Valenciano Reservoir Safe Yield Study. Prepared by: CSA Architects & Engineers, LLP

Similar documents
PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES

3.0 TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY

Water Supply Outlook. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin (ICPRB) 30 W. Gude Drive, Suite 450 Rockville, MD Tel: (301)

Lower Tuolumne River Accretion (La Grange to Modesto) Estimated daily flows ( ) for the Operations Model Don Pedro Project Relicensing

StreamStats: Delivering Streamflow Information to the Public. By Kernell Ries

Water Resources Systems Prof. P. P. Mujumdar Department of Civil Engineering Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore

REDWOOD VALLEY SUBAREA

Squaw Creek. General Information

HyMet Company. Streamflow and Energy Generation Forecasting Model Columbia River Basin

Technical Memorandum No Sediment Model

Flood Inundation Mapping under different climate change scenarios in the upper Indus River Basin, Pakistan

Big Wood River. General Information

Elevation (ft) 50th to 75th Percentile 25th to 50th Percentile Median Observed /1 11/1 12/1 1/1 2/1 3/1 4/1 5/1 6/1 7/1 8/1 9/1 Date

Evapo-transpiration Losses Produced by Irrigation in the Snake River Basin, Idaho

Sensitivity of Water Supply in the Colorado River Basin to Warming

9. PROBABLE MAXIMUM PRECIPITATION AND PROBABLE MAXIMUM FLOOD

Hydrogeology and Simulated Effects of Future Water Use and Drought in the North Fork Red River Alluvial Aquifer: Progress Report

Water Management for Environmental Restoration Flows In the Big Bend reach, Rio Grande Rio Bravo

National Integrated Drought Information System. Southeast US Pilot for Apalachicola- Flint-Chattahoochee River Basin 20-March-2012

2001 ANNUAL REPORT on INTERBASIN TRANSFERS for RTP South and the Towns of Cary, Apex, and Morrisville

HEC-RAS Reservoir Transport Simulation of Three Reservoirs in the Lower Susquehanna River Basin. Mike Langland and Ed Koerkle

Low Low Water in Puget Sound vs. Mean Sea Level. What do the flood event gauge readings at Sedro Woolley really mean?

FORECAST-BASED OPERATIONS AT FOLSOM DAM AND LAKE

Development and Testing of Alternate Forecast-Based Flood Operations Rules for West Point Lake

The data presented in this graph are provisional and are intended to provide an estimate of Libby Dam forebay elevation (Lake Koocanusa).

NIDIS Intermountain West Regional Drought Early Warning System February 7, 2017

Elevation (ft) 50th to 75th Percentile 25th to 50th Percentile Median Observed

The most important equation to describe the water balance of a reservoir is the water balance: Equation 3.1

Near Real-Time Runoff Estimation Using Spatially Distributed Radar Rainfall Data. Jennifer Hadley 22 April 2003

Assessment of Lake Forest Lake Sediment Trapping Efficiency and Capacity. Marlon R. Cook Groundwater Assessment Program Geological Survey of Alabama

USING GIS TO MODEL AND ANALYZE HISTORICAL FLOODING OF THE GUADALUPE RIVER NEAR NEW BRAUNFELS, TEXAS

Leveraging new models and data to improve flood stage forecast. Improving Flood Stage Forecasting in the Feather River Watershed. September 11 th 2015

Merced Irrigation District Hydrologic and Hydraulic Operations (MIDH2O) Model

The Stochastic Event Flood Model Applied to Minidoka Dam on the Snake River, Idaho

Climate Change Impact Assessment on Indian Water Resources. Ashvin Gosain, Sandhya Rao, Debajit Basu Ray

DRAFT. REVISED Draft. Paso Robles Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Chapter 6

5/4/2017 Fountain Creek. Gage Analysis. Homework 6. Clifton, Cundiff, Pour, Queen, and Zey CIVE 717

Lake Tahoe Watershed Model. Lessons Learned through the Model Development Process

Pompton Lakes Dam Downstream Effects of the Floodgate Facility. Joseph Ruggeri Brian Cahill Michael Mak Andy Bonner

