Managing and Protecting 

Aggregate Resources 

by William H. Langer1 

Open-File Report 02-415 

2002 

This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey 

editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic Code. Any use of trade, firm, or 

product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. 

Government. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

1

Denver, Colorado 
Managing and Protecting Aggregate Resources 

Introduction 

Over the past century the growth of American cities and towns, and the 

construction and maintenance of the highways and byways between those population 

centers, created a demand for enormous amounts of natural aggregate. Over that same 

period of time circumstances and events have taken place that have complicated the 

ability of producers to meet the increasing need for aggregate. 

Products derived from rocks provide essential materials for society – materials 

that we need to maintain our current lifestyle. Rock products are used in one form or 

another for construction of highways, bridges, houses, and other buildings; in industry for 

making steel, glass, and other consumer products; for environmental applications such as 

filtering sewage and scrubbing flue gasses during generation of electricity; and for 

numerous agricultural, metallurgical, and pharmaceutical purposes (Langer and 

Glanzman, 1993). For many uses there is no readily available substitute. 

Natural aggregate is the most valuable non-fuel mineral commodity in the world 

(Lüttig, 1994). The estimated value of non-fuel mineral commodities produced in the 

United States during 2001 was $39 billion. Natural aggregate (sand, gravel, and crushed 

stone) accounts for $14.5 billion, or over one-third of this value, and dwarfed the $5.5 

billion value of copper, gold, and silver combined (U.S. Geological Survey, 2002). 

Around the beginning of the 20th century, annual aggregate production in the 

United States was about 50Mt, or about 0.5t per person per year. By the end of the 20th 

century, annual aggregate production had increased over 50 fold, to more than 2.5 Bt, or 

about 10t per person per year. Today, over a third of the individual states in the United 

States each produce more aggregate than the entire Nation did at the turn of the century. 

The general trend over the past century has been for aggregate consumption in the United 

States to grow every year except during recessions, and it is projected that we will use as 

much aggregate in the next 25 years as we have used in the previous 100 years (Tepordei, 

1997). 

Aggregate occurs where Mother Nature put it, not necessarily where we need it, 

and even though potential sources of aggregate are widely distributed throughout the 

world, there are large regions where natural occurrences of aggregate are non-existent 

(Langer, 1988). Furthermore, even if sources of aggregate are present, they must meet 

certain quality parameters before they can be put to use. Those quality parameters are 

determined by the final application, and can restrict the development of otherwise high 

quality aggregate. 

There are potential environmental impacts associated with aggregate extraction 

including the conversion of land use, changes to the landscape, loss of habitat, noise, 

dust, blasting effects, erosion, and sedimentation. Most of the environmental impacts 

associated with aggregate mining are relatively benign. However, extracting aggregate 

from some areas may alter the geologic conditions, which, in turn, may alter the dynamic 

equilibrium of the area, resulting in cascading environmental impacts (Langer, 2001). By 

employing best management practices, most environmental impacts can be controlled, 

mitigated, or kept at tolerable levels and can be restricted to the immediate vicinity of the 

1
aggregate operation. Nevertheless, some otherwise high quality aggregate resources may 

not be developed because of environmental reasons. 

Aggregate is a high-bulk, low unit value commodity that derives much of its value 

from being located near the market. Thus, it is said to have a high place value (Bates, 

1969). Transporting aggregate long distances can add significantly to the overall price of 

the product (Leighton, 1991). For example, a city of 100,000 can expect to pay an 

additional $1.3 million for each additional 10 miles that the aggregate it uses must be 

hauled (Ad Hoc Aggregate Committee, 1998). Therefore, aggregate operations frequently 

are located near population centers and other market areas. 

Despite society’s dependence on natural aggregate, urban expansion often works 

to the detriment of the production of those essential raw materials. “Resource 

sterilization” occurs when the development of a resource is precluded by another existing 

land use. For example, aggregate resources that exist under a housing development or 

shopping center commonly will not be extracted. 

Bauer (1993) stated that probably the most serious reason for the loss of aggregate 

resources is the fact that, while resources such as vegetation, soils, archeological sites, 

endangered species, and so forth are recognized in the community comprehensive 

planning process as resources of community value, aggregates are not. 

