HomeMy WebLinkAboutArticle 68 Wrk Grp Minutes - 10 05 2010_201402041900214756
ARTICLE 68 WORK GROUP
MEETING HELD TUESDAY, OCTOBER 5TH, 2010
AT 9:00 AM, CONFERENCE ROOM, 2 FAIRGROUNDS ROAD
Final Meeting Minutes
Members Present: Peter Boyce, Cormac Collier, Caroline Ellis, Dave Fronzuto, Bam LaFarge, Mark Lucas,
Wendy McCrae, Mike Misurelli, Richard Ray, Seth Rutherford, Lee Saperstein, Ernest Steinauer, and
Lucinda Young
Members Absent: na
Guests: Doug Smith, Whitey Willauer, Ron Shepherd
Others: Jim Sutherland, Administrative Assistant
1. Call to Order
Chair Young called the meeting to order at 9:08 am, and stated that the minutes of the meeting were
being recorded by the Administrative Assistant.
2. Review and Approval of Preliminary Agenda
Chair Young referred Work Group members to the Preliminary Agenda for the meeting and stated that
she, Vice Chair Boyce, Mr. Saperstein had worked on the Agenda to make it as efficient as possible for
the work to be accomplished. That said, she noted that there was a lot of new material to go through
today and that the Work Group would proceed, one item at a time, and move through the Agenda. The
Preliminary Agenda was approved by acclamation.
3. Review and Approval of Minutes of the Meeting of September 7, 2010
The draft meeting minutes from September 21st, 2010, had been distributed prior to today’s meeting via
e‐mail. Chair Young asked if there were any comments or changes regarding said minutes. There were
several spelling errors which were noted and which will be changed. Since no additional comments
were made regarding said minutes, the minutes were approved as distributed.
Chair Young expressed gratitude to the Administrative Assistant for taking the minutes for this four‐hour
meeting and for agreeing to prepare a draft of said minutes for distribution by the end of this week.
4. Chair’s Comments and Announcements; Comments from Members of the Work Group
Chair Young talked to Work Group members about the structure of break time for today’s meeting. A
choice of either two shorter breaks or one longer break was proposed. There was a consensus that a
single break of about 15 minutes around 10:30 or 10:45 would be appropriate and sufficient for the 4‐
hour meeting period.
Chair Young made reference to the presentation to the Board of Selectmen which she said was shorter
than she wished. However, the Board’s response to the presentation was positive.
2
Mr. LaFarge entered the Conference Room at 9:13 am.
Chair Young mentioned a conversation with Josh Balling at the Inquirer and Mirror. Some sort of article
concerning the Work Group (WG) and products from the Article 68 process will be forthcoming once a
bit more progress has been achieved.
Chair Young proposed draft recommendations from the WG by November 2nd and a vote on the final
product(s) by the end of the year. Mr. LaFarge mentioned that the Article 68 WG had a defined life‐span
and at some point a different (perhaps appointed) group would take over and carry through with the
next step of the process. Chair Young advocated for setting a goal and trying to attain that goal. Mr.
Steinauer mentioned that the BMP is in draft form and will need to be reviewed, revised and updated.
Outside review will be an important part of that process. Much time will be required. The BMP actually
has two (2) stages: (1) there is the general spirit of what is being recommended, and (2) the completed
BMP will be the basis of the regulation. Mr. Boyce was worried that it will take too long to perfect
everything before going forward and recommends voting on it in principal. Mr. Lucas developed a time‐
line that had BMP review completed sometime around early December. He proposed developing a set
of recommendation, completing and then voting on the content of the BMP.
Mr. Saperstein referred to the WG charge that had been distributed to members by Chair Young (see
attached). The first part is regulation and Mr. Saperstein is hopeful that this first part will be essentially
completed by the end of today’s meeting. The second part of the charge is the management plan of
which we have a preliminary draft which will be worked on and perfected through the fall. The third
part of the charge is budget and that will be the last step.
Mr. Willauer entered the Conference Room at 9:18 am.
There was brief discussion about writing a test. This is one part of one of the proposed regulations.
That particular step is not necessary at this point.
Mr. Steinauer mentioned that the Article 68 WG is broad‐based, with a wide range of representation.
He wondered where the regulations and tests are going to come from? Chair Young said the WG was
getting ahead of itself at this point, that the testing and licensing material is on the agenda and will be
discussed at today’s meeting as far as what the subgroup has developed so far. She emphasized that
the WG stay goal‐oriented. Although the draft agenda for today’s meeting suggests voting on
completed Home Rule Petition (HRP) and Board of Health (BOH) regulations, the WG should focus today
on discussing and reviewing the vast amount of material that has been prepared.
Mr. Shepherd entered the Conference Room at 9:23 am.
When it is time to make decisions and vote, Chair Young has made copies of appropriate sections from
Robert’s Rules. She reminded everyone to be thinking about budget amounts for the various sections
and subgroup products.
Mr. Collier entered the Conference Room at 9:26 am.
3
5. Develop and Assemble Article 68 Home Rule Petition (HRP) Document as First
Recommendation to BOS
5 A. Best Management Plan
Mr. Lucas introduced the BMP document and stated that it needs more work. It also needs outside
review by local landscapers, gardeners and also scientists, etc. Early December is a possible date for a
draft being ready. Some areas really need to be improved while other areas need to be blended to try
and reduce overlap. There are two (2) areas that need improvement including (1) the phosphorus
discussion, which needs expansion, and (2) plant establishment recommendations.
