Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit Formal Public Comment Period
Hello Henry! Thank you for sharing your comments. I am sending this comment to the team who is collecting comments on this permit (Stacy, Frances, and Ellie) so that it will be included in their formal comment period. Please let know if you have any ...↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Valerie Snyder 3311 Valley Crest WayForest Grove, OR 97116
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, NICHOLE CARUBIA 3297 Biz Point RdAnacortes, WA 98221
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Andrea Zinn 629 E 24th StBrooklyn, NY 11210
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Lise Grace 2501 Lynn StBellingham, WA 98225
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Cheryn Zimmer 300 Shantel StMount Vernon, WA 98274
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Michael Rynes 570 Harlowe LnNaperville, IL 60565
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Nicholas Lenchner 1324 Cashew RdSanta Rosa, CA 95403
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Nicholas Lenchner 1324 Cashew RdSanta Rosa, CA 95403
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Rachel Budelsky-Olson 505 Ridgeway DrBellingham, WA 98225
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Stephen Bailey 4778 Edward DrDeming, WA 98244
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, John S 10726 Stone Ave NSeattle, WA 98133
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Marianne Flanagan 1714 Forest AveDes Plaines, IL 60018
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Janet Higbee-Robinson 2078 Wildflower WayBellingham, WA 98229
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Monica Aebly 4700 Spring Brook StBellingham, WA 98226
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Alexa Fay 1507 N 39th StSeattle, WA 98103
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Wesley Banks 15640 NE Fourth Plain BlvdVancouver, WA 98682
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Larry McCarter 213 Hawthorn RdBellingham, WA 98225
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Judith Cohen 1608 E Republican StSeattle, WA 98112
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Nicholas Sherman 40 Henry St Unit 302Shelburne, VT 05482
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Judith Fey 22 Marigold DrBellingham, WA 98229
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Asphodel Denning 108 5th Ave SSeattle, WA 98104
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Terra Hadley 3328 McAlpine RdBellingham, WA 98225
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Nancy White 13311 E Forrest AveSpokane Valley, WA 99216
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Linda Ehrlich 1612 Harris AveBellingham, WA 98225
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Mark Giese 1520 Bryn Mawr AveMount Pleasant, WI 53403
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Lorraine Johnson 13716 Lake City Way NESeattle, WA 98125
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Joe Wiederhold 1405 Edwards StBellingham, WA 98229
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Sarah Bauman 695 Chuckanut Dr NBellingham, WA 98229
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I STRONGLY SUPPORT the Department of Eco...↓logy in its decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is very much WORSENING the region’s naturally low oxygen levels!! Years of research and scientific data CONFIRM that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem...even though there are other significant sources!! If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source...so let's get with it, o.k.?!? The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water! We can do BETTER, and we must act NOW! ! We CAN'T keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste!! Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water:–The Permit must do MORE to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load! –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements...corrective actions should trigger SOONER...and corrective reductions should be demonstrated "earlier" in the Permit cycle!–The Permit MUST be enforceable and MUST be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule...REGARDLESS of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits!I care "very DEEPLY" about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water!! Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound!! Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even MORE urgent!! The danger is here. We must act NOW...right NOW...to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region!! Thank you for considering my comments...Regards, David Scheer 2715 Cody CirBellingham, WA 98225
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Cara Fleming 20507 Woods Creek RdMonroe, WA 98272
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Norm Conrad 1120 S 25th StMount Vernon, WA 98274
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Patti Santangelo 1501 Collins RdSedro-woolley, WA 98284
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, K o 2010 Wissant LnSt. Louis, MO 63146
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, winn wilson 35 Greenwood StWindham, CT 06226
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Vivian Bartlett 835 Chuckanut DrBellingham, WA 98229
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Karen Holderman 3908 Aaron CtBellingham, WA 98226
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Marian Larson 1464 Chuckanut Mountain DrBellingham, WA 98229
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Gavin Bornholtz 9090 Creekwood Lake TrailGrand Blanc, MI 48439
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Dominique Gard 3023 Northwest AveBellingham, WA 98225
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I STRONGLY support the Department of Eco...↓logy in its decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Time is rapidly running out.Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water:–The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle.–The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits.I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Nancy Ging 4737 Parker StBellingham, WA 98226
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Edward Kaeufer 8432 Catalina DrBlaine, WA 98230
