again. So, um Bob, can we hear your voice? Not yet, but we'll assume you're on mute. He might have stepped away for a minute. Well, Tom, you'll record him when you
have a chance to. Okay. As being in attendance. Okay. So, um the next item is to review the feedback that we got from our Yes. Shall we move and back in and vote for
all of those formalities? Yeah. For the minutes. Okay. So, who would make a motion to approve these minutes from June? I'll make a motion. Okay. And any seconds? Second. Good. So, let's vote. I'll I'll just call where I see your name. So, Charlene
Galinsky. Yes, Jennifer Wallace. I Tom Seaffort. Hi, thanks Joe Salvador. Hi, Jim Moore. Hi, Eric Stoker. Hi. And Bob Douglas. Hi.
Okay. Hi. And I It's It's Stalker, by the way. Not stalker. I know. I always Everyone screws it up. Don't worry about it. I don't I don't know why, frankly. But that's Don't worry about it, though. I'm think I might lose sleep over it tonight.
Oh, no. Don't do that. Um, okay. So, moving on. Uh, I sent out the comments from our four, uh, groups that we shared our comments with. The the comments from the highway
department came right afterwards. I couldn't believe that he sent it to me exactly two and a half minutes after I sent them to you. Has anyone had a chance to look at those? I would confess that I have not.
Well, that's okay. will what I want what I thought a good way of going through it would be if if you guys are all in agreement with it so that we are efficient in moving through it is anyone who's read them we'll allow some time
for just general comments on the comments as a whole and then I'd like to move through u there's about 10 points that I think uh should be and could be and I have a
strategy for including them in the written document. The as we said the whole set of comments will be included as what will now be attachment 10 as part of the report but
I think there's things in the report from the different we'll call them agencies from now that that should be addressed in the content of the report itself. So, so if it's okay with you, I'd like to
move through those, you know, and and just take a vote one at a time so that we make sure everyone's on board with any changes or additions or deletions that we make. Um, any feedback on that approach or any
one think we ought to do it differently? Sounds good. That that sounds great. I think you probably have uh had the most in-depth look at each of these and um so I I I support that as a way to uh uh spread the word and have help the rest of us digest that.
Okay. And Charlene, are you cool with that because you're had an active role in liaisoning with the association. Um I I'm just hoping I guess you know only because I I uh know the most about the
Lake Wyola report that that gets into the initial report that gets shown um to the uh you know presented to the select board not as you know as a separate I know it'll be attached as an addendum at
the end but the points on there I'd love to see them in your initial report that you're doing that. That's my own personal bias for the Lake Wyola. Okay. Well, let's go through this then one at a time and you'll see a a strategy that I think
um I imagine that it can work for what I know about, you know, the association's comments and and we'll talk about them and see if that's in if everyone's in agreement with that as being a good way to go. Okay. Thank you.
All right. Okay. All right. So, that being said, my the first thing that I'd like to and maybe this should actually be preserved for the N is all of the comments now from ELWAC, Leg Association, Concom, and the
Highway Department have been assembled into one document. And I'm proposing that we include that as attachment 10. Currently, there were nine attachments, but I would like to vote on your approval to include that
set of comments. No editing involved or anything like that. No comments on the comments in that document as attachment 10, Bob. Yeah. So, if I'm correct that that set of comments would just be like an appendix to the report.
That's right. Yeah. I think that's a great a great way to convey the information. So, I support that. And there'll be some places you'll see when we start going through the points one by one in the report where we can insert comments, refer to comments and make sure that those documents are
cross-referenced. Okay. So, uh this point can we just do that at the end? Let's just go through the points. Yep. And see how what gets included and then we'll discuss. Yep. on as an append the submitted bits as
appendix. Yeah, that's good. I agree with that too. Okay, so I'm going to turn on my screen sharing here. I have a lot of documents to uh to pull up one at a time.
Um all right, we're going to start with concom. No, first I'll pull this up. Sorry, I have to go through and find them all because your phone rang. Okay, so this is the draft of the
findings and recommendations. Um, these colors are really for my purposes. So, um, you might not need to pay too much attention to those until I point them out. I wanted to try to distinguish using colors between
suggestions that were made by each of the four groups. So, it just helps me to to walk through it. So, the concomments that I thought were relevant to pull out of their the attachment what I'm going
to propose as attachment 10 are these that are in yellow. First of all, I hope you read their comments. Um, Beth Wilson, the head of Comro that was very um supportive of our work
and of the different um um parties coming together and trying to tackle a really complex problem. If you haven't read the preamble to her comments, I found it um very encouraging and I was very pleased that she noticed and um
pulled that into the awareness of the select board. So, so I would like to ask ask you all to take a look at that. I think you'll be um proud. Okay. So, Concom suggested two things
that I think could make their way into our um draft. So this is the section called task force recommendations and they pointed out that in the section about the operation and management plan
that we should add something that um indicates that anything that's proposed in that plan would have to meet all the permitting requirements that concom wetlands protection. So, I was going to suggest that we would
add this sentence. Right now, it's in all caps, but it would say, "Such a plan would be developed with input from the highway department, Lake Wy association, Elwacken, Concom, the planning board, and community preservation committee, and would follow all permitting
requirements and then refer them to those specific comments in what I'm calling attachment 10." So, how does that strike you as an addition? I think it's good. Perfect.
Can we just say something about all concom permitting requirements? Okay. Yeah, that's that's good. That makes That's clear. Keep a flow going there. Yeah, that sounds good. So, because I want to be clear on this
and make sure that we're all on board, I'd like to vote on each of these. there's only going to be about 10 alto together. Uh and I think that that will just have we'll have that grounding that we're all in agreement because it gets kind of complex as we move through this.
So uh maybe uh maybe we could say if anyone is has a no, we just get a no vote or something. But Bob, you had your hand up. Yeah, I'd like to make a motion we u accept the language on number four as as uh re redrafted. Okay. Any seconds on
that? Second. Okay. Anyone in disagreement with that? I just wanted to add um to what Jim just said about the concom permitting. Um I would actually suggest leaving out concommitting
issues with planning board theoretically. And so if we just put it permitting requirements, it could refer to both of them perhaps. What do you think of that, Jim? I just thought it left it up to every agency's permitting requirements. So, I was
trying to just close down and name which permitting requirements would need to be addressed. Would it be clear to say relevant permitting requirements that includes any agency that might have jurisdiction?
Sure. How's that for you, Tom? Sure. Sure. I just didn't want to like exclude anyone accidentally. Um, and I'm going to throw another fly in the ointment, and it could be completely irrelevant, so I just like to ask it. Um, I know that beach water gets tested for board
of health purposes, and um, I'm only thinking of it now, and I very much apologize that I never brought up the board of health before. Um, I am just wondering because they are also another permit granting authority in town and we have
I thought mentioned things like wells or septic in some of our discussions over the year that we've been meeting. Um, don't know if we should ever like maybe run this by them at all and I'm sorry to bring that up now. It only occurred to me now today. Well, you know, I don't
think I don't think we have to run it by them because this is a report to the select board and if we get the feedback that board of health isn't, you know, involved, then, you know, we're going to be at this work for a little while. But I could say as well as
community preservation and the board of health as um appropriate. That would be awesome. Okay. I think just to capture as much as possible. Yeah. Okay. So, so now we better have the motion to vote
on it again and a second, right? Anyone? Um Okay. Yeah. I thought we were just in the discussion phase of the motion, but sure. I'd like I don't know how it goes. I'd like to make a motion that we uh approve the um uh recently revised uh uh
number four. Okay. Any second? Second. Second. So, um, Tom, can we have just like hear from the nose or do we go through each individual? I think it's safer just for everyone to say I or nay. All right. So, Wallace says I
Jim, hi. Tom, hi. Charlene, hi Bob. Hi, Eric. Hi. And Joe, I Okay, good. All right. So here is a second um concom
as I said their recommendations are in yellow. Uh so this refers to the short-term maintenance projects and Beth observed uh some recommendations in in those maintenance that's
attachment nine says here attachment nine will need discussions and permitting with the commission. The commission is happy to meet with DPW at these locations to brainstorm storm water improvements.
This was Beth's language and this is where I refer to the specific comments in attachment 10. So should we get a motion and then have discussion? How what's the best way to go about this? I can tell you what I
would change before we get a motion to vote on it. Or in other words, yeah, I mean, I would just make sure to put conservation commission the first time it says commission there. Oh, okay. And I would change DPW to highway department.
Okay. All right. So, let's have a motion to vote on this one. Just can I have a just a question? Yes. I'm just going over this
for the Are there any short term that aren't current practice? Yes. Okay. Then I have no comment. Okay. All righty then. So, can we get a motion
to to approve this change? So, moved. Okay. And anything that Great. Okay. We'll go through the vote here. I have everyone's face here. So, um Wallace says I. Jim, I Tom,
hi Bob. Hi, Eric. Hi, Charlene. Just can I ask one question? I just noticed it. uh where it says the commission is happy to meet with the highway department at these locations.
