Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

The Legacy of Surface Mining and The 4R

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 7

Environmental Science & Policy 66 (2016) 227–233

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Science & Policy


journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

Short communication

The legacy of surface mining: Remediation, restoration, reclamation


and rehabilitation
Ana T. Limaa,* , Kristen Mitchella , David W. O’Connella , Jos Verhoevenb ,
Philippe Van Cappellena
a
Ecohydrology Research Group, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences and Water Institute, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, N2 L 3G1, Canada
b
Institute of Environmental Biology, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80084, 3508 TB Utrecht, The Netherlands, The Netherlands

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history:
Received 21 August 2015 Surface mining is a global phenomenon. When dealing with the land disturbances caused by surface
Received in revised form 4 April 2016 mining operations, the terms remediation, reclamation, restoration and rehabilitation (R4) are
Accepted 23 July 2016 commonly used interchangeably or otherwise vaguely defined. Expectations associated with these
Available online 30 July 2016 terms may differ significantly from one stakeholder to another, however. Regulators, industry,
environmental practitioners, local communities and the general public therefore stand to benefit from a
Keywords: precise terminology based on agreed-upon end-goals. The latter range from the avoidance of exposure to
Surface mining pollutants (remediation) to the full recovery of the original ecosystem (restoration). Although frequently
Remediation
claimed as the end-goal, restoration may often not be unachievable, because of altered hydrology, habitat
Reclamation
fragmentation, contamination, climate change, prohibitive costs and other environmental and socio-
Restoration
Rehabilitation economic boundary conditions. Mostly, the definitions of reclamation and rehabilitation may overlap in
Resource extraction their definitions and approaches. Here we attempt the creation of a road-map that can clearly translate
end-goals for each of the R4 terms. According to the definitions encountered and exposed here,
reclamation, which aims to recover key ecosystem services and biogeochemical functions within a
replacement ecosystem or rehabilitation, which implies a repurposing of the landscape, may be the best
approaches to deal with surface mining legacies.
ã 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Long-term legacies whose environmental effects extend far


beyond the lifetime of the mining operations represent some of the
In surface mining, soil and rock overlying or hosting a shallow more difficult issues facing regulators and industry (Bernhardt
ore deposit is physically removed to access the resource. Surface et al., 2012; Bullock et al., 2012; Rooney et al., 2012a, 2012b).
mining comprises different practices strip mining, open-pit Existing environmental management guidelines and policies
mining and mountaintop-removal mining and accounts for more invariably refer to the need to remediate, reclaim, rehabilitate,
than 80% of ore mined each year (Ramani, 2012). Surface mining restore, or some combination thereof, of the mining site after
disturbs the landscape and impacts habitat integrity, environmen- closure. Remediation, reclamation, rehabilitation and restoration
tal flows and ecosystem functions; it raises concerns about water (hereafter referred to as R4), however, are used interchangeably in
(Miller and Zégre, 2014), air and soil quality (Mummey et al., 2002), the scientific literature or in government reports and policy
and often also public health. Legacies of surface mining may documents (Hüttl and Weber, 2001; Li, 2006). For example, one
include loss of soil structure and fertility, altered hydrology, and may find reclamation defined as “restoring the top-soil” (Mitchell
long-term leaching of contaminants from tailings and end-pit lakes and Casman, 2011), or directives that aim for the “land to be
(Isosaari and Sillanpää, 2010; Li, 2006; Ramani, 2012). Very large- cleared” and the “soil handled” (Alberta Environment, 2010).
scale surface mining activities may cause ecosystem fragmentation Existing policies for coping with surface mining legacies have
and affect regional biodiversity (Rooney et al., 2012a, 2012b). therefore been criticized for their lack of clarity (Bernhardt et al.,
2012) and for setting ill-defined or unrealistic goals (Bullock et al.,
2012; Rooney et al., 2012a, 2012b).
The chosen case-studies consist of carbon extraction of
* Corresponding author. different surface mining scales. Throughout the years, Mankind
E-mail address: atlima@uwaterloo.ca (P. Van Cappellen).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.07.011
1462-9011/ã 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
228 A.T. Lima et al. / Environmental Science & Policy 66 (2016) 227–233

