DOCSLIB.ORG

Long Island South Shore Estuary Reserve Coordinated Water Resources Monitoring Strategy Long Island SOUTH SHORE ESTUARY RESERVE

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Long Island South Shore Estuary Reserve Coordinated Water Resources Monitoring Strategy Long Island SOUTH SHORE ESTUARY RESERVE Long Island South Shore Estuary Reserve Coordinated Water Resources Monitoring Strategy New York Suffolk Nassau Long Island SOUTH SHORE ESTUARY RESERVE Open-File Report 2017–1161 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover. The Long Island South Shore Estuary Reserve (orange) stretches west to east from the Nassau-Queens county line to the town of Southampton. South to north, it extends from mean high tide on the ocean side of the barrier islands to the inland limits of the watersheds that drain into the bays. Image courtesy of the New York State Department of State Office of Planning, Development and Community Infrastructure. Long Island South Shore Estuary Reserve Coordinated Water Resources Monitoring Strategy By Shawn C. Fisher, Robert J. Welk, and Jason S. Finkelstein Prepared in cooperation with the New York State Department of State Office of Planning, Development and Community Infrastructure and the South Shore Estuary Reserve Office Open-File Report 2017–1161 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior RYAN K. ZINKE, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey James F. Reilly II, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2018 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS. For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit https://store.usgs.gov. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner. Suggested citation: Fisher, S.C., Welk, R.J., and Finkelstein, J.S., 2018, Long Island South Shore Estuary Reserve Coordinated Water Resources Monitoring Strategy: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2017–1161, 105 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/ ofr20171161. ISSN 2331-1258 (online) iii Foreword The original Long Island South Shore Estuary Reserve Coordinated Water Resources Monitoring Strategy (CWRMS), written in 2000, was part of a series of technical reports prepared as baseline information to support the creation of the 2001 South Shore Estuary Reserve Comprehensive Management Plan. This updated CWRMS, as noted in the executive summary, “provides an overview of the water-quality and ecological monitoring within the Reserve and presents suggestions from stakeholders for future data collection, data management, and coordination among monitoring programs.” Many issues and challenges exist in the South Shore Estuary Reserve today that were not present or were not as extensive when the original CWRMS was written. Priority issues such as nitrogen and phosphorus pollution, low dissolved oxygen, bay-water acidification, harmful algal blooms, pathogens, sedimentation, microplastics, groundwater contamination from pharmaceuticals and personal care products, and fertilizer, pesticide, and herbicide pollution prompted the South Shore Estuary Reserve Council and the New York Department of State to create this updated CWRMS. A series of group meetings, a public workshop, and individual meetings were held with members of the Project Advisory Committee (PAC). This PAC consisted of representatives of the New York State Department of State, the South Shore Estuary Reserve Council, the South Shore Estuary Reserve Citizens Advisory Committee, academia, watershed groups, environmental groups, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, county soil and water conservation districts, the National Park Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Geological Survey, who all made this updated strategy possible with their considerable experience and expertise in water-quality issues and monitoring protocols. The New York State Department of State entered into a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Geological Survey New York Water Science Center to produce the 2017 CWRMS and coordinate the project. The USGS project staff included Christopher Schubert, Shawn Fisher, Robert Welk, and Jason Finkelstein; their expert technical qualifications and experience in water-quality, groundwater, and surface-water issues led to the production of this CWRMS. It is our hope that the many stakeholders who are involved with water-quality and ecological monitoring efforts will find this document pertinent, useful, and timely as it relates to the issues that exist in today’s South Shore Estuary Reserve. New York State Department of State/Office of Planning, Development and Community Infrastructure and The South Shore Estuary Reserve Office v Acknowledgments Several of our colleagues at the New York State Department of State Office of Planning, Development, and Community Infrastructure provided valuable assistance, advice, and exceptional contributions to the content of this report. These colleagues include Nancy Rucks, Myra Fedyniak, Sherry Forgash, Lou Siegel, and Jeremy Campbell. Cooperation from the Long Island South Shore Estuary Reserve Council with support from the New York State Environmental Protection Fund is gratefully acknowledged. vii Contents Foreword ........................................................................................................................................................iii Acknowledgments .........................................................................................................................................v Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................1 State of the South Shore Estuary Reserve .......................................................................................2 Current (2017) Management Topics ...................................................................................................6 Eutrophication ..............................................................................................................................8 Managing Wastewater Infrastructure .....................................................................................8 Pathogens ...................................................................................................................................11 Total Maximum Daily Loads .....................................................................................................11 Harmful Algal Blooms ...............................................................................................................12 Wetland Loss ..............................................................................................................................12 Decline in Fisheries ...................................................................................................................13 Aquatic Vegetation Restoration ..............................................................................................13 Climate Change and Resiliency ...............................................................................................13 Forcing Functions................................................................................................................................14 Trophic State Indicators ....................................................................................................................15 Low-Impact Development and Best Management Practices .....................................................17 Citizen Science ....................................................................................................................................18 Synergy Among Existing Management and Action Plans ...........................................................18 Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................................................18 Resource Monitoring in the Long Island South Shore Estuary Reserve ............................................18 Water-Quality and Water-Quantity Programs ................................................................................19 Continuous Water-Quality Monitoring....................................................................................19 Discrete Water-Quality Monitoring.........................................................................................25 Water-Quantity Monitoring ......................................................................................................26 Biological Monitoring and Surveys .................................................................................................27 Vertebrates and Invertebrates ................................................................................................27 Microalgae and Macroalgae ...................................................................................................28 Wildlife .........................................................................................................................................28 Invasive Species ........................................................................................................................28
Load more

Recommended publications
  • INVENTORY of Tpf Larrier ISLAND CHAIN of the STATES of NEW YORK and NEW JERSEY
    B250B50 SCH INVENTORY OF TPf lARRIER ISLAND CHAIN OF THE STATES OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY PREPARED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE OPEN SPACE INSTITUTE FUNDED BY THE MC INTOSH FOUNDATION Pr OCL 13;.2 B5D 5ch INVENTORY OF THE BARRIER ISLAND CHAIN OF THE STATES OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY JAMES J, SCHEINKMANJ RESEARCHER PETER M. BYRNEJ CARTOGRAPHER ,, I PREPARED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE J OPEN SPACE INSTITUTE 45 Rockefeller Plaza Room 2350 New York, N.Y. 10020 FUNDED BY THE MC INTOSH FOUNDATION October, 1977 I r- I,,' N.J~...; OCZ[VJ dbrary We wish to thank John R. Robinson, 150 Purchase Street, Rye, New York 10580, for his help and guidance and for the use of his office facilities in the prepara­ tion of this report. Copyright © The Mcintosh Foundation 1977 All rights reserved. Except for use in a review, the reproduction or utilization of this work in any form or by any electronic, mech­ anical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including xerography, photocopying, and recording, and in any information stor­ age and retrieval system is forbidden without the written permission of the publisher. TABLE OE' CONTENTS Page Number Preface iv New York Barrier Island Chain: Introduction to the New York Barrier Island Chain NY- 2 Barrier Island (Unnamed) NY- 5 Fire Island NY-10 Jones Beach Island NY-16 Long Beach Island NY-20 Background Information for Nassau County NY-24 Background Information for Suffolk County NY-25 New Jersey Barrier Island Chain: Introduction to the New Jersey Barrier Island Chain NJ- 2 Sandy Hook Peninsula NJ- 5 Barnegat
