The Forestry Reclamation Approach: 

Guide to Successful Reforestation

of Mined Lands

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest

Service

General Technical

Report NRS-169

Northern

Research Station May 2017
Page intentionally left blank
The Forestry Reclamation Approach: 

Guide to Successful Reforestation

of Mined Lands

Mary Beth Adams, Editor

Office of 

Surface Mining 

Reclamation 

and Enforcement

U.S. Department 

of Agriculture

Forest Service

Appalachian 

Regional 

Reforestation 

Initiative

Cover Photos of Success Stories 

These mined sites in West Virginia have been reclaimed to healthy forest with the 

Forestry Reclamation Approach. Top left: A backfilled outslope in Kanawha County, 

about 15 years after reclamation by planting minimal ground cover. Top right: A valley 

fill in Logan County, 12 years after reclamation. Bottom left: Mined site in Monongalia 

County, 10 years after reclamation by planting tree seedlings into heavy ground 

cover. Bottom right: Mined site in Nicholas County, about 10 years after reclamation 

by planting tree seedlings on good mine soil material. Note how much growth has 

occurred between the top whorl of branches and the second row of branches in the 

sapling at center. This is the type of growth that can be expected with eastern white 

pine on a suitable soil medium. Photos by J. Skousen, West Virginia University, used 

with permission.
Visit our homepage at: http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/

Published by: For additional copies, contact:

U.S. FOREST SERVICE U.S. Forest Service

11 CAMPUS BLVD., SUITE 200 Publications Distribution

NEWTOWN SQUARE, PA 19073-3294 359 Main Road

Delaware, OH 43015-8640

May 2017 Fax: 740-368-0152

Manuscript received for publication July 2016

Appalachian forests are among the most productive and diverse in the world. The land underlying 

them is also rich in coal, and surface mines operated on more than 2.4 million acres in the region 

from 1977, when the federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act was passed, through 

2015. Many efforts to reclaim mined lands most often resulted in the establishment of grasses, 

shrubs, and nonnative plants. Research showed that forests could be returned to these mined 

lands, also restoring the potential for the land to provide forest ecosystem services and goods. 

Scientists and practitioners developed a set of science-based best management practices 

for mine reforestation called the Forestry Reclamation Approach (FRA). To help practitioners 

implement the 5 steps of the FRA and achieve other restoration goals (such as wildlife 

enhancement), 13 Forest Reclamation Advisories have been written since 2005 and others are 

underway. The 12 Advisories that are most directly relevant to the Appalachian region are being 

published here in a single volume for the first time. 

These Advisories were originally posted on the Web site of the Appalachian Regional 

Reforestation Initiative (ARRI), an organization created in 2004 by the U.S. Department of 

the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement along with State mining 

regulatory authorities in the Appalachian region. Members of ARRI come from the coal mining 

industry, government agencies, and research institutions. The goal of this initiative is to promote 

forest reclamation and restoration on mine lands through planting of high-value hardwood trees, 

increasing those trees’ survival rates and growth, and speeding the establishment of forest habitat 

through natural succession. To accomplish these goals, ARRI promotes and encourages use of 

the FRA by reclamation specialists. The Advisories are intended to serve as easy-to-understand 

guides to implementing the FRA; they provide specific recommendations as well as illustrations 

and photos to demonstrate tasks. The reformatted Advisories in this volume contain updated 

information and the latest additional resources to guide reclamation practitioners and other 

stakeholders in the reestablishment of healthy, productive forests in the Appalachian region. 

ABSTRACT

The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information 

and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement 

or approval by the U.S. Department of Agriculture or the Forest Service of any product 

or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable.

This publication/database reports research involving 

pesticides. It does not contain recommendations for their 

use, nor does it imply that the uses discussed here have 

been registered. All uses of pesticides must be registered by 

appropriate State and/or Federal agencies before they can 

be recommended.

CAUTION: Pesticides can be injurious to humans, domestic animals, 

desirable plants, and fish or other wildlife—if they are not handled or applied 

properly. Use all pesticides selectively and carefully. Follow recommended 

practices for the disposal of surplus pesticides and pesticide containers.

CAUTION:

PESTICIDES
AUTHORS

MARY BETH ADAMS is Research Soil Scientist 

with the U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research 

Station, 180 Canfield Street, Morgantown, WV 

26505; mbadams@fs.fed.us.

PATRICK ANGEL is Forester and Soil Scientist 

with the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of 

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 

421 West Highway 80, London, KY 40741; 

pangel@osmre.gov. 

CHRISTOPHER BARTON is Director of the 

University of Kentucky Appalachian Center, 

Professor of Watershed Management, and 

President, Green Forests Work, at the University 

of Kentucky, Department of Forestry, 106 Cooper 

Building, Lexington, KY 40506; barton@uky.edu. 

JIM BURGER is Garland Gray Professor 

Emeritus of Forestry and Soil Science at Virginia 

Polytechnic Institute and State University, College 

of Natural Resources and the Environment, 

Department of Forestry, 228 Cheatham Hall, 

Blacksburg, VA 24061; jaburger@vt.edu.

VIC DAVIS is Reclamation Review Specialist 

(retired) with the U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement, 710 Locust Street, 2nd Floor, 

Knoxville, TN 37902; treesfra@gmail.com. 

MICHAEL FRENCH is Director of Operations 

with Green Forests Work, and Forester with The 

American Chestnut Foundation, 6071 North SR 9, 

Hope, IN 47246; michael.french@acf.org.

DON GRAVES is Extension Professor of Forestry, 

Emeritus, at the University of Kentucky, 

1128 Hunter Drive, Lancaster, KY 40444; 

dgraves@windstream.net.

JOHN W. GRONINGER is Professor at Southern 

Illinois University, Department of Forestry, 

Mail Code 4411, Carbondale, IL 62901; 

groninge@siu.edu.

NATHAN HALL is Joint Degree Candidate, MBA/

Master of Environmental Management, Yale 

School of Management, Yale School of Forestry 

and Environmental Studies, and President of 

Reclaim Appalachia, a division of Coalfield 

Development Corporation, 99 Reynolds Hill, 

P.O. Box 335, Allen, KY 41601; 

nathandavidhall@gmail.com.

CAROLYN H. KEIFFER is Professor, Miami 

University, Department of Biology, 114 Levey Hall, 

Middletown Campus, Middletown, OH 45042; 

keiffech@miamioh.edu. 

JEFF LARKIN is Professor of Wildlife Ecology 

and Conservation at Indiana University of 

Pennsylvania, Department of Biology, 

Weyandt Hall, Room 114, 975 Oakland Avenue, 

Indiana, PA 15705; larkin@iup.edu.

BRIAN McCARTHY is Professor of 

Environmental and Plant Biology at Ohio 

University, Wilson Hall Administrative 207, 

Athens, OH 45701; mccarthy@ohio.edu. 

CHRISTOPHER MILLER is Surface Mining 

Reclamation Specialist, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation 

and Enforcement, 710 Locust Street, 2nd Floor, 

Knoxville, TN 37902; crmiller@osmre.gov. 

JEREMY MIZEL is Wildlife Biologist with the U.S. 

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 

4175 Geist Road, Fairbanks, AK 99709; 

jeremy_mizel@nps.gov.

JEFF SKOUSEN is Professor of Soil Science 

and Land Reclamation Specialist – Extension at 

West Virginia University, Department of Plant and 

Soil Science, Agricultural Sciences Building 1106, 

Morgantown, WV 26506; jskousen@wvu.edu.
BRIAN STRAHM is Associate Professor of Forest 

Soils at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 

University, College of Natural Resources and the 

Environment, Department of Forest Resources 

and Environmental Conservation, 

228 Cheatham Hall, Blacksburg, VA 24061; 

brian.strahm@vt.edu.

RICHARD J. SWEIGARD is Dean of the 

Herff College of Engineering at the University 

of Memphis, Memphis, TN 38152; 

rjswgard@memphis.edu.

PETRA WOOD is Research Wildlife Biologist with 

the U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological 

Survey, West Virginia Cooperative Fish and 

Wildlife Research Unit, and Adjunct Professor 

at West Virginia University, P.O. Box 6125, 

Morgantown, WV 26506; pbwood@wvu.

CARL ZIPPER is Professor and Extension 

Specialist at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and 

State University, Department of Crop and Soil 

Environmental Sciences, Smyth Hall, Blacksburg, 

VA 24061; czip@vt.edu. 
PREFACE

Christopher Barton, Carl Zipper, and James Burger 

In 2004, the U.S. Department of the Interior’s 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement (OSMRE) along with State mining 

regulatory authorities from coal-producing areas 

in the Appalachian region created the Appalachian 

Regional Reforestation Initiative (ARRI) to 

promote forest reclamation and restoration on 

active and abandoned mine lands in the eastern 

United States. Since the passage of the federal 

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 

(SMCRA) in 1977 (Public Law 95-87, 30 U.S.C. 

1201 and following), through 2015, more than 

2.4 million acres of land were mined for coal in 

the Appalachian region. Efforts to reforest these 

areas had historically resulted in high seedling 

mortality, slow growth, and poor production. In 

a region of the United States that is known for 

its beautiful mountainous forests, coal mining 

was dramatically changing the land cover. 

Where forest once prevailed, grass, shrubs, and 

nonnative plants were introduced—and began to 

dominate the landscape—after the mining was 

complete. The loss of the forest resource due to 

reclamation with grass and shrub species posed 

many environmental, ecological, and economic 

challenges to the region. Not only were soil, water, 

and air quality affected, but wildlife habitat and 

food webs were altered. Moreover, this large-scale 

and systematic land-use conversion compromised 

future economic opportunities involving timber 

and nontimber forest products.

Although grassland reclamation became the 

norm in the Appalachian region after the 

passage of SMCRA, research showed that 

forests could be returned to these postmining 

lands if proper reclamation practices specific 

for forest reclamation were followed. Several 

studies had documented that highly compacted 

soils with chemical characteristics unfavorable 

to forest trees, and intense competition from 

seeded herbaceous plants, were impeding the 

establishment of productive forest trees on surface 

mines in the Appalachian region. Other obstacles 

to reforestation of mined lands included poor 

selection of rooting media, planting of tree species 

that were not suited to site conditions, improper 

tree planting techniques, and competition from 

invasive plants that proliferate and thrive on mined 

areas. 

Drawing on the recommendations generated by 

decades of surface mine reclamation research, 

reclamation scientists developed a set of best 

management practices for mine reforestation 

called the Forestry Reclamation Approach (FRA). 

The FRA is based on the research, knowledge, and 

experience of forest soil scientists, other scientists, 

and reclamation practitioners. 

With the development of the FRA, OSMRE 

made a commitment to address reforestation 

shortcomings by regulatory authorities and the 

mining industry alike through the creation of 

ARRI. Simply, the goals of this initiative were to 

promote planting of high-value hardwood trees 

on surface mines, increase the survival rates 

and growth rates of those trees, and expedite 

the establishment of forest habitat through 

natural succession (the natural changes in plant 

community composition with time). These 

goals were to be accomplished by promoting 

and encouraging use of the FRA by reclamation 

practitioners, including the coal mining industry. 
The organization of ARRI consists of two teams, 

the Core Team and the Science Team. The Core 

Team is made up of State mining agency and 

OSMRE personnel. It facilitates and coordinates 

the cooperative efforts of many groups: the coal 

industry; landowners; university researchers; 

watershed, environmental, and conservation 

groups; and State and federal government agencies 

that have an interest in creating productive 

forest land on reclaimed mined lands. The Core 

Team also addresses regulatory policies when 

such policies are found to be hindering effective 

application of the FRA. The Science Team consists 

of university, federal agency, and other scientists 

who are familiar with Appalachian mining and 

reclamation. The Science Team ensures that the 

methods ARRI promotes are based on proven 

science, conducts continued scientific research 

into forestry reclamation, and communicates 

effective and science-based reforestation practices 

to reclamation practitioners, including those who 

work with industry and agencies. 

To this end, the ARRI Science Team prepared 

a series of Forest Reclamation Advisories that 

are intended to serve as guidance documents 

for FRA implementation. The content of the 

Advisories was based on proven scientific research 

and field application, but the Advisories were 

written with the intention of easy understanding 

by field practitioners. The Advisories provide 

specific recommendations as well as illustrations 

and photos to demonstrate how these tasks are 

implemented. A small group of Science Team 

members initiates preparation of each Advisory, 

sometimes at the request of the Core Team, but 

the full Science Team is involved with developing 

the Advisory. Each Advisory is reviewed by the 

full Science Team, and revisions continue until 

the Science Team members reach consensus that 

the Advisory is complete. At that point, the Core 

Team also reviews the Advisory, but with a focus 

on regulatory issues. If Core Team members think 

that a recommended practice is not consistent with 

State or regulatory policy, that issue is addressed 

with another revision. Once the full Science 

Team and Core Team agree that the Advisory is 

ready for publication, the Advisory is posted on 

the ARRI Web site, and shared with industry and 

agency practitioners to encourage more effective 

reforestation of mine sites.

To date, 13 Advisories have been written and 

are available at no cost on the ARRI Web site 

(http://arri.osmre.gov/) hosted by OSMRE. The 

first two Advisories provide specific information 

on ARRI and describe the FRA. The following 

seven Advisories (numbers 3 through 9) describe 

how to implement the five steps of the FRA. The 

next three Advisories (numbers 10 through 12) 

document how the FRA can be used for other 

restoration goals (wildlife enhancement; restoring 

mined lands that were reclaimed under SMCRA 

but not reforested, or “legacy mines”; return of 

the American chestnut). The 13th Advisory deals 

with mine land reclamation in the Midwest. Other 

Advisories are under development including 

planting mixes for forest reclamation outside the 

Appalachian region and planning for pollinators as 

a postmining land use.

Many in the coal industry within the Appalachian 

region have embraced the focused efforts by 

ARRI and its partners to promote the FRA, and 

significant changes in reclamation practices have 

resulted. From ARRI’s inception in 2004 through 

2015, about 95 million trees were planted on 

more than 140,000 acres of surface coal mines. 

ARRI continues to educate and train active 

mining industry and regulatory personnel about 

the FRA to promote effective reforestation of new 

surface mine disturbances. ARRI has also been 

instrumental in the reforestation of “legacy mines” 

and abandoned mined lands in the United States. 

Implementation of the reforestation guidelines 

for legacy mined land developed by ARRI 

scientists has resulted in the planting of these lands 

throughout the Appalachians. 
The Forest Reclamation Advisories were 

instrumental in the success of ARRI and 

widespread application of the FRA. Both the 

ARRI Science and Core Teams expressed a desire 

to compile the Advisories in a single volume that 

could be distributed to interested parties. Not only 

would the development of this product be useful 

for that purpose, but putting it together would 

provide an opportunity to revisit each Advisory 

and update it with the most current information. 

This volume contains 12 chapters, one for each 

of the Forest Reclamation Advisories that are 

directly relevant to the Appalachian region. 

These Advisories have been reformatted for this 

publication and are arranged by theme. Our hope 

is that this volume will continue to aid restoration 

efforts for one of the region’s most valuable 

assets—the Appalachian forest—and will present 

ARRI reforestation methods to a wider audience.
CONTENTS

Chapter 1: The Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative

Chapter 2: The Forestry Reclamation Approach

Chapter 3: Selecting Materials for Mine Soil Construction when Establishing Forests 

 on Appalachian Mined Lands

Chapter 4: Low Compaction Grading to Enhance Reforestation Success 

 on Coal Surface Mines

Chapter 5: Loosening Compacted Soils on Mined Lands

Chapter 6: Tree-compatible Ground Covers for Reforestation and Erosion Control

Chapter 7: Selecting Tree Species for Reforestation of Appalachian Mined Lands

Chapter 8: Mine Reclamation Practices to Enhance Forest Development 

 through Natural Succession

Chapter 9: Planting Hardwood Tree Seedlings on Reclaimed Mine Land 

 in the Appalachian Region

Chapter 10: Establishing Native Trees on Legacy Surface Mines

Chapter 11: Reforestation to Enhance Appalachian Mined Lands 

 as Habitat for Terrestrial Wildlife

Chapter 12: Reestablishing American Chestnut on Mined Lands 

 in the Appalachian Coalfields 

Appendix: Common and Scientific Names of Species Mentioned in this Volume
Authors’ Affiliations

PATRICK ANGEL: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 

London, KY

VIC DAVIS: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 

Knoxville, TN

JIM BURGER and CARL ZIPPER: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 

DON GRAVES: University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY

Publication History

This chapter is based on Forest Reclamation Advisory No. 1, which originally appeared in December 2005 

on the Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative’s Web site (http://arri.osmre.gov) hosted by the U.S. 

Department of the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. (Note that authors’ 

affiliations were current when the Advisory was originally written.)

Chapter 1

The Appalachian Regional

Reforestation Initiative

Patrick Angel, Vic Davis, Jim Burger, 

Don Graves, and Carl Zipper

INTRODUCTION

The Appalachian Regional Reforestation 

Initiative (ARRI) is a cooperative effort by the 

States of the Appalachian region with the U.S. 

Department of the Interior’s Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) 

to encourage restoration of high-quality forests 

on reclaimed coal mines in the eastern United 

States. The goals of ARRI are to communicate 

and encourage mine reforestation practices that 

1) plant more high-value hardwood trees on

reclaimed coal-mined lands in the Appalachian

region, 2) increase the survival rates and growth

rates of planted trees, and 3) expedite the

establishment of forest habitat through natural

succession. These goals can be achieved when

mines are reclaimed by using the Forestry

Reclamation Approach (FRA).

The FRA is a method for reclaiming coal-mined 

land to forest under the federal Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA), 

and is based on knowledge gained from both 

scientific research and experience (Chapter 2, 

this volume). State mining agencies and OSMRE 

consider the FRA to be an appropriate and 

desirable method for reclaiming coal-mined 

land to support forested land uses (Kentucky 

Department for Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement 1997; Ohio Department of Natural 

Resources 2001; U.S. Office of Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement 1999; Virginia 

Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy 

2001a, 2001b). Seven states (California, Kentucky, 

Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and 

West Virginia) have codified the FRA in their 

official policy or a memorandum of understanding 

to signal their adoption of the FRA as a means of 

reforesting mined sites. 
1-2 The Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative

When mining and reclamation operations are 

conducted using the FRA, results can include both 

cost-effective regulatory compliance by the coal 

mine operator and productive postmining forests. 

Productive forests generate value for their owners 

and provide watershed protection, wildlife habitat, 

and other environmental services (Fig. 1). 

WHY IS THE APPALACHIAN REGIONAL 

REFORESTATION INITIATIVE NEEDED?

The roles of ARRI are to coordinate and improve 

the sharing of information about mined land 

reforestation, and to promote further research on 

reclamation and restoration of mine lands across 

all the Appalachian states. Even though application 

of SMCRA methods improved the landforms 

of surface mines compared to pre-SMCRA 

conditions, the mined land was generally not 

restored as forest. In contrast with the aftermath 

of pre-SMCRA mining, the SMCRA approach 

increased land-surface stability, improved water 

quality, and enhanced human safety in the 

Appalachian region. However, implementation of 

SMCRA has not been accompanied by widespread 

replacement of forests disturbed by mining. Many 

mined lands were restored as grasslands, but 

the owners do not currently use them for hay or 

pasture. Natural succession will eventually restore 

native forests on such areas, but this process is 

slow—centuries may be required. 

After passage of SMCRA, regulators focused 

on stability of landforms created by mining at 

the expense of restoring forest land capability. 

They adopted this approach in an attempt to solve 

the problems caused by pre-SMCRA surface 

mining, such as severe erosion, sedimentation, 

landslides, and mass instability. As a result, 

excessive soil compaction was common on surface 

mines, and aggressive groundcover species were 

generally planted. Furthermore, the technical 

complexities of implementing SMCRA were a 

challenge to both regulators and mine operators. 

Consequently, reforestation took a backseat. 

Last, some of the mine operators’ early efforts 

Figure 1.—Thinning and pruning a 17-year-old white 

pine stand established by an active coal mining 

operation in Virginia using procedures similar to the 

Forestry Reclamation Approach. Scientific studies 

demonstrated that this site’s productivity is comparable 

to that of the area’s native forests (Rodrigue and Burger 

2004), and that the stand’s response to management 

has created additional economic value for the timber 

landowner (Burger and others 2003). Photo by 

J. Burger, Virginia Tech, used with permission.

to reforest under SMCRA proved problematic, 

in part because they were conducted without the 

benefit of the scientific knowledge available today. 

Mine operators and regulators came to believe 

that postmining land uses such as hayland and 

pasture were easier and cheaper to achieve than 

forests. These factors and others contributed to 

a significant loss of forests due to mining across 

the Appalachian region. Efforts by the ARRI 

Science and Core Teams (Preface, this volume) 

are intended to increase knowledge and change 

attitudes about planting trees on surface mines. 

Forests have been the traditional land use 

throughout the eastern coalfields and support an 

established industry; in recent years, resurgence 

in the hardwood timber and wood-using industries 

has occurred throughout the region. Furniture, 

flooring, and paneling are made from many 

fine hardwood species. Softer woods are used 

for plywood, oriented strandboard, and wood 
The Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative 1-3

pulp. Industrial wood-users are seeking “soft 

hardwoods” such as yellow-poplar (tuliptree), 

red maple, American sycamore, green ash, 

and bigtooth aspen—all of which have good 

potential as reclamation species—along with 

the traditionally valuable species such as the 

oaks. (Please see the Appendix starting on 

p. A-1 for scientific names of species mentioned 

in this chapter.) Furthermore, forests provide 

many benefits such as wildlife habitat, watershed 

control, carbon sequestration, and recreation. 

Owners of mined lands, who were once content 

to have their land reclaimed to grassland and 

shrubland, are becoming more interested in 

reforestation with commercially valuable 

hardwoods. 

A goal of mined land reclamation under SMCRA 

is to create land with equal or better postmining 

land use potential than before mining. Scientific 

research has demonstrated that reforestation using 

the FRA is capable of achieving this goal. On 

many grassland areas created after passage of 

SMCRA, soil properties are actually less favorable 

to forests than they were before mining. 

WHAT IS A FOREST 

RECLAMATION ADVISORY?

Reforestation researchers and experts from 

universities and agencies throughout the region 

have joined forces with federal and State 

regulators to form ARRI. One goal of ARRI’s 

Science Team is to generate a series of guidance 

documents called Forest Reclamation Advisories 

which describe state-of-the-science procedures for 

coal mine operators and other mine reforestation 

practitioners, agency personnel, and owners of 

mined land. For Web-based access to the Forest 

Reclamation Advisories, or additional information 

about the ARRI Science and Core Team members, 

see the ARRI Web site at http://arri.osmre.gov/.

LITERATURE CITED 

Burger, J.A.; Auch, W.; Oderwald, R.; Eisenbies, 

M. 2003. White pine growth and yield 

on a mined site in Virginia: response to 

thinning and pruning. In: Proceedings, 20th 

national meeting of the American Society 

for Mining and Reclamation and 9th Billings 

land reclamation symposium; 2003 June 3-6; 

Billings, MT. Lexington, KY: American Society 

for Mining and Reclamation: 96-102.

Kentucky Department for Surface Mining 

Reclamation and Enforcement. 1997. 

Reforestation initiative. Reclamation Advisory 

Memorandum 124. March 10. [Frankfort, KY]. 

11 p. Available at http://arri.osmre.gov/PDFs/

SRA_GDs/KY.RAM.124.pdf (accessed 

August 31, 2016).

Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 2001. 

Mined land technical reforestation guidance 

& recommendations. July 24. [Columbus, 

OH]: Ohio Department of Natural Resources, 

Division of Mineral Resources Management. 

6 p. Available at arri.osmre.gov/PDFs/SRA_

GDs/Oh.MLTRGnR.pdf (accessed August 31, 

2016).

Rodrigue, J.A.; Burger, J.A. 2004. Forest 

soil productivity of mined land in the 

midwestern and eastern coalfield regions.

Soil Science Society of America Journal. 

68(3): 833-844. https://doi.org/10.2136/

sssaj2004.8330.

U.S. Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement. 1999. Biology/Revegetation 

procedure 10.4, reforestation and wildlife 

habitat enhancement initiative. Knoxville, 

TN: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement. 5 p. Available at http://arri.

osmre.gov/PDFs/SRA_GDs/TN.Reforestation.

Wildlife.Enhancement.Guidelines.pdf (accessed 

August 31, 2016).
1-4 The Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative

Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and 

Energy. 2001a. Guidelines for husbandry 

and reclamation practices. Memorandum to 

Operators 3-96. Issued July 9, 1996. Updated 

October 1, 2001. [N.p.]: Virginia Department 

of Mines, Minerals, and Energy, Division 

of Mined Land Reclamation. 2 p. Available 

at http://arri.osmre.gov/PDFs/SRA_GDs/

VA.GfHnRP.pdf (accessed August 31, 2016).

Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and 

Energy. 2001b. Reforestation reclamation 

practices. Guidance Memorandum No. 2-01. 

May 29. [N.p.]: Virginia Department of Mines, 

Minerals, and Energy, Division of Mined 

Land Reclamation. 2 p. Available at http://arri.

osmre.gov/PDFs/SRA_GDs/VA_RefReclPr.pdf 

(accessed August 31, 2016).
Authors’ Affiliations

JIM BURGER and CARL ZIPPER: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 

DON GRAVES: University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY

PATRICK ANGEL: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 

London, KY

VIC DAVIS: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 

Knoxville, TN

Publication History

This chapter is based on Forest Reclamation Advisory No. 2, which originally appeared in December 2005 

on the Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative’s Web site (http://arri.osmre.gov) hosted by the U.S. 

Department of the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. (Note that authors’ 

affiliations were current when the Advisory was originally written.)

INTRODUCTION

The Forestry Reclamation Approach (FRA) is a 

method for reclaiming coal-mined land to forest 

under the federal Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The FRA is 

based on knowledge gained from both scientific 

research and experience (Fig. 2-1). The FRA can 

achieve cost-effective regulatory compliance for 

mine operators while creating productive forests 

that generate value for their owners and provide 

watershed protection, wildlife habitat, and other 

environmental services. 

Forest Reclamation Advisories are guidance 

documents that describe state-of-the-science 

procedures for reforestation of mined land. The 

purpose of this Forest Reclamation Advisory is 

to describe the FRA. State mining agencies and 

the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Office of 

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

(OSMRE) consider this approach to be an 

Chapter 2

The Forestry Reclamation Approach

Jim Burger, Don Graves, Patrick Angel, 

Vic Davis, and Carl Zipper

appropriate and desirable method for reclaiming 

coal-mined land to support forested land uses 

under SMCRA (Chapter 1, this volume). Members 

of the Science Team of the Appalachian Regional 

Reforestation Initiative (ARRI), which is drawn 

from universities and other research organizations 

in nine states (Preface, this volume), and other 

groups and agencies also support this approach. 

THE FIVE STEPS OF THE FORESTRY 

RECLAMATION APPROACH

The FRA can be summarized in five steps:

1. Create a suitable rooting medium for good 

tree growth that is no less than 4 feet deep and 

consists of topsoil, weathered sandstone, or 

the best available material, or a combination of 

these materials.

2. Loosely grade the topsoil or topsoil substitutes 

established in Step 1 to create a noncompacted 

growth medium.
2-2 The Forestry Reclamation Approach

3. Use groundcover species that are compatible 

with growing trees.

4. Plant two types of trees: early successional 

species for wildlife and soil stability, and 

commercially valuable crop trees.

5. Use proper tree planting techniques.

Step 1. Create a suitable rooting medium

Tree survival and growth can be hindered by 

highly alkaline or acidic soils. During mining and 

reclamation, all highly alkaline materials with 

excessive soluble salts and all highly acidic or 

toxic material should be covered with the best 

available rooting medium that will support trees. 

Place the growth medium on the surface to a depth 

of at least 4 feet to accommodate the needs of 

deep-rooted trees.

Growth media with low to moderate levels of 

soluble salts, equilibrium pH of 5.0 to 7.0, low 

pyritic sulfur content, and textures conducive to 

proper drainage are preferred. However, where 

such materials are not available, an equilibrium pH 

as low as 4.5 or as high as 7.5 is acceptable if tree 

species tolerant of those conditions are used. 

Native hardwood diversity and productivity will 

be best on soils where the pH is between 5.0 and 

7.0, and such trees generally grow best in soils 

with loamy textures, especially sandy loams. Such 

soils can be formed from overburden materials 

composed predominantly of weathered brown 

sandstones, especially if these materials are mixed 

with natural soils (Fig. 2-2). Use of materials with 

soluble salt levels less than 1.0 mmhos/cm on 

the surface is preferred when such materials are 

available. See Chapter 3 of this volume for further 

information about FRA Step 1.

Step 2. Loosely grade the topsoil or 

topsoil substitutes

Excessive soil compaction can severely reduce 

survival and growth of trees (Fig. 2-3). Even if 

a soil’s chemical properties are ideal, excessive 

compaction will create a soil that is poorly suited 

for trees. Use standard engineering practices to 

place and compact most of the backfill—but not 

the final surface. The surface layer, which will 

form the soil for the postmining forest, should 

be at least 4 feet deep and only lightly graded. 

Surface grading on longer and steeper slopes 

should be minimized, provided that doing so 

does not jeopardize stability. 

To reestablish a healthy and productive forest 

after mining, final grading must minimize surface 

compaction. This can be achieved by:

Figure 2-1.—A northern red oak stand that grew on a 

surface mine reclaimed pre-SMCRA in southern Illinois. 

Observations by reclamation scientists and practitioners 

of soil and site conditions on reclaimed mines such 

as this, where reforestation was successful, have 

contributed to development of the Forestry Reclamation 

Approach. Photo by J. Burger, Virginia Tech, used with 

permission.
The Forestry Reclamation Approach 2-3

Figure 2-2.—A mixture of weathered brown and unweathered gray sandstones, loosely graded to form a soil medium 

suitable for trees in West Virginia. Photo by J. Burger, Virginia Tech, used with permission. 

Figure 2-3.—Photos showing how mine soil properties can have a dramatic effect on tree growth. The eastern white 

pines in both photos were the same age (8 years old) when the photos were taken; the pines in the left-hand photo 

grew on compacted alkaline shales; the pines in the right-hand photo grew on a moderately acid sandstone. Photos 

by J. Burger, Virginia Tech, used with permission.

• Dumping and leveling in separate operations, 

• Leveling with the lightest equipment available, 

using the fewest passes possible, and during dry 

conditions, and 

• Permanently removing all equipment from an 

area after leveling. 

“Tracking-in” operations (Fig. 2-4) compact the 

soil and hinder tree growth. Avoid these operations 

unless necessary for slope stability. Rubber-tired 

equipment should not be used in final grading. 

See Chapters 4 and 5 of this volume for further 

information about FRA Step 2.
2-4 The Forestry Reclamation Approach

Step 3. Use ground covers that are 

compatible with growing trees

Groundcover vegetation used in reforestation 

requires a balance between erosion control and 

competition for the light, water, and space required 

by trees. Groundcover species should include 

grasses and legumes that are slow growing, have 

sprawling growth forms, and are tolerant of a 

wide range of soil conditions. Fast-growing and 

competitive grasses such as Kentucky-31 tall 

fescue and aggressive legumes such as sericea 

lespedeza and crownvetch should not be used 

where trees will be planted. Slower-growing 

grasses such as red top and perennial ryegrass, 

and legumes such as bird’s-foot trefoil and white 

clover, will increase seedling survival when used 

in a mix with other appropriate species. (Please 

see the Appendix starting on p. A-1 for scientific 

names of species mentioned in this chapter.) 

This slower-growing vegetation will also control 

erosion over the longer term as the trees and 

accompanying vegetation mature to form a forest. 

Apply fertilizer at rates lower in nitrogen than 

those commonly used to establish pastures, so as 

to discourage heavy groundcover growth. Rates 

of phosphorus and potassium should be targeted 

toward optimal tree growth. See Chapter 6 of this 

volume for further information about FRA Step 3.

Step 4. Plant the right mix of tree species

To produce a valuable forest that supports multiple 

uses, plant a mix of native timber species as 

crop trees. Such species include those that are 

compatible with the landowner’s postmining 

forest-management goals, have the potential to 

grow into healthy trees where they are planted, and 

are found in the local mature forests. Depending 

on local conditions, such species might include 

the oaks, black cherry, sugar maple, and white 

ash. Reforestation experts recommend that about 

one-fifth of the seedlings planted should be a mix 

of species able to survive in the open conditions 

commonly found on newly reclaimed sites and 

that support wildlife and soil improvement. Such 

Figure 2-4.—Soil compaction due to heavy equipment operation on mine soils hinders survival and growth of planted 

trees. “Tracking-in” operations, such as those shown in the photo, are not recommended for mine sites on which trees 

will be planted, unless required to stabilize steep slopes. Photo by J. Burger, Virginia Tech, used with permission.
The Forestry Reclamation Approach 2-5

species might include bristly locust, redbud, 

dogwood, and crab apple—again, depending 

on which species are known to do well under 

local conditions. Mix the selected species when 

planting them over the site, rather than planting 

them separately as single-species blocks. When 

all FRA steps are used, additional native species 

with seeds that can be carried by wildlife or 

wind will volunteer and become established on 

their own, leading to a species mix similar to the 

surrounding native forests. Mine operators should 

work with the State regulatory authority to develop 

reforestation plans that meet State requirements. 

See Chapter 7 of this volume and Rathfon and 

others (2015) for further information about FRA 

Step 4. 

Step 5. Use proper tree planting 

techniques

Poor tree survival is often due to improper 

handling or planting of seedlings. Tree seedlings 

should never be allowed to dry out during storage 

and handling prior to planting, and should be 

kept dormant until planted. Seedlings should be 

kept cool, but should not be allowed to freeze, 

and should be protected from direct sunlight 

and high temperatures before planting. Plant 

the seedlings in late winter to early spring at the 

proper depth and firmly enough to ensure survival 

(Fig. 2-5). Reputable and experienced crews are 

recommended for broad-scale, operational tree 

planting. See Chapter 9 of this volume for further 

information about FRA Step 5.

Members of the ARRI Science Team have 

studied and field tested these five steps (Fig. 2-6). 

They have determined that these steps can be 

implemented readily and successfully. Plantings on 

active mine sites by coal mining firms using these 

techniques have established productive young 

forests. Additional information on each of these 

five steps is provided by other Forest Reclamation 

Advisories (Chapters 3 through 12, this volume). 

Figure 2-5.—Planting a seedling at a reforestation project on a reclaimed mine site in Tennessee. Because the soil 

has not been compacted, a planting hole of the correct depth for the seedling can be opened easily. The seedling is 

being planted while still dormant, during the late winter season. Photo by R. Williams, Williams Forestry, used with 

permission.
2-6 The Forestry Reclamation Approach

The FRA is intended to be compatible with 

mine operators’ goal of cost-effective regulatory 

compliance. Avoidance of soil compaction requires 

that leveling and grading operations be minimized, 

which helps the operator control equipment 

operation costs. The species recommended for 

forest-compatible ground covers are widely 

available at a reasonable cost, and are best seeded 

with fertilization rates lower than those used 

commonly for grassland establishment. 

Avoidance of soil compaction will make it easier 

for tree planters to plant seedlings firmly and at 

the proper depth, thereby increasing survival rates. 

Survival of planted seedlings will also increase 

if surface materials are selected with chemical 

and physical properties suitable for trees and if 

less-competitive ground covers are successfully 

established. These two steps will allow for 

recruitment by native tree species from the 

surrounding forest as well. 

HOW DOES THE FORESTRY 

RECLAMATION APPROACH IMPROVE 

VALUE, DIVERSITY, AND SUCCESSION 

OF RECLAIMED FORESTS?

The FRA is designed to restore forest land 

capability. When these five steps are followed, 

forest land productivity equal to or better than 

that which preceded mining can be restored. 

Furthermore, the FRA accelerates the natural 

process of forest development by creating 

conditions similar to those of natural soils where 

native forests thrive. By limiting compaction 

during reclamation, the growth medium becomes 

Figure 2-6.—An emerging hardwood forest established on an active mine in Virginia as a demonstration of the 

Forestry Reclamation Approach. Photo by J. Burger, Virginia Tech, used with permission.
The Forestry Reclamation Approach 2-7

deep and loose, similar to the best forest soils. 

