Report on Ten Years of 

Implementing the Lower 

Colorado River MSCP 

Chris Harris

Deputy Director

Colorado River Board of California
 1922 Compact 

 

 1928 BCPA 

 

 1944 Treaty w/Mexico 

 

 60 MAF of storage 

 

 Major diversions – 

• 40 million people 

• 5.5 million acres of 

agriculture 

 

 Bankline & Levee 

construction 

 
 Alteration of pre-development hydrograph 

 Removal of native riparian vegetation 

 Decoupling river from the floodplain (i.e., 

channelization and incisement) 

 Habitat fragmentation 

 Introduction of non-native aquatic and terrestrial 

species 

 

Environmental Consequences-- 
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 FLOW (1000 CFS)

CALENDAR YEARS

FLOW BELOW HOOVER DAM

1906-2003 Feb '35 Storage begins Lake Mead June '80 Lake Powell Fills Mar '63 Storage begins Lake Powell Fills July '41 Lake Mead Fills
Historical & Future Projected Use and 

Demand-- 
Lower Colorado River Multi-Species 

Conservation Program-- 
 1994 “Big River” fishes critical habitat designation 

 1995 listing of southwestern willow flycatcher as 

endangered 

 USBR initiated ESA Section 7 consultation for 

“routine LCR operations and maintenance activities”

 

The Road to the MSCP-- 
Full pool elevation of 

Lake Mead to SIB, 

including the historic 

floodplain 

LCR MSCP Program Planning Area-- 
 Routine LCR operations and maintenance activities 

(flow & non-flow related) 

 Diversions and returns 

 Non-federal flow and non-flow related activities 

within the planning area 

 Changes in points of diversion of up to 1.574 mafy 

 Generation of hydropower, and 

 LCR MSCP implementation 

What Activities does the MSCP cover? 
 50-year Program 

 Program budget -- $626 million 

 31 species covered 

 Create & maintain 8,132 ac. of -- 

 5,940 ac. cottonwood-willow 

 1,320 ac. honey mesquite 

 512 ac. marsh 

 360 ac. Backwaters 

 Stocking of razorback suckers and bonytail 

 $500,000 to USFWS for humpback chub 

conservation in Grand Canyon above Lake Mead 

Program Overview-- 
 The collaborative partnership shared the goal 

of preparing a program that— 

 Meets the regulatory requirements of ESA Sections 

7 and 10; 

 Meets regulatory requirements of CESA ; 

 Program underwent rigorous analysis pursuant 

to NEPA and CEQA too 

Blend of ESA Sections 7 & 10, and CESA 2081 
 2005 Implementing Documents— 

 Federal: Biological & Conference Opinion 

 Non-Federal: Habitat Conservation Plan & Section 10 

Permit 

 California: CESA Section 2081 Permit 

 NEPA/CEQA EIS/EIR Record of Decision 

 Implementation & Funding and Management Agreements 

between the Feds and Non-Feds 

 State Funding Agreements (AZ, CA, and NV) 

 Mainstream Water Use & Accounting Agreement 

 CA/USBR MOA regarding Program implementation and 

CESA obligations 

Legal Underpinnings— 
 California participants are required to 

ensure that— 

 1,566 acres of CW-W are established in CA 

 1,048 acres of HM are established in CA 

 240 acres of marsh are established in CA 

 194 acres of backwater habitat is established in 

CA 

 270,000 razorback sucker and 200,000 

bonytail are repatriated to mainstream aquatic 

habits within CA portions of the LCR 

CESA 2081 Permit Requirements-- 
 Federal Group—DOI agencies + WAPA 

 Non-Federal Group—State agencies and Ag., 

M&I, and Power entities 

 Native American Tribes 

 Other Public Interest Groups 

 Conservation Groups

 

Stakeholder Groups—57 Total 
 26 “Covered Species” 

 12 avian species 

 4 fish species 

 1 amphibian 

 2 reptiles 

 4 mammals 

 2 plants 

 1 insect 

 5 “Evaluation Species” 

 3 mammals 

 2 amphibians 

Covered Species-- 
Razorback sucker

SW Willow Flycatcher

Bonytail Yuma clapper rail

© 

CDFW

© USFWS

© USFWS © BLM

Key Covered Species-- 
LCR MSCP 

Conservation Areas 

through 2014 
Photo courtesy of USBR-LC

Palo Verde Ecological 

Reserve—PVER 

 

 Land is owned by California 

Department of Fish & Wildlife

 1,300 acres restored with 

cottonwood-willow and 

mesquite habitat.

 Water available from the Palo 

Verde Irrigation District.
Mass Planting Native Trees-- 
Cibola NWR--Hart Mine Marsh-- 
Laguna Habitat Conservation Area-- 
Laguna Habitat Conservation Area 
Laguna Habitat Conservation Area 
Hunter’s Hole Cons. Area 

Before

After
Monitoring/Research & Adaptive Mgt.--- 
 Rolling 5-year Adaptive Management/Science 

Strategy 

 Based upon R&M data, “Minor Modifications” have 

been made to Covered Species Conservation 

Measures (approved by USFWS and State wildlife 

agencies) 

 Conceptual Ecological Models are being developed for 

all 26 Covered Species 

 Creates link between science activities & restoration site 

mgt. 

 Provides a framework for implementing species’ 

conservation measures 

 21 species-specific CEMs will have been developed through 

FY-2015 

Monitoring/Research & Adaptive Mgt.--- 
 Program is spending $25-35 million/year 

 FY-2014 Work Plan/Budget was $35 million 

 FY-2015 Work Plan/Budget is $37 million 

 Total Land Cover Types created through FY-2013 – 

 3,000 acres of the total 8,132 acres required; 

 1,000 acres restored in California 

 Covered species are using created/restored habitats (e.g., 

WIFL, YBCU, BEVI, YCR, BLRA, bats, etc.) 

 Native Fish stockings through FY-2013— 

 215,000 RASU 

 60,000 BONY

Current Status-- 
 What’s Working— 

 Long-term environmental compliance is in place ; 

 Benefits to CA & LB States—QSA implementation, 

Water Banking, 2007 Interim Guidelines, etc.; 

 Adaptive management process is successful; 

 Knowledge gained about species , data collection and 

management, habitat restoration techniques; 

 Public outreach & education; 

 Sharing information with other efforts 

 What’s Not Working— 

 Native/non-native fish interactions; 

 Controlling non-native aquatic and terrestrial species; 

 Finding suitable lands in CA for restoration 

 

“Hits & Misses”-- 
 Quagga mussel infestations 

 Salt cedar and Salt cedar beetle defoliation 

along LCR; 

 Finding 2,000+ acres of land in CA 

 Native/Non-native fish interactions 

Current Issues of Concern-- 
 Steering Committee 

Provides policy-level 

oversight, approves Work 

Plan & Budget 

 

 Technical Work Group 

Provides technical 

assistance, reviews 

annual work plans 

Administration & Oversight-- 
Yellow warbler © USBR-LC, 2005

www.lcrmscp.gov