Lunch and Learn - Comments Spreadsheet -Climate Resilience Regs 1.0 .xlsx

	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	L
1											definition defines solar panels and artificial turf as impervious surface - what implications will this have?	@
2	MACC-MSMCP-AMWS Working Group is seeking feedback, comments, and suggestions regarding DEP's proposed Climate Resilience Regs 1.0 Package. Please share your thoughts here. Please note: We encourage everyone to also provide their regulation specific comments to DEP by their March 1st comment period. DEP wants to hear about what aspects of the reg changes you like as well as what sections concern you.
3	Hold/parking lot	Stormwater Group	Restoration Group	Coastal Comment	Mark "X" if applicable
4	Office Hour question addressed	2.0 Recommendation	recommend policy including Best Practices but not to be put in regulations	added to Misc. group Letter
5	Main Topic	Subtopic	Where in the Regs is this found?	Basic Comments/Thoughts & Recommendations (if any)	Wetlands 310 CMR 10.00	401 WQ 314 CMR 9.00	Tidelands Ch. 91 310 CMR 9.00	Stormwater Handbook	Your Name	Your email address	Town/City/Org

6	Stormwater	Std #3 Stormwater Recharge	Handbook	recharge .8 vs. 1.0 inches				x
7	Minor Activities	Shared Use Path Maintenance	(10.02) 2 B	Maintenance of shared use paths should be allowed without permits so this new minor activity is appropriate - but it has too many details about means and methods and creates too narrow of a management opportunity.	x				Michele Grzenda	grzendam@lincolntown.org	Lincoln
8	Defintions	"ALTER"	10.04	changed the defination from: "lowering" to "changing" the water table. This could have ramifications when stormwater design is encouraged to recharge (which may in fact change the water table in a good way).	x				Michele Grzenda	grzendam@lincolntown.org	Lincoln
9	Defintions	"Impervious Surface"	10.04	Concerns about gravel roads - municipal and utility ROWs. Latter has minimal traffic. Need to balance stormwater concerns with what is needed and reasonable, prefer country drainage over pipes and concrete in rural settings.					Michele Grzenda	grzendam@lincolntown.org	Lincoln
10	Definitions	vernal pools and headwater wetlands post-Sackett Decision	10.04	Are any modifications to the 401 regs and/or clarifying guidance documents for WPA and 401 needed in light of the Supreme Court Sackett Decision?	x	x			Heidi Ricci	hricci@massaudubon.org
11	New BVW Handbook	Wetland Indicator Categories	310 CMR 10.55(2)(a)(c)	It was my understanding that the new regulations would abandon the use of modifiers and the 1988 National Plant List and instead require the use of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2020, National Wetland Plant List, version 3.5. It doesn't look like the new regulations propose any changes to 310 CMR 10.55. this went through public comment in 2021; will this be promulgated when 1.0 is released?					Greg Hochmuth	ghochmuth@epsilonassociates.com	Epsilon
12	Dams	Ecological Restoration projects		It is incredibly expensive and time-consuming to permit dam removal projects, which have huge climate resiliency benefits. Definition of ecological restoration project is very limiting, which impacts time/cost in MEPA reviews. The ER definition should be expanded to facilitate more dam removals.	x				Alison Field-Juma	afieldjuma@oars3rivers.org	OARS
13	Invasives	Ecological Restoration projects		Cons Coms need to have more clear latiitude to do negative determinations of applicability or general permits to manage aquatic invasives. Access for equipment over banks (e.g., for weed harvesters) should still have oversight, but handpulling in particular should not have to go through the permitting process which currently is a huge disincentive to ecological restoration and management. After all, it is the invasive plants that are creating the alteration and violating the Act, not the efforts to remove them... ;-)
14	Definition	Impervious Surface	10.04	Swimming pools have not been definitively defined as impervious. Towns differ in approach. It would remove a lot of debate if they were conclusively defined in the new regulations.	x			x	Eilish Corey	coreye@holliston.k12.ma.us	Holliston
