DOCSLIB.ORG

Coal Resources of Virginia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Coal Resources of Virginia GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 171 COAL RESOURCES OF VIRGINIA By Andrew Brown, Henry L. Berryhill, Jr., Dorothy A. Taylor, and James V. A. Trumbull UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Oscar L. Chapman, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. E. Wrather, Director GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 171 COAL RESOURCES OF VIRGINIA By Andrew Brown, Henry L. BenyhilL Jr., Dorothy A. Tayknr, and James V. A. Trumbull Prepared in cooperation with the Virginia Geological Survey Washington, D. C., 1962 Free on application to the Geological Surrey, Waatiii«ton 26, D. C. PREFACE This report on the coal resources of Virginia has been prepared by the U. S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Virginia Geological Survey. It is the seventh of a series of reports published by the U. S. Geological Survey as part of a program to reappraise the coal reserves of the United States. Studies of reserves in other States are contained in the following publications: Geology of the Deep River coal field, Chatham, Lee, and Moore Counties, N. C., Preliminary map, 1949; Coal resources of Montana, Circular 53, 1949; Coal resources of Michigan, Circular 77, 1950; Coal resources of Wyoming, Circular 81, 1950; Coal resources of New Mexico, Circular 89, 1950; and Lignite resources of South Dakota, Circular 159, 1952. W. E. WRATHER, Director CONTENTS Page Page Introduction .............................. 1 The Southwest field Continued Acknowledgments ..................... 1 Coal beds in the Norton formation Con. Summary of Reserves...................... 2 Description Continued Methods of preparing reserve estimates ...... 2 Aily bed ..................... 19 Classification according to charac­ Kennedy bed ................... 19 teristics of the coal.................. 3 Caldwell bed ................... 19 Rank of coal ...................... 3 Big Fork bed .................. 19 Weight of coal ..... .............. 3 Lower Banner bed.............. 19 Thickness of beds ................. 3 Upper Banner bed .............. 22 Thickness of overburden.......... 3 Splash Dam bed................ 22 Classification accerding to abundance Hagy bed....................... 24 and reliability of data ................ 3 Norton bed .................... 24 Measured reserves............... 3 Reserves in the Norton formation .... 24 Indicated reserves ................. 3 Coal beds in the Wise formation ......... 24 Inferred reserves ................ 3 Description ....................... 24 Distinction between original, remaining, Dorchester bed................. 24 and recoverable reserves............. 3 Lyons bed...................... 27 Methods of recording data and making Blair bed ..................... 27 calculations ......................... 5 Eagle bed .................... 27 Comparison of past and present estimates.... 6 Clintwood bed.................. 27 The Southwest field.......,................ 6 Addington and Rocky Location .............................. 6 Fork beds .................. 28 Topography and drainage................ 6 Imboden or Campbell Climate, vegetation, and land use.......' 8 Creek bed ................... 28 Population........................... 8 Stone Creek bed ............... 28 Transportation....................... 8 Kelly bed ..................... 28 Stratigraphy .......................... 9 Little Alma and Alma beds ;..... 28 Lee formation..................... 9 Lower Cedar Grove bed ........ 28 Norton formation.................. 9 Cedar Grove bed .............. 28 Gladeville sandstone............... 10 Pinhook bed .................. 28 Wise formation.................... 10 Lower St. Charles bed ......... 28 Harlan sandstone ................. 10 Upper St. Charles bed .......... 29 Structure............................. 10 Harlan or Upper Standiford The Cumberland block ....... ... 10 bed ........................ 29 Buchanan, Tazewell, and north­ Kirk bed ..................... 29 eastern Russell Counties ......... 10 Taggart Marker or "B" bed..... 29 Coal beds in the Lee formation .......... 10 Taggart bed .................... 29 Description ....................... 10 Low Splint bed ................. 29 The Pocahontas beds........... 11 Phillips bed ................... 30 Pocahontas No. 3 bed ...... 11 Gin Creek bed ................. 30 Pocahontas No. 4 bed ...... 11 Wax bed ....................... 30 Pocahontas No. 5 bed ...... 11 Pardee bed.................... 30 Coal beds above the Pocahontas Morris bed ................... 30 beds in Tazew'ell County...... 11 High Splint bed ................ 30 Lower Horsepen bed....... 11 Reserves in the Wise formation...... 30 War Creek bed............. 11 The Valley fields........................... 31 "C" bed .................. 11 General features ....................... 31 Middle Horsepen bed........ 12' Stratigraphy........................... 31 Upper Horsepen bed ....... 