    [Show full text]
  • Fire Island—Historical Background
    Chapter 1 Fire Island—Historical Background Brief Overview of Fire Island History Fire Island has been the location for a wide variety of historical events integral to the development of the Long Island region and the nation. Much of Fire Island’s history remains shrouded in mystery and fable, including the precise date at which the barrier beach island was formed and the origin of the name “Fire Island.” What documentation does exist, however, tells an interesting tale of Fire Island’s progression from “Shells to Hotels,” a phrase coined by one author to describe the island’s evo- lution from an Indian hotbed of wampum production to a major summer resort in the twentieth century.1 Throughout its history Fire Island has contributed to some of the nation’s most important historical episodes, including the development of the whaling industry, piracy, the slave trade, and rumrunning. More recently Fire Island, home to the Fire Island National Seashore, exemplifies the late twentieth-century’s interest in preserving natural resources and making them available for public use. The Name. It is generally believed that Fire Island received its name from the inlet that cuts through the barrier and connects the Great South Bay to the ocean. The name Fire Island Inlet is seen on maps dating from the nineteenth century before it was attributed to the barrier island. On September 15, 1789, Henry Smith of Boston sold a piece of property to several Brookhaven residents through a deed that stated the property ran from “the Head of Long Cove to Huntting
    [Show full text]
  • Great South Bay Ecosystem-Based Management Plan
    Great South Bay Ecosystem-based Management Plan Prepared by The Nature Conservancy, Long Island Chapter Prepared for The New York State Department of State with funds provided by the Environmental Protection Fund 2008 Draft Final 2012 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Great South Bay (GSB) on the South Shore of Long Island is teeming with life, but it is also degraded compared to historical conditions. Conservation and management measures are needed to preserve and restore the health of the bay. The Long Island Chapter of the Nature Conservancy (TNC), under contract to the New York State Department of State (DOS), developed this Ecosystem-based Management (EBM) Plan for Great South Bay. Ecosystem-based Management is a management approach that considers the entire ecosystem, including humans. It promotes ecosystem viability and integrity, biodiversity, sustainability, and social values and principles. TNC’s analysis relies on choosing a set of ecological surrogates, representative species, and groups of species, or habitat types that can represent the ecological status of the biodiversity in Great South Bay. For each surrogate, specific measurable objectives are developed that describe the intended ecological state of Great South Bay with respect to each surrogate. The measurable objectives are achieved through the implementation of strategic actions and action steps described in the plan. Overarching objectives and strategic actions are also developed to address water quality, global climate change, and education. The surrogates chosen to represent the GSB ecosystem in the plan are: Hard clams Salt marshes Seagrass meadows Barrier island complex Predatory fishes Winter flounder Alewives Piping plovers Horseshoe crabs This report was originally drafted in 2008 followed by an update in 2012 to each surrogate’s current status, strategic actions and action steps.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix H 1. References Used for Chapter Iv 2
    APPENDIX H 1. REFERENCES USED FOR CHAPTER IV 2. EARLY COORDINATION REQUIREMENTS 3. PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION 3b. COORIDINATION WITH OFFICIALS HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SECTION 4(f) SOURCES 4. COASTAL ASSESSMENT FORM AND POLICY ANALYSIS 5. NEPA CHECKLIST 6. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE CORRESPONDENCE 7. INVASIVE SPECIES APPENDIX H.1 –REFERENCES USED FOR CHAPTER IV ~oo~ i ~, G5 55 i 1W is ~ Cl bY d1~ Q)IWllluaiiy donI_tele! by OI!W or 1i19f'Il; ap:de.$ ~ edmtb6 w ~~ L~tioIua' &I~ ] b/;mplu; Fire SeeAbore. Suffolk 5hJICed trees. C!laraacristic ioch&dc Col,&.ftly; Nb~e 8~ suncuc COlmty. beach-plum (~ILI mantlm«)p ~ (RG1's lIlpilJ). 'i!li!d rose (It ~A&). btI)bcny So~u; An 19'6; ~DaOlJ!. 1985; Significant (Myrka~). 085tCZQ 1:'ed oot1v (Iunipuus Ha'j)jut Unif Silo. vilPJOlfJlNl). llbiaiDs; allllDM (Nllu eopJlllIPlum). poisoiJ i1#y (TDziC<NU1'IdIoIr ~). black chctty I (PruI'lW 300dn4). hiBb~ b~(~ JL G. ~ rjunes: lllj Q)\'lmllllulty dominaaed by l:~bomm). Amencu holly (f!Arz ~). ISDd ] ~ ~ bel low ghm~ that CCUIn OD active aQd sbadbusb (A,"d~lIchier C/Jlltldeflsi.s). stabilized dimes lIIlong the. ~ aJaSt. This Qaraderistir:: biIdrJ iKIwk great egret ccmmWLil)' a!ft:;.is15 0 lit llIJGUlic or vegetBlioa (Ouwt,fOdius e./buJ) IUSd bIKk-a~d lI1igbl­ Pitches. Tills ~..... ,... ............. beroft (Nyeticona IJ)II:dcDfWr). we!! as sand ~ l3ad d'!~ rmsr-- The ~ ud ~ of «he ~. ~ d~ seawMi or a~ Coutel ~tlltion is vaiiablct~ 0& RaWflt,y of the LowIamd! 1CCOZCI1le. dwaell, -.moWlfS of ~011 ud erosion" ami diwma: rl/'D8lll t ocem. Cbal"'adcNtile RtRM.· v4 S4 lipoda of abo activls: wbcR ~ lDoYO~g is 8r~(c.:.\I, include, bcacbg'lW (A.JwG'nOphilfJi Examp'e: Fare 1daPd,.
