See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304626811

End land use as a guide for integrated mine

planning and closure design

Conference Paper · June 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 39

2 authors, including:

Neeltje Slingerland
University of Alberta
7 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Neeltje Slingerland on 30 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Mine Closure 2015 – Editor’s names (eds)
© 2015 InfoMine Inc., Canada, ISBN to come

End land use as a guide for integrated mine planning and

closure design
N. Slingerland Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Canada
G.W. Wilson Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, Canada

Abstract
The benefits of life cycle mine closure planning and sustainability are abundant, diverse, and have been
discussed within the mining and reclamation industries ad infinitum over the past decade; however, when
faced with the iterative nature of mining and site constraints, closure planning at many open-pit sites still
tends to revert away from these “progressive” or “idealistic” discussions. Research over the last 18 years has
consistently shown that once closure activities are completed, closure and reclamation goals are often only
partially achieved or not achieved at all. As public license increasingly influences mine application approval,
a proven track record demonstrating the ability to leave behind a safe and sustainable landscape can be an
advantage: this is reliant on early identification and achievement of end land-use goals.
In order to optimize the mining process as a whole to achieve closure goals as well as productivity targets,
the authors propose that closure design be included as a fundamental element and initial step in mine design.
Building on previous work regarding mine closure goal achievement in Canada and the United States, this
paper evaluates conventional and proposed open-pit mine design and closure planning frameworks in order
to identify the most favorable stage(s) for practical integration of early closure planning tasks, as well as
outlining some key challenges. Closure tasks range from initial site inventory and regional analysis to the
management of waste rock and geomorphic landform design. The synthesis of both mine design and closure
design frameworks is critically examined with respect to practicality, and results in the development of a new
“closure first” optimized mining framework that addresses mine closure from a landscape architectural and
land-use perspective. We argue that by allowing the pre-designed end land-use to inform mine works and
material placement, whether it be ecological or more anthropogenically focused, closure goals have a greater
likelihood of being successfully achieved and efficiencies in mining operations are realized. The proposed
“closure first” mining framework provides insight as to how new mining operations may be able to achieve
sustainability from both business and end land-use perspectives.

1 Introduction
In the book “What Is Philosophy?”, Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari explain how art, science, and philosophy
continuously overlap each other in different ways. These three focus areas weave almost imperceptibly
through our lives, and through the intricate systems for which our modern society has immersed itself;
however, the mining world proves to be an exception to this and has been dominated by (applied) science
throughout history, which continues to this day. The complex remnant social, economic, and environmental
problems we see as a result of mining may be indicative of this rudimentary imbalance. Arguably, the first art
form of modern civilization was architecture (Sagan, 2008), so this paper seeks to explain how we can re-
balance the mining, land alteration, and reclamation process by weaving architecture and philosophy
throughout.
Traditional mine planning, practiced at most mines around the world, seeks to maximize net present value
(NPV) generated from the ore body. Closure planning in an operating mine takes place as mine life nears its
end to attain a maximum amount of required information, to allow for re-mining of low-grade stockpiles,
and to delay the resulting decrease in profit streams as long as possible. Problems associated with this
methodology include: little time to identify and solve potential closure-related problems, extensive earth
moving is required to relocate waste, and mixing during initial deposition and subsequent movement can

Mine Closure 2015, Vancouver, Canada 1

Chapter name N. Slingerland & G.W. Wilson

compound geochemical and geotechnical issues, making reclamation works more complex and costly.
Additionally, success rates for closure goals using this methodology are low. In contrast, reclamation planning
for greenfield sites occurs much earlier and success rates are higher. While proof of early closure planning is
required prior to the start of production in most developed and developing nations, this is not always the
case, nor does it guarantee the work proposed will be carried out.
Although extractive industries have historically been pioneering, they seem to have neglected the “clean-up”
portion of their projects: other industries have created a culture of innovation, while the mining industry
continues to use and re-mould this traditional model. Investment towards innovation averages 0.2% for
mining and 1.2% for oil and gas sectors per year while extraction increasingly consumes more energy and
resources become increasingly depleted (Nordic Innovation, 2012). Social and environmental expectations
of the mining industry have increased over time, and this stagnation in mine planning methodology means
that as an industry we are becoming less able to effectively and efficiently tackle the problems faced. Closure
goals are commonly not fully achieved using the traditional model (Slingerland, Baida, & Wilson, 2014), and
it is illogical to expect drastically improved outcomes while continuing to use the same approach. In an effort
to break this cycle we experiment by turning the process upside-down: a “closure-first” framework is
proposed in order to determine if better results are likely using a drastically different approach.
The proposed closure-first mine design and closure planning methodology prioritizes post-mining land-use
design, allowing this to dictate mine design and planning. Just as the builders of skyscrapers do not start
outlining their approach and construction schedule before they know the size, shape, and design
requirements of the structure to be built, the closure-first approach means that mining does not start until
the general design parameters of the end landscape are determined. Mine works, waste rock dumps, tailings
impoundments, and infrastructure are to be optimally designed and located based on the entire life of the
mine, including the end landscape plans. As such, end land use informs mine operations and design. For
example, if a tailings impoundment is not desired in the final landscape in perpetuity, alternative tailings
processing, treatment and deposition methods will need to be investigated prior to completion of feasibility
stages. Changes to the mine and closure plan, as may be required over time, must be evaluated and made
using the same goal of holistic life-cycle optimization, as the mine plan was originally developed upon.
The purpose of this paper is to analyse the previously developed framework, using results from case studies
of other frameworks as indicators for what the drawbacks and benefits of this new theoretical framework
might be. In this way, the “ideal” methodology is compared and contrasted to that of what is realistic, and
case studies are drawn upon to reiterate.
Drawbacks of the closure-first methodology are dominated by the realities of the original objectives and
motivations for mining, noting that these will be difficult to stray from. They are anticipated to include greater
expenditures early in the mine life, the need to move away from a strictly NPV-maximization objective, and
that minor adjustments to the plan will undoubtedly be necessary throughout the mine life due to the
iterative nature of mining. Benefits are anticipated to include greater efficiency over the life of mine, the
ability to design physical and chemical properties of the final substrate, longer time periods to work towards
closure objectives, early identification and resolution of complications, and greater support from the public
as a result of earlier and more meaningful public and stakeholder engagement.

