|
<br />Where ecologic processes operate in a continuous
<br />fashion through the year and are not constrained to
<br />an annual cycle, as most living things are, a compari-
<br />son of process rates or amounts of change by season
<br />is possible. This comparison has been found most
<br />useful in the study of alpine soil erosion but has
<br />also been applied to the study of litter decomposi-
<br />tion. If a suitable definition of winter and
<br />summer seasons can be made, this comparison allows
<br />a crude evaluation of the relative importance of
<br />the winter season. It should not be used as more
<br />than a first approximation, however, because of
<br />the difficulties of evaluating carry-over effects
<br />from one season to another and of defining the
<br />limits of a snowpack (winter) influence.
<br />
<br />From the outset, SJEP has attempted to define as
<br />topics of study, species or situations which are
<br />most susceptible to a change in snow conditions.
<br />If the monitoring of ecologic effects of snowpack
<br />augmentation is of interest, it is probably critical
<br />that it be performed on such susceptible indicators.
<br />Among the abiotic components of the ecosystem, there
<br />are equivalent situations, i.e. those where an in-
<br />crease in snowfall will be reflected most rapidly.
<br />Where wind drifting occurs, these indicator situ-
<br />ations are likely to be found around snowdrift sites.
<br />It should be possible to identify as the center of
<br />further studies, indicator species in indicator
<br />situations; that is, the individuals most susceptible
<br />to changes in snow or silver accumulation.
<br />
<br />CONCLUSION
<br />
<br />In summarizing this internal evaluation of the San
<br />Juan Ecology Project, it must be concluded that the
<br />project was multidisciplinary rather than inter-
<br />disciplinary. Overall, the research effort has' been
<br />binary, centered on the teams of workers from diff-
<br />erent institutions; and, within the teams, it has
<br />been subproject oriented rather than team or system
<br />oriented.
<br />
<br />We offer no simple solution to meet the needs for
<br />integration in a project of this sort, instead we
<br />conclude with a summary set of recommendations
<br />based on the experience of the past five years.
<br />
<br />1. In the project leader, administrative experience
<br />is more important than an outstanding research
<br />record.
<br />
<br />2. A flexible approach to administration and research
<br />is probably preferable, especially if work is to
<br />be performed by academics.
<br />
<br />3. A research team that has worked together pre-
<br />viously should be much more successful than one
<br />brought together for the project.
<br />
<br />4. We recommend a higher level of public involvement
<br />and external review than has occurred in SJEP.
<br />
<br />5. At the present time, an approach using system
<br />simulations based on existing knowledge is
<br />recommended. This may require field surveys to
<br />define the nature of the target area and some
<br />field studies for the purpose of calibration
<br />but these needs should not be the main part of
<br />the research.
<br />
<br />6. The search for effects on the ground is not
<br />recommended, primarily becuase of the
<br />difficulty of identifying causes.
<br />
<br />7. In an evaluation of winter cloud seeding, it is
<br />very important to identify the "natural" con-
<br />ditions of the mountain snowpack and the way in
<br />which these might be modified by cloud seeding.
<br />
<br />8. An operational criterion, whether to test for
<br />effect or for no effect, should be defined early
<br />in the project's life, and adhered to.
<br />
<br />9. An effort should be made to record conditions
<br />in the target area prior to cloud seeding.
<br />This would facilitate subsequent comparisons
<br />and the monitoring of effects required by NEPA.
<br />
<br />LITERATURE CITED
<br />
<br />Cooper, C. F., G. W. Cox and W. A. Johnson, 1974.
<br />Investigations recommended for assessing the
<br />environmental impact of snow augmentation in
<br />the Sierra Nevada, California. Center for
<br />Regional Environmental Studies, San Diego
<br />State University, San Diego, California 92182.
<br />(Report prepared under U.S. Bureau of
<br />Reclamation Contract No. 14-06-D-7287); 84 pp.
<br />
<br />Leaf, C. F., 1975. Watershed management in the Rocky
<br />Mountain subalpine zone: the status of' our
<br />knowledge. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Research
<br />Paper RM-137. 31 pp.
<br />
<br />Leopold, L. B., F. E. Clarke, B. B. Hanshaw and
<br />J. R. Balsey, 1971. A procedure for evaluating
<br />environmental impact. U.S. Geol. Survey
<br />Circular No. 645. 13 pp.
<br />
<br />Morel-Seytoux, H. J. and F. Saheli, 1973. Test of
<br />runoff increase due to precipitation management
<br />for the Colorado River Basin Pilot Project.
<br />Jour. Applied Met. 12:322-337.
<br />
<br />Pittock, A. B., 1972. Evaluating the risk to society
<br />from the SST: some thoughts occasioned by the
<br />AAS report. Search, 3:285-289.
<br />
<br />Plutchik, R., 1968. Foundations of experimental
<br />research. Harper & Row, New York. 290 pp.
<br />
<br />,
<br />
<br />
<br />1
<br />1
<br />
<br />I
<br />
<br />32
<br />
<br />,
<br />
|