    [Show full text]
  • Carmans, Patchogue, and Swan Rivers
    Estuaries and Coasts: J CERF DOI 10.1007/s12237-007-9010-y Temporal and Spatial Variations in Water Quality on New York South Shore Estuary Tributaries: Carmans, Patchogue, and Swan Rivers Lori Zaikowski & Kevin T. McDonnell & Robert F. Rockwell & Fred Rispoli Received: 9 April 2007 /Revised: 23 August 2007 /Accepted: 14 September 2007 # Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation 2007 Abstract The chemical and biological impacts of anthro- magnitude higher than SR and CR sediments. Benthic pogenic physical modifications (i.e., channelization, dredg- invertebrate assessment of species richness, biotic index, ing, bulkhead, and jetty construction) to tributaries were and Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera richness assessed on New York’s Long Island South Shore Estuary. indicated that PR was severely impacted, SR ranged from Water-quality data collected on Carmans, Patchogue, and slightly to severely impacted, and CR ranged from non- Swan Rivers from 1997 to 2005 indicate no significant impacted to slightly impacted. Diversity and abundance of differences in nutrient levels, temperature, or pH among the plankton were comparable on SR and CR, and were rivers, but significant differences in light transmittance, significantly higher than on PR. The data indicate that dissolved oxygen (DO), salinity, and sediments were nutrients do not play a major role in hypoxia in these observed. Patchogue River (PR) and Swan River (SR) were estuarine tributaries but that physical forces dominate. The significantly more saline than Carmans River (CR), PR and narrow inlets, channelization, and abrupt changes in depth SR had less light transmittance than CR, and both exhibited near the inlets of PR and SR foster hypoxic conditions by severe warm season hypoxia.
    [Show full text]
  • 5. Appendix D
    Long Island Duck Farm History and Ecosystem Restoration Opportunities Suffolk County, Long Island, New York February 2009 US Army Corps of Engineers Suffolk County, NY New York District APPENDIX D APPENDIX D Duck Farm Industry and Impacts Report prepared by Suffolk County Department of Planning H. Lee Dennison Building - 4th Floor 100 Veterans Memorial Highway P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, New York 11788 DeWitt S. Davies, Ph.D. Chief Environmental Analyst Duck Farm Industry Impacts on the Environment Introduction As documented in the historical overview section, the duck farm industry in Suffolk County was an extremely intensive land use along stream and bay shorelines. Inventory work by the Department of Planning indicates that approximately 2,000 acres of upland property and almost 20 miles of shoreline along freshwater creeks/rivers and estuary tributaries – primarily in the Towns of Brookhaven, Riverhead and Southampton – were utilized during the last century in Suffolk County for duck production. The impacts of duck farming were dramatic, both on-site and off-site. Extensive landform alterations were made to construct animal pens, feed lots and swim ponds, which were often located in or directly adjacent to streams/coves of the bays. Waste effluent discharges from the farms created thick organic matter deposits, degraded water quality and altered phytoplankton and benthic population in near-by surface waters. Duck Farms – An Intensive Land Use The significance of the impacts is reflected by the magnitude of the industry and the waste load generated. Effluent waste loadings from the farms in the form of suspended solids, nutrients and coliform bacteria were huge, especially prior to the required use of treatment technology under water pollution control laws.
