Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />v <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />u <br />1 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />1 <br />At the request of CRWCD, the Pot Hook Project configurations as defined in the <br />USBR Definite Plan Report were used in this study. For Scenario 1 and 1A the reservoir <br />was assumed to have 60,000 AF of total capacity with only 26,000 AF active storage. For <br />Scenario 113 the reservoir was assumed to have a total storage capacity of 100,000 AF <br />resulting in 66,000 AF active capacity. The June 5, 1959 priority date provides for 73,580 <br />AF of storage. For this study it was assumed that the decreed amount was for active <br />storage and therefore the June 5, 1959 priority date was applicable for all scenarios <br />modeled. A minimum storage amount of 34,000 AF (dead and inactive storage) was <br />assumed in the Pot Hook Project modeling. This minimum storage level was proposed <br />in the USBR Definite Plan Report, and is required to provide the desired water surface <br />elevation for diversions to Pot Hook Canal. This large minimum storage will incidently <br />increase recreation benefits. Area-capacity curves, as developed by USBR, were used in <br />the modeling (see Appendix C). <br />During the initial investigation, Pot Hook Reservoir was modeled both with a one- <br />fill limitation and with multiple fills permitted each year. There was insignificant <br />difference in the results and therefore only the results from the one-fill limitation modeling <br />runs are reported herein. <br />Modeled project demands under Scenario 1 included storage and direct flow <br />diversions by the Pot Hook Canal, Two Bar Canal, and the Boone and Deer Lodge <br />Laterals. For Scenarios 1A and 113 only Pot Hook Canal was permitted to call on <br />reservoir storage. In the Water Development Baseline, irrigation demands were set at <br />25 <br />