DOI https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_repo/2515_68
Cite As:
Kennedy, T 2025, 'A mine water system framework: designing with the end in mind for monitoring
that works across and beyond mine life', in S Knutsson, AB Fourie & M Tibbett (eds),
Mine Closure 2025: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Mine Closure, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 1-14,
https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_repo/2515_68
Abstract:
Mine water monitoring programs are often designed with limited reference to how water interacts across a site. Geology, landforms and materials shape water movement, active processes and system response over time. Yet monitoring locations are typically defined by compliance spacing, infrastructure layout or stability concerns. Closure monitoring, by contrast, must characterise how the site functions as a system – how water interacts with landscape features, what risks or opportunities may arise and what stable performance looks like beyond operations.
Water moves according to geology and landscape, not compliance maps. In geology we say, “there is a reason for every feature in the landscape”. The same is true for water, though in reverse: water reasons with every feature in the landscape. As landforms evolve, so do the interactions with water, the responses of systems and the models used to explain them.
Establishing long-term and future-focused monitoring earlier in the mine life improves the ability to anticipate and respond to these challenges. At closure, unresolved or slow-developing issues – previously managed through reporting cycles – require resolution. If monitoring networks are not structured with closure in mind, gaps in understanding can lead to misrepresented risks, increased costs, asset impairments or prolonged regulatory review.
This paper presents the Mine Water System Monitoring Framework – a method for addressing complex water issues through the design of a monitoring network tailored to how water interacts with the geology, landscape and mining landforms. Drawing from examples in waste rock, heap leach, tailings and pit lakes, the framework is grounded in practice and focused on landform function and system behaviour. Case studies from legacy, active and planned operations demonstrate how monitoring aligned with geology, landform evolution and system logic improves effectiveness, reduces closure uncertainty and supports more confident decisions.
Successful monitoring is not about collecting more data or building larger models. It’s about designing representative networks that reflect how the site works – providing the foundation for shared understanding across operations, transition and closure.
Keywords: mine closure, mine water, monitoring framework, landform evolution, representative monitoring, geology and environment, holistic water management, water strategy, complex problems
References:
Department of Environment and Science 2020, Progressive Rehabilitation and Closure Plan (PRCP) Guideline, Government of Queensland, Brisbane.
Department of Industry, Innovation and Science 2016, Mine Rehabilitation: Leading Practice Sustainable Development Program for the Mining Industry, Government of Australia, Canberra.
Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety & Western Australian Biodiversity Science Institute 2022, Mine closure Completion Criteria and Ecosystem Risk Assessment: Guidance Document, Government of Western Australia, Perth.
Gemson, WJ, Weaver, TR & Heemink, BL 2019, ‘Key considerations that can make or break a closure-focused groundwater-monitoring program’, Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Mine Closure, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 1367–1376,
.
ICMM 2019, Integrated Mine Closure: Good Practice Guide, 2nd edn, London.
ICMM 2020, Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management, London.
Lacy, H & Barnett, B 2015, Groundwater Monitoring Network Design – Principles and Practice, Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, South Australia.
McCullough, CD & Lund, MA 2006, ‘Opportunities for sustainable mining pit lakes in Australia’, Mine Water and the Environment, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 220–226,
McCullough, CD, Marchand, G & Unseld, J 2013, ‘Mine closure of pit lakes as terminal sinks: best available practice when options are limited?’, Mine Water and the Environment, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 302–313,
McCullough, CD, Schultze, M, Vandenberg, J & Castendyk, D 2024, ‘Mine waste disposal in pit lakes: a good practice guide’, in AB Fourie, M Tibbett & G Boggs (eds), Mine Closure 2024: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Mine Closure, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 1063–1076,
Minerals Council of Australia 2014, Water Accounting Framework for the Minerals Industry, Canberra.
Wiersma, GB 2004, Environmental Monitoring, CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Younger, PL 2004, ‘Environmental impacts of coal mining and associated wastes: a geochemical perspective’, in R Gieré & P Stille (eds), Energy, Waste and the Environment: A Geochemical Perspective, Geological Society Special Publication No. 236, Geological Society of London, London, pp. 169–209,