FACT SHEET FOR THE AQUATIC NOXIOUS WEED NATIONAL 

POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM AND STATE WASTE 

DISCHARGE GENERAL PERMIT 

SUMMARY 

The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) is reissuing a permit for the 

control of noxious and quarantine list weeds in and around Washington State waters. The 

use of herbicides in waters of the state is conditioned to protect rare aquatic plants and 

salmonids. Any short term toxicity to aquatic organisms is allowed under the terms of the 

permit and the water quality modification provisions to perform essential activities that 

protect other beneficial uses of the waters of the state. 

The proposed terms, limitations, and conditions contained herein are tentative and may be 

subject to change, subsequent to public comments received by Ecology and testimony 

provided at public hearings. This permit does not authorize a violation of the surface 

water quality standards, or any other applicable state or federal regulations. Ecology may 

require any person seeking coverage under this permit to obtain coverage under an 

individual permit instead. Any surface water application of herbicide found not covered 

under either the general permit or an individual permit may be considered to be operating 

without a discharge permit and subject to potential enforcement action. 

In Headwaters, Inc. v. Talent Irrigation District, the Ninth Circuit Court held that 

applying an herbicide to navigable waters of the United States did not exempt the 

irrigation district from having to obtain an National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) permit regardless of whether or not the irrigation district had applied 

the herbicide in accordance with the label requirements of the Federal Insecticide, 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). 

In September 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court issued a decision in Fairhurst vs. Hagener. 

The Fairhurst decision did not reverse the Talent decision, but did conclude that an 

NPDES permit is not required if a pesticide is intentionally applied to waters of the 

United States in accordance with a FIFRA label and with no residue or unintended effect. 

Neither the Court nor the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has offered any 

guidance regarding which applications would result in no residue or unintended effect. 

In February 2006, the Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB) issued a final order in 

case #05-101, Northwest Aquatic Ecosystems vs. Ecology, WTC. This case focused on a 

number of issues, one of which was whether or not an applicator must obtain an NPDES 

permit for the use of federally registered pesticides. The Board ruled that: 

“Northwest Aquatic also renewed its summary judgment argument that the Board 

should rule NPDES permit coverage is not needed for the application of aquatic 

pesticides, when they are applied in accordance with the Federal Insecticide, 
October 3, 2007 

Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Northwest Aquatic bases this argument 

on the recent federal court decision in Fairhurst v. Hagener, 422 F.3d 1146 (9th 

Cir. 2005). The Board ruled on summary judgment that the Fairhurst decision 

does not provide a blanket exemption for the application of aquatic pesticides. 

Identified conditions must be met before a pesticide can be considered outside the 

category of a pollutant under the Clean Water Act. The pesticide must: (1) be 

applied for a beneficial purpose, (2) be applied in compliance with FIFRA, (3) 

produce no pesticide residue, and (4) produce no unintended effects. Fairhurst, 

422 F.3d at 1150. 

Northwest Aquatic failed to provide any evidence specifically addressing how the 

use of diquat and endothall on the proposed sites would meet the four factors 

identified in Fairhurst. In the absence of such evidence, Fairhurst provides no 

basis for the Board to conclude a NPDES permit is not required for the proposed 

pesticide applications.” 

On November 21, 2006, EPA issued a final rule entitled “Application of Pesticides to 

Waters of the United States in Accordance with FIFRA.” This rule replaces the draft 

interpretive statement EPA issued in 2003 concerning the use of pesticides in or around 

waters of the United States. The rule states that any pesticide meant for use in or near 

water that is applied in accordance with the EPA-issued FIFRA label, is not a pollutant 

under the Clean Water Act. Therefore, such applications are not subject to NPDES 

permitting. The rule has been appealed and will be heard in the coming months by U.S. 

District Court. 

After EPA issued the rule, Ecology met with stakeholders to seek input on how Ecology 

should regulate the use of pesticides until the rule appeal concludes. Ecology also 

provided the public with a three week comment period. Stakeholders affiliated with each 

of the seven affected permits (mosquito, noxious weed, aquatic plant and algae, 

irrigation, oyster growers, fish management, and invasive moth) sent comments to 

Ecology. The majority of comments requested that Ecology continue issuing joint 

NPDES/state permits to regulate aquatic pesticide applications. 

A pesticide applied to the water according to state law is a form of pollution. To apply a 

pesticide to the water, state law requires that the applicator obtain a short-term 

modification of the water quality standards from Ecology. Currently, a permit provides 

the only legal vehicle for implementing that modification. State law only defines two 

types of permits for surface water discharges – NPDES (federal) and State Waste 

Discharge (state). Until 2001, Ecology issued modifications using an administrative 

order. This process was challenged in court and is not a viable regulatory option at this 

time. 

Ecology decided that Washington will continue to use NPDES permits to control the use 

of aquatic pesticides in and around Washington state waters until the federal courts make 

a decision on the appeal of the EPA rule. These permits help the state protect human 

health and the environment by: 
October 3, 2007 

• Ensuring pesticides with the lowest risk are used. 

• Reducing amounts of pesticides applied. 

• Tracking pesticide use. 

• Requiring public notifications and postings when waters are treated. 

• Monitoring levels of pesticides in the water after treatment. 

Ecology believes that these permits provide the best protection of water quality, human 

health, and the environment at this time. Ecology has taken steps to minimize the 

regulatory and administrative burden on permittees while ensuring that the permits 

comply with federal and state laws and court decisions. Ecology will continue to follow 

the court proceedings surrounding the EPA rule and respond accordingly. 

This permit covers the application of herbicides, adjuvants, and marker dyes to surface 

waters of the state for the control of state listed noxious and quarantine weeds. The 

permit covers both direct and indirect application of herbicides to water. The Permittee is 

required to monitor (depending on the type of herbicide application), notify the public, 

post treatment sites, and provide annual reports to Ecology. The issuance of this permit 

will revoke the existing permit, originally issued in 2002. This new permit no longer 

covers the control of submersed plants in lakes or ponds. For this activity, please refer to 

the Aquatic Plant and Algae Management General Permit.
October 3, 2007 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 

BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................ 2 

HERBICIDES USED FOR NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL ......................................... 3 

HISTORY OF AQUATIC HERBICIDE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.................... 4 

REGULATORY POLLUTION REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS.............................. 5 

TECHNOLOGY BASED WATER QUALITY PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS ... 5 

WATER QUALITY BASED REQUIREMENTS.......................................................... 8 

GROUND WATER QUALITY LIMITS ..................................................................... 10 

SEDIMENT QUALITY................................................................................................ 10 

ANTIDEGRADATION................................................................................................ 10 

SEPA COMPLIANCE.................................................................................................. 11 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS............................................................................................. 11 

