Key indicators – assess number of receiving waters, or miles of waters, affected by pollutants from stormwater (and wastewater if this goal is to remain lumped); also, assess municipalities overall financial obligations related to infrastructure with ability to meet those obligations. This is not simple, but I don’t think any indicator regarding stormwater and wastewater is going to be meaningful without having this information. I would avoid going with the simple metric of “acres of impervious surface permitted” because it does not address capacity.

Other Supporting Indicators: Miles (or other appropriate length) of stormsewer that have hydraulic capacity limitations. (This may be most readily evaluated, at least at a cursory level, by surveying municipalities; i.e. asking if it is an issue for them, and relying on existing information)

For general discussion and concerns with this goal and indicators, please see Padraic Monks email.

Other supporting indicator: do we have the capacity where we want it?

ditto comments above; we should make clearer that we have the treatment capacity in and near the historic centers and not in the rural areas;

should also wrestle the question of service areas. What should be in and what out? and what do we do if we have capacity locally? Should the capacity be shared? Should technology be developed to allow storage and use of treatment capacity across town boundaries?

IS the infrastructure the goal? or effective treatment the goal? Are the issues for ww and sw the same? I'd focus on efficiency

Need something more telling about the region such as: Treatment capacity Vs growth projections in individual municipalities or treatment areas.

…capacity and treatment?