2025 Washington's Water Quality Management Plan to Control Nonpoint Sources of Pollution

Submitted By

65 Results

Search Type

Sort:

Sort Results By

Comment From: Irene Randall

8/29/25 @ 5:05 PM

Hello, I am asking for the Nonpoint Plan comment plan to be extended until at least Oct 29, 2025. The cost of implementing it will be burdensome. causing extreme financial stress on the smallest producers of livestock. This will affect our food suppl...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Okanogan County Farm Bureau (Sheilah Delfeld, President )

8/29/25 @ 4:24 PM

Attachments:

Comment From: Washington State Tree Fruit As... (Jon DeVaney)

8/29/25 @ 3:56 PM

Attached please find joint comments on the draft nonpoint plan from twelve Washington state agricultural organizations.

Attachments:

Comment From: WA Department of Natural Resou... (Kelly Childers)

8/29/25 @ 1:48 PM

I'm so sorry I'm a little late submitting this. The attached file has my comments and suggested edits for information related to Forest Practices Operations. Thank you for the opportunity to review. Feel free to reach out if you have questions for me...↓

Attachments:

Comment From: Spokane County Cattlemen (James Lahde)

8/29/25 @ 1:45 PM

Spokane County Cattlemen, Are commenting on the updating of "Nonpoint Pollution Plan".
We were not aware of a comment period or the June 11th webinar.
This is a large document that will affect all in Washington State.
We, the small family farms,ranch...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Lummi Nation (Victor Johnson)

8/29/25 @ 1:40 PM

Please accept the following comments as an official addendum to comments submitted on 8/29/25 from Lummi Nation regarding the WA Ecology draft 2025 Nonpoint Plan. On 8/27/25 Lummi Nation submitted a joint letter with comments for the WA Ecology draft...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Yakima-Klickitat Farm Associat... (Mark Herke)

8/29/25 @ 1:25 PM

Please find our comments attached.

Attachments:

Comment From: Northwest Indian Fisheries Com... (Justin Parker)

8/29/25 @ 1:15 PM

Good afternoon,

Attached is a letter from Ed Johnstone, NWIFC Chairman, to Casey Sixkiller, Washington Department of Ecology Director, regarding Comments on Draft Washington State Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Plan.

If you have any questions...↓

Attachments:

Comment From: Dept of Health (Emily Sanford)

8/29/25 @ 12:56 PM

Attachments:

Comment From: Kim Bartell

8/29/25 @ 12:38 PM

I think this is another example of overreach. Are you going to include big corporations and government facilities in this plan? Are you going to determine livestock is an issue and have landowners get rid of their livestock? Who is going to be respon...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Washington State Water Resourc... (John Stuhlmiller)

8/29/25 @ 12:14 PM

Please find attached our comments.

Attachments:

Comment From: Linda Popp

8/29/25 @ 12:10 AM

The Department's proposed regulatory changes appear to infringe on property rights in a way never intended by the federal Clean Water Act. Such changes will unduly burden Washington agriculture, particularly the smaller farms that compose a signific...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Dean Hellie

8/28/25 @ 10:58 PM

A simplistic review of the non-point plan is that it is full of misleading statements and assumptions from Ecology's reliance on partners to do the heavy lifting of water quality protection then blaming the entities that progress in water quality im...↓provement is not happening fast enough.
Statements that NRCS BMPS are not designed to be compliant with state standards requiring Ecology to develop its own guidance document. This guidance document originating as voluntary is portrayed in the plan as regulatory and moving into that direction.
Agriculture, specifically Livestock receives an inappropriate focus of the document with some mention of septic's and stormwater. There seems to be little or no acknowledgement of recreation, direct human impacts and other sources of non-point pollution.
Science is referenced as peer reviewed research documents, these are selected to meet the desired conclusion. There is no mention of site specific or real life success or failure examples of BMPs. There needs to be more focus on proving there is actual water quality violations rather than assuming because there is a visual observation of the potential on a one day watershed assessment.
The plan has no timelines or clear expectations of compliance. Progressive implementation of BMPs is mentioned in the plan. This adds to the uncertainty and mistrust by the landowner and Ecology's partners of the agency's true intentions.
Buffers and exclusion seems to be a primary focus and one size fits all. This is not scientific or realistic or attainable. Many landowners believe this is a government overreach and considered a taking.
As a representative of a Conservation District very familiar with Conservation Commission and Natural Resource Conservation Service programs and operations the partnership described is not as strong as described. I was told that the Conservation Commission gave early input to the plan specifically to the Commission role and program and Ecology failed to accept most of the comments.
Referring to the 2025 survey sent to Conservation Districts, I see less than half responded, I did not respond because the survey was leading to get specific responses and could not comment our CDs true working relationship with Ecology at the watershed level.
I understand this plan is written to satisfy EPA requirements so Ecology can continue to receive federal funding and keep control of protecting water quality in the state. This plan is not a useful document for the landowners and other entities assisting in the protection of water quality from non-point pollution.