12 Structure ............................. 31 Lower Seaboard bed........ 12 Coal beds ............................. 32 Middle Seaboard and........ Coal fields ............................ 32 Greasy Creek beds....... 12 Description .. ..................... 32 Upper Seaboard bed......... 12 North River field .............. 32 Coal beds in the Lee formation North Mountain field............ 33 in Scott and Russell Counties .. 12 Brushy Mountain field........... 33 Reserves in the Lee formation ...... 12 Price Mountain field ............ 33 Coal beds in the Norton formation........ 15 Little Walker Mountain field ..... 33 Description ............ .......... 15 Pulaski field .................. 34 Tiller bed..................... 15 Max Meadows field ............. 34 Jawbone bed .................... 15 Reed Creek field............... 34 Raven bed ......... ........... 15 Bland field ....;.............. 34 ill C ONTENTS Continued Page Page The Valley fields Continued Production of coal in Virginia ............. 39 Goal fields Continued The first period, 1748-1882........... 39 Description C ontinued Richmond basin.................... 39 Lick Creek field ................ 35 Valley fields ...................... 41 Reserves of the Valley fields......... 35 The second period, 1883-............. 41 The Eastern fields .......................... 35 Valley fields ...................... 41 Richmond basin ........................ 35 Southwest field.................... 41 General features ................... 35 Coal mining in Virginia .................... 55 Stratigraphy ....................... 35 Mining methods ....................... 55 Structure ......................... 38 Recoverability in mining................ 55 Coal beds .......................... 38 Selected bibliograpny....................... 56 Reserves .......................... 39 Farnwille basin ........................ 39 ILLUSTRATIONS Page Plate 1. Geologic map of the Southwest Virginia coal field ....................................... In pocket 2. A. Generalized map of the Clintwood coal bed, Southwest Virginia field; B. Generalized map of the Imboden or Campbell Creek coal bed, Southwest Virginia field ............................................................... in pocket 3. Chart showing stratigraphic position of coal beds in the Southwest Virginia field........... In pocket Figure 1. Index map of Virginia, showing location of coal fields................................... 7 2. Generalized map of the Tiller coal bed, Southwest Virginia field ......................... 16 3. Generalized map of the Jawbone coal bed, Southwest Virginia field ....................... 17 4. Generalized map of the Raven coal bed, Southwest Virginia field ......................... 18 5. Generalized map of the Kennedy coal bed, Southwest Virginia field ....................... 20 6. Generalized map of the Lower Banner coal bed, Southwest Virginia field .................. 21 7. Generalized map of the Upper Banner coal bed, Southwest Virginia field .................. 23 8. Generalized map of the Splash Dam coal bed, Southwest Virginia field .................... 25 9. Generalized map of the Dorchester coal bed, Southwest Virginia field .................... 26 10. Sketch map of coal fields in Montgomery, Pulaski, Wythe, and Bland Counties, Va. ....... 31 11. Map of the Richmond and Farmville basins, Virginia ................................... 40 12. Graph showing production of Southwest Virginia field by counties, 1882-1948 .............. 44 TABLES Page Table 1. Classification of coals by rank ...................................................... 4 2. Estimated remaining reserves of bituminous coal in the Southwest Virginia field as of January 1, 1951 by beds ....................................................... 13 3. Estimated remaining reserves of bituminous coal in the Southwest Virginia field as of January 1, 1951, by counties ................................................... 14 4. Estimated original reserves of semianthracite in the Valley fields of Virginia, by counties........................................................................ 36 5. Production of coal from tne Richmond basin, 1748-1882 ................................ 37 6. Recorded production of coal in Virginia, 1748-1950 .................................... 42 7. Estimated remaining reserves of bituminous coal in the Southwest Virginia field as of January 1, 1951, by beds and counties ............................................ 45 8. Estimated remaining reserves of bituminous coal in the Southwest Virginia field as of January 1, 1951, by counties and beds ........................................... 52 iv COAL RESOURCES OF VIRGINIA INTRODUCTION too
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mcdowell County Comprehensive Plan
