Background, principles and context for risk-based completion criteria and monitoring (1 OF 7) , To view full report: Click here THE COMPLETION CRITERIA FRAMEWORK 2 A framework for developing mine-site completion criteria in Western...
moreBackground, principles and context for risk-based completion criteria and monitoring (1 OF 7) , To view full report: Click here THE COMPLETION CRITERIA FRAMEWORK 2 A framework for developing mine-site completion criteria in Western Australia 2 3 CHAPTER 3 Background, principles and context for risk-based completion criteria and monitoring This section includes a review of current guidance, policy and scientific literature relating to completion criteria and associated monitoring. It focusses particularly on criteria and attributes relating directly, or indirectly, to biological elements in rehabilitation sites. It also considers methodologies for the selection of post-mined land uses (PMLUs), the consideration of offsets and application of risk assessment in identifying closure risk and in directing and prioritising rehabilitation effort. When discussing specific aspects and attributes, the study focusses on biophysical and environmental elements, but indicates to other elements where appropriate. This focus reflects the scope of the report, but also that most mine closure plans include environmental requirements. PMLUs that do not include environmental objectives will require consideration of other aspects and monitoring approaches (e.g. social or economic metrics). Nonetheless, the principals for completion criteria development, discussion of risk and approaches to selecting PMLUs should be relevant to all mines. The importance of completion criteria in the mining life-cycle are well recognised in numerous international and national handbooks and guidelines for mine closure planning. While there is no international or national standard for the development of completion criteria (Blommerde et al. 2015), more than 30 documents with guidance for the establishment of completion criteria -from jurisdictions across Australia (state and federal), Canada (provincial and federal), Peru, Chile, South Africa, Finland, Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) and states within the United States of America -were identified. The most relevant of these are reviewed below. Documents from NSW (TIRE 2013) and Queensland (DEHP 2014) provide information specific to the mine rehabilitation and closure requirements of their jurisdictions, with the most detailed guidance on objectives and criteria for closure being provided by DEHP (2014). Rather than provide substantial detailed information on criteria development, the NSW guidance relies substantially on the Strategic Framework for Mine Closure (ANZMEC & MCA 2000) as a recommended source. The nationally focussed Australia and New Zealand Minerals and Energy Council/ Minerals Council of Australia Strategic Framework (ANZMEC & MCA 2000) is an industry document, which promotes establishment of completion criteria that are developed and agreed with stakeholders. It states that, where possible, completion criteria should be quantitative and capable of objective verification, and identifies the importance of developing performance indicators to measure progress in meeting the completion criteriawhich is distinct from, but supplementary to, monitoring to assess completion criteria. The Leading Practice Sustainable Development Program (LPSDP) for the mining industry handbook series includes handbooks devoted to mine closure (LPSDP 2016d), mine rehabilitation (LPSDP 2016e), biodiversity management (LPSDP 2016a) and evaluating performance: monitoring and auditing (LPSDP 2016b), among others. This excellent series, which aims to encourage best practice sustainable mining both in Australia and overseas, was developed by Australian Government