This presumption may be rebutted by credible evidence from a competent source that the impacts of the project have not been avoided, minimized or mitigated to the maximum extent practicable.
At a minimum, in evaluating the potential to comply with the standards to the maximum extent practicable the applicant shall consider site constraints in meeting the standard, undesirable effects or risk in meeting the standard, and the environmental benefit of meeting the standard compared to the cost, by evaluating the following:
* The potential for downstream flooding;
* Upstream and downstream habitat (in-stream habitat, wetlands);
* Potential for erosion and head-cutting;
* Stream stability;
* Habitat fragmentation caused by the crossing;
* The amount of stream mileage made accessible by the improvements;
* Storm flow conveyance;
* Engineering design constraints specific to the crossing;
* Hydrologic constraints specific to the crossing;
* Impacts to wetlands that would occur by improving the crossing;
* Potential to affect property and infrastructure; and
* Cost of replacement.
310 CMR, § 10.24