Rulemaking - Natural Conditions Provisions, Chapter 173-201A WAC

Submitted By

199 Results

Search Type

Sort:

Sort Results By

Comment From: Lisa Christoffersen

8/21/24 @ 12:16 PM

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 Christoffersen 2165 Sunset Ave SW Seattle, WA 98116

No attachments

Comment From: Danielle Rowland

8/21/24 @ 12:16 PM

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, Danielle Rowland 1654 153rd Ave SE Bellevue, WA 98007

No attachments

Comment From: Lucy Johnson

8/21/24 @ 12:16 PM

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, Lucy Johnson 2933 Fairmount Ave SW Seattle, WA 98116

No attachments

Comment From: Jonathan Melusky

8/21/24 @ 12:16 PM

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, Jonathan Melusky 14733 32nd Ave NE Shoreline, WA 98155

No attachments

Comment From: Mickey Rogers

8/21/24 @ 12:16 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Ev Randles

8/21/24 @ 12:16 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Jody Caicco

8/21/24 @ 12:16 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Valerie Wade

8/21/24 @ 12:16 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Lorelette Knowles

8/21/24 @ 12:16 PM

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, Lorelette Knowles 1010 Hoyt Ave Apt 4 Everett, WA 98201

No attachments

Comment From: Susan Widman

8/21/24 @ 12:16 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Greg Willett

8/21/24 @ 12:16 PM

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. Our health is dependent on clean water. Without good health, life is not worth much. Thank you, Greg Willett 14304 92nd Ave NW Gig Harbor, WA 98329

No attachments

Comment From: Erin Johnson

8/21/24 @ 12:16 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Lori Erbs

8/21/24 @ 12:16 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Sally Neary

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Ed Hare

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Candi McKay

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Kathryn Ryan

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

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, Kathryn Ryan 18923 Olympic View Dr Edmonds, WA 98020

No attachments

Comment From: Mark Hughes

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Jeanne Winner

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

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, Jeanne Winner 1440 Irondale Rd Port Hadlock-irondale, WA 98339

No attachments

Comment From: Nora Nickum

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

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 personally care very much about ...↓maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters. To remain consistent with RCW 90.48, Ecology should NOT 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. Second, 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. Third, Ecology should not risk a jeopardy finding under the ESA. 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. 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. Please don't listen to polluters asking for more time, in order to end up with weaker standards. Washington communities and wildlife rely on clean water. You can ensure it remains reliably available. Thank you, Nora Nickum 10010 Mandus Olson Rd NE Bainbridge Island, WA 98110

No attachments

Comment From: Steve Leigh

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Lynne Bannerman

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

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, Lynne Bannerman 1513 Woodard Ct NW Olympia, WA 98502

No attachments

Comment From: Anthony Buch

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Sara Burgess

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Cornelia Teed

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

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, Cornelia Teed 1201 13th St Unit 201 Bellingham, WA 98225

No attachments

Comment From: Emily Van Alyne

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

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, Emily Van Alyne 6749 Whitestone St West Richland, WA 99353

No attachments

Comment From: Kathryn Lambros

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Sue Lepore

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Sean Riley

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Sally Hurst

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: William Bartley

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

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, William Bartley 10901 176th Cir NE Redmond, WA 98052

No attachments

Comment From: Richard Johnson

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Alex Nakamura

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Marilee Henry

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Lori Stefano

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Tiger Parker

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

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, Tiger Parker 11702 Greenwood Ave N Seattle, WA 98133

No attachments

Comment From: Natalie Niblack

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

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 Niblack 21357 Mann Rd Mount Vernon, WA 98273

No attachments

Comment From: Peggy LovellFord

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein, Please hold standards to the highest level!!! 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 W...↓ashington. 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, Peggy LovellFord 1109 Garfield St Enumclaw, WA 98022

No attachments

Comment From: Marie Milo

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Sharon Anderson

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

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, Sharon Anderson 1920 NW Mulholland Blvd Poulsbo, WA 98370

