14010 — 1O/70
COST OF RECLAMATION /WD MINE DRAINAGE ABATEMENT -
ELKINS DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
By
Robert B. Scott, Ronald D. Hill & Roger C. Wilmoth
WATER QUALITY OFFICE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Robert A. Taft Water Research Center
Cincinnati, Ohio 45226
This paper is a revision of the one presented at the
Society of Mining Engineers Meeting, St. Louis, Missouri,
October 21-23, 1970. (Paper 70-AG-349)
-------
Cost of Reclamation and Mine Drainage Abatement -
Blkins Demonstration Project
by
Robert B. Scott, Ronald D. Hill & Roger C. Wilmoth
Acid mine drainage, discharging from coal beds, has polluted our
streams and rivers since early time. These pollutants affect water
quality by lowering the pH, reducing natural alkalinity, increasing
total hardness, and adding undesirable amounts of iron, manganese, al-
uminum and sulfates. The tangible damages are the costs involved in
replacing equipment corroded by the acid water, additional treatment
costs at municipal and industrial water treatment plants, and damages
resulting from corrosion of steel culverts, bridge piers, locks, boat
hulls, steel barges, pumps, and condensers. Intangible damages, which
are real and important, include destruction of biological life of the
stream, reduced property values, and streams rendered undesirable for
recreational uses.
The major problems of mine drainage occur in the anthracite and
bituminous coal regions in Appalachia. However, many of the western
mining states have significant mine drainage problems in specific areas,
but the overall problem is not as great as in the eastern states.
Pollution studies in Appalachia have revealed that inactive under-
ground mines contribute 52 percent of the acid, active underground mines
19 percent, inactive surface mines 11 percent, and active surface mines
1 percent. Most of the remaining sources are in combination surface-
2
underground mines.
A conclusive report on acid mine drainage was issued by the Com-
mittee of Public Works of the U. S. House of Representatives in 1962.
-------
The report pointed out the extent of the problem and stated that elim-
ination of this form of pollution would restore vast quantities of
water for municipal and industrial use, propagation of fish, aquatic
life, wildlife, and recreational purposes. Previously, methods to
abate acid mine drainage had been abandoned because of high costs and
technical failure. The committee concluded that mine sealing was the
3
most promising method.
The report recommended: (1) a sealing program directed at seal-
ing abandoned mine shafts and other drainage openings, (2) stepped-up
research programs by federal, state, and interstate organizations to
develop other abatement measures, and (3) a stream and acid flow regu-
lation program employed where sealing or other methods are unable to
sufficiently reduce the acid content of the stream to meet water quality
requirements for all legitimate purposes. Funds for a demonstration
program were authorized by Congress in 1964.
In March 1964 the first demonstration project site was selected
in the Roaring Creek-Grassy Run watersheds near Elk ins, West Virginia.
The project was a cooperative effort between federal agencies and the
State of Nest Virginia. The selected watersheds lie side by side. One,
Roaring Creek, covers about 28 square miles and the other, Grassy Run,
about 4 square miles. Both drain into the Tygart Valley River in the
4
Upper Monongahela and Ohio River Basins.
The site is roughly a rectangular area at elevations from 1,850
feet at the mouth of Grassy Run to 3,660 feet on the southeast rim of
the Roaring Creek Watershed. The topography is hilly and rough.
-------
The area contains a large, pillared drift mine (3,OOO acres,
Kittanning seam), and a number of smaller underground nines (Figure
1). The outcrop had been extensively surfaced mined and contained
over 1,000 acres of disturbed land. The surface nines intercepted
the underground mine workings of the large mine and diverted water
into it. Since the coal dipped from the Roaring Creek watershed tow-
ard the Grassy Run watershed, water was diverted from one watershed
to the other through the underground mine, resulting in a flushout of
pollutants.
Roaring Creek and Grassy Run were discharging over 12 tons
per day of acid into the Tygart River. Chemical characteristics of
the two streams are presented in Table 1.
Table I
Water Quality Characteristicsa
P^
Acidity, (Hot), CaCO3
Iron, Total
Iron, Ferrous
Sulfate
Hardness, CaCO^
Calcium, CaCQ^
Aluminum
Specific Conductance
Flowd
Grassy
mg/1
2.55
656.
