DOCSLIB.ORG

Acid Mine Drainage Abatement and Treatment (Amdat) Plan for the Leading Creek Watershed

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Acid Mine Drainage Abatement and Treatment (Amdat) Plan for the Leading Creek Watershed ACID MINE DRAINAGE ABATEMENT AND TREATMENT (AMDAT) PLAN FOR THE LEADING CREEK WATERSHED Confluence of Unnamed Tributary (TF1502) and Thomas Fork Acid mine drainage discharge in Bailey Run Mine Pool in Bailey Run Acid mine drainage seep in Hysell Run by Cynthia Bauers Michael Gosnell Raina Ooten Meigs County Soil and Water Conservation District Jen Bowman Ohio University’s Voinovich Center, ILGARD Barbara Flowers, Dave Vosefski, and Mary Ann Borch Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mineral Resource Management May 2006 Table of Contents ABSTRACT ...............................................................................................................................6 SECTION TWO- Hydrologic Unit ............................................................................................8 Watershed Description ...........................................................................................................8 Land Use Characterization .....................................................................................................9 Geology ................................................................................................................................10 Groundwater.........................................................................................................................10 Mining History .....................................................................................................................11 Coal Seams .......................................................................................................................12 Parker Run........................................................................................................................13 SECTION THREE- Water Quality Overview .........................................................................14 Acid Mine Drainage .............................................................................................................14 Water Quality Standards.......................................................................................................15 Ohio Water Quality Standards: Aquatic Life Uses ..............................................................15 Ohio Water Quality Standards: Non-Aquatic Life Uses ......................................................16 Biological Criteria ................................................................................................................17 Leading Creek Watershed Group Targets and Benchmarks ................................................18 Historical Water Quality Data..............................................................................................19 Current Water Quality Data..................................................................................................23 Biological Health..................................................................................................................26 Meigs #31 Mine Incident..................................................................................................27 Leading Creek Mainstem..................................................................................................27 Thomas Fork Watershed...................................................................................................27 Little Leading Creek and Mud Fork.................................................................................28 Upper Watershed..............................................................................................................28 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................28 SECTION FOUR- Leading Creek Site Descriptions ...............................................................34 Leading Creek ......................................................................................................................34 Thomas Fork (TF00) ............................................................................................................36 Underdrain Systems Installed within the Leading Creek Watershed...............................43 Unnamed tributary on Bailey Run Road (TF15)..............................................................45 Kinzel’s seep (TF12).........................................................................................................53 Casto’s (TF11)..................................................................................................................57 East Branch of Thomas Fork (TF10) ...............................................................................61 Bailey Run (TF04) ............................................................................................................64 Hysell Run (TF03) ............................................................................................................69 Unnamed tributary on McElhinney Hill (TF02) ..............................................................77 Paulins Hill Run (PH00).......................................................................................................79 Titus Run (TR00) .................................................................................................................83 Other Streams affected by Acid Mine Drainage ..................................................................86 Little Leading Creek (LL00) ................................................................................................86 Lasher Run (LR00)...............................................................................................................87 SECTION FIVE- Cost-Benefit Analysis and treatment strategy.............................................88 SECTION SIX- Future monitoring ..........................................................................................91 SECTION SEVEN- Funding Opportunities.............................................................................93 SECTION EIGHT- Methodology ............................................................................................97 SECTION NINE- References...................................................................................................99 SECTION TEN- Appendices .................................................................................................102 Appendix A: Historical Water Quality...............................................................................103 Appendix B: Landowner