Furthermore, citizens have their own ideas on how to use the land. Many citizens 

do not support mining, in part because they do not recognize the dependence of society 

on aggregate. Personal use is very little, if any, and individuals may not recognize 

aggregate mining as a necessary land use, even though the need for the commodity is 

constant. A survey conducted during 1994 (Bingham, 1994) concluded that the public in 

general believes mining exploits workers, harms the environment, harms the people in 

nearby communities, and has little personal benefit to the individual. For these and other 

reasons, citizens may prefer that stone and sand and gravel not be mined nearby (Langer 

and Glanzman, 1993). This "not in my back yard" syndrome may restrict aggregate 

development. 

To protect citizens from the impacts of mining, governments may require permits 

or impose regulations to control aggregate development. Poulin and others (1994) 

concluded that permits and regulations restrict development or expansion of aggregate in 

established areas more than actual resource availability. Weaver (1995) reports that no 

new crushed stone quarries have been permitted in Connecticut in 15 years, and 

indications are that estimated sand and gravel supplies in New England could be reduced 

by at least 90 percent by reason of increased zoning and environmental restrictions (New 

England Governors' Conference, 1995). 

As one approach to avoid the impacts of sterilization and encroachment, 

aggregate producers are turning to the development of superquarries, which are aggregate 

operations that produce over 5Mt of aggregate per year (Langer, 2002; Bliss and others, 

2002). Superquarries can concentrate operations in remote areas away from public view, 

take advantage of lower production costs and, if appropriately located, utilize rail or 

water transport methods. During 2000, the U.S. had 19 crushed stone superquarries 

(Tepordei, 2000) and three sand and gravel superquarries (Bolen, 2000). Acquisitions are 

also expected to continue, especially as a means to obtain permitted reserves. The U.S. 

Bancorp Piper Jaffray Company expects that by about 2005, the top five aggregate 

producers in the United States will have 40 percent of the total market (Reilly, 2000). 

2
Resource Sterilization 

It is likely that we will continue to extract and consume large amounts of natural 

aggregate, and that much of the aggregate will come from large operations requiring large 

areas of land. This underscores the problems associated with aggregate resource 

sterilization and the necessity to maintain access to future supplies of aggregate 

resources. 

When the aggregate industry was young, protecting access to aggregate resources 

was not necessary. During the late 1800’s, the relatively low demand for aggregate 

combined with the lack of specifications allowed for the casual discovery of aggregate. 

Prospecting commonly was unnecessary, and aggregate frequently was identified through 

related activities such as building of railroads or canals, and digging cellars or wells for 

houses (Langer, 1998). 

The growth of cities and the roads connecting those cities created a new demand 

for aggregate resources. At the start of the 20th century, there were only six metropolitan 

areas in the United States with a population over one million –Boston, Chicago, New 

York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and Washington-Baltimore. At the start of the 21st century 

there were 49 metropolitan areas that exceeded one million residents. In the United 

States, the construction of good interurban roads began in earnest during the late 19th 

century. The first complete survey of America's roads, finished in 1904, reported two 

million miles of rural public roads in the country, fewer than 154,000 miles of which 

were surfaced with either gravel, stones, or paving materials. Today there are nearly four 

million miles of roads in the United States; nearly 2.5 million are paved and most of the 

rest have some type of stone or gravel surface. It is not surprising, then, that aggregate 

started to be used in large amounts at about the same time that the construction of cities 

and roads began to grow. Aggregate production in the United States doubled between 

1905-1910, doubled again between 1910-1925, again between 1925-1950, and again 

between 1950-1960. 

Geologists recognized that casual exploration was no longer an acceptable means 

to locate quality construction materials, and that a systematic study of the occurrence and 

quality of aggregate resources was necessary to support the growth of the highway 

system. During 1889, R.T. Hill prepared a report on road materials of the Black Prairie 

regions of Texas. This report was shortly followed by similar reports for North Carolina 

in 1892 and 1893, and Florida in 1893 (Kiersch, 1955). The Fifteenth Annual Report and 

Sixteenth Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey both contain reports by 

N.S. Shaler (1895, 1896) describing the geology of common roads and of road building 

materials. Shaler (1895) pointed out the need for geologic knowledge of aggregate 

properties and the necessity for having the resources located near the point of use to save 

transportation costs. Probably the most extensive investigation relating the composition 

of the rock to engineering characteristics was a 1913 statewide survey of aggregate 

resources in Ohio (Marshall and Maxey, 1950). By 1918, at least 49 reports describing 

road-building materials for at least 24 different states had been published by federal 

agencies and state geological surveys (Kiersch, 1955). 