No attachments

Comment From: Brandon Bowersox-Johnson

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein, I want my son to grow up to inherit a livable, healthy environment. And I want Washington waters to be safe for salmon and provide thriving aquatic ecosystems. In this era of climate collapse, now is no time to weaken our ...↓water quality standards. I am writing with comments on Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC (Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington). I live in Seattle and I care deeply about protecting ecosystems across our state. First, you probably know 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….” That is according to Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington. So Ecology should NOT 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. During your tenure at Ecology and that of your predecessors, 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. Any increase in the allowance would be inconsistent with Chapter 90.48 RCW cited above. 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. It is my understanding that 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. Finally, I urge Ecology to 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, and we need more stringent regulatory requirements because we have less wiggle room. I have heard that polluters are suggesting a long process to make room for weaker standards. That sounds incompatible with the needs of current and future generations of salmon and human children. 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. Thanks for your work on this important issue. Thank you, Brandon Bowersox-Johnson 519 N Bowdoin Pl Apt 401 Seattle, WA 98103

No attachments

Comment From: Marian Wineman

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: David Dunneback

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Norm Mundhenk

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

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 personally care very deeply about ...↓maintaining protective water quality standards throughout Washington’s waters. I have heard that there are pressures on you to weaken our water standards, and I can imagine that there are some who would benefit financially if they did not have to help us maintain the highest possible standards. Please think instead of the needs of the citizens of the state who will be using the water, and do maintain high standards. 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, Norm Mundhenk 175 NE Lost Lake Wy Poulsbo, WA 98370

No attachments

Comment From: Sara Bhakti

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein, Re: Ecology’s Natural Conditions Proposed Rule under Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of Washington. Protecting the environment is my top priority. That includes the highest ...↓water standards for Washington State. Chapter 90.48 of the Revised Code of Washington, 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….” I support these statements below and urge you to, also: “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. Climate change waits for no human. I urge you to reject any efforts that would delay implementation of stringent water quality standards across the state. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Thank you, Sara Bhakti 22975 SE Black Nugget Rd Issaquah, WA 98029

No attachments

Comment From: Jay Mohr

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: James Mulcare

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Malayka Go

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Gianina Graham

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

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, Gianina Graham 660 Horizon Rdg Rd Cle Elum, WA 98922

No attachments

Comment From: r wood

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Margaret Woll

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Norm Conrad

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

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. As per your legal requirements, Ecology needs protective approaches for temperature and dissolved oxygen NOW. 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, Norm Conrad 1120 S 25th St Mount Vernon, WA 98274

No attachments

Comment From: Barbara DuBois

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

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 WA resident 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 DuBois 5020 N 18th St Tacoma, WA 98406

No attachments

Comment From: Steven Shapiro

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Rich Lague

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Mark Blitzer

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

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 Blitzer 450 NE 100th St Apt 224 Seattle, WA 98125

No attachments

Comment From: Virginia Alexander

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

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, Virginia Alexander 23920 57th Ct S Apt B4 Kent, WA 98032

No attachments

Comment From: M'Lou Christ

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

Dear Ms. Marla Koberstein, I am pleased to be able to add my 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 want only the highest standards n...↓ot only for humans but for our state's critters as well. Without them being healthy we can't be healthy. 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, M'Lou Christ 3658 Dayton Ave N Seattle, WA 98103

No attachments

Comment From: Rebecca Rose

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Patti Brent

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: James Bates

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Loretta Seppanen

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

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, Loretta Seppanen 2919 Orange St SE Olympia, WA 98501

No attachments

Comment From: Kate Lunceford

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Ross Hunt

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Amanda Rudisill

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Paul Ferrari

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Cheryl Biale

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

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, Cheryl Biale 7711 Greenridge St SW Olympia, WA 98512

No attachments

Comment From: Roger Clark

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Tom Craighead

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Diane Turner

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

No attachments

Comment From: Daniel Henling

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

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, Daniel Henling 1412 NW 61st St Apt 2 Seattle, WA 98107

No attachments

Comment From: Judith Anderson

8/21/24 @ 12:15 PM

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. Those polluters will never pay up for the havoc they've wreaked and I, as a tax payer, don't want to pay for it. YOU NEED TO STOP LISTENING TO THEM. THEY HAVE A FASCIST CHAMPION AND THEY WILL SAY AND DO ANYTHING, LIE, TO GET WHAT THEY WANT. KEEP THE STANDARDS. Thank you, Judith Anderson 3636 S D St Tacoma, WA 98418

