Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Navigational Buoys topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board unanimously backs letter opposing Coast Guard buoy removals
Summary
The Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board voted unanimously June 3 to send a letter urging the U.S. Coast Guard not to remove several navigational buoys near Nantucket, saying the aids are important for commercial and recreational mariners and for safety when electronics fail.
The Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board voted unanimously June 3 to send a letter urging the U.S. Coast Guard to retain and continue maintaining navigational buoys around Nantucket.
The board approved a draft, read aloud by member Mister Anderson, asserting that “the Harbor Shellfish Advisory Board believes the removal of navigational buoys around Nantucket are not in the best interest of commercial mariners or recreational boaters” and that removal or failure to maintain those buoys “is not in the best interest of the public.” The motion to approve the letter was made by Mister Anderson and seconded by Mister Sherwin; recorded votes were unanimous.
Why it matters: board members said buoys serve as physical backups when electronic navigation fails, mark channels used by visiting commercial vessels and local fishermen, and can be life‑safety devices in storms. Board members cited recent incidents when buoys washed up on beaches and required Coast Guard response.
Details: board members and participating mariners named several buoys that were reported on publicly as candidates for removal, including buoys near Great Point Rip and buoys in nearby federal channels. Bob DeCosta told the board he could not “imagine that they want to take that out,” saying the buoys have been in place for a long time. Dave (Marine Department staff) summarized the practical problem of relying only on electronic navigation and pressed for a written response to the Coast Guard’s proposal.
Next steps: board members asked staff to collect Sheila’s earlier letter and other local letters and suggested using those as templates. Members agreed to finalize the board’s letter promptly so it could be submitted before the public comment deadline the board believed to be June 13 (board members later said they would confirm the deadline and submission address). The board voted to authorize the letter and delegated drafting and distribution to members who volunteered to prepare it for signature.
The vote: motion by Mister Anderson; seconded by Mister Sherwin; recorded as unanimous (ayes by Anderson, Sherwin, Brace, Franzuto, Mayo and the chair).