Contact Information for Priority Tributaries .............................107 Appendix C. Photographs of Sampling Sites .....................................................................110 Appendix D: Site Locations ...............................................................................................120 Appendix E: Underdrain listing..........................................................................................124 Appendix F: Estimated reclamation costs ..........................................................................127 Appendix G: Water quality data.........................................................................................146 List of Figures Figure 1. Land Uses within Leading Creek Watershed............................................................10 Figure 2. Formation of Acid Mine Drainage............................................................................14 Figure 3. Trends in Mud Fork's Fish Abundance.....................................................................22 Figure 4. Trends in Little Leading's Fish Abundance ..............................................................22 Figure 5. Most severe historical pH values at sites along Leading Creek................................23 Figure 6. Acidity and metal loadings in Paulins Hill Subwatershed........................................24 Figure 7. Acidity and metal loadings in the Titus Run Subwatershed .....................................25 Figure 8. Acidity and metal loadings on Thomas Fork............................................................25 Figure 9. Extreme low flow, acid, and metal loadings on Thomas Fork .................................26 Figure 10. Percent contribution of acid and metal loadings from Thomas Fork sources.........38 Figure 11. Percent contribution of acid and metal loads from tributaries and sources in Thomas Fork.............................................................................................................................39 Figure 12. Acidity and metal loading along Thomas Fork.......................................................41 Figure 13. Hysell Run acidity and discharge measured on 4-5-04...........................................72 Figure 14. Hysell Run acidity and discharge measured on 9-12-05........................................73 List of Tables Table 1. Summary of Leading Creek tributaries and their characteristics .................................9 Table 2. Major effects of acid mine drainage on lotic systems (Gray, 1997) ..........................14 Table 3. Designated uses and subcategories for surface water resources ................................15 Table 4. Narrative ranges and biocriteria for the Western Allegheny Plateau.........................18 Table 5. Ohio EPA standards and benchmarks organized by the Leading Creek Watershed Group........................................................................................................................................18 Table 6. Historical attainment table for sites
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Passive Treatment Systems for Acid Mine Drainage
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln U.S. Bureau of Land Management Papers U.S. Department of the Interior 2003 Passive Treatment Systems for Acid Mine Drainage K. L. Ford National Science and Technology Center Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usblmpub Part of the Environmental Sciences Commons Ford, K. L., "Passive Treatment Systems for Acid Mine Drainage" (2003). U.S. Bureau of Land Management Papers. 19. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usblmpub/19 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the U.S. Department of the Interior at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in U.S. Bureau of Land Management Papers by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Technical Note 409 April 2003 U.S. Department of the Interior • Bureau of Land Management Production services provided by: Information and Communications Staff Publishing Staff (303-236-6547) Janine Koselak: Layout and Design Linda Hill: Editing Lee Barkow, Director National Science & Technology Center P.O. Box 25047 Denver, Colorado 80225-0047 The Bureau of Land Management’s National Science and Technology Center supports other BLM offices by providing a broad spectrum of services in areas such as physical, biological, and social science assessments; architecture and engineering support; library assistance; mapping science; photo imaging; geographic information systems applications; and publications support. Available at: www.blm.gov/nstc/library/techno2.htm Technical Note 409 BLM/ST/ST-02/001+3596 Technical Note 409 April 2003 by: K.L. Ford Bureau of Land Management National Science and Technology Center PASSIVE TREATMENT SYSTEMS FOR ACID MINE DRAINAGE SUGGESTED CITATION: Ford, K.L.
    [Show full text]
  • Acid Mine Drainage: the Case of the Lafayette Mine, Rapu Rapu (Philippines)
    Acid Mine Drainage: the case of the Lafayette mine, Rapu Rapu (Philippines) Janet Cotter & Kevin Brigden Greenpeace Research Laboratories Technical Note 09/2006 October 2006 Summary Acid streams resulting from mining activities from certain types of mineral deposits such as those at Rapu Rapu in the Philippines are highly toxic to the aquatic environment. The extreme acidity is harmful to most aquatic life and, even after neutralisation, the precipitate formed continues to affect aquatic organisms. Toxic elements, such as copper, cadmium and zinc are often associated with acidic mine drainage (AMD), contributing substantially to its devastating ecological effects. An outflow of acid mine drainage from the Lafayette mines in Rapu Rapu into the sea would undoubtedly affect local marine life. It could silt up corals causing coral mortality and cause the depletion of bottom dwelling organisms, which would have domino effects up the ecosystem, reducing the food sources available for animals at the top of the marine food chain, e.g. sharks. The toxic elements could also be taken up into the marine food chain, causing long term health effects to marine life, and some may bioaccumulate up the food chain. Although AMD can be treated at the mine to some degree, e.g. by neutralisation at source, this process is never fully effective. Furthermore, accidents with the treatment system are inevitable. Earthquakes, tropical storms and typhoons occur regularly in the Philippines. These could cause tailings dams to break or cause flooding, sending a large pulse of either acid mine drainage or the precipitate downstream, which could have devastating effects on corals and marine life.
