My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WMOD00063
CWCB
>
Weather Modification
>
Backfile
>
WMOD00063
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/28/2009 2:27:39 PM
Creation date
10/1/2006 2:12:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Weather Modification
Applicant
Steven M. Hunter
Sponsor Name
California Energy Commission
Project Name
Optimizing Cloud Seeding for Water and Energy in California
Title
Optimizing Cloud Seeding for Water and Energy in California
Prepared For
California Energy Commission
Prepared By
Steven M. Hunter
Date
3/31/2006
State
CA
Country
United States
Weather Modification - Doc Type
Report
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
53
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />The main purposes of this study are I) to conduct an independcnt statistical cvaluation of <br />the operational cloud seeding program conducted in the major watersheds in the Sierra Nevada <br />~10untains of California over their pcriod of operations lor which adequate streamflow data <br />exists and 2) to conduct preliminary physical analyses that might corroboratc and explain the <br />statistical results. The statistical cvaluations will bc conductcd for each program separately and <br />thcn pooled to establish the common efTect of secding for all of them, It is expt.'Ctcd that these <br />analyses will providc information that wiUlead to improvement of the cost etft.'Ctiveness of the <br />seeding operations in general. <br /> <br />2. Data <br />The sclection of operational sceding programs to cvaluatc was based solely on the <br />availability of seeding targcts having a suitably long record of monthly. unimpaired streamllow <br />data. hcrcaller referred to as full natural flow (FNF) data. during both the historical and <br />opcrational periods. The sources of the FNF data wcre ( I) the Unitcd Statcs Geological Survey <br />(USGS) streamflow gauging sites that arc published on the USGS web sitc <br />(http://waterdat.usgs,gov/calnwis), and (2) the monthly, unimpaircd streamllow data published <br />on the California Data Exchange Center (CDEC) web site (http://cdec.water.ca.gov). Operational <br />sceding programs conducted in thc loIlO\....ing 9 watcrshcds \\iere potential candidates for <br />cvaluation: Lake Almanor, American River Basin, Mokelumne River Basin, Tuolumne River <br />Basin, San Joaquin Rivcr Basin, Kings River Basin, Kcrn River Basin, Kaweah River Basin and <br />the Eastern Sierra. 111e San Joaquin operational secding program was cxcluded from <br />consideration in this study because the author is presently undcr contract to the Southern <br />California Edison Company (SeE) to evaluate thai program and SCE has dccmed that those <br />results arc proprictary to thcm. 111C Tuolumne River operational seeding program was also <br />excluded from the prcsent study because only one gauging station in the Tuolumne Rivcr <br />watershcd with a suitably long record of monthly FNF data during both thc historical and <br />operational periods was found (Tuolumne Rivcr-La Grange Dam. TLG) and it could not be <br />determined whether that station was in a location that would reflect the cffcct of the seeding in <br />that watershcd. For the remaining scven watershcds, it was dctcrmincd that the sceding target <br />selected as having suitable FNF data. while not necessarily the best sccding target, should have <br />been impacted by thc seeding, The Merced River at Pohono Bridge (USGS site no. 11266500), <br />hcreafter rcfcrred to as MDP (CDEC Station ID), was selectcd to represent thc control basin <br />(Merced River Basin) for the evaluation of all the operational seeding programs, The Merced <br />Rivcr Basin may bc onc of thc very few remaining non-sccded basins in thc southern Sierra <br />Ncvada Mountains. <br />Table I lists the operational seeding programs selected for evaluation. the targct stations <br />choscn to reprcsent them and some relevant infornlation about cach of those targets. Similar <br />information about the control is also givcn in Table I. For a fcw of the operational sccding <br />programs. additional target stations with FNF data wcrc evaluated. especially when those stations <br />had a longcr period of record than thc one selected for thc primary evaluation. These are not <br />included in Table I but will bc discussed in their relevant context latcr. Table 2 gives the <br />correlation coet1icients between the control station, MDP. and each of the target stations. It can <br />be seen from Table 2 that thc correlation coellicients are sut1iciently high for MDr to scrve as a <br />control for all the targets. It is likely that stronger correlations could bc found by using different <br />and/or additional control stations provided that these stations have FNF dala and have not been <br />alll.."Ctcd by seeding either advertently or inadvertently. \Vith opcrational cloud seeding being <br /> <br />34 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.