Rulemaking - Natural Conditions Provisions, Chapter 173-201A WAC
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Shary B
1950 Alaskan Way
Seattle, WA 98101↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Sally Burke
3020 E K St
Tacoma, WA 98404↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters. Keep our water clean and cool1
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
No stalling tactics:
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Frank Carsey
4627 Marine Dr Pl
Bremerton, WA 98312↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Beatrice Greenwald
13000 Linden Ave N Apt 510
Seattle, WA 98133↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Rachel Wilson
37208 34th Ave S
Auburn, WA 98001↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Gordon Wood
334 Lakeside Ave S Apt 201
Seattle, WA 98144↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Lorraine Hartmann
10627 Durland Ave NE
Seattle, WA 98125↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Elizabeth Lengel
12901 S Wildwood Ln
Anacortes, WA 98221↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Elly Claus-McGahan
4301 N Frace Ave
Tacoma, WA 98407↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Laura Huddlestone
5222 18th Ave SW
Seattle, WA 98106↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
vana spear
1805 204th Pl SW
Lynnwood, WA 98036↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Steve Uyenishi
7301 40th Ave NE
Seattle, WA 98115↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Cara Berman
6246 28th Ave NE
Seattle, WA 98115↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining PROTECTIVE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, I am offended that I must remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life, especially since there is NO DAMN GOOD REASON TO DO SO JUST THE POLITICALLY CORRUPT FACILITATING OF CORPORATE RAPE AND DESTRUCTION OF WASHINGTON'S NATURAL RESOURCES FOR PRIVATE PROFIT AND ABUSE AT PUBLIC EXPENSE. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW AND AN AFRONT TO COMMON SENSE, INTELLIGENCE, AND THE CITIZENS OF WASHINGTON STATE THAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO PROTECT AND CARE FOR.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters and 'CLIMATE CHANGE DENIERS' still deludedly suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, intelligent humans, the State of Washington, and the planet itself cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Patrick Conn
22018 126th Ct SE
Kent, WA 98031↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Vanessa Jamison
7724 87th St NE
Marysville, WA 98270↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington.
I'm an individual person and I car...↓e deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, I remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Virginia Davis
17721 NE 156th St
Woodinville, WA 98072↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Nancy McMahon
3123 Scotch Meadows Ct SE
Olympia, WA 98501↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I care deeply about maintaining prot...↓ective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
It is heartening to see that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington it states “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Kim Josund
18115 33rd Ave NE
Lake Forest Park, WA 98155↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Maxwell Hanson
3840 Fremont Ln N
Seattle, WA 98103↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Kim seater
4501 SW 100th St
Seattle, WA 98146↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
DON WILLIAMS
4910 Cushman Rd NE
Olympia, WA 98506↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Ken Mincin
11335 Redmond - Woodinville Rd NE
Redmond, WA 98052↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Marquam Krantz 5698 NE Wild Cherry Ln
5698 NE Wild Cherry Ln
Bainbridge Island, WA 98110↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Catherine Clissold
4435 Beach Dr E
Port Orchard, WA 98366↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
John Dunn
10005 SW 178th St
Vashon, WA 98070↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Delorse Lovelady
18622 66th Ave NE
Kenmore, WA 98028↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Jean Schwinberg
6341 5th Ave NE Apt 308
Seattle, WA 98115↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Phebe Schwartz
423 N Garden St
Bellingham, WA 98225↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Diane Langgin
165 14th Ave
Seattle, WA 98122↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
We need to take better care of what is left of our environment, for wildlife, marine life, plant life, and people.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
priscilla martinez
35411 SE English St
Snoqualmie, WA 98065↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Sandra Ciske
1717 Sunset Ave SW
Seattle, WA 98116↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Sophia Fox
24251 Wicker Rd
Sedro-woolley, WA 98284↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Judith Starbuck
900 University St
Seattle, WA 98101↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Clayton Jones
4246 S 148th St
Tukwila, WA 98168↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual citizen of Washin...↓gton who has worked for an environmental science & engineering firm, and I care deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, I want to remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to ensure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity to absorb impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. I urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Lorena Dinger
4601 224th St SE
Bothell, WA 98021↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Elena Rumiantseva
3807 West Lake Sammamish Pkwy NE
Redmond, WA 98052↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Pamela Berardo
997 Old Olympic Hwy
Port Angeles, WA 98362↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Laurie Dils
1107 Olympia Ave NE
Olympia, WA 98506↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Felicity Devlin
2417 N Washington St
Tacoma, WA 98406↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
JENNIFER VINING
5119 Palatine Ave N
Seattle, WA 98103↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Peter Reagel
15719 4th Ave S Apt 12
Burien, WA 98148↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Lisa Winters
24901 Roberts Dr