In the first sentence that isn't in yellow, it mentions the Lake Wyola Association, too. So, would we be meeting with them? I think that Beth is referring to um projects that are on Locks Pond Road
that are part of the only part of the town's purview. But you rais a good point and there isn't any reason why we say the highway department andor Lake Wyola. Are you happy with that? Well, I'm I'm just wondering if if it's
regarding short-term projects that are both the highway department and Lake Wyola, but then the recommendation is just to meet Yeah. commission to meet with the highway department. That's excluding Lake Wyola to know something is Oh, I think that's
good. It's a good addition. Okay. So, let's have our vote again. Wallace votes I. Jim I. Charlene. Yes. I Bob. Hi,
Eric. Hi, Tom. Hi. And Joe, hi. Okay, good. Okay, so I'm gonna move on to Elwax suggestions now. Um,
and they are here in green. I think there's I love the systematicity of all of this. This is how I had I mean this is the only way I could kind of wrap my head around it. Okay, so Mark made some comments about
uh uh this is Mark's comments here. So you could read these first. Fiskbrook has been the largest sort of sediment and contamination. He says this section should include a sentence related to quote based on geomorphic
study this report may need to be updated to address issues that the study identified. We should say issues. So I'm saying here in in our uh general conclusion here it
says that storm water travels across and through lands and Mark through Elwack is suggesting that we add this sentence on Fiskbrook which I think is probably a pretty I mean definitely it should happen especially because we're the geomorphic
study as part of our recommendation. So I didn't propose a sentence there. uh he is saying include a sentence that says based on the geomorphic study this report may need to be updated. So it would be something along it would look
something along the lines like this. Maybe I put that in the wrong place. Take that out. Here we go. So to date, though, storm water travels across and through lands variously owned by the town, the association, and
private owners, there's not been a coordinated approach to bring these parties together for assessment, planning, and imple implementation. and he'd like to say something like also based on the geomorphic study of
Fiskbrook, this may need to be updated to address issues that the study identifies. What do you think of that? Just a a question again. Um I is the geomorphic study only of Fisbrook or
of Yes, the geomorphic hydra hydraologic study is of the Fisbrook North Cove system. I had been under the impression that the geomorphic study was part of the whole following the hydraological study and
applied to the entire well originally to Lake Wyola. I don't think so, but we can look here if you hang on just one minute because their proposal is part of um
part of the one of the attachments. Uhhuh. Okay, there it is. And and you might be right. Um subcontract field geology services. No, it's Fiskbrook to include an assessment of Fiskbrook. I know, but I was thinking prior to
their of the Furkog report talking about both studies applying to Wyola. Um it's it's been my understanding that
the proposal from GZA includes the H&H study for the whole study area and the geomorphic study for the Fiskbrook North Cove area and that's what this proposal says. I know that I agree that's what it says
but I thought that the original Furcog had the geomorphic for Lake Wyola as well that it being a different thing. Yeah. I mean, and I don't know whether I'd have to go really back and look at our notes and and it may be that the Furcog study said to do
both. And then when we were remember when we were discussing about splitting off Fisk Brook totally and just doing the H&H and Kimberly said she thought that that would be fine and a good way to begin.
And then Mark really through Elwack really wanted to make sure Fiskbrook didn't get ignored. And so I think the decision to split them apart and have that be a more economically manageable study is how that came about. But I'd
really have to go back and reook at all my notes. We then later ask for a geomorphic study of Lake Wyola. It might be. I mean I I guess we can find out when we hopefully we get this. I thought the geomorphic study was
required before the implementation of in of best practices. I don't know that to be true. Tom, you have something to say? Yeah, my take was that the H&H study would study the pattern of water as it hits
the ground going towards Lake Wyola. And the fluial geomorphic study would actually only be for the the fluial nature of Fiskbrook entering into the lake. I didn't think that because it's fluial.
I didn't think it would be a lake study. I don't think there's a geomorphic study per se for the lake. Um, I understood the FGM as just being looking at the way that the flow of the river changes the land
and not the way in the hydraology would be the water flow in general and with different modeling for different amounts of rainfall given climate change. Yeah, I guess essentially I understood the hydraology more as rainfall
associated and the FGM more as existing stream um studies like how that stream changes over time and might carve out banks or you know move land here or there with itself but right I think the increased rainfall could
lead to true true yeah it's described here as you know it describes sediment sources and methods for reducing sedimentation from Fisk brook um I think that at this stage if we're
questioning the scope of work for the GZA proposal that we need to revisit that as a separate issue. Um, no, I can I can see that point. I can see all the how far back we'd have to go to get that done. So, let's go with
this, right? And it may be that as we because you know there will be a phase two to our work and it could be that we can revisit the scope of work and and we might decide we we don't need to or want to but um I don't know that we're ready
to re I don't feel that we're ready to revisit that whole scope of work right now. No, no, no. But can we ask BCOG if their original suggestions match this? I think they did. You know, as my my
recollection is that that it was our initial strategy to split off the H&H study and save Fiskbrook because of its complexities of different jurisdictions and all of that. And then when Mark weighed in on the
first goround of this, he said, "No, I think you really need to get Fiskbrook in there." And and we agreed and that's the way that we came up with doing it. Okay. Um, again, I apologize because I just had the impression thought that I read it in
some point in the fur cog. Oh, you probably did that. I think we decided to do it differently at first and then we backtracked and included Fiskbrook. But Jim, what do you suggest we do now?
um that we just be aware of the need for the geo because the the the task six where it talks about that the the geomuial you know pointing out erosion flow diversions landscape modification oops
just disappeared oh you need that okay sorry I didn't know you were working with that I'm sorry it's okay just there and it was six I think yep um
you know management of dirt roads in six there. So it's not just in the lake. So So again I will ask more attention to this all along but yeah I will ask what what do you think
we should do about this right now? put this as a future task that we get the geopolivial study of the entire lake done, you know, as well as the Fisk. we can go with the Fisbrook and then add this as a component we need to address
in the future because I think that the this is what you need done to figure out where the interventions well I don't know because the H&H study in particular is recommending specific mitigation measures
okay identify conceptual mitigation measures I thought that this would needed that the again my memory and it's a while now is that it u the geomorph morphologic
study would also be required to figure out where um best practices implementations could be best put um but so I mean I I would again I'm Sorry to
bring it up at this point, but if we can put in somewhere as a future task, not right now, not part of this, but taking up the issue if we need to and again just take it up as an issue that we to study whether we need a geomorphological study of the lake to proceed with
implementation of of the interventions. And I think we can ask that question of Furcog. remember getting clarity from Kimberly that they believed that it was fine to split these apart that it wouldn't prevent an engineering study from proposing mitigation measures. But
but let's let's ask that of them as a separate question. Is that okay with you? That's fine. Okay. May I ask Jim, can I ask you a quick question? Sure. Um are you understanding it as one geomorphic study of Fiskbrook and a second or different geomorphic study of
the lake? whatever whenever we can get funding. Okay. Just I just Okay. Um I didn't think there was a category of geomorphic study of the lake is all I meant to add. I thought the that's where the issue is. I thought that Okay. I just want to make sure I was
understanding the water flow, it's modeling, and the geomorphology is is where um the different sediments are located, what's going to get washed away and eroded, what's going to be stable, and where your interventions make the best sense.
So I thought it was one model the flows, two figure out where the sediments and and the geology are strong enough to you know hold up with the the implementations of the you know the intervention. So
it's a different model of in my head all along of of that. So yeah, I think one thing one thing that that is uh important at this stage I guess and what distinguished GZA's proposal from
say comprehensive environmental proposal is that comprehensive environmental were were only going to do modeling. They weren't going to really be proposing um mitigation measures and preparing sketches and doing that step. Mhm.
So GZA was very aware of the Furcog report and what it was recommending and they're prepared here and identify here that that they're going to do this and don't require the geomorphic study
in order to do it. But it's fine to ask the question. We want to make sure that we have what we need to create some best management practices, you know, and um I will follow up with Furcog
about that. Um yeah, and see if they feel like not it's kind of well it would be too late for the rural development fund of course but um you know that if we're not going to be able to do any best management practices because we don't have the geomorphic
study of the whole area that's a that's a real problem. I I don't think it is I think they've already identified that that was a good strategy to I mean a fine strategy for us to take. I'm I'm I'm uh
surprised that that this is coming up as an issue right now. No, I'm apologize. I had I had somehow didn't notice that uh moving to Fisbrook and moved the
geomorphic study to Fisbrook only. So, yeah, at this point, well, talk to Furcog, see what they say again, please just explicitly. If if we do need the geomorphological study in order to
figure out where the interventions can occur effectively, then we'll do it back. And if they say no, we don't, then let's move on. Okay. Um,
so back to Mark's thing, task force general recommendations. That was conclusions. I put that in the wrong place. Historically, Fiskbrook has been, you know, I actually think that Mark has um a different version of this
because there isn't any place in this where it says this language of historically Fiskbrook has been Oh, thanks. I wanted to ask about that. Yeah, that's an earlier draft. Okay. But in our recommendations, we should put something in here to address his concern.
that um and I'm not sure where that would be right now. I'm a little off um where it would go or Yeah. Um I don't mean to be reddrafting this all
in in our meeting here. Uh maybe what I'll do is just throw it in here for right now to mention something about Fiskbrook and if uh you guys are okay with it, I can reddraft that and send it to you as language that we can
vote on. Um can we can we have a vote in email? No. Wait, who knows the rules on that? I we can't you can't deliberate over email. Yeah, right. Okay. All right. Well, let me just put it in there as a placeholder
and we'll move on and see whether um we'll maybe we'll come back to this. Okay. Is that all right? Yeah. Okay. Um All right. So, now this other thing that Mark brings up is also something that's
raised by the Lake Wyola Association. They'll they appear in different places, but in the Furcog report um they say specifically and I could tell
you the page where they do that. Um it is right here on um in this page between pages 48 and 52 where they talk about roads and um
they say based on what's known of the site possible causes of increased erosion include lack of rodent maintenance and impacts of snow plowing and also the use of gravel. gravel. It says here that the roads are surfaced
with gravel and in many cases a material of high content of sand. Um, that's where that came from. Um, Furkaw's conclusion about gravel is found, you can see here, on 21 different pages of their report.
So in Mark's comments, which I think we have to deal with, he says the material used for maintaining the ruins as sand and gravel um is just not true. So this was debated in the Lake Wyola
comments too. You'll see. And I'm curious about how you think we should deal with this because when we have um not in Furkco in in 21 places, Furkcog
also has a separate um engineering firm that produced a memorandum and on two pages of and that's part of their report. on two pages of their report, it also mentions sand and gravel.
So, how do we as a as a task force and we've done our old field walks and observed problems with sand and gravel road surfaces. So I'm wondering what you all think is the
best way to approach this when we're using the the analysis and the research of FURCOG as our basis not only in our field recommendations. How do you imagine that we ought to address these concerns?