    [Show full text]
  • REFERENCE GUIDE to Treatment Technologies for Mining-Influenced Water
    REFERENCE GUIDE to Treatment Technologies for Mining-Influenced Water March 2014 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation EPA 542-R-14-001 Contents Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 2 Acronyms and Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... 5 Notice and Disclaimer..................................................................................................................... 7 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 9 Passive Technologies Technology: Anoxic Limestone Drains ........................................................................................ 11 Technology: Successive Alkalinity Producing Systems (SAPS).................................................. 16 Technology: Aluminator© ............................................................................................................ 19 Technology: Constructed Wetlands .............................................................................................. 23 Technology: Biochemical Reactors .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Alkalinity and Acidity in Mine Drainage
    Proceedings America Society of Mining and Reclamation, 2004 ACIDITY AND ALKALINITY IN MINE DRAINAGE: PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS1 Charles A. Cravotta III2 and Carl S. Kirby2 Abstract. In this paper, we emphasize that the Standard Method hot peroxide treatment procedure for acidity determination (hot acidity) directly measures net acidity or net alkalinity, but that more than one water-quality measure can be useful as a measure of the severity of acid mine drainage. We demonstrate that the hot acidity is related to the pH, alkalinity, and dissolved concentrations of Fe, Mn, and Al in fresh mine drainage. We show that the hot acidity accurately indicates the potential for pH to decrease to acidic values after complete oxidation of Fe and Mn, and it indicates the excess alkalinity or that required for neutralization of the sample. We show that the hot acidity method gives consistent, interpretable results on fresh or aged samples. Regional data for mine-drainage quality in Pennsylvania indicated the pH of fresh samples was predominantly acidic (pH 2.5 to 4) or near neutral (pH 6 to 7); approximately 25 percent of the samples had intermediate pH values. This bimodal frequency distribution of pH was distinctive for fully oxidized samples; oxidized samples had acidic or near-neutral pH, only. Samples that had near- neutral pH after oxidation had negative hot acidity; samples that had acidic pH after oxidation had positive hot acidity. Samples with comparable pH values had variable hot acidities owing to variations in their alkalinities and dissolved Fe, Mn, and Al concentrations. The hot acidity was comparable to net acidity computed on the basis of initial pH and concentrations of Fe, Mn, and Al minus the initial alkalinity.
    [Show full text]
  • Treatment of Acid Mine Drainage: a General Review
    IARJSET ISSN (Online) 2393-8021 ISSN (Print) 2394-1588 International Advanced Research Journal in Science, Engineering and Technology ISO 3297:2007 Certified Vol. 3, Issue 11, November 2016 Treatment of Acid Mine Drainage: A General Review H. L. Yadav1, A. Jamal2 Research Scholar, Department of Mining Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, (BHU) Varanasi, India1 Faculty Member, Department of Civil Engineering, G.B.Pant Engineering College Pauri, Garhwal, UK, India1 Professor, Department of Mining Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, (BHU) Varanasi, India2 Abstract: Acid mine drainage has severe environmental effects. These environmental effects can be devastating for living organism. The acidity of acid mine drainage destroys plants, vegetations, human and animals health, corrosion of pipes, building and building materials, Increasing degradation and contamination of aquatic resources and make water quality unsuitable for human and biota utilization. Presently treatment of mine influence water has significant challenges because of its persistent nature. The generation of acid mine drainage once initiated, can continue for decades and often long after active mining operations have ceased. Traditional treatment methods are not suitable for treatment of mining effluents. Recently, passive treatment systems have been proposed and implemented as low-cost, effective, efficient and long-term management options. This review summarizes the applications of active and passive treatment system for treatment of acid mine drainages. Keywords: Acid mine drainage, effect, active and passive treatment technology. INTRODUCTION The generation of Acidic wastewater is a natural process Sources of mine influence water that becomes accelerated and intensified by different The primary sources of mine impact water during different mining operation for coal and metals mines.