110
4
992
446
293
38
1,723
6
Run
Tons/day
^
10.6
1.8
O.O6
16.0
7.2
4.7
0.6
_
-
Roaring
mg/1
3.3
110
5
1
168
99
76
12
530
40
Creek
Tons/day
„
1.8
0.08
0.01
2.7
1.6
1.2
0.2
-
a. Average values for period March 1965 to June 1966
b. Unit not mg/1, median value
c. Units - Micromhos per cm
d. Units - Cubic feet per second
-------
Demonstration Project
No. I
Randolph County, Wett Vlrglnlo
1^2
^asss
SCALE
FIGURE 1
LEGEND
• SUBWATCRSHED
C ' Core drilling sit*
/\\ Psmnaneal streamgoq* R quality monitor
/\ Temporary ttrcomgag*
Stream quality sampling point
Strlpmln* ditturbonc*
Mtn* «r,Unnr»
-------
Work on the demonstration project was carried out in three
phases: (1) site selection, preconstruction evaluation, and reclama-
tion planning, (2) construction of mine seals and regrading and re-
vegetation of surface mines, and (3) project evaluation. Phase 1,
begun in March 1964 and completed in July 1966, was devoted to water
quality surveillance (FWQA); stream gaging (USGS); surface mapping,
investigation of mine conditions, and designing control measures and
reclamation planning (USBM); securing land permits (W. Va.); and a-
warding the construction contract (FWQA, USBM). Sealing of the mines
and concurrent reclamation measures (Phase 2) were begun in July 1966
and terminated in September 1967. Disturbed areas were revegetated
in the spring of 1968. Phase 3, evaluation of the effectiveness of
mine sealing and reclamation measures, is continuing.
Control Measures
During the period of Phase 1, control measures were planned
as follows:
1. Air sealing of the underground mine was to be accomplished
by filling all boreholes, subsidence holes, and other passages into the
mine. "Wet" mine seals, which allow water to leave the mine, but pre-
vent air from entering, were to be constructed at all openings dis-
charging water. Air sealing should prevent oxygen from entering the
mine, which would stop the oxidation of pyrite in the mine and reduce
the production of iron and acidity.
2. Water is the transport media for carrying acid and iron
from the mining environment. Therefore, water diversion would reduce
-------
the amount of water passing through a source or underground mine,
thus reducing the amount of pollution. This was to be accomplished
by filling subsidence holes, rechannelling streams to establish
drainage away from the mines, and constructing solid "dry" seals in
portals through which water could not pass.
3. Acid producing spoils and refuse were to be buried when-
ever possible in surface mine pits to eliminate a major contributor
to pollution.
4. Surface mine reclamation was to be performed by re-
grading strip mine areas to establish drainage away from the mining
area and reduce the time the water would be in contact with acid pro-
ducing material. During regrading, attempts were made to bury the
highly acid material.
5. All disturbed areas were revegetated to prevent erosion
and stabilize the backfills.
Both ^et" and "dry" seals were constructed from two courses
of flyash blocks and coated with urethane -foam on both sides to pro-
tect the blocks from acid attack. The mine opening was timbered on
both sides of the seal to keep the weight of the roof off the seal.
Dry seals consisted of one wall, while the wet seals had two or three
walls. For the wet seals, one wall was solid except that two blocks
were removed from the bottom, the outer wall was approximately 5 feet
from the seal, and 2% feet high. Only two seals had an inner -wall
which was 12 feet from the seal and 2% feet high. The latter two walls
-------
formed a pool which prevented air from entering the mine. Clay seals
were used in areas where the highwall was badly fractured and deep
mine workings lay behind the wall. For this type of seal, clay was
compacted against the highwall to a height well above the underground
mine workings.
Three types of backfills were used on the surface mines —-
contour, pasture, and swallow-tail. For a contour backfill, the
spoil was graded back as close as possible to the original contour
of the land. Usually the top of the highwall was pushed down to com-
plete the backfill. in constructing the pasture backfill, the spoil
was graded to form a small slope away from the highwall and the Mgh-
wall was left standing. The pasture type backfill was used when the
highwall was sound. The swallow-tail backfill was similar to the
pasture backfill except that a waterway was constructed parallel to
the highwall. The waterway was located away from the highwall and
final cut which allowed the water to drain over the outer slope at
specified low points on the backfill, when possible, soil low in
acidity was hauled in and placed on top of the backfill to establish
revegetation and reduce acid production. Most of the subsidence holes
within 100 feet of the highwall were filled with soil during the back-
filling operation.
