Ecology considers General Permit to control nutrients in Puget Sound

Excess nutrients are hurting Puget Sound

Puget Sound is the nation’s second largest estuary 

and faces many challenges, including population 

growth, development, and pollution.

Excess levels of nutrients from human sources are harming Puget Sound’s water quality. Excess nutrients can cause too much plant and algae growth that ultimately leads to low levels (below natural levels) of dissolved oxygen in many parts of Puget Sound. These low levels of dissolved oxygen are causing stress on marine life and making it difficult for aquatic organisms to thrive. Many areas in Puget Sound have dissolved oxygen levels below our state’s water quality criteria and Ecology is required to take action.

To improve and protect water quality in Puget Sound, we are focused on finding solutions for improving levels of dissolved oxygen in Puget Sound. Domestic wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), or sewage treatment plants, are a major human source of nutrients to Puget Sound and are significantly contributing to low oxygen levels (read our Salish Sea Modeling reports for more info). With our region’s growing population, and recognizing that WWTP improvements to limit nutrients will take time, we need to start work now to protect and restore Puget Sound. To keep Puget Sound clean, Ecology must require WWTPs to control nutrients and we have made a preliminary determination to use a General Permit to accomplish this.

Controlling nutrients from WWTPs with a Puget Sound Nutrients General Permit

Wastewater is the water that leaves our businesses and

 homes from sources like sinks, showers, and toilets. 

There are two permitting options to control nutrients at WWTPs:

• New General Permit: Require nutrient limits for WWTPs that discharge to Puget Sound (in addition to their existing individual permits that cover other limits).
• Individual Permits: Include nutrient limits in each individual permit for WWTPs that discharge to Puget Sound.

We have made a preliminary determination that a general permit is the best tool for addressing excess nutrients in Puget Sound. A Puget Sound Nutrients General Permit would:

• Create a single coordinated public engagement process, allowing more stakeholder collaboration during permit development. 
• Place WWTPs on a similar schedule instead of staggered permit requirements based on different individual permit schedules. 
• Provide a foundation for communities to work together to achieve nutrient controls across Puget Sound.

General vs. Individual permits

All wastewater treatment plants require a water quality permit to operate, specifically to discharge to surface water. We use permits to limit pollutants that may enter our waterways. Both types of permits (general and individual) are issued on 5-year cycles, allowing us to adapt requirements in response to new information and technologies.

A general permit covers a group of dischargers that have similar qualities within a similar region. We can use a general permit to satisfy any or all state and federal water quality permit requirements. General permits are a cost-effective way to regulate numerous dischargers under a single permit. It allows us to hold a single permit development and implementation process per 5-year cycle for all the facilities together. This process includes stakeholder and permittee engagement.

The other permitting option is using individual permits, which we tailor to individual facilities. We issue each individual permit on independent schedules consistent with facility-specific permit renewal and reissuance dates, and a public comment process.

How would a Nutrients General Permit work? 

A Puget Sound Nutrients General Permit would apply to nearly 70 WWTPs that discharge to marine and estuarine waters of Puget Sound. A Nutrients General Permit would focus only on controlling nutrients. All WWTPs already have individual permits that regulate other pollutants. Therefore, WWTPs would have two permits.

We are at the earliest stage of a general permit process and it is too soon to know the exact permit conditions. If we move forward with the general permit, the permit development process will determine:

• Which WWTPs will be included in the general permit.
• How to cap nutrient loading.
• What planning will be needed to meet nutrient reduction targets, starting with optimizing nutrient reduction with existing infrastructure, the feasibility of infrastructure upgrades, or other water quality improvement efforts.

Public comment period for the Preliminary Determination to Develop a Nutrients General Permit

We are accepting comments from Aug. 21 until Oct. 21, 2019 on our preliminary determination to develop a Nutrients General Permit. You may submit comments online.

We welcome your feedback on whether a general permit is the appropriate tool to control and reduce nutrients in discharges from WWTPs to Puget Sound. This public comment period is also an opportunity to provide us other relevant information about WWTPs and Puget Sound water quality.

For more information on the nutrients problem, the permit proposal, and how to comment, read our focus sheet. We do not currently have draft permit language. However, if we move forward with a general permit, we will prepare draft permit language and hold another public comment period.

You can find all of this information and additional materials on our General Permits webpage.

Other States with general permits for nutrients

Other states have used general permits to reduce the impacts of nutrients on their coastal waters.  In March, our Puget Sound Nutrient Forum hosted water quality experts from Chesapeake Bay and Long Island Sound to hear about their general permit process and other strategies they used to reduce nutrients in their waterways. Both of these estuaries have experienced success in cleaning up excess nutrients in their waterways and are on their way to improved water quality and restored marine habitats. Read our previous blog to learn more about how other states manage nutrients in their coastal estuaries.

What else is Ecology doing to reduce nutrients?

The Nutrient Forum, a large public advisory 
committee, meets regularly to provide input 

on how to reduce human sources of nutrients.

Limiting nutrients at WWTPs is one important element of Ecology’s Puget Sound Nutrient Reduction Project, but this alone will not solve Puget Sound’s low dissolved oxygen problem.  In order to improve Puget Sound and build resiliency back into our iconic water, we will also need to reduce nutrients from other human sources. We are working with the Puget Sound Nutrient Forum to develop a comprehensive Puget Sound Nutrient Management Plan to find the right solutions for reducing nutrients in Puget Sound. As we develop the plan, we will continue to hold our Puget Sound Nutrient Reduction Forum meetings and encourage everyone interested in this work to attend the meetings and sign up for our listserv.

