Advisors adopt eelgrass-management priorities and call for more data on ferry discharge, buoy placement
Loading...
Summary
Natural Resources staff presented a completed eelgrass management plan and 2026 priorities including standardized monitoring, habitat protection and discharge management; board members urged data collection on ferry pump-out protocols and recommended pursuing a larger, more visible no-wake buoy and possible town-meeting action to move its location.
Natural Resources staff presented the completed eelgrass management plan Feb. 17 and outlined priorities for 2026 that emphasize protection, consistent monitoring and targeted research.
Staff said the plan—developed with the Nantucket Land & Water Council, UMass field-station collaborators and other experts—has established an implementation committee that meets monthly, is working to adopt SeagrassNet monitoring protocols, and is developing local eelgrass health indicators (light penetration, dissolved oxygen, sulfide concentrations and soil metrics) to define thresholds for Nantucket. The plan lists continued shellfish restoration and a focused look at discharge-management and ferry pump-out practices as near-term priorities.
"The eelgrass management plan was completed last year," staff member Tara told the board, and the implementation committee already meets the first Wednesday of each month. Tara said the group plans to standardize surveys and data-sharing so results are comparable across projects and years.
Board members raised concerns about commercial-ferry discharge practices in the corridor between Nantucket Harbor and Hyannis. Members noted that federal no-discharge-zone language and published maps appear to conflict in places; one member said the federal designation says Nantucket Sound is a no-discharge zone while mapped references can be ambiguous. The board asked staff to consult state and federal authorities and to invite Coastal Zone Management or Steve McKenna for clarification.
Members also discussed wake impacts on eelgrass and recommended that the Harbormaster consider either moving the no-wake buoy farther out (Dave suggested a larger marker at 'number 5' in the main channel) or ordering a more visible buoy this season; moving the buoy's location would require a town-meeting article, members said. Staff and members recommended gathering additional monitoring data—including existing dive-survey series (town surveys done since 2019 and comparable sites back to 2006)—to support requests and to evaluate whether mechanical wave attenuation or buoy relocation is the best option.
The plan acknowledges low historical success rates for restoration (staff cited literature noting fewer than 12% of eelgrass restorations succeed in some contexts) and pointed to recent local restoration attempts at Fifth Bend that appear to have been heavily impacted by spider-crab predation. The board agreed protection of existing eelgrass beds should be prioritized alongside targeted, evidence-based restoration trials.
Board members asked staff to invite the dredge-plan lead (Vince) for an update on how navigation dredging and potential test sites might align with eelgrass-protection goals. Staff said the eelgrass work and the navigational dredge plan are funded and scoped separately but that coordination would be useful.
The board did not take formal regulatory action at the meeting on discharge or buoy location, instead asking staff to research federal/state no-discharge designations, assemble monitoring data, and bring recommended next steps to a future meeting.