Temporary erosion-control ground covers 

are selected to allow native herbaceous and 

woody plants to seed in, emerge, and grow. The 

groundcover species are meant to be sparse and 

slow growing in the months following seeding, 

after which they will yield to a more diverse 

species mix that will control erosion and will be 

self-sustaining as required by SMCRA. Over the 

longer term, the herbaceous ground cover will 

yield to native forest through the process of natural 

succession (changes in the composition of the 

plant community with time). 

Natural succession is further accelerated by 

planting late successional, heavy-seeded species 

such as the oaks, which wind and wildlife do not 

easily disperse from the native forest. Planting 

these heavy-seeded species puts them onsite right 

away, allowing them to emerge with other species 

that can seed in on their own (Fig. 2-7). When a 

good growth medium is established, as outlined in 

Steps 1 and 2 of the FRA, late successional plants 

will thrive, especially if native soil is used or 

mixed with suitable overburden materials. Using 

native forest soils as a part of the growth medium 

will accelerate native vegetation establishment 

because vegetation will sprout from those seeds 

of forest understory and tree species that remain 

viable. Overall, such reclamation practices create 

a diverse and valuable forest of native trees that 

produces wood products and wildlife habitat.

The FRA does not preclude mine operators 

from establishing tree crops such as biomass 

plantations, Christmas trees, or nut orchards, if 

such reclamation satisfies permit requirements and 

meets landowners’ goals. In such cases, all of the 

five steps apply except that a tree crop is planted 

instead of a native hardwood mix. Tree crops will 

benefit from FRA reclamation. 

Figure 2-7.—Red oaks established on the Starfire mine in eastern Kentucky using the Forestry Reclamation 

Approach. Photo by J. Burger, Virginia Tech, used with permission.
2-8 The Forestry Reclamation Approach

LITERATURE CITED

Rathfon, R.; Groninger, J.; Jacobs, D.F.; Burger, 

J.A.; Angel, P.N.; Zipper, C.E. 2015. Tree and 

shrub species selection for mine reclamation 

in the midwest region of USA. ARRI Forest 

Reclamation Advisory No. 13. Pittsburgh, PA: 

Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative. 

12 p. Available at arri.osmre.gov/Publications/

Publications.shtm#FRAs (accessed 

September 18, 2016).
Authors’ Affiliations

JEFF SKOUSEN: West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV

CARL ZIPPER and JIM BURGER: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA

CHRISTOPHER BARTON: University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY

PATRICK ANGEL: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 

London, KY

Publication History

This chapter is based on Forest Reclamation Advisory No. 8, which originally appeared in July 2011 on the 

Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative’s Web site (http://arri.osmre.gov) hosted by the U.S. Department 

of the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. (Note that authors’ affiliations were 

current when the Advisory was originally written.)

INTRODUCTION

The Forestry Reclamation Approach (FRA), a 

method for reclaiming coal-mined land to forest 

(Chapter 2, this volume), is based on research, 

knowledge, and experience of forest soil scientists 

and reclamation practitioners. Step 1 of the FRA 

is to create a suitable rooting medium for good 

tree growth that is no less than 4 feet deep and 

consists of topsoil, weathered sandstone, or 

the best available material, or a combination of 

these materials. Selection and placement of a 

suitable growth medium are critical for successful 

reforestation on surface mines. Constructing 

mine soils using suitable materials enhances 

and accelerates development of diverse forest 

ecosystems. This Forest Reclamation Advisory 

provides guidance on how to execute Step 1 of the 

FRA and is intended for mine operators seeking to 

reestablish native forest as a postmining land use 

with pre-mining capability on surface mines. 

BACKGROUND

Soil is a mixture of weathered rocks, organic 

material, water, air, and living creatures. Its 

properties provide the structural support and other 

resources necessary for plant and animal life in 

a forest. The soil is the foundation of a forest 

ecosystem. Indeed, the health and productivity of 

a forest are largely determined by the nature and 

properties of the soil.

The Appalachian Mountains are among the 

world’s most ancient landscapes. The region’s 

soils have developed over long time periods 

from the rocks that form this landscape, and they 

reflect the local climate, plants and animals, and 

landscape position (Jenny 1941). In turn, diverse 

plant communities throughout the Appalachians 

have evolved over millennia on these weathered 

rock and soil materials (Fig. 3-1). 

Chapter 3: Selecting Materials for Mine

Soil Construction when Establishing

Forests on Appalachian Mined Lands

Jeff Skousen, Carl Zipper, Jim Burger, Christopher Barton, 

and Patrick Angel
3-2 Selecting Materials for Mine Soil Construction when Establishing Forests on Mined Lands

Figure 3-1.—A forest in the Appalachian Mountains. 

The Mixed Mesophytic Forest of the Appalachians is 

a diverse assemblage of more than 40 tree species 

that depend on native soil properties and other 

environmental factors. Photo by J. Burger, Virginia Tech, 

used with permission.

Weathering is the process of changing rocks 

into soil-like materials. During surface mining, 

unweathered rocks are often placed on the surface 

as a growth medium. These rocks react with 

air and water and break down physically and 

chemically, releasing soluble salts and changing 

mineral forms (Sencindiver and Ammons 2000). 

Plants can become established and grow in these 

presoil materials, producing organic matter to 

aid soil development and making the growth 

medium more favorable for colonization by microorganisms and other plants (Johnson and Skousen 

1995). These processes are well known, occur 

naturally, and can be accelerated by reclamation 

activities such as fertilizing and seeding. When 

starting with unweathered rocks, however, very 

long time periods are required to produce a soil 

that can support a plant community like the one 

that existed before mining (Fig. 3-2).

Although unweathered gray rock materials brought 

to the surface during mining will eventually 

weather into soils, they are generally not suitable 

for restoring pre-mining forest capability. Forest 

development can be accelerated by using the 

natural soil, weathered brown rock materials, or 

a combination, to reconstruct the land surface 

(Fig. 3-3). Salvaged soils and weathered rocks 

are superior to unweathered gray rocks as soil 

substitutes because they supply nutrients, air, 

and water to plants (Figs. 3-4 through 3-7). 

Hardwood trees and other plants that are native to 

Appalachian landscapes have evolved to grow in 

the region’s soils and near-surface weathered rocks 

(Smith 1983, Torbert and Burger 2000). (Please 

see the Appendix starting on p. A-1 for scientific 

names of species mentioned in this chapter.)

Figure 3-2.—Native soils of the Appalachian region (A) develop over long time periods and have properties that are 

well suited to supporting (B) native forest ecosystems. Photos by J. Burger, Virginia Tech, used with permission.

A B
Selecting Materials for Mine Soil Construction when Establishing Forests on Mined Lands 3-3

Figure 3-3.—Overburden consisting of weathered 

brown sandstone over unweathered gray sandstone 

and siltstone. The native soil has been stripped off 

the surface before blasting and mining. A native plant 

community is growing on native soils in the background. 

Photo by J. Skousen, West Virginia University, used with 

permission.

Figure 3-4.—Weathered brown sandstone on a West 

Virginia mine site 2 years after reclamation. The 

sandstone has formed a mine soil that supports good 

tree growth and promotes colonization by native plants. 

Mine soil pH is 6.0. The experimental areas on this 

mine site were not seeded with ground cover. Photo 

by J. Skousen, West Virginia University, used with 

permission.

Figure 3-5.—Unweathered gray sandstone on the 

same West Virginia mine site as in Figure 3-4 after 

2 years showing some weathering into smaller 

particles, but generally poor tree growth and poor 

colonization by native plants. The pH is above 8.0. 

Photo by J. Skousen, West Virginia University, used with 

permission.

Figure 3-6.—The same mine site as in Figure 3-4, with 

weathered brown sandstone, 6 years after planting 

with native hardwood trees. Good growth by trees and 

herbaceous plants is evident. Photo by J. Skousen, 

West Virginia University, used with permission.

Figure 3-7.—The same mine site as in Figure 3-5, with 

unweathered gray sandstone, 6 years after planting 

with native hardwood trees. Although planted trees are 

surviving, growth is poor. Soil pH remains above 7.5. 

Photo by J. Skousen, West Virginia University, used with 

permission.
3-4 Selecting Materials for Mine Soil Construction when Establishing Forests on Mined Lands

THE SURFACE MINING CONTROL AND 

RECLAMATION ACT

The federal Surface Mining Control and 

Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) requires 

that reclamation practices shall “restore the land 

affected to a condition capable of supporting the 

uses which it was capable of supporting prior 

to any mining, or higher or better uses of which 

there is reasonable likelihood ...” (30 CFR 

Sec. 515 (b) (2)). The guidelines recommended 

here are consistent with SMCRA and promote 

the placement of soil materials that will create 

conditions suitable for forest reestablishment. 

Forested land requires deep soil for productive 

tree growth (Andrews and others 1998, Torbert 

and others 1988). Regulations under SMCRA 

require removal and replacement of “topsoil” 

unless a variance from that requirement is 

obtained. Under SMCRA, the term “topsoil” is 

often used to describe the upper soil horizons, 

or the upper 6 inches of soil. Salvaging and 

respreading only the upper few inches of soil is 

unlikely to restore pre-mining capability unless 

additional materials suitable for reforestation are 

added. Federal regulations state that “selected 

overburden materials may be substituted for, or 

used as a supplement to topsoil if the operator 

demonstrates to the regulatory authority that the 

resulting soil medium is equal to, or more suitable 

for sustaining vegetation than the existing topsoil, 

and the resulting soil medium is the best available 

in the permit area to support revegetation” (30 

CFR 816.22). This Advisory provides guidance 

for practices that may be used to satisfy that 

requirement when restoring mined land as forest.

GUIDELINES

1. Salvage and respread soil (except where 

the operation would compromise machine 

operators’ safety)

The term “soil,” as used here, refers to all surface 

soil material to a depth of broken bedrock that can 

be removed with a dozer. Soil includes the O, A, 

E, B, C, and R soil horizons. Soil to be salvaged 

for respreading should include soil organic matter 

and plant materials such as tree stumps, roots, 

branches, and leaves remaining from harvested 

trees, and rocks found within the soil profile. The 

best soil materials for reforestation are those with 

the most organic materials—that is, generally 

those which occur closest to the surface.

Soils from forested areas contain materials that 

aid plant community development on reclaimed 

mines. Three properties of soil make it especially 

valuable for reclamation when reestablishing 

forests. First, viable seeds and propagules 

contained in the soil (called a seedbank) enable 

restoration of native forest species (Hall and others 

2010). Second, organic matter in the native soil 

contains nitrogen (N) and phosphorus (P), soil 

nutrients essential for plant growth that are not 

readily available to plants growing in unweathered 

mine spoils. Third, soil-dwelling animals and 

micro-organisms in the forest soil aid in providing 

and cycling nutrients for plants, create channels for 

air and water movement, and promote favorable 

hydrologic properties.

Soil should be considered a “living resource” and 

respread immediately when possible to maintain 

living soil animals, micro-organisms, roots, and 

seeds. When soil is obtained from forested areas 

before mining, the salvage operation should take 

stumps, roots, and woody debris left on the site, 

transport them to the reclaimed area, and respread 

them with the soil.

Even if salvageable soil is not available in 

quantities sufficient to produce an adequate depth 

over the entire reclamation area, replacement of 

fresh soil over portions of the reclamation area 

or mixing salvaged soil with other overburden 

materials, or a combination of these measures, 

will aid reestablishment of a native forest plant 

community. It will also aid restoration of essential 

ecosystem processes on the reclaimed mine land. 

If graded to a smooth surface, and especially if 

lacking rocks and organic debris, salvaged soil 

may be more prone to erosion initially than the 
Selecting Materials for Mine Soil Construction when Establishing Forests on Mined Lands 3-5

rocky spoils used in some reclamation practices 

today. Thus, when a slow-growing tree-compatible 

ground cover is used, some soil erosion may occur 

during the first year or two as the seeded and 

volunteer vegetation becomes established (Chapter 

6, this volume). However, a surface that is loose, is 

rough with small depressions, and contains forestfloor rocks and organic debris enhances water 

infiltration, reducing runoff and surface erosion.

When both salvaged native soils and other 

materials are being used for mine soil construction, 

“mixing” is accomplished by hauling and dumping 

materials, and then by lightly grading the surface 

(Fig. 3-8) or with the use of other equipment 

to level the surface (Fig. 3-9) (Chapter 4, this 

volume). It is essential that spreading be done in 

a manner that avoids soil compaction. Additional 

equipment operation to mix these materials more 

thoroughly should be avoided to reduce the 

potential for compaction of the surface layers.

2. Salvage and respread weathered spoil 

materials, and especially sandstones, 

where available and of suitable quality, to 

supplement soil materials

Weathered materials can be easily recognized 

on most mine sites by their brownish colors 

(Fig. 3-10). They are found just below the surface, 

usually within the upper 10 to 30 feet. Weathered 

sandstones, if available, will generally be superior 

as a reforestation growth medium to weathered 

siltstones and shales. Weathered sandstone will 

generally have a pH of 4.5 to 6.0. 

Weathered rocks are not suitable as a growth 

medium if they are extremely acidic or contain 

pyritic materials that will cause water quality 

problems if used on the surface (Isabell and 

Skousen 2001). If soil pH is less than 4.0, the soil 

probably contains acid-producing minerals and 

should not be used. Some weathered sandstones 

are low in essential plant nutrients, and mixing 

these materials with weathered siltstone or shale 

may improve soil fertility (Showalter and others 

2010). Soil tests can predict available nutrient 

levels in these materials. 

Figure 3-8.—Mixing of soil materials. Materials can be 

transported to the site, dumped in adjacent piles, and 

then lightly graded. Photo by J. Skousen, West Virginia 

University, used with permission.

Figure 3-9.—Excavator leveling dumped topsoil piles. 

An excavator can be used to level soil piles without 

causing compaction and can be useful when the 

dumped soil piles contain stumps, logs, and other 

coarse woody debris. Photo by J. Burger, Virginia Tech, 

used with permission.

Figure 3-10.—Weathered overburden above 

unweathered materials. Weathered overburden can be 

found immediately below the soil and often extends to 

about 30 feet beneath the surface—although it may be 

deeper. The weathered overburden, which has been 

affected by surface processes, is better material to place 

on the surface for forestry land uses than unweathered 

gray materials. Photo by C. Zipper, Virginia Tech, used 

with permission.
3-6 Selecting Materials for Mine Soil Construction when Establishing Forests on Mined Lands

3. When soil and weathered brown 

sandstone are not available in adequate 

quantities, select unweathered overburden 

materials with suitable properties for use 

as supplemental materials 

Just as a brown color can distinguish the 

weathering status of overburden, white and gray 

colors often indicate unweathered materials. 

Generally these materials when used alone will 

not support either rapid tree growth or rapid 

recolonization by native plants (Fig. 3-7) (Angel 

and others 2008, Emerson and others 2009). On 

remining sites, however, very little topsoil or 

weathered materials may be found. On these areas, 

almost exclusive use of unweathered materials as 

the growth medium may be unavoidable. In such 

cases, base selection of the best available material 

on physical and chemical tests that indicate likely 

suitability for trees. Unweathered overburdens 

that contain no pyritic minerals, are composed of 

rocks that break down to form soil-like materials 

when exposed to air and water, have relatively low 

levels of soluble salts, and weather to generate soil 

pH between 4.5 and 7 will form a better growth 

medium for forest trees than other unweathered 

spoil materials. 

If soil and weathered materials are available but 

not abundant, selected unweathered materials of 

primarily sandstone with small amounts of shale 

and siltstone can be used (Burger and others 2007, 

Conrad 2002). We have documented mine sites 

where soils composed of weathered overburden 

support tree growth comparable to unmined forests 

(see Box 3-1), but we are not aware of mines 

reclaimed with only unweathered spoils that have 

achieved pre-mining productivity levels.

4. Avoid surface placement of materials 

that are unsuitable as a growth medium for 

native forest trees 

Properties of spoil materials that make them 

unsuitable for reforestation are: 

a) Content of coarse fragments (larger than 2-mmdiameter particles) of greater than 60 percent 

by mass that will not break down rapidly into 

smaller particles, such as materials typically 

used as durable rock (Daniels and Amos 1984, 

Haering and others 1993, Sencindiver and 

Ammons 2000). 

b) High pH (more than 7.5).

c) Content of pyritic minerals sufficient to 

produce soils with pH less than 4, and to 

generate acids and excess salts, thereby 

elevating total dissolved solids (TDS) in runoff 

waters. Generally, materials with greater than 

0.1 percent sulfur contents will be unsuitable. 

d) Minerals that will produce high levels of 

soluble salts. Selected materials should achieve 

electrical conductivities of less than 1,000 

μS/cm, as measured by methods commonly 

applied in soil analysis1, when trees are 

planted. Generally, raw spoils with electrical 

conductivities more than 1,000 μS/cm, as 

measured using a method applied to raw 

spoils2, will be unsuitable. 

e) Carbonaceous rocks such as “black shales.” 

These rocks are usually unsuitable.

Avoid materials with these properties when 

constructing growth media for reforestation of coal 

surface mines. For a discussion of the scientific 

basis for these material selection guidelines, refer 

to Box 3-1. 

Some mine sites, such as remining sites in areas 

where pyritic materials and shales are common, 

may lack materials suitable for reforestation 

to achieve pre-mining productivity. Operators 

on such sites should obtain expert assistance 

in selecting the best available materials. This 

Advisory does not address material selection for 

reforestation on such sites.

1

Measured after mixing soil-sized fragments with 

deionized water at a 1:5 soil:water ratio, following 

Rhoades (1982).

2

Crush raw spoils to less than 0.5 cm and mix with 

deionized water at a 1:1 ratio; allow the mixture to sit 

for 30 minutes, then measure the water’s conductivity 

after filtration.
Selecting Materials for Mine Soil Construction when Establishing Forests on Mined Lands 3-7

Box 3-1. Scientific Background 

for Material Selection Guidelines

Research and practice have shown that the FRA, 

when applied correctly and completely, will restore 

forest vegetation on mine sites. Numerous studies 

show that Step 1 of the FRA—selecting and 

properly placing good soil materials—is critical for 

reestablishment of productive, diverse forests. 

The native soil is an excellent material for mine 

soil construction. Use of fresh soils as plant growth 

media can aid plant diversity by giving rise to living 

plants from seeds and propagules (Hall and others 

2010, Showalter and others 2010, Skousen and 

others 2006, Wade 1989, Wade and Thompson 

1993). Further, soil contains mycorrhizal 

fungi, important to plant growth and mine soil 

development (Miller and Jastrow 1992), along with 

organic nutrients and soil biota for nutrient cycling. 

Native forest soils have organic matter pools which 

can supply essential nutrients, including N and 

P, unlike raw spoils (Howard and others 1988, Li 

and Daniels 1994), and also increase soil waterholding and cation exchange capacities. 

As reviewed by Skousen and colleagues (2011), 

other research has found that weathered rocks, 

especially sandstones, produce excellent soil 

materials. Casselman and others (2007) reported 

excellent tree growth on mine sites constructed 

from deep, uncompacted soil and weathered 

rock mixtures. Working on experimental plots 

in southwestern Virginia, Torbert and others 

(1990) found weathered sandstone to support 

greater growth of pitch × loblolly hybrid pine 

than unweathered siltstone spoil materials. 

Studying native hardwoods on an active mine 

site in southern West Virginia, Emerson and 

others (2009) recorded more rapid growth on 

weathered than on unweathered sandstone 

materials (Figs. 3-4 through 3-7). Working with 

four native hardwoods in eastern Kentucky, Angel 

and others (2008) found that weathered sandstone 

spoils supported faster tree growth and more 

rapid colonization by native plants than either 

unweathered sandstones or a mixture of the two 

spoil materials.

Several studies found that soil properties 

occurring in soils and weathered spoils, including 

low soluble salts and moderately acidic pH, are 

associated with good growth by forest trees on 

coal surface mines (Andrews and others 1998, 

Jones and others 2005, Rodrigue and Burger 

2004, Showalter and others 2007, Torbert and 

others 1988).

SUMMARY

When native forest reestablishment is the 

postmining land use and reclamation goal, the 

FRA guidelines for creating a suitable rooting 

medium (Table 3-1) can aid mine operators in 

ensuring that mine soils, applied at a minimum 

of 4 feet in thickness, will restore land capability 

and support forest growth and diversity at 

pre-mining levels. An ability to restore native 

forests on mined lands after mining will be 

an asset to the Appalachian coal industry as it 

seeks to demonstrate its capability to mine coal 

in this region while protecting and restoring 

environmental quality. By following these 

guidelines, mine operators can help to restore 

productive and diverse native forests after mining.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks to W.L. Daniels, Virginia Tech, for insights 

concerning analyses of raw spoil. 

LITERATURE CITED

Andrews, J.A.; Johnson, J.E.; Torbert, J.L.; 

Burger, J.A.; Kelting, D.L. 1998. Minesoil 

properties associated with early height 

growth of eastern white pine. Journal of 

Environmental Quality. 27(1): 192-198. 

https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1998.004724250027

00010027x.

Angel, P.N.; Barton, C.D.; Warner, R.C.; 

Agouridis, C.; Taylor, T.; Hall, S. 2008. Tree 

growth, natural regeneration, and hydrologic 

characteristics of three loose-graded surface 

mine spoil types in Kentucky: preliminary 

findings. In: Barnhisel, R.I., ed. Proceedings, 

national meeting, American Society of Mining 

and Reclamation; 2008 June 13-19; Richmond, 

VA. Lexington, KY: American Society of 

Mining and Reclamation: 28-65. 
3-8 Selecting Materials for Mine Soil Construction when Establishing Forests on Mined Lands

Type Description Use

1. Soil Pre-mining forest soil; includes mineral 

horizons, rocks, stumps, roots, and seedbank 

as well as soil-dwelling animals and microorganisms

Use if available; usually the best available 

material.

2. Weathered rock Brown rocks that lie beneath the soil prior to 

mining

Mix with (1) if necessary to achieve 

adequate quantity for ≥4-foot depth; 

sandstones are best.

3. Selected 

 unweathered rock 

Rock below weathered strata, usually gray, that 

weathers within a few years to pH 4.5-7.0, has 

relatively low soluble salts, and breaks down to 

form soil-like material

If (1) and (2) are not available in adequate 

quantities to produce a mine soil of ≥4-foot 

depth, (3) may be mixed at up to 2:1 ratio 

with (1) or (2), or a combination. 

4. Unweathered rock 

 to avoid

Has pyritic minerals, high pH, or high soluble 

salts, or a combination of these properties; or 

is durable rock or black shale 

Avoid use for forestry mine soils, either 

alone or in significant quantities within 

mixes.

Table 3-1.—Summary of material types and guidelines for constructing forestry mine soils on 

Appalachian coal surface mines

Burger, J.A.; Mitchem, D.; Daniels, W.L. 2007. 

Red oak seedling response to different 

topsoil substitutes after five years. In: 

Barnhisel, R.I., ed. Proceedings, national 

meeting, American Society of Mining and 

Reclamation; 2007 June 2-7; Gillette, WY. 

Lexington, KY: American Society of Mining 

and Reclamation: 132-142. 

Casselman, C.N.; Fox, T.R.; Burger, J.A. 2007. 

Thinning response of a white pine stand 

on a reclaimed surface mine in southwest 

Virginia. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry. 

24: 9-13.

Conrad, P.W. 2002. An evaluation of the 

impact of spoil handling methods on the 

physical properties of a replaced growing 

medium and on tree survival. Lexington, 

KY: University of Kentucky. 262 p. Ph.D. 

dissertation. 

Daniels, W.L.; Amos, D.F. 1984. Generating 

productive topsoil substitutes from hard 

rock overburden in southern Appalachians.

Environmental Geochemistry and Health. 

7: 8-15.

Emerson, P.; Skousen, J.; Ziemkiewicz, P. 2009. 

Survival and growth of hardwoods in brown 

versus gray sandstone on a surface mine 

in West Virginia. Journal of Environmental 

Quality. 38(5): 1821-1829. 

https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2008.0479.

Haering, K.C.; Daniels, W.L.; Roberts, J.A. 1993. 

Changes in mine soil properties resulting 

from overburden weathering. Journal of 

Environmental Quality. 22(1): 194-200. 

https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1993.004724250022

00010026x.

Hall, S.L.; Barton, C.D.; Baskin, C.C. 2010. 

Topsoil seed bank of an oak-hickory forest 

in eastern Kentucky as a restoration tool on 

surface mines. Restoration Ecology. 18(6): 

834-842. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-

100x.2008.00509.x.

Howard, J.; Amos, D.F.; Daniels, W.L. 1988. 

Phosphorus and potassium relationships 

in southwestern Virginia coal-mine spoils.

Journal of Environmental Quality. 17(4): 

695-700. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1988.00472

425001700040029x.
Selecting Materials for Mine Soil Construction when Establishing Forests on Mined Lands 3-9

Isabell, M.; Skousen, J. 2001. Overburden 

analysis and special handling at Fola Coal 

Company. Green Lands. 31(4): 46-53. 

http://anr.ext.wvu.edu/r/download/43793 

(accessed October 1, 2016).

Jenny, H. 1941. Factors of soil formation: a 

system of quantitative pedology. New York: 

McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc. 281 p. 

Johnson, C.D.; Skousen, J.G. 1995. Minesoil 

properties of 15 abandoned mine land sites 

in West Virginia. Journal of Environmental 

Quality. 24(4): 635-643. 

https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1995.004724250024

00040014x.

Jones, A.T.; Galbraith, J.M.; Burger, J.A. 2005. 

A forest site quality classification model for 

mapping reforestation potential of mine soils 

in the Appalachian coalfield region.

In: Barnhisel, R.I., ed. Proceedings, 2005 

national meeting, American Society of 

Mining and Reclamation; 2005 June 19-23; 

Breckenridge, CO. Lexington, KY: American 

Society of Mining and Reclamation: 523-539.

Li, R.S.; Daniels, W.L. 1994. Nitrogen 

accumulation and form over time in young 

mine soils. Journal of Environmental Quality. 

23(1): 166-172. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq1994

.00472425002300010026x.

Miller, R.M.; Jastrow, J.D. 1992. The application 

of VA mycorrhizae to ecosystem restoration 

and reclamation. In: Allen, M.F., ed. 

Mycorrhizal functioning: an integrative plantfungal process. New York: Chapman and Hall: 

438-467.

Rhoades, J.D. 1982. Soluble constituents. In: 

Page, A.L., ed. Methods of soil analysis. Part 

2: Chemical and microbiological properties. 

2nd ed. Agronomy Monograph 9. Madison, WI: 

American Society of Agronomy: 167-179.

Rodrigue, J.A.; Burger, J.A. 2004. Forest 

soil productivity of mined land in the 

midwestern and eastern coalfield regions.

Soil Science Society of America Journal. 

68(3): 833-844. 

https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2004.8330.

Sencindiver, J.C.; Ammons, J.T. 2000. Minesoil 

genesis and classification. In: Barnhisel, 

R.I.; Darmody, R.G.; Daniels, W.L., eds. 

Reclamation of drastically disturbed lands. 

2nd ed. Agronomy Monograph 41. Madison, 

WI: American Society of Agronomy–Crop 

Science Society of America–Soil Science 

Society of America: 595-613.

Showalter, J.M.; Burger, J.A.; Zipper, C.E. 2010. 

Hardwood seedling growth on different 

mine spoil types with and without topsoil 

amendment. Journal of Environmental Quality. 

39(2): 483-491. 

https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2008.0500.

Showalter, J.M.; Burger, J.A.; Zipper, C.E.; 

Galbraith, J.M.; Donovan, P.F. 2007. Physical, 

chemical, and biological mine soil properties 

influence white oak seedling growth.

Southern Journal of Applied Forestry. 

31(2): 99-107.

Skousen, J.; Ziemkiewicz, P.; Venable, C. 2006. 

Tree recruitment and growth on 20-year-old, 

unreclaimed surface mined lands in West 

Virginia. International Journal of Mining, 

Reclamation and Environment. 20(2): 142-154. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/17480930600589833.

Skousen, J.; Zipper, C.; Burger, J.; Angel, P.; 

Barton, C. 2011. Selecting topsoil substitutes 

for forestry mine soils. In: Barnhisel, R.I., 

ed. Proceedings, national meeting, American 

Society of Mining and Reclamation; 2011 

June 11-16; Bismarck, ND. Lexington, KY: 

American Society of Mining and Reclamation: 

591-609. 
3-10 Selecting Materials for Mine Soil Construction when Establishing Forests on Mined Lands

Smith, H.C. 1983. Growth of Appalachian 

hardwoods kept free to grow from 2 to 12 

years after clearcutting. Res. Pap. NE-528. 

Broomall, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment 

Station. 6 p. 

Torbert, J.L.; Burger, J.A. 2000. Forest land 

reclamation. In: Barnhisel, R.I.; Darmody, 

R.G.; Daniels, W.L., eds. Reclamation of 

drastically disturbed lands. 2nd ed. Agronomy 

Monograph 41. Madison, WI: American 

Society of Agronomy–Crop Science Society 

of America–Soil Science Society of America: 

371-398. 

Torbert, J.L.; Burger, J.A.; Daniels, W.L. 1990. 

Pine growth variation associated with 

overburden rock type on a reclaimed surface 

mine in Virginia. Journal of Environmental 

Quality. 19(1): 88-92. https://doi.org/10.2134/

jeq/1990.00472425001900010011x.

Torbert, J.L.; Tuladhar, A.R.; Burger, J.A.; 

Bell, J.C. 1988. Minesoil property effects on 

the height of ten-year-old white pine.

Journal of Environmental Quality. 17(2): 

189-192. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq/

1988.00472425001700020004x.

Wade, G.L. 1989. Grass competition and 

establishment of native species from forest 

soil seed banks. Landscape and Urban 

Planning. 17(2): 135-149. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(89)9022-4.

Wade, G.L.; Thompson, R.L. 1993. Species 

richness on five partially reclaimed 

Kentucky surface mines. In: Zamora, B.A.; 

Connolly, R.E., eds. Proceedings, national 

meeting, American Society of Mining and 

Reclamation; 1993 May 16-19; Spokane, WA. 

Lexington, KY: American Society of Mining 

and Reclamation: 307-314.
Authors’ Affiliations

R. SWEIGARD and C. BARTON: University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 

J. BURGER and C. ZIPPER: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA

J. SKOUSEN: West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV

P. ANGEL: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, London, KY 

Publication History

This chapter is based on Forest Reclamation Advisory No. 3, which originally appeared in July 2007 on the 

Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative’s Web site (http://arri.osmre.gov) hosted by the U.S. Department 

of the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. (Note that authors’ affiliations were 

current when the Advisory was originally written.)

INTRODUCTION

This Forest Reclamation Advisory describes 

final-grading techniques for reclaiming coal 

surface mines to forest postmining land uses. Final 

grading that leaves a loose soil and a rough surface 

increases survival of planted seedlings and forest 

productivity. Such practices are often less costly 

than traditional “smooth grading” while meeting 

the requirements of the federal Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA).

LOW COMPACTION GRADING IS 

SMART RECLAMATION

Avoiding compaction during reclamation to 

forest makes good economic sense. It costs 

money to operate a dozer. Smooth surfaces do not 

contribute to postmining land use success and are 

not required under SMCRA. Therefore, grading 

with multiple passes to create smooth surfaces on 

reforestation sites is an unnecessary expense. The 

practice of covering the land surface with dozer 

track and cleat marks—often called walking-in 

or tracking-in—is also unnecessary and hinders 

reforestation success.

Leaving surface soils loose and uncompacted 

helps planted trees survive and grow:

• By helping planters get trees planted correctly: 

The planting hole must be large enough to 

hold the entire root system without requiring 

planters to bend or fold the roots. Generally, 

planting holes should be at least 8 to 10 inches 

deep. Planters will usually insert the planting 

tool to open the hole just one time. A seedling 

whose roots have been chopped short or folded 

to fit a shallow hole will be less likely to 

survive than a seedling that has been planted 

correctly with a full root system in an adequate 

hole. Leaving the soil loose makes it easier 

for the planters to get the tree’s roots into the 

ground correctly.

• By allowing rainwater to infiltrate the soil: Soil 

surfaces that are loosely graded with rough 

configurations, or are left ungraded, allow 

Chapter 4: Low Compaction Grading

to Enhance Reforestation Success

on Coal Surface Mines

R. Sweigard, J. Burger, C. Zipper, J. Skousen, 

C. Barton, and P. Angel
4-2 Low Compaction Grading to Enhance Reforestation Success on Coal Surface Mines

more water to infiltrate than the smooth, tight 

surfaces produced by conventional grading. 

Increased infiltration means more water is 

available in the soil for the planted trees.

• By allowing the soil to hold more water and 

air: Spaces between soil particles hold and store 

water and air. Soil compaction compresses 

soil particles, making those spaces smaller. 

Thus, compacted soils will provide less water 

to growing trees between rainfalls, and will be 

less able to provide the air exchange that tree 

roots and soil organisms need.

• By allowing roots to grow more freely: The 

tree’s roots are essential to its survival and 

growth. A loose, uncompacted soil allows roots 

to grow freely; in contrast, compacted soils 

limit root growth. A tree with a larger root mass 

will be able to reach a larger soil volume for 

water and nutrients, will have a greater chance 

of survival in the short run, and will grow 

bigger and faster in the long run. 

Many scientific studies have found that soil 

compaction hinders survival and growth of planted 

trees. In eastern Kentucky, Torbert and Burger 

(1992) found that reducing soil compaction 

increased survival and growth of hardwood 

species and reduced soil erosion. Jones and others 

(2005) found that soil density on Virginia and West 

Virginia mine sites had a greater effect on eastern 

white pine growth than any other measured soil 

property. (Please refer to the Appendix starting on 

p. A-1 for scientific names of species mentioned 

in this chapter.) Seedlings planted in loosely 

graded experimental plots on eastern Kentucky’s 

Starfire mine demonstrated excellent survival and 

growth, relative to trees planted in conventionally 

graded plots (Angel and others 2006). Emerson 

and Skousen (2006) reported greater than 

80-percent survival of hardwood trees planted into 

end-dumped spoils that were graded with only one 

or two passes in southern West Virginia. Rodrigue 

and Burger (2004) found that pre-SMCRA mine 

soils with favorable chemical properties made 

excellent forest sites for both hardwood and 

softwood species—but only if the soils were left 

loose and uncompacted. Many other studies have 

had similar findings.

LOW COMPACTION 

GRADING PRACTICES 

The Forestry Reclamation Approach (FRA) 

is a way of reclaiming active surface mines to 

maximize reforestation success (Chapter 2, this 

volume); Step 2 of the FRA is to loosely grade 

the topsoil or topsoil substitutes to create a 

noncompacted growth medium. This practice can 

be used on any type of surface mine. Techniques 

for low compaction grading are described next for 

various landforms. 

Flat and Gently Rolling Surfaces on 

Mountaintop, Area, and Contour Mines 

On surface mines where the final configuration 

will be flat or gently rolling, place the subsurface 

backfill using standard practices—whatever is 

required by the permit, including any compaction 

necessary for stability. When the postmining land 

use is forest, however, the surface material should 

be at least 4 feet deep and only lightly graded, if 

at all. To accomplish this where trucks are used 

to deliver the surface material, a process called 

end-dumping, tail-dumping, or loose-dumping 

is used (Fig. 4-1). The trucks dump the surface 

material into tightly spaced piles that abut one 

another across the reclamation area. Then, a light 

dozer can grade the spoil piles and level the area 

with one or, at most, two passes (Fig. 4-2). When 

this practice is used, it is essential that the piles 

be dumped close together so that the final surface 

thickness is 4 feet or more.

Level the loose-dumped materials with the lightest 

equipment available and using the fewest passes 

possible. If possible, grading should be done with 

just one pass of a low ground pressure (LGP) 

dozer. Equipment with rubber tires should not 

be used for final grading because rubber-tired 

equipment concentrates its weight on a smaller 

“footprint” and creates more surface compaction 

than tracked equipment.
Low Compaction Grading to Enhance Reforestation Success on Coal Surface Mines 4-3

Figure 4-1.—Loose-dumping a topsoil substitute over 

a compacted subsurface on a West Virginia surface 

mine. The topsoil-substitute material is being dumped 

in closely spaced piles and will be graded using only a 

single dozer pass. The final surface will be revegetated 

with a tree-compatible ground cover and trees will be 

planted in the loose topsoil-substitute materials. Photo 

by J. Skousen, West Virginia University, used with 

permission.

