Evaluation of the impact of reclamation regulations
and guidelines on ecological rehabilitation practices at the Estevan
surface coal mines (1996-1999), Saskatchewan.
by Aryee, Abednego
Abednego Aryee is a doctoral candidate in the University of
Waterloo--Wilfrid Laurier University Graduate Program in Geography. His
dissertation focuses on the impact of Environmental Information Systems
and Local Knowledge Systems on community-based agro-forestry management
and agro-diversity conservation. He also teaches university courses in
Geography part-time. He can be reached at arye0260@wlu.ca
Table 1. Boundary Dam and Bienfait Mine Water Discharges, 1996-1999
BOUNDARY DAM MINE BIENFAIT MINE
Total Volume Water Quality Total Volume Water Quality
of Water Analysis (SST) of Water Analysis (SST)
YEAR ([m.sup.3]) mg/l, mean values ([m.sup.3]) mg/l, mean values
1996 0 X 184,329.6 28.4
1997 0 X 0 X
1998 608,641 28.5 8,787 14
1999 290,567 X 175,224 17
Total 899,208 28.5 368,340.6 19.8
0 = No water was discharged from the mining area during the reporting
period
X = No water quality analysis
Estevan Coal Corporation 1997 and Luscar Ltd. 1998-2000
Table 2. Boundary Dam, Utility and Bienfait coal mine disturbance and
rehabilitation (levelling and seeding), 1996-1999
BOUNDARY DAM MINE UTILITY MINE
Area Area Area Area Area Area
Mined Levelled Seeded Mined Levelled Seeded
YEAR (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha) (ha)
1996 93.29 42.96 18.20 62.69 15.01 9.45
1997 110.95 104.58 23.36 33.5 22.7 5
1998 46.7 17.56 0.0 21.24 8.50 0
1999 86.33 13.01 0.0 90.98 90.76 28.34
Total 336.27 178.11 41.56 208.41 136.97 42.79
BIEN FAIT MINE
Area Area Area
Mined Levelled Seeded
YEAR (ha) (ha) (ha)
1996 36.51 20.98 25.33
1997 47.43 35.35 15.50
1998 43.55 40.68 2.20
1999 61.64 31.94 0.0
Total 189.13 128.95 43.03
Source: Luscar Ltd. Reclamation reports, 1996-1999.
Table 3. Responses to the question; how would you rate overall
rehabilitation work around Estevan?
Ratings Frequency Percentage
Excellent 6 6
Very Good 22 22
Average 37 36
Fair 18 18
Poor 18 18
Total 101 100
(Poor=1 Fair=2 Average=3 Very Good=4 Excellent=5)
Source: field survey, Estevan 2001.
Table 4. Responses to the question: do you think rehabilitated areas
have been made safe enough for human and wildlife access?
Ratings Frequency Percentage
Strongly Agree 8 8
Agree 68 67
Not Sure 15 15
Disagree 8 8
Strongly Agree 2 2
Total 101 100
(Poor=1 Fair=2 Average=3 Very Good=4 Excellent=5)
Source: field survey, Estevan, 2001.
COPYRIGHT 2006 Wilfrid Laurier
University Reproduced with permission of the copyright holder. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
Copyright 2006, Gale Group. All rights
reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.
NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.