has explored nature for fuel: first trees and peat, then coal and solutions for surface mining legacies. But more important than
lastly oil. Although there are other examples of surface mining redefining these R4 terms is to clarify objectives for site end-use
impacts, here we compare three examples of still active exploita- and expectations each involved part has regarding post-mining
tion: peat extraction in Ireland, coal mining in Appalachia (United land-use. In lights of previous idiosyncratic literature e.g. (Society
States) and oil sands exploitation in Alberta (Canada). We revisit for Ecological Restoration International Science and Policy
the R4 terminology in the context of surface mining and propose a Working Group, 2004), definitions have been established vaguely
decision tree to help identify the appropriate R4 strategy based on to encompass a wide variety of R4 practices. However, the goals
the desired end-point for the post-mining site. A discussion is and end-points of R4 programs should be established at the
followed regarding the actions taken at each case-study and earliest possible time, preferably even before mining operations
whether they achieved the envisioned R4 end-point. begin (Fig. 1) to avoid post-mining adversities. Fig. 1 was developed
based on Table 1 definitions and consists of an attempt to simplify
2. R4 terminology revisited R4 by defining specific targets and end-goals. Targets are explicit
environmental compartments, functions or services passive of
Classic ecological terminology note rehabilitation, reclamation improvement after impacted by resource exploitation. End-point is
and restoration as terms with similar goals (Society for Ecological the site state or condition after accomplishing a given R4 measure.
Restoration International Science and Policy Working Group, Below we explore each R4 and exemplify the definitions.
2004), where rehabilitation has been identified with managerial Contamination control, i.e. remediation, needs to occur before
urban and agricultural usages (Box, 1974; Haigh, 2007; Wali, 1996). re-establishing a land-use. Therefore, remediation targets a
The most frequent R4 terms in scientific literature are restoration specific target being it soil, water, human health and proposes
and remediation (Fig. S1). To avoid further confusion on the topic, remedial actions to solve it, aiming at a decontaminated or
we chose to define rehabilitation as more managerial and contaminant-free site (end-goal) (Fig. 1). Restoration proposes to
reclamation as the more ecological term (see Table 1). bring back the pre-existing ecosystem. This definition aims to
The call for more uniformity and consistency in R4 terminology classically (re)establish the whole ecosystem function (target) and
is not new (Wali, 1996). Clear definitions of the R4 terms may be therefore bring back the exact pre-existing ecosystem before
key to the participatory planning and communication of long-term resource exploitation impacted the site (end-point). This end-point

Table 1
Summary of the main characteristics of remediation, rehabilitation, reclamation and restoration. Note that remediation refers to soil remediation, not groundwater or other
environmental compartments.

