portion 4)
HIC
Hog Island Channel (1701-0020)
Algal/W eed
Growth
(MW8.4a) HB-232 thru
237
LI Tidal Tribs to Hempstead Bay (1701 -
0218)
Algal/W eed
Growth
39
-------
(MW8.4) HB-RC (portion
2)
Reynolds Channel, West (1701-0216)
Algal/W eed
Growth
(MW8.4a) HB-236
Woodmere Channel (1701-0219)
Algal/W eed
Growth
H- 95-10- lb-P345g
Hillside Lake (1304-0001)
Aquatic
vegetation
Ont 108/P113- 3-33-P143
Hundred Acre Pond (0302-0034)
Aquatic weeds
Ont 66-11-P26-37- 6- 2
Limestone Creek, Lower, and minor tribs
(0703-0008)
Odors
40
-------
Append!: segmented assessment units for which further action is pending by EPA (65)
NYS index number
2016 Assessment Unit
2016
Pollutant/C
ause
2018 Assessment Unit
SLC-32-P 170a
Unnamed P #3-170
(0902-0009)
pH
Mud Pd, Long Pd, Little Clear Pd (0902-
0005)*
-
Ridders Pond (1701-
0176)
Chlordane
Lake Success (1702-0139)
Ont 19-94-1-P918
Doe Pond (0801-0161)
pH
Long Lake Outlet/Cummings Creek, and
tribs (0801-0415)
Ont 19- 40-P449-2-
P450.P453
Mirror Pond (0801-
0146)
pH
Francis Lake segment (0801-0192)
Ont 19- 90-5-P909
Poplar Pond (0801-
0078)
pH
Mile Brook and tribs (0801-0408)
Ont 19- 40- 3-P409
Unnamed P #4-409
(0801-0142)
pH
Murmur Creek and tribs (0801-0219)
Ont 19- 40-17-P437
Unnamed P #4-437
(0801-0143)
pH
Beaver River, Middle, and tribs (0801-0278)
SLC-29-13-P31
Owlshead Pond (0902-
0016)
pH
Roaring Brook, Salmon River Trib (0902-
0077)
SLC-29-13..P32
Childs Pond (0902-
0013)
pH
Roaring Brook, Salmon River Trib (0902-
0077)
SLC-29-21 -7-... P40a
Razorback Pond (0902-
0017)
pH
Duck Pond (0902-0081)
SLC-29-P050-3-1 -P57
South Duck Pond
(0902-0018)
pH
Mountain View Lake, Indian Lake (0902-
0030)
SLC-32-52-1 5-P179a-
5-7-P186
Ward Pond (0902-0020)
pH
South Star Mountain, Baker, McColloms
Ponds (0902-0145)
SLC-32-69- 6-P226
Hidden Pond (0902-
0022)
pH
Madawaska Pond, Quebec Pond (0902-
0153)
SLC-32-86-P252
Unnamed P #3-252
(0902-0023)
pH
Black Pond, Long Pond (0905-0156)
SLC-32-P257a-P264-
P265 .. P268a
Mikes Pond (0902-
0024)
pH
Rolley. Little Long, Bear, Bickford Ponds
(0902-0007)
SL-1- 58-1-P37
Unnamed P #6-037
(0903-0034)
pH
McCuen Pond, Duck Pond (0903-0102)
SL-1- 65-26-2-P52
Spring Pond (0903-
0035)
pH
Minor Lakes Trib to Jordan River (0903-
0107)
SL- 1- 65-26-3-P55
Unnamed P #6-055
(0903-0036)
pH
Minor Lakes Trib to Jordan River (0903-
0107)
SL-1- 65-P60
Roberts Pond (0903-
0030)
pH
Leonard Pond, Crooked Lake (0903-0109)
SL-1-74-1-P063 P64
Preston Pond (0903-
0031)
pH
Leonard Pond, Crooked Lake (0903-0109)
SL-1- 77-P67
Unnamed P #6-067
(0903-0026)
pH
Chandler Pond (0903-0110)
SL- 1-109- 4-1-P80-2-
P81
Buck Pond (0903-0037)
pH
Eagle Crag Lake (0903-0114)
SL-1-P089-1-2-P94
Unnamed P #6-094
(0903-0023)
pH
Lead Pond (0903-0118)
SL- 1-P089-1...P107
Unnamed P #6-107
(0903-0038)
pH
Heavens Pond (0903-0121)
41
-------
SL- 1-P109-11-2-P118-
3-P121
Hedgehog Pond (0903-
0020)
pH
Bog Stream and tribs (0903-0215)
SL-1-P109-11-2-P118-
P122
Unnamed P #6-122
(0903-0039)
pH
Bog Stream and tribs (0903-0215)
SL-1-P109-11-2-P118-
P125a
Unnamed P #6-125a
(0903-0040)
pH
Bog Stream and tribs (0903-0215)
SL-1-P109-11-2 ...
