British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium

Pre- and post-mining land capability assessment at Quintette Operating Corporation Smyth, Clint R.; Bittman, Kim 1998

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
59367-1998 - Smyth, Bittman - Pre-And Post-Mining Land Capability.pdf [ 719.44kB ]
Metadata
JSON: 59367-1.0042321.json
JSON-LD: 59367-1.0042321-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 59367-1.0042321-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 59367-1.0042321-rdf.json
Turtle: 59367-1.0042321-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 59367-1.0042321-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 59367-1.0042321-source.json
Full Text
59367-1.0042321-fulltext.txt
Citation
59367-1.0042321.ris

Full Text

nd  Proceedings of the 22 Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Penticton, BC, 1998. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation  PRE-AND POST-MINING LAND CAPABILITY ASSESSMENT AT QUINTETTE OPERATING CORPORATION. Clint R. Smyth1 and Kim Bittman2 1  Myosotis Ecological Consulting, P.O. Box 517, Blairmore, Alberta, T0K 0E0 email: myosotis@telusplanet.net 2  Environmental Coordinator, Quintette Operating Corporation, P.O. Box 1500, Tumbler Ridge, B.C. V0C 2W0 email: kbittman@quintette.com  ABSTRACT Pre- and post-mining land capability (productivity) assessment on an average-property-basis is a requirement of surface mine reclamation in British Columbia. At Quintette Operating Corporation, a capability assessment was completed in 1997. The results of the assessment showed that pre- and post-disturbance land capability comparisons for the Shikano/Plantsite and Mesa/Wolverine areas were similar. These results are favorable with respect to Quintette's permit requirements of "equivalent land capability on an average property basis." The information generated by this assessment has enabled the environmental personnel at Quintette to optimize reclamation planning for the various post-mining landforms. In this paper, the methodology and results of this form of assessment to reclamation planning and closure management are described. INTRODUCTION Land productivity or capability is defined as the ability of land resources to support a given land-use on a sustained basis (Leskiw 1996, Neitsch et al. 1997). The return of equivalent land capability does not imply that the various types of capability will be identical to pre-disturbance conditions. It provides for flexibility - individual land capabilities may change, but overall capability will be equivalent (Powter and Chymko 1991). Implicit within the definition of equivalent productivity or capability is the assumption that reclaimed mined lands should be capable of supporting similar, but not necessarily identical land uses, when comparisons are made with pre-rnining conditions. In practice, this requires that landscape, soil, vegetation, wildlife and human-use components of the development area be considered in conjunction with mine development plans and addressed in a reclamation plan that conserves land and soil resources, minimizes surface disturbance and completes reclamation activities in a timely manner. By returning these basic components, a reclaimed landscape is created that maintains similar land management options as existed prior to mining (Sharma and Saharan 1996).  71  nd  Proceedings of the 22 Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Penticton, BC, 1998. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation  Conceptual Basis for Pre- and Post-disturbance Comparisons Part 10.6.4 of the Health, Safety and Reclamation Code for Mines in British Columbia states that the level of land productivity to be achieved on reclaimed areas shall not be less than existed prior to mining on an average property basis. Unfortunately, few studies have been conducted to compare pre-mining and reclaimed landscapes either qualitatively or quantitatively (Friedlander 1994, Smyth 1995). Gregory et al. (1987) addressed the current subjectivity associated with evaluating reclaimed landscapes by suggesting several quantitative measures, including slope distributions. Probably the greatest impediment associated with quantifying a comparison between pre-mining and reclaimed landscapes is that landforms do not lend themselves to normal randomized sampling techniques and statistical comparisons of sampled landscape parameters. Therefore, an evaluation of entire land tracts provides the best comparison between pre-mining and reclaimed landscapes. METHODS  Capability classification for reclaimed lands is based primarily on soil and landscape components (Schafer 1979, Neitsch et al. 1997). Reclamation success is dependent upon favorable conditions in the root zone for optimum growth (Naeth et al. 1991, Leskiw 1996). Soil parameters influencing growth can be measured quantitatively and then integrated to estimate the sustained productivity of the reclaimed lands. The major factors