    MCDOWELL COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WVULAW Land Use and Sustainable Development Law Clinic ADOPTED _ WVULAW Land Use and Sustainable Development Law Clinic “McDowell County, West Virginia, a community on the rise, is INTRODUCTION rich in history, outdoor recreation, and friendly, hardworking, and ery few places in West Virginia have the history welcoming people. The county attracts visitors from all over the and mystique of McDowell County. The south- world to adventure, leading the way as the backbone of southern ernmost county in the Mountain State, McDow- Vell County has left an indelible mark on the region. West Virginia’s tourism industry.” With a past that often seems bigger than life, the tales of this beautiful and rugged place are now tempered by the challenges of today. Once the bustling epicenter —McDowell County’s Vision Statement of coal country, McDowell County now faces complex and longstanding issues. The vision statement serves as the foundation for Issues include high levels of substance abuse, lack future planning and decision-making in McDowell of infrastructure, a dwindling economy, lack of jobs, a County. The vision statement is forward-thinking and large number of abandoned and dilapidated structures, can help ensure that future decisions align with the and inadequate health care. While there are no easy goals and objectives set forth in the plan. Further- ways to address these issues, the community can de- more, recommendations and actions steps in the com- velop a plan that acknowledges the issues, identifies prehensive plan should be consistent with the vision methods to address the issue, and prioritizes the meth- statement.
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Assessment of Watershed Health in the Clinch and Powell River System a Report on the Aquatic Ecological Health of the Clinch and Powell River System
    June 2015 Integrated Assessment of Watershed Health in the Clinch and Powell River System A Report on the Aquatic Ecological Health of the Clinch and Powell River System Prepared for— Prepared by— US Environmental Protection Kimberly Matthews, Michele Eddy, Agency and Phillip Jones (RTI) Healthy Watersheds Program Mark Southerland, Brenda Morgan, William Jefferson Clinton Building and Ginny Rogers (Versar) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. RTI International Washington, DC 20460 3040 E. Cornwallis Road Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 RTI Project Number 0213541.004.001.003 Integrated Assessment of Watershed Health in the Clinch and Powell River System June 2015 Prepared by RTI International for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Support for this project was provided by the EPA Healthy Watersheds Program (http://www.epa.gov/healthywatersheds) Disclaimer The information presented in this document is intended to support screening-level assessments of watershed protection priorities and is based on modeled and aggregated data that may have been collected or generated for other purposes. Results should be considered in that context and do not supplant site-specific evidence of watershed health. At times, this document refers to statutory and regulatory provisions, which contain legally binding requirements. This document does not substitute for those provisions or regulations, nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it does not impose legally binding requirements on EPA, states, authorized tribes, or the public and may not apply to a particular situation based on the circumstances. Reference herein to any specific commercial products, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief Study of the Levisa Fork and Russell Fork Of
    A BRIEF STUDY OF THE LEVISA FORK AND RUSSELL FORK OF THE BIG SANDY RIVER by James B. Kirkwood INTRODUCTION The Levisa Fork of the Big Sandy River arises in Buchanan County', Virginia, and flows northwestward through Pike County, Floyd County, Johnson County and into Lawrence County, Kentucky, where the direction of flow becomes northward. The confluence of the Levisa Fork and Tug Fork at Louisa, Kentucky, forms the Big Sandy River which flows into the Ohio River at Catlettsburg, Kentucky. The Big Sandy River drains parts of Kentucky, West Virginia and Virginia. The basin covers an area of 4,281 square miles, of which 2,280 square miles are in Kentucky. Levisa Fork was chosen for study because of its importance as a fishing stream. Numerous centers of population are located along this stream. Accord- ing to the 1952 edition of the Rand McNally Reference Map, populations of the major centers were; Paintsville in Johnson County with a population of 4309, Prestonsburg in Floyd County with 3585 population, Pikeville in Pike County with 5154 population, and Elkhorn City, located on Russell Fork in Pike County, with 1349 population. The major tributaries of the Levisa Fork are: Paint Creek arising in Morgan and Magof fin Counties, Kentucky and entering Levisa Fork at Paintsville; John's Creek, on which Dewey Lake was formed, arises in Pike County and enters Levisa Fork near Prestonsburg; Beaver Creek begins in Knott County, Kentucky and enters Levisa Fork near Martin, Kentucky; Mud Creek is located entirely in Floyd County; Shelby Creek is located in Pike County; Russell Fork, which is reported on in this study, starts in Virginia and flows northwestward to its confluence with Levisa Fork at Millard, Kentucky.
