Laserfiche WebLink
<br />r <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. t <br /> <br />TABLE 8 <br />UINTAH BASIN EXPANSION <br />ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACCOUNT <br /> <br />Alternatives <br /> <br />.y Futre with <br />Future Salinity <br />without Control <br />Present. pro;ect Fundinq <br /> <br />.,. . <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />A. Total Irrigated Area (ac) <br />(with water right) <br /> <br />20,800 <br /> <br />20,800 <br /> <br />20,800 <br /> <br />8,900 <br /> <br />1,070 <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />B. Acres Treated (ac) <br /> <br />C. Water Quantity (avg ac ft/yr) <br /> <br />Inflow <br />Diversion <br />Delivered to Farm <br /> <br />{74.,960 _ . 68,65DJ'" '~IO <br />66,560 61,380 <br /> <br />87,360 <br />74,600 <br /> <br />Depletions <br />On Farm <br />Evaporlltion /oJpC!.u 3,770 <br />Crop consumptive use 30,390 <br />Phreatophytecons. use AlPC..<J 1,720 <br /> <br />5,510 <br />36,550 <br />2,120 <br /> <br />4,080 <br />28,500 <br />1,670 <br /> <br />DeeD Percolation <br />Crop consumptive use <br />Phrelltophyte cons. use/oJPc 11 <br /> <br />2,020 <br />1,020 <br /> <br />3,250 <br />3,520 <br /> <br />3,640 <br />3,910 . <br /> <br />Cana.l <br />Evaporation ,J,t'e.v . <br />Cr~.:J;t::/e cons. use ,;AtfJ <br /> <br />Return Flow <br />Surface <br />Deep Percolation <br />Total Return Flow <br /> <br />250 <br />1,180 <br />I or~ ~ <br /> <br />220 <br />1,020 <br />'8,oJ 4. = 310 <br />3,000 <br />16.800 do-= <br />- ~a.ooJ . <br />. t z.., 7'10 <br /> <br />380 <br />1,680 <br /> <br />4,830 <br />27.680 <br />C~"iJ31.o <br /> <br />6,110 <br />35.760 <br />"-f8'10. <br /> <br />d~L- ;". -.0" ;...oR~(lJ1,C, <br />c..r>~",...(ff.w ~ c <br />