Authors: Ventura, L; Lopes, G; Silva, L; Garcia-Forero, A

Open access courtesy of:

DOI https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_repo/2615_114

Cite As:
Ventura, L, Lopes, G, Silva, L & Garcia-Forero, A 2026, 'Dynamic groundwater-pit lake coupling for a multi-pit closure application in a structurally complex aquifer: a case study', in AB Fourie, G Boggs, J Heyes & M Tibbett (eds), Mine Closure 2026: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Mine Closure, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 1-14, https://doi.org/10.36487/ACG_repo/2615_114

Download citation as:   ris   bibtex   endnote   text   Zotero


Abstract:
Predicting long-term pit lake recovery is a key challenge in mine closure, particularly in multi-pit systems where groundwater recovery, pit lake filling, and hydraulic connectivity evolve. This paper presents a case study applying a dynamically coupled groundwater-pit lake water balance modelling framework to assess post-closure recovery of a complex multi-pit closure system in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. Two closure scenarios were assessed over a 300-year simulation period: a base case comprising ten persistent pit lakes and a backfill case comprising four remaining pit lakes following partial backfilling. The modelling framework linked a three-dimensional transient FEFLOW groundwater model with a GoldSim water balance model through a Python-based interface, enabling bi-directional exchange of hydraulic information without modification of either model. The groundwater model was calibrated against ten years of groundwater level observations from 132 monitoring locations prior to implementation of the coupled framework. The approach was developed to represent the structurally complex hydrogeological setting, characterised by groundwater compartmentalisation and evolving pit-to-pit interactions. The results indicated that the groundwater recovery rate was greatest during the first decades following closure and declined progressively as hydraulic gradients declined between the pits and surrounding aquifer. Groundwater levels approached quasi-equilibrium after approximately 50–100 years but remained below premining levels in both scenarios. Evaporation remained the dominant long-term control on pit lake water balances, while pit lake behaviour evolved throughout the recovery period as hydraulic connectivity between pits changed. The backfill case generally produced higher long-term pit lake levels and smaller groundwater recovery deficits compared with the base case. This case study evaluated groundwater recovery, pit lake water balances, and hydraulic connectivity during post-closure recovery. Computational demands limited the analysis to three deterministic realisations and therefore constrained the probabilistic assessment. The results illustrate how groundwater-pit lake interactions changed through time under the evaluated closure scenarios.

Keywords: pit lake, model coupling, FEFLOW, GoldSim, groundwater-surface water interaction.

References:
Barnett, B 2012, Australian Groundwater Modelling Guidelines, Waterlines Report, National Water Commission, Canberra.
Bozan, C, Wallis, I, Cook, PG & Dogramaci, S 2022, ‘Groundwater-level recovery following closure of open-pit mines', Hydrogeology Journal, vol. 30, no. 6, pp. 1819–1832,
Carlino, AM & McCullough, CD 2019, ‘Modelling the long-term water balance of a pit lake with recreational end uses’, in AB Fourie & M Tibbett (eds), Mine Closure 2019: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Mine Closure, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 1405–1420,
Castendyk, D, Evans, E, Banton, D, Nutini, J & Young, A 2023, ‘Closure modelling of the Eagle Ni-Cu mine, Michigan: Part 1. Hydrogeology and water quality of the underground mine pool’, in B Abbasi, J Parshley, A Fourie & M Tibbett (eds), Mine Closure 2023: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Mine Closure, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth,
Dennis, R & Dennis, I 2016, ‘Open pit mine flooding prognosis Making Use of analytical element modelling in fractured hard rock’, in C Drebenstedt & M Paul (eds), Proceedings IMWA 2016: Mining Meets Water - Conflicts and Solutions, International Mine Water Association, Freiberg, pp. 1141–1148.
DHI n.d, FEFLOW 7.2 Documentation, DHI web page, viewed July 2026,
html/help72/feflow/01_Introduction/intro.htm
Dogramaci, S 2025, Hemi Pit Lake Model, De Grey Mining Limited.
Garcia-Forero, A, Silva, L, Chappell, S & John, E 2023, ‘Water balances in pit lakes: integrating hydrogeology, surface water balances, and climate change’, HWRS2023: Hydrology & Water Resources Symposium, Engineers Australia,
GoldSim Technology Group LLC 2026, GoldSim Contaminant Transport Module User’s Guide, version 15, document revision 2, Seattle.
Gresswell, R, Foley, G & Faithful, J 2019, ‘Hydrogeological modelling to inform closure planning for Hazelwood Mine’, in AB Fourie & M Tibbett (eds), Mine Closure 2019: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Mine Closure, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 1353–1366,
Halford, K 2026, PLISM - An Excel workbook for simulating water balance of a pit lake, version 7, Halford Hydrology LLC.
Jackson, TR, Halford, KJ & Zhan, G 2026, ‘Pit-Lake Iterative Simulation Model (PLISM): An Iterative Solver’, Mine Water and the Environment,
Janzen, AK, Anderson, CD, Hinck, PJ, Mohr, JA & Mechenich, MF n.d, ‘Dynamic Coupling of GoldSim and MODFLOW/MT3D’, GoldSim Help Center web page, GoldSim Technology Group.
Langevin, CD, Hughes, JD, Banta, ER, Niswonger, RG, Panday, S & Provost, AM 2017, ‘Documentation for the MODFLOW 6 groundwater flow model’, U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods,
Marinelli, F & Niccoli, WL 2000, ‘Simple analytical equations for estimating ground water inflow to a mine pit’, Ground Water, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 311–314.
Martin, N & Gabora, M 2018, ‘Modelling complex mine water closure challenges using a coupled FEFLOW-GoldSim™ model’, in Ch Wolkersdorfer, L Sartz, A Weber, J Burgess & G Tremblay (eds), 11th ICARD IMWD Conference - Risk to Opportunity, pp. 41–46.
McCullough, CD, Müller, M, Eulitz, K & Lund, MA 2011, ‘Modelling a pit lake district to plan for abstraction regime changes’, in AB Fourie, M Tibbett & A Beersing (eds), Mine Closure 2011: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Mine Closure, Australian Centre for Geomechanics, Perth, pp. 581–592,
Merritt, ML & Konikow, LF 2000, Documentation of a Computer Program to Simulate Lake-Aquifer Interaction Using the MODFLOW Ground-Water Flow Model and the MOC3D Solute-Transport Model, U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 00-4167,
Moser, B, Cook, PG, Miller, AD, Dogramaci, S & Wallis, I 2024, ‘The hydraulic evolution of groundwater-fed pit lakes after mine closure’, Groundwater, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 889–903,
Tomlin, J, Phillipson, K, Lenahan, M, Durick, A, Manewell, N, Newton, D, Briody, M & Dunlop, J 2025, Review of Current Approaches to Model Residual Mine Voids for Rehabilitation Planning: Technical Paper 1, Office of the Queensland Mine Rehabilitation Commissioner, Queensland Government, Brisbane.
Turvey, C 2022, Brockman Syncline Pit Lake Modelling, memorandum EWP19192.003, RPS Australia West Pty Ltd.




© Copyright 2026, Australian Centre for Geomechanics (ACG), The University of Western Australia. All rights reserved.
View copyright/legal information
Please direct any queries or error reports to repository-acg@uwa.edu.au