OysterCreek_fecal_TMDL

Total Maximum Daily Load for Fecal Coliform
for Oyster Creek in North Carolina

[Waterbody ID 29-49-3a]

Final TMDL Report
(EPA Approved, May 2011)

Prepared by:
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
With support from:
Department of Soil Science
North Carolina State University Raleigh, NC 27695

Department of Population Health and Pathobiology
North Carolina State University College of Veterinary Medicine Raleigh, NC 27606 Department of Physical Sciences
Virginia Institute of Marine Science
The College of William and Mary
Greate Road, Route 1208 Gloucester Point, VA 23062

Tar-Pamlico River Basin
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
ii
Table of Contents

Final Draft TMDL Report ........................................................................................................... i List of Abbreviations...................................................................................................................v List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................... vii
Summary Sheet ....................................................................................................................... viii
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. xi
1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................1 1.1 TMDL Components ......................................................................................................1
1.2 Documentation of Impairment .......................................................................................3
1.3 Watershed Description ..................................................................................................3
1.4 Water Quality Characterization .....................................................................................6 2.0 Source Assessment ...........................................................................................................8 2.1 Nonpoint Source Assessment ........................................................................................8
2.2 Point Source Assessment............................................................................................. 10
3.0 Total Maximum Daily Loads and Load Allocation ......................................................... 10
3.1 Modeling Approach .................................................................................................... 10
3.2 Critical Conditions ...................................................................................................... 15 3.3 Seasonality .................................................................................................................. 15
3.4 TMDL Loading Cap.................................................................................................... 16
3.5 Wasteload Allocation .................................................................................................. 16
3.6 Load Allocation .......................................................................................................... 17 3.7 Margin of Safety ......................................................................................................... 17 3.8 Summary of Total Maximum Daily Loads .................................................................. 18
4.0 TMDL Implementation Plan ........................................................................................... 18
5.0 Stream monitoring .......................................................................................................... 19
6.0 Future Efforts ................................................................................................................. 19
7.0 Public Participation ........................................................................................................ 19 8.0 Further Information ........................................................................................................ 20
References ................................................................................................................................ 21
Appendix A. Observation Time Series Plots and Water Quality Data ....................................... A1
Appendix B. Nonpoint Source Information .............................................................................. B1 Appendix C. Model Inputs and Simulation Results ................................................................... C1 Appendix D. Fecal Indicator Data ............................................................................................ D1
Appendix E. Wasteload Allocation by Subwatershed ............................................................... E1
Appendix F. Details of the Combined Transport Model and Bayesian Approach to Estimate the
Loadings of Oyster Creek ......................................................................................................... F1
Appendix G. Public Notification of TMDL for Fecal Coliform for Oyster Creek ...................... G1
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
v
List of Abbreviations

AFM Average Frequency of Misclassification ARA Antibiotic Resistance Analysis ARCC Average Rate of Correct Classification
ARP Antibiotic Resistance Patterns
BMP Best Management Practice
CC Correct Classification
CFR Code of Federal Regulations CWA Clean Water Act
DWQ Division of Water Quality
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FA Future Allocation GIS Geographic Information System HQW High Quality Waters
HS-HF183 Human Specific Bacteroides- HF183 Marker
km Kilometer
LA Load Allocation
m Meter M2 Lunar semi-diurnal tidal constituent
ml Milliliter(s)
MDP Minimum Detectable Percentage
MOS Margin of Safety MPN Most Probable Number MST Microbial Source Tracking
MRLC Multi-Resolution Land Cover
NCDEH North Carolina Division of Environmental Health
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NCAC North Carolina Administration Code NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NCSU North Carolina State University
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NSSP National Shellfish Sanitation Program OBs Optical Brighteners
Rep-PCR Repetitive element Polymerase Chain Reaction
ROW Right of way
SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflows
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USGS United States Geological Survey
VIMS Virginia Institute of Marine Science
WLA Wasteload Allocation WQLS Water Quality Limited Segment

Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
vi
List of Figures

Figure 1.3.1: Location Map of the Oyster Creek Restricted Shellfish Harvesting Area ................4
Figure 1.3.2: Land Cover Distributions .......................................................................................5 Figure 1.4.1: Locations of Fecal Coliform Monitoring Stations in Oyster Creek ..........................8
Figure 3.1.1: Segmentation of the Restricted Area and Watershed of Oyster Creek ................... 12
Figure 3.1.2: Scatter Plot of Estimated and Adjusted Median Concentrations ............................ 14
Figure 3.1.3: Scatter Plot of Estimated and Adjusted 90th Percentile Concentrations .................. 15 Figure 3.3.1: Seasonal Distribution of Fecal Coliform at Stations 10, 10A, and 10B. Error Bars Denote Standard Deviations. ..................................................................................................... 16
Figure A1: Time Series Plots and Water Quality Standards of Fecal Coliform Observations at
Station 10 ................................................................................................................................. A1
Figure A2: Time Series Plots and Water Quality Standards of Fecal Coliform Observations at
Station 10A .............................................................................................................................. A1 Figure A3: Time Series Plots and Water Quality Standards of Fecal Coliform Observations at
Station 10B .............................................................................................................................. A2
Figure B1: The Location of the Animal Pollution Points in Oyster Creek Watershed. Numbers:
15-Swan Acre Hog Farm; 20-Duck Impoundment; 21-Tiny Oak Hog Farm. (NCDENR, 2009) B1 Figure B2: The Location of the Areas of Concern Pollution Point in Oyster Creek Watershed. Number: 19-Waste Collection Center (NCDENR, 2009) .......................................................... B2
Figure B3: The Location of the Dockage Pollution Points in Oyster Creek Watershed. Number:
18-Oyster Creek Marina (NCDENR, 2009) .............................................................................. B2
Figure F1. Schematic Graph of Model Segmentation and Notations ......................................... F2

Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
vii
List of Tables

Table 1.3.1: A Summary of Landuse Statistics ............................................................................5
Table 1.4.1: Summary Statistics of the NCDEH Last 30 Fecal Coliform Observation Data .........6Table 1.4.2: Summary Statistics of the NCSU Fecal Coliform Observation Data .........................7
Table 1.4.3: Summary Statistics of the Combined NCDEH and NCSU Fecal Coliform
Observation Data for the Most Recent 5 Years ............................................................................7
Table 2.1.1: Distribution of Fecal Coliform Source Loads ...........................................................9Table 3.1.1: Original Short-Term and Adjusted Long-Term Fecal Coliform Concentrations in Each Segment of Oyster Creek (Units in MPN/100ml) .............................................................. 13
Table 3.1.2: Existing Loads and TMDLs ................................................................................... 15
Table 3.5.1: WLA Summary ..................................................................................................... 17
Table A1: List of Fecal Coliform Observations at Stations 10, 10A, and 10B (Bold and italic
fonts denote observations from NCSU, all others from NCDEH) ............................................. A2Table B1: Pollution Points in the Drainage Area of Oyster Creek Restricted Shellfish Harvesting
Area ......................................................................................................................................... B1
Table B2: Discriminant analysis of unique antibiotic resistance patterns (ARPs) used to classify
E. coli from four groups of known host sources into source categories ..................................... B5Table B3: Summary of the Antibiotic Resistance Analysis Results ........................................... B6Table B4: Discriminant analysis of unique molecular rep-PCR banding patterns used to classify
E. coli from four groups of known host sources into source categories ..................................... B8
Table B5: Summary of Rep-PCR Validation of Antibiotic Resistance Analysis Results ........... B9
Table B6: Summary of Multiple Microbial Source Tracking Results ...................................... B13
Table B7: Percent Source contributions of E. coli based on Antibiotic Resistance Analysis Results for all samples. ........................................................................................................... B14
Table B8: Percent Source Contributions based on rep-PCR Results for all samples. ............... B20
Table B9: Raw Data for Optical Brighteners and HS-HF183 .................................................. B26
Table C1: Geometric Information Used for Each Segment ....................................................... C1Table C2: WinBUGS Simulation Results of Fecal Coliform Concentrations (MPN/100ml) in Each Segment Using Median and 90th Percentile of the Observational Data (2005-2010) ......... C2
Table C3: Fecal Coliform Loadings (×104 Counts/Second) in Each Segment using Median, and
90th Percentile of the Observational Data (2005-2010) ............................................................. C3
Table E1: Ratio of ROW to Total Landuse and WLA by Subwatershed ................................... E1

Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
viii

Summary Sheet
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
1. 303(d) Listed Waterbody Information
State: North Carolina County: Hyde Major River Basin: Tar-Pamlico River Basin
Watershed: Oyster Creek
Impaired Waterbody (2006 303(d) List):

Waterbody Name-(ID) Description Water Quality
Classification Acres
Oyster Creek-(29-49-3a) From source to a line 990 meters
east of Swanquarter Bay SA ORW 35.3

Constituent(s) of Concern: Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Designated Uses: Shellfish Harvesting
Applicable Tidal Salt Water Quality Standards for Class SA Waters: “Organisms of coliform group: fecal coliform group not to exceed a median MF of 14/100 ml and not more than 10 percent of the samples shall exceed an MF count of 43/100 ml in
those areas most probably exposed to fecal contamination during the most unfavorable
hydrographic and pollution conditions.”

2. TMDL Development Development Tools (Analysis/Modeling): The finite difference transport model and Bayesian approach were combined to develop the fecal
coliform TMDL for the restricted shellfish harvesting area of Oyster Creek. The one-dimensional finite difference transport model was used to simulate the bacteria in the embayment. The nonpoint source loads (both existing and maximum allowable loads), together with their
uncertainties, were estimated by the Bayesian statistical method. As the sampling strategy of
fecal coliform covered rainfall events and normal condition over a 5-year period, and both
median and 90th percentile of the 5-year observations are used to compute the loadings by the
model, the model results account for the seasonal variability and critical conditions, which thereby represents the hydrology, hydrodynamics, and water quality condition of the restricted
shellfish harvesting area.

Critical Conditions: The 90th percentile concentration is the concentration exceeded only 10% of the time, which represents the occurrence of high fecal coliform in the waterbody, partially during rainfall events.
Since current loading to the waterbody was determined using the 90th percentile concentration
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
ix
together with a long-term record of flow, the critical condition is implicitly included in the
computations of loading corresponding to the 90th percentile of fecal coliform concentration and
loading reduction scenario. Seasonal Variations: Seasonal variations in hydrology, climatic conditions, and watershed activities are represented
through the use of long-term statistics of median and 90th percentile of concentrations to compute
the loadings. Given the intensive sampling strategy and the length of the observational period,
the seasonal variability is directly included in the model simulation.
3. TMDL Allocation Summary Model results show that 90th percentile load requires highest reduction. The allocation is
established based on 90th percentile load.
Waterbody Pollutant Existing WLA LA MOS Reduction
Required TMDL
Oyster Creek (29-49-3a)
Fecal
coliform
(counts/day) 3.1×1012 1.6×109 2.1×1011 2.3×1010 92.6% 2.3×1011

Notes: WLA = wasteload allocation, LA = load allocation, MOS = margin of safety, WLA = TMDL-LA-MOS 4. Contributing Municipalities TMDL Allocation Summary: N/A

5. Contributing NPDES Facilities TMDL Allocation Summary:
Pollutant NCDOT Existing Permitted Load (cfu/day) WLA Reduction
Fecal Coliform (Counts per Day) N/A 1.6×109 0.0%

6. Public Notice Information
Summary: The TMDL was announced on the Modeling and TMDL Unit website and the NC TMDL list-serve on March 14, 2011. The TMDL was also public noticed on April 15,
2011 through the NCWRRI email list-serve. The TMDL
was available on DWQ’s website during the comment
period. The public comment period lasted until April 14,
2011. DWQ received no comments on the TMDL.
Did notification contain specific
mention of TMDL Proposal?
Yes
Were comments received from
the public?
No
Was a responsiveness summary
prepared?
N/A
7. Public Notice Date: March 14, 2011
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
x
8. Submittal Date: April 20, 2011

9. EPA Approval Date: May 11, 2011 10. DOT a Significant Contribution (Yes or Blank):

11. Endangered Species (yes or blank):
12. MS4s Contributions to Impairment (Yes or Blank): Yes, NCDOT 14. TMDL Considers Point Source, Nonpoint Source, or both: Both

Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
xi
Executive Summary

Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency’s (EPA) implementing regulations direct each state to identify and list waters, known as water quality limited segments (WQLSs), in which current required controls of a specified
substance are inadequate to achieve water quality standards. For each WQLS, the State is to
either establish a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) of the specified substance that the
waterbody can receive without violating water quality standards, or demonstrate that water quality standards are being met.
Oyster Creek is located in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin (NC Subbasin 30308 – HUC
03020105030020) in Hyde County. The Creek is located within the shellfish area designated G3
by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Health (NCDEH). Part of Oyster Creek is
considered impaired by fecal coliform on the 2006 North Carolina Integrated Report (NCDENR, 2007). This document addresses the fecal coliform impairment of the restricted shellfish
harvesting area of Oyster Creek as listed in the following table.

305(b) ID Name Description
29-49-3a Oyster Creek From source to a line 990 meters east of Swanquarter Bay
The restricted shellfish harvesting area is impaired by levels of bacteria exceeding North Carolina’s water quality standards for fecal coliform, which has resulted in closure of the
waterbodies to shellfish harvesting.

Fecal coliform is an indicator organism used in water quality monitoring in shellfish waters to
indicate the potential presence of pathogens associated with warm blooded animals. When the water quality standard for fecal coliform in shellfish waters is exceeded, waters are restricted for
shellfish harvesting to protect human health risks associated with the consumption of molluscan
shellfish from contaminated waters. The water quality goal of this TMDL is to reduce high fecal
coliform concentrations to levels whereby the designated uses for the Creek will be met. A variety of data at the watershed scale, including shoreline sanitary survey data and Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) data coverage, were used to identify potential fecal coliform
contributions. There are no permitted point source facilities in the restricted shellfish area
addressed in this report. Microbial source tracking (MST) was used to identify nonpoint sources.
The major contributions of fecal coliform load are nonpoint sources, including wildlife, pets, livestock, etc. The load is allocated to sources (human, livestock, pets, and wildlife).

The combined Bayesian statistical method and finite difference transport modeling approaches
was used to estimate fecal coliform load from watersheds and to develop TMDLs. As both median and 90th percentile of the 5-year observations are used for model simulation and the sampling strategy of fecal coliform covered rainfall events, the model results account for the
seasonal variability and critical conditions, which thereby represent the hydrology,
hydrodynamics, and water quality condition of the restricted shellfish harvesting area. The
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
xii
current loads were estimated using long-term water quality monitoring data, and the allowable
loads were computed using both the median water quality standard for shellfish harvesting of 14
Most Probable Number (MPN)/100ml and the 90th percentile standard of 43 MPN/100ml. An explicit Margin of Safety (MOS) of 10% was incorporated into the analysis to account for uncertainty. The TMDLs developed for the restricted shellfish harvesting area of Oyster Creek
for fecal coliform load are as follows:

The fecal coliform TMDL = 2.3×1011 counts per day
The goal of load allocation is to determine the estimated loads for the drainage area while ensuring that the water quality standard can be attained. For the restricted shellfish harvesting
area in Oyster Creek, the 90th percentile criterion requires the greatest reduction. Therefore, the
load reduction scenario is developed based on the 90th percentile water quality standard. The load
reductions needed to meet the shellfish criteria and the load allocations required to meet the TMDL is 92.6%.

Once the EPA has approved a TMDL, and it is known what measures must be taken to reduce
pollution levels, implementation of best management practices (BMPs) is expected to take place.
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) intends for the required reductions to be implemented in an iterative process that first addresses those sources with the largest impact on water quality, with consideration given to ease of
implementation and cost.

Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
1
1.0 Introduction

Section 303(d)(1)(C) of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA) implementing regulations direct each State to develop a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for each impaired water quality limited segment (WQLS) on the
Section 303(d) list, taking into account seasonal variations and a protective margin of safety
(MOS) to account for uncertainty. A TMDL reflects the total pollutant loading of the impairing
substance a waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards. TMDLs are established to achieve and maintain water quality standards. A water quality
standard is the combination of a designated use for a particular body of water and the water
quality criteria designed to protect that use. Designated uses include activities such as swimming,
drinking water supply, and shellfish propagation and harvest. Water quality criteria consist of
narrative statements and numeric values designed to protect the designated uses. Criteria may differ among waters with different designated uses.

Oyster Creek is located in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin (NC Subbasin 30308 – HUC
03020105030020) in Hyde County. The designated water use is SA water- Shellfish Harvesting. The Creek is located within the shellfish area designated G3 by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Health (NCDEH). Oyster Creek is considered impaired for fecal coliform on the
2006 North Carolina Integrated Report. This report provides an analysis of the monitoring data
and proposes to establish TMDLs of fecal coliform for the restricted shellfish harvesting area of
Oyster Creek.
Fecal coliform bacteria are found in the intestinal tract of humans and other warm-blooded
animals. Few fecal coliform bacteria are pathogenic. However, the presence of elevated levels of
fecal coliform in shellfish waters indicates recent sources of pollution. Some common
waterborne diseases associated with the consumption of raw clams and oysters harvested from polluted water include viral and bacterial gastroenteritis and hepatitis A. Fecal coliform may occur in surface waters from point and nonpoint sources.

1.1 TMDL Components
The 303(d) process requires that a TMDL be developed for each of the waters appearing in Category 5 of the Surface Water Integrated list. The objective of a TMDL is to estimate
allowable pollutant loads and allocate to known sources so that actions may be taken to restore
the water to its intended uses (USEPA, 1991). A TMDL is the total amount of a pollutant that
can be assimilated by the receiving water while still achieving water quality criteria, in this case
North Carolina’s water quality criteria for shellfish waters. Currently, TMDLs are expressed as a “mass per unit time, toxicity, or other appropriate measure” (40 CFR 130.2(i)). It is also
important to note that the TMDLs presented herein are not literal daily limits. These loads are
based on an averaging period that is defined by the water quality criteria (i.e., 30 samples per
station). The averaging period used for development of these TMDLs requires at least 30 samples and uses the most recent 5-year window of data. Generally, the primary components of a
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
2
TMDL, as identified by EPA (1991) and the Federal Advisory Committee (USEPA, 1998) are as
follows:
Target Identification or selection of pollutant(s) and endpoint(s) for consideration. The pollutant and endpoint are generally associated with measurable water quality related characteristics that
indicate compliance with water quality standards. North Carolina indicates known pollutants on
the 303(d) list.
Source Assessment. All sources that contribute to the impairment should be identified and loads quantified, where sufficient data exist.

Reduction Target. Estimation or level of pollutant reduction needed to achieve water quality goal.
The level of pollution should be characterized for the waterbody, highlighting how current conditions deviate from the target endpoint. Generally, this component is identified through water quality modeling.

Allocation of Pollutant Loads. Allocating pollutant control responsibility to the sources of
impairment. The wasteload allocation portion of the TMDL accounts for the loads associated
with existing and future point sources. Similarly, the load allocation portion of the TMDL accounts for the loads associated with existing and future nonpoint sources, stormwater, and
natural background.

Margin of Safety. The margin of safety addresses uncertainties associated with pollutant loads, modeling techniques, and data collection. Per EPA (2000), the margin of safety may be expressed explicitly as unallocated assimilative capacity or implicitly due to conservative
assumptions.

Seasonal Variation. The TMDL should consider seasonal variation in the pollutant loads and
endpoint. Variability can arise due to stream flows, temperatures, and exceptional events (e.g., droughts, hurricanes).

Critical Conditions. Critical conditions indicate the combination of environmental factors that
result in just meeting the water quality criterion and have an acceptably low frequency of occurrence.
Section 303(d) of the CWA and the Water Quality Planning and Management regulation
(USEPA, 2000) require EPA to review all TMDLs for approval or disapproval. Once EPA
approves a TMDL, then the waterbody may be moved to Category 4t of the Integrated Report.
Waterbodies remain in Category 4t until compliance with water quality standards is achieved. Where conditions are not appropriate for the development of a TMDL, management strategies
may still result in the restoration of water quality.

TMDL is comprised of the sum of individual wasteload allocations (WLAs) for point sources, load allocations (LAs) for nonpoint sources, and natural background levels. The TMDL must include a margin of safety (MOS), either implicitly or explicitly, that accounts for the uncertainty
in the relationship between pollutant loads and the quality of the receiving waterbody, and in the
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
3
scientific and technical understanding of water quality in natural systems. In addition, the TMDL
may include a future allocation (FA) when necessary. Conceptually, this definition is denoted by
the equation: TMDL = WLAs + LAs + MOS + (FA, where applicable)
1.2 Documentation of Impairment

The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Surface Water and Wetlands classification for the restricted shellfish harvesting area of Oyster Creek is Class SA Waters – Shellfish Harvesting Waters (15A NCAC 02B.0221 Tidal Salt Water Quality Standards for Class
SA Waters). All SA waters are also classified as High Quality Waters (HQW). A Class SA water
is a waterbody that is suitable for commercial shellfishing and all other tidal saltwater use
(NCAC, 2003).
Oyster Creek was first identified on the 2006 North Carolina Integrated Report, as not meeting
its designated use. Waters within the SA classification, according to 15A NCAC 02B.0021
(Tidal Salt Water Quality Standards for Class SA Waters), must meet the following water quality
standard in order to meet their designated use: “Organisms of coliform group: fecal coliform
group not to exceed a median MF of 14/100 ml and not more than 10 percent of the samples shall exceed an MF count of 43/100 ml in those areas most probably exposed to fecal contamination during the most unfavorable hydrographic and pollution conditions.”

For this report, the monitoring data averaging period was based on monitoring procedures for
classifying SA water, i.e. fecal coliform concentration cannot exceed a median value of 14 MPN per 100 ml and a 90th percentile of 43 MPN per 100 ml, for six samples per year and 30 samples
per station. The averaging period for the monitoring data required at least 30 samples and used
all data within the most recent five-year period. The water quality impairment was assessed
using the median and 90th percentile concentrations.
1.3 Watershed Description

Oyster Creek is located in Hyde County. Figure 1.3.1 shows the location of Oyster Creek (NC
Subbasin 30308 – HUC 03020105030020) and the restricted shellfish harvesting area. The Creek empties into the Swanquarter Bay. The length of the Creek is approximately 1.8 km and the width of the Creek is about 0.7 km near the mouth. The mean depth of the Creek is about 1 m
(mean low water). The restricted shellfish harvesting area extends from the source to a line about
990 m east of Swanquarter Bay. The drainage area of the restricted area is 4,767 acres (19.3 km2).
The United States Geological Survey (USGS) soil survey shows that the watershed is dominated
by a 0-2 percent slope, rarely flooded Hydeland silt loam, Ponzer muck, Roper muck, and Scuppernong muck. (U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2006). The dominant tide in this
region is the lunar semidiurnal (M2) tide with a mean tidal range of 0.15 m (Lin et al., 2008)
with a tidal period of 12.42 hours (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
2010).
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
4

Figure 1.3.1: Location Map of the Oyster Creek Restricted Shellfish Harvesting Area

1.3.1 Land Cover Data

The USGS Multi-Resolution Land Characterization (MRLC) land use/land cover data show that
the watershed can be characterized as rural. The land use distribution is shown in Figure 1.3.2
based on National Land Cover Database 2001 (NLCD 2001). Land use statistics are listed in Table 1.3.1, in which the land uses are grouped into five categories: Open Water, Wetland,
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
5
Forest, Cropland, and Urban. Wetland and Cropland are the dominant land uses in the watershed,
which are approximately 44.0% and 40.9%, respectively.

Figure 1.3.2: Land Cover Distributions
Table 1.3.1: A Summary of Landuse Statistics
Category Area (km2) Percentage
Open Water 0.1332 0.7%
Developed 0.8046* 4.1%
Forest 1.9827 10.2%
Cropland 7.9560 40.9%
Wetland 8.5563 44.0%
TOTAL 19.4328 100%

* Includes 0.153587 km2 of NCDOT area (0.79% of total).
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
6
1.4 Water Quality Characterization

The Shellfish Sanitation and Recreational Water Quality Section of NCDEH is responsible for
classifying shellfish harvesting waters to ensure that oysters and clams are safe for human consumption. NCDEH adheres to the requirements of the National Shellfish Sanitation Program
(NSSP), with oversight by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (USDA). NCDEH conducts
shoreline surveys and collects routine bacteria water quality samples in the shellfish growing
areas of North Carolina. The data are used to determine if the water quality criteria are being met. If the water quality criteria are exceeded, the shellfish areas are restricted to harvest and the designated use is not being achieved.