15	Stormwater Precipitation Standards	NOAA14+, vs. NOAA 15 versus other precipitaiton standards that incorporate climate projections (such as Cornell, EEA/RMAT guidance for state agencies' projects)	NOAA14+ supplemental memo	NOAA14+ is a great step in right direction, but does not itself factor climate change. Encourage "...or most recent version" langauage following any NOAA 14+ citations / memo. There are other good sources besides NOAA, too. Why wait on NOAA 15 when forward-looking communities have already adopted NOAA 14+ or locally downscaled climate projections other than NOAA. State already has and can use EEA's Climate Change Projections Dashboard on the Precipitation-Frequency tab https://mass-eoeea.maps.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/2e8534bc2a7849b0aa6f64d0f79a8937 This is certainly a balnce as to what communities are comfortably with, but NOAA14+ (or NOAA++) do not directly factor climate change (they are just using larger statistical uncertainly window, but still based on historical data). For further reference, the EEA/ RMAT Climate Resilience Design Standards report section on Precipitation also had great tables (Table 4 and Table 5) comparing NOAA 14+ and Cornell University climate projections for different jurisdictions (procedurally Cambridge had previously done a similar study but slightly different from Cornell's) V1.2_SECTION_4.pdf (eea-nescaum-dataservices-assets-prd.s3.amazonaws.com)	X	X		X	Kyle Johnson	KJohnson@kleinfelder.com	Kleinfelder
16	Stormwater	Gravel-Definition	Impervious Surfaces	There are several definitions for gravel (ASTM, ASSHTO, USCS) and then there is the common more genral use of the term in construction. And there are various condtions/usages for this (these?) materials which will affect permiability. Need calrity/standard.				X	Don Flynn	DFlynn@MillburyMA.gov	Town of Millbury
17	Invasive Plants	Chipping	10.02(2)(b)(n)(iv)	Chipping cut invasive plant material and spreading chips may not prevent spread if fruits/berries are present on the stems. State that material can also be removed from the site and disposed of appropriately						diatom@nenetworks.com	Leverett
18	Native restoration planting	Planting	10.36 (6)(a)	Any stipulation in an OOC regarding installation of native plant species should include a requirment to protect the plantings against damage from herbivory by deer in particular.						diatom@nenetworks.com	Leverett
19	Coastal Areas at Risk from Sea Level Rise	Coastal Areas at Risk from Sea Level Rise - "Limited Projects"	310 CMR 10.24(7)	The performance standards for "Limited Projects" are potentially too restrictive and may be maladaptive to sea level rise impacts. For example, stipulations that allow Road Relocation or Road Elevation (and perhaps some roadway widening) actions that are designed in combination with well-engineered Living Shorelines that allow future salt marsh advancement may be a better outcome than "no alteration to hydrology of salt marsh" outright. The latter standard (i.e., protecting these resources as-is, without assisting future migration of these Resource Areas with long-term sea level rise) may not be the best long-term outcome and restricts use of 'Adaptation Pathways'-based design approaches (increasingly common with design practicitioners), or other phased "salt marsh advancement" or migration strategies. Recommend these standards should be revised, held, and/or revisited until Climate Resilience 2.0 process.	X				Kyle Johnson	KJohnson@kleinfelder.com	Kleinfelder
20	Stormwater	Std #1 No Untreated Discharges	Handbook	A New Stormwater Discharge is defined on Page 2-4 as "new or increased runoff directed to a resource area from new Impervious Surface or through a New Stormwater Conveyance." There are unstabilized pervious areas that can cause just as much water quality damage through erosion and sedimentation as imprevious surfaces. Expanding the definition outside of impervious surfaces would provide greater ability to address these areas, particularly non-point sources on redevelopment sites.				X	Eilish Corey	coreye@holliston.k12.ma.us	Holliston
21	Stormwater	Std #6 Critical Areas	Handbook	Minor - appears to be a typo in line 8 of the Definition paragraph of Standard 6. The words "described in" are floating without context.				X	Eilish Corey	coreye@holliston.k12.ma.us	Holliston