The rapid expansion of cities resulted in sterilization of aggregate resources. One 

of the first published descriptions of human encroachment causing sterilization of 

aggregate resources was in Business Booming in the West, (Lenhart, 1947). The paper 

3
described how zoning accompanied sprawling growth, and how that situation created 

problems for access to aggregate. Seven years later, Thoenen (1954) reported that sand 

and gravel deposits near cities were becoming depleted and that operators were using 

portable plants to mine deposits near highway projects to preserve their supplies at city 

plants for city markets. Because of depletion of deposits, encroachment of residential 

areas, and increasing stringency of specifications, operators had to consider more 

adequate and accurate methods of exploration. 

Across the country the problem of sterilization worsened, and by 1957 

sterilization had reached such serious proportions in Denver that the Colorado Sand and 

Gravel Producers Association produced an air photo publication to call attention to the 

diminishing sand and gravel reserves. By 1960, the Third Edition of Industrial Minerals 

and Rocks (and all subsequent editions) identified encroachment as an issue limiting 

aggregate (Lenhart, 1960). In the paper Quarry Site Surveys in Relation to Country 

Planning, Shadmon, (1968) pointed out that there were many countries where opening 

new quarries was practically impossible, and that the impacts of sterilization severely 

impacted aggregate availability. He called for countrywide planning to forecast longterm quarry product needs. 

Geologists and engineers became concerned with the situation and documented 

the effects of sterilization in various parts of the country including Anne Arundel County, 

Md. (Kuff, 1984), Boulder, Colo. (Crosby and others, 1978), Chicago, Ill. (Mikulic and 

Goodwin, 1984), Connecticut (Siebert, 1969), Denver, Colo. (Soule, 1974), Los Angeles, 

Calif. (Goldman, 1959), metropolitan New York, N.Y., (Hudec, 1969), and Ontario, 

Canada (Guillet, 1980). 

Resource Protection 

During the 1970’s some state and local governments realized that a readily 

available supply of quality aggregate was necessary to maintain the infrastructure and 

recognized that sterilization and citizen opposition were threats to aggregate availability. 

A number of attempts were made at protecting aggregate resources from sterilization 

(Werth, 1980). Some local governments created special extraction districts where 

extraction was allowed by right, and all other uses were controlled through a conditional 

use. In other areas, aggregate properties were placed in overlay zones where resource 

extraction is allowed while simultaneously preserving the long-term land use for the area. 

Some local governments zoned aggregate properties as agriculture or industrial, and 

permitted extraction as a conditional or special use. 

The problems associated with encroachment of developments on aggregates 

operations, and one how one county responded to those problems, can be illustrated by 

Tooele County, Utah (Nicole Cline, Division Manager and County Planner, Division of 

Planning and Zoning, Tooele County, Utah, oral commun., 2002). Between 1990 and 

2000 the population in Tooele County, Utah, increased 51.3 percent to 40,735 residents. 

Construction in many of the subdivisions started during the 1960’s and 1970’s stopped 

during the 1980’s, but was rejuvenated during the 1990’s, creating a great increase in 

demand for aggregate. At the same time the expanding neighborhoods began encroaching 

on the existing aggregate operations. The new residents considered the noise, dust, 

unsightly appearance, and traffic associated with the aggregate operations, and the odors 

4
from the asphalt plants, to be a nuisance. Pressure was brought on operators and county 

leaders to restrict operations. In many instances the local operators departed the site for 

deposits farther away from development, and found themselves leap-frogging away from 

the persistently encroaching developments. The situation reached critical limits during 

the late 1990’s when residents, producers, and the county became entangled in litigation. 

During 2001, the Tooele County Commission approved the addition of Chapter 27 – 

Mining, Quarry, Sand and Gravel Excavation Zone (MG-EX) to the Uniform Zoning 

Ordinance of Tooele County. The new zoning district allows and protects the crushed 

stone and sand and gravel industry while protecting the environment. The zone was 

designed to assure that aggregate operations do not impact adjoining uses, and are not 

encroached upon by surrounding non-compatible land uses. 

The new zoning approach provides public input, and includes strict requirements 

for the application, operation, and reclamation of pits or quarries. Once the zoning is in 

place the process of getting final approvals for operation is streamlined, and producers 

are assured the opportunity for continual operation (renewable every five years), as long 

as they follow best management practices. The advantage is aggregate extraction and 

related activities are separated from other non-compatible land uses. 

