Monitoring and modelling progressive rehabilitation in aggregate mining ... A decade of ontario experience and a look at the future
- 29 Downloads
One of the main obstacles to easy minerals accessibility is nothing to do with the geological resource, rather, it is the past record of social and environmental damage and conflicts caused by poor mining practices. In Ontario much of this focuses on the issues of progressive rehabilitation—returning land speedily and effectively to some alternative, societally acceptable and productive land use. The public continues to be upset at the unwarranted removal of good farmland from agriculture— the lengthy period of its remaining in an unproductive and unsightly condition and the uncertainty of its being returned to a fertile condition.
Starting in 1971 the Ontario government became involved in regulatory control of the aggregate industry. After millions of dollars of research and a decade of experience, this paper documents the results. The paper isolates the main failings of the government programme and provides several models which if implemented will speedily remove the flaws and resolve much of the present public credibility problem with present mining practice and government control.
KeywordsSite Plan Security Fund Disturbed Land Government Inspector Aggregate Industry
Reamenagements progressifs des exploitations de granulats...10 annees d'experience dans l'ontario et perspective d'avenir
Un des principaux obstacles à l'exploitation des granulats n'est pas d'ordre géologique. Il est dû aux conflits sociaux et environnementaux liés à l'exploitation anarchique des carrières.
Dans l'Ontario la plupart de ces zones sont réaménagées à des fins sociales ou agricoles. Depuis 1971, le gouvermement de l'Ontario contrôle la production des granulats et consacre des sommes importantes à la recherche de schéma-types de réhabilitation progressive de ces zones.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Mc. LELLAN A.G. (1971): “The Problems Facing a Growing Aggregates Industry—A Canadian Assessment.Journal of Cement, Lime and Gravel, Vol. 46, No. 9, pp. 217–219. Mc LELLAN (1973): “Derelict Land in Ontario-Environmental Crime or Economic Shortsightedness?“Bull. of the Conservation Council of Ontario. Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 9–14.Google Scholar
- Report of this committee “A Policy for Mineral Aggregate Resource Management in Ontario.” Ministry of Natural Resources Ontario Government, 1977, 232 pp.Google Scholar
- Mc. LELLAN A.G., YUNDT S.E., and DORFMAN M.L. (1979): “Abandoned Pits and Quarries in Ontario—a Program for their Rehabilitation.” Ontario Geological Survey Miscellaneous Paper, No. 79, 34 pp.Google Scholar
- MACKINTOSH E.E. and MOZURAITIS E.J. (1982): “Agriculture and the Aggregate Industry: Rehabilitation of Extracted Sand and Gravel Lands to an Agricultural After-Use;” Ontario Min. of Natural Resources, Mineral Resources Branch, Industrial Mineral Background Paper 3, 44 pp.Google Scholar
- YUNDT S.E. and AUGAITIS D.B., (1979): “From Pits to Playgrounds Aggregate Extraction and Pit Rehabilitation in Toronto—an Historical Reviews,” Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.Google Scholar
- LOWE S. B. (1979): “Trees and Shrubs for the Improvement and Rehabilitation of Pits and Quarries in Ontario”. Ont. Ministry of Natural Resources.Google Scholar
- “Mineral Aggregate Transportation Study: Final Report” Ontario. Ministry of Natural Resources, Mineral Resources Branch, Industrial Mineral Background Paper 1. 133 pp. Peat Marwick and Partners and M.M. Dillon, 1980.Google Scholar
- Usefully summarised in “Mining, Land Use and the Environment— A Review of Mine Reclamation Activities in Canada.” I.B. Marshall Lands Directorate, Environment Canada, 1983, pp. 105–107.Google Scholar