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, Wendy Eakle 5330 Bellaire 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, Jeanette Lim 2514 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,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 Franklin 829 Briar 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, Jo Lowenthal 5400 Donovan 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, Jude Green 2824 Ellis 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. 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, Mary Holder 201 S 7th 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, carl ullman 5162 W Shore RdAnacortes, WA 98221
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Margo Margolis 4915 Samish WayBellingham, WA 98229
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, John Miller 5187 Ranchos 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 DOE in its decision to cre...↓ate a new General Clean Water Act Permit to better regulate nutrient pollution from sewage treatment plants. 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 currently available 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 as soon as possible.–The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to timely meet Clean Water Act requirements. Responsible sequestering and beneficial use of waste on land must be developed as an alternative to discharge into our oceans. 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, Julie Carpenter 8107 Comox LoopBlaine, 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, Vic Bostock 1612 Woodglen LnAltadena, CA 91001
↓
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, Angi Cunningham 2501 Monroe 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, Kit Muehlman 720 11th St Apt B7Bellingham, 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, Robert Mazur 378 Lupine CtMount Vernon, WA 98273
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Betty Barats 1710 Donovan AveBellingham, WA 98225
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water:–The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle.–The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits.I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Annapoorne Colangelo 7651 Scatchet Head RdClinton, WA 98236
↓
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 Murray 2414 I 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, Bob Riek 297 Beacon RdBellingham, 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, Bret Warrick 2816 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, Mary Solum 4615 Coast 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, Andrea Fenwick 601 Highland 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, Emma Maas 905 15th 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, Megan Taylor 1228 Brighton Crest DrBellingham, WA 98229
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Laura Krupa 1711 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, Susan Vogt 269 Bias DrFairbanks, AK 99712
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Edward Kaeufer 8432 Catalina DrBlaine, WA 98230
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Kathryn Allen 1213 Birch Falls DrBellingham, WA 98229
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Sarah Hodgkins 800 Highland 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, Simon Bakke 1812 24th 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, Courtenay Chadwell-Gatz 916 Jersey StBellingham, WA 98225
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Lise Grace 2501 Lynn StBellingham, WA 98225
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, S. Almskaar 1600 Ten Mile RdEverson, WA 98247
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Stan Parker 2520 Jefferson StBellingham, WA 98225
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Nicole Novelli 1300 McKenzie 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, Shaun Hubbard 685 Spring StFriday 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. 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.Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Richard Donnelly 2305 37th 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, Liam Weydert 2821 Williams StBellingham, WA 98225
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Carlo Voli 9605 239th St SWEdmonds, WA 98020
↓
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,Here's an important, effective step in k...↓eeping the Salish Sea healthy. 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, Janet Lehwalder 575 Midwood 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, Will Middlebrooks 2659 MacKenzie 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, Suzanne Steel 8328 Fawn CrescentBlaine, 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, Friedrich Ulrich 4158 Malachite 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, Cara Jaye 1007 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, Ellen Bradley Everett, WA 98201
↓
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 McNeely 2300 BroadwayBellingham, 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, John Holstein 1802 D 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, jai Boreen 9962 Rustic LnSedro-woolley, WA 98284
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Kathleen Chen 2642 Donovan AveBellingham, WA 98225
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Carolyn Gregg 524 N 18th PlMount Vernon, WA 98273
↓
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,In Bellingham, where I live, our waste w...↓ater treatment facility is already well past its replacement date even as our local population grows. Our outdated facility routinely pollutes our marine environment. Worse yet, our city council plans to replace it with a plant that creates unsterilized "bio products" that it plans to market as compost, polluting the land as well as the water. I strongly 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, randall potts 4062 Springland 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, Noreen Fujita-Sacco 22 Fairway 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, John Graber 1334 Welling 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, Joe Wiederhold 1405 Edwards StBellingham, WA 98229