PERMIT COVERAGE ................................................................................................. 11 

Activities Covered under the Permit......................................................................... 11 

Activities Excluded From Coverage Under This Permit .......................................... 12 

Geographic Area Covered......................................................................................... 12 

PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS............................................................. 13 

Who Applies for Coverage ....................................................................................... 13 

Applying for Coverage ............................................................................................. 13 

COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS ........................................................................ 13 

DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS..................................................................................... 14 

Authorized Discharges.............................................................................................. 14 

Prohibited Discharges ............................................................................................... 14 

Products Allowed For Use Under this Permit........................................................... 15 

Experimental Use Permits......................................................................................... 15 

Specific Restrictions on the Application of Pesticides ............................................. 15 

POSTING REQUIREMENTS...................................................................................... 16 

MONITORING............................................................................................................. 16 

SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES................................................... 17 

REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING .................................................................... 17 

SPILL PREVENTION AND CONTROL .................................................................... 17 

PRODECURE FOR APPROVAL OF PRODUCTS NOT SPECIFIED IN THE 

CURRENT PERMIT .................................................................................................... 17 

RESPONSIBILITY TO COMPLY WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS..................... 17 

GENERAL CONDITIONS .......................................................................................... 18 

PERMIT MODIFICATIONS ....................................................................................... 20 

RECOMMENDATION FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE ................................................... 20 
INTRODUCTION 

This fact sheet is accompanies the reissued Aquatic Noxious Weed Control National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit. Ecology is proposing 

to reissue this permit. This permit will allow discharge of wastes from aquatic noxious 

weed herbicide applications and from non-chemical methods associated with herbicide 

application to control noxious and quarantine weeds to surface waters of the State of 

Washington, which are also waters of the United States, under the provisions of chapters 

90.48, 90.52, and 90.54 Revised Code of Washington (RCW) and the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) as amended. This fact sheet explains the nature of the 

proposed discharges, Ecology’s decisions on limiting the pollutants in the wastewater, 

and the regulatory and technical basis for these decisions. 

The Federal Clean Water Act (FCWA, 1972, and later modifications (1977, 1981, and 

1987), established water quality goals for the navigable (surface) waters of the United 

States. One of the mechanisms for achieving the goals of the FWPCA is the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System of permits (NPDES permits). EPA administers 

these permits. EPA delegated responsibility for administering the NPDES permit 

program to the State of Washington based on Chapter 90.48 RCW, which defines 

Ecology's authority and obligations in administering the wastewater discharge permit 

program. 

The establishment of a general permit for Aquatic Noxious Weed Control is appropriate 

due to the similar environmental fate specific to each permitted herbicide, the specific 

requirements of RCW 90.48.445 and 90.48.448, the statewide scope of aquatic noxious 

weed control, and the significant reduction of resources necessary for permit handling. 

However, Ecology may still require individual permits in those instances where a 

proposed activity requires more detailed guidance, or when an individual applicator so 

desires and Ecology approves.

The regulations adopted by the state include procedures for issuing general permits 

(Chapter 173-226 WAC), water quality criteria for surface waters (Chapter 173-201A 

WAC), groundwater standards (Chapter 173-200 WAC) and sediment management 

standards (Chapter 173-204 WAC). These regulations require that Ecology issue a permit 

before allowing discharge of wastes to waters of the state. The regulations also establish 

the basis for effluent limitations and identify other requirements Ecology must include in 

the permit. WAC 173-226-110 requires Ecology to prepare a draft permit and an 

accompanying fact sheet. WAC 173-226-130 specifies public notice of the draft permit, 

public hearings, comment periods, and public notice of issuance before Ecology can issue 

the general permit. This fact sheet, application for coverage, and draft permit are 

available for review (see Appendix A-- Public Involvement of the fact sheet for more 

detail on the Public Notice procedures). 

Permittee representatives and members of a permit advisory group reviewed the draft 

permit and fact sheet. Ecology has corrected errors and omissions identified in this 

review before going to public notice. 
 October 3, 2007 2 

Following the close of the public comment period, Ecology will summarize the 

substantive comments and respond to each comment. The summary and response to 

comments will become part of the file on the permit. Parties submitting comments will 

receive a copy of Ecology's response. The original fact sheet will not be revised after the 

public notice is published. Appendix B - - Response to Comments will summarize 

comments and the resultant changes to the permit. 

BACKGROUND 

In May, 1996, the Talent Irrigation District (TID) in southern Oregon applied the 

herbicide acrolein to an irrigation canal. A leaking waste gate resulted in the discharge of 

treated water into Bear Creek causing a fish kill. 

Headwaters, Inc. and Oregon Natural Resources Council filed a Clean Water Act citizen 

suit against the Talent Irrigation District (TID) for applying aquatic herbicide into a 

system of irrigation canals. Reversing a district court’s opinion, the Ninth Circuit 

decision held that application of the herbicide in compliance with the labeling 

requirements of the FIFRA did not exempt TID from having to obtain an NPDES permit, 

and that the irrigation ditches were "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water 

Act (March 12, 2001). 

Ecology is proposing to issue the general permit so that the application of aquatic 

herbicides for the control of noxious and quarantine weeds will comply with the Clean 

Water Act. For purposes of this fact sheet, the term noxious weed also includes the weeds 

on the quarantine list (WAC 16-752-500 through 525). These quarantine weeds when 

found are treated as noxious weeds. They are not on the noxious weed list only because 

they are not yet present in the state or are not at great distribution levels. 

EPA administers FIFRA. FIFRA requires that all persons who apply pesticides classified 

as restricted use be certified according to the provisions of the act or that they work under 

the supervision of a certified applicator. Commercial and public applicators must pass a 

“core” examination to demonstrate a practical knowledge of the principles and practices 

of pest control and safe use of pesticides. In addition, applicators using or supervising the 

use of any restricted use pesticides purposefully applied to standing or running water 

(excluding applicators engaged in public health related activities) must pass an additional 

exam to demonstrate competency as described in the code of federal regulations (CFR) as 

follows: 

"Aquatic applicators shall demonstrate practical knowledge of the secondary 

effects which can be caused by improper application rates, incorrect formulations, 

and faulty application of restricted pesticides used in this category. They shall 

demonstrate practical knowledge of various water use situations and the potential 

of downstream effects. Further, they must have practical knowledge concerning 

potential pesticide effects on plants, fish, birds, beneficial insects and other 
 October 3, 2007 3 

organisms which may be present in aquatic environments. Applicants in this 

category must demonstrate practical knowledge of the principals of limited area 

application.” (40 CFR 171.4) 

Any person wishing to apply pesticides to waters of the state must either be licensed as an 

aquatic pesticide applicator by the Washington State Department of Agriculture, or 

operating under the supervision of a licensed applicator. For information on licensing 

requirements and testing, please visit 

http://www.agr.wa.gov/PestFert/LicensingEd/Licensing.htm. 

