FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 

SUMMARY 

The State of Washington Department of Ecology (Department) has tentatively determined to 

issue an individual permit to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) for the 

application of rotenone, an aquatic pesticide used to manage fish populations in lakes and 

streams in the State of Washington. Any short term toxicity to aquatic organisms is allowed 

under the terms of the permit and the water quality modification provisions to accommodate the 

application of rotenone, an aquatic pesticide that is occasionally used by WDFW biologists to 

manage fish populations. The WDFW will conduct monitoring to determine the extent and 

duration of the short-term water quality reduction resulting from rotenone applications. 

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

to change, subsequent to public comments and testimony provided at public hearings. The 

WDFW will not be relieved of any responsibility or liability at any time during the life of the 

permit for: (1) violating or exceeding State water quality standards; or (2) violating any other 

local, State, or Federal regulation or standard as may pertain to the individual facility. Any 

application of pesticide to surface waters of the state requiring NPDES permit coverage found 

not covered under the individual permit will be considered to be operating without a discharge 

permit and subject to potential enforcement action. 

On March 12, 2001, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided that the application of an 

herbicide in compliance with the labeling requirements of Federal Insecticide Fungicide 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) did not exempt an irrigation district from needing an NPDES permit 

(Headwaters, Inc. v. Talent Irrigation District). Ecology, as had many other states, had 

previously been issuing orders that were not NPDES permits that placed protective conditions on 

the use of pesticides in waters of the state. This individual permit will replace those short term 

modifications where pesticide applications are directed into surface waters of the state for the 

purpose of managing fish populations in lakes and streams. 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ................................................................................................2 

Legal ........................................................................................................................2 

Rotenone Use In Fisheries Management .................................................................3 

Rotenone Use By The Washington Department Of Fish And Wildlife...................3 

Restoration Of Native Fish Habitat..........................................................................5 

Evaluation Of Available Fish Control Options........................................................5 

Wildlife Management ..............................................................................................6 

WDFW Lake And Stream Rehabilitation Procedures .............................................7 

Pre-Treatment Procedures........................................................................................7 

Treatment Procedures ..............................................................................................8 

Rotenone Safety Procedures ....................................................................................9 

Post-Treatment Procedures ......................................................................................9 

Number And Size Of Waters Treated......................................................................9 

Frequency Of Rotenone Treatments ......................................................................10 

Target Species........................................................................................................10 

Timing Of Rotenone Treatments ...........................................................................10 

Permit Status ..........................................................................................................11 

PROPOSED PERMIT LIMITATIONS.........................................................................................11 

TECHNOLOGY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS..................................................11 

Detoxification Of Rotenone Treated Waters .........................................................13 

SURFACE WATER QUALITY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS .........................14 

Water Quality Based Requirements.......................................................................14 

Narrative Criteria ...................................................................................................15 

Sediment Quality ...................................................................................................16 

SEPA Compliance .................................................................................................16 

Description of the Receiving Water.......................................................................16 

Eligibility and Geographical Area of Coverage.....................................................16 

WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION ......................................................................17 

GROUND WATER QUALITY LIMITATIONS..............................................................18 

Procedure for Obtaining Approval for the Discharge of Wastewater Containing 

Antimycin or Other Products Not Specified In the Current Permit.......................18 

OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS .................................................................................................19 

MONITORING..................................................................................................................19 

REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING .........................................................................19 

LAB ACCREDITATION ..................................................................................................19 

GENERAL CONDITIONS ...............................................................................................20 

PERMIT ISSUANCE PROCEDURES .........................................................................................20 

PERMIT MODIFICATIONS ............................................................................................20 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

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

REFERENCES FOR TEXT AND APPENDICES........................................................................20 

APPENDIX A--PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT INFORMATION....................................................23 

APPENDIX B--GLOSSARY ........................................................................................................24 

APPENDIX C—WDFW Policy C-3010 .......................................................................................28 

APPENDIX D—Schedule of Activities ........................................................................................29 

APPENDIX E—RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ..........................................................................31 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 1 DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

INTRODUCTION 

This fact sheet is a companion document that provides the basis for issuance of the Fisheries 

Resource Management National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Individual 

Permit. The Department of Ecology (the Department) is proposing to issue this permit, which 

will allow the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) to discharge wastes from 

aquatic pesticide (rotenone) applications, used to manage fish populations in surface waters of 

the State of Washington, which are also waters of the United States, pursuant to 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, the Department'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 Clean Water Act is the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System of permits (NPDES permits), which is administered by the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The EPA has delegated responsibility to administer 

the NPDES permit program to the State of Washington on the basis of Chapter 90.48 RCW 

which defines the Department of Ecology's authority and obligations in administering the 

wastewater discharge permit program. 

The regulations adopted by the State include procedures for issuing permits (Chapter 173-226 

WAC), water quality criteria for surface and ground waters (Chapters 173-201A and 200 WAC), 

and sediment management standards (Chapter 173-204 WAC). These regulations require that a 

permit be issued before discharge of wastewater to waters of the state is allowed. The 

regulations also establish the basis for effluent limitations and other requirements which are to be 

included in the permit. One of the requirements (WAC 173-220-060) for issuing a permit under 

the NPDES permit program is the preparation of a draft permit and an accompanying fact sheet. 

Public notice of the availability of the draft permit is required at least thirty days before the 

permit is issued (WAC 173-220-050). The fact sheet and draft permit are available for review 

(see Appendix A--Public Involvement of the fact sheet for more detail on the Public Notice 

procedures). 

The fact sheet and draft permit have been reviewed by the Permittee. Errors and omissions 

identified in this review have been corrected before going to public notice. After the public 

comment period closed, the Department summarized the substantive comments and the response 

to each comment. The summary and response to comments will become part of the file on the 

permit and parties submitting comments will receive a copy of the Department's response. The 

fact sheet will not be revised. Comments and the resultant changes to the permit will be 

summarized in Appendix E--Response to Comments. 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 2 DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

GENERAL INFORMATION

Applicant Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Facility Name and 

Address 

Lakes and streams in the State of Washington 

BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

LEGAL 

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1979 (FIFRA), as administered by 

the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 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 demonstrate a practical knowledge of the principles and practices of pest control and safe 

use of pesticides, which will be accomplished by means of a "core" examination (Pesticide Laws 

& Safety). 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) are required to pass an additional exam (Aquatic Pest Control) to 

demonstrate competency as described in the code of federal regulations 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 organisms which may be present in aquatic environments. Applicants in this 

category must demonstrate practical knowledge of the principles of limited area application 

(40 CFR 171.4). 

A March 12, 2001 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court in Headwaters, Inc. v. Talent Irrigation 

District found that an applicator should have obtained coverage under a National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit prior to application of aquatic pesticides to an 

irrigation canal in Oregon. The canal discharged water into a creek where a fish kill occurred. 

The decision addressed residues and other products of aquatic pesticides. 

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 held that application of 

the pesticide in compliance with the labeling requirements of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, 

and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) did not exempt TID from having to obtain a NPDES permit, and 

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

Ecology, as had many other states, had been issuing administrative orders (short term 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 3 DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

modifications), that were not NPDES permits, that placed protective conditions on the use of 

pesticides in waters of the state. Based upon the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision, Ecology decided 

to write NPDES permits for all temporary water quality modifications for the application of 

aquatic pesticides under WAC 173-201A-110(1), including piscicides used in fisheries 

management. This individual permit replaces the short term modifications that were previously 

issued to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for the application of pesticides into 

surface waters of the state for the purpose of managing fish populations in lakes and streams. 

ROTENONE USE IN FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

Over the years, fisheries biologists have tried a number of techniques to eliminate nuisance fish 

from lakes: nets, traps, dynamite, electroshocking, predator stocking, and even complete 

drainage. But the use of fish poisons has been by far the most widespread; and of these poisons, 

rotenone is the most commonly used today. In most cases, the technique is relatively simple: all 

the fish in a lake are killed so that sportfish, usually trout, can then be stocked, free from 

predatation or competition from other species (Bradbury 1986, cited in WDW 1992). 

Rotenone itself is an alkaloid poison made from the roots of certain South American and Asian 

plants. Natives in those areas have for centuries killed fish for food by scattering rotenone in 

ponds and rivers (Bradbury 1986, cited in WDW 1992). 

Michigan biologists in the 1930’s were the first to make extensive use of rotenone for fish 

management, and it quickly became popular nationwide (Bradbury 1986, cited in WDW 1992). 

By 1949, 34 states and several Canadian provinces were using rotenone routinely for the 

management of fish populations (Finlayson et al. 2000). The number of states and provinces 

using rotenone has changed little since 1949, but the quantity of rotenone use has declined during 

a ten year survey period from 1988-1997 (McClay 2000). 