2 Methodology
The list of mining companies, consulting firms, governments, and non-governmental organizations that have
developed “sustainable” life-of-mine approaches and integrated closure plans (ICM’s) has drastically grown
over the last decade. They are typically, though not always, driven by a desire to reduce “environmental,
social, financial, and reputation-related risks” and not from a desire to develop the most site-appropriate
closure solutions (Hattingh & Bothma, 2013) or to better achieve these closure goals. Many of these schemes
imply they can make operations easier without any fundamental shift in process or effort on the part of mine
design and operation staff, and result in the core of the problem not being solved. In order for any of these
approaches to be successful in the industry, there must be a benefit to the owner and/or operator - and while

2 Mine Closure 2015, Vancouver, Canada

 Landform

a social license to operate may be sufficient in some areas of the world, greater efficiency and financial
incentives may be required elsewhere to make such a process more appealing.
When placing end land-use at the forefront of the mine planning process, it makes sense to look to industries
and professions who also do this. As such, a landscape architectural framework was applied and cross
referenced to mine and mine closure planning phases in order to outline what a closure-first framework
might look like, and what consequences could realistically be expected.
The “closure-first” framework discussed herein was created to shift the focus onto more publicly-accepted
mining stages and away from the more publicly unacceptable ones. There are no assumptions as to what the
end land use(s) will be, as land-use is determined in the early stages of the landscape architectural design
process. Determining the potential functionality of the theoretical framework is our primary objective of this
methodology, and as such the consequences of specific uses are beyond the scope of this paper.

3 Discussion
3.1 Conventional mining and landscape architectural models
Conventional mining occurs in five phases: Pre-planning (which includes exploration), Planning,
Implementation, Production, and Closure. These phases are further subdivided into: concept study,
preliminary study, feasibility studies, design & construction, commissioning, production start-up, operation,
decommissioning, and reclamation. Mine closure plans are required prior to operation in most developed
and many developing regions of the world; however, governments make exceptions in some cases, many
regions still do not require them, and where they are necessary, closure plans are typically vague with little
or no testing to reinforce their stated intentions post-mining. In order to eliminate ambiguity, understand
the scope of work, and communicate this work clearly to all parties involved, both written documents and
spatial graphics should be developed.
A linear landscape architectural model exists in theory, but the (often circuitous) nature of real-world design,
coordination, and implementation means that this model has become more of a framework to organize
activities around and direct work towards end goal(s). This framework theoretically aligns with the needs of
the mining industry, as the iterative nature of mining forces divergence from the linear progression of mining
phases and stages previously outlined. Expansion of the original extraction footprint and unexpected closure
are two relatively common mining occurrences that can disrupt the linear process and previously optimized
mine plan.
The landscape architectural framework includes the following progression of stages: site and regional
inventory, site and regional analysis, conceptual site design, design development, working drawings &
construction document preparation, construction, and warranty period. This is a framework for determining
and designing appropriate land-use; but when outlined in detail it can also provide a mechanism for deciding
when to engage stakeholders, when closure teams need to collaborate, and can help to identify and link
inter-departmental tasks while working towards an end product (the final landscape). This framework relies
on both written specifications and spatial graphics to develop and communicate plans.
In Figure 1 below, mining stages (beginning at the Planning Stage) and the landscape architecture framework
are listed in matrix format and considered with respect to the relative timing and effort allocated for each.
An important feature of the integration of the landscape architectural framework with the mining model is
that the resulting approach, by necessity, does not force a strictly linear progression from untouched land,
to a mine, to end-use; it embraces and allows for the orchestration of a dynamic process.
As figure 1 indicates, the site inventory, site analysis, conceptual design, and design development stages of
the landscape architectural framework and closure-first approach are completed within the Planning Stage
in mining. This means that major closure and mine planning decisions can be made based on big picture
thinking and will no longer solely be a result of short-term mine functionality. End land-use design
development is completed prior to the design and construction phase of mine planning, allowing for mine

Mine Closure 2015, Vancouver, Canada 3

Chapter name N. Slingerland & G.W. Wilson

features such as tailings dams, processing facilities, waste rock dumps, etc. that may exist in perpetuity to be
located with the end use, ecological, spatial, and monitoring considerations in mind.

