Flaming Gorge Technical Working Group

May 10, 2012, 10:00 p.m.

Meeting Record

Attending: 

US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) –Kevin McAbee

Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program (Recovery Program)–Jana 

Mohrman, Kevin Bestgen

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) – Heather Hermansen, Malcolm Wilson, Dave 

Speas

Western Area Power Administration (Western) – Clayton Palmer, Jerry Wilhite

Argonne National Lab – Kirk LaGory

Reclamation updated the group on current Green and Yampa River hydrology. The May 

final forecast for the April through July unregulated inflow into Flaming Gorge Reservoir 

is 630,000 acre-feet, which corresponds with a moderately dry hydrologic classification. 

The combined April through July forecast of the Yampa River at Maybell and Little 

Snake at Lily is 541,000 acre-feet. This forecast would fall into the dry hydrologic 

classification of the 2006 Record of Decision on the Operation of Flaming Gorge Dam 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (ROD). Based on the reliance of Yampa River 

flows to meet Reach 2 targets, the proposed flow and temperature objectives are to meet 

the dry hydrologic targets outlined in the LTSP. The LTSP Reach 2 targets are for one to 

six days of at least 8,300 cfs flows measured on the Green River at Jensen, Utah. 

Reclamation discussed the possibility of increasing the daily ramp rates to increase the 

opportunity that Flaming Gorge releases could augment Yampa River flows during larval 

presence and meet the dry targets this year. While the 1992 Biological Opinion did limit 

the ascent rate to no more than 400 cfs, the ROD does not specify an ascent rate. There is 

a practical ramp rate of 800 cfs/hr that has been adhered to historically outside of spring 

operations for safety reasons, but has not been documented as the “official” hourly ramp 

rate. Likewise, the daily increase at Flaming Gorge to spring releases has historically 

been between 1,500 cfs and 2,000 cfs per day. Reclamation asked the biologists if, 

during larval presence, an increase in the daily release would negatively affect

endangered species downstream. The Service and Kevin Bestgen both agreed that the 

goal was to release water when needed to entrain larvae in the connected floodplains. 

The FGTWG understands Reclamation needs to consider the balance between recovery 

of endangered fish and the needs of all stakeholders, including the anglers, landowners

and rafters downstream. While an increase in ramp rate may not have an impact on 

endangered fish, Reclamation needs to consider all the impacts when making a final 

decision. The FGTWG is the forum to discuss impacts to endangered fish.

The Service reported that a discussion with Tom Chart before the call indicated that there 

has been no detection of larval presence to date. Further, biologists report that larvae 

have not yet been detected in the Colorado River either. 
2

Kevin Bestgen reported that the earliest documented first capture on May 19, 1992, is 

still a few days out. Kevin has a predictive model that suggests it should happen any day. 

The fish respond to cumulative degree-days for reproduction rather than flows. 

Kevin Bestgen discussed the benefit of waiting for Flaming Gorge releases in Reach 2 in 

order to entrain the greatest densities of larvae in the floodplains. Quickly increasing 

Flaming Gorge releases at the first appearance of larvae would miss the greatest density 

of fish. Western and Kevin Bestgen discussed the assumption is the larvae are normally 

distributed rather than uniformly distributed and the LTSP trigger is at the first presence 

of larvae. Reclamation commented that the response time to increase releases after the 

first presence of larvae is at least two days for public notification and then additional days 

of ramp up. This schedule is consistent with the goal of entraining the greatest density of 

larvae because the timing of peak flows would coincide with increasing density of larvae. 

Kevin Bestgen predicted that the first emergence of larvae might be 4-7 days away.

Kevin Bestgen is concerned that the combination of Flaming Gorge releases and Yampa 

River flows will provide zero days at 8,300 cfs this year because of the dry conditions. 

Western reiterated that the goal is the implementation of the LTSP this year and over the 

next few years. Western supports using bypass to meet the flows outlined in the LTSP 

matrix. Kevin Bestgen agreed and asked if Reclamation is planning to use the bypass this 

year.

Reclamation asserted that the ROD clearly states that bypass releases would not be used 

to meet flow targets in moderately dry and dry years. However, the LTSP recommends

experimental releases and is not a long-term management plan, and doesn’t conflict with 

current NEPA requirements and ROD commitments.

Reclamation confirmed with the group that because of conditions primarily in the Yampa 

River, the official hydrologic classification this year is dry. Reclamation also proposed 

discussing base flows and the letter the Service distributed before the call because base 

flow conditions would likely occur before the next FGTWG conference call. The Service 

indicated a preference of designating spring targets as dry because of the Yampa River, 

and using the flexibility in the ROD to designate base flows under the moderately dry 

classification that corresponds with unregulated inflow into Flaming Gorge. 

The Service believes higher base flows have scientific support to benefit Colorado 

pikeminnow, and further believes this year may be a critical one for the pikeminnow. 

The base flow request is similar to previous years, where base flows through September 

30 are calculated using the maximum 40% of the average daily base flow. The request is 

for Reach 2 flows to fall in the moderately dry base flow range of 1,100 cfs to 1,500 cfs. 

The Service requests that Reclamation protect base flows and attempt to keep Reach 2 

releases above 1,000 cfs. Western supports assisting the pikeminnow under its ESA 

commitments, but does plan to submit a non-ESA request for summer base flows to 

Reclamation.
3

The Service reiterated that the letter uses the same language provided last year in terms of 

Reclamation meeting sufficient progress through implementation of the LTSP 

experiment. The letter only addresses the experiment during 2012. The FGTWG 

acknowledged that long-term compliance or potential supplemental NEPA is something 

that will need further discussion.

The Service relayed a final piece of information from Tom Chart and the Recovery 

Program. Elkhead Reservoir did not spill this year. The dry year is a good year for 

smallmouth bass reproduction, but lack of spillway releases means no bass would escape 

from the reservoir into the river. The Recovery Program is committed to leasing an 

additional 2,000 acre-feet in addition to the annual 5,000 acre-feet from Elkhead 

Reservoir. 

The next meeting is scheduled on June 14, 2012 at 10:00 a.m.