DOCSLIB.ORG

Future of Shrubs in Oil Sands Reclamation Workshop

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Future of Shrubs in Oil Sands Reclamation Workshop Future of Shrubs in Oil Sands Reclamation Workshop Oil Sands Research and Information Network University of Alberta December, 2013 Oil Sands Research and Information Network The Oil Sands Research and Information Network (OSRIN) is a university-based, independent organization that compiles, interprets and analyses available knowledge about managing the environmental impacts to landscapes and water impacted by oil sands mining and gets that knowledge into the hands of those who can use it to drive breakthrough improvements in regulations and practices. OSRIN is a project of the University of Alberta’s School of Energy and the Environment (SEE). OSRIN was launched with a start-up grant of $4.5 million from Alberta Environment and a $250,000 grant from the Canada School of Energy and Environment Ltd. OSRIN provides: Governments with the independent, objective, and credible information and analysis required to put appropriate regulatory and policy frameworks in place Media, opinion leaders and the general public with the facts about oil sands development, its environmental and social impacts, and landscape/water reclamation activities – so that public dialogue and policy is informed by solid evidence Industry with ready access to an integrated view of research that will help them make and execute environmental management plans – a view that crosses disciplines and organizational boundaries OSRIN recognizes that much research has been done in these areas by a variety of players over 40 years of oil sands development. OSRIN synthesizes this collective knowledge and presents it in a form that allows others to use it to solve pressing problems. Citation This report may be cited as: Oil Sands Research and Information Network, 2013. Future of Shrubs in Oil Sands Reclamation Workshop. Oil Sands Research and Information Network, University of Alberta, School of Energy and the Environment, Edmonton, Alberta. OSRIN Report No. TR-43. 71 pp. Copies of this report may be obtained from OSRIN at [email protected] or through the OSRIN website at http://www.osrin.ualberta.ca/en/OSRINPublications.aspx or directly from the University of Alberta’s Education & Research Archive at http://hdl.handle.net/10402/era.17507. i Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................... i LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................................... i REPORT SUMMARY.................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iv 1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 2 SESSION 1: REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND POLICIES ................................2 2.1 Non-Regulatory Impacts on Shrub Use ...................................................................3 3 SESSION 2: CURRENT STATE OF KNOWLEDGE ......................................................4 3.1 Do We Know Which Shrubs to Use And Why? ......................................................4 3.2 Do We Know How They Can Be Collected, Stored, Grown And Seeded/Planted?4 3.3 Can We Get The Shrubs We Need When We Need Them? ....................................4 3.4 Do We Know How Shrubs Perform in Reclamation Setting(s)? .............................5 3.5 Do We Know Where (From Whom) to Obtain Information? ..................................6 4 SESSION 3: KNOWLEDGE GAPS AND POLICY NEEDS ...........................................6 4.1 What Constitutes “Successful Shrub Reclamation”? ...............................................6 4.2 What Research Is Required Into Shrub Species Selection? .....................................7 4.3 What Research Is Required To Collect, Store, Grow And Seed/Plant Shrubs? ......8 4.4 What Scale Of Research Is Required – Lab, Plot, Large-Scale Demonstration? ....9 4.5 What Policies Are Required Or Need To Be Updated? ...........................................9 5 SESSION 4: NEXT STEPS ..............................................................................................10 6 INFORMATION SOURCES.............................................................................................13 6.1 Legislation and Policy............................................................................................13 6.2 Shrub Taxonomy, Guides and Characteristics .......................................................14 6.3 Shrub Selection and Evaluation .............................................................................14 6.4 Shrub Tolerances ...................................................................................................15 6.5 Shrub Inoculation ...................................................................................................16 6.6 Shrubs in Reclamation ...........................................................................................17 7 GLOSSARY ......................................................................................................................20 7.1 Terms .....................................................................................................................20 ii 7.2 Acronyms ...............................................................................................................21 APPENDIX 1: Workshop