22	Stormwater	Std #9 Operation and Maintenance Plan	Handbook	It is a step in the right direction to have a post-construction inspection of all SCMs prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Compliance. However, as written on page 2-43, this inspection would be performed either by the ConComm or MassDEP. Understanding the design and signs of failure in SCMs is a technical skill that requires experience and training. Can the definition of inspector be expanded to include other municipal employees (e.g., town engineer) who may have additional experience with inspecting SCMs? Or, will training and documents be made available by MassDEP to provide ConComms with guidance on inspections?				X	Eilish Corey	coreye@holliston.k12.ma.us	Holliston
23	Stormwater	Std #10 Illicit Discharge Resources	Handbook	Minor - the URL for "Urban Water Resources Research Council" on pg 2-45 is broken.				X	Eilish Corey	coreye@holliston.k12.ma.us	Holliston
24	Stormwater	Table 2-8, pg 2-54	Handbook	Table 2-8 requires that several SCMs have a >/= 12-foot access perimeter. In many cases, especially smaller applications, a smaller perimeter is sufficient for maintenance access. Having a larger access could mean that additional site clearing is needed for space and grading. This could have an overall damaging affect of removing additional forest or undeveloped land that are beneficial for resource areas and for dealing with stormwater.				X	Eilish Corey	coreye@holliston.k12.ma.us	Holliston
25	Stormwater	Dirt Roads	Definitions	Implication new regulations have on the "improvement" of dirt roads in Western MA - GIVEN The definition of compacted gravel will make dirt roads “impervious” and therefor any “improvements” to the roads will be subject to the 80% TSS and 50% TP requirements. This, along with the setbacks and requirements specifically for Cold Water Fisheries resources (100-foot setbacks & cooling water to 68 degrees) are going to pose significant challenges for western mass communities to comply and additionally fund. Probably 80% of the dirt roads in western mass cross a CFR at least one - and its often where the most problems are. The exemption for "unpaved" does not include roads. The major problem facing dirt roads is washouts/erosion/mud/dust – which is all TSS – and taking into account how one would successfully use LID/GI, have a 100-ft setback and lower the water temperature to 68 degrees prior to any discharges to a CFR is basically impossible.	x			x	Angela Panaccione	apanaccione@pvpc.org	PVPC
26	definitions	"Near"	10.04	very vague, leaves to "Commissions discression". Not sure if its in addition to proposed set backs	x				Angela Panaccione	apanaccione@pvpc.org	PVPC
27	Minor Activities	typo? / incorrect list?	10.02(2)(b)1.	5th line references "...as perscribed in 310 CMR 10.02(2)(b)2.a. through r..." however the list in this section actually contains items a through v but is missing letters s, t, and u.	X				Michelle greene	conservation@wnewbury.org	West Newbury
28	stormwater	exemptions	10.05(6)(l) and (m)	Residential (single and multi-family) with 4 or fewer units don't have to meet stormwater standards. (No change to current regs). But the MS4 permits regulate everything over an acre, so they are not consistent.	X				John Keeley	jkeeley@burlington.org	Burlington
29	LSCSF	Non-coastal / non-CZM mapped tidally influenced rivers and clarity on applying LSCSF performance standards	310 CMR table of contents & 10.36	LSCSF seems to apply to non-coastal / non-CZM mapped tidally influenced rivers, two that come to mind are portions of the Merrimack River and the Taunton River. The LSCSF performance standards would then seem to apply to these inland sections of tidally influenced river within areas mapped for 1% flood risk in the 100-year stomr (FEMA flood zones A, V, A99, AE, AO, AH, VE, & AR). However, in the table of contents/organization of the regs, LSCSF is listed as a coastal resource area even though it would seemingly apply to non-coasatal areas. This will lead to confusion of applicants, conultants, and commissions when permitting in these areas and attempting to properly apply the regs and meet performance standards. MA DEP should more clearely define where the LSCSF resource area is and clarify that this resource area can be present in certain areas of non-coastal / non CZM mapped portions of rivers which are tidally influenced. MA DEP could also consider calling out specific sections of river and indicating whether LSCSF applies, for example "the Merrimack River upstream to the Lawrence Dam" could clearly be defined within the regs if this is the area that MA DEP intends that LSCSF regs would apply to.	X				Michelle greene	conservation@wnewbury.org	West Newbury
