Loading...
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