Figure 4-2.—Diagram of end-dumping and final grading 

on a truck-and-haul surface mine. Subsurface materials 

have been placed as described in the permit and have 

been compacted by equipment operations. Surface 

materials are dumped over the compacted subsurface to 

a depth of 4 to 6 feet (upper) and are graded only lightly 

so that they remain loose and uncompacted (lower).

Note the example of loose-dumped surface 

materials in Figure 4-3. Grading of these materials 

with a single pass of a track dozer during dry 

conditions would create soil conditions suitable 

for trees. Depending on State program policies 

and on material properties, it may be possible to 

plant trees in loose-dumped spoils such as those 

in Figure 4-3 with no further grading or leveling. 

This method is especially applicable if the material 

will drain water easily and weather to create a 

more level surface over time. If such piles are left 

on a sloped area, placing them in an alternating 

pattern that does not create linear downward 

channels can help prevent erosion.

Where a dragline is used, the spoil material can 

be cast and shaped in a manner that reduces 

the amount of final grading needed by tracked 

equipment. As with end-dumping, place the final 

surface in piles or ridges that tightly abut one 

another across the entire area. Then grade the spoil 

material with a single pass, or, at most, two passes 

(Fig. 4-4). 

Another method of moving spoils to create a final 

surface suitable for trees is called dozer pushup (Fig. 4-5). This method can be used where 

spoils are moved only a short distance, so that the 

dozer is a more cost-effective way of moving the 

material than hauling in trucks. The materials are 

Figure 4-3.—Loose-dumped soils on the surface at an 

Ohio mine site. Photo by M. Hiscar, OSMRE.
4-4 Low Compaction Grading to Enhance Reforestation Success on Coal Surface Mines

pushed into long parallel ridges and are kept loose 

during each push. The dozer starts on one edge 

of an area with the material and pushes the first 

pile of the first ridge into place and then backs up 

and moves over one blade-width to push the next 

pile of the first ridge into place. Then the dozer 

returns to the starting edge and repeats the process 

for the next ridge. When viewed from above, the 

final grade surface looks like an old-fashioned 

washboard. In some situations and depending on 

State program policies, mine operators may have 

the option of leaving the dozer push-up ridges as 

the final surface for tree planting. Otherwise, strike 

off the surface by using a light dozer under dry 

conditions with only one or two passes, leaving a 

material depth of at least 4 feet.

Reconstructing Slopes 

Practices for achieving an uncompacted growth 

medium on sloped backfills will vary from 

operation to operation. Backfill construction, 

however, should not vary much from what would 

be done normally—except that grading of the 

final surface is minimized. If the backfill materials 

are suitable and approved for use as a topsoil 

substitute, place those materials to construct 

the backfill using the usual practices. When all 

materials are in place, the dozers shape the fill 

to its final form—but they do not smooth and 

track-in the surface (Fig. 4-6). Do all grading 

moving downslope; confine upslope tramming to 

roads or tramways, which avoids tracking over 

and compacting materials that have already been 

shaped.

Figure 4-5.—Diagram illustrating the “dozer pushup” method. This method can be used to prepare 

uncompacted surfaces that are suitable for reforestation 

where materials for surface placement are moved over 

a short distance. Depending on the situation and State 

program policies, it may be possible to use the “dozer 

push-up” surface for reforestation without a final strikeoff grading. Otherwise, the push-up piles should be 

struck off with one or, at most, two passes with a light 

dozer.

Figure 4-4.—Diagram of final grading on spoils placed 

by a dragline on a mountaintop or area mine.

If the backfill requires compaction for stability, 

place all materials except the surface and compact 

as needed to construct a stable backfill using 

normal practices (Fig. 4-7). Dump topsoil or 

topsoil-substitute materials as needed to cover the 

outer surface of the compacted fill with 4 to 6 feet 

of loose, uncompacted material. Place the material 

from the outer edge of each lift, or construct an 

access road to enable the entire fill’s surface to 

be dumped over from the top. If necessary, strike 

off the dumped spoil to shape the final landform. 

Again, do all dozing moving downslope and 

only as needed to shape the fill; confine upslope 

tramming to roadways or the like, which avoids 

tracking back over and compacting the shaped 

materials. It is essential to leave the outer surface 

of the underlying compacted materials in a rough 

configuration so as to assure a good interface 

with the uncompacted surface. Leaving a smooth 

surface on the compacted base of a steeply sloped 

fill can create a slide plane, making the surface 

material vulnerable to instability.

The mine operator is responsible for assuring that 

approximate original contour and backfill stability 

are achieved, as in any other SMCRA-regulated 

operation. Place and stabilize areas that will 

support final drainage ditches and waterways 

as in normal practice. 
Low Compaction Grading to Enhance Reforestation Success on Coal Surface Mines 4-5

Figure 4-6.—Diagram of soil placement and final 

grading on a steep-slope contour mine where the 

backfill is constructed of approved topsoil substitute 

material and does not require compaction to maintain 

stability. The material is dumped in place (left) as per 

normal practice and then struck off to shape the backfill 

(right) but not graded smoothly. The dozer grades 

moving downward and trams back up on roads or 

defined tramways so as to minimize tracking back over 

materials that have already been shaped.

Figure 4-7.—Diagram depicting spoil placement and 

final grading to achieve stability on a steep-slope 

contour mine where backfill compaction is specified 

by the permit. The backfill materials are placed and 

compacted by using standard procedures as required 

for stability. Then loose materials suitable for surface 

placement are dumped over the compacted spoil 

material (left) and graded only lightly (right) and only 

if necessary to shape the final surface. The surface 

materials can be placed over the compacted backfill as 

each lift is completed, or they can all be dumped from 

the top lift.

Leaving a Rough Soil Surface

On any surface mine, low compaction grading 

techniques that create excellent forest soils will 

leave rough surfaces. Mine sites being prepared 

for reforestation can be left with rough surfaces 

similar to natural forests. Grading practices that 

leave small depressions and rocks on the surface 

will be an aid to successful reforestation 

(Fig. 4-8). Such surfaces absorb rainwater more 

easily than the smoothly graded surfaces that are 

used in reclamation for hayland, pasture, and other 

agricultural postmining land uses. The surface 

depressions and void spaces that occur on such 

sites can capture and germinate seeds that are 

carried to the site by wind or animals, and the 

rough surface increases water infiltration. Any 

water that infiltrates cannot cause erosion by 

running off the surface. If the surface materials 

contain old stumps or other organic debris from 

the pre-mining forest, these materials can also be 

left on the surface to aid reforestation.

Figure 4-8.—A topsoil-substitute material that has been 

prepared for revegetation by using the low-compaction 

grading technique on a coal surface mine. The materials 

have been left in a loose condition. The rocky, rough 

surface will aid water infiltration and will not hinder the 

forest postmining land use that is being established on 

this site. Photo by J. Skousen, West Virginia University, 

used with permission.
4-6 Low Compaction Grading to Enhance Reforestation Success on Coal Surface Mines

Final Grading 

Do final grading only when surface materials 

are dry. This will help to reduce compaction and 

will be more cost-effective than grading moist 

materials. When spoil materials are damp or moist, 

the pressures exerted by the dozer can pack the 

soil particles together more tightly than would 

occur under dry conditions. If the surface materials 

are wet, damp, or moist, delay final grading until 

they dry.

Keeping Traffic off the Final Surface

Once the final surface has been graded, exclude 

all equipment traffic from the area. If it becomes 

necessary for heavy equipment to travel over some 

portion of the graded area, use deep ripping to 

restore that area’s suitability for trees (Chapter 5, 

this volume).

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 

ABOUT LOW COMPACTION GRADING

What about site stability?

Regulations under SMCRA require that reclaimed 

mine sites be stable. Therefore, handle and place 

all below-surface spoils as needed to ensure 

stability as described in the permit; only the top 4 

to 6 feet must remain loose and uncompacted for 

successful reforestation. 

What about backfill settlement?

Successful postmining forests require that 

compaction be avoided only on the top 4 to 6 feet; 

therefore, place most of the backfill material using 

procedures that would normally be used to prevent 

settlement and highwall exposure. Any settling 

that occurs because the top 4 to 6 feet has been left 

loose will be minimal. Operators can overfill the 

top of the highwall using the same amount of loose 

spoil that they would otherwise compact—but 

without the added expense of compacting this final 

lift of material.

If the site is not graded smoothly, will that 

be “ugly reclamation”?

Each loose-graded site will look different, with 

some rougher and some smoother. Some sites 

will have many rocks on the surface while others 

will not. But whether or not these sites should 

be considered “ugly reclamation” is in the eye 

of the beholder. To a person who can envision a 

productive natural forest with diverse vegetation 

and wildlife emerging from the mine site, such 

reclamation can be beautiful. Many natural, 

unmined forests in the Appalachian region have 

rough and rocky soil surfaces. 

If the surface is not compacted to “hold it 

in place,” will soils erode more rapidly?

Scientific research (Torbert and Burger 1992) and 

onsite observations demonstrate that compacting 

soil surfaces accelerates soil erosion. Soils erode 

when rainfall fails to infiltrate the soil and runs 

off the surface. Surface compaction prevents 

rainfall infiltration, encouraging erosion. Mine 

soils reclaimed with low compaction grading 

allow water to infiltrate the surface, which 

prevents erosion. Mine operators who switch from 

conventional to low compaction grading often 

observe that sediment-pond cleanouts are needed 

less frequently.

If gullies develop in the uncompacted 

materials, should they be regraded?

Because low compaction grading encourages 

infiltration of rainfall, gullies are less likely to 

form when low compaction grading is used. 

If small gullies form in the final surface, they 

should not be regraded. When regrading occurs, 

it compacts the soil surface. If regrading occurs 

after the site has been planted with trees, those 

trees within the regraded area are destroyed. 

The maximum allowable gully size that does 

not require regrading varies with State program 

policies. Generally, the States allow stabilized 

gullies to remain in place on forested mine sites if 

they are not large enough to hinder the operation 

of forestry equipment.
Low Compaction Grading to Enhance Reforestation Success on Coal Surface Mines 4-7

Will the mine inspector like it?

Most inspectors will approve low compaction 

grading without problem or difficulty because 

the FRA is allowed under SMCRA. The U.S. 

Department of the Interior’s Office of Surface 

Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) 

and the States that participate in the Appalachian 

Regional Reforestation Initiative (ARRI) have 

issued directives to that effect (Chapter 1, this 

volume). Both federal and State inspection 

personnel in those States have been informed 

of this “new” way of reclaiming mine sites for 

forests, which includes low compaction grading. 

OSMRE and the mining agency for each State 

in the Appalachian region have assigned one or 

more people to encourage use of FRA practices in 

permits and in the field, and to ensure that FRA 

practices are accepted as means of achieving bond 

release.

If a mining firm is concerned that its inspector 

will not favor low compaction grading, it should 

state in the mining permit that low compaction 

grading practices will be used. If the company 

is not certain that its inspector will approve low 

compaction grading, a mine supervisor can ask 

the inspector for an onsite meeting. Carrying a 

copy of this volume or other ARRI publications 

(available at http://arri.osmre.gov/Publications/

Publications.shtm#FRAs) to the meeting can 

help communication with the inspector. If such 

a meeting were to be unsuccessful, a call to 

that State’s ARRI liaison, or to any member of 

the Core or Science Teams, could be the next 

step. FRA practices—including low compaction 

grading—are allowed under SMCRA when the 

postmining land use is forest, and are encouraged 

by both OSMRE and State agencies.

SUMMARY

Since SMCRA’s early years, equipment operators 

and inspectors have taken pride in the clean and 

smooth “golf course” look produced by fine 

grading. Scientific research has made it clear, 

however, that such practices compact soils and 

hinder development of planted trees. 

To reestablish a healthy and productive forest after 

mining, surface compaction should be minimized 

by placing surface spoils using techniques that 

leave them loose, leveling with the lightest 

equipment available with the fewest passes 

possible during dry conditions, and permanently 

removing all equipment from the area after 

leveling.

The low compaction grading techniques described 

in this Advisory are less costly than conventional 

smooth-grading and tracking-in practices that have 

been common since SMCRA went into effect. 

Low compaction grading for forestry postmining 

land uses is consistent with SMCRA and with 

federal and State regulations. Low compaction 

grading will aid seedling survival, reduce the need 

for replanting, increase the likelihood of prompt 

bond release, and allow the planted trees to grow 

into a productive forest.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors express their appreciation to Karrie 

Bernhard with OSMRE for the graphics in Figures 

4-2 and 4-4 through 4-7.
4-8 Low Compaction Grading to Enhance Reforestation Success on Coal Surface Mines

LITERATURE CITED

Angel, P.N.; Graves, D.H.; Barton, C.; Warner, 

R.C.; Conrad, P.W.; Sweigard, R.J.; Agouridis, 

C. 2006. Surface mine reforestation 

research: evaluation of tree response to 

low compaction reclamation techniques.

In: Barnhisel, R.I., ed. Proceedings, 7th 

international conference on acid rock drainage 

(ICARD); 2006 March 26-30; St. Louis, MO. 

Lexington, KY: American Society of Mining 

and Reclamation: 45-48. 

https://doi.org/ 10.21000/JASMR06020045. 

Emerson, P.; Skousen, J. 2007. Survival and 

growth of commercial hardwoods in brown 

vs. gray sandstone on a mountaintop mine in 

southern West Virginia. In: Barnhisel, R.I., ed. 

Proceedings, 2007 national meeting, American 

Society of Mining and Reclamation; 2007 June 

2-7; Gillette, WY. Lexington, KY: American 

Society of Mining and Reclamation: 229-237. 

https://doi.org/10.21000/JASMR07010229.

Jones, A.T.; Galbraith, J.M.; Burger, J.A. 

2005. Development of a forest site quality 

classification model for mine soils in the 

Appalachian coalfield region. In: 

Barnhisel, R.I., ed. Proceedings, 2005 national 

meeting, American Society of Mining and 

Reclamation; 2005 June 19-23; Breckinridge, 

CO. Lexington, KY: American Society of 

Mining and Reclamation: 523-540. 

https://doi.org/10.21000/JASMR05010523. 

Rodrigue, J.A.; Burger, J.A. 2004. Forest 

soil productivity of mined land in the 

midwestern and eastern coalfield regions.

Soil Science Society of America Journal. 

68(3): 833-844. 

https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2004.8330.

Torbert, J.L.; Burger, J.A. 1992. Influence 

of grading intensity on ground cover 

establishment, erosion, and tree 

establishment. In: Proceedings, 9th annual 

meeting, American Society of Mining and 

Reclamation; 1992 June 14-18; Duluth, MN. 

Princeton, WV: American Society of Mining 

and Reclamation: 579-586. 

https://doi.org/10.21000/JASMR92010579.
Authors’ Affiliations

B. STRAHM, J. BURGER, and C. ZIPPER: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA

R. SWEIGARD, D. GRAVES, and C. BARTON: University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY

J. SKOUSEN: West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV

P. ANGEL: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), 

London, KY

Publication History

This chapter is based on Forest Reclamation Advisory No. 4, which originally appeared in July 2007 on the 

Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative’s Web site (http://arri.osmre.gov) hosted by the U.S. Department 

of the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. Brian Strahm led the revisions of this 

Advisory for this volume and has been added as an author. (Note that the other authors’ affiliations were current 

when the Advisory was originally written.)

INTRODUCTION

Successful surface coal mining businesses must 

move earth materials efficiently, so mining 

operations today depend on large and heavy 

equipment (Fig. 5-1). Track dozers and haul trucks 

used for mining can weigh more than 100 tons 

each. Wheel loaders and loaded haul trucks often 

exceed 200 tons. The mining industry has learned 

that successful reforestation of reclaimed sites 

requires loose and uncompacted surface materials, 

but some areas become compacted due to the 

machinery operation, traffic, and storage that are 

necessary for the mining business to be successful.

Trees require deep, loose mine soils to survive and 

grow into healthy, productive forests. Such forests 

can support viable forest products businesses, 

protect the watershed, store carbon, and serve as 

wildlife habitat. This Forest Reclamation Advisory 

describes how to loosen soils that have become 

compacted by mining equipment; these procedures 

can be used to restore land capability for forests.

AVOIDING SOIL COMPACTION 

The best way to deal with compaction on mine 

sites is to avoid compacting the soil in the first 

Chapter 5: 

Loosening Compacted Soils

on Mined Lands

B. Strahm, R. Sweigard, J. Burger, D. Graves, C. Zipper, 

C. Barton, J. Skousen, and P. Angel

Figure 5-1.—Haul trucks, which can weigh 50 to 100 

tons or more even when empty. This weight exerts 

force where tires meet the land surface, causing 

severe compaction of mine soils. When operated on 

surface soils, loaders, dozers, and other heavy mining 

equipment also cause compaction that hinders tree 

growth. Photo by J. Skousen, West Virginia University, 

used with permission.
5-2 Loosening Compacted Soils on Mined Lands

place. Uncompacted conditions suitable for trees 

can be created by using techniques that cost less 

than traditional smooth-surface “tracked-in” 

reclamation. Loose dumping of surface materials, 

combined with the minimum grading necessary 

to shape the land, creates loose soils and rough 

surfaces, increases rainwater infiltration, and 

increases trees’ survival and growth. Throughout 

the Appalachian region, mine operators are finding 

these techniques to be a cost-effective successful 

method for establishing forests and achieving 

timely bond release when used with the Forestry 

Reclamation Approach (FRA) (Chapter 2, this 

volume).

Mine operators can minimize equipment use on 

the final surface, but there will often be areas that 

become compacted. These areas are generally the 

flatter areas and sites used for storing equipment. 

Many Appalachian and midwestern mine sites 

reclaimed under the federal Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA) 

have become compacted due to excessive 

equipment operation (Chapter 1, this volume). 

In order for such lands to support a forested 

postmining land use, soils must be loosened before 

reforestation.

WHAT CAN BE DONE TO LOOSEN 

COMPACTED SOIL?

Deep tillage or ripping of the soil with a deep 

plow or ripper blade attached to a dozer can 

alleviate most soil compaction effects on mine 

sites (Fig. 5-2). Subsurface ripping was first used 

for reclamation on prime farmlands disturbed by 

mining in the Midwest. In the years immediately 

following the passage of SMCRA, rubbertired equipment was often used to replace the 

subsoil and topsoil on these sites. Such practices 

compacted soils and created lands that could not 

produce the required crop yields. Various deep 

plows were developed and used to overcome 

compaction in prime farmland reclamation, and 

research studies have shown that their use helps to 

restore soil productivity (Dunker and others 1995, 

2000). More recently, similar methods have been 

used to alleviate soil compaction on post-SMCRA 

mine sites (Conrad and others 2002).

The choice of ripping device and procedure 

depends on site conditions. Available ripping 

devices include single-, double-, and triple-shank 

rippers, with and without plow attachments. In 

areas where topsoil is lacking and surface spoils 

contain large boulders, a single-shank ripper 

(Fig. 5-3) will generally produce the best results. 

As the shank encounters boulders, it lifts and 

Figure 5-2.—A dozer ripping to loosen soils and produce 

soil conditions favorable to successful reforestation in a 

former roadway. Photo by P. Angel, OSMRE.

Figure 5-3.—A single-shank ripper attached to a dozer. 

This type of ripper is capable of ripping the soil to a 

depth suitable for forest trees when attached to a large 

dozer. Photo by P. Angel, OSMRE.
Loosening Compacted Soils on Mined Lands 5-3

Figure 5-4.—Large boulders brought to the surface by a 

ripping operation on an Appalachian surface mine. This 

operation loosens the surrounding soil materials. Note 

also that the ripping has reduced groundcover density 

near the ripped channel, which will help tree seedlings 

planted over that channel to survive and become 

established. Photo by P. Angel, OSMRE.

rotates them; this action has the effect of loosening 

the material around and above the boulders 

(Fig. 5-4), which increases the operation’s 

effectiveness. With this type of ripper in rocky 

soil, it is usually adequate to rip in only one 

direction. 

When ripping is done on mined land with thick 

soil that is relatively free of boulders, a deep plow 

will do a better job of loosening the soil than a 

straight-shank ripper. In this case the plow’s shape 

is important because, without boulders to be pulled 

up, the subsurface blade must lift and fracture 

the soil. A plow-like attachment has been used 

successfully on a single-shank ripper blade 

(Fig. 5-5). Such a device cannot withstand the 

stresses of moving large boulders and is not 

recommended where boulders are present.

If soils have a high clay content, ripping in two 

perpendicular directions (“cross-ripping”) is 

recommended, as ripping in only one direction in 

clayey soils tends to cut a narrow trench without 

shattering the surrounding soil. Roots of trees 

tend to grow only in the direction of the trenches, 

which makes them susceptible to being blown over 

after they develop a crown.

Most forest trees require at least 4 feet of 

uncompacted rooting medium to achieve their 

growth potential, so compacted mined land being 

prepared for trees should be ripped to at least that 

depth. Although 4 feet will be an effective ripping 

depth on most sites, deeper is better. In order to rip 

a compacted mine site to 4 feet, a dozer equivalent 

to a Cat® D-9 (Caterpillar Inc., Peoria, IL) or larger 

is generally required. Use of shorter (less than 

4 feet) rippers can be beneficial in areas where 

surface soils have been compacted but deeper soils 

remain loose. If using a shorter single-shank ripper 

(less than 4 feet), cross-rip the entire area to ensure 

adequate loosening of the surface. Using a tripleshank ripper should eliminate the need to cross-rip 

because it loosens most of the total surface area. 

Unless a very large dozer is used, however, a 

triple-shank ripper may not reach as great a depth 

as a single-shank ripper.

Figure 5-5.—A ripper with a plow attachment, which 

can be used to loosen soils that do not contain large 

rocks and boulders. The “wings” on the ripper blades 

will loosen soils located next to the ripping trench. 

Photo by D. Graves, University of Kentucky, used with 

permission.
5-4 Loosening Compacted Soils on Mined Lands

When ripping is done on nearly level ground, the 

direction of ripping is not critical. However, when 

ripping is done on slopes, it is advisable to rip 

along the contour to minimize erosion. In all cases, 

it is best to rip when the ground is dry because 

dry soils fracture much better than damp or moist 

soils; this is especially important for clayey mine 

soils. Ripping operations during late summer or 

fall take advantage of the relatively dry seasonal 

conditions while allowing soil settling for tree 

planting in early spring.

IS RIPPING NEEDED?

On Appalachian surface mines it is common for 

relatively flat areas to be more compacted than 

steeper slopes, especially if those areas have 

been used for equipment storage, maintenance, 

and operations. Such heavily compacted soils 

will require ripping to produce commercially 

valuable trees. In contrast, soils on steeper slopes 

often remain relatively loose because they are not 

affected by equipment operations after grading. 

It is relatively easy to determine whether soils 

have been compacted to an extent which makes 

ripping necessary for satisfactory tree growth. Use 

a common hand spade or a drain spade shovel 

(Fig. 5-6) to estimate the extent of compaction by 

putting a modest amount of foot pressure 

(50 pounds) on the spade while rocking its tip to 

bypass coarse fragments. (If a rock big enough 

to block the spade is encountered, move to 

another spot.) The depth of spade penetration 

will be affected by the degree of compaction 

and is an indicator of forest site quality (Table 

5-1). For example, a highly compacted soil 

could be penetrated with a spade to a depth of 

1 to 3 inches. Without ripping, the site would 

Soil density condition Very dense Dense

Moderately 

compacted

Slightly 

compacted Loose

Spade penetration 0–1 inches 1–3 inches 3–6 inches 6–9 inches 9–12 inches

Site quality class V (poor) IV (fair) III (medium) II (good) I (excellent)

Oak site indexa 40 50 60 70 80

Use for wood products None Firewood Railroad ties Sawtimber Veneer

$/1,000 board ft stumpage valueb $0 Less than $100 $200 $500 $2,000

Relative return on investment -2% 0% 2% 4% 8%

Table 5-1.—The relationship among degree of compaction, spade penetration depth, forest site 

quality (an indicator of the soil’s ability to support growing trees), and relative return on a forestry 

investment (after Burger and others 1998, 2002; Probert 1999).

a Approximate height in feet of a white oak or northern red oak growing at age 50. These ratings assume that all factors other than 

soil density (for example, other mine soil properties, ground cover, seedling quality) affecting productivity are optimum.

b Source: Hayek (2007).

Figure 5-6.—A long-nosed 

drain spade being inserted 

into mine spoil. A spade can 

be used to estimate mine 

soil density and the need for 

ripping. Depth of penetration 

when applying foot pressure 

and a rocking motion is 

an indicator of a soil’s 

capability to support trees 

that will survive and grow 

into commercial products 

(see Table 5-1). This spade 

was able to penetrate spoil 

easily; this area is expected 

to be able to grow trees 

successfully without being ripped. Photo by C. Zipper, 

Virginia Tech, used with permission.
Loosening Compacted Soils on Mined Lands 5-5

be classified as “fair” and would be capable of 

growing oaks only 50 feet tall at age 50. Trees 

growing at this rate would have little value except 

as firewood so the land would have little or no 

value as a forest-products investment. Ripping 

the site would improve the soil by one to three 

site-quality classes, depending on the type and 

quality of the ripping practice. (This assumes other 

soil properties are suitable for growing trees, and 

good forestry practices are applied after the area 

is ripped.) Note that return on investment doubles 

when site quality is improved by one class.

Relationships between soil compaction, soil 

physical properties, and tree growth (Table 5-1) 

have been worked out in research studies. The 

term “bulk density” refers to a technical measure 

of soil density that is often used in such studies. A 

low bulk density indicates a loose soil that allows 

rainfall to infiltrate easily—which helps to prevent 

erosion—and that will not impede root extension 

by growing trees. Bulk density can be measured in 

different ways including specialized field sampling 

methods. Research has found that, in rocky spoil, 

dry bulk density should be less than 100 pounds 

per cubic foot at a depth of 2 inches, which 

correlates with relatively deep shovel penetration. 

Another way of evaluating soil density conditions 

is with a cone penetrometer (Fig. 5-7), a common 

geotechnical testing device that drives a steel cone 

into the ground with a hydraulic ram. To ensure 

good tree growth in rocky spoil, the cone should 

be able to penetrate at least 1 foot into the ground. 

This is an average value that can vary with soil 

type and rock content.

HAS RIPPING BEEN EFFECTIVE?

Our experience shows that a deep and thorough 

ripping of very dense mine soils can improve the 

soil by as many as three or four site quality classes 

(Table 5-1). Even a moderately compacted site can 

be greatly improved because the economic value 

of trees increases disproportionately on the high 

end of the site-quality gradient due to improved 

Figure 5-7.—A tractor-mounted cone penetrometer 

being used to evaluate soil density on a Kentucky 

surface mine. Photo by OSMRE.

wood product class (for example, veneer has a 

much greater value than sawtimber; Table 5-1) as 

well as faster growth rates.

IS RIPPING COST-EFFECTIVE?

Ripping should be considered a practice of last 

resort. It is far less expensive to avoid compaction 

during reclamation than to correct it once it 

has occurred. Loose grading costs less than the 

excessive grading needed for compacted soils 

because loose grading requires less dozer time—

and loose-graded sites can grow trees successfully 

without the expense of ripping. Nonetheless, it 

is difficult to avoid all surface compaction on an 

active mine site; the pre-mining capability to grow 

trees cannot be restored on areas that have been 

compacted by repetitive equipment traffic unless 

such areas are ripped before planting. 

Experience has shown that it takes about 1 hour 

to rip 1 acre with a D-9 dozer or equivalent 

with a single-shank ripper. Costs, using contract 

equipment, range from about $150 to $200 

per acre (2016 estimates; B. Strahm, personal 

communication). The type of ripper used will also 

affect the per-acre cost. For example, a tripleshank ripper would require a larger tractor and 

more time.
5-6 Loosening Compacted Soils on Mined Lands

SUMMARY

The FRA is a way of reclaiming active surface 

mines to maximize reforestation potentials 

(Chapter 2, this volume). A noncompacted growth 

medium is essential to FRA reclamation. Soil 

conditions suitable for trees can be created by 

placing materials on the surface loosely, and 

minimizing surface grading. On areas that do 

become compacted, soil conditions suitable 

for trees can be restored through deep ripping. 

Although ripping may not produce land that is as 

desirable as land that has been loosely graded from 

the outset, it can alleviate soil compaction so that 

reforestation can be successful and land capability 

can be restored to pre-mining levels. 

LITERATURE CITED

Burger, J.; Mitchem, D.; Scott, D. 2002. 

Field assessment of mine site quality for 

establishing hardwoods in the Appalachians.

In: Barnhisel, R.I., ed. Proceedings, national 

meeting, American Society of Mining and 

Reclamation; 2002 June 9-13; Lexington, KY. 

Lexington, KY: American Society of Mining 

and Reclamation: 226-240.

Burger, J.A.; Zipper, C. 1998. Restoring the value 

of forests on reclaimed mined land. Virginia 

Cooperative Extension Publ. 460-138. 

http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/460/460-138/460-138.

html (accessed November 5, 2016).

Conrad, P.W.; Sweigard, R.J.; Yingling, J.C.; 

Graves, D.H.; Ringe, J.M. 2002. Use of 

ripping to alleviate excessive compaction on 

reclaimed surface mined land. Transactions 

of the Society for Mining, Metallurgy and 

Exploration. 312(2002): 159-165.

Dunker, R.E.; Barnhisel, R.G. 2000. Cropland 

reclamation. In: Barnhisel, R.I.; Darmody, 

R.G.; Daniels, W.L., eds. Reclamation of 

drastically disturbed lands. Madison, WI: 

American Society of Agronomy–Crop Science 

Society of America–Soil Science Society of 

America: 323-369. 

Dunker, R.E.; Hooks, C.L.; Vance, S.L.; Darmody, 

R.G. 1995. Deep tillage effects on compacted 

surface-mined land. Soil Science Society of 

America Journal. 59(1): 192-199. 

https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1995.03615995005

900010029x.

Hayek, J. 2007. Timber blog. Urbana-Champaign, 

IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 

College of Agricultural, Consumer, and 

Environmental Sciences. http://web.extension.

uiuc.edu/forestry/blogs/eb94/ (accessed 2007).

Probert, T. 1999. Reforestation constraints, 

experiences, trends, and needs: a 

landowner’s perspective. In: Vories, 

K.; Throgmorton, D., eds. Proceedings, 

enhancement of reforestation at surface coal 

mines: technical interactive forum; 1999 March 

23-24; Fort Mitchell, KY. Alton, IL: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Office of Surface 

Mining; and Carbondale, IL: Coal Research 

Center, Southern Illinois University: 83-86. 
Authors’ Affiliations

J. BURGER and C. ZIPPER: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA

V. DAVIS: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Knoxville, TN

J. FRANKLIN: University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN

J. SKOUSEN: West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV

C. BARTON: University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY

P. ANGEL: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), 

London, KY

Publication History

This chapter is based on Forest Reclamation Advisory No. 6, which originally appeared in July 2009 on the 

Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative’s Web site (http://arri.osmre.gov) hosted by the U.S. Department of 

the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. (Note that authors’ affiliations were current 

when the Advisory was originally written.)

INTRODUCTION

Productive native forests create economic value 

for landowners, produce raw materials for woodbased products, and provide benefits such as 

watershed control, water quality protection, carbon 

storage, wildlife habitat, and native plant diversity. 

Owners of lands mined for coal in the Appalachian 

region are increasingly interested in assuring that 

productive forests are restored after mining. 

Sediment control is essential to coal mine 

reclamation under the federal Surface Mining 

Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). 

This Forest Reclamation Advisory describes 

how mining firms can achieve good tree survival 

and restore forest productivity by using treecompatible ground covers, when necessary, to 

control erosion and meet groundcover standards. 

THE FORESTRY RECLAMATION 

APPROACH 

The Forestry Reclamation Approach (FRA) is a 

method for reclaiming mined land to forest under 

SMCRA (Chapters 1 and 2, this volume). The 

FRA differs from past reclamation practices that 

used agricultural grasses and legumes such as 

Kentucky-31 tall fescue and red clover to create 

dense vegetative cover. (Please see the Appendix 

starting on p. A-1 for scientific names of species 

mentioned in this chapter.) Thick, vigorous 

agricultural grasses and legumes are necessary for 

postmining land uses such as hayland and pasture. 

But when lands are being reclaimed for forestry, 

grasses and legumes are used only as needed for 

erosion control. For forestry, native herbaceous 

and woody ground cover is preferred because it 

Chapter 6: 

Tree-Compatible Ground Covers

for Reforestation and Erosion Control

J. Burger, V. Davis, J. Franklin, C. Zipper, 

J. Skousen, C. Barton, and P. Angel
6-2 Tree-Compatible Ground Covers for Reforestation and Erosion Control

seldom hinders tree survival and growth (Burger 

and Zipper 2011). 

The FRA has five steps: 

1. Create a suitable rooting medium for good 

tree growth that is no less than 4 feet deep and 

consists of topsoil, weathered sandstone, or 

the best available material, or a combination of 

these materials.

2. Loosely grade the topsoil or topsoil substitutes 

established in Step 1 to create a noncompacted 

growth medium.

3. Use groundcover species that are compatible 

with growing trees.

4. Plant two types of trees: early successional 

species for wildlife and soil stability, and 

commercially valuable crop trees.

5. Use proper tree planting techniques.

This Advisory deals with Step 3 of the FRA: use 

of ground covers that are compatible with growing 

trees. It describes methods for establishing 

groundcover vegetation to control erosion without 

hindering survival and growth of planted trees. 

Those methods include establishing soil conditions 

to encourage native, volunteer ground cover, and, 

when necessary, seeding grasses and legumes that 

will provide minimal competition with growing 

trees.

THE FORESTRY RECLAMATION 

APPROACH CONTROLS EROSION

Steps 1 and 2 of the FRA—selection and 

placement procedures for mine soils to promote 

tree survival and growth—reduce the need for 

sowing agricultural grasses and legumes for 

erosion control. Mine soils with good chemical 

and physical properties for native trees are also 

good for native herbaceous plants, microbes, and 

soil animals. 

When suitable mine soil is used, a variety of native 

plants often become established and provide nearly 

complete ground coverage within several years 

(Angel and others 2006). High diversity often 

occurs when native topsoil is included in the mine 

soil (Hall and others 2009, Holl and others 2001, 

Wade 1989). On an eastern Kentucky area with 

three types of mine soils planted with trees but not 

sown with ground cover, Angel and others1 found 

that after 4 years, brown weathered sandstone 

had 79-percent cover made up of 69 volunteer 

species including 16 tree species, whereas gray 

unweathered sandstone had 4-percent cover made 

up of 18 volunteer species including only 1 tree 

species—black locust. This example shows how 

native vegetation responds to different topsoil 

substitutes, and how little or no agricultural 

grasses and legumes are needed for ground cover 

when the FRA is used on favorable materials. 

Step 2 of the FRA leaves the surface soil looser 

and rougher than conventional grading (Chapter 

4, this volume). Loose spoil allows more water 

infiltration, so more rainwater enters the soil, 

where it can be used by growing plants. Less 

rainfall runs off the surface, limiting the amount 

of eroded soil. The soil that is carried by rainfall 

runoff often moves only short distances into 

depressions in the rough surfaces. Thus, when the 

soil surface is left rough and uncompacted, erosion 

can often be controlled without establishing dense 

groundcover vegetation.

Natural processes can establish ground cover 

readily when soil conditions are favorable 

for reforestation. Favorable conditions are 

uncompacted soil with a rough surface, 

constructed from topsoil or weathered brown 

sandstones, or a combination, either mixed with 

overburden or alone; and a soil pH between 5.5 

and 6.5. Even when using the FRA, grasses and 

legumes will need to be sown on steep slopes, on 

areas far from native seed sources within large 

mining operations, and in states with specific 

groundcover standards. 

1 Unpublished data on file with P. Angel.
Tree-Compatible Ground Covers for Reforestation and Erosion Control 6-3

NEW GROUNDCOVER REGULATIONS

Although each State has different regulations, 

federal regulations do not require establishment 

of ground cover where trees are planted using 

the FRA if tree establishment is successful, the 

postmining land use is achieved, and erosion 

and offsite sedimentation are controlled (Federal 

Register 2007). Tennessee and Virginia have 

modified their groundcover requirements for 

FRA reclamation from set standards (80 percent 

and 90 percent cover, respectively) to ground 

cover as needed to control erosion. These changes 

recognize that FRA reclamation reduces runoff 

and erosion on most mine sites, compared to 

traditional reclamation practices that compact the 

soil, and that aggressive ground covers inhibit tree 

seedling survival and forest productivity. 

