Surface mining – Call for site Remediation, Reclamation, Rehabilitation or Restoration?

Abstract:

Remediation, reclamation, restoration and rehabilitation are terms often used as synonyms in colloquial English but with very distinct meanings in terms of regulatory and environmental practices. The actual number of publications using the words 'Remediation', 'Restoration' and 'Rehabilitatino' have been increasing exponentially throughout the century, but less so for 'Reclamation'. A more novel term, reclamation often is used interchangeably with the other three (Li, 2006; Bi et al., 2012; Burgos et al., 2013; Canada, 2010). In order to concretely analyze these managerial definitions, we will discuss 3 case studies that impacted land-use, soil and groundwater quality and adjacent ecosystems: surface mining of peat, coal and oil-sands in Ireland, Appalachia and Alberta (respectively). In the three cases there was considerable investment (and still is) on the reclamation or restoration of land, with not very successful results. A short analysis was made for each case, in terms of net profit, rehabilitation/reclamation/restoration efforts, total exploitable area and the already disturbed area. Regarding investments, roughly 5% of the total net worth yearly revenues (Alberta oil sands) investments will reap 10% land reclamation. This land reclamation should rise to 100% according to the new wetland policy in Alberta- this implies 50% investment of oil sands annual revenues. In the case of peatlands (Ireland), the costs of restoration are reduced to 6% of annual profits- for the same 100% land reclamation. For Appalachia, mountain top removal should cost no less than US$ 60,000 per disturbed ha.

Some of the referenced literature for these three cases uses restoration as the end-goal but in reality describe many activities as what is defined as rehabilitation (peat in Ireland); some others do target and practice restoration, but do not tackle contamination issues (coal in Appalachia); and the reclamation efforts in Alberta are still being undergoing and there is no definite knowledge about the pollution and its repercussions. These misperceptions could have been avoided by a) a clear notion of an after land end-use and b) a local regulatory framework in place, with clear definitions regarding the route to ameliorate the land.