The project was not completed as originally planned as no
reclamation took place in the Grassy Run watershed and north of
Coalton, West Virginia, in the Roaring Creek watershed (Figure 1).
Practically all the work was performed on the south half (up dip side) of
the major mine (3,000 acres) and dealt primarily with water diversion,
-------
8
surface reclamation and air sealing. This change in plans meant
that the major mine would not be air sealed. However, a small is-
olated mine had been sealed and would be available for evaluation.
Thus, any inprovement in water quality would occur only in the south
portion of the Roaring Creek watershed and would give the effective-
ness of water diversion and surface mine reclamation and the effect-
iveness of air sealing and water diversion on a smaller mine. Results
of reclamation on the project with respect to water quality have been
reported previously. ' ' * '
A summary of the work perforated is presented in Table II.
Table II
Reclamation Work Performed
Reclamation
Surface Mines Reclaimed
Backfill, Total
Subsidence Holes Filled
Mine Seals
Grass Planted Only
Grass Hydroseeded Only
Trees Planted Only
Hydroseeded Grass & Trees Planted
Grass and Trees Planted
12.5 Miles
3.6 Million Cu. Yds.
450
101
322 Acres
16 Acres
57 Acres
195 Acres
120 Acres
Cost Analysis Procedures
The reclamation pontract was entered into on June 3O, 1966,
at an estimated cost of $1,640,382. This contract did not include
revegetation nor the filling of subsidence holes beyond 100 feet from
-------
the highwall. Due to the many unknown conditions existing in the
heavily mined-out areas, the contract was a cost plus fixed fee
type.
It was apparent in late summer of 1967 that the entire pro-
ject would exceed the original estimates, therefore a modified plan
was adopted to restrict the first stage of work to the south portion
of the mine.
Daily records of labor and equipment were kept by the con-
tractor for work performed on each work area in the project. At-
tached is Exhibit 1 which shows cost analyses breakdown for (A)
Clearing and Grubbing, (B) Reclamation Operation, and (C) Underground
Operation. These data were later transferred onto computer cards and
a computer program developed to obtain the desired cost breakdown.
Indirect Costs
Indirect costs included everything not directly applied to
the work areas, such as office work, supplies, etc., and were dis-
tributed to the various work areas on a cost basis. For example, if
ten percent of the direct costs were charged to Area 2, then ten per-
cent of the indirect costs would also be charged to that area.
Cubic Yards and Acres
Approximately 650 acres of surface mine were reclaimed dur-
ing the reclamation contract.
Aerial photographs were taken of the project area during the
planning stage and were used to develop contour maps showing the
finished grade, acreage, and cubic yards of earthen material to be
-------
10
Exhibit 1
Cost Analyses Breakdown Codes
A. CLEARING & GRUBBING
1. Cutting & Clearing
2. Grubbing & Clearing
3. Cutting Landowners Timber
4. Handling Landowners Timber
5. Chipping & Hauling
6. Fire Detail
7. Root Rake Hauling
B. RECLAMATION OPERATION
1. Cleaning Pit
2. Cleaning Face of High wall
3. Scraping SL from Soilbank
4. Backfilling a. pasture b.
5. Ccapaction
6. Subsidence a. drilling & shooting
b. hauling material
c. dozing d. shovel
7. Moving Equipment to Area
8. Drainage, Structure Grading
9. Grading Work Sites
10. Drainage Grading
11. Down Time
12. Reporting Time
13. Maintenance
14. Grading Roads
15. Cleanup of Garbage
16. Ditching
17. Borrow Pit
18. Carbonaceous Material
8. Access Road Grading
9. Cleaning Pits & Pit
Mouth Entry
10. Drainage Grading
11. Down Time
12. Reporting Time
13. Routine Maintenance
contour c. swallowing
a.
b,
c.
hauling
burying
dozing
C. UNDER GROUND OPERATION
1. Cleaning & Temporary Timbering
2. Removal Temp. Timber & Erecting Perm. Timber
3. Concrete Footer Seal Location
4. Provide hitches in roof & ribs at seal location
5. Erect Seal
6. Coat seal inbye side with bitumastic
7. Seal perimeter with Ur ethane Foam
8. Install rigid plastic tubing
9. Pumping Operation
1O. Ventilation
11. Down Time
12. Reporting Time
13. Routine Maintenance
14. Hauling material & supplies to work sites
15. Dismantling & assembling equipment
16* Drilling, blasting, etc.
