Applied Geochemistry 57 (2015) 267–288

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Geochemistry
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apgeochem

Review

Modeling and management of pit lake water chemistry 1: Theory

D.N. Castendyk a,⇑, L.E. Eary b, L.S. Balistrieri c
a
Department of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences, State University of New York, Oneonta, Oneonta, NY, United States
b
InTerraLogic, Fort Collins, CO, United States
c
U.S. Geological Survey, Seattle, WA, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Pit lakes are permanent hydrologic/landscape features that can result from open pit mining for metals,
Available online 20 September 2014 coal, uranium, diamonds, oil sands, and aggregates. Risks associated with pit lakes include local and
regional impacts to water quality and related impacts to aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Stakeholders
rely on predictive models of water chemistry to prepare for and manage these risks. This paper is the first
of a two part series on the modeling and management of pit lakes. Herein, we review approaches that
have been used to quantify wall-rock runoff geochemistry, wall-rock leachate geochemistry, pit lake
water balance, pit lake limnology (i.e. extent of vertical mixing), and pit lake water quality, and conclude
with guidance on the application of models within the mine life cycle. The purpose of this paper is to bet-
ter prepare stakeholders, including future modelers, mine managers, consultants, permitting agencies,
land management agencies, regulators, research scientists, academics, and other interested parties, for
the challenges of predicting and managing future pit lakes in un-mined areas.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268
2. Literature review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
3. Predicting pit wall runoff geochemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
3.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
3.2. Observed effects of wall-rock processes on pit lake water quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
3.3. Approaches for modeling wall-rock geochemical processes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
3.3.1. Estimating wall-rock runoff from laboratory and field tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272
3.3.2. Estimating wall-rock runoff from mineral dissolution kinetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
3.3.3. Estimating wall-rock leaching from oxidation modeling and laboratory leaching tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
3.3.4. Estimating wall-rock leaching from batch tests with representative water compositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
4. Predicting the pit lake water balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
4.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
4.2. Direct rainfall and evaporation volumes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
4.3. Wall-rock runoff volume. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
4.4. Groundwater volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
4.5. Water balance design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
5. Predicting lake mixing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
5.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
5.2. Stratification and mixing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
5.3. Hydrodynamic predictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
6. Predicting lake geochemistry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
6.1. Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
6.2. Conceptual models of pit lake geochemistry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
6.3. Model limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 607 436 3064; fax: +1 607 436 3547.
E-mail address: Devin.Castendyk@oneonta.edu (D.N. Castendyk).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2014.09.004
0883-2927/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
268
7. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
1. Introduction
Society’s future demand for metals will be met in large part by
open pit mining techniques where considerable volumes of ore and
waste rock are excavated from one or more surface excavations
and metallurgical processes are used to recover the desired
metal(s) (Eary and Castendyk, 2012). Often open pit mines become
deep enough to intersect the local water table and thereafter
require groundwater pumping to maintain a dry mining surface.
Once mining concludes, pumping wells are turned off, which
enables the water table to rebound and allows water to flood the
pit over time. Depending upon pit volume and annual rates of
groundwater discharge and surface water diversion into the pit,
it can take anywhere from 1 year to 500 years to attain a steady-
state lake level. This flooding results in the formation of permanent
anthropogenic water basins known as ‘‘pit lakes.’’
In the absence of surface water diversions, most of the water
added to pit lakes will come from rain water and snowmelt wash-
ing over the pit walls in addition to groundwater seeping through
fractures in the pit walls and floor. This water reacts with certain
minerals that are exposed along the pit surface or along the
groundwater flow path producing acidic, neutral, or basic drainage
with elevated concentrations of dissolved solids. The resulting
solution is called ‘‘mine impacted water’’ (MIW) (McLemore,
2008). Pit lakes collect and store large volumes of MIW and provide
unique settings where additional geochemical and biogeochemical
reactions can occur. Additions of MIW and subsequent reactions
can potentially degrade the water quality of the pit lakes plus
down-gradient groundwater and surface water resources, and
represent long-range, post-closure, environmental risks for
stakeholders (i.e. mining companies, environmental consultants,
environmental regulators, land management agencies, non-
government organizations, and average citizens).
Ideally, mining companies and their consultants will assess the
risks associated with future pit lakes during the exploration and
planning phases of mining, and regularly update their risk models
during mine development, closure, and post-closure phases. In
addition, companies will optimally have extensive consultation
with, and oversight from, other stakeholders during this process.
Lee (1999) defined ‘‘risk’’ in the context of mine waste manage-
ment as the probability that a given hazard will occur multiplied
by the magnitude of the consequence of the hazard. The most
‘‘severe’’ hazards potentially associated with pit lakes include: 1.
Human fatalities resulting from drowning in a pit lake (e.g. aban-
doned coalfields, Virginia; OSMRE, 2007); 2. Degradation of human
drinking water resources due to surface and/or groundwater dis-
charge from a pit lake (e.g. Harvard Lake, California; Savage et al.,
2000); 3. Chronic and/or acute health injuries to terrestrial organ-
isms utilizing the surface water of a pit lake (e.g. Berkeley Lake,
Montana; Hagler Bailly Consulting, 1996). In particular, migratory
birds can be attracted to pit lakes, and should be considered a spe-
cific class of terrestrial organisms with unique risks; 4. Chronic
and/or acute impacts to aquatic ecosystems that receive surface
water and/or groundwater originating from a pit lake (see US
EPA rational for establishing a ‘‘critical level’’ in Berkeley Lake,
Montana discussed in Part 2 by Castendyk, Balistrieri, Gammons,
and Tucci, this volume); and 5. Acute impacts to aquatic ecosys-
tems and terrestrial organisms caused by the rapid turnover and
degassing of a meromictic pit lake, known as a ‘‘limnic eruption’’
D.N. Castendyk et al. / Applied Geochemistry 57 (2015) 267–288
(see impacts caused by the 1986 limnic eruption of Lake Nyos, a
volcanic crater lake in Cameroon; Halbwachs et al., 2004).
In addition, stakeholders need to consider post-closure risks
associated with global climate change. Predicted warmer air tem-
peratures will increase evaporation rates in the Southwest United
States and elsewhere above present levels (Eary, 1998; Hoerling
and Eischeid, 2007; Grimaldi, 2009). Increased evaporation will
increase efflorescence formation affecting runoff chemistry, and
modify pit lake water balances and geochemical predictions. For
arid regions, related increases in water scarcity may also affect
the future value of water resources and the public perception of
terminal pit lakes which perpetually lose groundwater to the
atmosphere. Conversely, predicted increases in the intensity of
rainfall events will directly impact wall rock runoff and leaching
predictions, and may lead to greater exposure of unreacted mate-
rials and more frequent pit wall failures than presently predicted.
Predictive computer models of pit lake water quality allow
stakeholders to assess post-closure risks associated with pit lakes
during the planning phase of mining when this knowledge can
have the most influence on mine design. Because pit lakes will
become permanent landscape features, risks need to be assessed
for a long time period after mine closure. The durations of pub-
lished water quality predictions range from 8 to 230 years
(Werner, 2009; Kempton et al., 1997). Presently, there is no ‘‘stan-
dard pit lake prediction time,’’ and the length used most likely
depends upon mining company policy, regulatory policy, and mine
site characteristics. As with any predictive models (i.e. weather
forecasts or economic forecasts), the accuracy of pit lake predic-
tions will decrease with each time-step due to errors caused by
the uncertainties and assumptions used in designing the model.
For this reason, short-term predictions may have greater validity
than long-range predictions, and models should be updated
throughout the mine life as new information becomes available.
Additional benefits of pit lake prediction models include: 1. The
designation of ‘‘action levels’’ based on the dissolved concentration
of ‘‘contaminants of concern’’ that specify when post-closure mit-
igation measures are necessary (Lee, 1999); 2. Cost/benefit analysis
of various mitigation options (Castendyk and Webster-Brown,
2007b); 3. Selection of sampling locations, sampling parameters,
and sampling frequency used in sampling and monitoring pro-
grams; 4. Investigation of ‘‘what if’’ scenarios for post-closure man-
agement decisions that affect the physical limnology and water
quality of the lake (Balistrieri et al., 2006; Castendyk and
Webster-Brown, 2007b); and 5. Consideration of post-closure,
‘‘beneficial uses’’ for the pit lake in order to achieve sustainable
development objectives (McCullough et al., 2009).
One of the best ways to validate the accuracy of a pit lake pre-
diction is to compare predicted concentrations to observed, post-
mining, water quality data collected through a lake monitoring
program, as demonstrated by Werner (2009) and Oldham et al.
(2009). Monitoring programs also allow stakeholders to evaluate
the evolution of lake chemistry over time, to initiate corrective
measures to avoid poor water quality (if necessary), and to verify
the achievement of closure objectives for company, community,
and regulatory purposes. Monitoring programs also facilitate the
improvement of pit lake predictions by identifying additional pro-
cesses that need to be included in the conceptual model and guid-
ing the calibration of model parameters. Gammons (2009)
provided detailed guidance on the design of monitoring programs.
 D.N. Castendyk et al. / Applied Geochemistry 57 (2015) 267–288 269

This paper is the first of a two part series on the modeling and
management of pit lakes. Part 1 presented herein, reviews
approaches used to develop conceptual models of wall-rock runoff
geochemistry, lake water balance, lake mixing, and lake water
quality, and concludes with guidance on the application of models
within the mine life cycle. It is not the intent to recommend one
approach as being better than others, but to describe the
approaches used and to discuss their various merits according to
the descriptions provided by the developers of the approaches in
the literature. To demonstrate the application of certain
approaches, Part 2 provides case studies of a hydrodynamic predic-
tion for the existing Dexter Lake in Nevada, a geochemical predic-
tion for a future pit lake at the Martha Mine in New Zealand, and
the interpretation of recent monitoring data from the Berkeley
Lake in Montana (Castendyk, Balistrieri, Gammons, and Tucci, this
volume). The purpose of these papers is to better prepare future
modelers, mine managers, consultants, permitting agencies, land
management agencies, regulators, research scientists, academics,
and other interested parties for the challenges of predicting and
managing future pit lakes in un-mined areas.
2. Literature review
Pit lake research is a relatively young field of study spanning
just two-and-a-half decades. Davis and Ashenberg (1989) provided
one of the first widely-published studies on pit lake geochemistry.
Their work on the Berkeley Lake, Montana showed pit lakes as
layered geochemical systems influenced by climate, limnologic
mixing events, and water–rock reactions, and thereby differentiated
pit lake research from the broader field of acid-mine drainage
research.
Early research into pit lakes was largely motivated by the closure
of open pit mines and the need to comply with regulatory water
quality guidelines. Between 1990 and 1999, numerous studies
reported limnologic and geochemical observations from existing
pit lakes (Table 1), geochemical predictions of future pit lakes
(Table 2), and remediation strategies for existing pit lakes (Table 3).
From a modeling standpoint, some of the most influential studies
identified general geochemical trends in existing pit lakes using
data from multiple mine sites (Price et al., 1995; Miller et al.,
1996; Davis and Eary, 1997). Notably, Shevenell et al. (1999) dem-
onstrated the influence of mine geology on pit lake water chemistry
by comparing the geochemistry of 16 hard rock pit lakes in Nevada
based on ore deposit type. This work prompted similar studies in
the Iberian Mining District (Sánchez España et al., 2008) and the
Central German Lignite Mining District (Schultze et al., 2010), and
inspired the recent development of an online, global pit lake data-
base containing data from 72 pit lakes at the time of writing
(Johnson and Castendyk, 2012; http://pitlakesdatabase.org). Com-
bining data from 24 hard rock pit lakes in the United States and
66 coal pit lakes in Germany, Eary (1999) identified minerals likely
to precipitate from pit lake water as a function of pH and dissolved
ion concentrations. Pit lake modelers have frequently used this
paper during the design of geochemical predictions to specify min-
erals that are likely to precipitate from solution and thereby influ-
ence the concentrations of contaminants of concern.
The perception of the ‘‘best case’’ scenario for pit lakes began to
change following the publication of the Minerals, Mining and

Table 1
Select publications on pit lake observations.

Category Name Location Reference

Physical limnology Gunnar Saskatchewan, Canada Tones (1982)
Multiple Nevada, USA Atkins et al. (1997)
Multiple Saskatchewan, Canada Doyle and Runnells (1997)
Brenda British Columbia, Canada Stevens and Lawrence (1998)
Brenda British Columbia, Canada Hamblin et al. (1999)
Sleeper Nevada, USA Atkin and Schrand (2000)
Island Copper British Columbia, Canada Fisher and Lawrence (2000)
Berkeley Montana, USA Jonas (2000)
Enterprise NW Territory, Australia Boland and Padovan (2002)
Yerington Nevada, USA Jewell and Castendyk (2002)
Goitsche Central Germany Boehrer et al. (2003)
Lake 111 Lusatian, Germany Karakas et al. (2003)
Summer Camp Nevada, USA Parshley and Bowell (2003)
East Sullivan Quebec, Canada Tassé (2003)
Island Copper British Columbia, Canada Stevens and Fisher (2005)
Geochemistry Berkeley Montana, USA Davis and Ashenberg (1989)
Multiple Nevada, USA Price et al. (1995)
Multiple USA Miller et al. (1996)
Multiple USA Davis and Eary (1997)
Multiple Germany Klapper and Schultze (1997)
Berkeley Montana, USA Robins et al. (1997)
Multiple Nevada, USA Shevenell et al. (1999)
Harvard California, USA Savage et al. (2000, 2009)
Multiple Nevada, USA Shevenell (2000)
Multiple Nevada, USA Shevenell and Connors (2000)
Multiple Global Bowell (2002)
Berkeley Montana, USA Madison et al. (2003)
Summer Camp Nevada, USA Bowell and Parshley (2005)
Berkeley Montana, USA Pellicori et al. (2005)
Multiple Germany Schultze et al. (2010)
Combined physical limnology and geochemistry Spenceville California, USA Levy et al. (1997)
Multiple Utah, USA Castendyk and Jewell (2002)
Udden Northern Sweden Ramstedt et al. (2003)
Elizabeth Vermont, USA Seal et al. (2006)
Berkeley Montana, USA Gammons and Duaime (2006)
Multiple Spain Sánchez España et al. (2008)
270 D.N. Castendyk et al. / Applied Geochemistry 57 (2015) 267–288

Sustainable Development Report (MMSD, 2002). Instead of devel-
oping lakes that only comply with regulatory water quality guide-
lines, the MMSD Report challenged mining companies to develop
pit lakes into post-mining resources in order to achieve industry-
wide sustainable development objectives. Several pit lakes now
exist that provide beneficial uses such as public recreation areas
and aquaculture industries (McCullough et al., 2009). Between
2000 and 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency hosted
the first two conferences exclusively devoted to pit lake research
(McCready, 2001; McCready and Ober, 2006), the journal South-
west Hydrology published a special issue on the hydrology of pit
lakes (Woodhouse, 2002), and several international conferences
hosted topical sessions exclusively on pit lake research (i.e. 2003
Annual Meeting of the Geological Society of America in Seattle, Wash-
ington; the 2006 7th International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage
(ICARD) in St. Louis, Missouri; the 2009 8th ICARD in Skellefteå,
Sweden; and the 2012 9th ICARD in Ottawa, Canada).
Several pit lake guidebooks have been produced over the past
15 years. Researchers in Germany published the first pit lake
guidebook in 1998, called Acidic Mining Lakes: Acid Mine Drainage,
Limnology, and Reclamation (Geller et al., 1998). This book
emphasized pit lakes found in soft-rock, lignite mines found in
Lusatia, Germany. In 2009, Gammons et al. (2009) produced a guid-
ance document for the Canadian government called Creating Lakes
from Open Pit Mines: Processes and Considerations, with Emphasis
on Northern Environments. This 106-page document provides a con-
cise and comprehensive review of physical, chemical, and biological
processes occurring in pit lakes, the characteristics needed for pit
lakes to become self-sustaining aquatic ecosystems, options for
post-closure pit lake use, and case studies of the closure and treat-
ment of North American pit lakes located above 40 degrees North.
Later that year, the Acid Drainage Technology Initiative, Metal Min-
ing Sector (ADTI–MMS) in association with the Society for Mining,
Metallurgy and Exploration (SME), published a guidance workbook
titled Mine Pit Lakes; Characteristics, Predictive Modeling, and
Sustainable Development (Castendyk and Eary, 2009). This compre-
hensive, 300-page document was an international collaboration
among 26 authors from four countries that addressed global pit
lakes in both arid and humid climates resulting from metal and coal
mining. Workbook sections focused on regulatory issues, character-
istics and classifications, conceptual models, sampling and
monitoring, predictive modeling, remediation, and post-mining

Table 2
Select publications on pit lake prediction studies.