It is too early to adequately assess the effectiveness of the new ordinance, but in 

general, the industry appears satisfied with the new approach to zoning. The Associated 

General Contractors of America - Utah Chapter has presented the ordinance to other 

jurisdictions to consider as a model for creating a new mineral extraction zone. To date, 

aggregate operators have submitted applications to have three properties rezoned as MGEX; two have been approved and the third is in process. Tooele County initiated an action 

to rezone approximately 10,000 acres containing extensive aggregate deposits, but the 

application was withdrawn when it became obvious during the public hearing process 

that the county would not be able to reach consensus among the citizens. As a result the 

County has decided to refrain from making large-scale rezoning of the MG-EX zone on 

its own. 

Some state governments, including Colorado (Schowchow and others, 1974), 

California (Beebe, 1998), Minnesota (Ad Hoc Aggregate Committee, 1998), and 

Washington (Lingley and Jazdzewski, 1994), have enacted legislation to help maintain 

access to prime aggregate resources. Legislations have met with variable success, in part 

because the legislation may not have given the authority to make requirements binding. 

Colorado - During 1973, the Colorado legislature recognized that sand and 

gravel resources in the Denver area were rapidly being sterilized by conflicting land uses, 

and passed House Bill 1529. That act declared: 1) the State’s commercial mineral 

deposits were essential to the State’s economy, 2) the populous counties of the State 

faced a critical shortage of such deposits, and 3) such deposits should be extracted 

according to a rational plan, calculated to avoid waste and cause the least practical 

disruption to the ecology and quality of life of the citizens. The Colorado Geological 

Survey published an atlas of maps showing the quality and availability of aggregate 

resources in the populous Front Range counties (Schwochow and others, 1974). But in 

spite of the availability of these maps, H.B. 1529 did not succeed at protecting aggregate 

resources in the Denver area (Schwochow, 1980). Many of the plans prepared by the 

counties protected citizens from mining, but did little to protect mineral resources from 

citizens. The U.S. Department of Labor (1981) pointed out that resource availability in 

5
the Front Range continued to decline, and blamed the decline on adverse zoning, 

noncompliance with H.B. 1529, increased demand, inadequate grain size to meet 

specifications, and environmental and visual concerns. Although a number of permits 

have been granted to expand existing quarries, there have been no permits to open new 

crushed stone quarries along the Colorado Front Range since 1978 (Wilburn and Langer, 

2000). 

California - In 1975, California implemented the Surface Mining and 

Reclamation Act (SMARA) (Beeby, 1998). Under SMARA, the California Division of 

Mines and Geology is mandated to classify specified lands within the State on the basis 

of mineral content. SMARA does not require that aggregate resources be permitted, but 

it provides decision-makers with the information upon which to base various land-use 

evaluations. Having the State, an unbiased third party, prepare the classifications has a 

distinct advantage in that accurate, objective, quantified mineral-resource data reduces 

the ability of special interest groups to influence the process. Anecdotal evidence 

indicates that use of SMARA has been effective at facilitating the permitting process, 

increasing the life span on renewed use permits, and in the discovery and opening of new 

deposits. Furthermore, SMARA maps and reports have been used in consideration of 

proposed permits (as opposed to a planning approach) to prevent a change of land use 

that would preclude aggregate development. For example, the loss of a significant 

section of alluvial gravels that were a county’s sole source of Portland cement concrete 

grade aggregate was prevented through use of SMARA information (Beebe, 1998). 

Minnesota - During1984, Minnesota Statute 84.94 was enacted to protect 

aggregate resources; to promote orderly and environmentally sound development; to 

spread the burden of development; and to introduce aggregate resource protection into 

local comprehensive planning and land use controls. The legislation initiated countylevel identification and characterization of aggregate resources, and directed county 

planning authorities to use the information to consider the protection of identified 

aggregate resources in their planning decisions. Substantial progress was made regarding 

the identification and mapping of aggregate resources, but by the late 1990’s, little 

progress had been accomplished to protect aggregate resources (Ad Hoc Aggregate 

Committee, 1998). 

