HomeMy WebLinkAboutHSAB Minutes - January 04, 2011_2014020513485858851
Nantucket Harbor and Shellfish Advisory Board
Minutes of Meeting held January 4, 2011
Approved: January 18, 2011
Conference Room, Town Annex, 37 Washington St.
Call to Order at 4:33PM: Members present: Dr. Boyce (in the chair), Mr. Blount, Mr.
Glowacki, Mr. Holdgate, Mr. Rank, Ms. McCrae, Mr. Smith
Members Absent: none
From Marine Dept: Mr. Fronzuto, Ms. Riley,
From the BOS: Mr. Willauer Others: Ms. Hall, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Connors
Approval of Agenda: Mr. Fronzuto noted that he had a petition about the apprenticeship
program. The chairman suggested this be discussed at the end under the apprentice topic.
There was no dissent.
Approval of Minutes:
Ms. McCrea moved ( second) approval of the minutes of the December 7, 2010. The motion
carried unanimously.
Chairman’s Report: The chairman had nothing to report.
Marine Department Report: (4:35pm)
Commercial scalloping: The bushel count is up to 4,840 bushels as of yesterday. Fifteen
boats were working today.
New algae stocks for next year’s propagation program are coming soon.
Seed Moving: Mr. Fronzuto announced that 500 bushels of seed had been moved into deeper
water from the shallows between Abrams Point and the UMASS Field Station. Ms. Hall noted
that she had seen a lot of scallops in shallow water beyond Pimney’s Point.
Miss China: Mr. Fronzuto reported that the Miss China had broken free from her mooring,
which is owned by Toscana, and had come ashore on Brant Point. He thanked Ms. McCrea for
talking to the owner, Joe Dooley, and convincing him to leave the boat where he was still living.
Ms. McCrea pointed out that Joe Dooley was now homeless, since the boat had been his home
for the last three years. Mr. Fronzuto noted that, since the Miss China had grounded on federal
property, federal funding was available to tow the boat and pump it out. 4,600 gallons of fuel
and waste was pumped out of the boat, and the bilges have been vacuumed. There is now no
danger of pollution or oil spill. The plans are to tow the boat out of Nantucket Harbor. There
was a discussion about the status of the boat. It is not yet “abandoned.” The owner can still
claim the boat, however, the mooring has been compromised. There is no mooring in the
Harbor capable of taking a boat the size of the Miss China, so the owner would have no place to
put her. Ms. McCrea pointed out the human element in this situation, and stated that she hoped
the Marine Department would proceed with due consideration of all aspects of the situation.
Mr. Rank stated that Mr. Dooley should take some responsibility for his actions. This is
not the first time that the Miss China has broken free. Dr. Boyce asked if Mr. Dooley had paid
2
for the use of either of the moorings he has used. He apparently has not. Dr. Boyce noted that
the Nantucket Community has come together to ease Mr. Dooley’s immediate problem, and
that, while he was sympathetic to Mr. Dooley’s plight, he felt that the responsibility of the Board
was to ensure the safety of the Harbor and the marine environment.
Old Business: (4:59pm)
Progress on Shellfish Management Plan: The next meeting of the SMP Committee, which
is open to the public, will be on January 12 at 2:30pm in this room (37 Washington St.).
Report on Article 68 Work Group: The Best Management Practices document (BMP) is
undergoing further editing.
Special Discussion:
Dr. Boyce introduced the discussion of the Shellfish Management Plan (SMP) by saying that he
wanted to see what we, as SHAB, wanted to get out of a SMP. He started by asking a number
of questions: Do we take all we can to maximize current benefits, or run the fishery to sustain
the current levels, or manage to grow the population, trying out various strategies to grow out
the population to reach the 1980’s levels? Do we manage to keep the fleet at current numbers,
or manage to protect the people who fish every year. To do this, we could, for instance, issue
multi-year licenses, which requires a strong commitment. Do we enact reduced limits for the
occasional fisherman? Do we encourage expanding the fisheries of other species? What about
impacts of the harvest of one species upon other species. What about managing on a year to
year basis, changing the limits based upon predictions of the size of the harvest, or are stable
and predictable regulations (which we have now) the best way to go? Do we encourage
aquaculture? How much local control of the regulations do we want? There are questions of
water quality, enforcement of the regulations, and education of the public. Should we
encourage a strong volunteer program to help with education, propagation, and even water
quality measurements? The Board was then asked for their thoughts.
Mr. Rank wants to find ways to retain spat in the harbor. That is one way to increase the
population. He wants to look at protecting true seed better, using the width measurement
instead of height measurement. His goal is to improve the population size – he wants to
increase the harvest, thinks that benefits everyone.