Category Name Location Reference

Water–rock reactions Multiple Nevada, USA Connors et al. (2000)
General theory Morin and Hutt (2006)
Martha New Zealand Castendyk et al. (2005)
Climate General theory Eary (1998)
General theory Flite and Eidson (2003)
Hydrology General theory Havis and Worthington (1997)
General theory Marinelli and Niccoli (2000)
Getchell Nevada, USA Shevenell and Pasternak (2000)
Niederlausitz Germany Werner et al. (2001)
General theory Kuma et al. (2002)
Physical limnology Multiple Nevada, USA Lyons et al. (1994)
Merseburg-Ost Central Germany Böhrer et al. (1998)
General theory Stevens et al. (2002)
Dexter Nevada, USA Balistrieri et al. (2006)
Martha New Zealand Castendyk and Webster-Brown (2007a)
Geochemistry Models Bird et al. (1994)
General theory Pillard et al. (1996)
Twin Creeks Nevada, USA Kempton et al. (1997)
General theory Davis and Fennemore (1998)
General theory Lewis (1999)
Getchell Nevada, USA Tempel et al. (2000)
Martha New Zealand Castendyk and Webster-Brown (2007b)
Kepwari WA Australia Oldham et al. (2009)
Harvard California Savage et al. (2009)
Baerwalde Germany Werner (2009)

Table 3
Select publications on pit lake remediation and sustainability.

Category Pit lake name Location Reference

Remediation Multiple Germany Stottmeister et al. (1999
Summer Camp Nevada, USA Castro et al. (1999)
General theory Castro and Moore (2000)
Multiple British Columbia, Canada Martin et al. (2003)
Anchor Hill South Dakota, USA Park et al. (2006)
South Tennessee, USA Wyatt et al. (2006)
Multiple Canada Kalin and Wheeler (2009)
Island Copper British Columbia, Canada Pelletier et al. (2009)
General theory Weilinga (2009)
Sustainability General Theory Global MMSD (2002)
Multiple WA Australia Evans et al. (2003)
Multiple Global McCullough et al. (2009)
 D.N. Castendyk et al. / Applied Geochemistry 57 (2015) 267–288
uses and considerations. The document concluded with a chapter
on the state-of-the-art of pit lake water quality prediction, data
gaps and research needs, recommendations for the mining indus-
try, and guidelines for developing and presenting the results of
pit lake predictive models. In 2011, the Australian Centre for
Geomechanics published a compendium titled Mine Pit Lakes:
Closure and Management, which provided advice for mine planners,
regulators, environmental managers and communities to design
sustainable mine pit lakes that provide regional benefit to stake-
holders (McCullough, 2011). Recognizing the potential impacts of
36 pit lakes that will result from oil sands mining, the Cumulative
Environmental Management Association (CEMA) of Fort McMurray,
Alberta, Canada, conducted a 2-year review of oil sands pit lakes
and published the End Pit Lakes Guidance Document (CEMA, 2012).
Most recently, Geller et al. (2012) provided a significant update to
their 1998 guidebook titled Acidic Pit Lakes – Legacies of Surface
Mining of Coal and Metal Ores.
3. Predicting pit wall runoff geochemistry
3.1. Overview
Most geochemical modeling studies of mine pit lakes begin
with the development of a conceptual model that describes the
hydrological and geochemical processes affecting the water and
chemical mass balances of the pit lake. A typical conceptual model
is shown in Fig. 1. These conceptual models commonly include the
processes of wall-rock runoff (also referred to as ‘‘washoff’’) and
wall-rock leaching (also referred to as ‘‘wall-rock flushing’’).
Wall-rock runoff is a surface hydrology process generated by rain-
storms and snowmelt. Ephemeral washoff dissolves efflorescent
salts and oxidation products that may be present on exposed rock
surfaces, and transports dissolved constituents to the lake. Wall-
rock leaching is both a groundwater and lake water process occur-
ring where water is in direct contact with wall rocks over a longer
time scale. For groundwater, chemical leaching occurs in both the
unsaturated and saturated zones along pore spaces, fractures, and
historic mine tunnels that can intersect the pit wall at length scales
ranging from millimeters, to tens of meters, to kilometers, respec-
tively. For lake water, leaching occurs at the submerged water–
rock interface. Transportation rates are generally much slower in
environments where leaching occurs compared to steep, exposed
surfaces where runoff occurs, therefore leaching processes involve
significantly longer reaction times.
The influence of wall-rock runoff generally decreases over time
as the pit progressively fills with water and wall-rocks become
submerged. This is particularly true for sulfidic ore bodies where
Fig. 1. Typical conceptual model of pit lake hydrogeochemical processes for a
closed basin (i.e. terminal pit lake) without groundwater or surface water discharge.
The water table is indicated by a blue line. (For interpretation of the references to
color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
271
the most sulfidic ore is often located in the lower portion of the
pit, and oxide ore and non-mineralized overburden are often
located nearer the top of the pit. Likewise, leaching processes are
also most influential during the early stages of lake filling when
the volume of water is small and the potential reactive area of
wall-rock is relatively large. The influence of leaching decreases
with time due to the relatively low solubility of oxygen in lake
water, and the development of oxidation rimes which isolate
reactive materials from oxidants. However, future wall rock
failures occurring above and below the lake surface can expose
fresh reactive material, allowing for runoff and leaching processes
to begin anew.
While conceptual models typically seem to show these wall-
rock processes as somewhat simple functions of the wall-rock sur-
face area and various chemical release functions, they are in fact
one of the more difficult parts to simulate with reliability in predic-
tive models of pit lake chemistry. The walls of pit lakes are not
smooth surfaces but more typically are covered with rock debris
and are heavily fractured due to the blasting during mining.
Fig. 2 shows typical pit walls with high amounts of rubble left over
after mining has moved on to other parts of the pit. Fig. 3 shows pit
walls with high amounts of fracturing and friable material created
from weathering and acid rock drainage during mining and after
mining ended prior to filling with water. Rain falling on high walls
may take a rapid path down to the pit lake. However, it is clear
from the images in Figs. 2 and 3 that much of the rain that falls
on the other pit walls will not take a rapid path to the water sur-
face but will encounter significant amounts of rubble of variable
grain size and in fracture zones in the pit walls. These pathways
can be expected to increase the potential for leaching and solute
release due to slowed water movement and an increase in the
rock-to-water ratio. The heterogeneity of exposed rock can be
under-represented when using laboratory tests on a limited num-
ber of samples. In addition, many pits have remnant piles of waste
rock deposited in inactive parts of the pit providing additional
material with potential for chemical release to the pit lake.
The process of wall-rock leaching is commonly considered to
result from the flushing of the wall-rocks by groundwater entering
the pit lake and also by wave action of the lake itself at the water–
wall-rock interface. The lake level may fluctuate up and down,
depending on the water balance between inflow and outflow rates.
These fluctuations also provide a potential mechanism for rinsing
weathering products from the wall-rocks and bringing them into
the pit lake.
This section provides a detailed review of different methods
that have been used in modeling studies to represent the processes
of wall-rock runoff and wall-rock leaching. These methods define
the geochemical characteristics of wall-rock runoff and wall-rock
leachate which are key input variables in pit lake prediction
models.
Fig. 2. Typical rubble-fill benches of an active hardrock open pit.
272 D.N. Castendyk et al. / Applied Geochemistry 57 (2015) 267–288
Fig. 3. Images of a weathered pit wall rock above a dry bench that have produced ARD over time.
3.2. Observed effects of wall-rock processes on pit lake water quality
The processes of wall-rock runoff and leaching are not purely
hypothetical but have been observed to affect water quality in
pit lakes. The typical pattern is: 1. Initial rapid concentration
increase due to the release of soluble constituents from weathered
wall-rocks and waste rock left in the pit bottom; 2. Dilution by
groundwater entering the pit which typically has lower metal con-
centrations; and 3. In terminal pit lakes in arid climates, gradual
increase in metal concentrations over time due to evapoconcentra-
tion (i.e. removal of fresh water from evaporation resulting in the
concentration of remaining lake water). For example, Bowell and
Parshley (2005) reported that the presence of reactive secondary
minerals in wall rocks of the Summer Camp pit lake provided a
source of easily leached arsenic, metals, acidity, and sulfate that
were released upon exposure to seasonal rain events. Barker
et al. (2004) concluded that washoff of soluble sulfate minerals
(gypsum and ferricopiapite) from pit walls affected acidity and sul-
fate levels in an alluvial gold-mine pit lake. Perhaps an extreme
example of wall-rock effects was described by Triantafyllidis and
Skarpelis (2006), who reported that an assortment of secondary
sulfate and arsenate minerals in wall-rocks and on the bottom of
an acidic pit lake (pH 2.9–3.1) had a major effect on water chemis-
try. Savage et al. (2009) reported that efflorescences of sulfate salts
comprised of copiapite along with hexahydrite and jarosite accu-
mulated in weathering sulfide zones in wall-rocks of the Harvard
pit lake at the Jamestown Mine, California. Arsenic concentrations
fluctuated seasonally with the highest concentrations tending to
occur in association with seasonal rain, indicating that washoff of
the efflorescence from wall-rocks is a major source of arsenic and
sulfate to the pit lake. Pyrite and other sulfides oxidize in the pres-
ence of humid air (Jerz and Rimstidt, 2004) such that a surface
layer of oxidation products may continually build up and be rinsed
into a pit lake during rainfall.
The likelihood for wall-rock processes to have a deleterious
effect on water quality has been recognized during pit lake model-
ing studies as part of closure planning (Meyer et al., 1997; Warren
et al., 1997; Dowling et al., 2004). Work on the Sleeper pit lake in
Nevada by Dowling et al. (2004) led to a mitigation plan to cover
remnant waste rock in the pit with oxide waste and alluvial mate-
rial to isolate sulfidic material and provide alkalinity. In addition,
alkaline groundwater was pumped into the pit to rapidly submerge
sulfidic wall rocks, thereby minimizing the potential for oxidation
and release of acidity from wall-rock leaching reactions. The chem-
istry of the pit lake evolved as expected with an initially slightly
acidic water (pH < 4) due to washoff and release of acidic salts from
wall rocks as it rapidly filled. Lime was added during filling to
maintain near-neutral pH. However, a subsequent waste dump
failure sent 40,000 tons of sulfide waste into the pit lake caused
a drop in pH and increased sulfate and metals. More lime was
added to control the pH. The chemistry of the pit lake eventually
stabilized and met all primary Nevada drinking water standards.
The excellent study and account of events at the Sleeper pit lake
by Dowling et al. (2004) underscored the importance of developing
an understanding of the potential for wall-rock leaching and runoff
to have an adverse effect on water quality in sulfidic pits and to
plan accordingly to mitigate those effects.
3.3. Approaches for modeling wall-rock geochemical processes
A number of different approaches have been developed to rep-
resent wall-rock processes in predictive modeling studies for pit
lakes. Often, the distinction between wall-rock runoff and wall-
rock leaching is not clear in the modeling approaches. An effort
is made here to categorize the approaches for purposes of discus-
sion into the following generalized areas:
 Wall-rock runoff (above the pit lake surface).
– Laboratory and field tests.
– Mineral dissolution kinetics.
 Wall-rock leaching (below the pit lake surface).
– Oxidation modeling and laboratory leaching tests.
– Batch testing with representative water compositions.
The processes of wall-rock runoff and wall-rock leaching are
conceptualized in Fig. 4. Wall-rock runoff is defined as the release
of solutes from the pit walls due to incident rain and flow down the
pit walls into the pit lake. Wall-rock runoff decreases over time as
the pit lake fills, submerging increasing proportions of the wall-
rock until hydrologic steady state is reached. Wall-rock leaching
is defined as the process of solute release at the wall-rock–water
interface due to groundwater inflow into the pit lake and rinsing
of the wall rock due to wave action. Wall rock leaching may also
include mineral dissolution and sulfide oxidation below the water
surface especially in acidic pit lakes with appreciable ferric ion
concentrations.
3.3.1. Estimating wall-rock runoff from laboratory and field tests
The most common approach to representing wall-rock runoff
chemistry in pit lake predictive models involves extrapolating or
‘‘scaling’’ up results from laboratory kinetic tests to field condi-
tions. The laboratory test procedure most commonly used is the
humidity cell test (ASTM, D5744-07e1), although one-time rinse
tests, such as the meteoric water mobility procedure (MWMP)
 D.N. Castendyk et al. / Applied Geochemistry 57 (2015) 267–288
Oxidized
Wallrock Runoff: Walls
Runoff down pit walls Rubble
and fractured zones
Waste
Wallrock Leaching: Flushing
by groundwater and rinsing
by pit water of fractured,
oxidized wallrock
Fig. 4. Conceptualization of wall-rock runoff and wall-rock leaching for pit lakes.
Sub-horizontal arrows reflect the orientation of the hydraulic gradient and the
direction of groundwater flow, whereas vertical dashed arrows indicate the
direction the water table will rise over time.
(NDEP, 2010) and synthetic precipitation leaching procedure
(SPLP) (ASTM D6234-98(2007); also EPA Method 1312) have also
been used. In general, humidity cell tests and MWMP tests are
expected to provide more useful information on leaching because
they rely on a relatively low water-to-rock ratio (1:1) compared
to SPLP tests (20:1). In cases where weathered rock samples are
tested, the first flush from the humidity cell tests may be the most
representative solution composition because it should be at least
partially indicative of the release of secondary salts that may have
built up over time in the wall-rock samples used in the tests. Alter-
natively, the steady state rates of solute release from humidity cells
may be used, depending on climatic conditions. For example, a
tropical climate with regular and heavy rainfall may preclude the
buildup of oxidation products; hence a steady-state release rate
may be appropriate. In contrast, the first flush data from humidity
cell tests may be more appropriate for a climate with long periods
between rainfall or wet season-dry season cycles.
The validity of using laboratory testing data on wall-rock sam-
ples to represent a long-term weathering process of wall-rock run-
off is dependent on the level of oxidation of the tested rock
samples, which is a difficult parameter to estimate. Test results
on fresh, unoxidized core samples would underestimate leaching
rates (with the possible exception of calcite-bearing rocks, where
calcite leaches first). Tests on oxidized material can be expected
to be more representative of the long-term leaching rate but such
material may not be available for feasibility and environmental
permitting studies conducted prior to mine construction.
For mines already in operation, the option to use samples of
actual wall-rock material in laboratory tests may be available.
The use of material from the operating mine would increase the
likelihood that the material has a representative oxidation and
weathering state more representative of the long-term than sam-
ples of unexposed core. In addition, mine-wall stations may be
used to isolate a portion of wall rock and collect leachate samples
from a measured surface area following the procedures pioneered
by Morin and Hutt (2006).
The data from laboratory kinetic tests provide a measure of the
mass of soluble constituents released per mass of rock (fExpM) per
unit of time [(mg/kg)/yr]. Laboratory kinetic tests are generally
conducted on samples ground to a small size, such as less than
6.4 mm (0.25 in) for humidity cell tests. The difficulty in applying
these data to make predictions of pit lake chemistry is in develop-
ing a reasonable method to scale up from the laboratory system to
the field system. Kinetic processes are primarily a function of
surface area rather than mass. Thus, the first step in scale up is
273
converting the laboratory test results to be a function of surface
area. The specific surface area (m2/kg) of spherical mineral grains
(Amineral) can be estimated from (White, 1995):
0 1
 2
m @ 6k A
Amineral ¼ h i Gd ½m ð1Þ
kg q m3 kg
where q is the mineral density (kg/m3), Gd is the grain diameter (m),
and k is a surface roughness factor (dimensionless) defined as the
ratio of measured or true surface area to the equivalent geometric
surface area.
Given a median particle size distribution, Eq. (1) may be used to
calculate the surface area of the sample used in the leaching tests
such that release rates are expressed as a function of surface area
(fExpA) rather than sample mass:
h i
  f mg
mg ExpM kg yr
f ExpA ¼ h i ð2Þ
m2 yr A m2
mineral kg
Eq. (2) may be used to calculate the rate of chemical mass additions
of individual solutes (Mi) given an estimate of the surface area con-
tributing wall-rock runoff (Awallrock) to the pit lake:
 