which determine root zone quality are available water-holding capacity, total organic carbon, structure and consistence, salinity, sodicity, soil reaction, nutrient retention ability, surface organic matter and ecological moisture and ecological nutrient regimes (Kent 1982, King 1988, Harris et al. 1996). The main landscape factors include slope, exposure, stoniness and erosion (Humphries and McQuire 1994, Krabbenhoft et al. 1993, Leskiw et al. 1996). Land Capability Calculations For the existing operations, data provided by Quintette Coal Limited (1982) was combined with data collected during the 1996 field season to generate bioterrain capability ratings. Bioterrain classification units are treated as the equivalent of land capability units for the purposes of this report and were adapted from coding information provided by Leskiw (1996) and the Ecosystems Working Group of the Terrestrial Ecosystems Task Force Resource Inventory Committee (1995). Pre- and post-disturbance capability ratings were created using the following information sources:  72  nd  Proceedings of the 22 Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Penticton, BC, 1998. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation  (1) 1:5,000 and 1:15,000 scale black and white photography from 1975, (2) 1:7,000 scale black and white photography from 1985, (3) 1:20,000 scale black and white photography from 1995, (4) a 1:10,000 scale contour map, (5) 1:20,000 scale BCFS Forest Cover maps, (6) 1:30,000 scale surficial geology maps from 1982, (7) 1:30,000 scale soil maps from 1982, (8) 1996 field data and (9) maps of the final pit and dump designs for the Mesa/Wolverine and Shikano mine disturbances as well as maps of the tailings, coarse refuse and plantsite areas. Both pre- and post-disturbance areas of the existing operations were classified according to the criteria listed in Table 1 and were assigned to LeSkIw1S categories (refer to Table 2).. Aerial photographs were used to delineate homogeneous units of vegetation by species cover, class and structure. Forest cover maps were used where aerial photograph coverage was incomplete or of poor quality. These units were then transferred to contour maps and subdivided according to slope, aspect and elevation. The original soil and surficial geology maps were then used to further subdivide the areas on the contour maps according to surficial materials, ecological moisture regime and ecological nutrient regime. Each resultant polygon (unit) was assigned a unique number and ascribed an appropriate attribute value from each of the eight bioterrain classes. The numeric coding was adapted from the Terrestrial Ecosystems Mapping Manual (Ecosystems Working Group of the Terrestrial Ecosystems Task Force Resource Inventory Committee 1995, Cadrin et al. 1996). Post-mining polygon units were assigned a "1000" series number to distinguish them from the pre-mining polygons. The end-of-life mine plans were used to provide post-mining landform and surficial material information. Polygon boundaries were then transferred from the contour map to digital files using Autocad™ 12. Polygon areas and perimeters were also calculated. A Microsoft™ Excel workbook file was created which contained pre- and post-mining polygon attribute worksheets. The bioterrain class data ascribed to each polygon was sorted (aggregated) by surficial material, slope and aspect. Summary statistics such as count, maximum, minimum, mean, median and average deviation were calculated for the bioterrain units. Four surficial material types, i.e., organic, morainal, colluvial and bedrock (in situ residual), were identified as part of the primary sorting process. The surficial materials were subdivided into nine slope-aspect categories during the secondary sorting process. The surficial material/slope/aspect categories were then assigned the following land capability ratings: (1) high - level to gentle slopes, (2) moderate - moderate slopes, (3) low - steep slopes, (4) very low - very steep slopes and (5) nil - bedrock. The number of hectares in each land capability class were calculated for both pre-mining and reclaimed landscapes. Differences between pre-mining and reclaimed elements were examined statistically using crosstabulations (Wilkinson 1997).  73  nd  Proceedings of the 22 Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Penticton, BC, 1998. