The Lock and Dam removal project dominated the meeting’s discussions, highlighting its potential benefits for migratory fish passage and ecological enhancement. Jill Griffiths from Gomez and Sullivan outlined the project’s goals, which include dismantling concrete structures like the spillway, abutments, and fish ladder. The removal will facilitate the creation of a pilot channel, allowing sediment to naturally replenish downstream areas. The project, which has been in development since 2010, promises to lower flood levels upstream and eliminate risks associated with dam failure. The commission reviewed the project’s alignment with the Wetlands Protection Act, noting its anticipated improvements in water quality and wildlife habitat.

The commission also addressed procedural aspects related to the project’s regulatory requirements. The discussion included the need for a 401 Water Quality Certificate and other permits essential for proceeding with specific conditions. Susie, a representative from the Massachusetts Division of Ecological Restoration, provided updates on the certification process, acknowledging potential delays. The commission considered continuing the public hearing to February 4th to ensure all procedural requirements are met without rushing the process.

In addition to regulatory compliance, the meeting highlighted collaborative efforts among various stakeholders, including state and federal agencies and local nonprofits. The project aims to operate during low flow periods, with a comprehensive water control plan to manage potential flooding during construction. Restoration efforts will involve loaming and seeding disturbed upland areas with native seed mixes, supported by an invasive species management plan to address concerns such as purple loosestrife.

The anticipated construction timeline, set for summer and fall of 2025, underscores the project’s complexity and the need for careful coordination among parties involved.

Beyond the Lock and Dam project, the commission also examined other environmental matters. A significant topic was the enforcement order related to 333-332 Riverview Drive, where unpermitted drainage work had been completed to alleviate historical flooding issues. The commission deliberated the jurisdictional implications and the necessity of mitigating the impacts of channelized water flow. Members acknowledged the challenges in defining resource areas, balancing regulatory adherence with practical solutions to local water management problems.

The commission agreed on a planting schedule for 30-32 Riverview Drive, proposing a minimum of 15 shrubs to enhance ecological benefits. This decision followed a review of proposed mitigation measures, highlighting the commission’s focus on effective environmental stewardship.

In another agenda item, the commission discussed the procedural aspects of multiple projects, including the 55 Pearon Drive proposal for a sewage disposal system and single-family home construction. The project was deemed straightforward, with additional erosion control measures recommended. The commission emphasized the importance of ensuring compliance with environmental regulations while facilitating local development.

Members engaged in discussions, weighing the potential impacts of various projects and considering community feedback.