Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />~ - ,. .,. .. <br />.: ._~ l! _ _ 0 <br /> <br />24 cfs from Slater Creek and Pot Hook Reservoir, and 24 cfs from the Little Snake River <br /> <br />and Three Forks Reservoir. The remaining 28 cfs was assumed to come from Battle <br /> <br />Creek and other ungaged inflows. If the model estimates the 28 cfs is not available, an <br /> <br />additional release from Three FOlks was made, up to a maximum of 52 cfs for instream <br /> <br />flow purposes to the mouth of Savery Creek. <br /> <br />P & M proposes a dead storage pool of 1,895 acre-feet, however fOI the WWC <br /> <br />study, a dead and inactive pool of 17,270 acre-feet (10 percent of the total stOIage <br /> <br />capacity) was assumed. It is believed that such a pool will likely be required for fish and <br /> <br />recreation purposes. Area-capacity data developed by P & M were used in the model. <br /> <br />Modeling results showed that a constant industrial demand of 80 cfs could be met more <br /> <br />than 99 percent of the time, therefore the firm yield of Three FOlks Reservoir is assumed <br /> <br />to be approximately 80 cfs OI 58,000 acre-feet per year. <br /> <br />The results of the model study show that with a constant industrial demand of 80 <br /> <br />cfs from Three Forks Reservoir, the average annual flow of the Little Snake River at Lily <br /> <br />would be reduced by about 61,200 acre-feet below that expected without the Three Forks~ <br /> <br />Project. More detailed information on the depletion and the monthly variations is <br /> <br />provided in the report by WWC dated July 31, 1990. <br /> <br />5 <br />