Evaluation of the impact of reclamation regulations and guidelines on ecological rehabilitation practices at the Estevan surface coal mines (1996-1999), Saskatchewan.

Alberta was the first jurisdiction to develop reclamation regulatory policy with the enactment of the 1963 Surface Reclamation Act (Alberta Environment 1999). In 1973, the concept of conservation was introduced in the Land Surface Conservation and Reclamation Act. This Act required operators to submit their plans for conservation and reclamation and obtain approval from the Lands Conservation and Reclamation Council (LCRC) prior to the development of a project (Government of Alberta 2003). This Act was further amended in 1978 to legally require operators to use conservation methods such as stripping topsoil and storing it separately for later replacement. In 1993, the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act and the Conservation and Reclamation Regulation were enacted to replace the Land Surface Conservation and Reclamation Act. In addition, between 1978 and 1994 a program was put in place to clean up sites on municipal and crown lands that were disturbed and abandoned prior to formulating the legislation. Similar reclamation acts were enacted in other provinces.

In Ontario, the Mining Act of 1990 is generally administered by the Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines and Part VII is administered specifically by the "Director of Rehabilitation" within that Ministry. The Act spells out the requirements for mine closure and continual and sequential rehabilitation of mine sites or mine hazards. Among the more notable provisions is subsection 4(1), which generally requires that persons conducting mine rehabilitation comply with the "Mine Rehabilitation Code of Ontario" which includes schedules of the regulations and detailed performance standards relating to the protection of public safety and the environment from risks and hazards posed by various mine features (Wenig and O'Reilly 2005).

British Columbia passed a regulation amending the Mines Regulation Act in March 1969. This legislation was amended further in 1973 to include coal and mineral exploration, sand and gravel pits and rock quarries. The British Columbia Mines Act 1996, requires a mine owner, agent or manager to file a plan outlining the details of the proposed work and a program for conservation of cultural heritage resources and protection of land, watercourses and cultural heritage resources affected by mining (Government of British Columbia 1996).

The Saskatchewan Government introduced the first reclamation requirement under the Mines Regulation Act in 1972. Prior to this--during the 1930s and early 1970s--approximately 2,500 ha of land near Estevan was mined by Prairie Coal Limited (Enzsol 1995). "Unlike today, these properties were mined with no reclamation guidelines in place," Enzsol (1995: 105) asserts. In 1984, the early reclamation requirements, which were part of the permit approval process for mining, were replaced by separate regulation when the Saskatchewan Environment and Public Safety Department implemented the Reclamation Guidelines for the Estevan Area (SERM 1996). This guideline was applied between 1984 and 1992.

Regulations and Guidelines for Estevan

The two main items that have advanced ecological restoration practices in the Estevan area since 1992 are the Mineral Industry Environmental Protection Regulation 1996 (SERM 1996) and the site-specific 1993 Guidelines for the sensitive terrains of Estevan. The regulation states that the decommissioning and reclamation plan must include a procedure, time frame and cost estimate for reclamation and a proposal for the management and administration of the assurance fund. The guideline specifies that the slope of regraded land intended for agriculture should be less than 10% whereas that for end cuts intended for wildlife habitat should be about 20%. In addition to this, 80% of the surface area should be free of drainage water, in order to minimize erosion (SERM 1993). In re-vegetating for agricultural use, good agricultural practices should be followed and self-propagating species of grasses, shrubs and trees should be selected for wildlife use.