During 1998, the Minnesota Legislature created the “Aggregate Resources Task 

Force” to examine issues concerning the need for and use of the state's aggregate 

resources, ( Laws of Minnesota 1998, Chapter 401, Section 50). The Task Force Final 

Report (Aggregate Resources Task Force, 2000) made a number of recommendations 

designed to facilitate the task of making wise use of aggregate resources. The actions 

recommended are typical of those used for sustainable resource management, and 

include: 1) Best Management Practices, 2) reclamation standards, 3) mine planning and 

permits, 4) native prairie conservation, 6) aggregate planning and protection, 7) 

registration of commercial aggregate deposits with the State Department of Natural 

Resources, 8) aggregate resource mapping, 9) leasing aggregate reserves by State 

Department of Transportation, 10) compensating host communities, 11) incentives for 

recycling, and 12) encouraging transportation of aggregates by bulk carriers. 

Progress continues to be made regarding the identification and mapping of 

aggregate resources, as exemplified by the Aggregate Resources Inventory of the SevenCounty Metropolitan Area, Minnesota (Southwick and others, 2000) as well as other 

6
county aggregate resource inventories. The aggregate mapping program provides 

citizens, local government land use planners, the construction industry, and 

environmental groups with specific county-wide information on the location and quality 

of aggregate resources. 

Washington - The Washington Growth Management Act (Revised Code of 

Washington 36.70A), adopted in 1990, requires county and municipal governments to 

undertake comprehensive land-use planning. Counties that do not comply risk losing 

some sources of funding from the state. To balance their planning goals, local 

governments are required to map and designate mineral resources of long-term 

commercial significance because exploiting these resources generally will have the 

lowest environmental, economic, and social costs (Lingley and Jazdzewski, 1994). The 

State Department of Natural Resources, or counties following the Department’s 

methodology, are preparing maps detailing the distribution, thickness, and quality of 

aggregate resources. Yakima, Klickitatt, and Clallam Counties are using aggregate 

resource maps to zone a 20-year supply of aggregate and protect them from conflicting 

land uses. The protections include notification of adjacent landowners, recognition that 

aggregation extraction is the highest and best use of some lands, and other measures 

(William Lingley, Jr., Washington Department of Natural Resources, written 

communication, 07 Oct 02). 

When the planning community ignores aggregate, management of those resources 

is left to chance. Management by default commonly results in unintended consequences 

including sterilization of resources, juxtaposition of incompatible land uses, negative 

impacts to traffic, unacceptable changes to the landscape, and undesirable environmental 

impacts. Today, we are in a situation where it is extremely difficult to obtain necessary 

permits to initiate new aggregate operations. Bauer (1991) concluded that local units of 

government were unwilling or seem unprepared to deal objectively with the conflict 

between regional needs and local opposition. 

Dunn (1983) attempted to explain, and bring reason to, this conflict in his paper 

The Dispersed Benefit Riddle. The context of the riddle is: The benefits of aggregate 

development are dispersed over very large areas, but the community where extraction 

occurs suffers most of the adverse consequences of resource development. The regional 

benefits are not usually considered in the local permitting process, and if the resource 

operation is denied there usually are additional broader costs such as longer haul routes 

resulting in more truck traffic, noise, accidents, and more hydrocarbons released to the 

atmosphere. Any gain by the local community is usually at the expense of the greater 

public and greater environment. The riddle is “When a political entity is evaluating 

whether or not to develop or improve a resource, how can we as a nation be sure that the 

dispersed [regional] benefits of use of that resource are adequately weighed in the final 

decision?” (Dunn, 1983, pg. 1). Sustainability may provide the answer to that decadesold question. 

Sustainable Management of Aggregate Resources 

The term “sustainability” dates back to the 1980 World Conservation Strategy, 

and was given prominence in Our Common Future, otherwise known as the “Bruntland 

Commission Report” (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). 

7
That report defines sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the 

present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” 

(World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, pg. 43). 

In the simplest sense, the “manufactured capital” and “natural capital” (i.e. natural 

resources) that one generation passes on to the next must be maintained or enhanced in 

order to achieve sustainable development (World Commission on Environment and 

Development, 1987). In terms of non-renewable resource such as natural aggregate, their 

use reduces the natural resources, but unlike many non-renewable resources, the potential 

supply of aggregate resources on a worldwide scale is so large that “finite” has no 

practical meaning. 

But this does not mean aggregate can indiscriminately be exploited. Aggregate is 

in short supply in many localities, and should be carefully managed. Furthermore, 

development of aggregate resources must not endanger the natural systems that support 

life on earth – the atmosphere, the waters, the soils, and biota. Consequently, having an 

accessible regional supply of aggregate resources takes on great significance because 

transporting aggregate long distances not only adds to the overall cost of the product, but 

as described above in the “Dispersed Benefit Riddle,” it also adds to the overall cost to 

the environment. 