Mr. Smith entered the Conference Room at 9:30 am.
Mr. Lucas continued about the BMP document, presenting three (3) different fertilizer scenarios:
synthetic, organic and a combination of the two techniques. Mr. Misurelli emphasized the importance
of getting the BMP document out to the landscape community and to the public for review. There will
be folks not familiar with what has been done and they will claim not knowing about the process. Mr.
LaFarge asked if there was a database of names and addresses for distribution. There is the potential
for reaching out to a large faction of appropriate folks. Applications and record‐keeping materials will
be included as examples in the document.
Mr. Saperstein suggested at the point when the BMP subgroup was comfortable with sending the draft
document to UMass for review, that this also might be an appropriate time to put a public
announcement in the paper for local presentation of the BMP material in an open meeting.
Mr. Lucas mentioned that he had prepared a time‐line for completion of the BMP document which
would be distributed to WG members (see ATTACHMENT 1).
[The following material represents the dialog that transpired during a page‐by‐page review of the
BMP document as distributed to WG members prior to the meeting. However, during the initial few
minutes, there was some random jumping around on the part of the WG discussion.]
Section 1. Overview/Introduction
Chair Young was interested in knowing how one voice would be achieved. It was suggested that a
professional writer be used to compile the input from several different subgroup members. Mr. Lucas
mentioned that Kim Horyn might be a good choice. Where would the funds come from? Mr. Collier
mentioned that Mr. Fronzuto might have funds available. Chair Young asked if someone could ask Ms.
Horyn what the process would cost.
Mr. Saperstein asked if a title for the document had been decided? Currently, the title is Best
Management Practices for Fertilizer Use on Lawn and Landscape Plantings. Nantucket, Massachusetts.
Mr. Lucas suggested the current title be used with the addition of the word ‘for’, i.e., Best Management
Practices for Fertilizer Use on Lawn and Landscape Plantings for Nantucket, Massachusetts.
Copies of the BMP time‐line prepared by Mr. Lucas were distributed at this time.
4
Section 4. Nutrient Analysis
Chair Young asked if soil testing labs would be recommended. Would more specific information be
provided about labs available for analytical procedures? It was stated that contact information would
be included for quite a few labs in an appendix of the document.
Mr. Steinauer asked if soil texture would normally be provided as the results from soil testing. He didn’t
see it mentioned in the document. An example of soil testing results would be included in the
document. Texture analysis is pretty standard as far as the results from a soil test. Other soil tests are
also available including percolation and infiltration.
Mr. Saperstein suggested that the tests recommended in the document should be practical, common
and inexpensive. The document should mention other, more expensive tests that are available for more
difficult sites.
Section 3. Turfgrass Selection
Chair Young returned the discussion to Section 3 and mentioned that she would like to see the addition
of other types of grasses that are not mowed lawns. There was discussion about what other types of
grasses to include. Some others mentioned were field grasses such as little blue stem and Pennsylvania
sedge. These other types could be referred to as native (non‐intensively managed) types. There also
was mention that native shrub and forb selection should be included in this portion of the document.
Mr. Shepherd exited the Conference Room at 9:48 am.
Mr. Steinauer mentioned the fact that native shrubs and herbs are poor at taking up nitrogen, whereas
lawns are good at taking up nitrogen. In general, a less dense root mass means poorer nutrient uptake.
Mr. Lucas made reference to the Site Assessment section and something not currently in that section.
The subgroup had discussed how decreasing acreage would decrease nitrogen usage, i.e., the amount of
fertilizer used decreases dramatically. The Site Assessment section is a good place to include mention
that critical evaluation of the site is needed to reduce the amount of high maintenance areas and
minimize fertilizer needs and usage.
Ms. McCrae entered the Conference Room at 9:53 am.
In terms of the global picture, Nantucket is a small island and has similar weather. Mr. Saperstein
suggested inserting tables and charts on temperatures and rainfall, including 2‐year and 10‐year storm
return periods. Something like this is needed for reference in the document. Section 4 has some
background on climate. Mr. Lucas suggested a discussion and/or graph to shown the cycle of soil
temperature and seasonal growth of grass for Nantucket.
Section 3. Turfgrass Selection
.
Chair Young, again referring to Section 3, asked about whether specific mixes would be mentioned or
recommended? Vice Chair Boyce mentioned that this section presents a good opportunity for
education. WG members wondered if local seed suppliers could develop a local mix, or if local seed
5
blends be appropriate? It was mentioned that oftentimes, the varieties of seeds in mixes change
regularly based upon availability. This section still is being worked on by Mr. Wisentaner.
Mr. Willauer departed the Conference Room at 10:00 am.
Mr. Steinauer mentioned including references for individuals who would like to look up more
information, e.g., provide information on how to do blends. There was mention about having an
appendix of publications as references. Mr. Saperstein suggested a ‘go to’ section at end of each
chapter, i.e., ‘for more info please go to’…..
The section on Nutrient Analysis needs a short write‐up on soil texture.
Still on the Turfgrass Selection section. Mr. Steinauer asked about areas with sogginess and how much
fertilizer disappears under these conditions? Does this situation determine turfgrass selection? What
varieties (types) of plants are better suited for wet soils? It was stated that there are different grasses
for different uses and types of wet‐dry conditions. The section needs expansion in this regard. Maybe a
table would be useful. Mr. Saperstein mentioned the use of different grasses for high wear areas versus
ornamental areas
Mr. Steinauer reminded WG members that the goal is to reduce nitrogen loss and relating this to the
purpose of the guidelines. Things should be worded in the context of the purpose of the guidelines.