mg
Mi ¼ f ExpA 2
 Awallrock ½m2  ð3Þ
m yr
While these equations are relatively simple, the problem for
predictive models is in estimating values for the important param-
eters of mineral surface roughness (k) in Eq. (1) and the wall-rock
surface area (Awallrock) in Eq. (3). One approach to calculate mineral
surface roughness involves the following: 1. Measure the specific
surface area of the mineral (m2) using the BET gas adsorption
method (Brunauer et al., 1938), where surface area is proportional
to the volume of gas adsorbed by the sample; 2. Measure the aver-
age radius (r) of mineral grains using optical microscopy; 3. Calcu-
late the geometric surface area (m2) using r and the equation for
the area of a sphere (i.e. A = 4pr2); and 4. Divide the specific surface
area by the geometric area to calculate mineral surface roughness.
According to the compilation of White (1995), values of surface
roughness range from 2 to 10 for unweathered silicates, from 50
to 200 for sand-sized soils developed from granitic bedrock, and
up to 1000 for very weathered soils. The range of 10–200 is prob-
ably reasonable for most mine pits that are comprised of relatively
fresh rock exposures. Surface roughness factors are generally
independent of grain size for a given sample type and degree of
weathering (White, 1995).
Alternatively, estimations of the wall-rock surface areas
(Awallrock) can be made from detailed drawings of the pit walls
and benches generated using computer aided design (CAD)
software that show the areas of the important rock or alteration
types. Surface area estimates may also be made from surveys of
pit geometry integrated into geographic information systems
(GIS) software. Both approaches tend to oversimplify small-scale
variations in wall-rock roughness which in turn underestimates
surface area. Recent advances in remote sensing technology, called
ground-based LiDAR, can measure wide swaths of pit walls with
centimeter-scale resolution by illuminating wall-rocks with a laser
and analyzing the reflected light, and can minimize this error.
However, the walls of open pits have been subjected to blasting
and depressurization leading to abundant fractures and joints.
Fractures from blasting in granite are reported to have depths that
range up to 1.1 m (Siskind and Fumanti, 1974), although the actual
range at any given pit will be dependent on the rock type and wall
stability. Morin and Hutt (2006) reported ratios of actual exposed
wall-rock surface area to geometric surface area measurements
range from 27:1 to 161:1 for three case studies of pits.
274 D.N. Castendyk et al. / Applied Geochemistry 57 (2015) 267–288
An additional consideration in the determination of wall-rock
surface area is that open pits often contain some amount of waste
rock and possibly tailings that may be deposited in various non-
active parts of the pit to save on hauling costs at the end of mining.
Also, erosion and collapse of benches may yield large amounts of
variably sized material in the pit walls (Fig. 2). These materials will
provide an extra source of leachable solutes that will be released to
the pit lake. The same approach outlined above for the pit walls
may be applied to these waste materials to estimate solute releases
but with modification of the surface area factors and consideration
of oxidation processes that will largely cease once waste materials
are submerged.
Laboratory leaching tests provide data on solute releases for an
aggregate rock sample representing a particular rock or alteration
type in the pit walls as a function of the lake surface elevation.
The elevation function is important in accounting for the submer-
gence of at least the lower portions of the pit walls as the pit lake
fills over time thereby decreasing the chemical load from wall-rock
runoff. Thus, Eqs. (1)–(3) will generally need to be applied to each
rock or alteration type present in the pit walls given their respec-
tive wall-rock surface areas and potential time dependence in the
event that they become submerged.
3.3.2. Estimating wall-rock runoff from mineral dissolution kinetics
A second approach for representing wall-rock runoff chemistry
involves calculation of solute release rates based on empirical rate
expressions for mineral dissolution. This approach fundamentally
requires determination of the area of specific reacting minerals in
the pit wall rocks. Tempel et al. (2000) developed the following
equation for this approach (see also Bird and Mahoney, 1994 and
Castendyk and Webster-Brown, 2007b):
   
mol mol
Mi ¼ Awallrock ½m2   P mineral%  Di 2  3:15E
yr m sec
sec
þ7  f reactivity
yr
where Mi is the rate of molar additions of individual solutes per
year, Pmineral% is the weight percentage of the mineral in the wall
rock, Di is the published dissolution rate for the individual mineral
making up the wall rocks, and freactivity is a dimensionless reactivity
factor.
Rate expressions for dissolution of a wide range of minerals are
available in the compilation of Palandri and Kharaka (2004). The
more difficult parameters in Eq. (4) to determine are again the wall
rock surface area (for the same reasons as described above), the
weight percentage of different minerals comprising the wall rocks
(Pmineral%), and the reactivity factor (freactivity). The percentages of
the different minerals in the wall rocks can be determined from
mapping mineral assemblages in wall rocks and detailed mineral-
ogical analyses of representative samples from each assemblage as
described by Castendyk et al. (2005). Their approach quantified
mineral concentrations by: 1. Using X-ray diffraction (XRD) for
mineral identification; 2. Using X-ray fluorescence (XRF) and Leco
furnace (required for sulfur and carbon species) to quantify ele-
mental masses; and 3. Assigning elemental mass to known miner-
als which defined the weight percent of each mineral in each
mineral assemblage. This study was more directly applied to
assessing mineral leaching in the submerged portion of the pit
lake, however, the same approach could be applied to determine
minerals reacting with wall rock runoff. By using a reactivity factor
of unity (freactivity = 1), this study performed a sensitivity analysis
using order-of-magnitude variations in wall rock surface area
(Awallrock) to account for the error in surface area measurements.
Alternatively, mineral percentages may be estimated from
maps of rock type areas and available data on mineral abundances
for each rock type. Tempel et al. (2000) used the approach based on
Eq. (4) along with water balance calculations to model the chemis-
try of an existing pit lake. The term freactivity is a scaling factor used
to extrapolate laboratory data to field conditions. It is empirical in
nature and can only be reasonably estimated with confidence by
comparison of model simulation results to measured data through
a calibration process. Tempel et al. (2000) determined a value of
1000 for the reactivity factor (freactivity) through a calibration pro-
cess. The best guidance that is available at the current time is
through consideration of the range of potential values; the value
of 1000 for the reactivity factor is within the approximate range
that could be obtained from the combination of surface roughness
factors (10–200) and ratios of exposed wall rock to geometric wall
rock (27:1–161:1), discussed above.
A potential problem with both of these mineral dissolution
approaches is that the potential process of washoff of sulfide oxi-
dation products accumulating between infrequent rain events in
arid locations may not be specifically represented in calculations.
For mines with relatively non-reactive or very low amounts of sul-
fides, washoff of oxidation products may not be important. For
other mines with exposed sulfide minerals, oxidation and washoff
may need to be explicitly included in modeling formulations.
3.3.3. Estimating wall-rock leaching from oxidation modeling and
laboratory leaching tests
Many of the first pit lake predictive models used the results
from kinetics tests as direct representations of the chemistry of
leachates produced from the flushing of wall rocks with groundwa-
ter filling the pit (Kirk et al., 1996; Pillard et al., 1996). However, it
was recognized there should be a finite amount of solute release
from groundwater flushing, and over time, the inflowing water
from the groundwater system should approach the groundwater
chemical composition. The approach used to determine the finite
amount of solute release commonly has been based on the
Davis–Ritchie equations (Davis and Ritchie, 1986a; Davis et al.,
ð4Þ 1986b) that describe pyrite oxidation as a function of the rate of
oxygen diffusion into the wall-rock (Davis et al., 2006;
Fennemore et al., 1998; Kempton et al., 1997). The Davis–Ritchie
approach represents the rock as a homogeneous mass into which
oxygen may diffuse and travel through air and water-filled pore
spaces. Fennemore et al. (1998) revised the Davis–Ritchie approach
to account for moisture content and fracture density. These model-
ing approaches yield a thickness for the oxidized rim of the wall
rock as a function of time where the thickness is a function of
the rock physical properties (porosity, fracture density), pyrite con-
tent (plus any other oxidizing sulfides), and time. The time period
for oxidation is the time of exposure during mining plus the time
after mining ends until submergence. Generally, it is assumed that
oxidation reactions are negligible after the wall rock becomes
submerged by the rising pit lake thereby greatly reducing the
availability of oxygen (Davis et al., 2006).
The concepts of oxidation modeling and solute release are
shown in idealized form in Fig. 5. The sulfide minerals in exposed
wall rock are oxidized as oxygen diffuses into the rock matrix along
grain boundaries and cracks. The oxygen is consumed by oxidation
thereby limiting the thickness of the oxidized zone to a thin rim
that gradually thickens over time as the sulfides are dissolved.
The Davis–Ritchie type of equations and subsequent improve-
ments by Fennemore et al. (1998) provide a means to calculate
the thickness of the oxidation zone with time. The products of oxi-
dation are assumed to accumulate as soluble secondary solids
within the oxidized rim during the period of exposure during min-
ing and prior to mine closure and submergence. After mine closure
and cessation of dewatering systems, groundwater flows into the
pit flushing the accumulated oxidation products into the emerging
pit lake. Eventually as the oxidation products are rinsed out and

Oxidized Rim
O2
O2
9 10
Oxidaon Thickness (m)
8
7
No fractures
6
5
4
3
2
0 1
0 10 20 30 40 50
Years
Fig. 5. Idealized depiction of leached rim of a wall rock with calculations of
oxidation thickness adapted from Fennemore et al. (1998).
wall rocks submerged, the influent water composition should
approximate the groundwater composition.
With the thickness of the oxidized wall rock estimated by oxi-
dation modeling, the next step is to determine rates of chemical
release resulting from oxidation. The typical procedure for deter-
mining chemical release functions is to use data from laboratory
kinetic tests (e.g., humidity cell tests or column leaching tests).
Kinetic tests yield data on the concentrations of solutes as a func-
tion of the time obtained from a weekly cycle of three days of dry
air circulation, three days of humid air circulation, and one day of
rinsing with water. Ideally, this cycle is continued until steady
state concentrations are obtained, which may take up to a year
(i.e. 52-week cycle) or more. Often 20-week or 40-week cycles
are used, however, experience shows that the longer the cycle
time, the better. The concentration data from the kinetic tests are
normalized to concentrations per pore volume (Vpore) of solution
rinsed through the samples during testing where one pore volume
is the amount of water filling the entirety of the pore space of the
granular rock sample used in the test, and porosity (/) is defined as
the pore volume divided by the total sample volume of rock used in
the kinetic test (Vsample):
V pore ½L
/¼
V sample ½L
Normalizing to pore volumes allows the data to be related to
the rate of inflow of groundwater through the oxidized wall-rock
rim. For example, a test conducted on a 1.0 kg mass of sample
(Msample) will usually be leached with an equivalent solution
weight of 1.0 kg, or 1.0 L water, called the weekly rinse volume
(Vrinse). [For example, if the sample has with a bulk density (qb)
of 1.0 kg/L and a porosity (/) of 40%, the sample will have a total
volume (Vtotal) of 1.0 L and a pore volume (Vpore) of 0.4 L. By divid-
ing the weekly rinse volume (1.0 L) by one pore volume, we calcu-
lated that each weekly cycle of oxidation and rinsing is equal to 2.5
pore volumes (Vpore).] The chemical release function (fCR) for a
given dissolved parameter in units of mg/kg per pore volume
(Vpore) (mg/kg/L) is obtained from:
D.N. Castendyk et al. / Applied Geochemistry 57 (2015) 267–288 275
  hmgi
Non-Oxidized mg 1
f CR ¼ Concentration  V rinse ½L 
kg L L Msample ½kg
1
 ð6Þ
/  V sample ½L
Multiplication of the chemical release function (fCR) by the mass
of oxidized rock estimated from oxidation modeling produces the
rate of mass input of solutes to the pit lake as a function of the pore
volumes of groundwater passing through the wall rock en route to
the pit lake. The size of the pore volumes is typically approximated
from estimates of blast depths and porosity of the blasted zone.
Blast-zone depths are generally less than 1.1 m (Siskind and
Fumanti, 1974) and porosities may range from 5% to 45%, depend-
ing on rock type and blast pattern. Pore volumes are approxima-
tions due to the fact that most pit lake water quality predictions
are made prior to mining, and during mining, safety concerns
preclude working directly on pit walls to make close inspections.
The chemical release function for solutes produced from oxida-
With fractures
tion should theoretically decrease over time as the oxidation prod-
ucts are washed out, at which time concentrations should
approach the composition of the influent groundwater. This trend
may be followed if samples were already oxidized prior to testing.
60 70 80 90 Under these circumstances, Schafer et al. (2006) pointed out that if
representative oxidized samples are used in kinetic tests, the
concentration after any number of pore volumes (CVpore) can be
described by a simple mixing calculation between the end mem-
bers consisting of the initial flush concentration and influent
groundwater concentration:
C Vpore ¼ C Vpore¼0 for V pore 6 1 ð7Þ
M Vpore¼0  MGW
C Vpore ¼ C GW þ for V pore > 1 ð8Þ
V pore
where CVpore=0 is the initial flush concentration obtained from the
first pore volume rinsed through an oxidized sample, MVpore=0 is
the mass within the initial flush calculated by CVpore=0  Vpore, CGW
is the groundwater concentration, and MGW is the mass in an equiv-
alent volume of groundwater calculated by CGW  Vpore. Using the
initial flush may not well represent rocks that have a long lag period
prior to consumption of neutralization capacity and initiation of
acidity. Under these circumstances, using the leaching rates from
the period of acid generation will likely yield a more reasonable
representation of potential solute loads created from sulfide oxida-
tion and subsequent metal leaching.
In practice, there are some potential problems in obtaining data
that are clearly indicative of an eventual end to flushing of oxida-
tion products. First, the endpoint in Eq. (8) may take a very long
time to establish in kinetic tests. Second, if the pit lake modeling
effort is being conducted prior to mining, then the only available
samples for testing may be core samples that have not been sub-
jected to oxidation. Third, the release of nitrogen compounds from
ð5Þ blast residue is very difficult to estimate without samples from
active mining operations. Under these circumstances, it may be
reasonable to make the assumption that the fCR asymptotically
approaches groundwater composition over some set number of
pore volumes. Typical numbers range from 3 to 20 pore volumes,
depending on the reactivity of the rock and length of time required
for pit lake filling.
3.3.4. Estimating wall-rock leaching from batch tests with
representative water compositions
The methods described above rely on a combination of labora-
tory test interpretation and mathematical models. Both of these
aspects require estimating a number of parameters that are extrap-
olated to field conditions. This approach results in a range of
uncertainties that are very difficult to quantify. Another approach
276 D.N. Castendyk et al. / Applied Geochemistry 57 (2015) 267–288

described in the literature involves creating analogue pit lake and has the advantage of yielding directly measureable informa-
water compositions by mixing together solutions with composi- tion about secondary mineral precipitation processes and their
tions meant to represent each of the major chemical loads to a effects on metal and metalloid concentrations.
pit lake (Davis, 2003; Schafer et al., 2006). The solution mixture For any of the above approaches for representing the solute load
is allowed to equilibrate for a period of time after which the chem- generated from water–rock reactions in pit walls, it is important to
ical composition is analyzed along with any mineral precipitates consider the geoenvironmental characteristics of the deposit
that may have formed as a result of mixing. Colloquially, such exploited in the open pit when evaluating their effects on water
bench-top column experiments (i.e. microcosm) and field-based chemistry through numerical modeling. The pit lake database
tank experiments (i.e., mesocosm) experiments have been called (Johnson and Castendyk, 2012) provides data from existing pit
the ‘‘pit lake in a bucket’’ approach. lakes that can be used to make comparisons. Eary and Castendyk
Davis (2003) described this type of procedure as an analogue pit (2012) provide summaries of water chemistry trends for different
lake test. Davis (2003) developed a water balance for a pit lake to types of ore deposits that can also provide some means for making
determine the proportions of different inflows, including rainfall, comparisons.
stream water additions, wall-rock runoff, and groundwater. These
proportions were determined for the early period of filling and the
4. Predicting the pit lake water balance
late stage of filling to take into account the increase in proportion
of rainfall that was predicted to occur as the pit lake increased in
4.1. Overview
size over time. A portion of the water was allowed to evaporate
as well to represent the real system over time. Precipitates were
The pit lake water balance specifies the volumes of water added
collected and analyzed for mineralogy and metal content. Finally,
to and removed from the pit lake by various sources and outputs
the solution mixing and resulting mineral precipitation were sim-
over time. Sources include pit wall runoff, groundwater inflow,
ulated with the PHREEQC geochemical model (Parkhurst and
direct precipitation, and possibly surface water via the diversion
Appelo, 1999) for comparison to the experimental results. Good
of stream water into the pit. Pit wall runoff is typically the single
agreement was observed between measured and simulated solu-
largest contributor of MIW to the lake, however, groundwater
tion compositions. The advantages to this approach include: 1.
can also be significant in some cases (Werner et al., 2001). Lake
Experiments are relatively simple in concept and easy to conduct;
outputs include evaporation, groundwater outflow, and possibly
and 2. Solutions can be mixed in different proportions to examine
surface water discharge. Fig. 6A shows a conceptual model of a
the effects of potential mitigation measures or addition of other
‘‘flow-through pit lake’’ that discharges groundwater and/or sur-
materials to the pit lake such as tailings.
face water to the surrounding environment, whereas Fig. 6B shows
Schafer et al. (2006) also developed an improved approach to
a conceptual model of a ‘‘terminal pit lake’’ that only loses water
predicting pit lake water quality through batch mixing tests. They
via evaporation. Key questions asked by stakeholders include:
conducted large-scale column tests to obtain the chemical compo-
sitions of leachates created by the movement of groundwater
 How long will it take for the pit lake to fill to a constant, steady-
through weathered rock representative of pit wall rocks and mate-
state level?
rial under consideration as a partial backfill for the pit. The solu-
 How much water will discharge from the lake after lake filling?
tions from the column leaching tests were mixed with other pit
 What is the water quality of lake discharge?
lake inflows according to proportions obtained from hydrologic
 What aquifers and surface water bodies will ultimately receive
modeling of the pit lake water balance. The other inflows included
pit lake discharge?
precipitation, runoff from exposed high walls as represented by
 How will pit lake discharge affect the short and long-term water
solutions from unsaturated column leaching tests, groundwater
quality, aquatic ecology, and resource potential of surface water
flow-through wall rocks and backfill material as represented by
and groundwater resources receiving pit lake water?
first flush solutions from saturated column leaching tests con-
ducted with deep groundwater and weathered rock samples. The
This section describes the use of a pit lake water balance to
solutions were allowed to equilibrate and evaporate. Mineral pre-
answer the first two questions which inform subsequent pit-
cipitates formed from solution mixing were analyzed by XRD and
lake-water-quality prediction models. Both ‘‘analytical’’ and
scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
‘‘numerical’’ approaches are referenced below. In this context, ana-
The PHREEQC geochemical model (Parkhurst and Appelo, 1999)
lytical problems are those which can be solved using algebraic
was used by Schafer et al. (2006) to simulate the equilibration and
equations in a spreadsheet program (e.g. Microsoft Excel), whereas
mineral precipitation processes. The PHREEQC model was found to
numerical problems involve simultaneously solving a matrix of
provide a reasonably accurate simulation of major ions, pH, and
equations by iteration using a computer program with a numerical
calcite precipitation but simulations of trace elements (e.g., anti-
solver package (e.g. MODFLOW).
mony, arsenic, nickel, zinc) were of variable accuracy (Schafer
et al., 2006). To improve the predictions of metal concentrations,
Schafer et al. (2006) adjusted equilibrium constants and adsorption 4.2. Direct rainfall and evaporation volumes
constants in the PHREEQC thermodynamic database through an
iterative calibration process. The adjustments were based on the Local climate dictates the volume of water added to a lake via
mineralogical analyses of precipitates from the batch tests that direct rainfall. In the United States, regional monthly and annual
showed the association of the metals with specific solid phases rainfall data can be obtained through the National Weather Ser-
in forms not included in the PHREEQC database. For instance, the vice. For new mine sites, it is advisable to install a weather station
analyses showed that arsenic was associated with calcium carbon- on-site to record local variations in rainfall as well as air tempera-
ate phases (calcite and aragonite) rather than ferric hydroxide. The ture, wind speed, and wind direction because local microclimates
calibrated model provided an accurate prediction of the metal con- can significantly modify local conditions from regional trends. Typ-
centrations in the batch tests providing assurance that the model ically, the average annual rainfall received over a 30-year period is
was capable of yielding a reliable prediction of the field system a useful starting point for pit lake predictions. To account for
over time. The approach developed by Schafer et al. (2006) annual variations in rainfall, the modeler may use a cumulative
provides an alternative to purely numerical modeling approaches frequency plot showing annual rainfall versus probability for all
 D.N. Castendyk et al. / Applied Geochemistry 57 (2015) 267–288 277