Human activities have created unwanted consequences in native aquatic ecosystems. 

While aquatic plants provide habitat and food for aquatic life, nutrient additions can 

cause increased plant growth and the introduction of non-native plants can cause shifts in 

the native ecosystem. Non-native invasive plants often do not have any predators or 

parasites, and may outcompete beneficial native plants. A major reason for the existence 

of weed problems is the introduction of exotic species from other locations. These plants 

quickly replace native vegetation and can create large monocultures. This group includes 

the most troublesome weeds, such as Spartina, Japanese knotweed, purple and garden 

loosestrife, and parrotfeather. When a non-native plant has the potential to lessen 

biodiversity and negatively impact beneficial uses of waters of the state, state Noxious 

Weed Control Board may be list it as a noxious weed. 

HERBICIDES USED FOR NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL 

The state currently allows seven herbicides in Washington’s aquatic environment, 

including diquat, endothall, fluridone, 2, 4-D, triclopyr, imazapyr, and glyphosate. Two 

of these (diquat and endothall) function as contact herbicides, and the other five function 

as systemic herbicides. Contact herbicides kill only the parts of the plant they come in 

contact with, while systemic herbicides kill the plant all the way to the roots. Triclopyr 

and 2, 4-D are selective herbicides, meaning they only effectively kill certain types of 

plants. The rest of the herbicides listed above are non-selective or broad-spectrum 

herbicides. 

Aquatic herbicides can disappear from treated water by dissipation, adsorption to bottom 

sediments, volatilization, absorption by plants or animals, or by dilution. Dissipation 

refers to the breakdown of an herbicide into simpler chemical compounds. Herbicides can 

dissipate by photolysis (broken down by light), hydrolysis, microbial degradation, or 

metabolism by plants or animals. Even if dissipation is slow, disappearance due to 

processes such as adsorption to bottom sediments can make an herbicide biologically 

unavailable. 
 October 3, 2007 4 

For more information about noxious and quarantine weeds see the following websites: 

Ecology’s website address: 

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/plants/weeds/index.html. 

The Washington State Noxious Weed Control Board’s web site address: 

http://www.wa.gov/agr/weedboard/weed_info/contents.html. 

Agriculture’s Quarantine Weeds list: 

http://www.wa.gov/agr/weedboard/weed_list/prohibited.html. 

HISTORY OF AQUATIC HERBICIDE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 

In 1980, Ecology completed an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for statewide 

program guidance in the issuance of short-term modifications for herbicides used in 

aquatic plant control. Since 1980, the industry has developed a number of mechanical and 

physical methods (i.e., mechanical harvesting, rotovation, bottom barriers, and cutters) 

for aquatic vegetation control. Research and development during the past two decades 

has identified various methods of biological control. Changes also occurred in the 

understanding of aquatic ecosystems, including the role of wetlands and the need to 

consider and control impacts such as nutrient and sediment loading within the total 

watershed of any particular water body. To address these changes and the broadening 

field environmental choices in aquatic plant management, Ecology updated and 

supplemented the EIS with the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Aquatic Plant Management Program (SEIS), dated January 1992. 

The current supplement, SEIS 2001, updates the 1992 SEIS and assesses new aquatic 

herbicides or permitted herbicides with recent label changes, for use in Washington 

waters. The Agency Steering Committee for Update of the 1992 Aquatic Plant SEIS 

selected herbicides on the basis of registration status, desirability for use and direction 

from Senate Substitute Bill 5424 (1999, codified in RCW 90.48.447). 

Ecology serves as the lead agency for the current supplemental update to the SEIS, but 

has received advisory and review assistance from the Agency Committee for Update of 

the 1992 Aquatic Plant SEIS (The Steering Committee). The Steering Committee 

includes representatives from the State Departments of Agriculture, Health, Fish and 

Wildlife, Natural Resources, Ecology and the State Noxious Weed Control Board - - all 

agencies with jurisdiction and/or interest in aquatic plant control. The Washington State 

Department of Agriculture (WSDA) regulates pesticide applicators, and registers 

pesticides for use in the state. WSDA, in collaboration with the State Noxious Weed 

Control Board, controls noxious plants within the state. The Department of Health is 

charged with protection of human health. The Department of Fish and Wildlife receives 

requests for Hydraulic Project Approvals (HPA's) to implement various physical and 

mechanical methods and is charged with protecting fish and wildlife. The legislature 

charged the departments of Natural Resources and Ecology with protecting and managing 
 October 3, 2007 5 

natural resources; they therefore have concerns with the potential impact of various plant 

control methods on natural resources. The legislature mandated that the Departments of 

Fish and Wildlife and Natural Resources develop programs for controlling particular 

noxious emergent species on state-owned or managed lands. 

The 1980 EIS evaluated the impacts of endothall, diquat, dichlobenil (2,6-

dichlorobenzonitrile), 2,4-D [(2,4-dichlorophenoxy) acetic acid], copper sulfate, komeen 

and simazine - - all aquatic herbicides used for control of nuisance aquatic vegetation. 

Between 1980 to 1992, diquat, dichlobenil, simazine, and 2,4-D were banned for aquatic 

use, and replaced by the herbicides fluridone and glyphosate. The 1992 SEIS introduced 

an integrated pest management approach as the preferred method of control. It also 

evaluated the use of chemical controls only, physical controls only, biological controls 

only, continuation of current practices, and taking no action relative to controlling 

nuisance aquatic plants. The 1992 SEIS evaluated and allowed the use of copper, 

endothall, fluridone and glyphosate to control various types of aquatic plants. 

SEIS 2001 contains an update of the alternatives included in the 1992 supplement and 

evaluates two additional sets of herbicides. The first set includes 2,4-D formulations 

registered for aquatic use by the state and endothall formulations Hydrothol® 191 and 

Aquathol®, completed in May 2000. A second set of assessments, completed in 2002, 

evaluated diquat, triclopyr, and copper compounds. Ecology and WSDA completed an 

assessment of the herbicide imazapyr in 2004. Ecology prohibits the use of copper-based 

compounds in lakes or rivers that drain to other state surface waters. 

REGULATORY POLLUTION REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS 

Federal and state regulations require that Ecology establish effluent limitations in an 

NPDES permit based on either a technology standard or a water quality standard. 