Section 5. Building the Soil/ Composting
Mr. Saperstein briefly explained the deposition and formation of clay layers on the Island as the previous
glacier was retreating. Glacial flour is the term applied to fine material that was deposited and
compacted to form clay layers. This was in the context of explaining the different soils that are found on
Nantucket.
Vice Chair Boyce suggested an area to explain how to make compost. There is a discussion on how to
apply compost. There was some discussion about whether to include a discussion about what kind of
compost is available on the Island. It is difficult to make specific recommendations. The document
could reference different sources of compost on the Island. Mr. Lucas talked about making one’s own
compost and the difficulties and intricacies. It is better to point people to a section in the appendix
where vendors are mentioned and to refer to websites that instruct on how to make your own compost.
There was a brief discussion here about how to provide reference material for websites. Mr. Saperstein
recommended that websites be referenced by author or organization, title, then URL
Mr. Ray and Mr. Fronzuto entered the Conference Room at 10:14 am.
Mr. Steinauer stated that there was lots of jargon in this section and that he frequently had to look up
definitions of terms. This section should be made more readable.
Section 6. Fertilizer Ratio and Analysis
Marc Lucas explained that he had attempted to break down the basic terminology and definitions, and
that perhaps this material also should be summarized in the form of a table. This section also will
6
contain good examples of natural, synthetic, or a combination of fertilizers and how rapidly each type
might release nitrogen and the mechanism of release, whether related to microbial action or
temperature. The rates of quick release need to fine‐tuned in this section.
Mr. Steinauer requested an explanation of the difference between organic versus non‐organic, and
explain why it matters. The point is to explain the ability to leach nitrogen. It was mentioned that
synthetic fertilizers can look the same as organic ones, the difference being only that they are
manufactured and not from a natural source.
The small print on fertilizer bag labels was briefly discussed. It was suggested that an example of a label
be placed in the document with an explanation of how to interpret what the label information tells us.
Saperstein, referring to a definition made in the BMP, suggested that urea is not mined; urea in fertilizer
is normally not from an animal source but is made from natural gas. The definition of urea has to be
refined in the section text.
Fertilizers are defined in the BMP document to provide educational background
Mr. Steinauer provided a brief discussion about C3 and C4 plants, the forms of nitrogen available in
fertilizer, the difference between nitrate and ammonia and the ion charges. There should be an
explanation in this section about why ammonium sulfate might act differently from potassium nitrate.
Vice Chair Boyce mentioned that bone meal is not needed as a source of phosphorus on Nantucket. This
should be explained in this section since bone meal is a traditional material applied to soils as a source
of phosphorus.
Ms. McCrae exited the Conference Room at 10:24 am.
Mr. Lucas thought that a quick discussion of the nitrogen cycle would be appropriate material to include
in this section.
Section 7. Fertilizer Use and Rate Guidelines
Mr. Saperstein mentioned that when we get to the section of the agenda where we discuss regulations,
specifically the wording “application rates will be made based upon the recommendations of the
applicator,” he will propose that this wording be changed to “application rates be made based upon
recommendations in the BMP document”. There was general agreement with this proposed change.
Mr. Collier mentioned that there will be more specifics in the section table about times of the year and
current knowledge to optimize rates and minimize leaching and there also will be an expansion of the
comments section of the table. There will be three (3) case studies, including organic, synthetic and a
mix of both types. More documentation will be provided in this section. There will be more focus on
soil temperatures, release and time of the year.
Mr. Misurelli explained how 70 percent slow‐release N had been considered as the standard for usage.
However, during a cold spring, the results will be slower to exhibit and people generally go back and
apply fertilizer again, thinking that what was added is not working. The subgroup backed down on the
slow‐release fertilizer to 60 percent.
7
There was brief discussion about the overall goal of the section and the fact that, over time, the rates
and amounts of fertilizer will be reduced since soil quality is gradually being improved. Chair Young felt
that this point needs to be emphasized somewhere, i.e., the fact that there is a build‐up of organic
matter in the soil. It was suggested that an example be put in this section to show the soil organic
development phenomenon.
Mr. Lucas discussed how plants (grasses) take up nitrogen in the fall to develop root structure. Either
October 15th or October 31st is considered the latest date to conduct fall fertilization. Typically, a large
portion of the fertilizer applied in the fall is taken up, i.e., the plants respond well to a fall fertilization.
Beyond these dates, it is too late. Also, too early in the spring can result in leaching. Nantucket Golf
Course has done a lot of testing and much of what Mark knows about fertilization has come from this
testing. There are extensive records being kept.
Ms. Ellis entered the Conference Room at 10:37 hours; Mr. Misurelli exited the Conference Room at
1038 am.
Vice Chair Boyce commented about a necessary correction in the equation in Section 7. There is an ‘o’
instead of a ‘0’. The equations need some written explanation so that the readers don’t ‘glaze over’.
Chair Young called for a meeting break at 10:40 hours; Mr. Misurelli entered the Conference Room at
10:40 am.