I have a question on that. Yeah. Did FKOG ever write what they recommend on the roads? Well, they have a whole dirt road toolkit where and Lake Oil Association references that and I you'll see when I
get to their recommendations that I thought that their suggestion was really good and I've added that as something we might include in our draft that we begin to um you know use that as a guide. But yeah, they have a whole whole book about suggestions, issues, suggestions and
ways of dealing with dirt roads. Okay. Because most of the roads now are all just sand and dirt and gravel right now. Well, so this is this is what's I'm wondering how to approach this because I
do know that there was some change in materials. Although who names materials what I'm not sure. There was confusion for some of us that some things were being called hard pack, but they you
pick it the stuff up in your hand and it just sprinkles through. It's not hard or packable even. But then there was a second round of material that was used which was harder. But in any case, we have two places where this is proposed not to be the
case. But then we have two formidable research bodies and authorities that that say that it is sand and gravel for so I'm seeking your advice about how we should handle that in our report
only for I fill in roads I fill in holes where I can and I find that even if you put in the holes that are there now the hardest pack you can the all the dirt around it being loose already makes it
useless, right? So, that's even a different we're just that's a totally different issue which hopefully we'll get to work with at some point. But this all has to do with two agencies comments that the
materials that are used are not gravel and then two agencies that say it is gravel. And what does our task force want to do about that? I had suggested that we write something like the task force concurs with Furcog
findings that the majority of roads in proximity are gravel. You know, we walked around, we saw them being I mean, did we walk around and see that these roads were mostly sand and gravel? All the roads all the roads around the lake are sand and gravel.
Okay. I think that's right. Yeah. I mean, we we sand them, but they're all sand and gravel. But, right, the one issue is that it is sand and gravel. At at various points, it's been referred to as sand, which is a
different thing entirely. And some the only time that pure sand gets down put down is in the winter when the town comes through and sands the roads, right? The rest of the time it is a sand and
gravel mix. it is um that gets put down and I don't think the lake association has ever just put down sand that there is sand on the roads but that's the result of the erosion as much as anything else right
and so the and it's a it's a glacial landscape there it is all sand off the road so anytime you get any anything coming from any of the land. It's going to be carrying first maybe a little bit
of silt and then sand. Um so what what I suggest I mean just for your reference in the furog report on page 951 and 69 it refers to road surfaces.
Then they have this memorandum from comprehensive environmental on page three and six where it mentions sand and gravel. And I'm thinking that we as a task force can be on solid footing if we say something like the task force
concurs with Furcog findings that the majority of roads in close proximity are gravel. We could say sand and gravel and then say see attachment 10 for Lake Wyas and Furkog's disagreement with this conclusion and just leave it at that.
We're not going to resolve that all in this report. We're trying to report on our findings. Our findings show that these two research bodies, Furcog, this was Furcog up here.
No, I can't change that. I guess this was Furcog and this is CI have concluded and reported to D and everybody else that it's sand and gravel and Lake Wyola and Elwak disagree. I think I feel fine that that's our report
to the select board. I'm wondering what you guys think. Could you show again um how each of them worded their disagreement? Yes, please. Um let's see here. Sorry for all these screens being open,
but I don't know how else to do it. Okay, this was from Elwack because I put Elwax in green. What I'm curious is whether either of them used a different term. I remember a hard pack coming up in at least one of them. But well, this one says material used for
maintaining roads is mostly sand and gravel. This is what the our report said. And no, you're reading Elac now. And so he said this is just not true, but he didn't give a different No, he didn't give anything name for it. Okay.
Okay. And um then when it comes to Lake Wyola Association, it says um Two assertions. The report sites for Cog will lack a road maintenance. We'll get to that. In addition, the draft report says the materials used are a mix of
sand and stone. Uh they don't want that said. They use hard pack, gravel, and trap rock. So that's the lake association's statement of what they use. And that differs from what is reported by Furcog
and I think it differs from what we've observed on our field walks too which is why I'm saying okay can you go back to the LG one for a second I don't understand the comment about abuse. I don't know what that refers to how that's meant to be understood. Probably
not worth the abuse that you will get if you try to change. Yeah. That's an editorial opinion. It's not relevant to me at all. What I'm trying to do is get comments. You know, the select board will get all of these are unedited.
But what goes into our report, that's what I'm after, right? Editorial comments about stuff like that. It's just not relevant. I don't think if it's relevant to us as a committee, we should say that. But I don't see how it's relevant. It felt a little threatening. I wasn't
pleased reading it. Of course not. Okay. But, you know, I don't think we need to spend a lot of time with that. I think I would go with your wording then, just that there's disagreement. And I I think Jen um the reason Lake
Wyola used different terminology is and not that this is uh going to you know make a huge difference but all of our bills that we receive from where we order materials from are are with those
labels. So, um, you know, we're not going to, uh, say something different than what we're paying for, I guess, just to let you know. I know Bob Blanchett was very clear about that at a meeting that we pay for hard pack and that's how the
bill comes in. So, right, I just want you to know that that's that's terminology given to us from the people supplying us with the materials. Yeah. And I think that's worth researching as we've pointed out a few times that you know what your vendors
are calling hard pack you know might not be hardp pack. What is hard pack? I was reading about this um before this meeting and it's a mixture of um gravel
of different sizes of fine particle dust. Some of it is clay material. Some of it is crushed trap rock, but it all has a compression power which is more than sand and gravel or gravel by itself. And
when one load of material that came from a different vendor was delivered and the guys were laying it on Pine Drive and they even said, "Whoa, this stuff is so much far superior than the other stuff that they were getting." And they were holding it in their hands and showing
how it clumped. So, you know, I can't know what vendors tell anybody. Um, but what I am wondering now is whether this should say sand and gravel since that's predominantly what's said in the
Furcog report. So, does a hard pack act as a surface that water can penetrate through it? Oh, sure. Yeah. I mean, it's not Yes, definitely. But it's it it's a little bit I can say for sure because it was
used at the top of Pine Drive that it's much stronger and lasts a lot longer than the other material, but it's not um it it also breaks down. It just breaks down slower.
I think the plows probably would help it out helps it out a lot. Probably. I wouldn't um you have a quote here directly from the report. So I wouldn't add anything to and sand is in two lines later.
Okay, that's that's a good point. And Bob, you had your hand up a minute. Yeah, I just I just wanted to say that um yeah, it the um the the first week of uh geology class that you take at UMass or Ammerst or wherever, you take a big
pile of dirt and you put it on a set of saves and uh cobbles are a certain size. Uh uh gravel or pebble gravel is 2 in down to one/10enth of an inch. Uh stuff smaller than that is is sand. stuff
smaller than those finds. And all of all of our roads that you go to anywhere lake around Lake Wyola, you will find sand and gravel. It's just, you know, it's just a fact. So, um whether that came from the parent material that surrounds it, whether it was laid by uh
sanding trucks during the winter time, but our our roads are made of sand and gravel. It's as simple as that. Okay. So, let's see if we could vote on this edition because this is an addition to our original draft. So, uh the way that
we'll do it deal with it is stick with the furcog findings and also say that uh to view attachment 10 for lakeas uh and the lwax disagreement with this conclusion.
Jen, does this include the uh half of the statement that said the roads aren't maintained? That comes in a different place. Okay. So, we're not voting on that. Okay. Um Okay. I might put the bracketed statement
after the word aggregate. Aggregate. Where is at the end of this? At the end of this sentence. Oh, okay. That's fine. Okay. And can you let us know what number this is, please? Just for Oh, yeah. This is number one.
Number one under general conclusion. Thank you. Just Okay. So, um any Can we have a motion to vote on this as a change to the to the um recommendations? So, moved.
What? Can I still ask a question? Yes. And can we just the conclusion we're getting to is that the road surface when you walk over it is a gravel and sand. Can it be clear
that that's not what gets put down? That that is the surface. Sand the roads get sanded, erosion takes place and puts sand on the the road. But it's not what the association is putting down.
Well, here's the thing. All right. Well, this is what I want to try to clarify because well, Charlene, and you're on the roads committee, Jim, maybe you know, every time a load gets delivered of what gets put down, it's a
different kind of material. So, I don't know what they put down consistently because I we use that material all the time and depending on who's delivering it or who's ordered it, whether it comes from their contractor or whether it comes
from which one of their contractors, it could be a different material. So, I don't know. I don't feel confident. Maybe the Lake Association can say with confidence and consistency that they're putting down something different.
But I said I'm confident in too that there's erosion taking place washing sand onto the road because that's what all the hills are made of, right? And that in the winter the town comes through and dumps sand on the roads as well. So when you walk over the roads,
yes, they're mix of sand and gravel. That's it. But it's not what the association put down there. Okay. And you're sure about that? I'm I want to add to that too because when the lake association when we're filling the holes, we're not doing the entire
road, right? We're just doing spot areas on the road. So the road is always sand and gravel. We're just filling in the holes to protect that spot as long as we can. That's why it unless you do the entire
road every year, probably you probably get the consistency across the whole road. But because we just spot fill, which was what we I guess what the lake what they do. Um that's why when they did the road probably on pine they did
the entire road so it all bound together because it was the same material the entire width of it and the length of it. This is an and I believe and I believe all of our ordering goes through David Boron and I
don't think he changed vendors but I would have to check on that. Right. So these are all things. How about this? Does this satisfy everybody? Um I just underlined this. It's important to note that some of the sand
and gravel on the roads is contributed by erosion and not by what is put down by LWA. I don't think we know that. I don't agree with the second part of that sentence. It might be contributed to by what LWA puts down as well.
Okay. So, what do you mean by that? U LWA has not given us a sample of all of the materials they use. I think we would need a person actually to study what they use materially. Um, as has been
said a few times now, it might be different materials each batch. Let let me ask this question because I'd rather just leave the original bracketed statement because all of that's in there um in attachment 10.