    [Show full text]
  • Body Found Near Guest River Gorge Guilty Plea?
    Sports | Page 6 | Raiders dispose of Castlewood 46-12. | Page 7| Warriors toppled by Lee’s grinding offense Check With Us On ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ LIFETIME TUESDAY WARRANTY the October 25, 2016 ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ ★ Vol. 105 • No. 86 www.NothingLikeFreedom.com FREEDOM FORD 12 Pages Lincoln, Inc. NORTON, VA 24273 151 Woodland Drive • Wise, Virginia USPS 120-120 $1.00 (276) 328-2686A ProgressiveA Progressive Newspaper Newspaper Serving Serving Our Our Mountain Mountain Area Area Since Since 1911 1911 PROGRESS Body found near Guest River Gorge JEFF LESTER so from the gorge’s trailhead. long it will take for the medical NEWS EDITOR The remains were badly decom- examiner’s office to complete its The remains were sent posed and have been sent to the state work. The Wise County Sheriff’s Office medical examiner’s office in Officials are not releasing infor- and the office of Commonwealth Roanoke for identification and to mation at this time on a possible to the state medical Attorney Chuck Slemp are investigat- determine the cause of death, cause of death or the possible identi- ing the discovery of a deceased man’s Wagner said. ty of the man. body near the Guest River Gorge. Because of decomposition, it is However, Slemp said one possibil- examiner’s office for Sheriff’s Lt. Tim Wagner and impossible for police to estimate the ity they are looking at pertains to a Slemp confirmed Monday afternoon age of the deceased at this time, he man whose family reported him that hikers found the body Sunday said. missing. He declined to elaborate on identification.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Plan (PDF)
    i Wise County Comprehensive Plan Table of Contents Table of Contents Part 1: Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 1 Part 2: Designing a Plan ................................................................................................................ 1 2.1 Why Plan? ..................................................................................................................... 2 Planning Process and Participation ................................................................................... 2 How Should the Plan Be Used? ......................................................................................... 4 Authority to Plan ............................................................................................................... 4 Planning Horizon ............................................................................................................... 6 Working Together as a Region .......................................................................................... 6 Relationship to Other Planning Efforts ............................................................................. 6 2.2 Coordinated Growth Strategies ..................................................................................... 6 Development Opportunities and Responsibilities ............................................................ 7 Diversifying Economic Opportunities ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Recognition, Carswell Eroding Refuse
    Carswell Eroding Refuse AML Project Location: Kimball, McDowell County, West Virginia Submitted by: Charles J. Miller Assistant Director WV DEP, Abandoned Mine Lands and Reclamation 601 57th St., S.E. Charleston, WV 25304 Phone: (304) 926-0499 Email: [email protected] Project start date: 1/16/2006 Project complete date: 5/15/2007 Construction cost: $2,542,182 Responsible agency for reclamation: WV Department of Environmental Protection Division of Land Restoration Abandoned Mine Lands and Reclamation Contractor: Green Mountain Company Design Engineer: Ackenheil Engineers & Geologists Date Submitted: 5/12/2008 I. Background The Carswell Eroding Refuse project is located along Laurel Branch in the small coal mining community of Carswell Hollow, just north of the Town of Kimball, in West Virginia’s most southerly county of McDowell. This neighborhood is situated about 4 miles east of the City of Welch, the county seat, along US Route 52, and 12 miles north of Tazewell County, Virginia. The project area drains into Elkhorn Creek, which eventually flows into the Tug Fork River as it meanders its way westward to create the state boundary between Kentucky and West Virginia. Carswell, like so many other southern West Virginia communities, is inexorably linked to coal mining activities as they progressed throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. During these periods, many of the mining operators constructed company homes adjacent to or even on top of coal refuse areas due to the severe shortage of flat land in the steep hollows, so often found in this part of West Virginia. Gradually, however, problems began to develop that ultimately threatened both properties and lives.