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation  Landscape Diversity Indices In addition, landscape measures of patch richness, diversity and evenness were calculated. Patch Richness (PR) equals the number of different patch types present within the landscape boundary or study area and is calculated with the formula:  where PR ranges from 1 without limit (Farina 1998). The calculation of landscape diversity is based on the Shannon-Wiener information theory index and is used to describe overall landscape structure (Gustafson and Parker 1992). Landscape diversity was calculated with Shannon's Diversity (SHDI) using the formula:  SHDI equals minus the sum, across all patch types, of the proportional abundance of each patch type multiplied by that proportion. SHDI equals zero when the landscape contains only one patch or no diversity and increases as the number of different patch types increases or the proportional distribution of area among patch types becomes more equitable, or both. The value of SHDI increases with greater landscape diversity (Turner and Ruscher 1988). The distribution of abundance of bioterrain units or evenness within the pre- and post-mining landscapes was computed with Shannon's Evenness Index (SHEI) using the formula:  SHEI equals minus the sum, across all patch types, of the proportional abundance of each patch type multiplied by that proportion, divided by the logarithm of the number of patch types.  74  nd  Proceedings of the 22 Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Penticton, BC, 1998. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation  Essentially, Shannon's Evenness Index represents the observed Shannon's Diversity Index divided by the maximum Shannon's Diversity Index for that number of patch types. SHEI equals zero when the landscape contains only one patch (no diversity) and approaches zero as the distribution of area among the different patch types becomes uneven or dominated by one type. SHDI equals one when the distribution of area among patch types (bioterrain units) is perfectly even or their proportional abundances are the same (O'Neill et al. 1988, Cullinan and Thomas 1992). Landscape richness was determined by comparing the sum of pre- and postdisturbance bioterrain units. Landscape Similarity Indices Pre- and post-mining landscape similarities were evaluated by calculating Proportional Similarity (%) and Jaccard's Coefficient. Proportional similarity is a measure that incorporates information on land class abundance based on the proportion or percentage of total community abundance that each class comprises. Jaccard's Coefficient is calculated with the formula C / (S(1) + S(2) - C), where C is the number of classification units found in both the pre-mining and post-mining landscapes and S(1) and S(2) are the number of classes in each of the landscapes. This index ranges from 0 to 1 with increasing similarity. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION  A total of thirty-three different bioterrain classes were categorized within the study area based on surficial materials, slope, aspect and ecological moisture regime. Twenty-six were grouped for the Shikano/Plantsite area and thirty-three for the Mesa/Wolverine area. Six surficial material types, i.e., fluvial, lacustrine, organic, morainal, colluvial and bedrock (in situ residual), were identified as part of the primary sorting process. The surficial materials were subdivided into nine slope-aspect categories during the secondary sorting process. The surficial material/slope/aspect categories were then assigned the following land capability ratings: (1) high - level to gentle slopes, (2) moderate - moderate slopes, (3) low - steep slopes, (4) very low - very steep slopes and (5) permanently non-productive - bedrock. As expected, land capability ratings vary slightly with material type. For example, steep slope colluvium has a lower land capability than steep slope morainal material due to the inherent differences in coarse fragment contents and particle sizes.  75  nd  Proceedings of the 22 Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Penticton, BC, 1998. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation  Shikano/Plantsite The pre-disturbance landscape encompassed by the Shikano mine and associated plantsite facilities contains, or contained previously, a number of landforms with a wide range in land capability. The pre-mining landscape was dominated by gentle to moderate cool slopes of morainal materials. The post-mining landscape will be dominated by gentle to moderate cool slopes as well although the aerial extent of this bioterrain category will be lower in comparison to the pre-disturbance landscape. The most notable difference between the pre- and postdisturbance Shikano/Plantsite landscapes is the increase in level areas and steep slopes consisting of "colluvial" or mine spoil materials. The area of exposed bedrock, i.e., highwalls, footwalls and pit floors, will increase as well. In terms of land capability, the area of high capability will decrease from 9.2 percent prior to mining to 8.1 percent after reclamation while the area of moderate land capability area will decrease from 67.6 to 61.4 percent (Table 3). The decrease in high and moderate land capability is attributed to an increase in the aerial extent of colluvium or waste rock materials and an increase in the extent of steep slopes. The area of low land capability will increase from 19.4 to 22.2 percent while the area of very low land capability will increase from 1.8 to 2.4 percent. Due