NCDEH has monitored shellfish growing regions throughout North Carolina for the past few
decades. Oyster Creek is sampled using the systematic random sampling strategy as outlined in
the NSSP’s Model Ordinance and guidance document. Most data were collected at least six times a year. There are 3 fecal coliform monitoring stations inside Oyster Creek. The locations of
these stations are shown in Figure 1.4.1. The data collected from these observation stations are
used for the water quality assessment for the TMDL study. The time series plots of the
observations from 2000 to 2010 are shown in Appendix A. Based on field measurements of the last 30 samples, the fecal coliform concentrations exceed the 90th percentile water quality standard of 43 MPN/100ml at Station 10B (Table 1.4.1).

From November 2008 to January 2010, North Carolina State University (NCSU) took monthly
measurements in Oyster Creek for Microbial Source Tracking (MST) analysis. Three of the
stations overlap with the NCDEH monitoring stations (10, 10A, and 10B). The stations used in the TMDL loading estimation are shown in Figure 1.4.1. The statistics of these observations are listed in Table 1.4.2. The statistics combining both NCDEH and NCSU observations at Stations
10, 10A, and 10B are listed in Table 1.4.3. The results show that the 90th percentile water quality
criterion was exceeded at Stations 10A and 10B.

Table 1.4.1: Summary Statistics of the NCDEH Last 30 Fecal Coliform Observation Data

Station Median (MPN/100ml) 90th Percentile (MPN/100ml)
10 1.7 6.7
10A 1.9 10.3
10B 7.8 49.3

Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
7
Table 1.4.2: Summary Statistics of the NCSU Fecal Coliform Observation Data
Station Number of Samples Median (MPN/100ml) 90th Percentile (MPN/100ml)
10 12 27.8 274.9
10A 12 54.6 588.8
10B 12 77.0 753.5
OC-1A 10 77.9 1536.4
OC-1B 10 86.7 850.1
OC-2 11 100.6 884.1
OC-3 10 116.7 1076.5
OC-4 11 142.4 1346.3
OC-5 10 125.1 899.7
OC-6 10 381.6 3220.8
OC-7 10 126.7 1900.1
OC-8 11 83.2 1289.7
OC-9 10 138.9 881.2
OC-10 10 188.0 2188.7
OC-11 10 128.8 1327.7
OC-12 10 135.6 865.2
OC-13 10 102.5 1086.9
OC-14 6 67.2 540.8
OC-15 8 41.5 544.0
OC-16 8 44.3 325.0
OC-17 9 60.0 1176.2
OC-18 6 52.1 767.2

Table 1.4.3: Summary Statistics of the Combined NCDEH and NCSU Fecal Coliform Observation Data for the Most Recent 5 Years
Station Number of
Samples
Median
(MPN/100ml)
90th Percentile
(MPN/100ml)
10 43 1.7 34.4
10A 43 2.0 74.3
10B 43 13.0 186.6

Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
8

Figure 1.4.1: Locations of Fecal Coliform Monitoring Stations in Oyster Creek

2.0 Source Assessment
2.1 Nonpoint Source Assessment

Nonpoint sources of fecal coliform bacteria do not have one discharge point but occur over the
entire length of a stream or waterbody. There are many types of nonpoint sources in watersheds
discharging to the restricted shellfish harvesting areas. The possible introductions of fecal coliform bacteria to the nonhuman sources are through the manure spreading process, direct deposition from livestock during the grazing season, and excretions from pets and wildlife.
During rain events, surface runoff transports water and fecal coliform over the land surface and
discharges to the restricted shellfish harvesting area. The deposition of nonhuman fecal coliform
directly to the restricted shellfish area occurs when runoff occurs and when livestock or wildlife has direct access to the waterbody. Nonpoint source contributions to the bacterial levels from
human activities generally arise from failing septic systems and their associated drain fields as
well as through pollution from recreation vessel discharges. The transport of fecal coliform from
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
9
land surface to the restricted shellfish harvesting area is dictated by the hydrology, soil type, land
use, and topography of the watershed.
From August 2003 to December 2008, a sanitary survey of the G3 and G4 areas including Oyster Creek was conducted by NCDENR (2009) and five pollution sites were found in the watershed
of the restricted shellfish harvesting area of Oyster Creek. Among the five pollution sites, three
are animal pollutions and two of them are no longer in operation. The influence of these
pollutions sites on the fecal coliform impairment in Oyster Creek is minimal. The details of the
survey can be found in Appendix B.
Microbial Source Tracking (MST) technology was used to distinguish the origins of bacteria
found in Oyster Creek. The bacteria isolated from different hosts can be discriminated based on
differences in the selective pressure of microbial populations found in the gastrointestinal tract of the hosts, i.e., humans, livestock, pets, and wildlife (Wiggins, 1996). Based on the research results of NCSU, the complete distributions of these source loads for the restricted area of Oyster
Creek are listed in Table 2.1.1. It can be seen that wildlife is the dominant source of the area.
Details of the source estimation can be found in Appendix B.

In brief, a mixture of sources contributing to the observed fecal indicator levels was identified by MST. The wildlife category comprised the dominant source of fecal coliforms at all stations.
Wildlife was the source of approximately 67% of the isolates when the data from all stations
were combined. Livestock accounted for approximately 9% of bacteria. Human and pets
accounted for approximately 12% of the counts. An evaluation of source contributions at stations 10, 10A and 10B revealed a significantly greater human (17.3%), livestock (6.8%) and pet (16.8%) contribution at station 10B than stations 10 and 10A (Tukey-Kramer HSD, p ≤ 0.05).
The wildlife (95.4%) contribution at station 10 was significantly greater than stations 10A
(89.6%) and 10B (59.3%). A human contribution was not detected at station 10. When the data
were observed collectively, no significant patterns of seasonal variation in host source
contributions from livestock and pets were detected (Tukey-Kramer HSD, p ≤ 0.05). However, the human contribution (14.0%) in August 2009 was significantly greater than the human
contribution (3%) in December 2008. There were no statistical differences in the human
contributions for the remaining collection times. The wildlife (89.4%) contribution in December
2008, was not statistically different from the wildlife contributions in November 2008, October 2009, and January 2010 (66.8-69%), but was statistically greater than the contributions during the other sampling times (Tukey-Kramer HSD, p ≤ 0.05).

Table 2.1.1: Distribution of Fecal Coliform Source Loads
Fecal Coliform Source Load Counts/Day Median Load Counts/Day 90th Percentile Loading Percentage
Human 1.80E+10 3.72E+11 12
Livestock 1.30E+10 2.79E+11 9
Pets 1.80E+10 4.03E+11 12
Wildlife 1.01E+11 2.08E+12 67
TOTAL 1.50E+11 3.10E+12 100

Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
10
2.2 Point Source Assessment

There are no permitted point source facilities discharging fecal coliform directly into the
restricted shellfish harvesting area of Oyster Creek. Stormwater has previously been considered a nonpoint source; however, current EPA guidance and policy requires that NPDES-permitted
stormwater sources be included in the wasteload allocation (WLA) of the TMDL as opposed to
the load allocation (LA). Many of the roadways in the watershed are maintained by the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). These NCDOT roads fall under the NCDOT statewide NPDES stormwater permit (NCS000250). NCDOT’s contribution to fecal coliform loading in the watershed was tracked separately from other land use types in order to calculate
their WLA and load reduction requirements.
3.0 Total Maximum Daily Loads and Load Allocation
This section documents detailed fecal coliform TMDL development and allocations for the restricted shellfish harvesting area of Oyster Creek. In order to simulate the instream transport of
fecal coliform and to estimate existing and allowable loads, the method of Shen and Zhao (2009)
and VADEQ (2008) was adopted. The restricted area was divided into 11 segments. The
watershed of the restricted area was divided into 11 sub-watersheds correspondingly. A one-
dimensional finite difference transport model was used to simulate fecal coliform transport in the Creek. The nonpoint source loads were treated as unknown parameters and estimated by the
Bayesian approach. The TMDL is presented as counts/day. The following sections present the
detailed TMDL development and load allocations for the Oyster Creek restricted area. The first
section describes the modeling approach. The second and third sections address the critical conditions and seasonality. The fourth section discusses TMDL loading caps. The fifth section presents the load allocation and the sixth section presents the margin of safety. Finally, the
variables of the equation are combined in a summary accounting of the TMDL.
3.1 Modeling Approach

3.1.1 Instream Transport Model

For a coastal basin, the tidal prism model has been applied to develop fecal coliform TMDLs in
shellfish growing areas (e.g., NCDENR 2007, 2009). For Oyster Creek, however, as the tidal
range is very small (about 0.15 m) and the Creek is narrow, a tidal prism model is not applicable. Therefore, a one-dimensional, tidally-averaged finite difference transport model (Thomann and Mueller, 1987) was applied to simulate the transport of bacteria, and compute the existing loads
and TMDLs. Since the long-term median and 90th percentile criteria are used to determine the
loads, a steady state modeling approach was used. The restricted shellfish harvesting area of
Oyster Creek was divided into 11 segments according to the water quality monitoring station
availability and the geometry of the Creek, and the corresponding watershed was divided into 11 subwatersheds as well (Figure 3.1.1). Three branches were delineated as segments based on
branch area and data availability. The mass balance equation for fecal coliform can be written as

Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
11
0
1)(1 cx
cAExAx
cQ
At
c +


∂
∂
∂
∂=∂
∂+∂
∂

where x is the distance (m), A is the tidally averaged cross-section area (m2), Q is the tidally
averaged net transport due to freshwater discharge and tide (m3⋅s-1), c is the tidally averaged
concentration of dissolved substance (mass⋅m-3), E is the dispersion coefficient (m2⋅s-1), and c0 is
a source/sink or loading term (mass⋅s-1). For a segment i in the main stream, the mass balance
equation can be written as:

0)()()(11111 =+−−′+−′−−′++−=+−−−−iiiiibibiiiiiiibibiiiiiiLckVccEccEccECQcQcQdt
dcV
and that at Branch ib can be written as:
0)(=+−−′−−=ibibibiibibibibibibLckVccEcQdt
dcV
where V is the volume, t is the time, Q is the flow, C is the bacteria concentration, k is the
bacteria decay coefficient, L is the loading, and E’ is the bulk dispersion coefficient across the
segment boundary, which is related to the dispersion coefficient E as:
i
iiix
AEE∆='
where Ai is the cross-sectional area on the upstream side of segment i and Δxi is the distance between segments i-1 and i. Detail model description and solution procedures are presented in Appendix F.

Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
12

Figure 3.1.1: Segmentation of the Restricted Area and Watershed of Oyster Creek

The magnitude of the dispersion coefficient is a function of tide, geometry, and hydrodynamic
conditions. It was estimated using the long term salinity data (from 2000 to 2010) while
incorporating a steady state approach (dc/dt=0). It was assumed that the dispersion coefficient remained constant throughout the Creek, as the salinity data were only available at Stations 10, 10A, and 10B. A 20 year monthly flow at the adjacent USGS gage station 02084540 (Durham
Creek at Edward) were used to estimate the flow by dividing by its drainage area, and then
multiplying by the drainage area of each subwatershed of Oyster Creek. The mean and 90th
percentile flows were used to compute the loadings corresponding to median and 90th percentile fecal coliform concentrations, respectively. The average concentration of a sampling day for all
the stations within each segment was used as the concentration of the segment at that day. Then
the median and 90th percentile concentrations were calculated for each segment. According to the
monitoring procedures for classifying SA water, the most recent five-year instream fecal
coliform concentration data set is ideal to be used in the model simulation. However, these data are only available at Stations 10, 10A, and 10B, while intensive short-term data (from late 2008 to present) are available at all the stations shown in Figure 1.4.1. Therefore, two conversion
factors were calculated first by dividing the long-term data statistics (median and 90th percentile,
respectively, Table 1.4.3) by the short-term data statistics for Stations 10A and 10B (Table 1.4.2).
Then, the long-term statistics for Segments 7 and B8 were calculated by multiplying their short-
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
13
term statistics by the conversion factor of Station 10A, and those for other segments were
calculated by multiplying their short-term statistics by the conversion factor of Station 10B. The
original short-term and adjusted long-term fecal coliform concentrations in the 11 segments are shown in Table 3.1.1. The value of the decay rate varies from 0.7 to 3.0 per day in salt water (Mancini, 1978; Thomann and Mueller, 1987). A decay rate of 0.7 per day was used as a
conservative estimate in the TMDL calculation. Other geometric parameters, such as cross-
sectional area, water volume, and distance between adjacent segments, were obtained by GIS
data and some are shown in Appendix C.
Table 3.1.1: Original Short-Term and Adjusted Long-Term Fecal Coliform Concentrations in Each Segment of Oyster Creek (Units in MPN/100ml)
Segment Median 90th Percentile
Original Adjusted Original Adjusted
1 91.7 15.5 795.2 196.9
2 127.8 21.6 1416.9 350.8
3 86.0 14.5 937.5 232.1
4 77.0 13.0 753.5 186.6
5 44.2 7.5 614.5 152.1
6 44.3 7.5 621.0 153.7
7 49.8 1.8 741.6 93.6
8 54.6 2.0 588.8 74.3
B4 52.6 8.9 641.4 158.8
B7 49.8 8.4 741.6 183.6
B8 51.5 1.9 782.5 98.7

3.1.2 Loading Estimation
The inverse modeling approach was used to estimate the loadings (Shen et al., 2006). Because of
the large uncertainty involved in computing the existing loads and the errors associated with the
observations, the Bayesian statistical method was used to estimate the loads. The Bayesian method uses statistics in conjunction with prior information and observations to establish a probability distribution (posterior) to describe the unknown parameters (i.e., in this study,
loadings) (Huang and McBean, 2007). The advantage of the method is that it not only provides a
sound estimation of loadings, but also the uncertainties associated with the model simulation.
The Bayes’ theorem can be written as follows:
)(
)()|()|(CP
pCpCp θθθ×=
where )|(Cpθ is the posterior distribution and expresses the probability of the model parameter
values (loadings) given the observed data. p(C) is the expected value of the likelihood function
over the parameter distributions and is used as a normalizing constant. )|(θCp is the likelihood
of possible fecal coliform concentrations given a fixed value of the loading, and )(θp is the
prior belief of unknown parameters (loadings) density distribution function.

Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
14
The statistics software WinBUGs (Spiegelhalter et al., 2003) was used to estimate the loadings
with the use of instream fecal coliform concentrations. The combined long-term statistics
(median and 90th percentile, Table 3.1.1) were used to estimate the existing loads. The fecal coliform criteria of 14 MPN/100ml (for median) and 43 MPN/100ml (for 90th percentile) were used to estimate the TMDLs. The comparison plots of the observations and model simulations
are shown in Figures 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 for median and 90th percentile concentrations, respectively.
The results show that model simulates the instream concentration correctly with R2 values larger
than 0.68. The model results of mean concentrations, together with the median and 2.5% and
97.5% confidence intervals, are listed in Appendix C. The estimated existing loads and TMDLs are listed in Table 3.1.2. The estimated loading for each segment is listed in Appendix C.

Figure 3.1.2: Scatter Plot of Estimated and Adjusted Median Concentrations

R2 = 0.8519
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 5 10 15 20 25
Oberved (MPN/100ml)
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

(
M
P
N
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
R2 = 0.6818
0
100
200
300
400
0 100 200 300 400
Observed (MPN /100ml)
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

(
M
P
N
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
15
Figure 3.1.3: Scatter Plot of Estimated and Adjusted 90th Percentile Concentrations

Table 3.1.2: Existing Loads and TMDLs

Endpoint Existing Load
(counts/day)
Allowable Load
(counts/day) Reduction
Median 1.5×1011 4.1×1010 72.6%
90th Percentile 3.1×1012 2.3×1011 92.6%

3.2 Critical Conditions

The EPA Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR 130.7 (c)(1)) requires TMDLs to take into
account critical conditions for stream flow, loading, and water quality parameters. The intent of this requirement is to ensure that the water quality of the waterbody is protected during times when it is most vulnerable. The critical condition accounts for the hydrologic variation in the
watershed over many sampling years whereas the critical period is the condition under which a
waterbody is the most likely to violate the water quality standard(s).
The 90th percentile concentration is the concentration exceeded only 10% of the time. Since the
data observational period spans about 5 years, which includes both favorable and unfavorable
weather conditions, and the flow used is 90th percentile high flow, the critical condition is
implicitly included in the value of the 90th percentile of model results.
3.3 Seasonality

Fecal coliform distributions often show high seasonal variability, which is required to be
considered in calculating TMDLs. The seasonal fecal coliform distributions for Stations 10, 10A,
and 10B are presented in Figure 3.3.1. The seasonal distributions for other stations were not
generated as most of the stations have only one data per month. The results show that high fecal coliform concentrations occurred from June to October. In general, the concentrations in Station 10B are higher than the other two, and Station 10 has the lowest concentrations among the three
stations. The largest standard deviation corresponds to the highest concentration. These high
concentrations result in a high 90th percentile concentration. Because the model simulates the
statistics that were computed using data from a full 5-year period, the seasonal variability is directly included in the model simulation.

Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
16

Figure 3.3.1: Seasonal Distribution of Fecal Coliform at Stations 10, 10A, and 10B. Error Bars Denote Standard Deviations.

3.4 TMDL Loading Cap
This section presents the TMDL for the median and 90th percentile conditions for Oyster Creek.
The TMDLs for the restricted shellfish harvesting area are:

For median criterion:
The fecal coliform TMDL = 4.1×1010 Counts/Day For 90th percentile criterion:
The fecal coliform TMDL = 2.3×1011 Counts/Day
The greater reduction required when comparing the median and the 90th percentile results was
used for the load allocation. These loads are based on an averaging period that is defined by the
water quality criteria (i.e., at least 30 samples).
3.5 Wasteload Allocation
As described in Section 2.2, NCDOT is the only NPDES-permitted discharge in the watershed
included in the WLA. The WLA for NCDOT land was isolated from other sources by
multiplying the total load and the ratio of NCDOT road right of way (ROW) area to total
watershed area. The NCDOT ROW area was calculated by multiplying the road length and width
of US highways, NC roads, and state route roads within the watershed. If the road is shared by
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Month
Co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
M
P
N
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
10 10A 10B
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
17
the Oyster Creek watershed and other watersheds, only the area within the Oyster Creek
watershed was used. The total NCDOT ROW is 0.154 km2, which is 0.796% of the total
watershed area. Model sensitivity test shows that there is no significant difference in predicted bacterial concentration by eliminating the loading from NCDOT showing that NCDOT is not a
significant contributor to the impairment in this watershed. The resulting WLA for NC DOT is
1.6×109 counts per day. The WLA of each subwatershed was calculated as well with the same
method and can be found in Appendix E.
Table 3.5.1: WLA Summary

Pollutant NCDOT Existing
Permitted Load WLA Reduction
Fecal Coliform
(Counts per Day) N/A 1.6×109 0.0%

NC DOT will continue to implement measures required by the permit, including illicit discharge
detection and elimination, post-construction controls, management of hydraulic encroachments, sediment and erosion control, BMP retrofits, stormwater pollution prevention for industrial
facilities, research, and education programs.
3.6 Load Allocation

Based on the model results, the 90th percentile criterion requires the greatest reduction for the restricted shellfish harvesting areas in Oyster Creek. The load reduction needed to meet the
shellfish criterion is 92.6%. The reduction established based on the 90th percentile criterion
ensures that the water body will meet water quality standards 90% of the time. Management
strategies to meet the proposed reduction will be implemented on a daily basis, to achieve the control of fecal loads for all but the most extreme 10% of events (i.e. ensure that 90% of the concentrations are at or below the 90th percentile criterion). These extreme events are often
caused due to hydrologic variability, storm water management, change of land use practices, and
change of wildlife activities during the previous ten year period. Source reductions can be
assigned by first managing controllable sources (human, livestock, and pets, which contribute 33%
of the total existing loads according to Table 2.1.1) and then determining if the TMDL could be achieved. Although wildlife is the main source of fecal colifrom according to BST analysis
(Table 2.1.1), the reduction of wildlife as a feasible strategy for fecal coliform reduction is not
recommended, as it is hard to justify or implement.

3.7 Margin of Safety

A Margin of Safety (MOS) is required as part of a TMDL in recognition of many uncertainties in
the understanding and simulation of water quality in natural systems. For example, knowledge is
incomplete regarding the exact nature and magnitude of pollutant loads from various sources and the specific impacts of those pollutants on the chemical and biological quality of complex, natural water bodies. The MOS is intended to account for such uncertainties in a manner that is
conservative from the standpoint of environmental protection.
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
18
For TMDL development, the MOS needs to be incorporated to account for uncertainty due to
model parameter selection. In the TMDL calculation of this study, an explicit MOS of 10% is
used. Though Bayesian estimation also provides uncertainty for the point estimation of loading (e.g., 95% credible intervals), it is the uncertainty of loading alone. The uncertainties associated with other factors, such as bacteria decay, flow, measurement of geometry parameters, can all be
reflected qualitatively by this 10% MOS as a more conservative estimation.
3.8 Summary of Total Maximum Daily Loads
As described in Section 2.1.2, NCDOT is the only NPDES-permitted discharge in the watershed included in the WLA. The TMDLs calculated based on 10 years of data are summarized as
follows:

Table 3.7.1 The Fecal Coliform TMDL (counts per day)

Area TMDL= LA+ WLA+ FA+ MOS
Oyster Creek restricted
shellfish harvesting area 2.3×1011 2.1×1011 1.6×109 NA 2.3×1010

Where:
TMDL = Total Maximum Daily Load
LA = Load Allocation (Nonpoint Source) WLA = Waste Load Allocation (Point Source) FA = Future Allocation
MOS=Margin of Safety

4.0 TMDL Implementation Plan
The TMDL analysis was performed using the best data available to specify the fecal coliform
reductions necessary to achieve water quality criteria. The intent of meeting the criteria is to
support the designated use classifications in the watershed. An implementation plan is not
included in this TMDL. The involvement of local governments and agencies will be needed in
order to develop an implementation plan. Potential funding sources for implementation include Section 319 funds, and 205(j) funds.

The appropriate measures to reduce pollution levels in the impaired area include, where
appropriate, the use of better treatment technology or installation of best management practices (BMPs). In general, NCDENR recommends for the required reductions to be implemented in an iterative process that first addresses those sources with the largest impact on water quality, with
consideration given to ease of implementation and cost. The iterative implementation of BMPs in
the watershed has several benefits: tracking of water quality improvements following BMP
implementation through follow-up stream monitoring; providing a mechanism for developing
public support through periodic updates on BMP implementation; and helping to ensure that the most cost-effective practices are implemented first.

Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
19
The preliminary source assessment suggests wildlife may be the major source of fecal coliform
loading to Oyster Creek. Therefore, reductions for fecal coliforms should first be sought through
installation and maintenance of BMPs to tackle loads from the primary sources. It is expected that in some waters for which TMDLs will be developed, the bacteria source analysis will indicate that after controls are in place for all anthropogenic sources, the waterbody does not
meet water quality standards. However, neither the State of North Carolina nor EPA is proposing
the elimination of wildlife to allow for the attainment of water quality standards. This is
considered to be an impracticable and undesirable action. While managing the overpopulation of
wildlife remains an option for State and local stakeholders, the reduction of wildlife or changing a natural background condition is not the intended goal of a TMDL.

5.0 Stream monitoring

The Shellfish Sanitation Section of DEH will continue to monitor shellfish waters and classify harvesting areas and close them if levels of fecal coliform indicate that harvesting shellfish from
those waters could cause a public health risk. Those waters meeting shellfish water quality
standards may be reclassified as open to harvesting and can serve to track the effectiveness of
TMDL implementation and water quality improvements. Additional monitoring will also include microbial source tracking that will be used to confirm the source estimates presented in this document. In the future, data needed for TMDL development should include samples collected
immediately after a rainfall event causing closure of waterbodies.

6.0 Future Efforts
Potential mechanisms for reduction of fecal coliform include implementation of appropriate
BMPs, local regulations or ordinances related to zoning, land use, or storm water runoff controls.
Local governments can provide funding assistance through general revenues, bond issuance,
special taxes, utility fees, and impact fees. Additional mechanisms may employ concurrent
education and outreach, training, technology transfer, and technical assistance with incentive-based pollutant management measures. The state and local governments will take the primary
lead in the TMDL implementation. Microbial source tracking can be used to confirm the source
estimates presented in this document and target major fecal coliform sources for reduction. DWQ
will work with NCDEH Shellfish Sanitation section to prioritize shellfish areas and to collect additional data immediately after a rainfall event causing closure of waterbodies.
7.0 Public Participation

A draft of the TMDL was publicly noticed through various means. The TMDL was public noticed on the NC Modeling and TMDL website and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality TMDL list-serve on March 14, 2011. The TMDL was also public noticed on April 15,
2011 through the North Carolina Water Resources Research Institute email list-serve. Copies of
the public notices are included in Appendix C. Finally, the TMDL was available on DWQ’s
website (http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/mtu) during the comment period. The public
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
20
comment period lasted until April 14, 2011. DWQ received no public comment on the Oyster
Creek Fecal Colifom TMDL.