Two critical issues arise from the regulations and guidelines for decommissioning and reclamation in the Estevan area. First, mine operators are expected to act according to the 'Precautionary Principle', which stipulates that in the event of doubt about the potential impacts of an action or operation, the company should avoid taking a course of action that may jeopardize long-term viability of species, ecosystems or the health of landowners, employees and local residents. Second, effective evaluation of rehabilitation activities must include scientific, regulatory and social perspectives. Conventional scientific approaches (Marrs and Miao 2000) focus solely on testing soil, water and vegetation parameters. However, studies by Irwin (1995) and Baron et al. (1998) indicate that evaluating landscape change requires an integration of social processes and natural sciences. Irwin (1995: 2) juxtaposes the canons of official science with the canons of citizen science to tell a convincing story about the emergence of a new popular rationality. He argues for a criterion of proof based on "the balance of probabilities" rather than the "beyond all reasonable doubt" standard of state and corporate science. A key component of the balance of probabilities is the incorporation of a social context of judgement. Hence, gathering opinions of local people broadens the scope of who are counted as 'experts' to include beneficiaries of post-rehabilitation land use.

Methodological Approach

This paper assesses the impact of legislation and guidelines on surface mine rehabilitation in the Estevan area of Saskatchewan, by using a set of regulatory (Figure 2) and social criteria. These criteria helped to assess the environmental performance of the mine operator vis-a-vis the recommendations outlined in the 1993 Guidelines and the 1996 Regulations instituted by Saskatchewan Environment (SE). The social criteria are based on local citizens' perceptions of the impact of regulations on reclamation practices. Data were obtained from reclamation reports, aerial photo interpretation and a survey, in 2001, of three actors namely, SE regulators, officials of Luscar Ltd. (the only mining company in Estevan) and local residents. Systematic sampling, beginning with random numbers, was used to select 150 respondents from the Estevan area telephone directory. Two respondents were chosen from the village of Roche Percee, 10 from Bienfait town, 12 from the Rural Municipality of Estevan and 126 from the city of Estevan for a total of 150, in proportion to the 1996 population figures. Of the 150 respondents, 101 took part in the questionnaire-based interviews while 49 participated in the focus group discussions.

Three officials of the mining company who are responsible for reclamation were interviewed and three survey questionnaires were distributed to SE officials of which 93% of the questions were answered. Focus group discussions were used to obtain information on local residents' perceptions of ecological rehabilitation practices in the area. A group of 6 to 8 respondents was engaged in a discussion on the quality and safety outcomes of rehabilitation in the Estevan area. Although the approach for the interviews and focus group discussions differed, they were complementary to each other.

Documentary sources of data and information included Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), Semi-annual Reclamation Reports and SE Annual Reports. The EIS of the Estevan area provided baseline information on the biophysical characteristics of the pre-mining landscape, which is a useful basis for measuring the progress of rehabilitation. The reclamation reports detailed the total hectares of land mined and the techniques employed for restoration. This paper examines large-scale digital orthophoto maps (scale of 1:20,000) of the Bienfait, Boundary Dam and Utility Mines which were produced by Orthoshop, Calgary, Alberta, to show rehabilitated areas and areas of outstanding rehabilitation. This approach was used by Herzog et al. (2001: 96) to evaluate landscape destruction and rehabilitation in Saxony, Eastern Germany.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Key indices for evaluating rehabilitation practices were adapted from the 1996 Mineral Industry Environmental Protection Regulations and the 1993 Guidelines (Figure 2). The description took into account (1) the hectares for which various reclamation steps were taken; (2) overburden and soil analysis programs and key results; (3) soil amendments applied; (4) hectares of seeding and planting undertaken; (5) results of germination/growth; (6) time frame for completing reclamation; and (7) analysis of successes and failures. Descriptive statistics were employed to depict spatio-temporal variation of the hectares of land disturbed and rehabilitated between 1996 and 1999 at the three mines.

Significant elements for social evaluation of ecological restoration include quality and safety outcomes and the extent of compliance with the regulations. Residents' perceptions concerning the results of rehabilitation practices are rated from excellent (5) to poor (1). Similar ratings for the safety outcomes of rehabilitation vary from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1). This social judgement, as espoused by scholars such as Irwin (1995: 2) and Baron et al. (1998), is important for assessing restoration practices. It is largely based on local people's experiential knowledge of their immediate environment.

Compliance or Non-compliance with Regulation