UNITED STATES CEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE Silver Spring. MO 2081 0 OCT 1 4 2011 James A. Hanlon Director, EPA Office of Wastewater Management Room 7116A - EPA East 1201 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Mr. Hanlon: Enclosed is the National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS) Biological Opinion (Opinion), issued under the authority of section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) as amended, regarding the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) proposal to issue a Pesticides General Permit (PGP). As proposed, the general permit will cover point source pesticide pollutant discharges to waters of the U.S. from pesticide applications in States and 1 Territories where the EPA is the permitting authority: Alaska , American Samoa, District of Columbia, Guam, Idaho, Johnston Atoll, Massachusetts, Midway Island, New Hampshire, New 1 Mexico, Northern Mariana Islands, Oklahoma , Puerto Rico, and Wake Island. The proposed pennit will also authorize pesticide pollutant discharges to waters of the U.S. resulting from pesticide applications on Federal lands in Colorado, Delaware, Vermont and Washington, as well as Indian lands nationwide. This Opinion is based on our review of the EPA's Biological Evaluation/or the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Pesticides General Permit (PGP), reviews of the effectiveness of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program and compliance for existing general permits, pesticide risk assessments and Section 7(a)(2) consultations on pesticide uses, species status revie\vs, listing documents, recovery plans, reports on the status and trends of water quality, past and current research and population dynamics modeling, published and unpublished scientific information and other sources of information as discussed in greater detail in the Approach to the Assessment section of this draft Opinion. This Opinion has been prepared in accordance with section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, regulations that implement that section and applicable agency policy and guidance. This Opinion has concluded that EPA's issuance of the PGP is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 33 endangered or threatened species under NMFS' jurisdiction and result in the destruction or adverse n10dification of critical habitat that has been designated for 29 of those species. The clause "jeopardize the continued existence of' means "to engage in an action that I Both Alaska and Oklahoma have partial National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) programs but are not authorized to issue NPDES permits for these applications. The State of Alaska has been authorized to administer the NPDES program but is not obligated to assume permitting responsibilities for discharges from pesticide applications until November, 2011. ~~ I~~~\ \__9 Printed on Recycled Paper * ~ Of<P' reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood ofboth the survival and recovery of ESA listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers or distribution of that species" (50 CFR §402.02). NMFS reached this conclusion because as the general permit is currently structured, the EPA would not be likely to know where or when most of the discharges it intends to authorize would occur; whether these discharges were resulting in exposures to pesticide pollutants in concentrations, durations or frequencies that would cause adverse effects to ESA listed species or designated critical habitat; or whether the permittees were complying with the conditions of the permit designed to protect ESA listed species and designated critical habitat from being exposed. Accordingly, EPA would not be able to take steps to minimize or prevent that exposure. Because we have concluded that the proposed general permit fails to comply with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, we have provided a Reasonable and Prudent Alternative, applicable in Idaho, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, on federal lands in Washington State, and on tribal lands, that will allow EPA to comply with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. As required by Section 7 of the ESA, NMFS has provided an incidental take statement with the Opinion. The Incidental Take Statement (ITS) describes reasonable and prudent measures NMFS considers necessary and appropriate to minimize incidental take associated with this action. The incidental take staten1ent also sets forth nondiscretionary tenns and conditions, including reporting requirements that EPA and any person who performs the action must comply with to carry out the reasonable and prudent measures. Under the terms ofESA Sections 7(b)(4) and 7(0)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part ofthe agency action is not considered to be prohibited under the Act provided that such taking is in compliance with the terms and conditions of this ITS. If you have any questions regarding this draft Opinion, please contact me at (301) 427-8400 . VJ mes H. Lecky Director, Office ofProtected Resources Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposed Pesticides General Permit National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources Silver Spring, MD 20910 Consultation History ................................................................................................................................................. 7 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .................................................................................................... 9 Pesticides General Permit ....................................................................................................................................... 11 Obtaining Authorization under the PGP ............................................................................................................ 11 Protective Measures ........................................................................................................................................... 15 Limitations on Coverage .................................................................................................................................... 24 APPROACH TO THE ASSESSMENT ................................................................................................................... 24 Overview of NMFS’ Assessment Framework ........................................................................................................ 24 Application of this Approach to this Consultation .................................................................................................. 25 Evidence Available for the Consultation ................................................................................................................ 28 ACTION AREA ......................................................................................................................................................... 30 STATUS OF THE SPECIES AND CRITICAL HABITAT AND ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ............... 31 Species and Critical Habitat Not Likely to be Adversely Affected by the Proposed Action .................................. 34 Marine Mammals ............................................................................................................................................... 34 Sea Turtles ......................................................................................................................................................... 35 Marine Fish ........................................................................................................................................................ 36 Marine Invertebrates .......................................................................................................................................... 37 Johnson’s Seagrass ............................................................................................................................................. 38 Climate Change....................................................................................................................................................... 38 Species and Critical Habitat Likely to be Adversely Affected by the Proposed Action ......................................... 42 Anadromous Fish Species .................................................................................................................................. 43 Salmonid Fish Species ....................................................................................................................................... 50 Marine Mammals ............................................................................................................................................... 97 ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE .......................................................................................................................... 103 The Changing Landscapes of the United States ............................................................................................... 104 Status and Trends of Waters of the United States ............................................................................................ 106 Integration and Synthesis of the Environmental Baseline ................................................................................ 110 EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .........................................................................................................