Agenda................................................................................................23 APPENDIX 2: Workshop Attendees ............................................................................................24 APPENDIX 3: Session Presentations and Questions ...................................................................26 APPENDIX 4: Session 1 Regulatory Requirements and Policies Notes ......................................39 APPENDIX 5: Session 2 Current State of Knowledge Notes ......................................................45 APPENDIX 6: Session 3 Knowledge Gaps and Policy Needs Notes ..........................................51 APPENDIX 7: Session 4 What’s Next Notes ...............................................................................59 APPENDIX 8: 1978 Shrubs Workshop ........................................................................................63 LIST OF OSRIN REPORTS .........................................................................................................67 iii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Key steps and responsibilities in shrubs research; public includes Aboriginal communities .......................................................................................................... 12 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Key steps in shrub research implementation plan ................................................. 12 Figure 2. Matching species to site conditions ...................................................................... 45 Figure 3. Aspen as moisture stress bioindicator. .................................................................. 54 i REPORT SUMMARY A group of 48 people from government, academia, consultants and the oil sands and plant production industries gathered on November 25, 2013 to discuss the current state of knowledge about shrubs and their current and future use in oil sands reclamation. The Workshop was organized around four key topics: Session 1: Regulatory Requirements and Policies Session 2: Current State of Knowledge Session 3: Knowledge Gaps and Policy Needs Session 4: Next Steps In Session 1, participants noted a number of regulatory requirements and policies that support shrub use. However, a far larger list of impediments was identified. These can be roughly divided into two main themes: (1) impediments to efficient and effective use of shrubs; and (2) impediments to effective ecological use of shrubs. In Session 2, participants said we know which species to use but maybe not why – current planting density rules require x stems/ha and species doesn’t matter so there is no incentive for diversity or selection of species attributes that could be exploited to enhance reclamation success. Participants felt collection, storage, growing and seeding issues are understood for 50% to 75% of species but some are very difficult to germinate and grow. They noted that shrubs are not produced commercially in the volumes needed, and this will be even more of a problem when reclamation ramps up in terms of area per year. Participants felt that we have a relatively good understanding of shrub reclamation for regular reclamation sites (no inhibiting factors) for both early and late successional species but we are not as advanced for early successional stages in challenging sites and have little knowledge and experience with late successional species in challenging materials. Finally there was the sense that there are lots of people and sources of information available. Much of the information is in grey literature; the comment was made that we also need to recognize grey knowledge – the knowledge (generally operational experience of growers and company reclamation staff) that isn’t even written down. A better mechanism is needed to access and share the information. In Session 3, participants provided a long list of characteristics that could be used to determine successful shrub reclamation, but noted that success was seen to be determined by the goal,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sagebrush Establishment on Mine Lands
    2000 Billings Land Reclamation Symposium BIG SAGEBRUSH (ARTEMISIA TRIDENTATA) COMMUNITIES - ECOLOGY, IMPORTANCE AND RESTORATION POTENTIAL Stephen B. Monsen and Nancy L. Shaw Abstract Big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata Nutt.) is the most common and widespread sagebrush species in the Intermountain region. Climatic patterns, elevation gradients, soil characteristics and fire are among the factors regulating the distribution of its three major subspecies. Each of these subspecies is considered a topographic climax dominant. Reproductive strategies of big sagebrush subspecies have evolved that favor the development of both regional and localized populations. Sagebrush communities are extremely valuable natural resources. They provide ground cover and soil stability as well as habitat for various ungulates, birds, reptiles and invertebrates. Species composition of these communities is quite complex and includes plants that interface with more arid and more mesic environments. Large areas of big sagebrush rangelands have been altered by destructive grazing, conversion to introduced perennial grasses through artificial seeding and invasion of annual weeds, principally cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum L.). Dried cheatgrass forms