Water is always on the critical path from first permit to final closure

Permitting is consistently one of the longest, least-controlled variables in mine development timelines, yet within that process, water-related decisions are often the most schedule-sensitive variables. Despite this, water is rarely modeled as a critical path item during project planning. This article presents documented evidence from two North American case studies — an in situ recovery (ISR) uranium permitting program in Wyoming and an ongoing closure and remediation project in the Western United States — to demonstrate that water-related decisions made in the first months of project planning have measurable consequences for schedule, capital and long-term liability. A sequenced permitting framework derived from active project experience is presented, with documented timelines and practical guidance for project engineers and mine managers. Introduction In many mine development schedules the critical path is generally defined by ore definition, permitting, infrastructure design, equipment procurement and initial production. While permitting is recognized as a schedule driver, water-related baseline characterization and permitting are often underestimated within that process. When addressed explicitly, they can be reduced to a single line item scheduled to conclude shortly before operations begin, rather than treated as the long-lead dependency they often become in practice. That assumption has delayed projects, inflated capital costs and in some cases stopped development entirely. Water-related permitting is not a discrete step. It is a sequential, data-dependent regulatory process that begins with baseline characterization, proceeds through multiple layers of agency review and often across multiple overlapping state and federal regulatory pathways.This article examines the disconnect between how mine development critical paths are typically defined and the influence water-related decisions ultimately have on schedule, capital and long-term liability. The evidence comes from two case studies: an ISR uranium project in Wyoming navigating a three-track permitting process, and an abandoned copper mine in California where water liability is still being resolved years after operations ceased. Together, they illustrate a consistent principle: water is always on the critical path. The teams that manage it well simply start earlier. Why water permitting gets underestimated Water-related permitting is frequently underestimated because project schedules and budgets often account for formal review periods and underestimate the work required to produce a technically complete permit/license applications. Baseline studies may begin before the project footprint or operational plan is sufficiently defined; application development starts late and agency expectations are sometimes clarified only after review is underway, rather than early scoping and field planning. The resulting gap between the modeled schedule and the actual schedule is commonly described as regulatory delay, even when the underlying issue is sequencing and technical readiness, or baseline completeness. A second challenge is that mining projects increasingly move through overlapping agency review regimes. In the Wyoming ISR project, the permit to mine (PTM) and source material license (SML) may be prepared and submitted concurrently, while a plan of operations (POO) can trigger U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) review and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis when federal lands or minerals are involved. The environmental baseline becomes a common dependency across all three tracks. Deficiencies in groundwater characterization, hydrologic modeling or ecological coverage can delay multiple permitting pathways simultaneously. These problems are most consequential for water — the medium that requires the longest baseline collection window, carries the highest requests for additional information (RAIs) risk, and most directly determines whether a project reaches production on schedule. Water should therefore be treated not only as a compliance requirement, but as a core project control function. Groundwater characterization design, disciplined water data management, application drafting tools and early agency alignment on water-related technical standards are not administrative requirements; they are schedule-management tools that reduce rework, regulatory uncertainty and potential for project delays. Case study 1 — Permitting: Wyoming ISR uranium project Project context and regulatory framework. The case study is drawn from an ISR uranium permitting program in Wyoming, in which the authors’ firm supported a client through environmental characterization and regulatory applications required to bring the project to a permitted state. ISR uranium recovery is a water-first extraction process: ore is mobilized using a lixiviant solution injected through a wellfield and recovered through a separate production circuit. The integrity of the surrounding groundwater system is both the primary environmental concern and the central focus of the regulatory framework. The project required simultaneous permits from three authorities: the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality/Land Quality Division (WDEQ/LQD) for the PTM, the WDEQ Uranium Recovery Program (URP) for the SML, and the BLM for a POO covering federal lands and minerals. Each permit carried its own application requirements, review sequence and decision timeline. All three were built on the same environmental baseline characterization. Groundwater as the load-bearing structure. The baseline data package was not a supporting document, it was the technical foundation on which all three regulatory pathways depended. Groundwater characterization was the central requirement, defining aquifer geometry, hydraulic connectivity and pre-operational water quality conditions that would form the basis for wellfield design and post-operational restoration targets. Surface water sampling, sediment analysis, air quality monitoring, meteorological data and radiological surveys supported the broader baseline requirements, but groundwater was the thread running through all three regulatory pathways. The field program ran for approximately 12 months to capture seasonal variability and establish a representative baseline data set for the site. Importantly, baseline data collection did not begin immediately. Data collection began only after the conceptual project footprint was defined, permit boundary alternatives were assessed, and a sampling and analysis plan (SAP) was submitted to WDEQ for review. These steps added time at the front end of the schedule, but it reduced downstream permitting risk by incorporating agency expectations, sampling methodologies and data-quality objectives into the program before field activities began. In practice, this sequencing reduced the likelihood of supplemental data requests, resampling and application deficiencies during formal permit agency review. Key insight: A baseline study designed without agency input may produce technically defensible data. A baseline study designed with agency coordination is more likely to produce data that will satisfy permit application review expectations. The two are not always the same. Three pathways, one bottleneck. The three permit applications were prepared and submitted as a coordinated package, allowing regulatory review to proceed in parallel rather than sequentially. While this approach fast-tracked overall schedules, it also introduced a shared technical dependency. Deficiencies in the environmental baseline characterization had the potential to delay all three regulatory reviews simultaneously. Particularly, a data gap in groundwater characterization could generate RAIs from all regulatory agencies concurrently. RAI management is a significant, yet often underestimated driver of schedule overruns in complex permitting programs. A single RAI cycle can add several months to a review timeline, let alone multiple rounds, which are common when baseline data sets are incomplete or inconsistently presented. A high-quality, consistent application package is not a documentation exercise, it is one of the most effective tools for maintaining schedule certainty. To reduce RAI risk, a structured pre-submission technical review was conducted, consisting of a one-day field visit with agency technical staff at the project site, followed by two days of collaborative review sessions focused on draft application materials. This approach allowed reviewers to become familiar with site conditions and project assumptions and provided an opportunity to resolve interpretive questions, identify data gaps and address data presentation issues before formal submission. Documented outcome. The coordinated application approach and pre-submission technical review process produced measurable results. The application package received minimal regulatory comments, an outcome documented as exceptional for a three-track permitting program of this complexity. The submission was also structured as the first fully digital state permit to mine application, reducing both submittal costs and review inefficiencies associated with large-format paper submissions. These outcomes are directly attributable to early agency coordination, development of a defensible environmental