Strip Mining and the Flooding in Appalachia: Hearing Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, Ninety-fifth Congress, First Session, July 26, 1977U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977 - 108 pagina's |
Overige edities - Alles bekijken
Veelvoorkomende woorden en zinsdelen
acre-feet acres Appalachia Appalachian region aprox Bear Branch Beaver Creek Bicher Big Sandy River Breathitt County caused Chairman Charleston coal refuse committee CONGRESS THE LIBRARY Corps of Engineers CUNNINGHAM drainage area Eastern Kentucky Environment erosion federal feet Fishtrap Reservoir Flannagan flood control flood damage Forest Service Fork of Pound frequency HUNTER hydrologic hydrologist HYDROLOGY increased INDEPENDENT COAL Jenny Fork Kachic Kanawha KINDNESS Land disturbances Leatherwood Levisa Fork LIBRARY OF CONGRES LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Miller Branch mined watersheds mountain watersheds Mullins Fork National Weather Service Natural Resources North Fork officials Paintsville peak flows percent period Pike County Pikeville pollution problem rainfall record result RYAN sediment silt soil southern West Virginia SPADARO spoil square miles storage stream streamflow Strip Mine Control strip mining operations strip-mining subdrainage surface mining tion Tug Fork basin U. S. Dep U.S. Forest Service unmined watershed West Virginia Surface Williamson Willie Zinn
Populaire passages
Pagina 99 - Description of physical environment and of strip-mining operations in parts of Beaver Creek basin, Kentucky...
Pagina 86 - Effects of strip mining on the hydrology of small mountain watersheds in Appalachia.
Pagina 104 - Similarity of storm flow from mined waterdwds. the two watersheds, Jenny having the smaller Tp. A paired "t" test of 69 storms after Miller was mined showed no difference in Tp. Since there was difference before mining and no difference after mining, this means that lag time on Miller Branch was singificantly lower after mining. Since Mullins Fork was only about 2 percent disturbed, we thought that the effect would be negligible. Therefore, all storms from 26 June l968 to 6 July l97l were compared...
Pagina 103 - Thus, peaks in cubic feet per second (cf .s.) were adjusted to a unit area basis and a unit precipitation basis to become cubic feet per second per square mile per inch of precipitation (csmp). Results Surface mining for coal has altered the natural processes and affected the water resource in the study watersheds. Significant changes were observed in erosion and sediment yield of the mined watersheds (Curtis, l97 l).
Pagina 102 - The prevention and abatement of watershed destruction and water pollution are fast becoming important objectives in reclamation efforts. This calls for runoff and erosion control. Background Some attempts have already been made to evaluate the hydrologic impact of surface mining. One of the first was the Beaver Creek Study in southeastern Kentucky (Collier et al..
Pagina 104 - There wu no significant difference in Tp for these watersheds. Likewise, no differences were noted when Jenny was compared with Leatherwood A for storms before mining. After mining, there was a difference: A peaked before Jenny. Leatherwood C was the first watershed mined. Three stages of mining in this drainage resulted in about l6 percent disturbance.
Pagina 102 - STRIP-MINING INCREASES FLOOD POTENTIAL OF MOUNTAIN WATERSHEDS Willie R. Curtis1 ABSTRACT. A study in eastern Kentucky indicated that surface mining for coal alters the natural processes and affects the water resources in small Appalachian watersheds. Peak flow rates increased by a factor of 3 to 5 after surface mining. Lag time was reduced, thus effecting an increase in the rate at which flood peaks move downstream. It appears that peak flow is directly and positively correlated with the percent...
Pagina 104 - There was no opportunity for a before-mining test, but lag time for l32 storms after the l0-percent disturbance was less on the mined watershed than on unmined Jenny Fork. There was no significant difference in Tp between Leatherwood A and Leatherwood B before mining; means were 580 and 678 minutes respectively. After both watersheds were mined, there was still no significant difference between the two. However, lp for both was shortened to an average of 299 for A and 340 for B, approximately SO...
Pagina 103 - Jenny is the only watershed completely free from mining influence, so it became the base for comparisons in determining the effects of surface mining. At the same time, data collected in the other watersheds before mining are also used in evaluating the influence of surface mining on the water...
Pagina 102 - I966 indicate peak flows of about 800 cubic feet per second per square mile from a strip-mine bench. However, bedrock was exposed on the entire drainage area, and there was no loose spoil to detain any of the rainfall The Study A study was started in the fall of l967 to evaluate the effects of surface mining on the water resources of small Appalachian watersheds.