Performance standards and monitoring requirements of surface coal mine reclamation success in mountainous jurisdictions of western North America: a review

Journal of Environmental Management (1998) 53, 209–229 Article No. ev980209

Performance standards and monitoring requirements of surface coal mine reclamation success in mountainous jurisdictions of western North America: a review C. R. Smyth† and P. Dearden‡ The regulatory performance standards and monitoring requirements that are used to evaluate reclamation success in nine western North America jurisdictions were reviewed. Ecosystem-based reclamation monitoring, a crucial part of regulatory enforcement and adaptive environmental management, was lacking in most jurisdictions. Reclamation practices and regulatory control in each jurisdiction would be improved greatly by effective long-term monitoring. A set of performance standards (including productivity, land use capability and functional dynamics) is proposed which better integrates with a phased bond release process. As well, a long-term hierarchical (population, community, ecosystem, landscape) monitoring programme is proposed.  1998 Academic Press

Keywords: surface mine reclamation, monitoring, performance standards, population, community, ecosystem, landscape.

Introduction Reclamation of surface mining disturbances is a legislated requirement in the United States and Canada. Within these two countries, various mine reclamation regulatory programmes have been developed over a period of 30–40 years. The regulatory approaches taken within the jurisdictions reflect historically different land use practices and political systems. For example, the province of Alberta was the first jurisdiction in Canada to develop reclamation regulatory policy with the enactment of the 1963 Surface Reclamation Act (Johnson, 1987). In 1973, the scope of reclamation and land conservation policy in Alberta was expanded to include coal, oil sands, pipelines and sand and gravel industries with the passage of the Land Surface Conservation and Reclamation Act (LSCRA). The LSCRA required reclamation planning as part of the project development approval 0301–4797/98/030209+21 $30.00/0

process and provided the foundation for industry practices and Government regulatory activities such as inspections and reclamation certification. The Coal Development Policy, created in 1976 and later modified in 1983, provided a framework with guidelines that enabled regulatory continuity and provided performance criteria for coal mine reclamation (Bratton, 1987). In 1992, the Province of Alberta enacted the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act (EPEA), an omnibus legislation that contained regulatory requirements and provisions for many aspects of environmental management and protection, including the requirements contained previously within the LSCRA. In comparison, legislation governing mine reclamation in British Columbia was first introduced in 1969 when the existing Coal Mines Regulation Act and the Mines Regulation Act were amended to accommodate reclamation of major coal mines and hardrock mines. In 1969, when the legislation was being amended, little was known about

†PO Box 517, Biogeographer, Myosotis Ecological Consulting, Blairmore, Alberta, Canada, T0K 0E0 ‡Department of Geography, University of Victoria, Box 3050, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, V8W 3P5 Received 11 December 1996; accepted 5 November 1997

 1998 Academic Press

210

C. R. Smyth and P. Dearden

surface mine reclamation in British Columbia, so detailed reclamation regulations were not developed, and considerable discretionary power was given to the Minister of Mines (McDonald, 1978). The legislation was amended further in 1973 to include coal exploration, mineral exploration, sand and gravel pits and rock quarries. In 1984, the working policy on reclamation pursuant to the Mines Act was articulated in the form of guidelines. However, mining legislation in British Columbia remained unaltered from 1973 until the promulgation of the Mines Act (S.B.C 1989, c.56) in 1989. The amended Mines Act and its appurtenant regulatory code now provide the framework for reclamation policy with discretionary power now residing with the chief inspector of mines. Although modified since 1989, the recent modifications to the code represent semantic rather that substantive changes (Smyth, 1996). In the United States, regulatory controls are separated into coal and hard-rock mining (Burford, 1990). Prior to 1977, coal mines were regulated by a patchwork of state and federal laws (Harris et al., 1988). In 1977, the United States Government enacted the Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) Public Law 95–87 through which Congress established a nationwide programme to protect people and the environment from the adverse effect of surface mining operations (McElfish and Beier, 1990). The passage of this law allowed for more uniform regulations regarding reclamation and bonding and also provided for greater public involvement in mine permitting and regulation enforcement (Brenner, 1985). The SMCRA created two programmes: (1) an environmental protection programme to establish performance standards and procedures for permitting and inspection of surface coal mines; and (2) a reclamation programme for rehabilitation of pre-legislation coal mine disturbances. The SMCRA allowed individual states to submit their own legislative programmes thus assuming regulatory authority or ‘primacy’ thereby avoiding total federal control by the Office of Surface Mine Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) (Kalt, 1983). Regulatory compliance in both countries, as described in the aforementioned legislative

documents, requires mining companies to reclaim for pre-determined land use objectives (Smyth, 1996). As part of the process, mining companies must demonstrate compliance by satisfying specified performance standards through a process of monitoring. Performance standards are the regulatory criteria used to indicate reclamation success or failure and to ensure that long-term environmental degradation is minimized or eliminated. Specifications of ecologically-based criteria are essential for evaluation of reclamation programmes and subsequent bond release. Monitoring is the feedback mechanism necessary for ensuring appropriate environmental management standards, and decisions are made regarding impact and endpoint predictions on species, populations, ecosystems and landscapes. Lack of enforced monitoring generally results in permit non-compliance, due to an absence of corporate incentive (Ostler et al., 1985). Monitoring is useful also for preventing retrogression and for prescribing remedial or aftercare measures (Edgar et al., 1985). Well-designed and consistently implemented objective monitoring programmes are essential elements of comprehensive mine reclamation planning and regulatory programmes, without which bond release is subjective, and regulatory accountability is lacking. Vague, ill-defined or ambiguous monitoring methods based on interpreter judgment are subject to opinion and are difficult to replicate or substantiate (Colbert, 1992). Clear definitions of measurement parameters, sampling procedures and statistical protocols are essential for reliable monitoring programmes (Pratt and Stevens, 1992). In sum, there have been a number of comparative studies of reclamation regulation in the United States (Imes and Wali, 1978; Gallaher and Lynn, 1989) and Canada (Marshall, 1983; Champigny et al., 1991; Champigny and Abbott, 1992). However, these studies did not examine performance standards and monitoring requirements. The objective of this paper is to describe the performance standards and monitoring requirements of reclamation success in several coal-producing mountainous jurisdictions of western North America. The ecological implications of these requirements will receive particular attention.

Surface coal mine reclamation

Specific legislation or regulations that address mountainous coal mine reclamation are not part of the regulatory process in any of the jurisdictions which will be reviewed although there are sections within United States federal and state statutes which are applicable. Due to the complexities of the socio-political milieu, legislators and policy makers in the reviewed jurisdictions have developed broad regulations to cover reclamation activities (Smyth, 1996). Therefore, many of the results of the study can be applied generally.

Methods Content analysis, a systematic procedure for extracting information from various forms of communication (Stankey, 1972), was chosen as the mechanism of data collection. For the purposes of this study, the text of legislation, regulations (code) and/or guidelines documents was examined for each of the selected jurisdictions. Fifteen general categories of regulatory process, performance monitoring and enforcement were selected on the basis of a review of the literature.

Coding Coding in content analysis is the process by which units of data are assigned to appropriate categories (Berelson, 1954; Budd et al., 1967). Categories for the present study were developed through a review of the ‘items’ or regulatory documents and an examination of the publications of Eichbaum and Buente (1980) and Imes and Wali (1978). Thematic coding (Holsti, 1969) was chosen since each section of the regulatory document contains context-dependent and exclusive keywords and phrases. Therefore, because of the format of the regulatory documents, the information was already pre-coded. The thematic codes used are listed in Table 1.

Research population identification ‘Population’ identification (appropriate jurisdictions) and ‘item’ collection (regulatory documents) required written and verbal

communication with Government representatives from Alberta (Powter, 1991), British Columbia (Errington, 1991) and the United States Department of the Interior (Klein, 1991). Communication with the provincial representatives was straightforward, and the appropriate Government documents (legislation, code of regulations and guidelines) were provided immediately. However, ‘population’ identification discussions with the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (Department of the Interior) were problematic. In the western states, only Alaska, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming had assumed primacy under the SMCRA. The states of Idaho and Nevada do not have coal mines, and the states of Arizona, California, Oregon and Washington have chosen to allow the United States federal Government to pre-empt state authority through the SMCRA rather than enact legislation. Following discussions with the OSMRE, each state was contacted, and the appropriate acts and regulations were provided.