Figure 1 Work schedule for “closure first” mine planning using the landscape architectural
framework. Height of grey across rows corresponds to relative effort expended (full
height = high effort; white = little to no work completed on that framework stage)

Community engagement typically begins at the conceptual design stage within landscape architectural
projects, although it has been known to start earlier at project initiation or later in the process, on occasion,
depending on the user group, nature of the site, and stakeholders. For the general mining case, this would
mean that public and stakeholder engagement would be initiated coinciding with the pre-feasibility stage of
mine development.
The combination of mine planning and the landscape architectural framework forms the basis for the closure-
first framework discussed in the next section.

3.2 The closure-first framework

Closure-first is a design and planning framework which couples the critical forethought, systems planning,
and creativity of an architectural proposal with the geotechnical and ecological rigor of the science and
engineering fields. The idea behind the closure-first principle is that the bulk of our energy in designing the
land should be towards that which will remain in perpetuity, ensuring its success, and since mining is a
temporary land-use, its design should be secondary albeit closely aligned. The priority is on that which will
remain, not on the short-term use. As such, we design for end land use first, and integrate mining afterwards:
essentially flipping the conventional model upside-down.
Recognizing the ramifications of the closure-first principle changes our approach to both mining and design
in several ways. We will need to:
• Value alteration of the land from what it was originally, and embrace this change.
The physical and chemical composition of the subgrade is drastically altered through mining, and
what the land once supported is not likely to be viable post-mining. This is due to features such as
bulking, reduced water holding capacity, nutrient availability, and other micro-features, but also
as a result of broader alteration of socio-economic aspects in the surrounding area. If a mine is in
existence for an extended period of time, a community may develop around it and an
anthropogenic focus may be deemed more desirable for the land. Designing large plots of land for
a time 10 to 50 years into the future is a task that requires an open mind and strong analytical
skills. Urban and regional planners commonly perform such tasks on a larger scale when

4 Mine Closure 2015, Vancouver, Canada

 Landform

designating “places to grow” the population or greenbelts to preserve within a province, but they
also do this on smaller scales through local zoning of land for schools, commercial, or residential
land, for example. This skill needs to be applied to mining areas and communities in order to plan
well into the future.
• Accept a certain degree of variability in our design.
The mine initially planned for is rarely, if ever, the mine that is left once mining has ceased.
Commodity prices may lead to early closure or expansion so our designs need to be focused
enough to achieve our closure goals, but loose enough to be altered when changes undoubtedly
occur. In a more specific sense, designs may need to be completed in “typical” cross-sections and
plans to be applied across the site once the full extent is understood.
• Build a truly diverse team of experts and professionals to collaborate, not just work together.
Unlikely partnerships (such as the Evergreen Brickworks in Toronto teaming up with Wal-mart to
build their low-impact design, sustainability hub) can lead to benefits for all parties involved. The
problems surrounding reclamation extend beyond one person’s knowledge base and developing a
solution, or solutions, that are fully encompassing require teamwork from a range of disciplines.
Gord McKenna has done extensive work on this and has made great strides in developing multi-
disciplinary teams to work on reclamation and landform design projects for mine sites. His teams
generally consist of geotechnical engineer(s), geologist(s), hydrogeologist(s), hydrologist(s),
ecologist(s), and forestry professionals, just to name a few, leading to impressive end results
(McKenna, 2002. p. 112; McKenna & Dawson, 2014). McKenna also understands the value of
communication across these varied professionals and beyond, and regularly employs a graphic
artist to draw his team’s ideas and developments. This visual aid facilitates the communication of
ideas, developments, and approaches to a range of people regardless of their technical
background or language spoken.
It is important to note that ‘teamwork’, used in its most basic sense here, means that various
specialists from both scientific and creative sectors aren’t simply consulted; they are fully
integrated into the planning process and asked to adopt ideas and methods borrowed from the
landscape architectural framework, and then to collaborate.
• Design for a changing landscape over time: likely over 100 or more years from closure.
Both a challenge and a benefit in designing post-mining environments is that if done according to
the closure-first principle, you’re dealing with a blank canvas: you have to build from literally
nothing and design from below the ground, and up above the ground you make. This means there
is likely to be some form of settlement or surface adjustments to deal with, and certainly there
will be ecological succession to consider if naturalization is the end goal. We are no longer
designing in three dimensions: mine reclamation according to the closure first principle requires
design in four-dimensions as a result of this new and important time component. Contrary to a
typical landscape architectural project, the design needs to be set up to evolve starting from the
end of construction or installation, and moving forward as the landscape changes. Essentially, you
never have a stagnant finished product, as your landscape is likely to be constantly evolving. This
may be difficult to wrap one’s head around as it is unique to mine reclamation, but it is essential
to a successful result that mimics nature.
The idea behind designing for future and permanent land-use prior to temporary use is not new - the venues
for Barcelona’s 1996 or Vancouver’s 2010 Olympic Games serve as high-profile examples of this (CBS News,
2014). These sites were successful long-term partly due to the planning far in advance and due to the finances
put in place to maintain the sites well into the future.
The same is required for mine sites where evolution needs a helping hand for an extended period of time
and where built structures have monitoring and maintenance costs associated with them. Funds do not

Mine Closure 2015, Vancouver, Canada 5

Chapter name N. Slingerland & G.W. Wilson

simply need to be set aside and available for closure implementation, but also for post-closure monitoring
and maintenance which is rarely done. Reclamation is not complete at the end of construction works: it
requires nursing to evolve into its final form which can be expensive. When one realizes the full extent of the
job to be undertaken in reclamation, one also realizes the full extent of its drain on resources in terms of time
and money: perhaps not something mine planners want to be thinking of at the start of an operation, but a
necessary consideration nonetheless.
While designing for long-term primarily and for short-term secondarily may not be a universally new
approach, allowing a landscape architectural framework to guide project design in combination with this is
novel with respect to the mining industry’s accepted norm. This framework allows for testing and
experimentation of proposed methods throughout mining, leading to higher likelihoods of success upon final
implementation. It also requires the manipulation of mine planning and typical mine procedures in order to
amplify the success of the post-mining landscape.

