Biological Opinions - Bureau of Reclamation

11 SONCC COHO SALMON CRITICAL HABITAT
NMFS has determined that the proposed action may adversely affect SONCC coho salmon
critical habitat (64 FR 24049; May 5, 1999). Therefore, this BiOp analyzes the effects of the
proposed action on SONCC coho salmon critical habitat using the following analytical approach.
11.1 Analytical Approach
Pursuant to section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, Federal agencies are directed to ensure that any action
they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Below, NMFS
outlines the conceptual framework and key steps and assumptions used in the critical habitat
destruction or adverse modification analysis.
11.1.1 Overview of NMFS’ Assessment Framework
NMFS’ “destruction or adverse modification” determinations are based on an action’s effects on
the conservation value of habitat that has been designated as critical to threatened or endangered
species 3 . If an area encompassed in a critical habitat designation is likely to be exposed to the
direct or indirect consequences of the proposed action on the natural environment, NMFS
assesses if Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs; i.e., the principal biological or physical
constituent elements within the designated area that are essential to the conservation of listed
species) or essential features (i.e., those physical and biological features that are essential to the
conservation of a given species and that may require special management considerations or
protection) included in the designation are likely to be affected by that exposure.
In this step of the assessment, NMFS must identify: (a) the spatial distribution of stressors and
benefits produced by an action; (b) the temporal distribution of stressors and subsidies produced
by an action; (c) changes in the spatial distribution of the stressors with time; (d) the intensity of
stressors in space and time; (e) the spatial distribution of PCEs or essential features of designated
critical habitat; and (f) the temporal distribution of PCEs or essential features of designated
critical habitat.
If PCEs or essential features of designated critical habitat are likely to respond given exposure to
the direct or indirect consequences of the proposed action, interrelated or interdependent actions,
or both, NMFS assesses if those responses are likely to reduce the quantity, quality, or
availability of those PCEs or essential features within the action area. The action area is
organized by reaches within the mainstem Klamath River, the area encompassing the diversity
3 Several courts have ruled that the definition of destruction or adverse modification that appears in the ESA section
7 implementing regulations at 50 CFR 402.02 is invalid [e.g., Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. USFWS, 378 F.3d 1059
(9th Cir. 2004), amended by 387 F.3d 968 (9th Cir. 2004)], and NMFS does not rely on the invalidated definition for
the determinations NMFS makes in this BiOp. Instead, NMFS relied on the statutory provisions of the ESA to
complete the following analysis with respect to critical habitat. As explain in the text, NMFS uses the
“conservation value” of critical habitat for our determinations which focuses on the designated area’s ability to
contribute to the conservation of the species for which the area was designated.
199