TREE-COMPATIBLE GROUND COVER 

Using tree-compatible ground cover with the 

FRA differs from the “grassland reclamation 

approach” used in past years to establish hayland 

and pasture as well as unmanaged forest. The 

grassland reclamation approach uses fast-growing 

agricultural grasses and legumes to achieve rapid 

and complete coverage of the ground. In contrast, 

FRA reclamation uses “tree-compatible” ground 

cover to minimize competition with tree seedlings. 

To establish tree-compatible ground cover: 

• Use less-competitive groundcover species, 

• Use lower seeding rates, 

• Use less nitrogen (N) fertilizer, and 

• Accept a less-dense herbaceous ground cover in 

the first few years after seeding. 

The result will be a lower-growing, less vigorous, 

sparse ground cover that allows planted tree 

seedlings to survive and grow, and allows more 

recruitment of volunteer plants (Fig. 6-1). Use of 

tree-compatible ground cover will achieve timely 

bond release on soils that are properly prepared 

for reforestation (Burger and others 2010). FRA 

seeding and fertilizer rates are presented as 

general guidance in Table 6-1. Because climate, 

soil conditions, and regulatory policies vary 

Figure 6-1.—Groundcover vegetation on coal mine 

sites. (A) A tree-compatible ground cover in midsummer, about 3 months after planting. The cover 

is sparse, but planted trees are able to survive and 

grow, and native plants can seed in and become 

established. (B) A grass-dominated ground cover that is 

typical of conventional grassland reclamation, 3 years 

after planting. The site is fully covered, but the tree is 

growing at less than half its potential and is exposed to 

predation. (C) A tree-compatible ground cover, 3 years 

after planting. At least half the cover on this site is made 

up of native plants, including trees that seeded in via 

wind and wildlife. Trees are growing faster because the 

cover is less competitive. Photo A by C. Zipper, Virginia 

Tech, used with permission; photos B and C by J. 

Burger, Virginia Tech, used with permission.

B

C

A
6-4 Tree-Compatible Ground Covers for Reforestation and Erosion Control

among states, and because State and federal 

regulatory policies change with time, the rates of 

Table 6-1 should not be considered a rigid recipe 

or prescription. We encourage mining firms to 

consider the guidance of Table 6-1, site conditions, 

and local regulatory policies when deciding on 

groundcover seeding rates. 

Instead of the high N and low phosphorus (P) used 

for grassland reclamation, FRA reclamation uses 

low N to reduce the vigor of early-growing grasses 

and high P to nourish trees for the long term. The 

fertilizer rate in Table 6-1 is adequate to establish 

seeded ground covers; as the legumes mature, they 

convert N from the atmosphere to plant-available 

forms. Generally, the three perennial grasses and 

Species†† Rate (lbs per acre)

Perennial grasses:

Perennial ryegrass 10

Orchardgrass (steep slopes only) 5

Timothy 5

Annual grasses:

Annual ryegrass, or 5

foxtail millet§ 10

Legumes (with inoculant):

Bird’s-foot trefoil (steep slopes only) 5

Ladino or white clover 3

Fertilizer§§:

Nitrogen (N) 50-75

Phosphorus (as P) 80-100

 (as P2O5) 180-230

Table 6-1.—Example of a seeding and fertilizer 

application for FRA reclamation on mine sites 

where soil conditions are favorable for forest 

vegetation (pH between 5.0 and 6.5)† 

†

 These rates are intended to achieve >80-percent ground 

cover after 2 years, although species and rates may differ 

based on local conditions. Before seeding, mining firms are 

encouraged to check with the SMCRA regulatory authority.

†† For more detail on each species, see Skousen and Zipper 

(2009). 

§

 Foxtail millet can substitute for annual ryegrass in late spring/

early summer seedings. 

§§ Can be achieved by applying 400 lbs/acre di-ammonium 

phosphate, by blending 200 lbs/acre concentrated super 

phosphate (0-60-0) with 300 lbs/acre 19-19-19 fertilizer, 

or with other fertilizer blends.

both legumes listed in Table 6-1 would be seeded, 

along with one of the annual grasses. Because 

foxtail millet produces more organic material than 

annual ryegrass, some agencies and companies 

may prefer it to annual ryegrass, especially on 

steep slopes. Foxtail millet, however, is considered 

to be an invasive species and is not recommended 

for Tennessee (Tennessee Exotic Pest Plant 

Council 2008). Another disadvantage of foxtail 

millet, relative to annual ryegrass, is its production 

of large amounts of vegetative cover that can 

inhibit native vegetation recruitment during its 

first year. It also produces seed grains and cover 

that can attract animals such as rodents and deer, 

which can damage the tree seedlings.

We have found the rates of Table 6-1 to be 

adequate for establishing FRA ground cover on 

a wide range of mine spoil materials where pH is 

greater than 5, but other seeding strategies are also 

possible. For example, in Tennessee groundcover 

mixes have been seeded that rely on native warmseason grasses to establish perennial cover. These 

species take 2 years to become established, so they 

are seeded with an annual such as annual ryegrass 

or millet. Species of shorter height (Table 6-2) are 

recommended for this use, as tall species such as 

switchgrass can be expected to compete with the 

tree seedlings (Rizza and others 2007). 

Common name Scientific name

little bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium

side oats grama Bouteloua curtipendula 

eastern gamagrass Tripsacum dactyloides

broomsedge bluestem Andropogon virginicus

Indian grass Sorghastrum nutans

Table 6-2.—Short-statured native warm-season 

grasses (NWSG) that have been seeded† with 

annual grasses and hydromulch to establish 

tree-compatible ground cover successfully in 

Tennessee

† Typical rates: 8-10 lbs. total NWSG seed/acre
Tree-Compatible Ground Covers for Reforestation and Erosion Control 6-5

Using tree-compatible ground cover helps 

establish forested postmining land uses in several 

ways:

• The lower-growing tree-compatible species 

allow more sunlight to reach the tree seedlings.

• Tree-compatible species withdraw water and 

nutrients from the soil more slowly than fastergrowing grasses and legumes, leaving more of 

these essential resources for the planted trees.

• Tree-compatible species do not cover the 

ground as rapidly or completely, allowing 

more of the seeds that are carried to the 

site by wind and wildlife to land on the soil 

surface, germinate, and become established. In 

Appalachian mining areas, most of these seeds 

are generally of native forest species.

• Tree-compatible ground cover allows rapid 

establishment and growth of native trees, 

thereby minimizing the invasion of troublesome 

exotic species such as multiflora rose and 

autumn-olive. 

• Tree-compatible species are less attractive to 

animals such as deer and rodents, which may 

damage tree seedlings through browsing or 

other means. 

Revegetation using the FRA is typically done in 

two steps: 1) planting bare-root tree seedlings, 

and 2) hydroseeding groundcover seeds, fertilizer, 

mulch, and lime if needed. Because herbaceous 

ground cover often competes with the trees, 

reducing their survival and growth, we recommend 

that whenever possible the trees should be planted 

first in late winter, followed by hydroseeding the 

next spring or even the following fall if allowed 

by the regulatory authority. Hydroseeding 

over planted seedlings in the spring should be 

done before leaf formation by the trees. Fall 

hydroseeding over planted seedlings should be 

delayed until after tree leaves change color so as to 

avoid the possibility of seedling damage. Planting 

trees in established ground cover can reduce 

seedling survival, especially in drought conditions. 

If an area is ready for reclamation after the 

tree planting period ends in mid-spring and the 

regulatory authority or mining firm believes 

ground cover is needed before the next treeplanting season, the best option for reforestation 

is to seed an annual grass such as annual ryegrass 

or foxtail millet on that area. This annual 

vegetation will become a dead standing crop by 

the next tree-planting season and will not interfere 

with the planted trees. In fact, these dead plant 

materials can be an asset to reforestation as they 

will aid recycling of fertilizer nutrients and help 

protect the soil surface from erosion. Having this 

plant material onsite in the fall will also aid in 

“catching” wind-blown seeds from surrounding 

areas. If soil conditions are favorable and good 

natural recruitment of native plants occurs, such 

sites may be able to meet regulatory groundcover 

requirements without overseeding. If using this 

strategy, confer with the regulatory authority 

to determine the need for overseeding and its 

timing. In some cases, only spot overseeding on 

steeper slopes may be necessary. When allowed by 

regulatory authorities, avoid fall seeding followed 

by tree planting during that winter, as this practice 

will usually produce ground cover that is too 

competitive the following spring. 

SHOULD THE MINE SITE 

BE FERTILIZED?

Growing trees require essential nutrients in 

adequate quantities. Weathering overburden 

releases calcium, magnesium, potassium, sulfur, 

and many micronutrients, but N and P are often 

lacking in mine overburden. Successful mine 

reforestation requires that N and P be supplied in 

sufficient quantities to support tree growth.

If the mine soil used for reforestation incorporates 

native topsoil in amounts similar to the unmined 

forests, that topsoil will usually carry sufficient N 

and P to support tree growth. The term “topsoil,” 

as used here, means all soil materials that can 

be removed easily by a dozer, including stumps, 
6-6 Tree-Compatible Ground Covers for Reforestation and Erosion Control

roots, and woody debris left behind after timber 

removal. If topsoil is used as a substitute for 

fertilization, it is essential that organic materials 

from the forest soil surface be included because 

the surface is the most nutrient-rich portion of the 

forest topsoil. The surface materials also include 

viable seed, so use of fresh topsoil for reclamation 

will encourage natural revegetation. 

If topsoil is not used to restore the surface of 

a mine site where the mine operator is relying 

on natural processes for ground cover, fertilize 

the site using the rates in Table 6-1. Apply such 

fertilizer with a hydroseeder either just before 

planting seedlings or after planting when the 

seedlings are dormant. Alternatively, broadcast as 

pelletized forms during any season. Consult the 

regulatory authority when making decisions about 

fertilization. 

SHOULD A SOIL TEST 

BE PERFORMED?

If regulators require a soil test or if soil chemistry 

is not known, a soil test should be performed. 

However, when reclaiming lands for forestry, be 

wary of soil test results not targeted for mining 

and forestry. Most soil testing recommendations 

are well suited for farms, golf courses, and 

homeowners that use plants with nutrient needs 

that are different from those of planted trees. Such 

soil test N recommendations will generally exceed 

desirable levels for FRA ground cover. Although P 

recommendations may be adequate for short-lived 

crops, they will often be inadequate for forest 

trees’ long-term nutrition needs. The fertilizer rates 

in Table 6-1 are tailored to FRA groundcover and 

tree requirements and are suitable for most mine 

sites.

Unless acid-forming materials are present, liming 

is generally not needed for FRA reclamation. 

Soil test lime recommendations are intended to 

achieve the near-neutral pH values preferred by 

crops and grasses. But FRA groundcover species 

do well in the pH range of 5.5 to 6.5, which most 

Appalachian hardwood trees prefer. If soil pH is 

expected to stabilize at less than 5, apply lime to 

adjust pH to between 5.5 and 6.5.

RECLAMATION WITH THE FORESTRY 

RECLAMATION APPROACH 

ENCOURAGES ECOLOGICAL 

SUCCESSION

“Succession” is a term used to describe natural 

changes in plant community composition over 

time (Chapter 8, this volume). During FRA 

reclamation four vegetation types are established, 

but they grow at different rates and flourish, or 

dominate, at different times (Fig. 6-2).

Vegetation established by FRA reclamation is a 

combination of planted and volunteer herbaceous 

species, nurse and wildlife trees, and crop trees. 

As represented by “total cover” in Figure 6-2, 

FRA reclamation is designed to provide at least 

80-percent cover by the end of the second growing 

season and to approach 100-percent cover by the 

fifth growing season.

Four stages of cover development occur (Fig. 6-2): 

• Stage 1. Grasses dominate and provide most of 

the cover. The slow-growing, bunch-forming 

grasses of Table 6-1 will be sparse at first 

but will produce more ground cover during 

the second and third years. When most of the 

fertilizer N has been utilized, the grasses thin, 

creating openings for native plants that are 

carried onto the site as seed by birds, other 

wildlife, and wind.

• Stage 2. Legumes and native plants dominate 

and provide most of the cover. The legumes 

add N to the soil and are less competitive than 

grasses. The herbaceous legumes persist until 

they are shaded out by the trees. 

• Stage 3. Fast-growing nurse and wildlife trees 

make up 10 to 20 percent of the total trees 

planted in the FRA. Some of these trees fix N 

from the atmosphere and all provide habitat for 

wildlife and canopy cover for erosion control. 

Those nurse trees that grow edible fruits and 
Tree-Compatible Ground Covers for Reforestation and Erosion Control 6-7

Figure 6-2.—Representation of how 

vegetative cover changes through time 

when FRA reclamation is used. All four 

vegetation types are sown or planted 

during reclamation, but each type is 

dominant at a different stage.

seeds attract seed-carrying birds and other 

wildlife, thus aiding establishment of plant 

species from unmined areas.

• Stage 4. By the time the trees close canopy 

(i.e., when the tree tops grow together), the 

crop trees dominate and provide most of the 

cover. Fallen leaves and other organic litter 

accumulate and begin to decompose, providing 

additional nutrients for the trees. Because much 

of the ground is shaded by trees, the nontree 

vegetation closer to the ground (“understory”) 

remains sparse. 

Because the hydroseeded ground cover remains 

sparse during the first few years, native plants 

including forest trees are able to seed in, 

germinate, and emerge. Thus, the plant community 

is composed of many species in addition to those 

seeded and planted by the mining firm. Rapid 

canopy closure by native species reduces invasion 

of troublesome exotic species such as multiflora 

rose and autumn-olive. Over time, the plant 

community develops naturally to become more 

like the region’s native forest.

The guidelines of Table 6-1 are intended to 

establish vegetation that will promote succession 

to a productive forest. Following these 

recommendations can help to control erosion, 

allow recruitment by native plant species for 

increased diversity, fix N from the atmosphere, 

create wildlife habitat, minimize invasion of exotic 

species, and develop into a productive forest 

dominated by native hardwoods. Experience has 

shown that many native tree species volunteer 

by growing from seeds brought in by wind and 

wildlife, which can help the mining firm satisfy 

regulatory requirements if the permit specifies 

those species as components of the postmining 

land use. 

HOW GROUND COVER USING 

THE FORESTRY RECLAMATION 

APPROACH LOOKS AND WORKS

“Tree-compatible” FRA ground over (Table 6-1) is 

designed to be less competitive than ground cover 

for reclamation to grassland. The FRA ground 

cover looks short and sparse on a rough-graded 

surface, especially during its first year (Fig. 6-1A). 

This is by design. Some miners and inspectors 

who are more familiar with grassland reclamation 

may have trouble, at first, accepting the “look” 

of the FRA reclamation. What is important, 

however, is not the look but how it works. Use 

of native cover or sown, tree-compatible ground 

cover within the FRA allows operators to establish 

a productive forest while meeting regulatory 

standards. 

When reforesting sites that have not been mined, 

foresters usually kill competitive grasses and 

weeds with herbicides as a standard practice 

before planting trees. Traditional mine reclamation 

has taken the opposite approach, sowing 

competitive grasses and legumes to the detriment 

of the planted trees. Reclamation procedures 

for establishing forests differ from those for 
6-8 Tree-Compatible Ground Covers for Reforestation and Erosion Control

establishing hayland, pasture, and other uses that 

require agricultural grasses. The two reclamation 

approaches look different because they are 

intended to achieve different purposes. 

SUMMARY

The FRA is becoming more popular with mine 

operators and landowners as a way of reducing 

reclamation costs while improving the postmining 

land’s value as productive forest. The FRA uses 

a slow-growing, noncompetitive, tree-compatible 

ground cover. This ground cover will look sparse 

for the first several years. When used within the 

FRA, however, such ground cover controls erosion 

while encouraging recruitment by native forest 

species and allowing planted trees to survive 

and grow. Because State regulations vary, mine 

operators are encouraged to confer with regulatory 

authorities when developing groundcover seeding 

plans.

LITERATURE CITED

Angel, P.N.; Graves, D.H.; Barton, C.; Warner, 

R.C.; Conrad, P.W.; Sweigard, R.; Agouridis, 

C. 2006. Surface mine reforestation 

research: evaluation of tree response to 

low compaction reclamation techniques.

In: Barnhisel, R.I., ed. Proceedings, 7th 

international conference on acid rock drainage 

(ICARD); 2006 March 26-30; St. Louis MO. 

Lexington, KY: American Society of Mining 

and Reclamation: 45-48. 

https://doi.org/10.21000/JASMR06020045.

Burger, J.A.; Zipper, C.E. 2011. How to restore 

forests on surface-mined lands. Virginia 

Cooperative Extension Publ. 460-123. 

[Blacksburg, VA]: Virginia Polytechnic Institute 

and State University. 20 p. Available at 

http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs (accessed 

September 19, 2016).

Burger, J.A.; Zipper, C.E.; Skousen, J. 2010. 

Establishing ground cover for forested 

postmining land uses. Virginia Cooperative 

Extension Publ. 460-124. [Blacksburg, VA]: 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 

University. 8 p. Available at http://www.ext.

vt.edu/pubs (accessed September 19, 2016). 

Federal Register. 2007. Tennessee Federal 

Regulatory Program; final rule. 30 CFR 

Part 942. Vol. 72, No. 41/Friday, March 

2, 2007. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement. https://www.federalregister.

gov/documents/2007/03/02/E7-3649/tennesseefederal-regulatory-program (accessed 

October 4, 2016). 

Hall, S.; Barton, C.; Baskin, C. 2009. Topsoil 

seed bank of an oak-hickory forest in 

eastern Kentucky as a restoration tool on 

surface mines. Restoration Ecology. 18(6): 

834-842. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-

100X.2008.00509.x.

Holl, K.D.; Zipper, C.E.; Burger, J.A. 2001. 

Recovery of native plant communities after 

mining. Virginia Cooperative Extension 

Publ. 460-140. [Blacksburg, VA]: Virginia 

Polytechnic Institute and State University. 

12 p. Available at http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs 

(accessed September 18, 2016). 

Rizza, J.; Franklin, J.A.; Buckley, D.S. 2007. 

Afforestation: effects of native and nonnative ground cover treatments. Ecological 

Restoration. 25: 146-148. 

https://doi.org/10.3368/er.25.2.129.

Skousen, J.; Zipper, C.E. 2009. Revegetation 

species and practices. Virginia Cooperative 

Extension Publ. 460-122. [Blacksburg, VA]: 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 

University. 20 p. Available at http://www.ext.

vt.edu/pubs (accessed September 19, 2016). 

Tennessee Exotic Pest Plant Council. 2004. 

Tennessee invasive exotic plant list. Available 

at http://www.tneppc.org/invasive_plants 

(accessed October 4, 2016).

Wade, G.L. 1989. Grass competition and 

establishment of native species from forest 

soil seed banks. Landscape and Urban 

Planning. 17(2): 135-149. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(89)9022-4.
Authors’ Affiliations

V. DAVIS and C.R. MILLER: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement, Knoxville, TN

J.A. BURGER and C.E. ZIPPER: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA

R. RATHFON: Purdue University, Dubois, IN

Publication History

This chapter is based on Forest Reclamation Advisory No. 9, which originally appeared in August 2012 on the 

Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative’s Web site (http://arri.osmre.gov) hosted by the U.S. Department 

of the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. (Note that authors’ affiliations were 

current when the Advisory was originally written.)

INTRODUCTION

The Forestry Reclamation Approach (FRA) is a 

method for reclaiming coal-mined land to forested 

postmining land uses under the federal Surface 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

(SMCRA) (Chapter 2, this volume). Step 4 of the 

FRA is to plant native trees for commercial timber 

value, wildlife habitat, soil stability, watershed 

protection, and other environmental benefits. This 

Forest Reclamation Advisory provides guidance 

for selecting native tree species to plant on mine 

sites that are reclaimed by using the FRA in the 

Appalachian region. 

Favorable soil properties and noncompetitive 

ground cover are essential features on mine sites 

intended for reforestation. Use of the FRA will 

provide these features for planted trees while also 

providing conditions suitable for natural seeding 

of plants from nearby forests. 

SELECTING TREE SPECIES

More than 100 native tree species and numerous 

native shrub species grow within Appalachian 

forests. This diversity reflects the many site 

conditions found across the region. Forest site 

conditions are affected by many factors including 

sunlight, moisture, soil properties, proximity 

to native seed sources, and competition among 

species. The native trees most likely to produce 

healthy, productive forests on mine sites are those 

well suited to the site’s growing conditions 

(Fig. 7-1). When selecting trees, also consider:

• Permitting and bond release requirements under 

SMCRA and 

• The location of the mine relative to species’ 

native ranges. 

Chapter 7: Selecting Tree Species

for Reforestation

of Appalachian Mined Lands

V. Davis, J.A. Burger, R. Rathfon, 

C.E. Zipper, and C.R. Miller 
7-2 Selecting Tree Species for Reforestation of Appalachian Mined Lands

Figure 7-1.—Northern red oak seedling. This seedling 

will have an excellent chance of surviving, growing, and 

contributing to the development of a forest because it 

was planted on an FRA-compliant mine site. Photo by 

V. Davis, OSMRE.

SITE TYPES FOR TREE SPECIES 

SELECTION

Selection of suitable species for any portion of 

a mine site depends on an understanding of the 

location of the site on the landscape, because 

landscape position influences availability of soil 

moisture and sunlight. Site type is a reflection 

of landscape position, which is a combination of 

the direction that a slope faces (or “aspect”) and 

topography. Aspect, slope steepness, and location 

on the slope are the primary factors to consider 

when selecting tree species for planting (Fig. 7-2). 

Slope aspect affects the amount and timing of 

sunlight that a slope receives. Slopes facing south 

receive more solar radiation than north-facing 

slopes. Even though east-facing and west-facing 

slopes receive similar amounts of sunlight, the 

west-facing slopes receive sunlight during the 

hottest part of the day—mid-afternoon and late 

afternoon. As a result, slopes with southern and 

western aspects have drier soils than those that 

face north and east. Northeast- and east-facing 

slopes are generally most favorable for tree 

growth because of higher levels of soil moisture. 

Southwestern slopes are generally least favorable 

because of their dryness (Fig. 7-3). 

Topography describes the surface shape, relief 

or terrain, and elevation of a site’s position on 

the land surface. Topography will influence 

availability of soil moisture. Steep slopes are 

drier than more gentle slopes because they shed 

more rainfall as runoff, allowing less water to 

infiltrate the soil. Large, uncompacted, flat areas 

on mine sites can provide moist soil conditions 

and good growth potential. Landscape channels, 

depressions, and streambanks will have wetter soil 

conditions.

Figure 7-2.—Four site types that commonly occur on coal surface mines and influence tree species.
Selecting Tree Species for Reforestation of Appalachian Mined Lands 7-3

Figure 7-3.—Diagram showing tree-growth potential 

based on the direction that a slope faces (aspect), which 

influences availability of soil moisture and sunlight and 

should be considered in tree species selection. Aspect is 

rated as having excellent, good, fair, or poor tree-growth 

potential. “Good site” hardwoods are those prescribed 

for sites with good growth potential in the diagram.

Four general landscape positions, or site types, that 

can be applied to mined landscapes when selecting 

tree species for planting (Fig. 7-2) are: 

• Dry slopes: Slopes facing south and west; areas 

with dry growing conditions (Fig. 7-4)

• Moist slopes: Slopes facing north and east; 

areas with moist growing conditions and welldrained soils

• Flat sites: Flat and rolling areas with moist 

growing conditions if soils are left in a loose 

condition and with enough landscape relief to 

allow water to drain easily, or that are wet, if 

not well-drained.

• Wet sites: Areas within and adjacent to 

channels and surface depressions, including 

reconstructed streams and wetlands; these areas 

have wet soils caused by landscape position or 

poor internal drainage. 

TREE PRESCRIPTIONS

A tree prescription is a list of species to be 

planted, with planting rates, for any portion of a 

mine or the entire area. We recommend that tree 

prescriptions be developed for the major site types 

that occur within each area to be planted. Most 

large mines will have several site types, each of 

which can be targeted for planting with its own 

tree prescription. 

Tree prescriptions that can be applied on 

Appalachian mined lands (Table 7-1) are provided 

for each of the four primary site types (Fig. 7-2). 

The example prescriptions are for mines where 

the reclamation goal is native forest land that will 

produce commercial timber and environmental 

services. 

Mine operators can change these prescriptions as 

needed. Table 7-2 includes information for other 

tree species, and range maps for most native trees 

can be found on the Internet. For instance, refer 

to Silvics of North America (Burns and Honkala 

1990a, 1990b), or the PLANTS database (Natural 

Resources Conservation Service 2016). 

Figure 7-4.—North- and south-facing slopes, flats, and 

riparian areas, for which different tree prescriptions or 

species mixes can be used. The south-facing slope in 

the foreground was reclaimed by using the FRA and 

planted with dry-slope species including white oak. 

Several rows of riparian species planted along the 

reconstructed stream channel will aid reestablishment 

of functional aquatic communities. Photo by V. Davis, 

OSMRE.
7-4 Selecting Tree Species for Reforestation of Appalachian Mined Lands

Dry Slopes (south, west)

Crop trees

white oak 200

scarlet or post oak 100

black oak 100

chestnut oak 100

Virginia pine 100

Nitrogen-fixing tree

black locust 25

Wildlife trees

common persimmon 25

eastern redbud 25

mockernut hickory 25

Flat Sites (and rolling)

Crop trees

white oak 100

northern red oak 100

sugar maple 100

yellow-poplar 100

black cherry 100

black walnut 100

Nitrogen-fixing tree

bristly locust 20

Wildlife trees

flowering dogwood 20

bitternut hickory 20

eastern white pine 20

American hazelnut 20

Moist Slopes (north, east)

Crop trees

white oak 100

northern red oak 200

sugar maple 100

yellow-poplar 100

black cherry 100

Nitrogen-fixing tree

bristly locust 25

Wildlife trees

eastern white pine 25

shagbark hickory 25

green hawthorn 

 or gray dogwood 25

Wet Sites (riparian)

Crop trees

pin oak/river birch† 200

American sycamore 200

sweetgum 200

Nitrogen-fixing tree 

alder 25

Wildlife trees

black willow 25

silky dogwood 25

elderberry 25

Table 7-1.—Example tree species prescriptions (stems per acre). Use species native to the 

planting area, and those that are suited to the landscape position of the mine site. If State 

regulations require more than 450 surviving stems per acre, increased planting numbers are 

advised.

† Select either species, considering native range.

Potential Growth N- pH CliSpecies Scientific name Leaf type1 Site type crop tree?2 rate3 fixer? range4 mate5

boxelder Acer negundo d wet rapid M-H

red maple Acer rubrum d all see note rapid L-M-H

sugar maple Acer saccharum d moist, flat yes slow L-M-H C

gray alder Alnus incana d wet rapid M M

speckled alder Alnus incana ssp. rugosa d wet mod. L L-M-H

hazel alder Alnus serrulata d wet rapid M M

mountain alder Alnus viridis ssp. crispa d wet mod. L L-M-H

Allegheny serviceberry Amelanchier laevis d moist, flat mod. L-M-H

false indigo bush Amorpha fruticosa d moist slow M L-M-H

yellow birch Betula alleghaniensis d moist, flat slow L-M-H C

sweet birch Betula lenta d moist, flat mod. L-M

river birch Betula nigra d wet yes rapid L-M W

bitternut hickory Carya cordiformis d moist, flat see note slow L-M-H

pignut hickory Carya glabra d dry see note slow L-M-H

shellbark hickory Carya laciniosa d moist, flat see note slow M

shagbark hickory Carya ovata d moist, flat see note slow L-M-H

mockernut hickory Carya tomentosa d dry see note slow L-M

American chestnut Castanea dentata d dry, moist see note rapid L

northern catalpa Catalpa speciosa d moist, flat rapid L M

New Jersey tea Ceanothus americanus d dry, moist slow L L-M

common hackberry Celtis occidentalis d moist, flat rapid M-H

common buttonbush Cephalanthus occidentalis d moist, wet mod. L-M-H

eastern redbud Cercis canadensis d moist, flat slow M-H

silky dogwood Cornus amomum d moist, flat mod. M

flowering dogwood Cornus florida d moist, flat mod. L-M-H

gray dogwood Cornus racemosa d all mod. L-M

American hazelnut Corylus americana d moist, flat mod. M

green hawthorn Crataegus viridis d moist, flat, wet mod. L-M-H

common persimmon Diospyros virginiana d moist, wet slow L-M-H

American beech Fagus grandifolia d moist, flat see note slow L-M-H

white ash Fraxinus americana d moist, flat see note mod. L-M-H

green ash Fraxinus pennsylvanica d moist, flat, wet rapid L-M-H

Table 7-2.—Suitable woody species for Appalachian mine site reclamation.

(continued on next page)
Selecting Tree Species for Reforestation of Appalachian Mined Lands 7-5

Potential Growth N- pH CliSpecies Scientific name Leaf type1 Site type crop tree?2 rate3 fixer? range4 mate5

water locust Gleditsia aquatica d wet mod. L M-H

honeylocust Gleditsia triacanthos d moist, wet rapid L-M-H

Kentucky coffeetree Gymnocladus dioicus d moist, flat slow L M-H

American witchhazel Hamamelis virginiana d moist, flat slow L-M

American holly Ilex opaca e moist, flat slow L-M-H

common winterberry Ilex verticillata d all mod. L-M-H

black walnut Juglans nigra d moist, flat see note rapid L-M-H

eastern redcedar Juniperus virginiana e moist, flat slow L-M-H

sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua d moist, wet yes rapid L-M-H

yellow-poplar (tuliptree) Liriodendron tulipifera d moist, flat, wet yes rapid L-M

sweet crab apple Malus coronaria d moist, flat slow M

red mulberry Morus rubra d moist, flat mod. M

hophornbeam Ostrya virginiana d moist, flat slow L-M-H

sourwood Oxydendrum arboreum d dry, flat slow L-M

red spruce Picea rubens e moist, flat yes mod. L-M C

shortleaf pine Pinus echinata e moist, flat yes rapid L-M W

pitch pine Pinus rigida e dry rapid L

eastern white pine Pinus strobus e moist, flat yes rapid L-M

loblolly pine Pinus taeda e dry yes rapid L-M-H W

Virginia pine Pinus virginiana e dry rapid L-M-H

American sycamore Platanus occidentalis d moist, flat, wet yes rapid L-M

eastern cottonwood Populus deltoides d moist, wet yes rapid L-M

bigtooth aspen Populus grandidentata d moist, flat, wet rapid L-M C

American plum Prunus americana d moist, flat mod. M

pin cherry Prunus pensylvanica d moist, flat rapid L-M-H

black cherry Prunus serotina d moist, flat yes rapid L-M-H C

white oak Quercus alba d dry, moist, flat yes slow L-M

scarlet oak Quercus coccinea d dry yes rapid L-M

southern red oak Quercus falcata d dry, flat yes mod. L-M-H W

bur oak Quercus macrocarpa d dry, moist, flat yes mod.

chestnut oak Quercus montana d dry yes slow L-M

chinkapin oak Quercus muehlenbergii d dry yes mod. M-H

pin oak Quercus palustris d moist, wet yes rapid L-M

northern red oak Quercus rubra d moist, flat yes mod. L-M-H

Shumard oak Quercus shumardii d dry, flat yes mod. M-H W

post oak Quercus stellata d dry yes slow L-M

black oak Quercus velutina d dry yes mod. L-M

bristly locust Robinia hispida d dry, moist, flat rapid M L-M-H

black locust Robinia pseudoacacia d all rapid M L-M-H

black willow Salix nigra d wet rapid L-M-H

American black Sambucus nigra

 elderberry ssp. canadensis d moist, flat, wet rapid L-M-H

sassafras Sassafras albidum d moist, flat mod. L-M-H

American basswood Tilia americana d moist, flat yes mod. L-M-H

American elm Ulmus americana d moist, flat see note rapid M-H

slippery elm Ulmus rubra d moist, flat rapid M-H

highbush blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum d wet mod. L-M-H

southern arrowwood Viburnum dentatum d all slow L-M

blackhaw Viburnum prunifolium d dry, moist slow L-M-H

Table 7-2 (continued).—Suitable woody species for Appalachian mine site reclamation.

1

 Leaf type: d = deciduous, e = evergreen.

2

 Notes concerning crop trees: Hickories, American beech, and black walnut have growth forms that are well suited for crop trees, 

but consistent success in planting these species on coal surface mines has not been demonstrated. Red maple is not recommended 

for planting because it volunteers readily. American chestnut, white ash, and American elm are well suited as crop trees when 

healthy but are subject to special considerations due to their susceptibility to pests as described in text.

3

 Growth rate: mod. = moderate.

4

 Soil pH range: Trees are grouped by soil pH suitable for the species. L = low (pH < 5); M = medium (pH 5–7); H = high (pH > 7).

5

 Climate suitability. C = does well in cool climates, including the northern Appalachian region, and at higher elevations (>3,000 ft) 

in central and southern Appalachia; W = does well in warm climates, including Appalachia’s southern region and parts of central 

Appalachia. If neither C nor W is specified, the species does well throughout the region. 
7-6 Selecting Tree Species for Reforestation of Appalachian Mined Lands

Some mines contain only one primary site type. 

For example, a contour mine on a southern slope 

would be a dry slope over most of its area, so 

prescribing dry-slope species for the entire site 

would be an effective strategy. However, other 

mines include extensive areas of several site types. 

For example, a mountaintop mine reclaimed to 

approximate original contour could be planted 

with dry-slope species on its south- and westfacing slopes, moist-slope species on north- and 

east-facing slopes, and wet-site species along 

drainage channels and ponds.

For all tree prescriptions, plant species as a diverse 

mix across the landscape, not as single-species 

rows or blocks. One way to plant a diverse mix 

is for each of two planters to carry half of the 

prescribed species and mix them as they plant. The 

person planting the adjacent row will be planting 

different species so that all prescribed species are 

mixed into two adjacent rows.

TREE PRESCRIPTION ADVICE 

AND GUIDANCE

Select Species Suited to Site Conditions

Species should be prescribed by a person who is 

knowledgeable about local tree species, mine site 

conditions, and landowner and reclamation goals. 

If this expertise is not available, the Table 7-1 

example may be used. If using Table 7-1, check 

that the native range of each prescribed species 

includes the planting area. If the planting area 

is outside the prescribed species’ range, use this 

Advisory to select substitutes that are native to the 

area and suited to site conditions (Table 7-2).

Plant Enough Seedlings 

to Get the Job Done

On mines with bond release requirements of 450 

surviving stems or fewer, we recommend planting 

700 trees per acre—equivalent to 8-foot × 8-foot 

spacing. Assuming that survival rates on mine 

sites often average about 70 percent, the result 

would be 490 surviving trees per acre (70 percent 

of 700 planted). If a larger number of surviving 

stems is required, the number of planted trees 

should be increased accordingly. It is important to 

work closely with the State regulatory authority to 

identify and establish the tree stocking standards 

that will be applied at bond release, and to plant 

enough trees to provide a margin of safety to 

ensure compliance with bond release standards. 

Plant and Mix Multiple Species

Native forests of the Appalachian region are 

diverse. It is common to find 40 or more tree and 

shrub species per acre in these forests. Mine sites 

often have a variety of soil and site conditions. 

The presence of multiple species can help a plant 

community persist if a pest or pathogen severely 

affects one or several of its species. For these 

reasons, we recommend planting multiple species. 

Wet-site species are often planted as several 

rows along streambanks, ponds, or wetland 

borders (Figs. 7-4 and 7-5). Flowing waters will 

attract wildlife, thus creating opportunities for 

recruitment of unplanted species. Most flat site 

types will be on large-area or mountaintop mines 

far from forest seed sources, so that prescription 

includes more species than for other site types.

Figure 7-5.—Reclaimed mine site, showing how several 

rows of wet-site species planted along water channels 

can accelerate restoration of streamside vegetation. 