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Deborah Johnson Bellingham, WA 98229
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I strongly support the Department of Eco...↓logy in its decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is 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 seriously considering my comments.Regards, Matt Shaffer 4345 Water Lily Loop Unit 201Bellingham, 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, 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, Charis Weathers 815 Wilson AveBellingham, WA 98225
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Ross Marquardt 218 Sea Pines RdBellingham, 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, Robin Thomas 1015 Mason 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, Rebecca Rettmer 2211 N Nugent RdLummi 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, Kevin Clark 834 San Juan BlvdBellingham, WA 98229
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Heidi Graham 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, Lynn Rosenblum 908 Dupont 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.Additionally, we should have a dialogue with our Canadian neighbors on Vancouver Island who have been polluting these waters. And, what restrictions are in place for the container ships we have seen recently anchored in Bellingham Bay to keep them from discharging pollutants? Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Helen Glidden 419 Briar 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,We are polluting the Salish Sea with way...↓ too many contaminants so I’m glad to hear that the Department of Ecology wants to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. However, it needs to be strengthened if it is to do any good.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, Gayle Janzen 11232 Dayton Ave NSeattle, WA 98133
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Kathy Bradley 1220 Fredericksburg Dr SLugoff, SC 29078
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, KARIN GUNDERSON 1717 4th 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, Diane Rose Bellevue, WA 98007
↓
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,Why is it acceptable to use Puget Sound ...↓as our toilet? I say build inland treatment plants and stop sending our effluent into the homes of countless marine lives that have no other place to exist. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Lyle Anderson 5118 Heronswood 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, Margarette Grant 1269 Runge 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, Roland Vlaicu 6 Winter Creek PlaceBellingham, 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, Jean Kroll 2508 Broad 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, Kendra Schmiedeskamp 18256 NE 196th CtWoodinville, WA 98077
↓
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 Scarborough 2815 Kulshan 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, Naida Paneak 25 Wisteria 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, Jane Ward 75 Bluff RdLopez Island, WA 98261
↓
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, Rae Hovsepian 14577 Laconner Whitney RdMount Vernon, WA 98273
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Jeanne Ripp 2523 H StBellingham, WA 98225
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Eleanor Ott,I support the Department of Ecology in i...↓ts decision to create a new General Clean Water Act Permit to control nutrient pollution from Puget Sound sewage treatment plants. Right now, dissolved oxygen levels in many parts of Puget Sound and the Salish Sea are below the levels needed for fish and other marine life to thrive. Nutrient pollution from human activity is worsening the region’s naturally low oxygen levels. Years of research and scientific data confirm that municipal sewage treatment plants are the biggest human source of Puget Sound’s nutrient problem, though there are other significant sources. If created carefully, A Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit can be an effective way to stop this known and preventable pollution source. The Draft Permit is a good concept but lacks critical provisions that, if implemented, will better protect clean water. We can do better, and we must act now. We can’t keep waiting for future generations to deal with our waste. Primarily, I recommend these changes to better protect clean water: –The Permit must do more to reduce nutrient pollution in the first permit cycle at all plants, but even more so at the largest wastewater treatment plants that contribute most of the pollution to the Sound. “Nutrient action levels” should be lower, and small plants should be required to take reasonable measures to reduce their discharges: they should be required to hold the load. –The Permit should have rolling compliance requirements, corrective actions should trigger sooner, and corrective reductions should be demonstrated earlier in the Permit cycle. –The Permit must be enforceable and must be designed to meet Clean Water Act requirements on a timely schedule, regardless of what happens in the future with external processes, such as Salish Sea Model runs and development of Water Quality Based Effluent limits. I care deeply about clean water and protecting Puget Sound for the health and survival of salmon, orca, and all communities that depend on clean water. Our nutrient pollution problem is already throwing the food web off balance and exacerbating ocean acidification in the Sound. Population growth and climate change are compounding pressures that make this dire situation even more urgent. The danger is here. We must act now to increase capacity, reduce pollution, and improve the handling of waste at municipal sewage treatment plants in our region. Thank you for considering my comments.Regards, Karlee Deatherage 3622 Rucker AveEverett, WA 98201
