Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'> <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />5. The program does not need to produce significant additional water to be considered <br />successful. Although additional water would be a positive aspect, the most important goal <br />is to demonstrate a viable, quantified cloud seeding technology. <br /> <br />6. There was no consensus on the need for river modeling. <br /> <br />Significant time was spent developing criteria for selecting the demonstration program <br />experimental sites. Twenty-three sites in Arizona, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming were identified <br />that met the thirteen selection criteria. Detailed eYAm;nation of the sites resulted in six that were <br />considered potential candidates. The best two sites were the Wasatch Plateau in Utah and the <br />Grand Mesa in Colorado. The draft document Colorado River Basin Exoorimental Site Selection. <br />dated June 8, 1992, provides a detailed description of the site selection process. <br /> <br />The final activity conducted during this period was the first meeting of the Steering Committee for <br />overseeing development of a Program Plan for A Precinitation Manasrement Demonstration <br />Activitv. This meeting took place in Denver the afternoon of June 8,1992. Representatives were <br />present from Reclamation and all Basin States except Utah. <br /> <br />The two main topics of discussion were: (1) whether Task 2 (River Modeling Studies) was actually <br />needed as called for in the Scope of Services, and (2) the process followed in the experimental site <br />selection. <br /> <br />It was decided that river modeling studies would not be pursued as part of the Program Plan. <br />Reasons for this decision included: (1) the opinion that estimates likely would not change <br />significantly from earlier (1983) model runs; (2) it would be necessary to assume some percentage <br />increase due to seeding (e.g., 10%), verification of which is a goal of the demonstration program; <br />and (3) available resources would be better used in planning and designing the best possible <br />weather modification experimental program. <br /> <br />Arlin Super handed out and discussed a 16 page document detailing the technical process <br />undergone to rate the suitability of potential experimental areas in the Colorado River Basin. He <br />requested that each state provide comments about the process used to select sites, and the overall <br />acceptability of the two sites recommended as most suitable, by June 22, 1992. If both the process <br />and sites are found acceptable, Reclamation will pursue more detailed e~Amination of the two <br />areas. <br /> <br />The consensus of the Steering Committee was that detailed experimental plans and budgets be <br />prepared for both the Grand Mesa and Wasatch Plateau, assuming all parties find them acceptable <br />after thorough review of the site selection document. Reclamation can provide those products <br />within the existing budget now that the river modeling requirement has been removed. <br /> <br />Cost Summarv: <br /> <br />Administration <br />Task 1 <br />Total <br /> <br />6.0 staff days <br />59.0 staff days <br />65.0 staff days <br /> <br />$2,259 <br />$42.013 <br />$44,572 <br /> <br />