Technology-based limitations are set by regulation or developed on a case-by-case basis 

(40 CFR 125.3, and Chapter 173-220 WAC). Water quality-based limitations are based 

upon compliance with the Surface Water Quality Standards (Chapter 173-201A WAC), 

Ground Water Standards (Chapter 173-200 WAC), Sediment Quality Standards (Chapter 

173-204 WAC) or the National Toxics Rule (Federal Register, Volume 57, No. 246, 

Tuesday, December 22, 1992). Ecology must apply the more stringent of these two 

limits, either technology- or water quality-based for each of the parameters of concern. 

TECHNOLOGY BASED WATER QUALITY PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS 

Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the FWPCA established discharge standards, 

prohibitions, and limits based on pollution control technologies. These technology-based 

limits are "best practical control technology" (BPT), "best available technology 

economically achievable" (BAT), and "best conventional pollutant control technology 

economically achievable" (BCT). The permit writer uses a "best professional judgment" 

(BPJ) determination to comply with BPT/BAT/BCT. 
 October 3, 2007 6 

The state has similar technology-based limits which are described as: "all known, 

available, and reasonable methods of control, prevention, and treatment" (AKART) 

methods. RCW 90.48.010, RCW 90.48.520, 90.52.040 and RCW 90.54.020 refer to 

AKART. The federal technology-based limits and AKART are similar but not equivalent. 

AKART: (1) may be established for an industrial category or on a case-by-case basis; (2) 

may be more stringent than federal regulations; and (3) includes not only treatment, but 

also BMP’s such as prevention and control methods (i.e. waste minimization, 

waste/source reduction, or reduction in total contaminant releases to the environment). 

Ecology and the EPA concur that, historically, most discharge permits have determined 

state AKART as equivalent to federal BPJ determinations. 

EPA has regulated the pesticide application industry under the terms of FIFRA, in part, 

by developing label use requirements. In developing label use requirements, EPA 

requires the pesticide manufacturer to register each pesticide and provide evidence that 

the pesticide will work as promised and that unacceptable environmental harm will be 

minimized. 

This general permit authorizes the noxious weed control activities mandated by the state 

legislature in a manner that complies with federal and other state requirements. The state 

statute that requires AKART also requires control of noxious weeds. The Washington 

State legislature declared in SB5670 (1999), prior to the Talent decision that: 

“(1) the director shall issue or approve water quality permits for use by federal, 

state, or local governmental agencies and licensed applicators for the purpose of 

using, for aquatic noxious weed control, herbicides and surfactants registered 

under state or federal pesticide control laws, and for the purpose of experimental 

use of herbicides on aquatic sites, as defined in 40 C.F.R. Sec. 172.3. The 

issuance of the permits shall be subject only to compliance with: Federal and 

state pesticide label requirements, the requirements of the federal insecticide, 

fungicide, and rodenticide act, the Washington pesticide control act, the 

Washington pesticide application act, and the state environmental policy act, 

except that: 

(a) When the director issues water quality permits for the purpose of using 

glyphosate and surfactants registered by the department of agriculture to control 

spartina, as defined by RCW 17.26.020, the water quality permits shall contain 

the following criteria: 

(i) Spartina treatment shall occur between June 1st and October 31st of 

each year unless Ecology, the department of agriculture, and the 

department of fish and wildlife agree to add additional dates beyond this 

period, except that no aerial application shall be allowed on July 4th or 

Labor Day and for ground application on those days the applicator shall 

post signs at each corner of the treatment area; 

(ii) The applicator shall take all reasonable precautions to prevent the 

spraying of nontarget vegetation and nonvegetated areas; 
 October 3, 2007 7 

(iii) A period of fourteen days between treatments is required prior to retreating the previously treated areas; 

(iv) Aerial or ground broadcast application shall not be made when the 

wind speed exceeds ten miles per hour; and 

(v) An application shall not be made when a tidal regime leaves the plants 

dry for less than four hours. 

(b) The director shall issue water quality permits for the purpose of using 

herbicides or surfactants registered by the department of agriculture to control 

aquatic noxious weeds, other than spartina, and the permit shall state that aerial 

and ground broadcast applications may not be made when the wind speed 

exceeds ten miles per hour. 

(c) The director shall issue water quality permits for the experimental use of 

herbicides on aquatic sites, as defined in 40 C.F.R. Sec. 172.3, when the 

department of agriculture has issued an experimental use permit, under the 

authority of RCW 15.58.405(3). Because of the small geographic areas involved 

and the short duration of herbicide application, water quality permits issued 

under this subsection are not subject to state environmental policy act review. 

(2) Applicable requirements established in an option or options recommended for 

controlling the noxious weed by a final environmental impact statement published 

under chapter 43.21C RCW by the department prior to May 5, 1995, by the 

department of agriculture, or by the department of agriculture jointly with other 

state agencies shall be considered guidelines for the purpose of granting the 

permits issued under this chapter.” 

And later, 

“(4) As used in this section, "aquatic noxious weed" means an aquatic weed on 

the state noxious weed list adopted under RCW 17.10.080.” 

All waste water discharge permits issued by Ecology must incorporate requirements to 

implement reasonable prevention, treatment, and control of pollutants. 

In the Washington Pesticide Control Act, RCW 17.15, the legislature established that 

prevention of pollution in this case is reasonable only in the context of an Integrated Pest 

Management Plan (IPM). IPM’s require the investigation of all control options, but do 

not require non-chemical pest controls as the preferred option. The goal of IPM’s is to 

establish the most effective means of control whether chemical, non-chemical, or a 

combination. Most noxious weed control strategies include such a combination of 

controls. 

The Talent decision establishes that aquatic pesticides become waste in the water after 

the pesticide has performed its intended action and the target organisms are controlled. 

Treatment of the pollutants addressed in this permit poses difficulties due to the diffuse 

nature and low concentrations that exist after the pesticides have become waste. 
 October 3, 2007 8 

This permit addresses the control of pollutants, as has been demonstrated previously in 

isolated situations where a routine application of the preferred pesticide may have caused 

unwanted impacts on non-target organisms. Pesticide application areas can be isolated 

using underwater curtains and other barriers when downstream water users raise concerns 

or sensitive native plants or fisheries share the water body. However, the state legislature 

clearly intended to limit noxious weed control to FIFRA label requirements and the 

FWPCA. This permit does not require the use of underwater barriers during pesticide 

treatments. 

WSDA occasionally authorizes experimental use of pesticides not yet registered for a 

particular use or application rate. These experimental projects are usually small in scope 

and infrequent. This permit allows experimental use in aquatic environments in order to 

promote alternatives that may prove more effective while reducing impacts to non-target 

organisms. 