continuous mats of fine fuels that ignite and burn more frequently than native herbs. As a result, extensive tracts of sagebrush between the Sierra Nevada and Rocky Mountains are rapidly being converted to annual grasslands. In some areas recent introductions of perennial weeds are now displacing the annuals. The current weed invasions and their impacts on native ecosystems are recent ecological events of unprecedented magnitude. Restoration of degraded big sagebrush communities and reduction of further losses pose major challenges to land managers. Loss of wildlife habitat and recent invasion of perennial weeds into seedings of introduced species highlight the need to stem losses and restore native vegetation where possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Reclaiming Abandoned Mine Lands Reduces Impact of Acid Mine
    NONPOINT SOURCE SUCCESS STORY ReclaimingPennsylvania Abandoned Mine Lands Reduces Impact of Acid Mine Drainage in the Bennett Branch Basin Waterbodies Improved Acid mine drainage (AMD) degraded water quality in Pennsylvania’s Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek. As a result, Pennsylvania added the stream to its 1996 Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) list of impaired waters for high metal concentrations. To address the AMD problem, significant partnerships were developed with the mining industry to accomplish mine reclamation and to use recoverable coal and waste coal resources. Water quality in Bennett Branch has dramatically improved after restoration, with decreased metal concentrations and increased alkalinity. Problem Bennett Branch Sinnemahoning Creek (Bennett Branch) is a 38-mile-long wild and scenic river in Clearfield, Elk and Cameron counties in north-central Pennsylvania (Figure 1). Bennet Branch flows into the Susquehanna River, which empties into the Chesapeake Bay. Restoring Bennett Branch is a priority because the watershed contains much of the state’s growing elk population and also has enormous potential for growth in tourism and other outdoor recreation. Coal mining in the area began in the late 1800s. Extensive underground mining was underway by the early 1900s; surface and strip mining began in the 1940s. Both continue to a limited extent today. Many established mines were eventually abandoned and left unclaimed. Drainage from these abandoned mine lands contribute dissolved metals to Bennett Branch. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) first designated Bennett Branch Figure 1. Bennett Branch flows through coal mining as impaired for metals in 1996, and placed much of lands in north-central Pennsylvania.
    [Show full text]
  • Is NRCS a Potential Partner? Is NRCS a Potential Partner? •Past • NRCS Origins & Mission • Rural Abandoned Mine Program (RAMP)
    Abandoned Mine Land Reclamation Is NRCS a Potential Partner? Is NRCS a Potential Partner? •Past • NRCS Origins & Mission • Rural Abandoned Mine Program (RAMP) • Present • Programs • Abandoned Mine Reclamation Activities • Future • Potential NRCS Assistance for Abandoned Mine Sites “Helping People Help the Land” Dust“Dust Bowl” Bowl of the 1930’s 1932- Soil Erosion Service 1935- Soil Conservation Service Rural Abandoned Mines Program (RAMP) RAMP • 1977 – 1997 • Surface Mining Control & Reclamation Act (SMCRA) • Established “to protect people and the environment from pre-1977 coal mining activities.” • Funding from Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund ($0.35/ton surface; $0.15/ton underground) 1994 - NaturalPlantSnowSoil MaterialResources Survey Survey Center Inventory NRCS CONSERVATION PROGRAMS “Helping People Help the Land” Technical- and Cost-share Assistance to Agricultural Producers Conservation Programs Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP) Emergency Watershed Protection Program (EWP) Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) EQIP Environmental Quality Incentives Program • Voluntary • Cropland, rangeland, grassland, pastureland, private non-industrial forestland • Statewide Initiatives • County Allocations for Local Resource Concerns • Competitive application/ranking process • 50 – 90% cost-share to install “approved conservation practices” FY-08 EQIP in California Total: ~$30m Wildlife Habitat ($1m) Dairies ($6m) Counties ($17.5m) Air Quality ($5.5m) http://www.ca.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/eqip/2008/statepriorities2008.html
    [Show full text]
  • Utah Nonpoint Source Management Plan for Abandoned Mines in Utah
    UTAH NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ABANDONED MINES IN UTAH Appendix F of the State NPS Management Plan January 2018 Prepared by: The Utah Department of Environmental Quality In cooperation with the Water Quality Task Force UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Page 1 Table of Contents 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Potential Effects of Abandoned Mines ............................................................................................................... 6 1.2 Implementation of Control Strategies ................................................................................................................ 7 1.3 Examples of 319 Funded Projects ....................................................................................................................... 7 1.4 Follow-up monitoring......................................................................................................................................... 8 1.5 Mining Technical Advisory Committee ............................................................................................................. 8 2 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ................................................................................................................................. 9 2.1 Mine Locations....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 19771