Remediation Reclamationa Rehabilitationa Restoration


Target Soil Land, site Land, site Ecological/Ecosystem
General A physical, chemical or biological Geotechnical stabilisation of land via A managerial wide term that Original concept of restoration stems
definitionaction to remove contaminants with a series of integrated operations measures costs and benefits of from classical ecology, it aims at
the goals to reduce and manage the (Saperstein, 1990; Adriano et al., maintaining environmental quality describing the act of assisting the
risks to human beings posed by 2004), implying a final step where and optimize local land management recovery of an ecosystem to the point
contaminated sites (Beames et al., repopulation occurs with original capacity (Haigh, 2007). However, where flows of natural goods and the
2014). Remediation includes species according to other authors provision of cultural values are
rehabilitation actions aimed or other related ones (Wali, 1996). rehabilitation shares with restoration restored (Box, 1974; Clewell and
specifically at treating or otherwise This definition of reclamation is the a fundamental focus on historical or Aronson, 2008). It is loosely defined
removing pollution or contamination same as rehabilitation of other pre-existing ecosystems as models or to encompass a large variety of
authors (Haigh, 2007; Society for references (Society for Ecological practices (Society for Ecological
Ecological Restoration International Restoration International Science and Restoration International Science and
Science and Policy Working Group, Policy Working Group, 2004). Policy Working Group, 2004)).
2004).
End goals (Haigh, 2007) defines the term as Depends on the definition. Other According to (Haigh, 2007; Wali attempts to replicate the original
“soil rehabilitation”. The end-point of documents establish reclamation as 1996; Box 1974), the site is either fauna and flora of an ecosystem (Wali,
this action results in a ecosystem full recovery returned to nature or to more human- 1996; Powter et al., 2012).
decontaminated site. use.
Approach Soil “clean-up” Bio-remediation, phytoremediation Dichotomy decision tool to define the Define ecosystems species
Physical-chemical techniques to Species are planted with the aim of operational steps to achieve the end- composition, community structure,
remove a part or the total of aiding remediation, sometimes goal. ecological function, suitability of the
contaminants including replacing replacing the step “remediation” of physical environment to support the
soil soil biota and connectivity with the
surrounding landscape (Clewell and
Aronson, 2008)
Price tag 35 Euro per capita per year in soil 250–400 Euro per m2 e.g. (Consulting, Depends on end-goal 0.32-2.5 Euro per m2 e.g. (Perrow,
clean-up efforts in the EU 2006; Schaart, 2008) 2016; Olsen and Shannon, 2010)
(Rodrigues et al., 2009)
Time Depending on the technique, it may Slow process needing Depends on end-goal Long-term commitment of land and
scale vary from a couple of months to a a speedy assisted remediation to resources; time consuming (Wali,
couple of decades (natural avoid the leaching of contaminants 1996)
attenuation) (Burgos et al., 2013), with only long-
term results (Wang et al., 2013)
Legacy Often destroys the soil structure; Geotechnical stability is a main A major proportion of land reclaimed The initial land-use gets restored,
remediated land is reused as industry concern. It differs from rehabilitation or rehabilitated for human use does regarding ecosystem functionality.
or urban districts, changing the in the sense that decision wise, there not remain in a good quality Geotechnical issues are often
geomorphology is not so much freedom. The end-use condition (Haigh, 2007) overlooked.
is to repopulate with original-like
species.
a
This table tries to highlight the difficulties encountered in defining R4 terms, especially reclamation and rehabilitation.
A.T. Lima et al. / Environmental Science & Policy 66 (2016) 227–233 229

Surface mining legacy Targets End-point

Site Yes Air, water and soil quality, Decontaminated site


contamination Remediate human health

No Recover Yes Biodiversity, ecosystem Preexisng ecosystem


original Restore
ecosystem structure and funcon

No

Recover Pre-mining ecosystem Replacement ecosystem


No original Yes
Reclaim services and
ecosystem
services biogeochemical funcons

Priorize Yes Food and biomass Agriculture, agroforestry,


Rehabilitate provisioning producon, water supply aquaculture
services

No Redevelopment, Built environment,


infrastructure, recreaon green/blue space

Fig. 1. Proposed R4 decision tree based on targets and end-goals for post-mining recovery.

