Difference between revisions of "Low Summer Flow Experiment"

Low summer flows (minimum daily mean 5,000 to 8,000 cfs) for three months (Jul.–Sep.) to target ≥14°C at Little Colorado River confluence.

The experiment would not be conducted if:

1. Release temperatures were too low to reach 14°C at Little Colorado River confluence even with going to a minimum flow of 5,000 to 8,000 cfs, or
2. Release temperature were predicted to be high enough in July, August, or September to reach 14°C at Little Colorado River confluence under normal operations.

Increase humpback chub growth

Initial experiment: in the second 10 years of the LTEMP period (2026-2036) when target temperature of ≥14°C can be achieved only with low summer flow

Subsequent experimental use if:

1. Initial test was successful,
2. Humpback chub population concerns warrant their use,
3. Water temperature appears to be limiting recruitment, and
4. Target temperature of ≥14°C could be achieved only with low summer flow.

• Low summer flows do not increase growth and recruitment of humpback chub
• Increase in warmwater nonnative species or trout at the Little Colorado River
• Longterm unacceptable adverse impacts on the resources listed in Section 1.3 are observed, or
• Sufficient warming does not occur as predicted

• Reduced food availability to humpback chub by

1. desiccating the nearshore environment with the reduction in flow between June and July, and
2. reducing drift with the reduction in daily fluctuation.

• Increased bioenergetic demands of humpback chub via warmer water while decreasing food supply and availability.
• Increased sediment transport during the high releases in the months prior to the LFS test in order to get the annual volume commitment to the Lower Basin.
• Increased the potential for nonnative fish and parasites to proliferate throughout the Grand Canyon.
• The cost to hydropower users from the 2000 LSF was estimated to be $26.4 M, which probably made it the single most expensive science experiment in US history.

• Modeling release temperatures far enough in advance to start making releases to meet annual release requirements.
• Scheduling monthly releases in order to meet annual release requirements while dealing with uncertainties in inflow forecasts.
• Short notice for science planning to monitor affects. One of the primary flaws with the 2000 LSF was that due to the short amount of time available for planning and implementation and the lack of long-term monitoring, scientists were unable to determine whether or not the experiment resulted in anything meaningful.

• The 2000 Low Summer Steady Flow Experiment

• Summary report of responses of key resources to the 2000 Low Steady Summer Flow experiment, along the Colorado River downstream from Glen Canyon Dam, Arizona, 2011 USGS-GCMRC Open-File Report by Barbara E. Ralston
• Water temperatures in select nearshore environments of the Colorado River in Grand Canyon, Arizona, during the Low Steady Summer Flow experiment of 2000