    G:\COMP\MINING\SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT OF....XML SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1977 1 [Public Law 95–87] [As Amended Through P.L. 116–260, Enacted December 27, 2020] øCurrency: This publication is a compilation of the text of Public Law 95-87. It was last amended by the public law listed in the As Amended Through note above and below at the bottom of each page of the pdf version and reflects current law through the date of the enactment of the public law listed at https:// www.govinfo.gov/app/collection/comps/¿ øNote: While this publication does not represent an official version of any Federal statute, substantial efforts have been made to ensure the accuracy of its contents. The official version of Federal law is found in the United States Statutes at Large and in the United States Code. The legal effect to be given to the Statutes at Large and the United States Code is established by statute (1 U.S.C. 112, 204).¿ AN ACT To provide for the cooperation between the Secretary of the Interior and the States with respect to the regulation of surface coal mining operations, and the acquisition and reclamation of abandoned mines, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the ‘‘Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977’’. TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE I—STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND POLICY Sec. 101. Findings. Sec.
    [Show full text]
  • Prediction of Water Quality at Surface Coal Mines
    Prediction of Water Quality at Surface Coal Mines Prepared by Members of the Prediction Workgroup of the Acid Drainage Technology Initiative (ADTI) Edited by Robert L. P. Kleinmann Published by The National Mine Land Reclamation Center Located at West Virginia University in Morgantown, West Virginia ADTI is a government/industry joint venture dedicated to the development and use of best science applications to the problem of acid mine drainage. The National Energy Technology Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy prepared this document for publication. The U.S. Office of Surface Mining and the National Mining Association provided funds to offset the printing costs. Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction and Recommendations.......................................................................... 1 THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM................................................................................................1 OUR OBJECTIVES.......................................................................................................................2 FORMATION OF ACID MINE DRAINAGE ...................................................................................2 METHODS OF PREDICTION.......................................................................................................3 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................6 Chapter 2: How Geology Affects Mine Drainage Prediction...................................................... 8 INTRODUCTION
    [Show full text]
  • Remote Sensing of Mine Site Rehabilitation for Ecological Outcomes: a Global Systematic Review
    remote sensing Review Remote Sensing of Mine Site Rehabilitation for Ecological Outcomes: A Global Systematic Review Phillip B. McKenna 1,*, Alex M. Lechner 2 , Stuart Phinn 3 and Peter D. Erskine 1 1 Centre for Mined Land Rehabilitation, Sustainable Minerals Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia; [email protected] 2 Lincoln Centre for Water and Planetary Health, School of Geography, The University of Lincoln, Lincoln LN6 7TS, UK; [email protected] 3 School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Received: 8 September 2020; Accepted: 23 October 2020; Published: 28 October 2020 Abstract: The mining industry has been operating across the globe for millennia, but it is only in the last 50 years that remote sensing technology has enabled the visualization, mapping and assessment of mining impacts and landscape recovery. Our review of published literature (1970–2019) found that the number of ecologically focused remote sensing studies conducted on mine site rehabilitation increased gradually, with the greatest proportion of studies published in the 2010–2019 period. Early studies were driven exclusively by Landsat sensors at the regional and landscape scales while in the last decade, multiple earth observation and drone-based sensors across a diverse range of study locations contributed to our increased understanding of vegetation development post-mining. The Normalized Differenced Vegetation Index (NDVI) was the most common index, and was used in 45% of papers; while research that employed image classification techniques typically used supervised (48%) and manual interpretation methods (37%).
