What Mine Reclamation Actually Requires

Modern coal mining in Indiana operates under approved permits and reclamation plans. Indiana Department of Natural Resources staff review geology, hydrology, mine drainage, engineering, soil handling, revegetation, wildlife habitat, and other parts of the mining and reclamation process.

Operators must also post performance bonds before mining activity begins. The bond remains tied to the permit until required reclamation work has been completed.

For forest and wildlife areas, DNR does not require a stem count at Phase II. The agency describes having at least 50 percent of the approved species alive and healthy as a general rule of thumb. Phase III applies the more specific long-term requirement: at least 80 percent of the required trees and shrubs must have been in place for three years.

Those requirements matter. A modern operator cannot simply finish extracting coal and leave the disturbed ground behind. Indiana’s system ties permit obligations and money to completing reclamation.

But look at what the process measures. Is the ground stable? Is drainage working? Has soil been replaced? Has vegetation established? Is the approved post-mining use being achieved?

Those are necessary questions. They are not the same questions a restoration ecologist would ask about native plant diversity, soil development, natural regeneration, or whether a site is becoming increasingly self-sustaining.

Indiana Has Been Reclaiming Coal Mines Since 1941

Indiana’s reclamation history started well before the current federal system.

Rathfon, Fillmore, and Groninger reported in Purdue’s 2004 review of southwestern Indiana mine reforestation that Indiana became the second state in the country to enact a mine reclamation law. The 1941 law required coal companies to plant trees on spoil banks.

The state expanded its requirements in 1967. Rathfon et al. reported that Indiana became the first state to require grading and contouring of mine spoils. The law also addressed reclamation to farmland, burial of acid-forming rock, and performance bonding.

Federal regulation changed the system again in 1977 with passage of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, usually called SMCRA. The law established national standards for coal mining and reclamation and created the federal Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. Indiana assumed primary regulatory authority under its approved program in 1982.

That history creates an important divide among old mine lands in southwestern Indiana.

Some were mined before modern federal requirements existed. These properties can contain dangerous highwalls, unstable ground, old mine openings, coal refuse, subsidence, acid mine drainage, or other problems associated with historic mining. Indiana’s Abandoned Mine Land Program reports reclaiming more than 10,000 acres affected by earlier mining.

Other sites were mined later and passed through formal reclamation under state and federal requirements.

So two former coal mines only a few miles apart can have very different histories. One may contain a dangerous highwall left in the 1930s. Another may have been graded, planted, bonded, inspected, and released decades later under SMCRA-era rules.

Modern Reclamation Is Not the Same System That Created Indiana’s Oldest Mine Problems

This distinction is easy to lose when dramatic abandoned-mine examples appear next to discussion of current reclamation.

Modern SMCRA-era reclamation is much more prescriptive than the practices under which many of Indiana’s oldest mine hazards were created.

Current Indiana permits address soil replacement, drainage, grading, water impacts, revegetation, wildlife considerations, and other technical requirements. Operators must post performance bonds, and bond money remains at risk until reclamation requirements are met.

SMCRA also brought requirements involving topsoil handling, approximate original contour, erosion control, revegetation, and prevention of acid drainage. Rathfon et al. describe those requirements as a major shift in how mined ground was rebuilt after 1977.

Surface Mining Does More Than Remove Trees

One of the biggest differences between an ordinary disturbed woodland and a reclaimed surface mine is what happened beneath the vegetation.

Surface mining requires moving the material above the coal seam. Topsoil and subsoil may be removed and stored. Overburden is excavated. Coal is removed. The site is then reconstructed.

Putting soil back does not automatically return it to its former physical condition.

Rathfon et al. documented that problem in southwestern Indiana mines reclaimed during the early years after SMCRA. Their review found that some methods used during that period produced heavily compacted soils. Aggressive grasses and other ground covers were also planted to meet erosion-control requirements, while some tree species proved poorly suited to the resulting soil conditions.

Compaction matters because roots need pore space, oxygen, and pathways through the soil. Dense reconstructed soil can restrict root growth and change how water enters and moves through the ground.

Vegetation Can Solve One Problem While Creating Another

Revegetation is one of the basic tools of mine reclamation for good reason. Bare disturbed soil erodes. Plants stabilize the surface, reduce sediment movement, and begin returning organic material to the soil.

The trouble is that a plant chosen because it covers disturbed ground quickly is not automatically a good companion for a developing forest.

In 2002 and 2003, a research team from Purdue University and Southern Illinois University surveyed 22 reclaimed tracts on 16 mines in southwestern Indiana. Together, the sites covered 798 acres and had been reforested from 1988 through 1995.

Tall fescue and sericea lespedeza were widely used because they provided fast, dependable erosion control. Rathfon et al. found that those plants also competed strongly with tree seedlings and could delay development of native forest vegetation.

The study also found large differences in tree growth. About 40 percent of surveyed mine stands approached the height-growth range observed in comparison white-oak plantings on unmined ground, while only 27 percent approached the comparable stem-diameter growth range.

