Laserfiche WebLink
<br />ASPECTS OF PRECIPITATION ENHANCEMENT <br /> <br />31 <br /> <br />. Cultural resources (e.g., prehistoric petroglyphs and historic build- <br />ings) have weathered the natural, extreme ranges of measured snow- <br />fall in the area and will not be effected by the probable increase in <br />snowfall. <br /> <br />The joint EIS/EIR was appealed to the Regional Forester of the Forest <br />Service's Pacific Southwest Region on numerous issues, many dealing <br />with a lack of site specificity and inadequate analysis of direct, indirect, <br />and cumulative impacts of the proposed project. In response to the ap- <br />peal, the Regional Forester affirmed six issues raised by the appellants. <br />Those issues were: <br /> <br />. The EIS/EIR did not adequately describe the existing known data <br />that can relate to the watershed condition and fisheries habitat of the <br />third-order streams. <br />. There was not an adequate description of the cumulative effects and <br />the factors used in the cumulative watershed effects analysis on the <br />third-order drainages. <br />. The effects of the project on sensitive, threatened, and endangered <br />wildlife species need to be better addrlessed. <br />. A further analysis needs to be made on the potential effects of flood- <br />ing on small streams. <br />. Identify if there are any municipal supply watersheds within the <br />project area, and if so, the effects of the project on water quality in <br />these watersheds. <br />. Assure that the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. <br />Fish and Wildlife Service are consulted on this project. <br /> <br />A supplement to the EIS/EIR for the project summarized the original <br />EIS/EIR and successfully addressed thesle issues (USDA 1991). In all, <br />several stages of development, response to identified issues, and levels of <br />approval were required in the EIS/EIR process. A negative (no effect) <br />declaration (which was not accepted), the original EIS/EIR (which was <br />appealed), and the supplement EIS/EIR (which received final approval <br />from the Forest Service in November 1991) each required approximately <br />one year to prepare in succession, at a total cost of $400,000 or more. At <br />an additional cost of some $100,000 annually, continuous environmental <br />monitoring of watershed effects is now in place for the prototype cloud <br />seeding project. <br /> <br />2.4 SOCIETAL ASPECTS <br /> <br />The decision to adopt cloud seeding has historically focused on the <br />question, "Can we do it?" However, as technical capabilities improve, a <br />value question arises: "Should we do it?" (Sewell 1969). Attempting to <br />modify precipitation by seeding clouds is a product of our continual <br />search for means to manage our environment. Even in situations where <br />