Laserfiche WebLink
<br />30. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the <br /> <br />defendants and LSPWCD have had a closed meeting or meetings <br />in contravention of the laws of the state of Colorado, 1973 <br />C.R.S. 24-6-401 et. seq. in which meeting or meetings <br />defendants and LSPWCD discussed and negotiated a repayment <br /> <br />contract for the Narrows. <br /> <br />31. The Narrows unit construction authorization, <br /> <br />PL 91-389, Section 2, requires that: <br /> <br />The conservation and development of <br />the fish and wildlife resources and the <br />enhancement of recreation opportunities <br />in connection with the Narrows unit shall <br />be in accordance with provisions of the <br />Federal Water Project Recreation Act <br />(79 Stat. 213, 16 U.S.C. 460 1-12) <br /> <br />In FES at page XI-22, the Fish and Wildlife Service <br /> <br />of United states Department of Interior pointed out <br /> <br />that lithe loss of wildlife habitat primarily for upland <br /> <br />game, will not be fully compensated. As contained in <br /> <br />oUr November 4, 1975 memorandum (copy attached) to your <br />Bureau, we estimate only 70% of the e~isting habitat <br />value will be compensated by the acquisition and develop- <br />ment of lands adjacent to the project, inCluding those <br /> <br />lands within the take line." In response to this, defendants <br /> <br />state at page XI-32 that "the conunent acknowledges the <br />FWS (FiSh and Wildlife Service) proposal would make the <br /> <br />Narrows unit project infeasible; therefore, it would be <br /> <br /> <br />inappropriate to discuss the mitigatory measureS in the <br /> <br />mitigation chapter as the comment proposes. The Bureau <br /> <br />could not implement FWS recommendations to fully mitigate <br />the wildlife habitat losses." Defendants do not explain <br />in FES what factor or factors make the project infeasible <br /> <br />but apparently if defendants mitigate 100% of the losses <br /> <br />associated with wildlife habitat this would increase "the <br /> <br />cost of the project substantially above the authorized <br /> <br />ceiling. II (XI-25) . Defendants are in direct violation of <br /> <br />-14- <br />