10/21/1987 PLANNING BOARD Minutes

Home Browse Search

1,,'-21-67 2. There is a lot of productivity in this, region. By productivity, they mean algae and also vegetation development. They did test different theories to see what is eaus:Lzig the bacterial content. They also took particular time in looking at the distribution of nutrients. They have only been able to do about half of what they intended. They would like to go into a little more detail of certain sources along the watershed area and to make recommendations of actions that can be taken to reduce the bacterial concentration. They did present a series of reports to the Planning Board. Scott McAskill asked if they were going to delineate the watershed on the two rivers. Dr. William Kerfoot stated that they have a rough watershed,. There are always discrepancies between the ground water recharge area and the watershed area. Scott asked what they attributed to thee high phosphate rate. The combination of high phosphate concentration is probably due to extent of areas that are existing from past fertilizers used and leaching areas. and Also from leachizng areas. 'dhen the phosphate hits the salt water tOedge two thi.ng3 are occurring in the river. The first i=ed-iate thing 's for the i.on to drop out and it drags the phosphate out of the water with it and then it turns around and the Hydrogen 3ulphide smell comes from the sediment. Generally it is being polluted ±s it is going out. Having additional phosphates is not necessarily going to increase the algae growth in the water. Dr. Kerfoot was asked what he: thought was the, critical level of nitrogen in the water for survival. He staved, that it is not desirable to go over the .7550. The -750 is being used as a guide in the Falmouth area now. If the purpose is to maintain recreation from shellfish levels they will have to have some reduction in the nitrogen level-probably to .400.