Okay, it's uh 7:02. So, we will uh start. And this is the community preservation committee meeting for January 21st, 2026. It's a hybrid meeting. It's um being recorded. We're not live, but we're
being recorded. So just reminder um or whatever you want to say is going to be recorded. Uh we have um Andrew Samarco remote and Linda Stein, Bartlett Harley, Carol Mueller, Sam Bell and Jeff Yates are in
uh in house and we have John Folsam and Dave Bar from Queen Lakes in the audience and Tim Pearson is joining us for the conservation commission for the um the projects coming up. So, first on the agenda is administrative um
news. I just there's one news item from the coalition. They um have hired a director of advocacy and research. Um so, it's uh what they say is to lead legislative uh strategy at the state house and advocacy to try to get some
more money for the the MA state match fund, which is good news. It's something they've wanted to do for a while. So, it'll be interesting to see um if they can help grow the CPA program at the state level, which would be great. Um we didn't have minutes. I didn't hear
from Mitt and he's not here yet. So, we'll we'll have to do those for next time. Um any members have anything to lighten this? I >> think all I have is we could probably do in the pipe section.
>> Okay. um public input. I think our public is here for the next section. So, why don't we head right over to the um four projects that the conservation people have brought forward on behalf of Clean
Lakes. Uh Tim, how do you want to do this? I'll let you kind of figure where you want to start. >> Um kind of new to to these meetings. Does it make >> does it make the most sense to kind of give an overview of of what we're asking
for? >> Yeah, if you want to do you want to do each project separately because we'll have to vote on each We'll have to vote on the eligibility and the applications. So, if we want to kind of I don't know if there's an overall overall talk about it or do you want to just start at the
first project? >> Um, I can kind of give two overall uh talks. one about herbicide use and and one about the lake management plans. >> Probably makes most sense to start talking about the lake management plans
and because the herbicides um like it feeds into that. Um so it's important we don't we don't have existing lake management plans for Long Lake and Forge Pond. Um the water
department had a lake management plan put together um in 2025 for a spectacle pond and it's really good practice to have those lake management plans uh in place so that we can accurately monitor the the health of the water body um and
the water quality itself. Um, so in and when we get I'll I'll get into the applications at um in a minute, but uh I've got the items um listed out one by one in the lake management plan of of what we're looking to have included in
them. Um and they match almost identically to the um the spectacle pond management plan that was put together last year. Uh with the exception of Spectacle Pond has a uh the water department has a well over there and so they have a um part of their lake
management plan is a monitoring program um to make sure that that that the herbicides there are not having any effect um to the well. Um so kind of going handinhand with the the
lake management plan. It's uh is why we're also requesting um funds for herbicide use. So it was many months ago where we uh we met with uh DCR lakes and ponds division to talk about u our fight
with the aquatic invasive species at um you know Forge Pond, Long Lake and and Spectacle Pond. Um and through talking with them, their experience is that um the use of
what we had been doing eco-h harvesting and and other mechanical removals um didn't quite have the effect that herbicide uh treatments did. Um and so after hearing that from the the professionals, we thought it would be in
our best interest to to transition kind of back towards um herbicide use. So that's why we've um uh requested uh the herbicides in addition to the lake management plan. >> Any questions uh for Tim before we get
to specifics? Well, general question is has a study or will studies be done about the any negative impacts of herbicide use on the environment, water, people uh outside of of what's uh requested in
the in the lake management plan? >> I'm I don't know what's in there exactly. I don't remember what >> um we are testing uh water quality. We're not specifically testing for um the herbicide itself like they are at at
Spectacle Pond. Um it so improper use of herbicides can lead to accelerated utrification of the lake. Um and that's what uh creates uh those muck islands that exist over at um at Long Lake. And
I think there might be a couple at Forge Pond as well. Um, after talking with DCR, they said that the best way to go about doing the herbicide treatments is not to not just nuke the lakes, um, but to either do
only a portion of the lake at a at a time, uh, like per year, or to break it up into multiple treatments, smaller treatments, um, being done throughout each year. Well, I I guess my question remains, can
these herbicides have a negative impact on wildlife, plants, >> right? >> Um, >> other vegetation, >> right? >> I I I don't have the >> I don't have the knowledge to attest to that. U
we I just took what what DCR recommended as, you know, listening to the professionals. um it's it's what they use to manage um the invas the majority of the invasives um that exist in in their I think they manage over 200 lakes
in the Commonwealth. Um so we figured it was just we kind of assumed that's that's best practice based off of their recommendation. The state's a huge proponent these days of using herbicides as Tim mentioned for uh for water bodies and the herbicides
that they're using nowadays they don't have like the POS chemicals like back in the day. They're a lot safer in a lot of ways. So uh the state is certainly comfortable using them and uh you know >> what is the current herbicide proposed?
>> Um we we are kind of leaving that up to the um the professionals. Right. So when these uh treatments go out for uh get put out as RFPs um we we would take whether it's solitude
uh water on wetland or another professional we would take their their judgment since they are the the herbicide the licensed herbicide applicators. um we would we would take their suggestions cuz each
each um in aquatic invasive is is best treated by a specific herbicide, right? It's not like there's one herbicide that that best treats them all. Um I'm I'm sure we could we could do some research to to find that out. Um but I don't have that information in front of
me right now. >> Okay. Do you think DCR has like reports on that kind of stuff? I mean, they must have a ton of reports. >> They definitely named all the herbicides um that they treat for each individual aquatic invasive species during one of
our meetings with them. I just I can't remember them off the top of my head, >> but we could >> I don't want to belabor it, but DCR must have reports on potential impacts or or no impacts of these herbicides on other on
the ecology. So >> yeah, >> be interested in seeing those reports. >> Yeah, they have um they actually just put out this year. It's um it's the newest rendition of their GR Gir. Um it's it's like the uh I can't remember
that acronym. It's it's basically their guide to to lake management. Um and I would imagine that information would be in it's like a I think it's like a 200page document. I I believe that information is within that. Um it that
version that got issued this year or sorry in 2025. >> Thank you. And you said that the um we've done the management plan for spec ponds. What do we what what gets done with that? I mean is that who who monitors that? Is that a
conservation thing or a water fund a water department? >> Yeah, that's a good question. um the water department is the one who currently um receives that that data. So the water department has the interest with their well over there and so they
um are funding and and managing everything relating to spectacle pond. Um so part of the lake management plan is a uh a final report. It's like a findings report where all that information from the lake man that's
within the lake management plan is provided at the end and and they are the ones that received it for spectacle pond. >> So for the um forge pond and long lake would that be them as well or is that coming to you to
>> I think it would probably go to both. >> Both. Okay. And does clean lakes will you guys use that as well or what do you see your your process being in this? >> So the the lake Ben plans really serve
two purposes. One is to gather information about the state of the lakes uh to understand really what is currently happening and what uh what the issues are what needs to be what needs to be addressed. And the other part is
uh reviewing all of that information and uh based on expert experience expertise making recommendations about prioritized uh uh actions that can be done uh to improve the ecology of the lakes. That's
as important to us as the uh data gathering the status uh the state of lakes. So you can kind of come up with a long term short short-term a andor long-term plan of what >> that's that's a that's a big thing that
we want to get out of it. Right. >> You've we've had prior meetings where this you guys brought this up and is to get a like man I believe I don't know if that's what you call it for the lake management plan. Is that what this supersedes or
>> that's what this is that's what that what this is addressing. There's not two different. Yeah. >> No. Uh we had it in our five-year budget and it was brought into this coming year as a priority and the
suggested funding for it was through the CBC. >> Um the other question I had is about Forge Pond and are we doing the whole lake? Are they participating in costs or how does how does that work >> in Westford? Yeah.