is somewhat ambitious, since the pre-existing ecosystem may be projections, new legal and spatial planning constraints, and shifts
too idealistic to achieve and, if unscathed, may the same ecosystem in public perception. Thus, the decision tree presented in Fig. 1
may have evolved into something very different than the pre- should not be viewed as a rigid, one-time process, but rather as an
existing one (Rooney et al., 2012a, 2012b). If re-establishing the adaptive tool to help maintain consistency during the (re)
original is not feasible due to temporal considerations, but we assessment of environmental site management options under
would like to recover ecosystem services that the original spatially and temporally variable boundary conditions.
ecosystem provided. decision makers arrive at reclamation (Foley
et al., 2005; Grant et al., 2008; Powter et al., 2012). Reclamation 3. Case studies
may be very similar to restoration, but in practical terms, it targets
one aspect of ecosystem services such as the biogeochemical Surface mining of peat, coal and oil sands will likely continue to
function. The route to achieve biogeochemical function, such as expand in the near future, given the increasing global demand for
denitrification, may not use the same exact species (flora) of the energy, and for peat also for soil amendments and horticulture.
pre-existing ecosystem, but other species that deliver the same Mining is expected to be most intense in those regions hosting the
function. The end-point of reclamation is then a replacement largest known reserves Canada, Russia, USA, Brazil, China and
ecosystem. Rehabilitation, defined here as a managerial term, Australia (Fig. 2). While land perturbations by surface mining of
measures costs and benefits of maintaining environmental quality peat, coal and oil sands share similarities, they also pose different
and optimize local land management capacity and includes challenges that require adapted environmental management
practices such as agriculture, forestry, urbanization, etc (Box, approaches. In what follows, we summarized in Fig. 1 to analyze
1974; Haigh, 2007; Wali, 1996). Rehabilitation tackles site as and compare three cases of peat, coal and oil sands surface mining
human-service provision, either by making use of the area for (Table 2).
agricultural related activities, targeting the production of e.g. food,
or for developing infrastructures in which the end-point would be 3.1. Peat mining in Ireland
either green-spaces (such as parks) or the built-environment (such
as housing/industry) (Fig. 1). Peat extraction in Ireland has been ongoing since the Middle
In reality, surface mining operations covering large geographic Ages. Most degradation of raised bog habitat has resulted from
areas may require a spatial mix of R4 strategies, while land end- peat harvesting for household fuel, energy production and
uses may have to be revaluated periodically, as a result of, among horticulture, as well as afforestation and grazing. As a result, by
others, scientific and technological advances, adjustments to cost 2001 only 8% of raised bogs and 21% of blanket bogs were still
230 A.T. Lima et al. / Environmental Science & Policy 66 (2016) 227–233

Fig. 2. Worldwide reserves of peat (km2), coal (tons) and oil sands (barrels). Sources: U.S. Geological Survey 2012 Report on Mineral Commodity Summaries, British
Petroleum 2008 Statistical Review of World Energy, and International Peat Society (www.peatsociety.org, accessed January, 2014).
A.T. Lima et al. / Environmental Science & Policy 66 (2016) 227–233 231

Table 2
Overview of the three study cases: peat mining in Ireland, coal mining in Appalachia and tar oil in Alberta.

Ireland Appalachia Alberta


Net reserves of fossil fuel (tons)a 85  106 60–90  109  25  109
Price of production (per ton)b  US$ 30  US$ 50c  US$ 100
Total area occupied by the resource (million ha) 1.4 5 14, but only 0.47 have been leased for
operations 6
Affected current area (ha) Up to 1,071,000 had 119,382 ha (7% of total 71,500 haf
area)e
Time range since 1st reclamation unknown 1977–2011 2008 ?
Percentage of restored, reclaimed, rehabilitated, and/or 14%g unknown 10%h
remediated land
Costs of reclamation/restoration to date s23 million for US$ 7.2 billionj CAD$ 3.2 billion in 2012k
7,000hai
Price of reclamation/restoration (per ha) s 3285 US$ 60,000 CAD$ 490,000l
a
2012 Report on Mineral Commodity Summaries from USGS; BP 2008 Statistical Review of World Energy; and website of the International Peat Society (all visited January,
2014).
b
BP 2008 Statistical Review of World Energy (visited January, 2014).
c
in 2012 Brief: Coal prices and production in most basins down in 2012 Today in Energy (visited January, 2014).
d
in (Bullock et al., 2012).
e
7% of the total exploitation represents mountain top striping irrecoverable in (Milici and Dennen 2009).
f
in (Pembina Institute, 2015).
g
in (Wilson et al., 2013).
h
in the 2012 repport of Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.
i
In (Bullock et al., 2012).
j
In (US EPA, 2005).
k
in (Campbell, 2012).
l
Considering that the 6498 ha that are reclaimed (Grant et al., 2008) were the result of the 3.2 billion spent in 2012.

