1/20/2022

1

Aspinall Operations Meeting

January 20, 2022

Microsoft Teams Video Conferencing

Mute/Unmute Yourself                  View Participant List

Turn on/off your camera

Depending on your device/browser, these buttons may be in a different location

Share your screen:

Should be disabled

Chat: Ask questions,

make comments

(everyone can see this)

1

2
1/20/2022

2

Microsoft Teams Video Conferencing

Participants List           Raise Hand                          Video on/off

Chat                                                                    Microphone on/off

Introductions and Purpose of Meeting

Gunnison Basin Water Supply Outlook – Ashley Nielson (CBRFC)

Weather Outlook – Aldis Strautins (NWS)

Aspinall Unit Operations – Erik Knight (Reclamation) 

Drought Response Operations Agreement (DROA) Plan Update –

Robert Henrie (Reclamation)

Overview of Aspinall endangered fish flows and fishery 

investigations (FWS/Reclamation)

Special Flow Requests and Discussion 

Reports of Agencies and Organizations – All

Conclusions (Next meeting date – April 14th)

3

4
1/20/2022

3

Aspinall Operations Meeting

Water Supply Outlook

January 2022

Ashley Nielson

Senior Hydrologist

Colorado Basin River Forecast Center

National Weather Service/NOAA

● Two consecutive years of below normal spring runoff

● Improvement in conditions from October precipitation

● Streamflow conditions have improved from last year.

Streamflow Conditions

Monsoon

5

6
1/20/2022

4

Fall 2020 Fall 2021 % Change: 2021-2020

Fall Modeled Soil Moisture Conditions: 2020 vs. 2021 

CBRFC Modeled Soil Moisture:

● Represents the deep soil layer

● Source of longer-term (weeks to years) streamflow 

● Impacts water supply forecasts

○ Below average conditions = lower forecasts

○ Above average conditions = higher forecasts

● Soil moisture conditions have improved from near record dry levels last year but still remain below normal.

● Soil moisture conditions can impact spring runoff efficiency

○ Degree of impact is uncertain in every year

○ Timing/magnitude of runoff is ultimately a result of spring weather (precipitation/temperature), snow and soil moisture conditions. 

January 19, 2022

Model snow includes areas above and below SNOTEL sites.

● SNOTEL locations range from ~9,000-11,500’ 

● Some modeled basins extend to over 14,000’

Upper Model SWE Median (>11,000’) 

Mid Model SWE Median (9,500’-11,000’) 

● Snow accumulation had a slow start 

○ Warm and dry November; dry early December

● Impressive storms and significant SWE accumulation in late December

● Snow conditions:

○ Above normal: Northern half of basin

○ Below normal: Southern half of basin

● Still early in the snow accumulation season

Snow Conditions: CBRFC Model Snow Water Equivalent

Lower Model SWE Median (<9,500’)

2022 >11000’

2022 9500’-11000’

2022 <9500’

7

8
1/20/2022

5

1981-2010 vs 1991-2020 Averages: Gunnison River Basin

● Averages are updated every 10 years

● New averages represent most recent trends

● Averages in the Gunnison River Basin decreased 

by ~5-15% 

● Water supply volumes, both forecast and 

observed, will be higher as a percent of average 

compared to the same volume last year.

Apr-Jul Fcst 1981-2010 1991-2020

(KAF) (675 KAF) (635 KAF)