    [Show full text]
  • 7.2 Objectives of Mine Drainage Treatment 7.3 Mine Drainage
    Sludge management risks can include low sludge density, lack of appropriate on site disposal, off-site transportation and disposal issues, poor sludge stability (chemical mobilization, physical instability), sludge pond access risks (human/fauna), and dusting (airborne contamination). Risks of final site conditions must also be assessed, such as the risk of natural disasters to the treatment system (e.g., earthquake, excessive precipitation). Top of this page 7.2 Objectives of Mine Drainage Treatment The objectives of mine drainage treatment are varied and may include one or more of the following: Recovery and reuse of mine water within the mining operations for processing of ores and minerals, conveyance of materials, and operational use (e.g., dust suppression, mine cooling, and irrigation of rehabilitated land). Most mining operations include the management of water on the mine site and manage associated water infrastructure. The mine water balance requires management of different demands and sources for water volume and water quality. Mine drainage treatment, in this case, is aimed at modifying the water quality so that the treated effluent is fit for the intended use on the mine complex or site. Where multiple water sources are available it is typically less costly to keep the water sources separate to reduce the volume of water to be treated. This option is particularly true when off-site run-off water can be diverted away from the mine and waste facilities to reduce water volume needed to be treated. Protection of human health in situations where people may come in contact with the impacted mine water through indirect or direct use of mine water drainage.
    [Show full text]
  • Gazetteer of West Virginia
    Bulletin No. 233 Series F, Geography, 41 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CHARLES D. WALCOTT, DIKECTOU A GAZETTEER OF WEST VIRGINIA I-IEISTRY G-AN3STETT WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1904 A» cl O a 3. LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL. DEPARTMENT OP THE INTEKIOR, UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, Washington, D. C. , March 9, 190Jh SIR: I have the honor to transmit herewith, for publication as a bulletin, a gazetteer of West Virginia! Very respectfully, HENRY GANNETT, Geogwvpher. Hon. CHARLES D. WALCOTT, Director United States Geological Survey. 3 A GAZETTEER OF WEST VIRGINIA. HENRY GANNETT. DESCRIPTION OF THE STATE. The State of West Virginia was cut off from Virginia during the civil war and was admitted to the Union on June 19, 1863. As orig­ inally constituted it consisted of 48 counties; subsequently, in 1866, it was enlarged by the addition -of two counties, Berkeley and Jeffer­ son, which were also detached from Virginia. The boundaries of the State are in the highest degree irregular. Starting at Potomac River at Harpers Ferry,' the line follows the south bank of the Potomac to the Fairfax Stone, which was set to mark the headwaters of the North Branch of Potomac River; from this stone the line runs due north to Mason and Dixon's line, i. e., the southern boundary of Pennsylvania; thence it follows this line west to the southwest corner of that State, in approximate latitude 39° 43i' and longitude 80° 31', and from that corner north along the western boundary of Pennsylvania until the line intersects Ohio River; from this point the boundary runs southwest down the Ohio, on the northwestern bank, to the mouth of Big Sandy River.