to the increased amount exposed bedrock, the area that is "permanently non-productive" will increase from 1.8 prior to mining to to 2.4 percent after mining. The spoil dump platform landscapes consist of a variety of high to moderate land capability subunits. The number and size of the subunits depends on site preparation techniques such as land-shaping and deep ripping. The spoil dump slope landscape unit consists of moderate to low land capability subunits. Waste material management, aspect and slope position determines land capability within this landscape units. South-facing slopes and the toes of the slopes will have low land capability. The highwalls will have low to nil land capability. The land capability of pit floors will be highly variable, lnpit dump platforms and slopes will have similar land capabilities to those of the spoil dumps whereas areas left uncovered will have no land capability. Haul roads within the pit will have land capabilities that range from very low to moderate depending on material type and depth. The water containment structures will have high to moderate land capability.  76  nd  Proceedings of the 22 Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Penticton, BC, 1998. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation  77  nd  Proceedings of the 22 Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Penticton, BC, 1998. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation  Table 2. Code  Land Capability Classification (adapted from Leskiw 1996). Description  Class 1 High Capability - Land having no significant limitations to supporting plant growth and development. Minor limitations can be overcome with normal management practices. Class 2 Moderate Capability - Land which has, in aggregate, moderate limitations to plant growth and development. The limitations cause a reduction in productivity or benefits, or result in increased inputs to the extent that the overall advantage to be gained from the use will be attractive but appreciably less than that expected for Class 1 land. Class 3 Low Capability - Land with limitations that, in aggregate, are moderately severe for plant growth and development. The limitations result in reduced productivity or benefits, or result in increased inputs to the extent that the overall advantage to be gained from the use will be low. Class 4 Very Low Capability - Land that has severe limitations which may be surmountable in time, but which cannot be corrected with existing knowledge at a currently-acceptable cost. Class 5 Permanently Non-Productive - Land having limitations which appear so ________ severe as to preclude any possibility of plant growth and development. _____  Three diversity statistics were calculated to compare the pre- and post-mining Shikano/Plantsite landscape. Overall landscape diversity, i.e., Shannon's Diversity (SHDI), ranged from 0.86 for the pre-mining landscape to 1.02 for the post-mining landscape. Shannon's Evenness (SHEI) ranged from 0.67 for the pre-mining landscape to 0.73 for the post-mining landscape. Patch Richness (PR) increases from 19 prior to mining to 25 after mining. Interpretation of the diversity statistics suggests that the reclaimed post-mining landscape will have greater overall landscape structure.  78  nd  Proceedings of the 22 Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Penticton, BC, 1998. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation  Comparison of the pre- and post-mining landscapes indicated that these landscapes were not statistically different based on cumulative area in each capability class (X2= 3.32, 5 df, p <0.651) but that landscape richness (polygon frequency) was significantly different (X2 = 43.42, 5 df, p <0.001). The analysis revealed 71.5 percent similarity for the number of polygons in each capability class and 80.1 percent similarity for cumulative areas in each capability class. Jaccard's coefficient was 0.69 for the frequency of class occurrences in the pre- and post-mining landscapes. Therefore, the post-mining landscape is considered to be roughly equivalent to the pre-mining landscape in terms of land capability. The percent similarity is considered to be high primarily because of the stoney, shallow soils and surficial materials of the pre-disturbance landscape and, secondarily, because of the attributes of the landforms which have been created by mining activities. Mesa/Wolverine Prior to disturbance, the landscape on Sheriff and Frame Mountains consisted of a number of landforms, each with a wide range in land capability. The pre-mining landscape was dominated by steep colluvial slopes and moderate slopes composed of glacial till. The post-mining landscape will have similar proportions of surficial materials and slope angles although the proportions of level and gently-sloping "colluvial" or mine spoil landforms will be greater. The area of exposed bedrock, i.e., highwalls, footwalls and pit floors, will increase slightly. The