Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutArticle 68 Wrk Grp Minutes - 07 19 2011_201402041900197100ARTICLE 68 WORK GROUP Meeting of July 19, 2011, at 10:30 am 2 Fairgrounds Road Conference Room Final Minutes ATTENDING Members: Peter Boyce, Caroline Ellis, Bam LaFarge, Mark Lucas, Mike Misurelli, Seth Rutherford, Lee Saperstein, Ernie Steinauer, Lucinda Young (Chair). Guests: None Absent: Cormac Collier, Dave Fronzuto, Wendy McCrae, Richard Ray, Jim Sutherland (Administrative Assistant). CALL TO ORDER Chair Young called the meeting to order at 10:30 am; a quorum was present. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY AGENDA The preliminary agenda was approved by acclamation. 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 and redistributed in anticipation of this meeting. Chair Young asked if there were changes or edits to be made. At the informal meeting in April, Mike Misurelli had suggested that the units on page 3 should read pounds per 1000 square feet, not as written (hundred sq. ft.). At today’s meeting, Chair Young suggested that several comments ascribed to her were not correct and should be deleted. With these changes the minutes were approved (LaFarge moved and Misurelli seconded) unanimously. CHAIR'S COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS; COMMENTS FROM THE WORKGROUP Chair Young reported on the status of the scientific peer reviews that are underway. She indicated that Mark Lucas will give details in his report. She stressed that she believes that, despite delays in getting responses from the reviewers, it is essential that our Best Management Practices Plan (BMP) reflect good science. The key reviewers have each submitted a thorough response to our first draft and we are grateful for their efforts. Their response did, however, create new questions and the editorial sub-group is following up on these questions. REPORT TO THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN, JUNE 22, 2011 2 Secretary Saperstein reported that he had represented the Work Group in a report to the Board of Selectmen on June 22, 2011. The report was well received although three of the Selectmen orally encouraged a speedy completion of our project. Mr. Saperstein mentioned that he had scripted some notes for his presentation so as to be thorough but concise. These notes were incorporated into the minutes of the BOS meeting, which means that they are public. They have been distributed to Work Group members and parties interested in the Work Group. He then deferred to Mr. Lucas who was to report on the status of the reviews. BMP EDITING AND STATUS OF INCORPORATION OF REVIEWERS’ COMMENTS Mark Lucas stressed that our reviewers covered the spectrum of soil and turf science and that he was grateful for the time that they expended in reviewing the draft BMP. Although they took an extended interval before responding, each of their responses was thorough and thoughtful. They carefully edited text where they could, even to correcting spelling, and then inserted comments and questions where rewriting might be needed over simple editing. In general terms, there is a recognition that, with multiple chapter authors, there is some inconsistency in style and a great deal of repetition. Some of the lengthy and detailed examples may need to go to appendices or even be deleted. Information on subjects, such as base saturation percentage, which are less pertinent to the needs of the BMP should be trimmed away. The reviews received from Dr. Petrovic at Cornell and Dr. Morris at Connecticut created new questions from the editing sub-group. Mr. Lucas has compiled these questions into lengthy e-mails that he sent to each of them. They responded quickly that these questions were of some substance and they wanted to interact with their colleagues before responding. They did indicate that we would have had something back from them by now; Mr. Lucas volunteered to follow up if we didn’t have anything from them by the end of the week. Mr. Lucas then reviewed the nature of the questions and their impact on the BMP.  Organic Matter Percentage. The BMP suggests that a healthy soil might contain up to six-percent organic matter, OM. The reviewers indicated that sandy soils, which contain very little silt and clay, are unable to hold that much OM. Organic matter breaks down very quickly in soils such as ours leaving nitrogen and phosphorus available for percolation into the groundwater. Attempts to build an OM content to six percent would most likely have the same result as over- fertilizing with synthetic material. The resulting question is “What is a reasonable OM percentage?” A potential rewrite is to stress that compost is a fertilizer and its N and P content and impact should be assessed just as any other fertilizer.  Slow-Release Fertilizer. It was suggested by the reviewers that excess amounts of slow-release fertilizer could overload the soil with N and P just as much as would 3 quick-release fertilizers. This might be the case in wet years. Slow-release is not a cure-all. The BMP will need to discuss application rates and timings with care.  Compost. It was stressed that compost is a fertilizer. No matter what other benefits exists from fertilizer, e.g. moisture retention, spreading it adds N and P to the soil. Where compost is applied heavily, there may be a rapid release of P into the soil. Text in the BMP that describes compost will need to discuss application rates and OM percentages. Compost sources may need to identify available N, P, and K in their material.  Base-Saturation Percentage. As mentioned earlier, base-saturation percentage was panned as being ineffective and not scientifically supported.  Growth Charts. The BMP has several charts and graphs that were used to illustrate the need to match fertilization to periods of strong plant growth. The reviewers asked if these were accurate for Nantucket. When shoot growth slows or stops in the fall, some root growth may still be occurring.  Spoon Feeding. Small and frequent applications of fertilizer, which is called “spoon feeding,” may deal well with these questions but is neither convenient nor inexpensive. Mr. Steinauer and Mr. Misurelli both reacted to the spoon-feeding idea, repeating the notion that it was not convenient for home owners and would cause added expense to those who use commercial services. Both Mr. Saperstein and Mr. Steinauer responded to the idea that compost is a fertilizer and that local sources might need to be urged to have their product tested. Mr. Steinauer reminded the group that compost tea is really only another source of nitrogen. Mr. Boyce asked if distance from a source would reduce the impact of N and P on Nantucket’s waters. Several people responded with information derived from the watershed studies, originally performed for reviews of septic systems on Nantucket, that percolation rates are high and adsorption rates (capture of elements on the surface of soil particles) are low. At this stage, Chair Young suggested that we consider how we conclude the efforts of the Work Group. She asked if it is possible to obtain a final and acceptable version of the BMP. Will there need to be an implementation committee, she asked. She also asked if we should put the BMP out for another round of reviews once the editing is finished. Mr. Misurelli was positive in his statement that we should be able to complete our task and produce a BMP. Several people indicated that, once the BMP is edited to our satisfaction, it should be given in final form to the Board of Selectmen as fulfillment of our task. If the BOS wishes to entertain further reviews, that will be their concern. With respect to editing the BMP for consistency and readability, several people suggested that we consider going back to an outside editor. The reaction from the editing group was that an outsider might not be up to speed on the technical issues. Mr. Saperstein suggested that he could undertake editing, provided others in the editing group looked over his work to ensure that changes of substance were not created by the edits. He indicated that his goal was simplicity without being simplistic, i.e. readable and usable but not so brief as to be technically inept. In the end, the group agreed that we should finish the assigned tasks. 4 PUBLIC AND HOMEOWNER EDUCATION The Work Group agreed that a remaining task was to develop material for the HPIC Blue Pages and other hand-outs, brochures, and reference cards. This needs to happen as soon as we complete the BMP. NEW BUSINESS It was agreed that the entire Work Group should meet again in approximately one month. A review of the calendar and local activities for the end of August pushed the date back to Tuesday, September 13, at 10:30 am. There was no other new business. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:31 am Lee Saperstein, Secretary 9/27/2011.