    [Show full text]
  • Research of Acid Mine Wastewater Treatment Technology
    Available online www.jocpr.com Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research, 2015, 7(4):1011-1017 ISSN : 0975-7384 Research Article CODEN(USA) : JCPRC5 Research of acid mine wastewater treatment technology Li Bicai a*, He Liansheng b, Meng Rui b and Song Juanjuan a aCollege of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Hunan City University, China bChinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, China _____________________________________________________________________________________________ ABSTRACT In many countries and areas, acid mine drainage leads to serious environmental pollution. The article analyses the source and mechanism of the acidic mining waste water. Some commonly used treatment technologies and principle of mine acid waste water treatment were analyzed. And the characteristics of several treatment methods are discussed in this paper. At present, of the acidic mining waste water treatment methods and main method of sulfide precipitation floatation, method of displacement, extraction method, combined processing and biochemical electrode method, etc. Key words: acid mine wastewater; formation mechanism; treatment principle; processing _____________________________________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION 1 The source and mechanism of the acidic mining waste water The exploitation of the quarries includes two process: mining and mineral processing. Mining process is the first word processes of mineral resources industry, including mining process in open pit mining technique and mine mining process. Mining waste water treatment process, according to management process, is divided into two kinds: mining industrial wastewater and acidic mining waste water. The mining industry wastewater mainly comes from component cooling water, such as the mine air compressor cooling water, etc. The mining industry wastewater is with no harm to the environment, and after cooling it can be recycled for production.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Constructed Wetlands for Acid Mine Drainage Treatment
    water Review Review of Constructed Wetlands for Acid Mine Drainage Treatment Aurora M. Pat-Espadas 1,* , Rene Loredo Portales 1 , Leonel E. Amabilis-Sosa 2, Gloria Gómez 3 and Gladys Vidal 3 1 CONACYT-UNAM Instituto de Geología, Estación Regional del Noroeste (ERNO), Luis D. Colosio y Madrid, 83000 Hermosillo, Sonora, Mexico; [email protected] 2 CONACYT-Instituto Tecnológico de Culiacán, Unidad de Posgrado e Investigación, Av. Juan de Dios Bátiz s/n, 80220 Culiacán, Sinaloa, Mexico; [email protected] 3 Engineering and Environmental Biotechnology Group, Environmental Sciences Faculty and EULA-Chile Center, Universidad de Concepción, Concepción 4070386, Chile; [email protected] (G.G.); [email protected] (G.V.) * Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected]; Tel.: +52-662-2175019 (ext. 118); Fax: +52-662-2175340 Received: 11 October 2018; Accepted: 8 November 2018; Published: 19 November 2018 Abstract: The mining industry is the major producer of acid mine drainage (AMD). The problem of AMD concerns at active and abandoned mine sites. Acid mine drainage needs to be treated since it can contaminate surface water. Constructed wetlands (CW), a passive treatment technology, combines naturally-occurring biogeochemical, geochemical, and physical processes. This technology can be used for the long-term remediation of AMD. The challenge is to overcome some factors, for instance, chemical characteristics of AMD such a high acidity and toxic metals concentrations, to achieve efficient CW systems. Design criteria, conformational arrangements, and careful selection of each component must be considered to achieve the treatment. The main objective of this review is to summarize the current advances, applications, and the prevalent difficulties and opportunities to apply the CW technology for AMD treatment.
    [Show full text]
  • Efficacy of Lime, Biosolids, and Mycorrhiza for the Phytostabilization of Sulfidic Copper Tailings in Chile: a Greenhouse Experiment
    International Journal of Phytoremediation ISSN: 1522-6514 (Print) 1549-7879 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/bijp20 Efficacy of Lime, Biosolids, and Mycorrhiza for the Phytostabilization of Sulfidic Copper Tailings in Chile: A Greenhouse Experiment César Verdugo , Pablo Sánchez , Claudia Santibáñez , Paola Urrestarazu , Elena Bustamante , Yasna Silva , Denis Gourdon & Rosanna Ginocchio To cite this article: César Verdugo , Pablo Sánchez , Claudia Santibáñez , Paola Urrestarazu , Elena Bustamante , Yasna Silva , Denis Gourdon & Rosanna Ginocchio (2010) Efficacy of Lime, Biosolids, and Mycorrhiza for the Phytostabilization of Sulfidic Copper Tailings in Chile: A Greenhouse Experiment, International Journal of Phytoremediation, 13:2, 107-125, DOI: 10.1080/15226510903535056 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15226510903535056 Published online: 13 Aug 2010. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 186 View related articles Citing articles: 9 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=bijp20 Download by: [Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile] Date: 11 January 2017, At: 08:14 International Journal of Phytoremediation, 13:107–125, 2011 Copyright C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1522-6514 print / 1549-7879 online DOI: 10.1080/15226510903535056 EFFICACY OF LIME, BIOSOLIDS, AND MYCORRHIZA FOR THE PHYTOSTABILIZATION OF SULFIDIC COPPER TAILINGS IN CHILE: A GREENHOUSE EXPERIMENT Cesar´ Verdugo,1 Pablo Sanchez,´ 1 Claudia Santiba´nez,˜ 1 Paola Urrestarazu,1 Elena Bustamante,1 Yasna Silva,1 Denis Gourdon,1 and Rosanna Ginocchio1,2 1Centro de Investigacion´ Minera y Metalurgica,´ CIMM, Vitacura, Santiago, Chile 2Facultad de Agronom´ıa e Ingenier´ıa Forestal, Pontificia Universidad Catolica´ de Chile, Santiago, Chile Inadequate abandonment of copper mine tailings under semiarid Mediterranean climate type conditions has posed important environmental risks in Chile due to wind and rain erosion.