Data collection and analysis Presence or absence of pre-determined category codes was chosen as the unit of measurement. All documents were read three times after coding and prior to data collection in order to ensure reliability. Data were then collected and tabulated. Data analysis involved simple tabulations of the presence/ absence data. In one specific case, the data were presented to include qualitative data on information format in addition to the presence/absence data.

Results General regulatory process The systems for regulating surface coal mines in the jurisdictions reviewed are very complex. Comparatively, the United States system is more reliant on statute and regulation than either Alberta or British Columbia. Both Alberta and British Columbia make use of less formal guidelines and procedures that are not detailed exhaustively in legislation.

211

212

C. R. Smyth and P. Dearden Table 1. Thematic coding statements 1. Performance standards 1.1 Reclamation success evaluation 1.2 Approaches used for land use equivalency 2. Monitoring requirements 2.1 Groundwater 2.2 Surface water 2.3 Subsidence or settling 2.4 Soil development (physical, chemical, biological) 2.5. Monitoring of revegetation –Reference areas (historic, natural, technical) –Canopy cover (qualitative, quantitative) –Vegetation production (above and below ground) –Vegetation permanence (self-sustaining cover) –Floristic diversity (alpha, beta) –Seasonality (phenology) –Analysis of toxicity (metal uptake by plants) –Shrub and trees (suriviorship and growth) 2.6 Monitoring of fauna succession (censuring) 2.7 Monitoring of landscape-level processes 3. Reclamation enforcement 3.1 Reclamation reporting 3.2 Reclamation database documentation 3.3 Regulatory inspections 3.4 Public inspections 3.5 Availability of documentation to public 3.6 Permit revisions

Legislative and regulatory control of surface mining in Alberta encompasses all forms of surface disturbance (coal mines, quarries, and oil and gas) while in British Columbia, oil and gas disturbances are excluded. In contrast, a separate legislative document applies to each type of mineral resource extraction in the United States. Only coal surface mining is regulated federally. While there is significant programmatic similarity between the jurisdictions reviewed, there are substantial differences in terms of regulatory process, performance standards and enforcement. At one end of the scale is the legislative, rigorously-enforced American system of reclamation regulation and, at the other end, is the Canadian guidelines approach. The American federal system is very restrictive whereas the Alberta and British Columbia systems are flexible. The extensive ecological details of the SMCRA have resulted in an emphasis on ecological concepts (species diversity, successional processes, soil biology and wildlife biology) within operational reclamation practice in the United States. Ecological concepts are latent within the Alberta regulations and

–land uses, comparison, evaluation methods –productivity, capability, functional analysis –parameters –parameters –parameters –parameters

and and and and

methodological methodological methodological methodological

descriptions descriptions descriptions descriptions

–parameters and methodological descriptions –parameters and methodological descriptions –parameters and methodological descriptions –parameters –parameters –parameters –parameters –parameters –parameters –parameters

and and and and and and and

methodological methodological methodological methodological methodological methodological methodological

descriptions descriptions descriptions descriptions descriptions descriptions descriptions

–content, scope, adequacy –content, adequacy –monthly, annual –presence/absence, format, frequency –presence/absence –presence/absence, requirements

British Columbia code. Whether stated explicitly or implied, inclusion of ecological principles within each jurisdiction is predicated on an assumed knowledge of ecosystem succession processes and on a preoccupation with static end-products rather than with the process of developing these end-products.

Performance standards The selected jurisdictions have performance standards that function as guidelines. The standards are found both in statutes and in the regulations of the United States jurisdictions studied while standards are included only in the regulations or guidelines in the Canadian jurisdictions. The performance standards are variable and contain few ecosystem-based requirements (Table 2). Evaluation of reclamation success within the jurisdictions reviewed is variable. In all jurisdictions, temporary land use is implicit, and reclamation to an equivalent or ‘higher’ (anthropocentric) level of land use is a requirement. The equivalency requirement varies from a very strict definition of equal

(+), requirement; ( ), no requirement.

2. Approaches used for land use equivalency determinations 2.1 Productivity 2.2 Capability 2.3 Functional analysis

1. Reclamation success evaluation 1.1 Selection of post-mining land use 1.2 Description of desirable reclaimed landscape characteristics 1.3 Standards of comparison 1.4 Methods of evaluation

+

+ +

Alberta

+

+ +

British Columbia

Canada

+

+ + + + +

+ + + + +

+ + + + +

+ + + +

Alaska Colorado Federal Montana

+

+ + + +

New Mexico

United States

Performance standards in selected jurisdictions of the mountainous coal-producing regions of the western United States and Canada

Description

Table 2.

+

+ + + +

Utah

+

+ + + +

Wyoming

Surface coal mine reclamation 213

214

C. R. Smyth and P. Dearden

productivity (SMCRA) to equivalent capability. Equivalency is either reclamationbased, as in the Alberta system, or is restoration-based, as in the United States. The Alberta system involves ‘equivalent capability’ in the form of a return to pre-disturbance landforms and soil productivity whereas the United States goes further in its biotic requirements (cover, biomass and species diversity) and in its use of reference areas. Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act standards for determining successful revegetation of mined lands require that both cover and production of living plants on revegetated areas shall not be less than 90% of a reference area or some other standard approved by the regulatory authority. The British Columbia regulatory requirements embrace both land capability as well as ‘equivalent productivity’, but the concepts are illdefined and vague.

Reclamation monitoring and enforcement Within the jurisdictions reviewed, considerable differences in monitoring and enforcement exist. The monitoring framework of the SMCRA is an important example of legislated standards for evaluating reclamation success. Legislated provisions for regulatory monitoring, documentation and enforcement are more comprehensive and rigorous in the United States jurisdictions than in either Alberta or British Columbia (Table 3). In general, population-, ecosystem- and landscape-based monitoring is absent in the jurisdictions reviewed. Where described, monitoring reflects a static rather than dynamic view of ecosystems. Monthly and annual regulatory inspections are part of the statutory requirements in the United States (Table 4). Both Alberta and British Columbia rely heavily on the observations and opinions of their reclamation officers or inspectors. Alberta has monthly inspections, but these are not required by legislation. In British Columbia, reference to regulatory inspections is not provided within the reclamation code although annual inspections are normal. In the United States, private individuals may file and request onsite visits at any time during the year.

In Alberta, a formal performance review is negotiated as part of the reclamation permit with specific quantifiable objectives such as landform shape, soil depth and vegetation growth. Although qualitative descriptions are in place for evaluating site preparation performance in Alberta, monitoring methodology for long-term ecosystem stability is not specified. The criteria for certification vary with the time of surface disturbance initiation and coincide with legislative chronology. The appointed reclamation officer judges that the reclaimed disturbance has the required biophysical characteristics for the return of ‘equivalent capability’. Compliance with requirements of the Development and Reclamation Plan is monitored through regular inspections and through reviews of the annual report. Formal and standardized monitoring procedures are also not included within the British Columbia code although general reporting requirements are stated. Mining companies in British Columbia must demonstrate that vegetation cover is permanent, equivalent in productivity (‘average property basis’) and satisfactory for the end land use objectives. Revegetation success is determined through quantitative assessments of predisturbance vegetation cover, diversity and production, selection of a reference areas representative of the post-mining land use or another success standard consistent with the pre- and post-mining vegetation cover and productivity in the United States. The SMCRA places the assessment of reclamation performance, to a large extent, on the re-establishment of vegetation and emphasizes soil productivity as evaluated indirectly by sustained growth of required plant species. In the United States, reclamation performance is recorded within general reports rather than specific reclamation documents whereas both Alberta and British Columbia have specific annual reclamation report requirements. However, the detail and quality of information contained within these documents is not regulated rigorously and, therefore, may be suspect. The monitoring requirements in Alberta and British Columbia are set at the development and reclamation approval and permit stages respectively although they can be revised.