Runoff
High Precipitation Low Evaporation

Water Table Overflow

Water Table

Groundwater IN Groundwater OUT

Groundwater IN/OUT

Fig. 6A. Simplified water balance model for a flow-through pit lake in a humid climate (modified from Castendyk, 2009a). Both groundwater outflow and surface water
overflow are shown, however, it is unlike that both will be significant in a flow-through pit lake.

Runoff

High Evaporation Low Precipitation

Water Table Water Table

Groundwater IN Groundwater IN

Groundwater IN

Fig. 6B. Simplified water balance model for a terminal pit lake in an arid climate (modified from Castendyk, 2009a).

available data. From this plot, the modeler can also determine a
minimum rainfall value (i.e. 10% of all years receive a rainfall 6x)
and a maximum rainfall value (i.e. 10% of all years receive a rainfall
of Px), which can also be considered in subsequent models. Dunne
and Leopold (1978) provided instruction on the development of
cumulative frequency plots.
The quality of rainwater local rainwater is also an important
factor to characterize, as rainwater pH and composition change
from region to region (Drever, 1997). Direct collection of water
samples from local rain events, coupled with published rainwater
data can be used to define this variable.
Annual evaporation rates are more difficult to estimate than
rainfall rates. Common methods include: 1. Direct measurement
of evaporation pan or lake evaporation; 2. Analytical calculations
based on observed solar radiation, air temperature, relative humid-
ity, and wind speed; and 3. Numerical models. Not all weather sta-
tions have a 30-year record of daily pan evaporation, however, the
National Weather Service provides the input data for the analytical
calculations and numerical models, plus regional evaporation
maps (http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/soilmst/e.shtml). Wind has
a strong influence on evaporation rates because it removes the sat-
urated air lying just above the lake surface, which promotes further
evaporation. Dingman (2002) provided several methods to calcu-
late the free-water evaporation rate based on regional meteorolog-
ical or climatic conditions. The lake evaporation is determined by
adjusting the free-water evaporation rate to account for advection
and heat-storage effects in a lake. Obviously, it is difficult to
directly apply these methods in advance of mining because the
pit lake does not exist. Moreover, the walls of the pit are likely to
reduce the wind velocity such that wind speeds measured near
the rim of the pit are likely to differ from conditions that will exist
over the future lake surface (Stevens et al., 2002). As such, the
modeler may need to assume an evaporation rate from regional
maps which will introduce errors to the prediction, rather than
measuring a site specific value. Additional errors will be introduced
if climate changes significantly over the life of the pit lake. For
example, Hoerling and Eischeid (2007) demonstrated that present
evaporation and evapotransporation rates (both of which are tem-
perature dependent) in the western United States are predicted to
increase over time as a function of increased surface air tempera-
ture. Modelers can account for this uncertainty by conducting a
sensitivity analysis on evaporation rates.
Some generalizations regarding pit lake behavior may be sur-
mised once values for rainfall and evaporation are defined. Humid
climates exist in areas where annual rainfall exceeds annual evapo-
ration, such as pit lakes in the eastern United States (Seal et al., 2006;
Wyatt et al., 2006; Mase et al., 2008) and in central and northern Eur-
ope (Ramstedt et al., 2003; Schultze et al., 2010). During lake filling,
these lakes tend to receive a greater proportion of wall-rock runoff
that can strongly influence lake water chemistry relative to other
input sources. To minimize these reactions, the Island Copper Pit
Lake on the west coast of Canada was artificially flooded with sea
water over several days (Pelletier et al., 2009). The addition of sur-
face water to a pit during mine closure may only be an option in
humid climates where the diversion of surface water from local
rivers will not have excessive impacts on river ecosystems or
278 D.N. Castendyk et al. / Applied Geochemistry 57 (2015) 267–288
downstream water users. Hypothetically, once steady state condi-
tions are achieved in a humid climate pit lake, excess direct rainfall
should lead to the dilution of dissolved concentrations over time.
However, Castendyk and Webster-Brown (2007b) predicted that
MIW from unmitigated wall-rock runoff at a future pit lake in New
Zealand may gradually increase dissolved concentrations and acid-
ity over time (see Part 2; Castendyk, Balistrieri, Gammons and Tucci,
this volume). Humid climate lakes are also likely to exhibit flow-
through conditions once steady-state conditions are achieved
(Fig. 6A). In comparison to a terminal pit lake with an equivalent vol-
ume, a flow-through pit lake will have a shorter residence time for
lake water. Consequently, lake water in direct contact with wall
rocks will have less time for leaching reactions, and the magnitude
of maximum concentrations will be limited by mass loss via surface
discharge and by dilution from direct precipitation.
Conversely, arid climate pit lakes exist where annual evapora-
tion exceeds rainfall, such as the western United States (Davis
and Eary, 1997; Shevenell et al., 1999), Western Australia
(Oldham et al., 2009; McCullough et al., 2009), and southwest
Europe (Sánchez España et al., 2008). Most pit lake studies to date
have been conducted in arid regions. On an annual basis, ground-
water provides the largest portion of input to the developing lake
with occasional pulses of direct rainfall and wall-rock runoff from
storms and snowmelt. The annual volume of water lost by evapo-
ration increases as the lake fills and the lake surface area increases.
Ultimately, the rate of groundwater input roughly equals the rate
of evaporation at which point the lake has reached its steady-state
water level. The lake filling process is slow in arid climates and
lakes in arid regions may take hundreds of years to achieve
steady-state (Kempton et al., 1997). If evaporation is the only
process that removes water from the lake, then the lake becomes
a terminal point for local groundwater flow and is called a terminal
pit lake (Fig. 6B). This does not imply that the local water table is
flat, but rather that a local groundwater divide surrounds the pit
lake. Fetter (2001) and Castendyk (2009a) provide flownets of ter-
minal lakes which illustrate this hydrogeology.
All pit lakes are initially terminal pit lakes and only become
flow-through lakes if the elevation of lake water exceeds the sur-
rounding water table or overtops a surface water divide during
steady-state conditions. Pit lakes in arid climates may remain ter-
minal during steady-state conditions, although mines excavated in
mountainous terrains high above the surrounding topography may
discharge groundwater to deep aquifers and thus exhibit flow-
through conditions. Local groundwater quality strongly influences
the water quality of arid climate pit lakes. As noted above, these
lakes have a higher residence time compared to flow through lakes
of equal volume. The loss of water via evaporation increases the
concentrations of dissolved solids over time until the water
achieves equilibrium with specific minerals; a process known as
evapoconcentration. Eary (1998, 1999) discussed the effects of
evapoconcentration on pit lakes in arid climates, and defines min-
erals that are likely to precipitate from solution and thereby limit
the maximum dissolved concentrations of some elements.
4.3. Wall-rock runoff volume
Open pit mines are anthropogenic topographic depressions that
can become closed surface water basins after closure. The highest
elevations surrounding the pit become temporary (i.e. flow-
through lakes) or permanent (i.e. terminal lakes) surface water
divides. As such, most of the rain (or snow) landing inside the pit
divide that does not evaporate (or sublimate) will flow to lake as
either wall-rock runoff or shallow groundwater seepage. The dis-
turbed surfaces created during mining, including the pit walls,
bench tops, pit floor, and roads (Figs. 2 and 3), will typically have
a low capacity for rainwater infiltration due to the low porosity
of exposed rock, the steepness of pit walls, and the compaction
of loose sediments along hall roads by machinery. As a result, a
high percentage of rainwater volume landing inside the basin will
become surface water in the form of wall-rock runoff (Fig. 4).
One of the simplest analytical methods to calculate the volume
of runoff added to a pit lake during a rain event is the Rational
Method (Fetter, 2001):
   
m3 m
Q runoff ¼ c  Irain  Acatchment ½m2  ð9Þ
day day
The average rainfall rate (Irain) is multiplied by the area of the
pit catchment (Acatchment; this area excludes the area of the devel-
oping lake surface), and a dimensionless runoff coefficient (c) to
give the volume of runoff over time (Qrunoff). The runoff coefficient
is an empirically-determined constant that defines the fraction of
rainwater that becomes runoff, and the fraction of water that infil-
trates the land surface to become vadose water and ultimately
groundwater [see Fetter (2001) for a table of representative c val-
ues which are ranked according to properties of the land surface].
The Rational Method is designed for catchments with areas less
than 100 hectares, and only applies to storms that are longer in
duration than the length of time required for water to flow from
the farthest catchment divide to the lake shoreline (Fetter, 2001).
With these assumptions in mind, modelers can calculate an initial
approximation of the volume of runoff added annually to the lake
by multiplying the annual rainfall rate by the catchment area and
an appropriate mine runoff coefficient. The Rational Method
should be used as a first order approximation of runoff volumes.
Dingman (2002) provided additional analytical equations for
rainfall–runoff relationships. Several numerical models are also
available, such as PRMS offered by the U.S. Geological Survey
(http://water.usgs.gov/cgi-bin/man_wrdapp?prms).
The fraction of rainwater that does not become wall-rock runoff
will either take a shallow flow path and discharge to the pit as
vadose zone seepage (Fig. 4), or it will infiltrate to the water table
and become part of local groundwater (see below). In a simple
model where all rainwater flows into the pit without contacting
groundwater, the volume of seepage is equal to the daily volume
of water infiltrating through the land surface (Qinfiltration). This infil-
tration term is derived from the Rational Method as follows:
   3  3
m m m
Irain  Acatchment ½m2  ¼ Q runoff þ Q infiltration ð10Þ
day day day
Finally, an areal recharge rate (W; m/day) is defined as the daily
linear addition of infiltration across the entire pit catchment area:
h i
  Q m3
m infiltration day
W ¼ ð11Þ
day Acatchment ½m2 
A numerical vadose-zone flow model may be required to handle
scenarios where a fraction of infiltration recharges soil moisture, a
fraction recharges the water table, and a fraction discharges to the
pit wall as seepage.
4.4. Groundwater volume
Permanent pit lakes will only develop at open pit mines that
extend below the pre-mining water table. In general, the pre-min-
ing water table will be relatively close to the surface for mines sit-
uated in humid climates or topographic low points, whereas it will
be relatively deep for mines situated in arid climates or topo-
graphic highs. As previously discussed, all pit lakes begin as termi-
nal discharge points for local groundwater and fill to a steady-state
lake level where lake inputs balance lake outputs. In some cases,
ephemeral pit lakes may develop above the water table in response
to extreme rain events or snow melt, especially if pits are underlain
 D.N. Castendyk et al. / Applied Geochemistry 57 (2015) 267–288
by low-permeability bedrock or if a layer of low-permeability sed-
iment accumulates at the bottom of the pit. Such lakes eventually
drain through a combination of evaporation and infiltration.
The following site-specific information may be needed to fully
assess the groundwater hydrology of a pit lake:
 Pre-mining depth of the water table below the land surface.
 Depth and geometry of the pit.
 Hydrogeologic parameters of each lithologic unit inter-
sected by the pit, including; hydraulic conductivity, effec-
tive porosity, thickness, transmissivity, and storativity.
 Potentiometric surface(s) and hydraulic gradients surround-
ing the open pit before, during, and after pumping.
 The groundwater recharge rate to each lithologic unit inter-
secting the pit.
 The locations of groundwater divides and impervious
boundaries that surround the pit both horizontally and
vertically.
 Pumping rates and pumping times, plus pump locations and
screen intervals.
 Hydrologic characteristics of major structural features, such
as faults, and historic workings (i.e. vertical and horizontal
tunnels) intersected by the pit; and
 Hydrologic characteristics of blast-generated fractures in
wall-rock, including the fracture-density, depth, area, and
aperture.
One of the most important and time-intensive aspects of
groundwater modeling is the hydrogeologic characterization of
wall-rock. Ore deposits develop in complex hydrogeologic settings
that involve a range of lithologies and geologic structures. Faults,
fractures, and joints create secondary porosity and preferential
flow paths in preexisting rocks, whereas the precipitation of new
minerals in pore spaces reduces both primary and secondary
porosity. Superimposed upon these natural characteristics is the
anthropogenic porosity caused by mining, including underground
workings and shafts, and blast-generated fractures. As such, mod-
elers should expect groundwater flow to be heterogeneous and
anisotropic around open pit mines. To define flow characteristics,
modelers need to consider variations in wall-rock lithology, major
faults, joints, and fractures, as well as blast-generated fractures in
the wall rock. If the open pit exists in a previously mined area, his-
torical mine tunnels and shafts that intersect the pit wall can be
high-porosity, preferential flow paths for groundwater and may
have considerable lateral and vertical extent beyond the open pit.
It is difficult to know the exact location and extent of historical
works, and groundwater flow in this terrain may exhibit similar
complexity as karst groundwater environments. A careful study
of historical mine maps and geologic maps combined with field
based observations, aquifer pump tests, and lab permeability tests
may be required to account for the heterogeneity and anisotropy of
site parameters. Niccoli (2009a) provided further discussion of
hydrogeologic characterization.
Ultimately, the modeler will need to develop a conceptual
model of groundwater flow that accounts for the major groundwa-
ter flow features and simplifies the minor variations. Oversimplifi-
cation will lead to errors in groundwater predictions, whereas too
much detail increases the time, effort, and numerical complexity of
the model (Anderson and Woessner, 1992). Typically, errors in a
prediction are caused by errors in the conceptual model, which
makes the development of a conceptual model one of the most
important and time consuming aspects of modeling.
During the planning phase of mining, companies are interested
in the volume of water that must be pumped in order to lower the
water table below the active mine surface. To address this
question, the company needs to define the required depth and
279
lateral extent of the proposed open pit, and conduct field tests
to define aquifer characteristics. These tests involve drilling a
pumping well and an observation well at the proposed mine site,
and monitoring the depth of the water table in the observation
well during a 24-h pump test. With this information, the Theis
Equation provides a simple analytical tool to calculate the depth
and shape of the cone of depression required to dewater the open
pit at any given time (Bair and Lahm, 2006):
Q1 Q Q
stotal ¼ Wðu1 Þ þ 2 Wðu2 Þ þ    þ n Wðun Þ ð12Þ
4p T 4pT 4pT
where stotal is the composite drawdown (m) of the water table
below the mine produced by n pumping wells, Qn (m3/day) is the
pumping rate of each well, T (m2/day) is the transmissivity of the
aquifer, u is a dimensionless constant and W(u) is the dimensionless
‘‘Theis well function.’’ The well function is based on the properties
of the aquifer, the distance between the pumping wells and the cen-
ter of the pit, and the pumping time, and is commonly determined
using the ‘‘Theis curve-matching technique’’ which fits observed
drawdown data to the ‘‘Theis type curve.’’ For more information
on the well function, see Bair and Lahm (2006) or Fetter (2001). It
is important to make sure that the assumptions used to evaluate
drawdown data are consistent with the characteristics of the mine
site and the wells. Key assumptions required for the Theis Method
are that the pumping well is fully penetrating, and the aquifer is
homogeneous and isotropic. Several other methods exist which
may be more applicable to a given mine site or well configuration.
The reader is referred to Fetter (2001) for a review of other
methods.
The pumping wells are turned off at mine closure allowing the
water table to rebound and the open pit to fill with water. At this
point, the open pit essentially acts like a very large diameter well
that fills with water from the pit floor and walls. The groundwater
discharge area (Adischarge; m2) is equal to the sum of the vertical and
horizontal areas through which groundwater discharges, and is ini-
tially limited to the pit floor. A first-order approximation of the
daily groundwater discharge rate during lake filling can be taken
from the daily pumping rate prior to mine closure. For a more
accurate value, Marinelli and Niccoli (2000) provided a series of
analytical equations for calculating changes to groundwater input
to a filling pit lake:
   3  3
m3 m m
Q gwtotal ¼ Q wall þ Q floor ð13Þ
day day day
   
