Ms. Deborah G. Nagle Director, EPA Office ofWastewater Management Water Permits Division Mail Code 401M 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20460

Dear Ms. Nagle: UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Silver Spring, MD 20910



### MAR 2 3

## 2015

Enclosed is NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) biological and conference opinion (Opinion) on the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Issuance ofthe Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater DischargesAssociatedwith IndustrialActivity (MSGP), which authorizes stormwater discharges and certain non-stormwater discharges from facilities belonging to 30 industrial sector classifications into waters ofthe United States from 2015 through 2020. Our Opinion was prepared pursuant to section 7(a)(2) ofthe Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 USC 1531 et seq.). In our Opinion, we conclude that EPA's issuance and implementation ofthe 2015 MSGP is not likely tojeopardize the survival and recovery ofESA-listed or species proposed for listing under NMFS'jurisdiction in the action area. We also conclude that EPA's issuance and implementation ofthe MSGP is not likely to destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat under NMFS'jurisdiction.

We based our conclusion on EPA's permit requirements that include: the Endangered Species Eligibility Criteria procedure, monitoring, EPA's willingness to take additional actions if necessary to protect ESA-listed resources and ability to either modify their permit orrequest reinitiation ofconsultation ifnecessary. Key to these conclusions is the assumption thatthe benchmarkmonitoringrequirements and the corrective measures required in response to problems indicatedbythe monitoringfunction as a feedback mechanism thatwill minimize
or avoid exposure ofESA-listed species to potentially harmful stressors. This iterative process first minimizes the likelihood ofexposure; ifthere is exposure, it minimizes the number of exposed individuals exposed; and ifindividuals are exposed, it minimizes the likelihood that an entire population or species will be affected. In this manner, EPA has insured that their action is not likely tojeopardize the continued existence ofany listed species and is not likely to adversely modify or destroy designated critical habitat.

This concludes formal consultation on this action. Consultation on this issue must be reinitiated if: (1) New information reveals effects ofthe action that may affect endangered orthreatened species under NMFS'jurisdiction or to designated critical habitat in a manner orto an extent not considered in this Opinion (e.g., ifEPA were to fail to execute the monitoring and reporting or other commitments it made during ESA section 7 consultation); (2) The agency action is 

# *

Printed on Recycled Papersubsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the ESA-listed species or critical habitat not considered inthis Opinion; (3) A new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action; or (4) The amount or extent oftake specified inthe incidental take statement is exceeded.
Ifyou have any questions regarding our Opinion, please contact Cathy Tortorici at 301-427-8485
or cathy.tortorici@noaa.gov.

# ~J~-ft- Donna Wieting, 

# J
Director, Office ofProtected Resources