↓
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 Henderson 220 S 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, Brian Yanke 3173 Muir Field RdMadison, WI 53719
↓
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, Kate Hughes 1400 12th 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, Sharon Holford 2580 SE Courtney AveMilwaukie, OR 97222
↓
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 Franklin 829 Briar 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, Sarah Jones 1902 20th 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 linkNutrient Email Ellie Ott,I am writing to object to Ecology’s ...↓proposal to allow sewage treatment plants to continue to discharge nitrogen and toxics to Puget Sound at current unsafe levels of pollution that are already suffocating marine life, harming Chinook salmon and orcas, causing massive algal blooms, and fundamentally changing the food web.For over 20 years, Ecology has taken no regulatory action, just watching as water quality in Puget Sound has continued to deteriorate. Now, you propose to legalize the same do-nothing approach. Ecology’s proposed general permit to allow 58 sewage treatment plants to continue polluting Puget Sound with unsafe levels of nitrogen fails to meet its responsibility to protect Puget Sound. This proposal is contrary to both the Clean Water Act and to Washington laws that require the use of modern sewage treatment to keep water quality as clean as possible. I urge you to change course. Ecology should stop dragging its feet and issue discharge permits with pollution limits that will protect Puget Sound now and into the future, when population increases and climate change will only make the situation even worse than it is today. JAY RICHARDS scootermannn3@gmail.com 20801 Cross Ct Bend, Oregon 97701-8279
↓
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 linkNutrient Email Ellie Ott,As the former EPA employee most dire...↓ctly involved with Ecology's efforts to evaluate the water quality impacts of these discharges, it is very disturbing to see the state trying to once again avoid take necessary regulatory action to protect water quality. Study of the impacts of WWTP discharges began with the Deschutes/Budd Inlet TMDL evaluation well over 20 years ago. To avoid completing a TMDL for nutrient impacts on Budd Inlet, Ecology decided to expand the study to evaluate the impacts of all central and south Puget Sound dischargers. After expending an incredible amount of limited federal and state funding, those studies conclusively demonstrated the impacts of these dischargers require that their nutrient loading be reduced. I am writing to object to Ecology’s proposal to allow sewage treatment plants to continue to discharge nitrogen and toxics to Puget Sound at current unsafe levels of pollution that are already suffocating marine life, harming Chinook salmon and orcas, causing massive algal blooms, and fundamentally changing the food web.For over 20 years, Ecology has taken no regulatory action, just watching as water quality in Puget Sound has continued to deteriorate. Now, you propose to legalize the same do-nothing approach. Ecology’s proposed general permit to allow 58 sewage treatment plants to continue polluting Puget Sound with unsafe levels of nitrogen fails to meet its responsibility to protect Puget Sound. This proposal is contrary to both the Clean Water Act and to Washington laws that require the use of modern sewage treatment to keep water quality as clean as possible. I urge you to change course. Ecology should stop dragging its feet and issue discharge permits with pollution limits that will protect Puget Sound now and into the future, when population increases and climate change will only make the situation even worse than it is today. Since the "reasonable potential" that the current discharges from these facilities are causing and contributing to degradation of water quality and designated beneficial uses, Ecology should immediately issue orders to limit any increased discharge of pollutants into the collection systems of these facilities while treatment upgrades are installed. Such orders would accomplish two important tasks. One, the degradation currently being caused by these discharges will not get worse during the interim. Second, not allowing additional connections to the WWTP will provide the most effective motivation to these dischargers to install treatment in the shortest reasonable time (the timeframe specified in WA state water quality standards). Please take the regulatory actions to protect water quality that is required by both state and federal law.David Ragsdale deeragsdale@gmail.com PO Box 88 Ophir, Oregon 97464
↓
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 linkNutrient Email Ellie Ott,I am writing to object to Ecology’s ...↓proposal to allow sewage treatment plants to continue to discharge nitrogen and toxics to Puget Sound at current unsafe levels of pollution that are already suffocating marine life, harming Chinook salmon and orcas, causing massive algal blooms, and fundamentally changing the food web.For over 20 years, Ecology has taken no regulatory action, just watching as water quality in Puget Sound has continued to deteriorate. Now, you propose to legalize the same do-nothing approach. Ecology’s proposed general permit to allow 58 sewage treatment plants to continue polluting Puget Sound with unsafe levels of nitrogen fails to meet its responsibility to protect Puget Sound. This proposal is contrary to both the Clean Water Act and to Washington laws that require the use of modern sewage treatment to keep water quality as clean as possible. I urge you to change course. Ecology should stop dragging its feet and issue discharge permits with pollution limits that will protect Puget Sound now and into the future, when population increases and climate change will only make the situation even worse than it is today. David Prescott Thompson rosedalerocket@mac.com 1300 NE 16th Ave Apt.1514 Portland, Oregon 97232