A recent survey of rotenone use (1988-1997) indicates that the preferred formulation of rotenone 

appears to have changed. Agencies now appear to be placing a greater emphasis on the use of 

powdered rotenone, especially for treating standing waters. This trend is probably due to 

reduced costs and improved distribution techniques from the powdered formulation, as well as 

increased environmental and public health concerns for the inert ingredients contained in liquid 

formulations. Although liquid formulations have proven safe for use, according to EPA FIFRA 

evaluations, some agencies have found it more difficult to plan and execute treatments using 

these formulations because of the demands for environmental monitoring studies not normally 

required for projects that utilize the powder formulation (McClay 2000). 

ROTENONE USE BY THE WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE

This section was adapted from the following documents: 

Washington Department of Wildlife - Final Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (FSEIS), Lake and Stream Rehabilitation, 1992-1993, Report #92-14. 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 4 DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife - Final Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (FSEIS), Lake and Stream Rehabilitation: Rotenone Use and Health Risks, 

January, 2002. 

To satisfy the annual demand for productive freshwater fishing, Washington Department of Fish 

and Wildlife stocks selected waters with trout from hatcheries and transplanted bass, crappie, 

walleye, and additional warmwater fish species from other waters. Many waters are managed for 

specific fisheries, such as trout-only or warmwater species. The management emphasis for state 

waters is decided according to habitat parameters, public desires, recreational demands, and 

previous management efforts. Occasionally, these waters become overpopulated with fish 

species outside this management emphasis. This often results in increased predation and/or 

competition, hence poor growth and survival, of targeted game fish. If carp overpopulate, fish 

survival decreases and nesting bird habitat is degraded due to siltation and uprooting of emergent 

vegetation. Infestations of these fish species occur through migration from other waters or 

through illegal transport and introductions. Three management options are available if this 

happens: 

1) Take no action; 

2) Change the management emphasis for the water; 

3) Eliminate competing species and stock with desired gamefish species. 

Option 1 will result in an increase in numbers of fish outside the management emphasis to a 

point where the water no longer supports a viable gamefish fishery. 

Option 2 allows for a viable fishery, but is relatively costly. For example, to establish a trout 

fishery, the cost of producing fingerling trout in a state hatchery is about 25% of the cost of a 

legal-sized trout (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 1983). Even though fry survival 

is lower when compared to legals, they can still be more economical in some cases. Furthermore, 

legal-sized trout are considered a lower quality fish than naturally-reared fry-origin trout, and are 

usually smaller as well. 

Option 3 is the preferred or most efficient alternative that allows the lake to continue to provide a 

viable fishery. Rotenone is the method currently used by WDFW to eliminate fish in lakes and is 

far more economical than either options l or 2 above. Washington Department of Fish and 

Wildlife (1984) compared the costs of three different management strategies for a typical 

lowland trout lake in western Washington (Lake Erie, Skagit County). 

These options were: 

1) trout-only lake maintained by fry stocking and periodic rotenone treatment; 

2) mixed-species lake maintained by trout fry stocking (no rotenone); and 

3) mixed species lake maintained by legal-sized trout stocking (no rotenone). 

The cost of Option 3 was about one-fourth the cost of either Option 1 or 2. Also note that option 

2 is not likely to be a viable alternative in many lakes for the reasons already discussed. 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 5 DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

RESTORATION OF NATIVE FISH HABITAT

WDFW has successfully used rotenone treatment to eliminate illegally planted, non-native fish 

(e.g. northern pike) from lakes were they have been shown to negatively impact native fish 

populations (e.g. coho salmon) by completing for food and space, and in some cases actually 

using native fish as forage. Illegally planted fish populations could also serve as a source for 

additional illegal plants into other lakes. 

EVALUATION OF AVAILABLE FISH CONTROL OPTIONS

The WDFW Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement – Lake and Stream Rehabilitations 

1992 identifies and evaluates all available control methods for targeted pest (fish) species. These 

options include the use of fish toxicants (piscicides); predator/competitor stocking; and 

mechanical means, such as water level drawdown, netting and trapping, dams and barriers, 

electrofishing, and removing congregations of spawning fish. These options are evaluated in the 

FSEIS and are summarized as follows: 

1. Fish Toxicants. Two fish toxicants (piscicides) are available, rotenone and Antimycin. 

Rotenone is regarded as safer and less persistent than Antimycin when used to 

rehabilitate lakes. 

2. Predator stocking. The use of apex predators (e.g. tiger musky) as pest control is now 

being used on an experimental basis in some systems with mixed species management 

goals with varying degrees of success. Large apex predators also eat trout and are not the 

most effective option in “trout only” managed waters. 

3. Mechanical means. 

a. Water level drawdowns: Very few lakes have water level control facilities. 

Accordingly, this is not regarded as an effective option. 

b. Lakewide netting and trapping: There are some accounts where this method has 

been shown to be effective. Most attempts using commercial fishing gear have 

failed because they are extremely labor intensive and therefore not cost effective. 

c. Dams and barriers: This method prohibits the migration of undesirable spawning 

fish to their spawning grounds. This method has little practical value since most 

of the target species are lake spawners. 

d. Electrofishing: This method has never been successful as a long term control 

measure for the same reasons that netting and trapping fail typically. 

e. Removing congregations of spawning fish: There are several accounts of success 

with this method. Adult fish are allowed to congregate in spawning areas which 

are subsequently blocked off. The fish are then poisoned, electroshocked or 

netted. However, to actually effectively control an undesirable fish population, 

this technique must be repeated annually. This method is rarely appropriate, since 

most of the species targeted by WDFW spawn lake-wide or over broad areas of 

the lake rather than congregating in any one section of the water. 

In a letter to the Department, dated November 6, 2001, the WDFW Resident/Native Fish 

Program Manager provided a comparison of available fish control methods (Table 1). 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 6 DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

Table 1: Comparison of fish control methods 

Criteria 

Fish Toxicants 

(rotenone) 

Predator / 

Competitor 

Mechanical 

Impact on 

aquatic 

environment 

Moderate – short term. 

Total detoxification 

through natural 

breakdown takes place 

normally within 5 

weeks (Finlayson et al. 

2000) 

Moderate – long 

term 

Moderate – short 

term 

Ability to 

meet water 

quality 

standards 

Excellent – 

Concentrations of 

rotenone for proposed 

work is not toxic to 

humans (Finlayson et al. 

2000) 

Good - immediate Good - variable 

Effectiveness 

for goal 

Excellent – Good Low Low – moderate 

Cost 

effectiveness 

It has been estimated 

that for every dollar 

spent on rotenone and 

trout stocking, anglers 

gained between $32 - 

$105 worth of fishing 

Moderate High Cost – low 

return 

Suitability 

for treatment 

sites 

Suitable for most sites Suitable for most 

sites 

Suitable for very 

few sites 

Protection 

for human 

health 

concerns 

Human health concerns 

can be adequately 

addressed by following 

label restrictions and 

safety procedures 

No human health 

concerns 

No human health 

concerns 

Response to 

emergency 

Can be adequately 

addressed 

No emergency 

response necessary 

Human health 

concerns can be 

adequately 

addressed 

Based upon previous criteria table, rotenone is WDFW’s preferred option to control undesirable 

fish species in managed waters (WDFW 2001). 

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Lakes are also rehabilitated by the WDFW to improve the quality of waterfowl habitat. The 

primary objective is to remove carp or other competitive species from potentially productive 

nesting and rearing duck habitat to increase the amount of food (aquatic invertebrates) and 

vegetative cover. Candidate waters are primarily one to three feet deep. 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 7 DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

WDFW LAKE AND STREAM REHABILITATION PROCEDURES

WDFW Policy POL-C3010 Lake and Stream Rehabilitation authorizes the use of rotenone to 

conduct lake and stream rehabilitation activities. This policy statement identifies the various 

roles and actions of WDFW staff involved in the rehabilitation program including relevant 

deadlines (Appendix C). 

“Schedule of Activities – Lake Rehabilitation Program” is an internal WDFW document that 

summarizes the general timeline involved in the lake rehabilitation program including the 

schedule of planning, public notification, approval, treatment and post-rehabilitation reporting 

(Appendix D). 

PRE-TREATMENT PROCEDURES

A lake or stream is selected for rotenone treatment when a viable fishery can only be provided 

with introductions of legal-sized fish. These determinations are made by the WDFW Area 

Fisheries Biologist directly charged with managing the lake's gamefish. Standard indicators of 

fishery performance are the average catch per hour on opening day, fish sizes and abundance 

from annual pre-season surveys. When poor performance is coupled with gillnet and/or 

electroshocking data showing an increase in species outside the management emphasis, the Area 

Biologist may recommend treatment of the water to his supervisor, the Regional Fisheries 

Program Manager. 

A Pre-Rehabilitation Plan containing vital information on the proposed treatment must be 

completed by the Area Fish Biologist. 

In calculating the dosage of rotenone needed, the biologist considers a variety of physical and 

biological factors, the most important being target species, water chemistry, past successes or 

failures in the lake and presence of weedy shorelines. 