Chair Young called the meeting back to order at 10:56 am
Chair Young stated that she would like the WG to spend another 15 minutes, or so, on the BMPs and
then spend about 45 minutes on the Educational Requirements, Testing, Licensing and Certification
section. The last hour of the meeting, from 12:00 until 1:00 pm, would be spent on the Article 68
material prepared by Mr. Saperstein.
Chair Young asked the BMP subgroup which areas should be focused on for the remainder of meeting.
Mr. Collier explained that Sections 8, 9, and 10 can be briefly explained, but are strong sections. Section
12 (establishment) needs more work, and Section 13 will either be separate or will be incorporated into
other sections.
Section 8. Fertilizer Calibration and Calculations
Mr. Lucas wrote this section and tried to explain the process rather than just list it. Mr. Collier explained
that this was one of the most important sections of the document.
Mr. Fronzuto and Mr. Ray entered the Conference Room at 11:00 am.
It was difficult to write this section so that it wasn’t confusing. Much of the material included in this
section is very factual. Mr. Steinauer suggested using bold and bullet points to have the different steps
of the process stand out to the reader and make the process more clear. Vice Chair Boyce suggested a
section about the nitrogen content of fertilizer and how to figure the rate of application if one wants to
have ½ pound of fertilizer spread per unit of surface area etc.
8
Mr. Smith entered the Conference Room at 11:03 am.
Chair Young wondered if authorship is needed for the BMP document? Mr. Misurelli doesn’t think
individual sections need authorship but the entire document could list the names and affiliation of
contributors in the front, similar to the previous BMP document produced for Nantucket. It also is
important to state somewhere (visible) that the document has been reviewed and approved by WG
members and other folks outside the Work Group.
Mr. Smith stated that when it comes to the legislative process and folks reviewing this material, he feels
that folks knowing the information is important and factual will ease the review effort. The material
presented needs to be technical enough so the legislative folks know that the material being presented
already is established.
Section 9. Application Timing of Fertilizer and Record Keeping
Mr. Saperstein mentioned that it was agreed that precipitation charts and sample record‐keeping
documents would be included and would be put in this section.
Mr. Steinauer wondered about forecasting. How far in advance should rainfall be forecast in
anticipation of fertilizer being applied? Mr. Lucas thought that he had put ‘one week’ in this section and
that some sort of reference is needed. Mr. Steinauer asked if timing of application and the amount of
subsequent rainfall is important. For example, if fertilizer is applied and there is no rainfall for a week
versus fertilizer being applied and heavy rain the next day. Is there a difference in the release
characteristics under these two scenarios? Is sheet flow of applied fertilizer a problem. Discussion is
needed on that topic in this section somewhere.
Mr. Saperstein asked how long should records be retained? Mr. Misurelli stated that soil test results are
more important than fertilizer rate records. Some sort of suggestion for duration of record keeping and
the important information recorded needs to be put in this section.
Section 10. Irrigation Practices and Management
Mr. Rutherford basically wrote what he does when he goes to a property to manage irrigation. One
portion of the material that is confusing and difficult to convey properly is the amount of water needed
and not watering deeper than the root zone. This zone between the two areas is a fine line since the
amount of water, oftentimes, can be small. With not enough watering, the plants can become water‐
dependent. With too much watering, the fertilizer will leach through the soil. The section needs a bit
more elaboration. Also, some description of different watering/precipitation patterns around fertilizer
application time needs to be included here. Avoiding deep watering on Nantucket is a fine line due to
sandy soils. Irrigation should be turned off when it rains. Awareness and monitoring of the irrigation
clock should be emphasized. Precipitation sensors don’t work well here on‐Island. Regular monitoring
and knowledge of how to use the irrigation clock is very important. Some degree of homeowner
education should be included here. Island‐wide, there are different levels of homeowner participation
and involvement here; some homeowners get involved, some don’t care to get involved with the details
of their irrigation systems. Chair Young mentioned that some sort of diagram might be a helpful
educational tool here. Overall, this section requires some additional information and some
simplification.
9
Section 11. Cultural Practices – including Mowing, Aeration, De‐thatching
The important sub‐sections in this section include mowing, aeration, de‐thatching, and topdressing.
Basically, this is information that has been around for a while and doesn’t change. There was a question
about how frequently aeration should occur? There should be more aeration and less de‐thatching.
There was some brief discussion about the closeness of aeration holes. In compacted soil areas, more
aeration holes are needed.
Section 12. Establishment and Renovation Guidelines
This section of the BMP documents was skipped over.
Section 13. Fertilization of Trees, Shrubs and Ornamentals
Mr. Misurelli commented that this section repeats a lot of information presented earlier in the turfgrass
section. The subgroup is looking to refine this section. However, he also asked whether this section
should be kept as a separate section or incorporated into other sections to avoid repetition. The
subgroup is not sure what the phosphorus recommendation will be for this section, in particular, for
application to beds (bare soil). An important point to mention here is that, typically, the bed fertilizers
and applications to bare soils have high amounts of phosphorus. A recommendation needs to be
developed. Mr. Saperstein advocated for keeping this a separate section since different landscapers
have different areas of interest. There was a question about whether competition from other species
should be mentioned in this section, e.g., grasses growing right around trees. Mr. Misurelli stated that
proper planting heights need to be mentioned here. Chair Young commented that she started to ‘glaze
over’ when reading this section, particularly around the Cation Exchange Capacity section. Some
additional introductory material may be appropriate for this section.
