The application of ecosystem function analysis (EFA) in Australia has, at times, been considered a controversial process as it evolved from an earlier application, landscape function analysis (LFA), which was used to assess the sustainability of rangeland environments. EFA was developed by CSIRO as a monitoring tool for wider application. Its potential for application in other environments was soon realized and it has proven to be a valuable tool in the assessment and measurement of the functional processes in mine rehabilitation. In the mining industry, it involves assessment of four components namely landscape function analysis, vegetation, erosion, and habitat complexity, using simple, scientifically-validated indicators. EFA involves monitoring a range of parameters which relate to the biophysical functioning of the landscape and provides a relatively simple, cost-effective, repeatable system to scientists and managers as to how rehabilitation programmes are developing and performing over time. EFA has the potential to play a critical role in a balanced environmental monitoring strategy in any mining or landform rehabilitation programme. EFA can fill the gap between superficial monitoring programmes, that cover large areas, primarily targeted at identifying changes or trends in the environment, such as remote sensing and aerial photography as well as intensive ground-based monitoring programmes such as fauna and flora surveys.This paper discusses the role that EFA can play in providing information that links the development of vegetation, soils and nutrients with ecosystems and enables rapid detection of any requirement for intervention or implementation of more detailed or focused studies. Moreover it develops the role EFA can play in a balanced and integrated toolbox of monitoring techniques which are efficient, cost effective and provide the necessary data to enable managers to make informed decisions on their rehabilitation programmes. The paper also discusses the present application of EFA/LFA monitoring techniques in Australia, and other parts of the world and how these techniques are used in different regimes to complete rehabilitation and closure.https://papers.acg.uwa.edu.au/p/852_30_Lacy/

No abstract

No abstract

Integrating closure planning with other mine-planning processes is not a new idea. While most would agree on the benefits of such an approach, examples where the potential is realised remain the exception. Anglo American commenced the development of an Integrated Closure Planning System (ICPS) with the aim to provide a consistent approach over the lifecycle of projects for the reporting and management of long-term liabilities, to achieve their goal of ensuring that they leave a positive and sustainable legacy for their host communities after their operations have closed. We propose that to achieve this objective requires focus on people, process and technology. The elements of the ICPS are: planning (e.g. life-of-mine (LOM), closure, short/medium term mine, rehabilitation), financials (e.g. premature and LOM closure liability, operational expenditure, guarantees), systems (e.g. closure toolboxes, Geographic Information Systems, Environmental Management Systems) and requirements (e.g. internal/external standards, policy, regulation). A multidisciplinary team comprising mine closure, mining engineering/planning, technology and business process experts from Anglo and MWH was formed to develop the ICPS. The process involved identifying the current state of processes and systems, the target state of a fully integrated process, developing a maturity scorecard and identifying potential technology solutions that may assist in realising value at the operational level. In defining the current condition across the operations it became evident that roles and responsibilities were not clear across the organisation, both the LOM and immediate mine planning processes had no clear platform or process to facilitate closure planning interactions, and that over 40 software solutions were being used across Anglo's business units. This finding reinforced the importance and emphasised the critical nature of the 'people, process and technology' elements. Through application of a balanced scorecard, and Anglo's internal assessment of 53 Anglo operations across the globe, potential pilot mine sites were identified with low, moderate and high levels of ICPS maturity, with associated high closure risk or opportunities. Project implementation plans were developed to increase the ICPS maturity at the pilot sites to the required level that will maximise value realisation or minimise value destruction from a mine closure perspective. The paper presents the finding of the evaluation work conducted, will discuss the challenges and process applied in the development of the implementation plans that advance development of Anglo's ICPS. The concept of planning for mine closure has now existed for a few decades (Lacy 2000; Environment Australia 2002; Australian Government 2006). The overarching philosophy is quite simple "that closure should be considered throughout the lifecycle of a mine, from cradle to cradle" (ICMM 2008). Regardless, there remain very few examples worldwide of successful mine closure and subsequent lease relinquishment, https://...

Open cut mining in Western Australia (WA) has rapidly expanded in the last 60 years. Volumes moved per annum, once small, are now in excess of millions of tons per project. Dumping these volumes into stable formations a minimal distance from the pit as per model optimisation has proven a challenge, not only to the mining organisations, but to the regulators of those organisations, as optimal dumping design does not, in many cases, result in landforms that can be easily rehabilitated and closed. Stable, safe, non-polluting, rehabilitated landforms that meet a final land use while meeting the demands of the community and regulators has required a steady change in approach leading to the industry taking responsibility via a suite of gradual improvements in waste characterisation, landform design and managed construction over the last four decades. Commencing in 1989, the author became involved in landform rehabilitation for a multi-mine gold company, just as the Minerals and Energy Research Institute of Western Australia was conducting initial waste dump rehabilitation research in WA. Since that time, the author has consulted to many mines, and benchmarked mine closure widely across Australia and internationally, building capacity with mining professionals engaged in landform closure and rehabilitation by learning from successful, and not so successful, landform techniques applied at a wide variety of mine types. A review across this short but dynamic period of landform construction and rehabilitation shows that there has been the steady application of a range of sciences to support landform construction, primarily with waste characterisation and block modelling to control mine waste dumping, the use of early computer aided design tools and erosion modelling tools. In time this advanced to a suite of one, two and three-dimensional Landform Evolution Modelling (LEM) software programmes that are used extensively. However the review suggests that despite the industry's desire to proceed well, we are yet to take full advantage of the suite of geomorphic landform design tools available by application during mine planning, and that for some reason these have not been brought into common use in WA, unlike other major mining jurisdictions such as in USA. We briefly discuss the evolution of landform design tools as we look to the future and further work on effective application of landform design, and as the industry looks to design in solutions to the landform problems of the past. In WA landforms constructed under the historical context of emerging knowledge provides the capacity to inform and learn by comparison of both historical and current closure and rehabilitation activities. Landform rehabilitation is a time-dependent process. It's important that we reflect, review and determine a future direction while comparing the past and how our learnings can be applied to the challenges, we currently face in landform design, construction and closure.