Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />Figure 1. Existing (operational) cloud seeding larget areas (blue) and pOlenliallargel areas <br />(red). Areas are indexed with numbers corresponding to those in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. <br />Purple and brown polygons are Upper and Lower Colorado River basin outlines, respectively. <br /> <br />I SWE data. The year 2004 was an unusually dry one in the Upper Basin and 2005 was a <br />relatively wet one. See Fig. 2 for a graphical representation of the precipitation in the <br />hasin. <br /> <br />That the calculations are based on "snapshots" of the snowpack on April I <br />requires a caveat. They are representative of c:loud seeding augmentation of snowfall to <br />the extent that the snowpack has continually increased and melted little over the <br />preceding \vinter. Such would not be the case in relatively warm southerly and/or low <br />elevation mountains, as in Arizona. Because some melt occurs even in colder elimates <br />anJlor higher elevations, the April I SNODAS SWE will be lower than SWE from <br />accumulated seasonal snOl\-fal/. The latter is actually the more appropriate variable for <br />augmentation potential, but is only measured at a few points. Therefore the seeding~ <br />generated 10% increases of the fomler, as presented below. might be expected to <br />wuleresrimate in proportion to seasonal snowpack ablation (melt, sublimation [ice to <br />vapor] or evaporation). Snowfall measurements from gauges have significant errors as <br />well. Moreover, some of the gauged precipitation could have fallcn as rain. <br /> <br />4 <br />