Mr. Steinauer commented that many of the techniques and methods for trees and shrubs seem
different, which speaks against consolidation of this section and keeping the sections separate.
Mr. Willauer entered the Conference Room at 11:27 am.
Mr. Collier acknowledged that the subgroup has several meetings scheduled within the next two weeks
and that early December still seems to be a reasonable time projection for completion. Someone in Mr.
Misurelli’s office is compiling the information submitted by various members of the subgroup.
Mr. Saperstein suggested that the NRCS website be added to the list of resource material for the BMP
document. The proper reference is: www.nrcs.usda.gov.
Mr. Misurelli asked any WG members to provide resource material that they feel would be important
and should be included in the BMP document.
Mr. Lafarge commented on the amazing amount of work performed by the BMP subgroup.
Chair Young stated that next item on the Agenda was ‘ii. Decide how to insert language referencing
BMP into Article 68 HRP.’ She asked if the WG should stay on this area or jump ahead? Mr. Saperstein
asked if the BMP subgroup had any suggestions in this regard? Mr. Collier stated that he had ideas of
his own, but thought that this was a question for Town Counsel to consider and answer. Chair Young
10
had asked Mr. Saperstein to develop preliminary language to accomplish this task. As a result of some
brief discussion regarding this matter, it was decided to skip this Agenda item and jump ahead.
5 B. Educational requirements, Testing Licensing and Certification
Chair Young referenced this subgroup (Testing, Licensing, Enforcement and Penalties) and its members
including her, Mr. Collier, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Misurelli, and Mr. Ray. There was a 1‐page summary of
material discussed at 2 subgroup meeting that was distributed to WG members for today’s meeting.
Chair Young went through the summary material item‐by‐item. A copy of this summary material is
included as an addendum to these meeting minutes (See ATTACHMENT 2).
There was some discussion at this point concerning the importance of drafting language for
amendments that recommends a specific procedure for any future review and that insist on changes in
regulations being science based.
The Education subgroup items presented by Chair Young were put on the table for further discussion.
Chair Young discussed the possibility of developing something formal with testing and licensing similar
to the state pesticide situation. This had been mentioned to her initially by Mr. Misurelli around the
time of Town Meeting. This approach would seem to be the most effective way of increasing the level
of education among the professionals.
Lee Saperstein stated that a license need not be specific to one group of people or another. Anyone
who can demonstrate competence could become licensed. There might be a way to ensure that
professionals should be licensed but we shouldn’t preclude allowing others to become licensed. Chair
Young agreed with this philosophy.
Mr. Willauer exited the Conference Room at 11:40 am; Mr. Willauer entered the Conference Room at
11:41 am.
Mr. Collier and Mr. Misurelli suggested that we expand the commercial applicator definition to ensure
that we are only concerned with fertilizer and not pesticides. We are breaking new ground, namely the
local control of the administration of fertilizer. In many circumstances, the state reserves the right to
control licensure. A key point is to show that excessive fertilizer use can be linked to public health
concerns.
Mr. Ray delivered some bad news. It is evident that there will be no additional manpower added to the
Health Dept in the forthcoming fiscal year to address any of these Article 68 issues. Instead, the
upcoming year will reflect budget cuts and he needs to question whether he can administer this
program in an appropriate manner. Mr. Collier stated that there is room for other non‐governmental
agencies and groups to help out with the creation, teaching and administration portions. Parts can be
salvaged in this manner. This bleak fiscal situation could change down the road (in coming years). Mr.
Fronzuto stated that, over the years, money has been found to fund different projects with fiscal
shortfalls; however, those types of funds are gone now and no longer available. Mr. Ray stated that
there will be a million‐dollar shortfall. There was brief discussion about over‐ride and/or human
reduction (layoffs). Mr. Fronzuto stated that there quite possibly will be an over‐ride menu; what items
do you want and how badly do you want them?
11
Vice Chair Boyce exited the Conference Room at 11:43 am; Vice Chair Boyce entered the Conference
Room at 11:45 am.
Chair Young stated that the Article 68 WG needed to keep going in spite of the bleak fiscal future. Let
the ‘powers that be’ decide what is to be done and how to accomplish it. It was suggested that a
summary of testing and accreditation be developed and how to accomplish all of this process on the
local level. This is only one piece of the vast amount of material that the WG is working on.
Chair Young stated that the WG may have to prioritize recommendations. Mr. Collier stated that other
funds and sources of grants are out there and available for publication and printing fees for BMPs etc.
We will need to use grants for start‐up costs, setting up a licensing program, and initial administrative
costs.
Chair Young asked if there is a possibility of setting up an alternative organization to facilitate the duties
of the DOH? In response, Mr. Fronzuto mentioned, in reference to the Shellfish Management Plan
Consortium Water Quality Initiative for 2010, that several organizations had donated money that went
to the Town to implement work. No one organization makes the big or single donation; donations are
made by a number of organization who want to be included as part of the whole.
Mr. Steinauer suggested going off‐Island for grants. There also was mention of the Nantucket County
Conservation District. Mr. Misurelli stated that a small amount of funding might be available there.
Vice Chair Boyce commented that ReMain Nantucket does not want to become a permanent funding
source for something that is a Town responsibility.
There probably is funding available from commercial sources. Mr. Misurelli reminded WG members
that Bartlett’s Tree Experts provided funding for the previous Nantucket BMP document. Mr. Collier
referred to these types of funds as ‘appropriately placed public relation dollars’.
