HomeMy WebLinkAboutArticle 68 Wrk Grp Minutes - 04 19 2011_201402041900170225
ARTICLE 68 WORK GROUP
Meeting of April 19, 2011, at 10:30 am
37 Washington Street Conference Room
Informal Meeting Notes
ATTENDING
Members: Peter Boyce, Mark Lucas, Mike Misurelli, Lee Saperstein, Ernie Steinauer,
Lucinda Young (Chair).
Guests: None
Absent: Cormac Collier, Caroline Ellis, Dave Fronzuto, Bam LaFarge, Wendy McCrae,
Richard Ray, Seth Rutherford, Jim Sutherland (Administrative Assistant)
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Young called the meeting to order at 10:35 am; a quorum was not present.
REVIEW AND APPROVE OF PRELIMINARY AGENDA
Chair Young asked the group how they wanted to proceed. It was agreed to continue to
meet informally, i.e. no actions or motions could be made or approved but information
could be received for informational purposes only.
REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF
FEBRUARY 10, 2011
The draft minutes of the meeting of February 10, 2011 were distributed previously. Chair
Young asked if there were changes or edits to be made and Mike Misurelli suggested that
the units on page 3 should read pounds per 1000 square feet, not as written (hundred sq.
ft.). The correction will be made to the draft minutes but approval will be deferred until
there is a quorum present.
CHAIR'S COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS; COMMENTS FROM THE
WORKGROUP
Chair Young reported on the status of scientific reviews that are underway for the draft
Best Management Practices (BMP) plan and suggested that the group proceed with an
open discussion on the BMP review.
COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PLAN
(BMP)
Mark Lucas reported that the University of Massachusetts Extension Service scientists,
Ms Mary Owen and Dr. J. Scott Ebdon, were working on a single unified revision that
would incorporate both of their collected comments and edits. He was told that they
would have this by May 1st. Dr. Petrovic of Cornell expected to have his comments back
by “this week.” Also Larry Stowell of Pace Turf expected to have his comments by April
30th. It was agreed that we would not ask them about their progress until those dates had
past.
Several people commented on the review by Dr. Thomas Morris of the University of
Connecticut that had been sent to Cormac Collier and thence to Chair Young and to us by
e-mail. The sentiment of his lengthy review is captured by his sentence “I think you need
to re-write the sections on compost, soil organic matter, and phosphorus and nitrogen
fertility to tie the ideas together.” It was agreed that, within the context of protection of
the waters of Nantucket, the broad approach to fertilization practices was necessary. We
will wait to see if the other experts comment on compost and ENR. The draft BMP
already specifies that a content analysis should be available for any compost that is added
to landscape soil.
As a general comment for the future, it was noted by several that the BMP needs to be a
“living document” capable of being amended continuously and, thus, kept up to date.
The national interest in nutrient contamination means that the scientific community is
doing more research on fertilization practices and, consequently, publishing more articles
about it. In discussions with the Board of Selectmen (BOS), it will be indicated that a
continuing implementation committee, similar to the Harbor Plan Implementation
Committee (HPIC), will be needed.
Even though the Home Rule Petition (HRP) and BMP are not yet in the hands of the
BOS, anecdotal evidence among members of the landscaping community suggests that
more gardeners are heeding our recommendations.
Mark Lucas, returning to the question of editing the draft BMP to include reviewers’
comments or our responses to them, asked how we expected to proceed. It was suggested
by the Chair and others that the obvious path to take is to re-convene the editing sub-
group and let them proceed to direct us in creating an unified final draft, the one that can
be forwarded to the BOS. Ernie Steinauer asked about distribution of the draft to the full
Working Group. It was agreed to proceed with the editing subgroup but to ensure that all
comments, criticisms, and suggested revisions be sent to all members of the full Working
Group so that each member could track, if wished, the treatment of these comments.
Secretary Saperstein reminded the group that the HRP and the BMP were two of four
parts of our charge from the BOS. The third was implementation and the fourth was cost.
In the next few meetings we will need to consider these charges and our response, if any,
to them.
NEW BUSINESS
Chair Young suggested that we needed two more meetings to complete our tasks: one in
late May to consider BMP revisions and one in late June to formulate our response to the
BOS. Peter Boyce indicated that he will be extracting material from the BMP and the
Deleted: Tom Smiley of Bartlett
Tree Research that had been
forwarded from Bartlett contact
Deleted: thence
Deleted: In h
Deleted: , he questioned the
expansion of the BMP into planting
practices that went beyond
“landscape fertilization” and also
was critical of some of the material
on compost tea.
Deleted: compost tea
Comment [LY1]:
Deleted: create
Deleted: ( My recollection of
this portion of the discussion is that
the edit subgroup would need to
deliberate about who and when and
how revisions will be incorporated
into a ‘final’ BMP- comment
Lucinda )
draft Board of Health Regulations for inclusion in the section on fertilizer that will be
included in the “Blue Pages” to be published by the HPIC. The HPIC is preparing a
Request for Bids, for consideration by the BOS, for preparation of the Blue Pages; Peter
Brace is helping with this effort.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:10 am
Lee Saperstein, Secretary
7/13/2011.
Deleted: Book
Deleted: Book
Deleted: 4/27/2011
Deleted: 4/26/2011