↓
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 linkNutrient�General Permit Lead Ellie Ott,Ecology has known fo...↓r more than 20 years that sewage plants are causing unsafe levels of pollution. Puget Sound is in serious decline and Ecology's proposed blanket permit for the 58 sewage treatment plants does nothing to address the problem. Both federal and state law require that Ecology act with real solutions, ones that are already in place in other areas of the country.Tobi Solvang tobi.solvang@hotmail.com PO Box 730 Fall City, Washington 98024
↓
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 linkNutrient�General Permit Lead Ellie Ott,With rising water te...↓mperature and endangered salmon, orcas, and krill, we need to reduce nutrient runoff and pollution into the Puget Sound to save our ecosystem.The goal should be to reduce and eventually eliminate nutrient runoff pollution.Thank you, Joe DeBinJoseph DeBin jdebin@gmail.com 4214 NE Glisan St Portland, Oregon 97213
↓
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 linkNutrient�General Permit Lead Ellie Ott,Ecology has known fo...↓r more than 20 years that sewage plants are causing unsafe levels of pollution. Puget Sound is in serious decline and Ecology's proposed blanket permit for the 58 sewage treatment plants does nothing to address the problem. Both federal and state law require that Ecology act with real solutions, ones that are already in place in other areas of the country.Please heed the science and take the needed steps to limit/eliminate the nitrogen discharge from the sewage treatment plants throughout the Puget Sound area.Von Taylor sochok@gmail.com 526 Lakeside Ave S, APT 11 Seattle, Washington 98144
↓
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. Ott,Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the ...↓Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit. Clean water is important to me personally, and we are glad to see the Department of Ecology requiring Puget Sound utilities to transition to more protective sewage treatment standards. As you know, many cities and counties have already implemented nutrient-removal technology, from Shelton to Spokane. It’s time for all utilities in the region to step up and to do so quickly. While we want this permit to move forward, we would also like to call your attention to three areas of improvement that are needed:1. Seattle, King County, and Tacoma are the largest dischargers, contributing over 70% of the nitrogen load, and they need to move further and faster during this permit term. They need to implement actual reductions in the next five years while also developing Nutrient Reduction Evaluation with a deadline of construction by 2030 to avoid them extending this out multiple decades.2. The nutrient load action levels remain too permissive. Ecology set these at the 99th percentile upper confidence limit of current loads, even though no one advocated for this permissive of a statistic. This inadvertently allows tons of nitrogen pollution above safe levels for Puget Sound to protect a number that simply triggers planning activities.3. Ecology should not delegate responsibility for determining what represents “reasonable” technology to individual plants. Ecology must maintain the responsibility to determine what constitutes “All Known and Reasonable Technology.”In closing, while you may hear false claims that the science is uncertain or that cleaning up sewage really won’t make a big difference, please know that I disagree. Now is the time to reduce sewage pollution. Puget Sound, its waters, and the communities that rely on it deserve this protection.Sincerely, Peggy Willis 2637 W Viewmont Way WSeattle, WA 98199
↓
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. Ott,Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the ...↓Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit. Clean water is important to me personally, and we are glad to see the Department of Ecology requiring Puget Sound utilities to transition to more protective sewage treatment standards. As you know, many cities and counties have already implemented nutrient-removal technology, from Shelton to Spokane. It’s time for all utilities in the region to step up and to do so quickly. While we want this permit to move forward, we would also like to call your attention to three areas of improvement that are needed:1. Seattle, King County, and Tacoma are the largest dischargers, contributing over 70% of the nitrogen load, and they need to move further and faster during this permit term. They need to implement actual reductions in the next five years while also developing Nutrient Reduction Evaluation with a deadline of construction by 2030 to avoid them extending this out multiple decades.2. The nutrient load action levels remain too permissive. Ecology set these at the 99th percentile upper confidence limit of current loads, even though no one advocated for this permissive of a statistic. This inadvertently allows tons of nitrogen pollution above safe levels for Puget Sound to protect a number that simply triggers planning activities.3. Ecology should not delegate responsibility for determining what represents “reasonable” technology to individual plants. Ecology must maintain the responsibility to determine what constitutes “All Known and Reasonable Technology.”In closing, while you may hear false claims that the science is uncertain or that cleaning up sewage really won’t make a big difference, please know that I disagree. Now is the time to reduce sewage pollution. Puget Sound, its waters, and the communities that rely on it deserve this protection.Sincerely, Gena DiLabio 3124 Dakota DrMount 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. Ott,Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the ...