Riparian woody vegetation aids functioning aquatic 

communities in reconstructed streams by shading the 

channel and producing organic matter that enters the 

stream. Photo by J. Burger, Virginia Tech, used with 

permission.
Selecting Tree Species for Reforestation of Appalachian Mined Lands 7-7

Plant Crop Trees, Wildlife Trees, and 

Nitrogen-fixing Trees

For most mine areas, we recommend prescribing 

three types of species for planting:

• Crop trees that will form a forest canopy,

• Tree species selected for wildlife benefits, and 

• Tree species that will fix atmospheric nitrogen 

(N), improving soil quality. 

Crop trees are species such as black cherry, 

yellow-poplar (tuliptree), sugar maple, and 

oaks that can produce economic value for the 

landowner and form the forest canopy. 

Some crop-tree species have heavy seeds that are 

slow to disperse. For example, oaks and hickories 

are major forest components throughout much 

of the Appalachian region, but their heavy seeds 

will not travel far without the help of animals. 

To promote the presence of these species on 

reclaimed mine land, our prescriptions emphasize 

heavy-seeded crop-tree species that are important 

components of the region’s natural forests, 

especially the oaks. 

Although many crop tree species provide wildlife 

benefits, some tree and shrub species have less 

commercial value but are important to wildlife. 

These species also occur in natural forests. Thus, 

prescribe other tree and shrub species in addition 

to crop trees for improving wildlife habitat in the 

FRA planting.

Species such as flowering dogwood and eastern 

redbud become established and grow rapidly, 

producing early canopy structure used by birds for 

cover and nesting, and fruits and seeds that serve 

as wildlife food. Attracting wildlife aids natural 

succession and forest development. Mammals and 

birds consume fruits and seeds in unmined habitats 

and then move through the reclaimed mine, 

where seeds passing through them are deposited. 

If site conditions are favorable, such seeds may 

germinate to produce live seedlings.

Some tree species occurring in natural forests 

at relatively low densities, such as common 

persimmon and black walnut, produce large fruits 

and seeds. These species’ large seeds make them 

especially valuable as wildlife food sources but 

also limit their spread into the reclaimed mine 

landscape by wind and animals. Planting heavyseeded species as seedlings is usually necessary to 

establish them on reclaimed mines. 

Certain species produce physical structures that 

will aid habitat development as they mature. For 

example, native pines planted at low densities will 

provide winter cover for wildlife species such as 

white-tailed deer. As another example, shagbark 

hickory and white oak have exfoliating bark that 

can provide shelter for bat species, including the 

endangered Indiana bat. Most crop tree species 

also provide wildlife benefits. For example, oaks 

produce acorns, an important winter food source 

for species such as white-tailed deer. As we use 

the term here, wildlife trees are those planted in 

addition to crop trees for providing additional 

wildlife benefits.

Nitrogen-fixing trees remove N from the air, 

transforming it to organic forms that enrich the 

soil. Unless constructed from salvaged forest soils 

that contain surface organic material (Chapter 3, 

this volume), mine soils will generally be low in 

N, an essential plant nutrient. If not taken up by 

plants, the N applied as fertilizer will remain in the 

soil to support forest development only for the first 

few years. Thus, we recommend planting at least 

one tree species that is able to “fix” N from the 

atmosphere.

Encourage Natural Succession

The term “natural succession” describes the 

natural progression of plants becoming established 

and replacing other plants over time on disturbed 

areas. The FRA is designed to create a tree growth 

environment that will support natural succession 

to develop a diverse forest plant community 

(Fig. 7-6) (Chapter 8, this volume). 
7-8 Selecting Tree Species for Reforestation of Appalachian Mined Lands

Figure 7-6.—South-facing slope on a Tennessee mine 

site, photographed during its seventh growing season. 

This site was reclaimed with the FRA and planted with 

oaks, green ash, yellow-poplar, and eastern white pine. 

Volunteer species including sweet birch, red maple, 

blackgum, and black cherry also became established. 

Photo by V. Davis, OSMRE.

Early successional trees are often referred to as 

“pioneer plants” because they colonize open areas, 

need full sunlight to germinate (they are not shadetolerant), grow very fast, and are short-lived. 

Mid-successional trees replace the pioneer species 

over time, have intermediate shade tolerance, and 

are also fast growing; but they are longer-lived 

than the pioneer species. Late successional species 

make up most of the trees in the mature forest; 

they can grow and become established well in full 

shade (they are shade-tolerant). Late successional 

species such as sugar maple, American beech, and 

shagbark hickory establish and grow more slowly 

than early and mid-successional species but are 

long-lived and will eventually replace them in the 

developing forests, especially on moist sites. On 

dry sites, the oaks will persist. 

We recommend prescribing a compatible mix of 

early, mid-, and late successional tree species that 

will shorten the period of time from bare ground 

to a diverse, valuable, mature forest. This can be 

accomplished by planting a mix of crop trees and 

wildlife trees.

SPECIES-SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS

Hickories and black walnut are heavy-seeded 

late successional species. Unfortunately, 

efforts to plant them on surface mines are often 

unsuccessful. Because of their importance as 

crop trees and wildlife habitat, include a small 

percentage of hickories and black walnut in tree 

prescriptions as an effort to ensure future seed 

sources. Hickories are important to wildlife, 

providing both mast and habitat on dry and 

moist slopes and flat areas. Black walnut can 

be prescribed for moist sites that have been 

reconstructed by using salvaged soils (Chapter 3, 

this volume).

White and green ash have been used in mine 

reclamation plantings with good success. We have 

not included ash species in Table 7-1 because 

an invasive insect pest, the emerald ash borer, 

is highly destructive to ash trees. Although the 

ash borer is not a current threat within most of 

the Appalachian coalfield, its range is expanding 

rapidly. Hence, many nurseries have ceased their 

production of ash seedlings.

Historically, American chestnut was a dominant 

forest species throughout the Appalachian 

region. However, most American chestnut have 

succumbed to invasive pests: a pathogenic fungus 

commonly known as the chestnut blight and the 

water mold Phytophthora root rot. Efforts are 

underway to develop blight- and root-rot resistant 

hybrids of American chestnut that grow well on 

mine sites (Chapter 12, this volume). 

American elm is another native tree species that 

is being affected by a fungal pest. Like American 

chestnut, blight-resistant American elm hybrids are 

being developed. 
Selecting Tree Species for Reforestation of Appalachian Mined Lands 7-9

SITE-SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS

Although site type (Fig. 7-2) is the major 

consideration for selecting tree species, other site 

conditions can also influence species selection. 

Soil properties, climate, distance to seed sources, 

and drainage patterns are other factors to consider.

Tree Growth Medium

The replaced mine soil must be able to provide 

growing trees with moisture, nutrients, and a 

drained and aerated soil condition if those trees 

are to survive and grow well. Soils selected and 

replaced using FRA practices will support most 

native species, but some soil conditions will limit 

selection of species (Chapter 3, this volume). 

Most native tree species grow well in moderately 

acidic soils, that is, soils with pH in the range of 

5.0 to 6.5. Alkaline soils, that is, soils with pH 

levels greater than 7.0, are often found in mine 

soils constructed with unweathered spoils and 

will limit tree species selection. Step 1 of the 

FRA prescribes soil construction using topsoil, 

weathered sandstone, or the best available 

material, or a combination of these materials. 

On most mine lands, materials will be available 

to enable construction of moderately acidic 

soils. This is fortunate because only a few of the 

species available for planting are able to tolerate 

highly alkaline or highly acidic soil. Bur oak and 

Shumard oak can tolerate soil pH greater than 7.5. 

A few species, including pin oak, can tolerate soil 

pH less than 4.0.

Soil compaction will also limit species selection. 

A few native species such as green ash and 

American sycamore can survive in compacted 

soils, but most species will not survive. If a mine 

site is compacted, future forest productivity will 

be significantly diminished. Step 2 of the FRA 

recommends leaving soils loose and uncompacted. 

Where equipment traffic causes soil compaction, 

rip soils to produce loose conditions before 

planting (Chapter 5, this volume).

Climate

Many hardwood species such as northern red oak 

and white oak occur throughout the Appalachian 

region and can be planted widely, but some 

species should be restricted only to certain 

climatic conditions. Species such as sugar maple, 

bigtooth aspen, and red spruce are adapted to cool 

climates and will be more successful in northern 

areas and at elevations above 3,000 feet in the 

central Appalachians. In contrast, species such 

as southern red oak are adapted to the warmer 

climates of southern areas and lower elevations. 

Table 7-2 includes information on species’ climate 

suitability.

Proximity to Seed Sources

Some tree species, such as red maple, yellowpoplar, and American sycamore, have wind-blown 

seed that can travel great distances, and they 

establish readily on mine sites with favorable soils. 

If an adequate seed source exists near the mine 

site, then there is no need to plant these species. 

How “Flats” and “Moist Slopes” Differ

Large flat areas on mine sites often have poor 

internal drainage, meaning they lack subsurface 

channels to carry infiltrating water and air into 

the rooting zone. Poor internal drainage is a 

problem for planted trees because such soils 

retain excessive moisture and restrict access by 

plant roots to soil air. Although we generally 

recommend species for flat and rolling areas 

similar to those used on moist slopes, large flats 

with little surface relief will often have sufficient 

soil moisture to support wet-site species.

Wet-site species, however, will rarely do well 

on slopes because slopes have better internal 

drainage. Step 2 of the FRA recommends that soils 

be kept loose, but this is often accomplished more 

readily on slopes. More importantly, gravity helps 

subsurface water move within the planted trees’ 

rooting zone on sloped sites. 
7-10 Selecting Tree Species for Reforestation of Appalachian Mined Lands

STANDARDS FOR SUCCESS

Federal law (SMCRA) requires coal mining 

operations to restore the land’s pre-mining 

capability. Many mining operations are conducted 

on lands that were forested prior to mining. Proper 

use of the FRA should produce a healthy forest 

that satisfies that SMCRA mandate. Selecting and 

planting tree species that are well suited to site 

conditions is essential to successful reforestation 

with the FRA. 

Planted trees of many species will survive and 

grow well if the land is reclaimed by using 

the FRA. Placing trees on soil and landscape 

conditions for which they are well suited will 

increase their survival and growth, improving 

prospects for prompt and trouble-free bond 

release. Proper use of the FRA will also 

allow volunteers of certain species to become 

established, increasing the diversity and land use 

capability of the restored forest. Select tree species 

for planting based on both their suitability for the 

soil and landscape conditions on the mine site, and 

an understanding that the resulting composition of 

the forest will be a mix of planted and volunteer 

species.

 LITERATURE CITED

Burns, R.M.; Honkala, B.H., tech. cords. 1990a. 

Silvics of North America. 1. Conifers.

Agriculture Handbook 654. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

675 p. Available at www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/

pubs/silvics_manual/table_of_contents.htm 

(accessed November 4, 2016).

Burns, R.M.; Honkala, B.H., tech. cords. 1990b. 

Silvics of North America. 2. Hardwoods. 

Agriculture Handbook 654. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

877 p. www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_

manual/table_of_contents.htm (accessed 

November 4, 2016).

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2016. 

The PLANTS database. Greensboro, NC: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service, National Plant 

Data Team. www.plants.usda.gov/ (accessed 

November 4, 2016). 
Authors’ Affiliations

J. GRONINGER: Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 

J. SKOUSEN: West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV

P. ANGEL: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), 

London, KY

C. BARTON: University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY

J. BURGER and C. ZIPPER: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA

Publication History

This chapter is based on Forest Reclamation Advisory No. 5, which originally appeared in July 2007 on the 

Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative’s Web site (http://arri.osmre.gov) hosted by the U.S. Department of 

the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. (Note that authors’ affiliations were current 

when the Advisory was originally written.)

INTRODUCTION

“Natural succession” is a term used to describe 

natural changes in plant community composition 

over time. In the forested Appalachian region, 

disturbances from storms, fire, logging, or mining 

can disrupt or destroy established forests. Natural 

processes that lead to restoration of the forest 

vegetation following such a disturbance usually 

begin quickly and result in development of another 

forest. On reclaimed mine sites, the quality of that 

forest and the speed with which it develops depend 

upon the conditions created by the mining and 

reclamation process (Fig. 8-1). 

Conventional surface mine reclamation as 

practiced from the late 1970s until recently under 

the federal Surface Mine Control and Reclamation 

Act of 1977 (SMCRA) commonly featured smooth 

grading of topsoil or topsoil-substitute material 

followed by establishment of grasses and legumes 

Chapter 8: Mine Reclamation Practices

to Enhance Forest Development

through Natural Succession

J. Groninger, J. Skousen, P. Angel, C. Barton, 

J. Burger, and C. Zipper 

Figure 8-1.—Reclaimed mine site in eastern Tennessee 

47 years after reforestation. This site was reforested 

with various pine species and black locust in 1959 

on uncompacted spoil with no planted ground cover. 

Succession and colonization have occurred over 

the years. The pine forest has been replaced with 

vegetation similar to the nearby native forest: yellowpoplar dominant in the overstory; red maple, sassafras, 

and northern red oak in the mid-story; and blueberries, 

groundpine, Virginia creeper, and ferns in the 

understory. Photo by Vic Davis, OSMRE.
8-2 Mine Reclamation Practices to Enhance Forest Development through Natural Succession

that grow rapidly to form a thick ground cover. 

These compacted mine soils and the competitive 

grasses hinder tree establishment and growth and 

delay the process of succession to forest cover. 

In contrast, reclamation practices known as 

the Forestry Reclamation Approach (FRA) are 

intended to encourage succession in a manner 

that helps the mine operator satisfy regulatory 

requirements cost effectively and achieve 

prompt bond release (see Box 8-1). This Forest 

Reclamation Advisory describes the ways in which 

these reclamation methods can encourage rapid 

succession and accelerate development of highquality postmining forests.

SUCCESSION: FROM BARE GROUND 

TO FOREST

When land is disturbed in a way that removes all 

vegetation, including seeds and plant material 

capable of resprouting, and nothing is done to 

revegetate, succession occurs slowly. At first, 

“pioneer” plant species including grasses, other 

herbs such as goldenrods and ragweed, vines, 

and shrubs such as raspberry and blackberry 

colonize and dominate the site. Depending on 

soil and site conditions, this plant community 

type may continue to dominate for many years, 

or it may be replaced sooner by other kinds of 

plant communities, including forest trees. (Please 

see the Appendix starting on p. A-1 for scientific 

names of species mentioned in this chapter.) 

When soil and vegetation conditions are 

favorable for trees, fast-growing short-lived 

(early successional) trees such as black locust, 

sassafras, Virginia pine, and hawthorn overgrow 

the shrubs. In time, these early successional trees 

make the site more habitable for slower-growing 

but longer-lived (later successional) trees such 

as oaks, hickories, cherry, sugar maple, and ash. 

As succession proceeds, the open spaces between 

trees continue to decrease. When the tree tops (or 

“canopy”) of the emerging forest grow together 

so that very little light reaches the ground, a phase 

of succession called canopy closure occurs, often 

15 to 20 years after the initial disturbance. After 

canopy closure, lower-growing vegetation beneath 

the forest canopy (called the understory) declines 

in response to decreased sunlight until another 

disturbance opens up the forest. 

HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE 

FOR A FOREST TO MATURE?

When succession occurs under good conditions, 

some fast-growing timber trees may grow to a size 

that can be harvested as soon as 30 to 40 years 

after disturbance; slower-growing hardwoods 

may require 50 to 60 years or longer (Fig. 8-4). 

Other sites may still be in the grass-herb-shrub 

stage with only scattered trees for several decades 

after a disturbance because soil conditions are 

not suitable or the understory vegetation is too 

competitive for tree recruitment. This is called 

“arrested succession,” which is a failure of later 

Figure 8-4.—Fifty-five-year-old black walnut trees that 

were planted and grew on spoil banks in southwestern 

Indiana. Photo by R. Rathfon, Purdue University, used 

with permission.
Mine Reclamation Practices to Enhance Forest Development through Natural Succession 8-3

Figure 8-3.—Number of stems per acre of naturally 

seeded forest species after 8 years in loosedumped, rough-graded, and conventionally graded 

areas of the southeastern Kentucky surface mine 

shown in Figure 8-2 (data from Barton and others, 

in press.).

Box 8-1. Can the Forestry Reclamation 

Approach Achieve the Rapid Succession 

of Natural Forests?

After harvest in natural forests, most regenerating 

hardwood trees grow as sprouts from wellestablished root systems. This type of regrowth 

cannot occur on reclaimed mines because those 

rooting systems have been removed. Unless native 

forest soils are used in reclamation, mine sites lack 

the seedbanks and budbanks (live seeds on or in 

the forest floor and buds that can produce sprouts) 

of native forests, so the vegetation immediately 

following reclamation is unlikely to be as diverse. 

In some cases, mine sites that have been 

reclaimed using the FRA (Chapter 2, this volume) 

will undergo succession more rapidly than natural 

forest sites following timber harvest. After an initial 

planting of saplings at 6-foot × 6-foot spacing on 

an ungraded eastern Kentucky mine site (Fig. 8-2), 

canopy closure occurred within about 7 years. 

The dense planting of early and later successional 

tree species kept competing weeds at a minimum, 

which allowed rapid colonization by 27 forest tree 

species that were growing nearby. In addition, the 

number of naturally recruited forest species (trees 

and other vegetation types) was 10 times greater 

on loose-dumped spoils than on those spoils 

that were graded using conventional reclamation 

practices. The loose-dumped spoils allowed natural 

succession to occur, as indicated by a far higher 

number of recruited stems per acre (475) compared 

to the conventionally graded spoil (49 stems 

per acre) (Fig. 8-3). Tree canopy occupied more 

than half the area on the loose-dumped spoils. In 

contrast, canopy cover was only 5 percent in the 

conventionally graded areas of the mine site. 

As the FRA is used on more reclaimed mines, 

researchers will have the opportunity to improve 

these techniques and further increase the value of 

reclaimed lands for future generations.

Figure 8-2.—Reforested mine site in southeastern 

Kentucky (A) 8 years and (B) 18 years after 

reforestation. White oak, white ash, eastern 

white pine, northern red oak, black walnut, and 

yellow-poplar were planted. The loose-dumped, 

uncompacted mine spoils allowed planted seedlings 

to achieve greater survival and faster growth while 

allowing more colonization by nonplanted forest 

species, compared to an adjacent mine site that 

was graded by using conventional practices. The 

closed canopy forest with abundant native plants 

remaining in the understory was achieved in the 

10 years between the photos, indicating how 

rapidly forests can develop on a high-quality 

growth medium. Photos by OSMRE.

B

A
8-4 Mine Reclamation Practices to Enhance Forest Development through Natural Succession

successional species to become established and 

eventually dominate a site (see Box 8-2). Arrested 

succession also occurs in areas where large 

populations of deer or rodents consume or destroy 

tree seedlings. 

Box 8-2. “Arrested Succession”

A condition known as “arrested succession”—a 

failure of later successional species to colonize a 

site—can occur after reclamation if principles of 

natural succession are ignored (Fig. 8-5). 

For decades, a common reclamation practice 

consisted of seeding fast-growing grasses such 

as tall fescue and sericea lespedeza to rapidly 

revegetate mine sites. Often, black locust seed 

was added to the groundcover seeding mix. This 

practice produced thick vegetation that easily 

satisfied the bond release requirements of those 

times. But within 10 years after planting, most 

black locust trees become infested with a tiny 

insect known as the locust borer beetle. This pest 

causes the trees to lose vigor, and they break 

down to a shrub-like form. In this form, their 

sparse canopy and nitrogen-fixing capability allow 

the groundcover grasses to persist, so the thick 

herbaceous cover under the black locust remains 

intact, preventing the recruitment of other trees 

and forest vegetation. Because other native tree 

species are not present to replace the black 

locust, tall fescue and companion species such 

as sericea lespedeza can dominate such sites for 

decades. 

Figure 8-5.—Reclaimed surface mine in western 

Maryland. Black locust and grass vegetation 

were planted 16 years earlier. As a result, the 

development of a natural forest community 

through natural succession has been delayed, a 

condition known as “arrested succession.” Photo 

by OSMRE.

WHAT FACTORS AFFECT 

SUCCESSION ON A MINE SITE?

Quality of the Rooting Medium 

If soil replacement results in a rooting medium 

that is shallow or has been compacted, the site will 

be prone to drought and plant nutrition problems. 

Mine soil pH that is too high (pH more than 7) or 

too low (pH less than 5) and mine soils that have 

high levels of soluble salts can also cause plant 

nutrition problems. Seeds of unplanted forest 

species that are carried to the mine site by wind 

or wildlife will not germinate and grow if the soil 

surface is compacted or has chemical properties 

that are not well suited to their needs. Those 

grass and shrub species that are able to become 

established and grow on such soils will dominate 

on such sites, and forest succession will progress 

slowly. In contrast, a deep and loose growth 

medium that contains plant nutrients encourages 

colonization and canopy development by species 

from the native forest. These soil properties 

promote a diversity of trees and other vegetation 

and are productive for timber and wildlife. 

Groundcover Vegetation

Where tall, aggressive grasses are established 

on the site through reclamation, or where herbs, 

shrubs, and vines become established in dense 

thickets, new tree establishment is hindered and 

young trees become stunted. Because a sparser 

ground cover allows sunlight to reach the soil 

surface, planted seedlings can grow and seeds 

from the surrounding area carried in by wind 

and wildlife can become established more easily. 

Tall, thick ground covers also remove water and 

nutrients from the soil rapidly, leaving fewer of 

these essential resources for the slower-growing 

trees. These ground covers also attract deer, which 

can consume the tree seedlings; and they provide 

cover for small rodents, which can gnaw on 

planted seedlings.
Mine Reclamation Practices to Enhance Forest Development through Natural Succession 8-5

The Mixture of Tree Species 

Natural forests in the Appalachian region consist 

of a mixture of tree species. Some become 

dominant soon after disturbance and play an 

important role in establishing the full range 

of forest plant species. In time, these typically 

short-lived species die, decline, or are harvested 

as the longer-lived tree species take over. A 

mature, closed forest canopy then results. Mine 

operators can shorten the time it takes nature to 

produce a valuable forest by preparing the site 

with loose, good-quality mine soils that encourage 

establishment of volunteer early-successional 

species, and by planting a mixture of early and 

later successional tree species, such as those 

described next. 

• Early successional trees are fast-growing 

species such as pines, sweet birch, sourwood, 

red maple, and bigtooth aspen that provide 

habitat for birds and other seed-moving animals 

and help suppress grasses, thus allowing native 

forest plant species to become established. 

Early successional species such as dogwoods 

and redbud produce fruit and may further 

contribute to forest development by attracting 

seed-carrying birds and other wildlife. 

• Later successional tree species are those which 

typically dominate a site later in the natural 

succession process. These include many of the 

commercially valuable hardwoods—such as 

the oaks, hickories, walnut, and cherry—that 

are characteristic of mature Appalachian and 

midwestern forests. Many of these species 

have relatively large and heavy seeds that 

are not moved quickly over long distances 

by natural forces. Planting later successional 

species on a mine site can help these species 

become established more rapidly than through 

unassisted natural succession. 

To maximize forest value where reclamation 

has produced soil, groundcover vegetation, and 

other conditions favorable to reforestation (FRA 

conditions), planted trees should be compatible 

for growth in mixed stands. High-value later 

successional species capable of living for at least 

several decades should be favored for planting. 

On such productive sites, plant early successional 

trees and shrubs in significant numbers if they will 

help improve the growth and value, and further 

aid the colonization, of longer-lived and more 

valuable trees.

Other Factors

Other soil and site factors will also influence 

the speed of natural succession on mine sites. 

For example, use of excavated soils that contain 

living seeds and roots from the native forest 

in reclamation areas can accelerate natural 

succession. Mined areas that are close to unmined 

native forest will be colonized by native forest 

species more rapidly than sites farther from 

unmined forests (see Box 8-3).

WHAT RECLAMATION PRACTICES 

AID ESTABLISHMENT OF FORESTS 

BY ACCELERATING NATURAL 

SUCCESSION?

Reforestation researchers have developed the 

FRA, which, when implemented properly, can 

accelerate natural succession on reclaimed 

mine sites, aiding formation of healthy, diverse 

hardwood forests (Chapter 2, this volume). The 

FRA can be summarized in five steps:

1. Create a suitable rooting medium for good 

tree growth that is no less than 4 feet deep and 

consists of topsoil, weathered sandstone, or 

the best available material, or a combination of 

these materials.

2. Loosely grade the topsoil or topsoil substitutes 

established in Step 1 to create a noncompacted 

growth medium.

3. Use groundcover species that are compatible 

with growing trees.

4. Plant two types of trees: early successional 

species for wildlife and soil stability, and 

commercially valuable crop trees. 

5. Use proper tree planting techniques.
8-6 Mine Reclamation Practices to Enhance Forest Development through Natural Succession

Box 8-3. Making Post-reclamation 

Vegetation More Diverse

Natural Appalachian forests contain hundreds 

of plant species. Replacing all of these species 

through replanting and seeding is virtually 

impossible. Natural colonization and replacing 

topsoils are two mechanisms that can increase 

plant diversity of reclaimed sites.

Reclaimed mine sites are naturally colonized by 

native vegetation

In Virginia, researchers studied vegetation change 

on mine sites over time (Holl 2002, Holl and 

others 2001). In 1992, and again in 1999, they 

documented the species present on contour mine 

sites of three different age classes—reclaimed 

in 1967-1972, 1972-1977, and 1980-1987 using 

techniques typical for those times—and in the 

adjacent natural forests. Succession was clearly 

evident because many more species were present 

on reclaimed sites than had been originally planted, 

and many of the unplanted species also occurred in 

the adjacent forests.

However, natural succession occurs slowly when 

conventional reclamation practices are applied. On 

the 1972-1977 sites, which had been reclaimed with 

aggressive ground covers, grass-like herbaceous 

vegetation was still dominant 15 to 20 years after 

the initial reclamation. By 1999, the herbaceous 

cover was finally beginning to yield to woody 

species, including red maple and sweet birch, that 

have small seeds which can be carried by wind and 

birds. But even though most native forest species 

were present by 1999, some understory species 

such as trillium, wintergreen, and serviceberry were 

not found on any of the reclaimed mines despite 

the proximity of most of these sites to undisturbed 

forest (within a few hundred yards’ distance). 

In another study established in 2005 in Kentucky, 

FRA reforestation plots of loose-dumped brown 

weathered sandstone were planted with four 

native hardwood species, but no ground cover was 

applied (Sena and others 2014). In 2013 seedling 

survival was high (86 percent) and vegetation 

completely covered the ground. The total number 

of colonizing species on the plots was 57, and 

68 percent of those were native to the region. 

There were 26 naturally colonized tree and shrub 

species. Under the conditions of this experiment, 

the physical and chemical makeup of the mine 

spoil, linked with available seed sources, led to the 

development of a diverse forest community. 

Accelerating succession by spreading forest soils

In some areas, soils salvaged from the pre-mining 

forest floor can be recycled to produce a plantgrowth medium after mining. In these cases, 

seeds or roots contained in the soil can sprout, 

establishing species not typically spread by wind 

or wildlife or where potential seed sources are far 

away (Wade 1989). For example, at a mine site 

in Kentucky that was reclaimed by using topsoils 

from the adjacent natural forest, 63 species from 

the natural forest donor site were found on the 

reclaimed mine site within 1 year after the soils 

were spread (Hall 2009). Some important points to 

consider when implementing this treatment are:

• Native forest soil aids succession most 

effectively when moved directly from the mining 

area to the reclamation area. Storage of soil 

before respreading causes seeds and roots 

to lose viability, with longer storage periods 

causing greater losses. 

• Fast-growing agricultural grasses and legumes 

are incompatible with most native forest 

vegetation. As a result, spreading native 

topsoil is most effective as a reforestation 

practice when other ground covers, especially 

agricultural grasses and legumes, are not 

seeded. 

• Moved topsoil must be free of invasive plant 

species such as multiflora rose, oriental 

bittersweet, and Japanese honeysuckle for this 

treatment to provide a long-term benefit to forest 

development. Carefully inspect the source site 

prior to mining and keep soil-moving machinery 

clean as precautions to prevent spread of these 

species through topsoil replacement. Spreading 

soils from areas with undesirable species during 

reclamation can lead to establishment of those 

species on the mine site, causing “arrested 

succession.” 
Mine Reclamation Practices to Enhance Forest Development through Natural Succession 8-7

Use of the FRA practices can accelerate natural 

succession by creating conditions similar to those 

where native forests thrive. 

SUMMARY

Landowners and mine operators are increasingly 

choosing forest as the postmining land use. 

Compared to conventional reclamation practices, 

reclamation using the FRA allows more planted 

seedlings to survive and more species from the 

surrounding forest to colonize the reclaimed 

mine site. Agencies in the Appalachian Regional 

Reforestation Initiative states allow both planted 

trees that survive and tree recruits that are 

compatible with the postmining land use to be 

counted toward the tree-stocking standard for 

reclamation success. Reclamation practices that 

encourage natural succession can help mine 

operators meet regulatory requirements and 

achieve prompt bond release while restoring native 

forests. 

LITERATURE CITED

Angel, P.N.; Graves, D.H.; Barton, C.; Warner, 

R.C.; Conrad, P.W.; Sweigard, R.J.; Agouridis, 

C. 2006. Surface mine reforestation 

research: evaluation of tree response to low 

compaction reclamation techniques.

In: Barnhisel, R.I., ed. Proceedings, 

7th international conference on acid rock 

drainage (ICARD); 2006 March 26-30; St. 

Louis, MO. Lexington, KY: American Society 

of Mining and Reclamation: 45-48. 

https://doi.org/10.21000/JASMR06020045.

Barton, C.; Sena, K.; Dolan, T.; Angel, P.; 

Zipper, C. [In press]. Restoring forests 

on surface coal mines in Appalachia: a 

regional reforestation approach with global 

application. In: Bolan, N.; Kirkham, M.B.; Ok, 

Y.S., eds. Spoil to soil: mine site rehabilitation 

and revegetation. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor and 

Francis. Chapter 7. 

Hall, S.L.; Barton, C.D.; Baskin, C.C. 2009. 

Topsoil seed bank of an oak-hickory forest 

in eastern Kentucky as a restoration tool on 

surface mines. Restoration Ecology. 18(6): 

834-842. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-

100x.2008.00509.x.

Holl, K.D. 2002. Long-term vegetation recovery 

on reclaimed coal-surface mines in the 

eastern USA. Journal of Applied Ecology. 

39(6): 960-970. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-

2664.2002.00767.x.

Holl, K.D.; Zipper, C.E.; Burger, J.A. 2001. 

Recovery of native plant communities after 

mining. Virginia Cooperative Extension 

Publication 460-140. [Blacksburg, VA]: 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 

University. 12 p. Available at http://www.ext.

vt.edu/pubs (accessed September 18, 2016).

Sena, K.; Barton, C.; Hall, S.; Angel, P.; Agouridis, 

C.; Warner, R. 2014. Influence of spoil type on 

afforestation success and natural vegetative 

recolonization on a surface coal mine in 

eastern Kentucky, USA. Restoration Ecology. 

23(2): 131-138. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12164.

Wade, G.L. 1989. Grass competition and 

establishment of native species from forest 

soil seed banks. Landscape and Urban 

Planning. 17(2): 135-149. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(89)9022-4.
Page intentionally left blank
Authors’ Affiliations

V. DAVIS: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), 

Knoxville, TN

J. FRANKLIN: University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN

C. ZIPPER: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA

P. ANGEL: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, London, KY

Publication History

This chapter is based on Forest Reclamation Advisory No. 7, which originally appeared in February 2010 on the 

Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative’s Web site (http://arri.osmre.gov) hosted by the U.S. Department of 

the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. (Note that authors’ affiliations were current 

when the Advisory was originally written.)

INTRODUCTION

The Forestry Reclamation Approach (FRA) is 

a method of reclaiming surface coal mines to 

forested postmining land use (Chapter 2, this 

volume). “Use proper tree planting techniques” 

is Step 5 of the FRA; when used with the other 

FRA steps, proper tree planting can help to ensure 

successful reforestation. 

Proper care and planting of tree seedlings is 

essential to any reforestation effort. Appalachian 

coal mines reclaimed by using the FRA will 

often be rough, rocky, and on steep terrain. Thus, 

hand planting is the usual method for planting 

hardwood tree seedlings. Professional tree 

planting companies with experience in handplanting reclaimed mines can provide excellent 

results. Most of these companies offer a complete 

service that includes obtaining, handling, and 

planting hardwood tree seedlings. State forestry 

departments and consulting foresters can also 

provide valuable assistance. 

Any tree planting process on mined land entails 

several steps, each of which must be executed 

competently to assure a successful reforestation 

project. They are:

• Selecting and ordering seedlings

• Site preparation

• Proper handling and storage of seedlings

• Preparing seedlings for planting

• Planting tree seedlings

• Post-planting care and assessment.

The next six sections discuss these steps, and 

additional resources are listed in Box 9-1.

SELECTING AND ORDERING 

SEEDLINGS

Nurseries produce seedlings as either bare-root or 

containerized stock. Bare-root seedlings grown in 

nursery beds (Fig. 9-1) are relatively inexpensive 

when purchased in bulk. Less-common species 

are produced in smaller quantities, usually 

Chapter 9: Planting Hardwood

Tree Seedlings on Reclaimed Mine Land

in the Appalachian Region

V. Davis, J. Franklin, C. Zipper, and P. Angel
9-2 Planting Hardwood Tree Seedlings on Reclaimed Mine Land in the Appalachian Region

in containers, and are delivered in soil-filled 

containers or with a plug of soil surrounding the 

roots. Most hardwood seedlings for reforestation 

are purchased as bare-root stock grown in a 

nursery for 1 year and are referred to as 1-0 

seedlings. Bare-root hardwood 1-0 seedlings 

should have a vigorous root system. 

Mine operators and reclamation practitioners are 

encouraged to review the reforestation plan in the 

approved permit during the summer and calculate 

the number of trees required for the upcoming 

tree-planting season. Advance placement of tree 

orders in late summer or fall, 4 to 6 months before 

the planned planting date, will reserve the desired 

number and species of tree seedlings. If large 

numbers of seedlings or uncommon species are 

needed, coordination with the nursery a year or 

more in advance may be required. 

Box 9-1. Additional Resources

Burger, J.A.; Zipper, C.E. 2009. How to restore 

forests on surface-mined land. Virginia 

Cooperative Extension Publication 460-123. 

Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute 

and State University. Available at http://www.

cses.vt.edu/PRP/VCE_Pubs.html (accessed 

November 4, 2016).

Mercker, D. 2005. SP663 Tree planting 

procedure for small, bare-root seedlings.

Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee 

Agricultural Extension Service. 4 p. 

Available at http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_

agexfores/16 (accessed November 4, 2016). 

Pijut, P.M. 2003. Planting and care of fine 

hardwood seedlings: planting hardwood 

seedlings in the Central Hardwood Region.

FNR-210. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue 

University, Department of Forestry and 

Natural Resources. 8 p. Available at 

www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/12877 

(accessed November 4, 2016).

South Carolina Forestry Commission. [N.d.]. Tree 

planting guide. http://www.state.sc.us/forest/

refplant.htm (accessed November 4, 2016). 

Figure 9-1.—Hardwood seedlings growing in a nursery. 

Many State- and privately owned nurseries have 

increased production in response to recent demand for 

high-quality hardwood seedlings. Photo by V. Davis, 

OSMRE.

Use of seedlings grown from seed collected from 

the same geographic region where they will be 

planted will increase the long-term reforestation 

success. Seed origin should be as close in latitude 

as possible to the planting site and within the 

same USDA hardiness zone (map available from 

http://www.usna.usda.gov/Hardzone/). Distance 

in an east-west direction is less important. Ask the 

nursery manager for information about seed origin. 

SITE PREPARATION

The FRA includes construction of a growth 

medium with favorable properties, suitable 

placement, and minimal grading of that material 

while avoiding compaction, and the use of treecompatible ground cover (Chapters 2, 4, and 6, 

this volume). On active mines reclaimed using 

the FRA, additional site preparation will not be 

required. Plant trees directly into the surface 

materials. In areas of high soil compaction such 

as temporary roads or equipment work areas, or 

on mines that were reclaimed years ago by using 

methods that compacted the soil, dozer ripping can 

be used to loosen soils (Chapter 5, this volume). 