10% 1030 153% 162%

50% 650 96% 102%

90% 480 71% 76%

Blue Mesa Forecast - Comparison of Period Normal %Avg

90% chance of exceeding 480 KAF / 76% avg

10% chance of NOT exceeding 480 KAF / 76% avg

Blue shading: Daily Raw Model Guidance 90% - 10% exceedance range

Blue line: Daily Raw Model Guidance 50% exceedance

Pink line: Official forecast 90%, 70%, 50%, 30%, 10% exceedance

Green solid: 1991-2020 average April-July volume

Green dotted: 1991-2020 median April-July volume

Brown dotted: Average observed

Blue Mesa Reservoir Inflow Forecast Plot Link

Forecast Progression: Blue Mesa Reservoir Inflow

50% chance of exceeding 650 KAF / 102% avg

50% chance of NOT exceeding 650 KAF / 102% avg

10% chance of exceeding 1030 KAF / 162% avg

90% chance of NOT exceeding 1030 KAF / 162% avg

Previous Years

2022 FCST: 650 kaf / 102% avg

2021 OBS: 317 kaf / 50% avg

2020 OBS: 387 kaf / 61% avg

2019 OBS:1090 kaf / 171% avg

2018 OBS: 239 kaf / 38% avg

9

10
1/20/2022

6

January 1st Forecast: What we know:

• ~40% of snowpack accumulation

• Fall soil moisture conditions

What we DON’T know:

• Jan-May weather (4 months)

• ~60% of snowpack accumulation

Average January Forecast Error: ~185 KAF

April 1st Forecast:

What we KNOW:

• ~95% of snowpack accumulation

• Dec-March weather

What we don’t know:

• April-May weather (2 months)

• Snowmelt pattern

Average April Forecast Error: ~100 KAF

Early Season Forecast Uncertainty

January 1

April 1

• Soil moisture

• Conditions have improved from last year but are still below normal.

• Soil moisture deficits still exist.

• Impact on runoff uncertain and will depend on spring weather and snow conditions.