8.0 Further Information

Further information concerning North Carolina’s TMDL program can be found on the Internet at
the Division of Water Quality website: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/mtu/tmdl.
Technical questions regarding this TMDL should be directed to the following members of the DWQ Modeling/TMDL Unit:

Adugna Kebede, Modeler
email: [e-mail]
Kathy Stecker email: [e-mail]

Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
21
References

Huang, J.J., McBean, E.A. 2007. Using Bayesian statistics to estimate the coefficients of a two-component second-order chlorine bulk decay model for a water distribution system. Water Research. 41: 287-294.

Lin, J., Xu, H., Cudaback, C., Wang, D. 2008. Inter-annual variability of hypoxic conditions in a
shallow estuary. Journal of Marine Systems. 73:169-184.
Mancini, J.L. 1978. Numerical Estimates of Coliform Mortality Rates Under Various Conditions.
Journal of Water Pollution Control Federation. 50: 2477-2484.

NCAC. 2003. NC Administration Code. NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 2007. Total Maximum
Daily Loads for Fecal Coliform for Jarrett Bay and Its Embayment, North Carolina. NC DNR,
Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC.

NCDENR. 2007. North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2006 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report). NCDENR, Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC.

NCDENR. 2009. Total Maximum Daily Loads for Fecal Coliform for Embayments in Southeast
White Oak River, North Carolina. NCDNR, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, NC. NCDENR. 2009. Report of Sanitary Survey, Areas G-3 and G-4, Swanquarter and Wysocking
Bay Areas, August 2003 through December 2008. NCDENR.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2010. Tides Online. Website:
http://tidesonline.nos.noaa.gov/
Shen, J., Jia, J., Sisson, M. 2006. Inverse estimation of nonpoint sources of fecal coliform
for establishing allowable load for Wye River, Maryland. Water Research. 40: 3333-3342.
Shen, J., Zhao, Y. 2009. A Bayesian Approach for Estimating Bacterial Nonpoint Source
Loading in an Estuary with Limited Observations. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A. 44:1574-1584.
Spiegelhalter, D., Thomas, A., Best, N., Lunn, D. 2003. WinBUGS User Manual, Version 1.4.
http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/bugs.
Thomann, R.V., Mueller, J.A. 1987. Principles of Surface Water Quality Modeling and Control.
Harper and Row, Publishers, NY. 644 pp.

US Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2006. State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) Database.

Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
22
US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1991. Guidance for Water Quality-Based
Decisions: The TMDL Process. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Assessment and
Watershed Protection Division, Washington, DC. USEPA. 1998. Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) Program. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

USEPA. 2000. Revisions to the Water Quality Planning and Management Regulation and
Revisions to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program in Support of Revisions to the Water Quality Planning and management Regulation; Final Rule. Fed. Reg.
65:43586-43670.

Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ). 2008. Fecal Coliform Total Maximum Daily Load Development for Holdens Creek, Sandy Bottom Branch, and Unnamed Tributary to Sandy Bottom Branch, Accomack County, Virginia. Richmond, VA.

Wiggins, B.A. 1996. Discriminant Analysis of Antibiotic Resistance Patterns in Fecal
Streptococci, a Method to Differentiate Human and Animal Sources of Fecal Pollution in Natural
Waters. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 62:3997-4002.

Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
A1
Appendix A. Observation Time Series Plots and Water Quality Data

For the fecal coliform observation data of NCDEH from 2000 to 2010 (if available), the time series plots together with the median and 90th percentile standards are shown in Figures A1-A3. The data from both NCDEH and NCSU are listed in Table A1.

Figure A1: Time Series Plots and Water Quality Standards of Fecal Coliform Observations
at Station 10

Figure A2: Time Series Plots and Water Quality Standards of Fecal Coliform Observations at Station 10A

1
10
100
6/10/03 6/9/04 6/9/05 6/9/06 6/9/07 6/8/08 6/8/09
Date
Fe
c
a
l

C
o
l
i
f
o
r
m

(
M
P
N
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
Observations 14 MPN/100ml 43 MPN/100ml
1
10
100
1000
3/1/00 3/1/02 2/29/04 2/28/06 2/28/08 2/27/10
Date
Fe
c
a
l

C
o
l
i
f
o
r
m

(
M
P
N
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
Observations 14 MPN/100ml 43 MPN/100ml
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
A2

Figure A3: Time Series Plots and Water Quality Standards of Fecal Coliform Observations at Station 10B

Table A1: List of Fecal Coliform Observations at Stations 10, 10A, and 10B (Bold and italic fonts denote observations from NCSU, all others from NCDEH)

Date 10 10A 10B Date 10 10A 10B
3/1/00 2.0 17.0 6/13/06 2 49 350
4/17/00 23.0 130.0 7/26/06 2 4.5 11
6/5/00 33.0 46.0 9/25/06 4.5 2 4.5
9/20/00 350.0 920.0 11/1/06 2 1.7 7.8
11/1/00 2.0 6.8 2/27/07 1.7 7.8 1.7
12/5/00 49.0 130.0 3/26/07 2 1.7 1.7
2/21/01 4.5 21.0 6/14/07 1.7 2 1.7
4/30/01 2.0 1.7 8/27/07 1.7 1.7 7.8
7/9/01 1.7 33.0 11/14/07 1.7 1.7 7.8
9/4/01 1.7 1.7 12/8/07 1.7 1.7 1.7
10/24/01 4.5 7.8 4/2/08 4.5 2 23
1/23/02 7.8 6.1 6/2/08 1.7 1.7 79
5/16/02 1.7 2.0 8/21/08 1.7 1.7 1.7
7/16/02 1.7 2.0 9/23/08 1.7 1.7 7.8
9/18/02 4.0 33.0 11/12/08 1.7 2 1.7
10/23/02 7.8 4.5 11/22/08 12.4 23.0 59.0
12/2/02 2.0 1.7 12/3/08 1.7 2 49
3/27/03 7.8 33.0 12/20/08 4.8 14.7 34.8
4/30/03 13.0 23.0 2/25/09 1.7 1.7 1.7
6/10/03 7.8 33.0 1.7 2/27/09 5.5 14.3 174.2
1
10
100
1000
3/1/00 3/1/02 2/29/04 2/28/06 2/28/08 2/27/10
Date
Fe
c
a
l

C
o
l
i
f
o
r
m

(
M
P
N
/
1
0
0
m
l
)
Observations 14 MPN/100ml 43 MPN/100ml
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
A3
8/18/03 2.0 110.0 540.0 4/28/09 1.7 1.7 1.7
10/21/03 1.7 1.7 4.0 5/8/09 3.1 3.1 6.3
12/9/03 2.0 4.5 1.7 6/20/09 29.2 71.6 94.9
2/2/04 1.7 2.0 1.7 7/8/09 1.7 1.7 1.7
4/27/04 1.7 2.0 14.0 7/10/09 295.5 663.5 600.4
10/25/04 7.8 2.0 17.0 8/10/09 1.7 1.7 2.0
11/22/04 2.0 11.0 17.0 8/18/09 203.8 835.5 1176.5
5/18/05 1.7 4.5 23 9/24/09 209.5 329.9 302.6
6/15/05 1.7 1.7 13 9/30/09 1.7 4.5 1.7
7/26/05 1.7 11 23 10/16/09 258.2 329.6 624.6
8/30/05 1.7 2 7.8 10/27/09 13.0 22.0 170.0
10/27/05 4.5 49 33 11/23/09 36.2 55.7 50.6
12/13/05 1.7 1.7 13 12/22/09 26.4 53.4 50.0
2/8/06 1.7 1.7 2 1/11/10 25.3 25.2 54.5
3/22/06 1.7 2 17 3/8/10 7.8 2.0 2.0
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
B1
Appendix B. Nonpoint Source Information

From August 2003 to December 2008, a sanitary survey was conducted in the G-3 and G-4 oyster growing area of North Carolina, including the restricted shellfish harvesting area of Oyster Creek. The pollution points found in Oyster Creek drainage area are listed in Table B1. Figures
B1-B3 shows the locations of these pollutions points.
Table B1: Pollution Points in the Drainage Area of Oyster Creek Restricted Shellfish Harvesting Area

Type Name Note
Animals
Swan Acre Hog Farm
Design capacity: 300 hogs;
no longer in operation
(closed in 2005)
Duck Impoundment --
Tiny Oak Hog Farm (became Spencer
Heritage Farms in 1993)
Design capacity: 350 hogs; no longer in operation
(closed in 2003)
Area of Concern Waste Collection Center
Dumpsters, recycling bins,
and a large pile of used
appliances and organic waste
Dockage Oyster Creek Marina --

Figure B1: The Location of the Animal Pollution Points in Oyster Creek Watershed. Numbers: 15-Swan Acre Hog Farm; 20-Duck Impoundment; 21-Tiny Oak Hog Farm. (NCDENR, 2009)
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
B2

Figure B2: The Location of the Areas of Concern Pollution Point in Oyster Creek Watershed. Number: 19-Waste Collection Center (NCDENR, 2009)

Figure B3: The Location of the Dockage Pollution Points in Oyster Creek Watershed. Number: 18-Oyster Creek Marina (NCDENR, 2009)
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
B3
Antibiotic Resistance Analysis (ARA)

Antibiotic resistance analysis (ARA) was performed on 5,088 host-origin E. coli isolates and 10,368 E. coli isolates from 216 surface water samples. The host origin isolates were collected from the watershed and grouped into four categories, human (sewage pump out trucks, septic
tanks), livestock (cattle, swine, horse), pets (cats, dogs) and wildlife (deer, various waterfowl).
Ten to twenty isolates were collected from each fecal sample. Twenty-eight concentrations of
seven antibiotics were used to determine antibiotic resistance patterns (ARPs) of the isolates. The
antibiotic and concentrations were selected based on previous ARA studies and their common use in human and veterinary medicine (Mathew et al., 1998). An isolate was considered to be
resistant to a given concentration of antibiotic if growth comparable to the control plate (no
antibiotic) was observed. Observations were converted to binary data; with growth on a given
antibiotic concentration represented “1” and “0” represented no growth. Any isolates which failed to grow on the control plates were excluded from the analysis. The details of the ARA procedure have been described and are the same as that used in the method comparison studies
Graves et al., 2002; Harwood et al., 2003; Stoeckel et al., 2004).

Host-origin Library
Data were analyzed with SAS-JMP statistical software (v. 5.0.1, SAS Inst., Cary, NC). ARA
patterns were evaluated by discriminant analysis (DA, with covariance pooled and not pooled)
and cluster analysis (to produce a dendrogram for visualizing the degree of overlap). Clustering
analysis is the technique of grouping data together that share similar values across a number of variables. The distance graph feature associated with cluster analysis clustered the isolates as points and demonstrated whether source patterns were clustered about a central location or if
there were multiple clusters around different locations. The host-origin library was developed
and clonal isolates (duplicate ARPs) were identified and removed. Classification ties were
assigned a source depending on where the isolate was observed in dendrograms (Ritter et al.,
2003). Additional efforts to develop a stringent host origin library and to obtain reliable source identification of unknown source isolates involved the application of an 80% threshold criterion
for correct classification to the library. All isolates below the 80% correct classification certainty
(based on posterior probabilities from discriminant analysis) were excluded from the library. The
second approach was to calculate the average frequency of misclassification (AFM) for each source category, and use this average to develop a minimum detectable percentage (MDP) to make decisions about the significance of hosts contributing minor sources E. coli in water
samples

Calculation of ARCC, AFM and MDP
The average rate of correct classification (ARCC) was calculated by adding the percentage of
isolates correctly classified from each source category and dividing by the total number of source
categories. The average frequency of misclassification (AFM) was calculated by adding the
percentage of isolates incorrectly classified from each source category and dividing by the total number of source categories (Harwood et al., 2000; Ritter et al., 2003).
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
B4
The AFM can be used to estimate the likelihood that an isolate that is not from category X will in
fact be classified into category X, and therefore can provide the basis for a significance cut-off
(minimum detectable percentage, MDP) when predicting the source of isolates from water samples or unknown sources (Whitlock et al., 2002; Wiggins et al., 2003).
For example, if the AFM of the isolates in an ARA library with nine sources were misclassified
by 0.68 ± 0.92 SD. Given that the library had nine source categories, nine multiplied by the
standard deviation (0.92) added to the AFM of 0.68% produces a 9% MDP. With nine source
categories, the probability of an isolate being assigned to any category by chance alone was 11%. However, 9% should be taken as a more stringent lower limit for considering any one source
category to be a significant contributor of fecal pollution (Harwood et al., 2003). Therefore, for
example, wildlife would be considered a significant contributor to the indicator bacteria in a
water sample only if 9% or more of the isolates were classified into the ‘bird’ source category. Ultimately, when classifying isolates of unknown origin (water samples), source categories identified at percentages below the MDP were considered a negligible contributing source.

Cross-validation analysis via the hold-out method was used to determine the representativeness
of the library. An individual isolate was removed from the library one at a time. Then, the
removed isolate was classified based on the library comprised of the remaining isolates, and the ARCC for these removed isolates was calculated (Wiggins et al., 2003).

The removal of clonal isolates, those isolates with duplicate ARPs resulted in a loss of 45-85%
of isolates from the individual source categories, reducing the total number of E. coli 5,088 (5,088) to 2,130 isolates. The 2,130 isolates with unique ARPs were subjected to discriminant analysis, producing an average rate of correct classification (ARCC) of 82%, with individual
source correct classification (CC) rates ranging from 70 -100%. The application of an 80%
correct classification certainty threshold resulted in a loss of up to 45% of isolates from the
individual source categories. The refined library of 1,065 isolates had an ARCC of 90%, with
individual source CC rates ranging from 78-96%. With four source categories, the probability of an isolate being assigned to any category by chance alone was 25%. The AFM (3.0 ± 2.8) for the
library was used to calculate the MDP of 14.2% for the study site and represented a stringent
lower limit for considering any one source category to be a significant contributor of fecal
pollution (Harwood et al., 2000) (Table B2).

The library composed of 1,065 unique ARPs to which an 80% correct classification threshold criterion was applied, was subjected to cross-validation analysis by the hold-out method. The cross -validation ARCCs for human (92%), livestock (86%), pets (72) and wildlife (87%) were
only 4-9% lower than the CC rates for these categories listed in table B2.

A representative known source library composed of unique antibiotic resistance patterns (ARP) among the host source categories with reliable correct classification (CC) rates is important for
unknown source identification. The high rate of correct classification obtained with our database
(90%) may be attributed to the removal of clonal isolates, those isolates with identical antibiotic
resistance patterns (ARPs) and the application of an 80% correct classification threshold criterion
to the non-clonal isolates. Furthermore, the cross validation testing indicated the library was
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
B5
representative with a 9% or less difference in the ARCC of the validation analysis and the CC
rates of the individual sources in the library.

Table B2: Discriminant analysis of unique antibiotic resistance patterns (ARPs) used to classify E. coli from four groups of known host sources into source categories
Categories into which isolates from the ARA library were
classified

Source of
Isolates
Human Livestock Pets Wildlife Total
CC* MC† CC MC CC MC CC MC (ni)
Human 220 0 26 4 230
Livestock 0 249 10 5 270
Pets 10 3 195 2 250
Wildlife 0 18 19 239 250
Total 220 10 249 27 195 55 239 11
Total isolates(n) 1,065
% n CC=(100CC)/(ni) 96 92 78 96 90 ‡
%n MC= (100)MC/(n-ni) 1 3 7 1
* Number of isolates correctly classified (CC) by discriminant analysis; † Number of isolates misclassified (MC) by discriminant analysis; ‡ Average rate of correct classification (ARCC);
n= Total isolates ; ni= Total isolates in an individual source category

Water samples were most often collected during ebb tide, the period between high tide and low
tide during which water flows away from the shore. Collection during this time provided an opportunity to more accurately identify the sources of fecal pollution entering Oyster Creek and may have also contributed to the overall higher fecal indicator counts than those observed by
NCDEH. According to the ARA method, wildlife (54-96%) represented the predominant host
source of E. coli isolates in Oyster Creek at all sampling locations (Table B3). Several sampling
locations were impacted by human and pet hosts as indicated by source identifications above the 14.2% MDP (Table B3). Isolates identified as livestock at levels above the 14.2% ARA MDP
were detected at four locations representing an average of 14-17% of isolates.

Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
B6

Table B3: Summary of the Antibiotic Resistance Analysis Results
Station Number of
Water
Samples
E. coli isolates
evaluated by ARA
(48 isolates/water sample)
Mean Percentage of E. coli isolates from
Oyster Creek classified as:
Human Livestock Pets Wildlife
10 12 576 0 2 3 95
10A 12 576 6 2 2 90
10B 12 576 17 7 17 59
OC-1A 10 480 12 9 25 54
OC-1B 10 480 12 11 22 55
OC-2 11 528 14 12 20 54
OC-3 10 480 15 11 14 60
OC-4 11 528 17 10 13 60
OC-5 10 480 12 12 21 55
OC-6 10 480 15 14 13 58
OC-7 10 480 17 13 16 54
OC-8 11 528 10 14 17 59
OC-9 10 480 10 10 12 68
OC-10 10 480 17 8 11 64
OC-11 10 480 20 5 18 57
OC-12 10 480 17 5 10 68
OC-13 10 480 18 6 9 67
OC-14 6 288 8 11 7 74
OC-15 8 384 12 17 14 57
OC-16 8 384 4 15 12 69
OC-17 9 432 4 4 0 92
OC-18 6 288 2 2 0 96
Total 216 10,368
Average 12 ± 6 9 ± 4 13 ± 7 67 ± 14

Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
B7
Repetitive Element Polymerase Chain Reaction (Rep-PCR)

The 1,065 isolates used in the ARA library were subjected to rep-PCR as a means for cross validation of the ARA results. The rep-PCR procedure (Lupski and Weinstock, 1992; Veralovic et al., 1991) was performed using a modified method of Rademaker and DeBruijn (1997) for E.
coli. Observations were converted to binary data; with the presence of a molecular band
fragment at given size represented by “1” and “0” represented the absence of the bands. The rep-
PCR data were analyzed in the same manner as described under ARA.
The removal of clonal isolates, those isolates with duplicate molecular band fragment patterns
resulted in a loss of 25-57% of isolates from the individual source categories, reducing the total
number of E. coli (1,065) to 639 isolates. The 639 isolates with unique molecular banding
patterns were subjected to discriminant analysis, producing an average rate of correct classification (ARCC) of 79%. The application of an 80% correct classification certainty threshold resulted in a loss of up to 37% of isolates from the individual source categories. The
refined library of 565 isolates had an ARCC of 87%, with individual source CC rates ranging
from 82-92%. With four source categories, the probability of an isolate being assigned to any
category by chance alone was 25%. The AFM (4.5± 2.0) for the library was used to calculate the
MDP of 12.5% for the study site and represented a stringent lower limit for considering any one source category to be a significant contributor of fecal pollution (Harwood et al., 2000). (Table
B4).

The library composed of 565 unique molecular banding patterns to which an 80% correct classification threshold criterion was applied, was subjected to cross-validation analysis by the hold-out method. The cross -validation ARCCs for human (83%), livestock (79%), pets (86) and
wildlife (81%) were 2-8% lower than the CC rates for these categories listed in table B4.

Similar to the ARA library, the high rate of CC obtained with our database (87%) may be
attributed to the removal of clonal isolates, those isolates with identical antibiotic resistance patterns (ARPs) and the application of an 80% correct classification threshold criterion to the
non-clonal isolates. Furthermore, the cross validation testing indicated the library was
representative with a 8% or less difference in the ARCC of the validation analysis and the CC
rates of the individual sources in the library.
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
B8
Table B4: Discriminant analysis of unique molecular rep-PCR banding patterns used to classify E. coli from four groups of known host sources into source categories
Categories into which isolates from the rep-PCR library were classified
Source of Isolates Human Livestock Pets Wildlife Total
CC* MC† CC MC CC MC CC MC (ni)
Human 100 0 6 2 110
Livestock 2 108 5 7 132
Pets 5 4 116 5 140
Wildlife 3 20 13 169 183
Total 100 10 108 24 116 24 169 14
Total
isolates(n)
565
% n CC=(100CC)/(ni) 91 82 83 92 87 ‡
%n MC=
(100)MC/(n-ni)
3 6 6 4
* Number of isolates correctly classified (CC) by discriminant analysis; † Number of isolates misclassified (MC) by discriminant analysis; ‡ Average rate of correct classification (ARCC);
n= Total isolates ; ni= Total isolates in an individual source category
A subset of E. coli isolates (1,728) from the surface waters of Oyster Creek were evaluated by
rep-PCR. Similar to the ARA method, rep-PCR implicated wildlife (57-100%) as the
predominant host source contributor of E. coli isolates in Oyster Creek at all sampling locations
(Table B5.) More than eight sampling stations were impacted by human and pet sources as indicated by source identifications above the rep-PCR 12.5% MDP (Table B5). The livestock contribution was below the rep-PCR 12.5% MDP at all sampling stations.

Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
B9
Table B5: Summary of Rep-PCR Validation of Antibiotic Resistance Analysis Results
Station
Number of Water Samples
E. coli isolates
evaluated by ARA (8 isolates/water sample)
Mean Percentage of E. coli isolates from
Oyster Creek classified as:
Human Livestock Pets Wildlife
10 12 96 0 0 0 100
10A 12 96 5 0 0 95
10B 12 96 10 5 10 75
OC-1A 10 80 10 5 25 60
OC-1B 10 80 10 8 22 60
OC-2 11 88 16 8 14 62
OC-3 10 80 10 11 19 60
OC-4 11 88 12 10 18 60
OC-5 10 80 9 8 18 65
OC-6 10 80 15 11 11 63
OC-7 10 80 16 9 15 60
OC-8 11 88 8 11 22 59
OC-9 10 80 13 10 20 57
OC-10 10 80 20 4 8 68
OC-11 10 80 19 5 16 60
OC-12 10 80 15 2 12 71
OC-13 10 80 19 4 18 59
OC-14 6 48 10 3 7 80
OC-15 8 64 8 6 11 75
OC-16 8 64 0 0 30 70
OC-17 9 72 0 0 0 100
OC-18 6 48 0 0 0 100
Total 216 1,728
Average 10 ± 6 5 ± 4 13 ± 9 71 ± 15

Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
B10
Optical Brighteners (OBs)

Optical brighteners (OBs) were detected with a field fluorometer (Model 10-AU-005, Turner Designs, Sunnyvale, California) set to detect long wavelength OBs (excitation wavelength, 360 nm; emission wavelength, 410-600 nm) as described by the manufacturer. Water samples were
refrigerated in the dark at 4°C until processed. The fluorometer was zeroed with distilled water
(negative control) and 100 mg L-1 of commercially available optical brightener Tinopl CBS-X
(Ciba Specialty Chemicals) provided a 100 fluorometric units (positive control) (Hagedorn et al.
2003; Hagedorn et al. 2005). Each water sample was analyzed in the discrete mode at room temperature (20-25°C) and was read within 30 s to avoid heating effects by the UV lamp in the
fluorometer. Any site with a fluorometric value ≥100 suggested samples were positive for
optical brighteners. Samples were exposed to UV light for 4 hours and a percentage decrease in
fluorometric value ≥ 30% confirmed the presence of optical brighteners (Hartel et al. 2007a, 2007b).
The approach to evaluating OBs can be described as four possible contamination scenarios: 1)
high concentrations of OBs and high enterococci counts, which suggests a malfunctioning septic
drainfield or leaking sewer pipe, 2) high concentrations of OBs and low enterococci counts,
which suggests gray water in the storm water system, 3) low concentrations of OBs and high enterococci counts, which suggests other warm-blooded animals or a human source from
something like an outhouse, and 4) low concentrations of OBs and low enterococci counts,
which suggests no source of fecal contamination (Hartel et al. 2007a, 2007b).
The OB results from this study suggest a human or animal source of pollution throughout the study area (Table B6). Fifteen sampling stations had an average OB decline ≥ 30%. Eight of the
fifteen sampling stations positive for optical brighteners also had library dependent results
implicating a human source above the 14.2% ARA MDP and 12.5% Rep-PCR MDP (Table B6).