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Hannah Newell 405 Fieldston RdBellingham, WA 98225
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Rebecca Canright 11589 Martin RdRockport, WA 98283
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Stan Parker 2520 Jefferson StBellingham, WA 98225
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Mark Canright 11589 Martin RdRockport, WA 98283
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Wendy Smalls 815 N Garden StBellingham, WA 98225
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Amy Hansen 11589 Martin RdRockport, WA 98283
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Kathy Bradley 1220 Fredericksburg Dr SLugoff, SC 29078
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Bronwen Evans 219 James StSeattle, WA 98104
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Susan Vogt 269 Bias DrFairbanks, AK 99712
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Bob Burr 3350 Bellevue PlBellingham, WA 98226
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Jim Haley 35399 Ridge Rte RdCastaic, CA 91384
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Meryle Korn 2821 Huron StBellingham, WA 98226
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Pam Borso 7632 Portal WayCuster, WA 98240
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Jennifer Campbell 1403 Olympic WayBellingham, WA 98225
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, SUSAN KROLL 1313 E Victor StBellingham, WA 98225
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Brooks Anderson 905 Wilson AveBellingham, WA 98225
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Laurie Gogic 11322 NE 129th StKirkland, WA 98034
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Kevin Clark 834 San Juan BlvdBellingham, WA 98229
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Joy Gardner 21121 77th Pl WEdmonds, WA 98026
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Joy Gardner 21121 77th Pl WEdmonds, WA 98026
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Emily Van Alyne 6749 Whitestone StWest Richland, WA 99353
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Betty Barats 1710 Donovan AveBellingham, WA 98225
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Amy Mower 7392 Mt Baker HwyMaple Falls, WA 98266
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, David Laws 1718 Valencia StBellingham, WA 98229
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Jamie Shields 15739 NW Rondos DrPortland, OR 97229
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Aleks Kosowicz 1745 Roberts LnAbrams, WI 54101
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, William Wollner 323 E Magnolia StStockton, CA 95202
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Jeanne Ripp 2523 H StBellingham, WA 98225
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, j h 304 Willow St SWOrting, WA 98360
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, t t 16124 Rosecrans AveLa Mirada, CA 90638
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, j g 3011 N 30th StTacoma, WA 98407
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Debra Wontor 3304 Hemlock FarmsHawley, PA 18428
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Joel Johnson 2900 General Anderson AveVancouver, WA 98661
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Faye Bartlett 3382 Southbend PlBellingham, WA 98226
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Caroline Sévilla 4 All. Marc ChagallChamps-sur-marne, Idf 77420
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Jorge De Cecco 705 N State StUkiah, CA 95482
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Nilah MacDonald 25 Whortleberry LnScituate, MA 02066
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, R Larson 109 S 27th StMount Vernon, WA 98274
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Timothy Mullen 1272 Richland AveSaint Charles, MN 55972
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Richard Kite 1010 Massachusetts Ave NWWashington, DC 20001
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, peckie peters 3615 Larrabee AveBellingham, WA 98229
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Ken Maurice 1308 Northbluff DrAnchorage, AK 99501
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, JL Angell 2391 Ponderosa RdRescue, CA 95672
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Jenny Maida 4421 E Oregon StBellingham, WA 98226
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, stephen shubert 61 Sutherland RdFriday Harbor, WA 98250
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Richard Johnson 6 Overlake CtBellingham, WA 98229
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Mark Koritz 12104 Ashford Gables DrDunwoody, GA 30338
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Lynne Pendleton 2415 Williams StBellingham, WA 98225
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Tina Cummings 921 Jersey StBellingham, WA 98225
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Colleen Curtis 1520 Chuckanut Crest DrBellingham, WA 98229
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Matthew Messmer 1347 Roma RdBellingham, WA 98226
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Tika Bordelon 1400 Hubbell PlSeattle, WA 98101
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, William Young 4421 E Oregon StBellingham, WA 98226
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, David Trasoff 2447 Crestline StFerndale, WA 98248
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,Y E S ! ! ! B R A V O ! ! I support the ...↓Department of Ecology in its decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water:–The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle.–The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits.I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Stephen Bailey 4778 Edward DrDeming, WA 98244
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Stephen Bailey 4778 Edward DrDeming, WA 98244
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Brian Myrick 867 W Smith RdBellingham, WA 98226
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We cannot keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water:–The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle.–The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits.I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Art Hanson 1815 Briarwood DrLansing, MI 48917
↓
No attachments
[
Previous Page
/
Next Page
]