Groundwater monitoring Surface water monitoring Monitoring for subsidence or settlement Monitoring of soil development 4.1 Physical properties 4.2 Chemical properties 4.3 Soil biology

A

B

D D

A A

A

D D CD

A

British Columbia

A A

A A D

A A

A A A A A

A A D

A A A A A A A

A

A A

A A D

A A A A A A A A A

A A

A D

New Mexico

United States Alaska Colorado Federal Montana

(A), quantitative data; (B), qualitative data; (C), anecdotal data; (D), ill-defined requirement; ( ), no requirement.

7. Monitoring of landscape-level processes

6. Monitoring of fauna succession 6.1 Invertebrates 6.2 Vertebrates

5. Monitoring of revegetation 5.1 Use of reference areas 5.1.1 Historic records 5.1.2 Natural controls 5.1.3 Technical standards 5.2 Vegetation production requirements 5.3 Vegetation canopy cover requirements 5.4 Permanence of vegetation 5.5 Floristic diversity of vegetation 5.6 Seasonality 5.7 Analysis of toxicity 5.8 Measurement standards for trees and shrubs

1. 2. 3. 4.

Alberta

Canada

A

A A A A

A

A D

Utah

A

A

A A

A

Wyoming

Permittee reclamation monitoring requirements in selected jurisdictions of the mountainous coal-producing regions of the western United States and

Description

Table 3. Canada

Surface coal mine reclamation 215

(+), requirement; ( ), no requirement.

1. Annual reclamation report 2. Adequate documentation (reclamation database) 3. Regulatory inspections 3.1 Monthly (partial) 3.2 Annual 4. Citizens request for inspection 5. Review of adequacy and completeness of inspection 6. Review of decisions 7. Information available to public (local residents) 8. Permit revisions + +

+

+

+ +

+

British Columbia

Alberta

Canada

+

+ + + +

+

+ + + + + + +

+ +

+

+

+

+ + + + + + +

+ +

Alaska Colorado Federal Montana

+ + + + + + +

+

New Mexico

United States

+ + + + + + +

+

Utah

+ + + + + + +

Wyoming

Regulatory reclamation enforcement in selected jurisdictions of the mountainous coal-producing regions of the western United States and Canada

Description

Table 4.

216 C. R. Smyth and P. Dearden

Surface coal mine reclamation

Discussion Performance standards Surface mining is a temporarily exclusive land use, and determination of post-mining land use objectives is the first step in evaluating reclamation success. Although evaluation of reclamation success within the jurisdictions reviewed is variable, all embrace two of the four components outlined by Ries and Hoffman (1984): (1) selection of postmining land use; (2) description of desirable reclaimed landscape characteristics; (3) standards for comparison; and (4) methods of evaluation. Three approaches to equivalent or higher land use have been categorized previously and were applied to the present discussion: (1) productivity, (2) capability and (3) functional analysis (Fedkenheuer et al., 1987). The productivity approach is characteristic of the jurisdictions in the United States and British Columbia while the capability approach is followed in Alberta. (1) The productivity approach has been based traditionally upon biomass production with concerns regarding soil or land productivity often incorrectly considered subordinate (Fedkenheuer et al., 1987). The productivity approach is predicated on the assumption that vegetation is an integrative indicator of ecosystem performance and requires measurements of selected vegetation performance indices such as biomass, cover, diversity and forage quality (Howard and Regele, 1984). Although these indices are relatively simple to measure, they may not reflect how well an ecosystem is progressing towards nutrient self-sufficiency since these indices are poor indicators of soil quality (Bonham, 1989). Frequently, high productivity as measured by above ground phytomass may indicate poor nutrient use efficiency (Ziemkiewicz, 1979). Furthermore, the interpretation of productivity varies with the perspective and attitude of the individual (total above-ground phytomass vs. usable forage) and is often dependent upon land use objectives (Lang, 1982). The regulatory requirements in British Columbia embrace both land capability as well as ‘equivalent productivity’, but the concepts are ill-defined and vague, much like those in

the United Kingdom (Jackson, 1991). The ‘average property basis’ requirement, i.e. equivalent land productivity before and after mining averaged over the area disturbed by mining, represents a variant of the general concept of equivalent productivity and poses severe methodological problems because of differing biomass allocation patterns in different ecosystems. Both above- and belowground productivity must be determined when comparing high and low elevation habitats, but these data are not collected generally. Typically, productivity measurements are inadequate or not completed during mine pre-development assessments (Smyth, 1996); therefore, references to which comparisons can be made for post-mining landscapes are invalid. Moreover, the emphasis on productivity tends to down-weight the importance of species composition in favour of aggressive non-natives that may inhibit ecosystem succession. Without regulatory ‘guidance’, maximizing productivity on favourable sites in order to offset productivity losses on unfavourable terrain causes reclamation practitioners to misdirect management practices toward high standing-crop production and toward viewscapes developed with a preoccupation towards verdancy. Such practices are often inimical to important below-ground nutrient cycling processes (Fyles et al., 1985; Ziemkiewicz and Takyi, 1990). However, predicting post-mining soil productivity levels is difficult because the reclaimed landscape contains neo-sols with unknown production potential and significant within- and between-landscape heterogeneity (Burley et al., 1989). (2) The capability approach is utilitarian and demonstrably more anthropocentric than either the productivity or functional ecosystem approaches. The concept is based on a qualitative evaluation of biophysical attributes (topographic and edaphic) of the reclaimed landscape to meet stated land use objectives. The Alberta regulations utilize the concept of ‘equivalent capability’, a concept which is similar to the utilitarian land capability approach developed by Murdoch (1980) and implemented by Schuman et al. (1990). The critical features of capability are landscape form (primarily slope), drainage and soil quality and quantity. In general, this approach

217

218

C. R. Smyth and P. Dearden

adopts the view that the percentage of land in a given capability class prior to disturbance should be returned following mining. This concept is consistent with the practice of assessing pre-mining land use capabilities using the Canada Land Inventory (CLI). Pre-disturbance ‘productivity’ is assessed indirectly through the biophysical approach of the CLI system. The CLI provides resource (forestry, wildlife and agriculture) capability classes (low to high) for components of the landscape. However, the approach has limitations in that it lacks site-specificity and lacks quantitative measurements. (3) The functional analysis approach utilizes a number of parameters that are indicative of ecosystem functioning and is comparable to the method described by Munshower and Fisher (1984). The functional approach is based on the concept of a functional dynamic ecosystem in which the success of reclamation practices is evaluated on the basis of efficient linkages between aboveground processes (primary production) and below-ground processes (organic matter decomposition and nutrient cycling). The functional analysis approach requires a hierarchical assessment programme involving landscape, ecosystem, community and population level monitoring. None of the jurisdictions contained specific references to the functional analysis approach.

