erosion and acid runoff. Many such lands have proven to be excellent wildlife habitat 

 and have provided sport hunting and recreation for the public and habitats for 

 non-game species. The future use of abandoned mine lands for fish and wildlife 

 benefits needs close scrutiny by local, state, and federal government agencies. 



Reclaiming land to original contour, especially land with established vegetation, 

 destroys good wildlife habitat, may have severe adverse effects upon endangered or 

 threatened species, and may re-create toxic conditions in the surrounding soil and 

 water. Proposed rules and regulations for reclaiming abandoned mined lands gener- 

 ally address potential problems resulting from reclamation procedures (grading) by 

 establishing specific criteria for selecting, assigning priorities to, and evaluating 

 proposed reclamation projects, in addition, regional analysis and environmental 

 impact assessments or statements will be developed under the supervision of the U.S. 

 Department of the Interior, Division of Reclamation Planning and Standards, 

 Abandoned Mine Lands Program and the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. 



The potential of wildlife enhancement on abandoned mined land is significant and 

 offers almost unlimited opportunities. The"wilderness"atmosphere created by these 

 habitats provides a relief for city dwellers, while providing compensation and/or 

 replacement for lost wildlife habitat. These already disturbed lands can contribute to 

 the replacement of destroyed habitats without utilizing more "valuable" land 

 deemed necessary for farming, housing, or industry. Future reclamation efforts 

 should focus on major controlling factors where immediate maximum results can be 

 obtained for fish and wildlife. One significant area involves the tolerance of wildlife 

 reproduction to drastic disturbance of habitats. 



Habitats of certain species are dwindling at accelerating rates in spite of an 

 increased awareness of the need to preserve natural environments. Forty-seven 

 species of wildlife became extinct in the United States between 1700 and 1970, with 

 25 lost within the last 50 years. Reintroductions of native species into former habitats 

 may bean increasingly important strategy to help in the survival of wild animals and 

 plants; successful efforts are already in evidence.'''^ As noted above, a prime example 

 is the giant Canada goose, now concentrated as a nesting population on surface- 

 mined land in west-central Illinois. The most important factor contributing to its 

 productivity is availability of diverse bodies of water and island nest sites; both 

 resulted from surface mining activities and reclamation efforts. 



Mined land is only a part of the habitat of many species. Through specific 

 reclamation procedures, mined land can offer essential aspects of optimum habitat 

 that may be lacking in neighboring land. Range extension could be one of many 

 beneficial results. 



The outlook for future reclamation of mined land for wildlife is optimistic. 

 Advances have been achieved and new information is constantly being obtained. 

 However, the amount of land involved is great enough to deserve proper and 

 continuing attention. Even under the constraints of PL 95-87, sufficient variety of 

 reclamation procedures are permissible which can and will contribute different end 

 results. While these options have an enormous potential (for example, the introduc- 

 tion of endangered and /or threatened species, and proliferation of specific species 

 for hunting and/or commercial purpose), responsible personnel should recognize 

 that over-manipulation of any area may have a long-term adverse effect. Our 

 country's original habitat was created through a lengthy natural selection process, 

 and we should, therefore, use caution and foresight when making such important 

 management decisions. 



REFERENCES 



U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1979. The status of land disturbed by surface 

 mining in the United States. Soil Conservation Service. USDA. Washington, 

 D.C. 124 pp. 



190 