That's I want to try to honor I mean Jim is on the roads committee and Charlene is on the board of the Lake While Association. So I want to honor Joe with a lot of experience. So that well but it's not it's not so much about the experience it's can can you guys as
representative of the Lake Wy association say with certainty that the materials that are on the that the lake association is not putting sand and gravel on the roads. I I can say one thing. The material that
they're putting down is different than the material that's on the roads. Because when I fill the holes in with the material that they they get, it stays pretty well in the hole, but because all the material around it is still sanding gravel, it doesn't have
anything to bind to, right? So part of that, that's just my take on it from filling the holes on my road. And I find that that's one of the things like that's makes it harder because it you get one spot and it makes another hole somewhere
else because that spot's harder than this spot. And the only time we the only time the Lake Wyola Association does an extensive amount of coverage on any road is when there's a major problem. And when
there's a major problem, obviously it's more extensive area that has to be covered. But um everybody that like Jim and um Joe are absolutely correct. We do not get a whole truckload of um material
and then go down each road and layer it on top of it. We we wouldn't first of all we wouldn't have the money for it, but second of all, it's just a matter of of trying to fix the holes that are um on all the different roads. And that's
what the hard pack that's ordered is put in different locations on each side of the lake so that people can go access it and then uh fill in those potholes. But we we never cover a whole road unless there's a major problem with that area
like a cave-in of something or whatever. I have an idea that maybe will help this. So we have this paragraph here that's talking about this is a general conclusion. Storm water and sediment. It
travels to the lake from both town owned paved roads and dirt roads. Some of these are owned by the association. others by are privately owned and they go directly also from lowland private properties. Okay, we
have to ask ourselves right now what's important for the select board to know about what our findings are because that's what this paragraph is really trying to do, right? It's trying
to combine Furcog's observations and our own field observations and telling the select board something about the issues that we've discovered. So when it comes to what the road service
is, what's important for the select board to know? Originally, we said the task force concurs with the furcog findings that the majority of roads are gravel or in many cases surfaced with a
material with a high content of sand and fine um grained aggregate. Now, maybe that's not accurate anymore. Maybe that's not true anymore that that it's surfaced with a high content of sand
or fine grain aggregate. What do we want the select board to know about the surface of the roads? Tom, how about something like the task force has been guided by the Furco findings that and not using the word concur.
Okay, maybe that's where the um sticking point is or you know acknowledges even that Furco's findings are that and then the quote um and I would because it is a quote I
would not suggest putting in the underlined sentence in there because that's not No, no, no. I just put that in there to um but I'm thinking maybe that's where the um that might help. We're just relaying what they said and we we're using
surfaces and we're not getting into why or how the surfaces have become what they are, right? But observed, you know, at the time Furcock observed them, they were mostly sand and gravel. I think that's important and I think that it's possible
that uh association and ELWAC disagreeing is because this is in 2025 and Furcog did their research in 2023 or 2024, it's possible that other um materials are
used. So, so if we let these statements stand and not try to arbitrate them right now and the select board can look at the attachment and see how they disagree and we'll take it from there in terms of what the next steps are that we have to work with.
Can I just try a minor change that would yeah help me? Yeah. Uh where it says many cases surfaced with the material surfaced is kind of an active word if we just say covered. Okay. Rather surface kind of implies that
somebody did it. And cover just is this is when you walk over it what you see. And I'd be more willing to accept this if it's that type of thing because when it's surfaced by it sounds like somebody put it there.
And how about to honor Joe's comments too? Can we say in many cases covered and or repaired in terms of what's put in these potholes? Well, that's the higher quality stuff. That's okay. All right, that's fine then. Um,
all right. We have the it says the majority of roads in close proximity to Lake Wyola are gravel, but I I haven't heard anybody say anything that roads are just gravel. there. Everybody's been saying
gravel and sand. So, right. But this is a quote. This is a quote from the report. So, if I'm quoting, which I am, we better leave it at that. Yeah. I think they say different things in different places. Oh, so the quote, but we just changed
the word concur to guided. I is that Oh, no. The quote doesn't starts here with the majority of roads are great. Oh, I see. I see where it's hard to see the quotes. Okay. Okay. Yeah, just covered. All right. Is everyone happy now? Only that covered isn't in the original
quote that surfaced was. Yeah. Yeah. Where where does the quote end? Oh, yeah. That's true. But the whole paragraph is a quote. It's on page. Okay. All right. Right. Okay. Sorry. I didn't see that. But you're right. We can't change. Yeah. Um he's right,
Jim, that we can't really change the quote. But if we say we've been guided by Furcog's findings, here's where the quote starts. So is that you could change it and not have a quotation mark.
All right. So you want to end the quotes here, add service, and then start the quotes again. Um, using a quote creates you the use of an authority. And I just disagree with that authority
right now. So to me, it's not convincing. One, the roads aren't gravel. So that's just plain wrong. So why would we site something that's wrong? All right. So in other words, we are all disagreeing with Furcog's comments. Well, I don't know about all.
Well, I mean, so this whole quote is Furcog's, right? So if K furog says and their engineers in a separate report say surfaced with material that has this
high cont if we disagree with all of this then we don't concur with Furcog's findings we might be guided by them but this whole part that I've highlighted is their findings. So we could say we disagree with their
findings. Yeah. But I don't know that we do totally, Bob. No, I I think what uh what you've highlighted there is is the truth. It is primarily a uh a gravel road with uh fines and sand. You can see when water
flows over it. So, I think uh I think the engineers that took a look at the road got it right. I mean, we could say something like, um, oh, there's a couple of ways to do this. I could not use the Furcog quote,
but I think it's a powerful quote. And, and I, we're not saying we concur. We're saying now we're guided. We could say we've been guided in part. We can say we've been guided by their findings but also dis I mean it just
gets really clunky. So again my sense is that everybody would agree with the with the I could be wrong. I guess I could be wrong but every but where it starts drainage infrastructure. I mean, everybody agrees with that that
the that the significant source of sediment is, you know, that that's all part of the So, we could just start the quotes there and write rewrite the first sentence so it's more to Jim's liking, for example. I mean, you you know what I'm trying to
say? Start the quotes there and at the end, yeah, just start them there. the first paragraph, first sentence, make it not not something that's a quote, but something that's how it's something like this.
We don't want to lose this necessarily, but um Furco's finding that quote drainage infrastructure with within close proximity to the lake is largely non-existent. Storm water mostly reaching through pipes not outlets are
known and a series of formally constructed swailes. Road erosion has been identified as some significant source of sediment contributed to the lake. Yeah, that's good by me by me. That works.
Does that work for everybody? Now, let me just put down here so we could see what's being lost. When they talk about drainage infrastructure, are they talking about the culverts that we don't have culverts around the lake? Either not enough culverts, not the
right sizes, not the right uh flow through culverts, damaged, damaged culverts. It says it's largely non-existent, which means we don't have them. And we do have them. So that then we have to fight with fur cog.
That's a strong statement. It is. And that's been our I think as we went along in our field observations, we observed the same thing. We talked to homeowners like uh property owners like Sue Hoy and um
Joe Gory, Joe Gory and others and observed how water was draining but had no place logical to go. Right? But what I would say is, and again it's a quote, so we can't we can't take it out, but it would have been
better for Furcog to say drainage infrastructure within close proximity to the lake needs to be increased in well, you know, whatever the specifics are, the culverts, the pipes, the whatever, but to say they're not
existent, if I were reading this and I never walked the lake, I would think we wouldn't have anything around the lake. And they're what you're saying, Jen, is that they want we need more of them or we need larger pipes or we need to revisit what's there already. And that's
not saying that. It's saying something totally different. And my best unless I'm reading it wrong. Well, it's not saying it's completely non-existent. It's saying it's largely non-existent. I would say that Bob's hand has been up for a while. Yeah. So, so when I read that, uh I
think of drainage infrastructure as being um the uh uh sedimentation basins and things like that. Uh so that's that that's actually in infrastructure separate from the culverts. It's a a place for the stuff to settle. So that that is what I would call a drainage
structure or drainage infrastructure would be uh would would be that. So I think that's what what they meant when they wrote that. Um I I I granted it is a little bit misleading but but I do believe that is a correct statement that there are very few drainage structures
that actually will will trap sediment and sand. Okay, that's true. And that we that definitely is is true. Like I said, it just struck me odd when I read it. But when they wrote up the road, did they write up Window Road as part of the lake roads?
Yes, they did. Because window road and that whole end, as we all know, when it gets the spring, they the town puts trap rock down for you to drive over. Oh yeah. They don't just put hard path. They put actually stone. Oh yeah. No, it's a totally different
process. Okay. Well, hopefully if we get to this um recommendation where we're doing a jointly prepared uh management plan, those kind of things will get coordinated or we could have funding to get them coordinated.
I'd love to fill the holes at stone. All right, so here we go. Task force has been guided by Furcog's findings that drainage infrastructure is largely non-existent. The storm water mostly le reaching the lake through pipes, etc. Road erosion has been identified as a
potentially significant source of sediment contribution. Are we happy with that? Yes. Yes. Anyone not happy? Should Okay. Should you put culverts in there somewhere as also a or you don't want to
include that as the infrastructure? I want to stick with Ver Cog's quote. Okay, then I'm okay with it. Okay. So, let's have a vote on this um on this change. So, the only change that
were added and this came up I thought this was a valid um this was more informally between Charlene and I and transferring the Lake Wo association's concern that some of these general conclusions weren't attributed to their
sources. And I thought that that was fair and that we should attribute them to the sources. So here we say the task force has been guided by Furcog findings that so it's FURCOG and the task force that are involved in this one. You'll see this
come up in some of the other changes. So let's have a a motion to approve this. I'll make a motion. Okay. Second. Tom. Jim.
Yes. Charlene. Hi. Eric. I Bob. Hi. And me, Jennifer. I Okay. So, so now this thing that we had
in here before about their Sorry, I'm just going to highlight this. This is being removed. So, we no longer need to refer to like Wyola or Elwack as being um in
disagreement with any finding because we're not even mentioning the surface of what's used on the roads. Okay, everyone's good with that. Okay. All right. Then this number two, this
was again a suggestion about attribution. Based on a task force fieldwalks and the conclusions of the furcog plan, there is agreement that to reduce discharge, it's necessary to slow the flow of water from
uphill locations and trace the flow to various discharge points. Everyone okay with that one? Sounds great. Yeah. Okay, we'll do these all together. The attributions task force field walks confirm that sedimentation from storm runoff
originating from town roads and properties on locks pound road and Wendell roads is complicated by the many dirt roads around Lake Wyola. The association has commented that it has limited ability, financial ability, etc.