    [Show full text]
  • The Baymen of the Great South Bay, New York; a Preliminary Ecological
    The Baymen of the Great South Bay, New 'Ilosk of life may have to be abandoned (extinction for other species). A Preliminary Ecological Profile An ecological profile defines the fishermen's unique lifestyle and cultural re- quirements and thenconsiders them as predators on fish or shellfish, as competi- tors with each other and other species, and subjected to environmental variabili- Jeffrey Kassner ty. It shows therefore how the fishermen function within their environment and Town of Brookhaven, Division of Environmental Protection how they respond to it. The advantage to the ecological profile is that it high- lights the various interactions and constraints, ensuring that all relevant factors impacting the fishermen are considered. It is a comprehensive assessment and ABSTRACTEcology is the study of the interactions among organisms and their environ- does not consider fishermen in isolation. ment. Various theories and concepts taken from ecology, for example, optimal foraging the- The Great South Bay is an embayment located on the south shore of Long ory, have been used in theanthropological study of fishermen. While this approach canpro- Island, New York. The bay supports a significant commercial fishery for the vide useful insights, it removes the fishermen from their environment so that potentially hard clam (Mereenaria mereenaria) which is harvested by fishermen, known lo- significant factors may be taken out of context or omitted. An ecological profileof a fisher- cally as baymen or clam diggers, who are self-employed and work individually men population would present a more comprehensiveecological study, examining theecolog- from small boats (less than 10 m) on open access public bay bottom using hand ical processes of predation, competition and adaptation from the perspective of the fisher- operated rakes and tongs.
    [Show full text]
  • Breaking Through
    Photo courtesy of George Proios Breaking Through Nothing is more constant than in business and municipal practices that change itself… may have led to a decline in commercial shellfish populations. And nowhere can this be demonstrated more graphically than along Long Island’s barrier Looking long-term at the effects that beaches where the dynamic interactions future breaches along barrier beaches between shifting sands and crashing ocean might have on these estuarine ecosys- waves constantly reshape the thin strands of tems, New York Sea Grant has funded beach and periodically form new inlets. When four novel research projects. Each has new inlets form, salty water from the ocean a different approach and thus provides a enters the calmer, shallow waters of Long different piece of the puzzle. Island’s south shore estuaries (LISSE), po- Continued on page 4 tentially changing the delicate balance of the estuaries’ ecosystems. In recent decades, Breaking Through page 1 by Patrick Dooley and Barbara A. Branca each of these estuarine ecosystems has Funding Breakthrough Research page 3 by Barbara A. Branca, Patrick Dooley already undergone change due to increased and Lane Smith community development along Long Island’s NYSG a Sounding Board for Governor on Ocean Report page 6 populated south shore coupled with changes by Barbara A. Branca and Jack Mattice Are Marshes Losing Ground? page 7 by Barbara A. Branca CoastWatch: page 8 Great Lakes Student Summit by Paul C. Focazio Botulism Update page 10 by Helen Domske and Lane Smith Currents Stakeholders Set Great Lakes Priorities Paul C. Focazio page 12 Earthstock 2004 by Susan M.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2: Brown Tide Management Plan
    Peconic Estuary Program C H A P T E R TWO BROWN TIDE MANAGEMENT PLAN OBJECTIVES 1) Determine the chemical, physical and biological factors responsible for producing, sustaining and ending blooms of the Brown Tide organism, Aureococcus anophagefferens. 2) Determine what management actions can be undertaken to prevent or, if that is not possible, to mitigate the effects of recurrent Brown Tide blooms on the ecosystem and economy of the Peconics. C H A P T E R T W O 2-1 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP MEASURABLE GOALS The PEP’s measurable goals with respect to Brown Tide blooms include: • Continue to better coordinate, focus, and expand Brown Tide research efforts (measured by funding appropriated, frequency of Brown Tide symposiums, frequency of updating the Brown Tide Workplan and coordinations within the Brown Tide Steering Committee). [See Action B-1] • Continue the current level of water quality sampling in the Peconic Estuary (measured by the number and frequency of samples taken per year and the number of bays and peripheral embayments sampled). Currently, the Suffolk Department of Health Services conducts biweekly monitoring at 32 stations in the Peconic Estuary throughout the year, resulting in over 830 samples taken annually. [See Action B-1] Measurable goals related to natural resources are found in the Habitat and Living Resources Chapter (Chapter 4). C H A P T E R T W O 2-2 Peconic Estuary Program CCMP INTRODUCTION Brown Tide is a marine microalgal bloom. Microalgae, or phytoplankton, are microscopic, single- cell plants that are found in all natural freshwater and marine ecosystems.
