Duxbury Bay Management Commission
Public Meeting Minutes – Thursday, October 26, 2006
A public meeting of the Duxbury Bay Management Commission was held at the Duxbury Senior Center at 7 pm.
In attendance:
Duxbury Bay Management Commission (DBMC):
In attendance: John Carnuccio (Chair), Shawn Dahlen, Kathy Gould, Jack Kent, Don Gunster, Corey Wisneski (Secretary), John Brawley, Emmett Sheehan, Don Beers (ex officio).
Missing: Ned Lawson
Other Guests:
Approximately 30 members of the Duxbury aquaculture community attended, although there was no sign-in sheet. A straw poll during the meeting indicated that there were no attendees outside of the aquaculture community.
Others: Jake Emerson (Harbormaster EXO)
S. Dahlen gave a thirty minute synopsis of the draft aquaculture report via Powerpoint presentation. The floor was then opened to the public for comment.
Responding to a question, S. Dahlen made it clear that the Board of Selectmen (BOS) are the only ones who can actually change the town regulations and that this report will eventually go to them, once it is finalized. The BOS would review the report and ask the Shellfish Advisory Committee (SAC) to suggest amendments to town regulations, which only the BOS can enact.
J. Grady commented that the report as it is currently presented goes outside the scope of deciding whether the shellfish moratorium should continue or not. He does not see any conflicts of use at his lease, especially with regard to boaters.
H. McCarthy commented that the recommendation prohibiting rebar from leases would cost him a considerable amount of money. He says that the BOS gave him permission to use rebar when he first got his lease and now he’s concerned that they will reverse the decision, without paying for the cost of removal. He also stresses that the fishing in the area around his leases has increased substantially since he put in his structures. J. Grady later commented that he is witnessing the same thing at his lease and believes that the bottom structures are acting as artificial reefs.
A comment was made that rebar is considered a standard in the aquaculture industry and to prohibit it would be opposed to most of the industry’s common practices. In addition, it is stated that there may already be a regulation regarding the removal of rebar, or any aquaculture equipment, from a lease when that lease is abandoned, terminated, or transferred. To recommend something similar in the aquaculture report would be redundant.
J. Grady commented that abandoned PVC structures amount to a fraction of the abandoned moorings and anchors in Duxbury Bay, especially near Shipyard Beach where swimming is common. If any of these recommendations are accepted as regulations, he suggests grandfathering in any offending leases. S. Dahlen shared his concerns that the removal of any abandoned PVC material should not be a cost for the Town.
S. Bennett and others note that there are no other users of the Bay present at this public meeting. He asked the DBMC: if use conflicts are such a problem, wouldn’t there have been other users in attendance?
T. Kelleher comments that he sees a hierarchy of values arbitrarily assigned to the users of Duxbury Bay and that it appears that aquaculture unfairly falls near the bottom of that hierarchy. He sees unsafe and inexperienced vessel operators as more of a threat to the uses of the Bay than aquaculture.
D. Merry commended the DBMC and SAC for all the work that went into the report and for volunteering their time to address such a difficult issue. However, he voiced concerned that the use conflicts may be anecdotal “cocktail talk” and a couple of people with a perceived conflict does not mean the entire industry needs to adjust. He considers the most important issue to be the blending of the uses in the best way, not the restriction of one use and the maintenance of the status quo for the others.
S. Dahlen and J. Carnuccio commented that the other uses of the Bay will be addressed in the future, as stated in the Duxbury Bay Management Plan, and that this meeting is specifically targeted toward aquaculture. Assurances were made that the other uses would not be ignored.
J. Carnuccio called for a straw vote among the attendees: who thinks the moratorium should continue? Several attendees stated that they did not think the answer to this question was that easily attained.
S. Bennett commented that the aquaculture industry has many benefits to the town and to the Bay in particular. He believed that these benefits should be stressed and volunteered (with D. Merry) to draft a list of the benefits for the edification of the DBMC and SAC, as well as the BOS.
D. Loring submitted a written copy of his findings to the official record. He stated that he is concerned with the lack of data behind the report and the lack of evidence of a conflict between aquaculture and other uses. He was concerned that the DBMC and SAC are moving too fast with the recommendations. He submitted photocopies of the language in several state regulations, permits, guidelines, and best management practices. These photocopies are Attachment 1.
P. McCarthy noted that one of his leases is mismarked on the GIS maps. He also asked if it was his lease that prompted the report’s recommendation to prohibit rebar. The report’s authors stated that they were aware that his lease as well as at least one other uses rebar. S. Dahlen commented that he would feel more comfortable if there was some provision for removing rebar without cost to the leaseholder.
G. Morris asked about Mike Hickey’s (DMF) claim (from 2005) that the number of leases in the Bay was reaching a level of concern. J. Carnuccio stated that contact has yet to be made with Hickey to have him clarify this point.
M. George commented that he thinks the moratorium should stand because the industry is so young and so much has yet to be developed. He was also curious about where the recommendations on how to help the aquaculture industry are, considering all the benefits the industry brings to the Town and the Bay.
J. Carnuccio stated that any Shellfish Management Plan that is to be drafted in the future will be a living document. He recommended the Wellfleet management plan as an example of what Duxbury should be drafting. He also states that the next draft of the aquaculture report will be discussed and revised at the next joint DBMC/SAC meeting (November 9th) and that the draft will be made public.
S. Bennett stressed that his concerns are for the industry to remain as it is now, to stress the benefits the industry brings to the Town and the Bay, and to minimize any conflicts with other uses.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 pm
Respectfully submitted,
Corey Wisneski
Secretary
| 