↓Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit. Clean water is important to me personally, and we are glad to see the Department of Ecology requiring Puget Sound utilities to transition to more protective sewage treatment standards. As you know, many cities and counties have already implemented nutrient-removal technology, from Shelton to Spokane. It’s time for all utilities in the region to step up and to do so quickly. While we want this permit to move forward, we would also like to call your attention to three areas of improvement that are needed:1. Seattle, King County, and Tacoma are the largest dischargers, contributing over 70% of the nitrogen load, and they need to move further and faster during this permit term. They need to implement actual reductions in the next five years while also developing Nutrient Reduction Evaluation with a deadline of construction by 2030 to avoid them extending this out multiple decades.2. The nutrient load action levels remain too permissive. Ecology set these at the 99th percentile upper confidence limit of current loads, even though no one advocated for this permissive of a statistic. This inadvertently allows tons of nitrogen pollution above safe levels for Puget Sound to protect a number that simply triggers planning activities.3. Ecology should not delegate responsibility for determining what represents “reasonable” technology to individual plants. Ecology must maintain the responsibility to determine what constitutes “All Known and Reasonable Technology.”In closing, while you may hear false claims that the science is uncertain or that cleaning up sewage really won’t make a big difference, please know that I disagree. Now is the time to reduce sewage pollution. Puget Sound, its waters, and the communities that rely on it deserve this protection.Sincerely, Diane McCutcheon 3130 NE 117th StSeattle, 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. Ott,Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the ...↓Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit. Clean water is important to me personally, and we are glad to see the Department of Ecology requiring Puget Sound utilities to transition to more protective sewage treatment standards. As you know, many cities and counties have already implemented nutrient-removal technology, from Shelton to Spokane. It’s time for all utilities in the region to step up and to do so quickly. While we want this permit to move forward, we would also like to call your attention to three areas of improvement that are needed:1. Seattle, King County, and Tacoma are the largest dischargers, contributing over 70% of the nitrogen load, and they need to move further and faster during this permit term. They need to implement actual reductions in the next five years while also developing Nutrient Reduction Evaluation with a deadline of construction by 2030 to avoid them extending this out multiple decades.2. The nutrient load action levels remain too permissive. Ecology set these at the 99th percentile upper confidence limit of current loads, even though no one advocated for this permissive of a statistic. This inadvertently allows tons of nitrogen pollution above safe levels for Puget Sound to protect a number that simply triggers planning activities.3. Ecology should not delegate responsibility for determining what represents “reasonable” technology to individual plants. Ecology must maintain the responsibility to determine what constitutes “All Known and Reasonable Technology.”In closing, while you may hear false claims that the science is uncertain or that cleaning up sewage really won’t make a big difference, please know that I disagree. Now is the time to reduce sewage pollution. Puget Sound, its waters, and the communities that rely on it deserve this protection.Sincerely, Shary B 1950 Alaskan WaySeattle, WA 98101
↓
No attachments
THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED FROM OUTSIDE THE WASHINGTON STATE EMAIL SYSTEM - Take caution not to open attachments or links unless you know the sender AND were expecting the attachment or the linkDear Ms. Ott,Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the ...↓Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit. Clean water is important to me personally, and we are glad to see the Department of Ecology requiring Puget Sound utilities to transition to more protective sewage treatment standards. As you know, many cities and counties have already implemented nutrient-removal technology, from Shelton to Spokane. It’s time for all utilities in the region to step up and to do so quickly. While we want this permit to move forward, we would also like to call your attention to three areas of improvement that are needed:1. Seattle, King County, and Tacoma are the largest dischargers, contributing over 70% of the nitrogen load, and they need to move further and faster during this permit term. They need to implement actual reductions in the next five years while also developing Nutrient Reduction Evaluation with a deadline of construction by 2030 to avoid them extending this out multiple decades.2. The nutrient load action levels remain too permissive. Ecology set these at the 99th percentile upper confidence limit of current loads, even though no one advocated for this permissive of a statistic. This inadvertently allows tons of nitrogen pollution above safe levels for Puget Sound to protect a number that simply triggers planning activities.3. Ecology should not delegate responsibility for determining what represents “reasonable” technology to individual plants. Ecology must maintain the responsibility to determine what constitutes “All Known and Reasonable Technology.”In closing, while you may hear false claims that the science is uncertain or that cleaning up sewage really won’t make a big difference, please know that I disagree. Now is the time to reduce sewage pollution. Puget Sound, its waters, and the communities that rely on it deserve this protection.Sincerely, Krista Harris 2131 NW 93rd StSeattle, WA 98117
↓