3.3 Theory meets reality

The closure-first framework is obviously an ideal for which we feel sites should work towards, but we also
recognize that this transition will not happen quickly and that there are barriers currently in place that may
necessitate changes to this framework in the early stages of implementation or trials. What this theoretical
framework translates to when put in place will be something of a hybrid, at least initially.
Many theories as to how mine sites can be transformed into appropriate land uses have been put forward;
however, when we look at the success stories, most of them stem from worst-case scenarios (Baida,
Slingerland, & Wilson, 2014). The vast majority of successes are not metal mines, but mines which produce
decorative or structural building materials such as clay or marble, and dimension stone: commonly referred
to specifically as quarries or clay pits. Two internationally recognized reclamation projects frequently cited
as mine reclamation successes are Butchart Gardens in Victoria, BC, Canada, which was built progressively
within a quarry in the early 1900’s, and The Eden Project in Cornwall, UK, which was built within an
abandoned china clay pit after abandonment. Many such sites result in post-mining land uses that are more
financially productive and longer lasting than the mine ever was. Incentive to transform these landscapes
into productive land post-mining is strong as a result.
Quarries have had greater success in repurposing their land (as compared to other kinds of mines) for a
number of reasons. First and foremost, the waste streams generated from quarries are typically fewer and
less hazardous. Quarried material is used for building material and undergoes less processing. There are often
no waste rock dumps or tailings ponds associated with quarries as a result, which can be challenging and
expensive to reclaim and pose long-term risks.
Quarries are also, by necessity, located in close proximity to large populations or urban centers. This means
that there is an active market for adaptive reuses that may be revenue generating, such as recreational areas
or residential development. Land also tends to have a higher property value as a result of this close proximity.
When extraction sites are closer to populated areas, there is greater pressure from government and society
to reclaim for safety and aesthetics reasons primarily. In contrast, other types of mines are more often
located in isolated areas at a distance from a potential user group or market, have lower property values,
and an “out of sight, out of mind” attitude can sometimes apply. The real drive to reclaim here is to return
land to the governing body and retrieve financial holdbacks, if any.
From a legal perspective, a “liability trap” exists in the transfer of mine sites to third parties for re-use, since
mining companies are not typically in the business of adaptive reuse. As McKenna (2002) explains, mine sites
are sensitive to change and if activities were to occur on the land which degrade landscape performance,
including vandalism, the mine operator may still be held responsible. As such, they are unlikely to convert to
uses which invite the public or third party affiliates onto the land due to an ongoing, long-term liability
concern.

6 Mine Closure 2015, Vancouver, Canada

 Landform

In essence, quarries are a natural fit for some of these more anthropogenically focussed, revenue-generating
adaptive reuses, while other types of mines located at a greater distance from urban centers, with greater
material-related challenges and associated risk, are more likely to be revegetated.
Nevertheless, there will always be exceptions to a generalization and the Daybreak Residential Community
at the Kennecott Mine near Salt Lake City, Utah is one of these, albeit located near an urban center. The
(copper, gold, silver, lead, and zinc) mine has been operational since the mid- 1800’s, and this new
community overlies land which formerly contained the mine’s evaporation ponds. The site required extensive
remediation for heavy metal contamination prior to development, capping of gypsum sludge, and continues
to undergo groundwater treatment (Rio Tinto, 2012). Regardless of this ongoing effort, the community serves
as a beacon of sustainability for Rio Tinto and the Kennecott Mine, which includes several LEED Platinum
certified houses and buildings on-site, a light rail transit system connecting it to urban centers: it has also
won six Governor’s Award’s for Quality Growth and achievements in sustainability (Rio Tinto, 2012).
‘Daybreak’ is an outlier unfortunately, even within developing countries where repurposing of land is most
likely to occur. More typically we see mine closure goals listed simply as “revegetation”, which is not nearly
specific enough to be measured as having been successfully achieved or not upon completion. For example,
a vegetative cover of non-native grasses may meet these criteria and benefit a handful of species, provide
short-term erosion control, etc., while at the same time it may actually be harmful to the more extensive
native ecosystem: in essence there is still a lot we do not know about ecological restoration, and plenty that
is simply not yet being implemented (Eaton, Fisher, McKenna, & Pollard, 2014).
We need to go one step further in our goal setting in this area, and revegetate with intent. For example:
revegetation with the objective of providing biodiversity, ecosystem services (which should be specified),
conservation for ‘X’ species, or to more broadly provide ecosystem management and functionality.
Delineating S.M.A.R.T. (specific, measurable, attainable, realistic, and time-based) goals is a vital component
of early planning and in-depth consideration of the proposal at project outset.
Just as imprecise goals can lead to poor results, legal requirements with the best of intentions to create
habitat for one at-risk species can often do so at the expense of a number of others. Historic initiatives to
preserve a single species are slowly being recognized as being too narrow, and species-centered approaches
have been steadily traded in for broader landscape management initiatives over the last decade (Quinlan,
Downey, Taylor, Jones, & Clayton, 2003; Ehrenfeld, 2000). The species-centered idea here was a good one in
theory and was widely adopted, but it proved to be detrimental to the ecological system as a whole in
practice. Clearly we are still learning. While implementation was key to this discovery, we must first start by
analysing the concept.
With this in mind, we can critically analyze our ideal closure-first framework and ask ourselves what this
relates to in reality.
The closure-first framework begins with an in-depth inventory of the landscape at three scales ranging from
the immediate site to a regional analysis. Elements of natural or cultural significance and patterns in
vegetation, topography, etc. are outlined, and then considered as an overlay to identify related opportunities
or constraints. Funds are limited in the early planning stages of a mine, and while inventory and analysis
typically does not cost over 1% of an average landscape architectural construction budget, costs not
associated with immediate return on investment may be tempting to cut.
Inventory and analysis is completed in order to guide the concept development stage of design. It is
important that this be done early because the earlier these choices are made, the more influence they will
have over the mine, mine costs, and overall efficiency (see Figure 2 and 3) (Hustrulid & Kuchta, 1998). The
closure-first approach shifts reclamation away from being reactionary at this stage and begins to dictate
appropriate location of site entrances and other elements that will impact surrounding areas and the end
landscape.

