Flaming Gorge Working Group 

Meeting Minutes

March 21, 2024

Participation

This meeting was held Thursday, March 21, 2024, from 10:00 am to 12:00pm MT, at the Utah Division

of Wildlife Resources in Vernal, Utah and via Microsoft Teams virtual meeting. Attendees are listed on 

last page.

Purpose of Meeting

The purpose of these working group meetings is to inform the public and other interested parties of 

Reclamation’s current and future operational plans and to gather information from the public regarding 

specific resources associated with Flaming Gorge Reservoir and the river corridor below it. In addition, 

the meetings are used to coordinate activities and exchange information among agencies, water users, and 

other interested parties concerning the Green River.

Alex Pivarnik from the Bureau of Reclamation – Welcome, Purpose and Agenda

This is the first Flaming Gorge Working Group meeting for 2024 for the Operating Plan Process. The 

second meeting will be April 17th at 10am MT in Vernal, Utah at the Uintah Conference Center. [See the 

above for the Purpose of the Meeting]. 

Brenda Alcorn from the Colorado Basin River Forecast Center

Brenda discussed the Water Year 2024 Weather Review, Current Snow Conditions, 2024 Forecasts, and 

upcoming weather.

The ‘Water Year to Date Precipitation, October 1 – March 19, 2024’ was presented showing shaded areas 

contributing most to runoff. The Upper Green water year precipitation is near average overall. November 

and December were not great, especially November. That’s an important thing to note because we can 

really get a good start on snowpack building in those months and we, kind of, missed out. Thankfully, 

February was really pretty good which got us back to a near normal overall. In the Yampa River Basin, 

November was bad for the whole area, but they have been doing okay from December on. The Yampa 

River Basin water year precipitation is slightly above average at this point of the season. 

When we talk about current snow conditions, when you’re looking the Upper Green as it goes into the 

Flaming Gorge, the very northern part of the basin, especially the Wind Rivers, is a little low on 

precipitation. That’s really the most important contributor to our runoff. The north slope of the Uintas is

looking pretty good. It’s a little above average but that is not a great volume of water compared to the 

north. For the ‘Green above Flaming Gorge Model Group SWE Plot’ graph, the model group goes off of 25 

significant areas of equal weights between 7500 – 13,800 feet and as of 3/19/24 we are sitting at 97%. For 

the ‘Wind Rivers Model Group SWE Plot’ graph, as of 3/19/24, we are sitting at 81%.

The snow in the Green River basin above Flaming Gorge is near normal at this time. Conditions are best in 

the areas below Fontenelle Reservoir.

Snow in the Wind River Range, an important contributor to the total unregulated volume for Flaming 

Gorge, is below normal. It is not unusual for this area to accumulate snow into May.

In the Yampa River Basin, the snow conditions are doing much better there. The ‘Yampa Basin Model 

SWE Plot’ graph goes off of 24 significant areas of equal weights between 7000 – 12,000 feet and as of 
3/19/24 it is sitting at 114%. Another graph shown went off of a single segment of ‘Elk – Milner, Nr’ and 

divided it into different elevation zones. The highest elevation runs from 9500 – 11,200’, which shows a 

near median. When we look at the 8000 – 9500’, that is where we are above. That slow start in November 

hurt the upper elevations. Conditions (as % median) are better in lower elevations vs. higher elevations 

(>9500’).

Given the current conditions, the ‘March 19 Water Supply Volume Raw Model Guidance’ shows 

Fontenelle at 80%, Flaming Gorge at 85% and Yampa-Deerlodge at 111%.

The ‘Water Supply Forecast Evolution: Flaming Gorge Inflow’ graph basically shows that we have a 50% 

chance of exceeding 840 KAF/87% avg and a 50% chance of NOT exceeding 840 KAF. We have seen a 

steady increase in forecast volume since February 1, 2024, but it is still below normal. We have a 20% 

chance the April-July runoff will fall outside the forecast 10%-90% range depending on the weather. 

The ‘Water Supply Forecast Evolution: Yampa River – Deerlodge’ graph showing Deerlodge doing better

since we started the season not too much below average. Now we are slightly above average with that 

forecast. With the latest model guidance, there is 10% chance of getting 1.76 million acre per feet and 90% 

chance we will get, at least, 1 million acre per feet. There is a 70% chance of at least getting average 

volume.