spoil dump platform landforms consist of a variety of high to moderate land capability subunits (Table 4). The number and size of the subunits depends on site preparation techniques such as growing media placement, land-shaping and deep ripping. The spoil dump slope landscape unit consists of moderate to low land capability subunits. Waste material management, aspect and slope position determines land capability within these landscape units. South-facing slopes and the toes of the slopes will have low land capability. The highwalls will be "permanently non-productive." However, these areas provide important habitat components for mountain goats. The land capability of pit floors will be highly variable, lnpit dump platforms and slopes will have similar land capabilities to those of the spoil dumps whereas areas left uncovered will be "permanently non-productive." Haul roads within the pit will have land capabilities that range from moderate to very low on material type and depth. In terms of land capability, the area of high capability will decrease from 3.3 percent prior to disturbance to 3.0 percent after reclamation while the area of moderate land capability area will increase from 5.4 to 13.3 percent. The increase in moderate land capability is attributed to an increase in level and gently-sloping landforms derived from "colluvial" materials. The area of low  79  nd  Proceedings of the 22 Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Penticton, BC, 1998. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation  land capability within the post-mining landscape will decrease from 32.6 to 31.2 percent while the area of very low land capability will decrease from 39.7 to 31.8 percent. Due to the increased amount exposed bedrock, the area that is "permanently non-productive" will increase from 19.0 prior to mining to 20.1 percent after mining. Three diversity statistics were calculated to compare the pre- and post-mining Mesa/Wolverine landscape. Overall landscape diversity, i.e., Shannon's Diversity (SHDI), ranged from 1.16 for the pre-mining landscape to 1.24 for the post-mining landscape. Shannon's Evenness (SHEI) ranged from 0.77 for the pre-mining landscape to 0.82 for the post-mining landscape. Patch Richness (PR) increases from 32 prior to mining to 33 following mining. Interpretation of the diversity statistics suggests that the reclaimed post-mining landscape will have increased overall landscape structure. Comparison of the pre- and post-mining landscapes indicated statistically-significant differences in landscape richness (number of polygons) (X2 = 21.95, 5 df, p <0.001) and cumulative capability class area (X2= 315.79, 5 df, p <0.001). In addition, comparison of the pre-mining landscape with that of a resloped post-mining landscape indicated statistically-significant differences in landscape richness (number of polygons) (X2 = 32.94, 5 df, p <0.001) and cumulative capability class area (X2 = 470.78, 5 df, p <0.001). However, further analysis of the comparisons revealed 88.72 percent similarity for the number of polygons in each capability class and 83.18 percent similarity for cumulative areas in each capability class. Jaccard's coefficient was 0.97 for the frequency of class occurrences in the pre- and post-mining landscapes. Consequently, the postmining landscape is considered to be approximately equivalent to the pre-mining landscape with respect to land capability. The percent similarity is considered to be high primarily because of the stoney, shallow soils and surficial materials of the pre-disturbance landscape and, secondarily, because of the attributes of the landforms which have been created by mining activities.  80  nd  Proceedings of the 22 Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Penticton, BC, 1998. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation  Average Property Basis Comparisons Part 10.6.4 of the Health, Safety and Reclamation Code for Mines in British Columbia states that the level of land productivity to be achieved on reclaimed areas shall not be less than existed prior to mining on an average property basis. To determine whether Quintette has approximated this requirement in their reclamation planning process, Shikano/Plantsite and Mesa/Wolverine pre- and post-disturbance land capability classes were aggregated and compared. In addition, comparisons between resloped and non-resloped dumps in the Mesa/Wolverine areas were drawn (Tables 5 and 6). The resloped categories are not based on engineered design changes in dump profiles, rather, appropriate bioterrain units were assigned higher land capability classes due to the benefits of reduced slope angle and increased distribution of fines over the dump face. Comparison of the pre- and post-mining landscapes on an average property basis indicated nonsignificant differences in landscape richness (number of polygons) (X2 = 11.12, 5 df, p <0.051) but significant differences in cumulative capability class area (X2 = 2.67, 5 df, p <0.001). In addition, comparison of the pre-mining landscape with that of a resloped post-mining landscape (Mesa/Wolverine) indicated statistically-significant differences in landscape richness (number of polygons) (X2 = 21.96, 5 df, p <0.001) and cumulative capability class area (X2 = 101.27, 5 df, p O.001). In general, land capability following mining should be very similar to pre-disturbance conditions. In the non-resloped comparison, the area of high land capability decreases by 0.7 percent while areas of moderate and low capability increase by 0.6 and 0.9 percent respectively. Areas with very low capability decrease by 2.6 percent while areas which are "permanently non-productive" increase by 1.7 percent. In the resloped scenario (Mesa/Wolverine), overall land capability following mining should be very similar to pre-disturbance conditions as well. The area of high land capability decreases by 0.7 percent while areas of moderate and low capability increase by 1.4 and 2.6 percent respectively. Areas with very low capability decrease by 4.8 percent while areas which are "permanently nonproductive" increase by 1.4 percent. Resloping only produces a marginal improvement in land capability. However, it is expected that the improvement due to resloping would be greater if the calculations were based on engineered designs.  81  nd  Proceedings of the 22 Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Penticton, BC, 1998. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation  SUMMARY  In this paper, a comparative land capability assessment methodology applied successfully at Quintette Operating Corporation has been described. Based on this landscape-scale assessment, land capability following mining at Quintette should be similar to pre-disturbance conditions although statistics calculated indicate differences in landscape diversity between the pre- and post-disturbance landscapes. The methodology is useful for reclamation and closure management planning. LITERATURE CITED  Ames, S.E. 1980. Assessment of mine spoil for the establishment of vegetation. Reclamation of Lands Disturbed by Mining. Proceedings of the Fourth Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium. Paper 1980-11. Sponsored by the Technical Research Committee on Reclamation, British Columbia Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and the Mining Association of British Columbia. Victoria, pp. 51-85. Cadrin, C., T. Lea, B. Maxwell, D. Meidingerand B. von Sacken. (1996). Addenda to Terrestrial Ecosystems mapping Standards - May 1, 1966. Draft. Ecosystems Working Group of the  82  nd  Proceedings of the 22 Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Penticton, BC, 1998. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation  Terrestrial Ecosystems Task Force - Resources Inventory Committee. Victoria. 85 pp. Cullinan, V.I. and J.M. Thomas. (1992). A comparison of quantitative methods for examining landscape pattern and scale. Landscape Ecology, 7, 211-227. Demarchi, D.A. and A.P. Harcombe. (1982). Forage Capability Classification for British Columbia: A Biophysical Approach. APD Technical Paper 9. Province of British Columbia Ministry of Environment Assessment and Planning Division, Victoria. 50 pp. Ecosystems Working Group of the Terrestrial Ecosystems Task Force Resources Inventory Committee. (1995). Standards for Terrestrial Ecosystems Mapping in British Columbia. Review Draft. The Executive Secretariat of the Resources Inventory Committee, Victoria. 222 pp. Farina, A. (1998). Principles and Methods in Landscape Ecology. Chapman and Hall Publishers, London. 235 pp. Fedkenheuer, A.W., LJ. Knapik and D.G. Walker. (1987). Minesoil and Landscape Reclamation of the Coal Mines in Alberta's Mountains and Foothills. Alberta Land Conservation and Reclamation Council Report 87-2 Queen's Printer, Edmonton. 174 pp. Friedlander, J.D. (1994). Quantifying topographic differences between pre-mining and reclaimed landscapes at a large surface coal mine. International Land Reclamation and Mine Drainage Conference and Third International Conference on the Abatement of Acidic Drainage. Volume 2 of 4: Reclamation and Revegetation. United states Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines Special Publication SP 06C-94, Pittsburgh, pp. 241-248. Gregory, D.I., R. Mills and C.C. Watson. (1987). Determination of approximate original contour. 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. Gustafson, EJ. and G.R. Parker. (1992). Relationships between land-cover proportion and indices of spatial pattern. Landscape Ecology, 7,101-110. Harris, J.A., P. Birch and J. Palmer. (1996). Land Restoration and Reclamation, Principles and Practice. Addison Wesley Publishers, London. 