intact in the Republic of Ireland (Bullock et al., 2012; Foss et al., (Roenker, 2013). Almost 7% of the land surface in this region was
2001). In addition to habitat loss, peat mining has raised concerns disrupted by mountain top mining between 1992 and 2002
about environmental side-effects, in particular surface water (Bernhardt et al., 2012). Valley fills made of waste rock from the
quality deterioration driven by sulphide oxidation and excess mines contaminate streams, with increased concentrations of toxic
dissolved organic matter released by peat subsidence (Dykes and elements, such as Se, Pb and Cd, posing health risks to humans and
Kirk, 2006). wildlife (Agouridis et al., 2012; Milici and Dennen, 2009).
In peat extraction, there is very little transformation or The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (1977) calls for
processing of the ore. In the absence of major contaminant rehabilitation, reclamation and restoration of the land disturbed by
legacies of peat mining, there is little need for remediation. Soil surface mining operations. Although an estimated US$ 7.2 billion
remediation is the process of eliminating or neutralizing contami- has been spent on the recovery of surface coal mining sites in
nation (see Table 1, Fig. 1). Restoration is the stated end-goal of Appalachia (Table 2), the outcomes have been mixed. Efforts to
disturbed peatland recovery in Ireland (Foss et al., 2001), i.e. the date have often failed to recover ecosystem productivity (restora-
implementation of an ecosystem very close to the original (see tion), while water quality issues have persisted, or even worsened,
Table 1, Fig. 1). Around 14% of the disturbed area is on its way to because of the severe disruption of hydrological and ecological
recovery, so far at an estimated cost of s23 million (Table 2). With connectivity, the loss of soil carbon and nutrients, and contaminant
peat accretion rates on the order of millimeters per year, the remobilization (Miller and Zégre, 2014; Zipper et al., 2011).
eventual restoration of pristine bog ecosystems will require many According to the developed R4 criteria (Fig. 1), large scale
more decades, if not centuries (Keddy, 2010). Furthermore, part of ecosystem restoration in sensu stricto is therefore unlikely to be
the disturbed peatland is being turned into forest and grassland for successful. Because of the contaminant legacies, remediation is a
grazing, that is land uses different from the original ones (Bullock required component of the environmental management of the coal
et al., 2012). This implies a different land-use than the original mining legacies rehabilitation and reclamation efforts have
ecosystem (i.e. something else than restoration). The actual end- remediation. Remediation activities should be integrated with land
use for some sites around the Irish bog landscape are now forestry reclamation and rehabilitation, depending on site conditions and a
or agricultural land, and this, according to Fig. 2 correspond to regional spatial planning process that takes into account environ-
rehabilitation. mental costs and benefits. Extensive geotechnical interventions are
What started as restoration plan in Ireland has thus evolved into likely to continue to remain necessary to manage soil erosion and
a mix of restoration and rehabilitation/reclamation practices, in water quality.
order to balance ecological, social, cultural and economic benefits.
Although land-use management is an evolving matter, peat post- 3.3. Oil sands in Alberta
mining land may have better “restored” if end-goals were better
clarified. Oil sand exploitation in the Athabasca region is relatively
recent, beginning in 1967. Rivers and streams were diverted, forest,
3.2. Coal mining in Appalachia wetlands and mineral soil cleared and drained before mining
activities began (Grant et al., 2008). From 1967 to 2006, nearly 500
Appalachia has been mined for coal as early as the American square kilometers (or 14% of the surface mineable area) was
Revolution (18th century) and intensively since the 1970s, when affected by surface mining operations (Fig. 3). As of January 2013,
mountain top removal mining became the primary extraction 715 square kilometers of boreal ecosystems have been disturbed
method (Bernhardt et al., 2012; Milici and Dennen, 2009) (Fig. 4). (Pembina Institute, 2015). A highly controversial legacy are the
The mining region covers roughly 5 million ha across six states end-pit lakes that store residual waters from the oil sands
232 A.T. Lima et al. / Environmental Science & Policy 66 (2016) 227–233