30	Stormwater	Shared-Use Path provisions	Handbook 5.6	It is helpful to have a section discussing Shared Use Paths (SUPs) however many of the provisions, requirements and recommendations make no sense for either stormwater or resource area protection. SUPs do not generate pollutants like other development. The section on suggested SCM and BMP does not make sense and gets into "means and methods" which is NOT DEP's role. Definitions and widths of adjacent "suitable pervious area" are impracticle in more areas. Final paragraph makes no sense.				X
31	LSCSF	typo? / incorrect list?	310 CMR 10.36(4)	Immediately following the list in this section, which includes items (a) - (d) begins a paragraph which states "Any other work proposed within both Land Subject to Coastal Storm Flowage and another Coastal Resource Area that is not covered by 310 CMR 10.36(4)(a)-(c)...". The list however has exceptions for items a-d. Does d then not apply in the next paragraph and it is being intentionally ommitted or should the reference in this paragraph be updated to be (a)-(d)	x				Michelle Greene	conservation@wnewbury.org	West Newbury
32	Stormwater	ESSD	Handbook A-16	they recommend non-native trees					John Keeley	jkeeley@burlington.org
33	Stormwater	"	"	Adding to John's above comment, one of the reccomended trees iin the appendix (page 22 of the document or a-17 of the appendix) is the callery pear which has been listed as noxious/invasive in other states and has the potential to become noxious or invasive in MA expecially considering that our warming state is not too different climate wise from Ohio and Pennsylvania. This should be a cause for concern. The trees were banned in Ohio January 1, 2023 https://ohiodnr.gov/discover-and-learn/plants-trees/invasive-plants/callery-pear#:~:text=Bark%20is%20smooth%20and%20covered,Ohio%20due%20to%20its%20invasivenes The trees were added to the PA noxious plant list in 2021 with the ban on sales beginning 2024 https://www.agriculture.pa.gov/Plants_Land_Water/PlantIndustry/NIPPP/Pages/Callery-Pear.aspx#:~:text=Callery%20pear%2C%20Pyrus%20calleryana%2C%20was,or%20propagated%20within%20the%20C MA DAR has proposed adding this species to the prohibited invasive species list. https://www.mass.gov/event/notice-of-public-hearing-massachusetts-prohibited-plant-list-4-26-24-2024-04-26t100000-0400-2024-04-26t110000-0400				X	Michelle Greene	conservation@wnewbury.org	West Newbury
34	LSCSF	BFE +2 feet	310 CMR 10.36(6), 10.29, 10.28	DEP is requiring BFE+2 feel to lowest structural member or complinace with state building code, whichever is higher. Just noting at the draft 10th MA Building Code, which is also haveing public hearins during the week of 2/12 required BFE+3 for all V-Zones and coastal A zones. DEP regs should be BEF+3 since that is the minimum allowed by the 10th buidling code and now start with a standard that is different even if they essentially say check the building codes. If state is using SLR of 2.5' by 2050, and regs are concerned with impacts beyond permit date, then it should also require BFE+3 feet. https://www.mass.gov/doc/10th-edition-total-version-1213/download page 92&93 ASCE 24 tables. We've been trying to get BFE+3 for a few years now through volunary agreement rather than regulation but no dice as it cuts a foot out of building height.	X				Karen Strauss	karenstrauss@comcast.net	Eastham
35	Minor Activities	pools	310CMR10.02(2)(b)(2)	inground pools still exempt if over 50' from BVW	X				John Keeley	jkeeley@burlington.org
36	Stormwater			Consideration should be given to legacying certain projects from the new stormwater requirements, similar to RFA at 310 CMR 10.58(6)(e). Large-scale phased projects that have completed MEPA review will have designed a master plan stormwater system and advanced financing and development plans based upon anticipated square footage. Updating such master planned systems to address the new requirements could result in significant loss of development square footage and affect the viability of such projects.	X	X		X	Stacy Minihane	sminihane@bealsandthomas.com	Beals and Thomas, Inc.
37	Stormwater	Handbook		Handbook could use some cleanup; inconsistent terminology, organization etc. Suggest implementing regs but delaying handbook until it is ready and as usable as possible					Stacy Minihane	sminihane@bealsandthomas.com
38	Stormwater	Stormwater, General		Overall, we support the direction MassDEP is moving, however we would like to see additional flexibility for sites with numerous constraints to allow stormwater improvements where feasible.