m3 m
Q wall ¼W  p  ðr 20  r 2p Þ ð14Þ
day day
 
m3 K h2
Q floor ¼ 4  rp   ðh0  dÞ ð15Þ
day m2
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
K h2
m2 ¼ ð16Þ
K v2
where Qgwtotal is the total groundwater inflow to the pit per day,
Qwall is the groundwater entering through the walls of the open
pit, and Qfloor is the groundwater entering through the floor of the
pit. For groundwater entering through the pit walls (Eq. (14)), W
(m/day) is the aerial recharge defined in Eq. (11), ro is the radius
(m) of influence which the pit has on groundwater (i.e. half of the
aerial width of the cone of depression), and rp is the geometric radius
(m) of the inside of the pit. For groundwater entering through the pit
floor (Eqs. (15) and (16)), Kh2 is the horizontal hydraulic conductivity
(m/day) of the pit wall, Kv2 is the vertical hydraulic conductivity (m/
day) in the pit wall, m2 is a dimensionless term equal to the square
root of the ratio of horizontal to vertical hydraulic conductivity, ho is
280 D.N. Castendyk et al. / Applied Geochemistry 57 (2015) 267–288
the initial hydraulic head (m) before dewatering, and d is the depth
of water (m) in the pit lake. Both ho and d are defined with respect to
height above the same groundwater datum. Before applying this
approach, the modeler should review the work by Marinelli and
Niccoli (2000) to ensure that the mine site in question meets the cri-
terion specified by the authors.
Three-dimensional, numerical groundwater models such as
MODFLOW are commonly used to estimate the volume of flow into
and out of a pit lake during mine closure. Niccoli (2009b) noted
that numerical models of a pit lake may not necessarily generate
more accurate groundwater prediction than analytical methods,
however, numerical models can handle more complexity and het-
erogeneity than analytical models. Ultimately, all groundwater
predictions should be calibrated using two or more observations
of pit lake water levels after mine closure, and long-range, post-
closure audits should be conducted to ensure that predicted levels
remain within specified confidence intervals (Anderson and
Woessner, 1992).
4.5. Water balance design
Water balances are used to determine the time required to fill a
pit to a steady-state water level, the volume of water expected to
discharge from flow-through pit lakes under steady state-condi-
tions, and the volumes of specific lake inputs and outputs used
in both hydrodynamic and geochemical prediction models. Typi-
cally water balances are calculated analytically on an annual basis
using a spreadsheet programs to tabulate the inputs and outputs of
sources and sinks. Spreadsheet programs also provide an indepen-
dent check on the accuracy of numerical groundwater and hydro-
dynamic models. Discrepancies between analytical and numerical
predictions of lake filling times and lake overflow volumes indicate
that inconsistencies exist within the model design.
To construct a spreadsheet water balance, the modeler must
know the following data:
 Inputs
– Annual rainfall volume landing on the lake surface over time.
– Annual volume of surface water (i.e. streams located outside
the pit catchment area) diverted into the pit over time (if
applicable).
– Annual groundwater input volume over time.
– Annual runoff volume over time.
 Outputs
– Annual evaporation volume from the lake surface over time.
– Annual groundwater outflow volume from the lake over
time.
– Annual surface water volume leaving the lake over time (if
applicable).
 Depth and geometry relationships of the proposed mine site
– Pit volume.
– Ultimate steady-state lake depth ( pre-mining water table
elevation).
– Lake volume and aerial surface area as a function of lake
depth (i.e. hypsograph).
– Pit wall catchment area as a function of lake depth.
– Groundwater inflow/outflow rates as a function of lake
depth.
– Groundwater inflow/outflow areas as a function of lake
depth.
Often these variables are subject to change over time which
introduces errors to the predicted water balance. Climate-
dependent terms may change significantly if climate changes over
the life of the mine or the long term life of the pit lake. Surface
water available for diversion into the pit during lake filling is
typically controlled by regional surface water regulators and
may fluctuate from year to year depending upon the availability
of excess surface water. Most importantly, several terms are
dependent upon the geometry of the mine site which often
changes over the mine life cycle between initial mine planning,
mine development, and mine closure. Because the pit lake water
balance is dependent upon these variables, each change to the
mine plan will affect the pit lake water balance to some
degree as discussed by Castendyk and Webster-Brown (2010). To
minimize this error, stakeholders should update the pit lake water
balance throughout mine development each time major changes to
the mine plan are approved and implemented.
5. Predicting lake mixing
5.1. Overview
The physical limnology of a pit lake is defined by processes that
physically separate the water column into two or more horizontal
layers and processes that vertically mix these layers. Periods of
stratification can produce chemically different water layers
whereas periods of mixing can homogenize portions of the water
column. For these reasons, pit lake modelers need to determine
the frequency and depth of seasonal mixing periods, called ‘‘turn-
over,’’ in order to specify the volumes of mixing layers in geochem-
ical predictions and to identify if a permanently-isolated bottom
layer will develop.
Turnover events influence water chemistry by mixing dissolved
oxygen from the lake surface throughout the water column and by
transporting deep, carbon dioxide-rich water to the lake surface
where it may exsolve raising epilimnion pH. Suboxic or anoxic
hypolimnion may become oxic as a result of lake mixing. This sec-
tion summarizes the procedures used to define a conceptual model
of physical limnology. Numerical models of physical limnology are
called ‘‘hydrodynamic models,’’ and Part 2 of this series describes
the development of a hydrodynamic model for the Dexter Lake,
Nevada (Castendyk, Balistrieri, Gammons, and Tucci, this volume).
5.2. Stratification and mixing
Two simple conceptual models for pit lake limnology describe
holomictic and meromictic pit lakes (Fig. 7). Holomictic pit lakes
have two layers, called the epilimnion (shallow layer) and the
hypolimnion (deep layer), respectively, which completely mix at
least once a year (Fig. 7A). Meromictic pit lakes have at least three
layers: epilimnion and hypolimnion layers that mix at least once a
year and a basal, monimolimnion layer that remains permanently
isolated from the surface environment (Fig. 7B). Although these
terms characterize the most common limnologic behavior
observed in pit lakes, there are a range of other possibilities includ-
ing shallow pit lakes that are perpetually mixed by wind and never
develop stratification, pit lakes that develop four or more density-
separated layers, lakes that begin as holomictic and become
meromictic over time, and lakes that are initially meromictic that
undergo complete top-to-bottom mixing in response to extreme
weather events, landslides, or lake management activities (see
Berkeley Lake in Part 2; Castendyk, Balistrieri, Gammons, and
Tucci, this volume).
The fundamental variables that control physical limnology are
upward stabilizing forces generated by the buoyancy of layers,
and downward mixing forces generated by wind moving over the
lake surface. Imberger and Patterson (1990) described the seasonal
changes in the density structure and buoyancy within the water
column of a temperate zone lake. In general, the temperature
profile during summer and winter conditions produces low density
 D.N. Castendyk et al. / Applied Geochemistry 57 (2015) 267–288
(A) Holomictic pit lake
Oxygen-saturation
Low-oxygen
conditions
Groundwater in,
Groundwater out
(B) Meromictic pit lake
Oxygen-saturation
Low-oxygen
Chemocline
Anoxic
conditions
Monimolimnion
Fig. 7. Conceptual models of holomictic (A) and meromictic (B) pit lakes with
limnologic terminology (modified from Castendyk, 2009a).
epilimnion water overlying higher density hypolimnion water. As a
result, the buoyancy of the epilimnion is strong enough to resist
wind driven mixing and the lake is seasonally stratified. Surface
cooling during the fall and surface warming during the spring min-
imize the density difference between layers. Under these condi-
tions, successive storm events mix epilimnion water with deeper
and deeper portions of the hypolimnion until the lake is
homogenized.
Early pit lake researchers noted that pit lakes have a unique
geometry compared to natural lakes, and questioned whether the
shape of pit lakes could limit whole-lake mixing (Lyons et al.,
1994; Doyle and Runnells, 1997). By comparing lake surface area
(Alake; m2) to maximum depth (zmax; m), sometimes called the
‘‘aspect ratio,’’ researchers concluded that pit lakes tend to be much
deeper than natural lakes of similar surface area. Hutchinson (1957)
provided a useful term for comparing these dimensions called ‘‘rel-
ative depth’’ (zrelative) which is expressed as a percentage:
pffiffiffiffi
50  zmax  p
zrelative ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Asurface
According to Wetzel (2001), natural lakes tend to have
zrelative 6 2% whereas existing pit lakes have zrelative ranging from
1% to 45% (Castendyk, 2009b). In addition, pit lakes tend to have
steep pit walls that are thought to shelter the lake surface from
the maximum wind speeds observed on the rim of the pit. Pit walls
also shade the surface of the lake from incoming solar radiation
which reduces epilimnion temperature and lowers the density
and buoyancy of the layer. Hypothetically, the combination of an
elevated relative depth with wind sheltering should make pit lakes
more likely to develop meromictic conditions than natural lakes
and reservoirs.
281
Several mechanisms have been proposed that explain the devel-
opment of meromictic pit lakes: 1. The geometry of the lake com-
bined with pit-wall wind sheltering impede whole-lake mixing; 2.
Epilimnion
Downward-settling mineral precipitates re-dissolve under reduc-
ing conditions near the lake bottom and increases the salinity
Thermocline
and density of the basal layer, which can result in a monimolim-
nion; and 3. The addition of both high-salinity groundwater and
low-salinity surface water to a filling pit lake results in a density
stratified lake that resists wind mixing. The flooding and
Hypolimnion
Hypolimnion induced-stratification of the Island Copper Pit Lake demonstrated
the significance of the salinity of lake inputs in the development
of meromictic pit lakes, and thereby supports the last mechanism
(Pelletier et al., 2009; Schultze and Boehrer, 2009).
In some cases, such as the Berkeley Lake, Montana (see Part 2;
Castendyk, Balistrieri, Gammons, and Tucci, this volume), mero-
mictic lakes may periodically exhibit whole-lake mixing or gradu-
ally evolve into a holomictic lake. Schultze and Boehrer (2009)
hypothesized that unforeseen, whole-lake turnover events in mer-
omictic lakes could be caused by extreme weather events or major
Epilimnion wall-rock failures. Whole-lake mixing in meromictic lakes could
result in acute environmental impacts to terrestrial and aquatic
Thermocline
ecosystems owing to the transport of monimolimnion water to
Hypolimnion
the lake surface and the rapid release of stored gases such as,
H2S, CH4, and CO2. However, in the case of the Island Copper Pit
Lake, meromictic conditions have benefited lake mitigation efforts
by isolating metal-rich water from the surface environment
(Pelletier et al., 2009). For these reasons, it is important for stake-
holders to know if future pit lakes will become meromictic and if
stratification will endure extreme weather events and periodic
landslides.
5.3. Hydrodynamic predictions
Three tools have been used to predict the physical limnology of
future pit lakes: observations from local natural lakes and reser-
voirs, analytical models based on future lake geometry, and
numerical models. Because local lakes exist in a similar climate
as the future pit lake, data from local lakes can provide a sense
of whether local winds tend to be strong enough to perpetually
or seasonally mix water columns and can also define a range of
likely epilimnion depths during summer stratification, months
when turnover occurs, and months when ice cover exist (if any).
Although site specific conditions at a pit mine can lead to signifi-
cant differences between natural lakes and pit lakes, nevertheless
these data provide a sense of how a future pit lake in a similar cli-
mate may behave and aid the evaluation of numerical prediction
results. The identification of multiple meromictic lakes can indi-
cate local sources of saline groundwater as discussed by Schultze
et al. (2010) in a statistical analysis of over 50 pit lakes in the Cen-
tral German Lignite District.
Several authors have suggested that geometry-based compari-
sons alone can provide indications of whether future pit lakes will
become holomictic or meromictic (Lyons et al., 1994; Doyle and
ð17Þ Runnells, 1997; Castro and Moore, 2000). Owing to the simplicity
of the calculations, relative depth has been widely adopted by
the mining industry and pit lake modelers alike, and relative
depths are frequently reported in pit lake case studies. However,
extensive observations of aspect ratios, relative depths, and the
physical limnology of existing lakes have yet to identify a consis-
tent relationship between geometry and physical limnology that
applies to a wide range of lakes. Joehnk (2001) plotted the maxi-
mum depth and surface area of 135 meromictic and 684 holomictic
lakes (mostly natural) and concluded that meromictic lakes could
not be differentiated from holomictic lakes based on geometry
alone (for further discussion, see Schultze and Boehrer, 2009).
Castendyk and Webster-Brown (2007a) compared the relative
282 D.N. Castendyk et al. / Applied Geochemistry 57 (2015) 267–288
depths and physical limnology of 22 pit lakes and could not define
a relationship between these parameters. Gammons and Duaime
(2006) noted that the Berkeley Lake does not exhibit the limnologic
behavior that would be expected using relative depth comparisons.
These studies suggested that geometry-based comparisons have a
low probability for accurately predicting future pit lake limnology.
Moreover, geometry-based comparisons also provide no informa-
tion on the likely volumes of lake layers that will circulate during
turnover events; information that is needed for subsequent geo-
chemical modeling.
Numerical hydrodynamic predictions provide detailed predic-
tions of future pit lake limnology, however, these models take a
long time to develop and require large amounts of input data.
Model inputs include the future lake geometry as specified by
the mine plan, predicted climate data for the duration of the lim-
nology prediction, predicted groundwater inputs and outputs
defined by the hydrogeologic model, and the predicted pit lake
water balance. As previously stated, changes to the mine plan
can affect hydrodynamic predictions, and so regular updates to
the hydrodynamic model may be required over the mine life. Pop-
ular hydrodynamic programs include CE-QUAL-W2 (Wells and
Berger, 2010) and DYRESM (Imberger and Patterson, 1990), which
predict the temperature, salinity, and density profiles in lakes over
time. These programs have been used to model several existing pit
lakes (Atkins et al., 1997; Fisher and Lawrence, 2000; Balistrieri
et al., 2006) and to develop a predictive model of a future pit lake
(Castendyk and Webster-Brown, 2007a). Part 2 of this study pro-
vides a detailed example of the development of a numerical hydro-
dynamic model for the existing Dexter Lake in Nevada after the
work by Balistrieri et al. (2006).
6. Predicting lake geochemistry
6.1. Overview
Existing pit lakes display a wide range of water quality ranging
from circum-neutral systems with low total dissolved solids (TDS),
acidic systems with high TDS, circum-neutral systems with high
TDS, and basic systems with high TDS. All pit lakes will eventually
develop an aquatic ecosystem based on lake water quality, nutrient
concentrations, and introduction of organisms. Some existing pit
lakes contain sustainable fish populations whereas other lakes con-
tain only algal communities or, in the case of low pH systems like
Berkeley Lake, extremophile communities. The growth, population
size, sedimentation, and decomposition of these organisms will
influence pit lake water quality in addition to physical and chem-
ical processes.
The following section focuses on the development of a pit lake
water chemistry prediction based on physical and chemical pro-
cesses alone. The results provide a useful indication of future water
quality and can be added to a hydrodynamic model, such as CE-
QUAL-W2 (Wells and Berger, 2010) or CAEDYM (Hipsey et al.,
2006), to explore the effects of biology on water quality. The reader
is directed to the technical manuals for these programs for further
discussion on modeling biologic processes. A first-pass approxima-
tion of potential lake productivity can be derived from the nutrient
load added to the lake from wall-rock runoff and groundwater.
Many mining companies use nitrogen-based explosives during
pit excavation, the residuals of which can add a pulse of nitro-
gen-rich water to the pit lake during lake filling and thereby stim-
ulate initial algal growth.
Geochemical predictions of pit lake water chemistry build upon
the results of the water balance and mixing models. Anderson and
Woessner (1992) provided a flow chart for the development of
groundwater models which we have adapted for the development
of pit lake geochemical models: 1. Define model purpose (see
above); 2. Develop a conceptual model of the most significant lake
processes; 3. Define the representative water chemistry for each
lake input [see Predicting Wall-rock Runoff Geochemistry; see also
Castendyk and Webster-Brown (2007b) for treatment of
groundwater, surface water, and rainwater inputs]; 4. Design and
run the model (see Part 2 for an example from Martha Mine,
New Zealand; Castendyk, Balistrieri, Gammons, and Tucci, this vol-
ume); 5. Validate model results using direct observations of lake
water chemistry, laboratory experiments, observations from
existing pit lakes in similar ore bodies (note: the INAP Pit Lakes
Database was designed for this type of post-modeling comparison;
see Johnson and Castendyk, 2012), or other methods (see Eary and
Castendyk, 2009); 6. Expand and adjust the conceptual model as
needed to improve the accuracy of the pit lake prediction. Repeat
Steps 3–5 until a satisfactory prediction is achieved. The initial
conceptual model and prediction should be updated over time as
new information about the pit lake is obtained during mining;
and 7. Compare predicted values to water quality guidelines. If
necessary, use a sensitivity analysis to explore potential mitigation
options (see Castendyk and Webster-Brown, 2007a,b).
Modelers have used analytical and numerical approaches to
generate annual predictions of water chemistry based on concep-
tual models. Lewis (1999) used a spreadsheet program to calculate
the mass balance of epilimnion and hypolimnion layers based on
the concentrations and volumes of annual lake inputs and outputs
plus the timing and depth of mixing events. Such models are sim-
ple to construct but neglect geochemical reactions. Bird et al.
(1994), Kempton et al. (1997) and Tempel et al. (2000) discussed
the use of popular geochemical speciation programs, such as PHRE-
EQC (Parkhurst and Appelo, 1999) and MINTEQA2 (Allison et al.,
1991), to predict the water chemistry of a unit volume (e.g. 1 L)
that results from mixing proportions of representative lake inputs
specified by the annual pit lake water balance (e.g. 80% groundwa-
ter, 10% surface water, 5% wall-rock runoff, and 5% rainwater). Part
2 of this series provides an example of the design of geochemical
prediction for a future pit lake at the Martha Mine, New Zealand
using PHREEQC (Castendyk, Balistrieri, Gammons, and Tucci, this
volume). The most recent approach used by modelers has been
to design hybrid models that directly link groundwater, limnology,
and geochemistry predictions into a single model (Oldham et al.,
2009; Werner, 2009). These models are advantageous because
changes to one component, such as predicted groundwater dis-
charge, will be automatically integrated into the overall prediction.
The accuracy of pit lake predictions can be difficult for stake-
holders to evaluate. Comparing geochemical pit lake predictions
to observed data from the same pit lake is the only direct way to
quantify the accuracy of a given prediction, although several indi-
rect methods exist. Unfortunately, it is likely to be decades
between the original pit lake prediction and the formation of a
pit lake, and few such studies have been conducted and published.
Two notable exceptions show good correlation between predicted
and observed water chemistry especially with respect to major
ions (Oldham et al., 2009; Werner, 2009). The principal disadvan-
tage is the time and effort required to construct such models, their
complexity, and the possible need for existing lake observations in
order to appropriately define model parameters and processes. As
noted by Drever (2011), two of the biggest problems with modern
geochemical pit lake predictions are the challenge for model
reviewers to independently repeat and check calculations, and
the lack of understanding of the uncertainty associated with
predictions. Nevertheless, these predictions represent the best
estimate stakeholders have for what will happen in the future.
This section reviews some of the key geochemical processes
occurring within pit lake water (Fig. 8). Model design is
demonstrated using a case study of the Martha Mine, New Zealand
 D.N. Castendyk et al. / Applied Geochemistry 57 (2015) 267–288
Mass Rain
Input
water
from
Runoff
Gas Exchange
Dissolution/ High O2,
Oxidation Low CO2
Annual Mixing
High CO2,
Low O2
Ion Adsorption
Mass Input
Precipitation
from
Groundwater
Settling
Sediment
Fig. 8. Conceptual model of geochemical reactions occurring within a holomictic pit lake (modified from Castendyk, 2009a).
presented in Part 2 of this series (Castendyk, Balistrieri, Gammons,
and Tucci, this volume). For guidance on other components of
model development, the reader is directed to the references shown
in Table 2.
6.2. Conceptual models of pit lake geochemistry
Geochemical processes can be divided into external processes
that occur before water enters the lake, and internal processes that
occur inside the lake. The most significant external processes
involve the generation of mine impacted water (MIW) along flow
paths leading to the lake as discussed in Section 3. Mine drainage
can also contain elevated levels of nutrients due to nitrogen-based
blasting materials used during pit excavation that can affect the
microbial productivity of the initial lake. Both MIW and nutrients
should be considered when defining the representative wall-rock
runoff chemistry used in the model.
Existing geochemical predictions focus on the following physi-
cal and chemical processes occurring within the lake (see Fig. 8):
1. Vertical mixing of lake water during turnover events; 2.
Exchange of dissolved oxygen and carbon dioxide between the
atmosphere and the lake surface; 3. Precipitation of minerals from
lake water under saturated conditions [see Eary (1999) for a list of
minerals likely to precipitate under specific pH conditions]; 4.
Adsorption of trace metals and/or metalloids onto fine-grained
mineral surfaces and organic matter coupled with the downward
settling of these particles [see Tempel et al. (2000) for a discussion
on modeling arsenic concentrations in a pit lake as a result of sur-
face adsorption. Iron hydroxides are typically used as the adsorp-
tion surface in pit lake predictions because of their common
occurrence in MIW and because existing software include
283
Mass
Evaporation
Input
from
Runoff
Speciation/
Redox
Mass Input
from
Groundwater
applications specifically designed to model iron hydroxide
adsorption. Adsorption onto aluminum hydroxides (see Karamalidis
and Dzombak, 2010), manganese hydroxides (see Visual MINTEQ
by Gustafsson, 2010), clay minerals, organic matter, and other
surfaces will also influence dissolved concentrations.]; 5. The
dissolution or oxidation of submerged wall-rock minerals (see
Section 3); and 6. Sedimentation of downward settling solids
coupled with the removal of metals and metalloids from the water
column (an implicit assumption in geochemical programs).
One process that may be oversimplified in present models is the
partitioning of gases between the lake surface and the atmosphere.
Models typically assume that equilibrium between epilimnion
water and atmospheric gases occurs on an annual basis following
lake turnover (see Part 2). This process increases the dissolved oxy-
gen concentration of the epilimnion and chemically differentiates
the epilimnion from the hypolimnion. At the same time, equilib-
rium will remove dissolved CO2 and alkalinity from epilimnion
water which raises pH according to the following reactions:
Hþ þ HCO3 ¼ CO2ðaqÞ þ H2 O ð18Þ
CO2ðaqÞ ¼ CO2ðgÞ ð19Þ
Consequently, geochemical predictions may show epilimnion
water to have a higher pH than hypolimnion water which may or
may not reflect reality. Literature on the treatment of MIW as well
as the treatment of municipal drinking water provides many
examples where stagnant surface water does not necessarily
release CO2(g) unless it is physically agitated. Eary (1999) showed
that existing pit lakes with pH less than 8.25 have partial pressures
of CO2 (PCO2) that exceed the atmospheric PCO2, and that observed
PCO2 generally increases as pH decreases. Thus, the assumption
284 D.N. Castendyk et al. / Applied Geochemistry 57 (2015) 267–288