    [Show full text]
  • Restoration Appalachia: a Visual and Literary Analysis of Ecological Disturbance and Restoration Potentials in the Central Appalachian Coalfields
    RESTORATION APPALACHIA: A VISUAL AND LITERARY ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL DISTURBANCE AND RESTORATION POTENTIALS IN THE CENTRAL APPALACHIAN COALFIELDS Ellison J. Heil An independent project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Environmental Horticulture University of Washington 2019 Program Authorized to Offer Degree: School of Environmental and Forest Sciences College of the Environment University of Washington Table of Contents List of Figures and Abbreviations 4 Executive Summary 6 1. Introduction 7 1.1 The Alleghanian Orogeny and the Great Alleghany Bituminous Coal Field 7 1.2 Appalachia: Place and Space 9 1.3 Resource Extraction 11 1.3.1 Timber: Logging and Fire 11 1.3.2 Coal: Traditional Shaft Mining 13 1.3.3 Coal: Modern Surface Mining 17 2. Restoration Ecology 21 2.1 Restoration Ecology and Ecological Restoration 21 2.2 Pre-Anthropogenic Disturbance Ecosystem 21 2.3 Disturbance: 24 2.3.1 Timber Harvest 24 2.3.2 Traditional Shaft Mining 27 2.3.3 Modern Surface Mining 28 2.4 Stand Succession 28 2.5 Soil and Water Health 31 2.6 Ecosystem Services 31 3. Policy and Community Collaboration 32 3.1 Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 32 3.2 Environmental Protection Agency: Clean Air and Water Acts 32 3.3 Collaboration of Stakeholders in Mining Restoration 33 3.3.1 Office of Surface Mine Reclamation Enforcement 34 3.3.2 Abandoned Mine Lands 34 3.3.3 Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative 35 4. Restoration Techniques and Management Activities 36 4.1 Pre-SMCRA Reclamation 36 4.2 Post-SMCRA Reclamation 36 4.3 The Forestry Reclamation Approach 39 4.3.1 Step 1: Create Rooting Medium 39 4.3.2 Step 2: Loosely Graded Topsoil 39 4.3.3 Step 3: Native and Non-competitive Groundcovers 40 4.3.4 Step 4: Early Succession and Commercially Valuable Trees 40 4.3.5 Step 5: Proper Planting Techniques 41 2 4.4 Green Forest Works 41 4.5 Restoring Ecosystem Services 42 5.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015, Volume 4, Issue 2
    Journal of The American Society of Mining and Reclamation (JASMR) An Official Online Publication of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation ISSN Number 2328-8744 Volume 4, Number 2, 2015 Journal American Society of Mining and Reclamation, 2015 Vol.4, No.2 Journal of the American Society of Mining JASMR Editorial Board and Reclamation Dr. Robert Darmody The Journal of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation (JASMR) promotes the exchange of basic and applied solutions for the reclamation, Dr. Jeff Skousen restoration, and revitalization of landscapes impacted by the extraction of natural Dr. Gerard Schuman resources—including, but not limited to coal, minerals, gas, and oil. Contributions reporting original research, case studies, field demonstrations, or policy dealing Dr. George Vance with some aspect of ecosystem reclamation are accepted from all disciplines for Editor-in-Chief: consideration by the editorial board. Dr. Richard I. Barnhisel Contributions to JASMR The Journal of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation Associate Editors: publishes contributions under the headings Research Papers, Case Studies, Dr. Fred Brenner, Grove Demonstrations, Policy Papers and Review articles. All papers are peer reviewed. City College Manuscripts may be volunteered, invited, or coordinated as a symposium. Dr. Suzette Burckhard S Research Papers: Emphasis is given to the understanding of underlying processes Dakota State University rather than to monitoring. Applying these principals to specific, replicated Dr. Jon Bryan Burley, laboratory, glasshouse, and field problems dealing with reclamation are Michigan State encouraged. These reports are grouped into the following ASMR defined groups: University ecology, forestry and wildlife, geotechnical engineering, land use planning and Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • A GUIDE to ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION © Published in the United States of America