    [Show full text]
  • Powell River Watershed (06010206) of the Tennessee River Basin
    POWELL RIVER WATERSHED (06010206) OF THE TENNESSEE RIVER BASIN WATERSHED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL WATERSHED MANAGEMENT SECTION Presented to the people of the Powell River Watershed by the Division of Water Pollution Control October 30, 2007. Prepared by the Knoxville Environmental Field Office: Michael Atchley Steve Brooks Jonathon Burr Larry Everett Rich Stallard The Johnson City Environmental Field Office: Beverly Brown Robin Cooper Tina Robinson Jeff Horton, Manager And the Nashville Central Office, Watershed Management Section: Richard Cochran David Duhl Regan McGahen Josh Upham Jennifer Watson Sherry Wang, Manager POWELL RIVER WATERSHED WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Glossary Summary Chapter 1. Watershed Approach to Water Quality Chapter 2. Description of the Powell River Watershed Chapter 3. Water Quality Assessment of the Powell River Watershed Chapter 4. Point and Nonpoint Source Characterization of the Powell River Watershed Chapter 5. Water Quality Partnerships in the Powell River Watershed Chapter 6. Restoration Strategies Appendix I Appendix II Appendix III Appendix IV Appendix V Glossary GLOSSARY 1Q20. The lowest average 1 consecutive days flow with average recurrence frequency of once every 20 years. 30Q2. The lowest average 3 consecutive days flow with average recurrence frequency of once every 2 years. 7Q10. The lowest average 7 consecutive days flow with average recurrence frequency of once every 10 years. 303(d). The section of the federal Clean Water Act that requires a listing by states, territories, and authorized tribes of impaired waters, which do not meet the water quality standards that states, territories, and authorized tribes have set for them, even after point sources of pollution have installed the minimum required levels of pollution control technology.
    [Show full text]
  • POLREP Number 3: Martin County Coal Corp Coal Slurry Release
    Site: HGd'a '9. Break: _.f3g,·""'t,_,o__ _ Othcrr ----- POLREP NUMBER 3 KENTUCKY/WEST VIRGINIA COAL SLURRY SPILL MARTIN COUNTY COAL CORPORATION INEZ, KY EVENT: MULTI-REGIONAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE ATTN: DOUG LAIR, EPA REGION IV CHARLIE KLEEMAN, EPA REGION III I. SITUATION (1700 HOURS, THURSDAY, 19 OCTOBER 2000) A At approximately 0200 hours on Wednesday, 11 October 2000, an estimated 250 million gallons of coal mine fine refuse slurry were released from a 72-acre impoundment operated by Martin County Coal Corporation (MCCC). The release occurred as a result of a sudden and unexpected breach into an underground mine adjacent to MCCC's refuse impoundment. The slurry entered both the WolfCreek and Rockcastle Creek watersheds ofMartin County, Kentucky. The spilled material has impacted more than 75 miles of surface water downstream of the site, including both the Tug Fork and Levisa Fork of the Big Sandy River, a tributary of the Ohio River. The Tug Fork and Big Sandy Rivers border both West Virginia and Kentucky. A Joint Information Center (JIC) has been established on site. The JIC serves to issue a joint press releases from EPA, the state of Kentucky and MCCC. The JIC will issue a press release by 1700 hours regarding analytical findings from samples collected by MCCC and Kentucky Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet (KYDNREPC). The OSC requests that all media inquiries be directed to the JIC at (606)395-0353. B. Several potable water and industrial intakes have been affected as a result of the spill. The following provides status and current activities being conducted regarding the affected systems: West Virginia: Fort Gay, WV, continues to conserve water by closing car washes and Laundromats.
