GENERAL54382 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Commitments regarding future management and research associated with the aspen study are addressed in Section 7.0 and Section 9.0 of permit Appendix 22-3. In section 7.0, the plan notes that "iffirst-season drip irrigation proves to be successful in allowing aspen to survive transplanting, additional research might be necessary...". Potential topics for continued research are stated to include: • How long will supplemental irrigation be necessary? • Will transplants be capable of re-establishing clones through root suckering? • What will be the long term growth and survival rates? • What approaches will be necessary to "wean" transplants from supplemental irrigation. Within Section 7.0, SCC commits to submit information and/or requests for additional study no later than December 2006, and further commits that supplemental irrigation will continue through the 2006 field season at a level of irrigation to be determined by the 2005 study results. Within Section 9.0, SCC indicates that, if the studies and field trials prove successful, "SCC will apply these techniques to the aspen establishment plots as depicted in Exhibit 22-1 and 22-1A, Post Mine Vegetation Map". Section 9.0 contains the further commitment that "SCC will make an evaluation of these trials and tests by the fall of 2008". Comments on Pilot Study Report and Presentation Ob j ectives/Meth ods/Results/Conclusions In the study plan, the two soil treatments in the primary study site are described as rotocleared and non-rotocleared ("modified" and "normal" on the study plan schematic). My understanding was that both soil treatments were to have been "direct haul" from the salvage area to the study site. However, this apparently may not have been the case. In the study plot layout included in the report, the soil treatments are labeled "fresh topsoil" and "stored topsoil". Apparently, the rotocleared soil may have been direct haul, but the non-rotocleared soil may have been stored in a short term stockpile for some period of time. If this is the case, interpretations based on the soil treatments will be complicated; since observed differences maybe the result of the different salvage techniques (rotocleared vs. non-rotocleared), or they may be the result of differences inpost-salvage handling (short term stockpiling vs. direct haul), or some combination of treatment effects. In any case, there were rather dramatic differences between the two soil treatments for many of the attributes measured, and as such, it is important that the treatments be fully defined. The methods and timing of soil salvage, length of storage and approximate dimensions of storage piles, and timing and methods of transport, placement, and final grading for each of the two soil treatments should be described in detail in the Methods section of the report.