baseline, and consistent cross-application document management. Documented permitting sequence. The Wyoming project followed a disciplined, sequenced permitting pathway from footprint definition through to permits in hand. The key phases and their outcomes are summarized in Table 1. Specific timelines, technical actions and dependencies vary by project and jurisdiction; the authors’ firm is available to discuss permitting sequencing in the context of specific project circumstances. Case study 2 — Closure liability: Confidential legacy mine site, Western United States The Wyoming project shows what happens when water is managed well from the start. The second case study shows what it costs when it is not. The site is an abandoned copper mine in a remote area of the Western United States — a large, multisource-area site with complex legacy disturbance and ongoing water liability. Site safeguarding, investigation, characterization, monitoring and reporting have been performed in support of a client managing that liability. The work involves close coordination with the lead state regulatory agency across demolition, air quality, water quality, ecological protection and stormwater management. Multiple source areas associated with different mining processes were identified during the investigation, along with creek receptors connecting to a regionally significant downstream waterway. That downstream pathway elevated both the regulatory complexity and the liability exposure. Unmanned aerial vehicles and remote sensors were deployed alongside traditional field methods to manage logistics across a challenging, remote site. Investigation and site maintenance are ongoing, with remediation design advancing. The liability was not created at closure. The water liability at this site did not emerge at the time of mine closure. It developed progressively during operations via decisions related to waste rock placement, drainage management, water management and long-term site maintenance that did not adequately account for evolving hydrologic and geochemical behavior of the site. By the time the formal investigation began, many of the conditions driving contaminant generation and transport had already been established. The technical challenge was no longer prevention, but characterization, containment and remediation. The implications for mine planning are direct: drainage control, facility siting, monitoring network design, waste management and treatment strategy are not isolated environmental tasks. They directly influence closure scope, remediation complexity and future surety exposure. This case further demonstrates that once water-related liabilities accumulate, even basic site characterization becomes significantly more difficult and expensive. Closure-stage water problems are costly, not only because remediation and treatment may be required but because delayed understanding increases technical uncertainty, investigation complexity and long-term management obligations. Regulators and financial stakeholders are increasingly incorporating long-term water risks into project evaluation and closure planning. Financial surety requirements associated with water management and post-closure obligations have become more stringent, while environmental, social and governance (ESG) frameworks increasingly classify water liability as a material project risk. A robust and defensible pre-mining baseline data set has value beyond permitting alone, it also defines restoration goals, reduces regulatory uncertainty and improves the predictability of long-term closure and surety obligations. A framework for water as a critical path item Three principles emerge from the case studies for managing water as a critical path item: Define the footprint before designing the baseline program (your groundwater monitoring network depends on it). The period between resource definition and feasibility is the highest-leverage window for managing permitting and long-term water risk management. Baseline characterization programs that are not aligned with the anticipated permit boundary, potential future expansion areas or long-term monitoring requirements frequently require supplemental characterization later in the permitting process. As practicable, the project footprint and monitoring strategy should be defined before the baseline sampling program is designed, not after. Prior to baseline data collection: Use early agency coordination to establish clear expectations on water data requirements. The SAP should be submitted to lead regulatory agencies for technical review before field activities begin. The objective is not procedural approval, but early alignment in sampling design, methodologies, monitoring locations and data quality objectives. In dual-jurisdiction regulatory environments, federal and state requirements may differ. A single integrated baseline environmental program designed to satisfy both simultaneously is generally more efficient and defensible than two sequential programs. During application preparation: Treat water data integration as a technical discipline. Permit application packages for complex mining projects are large, multidisciplinary and produced by teams that often include multiple subcontractors operating under different workflows and documentation standards. Application architecture, document templates and data management structures should be established while baseline studies are still underway, not after fieldwork is complete. Shared terminology, technical assumptions, figures and data tables should be consistent across all discipline technical reports to support efficient integration into the larger application package. Inconsistencies between reports will likely generate RAIs, while technical consistency improves reviewer confidence and review efficiency. A structured pre-submission technical review with agency staff is strongly recommended. A field and document review workshop can identify data gaps, interpretive discrepancies and presentation issues before formal submission. In practice, the schedule investment is minor relative to the months of delay that can result from avoidable RAI cycles. On closure: Start the conversation at first drill hole Water liability at closure is not a closure-stage problem. It is the accumulated result of design and operational decisions made across the full project life. By the time a mine approaches closure, the water system has been disturbed, the baseline has been altered and the liability has been established. The question at that stage is how much it will cost to address, not whether it exists.Project teams that incorporate closure water obligations early during feasibility, design and operations are better positioned to reduce water liability before it becomes embedded in site conditions. Infrastructure siting, drainage control, waste rock management and monitoring network design all influence long-term water implications that are more cost effective to address before operational disturbance occurs. Water management should therefore be treated as a continuous life-of-mine risk management function rather than a discrete permitting or compliance exercise. Effective projects integrate water considerations from initial site characterization through closure planning, operations, reclamation and post-closure management. Conclusions The case studies support several conclusions relevant to mine development and closure planning: Permitting timelines are often driven by the baseline data collection and technical completeness, more than formal regulatory review periods. In practice, the baseline program is the critical path and should be sequenced and resourced accordingly.In dual-jurisdiction regulatory environments, federal and state agencies often rely on the same environmental baseline while applying different technical and regulatory standards. Baseline programs should be designed to satisfy all major review pathways, as deficiencies or inconsistencies in data sets can lead to supplemental studies, schedule delays and additional costs. The highest-return investment in schedule certainty is early and frequent structured agency coordination. Early technical and regulatory alignment before major fieldwork, engineering and permit application development costs are incurred. Long-term water-related liability is fundamentally a design and operational issue rather than a closure-stage issue. The decisions that strongly influence remediation complexity, restoration feasibility and financial assurance exposure are often made during the earliest phases of project development. References The authors’ firm. 2026. ISR uranium permitting program, Wyoming: Project planning, baseline characterization, and permit application materials. Internal project documentation (confidential).The authors’ firm. 2026. Confidential legacy mine site, western United States: Site Safeguarding, Investigation, Monitoring, and Reporting. Project profile (confidential).Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Land Quality Division. Noncoal Chapter 11 and Guideline 4, Permit to Mine requirements.Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Uranium Recovery Program. Chapter 4, Source and Byproduct Material License requirements.U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Surface Management Regulations, 43 CFR Part 3809.Council on Environmental Quality. NEPA implementing regulations, 40 CFR § 1501.10.