Fig. 3. Examples of the areal expansion of land disturbance by surface mining in Appalachia (top) and northern Alberta (bottom) from 1984 (left) to 2012 (right).
Source: Google Maps, December, 2013.

extraction processes (Kasperski and Mikula, 2011). The waters To gauge the progress of reclamation, monitoring programs should
contain a variety of contaminants, including naphtenic acids, be designed that allow one to determine the spatial and temporal
polycyclic aromatic compounds and toxic trace metals. As for changes in biogeochemical processes and flows, subsurface
mountaintop coal mining in Appalachia, remediation is required, biodiversity and microbial activity, hydrological connectivity,
while reclamation, rather than restoration, is the most feasible and on- and off-site transport of contaminants.
course of action for dealing with the land disturbances.
So far, 14% of the disturbed landscape has been recovered to the 4. Conclusions
oil sands operators’ standards (Grant et al., 2008), often with
extensive geotechnical interventions to control land form, soil Surface mining worldwide exerts significant pressures on land,
properties and hydrology (Price et al., 2013). As stated by the water and biological resources, hence, increasing the demand for
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the aim of their the sustainable recovery of the impacted landscapes. Present and
reclamation efforts is to “return the land to a sustainable future endeavors can reap the benefits of past mistakes and land-
landscape”. The “sustainable landscape” concept, however, is use exploitations. The planning, implementation and evaluation of
rather flexible and open to interpretation. According to the R4 appropriate solutions are complex, multi-stakeholder undertak-
terminology proposed here, the planning, implementation and ings that require consideration of diverse environmental, eco-
evaluation of reclamation projects should be based on a clear nomic and social impacts. A meaningful dialogue between the
identification of the sustainability objectives and their corre- stakeholders benefits from consistent, translated R4 terminology
sponding indicators. A critical assessment of the loss of ecosystem to designate the activities to be carried out. In this paper, we
services incurred as a result of the mining activities (e.g., Rooney propose a simplification of the R4 terminology based on objectives
et al., 2012a, 2012b) should constitute the first step in planning the for site recovery that are formulated in terms of environmental
recovery of ecosystem services and functions through reclamation. quality, human health, land end-use, ecosystem structure and
A.T. Lima et al. / Environmental Science & Policy 66 (2016) 227–233 233

