Authors: Kansas, JL; Symbaluk, MD


DOI https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_rep/1152_45_Kansas

Cite As:
Kansas, JL & Symbaluk, MD 2011, 'Balancing focal species, recreation and biodiversity in mountain coal mine closure planning – Alberta, Canada', in AB Fourie, M Tibbett & A Beersing (eds), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Mine Closure, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 423-431, https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_rep/1152_45_Kansas

Download citation as:   ris   bibtex   endnote   text   Zotero


Abstract:
Coal extraction in the Coal Branch region of Alberta, Canada has occurred since 1911 with surface mining dominating as of the 1940s. Coal mining in this mountain/foothills landscape now occurs in a multiple land use context along with oil and gas exploration and production, timber harvest, aggregate mining, big game hunting/guiding/outfitting, fur trapping, recreational All Terrain Vehicle (ATV) use, fishing, camping and other outdoor recreational pursuits. Currently, there are three surface coal mines in various stages of active mining, reclamation and closure in the upper elevations of the Coal Branch region. Mining has taken place within an increasingly stringent regulatory framework. In the mid 1990s, application was made for the Cheviot mine project. Its close proximity to Jasper National Park and heightened cumulative effects assessment requirements resulted in a ground-breaking series of public hearings, legal proceedings and two federal-provincial Joint Review Panels. Focal wildlife species, with particular emphasis on large carnivores (grizzly bears) and ungulates (elk, bighorn sheep), were a major aspect of the Cheviot environmental impact assessments and subsequent research/monitoring. The Cheviot Mine was approved in 2004 with the first of a series of mine licenses required through the phased mine development. A land use planning process (LUP) is on-going for the end land use closure planning of two older coal mines (Luscar and Gregg River) located near the Cheviot Mine. This process is being informed by on-going ecological research and monitoring at all three mines. The issues and discussions surrounding the LUP are in turn informing the Cheviot Mine permit application process. Three over-arching end land use goals dominate the current mine closure planning debate. They include: 1) maintaining and enhancing focal species habitat and populations as per the original Cheviot project mandate; 2) preserving either pre-disturbance or modified recreational land use opportunities; and, 3) approximating pre-disturbance native biological diversity conditions. This paper discusses challenges and lessons learned over a 15-year period concerning the balancing of these three primary end land use goals.

References:
BIOS Environmental Research and Planning Associates Ltd. (1996) Cheviot Mine Project. Specific and cumulative environmental effects analysis of mammalian carnivores, 122 pp. In: Cardinal River Coals Ltd. 1996. Cheviot Mine Project application, February 1996 (Appendix 34), Hinton, AB.
Carroll, C., Noss, R.F. and Paquet, P.C. (2001) Carnivores as focal species for conservation planning in the Rocky Mountain region. Ecological Applications 11, pp. 961–980.
CRC (1996) Cardinal River Coals Ltd. Cheviot Mine Project application. February 1996, Hinton, AB, 10 Volumes.
EUB-CEAA (2000) Alberta Energy and Utilities Board-Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. Report of the EUB-CEAA Joint Review Panel, Cheviot Coal Project, Mountain Park Area, Alberta (EUB Decision 97-8), June 1997, 161 pp. Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, Calgary/Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, Hull.
Garshelis, D.L., Gibeau, M.L. and Herrero, S. (2005) Grizzly bear demographics in and around Banff National Park and Kananaskis Country, Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 69, pp. 277–297.
Kansas, J.L. (2005) Grizzly bears and mining in the Cheviot region: Retrospective analysis, prepared for Cardinal River Operations by URSUS Ecosystem Management Ltd., Calgary, Alberta, 29 p.
Kansas, J.L. and Collister, D.M. (1999) Cumulative effects assessment for grizzly bears: Supplemental information – Cheviot Mine Project, prepared for Cardinal River Coals Ltd. by URSUS Ecosystem Management Ltd., Calgary, Alberta, 87 p.
Linke, J. (2003) Using Landsat TM and IRS imagery to detect seismic cutlines: Assessing their effects on landscape structure and on grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) landscape use in Alberta. MSc Thesis, Department of Geography, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Logan, B. and Ferster, R. (2002). Cumulative environmental effects assessment and management: the Cheviot mine experience. In A. Kennedy (editor), Proceedings from Alberta Society of Professional Biologists Symposium 2000. Cumulative environmental effects management-Tools and Approaches, pp. 17–30, Edmonton, AB, Alberta Society of Professional Biologists.
MacCallum, N.B. and Geist, V. (1995) Reclamation of a mountain coal mine: designing habitat for bighorn sheep. Chapter 7, pp. 152–195, in Nigel J.R. Allan (editor), Mountains at risk, current issues in environmental studies. Manohar, New Delhi, 296 p.
Mattson, D.J. (1993) Background and proposed standards for managing grizzly bear habitat security in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of Idaho, Missoula, MT, 8 p.
Nielsen, S.E. (2007) Seasonal resource selection function (RSF) models for grizzly bears in the Foothills Model Forest region of Alberta. Edmonton, AB, Conservation Analytics.
Nielsen, S.E., Boyce, M.S. and Stenhouse, G.B. (2004) Grizzly bears and forestry I: selection of clearcuts by grizzly bears in west-central Alberta, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management 199, pp. 51–65.
NSERC (2000) Northern East Slopes Environmental Resource Committee. Grizzly bear conservation in the Alberta Yellowhead Ecosystem: A strategic framework. Publication No.T/519, Edmonton, AB, Alberta Environment.
Parks Canada (1997) Parks Canada submission to the Alberta Environmental Utilities Board – Cheviot Mine Project. January 1997, 41 p.
Ritson-Bennet, R.A. (2003) Assessing the effects of a heli-portable 3D seismic survey on grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) distribution. MSc Thesis, Department of Geography, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Roberge, J.M. and Angelstam, P. (2004) Usefulness of the umbrella species concept as a conservation tool. Conservation Biology 18, pp. 76–85.
Stevens, S. and Duval, J. (2005) Ecology of grizzly bears in the Cheviot, Luscar and Gregg River mine areas (1999–2004). Submitted to Elk Valley Coal Corporation, Cardinal River Operations and Foothills Model Forest Grizzly Bear Research Project. 111 p.
Symbaluk, M. (2008) Testing Landscape Modeling Approaches for Environmental Impact Assessment of Mining Land Use on Grizzly Bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the Foothills Region of West Central Alberta. MSc Thesis, Royal Roads University, 112 p.
Weaver, J.L., Escano, R.E.F. and Winn, D.S. (1987) A framework for assessing cumulative effects on grizzly bears. Trans. 52nd N.A. Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, pp. 364–376.




© Copyright 2021, Australian Centre for Geomechanics (ACG), The University of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
Please direct any queries or error reports to repository-acg@uwa.edu.au