No attachments

Comment From: Washington Forest Protection A... (Darin Cramer)

8/28/25 @ 9:56 PM

Attachments:

Comment From: Michael Szymanski

8/28/25 @ 9:05 PM

Feedback from the Department of Ecology states this update doesn't involve rule making or fundamental changes to the 2022 Plan so it need not be subject to more rigorous review by all stakeholders. That assertion is misleading and borders on dishones...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Swinomish Indian Tribal Commun... (Galen Priest)

8/28/25 @ 5:03 PM

Attachments:

Comment From: Mark Schlack

8/28/25 @ 3:03 PM

"The Department of Ecology proposed regulatory changes appear to infringe on property rights in a way never intended by the federal Clean Water Act. Given these infringements were developed behind closed doors over a two-year period, the comment peri...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Washington PUD Association (Travis Nelson)

8/28/25 @ 1:01 PM

Attachments:

Comment From: Patricia Schlack

8/28/25 @ 11:09 AM

"The Department of Ecology proposed regulatory changes appear to infringe on property rights in a way never intended by the federal Clean Water Act. Given these infringements were developed behind closed doors over a two-year period, the comment peri...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Wasington Forest Protection As... (Darin Cramer)

8/27/25 @ 9:14 PM

Attachments:

Comment From: Lummi Nation (Victor Johnson)

8/27/25 @ 5:55 PM

Attachments:

Comment From: Scott Figenshow

8/27/25 @ 1:27 PM

Please see attached comment letter from two farm families: Debbie McGourin, McGourin Farms and Scott Figenshow, Clausen Legacy Farms, in the Palouse region of southern Spokane County.

Attachments:

Comment From: Nooksack Indian Tribe (RoseMary LaClair)

8/27/25 @ 1:01 PM

Please see attached letter.

Attachments:

Comment From: Virginia Shogren

8/27/25 @ 9:17 AM

I am a rural property owner and sheep farmer. The proposed "Plan" should not be adopted. I have seen a concerning trend by the state agencies to convert voluntary guidelines into enforceable mandates. This is legislative action in disguise. The state...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Beckie Regusci

8/26/25 @ 11:05 PM

I am requesting an extension on the date for comment. I just received this information and I believe that less than one week to provide comments is not adequate to provide a detailed response. Thank you for your consideration. In the meantime, I beli...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Mike Martin

8/26/25 @ 10:47 AM

From what I understand of the information provided, I do NOT think that this is a well thought out proposal. What is worse, is that considering just how vaguely some of the terms and "definitions" are presented, the potential for ABUSE, punitive "sel...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Snoqualmie Indian Tribe (Kelsey Payne)

8/26/25 @ 8:49 AM

Attachments:

Comment From: Michael Szymanski

8/25/25 @ 2:45 PM

Here is a Department of Ecology response to my original request to extend the comment period:

On Friday, August 22, 2025, 1:11 PM, Reiman, Jeremy H. (ECY) wrote:

Hello,

We received your comment on the 2025 draft update to Washington's Water Qual...↓

Attachments:

Comment From: Charles DeCosta

8/25/25 @ 7:55 AM

I only see where these new rules infringe on my property rights and restrict what I can do on my property and I have no reimbursement for you taking away my use of my property as I see fit, thus you are violating my right under the US constitution. T...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Ann Almond

8/24/25 @ 5:21 PM

A friend of mine informed me that your agency was about to implement changes to policies that could affect our own land use and that of our friends.
So I clicked on Hannah Roe's "Readers' Guide" to see what actions are so worrisome to my friend. Bu...↓t her guide only mentioned parts that were changed, without actually listing WHAT the agency was getting ready to do!
So I opened the document itself, hoping to learn exactly what is going on. But I quickly became dismayed because it is 298 pages long!