The government, industry, and the public must cooperate at the regional and local 

planning levels for sustainable aggregate extraction to be successful. To ensure the 

sustainability of aggregate resources, each of the primary stakeholders – government, 

industry, public, and other non-governmental organizations – must accept certain 

responsibilities (Langer and others, in press). The government has the responsibility to 

develop the policies, regulatory framework, and economic incentives that provide the 

climate for success. The industry must work to be recognized as a responsible corporate 

and environmental member of the community. The public and non-governmental 

organizations have the responsibility to become informed about aggregate resource 

management issues. All stakeholders have the responsibility to identify and resolve 

legitimate concerns, by constructively contributing to a decision-making process that 

addresses, not only their own, but a wide range of objectives and interests. 

Governments have a variety of tools that they can use to encourage sustainability 

including laws, policies, guidelines, and incentives. Many countries, at different levels 

(e.g. national, state, regional, provincial, municipal) have enacted laws to protect water, 

air, endangered species and other aspects of the environment. These laws are an integral 

part of sustainability. 

Governments of many provinces or territories in Canada and Australia, and many 

of the countries within the European Union and elsewhere, have elaborated national 

minerals policies that recognize minerals and mining in general, and the aggregate 

industry in particular, as key sectors contributing to jobs, wealth, and a high quality of 

life for its citizens. For example, Planning for the Supply of Aggregates in England 

(Department of the Environment, Transport, and the Regions, 2000), identifies nine key 

issues: 1) defining the need for aggregates, 2) assessing the supply of aggregates, 3) 

estimating the future demand for aggregates, 4) considering imports and exports, 5) 

considering inter-regional supplies, 6) considering multimodal transportation of 

aggregate, 7) assessing and mitigating environmental impacts of aggregate development, 

8
8) identifying preferred areas for aggregate extraction, and 9) planning for future 

development of aggregate resources. 

There is no specific process that must be followed when applying sustainable 

management of aggregate resources but, in general, the processes followed are iterative, 

and consist of a number of steps including: 1) identification of the key issues, which 

generally are elaborated in policy documents, 2) elaboration of the objectives that 

describe what you want to accomplish, 3) establishment of specific targets that express 

the desired results, 4) development of specific actions that describe the steps to reach the 

target, 5) identification of indicators that measure progress as well as the affect of your 

efforts on the natural and human systems, and 6) monitoring, feedback and regular 

reconsideration of requirements as events develop. The hierarchy of Sustainable 

Resource Management (modified from Langer and others, in press) is as follows: 

Key issue(s) 

Objective(s) 

Target(s) 

Action(s) 

Indicator(s) 

Feedback 

Indicators deserve special mention. Indicators are specific to the target and 

actions, but the indicators applied to sustainable development of aggregate resources tend 

to be similar and can be represented by seven indicators from Department of the 

Environment, Transport, and the Regions (2000), which include: 1) proportion of 

supplies coming from preferred areas for extraction, 2) proportions coming from 

environmentally sensitive areas, 3) proportion of primary (natural) aggregates compared 

to secondary and recycled, 4) amount of aggregates per unit of construction output, 5) 

area of land undergoing extraction, 6) area of land restored, and 7) proportion of sites 

covered by modern operating planning conditions. 

The Intra-Regional Plan for the Extractive Industry (PIAE) for the Province of 

Modena, Italy, can serve as a specific example of sustainable management of aggregate 

resources (Langer and others, in press). Modena Province is updating the PIAE, and has 

included many elements common to sustainability in the revised plan. The plan is based 

on the polo estrattivo, which is an area typified by the prevalence of quarrying activities, 

including the intervening and surrounding territory that is exposed to quarrying impacts. 

The objectives of the PIAE include guaranteeing the availability of aggregates for present 

and future generations, maximizing the use of alternative materials, minimize the impacts 

from quarrying, and guaranteeing the reclamation of quarries in a manner consistent with 

the existing landscape. Various actions are encouraged to reach these objectives including 

the identification and protection of existing resources, concentration of future quarry 

development activities in the poli estrattivi, development of more efficient methods to 

extract resources, use of substitutes and recycled material, and reclamation that is in 

harmony with the landscape. 