Chair Young commented that creating and maintaining a good website would be very beneficial. It
generally was acknowledged that using volunteers to manage websites doesn’t work well. Mr. Collier
again stated that there is funding out there for tangible things. It was a consensus that the website and
BMP document are of the highest priority at this time.
Mr. Willauer referred to the Shellfish Association backing the Shellfish Management Plan. When
separate donors were being sought so funds could be funneled to the Town, it was the ‘packaging’ of
the situation that pulled donors together.
Mr. Fronzuto stated that flyers get forgotten and tossed away. A website always will be available and is
educational, but takes lots of time and expertise. The website should be built into the budget.
Someone stated that a separate website (not affiliated with the Town) would be the best approach.
A website proposal was mentioned and Vice Chair Boyce volunteered to draft said document.
Mr. Steinauer mentioned that a huge change in response to the Mass Audubon website when it was
done professionally.
12
Mr. Saperstein commented about the WG staying on track to produce a Home Rule Petition. Following
Town Counsel review and Town submission, it is unlikely that there will be completion of the legislative
process within two years; this gives us time to complete our managerial tasks. The draft of the HRP
could be re‐edited rapidly to become BOH regulations.
Mr. Collier commented that two separate paths have been described and that, generally, he has a lack
of faith in Article 68 coming to fruition in the scope that is imagined by the WG. He feels that the BOH
route is the path that should be focused on. There seemed to be general agreement with this concept.
Vice Chair Boyce – the Town website is difficult and unattractive. He hopes that funds can be raised so
that an Article 68 website can be done professionally.
Mr. Fronzuto commented that regulations are easily voted in and easily changed. Mr. Lucas has
concerns about the ease of change and the possibility of something being negated. This is both a
positive and negative. Mr. Fronzuto says that he has used the process to his advantage in previous
situations. Mr. Steinauer stated that the Town can render anything ineffective by lack of enforcement.
Mr. Ray commented that regulations can be structured to contain a portion that states ‘removal only
will occur with a super‐majority of the Board’. This is a new term, but is being used. Any regulation is a
crap‐shoot. If not well‐written, a regulation will get tossed out. If well‐written, it should stand the test
of time.
Chair Young stated at this point in the meeting that it was unlikely that any vote will occur today. Lots of
material has been presented. Said material needs to be reviewed and digested by WG members and
others before proceeding further to a vote.
5. E. Home Rule Petition (Agenda items 5.C. and 5.D. were not needed and thus were skipped)
Mr. Saperstein stated that he will be making a motion to offer a sequence of constructive amendments
to article 68. As part of that motion, he will give a time‐line that defers any voting to the next meeting.
The revised Article 68 will be provided to WG members in the meeting minutes for people to review. As
a consequence, when we come back to the next meeting, the document will be editable and amendable.
Vice Chair Boyce seconded the motion. The motion states that the amended Article 68 will be available
for at least 2 weeks for review. The motion can be revisited and decision made about motion at the
next meeting.
Mr. Smith exited the Conference Room at 12:08 pm; Mr. Smith entered the Conference Room at 12:12
pm; Mr. Lucas exited the Conference Room at 12:12 pm..
Mr. Saperstein stated that no vote was needed on the motion. The purpose of the motion allows the
presentation to be made and authorizes discussion of the motion (see Robert’s Rules on Making
Motions). There was much discussion on this matter. The motion was made to allow Mr. Saperstein to
present the material, i.e., the amendments to Article 68. However, there was some confusion and WG
members felt that the matter was being made too complex. Mr. Saperstein stated that he wants
everything to be defendable, so there are no loopholes. This is an extended presentation and will be
recovered at the next meeting.
13
Chair Young proposed to move forward with an open session for comment and review of the Article 68
amendments. As a result of this and the previous discussion, the motion and second were withdrawn.
Mr. Lucas entered the Conference Room at 12:14 pm.
Mr. Saperstein proceeded to present Article 68 with constructive amendments using a projector and
screen in the Conference Room (See ATTACHMENT 3 for constructive amendments; the revised draft of
Article 68 was sent to the WG separately). He went through the regulation draft dated 7/31/2010,
which had been distributed previously to WG members and also is provided as attachment to these
minutes. Mr. Saperstein stated that the version of Article 68 with constructive amendments, presented
here, incorporates material from HPIC draft. That explains why we are doing what we are doing. The
latest version contains findings and purpose. As far as Findings, there is excess nitrogen in the water,
which is bad. The Purpose is that we want to reduce the amount of nitrogen going in to the water.
Representative Madden advised us to make sure that the State knows that we have the right to reduce
nitrogen. Thus, there is an Authority section, which states that the Harbor Plan has been approved. In
addition, the Town of Nantucket convened the Article 68 Work Group and reducing nitrogen is one of
the WG charges. The Harbor Plan has been approved by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In
addition, TMDLs have been provided for the harbor by the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental
Affairs and more are coming. The Coastal Zone Management Program has in its plan a statement to
ensure that NPS pollution control will promote the attainment of state water quality. The NPS
Management Plan in DEP will help communities in drafting river protection bylaws. This can be used to
imply that the Commonwealth wants communities to protect their water. And, finally, the MA Estuaries
Project states that limiting lawn fertilizer may be necessary. Taken in total, the above material
represents the authority given to reducing nitrogen.
