Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />F <br />n <br /> <br />J <br />4.4 SCENARIO NO. 4 IMPACTS <br />Under Scenario No. 4, the Little Snake River Basin was modeled with only the <br />addition of the Three Forks Project to the Water Development Baseline. All reservoirs <br />were modeled assuming one-fill operations. The main modeling assumptions used for the <br />Three Forks Project are discussed in Section 3.2.3 of this report. <br />As with Scenario No. 2, a firm yield study of Three Forks Reservoir was performed. <br />An initial industrial demand of 80 c.f.s. (same as Scenario No. 2) was utilized in the <br />modeling. This demand was met more than 99 percent of the time, therefore, the results <br />of this run were used to determine the impact of Three Forks Reservoir upon the flows <br />at Lily, Colorado. <br />The Scenario No. 4 flows at Lily are presented in Table D.15. The average annual <br />flow at Lily for Scenario No. 4 was calculated to be 245,000 acre-feet. A comparison <br />between Scenario No. 4 flows and Water Development Baseline flows is presented in <br />Table D.16. Average annual flows at Lily for Scenario No. 4 are 61,169 acre-feet lower <br />than the Water Development Baseline flows. Figures D-26 through D-30 show the <br />monthly hydrographs of comparing these modeled runs. <br />4.5 SCENARIO NO. 5 IMPACTS <br />Under Scenario No. 5, the Little Snake River Basin was modeled with only the <br />addition of the Powder Wash Project to the Water Development Baseline. All reservoirs <br />were modeled assuming one-fill operations. The main modeling assumptions used for the <br />42 <br />