Human specific Bacteroides HF183 marker
Water samples collected during the last three sampling dates were evaluated for the presence of
the human specific Bacteroides HF183 marker. PCR was carried out using primers designed to
amplify the human-specific marker (HF183F forward: 5’-ATC ATG AGT TCA CAT GTC CG-3’, BAC 708R general reverse: 5’-CAA TCG GAG TTC TTC GTG-3’) and the general marker (BAC32F AAC GCT AGC TAC AGG CTT; BAC 708R general reverse: 5’-CAA TCG GAG
TTC TTC GTG-3’) (Bernhard et al. 2003). PCR reactions were performed in a 50 μL reaction
mixture containing 1 × PCR buffer, 1.5 mM MgCl2, 200 μM of each of the four
deoxyribonucleotides, 0.3 μM of each primer, 2.5 U of HotStarTaq DNA polymerase, and 5 μL
of template DNA. Amplification was performed with an initial step at 95oC for 15 minutes (to activate Taq polymerase), followed by 30 cycles of 94oC for 1 min, 63oC for 1 min, and 72oC for
5 min. PCR reactions (including a positive and negative control) were electrophoresed on 1%
agarose gels stained with ethidium bromide and visualized under UV light to assess production
of PCR products of the correct size.
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
B11
Fifteen of the 22 sampling locations were positive for the HS-HF183 marker. Eight of the fifteen
positive for HS-HF183 marker also had library dependent results implicating a human source
above the 14.2% ARA MDP and 12.5% Rep-PCR MDP (Table B6). Summary of MST Data from Stations used to develop the TMDL.

An evaluation of source contributions at stations 10, 10A and 10B revealed a significantly
greater human (17.3%), livestock (6.8%) and pet (16.8%) contribution at station 10B than
stations 10 and 10A (Tukey-Kramer HSD, p ≤ 0.05). Station 10B was also positive for OBs and the HS-HF183 molecular marker. The wildlife (95.4%) contribution at station 10 was
significantly greater than stations 10A (89.6) and 10B (59.3%). A human contribution was not
detected at station 10. When the data were observed collectively, no significant patterns of
seasonal variation in host source contributions from livestock and pets were observed. However, the human contribution (14.0%) in August 2009 was significantly greater than the human contribution (3%) in December 2008. There were no statistical differences in the human
contributions for the remaining collection times. The wildlife (89.4%) contribution in December
2008, was not statistically different from the wildlife contributions in November 2008, October
2009, and January 2010 (66.8-69%), but was statistically greater than the contributions during
the other sampling times (Tukey-Kramer HSD, p ≤ 0.05).

References associated with microbial source tracking found in Appendix B.
Bernhard, A.E., T. Goyard, M.T. Simonich and K.G. Field. 2003. Application of a rapid method for identifying fecal pollution sources in a multi-use estuary. Water Res. 37, 909-913.

Graves, A.K., Hagedorn, C., Teetor, A., Mahal, M., Booth, A.M., Reneau, Jr., R.B. 2002.
Antibiotic resistance profiles to determine sources of fecal contamination in a rural Virginia
watershed. J. Environ. Qual. 31, 1300-1308.
Hagedorn C., Reneau, R. B., Saluta, M., and Chapman, A. 2003. Impact of onsite wastewater
systems on water quality in coastal regions. Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program
Memorandum of Agreement 50312-01-13-PT. Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Virginia Department of Health, Richmond, Virginia.
Hagedorn, C., Saluta, M., Hassall, A. and Dickerson, J. 2005. Fluorometric detection of optical
brighteners as an indicator of human sources of water pollution: Development as a source
tracking methodology. Environ. Detect. News 2, 1–13.
Hartel, P. G., Hagedorn, C., McDonald, J. L., Fisher, J. A., Saluta, M. A., Dickerson Jr, J. W., et
al. 2007a. Exposing water samples to ultraviolet light improves fluorometry for detecting human
fecal contamination. Water Res 41, 3629–3642.
Hartel P. G., McDonald J. L., Gentit L. C. et al. 2007b. Improving fluorometry as a source tracking method to detect human fecal contamination. Estuaries Coasts 30, 551–61.

Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
B12
Harwood, V.J., Whitlock, J., Withington, V. 2000. Classification of antibiotic resistance
patterns of indicator bacteria by discriminant analysis: Use in predicting the source of fecal
contamination in subtropical waters. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2000, 66,3698-3704. Harwood, V.J., Wiggins, B., Hagedorn, C., Ellender, R.D., Gooch, J., Kern, J., Samadpour, M.,
Chapman, A., Robinson, B.J., Thompson, B.C. 2003. Phenotypic library-based microbial
source tracking methods: efficacy in the California collaborative study. J Water Health. 1, 153–
166.
Lupski, J. R. and G. M. Weinstock. 1992. Short, interspersed repetitive DNA sequences in
prokaryotic genomes. J. Bacteriol. 174:4525-4529.

Maryland Department of the Environment 2004. Total Maximum Daily Loads of Fecal Coliform for Restricted Shellfish Harvesting Areas in the Wicomico River Watershed Basin (Charleston Creek and Chaptico Bay) in Charles and St. Mary's Counties, Maryland.

Mathew, A.G., Upchurch, W.G., Chattin, S.E. 1998. Incidence of antibiotic resistance in fecal
Eschericia coli isolated from commercial swine farms. J. Animal. Sci. 76, 429-434.
Rademaker, J. L. W. & de Bruijn, F. J. 1997. Characterization and classification of microbes by
rep-PCR genomic fingerprinting and computer assisted pattern analysis. In DNA Markers:
Protocols, Applications and Overviews, pp. 151±171. Edited by G. Caetano-Anolles & P. M.
Gresshoff. New York: John Wiley. Ritter, K.J., Carruthers, E., Carson, C.A., Ellender, R.D., Harwood, V.J., Kingsley, K.,
Nakatsu, C., Sadowsky, M., Shear, B., West, B., Whitlock, J.E., Wiggins, B.A., Wilbur, J.D.
2003.Assessment of statistical methods used in library-based approaches to microbial source
tracking. J Water Health 1, 209–223.
Stoeckel, D.M., Mathes, M.V., Hyer, K.E., Hagedorn, C., Kator, H., Lukasik, J., O’Brien, T.L.,
Fenger, T.W., Samadpour, M., Strickler, K.M., Wiggins, B.A. 2004. Comparison of seven
protocols to identify fecal contamination sources using E. coli. Environ. Sci. Technol. 38, 6109–
6117. Versalovic, J., T. Koeuth, and J. Lupski. 1991. Distribution of repetitive DNA sequences in
eubacteria and application to fingerprinting of bacterial genomes. Nucleic Acids Res. 19:6823-
6831.
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
B13

Table B6: Summary of Multiple Microbial Source Tracking Results

Station
Average Enterococci densities
mpn/100mL
Average OB (µg/L) value before UV
exposure
Average OB (µg/L) value after UV
exposure
Average OB Decline
(%)
OB Host Source Suggestion
(%) human by ARA
(%) human by rep-PCR
HF183 marker (+)
10 268.1 65.6 58.0 12 Animal 0 0 No
10A 500.7 65.7 59.2 10 Animal 6 5 No
10B 672.4 106.0 71.0 33 Human 17 10 Yes
OC1A 798.3 149.0 111.0 25 Animal 12 10 Yes
OC1B 765.2 153.0 107.0 30 Human 12 10 Yes
OC2 842.2 147.0 98.6 33 Human 14 16 Yes
OC3 607.2 143.0 96.8 32 Human 15 10 Yes
OC4 530.4 150.0 98.1 34 Human 17 12 Yes
OC5 635.2 147.0 95.2 35 Human 12 9 Yes
OC6 597.5 147.0 96.6 34 Human 15 15 Yes
OC7 522.3 142.0 86.7 39 Human 17 16 Yes
OC8 870.7 136.0 87.7 35 Human 10 8 Yes
OC9 540.8 140.0 89.3 36 Human 10 13 Yes
OC10 1472.3 106.0 73.3 30 Human 17 20 Yes
OC11 1480.0 117.0 76.5 34 Human 20 19 Yes
OC12 605.2 142.0 92.7 34 Human 17 15 Yes
OC13 256.9 116.0 73.7 36 Human 18 19 Yes
OC14 92.3 126.0 78.0 38 Animal 8 10 No
OC15 736.6 87.0 64.5 26 Animal 12 8 No
OC16 191.7 132.0 102.0 23 Animal 4 0 No
OC17 574.6 161.0 130.0 19 Animal 4 0 No
OC18 118.2 49.6 37.5 23 Animal 2 0 No
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
B14
Table B7: Percent Source contributions of E. coli based on Antibiotic Resistance Analysis Results for all samples.

Antibiotic Resistance Analysis: Raw Data
Sampling Month Station Human Livestock Wildlife Pets Sum
November 2008 10 0 3 96 1 100
December 2008 10 0 3 96 1 100
February 2009 10 0 1 95 4 100
May 2009 10 0 0 100 0 100
June 2009 10 0 1 93 6 100
July 2009 10 0 1 96 3 100
August 2009 10 0 5 90 5 100
September 2009 10 0 1 94 5 100
October 2009 10 0 2 97 1 100
November 2009 10 0 5 93 2 100
December 2009 10 0 4 96 0 100
January 2010 10 0 1 99 0 100
November 2008 10A 4 4 88 4 100
December 2008 10A 1 3 95 1 100
February 2009 10A 5 5 86 4 100
May 2009 10A 5 0 93 2 100
June 2009 10A 13 0 84 4 100
July 2009 10A 2 0 97 1 100
August 2009 10A 7 6 86 2 100
September 2009 10A 3 6 87 4 100
October 2009 10A 11 0 85 4 100
November 2009 10A 12 0 87 1 100
December 2009 10A 5 3 91 0 100
January 2010 10A 1 0 96 3 100
November 2008 10B 17 10 63 10 100
December 2008 10B 9 8 66 18 100
February 2009 10B 22 2 52 24 100
May 2009 10B 13 1 71 15 100
June 2009 10B 20 9 55 17 100
July 2009 10B 21 6 62 11 100
August 2009 10B 19 7 52 21 100
September 2009 10B 16 7 62 15 100
October 2009 10B 23 9 53 15 100
November 2009 10B 15 7 57 21 100
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
B15
Antibiotic Resistance Analysis: Raw Data
Sampling Month Station Human Livestock Wildlife Pets Sum
December 2009 10B 20 8 55 16 100
January 2010 10B 12 7 63 18 100
February 2009 OC1A 9 12 44 34 100
May 2009 OC1A 9 5 55 31 100
June 2009 OC1A 16 8 47 29 100
July 2009 OC1A 19 6 53 22 100
August 2009 OC1A 17 12 59 12 100
September 2009 OC1A 18 13 54 15 100
October 2009 OC1A 12 5 57 26 100
November 2009 OC1A 5 6 42 47 100
December 2009 OC1A 7 16 58 19 100
January 2010 OC1A 6 13 67 14 100
February 2009 OC1B 10 12 56 21 100
May 2009 OC1B 15 15 54 16 100
June 2009 OC1B 12 16 53 19 100
July 2009 OC1B 18 10 51 21 100
August 2009 OC1B 16 9 54 21 100
September 2009 OC1B 10 11 57 22 100
October 2009 OC1B 12 12 55 22 100
November 2009 OC1B 6 12 57 25 100
December 2009 OC1B 14 4 50 31 100
January 2010 OC1B 10 12 57 21 100
November 2008 OC2 15 11 50 24 100
February 2009 OC2 13 12 49 26 100
May 2009 OC2 16 15 56 13 100
June 2009 OC2 18 7 57 18 100
July 2009 OC2 17 11 60 22 110
August 2009 OC2 11 13 56 20 100
September 2009 OC2 15 15 52 8 90
October 2009 OC2 11 12 54 23 100
November 2009 OC2 18 13 53 16 100
December 2009 OC2 13 10 51 26 100
January 2010 OC2 12 10 59 19 100
February 2009 OC3 15 12 62 11 100
May 2009 OC3 16 8 67 9 100
June 2009 OC3 13 10 64 13 100
July 2009 OC3 11 23 60 6 100
August 2009 OC3 19 11 50 20 100
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
B16
Antibiotic Resistance Analysis: Raw Data
Sampling Month Station Human Livestock Wildlife Pets Sum
September 2009 OC3 12 12 61 15 100
October 2009 OC3 15 14 56 15 100
November 2009 OC3 18 10 67 5 100
December 2009 OC3 17 5 49 29 100
January 2010 OC3 16 6 66 12 100
November 2008 OC4 13 12 65 11 100
February 2009 OC4 21 8 61 10 100
May 2009 OC4 16 15 52 17 100
June 2009 OC4 18 11 55 16 100
July 2009 OC4 17 11 57 14 100
August 2009 OC4 22 9 59 10 100
September 2009 OC4 17 2 62 18 100
October 2009 OC4 18 13 55 14 100
November 2009 OC4 23 6 63 8 100
December 2009 OC4 12 8 64 16 100
January 2010 OC4 12 16 62 10 100
February 2009 OC5 14 10 55 21 100
May 2009 OC5 11 3 55 31 100
June 2009 OC5 13 15 45 27 100
July 2009 OC5 6 9 64 21 100
August 2009 OC5 9 12 62 17 100
September 2009 OC5 18 16 43 23 100
October 2009 OC5 16 15 53 16 100
November 2009 OC5 15 14 52 19 100
December 2009 OC5 6 10 60 24 100
January 2010 OC5 16 11 59 14 100
February 2009 OC6 11 9 66 15 100
May 2009 OC6 15 12 63 10 101
June 2009 OC6 16 18 51 15 100
July 2009 OC6 17 17 49 17 100
August 2009 OC6 17 19 59 4 100
September 2009 OC6 16 16 64 4 100
October 2009 OC6 15 15 47 23 100
November 2009 OC6 17 11 58 13 99
December 2009 OC6 12 13 60 15 100
January 2010 OC6 18 9 64 9 100
February 2009 OC7 16 14 58 12 100
May 2009 OC7 17 12 59 12 100
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
B17
Antibiotic Resistance Analysis: Raw Data
Sampling Month Station Human Livestock Wildlife Pets Sum
June 2009 OC7 25 14 48 13 100
July 2009 OC7 16 14 49 21 100
August 2009 OC7 22 7 59 11 99
September 2009 OC7 12 14 54 20 100
October 2009 OC7 12 14 51 23 100
November 2009 OC7 17 12 52 19 100
December 2009 OC7 16 17 55 12 100
January 2010 OC7 13 9 57 21 100
November 2008 OC8 7 14 54 25 100
February 2009 OC8 11 17 51 21 100
May 2009 OC8 8 12 56 24 100
June 2009 OC8 10 15 63 12 100
July 2009 OC8 17 13 60 10 100
August 2009 OC8 9 12 62 18 100
September 2009 OC8 14 10 60 16 100
October 2009 OC8 10 12 64 14 100
November 2009 OC8 11 15 60 14 100
December 2009 OC8 4 14 60 21 100
January 2010 OC8 11 16 57 16 100
February 2009 OC9 10 9 68 13 100
May 2009 OC9 10 9 67 14 100
June 2009 OC9 11 6 71 12 100
July 2009 OC9 9 10 60 21 100
August 2009 OC9 9 12 67 12 100
September 2009 OC9 13 10 69 8 100
October 2009 OC9 9 9 75 7 100
November 2009 OC9 12 11 69 8 100
December 2009 OC9 11 11 66 12 100
January 2010 OC9 9 9 72 10 100
February 2009 OC10 24 8 60 8 100
May 2009 OC10 4 12 63 21 100
June 2009 OC10 12 8 64 16 100
July 2009 OC10 11 4 66 19 100
August 2009 OC10 22 5 54 19 100
September 2009 OC10 28 9 61 2 100
October 2009 OC10 9 8 72 11 100
November 2009 OC10 24 10 65 1 100
December 2009 OC10 19 7 69 5 100
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
B18
Antibiotic Resistance Analysis: Raw Data
Sampling Month Station Human Livestock Wildlife Pets Sum
January 2010 OC10 17 8 64 11 100
November 2008 OC11 27 7 59 7 100
May 2009 OC11 22 3 60 15 100
June 2009 OC11 12 5 56 27 100
July 2009 OC11 19 3 51 27 100
August 2009 OC11 16 0 64 19 100
September 2009 OC11 25 4 50 20 100
October 2009 OC11 23 2 56 19 100
November 2009 OC11 27 10 57 6 100
December 2009 OC11 18 3 53 26 100
January 2010 OC11 15 16 59 10 100
February 2009 OC12 19 1 79 1 100
May 2009 OC12 18 3 70 9 100
June 2009 OC12 10 9 63 18 100
July 2009 OC12 19 1 70 10 100
August 2009 OC12 18 5 66 11 100
September 2009 OC12 17 12 51 19 100
October 2009 OC12 19 8 68 6 100
November 2009 OC12 14 8 75 2 100
December 2009 OC12 20 0 69 11 100
January 2010 OC12 14 6 66 14 100
February 2009 OC13 19 10 64 7 100
May 2009 OC13 23 2 62 13 100
June 2009 OC13 16 12 69 3 100
July 2009 OC13 13 5 64 18 100
August 2009 OC13 18 9 68 5 100
September 2009 OC13 17 5 64 14 100
October 2009 OC13 15 4 76 4 100
November 2009 OC13 18 4 66 12 100
December 2009 OC13 20 11 68 1 100
January 2010 OC13 22 1 60 17 100
November 2008 OC14 4 6 79 11 100
February 2009 OC14 8 13 74 5 100
May 2009 OC14 10 13 75 3 100
June 2009 OC14 9 13 72 5 100
September 2009 OC14 8 11 77 4 100
October 2009 OC14 6 10 73 11 100
November 2008 OC15 13 17 57 13 100
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
B19
Antibiotic Resistance Analysis: Raw Data
Sampling Month Station Human Livestock Wildlife Pets Sum
February 2009 OC15 12 17 58 13 100
May 2009 OC15 15 17 58 10 100
July 2009 OC15 9 18 56 16 100
August 2009 OC15 11 18 56 16 100
November 2009 OC15 16 16 55 12 100
December 2009 OC15 8 14 57 20 99
January 2010 OC15 12 15 60 13 100
November 2008 OC16 1 14 71 14 100
December 2009 OC16 10 12 63 15 100
June 2009 OC16 3 15 70 12 100
September 2009 OC16 3 15 71 11 100
October 2009 OC16 7 17 68 8 100
November 2009 OC16 4 14 69 13 100
December 2009 OC16 1 17 70 13 100
January 2010 OC16 5 18 67 10 100
December 2008 OC17 3 5 92 0 100
June 2009 OC17 8 9 83 0 100
July 2009 OC17 7 9 85 0 100
August 2009 OC17 4 6 90 0 100
September 2009 OC17 2 3 95 0 100
October 2009 OC17 9 1 91 0 100
November 2009 OC17 3 4 93 0 100
December 2009 OC17 3 0 97 0 100
January 2010 OC17 1 2 97 0 100
December 2008 OC18 2 0 98 0 100
September 2009 OC18 0 2 98 0 100
October 2009 OC18 3 1 96 0 100
November 2009 OC18 1 5 94 0 100
December 2009 OC18 5 4 91 0 100
January 2010 OC18 1 3 96 0 100

Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
B20
Table B8: Percent Source Contributions based on rep-PCR Results for all samples.
Rep-PCR: Raw Data
Sampling Month Station Human Livestock Pets Wildlife Sum
November 2008 10 0 0 0 100 100
December 2008 10 0 0 0 100 100
February 2009 10 0 0 0 100 100
May 2009 10 0 0 0 100 100
June 2009 10 0 0 0 100 100
July 2009 10 0 0 0 100 100
August 2009 10 0 0 0 100 100
September 2009 10 0 0 0 100 100
October 2009 10 0 0 0 100 100
November 2009 10 0 0 0 100 100
December 2009 10 0 0 0 100 100
January 2010 10 0 0 0 100 100
November 2008 10A 4 0 0 96 100
December 2008 10A 2 0 0 98 100
February 2009 10A 11 0 0 89 100
May 2009 10A 4 0 0 96 100
June 2009 10A 9 0 0 91 100
July 2009 10A 3 0 0 97 100
August 2009 10A 5 0 0 95 100
September 2009 10A 9 0 0 91 100
October 2009 10A 5 0 0 95 100
November 2009 10A 6 0 0 94 100
December 2009 10A 7 0 0 93 100
January 2010 10A 1 0 0 99 100
November 2008 10B 8 1 16 75 100
December 2008 10B 4 11 8 77 100
February 2009 10B 8 5 7 80 100
May 2009 10B 14 5 10 72 100
June 2009 10B 17 8 0 75 100
July 2009 10B 9 7 8 76 100
August 2009 10B 11 4 8 77 100
September 2009 10B 16 1 7 76 100
October 2009 10B 6 7 19 68 100
November 2009 10B 10 7 12 71 100
December 2009 10B 11 3 8 78 100
January 2010 10B 7 3 21 70 100
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
B21
Rep-PCR: Raw Data
Sampling Month Station Human Livestock Pets Wildlife Sum
February 2009 OC1A 10 3 25 62 100
May 2009 OC1A 5 4 26 65 100
June 2009 OC1A 16 6 17 60 100
July 2009 OC1A 13 3 28 56 100
August 2009 OC1A 12 6 22 61 100
September 2009 OC1A 7 6 30 57 100
October 2009 OC1A 8 5 25 62 100
November 2009 OC1A 7 7 28 58 100
December 2009 OC1A 11 7 27 55 100
January 2010 OC1A 11 5 24 60 100
February 2009 OC1B 10 9 22 59 100
May 2009 OC1B 13 10 16 61 100
June 2009 OC1B 7 13 22 58 100
July 2009 OC1B 16 3 24 57 100
August 2009 OC1B 7 7 22 64 100
September 2009 OC1B 12 10 14 64 100
October 2009 OC1B 8 8 24 60 100
November 2009 OC1B 13 7 18 62 100
December 2009 OC1B 7 4 29 60 100
January 2010 OC1B 7 9 29 55 100
November 2008 OC2 14 10 7 69 100
February 2009 OC2 16 4 21 59 100
May 2009 OC2 19 15 5 61 100
June 2009 OC2 8 8 28 56 100
July 2009 OC2 11 12 15 62 100
August 2009 OC2 20 10 2 69 100
September 2009 OC2 19 4 16 61 100
October 2009 OC2 23 6 11 61 100
November 2009 OC2 11 8 17 64 100
December 2009 OC2 15 12 14 59 100
January 2010 OC2 17 5 18 61 100
February 2009 OC3 13 13 12 62 100
May 2009 OC3 9 11 24 57 100
June 2009 OC3 11 9 24 56 100
July 2009 OC3 12 13 11 64 100
August 2009 OC3 11 9 24 56 100
September 2009 OC3 8 11 22 59 100
October 2009 OC3 12 16 10 62 100
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
B22
Rep-PCR: Raw Data
Sampling Month Station Human Livestock Pets Wildlife Sum
November 2009 OC3 12 13 14 60 100
December 2009 OC3 3 5 31 61 100
January 2010 OC3 9 11 17 63 100
November 2008 OC4 16 14 8 62 100
February 2009 OC4 13 3 26 58 100
May 2009 OC4 15 12 10 63 100
June 2009 OC4 9 14 13 63 100
July 2009 OC4 11 10 14 65 100
August 2009 OC4 12 13 11 64 100
September 2009 OC4 16 13 10 60 100
October 2009 OC4 15 10 17 57 100
November 2009 OC4 12 3 29 56 100
December 2009 OC4 9 9 30 52 100
January 2010 OC4 6 8 26 60 100
February 2009 OC5 15 11 8 66 100
May 2009 OC5 9 10 14 68 100
June 2009 OC5 6 5 25 64 100
July 2009 OC5 10 12 19 60 100
August 2009 OC5 8 5 23 65 100
September 2009 OC5 11 7 12 71 100
October 2009 OC5 8 11 19 62 100
November 2009 OC5 5 3 27 65 100
December 2009 OC5 12 8 14 66 100
January 2010 OC5 7 9 20 64 100
February 2009 OC6 13 14 14 59 100
May 2009 OC6 14 12 12 62 100
June 2009 OC6 18 13 7 62 100
July 2009 OC6 15 5 20 60 100
August 2009 OC6 13 9 17 61 100
September 2009 OC6 13 13 11 63 100
October 2009 OC6 20 11 0 69 100
November 2009 OC6 15 12 8 65 100
December 2009 OC6 18 14 2 66 100
January 2010 OC6 10 7 19 63 100
February 2009 OC7 16 7 20 57 100
May 2009 OC7 18 13 6 63 100
June 2009 OC7 15 7 12 65 100
July 2009 OC7 19 11 9 61 100
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
B23
Rep-PCR: Raw Data
Sampling Month Station Human Livestock Pets Wildlife Sum
August 2009 OC7 14 12 15 59 100
September 2009 OC7 22 10 6 62 100
October 2009 OC7 16 7 20 58 100
November 2009 OC7 14 12 13 61 100
December 2009 OC7 16 7 19 58 100
January 2010 OC7 11 4 30 55 100
November 2008 OC8 4 13 23 60 100
February 2009 OC8 10 9 23 57 100
May 2009 OC8 8 4 31 57 100
June 2009 OC8 5 13 24 57 100
July 2009 OC8 15 10 12 63 100
August 2009 OC8 6 7 27 59 100
September 2009 OC8 8 13 18 61 100
October 2009 OC8 7 11 25 57 100
November 2009 OC8 9 13 23 55 100
December 2009 OC8 10 13 14 63 100
January 2010 OC8 9 14 18 58 100
February 2009 OC9 11 10 20 59 100
May 2009 OC9 14 7 20 59 100
June 2009 OC9 18 9 17 55 100
July 2009 OC9 9 10 28 53 100
August 2009 OC9 10 6 23 61 100
September 2009 OC9 12 11 22 56 100
October 2009 OC9 10 17 17 56 100
November 2009 OC9 17 7 24 52 100
December 2009 OC9 14 12 14 60 100
January 2010 OC9 15 9 16 59 100
February 2009 OC10 21 7 0 73 100
May 2009 OC10 20 10 0 70 100
June 2009 OC10 19 2 11 68 100
July 2009 OC10 16 5 9 70 100
August 2009 OC10 24 1 9 65 100
September 2009 OC10 20 6 7 66 100
October 2009 OC10 15 1 16 69 100
November 2009 OC10 24 2 8 65 100
December 2009 OC10 19 4 14 63 100
January 2010 OC10 22 2 8 69 100
November 2008 OC11 13 6 19 62 100
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
B24
Rep-PCR: Raw Data
Sampling Month Station Human Livestock Pets Wildlife Sum
May 2009 OC11 19 3 21 57 100
June 2009 OC11 25 4 7 65 100
July 2009 OC11 17 2 20 61 100
August 2009 OC11 17 10 18 55 100
September 2009 OC11 18 4 17 61 100
October 2009 OC11 20 6 10 64 100
November 2009 OC11 19 1 22 58 100
December 2009 OC11 20 5 16 59 100
January 2010 OC11 21 9 11 59 100
February 2009 OC12 12 2 16 71 100
May 2009 OC12 19 6 5 70 100
June 2009 OC12 15 2 9 74 100
July 2009 OC12 17 2 6 76 100
August 2009 OC12 11 4 16 69 100
September 2009 OC12 20 0 12 68 100
October 2009 OC12 14 3 14 68 100
November 2009 OC12 17 7 8 68 100
December 2009 OC12 12 0 19 69 100
January 2010 OC12 15 2 11 72 100
February 2009 OC13 20 4 20 55 100
May 2009 OC13 16 8 15 61 100
June 2009 OC13 21 6 13 59 100
July 2009 OC13 19 2 20 59 100
August 2009 OC13 18 4 16 63 100
September 2009 OC13 16 1 21 62 100
October 2009 OC13 17 1 27 55 100
November 2009 OC13 16 7 19 58 100
December 2009 OC13 22 2 13 62 100
January 2010 OC13 25 7 13 55 100
November 2008 OC14 10 2 1 88 100
February 2009 OC14 10 5 12 73 100
May 2009 OC14 10 5 10 76 100
June 2009 OC14 10 4 5 81 100
September 2009 OC14 10 0 14 76 100
October 2009 OC14 9 1 2 88 100
November 2008 OC15 11 7 7 75 100
February 2009 OC15 10 9 7 74 100
May 2009 OC15 10 4 8 78 100
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
B25
Rep-PCR: Raw Data
Sampling Month Station Human Livestock Pets Wildlife Sum
July 2009 OC15 2 5 13 80 100
August 2009 OC15 9 9 12 70 100
November 2009 OC15 10 5 10 75 100
December 2009 OC15 9 3 12 76 100
January 2010 OC15 6 6 13 75 100
November 2008 OC16 0 0 28 72 100
December 2009 OC16 0 0 30 70 100
June 2009 OC16 0 0 32 68 100
September 2009 OC16 0 0 28 72 100
October 2009 OC16 0 0 28 72 100
November 2009 OC16 0 0 32 68 100
December 2009 OC16 0 0 31 69 100
January 2010 OC16 0 0 33 67 100
December 2008 OC17 0 0 0 100 100
June 2009 OC17 0 0 0 100 100
July 2009 OC17 0 0 0 100 100
August 2009 OC17 0 0 0 100 100
September 2009 OC17 0 0 0 100 100
October 2009 OC17 0 0 0 100 100
November 2009 OC17 0 0 0 100 100
December 2009 OC17 0 0 0 100 100
January 2010 OC17 0 0 0 100 100
December 2008 OC18 0 0 0 100 100
September 2009 OC18 0 0 0 100 100
October 2009 OC18 0 0 0 100 100
November 2009 OC18 0 0 0 100 100
December 2009 OC18 0 0 0 100 100
January 2010 OC18 0 0 0 100 100
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
B26
Table B9: Raw Data for Optical Brighteners and HS-HF183
Station Average OB (µg/L) value
Before
UV exposure
Average OB (µg/L) value
After
UV exposure
Average OB
Decline (%)

