WMOD00413

• Title: Validation of Precipitation Management by Seeding Winter Orographic Clouds in the Colorado River Basin
• Date: 9/1/1993
• Weather Modification - Doc Type: Report

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

APPENDIX
TABLES

Table

A.1 Potential experimental locations with at least 20 km width, a substantial area
above 9000 ft elevation, and not primarily within a wilderness area. . . . . .
A.2 Rating factors or considerations for experimental site selection in approximate
order of importance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B.1 Comparison of percent of days with measurable precipitation (left columns) and
percent of 25-year normal snow water equivalent (right columns) between
Grand Mesa and Wasatch Plateau SNOTEL sites ............. . . .
B.2 Storm duration, precipitation, and estimated SLW flux for three-winter programs
over the Tushar Mountains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B.3 Storm duration, precipitation, and estimated SLW flux for 16 Wasatch Plateau
storms from mid January to mid March 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B.4 Storm duration, precipitation, and estimated SLW flux for 65 Grand Mesa storms
from November to December 1983 and January to March 1985 . . . .
C.1 Listing of stream gauges and snow courses used in this study .....
.C.2 Predicted percentage increases in seasonal runoff . . . . . . . . . . . .
D.1 Potentially affected resources that should be included in a CE checklist
D.2 Standard formats for EA and EIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D.3 Possible contact agencies to fulfil NEPA interagency cooperation requirements
D.4 Studies documenting effects of snowfall augmentation projects . . . . . . . . .
D.5 A comparison of the NEPA compliance process for CE, EA, and EIS . . . . . .
D.6 Cost estimates for the CREST environmental compliance scenarios in dollars .
D.7 Annual and total cost estimate for the CREST environmental monitoring . . .
E.1 Estimated program operating cost in 1993 dollars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
E.2 Estimated program operating cost assuming a 4 percent annual escalation factor.
E.3 Estimated program labor .....
E.4 Detailed cost and labor estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

APPENDIX
FIGURES

Figure
B.1 Storm precipitation vs supercooled liquid water flux for the Tushar

Mountains, UT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B.2 Storm precipitation vs supercooled liquid water flux for the Wasatch Plateau, UT .
B.3 Storm precipitation vs supercooled liquid water flux for the Grand Mesa, CO .
C.1 April through July runoff at Seven Mile Creek, UT, vs April 1 snow water
equivalent at Farnsworth Lake, UT, snow pillow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C.2 April through July runoff at Pine Creek, WY, vs April 1 snow water equivalent
at Elkhart Park, WY, snow pillow ............. . . . . . . . . .
C.3 April through July runoff at East Fork of the San Juan River, CO, vs mean
April 1 snow water equivalent from three high elevation snow courses ..

X~

...

Page

63

68

76
79
82

85
95
96
111
112
118
124
125
128
129
140
141
142
143

81
83
86

98
99
101