HomeMy WebLinkAboutArticle 68 Wrk Grp Minutes - 11 17 2011_201402041900224756
ARTICLE 68 WORK GROUP
Meeting of November 17, 2011, at 10:30 am
4 Fairgrounds Road, Community Room
Final Minutes
ATTENDING
Members: Peter Boyce, Cormac Collier(entered at 10:40 am), Caroline Ellis, Bam
LaFarge, Mark Lucas, Wendy McCrae, Mike Misurelli (entered at 10:40 am), Seth
Rutherford, Lee Saperstein, Ernie Steinauer, and Lucinda Young, Chair.
Guests: Rick Atherton (entered at 10:35 am) and Jon Wisentaner
Absent: Dave Fronzuto and Richard Ray.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Young called the meeting to order at 10:30 am; a quorum was present.
APPROVALS
By acclamation, the Preliminary Agenda was approved.
A move to approve the Minutes of November 8th was made by Wendy McCrae and
seconded by Peter Boyce. Several editorial suggestions were made and accepted by the
group: remove the word “informed” before “layman” on page 2 to reduce confusion
(McCrae); add mention of a conference call with reference to discussion with Paul Sachs
(Lucas); and substitute “year” for “season” in two places (Ellis). With these changes, the
minutes were approved unanimously.
CHAIR'S COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS; COMMENTS FROM THE
WORKGROUP
Chair Young thanked Peter Boyce for serving at the previous meeting as Chair in her
place. She commented that she had spent some time reading the updated draft Best
Management Practices Plan (BMP). She reminded the group of how far we have come
since the first draft came out about a year ago. She acknowledged and thanked the
members of the Work Group who have worked on it. She commented on the importance
of outside science reviews to this most recent draft of the BMP; that new information
gathered from discussions with the science experts resulted in some significant changes
in our understanding; and that new information had only recently, and somewhat hastily
been assimilated into the draft BMP. She suggested that the BMP would need further
work to make certain that updated recommendations are consistent and clear throughout
the entire document
2
Chair Young reminded the WG that it was agreed early on that an educational approach
to fertilizer practices would be our basis for making recommendations to meet our
charge. She concluded by commenting that education started within our group; that we
have all learned quite a bit; and that we need to make sure that the final BMP is clear,
consistent, and backed by science.
Bam LaFarge suggested that the BMP was wonderful and amazing; he did note, however,
that we would need to find a way to keep it up to date with the occasional amendments.
Peter Boyce added that the BMP, written by a committee of volunteers, is as good as if
not better than the Shellfish Management Plan prepared by professional consultants.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PLAN REVIEW UPDATE
Chair Young had asked several members of the Work Group who, specifically, were not
part of the editorial sub-group to review the BMP: Peter Boyce, Bam LaFarge, Caroline
Ellis, and Wendy McCrae. Peter Boyce reported first by saying that, in general, the
report was quite good although it would be improved by some editing for consistency.
He gave some examples, such as the section on nitrogen slow-release fertilizers and the
take-up of nitrogen by plants. We might, he said, explain the difference between the
ideal circumstance where nitrogen is released just as plants need it, and reality where
there may easily be a mismatch. Ernie Steinauer and Mark Lucas helped to explain that
reality is not simple; they would look at possible edits for this section (Section 2, page 6,
in the sub-section on “organic vs. synthetic). Mark Lucas reinforced Peter’s call for
consistency and asked that all sections be consistent in their recommendations. Whether
here or later in the meeting, it was stated that editing would attempt to remove
inconsistencies that arose from multiple authorship and, also, from the changes in
recommendations that resulted from the reviewers’ input.
Peter wondered whether the graph of a sample “Potential Growth Curve” should be
restored to the document and Mark Lucas showed why it would present a reality
challenge because droughty periods occurred in July and August just when the sample
curve that we had used earlier showed the highest potential for growth. Peter went on
with his suggestions, following the order of the BMP. In the summary bullets at the front
of Section 3., he found that some of them transmitted little or no information. Ernie
Steinauer asked if the bulleted summary points had been edited. Several people,
including Secretary Saperstein, responded that only some had and many were waiting for
the body of the BMP to be completed before summaries were abstracted from it. In the
subsequent discussion of homeowner education, it was noted that these summaries would
be the key source of text for brochures and handouts. In the section on the soil test, page
17, Peter noted that the uptake of nitrogen was not well explained. Mark suggested that
this topic would need editorial review but that it should be remembered that the soil test
doesn’t test for nitrogen and only estimates nitrogen availability from a measure of
organic matter content, a measurement that, in the belief of the scientists who reviewed
the BMP, is ineffective. Peter suggested that this should be explained so the average
homeowner could understand a soil test.