Gather site data: the job of the modeler to minimize these errors. Ultimately, the
Pre-mining Water
Quality Survey
Geology, Hydrology, accuracy of a geochemical prediction will be evaluated by stake-
Climate
holders based on the difference between predicted water quality
and observed water quality over time. Not unlike economic fore-
Develop Mine
Establish Post-Mining Model Limnology and casts or weather forecasts, pit lake water chemistry predictions
Geometry &
Objecves Water Quality
Water Balance will never have 100% accuracy. It is important for the modeler to
convey the associated uncertainty to all stakeholders at the onset
of predictive modeling so that all parties can agree on the purpose
Compare
of the model and develop realistic expectations for model results.
As such, stakeholders should expect predictions to provide a likely
Predicon Does Meet Predicon Does Not Explore Migaon range of concentrations for principal contaminants of concern over
Objecves Meet Objecves Opons time, which can be used for risk assessment and mitigation plan-
ning. Stakeholders should not expect predictive models to provide
Submit Mine Permit the exact concentration of a given dissolved species during a spe-
Applicaon Postpone Mining cific year following mine closure.

Fig. 9. Flow chart illustrating the ideal use of geochemical predictions during the
planning phase of open pit mine development. This flow chart ends with the
initiation of mining activity and continues on Fig. 10.
Mine Closure and
Lake Filling
Lake and Ecosystem Post-Mining
Compare
Monitoring Objecves
Observaons Do Not Observaons Do
Meet Objecves Meet Objecves
Implement
Develop Post-Mining
Remediaon
Lake Use
Model Remediaon
Opons
File for Regulatory
Release
Fig. 10. Following from Fig. 9, this flow chart begins at the conclusion of mining
activity and illustrates the ideal use of pit lake geochemical predictions during the
closure phase of open pit mining.
that epilimnion pit lake water will achieve equilibrium with atmo-
spheric gases may cause discrepancies between predicted and
observed surface water pH.
Several additional processes occur in pit lakes that are generally
not included in current predictive models due to their complexity:
1. Sediment diagenesis and recirculation of pore-water ions into
the water column (Wendt-Potthoff, 2006); 2. Aerobic microbial
productivity (especially iron-oxidizing bacteria), incorporation of
dissolved metals and metalloids into organic matter, and adsorp-
tion of dissolved metals and metalloids onto organic surfaces
(Kalin and Wheeler, 2009; Pelletier et al., 2009); 3. Anaerobic
microbial productivity (especially iron-reducing bacteria) under
reducing conditions found in monimolimnion water (Weilinga,
2009); and 4. Re-dissolution of downward-settling solids into
monimolimnion water. These processes represent data gaps in cur-
rent predictions and opportunities for future research.
6.3. Model limitations
Modelers are required to make assumptions in the development
of these initial models, and it may be impossible to validate all
model assumptions. Consequently, errors generated by initial
hydrological and limnological models will be carried over into
the geochemical model. These errors are unavoidable, and it is
7. Conclusions
This paper is Part 1 of a two-part series on contemporary
approaches to pit lake modeling and management. Part 1 reviews
the theory behind pit lake research with emphasis on the methods
commonly used to characterize wall-rock runoff geochemistry,
predict future lake hydrology, predict future physical limnology,
and predict pit lake water chemistry. The principal findings of Part
1 are summarized below:
 Wall-rock geochemistry models estimate the composition of pit
wall runoff that will be added to the lake after mine closure.
Most of these models rely on a combination of extrapolation
of laboratory kinetic data and theoretical modeling of
sulfide oxidation by oxygen in pit wall rocks. These methods
require estimation of a number of parameters that have
non-quantifiable levels of uncertainty, but have the advantage
of relying primarily on data obtained from typical baseline
hydrogeochemical characterizations and numerical models;
hence, the predictions can be made prior to mine startup. The
alternative approach is to conduct experiments in which ana-
logue pit lake compositions are created by mixing solutions rep-
resenting the major chemical loadings to the pit lake, such as
wall-rock runoff and wall-rock leaching. The analogue experi-
mental approach offers the advantages of providing measure-
able solution compositions and secondary mineral precipitates
resulting from solution mixing, but has the disadvantage that
weathered rock samples and groundwater samples must be
available for use in the experiments; a requirement that may
be difficult to meet for modeling studies conducted prior to
mine startup.
 Hydrologic models indicate the volumes of water that will be
added to a pit lake during lake filling from wall-rock runoff,
groundwater, rainfall, and in some cases, surface water. Mine
planners use these predictions to estimate the depth, volume,
and surface area of the final pit lake, plus the duration of time
between mine closure and the establishment of a steady-state
lake level. A key environmental question is whether a future
pit lake will be a terminal hydrologic sink or a flow-through sys-
tem. Terminal pit lakes are more likely to form on flat topogra-
phy in arid climates and for shallow lakes with large surface
areas. These lakes have the advantage of keeping MIW on the
mine site, but are likely to show increasing concentrations of
dissolved solids and trace metals over time owing to evapocon-
centration. Flow-through lakes are more common on sloping
topography in humid climates and for deep lakes with small
surface areas. The total dissolved solids concentrations in
flow-through lakes cannot achieve the same concentrations as
TDS in terminal pit lakes owing to the constant flushing of lake
 D.N. Castendyk et al. / Applied Geochemistry 57 (2015) 267–288
water over time. However, once the pit lake achieves
steady-state conditions, MIW collected and stored within a
flow-through pit lake will discharge to streams and/or aquifers
surrounding the mine and will migrate away from the mine site.
Both analytical and numerical approaches have been used to
determine hydrologic models for pit lakes.
 Limnological models show the frequency and maximum depth
of vertical mixing events within the lakes. These events homog-
enize the geochemistry of upper lake layers, transport dissolved
CO2 from depth to the lake surface where it may exsolve, renew
dissolved oxygen levels at the wall-rock-water interface, and
influence the biological structure of the lake. Most importantly,
the physical limnology dictates whether a lake will fully mix on
an annual basis or whether meromictic conditions will develop.
The evolution of a permanently isolated bottom layer can have a
significant impact on the closure plan and risk assessment for a
given pit lake. In some cases, it may be possible to utilize the
monimolimnion to sequester trace metals from the water
column. In other cases, the accumulation of H2S and CO2 in
monimolimnion water may present an additional risk for mine
planners to consider should the lake undergo complete turn-
over. Existing analytical models of physical limnology (i.e. inter-
pretations of relative depth) are inconsistent with the observed
behavior of pit lakes. Numerical hydrodynamic models may
provide more accurate predictions.
 Geochemical predictions integrate the results of these compo-
nents to generate a long-range forecast of pit lake water quality.
Geochemical-speciation and forward-modeling software pack-
ages are well suited for modeling pit lake geochemistry because
they allow the modeler to systematically explore multiple geo-
chemical processes observed within existing pit lakes. However,
all predictions are limited to some extent. For example, most
published geochemical predictions do not include the impacts
of biological processes on lake water chemistry. Modelers can
improve the accuracy of predictions by comparing predicted
results to direct water chemistry observations for the pit lake
being studied, observations from existing pit lakes in similar
ore bodies, lab experiments that attempt to synthesize lake
water chemistry, and other methods. Using these approaches,
the modeler may be able to quantify the uncertainty in predic-
tions and to convey this information to mine planners and reg-
ulators. It is recommended that mine planners and regulators
use the results of pit lake geochemical predictions to indicate
the likely range of future water chemistry values rather than
viewing predictions as a definitive statement of the exact water
chemistry after a given period of time.
Geochemical predictions are most useful to stakeholders when
they are generated during the planning phase of the mine life cycle
(Fig. 9). The information received from predictions can be incorpo-
rated into the development of the risk management plan and the
closure plan for the mine site, and the estimated cost of these plans
should be factored into the net earnings projected for a new mine.
Updated models are also useful during the closure and post-closure
monitoring of pit lake water chemistry by allowing mine managers
to consider a variety of mitigation, remediation, and lake manage-
ment options (Fig. 10). Like all predictive models, pit lake geo-
chemical predictions will never be 100% accurate. Through
careful characterization, conceptualization, design, and validation,
the difference between predicted and observed concentrations can
be minimized, and a useful prediction can be produced.
Looking forward, the overall accuracy of pit lake modeling can
be improved by making more observations of physical data (see
also Drever, 2011). Where possible, predictions should be scruti-
nized and updated using direct comparisons to observed pit lake
chemistry. Where this is not possible, the model results could be
285
compared to existing lakes in similar ore deposits, or the model
approach could itself be ‘‘tested’’ on an existing pit lake with pub-
lically available data. More field observations will help to reduce
the degree of uncertainty within, and quantify the significance of,
some of the parameters discussed herein. Also, more publications
of pit lake predictions and data will help to expand the collective
understanding of pit lake prediction between scientists while
simultaneously raising stakeholder confidence in modeled results.
Finally, modelers should continue to convey a high level of trans-
parency in their work so that model reviewers and stakeholders
are able to ascertain what is known with a high degree of confi-
dence from what is suspected with a lesser degree of confidence
(Drever, 2011). To this end, Part 2 of this study provides three case
studies on the development of a physical limnology prediction, the
development of a geochemistry prediction, and the interpretation
of results from a long-term lake monitoring program (Castendyk,
Balistrieri, Gammons, and Tucci, this volume).
References
Allison, J.D., Brown, D.S., Novo-Gradac, K.J., 1991. MINTEQA2/PRODEFA2, a
geochemical assessment model for environmental systems. Version 3.0 User’s
Manual: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Report 600/3-91/021, Athens,
Georgia, 93 pp.
Anderson, M.P., Woessner, W.W., 1992. Applied Groundwater Modeling; Simulation
of Flow and Advective Transport. Academic Press, San Diego, California, 381 p.
Atkin, S.A., Schrand, W.D., 2000. Limnology of the Sleeper Pit Lake, Humboldt
County, Nevada. 5th International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage,
proceedings. Society for Mineral Exploration, Littleton, Colorado, pp. 347–357.
Atkins, D., Kempton, J.H., Martin, T., Maley, P., 1997. Limnologic conditions in three
existing Nevada pit lakes: observations and modeling using CE-QUAL-W2. 4th
International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage Proceedings, Mine
Environment Neutral Drainage Program, Ottawa, Ontario, pp. 697–713.
Bair, E.S., Lahm, T.D., 2006. Practical Problems in Groundwater Hydrology. Pearson,
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, Chapter 3.
Balistrieri, L.S., Tempel, R.N., Stillings, L.L., Shevenell, L.A., 2006. Modeling spatial
and temporal variations in temperature and salinity during stratification and
overturn in Dexter Pit Lake, Tuscarora, Nevada. Appl. Geochem. 21, 1184–1203.
Barker, S.L.S., Kim, J.P., Craw, D., Frew, R.D., Hunter, K.A., 2004. Processes affecting
the chemical composition of Blue Lake, an alluvial gold-mine pit lake in New
Zealand. Mar. Freshw. Res. 55, 201–211.
Bird, D.A., Lyons, W.B., Miller, G.C., 1994. An assessment of hydrogeochemical
computer codes applied to modeling post-mining pit water geochemistry. In:
Tailings and Mine Waste ‘94, Proceedings: Balkema. Rotterdam, Holland, pp.
31–40.
Bird, D.A., Mahoney, J.J., 1994. Estimating post-mining pit lake geochemistry
utilizing geochemical and numerical modeling. Reprint of paper presented at
1994 Annual Meeting of Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, 5 p.
Boehrer, B., Schultze, M., Liefold, S., Behlau, G., Rahn, K., Frimel, S., Kiwel, U., Kuehn,
B., Brookland, I., Büttner, O., 2003. Stratification of mining lake Goitsche during
flooding with river water. Tailings and Mine Waster ‘03, Proceedings, Balkema,
Lisse, Holland, pp. 223-231.
Böhrer, B., Heidenreich, H., Schimmele, M., Schultze, M., 1998. Numerical prognosis
for salinity profiles of future lakes in the opencast mine Merseburg-Ost. Int. J.
Salt Lake Res. 7, 235–260.
Boland, K.T., Padovan, A.V., 2002. Seasonal stratification and mixing in a recently