The rotenone product label contains application directions, including a table with various 

application rates for lakes and ponds. Since these application rates are based upon a 

concentration of 5% active rotenone, adjustments are required because the powder used by 

WDFW rarely contains only 5% active rotenone. To ensure correct application rates, each 

shipment is chemically assayed by the supplier for rotenone content. Powder formulations used 

in recent years has assayed between 7% and 8% active rotenone. This permit requires WDFW to 

follow all label requirements, including a maximum application rate of 0.25 parts per million 

(ppm) active rotenone for lake treatments. Information regarding specific treatments will be 

submitted to the Department in an annual report, including the quantity and concentration of 

rotenone applied to each body of water and the chemical assay performed by the supplier. 

The Regional Fisheries Program Manager presents his list of proposed treatments along with 

justifications for each water body to the Fisheries Management Division of WDFW. Approval at 

this stage may depend not only on the validity of the biological justifications, but on other 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 8 DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

considerations such as the lake's public use and its importance as a recreational fishery, and 

finally the availability of rotenone. Statewide priorities are established, and a list of candidate 

lakes developed. 

After developing a list of candidate lakes, the public is notified through a general news release, 

usually in early summer. Area Fish Biologists also solicit public opinion from lakeshore 

residents and other groups in the area. Public meetings are held in the vicinity of the waters 

proposed for treatment prior to a final decision. A final list of candidate lakes is issued for 

public review in the counties where the lakes are located as an addendum to the 1992 FSEIS to 

meet State Environmental Policy Act requirements. 

The WDFW Director presented with the list of candidate lakes for agency approval. Even with 

the Director’s approval, there is still a chance that a lake may not be treated if all the pretreatment steps such as outlet detoxification and/or water control (e.g. diking or damming) have 

not been completed or other conditions have changed at the intended time of treatment. 

Fishing regulations are liberalized, when possible, by emergency regulation to utilize fish in 

waters scheduled for rehabilitation. Warmwater game fish, usually mature bass, are collected 

(depending on need) prior to rehabilitation, to be utilized as broodstock for waters nearby which 

are managed for warmwater fisheries. On some lakes, bass that have floated to the surface have 

been netted by WDFW employees and bass club volunteers, revived by dipping the fish in 

potassium permanganate, and moved to mixed-species or spiny ray lakes to augment or start a 

population (Fletcher 1976, cited in WDW 1992). WDFW typically transplants 200-300 fish 

from a single lake during this type of procedure (WDW 1992). 

TREATMENT PROCEDURES

In keeping with EPA’s 1993 changes to the rotenone product label, WDFW has modified their 

rotenone application procedure to reduce applicator and public exposure to rotenone (WDFW 

2002). The changes to reduce exposure are identified as the preferred alternative and are 

summarized in the FSEIS 2002 as follows: 

The supervisor of the application project will be charged with ensuring that all label 

requirements are followed and all safety requirements are met. The application 

procedure for powdered rotenone product will be changed to a method pioneered by the 

Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, see below. Additionally, Powered Air Purifying 

Respirators (PAPR) will be adopted for use by the applicator crews and support staff. 

Procedures will also be adopted as they are developed by the Washington Department of 

Ecology in WDFW’s pretreatment process to meet National Pollution Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements, see below. NPDES permits are now 

required for all pesticide applications that are to or will affect state waters. 

The new rotenone application method, pioneered by the Utah State Department of Natural 

Resources – Division of Wildlife Resources involves mixing powdered rotenone into slurry. The 

Utah application method involves using a pump and aspirator to vacuum rotenone powder from 

standard packaging to mix with lake water and apply the mixture. Standard packaging for 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 9 DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

powdered rotenone is a sealed, heavy gauge, removable plastic liner inside hermetically sealed, 

pressed fiber 50 kilogram drums. The powder and water are combined inside the aspirator 

chamber forming a slurry. The slurry is discharged directly on to the reservoir surface or 

delivered into barge tanks from the aspirator nozzle (Thompson et al. 2001). For a detailed 

description of the application procedure, refer to “Utah’s Procedure for Mixing Powdered 

Rotenone into a Slurry” by Thompson et al 2001, published by the American Fisheries Society. 

ROTENONE SAFETY PROCEDURES

WDFW’s human health and safety procedures are summarized in a WDFW internal memo, dated 

February 3, 2001. This memo is included in WDFW’s 2002 FSEIS as Appendix C. 

POST-TREATMENT PROCEDURES 

In lakes with a stream outlet, runoff from the lake must be controlled or detoxified. In some 

cases, the runoff is small enough that it can be dammed off (using sandbags, for example) until 

the rotenone is naturally degraded. When this is not possible, and oxidizing agent – usually 

potassium permanganate – is dripped into the outlet stream to detoxify the rotenone before it can 

harm fish and invertebrates downstream. Between 1977 and 1984 such detoxification was 

necessary in only 16% of the lakes treated. Pfeifer (1985) provides a detailed account of outlet 

detoxification procedures, including dosage/detoxification curves and case histories in Martha 

and Silver Lakes, Snohomish County (WDW 1992). 

Rotenone degrades naturally in a few days to eight weeks at the most in lowland lakes, and 

somewhat longer in sub-alpine or alpine lakes (WDFW 2002). At intervals following treatment, 

WDFW Area Biologists usually perform a simple bioassay to determine how long the lake 

remains toxic to fish: hatchery rainbow trout are commonly suspended in the water column in 

wire cages and when these fish survive 1-6 days in the lake, it is considered nontoxic (WDW 

1992). 

The biologist submits a Post-Rehabilitation Form for each treated water; it describes, among 

other things, the possibility of a complete kill, water conditions at the time of treatment, and any 

detoxification measures taken (WDW 1992). 

Fish are restocked the following spring. During the post-treatment years, the Area Biologist 

continues to monitor fish survival and growth, as well as catch rates for the water (WDW 1992). 

NUMBER AND SIZE OF WATERS TREATED

The first rotenone treatment in Washington State took place in September, 1940 on King Lake 

(Pend Oreille County). Since that time 503 state waters have been treated at least once. The 

chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticide toxaphene was occasionally used instead of rotenone; its use 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 10 DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

was discontinued in the late 1960's, and since then, rotenone has been the only fish poison 

applied in Washington State. 

Almost all treatments have occurred in lakes and ponds, with only occasional stream or slough 

treatments. Waters treated since 1940 represent 6.1% of the total surface acreage of all lakes 

below 2,500 feet elevation in the state (WDFW 2002). 

FREQUENCY OF ROTENONE TREATMENTS

Rotenone rarely if ever kills all the fish in a lake. Problem species often repopulate the lake 

naturally over the course of time. Occasionally, some fish may avoid lethal concentrations of 

rotenone by taking refuge near underwater springs or freshwater inlets. In addition, problem 

species are often reintroduced illegally by anglers or lakeside residents. These may be the same 

species that originally degraded the targeted fishery, or new ones. The net result of any of these 

cases is the same: trout production will eventually decline, and the lake may have to be 

rehabilitated again. 

Of 503 Washington State lakes that have been treated, 283 (55%) have been treated more than 

once. The average length of time between treatments has been 7.74 years (WDFW 2002). 

TARGET SPECIES

In the eastern half of the state pumpkinseed sunfish was most frequently targeted for elimination, 

in the western half of the state yellow perch was most frequently targeted. Other important target 

species statewide include carp, crappie, brown bullhead (catfish), and largemouth bass. All are 

introduced, non-native species. 

A particular lake may experience recurring problems with the same target species over the course 

of many years. Often, however, the target species on frequently-rotenoned lakes changes over the 

years. This is often the case in "urban" lakes which are frequent targets for illegal fish 

introductions. 

TIMING OF ROTENONE TREATMENTS

Seventy-eight percent of rotenone treatments in the state have taken place in the fall, mostly in 

September and October. Only 22% have been spring treatments, and these occurred mostly in 

March. All spring treatments were on eastern Washington lakes. 

Rotenone is usually applied in the fall because water levels are low, aquatic vegetation is sparse, 

recreational use of the lake is reduced and since most lakes summer thermal stratification has 

ended (allowing rotenone to circulate throughout the water column). Fall treatments are also 

desirable when early Spring spawners are targeted (e.g. perch). Spring rotenone treatments are 

occasionally performed on certain lakes with extensive shallow or weedy areas; higher water 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 11 DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

levels in the spring make these areas more accessible by boat. Where irrigation water storage 

affects water level, early spring is the period of lowest water level and flow. 

PERMIT STATUS

This is a previously unpermitted activity under the NPDES program. A permit application was 

submitted to the Department on April 5, 2002 and accepted by the Department on April 5, 2002. 

PROPOSED PERMIT LIMITATIONS 

Federal and State regulations require that effluent limitations set forth in a NPDES permit must 

be either technology- or water quality-based. Technology-based limitations are based upon the 

treatment methods available to treat specific pollutants. 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). The more stringent of these two 

limits must be chosen for each of the parameters of concern. Each of these types of limits is 

described in more detail below. 

