Members of the Harvard Plan work group met Jan. 6, 2025, to continue reviewing a draft harbor plan for Nantucket and Madaket Harbors, agreeing to concentrate on finalizing high-level goals and objectives and to defer detailed recommendations and implementation decisions to later meetings.

The group agreed the meeting’s purpose was to confirm whether the goals and objectives reflect community input and to reduce overlap between items before turning to specific recommendations. Kim (staff) and Jack (staff) led the review; members said the committee should resolve the wording of goals and then let objectives and recommendations provide detail and actions.

The discussion covered multiple sections of the draft plan, including water quality, natural resources, public access, commercial and recreational fishing, boating and navigation, coastal resilience and administration/coordination. Committee members repeatedly urged that goals remain high-level statements of the desired future state while ensuring objectives and recommendations contain action-oriented steps and responsible parties. Jack summarized that distinction: "Goals are general...the objective should...suggest how that's going to be done, and then the recommendations are more specific." (Jack, staff)

On water quality, members recommended broadening references to legal protections beyond municipal bylaws to include state and other relevant laws; a participant also noted the federal no-discharge zone around the harbor and suggested wording be flexible enough to reflect that. On natural resources, members debated whether goal language should say the town’s decisions "are" based on current science or "should be," and generally favored future-state wording (i.e., the town’s decisions are based on the best available, updated science and data).

Public access goals were amended verbally to include expanding, preserving and improving physical and visual access to shorelines and waters; members said new access points should be added where feasible. For commercial and recreational fishing, several members argued that fisheries, working waterfront infrastructure and related commercial uses are distinct topics and should remain separate sections to avoid diluting critical, industry-specific recommendations.

Coastal resiliency was discussed as a distinct goal area. Members asked that the plan align with the town’s coastal resilience work and flagged the Steamship Authority terminal and other shore-front projects as areas where the harbor plan may be used as guidance for state or federal approvals. Elizabeth (staff) noted proposed state changes to Chapter 91 that could require future projects to plan for projected flood levels; members suggested the plan reference sea-level rise explicitly where relevant.

Implementation and coordination drew repeated concern about funding and enforcement. Members said harbor- and marine-related departments need resources commensurate with the harbors’ economic and cultural importance, and that recommendations should include responsible parties and potential funding or oversight mechanisms. One member pressed for oversight language tied to the embarkation fee, saying existing revenue flows are not always aligned with the original uses described at the time of adoption.

The meeting also included topic-specific input from community members. Mike (business owner) urged more actionable detail on a local fertilizer program and proposed that commercial applicators present state pesticide licenses to the town as a way to reduce municipal testing and training burdens: "If you come in with your state license, you've already been trained to a large degree on fertilizer as well as pesticides," he said (Mike, landscaper/business owner). Participants discussed multilingual outreach and the need for translated educational materials for Spanish, Portuguese and other language groups represented on-island.

The group agreed on process steps: Kim and Jack will refine goal wording to reflect the meeting's comments and redistribute a revised draft ahead of the next session. Members emphasized contacting identified interested parties (town departments, Board of Health, roads/right-of-way, Harbor Master, Steamship Authority, etc.) to solicit targeted feedback before finalizing recommendations.

Votes at the meeting were procedural. The agenda was approved by voice vote and the meeting adjourned by motion at 2:35 p.m. The chair reminded two members to complete the town swearing-in process before they may vote in future meetings.

The work group scheduled a follow-up meeting for Jan. 27, 2025, at 1 p.m. to review revised goals and the objectives associated with each goal and then move into recommendations. The plan remains an internal draft; committee members asked staff to continue collecting comments and to share revised pages with stakeholders and departments for review before public release.

Ending: The committee did not adopt new policy or regulations at this meeting; it focused on refining goal language and coordinating outreach and implementation steps for subsequent meetings.