-------
11
moved for specified types of backfill on the work areas. Upon com-
pletion of the contract, a land survey was made of each work area
to determine the total acreage and cubic yards of material moved.
Accuracy of the backfilling quantities is somewhat limited
because of the necessity of moving backfill material two or three
times in an attempt to separate the toxic spoil from the non-toxic
fill material and burying it in the strip pit.
Revege tati on
A contract in the amount of $205,911 was awarded to the
Tygarts Valley Soil Conservation District on a cost reimbursable
basis in September 1967 to revegetate the reclaimed work areas on
the project. In the spring of 1968 approximately 71O* acres of
land distrubed during reclamation were revegetated. Soil samples
were taken and analyzed as a guide to the fertilizer and lime require-
ments and for choosing the best type of vegetation. The District com-
pleted the revegetation of the project in one growing season instead
of two as originally planned, reducing the contract cost for revege-
tation to $177,727.
The contractor was required to make a cost analysis at the
completion of the contract, therefore accurate and complete records
were kept on all phases of work as it progressed. Actual labor and
equipment hours expended each day were recorded by work areas. In
addition, a daily record was kept of all lime and fertilizer applied
and all grass seed and tree seedlings plan ted in each work area. This
Increased revegetation acreage due to revegetation of certain disturbed
areas which did not require prior reclamation.
-------
12
was further broken down as to method of application, for example,
truck spreading or box spreading of fertilizer and conventional
method or hydroseeding of grass seed. In addition, a record was
kept of the species of grass seed and tree seedlings planted in each
work area.
Each month a summary was made of all data compiled during that
month and a cumulative total made of labor and equipment hours and
material applied to each work area. Foremen's time and overhead costs
were distributed to the different work areas on a basis of direct
labor hours worked in each area during the month. Vehicle rental
distribution was based on actual hours equipment was used on each
work area during the month.
-------
13
DISCUSSION & RESULTS
Cost of surface mine reclamation, mine sealing, and revege-
tation is presented in various ways in this report for purposes
of estimating cost of future reclamation work. An average overall
cost, including both direct and indirect charges, is calculated for
surface reclamation and mine sealing. Dataafr« presented in Tables
III - IX. Since direct cost (labor, equipment useage, and material)
will vary on different reclamation projects depending on the condition
and location of unreclaimed area, certain work areas on the project
with a variety of working conditions and different types of backfill
and seals, were selected for a special study. Data from this study
are presented in Tables X and XI. All data from the selected work
areas will be designated (SWA).
Costs on these selected areas are shown two ways: (1) without
clearing and grubbing to give cost of reclaiming recently mined, un-
revegetated areas which would require no clearing and grubbing prior
to reclamation and which would reclaim the land to satisfy most exist-
ing state mine laws, and (2) including clearing and grubbing to give a
cost picture of reclaiming old abandoned strip mine areas which are
overgrown with vegetation and would require clearing and grubbing
prior to reclamation.
Since equipment rental was a main item of expense (40 percent
of the total cost) on the reclamation work, equipment costs were ana-
lyzed to determine the best and most economical equipment utilization
for each type of work.
-------
14
Equipment Summary
During the period of the reclamation contract, twenty-six
pieces of equipment were leased by the contractor on a monthly basis
to perform the reclamation work on the project. The lessor was to be
notified by letter thirty days prior to terminating the lease on any
of the equipment.
Table III lists the equipment that was utilized during recla-
mation and shows the work hours, cost per hour, and range of cost
per hour for each particular type of unit used.
Range of cost varied considerably for the D-9 dozers due to
the necessity for keeping certain dozers on rental during periods of
adverse weather. For example, the dozer which showed the highest cost
per hour ($79.86) was on rental during four winter months and, because
of bad weather, was utilized only 144 hours during the rental period.
If this equipment had not been kept on rental, the lessor would have
moved it from the project making it unavailable for spring operation.
The LeRoi air corapressor was rented for one month but after
only sixteen hours of use, it was found to be insufficient for the job;
therefore the average cost was extremely high at $10O.OO per hour.
The 977 traxcavators were used as a combination hi-lift to ex-
plore the strip pits for buried deep mine openings and as a root rake
to clear areas prior to backfilling. Utilizing this equipment during
the winter months was difficult which resulted in considerable vari-
ation in the cost per hour as shown on Table III.