• Snow

• Slow start to the snow season

• Above normal: Northern half of basin

• Below normal: Southern half of basin

• Averages

• Moved from 1981-2010 to 1991-2020

• 1991-2020 are ~5-15% lower in the Gunnison River Basin

• January Water Supply Forecasts

• Near to above average

■ Impacted by below normal modeled soil moisture conditions

• Large range of possibilities and high uncertainty at this time

• Forecast uncertainty decreases through the season

Summary

11

12
1/20/2022

7

CBRFC Webpage

https://www.cbrfc.noaa.gov/

CBRFC Operations

cbrfc.operations@noaa.gov

801-524-4004

CBRFC Water Supply Presentations

https://www.cbrfc.noaa.gov/present/present.php

Basin Forecasters

Brenda Alcorn - Green, Duchesne, White/Yampa

brenda.alcorn@noaa.gov

Ashley Nielson – Gunnison, San Juan, Dolores, Lake Powell

ashley.nielson@noaa.gov

Cody Moser – Upper Colorado Mainstem

cody.moser@noaa.gov

Patrick Kormos – Great Basin/Sevier

patrick.kormos@noaa.gov

Trevor Grout - Virgin, Lower Colorado

trevor.grout@noaa.gov

Brent Bernard – Hydrologist

brent.bernard@noaa.gov

Tracy Cox - Hydrometeorologist

tracy.cox@noaa.gov

Nanette Hosenfeld - Senior Hydrometeorologist

nanette.hosenfeld@noaa.gov

Wolfgang Hanft - Hydrometeorologist

wolfgang.hanft@noaa.gov

Michelle Stokes – Hydrologist In Charge

michelle.stokes@noaa.gov

Paul Miller– Service Coordination Hydrologist

paul.miller@noaa.gov

John Lhotak – Development and Operations Hydrologist

john.lhotak@noaa.gov

801-524-5130 x 333

CBRFC Contacts

Weather Outlook

January 20, 2022

Aldis Strautins

National Weather Service

Grand Junction, CO

http://www.weather.gov/gjt

13

14
1/20/2022

8

The Past

January 2022

Water Year 2021

Temperature

Departure from normal

Precipitation

% of normal

The Past

January 2022

Water Year 2021

Temperature

Departure from normal

Precipitation

% of normal

15

16
1/20/2022

9

The Past

January 2022

Water Year 2022

Temperature

Departure from normal

Precipitation

% of normal

The Past

January 2022

September to December 2020

Precipitation % of Normal

Sep

Nov Dec

Oct

17

18
1/20/2022

10

The Past

January 2022

January to mid April 2021

Precipitation % of Normal

Jan

Mar Apr

Feb

The Past

January 2022

May to August 2021

Precipitation % of Normal

May

Jul Aug

Jun

19

20
1/20/2022

11

The Past

January 2022

September to December 2021

Precipitation % of Normal

Sep

Nov Dec

Oct

The Past

January 2022

From January 1 to 18, 2022

Temperature

Departure from normal

Precipitation

% of normal

21

22
1/20/2022

12

Snow

January 2022

SNOTEL Snow Water Equivalent – NRCS

Gunnison River Basin

142% of

normal

66% of

normal peak

Normal

peak Apr 6

Yeah, Late

December

snow!

The Past

January 2022

SWE

November 2021

SWE

December 2021

SNOTEL – Percent of Median

23

24
1/20/2022

13

Drought

January 2022

Jan 11, 2022 August 17, 2021

Drought – Monitor

Drought

January 2022

Jan 11, 2022 Jan 12, 2021

Drought – Monitor

25

26
1/20/2022

14

Drought

January 2022

January 11, 2022 January 12, 2021

Drought – Monitor

Season La Niña Neutral El Niño

DJF 100 0 0

JFM 95 5 0

FMA 83 17 0

MAM 67 33 0

AMJ 48 51 1

MJJ 36 57 7

JJA 30 56 14

JAS 29 49 22

ASO 30 45 25

ENSO

January 2022

CPC/IRI Early‐Month Consensus ENSO Forecast

Probabilities

(using NWS CPC classification system)

ENSO – Outlook

La Nina becoming Neutral this spring

27

28
1/20/2022

15

Weather Outlook

January 2022

El Nino La Nina

North of Colorado  ‐ Dry and Warm  

South of Colorado  ‐ Wet and Cool

North of Colorado  ‐ Wet and Cool  

South of Colorado  ‐ Dry and Warm  

Weather Outlook

January 2022

WPC 7‐Day Precipitation Outlook

Accumulation period from Jan 20‐27

29

30
1/20/2022

16

Weather Outlook

January 2022

Temperature Precipitation

Jan 20 – Feb 11 Outlook

Weather Outlook

January 2022

Temperature Precipitation

Feb/Mar/Apr – Outlook

31

32
1/20/2022

17

Weather Outlook

January 2022

Temperature Precipitation

Mar/Apr/May – Outlook

Weather Outlook

January 2022

Temperature Precipitation

Apr/May/Jun – Outlook

33

34
1/20/2022

18

Weather Outlook

January 2022

Temperature Precipitation

Outlooks

Weather Outlook

January 2022

Seasonal

Drought– Outlook

35

36
1/20/2022

19

Weather Outlook

January 2022

Aldis Strautins

NWS Grand Junction, CO

http://www.weather.gov/gjt

RESERVOIR AND RIVER STATUS

Blue Mesa Reservoir ended 2021 at an elevation of 7434.5 ft, 55 feet below

the winter target elevation of 7490 ft

Blue Mesa Reservoir content is currently at 235,000 acre‐feet at an elevation

of 7435 feet.

Crystal Dam is releasing 325 cfs and flows in the Gunnison River through the

Black Canyon are 325 cfs

Releases/river flows will likely remain unchanged until the start of runoff

Flows in the lower Gunnison River at the Whitewater gage are estimated to

be just above the baseflow target of 750 cfs

37

38
1/20/2022

20

39

40
1/20/2022

21

SNOW CONDITIONS

Snow accumulation in the Upper Gunnison Basin:

Oct = 105% of average

Nov = 60% of average

Dec = 225% of average

Jan = 95% of average (so far)

