Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.... ..f . <br />.. ..... <br />'.. <br /> <br />."... <br /> <br />.. . . <br /> <br />Resultant reservoir'volumes reached a low ot 18,000 af at <br />Reservoir No. 2 and 714,000 at at Reservoir No.1 following <br />the extreme drought year of 1977. Reservoir volumes were <br />ointaioed above these levels during all other periods. <br />This iadicates that Reservoir No. 1 alone has more ~han <br />adequafe capacity to provide the identified safe annual <br />yield if Compact obligations, as assumed in this scena~io, <br />are imposed. <br /> <br />..".. <br />1- <br />-. <br /> <br />c <br />~ <br /> <br />c. <br /> <br />. , <br />Minimum streamflow,~equirements below the reservoir were met <br />or exceeded throughout the study period. Figures 2 and 3 <br />aisplay Yampa River streamflows below the conf luence with <br />the Little Snake River, pre and post reservoir operation. ..A. <br />summary of medel results is presented in Appendix 2. . <br /> <br />Scenario 2 -'No Compact Requirements <br /> <br />Without the Upper Colorado Compact obligations, a safe <br />annual yield of 725,000 af could be developed at the <br />reservoir sites. The reservoir yields were limited by <br />available streamflows and active storage capacity. <br />Resultant reservoir volumes reached a low of 18,000 af at <br />Reservoir No.1 (equal to dead storage) and 140,000 af at <br />ReservoiJ: No. 2 (equal to dead storage) following the <br />drought year of 1977. Although water was not specifically <br />released for Compact purposes, sufficient water was <br />available to satisfy a compact obligation of 1,420,000 af <br />for any 10 consecutive. year period (average of 142,000 <br />af/year). As wi th all of the scenarios, compact releases <br />were comprised of reservoir spills and minimum flow <br />bypasses. " <br /> <br />Scenario 3 - Modified Compact Requirement - Must provide lo,-rer <br />basin states an aggregate of 1,000,000 af for any 10 <br />consecutive year per.iod (average of 100,000 af/year). <br /> <br />The safe annual yield of the reservoir under this scenario <br />1s the same as that identified under Scenario 2 above <br />(725,000 af). The yields were limited by the reservoir's <br />available capacity and not their ability to meet the <br />modified Compact requirement. <br /> <br />Operating the reservoirs at full capacity provided a Compact <br />f low of 1,420,000 af over the dry 10 year period preceding <br />1968. This is well in excess of the re'iUired 1,000,000 af <br />flow examined in this scenario. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />, . <br />