The primary sources of forecast error are Future Weather and Model States. Future weather is the largest 

source for error with the uncertainty in precipitation and temperature forecasts and the extreme dry/wet 

events that result in larger errors. We can rarely forecast in advance. The other source of forecast error is 

Model States. Is the model representative of reality? SNOTELs and satellite images are used to verify snow 

and extensive analysis of soil moisture is done in the fall.

We have had recent changes and some issues with our website so if you have problems or can’t find 

something, reach out to us. This year we are doing something a little different with their Peak Flow 

Forecast. We used to make official Peak Flow forecasts at the beginning of the month or middle of the 

month, etc. Now, like our water supply and evolution plots, you can get the latest model guidance every 

day. The Daily issued is minimal upstream regulation. You can find Yampa-Deerlodge on that one. The 

forecasts issues ~2 times/month have significant upstream regulation (reservoirs/diversions) and require 

forecaster interaction and agency coordination. You can find Green-Jensen and Green-Green River on that 

one. If you select one of the dots on their Peak Flow Forecast maps [either Daily Points or Special Points] it 

will open up to a dashboard page showing Peak Flow data such as Model Run Date, Flood Flow, Average 

Peak, etc. 

For the Yampa River-Deerlodge, the Mean Daily Flow (cfs) 50% Exceedance Probability is 15,479. The 

forecast is for the mean daily peak based on snowmelt. Instantaneous peaks will be higher. Rain on snow 

could cause higher peaks. The time of peak is highly dependent on spring weather. The long lead outlook 

will typically give similar range to normal time of peak. At this time, we are expecting an above average 

peak flow but most likely remaining below flood level. As flows increase and time of peak nears, the 10 

day forecast hydrograph is a better source of information. Average peak is 121%. Normal time peak is 

anywhere between May 13th and June 6th, in general.

The Green River near Jensen requires coordination. It is updated twice a month. The latest was updated on

March 19th. The Peak Flow forecast flood flow is 24100 cfs. Currently the 50% forecast is for 18500 cfs. 

This forecast is based on preliminary Reclamation reservoir operation plans for Flaming Gorge as well as 

long lead peak flow forecasts for the Yampa River.

A Probablistic Peak Flow forecast for impacts of spring weather, the CBRFC Ensemble Streamflow 

Prediction [ESP] Model goes off of current snow/soil/streamflow conditions with 30 future weather

[precipitation/temperature] scenarios based on 30 year history [1991-2020] for 30 possible hydrographs. 

The 10 day Streamflow Forecasts are updated daily at about 10am. They include: 7 days of forecast 

precipitation, 10 days of forecast temperature, any known upstream reservoir release plans and any known 
upstream diversions. 

Future Weather indicated the precipitation received mainly from March 24-26th, 2024 with a possible 1⁄2” – 

1 1⁄2” in the mountainous areas. As of 3/20/24, looking into next week indications of increase chance of 

above normal precipitation and below average temperatures. Weather models continue to have an active 

pattern so expect to see some wet and dry days. We do NOT want to see a big, dry, hot period! Hopefully 

for our April 1st forecast we will see if this pans out and hopefully remain steady.

Tildon Jones – Colorado River Recovery 

Tildon gave an update on the Flow request for 2024 from the Recovery Program. He gave a background 

on the fish recovery program and why they have put in the request for this year. 

There are four species of fish that are listed as either endangered or threatened under the Endangered 

Species Act: the Colorado Pikeminnow, Humpback Chub, Razorback Sucker and the Bonytail. Each are 

considered warm water fish and also called big river fish. You will not find them up in the smaller 

tributaries.

The Humpback Chub was originally listed as endangered in the 60’s and recently been reclassified as 

threatened due to the progress we have made in the recovery effort. Their numbers have increased in the 

Grand Canyon. This fish could be 19” long and can live up to 30 years in the wild. They benefit from the 

flows we manage. This fish can also be found in Desolation Canyon of the Green River.

The Bonytail has been listed as endangered since 1980. It is a close relative of the Humpback Chub. It 

can be 20” long and live for decades, sometimes 50 years. This species is stocked from hatcheries in 

Utah and Colorado. This species almost disappeared but the last few individuals were brought in. All of 

the Bonytail that we currently stock come from these original fish. There is still a lot of research on what 

their habitats are and what they need. There is emerging evidence that they like flood plains.