39	Stormwater	Precip Update- NOAA - 14+		May want to make a note of the new EEA Climate change projections dashboard (which is part of Climate resilient Mass; this allows you to see town specific precipitation projections using NOAA 14+
40	Stormwater	Standard #2 Peak Rate Attenuation	Table 2-7 (Pg 2-50)	Several smaller SCMs including dry wells, tree box filters, and water quality swales are noted in Table 2-7 as "Does not have the ability to partially or fully meet the specific Standard". However, all of these SCMs can be designed to provide a measure of detention, particularly on smaller sites. For example, a subdivision may have single family houses with individual dry wells and are tributary to larger treatment SCMs. Although the dry wells would only provide detention during smaller rain events, they can decrease the overall size of the downstream SCM, saving on cost and size demands.
41	Stormwater	Standard #3 Stormwater Recharge		recharge .8 vs. 1.0 inches
42	Stormwater	Standard #3 Stormwater Recharge	Table 2-1 Rules for Groundwater Recharge (Page 2-11)	Table 2-1 states that recharge volumes may be infiltrated to the maximum extent practicable for various conditions, including "been classified as contaminated". What are the specifications for this requirement? For instance, many soils by the roadsides become "contaminated" by virtue of their location or there are many swaths of areas that fall under the "Urban Fill" or "Udorthents" mapped by the NRCS.
43	Stormwater	Standard #6 Critical Areas	Table 2-4b	In Tables 2-4b through 2-4d, the language reads "only use proprietary manufactured separatores for pretreatment". This wording is potentially confusing, implying that only proprietary separators can be used for preatreatment, excluding other froms like deep sump catch basins, vegetated filters, etc. The language in Table 2-4a, "Proprietary manufactured separators may be used only for pretreatment" presents the requirement in a clearer fashion.
44	Stormwater	Standard #11 Total Maximum Daily Loads	Table 2-6 (page 2-47)	Table 2-6 lists the suitability of SCMs to treat TMDL pollutants, and several SCMs including bioretention area (filtration), extended dry detention basins, sand/organic filters, wet basins, and green roofs are noted as "unlikely to provide significant reduction of target pollutant". However, these technologies are listed in Appendix F, Attachment 3 of the MS4 permit as approved structural controls for meeting nutrient load reductions. This is a confusing contradiction between the two regulatory documents that will add to the administration and design burden when considering the selection of appropriate SCMs, particularly in retrofit scenarios.
45	Stormwater Handbook	Chapter 2 - SW Standards	Note 8, Table 2-8, page 255	Note 8 of Table 2-8 (pg. 255) states that "Structural Stormwater Management Systems (e.g., pipes, catch basins) and structural SCMs are therefore not allowed to be installed in groundwater". This standard could potentially be onerous to design around, particularly for public entities with large drainage systems located in the public way with a variety of groundwater conditions. For instance, it would be a barrier to the installation of deep sump catch basins, which are much deeper than a typical catch basin but provide a measure of water quality. It could also have the side affect of driving up design costs; test pits to identify groundwater are not a typical component in the design of a typical pipe and catch basin system. For larger systems over a wide area and a myriad of conditions, the implication is that many soil investigations, including potentially at each individual drainage structure, would need to be performed.				X
46	Stormwater Handbook	Chapter 3 - Legal Framework	Figure 3-1, 3-2, 3-3	Table 3-1 etc.: Concerned about circumstances in which "manmade" BMPs are providing ecosystem services - if the BMP is not in a buffer or wetland zone, it seems like there is no authority to subject a developer to review prior to infilling a BMP, even if it is long standing and may still be providing services to the adjacent wetland area. --- Page 3-14, add TP in the sentence "If a TMDL has been established, these regulations may address pollutants other than TP" 2016 MS4 permit has regulations on TSS and TP which are required local bylaw components ---				X
