Biological Opinions - Bureau of Reclamation

scenario, actions and elements of the baseline within Reclamation’s discretion are removed from
the hydrological setting under a No-Project scenario.
In 2007, Reclamation provided NMFS and USFWS a No-Project hydrology that included critical
assumptions given a hypothetical scenario in which Reclamation would no longer deliver water
to the Klamath Project. Key assumptions included: (1) UKL will be a level pool and not
affected by wind; and (2) the reef at Link River dam would be reconstructed, recreating the
original reef elevation stage-discharge relationship (NMFS 2010a).
Prior to completing Reclamation’s 2012 BA, the Services and Reclamation discussed the
potential of developing a No-Project hydrology for this consultation. NMFS, USFWS, and
Reclamation mutually agreed, during informal consultation, that developing a No-Project
hydrology for the purpose of analyzing the effects of Reclamation’s proposed action on listed
species was not prudent because the agencies were not able to find consensus on approaches to
address critical assumptions necessary to define a No-Project condition. Concerns with the
above-described assumptions, combined with the Services’ determination that their analytical
approach was not dependent on a No-Project hydrology led Reclamation to not model a No-
Project hydrology. NMFS determined on January 8, 2013, it had sufficient information to
initiate formal consultation based on the biological assessment, and NMFS and USFWS have
since proceeded with formal consultation and drafting the joint BiOps based on the biological
assessment and critical assumptions described in this BiOp.
On April 8, 2013, the Hoopa Valley Tribe submitted to NMFS, model output from a No-Project
hydrological scenario and associated flow/habitat relationship data, analyzing habitat availability
under a No-Project hydrology. NMFS has not had sufficient resources to do more than a cursory
evaluation of the model structure and assumptions supporting the No-Project hydrological
scenario, nor has it had sufficient resources to evaluate it with USFWS and Reclamation, while
also proceeding with drafting the BiOp as required under the ESA and implementing regulations.
While NMFS is appreciative of the Tribe’s efforts to advance our understanding of the effects of
the Proposed Action, NMFS has identified some potential problems with the model structure and
assumptions in NMFS’ cursory review of it, and NMFS is cautious of using hydrological data in
which the critical assumptions of water routing have not been evaluated by Reclamation,
USFWS, and NMFS. However, NMFS will further evaluate the No-Project hydrological
scenario in coordination with Reclamation and USFWS to determine whether it is a reasonable
representation of no-project flows and reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species
or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered. If so, reinitiation of
formal consultation will be required under 50 CFR 402.16.
Therefore, NMFS does not use a modeled No-Project flow to quantitatively compare the flow
effects of the proposed action for this consultation. However, NMFS can reasonably assume the
proposed action reduces mainstem flow volume in the Klamath River throughout most of the
year because the Project diverts water during the spring and summer (and fall and winter to a
lesser degree) and stores water in UKL in the fall and winter. Using Hardy’s (2012) coho
salmon fry and Hardy et al.’s (2006) juvenile data, NMFS identified the range of flows for the
mainstem reaches downstream of IGD where there is a positive correlation between flow and
204