12:09A central issue discussed was the efficacy of the “beaver deceiver” devices installed to manage water flow. Despite these efforts, beavers have adapted, causing the water to spill over the dams and rendering the cages ineffective. The commission acknowledged the need to decide between continuing management efforts or moving towards trapping, given that relocation of beavers is not permitted in Massachusetts.

23:59The commission grappled with the implications of high water levels, particularly concerning the proximity of a sewer pump station. If water levels continue to rise, it could be classified as an emergency situation, necessitating immediate action to prevent flooding. A representative from the Department of Public Works confirmed that while current levels were not yet classified as an emergency, they required close monitoring due to recent heavy rainfall.

18:24The commission discussed the possibility of utilizing technology, such as drones and water level monitors, to better understand and manage the situation. This would provide a more comprehensive view of the watershed and could inform future strategies. Additionally, the town’s recent adoption of a hazard mitigation plan may offer avenues for funding stream and water level monitoring efforts, which could enhance their overall beaver management strategy.

32:59In light of the potential risks, the commission authorized a staff member to initiate the permitting process for beaver removal. This process involves collaboration with Mass Wildlife and the local Board of Health to secure the necessary permits, either through an emergency request or a traditional approach, depending on conditions in the coming weeks. The commission prepared for possible public reaction to beaver removal efforts, emphasizing the need for transparent communication with the community.

The meeting also touched on past efforts and obstacles encountered in managing beaver populations, including a recall of legal actions taken by residents over related issues. The commission acknowledged the complexity and ambiguity surrounding the regulations and procedures for emergency permits, noting that it is not a clearly defined process.

26:21In addition to the beaver management discussions, the commission reviewed ongoing concerns about the condition of culverts, particularly those under Route 9. Members expressed skepticism about their adequacy in handling increased water flow, and a full assessment was hindered by flooding and obstructions. The need for further cleaning and potential redesign of these structures was emphasized, with a suggestion to explore nature-based solutions to better manage stormwater runoff from nearby impervious surfaces.

42:20The commission also reviewed the “Guide to Lake Management,” which was met with approval for its quality and applicability to local water bodies. Another topic of interest was the Pick Pond connector bridge project, which encountered an unexpected procedural delay due to the pond’s size not qualifying it as a great pond, complicating the permitting process under Chapter 91.

47:44Finally, the meeting concluded with updates on the town’s hazard mitigation plan, which received FEMA approval, and the progress of ground-penetrating radar work on the constituent aqueduct. These updates highlighted the commission’s ongoing efforts to address environmental and infrastructure challenges within the town.