The Colorado Pikeminnow has been listed as endangered since 1973 and is the largest minnow species 

found in North America or native to North America. It would have been the top predator native to the 

Colorado River Basin historically and could have reached up to 5 feet in length living over 50 years.

They are known for making long distance spawning migrations.

The Razorback Sucker has been listed as endangered since 1991 and is being proposed to be reclassified 

as threatened because of some of the gains we have made in conserving the species. This is one of the 

larger sucker species in North America. They can weigh up to 13 pounds and 3-feet long and also known 

for long distance migration. These fish use flood plain wetland habitats. We do have hatchery programs 

in Utah and Colorado.

There are ‘Three Species’ fish that are not listed as endangered or threatened but they are native fish and 

are of conservation concern in the states of Colorado and Utah: Roundtail Chub, Bluehead sucker and 

Flannelmouth sucker. They are found throughout the basin and a lot more tributaries, so they are more 

widespread. 

Some important habitats for these fish are back water habitats, river, off channel floodplain wetlands and 

cobble bars. A lot of our experiments are related to producing or improving these habitats for the fish’s 

life history.

Graph showing a typical flow pattern across the whole year showing floodplain access, channel 

maintenance, substrate cleansing, sand transport, migration cues, spawning and emergence and with the 

warmer months the early growth and preparation for juveniles’ survival for upcoming winter.

Some of the reasons these fish are listed as threatened or endangered or why we are worried about them 

are large dams that block those migrations, patterns of peak and base flows, water usage and depletion,
barriers and entrainment, and nonnative fish (especially those with teeth). Our native fish do not have

defensive mechanisms to protect against nonnative fish.

To address these threats and to recover these species we have the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish 

and Recovery Program which partners with a number of agencies. 

We do that with a variety of actions: flow management, research and monitoring, stock fish, habitat 

development projects, conduct outreach, and nonnative fish control regarding the threats just mentioned.

Instream flow management occurs throughout the Upper Basin. For the Duchesne River Reservoirs, the 

cooperators are CUWCD and BOR. For the Elkhead Reservoir [Yampa River], the coordinators are 

CRWCD, City of Craig and TriState Power. For the Upper Colorado Reservoirs, the cooperators are 

CRWCD, East Slope Water Users, West Slope Water Users, BOR, and Grand Valley irrigators. For the 

Aspinall Unit (Gunnison River), the cooperator is BOR. For the Navajo Reservoir (San Juan River), the 

cooperator is BOR. For the Flaming Gorge Reservoir (Green River), the cooperator is BOR.

The Recovery Program’s 2024 Flow Request priorities are: 1) Flow spike experiment to reduce 

smallmouth bass reproduction, 2) Experimental summer base flows to benefit Colorado Pikeminnow 

juveniles, and 3) Larval-triggered spring peak flows for Razorback Sucker nursery habitat.

The three focal nonnative invasive predators are the Northern pike, Smallmouth bass, and the Walleye. 

These fish escaped from reservoir sources and established populations in river habitats.

We have a two-tiered strategy: 1) Rivers: native fish recovery areas – remove smallmouth bass, northern 

pike, and walleye in 600+ miles and 2) Reservoirs: compatible angling – 6 of 7 reservoirs screened: Red 

Fleet, Starvation, Elkhead Reservoir, others in Colorado. 

Problematic species flow spike: Smallmouth bass build nests in calm, warmer water, timing closely 

linked to temperature and flow, males guard fry on nest, eggs and larvae susceptible to increased river 

currents. 

Flow spike: timing mid-June into mid-July?, 3 day duration at powerplant flow (~4,600 cfs). Compared 

to 2022 USGS Green River near Greensdale, Utah discharge data, 2024 could be different timing. 

Base flows for Colorado pikeminnow: goal is to improve survival and recruitment of young Colorado 

pikeminnow. Timing: reach base flows by the time CPM emerge (average July 3), improved numbers of 

juveniles at flows 1700 – 3000 cfs at Jensen, historically CPM larvae start drifting out of the Yampa 

River mid-June – mid/late July (avg. July 3), FGTWG will work with USBR to provide a Reach 2 base 

flow in the preferred range when larvae are present through September, dam release dependent on 

Yampa flows and available water.