The limits in this permit are based in part on information received in the application. The 

effluent constituents in the application were evaluated on a technology- and water quality-basis. 

The limits necessary to meet the rules and regulations of the State of Washington were 

determined and included in this permit. Ecology does not develop effluent limits for all 

pollutants that may be reported on the application as present in the effluent. Some pollutants are 

not treatable at the concentrations reported, are not controllable at the source, are not listed in 

regulation, and do not have a reasonable potential to cause a water quality violation. Effluent 

limits are not always developed for pollutants that may be in the discharge but not reported as 

present in the application. In those circumstances the permit does not authorize discharge of the 

non-reported pollutants. Effluent discharge conditions may change from the conditions reported 

in the permit application. If significant changes occur in any constituent, as described in 40 CFR 

122.42(a), the Permittee is required to notify the Department of Ecology. The Permittee may be 

in violation of the permit until the permit is modified to reflect additional discharge of pollutants. 

TECHNOLOGY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 

Sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (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). Technology-based effluent limits may be taken 

from the federal effluent guidelines or developed on a case-by-case basis, otherwise known as 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 12 DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

Best Profession Judgement (BPJ). BPJ limits may be numerical limits or Best Management 

Practices (BMP’s). 

The State has similar technology-based requirement for pollutant control described as: "all 

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

methods. AKART is referred to in State law under RCW 90.48.010, RCW 90.48.520, 90.52.040 

and RCW 90.54.020. The Federal technology-based limits and AKART are similar but not 

equivalent. AKART may be more stringent than Federal regulations and may include 

requirements which are in state regulation. 

The pesticide application industry has been regulated by EPA under the terms of the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1979 (FIFRA), the Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFR) Titles 40 and 21, and other state and federal laws and rules. The product label use 

requirements were developed by EPA in accordance with FIFRA and CFR. EPA requires the 

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

work as promised and that environmental harm will be minimized. The standards for 

environmental protection are different between the Clean Water Act (CWA) and FIFRA, 

however this permit specifies that the permittee must meet label requirements and applicable 

state and federal laws and rules regarding pesticide use. 

Although WDFW has provided the Department with a list of several formulated rotenone 

products registered with the EPA, only two forms of powdered rotenone (Prentox® PrenfishTM 

Fish Toxicant Powder and Peru Cube Powder®), and two forms of liquid rotenone (Prentox®

PrenfishTM Toxicant and Noxfish® Fish Toxicant) are currently registered by the Washington 

State Department of Agriculture (WSDA). If other rotenone piscicide products become 

registered with WSDA, they are also covered under this permit. 

According to the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) provided by WDFW, the liquid rotenone 

product Prentox ® PrenfishTM Toxicant contains 80% inert ingredients, including aromatic 

petroleum solvents (naphthalene, trimethylbenzene, and acetone). These chemicals are not found 

in powdered rotenone formulations. 

The permit will restrict the use of liquid rotenone (e.g. Prentox ® PrenfishTM Toxicant) for the 

following reasons: 

1. Human health concerns. According to EPA’s IRIS database, benzene is classified as a 

“known” human carcinogen for all routes of exposure based upon convincing human 

evidence as well as supporting evidence from animal studies. (U.S. EPA, 1979, 1985, 

1998; ATSDR, 1977). 

2. Air quality concerns. VOCs contained in liquid formulations could cause air quality 

problems, especially in urban areas classified as non-attainment zones. 

3. Alternative formulations exist. When compared to liquid rotenone, powdered rotenone 

applied using the Utah method, is effective in meeting fish control objectives. 

The permit will require that the use of liquid rotenone products be limited to spot applications in 

areas that are not practicably accessible by boat, such as marshy areas. Open water areas on 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 13 DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

lakes that are accessible by boat must be treated with powdered rotenone formulations, mixed 

with water, and applied using a method pioneered by the Utah State Department of Natural 

Resources – Division of Wildlife Resources. This method involves mixing powdered rotenone 

with lake water, using specialized equipment, to form a slurry that is applied to the surface of the 

water. 

DETOXIFICATION OF ROTENONE TREATED WATERS

WDFW typically only treats “closed basin” lakes that do not discharge. However, when 

rotenone treated waters may discharge and threaten aquatic life outside the area, rapid 

detoxification is required. Since 1992, such detoxification has been necessary in 3.6% of the 

lakes treated in Washington (WDFW 2002). 

Potassium permanganate (KMnO4) is the chemical most often used to quickly neutralize 

(oxidize) rotenone formulations (WDFW 2002; Finlayson, et al. 2000). The rotenone label also 

allows the use of chlorine for neutralization, but its use is not proposed by WDFW at this time. 

Rotenone degrades naturally within one to eight weeks depending on pH, alkalinity, temperature, 

and dilution with untreated water (Schnick 1974, cited in WDFW 2002). Rotenone toxicity can 

last longer in more sterile sub-alpine or alpine lakes. Potassium permanganate is seldom 

required for use by WDFW. Rotenone treatment timing is selected so that periods of very low of 

no flow are the case during the time that treated water remains toxic. Very low outlet flow is a 

requirement to insure that the outlet flow can be neutralized for the period that outflow would be 

toxic. Potassium permanganate can be applied by two methods. The crystals can be dissolved in 

water and the solution dripped or the crystalline chemical can be metered into the receiving 

water. Archer (2001) found that the free flowing crystalline form used in potable water 

treatment plant applications was the best product to use for dripping the crystalline form. He 

stated the ease of controlling application rates as the advantage. The procedure to determine the 

amount of potassium permanganate required is found in the American Fisheries Society 

Rotenone Use in Fishery Management manual (Finlayson, et al. 2000) and in Archer (2001). 

This permit requires that treated waters be effectively neutralized and detoxified using potassium 

permanganate so that water quality standards are not exceeded below the neutralization zone. 

For purposes of this permit, neutralization zone is defined as the downstream waters where 

potassium permanganate has been applied but has not yet fully neutralized the rotenone, due to 

the lag time normally associated with detoxification. The neutralization zone is typically 

considered the distance that water would be expected to travel in 20 minutes (Finlayson et al. 

2000; Horton 1997). Since the neutralization zone may contain toxic levels of rotenone and 

potassium permanganate, some fish mortalities may be expected within this zone. 

Since potassium permanganate itself may be toxic to non-targeted organisms at 2 ppm (Marking 

and Bills 1975, cited in Archer 2001), detoxification procedures must utilize calibrated 

equipment to achieve the minimum effective concentration of potassium permanganate to 

oxidize the rotenone within the neutralization zone. Below the neutralization zone, rotenone 

must be totally neutralized and residual potassium permanganate levels maintained at a non-toxic 

level of 1 mg/L, not to exceed 2 mg/L (Finlayson et al, 2001). Detoxification is most effective 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 14 DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

against rotenone concentrations up to about 1 ppm of 5% formulation and detoxification is nearly 

impossible at rates greater than 3.2 ppm (Horton 1997). In situations where detoxification is 

required, rotenone applications should not exceed the minimum amount required to kill the target 

species. 

Potassium permanganate concentrations must be closely monitored using a field calibrated 

spectrophotometer to keep residual permanganate levels at a level that effectively neutralizes 

rotenone while preventing damage to aquatic life downstream of the treatment area and 

neutralization zone. 

SURFACE WATER QUALITY-BASED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS 

In order to protect existing water quality and preserve the designated beneficial uses of 

Washington's surface waters, WAC 173-201A-060 states that waste discharge permits shall be 

conditioned such that the discharge will meet established Surface Water Quality Standards. The 

Washington State Surface Water Quality Standards (Chapter 173-201A WAC) is a state 

regulation designed to protect the beneficial uses of the surface waters of the state. Surface 

water quality-based effluent limitations may be based on an individual waste load allocation 

(WLA) or on a WLA developed during a basin wide total maximum daily loading study 

(TMDL). 

WATER QUALITY BASED REQUIREMENTS

The use of rotenone to rehabilitate lakes and streams affects surface waters of the State. These 

waters are protected by chapter 173-201A WAC, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of 

the State of Washington. The purpose of these standards is to establish the highest quality of 

State waters, through the reduction or elimination of contaminant discharges to the waters of the 

State, consistent with: public health; public enjoyment; the propagation and protection of fish, 

shellfish, and wildlife; and existing and future beneficial uses. This purpose is reached, in part, 

by compliance with the limitations, terms and conditions of this wastewater discharge permit. 

The lake and stream rehabilitation activities which discharge, directly or indirectly, to surface 

waters shall be required to meet the State water quality standards for Class AA and Class A 

surface waters as given in chapter 173-201A WAC. The characteristic beneficial uses of Class 

AA and A 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 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. All waste discharge 

permits issued pursuant to NPDES or State Wastewater Discharge (SWD) regulations are 

conditioned in such a manner that all authorized discharges shall meet State water quality 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 15 DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

standards. Standards include an "antidegradation" policy which states that beneficial uses shall 

be protected. 