HS-HF183
10 66.3 57.2 14 -
10 68.2 55.5 19 -
10 62.3 61.3 2 -
10A 65.3 61.7 5 -
10A 68.9 60.0 13 -
10A 62.9 55.9 11 -
10B 103.7 72.9 30 -
10B 103.7 72.5 30 -
10B 110.6 67.5 39 +
OC1A 139.0 110.6 20 -
OC1A 151.5 108.2 29 -
OC1A 156.5 114.2 27 +
OC1B 162.7 105.7 35 +
OC1B 151.4 104.8 31 -
OC1B 144.9 110.4 24 -
OC2 158.9 102.0 36 +
OC2 144.8 96.5 33 -
OC2 137.3 97.3 29 -
OC3 148.4 94.4 36 +
OC3 144.0 95.9 33 -
OC3 136.5 100.2 27 -
OC4 153.8 94.9 38 +
OC4 141.9 100.9 29 -
OC4 154.3 98.5 36 -
OC5 149.1 91.7 39 +
OC5 152.7 93.0 39 -
OC5 139.2 100.9 27 -
OC6 139.0 97.2 30 -
OC6 150.1 91.3 39 -
OC6 151.9 101.3 33 +
OC7 145.5 89.6 38 +
OC7 140.2 80.9 42 -
OC7 140.3 89.5 36 -
OC8 136.7 82.6 40 +
OC8 140.6 87.9 37 +
OC8 130.7 92.6 29 -
OC9 148.9 97.4 35 +
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
B27
Station Average OB (µg/L) value Before
UV exposure

Average OB (µg/L) value After
UV exposure

Average OB Decline (%)

HS-HF183
OC9 133.4 85.3 36 -
OC9 137.6 85.2 38 +
OC10 113.0 66.9 41 +
OC10 107.7 72.2 33 +
OC10 97.3 80.8 17 -
OC11 124.3 68.4 45 +
OC11 108.5 81.0 25 -
OC11 118.2 80.0 32 -
OC12 136.4 100.5 26 -
OC12 138.4 90.4 35 +
OC12 151.2 87.1 42 +
OC13 125.2 77.7 38 +
OC13 111.6 65.6 41 +
OC13 111.2 77.8 30 -
OC14 135.9 69.9 49 -
OC14 118.4 82.5 30 -
OC14 123.7 81.5 34 -
OC15 82.5 57.8 30 -
OC15 88.2 71.7 19 -
OC15 90.3 64.0 29 -
OC16 135.4 108.4 20 -
OC16 133.0 94.5 29 -
OC16 127.6 103.1 19 -
OC17 164.1 126.2 23 -
OC17 156.5 138.1 12 -
OC17 162.4 125.7 23 -
OC18 46.0 40.3 12 -
OC18 53.9 34.3 36 -
OC18 48.9 37.9 22 0

Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
C1
Appendix C. Model Inputs and Simulation Results
Table C1: Geometric Information Used for Each Segment

Segment
Surface
Area (m2)
Mean
Depth (m)
Cross
Section Area (m2)
Dispersion
Coefficient (m3/s)
Watershed
Flow (m3/s)
Median 90th Percentile
1 1616 0.5 14.9 11.7 1.65×10-1 3.86×10-1
2 3246 0.6 22.8 14.4 8.70×10-2 2.03×10-1
3 6346 0.7 37.5 20.6 7.55×10-3 1.77×10-2
4 7816 0.8 75.7 38.2 1.52×10-3 3.56×10-3
5 12604 0.9 104.5 44.0 5.00×10-3 1.17×10-2
6 20228 1.0 182.6 76.9 1.46×10-3 3.41×10-3
7 21356 1.2 193.1 71.7 7.82×10-4 1.83×10-3
8 29236 1.5 323.0 31.4 2.83×10-4 6.62×10-3
B4 1439 0.6 35.0 24.6 4.39×10-4 1.03×10-3
B7 8451 0.8 63.0 22.7 5.05×10-3 1.18×10-2
B8 26619 1.0 222.5 46.9 5.38×10-3 1.26×10-2

Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
C2
Table C2: WinBUGS Simulation Results of Fecal Coliform Concentrations (MPN/100ml) in Each Segment Using Median and 90th Percentile of the Observational Data (2005-2010)

Endpoint Segment mean 2.50% median 97.50%
Median
1 17.98 13.67 17.85 23.04
2 17.02 13.29 16.92 21.46
3 14.89 12.00 14.72 18.83
4 12.57 10.06 12.34 16.35
5 10.57 8.28 10.35 14.17
6 8.63 6.53 8.41 11.94
7 7.36 5.40 7.15 10.53
8 5.53 3.92 5.36 8.26
B4 13.09 10.31 12.83 17.32
B7 8.19 5.67 7.89 12.43
B8 5.95 4.03 5.70 9.32
90th Percentile
1 267.70 210.80 265.40 338.50
2 261.90 209.90 260.20 324.40
3 239.50 197.60 237.40 293.30
4 209.70 173.20 207.20 260.40
5 180.70 147.60 178.50 227.20
6 153.90 121.80 151.90 197.70
7 136.00 104.70 134.20 178.10
8 105.50 77.99 103.70 143.50
B4 218.20 177.70 215.10 276.50
B7 159.10 113.00 155.40 225.70
B8 116.50 81.07 113.30 170.10

Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
C3
Table C3: Fecal Coliform Loadings (×104 Counts/Second) in Each Segment using Median, and 90th Percentile of the Observational Data (2005-2010)

Endpoint Segment mean 2.50% median 97.50%
Median
1 14.28 0.49 11.97 40.04
2 20.97 0.75 18.24 55.48
3 17.47 0.52 13.55 54.91
4 15.61 0.45 11.61 52.60
5 16.41 0.41 11.89 56.77
6 18.48 0.51 13.21 64.96
7 20.06 0.54 14.06 72.85
8 0.25 0.01 0.17 0.91
B4 12.91 0.35 9.48 44.44
B7 19.39 0.58 14.41 64.61
B8 20.86 0.59 14.55 76.48
90th Percentile
1 172.90 5.57 137.70 532.00
2 309.90 11.45 271.10 821.80
3 291.50 9.38 228.00 900.80
4 274.70 8.01 202.70 923.00
5 332.80 9.49 246.40 1134.00
6 427.20 13.01 318.10 1434.00
7 497.90 13.47 366.30 1677.00
8 6.28 0.17 4.72 20.90
B4 212.50 6.26 154.10 734.10
B7 535.30 19.01 446.60 1529.00
B8 541.80 16.76 415.80 1760.00

Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
D1
Appendix D. Fecal Indicator Data