3
In Section 5, Peter suggested that the bullet summary points be improved. He also found
a statement that said healthy organic matter content is in the order of five to six percent,
which we know to be too high for Nantucket. Section 7 on turfgrass seed mixes and
blends was not as complete as the previous section on fertilizer. He felt that more
information about seed mixes that have been recommended for use on Nantucket, such as
the Cape Cod Blend, should be included even if only in the appendix. In Section 10., the
paragraph on aeration should state that the goal is to end with holes two inches apart.
Mark agreed that the goal is to end with holes on a 2-inch by 2-inch grid. Section 11.
summary bullets need to include the recommended numbers for pH and organic matter.
Wendy McCrae noted that she read the BMP as a layman and not as a scientist. It took
her one and one-half hours to read and it had full clarity and full comprehension. She
noted that there were a number of pages, often with tables or charts on them, that should
be copied or abstracted for use in homeowner educational brochures or cards: the six
bullet points in the preface; section 2., first seven bullets; pages 35 and 36; page 39; and
pages 76 to 78. On page 16, she noted that the initial ‘K’ appears with no definition; later
in the text it is seen as representing the element, potassium. She suggested that the
bullets, meaning the summary abstracts at the beginning of each section, could be printed
and used as handouts at point-of-sale locations as information for homeowner education.
With minimal tweaking, the BMP will be ready for presentation.
Bam LaFarge agreed with Wendy in terms of its general readiness for release. He did
recognize that there one or two small things to fix. In Section 3. “Site assessment,” he
would like to see more emphasis placed on identifying communities of native plants with
a goal of preserving them. In response to his comments about many sites being cleared
during construction so that the landscape designers would have a clean slate, Mike
Misurelli reminded the group that the owner controls the site. With respect to the list of
native trees and shrubs in Section 13,, he asked that we consider adding white oak to it.
Caroline Ellis thought that the document was wonderful and had only one request,
namely that the principal authors for each section be named. Mark Lucas recognized that
the original section materials came from individuals but that the editing process may have
changed the material so substantially that the authorship line had become unclear.
Wendy McCrae felt that the Work Group, referenced in the Preface, should be identified
by name not just affiliation on page 2, paragraph 4.
With these suggestions in hand, Lucinda Young offered to undertake the task of a next
editing of the master draft of the BMP. She commented that it should not be difficult nor
time-consuming to identify and remove inconsistencies in the recommendations. She
asked for a vote authorizing her to work on further editing. The motion was made and
seconded and all voted in favor. After that effort, she agreed with the suggestion at the
previous meeting that someone from outside of the group who has editing experience
should look at it. Caroline Ellis suggested Libby Oldham of the NHA. Caroline also
suggested Dick Duncan from Mill Hill Press. Wendy McCrae and Peter Boyce agreed
with this overall approach.
4
HOMEOWNER EDUCATION
With respect to Homeowner Education, the group was reminded of Wendy McCrae’s
earlier comments about producing cards and brochures that had the bullet points and
application tables on them. We will collaborate with the “Blue Pages” effort of the
Harbor Plan Implementation Committee, HPIC, by providing them with content derived
from our BMP. This was explained when Caroline Ellis asked about the Blue Pages.
Peter Boyce indicated that he is a member of HPIC (as is Bam LaFarge; Lee Saperstein is
a liaison attendee at their meetings) and has been charged with assembling the fertilizer
material for inclusion by Peter Brace, the editor. There was general recognition that our
section summaries, i.e. the “bullets,” should be carefully edited for clarity, content, and
consistency because they would provide the basis for homeowner brochures, point-of-
sales cards and posters, and the material that will go into the Blue Pages. The earlier
suggestion from Mary Owen, UMass Extension, of a plastic card that has a depth gauge
on one side and the rules of application on the other was recalled.
In response to a general question about how the homeowner material would be financed,
the group was reminded that our charge included estimating budgets to accompany our
recommendations . Lee Saperstein suggested that we create as final a version as we can
of text and format and then submit that to the Board of Selectmen with an estimate of
costs to produce the brochures, cards, and posters. Selectman Atherton suggested that we
not worry about money but do provide the BOS with good content material, i.e. text and
tables.
REGULATORY PACKAGE
Chair Young asked Secretary Saperstein to summarize the amendments he is suggesting
to the regulatory packages: Home-Rule Petition and Board of Health Regulations.