So I don't wish to read it.
All I wanted to do was become informed on the issue of "No Source" pollution and your department's planned actions.
Yet your voluminous document and Hannah's fake-help "Readers' Guide" serve to effectively snow the issue with so many words that people like me simply can't sift through it to learn of your actual plans.
Why not produce a simple 1 or 2-page chart listing current policies on the left and proposed policies on the right? Make it possible for the average citizen to know your plans.
Because as it is, I am inclined to suspect you're trying to hide your true motives and actions from us.

So I can't specify sections or pages, only give you "holistic" (your word) feelings on the subject.

I am very concerned if your plans intend to impose significant costs to enact the "voluntary" measures. (which may evolve into compulsory measures)

I've been told that implementing the proposed non point plan will cause extreme financial burdens for the smallest producers of livestock across our state. I fear this will remove important locally sourced beef from the marketplace especially in Western Washington such as that raised safely and humanely by several of my friends, some of whose beef we purchase annually, knowing it's best to consume local beef rather than "road-runner" meat from God knows where, raised God knows how.

Despite the mention of federal and state funding to provide resources in developing best management practices related to livestock nutrients there will probably be a lack of funding for many beef producers across Washington to implement the proposed plans.

Whatever you do, please don't make it harder (or impossible) for all the local, small farmers to provide us clean, safe, nutritious beef independently of the giant producers.

No attachments

Comment From: Eleanor Mattice

8/24/25 @ 3:53 PM

Riparian areas need to be restored and maintained across our nation to protect this precious resource. Try to make BMPs for ag around surface waters consistent throughout agencies so producers know what to expect about water quality from one agency t...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Joanne Pease

8/23/25 @ 11:47 AM

I would like to submit to the planning committee that voluntary is different from required submission. Fairness means fair to all the residents of this state. Not having our side of the state pay for all the other sides green agenda. We are small ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Michael Harvey

8/22/25 @ 5:59 PM

I think there should be fairness. I request that any rule include water testing to prove a problem comes from a specific property before imposing costly mandates. I ask Ecology to extend the deadline so agriculture groups, rural county commissioners,...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Bob Aroyan

8/22/25 @ 3:38 PM

Dear Mr. Reiman,

Thank you for your update.

Plenty of time?

As a member of the public, I must respectfully disagree with the assertion that "updates always include ample time for public comment."

Ecology and its partners have devoted nearly two y...↓ears to developing this very complex and technical plan. Given the depth of the material, a 100-day comment period is unlikely to provide sufficient time for members of the public—most of whom have full-time responsibilities—to carefully review, understand, and provide meaningful feedback. While the "reading guide" is a helpful resource (and I have reviewed it), it cannot replace the time needed to thoroughly study the proposed updates and their implications. To illustrate, I have invested nearly 40 hours of personal research to better understand the issues involved, and that level of effort is not feasible for most citizens.

In addition, meaningful public participation depends on awareness. A comment period, however well-intentioned, cannot serve its purpose if the public is not adequately informed of its availability. Effective outreach and communication are therefore essential to ensuring that a broad range of perspectives are heard.

I raise these concerns not in opposition, but in the hope that Ecology will re-consider extending the timeline and enhancing outreach efforts so that the public can engage more fully and constructively. Doing so would not only strengthen the quality of feedback, but also reinforce confidence in the transparency and inclusiveness of the process.

No fundamental Changes?

I must also raise concerns regarding the following assertion: "The draft plan is an update to the 2022 Nonpoint Plan and largely reflects updates and additions which provide the most current information about the various partners and programs involved in this effort, rather than fundamental changes to the strategies and tools utilized by the state to address nonpoint pollution."

In my view, the development of new Best Management Practices (BMPs) in conjunction with the Nonpoint Plan represents both a fundamental and significant change. Ecology has stated its intention to rely on state-developed BMPs in place of the long-established and scientifically vetted federal best practices. This is not a minor update—it is a shift in framework that directly affects how compliance will be judged.

While the draft plan describes these new BMPs as "voluntary," it also makes clear that landowners, agricultural producers, and property residents who do not adopt them could be deemed in violation of the state's clean water law. This creates a troubling discrepancy. Federal statutes clearly define nonpoint recommendations as voluntary; yet under the state's approach, the message is effectively "comply, or else." Such a shift fundamentally alters the nature of participation from cooperative to coercive.