Reclamation monitoring and enforcement Considerable differences in monitoring and enforcement exist within the jurisdictions reviewed. Monitoring and enforcement is relatively comprehensive and rigorous in the United States jurisdictions in comparison to Alberta or British Columbia. In general, population-, ecosystem- and landscape-based monitoring is absent in the jurisdictions reviewed. Where described, monitoring reflects a static rather than a dynamic view of ecosystems. The dedication to empiricism as reflected in the performance standards and the frequency of regulatory inspections within the United States jurisdictions provides for very detailed monitoring of reclamation performance. Reference areas are used in the

United States as targets for measuring reclamation performance, and, as general objectives, they have merit. However, the restrictive use of reference areas in the United States reflects the latent bias in the coal regulatory programme of favouring establishing revegetation success criteria in terms of pre-mining baseline conditions. Parameters such as vegetation cover, plant species diversity and productivity must be determined quantitatively and compared with reference areas (Buckner, 1989). The reference areas or remnant patches must be representations of the abiotic and biotic conditions and must have a minimal area in order to withstand natural as well as anthropogenic perturbation. The use of reference areas and their variants as a method of equivalency comparison for reclaimed land productivity levels is inflexible, expensive and precludes the creation and evaluation of mined-land ecosystems that are different from those present originally (Doll and Wollenhaupt, 1985). Furthermore, comparisons of early seral stage ecosystems on post-mining landscapes with that of climax or late seral ecosystems lacks scientific validity (Cairns, 1983). Hypothetical ‘target communities’ may be structurally or functionally similar yet dissimilar in species composition (Tausch et al., 1993). Essentially, the reference area concept does not recognize the fact that there are different functional processes in pre-disturbance and reclaimed landscapes. Although the reference area approach has limitations, the use of this concept may have merit for long-term successional trajectory monitoring if these limitations are acknowledged. In Alberta, limited biophysical monitoring parameters are negotiated as part of the reclamation permit, but long-term ecosystem monitoring methodology is not specified. Reclamation officers are responsible for the issuance of reclamation certificates (Lulman, 1987). In British Columbia, monitoring methodology is discretionary and frequently anecdotal. Due to of the weak performance requirements of other aspects of reclamation regulation in British Columbia, these permits are unlikely to contain adequate prescriptions unless specific requirements are included. The absence of a formalized description of monitoring requirements in

Surface coal mine reclamation

British Columbia makes performance justification during the bond release period difficult. Smyth (1996) suggests that most of the regulatory personnel in Alberta and British Columbia lack the necessary understanding of ecosystem processes to judge reclamation performance adequately, especially where relevant empirical data is lacking, and subjective and/or anecdotal observations are normative. Finally, reclamation monitoring and reporting imposes costs to both industry and Government. The amount of these costs varies with the magnitude and extent of regulations. Government and industry costs, as reflected by regulatory requirements, are significant in both the United States and Alberta but much less so in British Columbia. The ad hoc nature of reclamation regulation in British Columbia imposes an indirect cost in the form of inconsistency in standards and enforcement as well as a potential loss of effectiveness in the pursuit of reclamation objectives.

Proposed performance standards reclamation monitoring and enforcement programme Performance standards Performance standards should focus on construction specifications derived from pre-mining conditions and involve two stages: (1) land-shaping and soil reconstruction; and (2) long-term ecological stability (Ferchau, 1988). Therefore, a two-stage combination approach is proposed in which the first stage focuses on the re-creation of negotiated, i.e. Government, industry and public, landscape modifications which provide the ‘habitat templets’ (sensu Southwood, 1988) necessary for achieving pre-mining productivity or equivalent land capability. During this stage, measurement of topographic and soil properties would characterize capability or land use potential independent of plant growth and, if acceptable, would result in partial bond release. As part of the negotiated reconstruction of post- mining landforms, predisturbance and proposed post-disturbance landscapes could be compared quantitatively

using weighted-slope averaging (Gregory et al., 1987; Friedlander, 1994) or topoedaphic unit analysis (Krabbenhoft et al., 1993). Data collected during the second stage would be used to evaluate the functional capacity of the developing ecosystem and the trend towards metastability (relative or dynamic stability). The first stage of the proposed method embraces elements of both the capability and productivity approaches described previously whereas the second stage represents essentially the functional ecosystem approach. Final reclamation performance bond release would only be permitted following a satisfactory evaluation of the monitoring time series. A further requirement of this system is the need for co-ordinated industry/Government longitudinal studies. During the past several years, a number of researchers have concluded that an adequate understanding of ecosystem behaviour cannot be derived from short-term studies and planning horizons (Burt, 1994). Complex ecosystem phenomena such as episodic events, rare conditions, system inertia, time lags, slow phenomena, cumulative effects, threshold responses and transient dynamics create a latent structure which may require decades of monitoring to separate pattern from noise (Likens, 1983). Long-term ecological studies have made important contributions to practical societal problems and the development of theory and are needed to verify models and test predictions (Risser, 1991). Unfortunately, longterm studies (>15 years) on mine disturbances are few (Binns, 1994), so the performance of past management practices is not known.

Monitoring programme Although monitoring the trajectory of succession with a more or less indeterminate end-point is problematic for the mining industry (Inouye, 1988), such studies are necessary to characterize the success of reclamation practices in developing ecosystem metastability. Therefore, a monitoring protocol is necessary in which sampling parameters and ‘indicator key areas’ or ‘ecological response units’ (Bonham et al., 1980) are selected jointly by both industry and regulatory agencies. Indicator areas would be

219

220

C. R. Smyth and P. Dearden Research timeline

Research description

Process

Short-term studies (1–5 years) Industry, Consultants and/or Academia

Research assessment* Acid mine drainage Landform modification and engineering Hydrology, hydrogeology Site preparation Topsoil placement Soil analyses Spatial distribution of soil parameters Fertilizer formulation and application Species selection Seeding rates Direct seeding methods Transplant survival Natural colonization by flora and fauna Microclimate Aesthetics*

Assembly

Long-term or longitudinal studies (6–100 years) Academia, Government or Consultants

Flora and fauna population dynamics Pedogensis Soil flora and fauna dynamics Community and guild dynamics Ecosystem process dynamics Acid mine drainage Aesthetics*

Response

Figure 1. Surface mine reclamation research description and timeline. (Asterisk denotes atypical reclamation studies).

representative of the post-mining landscape heterogeneity at each mine site. Thus, a monitoring network of spatially extensive sampling (industry) and intensive sampling (Government) sites would be established. Monitoring of locations which have regional importance would be funded by regulatory agencies or joint industry/Government organizations to develop consensus on the longterm effects of management practices. Government personnel, academics or consultants must be involved in the information gathering and analysis. Government institutional arrangements, which promote long-term studies that span time scales longer than the short-term planning horizons of industry, are essential. Regulatory agencies would be responsible for the more technically rigorous basic or applied-basic research while industry would participate through linked applied studies. Professionals that have been certified or accredited by a joint Government/industry committee would be responsible for data collection and reporting. Figure 1 categorizes the research or monitoring studies that would be funded and undertaken by regulatory agencies and industry. The long-term studies approach should include more ecologicallybased sampling rather than the current

programmes which have developed around truncated corporate self-interest. Government participation and co-ordination is essential for quality control or continuity in performance monitoring and is also necessary for developing unbiased feedback for the formal negotiated regulatory system. The regulations (particularly performance standards) could then be modified or updated over time in a co-operative manner. In essence, the approach assumes that reclamation practices and regulations will evolve, and, therefore, it follows an adaptive management approach. Although the monitoring requirements of the SMCRA ‘embrace’ more ecologicallybased concepts than those in the Canadian jurisdictions reviewed, the United States programme is still not considered comprehensive enough to assess reclamation success adequately. Reclaimed system attributes used to evaluate long-term reclamation success generally include only those related to vegetation structure such as tree or shrub density, percent cover or biomass of herbaceous species or species diversity, but these parameters may not provide a reliable indication of actual successional trajectories (Kleinman, 1984). In the United States, measurements of

Surface coal mine reclamation

Figure 2. Reclamation planning, implementation and performance monitoring flowchart.