December snow exceeded the total for a normal Dec + Jan

Snow on north side of Upper Gunnison Basin ~ 140% of average

Snow on south side of Upper Gunnison Basin ~ 80% of average

41

42
1/20/2022

22

43

44
1/20/2022

23

70% chance of >100% SWE

90% chance of >87% SWE

50% chance of >107% SWE 30% chance of >115% SWE

10% chance of >130% SWE

45

46
1/20/2022

24

SPRING RUNOFF 

FORECASTS AND TARGETS

Early season runoff forecasts for major rivers in the Gunnison Basin are in the

80‐110% of average range

The Jan 15th runoff forecast for Blue Mesa Reservoir puts 2022 into the Average

Dry hydrologic category

The ROD targets in the Average Dry category call for a peak flow of 8,070 cfs at

Whitewater. This is the half bankfull flow and the duration at this flow should be

10 days.

The Black Canyon water right peak flow target is ~5,250 cfs.

Shoulder flow targets in the Black Canyon are 540 cfs for May 1 – July 25

47

48
1/20/2022

25

Spring Peak & Duration Targets

Based on Hydrologic Year Type

Most Prob

650,000

Max Prob

1,030,000

Min Prob

480,000

49

50
1/20/2022

26

5255 cfs

Jan 15 Forecast

650 KAF

Shoulder Flows

May 1 – July 25

540 cfs

51

52
1/20/2022

27

Baseflow Targets

53

54
1/20/2022

28

55

56
1/20/2022

29

Questions...??

Drought Response 

Operations

Robert Henrie, Reclamation

57

58
1/20/2022

30

The Recovery Program was 

established in 1988 to address 

conflicts between the Endangered 

Species Act and water 

development

Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish 

Recovery Program

Dale Ryden

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Grand Junction, CO

State of Colorado State of Utah

State of Wyoming Bureau of Reclamation

Colorado River Energy Distributors Association Colorado Water Congress

National Park Service The Nature Conservancy

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Utah Water Users Association

Western Area Power Administration Western Resource Advocates

Wyoming Water Association

Recovery Program Partners

59

60
1/20/2022

31

Goal: Recover the endangered fish as water development 

proceeds in compliance with the Endangered Species Act 

and all applicable water laws, compacts, and agreements.

Flow Recommendations, Endangered Fish and 

Federally‐Owned/Operated Dams

Numerousrivers in the upper Colorado River basin that have federally owned/operated dams on them also

have flow recommendations and/or Programmatic Biological Opinions that allow for instream flows to be

used to benefit endangered Colorado River fish species.

Green River: Flaming Gorge Reservoir

White River: Kenney Reservoir

Colorado River: Several upstream reservoirs(e.g., Green Mountain, Wolford, Rudei)

Gunnison River: Aspinall Unit dams

San Juan River: Navajo Reservoir

The implementation of these flow recommendationsto benefit endangered fish species, along with other

work performed by the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program provides Endangered

Species Act compliance for continued operation of federal water and power projectsin accordance with

project purposes.

Covers approximately 2,500 water projectsin the upper Colorado River basin

61

62
1/20/2022

32

Studies & Documents Used To Develop Aspinall

Unit Reoperation Flows 1991. McAda and Kaeding. Physical changes in the Gunnison and Colorado rivers resulting from construction of the

Aspinall Unit and related projects, with hypothesis to assess the effects on the endangered fishes (68 pages)

1999. Pitlick et al. Geomorphology and hydrology of the Colorado and Gunnison rivers and implications for habitats

used by endangered fishes (66 pages)

2003. McAda, C.W. Flow Recommendations to benefit endangered fishes in the Colorado and Gunnison Rivers (237

pages)

2008: BoR. Programmatic Biological Assessment: Operations of the Wayne N. Aspinall Unit (178 pages)

2009: USFWS. Final Gunnison River Basin Programmatic Biological Opinion (123 pages)

2011: Aspinall Unit Study Plan ad hoc Committee. Study Plan To Evaluate Effects of Aspinall Unit Operations to