P141
Unnamed P #6-141
(0903-0018)
pH
Otter Pond, Loon Ponds (0903-0141)
SL-1-162-P235-2-P238
.. P240
Hunter Pond (0903-
0042)
pH
Lower, Upper Preston Ponds (0903-0178)
SL- 2-59-32-1-P353
Egg Pond (0904-0003)
pH
Sampson Pond (0904-0060)
SL- 2-59-32-2-1-P355
Cartridge Hills P (0904-
0004)
pH
Jocks Pond (0904-0064)
SL-25-73-40-P235
Unnamed P #4-235
(0905-0076)
pH
Little Deer Pond (0905-0167)
SL-25-101-P279
Readway Pond (0905-
0043)
pH
Star Lake (0905-0180)
SL-25-101-24-P282
Unnamed P #4-282
(0905-0077)
pH
Shingle Pond (0905-0175)
SL-25-101-34-2-P297
Unnamed P #4-297
(0905-0079)
pH
Heath Pond, Muskrat Pond (0905-0182)
SL-25-P309-9-P317
Little Dog Pond (0905-
0039)
pH
Curtis Pond, Dog Pond (0905-0004)
SL-25-P309-11... P324
Unnamed P #4-324
(0905-0070)
pH
John Pond, Scott Pond, ColvinPond (0905-
0190)
C-15-18 .. P34
Dow Pond (1003-0022)
pH
True Brook and tribs (1003-0055)
C-15-18 .. P36
Unnamed P #2-036
(1003-0023)
pH
True Brook and tribs (1003-0055)
C-15-22 .. P46a
Line Pond (1003-0025)
pH
Loon Lake (1003-0060)
C-15-22-24-P48 .. P51
Bass Lake (1003-0011)
pH
Loon Lake (1003-0060)
C-15-22 .. P67
Unnamed P #2-067
(1003-0026)
pH
Minor Lakes Trib to Upper North Branch
(1003-0064)
C-15-22 .. P68
Unnamed P 112-068
(1003-0017)
pH
Minor Lakes Trib to Upper North Branch
(1003-0064)
C-15-P114 .. P120 ..
P122
West Polliwog Pond
(1003-0016)
pH
Polliwog Pond (1003-0090)
C-15-P114 .. P125 ..
P127a
Little Egg Pond (1003-
0031)
pH
Square Pond (1003-0093)
C-15-P114 .. P125 ..
P132
SW Amphitheatre Pond
(1003-0015)
pH
Square Pond (1003-0093)
C-15-P114 .. P125 ..
P139
East Copperas Pond
(1003-0004)
pH
Square Pond (1003-0093)
C-15-P114 .. P140 ..
P141
North Whey Pond
(1003-0013)
pH
Little Square Pond (1003-0094)
C-15-P114 .. P142 ..
P145
Marsh Pond (1003-
0029)
pH
Rock Pond (1003-0101)
C- 15-P114 .. P142 ..
P166
Unnamed P #2-166
(1003-0032)
pH
Floodwood Pond (1003-0095)
C-15-P114 .. P189
Unnamed P #2-189
(1003-0033)
pH
Minor Lakes Trib to Upper Saranac Lake
(1003-0086)
C-15-P114 ..
P191..P191a
McCaffery Pond (1003-
0034)
pH
Little Clear Pond (1003-0107)
42
-------
C-15-P114 ..
P191..P196
Unnamed P #2-196
(1003-0035)
pH
Little Clear Pond (1003-0107)
C-15-P114 ..
P191..P197
SochiaPond (1003-
0014)
pH
Little Clear Pond (1003-0107)
C-15-P114 .. P199 ..
P200
Lindsey Pond (1003-
0036)
pH
Lake Clear (1003-0109)
C- 25-26- 4-P222 ..
P223
Unnamed P #2-223
(1004-0011)
pH
Fem Lake (1004-0060)
C- 25-26-39 .. P261
Scott Pond (1004-0008)
pH
Minor Lakes Trib to West Branch Ausable
River, Upper (1004-0070)
C- 25-26-39 .. P263
Unnamed P #2-263
(1004-0009)
pH
Minor Lakes Trib to West Branch Ausable
River, Upper (1004-0070)
C- 25-27-25 .. P269
Unnamed P #2-269
(1004-0010)
pH
Lower Cascade, Upper Cascade, Mud Lakes
(1004-0075)
C- 25-27 ..P272
Lost Pond (1004-0007)
pH
East Branch Ausable River, Middle, and
tribs (1004-0071)
C- 48-67-P327
Bullet Pond (1004-
0017)
pH
Boquet River, Upper, and tribs (1004-0081)
C- 48 .. P332
Cranberry Pond (1004-
0006)
pH
Boquet River, Upper, and tribs (1004-0081)
C- 96- 4- 4-P350
Snake Pond (1005-
0001)
pH
Sherman Lake (Goosepuddle/Burris Pond)
(1005-0016)
C- 96-P355 .. P359
Mud Pond (1004-0016)
pH
Putnam/North Ponds (1005-0018)
--
Cat Pond (0801-0036)
pH
Salmon Lake (0801-0054)**
* In DEC Response to Comment #44, DEC states that this waterbody was added to Part 2a of the 2018 list; this
water was not listed on the submitted 2018 list.
** listed as IR 4a water in 2018 list, covered by the 2006 Acid Lakes TMDL. DEC intended to update the title of
the segment to include Cat Pond, and expects to do so in the next cycle. According to DEC, both lakes are in the
Forest Preserve, or Class FP, superseding any classification assigned in regulations.
43
------- |