The Koehring shovel was operated at an average cost per hour of
$24.21 and was used for stream channeling and establishing drainage from
-------
15
Table III
RECLAMATION PROJECT
Cost Breakdown
Summary of Equipment Time
Type Equipment
6OO Motor Grader
TD-25 Dozer
D-7 Dozer
D-8 Dozer
D-9 Dozer
Koehring Shovel
Compac tor
977 Traxcavator
DW-21 Pan
Scraper Pan
John Deere Crawler
Air Tract Carrier &
Attachments
Compressor
105 LeRoi Air Compressor
Totals
No. of
PCS.
1
2
1
2
6
1
1
3
2
2
1
1
2
1
26
Work
Hours
481
2,678
2,492
2,851
10,859
951
560
5,615
3,818
1,048
1,892
396
2,294
16
35,951
Total
Cost
$ 10,385
29,636
28,259
28,358
237,360
23,024
16,100
63,315
55,883
25,195
4,162
10,363
17,478
1,600
$551,118
Avg. Cost
Per Hour
$21.59
11.06
11.34
9.94
21.86
24.21
28.75
11.27
14.64
24.04
2.20
26.17
7.61
100.00
Range in Cost
Per Hour
0
$ 7.47 - $17.14
0
8.50 - 1O.31
12.63 - 79.86
0
0
7.71 - 16.97
14.30 - 14.99
11.81 - 30.55
0
0
6.27 - 8.94
0
-------
16
work areas. In February 1967 the shovel was damaged by a highwall
fall and was down for repairs for the remainder of the project.
The scraper pans were used mostly in work areas requiring
compacted backfill and thus had limited use.
The grader was used exclusively to maintain haulage roads
to and from the work areas at an average cost of $21.59 per hour.
The compressor, air tract, and crawler were used mostly for under-
ground work pertaining to masonry seals.
Clearing and Grubbing
The first work actually performed on the project was the
clearing of certain areas which were covered with volunteer trees
and other vegetation established over the 25 years since stripping.
This was done to prepare the land for the backfilling and sealing
operations and was designated as Clearing and Grubbing.
The following work was performed during this operation:
1. All trees with a diameter less than four inches, measuring
12 inches from the ground, were uprooted, cut, and burned.
2. All trees with a diameter greater than four inches were
cut, trimmed to saw log lengths, and stockpiled at a convenient lo-
cation for the property owner.
3. All stumps and brush were uprooted and burned.
4. Boulders and rocks large enough to impede revegetation were
buried in the spoil near the outer slope.
Average overall cost for clearing and grubbing was $330/acre
or 16.6 percent of the total cost for surface mine reclamation (excluding
-------
17
revegetation). An average of 32 labor hours/acre was required to
clear and grub (Table IV). These costs were higher than originally
estimated, partially due to the dense forest in some areas and the
extra handling to cut pulpwood for the landowners. Average direct
cost (SWA) varied considerably with respect to type of backfill per-
formed on the work areas. For example (see Table X), the average
cost/acre for clearing and grubbing prior to contour backfilling on
Areas 27, 2P, and 44 was quite high and ranged from $127/acre to
$367/acre. High costs were incurred in areas containing a fractured
highwall. A portion of the highwall was unsafe and had to be cleared
so it could be pulled down. Also the material was needed for fill.
Generally, low costs were noticed in pasture and swallowtail backfill
operations and in stripped areas where toxic spoil had prevented
dense foilage and where it was not necessary to disturb vegetation
on the highwall.
Surface Mine Reclamation
The average cost for surface mine reclamation was $l,658/acre.
Cost of moving earth was $0.35/cubic yard (Table V). These costs arc
higher than those reported by the U. S. Bureau of Mines for surface
(6)
mine reclamation at Moraine State Park in Pennsylvania. In their
report, the cost/acre for two areas was $780 and $1,402. The average
earth moving cost was $0.16/cubic yard. Labor hours (39/acre) were
the same for both projects.
The average direct cost (SWA) for surface mine reclamation varied
from a low of $472/acre on contour backfill to a high of $l,130/acrc
for a combination of pasture-contour backfill (Table X).
-------
18
Average direct cost (SWA) per acre for pasture backfill
reclamation was higher than contour backfill costs, an unexpected
result. Further studies showed that, in general, the spoil was
more highly toxic in the pasture backfill areas than in the contour
areas. Because of its toxic nature, the spoil had to be moved
several times, thus increasing the cost.
Swallowtail backfill, because of additional earth work, was
slightly more costly than pasture backfill.