Mine Reforestation Did Not Stop Developing in 2004

The problems found on early SMCRA-era reforestation sites helped drive changes in mine-reforestation practice. One of the clearest examples is the Forestry Reclamation Approach, or FRA.

The approach is designed to improve tree survival, tree growth, and forest development by addressing many of the conditions that caused problems on earlier reclaimed sites.

Where heavy grading caused compaction, FRA calls for loose grading. Where dense grass competed with tree seedlings, FRA calls for tree-compatible ground cover. Where poorly adapted tree choices reduced survival and growth, FRA puts more attention on species selection and planting.

This does not make the older Purdue findings obsolete. It makes them historical evidence of why reclamation practice changed.

Trees Are Not the Same Thing as a Forest

Mine reclamation needs measurable standards. Tree survival is one of them. Regulators need criteria that can actually be inspected.

But a tree count cannot tell us everything about where a forest is headed.

Rathfon et al. found many stands with apparently adequate stocking but low growth and limited long-term forest potential.

Imagine two sites with similar numbers of trees.

On one, several native tree species are growing well. Young trees are appearing naturally. Native shrubs, sedges, grasses, and wildflowers occupy parts of the understory. Leaf litter is accumulating and the plant community is beginning to replace itself.

On the other, planted trees survive but grow slowly. Natural regeneration is weak. Dense grasses or invasive shrubs dominate the ground layer.

Both have trees. They are not functioning the same way.

Reclaimed Mine Land Can Still Be Good Wildlife Habitat

The distinction between reclamation and restoration can create another bad assumption: that anything short of a recreated pre-mining ecosystem has little ecological value.

Blue Grass and Sugar Ridge show why that is wrong.

Blue Grass contains about 600 acres of water in 20 pits and lakes. Indiana DNR manages the property for fishing and wildlife-related recreation, with deer, turkey, quail, rabbits, waterfowl, fish, and other wildlife using the site.

Sugar Ridge contains extensive wooded reclaimed mine ground and numerous old mining pits. DNR’s current webpage describes around 100 pits and lakes overall and about 145 acres of water in 24 major fishing pits.

Some of that habitat exists because mining changed the property. The pits did not exist before coal extraction. Neither did spoil ridges. Reclamation and decades of plant succession created combinations of water, grassland, shrub cover, and woodland that differ from what existed before mining.

That does not make mining ecologically beneficial as a general rule. It means wildlife responds to the habitat that exists now.

Blue Grass and Sugar Ridge: Two Different Mine-Land Stories

Blue Grass FWA

Warrick County, Indiana

Size About 2,532 acres

Water 20 pits and lakes, about 600 acres of water

Mining History Amax Coal Company, 1973–1993

Current Role Wildlife habitat and public recreation

Sugar Ridge FWA

Pike County, Indiana

Size 6,376 acres on the June 2026 DNR map*

Water Numerous old mining pits; DNR webpage lists about 100 pits and lakes

Mining History Multiple mines and mining eras

Current Role Wildlife habitat and public recreation

Blue Grass mainly shows what can happen after a heavily mined property has been reclaimed and moved into long-term wildlife management.

Sugar Ridge also contains productive reclaimed habitat, but parts of the property show the lingering safety and water problems associated with mining that predates modern federal reclamation standards.

Sugar Ridge Shows Why Mine Problems Can Last for Generations

The Buttermilk Highwalls project at Sugar Ridge is one of the clearest local examples.

Two dangerous highwalls remained beside Buttermilk and Whitney pits from the Ayrshire #7400 surface mine, which operated from 1953 through 1955. The Buttermilk highwall ran 1,295 feet and reached up to 38 feet high. The Whitney highwall added another 320 feet and reached up to 25 feet.

The problem was not limited to exposed rock.

Nearby workings from the older Ayrshire #7 underground mine had created hydraulic connections among pit lakes. Indiana DNR documented iron-rich discharges during wet periods, very low alkalinity in Buttermilk Pit, and two smaller ponds with pH readings between 3 and 4. Acidic spoil and coarse coal refuse were identified as likely contributors to acid mine drainage.

That required engineering, not simply planting vegetation.

The project backfilled 1,615 feet of dangerous highwall to stable slopes, treated potentially acidic spoil with limestone, dealt with coal refuse, and changed mine-pool and drainage conditions to reduce future acid drainage problems. The final construction cost was about $1.19 million.

An 87-Year Reminder

Sugar Ridge provides an even older example nearby. In 2022, OSMRE recognized Indiana for reclamation work that corrected 2,165 feet of dangerous highwall left by the Ayreshire #8 mine. That mine operated in 1934 and 1935.

Sometimes the effects of mining last longer than a human lifetime.

Blue Grass Shows the Other Side of the Story

Blue Grass FWA has a different history.

Amax Coal Company began mining there in October 1973 and stopped in 1993. Indiana DNR says reclamation used herbaceous vegetation along with woody species planted in clumps and strips. All of the present property had been strip-mined.

Today, someone fishing Blue Grass Pit or watching waterfowl may have little reason to think about what happened beneath the property decades ago.

But the mining history still matters when managers decide what should happen next.

