EFFECTS OF WILDERNESS LEGISLATION ON WATER-PROJECT DEVELOPMENT IN COLORADO by Glen D. Heaver ~·1ay 1983 Colorado Stote University Fort Collins,Colorad,o Completion Report No. 124 EFFECTS OF WILDERNESS LEGISLATION ON WATER-PROJECT DEVELOPMENT IN COLORADO Project No. A-044-COLO Agreement Nos. 14-34-0001-9006 and 14-34-0001-0106 by Glen D. Weaver Department of Economics Colorado State University Research Project Technical Completion Report The research on which this report is based was financed in part by the U.S. Department of the Interior, as authorized by the Water Research and Development Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-467). Colorado Water Resources Research Institute Colorado State University Fort Collins, Colorado Norman A. Evans, Director May 1983 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to acknowledge the cooperation of many individuals who contributed information to this study. Special recognition is extended to personnel of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Reclamation, and Bureau of Land Management, who responded to numerous requests for data. Sincere thanks is also given to Mrs. Waneta Boyce and Mrs. Denise Davis for their excellent typing of the manuscript. i ABSTRACT Environmental policies embodied in the Wilderness Act, Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, and Endangered Species Act impose certain restrictions on the de­ velopment of Colorado's water resources. Planning costs are unavoidably in­ creased because time and personnel must be invested in complying with proce­ dural requirements of the laws. Capital or operating costs may be increased because of construction delays, required engineering desi~n changes, or spa­ tial relocation of project facilities. In some cases, development opportuni­ ties will be completely foregone. Approximately 2.6 million acres of land have already been designated un­ der the Wilderness Act, and another 1.3 million acres have either been admin­ istratively endorsed or are being studied for their wilderness suitability. Several proposed projects could be affected by the land withdrawals because new construction works are not permitted within wilderness areas without a Presidential exemption. The Denver Water Department's proposed transmountain import projects could be built outside the Eagles Nest Wilderness, albeit at higher economic costs, or need for the projects might possibly be eliminated by pursuing other supply options. Prohibition against modifying the plant and snow cover within wilderness areas for the purpose of increasing natural water yield may create significant opportunity costs in the future. Major limitations on cloud seeding over wilderness areas would foreclose much of the state's cloud-seeding potential. Recommendations to add portions of 11 rivers in Colorado to the national wild and scenic rivers system have either been submitted to Congress or are under final administrative review. Protection against development has ex­ pired for the Dolores, Encampment, and Gunnison Rivers because le~islative ac­ tion was not taken within the time period allotted for Congressional review, iii and protection for the other rivers is uncertain because none of the study re­ ports were completed by the mandated deadline of October 2, 1979. Designation of the Conejos, Elk, Encampment, Los Pinos, and Piedra Rivers would foreclose few, if any, development opportunities. Whether desi~nation of the Colorado, Dolores, Green, and Yampa would actually constrain development is largely con­ ditional upon final determinations yet to be made by the Fish and Wildlife Ser­ vice regarding critical habitat and instream flow needs of the endangered Colo­ rado River fishes. Designation of the Cache 1a Poudre would apparently ex­ clude only the potential Gray Mountain-Id1ywi1de Project, since all of the oth­ er known project alternatives are either economically infeasible or would be located within existing wilderness areas. Designation of the Gunnison might exclude one of two proposed hydroelectric projects. Fifteen endangered or threatened species are currently listed for Colo­ rado. The only pervasive conflicts identified in this study involve the whoop­ ing crane and Colorado River fishes. New streamflow depletions in the Platte River system will adversely affect the whooping crane habitat in central Ne­ braska if such depletions occur between February I-May 10 or September 16-No~ vember 15. Accordingly, new developments will be given nonjeopardy biological opinions only if they can meet the required flow regime, either by providing storage releases or replacement waters, or if they can offset the effects of small depletions by funding habitat improvement programs. Approval of proj­ ects affecting the Colorado River fishes have already been made continqent up­ on project operators adopting or funding various conservation measures, includ­ ing the bypassing of minimum flows during critical months of the year. Pres­ ervation of both the whooping crane and endangered fishes could place Colorado in a competitive race with adjoining states to develop its unused compact en­ titlements to South Platte and Colorado River waters. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1. Introduction 1 Wilderness areas 3 Wild and scenic study rivers 11 Endangered and• threatened species 16 Chapter 2. Legislative restrictions 17 Wi 1derness Act 17 Project exemptions 17 Administrative policies 18 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 20 Protection of study rivers 21 Protection of designated rivers 24 Water rights 25 Preservation of instream flows 27 Proposed amendments 29 Endangered Species Act 30 Listing of species 30 Designation of critical habitat 31 Recovery planning 32 Consultation and limits on agency actions 32 Citizen suit provision 35 Exemption procedure 36 Chapter 3. Topical analysis of wilderness constraints 39 Whooping crane 39 Grays Lake flock 40 Wood Buffalo-Aransas flock 40 Constraints on project development 44 Colorado River fishes 48 Distinguishing characteristics and former range 49 Reasons for decline 51 Present distribution 53 Constraints on project development 57 Other listed species 64 Black-footed ferret 64 Eskimo curl ew 64 American peregrine falcon 65 Arctic peregrine falcon 66 Bald eagle 66 Greenback cutthroat trout 67 Endangered and threatened plants 68 Future listings 69 Abrogating of state water rights 70 Constraints on streamflow augmentation 72 Cloud-seeding opportunities 75 Vegetation and snow management 77 v Chapter 4. Regional analysis of wilderness constraints 81 Kansas River Basin 81 Trans-County Project 84 Arkansas River Basin 84 Ri 0 Grande Bas in 86 Wilderness areas 88 Conejos study river 88 Endangered and threatened species 89 North Platte River Basin 90 Wilderness areas 90 Encampment study river 90 Endangered and threatened species 92 South Platte River Basin 93 Wi 1derness areas 93 Cache la Poudre study river 97 Endangered and threatened species 99 San Juan River Basin 104 Wilderness areas 105 Los Pinos study river 105 Piedra study river 107 Endangered and threatened species 108 Dolores River Basin 108 Wilderness areas 108 Dolores and Lower Dolores study rivers 110 Endangered and threatened species 113 Gunnison River Basin 113 Wilderness areas 113 Gunnison study river 114 Endangered and threatened species 117 Colorado Mainstem Basin 119 Wilderness areas 119 Colorado study river 119 Endangered and threatened species 122 White River Basin 122 Wilderness areas 123 Endangered and threatened species 124 Yampa River Basin 126 Wi 1derness areas 126 El k study ri ver 128 Green study river 129 Yampa study river 130 Endangered and threatened species 130 Chapter 5. Summary and conclusions 133 Wil derness Act 133 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 136 Endangered Species Act 143 References 149 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Designated and endorsed wilderness areas 5 2 Wild and scenic study rivers 12 3 Platte River critical habitat, migration corridor, and confirmed sightings (1950-spring 1980) of whooping cranes in Nebraska 42 4 Endangered Colorado Ri ver fi shes 50 5 Critical habitat segments for the endangered Colorado River fishes 56 6 Major ri ver basi ns 82 7 Denver Water Department water supply and demand, 1981-2020 96 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Wilderness components in Colorado 2 2 Forest Service designated, study, and further-planning wi 1derness areas 6 3 Bureau of Land Management wilderness study areas 8 4 National Park Service wilderness areas 10 5 Status of Colorado study rivers, January 1983 13 6 River segments in Colorado listed in the nationwide inventory 15 7 Classification criteria for wild, scenic, and recreational river areas 26 8 Comparison of Platte River flows at Overton and Grand Island, Nebraska 46 9 Critical habitat for the endangered Colorado River fishes 55 10 Summary of biological opinions for projects affecting the endangered Colorado River fishes 58 11 Virgin water yield from national forest lands in Colorado 74 12 Cloud-seeding potential in Colorado 76 13 Potential water yield increase by vegetation type 79 14 Population and water budget of major river basins 83 15 Wilderness components in the Arkansas River Basin 85 16 Wilderness components in the Rio Grande Basin 87 17 Wilderness components in the North Platte River Basin 91 18 Wilderness components in the South Platte River Basin 94 19 Summary of Cache la Poudre Project alternatives 98 20 Summary of project alternatives in the South Platte River Basin 103 21 Wilderness components in the San Juan River Basin 106 22 Wilderness components in the Dolores River Basin 109 23 Annualiied costs and benefits of eight Bureau