High costs for all phases of reclamation for a combination
of pasture and contour are due to complex problems that existed in
the work areas including the six conditions given below:
1. Unknown interrelated conditions between the strip and under-
ground mines which made it necessary to spend considerable time open-
ing up the pit to locate fractures and openings into the underground
mine.
2. The contractor was required to separate the toxic spoil
from the nontoxic backfill material where feasible and bury the toxic
material in the strip pit. This required moving the material two or
three times in some areas. As a result, the amount of earthen mater-
ial actuall}' moved greatly exceeded the 3,060,000 cubic yards deter-
mined from before and after cross sections.
3. Approximately 17 percent of the total backfill material moved
was used for excavation material to fill subsidence holes on top of
the highwall and as clay compacted material for seals.
4. It was necessary in many work areas to establish drainage by
rechanneling streams from strip mines prior to reclamation.
-------
19
5. Adverse weather conditions during the winter months hampered
the reclamation work on the project and necessitated payment of rent
on equipment which could not be utilized.
6. The highwall, in many instances, was fractured to the extent
that it could not be left standing. In such cases, the wall was pullec'
down and the material used to complete the backfill.
Table IV
Clearing and Grubbing Costs for 651 Acres
Direct Labor, Total
Direct Labo ', Average/Acre
Equipment, ~otal
Equipmen t , .We rage/ Ac re
Direct Cost, Total
Indirect Cost, Total
Total Cost
Average Cost Per Acre
Cost
$ 72,662
$ 112
$ 38,329
$ 59
$110,991
$103,518
$214,509
$ 330
Hours
21,468
32
3,461
53
Table V
Surface Mine Reclamation Costs for 651 Acres
-3,060,000 Cubic Yards Moved -
Direct Labor, Total
Direct Labor, Average/Acre
Equipment, ^otal
Equipment, aver age/Ac re
Direct Cost, Total
Direct Cost, Average/Acre
Direct Cost. Average/Cubic Yard
Indirect Cost, Total
Total Cost
Average Cos". Per Acre
Average Cost Per Cubic Yard
Cost
$ 96,884
$ 149
$ 457,706
$ 703
$ 554,590
$ 852
$ 0.18
$ 524,984
$1,079,574
$ 1,658
$ 0.35
Hours
25,558
39
26,028
40
-------
20
Revegetation Costs
The overall cost for revegetating the reclaimed work areas
is summarized in Table VI. Average direct cost was $2OO/acre and
total cost ?248/acre.
Cost varied considerably depending on the type revegetation
work perforned. Higher rovegetation costs were incurred (Table VII)
in steep ar ?as where it was necessary to use a hydroseeder. This also
increased cost (SWA) in contour backfill areas (Table X). The more
level areas on which conventional equipment could be used were re-
vegetated a': a much lower cost.
Masonry Sea'.s
Forty-three dry masonry seals and 12 wet seals were constructed
in the entries to abandoned drift mines at an average cost of $4138/
seal (Table VIII).
High equipment cost was attributed to the exploration of the
strip pit tr> locate mine openings and to clearing debris from openings
at the face of the highwall. Preparation of seal sites, such as timber-
ing and clearing debris from the seal sites in the mine, was performed
manually.
The r.verage direct cost (SWA) for dry seals and -vet seals is
presented on Table XI and shows that wet seals cost about twice as much
as dry seals. Cost of dry seal on Work Area 8 was considerably higher
than cost of other seals due to high labor cost involved in opening and
timbering the portal prior to constructing seal.
-------
21
Clay Seals
In t reas where the highwall was badly fractured and the
stripping operation had intercepted the deep mine workings, openings
were sealec" by compacting clay against the openings and the highwall
with a vibrating sheeps foot compactor. Although 41 openings xvere
sealed this way, data were recorded only for Work Areas 1-9 and 1O.
These data are summarized in Table IX. The cost/seal in Work Area 10
was higher than in Areas 1-9 due to haulage distance from the borrow
pit to the seal site.
