|
<br />003173
<br />
<br />APPENDIX
<br />TABLES
<br />
<br />Table
<br />
<br />A,1 Potential experimental locations with at least 20 km width, a substantial area
<br />above 9000 ft elevation, and not primarily within a wilderness area. . . . . .
<br />A,2 Rating factors or considerations for experimental site selection in approximate
<br />order of importance . . . . . . . . , . . . , . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . .
<br />B.1 Comparison of percent of days with measurable precipitation (left columns) and
<br />percent of 25-year normal snow water equivalent (right columns) between
<br />Grand Mesa and Wasatch Plateau SNOTEL sites ...,..,.....,...
<br />B-2 Storm duration, precipitation, and estimated SLW flux for three-winter programs
<br />over the Tushar Mountains . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . .
<br />B.3 Storm duration, precipitation, and estimated SLW flux for 16 Wasatch Plateau
<br />storms from mid January to mid March 1991 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
<br />BA Storm duration, precipitation, and estimated SLW flux for 65 Grand Mesa storms
<br />from November to December 1983 and January to March 1985 ... .
<br />C.1 Listing of stream gauges and snow courses used in this study. . . , . .
<br />C.2 Predicted percentage increases in seasonal runoff . . . , . , . . . . . .
<br />D.1 Potentially affected resources that should be included in a CE checklist
<br />D,2 Standard formats for EA and ErS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
<br />D.3 Possible contact agencies to fulfil NEPA interagency cooperation requirements
<br />D.4 Studies documenting effects of snowfall augmentation projects . , . . . . . . .
<br />D.5 A comparison ofthe NEPA compliance process for CE, EA, and ErS . . . . . .
<br />D,6 Cost estimates for the CREST environmental compliance scenarios in dollars .
<br />D,7 Annual and total cost estimate for the CREST environmental monitoring . . .
<br />E.1 Estimated program operating cost in 1993 dollars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
<br />E.2 Estimated program operating cost assuming a 4 percent annual escalation factor .
<br />E,3 Estimated program labor ...,
<br />E,4 Detailed cost and labor estimates . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
<br />
<br />APPENDIX
<br />FIGURES
<br />
<br />Page
<br />63
<br />68
<br />76
<br />79
<br />82
<br />85
<br />94
<br />95
<br />109
<br />110
<br />116
<br />122
<br />123
<br />126
<br />127
<br />138
<br />139
<br />140
<br />141 I
<br />
<br />Figure
<br />B-1 Storm precipitation vs supercooled liquid water flux for the Tushar
<br />Mountains. UT. . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
<br />B-2 Storm precipitation vs supercooled liquid water flux for the Wasatch Plateau, UT . 83
<br />B.3 Storm precipitation vs supercooled liquid water flux for the Grand Mesa, CO . 86
<br />C.1 April through July runoff at Seven Mile Creek, UT, vs April 1 snow water
<br />equivalent at Farnsworth Lake, UT, snow pillow . . , . , . . . . . . . . . . . 97
<br />C.2 April through July runoff at Pine Creek, WY, vs April 1 snow water equivalent
<br />at Elkhart Park, WY, snow pillow ."........,..,.'..... 98
<br />C.3 April through July runoff at East Fork ofthe San Juan River, CO, vs mean
<br />April 1 snow water equivalent from three high elevation snow courses ..., 100
<br />
<br />xi
<br />
|