Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutArticle 68 Wrk Grp Minutes - 02 10 2011_201402041900168975 ARTICLE 68 WORK GROUP Meeting of February 10, 2011, at 10:30 am 2 Fairgrounds Road Conference Room Final Minutes ATTENDING Members: Peter Boyce, Cormac Collier, Bam LaFarge, Wendy McCrae, Mike Misurelli, Lee Saperstein, Ernie Steinauer, Lucinda Young (Chair). Guests: None Absent: Caroline Ellis, Dave Fronzuto, Mark Lucas, Richard Ray, Seth Rutherford, Jim Sutherland (Administrative Assistant) CALL TO ORDER Chair Young called the meeting to order at 10:30 am; a quorum was present. REVIEW AND APPROVE PRELIMINARY AGENDA Chair Young called for approval of the preliminary agenda that had been distributed earlier. Approval was by acclamation. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF December 7, 2010 The draft minutes of the meeting of December 7, 2010, were distributed previously. Chair Young asked if there were changes or edits to be made. None was suggested and the minutes were accepted by acclamation. Secretary Saperstein thanked Peter Boyce for standing in for him. CHAIR'S COMMENTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS; COMMENTS FROM THE WORKGROUP Chair Young noted that the draft BMP, which will be considered in this meeting for public release, was produced by the editors, Cormac Collier, Mark Lucas, Mike Misurelli, Ernie Steinauer, herself, and Lee Saperstein, who provided formatting and organizational assistance. Once a preliminary draft began to take shape, it was decided to keep the editing function within the group instead of going to a professional writer. In this way, additional content improvements would accompany the editing. The editors also received support from people outside of the Work Group, in particular Jonathan Wisentaner. The next step is to ask professional landscapers, gardeners, scientists, sellers of fertilizer, and members of the public to review the document and give us feedback on it. She noted also that we are scheduled to make a progress report to the Board of Selectmen at their meeting of Wednesday, February 23rd. As Lucinda Young moved her comments from the BMP to the few remaining tasks that remain, Peter Boyce and Bam LaFarge mentioned that the proposed “Blue Pages,” an environmental handbook for Nantucket, would need a section on fertilizer. Boyce and LaFarge are members of the Harbor Plan Implementation Committee (HPIC) that is working toward producing this handbook. Saperstein commented that the fertilizer section in the Blue Pages would be similar in content to material that we intend to produce for homeowners and, if Peter Boyce were interested in writing some of this material, he, Saperstein, would be pleased to help. In discussing the tasks remaining for the Work Group, the question of funding these efforts arose. Chair Young indicated that she had talked with at least four groups who might be interested and able to help us produce material for communication with the public. With the BMP now available in a concrete form, it may be timely to re-connect with these groups. She summarized the final tasks as 1. publish and print the BMP, 2. create a section for the Blue Pages, 3. produce flyers and brochures that can be given by fertilizer sellers and landscape professionals to their customers, and 4. move a lot of this material to a web site. A continuing activity that will need to be considered is the creation of a permanent or semi-permanent advisory group that can support the efforts of the Department of Health in implementing the recommendations of the Work Group. It may also consider future revisions to the BMP. REVIEW OF THE DRAFT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PLAN (BMP) In anticipation of a vote to release the BMP to the public, the Work Group chose to make one final review of it. As the discussion got underway, it was clear that this was not really the final review because that could happen only when all public submissions had received and reviewed. These reviews are expected to be submitted to Chair Young by March 4th and the final submission to the BOS would be shortly thereafter. It was clear that, in general, the Work Group was happy with the BMP and was very complimentary of the work done by the editors. It was also clear that there were important wording changes that might continue to improve the report. Eventually, it was decided to discuss these changes and to include a record of them in the Minutes but not to change the text of the BMP until all reviews and recommendations had been received. In this manner, the editors could ensure that changes were consistent with each other and with the intentions of the original document.  