>> So, um uh we've presented uh CPC funding requests applications. We we we went to their needs session uh last month for both uh uh herbicides for this summer
and for the um engineering H&H uh hydraulics and hydrarology study uh for the possible um draw down improvements uh which were suggestions uh from from this group which we thought was a good
idea and we got to go ahead to um provide uh funding requests, funding applications. So, we're going in uh early next week to present both of those to them. Um so, the funding received
from each town would be used on that part of the lake. So when we talk about herbicide treatment of Forge Pond, is that just on the Littleton portion of the lake or on
the entire lake or so? Like I said, we one of the two requests we are making to the West CBC is for uh $20,000 for herbicide
treatments on Forge Pond for this coming summer. And um the that funding would be used on the west western side of the lake and funding from Littleton would be used on
Littleton side of the lake. >> Okay. >> So I think I might have asked this at a previous meeting. If if Westford ends up not proving that, does that sort of negate what we would
do in Littleton? Uh well, obviously it's best to treat the lake as a whole, right? Uh last year, um there are there are two possibilities. Um an outside organization could help
fund that. Uh last year you the the committee approved using $20,000 of our echo harvesting uh allow entitlement to do herbicide treatments uh on Forge
Pond. Uh and uh because of the bidding and contracting situation, uh we were not allowed to use that funding. Uh last summer, uh friends
at Porch Pond stepped up and offered to do um uh treatments on both sides of the lake, funding both of them. Not as big a treatment as it might have been done otherwise, but something right. Um and
uh by the time there were issues, uh Westford required a second an additional like fourth uh uh conservation
commission hearing before that could be scheduled. And then once that was cleared, uh, working with the vendor and the vendor schedule had in the process moved out and the treatment wasn't going to be able to be done until the middle
of August, which is really uh, not a useful time to do it. The plants are already, you know, starting to fall down at that point. it's not very productive for the uh utrification point of view and it's not
really useful from a recreational point of view. So uh we didn't do that but you know it's possible that either like somebody like friends pond could decide that they could step in and do something for Westford uh or it's possible that uh
the westward side wouldn't wouldn't get treated. So if if if Westford does come up with the money, it would be one contract that you're doing. I mean, one vendor, one contract to do the whole lake, and if
it's not, if Westford doesn't pay, then it's only the Littleton part of the lake. Is that right? >> Uh yeah, right. I mean, uh, when we've done the last couple of, I mean, we had two small echo harvesting, uh,
treatments that weren't really enough for us to understand how well it works. Um, I mean, and what the long what the real effects are. Uh, on those, we had a single contract that was, um, funded um,
equally by both by both towns. Um, and just also since I'm I'm talking already to also uh add to what Tim said about the um you know you were asking about the effect side effects of the
herbicides. So, um, on 40 pond, we have 12 herbicides that have been approved to be, uh, be used. And, um, the EPA, uh,
reviews potential herbicides that could be used for aquatic plants. And the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources also does. Um, and they each um decide which herbicides are both
effective and safe. And um, the MADR doesn't recommend any that aren't already approved by EPA. And uh, uh, so the the herbicides that we be using are
approved by by both. And so they've been shown to be effective and to have uh minimal side effects on uh fish uh inver you know other animals and uh
plants uh and you know algae and u the ecology of the lake. Um the um like Tim said the both the old GIR and the latest version of that which are produced by uh
Massachusetts you know uh environmental uh departments uh list for each of those approved herbicides what the effect they what effect they have on
the different uh invasive species that are found in Massachusetts and you know you know is a very effective somewhat effective not effective and so those guidelines as well as the experience of
the vendors uh is used to determine what uh would be would be used on a given um given area. There's also differences in terms of how quickly they work and how long they last. uh even on the same
plans. So those are all factors. >> Thank you. >> On the management plans, um how long are they good for? >> I know it's to take a snapshot at this
particular times, but >> Spectro had an old blend that was I think 25 years old. >> Oh wow. Okay. But that's probably not ideal. But >> I think you wouldn't want to exceed that
uh just because it's not current technology, current understanding of impact uh or what have you. But uh but those plans go on to say they address the watershed. Uh we used somewhat the same sort of research uh 25 years ago
now uh with the uh long lake restoration project where geoccent analyzed uh storm drains, how they ran, where they entered the the ponds uh the impacts that they were having uh and actually recommended retention basins like uh at the at the
uh the wetland park uh to to address some of those silting issues and so on. So it was very beneficial. >> So in your time on the clean lakes committee or forge pond, how many times have they used herb herbicides in the past?
>> Uh we've used herbicides on Long Lake for decades. >> In forge pond, we haven't used them in 40 or 50 years. Okay. with with the um the lake management plans. Most of the items that um are
within the ones the one that we're requesting funding for are items to determine baseline data for the health of the water body um and determine what is um needed for for these water bodies
going forward. um something like the water quality assessment which is is one of the items in the lake management plan. Um that's something that that can be the water quality can be monitored. It's probably best best practice for it to be monitored um every year.