The soils were handled and reconstructed through mining and reclamation. The lakes are former mining pits. The plant communities developed through a combination of reclamation plantings, natural colonization, wildlife movement, and decades of succession.

The goal now does not need to be erasing every sign that mining occurred. That would make little ecological or practical sense.

A better question is where management can improve the condition that exists now.

If a reclaimed woodland has an established tree canopy but little native understory, what is limiting the understory? If invasive vegetation returns after treatment, is the problem seed availability, deer browsing, soil conditions, light, moisture, or several of those at once?

Those are different questions from the ones asked during initial reclamation. They are questions of long-term ecological management.

Reclamation and Restoration Ask Different Questions

The Society for Ecological Restoration’s 2026 standards sharpen this distinction by specifying recovery of native ecosystems as the aim of ecological restoration.

Mine reclamation and ecological restoration can overlap, but they judge success differently.

Reclamation asks whether the site is stable, drainage works, required soil has been replaced, vegetation is established, and the approved post-mining use is being achieved.

Restoration asks whether native plant communities are becoming more established, whether trees and understory plants are reproducing naturally, whether invasive plants are preventing regeneration, whether soil conditions are improving, and whether desired ecological functions are developing.

A regulatory responsibility period can have a defined end date. A forest does not work on that schedule.

Soil May Be the Part That Matters Most

Old mine restoration is easy to discuss in terms of plants because plants are visible. Soil is less cooperative. You have to measure it.

Rathfon et al.’s southwestern Indiana work documented how heavily compacted reconstructed soils and dense competitive vegetation could restrict forest development on earlier reclaimed sites.

The Forestry Reclamation Approach now makes that problem explicit. Its first two steps call for a suitable rooting medium at least four feet deep and loose grading that avoids creating a compacted growth medium.

That does not mean every old mine woodland should be ripped with heavy machinery. A site that already supports mature or developing trees presents a different problem from bare ground being reclaimed immediately after mining.

If compaction is suspected, measure it. If soil chemistry is suspected, test it. If invasive vegetation returns after removal, measure where and how quickly it returns.

Old mine lands are full of reasonable assumptions that can turn out to be wrong once they hit actual ground.

Sometimes the Best Goal Is Not Recreating the Past

Restoration becomes more complicated when a heavily altered site has already developed valuable habitat.

Suppose a former mine pit now supports a productive fishery and attracts waterfowl. Filling it because no lake existed there before mining would make little sense.

The same applies to an established reclaimed woodland. Tearing apart decades of tree growth simply because the reconstructed soil does not resemble an undisturbed soil profile could cause more damage than it fixes.

A better approach is to identify which ecological functions and native communities can be improved without destroying useful habitat that already exists.

One reclaimed grassland may be a good candidate for tree establishment. Another may provide valuable open habitat and be better kept open. A wooded spoil bank may benefit from invasive shrub control but be a poor candidate for major mechanical soil disturbance.

Good management starts with the site that exists, not the site we wish had never been disturbed.

Why Invasive Plants Become Part of the Mine-Land Problem

Disturbance creates openings for plants that establish quickly.

That matters on reclaimed mine land because native vegetation may already be dealing with difficult soil conditions, dense planted ground covers, limited seed sources, or competition from species that tolerate disturbed ground particularly well.

Killing an invasive plant creates an opening. Something will use the newly available light, moisture, nutrients, and growing space.

If native plants are already present or introduced at the right time, treatment may move the plant community in the desired direction. If not, the same invasive species may return from seed or surviving roots, or another aggressive species may take its place.

That is why invasive-species control on old mine land should rarely end with removal. The replacement community matters just as much.

What Comes Next for Southwestern Indiana’s Old Mine Lands?

Some old mine lands still need heavy engineering.

Highwalls remain. Subsidence occurs. Old underground workings continue to affect surface conditions. Acid-producing material can affect water decades after mining stopped. Indiana’s Abandoned Mine Land Program exists because these problems did not simply disappear with time.

Other sites are much farther along.

Their major safety problems have been corrected. Vegetation covers the ground. Trees have grown. Wildlife uses them. People hunt, fish, hike, paddle, and watch birds there.

For those properties, the next question is often about ecological quality rather than basic stabilization.

Can a reclaimed woodland support a more diverse native understory? Can natural tree regeneration improve? Can invasive plants be reduced without leaving another empty patch ready for recolonization? Are compacted soils still restricting recovery in particular areas?

Should one unit become forest while another remains open habitat? Which mine pits should be treated as permanent aquatic habitat, and which water bodies still carry problems from old mining?

These are harder questions than planting grass or counting trees because the answer can change from one part of a property to another.

Blue Grass and Sugar Ridge make that especially clear.

One shows what a fully strip-mined property can become after reclamation and decades of public wildlife management. The other shows that some mining problems can remain active long after the company, equipment, and even the original regulatory system are gone.

Southwestern Indiana has thousands of acres where the next phase is no longer about pretending mining never happened.

It is about deciding what can still be repaired, what can be improved, and what has developed enough value of its own that managers should be careful not to destroy it in the name of making the site look more “natural.”