So this is just additions that attribute these confirmations or comments to their source. So there's no question of who's saying what. Can you change rounds to roads? Oh yeah. Where does it say rounds?
Dirt rounds around the Oh, dirt rounds. Oh, I think Bob mentioned that once that I um ah couldn't find it. I seem to not be able to spell either. Okay,
so everyone okay with these attributions? So, for number three, we'll we're going to remove that last little bit because we're putting it somewhere else. Is that right? Yes. Let me just um put another set of
colors on here as an identification for myself. The only thing we're approving here, I can't use blue because that way it's the highway department. Um are these attributions. So, the ones that are in red
and red is what you added. Is that right? Yeah. Red are things that I've added based on uh various suggestions in conversations with Charlene about how the report didn't attribute um the sources. Okay, everyone okay with this one?
Just a real picky own point. Yeah. On number one. Yeah. Can we get rid of the word natural? is a recipient of storm water sediment. Yep. I'm happy. It's a real estate issue. It's cutting
putting a grid on a hillside that's creating the problem. Okay. All right. So, we're going to vote on everyone's okay with all these attributions. Let's have a motion. I'll move to accept the attributions as written.
Okay. Any seconds? Second. And I'll vote. Jennifer says, "I Tom, hi Jim." Hi, Charlene. Hi, Eric.
Hi. Hi, Bob. Hi. Okay. And Joe Salver. Hi. Oh, yeah. Joe, I don't see you there. Sorry. It's Kathy. And Kathy. Okay. So
um the Lake Whale Association did not concur with this statement. This is again Furcog's statement. Lack of road maintenance and the impacts from snow plowing are um possible causes of the increase in erosion and sedimentation.
I think that's true. I think Lake Wyola does maintain the roads. It might do an incomplete maintenance. They say later, you know, there are financial limitations to their ability to maintain. But yet again, this is in the Furcog
report. So, is it fair to say see Lake Wyola comments in attaching attachment 10? Well, lack of makes them sound like they're doing nothing, right? It does. But again, in other words, we're not even saying here that our task
force agrees. Part of our charge was to look at the FURCOG report and report on the salient aspects to the select board. But again, I think including false statements, even if it's from
Furkcog doesn't doesn't help. So there is road maintenance. I know that I'm out there twice a year doing So, do you think that we should just, you know, this isn't something to highlight from the report if it's not true? We could just delete it.
Uh, you can put um I could live with limited. Okay. Is everyone else okay with limited? Sure. And we could call it Well, let's call it
limited. I think that's fair enough. But I I also think you should put uh annual. I mean because we we do it annually. I mean it's not like we do it every four years or Yep. I think that's fair. And then you
know Lake Association has a longer description and they can refer to attachment 10 to see that. I I think it only because you they're going to be receiving 10 different
documents. Correct, Jen? When this is all done and some people may be very diligent and read through all 10 carefully. So, I think what is put in this first report as to what they see
should really have the impact statements that I think we're looking for as a group. And I would love to see you add on that. It says to refer to whatever number 10 was, but um I I would love you
to put in um something about the financial investment by Lake Wyola. Oh, that's going to be in there. But they have to go to that section to see. Oh, I see what you mean. Right. Okay. But I think if you put it somewhere like I don't know. I just feel there there
has been a s we've gone up, you know, four or $5,000 a year some years on our roads budget because roads are our key. They're they're the most important part of the Lake Wyola association in all
honesty. I think 70% of our budget is roads and we, you know, by putting that it says, well, go ahead and look. Well, what if people don't look? They'll never know how much money and some of the projects have been significantly expensive. And we've done it and gone over our budget um and hope the next
year we can get back to the the zero, you know, loss of money. But I just I would feel better something about the financial. Please refer to the financial investment Lake Wyola has given over the years or whatever.
Well, let's look at this because this is one of the um general conclusions and it says here Lake Wyola is committed. This was your language last time, right? Lake Wy is committed to working with the town and have made many capital improvements. Maybe we can use the
dollar amount that's in there or something that really highlights the significance of those capital improvements rather than just say many highlight many capital improvements. Still refer them to this attachment. Right. Right. Because that's where it's specific. But so
somebody could just add up all the amounts and then say how over how many years that was. And that would be very that would be good. I like that. Um, can I just ask a question? How how many people percentage-wise are in the Lake
Whale Association that live at the lake? Just curious. We know send out, we just talked about this. We sent out 247 letters for to people to become members and as of our last
meeting, we had about 130 plus members. The year before we had 151. So we we have about a hundred people who live around the lake and some of the people live on the lake um and they are not choosing to be members and unfortunately
Eric uh this is the nature of the beast. 50% of the people on the lake are helping to keep those roads the way they are. 50% are not. And it's a dilemma. I've asked about this uh about, you
know, how how does that work with other associations? If we were a homeowners association, that would be a whole different ballgame. Everybody would have to be belong to the uh association, but we're not a homeowners association. We're a nonprofit. So basically we have
50% of the people really caring to put you know our $150 uh dues every year toward the budget which helps helps everybody but we can't get everybody to join and I don't know the reasons why people
don't join. We even have um a condition if you can't financially meet it. We we started that a few years ago, but only two or three people have taken advantage of that. And it's it's a sore subject, I'll be honest, Eric, because when people pay dues, they said they're
they're tired of paying for the freeloaders, for lack of a better word. Um, and what do you do about it? Nobody really Yeah. I mean, I'm I'm sort of thinking about the about the other towns people in town who are going to say, you know, looking down the road, like if we were
to invest in money in these in the Lake Wyola roads, it would be like or or whatever we're doing here. I mean, um, people would be saying, well, I mean, I don't know. The same thing you're asking, that's all. I just asked that question. Well, it's it's a
special interest group of people and yeah, you know, and and but the lake is owned by the town. So, right, that's where the dilemma for you is. Oh, I know. I know. I know. It's a very complicated situation. We're hoping that I mean, so here's the
here's the fantasy that we get this engineering study. The um engineering study proposes mitigation measures, some of which will be items that are townsp specific, some will be association
specific, and some will be joint. the ones that are and and then we'll start pursuing funding for improve for mitigation measures that can be used by a nonprofit used in combination between a municipal
government and a nonprofit, you know. So, we're not going to be raising money for these mitigation me measures totally from dues, right? Oh, no. Absolutely not. But that's the fantasy anyway. But here's what I'm proposing, Charlene.
Yeah. Lake Wyola is association's committed to working with the town and has since 2020. That's what your report shows. Made significant capital improvements totaling and I'll add up the dollar amounts that you all have um
itemized here. There's the the list. Would that be would that address your concerns? Yes, that that'd be great. And those are accurate numbers because I know um Kate worked with Bob Blanchett and got those
numbers specifically from the treasurer. So those are those are accurate. Okay. So this voting on all these things is getting ownorous. I guess we have I guess we have to do that, right? Yeah.
Um okay. So a motion to approve this sentence as revised. Providing I do my addition correctly. I'll do it four times. I'll add it up four different times. Just take the bigger one. Yeah. Right. Okay. A motion.
Section five. Yes. I'll move for that. Or sorry, did somebody say that? I'll second it. Second. Okay. Eric. I Jim. Hi. Charlene. Hi, Tom.
Oh, here are Tom. Tom. TomTom. Hi, Tom. Hi. and Jennifer I. Okay, we're almost Joe, where are you? Kathy, Joe, I'm sorry, don't see you there. Okay. All right, so
now this is pretty straightforward. The the association asks that we add this as a recommendation. Furcog's dirt rope management handbook recommends the municipal highway departments develop a designated area
for storing sandy soil. association would like to work with the town on this issue. Of course, let's put that in there. Why not? Sure. Okay. So, I make a motion that we add
this one. Any seconds? Second. Second. Okay. Eric. I. Jim. Hi. Charlene. Hi, Bob. I Joe I
Wallace I But where is Tom? Hi. Okay, good. Okay, so this was one that's also kind of tricky. Well, I'm going to replace the existing attachment to with the new one,
which you've all seen. It's in the materials that I sent to you, but it's much more comprehensive. Uh and then we have public education recommendations and in there is this statement which again is a
furcog statement. It appears um in multiple places in the report that um there is an impact from boat wakes on sedimentation. Now Furcog does say it it deserves
further study. Our report said education for all boat owners about the impact of boat wakes on sedimentation, lake depths and vegetation growth. LWA
uh doesn't like the idea of focusing on boat owners and they want it just to be public should be educated. The public in general should be educated about sedimentation, lake depths, etc.
Um, I will say personally that I think I think it's fair to to not single out boat owners, but I think there is enough research on lakes in other states that shows that boat wakes themselves have a
significant impact on sedimentation and configuration of lake bottoms, including a habitat study that was done for the town of Shutesbury in 2020. 21 that identified the impact of boat wakes and boat motors on lake bottoms.
I think it would be negligent not to include that, but I think we can make it more inclusive and more fair by saying something like this. Uh we would change this to uh the
recommendation to conduct additional research and facilitate education initiatives about the impact of boat wakes and other offshore activities on sedimentation, lake depth and vegetation growth.
