Chris Lyman, the lead civil engineer from Howard Stein Hudson, presented the project details, emphasizing the need for the bridge replacement. The current bridge, spanning 26 feet, is marked with barrels indicating failing trusses and deemed unsafe. The new bridge, designed to be 32 feet wide, will not only ensure structural safety but also enhance environmental conditions by widening the stream channel, facilitating better aquatic passage, and improving water flow beneath the bridge.

The project includes significant temporary and permanent environmental impacts. Temporary impacts involve 571 square feet of land underwater, 7,289 square feet of Riverfront areas, and 85 feet of bank areas, primarily from replacing existing bridge abutments. Permanent impacts include 1,662 square feet to Riverfront areas, 12 feet to banks, and 32 cubic yards of dredging. These impacts are necessary for bank stabilization and the construction of sidewalks and pedestrian ramps.

Lyman’s presentation also covered an alternative analysis for the bridge design. The chosen design, alternative two, provides a 32-foot span with a 26-foot channel, achieving the required two feet of freeboard. Other alternatives were dismissed due to cost and structural concerns, including potential impacts on nearby historic structures and properties.

An essential component of the project is the development of a turtle protection plan by a certified wildlife biologist, with adherence to timing restrictions to avoid impacting sensitive periods for local wildlife. The project’s order of conditions will incorporate such environmental safeguarding measures. Construction will maintain the existing stream bed, avoiding any diversion or bypassing of water flow, thus ensuring the stream’s continued operation throughout the project.

The meeting also addressed concerns about the use of Coffer dams—temporary barriers used during construction to redirect water flow. Past projects had issues where fabric bags used as Coffer dams were not removed post-construction, negatively impacting the river’s ecology. This time, complete removal of such materials will be enforced to ensure compliance.

The bridge replacement project also involves a complete rebuild of the stream bed, deemed necessary due to constraints posed by the adjacent Mass Wildlife land, which restricts any widening of the project beyond the existing layout. The discussion included invasive species management, with measures to address invasives within the project limits through removal and bank restoration.

The project design is expected to be completed within the next six to eight months, with ongoing efforts to secure funding for construction. The timeline for actual construction will depend on funding approvals from the Massachusetts Department of Transportation.

A notable contribution came from a local resident and certified turtle biologist, who stressed the need for a turtle protection plan, a standard requirement in such projects. Discussions ensued about the timing and need for inspections related to wildlife protection measures.

The commission unanimously voted to issue an order of conditions for the Eastbrook Bridge project, emphasizing the importance of reviewing and finalizing specific conditions to guide the project forward. The commitment to protect local species and habitats was underscored, highlighting the collaborative approach necessary to ensure compliance with environmental standards.

Apart from the bridge project, the meeting also considered a request for determination of applicability (RDA) for the removal of several dead trees on Mountain View Drive. Homeowners Andrew and Amber explained that a tree had previously fallen on their house, and additional concerning trees were in proximity to a brook at the rear of their property. The commission discussed and approved the tree removal, emphasizing the importance of leaving stumps at a certain height to provide wildlife habitat.

The commission also reviewed a notice of intent (NOI) for 374A Weber Road. Steve Ribery, a senior wetland scientist, provided background information on the parcel and discussed the need for a redelineation of the wetlands due to recent wet conditions and disturbances from septic drilling. The commission emphasized the importance of understanding the ecological context before proceeding with further work.

The meeting addressed concerns about storm drains and drainage channels, with discussions on the unintended consequences of a drainage system causing flooding in another area. The need for accurate surveying to determine wetland boundaries and compliance with stormwater management standards was highlighted.