Table VI
Revegetation Cost for 709 Acres
Direct Labor, Total
Direct Labor, Average/Acre
Equipment, Total
Equipment, Aver age/ Ac re
Material Cost
Hydroseeding Contract Cost
Direct Cos*, Total
Direct Cos'., Average/Acre
Indirect Cost, Total
Total Cost
Total Aver.-.ge Cost/Acre
Cost
$ 31,860
$ 45
$ 17,493
$ 25
$ 45,190
$ 47,475
$142,018
$ 200
$ 3.3,709
$175,727
$ 248
Hours
9 , 5 39
14
4,365
6
-------
22
Table VII
Cost Breakdown of Revegetation'^'
DoIlars/Acre
Labor Equipment Material
Indirect
b Cost0
Total
Conventional
Hydroseediny
Trees Only
Hydroseedimi
Conventional
Trees"
d
Grass
Onlye
Plus Trees
Grass Plus
32
19
39
54
68
.65
.23
.51
.47
,53
36
227
4
238
23
.51
,32a
.20
.74a
.29
63
61
18
76
64
.39
.44
.37
.78
.80
32.
71.
21,
84.
37.
07
49
63
93
22
164
37F
84
454
19?
.62
.48
.2]
.92
.84
a. Hydroseeding work was subcontracted for $225 per acre? which included
mulch at one ton per acre.
b. Includes lime, fertilizer, seed, and trees. In some "trees only" areas
no fertilizer and/or lime were used.
c. Indirect cost distributed on basis of direct cost.
d. Fertilizc-r (0.5 ton/acre of 1O-1O-1O) , lime (2-4 tons/acre) applied
from truck, grass planted by seeder box.
e. Lime (2-4 tons/acre) spread from truck or from farm type fertilizer
spreader, hydraulic application of grass seed, fertilizer (0.5 ton/
acre of JO-1O-1O)
f. Hand plat-tod (OOO-IOOO/acre).
g, Hydros ceding plus hand planted trees (9OO-lOOO/acrf>) ,
h. Conventional grass as in d, plus hand planted trees (90O-lOOO/acre).
Table VIII
Cost of 55 Masonry Seals
Cost
Hours
Direct Labor, Total
Direct Labor, Average/Seal
Equipment, Total
Equipment, Average/Seal
Direct Cost; Total
Direct Cost Ppr Seal
Indirect Cost, Total
Total Cost
Average Cost Per Seal
$ 65,949
$ 1,199
$ 50,729
$ 922
$116,678
$ 2,121
$110,913
$227,591
$ 4,138
17,932
326
5,602
301
-------
23
Table IX
Clay Compacted Seals
Work
Area
1-0
3O
No. nf
Se.il-.
10
6
Cu. Yds.
Compacted
Backfill
10,490
1 1 , 670
Total
Cost
$ 9,500
$14,16O
Cost per
Seal
$ 950
$2,360
Avg.
Cu. Yd/
Seal
1,049
1,045
Cost/
Cu. Yd.
$0.91
$1.21
Summary
An a<:id mine drainage reclamation project was established in
the Roaring Creek-Grassy Run watershed near Elkins, We«t Virginia.
During the reclamation, 651 acres of surface mines were reclaimed,
709 acres rrvegetated, 55 masonry seals constructed, and 41 clay s
instal1ed.
The average overall surface mine reclamation cost was $2236/acr?
including $ V3O/acre for clearing and grubbing, $165ft/acre for reclama-
tion, and $'M8/acre for revegetation. Overall co?t for masonry seals
was $4,138 -?ach and clay seals $1,47°-.
The liigh costs were due primarily to unknown rorditions o^ the
abandoned nrlr>es, exploration which was necessary to locate the high-
wall fractures and openings intercepting the deep mine, and multiple
moving of spoil to bury toxic material .
Indirect costs on the reclamation contract appear high due to
the inclusion of vehicle rental and foremen's salaries. Because of
the data collection system, it was necessary to include these charges,
normally coisidered direct, in indirect costs. A more comprehensive
report, to 'ie published at a later date, will present cost data in
greater detiil.
-------
24
StaHlity cf the reclaimed area has been exceptional as on^y
eight small subsidence holes have occurred since 1967. Total main-
tenance cc«'S have been less than $?,OOO in the past three years or
less than <",O3 percent per year of the construction coiit.
-------
Table X
Direct Cost of Surface Reclamation
by Various Methods on Selected Work Areas (SWA)
on Demonstration Project #1, Norton, W. Va.
Work
Area No.