NRC Workshop - Probabilistic Flood Hazard Assessment Jan 2013

Low-flow Estimates for Cedar Creek at Galesburg, Illinois

Leon Creek Watershed October 17-18, 1998 Rainfall Analysis Examination of USGS Gauge Helotes Creek at Helotes, Texas

How to integrate wetland processes in river basin modeling? A West African case study

APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL ABSOLUTE WATER STORAGE RIGHT

RAINFALL FREQUENCY ANALYSIS FOR NEW BRAUNFELS, TX (or Seems like we ve been having lots of 100-yr storms)

Illinois State Water Survey Division

Reclamation Perspective on Operational Snow Data and Needs. Snowpack Monitoring for Streamflow Forecasting and Drought Planning August 11, 2015

Due: Monday November 26 th LAB 7: Rivers and Flood Frequency

Precipitation Rabi H. Mohtar

The role of predictive uncertainty in the operational management of reservoirs

2016 Fall Conditions Report

Remaining Capacity in Great Lakes Reservoirs

Susitna-Watana Hydroelectric Project (FERC No )

Guide to Hydrologic Information on the Web

Section 4: Model Development and Application

Sediment Deposition LET THE RIVER RUN T E A C H E R. Activity Overview. Activity at a Glance. Time Required. Level of Complexity.

Numerical modeling of sediment flushing from Lewis and Clark Lake

HYDROLOGIC AND WATER RESOURCES EVALUATIONS FOR SG. LUI WATERSHED

Lower Susquehanna River Integrated Sediment & Nutrient Monitoring Program

Drainage Area: GL, VPU: 04 - Release Notes. 12/01/2018 Updated and New Data

Webinar and Weekly Summary February 15th, 2011

Workshop: Build a Basic HEC-HMS Model from Scratch

The Use of Synthetic Floods for Defining the Regulated Volume Duration Frequency Curves for the Red River at Fargo, ND

APPENDIX M LAKE ELEVATION AND FLOW RELEASES SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS RESULTS

APPENDIX A LAKE EVAPORATION

Water balance model Graeme H

DEVELOPMENT OF A LARGE-SCALE HYDROLOGIC PREDICTION SYSTEM

Executive Summary. Water Quantity

Drought Criteria. Richard J. Heggen Department of Civil Engineering University of New Mexico, USA Abstract

An introduction to drought indices

Technical Memorandum No

Appendix D. Model Setup, Calibration, and Validation

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Hydrological Conditions Report For April 2014

TENDAI SAWUNYAMA Institute for Water Research, Rhodes University, PO Box 94 Grahamstown, 6140, South Africa

Illinois State Water Survey Division

Variability of Reference Evapotranspiration Across Nebraska

Colorado River Management under Uncertainty

L OWER N OOKSACK R IVER P ROJECT: A LTERNATIVES A NALYSIS A PPENDIX A: H YDRAULIC M ODELING. PREPARED BY: LandC, etc, LLC

Lake Tahoe. Response to Winter Rain Events. Dr. David Maidment University of Texas at Austin. Dr. David Tarboton Utah State University

Optimal Artificial Neural Network Modeling of Sedimentation yield and Runoff in high flow season of Indus River at Besham Qila for Terbela Dam

ESTIMATING JOINT FLOW PROBABILITIES AT STREAM CONFLUENCES USING COPULAS

January 2011 Calendar Year Runoff Forecast

Science EOG Review: Landforms

Folsom Dam Water Control Manual Update

The Documentation of Extreme Hydrometeorlogical Events: Two Case Studies in Utah, Water Year 2005

Groundwater Replenishment In The Coachella Valley, CA. WESTCAS 2018 Annual Conference June 21, 2018 Zoe Rodriguez del Rey, Water Resources

Sedimentation in the Nile River

The Colorado Drought of 2002 in Perspective

B-1. Attachment B-1. Evaluation of AdH Model Simplifications in Conowingo Reservoir Sediment Transport Modeling

NIDIS Intermountain West Drought Early Warning System May 23, 2017

GRAPEVINE LAKE MODELING & WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MEASUREMENTS OF SAND THICKNESSES IN GRAND CANYON,

Climate Change and Water Supply Research. Drought Response Workshop October 8, 2013

Water Resources Systems: Modeling Techniques and Analysis

Birecik Dam & HEPP Downstream River Arrangement R. Naderer, G. Scharler Verbundplan GmbH, 5021 Salzburg, Austria

Appendix E Guidance for Shallow Flooding Analyses and Mapping

USING A GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM TO PREDICT FLOW DURATION CURVES AT UNGAGED STREAM SITES IN GUAM

Assessment of the Hood River Delta Hood River, Oregon

Rong Jiang. Map of River. Table of Basic Data. China 14. Serial No. : China-14

Hydrologic Forecast Centre. Manitoba Infrastructure. Winnipeg, Manitoba FEBRUARY FLOOD OUTLOOK REPORT FOR MANITOBA.