The first edit was suggested by Chair Young who indicated that the transition from Figure 1, Nantucket Climate Data (page 6), to Figure 2, Growth Potential Graph (page 7), was not explained as well as it could be in the text. The table refers to growth potential only by its initials, gp, while the graph refers to it fully but does not use the initials as a supplement. A suggestion for the sentence that immediately follows Figure 1 is “From the climate information above in Figure 1, two growth potential graphs can be drawn, one for cool-season grasses and the other for warm- season grasses. These graphs, seen in Figure 2, depict the data for Growth Potential, gp, seen in Figure 1.”  A lengthy discussion about nitrogen in the soil test, Figure 3, page 13, resulted from a comment by Peter Boyce about the absence of a nitrogen number in the soil test. It was reported that the laboratory that supplied the test will review the text at that point. It was also suggested by Mike Misurelli that the nitrogen application of 3.5 pounds per 100 sq ft was consistent with the needs of blue grass, which was the species given in the example. Perhaps a short statement on page 14 to the effect of “Nitrogen. Nitrogen is not separately measured because its availability to plants varies with temperature and moisture conditions. Organic Matter and Estimated Nitrogen Release are surrogates for nitrogen content.”  The nitrogen discussion led directly to a discussion of nitrogen releases and the implication of the words “may be released.” It was suggested that the ENR may vary from zero to 100 percent depending upon climate, the nature of the organic matter, and management practices. In the growing season, lawns on Nantucket appear to get about one-half of the ENR as available nitrogen. This implies that fertilizer applications should only spread the difference between 50 percent of the ENR and the recommended dosage from the soil test. Ernie Steinauer recommended the insertion of the following sentence into the paragraph on page 15 that begins with “ENR, next to OM.” “Experienced Nantucket landscapers estimate, on average, that one half of the ENR will be available for fertilization.” He also suggested that we ask the laboratory what goes into the nitrogen recommendation.  Peter Boyce asked about recommendations on compost, pages 19 and 20, and in particular the use of compost manufactured at Nantucket’s Waste Recycling Facility (Town dump). It was suggested that we not be negative about this material but that we should stress that gardeners only use a compost that had a test report. This statement could be inserted into the third paragraph on page 20. Separately, we may want to inform the Board of Selectmen of our reservations about the Town’s compost.  Peter Boyce also asked that the list of phosphate fertilizer sources be preceded by a repeat of the statement that phosphorus is a contaminant for freshwater ponds and is generally not needed in Nantucket fertilizer mixes because Nantucket’s soils generally contain a sufficiency.  In a discussion of the acknowledgements, it was decided to leave it as presented, i.e. without additional identifiers against the names of the members of the Work Group. MOTION TO RELEASE THE DRAFT BMP At this point, Chair Young if we were ready to consider the release of the BMP. With alacrity, it was moved by Wendy McCrae to release the BMP, seconded by Mike Misurelli, and promptly approved by the group. Chair Young indicated that the next step was to post the BMP on the Town’s web site and include a note to readers that comments were welcomed and should be forwarded in writing to Lucinda Young. There is a place in the BOS agenda of February 23rd for our progress report. Other members of the Work Group indicated that they would forward copies of the BMP to their peers and seek comments from them: Cormac Collier to the organic farming and landscaping community; Mike Misurelli to the Nantucket Landscape Association; Mark Lucas to the golf-course community, to the soil testing laboratory; and separately to the scientists at the University of Massachusetts (Ebdon and Owen) and Cornell (Petrovic); Seth Rutherford to his contacts in the irrigation community; and Peter Boyce to the Maria Mitchell Association and the Harbor Plan Implementation Committee. Chair Young said that she would discuss this an editor at the “Inquirer and Mirror” and the group thought this a good idea. At 11:36 Cormac Collier left the room. Mike Misurelli thanked all who worked on the BMP for their efforts. NEW BUSINESS Peter Boyce and Lee Saperstein volunteered to coordinate efforts for homeowner education. This would begin as soon as a final version of the BMP was released. They would incorporate material that had been developed by the WG members involved with homeowner education. ADJOURNMENT At 11:40 am, the group recognized that it had completed its agenda and Wendy McCrae moved for adjournment and Mike Misurelli seconded it. Acceptance was unanimous. Lee Saperstein, Secretary 7/19/2011.