I know for sure that Kong is interested in this offshore effects of sedimentation. I've seen it right on my shoreline. We have a different depth now at the water of maybe three inches because of
accumulated sand. I I have the problem with beavers that have been eating all the trees around the edge, which causes the same thing. It loosens the banks up, right? I think I think all of what you're putting in here should be addressed in a
whole separate study and not part of this study. Right. So that's why one of the um ideas is to well we put this under public ed public public outreach and education but that we should conduct additional
research and facilitate education about the impact not just of wakes but other offshore activities and I could put such as beaver activity. I don't think this for me just saying general education about sedimentation
and lake depths that's kind of repeating what we're already doing right our whole recommendation is about effects of sedimentation but most of what we've been talking about is offshore sedimentation and here we're trying to address
sedimentation that's coming from the water side whether it's beavers or boats or any other that's I tried to open that up to let that be um other offshore activities. My take on my take on it is that we
didn't discuss this part of it and all our other walkarounds and stuff. It's true. And I'm not that's why I'm not comfortable with it. But because there's different different parts. I know the com has been working with all of this. I know the uh voting committee has been
working with different parts of this. But our committee since I've been on it, we've never talked about that. Good point. I think I would leave it to the committees that are already working on it. That's why I'm not comfortable with it. Okay. So, what do we do then? Well,
Charlene, your hand is up while I try to locate this other place. And and I know you've heard this from me, but I don't I don't think anyone else on the committee has heard it. I' I've been reading about boat wakes because you know in all of the reports that we've seen through Furcog it's
negative negative negative and I thought certainly if it's been so negative negative negative why are boats still allowed on lakes well there's there are two reasons one is aation and one is circulation um what it says is the
oxygen levels stay near the top of the water and when boat motors go through areas of a lake, it actually pushes the oxygen down which helps all the living things that are in the you know greater depths of that lake and um circulation.
I think I know I was just talking to somebody two days ago. They cannot believe how much more um growth they have of vegetation in front of their house. They've never had it like they have it now. There's like those green I don't even know what they are, but you
know, you can't swim through it. You wouldn't want to swim through it. And people are wondering why do we have more of that being seen around the lake and this is a personal opinion. I think it's because we don't have as much u boating activity that we we we've had for years
and maybe that's causing some of this. We we have it in like by our house. We there's no way you can swim through it. And um so the my point is that boat well this is says wakes but boats in general
can have a positive effect on waterways as well as negative but um I I don't think this the furcog report gives any justification for the positives and I I'm disappointed in that because I'm one
who believes in showing all sides of the the coin and then making an informed decision. And I don't think that has been allowed with the voting part. And I I do think and I I I've said this to Jen um in another discussion that you know
the voting situation is a very uh uh important thing to consider because of uh what the town just went through for the last year. So I I just feel I I agree totally with Joe. We haven't had a lot of discussion on it, but yet it's a
an important recommendation that you know is going in a report and I I don't know if this is the place to put it. I would say no as well. So, so let me just um Okay, let me see. Okay, going to Furcog.
So, these are two places in the F we can ignore the Furcog report. Mhm. You know, I agree that this probably this recommendation itself probably deserves to go in a recommendation of ours, not in the public education
because that implies that we've already studied things and now we're ready to educate the public. If we're saying we need to conduct additional research, it probably should go in the recommendation section. But here's a place in Furcog's report
where they talk about impairments and pollution pollution sources. Other possible sources include boat rakes. That's one place. The other is another place in boat wakes where more study is needed to clarify
the role in streamline erosion. I don't think we could ignore this and just erase it. I also know based on on pond dynamics and maybe Bob you'd be a good uh good source on this is that one
reason we have more plant material is that the the the bottom of the lake is getting the lake is getting shallower and shallower in certain places because of sedimentation and the sun is now reaching the bottom there which is
allowing these plants to grow. Bob, is that not how you know pond dynamics work? Maybe we lost. It is part of uh nature's plan for every pond as disappointing as it is that
eventually sediment comes in and uh the the growth increases and it becomes utrophic. Uh so um uh that that is natural. you know, for recreational lakes like Lake Wyola, it's, you know, we're not happy about it that the the
cove is filling in and and other things like that. So, um, but, um, and because the the water is getting shallow, you're absolutely right. You've got that, uh, vegetation, that fresh sediment, uh, plants grow on it, and it does start to to choke out the the pond for sure. Um,
I just wanted to kind of reiterate something that Charlene said that uh the arration is is is important for a lake. Um, you you might see ponds like I I think maybe the campus pond has a a fountain in it that that constantly circulates to to oxygenate the water.
Um, so that is absolutely true. That's something that boats do. I do think it is important though that we do include boat wakes uh in the in the document because it is it is something that's mentioned in the um uh in the fur cog
documentation and uh you know perhaps there or perhaps somewhere else but I I I think that is a conclusion that needs to be uh voiced in what we sent on to the select board. So, so in light of all of this, and
there's still discussion open. No, I'm not moving on. I just wanted to put this out there. um getting that out of public education and saying for example that one of our recommendations
so this is now under the section called task force recommendations conduct additional research and facilitate subsequent initiatives about the impact of boat wakes and other shore offshore activities such as beaver
activity on sedimentation lake depths and um vegetation growth And that just then becomes it honors Furcog saying we need to study this more but it doesn't bury it and ignore it or erase it all together.
So Jim you had a comment. I just wanted to say that I I really agree with Joe for this to kind of come up at the end without a lot of discussion beforehand um and include it. And as you said, it's
in the Furcog report. So, it is part of what's getting submitted. Um but I don't know about bringing it forward at this late date. I just I don't know enough about it. I at this point of uh
because I haven't studied it and I and saying it needs to be studied. I mean, you know, there's any number of committees in the town that actually can take this up. Um okay. So,
so I guess I'm trying to we could take a vote on this. You know, if what we're doing is saying, do we think now again we're starting with Furkco has made a bunch of recommendations. Our task force
hasn't visited the concept of offshore erosion. um we've only looked and we could say that you know the task force hasn't done any field observations or anything like that but it is mentioned in the Furcog
report that more research is needed on this activity that would be fair too you know we're pointing it out as something that we believe is deserving of additional research but we haven't done this research ourselves or included that in any of our work
that seems there. But I guess the the ultimate question is do we think it's important to highlight for the select board that there are offshore there are possibly offshore sources of sedimentation that need to be
studied. I guess I would say I would say yes. How about um you know it' be nice to get a consensus but Joe and Jim do you feel like if we phrased it something like that while the task force hasn't studied
this directly the Furcog report does mention this and we're in support of doing additional research. Can we just say the Furog report mentions it? And because I'm a little hesitant again having not really
discussed this much um of saying that I support it. I can imagine that I would support it had I looked into it and um knew something about it, but I'm again not So you wouldn't support you couldn't This is fair. I'm just trying to get
Could you support the idea that we need to do additional research or not even go that far? I could support saying the Furcog report includes uh lake erosion and what's your phrase
there? Um would go here then? And that um no and just leave it there. Just so this is now in the section that's called general conclusions. So the fur cog
report identifies the need for additional research about the impact of boat wakes and other offshore activities such as beaver activity on sedimentation, lake depths, and vegetation growth. They don't say anything about beaver
activity, but yeah. And and does that seem fair to you, Jim? I can go with that. How about you, Joe? Yeah, I could I could go with that.
And um Charlene, you were part of the Lake While Association that had an issue with that. Can you go with that? Um I'm going to say no. Um only because they honestly the group uh was very concerned
as to why it was highlighted in our task force report. I mean, why are we what is the significance of making it a number seven if it's already in the furcog and people read it, they'll see it anyway? But to
to sort of pull it out of fur cog and make it jump at you by making sure they know about those boat waves, again, I I I for lack of a better term, I just don't want to see any kind of agenda being promoted by our group. I am I'
I've never been for that. And I I don't want to see I don't want to even think that that might be happening. So my my concern is why are we highlighting it when it's in the report and we're we're saying what Jim said and Joe. We haven't discussed it but yet we're bringing it
out in the open and making sure it's in that first look. And I I think that's I don't know why we're doing that. I guess could could you could you put somewhere in there that Furcog has other recommendations and address it for people if they want
to see some of the other recommendations they'll read that part of that report in it instead of us addressing it because we've never talked about I like what Charlene was talking about I mean I agree or don't agree I just want to know
more about it and by people want to know because Furkog is going to have and the Furkcog report. There's other things in there that are not going to be listed here, too. So, if they want to read deferred COG report, they can find that. So,
so I guess when I'm when I'm listening, I'm thinking back to our charge. I'm always trying to go back to what's our charge and are we fulfilling our mission as defined by the select board.
So, we're called the storm water erosion task force, right? We're not called the lake sedimentation task force. And maybe that's the point that Jim and Charlene and Joe have been trying to make, right? That that we have been
focused on um onshore effects of sedimentation. That's fair, right? But do we think as a task force though that though that has been our
focus that it is important for the select board to um it is important for us to highlight that we are also becoming aware that other
things besides storm water erosion causes sedimentation and to highlight that for the select Because if what we're trying to do is eventually come up with mitigation measures, you know, there may be things that it won't be our role necessarily,
but it could be Elwax rule or some other part of town government's role to deal with offshore sources of sedimentation. Do you understand the distinction that I'm trying to make here? Yeah. What what if we just took the like
the the concept of boat wakes out of this whole thing? That seems to be that's obviously the the buzzword phrase or whatever. I mean, what if we just said that we understand there's a need for additional research?
What offshore sedimentation blah blah blah? I mean, that's that's I don't know. Does that make sense? It might. I like that one. How do you feel about that? Yeah. Yeah. I could go with that. Yeah. Yes. Because the ultimate goal is to
educate everybody uh you know as to how important it is to look for these um conditions and prevent them from causing any kind of you know damage to any of the waterways. So because well that's why we put in that's if you
look back with our original statement it's basically saying what was just written. Yeah. without the offshore part, right? And we put the public. I think we had the public. Yeah. But here's, you know, I think it's it's right to say that we wouldn't
necessarily propose education before we've done the research. So, I think this seems right. I mean I think uh the impact of offshore sedimentation, lake depths and because Furcog has also identified pollutions, phosphorus
sources and fertilizer sources and other things, but those are all runoff, right? That's my point. Yeah. Yeah. I would put a I would put an and in front of vegetation growth, too. Yes. Just the way just grammatically. I believe that's more correct. It is
more correct if it's spelled correctly. Especially if my mother, the English teacher, were alive. She Oh, no. Where is she? Let's get her over here. She's no longer with us. It's probably just as well when you're doing your mother's English teacher. My goodness.
Yeah. All right. So, no, my mother, the English teacher, Tom. Oh, thanks. Is it about the impact of offshore activities on or Yes.