Mr. Saperstein then proceeded to the section on definitions. Taken in total, this represents a lot of
material. He has added 4‐5 new terms to be defined including agriculture, horticulture, and guidance on
application rates. Insertion of the definitions is alphabetical. In adding definitions of agricultural and
horticultural commercial practice, Mr. Saperstein has provided a cue for Mr. Hucksam to provide better
definitions based upon something defensible.
Mr. Steinauer inquires whether today’s process be just a review or will the WG make recommendations
about the changes. Mr. Saperstein stated that he wants to present the document as amended and then
have the group members review it on their own following the meeting. The entire package will be voted
on at a later date. There was a section set aside as a placeholder for the Nantucket BMPs; he was not
sure whether to, or how to, include these in Article 68. A placeholder also was inserted for the fertilizer
plan prepared by Vice Chair Boyce and previously distributed to WG members.
Mr. Saperstein showed that the definitions section includes language that defines a Landscape
professional as “a person who, in exchange for money, goods, other services or consideration, applies
fertilizer to plants.” The definition could have a link to licensure.
Mr. Saperstein commented that wherever it states ‘NOFA’, ‘Nantucket BMP’ or the appropriate title will
be substituted.
Mr. Ray and Mr. Fronzuto exited the Conference Room at 12:27 pm.
14
Mr. Saperstein reviewed several suggested changes to Section 5. Standards of Performance. They are
in the attachment.
Section 6. is currently a placeholder for education and/or additional requirements; Mr. Saperstein
suggested language to occupy this placeholder and asked the WG to review it carefully.
There was some discussion regarding the distinction between a Home Rule Petition and Board of Health
regulations. A Home Rule Petition amendment to Massachusetts General Law allows a local community
to either do or not do something. This comment is derived from Representative Madden’s presentation
to the WG. How the Town implements the HRP is up to its Board of Selectmen but we are suggesting
that it be in the form of regulations. Coincidentally, BOH regulations can be adopted without an HRP
but the latter provides more authority for local regulations. In considering the difference, there are
semantic changes and other small changes in the presentation but the Standards of Performance would
be the same.
There is more substance in the form of a Home Rule Petition. Mr. Collier is concerned about semantics.
All WG members are strongly encouraged to review the document that will be provided following the
meeting so that comments and edits can be received. The local Department of Health is a vehicle of
enforcement but also the point of weakness. There is ambiguity regarding the penalties. Not sure
about the limit on amount. Mr. Hucksam can advise.
How do we ensure that the proposed material doesn’t go away? Vice Chair Boyce had a sophisticated
set of suggestions for language on Amendments. Mr. Saperstein used these suggestions to write a draft
section on amendments. Any amendments to the regulations and to the BMP would need to be based
upon peer‐reviewed science and only after review by a diverse committee of stakeholders.
Mr. Lucas asked who actually changes the BMP. Mr. Saperstein responded, the BOH. The actual
decision would be made by the BOS or by a vote at the annual town meeting. An amendment process
would occur by the same process as new regulations. Mr. Steinauer commented that a lot of the
material used in Article 68 process is based on what Mr. Lucas does and that is not peer‐reviewed
science. In general, the peer‐reviewed science is not out there. Mr. Collier stated that ‘peer‐reviewed
science’ is a subjective term. If the document prepared by the Article 68 WG goes to UMass for review
then it will become peer‐reviewed.
Ms. Ellis exited the Conference Room at 12:42 pm and entered the Conference Room at 12:45 pm.
So, in summary, the WG has something to review and provide comment about. Mr. Saperstein
suggested at the appropriate point in the agenda for the next meeting that someone will move
consideration of the draft circulated. That will mean that it can be discussed, revised and voted on at
that time.
The next meeting is Tuesday, October 19th; the meeting following that is Tuesday, November 2nd
Mr. Steinauer commented that Article 68 is one (1) document. The BMP is the guide to practice. The
regulations need to be very simple and basic. Un‐necessary confusion is occurring. Mr. Collier
commented that the WG has to go line‐by‐line through the proposed regulations for the BOH.
15
Eventually, there will be 2 documents and one will mimic the other. Vice Chair Boyce stated that the
time has come to separate out the 2 documents. The BMP is referenced in both documents.
Mr. Lucas commented about the statement in Article 68 that certain portions can be struck if found not
appropriate. Mr. Saperstein suggested some structure be added to the regulations that is easy to apply.
Mr. Saperstein would like to come back in 2 weeks with copy of Article 68 marked up. Once reviewed
and approved by the Work Group, we should send a copy to Mr. Hucksam and ask for comments. For
the next meeting, we can have two documents that overlap; one pertaining to the BOH, and another to
the HRP. The amendments will be in the documents. Mr. Saperstein will keep a record of changes in
the master document.
Mr. Smith and Mr. Willauer exited the Conference Room at 12:58 pm.
Adjourn
Motion: A motion was made by Mr. LaFarge, seconded by Vice Chair Boyce, to adjourn the meeting.
The motion passed.
The meeting was adjourned at 1:00 pm.
Next Meeting: Tuesday, October 19th ‐ 9:00 am at 2 Fairgrounds Road
Respectfully submitted,
James W. Sutherland, Administrative Assistant
Lee W. Saperstein, Secretary
16
ATTACHMENT 1: BMP Subgroup work plan
Motion – BMP
I move that the BMP, in its current form – a working draft at this point, not be voted on and approved
today. Instead, discussion of the BMP by the group will occur today, with revisions, review, and
ultimately, approval according to the following schedule:
1. Revisions and further compilations of the BMP by the BMP subgroup to be completed no later
than October 29, 2010.
