WSP09641 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

; ,: njl'>';J 36 l. J!..,. l- This was later modified to include only the southeastern 11mb of the original Bre~. in which ecology study areas I, 2, 3, Ilnd 4 are located. This 311tomatically excluded that portion of the area containing human habitations, principally the towns of Silverton. Tellu- ride,and Ouray. Simultaneously with the progress in cloud-seeding tec.hnology there occurred the rapid growth of the North American environmental ethic, and "ecology" be- came a household word. Cooper and Jolly (1969) prepared for the Bureau DC Reclamation a general report on the possibl~ ecological effects of weather modification. Lh~y recornmend~d tnat all weather modification experi- ments and operational projects be accompanied by studies of their possible ecological impacts. Con- sequently the Bureau aSNed Colorado State University, in concert with the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR) of the University of Colorado, and Fort Lewis College, to present 3 problem analysis and study plan for evaluation of th~ potential ecological impact of snowpack augmentation in the San Juan Moun- tains (Teller et al. 1970). A Steering Committee of six, composed of representatives from the three institutions, was established to oversee the develop- ment of the project design, although contributions were obtained from a large number of individual scientists. The Steering Committee realized very early that major scientific and organizational problems would need to be overcome if a project of this magnitude and com- plexity were to be successful. The large number and diversity of the San Juan ~untain ecosystems, the great variability of precipitation both from place to place and year to year, the ecological plasticity of many species, and the abil~ty of organisms to adjust to environmental changes in mountain areas, were all important considerations. Logistical considerations, both in terms of the exis- t~nce of the two major groopings of potential partic- ipants in separate. instituj:ions ," and fieldwork organ- ization in a compl~x mount~in system, led to the prag- matic decision to break do~ the major study objective along broad ecosystem-type divisions rather than by ecosystem components :;uch cLS producers, consumers, decomposers, and abiotic f~ctors. Thus four groups of research proposals were originally solicited with agreement that Colorado SteLte Univeraity would be primarily, although nct exclusively, responsible for production of forcst and aquatic €cosystems proposals while INSTAAR would hold primary responsibility for producing tundra ecosystem and paleoccological pro- posals. To fSGilitate the usefulness of these research proposals a series of guideline!> were laid do\o7I1 by the Steering Commit.tee. First, it was considered beyond the man- power and estimated financial limits to undertake any full-scale ecosy:3tem research endeavor; thus emphasis was to be pl3ced upon identification of a series of specific research projects that collectively would help elucidate the. effects of artificially increased snowpack on the ecologicallY related resour~es of the San Juan Mountains in terms of their economic and/or public interest. Further, it was stipulated that, since cloud seeding wDuld begin simultaneously with ;lny proposed ecological research, a classical before- 1md-after approach would not be possible. Next, a treated versuS control type of methodology was reject~d because no area with an environment sufficiently similar to the San Juan Mountains could be identified with confidence to serve as the control area. This problem was the more intractable because of the scarclty of ecological information on the San Juan Mountains themselves. All of these guidelines led to the conclusion that"the most lik~ly chance of succe~S would be derived from developing a series of "process studies" whereby the relations between snow and in- dividual ecosystem components be evaluated. Thus the focus of attention would be placed on assessment of how the characteristics of each selected ecosystem component changed with varying snowpack regardless of whether or not. or to what degree, cloud seeding proved successful. This car~ied the implication that an initial cloud-seeding pilot project of four-years' duration would not likely show detectable impacts so that any actual attempt to measure ecological responses directly would not be appropriate. The need for an ecological overview was recognized as a means of yielding a baseline description of the area under study. The types of 5~udy identified above could probably be undertaken an~here in the Rocky Mountains where mountain slope~ extended above tree-line, and still yield answers relating to the ecological impacts of snowpack augmentation. Nevertheless, sinCE! the effect of snow, as one e~csY8tem co~ponent, varies ~ith all other componentS, such as temperature, soil, geological structure. topography, and associated plants and ani- mals, there wa~ a unanimous resolve that actual field investigations in the San Juan Mountains thems~lves would forlD the core of any rese.arch program. The principles discovered there will undoubtedly b~ applicable to other areas, to the extent that each investigator i8 able to a~count for environmental variables and in relation to the degree of similarity between another a~ea and the San Juan Mountains. Furthermore. proven metnodologies could be modified and applied elsewhere and the record of our false starts used to improve future research designs. Changes due to bng-continued increases in snowfall were assumed to be primarily long-term changes in the species composition of the different ecosystems. Sincl2 sucll changes would likely appear only after many year:; of cloud seeding, a measure of current community structure (i.e. phytosociology) would effectively show pre-seeding conditions. For further discussions of this rationale see Chapter II. To return to the organizational and project design process, it should be noted that likely effects of increased snowfall we.re diScussed as part of Phase I, in light of the Cooper and Jolly (1969) assessment and our collective ecological experience, and potential project proposals were solicited throughrnost of Colorado. The technical Quality of the proposals were initially reviewed by each of the twu institutional groupings, then by the tri-institutional Steering Committee, and finally by the latter-group in confer- ence with three consultants. The constraint of a broadly estimated annual budget was imposed, and a group of 29 project proposals were selected that met the follo~u~ cCiteria~ (1) Im~oTtant to overall objectives, as shown by our analysis system (2) A good research plan and scientist qualified and avail- able to conduct the proposed study; and ()) Fiscally compatible. The resultant list of project proposals was submitted to the Bureau of Reclamation who, along with its own ecological consultants. completed a "final review. The set of proposals that survived this screening process is repr~sented in the reports of Ch;lpter IV. The projects and administrative organization are indicated in Figure 2. It should be pointed out, however. that virtualty half of th~ proposals submitted to the Bureau of Rec.lat:lation did !'2!:. sunl"ivtO'. the screening proceSs, and most significantly, the aquatic 3