Okay. Oops. Okay. Can we vote on this number seven? Here's the addition of number seven. It's being moved from the public education um document and entirely doesn't exist
activity spelled right there. I don't think it is. No eyes. Is that the end? I'm going too fast. Oh, sorry. Okay. Where is that public education? It's being eliminated from there. Some of that English teacher rubbed off on you there, Eric. You picked that up right away.
Oh, I know. Yeah, really. All right. So, here's the only place it appears and this is how it appears. We ready. Okay, let's have a motion. I'll motion it. Second.
Okay, so we'll go in reverse order this time. Bob, I Jim, I. Joe, I. Eric, I. Charlene, I. Tom, I. And Wallace is I.
Okay, that's great. So, other than now we're already at 9:00 and we have this little language about Fiskbrook to do. I would really like to get this report approved for sending. Um, but there's
one more little bit here. Uh we got the comments from the highway department and um this is in reference to the short-term maintenance and management recommendations
and this is the inclusion of the commission's um wish to meet with either or a highway department or lake association. and then the place in the report where it is um where Dave has provided
all of his comments is in here. So, the way that I did this was we had said in our short-term maintenance thing that items like assess ditches on Locks Pond
Road and we we attributed that to the highway department review the west side and we attributed that to the highway department and then Dave responds to those directly. What are his comments about each of those? Same thing with we said they should
recommend methods to reduce the flow of water from the culverts at 333. He says this is his opinion on that. So I felt that was the best way of incorporating uh the highway department's comments
on this um short-term maintenance and recommendations. And I would put in C attachment 10 for their comments on items one through seven. The Lake While Association didn't comment on any of their items, so I just put in they haven't commented on on
items 7 to 11. Those are the ones that were attributed to them. Um, is that sufficient for you all? Well, the one issue is number seven. Yes.
I think the water bar has been raised on great pines following uh Furcog's noting that it would be necessary. Is that a think or a certainty? I'm certain.
Okay. Um I've been involved in repairing it once so that it's there. Um Raised or lowered? It was raised. Raised. Okay.
And there's a retention pond at the end of it. The lower end of it. Right. Okay. Can you just scroll down to 9 and 10 because I'm trying to remember what was in the Okay, wait a minute. And I know I brought this up at the
meeting, but it didn't seem to be anything of significance, but I'll just bring it up. Bring it up. I brought it up at the Lake Wyola meeting. The Laurels are are private. South and North Laurel are private roads owned by I
believe one family and right now it's in discussion to be purchased by another family and then possibly given to the Lake Wyola Association uh gifted to the Lake Wyola Association. So when you have that information in there about the
north and south laurels like as of today we don't Lake Wyola association does not own those roads however we have agreed to maintain them and I know when there's been uh some need for some larger
expense changes in that area and Tom you live in that area so you can correct me if I'm wrong. I believe different families pitch in money and they repair uh whatever is being discussed. So that's how that area has been handled.
But they are technically not right now th those roads are not owned by the Lake Wyola Association. I understand. So that's why it says ownership issues complicated. Yes. Yes. Is that adequate for you? Um
yeah I g I guess. Yes. Yes. Okay. But I don't know if you Well, there's no need to say that we've agreed to maintain them for the time being, but never mind. Don't bother putting that in. Okay.
All right. So, so that now the only thing we have left then we do have this. Oh, Jennifer, can you go back to that for one second? Where was I then? Oh, that was number
nine, right? Yeah. Just a really small addition. Yes. And the yellow highlighted part. Would you put conservation commission? The first time it says commission identify it. Thanks. All right. So, we're all okay with
number nine. Number nine. Number nine. Could you show it again? Okay, good. Can we have a motion? I move it. I second.
Bob, I Tim. I Joe. Hi, Eric. Hi, Darlene. Hi, and Tom. Hi, Madam Chair. Yes. I'd like to know if I'm the only one who
got the number nine joke. I heard it. Nobody left. Oh, I missed it. You got some old people. That's good. Yeah, that's right. Thank you. I'm glad it didn't go on deaf ears.
All righty. So, here's the problem now. It's already nine o'clock. You guys are putting in a long hours. I don't know whether advise me on how you wish to handle this addition of um
Mark Rivers comments on Fiskbrook so that everybody can be happy with it without kind of word smithing it here. Should we meet one more time then we have to delay our report? I was really hoping to get our report to the select board. They're hoping to get a
presentation from us. Um, probably it will end up being in September because the one meeting that they have in August is uh not I'll be out of town that meeting.
So, we could, you know, I could draft some language for the Fisbrook part and we'd have a very short meeting just to address that. Like not wait a whole month to do it, but do it next week or something like that.
Um I need We're talking about item three that Yeah. Well, we're talking about incorporating um Mark's need about Fisbrook and and it probably has to go in certain places and I don't you know I need to focus on it
without all these colors and whatnot to get the language right so that it's clear what we're where we're putting it. It's not as easy to move it around. So, I mean, we could have a a quick additional meeting, you know, next week or the week after,
for example. That would be hard to make. Okay. Do you think it's something we could just soldier through here? Uh, Madam Chair, if you guys have the energy for here, do it. Yeah. All right. Well, before we get to that,
then let me just cover a couple of um important points. Um so so I'm hoping we can approve this tonight. I will send it along with all the relevant attachments to the select board. Uh we will have a presentation
with them early September probably. Uh we also have this webinar that's coming up on August 12th where a lot of information will be conveyed. Yeah, I don't know how many of the select board would be planning to attend. Um,
next Friday, next sat next Sunday and Tuesday are these events that we're having, the outdoor um indooroutdoor hands-on activities event. And then on the 12th is the webinar.
So, we have some cool things set up for this August 10th event. We have um the two stream and watershed dynamic tables. Bob is going to do something on water filtration. Weed watchers is going to set up their own table and do their
invasive plant identification as part of our whole environmental thing. Uh Furcog is going to raffle off a book by a local author about um native plants and natural landscaping.
uh ice cream. We're going to have ice cream, a field walk to observe uh drainage and um I hope we get a turnout. So, I've been really trying to advertise it and I know
that Haley at the town administrator has been sending it around to the whole town of Shutesbury. Some our elected officials have been invited. Uh so I hope that um that we'll get a good turnout and then
uh those of you who are volunteering which I think is Bob and Tom Joe uh Charlene are you going to be able to volunteer? Okay. I also have a I have a raffle prize that anybody who attends um
I have a leftover raffle prize from the uh the road race and I already talked to the road race organizers and they said use it wherever you want. So I'll bring it and we can raffle it off. Let's raffle it. We could just for attending you can get your name
drawn and you can get a $35 thing. That and that's kind of what this uh this book would be too. Also, if your uh Furcohog is bringing a big roll of paper and a bunch of markers and stuff and they want to make a banner or a
mural that says why I love Lake Wyola and all the kids and anybody can write and draw things about what they love about Lake Wyola. Um, so they're going to set that up at the bar, I guess. I I have a question. Yeah. Since I'm doing ice cream, I've
been looking at ice creams and I I want to run this by the committee. Instead of doing is digging out ice cream individually, how about ice cream sandwiches? Perfect. They're doing something simple because people are going to be wanting to walk
around and it and if they go outside to look at stuff, it's easier for them to grab. Plus, it's only an hour and a half. So, I'm all for ice. I'm all for ice cream sandwiches. I figured it would be easier somebody to grab. No, you don't need no cups or
nothing. I checked on Rocky Road, but the problem is it's got nuts in it and nut allergies. Not a good thing. Yeah, that's not a good thing. I didn't forget it. No, that's that's true. Well, good. I haven't been I was excited about that rocky road, but that's true.
May I quickly add to that, Joe, if it's okay for a second? Um I don't know the turnout we're going to get, but like I can't eat dairy. I didn't know if maybe like Italian ice cups or something else as a supplement might be doable. If you if you want one, I'll get you one.
It doesn't matter to me either way, honestly. I don't know if I'll even eat during the event, but um I just thought of it now. Some people can't eat. Yeah, that's true. Well, maybe they have non-dairy ice cream, too. Yeah, I think they do. I think they um I
think the ice cream get an assortment. All right. So, um, those of you who are volunteering, if you can come at 9:00 or or close to 9:00, I know Charlene's going to help open the hall at 9:00. Uh, Tamson's going to come at 9:00. We'll
set up some tables. Uh, and the people who are running the Furcog stream and watershed tables need some training. She's going to train you on those. We need to hook up to their water and electric and stuff like that. So, if you
can come as close to 9 or 9:30 as possible, that would be good. Um, those of you who are going to help out with the uh webinar, I think that's going to be Jim and myself and Tom possibly. Uh
if you want to, you don't have to, but I'm going to have a Zoom meeting with Tamson on the Friday the uh 8th to look at to just have a kind of a not a whole dry run, but just to get all our
ducks in a row. She's available anytime on the 8th up until 6 o'clock. So, if either Jim or um or Tom can join us, that would be great. But I know you're busy and maybe not um able to. But
you could send me your available times if you can do it Friday. Send those to me separately and I'll communicate with you. Okay. Out of the meeting. Okay. Good. All right. So, let's try and craft this language here.
What section of the document are we in now? Is it the attribute? Yeah. He wants see recommendations. Okay. Well, but see it doesn't correspond. So in this section, historically, Fisbrook has been the largest source of sediment
contamination. He is referring to something called item three, but the it could be this item three where it talks about how storm water travels and I think he wants the Elwack comment to be here.