230 pp. Humphries, R.N. and G.E. McQuire. (1994). Physical criteria for the design and assessment of restoration schemes in the United Kingdom. International Land Reclamation and Mine Drainage Conference and the Third International Conference on the Abatement of Acidic Drainage, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, April 24-29, 1994. Volume 3. Reclamation and Revegetation. Bureau of Mines Special Publication SP 060C-94. United States Department of the Interior, Washington, p. 232-240. Jackson, LJ. (1991). Surface Coal Mines-Restoration and Rehabilitation. IEACR/32 IEA Coal Research, London. 79 pp. Kent, M. (1982). Plant growth problems in colliery spoil reclamation - a review. Applied Geography, 2, 2, 83-108. King, J.A. (1988). Some physical features of soil after opencast mining. Soil Use and Management, 4, 1, 23-30. Krabbenhoft, K., D. Kirby, M. Biondini, G. Halvorson and D. Nilson. (1993). Topoedaphic unit analysis: a site classification system for reclaimed lands. Catena, 20, 289-301.  83  nd  Proceedings of the 22 Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Penticton, BC, 1998. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation  Leskiw, L.A. (1993). Agricultural Capability Classification for Reclamation: Working Document. Alberta Conservation and Reclamation Council Report No. RRTAC 93-13. Edmonton. 97 pp. Leskiw, L.A. (1996). Land Capability Classification for Forest Ecosystems in the Oil Sands Region. Report No. LRD-96-1, Alberta Environmental Protection, Environmental Regulatory Service, Land Reclamation Division, Edmonton. 78 pp. Leskiw, L.A., S. Tuttle and E. Anderson. (1996). Land capability classification for forest ecosystems. Conservation and Reclamation: An Ecosystem Perspective. 21st Annual Meeting of the Canadian Land Reclamation Association, September 18th - 20th, 1996, Calgary, Alberta. Canadian Land Reclamation Association, Calgary, pp. 37. Munshower, F.F. (1994). Practical Handbook of Disturbed Land Revegetation. CRC Press, Boca Raton. 265 pp. Naeth, M.A., DJ. White, O.S. Chanasyk, T.M. Macyk, C.B. Powterand DJ. Thacker. (1991). So/7 Physical Properties in Reclamation. RRTAC 91-4. Alberta Land Conservation and Reclamation Council, Reclamation Research Technical Advisory Committee, Edmonton. 216 pp. Neitsch, C., M. Golden and LR. Hossner. (1997). Land capability classification. Vision 2000, an Environmental Commitment. Proceedings of the American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation, 14th Annual National Meeting, May 10- 15, 1997, Austin, Texas. (J.E. Brandt, J.R. Galevotic, L. Kost and J. Trouart, Editors). American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation, Princeton, pp. 141-151. O'Neill, R.V., J.R. Krummel, R.H. Gardner, G. Sugihara, B. Jackson, D.L. DeAngelis, BT. Milne, M.G. Turner, B. Zygmunt, S.W. Christensen, V.H. Dale and R.L Graham. (1988). Indices of landscape pattern. Landscape Ecology, 1, 153-162. Powter, C.B. and N. Chymko. (1991). The relationship between reclamation and sustainable economic development. Reclamation and Sustainable Development. Fifteenth British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium and Sixteenth Annual Canadian Land Reclamation Meeting. Sponsored by the Technical Research Committee on Reclamation, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Canadian Land Reclamation Association and the Mining Association of British Columbia, Victoria, pp. 10-16. Province of British Columbia. (1997). Health, Safety and Reclamation Code for Mines in British Columbia. Engineering and Inspection Branch, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Victoria. 430 pp. Schafer, W.M. (1979). Guides for estimating cover-soil quality and mine soil capability for use in coal stripmine reclamation in the western United States. Reclamation Review, 2, 67-74. Sencindiver, J.C. and DJ. Dollhopf. (1990). Minesoil morphology and genesis. Proceedings of the 1990 Mining and Reclamation Conference and Exhibition. Volume I, (J. Skousen, J. Sencindiver and D. Samuels, Editors). West Virginia University, Morgantown. p. 79. Abstract. Sharma, O.K. and M.R. Saharan. (1996). Evaluation of land use potential for quarrying area around Ramganjmandi (Kota, Rajasthan), India. International Journal of Surface Mining, Reclamation and Environment, 10, 13-16. Smyth, C. R. (1995). High Altitude Coal Mine Reclamation: An Ecological Audit of Regulatory Requirements, Planning Information and Participant Attitudes. Ph.D. Dissertation, Geography Department, University of Victoria, Victoria. 515 pp. Turner, M.G. and C.L. Ruscher. (1988). Changes in landscape patterns in Georgia, USA.  84  nd  Proceedings of the 22 Annual British Columbia Mine Reclamation Symposium in Penticton, BC, 1998. The Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation  Landscape Ecology, 1, 241-251. Upadhyay, O.P., O.K. Sharma and O.P. Singh. (1990). Factors affecting stability of waste dumps in mines. International Journal of Surface Mining and Reclamation, 4, 95-99. Wilkinson, LE. (1997). SYSTAT® 7.0 for Windows Statistics. SPSS Incorporated, Chicago. 751 PP-  85  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.59367.1-0042321/manifest

Comment

Related Items