Benefit Habitat and Recovery of Endangered Fishes in the Gunnison and Colorado Rivers (85 pages)

2012: Federal Register notices. February 27 (by BoR) and March 9 (by EPA), 2012 (2 pages each)

2012: Record of Decision for the Aspinall Unit Operations Final Environmental Impact Statement. April (12 pages)

Flow Recommendations (McAda 2003)

Attempt To Provide Flexibility For Flow 

Recommendations

4.3.1 Spring Peaks (Page 4‐18)

Specific flow recommendations were developed for six hydrologic categories based on that year’s annual hydrology.

These flows correspond to the Pitlick et al. (1999) recommendations for channel maintenance.

4.4.2 Base Flows (Page 4‐27)

Base‐flow recommendations are presented for different time periods depending on the annual hydrological category.

The base‐flow period begins after spring runoff is completed and continues through initiation of spring runoff the

following

year, depending on inflow to the upper Colorado River subbasin (= a far longer period than the peak flow period).

4.5.2 Physical Uncertainties (Page 4‐30)

Finally, it is uncertain if mimicry of a natural hydrograph will restore riverine habitats sufficiently to recover the four

endangered fishes. The flow regime has changed substantially over the last century, and recommendations for level and

duration of spring peaks are considerably less than occurred historically.  In other words even if we had the water to

make the recommended peak flows (which we haven’t really had), it won’t be the same as pre‐dam peak flows!

Table A‐2 (Page A‐3)

List of 10 primary hypotheses addressed in the Aspinall Unit Investigations (McAda and Kaeding 1991a).

63

64
1/20/2022

33

Record Of Decision (ROD)

The proposed action modifiesreservoir operationsthat will result in higher and more natural downstream spring

flows and moderate base flows.

The modified operation is based on Flow Recommendations prepared by the Upper Colorado River Endangered

Fish Recovery Program.

The purpose of the action is to operate the Aspinall Unit to avoid jeopardy to endangered species while

maintaining and continuing to meet the congressionally authorized purposes.

The decision shall be implemented beginning with 2012 reservoir operations.

Record of Decision (ROD)

Alternative B: Page 5

Both the Record of Decision (2012)

and the Programmatic Biological

Opinion (2009) have very good,

detailed explanations of the

hydrologic flow categories and the

flows recommended for each

category, based on annual hydrology

for peak and base flows.

65

66
1/20/2022

34

Things To Keep In Mind As You View The Following 

Presentations

The Recovery Program and the documentsthat guide reoperation flows from the Aspinall Unit dams are intended

to promote recovery of endangered fish species in the Gunnison River basin, while still allowing for water use &

development to continue.  But, there has to be water available to achieve these goals.

From 2000‐2015, the Colorado River Basin has experienced the driest 16‐year period in over 100 years of historical

natural flows (Bureau of Reclamation, 2015). This period also ranks as the fifth driest 16‐year period in the last

1,200 years(Meko et al., 2007a and 2007b).  The period from 2016‐2021 was no better.

https://www.doi.gov/water/owdi.cr.drought/en/

Data from the fish community monitoring study should be viewed in light of this historic 20‐year drought and the

associated inability to deliver high spring flows (and/or elevated base flows) downstream to benefit endangered

fish.  In other words, little to no available water for fish flows equalslittle to no changesto downstream habitats or

the downstream fish community.

The reoperation flows have allowed the Redlands Water and Power Fish Passage Facility to continue to operate

from mid‐April through mid‐October of each year.  This has been a great benefit, with record numbers of

endangered Colorado pikeminnow using this fish passage facility in 2016 (n = 33), 2018 (n = 39), and 2020 (n = 32)

to access the Gunnison River.