Mr. Holdgate suggests increasing the height of the East Jetty, both for safety, and to retain
spat. Mr. Fronzuto has several capital items which include running the harbor model to see the
effects of raising the jetties. Dr. Boyce noted that if the spat does not wash over the jetty, the
spat will be carried out the mouth of the jetties into deeper water, and would more likely be lost
in the deeper water at the end of the jetties.
Mr. Smith wants the SMP to maximize the harvest, wants to focus on water quality, and is
worried that fishermen will be facing even more reduced limits.
Mr. Blount, from his experience in other fisheries, does not think that holding limiting catches
actually works to build up the stock.
3
Ms. McCrae defers to the fishermen.
Mr. Glowacki thinks it is important to improve our knowledge of the factors which affect the
population. He quoted Dr. Brian Howse as saying that sewering Monomoy would “solve the
(water quality) problem” in the lower harbor. The key is having a healthy system. He does not
feel that we can “manage” to improve stocks. Improving water quality will improve stocks.
Ms. Riley agrees that the key is a healthy system, but that we can do things to improve other
aspects, such as knowing where to put spawning sanctuaries or where to release larvae so that
the larvae are not swept out of the system.
Ms. Hall pointed out that the Head of the Harbor has more than 50% of the volume, but has no
scallop habitat left. The key is to improve water quality so that the scallop habitat comes back.
She is also concerned about the “nub” (fall spawned scallop) issue. After six years of study she
can definitely say that the fall spawned nub scallops, if not harvested, will survive and will
spawn in their second year, and add a great deal to the population. She also thinks that a
survey in September can predict the size of the catch in the coming season. She encourages a
flexible management strategy which could vary depending upon the population.
Mr. Fronzuto noted that the Estuaries Study states that sewering Monomoy would have a direct
effect on the Lower Harbor by removing 100% of the nitrogen contributed by septic systems.
Because of the high density of houses there, sewering the lower Harbor would have 5 times the
effect of putting in sewers in the other basins (Quaise, Head of the Harbor, and Polpis).
Mr. Smith suggested that the SHAB send a strongly worded letter to the BOS supporting the
sewering of Monomoy. Mr. Glowacki moved (Mr. Smith seconded) that the Chair write and send
a letter to the BOS supporting the extension of sewers in Monomoy. The motion carried
unanimously.
Dr. Boyce asked the Board’s opinion about doing things which will support the dedicated
scallopers (those who fish every year). Ms. McCrae wants to support the dedicated scalloping
fleet. Mr. Glowacki thinks that a healthy system will be good for the fleet and will be sufficient.
Ms. McCrae stated that supporting the fishermen is, nevertheless, important as well.
Mr. Blount thinks that limiting entry to the fleet would not be good. Mr. Holdgate thinks that the
economy does a lot to govern the size of the fleet. If land based work is not available it forces
more people into the scalloping fleet. Mr. Smith agrees with Mr. Blount that limiting entry into
the fleet has not been good in other fisheries.
Mr. Fronzuto said that in other fisheries, the entry limits were based on previous catches, and
this has not worked. He noted that some people get licenses and never fish, and that you would
not want to exclude these people from buying licenses. He also notes that as the season
progresses and scallops are harder to find, the number of people fishing drops off. There is not
a good correlation between the number of licenses and the fishing effort done by the fleet as a
whole. Maintaining a sustainable population is the most important.
4
Mr. Lynch (from the audience) agrees with Mr. Fronzuto in that we could not, and should not,
limit the number of licenses. This would not have much effect upon the total season fishing
effort.
New Business: (5:40)
Review of Scallop Apprentice Program: Mr. Fronzuto presented a petition from Mr.
Connors to waive serving the remaining days of his apprenticeship with Captain Lynch. Mr.
Connors has fished for 22 days. These are long days this year. He has bought his own boat,
taken a 2 hour seed class with Mr. Fronzuto, and has learned well. He is a good waterman. He
recommends that the remaining days in Mr. Connors apprenticeship be waived. Ms. McCrae
noted that 40 days was not chosen based upon experience, and that we might reconsider the
length of time needed for completing an apprenticeship. Mr. Holdgate wondered if there was a
conflict of interest. Dr. Boyce noted that since there is no financial gain to the Board members,
he sees no conflict.
Ms. McCrae moved (Mr. Glowacki second) that we grant the request. The motion was approved
unanimously.
Mr. Lynch suggested that we list what we expect an apprentice to learn. Nr. Fronzuto promised
to develop a curriculum for our consideration.
Recap and Items for Next Meeting:
Water Quality and the Estuaries Report.
Adjournment: The meeting adjourned at 5:50pm
Next Meetings: January 18, 2011, February 1 and 15, 2011
Respectfully submitted,
Peter Boyce, Chair