Nantucket Harbor Work Group — March 3

Members of the Nantucket Harbor Work Group met March 3 to continue line-by-line review of a 46‑page draft harbor plan and agreed on a staged review process, a timetable for internal edits, and topics that need more detail before public release.

The group said it will color‑code goals and objectives and mark the “ultimate responsible party” for each recommendation before sharing the draft outside the committee. Kim (work group member) told colleagues the committee should confirm responsible parties before a wider circulation because that list “may be way off base” if distributed too early. The group set a target to have a draft available for a public meeting this summer and scheduled its next internal check‑in for March 17.

Why it matters: work group members said clarifying who will implement each recommendation — and what local authority exists to do so — is essential before the plan is shown to other town committees or the public. Several participants cautioned that premature circulation could create confusion because the draft is still being edited and responsible parties have not been finalized.

Most important decisions and process items

- Format and internal review: Members asked staff to highlight goals/objectives in different colors and to separate “goals/objectives” from recommendations so reviewers can see which recommendation maps to which objective.

- Responsible parties: The group unanimously agreed to delay external sharing until the committee has vetted the responsible parties for each recommendation. Multiple members said the list should include town departments where applicable and note outside organizations only where appropriate.

- Timeline: The committee reiterated its goal of a public meeting this summer; internal revisions and responsible‑party checks are to continue in the coming weeks. Kim said she will resend editing materials to members who emailed suggested edits.

Substantive topics flagged for additional detail

Education and outreach: The draft recommends new outreach products and organizational roles. The group debated recommending an education/outreach specialist or subcommittee to coordinate materials, school field trips to Brent Point Hatchery for appropriate grade levels (noted as currently happening for fourth and eighth grades), and a refreshed “Nantucket Blue Pages — A Citizen’s Guide to Protecting Nantucket’s Waters.” Linda (work group member) urged keeping successful past efforts such as the “Leave Only Your Footprints” campaign and adapting signage and outreach for waterfront users.

Monitoring, research and data standards: Members agreed to expand monitoring (including harmful algal bloom sites and additional parameters) but emphasized standardized sampling protocols so datasets from different groups are comparable and shareable. Tara (work group member) noted the harbor report card was produced last year and the group is discussing a second phase; some members recommended a two‑ or three‑year cadence rather than an annual report.

Pollutants and emerging concerns: The committee discussed specific sources of marine pollution to include in the plan. Topics raised: incentives to convert two‑stroke boat engines to four‑stroke or electric engines; tire dust and shredded tire particulates as an emerging concern (cited to NOAA resources); mulch and landscape material washing from waterfront beds into the harbor; and the role of birds and localized sources near the landfill. Several members asked for clear language and citations where the draft lists emerging contaminants (for example, PFAS near the landfill and airport areas) so readers understand whether monitoring or management actions are being proposed.

Trash management: Members debated whether to recommend more trash receptacles in high‑use downtown locations and remove receptacles in remote sites where trash accumulates around cans. Jeff (work group member) and others suggested a qualified recommendation: fund and maintain trash receptacles “where appropriate,” combined with signage and targeted outreach. Participants also mentioned a recent harbor pilot device that collects floating trash and suggested coordinating with the harbormaster on experiments and scaling successful pilots.

Enforcement and regulatory clarity: Several recommendations touch on illicit discharges and pool dechlorination notices. Members emphasized that the Select Board regulations on illicit discharges exist but that enforcement frequently lands with the Board of Health, which lacks staff capacity. Jeff (work group member) noted the Board of Health “is the regulation owner” and the draft should clarify enforcement roles; committee members suggested language allowing the health department to designate harbor staff as agents for specific enforcement actions.

Stormwater and infrastructure: The group reaffirmed recommendations to continue mapping and marking storm drains that discharge to the harbor and to align with an ongoing town stormwater management effort. Members noted that responsibility for stormwater work has recently been associated with the wastewater/stormwater unit and recommended using a generic “town staff” label in the draft so changes in departmental names or assignments do not quickly make the plan outdated.

Funding and next steps: Participants flagged several funding items. The Great Harbor entity has provided or promised monies for harbor work and the group noted the current grant cycle opened March 1 with applications due April 15. Members urged documenting short‑term funding streams while noting that specific donor or grant sources may not be permanent over the plan’s 10‑year horizon.

What the group did not decide

No substantive policy or regulation was adopted at the meeting. The committee did not finalize the responsible‑party assignments, did not release the draft publicly, and did not adopt any new enforcement authority. Remaining tasks are internal edits, responsible‑party verification, and further drafting of a handful of recommendations (notably those on enforcement language, monitoring protocols, and education materials).

Ending

The work group adjourned after agreeing to reconvene and continue the line‑by‑line review. Members asked staff to incorporate the meeting’s editorial clarifications, to circulate a revised draft with color‑coded goals and responsibilities for the next meeting, and to include members’ written edits in the master document.

Selected direct quotes (attributed to meeting speakers as identified in the transcript):

- “If you could do and maybe have a different color for a goal and then the other point is… who is the ultimate or the ultra responsible party,” Jack (work group member) said, urging clearer formatting.

- “I think they need to see it though. Yeah,” Kim (work group member) said in favor of limited early circulation to key stakeholders but not to the public.

- “Leave only your footprints on the sand,” Linda (work group member) invoked as an example of a past outreach campaign members suggested reviving or adapting for boaters and waterfront users.

(Quotations taken verbatim from the meeting transcript; all speakers and roles are listed below.)