flooded mining void in tropical Australia. Lakes Reservoirs: Res. Manage. 7,
125–131.
Bowell, R.J., 2002. The hydrogeochemical dynamics of mine pit lakes. In: Younger,
P.L., Robins, N.S. (Eds.), Mine Water Hydrogeology and Geochemistry:
Geological Society. Special Publications 198, London, pp. 159–185.
Bowell, R.J., Parshley, J.V., 2005. Control of pit-lake water chemistry by secondary
minerals, Summer Camp pit, Getchell mine, Nevada. Chem. Geol. 215, 373–385.
Brunauer, S., Emmett, P.H., Teller, E., 1938. Adsorption of gases in multimolecular
layers. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 60, 309. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ja01269a023.
Castendyk, D.N., 2009a. Conceptual models of pit lakes. In: Castendyk, D.N., Eary,
L.E. (Eds.), Mine Pit Lakes: Characteristics, Predictive Modeling, and
Sustainability. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration Inc, Littleton,
Colorado, pp. 61–76.
Castendyk, D.N., 2009b. Predictive modeling of the physical limnology of future pit
lakes. In: Castendyk, D.N., Eary, L.E. (Eds.), Mine Pit Lakes: Characteristics,
Predictive Modeling, and Sustainability. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and
Exploration Inc, Littleton, Colorado, pp. 101–114.
Castendyk, D.N., Eary, L.E., 2009. Mine Pit Lakes: Characteristics, Predictive
Modeling, and Sustainability. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration
Inc, Littleton, Colorado, 304 p.
Castendyk, D.N., Jewell, P., 2002. Turnover in pit lakes: I. Observations of three pit
lakes in Utah, USA. In: Tailings and Mine Waste ‘02: Balkema, Lisse, Holland, pp.
181–188.
286 D.N. Castendyk et al. / Applied Geochemistry 57 (2015) 267–288
Castendyk, D.N., Mauk, J.L., Webster, J.G., 2005. A mineral quantification method for
wall rocks at open pit mines, and application to the Martha Au-Ag mine, Waihi,
New Zealand. Appl. Geochem. 20, 135–156.
Castendyk, D.N., Webster-Brown, J., 2007a. Sensitivity analysis in pit lake
prediction, Martha Mine, New Zealand 1: Relationship between turnover and
input water density. Chem. Geol. 244, 42–55.
Castendyk, D.N., Webster-Brown, J.G., 2007b. Sensitivity analyses in pit lake
prediction, Martha mine, New Zealand 2: Geochemistry, water-rock reactions,
and surface adsorption. Chem. Geol. 244, 56–73.
Castendyk, D.N., Webster-Brown, J.G., 2010. Effects of mine expansion on
geochemical predictions of pit lake water quality: an example from Martha
Mine, Waihi, New Zealand. New Zeal. J. Geol. Geophys. 53, 143–151.
CEMA, 2012. End Pit Lakes Guidance Document. Cumulative Environmental
Management Association, Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada, 436 p. <http://
cemaonline.ca/index.php/news-a-events/cema-press-releases/89-cema-news/
press-releases/press-release-articles/196-press-release-cema-delivers-oilsands-
mine-end-pit-lake-guidance-document-october-4-2012> (accessed 11.05.14).
Connors, K., Shevenell, L., Lyons, W.B., 2000. Pit water-pit wall interactions in
Nevada precious metal mines: experimental investigation of four
representative geologic systems. In: Cluer, J.K., Price, J.G., Struhsacker, E.M.,
Hardyman, R.F., Morris, C.L. (Eds.), Geology and Ore Deposits 2000: The Great
Basin and Beyond, Proceedings. Geological Society of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, pp.
825–848.
Castro, J.M., Moore, J.N., 2000. Pit lakes: their characteristics and the potential for
their remediation. Environ. Geol. 39, 1254–1260.
Castro, J.M., Wielinga, B.W., Gannon, J.E., Moore, J.N., 1999. Stimulation of sulfate-
reducing bacteria in lake water from a former open-pit mine through addition
of organic waste. Water Environ. Res. 71, 218–223.
Davis, A., 2003. A screening-level laboratory method to estimate pit lake chemistry.
Mine Water Environ. 22, 194–205.
Davis, A., Ashenberg, D., 1989. The aqueous geochemistry of the Berkeley Pit, Butte,
Montana, U.S.A. Appl. Geochem. 4, 23–36.
Davis, A., Bellehumeur, T., Hunter, P., Hanna, B., Fennemore, G.G., Moomaw, C.,
Schoen, S., 2006. The nexus between groundwater modeling, pit lake
chemogenesis and ecological risk from arsenic in the Getchell Main Pit,
Nevada, U.S.A. Chem. Geol. 228, 175–196.
Davis, A., Eary, L.E., 1997. Pit Lake water quality in the western United States: an
analysis of chemogenetic trends. Min. Eng. 49, 98–102.
Davis, A., Fennemore, G.G., 1998. A method to predict evolving post-closure pit lake
chemistry. 15th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Surface Mining and
Reclamation: American Society for Surface Mining and Reclamation, Lexington,
Kentucky, pp. 315–321.
Davis, G.B., Ritchie, A.I.M., 1986a. A model of oxidation in pyritic mine wastes: part
1: equations and approximate solution. Appl. Math. Model. 10, 314–322.
Davis, G.B., Doherty, G., Ritchie, A.I.M., 1986b. A model of oxidation in pyritic mine
wastes: part 2: Comparison of numerical and approximate solutions. Appl.
Math. Model. 10, 323–329.
Dingman, S.L., 2002. Physical Hydrology, second ed. Waveland Press Inc., Long
Grove, Illinois, 646 p.
Dowling, J., Atkin, S., Beale, G., Alexander, G., 2004. Development of the Sleeper pit
lake. Mine Water Environ. 23, 2–11.
Doyle, G.A., Runnells, D.D., 1997. Physical limnology of existing mine pit lakes. Min.
Eng. 49, 76–80.
Drever, J.I., 2011. Prediction is hard – particularly about the future. Elements 7,
363.
Drever, J.I., 1997. The Geochemistry of Natural Waters: Surface and Groundwater
Environments, third ed. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 436 p.
Dunne, T.D., Leopold, L.B., 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. Freeman and
Company, New York, pp. 35–74 .
Eary, L.E., 1998. Predicting the effects of evapoconcentration on water quality in
mine pit lakes. J. Geochem. Explor. 64, 223–236.
Eary, L.E., 1999. Geochemical and equilibrium trends in mine pit lakes. Appl.
Geochem. 14, 963–987.
Eary, L.E., Castendyk, D.N., 2012. Hardrock metal mine pit lakes: occurrence and
geochemical characteristics. In: Geller, W., Schultze, M., Kleinmann, B.,
Wolkersdorfer, C. (Eds.), Acidic Pit Lakes – Legacies of Surface Mining of Coal
and Metal Ores. Springer, Germany, pp. 75–106.
Eary, L.E., Castendyk, D.N., 2009. The state of the art of pit lake predictions. In:
Castendyk, D.N., Eary, L.E. (Eds.), Mine Pit Lakes: Characteristics, Predictive
Modeling, and Sustainability. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration
Inc, Littleton, Colorado, pp. 275–289.
Evans, L., Rola-Rubzen, F., Ashton, P., 2003. Beneficial end uses for open cut mine
sites: Planning for optimal outcomes. 2003 Annual Meeting of the Minerals
Council of Australia, Proceedings, Kingston, Australia.
Fennemore, G.G., Neller, W.C., Davis, A., 1998. Modeling pyrite oxidation in arid
environments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 32, 2680–2687.
Fetter, C.W., 2001. Applied Hydrogeology, fourth ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey, 598 p.
Fisher, T.S.R., Lawrence, G.A., 2000. Observations at the upper halocline of the Island
Copper pit lake. In: Lawrence, G.A., Pieters, R., Yonemistsu, N. (Eds.), 5th
International Symposium on Stratified Flows, Proceedings. Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada, pp. 413–418.
Flite, O.P., Eidson, G.W., 2003, Impact of wind: Planning for sustainable pit lakes.
Abstracts with Programs, 2003 Geological Society of America Annual Meeting,
v. 35, p. 268.
Gammons, C.H., 2009. Sampling and monitoring of pit lakes. In: Castendyk, D.N.,
Eary, L.E. (Eds.), Mine Pit Lakes: Characteristics, Predictive Modeling, and
Sustainability. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration Inc, Littleton,
Colorado, pp. 77–90.
Gammons, C.H., Duaime, T.E., 2006. Long term changes in the limnology and
geochemistry of the Berkeley Pit Lake, Butte, Montana. Mine Water Environ. 25,
76–85.
Gammons, C.H., Harris, L.N., Castro, J.M., Cott, P.A., Hanna, B.W., 2009. Creating lakes
from open pit mines: processes and considerations, with emphasis on northern
environments. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2826, 106 p.
Geller, W., Klapper, H., Solomons, W., 1998. Acidic Mining Lakes: Acid Mine
Drainage, Limnology, and Reclamation. Springer, Germany, 435 p.
Geller, W., Schultze, M., Kleinmann, B., Wolkersdorfer, C., 2012. Acidic Pit Lakes –
Legacies of Surface Mining of Coal and Metal Ores. Springer, Germany, 504 p.
Grimaldi, R., 2009. Climatologic characteristics. In: Castendyk, D.N., Eary, L.E. (Eds.),
Mine Pit Lakes: Characteristics, Predictive Modeling, and Sustainability. Society
for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration Inc, Littleton, Colorado, pp. 19–31.
Gustafsson, J.P., 2010. Visual MINTEQ ver. 3.0: KTH. Department of Land and Water
Resources Engineering, Sweden. <www2.lwr.kth.se/English/OurSoftware/
vminteq/index.html> (accessed 15.04.11).
Hagler Bailly Consulting Inc, 1996. Supplemental injury assessment report. Clark
Fork River NPL Sites NRDA; Lethal Injuries to Snow Geese, Berkeley pit, Butte,
MT. Montana Natural Resource Damage Assessment Litigation Program, Helena,
34 p. + appendices.
Halbwachs, M., Sabroux, J.C., Grangeon, J., Kayser, G., Tochon-Danguy, J.C., Felix, A.,
Beard, J.C., Vilevielle, A., Vitter, C., Richon, P., Wüest, A., Hell, J., 2004. Degassing
the ‘‘Killer Lakes’’ Nyos and Monoun, Cameroon. EOS 85, 281–284.
Hamblin, P.F., Stevens, C.L., Larwrence, G.A., 1999. Simulation of vertical transport in
a mining pit lake. J. Hydraul. Eng. 125, 1029–1038.
Havis, R.N., Worthington, S.J., 1997. A simple model for the management of mine
pit-lake filling and dewatering. In: Tailings and Mine Waste ‘97, Proceedings.
Balkema, Rotterdam, Holland, pp. 478–549.
Hipsey, M.R., Romero, J.R., Antenucci, J.P., Hamilton, D., 2006. Computational
Aquatic Ecosystem Dynamics Model: CAEDYM v2; v2.3 Science Manual: Centre
for Water Research, University of Western Australia, Perth, 102 p.
<www.cwr.uwa.edu.au> (accessed 14.04.11).
Hoerling, M.P., Eischeid, J., 2007. Past peak water in the Southwest. Southwest
Hydrol. 6, 18–19.
Hutchinson, G.E., 1957. A Treatise on Limnology: Part I – Geography, Physics, and
Chemistry. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1015 pp.
Imberger, J., Patterson, J.C., 1990. Physical limnology. In: Hutchinson, J.W., Wu, T.Y.
(Eds.), Advances in Applied Mechanics, v. 27. Academic Press, New York, pp.
303–475.
Jerz, J.K., Rimstidt, J.D., 2004. Pyrite oxidation in moist air. Geochim. Cosmochim.
Acta 68, 701–714.
Jewell, P., Castendyk, D., 2002. Turnover in pit lakes: II. Water column stability and
anoxia. Tailings and Mine Waste ‘02, Proceedings, Balkema, Lisse, Holland, pp.
189–194.
Joehnk, K., 2001. 1-D Hydrodynamische Modelle in der Limnophysik: Turbulenz,
Meroxixis, Sauerstoff: Limnophysics Reports, v. 1. Institute of Limnophysics,
Konstanz, Germany.
Johnson, E., Castendyk, D., 2012. The INAP Pit Lakes Database: a novel tool for the
evaluation of predicted pit lake water quality. In: Price, W.A., Hogan, C.,
Tremblay, G. (Eds.), 9th International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage,
Proceedings, Ottawa, Canada, May 20–26, 2012. Technical Paper 0037, pp. 1–12.
Jonas, J., 2000. Current seasonal limnology of the Berkeley Pit Lake. 5th
International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage, Proceedings, Society for
Mineral Exploration, Littleton, Colorado, pp. 359–366.
Kalin, M., Wheeler, W.N., 2009. Biogeochemical remediation of pit lakes. In:
Castendyk, D.N., Eary, L.E. (Eds.), Mine Pit Lakes: Characteristics, Predictive
Modeling, and Sustainability. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration
Inc, Littleton, Colorado, pp. 203–214.
Karakas, G., Brookland, I., Boehrer, B., 2003. Physical characteristics of acidic Mining
Lake 111. Aquat. Sci. 65, 297–307.
Karamalidis, A.K., Dzombak, D.A., 2010. Surface Complexation Modeling: Gibbsite.
Wiley, New York, 294 p.
Kempton, J.H., Locke, W., Atkins, D., Nicholson, A.D., Bennett, M., Bliss, L., 1997.
Probabilistic prediction of water quality in the Twin Creeks mine pit lake,
Golconda, Nevada, USA. 4th International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage,
Vancouver, B.C., Canada, May 31–June 6, 1997, Proceedings, Mine Environment
Neutral Drainage Program, Ottawa, Ontario, pp. 1729–1744.
Kirk, L.B., Schafer, W., Volberding, J., Kranz, S., 1996. Mine lake geochemical
prediction for the SPJV McDonald project. Planning, Rehabilitation, and
Treatment of Disturbed Lands, Billings Symposium, Proceedings, pp. 393–403.
Klapper, H., Schultze, M., 1997. Sulfur acidic mining lakes in Germany-Ways of
controlling geogenic acidification. 4th International Conference on Acid Rock
Drainage, proceedings, Mine Environment Neutral Drainage Program, Ottawa,
Ontario, pp. 891–904.
Kuma, J.S., Younger, P.L., Bowell, R.J., 2002. Hydrogeological framework for assessing
the possible environmental impacts of large-scale gold mines. In: Younger, P.L.,
Robins, N.S. (Eds.), Mine Water Hydrogeology and Geochemistry: Geological
Society, Special Publications 198, London, pp. 121–136.
Lee, M., 1999. Risk Assessment Framework for the Management of Sulfidic Mine
Wastes. Australian Centre for Mining Environmental Research (ACMER),
Kenmore, Queensland, Australia, 16 p.
 D.N. Castendyk et al. / Applied Geochemistry 57 (2015) 267–288
Levy, D.B., Custis, K.H., Casey, W.H., Rock, P.A., 1997. The aqueous geochemistry of
the abandoned Spenceville copper pit, Nevada County: California. J. Environ.
Qual. 26, 233–243.
Lewis, R.L., 1999. Predicting the steady-state water quality of pit lakes. Min. Eng. 51,
54–58.
Lyons, W.B., Doyle, G.A., Petersen, R.C., Swanson, E.E., 1994. The limnology of future
pit lakes in Nevada: the importance of shape. In: Tailings and Mine Waste ‘94:
Balkema. Rotterdam, Holland, pp. 245–248.
Madison, J.P., Gammons, C.H., Poulson, S.R., Jonas, J.P., 2003. Oxidation of pyrite by
