Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2l <br /> <br />1 with the pilot project. Again, they essentially established <br /> <br />2 that the correlation of weather modification activity to the <br /> <br />3 occurrence of avalanche did'not occur; -- there were no <br /> <br />4 correlations -- and, essentially, that the avalanche condi- <br /> <br />5 tions that did occur were on the basis of certain <br /> <br />6 meteorological conditions such as periods of high windiness <br /> <br />1 and certain temperature variations where there was some <br /> <br />8 warmer periods followed by extremely cold periods, or vice <br /> <br />9 versa, that tended to increase the instability within the <br /> <br />10 snowpaCk; and, therefore ,increased the probability of the <br /> <br />11 snow releasing and causing an avalanche. <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />Q <br /> <br />Now, Mr. Hjermstad, is there any additional' <br /> <br />13 information which might be required to describe the operation <br /> <br />14 and the proposed method of evaluation of this project? For <br /> <br />IS example, how do you propose to evaluate the results of this <br /> <br /> <br />16 program in the event the permit is granted? <br /> <br /> <br />17 A What I will essentially do this year is collect <br /> <br /> <br />18 data that can be evaluated in the future. As far as the <br /> <br />19 kinds of evaluations that are most acceptable to the scienti- <br /> <br />20 fic community, the amount of data that will be collected will <br /> <br />21 not be sufficient. <br /> <br />22 So, consequently, the best I can do is to collect <br /> <br />23 this data as accurately for each situation as I can and have <br /> <br />24 it available for future analysis. Another method of at least <br /> <br />2S looking at some immediate effects of the program is something <br />