2. Dispersal and review of BMP to: Nantucket landscapers and gardeners, universities such as
UMASS (by Dr. Ebdon and Mary Owen) and Cornell (by Dr. Petrovic and Dr. Rossi?),
organizations such as NOFA, if interested, and other interested parties. Reviews to be
completed and returned to the BMP subgroup by November 12, 2010.
3. BMP subgroup to meet the week of the November 15th to review critiques and make changes, if
necessary.
4. Final revision of the BMP by the BMP subcommittee to be completed by December 3, 2010.
5. Final review and approval by the Article 68 workgroup the week of December 6, 2010.
17
ATTACHMENT 2: Testing and Licensing Subgroup report
Subgroup Summary
“Testing, Licensing , Enforcement, & Penalties”
Members: Richard Ray; Mark Lucas, Cormac Collier, Mike Misurelli, Lucinda Young
Items discussed meeting 9/8 :
A system for landscape fertilizer applicators of education, testing, licensing, enforcement, and penalties
possibly administered under the authority of the Nantucket Board of Health
A timeline of 2011‐12 as a goal for having locally certified fertilizer applicators
A once every three year certification requirement
Setting up training workshops 3 to 4 times per year with credits toward license, eg. Spreader
calibration; bringing in outside speakers on a variety of fertilizer related topics;
Adding definitions: including ‘Offence’ eg not being certified ; a list of other definitions
Setting penalties and limits
Setting up categories of certified/licensed applicators eg owner of a company; foreman of a company
with differing costs for license
Items discussed mtg 9/20:
Need to define job description and responsibilities of individual in DOH office to administer the
proposed fertilizer regulation
Need to write the test; Ray suggest WG members compose test
Importance of drafting language to recommend a procedure of review and changes to regulation in
future being science based.
Draft a review process detailing update of BMP every 3‐5 years including a broad range of community
members and scientists similar to this WG
Come up with a budget including a part time employee at BOH, and other costs of administering the
regulation.
18
ATTACHMENT 3: Constructive Amendments from Mr. Saperstein
LWS Unapproved Amendments to Article 68
October 22, 2010
Section 4. Definitions
Agriculture is a general term meaning farms and farming systems. For the purposes of these regulations
agriculture means the raising of crops for commercial sale, where the threshold of commercial is two
thousand five hundred dollars ($2500.00) per year measured as an average over a five‐year period. See
also “horticulture.”
“Best Management Practice,” BMP, means a voluntary sequence of activities designed to limit a
nonpoint pollution source. For these regulations, BMP means the current edition of “Best Management
Practices for Fertilizer Use on Lawn and Landscape Plantings on Nantucket, MA.”
“Horticulture” is a general term meaning plant science and plant products. For the purposes of these
regulations, horticulture means the raising of flowers, fruit, nursery, nut, and vegetable crops for
commercial sale, where the threshold of commercial is two thousand five hundred dollars ($2500.00)
per year measured as an average over a five‐year period. See also “agriculture.”
Nantucket BMP is the current edition of the “Best Management Practices for Fertilizer Use on Lawn and
Landscape Plantings on Nantucket, MA.”
“Nutrient”…. Should we modify “nitrogen” with the word “elemental”?
Section 5. Standards of Performance
5.2.a.iii. substitute “Nantucket BMP” for NOFA
19
5.2.b. Amend to read: Fertilizer application shall not exceed the recommendations of the Nantucket
BMP.
5.2.d. Foliar Products shall be applied according to the recommendations of the Nantucket BMP.
5.3.a.i. substitute the Nantucket BMP for NOFA.
5.3.c. Application of fertilizer by a licensed person when following the recommendations of the
Nantucket BMP; a written record must accompany this exemption.
5.3.d. Renumbered 5.3.c.
Section 6. Education, Licensure, Enforcement, and Penalties
(This entire section is new and is underlined accordingly)
6.A. Education
1. The Town of Nantucket will maintain a program of fertilizer education that is based on its
BMP.
2. Demonstration by a person of participation in fertilizer education will be by passage of a test
administered by the Town of Nantucket.
3. Summaries of fertilizer application requirements will be made readily available to the public.
6.B. Licensure
20
1. A license issued by the Town of Nantucket is required of Landscape Professionals when they
fertilize lawns and plantings; such a license may be held but is not required by home‐owners
who apply fertilizer for their own benefit.
2. Persons who pass the test described in 6.A.2. may apply for a fertilizer license.
3. Fertilizer licenses will be valid for a period of three years from the date of issuance; renewal
requires passage of the current test.
6.C. Enforcement
Enforcement of these regulations is by the Nantucket Department of Health.
6.D. Penalties
1. Application of fertilizer by an unlicensed Landscape Professional may lead to a fine of up to
five hundred dollars ($500.00).
2. Non‐compliant application of fertilizer may lead to loss of license and/or a fine of five
hundred dollars ($500.00).
3. Repeat offenses may lead to fines of up to five thousand dollars ($5000.00) per offense.
Section 8. Amendments
Amendments of these regulations and of the supporting Nantucket BMP shall be based on
science and proposed only after they have been reviewed by a diverse committee of
stakeholders similar in nature to the Work Group that drafted them.