But a lot of those other things like determining fish populations and and bethimemetry those those don't have they're not necessary to be done on an annual basis. Any other general questions or you have a general statement? Okay.
>> Um so just uh to let you know for the lake management plans um we um ideally um well we feel pretty strongly that the in the process of doing that we should also
be uh assessing the watershed for the lakes. Um and um that was um has been discussed uh an ongoing basis. But
um it seems that the um u feasibility of including that uh additional funding for the um that's not in the in the line items that are
that are uh currently in the in the request. Um presumably uh it was in feasible to given the levels that were agreed upon to um to include those. Um
the state uh points out that um for lakes that have wersheds larger than 10 times the lake size um you uh are not able to um do anything effective about
managing the lake without considering the watersheds. Uh and um I'm not exactly sure how much um what the ratio is for for Long Lake. Um it might be within that uh because it's, you know,
got a its own bowl there, right? >> Uh Bors Pond on the other hand, the watershed is 70 times the size of of the lake and it goes, you know, all the way up to um Bosboro. Uh so it it definitely
um you know should have the watershed assessed and and included in in evaluating what the reasonable uh productive uh options are for for managing it. So um we'll have to look at
how we would manage that. Um so it's not in this request but it's something that we feel um is is important for for the larger water sheds like like Forge Pond for sure.
>> Yeah. We've been lucky in Beaverbrook and Forge Pond with 185 crosses it twice and 119 that we've never had a major fuel spill or chemical spill off those roads. >> Very true. Very true. worry about that. U the big problem at Long Lake because
it changes over so slowly, takes about three quarters of a year to refresh itself and uh remember years ago uh one of the residents backed their car out of the water and lost control. >> You just grit your teeth and try to clean things up as quickly as possible
has a longlasting impact. So, if there aren't any other general questions, why don't we go through the um applications, too? I want to do like each like the lake like Long Lake plan and then the herbicide treatment and do one lake at a time.
>> Sure. Um yeah. >> Okay. One before we start, I just want to remind everyone about balances. So, these are all open space projects. Um if we have uh right now between what
we've already approved which was the uh draw down assessment for F for F for F for F for F for F for F for F for F for F for Forge Pond that was 20,000 the four projects we have here tonight that would be 158,000 that we'll be spending for lake projects and there's still one more the
um Cartwell terrestrial invasive species which we'll probably get to next at our next meetings. So, I don't know if we don't really have an estimate for that. Um, is that going to be like under 50,000, you think, Tim, or do you have any idea?
>> I would imagine. Um, I would imagine. Yep. Um, we also have two other applications that are going to be coming in um for the next meeting for for boardwalks at um Webster Woods and uh Castle in the Trees. >> Yeah. So, those are those are recreation. So, all the lake ones are
open space. So, we'll be spending close to $200,000 on lake projects if these all go through. Um, our balance at the end of June, the end of last fiscal year was shade under 400,000 for open space
and we get another 36 for the state match. So, we um, you know, $500,000 five. Yeah. 500, you know, with with some little drips and drabs. So, that's where we stand
right now. So, we certainly have enough in open space, but we also have the undesated bucket for 285. So, we could take some money from there too if we wanted. >> That's what they were only for. Yeah. Go ahead, Tim. >> Yeah. Before we dive into these, I just
want to make a note. uh conservation commission did meet last night um and and reviewed these applications and came to consensus that um we should increase um our funding requests by by about uh
by 3,000 for each of these items um to make sure we're not cutting ourselves too close and then we have to come back to to to CPC to request more money. Oh, >> so the the three items um that are
32,000 we'd be requesting 35,000 for and then the um uh the 42,000 we'd be requesting 45,000 for. >> So an additional $12,000 cumulatively with with all four of these uh applications.
>> All right. So that definitely puts us at about 200,000 for lake just for lake projects. >> So um why don't we start with I don't know Tim do you have a preference long lake or Forge Pond or
>> uh either one. Yeah, either one works. >> Why don't we start with Long Lake since that's my favorite? >> Sure. All right. And we want to start with that the lake management plan. >> Yeah, why don't we do that? >> Okay. Um, so we're requesting 35,000 for for the lake
management plan. Um, and the lake management plan that we're we're going after consists of multiple things. It's a bethy bethimemetry survey to get a baseline um depth of the water body that we can use for historical tracking
purposes. um water quality assessment so we can um keep track of the levels of of phosphorus, dissolved phosphorus, total nitrogen, pH, um oxygen, and and um a couple other things as well that that
aren't uh listed here. Fish community uh assessment, which is again another uh baseline data uh item that we can use for monitoring over the period over a period of time. um aquatic
plant mapping. So that's not just u invasive species, but also the uh the native species as as well. Again, baseline data that we can use for for historical tracking purposes. Um sediment analysis. This is also important because um you're not going to
get the same levels of of um like phosphorus that are in the water that uh they they may be different than the levels that are in the the sediment. We're also going to be testing for things like iron and manganese manganese in the sediment as well which all impact
water quality. Um we're going to have uh or we're looking to have a hydraologic and nutrient budget determined um so we can understand how much phosphorus and nitrogen the pond is receiving and can efficiently process. um and uh
recommendations are going to be uh prepared in the findings report to determine um what is be best practice going forward to to deal with um these levels. Uh so so all that information will actually be provided um within the
findings report that is uh uh compiled and and uh sent over in the end. And so the the lake management plan for for Long Lake is the um is a carbon copy of the one that we're requesting for uh
for Forest Pond as well. If these management plans are um accomplished, how does that work with the herbicide? I mean, would you do the herbicide anyway or does it inform your use of herbicides
or I guess it wouldn't this season? It was >> part part of that plan would comprise be comprised of sort of a final chapter where going forward this is how you can accomplish your goals uh and herbicide treatments and uh and ecoh harvesting
would certainly be two items that would be worth considering >> but they wouldn't be but I'm talking about this year the would the reports be available to accomplish you know >> prior herbicide treatments? No, I doubt
it. Okay. So, we would be doing the herbicide treatments um just out of >> So, I I would think that um so we apparently
we can't this uh these allocations until July 1st, even though they're not really fiscal year. Uh we have three years to spend them.
They're approved in hopefully in May, but apparently we can't actually start spending them till July 1st. Is that right? >> Well, if we vote to from the reserve because we have the money, then you they are available right away. >> Okay. >> Which just make sure that we do that.
