Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Table -4. Areas anti water lie Ids for Ifl% snow pack SWE increases from seedin~. for <br />existing (operational) seeding targets and potential new targets. <br /> <br />Exi.Hing Areas Area (kill') I April 200-4 I April 2005 Mean Yield <br />Yield (ac-ft) Yield fac-fll 04-05Iac-fll <br />Utah 12.992 128.902 294.527 211,715 <br />Colorado 17.767 240,852 499.190 370,021 <br />Total 30.759 369.754 793.717 581,736 <br />Potelltiul Aretu 13.611 217,890 352.978 285.434 <br />(All Statcs) Total <br />Exi.Hing + 44.370 587,644 1,146.695 867,170 <br />Potelltiul Aretu <br />Total <br /> <br />Hllnter ct al. 2005 indicates that these arc conscrvative estimates. partly due to the more stringent <br />selection criteria llsed to specify potcntial ne\v target areas. <br /> <br />Estimates of Increases in Streamflow from the National Weather Scn.ice <br /> <br />National Weather Serviccs River Forccast Centcr (RFC) personnel. \".hosc offiecs are <br />locatcd in Salt lake City. Utah. agreed to simulate the amounts of additional streamflow that <br />might be generated by O. 5. 10. and IS % incrcases in October through March mean areal <br />precipitation from the existing and potential ncw target areas. The output is the ensuing runoff <br />(April through July) and base flow August through Decembcr. As such, these numbers do not <br />ctluale to ..nullal runoff nod arc therefore somen"hat consen"..th.e when compared to other <br />studies that consider water lear runoff. RFC personnelllsed thc Sacramcnt{, Soil Accounting <br />Hydrologic Model and the Snow 17 model to provide thesc simulations. The 28 watcr years from <br />1975 through 2002 were used as the base pcriod. Annual increases in streamflow were <br />calculatcd and then avcraged for thc O. 5. 10. and 15% increases in precipitation values. Output <br />was provided for all the possiblc target areas (both existing and new areas) and separately for <br />only the potential new arcas. The RFC uscd the 8.000 foot MSL contour le\'el to dcfine the new <br />target arcas. The new areas included those identified by I {unter et al. 2005 in Colorado and <br />Wyoming. plus the upper Colorado River drainage in the Rocky Mountain National Park area. <br />Increases were calculated at various measurement points along the Colorado River and its <br />tributaries with the end point being calculated unregulated (most diversions and reservoirs wcre <br />accounted for) inflow to Lake Powell. Potential increases in strcamflow werc not calculated for <br />the smaller potential target arcas in southeastern Utah nor for the San Francisco Pcaks. Mogollon <br />Rim and White :-"Iollntain areas in Arizona. <br /> <br />Data from the River Forecast Center can be used to estimate the potential increases in <br />strcamflow in thc uppcr Colorado River Basin due to cloud seeding. Therc are some difficultics <br />in doing so that need to be recognized. One problem area is estimating the potential from <br />"existing" cloud seeding program areas. The term "cxisting" might imply that sceding has been <br />conducted continually in these arcas throughout the 1975-2002 basc period. but this is not the <br />case. Seeding in these arcas has been conducted for varying Icngths of time. For example. <br />