Transcription:

Valenciano Reservoir Safe Yield Study Prepared by: CSA Architects & Engineers, LLP CSA Group Prepared for: Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority Planning

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction...1 1.1 Safe Yield Analysis Scenario 1...1 1.1.1 Required data and Assumptions...1 1.1.2 Safe Yield Methodology and Results...6 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Valenciano Reservoir Elevation-Area-Capacity Relationship...5 Table 2. Safe Yield Computations Valenciano...9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Study Area...3 Figure 2 Adjusted average daily flows for Valenciano Reservoir...4 Figure 3 Flow frequency curve for Valenciano Reservoir...8 Figure 4 Valenciano Reservoir Storage Trace....11 Valenciano Safe Yield Analysis i

Safe Yield Analysis Valenciano Reservoir 1 Introduction Municipal water supply systems should be highly reliable as they are fundamental to economic and social development and public health. These systems should be able to deliver water even during drought conditions. The safe yield concept is a mathematical tool that allows estimating the amount of water that can be withdrawn from a river or reservoir consistently, even under drought conditions. The purpose of this report is to summarize the methodology used to determine the safe yield of the proposed Valenciano Reservoir and perform a preliminary evaluation of its effects on the safe yield of the existing Loiza Lake reservoir. In this study, safe yield is defined as the amount of water that can be withdrawn 99% of the days, without water rationing, over the entire period of analysis. Rationing is only allowed on 1% of the days, and the reservoir is never allowed to empty. Safe yield from surface water sources are determined by the analysis of streamflow data having a sufficiently long record to include major drought periods. According to analysis of rainfall records from earlier in the 20 th century, the two most severe droughts in Puerto Rico were in 1967-68 and 1994-95. The streamflow datasets used in this analysis include at least one of these events (1994-95). The location of the proposed Valenciano Reservoir is shown in Figure 1. 1.1 Safe Yield Analysis Scenario 1 1.1.1 Required data and Assumptions The primary data necessary to conduct a safe yield analysis includes streamflow records and the reservoir storage-elevation relationship. USGS gaging station streamflow records were used in this study to analyze the streamflow regime of the Valenciano River near the proposed dam location. The historical flow record available for the nearest USGS stream gage (50056400 Río Valenciano nr Juncos, P.R.) dates from January 28, 1971 to December 23, 2006. This gage is located about 553 m downstream of the proposed dam site. For this reason, a ratio of tributary areas was used to calculate the amount of flow that is actually contributing to the reservoir. The proposed dam location has a tributary Valenciano Safe Yield Analysis 1

area of 37.6 km 2 and the tributary area for gage 50056400 is 42.5 km 2. Therefore, the historical flow was multiplied by a flow adjustment factor of 0.88 (37.6 km 2 / 42.5 km 2 ) in order to obtain the flow contributing to the reservoir. Figure 2 illustrates the adjusted daily average flows for Valenciano Reservoir that resulted from this adjustment methodology. Another important flow regime analysis is the estimation of the minimum instream flow requirements. Typically, reservoir operations are set so that a minimum flow is maintained in the stream for biological and environmental needs. In this analysis, minimum instream flow requirements were defined as the flow that is equaled or exceeded 99% of the time over the period of analysis. This flow is commonly referred to as Q 99. The Q 99 was computed based on the adjusted flows shown in Figure 2. The Land Desktop 2006 software (Land Development and Civil Design modules) was used in order to calculate the reservoir elevation-area-capacity relationship. The topographic data was provided by Caribbean Aerial Survey in 1-meter contour intervals. The grid total site volume method was used to estimate the volume of the reservoir at various elevations. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 1. Valenciano Safe Yield Analysis 2