>> Yeah. So um uh we as part of the um herbicide treatments uh we would be doing plant surveys early in the summer. Uh we would uh like we would want to be
doing the plant the herzai treatments in June. So we'd be doing the plant surveys in late May or early June. Um so my suggestion would be that we use those plan surveys and if we need to we can
bulk them up to uh if we need additional information there that for the management plan that we wouldn't necessarily need for the um for the herbicide uh plan uh so that we have that early um plant survey. I think I
think the plants are going to be the what's really going to be affected uh among these different um you know line items from the herbicides. So if we get that done uh before we do the herbicide treatments then doing the other things
after that I don't think will make that much difference. that might give us some extra money in the budget in the management budget to be doing more with wershed. >> Um, so before we start voting, do we want to do anything with the undesated?
I mean, do we want to like fun the management plans out of undesated and the herbicide out of open space? Just do it all out of open space. this go around, I'd probably say the management plans and the herbicides, take it out of open space and then when we come back for the recreational ones,
I would take that under undesated just so it doesn't impact the recreation recreation bucket. >> Well, I have a concern about the open space bucket. Yeah. because um it's a big chunk and there may be
opportunities coming up that we can't >> you know >> so but on the other hand wouldn't that >> also the undesated be used for that purpose so what what are the advantages and disadvantages of using the undesated
>> I guess for I mean if we want to think of open space as also purchasing land you know sometimes it's easier for us to think about. >> Well, I think that's what most people think. >> Yes. Rather than taking care of the lakes. That's why I wondered if we wanted to take some of the lake
management stuff from the the und designated bucket so that if we do have open space project, we can call it open space, >> which was kind of how I I was thinking, but >> that works too. Yeah. I mean, whatever
the committee is comfortable with. Um yeah, I think that works as well. >> Fix it one half dozen of the other. It's just going to probably how we manage it. Just thinking accounting w you know for the accounting department if they see a land something land come through you
think open space. Um, so do we want to I mean the the dollar amounts are all similar and then we'll have another herbicide uh treatment come through. So let's see. Herbicides are like right
now at 80,000. The management plans are at 70. I think we just have to like So it's whether we want to not take 70,000 out or not take 80 or I mean we could take anything you know trying to think to be nice and
neat or just be arbitrary. >> So when you say the management plans are 70 that's for all >> but both of them both Yeah. They're both 35. No >> that's a seems like a viable way to do it. Maybe take the management plans out of undesated.
>> Okay. >> Guess I'd make a motion to do that. >> All right. So, first of all, we have to go through the read that's bureaucrats. Let's see. So if we go to the Long Lake management plans
eligibility and like Tim said they're pretty much the same. I should have put this on a stack. What if we just flip the 80 out of undesated and 70 out of open space? >> Do that. Do like all the herbicides out
of >> Yeah, that's a little more out of undesated designated. >> Sounds good. >> Good. So, the long lake management plan eligibility request um is open space.
It's um now going to be 35,000 um project. It's an asset of the town of Littleton. Of course, they give their okay. And the the verbs for open space they've checked off are preserve and
rehabilitate and restore. So, I think we've talked about these enough to know if they're eligible projects or not. So, do we want to vote on the eligibility requests for the Long Lake management plan?
>> I'll make a Oh, sorry. >> Go ahead, Andrew. >> Um, I'll go ahead and make a motion that the committee uh deem the uh Long Lake management plan for 2026 an eligible project under the open space category. >> A second.
>> Okay, we have our motion and a second. We'll do a roll call since Andrew is no one else is there. Uh, Linda, >> yes. >> Bartlett, >> yes. >> Carolyn say yes. Sam, >> yes. >> Jeff, Andrew, >> yes. >> Great.
And then we will go to the uh funding request. One lake. So, this is for the Long Lake management plan funding. the 30
forge of wands. Okay. Um make a motion for that one. >> But they want to add 3,000, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> That includes the 35 includes 3,000. >> Yeah. But that we'll have to have Tim.
Well, if you don't mind if you can update the applications to the 35 because whatever it'll say pending >> receiving um amended application so that's not a problem. >> Yep.
>> Okay. Yeah. So, we want to include that in our motion that we will be receiving updated plans and also out of the reserve bucket. So, somebody want to make a motion?
>> I move approved the um >> funding request. >> The funding request for the long long lake herbicide. >> No long plan management. >> Oh, I thought you did that. >> That was the eligibility. Now we have to do funding
>> then. I move that we approve the uh request for the long lake management plan >> for 35 >> or 35 >> 35 um uh pending
what did I say contingent well not >> pending receipt of corrected >> updated >> updated up yeah updated Um application >> application of
>> for cost >> for cost >> from the >> open space reserve >> reserve >> I second it um first and second Linda >> yes
>> Bartlett yes Sam >> yes >> Jeff yes andrew >> yes we have Oh yes. >> I I was just trying to mention before you >> Oh, sorry. Um matters probably, but the
the line the line items in the in the request um should be understood as reasonable amounts that specifically uh apply to
un developing the total amount, right? uh the actual amounts spent on individual uh private parts of it might be different depending on right um so there's flexibility there but the total would be
>> the total is yeah okay >> okay so there's long lake management plan so do we want to do the long lake eligibility for the herbicide treatment emphasis. So again,
Long Lake herbicide treatment um open space which we'll take from undesated uh it's $45,000 now town of Littleton. Um and this is to rehabilitate or restore or restore.
Is this correct? Any questions on eligibility or we have a motion? >> I'll make a motion that the committee deem the uh Long Lake herbicide treatment project of 2026 as an eligible project under the open space category.
>> I second. >> Okay. Motion by Andrew. Second by Sam Linda. >> Yes. >> Bartlett. >> Yes. >> Yes. Sam >> guest. >> Yeah. >> Jeff Andrew. >> Yes. >> And now the application
again kind of the same same spiel. We want um we want to make sure it's un designated the und designated reserve and for 45,000 um pending receipt of the updated application. Anyone want to stumble through a motion?
I'll make a motion that the committee approve the funding request from the conservation department to fund the uh 2026 herbicide application at Long Lake from the undesated reserve category of funding >> for
>> for >> 45 >> 45,000 sorry >> pending >> pending receipt of an updated application for funding Okay. >> Um, we have a motion. Do we have a second?
