Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />I". <br />Id <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />31 <br /> <br />3. Effects of Alternatives <br /> <br />Table 8 compares the anticipated effect of the two evaluated <br />alternatives. Impacts were assessed on water, wetlands, and <br />cultural resources. <br /> <br />TABLE 6 <br />UINTAH BASIN EXPANSION <br />ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACCOUNT <br /> <br />Alternatives <br /> <br />Present <br /> <br />Future <br />without <br />proiect <br /> <br />Future with <br />Salinity <br />control <br />Fundinq <br /> <br />A. Total Irrigated Area (ae) <br />(~ith water right) <br /> <br />20,800 <br /> <br />20,600 <br /> <br />20,800 <br /> <br />B. Acres Treated (ae) <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />1,070 <br /> <br />8,900 <br /> <br />C. Water Quantity (avg ac ft/yr) <br /> <br />Inflo..... <br />Diversion <br />Delivered to Farm <br /> <br />87,360 <br />74,600 <br /> <br />74,960 <br />66,560 <br /> <br />68,650 <br />61,380 <br /> <br />Deoletions <br />On Farm <br />Evaporation <br />Crop consumptive use <br />Phreatophyte cons. use <br /> <br />..37R10_ "'4~-o80 5~51-0 <br />30,390 28,500 36,550 <br />..l..,.72 0 ..1.,6"10 2.,..120 <br />3,640 3,250 2,020 <br />3,-91-0 -3.520 .1.,-020_ <br />to 80" -.250- -220 <br />.1..,680- .,1.,-180 _1..,O2{) <br />6,110 4,830 3,000 <br />35.760 27.680 16.800 <br />41,870 32,510 19,800 <br /> <br />Deep Percolation <br />Crop consumptive use <br />Phreatophyte cons. use <br /> <br />Canal <br />Evaporation <br />Phreatophyte cons. use <br /> <br />Return Flow <br />Surface <br />Deep Percolation <br />Total Return Flow <br />