Valenciano Safe Yield Analysis 3 Figure 1 Study Area

Figure 2 Adjusted average daily flows for Valenciano Reservoir 10,000 Average Daily Flow USGS 50056400, Rio Valenciano NR Juncos, PR (Jan/28/1971 - Dec/23/2006) 1,000 Flow (MGD) 100 10 1 0 01/28/1971 07/20/1976 01/10/1982 07/03/1987 12/23/1992 06/15/1998 12/06/2003 Time (days) Valenciano Safe Yield Analysis 4

Table 1 Valenciano Reservoir Elevation-Area-Capacity Relationship. ELEVATION (METERS) AREA (SQ. METERS) VOLUME (CUBIC METERS) 75 24,315 14,207 76 33,972 44,358 77 50,736 86,712 78 61,623 142,892 79 75,175 211,291 80 89,357 293,557 81 108,028 392,251 82 129,075 510,802 83 151,028 650,854 84 176,762 814,749 85 220,811 1,013,535 86 267,758 1,257,820 87 320,078 1,551,738 88 376,592 1,900,074 89 433,371 2,305,056 90 499,467 2,771,475 91 590,137 3,316,277 92 678,818 3,950,755 93 769,955 4,675,142 94 868,462 5,494,350 95 971,063 6,414,113 96 1,110,438 7,454,863 97 1,270,440 8,548,995 98 1,393,829 9,532,878 99 1,562,411 11,134,480 100 1,752,168 12,757,701 101 1,957,627 14,612,161 102 2,213,425 17,017,133 Valenciano Safe Yield Analysis 5

The normal water surface elevation for the Valenciano Reservoir has been established at 100 m. At this level, the storage volume available is 12,757,701 m 3 (10,343 acre-ft). The estimated dead storage was 1,013,535 m 3 (822 acre-ft) at a water surface elevation of 85 m. Therefore, the available volume for water supply used in the safe yield computations is 11,744,166 m 3 (9,521 acre-ft). Other factors that need to be incorporated in safe yield computations are reservoir sedimentation and evaporation. Regarding sedimentation, it was assumed that the estimated safe yield corresponds to the total volume available in the reservoir initially. The potential reduction in safe yield due to future sedimentation was considered beyond the scope of this study. In order to account for evaporation losses it is important to consider the relationship between storage and water surface area. The surface area of the water stored in a reservoir is exposed to direct sunlight. Therefore, a significant amount of water is lost due to evaporation. The methodology accounts for this loss by treating it as an additional demand at the reservoir. 1.1.2 Safe Yield Methodology and Results The methodology used to determine the safe yield of the Valenciano Reservoir is described below. The safe yield value was determined based on a mass balance analysis. The analysis was based on a 1-day time step. In essence, the mass balance reflects changes in storage resulting from historical inflows (adjusted), estimated instream flow needs (Q 99 ), flood spills, evaporation losses, and the assumed demand that will be withdrawn consistently from the reservoir (i.e. safe yield). As previously stated, the goal is to identify the demand value that can be withdrawn 99% of the days, without water rationing, over the entire period of analysis. It is important to understand that this safe yield value is valid under the assumption of a repetition of the historical flows. The Q 99 is the amount of flow that can be expected to be equaled or exceeded 99 percent of the time. As part of the calculation for the safe yield from this reservoir, it was assumed that the Q 99 would be released daily to keep a supply of water flowing in the stream. In order to obtain Q 99, the daily-mean adjusted flow values (Figure 2) were sorted in ascending order and a rank m i was assigned to each value. The highest rank is assigned Valenciano Safe Yield Analysis 6

to the smallest flow value. The percent of time that each flow is equaled or exceeded can then be computed using the following equation: mi % of time Q for mi is equaled or exceeded = * 100 % mn + 1 where m n is the total number of days in the period of record. The resulting flow frequency curve is presented in Figure 3 along with the computed Q 99 for the Valenciano River (1.25 MGD). Valenciano Safe Yield Analysis 7

Figure 3 Flow frequency curve for Valenciano Reservoir. 10000 1000 100 10 1 0 Q 99 = 1.25 mgd 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 % of time flow is equalled or exceeded Flow (mgd) Valenciano Safe Yield Analysis 8