No attachments

Comment From: Nooksack Indian Tribe (Margaret Taylor)

7/30/24 @ 4:50 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Washington Forest Protection A... (Doug Hooks)

7/26/24 @ 5:18 PM

Please see attached comments on Rulemaking - Natural Conditions Provisions, Chapter 173-201A WAC from the Washington Forest Protection Association.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: EPA Region 10 (Rebecca Garnett)

7/26/24 @ 3:31 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: betsy norton

7/26/24 @ 2:58 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Confederated Tribes and Bands ... (Sherrie Duncan)

7/26/24 @ 1:30 PM

Please see attached comment letter from the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Lincoln Loehr

7/26/24 @ 12:43 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: City of Tacoma (Teresa Peterson)

7/26/24 @ 12:17 PM

City of Tacoma Environmental Services
Natural Conditions Provision Comments (please see attached)

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: City of Everett (Jeff Marrs)

7/25/24 @ 4:06 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Association of Washington Citi... (Carl Schroeder)

7/25/24 @ 4:06 PM

Our comments are in the attached PDF file. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Liberty Lake Sewer and Water D... (BiJay Adams)

7/25/24 @ 11:25 AM

7/25/2024

Marla Koberstein
WA Department of Ecology (Ecology)
Water Quality Program
PO Box 47696
Olympia, WA 98504-7696

Subject: Comments, Proposed Revisions to Natural Conditions Provision in Chapter 173-201A
WAC (Public Comment Draft May 2024) – ...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: King County Department of Natu... (Jacque Klug)

7/25/24 @ 10:10 AM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Black Hills Audubon Society (Betsy Norton)

7/24/24 @ 9:47 PM

Please See attached comments on behalf of Black Hills Audubon Society Conservation Committee

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Washington Association of Sewe... (Judi Gladstone)

7/24/24 @ 9:53 AM

Marla Koberstein
Department of Ecology
Water Quality Program
PO Box 47696
Olympia, WA 98504-7696

RE: Comments on Natural Conditions Rulemaking

Dear Ms. Koberstein:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Natural Conditions Rulemaking....↓ We recognize that this rulemaking is essential to allow Ecology to continue their important work regarding water quality and TMDLs. The Rule and its supporting documentation is complex and very detailed. We are providing comments at a high level, expecting that wastewater treatment plant operators will provide more detailed comments.

The Washington Association of Sewer and Water Districts represents more than 180 public sewer and water districts in the state that serve nearly 25% of our state's population, of which more than half are WASWD members. These districts provide cost-effective sewer and water services—ranging from the state's largest population centers, to the smallest rural communities. Protecting local environments with effective wastewater treatment are primary drivers for our members and the Washington state residents they serve.

A performance-based approach to developing site specific natural conditions criteria for aquatic life protection will allow Ecology to move ahead with this work without the need to take each site back to rulemaking, thus saving valuable time in administering TMDLs where natural conditions do not match current standards. However, the unknowns relating to how modeling will be accomplished in light of varying environmental situations seem overwhelming at this stage in the development of this approach. For instance, how will the models evaluate items like loss of refugia in-stream? Loss of tree cover over time may be available from historic photos and surveys, but instream areas that act as protection from higher temperatures and lower dissolved oxygen would probably not have historic data. We fear that there would still be an emphasis mainly on NPDES permittees' discharges because this is easy to quantify, thus potentially negating any proposed benefit of the analysis of the natural conditions criteria. Watershed modeling has never been easy. When this approach runs up against human caused limits that are within the limits of instrument accuracy, and already being overwhelmed by climate change, this approach seems like it will take a lot of time, money and resources for little, if any, benefit in the end.

With this effort done entirely within Ecology, it lacks important outside peer review. It should have had a robust public process as is typically done with other standards-related rulemaking, particularly those dependent on modeling. Ecology has made great effort to vet the Salish Sea Model, and should expend similar effort to show how this watershed modeling will work before this rule is adopted.