Larval trigger spring flow: 81% of years 1st larvae observed between May 15 to June 4, other years either 

very warm/dry (earlier) or cold/wet (later). Managed wetlands: Stewart Lake, Stirrup, Johnson Bottom, 

Sheppard Bottom and Old Charley Wash. Unmanaged: Leota Bottom, Above Brennan, Bonanza Bridge 

and Wyasket.

Hydrology & Forecasted Operations – Mike Callahan from the Bureau of Reclamation

Mike Callahan was over Fontenelle but is now over Flaming Gorge whereas Nathaniel Todea is moving 

over to Aspinall Unit in Colorado. 

Flaming Gorge and the 1956 Colorado River Storage Project Act (CRSP) – Authorized construction of 

Flaming Gorge Dam and other projects for: allowing Upper Basin states to utilize their 1922 Colorado 

River Compact apportionments, regulating flow of Colorado River (and its main tributaries), storing 

water for beneficial consumptive use, reclamation of arid and semi-arid lands, flood control, and 

hydroelectric power generation.
Operational background information – Geographic scope: 1) Reach 1, Flaming Gorge Dam to Yampa 

River Confluence, 2) Yampa River Confluence to White River confluence, and 3) White River 

confluence to confluence of Green and Colorado Rivers.

Four-step process would ensure that the 2000 Flow and Temperature Recommendations and the 

authorized purposes of Flaming Gorge Dam are considered in a balanced and fair manner as each year’s 

operational plan is developed.

Upper Colorado Recovery Program Flow Request Development (end of February)

• Step 1 before March 1 – completed

o Official flow request from Recover Program sent to UC Region and FGTWG

o Flaming Gorge initial draft Operational Plan (FG Ops Plan) developed and sent to 

FGTWG

• Step 2 March 1 to mid-March – completed

o FGTWG – develop and finalize FGTWG proposal

• Step 3 mid-March to mid-April – currently in process

o FG WG – FGTWG Proposal presented and updated FG Ops Plan shared with FG WG 

Meeting/Stakeholder review

o FG WG provides input and comments (by mid-April)

• Step 4 Early May – to occur in early May

o Reclamation finalizes FG Ops Plan

Flaming Gorge Forecast summary [same graph Brenda shared] which helps with hydrologic 

classifications that are in the Plan and in the summary. The reason we talk about so many scenarios in 

the Plan because we have this window that we are looking at in the forecast. That is the range of flows 

we could land in. We will have a most likely scenario, but we want to have those contingencies listed in 

the document so if we end up in any of that shaded forecast [window], the public can give input on those 

operations and know what could potentially happen.

2024 Flaming Gorge Inflow Forecast – Hydrologic Classifications: this is what allows us to do those 

different scenarios. The graph shown shows the different groupings of different years depicting dry to 

wet. Right now, in 2024, we’re in the average below and has been hovering to Mod Dry for those 

classifications. The best way to describe those different classifications is sort of like we have bills to pay. 

Once you move into one of those classifications, we have different targets. There are things that we have

to do and being at the lower end of one of those groupings makes the operations a lot harder and the 

budget a lot tighter. Basically, that means our “bills” moved up, but our income did not move up very 

much. You will see that reflected in the draft operation. 

Luckily, the Yampa at Deerlodge is doing a little bit better. We are above average. Yampa has 

hydrologic conditions not classifications. The Yampa does not, necessarily, effect what I talked about 

with regard to the classifications or the “bills”. They help us pay the “bills”, but it does not necessarily 

set the “budget”. That is the classification for the Flaming Gorge, which helps us set those targets. The 

Yampa can help us meet those targets. Luckily, the Yampa is, in average, above. What that means is

with the Yampa with its unregulated flow behaves in a way that is conducive, we would be in a little bit 

better boat. If we are in an average below for both, that would make it very hard to meet the budget. This 

year it looks like the Yampa could help us out.

Looking at the Peak Forecast, I know there was some concern for flooding. If we can, at all, help it, we 

are not going to cause flooding in Reach 2. Whatever flows the Yampa has and whatever release the

Flaming Gorge has adds up to that flooding capacity and sometimes the Yampa just exceeds it. 