The following table is portion of the safe yield computations. The input data includes the maximum and minimum reservoir storage values, the estimated Q 99, and the recorded inflows. Storage and inflows are expressed here as millions of gallons. Column 4 shows the recorded flows multiplied by the flow adjustment factor (0.88). Table 2. Safe Yield Computations Valenciano MG m 3 ac-ft WSE (m) Safe Yield (MGD) Q 99 1.25 MGD Max Storage 3,370 12,757,701 10,343 100 15.5 Demand 15.5 MGD Min Storage 268 1,013,535 822 85 Carraizo Relea 0 MGD # Data for the following stations is contained in this file Flow Adj. Factor 0.88 Σ Shortage Count 131 # USGS 50056400 RIO VALENCIANO NR JUNCOS, PR % of days with Shortage 0.999% (Col. 1) (Col. 2) (Col. 3) (Col. 4) (Col. 5) (Col. 6) (Col. 7) (Col. 8) (Col. 9) (Col. 10) (Col. 11) (Col. 12) (Col. 13) Date Flow (cfs) Flow Adj. Flow Evap. Rate (inch/day) Reservoir water mirror (m2) Evap. Loss Demand BOP Storage EOP Storage Spill Shortage Shortage Count 01/28/1971 21 13.57 12.01 0.11 1,741,928 1.31 15.5 3289.63 3283.57 0.00 0.00 0 01/29/1971 20 12.93 11.44 0.11 1,739,385 1.31 15.5 3283.57 3276.95 0.00 0.00 0 01/30/1971 20 12.93 11.44 0.11 1,736,599 1.31 15.5 3276.95 3270.32 0.00 0.00 0 01/31/1971 21 13.57 12.01 0.11 1,733,812 1.31 15.5 3270.32 3264.27 0.00 0.00 0 02/01/1971 22 14.22 12.58 0.13 1,731,265 1.48 15.5 3264.27 3258.62 0.00 0.00 0 02/02/1971 20 12.93 11.44 0.13 1,728,883 1.48 15.5 3258.62 3251.83 0.00 0.00 0 02/03/1971 28 18.10 16.01 0.13 1,726,018 1.48 15.5 3251.83 3249.61 0.00 0.00 0 02/04/1971 25 16.16 14.30 0.13 1,725,083 1.48 15.5 3249.61 3245.68 0.00 0.00 0 02/05/1971 22 14.22 12.58 0.13 1,723,424 1.47 15.5 3245.68 3240.03 0.00 0.00 0 02/06/1971 23 14.87 13.15 0.13 1,721,039 1.47 15.5 3240.03 3234.96 0.00 0.00 0 02/07/1971 21 13.57 12.01 0.13 1,718,895 1.47 15.5 3234.96 3228.75 0.00 0.00 0 02/08/1971 21 13.57 12.01 0.13 1,716,267 1.47 15.5 3228.75 3222.54 0.00 0.00 0 02/09/1971 20 12.93 11.44 0.13 1,713,637 1.47 15.5 3222.54 3215.76 0.00 0.00 0 02/10/1971 20 12.93 11.44 0.13 1,710,764 1.46 15.5 3215.76 3208.98 0.00 0.00 0 02/11/1971 20 12.93 11.44 0.13 1,707,889 1.46 15.5 3208.98 3202.21 0.00 0.00 0 02/12/1971 19 12.28 10.86 0.13 1,705,012 1.46 15.5 3202.21 3194.86 0.00 0.00 0 02/13/1971 19 12.28 10.86 0.13 1,701,891 1.46 15.5 3194.86 3187.52 0.00 0.00 0 02/14/1971 19 12.28 10.86 0.13 1,698,768 1.45 15.5 3187.52 3180.18 0.00 0.00 0 02/15/1971 17 10.99 9.72 0.13 1,695,643 1.45 15.5 3180.18 3171.70 0.00 0.00 0 02/16/1971 16 10.34 9.15 0.13 1,692,028 1.45 15.5 3171.70 3162.65 0.00 0.00 0 02/17/1971 16 10.34 9.15 0.13 1,688,166 1.44 15.5 3162.65 3153.61 0.00 0.00 0 02/18/1971 15 9.69 8.58 0.13 1,684,301 1.44 15.5 3153.61 3143.99 0.00 0.00 0 02/19/1971 16 10.34 9.15 0.13 1,680,188 1.44 15.5 3143.99 3134.96 0.00 0.00 0 02/20/1971 20 12.93 11.44 0.13 1,676,316 1.43 15.5 3134.96 3128.21 0.00 0.00 0 02/21/1971 16 10.34 9.15 0.13 1,673,422 1.43 15.5 3128.21 3119.17 0.00 0.00 0 02/22/1971 16 10.34 9.15 0.13 1,669,544 1.43 15.5 3119.17 3110.15 0.00 0.00 0 02/23/1971 15 9.69 8.58 0.13 1,665,664 1.43 15.5 3110.15 3100.55 0.00 0.00 0 02/24/1971 15 9.69 8.58 0.13 1,661,533 1.42 15.5 3100.55 3090.95 0.00 0.00 0 02/25/1971 14 9.05 8.01 0.13 1,657,399 1.42 15.5 3090.95 3080.79 0.00 0.00 0 02/26/1971 15 9.69 8.58 0.13 1,653,015 1.41 15.5 3080.79 3071.20 0.00 0.00 0 02/27/1971 15 9.69 8.58 0.13 1,648,873 1.41 15.5 3071.20 3061.62 0.00 0.00 0 02/28/1971 15 9.69 8.58 0.13 1,644,727 1.41 15.5 3061.62 3052.04 0.00 0.00 0 A mathematical relationship was developed, based on a regression analysis, to describe the relation between exposed surface area and storage volume (Col. 6). This equation is needed to calculate daily evaporation losses for the safe yield analysis (Col. 7). Due to the lack of daily evaporation data, the analysis was performed based on monthly pan evaporation rates (Col. 5) at the Gurabo station, as estimated by the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration. Column 8 represents the total demand that will be continuously withdrawn for water supply purposes. In addition, the Q 99 is a constant release for the entire period of analysis. Column 9 shows the Beginning of Period (BOP) storage. This value is typically assumed to be the maximum reservoir storage at the beginning of the simulation. This assumption, Valenciano Safe Yield Analysis 9

