EIS scoping for WAC 173-201A Rulemaking for Variances on the Spokane River

112 Results

Sort:

Comment From: Jennifer Brock Olson

6/13/19 @ 1:59 PM
Weakening water quality standards is a huge concern for the Spokane River and everyone who loves her. Allowing only three weeks for public comment is insufficient. We need to be able to read and try to understand the risks you are suggesting. At leas...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Helen Curtis

6/13/19 @ 1:56 PM
Please add 45 days to the comment period. Three weeks will not provide enough time to understand the variance provisions. Hold a meeting to allow citizens to comment in person at a publicly held hearing. Please make the variance applications f...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Jordan Leach

6/13/19 @ 12:20 PM
1. A three week comment period is NOT long enough to understand this variance process and its risks to my river – add 45 days to the comment period. 2. Give us, the public, a chance to comment in person at a publicly held hearing. 3. Pl...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Kris Dinnison

6/13/19 @ 11:53 AM
I am concerned the three week comment period isn't sufficient for the public to understand and examine this variance process. I would hope at least another 6 weeks would be added to the process. I want to make sure my rivers are protected. I also hop...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Tom May

6/13/19 @ 11:27 AM
Washington State Department of Ecology: Since the proposed variance rules have taken a year to draft, I feel that the three week comment period is too short to reasonably allow the public to process and respond to these proposed changes. The comment...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Amanda Braley

6/13/19 @ 10:44 AM
Dear Ms. Braley I have several concerns regarding the proposed variances for the Spokane River. Chiefly, we need more time to examine the proposals. 1. A three week comment period is NOT long enough to understand this variance process and it...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Mary Lou Johnson

6/13/19 @ 10:42 AM
The Washington State Dept. of Ecology announced a three-week public comment period on variance. I disagree with the policy because it will likely let the major dischargers off the hook from reducing their pollution contributions. I am also very co...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Michael Cochran

6/13/19 @ 9:16 AM
I feel the three week public comment period is far too short for all comments for analysis on the variances. I would feel another 45 to 60 days or even 90 days would be more adequate to coordinate all comments on this "toxic" subject of PCB's in o...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Christopher Lawrence

6/13/19 @ 9:03 AM
A three week comment period is NOT long enough to understand this variance process and its risks to our river – add 45 days to the comment period. Give us, the public, a chance to comment in person at a publicly held hearing. Please make the variance...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Nancy Enz Lill

6/13/19 @ 8:59 AM
1. A three week comment period is NOT long enough to understand this variance process and its risks to my river – add 45 days to the comment period. 2. Give us, the public, a chance to comment in person at a publicly held hearing. 3. Pl...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Paul Lindholdt

6/13/19 @ 8:57 AM
The Spokane River is my home. Extend period for comments regarding water-quality variances. 1. A three week comment period is NOT long enough to understand this variance process and its risks to my river – add 45 days to the comment period. ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Lee First

6/13/19 @ 4:23 AM
Please make the 5 applications from the dischargers available to the public. They are not currently available. Without these, it's difficult to understand the issues.
No attachments

[ Previous Page / Next Page ]