Sample Date Latitude Longitude Analyte MPN/100mL Lower Limit Upper Limit Sample Code
11/22/2008 35°23'34.13"N 76°18'40.04"W E. coli 26.5 14.2 44 OC-4
11/22/2008 35°23'30.21"N 76°18'43.69"W E. coli 83.9 56.5 119.4 OC-2
11/22/2008 35°23'27.81"N 76°18'45.68"W E. coli 60.3 39.4 88.4 OC-8
11/22/2008 35°23'26.51"N 76°18'47.57"W E. coli 76.8 51.7 110.7 OC-11
11/22/2008 35°23'18.82"N 76°18'50.82"W E. coli 37 22 58.4 OC-15
11/22/2008 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W E. coli 49.2 30.3 75.3 10B
11/22/2008 35°23'24.69"N 76°18'51.43"W E. coli 27 15.6 46.8 OC-14
11/22/2008 35°23'14.11"N 76°18'51.64"W E. coli 21.6 10.3 37.2 OC-16
11/22/2008 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W E. coli 19.2 8.8 33.9 10A
11/22/2008 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W E. coli 10.4 4.6 23.9 10
11/22/2008 35°23'34.13"N 76°18'40.04"W Enterococci 107.2 76.4 146 OC-4
11/22/2008 35°23'30.21"N 76°18'43.69"W Enterococci 76.2 52.9 105.6 OC-2
11/22/2008 35°23'27.81"N 76°18'45.68"W Enterococci 226 165.5 298.1 OC-8
11/22/2008 35°23'26.51"N 76°18'47.57"W Enterococci 186.8 140.5 243.8 OC-11
11/22/2008 35°23'18.82"N 76°18'50.82"W Enterococci 96.2 66.7 132.2 OC-15
11/22/2008 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W Enterococci 128.9 91.9 174.6 10B
11/22/2008 35°23'24.69"N 76°18'51.43"W Enterococci 157.6 115.4 207.2 OC-14
11/22/2008 35°23'14.11"N 76°18'51.64"W Enterococci 41.7 24.9 64.6 OC-16
11/22/2008 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W Enterococci 51.9 33.9 76.2 10A
11/22/2008 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W Enterococci 43.6 26.8 66.2 10
12/20/2008 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W E. coli 29 15.6 47.1 10B
12/20/2008 35°23'14.11"N 76°18'51.64"W E. coli 6.1 1.4 17.9 OC-16
12/20/2008 35°23'9.19"N 76°18'52.37"W E. coli < 2.0 0 7.3 OC-17
12/20/2008 35°23'1.70"N 76°18'53.79"W E. coli 4 0.5 11.8 OC-18
12/20/2008 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W E. coli 12.3 4.7 24.3 10A
12/20/2008 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W E. coli 4 0.5 14.3 10
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
D2
Sample Date Latitude Longitude Analyte MPN/100mL Lower Limit Upper Limit Sample Code
12/20/2008 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W Enterococci 397.8 283.6 546.7 10B
12/20/2008 35°23'14.11"N 76°18'51.64"W Enterococci 207.9 152.3 274 OC-16
12/20/2008 35°23'9.19"N 76°18'52.37"W Enterococci 439.6 347.8 546.7 OC-17
12/20/2008 35°23'1.70"N 76°18'53.79"W Enterococci 235.5 172.5 316.5 OC-18
12/20/2008 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W Enterococci 821.2 521.2 1237.8 10A
12/20/2008 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W Enterococci 651.1 413.3 996.2 10
02/27/2009 35°23'34.13"N 76°18'40.04"W E. coli 77.5 52.2 109.5 OC-4
02/27/2009 35°23'30.94"N 76°18'42.20"W E. coli 60.3 39.4 88.4 OC-3
02/27/2009 35°23'30.21"N 76°18'43.69"W E. coli 64.5 42.2 94.3 OC-2
02/27/2009 35°23'31.96"N 76°18'43.86"W E. coli 43.6 26.8 67.8 OC-1B
02/27/2009 35°23'31.89"N 76°18'44.06"W E. coli 2 0.1 7.3 OC-1A
02/27/2009 35°23'28.78"N 76°18'44.43"W E. coli 48.1 29.6 72.9 OC-7
02/27/2009 35°23'29.46"N 76°18'44.46"W E. coli 55 34.9 82.4 OC-5
02/27/2009 35°23'29.20"N 76°18'44.94"W E. coli 380.8 271.4 508.2 OC-6
02/27/2009 35°23'27.81"N 76°18'45.68"W E. coli 31.3 17.4 50.5 OC-8
02/27/2009 35°23'27.37"N 76°18'46.43"W E. coli 52.4 33.3 79.4 OC-9
02/27/2009 35°23'25.28"N 76°18'48.92"W E. coli 37.4 21.5 60 OC-13
02/27/2009 35°23'29.11"N 76°18'49.20"W E. coli 77.9 52.5 111.8 OC-10
02/27/2009 35°23'28.81"N 76°18'50.30"W E. coli 45.1 27.7 68.9 OC-12
02/27/2009 35°23'18.82"N 76°18'50.82"W E. coli 24.2 13 42.2 OC-15
02/27/2009 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W E. coli 126.3 90 173.9 10B
02/27/2009 35°23'24.69"N 76°18'51.43"W E. coli 31.6 17.6 51.4 OC-14
02/27/2009 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W E. coli 10.4 4.6 23.9 10A
02/27/2009 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W E. coli 4 0.5 14.3 10
02/27/2009 35°23'34.13"N 76°18'40.04"W Enterococci 14.8 6.5 28.8 OC-4
02/27/2009 35°23'30.94"N 76°18'42.20"W Enterococci 12.6 5.8 27.4 OC-3
02/27/2009 35°23'30.21"N 76°18'43.69"W Enterococci 24 11.9 40.5 OC-2
02/27/2009 35°23'31.96"N 76°18'43.86"W Enterococci 46.7 28.7 72.2 OC-1B
02/27/2009 35°23'31.89"N 76°18'44.06"W Enterococci 28.7 15.4 47.1 OC-1A
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
D3
Sample Date Latitude Longitude Analyte MPN/100mL Lower Limit Upper Limit Sample Code
02/27/2009 35°23'28.78"N 76°18'44.43"W Enterococci 12.6 5.8 27.4 OC-7
02/27/2009 35°23'29.46"N 76°18'44.46"W Enterococci 8.2 2.3 18.1 OC-5
02/27/2009 35°23'29.20"N 76°18'44.94"W Enterococci 289.9 229.3 363.7 OC-6
02/27/2009 35°23'27.81"N 76°18'45.68"W Enterococci 17 7.8 31.3 OC-8
02/27/2009 35°23'27.37"N 76°18'46.43"W Enterococci 6.1 1.4 17.9 OC-9
02/27/2009 35°23'25.28"N 76°18'48.92"W Enterococci 23.3 12.1 40.2 OC-13
02/27/2009 35°23'29.11"N 76°18'49.20"W Enterococci 8.2 2.3 18.1 OC-10
02/27/2009 35°23'28.81"N 76°18'50.30"W Enterococci 8.3 3.3 19 OC-12
02/27/2009 35°23'18.82"N 76°18'50.82"W Enterococci 4 0.5 14.3 OC-15
02/27/2009 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W Enterococci 37 22 58.4 10B
02/27/2009 35°23'24.69"N 76°18'51.43"W Enterococci 12.6 5.8 27.4 OC-14
02/27/2009 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W Enterococci 6.1 1.4 17.9 10A
02/27/2009 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W Enterococci 2 0.1 11 10
05/08/2009 35°23'34.13"N 76°18'40.04"W E. coli 89.6 60.4 126.7 OC-4
05/08/2009 35°23'30.94"N 76°18'42.20"W E. coli 21.4 10.2 37.1 OC-3
05/08/2009 35°23'30.21"N 76°18'43.69"W E. coli 30.9 17.2 50.2 OC-2
05/08/2009 35°23'31.96"N 76°18'43.86"W E. coli 6.1 1.4 17.9 OC-1B
05/08/2009 35°23'31.89"N 76°18'44.06"W E. coli 10.4 4.6 23.9 OC-1A
05/08/2009 35°23'28.78"N 76°18'44.43"W E. coli 68.1 44.6 98.4 OC-7
05/08/2009 35°23'29.46"N 76°18'44.46"W E. coli 46.7 28.7 72.2 OC-5
05/08/2009 35°23'29.20"N 76°18'44.94"W E. coli 54.4 34.5 80.4 OC-6
05/08/2009 35°23'27.81"N 76°18'45.68"W E. coli 39.3 23.4 61.4 OC-8
05/08/2009 35°23'27.37"N 76°18'46.43"W E. coli 36.6 21.1 57.6 OC-9
05/08/2009 35°23'26.51"N 76°18'47.57"W E. coli 46.1 28.4 71.4 OC-11
05/08/2009 35°23'25.28"N 76°18'48.92"W E. coli 44.1 27.1 67.4 OC-13
05/08/2009 35°23'29.11"N 76°18'49.20"W E. coli 19.4 8.9 34.3 OC-10
05/08/2009 35°23'28.81"N 76°18'50.30"W E. coli 31.3 17.4 50.5 OC-12
05/08/2009 35°23'18.82"N 76°18'50.82"W E. coli < 2.0 0 7.3 OC-15
05/08/2009 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W E. coli 4 0.5 14.3 10B
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
D4
Sample Date Latitude Longitude Analyte MPN/100mL Lower Limit Upper Limit Sample Code
05/08/2009 35°23'24.69"N 76°18'51.43"W E. coli 4 0.5 14.3 OC-14
05/08/2009 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W E. coli < 2.0 0 7.3 10A
05/08/2009 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W E. coli 2 0.1 11 10
05/08/2009 35°23'34.13"N 76°18'40.04"W Enterococci 2406.7 1621.7 3501.4 OC-4
05/08/2009 35°23'30.94"N 76°18'42.20"W Enterococci 2599.3 1700.7 3793.1 OC-3
05/08/2009 35°23'30.21"N 76°18'43.69"W Enterococci 4839.1 3260.7 9432.2 OC-2
05/08/2009 35°23'31.96"N 76°18'43.86"W Enterococci 1841.7 1241 2564 OC-1B
05/08/2009 35°23'31.89"N 76°18'44.06"W Enterococci > 4839.2 2879 infini.e OC-1A
05/08/2009 35°23'28.78"N 76°18'44.43"W Enterococci 1960.8 1321.2 2820.3 OC-7
05/08/2009 35°23'29.46"N 76°18'44.46"W Enterococci 1732.9 1167.7 2490.8 OC-5
05/08/2009 35°23'29.20"N 76°18'44.94"W Enterococci 1454 951.3 2097.7 OC-6
05/08/2009 35°23'27.81"N 76°18'45.68"W Enterococci 2092.5 1410 3018.1 OC-8
05/08/2009 35°23'27.37"N 76°18'46.43"W Enterococci 730.8 463.9 1110.9 OC-9
05/08/2009 35°23'26.51"N 76°18'47.57"W Enterococci 1373.3 898.6 1948.8 OC-11
05/08/2009 35°23'25.28"N 76°18'48.92"W Enterococci 651.1 413.3 996.2 OC-13
05/08/2009 35°23'29.11"N 76°18'49.20"W Enterococci 1373.3 898.6 1948.8 OC-10
05/08/2009 35°23'28.81"N 76°18'50.30"W Enterococci 1034.4 676.8 1527.1 OC-12
05/08/2009 35°23'18.82"N 76°18'50.82"W Enterococci 172.5 126.3 230.7 OC-15
05/08/2009 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W Enterococci 197.3 144.5 267.3 10B
05/08/2009 35°23'24.69"N 76°18'51.43"W Enterococci 291 213.1 386.3 OC-14
05/08/2009 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W Enterococci 366.9 268.8 486.3 10A
05/08/2009 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W Enterococci 171.5 122.3 234.4 10
06/20/2009 35°23'34.13"N 76°18'40.04"W E. coli 95.7 64.5 135 OC-4
06/20/2009 35°23'30.94"N 76°18'42.20"W E. coli 100.8 69.9 138.2 OC-3
06/20/2009 35°23'30.21"N 76°18'43.69"W E. coli 49.2 30.3 75.3 OC-2
06/20/2009 35°23'31.96"N 76°18'43.86"W E. coli 70 47.1 100.7 OC-1B
06/20/2009 35°23'31.89"N 76°18'44.06"W E. coli 60.3 39.4 88.4 OC-1A
06/20/2009 35°23'28.78"N 76°18'44.43"W E. coli 97.5 67.6 136 OC-7
06/20/2009 35°23'29.46"N 76°18'44.46"W E. coli 116.7 80.9 161.2 OC-5
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
D5
Sample Date Latitude Longitude Analyte MPN/100mL Lower Limit Upper Limit Sample Code
06/20/2009 35°23'29.20"N 76°18'44.94"W E. coli 159.5 113.7 213.9 OC-6
06/20/2009 35°23'27.81"N 76°18'45.68"W E. coli 115.1 79.8 160 OC-8
06/20/2009 35°23'27.37"N 76°18'46.43"W E. coli 131.3 91 180.6 OC-9
06/20/2009 35°23'26.51"N 76°18'47.57"W E. coli 111.1 77 154.3 OC-11
06/20/2009 35°23'25.28"N 76°18'48.92"W E. coli 88.2 61.2 125 OC-13
06/20/2009 35°23'29.11"N 76°18'49.20"W E. coli 157.9 112.6 217.6 OC-10
06/20/2009 35°23'28.81"N 76°18'50.30"W E. coli 136.6 97.4 185.9 OC-12
06/20/2009 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W E. coli 63.7 41.7 92.7 10B
06/20/2009 35°23'24.69"N 76°18'51.43"W E. coli 61 38.7 89.5 OC-14
06/20/2009 35°23'14.11"N 76°18'51.64"W E. coli 21.8 11.3 39 OC-16
06/20/2009 35°23'9.19"N 76°18'52.37"W E. coli 31.6 17.6 51.4 OC-17
06/20/2009 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W E. coli 48.1 29.6 72.9 10A
06/20/2009 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W E. coli 19.6 9.4 36.7 10
06/20/2009 35°23'34.13"N 76°18'40.04"W Enterococci 441.2 305.9 625.2 OC-4
06/20/2009 35°23'30.94"N 76°18'42.20"W Enterococci 271.8 172.5 401.9 OC-3
06/20/2009 35°23'30.21"N 76°18'43.69"W Enterococci 186.9 107.7 299.8 OC-2
06/20/2009 35°23'31.96"N 76°18'43.86"W Enterococci 318.4 208.4 463.7 OC-1B
06/20/2009 35°23'31.89"N 76°18'44.06"W Enterococci 173.1 103.1 281.5 OC-1A
06/20/2009 35°23'28.78"N 76°18'44.43"W Enterococci 669.5 477.3 915.1 OC-7
06/20/2009 35°23'29.46"N 76°18'44.46"W Enterococci 410.3 276.5 587.9 OC-5
06/20/2009 35°23'29.20"N 76°18'44.94"W Enterococci 354.5 238.8 510.2 OC-6
06/20/2009 35°23'27.81"N 76°18'45.68"W Enterococci 383.9 258.7 553.5 OC-8
06/20/2009 35°23'27.37"N 76°18'46.43"W Enterococci 173.1 103.1 281.5 OC-9
06/20/2009 35°23'26.51"N 76°18'47.57"W Enterococci 240.5 148 364.5 OC-11
06/20/2009 35°23'25.28"N 76°18'48.92"W Enterococci 184.9 110.1 292.2 OC-13
06/20/2009 35°23'29.11"N 76°18'49.20"W Enterococci 331 216.6 481.3 OC-10
06/20/2009 35°23'28.81"N 76°18'50.30"W Enterococci 246.2 151.4 376.4 OC-12
06/20/2009 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W Enterococci 96.9 44.5 171.6 10B
06/20/2009 35°23'24.69"N 76°18'51.43"W Enterococci 20.2 2.6 71.3 OC-14
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
D6
Sample Date Latitude Longitude Analyte MPN/100mL Lower Limit Upper Limit Sample Code
06/20/2009 35°23'14.11"N 76°18'51.64"W Enterococci 132.3 71 220.1 OC-16
06/20/2009 35°23'9.19"N 76°18'52.37"W Enterococci < 10.0 0 36.7 OC-17
06/20/2009 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W Enterococci 62.6 25.1 127.3 10A
06/20/2009 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W Enterococci 10 0.5 54.9 10
07/10/2009 35°23'34.13"N 76°18'40.04"W E. coli 544.6 367 765.8 OC-4
07/10/2009 35°23'30.94"N 76°18'42.20"W E. coli 570.2 395.4 797.5 OC-3
07/10/2009 35°23'30.21"N 76°18'43.69"W E. coli 456.4 316.4 646.2 OC-2
07/10/2009 35°23'31.96"N 76°18'43.86"W E. coli 480.1 351.6 657.1 OC-1B
07/10/2009 35°23'31.89"N 76°18'44.06"W E. coli 380.8 271.4 508.2 OC-1A
07/10/2009 35°23'28.78"N 76°18'44.43"W E. coli 1540.2 1098 2188.1 OC-7
07/10/2009 35°23'29.46"N 76°18'44.46"W E. coli 497.8 345.2 700.5 OC-5
07/10/2009 35°23'29.20"N 76°18'44.94"W E. coli 1632.8 1100.2 2349.2 OC-6
07/10/2009 35°23'27.81"N 76°18'45.68"W E. coli 688.2 490.6 944.9 OC-8
07/10/2009 35°23'27.37"N 76°18'46.43"W E. coli 380.8 271.4 508.2 OC-9
07/10/2009 35°23'26.51"N 76°18'47.57"W E. coli 1297.6 849 1882.9 OC-11
07/10/2009 35°23'25.28"N 76°18'48.92"W E. coli 774.6 491.7 1134.1 OC-13
07/10/2009 35°23'29.11"N 76°18'49.20"W E. coli 1960.8 1321.2 2820.3 OC-10
07/10/2009 35°23'28.81"N 76°18'50.30"W E. coli 368.4 269.8 502.7 OC-12
07/10/2009 35°23'18.82"N 76°18'50.82"W E. coli 357.1 247.6 500.9 OC-15
07/10/2009 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W E. coli 368.4 269.8 502.7 10B
07/10/2009 35°23'9.19"N 76°18'52.37"W E. coli 437.4 303.3 629.1 OC-17
07/10/2009 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W E. coli 407.1 298.2 540.6 10A
07/10/2009 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W E. coli 181.3 129.2 248.1 10
07/10/2009 35°23'34.13"N 76°18'40.04"W Enterococci 836.1 596.1 1138.3 OC-4
07/10/2009 35°23'30.94"N 76°18'42.20"W Enterococci 364.1 238.2 525.5 OC-3
07/10/2009 35°23'30.21"N 76°18'43.69"W Enterococci 246.2 151.4 376.4 OC-2
07/10/2009 35°23'31.96"N 76°18'43.86"W Enterococci 624.4 432.9 861.7 OC-1B
07/10/2009 35°23'31.89"N 76°18'44.06"W Enterococci 690.7 478.9 955.6 OC-1A
07/10/2009 35°23'28.78"N 76°18'44.43"W Enterococci 486.6 327.9 690.1 OC-7
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
D7
Sample Date Latitude Longitude Analyte MPN/100mL Lower Limit Upper Limit Sample Code
07/10/2009 35°23'29.46"N 76°18'44.46"W Enterococci 404.4 272.5 574.1 OC-5
07/10/2009 35°23'29.20"N 76°18'44.94"W Enterococci 382.5 257.7 537.5 OC-6
07/10/2009 35°23'27.81"N 76°18'45.68"W Enterococci 1624.2 1189.6 2156.7 OC-8
07/10/2009 35°23'27.37"N 76°18'46.43"W Enterococci 860 613.1 1155.1 OC-9
07/10/2009 35°23'26.51"N 76°18'47.57"W Enterococci 40.5 11.5 89.5 OC-11
07/10/2009 35°23'25.28"N 76°18'48.92"W Enterococci 186.9 107.7 299.8 OC-13
07/10/2009 35°23'29.11"N 76°18'49.20"W Enterococci 1552.5 1076.5 2187.2 OC-10
07/10/2009 35°23'28.81"N 76°18'50.30"W Enterococci 988.1 704.4 1353.4 OC-12
07/10/2009 35°23'18.82"N 76°18'50.82"W Enterococci 1841.7 1241 2564 OC-15
07/10/2009 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W Enterococci 1540.2 1098 2188.1 10B
07/10/2009 35°23'9.19"N 76°18'52.37"W Enterococci 1841.7 1241 2564 OC-17
07/10/2009 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W Enterococci 1841.7 1241 2564 10A
07/10/2009 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W Enterococci 1095 716.5 1608.9 10
08/18/2009 35°23'34.13"N 76°18'40.04"W E. coli 1158.9 758.2 1694.3 OC-4
08/18/2009 35°23'30.94"N 76°18'42.20"W E. coli 756.9 524.8 1052.3 OC-3
08/18/2009 35°23'30.21"N 76°18'43.69"W E. coli 821.2 521.2 1237.8 OC-2
08/18/2009 35°23'31.96"N 76°18'43.86"W E. coli 689.6 437.7 1041.3 OC-1B
08/18/2009 35°23'31.89"N 76°18'44.06"W E. coli 626 434.1 879 OC-1A
08/18/2009 35°23'28.78"N 76°18'44.43"W E. coli 2599.3 1700.7 3793.1 OC-7
08/18/2009 35°23'29.46"N 76°18'44.46"W E. coli 730.8 463.9 1110.9 OC-5
08/18/2009 35°23'29.20"N 76°18'44.94"W E. coli 3972.6 2444.1 6600.5 OC-6
08/18/2009 35°23'27.81"N 76°18'45.68"W E. coli 1095 716.5 1608.9 OC-8
08/18/2009 35°23'27.37"N 76°18'46.43"W E. coli 626 434.1 879 OC-9
08/18/2009 35°23'26.51"N 76°18'47.57"W E. coli 1226.3 802.4 1758.4 OC-11
08/18/2009 35°23'25.28"N 76°18'48.92"W E. coli 922.2 585.4 1375.8 OC-13
08/18/2009 35°23'29.11"N 76°18'49.20"W E. coli 2239.7 1509.2 3228 OC-10
08/18/2009 35°23'28.81"N 76°18'50.30"W E. coli 976.9 620.1 1442.9 OC-12
08/18/2009 35°23'18.82"N 76°18'50.82"W E. coli 497.8 345.2 700.5 OC-15
08/18/2009 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W E. coli 730.8 463.9 1110.9 10B
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
D8
Sample Date Latitude Longitude Analyte MPN/100mL Lower Limit Upper Limit Sample Code
08/18/2009 35°23'9.19"N 76°18'52.37"W E. coli 497.8 345.2 700.5 OC-17
08/18/2009 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W E. coli 519 370 687.1 10A
08/18/2009 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W E. coli 126.6 92.8 170.5 10
08/18/2009 35°23'34.13"N 76°18'40.04"W Enterococci 844.8 618.7 1118.4 OC-4
08/18/2009 35°23'30.94"N 76°18'42.20"W Enterococci 189 112.6 303.6 OC-3
08/18/2009 35°23'30.21"N 76°18'43.69"W Enterococci 354.5 238.8 510.2 OC-2
08/18/2009 35°23'31.96"N 76°18'43.86"W Enterococci 487.4 338 680.2 OC-1B
08/18/2009 35°23'31.89"N 76°18'44.06"W Enterococci 463.8 312.5 653.5 OC-1A
08/18/2009 35°23'28.78"N 76°18'44.43"W Enterococci 565.3 392 785.5 OC-7
08/18/2009 35°23'29.46"N 76°18'44.46"W Enterococci 447.9 301.8 633.6 OC-5
08/18/2009 35°23'29.20"N 76°18'44.94"W Enterococci 520.4 360.8 722.1 OC-6
08/18/2009 35°23'27.81"N 76°18'45.68"W Enterococci 1723.3 1194.9 2422.2 OC-8
08/18/2009 35°23'27.37"N 76°18'46.43"W Enterococci 1086 774.2 1499.9 OC-9
08/18/2009 35°23'26.51"N 76°18'47.57"W Enterococci 20.2 2.6 71.3 OC-11
08/18/2009 35°23'25.28"N 76°18'48.92"W Enterococci 171.2 98.7 273.9 OC-13
08/18/2009 35°23'29.11"N 76°18'49.20"W Enterococci 1259.1 922.2 1719.6 OC-10
08/18/2009 35°23'28.81"N 76°18'50.30"W Enterococci 909.7 666.3 1210 OC-12
08/18/2009 35°23'18.82"N 76°18'50.82"W Enterococci 1632.8 1100.2 2349.2 OC-15
08/18/2009 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W Enterococci 2406.7 1621.7 3501.4 10B
08/18/2009 35°23'9.19"N 76°18'52.37"W Enterococci 1540.2 1098 2188.1 OC-17
08/18/2009 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W Enterococci 2239.7 1509.2 3228 10A
08/18/2009 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W Enterococci 476.4 330.4 681.6 10
09/24/2009 35°23'34.13"N 76°18'40.04"W E. coli 756.9 524.8 1052.3 OC-4
09/24/2009 35°23'30.94"N 76°18'42.20"W E. coli 615.2 390.5 942.5 OC-3
09/24/2009 35°23'30.21"N 76°18'43.69"W E. coli 561.8 411.5 756.6 OC-2
09/24/2009 35°23'31.96"N 76°18'43.86"W E. coli 321.4 222.9 452.7 OC-1B
09/24/2009 35°23'31.89"N 76°18'44.06"W E. coli 821.2 521.2 1237.8 OC-1A
09/24/2009 35°23'28.78"N 76°18'44.43"W E. coli 355.9 260.7 471 OC-7
09/24/2009 35°23'29.46"N 76°18'44.46"W E. coli 444.7 317 606.5 OC-5
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
D9
Sample Date Latitude Longitude Analyte MPN/100mL Lower Limit Upper Limit Sample Code
09/24/2009 35°23'29.20"N 76°18'44.94"W E. coli 721.7 514.5 997.4 OC-6
09/24/2009 35°23'27.81"N 76°18'45.68"W E. coli 615.2 390.5 942.5 OC-8
09/24/2009 35°23'27.37"N 76°18'46.43"W E. coli 497.8 345.2 700.5 OC-9
09/24/2009 35°23'26.51"N 76°18'47.57"W E. coli 246.4 190.1 316.5 OC-11
09/24/2009 35°23'25.28"N 76°18'48.92"W E. coli 263.9 198.5 344.8 OC-13
09/24/2009 35°23'29.11"N 76°18'49.20"W E. coli 476.4 330.4 681.6 OC-10
09/24/2009 35°23'28.81"N 76°18'50.30"W E. coli 284.2 202.6 393.7 OC-12
09/24/2009 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W E. coli 207.3 151.8 270.7 10B
09/24/2009 35°23'24.69"N 76°18'51.43"W E. coli 246.7 185.5 327.4 OC-14
09/24/2009 35°23'14.11"N 76°18'51.64"W E. coli 240.1 175.9 319.5 OC-16
09/24/2009 35°23'9.19"N 76°18'52.37"W E. coli 428.3 305.3 588.8 OC-17
09/24/2009 35°23'1.70"N 76°18'53.79"W E. coli 412.7 294.2 566.2 OC-18
09/24/2009 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W E. coli 226 165.5 298.1 10A
09/24/2009 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W E. coli 143.5 102.3 194.9 10
09/24/2009 35°23'34.13"N 76°18'40.04"W Enterococci 728.5 547.8 946.4 OC-4
09/24/2009 35°23'30.94"N 76°18'42.20"W Enterococci 208.6 124.3 323 OC-3
09/24/2009 35°23'30.21"N 76°18'43.69"W Enterococci 51.6 17.6 107.6 OC-2
09/24/2009 35°23'31.96"N 76°18'43.86"W Enterococci 96 44.1 169.3 OC-1B
09/24/2009 35°23'31.89"N 76°18'44.06"W Enterococci 107.8 51.6 186.1 OC-1A
09/24/2009 35°23'28.78"N 76°18'44.43"W Enterococci 331 216.6 481.3 OC-7
09/24/2009 35°23'29.46"N 76°18'44.46"W Enterococci 680.3 511.5 894.5 OC-5
09/24/2009 35°23'29.20"N 76°18'44.94"W Enterococci 143.5 77.1 235.5 OC-6
09/24/2009 35°23'27.81"N 76°18'45.68"W Enterococci 232.5 147.6 350.4 OC-8
09/24/2009 35°23'27.37"N 76°18'46.43"W Enterococci 154.7 86.1 251 OC-9
09/24/2009 35°23'26.51"N 76°18'47.57"W Enterococci 62.6 25.1 127.3 OC-11
09/24/2009 35°23'25.28"N 76°18'48.92"W Enterococci 108.9 56.3 194.9 OC-13
09/24/2009 35°23'29.11"N 76°18'49.20"W Enterococci 51.6 17.6 107.6 OC-10
09/24/2009 35°23'28.81"N 76°18'50.30"W Enterococci 121.1 65 210.9 OC-12
09/24/2009 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W Enterococci 74.5 35.6 148.7 10B
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
D10
Sample Date Latitude Longitude Analyte MPN/100mL Lower Limit Upper Limit Sample Code
09/24/2009 35°23'24.69"N 76°18'51.43"W Enterococci 20.2 2.6 71.3 OC-14
09/24/2009 35°23'14.11"N 76°18'51.64"W Enterococci 235.1 149.2 352 OC-16
09/24/2009 35°23'9.19"N 76°18'52.37"W Enterococci 349.8 235.7 503.4 OC-17
09/24/2009 35°23'1.70"N 76°18'53.79"W Enterococci 121.1 65 210.9 OC-18
09/24/2009 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W Enterococci 271.8 172.5 401.9 10A
9/24/2009 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W Enterococci 171.2 98.7 273.9 10
10/16/2009 35°23'34.13"N 76°18'40.04"W E. coli 870.3 552.5 1300.1 OC-4
10/16/2009 35°23'30.94"N 76°18'42.20"W E. coli 428.3 305.3 588.8 OC-3
10/16/2009 35°23'30.21"N 76°18'43.69"W E. coli 476.4 330.4 681.6 OC-2
10/16/2009 35°23'31.96"N 76°18'43.86"W E. coli 220.1 161.2 292.3 OC-1B
10/16/2009 35°23'31.89"N 76°18'44.06"W E. coli 721.7 514.5 997.4 OC-1A
10/16/2009 35°23'28.78"N 76°18'44.43"W E. coli 345.4 259.7 452.7 OC-7
10/16/2009 35°23'29.46"N 76°18'44.46"W E. coli 393.7 288.3 521.7 OC-5
10/16/2009 35°23'29.20"N 76°18'44.94"W E. coli 626 434.1 879 OC-6
10/16/2009 35°23'27.81"N 76°18'45.68"W E. coli 922.2 585.4 1375.8 OC-8
10/16/2009 35°23'27.37"N 76°18'46.43"W E. coli 419.6 291 602.2 OC-9
10/16/2009 35°23'26.51"N 76°18'47.57"W E. coli 383.6 273.5 529 OC-11
10/16/2009 35°23'25.28"N 76°18'48.92"W E. coli 570.2 395.4 797.5 OC-13
10/16/2009 35°23'29.11"N 76°18'49.20"W E. coli 444.7 317 606.5 OC-10
10/16/2009 35°23'28.81"N 76°18'50.30"W E. coli 296.6 211.4 399.8 OC-12
10/16/2009 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W E. coli 520.5 350.7 730.4 10B
10/16/2009 35°23'24.69"N 76°18'51.43"W E. coli 356.4 261.1 486.3 OC-14
10/16/2009 35°23'14.11"N 76°18'51.64"W E. coli 387 260.8 558.9 OC-16
10/16/2009 35°23'9.19"N 76°18'52.37"W E. coli 238.2 179.1 312.2 OC-17
10/16/2009 35°23'1.70"N 76°18'53.79"W E. coli 476.4 330.4 681.6 OC-18
10/16/2009 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W E. coli 274.7 195.8 365.9 10A
10/16/2009 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W E. coli 215.2 157.6 290.8 10
10/16/2009 35°23'34.13"N 76°18'40.04"W Enterococci 84.4 37.1 153.4 OC-4
10/16/2009 35°23'30.94"N 76°18'42.20"W Enterococci 179.1 106.7 281.7 OC-3
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
D11
Sample Date Latitude Longitude Analyte MPN/100mL Lower Limit Upper Limit Sample Code
10/16/2009 35°23'30.21"N 76°18'43.69"W Enterococci 265.5 168.5 391.6 OC-2
10/16/2009 35°23'31.96"N 76°18'43.86"W Enterococci 63.2 29 137.1 OC-1B
10/16/2009 35°23'31.89"N 76°18'44.06"W Enterococci 73.8 32.4 144 OC-1A
10/16/2009 35°23'28.78"N 76°18'44.43"W Enterococci 294.1 192.4 427.1 OC-7
10/16/2009 35°23'29.46"N 76°18'44.46"W Enterococci 278 181.9 405.7 OC-5
10/16/2009 35°23'29.20"N 76°18'44.94"W Enterococci 184.9 110.1 292.2 OC-6
10/16/2009 35°23'27.81"N 76°18'45.68"W Enterococci 208.6 124.3 323 OC-8
10/16/2009 35°23'27.37"N 76°18'46.43"W Enterococci 184.9 110.1 292.2 OC-9
10/16/2009 35°23'26.51"N 76°18'47.57"W Enterococci 171.2 98.7 273.9 OC-11
10/16/2009 35°23'25.28"N 76°18'48.92"W Enterococci 73.8 32.4 144 OC-13
10/16/2009 35°23'29.11"N 76°18'49.20"W Enterococci 133.6 74.4 223.1 OC-10
10/16/2009 35°23'28.81"N 76°18'50.30"W Enterococci 310.6 209.3 449.2 OC-12
10/16/2009 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W Enterococci 52.1 22.9 119.4 10B
10/16/2009 35°23'24.69"N 76°18'51.43"W Enterococci 52.1 22.9 119.4 OC-14
10/16/2009 35°23'14.11"N 76°18'51.64"W Enterococci 119.9 59.7 202.7 OC-16
10/16/2009 35°23'9.19"N 76°18'52.37"W Enterococci 232.5 147.6 350.4 OC-17
10/16/2009 35°23'1.70"N 76°18'53.79"W Enterococci 85.2 39.1 156.4 OC-18
10/16/2009 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W Enterococci 210.9 125.6 325.6 10A
10/16/2009 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W Enterococci 62.6 25.1 127.3 10
11/23/2009 35°23'34.13"N 76°18'40.04"W E. coli 56.9 36.1 83.6 OC-4
11/23/2009 35°23'30.94"N 76°18'42.20"W E. coli 64.5 42.2 94.3 OC-3
11/23/2009 35°23'30.21"N 76°18'43.69"W E. coli 48.1 29.6 72.9 OC-2
11/23/2009 35°23'31.96"N 76°18'43.86"W E. coli 51.2 31.5 76.7 OC-1B
11/23/2009 35°23'31.89"N 76°18'44.06"W E. coli 51.2 31.5 76.7 OC-1A
11/23/2009 35°23'28.78"N 76°18'44.43"W E. coli 24.5 13.6 42.8 OC-7
11/23/2009 35°23'29.46"N 76°18'44.46"W E. coli 48.7 30.9 74.1 OC-5
11/23/2009 35°23'29.20"N 76°18'44.94"W E. coli 35 20.2 57.1 OC-6
11/23/2009 35°23'27.81"N 76°18'45.68"W E. coli 64.5 42.2 94.3 OC-8
11/23/2009 35°23'27.37"N 76°18'46.43"W E. coli 63.7 41.7 92.7 OC-9
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
D12
Sample Date Latitude Longitude Analyte MPN/100mL Lower Limit Upper Limit Sample Code
11/23/2009 35°23'26.51"N 76°18'47.57"W E. coli 40.7 24.2 64.4 OC-11
11/23/2009 35°23'25.28"N 76°18'48.92"W E. coli 37 22 58.4 OC-13
11/23/2009 35°23'29.11"N 76°18'49.20"W E. coli 92.8 62.5 130.7 OC-10
11/23/2009 35°23'28.81"N 76°18'50.30"W E. coli 52.5 34.3 77 OC-12
11/23/2009 35°23'18.82"N 76°18'50.82"W E. coli 22 11.4 40.2 OC-15
11/23/2009 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W E. coli 39.3 23.4 61.4 10B
11/23/2009 35°23'14.11"N 76°18'51.64"W E. coli 35.1 20.9 54.1 OC-16
11/23/2009 35°23'9.19"N 76°18'52.37"W E. coli 40.8 25.1 62.4 OC-17
11/23/2009 35°23'1.70"N 76°18'53.79"W E. coli 23.3 12.1 40.2 OC-18
11/23/2009 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W E. coli 43.2 27.4 65.1 10A
11/23/2009 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W E. coli 28.1 15.7 46.8 10
11/23/2009 35°23'34.13"N 76°18'40.04"W Enterococci 157.9 87.9 257.1 OC-4
11/23/2009 35°23'30.94"N 76°18'42.20"W Enterococci 811.7 610.4 1062 OC-3
11/23/2009 35°23'30.21"N 76°18'43.69"W Enterococci 767.8 562.3 1010.1 OC-2
11/23/2009 35°23'31.96"N 76°18'43.86"W Enterococci 465.4 322.7 647.4 OC-1B
