Soil and Water Characteristics of a Young Surface Mine Wetland C. ANDREW COLE 1,* EUGENE A. LEFEBVRE Department of Zoology Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Illinois 62901, USA ABSTRACT / Coal companies are reluctant to include wetland development in reclamation plans partly due to a lack of in- formation on the resulting characteristics of such sites. It is easier for coal companies to recreate terrestrial habitats than to attempt experimental methods and possibly face signifi- cant regulatory disapproval. Therefore, we studied a young (10 years) wetland on a reclaimed surface coal mine in southern Illinois so as to ascertain soil and water character- istics such that the site might serve as a model for wetland development on surface mines. Water pH was not measured because of equipment problems, but evidence (plant life, fish, herpetofauna) suggests suitable pH levels. Other water parameters (conductivity, salinity, alkalinity, chloride, copper, total hardness, iron, manganese, nitrate, nitrite, phosphate, and sulfate) were measured, and only copper was seen in potentially high concentrations (but with no obvious toxic ef- fects). Soil variables measured included pH, nitrate, nitrite, ammonia, potassium, calcium, magnesium, manganese, alu- minum, iron, sulfate, chloride, and percent organic matter. Soils were slightly alkaline and most parameters fell within levels reported for other studies on both natural and man- made wetlands. Aluminum was high, but this might be indic- ative more of large amounts complexed with soils and there- fore unavailable, than amounts actually accessible to plants. Organic matter was moderate, somewhat surprising given the age of the system. Much of the original wetland area in the contiguous United States has been altered or lost as a result of human activity (Weller 1981, Tiner 1984). Frayer and others (1983) estimated annual wetland losses at 152,000 ha between the mid-1950s and the mid-1970s. In contrast, few attempts at wetland creation were made during that same time period (e.g., Dane 1959). Recently, considerable efforts have been made towards wetland development on lands surface mined for phosphate (Gilbert and others 1981, Erwin and Best 1985) and coal (Brooks and others 1985, Cole 1988). In the midwestern United States, surface mining for coal has often led to the creation of numerous bodies of water (e.g., final cut lakes, sediment ponds, and slurry basins). Recent reclamation laws rarely allow for standing water on reclaimed sites, except for steep-sided final cut lakes (Klimstra and Nawrot 1987). At best, these lakes have narrow, fringe wetlands cov- eting little area (Bell 1956). Rarely, reclaimed sites will settle, accidentally creating water-table wetlands (Cole 1988). In Illinois and Indiana, Klimstra and Nawrot KEY WORDS: Reclamation; Soils; Surface mines; Wetlands; Wetland creation; Water *Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. ~Current address: Cooperative Park Study Unit, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, Box 8004, North Caro- lina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-8004. (1987) pioneered efforts to develop wetlands as a rec- lamation alternative for coal slurry ponds. These ex- amples, however, seem to define the limits of wetland creation efforts on surface mines (although see Klim- stra and Nawrot 1985). Concerns about surface mine water quality in the midwest rarely focus on such no- torious problems as, for example, acid mine drainage (Mitsch and others 1985, Bosserman and Hill 1985). Instead consideration has been given more towards reclamation of waste sites (e.g., Nawrot and Yaich 1981) or reclamation of relocated riparian zones (Klimstra and Nawrot 1985). It is also appropriate to begin to turn some attention towards development of nonwaste and nonriparian wetlands as part of overall surface mine reclamation plans. To convince coal com- panies to do this requires data from created wetlands that show evidence that ecological parameters can exist within acceptable boundaries. Coal companies have shown an interest in surface mine wetland develop- ment but are reluctant to incur regulatory risk without some idea of the results (Gleich 1985). Federal recla- mation regulations are strict in that few nontraditional reclamation alternatives are available without an ar- duous review process. Final cut lakes are easily incor- porated into reclamation plans (Reising 1985), but these areas have little potential for wetland develop- ment. Experimental development of alternative wet- land types (e.g., coal slurry ponds) requires exemption from the rules--not an easy task. A significant restric- tion to the development of wetlands on reclaimed sur- Environmental ManagementVol. 15, No. 3, pp. 403-410 9 1991 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.