>> Second. >> Motion by Andrew, second by Bartlett. So, question. >> Uh, just a couple things that I think are kind of important. So, in the first place, uh, the there's a misprint on the budget part of the
application. It doesn't say 42. It says 32, but that should be 40. Well, in this case, now 45, right? >> Something that we'll we'll include in the revised application, the correction there. Yep. >> Of course. Sure. But just so there were
>> Yeah. Um and um we would also like to suggest um that instead of having the terminology in the request be for herbicide treatments, it be for plant mitigation treatments.
the >> So, we had a we had a meeting last summer uh after Long Lake request to reallocate some funding for echoh harvesting and uh bog removal uh to
asked to to use that for herbicide treatments. The decision was no, I couldn't because it was specifically stated as just herbicide treatments. And uh a few weeks later we had a meeting with you to discuss this. And the
suggestion was be very specific about what the problem is and be clear about what the what is going to be done but give yourself flexibility in terms of uh what you might have to do.
So um depending on uh a number of things in terms of you know what what's available what timing is what um you know we would like to be able to either use it
for herbicides or physical harvesting depending on what is the situation on the ground at the time we want to do it. And so, um, it would be one of those things, but by phrasing it as plant
mitigation rather than just herbicide, we don't box ourselves in the opposite way that we did last time. Um, so that would be one request. The other suggestion is that you want to talk about that.
>> Well, I was just going to say Andrew and and Tim, that would kind of change your application. Is that something you'd need to go back to Conscom with first? >> Yeah. So, um, that wasn't on the, um, dredging or eco-h harvesting wasn't on the table with Concom when this was
discussed. I I can't really see that being an option for Long Lake this goound. Um, I get Dave's point, you know, where he's coming from. you know, the last application that was submitted for F forge Pond, it was very narrow and kind of boxed out certain opportunities,
but I think in this instance, it's it'll be herbicides. Um and if that needed to change, Concom would certainly have to uh you know take that into account and uh and see if that would be be if the most proactive and uh permittable uh
options uh just because the state's very particular with dredging projects uh these days. >> Is that something that Clean Lakes would want to speak to conservation with before we move forward? >> Well, no. I just Dave and I were talking
about this earlier and it's a situation where you can imagine if not all the monies were used this year. >> Yeah. >> We might like to apply those to the same approach uh in the future but maybe uh maybe in fact after we get our permits
and everything else in place uh it would be uh eco-h harvesting. It may be a different treatment altogether that's recommended that's not specifically herbicide treatment. uh and it happens say a year later uh we have a couple of thousand dollars left over perhaps or something like that at one lake or
another. Uh and it just this sort of specific explanation of what we're trying to request funds for but also a more generic or more flexible approach to how those funds could be used at a future date or for a different uh u
application. for example, uh we see >> both of those both of those treatments have been approved by conservation commission already, >> right? But they were specifically looking at these applications. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And Dave and John, I I completely
agree 100%. Um I just think we might in this instance have to bring it back to concom if we wanted to perhaps include that. Tim, do you kind of feel the same way about that? >> Yeah. Yeah. I I wouldn't feel comfortable changing it um since they
already gave their general approval and and voted on >> when is your next when is your next cons meaning that you could look at this change? >> Uh let's see February should be February 3rd I believe.
>> February 3rd. Yeah. >> I think it's a reasonable request. It gives them more flexibility. I don't think it's outside the scope. I think it's a good request. So, I would suggest that KNSCOM review the new language.
>> Yeah, I'm I'm I would be in favor of putting the flexibility in our motion and letting the Clean Lakes and Cons work out the details. >> We could say >> I mean, we're we're not experts in any
of that stuff, so we can leave it to the people who are involved. What about the date? Should we also change that because it says on the request 2026? >> And that's what I was going to get at, Jeff, was >> I the timeline that I put together for
this application was for all those funds to be expended in this uh current year, calendar year, >> right? And that was my other suggestion was that the schedule be taken as a potential schedule, as a reasonable schedule, but not a hard and fast
schedule. And that depending on what the again what the conditions on the ground are, depending on how much needs to be spent this year, depending on what they find in terms of uh plant uh how many plants there are and the timing and that
kind of thing uh to have the flexibility that it you know doesn't have to be spent just in the schedule here. I mean the funding is available for some reason. Could we could we approve it tonight saying pending consom approval
or or >> I would rather just push it off and let them re their applications. I mean to me those are >> pretty >> yeah. So yeah you if you could wrestle about the date and the and the um
>> scope really >> and the flexibility of >> the approach maybe. >> Yeah. >> The eligibility is done so that's fine. I mean the this type of project I mean I don't think that's going to appreciably change. So we can have that and we'll just put the application on hold pending
and I mean you do have you know a couple months before if you don't get to it at your next concom meeting. Um yes >> you certainly don't want to throw a wrench in the works or anything here. We grateful that you're considering these. Uh but just we have a history now where
we've had this discussion uh with with the committee and and uh and I think we took it to heart. Uh we were frustrated last year with delays that prevented us from doing any kind of herbicide at all. >> Yeah. >> Uh just just from a from a scheduling standpoint.
>> Well, I think that's why I'd rather have you iron it out. It's not our application. It's >> precisely it would be all. So, >> the other thing I was thinking of, I don't want to get into having to reallocate money already allocated. I mean, we did do that once and it was
fine, but I don't want to have to do that every year because that's just that's kind of a accounting nightmare, too. >> Andrew. >> Yeah. So, um yeah, Tim, if you're comfortable, these are your applications. Um we can certainly uh add
this to the next concoma February 3rd and have the commission uh you know consider making the application broader including you know the possibility just you know in the rare occasion that we did have to kind of veer to a different method for uh control
>> and I would invite lakes in to to give you that you know what they're what they're thinking of or at least have representatives there. Yeah, I think that makes the most sense. >> Okay. All right. So, we'll put the application on hold, but the eligibility
is we deeming deeming it eligible. So, that's for Long Lake. So, why don't we go to Forge Pond? We'll probably do the same thing, right? We have the eligibility for the
management plan. Um, which I think was like you said, Tim was basically the same same language. >> Copy. >> Yeah. >> Do we have a motion for Forge Pond?
I before we the forge pond is so confusing to me because of the contri the contribution >> of Westford and I just still am confused because the
Westford uh the management plan seems like it's got to be I mean you've got to involve Westford. I mean, the whole pond is it and and I personally do not
think that Littleton should pay for the whole thing. So, that's my concern, although I think it's necessary. Now, when it comes to their herbicide treatment, I mean, you could literally just do the, you know, the um >> Littleton part,
>> the Littleton part. That doesn't bother me. But then there's this also issue of unspent money from last year. How that goes into this? I mean for the herbicide treatment.
