Laserfiche WebLink
The aroundwater quality results f rom the two uparadient Neils was <br />good. The nitrate levels were fr one 1. 3- to 1.2. Ile. assacase y}s <br />maximum contaminant level (MCq_L ) is 2..0. Sodium rari e was f rom '10-311.5 <br />and MCL is "2" 0 . <br />Downgradient of leaching beds also had good water quality. '1vitrate <br />I evels of . 7 7 to . 7o show �.ng an increase in E��ater quality :going <br />downgradlent. sodium from 8.5 to 8.2. <br />MW2 had hJ_arher concentrations of Loth sod�.um and nitrate (s ept:�c <br />effluent indicators) . Sodium was 20 and nitrate 9.74. To <br />determine the cause of these higher levels , IEP coordinated with <br />Fields Point, whose monitorina well had nitrate levels of 13. Based <br />on the groundwater f low they think they are seeing inIfflawnce of <br />Fields Point treatment plant. <br />The pizometer showed very good quality nitrated .8 - .003, sodium <br />levels of 6.5 - 15. <br />The groundwater travel time in this area is fro:ri 4-6 feet per :gay. <br />I t would take approximately 1 year to travel from the r ields Print <br />treatment olant to this area. <br />Overall on the site they see an improvement in quality from <br />upgradient wel'.s to the pizometers on the River which indicated <br />there is recharge occurring. <br />IEP suciaests in their recommendations that they would i.ike to <br />sample we'll B-1 next time, shifting to the North. <br />Tom stated that they will be out of the way, will be monitoring the <br />Fields Point plume. <br />IEP stated that there is no chance in their 3 wells and no change <br />in the amount of development at Windchime Point. They feel it <br />would be better of sampling to the North. <br />Judy asked is they could sample all the present wells and add P-I? <br />IEP wants to make it clear where the inf luence is doming- f � oin , it <br />is an interesting phenomenon. <br />Louise stated that they can separate their impact from background <br />impact but to remain flexible- so their is enough information. <br />The -applicant agreed to sample all present wells and add the <br />northern most well. <br />Dave Warden, limnologist , discussed the biological sampling progr ani <br />and surface water sampling of the River. <br />The surface water sampling was done opposite the loca rich of the <br />pizometers . There is a tidal influence whi4h approaches up to SI)W3 <br />sarnpiing station (downstream) . The salinity was 2.5 parts rer <br />1,000 which is slightly brackish. The nutrient concen ration <br />reflects the influence of seawater. <br />The nitrogen and phosphorus were in the high quality range. <br />The biological data verified the chemical analysis. <br />Upstream were freshwater oraanisms , some very sens itiv e typ;es <br />t pollution intolerant) The substrate is sand and does not- provide the habit a t typ.-;.cal for <br />flora and f auna of rivers of Western Mass. <br />i t hasr owing plants and attached to the plats are C dier3ty of <br />2 <br />