Black Diamond, WA 98010↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Don Stutheit
23013 88th Ave W
Edmonds, WA 98026↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Karen Weis
2827 Martin St
Bellingham, WA 98226↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Shannon Markley
19107 15th Ave NW
Shoreline, WA 98177↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
James Nichols
1019 Terry Ave
Seattle, WA 98104↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Vivian Bartlett
835 Chuckanut Dr
Bellingham, WA 98229↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Anna Inghram
4222 NE 74th St
Seattle, WA 98115↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Maxine Clark
9800 219th Ave E Apt F105
Bonney Lake, WA 98391↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Nathan Tallar
17204 Sylvester Rd SW
Normandy Park, WA 98166↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Mark Frey
22143 Elbow Lake Rd SE
Yelm, WA 98597↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Ji-Young Kim
4130 174th Pl SE
Bothell, WA 98012↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am a Senior with a serious blood d...↓isorder and I care deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….”
Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life.
Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species.
Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision.
Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Gloria McClintock
1411 Northview Ct
Mount Vernon, WA 98274↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Linda Rodda
4325 Fairwood Blvd NE
Tacoma, WA 98422↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Kevin Davis
22023 SE Wax Rd
Maple Valley, WA 98038↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Deborah Efron
10129 Main St Apt 307
Bellevue, WA 98004↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you.
Thank you,
Virgene Link-New
2004 10th St
Anacortes, WA 98221↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Ruth King
6945 Mill Ct SE
Olympia, WA 98503↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Jean Pauley
414 Malden Ave E
Seattle, WA 98112↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Margaret Darr
6202 36th Ave NW
Seattle, WA 98107↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Noah Ehler
32115 NE 110th Ct
Carnation, WA 98014↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
John Lundquist
5033 S 289th Pl
Auburn, WA 98001↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Marsha Adams
1715 SE Mason St
Shelton, WA 98584↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Andrea Speed
1618 154th St E
Tacoma, WA 98445↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
diane marks
728 Caroline St
Port Angeles, WA 98362↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Aimee Hamilton
2508 S Sheridan Ave
Tacoma, WA 98405↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Gene Bullock
1754 NE Mesford Rd Unit 5
Poulsbo, WA 98370↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Kathy Golic
13705 460th Ct SE
North Bend, WA 98045↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Katherine Holmes
503 W Prospect St
Seattle, WA 98119↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Dennis Ledden
183 Webb Rd
Sequim, WA 98382↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Colleen Curtis
1520 Chuckanut Crest Dr
Bellingham, WA 98229↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Richard Bell
Terrace Dr
Friday Harbor, WA 98250↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Gary Ranz
204 Viewcrest Rd
Bellingham, WA 98229↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, which states in part that “it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state.” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of less than 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and less than 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of less than 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and less than 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Clayton Compton
10925 NE 37th Pl Apt 1
Bellevue, WA 98004↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Vicki Thomas
25 Wisteria Ln
Bellingham, WA 98229↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Laura Ramon
14739 168th Ave NE
Woodinville, WA 98072↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
The water of our environment is a part of our very being. Let’s protect the health of us all for once…
Thank you,
Randi Aiken
23403 Locust Wy
Bothell, WA 98021↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Greg Goodwin
1039 NE 94th St
Seattle, WA 98115↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Barbara Sanborn
5038B Sand Point Way NE
Seattle, WA 98105↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
LYNETTE CURRIER
4409 146th Pl SW
Lynnwood, WA 98087↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Kathleen Gylland
11055 20th Ave NE
Seattle, WA 98125↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
JACKIE EASLEY
11429 SE 322nd Pl
Auburn, WA 98092↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Natalie Franz
3710 S 11th St
Tacoma, WA 98405↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Tina Bartlett
617 Oppelt Rd
Chehalis, WA 98532↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Jana Waldroup
26200 Dungeness Ave NE
Kingston, WA 98346↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Miriam Stone
2421 E Calhoun St
Seattle, WA 98112↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Clara Kreutziger
4106 Brooklyn Ave NE
Seattle, WA 98105↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Jennifer Valentine
313 1st Ave
Massapequa Park, NY 11762↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Divya Rathor
3036 230th Ln SE Apt T203
Sammamish, WA 98075↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Jadelyn H
22540 NE Old Woodinville Duvall Rd
Woodinville, WA 98077↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Mariana Garcia
2024 NW 59th St
Seattle, WA 98107↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
I care deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
1. Under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintai...↓n the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
2. Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
3. Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
It is in polluters best interests to push for a long process to make room for weaker standards, but we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. I urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington.