reclamation success such as diversity, phenology, stability, and production (SMCRA Sec 515 paragraph 19) characterize communitylevel processes and refer to important ecological concepts. However, there are a number of structural and functional attributes of reclaimed communities for which measurements are not required. The holocoenotic nature of the plant community must be considered in the context of restoration and recovery processes. An understanding of the scale-dependency of ecological systems is important, particularly with respect to ecological monitoring (Parker, 1997). Aronson et al. (1993) expanded the concept of ‘vital attributes’ posited by Noble and Slatyer (1980) to include ‘vital ecosystem attributes,’ and it is this ‘functional approach’ which should be adopted in long-term successional trend monitoring of post-mining landscapes. Although several authors have described discipline-specific monitoring procedures and protocols (Vogel, 1987; Chambers et al., 1992; Allen and Friese, 1992; Chambers and Wade, 1992), an integrated hierarchical monitoring programme which includes all

abiotic and biotic components has not been described previously. The following desideratum represents an attempt to provide a comprehensive, ecologically-based successional monitoring programme for reclamation practitioners and regulators. The monitoring programme differs significantly from other proposed or implemented previously because it transcends disciplinary boundaries. Figure 2 describes an overall reclamation planning, implementation and performance-monitoring flowchart in which proposed monitoring requirements are integrated. Only through the application of a well-designed, holistic, and empirically-based monitoring programme will there be a redirection away from the static, short-term view of reclamation. In the past, static performance or ‘snapshot’ monitoring has been the norm, but this approach does not provide an accurate representation of reclamation success of dynamic systems (Tyson, 1984). Monitoring is concerned with trends. Therefore, the proposed monitoring programme focuses on the trajectory or dynamics of successional

221

222

C. R. Smyth and P. Dearden

development rather than on the end-product. The ‘products’ of successional progression, e.g. percent cover, abundance, biomass, invertebrate species richness, soil C/N ratios, percent soil nitrogen, microbial biomass, microbial activity, etc., would be recorded at specific sampling intervals over several years. When examined, the result is a trend of succession ‘products’ indicating progression or retrogression. Detailed sampling parameters, research design, analysis and presentation format should be outlined in guidelines and operational field handbooks. Detailed and comprehensive ecological monitoring and analytical procedures included as part of an improved reclamation guidelines programme would empower reclamation practitioners, require ‘environmental due diligence’ on the part of mining companies, and lead to higher professionalism and more consistent reporting. The approach would also result in a longer period of corporate responsibility (>20 years), particularly at higher elevation and higher latitudes but would reduce the long-term financial liability to the public and minimize environmental degradation.

Vegetation monitoring Since vegetation is an integral component of soil stabilization and water quality, revegetation success monitoring following initial plant establishment is essential (Smith and Chambers, 1993). Inferred successional trends (floristics and structure) are useful in understanding processes and in predicting outcomes necessary for regulatory enforcement and bond release (Keammerer, 1989). In many cases, patterns of successional change (inferred successional trends) must be made from vegetation chronosequences or space-for-time-substitutions (SFTs). Where such an approach is necessary, two caveats must be described. First, appropriate site preparation and revegetation techniques information must be provided since unreliable or inaccurate historical documentation can lead to erroneous conclusions regarding reclamation success. Second, altered mining practices can introduce confounding effects which may affect the interpretation of surface

mine disturbance SFTs as relatively straightforward examples of primary succession (Riley, 1977). No single vegetation parameter, e.g. percent cover, abundance, density, biomass, provides the best index of the vegetation condition, so collection of many types of vegetation data is necessary to detect spatiotemporal changes in vegetation. The concepts of diversity and species composition are embodied in the legislation of coal mines in both the United States and United Kingdom (Palmer, 1992) but are considered superfluous to reclamation programmes in Alberta and British Columbia. However, all forms of biological diversity (alpha, beta and gamma) are important for ensuring reclamation success. The lack of focus on diversity demonstrates clearly ignorance of ecosystem concepts such as stability and resilience and the role of ‘keystone species’ (Bond, 1993) in ecosystem functioning. Although high levels of diversity can seldom be replicated economically on mined land, a functional diversity that includes species with different life forms and phenologies can be achieved. Recent research has shown that taxa may not be reliable units for quantifying ecological diversity (Wayne and Bazzaz, 1991). Consequently, several authors have suggested that the functional group concept (species grouped by perceived similar effects on the ecosystem) may be the most appropriate method of assessing diversity (Ko¨rner, 1993; Lawton and Brown, 1993). The taxonomic approach to diversity is more concerned with phytocoenoses whereas the functional group is more inclusive and focused on biogeocoenoses. The functional group approach to diversity has benefits to both ecosystem reconstruction and monitoring of mine reclamation because it provides a pragmatic approach to species selection and performance monitoring. In addition, taxonomic (richness) and structural (patchiness and vertical distribution) diversity are both important considerations for reclamation and can be used to monitor the success of rehabilitation as habitat for fauna and the probability of colonization by desired animal species. Functional and structural diversity data collection and analysis should be formalized within all the jurisdictions reviewed.

Surface coal mine reclamation

Soil microbiology The development of sustainable post-mining ecosystems is contingent upon the development of a series of ecosystem indicators that incorporate various spatio-temporal scales. A serious omission in many current evaluations of reclamation success is the absence of soil (physical, chemical and biological) assessments (Allen and Friese, 1992). In the past, reclamation success has disregarded sub-surface components of the ecosystem that are indicative of the long-term consequences of successional management. Assessment measures of ecosystem structure and function are needed to direct and determine the degree to which a rehabilitated site has developed a suitably complex and stable biotic community. Although sensitive measures of pedogenesis, measurements of soil physical properties, e.g. moisture and texture and chemical properties (total nitrogen and percent organic carbon), are unable to provide an accurate summary of changes in restoration schemes (Harris and Birch, 1990; Harris et al., 1996). However, indications of potential long-term vegetation productivity, successional trajectories and ecological functioning of such reclaimed landscapes may be provided when these parameters are used in conjunction with biological indices. Measurements of functional capacity, e.g. nutrient cycling, are essential for measuring system dynamics. Several parameters have been used in the past to assess re-development of microbial activity in reclaimed mine soils. However, researchers now believe that soil biological parameters such as microbial biomass, microbial activity, microbial biomass to total carbon and mycorrhizal infection types and rates are the most important indicators of reclamation success (Bentham et al., 1992; Ruzek, 1994). Linkages between microbial activity and organic matter production provide the best approximation of overall system recovery. At the microbial community level, species abundance distributions and the annual variability (AV) community descriptor provide the most complete assessment of shortand long-term recovery rates in community structure and stability (Zak et al., 1992). Although a number of the aforementioned soil microbial sampling techniques require

considerable investment in time and expertise, once equipment is obtained and protocols established, these methods should provide efficient short- and long-term monitoring of reclamation success.

Invertebrates Animals perform important functions in ecosystem restoration. Both vertebrates and invertebrates can be useful indicators of developmental ecosystem status because, like plants, their life cycles integrate a wide variety of abiotic (site conditions) and biotic (host specificity) variables (Louda, 1988). Although studies which examine vertebrate community structure on reclaimed land can provide important successional progression information, monitoring of rodent or ungulate populations is problematic due to sample size and data interpretation problems associated with large home ranges (Parmenter and MacMahon, 1992). In contrast, invertebrate population monitoring, primarily arthropods, can provide reliable data with which to predict successional trajectories and evaluate reclamation success (Chapin et al., 1992). As an alternative to existing non-holistic approaches, faunal community development (trophic organization, species dominance hierarchies, guild apportionments, population demographics and species turnover rates) should be used to assess reclamation performance. Assemblages of taxa would be selected and monitored as indicators of functional groups that influence ecosystem processes. Appropriate groups or trophic guilds should include pollinators, dispersers, herbivores, granivores, predators, parasites and detritivores. Relative abundances of these indicator assemblages can then be compared between sites to evaluate establishment and maintenance of processes and can be linked spatially to other levels in the monitoring hierarchy through georeferencing.

Vertebrate habitat monitoring A majority of surface mines have wildlife habitat development as a post-mining land use objective, but in the past, it has been

223

224

C. R. Smyth and P. Dearden

difficult to establish and evaluate performance standards for wildlife habitat recreation (Tomlinson, 1984). However, relatively recent computer software developments by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service have provided programmes which can generate habitat-type suitability indices for reclamation planning and for the evaluation of ecological performance of reclaimed lands (Rhodes et al., 1983). A slight modification of this programme is proposed wherein monitoring data would be collected in several ‘target years’ and then integrated with GIS technology through software such as RAMAS/ GIS to provide trend analysis monitoring.