On older sites, thick and vigorous ground covers 

may be temporarily controlled by ripping, disking, 
Planting Hardwood Tree Seedlings on Reclaimed Mine Land in the Appalachian Region 9-3

or herbicide so that young tree seedlings have a 

better chance to compete. On active mines, plant 

tree seedlings in winter before seeding the ground 

cover the next spring, or plant tree seedlings 

shortly after seeding the ground cover. 

Native hardwoods normally grow at a soil pH in 

the range of 4.5 to 7.0; most species prefer a pH 

of 5.0 to 6.5. Where reclamation has established 

mine soils favorable for trees, fertilize the site as 

recommended in Chapter 6 of this volume. Soil 

samples should be taken to a soil testing laboratory 

that is experienced and capable of providing 

recommendations for mine soils; specify that 

forestry is the land use so as to receive proper lime 

and fertilizer recommendations. Lime is generally 

not recommended on reforestation sites unless 

acid-producing materials are present or soil pH is 

less than 5.0. Mine soils are commonly deficient 

in phosphorus (P), so apply fertilizer that contains 

sufficient P to support tree establishment and longterm growth but relatively low rates of nitrogen 

(N) to avoid stimulating herbaceous competition 

that will depress planted seedlings’ survival and 

growth. 

PROPER HANDLING AND STORAGE 

OF SEEDLINGS

Bare-root tree seedlings are lifted from the 

nursery after the seedlings enter winter dormancy. 

Depending on the nursery location, seedlings 

are generally available for distribution by late 

December through the end of March. Tree 

seedlings are living organisms, so limit the level 

of stress between lifting and planting to increase 

the vigor and survival rate of planted seedlings. 

Inspect nursery seedling bags upon delivery; mend 

any holes with tape. If possible, arrange with the 

nursery to lift and ship seedlings immediately 

before planting. If seedlings arrive more than a 

day or two before they will be planted, place the 

bags in regulated cold storage (33 to 40 °F with 

humidity above 80 percent) until planting 

(Fig. 9-2). Protect seedling bags from freezing 

and never place them in direct sunlight.

Figure 9-2.—Tree seedlings in cold storage. Seedlings 

should be kept in cold storage with bags unopened until 

just before planting. Photo by M. French, Green Forests 

Work, used with permission.

If cold storage is not available, keep the seedling 

bags cool and moist, with temperature below 

40 °F but above freezing. Higher temperatures 

may cause seedlings to break dormancy, increasing 

transpiration and drying out the roots. Storage 

for more than 10 days is not recommended. If 

seedlings must be stored for an extended period 

in cold storage, inspect bags at least once a week 

to check that roots appear wet. Water roots with a 

fine mist if needed, but do not let standing water 

in the bottom of the bag be more than a halfinch deep. Any time you open the bag, reseal it 

with tape to prevent water loss. Ensuring cool 

temperatures and moist roots will reduce losses 

during storage and after planting. 
9-4 Planting Hardwood Tree Seedlings on Reclaimed Mine Land in the Appalachian Region

PREPARING SEEDLINGS 

FOR PLANTING

Again, cool temperatures and moist roots are the 

keys to success. During transportation, leave tree 

seedlings in the bags and protect them from wind 

and sunlight in an enclosed vehicle or covered 

with a tarp. In the field, cover the nursery bags and 

planting bags with light-reflecting tarps so they are 

not exposed to sun and wind. Planting a mixture 

of tree species will require opening the individual 

nursery bags, separating the seedlings, and mixing 

the various species together in the tree planting 

bags; perform this operation in the staging area, in 

the shade. 

Commercially available tree planting bags are 

designed for easy use and help to protect the 

seedling roots from drying. Placing wet mulch in 

the planting bag, or dipping the seedling roots in a 

hydrating gel, can provide extra protection 

(Fig. 9-3). Mulch that is not saturated with water 

will wick moisture away from the roots. If planting 

bags are not available, use 5-gallon plastic buckets 

containing 1 to 2 inches of water; cover the 

buckets loosely with a plastic bag. 

Soil or hydrating gel clinging to the roots is 

beneficial and should not be shaken or rinsed off, 

so be careful when adding water to the planting 

bags. Once the seedlings are placed in the planting 

Figure 9-3.—Preparing seedlings in the field: (A) Seedlings are separated carefully; roots are dipped in a hydrating 

gel, then (B) immediately placed in a planting bag to reduce root drying. Photos by K. Schmidt, University of 

Kentucky, used with permission.

A B
Planting Hardwood Tree Seedlings on Reclaimed Mine Land in the Appalachian Region 9-5

bag, plant them as soon as possible. If the roots dry 

out for even a few minutes, seedling mortality will 

increase significantly, so it is important to work 

quickly and keep the roots moist at all times. Any 

seedlings that are not immediately used should 

remain in the nursery bag; after adding a fine mist 

of water if necessary to keep the seedlings moist, 

keep the bag tightly closed. Return unused bags 

to cold storage to reduce the chance of seedling 

damage.

Some pruning of the root system occurs at the 

nursery while processing tree seedlings for 

distribution. Because carbohydrates stored in 

the seedling’s roots are used for initial shoot 

development, do not do additional pruning of 

the roots in the field. Keeping as much of the 

root system intact as possible will increase both 

the initial survival rates and early growth rates 

of the planted seedlings. The best way to plant a 

hardwood seedling with an extra-large root system 

is to dig a bigger hole.

PLANTING TREE SEEDLINGS

Desirable planting dates in the Appalachian region 

range from December to mid-April depending 

on the latitude and elevation of the planting site 

(check with your State forestry department or 

consulting forester). Planting trees early in the 

planting season will allow development of the 

root system before the drier weather arrives. The 

best planting days are overcast with temperatures 

below 50 °F when the soil is moist but not frozen. 

A staging area, protected from wind and direct 

sunlight, should be located on the planting site and 

used to distribute the seedlings from the nursery 

bags to the planting bags.

Most reforestation plans prescribe the desired tree 

spacing. However, if the spacing location falls in 

an area of heavy ground cover or surface rock, 

seedling survival will be increased by moving the 

planting spot a few feet to a place where there is 

less ground cover or surface rock. Common grid 

patterns for planting tree seedlings are listed in 

Table 9-1. Tree spacing depends largely on what is 

required for stocking by each State mining agency, 

so check the State regulations and the revegetation 

plan in the mining firm’s permits for the required 

tree spacing and number of trees per acre. Planting 

plans are often developed assuming that 70 percent 

of the planted seedlings will survive. But actual 

survival may be greater or less depending on soil 

conditions, weather, planting practices, and similar 

factors.

The most common tree planting tools on mine 

sites in the Appalachian region are the hoedad, the 

KBC planting bar, the sharpshooter spade, and the 

dibble bar (Fig. 9-4). Most planting contractors 

prefer the hoedad because the wooden handle 

Trees per acre

Spacing (feet) Planted Surviving 

7 × 7 889 622

7 × 8 778 544

8 × 8 681 476

8 × 9 605 423

9 × 9 538 376

9 × 10 484 338

10 × 10 436 305

Table 9-1.—Trees per acre planted and 

surviving assuming 70-percent survival rate 

for common grid patterns for planting tree 

seedlings

Figure 9-4.—Tree-planting tools commonly used on 

mine sites. From left to right: hoedad, KBC planting bar, 

sharpshooter spade, and dibble bar.
9-6 Planting Hardwood Tree Seedlings on Reclaimed Mine Land in the Appalachian Region

absorbs some of the impact shock encountered 

when planting in rocky soil, and it is easier to use 

on steep slopes (Fig. 9-5). Both the KBC planting 

bar and the sharpshooter spade have long pointed 

blades that can make a hole deep enough for 1-0 

hardwood seedling roots in rocky soils (Fig. 9-6). 

The shorter, blunt dibble bar blade works better for 

planting pine seedlings with smaller root systems. 

Regardless of the tool, the planting procedure 

is basically the same. The hardwood seedlings’ 

root system is generally larger than that of pine 

seedlings of the same age, so extra time may be 

required to make a hole to accommodate the 1-0 

hardwood roots. Generally, the planting hole 

should be vertical or near vertical so that planted 

seedlings can stand straight up when planted.

Figure 9-5.—Tree planting using a hoedad.
Planting Hardwood Tree Seedlings on Reclaimed Mine Land in the Appalachian Region 9-7

Figure 9-6.—Tree planting using a KBC bar, sharp-shooter spade, or dibble bar.
9-8 Planting Hardwood Tree Seedlings on Reclaimed Mine Land in the Appalachian Region

Seedlings must be planted at the proper depth, 

or initial survival and long-term growth will be 

compromised. The seedling root collar is the 

transition zone between the root system and the 

stem (Fig. 9-7). Plant hardwood seedlings 1 to 

2 inches below the top of the root collar, which 

will allow for some soil settlement without 

exposing the roots. Take care to ensure that all 

roots are pointing down and contained within the 

planting hole. When planting, remove only one 

seedling at a time from the planting bag. Seedling 

roots should not be forced or twisted into the 

planting hole, as this practice will cause bent or 

broken roots and impair new root development, 

and may eventually cause the tree to die. Plant the 

seedling in a vertical position with the soil packed 

firmly around the roots so that all air pockets are 

removed and the entire root system is in contact 

with the soil. On steep slopes, the hole may be 

oriented slightly away from the vertical position if 

necessary to ensure that the seedling will remain 

stable and roots can contact deeper soil layers. 

Keep all seedlings, except the one being planted, 

in the planting bag, where they are protected from 

drying out.

Test for secure planting by grabbing the seedling’s 

top shoot between two fingers and pulling up. If 

the seedling is loose, place additional soil around 

the seedling and pack firmly (Fig. 9-8). 

Personnel from the mining firm should be present 

during the planting operation to ensure that 

seedlings are handled and planted using proper 

procedures. Close supervision of the planting crew 

and inspection of planted trees will help to control 

quality and provide consistent results. 

Figure 9-7.—A bare-root hardwood tree seedling before 

planting. The “root collar” is an area where the stem 

meets the roots, and is thicker than the stem above. The 

seedling should be planted 1 or 2 inches below the root 

collar, well above the highest root.
Planting Hardwood Tree Seedlings on Reclaimed Mine Land in the Appalachian Region 9-9

D E

A B C

Figure 9-8.—Tree planting with a hoedad, using the steps illustrated in Figure 9-5. (A and B) Tree seedlings should be 

planted by making a planting hole deep enough to accommodate the entire root system. (C) The seedling is placed 

so that all roots are contained within the hole without forcing, bending, or twisting the roots. (D) The soil is packed 

firmly around the tree seedling’s roots to ensure that all air pockets are eliminated and the entire root system is in 

contact with the soil. (E) The top shoot of the seedling is grasped between two fingers and pulled to make sure it has 

been securely planted. Photos by K. Schmidt, University of Kentucky, used with permission. 
9-10 Planting Hardwood Tree Seedlings on Reclaimed Mine Land in the Appalachian Region

POST-PLANTING CARE 

AND ASSESSMENT

Post-planting survival assessment is essential 

to any reforestation project. The mine operator 

should conduct a survival assessment during 

the second growing season, before leaf fall. If 

survival appears adequate for performance bond 

release, no further action is required. The vast 

majority of planted trees that live into the second 

growing season can be expected to survive 

for the long term. If survival is not adequate, 

make arrangements for replanting during the 

upcoming winter season. On active mines, 

prompt identification and remediation of survival 

problems can help to achieve prompt bond release. 

Experience has shown that when FRA reclamation 

and reforestation procedures are fully employed, 

replanting is rarely needed.

Research has shown that hardwood tree survival 

in the range of 70 to 80 percent can usually be 

achieved when the FRA is fully implemented. 

In the first year after planting, most hardwood 

species invest the majority of their energy in the 

development of the root system and do not show 

exceptional shoot growth. During times of extreme 

drought or stress, hardwood seedlings may 

shed leaves and appear dead, but the following 

spring new shoots can sprout from living roots. 

During the third growing season, after roots 

are established, the shoot growth will begin to 

accelerate and the development of a healthy and 

productive forest begins.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors express their appreciation to Tiara 

Neal with OSMRE for the graphics in Figures 

9-4 through 9-6 and to Jennifer Franklin at the 

University of Tennessee for the illustration in 

Figure 9-7. 
Authors’ Affiliations

J.A. BURGER and C.E. ZIPPER: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA

P.N. ANGEL: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE), 

London, KY

N. HALL: Green Forests Work, Lexington, KY

J.G. SKOUSEN: West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV

C.D. BARTON: University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY

S. EGGERUD: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 

Pittsburgh, PA 

Publication History

This chapter is based on Forest Reclamation Advisory No. 11, which originally appeared in November 2013 

on the Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative’s Web site (http://arri.osmre.gov) hosted by the U.S. 

Department of the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. (Note that authors’ 

affiliations were current when the Advisory was originally written.)

INTRODUCTION

More than 1 million acres have been surface mined 

for coal in the Appalachian region. Today, much of 

this land is unmanaged, unproductive, and covered 

with nonnative plants. Establishing productive 

forests on such lands will aid restoration of 

ecosystem services provided by forests—services 

such as watershed protection, water quality 

enhancement, carbon storage, and native wildlife 

habitat—and will enable mined lands to produce 

valued products such as commercial timber.

This Forest Reclamation Advisory describes 

practices for establishing native forest trees 

on lands that were surface mined for coal and 

reclaimed to meet legal standards under the federal 

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 

1977 (SMCRA), and where the mine operator 

no longer has any legal responsibilities (“legacy 

surface mines”; Fig. 10-1). These lands often 

differ from their pre-mining condition with respect 

to topography, soils, water resource influences, 

and vegetation. 

Chapter 10: 

Establishing Native Trees

on Legacy Surface Mines

J.A. Burger, C.E. Zipper, P.N. Angel, N. Hall, 

J.G. Skousen, C.D. Barton, and S. Eggerud

Figure 10-1.—A legacy surface mine. The land is 

covered with nonforest vegetation even 15 years after 

reclamation in the late 1990s. Photo by N. Hall, Green 

Forests Work, used with permission.
10-2 Establishing Native Trees on Legacy Surface Mines

Successful establishment of native forest trees 

on legacy mines typically requires a sequence 

of steps or procedures over several years. Here, 

we describe those steps as the “four Ps”: Plan, 

Prepare, Plant, and Protect. All four steps are 

needed to ensure success. Some project managers 

may desire more technical detail than we have 

provided here. Hence, we refer to other Forest 

Reclamation Advisories that provide detail and 

suggest that reforestation experts be consulted if 

necessary.

PLAN: Assess the Site and Develop a Plan 

The first step is to develop a reforestation plan or 

strategy by assessing site conditions. Preparing a 

written plan will aid the reforestation process. 

Survey existing vegetation

Herbaceous plants and woody shrubs, including 

nonnative and invasive species, often dominate 

legacy surface mines. Herbaceous plants that are 

common on mine sites, such as nonnative grasses 

and sericea lespedeza, will outcompete young 

planted trees if not controlled. (Please see the 

Appendix starting on p. A-1 for scientific names 

of species mentioned in this chapter.) Nonnative 

invasive woody plants also require control because 

they often grow rapidly and, if present, will 

outcompete native tree seedlings. 

First, visit the site, assess vegetation and site 

conditions, and develop a vegetation management 

strategy that will enable planted trees to survive. 

A site map or aerial photo will help with this 

task. On the map, delineate and mark areas with 

1) different types and amounts of vegetation (for 

example, good growth of native trees, dominance 

of invasive species, complete herbaceous cover, 

extensive bare soil), 2) land slope, 3) aspect 

(direction the slopes are facing), 4) soil sampling 

locations, 5) property lines, 6) roads and access, 

and other information that will aid planning. 

Areas with a thick cover of nonnative shrubs 

and trees will require clearing before replanting. 

Because the nonnative shrubs and trees that 

proliferate on Appalachian coal mines—including 

autumn-olive, tree of heaven, and paulownia—will 

resprout from living roots even if their tops are 

cut, they should be killed with a herbicide.

When mine sites are dominated by nonnative 

herbaceous species such as tall fescue and sericea 

lespedeza, we also advise killing them with a 

herbicide. This control will be temporary as seeds 

in the soil will germinate. But this temporary 

control will allow tree seedlings to get a good 

growing start before competing plants emerge 

from the soil seedbank. Successful reforestation 

requires control of competing vegetation until 

planted trees grow and become established.

Assess physical properties of mine soils

Surface soils on many sites have been compacted 

by mining equipment, and most mine soils have 

become dense over time. A dense soil restricts 

growth of tree roots and limits water and air 

movement. Therefore, loosening such soils will 

improve survival and growth of planted trees. 

Dense mine soils can be loosened by using deep 

tillage, a process commonly known as “soil 

ripping” (Chapter 5, this volume). A site survey 

before reforestation can determine where deep 

tillage can be applied. Slopes up to 30 percent can 

be ripped with a dozer. Slopes up to 40 percent 

can be ripped by using a tracked excavator with a 

ripping bar mounted on the end of the arm. 

In our experience, almost all legacy mine sites 

have dense soils and will become more favorable 

to reforestation if loosened with deep tillage. 

Growth of established trees, digging of soil pits, 

use of soil penetrometers if spoil materials are 

not too rocky, and other procedures can be used 

to evaluate soil compaction and the need for deep 

tillage. The presence of wetland vegetation on 

upland sites may also indicate compacted areas. 

Ripping all areas with slopes of 30 percent or 

less is recommended on legacy surface mines. 

Flat areas are especially prone to physical settling 

and compaction. Steeper slopes (greater than 

30 percent) may or may not require ripping. 
Establishing Native Trees on Legacy Surface Mines 10-3

Designate areas that are suitable for soil ripping 

(not steeply sloped) on a site map similar to that 

used for the vegetation survey. The area designated 

for ripping can be used to estimate the cost.

Assess chemical properties of mine soils

Many legacy mine sites have soil chemical 

properties that are adequate for trees (Zipper 

and others 2011), but it is prudent to check soil 

properties. This can be accomplished by obtaining 

soil samples while walking the site. Collect a soil 

sample from each area expected to have a different 

type of soil, or with differing vegetation that 

indicates possible soil differences. In areas with 

only sparse vegetation, the soil may be strongly 

acidic (pH less than 5) or have other major 

problems. Vegetation which is yellow or otherwise 

discolored can indicate poor soil quality, lack of 

adequate soil nutrients, or soil moisture problems. 

Sample those areas separately.

Procedures for obtaining a soil sample are 

described in publications of soil testing 

laboratories. Sampling procedures recommended 

for natural soils can also be applied to mine 

soils. Record the location for each sample taken, 

and the area it is intended to represent, on the 

site map. The soil sample can be sent to a soil 

testing laboratory for analysis. If the soil testing 

lab provides special tests for mine soils, request 

those tests. When sampling mine soils, be aware 

that mine operators may have applied a layer 

of topsoil, subsoil, or soil substitute material on 

the surface to serve as the growth medium. Soil 

ripping may pull up subsurface mine soils that are 

different from the surface layer. If possible, check 

the mining and reclamation history of the site or 

dig several test pits down to 2 or 3 feet as needed 

to check subsoil materials.

Common soil testing procedures are intended 

for garden or agricultural soils, which are quite 

different from mine soils. Hence, much of the 

information provided by the soil testing lab will 

not apply and can be ignored. Essential soil test 

results for mine soils are:

• Soil pH—If pH is between 5.5 and 6.5, soil 

chemical properties are likely to be suitable 

for native hardwood trees. If soil pH is less 

than 5.0, apply lime as recommended by the 

soil test report to raise soil pH to the 5.5 to 

6.5 range, or plant acid-tolerant trees such as 

pines and selected hardwoods. If pH is less 

than 4.0 or if you suspect acid-producing 

minerals are present, conduct more detailed 

soil investigations. If soil pH is 7.0 or higher 

(highly alkaline), the tree-planting prescription 

should use species that can tolerate high-pH 

soils. 

• Salinity—On the surface of mine soils that 

have been in place for at least 5 years, soluble 

salts should be similar to the range that is 

typical for natural soils in the area. If soluble 

salt levels at the surface remain significantly 

above what is typical for natural soils, a more 

detailed soil investigation is advised.

• Minor nutrients—If the soil test shows 

low levels of one or more micronutrients, 

include a micronutrient mix in the fertilizer 

application. Standard soil tests for nitrogen 

(N) and phosphorus (P) are unreliable when 

applied to mine soils constructed from rock 

spoils. Fertilizer with N and P should always 

be applied because most mine spoils contain 

little of these nutrients in plant-available forms. 

Other essential macronutrients—calcium 

(Ca), magnesium (Mg), potassium (K), and 

sulfur (S)—are usually present in mine soils in 

adequate quantities. 

If the site is so acidic or alkaline that very little 

vegetation is growing, the soils are likely to 

contain problematic minerals. For such lands, 

more detailed soil investigations are advised. 

The guidelines of this Advisory may not be an 

appropriate treatment for such lands. Similarly, 

use alternative procedures if highly acidic mine 

spoils underlie a thin capping of soil-like surface 

material. 
10-4 Establishing Native Trees on Legacy Surface Mines

Plan for tree planting

An essential planning step is to select the types 

of trees to be planted. The landowner’s intended 

use for the site will influence this choice. In most 

cases, mined land will be suitable for mixed 

Appalachian hardwoods. Consult Chapter 7 of this 

volume for assistance with tree species selection 

and planting design. If the landowner intends to 

produce woody biomass, fast-growing species 

can be planted. Tree selection can also consider 

habitat needs for rare species such as the Indiana 

bat (Chapter 11, this volume). Landowners may 

consult a forester who has experience with mined 

land for advice on selecting tree species.

Make tree-planting arrangements in the summer or 

fall prior to planting. As explained in Chapter 9 of 

this volume, you may order seedlings from private 

sources or from State nurseries. If a contractor will 

do the planting, the contractor may also be willing 

to order and provide the seedlings. 

PREPARE the Mined Site for Planting

Control competing vegetation

It is essential that preexisting vegetation be 

controlled because otherwise it will compete with 

planted trees for sunlight, water, and nutrients 

(Fig. 10-2). Herbaceous vegetation can be killed 

during the growing season with a tractor- or ATVmounted herbicide application. Mowing thick 

herbaceous vegetation with a bush-hog and then 

allowing it to grow back for a week or two before 

spraying can improve contact of the herbicide with 

actively growing leaves and therefore increase 

chances of mortality. Apply the herbicide in the 

summer prior to deep tillage and tree planting. 

If herbaceous vegetation is not killed before tree 

planting, it is still possible for the planted trees to 

be successful if post-planting vegetation control is 

applied (as described next).

We recommend killing nonnative woody plants 

with herbicide prior to tree planting. This can be 

accomplished by an aerial application during the 

growing season if the site is remote and if the 

woody vegetation is dense. Otherwise, it must be 

accomplished manually. If nonnative woody plants 

are small, they can be killed by applying herbicide 

to the leaves with a backpack sprayer during the 

growing season. If they are too large for that, an 

application to the lower stem, using a basal-bark 

application approved for the herbicide, will often 

kill the plant. Another method is to cut the tree and 

apply herbicide to the stump immediately after 

the cutting (Fig. 10-3). Basal-bark and cut-stump 

applications typically require a stronger mix of 

herbicide than leaf application, but these methods 

work well in late summer, fall, and early winter 

when leaf applications are not effective. 

Consider the type of vegetation present when 

selecting a herbicide and the season of application. 

Sericea lespedeza, for example, will not respond to 

certain herbicides intended to control grasses and 

is difficult to kill late in the growing season. Only 

herbicides intended to control woody vegetation 

will be effective for that purpose. Detailed 

herbicide recommendations are available in 

publications such as Miller and others (2010). For 

all herbicide applications, follow label directions 

Figure 10-2.—A legacy surface mine where the 

dominant plant species is sericea lespedeza. Successful 

reestablishment of forest trees planted as young 

seedlings will require temporary suppression of this 

species. Photo by N. Hall, Green Forests Work, used 

with permission.
Establishing Native Trees on Legacy Surface Mines 10-5

Figure 10-3.—A nonnative invasive shrub being cut 

down. Nonnative invasive trees and shrubs should be 

removed before reforesting legacy mine sites. Shortly 

after the plant is cut, roots should be killed by applying 

a concentrated herbicide to the upper surface of the cut 

stem. Photo by P. Angel, OSMRE.

and assure applicator safety by using appropriate 

safety procedures and equipment. 

Loosen the soil 

When mine soils have become dense, loosening 

is needed to allow root growth, water infiltration, 

soil drainage, and air movement for growing trees. 

Use a deep tillage device (“soil ripper”) to loosen 

the soil to a depth of 3 feet or more before tree 

planting on most mine sites (Fig. 10-4). 

Application of deep tillage to active mines is 

described in Chapter 5 of this volume; these 

practices can also be used on legacy mines. 

The most common method of soil loosening is 

to use a stout single-shank ripping tooth on the 

back end of a large dozer, bigger than a Cat® D-8 

(Caterpillar Inc., Peoria, IL). Generally, single rips 

should be oriented across slopes to minimize soil 

erosion and potential gullying. On steeper slopes, 

a tracked excavator with a ripping tooth mounted 

on the end of the arm can be used (Fig. 10-5). 

Figure 10-4.—Ripping tooth on the back of a dozer. The 

ripping tooth can be inserted into and pulled through 

the ground to loosen the dense mine soil, improving 

its physical properties and ability to support planted 

trees. Photo by N. Hall, Green Forests Work, used with 

permission.

Ripping should occur when the mine soil is 

relatively dry, usually in the late summer or fall 

prior to planting. When compacted mine soils are 

dry, they are loosened more effectively by the 

ripping tool. When soils are wet, the dozer will 

compact the soil where it tracks, making tillage 

less effective. 

When sites are heavily compacted, this initial 

ripping operation can be followed by ripping 

another set of parallel rows in a direction 

perpendicular to the initial rips (“cross-rips”). 

Figure 10-5.—An excavator outfitted with a ripping tooth. 

This equipment can loosen compacted soils on slopes 

that are too steep for a dozer. Photo by N. Hall, Green 

Forests Work, used with permission.
10-6 Establishing Native Trees on Legacy Surface Mines

Cross-ripping is desirable because planted trees 

tend to extend roots preferentially along the ripped 

channel. Cross-ripped sites will give the planted 

trees greater stability and capability to resist 

windthrow than a single-directional rip. 

When cross-ripping slopes, operating the ripper 

in the up-down slope dimension first, followed 

by a second rip running either across the slope 

(along the contours) or at an angle to the slope 

(creating a pattern called diamond rips) will help 

to stabilize the surface and to hinder the waters 

from gullying in the up-down slope channels. It is 

also desirable to break up the soil surface by using 

smaller shanks on either side of the main ripping 

tooth, especially if the site is not cross-ripped. 

The loosened surface aids growth of planted trees’ 

lateral feeder roots. 

Use of coulter wheels to create a “mound” of soil 

over the rip is also recommended (Fig. 10-6). This 

treatment is especially desirable on near-level sites 

where water is unable to drain freely. Planting 

trees on the mound can aid tree survival if mine 

soils are poorly drained, and also makes it easy 

to locate seedlings for post-planting herbicide 

treatments and assessments. Mounding soil over 

the rip makes it easy to plant the tree, orients the 

tree directly above the rip for the best rooting 

opportunity, and provides a stable surface for 

the new seedling. Use of coulters is especially 

beneficial in fine-textured mine soils with few 

rocks, as such soil materials tend to restrict water 

drainage. In contrast, use of coulters in rocky mine 

soils can be problematic given the tendency of 

coulters to ride up over the rocks.

Design the ripping or tillage operation with 

spacing to accommodate the tree planting plan, 

as trees should be planted on or near the deep 

rips. Ripping at spacings of 8 to 10 feet will 

accommodate plantings of 600 to 700 trees per 

acre (Chapter 7, this volume). 

In rocky mine soils, the dozer operator should 

attempt to pull the rocks up or twist them around 

for greater soil fragmentation. The operator should 

not lift the ripping shank to ride over the rocks 

unless the rock is so large that it cannot be moved. 

The ripped area may have rocks pulled up to the 

surface, creating a rocky, rough appearance.

If the soil ripping operation is expected to create 

disturbance with potential to allow soil movement 

offsite, apply best management practices (BMPs) 

to limit soil erosion and losses. Most States 

have manuals that describe BMPs for erosion 

prevention and sediment control (for example, 

see Kentucky Department of Water 2007). In our 

experience, soil ripping operations in Appalachian 

mine soils rarely cause or allow extensive soil 

movement.

Improve soil chemical properties

Soil nutrients—especially N and P—are essential 

to tree growth. Adequate plant-available nutrients 

will enable quick growth of planted seedlings. 

This is desirable because planted trees’ likelihood 

of survival is improved once they become “free to 

grow” by overtopping their competition. Over the 

longer term, soil nutrients are essential to forest 

productivity.

Most unmanaged mine soils are low in plantavailable N and P. Therefore, apply fertilizers with 

these nutrients. Soil pH affects plant availability of 

soil P, so apply lime if soils are strongly acidic (pH 

less than 5). 

Figure 10-6.—Coulter wheels on the back of a dozer, 

with ripping tooth inserted into the soil. The coulter 

wheels pile loosened soil into a mound, allowing 

seedlings to be planted at a slightly elevated position 

above the land surface. Use of coulter wheels is advised 

for mine soils with poor water drainage and few large 

rocks. Photo by J. Burger, Virginia Tech, used with 

permission.
Establishing Native Trees on Legacy Surface Mines 10-7

If soil pH is less than 5.0, apply lime according to 

the soil test recommendations to raise soil pH to 

between 5.5 and 6.5. Lime can be broadcast over 

the site prior to tillage using agricultural methods 

such as truck- or tractor-mounted spreaders.

Apply fertilizers in a manner that confines 

availability to planted trees. Fertilizers should 

not be broadcast over the entire area, as that will 

stimulate rapid growth of competing vegetation 

(Evans and others 2013, Sloan and Jacobs 2013). 

If possible, apply fertilizer in narrow bands over 

the tree-planting row produced by soil ripping. 

On most mined lands, application of 50 to 75 lbs 

N, 100 lbs P (230 lbs P2O5), and 40 lbs K (48 lbs 

K2O) per acre will be adequate. 

A way to stimulate early tree growth on nutrientdeficient mine sites is to use fertilizer pellets or 

tablets. Place the pellets below the surface and 

about 2 to 4 inches from each planted seedling. 

Fertilizer pellets contain sufficient nutrients to help 

the seedlings become established but not enough 

nutrients to support long-term growth. 

Fertilizer can be applied by a dispenser mounted 

on the front of the tillage dozer, allowing the 

fertilizer to be incorporated into the soil by 

the tillage operation. If this method or other 

mechanical methods of application are not 

possible, apply fertilizer by hand to the soil surface 

near each planted tree. Spread about one 16-ounce 

cup of di-ammonium phosphate fertilizer (18-46-

0) in a circle around the stem of each tree, keeping 

it about 12 inches from the stem and spreading it 

evenly. If fertilizer is applied at planting as pellets, 

an additional application around the stem is also 

advised as a means of ensuring adequate nutrients 

for long-term growth. If the site survey or soil test 

reveals a likelihood of micronutrient deficiency, 

use fertilizers with micronutrients.

Use of controlled-release fertilizers, which 

dissolve and release nutrients slowly over time, 

has been found to provide good results in mine 

reforestation plantings (Sloan and Jacobs 2013). 

Organic amendments, such as manures and 

composts, have been applied to improve soil 

properties on many mine sites. The precautions for 

using such materials on farmlands also apply to 

legacy mines. Additional precautions are in order 

for high-nutrient organic materials, such as fresh 

manures, given the sensitivity of Appalachian 

native trees to soil properties. 

PLANT Native Trees

Hand-plant seedlings on or along the deep rips to 

enable tap roots to penetrate the soil easily. We 

recommend that trees be planted at rates of 600 to 

700 per acre. 

On mine lands with little surface relief, plant 

trees in a manner that places them in high ground, 

either over or adjacent to the ripped channel. On 

sites that are cross-ripped, plant trees near where 

the rips intersect to enable the lateral roots to 

extend easily in all four directions. On sites that 

are sloped and able to drain water easily, plant 

the trees in a position that is close to the natural 

ground surface. When possible, plant trees in soil 

that has been loosened by the ripping operation. 

See Chapter 9 of this volume for a description of 

how to plant trees on mine sites.

Many legacy mine plantings use bare-root 

seedlings with no protective devices installed 

(Fig 10-7). For large-area plantings with thousands 

of seedlings, this practice can result in successful 

reforestation if most of the planted seedlings 

survive and grow. However, survival prospects can 

be improved by installing protective devices such 

as tree tubes, weed mats, or both for individual 

seedlings.

Tree shelters (plastic cylinders that are 

placed around seedlings to create moist 

microenvironments) have been shown to both 

protect seedlings from browsing animals and 

increase tree growth (Fig. 10-8). Fabric mats 

are another option for improving tree growth. 

Seedlings are placed in the center of a fabric mat 

(about 18 inches × 18 inches in size), and the 

edges of the mat are staked into the ground. These 
10-8 Establishing Native Trees on Legacy Surface Mines

mats allow rainfall infiltration but prevent growth 

by competing plants in soil close to the seedling. 

The best protection is provided by protective 

devices that combine tree tubes with weed mats. 

When cost prevents use of protective devices for 

the entire job, they can be installed to improve 

success in high-visibility areas or for high-value 

seedlings.

PROTECT Planted Trees 

Control competing vegetation

Because young trees are vulnerable, they should 

be protected. A primary threat is competing 

vegetation that prevents seedlings from reaching 

sunlight, water, and soil nutrients. Rodents may 

be attracted and sheltered by heavy herbaceous 

competition; they can kill the trees by girdling or 

debarking them as a winter food source. Control of 

competing vegetation will be essential on virtually 

all reforested legacy mines.

Immediately after planting while seedlings are still 

dormant, a preemergent herbicide can be applied 

to reduce emergence of herbaceous plants from 

seeds. This application can occur in a circle around 

each seedling or, if applied using a tractor or ATV, 

in bands over the tree rows. 

Figure 10-7.—Volunteers planting tree seedlings on 

a legacy surface mine that has been prepared for 

reforestation by using the guidelines described in this 

chapter. If adequate finances are available, professional 

firms can be engaged to plant trees. Photo by P. Angel, 

OSMRE. In late spring or early summer, a post-emergent 

herbicide can be applied by “spot spraying” a 

circle around each planted tree, using tree shields 

or other means to ensure that no herbicide contacts 

tree leaves (Fig. 10-8). Herbicide applicators 

should be trained to recognize any problematic 

invasive shrubs and trees (Table 10-1), especially 

species present prior to clearing or along site 

borders. Spray these plants when they appear. 

Herbicides should be applied only under calm 

atmospheric conditions, following label directions, 

and by applicators wearing protective gear. Repeat 

spring preemergent and summer post-emergent 

herbicide applications in subsequent years until 

most of the trees have grown so they are above 

the herbaceous competition. Here, we have not 

specified herbicide types. The herbicide should 

be selected after determining the types of plant 

species that require control and consulting a 

reference such as Miller and others (2010). 

Apply additional protection if needed

Apply additional common-sense protective 

measures as well. Once the site is planted, 

it faces threats from livestock and wildlife 

browsing, insects, humans, and invasive plants. 

Occasional browse will slow the growth of young 

hardwood tree seedlings but usually will not kill 

them. Repeated browse, however, will be more 

Figure 10-8.—Tree tubes in use on a legacy mine site 

with the intent of increasing survival and growth of highvalue seedlings. Photo by P. Angel, OSMRE.
Establishing Native Trees on Legacy Surface Mines 10-9

Common name Scientific name Plant type

silktree (mimosa) Albizia julibrissin Tree

tree of heaven (ailanthus) Ailanthus altissima Tree

Russian-olive Elaeagnus angustifolia Tree

autumn-olive Elaeagnus umbellata Shrub

Japanese knotweed Fallopia japonica Shrubby forb

shrubby lespedeza Lespedeza bicolor Shrub

sericea lespedeza Lespedeza cuneata Forb, legume

Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica Shrub/woody vine

bush honeysuckle Lonicera maackii Shrub

white sweet clover Melilotus alba Forb

Japanese stiltgrass Microstegium vimineum Grass

Chinese silver grass Miscanthus sinensis Grass

paulownia (princesstree) Paulownia tomentosa Tree

mile-a-minute vine Polygonum perfoliatum Vine

kudzu Pueraria montana Woody vine

multiflora rose Rosa multiflora Shrub

tall fescue* Schedonorus spp. Grass

johnsongrass Sorghum halepense Grass

* Also known as Schedonorus phoenix.