Mine Closure 2015, Vancouver, Canada 7

Chapter name N. Slingerland & G.W. Wilson

Figure 2 Relative ability to influence costs by mining stage for the proposed closure-first mine
planning framework. In contrast to this, ability to dramatically influence costs in
conventional closure planning ceases at the end of the implementation stage. Adapted
from Lee, 1984, and Hustrulid & Kuchta, 1998

Figure 3 As mining progresses from initial stages through to the end of production mitigation
options and their relative effectiveness decrease for acid rock drainage, while the costs
of these measures increase. Early identification of closure and reclamation challenges
is required to address them more effectively. From The GARD Guide (INAP, 2009)

This is a good time to integrate public consultation or engagement sessions into the decision making process.
Done earlier and there are too many unknowns to be beneficial to either the mining company or the public,
but if engagement is delayed beyond this point the public may not believe they are sufficiently included in
the process. A sense of public ownership throughout the design process is essential to the long term success
and custodial transfer of the site post-closure, so proper timing of inclusion is key. With the increasingly vocal

8 Mine Closure 2015, Vancouver, Canada

 Landform

presence of NGO’s locally and globally the public may be wary of new mining operations: this is where a
conceptual design can help to transfer the focus onto the end product and the development stages so they
know what to expect and when. Reinforcing design decisions with details of the inventory and analysis, and
with implementation strategies can help build a sense of confidence in the process; however, it is important
that hypothetical terms be used so as to reinforce that feedback will be considered and integrated. Local
inhabitants can also be an invaluable resource in contributing their expertise and traditional knowledge on
vegetation and local customs (Evans & Goodjohn, 2008). While interviews are typically included in the
regional and site inventory, public consultation forums can shed further light that will strengthen the target
end landscape.
This point in the design process can be a time where many changes occur, and as such no final decisions
should be made until this stage is complete. The public can be unpredictable and have had great success in
stopping mines from initiating operation altogether, based solely on the poor environmental track records
of other mine sites (Kahn et al., 2001). Pubic consultation professionals can provide guidance and direction
for particularly challenging sites throughout the engagement process; clear explanation and reinforcement
of the reasoning for proposed plans can initiate productive dialogue that should ideally continue throughout
the life of the mine.
The public engagement process, as outlined here in concept, can include round table discussions, town-hall
presentations, charrette-style brainstorming in small groups, or can even take the form of question-and-
answer games to determine values and land-use patterns indirectly. Over the past ten years, the inclusion of
public consultation in mine planning has become a common practice (Baida et al., 2014), and yet end land
use is still often incompatible with the community needs and desires so more work in needed that specifically
focuses on what is left behind.
Once the landscape design for the site is developed (which will evolve through several stages post closure
over time) the mine design is adjusted in terms of processing methods, extraction techniques, location of
infrastructure, etc. Decisions regarding mine planning should be completed with regard to both order of
extraction and order of deposition in partnership, to optimize through to reclamation and attempt to
progressively reclaim wherever possible. Design is to ensure there are no remnant hazards in the landscape
and that waste materials (post-mining construction materials) are easy to work with so we are not creating
additional problems in terms of reclamation; however, mining is realistically an iterative process so this may
happen repeatedly and gauging multiple options. In the ideal case, a mine is designed to operate for a set
number of years, over which time reclamation is ongoing, so that at the end of mine life there is relatively
little to be done and significantly less liability (see figure 4). The reality of uncertainty in commodity prices is
that unforeseen expansion or closure are likely to occur, and added expense early in mine life and for each
earth movement completed can be a financial risk. Having a plan in place that is flexible enough to respond
to these sudden changes can save money in these cases, given that closure and reclamation works need to
be completed whether a mine shuts down early or on time as expected. This can be a difficult point to wrap
one’s head around, and the industry would benefit from some detailed cost analysis for a “typical” mine.
Assumptions made throughout the design need to be critically analyzed before being relied upon. Mineralogy
and other parameters can change spatially, mine life will realistically change, and regulatory frameworks can
change financing, environmental, or other requirements. Typical geotechnical engineering design assumes
that the structures put in place will not change over time; the reality is that ecological processes act on post-
mining landscapes and alter the performance of these structures over time (DeJong, Tibbett, & Fourie, 2014).
Diverse team that works through each aspect of the proposed end landscape and closure plan will inevitably
discover assumptions like this one from other specialist areas and will be better able to identify and address
the issues as a collaborative team. The realistic implication is that working as a team can take more time, and
if your specialists are external consultants this can dramatically increase consulting expenses early in the
planning stages.
In the ideal model there is a seamless transition of mine works and staff conversion from extraction to
reclamation landforming: as reclamation works increase gradually, mine works decrease. However, each site