function, and ecosystem services. For any given surface mining J. Grant, S. Dyer, D. Woynillowicz, 2008. Fact or Fiction? Oil sands reclamation
operation, the decision support tool of Fig. 1 can, in principle, be Drayton Valley, Alberta.
Hüttl, R.F., Weber, E., 2001. Forest ecosystem development in post-mining
translated into site-specific objectives and indicators that can be landscapes: a case study of the Lusatian lignite district. Naturwissenschaften
measured or valued. 88, 322–329.
Peat post-mining efforts have been varied, but necessarily the Haigh, M.J., 2007. Land use, land cover and soil sciences. In: Verheye, W.H. (Ed.),
EOLSS Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems, IV. UNESCO.
original intention: restoring the previous ecosystem. This goal Isosaari, P., Sillanpää, M., 2010. Electromigration of arsenic and co-existing metals in
could be unrealistic, regarding timeframe and costs. Therefore, mine tailings. Chemosphere 81, 1155–1158.
forestry and agriculture, intertwined with areas of peat restoration Kasperski, K.L., Mikula, R.J., 2011. Waste streams of mined oil sands: characteristics
and remediation. Elements 7, 387–392.
may be economically viable. Peat subsidence events still need to be Keddy, P.A., 2010. Wetland Ecology: Principles and Conservation, second ed.
tackled (Dykes and Kirk, 2006). In Appalachia, mountain-top Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
removal and extensive coal extraction and processing has Li, M.S., 2006. Ecological restoration of mineland with particular reference to the
metalliferous mine wasteland in China: a review of research and practice. Sci.
provoked contamination issues downstream. Existing ecosystem
Total Environ. 357, 38–53. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
restoration (or rehabilitation, reclamation) efforts have failed to scitotenv.2005.05.003.
solve these contamination effects. Alberta ongoing oil-sands B.R.C. Milici, K.O. Dennen, 2009. Production and depletion of Appalachian and
extraction will rise up to 470,000 ha (6 times de size of New York Illinois basin coal resources Reston, Virginia.
Miller, A., Zégre, N., 2014. Mountaintop removal mining and catchment hydrology.
city) (Pembina Institute, 2015). There is still time to clearly define Water 6, 472–499. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/w6030472.
the end-point of post-mining land and prevent previous large- Mitchell, A.L., Casman, E.A., 2011. Well site reclamation in Pennsylvania. Environ. Sci.
scale mining liabilities. Technol. 45, 9506–9514.
Mummey, D.L., Stahl, P.D., Buyer, J.S., 2002. Soil microbiological properties 20 years
after surface mine reclamation: spatial analysis of reclaimed and undisturbed
sites. Soil Biol. Biochem. 34, 1717–1725. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0038-
Appendix A. Supplementary data 0717(02)00158-X.
N. Olsen, D. Shannon, 2010. Valuing the net benefits of ecosystem restoration: The
Ripon City Quarry in Yorkshire, Ecosystem Valuation Initiative Case Study No. 1.
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in Pembina Institute,, 2015. Oilsands 101: Alberta’s Oilsands | Oilsands | Pembina
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. Institute [WWW Document]. URL http://www.pembina.org/oil-sands/os101/
envsci.2016.07.011. alberta (accessed 1.21.15).
Perrow, Martin Richard, 2016. A. J. D. Handbook of Ecological Restoration:
Restoration in Practice, Vol. 2.0. Cambridge University Press, 2002.
References Powter, C., Chymko, N., Dinwoodie, G., Howat, D., Janz, A., Puhlmann, R., Richens, T.,
Watson, D., Sinton, H., Ball, K., Patterson, B., Brocke, L., Dyer, R., 2012. Regulatory
Adriano, D.C., Wenzel, W.W., Vangronsveld, J., Bolan, N.S., 2004. Role of assisted history of Alberta ’ s industrial land conservation and reclamation program. Can.
natural remediation in environmental cleanup. Geoderma 122, 121–142. J. Soil Sci. 92, 39–51. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4141/CJSS2010-033.
Agouridis, C.T., Angel, P.N., Taylor, T.J., Barton, C.D., Warner, R.C., Yu, X., Wood, C., Price, J.S., Mclaren, R.G., Rudolph, D.L., 2013. Landscape restoration after oil sands
2012. Water quality characteristics of discharge from reforested loose-dumped mining: conceptual design and hydrological modelling for fen reconstruction.
mine spoil in eastern Kentucky. J. Environ. Qual. 41, 454–468. doi:http://dx.doi. Int. J. Mining, Reclam. Environ. 24, 37–41. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
org/10.2134/jeq2011.0158. 17480930902955724.
Alberta Environment,, 2010. 2010 Reclamation Criteria for Wellsites and Associated Ramani, R.V., 2012. Surface mining technology. Progress and Prospects. Procedia
