Key Takeaways
- What is Happening? The Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) published for public comment its draft 2026 reissuance of the Upland Finfish Hatching and Rearing General Permit (Permit), which governs wastewater discharges from covered upland hatchery facilities. The draft 2026 Permit proposes a number of changes from the current 2021 version, including heightened operations requirements, expanded recordkeeping and reporting obligations, increased source-control requirements, and more structured, facility-specific conditions. Importantly, the draft Permit does not materially modify numeric discharge limits, notwithstanding minor changes, or coverage thresholds.
- Who is Affected? The draft Permit would apply to any of the 84 existing hatcheries currently covered under the Permit, as well as to any new facilities seeking coverage under the 2026 Permit. Facilities that conduct frequent disease-control treatments or that rely on less developed documentation systems may face increased compliance burdens due to the draft’s emphasis on more detailed recordkeeping and operational tracking. Similarly, facilities discharging to impaired waters or PCB-listed waters may face more targeted evaluations, source-control measures, and facility-specific planning obligations.
- What Are the Next Steps? Facilities that anticipate needing coverage under the 2026 Permit should consider participating in one of Ecology’s two online public meetings and hearings in May 2026 and submitting written public comments by the May 22, 2026 deadline, particularly on issues related to implementation feasibility, reporting burden, and clarity of new requirements.
Background
Regulatory Framework
The Permit is a combined National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and state waste discharge permit issued by Ecology under the authority of the federal Clean Water Act and Washington’s State Water Pollution Control Act. The Permit regulates wastewater discharges from upland finfish hatcheries engaged in the hatching, rearing, and spawning of salmon, trout, and other finfish, where such discharges reach surface waters or conveyances that ultimately discharge to surface waters, and the facility holds coverage under the Permit.
Washington regulations require the following facilities to obtain coverage under the Permit: upland finfish hatching and rearing facilities that discharge wastewater for at least 30 days per year and that either produce more than 20,000 pounds of fish annually, feed more than 5,000 pounds of fish food in any calendar month, or that Ecology otherwise designates as significant contributors of pollution.
2026 Draft Permit Proposal
Ecology’s draft 2026 Permit largely preserves the existing substantive framework of the 2021 Permit, including numeric discharge limits and coverage thresholds, but introduces a series of changes focused on compliance, reporting, and recordkeeping obligations, as well as more structured and facility-specific requirements.
This alert highlights the changes in the draft Permit that appear most relevant to the aquaculture industry and may warrant particular attention from regulated facilities. These include revisions to reporting requirements, operating conditions, and source-control measures, among others. However, given the breadth of the proposed updates, facilities are encouraged to undertake a comprehensive review of the draft Permit to fully assess its implications and ensure continued compliance under the revised regulatory framework.
Principal Changes in the Draft Permit
Expanded Disease-Control Drug and Chemical Reporting
The draft 2026 Permit significantly expands reporting requirements for disease-control drugs and chemicals, particularly waterborne treatments.
The 2021 Permit mandates facilities to submit an annual report summarizing chemical use based on the Chemical Operational Log. The proposed 2026 Permit retains this framework but materially expands it by requiring both: (i) a categorized annual summary (“Waterborne,” “Medicated Feed,” and “Other”); and (ii) a detailed Waterborne Drug and Chemical Use Log reporting each treatment, including information such as drug name, active ingredient, date of use, quantity, duration, flow rates, and discharge pathways. The revised logging requirements take effect beginning January 1, 2027, and the first annual report reflecting the expanded format is due January 30, 2028.
Ecology explains that this change intends to capture waterborne treatments, which have the highest likelihood of being present in effluent, and to provide site-specific information to evaluate discharges from individual facilities.
While the expanded reporting framework creates a more consistent approach to documenting disease-control treatments, it is likely to increase administrative burden and may require facilities to enhance internal tracking systems, particularly where disease-control treatments are frequent or operational data is not currently captured at this level of detail.
Reorganized and More Specific Operating Requirements
The draft Permit reorganizes operating requirements into two express categories: Prohibited Practices and Best Management Practices (BMP), consolidating and expanding requirements previously dispersed throughout the Permit.
The revised provisions introduce greater specificity, including explicit prohibitions (e.g., discharging sludge or connecting drains directly to waters of the state) and more detailed BMP expectations for cleaning, maintenance, documentation, feed management, and mortality handling.
While the reorganization improves clarity and accessibility, it also transforms general operating expectations into a more audit-ready and enforceable framework, increasing the potential for non-numeric compliance findings based on operational or documentation deficiencies.
Five-Day Follow-Up Reports Expanded to All Permit Violations
The draft expands five-day follow-up reporting requirements to apply to all permit violations, including non-numeric violations such as BMP implementation failures or documentation gaps. By contrast, under the 2021 Permit, five-day follow-up reporting generally applies only to numeric exceedances and certain unauthorized discharges.
According to Ecology, this change is intended to capture non-numeric limit violations within the same reporting framework.
This change is significant because many of the draft 2026 Permit’s heightened requirements are operational and non-numeric in nature. As a result, permittees may now face a more formal and accelerated reporting obligation for issues (such as BMP implementation) that they previously addressed through internal “find-it fix-it” processes. At the same time, expanding this requirement may increase the overall reporting burden and create uncertainty about what constitutes a reportable violation, particularly for minor or short-term compliance issues.
Updated Impaired Waters Framework
The draft Permit updates the impaired waters appendices to distinguish between facilities already evaluated in the prior permit cycle and those newly subject to evaluation requirements.
Facilities newly identified in Appendix C must evaluate the relevant parameter of concern, while facilities that previously completed required evaluations are generally not required to repeat them in the upcoming cycle.
This change helps avoid duplicative, cycle-to-cycle monitoring for previously evaluated facilities while maintaining a targeted approach for newly identified impairments, potentially reducing unnecessary compliance burden for some permittees.
Expanded PCB Source-Control Requirements
The draft 2026 Permit retains the 2021 Permit’s framework for PCB source-control, which already required facilities discharging to PCB-impaired waters to implement measures to eliminate or reduce PCB inputs from known sources, including paint, caulk, and fish feed.
The 2026 draft builds on this approach by introducing a more structured and explicit set of requirements. In particular, the draft clarifies and expands obligations for facilities discharging to PCB-listed waters, including: (i) evaluation and mitigation of legacy materials such as pre-1980 paint and caulk; and (ii) development and implementation of a Feed PCB Source Reduction and BMP Plan. The draft also reflects updated requirements for newly identified facilities subject to PCB-related obligations.
These requirements may improve environmental outcomes but could present practical challenges related to infrastructure upgrades and feed sourcing, particularly where alternatives are limited.
Implications and Recommendations
Although the draft Permit does not materially revise numeric effluent limits or coverage thresholds, it introduces more detailed and structured compliance obligations that may require facilities to reassess existing practices. In particular, expanded reporting, more prescriptive operating requirements, and enhanced source-control measures may necessitate updates to tracking systems, documentation, and internal compliance protocols.
Impacted facilities should review the draft Permit and supporting materials to evaluate how the proposed changes may affect their operations and compliance programs, with particular attention to expanded reporting, documentation, and source-control requirements. Given the increased level of detail and structure in the draft, permittees may benefit from conducting a targeted gap analysis of current practices, including data collection systems and internal compliance procedures.
In parallel, stakeholders should consider submitting comments on the draft Permit—particularly on implementation feasibility, reporting burden, and clarity of key provisions—prior to the May 22, 2026, deadline.