Mine Closure 2015, Vancouver, Canada 9

Chapter name N. Slingerland & G.W. Wilson

is different and not all allow for progressive reclamation meaning there may be a sharp change in activities.
Nonetheless, efforts should be made to work towards this optimal model when possible because failures
tend to occur during transition periods: changing ownership of a site, or when there is a large change or
turnover in staff numbers, such as when mine decommissioning and closure tasks typically begin. Knowledge
of these and other risks discussed can help operators prepare through training of staff and operations
planning beforehand.

Figure 4 Financial liability with respect to mine closure varies throughout the life of a mine. In
this schematic progressive reclamation is shown to result in less liability as compared
to conventional mining without progressive liability. Note that most mines will require
active care in perpetuity which means there is greater liability than those requiring
infrequent or passive maintenance. Bocking, 2010.

4 Results
As we have seen, there are a range of pros and cons of such a re-imagining of the traditional mining model.
One leading deterrent is as simple as Newton’s first law of physics, applied to the human condition: unless
externally imposed, there is substantial resistance to change. There are, of course, reasons for this that
extend beyond simple reluctance to change; below we summarize some of the major reasons (or constraints),
as well as why we believe that such a model is worth developing further (opportunities). For each of these
opportunities, the fact remains that incentive is required to make this leap to implementation, either through
a strong business case (economic incentive) or through regulation (ability to operate).

4.1 Opportunity: Greater ability to influence production efficiency and costs

The greatest ability to influence costs throughout mine life is during the planning stage; as such, this is when
closure and end landscape decisions need to be made to make the greatest impact (see Figure 2). In
traditional mine planning, the ability to influence costs all but ceases at the end of the implementation stage;
however, when mine works are influenced by closure plans and efficiencies can be realized throughout
production, the ability to alter costs continues through to the end of production. Efficiencies throughout the
life of mine include earth movement and optimal placement, resulting in reduced emissions and wear on
vehicles over the mine life. These translate to financial and environmental benefits and provide added
incentive for early planning.
Major decisions such as the location of tailings impoundments and waste rock dumps impact productivity
throughout the life of mine; but more so, they impact the landscape in perpetuity. When rock characteristics

10 Mine Closure 2015, Vancouver, Canada

 Landform

and processing information is known, we can begin to understand the characteristics of our waste products;
when we work from the desired landscape backwards, we can begin to design the subgrade characteristics
specifically for our future landforms. The ability to design soil properties is an exciting one and the
ramifications for the end landscape are enormous.
This landscape architectural framework can be applied to existing operational mines in addition to new ones;
however, it should be noted that since the bulk of major decisions are made in the planning stage, the effect
of doing so will be dampened.

4.2 Constraint: Uncertainty is the name of the game

Mergers, acquisitions, mine expansion, and unforeseen closure are some of the uncertainties that frequently
occur in the mining sector. These affect the mine plan, and if ownership changes, there is no guarantee that
the new owner(s) will continue in the same way that the former one(s) did. Expansion requires changes in
mine and closure plans, and can lead to deferral of landforming or reclamation of low grade stockpiles in case
they become profitable at a later date. In an opposite way, unforeseen closure can mean that
implementation of the closure plan is not possible as required materials are not yet mined, or funds simply
do not exist to complete it as planned.
The natural flux of resources over time can put financial pressure on companies to reduce unnecessary costs.
If pressure is sufficient, short term thinking may appear to be a more desirable option than long-term
financial and landscape planning.
Increased spending on closure planning and design in early years means the payback period for capital
expenditures is longer, and can drastically affect the NPV of a project; delaying these costs until 15 or 20
years later (as seen in the conventional model) means that reclamation and closure planning costs have less
impact on NPV. This is why so many mines have minimalist closure plans until late in their operations. An
alternative approach to NPV optimization should be used, such that other factors (dependent upon the
region) are the guiding force (Botha, 2013).
Similarly, it can be difficult to estimate closure costs when the future political and economic climate is
uncertain, goals are poorly developed, and materials have not been thoroughly characterized. Gaining the
most precise estimate possible is important for funding the project: closure costs may be consistently
underestimated, but it is still cheaper to work towards proactive closure than retrospective remediation
(Goodbody, A, 2013). Historically, when inflation adjusted profits have been compared to closure costs at the
end of mine life, some mines have barely broken even (Berger, Brown, & Ketellapper, 2012, p.15). There are
countless examples of mine sites where closure and reclamation estimates were prepared despite the
absence of any closure-related studies or research whatsoever: unsurprisingly these are regularly
undervalued by orders of magnitude. Had such projects undergone a thorough mineralogical characterization
and a detailed breakdown of the work required for closure the resulting cost estimate surely would have
raised red flags, if not halted development altogether.
The reality of these unknowns with respect to cost estimation is that it can be advantageous from the mining
company’s perspective to underestimate reclamation proposals submitted to regulators, and to find ways of
reducing the bond or financial holdback required by regulatory authorities where such legislation exists.
Unfortunately, the corresponding reality is that these companies are likely to be financially unprepared to
adequately reclaim their sites when the time comes, and the financial holdbacks they provided are unlikely
to cover reclamation or ongoing monitoring / maintenance costs should the government be left with the
responsibility.