47	Stormwater Handbook	Chapter 4- Site Planning & Design		General - lots of back and forth between the use of LID, SCMs, BMPs, ESSD etc. In some places (4-2) BMPs are not mentioned at all when defining SCMs and providing examples, while BMP is regularly used in chapter 3. Needs to be better discrepency between these acronyms as they seem to all mean just about the same thing - why can't the handbook pick one main acronym and run with it? Also Green Infrastructure is mentioned in 4.5, they really need to either clearly define the difference between these words in one place, or pick one --- 4.1.5. mention of integrating SCMs into site design should also acknowledge that the best and most effective way to go about this would be placing requirements into zoning bylaws/site plan review to require developers to integrate SCMs into site design, otherwise its likely only typical gray infrastructure will be included -- 4.2.4. liits to ESSD section could be much more robust --- 4.2.5. all of the additional informaiton on LID is from the 90s, shouldn't these be updated with more recent supplemental material? --- 4.3.2 under general requirements --- 4.4.2. under initial site plan considerations add question surrounding who the responsible party will be for maintinance and if it is feasible for them to complete, not just if the maintinance is practical for the SCM itself.				X
48	Stormwater Handbook
49	Stormwater Handbook
50	Minor Activities	Shared Use Paths	10.02(2)(b)2	Agree with Michele Grzenda's comments. Subsection r.iv. is too burdensome, overly complicated and not completely clear. How is "cutting performed by hand methods" defined? Does it include the use of a handheld chainsaw or just a hand saw? Does "Resource Area" include Riverfront Area in this section?	x				Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com
51	Minor Activities	Not a typo, but confusing	10.02(2)(b) 1	Michelle Greene posed a question of a possible typo 10.02(2)(b)2 a through r. She believed letters s-u are missing and the final letter is v. But the “v” is not the letter, it is the lower case Roman numeral 5. So there is not actually a typo here, but the way DEP uses various numerals and letters can be confusing. Maybe that is a comment for 2.0…	x				Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com
52	Definitions		10.04	More concise, less confusing definitions would be helpful. Some infomation would be better placed within sections on performance standards. Distinction between BMP and SCM is not clear.	x				Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com
53	Definitions	Highway Specific Considerations	10.04	SCM should be written out as Stormwater Control Measure	x				Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com
54	Definitions	Impervious Surface	10.04	What part of the solar array is considered impervious? The footprint? The land below the panel? The entire array field?	x				Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com
55	Definitions	Improvement of an Existing Public Roadway	10.04	Does this include private ways or only accepted streets? Public Roadway is not defined.	x				Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com
56	Definitions	Macro-Approach	10.04	Definition is less prone to multiple interpretations if the word "developement" is removed.	x				Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com
57	Definitions	Maintenance of an Exisiting Public Roadway	10.04	(See earlier comment) Does this exclude private driveways? commercial parking lots? public parking lots?	x				Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com
58	Definitions and Stromwater	Near	10.04 and 10.05(6)(k)	Too vague. What does "strong likelihood" mean? This definition lends itself to inconsistent application.	x				Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com
59	Definitions and Procedures	Offsite Mitigation	10.04 and 10.05(6)(k)7	How can evaluation be done on any location outside the project locus? The way it is drafted could include a site in a different municipality or even potentially outside of the Commonwealth.	x				Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com
60	Definitions and Procedures	Offsite Mitigation	10.53(3)(u)5	How can evaluation be done on any location outside the project locus? The way it is drafted could include a site in a different municipality or even potentially outside of the Commonwealth.	x				Theresa Murphy	let's talk!