3
4
5
8
9
37
MEAN
23 & 24
28
27
29 & 3O
44
MEAN
1
2
MEAN
10
11
MEAN
Acres
11
4
4
7
11
13
53
77
11
63
37
26
221
18
40
59
140
47
187
.9
.7
.3
.9
.7
.0
.5
.9
.0
.0
.7
.7
.3
.7
.3
.0
.3
.0
.3
Type of Cost/Acre
Backfill Reclamation
Pasture $
It
tt
if
it
it
$
Con to ur $
It
tt
f
ti
$
Swallowtail $
ti
$
Pasture ?• Contour $1
1
$1
383.
56.
995.
740.
437.
708.
568.
429.
265.
540.
542.
41O.
472.
315.
706.
582.
,06O.
,341.
,131.
Type
Seeding
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
r
8, H
ft H
,H, & T
,H, & T
9 YT
,H & T
,11 & T
,H & T
,H & T
, H . & T
Cost/Acre
Reclamation
+ Seeding
$
1
$
$
$
$
$
$1
1
$1
533.
14O.
,126.
840.
5r>^.
012.
582.
669.
612.
907.
744.
684.
754.
546.
815.
730.
Q36
, - j J .
,49R.
,302.
Cost/Aero
Reclamation + Seeding
+ Clearing ?• Grubbinn
$
1
1
1
$
$
1
$
$
$
$1
1
$1
576.
174.
,137.
,035.
55°.
,028.
760.
704.
882.
,275. '^
804.
812.
918.
566.
843.
755.
,435.
,548.
,456.
Type Seeding: C = Conventional, H = Hydroseeding, and T = Trees
-------
r?6
Table XI
t Compari son
Seal Construction
Demonstration Project #1, Norton, W. Va,
Work Area
No.
2
7
3
14
27
3O
101
24
53
No. of TyPe
Seals S al
.? Di y
3
1
1
12
6
1 We. t
1
1
Direct
Cost
$4,000.
5, 298.
6,376.
1,358.
.?3 , 706 .
14,574.
$5,031 .
4,068.
3,128.
Cost per
Seal Maximum
$2,000. )
1,766. )
6,376. ) $6,376,
1,358. )
1,Q75. )
2,479. )
$5,031. )
4,068. ) $5,O37.
3,128. )
Mi n imum Ave rage
$ 1,358. $2,212.
$3,1?8. $4,076.
-------
27
REFEPENCES
1. Committee of Public '-'T-ks, U, 3. House of representatives, 1962,
"Acid Mine Oral mot-, " House Committee Piinr No. 18, 87th Congress,
Second Session, U. S. Government Printing Office, '.vUshinrj+on, D. C.
2. Stream Pollution by Coal Mine Drainage in Appalachi.i, Federal V.'alcr
Pollution Control Admin i s t ruli on , Ci ncinnati , Ohi o : Revi bed 1 06° .
3. Hill, Re nald D., Silting Minn Drainage Pollution Con "rol Demonstration
Project, Third Symposium on Coal Mino Drainage Research, Pittsburgh,
Pennsyl \ ania: May 1^7n. Copies available from Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226.
4. Porges, Ralph. Lowell A Van ncn Berg, and Dwigh^ G, Bal linger, Re-
Assessirg an Old Probl cm- -Aci d Mine Drainage, Journal of the Sanitary
Engin^ei Ing Division, Proc^ed-f nn<; of the '\me~nVan Society of Civil
Engineers, Vol. Q2 , Sa 1, February 1066.
S. Bui lard W. H., Acid Minr- Drainage Pollution Control Demonstration
Program U'ses of Experimental Watershed?;, International Association
of Scientific Hydrology, Symposium of Budapest, Extract of Publi-
cation ! of 66, Budapest, Hungary: 1Q65.
6. McNay, !-ewis M. , Surface Mine Reclamation , Moraine 3tn to Park, Penr-
sylvani a, Burea-j of Minos Tnfnrmation Circular 8^S6, U. S. Department
of the "nterior, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 1Q7O,
7<. Hill, Ronald D., Reclamation and Rovegctation of 64O Acres of Surface
Mines - Elk ins, '.'.'cst Virginia. Proceedings International Symposium
on Ecol'igy and ^evenetati on of Drastically Distvirbrd Areas, Pennsyl-
vania State Hniversity, August 1960 (to be releasee 1971). Copies
availab e from Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226.
ACKXOK'LnnGEMFiNTS
This proj^r "i was -\ cooperative effort between the Federal Water Quality
Administration (FWQA*), the State of West Virginia, am' the following
Poderal \geicies: TJ. S, Bureau of Mine^ (USBM) , U. S. Geological Survey
(USGS) , and rh
------- |