Saperstein indicated that the changes he is proposing conform to the strictest levels of the
BMP: fertilizer not to be applied between October 15 and April 15; no more than 0.25 of
N/1000 sq ft of fast-release fertilizer at any one application; 3.0 lbs of N/1000 sq ft per
year; 0.5 lbs of N/1000 sq ft per application; minimum of two weeks between
applications; and exemptions allowed if the BMP is followed. Applications of compost
and compost tea should be considered when calculating applications of nitrogen and
phosphate; the word phosphate was added.
Cormac Collier indicated that these amendments were in concert with the BMP and that
the package was essentially ready to go up to the BOS. Chair Young did ask him to
review the changes carefully and report back at our next meeting. Mark Lucas wondered
if the exemption section was now needed, due to the complexities of a homeowner
applying a small rate of nitrogen (0.5 lbs of N/1000 sq ft) in one application. He was not
questioning the other guidelines. Lee Saperstein said that several elements of it, such as
the agricultural exemption, were needed but that the other parts could be edited if desired.
Selectman Atherton asked that we get the regulatory package to the BOS, particularly the
Board of Health Regulations, to the Board as soon as possible. Cormac Collier suggested
that a regulatory submission will need legal review by Town Counsel; Saperstein agreed
5
but added that coordination with the Board was needed to see if that review will occur
before or after submission.
WINTER WORKSHOP ON FERTILIZER APPLICATION PRACTICES ON
NANTUCKET AND TIMELINE FOR SUBMISSION TO THE BOARD OF
SELECTMEN
Chair Young suggested that the material in the BMP and the regulatory packages was too
complex to transmit to the Board as an agenda item at one of their evening meetings and
proposed a workshop with the Board of Selectmen. Cormac Collier said that early
January would be a good time. Rick Atherton agreed with the concept of a workshop but
asked that we consider giving a progress report at the next meeting of the Board, which
will be Wednesday, December 7, 2011. The Work Group agreed to with that suggestion.
When Lucinda Young suggested that the workshop be aimed primarily at landscapers,
Mike Misurelli, who thought that a good idea, suggested that winter travel schedules
meant that we might have to give multiple offerings of the workshop. Selectman
Atherton, who had to leave the meeting at this point (12:05 pm) thanked the group for
their hard and dedicated work.
NEW BUSINESS
At this point, Cormac Collier and Mark Lucas indicated that we must revisit our
recommendation on phosphate, P2O5, applications: none unless need indicated by a soil
test. This is because, on Nantucket, the recommendation could constitute a ban on the
application of compost in many cases. Mark said that he had looked at his file of old soil
tests and they mostly showed that there was an adequate amount of phosphorus in the
soil. He said that almost all composts have enough phosphate in them that the regulation
would prevent their use. He said that we needed a way to accommodate the use of
compost in soils that are below the environmental critical concentration, but might be at,
or above, the agronomic critical concentration. In these cases, compost should be derived
from leaves and, to a lesser degree, other vegetation. Ernie Steinauer suggested that we
would want to write our regulations so that we reduced the use of high-phosphate
composts, i.e. those sourced from animal wastes.
Cormac Collier asked if we could insert a line in the regulations on compost use, perhaps
in the exemption section. Mark Lucas suggested that the other beneficial uses of compost
and the suggestions by our reviewers for a compromise might allow for low applications
of (1/4 to ½ inch) of vegetation-based, (preferably leaf litter) composts on soils that are
near, or at, optimum phosphorus levels. This would prevent an interpretation that our
regulations ban compost. There are benefits to the soil from the use of compost.
Unfortunately, one of them is the broad application of nutrients, which are the very thing
that we need to control. Our suggested rules need to be written in such a way that we
recognize the other benefits of compost while not exceeding our recommendations on
nutrient application. Cormac Collier will suggest changes to the regulations and forward
them to Mark Lucas and Ernie Steinauer for review. They will forward the changes to
Lee Saperstein who will insert them into the regulatory packages.
6
NEXT MEETING
At the meeting of November 8th, the work group reserved the date of Tuesday, November
29th, at 10:30 am for an additional meeting. This date is confirmed; the meeting place
will be the Conference Room in 2 Fairgrounds Road (the Planning offices). The Board of
Selectmen progress report will be given on Wednesday, December 7th.
In addition to our workshop to be scheduled in January, Cormac Collier said that he had
invited the scientists from the University of Connecticut for a possible workshop with us
and landscapers on March 13th. This would be hosted by the Nantucket Land Council.
ADJOURNMENT
At 12:18 pm there was unanimous consent for adjournment.