    [Show full text]
  • Revised Draft Subwatersheds Wastewater Plan Executive Summary
    REVISED DRAFT SUBWATERSHEDS WASTEWATER PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY “We are in a county that will no longer allow our water quality crisis to go unaddressed, but will come together to Reclaim Our Water” Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone 2014 State of the County Suffolk County Department of Health Services August 2019 This document was prepared with funding provided by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation as part of the Long Island Nitrogen Action Plan and by New York State Department of State under the Environmental Protection Fund. Subwatersheds Wastewater Plan • Executive Summary Table of Contents Executive Summary ......................................................................................................... 5 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................................ 5 1.2 Wastewater Management in Suffolk County ........................................................................................ 7 1.3 Innovative/Alternative Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems ................................................ 9 1.4 Sewage Treatment Plants and Sewering ............................................................................................ 13 1.4.1 Sewer Expansion Projects ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • WHOI-R-93-006 Anderson, D.M. an Immunof
    J ournal of Plankton Research Vo1.15 no.5 pp.563-580, 1993 An immunofluorescent survey of the brown tide chrysophyte A ureococcus anophagefferens along the northeast coast of the United States Donald M.Anderson, Bruce A.Keafer, David M.Kulis, Robert M.Waters 1 and Robert Nuzzi 1 Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Biology Department, Woods Hole, MA 02543 and 1 Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Evans K. Griffing County Center, Riverhead, NY JJ 901, USA Abst ract. Surveys were conducted along the northeast coast of the USA, be1ween Po rtsmouth, NH, and I he Chesapeake Bay in 1988 and 1990, to determine the population distribulion of Aureococcus anoplwgefferens, lhe chrysophyte responsible for massive and destructive 'brown tides' in Long Island and Narraganselt Bay beginning in 1985. A species-specific immunofluorescent technique was used to screen water samples, with positive identification possible at cell concentrations as low as 10- 1 20 cells ml - • Bolh years, A.anophagefferens was detected at numerous stations in and around Long Island and Barnegat Bay, J , typically at high cell concentrations. To the north and south of this 'center·, nearly half of the remaining stations were positive for A.anophagefferens, but the cells were always at very low cell concentrations. Many of the positive identifications in areas distant from Long Island were in waters with no known history of harmful brown tides. The species was present in both open coastal and estuarine locations, in salinities between 18 and 32 prac1ical salinity units (PSU). The observed population distributions apparently still reflect the massive 1985 outbreak when this species first bloomed, given the number of positive locations and high abundance of A.anophagef­ ferens in the immediate vicinity of Long Island.
    [Show full text]
  • Surface Waters Contributing Areas
    Fishers Island Sound Legend SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK Suffolk County Land Use PriorityUnsewered - 1* Residential*** Huntington Long Island Sound Bay PriorityUnsewered - 2* Residential*** Lloyd Harbor Rd Long Island Sound Baseflowyear 0-2 Con tributingAreas to SurfaceWaters, d r R Main Rd e 1000’arounbuffer freshwater d lakes andpon ds iv R w Cold Northport Bay ro ar Spring W N N E Shore Rd e Baseflowyear 2-25 Con tributingAreas to SurfaceWaters North Rd c Harbor k Main St R Orient Harbor d Smithtown Bay * Priority 1 on this map is depicted by medium and high density residential parcels falling either partially or entirely within the 0-2 Year Baseflow Front St o e Main Rd Av d ** Priority 2 on this map is depicted by medium and high density residential parcels ew Mill Pond R Main St vi nga d Block Fort S alo n falling either partially or entirely within the 2-25 Year Baseflow u ÂC25A Main St C25A Port o A Â Jefferson S 25 Great Pond Island te *** Unsewered Residential on this map is depicted by medium density residential N ou F SHELTER R e 5 N r e 2 r (>1 to < 5 du/acre) and high density residential (>or equal to 5 du/acre) t o Sound u y o s t r R ÂC108 Old Dock Rd R a d Woodbury Rd Hallock Ave n d Route 25A d N Ferry Rd ISLAND ulaski R Bridge Ln P P k E Main St w Gardiners y Brander Pkwy e v A ÂCSM Oregon Rd Cox Ln M Bay k Route 112 r a N Bayview Rd i S Ferry Rd o n Y Ba d Miller Place Yaphank Rd SOUTHOLD yv w i R e Rd Menantic e y W Jericho Tpk ntr w e N u Miller Place Rd Mill Ln R HUNTINGTON o Canal Rd Route 25A d SMITHTOWN C ÂC25A ÂC25
    [Show full text]