NARRATIVE CRITERIA

In addition to numerical criteria, "narrative" water quality criteria (WAC 173-201A-030) limit 

toxic, radioactive, or deleterious material concentrations below those which have the potential to 

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

aesthetic values, or adversely affect human health. Narrative criteria protect the specific 

beneficial uses of all fresh (WAC 173-201A-130) and marine (WAC 173-201A-140) waters in 

the State of Washington. 

The Department has determined that, when properly applied and handled in accordance with the 

terms and conditions of the individual permit, lake and stream rehabilitation 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 

reopening of the individual permit. 

No mixing or dilution zone shall be authorized to the Permittee for any discharge to surface 

waters under this individual permit. The short term water quality modification provisions of the 

permit will allow the discharges authorized by the individual permit to cause a temporary 

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

fishing opportunities, public enjoyment and in some cases for native fish restoration. The short 

term modification will be short in that the actual impairment will be short lived, while the overall 

availability of authorization extends through the term of the permit. 

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

violation of state water quality standards (WAC 173-201A) so long as the activities are carried 

out under 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. Activities covered under this permit are allocated a temporary 

zone of impact on beneficial uses, 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 this permit constitute the requirements of a short term water quality modification. 

Washington’s water quality standards now include 91 numeric health-based criteria that must be 

considered in NPDES permits. These criteria were promulgated for the state by the U.S. EPA in 

its National Toxics Rule (Federal Register, Volume 57, No. 246, Tuesday, December 22, 1992). 

The permit does not shield for inert ingredients or adjuvants for which the chemical composition 

has not been disclosed to Ecology. 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 16 DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

SEDIMENT QUALITY

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

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

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

(WAC 173-204-400). 

The Department 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. 

SEPA COMPLIANCE

Rotenone use related to fish management activities has undergone environmental impact 

evaluations by WDFW in 1992 and 2002. The use of pesticides is conditioned to mitigate 

environmental impacts of concern noted in these evaluations. This individual permit will 

undergo SEPA. The conditions of this permit should satisfy any water quality related SEPA 

concerns. 

For each lake proposed for rehabilitation, WDFW provides public announcements including 

local newspaper, internet / web site information, and news releases. WDFW also conducts local 

public meetings to solicit public input regarding each proposed treatment. All lakes proposed for 

treatment are included in an annual addendum to the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (FSEIS) - Lake and Stream Rehabilitations. The FSEIS is subject to a 30 day public 

comment period. The annual SEPA process must be completed prior to conducting lake or 

stream rehabilitation activities 

DESCRIPTION OF THE RECEIVING WATER

Although the permit is valid for lakes and streams throughout Washington, WDFW typically 

treats only lowland lakes with closed basins or no outlet stream. If an outlet stream is present it 

will be properly detoxified with potassium permanganate using approved methods. 

ELIGIBILITY AND GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OF COVERAGE

For the purposes of the individual permit, the fish control activities for which the permit is valid 

includes surface waters of the entire State. All lakes proposed for treatment are included in an 

annual addendum to WDFW’s Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) on 

Lake and Stream Rehabilitation. 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 17 DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

WASTEWATER CHARACTERIZATION 

The proposed wastewater discharge is characterized for the following parameters: 

Table 2: Wastewater Characterization – Powdered Rotenone Formulations 

Product Name Application Rate Active Ingredient 

Concentration in Treated 

Waters 

Prentox ® PrenfishTM Fish 

Toxicant Powder or 

Peru Cube Powder®

Application rates on label range 

from 0.10 - 5 ppm (based upon 5% 

active rotenone). 

0.005 – 0.25 ppm 

Potassium Permanganate 

(if neutralization is required) 

Variable application rate depending 

on concentration of rotenone, total 

alkalinity, and organic demand. 

Application rates will be calculated 

and applied in accordance with 

“Rotenone Neutralization Methods” 

by Archer (2001). 

Variable concentration in 

the rotenone neutralization 

zone, based upon formulas 

in Archer (2001). Below, 

the neutralization zone, the 

concentration will not 

exceed 1 ppm. 

Table 3: Wastewater Characterization – Liquid Rotenone Formulation 

Product Name Application Rate Active Ingredient 

Concentration in Treated 

Waters 

Prentox ® PrenfishTM 

Toxicant1 Application rates on label range 

from 0.10 - 5 ppm (based upon 5% 

active rotenone) 

0.005 – 0.25 ppm active 

rotenone 

Potassium Permanganate 

(if neutralization is required) 

Variable application rate depending 

on concentration of rotenone, total 

alkalinity, and organic demand. 

Application rates will be calculated 

and applied in accordance with 

“Rotenone Neutralization Methods” 

by Archer (2001). 

Variable concentration in 

the rotenone neutralization 

zone, based upon formulas 

in Archer (2001). Below, 

the neutralization zone, the 

concentration will not 

exceed 1 ppm. 

1

Inert ingredients include aromatic petroleum solvent, not to exceed 80% (9.9% naphthalene, 

1.7% 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, and 7.5% acetone (Material Safety Data Sheet, U.S. Dept. of 

Labor) 

The permit does not shield for inerts or adjuvants for which the chemical composition has not 

been disclosed to the Department of Ecology. 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 18 DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

GROUND WATER QUALITY LIMITATIONS 

The ability of rotenone to move through soil is low to slight. Rotenone moves only 2 cm through 

most types of soils. An exception would be in sandy soils where the movement is about 8 cm. 

Rotenone is bound strongly to organic matter in soil so it is unlikely that rotenone would enter 

groundwater (Finlayson et al. 2000, Dawson et al. 1991). 

California Department of Fish and Game has monitored rotenone applications for 15 years and 

has concluded that toxicity and other effects can be confined to the treatment and neutralization 

areas and ground waters were not contaminated (Finlayson et al. 2001). 

The Department has promulgated Ground Water Quality Standards (Chapter 173-200 WAC) to 

protect beneficial uses of ground water. Permits issued by the Department shall be conditioned 

in such a manner so as not to allow violations of those standards (WAC 173-200-100). 

This Permittee has no discharge to ground and therefore no limitations are required based on 

potential effects to ground water. 

Procedure for Obtaining Approval for the Discharge of Wastewater Containing Antimycin or 

Other Products Not Specified In the Current Permit 

Antimycin-A, registered as Fintrol, is the only other piscicide that is registered with the EPA for 

general use in the United States (Finlayson et al. 2000). According to the PICOL database 

(Washington State University), Fintrol Concentrate - Antimycin A (EPA No. 39096-2) is 

presently registered for use as a fish toxicant in Washington. Antimycin, when used in proper 

concentration, is less harmful than the recommended killing concentration of rotenone to aquatic 

animals other than fish (U.S. Dept. of Interior 2000). Antimycin use is the only control method, 

other than dewatering, that is capable of complete eradication of fish populations. It also 

controls all post-embryonic life stages and can be selective by fish species (Finlayson et al. 

2000). This permit requires WDFW to complete the SEPA process for Antimycin by June 1, 

2005. Based upon the information gathered during the SEPA review, Ecology may modify the 

permit to authorize the use of Antimycin for certain types of management activities, such as 

native fish restoration in streams. 

In addition, WDFW may propose the use of piscicide products other than rotenone, once the 

SEPA process is completed for the product. Based upon the outcome of the SEPA review 

process, Ecology will decide if the permit should be modified to allow use of the new product. If 

modified, Best Management Practices (BMPs) may be established to prevent or minimize 

environmental impacts associated with pesticide applications. 

Other herbicides may be applied on a limited basis in the context of a research and development 

effort under the jurisdiction of the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) 

through the issuance of a Washington State Experimental Use Permit (WSEUP). A WSEUP is 

required for all experiments involving pesticides that are not federally registered or uses not 

allowed on the federally registered pesticide label. Limited amounts of an experimental use 

pesticide may only be distributed or used for testing purposes after a written permit has been 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 19 DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

obtained from WSDA for purposes which include gathering data in support of registration under 

the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Section (3) or Section 24(c). 

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

federal EUP is required when a small-scale test will be conducted 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. When testing for more than one target pest at the same time and in the same locality, the 

10-acre limitation shall encompass 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. All other conditions of this permit apply as to appropriate monitoring and public 

notification procedures. 

 

OTHER PERMIT CONDITIONS 

MONITORING 

The WDFW will conduct monitoring to determine the extent and duration of the short-term 

water quality reduction resulting from rotenone applications. Monitoring will be adequate to 

determine if non-target organisms downstream from the treatment area have been adversely 

impacted by the treatment. 

Monitoring of residual pesticides and or oxidizers (e.g. potassium permanganate) may be 

required to confirm assumptions of safety when applications are performed in compliance with 

the FIFRA label. The intent is 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. 