Landscape monitoring Every surface mine creates a variety of land perturbations (exploration and access roads, haul roads, pits, adits, overburden and spoil dumps, tailings ponds, administrative areas); therefore, any holistic assessment or index of reclamation success must consider, explicitly or implicitly, landscape processes important in establishing and maintaining ecological systems. Patch shapes interdigitate with adjacent patch shapes and interact significantly with the orientation of directional forces in the landscape (Hardt and Forman, 1989). Temporal changes in landscape include the following: (1) patch number; (2) patch size; (3) number and type of corridors; (4) number and type of dispersal barriers; and (5) probability and spread of disturbance. Examination of patch boundaries would provide a method of determining which elements (patches) or ecotesserae are expanding (convex) and which patches are relicts or diminishing (concave) in size. Researchers have described methods for monitoring vegetation on disturbed lands by remote sensing (Grip and Bakken, 1986; Allum and Dreisinger, 1987). In particular, remote sensing techniques which are integrated with GIS technology and coupled with landscape ecology principles can improve greatly the reclamation monitoring process. Analysis of aerial photographs (1:10 000) can reveal temporal changes in vegetation spatial patterns (Game et al., 1982) and rates and frequency of change along different successional pathways (Lowell, 1991). Franklin et al., (1994) have also demonstrated the value of

mapping with satellite imagery (Landsat TM and Spot HRV) when combined with Digital Elevation Modeling (DEM). The effects of distance to seed source and landscape heterogeneity on vegetation succession may also be examined through analysis of aerial photographs (Green et al., 1993). Pixel resolution of 5 m2 is possible. Remote sensed data combined with GIS analysis and interpretation provides a synoptic view of the reclaimed landscape that can be used to improve management practices. Evaluation of spatial and long-term consequences of mining activities also includes parameters such as patch configuration and size, edge length and their configuration and disturbance susceptibility. Remote sensed/GIS data, when integrated within the monitoring hierarchy, can perform an important synthetic or synoptic role for examining and modifying, where necessary, the impacts of reclamation management practices.

Conclusion Performance standards and monitoring programmes are important components of the regulatory process that provide feedback for ensuring reclamation success. Current technological reclamation research has developed due to the enactment of legislation designed specifically to establish and enforce minimum standards of reclamation. The importance of a detached authority of objectively justifiable standards is fundamental to the reclamation regulatory process. Performance standards and requirements are the regulatory instruments used to indicate reclamation success or failure and to ensure that long-term environmental degradation is minimized or eliminated. However, often the objectives for ecosystem re-creation are ill-defined and criteria for evaluating alternative management practices poorly articulated. Specification of clear and concise measurement criteria are essential for evaluation of alternative reclamation approaches and subsequent bond release. All of the jurisdictions had poorly described or inadequate requirements. In general, basic scientific knowledge on ecosystem recovery has not been incorporated into existing regulatory performance standards and monitoring

Surface coal mine reclamation

procedures. Therefore, a combination approach to reclamation success is proposed which integrates, in two stages, the capability and functional analysis approaches described previously. The first stage focuses on the recreation of negotiated, i.e. Government, industry and public, landscape modifications which are necessary for ‘equivalent’ pre- and post-mining land productivity or capability. During this stage, abiotic measurements would characterize capability or land use potential and, if acceptable, would result in partial bond release. During the second stage, monitoring would be used to evaluate the functional capacity of the developing ecosystem and long-term successional trends. Final bond release would be permitted following a satisfactory evaluation of the monitoring time series. A requirement of this performance monitoring system is the need for co-ordinated industry/Government longitudinal studies undertaken by certified or accredited individuals. A monitoring network of industry and Government sampling sites would be established. Monitoring locations that have regional importance would be funded by regulatory agencies while site-specific locations would be funded by industry. A prerequisite for sampling would be standardized sampling parameters and sampling procedures which take into consideration the holocoenotic nature and dynamic properties of developing ecosystems. The monitoring programme focuses on the trajectory or dynamics of successional development and would include parameters such as percent vegetation cover, species abundance, biomass, invertebrate species richness, soil C/N ratios, percent soil nitrogen, microbial biomass and microbial activity. Sampling would occur at specific sampling intervals over several years. Detailed sampling parameters, research design, analysis and presentation format should be outlined in guidelines and operational field handbooks. Reclamation practices and regulatory control in each jurisdiction would be greatly improved by effective long-term monitoring. Because the proposed monitoring programme is based on processes rather than specific endproducts, the approach has broad applicability, and implementation is not limited to the jurisdictions reviewed.

References Allen, M.F. and Friese, C.F. (1992). Mycorrhizae and reclamation success: importance and measurement. In Evaluating Reclamation Success: Ecological Consideration. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation, 23–26 April 1990, Charleston, West Virginia. (J.C. Chambers and G.L. Wade, eds). General Technical Report NE-164. pp. 17–25. Radnor: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experimental Station. Allum, J.A.E. and Dreisinger, B.R. (1987). Remote sensing of vegetation change near Inco’s Sudbury mining complexes. International Journal of Remote Sensing 8, 399–416. Aronson, J., Floret, C., Le Floch, F., Ovalle, C. and Pontanier, R. (1993). Restoration and rehabilitation of degraded ecosystems in arid and semi-arid lands. I. A view from the south. Restoration Ecology 1, 8–17. Bentham, H., Harris, J.A., Birch, P. and Short, K.C. (1992). Habitat classification and soil restoration assessment using analysis of soil microbiological and physico-chemical characteristics. Journal of Applied Ecology 29, 711–718. Berelson, B. (1954). Content analysis. In Handbook of Social Psychology: Theory and Method. Volume I. (G. Lindsey, ed.). pp. 488–522. Cambridge: Addison-Wesley. Binns, J. (1994). Long-term development of vegetation communities at four past-producing B.C. mine-sites. In Mine Reclamation “Compliance and Environmental Protection”. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium. 11–14 April 1994, Vernon, British Columbia. pp. 225–235. Victoria: British Columbia Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation. Bond, W.J. (1993). Keystone species. In Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function. Ecological Studies Volume 99. (E.-D. Schulze and H.A. Mooney, eds). pp. 237-250. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Bonham, C.D. (1989). Measurements for Terrestrial Vegetation. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Bonham, C.D., Larson, L.L. and Morrison, A. (1980). A Survey of Techniques for the Measurement of Herbaceous and Shrub Production, Cover and Diversity on Coal Lands in the West. Denver: Office of Surface Mining, United States Department of the Interior. Bratton, D.L. (1987). Regulatory response to changing reclamation demands. In Reclamation Targets for the 1990’s. (C.B. Powter, ed.). pp. 5–12. Edmonton: Proceedings of a Symposium Sponsored by the Alberta Society of Professional Biologists, The Alberta Chapter/Canadian Land Reclamation Association and The Canadian Society of Environmental Biologists – Alberta Chapter. Brenner, F.J. (1985). Land reclamation after strip mining in the United States. Mining Magazine 153, 211–213, 215, 217.