67

68
1/20/2022

35

MONITORING THE FISH COMMUNITY IN 

RESPONSE TO REOPERATIONS OF THE 

ASPINALL UNIT RESERVOIRS

Darek Elverud

USFWS – Grand Junction Fish and Wildlife Conservation Office

January 20, 2022

BACKGROUND

 Flows provide - spawning cues, clean spawning substrate, 

habitat creation and maintenance, fish ladder operation

 Fish community monitoring began in 2011

 Delta to Grand Junction

 Two electrofishing sampling passes per year

 Larval and young-of-year monitoring

 Fish community primarily natives species 

 Four endangered fishes

 Bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, humpback chub, razorback 

sucker

 Bluehead sucker, flannelmouth sucker, and roundtail chub

 State of Colorado sensitive species

 Abundant in the Gunnison River vs. other rivers

 Problematic nonnatives largely absent from the Gunnison River

 Smallmouth bass, northern pike, walleye

69

70
1/20/2022

36

COLORADO PIKEMINNOW

 Redlands Dam 

 Fish ladder installed in 1996

 Colorado pikeminnow existed until 

1990s

 260 Colorado pikeminnow moved 

upstream since 1996

 8 Colorado pikeminnow captures

 In 2021, two Colorado pikeminnow 

moved upstream in 2020 were 

recaptured 

 These are the first two Colorado 

pikeminnow that have persisted 

upstream of Redlands Dam for more 

than 1 year

RAZORBACK SUCKER

 Wild Produced razorback 

sucker existed until 1980s

 Stocking began in late 1990s

 Stocking occurs annually now

 Captures of razorback suckers 

are increasing in the Gunnison 

River

 All razorback suckers in the 

Gunnison River are likely the 

result of stocking efforts

Year Number of Razorback Sucker 

Captures

2011 11

2012 25 

2013 21

2014 18

2015 6

2016 27

2017 61

2018 177

2019 46

2020 76

2021 197

71

72
1/20/2022

37

LARVAL AND YOUNG-OF-YEAR FISH RESULTS

 Razorbacks suckers 

 Sporadic captures of larval razorbacks when this project 

began

 Now, larval razorbacks are captured each year

 No young-of-year razorbacks have been captured in the 

Gunnison

 Colorado pikeminnow

 No larval captures of larval Colorado pikeminnow

 Timing of larval sampling extending in 2014

 A single young-of-year captured in 2015

 Due to COVID-19 affecting laboratory operations, results 

are not yet available from 2020 and 2021

BLUEHEAD SUCKER

73

74
1/20/2022

38

FLANNELMOUTH SUCKER

ROUNDTAIL CHUB

75

76
1/20/2022

39

CONCLUSIONS

 Number of Colorado pikeminnow remains low

 Most Colorado pikeminnow return to the Colorado River

 Two captured in 2021 persisting since 2020

 Number of razorback suckers is increasing

 Due to continued stocking

 Larval fish sampling data confirms razorbacks are successfully spawning in 

the Gunnison River

 Bluehead sucker, flannelmouth sucker and roundtail chub are steady and 

still abundant

 Persistent drought inhibiting our ability to assess the effects of flow 

recommendations on endangered fishes

 Stable populations of bluehead sucker, flannelmouth sucker and roundtail 

chub are evidence flows are providing a benefit

The Aspinall Unit is one of the four main units of the Upper Colorado River Storage Project (UCRSP). The other large

dams in this project include Navajo Dam in New Mexico, Flaming Gorge Dam in Utah, and Glen Canyon Dam in

Utah.

Blue Mesa Dam

Completed 1965

390 feet high

Crystal Dam

Completed 1976

323 feet high

6 miles below

Morrow Point Dam Morrow Point Dam

Completed 1967

469 feet high

12 miles below

Blue Mesa Dam

QUESTIONS?

The three Aspinall Unit dams

77

78
1/20/2022

40

Reports of Agencies and Organizations – All

Reclamation Contacts:

Ryan Christianson:  970‐248‐0652  rchristainson@usbr.gov

Erik Knight:        970‐248‐0629  eknight@usbr.gov

79

80