Sometimes the Yampa will be higher at flood stage at Jensen which was a real concern last year and we 

still came in just below. This year, though, we are looking okay. We have about 4000 cfs wiggle room

for releases at Flaming Gorge. We should be fine but, as Brenda talked about, this is dependent on 

additional snowpack. We will continue to monitor the tools provided by CBRRC. 
Recovery request summary reviewed that Tildon Jones discussed, which was included in the Draft 

Operation Plan. 

The Draft Flaming Gorge Operation Plan was sent out last week for review. We do expect to update 

scenarios. The FG Ops Plan for 2024-2025 Mod Dry Release w/Lower and Upper Bound draft chart 

reviewed which covers the experiments requested. Once experiment is over, there will be an increase for 

fall when we will need more power generated from dams. These requests come in from WAPA. This 

will be updated as more water is in the budget, hitting the minimum budget. We will try to reach that 

18,600 cfs for 1 day, then 7 days for the LTSP experiment [small mouth bass], then setting up those 

summer flows for the Colorado Pikeminnow. We had issues in some years with 2000 cfs has caused 

vegetation encroachment. We are trying to have variable flows from summer to summer.

Table 4 “Operation Matrix for Average, below median, Hydrologic Conditions was reviewed. This is in 

the Ops Plan. This is the detail of the graph that was shown [from above]. There is a little bit of an 

update regarding the SWS [Selective Withdrawal Structure], we are in the same boat as we were last 

year. Some folks had some questions about that. So, we will use Units 2 & 3 adjusted to 50’ below the 

reservoir surface. There is still an issue with the SWS at Unit 1 so we will try not to use it. They are 

working on the design, fixing the SWS. There is an order of operations that needs to be done to get that 

fixed. That has been delayed up at the technical service center at Denver. Unit 1 will be the last unit to be 

online and the first to be offline before and after full power plant releases. 

The Flaming Gorge Operations Plan 2024-2025 Average Above Release with Lower and Upper Bound 

graph was reviewed along with the Flaming Gorge Operations Plan 2024-2025 Moderate Wet Release 

with Lower and Upper Bound graph and the Flaming Gorge Operations Plan 2024-2025 Wet Release 

with Lower and Upper Bound graph.

Ongoing updates: Monitoring and reviewing CBRFC Forecast. Current release 1,000 cfs with an 

adjustment to approximately 1,150 cfs to be implemented this weekend [3/24- 3/25] or early next week. 

Additional adjustments expected through April 30, to achieve the upper limit drawdown level 6027’ (+/- 

0.5 ft) pool elevation May 1st. 

Questions/Discussion: 

- Q. With regards to Unit 1 SWS, is that plan that you are working on going to require a draw down 

for the actual repair period? Do you know that yet? A. We do not know that yet. The Technical 

Service Center are the ones working on that design. We would need to be coordinating with them 

once they start cranking out that design work. Q. So, there could be some additional values knowing 

that as soon as possible...other projects it could affect. A. For a timeline on that, there are some 

repairs that have to be done to the railway that is on the top of the dam first and with design period, 

we are not expecting that to be done this Operation period. That might be the next year or two.

- Q. Looking at that average below median at the flows at Jensen, 7000 cfs for 7 days is wildly 

different than 14,000 cfs for 14 days. What is the decision/what decides whether we get the bare 

minimum of that or whether we get something close to the maximum or somewhere in between? A. 

It depends... on a lot of things including the biological trigger, what is the Yampa doing?, when that 

biological trigger occurs. Like last year, we had a fairly high peak from the Yampa, but it dropped 

really quickly so then it was difficult to meet those targets. So, part of that will be an analysis just as 

we are implementing this experiment to see...this is the forecast, these are the different things we 

can do. So, if we cannot get to 14,000 cfs we are not going to do that...and like I mentioned earlier if 

we cannot get to 18,600 cfs, we are also not going to do that. So, it depends on what the Yampa is 

doing and when does that biological trigger come in. It is a difficult thing to nail down right now.

- Tim and Bruce had similar questions/concerns [discussed at the end]
Drought Response Operations Update – Alex Pivarnik from the Bureau of Reclamation 

Good news: last year we did experience a wet year, we stopped those drought response releases and 

started what we call Recovery and building that ‘bank account’ back up. The great thing about reservoirs 

is you can store water in wet years to use in dry so that is what we did for the 2nd phase of the Drought 

Response Operations which was recovering that water and to keep this tool for potentially using in the 

future years.