>> So would that be docked from your request? >> Yes. >> Oh no no no. Well the man herbicide. I think the herbicide thing can be sort of a Littleton specific thing if it needs to be,
>> but the management plan really needs to be with Westford. >> Yeah. >> So, so the the herbicide the the original application for the forge pond herbicide. So, Forge Pond is in rougher shape in terms of aquatic invasives than Long Lake is. Even though we're requesting more money for Long Lake than
Forge Pond, Forge Pond's in rougher shape, but we have that 20,000 um that's that's still um a loted towards uh herbicide treatment at Forge Pond. So, >> taking that into account. >> Yes. >> Originally, we were thinking 52 for
forge and 42 for Long Lake, but we we subtracted the 20,000 because we learned that that we had those monies there allocated for that. >> That's right. Lauren asked the question. Yes. >> Now, what about the Westford contribution?
>> Yeah. So, just to speak to the taking out the 20,000 from the 50,000, um we looked at the uh proposed budget for for this year. And because we hadn't spent the 20,000 from last year, we said, "Well, maybe we don't need to be asking
for as much for this year." And um we we left the 40,000 in what we had as a as our uh mitigation budget for the coming year because we had originally
planned on $100,000 of echo harvesting for this big treatment we're going to do to see, you know, really how well does it work, right? of which 20,000 almost 20,000 was coming from the water department and um
we had 80,000 allocation from you. Uh but then we were not able to use the money from the water the money from the water department because we didn't have the permit in time to do it. So, we lost that 20,000 and then we took out another
20,000 from the 80 to um to the to the herbicide treatments first of all last summer which but now this summer, right? Um and so we said let's leave the 40,000 in because that'll bring us back up to the 100,000 that we
had originally uh indicated in the uh application uh to you for that 80,000 CPC allocation. We said we wanted to do $100,000 uh treatment. Um and so we lift that in, but now
uh that will be back 60,000. >> So what? All right. I'm >> I got a ice cream headache here. So are you saying that Lakes had already decided what they wanted to do with that
20,000? So you feel like these this 20,000 is being used by both parties? um uh we didn't have great communication as this was um being done. So the the our
assessment that uh we'd leave in the 40,000 that was in the in the budget that was you know forwarded to the people that were working on working out what is actually feasible for this year.
Um, but we left that in because that would bring us up to uh back up to 100,000 for uh equing for for next year. Um, and we had 20,000 for this year for herbicides.
All right. Now, um we so the the current the current application is for um 35 for this request plus 20 that we had already
agreed with you we're going to use for this summer. um very $55,000 treatment um for the west for the Littleton side of the lake um for
herbicides um would probably need to uh include u systemic herbicides as well as contact herbicides. Doing uh a contact herbicide wouldn't probably wouldn't cost that much. uh we might use less
than 50 55 and save some of the that 20 to use next year for for echo harvesting. >> All right. So I think what we need our direction has been that conservation is going to take care of for clean lakes is
going to take care of invasive stuff. So I think you guys need to talk to Conscom and talk about this whether it's >> using you know I'm not quite sure I follow what you were just saying but using the >> the dollars that you have already
allocated which I can you know double check those and and get those and ask Michelle for some balances >> and you have here I um >> so I think what we want is to I mean we have until our third the third Wednesday in March to get these through. So, you
do have some time. So, you know, Tim was going to get the the rest of them for the next meeting. So, you know, we've got boardwalks which are easy. Um, but I think you guys need to get in touch with Conscom or the other way around and and work these through so that it's what
Clean Lakes needs and what conservation is requiring. >> Um, so Andrew and Tim, I don't know if if you can make sure that that happens. Certainly. >> Well, I would also add with this with
the forge pond what Westford is going to be. >> Yeah. And will we know that we would you because you said you're going Do you know when you go to Westford CPC, do they move those ahead right away or >> so? So So you uh I mean we have the the herbicide is being requested from them.
>> Yeah. uh for this year. That's I would say 50/50 as to whether they would approve it. They've already expressed concern about is this maintenance or not, right? >> Uh and we've pointed out that we've never done it on the lake before, so
this is really a chance to see how well does this work here. There are things on Porch Pond that don't apply to any of the other lakes that Westford funds uh and that have been using in the past. And um also you know this is a
maintenance it's preservation. Um so we have that discussion. So uh that's to be uh you know decided the uh the engineering the the engineering study is you know I think in their belly
w I think that's probably likely um the uh the management plan got moved into this fiscal year after we had after Westford had already had their needs
assessment meetings. And so, um, we didn't go to them requesting, uh, her or the lake management plan funding from them. Um, it's, uh, I hear what you're saying. Um,
it it it would be a good uh thing for them to to fund. Um it may be that um somebody like friends of porch pond um may be able to fund uh part of
the plan and >> but but the management plan is 35 for the entire lake. So right now if this all goes through we would be paying for the entire management plan. >> That's the way it's set up.
>> And I have a problem with that. Um I don't know what what the you know division should be but I I would suggest maybe we withhold our approval of that
subject to some other funding um being found or the rest of it. And I I'm only doing this because >> yeah, >> we may have some open space opportunities coming up that will be precluded because of you know,
>> right? >> When you take Forge Pond, do you like figure out like area and who owns what? I mean, like if we own 75% of the land and they own 25. >> The lake is roughly half in each town.