For this reason, it is vital that both the public and the Department have additional time to collaborate on a path forward that preserves the voluntary spirit intended under federal law. Building this cooperative framework into the plan update will not only ensure greater public trust but will also lead to stronger, more sustainable outcomes for water quality.

No attachments

Comment From: Cynthia Zapotocky

8/21/25 @ 11:00 PM

The Washington State Department of Ecology over the past 20 years or more, has obviously shown it is the enemy of landowners in our state. On the East side, property owners dread any interaction with your team of angry, environmentally power hungry, ...↓arrogant bureaucrats. Over and over again your "scientific" arguments have been debunked by real science, which you largely ignore in order to push your politically motivated narrative--less land ownership, more state government regulations and control has been your goal and you have achieved it. Most of you truly believe you have the right to tell all citizens just how you think they should live....as in Russia, make us become a tenant in a twenty story apartment building in a dense city, one room, government job with no children around, no freedom and no creativity allowed by elite slave oriented over lords. It's called "Socialist Communism". We need a whole new group of people at the state level who have the right heart for working transparently and agreeably with all citizens, including farmers, ranchers, tribes, employers as well as employees, urban and rural landowners, who can work together to come up with real solutions that work to keep our waters clean. You have shown you are not that team. Your massive tax increases have been ill spent so many ways, it is truly tragic. Current Democrat leftist leaders at the state level, are prioritizing more jobs and higher pay and pensions for their friends, over quality research expenditures and the hiring of competent people dedicated to and capable of, bringing about real solutions to real problems. We want to work with a group of truly America loving, freedom loving, smart, scientifically literate and pro property rights, public servants who listen, not just dictate. This plan will not work with Marxist America-hating bureaucrats in charge. The ball is in your court to show us that you have the right attitude to work with property owning citizens fairly and transparently, or you will keep failing to accomplish good outcomes. Why are people across the earth literally dying to come to America? Because they seek our unique desire for peace with our neighbors, and the opportunity for more people than anywhere else to achieve and grow thru an education! They come in order to share the American dream of land ownership and freedom to live without excessive government regulation of their lives. We want more local control, not less. If you cannot buy into those dreams most of us have, you need to get out of the way and bring in people who share those dreams.

No attachments

Comment From: Jerrod Sessler

8/21/25 @ 5:24 PM

As a landowner and advocate for rural Washingtonians, I approach the Department of Ecology's draft 2025 Water Quality Management Plan to Control Nonpoint Sources of Pollution with deep skepticism. Government interventions often burden citizens, erode...↓ constitutional protections like due process and property rights under the Fifth Amendment, and favor bureaucratic control over individual freedoms. While clean water is essential, this plan risks overreaching by blending voluntary best management practices (BMPs) with coercive enforcement, disproportionately impacting farmers, ranchers, dairymen, and property owners who steward our lands. I urge Ecology to prioritize incentives, transparency, and site-specific data over mandates that could lead to regulatory takings without compensation.
The plan's emphasis on agriculture—highlighting pollutants like fecal coliform and nitrates from manure or fertilizers (Chapter 1, Tables 1–6)—may be warranted under certain circumstances, but it overlooks urban stormwater and septic contributions. Critics, like those in recent commentaries, argue this creates unfair targeting, turning "voluntary" BMPs (e.g., riparian buffers in the Clean Water Guidance for Agriculture, May 2023) into de facto requirements via escalation under RCW 90.48. This could restrict land use, such as grazing near streams, without proving site-specific harm, potentially constituting a taking if it deprives economic value (as in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 1992). While the plan promotes grants (Chapter 5), limited funding and bureaucratic hurdles may exclude small operations, exacerbating economic strain amid rising costs.
Factually, the plan aligns with federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 319 requirements for EPA funding, but Washington's approach exceeds federal voluntarism by allowing actions on "substantial potential" pollution without intent (RCW 90.48.080). This contrasts with EPA's lighter NPS touch, where incentives dominate. Recent Substack analyses raise valid points on subjectivity—e.g., treating "lack of shade" as a temperature impairment—but the plan ties this to science-based standards (WAC 173-201A), not whims. Still, without mandatory upstream/downstream testing before restrictions, it risks arbitrary enforcement, eroding rights.
Encouragingly, under EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin's deregulatory agenda since January 2025, federal rollbacks—like narrower Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) definitions and PFAS reconsiderations (March–July 2025)—could ease burdens on landowners. These changes reduce federal oversight of wetlands and runoff, providing flexibility for states but highlighting Washington's plan as potentially "over the top" in stringency. For instance, if EPA views the plan's rigorous TMDLs and monitoring (Chapters 3 and 7) as misaligned with national deregulation, it might withhold approval or funding, benefiting property owners by limiting state overreach. But, one has to ask why the overreach at the state level of the EPA disagrees that it is necessary or helpful?
This sets up potential conflict: Ecology plans EPA submission by December 2025, per its May 2025 reading guide. If rejected—due to perceived excessiveness amid EPA's 31-rule rollbacks—Washington could lose Section 319 grants (vital for BMP incentives), forcing reliance on state funds like the Centennial Clean Water Fund amid budget constraints. Legal challenges might ensue, with landowners or industry groups suing under preemption arguments, or Ecology appealing via administrative processes. Past tensions, like deferred coastal nonpoint approvals (2013–2024 NOAA/EPA letters), show delays could stall implementation, creating uncertainty but possibly empowering local control. In a deregulatory climate, such disputes might favor reduced regulation, protecting rights but risking water quality if unaddressed.
To balance protection and rights, extend the comment period (ending August 29, 2025) to at least a year for inclusive stakeholder input, including more rural voices. Require site-specific data for actions, enhance incentives without match requirements, and align with federal deregulation to avoid conflicts. Property owners aren't polluters—they're stewards. Let's ensure this plan actually supports them, not burdens them further.