The recovery at Flaming Gorge over the previous couple of years, we have released 588 KAF water 

under the Drought Response Operations Agreement. Starting in March of last year, we implemented what 

we called Recovery which was that recouping of that release and building that ‘bank account’ back up.

We were able to, through changes in operations, and how we would have typically operated and never 

released DROA, compared to what we were doing operationally in real time, we were able to get all that 

water back up. We have completed incremental recovery at the end of February so that the full 588 KAF 

was pulled back into the reservoir. Per ROD, Reclamation’s goal is to achieve the May 1 Drawdown 

Target of 6,027 (mod-dry target). 

There is no intention of doing, or planning, drought response operations (DROA) this year. We realize 

the hydrology’s have improved the past couple of months, we are still in a drought and the system 

remains vulnerable therefore we will continue to monitor hydrology and work with the necessary parties. 

We are officially recovered and out of drought response (DROA) for now. 

Questions? 

 Q. Will the triggers remain the same at Lake Powell in terms of the pool elevation? A. Yes, the 

pool elevations will remain the same at Lake Powell. We will continue to monitor Lake Powell 

projections and pool elevations in case there is a need for future DROA. [Thank goodness for Flaming 

Gorge... it is amazing how much water we can recover in 1 good year] 
Roundtable General Discussion/Q&A

Tim Gaylord’s comments shared via his e-mail requesting there be a consideration for increasing the base 

flows higher than 800 cfs to at least 950-1000 cfs from May 1 – LTSP trigger. We would also like there 

to be a consideration to maintain that same 950-1000 cfs (up to the stated 1200 cfs would be preferred) 

after the Spring Peak Flow through the time period until the summer SPM base flows are established...It 

makes a tremendous difference in the viability of running safe river trips for both commercial and private 

users.

Bruce agreed with the request stating, if we could stay away from that 800 cfs threshold... if we could 

stay closer to the 900-950. It makes a huge, huge difference in how our trips are operated and the 

experience for our guests. [There are safety concerns]

Cassie – having that extra 100 cfs, the less chance of having safety issues, it would be safer and create a 

better environment all around.

Alex – taking all into consideration. Pre-releasing without that certainty is a bit of a concern. We can go 

back and look at that water budget that we have for our experiments. Mike also mentioned about those 

Power months. We cannot guarantee anything. Mike mentioned that we try and work with WAPA as 

much as we can. We remind them of the concerns on the river. But ultimately, they are in control of that 

hourly pattern. We do try to include that voice over to WAPA so that they are aware. 

Leslie – Next meeting overlaps WAPA. When would you like any comments on the Ops Plan? A. 

anytime between now and before next meeting

Alex – get your comments in for the Operations Plan
Next Meeting

• April 17th, 2024 at 10am MT in Vernal, UT at the Uintah Conference Center

• For those also interested, the following day [April 18th] we will be up Joint Power Water Board in 

Green River for the Fontenelle Working Group, as well.
Attendees

Amanda Becker – BOR Michael Callahan – BOR Alexander Pivarnik – BOR

Nathaniel Todea – BOR Jaron Andrews Cambree Carroll

Kate Lunz Albert Prokopetz Amee Andreason

Amber Koski Tana Allen – BOR Rick Baxter

Kevin Bestgen Cher. Bonomo Brenda Milligan

Bryan Seppie Becki Bryant Kathleen Callister

Shane Capron Kevin Clegg Carson Combs

Peter Crookston D Wiley Valerie Deppe – BOR

Jenny Erickson Jonathan Friedman Nicki Gibney

Jayden Guymon Dale Hamilton Courtney Harris

Hattie Johnson Heidi Lundberg Robert Hollahan

Kevin Humphreys Jared Hansen Jason Palmer

John Walrath Leslie James Lucerne Marina

Mel Fegler MMiller OARS Bruce

Heather Patno William Pedro Roxann Reid

Keith Robb Aaron Selig David Speas

Melissa Trammell Lee Traynham Andrew Volkmer

Ed Warner William Merkley Woody

John Wullschleger David Graf Tildon Jones

Jordan Detlor Jerry Taylor Brant Williams

Darrell Gillman Jordan Dimick Brenda Alcorn – CBRFC

Jack Lydell