>> Yeah. If >> well, and then one more thing and then the other thing you said that I that I want to pick up on is that I think it would be better to call it uh mitigation rather than herbicide >> because herbicide automatic then, you
know, Linda perks up and goes, "What is this?" and mitigation um is you you you did it because it's more flexible but also it's more marketable
you know so >> Tim like like Tim said DCR really uh swears by herbicides okay >> um but we also have uh a lot of experience with I mean we have experience with people who have decades
of time working with these things which say that you know over time that can be a problem right uh using herbicides continually you end up boxing yourself in where you have to use them and it it gets worse
actually it's not a complete it's not the solution but it can be to your part you you're going after herbicides you're going after eco-h harvesting you're going after the winter draw Yeah. So, what more can you
>> I don't know. What more can you do? >> So, so sorry. Tim, did you have something more you wanted to add? >> Yeah, just two things. Um, one is just a question. So, if Westford does not commit to to um funding the lake
management plan 50/50, is this is this off the table and dead in the water with with our CPC? >> I I I think we could probably I mean, we'll do our best, I would imagine, to reach out to Matt Salem and the gang over in Westford to see what their plans
are, but yeah. How does the committee feel about it's hard to do a plan for half a lake, right? But at the same time, you know, Jack, you make a really good point. We're we're kind of holding the bag for the whole thing to Westward's advantage. Um I think the
plan is a great thing. Um but also the plan isn't we've also established that we could do the mitigation independent of approving the plan which could um if it doesn't work
out this season come next season after you've had the chance to to get Westbird's >> Yeah that's true definitely true. Um the the mitigation plans were moved forward in the in the 5-year budget because it
was felt like there's a high priority to getting this assessment and getting the guidance on, you know, what are our best options. Um it uh it may be and um some of us um I'm I'm in addition to being a
member of the clean lakes committee little clean committee I'm a member of the Westwood healthy ponds healthy lakes and ponds collaborative um and um that group um uh
had funding for about eight years and uh for the last three years uh they they have relied on line items uh in the town budget. Three years ago they had $50,000 which was good. The last several years
they've had $5,000 which um >> is not good. Um so they so if we uh needed to match have matching funding uh for Littleton it would probably need to
come from somebody like Friends of Fort. Now, would they be willing to listen to something? I mean, how how quickly could you find out from Friend of Forge Pond if they would be willing to, you know, what 175 or whatever? Is that something you could get in the next couple of
months or >> Oh, yes. >> within the next >> If you tell them of our concerns maybe, I mean, if >> Yeah. >> Okay. And it it may be that uh we increase the
amount that's going to be allocated or budgeted for the um plan so that we have enough to do a watershed assessment and then that get then that larger amount gets split.
>> Can you do that before in the next month? I mean, when you get a proposal for that, >> I mean, >> I I appreciate that you're pushing for all this. >> Yeah, I think >> it's a big ask. >> Yeah, I I think that's a separate like a
watershed management plan is is different than just a water body management plan. And I think it would certainly take me some time and back and forth with, you know, DCR on on what they would recommend be included in
that. I don't think it's something that we would have overnight or could include in one big application with the lake management plans overnight. >> Okay. So, I think you I think clean lakes, I think conservation, you
understand where we're coming from, Jeeoff. I I agree. Yeah, I agree. >> So, and and we do have time. I mean, this is why it's nice to get these applications in a little early because we have time to to, you know, go through this. So, if you guys can get together with Clean Lakes and come up with, you
know, a plan that suits, you know, both of your needs, um, and then come back either next month or, like I say, March. It would be great if you could do it next month so we could again kind of hash this through. But if um I understand that sometimes funding
doesn't work, we would be meeting on March 18th and the warrant closes the next Monday. So we don't have a lot of time between the next meeting and that we can always schedule real quick. Um you know if you want to come in on an off day, but it's so hard to get all of
us together because everybody's on other committees. Um but Tim, you and I can keep in touch and see how things are progressing. And >> so your your next uh meeting is February 3rd. Uh, no. February 18th. >> February 18th. >> Comments. February 3rd.
>> Conservation. >> Oh, okay. I see. >> And you guys meet every two weeks, right? So, if you can't get them >> generally. Yep. Twice a month. >> Okay. >> And And have we voted on the eligibility or not? >> Not. No. For fine. We haven't voted. We
didn't get that far. So, we'll just >> just pull that off. >> Pull those two off. >> So, we're good to go on Long Lake. Those will be recommended to town meeting. Um Tim, if you can just get me the the corrected dollar figures on those. Y >> anytime just send them to me. That would
be great. >> I think that's it. >> Perfect. And so for Long Lake, um am I correct in understanding you wanted Concom to review the wording for the project title? >> Oh, right. Yes. We didn't vote on the We
didn't vote on the um herbicide. >> We voted on the >> on the We didn't vote on the funding application because we want >> Oh, >> we want Clean Lakes and them to figure out exactly what they want. >> Thank you. >> Aquatic invasive mitigation.
>> Yeah, however you want to want to do it. Yeah, they want to >> Well, I I hope I'm going to be at the next meeting because I'm taking the opportunity and we're frozen and not late to walk along where the utrification is occurring, you know.
So, my dog's with me. He can maybe go for help, but it's pretty substantial at that end of the lake. I mean, it's, you know, not going to be there. All right. So, hopefully everything goes well. Like you say, Tim just will be in
touch. And Andrew, thank you. And uh >> that's good. >> And like we're getting there. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> Yeah. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Tim. >> Yep. Have a good night. >> You too. >> All right. So, that was the big We just have a couple of more things if you'll
indulge me. Um budget discussion. Um, I'm trying to get I want to get the balances of some outstanding projects. Housing. There are two projects out there. The elderly heating and the roof replacement. These are now 10 years old.
I I don't know. >> There's there's money for it. You mean >> there's $31,000 sitting there. >> Oh, wow. >> Yeah. And I know we talked about it last year and you said, "Well, maybe we should keep it for this." But I'm getting to the I'm thinking we're getting to the point we probably should
just resend that back to housing or can you spend it? >> Okay. I'll ask and that's the housing authority. >> That's the housing authority which is has been in
administrative chaos for the last year and a half. Have they hired a director yet? >> No. >> Thanks, John and Dave. >> Bye. >> Thanks, John. Thanks, Dave. >> See you next time. >> Okay. Um, yes. So, if you can and think
that there's also um like $4,400 in the Long Lake Renault fund from 2019. I think I'm going to talk to Alicia um Dave from Park and Wreck and try to get if they have a project that they need done, they should just come back to us. That's that's getting
>> I don't mind stringing it for a little bit. >> So So that process would be they they have a they we don't need to get that approved to town meeting. >> Yeah, we do. We have to get it rescended back into the bucket it came from. We did a few of them last year and just to
clean up some of that old old stuff that's sitting there. Um, >> right. So they don't lo they don't lose it. They just >> use for Yeah. for that project. But those are getting so old. >> I don't know what you could do for $31,000 these days in any significant
way in terms of the housing. >> Replace a couple boilers maybe. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It was elderly heating was about 25,000 and roof replacement was 6,250. >> Was the heating for support? Like >> it was replacing
failed boilers. >> I mean if they can if there's something to spend it on because it's not a ton of money. So it would just be like I said >> those two numbers again. >> Yeah. um >> 14996
>> and then next month uh February we have to vote our allocations >> or the 1% and the state match. So, um I guess Lyndon Bartlett, you guys have your constituent boards and andrew
conservation open house if there's any um >> any changes or or um I'm not sure when we get the estimate for the state match, but we'll find out shortly, I think. Um
so, we we will have to put that on the agenda for next next month. will need that. Um, one of the items I had on the list were the gravestone um, repair and I talked to Andrew in the hallway the other day and we're kind of one one
application ahead or one funding round ahead. So, we won't be bringing one to this this town meeting this time. Um, we still have money to >> By the way, on that subject, there's an Instagram, someone on Instagram who's
doing New England gravestones that's just really interesting. >> And there's one that he did that I saw recently and he was late lately focusing on where they describe how the people died. >> Oh, >> which is
>> sort of ruined. >> Oh, wow. wagon of logs fell on him type thing. But anyway, but one I it seemed familiar and I was wondering if there's a little he didn't identify where they were from. >> Yeah, there's a couple of Facebook
groups that have the same probably all the same. Interesting. >> That stuff is fun. Um so, um I don't know if anyone has any other budgets or projects in the pipeline.
