Laserfiche WebLink
7 <br />help prevent the need to list additional basin - associated species pursuant <br />to the Act. <br />Additionally, the Districts and the Department of the Interior (Department) <br />have reached an "Agreement in Principle for License Conditions for Projects <br />Nos. 1417 and 1835" (AP), which if included as license conditions will <br />obligate the Districts to undertake specific actions for the benefit of the <br />target species and their Platte River habitats and other non - listed species. <br />The AP is dependent upon the CA and the provisions of the AP are related to <br />and are components of a proposed Program which is appended to the CA. In <br />addition, the AP describes specific actions that the Districts will undertake <br />to meet the requirements of the Act during the anticipated 3 -year term of the <br />CA and during the first increment of the proposed Program, including the <br />implementation of the reoperation of the Districts' water facilities, land <br />acquisition and habitat restoration, water conservation and supply measures, <br />and other measures that will benefit the target species and their associated <br />Platte River habitats. <br />Therefore, the RPA for the proposed relicensing action is based on <br />implementation of the AP and CA, as well as the ultimate implementation of a <br />Program, and the Commission requiring the actions described in the RPA and the <br />AP as future license conditions for the Districts. Overall, the RPA will <br />improve flow conditions for federally listed species by reducing the instream <br />flow shortage by an average of 104,000 of /year relative to the present <br />conditions, and will provide an additional 69,000 of /year of improvement <br />compared to the proposed action. However, the Service believes the model <br />simulation of the RPA under - estimates the benefits of the RPA, including the <br />minimum of 60,000 of /year of net water conservation savings, and that the RPA <br />would reduce the instream flow shortages by more than the 104,000 of /year <br />relative to present conditions. <br />The RPA "score" of 104,000 of /year is .less than the minimum Program goal of <br />130,000 of /year due to the following three cumulative factors. First, water <br />conservation is phased -in over a 12 -year period which lowers the average <br />benefit from 60,000 of /year to approximately 52,000 of /year. Secondly, all of <br />the conservation water is assigned to the EA, and in some months the EA is <br />full and unable to utilize the conservation water. This modeling method was <br />chosen because it could be readily implemented within the model and would be <br />conservative in the estimation of benefits. It is anticipated that only a <br />portion of the Program conservation water will be stored and managed through <br />the Lake McConaughy EA and not the entire minimum amount of 60,000 of /year of <br />conserved water. Third, the particular EA modeling run analyzed in the <br />biological opinion provided EA releases in excess of the target flows used in <br />