3. PUBLIC INPUT

• The Watershed Team collected input from the Team members directly; from comments by members of watershed organizations at their meetings; from website comments solicited at meetings and in newspaper articles; from surveying newspaper articles in local newspapers; from videotaping at environmental events and at recreational sites; and from the previous version of the Action Plan draft.
• The issues were summarized into 117 specific tasks, or general concepts if a task was not yet defined. These 117 issues are listed in the following table. The issues are divided into topics for ease of reference only (the topics do not associate with the goals). Within each topic, the issues are listed alphabetically. The issues are numbered from 1 through 117 for ease of reference. Details about the issues can be found in Appendix C, as well as on the website www.NorthCoastal.net. In most cases, the website documents the source of the comments– readers should interpret any data which is undocumented in this report as from the website comments section.
• The Watershed Team determined the six goals of the Action Plan via discussions over a period of several months.
• Each of the 117 issues is evaluated as to how they fulfill each of the six goals. The members of the Watershed Team reviewed the evaluations to come to a reasonable consensus. The rating system is:

The issue has a negligible effect on the goal.

The issue has a side effect on the goal.

The issue has some effect on the goal.

The issue has a direct effect on the goal.

The issue has a major effect on the goal.

In addition to the six goals, each issue was evaluated on the same scale for “Level of Public Concern.” This was measured by the number of citations of the issue. Since every issue was raised at least once in order to be placed on to the list, there are no “negligible” ratings for this column. We consider this category to be a proxy for the political importance of an issue. While we recognize that this method favors those who simply show up to address our meetings, or those who take the time to write a newspaper article, we also recognize that such activism is a valid measure of political support.

The final column is “Resource cost,” which we use as a means of incorporating a cost factor or a factor for difficulty of implementation. The scale for cost is reversed, so that the more expensive or more difficult to implement an issue, the fewer points it receives. The “resource cost” means the additional cost to the Watershed Team, either financial or people’s time. Hence if a task would be done anyway, there is a low cost of associating the NCW Team with that task. For issues where there is no specific task, we evaluate the cost for initiating a study, or for seeking funding for a study. The rest of the scale for resource cost is interpreted as:

Implementation is prohibitively expensive or prohibitively difficult.

Implementation is expensive or difficult, likely requiring a grant.

Implementation has a reasonably inexpensive or easy method.

Implementation is inexpensive and/or would require only adding to an existing project.

Implementation is being done anyway and hence has no net cost to the Watershed Team.

There are no point totals assigned to the evaluations, because the Watershed Team deemed that method of evaluation inappropriately specific. The discussion section following the grid discusses all the highly evaluated tasks as priorities – those issues best fulfill the stated goals of the Watershed Team. Of course, the evaluation system is somewhat arbitrary, so the prioritization is only loosely based on evaluations – it is intended for guidance rather than determining a sequence of priorities.

	North Coastal Watershed Action Plan – Issues from Public Input Goals → vs. Issues ↓				.
Waterways
1	Chebacco Lake cleanup
2	Hydrological study of North River
3	Ecosystem Restoration Project for Reedy Meadow and Saugus River – as part of GI RECONN proposal.
4	Implement Town Line Brook Watershed Restoration Project to restore habitat, improve water quality and address flooding.
5	Implement Phase II MS4 compliance in all municipalities in the watershed.
6	Implement recommendations of DEP’s 1997/1998 Water Quality Assessment of the North Coastal Watershed
7	Lake Quannapowitt algae cleanup
8	Lake Quannapowitt arsenic cleanup
9	More river/lake monitoring
10	Reissue NPDES permits with monitoring requirements included
11	Saugus River sediment study
12	SRWC river cleanup
Non-point sources
13	Contaminated runoff - fertilizer
14	Contaminated runoff - herbicide
15	Contaminated runoff - road salt
16	DDT in Swampscott lakes
17	Establish low road salt areas and safe salt storage locations within Saugus River watershed.
	Goals → vs. Issues ↓
Non-point sources (continued)
18	Implement NPS BMPs within Town Line Brook subbasins
19	Investigate and address sources of high bacterial pollution to Mill River
20	Investigate and address sources of high bacterial pollution to Shute Brook, Saugus.
21	Road salting study
22	Removal of fly ash Wenham Lake
Development
23	Blue Line extension study
24	Evaluate impact of windfarms
25	Evaluate Linden Brook crossing under Rt1
26	Health effects from Salem power plant emissions
27	Promote locally-grown food (Essex County Buy Local, e.g.)
28	Protect buffer zones to rivers, streams, marshes and other wetlands throughout Watershed.
29	RESCO ash landfill - Ensure closure as required by DEP Consent Order.
30	RESCO expansion study - Prevent expansion of waste incinerator within an ACEC
31	Rt. 1 widening-effect on Town Line Brook
32	Rumney Marsh canoeing survey
33	Thermal discharge impact study in Saugus River estuary.
Marine
34	Assist MDMF in sanitary surveys of the Rumney Marsh shellfish beds
35	“Take the Beach Back” in Revere; beach maintenance throughout the watershed
36	Conduct study of marine resources in the Saugus River estuary.
37	Implement Beaches Bill to provide timely monitoring and protect the public health.

	Goals → vs. Issues ↓
Marine (continued)
38	Promote fishing rules
39	Restore shellfish beds in Rumney Marsh/Saugus River estuary.
40	Salem Sound boating - recreation economic analysis
41	Shellfish bed - closure survey and/or economic study
Wastewater
42	Develop funding mechanisms for Phase II storm drainage improvements per Project # 01-09
43	Eliminate CSOs in Gloucester - sewer separation
44	Eliminate CSOs in LWSC - sewer separation
45	Eliminate CSOs in LWSC - sewer separation
46	Eliminate sewer discharges to Saugus River
47	Monitor stormwater drainage from Stacy Creek onto MDC Kings Beach
48	Upgrade drainage infrastructure of Saugus River downstream of LWSC Diversion
49	Wastewater - Gloucester
50	Wastewater - Nahant
51	Wastewater - Revere
52	Wastewater - Saugus
Water supply
53	Chronic flooding of Reedy Meadow
54	Citizen members on Salem-Beverly Water Board
55	Drinking water quality - Middleton Pond, Danvers
56	Evaluate flooding control in Mill R.
57	Flooding plans - Peabody
58	Flooding plans - Revere
59	Limited dredging of Town Line Brook for flood storage