The concentration of powdered rotenone products may vary by lot (Finlayson et al. 2000). The 

rotenone supplier analyzes each lot to determine the concentration of active rotenone. This assay 

is used by WDFW to adjust the application rate stated on the label, which contains a general 

guide that is based upon 5% product. The concentration of active rotenone in the formulation 

used must be reported to the Department in annual Post Treatment Reports. 

REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING 

The conditions of S3. are based on the authority to specify any appropriate reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements to prevent and control waste discharges (WAC 173-226-090). 

LAB ACCREDITATION 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 20 DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

With the exception of certain parameters the 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. 

GENERAL CONDITIONS 

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

standardized for all individual industrial NPDES permits issued by the Department. 

PERMIT ISSUANCE PROCEDURES 

PERMIT MODIFICATIONS 

The Department 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, SEPA review, or Department approved engineering 

reports. 

The Department may also modify this permit as a result of new or amended state or federal 

regulations. 

RECOMMENDATION FOR PERMIT ISSUANCE 

This proposed 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. The 

Department proposes that this proposed permit be issued for five (5) years. 

REFERENCES FOR TEXT AND APPENDICES 

Archer, D.L. 2001. Rotenone neutralization methods. Paper presented at American Fisheries 

Society Annual Meeting, August 20-24, 2000, St. Louis, Missouri. 

Bradbury, W.A., and R.L. Pfeifer. 1986. Fisheries investigations of Lakes Washington and 

Sammamish, 1980-1983. Final Report, Part 6: a survey of public attitudes towards the 

fisheries of Lakes Washington and Sammamish. Cited in Washington Department of 

Wildlife. 1992. Final – Supplemental environmental impact statement: lake and stream 

rehabilitations, 1992-1993. WDW, Habitat and Fisheries Management Divisions, Report 92-

14, Olympia, WA. 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 21 DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

Dawson, V.K., W.H. Gingerich, R.A. Davis, and P.A. Gilderhus. 1991. Rotenone persistence in 

freshwater ponds: effects of temperature and sediment adsorption. Pages 37-54 in 

Finlayson , B.J., S. Siepman, and J. Trumbo. 2001. Chemical residues in surface and 

ground waters following rotenone applications in California lakes and streams. Paper 

presented at American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting, August 20-24, 2000, St. Louis, 

Missouri 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

1992. National Toxics Rule. Federal Register, V. 57, No. 246, Tuesday, December 22, 1992. 

1991. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control. EPA/505/2-

90-001. 

1988. Technical Guidance on Supplementary Stream Design Conditions for Steady State 

Modeling. USEPA Office of Water, Washington, D.C. 

1985. Water Quality Assessment: A Screening Procedure for Toxic and Conventional 

Pollutants in Surface and Ground Water. EPA/600/6-85/002a. 

1983. Water Quality Standards Handbook. USEPA Office of Water, Washington, D.C. 

Finlayson, B.J., R.A. Schnick, R.L. DeMong, W.D. Horton, W.McClay, C.W. Thompson, and 

G.J. Ticacek. 2000. Rotenone use in fisheries management: administrative and technical 

guidelines manual. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 200 pp. 

Finlayson , B.J., S. Siepman, and J. Trumbo. 2001. Chemical residues in surface and ground 

waters following rotenone applications in California lakes and streams. Paper presented at 

American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting, August 20-24, 2000, St. Louis, Missouri 

Fletcher, D.H. 1976. Salvage of bass affected by rotenone. WDW, unpublished report. 8 pp. 

Cited in Washington Department of Wildlife. 1992. Final – Supplemental environmental 

impact statement: lake and stream rehabilitations, 1992-1993. WDW, Habitat and Fisheries 

Management Divisions, Report 92-14, Olympia, WA. 

Horton, W.D. 1997. Federal Aid in Sport Restoration fishery management program, lake 

renovation procedures manual. Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG 97-8) March 

1997. Boise, ID. 

Marking, L.L., and T.D. Bills. 1975. Toxicity of potassium permanganate to fish and its 

effectiveness for detoxifying Antimycin. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 

104 (3): 579-583. Cited in Archer, D.L. 2001. Rotenone neutralization methods. Paper 

presented at American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting, August 20-24, 2000, St. Louis, 

Missouri. 

McClay, W. 2000. Rotenone use in North America (1988 – 1997). Fisheries, Vol 25, No. 6. 15-

21 pp. 

Pfeifer, R.L. 1985. Potassium permanganate detoxification following lake rehabilitation: 

procedures, costs, and two case histories. WDW, Fish Mgt. Division. Cited in Washington 

Department of Wildlife. 1992. Final – Supplemental environmental impact statement: lake 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 22 DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

and stream rehabilitations, 1992-1993. WDW, Habitat and Fisheries Management Divisions, 

Report 92-14, Olympia, WA. 

Schnick, R.A. 1974. A review of the literature on the use of rotenone in fisheries. U.S. Fish 

Wildl. Serv. Rep. LR-74-15. (NTIS microfilm PG-235-454). 130 pp. Cited in Washington 

Department of Wildlife. 1992. Final – Supplemental environmental impact statement: lake 

and stream rehabilitations, 1992-1993. WDW, Habitat and Fisheries Management Divisions, 

Report 92-14, Olympia, WA. 

Thompson, C.W., C. Clyde, and D. Sakaguchi. 2001. Utah’s procedure for mixing powdered 

rotenone into a slurry. Paper presented at American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting, 

August 20-24, 2000, St. Louis, Missouri. 

Tsivoglou, E.C., and J.R. Wallace. 

1972. Characterization of Stream Reaeration Capacity. EPA-R3-72-012. (Cited in EPA 

1985 op.cit.) 

U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service. 2000. Environmental assessment for using a 

piscicide for brook trout restoration – Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Tuckaseigee 

Chapter of Trout Unlimited Web Site. 

<http://www.smokyonthefly.com/tucktu/brook_trout_proposal.htm> 

U.S. Department of Labor. Undated. Material Safety Data Sheet. Product: 655-422, Prentox®

PrenfishTM Toxicant. 

Washington Department of Wildlife. 1983. Draft – Environmental impact statement, lake 

rehabilitation program, 1983-1984. Olympia, WA. 

Washington Department of Wildlife. 1992. Final – Supplemental environmental impact 

statement: lake and stream rehabilitations, 1992-1993. WDW, Habitat and Fisheries 

Management Divisions, Report 92-14, Olympia, WA. 

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2002. Final – Supplemental environmental impact 

statement: lake and stream rehabilitation: rotenone use and health risks. Olympia, WA. 

Washington State Department of Ecology. 

 1994. Permit Writer’s Manual. Publication Number 92-109 

Wright, R.M., and A.J. McDonnell. 

1979. In-stream Deoxygenation Rate Prediction. Journal Environmental Engineering 

Division, ASCE. 105(EE2). (Cited in EPA 1985 op.cit.) 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 23 DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

APPENDIX A--PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT INFORMATION 

The Department has tentatively determined to issue a permit to the applicant listed on page 1 of 

this fact sheet. The permit contains conditions and effluent limitations which are described in the 

rest of this fact sheet. 

Public notice of application was published on July 18, 2001 and January 22, 2002 in the 

Washington State Register (WSR 01-15-082 and WSR 02-03110) to inform the public that an 

application had been submitted and to invite comment on the issuance of this permit. 

The Department will publish a Public Notice of Draft (PNOD) on April 24, 2002 in the 

Aberdeen Daily World, the Bellingham World, the Kennewick Tri-City Herald, The Olympian, 

the Seattle Times, the Spokesman Review, and the Yakima Herald to inform the public that a 

draft permit and fact sheet are available for review. Interested persons are invited to submit 

written comments regarding the draft permit. The draft permit, fact sheet, and related documents 

are available for inspection and copying between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. weekdays, 

by appointment, at the regional office listed below. Written comments should be mailed to: 

 Washington State Department of Ecology 

Water Quality Program 

Attention: Kathleen Emmett 

 PO Box 47600 

 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 

Any interested party may comment on the draft permit or request a public hearing on this draft 

permit within the thirty (30) day comment period to the address above. The request for a hearing 

shall indicate the interest of the party and reasons why the hearing is warranted. The Department 

will hold a hearing if it determines there is a significant public interest in the draft permit (WAC 

173-220-090). Public notice regarding any hearing will be circulated at least thirty (30) days in 

advance of the hearing. People expressing an interest in this permit will be mailed an individual 

notice of hearing (WAC 173-220-100). 

Comments should reference specific text followed by proposed modification or concern when 

possible. Comments may address technical issues, accuracy and completeness of information, 

the scope of the facility’s proposed coverage, adequacy of environmental protection, permit 

conditions, or any other concern that would result from issuance of this permit. 

The Department will consider all comments received within thirty (30) days from the date of 

public notice of draft indicated above, in formulating a final determination to issue, revise, or 

deny the permit. The Department's response to all significant comments is available upon 

request and will be mailed directly to people expressing an interest in this permit. 