Thank you,
JoAnne KELLY
4737 62nd Ln SW
Olympia, WA 98512↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Additionally my company is called Global Mitigation Technologies, we specialize in crises risk mitigation, the current paradigm is a state wide standard that only facilitates guidelines. Regional values change significantly seasonally and are trending towards a much hotter climate with precipitous decreases in DO content oftentimes not even monitored in Individual water bodies.
Any changes in these guidelines will further exacerbate an already very opaquely monitored resource under tremendous environmental stressors without further human caused aditionality.
My company is Global Mitigation Technologies, we are very focused on this specific regional and global crisis and have developed technological innovations that dramatically increase dissolved oxygen while reducing tipping point temperatures that are devastating our state and global aquatic biodiversity and resources. We would love to assist in facilitation of a statewide risk management program that facilitates a cost-effective solution to prevent the ubiquitous inevitable collapse of our critical aquatic resources.
Please contact me regarding this resource management issue at the provided contact points so we can protect our states aquatic resources before it's too late. Our solutions are viable in fresh and salt water.
Best regards,
Nathan Lane
Founder/CEO
Global Mitigation Technologies
Nl@gblmt.com
(425) 345-6130
Thank you,
Nathan Lane
11931 Freeway Pl
Everett, WA 98208↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Isaac Pennoyer
3311 S K St
Tacoma, WA 98418↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Wren Soperanes
387 Twisp Carlton Rd
Twisp, WA 98856↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Faye Bartlett
3382 Southbend Pl
Bellingham, WA 98226↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Ava Kreutziger
4106 Brooklyn Ave NE
Seattle, WA 98105↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Eric Holtz
716 2nd St
Kirkland, WA 98033↓
No attachments
Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. I am an individual person and I care...↓ deeply about maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters.
First and foremost, we remind Ecology that under Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, “…it is the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state….” Under no circumstances should Ecology weaken the state water quality standards for dissolved oxygen or temperature, which are both critical to the survival and future of salmon and other aquatic life. Ecology has been managing waters of the state using the human allowances of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C temperature using known and reasonable technologies for decades. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW.
Secondly, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the Endangered Species Act. In 2008, both the National Marine Fisheries Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service found that human allowances of 0.2 mg/L of oxygen or 0.3°C for temperature when natural conditions are worse than the numerical standards would be insignificant and unlikely to harm endangered species. Any process that deviates from those values would require additional Biological Opinions. A jeopardy finding would cause significant delays in the adoption of these water quality standards. The most efficient path that maintains species protections is to maintain the current levels of 0.2 mg/L dissolved oxygen and 0.3°C when natural conditions are worse than the numeric values in the water quality standards.
Third, Ecology must factor climate change into the human allowances. Climate change will warm waters through a variety of processes, and warmer water holds less oxygen. This means there is less capacity for impacts from current human activities, which will result in more stringent regulatory requirements.
While some polluters may suggest a long process to make room for weaker standards, we cannot wait years for a decision. Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen now. We urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state.
Thank you,
Eliza Kronenberger
2510 Jaeger St
Bellingham, WA 98225↓
No attachments
[
Previous Page
/
Next Page
]