61	Definitions	Setback	10.04	Using different terminology would avoid confusion with zoning setbacks. There is no definition for "wetland resource area". Does a wetland resource area include land subject to flooding?	x				Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com
62	Definitions	Total Impervious Surface Reduction	10.04	Should vegetated surface be further described as stable? Should the vegetation be free of invasive plants?	x				Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com	I think 'vegetated surface' implies stable
63	Definitions	Watershed	10.04	Could a clearer definition be provided? (See the definition available on the USGS website.)	x				Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com
64	Definitions	Zone A	10.04	The proposed definition references 310 CMR 22 Drinking Water, but the text does not match. The draft (10.00) uses the term "surface water" where Drinking Water (22.00) uses the term "surface water source", which is defined therein as a public water supply. Surface water is not defined as a public water supply.	x				Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com
65	Procedures	NOI	10.05(4)	Unclear if construction period erosion, sedimentation and sedimentation and pollution plan is required for all NOIs or just those subject to Stormwater Managment Standards	x				Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com
66	Procedures	NOI	10.05(4)	The difference between a long-term pollution prevention plan and an operation and maintenance plan is unclear. Are these terms defined?	x				Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com
67	Procedures	NOI	10.05(4)(a)	Awkward phrasing of "and no illicit discharge compliance statement." Clearer wording might be "a signed statement by the property owner certifying that there are no illicit discharges..." it's a typo - should be "an illicit	x				Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com
68	Procedures	Stormwater	10.05(6)(k)	Should the wording "Impracticable due to physical site constraints" be in this section and not just in the definitions?	x				Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com
69	Procedures	Stormwater	10.05(6)(k)	Is this minimum Setback (from receiving waters and wetlands) the same as that described in the table in 10.05(6)q?	x				Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com
70	Procedures	Stormwater	10.05(6)(k)3	There should be requirements for the level of detail of what needs to be included in the alternatives analysis. Does it need to include a plan or just a narrative? It should reference - as further described in the SW Handbook.	x			x	Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com
71	Procedures	Stormwater	10.05(6)(k)4.c.ii.	Missing text? Numbering mistake?	x				Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com
72	Procedures	Stormwater - shall not apply to	10.05(6)(l)5.	The numeral "5" is mislocated. It should precede the text "Gardens..." not follow it.	x				Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com
73	Procedures	Stormwater MEP	10.05(6)(m)6	Does this include boardwalks? Are concrete sidewalks excluded?	x				Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com
74	Procedures	Stormwater MEP	10.05(6)(o)2.	Language is confusing and unclear. How is this to be evaluated? How are costs to be considered?	x				Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com
75	Procedures	Stormwater Minimum Setbacks from All wetland Resource Areas except...	10.05(6)(q)	Could the minimum setback be rephrased to say "Setback of at least 10 feet outside of bvw and bank"?	x				Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com
76	Procedures	Stormwater Setbacks from Surface Waters	10.05(6)(q)	Why is land under water bodies and waterways included in surface waters, but bank is not? The difference between the minimum 10 foot setback and the 50 foot setback is not clearly explained.	x				Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com
77	NOI Ecological Restoration		10.12(1)(l)	Suggest using the word "evidence" instead of "demonstration"	x				Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com
78	NOI Ecological Restoration		10.12(2)	Reference to 310 CMR 10.12(1) and (2) should be changed due to the new numbering of the subsections. The reference should only be to 310 CMR 10.12(1).	x				Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com
79	Restoration Order of Conditions		10.13(f)	Suggest using the word "evidence" instead of "demonstration"	x				Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com
80	Limited Projects	Construction of Public Shared Use Path	10.53(3)(u)4	Is "...within 25 feet of the bank or any body of water" correct, or should it ready "...bank of any body of water"?	x				Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com	we think that this whole section shall be deleted
81	Limited Projects	PSUP mitigation	10.53(3)(u)5	What is meant by "where square footage is not a relevant measure"?	x				Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com	allows for con com discretion - the con com can look at positive overall ecological benifit. skies the limit!
82	Limited Projects	Vegetation Management of PSUP	10.53(3)(u)8	Extension for 5 years in this section is inconsistant with 310 CMR 10.05(8)	x				Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com
83	Limited Projects		10.53(3)(u)9	"Hand methods" should be defined. Are piles of plowed or stored snow beyond the shoulder also prohibited?	x				Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com	we're asking that all means and methods be removed
84	Ecological Restoration Limited Projects	typo	10.53(4)(e)5	The letter "r" is missing from the word "through" in "...set forth in 310 CMR 10.53(4)(a) though (d)..."	x				Theresa Murphy	tmurphy@cityofwoburn.com
85	Stormwater	SCM Setback	10.05(6)q	Clarification is required for SCM setback table. As proposed there is a 50 foot setback to Surface Waters and 10 foot setback to Waters of the Commonwealth. Surface Waters and Waters of the Commonwealth have overlapping definitions so it's unclear which setback should be followed.	x	x			Andrea Kendall	akendall@lecenvironmental.com	LEC Environmental Consultants, Inc.
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100