Laserfiche WebLink
<br />) <br /> <br />:;r. <br /> <br />mila stubble and alfalfa fields used as primary feeding sites. <br />(3) Maintenance.of the water fowl <br />habitat in the Platte Valley depends upon (1) an adequate <br />minimum flaw of water, especially during spring and fall <br />periods of migration; (2) periodic I' scouring of the river <br />channel by large volumes of water and ice to maintain unvegetated <br />sand barsi and (3) periodic flooding to preserve adjacent <br />wet meadows. Defendants admit that depletions in the flow <br />of the South Platte River of at least 11% will occur as a <br />result of the construction of Narrows project thereby adversely <br />affecting migratory water fowl downstream from the project. <br />(4) Defendants' FES does not consideI <br />the cumulative downstream impacts in the Platte Valley of <br />the combined completions of the Narrows unit, the Pawnee <br />Power Plantl the Mississippi Basin power project, and the <br />Corn Creek irrigation project and without such consideration <br />Plaintiffs-Intervenors cannot determine the magnitude of the <br /> <br />cumulative downstream impacts on migratory water fowl. <br /> <br />c.) Defendants (Thomas Kleppe, et al.) <br /> <br />claims: <br /> <br />(1) Plaintiffs' Compliant fails to <br />state a claim upon which relief can be granted. <br />(2) Plaintiffs lack standing to maintain <br /> <br />this action. <br /> <br />d.) Defendant-Intervenor (Lower South Platte <br />Water Conservancy District) claims: <br />(1) Defendant-Intervenor claims that <br />Plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief under the claims <br />or causes of action pleaded by Plaintiffs. <br />(2) Defendant-Intervenor claims that <br />Plaintiffs had failed to state a claim upon which relief can <br />be granted. <br /> <br />e.) Defendant-Intervenor (Central Colorado <br /> <br />WatGL Conservancy District) claims: <br /> <br />-7- <br />