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. Ott,Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the ...↓Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit. Clean water is important to me personally, and we are glad to see the Department of Ecology requiring Puget Sound utilities to transition to more protective sewage treatment standards. As you know, many cities and counties have already implemented nutrient-removal technology, from Shelton to Spokane. It’s time for all utilities in the region to step up and to do so quickly. While we want this permit to move forward, we would also like to call your attention to three areas of improvement that are needed:1. Seattle, King County, and Tacoma are the largest dischargers, contributing over 70% of the nitrogen load, and they need to move further and faster during this permit term. They need to implement actual reductions in the next five years while also developing Nutrient Reduction Evaluation with a deadline of construction by 2030 to avoid them extending this out multiple decades.2. The nutrient load action levels remain too permissive. Ecology set these at the 99th percentile upper confidence limit of current loads, even though no one advocated for this permissive of a statistic. This inadvertently allows tons of nitrogen pollution above safe levels for Puget Sound to protect a number that simply triggers planning activities.3. Ecology should not delegate responsibility for determining what represents “reasonable” technology to individual plants. Ecology must maintain the responsibility to determine what constitutes “All Known and Reasonable Technology.”In closing, while you may hear false claims that the science is uncertain or that cleaning up sewage really won’t make a big difference, please know that I disagree. Now is the time to reduce sewage pollution. Puget Sound, its waters, and the communities that rely on it deserve this protection.Sincerely, Kristin Fitzpatrick 1501 30th AveVero Beach, FL 32960
↓
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. Ott,Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the ...↓Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit. Clean water is important to me personally, and we are glad to see the Department of Ecology requiring Puget Sound utilities to transition to more protective sewage treatment standards. As you know, many cities and counties have already implemented nutrient-removal technology, from Shelton to Spokane. It’s time for all utilities in the region to step up and to do so quickly. While we want this permit to move forward, we would also like to call your attention to three areas of improvement that are needed:1. Seattle, King County, and Tacoma are the largest dischargers, contributing over 70% of the nitrogen load, and they need to move further and faster during this permit term. They need to implement actual reductions in the next five years while also developing Nutrient Reduction Evaluation with a deadline of construction by 2030 to avoid them extending this out multiple decades.2. The nutrient load action levels remain too permissive. Ecology set these at the 99th percentile upper confidence limit of current loads, even though no one advocated for this permissive of a statistic. This inadvertently allows tons of nitrogen pollution above safe levels for Puget Sound to protect a number that simply triggers planning activities.3. Ecology should not delegate responsibility for determining what represents “reasonable” technology to individual plants. Ecology must maintain the responsibility to determine what constitutes “All Known and Reasonable Technology.”In closing, while you may hear false claims that the science is uncertain or that cleaning up sewage really won’t make a big difference, please know that I disagree. Now is the time to reduce sewage pollution. Puget Sound, its waters, and the communities that rely on it deserve this protection.Sincerely, Eve McClure 1727 31st Ave SSeattle, WA 98144
↓
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. Ott,Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the ...↓Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit. Clean water is important to me personally, and we are glad to see the Department of Ecology requiring Puget Sound utilities to transition to more protective sewage treatment standards. As you know, many cities and counties have already implemented nutrient-removal technology, from Shelton to Spokane. It’s time for all utilities in the region to step up and to do so quickly. While we want this permit to move forward, we would also like to call your attention to three areas of improvement that are needed:1. Seattle, King County, and Tacoma are the largest dischargers, contributing over 70% of the nitrogen load, and they need to move further and faster during this permit term. They need to implement actual reductions in the next five years while also developing Nutrient Reduction Evaluation with a deadline of construction by 2030 to avoid them extending this out multiple decades.2. The nutrient load action levels remain too permissive. Ecology set these at the 99th percentile upper confidence limit of current loads, even though no one advocated for this permissive of a statistic. This inadvertently allows tons of nitrogen pollution above safe levels for Puget Sound to protect a number that simply triggers planning activities.3. Ecology should not delegate responsibility for determining what represents “reasonable” technology to individual plants. Ecology must maintain the responsibility to determine what constitutes “All Known and Reasonable Technology.”In closing, while you may hear false claims that the science is uncertain or that cleaning up sewage really won’t make a big difference, please know that I disagree. Now is the time to reduce sewage pollution. Puget Sound, its waters, and the communities that rely on it deserve this protection.Sincerely, William Derry 16107 74th Pl WEdmonds, WA 98026
↓
No attachments
[
Previous Page
/
Next Page
]