So we could simply pull this right out. Actually, it can all be part of the same. This is possible. You know, this is a different size, but what if it said something like what we said and then historically Fiskbrook has
been the largest sort of sediment contamination. this section. Oh, and then based on the geomorphic study, the report might need to be updated to address issues that that
study identified. I I'm not sure how that relates really, but it could be something like uh based on the geomorphic study um there should be a section on Fiskbrook
stating that BMPs should be implemented. I I need help with trying to figure out how to incorporate Mark's comment here. So, all the all the green is Mark's comment. That's right. We don't need this general recommendation
and I don't know what it means when it refers to this report. Um it's not our report wouldn't be updated but um the geomorphic study should include best management practices and
those should be implemented as but that kind of goes without saying you know what I mean maybe it's just this I'm just going to remove this for a minute historically Fiskbrook has been the largest source of sediment
contamination. And that was from Furcog, correct? No, this is a statement of marks. Marks. Yeah. And then he says based on the geomorphic study our report might need to be updated to
address issues that and of you know it's not that this report would be up updated is that any future work on on storm water erosion should include Fisk Brook. That's a
Are we sure that's where it goes? It looks like it doesn't even fit into number three. I know. And then but that's where he put it. Item three. I mean, it does kind of fit in that this is talking about the sources of
sentimentation, right? Mhm. But if we have the study done the geommorph then it's going to be it updated. It
that's what I that's what I thought too. Um, you could just assert that yes, it will be the the Z study will update, you know, blah blah blah. Does he mean maybe that
other sources, major sources of sedimentation will be identified once this geomorph study is done? Is that maybe what he's saying? No, I think he's trying to make sure that Fiskbrook doesn't get lost. Oh, okay.
Yeah, I think that's his main that's his main object. It is mentioned here in seven, right? Fiskbrook. Yes. So, does this include perhaps maybe what he's saying already or I think the Can you not scroll seven
away for a second? Yeah, sorry. It's okay. I'm just trying to read it. So he wants this based on the geomorphic study. I think maybe uh recommended BMPPS
should be implemented. Yeah, I think that's right. I think that's what he's after, right? Mhm. Mhm. Um recommended BMP's
should be implemented. We don't need this item three. So this would be a separate recommendation. This would in essence I've just stuck it in here, but it should probably go is number 12.
Number 14. Historically, Fiskbrook has been the largest sort of sediment contamination based on the geomorphic study. um BMPPS
recommended by that study should be implemented. May I make a suggestion? Yes. How about something like where Fisk Brook has been identified as another source of sediment contamination as opposed to the historically and the
largest because I just don't know that we've ever had that found. Yeah, I I agree with that. Well, the the damn break, at least what I've heard, is what created it. So, it it right is an an event rather than a slow
process. So, I see. So, stick with what he put then. What did he say? The largest source. Oh, yeah. I just don't know what that's based on.
You just say a large source. Yeah. Yeah, that's what I think. That would be easier to support the word source after large. And I should just say BMPPS
are recommended by the geomorphic study should be implemented, right? Geomorphic. Are we happy with that? Yep. Yeah. Okay.
I make a motion we accept that change. Second. Second. Uh, let's have a vote. Bob Douglas. Hi. Jim Moore. Hi. C. Joe Salvador.
Got you. I'm okay. Joe. Yeah. All right. Charlene. Hi. Hi, Tom. We all No one remembers their names anymore. I comment Eric. I Wallace. I Okay.
So, do we need once I make all these changes official and get rid of all the colors? Do we need to see this one more time? We voted on each one individually. Are you all feeling comfortable with having me just make the changes we approved
tonight and sending it on or do you feel like you want to see it one more time? I I would be comfortable leaving it in your skilled hands. I'll make a motion to that. Agreed. Okay. Okay. Good. Let's do it. So, um,
you might just want to send it out so people could identify typos if there are any typos, but that's all the only reason I do it. Yeah, I know. I do have a tendency to have typos, but Well, everybody does. Yeah.
Now, are you going to send it to all the organizations, too? Yes, then. Okay. Yes. Um, okay. Well, I will send it out to everybody for the purpose of typos with a little time limit of yeah, please get back and you know I guess
well we have all those attachments too but um hopefully those have been vetted already. Okay. So, uh, we have the motion to to that this will be converted to our final report and that will be
sent out for editorial review of typos and grammatical issues. And after that, I have your approval to send it on to the select board and to the relevant organizations who help to review it.
I think that's outstanding. Okay. So, um, Bob votes. Hi. I, Eric, I Charlene, I Tom, I Joe, I Jim,
I Wallace. Oh, hi. All right. So, we might not have to meet again. At least not right now. Um, I think there's a rule that for a committee to
be disbanded, you have to have one kind of official disbanding meeting. I need to um review that with Grace or Haley. Uh, and once I do, then I'll send around some possible dates to do that. It would
be very brief if it's necessary and sort of our official um waiting to see what our next um iteration might be and how the select board might want to work with all of these findings.
Eric, can I ask you a question about um this report? Will this have to in any way go before the town at a special town meeting for a vote or is this just something that's sort of gets uh
hammered out by the select board? My belief is it's that this was basically a committee appointed by the select board and this would just go to the select board. It's not to say that it couldn't be available at special town meeting. It's it's not anything secret about it.
You know what I mean? It's not so anybody could we could see it. No, I just didn't know if it things like that have to get um approval at at town meeting. No. Okay. I don't think so. I don't think this would. And I expect that after um the
select board gets this report and they've already asked that that we do a kind of verbal presentation that we will all maybe we wouldn't disband probably officially makes sense until we do that presentation but we
won't have a meeting in in August. Um, we'll probably have a presentation meeting to go over these findings sometime uh in September and then we'd likely hear from the select board about what they think our next steps ought to
be. And and I know some of you have thrown in your hat to say, "Yeah, we're definitely in on whatever happens next." And others want to wait and see what happens with the engineering report. So, when are we supposed to find out about the grant again?
Yeah. Um they say sometime in October because that basically no money you don't get nothing done. Right. Right. So we need to do some um I mean one role that I think we would have and I expect this is something that the select board
might ask us is what do you think should happen next? and I think starting to research additional funding sources both for engineering in case the um RDF doesn't come through but also implementation funding would be an
important next step. Um yeah, my guess is we'd want to get like Joe Cmerford and people like that involved and seeing if there could be anything if she knew of anything grantwise coming down the road. She's
really good at that stuff. I know. And that's why um I was happy that Haley um sent out an invitation for them to attend. Yeah. The webinar certainly and also the event on the weekend which may or may not work
for their schedules, but hopefully they could come uh to the webinar where they'll get a lot of stuff. And you know this is also I don't know what the role they have in other than the letters of support they've already written for our grant application right but um this I don't know either
these initiatives that we're doing with FUROB uh next week or two weeks from now um are part of what what our application says we're going to do. So the fact that we're already following up on that is a shows we have a track record and we're
serious about it. So, I wanted them to know about it. Just for the record, I'm going to be out of town for that uh thing on the 12th. So, I'm not I'm not sitting here quiet just hiding. I just I'm not going to be here. You deserve to be out of town. Yeah. Really,
Tom? Um about money. Um is it chipping in for the ice cream or anything? Because I can do that. I wasn't sure who's paying for all of that. Yeah, I volunteered to chip in too. I think we're waiting to hear from Joe how that goes, but thank you, Tom. And I
volunteered to to chip in, too. Okay, I'm all set. Oh, good. All right. Well, then I think uh for now, um thank you for your hard work and thank you for putting up with
me and any of my things that make it hard to I think you did a good job. And I would I've been on many town committees over the course of time. This has been a very good committee. I can tell you. And that's a lot to do with you, Jen. So, I really think that that's
Keep it coming. Yeah. More more. Yeah. Right. Keep going. Her earphones are starting to get a little expanded. Yeah, that's right. I know. No, I really appreciate everybody's input and everybody's ideas and just stick tuitiveness. So, I think um I'm
really proud of our work and I think it shows, you know, I think we've we're producing a good I have a question. Yeah. Because you've been dealing with the grants and everything. If the Lake Wyola roads, like if any of them were owned by
the town, would be better for granting for grants? Well, there are a small slice of grants that are available to um of of these public grants that are available to nonprofit
groups. There's a much larger percentage that are available to municipalities. Some are available for both municipalities and nonprofit groups. Um I Right. And I believe I believe things like chapter 90 funds which the town
gets every year. Yeah. As re you know that's their sort of chunk from the state can I think can go really to any kind of road repairs. So that are owned by you mean that are municipally owned roads. Yeah. Yeah. If if they're municipally owned roads they could go they could go
to that. So to answer Joe's question yes we could get more money I think. Well it's something to keep in our keep in keep in uh our mind. Well, here's where I want to put number 15. Eric says that the Eric
says the town should buy all the roads for a dollar. Didn't you say that? I second that. Was wait a minute. I think I must have been drunk. Really? Did I say that? Oh, yeah. You did say that. Oh, I second that motion. We should think about it.
Oh, yeah. You did. You did say you should We should think about We should put that as a recommend. We should put that as a re Yeah, I want to put it there. Number 15. Think about it. how rumors start. No, it's true. You did say think about it. That's corrected on a recorded line.
I mean, the one thing I would say this though, if we did do it, I mean, and I'm not advocating it, but if if we did do it, I believe one of the problems is that we would have to bring a lot of the roads up to standards that are not I'm not even sure
they're possible to do it on some of the roads there. And I mean, I live on a dirt road. Believe me, I know that we have low standards, but I think there is there are still some standards with how wide the road has to be and blah blah blah. You know, there are things that have to
happen, right? Well, we need like the great grandfather clause, right? And then, you know, if you if you accept the Lake Wyola roads, then you have to se select all uh accept all the roads down on the Sumar Mountain side of
town. And you know, next thing you know, the town's got, you know, a4 million dollars worth of roads every year that's got to fix every, you know, it's just great. You know what I mean? It just get goes down that road. I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, but it's complicated. Well, I'm not going to list it here
right now. That'll be phase two. Right. Put that invisible link. Yeah. Right. I was going to send you a magic marker. Yeah. You need a magic marker for that deal. So, is this still being recorded?
Yeah, it's recorded. I'm gonna I could stop my screen sharing. Okay. Thank you everybody. Thank you everyone. Thank you. We'll see you on August 10 if that's okay. And uh thank you for everything again and uh I will send that out for typos in
the near future. I'll second Tom's uh motion to adjurnn. Okay. Uh Charlene I. Wallace. I sefort. Hi Eric. Okay.
Jim. Okay. Too hi Andrew. Hi. Okay. Meeting adjourned at Oh my god. 9:26. Well, we did it anyway. Okay. Right. Thanks, everybody. Okay. Have a good night.
Good night, everyone. Night.