WSDA issues experimental use permits for pesticides in Washington State. WSDA 

requires Washington State Experimental Use Permits (WSEUP) for all experiments 

involving pesticides that are not federally registered or uses not allowed on the federally 

registered pesticide label. WSDA limits the amount of an experimental use pesticide 

distributed or used for testing purposes after a proponent obtains a written permit from 

WSDA. WSDA grants experimental use permits for gathering data in support of 

registration under FIFRA Section (3) or Section 24(c). 

In most situations only a state WSEUP is required for the use of an experimental 

pesticide. When a proponent will conduct a small-scale test on a cumulative total of more 

than 10 acres of land per pest on terrestrial sites or on more than one surface acre of water 

per pest occurs, the proponent must obtain a federal experimental use permit in addition 

to a state permit. When testing for more than one target pest at the same time and in the 

same locality, the 10-acre limitation encompasses all of the target pests. Any person may 

apply to the EPA for a federal experimental use permit for pesticides, which are usually 

valid for only one year. Applicants holding a valid federal experimental use permit must 

also apply for and be granted a state experimental use permit before initiating any 

shipment or use of the pesticide in Washington. 

This permit is not required when the project is less than one acre in size, and a WSEUP 

has been obtained. Coverage under this general permit is required whenever working 

under a Federal Experimental Use Permit. 

WATER QUALITY BASED REQUIREMENTS 

The noxious and quarantine weed control activities affect surface waters of the State. 

Chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of 

Washington protect state surface waters. 
 October 3, 2007 9 

The noxious weed control activities which discharge to surface waters must meet the 

state water quality standards as given in chapter 173-201A WAC. The characteristic 

beneficial uses of surface waters include, but are not limited to, the following: domestic, 

industrial and agricultural water supply; stock watering; the spawning, rearing, migration 

and harvesting of fish; the spawning, rearing and harvesting of shellfish; wildlife habitat; 

recreation (primary contact, sport fishing, boating, and aesthetic enjoyment of nature); 

commerce; aesthetics and navigation. 

RCW 90.48.035 authorizes establishment of water quality standards for waters of the 

state. The state has implemented water quality standards in chapter 173-201A WAC. 

Ecology must condition all waste discharge permits issued pursuant to NPDES or SWD 

regulations in such a manner that all authorized discharges must meet state water quality 

standards. Standards include an "antidegradation" policy which requires the protection of 

beneficial uses. 

Discharges from noxious weed control activities may contain pollutants which, in 

excessive amounts, would have a reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to, 

violations of state water quality standards due to the presence of toxic materials. Ecology 

has deemed that, when properly applied and handled in accordance with the terms and 

conditions of the general permit, noxious weed control activities will comply with state 

water quality standards, will maintain and protect the existing characteristic beneficial 

uses of the surface waters of the state, and will protect human health. New information 

regarding previously unknown environmental and human health risks may cause Ecology 

to reopen this general permit. 

This general permit does not authorize mixing or dilution zones for any discharge to 

surface waters by the Permittee. The short term water quality modification provisions of 

the permit will allow the discharges authorized by the general permit to cause a 

temporary diminishment of some beneficial uses while the water body is altered to 

improve other beneficial uses. 

The activities authorized by this general permit do not have a reasonable potential to 

cause a violation of state water quality standards (WAC 173-201A) so long as the 

activities meet the conditions of the short term water quality modification. The water 

quality modification provides for an exception to meeting certain provisions of the state 

water quality standards such as meeting all beneficial uses all the time. This permit 

allocates a temporary zone of impact on beneficial uses for activities covered under this 

permit, but the impact must be transient, and must allow for full restoration of water 

quality and protection of beneficial uses upon project completion. The conditions of the 

permit constitute the requirements of a water quality modification. 

Washington’s water quality standards include 91 numeric human health-based criteria 

that Ecology must consider in issuing NPDES permits. EPA promulgated these criteria 

for the state in its National Toxics Rule (Federal Register, Volume 57, No. 246, Tuesday, 

December 22, 1992). 
 October 3, 2007 10 

Ecology has determined that the applicant's discharge does not contain chemicals in 

concentrations of concern for human health based on existing data or knowledge. 

GROUND WATER QUALITY LIMITS 

The Ground Water Quality Standards, (chapter 173-200 WAC), protect beneficial uses of 

ground water. Permits issued by Ecology must not allow violations of those standards 

(WAC 173-200-100). This permit does not allow the use of any pesticides expected to 

contaminate groundwater. In the event there is a concern, Ecology can issue orders 

requiring groundwater and well monitoring for different pesticides under this permit. 

SEDIMENT QUALITY 

Ecology has promulgated aquatic sediment standards (Chapter 173-204 WAC) to protect 

aquatic biota and human health. These standards state that Ecology may require 

Permittees to evaluate the potential for the discharge to cause a violation of applicable 

standards (WAC 173-204-400). 

Ecology has determined through a review of the discharger characteristics and effluent 

characteristics that this discharge has no reasonable potential to violate the Sediment 

Management Standards. 

Researchers conducted a 3-year study to assess the short- and long-term fate and potential 

effects to marine biota associated with repeated applications of Rodeo® to control 

smooth cordgrass in a southwestern Washington estuary. Researchers established plots at 

each of three intertidal locations in Willapa Bay on exposed mudflats and along the edge 

of a Spartina meadow. Researchers hand sprayed the plots with Rodeo® (5% solution) 

and LI-700® (2% solution) during July 1997 and 1998. 

Glyphosate (the active ingredient in Rodeo®) concentrations in sediment from bare 

mudflat plots declined 88% to 96% from 1 day post-treatment in 1997 to 1 year after the 

second Rodeo® applications in 1999. In contrast, glyphosate concentrations in Spartina 

plots increased 231% to 591% from 1997 to 1999 because Spartina rhizomes likely held 

the glyphosate in tissue and did not readily metabolize or exude it. Comparison of 

concentrations from mudflat and Spartina plots with toxicity test values for marine biota 

indicates that under worst-case conditions short- and long-term detrimental effects to 

aquatic biota from repeated application of Rodeo® for Spartina control would be highly 

unlikely.”(Kilbride and Paveglio, 1999) 

ANTIDEGRADATION 

Washington's Antidegradation Policy states that discharges into a receiving water shall 

not further degrade the existing water quality of the water body. In cases where the 

natural conditions of a receiving water are of lower quality than the criteria assigned, the 
 October 3, 2007 11 

natural conditions shall constitute the water quality criteria. Similarly, when the natural 

conditions of a receiving water are of higher quality than the criteria assigned, the natural 

conditions shall be protected. More information on the State Antidegradation Policy can 

be obtained in WAC 173-201A-070. 

