Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Watershed Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ScienceWares consultant presents Quissett Harbor watershed plan as town readies watershed permit
Summary
At a Town of Falmouth Water Quality Management Committee meeting, Kristen Rathgen (ScienceWares) presented draft Quissett Harbor watershed plans showing current septic loading near 1,200 kg/year vs. a TMDL target of 967 kg/year, outlined a preferred plan using alternative credits and a conservative local contingency, and described timing and next steps for state watershed permitting.
Kristen Rathgen, a consultant with ScienceWares, presented the draft Quissett Harbor watershed management plan to the Town of Falmouth Water Quality Management Committee. She told the committee Quissett Harbor is designated a nitrogen‑sensitive area, and “the town has opted to apply for a watershed permit,” an approach that lets the town propose alternative credits (shellfish, fertilizer and stormwater reductions, and high‑performing septic systems) rather than require every parcel to upgrade immediately.
Rathgen summarized the math behind the draft plan: current present loading to the watershed is about 1,200 kilograms per year and the TMDL target is 967 kilograms, leaving roughly 230 kilograms to remove. She described a preferred scenario that combines direct septic upgrades for inner‑harbor abutters, shellfish aquaculture at projected potential, and fertilizer and stormwater credits; that preferred plan is modeled to achieve the reduction goals (Rathgen reported a modeled reduction of roughly 364 kilograms per year under one preferred scenario). She cautioned that the town must also include a state‑required “backup” plan that does not rely on alternative credits.
On contingency planning, Rathgen said the town’s internal contingency is deliberately conservative: the draft counts only half of the modeled shellfish benefit and applies buffers on expected septic performance so the town can show dependable results to regulators if alternatives underperform. Committee members questioned the presentation’s contingency math; one member said the contingency looked “not as good as the preferred plan,” and Rathgen replied that the contingency is a conservative fallback and that all numbers in the draft are movable as public input and additional review occur.
Rathgen noted the watershed permit covers a 20‑year horizon broken into multi‑year phases (roughly four‑ or five‑year phases) and that the town must report how it will offset growth for that period. She said Quissett was placed in a later batch of permit applications under the town’s earlier schedule and that submission timing to the Department of Environmental Protection depends on how the town groups the 14 estuaries; the current plan still showed Quissett in a later group (discussed in the meeting as a possible 2030 submission under the previously discussed schedule).
Public attendees raised monitoring and stormwater questions. Matt Hanley of Thomas Landers Road urged attention to stormwater runoff at the harbor edge, saying the runoff “goes directly into the harbor” and asking whether the sentinel monitoring station is sited to capture representative conditions; Rathgen said station locations were chosen based on hydrodynamics and that the sentinel station is the long‑term monitoring point for the system.
The committee did not vote on the plan. Rathgen and staff described the drafts as still in development and recommended further review, public outreach and monitoring before formal submittal. Next steps identified in the meeting included continuing public engagement, refining contingency crediting, and coordinating with town staff on the timing of any watershed permit submittal to DEP.