    ...bringing the land back to life A GUIDE TO ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION © Published in the United States of America. Copyright 1996 by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. All rights reserved. This publication was produced with United States Department of Interior Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement financial support and does not necessarily reflect that agency’s views. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording or otherwise without the prior written consent of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY P.O. Box 200901 Helena, MT 59620-0901 Written by Cassandra Noble Contributing Author John Koerth Acknowledgments Production of this Guide was a combined staff effort of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, with the assistance of Kim Tintinger, Renewable Technologies, Inc., of Butte, Montana, and Natalie Anderson of Integrated Geoscience, Inc. of Helena, Montana. The members of the DEQ Abandoned Mine Reclamation staff are: Vic Andersen, Joel Chavez, Dale Herbort, John Koerth,Tom Mostad, Cassandra Noble, Ben Quiñones, and Jack Yates. It is through their daily work that once-degraded abandoned mine lands are brought back to life. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................. 1 Montana’s Mining History Coal Mining ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • An Assessment of Abandoned Mine Reclamation in South Africa Using a Survey of Environmental Experts
    AN ASSESSMENT OF ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION IN SOUTH AFRICA USING A SURVEY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERTS by Andisiwe Stuurman B.S. Microbiology, University of Fort Hare, 2011 B.S. (Honors), University of Fort Hare, 2012 A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master of Science degree Department of Geography and Environmental Resources in the Graduate School Southern Illinois University Carbondale May 2015 THESIS APPROVAL AN ASSESSMENT OF ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION IN SOUTH AFRICA USING A SURVEY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERTS By Andisiwe Stuurman A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in the field of Geography and Environmental Resources Approved by: Dr. Silvia Secchi, Chair Professor Patricia MccCubbin Dr. Leslie Duram Graduate School Southern Illinois University Carbondale April 10, 2015 AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF ANDISIWE STUURMAN, for the Master of Science degree in Geography and Environmental Resources, presented on APRIL 10, 2015, at Southern Illinois University Carbondale. TITLE: AN ASSESSMENT OF ABANDONED MINE RECLAMATION IN SOUTH AFRICA USING A SURVEY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERTS MAJOR PROFESSOR: Dr. Silvia Secchi Abandoned mines are those in which mining activity has ceased and there is no entity or company that can be traced to take responsibility for their maintenance or reclamation. It has been reported that there are approximately 6,150 abandoned mines in South Africa and it is estimated that it will cost $US4.2 billion to rehabilitate these mines over a very long period of time. The South African Department of Mineral Resources has set a reclamation target of 12 abandoned mines per year.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Protection and Post-Mining Land Reclamation
    Smart strategies for the transition in coal intensive regions Project No: 836819 Best practice report on environmental protection and post-mining land reclamation WP2 - Task 2.5/ D 2.5 December 2019 TRACER Best practice report on environmental protection and post-mining land reclamation Authors: Dirk Knoche, FIB, Germany Anne Rademacher, FIB, Germany Rainer Schlepphorst, FIB, Germany Editors: Dirk Knoche, FIB, Germany Anne Rademacher, FIB, Germany Rainer Schlepphorst, FIB, Germany Reviewers: Rita Mergner, WIP, Germany Rainer Janssen, WIP, Germany Contact: Forschungsinstitut für Bergbaufolgelandschaften e.V. Dr. Dirk Knoche Email: [email protected], Tel.: +49 (0) 3531 – 7907 16 Brauhausweg 2 03238 Finsterwalde, Germany www.fib-ev.de This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 836819. The sole responsibility for the content of this report lies with the authors. It does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Union. Neither the INEA nor the European Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. TRACER website: www.tracer-h2020.eu December 2019 2 FIB TRACER Best practice report on environmental protection and post-mining land reclamation Contents 1 Preface _____________________________________________________ 7 2 Coal mining in Europe _________________________________________ 7 2.1 From a pillar of industrialisation ... __________________________________________ 7 2.2 ... into the "post-coal
    [Show full text]