Antidegradation by definition applies to site-specific conditions. A general permit applies 

to sites statewide. Discussion of antidegradation for each site covered under the draft 

permit is impractical. The permit requires discharges to comply with water quality 

standards. Compliance with standards typically affords the protection necessary to 

prevent ongoing degradation of a waterbody from aquatic pesticide discharges. 

SEPA COMPLIANCE 

Ecology has conducted numerous environmental impact evaluations for noxious weed 

control activities. The permit conditions the use of pesticides to mitigate environmental 

impacts of concern noted in these evaluations. 

SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

PERMIT COVERAGE 

Activities Covered under the Permit 

Washington State Water Quality statutes and regulations do not allow the discharge of 

pollutants to waters of the state without permit coverage (Chapter 173-201A WAC, RCW 

90.48.080, and RCW 90.48.160). Herbicides, adjuvants, and marker dyes are potential 

pollutants, and therefore require a discharge permit to be applied to waters within 

Washington State. 

This permit covers the use of herbicides, adjuvants, and marker dyes for the control of 

noxious weeds and quarantine list weeds in and near surface waters in Washington State. 

Eradication of aquatic noxious weeds is required by state statute. The Washington State 

legislature declared in RCW 90.48.445 that: 

“(1) the director shall issue or approve water quality permits for use by federal, state, or 

local governmental agencies and licensed applicators for the purpose of using, for 

aquatic noxious weed control, herbicides and surfactants registered under state or 

federal pesticide control laws, and for the purpose of experimental use of herbicides on 

aquatic sites, as defined in 40 C.F.R. Sec. 172.3. The issuance of the permits shall be 

subject only to compliance with: Federal and state pesticide label requirements, the 
 October 3, 2007 12 

requirements of the federal insecticide, fungicide, and rodenticide act, the Washington 

pesticide control act, the Washington pesticide application act, and the state 

environmental policy act, except that...: 

 

(b) The director shall issue water quality permits for the purpose of using 

herbicides or surfactants registered by the department of agriculture to control 

aquatic noxious weeds, other than spartina, and the permit shall state that aerial 

and ground broadcast applications may not be made when the wind speed 

exceeds ten miles per hour. 

Activities Excluded From Coverage Under This Permit 

The permit does not apply to activities occurring in a number of different water body 

types. Stormwater and wastewater detention and retention ponds are constructed (manmade) systems and are usually regulated under other permits (such as industrial or 

municipal stormwater permits). For ponds regulated under other permits that condition 

chemical use for plant and algae control or eradication, permit coverage under this permit 

is not required. 

Retention and detention ponds not regulated under other permits may also be treated 

without applying for coverage under this permit if the pond is either (1) dry or, (2) if it 

contains water, and will not discharge to surface waters within two weeks of treatment. 

Ecology believes that both dry conditions and the two week holding time will be 

sufficient to allow the dissipation of the product prior to possible discharge to surface 

waters. 

This permit exempts any enclosed constructed water body that is five acres or less in 

surface area, which will not discharge to surface waters within two weeks of treatment. 

Ecology believes the two week holding time will be sufficient to allow the dissipation of 

the product prior to possible discharge to surface waters. 

This permit also exempts aquatic plant control in seasonally dry wetlands if the 

herbicides applications comply with the FIFRA label and if the herbicides will not be 

biologically available when the area is inundated with water. Ecology believes that if 

these conditions are met, the treatment poses no potential to violate the state’s surface 

water quality standards. 

Geographic Area Covered 

This permit applies to the application of products to surface waters throughout the state. 

Surface waters of the state are defined as “lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, 

salt waters, wetlands, and all other surface waters and water courses within the 

jurisdiction of the state of Washington.” (Chapter 173-201A WAC) 
 October 3, 2007 13 

Aquatic weeds have the potential to occur in or near virtually any freshwater or semiaquatic site in Washington State. These sites include but are not limited to riparian areas, 

wetlands, marshes, rivers, year round and seasonal streams, lakes, ponds, wet pastures, 

and brackish estuaries. 

PERMIT APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS 

Who Applies for Coverage 

According to state regulations, the entity intending to discharge the material into waters 

of the state must apply for coverage (RCW 90.48, Chapter 173-216-070 WAC, and 

Chapter 173-226-210 WAC). In most cases, the applicator most closely fits the definition 

of owner/operator of the discharging entity and will be the permittee. Ecology has 

established that the Permittee is any government entity, private applicator, or nongovernmental organization conducting noxious weed control. When the weed being 

controlled is covered under the authority of a funded program at WSDA, individuals, 

governments, and non-governmental organizations may cooperate under the coverage 

issued to WSDA.

Applying for Coverage 

Ecology bases the conditions for coverage under this general permit on state regulations 

found in WAC 173-216 and WAC 173-226. 

Ecology will not issue coverage until at least 60 days following the receipt of a 

completed application for coverage. In the event that Ecology receives relevant 

comments on the Application for Coverage, Ecology may need to work with the applicant 

prior to issuing permit coverage. In this instance, obtaining permit coverage may require 

more than 60 days. 

Ecology derived the requirements for public notice when applying for coverage under the 

general permit from state regulation, WAC 173-226-130. 

COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS 

WAC 173-201A-240 states that “toxic substances shall not be introduced above natural 

background levels in waters of the state which have the potential either singularly or 

cumulatively to adversely affect characteristic water uses, cause acute or chronic toxicity 

to the most sensitive biota dependent upon those waters, or adversely affect public health, 

as determined by the department.” 

Ecology periodically reviews surface water quality data to determine if water bodies meet 

criteria. Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires that waters not meeting criteria 

undergo an evaluation of the cause and amount of the contaminant. Subsequent limits are 
 October 3, 2007 14 

placed on the amounts of pollutants allowed to be discharged and published in Total 

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) reports. 

Ecology has the authority and responsibility to periodically update the water quality 

standards, 90.48.035 RCW. In accordance with WAC 173-226-230(1)(b), a general 

permit may be modified when the state water quality standards have been modified 

through formal process. No “grandfather” clause is available that would allow a permittee 

to continue under the old standards. 

The latest updates of the State's water quality standards were approved by the EPA in 

2005. This permit is written to comply with the new surface water quality standards. If a 

new list is approved by EPA during the life of this permit, any changes to the permit will 

result in formal notification of all permittees in accordance with Chapter 90.48 RCW. 

