Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CHAPTER III <br /> <br />BASIS FOR ANALYSES <br /> <br />'.", <br /> <br />Irrigation water requirements <br /> <br />.". .... <br />_.r <br /> <br />Diversion requirements for project lands are estimated at 3.2 acre- <br />feet per acre for gravity irrigation and 2.4 for sprinkler application. <br />These estimates are based on anticipated irrigation efficiencies, <br />storage, and conveyance losses, and on estimated annual crop requirements <br />beyond the supply from precipitation. <br /> <br />Fishery flows <br /> <br />Fish flows in the White River have been considered for two locations. <br />These are the North Fork and at the Colorado-Utah border.. The flows for <br />North Fork have been largely based on'the Fish and Wildlife Service <br />recommendations as revised after publication of the 1972 Feasibility <br />Report. As part of continuing studies these recommendations are being <br />re-evaluated by the Colorado Division of Wildlife in conjunction with <br />the fish and wildlife inventory. The flows that are considered for all <br />plans in this report are shown below. <br /> <br />c,:;"" <br /> <br />Minimum flows in the North Fork of White River <br />(second-feet) <br />October-November 100 <br />December-June 120 <br />July 130 <br />August 150 <br />September 130 <br />Or natural flow--whichever is less <br /> <br />- -,.- <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />There is no compact between the States of Colorado and Utah con- <br />cerning the flows of the White River. Because it is realized that there <br />are, and will be, demands on the river in Utah, the Yellow Jacket Proj- <br />ect would be operated to provide minimum flows at the State line of 200 <br />second-feet in winter and 300 second-feet in summer or natural flow <br />if less. The minimum flows of North Fork are not low enough to prevent <br />or interfere with the Stateline flows referred to here. <br /> <br />',- <br /> <br />Agricultural Analysis <br /> <br />Land classification <br /> <br />'." <br /> <br />Lands that would be served by the various Yellow Jacket Project alter- <br />natives presented in this report were selec~ed on the basis ,of a detailed <br />,land classification survey completed by the Bureau of Reclamation 'in 1964. <br />This survey covered all lands that could practicably be considered in <br />formulating the proj ect plan. It included 'a total of 140,460 acres, of <br />which 39,180 acres were considered arable, 100,230 nonarable, and 1,050 <br />acres allowed for rights-of-way. Arable lands in the project area are <br />summarized in the following table. <br /> <br />23 <br />