4.3 Opportunity: Improved public engagement and social license

Ongoing community and stakeholder engagement is becoming standard practice prior to large-scale land use
change near populated areas. The ability to present stakeholders with rigorous information and graphics
compiled to illustrate the possibilities for a particular site post-mining can help to build the confidence of
stakeholders and community members. The closure-first model briefly outlined herein allows for ongoing

Mine Closure 2015, Vancouver, Canada 11

Chapter name N. Slingerland & G.W. Wilson

engagement from project start-up into the future, which can help to build positive relationships and
productive discussions. Increasingly we are seeing that social license is directing investment decisions and
profit margins. It is particularly telling that mining companies have repeatedly chosen to address corporate
social responsibility at the same time as announcing expansions (Rio Tinto, 2014). A social license can mean
open doors at each turn, or an up-hill battle to operate, and is increasingly being noted as a wise investment
for long-term mining operations.

4.4 Constraint: Quantification of benefits can be difficult

Benefits of a closure-first approach, such as a positive reputation or replacement of ecosystem services, can
pay dividends to mining corporations and communities, respectively. However, these types of benefits are
not easily quantified and are thus complex to weigh when performing cost-benefit analyses. This leads to the
incorrect assumption that they make less of an impact than something which has a tangible figure assigned
to it (such as total hours of tire use for earth relocation over the life of mine which can be equated with the
number of tires used and a dollar figure). There is no dollar figure for positive reputation or ecological
services, for example; perhaps this is an area of research to be addressed in future mine closure conferences
so that we may begin to understand the full impact of intangible, or qualitative, decision-making factors.

4.5 Opportunity: Early and precise goal identification and directed efforts
Early, precise goal identification may seem to be a simple task, but it has proven to be a difficult one
historically (Botha, 2013; Fair Mining Collaborative, 2014; McKenna, 2002). Early identification of clear
closure goals provides something to work towards and rally around as professionals. If a team cannot agree
on precise end goals for a site, their work will lack direction and cohesion. Early identification of goals means
that over longer time periods more collaboration can occur, and that goals are more likely to be achieved
once closure is completed. A positive legacy of achievement from both a social and/or environmental
perspective leads directly to improved publicity and social license to operate.
The poor environmental record of select post-mining cases have increasingly been used to prohibit new
mines from opening, especially in prosperous regions with environmentally conscious and strongly
connected citizens (Kahn et al., 2001). Mining has become just as much a social problem as it has an
environmental one. Early and precise goal identification can direct reclamation efforts, and is likely to result
in greater social, technical, and environmental successes.

5 Conclusion
Mine closure requires that poorly defined, interconnected, and dynamic problems from a wide range of
specialized disciplines be analyzed and solved. This is not an easy undertaking; planning for closure is too
extensive a task to be completed or overviewed by one single person, and needs both productive
collaboration amongst disciplines, as well as a method of organizing that collaboration, for a chance to be
successful. The proposed closure-first framework seeks to provide a mechanism to balance the scientific
understanding of materials, conditions, and processes, with the future long-range plans and objectives for
the site. The framework does this through the use of a landscape architectural design methodology which
inherently places focus on achieving an end goal and manipulating a variety of disciplines to do so.
What is learned from the many alternative closure planning methodologies and approaches currently in
existence (of which, many are not physically in practice), is that early and precise identification of goals is
necessary in order to achieve them successfully. Land use is difficult to predict 20 or 50 years into the future;
however, urban and regional planners regularly identify “places to grow” the Canadian population, and
delineate which sections of present-day farmland are to be converted into future residential, industrial, or
commercial lands 20-50 years in advance.
The same planning principles need only be applied to a mining centric area to realize that not all mined land
is best converted to a “greenfield” or wildlife preserve: sometimes the best land-use is human habitat,
although as we have noted, quarries tend to be a more natural fit for this than most mine sites. Regardless

12 Mine Closure 2015, Vancouver, Canada

 Landform

of what is deemed appropriate for the land post-mining through the inventory and analysis process, it is this
end land use that truly dictates the specific and measurable closure goals to be sought, and as such, land use
needs to be determined up-front and used to guide the process as a whole.
Short-sighted emphasis on NPV has lead us down the path of managing mining very well over the 20-50 year
life of mine, but has done so at the cost of the residual landscape in perpetuity. While there are constraints
to this idealistic “closure-first” approach when the reality of implementation is considered, we feel that the
potential long-term benefits and opportunities far outweigh the possible short-term constraints outlined
herein. Mining is not a sustainable practice; but given the right design and implementation framework,
mining provides a unique opportunity to create a new landscape that is sustainable, and may contribute to
the further development of a region.