Pesticide applications subject to the permit to 303(d) water bodies may have additional 

limits and conditions imposed upon them. The two parameters of concern identified in 

the permit are dissolved oxygen and phosphorus. Water bodies listed on the 303(d) list as 

impaired for dissolved oxygen are either year-round problems, or seasonally low 

dissolved oxygen levels. Low dissolved oxygen levels in a water body can adversely 

affect fish populations. Contact herbicides, which primarily cause a burning back of the 

plants treated, have the greatest potential to adversely affect dissolved oxygen 

concentrations within a water body. The goal of a contact herbicide treatment is usually 

to remove all of the plants from a specific area for the purposes of recreation. As a result 

of the treatment, a massive die-back of plant life can occur in a specific area, creating a 

rapid expansion in the bacteria population (feeding on dying plants). The bacteria can use 

the dissolved oxygen normally available in the system for other organisms. 

The 303(d) water bodies listed for phosphorus are a concern because when plants die 

after an herbicide treatment, they release sequestered phosphorus into the water column. 

The rapid release of phosphorus can trigger algae blooms, which can adversely impact 

human and environmental health. 

DISCHARGE LIMITATIONS 

Authorized Discharges 

This permit allows the use of products regulated under FIFRA, as well as any product 

category identified in the permit that could potentially require modification of the state 

water quality standards if the conditions of this permit are met. These discharges are 

allowed in accordance with the terms of WAC 173-201A-110 and Chapter 90.48 RCW. 

Prohibited Discharges 

RCW 90.48.080 states that “it shall be unlawful for any person to throw, drain, run, or 

otherwise discharge into any of the waters of this state, or to cause, permit or suffer to be 

thrown, run, drained, allowed to seep or otherwise discharged into such waters any 
 October 3, 2007 15 

organic or inorganic matter that shall cause or tend to cause pollution of such waters 

according to the determination of the department.” 

Products Allowed For Use Under this Permit 

The permit conditions the use of seven federally registered active ingredients. These eight 

active ingredients have undergone extensive risk assessment and review by Ecology prior 

to approval. Ecology has mitigated for possible risks by conditioning the use of these 

products under the general permit. Ecology determined that, if used according to the label 

and in compliance with the conditions of this general permit, these active ingredients will 

not violate water quality standards. By approving active ingredients rather than brands, 

Ecology will not conduct a new risk assessment for each new brand that is released onto 

the market. 

The permit provides a process for new active ingredients to be approved for use under the 

permit. The new ingredients must undergo review by both the Washington State 

Department of Agriculture (WSDA) and Ecology (Special Condition S11), and upon 

Ecology’s approval, the permit will be modified to allow their use. 

This permit also provides for the use of specific adjuvants that have received WSDA 

approval, Ecology approval, and a SEPA review. The adjuvants identified in the permit 

have been reviewed by WSDA for toxicity and potential environmental impacts. In the 

future, adjuvants may be added to the permit after obtaining approval from both WSDA 

and Ecology, completing SEPA review, and being placed on the list maintained on 

Ecology’s website. 

The permit allows the use of marker dyes. This permit does not require a licensed 

pesticide applicator for the application of these products, as they are not identified as 

pesticides and are not regulated under FIFRA. 

Experimental Use Permits 

Experimental Use Permits (EUPs) are regulated by section 5(f) of FIFRA by EPA and 

Chapter 15.58.405(3) RCW by WSDA. 

Specific Restrictions on the Application of Pesticides 

This table details restrictions on herbicide and algaecide active ingredients that are 

imposed by Ecology (over and above the federal labeling restrictions). These decisions 

were made on consultation with experts in the field of toxicology and fisheries. Many of 

the restrictions are dervied from the risk assessments and Environmental Impact 

Statements prepared for each chemical. 

The second column of the table refers to fish timing window restrictions. Ecology 

provided WDFW with information about specific active ingredients that risk assessments 

indicated could adversely affect juvenile salmon, steelhead, and bull trout populations in 
 October 3, 2007 16 

Washington waters. If the column states “yes,” WDFW has provided Ecology with 

certain specific windows of time when these active ingredients can be applied in 

individual water bodies. 

Ecology obtained the recreational and/or swimming restrictions/advisories listed in the 

third column by consulting a toxicologist at the Department of Health. Some of these 

may mirror label requirements, but most are more stringent requirements. An advisory 

requires that the public at least be notified via posting for those substances that may 

impact people swimming in the treated area for a time period following treatment. 

The limitations noted in the fourth column of Table 1 are imposed by Ecology in addition 

to any federal label restrictions based on the mitigations recommended while the risk 

assessments were being prepared on each active ingredient. These are based on the best 

scientific information available at the time of chemical approval and Ecology’s best 

professional judgment. 

Other specific restrictions detailed in column 4 are general restrictions imposed either by 

Ecology based on best professional judgment, or in the case of 2, 4-D, by a federal court 

decision affecting product use. 

POSTING REQUIREMENTS 

Ecology adopted the requirements for public notice, posting, and legal notice of pesticide 

applications from previous public notification requirements in Ecology-issued orders and 

short-term modifications. In some cases, the public notification requirements were based 

on EPA FIFRA label requirements. In all other cases, the requirements are based on 

Ecology’s best professional judgment and the public’s right to know. 

MONITORING 

Ecology may require monitoring of residual pesticides to confirm assumptions of 

persistence when applications are performed in compliance with the pesticide label. 

Permittees may propose and gain approval for a monitoring plan in lieu of monitoring 

each application for herbicide applications near stock watering and drinking water 

withdrawal sites, where native vegetation or threatened or endangered species are likely 

to be affected, or applications to sites where the total area of treatment exceeds ten acres. 

Ecology intends to use these provisions to gather information to confirm the assumptions 

of persistence and toxicity relative to the rate of application. This information may better 

define the period of temporary diminishment of beneficial uses. No monitoring is 

required for freshwater emergent projects using the herbicides glyphosate or imazapyr. 

Permittees may request reduced or no monitoring if current monitoring has shown little to 

no adverse environmental impacts from the treatments. 

RCW 90.48.260 gives Ecology the authority to establish inspection, monitoring, entry, 

and reporting requirements. WAC 173-220-210 gives Ecology the authority to require 

monitoring of the treated waters to determine the effects of discharges on surface waters 

of the state. 
 October 3, 2007 17 

SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 

With the exception of certain parameters used for process control the general permit 

requires all monitoring data to be prepared by a laboratory registered or accredited under 

the provisions of Chapter 173-50 WAC, Accreditation of Environmental Laboratories. 

REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING 

Section S8 of the permit contains specific conditions based on Ecology’s authority to 

specify any appropriate reporting and recordkeeping requirements to prevent and control 

waste discharges (WAC 173-226-090). 

SPILL PREVENTION AND CONTROL 

WAC 173-216-110 requires that any site covered under a state waste discharge permit 

shall maintain materials available on site for the control of overflow or spills, and 

requires upkeep and maintenance associated with prevention of spills and contaminating 

situations. Spills can occur at sites receiving coverage under this permit. 