    [Show full text]
  • Floods of March 1964 Along the Ohio River
    Floods of March 1964 Along the Ohio River GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1840-A Prepared in cooperation with the States of Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, and with agencies of the Federal Government Floods of March 1964 Along the Ohio River By H. C. BEABER and J. O. ROSTVEDT FLOODS OF 1964 IN THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 1840-A Prepared in cooperation with the States of Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, and with agencies of the Federal Government UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1965 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T. Pecora, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 65 cents (paper cover) CONTENTS Page Abstract ------------------------------------------------------- Al Introduction.______-_-______--_____--__--_--___-_--__-_-__-__-____ 1 The storms.__---_------------__------------------------_----_--_- 6 The floods.___-__.______--____-._____.__ ._-__-.....__._____ 8 Pennsylvania.. _._-.------._-_-----___-__---_-___-_--_ ..___ 8 West Virginia.--.-._____--_--____--_-----_-----_---__--_-_-__- 11 Ohio.-.------.---_-_-_.__--_-._---__.____.-__._--..____ 11 Muskingum River basin._---___-__---___---________________ 11 Hocking River basin_______________________________________ 12 Scioto River basin______.__________________________________ 13 Little Miami River basin.__-____-_.___._-._____________.__. 13 Kentucky._.__.___.___---___----_------_--_-______-___-_-_-__
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of the Human Use of Caves in Virginia: a 10,500 Year History
    Michael B. Barber and David A. Hubbard, Jr.-Overview of the Use of Caves in Virginia: A 10,500 Year History. Journal of Cave and Karst Studies 59(3): 132-136. OVERVIEW OF THE HUMAN USE OF CAVES IN VIRGINIA: A 10,500 YEAR HISTORY MICHAEL B. BARBER George Washington & Jefferson National Forests, 5162 Valleypointe Parkway, Roanoke, Virginia 24153 USA DAVID A. HUBBARD,JR. Virginia Division of Mineral Resources, PO Box 3667, Charlottesville, Virginia 22903 USA The human utilization of caves within the Commonwealth of Virginia began early in prehistoric times and has extended to the present. Such use often has focused on the exploitation of removable resources; knap- pable lithic materials for the production of stone tools is an important prehistoric example. During his- toric times, the mining of saltpetre dominates although other natural resources also were removed. The human interaction with caves, however, extends well beyond raw material extraction into the realm of ceremonialism and supernaturalism. Within a Virginia context, Native American use of caves includes both human interments and the codification of symbols. Cave burials have long been known and appear to include attitudes of elaborate ceremonialism as well as less intricate body disposal systems. The mud glyph cave phenomenon has been recorded in Virginia with incised designs and anthropomorphic figures apparently mediating between the sacred and the mundane. Such symbols have roles in rites of passage. Historic use usually is framed in a more functional light. While resource extraction is an obvious uti- lization realm, the historic use of caves for other purposes is prevalent and includes resort recreation, scientific study, aesthetics, and general exploration.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Document
    FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF ENERGY PROJECTS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20426 LIST OF COMPREHENSIVE PLANS March 2021 COMPREHENSIVE PLANS IN THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION'S LICENSING PROCESS Background Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. section 803 (a)(2)(A), requires the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) to consider the extent to which a project is consistent with Federal or state comprehensive plans for improving, developing, or conserving a waterway or waterways affected by the project. On April 27, 1988, the Commission issued Order No. 481-A, revising Order No. 481, issued October 26, 1987, establishing that the Commission will accord FPA section 10(a)(2)(A) comprehensive plan status to any Federal or state plan that: (1) is a comprehensive study of one or more of the beneficial uses of a waterway or waterways; (2) specifies the standards, the data, and the methodology used; and (3) is filed with the Secretary of the Commission. A comprehensive plan should contain the following: (1) a description of the waterway or waterways that are the subject of the plan, including pertinent maps detailing the geographic area of the plan; (2) a description of the significant resources of the waterway or waterways; (3) a description of the various existing and planned uses for these resources; and (4) a discussion of goals, objectives, and recommendations for improving, developing, or conserving the waterway or waterways in relation to these resources. The description of the significant resources in the area should contain, among other things: (1) navigation; (2) power development; (3) energy conservation; (4) fish and wildlife; (5) recreational opportunities; (6) irrigation; (7) flood control; (8) water supply; and (9) other aspects of environmental quality.
    [Show full text]
  • Data Sheet United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Inventory -- Nomination Form
    Form No. 10-300 (Rev. 10-74) DATA SHEET UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY -- NOMINATION FORM SEE INSTRUCTIONS IN HOWTO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS ____________TYPE ALL ENTRIES -- COMPLETE APPLICABLE SECTIONS______ [NAME HISTORIC The Hatfield-McCoy Feud Historic District_______________________ AND/OR COMMON Same _ LOCATION STREET & NUMBER See USGS Maps _NOT FOR PUBLICATION CITY, TOWN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT VICINITY OF 07 STATE CODE COUNTY CODE Kentucky 021 Pike 195 CLASSIFI CATION CATEGORY OWNERSHIP STATUS PRESENT USE ^DISTRICT —PUBLIC —OCCUPIED —AGRICULTURE —MUSEUM _BUILDING(S) —PRIVATE —UNOCCUPIED —COMMERCIAL —PARK —STRUCTURE XBOTH —WORK IN PROGRESS —EDUCATIONAL —PRIVATE RESIDENCE —SITE PUBLIC ACQUISITION ACCESSIBLE —ENTERTAINMENT —RELIGIOUS —OBJECT —IN PROCESS XYES: RESTRICTED ^GOVERNMENT —SCIENTIFIC —BEING CONSIDERED X.YES: UNRESTRICTED(cemeteries) . —INDUSTRIAL —TRANSPORTATION NO v ' —MILITARY OWNER OF PROPERTY cemetery NAME Multiple Owners (see continuation sheet) STREET & NUMBER CITY. TOWN STATE VICINITY OF LOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION COURTHOUSE. REGISTRY OF DEEDS.ETC. Pike County Courthouse STREET & NUMBER CITY, TOWN STATE Pikeville Kentucky REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS TITLE Survey of Historic Sites in Kentucky DATE 1975 —FEDERAL X.STATE —COUNTY _LOCAL DEPOSITORY FOR SURVEY RECORDS Kentucky Heritage Commission CITY, TOWN STATE JTrankfort Kentuckv DESCRIPTION CONDITION CHECK ONE CHECK ONE —EXCELLENT X.DETERIORATED XuNALTERED ^ORIGINAL SITE _GOOD X.RUINS —ALTERED _MOVED DATE_______ _FAIR X.UNEXPOSED DESCRIBE THE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL (IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE The Hatfield-McCoy Feud Historic District consists of three structures, three sites, and four graveyards in Pike County, Kentucky. The district is not contiguous, but in air distance spans approximately some 30 miles by 10 miles. Pike County is located in eastern Kentucky in the Cumberland Plateau region, an area characterized by sharp mountains and narrow, twisting valleys.
    [Show full text]