Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.. .. <br />. ~ ,. <br />, .. <br /> <br />r_~ <br />..,.. <br />l' <br /> <br />. .... <br /> <br />c <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />e. <br /> <br />Conclusions <br /> <br />Based upon the assumption outlined in this report,. the safe <br />annual :yield of Reservoirs No.1 and No.2 is limited by the <br />Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948. With strict <br />administration of Compact requirements, the proposed <br />reservoirs yielded approximately 360,000 af annually. <br />Without Compact restrictions, reservoirs yields were 725,000 <br />af annually. <br /> <br />2. As shown in Scenario 3, reservoir yields can be <br />substantially increased if Compact obligations can 'be'" <br />reduced below the 5,000,000 af/1.0 consecutive year <br />requirement. <br /> <br />1. <br /> <br />3. Assuming full Compact limitation, Yampa Reservoir No. 1 <br />appears to 'be more than sufficient to provide the identified <br />safe marketable yi~ld. Further studies should be performed <br />to determine if it is desirable to develop Reservoir No.2. <br /> <br />4. ~!inimUlll streamflows are met or substantially exceeded at all <br />times primarily due to the substantial monthly release to <br />downstream markets. <br /> <br />5. <br /> <br />Based upon Enartech's previous experience in the Yampa <br />basin, the pxojected ad~itional depletions of 100,000 af <br />above the reservoirs is conservatively high. %t Is highly <br />probable that actual increased depletions will be <br />substantially less. If this is the case, there would be a <br />proportional increase in the safe annual yield of the two <br />reservoirs. . <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />, <br />