The permittee must be prepared to mitigate for any potential spills and, in the event of a 

spill onsite, perform the necessary cleanup, and notify the appropriate Ecology regional 

office (see RCW 90.48.080, and WAC 173-216-110). 

PRODECURE FOR APPROVAL OF PRODUCTS NOT SPECIFIED IN THE 

CURRENT PERMIT 

The pesticide industry indicated that they might lose the use of some pesticides in the 

current EPA reregistration process. They expressed concern about the length of time 

necessary to issue a permit modification to allow the use of alternatives not yet approved. 

In response to this concern the permit allows use of other pesticides after approval by 

EPA, the Washington State Department of Agriculture, and completion of a multi-agency 

State Environmental Policy Action and risk assessment. Ecology may complete a major 

modification of the permit and add new pesticides to the permit. 

RESPONSIBILITY TO COMPLY WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS 

Ecology has established, and will enforce, limits and conditions expressed in the general 

permit for the discharge of waste streams containing various pesticides registered for use 

by the EPA and the Washington State Department of Agriculture. These agencies will 

enforce the use, storage and disposal requirements expressed on pesticide labels. The 
 October 3, 2007 18 

Permittee must comply with both the pesticide label requirements and the general permit 

conditions. The general permit does not supersede or preempt federal or state label 

requirements or any other applicable laws and regulations. General permit Condition G11 

reminds the Permittee of this fact. 

GENERAL CONDITIONS 

General conditions are based directly on State and Federal law and regulations and are 

included in all aquatic pesticide general permits. 

General Conditions are based directly on state and federal law and regulations and have 

been standardized for all NPDES permits issued by the Ecology. Some of these 

conditions were developed for different types of discharges. Many of these regulations 

are not applicable to the application of herbicides. 

Condition G1 requires discharges and activities authorized by the draft permit to be 

consistent with the terms and conditions of the permit in accordance with 40 CFR 122.41. 

Condition G2 requires the Permittee to comply with all conditions of the permit in 

accordance with 40 CFR 122.41(a). 

Condition G3 requires the Permittee to allow Ecology to access the facility and conduct 

inspections of the facility and records related to the permit in accordance with 40 CFR 

122.41(i), RCW 90.48.090, and WAC 173-220-150(1)(e). 

Condition G4 requires the Permittee to notify Ecology when facility changes may require 

modification or revocation of permit coverage in accordance with 40 CFR 122.62(a), 40 

CFR 122.41(l), WAC 173-220-150(1)(b), and WAC 173-201A-060(5)(b). 

Condition G5 identifies conditions that may result in modifying or revoking the general 

permit in accordance with 40 CFR 122.62, 40 CFR 124.5, and WAC 173-226-230. 

Condition G6 identifies conditions for revoking coverage under the general permit in 

accordance with 40 CFR 122.62, 40 CFR 

Condition G7 requires Permittees to report anticipated non-compliances in accordance 

with 40 CFR 122.41(l)(2). 

Condition G8 requires that the Permittee notify Ecology in writing of the need to transfer 

permit coverage to another entity or individual. 

Condition G9 requires the Permittee to comply with more stringent toxic effluent 

standards or prohibitions established under Section 307(a) of the Clean Water Act in 

accordance with 40 CFR 122.41(a)(1), WAC 173-220-120(5), and WAC 173-201A-040. 
 October 3, 2007 19 

Condition G10 incorporates all other requirements of 40 CFR 122.41 and 122.42 by 

reference. 

Condition G11 prohibits the Permittee from using the permit as a basis for violating any 

laws, statutes or regulations in accordance with 40 CFR 122.5(c). 

Condition G12 notifies the Permittee that additional monitoring requirements may be 

established by Ecology in accordance with 40 CFR 122.41(h). 

Condition G13 prohibits the reintroduction of removed substances back into the effluent 

in accordance with 40 CFR 125.3(g), RCW 90.48.010, RCW 90.48.080, WAC 173-220-

130, and WAC 173-201A-040. 

Condition G14 requires responsible officials or their designated representatives to sign 

submittals to Ecology in accordance with 40 CFR 122.22, 40 CFR 122.22(d), WAC 173-

220-210(3)(b), and WAC 173-220-040(5). The footnote associated with 40 CFR 

122.22(a)(1) contains the following clarification: EPA does not require specific 

assignments or delegations of authority to responsible corporate officers identified in 

§122.22(a)(1)(i). The Agency will presume that these responsible corporate officers have 

the requisite authority to sign permit applications unless the corporation has notified the 

Director to the contrary. Corporate procedures governing authority to sign permit 

applications may provide for assignment or delegation to applicable corporate positions 

under §122.22(a)(1)(ii) rather than to specific individuals. 

124.5, WAC 173-226-240, WAC 173-220-150(1)(d), and WAC 173-220-190. 

Condition G15 covers the applicant’s right to request coverage under an individual 

permit rather than this general permit. WAC 173-220-040 and WAC 173216-070. 

Condition G16 defines appeal options for the terms and conditions of the general permit 

and of coverage under the permit by an individual discharger in accordance with RCW 

43.21B and WAC 173-226-190. 

Condition G17 requires the Permittee to reapply for coverage 180 days prior to the 

expiration date of this general permit in accordance with 40 CFR 122.21(d), 40 CFR 

122.41(b), and WAC 183-220-180(2) (Note: This would only apply to long term projects 

or to sites with permit coverage near the time of permit expiration). 

Condition G18 covers the termination of individual permits upon coverage issuance 

under this general permit. 

Condition G19 specifies that Permittees may request their general permit coverage be 

replaced by an individual permit in accordance with 40 CFR 122.62, 40 CFR 124.5, and 

WAC 173-220-040. 

Condition G20 covers Ecology enforcement authority, as stated in WAC 173-226-250. 
 October 3, 2007 20 

Condition G21 invokes severability of permit provisions in accordance with RCW 

90.48.904. 

Condition G22 requires Permittees pay permit fees to Ecology in accordance with WAC 

173-224. 

PERMIT MODIFICATIONS 

Ecology may modify this permit to impose new or modified numerical limitations, if 

necessary to meet Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters, Sediment Quality 

Standards, or Water Quality Standards for Ground Waters, based on new information 

obtained from sources such as inspections, effluent monitoring, or Department approved 

engineering reports. Ecology may also modify this permit because of new or amended 

state or federal regulations. 

RECOMMENDATION FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE 

The general permit meets all statutory requirements for authorizing a wastewater 

discharge, including those limitations and conditions believed necessary to control toxics, 

protect human health, aquatic life, and the beneficial uses of waters of the State of 

Washington. Ecology proposes to issue this general permit for five (5) years.