We are perplexed by the lack of allowance for temperature due to climate change. We agree with Ecology's premise that climate change is man-made, but it is world- wide, and not going away anytime soon. We commented on this on the Columbia River TMDL, where the limits are already conflicting with what climate change is inflicting. Ecology identifies a selection of methods to cool effluent discharges. One of those suggestions is ponds. Ecology should be well aware that many Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs) are site-constrained, and this will not be a viable option. Since planting trees for shade will not work everywhere, will the ultimate tool be to put chillers on discharges to reduce temperatures, which only exacerbates climate change with its increased use of energy? Although not mentioned in this document, is Ecology considering longer term TMDL compliance schedules related to waterbodies that will be largely dependent on reestablishment of riparian vegetation to cool instream temperatures? It seems that this would be a necessity to make this approach work. Either way, this doesn't seem well thought out or provide realistic solutions.

The cost-benefit analysis provided with this proposed rule is inadequate. It shows a lack of interaction with local permittees who could provide information relevant to this analysis. On page 44 of the Preliminary Regulatory Analyses, you calculate a cost for removal of a tiny amount of nitrogen from a WWTP in order to just barely meet a standard as calculated by natural conditions. It is not an appropriate measure of cost, since most dischargers would scale it up to full nutrient removal based on what they expect standards to become in the future. Attempting to low-ball costs with no input from actual dischargers is misleading.

We would suggest that further input from stakeholders on data and modeling is warranted before this rule is finalized in order to understand the complexities of the modeling, and to get a real cost-benefit analysis that complies with state law. We appreciate the challenges that this effort entails and thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Bonnie Blessing

7/23/24 @ 9:29 AM

Thank you for reading my comments on water quality criteria that include natural conditions

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Snohomish County (Snohomish County)

7/16/24 @ 3:27 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Squaxin Island Tribe (Erica Marbet)

7/12/24 @ 5:28 PM

Please see attached letter on Natural Conditions Provisions, Chapter 173-201A WAC.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Washington Conservation Action (Katie Byrnes)

7/12/24 @ 1:34 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Columbia Riverkeeper and 13 ot... (Teryn Yazdani)

7/12/24 @ 12:39 PM

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe (Alex Scagliotti)

7/11/24 @ 4:54 PM

Please accept the attached comments on the Natural Conditions Provisions, Chapter 173-201A WAC from the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Bonnie Blessing

7/11/24 @ 1:50 PM

Thank you for extending the comment period. You are tasked with a massive project.

No attachments

Comment From: Andrew Wheeler

7/10/24 @ 2:58 AM

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Ecology's Natural Conditions Proposed Rule.

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 mainta...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Washington Conservation Action (Mindy Roberts)

7/09/24 @ 2:56 PM

Please find our comment letter attached.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Northwest Environmental Advoca... (Nina Bell)

7/05/24 @ 9:03 AM

Please see attached comment letter.

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Nine organizations committed t... (Mindy Roberts)

6/28/24 @ 5:08 PM

On behalf of Duwamish River Community Coalition, Friends of the San Juans, Seattle Aquarium, Communities for a Healthy Bay, Olympic Environmental Council, RE Sources, Zero Waste Washington, Puget Soundkeeper, and Washington Conservation Action, pleas...↓

Attachments:

Download

Comment From: Anne Thom

6/16/24 @ 9:23 AM

I urge the Washington State Dept of Ecology to further limit the acceptable amount of glyphosate in all environments. It is measurably damaging fish (see link) and frankly everything else. Other countries have 1/3 or less allowable limits. Please sto...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Cynthia LaChance

5/20/24 @ 9:52 AM

Setting new limits on how much humans can alter the conditions of water bodies that are naturally less than "clean" is vital. Many animals and organisms can still live in this type of water. There's no excuse for further human pollution. At this poin...↓

No attachments

Comment From: Chelsea LaColla

5/19/24 @ 9:26 PM

Dear Department of Ecology,

I am a college student writing a research paper on the waters of Puget Sound. Is it true, that there is traceable concentrations of the drug "Meth" within the waters of Puget Sound & this exposure is caused by the wastes...↓

No attachments

[ Previous Page / Next Page ]