    [Show full text]
  • Ions from Acid Mine Drainage Using Polymer Inclusion Membranes
    minerals Article Selective Removal of As(V) Ions from Acid Mine Drainage Using Polymer Inclusion Membranes Iwona Zawierucha 1,* , Anna Nowik-Zajac 1 and Grzegorz Malina 2 1 Institute of Chemistry, Jan Dlugosz University in Czestochowa, 42-200 Czestochowa, Poland; [email protected] 2 Department of Hydrogeology and Engineering Geology, AGH University of Science and Technology, Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Cracow, Poland; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +48-343614918-(251) Received: 20 August 2020; Accepted: 12 October 2020; Published: 14 October 2020 Abstract: Acid mine drainage (AMD) is globally recognized as one of the environmental pollutants of the priority concern due to high concentrations of toxic metals and sulfates. More rigorous environmental legislation requires exploitation of effective technologies to remove toxic metals from contaminated streams. In view of high selectivity, effectiveness, durability, and low energy demands, the separation of toxic metal ions using immobilized membranes with admixed extractants could ameliorate water quality. Cellulose triacetate based polymer inclusion membranes (PIMs), with extractant and plasticizer, were studied for their ability to transport of As(V) ions from synthetic aqueous leachates. The effects of the type and concentration of extractant, plasticizer content, and sulfuric acid concentration in source phase on the arsenic removal efficiency have been assessed. Under the best of applied conditions, PIM with Cyanex 921 as extractant and o-nitrophenyl octyl ether (o-NPOE) as plasticizer showed high repeatability and excellent transport activity for selective removal of As(V) from AMD. Keywords: arsenic; acid mine drainage; polymer inclusion membranes 1. Introduction Mining of minerals is associated with acid drainage problems that can give rise to long-term impairment to aquatic environment and biodiversity.
    [Show full text]
  • By Alban W. Coen, III Columbus, Ohio 1992
    STREAMFLOW, WATER-QUALITY, AND BIOLOGICAL DATA ON STREAMS IN AN AREA OF LONGWALL COAL MINING, SOUTHERN OHIO, WATER YEARS 1987-89 By Alban W. Coen, III U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Open-File Report 92-120 Prepared in cooperation with the OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, DIVISION OF RECLAMATION Columbus, Ohio 1992 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MANUEL LUJAN, JR., Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information Copies of this report can write to: be purchased from: District Chief U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Geological Survey Books and Open-File Reports 975 W. Third Avenue Section Columbus, OH 43212-3192 Box 25425 Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 CONTENTS Page Abstract 1 Introduction 2 Purpose and scope 2 Overview of longwall coal mining 2 Description of the study area 6 Precipitation during the study period 6 Acknowledgments 10 Methods of study 10 Streamflow measurement 10 Water-quality sampling 10 Collection of stream-biology data 13 Streamflow data 14 Water-quality data 14 Biological data 14 Summary 18 References cited 19 Data tables 21 ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Schematic diagram showing longwall mining process 4 2. Diagrammatic section showing fracture zones in overburden above a longwall panel 5 3. Map showing study area and locations of data- collection sites 7 4. Generalized geologic column for study area 8 5. Map showing location of gaging station at Shade River near Chester, Ohio, in relation to study area 12 6. Graphs showing monthly streamflows of Shade River near Chester, Ohio, water years 1987-89 16 7. Graph showing Invertebrate Community Indexes at study sites, water years 1987-89 17 TABLES Table 1.
    [Show full text]