however, was not adopted in this study. In order to have a more realistic initial condition, the analysis was first performed for the entire period of record and the resulting End of Period storage (Column 10) for this initial simulation was used as the BOP of a second simulation. This second simulation is the one presented in this report. For each time step, the EOP storage value is equal to the BOP storage plus the adjusted flow (Q i ) minus Q 99, the evaporation loss (EvapL), and the constant water supply demand (D) [EOP = BOP + Q i - Q 99 EvapL D]. The water supply demand is maintained constant for the entire period. The EOP storage value then becomes the BOP storage for the next day. If the EOP value exceeded the maximum capacity of the reservoir, the excess volume was assumed to spill over the reservoir (Col. 11) and the BOP storage for the next day was set equal to the maximum storage capacity. On the other hand, a shortage is declared whenever the EOP is below the minimum storage value (Col. 13). In other words, a shortage is declared each day that the reservoir is not able to supply the demand that is currently assumed. If the EOP storage falls below the reservoir dead storage, then the difference between these values becomes be the shortage for that day (Col. 12). Under this condition it was assumed that the reservoir dead storage becomes the BOP storage for the next day. The safe yield is obtained by changing the water supply demand (trial and error) until the shortage count (Col. 13) represents 1% of the days in the period of analysis. As shown in the table, the safe yield obtained for the Valenciano Reservoir is 15.5 mgd. Based on the assumptions of this analysis, this demand can be continuously supplied with the exception of a total of 131 days (1% of the days of the entire 13,114 day period of analysis). Figure 4 shows the storage trace for the Valenciano Reservoir over entire period of analysis. Valenciano Safe Yield Analysis 10

Figure 4 Valenciano Reservoir Storage Trace. 9,000 8,000 7,000 Storage Trace Max Storage Min Storage 6,000 Storage 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 01/28/1971 03/08/1975 04/16/1979 05/25/1983 07/03/1987 08/11/1991 09/19/1995 10/28/1999 12/06/2003 Time (days) Valenciano Safe Yield Analysis 11