No attachments

Comment From: Mike Szymanski

8/20/25 @ 4:50 PM

The Department of Ecology proposed regulatory changes appear to infringe on property rights in a way never intended by the federal Clean Water Act. Given these infringements were developed behind closed doors over a two year period, the comment perio...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

8/20/25 @ 3:30 PM

I am a resident of Washington State and do not agree with the 2025 Water Quality Management Plan taking control of nonpoint source pollution in this manner. While I support protecting our waterways, I believe local landowners and communities should h...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Washington Cattlemen's Associa... (Chelsea Hajny)

8/20/25 @ 10:33 AM

Comments are attached.

Attachments:

Comment From: John Leslie

8/20/25 @ 9:34 AM

This plan represents yet another taking without compensation. If these restrictions are truly for the public benefit, then the public should pay for them, not individual land owners. None of us elected the Department of Ecology but the impact on our ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

8/20/25 @ 8:43 AM

I object to these changes. They need to go through our Legislature and likely have Constitutional amendments.

I know you want to remove all land uses within 200' of any shoreline. Then it will be all lands in the State.

The State public servants d...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Philip Bayley

8/19/25 @ 12:59 PM

These proposed changes are nefarious, unconstitutional, and a clear attempt to engage in racketeering against "targeted" individuals, entities, and industries certain individuals personally do not like.

This proposal is a TAKINGS of private propert...↓

Attachments:

Comment From: Yakima County Cattlemen's Asso... (Jack Field)

8/18/25 @ 10:22 AM

Attachments:

Comment From: Timothy Ramsey

8/17/25 @ 5:53 PM

The Non Point Pollution policies/regulations being proposed are an afront on private property rights. I do NOT support this at all...

No attachments

Comment From: Donna Frankel

8/16/25 @ 11:10 AM

There is a need for public education and debate regarding this plan as it now exists. A 100 day comment period makes this action highly improbable. Therefore, I urge you to extend the comment period to 6-12 months.

If one wants to restrict a prob...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Glenda Martin

8/15/25 @ 8:23 PM

This program has been hidden from the public for years to prevent pushback by the citizens of Washington. Since 2023 Washington's Dept. of Ecology has been working with tribes and various government agencies. Now after all that time, the public com...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Jim Davidson

8/15/25 @ 6:54 PM

I do not believe that WS Dept. of Ecology has allowed enough time for the public comment period. The process should be open to everyone and require testing before regulating. Rulemaking should be done in the open by our elected representatives not by...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Katherine Humphrey

8/15/25 @ 12:53 PM

1. Chapter 3 of the plan appears to be promoting buffers as a solution yet again. Buffers are beneficial to water quality. Setting aside arbitrary large buffers adjacent to streams may or may not be of benefit. Ecology and tribes attack agricultu...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Stacy Storm

8/14/25 @ 6:46 PM

While we all want our rivers and streams to be clean, safe, usable and free from polution, this plan carries things too far. I am concerned that voluntary water quality guidelines could be converted into mandatory land-use restrictions without requir...↓

No attachments

Comment From: JOHN WORTHINGTON

8/14/25 @ 12:41 PM

Hello,

Boats in Marina's contain the same uv protectant as tires. How does that escape Ecologies scrutny?