More information:

To receive email updates about this potential general permitting effort, register for the Nutrients Permit listserv.

To receive updates on the broader Puget Sound Nutrient Reduction Project, register for the Puget Sound Nutrient Reduction listserv or visit www.ecology.wa.gov/PSNRP.

By Kelly Ferron, Water Quality Program

Ecology has received a new request to use Imidacloprid to control burrowing shrimp

We are evaluating a new application requesting permission to use the pesticide Imidacloprid to control burrowing shrimp in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor. The application was filed by about a dozen oyster farmers from the Willapa Grays Harbor Oyster Growers Association, who propose to use the pesticide to treat tide lands to support their aquaculture practices.

We are now in the process of evaluating the environmental impacts of the proposal – which we will request your comments and suggestions on when we issue our draft environmental report at the end of this summer.

Similar to previous permit request 

This request for a permit is similar to – but not the same as – an earlier permit application to use Imidacloprid to control burrowing shrimp. The previous permit application process ended in 2015, but following public concern over the permit, the growers withdrew it, and the permit was never used.

About a dozen of the oyster growers from the earlier permit process have now applied for a new permit.

Environmental review

Process to complete environmental review
and permit application processing.
Click image to see larger version.

We are evaluating this proposal to understand the negative impacts it could have on the environment. We’re preparing an additional environmental study to inform our decision of whether to deny the permit application or to develop a draft permit approval.

We prepared an Environmental Impact Statement for the 2015 permit process, and we will supplement it with the most up-to-date research and information available. We will develop what’s called a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement – it will build on the environmental review from 2015.

Where are we in the environmental review process?

We’re still early in the review process. Right now we are analyzing new research and information that wasn’t available to us when we prepared the 2015 Environmental Impact Statement. This will go into a new draft report, which we will publish for public review and comments.

Even though we’re not ready for official public comments yet, we encourage anyone who wishes to share their views on the applications, or Ecology’s action moving forward, to contact us. Also, if you have information you want to ensure we consider for our supplemental environmental review, please send it to us.

Please share views, information, or comments with us on our website.

Public comment period

Once we have a draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement prepared, we’ll open a 45-day public comment period. This will be the time to review and comment on the draft environmental report. We’ll also host several public meetings on the draft report in key locations across western Washington.

We will use what we learn during the public comment period to finalize the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. This is a crucial step in our environmental review required under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).

What’s changed since the previous permit request?

This is a new request for a permit, but we’re building on information learned from the 2015 process. Some examples of new or different information we are taking into consideration include:

• Acreage
  Today, there are fewer farmers applying for a permit. The applicants propose treating less acreage – 485 acres in Willapa Bay and 15 acres in Grays Harbor – as opposed to 2,000 acres across the two bays in the previous permit. 
• Method
  The method of applying the pesticide has changed. The growers propose spraying Imidacloprid from boats or ground equipment rather than helicopter. 
• Best available science
  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a new risk assessment on the environmental impacts of Imidacloprid, and neonicotinoids, generally, in December 2016. Health Canada and the European Food Safety Authority have also recently released similar risk assessments. This and other new research will contribute to our supplemental environmental review. 

Our role regulating Washington’s environment

Ecology regulates the quality of Washington’s waters. Any discharges of pollution to state waters must obtain a permit from the federal EPA called the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit. EPA delegates the responsibility of managing these requests within Washington to Ecology. The purpose of this permit is to ensure that pollution does not rise to a level which causes harm to people or the environment.

Sediments contain much of the aquatic life that makes up the base of the food web essential to healthy estuaries. These organisms are important food for salmon, sturgeon, and many other species. Beyond affecting just the overlying water, this permit request to use Imidacloprid to control burrowing shrimp will impact the sediment where the pesticide is applied.

Because of this, the growers applying for the permit must also get two Sediment Impact Zones approved. This is to ensure the proposed use doesn’t violate Washington Sediment Management Standards. The permit and Sediment Impact Zone determinations combined will address requirements necessary to protect Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor for a multitude of uses.

If we authorize Sediment Impact Zones – one for Willapa Bay and one for Grays Harbor – we would set requirements for how:

• Imidacloprid may be applied to the sediment
• The applicants ensure that the impact is contained only to the designated zones
• The area is monitored after the discharge occurs

The state Sediment Management Standards protect Washington’s benthic environment. That is, we recognize that it’s important to protect both the overlying waters and the grounds underneath. These rules work to reduce – and ultimately eliminate – sources of pollution that harm the ecosystem and make people sick.

A view of scenic Willapa Bay from our marine monitoring research program.
Photo by: Christopher Krembs/Ecology

Working toward a healthier Washington

A cornerstone of work at Ecology is to continually reduce pollution, and to work toward more protective permit conditions.

For this specific permit to be issued, a process called Integrated Pest Management must be followed. This is the practice of continually working toward managing burrowing shrimp more sustainably, and without chemicals. We have been supportive of research into alternative control methods and will continue to support future efforts.

Stay informed

You can follow this permitting process and get the most up-to-date information by subscribing to our Aquatic Pesticide Permits listserv or checking our Burrowing Shrimp Control webpage frequently. We will also publish updates to our blog as we have new information.

By: Jessie Payne, water quality communications manager