11/23/2009 35°23'31.89"N 76°18'44.06"W Enterococci 512.1 355.1 706.9 OC-1A
11/23/2009 35°23'28.78"N 76°18'44.43"W Enterococci 331.9 217.1 479 OC-7
11/23/2009 35°23'29.46"N 76°18'44.46"W Enterococci 1233.5 927.5 1637.2 OC-5
11/23/2009 35°23'29.20"N 76°18'44.94"W Enterococci 619.8 441.8 851.1 OC-6
11/23/2009 35°23'27.81"N 76°18'45.68"W Enterococci 1144.6 816 1554.8 OC-8
11/23/2009 35°23'27.37"N 76°18'46.43"W Enterococci 842 616.7 1121.5 OC-9
11/23/2009 35°23'26.51"N 76°18'47.57"W Enterococci 1785.3 1237.8 2504.6 OC-11
11/23/2009 35°23'25.28"N 76°18'48.92"W Enterococci 368.4 248.3 522.1 OC-13
11/23/2009 35°23'29.11"N 76°18'49.20"W Enterococci 2612.5 1709.4 3984.5 OC-10
11/23/2009 35°23'28.81"N 76°18'50.30"W Enterococci 460.1 328 629.8 OC-12
11/23/2009 35°23'18.82"N 76°18'50.82"W Enterococci 612.7 436.8 845.7 OC-15
11/23/2009 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W Enterococci 387.7 261.2 547.4 10B
11/23/2009 35°23'14.11"N 76°18'51.64"W Enterococci 208.6 124.3 323 OC-16
11/23/2009 35°23'9.19"N 76°18'52.37"W Enterococci 335.5 219.5 489.3 OC-17
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
D13
Sample Date Latitude Longitude Analyte MPN/100mL Lower Limit Upper Limit Sample Code
11/23/2009 35°23'1.70"N 76°18'53.79"W Enterococci 173.1 103.1 281.5 OC-18
11/23/2009 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W Enterococci 63.2 29 137.1 10A
11/23/2009 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W Enterococci 167.7 96.6 268.3 10
12/22/2009 35°23'34.13"N 76°18'40.04"W E. coli 32.3 18.6 53.6 OC-4
12/22/2009 35°23'30.94"N 76°18'42.20"W E. coli 49.2 30.3 75.3 OC-3
12/22/2009 35°23'30.21"N 76°18'43.69"W E. coli 97.8 69.7 133.1 OC-2
12/22/2009 35°23'31.96"N 76°18'43.86"W E. coli 57.6 36.6 85.4 OC-1B
12/22/2009 35°23'31.89"N 76°18'44.06"W E. coli 37.4 21.5 60 OC-1A
12/22/2009 35°23'28.78"N 76°18'44.43"W E. coli 33.5 19.3 53.7 OC-7
12/22/2009 35°23'29.46"N 76°18'44.46"W E. coli 60.3 39.4 88.4 OC-5
12/22/2009 35°23'29.20"N 76°18'44.94"W E. coli 37.7 23.2 57.7 OC-6
12/22/2009 35°23'27.81"N 76°18'45.68"W E. coli 51.8 32.9 78.2 OC-8
12/22/2009 35°23'27.37"N 76°18'46.43"W E. coli 39.3 23.4 61.4 OC-9
12/22/2009 35°23'26.51"N 76°18'47.57"W E. coli 71.8 48.4 103.7 OC-11
12/22/2009 35°23'25.28"N 76°18'48.92"W E. coli 61.4 41.4 88.4 OC-13
12/22/2009 35°23'29.11"N 76°18'49.20"W E. coli 110.8 79 151.6 OC-10
12/22/2009 35°23'28.81"N 76°18'50.30"W E. coli 23.5 12.2 40.2 OC-12
12/22/2009 35°23'18.82"N 76°18'50.82"W E. coli 36.6 21.1 57.6 OC-15
12/22/2009 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W E. coli 41.7 24.9 64.6 10B
12/22/2009 35°23'14.11"N 76°18'51.64"W E. coli 36.2 20.9 57.3 OC-16
12/22/2009 35°23'9.19"N 76°18'52.37"W E. coli 50 31.7 74.2 OC-17
12/22/2009 35°23'1.70"N 76°18'53.79"W E. coli 60.6 40.9 86.9 OC-18
12/22/2009 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W E. coli 44.5 28.3 66.2 10A
12/22/2009 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W E. coli 22 11.4 40.2 10
12/22/2009 35°23'34.13"N 76°18'40.04"W Enterococci 182.9 105.4 288.2 OC-4
12/22/2009 35°23'30.94"N 76°18'42.20"W Enterococci 811.7 610.4 1062 OC-3
12/22/2009 35°23'30.21"N 76°18'43.69"W Enterococci 1828.6 1375.1 2355 OC-2
12/22/2009 35°23'31.96"N 76°18'43.86"W Enterococci 2602.5 1753.6 3651.9 OC-1B
12/22/2009 35°23'31.89"N 76°18'44.06"W Enterococci 443.4 307.4 618.4 OC-1A
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
D14
Sample Date Latitude Longitude Analyte MPN/100mL Lower Limit Upper Limit Sample Code
12/22/2009 35°23'28.78"N 76°18'44.43"W Enterococci 154.7 86.1 251 OC-7
12/22/2009 35°23'29.46"N 76°18'44.46"W Enterococci 488.2 338.5 674.8 OC-5
12/22/2009 35°23'29.20"N 76°18'44.94"W Enterococci 1319.7 992.4 1724.2 OC-6
12/22/2009 35°23'27.81"N 76°18'45.68"W Enterococci 1112.3 792.9 1516.7 OC-8
12/22/2009 35°23'27.37"N 76°18'46.43"W Enterococci 553.9 394.8 758 OC-9
12/22/2009 35°23'26.51"N 76°18'47.57"W Enterococci 8164.1 5501.2 11745.9 OC-11
12/22/2009 35°23'25.28"N 76°18'48.92"W Enterococci 407.7 282.7 573.4 OC-13
12/22/2009 35°23'29.11"N 76°18'49.20"W Enterococci 912.6 686.3 1182.5 OC-10
12/22/2009 35°23'28.81"N 76°18'50.30"W Enterococci 559.6 409.9 750.4 OC-12
12/22/2009 35°23'18.82"N 76°18'50.82"W Enterococci 354.5 238.8 510.2 OC-15
12/22/2009 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W Enterococci 1354 965.3 1840.1 10B
12/22/2009 35°23'14.11"N 76°18'51.64"W Enterococci 122.3 68.1 214 OC-16
12/22/2009 35°23'9.19"N 76°18'52.37"W Enterococci 184.9 110.1 292.2 OC-17
12/22/2009 35°23'1.70"N 76°18'53.79"W Enterococci 20.2 2.6 71.3 OC-18
12/22/2009 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W Enterococci 30.6 6.9 89.4 10A
12/22/2009 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W Enterococci 255.9 157.4 383.6 10
01/11/2010 35°23'34.13"N 76°18'40.04"W E. coli 43.6 26.8 67.8 OC-4
01/11/2010 35°23'30.94"N 76°18'42.20"W E. coli 49.2 30.3 75.3 OC-3
01/11/2010 35°23'30.21"N 76°18'43.69"W E. coli 60.3 39.4 88.4 OC-2
01/11/2010 35°23'31.96"N 76°18'43.86"W E. coli 40.2 24.7 63.7 OC-1B
01/11/2010 35°23'31.89"N 76°18'44.06"W E. coli 37.4 21.5 60 OC-1A
01/11/2010 35°23'28.78"N 76°18'44.43"W E. coli 24 11.9 40.5 OC-7
01/11/2010 35°23'29.46"N 76°18'44.46"W E. coli 51.2 31.5 76.7 OC-5
01/11/2010 35°23'29.20"N 76°18'44.94"W E. coli 38.9 23.2 60.9 OC-6
01/11/2010 35°23'27.81"N 76°18'45.68"W E. coli 45.6 28.1 70.1 OC-8
01/11/2010 35°23'27.37"N 76°18'46.43"W E. coli 28.7 15.4 47.1 OC-9
01/11/2010 35°23'26.51"N 76°18'47.57"W E. coli 19.6 9.4 36.7 OC-11
01/11/2010 35°23'25.28"N 76°18'48.92"W E. coli 28.7 15.4 47.1 OC-13
01/11/2010 35°23'29.11"N 76°18'49.20"W E. coli 94.5 65.5 131.8 OC-10
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
D15
Sample Date Latitude Longitude Analyte MPN/100mL Lower Limit Upper Limit Sample Code
01/11/2010 35°23'28.81"N 76°18'50.30"W E. coli 24 11.9 40.5 OC-12
01/11/2010 35°23'18.82"N 76°18'50.82"W E. coli 26.2 13.6 43.5 OC-15
01/11/2010 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W E. coli 36.6 21.1 57.6 10B
01/11/2010 35°23'14.11"N 76°18'51.64"W E. coli 37.3 23 57.3 OC-16
01/11/2010 35°23'9.19"N 76°18'52.37"W E. coli 28.4 15.3 46.9 OC-17
01/11/2010 35°23'1.70"N 76°18'53.79"W E. coli 21.1 10.5 37 OC-18
01/11/2010 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W E. coli 16.9 7.4 30.7 10A
01/11/2010 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W E. coli 17 7.8 31.3 10
01/11/2010 35°23'34.13"N 76°18'40.04"W Enterococci 30.4 6.8 73.7 OC-4
01/11/2010 35°23'30.94"N 76°18'42.20"W Enterococci 624.3 457.3 822.8 OC-3
01/11/2010 35°23'30.21"N 76°18'43.69"W Enterococci 624.3 457.3 822.8 OC-2
01/11/2010 35°23'31.96"N 76°18'43.86"W Enterococci 387.7 261.2 547.4 OC-1B
01/11/2010 35°23'31.89"N 76°18'44.06"W Enterococci 650.4 463.6 891.5 OC-1A
01/11/2010 35°23'28.78"N 76°18'44.43"W Enterococci 416.5 288.8 580.2 OC-7
01/11/2010 35°23'29.46"N 76°18'44.46"W Enterococci 668.5 502.7 873.2 OC-5
01/11/2010 35°23'29.20"N 76°18'44.94"W Enterococci 705.3 516.6 938.8 OC-6
01/11/2010 35°23'27.81"N 76°18'45.68"W Enterococci 812.6 579.3 1113.9 OC-8
01/11/2010 35°23'27.37"N 76°18'46.43"W Enterococci 816.2 581.9 1103.2 OC-9
01/11/2010 35°23'26.51"N 76°18'47.57"W Enterococci 2755.1 1856.5 4167.6 OC-11
01/11/2010 35°23'25.28"N 76°18'48.92"W Enterococci 393.1 264.9 558.9 OC-13
01/11/2010 35°23'29.11"N 76°18'49.20"W Enterococci 6488.2 4245.2 9414.6 OC-10
01/11/2010 35°23'28.81"N 76°18'50.30"W Enterococci 1413.7 1035.4 1878.3 OC-12
01/11/2010 35°23'18.82"N 76°18'50.82"W Enterococci 538.1 373.1 750.4 OC-15
01/11/2010 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W Enterococci 1395.8 995 1899.6 10B
01/11/2010 35°23'14.11"N 76°18'51.64"W Enterococci 218.2 134.2 339 OC-16
01/11/2010 35°23'9.19"N 76°18'52.37"W Enterococci 237.8 146.3 357.7 OC-17
01/11/2010 35°23'1.70"N 76°18'53.79"W Enterococci 73.8 32.4 144 OC-18
01/11/2010 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W Enterococci 41.3 16.5 95.2 10A
01/11/2010 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W Enterococci 110 56.9 200.8 10
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
D16
Sample Date Latitude Longitude Analyte MPN/100mL Lower Limit Upper Limit Sample Code
Sample Date Latitude Longitude Analyte MPN/100mL Lower Limit Upper Limit Sample Code
11/22/2008 35°23'34.13"N 76°18'40.04"W Fecal Coliform 31.8 17.0 52.8 OC-4
11/22/2008 35°23'30.21"N 76°18'43.69"W Fecal Coliform 100.6 67.8 143.2 OC-2
11/22/2008 35°23'27.81"N 76°18'45.68"W Fecal Coliform 72.3 47.2 106.0 OC-8
11/22/2008 35°23'26.51"N 76°18'47.57"W Fecal Coliform 92.1 62.0 132.8 OC-11
11/22/2008 35°23'18.82"N 76°18'50.82"W Fecal Coliform 44.4 26.4 70.0 OC-15
11/22/2008 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W Fecal Coliform 59.0 36.3 90.3 10B
11/22/2008 35°23'24.69"N 76°18'51.43"W Fecal Coliform 32.4 18.7 56.1 OC-14
11/22/2008 35°23'14.11"N 76°18'51.64"W Fecal Coliform 25.9 12.3 44.6 OC-16
11/22/2008 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W Fecal Coliform 23.0 10.5 40.6 10A
11/22/2008 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W Fecal Coliform 12.4 5.5 28.6 10
12/20/2008 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W Fecal Coliform 34.8 18.7 56.5 10B
12/20/2008 35°23'14.11"N 76°18'51.64"W Fecal Coliform 7.3 1.6 21.4 OC-16
12/20/2008 35°23'9.19"N 76°18'52.37"W Fecal Coliform 2.4 0.0 8.7 OC-17
12/20/2008 35°23'1.70"N 76°18'53.79"W Fecal Coliform 4.8 0.6 14.1 OC-18
12/20/2008 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W Fecal Coliform 14.7 5.6 29.1 10A
12/20/2008 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W Fecal Coliform 4.8 0.6 17.1 10
02/27/2009 35°23'34.13"N 76°18'40.04"W Fecal Coliform 106.9 72.0 151.1 OC-4
02/27/2009 35°23'30.94"N 76°18'42.20"W Fecal Coliform 83.2 54.3 121.9 OC-3
02/27/2009 35°23'30.21"N 76°18'43.69"W Fecal Coliform 89.0 58.2 130.1 OC-2
02/27/2009 35°23'31.96"N 76°18'43.86"W Fecal Coliform 60.1 36.9 93.5 OC-1B
02/27/2009 35°23'31.89"N 76°18'44.06"W Fecal Coliform 2.7 0.1 10.0 OC-1A
02/27/2009 35°23'28.78"N 76°18'44.43"W Fecal Coliform 66.3 40.8 100.6 OC-7
02/27/2009 35°23'29.46"N 76°18'44.46"W Fecal Coliform 75.9 48.1 113.7 OC-5
02/27/2009 35°23'29.20"N 76°18'44.94"W Fecal Coliform 525.5 374.5 701.3 OC-6
02/27/2009 35°23'27.81"N 76°18'45.68"W Fecal Coliform 43.1 24.0 69.6 OC-8
02/27/2009 35°23'27.37"N 76°18'46.43"W Fecal Coliform 72.3 45.9 109.5 OC-9
02/27/2009 35°23'25.28"N 76°18'48.92"W Fecal Coliform 51.6 29.6 82.8 OC-13
02/27/2009 35°23'29.11"N 76°18'49.20"W Fecal Coliform 107.5 72.4 154.2 OC-10
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
D17
Sample Date Latitude Longitude Analyte MPN/100mL Lower Limit Upper Limit Sample Code
02/27/2009 35°23'28.81"N 76°18'50.30"W Fecal Coliform 62.2 38.2 95.0 OC-12
02/27/2009 35°23'18.82"N 76°18'50.82"W Fecal Coliform 33.3 17.9 58.2 OC-15
02/27/2009 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W Fecal Coliform 174.2 124.2 239.9 10B
02/27/2009 35°23'24.69"N 76°18'51.43"W Fecal Coliform 43.6 24.2 70.9 OC-14
02/27/2009 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W Fecal Coliform 14.3 6.3 32.9 10A
02/27/2009 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W Fecal Coliform 5.5 0.6 19.7 10
05/08/2009 35°23'34.13"N 76°18'40.04"W Fecal Coliform 142.4 96.0 201.4 OC-4
05/08/2009 35°23'30.94"N 76°18'42.20"W Fecal Coliform 34.0 16.2 58.9 OC-3
05/08/2009 35°23'30.21"N 76°18'43.69"W Fecal Coliform 49.1 27.3 79.8 OC-2
05/08/2009 35°23'31.96"N 76°18'43.86"W Fecal Coliform 9.6 2.2 28.5 OC-1B
05/08/2009 35°23'31.89"N 76°18'44.06"W Fecal Coliform 16.5 7.3 38.0 OC-1A
05/08/2009 35°23'28.78"N 76°18'44.43"W Fecal Coliform 108.2 70.9 156.5 OC-7
05/08/2009 35°23'29.46"N 76°18'44.46"W Fecal Coliform 74.2 45.6 114.8 OC-5
05/08/2009 35°23'29.20"N 76°18'44.94"W Fecal Coliform 86.4 54.8 127.8 OC-6
05/08/2009 35°23'27.81"N 76°18'45.68"W Fecal Coliform 62.4 37.2 97.6 OC-8
05/08/2009 35°23'27.37"N 76°18'46.43"W Fecal Coliform 58.1 33.5 91.6 OC-9
05/08/2009 35°23'26.51"N 76°18'47.57"W Fecal Coliform 73.2 45.2 113.5 OC-11
05/08/2009 35°23'25.28"N 76°18'48.92"W Fecal Coliform 70.1 43.1 107.1 OC-13
05/08/2009 35°23'29.11"N 76°18'49.20"W Fecal Coliform 30.8 14.1 54.5 OC-10
05/08/2009 35°23'28.81"N 76°18'50.30"W Fecal Coliform 49.7 27.6 80.3 OC-12
05/08/2009 35°23'18.82"N 76°18'50.82"W Fecal Coliform 3.1 0.0 11.6 OC-15
05/08/2009 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W Fecal Coliform 6.3 0.8 22.7 10B
05/08/2009 35°23'24.69"N 76°18'51.43"W Fecal Coliform 6.3 0.8 22.7 OC-14
05/08/2009 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W Fecal Coliform 3.1 0.0 11.6 10A
05/08/2009 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W Fecal Coliform 3.1 0.2 17.5 10
06/20/2009 35°23'34.13"N 76°18'40.04"W Fecal Coliform 142.5 96.1 201.1 OC-4
06/20/2009 35°23'30.94"N 76°18'42.20"W Fecal Coliform 150.1 104.1 205.9 OC-3
06/20/2009 35°23'30.21"N 76°18'43.69"W Fecal Coliform 73.3 45.1 112.1 OC-2
06/20/2009 35°23'31.96"N 76°18'43.86"W Fecal Coliform 104.3 70.1 150.0 OC-1B
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
D18
Sample Date Latitude Longitude Analyte MPN/100mL Lower Limit Upper Limit Sample Code
06/20/2009 35°23'31.89"N 76°18'44.06"W Fecal Coliform 89.8 58.7 131.7 OC-1A
06/20/2009 35°23'28.78"N 76°18'44.43"W Fecal Coliform 145.2 100.7 202.6 OC-7
06/20/2009 35°23'29.46"N 76°18'44.46"W Fecal Coliform 173.8 120.5 240.1 OC-5
06/20/2009 35°23'29.20"N 76°18'44.94"W Fecal Coliform 237.6 169.4 318.7 OC-6
06/20/2009 35°23'27.81"N 76°18'45.68"W Fecal Coliform 171.4 118.9 238.4 OC-8
06/20/2009 35°23'27.37"N 76°18'46.43"W Fecal Coliform 195.6 135.5 269.0 OC-9
06/20/2009 35°23'26.51"N 76°18'47.57"W Fecal Coliform 165.5 114.7 229.9 OC-11
06/20/2009 35°23'25.28"N 76°18'48.92"W Fecal Coliform 131.4 91.1 186.2 OC-13
06/20/2009 35°23'29.11"N 76°18'49.20"W Fecal Coliform 235.2 167.7 324.2 OC-10
06/20/2009 35°23'28.81"N 76°18'50.30"W Fecal Coliform 203.5 145.1 276.9 OC-12
06/20/2009 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W Fecal Coliform 94.9 62.1 138.1 10B
06/20/2009 35°23'24.69"N 76°18'51.43"W Fecal Coliform 90.8 57.6 133.3 OC-14
06/20/2009 35°23'14.11"N 76°18'51.64"W Fecal Coliform 32.4 16.8 58.1 OC-16
06/20/2009 35°23'9.19"N 76°18'52.37"W Fecal Coliform 47.0 26.2 76.5 OC-17
06/20/2009 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W Fecal Coliform 71.6 44.1 108.6 10A
06/20/2009 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W Fecal Coliform 29.2 14.0 54.6 10
07/10/2009 35°23'34.13"N 76°18'40.04"W Fecal Coliform 887.6 598.2 1248.2 OC-4
07/10/2009 35°23'30.94"N 76°18'42.20"W Fecal Coliform 929.4 644.5 1299.9 OC-3
07/10/2009 35°23'30.21"N 76°18'43.69"W Fecal Coliform 743.9 515.7 1053.3 OC-2
07/10/2009 35°23'31.96"N 76°18'43.86"W Fecal Coliform 782.5 573.1 1071.0 OC-1B
07/10/2009 35°23'31.89"N 76°18'44.06"W Fecal Coliform 620.7 442.3 828.3 OC-1A
07/10/2009 35°23'28.78"N 76°18'44.43"W Fecal Coliform 2510.5 1789.7 3566.6 OC-7
07/10/2009 35°23'29.46"N 76°18'44.46"W Fecal Coliform 811.4 562.6 1141.8 OC-5
07/10/2009 35°23'29.20"N 76°18'44.94"W Fecal Coliform 2661.4 1793.3 3829.1 OC-6
07/10/2009 35°23'27.81"N 76°18'45.68"W Fecal Coliform 1121.7 799.6 1540.1 OC-8
07/10/2009 35°23'27.37"N 76°18'46.43"W Fecal Coliform 620.7 442.3 828.3 OC-9
07/10/2009 35°23'26.51"N 76°18'47.57"W Fecal Coliform 2115.0 1383.8 3069.1 OC-11
07/10/2009 35°23'25.28"N 76°18'48.92"W Fecal Coliform 1262.5 801.4 1848.5 OC-13
07/10/2009 35°23'29.11"N 76°18'49.20"W Fecal Coliform 3196.1 2153.5 4597.0 OC-10
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
D19
Sample Date Latitude Longitude Analyte MPN/100mL Lower Limit Upper Limit Sample Code
07/10/2009 35°23'28.81"N 76°18'50.30"W Fecal Coliform 600.4 439.7 819.4 OC-12
07/10/2009 35°23'18.82"N 76°18'50.82"W Fecal Coliform 582.0 403.5 816.4 OC-15
07/10/2009 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W Fecal Coliform 600.4 439.7 819.4 10B
07/10/2009 35°23'9.19"N 76°18'52.37"W Fecal Coliform 712.9 494.3 1025.4 OC-17
07/10/2009 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W Fecal Coliform 663.5 486.0 881.1 10A
07/10/2009 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W Fecal Coliform 295.5 210.5 404.4 10
08/18/2009 35°23'34.13"N 76°18'40.04"W Fecal Coliform 1865.8 1220.7 2727.8 OC-4
08/18/2009 35°23'30.94"N 76°18'42.20"W Fecal Coliform 1218.6 844.9 1694.2 OC-3
08/18/2009 35°23'30.21"N 76°18'43.69"W Fecal Coliform 1322.1 839.1 1992.8 OC-2
08/18/2009 35°23'31.96"N 76°18'43.86"W Fecal Coliform 1110.2 704.6 1676.4 OC-1B
08/18/2009 35°23'31.89"N 76°18'44.06"W Fecal Coliform 1007.8 698.9 1415.1 OC-1A
08/18/2009 35°23'28.78"N 76°18'44.43"W Fecal Coliform 4184.8 2738.1 6106.8 OC-7
08/18/2009 35°23'29.46"N 76°18'44.46"W Fecal Coliform 1176.5 746.8 1788.5 OC-5
08/18/2009 35°23'29.20"N 76°18'44.94"W Fecal Coliform 6395.8 3935.0 10626.8 OC-6
08/18/2009 35°23'27.81"N 76°18'45.68"W Fecal Coliform 1762.9 1153.5 2590.3 OC-8
08/18/2009 35°23'27.37"N 76°18'46.43"W Fecal Coliform 1007.8 698.9 1415.1 OC-9
08/18/2009 35°23'26.51"N 76°18'47.57"W Fecal Coliform 1974.3 1291.8 2831.0 OC-11
08/18/2009 35°23'25.28"N 76°18'48.92"W Fecal Coliform 1484.7 942.4 2215.0 OC-13
08/18/2009 35°23'29.11"N 76°18'49.20"W Fecal Coliform 3605.9 2429.8 5197.0 OC-10
08/18/2009 35°23'28.81"N 76°18'50.30"W Fecal Coliform 1572.0 998.3 2323.0 OC-12
08/18/2009 35°23'18.82"N 76°18'50.82"W Fecal Coliform 801.4 555.7 1127.8 OC-15
08/18/2009 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W Fecal Coliform 1176.5 746.8 1788.5 10B
08/18/2009 35°23'9.19"N 76°18'52.37"W Fecal Coliform 801.4 555.7 1127.8 OC-17
08/18/2009 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W Fecal Coliform 835.5 595.7 1106.2 10A
08/18/2009 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W Fecal Coliform 203.8 149.4 274.5 10
09/24/2009 35°23'34.13"N 76°18'40.04"W Fecal Coliform 1105.0 766.2 1536.3 OC-4
09/24/2009 35°23'30.94"N 76°18'42.20"W Fecal Coliform 898.1 570.1 1376.0 OC-3
09/24/2009 35°23'30.21"N 76°18'43.69"W Fecal Coliform 820.2 600.7 1104.6 OC-2
09/24/2009 35°23'31.96"N 76°18'43.86"W Fecal Coliform 469.2 325.4 660.9 OC-1B
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
D20
Sample Date Latitude Longitude Analyte MPN/100mL Lower Limit Upper Limit Sample Code
09/24/2009 35°23'31.89"N 76°18'44.06"W Fecal Coliform 1198.9 760.9 1807.1 OC-1A
09/24/2009 35°23'28.78"N 76°18'44.43"W Fecal Coliform 519.6 380.6 687.6 OC-7
09/24/2009 35°23'29.46"N 76°18'44.46"W Fecal Coliform 649.2 462.8 885.4 OC-5
09/24/2009 35°23'29.20"N 76°18'44.94"W Fecal Coliform 1053.6 751.1 1456.2 OC-6
09/24/2009 35°23'27.81"N 76°18'45.68"W Fecal Coliform 898.1 570.1 1376.0 OC-8
09/24/2009 35°23'27.37"N 76°18'46.43"W Fecal Coliform 726.7 503.9 1022.7 OC-9
09/24/2009 35°23'26.51"N 76°18'47.57"W Fecal Coliform 359.7 277.5 462.0 OC-11
09/24/2009 35°23'25.28"N 76°18'48.92"W Fecal Coliform 385.2 289.8 503.4 OC-13
09/24/2009 35°23'29.11"N 76°18'49.20"W Fecal Coliform 695.5 482.3 995.1 OC-10
09/24/2009 35°23'28.81"N 76°18'50.30"W Fecal Coliform 414.9 295.7 574.8 OC-12
09/24/2009 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W Fecal Coliform 302.6 221.6 395.2 10B
09/24/2009 35°23'24.69"N 76°18'51.43"W Fecal Coliform 360.1 270.8 478.0 OC-14
09/24/2009 35°23'14.11"N 76°18'51.64"W Fecal Coliform 350.5 256.8 466.4 OC-16
09/24/2009 35°23'9.19"N 76°18'52.37"W Fecal Coliform 625.3 445.7 859.6 OC-17
09/24/2009 35°23'1.70"N 76°18'53.79"W Fecal Coliform 602.5 429.5 826.6 OC-18
09/24/2009 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W Fecal Coliform 329.9 241.6 435.2 10A
09/24/2009 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W Fecal Coliform 209.5 149.3 284.5 10
10/16/2009 35°23'34.13"N 76°18'40.04"W Fecal Coliform 1044.3 663.0 1560.1 OC-4
10/16/2009 35°23'30.94"N 76°18'42.20"W Fecal Coliform 513.9 366.3 706.5 OC-3
10/16/2009 35°23'30.21"N 76°18'43.69"W Fecal Coliform 571.6 396.4 817.9 OC-2
10/16/2009 35°23'31.96"N 76°18'43.86"W Fecal Coliform 264.1 193.4 350.7 OC-1B
10/16/2009 35°23'31.89"N 76°18'44.06"W Fecal Coliform 866.0 617.4 1196.8 OC-1A
10/16/2009 35°23'28.78"N 76°18'44.43"W Fecal Coliform 414.4 311.6 543.2 OC-7
10/16/2009 35°23'29.46"N 76°18'44.46"W Fecal Coliform 472.4 345.9 626.0 OC-5
10/16/2009 35°23'29.20"N 76°18'44.94"W Fecal Coliform 751.2 520.9 1054.8 OC-6
10/16/2009 35°23'27.81"N 76°18'45.68"W Fecal Coliform 1106.6 702.4 1650.9 OC-8
10/16/2009 35°23'27.37"N 76°18'46.43"W Fecal Coliform 503.5 349.2 722.6 OC-9
10/16/2009 35°23'26.51"N 76°18'47.57"W Fecal Coliform 460.3 328.2 634.8 OC-11
10/16/2009 35°23'25.28"N 76°18'48.92"W Fecal Coliform 684.2 474.4 957.0 OC-13
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
D21
Sample Date Latitude Longitude Analyte MPN/100mL Lower Limit Upper Limit Sample Code
10/16/2009 35°23'29.11"N 76°18'49.20"W Fecal Coliform 533.6 380.4 727.8 OC-10
10/16/2009 35°23'28.81"N 76°18'50.30"W Fecal Coliform 355.9 253.6 479.7 OC-12
10/16/2009 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W Fecal Coliform 624.6 420.8 876.4 10B
10/16/2009 35°23'24.69"N 76°18'51.43"W Fecal Coliform 427.6 313.3 583.5 OC-14
10/16/2009 35°23'14.11"N 76°18'51.64"W Fecal Coliform 464.4 312.9 670.6 OC-16
10/16/2009 35°23'9.19"N 76°18'52.37"W Fecal Coliform 285.8 214.9 374.6 OC-17
10/16/2009 35°23'1.70"N 76°18'53.79"W Fecal Coliform 571.6 396.4 817.9 OC-18
10/16/2009 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W Fecal Coliform 329.6 234.9 439.0 10A
10/16/2009 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W Fecal Coliform 258.2 189.1 348.9 10
11/23/2009 35°23'34.13"N 76°18'40.04"W Fecal Coliform 73.4 46.5 107.8 OC-4
11/23/2009 35°23'30.94"N 76°18'42.20"W Fecal Coliform 83.2 54.4 121.6 OC-3
11/23/2009 35°23'30.21"N 76°18'43.69"W Fecal Coliform 62.0 38.1 94.0 OC-2
11/23/2009 35°23'31.96"N 76°18'43.86"W Fecal Coliform 66.0 40.6 98.9 OC-1B
11/23/2009 35°23'31.89"N 76°18'44.06"W Fecal Coliform 66.0 40.6 98.9 OC-1A
11/23/2009 35°23'28.78"N 76°18'44.43"W Fecal Coliform 31.6 17.5 55.2 OC-7
11/23/2009 35°23'29.46"N 76°18'44.46"W Fecal Coliform 62.8 39.8 95.5 OC-5
11/23/2009 35°23'29.20"N 76°18'44.94"W Fecal Coliform 45.1 26.0 73.6 OC-6
11/23/2009 35°23'27.81"N 76°18'45.68"W Fecal Coliform 83.2 54.4 121.6 OC-8
11/23/2009 35°23'27.37"N 76°18'46.43"W Fecal Coliform 82.1 53.7 119.5 OC-9
11/23/2009 35°23'26.51"N 76°18'47.57"W Fecal Coliform 52.5 31.2 83.0 OC-11
11/23/2009 35°23'25.28"N 76°18'48.92"W Fecal Coliform 47.7 28.3 75.3 OC-13
11/23/2009 35°23'29.11"N 76°18'49.20"W Fecal Coliform 119.7 80.6 168.6 OC-10
11/23/2009 35°23'28.81"N 76°18'50.30"W Fecal Coliform 67.7 44.2 99.3 OC-12
11/23/2009 35°23'18.82"N 76°18'50.82"W Fecal Coliform 28.3 14.7 51.8 OC-15
11/23/2009 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W Fecal Coliform 50.6 30.1 79.2 10B
11/23/2009 35°23'14.11"N 76°18'51.64"W Fecal Coliform 45.2 26.9 69.7 OC-16
11/23/2009 35°23'9.19"N 76°18'52.37"W Fecal Coliform 52.6 32.3 80.4 OC-17
11/23/2009 35°23'1.70"N 76°18'53.79"W Fecal Coliform 30.0 15.6 51.8 OC-18
11/23/2009 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W Fecal Coliform 55.7 35.3 83.9 10A
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
D22
Sample Date Latitude Longitude Analyte MPN/100mL Lower Limit Upper Limit Sample Code
11/23/2009 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W Fecal Coliform 36.2 20.2 60.3 10
12/22/2009 35°23'34.13"N 76°18'40.04"W Fecal Coliform 38.7 22.3 64.3 OC-4
12/22/2009 35°23'30.94"N 76°18'42.20"W Fecal Coliform 59.0 36.3 90.3 OC-3
12/22/2009 35°23'30.21"N 76°18'43.69"W Fecal Coliform 117.3 83.6 159.7 OC-2
12/22/2009 35°23'31.96"N 76°18'43.86"W Fecal Coliform 69.1 43.9 102.4 OC-1B
12/22/2009 35°23'31.89"N 76°18'44.06"W Fecal Coliform 44.8 25.8 72.0 OC-1A
12/22/2009 35°23'28.78"N 76°18'44.43"W Fecal Coliform 40.2 23.1 64.4 OC-7
12/22/2009 35°23'29.46"N 76°18'44.46"W Fecal Coliform 72.3 47.2 106.0 OC-5
12/22/2009 35°23'29.20"N 76°18'44.94"W Fecal Coliform 45.2 27.8 69.2 OC-6
12/22/2009 35°23'27.81"N 76°18'45.68"W Fecal Coliform 62.1 39.4 93.8 OC-8
12/22/2009 35°23'27.37"N 76°18'46.43"W Fecal Coliform 47.1 28.0 73.6 OC-9
12/22/2009 35°23'26.51"N 76°18'47.57"W Fecal Coliform 86.1 58.0 124.4 OC-11
12/22/2009 35°23'25.28"N 76°18'48.92"W Fecal Coliform 73.6 49.6 106.0 OC-13
12/22/2009 35°23'29.11"N 76°18'49.20"W Fecal Coliform 132.9 94.8 181.9 OC-10
12/22/2009 35°23'28.81"N 76°18'50.30"W Fecal Coliform 28.2 14.6 48.2 OC-12
12/22/2009 35°23'18.82"N 76°18'50.82"W Fecal Coliform 43.9 25.3 69.1 OC-15
12/22/2009 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W Fecal Coliform 50.0 29.8 77.5 10B
12/22/2009 35°23'14.11"N 76°18'51.64"W Fecal Coliform 43.4 25.0 68.7 OC-16
12/22/2009 35°23'9.19"N 76°18'52.37"W Fecal Coliform 60.0 38.0 89.0 OC-17
12/22/2009 35°23'1.70"N 76°18'53.79"W Fecal Coliform 72.7 49.0 104.2 OC-18
12/22/2009 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W Fecal Coliform 53.4 33.9 79.4 10A
12/22/2009 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W Fecal Coliform 26.4 13.6 48.2 10
01/11/2010 35°23'34.13"N 76°18'40.04"W Fecal Coliform 64.9 39.9 101.0 OC-4
01/11/2010 35°23'30.94"N 76°18'42.20"W Fecal Coliform 73.3 45.1 112.2 OC-3
01/11/2010 35°23'30.21"N 76°18'43.69"W Fecal Coliform 89.8 58.7 131.7 OC-2
01/11/2010 35°23'31.96"N 76°18'43.86"W Fecal Coliform 59.9 36.8 94.9 OC-1B
01/11/2010 35°23'31.89"N 76°18'44.06"W Fecal Coliform 55.7 32.0 89.4 OC-1A
01/11/2010 35°23'28.78"N 76°18'44.43"W Fecal Coliform 35.7 17.7 60.3 OC-7
01/11/2010 35°23'29.46"N 76°18'44.46"W Fecal Coliform 76.3 46.9 114.3 OC-5
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
D23
Sample Date Latitude Longitude Analyte MPN/100mL Lower Limit Upper Limit Sample Code
01/11/2010 35°23'29.20"N 76°18'44.94"W Fecal Coliform 57.9 34.6 90.7 OC-6
01/11/2010 35°23'27.81"N 76°18'45.68"W Fecal Coliform 67.9 41.9 104.4 OC-8
01/11/2010 35°23'27.37"N 76°18'46.43"W Fecal Coliform 42.8 22.9 70.2 OC-9
01/11/2010 35°23'26.51"N 76°18'47.57"W Fecal Coliform 29.2 14.0 54.7 OC-11
01/11/2010 35°23'25.28"N 76°18'48.92"W Fecal Coliform 42.8 22.9 70.2 OC-13
01/11/2010 35°23'29.11"N 76°18'49.20"W Fecal Coliform 140.8 97.6 196.4 OC-10
01/11/2010 35°23'28.81"N 76°18'50.30"W Fecal Coliform 35.7 17.7 60.3 OC-12
01/11/2010 35°23'18.82"N 76°18'50.82"W Fecal Coliform 39.1 20.3 64.8 OC-15
01/11/2010 35°23'22.07"N 76°18'51.17"W Fecal Coliform 54.5 31.4 85.8 10B
01/11/2010 35°23'14.11"N 76°18'51.64"W Fecal Coliform 55.6 34.2 85.4 OC-16
01/11/2010 35°23'9.19"N 76°18'52.37"W Fecal Coliform 42.3 22.7 69.9 OC-17
01/11/2010 35°23'1.70"N 76°18'53.79"W Fecal Coliform 31.4 15.6 55.1 OC-18
01/11/2010 35°23'5.62"N 76°18'58.97"W Fecal Coliform 25.2 11.0 45.7 10A
01/11/2010 35°23'6.13"N 76°19'21.80"W Fecal Coliform 25.3 11.6 46.6 10

Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
E1
Appendix E. Wasteload Allocation by Subwatershed

Table E1: Ratio of ROW to Total Landuse and WLA by Subwatershed

Subwatershed ROW/Landuse Area WLA (Counts/Day)
1 0.73% 8.97×108
2 1.08% 6.94×108
3 0.54% 3.04×107
4 1.50% 1.69×107
5 0% 0
6 0% 0
7 0% 0
8 0% 0
B4 2.93% 9.54×106
B7 0% 0
B8 0% 0
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
F1
Appendix F. Details of the Combined Transport Model and Bayesian Approach to Estimate the Loadings of Oyster Creek

Instream Transport Model
For a coastal basin, the tidal prism model has been applied to develop fecal coliform TMDLs in
shellfish growing areas (e.g., NCDENR 2007, 2009). For Oyster Creek, however, as the tidal range
is very small (about 0.15 m) and the Creek is narrow, a tidal prism model is not applicable. Therefore, a one-dimensional, tidally-averaged finite difference transport model (Thomann and
Mueller, 1987) was applied to simulate the transport of bacteria, and compute the existing loads and
TMDLs. Since the long-term median and 90th percentile criteria are used to determine the loads, a
steady state modeling approach was used (Shen and Zhao, 2009). The restricted shellfish harvesting area of Oyster Creek was divided into 11 segments according to the water quality monitoring station availability and the geometry of the Creek, and the corresponding watershed was divided into 11
subwatersheds as well (Fig. 3.1.1). Three branches were delineated as tributary segments based on
branch area and data availability. The mass balance for fecal coliform can be written as

0
1)(1 cx
cAExAx
cQ
At
c +


∂
∂
∂
∂=∂
∂+∂
∂ (F1)

where x is the distance (m), A is the tidally averaged cross-section area (m2), Q is the tidally
averaged net transport due to freshwater discharge and tide (m3⋅s-1), c is the tidally averaged
concentration of dissolved substance (mass⋅m-3), E is the dispersion coefficient (m2⋅s-1), and c0 is a
source/sink or loading term (mass⋅s-1). Because the width and depth varies along the estuary and the concentration at a specific location is influenced by both upstream and downstream, an analytical solution for the concentration cannot be obtained for this non-linear problem. Therefore, the finite
difference method is used to solve the problem. Figure F1 shows the scheme of the model
segmentation. Integrate Eq. (F1) for a control volume i, the mass balance for fecal coliform at
segment i in the main stream can be written as:
0)()()(11111 =+−−′+−′−−′++−=+−−−−iiiiibibiiiiiiibibiiiiiiLckVccEccEccECQcQcQdt
dcV
(F2)
and that at Branch ib can be written as:

0)(=+−−′−−=ibibibiibibibibibibLckVccEcQdt
dcV (F3)
where E’ is the bulk dispersion coefficient across the segment boundary, which is related to the
dispersion coefficient E as:

i
iiix
AEE∆=' (F4)

Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
F2

Figure F1. Schematic Graph of Model Segmentation and Notations

Dispersion Coefficient Estimation
There are different ways to estimate dispersion coefficient. A common approach is to use salinity data. For Oyster Creek, Equations (F1) – (F3) and salinity data can be used to compute the
dispersion coefficient (Thomann and Mueller, 1987). Because there is no sufficient salinity data
available for each segment, we assume that the dispersion coefficients are constant throughout the
Creek. Note that there is no salinity source from upstream. Therefore, there is no salinity loading or decay term:
)(0 0 nbnbnbnbssEsQ−′+−= (F5)

Where snb is the salinity inside the estuary and s0 is the salinity outside of the open boundary (1st segment). Therefore, the boundary dispersion coefficient can then be simply calculated as:

nb
nbnbnbss
sQE−=′
0
(F6)

nnb
nnbnbnbAss
LsQE)(0 −= (F7)

Where An is the cross-section area and Ln is the distance between s0 and snb. Salinity data from Stations 10, 10A, and 10B are used, as they have long time monitoring data. The values of the two stations inside the Oyster Creek (10A and 10B) are averaged and used as the inside salinity. Given
the mean salinity concentrations of s0 = 15.26 ppt and snb = 14.78 ppt, An = 162 m2, Q= 0.28 m3/s,
and Ln = 1140 m, the estimated value of Enb is 63.17 m2/s.

Numerical Model Solver
The numerical model can be solved using finite difference method. For our case, we solved the
steady state of the equation for segment i = 1,2, …, 8:
ci Vi
ci-1 Vi-1
Ci+1 Vi+1
Qi-1
Ei-1
Qi
Ei
∆xi
Ai-1 Ai li
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
F3

iiiiibibiiiiiiibibiiiiLckVccEccEccECQcQcQ+−−′+−′−−′++−=+−−−−)()()(0 11111
(F8)
and segments B4, B7, and B8:

ibibibiibibibibLckVccEcQ+−−′−−=)(0 (F9)
This above equations will give us a set of 8+3 algebraic equations, which can be written as:
iibibiiiiiiiiiilcbcbcbcb=+++++−−γ11,,11, (F10)
111,−−−′−−=iiiiEQb (F11)
iiiiiiikVEEQb+′+′+=+−11, (F12)
11,++′−=iiiEb (F13)
With upstream and downstream boundary conditions:

1122,111,1 lcQlcbcbuu′=+=+ (F14)
NbbNNNNNNNlcElcbcb′=′+=+−−,11, (F15)
where Qu and cu are upstream flow and concentration boundary conditions and E'b and cb are
downstream dispersion and concentration boundary conditions. γ =1 if there is tributary connected
to the segment, otherwise γ =0. The equation can be written in a matrix form as:

LBC= (F16)
where B={bi,j}, C={c1, …,cN}T, and L={}T
321 ...,,,,Nllll′′. (F17)

The inverse Matrix B can be computed with Microsoft Excel. The concentration can be obtained as
if all the loading Li are provided (i=1, 2, ... , 8, B4, B7, B8) as follows:

iiLBci
1}{−= (F18)
In our case, we know bacteria concentrations ci and want to estimate loadings Li. Therefore, the
inverse method is used. For a given set of in-stream monitoring data, the true bacterial concentration
(C*) with random measurement error (ε) is given by

εε+=+=−LBCC1* (F19)
or
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
F4

iiiiiLBcciεε+=+=−1*}{ for (i = 1, …, N) (F20)

where 1}{−
iB is the ith row of the inverse matrix of B and εi is the error term with mean 0 and
variance σ2 , which links the statistical description of observation error and the error due to model scheme to the modeled bacteria concentration. The Bayesian method is used to obtain loadings. The
Bayesian parameter estimation combines the knowledge of prior information of unknown parameter
(loadings in our case) and the likelihood of monitoring data to establish a probability of posterior
distribution to describe the unknown parameters. Bayes’ theorem can be written in the following
form:
)(
)()|()|(CP
pCpCp θθθ×= (F21)

In this equation, )|(Cpθ is called the Bayesian posterior distribution and expresses the probability
of the model parameter values given the observed data. In our case, the parameters are loadings li,
i.e., },...,,{21 Nlll=θ . The denominator,)(Cp , is the expected value of the likelihood function over
the parameter distributions as a normalizing constant. )(θp is the prior belief of the unknown
parameter density distribution function. )|(θCp is the probability density function of the
observations for given parameters, which is referred as likelihood function.

In this study, WinBUGS, free software developed by MRC biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK
(Spiegelhalter, 2003) was used to conduct the parameter estimation. The fecal coliform
concentration was assumed to have a normal distribution, with a variance following a standard non-informative diffuse inverse-Gamma distribution (1.0*10-3, 1.0*10-3). As little information is known,
the loading was assumed to have a uniform distribution (0, 1.0*109 counts per second). The upper
bound of this distribution is set as three orders of magnitude larger than the roughly estimated load
(observed concentration times flow). Because we only focused on the estimation of nonpoint source loads, a constant bacteria decay rate of 0.7 per day was used, which is a conservative estimate (MDE, 2004). The observed fecal coliform concentrations and the inverse matrix B were input into
WinBUGS to estimate the existing loadings. Similarly, the fecal coliform criteria of 14 MPN/100ml
(for median) and 43 MPN/100ml (for 90th percentile) were used in WinBUGS to estimate the
TMDLs.

Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
G1
Appendix G. Public Notification of TMDL for Fecal Coliform for Oyster Creek

The TMDL public comment period was announced on the NC Modeling and TMDL Unit
website and on NCDWQ TMDL listserv on 7/14/2011, and on the NCWRRI listserv on 7/15/2011.

• Notice on the Modeling and TMDL Website :
DRAFT Total Maximum Daily Loads for Fecal Coliform for
Oyster Creek, Tar-Pamlico River Basin, North Carolina

March 14, 2011
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality

Now Available for Public Comment
This draft TMDL report was prepared as a requirement of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Section 303(d). Interested parties are invited to comment on the draft
TMDL report by April 14, 2011. Comments concerning the report should be directed
to Adugna Kebede at [e-mail] or write to:

Adugna Kebede NC Division of Water Quality
Planning Section
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 The draft TMDL can also be downloaded from the following
website: http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/mtu/tmdl/tmdls

Dee Freeman Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Governor Director
Oyster Creek Fecal Coliform TMDL
G2
• Public Announcement from NCDWQ TMDL Listserv:

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:59 AM
To: [e-mail] Subject: TMDL/303(d) Info - Public Review Draft Oyster Creek and Roaring River TMDLs
3/14/2011 Public Review Draft Oyster Creek TMDL is available for review and comment. The
comment period extends through April 14, 2011. Comment submittal instructions are available with the above link.

• WRRI listserv email received regarding public comment period:
The WRRI Daily Digest Volume 1 : Issue 734 : "text" Format
Messages in this Issue: 201103/8 : DRAFT Total Maximum Daily Loads for Fecal Coliform for Oyster Creek, Tar-
Pamlico River Basin, North Carolina "Kebede, Adugna" <[e-mail]> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 10:37:24 -0400 From: "Kebede, Adugna" <[e-mail]>
To: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
Subject: DRAFT Total Maximum Daily Loads for Fecal Coliforms for Oyster Creek, Tar-Pamlico River Basin, North Carolina Message-ID:
<[e-mail]>
Now Available for Public Comment
DRAFT Total Maximum Daily Load for Fecal Coliform for Oyster Creek, Tar-Pamlico River
Basin, North Carolina March, 2011

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
This draft TMDL report was prepared as a requirement of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, Section 303(d). Interested parties are invited to comment on the draft TMDL report by April 14, 2011. Comments concerning the report should be directed to Adugna Kebede
at [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> or write to:
Adugna Kebede
NC Division of Water Quality Planning Section 1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
The draft TMDL can be downloaded from the following link:
http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/mtu/tmdl/tmdls#Oyster_Creek