225

226

C. R. Smyth and P. Dearden Burford, R.F. (1990). The mining law of 1872. Geotimes 35, 16–18. Buckner, D.L. (1989). Use of quantitative performance standards in revegetation of coal mines in the western United States. In 1989 Annual Conference of the Society for Ecological Restoration. (H.G. Hughes and T.M. Bonnicksen, eds). pp. 349–356. Madison: Society for Ecological Restoration. Budd, R.W., Thorp, R.K. and Donohew, L. (1967). Content Analysis of Communications. New York: MacMillan Publishing Company. Burley, J.B., Thomsen, C.H. and Kenkel, N.C. (1989). Productivity equation for reclaiming surface mines. Environmental Management 13, 631–638. Burt, T.P. (1994). Long-term study of the natural environment—perceptive science or mindless monitoring? Progress in Physical Geography 18, 475–496. Cairns, J., Jr (1983). Management options for rehabilitation and enhancement of surface-mined ecosystems. Minerals and the Environment 5, 32–38. Chambers, J.C. and Wade, G.L. (1992). Evaluating reclamation success using ecological principles: a holistic approach. In Evaluating Reclamation Success: The Ecological Considerations (J.C. Chambers and G.L. Wade, eds.). General Technical Report NE-164. pp. 105–107. Radnor: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experimental Station. Chambers, J.C., MacMahon, J.A. and Wade, G.L. (1992). Differences in successional processes among biomes: importance for obtaining and evaluating reclamation success. In Evaluating Reclamation Success: The Ecological Considerations. (J.C. Chambers and G.L. Wade, eds.). General Technical Report NE-164. pp. 59– 72. Radnor: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experimental Station. Champigny, N. and Abbott, R.M. (1992). Environmental management in the Canadian mining industry. In Mine Reclamation from Exploration to Decommissioning. Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium. pp. 25–33. Victoria: Sponsored by the Technical Research Committee on Reclamation, Mining Association of British Columbia, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, The Coal Association of Canada and the University of British Columbia. Champigny, N., Grimley, P.H. and Stanley, W.E. (1991). International survey of mine reclamation and funding. Part I – Canada. International Mine Waste Management News 1, 5–12. Chapin, F.S. III, Schulze, E.-D. and Mooney, H.A. (1992). Biodiversity and ecosystem processes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 7, 107–108. Colbert, T.A. (1992). Revegetation success—an ‘ecoregulatory’ riddle. In Proceedings: High Altitude Revegetation Workshop No. 10. (W.G. Hassell, S.K. Nordstrom, W.R. Keammerer and J.

Todd, eds.). Information Series No. 71. pp. 240– 243. Fort Collins: Colorado Water Resources Research Institute, Colorado State University. Doll, E.C. and Wollenhaupt, N.C. (1985). Use of soil parameters in the evaluation of reclamation success in North Dakota. In Bridging the Gap Between Science, Regulation and the Surface Mining Operation. Proceedings: Second Annual Meeting of the American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation, Denver, Colorado. pp. 91–94. Princeton: American Society for Surface Mine Reclamation, Princeton. Edgar, R., Ruzz, W., Bailey, B., Berry, C. and Samson, F. (1985). Development of revegetation success standards for La Plata coal mine in northwestern New Mexico. In Proceedings of American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation, 1985 October 8–10, Denver, Colorado. pp. 77–83. Princeton: American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation. Eichbaum, W.M. and Buente, D.T. (1980). The land restoration provisions for the surface mining control and reclamation act: constitutional considerations. Harvard Environmental Law Review 4, 227–259. Errington, J.C. (1991). Personal Communication. V and Inspection Branch, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Fedkenheuer, A.W., Knapik, L.J. and Walker, D.G. (1987). Minesoil and Landscape Reclamation of the Coal Mines in Alberta’s Mountains and Foothills. Alberta Land Conservation and Reclamation Council Report 87–2, Edmonton: Queen’s’ Printer. Ferchau, H.A. (1988). Rehabilitating ecosystems at high altitudes. In Rehabilitating Disturbed Ecosystems. (J. Cairns, Jr, ed.). pp. 193–209. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Franklin, S.E., Connery, D.R. and Williams, J.A. (1994). Classification of alpine vegetation using Landsat Thematic Mapper, SPOT HRV and DEM data. Canadian Journal of Remote Sensing 20, 49–56. Friedlander, J.D. (1994). Quantifying topographic differences between pre-mining and reclaimed landscapes at a large surface coal mine. In International Land Reclamation and Mine Drainage Conference and Third International Conference on the Abatement of Acidic Drainage. Volume 2 of 4: Reclamation and Revegetation. Special Publication SP 06C-94. pp. 241–248. Pittsburgh: United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Fyles, J.W., Fyles, H. and Bell, M.A.M. (1985). Vegetation and soil development on coal mine spoil at high elevation in the Canadian Rockies. Journal of Applied Ecology 22, 239–248. Gallaher, W.J. and Lynn, S. (1989). A Review of Hardrock Mine Reclamation Practices as Background for Proposed Nevada Legislation. Washington DC: Public Resource Associates. Game, M., Carrel, J.E. and Hotrabhavandra, T. (1982). Patch dynamics of plant succession on abandoned surface coal mines: a case history approach. Journal of Ecology 70, 707–720.

Surface coal mine reclamation Green, D.R., Cummins, R., Wright, R. and Miles, J. (1993). A methodology for acquiring information on vegetation succession from remotely sensed imagery. In Landscape Ecology and Geographic Information Systems. pp. 111– 128. London: Taylor and Francis. Gregory, D.I., Mills, R. and Watson, C.C. (1987). Determination of approximate original contour. In Proceedings of the Combined Fourth Biennial Symposium on Mining and Reclamation in the West and the National Meeting of the American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation, March 17–19, 1987, Billings. pp. C4.1–C4.6. Princeton: American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation. Grip, W.M. and Bakken, K.T. (1986). Documenting revegetation success for bond release through medium format aerial photography. In Proceedings of American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation; 1986 March 17–20, Jackson, Mississippi. pp. 31–32. Princeton: American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation. Hardt, R.A. and Forman, R.T.T. (1989). Boundary form effects on woody colonization of reclaimed surface mines. Ecology 70, 1252–1260. Harris, G.R., King, L.A. and Clary, M.B. (1988). Growth management for environmental protection in the U.S.A. Journal of Environmental Management 27, 53–68. Harris, J.A. and Birch, P. (1990). Application of the principles of microbial ecology to the assessment of surface mine reclamation. In Proceedings of the 1990 Mining and Reclamation Conference and Exhibition. Volume 1. (J. Skousen, J.C. Sencindiver and D. Samuels, eds.), pp. 111–119. Morgantown: West Virginia University. Harris, J.A., Birch, P. and Palmer, J. (1996). Land Restoration and Reclamation. Principles and Practice. Essex: Addison Wesley Longman. Holsti, O.R. (1969). Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Reading: AddisonWesley Publishers. Howard, C. and Regele, S. (1984). Reclamation monitoring: its purpose and scope. In Third Biennial Symposium on Surface Coal Mine Reclamation on the Great Plains. (F.F. Munshower and S.E. Fisher, Jr, Co-chairmen), pp. 330–334. Billings: Reclamation Unit, Montana State University. Imes, A.C. and Wali, M.K. (1978). Governmental regulation of reclamation in the western United States: an ecological perspective. Reclamation Review 1, 75–88. Inouye, D.W. (1988). Variation in undisturbed plant and animal populations and its implications for studies of recovering ecosystems. In Rehabilitating Disturbed Ecosystems. (J. Cairns, Jr, ed.). pp. 40–49. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Jackson, L.J. (1991). Surface Coal Mines— Restoration and Rehabilitation. IEACR/32 London: IEA Coal Research. Johnson, R. (1987). A symposium summary. In Reclamation Targets for the 1990’s, Proceedings of a Symposium. (C.B. Powter, ed.). pp. 111–114.