Facilities for Native Grasslands. Alberta Environment, Edmonton, Alberta. Eng. 46, 9–21.
Beames, A., Broekx, S., Lookman, R., Touchant, K., Seuntjens, P., 2014. Sustainability Rodrigues, S.M., Pereira, M.E., da Silva, E.F., Hursthouse, A.S., Duarte, A.C., 2009. A
appraisal tools for soil and groundwater remediation: how is the choice of review of regulatory decisions for environmental protection: part I — challenges
remediation alternative influenced by different sets of sustainability indicators in the implementation of national soil policies. Environ. Int. 35, 202–213.
and tool structures? Sci. Total Environ. 470, 954–966. J.M. Roenker, 2013. The economic impact of coal in the Appalachian Kentucky ARC
Bernhardt, E.S., Lutz, B.D., King, R.S., Fay, J.P., Carter, C.E., Helton, A.M., Campagna, D., Region and Major Coal Producing Counties in Kentucky.
Amos, J., 2012. How many mountains can we mine? Assessing the regional Rooney, R.C., Bayley, S.E., Schindler, D.W., 2012a. Oil sands mining and reclamation
degradation of Central Appalachian rivers by surface coal mining. Environ. Sci. cause massive loss of peatland and stored carbon. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
Technol. 46, 8115–8122. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es301144q. 109, 4933–4937.
Box, T.W., 1974. Land rehabilitation: prompt passage of federal reclamation law by Rooney, R.C., Bayley, S.E., Schindler, D.W., 2012b. Oil sands mining and reclamation
Ford Foundation study. Coal Age 79 (108–111), 113. cause massive loss of peatland and stored carbon. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
Bullock, C.H., Collier, M.J., Convery, F., 2012. Peatlands, their economic value and 109, 4933–4937. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1117693108.
priorities for their future management The example of Ireland. Land use policy Saperstein L. W. Surface Mining (ed. B. A. Kennedy, Bruce A. Kennedy, Society for
29, 921–928. Mining, Metallurgy, and E.) 1194 (Port City Press, 1990). at http://books.google.
Burgos, P., et al., 2013. Natural remediation of an unremediated soil twelve years com/books?id=qJJrYnpT2pYC&pgis=1
after a mine accident: trace element mobility and plant composition. J. Environ. Schaart, J., 2008. Mega reclamations-oportunities and challenges. CEDA Conference
Manage. 114, 36–45. on Dredging and Reclamation .
Campbell, D., 2012. Researchers pin oil sands reclamation hopes on biochar, Alberta Society for Ecological Restoration International Science and Policy Working Group,
Oil - Energy Sector Insight, Alberta Oil- Bus. Energy. 2004. The SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration.
Clewell, A.F., Aronson, J., 2008. Ecological Restoration: Principles, Values, and US EPA, 2005. Mountaintop Mining/Valley Fills in Appalachia Final Programmatic
Structure of an Emerging Profession. Island Press. http://books.google.com/ Environmental Impact Statement. Philadelphia.
books?id=RNbR3zWeltQC&pgis=1. Wali, M.K., 1996. Ecosystem Rehabilitation Vol. 1 Policy Issues; Vol. 2 Ecosystem
Consulting, M., 2006. Final Report Halifax Inland Terminal and Trucking Options Analysis and Synthesis. SPB Academic Publishing, The Hague. http://www.jstor.
Study Halifax Port Authority. . org/stable/20046425?seq=3.
Dykes, A.P., Kirk, K.J., 2006. Slope instability and mass movements in peat deposits. Wang, L., Zhao, Z., Zhang, K., Tian, C., 2013. Reclamation and utilization of saline soils
In: P, I., A, M., C, M., C, W. (Eds.), Peatlands: Evolution and Records of in arid northwestern China: a promising halophyte drip-irrigation system.
Environmental and Climate Changes. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp. 377–406. Environ. Sci. Technol. 5518–5519.
Foley, J.a., Defries, R., Asner, G.P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S.R., Chapin, F.S., Wilson, D., Farrell, C., Mueller, C., Hepp, S., 2013. Rewetted industrial cutaway
Coe, M.T., Daily, G.C., Gibbs, H.K., Helkowski, J.H., Holloway, T., Howard, E.a., peatlands in western Ireland: a prime location for climate change mitigation?
Kucharik, C.J., Monfreda, C., Patz, J.a., Prentice, I.C., Ramankutty, N., Snyder, P.K., Mines Peat 11, 1–22.
2005. Global consequences of land use. Science 309, 570–574. doi:http://dx.doi. Zipper, C.E., Burger, J.a., Skousen, J.G., Angel, P.N., Barton, C.D., Davis, V., Franklin, J.a.,
org/10.1126/science.1111772. 2011. Restoring forests and associated ecosystem services on appalachian coal
Foss, P., O’Connell, C., Crushell, P.H., 2001. Bogs and fens of Ireland. Conservation surface mines. Environ. Manage. 47, 751–765. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
Plan 2005, Dublin, Ireland. s00267-011-9670-z.

You might also like