Why did you force a tributary on the Dungeness and not jimmycomelately?
Did an Indian casino and gas station get special treatment.....I think...↓

Attachments:

Comment From: Ed Meyer

8/14/25 @ 6:24 AM

This Nonpoint Plan is unworkable and I oppose it's implementation.
First, it allows Ecology to impose buffer zones and remediation penalties on landowners without proving the landowner is responsible for the Nonpoint Pollution. The EPA standards ar...↓

No attachments

Comment From: WSDA (Kyrre Flege)

8/13/25 @ 4:38 PM

The attached document includes comments and inline changes provided to WMS on 5/21/2025 to clarify specific authorities and limitations to those authorities relevant to the Dairy Nutrient Management Act 90.64 RCW. They are provided again here to ensu...↓

Attachments:

Comment From: Nancy Churchill

8/13/25 @ 1:46 PM

I have a number of concerns about this plan, but this comment is going to focus on one problem: This plan was developed behind closed doors with Tribes and other government agencies for TWO years before the June rollout. This is clearly documented in...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Robert Schricker

8/13/25 @ 1:07 PM

I appreciate and support the objective of protecting water quality across Washington. However, I am deeply concerned that the draft 2025 Nonpoint Plan gives Ecology sweeping authority over private landowners—often based on hypothetical or "potential"...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Mullen family (Val Mullen)

8/13/25 @ 9:21 AM

You have been working on this plan for 2 years now, with no input from the public until now. This is nothing but a land grab for the government. This update zeroes in on one target: rural agriculture. Cities get a pass. Suburbs get a pass. But if yo...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Marc Christensen

8/13/25 @ 7:22 AM

First off, you need to expand the public comment period and be much more open and transparent with the public. You spent a couple years in discussion with special interest groups. You should give the people you represent equal access.
Secondly, you m...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Mukilteo Water and Wastewater ... (Darin Janda)

8/11/25 @ 2:45 PM

Attachments:

Comment From: seth Millhorn

8/07/25 @ 2:41 PM

To: Washington State Department of Ecology
RE: Comments on the Draft 2025 Water Quality Management Plan to Control Nonpoint Sources of Pollution
Date: 8/7/2025

Dear DOE Water Quality Program,

I am a lifelong agricultural producer in the Hangman Cr...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Ryan Ransavage

8/07/25 @ 1:39 PM

1. Regulatory Framework (Chapter 2)
Impact: The plan expands on related regulatory programs without clearly referencing NPDES permits such as SGGP or ISGP
Result: May create confusion about whether new obligations apply to already permitted facilitie...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Washington State Department of...

8/04/25 @ 7:27 AM

Attachments:

Comment From: Washington Department of Fish ... (Rae Eaton)

7/21/25 @ 9:46 AM

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology's Water Quality Management Plan to Control Nonpoint Sources of Pollution. It's great to see Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife resources such as the High Resolution Change Detection product ...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Anonymous Anonymous

7/09/25 @ 1:23 PM

Exec Summary P 8 para 5
Third sentence, NPS is spelled out, be consistent once defined.
Chapter 1
1.2.2
p. 11 The focus on agriculture is interesting, and maybe a little uneven. The Sparrow model appears to prove that NPS in urban settings is wors...↓

Attachments:

Comment From: Washington State Potato Commis... (Matt Harris)

6/09/25 @ 7:31 AM

Attachments:

Comment From: Dean Olson

5/26/25 @ 12:15 PM

Hello and hope this Memorial Day weekend helps us remember the fallen vets who fought for freedoms that we might be losing today,

Please consider the non-point source (NPS) pollution along 104 from the hill top going west and north to the ferry. I ...↓

No attachments

Thank you for subscribing to the 2025 Washington's Water Quality Management Plan to Control Nonpoint Sources of Pollution mailing list.