Edmonton: Proceedings of a Symposium Sponsored by the Alberta Society of Professional Biologists, The Alberta Chapter/Canadian Land Reclamation Association and The Canadian Society of Environmental Biologists—Alberta Chapter. Kalt, J.P. (1983). The cost and benefits of federal regulation of coal strip mining. Natural Resources Journal 23, 893–915. Keammerer, W.R. (1989). Monitoring restoration results. In Restoration ’89: The New Management Challenge. First Annual Meeting of the Society for Ecological Restoration. (H.G. Hughes and T.M. Bonnicksen, eds.), pp. 194–201. Madison: Society for Ecological Restoration. Klein, A.D. (1991). Personal Communication. Denver: United States Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. Kleinman, L.H. (1984). Industry’s view of reclamation/revegetation success. In Third Biennial Symposium on Surface Coal Mine Reclamation on the Great Plains. (F.F. Munshower and S.E. Fisher, Jr, Co-chairmen), pp. 335–341. Billings: Reclamation Unit, Montana State University. Ko¨rner, C. (1993). Scaling from species to vegetation: the usefulness of functional groups. In Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function. Ecological Studies Volume 99. (E.-D. Schulze and H.A. Mooney, eds.). pp. 117–142. Berlin: SpringerVerlag. Krabbenhoft, K., Kirby, D., Biondini, M., Halvorson, G. and Nilson, D. (1993). Topographic Unit Analysis: A site classification system for reclaimed mined lands. Catena 20, 289–301. Lang, R. (1982). Biomass and forage production from reclaimed strip-mined land and adjoining native range in central Wyoming. Journal of Range Management 35, 754–756. Lawton, J.H. and Brown, V.K. (1993). Redundancy in ecosystems. In Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function. Ecological Studies Volume 99. (E.-D. Schulze and H.A. Mooney, eds), pp. 255–270. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Likens, G.E. (1983). A priority for ecological research. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America 64, 234–243. Louda, S.M. (1988). Insect pests and plant stress as considerations for revegetation of disturbed ecosystems. In Rehabilitating Disturbed Ecosystems. (J. Cairns Jr, ed.), pp. 52–65. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Lowell, K. (1991). Utilizing discriminant function analysis with a geographical information system to model ecological succession spatially. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 5, 175–191. Lulman, P.D. (1987). What is successful reclamation? Industry perception. In Reclamation Targets for the 1990s. (C.B. Powter, ed.), pp. 99–100. Edmonton: Proceedings of a Symposium Sponsored by the Alberta Society of Professional Biologists, Canadian Land Reclamation Association and the Canadian Society of Environmental Biologists.

227

228

C. R. Smyth and P. Dearden Marshall, I.B. (1983). Mining, Land Use, and the Environment II. A Review of Mine Reclamation Activities in Canada. EN 73-1/23E. Ottawa: Lands Directorate, Environment Canada. McDonald, J.D. (1978). British Columbia Ministry of Mines and Petroleum Resources Reclamation Policy. Reclamation of Lands Disturbed by Mining. Proceedings of the Second Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium, Vernon. pp. 67–79. Victoria: Technical Research Committee on Reclamation, Ministry of Mines and Petroleum Resources and the Mining Association of British Columbia. McElfish, J.M. and Beier, A.E. (1990). Environmental Regulation of Coal Mining, SMCRA’s Second Decade. Washington DC: Environmental Law Institute. Munshower, F.F. and Fisher, S.E. (1984). The future of reclamation planning on the Northern Great Plains. In Third Biennial Symposium on Surface Coal Mine Reclamation on the Great Plains. (F.F. Munshower and S.E. Fisher, Jr, Cochairmen). pp. 102–110. Billings: Reclamation Unit, Montana State University. Murdock, S. (1980). Land-use goals vs. reference areas for determining reclamation success. In Adequate Reclamation of Mined Lands?—A Symposium. pp. 24:1–24:8. Ankeny: Soil Conservation Society of America and Western Revegetation Coordinating Committee 21, Soil Conservation Society of America. Noble, I.R. and Slatyer, R.O. (1980). The use of vital attributes to predict successional changes in plant communities subject to recurrent disturbances. Vegetatio 43, 5–21. Ostler, W.K., Allred, K.L. and Hansen, D.J. (1985). A field survey of reclamation practices in the overthrust belt. In Proceedings of the American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation, 1985, October 8–10, Denver, Colorado. pp. 190– 195. Princeton: American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation. Palmer, J.P. (1992). Nutrient cycling: the key to reclamation success? In Evaluating Reclamation Success: the Ecological Considerations. (J.C. Chambers and G.L. Wade, eds), General Technical Report NE-164. pp. 27–36. Radnor: United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experimental Station. Parker, V.T. (1997). The scale of successional models and restoration objectives. Restoration Ecology 5, 301–306. Parmenter, P.R and MacMahon, J.A. (1992). Faunal community development on disturbed lands: an indicator of reclamation success. In Evaluating Reclamation Success: The Ecological Considerations. (J.C. Chambers and G.L. Wade, eds.). General Technical Report NE-164. pp. 73– 89. Radnor: United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experimental Station. Powter, C.B. (1991). Personal Communication. Edmonton: Alberta Environmental Protection, Land Reclamation Division. Pratt, J.R. and Stevens, J. (1992). Restoration ecology: repaying the national ecological debt.

In Proceedings: High Altitude Revegetation Workshop No. 10. (W.G. Hassell, S.K. Nordstrom, W.R. Keammerer and J. Todd, eds), pp. 40–49. Fort Collins: Colorado Water Resources Research Institute, Information Series No. 71, Colorado State University. Rhodes, M.J., Cloud, T.J. and Haag, D. (1983). Habitat evaluation procedures for planning surface mine reclamation in Texas. Wildlife Society Bulletin 11, 222–232. Ries, R.E. and Hofmann, L. (1984). Pasture and hayland: measures of reclamation success. Minerals and the Environment 6, 85–90. Riley, C.V. (1977). Ecosystem development on coal surface-mined lands, 1918–1977. Recovery and Restoration of Damaged Ecosystems. (J. Cairns, Jr, K.L. Dickson and E.L. Herricks, eds), pp. 303–346. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press. Risser, P.G. (1991). Introduction. In Long-term Ecological Research, An International Perspective. SCOPE 47. (P.G. Risser, ed.), pp. 1–8. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Ruzek, L. (1994). Bioindication of soil fertility and a mathematical model for restoration assessment. Restoration Ecology 2, 112–119. Schuman, G.E., D.T. Booth and J.W. Waggoner. (1990). Grazing reclaimed mined land seeded to native grasses in Wyoming. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 45, 353–357. Smith, K.A. and Chambers, J.C. (1993). Comparing Revegetation on Monitored and Non-monitored Gas Well Sites in Southwestern Wyoming. Research Note INT-417. Reno: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Smyth, C.R. (1996). High Altitude Coal Mine Reclamation: An Ecological Audit of Regulatory Requirements, Planning Information and Participant Attitudes. Ph.D. Dissertation, Victoria: Geography Department, University of Victoria. Southwood, T.R.E. (1988). Tactics, strategies and templets. Oikos 52, 3–18. Stankey, G.H. (1972). The use of content analysis in resource decision making. Journal of Forestry 70, 148–151. Tausch, R.J., Wigand, P.E. and Burkhardt, J.W. (1993). Viewpoint: plant community thresholds, multiple steady states, and multiple successional pathways: legacy of the Quaternary? Journal of Range Management 46, 439–447. Tomlinson, P. (1984). Evaluating the success of land reclamation schemes. Landscape Planning 11, 187–203. Tyson, W. (1984). Revegetation by objectives. In Proceedings of the Native Plant Revegetation Symposium, November 1984. pp. 10–14. San Diego: Native Plant Society. Vogel, W.G. (1987). A Manual for Training Reclamation Inspectors in the Fundamentals of Soils and Revegetation. Berea: Prepared for the Office of Surface Mining and Enforcement by the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station.

Surface coal mine reclamation Wayne, P.M. and Bazzaz, F.A. (1991). Assessing diversity in plant communities: the importance of within species variation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 6, 400–404. Zak, J.C., Fresquez, P.R. and Visser, S. (1992). Soil microbial processes and dynamics: their importance for effective reclamation. In Evaluating Reclamation Success: the Ecological Considerations. (J.C. Chambers and G.L. Wade, eds), General Technical Report NE-164. pp. 3– 16. Radnor: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experimental Station.

Ziemkiewicz, P.F. (1979). Effects of Fertilization on the Nutrient and Organic Matter Dynamics of Reclaimed Coal Mined Areas and Native Grasslands in Southeastern British Columbia. Ph.D. Dissertation. Vancouver: Department of Forestry, University of British Columbia. Ziemkiewicz, P.F. and Takyi, S.K. (1990). Organic matter dynamics on reclaimed coal mines in the Canadian Rockies. In Proceedings of the 1990 Mining and Reclamation Conference and Exhibition. Volume 1. (J. Skousen, J. Sencindiver and D. Samuels, eds), pp. 127–133. Morgantown: West Virginia University.

229