ferric iron in the acidic Berkeley pit lake, Montana, U.S.A. In: Farrell, T., Taylor, G.
(Eds.), 6th International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage, Proceedings.
Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Carlton, Australia, pp. 1073–
1078.
Marinelli, F., Niccoli, W.L., 2000. Simple analytical equations for estimating ground
water inflow to a mine pit. Ground Water 38, 311–314.
Martin, A.J., Crusius, J., McNee, J.J., Whittle, P., Pieters, R., Pedersen, T.F., 2003. Field-
scale assessment of bioremediation strategies for two pit lakes using
limnocorrals. In: Farrell, T., Taylor, G. (Eds.), 6th International Conference on
Acid Rock Drainage, Proceedings. Australasian Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy, Carlton, Australia, pp. 529–539.
Mase, D.F., Greenemeier, R.J., Castendyk, D.N., 2008. Investigation of hydroxide
mineral precipitation and the fate of trace metals in an acidic pit lake.
Anthracite District, Pennsylvania. Abstracts with Programs, 2008 Northeast
Section Meeting of the Geological Society of America, vol. 40, no. 2, p. 74.
McCready, J., 2001. Mining Impacted Pit Lakes 2000 Workshop, Proceedings. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/625/C-00/004.
McCready, J., Ober, D., 2006. Interactive Pit Lakes 2004 Conference: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/625/C-06/002.
McCullough, C.D. (Ed.), 2011. Mine Pit Lakes: Closure and Management. Australian
Centre for Geomechanics, Nedlands, Western Australia, 182 p.
McCullough, C., Hunt, D., Evans, L., 2009. Sustainable development of open pit
mines: creating beneficial end uses for pit lakes. In: Castendyk, D.N., Eary, L.E.
(Eds.), Mine Pit Lakes: Characteristics, Predictive Modeling, and Sustainability.
Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration Inc, Littleton, Colorado, pp.
249–267.
McLemore, V.T. (Ed.), 2008. Basics of Metal Mining Influenced Water. Society for
Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration Inc., Littleton, Colorado, 103 p.
Meyer, W.A., Williamson, M.A., Warren, G.C., Brown, A., 1997. Suppression of sulfide
mineral oxidation in mine pit walls Part II. Geochemical modeling. Fourth
International Conference on Tailings and Mine Waste ‘97, Fort Collins, Colorado,
Jan 13–17, 1997, Proceedings, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 433–441.
Miller, G.C., Lyons, W.B., Davis, A., 1996. Understanding the water quality of pit
lakes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 30, 118A–123A.
MMSD, 2002. Breaking New Ground: Final Report of the Mining, Minerals and
Sustainable Development Project. International Institute for Environment and
Development, and World Business Council for Sustainable Development,
Earthscan Publications Ltd., London, 418 p.
Morin, K.A., Hutt, N.M., 2006. The MEND minewall technique: overview and details.
13th Annual BC MEND Workshop, Open Pits and Underground Mine Workings,
Nov. 29-30, 2006, Presentation, Vancouver, BC.
NDEP, 2010. Meteoric Water Mobility Procedure (MWMP) Standardized Column
Percolation Test Procedure. Nevada Division of Environmental Protection.
<ndep.nv.gov/bmrr/mobilty1.pdf> (accessed 07.10.10).
Niccoli, W.L., 2009a. Hydrologic characteristics and classification of pit lakes. In:
Castendyk, D.N., Eary, L.E. (Eds.), Mine Pit Lakes: Characteristics, Predictive
Modeling, and Sustainability. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration
Inc, Littleton, Colorado, pp. 33–43.
Niccoli, W.L., 2009b. Predicting groundwater inputs to pit lakes. In: Castendyk, D.N.,
Eary, L.E. (Eds.), Mine Pit Lakes: Characteristics, Predictive Modeling, and
Sustainability. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration Inc, Littleton,
Colorado, pp. 91–99.
Oldham, C.E., Salmon, S.U., Hipsey, M.R., Ivey, G.N., 2009. Modeling pit lake water
quality: coupling of lake stratification dynamics, lake ecology, aqueous
geochemistry, and sediment diagenesis. In: Castendyk, D.N., Eary, L.E. (Eds.),
Mine Pit Lakes: Characteristics, Predictive Modeling, and Sustainability. Society
for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration Inc, Littleton, Colorado, pp. 127–136.
OSMRE, 2007. Annual evaluation summary report for the regulatory and abandoned
mine land programs administered by the Commonwealth of Virginia for
evaluation year 2007. United States Department of Interior, Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), Washington, D.C., 26 p.
Palandri, J.L., Kharaka, Y.K., 2004. A Compilation of Rate Parameters of Water-
Mineral Interaction Kinetics for Application to Geochemical Modeling: Open
File Report 2004–1068. U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California.
Park, B.T., Wangerud, K.W., Fundingsland, S.D., Adzic, M.E., Lewis, N.M., 2006. In situ
chemical and biological treatment leading to successful water discharge from
Anchor Hill pit lake, Gilt Edge Mine Superfund Site, South Dakota, USA. In:
Barnhisel, R.I. (Ed.), 7th International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage:
American Society of Mining and Reclamation, Lexington, Kentucky, pp. 1065–
1069.
Parkhurst, D.L., Appelo, C.A.J., 1999. User’s Guide to PHREEQC (Version 2)-A
Computer Program for Speciation, Batch-reaction, One-dimensional Transport,
and Inverse Geochemical Calculations: Water-Resources Investigations Report
99–4259. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado.
Parshley, J.V., Bowell, R.J., 2003. The limnology of Summer Camp pit lake: a case
study. Mine Water Environ. 22, 170–186.
287
Pelletier, C.A., Wen, M.E., Poling, G.W., 2009. Flooding pit lakes with surface water.
In: Castendyk, D.N., Eary, L.E. (Eds.), Mine Pit Lakes: Characteristics, Predictive
Modeling, and Sustainability. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration
Inc, Littleton, Colorado, pp. 187–202.
Pellicori, D.A., Gammons, C.H., Poulson, S.R., 2005. Geochemistry and stable isotope
composition of the Berkeley pit lake and surrounding mine waters, Butte,
Montana. Appl. Geochem. 20, 2116–2137.
Pillard, D.A., Runnells, D.D., Doyle, T.A., Young, J., 1996. Post-mining pit lakes:
predicting lake chemistry and assessing ecological risks. In: 3rd International
Conference on Tailings and Mine Waste ‘96, proceedings: Balkema, Rotterdam,
pp. 469–478.
Price, J.G., Shevenell, L., Henry, C.D., Rigby, J.G., Christensen, L.G., Lechler, P.J.,
Desilets, M.O., Fields, R., Driesner, D., Durbin, B., Lombardo, W., 1995. Water
Quality at Inactive and Abandoned Mines in Nevada: Nevada Bureau of Mines
and Geology, Open-File Report 95-4, Reno, Nevada, 71 p.
Ramstedt, M., Carlsson, E., Lövgren, L., 2003. Aqueous geochemistry in the Udden pit
lake, northern Sweden. Appl. Geochem. 18, 97–108.
Robins, R.G., Berg, R.B., Dysinger, D.K., Duaime, T.E., Metesh, J.J., Diebold, F.E.,
Twidwell, L.G., Mitman, G.G., Chatham, W.H., Huang, H.H., Young, C.A., 1997.
Chemical, physical and biological interaction at the Berkeley Pit, Butte,
Montana. In: Tailings and Mine Waste ‘97: Balkema. Rotterdam, Holland, pp.
529–541.
Sánchez España, J., López Pamo, E., Santofimia Pastor, E., Diez Ercilla, M., 2008. The
acidic mine pit lakes of the Iberian Pyrite Belt: an approach to their physical
limnology and hydrogeochemistry. Appl. Geochem. 23, 1260–1287.
Savage, K.S., Ashley, R.A., Bird, D.K., 2009. Geochemical evolution of a high arsenic,
alkaline pit-lake in the Mother Lode Gold District, California. Econ. Geol. 104,
1171–1211.
Savage, K.S., Bird, D.K., Ashley, R.P., 2000. Legacy of the California Gold Rush:
environmental geochemistry of arsenic in the Southern Mother Lode Gold
District. Int. Geol. Rev. 42, 385–415.
Schafer, W.M., Logsdon, M., Zhan, G., Espell, R., 2006. Post-Betze pit lake water
quality prediction, Nevada. In: Barnhisel, R.I. (Ed.), 7th International Conference
on Acid Rock Drainage, Proceedings. American Society of Mining and
Reclamation, Lexington, Kentucky, pp. 1863–1886.
Schultze, M., Boehrer, B., 2009. Induced meromixis. In: Castendyk, D.N., Eary, L.E.
(Eds.), Mine Pit Lakes: Characteristics, Predictive Modeling, and Sustainability.
Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration Inc, Littleton, Colorado, pp.
239–246.
Schultze, M., Pokrandt, K., Hille, W., 2010. Pit lakes of the Central German lignite
mining district: creation, morphometry and water quality aspects. Limnologica
40, 148–155.
Seal, R.R., Balistrieri, L.S., Piatak, N.M., Garrity, C.P., Hammarstrom, J.M., Hathaway,
E.M., 2006. Processes controlling geochemical variations in the South Pit lake,
Elizabeth mine Superfund site, Vermont, USA. In: Barnhisel, R.I. (Ed.), 7th
International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage, Proceedings. American Society
of Mining and Reclamation, Lexington, Kentucky.
Shevenell, L., 2000. Water quality in pit lakes in disseminated gold deposits
compared to natural, terminal lakes in Nevada. Environ. Geol. 39,
807–815.
Shevenell, L., Connors, K.A., 2000. Observed and experimental pit lake water quality
in low sulfidation (quartz-adularia) gold deposits, Nevada. In: Cluer, J.K., Price,
J.G., Struhsacker, E.M., Hardyman, R.F., Morris, C.L. (Eds.), Geology and Ore
Deposits 2000: The Great Basin and Beyond: Geological Society of Nevada
Symposium, Proceedings. Reno, Nevada, pp. 855–867.
Shevenell, L.A., Connors, K.A., Henry, C.D., 1999. Controls on pit lake water quality at
sixteen open-pit mines in Nevada. Appl. Geochem. 14, 669–687.
Shevenell, L.A., Pasternak, K.I., 2000. Modeled versus observed filling rates of the
historical Getchell pit lakes, Nevada. In: Cluer, J.K., Price, J.G., Struhsacker, E.M.,
Hardyman, R.F., Morris, C.L. (Eds.), Geology and Ore Deposits 2000: The Great
Basin and Beyond, Proceedings. Geological Society of Nevada, Reno, Nevada, pp.
869–871.
Siskind, D.E., Fumanti, R.R., 1974. Blast-produced Fractures in Lithonia Granite. U.S.
Bureau of Mines, Report of Investigations 7901, 38 p.
Stevens, C.L., Castendyk, D., Fisher, T.S.R., 2002. The open-cast mine Pit Lake:
environmental fluid mechanics and long-term prediction. New Zeal. Min. 31,
25–29.
Stevens, C.L., Lawrence, G.A., 1998. Stability and meromixis in a water-filled mine
pit. Limnol. Oceanogr. 43, 946–954.
Stevens, C.L., Fisher, T.S.R., 2005. Turbulent layering beneath the pycnocline in a
strongly stratified pit lake. Limnol. Oceanogr. 50, 197–206.
Stottmeister, U., Glässer, W., Klapper, H., Weißbrodt, E., Eccarius, B., Kennedy, C.,
Schultze, M., Wendt-Potthoff, K., Frömmichen, R., Schreck, P., Strauch, G., 1999.
Strategies for remediation of former opencast mining areas in eastern Germany.
In: Azcue, J.M. (Ed.), Environmental Impacts of Mining Activities. Springer,
Berlin, pp. 63–296.
Tassé, N., 2003. Limnological processes in the development of acid pit lakes. In:
Farrell, T., Taylor, G. (Eds.), 6th International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage,
Proceedings. Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Carlton, Australia,
pp. 559–570.
Tempel, R.N., Shevenell, L.A., Lechler, P., Price, J., 2000. Geochemical modeling
approach to predicting arsenic concentrations in a mine pit lake. Appl.
Geochem. 15, 475–492.
Triantafyllidis, S., Skarpelis, N., 2006. Mineral formation in an acid pit lake from a
high-sulfidation ore deposit: Kirki, NE Greece. J. Geochem. Explor. 88, 68–71.
288 D.N. Castendyk et al. / Applied Geochemistry 57 (2015) 267–288
Tones, P.I., 1982. Limnological and Fisheries Investigation of the Flooded Open Pit at
the Gunnar Uranium Mine. Saskatchewan Research Council Publication No. C-
805-10-E-82, Saskatoon, Canada.
Warren, G.C., Brown, A., Meyer, W.A., Williamson, M.A., 1997. Suppression of sulfide
mineral oxidation in mine pit walls Part I: Hydrologic modeling. 4th
International Conference on Tailings and Mine Waste ‘97, Fort Collins,
Colorado, Jan 13–17, 1997, Proceedings, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 425–432.
Weilinga, B., 2009. In situ bioremediation of pit lakes. In: Castendyk, D.N., Eary, L.E.
(Eds.), Mine Pit Lakes: Characteristics, Predictive Modeling, and Sustainability.
Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration Inc, Littleton, Colorado, pp.
215–223.
Wells, S., Berger, C., 2010. CE-QUAL-W2, Version 3.6. Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Portland State University. <www.cee.pdx.edu/w2/>
(accessed 10.02.11).
Wendt-Potthoff, K., 2006. In situ remediation of an acidic pit lake: stimulation of
microbial sulphate reduction in enclosure experiments. In: McCready, J., Ober,
D. (Eds.), Interactive Pit Lakes 2004 Conference: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/625/C-06/002.
Werner, F., 2009. Integration of prediction models. In: Castendyk, D.N., Eary, L.E.
(Eds.), Mine Pit Lakes: Characteristics, Predictive Modeling, and Sustainability.
Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration IncLittleton, Littleton, Colorado,
pp. 159–165.
Werner, F., Bilek, F., Luckner, L., 2001. Impact of regional groundwater flow on the
water quality of an old post-mining lake. Ecol. Eng. 17, 133–142.
Wetzel, R.G., 2001. Limnology: Lake and River Ecosystems, third ed. Academic
Press, San Diego, California, 1006 pp.
White, A.F., 1995. Chemical weathering rates of silicate minerals in soils. In: White,
A.F., Brantley, S.L. (Eds.), Chemical Weathering Rates of Silicate Minerals.
Mineralogical Society of America, Reviews in Mineralogy, vol. 31, pp. 407–461.
Woodhouse, B., 2002. Hydrology of pit lakes. Southwest Hydrol. 1, 40 p.
Wyatt, G., Miller, F., Chermak, J., 2006. Innovative water treatment plant utilizing
the South mine pit at the Copper Basin mining site in Tennessee, USA. In:
Barnhisel, R.I. (Ed.), 7th International Conference on Acid Rock Drainage,
Proceedings. American Society of Mining and Reclamation, Lexington,
Kentucky, pp. 2529–2539.