Biological Opinions - Bureau of Reclamation

flow prescriptions should mimic processes characteristic of the natural flow regime (Poff et al.
1997, NRC 2005). Therefore, the Hardy et al. (2006) instream flow recommendations,
particularly the ecological base flows, are useful in our analysis as an indicator of how closely
the expected outcomes of the proposed action align with the patterns and processes of a natural
flow regime.
11.1.4 Evidence Available for the Consultation
To conduct these analyses, NMFS considered all lines of evidence available through published
and unpublished sources that represent evidence of adverse consequences or the absence of such
consequences. The following provides a list of some of the main resources NMFS considered:
• Final rule affirming the listing of the SONCC coho salmon ESU as threatened (70 FR
37160; June 28, 2005)
• Final rule designating critical habitat for the SONCC coho salmon ESU (64
FR 24049; May 5, 1999)
• Public draft of the SONCC coho salmon recovery plan (NMFS 2012a)
• NMFS’ 2010 BiOp on the Klamath Project (NMFS 2010)
• NRC‘s assessment of Klamath River Basin fishes, hydrology, and the Services’
BiOps on Reclamation’s Project (NRC 2002a, 2004, 2008).
During the consultation, NMFS also used search engines to conduct electronic searches of the
general scientific literature, including Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts, Google, and
Google Scholar. These searches specifically tried to identify data or other information that
supports a particular conclusion (for example, a study that suggests salmon will show a particular
response to a potential stressor), as well as data that does not support that conclusion. NMFS
stopped searching for scientific information on May 3, 2013, so that the BiOp could be
completed.
11.1.5 Critical Assumptions
To address the uncertainties related to the proposed action effects and species responses, NMFS
relied on a set of key assumptions that are critical to our effects analysis on listed species and
their critical habitats. While other assumptions could be found elsewhere in this BiOp, the
assumptions listed here are especially critical to analyzing effects of the proposed action. If new
information indicates an assumption in the following table (or in other sections of the BiOp) is
invalid, Reclamation and NMFS may be required to reassess the effects of the proposed action
on listed species and their critical habitat, and reinitiate consultation, if warranted.
206