aspects, especially problem conditions which prevailed during and following mining. 

 Gradually the emphasis changed — focusing more on how wildlife might benefit by 

 reclamation efforts during preplanning and mitigation processes. 



The recognition of both the negative and positive impacts of surface mining on 

 wildlife generated a sudden increase in funding for staff research. The goal was better 

 understanding. Prior to the 1960s (even in the early 1970s) only a few were looking 

 with interest at surface mined lands as wildlife habitats. The growing interest and 

 effort largely developed because it was noted that viable and valuable habitats were 

 or could be created on surface mined lands (Figures 1 and 2). This was most 

 appreciated when rapidly evolving intensive land use, especially monoculture, 

 essentially "dehabitated" once-productive wildlife support systems. Resource 

 scientists recognized that the recovery of land via normal processes (enhanced by 

 reclamation) yielded a break in the monotony of monoculture. They saw an 

 opportunity for wildlife enhancement, even in the face of state laws which 

 emphasized "as it was before" reclamation. The interest and motivation grew and, in 

 the face of great odds, influenced the final version of PL 95-87. The law incorporated 

 significant language on regulation and reclamation which ensured at least limited 

 consideration of wildlife and habitat values at various stages from planning through 

 permitting to mining and reclamation. 



Over the years, research and other organized efforts reflected an increasing 

 awareness of problems and opportunities confronting wildlife, its habitats, and its 

 management. Early studies largely addressed fauna and population levels, how they 

 related to non-impacted lands, processes of succession, and man's use of these sites 

 for harvest of game species. Later there was more emphasis on the possible reclama- 

 tion and development of such areas for greater public use (including outdoor 

 recreation). Research was motivated to more clearly delineate why and how reclama- 

 tion might accommodate needs of wildlife. The research also stressed that mining 

 resulted in changes and losses in our fauna and it was therefore a responsibility of 

 reclamation to replace habitat for native fauna. To reflect what was happening. 



Figure 1. A struck-off spoilbank, seeded to Sericea lespedeza and orchard grass to 

 establish diversity and openings for wildlife in an area mined in 1940. 



184 