Table 10-1.—Partial list of invasive species that are problematic on legacy mine sites and are 

capable of interfering with successful reforestation if not controlled. For photographs of these 

species, see Natural Resources Conservation Service (2016), the Southeast Exotic Plant Pests 

Council (2013), or State conservation agency Web sites.

damaging. Fencing can exclude grazing animals 

and prevent emerging vegetation from being 

damaged or destroyed by vehicles (for example, 

ATVs, tractors, 4×4s). Signage can be used to 

mark the planting boundaries if fencing is not 

used. Maintaining locked gates at critical access 

points can help limit uncontrolled human access 

and guard against these hazards.

Assess survival and replant if needed

The money and effort invested in the site should 

also be protected by assessing survival after the 

first growing season, generally in September or 

October, after stressful mid-summer conditions 

have passed but while living trees retain their 

leaves. Survival can be assessed by sampling 

or counting living trees within areas selected to 

represent the rest of the site. It is not necessary to 

count all surviving trees over the entire site.

A common method of survival assessment is 

to establish circular sampling plots at random 

locations and to count surviving trees within those 

plots. To define the plots, place a stake at the 

center point and use a rope of fixed length or tape 

to measure distances from the center point 

(Fig. 10-9). For example: to assess survival within 

a 1/20th-acre sampling plot, count every surviving 

tree within a circular area up to 26 feet 4 inches of 

a center point. 

Sampling plots should be distributed evenly 

but located randomly over the site. This can be 

done by determining in advance how many plots 

are needed, then defining straight-line transects 

over the site and locating the plots at predefined 

distances along those transects. For example, 

if 10 plots are needed within a site that is long 

and rectangular, two transects could be defined 
10-10 Establishing Native Trees on Legacy Surface Mines

along the site’s long dimension with 5 plots 

located along each transect. Plot center points 

can be located along the transect while distance 

is estimated by counting paces. It is essential that 

plots be located using a predetermined method 

that considers the planted area’s configuration and 

size; plots should not be located by walking over 

the site, seeing what is out there, and on that basis 

deciding that “this looks like a good spot.” 

The number of plots that should be established 

is a matter of judgment. The sampling plots 

are intended to represent the entire site. More 

sampling plots, when appropriately placed, will 

provide a more accurate survival estimate than 

fewer plots. The following rule of thumb can be 

followed: For mine sites with fairly uniform soils 

and topography, a 5-percent sample or one 1/20thacre plot per acre should be adequate; for areas 

with highly variable soils and topography, or mine 

sites for which irregular survival across the site is 

suspected for any reason, a 10-percent sample, or 

two 1/20th-acre plots per acre should be measured. 

Count the number of living trees within each 

1/20th-acre circular plot and multiply that number 

by 20 to estimate the number of trees per acre. 

Record this per-acre number for each plot for a 

per-acre estimate for that particular area. Estimate 

Figure 10-10.—Oak seedling released from herbaceous 

competition by herbicide application. Photo by C. Zipper, 

Virginia Tech, used with permission.

the overall per-acre number for the entire site by 

averaging the per-acre estimates for all 1/20th-acre 

plots. Also record the species of each surviving 

tree. 

Where weeds have been controlled successfully 

and the summer has not been unusually hot and 

dry, average survival should be higher than 70 

percent after the first year—490 trees per acre 

if 700 trees per acre were planted. If stocking 

is below this level, the site manager should 

determine the cause, working with the tree planter 

if a contractor was employed. If poor survival was 

due to poor seedling quality or improper planting, 

the manager can determine who is responsible and 

seek to engage that party in remedial replanting. If 

first-year survival is not satisfactory, “holes” left 

by nonsurviving trees should be replanted during 

the next winter. 

By the end of the third, fourth, or fifth growing 

season, most planted trees should be above the 

competing herbaceous vegetation (Fig. 10-10). 

Make a final survival assessment after the third or 

fourth growing season using the same assessment 

procedures just described. At this time, a minimum 

of 400 well-distributed healthy trees per acre 

will ensure reforestation success. During the site 

surveys, visually assess the presence of invasive 

Figure 10-9.—Personnel preparing to assess survival 

and growth of planted tree seedlings on a legacy 

surface mine. Photo by N. Hall, Green Forests Work, 

used with permission.
Establishing Native Trees on Legacy Surface Mines 10-11

species with potential to outgrow and outcompete 

planted seedlings. When possible, control or 

remove such species if they are present at densities 

sufficient to interfere with planted seedlings’ 

survival within certain areas.

EXPECTED OUTCOME

Reestablishing native Appalachian forests on 

legacy surface mines that are not being managed 

for other purposes can produce marketable timber 

and environmental benefits such as watershed 

protection, carbon sequestration, and improved 

wildlife habitat. Until recently with the adoption 

of the Forestry Reclamation Approach (Chapter 

2, this volume), common coal-mine reclamation 

practices under SMCRA often created conditions 

unfavorable to reforestation. When the guidelines 

described in this Advisory are applied, productive 

Appalachian forests can be restored on such mined 

lands (Fig. 10-11). 

SUMMARY: STEP-BY-STEP GUIDANCE

A step-by-step summary and timeline for the 

recommended procedures is found in Table 10-2 

(see next page). Depending on site conditions, all 

treatments may not be needed. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks to personnel with Green Forests Work 

(GFW) for their assistance in developing this 

Advisory. GFW personnel can provide technical 

and other types of assistance to parties who are 

attempting to reestablish Appalachian forest 

vegetation on legacy surface mines.

LITERATURE CITED

Evans, D.M.; Zipper, C.E.; Burger, J.A.; Strahm, 

B.; Villamagna, A. 2013. Reforestation 

practice for enhancement of ecosystem 

services on a compacted surface mine: 

path toward ecosystem recovery. Ecological 

Engineering. 51: 16-23. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.12.065.

Figure 10-11.—Appalachian hardwood trees emerging 

from herbaceous vegetation on a legacy surface mine 

during the third growing season after using methods 

described in this chapter. Photo by C. Zipper, Virginia 

Tech, used with permission.

Kentucky Division of Water (KDOW). 2007. 

Kentucky erosion prevention and sediment 

control field guide. http://conservation.ky.gov/

Publications/Kentucky%20Erosion%20and%20

Sedimentation%20Control%20Field%20Guide.

pdf (accessed October 2, 2016).

Miller, J.H.; Manning, S.T.; Enloe, S.F. 2010. A 

management guide for invasive plants in 

southern forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-131. 

Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 

120 p. 

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2016. 

The PLANTS database. Greensboro, NC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, National Plant Data 

Team. www.plants.usda.gov/.

Sloan, J.L.; Jacobs, D.F. 2013. Fertilization at 

planting influences seedling growth and 

vegetative competition on a post-mining 

boreal reclamation site. New Forests. 44(5): 

687-701. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11056-013-9378-4.
10-12 Establishing Native Trees on Legacy Surface Mines

Month Year Task Task detail

PLAN

Prior to July 1 Survey vegetation, assess 

soil properties

Survey the area to assess vegetation; test soil physical 

and chemical properties. Use information to develop a 

reforestation plan for the site.

Summer or fall 1 Determine species to plant, 

order trees

If the site is to be planted by a contractor, that contract 

should be put in place. The contractor may be able to 

provide seedlings. 

PREPARE

July 1 Remove and control 

existing vegetation

Broadcast-spray herbicide to control vegetation. If large 

invasive shrubs and trees are present, control via aerial 

herbicide or manual removal. Be sure to kill invasive shrubs 

and trees with capability to resprout from living roots.

Aug.-Sept. 1 Apply lime, if needed Apply lime if needed and as needed to raise pH to between 

5.5 and 6.5. 

Sept.-Oct. 1 Deep-till and fertilize Loosen soil with a deep-tillage tool, ripping with 8- to 10-foot 

spacing between rows. Band-apply fertilizer along the rows. 

PLANT

Jan.-March* 2 Plant trees Plant tree seedlings correctly (recommended planting rate: 

600 to 700 per acre). 

PROTECT

Feb.-March* 2 Weed control Band-spray a preemergent herbicide over the tree rows.

May-June 2 Weed control Spot-spray herbicide around each tree seedling, using 

tree-shields to protect seedlings from herbicide drift. Apply 

herbicide to emergent invasive shrubs and trees if present. 

Sept.-Oct. 2 Assess tree survival Survey tree survival; determine if replanting is needed. 

Jan.-March* 3 Replant if needed If the tree survival assessment reveals inadequate survival 

in any area, replant to fill in between surviving trees as 

needed to assure adequate stocking.

Feb.-March* 3 Weed control Repeat the preemergent herbicide. 

May-June 3 Weed control Repeat the spot-spray herbicide. 

May-June 4 Assess vegetation Walk the site to determine if the majority of planted trees 

have grown so uppermost leaves are above herbaceous 

competition.

May-June 4 Weed control Repeat the spot-spray herbicide (if needed). 

Sept.-Oct. 4 Final survey Survey tree stocking. Look for a minimum of 400 planted 

trees per acre. 

Table 10-2.—Step-by-step summary of the guidelines presented in this chapter

* Tree planting and preemergent herbicide application can be extended through April in the northern Appalachian region.

Southeast Exotic Plant Pests Council (SE-EPPC). 

2013. Invasive plants of the Southeast.

Athens, GA: University of Georgia, Center for 

Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health. 

http://www.se-eppc.org/weeds.cfm (accessed 

October 2, 2016).

Zipper, C.E.; Burger, J.A.; McGrath, J.M.; 

Rodrigue, J.A.; Holtzman, G.I. 2011. Forest 

restoration potentials of coal-mined lands 

in the eastern United States. Journal of 

Environmental Quality. 40(5): 1567-1577. 

https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2011.0040. 
Authors’ Affiliations

PETRA WOOD: U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey, Morgantown, WV 

JEFF LARKIN: Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA

JEREMY MIZEL: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Fairbanks, AK

CARL ZIPPER: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA

PATRICK ANGEL: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

(OSMRE), London, KY

Publication History

This chapter is based on Forest Reclamation Advisory No. 10, which originally appeared in November 2013 

on the Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative’s Web site (http://arri.osmre.gov) hosted by the U.S. 

Department of the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. (Note that authors’ 

affiliations were current when the Advisory was originally written.)

INTRODUCTION

Surface mining is widespread throughout the 

Appalachian coalfields, a region with extensive 

forests that are rich in wildlife. Game species 

for hunting, nongame wildlife species, and other 

organisms are important contributors to sustainable 

and productive ecosystems. Although small breaks 

in the forest canopy are important to wildlife 

diversity, most native Appalachian wildlife species 

require primarily forested habitats (Wickham and 

others 2013). This Forest Reclamation Advisory 

provides guidance on reforestation practices to 

provide high-quality habitat for native forest 

wildlife on Appalachian coal mines.

Mined lands reclaimed under the federal Surface 

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 

(SMCRA) with conventional methods—smoothgrading mine spoil and seeding fast-growing 

ground covers—are used by a few wildlife species 

and can increase species diversity. But expansive 

areas of these lands have little habitat value to 

most native wildlife species in the Appalachian 

region. Conventional reclamation also inhibits 

forest succession (a term used to describe natural 

changes in plant community composition over 

time) and causes most native plant species to have 

poor colonization, growth, and survival. As a 

result, high-quality wildlife habitat rarely develops 

away from the forest–mine edge on surface 

mines reclaimed with conventional methods. 

Even popular game species often observed on 

conventionally reclaimed mined lands such as 

deer, elk, bear, and wild turkey are rarely seen far 

from the forest edge. (Please see the Appendix 

starting on p. A-1 for scientific names of species 

mentioned in this chapter.) However, improved 

wildlife habitat is a postmining goal for many 

landowners and is achievable through application 

of the Forestry Reclamation Approach (FRA) 

to enhance natural succession (Chapter 8, this 

volume) on active mines (Chapter 2, this volume), 

Chapter 11: Reforestation

to Enhance Appalachian Mined Lands

as Habitat for Terrestrial Wildlife

Petra Wood, Jeff Larkin, Jeremy Mizel, 

Carl Zipper, and Patrick Angel
11-2 Reforestation to Enhance Appalachian Mined Lands as Habitat for Terrestrial Wildlife

and through soil mitigation and planting of trees 

and shrubs on older mine sites that were reclaimed 

by using conventional methods years ago (“legacy 

mines”) (Chapter 10, this volume).

APPALACHIAN FOREST 

AND MINED LAND HABITATS

Appalachian hardwood forests are some of the 

most biologically diverse temperate forests in the 

world (Hinkle and others 1993). They provide 

habitat for numerous wildlife species that require 

young forest conditions, as well as those that 

require mature forest.

Many wildlife species (amphibians, reptiles, birds, 

and mammals) that depend on young forests for 

foraging, cover, or breeding (Gilbart 2012) are 

declining in population (Litvaitis 1993). Native 

young forest communities consist of dense herb, 

vine, sapling, and shrub growth that exists for a 

relatively short time (12 years or less). Therefore, 

patches of young forest must be continuously 

created and dispersed across the landscape to 

ensure long-term viability of the many species 

dependent on these habitats. Wildlife agencies in 

every state of the Appalachian coalfields list young 

forest communities as high-priority habitats. 

More than 1 million acres of mined lands have 

been reclaimed in the eastern United States 

(Zipper and others 2011) and additional mined 

lands are being created. Reforestation of mined 

lands has the potential to provide extensive 

areas of young forest habitat interspersed among 

unmined mature forests. Through succession, 

these young forests will become mature forests. A 

regional, landscape-scale effort to reforest mined 

lands has great potential to benefit wildlife species 

dependent on young and mature forest habitats. 

Golden-winged warbler, brown thrasher, and 

eastern whip-poor-will are a few of the nongame 

bird species that breed in young forests and are 

undergoing long-term population declines in the 

Appalachian region (Sauer and others 2014). Like 

many species that are young-forest specialists, 

these birds require habitat with dense patches of 

native shrubs interspersed with trees of varying 

size and herbaceous cover. Patches of young forest 

also provide important foraging habitat and cover 

for several Appalachian game species including 

cottontail, black bear, white-tailed deer, elk, 

ruffed grouse, northern bobwhite, and American 

woodcock (Fig. 11-1). Within most surface 

mines reclaimed under SMCRA by using nonFRA methods, nonnative shrub and grass species 

predominate and areas of dense native woody 

vegetation are typically absent or restricted to 

forest–mine edges. 

In contrast, forest reclamation can create a dense 

undergrowth of native shrubs, saplings, and 

forbs that species such as cottontail require for 

protective cover from predators. These patches 

of dense woody and herbaceous cover provide 

abundant forage for game and nongame species 

in the form of insects, mast, seeds, buds, foliage, 

and fruits from vines and shrubs. Young forest 

habitat adjacent to mature forest also may benefit 

fisher, a forest-dependent predator that has been 

reintroduced to several Appalachian states 

(Fig. 11-2). Many mammal and bird species that 

are preyed upon by fisher and other carnivores 

use areas where young forest next to mature forest 

creates structurally diverse habitat (Litvaitis 1993). 

Figure 11-1.—American woodcock. This species of 

high conservation concern inhabits moist, young forest 

habitats. Photo by A. Newman, Eastern Kentucky 

University, used with permission.
Reforestation to Enhance Appalachian Mined Lands as Habitat for Terrestrial Wildlife 11-3

Ultimately, surface mines that persist as nonforest 

cover lead to forest fragmentation and reduced 

forest cover on the landscape, which negatively 

affect wildlife species that require large, 

continuous blocks of forest (Wood and Williams 

2013, Wood and others 2006). One such species 

is the cerulean warbler (Fig. 11-3), a declining 

forest songbird (Sauer and others 2014) with 

a breeding range that has considerable overlap 

with the Appalachian coalfields (Fig. 11-4). 

Cerulean warblers, and probably other mature 

forest songbirds as well, are less abundant near the 

abrupt edges created by surface mines reclaimed 

to grassland (Wood and others 2006). For some 

species of woodland salamander, grassland 

patches act as barriers to movement between forest 

Figure 11-2.—A fisher. This forest-dependent 

carnivore is colonizing many Appalachian states after 

reintroductions in West Virginia, Tennessee, and 

Pennsylvania. Young forest along mature-forest edges 

provides habitat for many of the fisher’s favorite prey. 

Photo by J. Larkin, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, 

used with permission. 

patches (Rittenhouse and Semlitsch 2006). Thus, 

reforestation of surface mines may benefit matureforest wildlife in the short term by creating more 

transitional forest–mine edges (feathered edges) 

and reducing forest fragmentation, and in the long 

term by compensating for the loss of mature forest 

habitat.

GUIDELINES FOR WILDLIFE HABITAT 

ENHANCEMENT ON MINED LANDS

1. Increase Structural Complexity of the 

Soil Surface; Avoid or Remediate Soil 

Compaction

Structurally complex forest floors are important 

habitat features for many types of wildlife, such 

as small mammals, snakes, and salamanders 

(Fig. 11-5). Forested rock outcrops are unique 

Figure 11-3.—Male cerulean warbler. Photo by 

M. Shumar, Ohio State University, used with permission.

Figure 11-4.—The Appalachian coalfield and the 

breeding range of cerulean warbler (derived from 

Breeding Bird Survey counts, Sauer and others 2011).

Figure 11-5.—A red eft, the terrestrial life stage of 

the eastern newt. Photo by K. Aldinger, West Virginia 

University, used with permission.
11-4 Reforestation to Enhance Appalachian Mined Lands as Habitat for Terrestrial Wildlife

habitats important to many species of Appalachian 

wildlife, particularly the Allegheny woodrat and 

green salamander. However, because rock outcrops 

are usually located along ridgetops or upper 

side slopes, mining often removes these habitat 

features. Conventional reclamation generally 

fails to restore these important, structurally and 

biologically diverse components of eastern forests. 

On sites with active reclamation, avoid excessive 

smoothing and compacting of soil. A roughgraded soil surface with loose-soil conditions, 

exposed rocks, and surface relief provides a more 

structurally diverse habitat than conventional 

smooth grading.

On legacy mines, compacted spoil can be loosened 

by a dozer equipped with a ripper tooth (Chapter 

5, this volume). Ripping compacted spoil not only 

improves water infiltration and rooting conditions 

for trees and shrubs, but it also benefits burrowing 

species such as salamanders, earthworms (which 

are food for American woodcock and other 

wildlife), and small mammals. These animals 

need loose, moist soil to burrow and forage. 

Small mammals and salamanders occur in greater 

abundance where spoil is not compacted (Larkin 

and others 2008, Wood and Williams 2013). 

These animals in turn are a food source for many 

predator species. 

Incorporating rocks on the surface (Figs. 11-6 and 

11-7) can provide additional structure and cover 

for ground-dwelling and burrowing species. After 

young forest and some tree canopy develop, large 

boulder piles (Fig. 11-7) may provide habitat 

for Allegheny woodrat (Chamblin and others 

2004) and many other species that use wooded 

rock outcrops, particularly if they are close to 

nearby forested areas that contain rock outcrops. 

One study found that reintroduced fishers in 

Pennsylvania occasionally rested in ground dens 

within rock outcrops, including an area of large 

boulders along a forest-reclaimed mine edge (Gess 

and others 2013).

Figure 11-6.—A rock exposed by ripping of compacted 

mine soils. Ripping reduces compaction and increases 

structural complexity of the surface by exposing large 

rocks. Such features provide habitat for small mammals, 

amphibians, and reptiles. Photo by P. Wood, U.S. 

Geological Survey.

Figure 11-7.—Boulders on a reclaimed mine site in 

eastern Kentucky. After trees become established, piles 

of boulders can provide habitat needed by wildlife that 

use wooded rock outcrops, such as Allegheny woodrat, 

bobcat, and bear. Photo by P. Wood, U.S. Geological 

Survey.
Reforestation to Enhance Appalachian Mined Lands as Habitat for Terrestrial Wildlife 11-5

2. Apply Native Forest Soils with Organic 

Debris or High-quality Substitutes During 

Reclamation

Salvaging and reapplying topsoil on active mines 

or bringing in topsoil for reclamation on legacy 

mines can accelerate development of high-quality 

young forest habitat (Chapter 3, this volume). 

Native topsoil can contribute a seedbank of plant 

species such as river birch, blackberry, yellowpoplar (tuliptree), grapevine, and many others 

that contractors do not commonly plant during 

reclamation. Occasionally, oaks and hickories 

will sprout from seeds present in topsoil (Hall and 

others 2010). These volunteer species provide 

food sources and increase structural complexity of 

vegetation on reclaimed mines (Fig. 11-8), often 

enabling greater wildlife diversity. Blackberry, for 

example, provides fruit for many wildlife species 

including seed predators, provides preferred nest 

patches for young forest songbirds such as goldenwinged warbler, and serves as cover for cottontail 

and other wildlife species. Salvaging native soils, 

with their organic matter and living creatures, may 

increase abundance of soil invertebrates (Richards 

and others 1993), which are prey for woodland 

salamanders, songbirds, and small mammals. One 

study found American woodcock using reclaimed 

mines, where better soil conditions resulted in 

complex vegetative structure and higher biomass 

of earthworms (Gregg and others 2000). Salvaging 

native soils would help produce these conditions. 

When a limited amount of topsoil is available, 

distribute it across the mine surface, either by 

mixing it with mine spoil intended for surface 

construction (Chapter 3, this volume) or by 

dumping piles across the mine-site surface (Hall 

and others 2010), particularly away from edges on 

large mines. These seedbank patches could yield 

dense shrubby vegetation in areas where forest 

seed sources are distant and plant colonization 

is limited. Soil also is an important inoculation 

source for mycorrhizal fungi, which most woody 

species need to grow and thrive.

Native trees and shrubs also can colonize and 

grow rapidly when favorable mine spoil materials 

are used as a topsoil substitute (Chapter 3, this 

volume). After 1 to 2 years post-planting, youngforest bird species such as indigo bunting and 

common yellowthroat (Fig. 11-9) had colonized 

the interior of a surface mine that was reclaimed 

by using FRA methods and salvaged topsoil 

(Fig. 11-10).

Figure 11-8.—Young forest on a West Virginia surface 

mine with a dense undergrowth of volunteer shrubs. 

Mine operators salvaged and reapplied the topsoil, 

used reduced grading, and planted native hardwoods 

including white, chestnut, black, and northern red oaks. 

Trees are 10 years old in this photo. Photo by J. Mizel, 

National Park Service.

Figure 11-9.—Male common yellowthroat. Photo by 

D. Becker, West Virginia University, used with permission.
11-6 Reforestation to Enhance Appalachian Mined Lands as Habitat for Terrestrial Wildlife

Figure 11-10.—An Ohio surface mine reclaimed by 

using the Forestry Reclamation Approach. Herbaceous 

plants and shrubs rapidly developed 1 to 2 years after 

planting. Photo by J. Mizel, National Park Service.

3. Add Coarse Woody Debris to Further 

Promote Surface Complexity and Provide 

Cover for Wildlife

Incorporating woody residues (for example, 

roots, stumps, logs, and branches) on and into 

mine surfaces accelerates forest development 

by improving water infiltration, decreasing soil 

temperature, increasing the soil water-holding 

capacity, and increasing soil colonization by 

nutrient-cycling micro-organisms (Chapter 3, this 

volume). The addition of coarse woody debris 

(Fig. 11-11) also benefits ground-dwelling wildlife 

by providing surface cover and greater overall 

surface complexity. Decomposition of woody 

residues incorporated into the growth medium 

creates subsurface channels which burrowing 

species can use as retreats (Carrozzino and others 

2011). Through the addition of woody residues, 

moisture-limited species such as salamanders and 

earthworms benefit from increased organic matter 

and water-holding capacity in soils. 

Figure 11-11.—Native vegetation sprouting from root 

wads that were left on a reclaimed mine surface. 

Incorporating woody residues benefits ground-dwelling 

and burrowing species by providing surface cover and 

increasing surface complexity. Photo by OSMRE.

4. Locate Reforestation Efforts Where 

They Maximize Benefits for Wildlife

If an entire mine site cannot be planted to trees 

and shrubs, select areas to reforest that maximize 

benefits for wildlife. Greatest benefits for 

wildlife include reducing forest fragmentation, 

reducing the amount of forest–grassland edge, and 

connecting remnant forest patches. 

Changes in microclimate caused by forest loss can 

penetrate from edges into mature forests (Matlack 

1993). These changes, such as increased wind, 

light, and ambient temperatures, can negatively 

affect ground-foraging species by reducing litter 

depth and densities of litter-dwelling arthropods 

near forest edges (Ortega and Capen 1999). 

Some mature forest-dependent species such as 

the cerulean warbler reach their highest densities 

in large tracts of mature forest and away from 

abrupt edges (Wood and others 2006). Conversely, 

species that depend on young forest, such as 

the golden-winged warbler, establish breeding 

territories in young-forest transition zones 

(Fig. 11-12) but generally within 150 feet of the 

mature forest edge (Patton and others 2010). 

Therefore, reforestation that extends from the 
Reforestation to Enhance Appalachian Mined Lands as Habitat for Terrestrial Wildlife 11-7

forest–mine edge and creates a transitional, 

feathered edge (Figs. 11-12 and 11-13) can reduce 

edge effects for cerulean warblers and other 

mature-forest species while also providing young 

forest habitat for shrubland-dependent species. If 

the development of cerulean warbler habitat is a 

postmining goal, reforestation efforts should also 

target ridgetops and north- and east-facing slopes, 

where cerulean warblers are most abundant in the 

Appalachian Mountains (Wood and others 2006). 

Small mammal and woodland salamander species 

can move only short distances to reach suitable 

habitat (Waldrick 1997), and grassland patches 

are barriers to such movement (Rittenhouse and 

Semlitsch 2006). Therefore, reforesting areas 

that extend from the forest–mine edge, that 

interconnect mature forest patches, or that connect 

Figure 11-12.—A young forest transition zone between 

reclaimed mine land (foreground) and unmined mature 

forest (background). When the resources needed to 

reforest entire legacy mine sites are not available, 

establishing such transition zones can improve habitat. 

Photo by S. Bosworth, West Virginia University, used 

with permission.

Figure 11-13.—Aerial photograph indicating areas on legacy mine lands where reforestation efforts could be focused. 

When the resources needed to reforest entire legacy mine sites are not available, focus reforestation efforts on 

areas adjacent to mature forest to create young-forest transitions (see Figure 11-12) and on areas that interconnect 

mature forest or that connect isolated forest patches to nearby mature forest. This will increase forest patch size 

and decrease edge effects, improving habitat for mature-forest wildlife. It also creates transitions between forest and 

reclaimed mine sites which are beneficial for young-forest species. Photo by Google® Earth.

plant entire width

of reclaimed area

to connect

mature forest

plant along mature

forest edge (about 

150 feet out from 

edge) to create 

feathered edges

plant to connect 

isolated forest

patches to nearby

mature forest
11-8 Reforestation to Enhance Appalachian Mined Lands as Habitat for Terrestrial Wildlife

isolated forest patches to intact forest (Fig. 11-13) 

will expand habitat for woodland salamanders and 

small mammals. Reforestation in these locations 

also benefits many forest wildlife species by 

increasing forest patch size. Further, planting 

native trees and shrubs within extensive areas of 

reclaimed grasslands can benefit elk as this species 

rarely uses open habitats farther than 1,000 feet 

from a forest edge (Skovlin and others 2002). 

5. Plant a Variety of Native Trees and 

Shrubs, Particularly Heavy-seeded (Hard 

Mast-producing) Tree Species 

Many of the plant species that become established 

readily as volunteers on mined lands have small 

seeds that are spread relatively easily by wind 

and birds. Heavy-seeded species such as oaks 

and hickories are less easily dispersed and rarely 

colonize the interior of large mining complexes 

unless planted. Reestablishing heavy-seeded native 

tree species provides an important food source 

for wildlife, a seed source to maintain habitat 

diversity, and habitat for the many wildlife 

species that depend on these tree species. 

Some forest songbirds prefer to forage and nest 

in hickory and white oak species, but they avoid 

red oak species and red maples (Wood and others 

2013). Oaks are hosts for large populations 

of many leaf insect species in their canopies 

(Summerville and Crist 2008), and those insects 

are a food source for forest songbirds. Oakhickory forests have deeper leaf litter because 

their leaves decompose slowly, and thus have 

greater abundance of litter-foraging species, such 

as ovenbird, than do forests dominated by red 

maple and yellow-poplar (Mizel 2011). The mast 

(hard-shelled seeds) from oaks and hickories is 

an important part of the diet for gamebirds, deer, 

black bear, and many other wildlife species. 

Planting tree species that develop exfoliating 

bark such as white oak, hickory, and black locust 

provides future roost trees for bats. Several bat 

species, including the endangered Indiana bat, 

are dependent on mature trees of these and other 

species for roosting and maternity sites. Where 

the Indiana bat is found pre-mining, federal 

regulations require forestry postmining land use.

American chestnut, a consistent and prolific 

producer of hard mast, once provided food 

for numerous bird and mammal species. The 

American Chestnut Foundation has developed 

potentially blight-resistant chestnut varieties, 

and surface mines are now being used for 

reintroduction of American chestnut to eastern 

forests. These chestnut varieties have shown 

excellent survival on mined lands reclaimed by 

using the FRA (Chapter 12, this volume) and 

on previously compacted mined lands that were 

prepared by using deep soil ripping (McCarthy and 

others 2010). Establishing mined land forests with 

blight-resistant American chestnut would have 

substantial value for Appalachian wildlife.

Native mast-producing shrubs are important 

wildlife food sources. Pin cherry and shrubs such 

as blackberry and raspberry, for example, have 

high numbers of caterpillars and were selected as 

foraging sites by golden-winged warblers (Bellush 

2012). American hazelnut, black chokeberry, 

common chokecherry, common elderberry, 

mapleleaf viburnum, gray dogwood, serviceberry, 

blackhaw, and hawthorns are just some of the 

native shrub species that can be included in the 

tree planting mix. Plant them singly among tree 

seedlings or in groups to help create patchy habitat 

structure. When planting shrubs in patches, we 

suggest patches no larger than 24 feet × 24 feet. 

To select which specific tree and shrub species 

to plant, follow the guidelines in Chapter 7 of 

this volume and plant native species that provide 

hard mast or soft mast (fleshy, perishable fruit) 

as recommended by Apsley and Gehrt (2006). 

Planting a variety of native trees and shrubs in 

their native range will provide habitat for a diverse 

wildlife community. Control competing nonnative 

vegetation to increase survival of planted trees. In 

high elevation areas within the native range of red 

spruce, planting red spruce will provide a critical 

component of habitat for northern flying squirrel. 
Reforestation to Enhance Appalachian Mined Lands as Habitat for Terrestrial Wildlife 11-9

SUMMARY

When operators of active mines follow FRA 

reclamation guidelines (Chapter 2, this volume), 

they create lands where forest development can 

occur more rapidly. On legacy mines, ripping 

when needed to loosen compacted soil, planting 

native trees and shrubs, and controlling competing 

vegetation as needed for planted trees’ survival 

will facilitate ecological succession (Burger and 

others 2013). Thus, forest reclamation can produce 

habitat that has the structural and compositional 

features needed by young-forest wildlife in 

the short term. Over longer time periods, the 

mature forest that results from these efforts will 

benefit mature-forest wildlife by reducing forest 

fragmentation and helping to compensate for 

habitat loss caused by mining. Surface mine 

reforestation is an opportunity for landowners 

and mine operators to conduct reclamation that 

provides direct and far-reaching benefits by aiding 

conservation of Appalachian wildlife.

Summary of Reforestation Guidelines 

on Mined Lands to Enhance Habitat for 

Appalachian Wildlife

Burrowing and ground-dwelling species (for 

example, salamanders, earthworms, small 

mammals)

• Create loose, moist soil for burrowing by enddumping or ripping

• Include single boulders or clusters of boulders 

on the surface for protective cover

• Incorporate woody residues for surface 

complexity, aboveground cover, and subsurface 

retreats

• Apply native soils with organic matter to 

increase invertebrate prey

• Treat sites and plant native trees and shrubs in 

areas that connect to mature forest to promote 

colonization by wildlife species.

Young-forest species (for example, cottontail, 

blue-winged warbler, golden-winged warbler, 

ruffed grouse)

• Use native soils, which provide seedbanks to 

quickly increase structural and compositional 

diversity of vegetation

• Use tree-compatible groundcover species that 

will enable colonization by native plants

• Plant a variety of native shrubs and trees

• On legacy mines where reforestation resources 

are limited, treat and plant areas that connect to 

mature forest for increased habitat complexity 

across the landscape. 

Mature-forest species (for example, cerulean 

warbler, fisher, woodland salamanders)

• On legacy mines, treat and plant areas that 

connect to mature forest (especially isolated 

patches in mine interiors) to reduce edge effects 

and forest fragmentation and to increase forest 

patch size

• On active mines, reforest the complete mining 

disturbance, when possible

• Plant heavy-seeded (hard mast-producing) tree 

species (for example, American chestnut, oaks, 

and hickories) throughout the reclaimed area to 

provide food resources for many species (for 

example, bear, deer), preferred nest sites for 

forest songbirds, and roost trees for bats

• Reforest mines near areas with high density of 

cerulean warbler.
11-10 Reforestation to Enhance Appalachian Mined Lands as Habitat for Terrestrial Wildlife

LITERATURE CITED

Apsley, D.; Gehrt, S. 2006. Enhancing food 

(mast) production for woodland wildlife in 

Ohio. Ohio State University Extension Fact 

Sheet F-60-06. Columbus, OH: Ohio State 

University. http://woodlandstewards.osu.edu/

sites/woodlands/files/imce/0060.pdf (accessed 

October 17, 2016).

Bellush, E.C. 2012. Foraging ecology of 

the golden-winged warbler (Vermivora 

chrysoptera): Does plant species composition 

matter? Indiana, PA: Indiana University of 

Pennsylvania. 82 p. M.S. thesis. 

Carrozzino, A.L.; Stauffer, D.F.; Haas, C.A.; 

Zipper, C.E. 2011. Enhancing wildlife habitat 

on reclaimed mine lands. Virginia Cooperative 

Extension Publ. 460-145. Blacksburg, VA: 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 

University. https://pubs.ext.vt.edu/460/460-

145/460-145_pdf.pdf (accessed November 4, 

2016).

Chamblin, H.D.; Wood, P.B.; Edwards, J.W. 2004. 

Allegheny woodrat (Neotoma magister) use of 

rock drainage channels on reclaimed mines 

in southern West Virginia. American Midland 

Naturalist. 151(April 2004): 346-354. 

https://doi.org/10.1674/0003-

0031(2004)151[0346:AWNMUO]2.0.CO;2.

Gess, S.W.; Ellington, E.H.; Dzialak, M.R.; 

Duchampt, J.E.; Lovallo, M.; Larkin, J.L. 

2013. Rest site selection by fishers (Martes 

pennanti) in the eastern deciduous forest.

Wildlife Society Bulletin. 37(4): 805-814. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.300.

Gilbart, M. 2012. Under cover: wildlife of 

shrublands and young forest. Cabot, VT: 

Wildlife Management Institute. 87 p. 

http://youngforest.org/sites/default/files/Under_

Cover-010412_FINAL.pdf (accessed 

October 1, 2016).

Gregg, I.D.; Wood, P.B.; Samuel, D.E. 2000. 

American woodcock use of reclaimed surface 

mines in West Virginia. In: McAuley, D.G.; 

Bruggink, J.B.; Sepik, G.F., eds. Proceedings, 

9th American woodcock symposium; 1997 

January 26-28; Baton Rouge, LA. Information 

and Technology Report USGS/BRD/ITR2000-0009. Laurel, MD: U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Geological Survey, Biological 

Resources Division: 9-22. 

Hall, S.L.; Barton, C.D.; Baskin, C.C. 2010. 

Topsoil seed bank of an oak-hickory forest 

in eastern Kentucky as a restoration tool on 

surface mines. Restoration Ecology. 18(6): 

834-842. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1526-

100x.2008.00509.x.

