WMOD00593

• Contract/Permit #: 14-06-D-7052
• Title: Ecological Impacts of Snowpack Augmentation in the San Juan Mountains, Colorado
• Date: 3/1/1976
• State: CO
• Weather Modification - Doc Type: Report

In areas not covered by the Benton-Meiman
questionnaire, there is no quantitative support
for our evaluation. In these areas, we are reduced
to qualitative judgements made in consultation with
as many investigators from SJEP as have shown inter-
est in responding to early drafts of this chapter.

Before discussing the actual administration of SJEP,
it is worth considering first whether a university
provides the proper structure for environmental
impact assessment. Analysis of Table 1 suggests
that the SJEP investigators feel that work of this
kind fits the goals of a university and contributes
to the university's functions. A second answer to
this question is provided by considering the level
of success achieved by the project. According to
Table 2, SJEP investigators (almost all of them
university personnel) feel that the project was
successful, especially in the areas which most affect
them personally. This corroborates the view that
projects like SJEP offer advantages to a university.
However, it does not mean that the best interests of
the funding contractor or the general public are
necessarily met by a university-centered operation.
No information is available to show whether these
interests would be better met by private environ-
mental consultants or other government agencies than
by the university. A university-based project does,
however, allow flexibility to investigators that
might not be possible elsewhere. This is evident
in the amount of "unpaid" effort expended on project
business, particularly by graduate research assis-
tants as part of their "training."

Project Administration

The broad administration of the San Juan Ecology
Project is described in the Introduction to this
report but may be summarized in a few sentences here.
It consisted of a hierarchical structure with the
Project Coordinator, who was also chairman of the
Steering Committee, at the head. He was responsible
for the administration of the entire project. The
Steering Committee was responsible for policy and
fiscal decisions and consisted of six members, two

each from Colorado State University and the Univer-
sity of Colorado, one from Fort Lewis College, and
the Project Coordinator from CSU. Research admin-
istration devolved onto two team leaders in charge
of work in the forest ecosystems and the tundra
ecosystems, respectively. Effectively, this structure
resulted in a two-way division between CSU (forest)
and CU (tundra), although there remained areas of
overlapping interest, particularly in climatologic
and mapping projects. Within each team, and report-
ing to the team leaders, were the principal investi-
gators of individual subprojects.

This complex administrative structure poses some
problems to questionnaire evaluation with respect
to project administration. It means that the term
"administration" tends to become ambiguous since
some individuals interpret it as meaning the entire
administrative structure while others interpret it
more narrowly as the part of the administration of a
single team leader. Respondents at CU were instructed
to take a narrow view and interpret "administration"
as meaning "internal to the CU part of SJEP." A
further source of confusion in the interpretation
of "administration" lies in the possibility of con-
founding the abilities of individual administrators
with the institutional characteristics of the admin-
istrative system. The effects of these potential
ambiguities remain in the pooled totals used here
and are most evident in the responses about admin-
istrative effectiveness (Table 4).

The summarized responses shown in Table 3 allow an
evaluation of the style of project administration.
There are six indications of administrative
flexibility (in fiscal controls, work schedules,
etc.) but the most common single-word description
of the structure used by the investigators was
"centralized," rather than "decentralizeu." During
the life of the project very little change in the
administrative approach has been felt by the inves-
tigators. However, the change seen was in the
direction of a more flexible structure. The
inconsistency and variability of these responses
probably reflects the problem of interpreting

Table 1. Suitabitityof the university as a center for multidisciplinary research

Question No. Of Responses Modal Response No. In Mode
Do the project's goals fit (12)
the university's goals? 16 Good Fit 9
How favorable to your
project were:
University Physical Space 15 Favorable 7 (10)
University Computer Services 16 Very Favorable 5 (10)
University Accounting 14 Favorable 5 (9)
University Personnel Service 14 No Effect 9 (13)
Contracts & Grants 13 No Effect 7 (9)
Departmental Support 16 No Effect 6 (12)
Capital Equipment 12 No Effect 6 (11)

8.b.

i.c.

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)

Source: Responses to the questionnaire administered to SJEP investigators by Benton & Meiman in mid-1975
(Appendix A).

Questions condensed from the actual form used.

All questions were scored by each respondent on a scale with 7 classes. The modal response is the one used
most frequently by respondents. For range of modal response classes, see Appendix A.

Values in parentheses are for the modal class and the two adjacent ones.

22