>> I do. I do. I have Um I have a a draft eligibility request uh I haven't finalized the numbers I have to go back to but um to re replenish the
little rental assistance program funds we're trying to last year we set up a number of $120,000 for a budget and we spent some of that so um I'm assuming that we're going keep the same 125
$120,000 and by subtracting what we've spent I'm going to ask for we spent um $71,387 supporting 15 families in the last calendar fiscal year. So I'm going to
ask for $48,613 to bring us up to 120. So I can I mean I have a draft here. I'm probably I hope I'm going to present the same thing and when I come back need a full
the package but I think this is what we're going to do. Are you noticing an increase or a decrease in demand or um there's the number of people that have
applied um or will apply for renewal is I think it's seven altogether. Um so that's going to bring our our number I mean our number is going to go down because we have more than that. We have
many that are not eligible to renew. Um we don't know what's going to happen in the spring. Um, I talked I emailed Amy this today and she said that she thought that the number of applications would go down for the whole year, but
she's going to be talking to um people who know who's hurting in town and she thought that they might be able to I mean Littleton Green and and Pawnside both have
and Pond View all have subsidized housing elements and and if the managers there know somebody who needs help then they'll go to Amy and they'll come eventually come to us. So, it's I don't really know.
>> Just curious. >> And and the economy, you know, who knows? But >> so, >> well, I mean, I appreciate you looking at what you have left over and not just asking for the same thing over. >> I've been told I can't ask
>> and I appreciate that you follow the direction. >> I was trying to be nice, >> right? >> Yeah. No, this is guess I would expect, but nothing else. nothing. >> The other the other thing that um Maron
Tudhill brought up a couple of times is that um there's a housing I think it's a housing production plan that the town does every few years and the last one was I think 2018
and the housing production situation in Littleton has changed drastically since 2018. So, she wants to have a new housing production plan done. Um, and she's is estimating that
the cost for that will be a ballpark $50,000. and she wanted me to bring a question to this board of um since it's a housing
thing um she thinks that it should come out of the housing bucket somehow. um whether it should come out of undesated funds or should if it should come out of the the housing bucket is
something I think that you know where that money comes from or how much of it we willing to cough up. Um I think that's the question. >> Well, but that's assuming that it funded by the CPC at all.
>> Yeah. Right. question is that >> I think we've done that. >> We have done it in the past. >> We have under CDC though. >> Yeah. >> Well, that's an eligibility thing about you know is this is it eligible? I mean
if we've done it in the past is that considered >> maintain its eligibility again. >> Yeah. with the housing category so broad too. I mean, in terms of supporting housing, we definitely have the precedent of, you know, creating plans
to guide us. And I mean, I think it'd be easy to argue that it's supporting housing through guiding, you know, the town. >> Yeah. We through the uh regional housing survey, the MAPC used to do. Is that the same? >> That's who we would hire to do it
probably. >> Yeah. I think >> the reason why we do them is to aid in getting grants. >> Yeah. >> Um and maybe we would need Lauren to explain to us specifically why we would
need to pay for that. I I I I think it should in my view if we pay for it, it should come from housing. >> Yeah. Once again, I'm trying to protect open space and undesated, you know, for major projects that might
>> So, just remind me housing has it support. We can do support for housing, right? >> Yes. >> Yes. Yeah, that's like the one. >> That's the one. >> Yandrew, did you have something for >> Oh, no. Sorry. I was just going to thank
Jeff for helping to look after my open space. I know it. >> All right. Well, that's good. We can look into it. I mean, I don't know if that's the same as the regional housing services and then >> I mean, we can certainly hear it and
>> we'll we'll bring it up at the next >> planning board meeting, which is >> it's getting changed, isn't it? >> Well, we're keeping the 29th, but we're not going to do the >> theth >> 5th and do that the 11th >> if that's
>> okay. Is going to fill up on the 29th? Yes. >> Okay. >> That's mainly that. >> Okay. Because I thought the request was for them to delay, >> but that's for the apartments. >> Oh, that's all. >> Okay. It's not great. Thank you.
>> Okay. >> Anything else, Linda? Do you have anything? >> Um, well, we there's probably one at least one small project from historical projects. Um there's a couple of you know how we we
have CPC funding last year for new markers, historic markers. Um the markers get put on these now. They're they're concrete. I mean the plaques get put on concrete markers. Um a couple of the concrete markers are not in good
shape. One of them at least has sort of we think sunk into the ground. We think maybe we can pull it up and make it not so low to the ground. So there will probably be one or two either new markers or rehabilitating the existing
markers. That's one smaller project. And then at our next meeting next month, the commission, the historical commission will talk about other possible projects. We'll let you know. say we still have still have a little
bit of time for anything else. Anyone else have any words of wisdom >> preservation wise? >> Greenland. >> Yeah. >> The um uh so our next meeting will be on
>> Greenland. Oh, Littleton's Greenland >> uh on February 18th. And it sounds like we're going to have some things to do. So, um, we'll reconvene them. So, if there's nothing else, do I have a motion
to adjourn? Eight. >> And I so move. >> Second. >> All in favor, please say I. >> All right. Everyone, thank you, Andrew. >> Thanks everybody.
Good night.