Hinkle, C.R.; McComb, W.C.; Safley, J.M., Jr.; 

Schmalzer, P.A. 1993. Mixed mesophytic 

forests. In: Martin, W.H.; Boyce, S.C.; 

Echternacht, A.C., eds. Biodiversity of the 

southeastern United States upland terrestrial 

communities. New York: John Wiley and Sons: 

203-253.

Larkin, J.L.; Maehr, D.S.; Krupa, J.J.; Cox, J.J.; 

Alexy, K.; Unger, D.E.; Barton, C. 2008. Small 

mammal response to vegetation and spoil 

conditions on a reclaimed surface mine in 

eastern Kentucky. Southeastern Naturalist. 

7(3): 401-412. 

https://doi.org/10.1656/1528-7092-7.3.401.

Litvaitis, J.A. 1993. Response of early 

successional vertebrates to historic changes 

in land use. Conservation Biology. 7(4): 

866-873. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-

1739.1993.740866.x.

Matlack, G.R. 1993. Microenvironment 

variation within and among forest edge 

sites in the eastern United States. Biological 

Conservation. 66(3): 185-194. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-3207(93)90004-K.
Reforestation to Enhance Appalachian Mined Lands as Habitat for Terrestrial Wildlife 11-11

McCarthy, B.C.; Gilland, K.E.; Bauman, J.M.; 

Keiffer, C.H. 2010. Factors affecting 

performance of artificially regenerated 

American chestnut on reclaimed mine sites. 

In: Barnhisel, R.I., ed. Proceedings, national 

meeting, American Society of Mining and 

Reclamation; 2010 June 5-11; Pittsburgh, PA. 

Lexington, KY: American Society of Mining 

and Reclamation: 582-597. 

Mizel, J.D. 2011. Avian assemblages and redeyed vireo nest survival within mineland 

forest. Morgantown, WV: West Virginia 

University. 115 p. M.S. thesis. 

Ortega, Y.K.; Capen, D.E. 1999. Effects of forest 

roads on habitat quality for ovenbirds in a 

forested landscape. The Auk. 116(4): 937-946. 

https://doi.org/10.2307/4089673.

Patton, L.L.; Maehr, D.S.; Duchamp, J.E.; Fei, 

S.; Gassett, J.W.; Larkin, J.L. 2010. Do the 

golden-winged warbler and blue-winged 

warbler exhibit species-specific differences 

in their breeding habitat use? Avian 

Conservation and Ecology. 5(2): 2. 

https://doi.org/10.5751/ace-00392-050202.

Richards, I.G.; Palmer, J.P.; Barratt, P.A. 1993. 

The reclamation of former coal mines and 

steelworks. Studies in Environmental Sciences 

56. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier. 

717 p. 

Rittenhouse, T.A.G.; Semlitsch, R.D. 2006. 

Grasslands as movement barriers for a 

forest-associated salamander: migration 

behavior of adult and juvenile salamanders 

at a distinct habitat edge. Biological 

Conservation. 131(1): 14-22. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2006.01.024.

Sauer, J.R.; Hines, J.E.; Fallon, J.E.; Pardieck, 

K.L.; Ziolkowski, D.J., Jr.; Link, W.A. 

2014. The North American breeding bird 

survey, results and analysis 1966-2013. Ver. 

01.30.2015. Laurel, MD: USGS Patuxent 

Wildlife Research Center. 

www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/ 

(accessed October 17, 2016).

Skousen, J.; Cook, T.; Wilson-Kokes, L.; PenaYewtukhiw, E. 2013. Survival and growth 

of chestnut backcross seeds and seedling 

on surface mines. Journal of Environmental 

Quality. 42(1): 690-695. 

https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2012.0368.

Skovlin, J.M.; Zager, P.; Johnson, B.K. 2002. Elk 

habitat selection and evaluation. In: Toweill, 

D.E.; Thomas, J.W., eds. North American elk: 

ecology and management. Washington, DC: 

Smithsonian Institute Press: 531-555.

Summerville, K.S.; Crist, T.O. 2008. Structure 

and conservation of lepidopteran 

communities in managed forests of 

northeastern North America: a review.

The Canadian Entomologist. 140(04): 475-494. 

https://doi.org/10.4039/n07-ls06.

Waldrick, R. 1997. Effects of forestry practices 

on amphibian populations in eastern North 

America. In: Green, M., ed. Amphibians in 

decline: Canadian studies of a global problem. 

St. Louis, MO: Society for the Study of 

Amphibians and Reptiles: 191-205.

Wickham, J.D.; Wood, P.B.; Nicholson, M.C.; 

Jenkins, W.; Druckenbrod, D.; Suter, G.W.; 

Strager, M.P.; Mazzarella, C.; Galloway, W.; 

Amos, J. 2013. The overlooked terrestrial 

impacts of mountaintop mining. BioScience. 

63(5): 335-348. 

https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.63.5.7.
11-12 Reforestation to Enhance Appalachian Mined Lands as Habitat for Terrestrial Wildlife

Wood, P.B.; Bosworth, S.B.; Dettmers, R. 

2006. Cerulean warbler abundance and 

occurrence relative to large-scale edge 

and habitat characteristics. The Condor. 

(1)108: 154-165. https://doi.org/10.1650/0010-

5422(2006)108[0154:CWAAOR]2.0.CO;2.

Wood, P.B.; Sheehan, J.; Keyser, P.; Buehler, 

D.; Larkin, J.; Rodewald, A.; Stoleson, S.; 

Wigley, T.B.; Mizel, J.; Boves, T.; George, 

G.; Bakermans, M.; Beachy, T.; Evans, A.; 

McDermott, M.; Newell, F.; Perkins, K.; 

White, M. 2013. Management guidelines for 

enhancing cerulean warbler breeding habitat 

in Appalachian hardwood forests. The Plains, 

VA: American Bird Conservancy. 28 p.

Wood, P.B.; Williams, J.M. 2013. Terrestrial 

salamander abundance on reclaimed 

mountaintop removal mines. Wildlife 

Society Bulletin. 37(4): 815-823. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/wsb.319.

Zipper, C.E.; Burger, J.A.; Skousen, J.B.; Angel, 

P.N.; Barton, C.D.; Davis, V.; Franklin, J.A. 

2011. Restoring forests and associated 

ecosystem services on Appalachian coal 

surface mines. Environmental Management. 

47(5): 751-765. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-011-9670-z.
Authors’ Affiliations

MICHAEL FRENCH: Green Forests Work, Lexington, KY

CHRIS BARTON: University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY

BRIAN McCARTHY: Ohio University, Athens, OH

CAROLYN KEIFFER: Miami University, Middletown, OH

JEFF SKOUSEN: West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV

CARL ZIPPER: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA

PATRICK ANGEL: U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, 

London, KY

Publication History

This chapter is based on Forest Reclamation Advisory No. 12, which originally appeared in June 2015 on the 

Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative’s Web site (http://arri.osmre.gov) hosted by the U.S. Department of 

the Interior’s Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. (Note that authors’ affiliations were current 

when the Advisory was originally written.)

INTRODUCTION

American chestnut was formerly a major 

component of forests throughout the Appalachian 

coalfields and beyond. Chestnut’s strong, 

lightweight wood was naturally rot-resistant, 

making it a preferred timber tree for many 

purposes. Unlike many nut-producing trees that 

flower early in the year, American chestnuts flower 

in June and July, so they were less susceptible 

to a late freeze or frost that could damage the 

flowers. Due in part to its late flowering, American 

chestnuts produced a reliable and abundant nut 

crop that was an important source of nutrition for 

wildlife, livestock, and humans. 

However, American chestnut has suffered severe 

decline throughout the United States; today, few 

living and mature American chestnut trees remain. 

This Forest Reclamation Advisory discusses 

efforts to develop new American chestnut 

varieties, and describes reclamation and planting 

techniques for chestnut on mined lands.

American Chestnut’s Demise 

and Restoration

Beginning in the early 1900s, an introduced 

fungus known as the chestnut blight devastated 

chestnut populations. (Please see the Appendix 

starting on p. A-1 for scientific names of species 

mentioned in this chapter.) American chestnut was 

virtually eliminated as a canopy tree throughout its 

native range by the 1950s. 

Early attempts at breeding disease-resistant 

trees that could restore chestnuts to the forest 

failed to produce a tree with sufficient disease 

resistance and the ability to compete against other 

hardwoods. In 1983, The American Chestnut 

Chapter 12: Reestablishing

American Chestnut on Mined Lands

in the Appalachian Coalfields

Michael French, Chris Barton, Brian McCarthy, 

Carolyn Keiffer, Jeff Skousen, Carl Zipper, and Patrick Angel
12-2 Reestablishing American Chestnut on Mined Lands in the Appalachian Coalfields

Foundation (TACF) was founded with the mission 

to restore American chestnut to eastern forests 

to benefit the environment, wildlife, and society. 

The foundation focused on a breeding strategy 

to create a population of chestnuts that would 

Figure 12-1.—The American Chestnut Foundation’s breeding strategy to develop a population of chestnuts that will 

display the growth and form characteristics of American chestnut while retaining the blight resistance of Chinese 

chestnuts. (Courtesy of The American Chestnut Foundation.)

incorporate the disease resistance of Chinese 

chestnut and retain the form and functional 

characteristics of American chestnut (Fig. 12-1). 

This strategy crosses Chinese chestnuts and 

American chestnuts, then takes those offspring 
Reestablishing American Chestnut on Mined Lands in the Appalachian Coalfields 12-3

through a series of backcrosses and intercrosses to 

create trees with American traits and high levels of 

disease resistance. 

At each step of the process, trees are intentionally 

infected with the disease so that only trees with 

high levels of disease resistance and American 

characteristics are used for further breeding. In 

2005, TACF began producing trees that are about 

15/16 American chestnut, 1/16 Chinese chestnut 

in character and expected to have a high level 

of disease resistance (specifically, the B3 F3

generation). TACF is calling this generation 

“Restoration Chestnuts 1.0,” which implies that 

breeding efforts are expected to continue to 

improve both disease resistance and American 

characteristics into the future. The foundation is 

now testing Restoration Chestnuts 1.0 for their 

disease resistance and other characteristics.

AMERICAN CHESTNUT’S ECOLOGY, 

DISTRIBUTION, AND ABUNDANCE

Historical literature and examination of sprouts 

and remnants of older trees indicate that American 

chestnut preferred rich, noncalcareous, welldrained, acidic to slightly acidic soils (pH about 

4 to 6); it was a dominant component of slopes 

and ridgetops throughout the Appalachian region 

but grew poorly in wet soils (Abrams and McCay 

1996, Abrams and Ruffner 1995, Braun 1950, 

Burke 2011, Frothingham 1912, Paillet 2002, 

Russell 1987, Wang and others 2013). Chestnut’s 

abundance on the landscape varied with many 

factors including land use history, but it reportedly 

accounted for about 25 percent of the virgin 

timber in the southern Appalachian Mountains 

and more than 50 percent of the timber in some 

second-growth forests (Braun 1950, Buttrick 1915, 

Frothingham 1912). 

By all accounts, American chestnut’s sheer 

dominance in many stands made it eastern North 

America’s most important nut producer and one 

of the most important timber producers. The loss 

of American chestnut from our forests is often 

described as the greatest ecological disaster of the 

20th century.

THE FORESTRY RECLAMATION 

APPROACH FOR CHESTNUT 

RESTORATION

During the early 2000s in anticipation of diseaseresistant chestnuts, cooperators and researchers 

with the Appalachian Regional Reforestation 

Initiative (ARRI) began testing the suitability 

of mined lands reclaimed with the Forestry 

Reclamation Approach (FRA) for chestnut 

introduction. Cooperators and researchers have 

planted and monitored pure American chestnuts 

and backcross chestnuts on FRA-reclaimed lands 

throughout the Appalachians. Once chestnut 

varieties with disease resistance and American 

characteristics become widely available, mine 

operators will be able to plant those seedlings 

along with other Appalachian hardwoods and 

reclamation species on mine sites.

The TACF strategy for chestnut restoration 

includes early establishment of small populations 

throughout the chestnut’s former range. These 

initial groups of trees (“founder populations”) are 

intended to serve as seed sources and to aid natural 

dissemination to other areas.

Establishing founder populations of chestnuts 

on mined lands has been of interest to TACF 

researchers for many reasons. The first is the 

overlap of American chestnut’s native range 

and the Appalachian coalfields (Fig. 12-2). 

Furthermore, many mining disturbances occur 

on upper slopes and ridgetops where chestnuts 

were formerly a dominant component of the 

forest, potentially making former surface mines 

ideal locations for chestnut introduction. In 

addition, research has demonstrated that chestnut 

can be successful when planted on mines that 

have been reclaimed by using the FRA. Mining 

disturbances reclaimed with the FRA may also 

limit the establishment of root-rot pathogens, 

such as the water mold Phytophthora, which have 

hindered TACF’s breeding efforts in the southern 

Appalachians (James 2011). Phytophthora is a 

water mold that favors wet soils or those with a 

high water-holding capacity; the well-drained soils 
12-4 Reestablishing American Chestnut on Mined Lands in the Appalachian Coalfields

created by the FRA may limit its establishment. 

Last, surface mines reclaimed with the FRA 

are essentially “blank slates,” where conditions 

benefiting chestnut establishment can be created. 

Vegetative competition for nutrients, sunlight, 

and water can be reduced through the proper 

implementation of Step 3 of the FRA (Chapter 6, 

this volume). In contrast, chestnuts planted in 

existing forests and old fields face competition 

from established vegetation. 

PRIOR RESEARCH AND WORK

Studies of the growth and survival of early 

backcross chestnut (B1 F3, B2 F3, and B3 F2 ) on 

sites that implemented FRA techniques as a part of 

active mining operations have offered encouraging 

results. Two studies in West Virginia found 

survival rates of 40 to 70 percent for backcross 

Figure 12-2.—The native range of American chestnut (Little 1977) overlaid on the Appalachian coalfields. 

(Map prepared by P. Donovan, Virginia Tech.)

chestnuts planted as seed (“direct-seeded”) after 

four growing seasons; the authors noted that the 

survival for the total chestnut stock fell within 

the survival range of other hardwoods in similar 

planting trials (Skousen and others 2013). A 

study in eastern Kentucky found survival rates 

from 41 to 60 percent for sheltered, direct-seeded 

backcross chestnuts after five growing seasons 

(Barton and others 2013). Similar trials on FRA 

sites in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee 

exhibited similar survival rates (more than 

40-percent average survival for backcrosses after 

five growing seasons) (Bizzari 2013). A study 

comparing groundcover effects on backcross 

chestnut survival on an FRA site in southwestern 

Virginia showed 48- to 73-percent survival after 

two growing seasons and showed that bare-root 

seedlings initially performed better than chestnuts 

State boundary

Appalachian coalfield

American chestnut 

historical range
Reestablishing American Chestnut on Mined Lands in the Appalachian Coalfields 12-5

that were direct-seeded (Fields-Johnson and others 

2012). Bare-root seedlings also performed better 

than chestnut seeds in an Ohio study (McCarthy 

and others 2010). Several planting methods have 

been shown to give adequate initial survival, 

including potted seedlings, direct seeding, and 

bare-root plantings; all of these methods are 

suitable for introducing chestnuts to mined 

lands (Fields-Johnson and others 2012, French 

and others 2007, Skousen and others 2013). 

A Tennessee study found dense ground cover 

of annual ryegrass inhibited chestnut growth 

(Klobucar 2010).

Legacy surface mines (those reclaimed by using 

conventional reclamation methods under the 

federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation 

Act of 1977 [SMCRA] and not reforested with 

native trees) and abandoned mine lands are also 

potential launching points for blight-resistant 

chestnut introduction, although less work has 

been done to identify establishment methods 

that are most suitable for such sites. Restoration 

Chestnut 1.0 (B3 F3 ) plantings on abandoned mine 

sites in 2012 and 2013 used a limited quantity of 

seed and seedlings and early success varied from 

32- to 100-percent survival after one season.1

Bauman and others (2013a) found that a crossripped legacy site in Ohio had 73-percent survival 

of bare-root chestnuts after six growing seasons 

and that the chestnuts began producing nuts 

in the fourth growing season. The authors and 

collaborators from ARRI have observed similar 

chestnut seed production by the fourth or fifth 

growing season (Fig. 12-3) on active FRA sites 

in Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia. 

Mitigation of compaction on a legacy mine in 

Ohio enabled greater colonization of chestnut 

root-tips by beneficial mycorrhizal fungi, which 

probably led to higher survival and growth rates 

when compared to the untreated controls (Bauman 

and others 2013b). 

1 Unpublished data on file with TACF, Asheville, NC.

Figure 12-3.—A 5-year-old backcross chestnut on a 

reclaimed mine in West Virginia. Many of the trees on 

this site were producing male and female flowers. Photo 

by M. French, The American Chestnut Foundation, used 

with permission.

TACF is currently creating mixed hardwood/

American chestnut forests on mined lands that 

implement the FRA as a part of a Conservation 

Innovation Grant (CIG) awarded to TACF by the 

U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service 

in 2011. Each of the 12 CIG plantings is about 

30 acres in size and has a mixed hardwood 

component with Restoration Chestnuts 1.0 planted 

randomly throughout. The Restoration Chestnuts 

1.0 are planted at 20 per acre as 1-year old (1-0) 

bare-root seedlings in a mix with other 1-0 bareroot hardwoods for a total of 680 trees per acre. 

This will demonstrate how Restoration Chestnuts 

1.0 compete against other commonly used native 
12-6 Reestablishing American Chestnut on Mined Lands in the Appalachian Coalfields

hardwoods in a mixed hardwood reforestation 

planting. A direct-seeded, 1-acre progeny test to 

examine varying degrees of blight resistance in 

the Restoration Chestnut 1.0 population is also 

a component of each of these plantings. Several 

of these plantings have had greater than 80-

percent germination and survival for direct-seeded 

chestnuts and greater than 90-percent survival 

for bare-root planted chestnuts after one growing 

season.2 

BIOTIC AND ABIOTIC 

CONSIDERATIONS FOR 

ESTABLISHING CHESTNUTS 

ON MINED LANDS

Many active mine sites that implement the five 

steps of the FRA (Chapter 2, this volume) meet the 

criteria of American chestnut’s site requirements 

in historical accounts. Although every step of 

the FRA is important, pay particular attention to 

avoiding compaction on areas to be reforested 

with chestnuts. Compacted soils are often poorly 

drained, and chestnuts are known to perform 

poorly in wet soils (Rhoades and others 2003). 

Phytophthora root rot on American chestnut 

seedlings was found to be greater in soils with 

higher moisture content (Rhoades and others 

2003). 

Additionally, soil pH varies greatly on mined 

lands and should be tested before planting to 

ensure that it is near chestnut’s preferred range 

(pH of about 4 to 6). These soil pH levels can 

usually be achieved through use of salvaged soil, 

weathered overburden, or a combination for soil 

reconstruction, following FRA recommendations 

(Chapter 3, this volume). New mine soils 

constructed of unweathered overburden usually 

will not be suitable for American chestnut 

plantings due to high soil pH, high salinity, or 

both.

2 Unpublished data on file with TACF, Asheville, NC.

Take into account microsite factors when planting 

as well. Gilland and McCarthy (2012) found 

that chestnut seedlings planted near the edge of 

existing forest (within about 16 feet) showed 

significantly lower growth and survival than 

seedlings planted away from the forest edge 

(75 to 150 feet). They also found that chestnuts 

fared better when some ground cover was present, 

and that seedlings survived better when planted 

on the sides of end-dumped FRA piles than when 

planted on the tops of the piles. 

When planting bare-root chestnuts, no special 

handling is necessary. ARRI recommendations 

for preparing, handling, storing, and planting 

hardwoods are sufficient for chestnuts (Chapter 9, 

this volume). Chestnuts are known to be fastgrowing and 1-0 seedlings are generally of 

adequate size to be vigorous. However, take care 

to obtain seedlings from nurseries that do not have 

Phytophthora, if such assurance can be obtained. 

When direct-seeding chestnuts, use 18- to 24-

inch tree shelters to prevent unacceptable losses 

from rodent predation and to avoid the problems 

associated with the use of tall tree shelters 

(Fig. 12-4) (McCarthy and others 2010, Sena 

and others 2014, Skousen and others 2013). 

Deer, rodents, and other herbivores are known 

to consume chestnut foliage, bark, and seeds. In 

areas with dense deer or elk populations, it may 

be necessary to construct fencing or wire cages 

around seedlings to prevent browsing and seedling 

losses. In Tennessee, fertilizer application at the 

time of planting was found to increase growth 

rates in the first 2 years (de Lima and others 2011, 

Miller and others 2011).

For establishing chestnut plantings on legacy 

mines, refer to recommendations in Chapter 10 of 

this volume. Again, soil pH should be tested before 

planting; apply soil amendments if necessary. 

Control competition from existing vegetation. 
Reestablishing American Chestnut on Mined Lands in the Appalachian Coalfields 12-7

Figure 12-4.—A Restoration Chestnut 1.0 planted as 

seed emerging from a 24-inch-tall tree shelter after 

3 months on an active mine in Ohio. Photo by M. 

French, The American Chestnut Foundation, used with 

permission.

SUMMARY AND FUTURE WORK

Many field planting trials have shown that 

Appalachian mined lands reclaimed with the FRA 

provide an opportunity for introducing blightresistant chestnuts into eastern U.S. forests. The 

level of disease resistance in TACF’s population of 

backcross chestnuts will not be known for several 

years, so continued monitoring will be necessary. 

However, TACF will continue increasing blight 

resistance in the chestnut seedlings that it is 

distributing for planting. Research has found that 

mine reclamation sites can be planted to establish 

founder populations of blight-resistant chestnuts 

that could then spread by natural processes into 

surrounding forests (Jacobs 2007). There is still 

much to be learned about establishing chestnuts as 

a part of a mixed hardwood forest on mined lands; 

research is ongoing. 

The lessons learned from these trials may also play 

a role in reestablishing other native tree species 

that are being threatened by nonnative pests and 

diseases. For example, mined lands are currently 

being tested to reintroduce American elms that are 

resistant to Dutch elm disease. 

Assisting ARRI and other organizations such as 

Green Forests Work in creating productive and 

biodiverse forests on active mining operations, 

legacy mines, and abandoned mine lands is a high 

priority for TACF.

As more Restoration Chestnuts 1.0 are produced, 

TACF intends to contribute more of these 

chestnuts for reclamation projects. However, 

demand for blight-resistant chestnuts will 

outpace supply for many years to come. Full 

implementation of the FRA will be important to 

TACF decisions concerning allocation of blightresistant chestnut stock for mine reclamation 

plantings. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This Advisory was prepared with cooperation 

and assistance provided by Green Forests Work 

(http://greenforestswork.com/) and The American 

Chestnut Foundation (http://www.acf.org/).

Thanks to Patricia Donovan, Virginia Tech, for 

preparing the map in Figure 12-2.

Photo of chestnut tree on p. 12-1 is courtesy 

of Michael French, The American Chestnut 

Foundation.

LITERATURE CITED

Abrams, M.D.; McCay, D.M. 1996. Vegetationsite relationships of witness trees (1780-1856) 

in the presettlement forests of eastern West 

Virginia. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 

26(2): 217-224. 

https://doi.org/10.1139/x26-025.
12-8 Reestablishing American Chestnut on Mined Lands in the Appalachian Coalfields

Abrams, M.D.; Ruffner, C.M. 1995. 

Physiographic analysis of witness tree 

distribution (1765-1789) and present forest 

cover through north central Pennsylvania. 

Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 25(4): 

659-668. https://doi.org/10.1139/x95-073.

Barton, C.D.; Ward, K.; Angel, H. 2013. 

Continued monitoring of American chestnut 

restoration sites on surface mined land in 

Kentucky – Final report. http://www.acf.org/

pdfs/ExternalGrants/reports%202010/Barton_

UK2010-13%20Final%20Report%20TACF.pdf 

(accessed September 12, 2016).

Bauman, J.M.; Cochran, C.; McCarthy, B.C.; 

Keiffer, C.H. 2013a. American chestnut’s role 

in the ecological restoration of coal-mined 

landscapes. The Journal of The American 

Chestnut Foundation. 27 (5): 15-18. Available 

at http://www.acf.org/pdfs/resources/journal/

Volume%20XXVII%20No.%205%20SeptOct%202013%20.pdf (accessed October 21, 

2016).

Bauman, J.M.; Keiffer, C.H.; Hiremath, S.; 

McCarthy, B.C. 2013b. Soil preparation 

methods promoting ectomycorrhizal 

colonization and American chestnut 

Castanea dentata establishment in coal mine 

restoration. Journal of Applied Ecology. 50(3): 

721-729. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12070.

Bizzari, L.E. 2013. An experimental assessment 

of blight-resistant American chestnut success 

on reclaimed mine lands across Central 

Appalachia. Athens, OH: Ohio University. 

66 p. M.S. thesis. 

Braun, E.L. 1950. Deciduous forests of eastern 

North America. New York: Hafner. 596 p.

Burke, K.L. 2011. The effects of logging and 

disease on American chestnut. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 261(6): 1027-1033. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2010.12.023.

Buttrick, P.L. 1915. Commercial uses of 

chestnut. American Forestry. 21: 960-968.

de Lima, V.; Franklin, J.A.; Buckley, D.S. 2011. 

Tree response to substrate and grading 

treatments on quarry overburden. In: 

Barnhisel, R.I., ed. Proceedings, national 

meeting, American Society of Mining and 

Reclamation; 2011 June 11-16; Bismarck, ND. 

Lexington, KY: American Society of Mining 

and Reclamation: 166-183. 

Fields-Johnson, C.W.; Burger, J.A.; Evans, 

D.M.; Zipper, C.E. 2012. American chestnut 

establishment techniques on reclaimed 

Appalachian surface mined lands. Ecological 

Restoration. 30(2): 99-101. 

https://doi.org/10.3368/er.30.2.99.

French, M.E.; Barton, C.; Graves, D.; Angel, P.N.; 

Hebard, F.V. 2007. Evaluation of mine spoil 

suitability for the introduction of American 

chestnut hybrids in the Cumberland Plateau.

In: Barnhisel, R.I., ed. Proceedings, national 

meeting, American Society of Mining and 

Reclamation; 2007 June 2-7; Gillette, WY. 

Lexington, KY: American Society of Mining 

and Reclamation: 249-258. 

https://doi.org/10.21000/JASMR07010249.

Frothingham, E.H. 1912. Second growth 

hardwoods in Connecticut. Forest Service 

Bull. No. 96. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 

70 p.

Gilland, K.E.; McCarthy, B.C. 2012. 

Reintroduction of American chestnut 

(Castanea dentata) on reclaimed mine 

sites in Ohio: microsite factors controlling 

establishment success. Northern Journal of 

Applied Forestry. 29(4): 197-205. 

https://doi.org/10.5849/njaf.11-041.
Reestablishing American Chestnut on Mined Lands in the Appalachian Coalfields 12-9

James, J. 2011. Phytophthora: the stealthy 

killer. Part 2. The challenge to develop a 

Phytophthora-resistant chestnut. The Journal 

of The American Chestnut Foundation. 

25(4): 4-8.

Jacobs, D.F. 2007. Toward development of 

silvical strategies for forest restoration 

of American chestnut (Castanea dentata) 

using blight-resistant hybrids. Biological 

Conservation. 137(4): 497-506. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.03.013.

Klobucar, A.D. 2010. Competitive interactions 

between Appalachian hardwoods and 

different groundcovers on reclaimed mine 

sites. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee. 

142 p. M.S. thesis. 

Little, E.L., Jr. 1977. Atlas of United States trees. 

Vol. 4: Minor eastern hardwoods. Misc. Publ. 

1342. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service. 17 p. + 230 maps.

McCarthy, B.C.; Gilland, K.E.; Bauman, J.M.; 

Keiffer, C.H. 2010. Factors affecting 

performance of artificially regenerated 

American chestnut on reclaimed mine sites. 

In: Barnhisel, R.I., ed. Proceedings, national 

meeting, American Society of Mining and 

Reclamation; 2010 June 5-11; Pittsburgh, PA. 

Lexington, KY: American Society of Mining 

and Reclamation: 582-597.

Miller, C.R.; Franklin, J.A.; Buckley, D.S. 2011. 

Effects of soil amendment treatments 

on American chestnut performance and 

physiology. In: Barnhisel, R.I., ed. Proceedings, 

national meeting, American Society of Mining 

and Reclamation; 2011 June 11-16; Bismarck, 

ND. Lexington, KY: American Society of 

Mining and Reclamation: 419-437.

Paillet, F.L. 2002. Chestnut: history and 

ecology of a transformed species. Journal of 

Biogeography. 29(10-11): 1517-1530. https://

doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2699.2002.00767.x.

Rhoades, C.C.; Brosi, S.L.; Dattilo, A.J.; Vincelli, 

P. 2003. Effect of soil compaction and 

moisture on incidence of Phytophthora root 

rot on American chestnut (Castanea dentata) 

seedlings. Forest Ecology and Management. 

184(1-3): 47-54. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(03)00147-6.

Russell, E.W.B. 1987. Pre-blight distribution of 

Castanea dentata (Marsh.) Borkh. Bulletin 

of the Torrey Botanical Club. 114(2): 183-190. 

https://doi.org/10.2307/2996129.

Sena, K.; Angel, H.; Barton, C. 2014. Influence of 

tree shelters and weed mats on growth and 

survival of backcrossed chestnut seedlings 

on legacy minelands in eastern Kentucky.

Journal of the American Society of Mining and 

Reclamation. 3(2): 41-63. 

https://doi.org/10.21000/JASMR14020041.

Skousen, J.; Cook, T.; Wilson-Kokes, L.; 

Pena-Yewtukhiw, E. 2013. Survival and 

growth of backcross chestnut seeds and 

seedlings on surface mines. Journal of 

Environmental Quality. 42(1): 690-695. 

https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2012.0368.

Wang G.G.; Knapp, B.O.; Clark, S.L.; Mudder, 

B.T. 2013. The silvics of Castanea dentata

(Marsh.) Borkh., American chestnut, 

Fagaceae (beech family). Gen. Tech. Rep. 

SRS-173. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research 

Station. 18 p.
Page intentionally left blank
Appendix: Common and Scientific Names

of Species Mentioned in this Volume

ash: Fraxinus

 green pennsylvanica

 white americana

aspen, bigtooth Populus grandidentata

autumn-olive Elaeagnus umbellata

beech, American Fagus grandifolia

birch: Betula

 river nigra

 sweet lenta

bird’s-foot trefoil Lotus corniculatus

blackberry Rubus spp.

blackhaw Virburnum prunifolium

blueberry Vaccinium spp.

cherry: Prunus

 black serotina

chestnut: Castanea 

 American dentata

 Chinese millissima

chokecherry:

 black Aronia melanocarpa

 common Prunus virginiana

clover: Trifolium

 ladino or white repens

 red pratense

crownvetch Coronilla spp.

dogwood: Cornus spp.

 gray racemosa

elderberry, common Sambucus canadensis

foxtail millet Setaria italica

goldenrods Solidago spp.

grapevine Vitis spp.

groundpine Lycopodium dendroideum

hawthorn Craetagus spp.

hazelnut, American Corylus americana

hickory: Carya

 shagbark ovata

Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera japonica

Kentucky-31 tall fescue Lolium arundinaceum

locust: Robinia

 black pseudoacacia

 bristly hispida

maple: Acer

 red rubrum

 sugar saccharum

multiflora rose Rosa multiflora

oak: Quercus

 black velutina

 chestnut montana

 northern red rubra

 southern red falcata

 white alba

orchardgrass Dactylis glomerata

oriental bittersweet Celastrus orbiculatus

paulownia (princesstree) Paulownia tomentosa

pine: Pinus

 eastern white strobus

 pitch x loblolly rigidaxtaeda

ragweed Ambrosia spp.

raspberry Rubus spp.

red top Agrostis gigantea

redbud Cercis spp.

ryegrass: Lolium 

 annual multiflorum

 perennial perenne

sassafras Sassafras albidum

sericea lespedeza Lespedeza cuneata

serviceberry Amelanchier spp.

sourwood Oxydendrum spp.

spruce, red Picea rubens

sycamore, American Platanus occidentalis

tall fescue Schedonorus spp. or 

Schedonorus phoenix

timothy Phleum pratense

tree of heaven (ailanthus) Ailanthus altissima

trillium Trillium spp.

viburnum, mapleleaf Viburnum acerifolium

Virginia creeper Parthenocissus quinquefolia 

walnut: Juglans

 black nigra

wintergreen Pyrola spp.

yellow-poplar (tuliptree) Liriodendron tulipifera

FLORA

Common name Scientific name Common name Scientific name

Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2016. The PLANTS database. Greensboro, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Plant Data Team. www.plants.usda.gov/ (accessed November 17, 2016). 

Photo of Appalachian forest courtesy of J. Burger, Virginia Tech.
A-2 Common and Scientific Names for Species Mentioned in this Volume

FAUNA

Common name Scientific name

PATHOGENS

Common name Scientific name

Allegheny woodrat Neotoma magister

American woodcock Philohela minor

bear: Ursus

 black americana

bobcat Lynx rufus

brown thrasher Toxostoma rufum

common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas

cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus

deer: Odocoileus spp.

 white-tailed virginianus

earthworm: Dendrobaena octaedra

Lumbricus

 rubellus

 terrestris

eastern whip-poor-will Antrostomus vociferus

elk Cervus elaphus

emerald ash borer Agrilus planipennis

fisher Marten pennanti

Indiana bat Myotis sodalis

indigo bunting Passerina cyanea

locust borer beetle Megacyllene robiniae

northern bobwhite Colinus virginianus

northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus

red eft Notophthalmus viridescens

rodent Order Rodentia

ruffed grouse Bonasa umbellus

salamander:

 green Aneidas aeneus

 woodland Plethodontidae family

snake Suborder Serpentes

warbler:

 blue-winged Vermivora cyanoptera

 cerulean Dendroica cerulea

 golden-winged Vermivora chrysoptera

wild turkey Meleagris gallopavo

chestnut blight Cryphonectria parasitica

Dutch elm disease Ophiostoma Novo-ulmi

root rot Phytophthera spp.
Printed on recycled paper

Adams, Mary Beth, ed. 2017. The Forestry Reclamation Approach: guide to successful 

reforestation of mined lands. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-169. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station: 128 p. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRSGTR-169. 

Appalachian forests are among the most productive and diverse in the world. The land underlying 

them is also rich in coal, and surface mines operated on more than 2.4 million acres in the region 

from 1977, when the federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act was passed, through 2015. 

Many efforts to reclaim mined lands most often resulted in the establishment of grasses, shrubs, and 

nonnative plants. Research showed that forests could be returned to these mined lands, also restoring 

the potential for the land to provide forest ecosystem services and goods. Scientists and practitioners 

developed a set of science-based best management practices for mine reforestation called the 

Forestry Reclamation Approach (FRA). To help practitioners implement the 5 steps of the FRA and 

achieve other restoration goals (such as wildlife enhancement), 13 Forest Reclamation Advisories 

have been written since 2005 and others are underway. The 12 Advisories that are most directly 

relevant to the Appalachian region are being published here in a single volume for the first time. 

These Advisories were originally posted on the Web site of the Appalachian Regional Reforestation 

Initiative (ARRI), an organization created in 2004 by the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Office of 

Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement along with State mining regulatory authorities in the 

Appalachian region. Members of ARRI come from the coal mining industry, government agencies, and 

research institutions. The goal of this initiative is to promote forest reclamation and restoration on mine 

lands through planting of high-value hardwood trees, increasing those trees’ survival rates and growth, 

and speeding the establishment of forest habitat through natural succession. To accomplish these 

goals, ARRI promotes and encourages use of the FRA by reclamation specialists. The Advisories 

are intended to serve as easy-to-understand guides to implementing the FRA; they provide specific 

recommendations as well as illustrations and photos to demonstrate tasks. The reformatted Advisories 

in this volume contain updated information and the latest additional resources to guide reclamation 

practitioners and other stakeholders in the reestablishment of healthy, productive forests in the 

Appalachian region.

KEY WORDS: mineland reclamation, reforestation research, Forest Reclamation Advisory, 

 Appalachian Regional Reforestation Initiative, Appalachia, 

 Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights 

regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating 

in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national 

origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, 

marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, 

or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by 

USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program 

or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information 

(e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible 

Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the 

Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in 

languages other than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint 

Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA 

office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in 

the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or 

letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil 

Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or 

(3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.