Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit Formal Public Comment Period
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...↓
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 Way EOlympia, WA 98513
↓
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 am writing in support of the Departmen...↓t of Ecology' decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. This issue is too important to ignore. 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, Kathleen Nichols 2502 Crest AvePort Townsend, WA 98368
↓
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. I am hoping that Washington State will aggressively pursue newly available sources of federal funding to upgrade 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, Paula Rotondi 819 Kodiak LnBellingham, 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, Carrie Blackwood 1123 19th 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, Susan Bakke 4031 Wexford Loop SEOlympia, WA 98501
↓
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, Christopher Grannis 701 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 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, Ted Hammer 4183 Saltspring DrFerndale, 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,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, Martha Hammer 4183 Saltspring DrFerndale, 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,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 Albert 2335 Cherry 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, Mackenzie Bishop 835 Douglas 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, Tom Hahney 2763 Haxton WayBellingham, 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, Jay Kosa 1101 Cedar Hills 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, Steve Knutzen 2415 T AveAnacortes, 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, Susan Pevonak 2605 Russell 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, Karen Burns 2005 F 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, April Hinkle-Johnson 3002 Cedarwood 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, D C 1573 Ashley Gardens BlvdCharleston, SC 29407
↓
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, Clarissa Mansfield 2233 E Birch 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, 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, james hipp 609 Rosette 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, Nicholas Barcott 1318 N Lake Stickney DrLynnwood, WA 98087
↓
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, Melba Dlugonski 6735 SE 78th AvePortland, OR 97206
↓
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, Kerry Brehan 5930 Birdseye CtFerndale, 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,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, Cynthia Bentley 1050 Larrabee 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, Howard Sharfstein 1515 Larrabee 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, Diana Campbell 7427 Clamdigger 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, Virginia Davis 17721 NE 156th StWoodinville, WA 98072
↓
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,Along with supporting this campaign for ...↓change, I believe it is high time we begin implementing education and permitting to change over to composting human manure. Pooping into our drinking water is ultimately folly. By using safe and natural means, we can handle our human waste by composting it, often on site, with proper composting systems. Not only does it protect the Bay, but it can supply important nutrients for healthy plant growth. And reconnect us with the cycles of nature. Legalize sustainability!I also 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, Theresa Delaney Bellingham, 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, 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, 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, Sonja Hinz 2823 Birchwood 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, Kendra Webley 2639 James 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, Barbara Foster 2624 St Clair 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, Deborah Kaye 6915 Holeman AveBlaine, 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, Miles Gilmore Olympia, WA 98502
↓
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, Katy Velasquez 2500 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, Lindsay Taylor 2500 Lake Whatcom 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, Heath Bohlmann 1464 Grant 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, Wendy Bartlett 255 N Forest 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, 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, Dina Pearl-Thomas 1225 E Sunset DrBellingham, 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, Carol Armstrong 7940 Kendall RdMaple 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, 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 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 Oulman 816 14th 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, Kristin Sykes-David 4739 Columbus 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, AMELIA BECKE 22 Western LnBellingham, 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, Stephanie 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,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, Doreen Sadler 2220 25th StAnacortes, 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, Ursula Mass 15797 Snee Oosh RdLa Conner, WA 98257
↓
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, Diane Tanner 2821 Elm 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, Jim Kosa 500 N State 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 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...that's terrible!! 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!! So let's DO it!! 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...TODAY...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, Stephanie Manzo 1811 Eldridge 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, wynne lee 2171 Tuttle LnLummi Island, WA 98262
↓
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, Elizabeth longwell 2032 St Clair 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, Denise Lassaw 2451 Queen 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, Jaye Stover 12213 Pulver RdBurlington, WA 98233
↓
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, Barbara Hoch 196 N Kennebec AveMcconnelsville, OH 43756
↓
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, Elisabeth Washburn 2930 W Maplewood 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, Sarah Knudsen 1110 State Rte 20Winthrop, WA 98862
↓
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 Holcomb 2332 E Hemmi 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, Piper Mertle 617 Marine 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, 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, 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, Darcie Nielsen 5880 Church RdFerndale, 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,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 Gould 1605 Kathryn LnBellingham, 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, Lynn Colson 4740 Austin 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, Barbara DAVIDSON 806 17th 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, Corinne Salcedo 1300 O AveAnacortes, 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, Flannery White 1062 Nevada 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, Becky Kilpatrick 50 Maddy Creek LnFriday 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, Denise Weeks 819 40th 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, Janet Hamill 41 Steep Point PlEastsound, WA 98245
↓
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, Carol Oberton 2505 Park 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,We can't continue as we have been and th...↓e need to clean up the Salish Sea is desperate.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, Eileen Herring 5535 Hillvue RdBlaine, 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, Dagmar Fabian 1480 Birchwood Ave Apt 101Bellingham, 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, Dale Cox 1308 38th 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, Teresa Allen 6184 N Fork RdDeming, 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, Maria DeMars 6128 N Beulah AveFerndale, 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,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, Thomas Wilmore 2601 Cornwall 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, Philip Humphries 1963 S Mahonia PlBellingham, 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, Liz Marshall 206 E Laurel 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, Annie Prevost 3822 Levitt 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, Dianne Davis 2716 Elm 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, Cynthia Camlin 131 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, Bonnie Goss 4840 Fremont 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, L Adams 28421 Cerveza CtEscondido, CA 92026
↓
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. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that would better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now to protect some of our most vital resources. 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, Sophia Jackson 2134 Birch CirBellingham, 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, Bonnie Rohrer 401 E 8th StSioux Falls, SD 57103
↓
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.Regards, Dan Senour 809 37th StAnacortes, 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, Bruce Wade 1204 S 18th 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, Sean Edmison 11820 167th Pl NERedmond, WA 98052
↓
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 Ashworth 717 16th 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, Stephanie Peterka 2036 Niagara PlBellingham, 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,When I was looking to live in the northw...↓est, one of the things I did was to look at water, water water -- reports on creeks, rivers, estuaries...from headwaters to emptying points into bays and ocean. I was SHOCKED ! And now, six years into being a Washingtonian, I remain dismayed that we are not ACTING fast and furiously on these matters.How can I help? For one: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.E. AnnaLaurie Wattson Lamb205 N Garden StBellingham, WA 98225Regards, Elsie Lamb 205 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, David Smith 3018 Coolidge DrBellingham, WA 98225
↓
No attachments
[
Previous Page
/
Next Page
]