Further information may be obtained from the Department by telephone, (360) 407-6127 or by 

writing to the address listed above. 

This permit and fact sheet was written by Jeff Killelea, Water Quality Program, Department of 

Ecology. 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 24 DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

APPENDIX B--GLOSSARY 

Acute Toxicity--The lethal effect of a compound on an organism that occurs in a short period of 

time, usually 48 to 96 hours. 

AKART-- An acronym for “all known, available, and reasonable methods of treatment”. 

Ambient Water Quality--The existing environmental condition of the water in a receiving 

water body. 

Ammonia--Ammonia is produced by the breakdown of nitrogenous materials in wastewater. 

Ammonia is toxic to aquatic organisms, exerts an oxygen demand, and contributes to 

eutrophication. It also increases the amount of chlorine needed to disinfect wastewater. 

Average Monthly Discharge Limitation --The average of the measured values obtained over a 

calendar month's time.

Best Management Practices (BMPs)--Schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, 

maintenance procedures, and other physical, structural and/or managerial practices to prevent 

or reduce the pollution of waters of the State. BMPs include treatment systems, operating 

procedures, and practices to control: plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste 

disposal, or drainage from raw material storage. BMPs may be further categorized as 

operational, source control, erosion and sediment control, and treatment BMPs. 

BOD5--Determining the Biochemical Oxygen Demand of an effluent is an indirect way of 

measuring the quantity of organic material present in an effluent that is utilized by bacteria. 

The BOD5 is used in modeling to measure the reduction of dissolved oxygen in a receiving 

water after effluent is discharged. Stress caused by reduced dissolved oxygen levels makes 

organisms less competitive and less able to sustain their species in the aquatic environment. 

Although BOD is not a specific compound, it is defined as a conventional pollutant under the 

federal Clean Water Act. 

Bypass--The intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility. 

Chlorine--Chlorine is used to disinfect wastewaters of pathogens harmful to human health. It is 

also extremely toxic to aquatic life. 

Chronic Toxicity--The effect of a compound on an organism over a relatively long time, often 

1/10 of an organism's lifespan or more. Chronic toxicity can measure survival, reproduction 

or growth rates, or other parameters to measure the toxic effects of a compound or 

combination of compounds. 

Clean Water Act (CWA)--The Federal Water Pollution Control Act enacted by Public Law 92-

500, as amended by Public Laws 95-217, 95-576, 96-483, 97-117; USC 1251 et seq. 

Compliance Inspection - Without Sampling--A site visit for the purpose of determining the 

compliance of a facility with the terms and conditions of its permit or with applicable statutes 

and regulations. 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 25 DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

Compliance Inspection - With Sampling--A site visit to accomplish the purpose of a 

Compliance Inspection - Without Sampling and as a minimum, sampling and analysis for all 

parameters with limits in the permit to ascertain compliance with those limits; and, for 

municipal facilities, sampling of influent to ascertain compliance with the 85 percent removal 

requirement. Additional sampling may be conducted. 

Composite Sample--A mixture of grab samples collected at the same sampling point at different 

times, formed either by continuous sampling or by mixing discrete samples. May be "timecomposite"(collected at constant time intervals) or "flow-proportional" (collected either as a 

constant sample volume at time intervals proportional to stream flow, or collected by 

increasing the volume of each aliquot as the flow increased while maintaining a constant time 

interval between the aliquots. 

Construction Activity--Clearing, grading, excavation and any other activity which disturbs the 

surface of the land. Such activities may include road building, construction of residential 

houses, office buildings, or industrial buildings, and demolition activity. 

Continuous Monitoring –Uninterrupted, unless otherwise noted in the permit. 

Critical Condition--The time during which the combination of receiving water and waste 

discharge conditions have the highest potential for causing toxicity in the receiving water 

environment. This situation usually occurs when the flow within a water body is low, thus, 

its ability to dilute effluent is reduced. 

Dilution Factor--A measure of the amount of mixing of effluent and receiving water that occurs 

at the boundary of the mixing zone. Expressed as the inverse of the percent effluent fraction 

e.g., a dilution factor of 10 means the effluent comprises 10% by volume and the receiving 

water 90%. 

Engineering Report--A document which thoroughly examines the engineering and 

administrative aspects of a particular domestic or industrial wastewater facility. The report 

shall contain the appropriate information required in WAC 173-240-060 or 173-240-130. 

Fecal Coliform Bacteria--Fecal coliform bacteria are used as indicators of pathogenic bacteria 

in the effluent that are harmful to humans. Pathogenic bacteria in wastewater discharges are 

controlled by disinfecting the wastewater. The presence of high numbers of fecal coliform 

bacteria in a water body can indicate the recent release of untreated wastewater and/or the 

presence of animal feces. 

FSEIS -- Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

Grab Sample--A single sample or measurement taken at a specific time or over as short period 

of time as is feasible. 

Industrial Wastewater--Water or liquid-carried waste from industrial or commercial processes, 

as distinct from domestic wastewater. These wastes may result from any process or activity 

of industry, manufacture, trade or business, from the development of any natural resource, or 

from animal operations such as feed lots, poultry houses, or dairies. The term includes 

contaminated storm water and, also, leachate from solid waste facilities. 

Major Facility--A facility discharging to surface water with an EPA rating score of > 80 points 

based on such factors as flow volume, toxic pollutant potential, and public health impact. 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 26 DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

Maximum Daily Discharge Limitation--The highest allowable daily discharge of a pollutant 

measured during a calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents the calendar 

day for purposes of sampling. The daily discharge is calculated as the average measurement 

of the pollutant over the day. 

Method Detection Level (MDL)--The minimum concentration of a substance that can be 

measured and reported with 99% confidence that the analyte concentration is above zero and 

is determined from analysis of a sample in a given matrix containing the analyte. 

Minor Facility--A facility discharging to surface water with an EPA rating score of < 80 points 

based on such factors as flow volume, toxic pollutant potential, and public health impact. 

Mixing Zone--An area that surrounds an effluent discharge within which water quality criteria 

may be exceeded. The area of the authorized mixing zone is specified in a facility's permit 

and follows procedures outlined in state regulations (Chapter 173-201A WAC). 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)--The NPDES (Section 402 of the 

Clean Water Act) is the Federal wastewater permitting system for discharges to navigable 

waters of the United States. Many states, including the State of Washington, have been 

delegated the authority to issue these permits. NPDES permits issued by Washington State 

permit writers are joint NPDES/State permits issued under both State and Federal laws. 

pH--The pH of a liquid measures its acidity or alkalinity. A pH of 7 is defined as neutral, and 

large variations above or below this value are considered harmful to most aquatic life. 

Piscicide – Fish poison or toxicant such as rotenone, used for fish control, eradication or 

sampling. 

ppm – Parts per million (equivalent to mg/L or mg/kg). 

Quantitation Level (QL)-- A calculated value five times the MDL (method detection level). 

Responsible Corporate Officer-- A president, secretary, treasurer, or vice-president of the 

corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any other person who performs 

similar policy- or decision-making functions for the corporation, or the manager of one or 

more manufacturing, production, or operating facilities employing more than 250 persons or 

have gross annual sales or expenditures exceeding $25 million (in second quarter 1980 

dollars), if authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in 

accordance with corporate procedures (40 CFR 122.22). 

Technology-based Effluent Limit--A permit limit that is based on the ability of a treatment 

method to reduce the pollutant. 

Total Suspended Solids (TSS)--Total suspended solids is the particulate material in an effluent. 

Large quantities of TSS discharged to a receiving water may result in solids accumulation. 

Apart from any toxic effects attributable to substances leached out by water, suspended solids 

may kill fish, shellfish, and other aquatic organisms by causing abrasive injuries and by 

clogging the gills and respiratory passages of various aquatic fauna. Indirectly, suspended 

solids can screen out light and can promote and maintain the development of noxious 

conditions through oxygen depletion. 

SEPA – State Environmental Policy Act 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 27 DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

State Waters--Lakes, rivers, ponds, streams, inland waters, underground waters, salt waters, and 

all other surface waters and watercourses within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington. 

Stormwater--That portion of precipitation that does not naturally percolate into the ground or 

evaporate, but flows via overland flow, interflow, pipes, and other features of a storm water 

drainage system into a defined surface water body, or a constructed infiltration facility. 

Upset--An exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance 

with technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable 

control of the Permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by 

operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, lack of preventative maintenance, 

or careless or improper operation. 

USEPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency 

Water Quality-based Effluent Limit--A limit on the concentration of an effluent parameter that 

is intended to prevent the concentration of that parameter from exceeding its water quality 

criterion after it is discharged into a receiving water. 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 28 DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

APPENDIX C—WDFW POLICY C-3010 

FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION 

POLICY DECISION 

POLICY TITLE: Lake and Stream POLICY NUMBER: POL-C3010

Rehabilitations 

Cancels: Effective Date: February 8, 2002 

 Termination Date (if applicable): 

See Also: Approved by: 

 Fish and Wildlife Commission Chair 

GENERAL POLICIES: 

The control of undesirable fish populations using chemical piscicides is a valuable and cost 

effective management tool for providing quality fishing opportunities and protecting native 

species in many waters of the state. 

Specific policies: 

1. All lake and stream rehabilitations will follow state and federal laws. 

All proposed rehabilitations will adhere to state water quality requirements (WAC 173-

201A), the Washington Pesticide Control Act (RCW 15.58), State Environmental Policy Act 

(SEPA) and federal Clean Water Act. 

a. All applicable environmental, health and safety regulations will be followed. 

All proposed rehabilitations will follow and adhere to chemical piscicides labeling 

restrictions and chemical materials safety data sheet requirements to ensure protection of 

the public, Department personnel and environment during rehabilitation treatments. 

2. Waters will not be treated in ways which would cause significant negative impacts to 

fish or wildlife which are state or federally listed as Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive 

or Candidate Species. 

An exception may be granted in the case of a biological emergency. 

3. The public will be part of the decision-making process. 

A public meeting will be held in the vicinity of the proposed rehabilitation(s) before a final 

decision is made. 

4. An appropriate assessment of existing fish populations and associated risks will be 

undertaken for all natural bodies of water proposed for treatment if they have not been 

previously treated. 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 29 DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

APPENDIX D—SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES 

Schedule of Activities 

Lake Rehabilitation Program 

April Regions develop list of waters for rehabilitation in the fall of 2000 and 

spring of 2001 submit list of waters with amount of rotenone to Resident 

Native Fish Program Manager by May 1. 

May 1-10 Resident Native Fish Program Manager places rotenone order based on 

rehabilitation plans and budget. 

May Regional approval of waters proposed for rehabilitation through Chemical 

Rehabilitation Approval Forms signed by Regional Director and Regional 

Program Managers (fish, wildlife, habitat and enforcement). 

May 31 Regional Fish Program Managers and Resident Native Fish Program 

Manager prioritize rehabilitation list based on rotenone available. 

June 1 Anadromous/Inland Statewide Manager approves rehabilitation list for 

public meetings. 

June-July Regions conduct public meetings. 

July 15 Regional Fish Program staff complete public meetings, submit to Resident 

Native Fish Program Manager: 

• Final List of Lakes for Rehabilitation, with amounts of rotenone. 

• Chemical Rehabilitation Approval Forms. 

• Pre-Rehabilitation Plan, updated to include Results of Public 

Meetings. 

• Waters Management Plans. 

• Waters General Information Summaries. 

July 15-31 Resident Native Fish Program Manager completes addendum to FSEIS for 

approval by Anadromous/Indland Statewide Manager and forward to 

Habitat Program for review and sign off. 

July 31 Public distribution of signed addendum to FSEIS from Habitat Program 

for 14 day review period. Copies to all Regional Fish Program Managers. 

August 15-31 Anadromous/Inland Statewide Manager briefs Program AD for approval 

of rehabilitation package after completion of public FSEIS review. 

September 1-5 List of waters approved by Program AD submitted to Director for agency 

approval. Resident Native Fish Program Manager requests emergency 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 30 DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

regulations changes for season extensions, removal of minimum sizes and 

daily limits on waters approved for treatment. 

September 5 Approved rehabilitation package provided to Fish and Wildlife 

Commission – FYI only – unless they have some problems. 

September 5 Regional Fish Program Manager requests short term water quality 

variance permit from the Department of Ecology for waters approved by 

the Director. 

September-March Regions treat the approved waters. 

December-June Regions submit Post Rehabilitation Reports. December 1 deadline for fall 

rehabs and June 1 deadline for spring rehabs. 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 31 DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

APPENDIX E—RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 

Written comments were received by the following individuals: 

1. Allen Moore, Department of Ecology 

2. Nancy Weller, Department of Ecology 

3. Janet Boyd and Tricia Shoblom, Department of Ecology 

Written Comments

Commentor #1: [Ecology] should place a requirement in the permit for a spill prevention and 

response plan. The spill plan should cover a plan for the prevention, containment, and control of 

spills or unplanned discharges from the application, storage and transportation of the pesticides. 

It should also include spills of oil and gasoline from application equipment including boats. 

According to the severity of the spill, it should tell when to report certain magnitudes of spills 

along with a list of names and telephone numbers of spill respondent teams at both Fish & 

Wildlife and Ecology. 

Submittal date of the spill plan could be later this summer, after the permit is effective but well 

before rotenone treatments are scheduled. 

Response: Special Condition S.7. has been added to the permit that requires the submittal of a 

spill prevention and response plan prior to the first treatment. 

Commentor #2: At the request of the regional Spills Response Program Manager and myself, 

would you please include the following statements (or similar statements) in the permit. 

Although all spills of pesticides are to be reported, putting the requirement into the permit would 

provide the when and how for reporting. This language was developed for the STM permits 

following spill incidents that were not properly reported or dealt with. 

A. SPILLS: Spills into state waters, spills onto land with a potential for entry into state 

waters, or other significant spills, shall be reported immediately to the Department of 

Ecology, ? Regional Office at (phone number). 

B. In the event of a spill, containment and clean-up efforts shall begin immediately and be 

completed as soon as possible, taking precedence over normal work. Clean-up shall 

include proper disposal of any spilled material and used clean-up material. 

Response: The suggested language has been added to the permit in Special Condition S.7. 

Commentor #3: 

1. A spill plan should be included in the permit. It must address how they handle accidental 

over-use of permitted chemicals as well as petroleum spills from boat use or vehicular use. 

Response: Special Condition S.7. has been added to the permit that requires the submittal of 

a spill prevention and response plan prior to the first treatment. 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 32 DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

 2. Before a treatment is considered, Fish and Wildlife should identify target and non-target 

species per individual waterbody. 

Response: WDFW pre-treatment procedures are summarized on page 7 of the fact sheet. A 

Pre-Rehabilitation Plan is completed by the Area Fish Biologist which includes information 

about each individual lake or stream considered for treatment. The outline for preparing PreTreatment Plans is included in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement – 

Lake and Stream Rehabilitations 1992-1993 as Appendix A. Required information includes 

target species and potential impacts to non-targeted resources using survey data of individual 

waters. 

 3. Why does permit not allow for violations? The applicators could possibly spill or misuse the 

chemicals and in effect have a water quality violation imposed upon them. 

Response: It is incorrect to state that the permit does not allow for violations. Special 

Condition S1.A. Water Quality Standards states that “All discharges and activities authorized 

by this permit shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this permit”. General 

Condition G18. Duty to Comply states that “The Permittee shall comply with all conditions 

of this permit. Any permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Clean Water Act and 

is grounds for enforcement action; for permit termination, revocation and reissuance, or 

modification; or denial of a permit renewal application.” It is agreed that a spill or misuse of 

the authorized pesticides could result in a water quality violation. 

4. The permit should include an annual operations plan which would include the proposed lakes 

for treatment, the target species for eradication, the location of the lake, the size of the lake, 

whether there are any species of concern (plants, animals, amphibians, macroinvertebrates, etc.), 

anticipates date of treatment, whether alternatives to the chemical treatment have been examined. 

Response: It was determined that WDFW has adequate internal and public processes in 

place to address site-specific concerns; this permit does not require Ecology approval for 

each treatment. As such, the submittal of Annual Operations Reports is not necessary. The 

permit covers all waters of the state as long as WDFW completes the SEPA process for each 

waterbody prior to treatment and follows all label restrictions and permit conditions. 

5. What is the purpose of the monitoring? Will Ecology be notified if detrimental impacts are 

identified/discovered during monitoring? Is the purpose for determining success rate of kill of 

target species? Whether the lake has returned to pre-spray water quality conditions? Is there a 

specific time limit for the chemical to remain above standards in each water body? Is this part of 

the monitoring plan? 

Response: 

A. The purpose of the monitoring is to determine the extent and duration of the short-term 

water quality reduction resulting from rotenone applications. 

B. Yes, the permit requires the submittal of Post Treatment Discharge Monitoring Report 

forms which includes information on impacts to non-targeted organisms. 
FACT SHEET FOR FISHERY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT NPDES PERMIT 

FISH MANAGEMENT NPDES Final. Fact Sheet3.doc Page 33 DRAFT 

6/5/2002 2:33 PM Ecology 

C. No, the purpose of the monitoring is not to determine the success rate of kill of target 

species. 

D. No, the purpose of the monitoring is not to determine if the lake has returned to pre-spray 

water quality conditions. 

E. No, there is not a specific time limit for the chemical to remain toxic to aquatic life. 

F. The monitoring plan does require the applicant to report the period of rotenone toxicity, 

i.e. the duration of water quality reduction.