Laserfiche WebLink
<br />basis. Such a comparison indicates that the estimated cost of producing 1,381,004 acre feet <br />would he S6,965,OOO. This }.ields <tn estim<tted cost per acre fool ofS5.04. <br /> <br />16.0 Potential ED\:ironmentallmp<tcts <br /> <br />There have been a number of studics that examinc the potential for the creation of <br />negative environmental impacts associated with thc conduct of winter cloud seeding programs. <br />Several of these studies. which involved both officc and lield \\,:ork. were supported by <br />Reclamation oOices in Denver under their "Project Skywater" program. Somc of the relevant <br />studies include: <br /> <br />. Potential Ecological Impacts of Snowpaek Augmentation in the Uinta i\.10lmtains. Utah. <br />A 1981 report from Brigham Young University authored by Kimballllarper (1Iarper. <br />1981) summarizing the results ofa four year study. <br />. Ecological Impacts of Snow pack Augmentation in the San Juan Mountains. Colorado. A <br />1976 report edited by Ilarold StcinhotT(Colorado State Univcrsity) and Jack Ives <br />(University of Colorado) summarizing the results ora five ycar stuuy (SteinhofT and Ives. <br />1976). <br />. The Medicine Bow Ecology Project. A 1975 report on studies conducted in the Medicine <br />Bow Mountains of south em Wyoming (Knight, 1975). <br />. The Sierra Ecology Study. A five volume rcport summarizing work on pussible impacts <br />on the American River Drainage in California (Smith et al. 1980). <br /> <br />In general. these studics concluded that signilicant cnvironmental elTects due to the <br />possible conduct of cloud seeding programs in these arcas \\'cre not expected to occur. An <br />examplc that supports this conclusion is as follows: <br />A statement made in the final report on the San Juan Mountains program (Steinhoff and <br />Ives. 1976): "The rcsults of the San Juan Ecology Projcct suggest that there should be no <br />immediate. large-scale impacts on the terrestrial ecosystems of these mountains following an <br />addition of up to 30 percent of the nomlal snowpack. but \vith no addition to maximum <br />snowpacks. Further. much of the work reportcd here suggests that compensating mechanisms <br />within the studies ecosystems are such that any impacts would be buffered. at least for short <br />periods of time. and of lesser magnitude than the changcs in snO\\i conditions requircd to produce <br />them:' <br /> <br />Two topics are often voiced as ones of spccial concern: I) the possibility of reducing <br />precipitation downwind of pOl entia I target areas. and 2) the possible toxicity of sceding agents. <br /> <br />Downwind Effects <br /> <br />Perhaps the most frequently asked question rcgarding the establishment of a cloud <br />seeding program in an area that has not been involved in previous cloud seeding programs is <br />"Won't you be robbing PetCf to pay Paul if you conduct a cloud seeding program in this areaT'o <br />In other words. won't areas downwind of the intcndcd target area experience less precipitation <br />during the seeded periods? The rather surprising answer to this question is "no." This answcr is <br />