References
Baida, M., Slingerland, N., & Wilson, G.W. (2014). The great divide between mine closure goals and outcomes, and potential solutions,
In Proceedings 9th International Mine Closure Conference (Mine Closure 2014), M. Tibbett, A.B. Fourie, and C. Digby (eds.).
Johannesburg, South Africa, Australian Centre for Geomechanics.
Berger, A., Brown, C., & Ketellapper, V. (2012b). Waste to place: A new model for reclamation in the American west, Booklet two,
Puritan Press, Inc.
Bocking, K. (2010). Post-closure Liabilities. Australian Centre for Geomechanics Newsletter. Vol. 35, Pp 20-23.
Botha, R. (2013). Mine Closure Toolbox. Johannesburg, South Africa: Anglo American plc.
CBS News (2014) Olympic challenge: How do host cities fare after the games?, viewed 1 April 2015, http://www.cbsnews.com
/news/olympic-challenge-how-do-host-cities-fare-after-the-games/, last updated 24 February 2014.
Dejong, J., Tibbett, M., & Fourie, A. (2014). Geotechnical systems that evolve with ecological processes. Environmental Earth Sciences,
Vol. 73, Iss. 3. Pp 1067-1082.
Deleuze, G. & Guattari, F. (1996). What Is Philosophy?, New York: Columbia University Press.
Eaton, B.R., Fisher, J.T., McKenna, G.T., & Pollard, J. (2014). An ecological framework for wildlife habitat design for oil sands mine
reclamation. Oil Sands Research and Information Network, University of Alberta, School of Energy and the Environment,
Edmonton, Alberta. OSRIN Report No. TR-67. 83pp.
Ehrenfeld, J.G. (2000). Defining the limits of restoration: The need for realistic goals. Restoration Ecology, 8(1), 2-9.
Evans, H., & Goodjohn, M. (2008). Traditional knowledge – a resource for mining companies. Canadian Mining Journal, viewed March
19, 2015, http://www.canadianminingjournal.com/news/traditional-knowledge-a-resource-for-mining-companies/100022
6265/?type=Print%20Archives , last updated 01 October 2008.
Fair Mining Collaborative (2014). Fair mining practices: A new mining code for BC. Closure and post closure: Progressive reclamation.
Viewed 12 November 2014, http://www.fairmining.ca/code/mine-closure-and-post-closure-3/progressive-reclamation/
Goodbody, A. (2013). Closing the Deal. Mining Magazine. 29 November, 2013. http://www.miningmagazine.com/tag/ remediation/
Hattingh, R. & Bothma, J. (2013). Taking the risk out of a risky business: a land use approach to closure planning, In Proceedings 7th
International Mine Closure Conference (Mine Closure 2013), M. Tibbett, A.B. Fourie, and C. Digby (eds.). Cornwall, UK,
Australian Centre for Geomechanics, pp. 15-24.
Hustrulid, W., & Kuchta, M. (1998). Open pit mine planning & design, Volume 1 - fundamentals (2nd ed.). Rotterdam, Netherlands:
A.A. Balkema.
International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM) (2008). Planning for integrated mine closure toolkit. London, UK: International
Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM).
International Network for Acid Prevention (INAP) (2009). Global Acid Rock Drainage Guide (GARD Guide). http://www.gardguide.
com/
Kahn, J. R., Franceschi, D., Curi, A., & Vale, E. (2001). Economic and financial aspects of mine closure. Natural Resources Forum, 25,
265-274.
Lee, T. D. (1984). Planning and mine feasibility study - an owners perspective. Proceedings of the 1984 NWMA Short Course ‘Mine
Feasibility - Concept to Completion’, Spokane, WA.
McKenna, G. (2002). Sustainable mine reclamation and landscape engineering. PhD Dissertation, University of Alberta.
McKenna, G., & Dawson, R. (2014). Soft tailings capping and landform design. Hot topics in oil sands tailings management, IOSTC
Short Course, December 7, 2014.
Nordic Innovation (2012). The future of the mining industry: opportunities, challenges and responsibilities, viewed January 11, 2014,
www.nordicinnovation.org/news/the-future-of-the-mining-industry-opportunities-challenges-and-responsibilities/, last
updated 23 April 2012.
Peck, P., Balkau, F., Bogdanovic, J., Sevaldsen, P., Fernandez-Skaalvik, J., Simonett, O., Daussa, R. (2005). Mining for closure - policies
and guidelines for sustainable mining practice and closure of mines. Geneva: The Environmental Security Initiative of UNEP,
UNDP, OSCE, NATO.
Quinlan, R.W., Downey, B.A., Taylor, B.N., Jones, P.F., and Clayton, T.B. (eds.) (2003). A multi-species conservation strategy for species
at risk in the Milk River basin; year 1 progress report. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife Division,
Alberta Species at Risk Report No. 72, Edmonton, AB. 229pp.

Mine Closure 2015, Vancouver, Canada 13

 Chapter name N. Slingerland & G.W. Wilson

Rio Tinto (2012). Daybreak’s Environmental History. Retrieved from http://riotintokennecott.com/sites/kennecott.com/files

/daybreaks_environmental_history.pdf Viewed April 1, 2015.
Rio Tinto, Press Release November 27, 2014. http://www.riotinto.com/media/media-releases-237_13678.aspx
Sagan, D. (2008). ‘Mines and design in their natural context’ In Designing the Reclaimed Landscape, Berger, A. (editor). Taylor &
Francis, New York, NY.
Slingerland, N. Baida, M. & Wilson, G.W. (2014). New Teams for New Schemes: diversification in mine closure. Canadian Reclamation.
Vol. 14, Issue 2. Pp. 22-28.
Steinitz, Carl. (2012). A framework for Geodesign: changing geography by design. ESRI, Redlands, California.

14 Mine Closure 2015, Vancouver, Canada

View publication stats