Water is always on the critical path from first permit to final closure

Authored by: Justin Vandenbrink and Ray DeLuna

To view the past issues of the UCA magazine you must be a member of SME/UCA.

Caterpillar Announces Leadership Transition in Resource Industries

Copper squeeze breathes new life into old mines

Cartier-owner Richemont weighs joining De Beers acquisition race, source says

Caterpillar Announces Leadership Transition in Resource Industries

Copper squeeze breathes new life into old mines

Cartier-owner Richemont weighs joining De Beers acquisition race, source says

To view the past issues of the UCA magazine you must be a member of SME/UCA.

Major challenges associated with the beneficiation of a petalite-type pegmatite

American Mining Hall of Fame announces 2026 awardees

Related Articles

Get your SME Foundation VIP Access Conference Pass to MINEXCHANGE 2027

“Check the box” and help support the SME Foundation

The Art and Science of the Flowsheet

UCA Division officer nominations

Caterpillar Announces Leadership Transition in Resource Industries

Copper squeeze breathes new life into old mines

Cartier-owner Richemont weighs joining De Beers acquisition race, source says

Caterpillar Announces Leadership Transition in Resource Industries

Copper squeeze breathes new life into old mines

Cartier-owner Richemont weighs joining De Beers acquisition race, source says

Use Single Sign On