Some aggregate companies in the United States have begun implementing some 

of the concepts of sustainability without waiting for government intervention. This 

movement involves international aggregate companies, large American aggregate 

9
companies, as well as smaller companies who have included environmental responsibility 

in their corporate philosophy and have initiated aggressive environmental management 

systems. But actions by the aggregates industry are only part of the process, and 

sustainable management of aggregate resources should included planning efforts for 

sustainability. 

Minnesota is a pioneering state in both areas of aggregate resource mapping and 

sustainable community management. During the last decade, Minnesota has taken 

actions that have won it recognition as one of three leading States in applying principles 

aimed at achieving environmental and economic sustainability in the United States 

(Resource Renewal Institute, 2001). Perhaps it will also lead the way in instituting 

measures for sustainable aggregate resource management. 

Minnesota's Governor and the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board convened 

the Minnesota Sustainable Development Initiative in 1993. The group’s final report, 

Redefining Progress: Working Toward a Sustainable Future, included the 

recommendation to inventory the State’s natural resources. The Minnesota Round Table 

on Sustainable Development (MRTSD) grew out of the initiative, and was the main 

forum for advancing its goals and principles. Its flagship report Investing in Minnesota’s 

Future, (MRTSD, 1998), elaborated five principles of sustainable development, the third 

of which – Conservation – makes note of the need to make wise and efficient use of 

Minnesota’s renewable and non-renewable resources. Minnesota Statutes 2001 4A.07 

mandated the preparation of a planning guide for local units of government to plan for 

sustainable development. That guide, Under Construction – Tools and Techniques for 

Local Planning (Minnesota Planning, 2002) describes aggregate as a potential 

community asset, and recommends that a county’s natural aggregate resources should be 

recognized in a land use element. 

Sustainable resource management, and finding an answer to the “Dispersed 

Benefit Riddle,” would be less difficult if all conflicts between regional aggregate 

resource needs and local impacts had solutions that would leave everyone better off. This 

is seldom the case, and there are usually winners and losers. Furthermore, experience 

gained through the application of Integrated Resource Management, which is another 

form of consensus-driven planning, indicates that integrated resource management is 

most successful when the governing bodies have the authority to set direction and 

establish order (Walther, 1987). 

But as the amount of accessible land that is underlain with suitable aggregate 

resources diminishes, inequalities increase. Therefore, our inability to promote the 

common interest in sustainable development is often a product of the relative neglect of 

economic and social justice. The longer we wait to implement sustainable resource 

management principles, the more difficult it becomes to implement sustainable resource 

management. (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987; Walther, 

1987) 

Summary 

Throughout the first half of the 20th century, a relatively low demand for 

aggregate combined with a general unawareness of society’s place in, and responsibility 

10
to the environment, created a situation where aggregate producers in the United States 

were highly successful, and equally unfettered, in their efforts to meet America’s 

demands for quality sand, gravel, and crushed stone resources. However, changes that 

have taken place throughout the last half of the 20th century have resulted in a situation 

where aggregate producers are finding it extremely difficult to locate and permit 

accessible, economically developable resources. This situation has come about for a 

variety of reasons including resource sterilization, environmental concerns, citizen 

involvement in land-use decisions, and variable planning attitudes and requirements 

toward aggregate resource availability. There is no going back. 

There have been a limited number of attempts to identify and protect quality 

aggregate resources for future use, and these attempts have met with mixed success. 

Those that have been most successful have an associated incentive or enforcement 

capacity. In spite of those efforts, local decision-makers commonly are in a quandary 

when it comes to balancing the regional needs for aggregate with local concerns for the 

health, safety, and comfort of their constituents. 

The management of aggregate resources through the application of sustainable 

resource management principles might provide a solution to the decision-makers’ 

dilemma. Sustainable management is a highly flexible tool, and it commonly consists of 

six general steps: 1) elaboration of key issues in policy documents, 2) elaboration of 

objectives, 3) establishment of specific targets that express the desired results, 4) 

development of specific actions that describe the steps to reach the target, 5) 

identification of indicators that measure progress and the affects of actions on the natural 

and human systems, and 6) monitoring, feedback and regular reconsideration of 

requirements as events develop. 

In order for sustainable resource management to be successful, government, 

industry, and the public must cooperate at the regional and local planning levels. To 

ensure the sustainability of aggregate resources, each of the primary stakeholders – 

government, industry, public, and other non-governmental organizations – must accept 

the responsibility to identify and resolve legitimate concerns, by constructively 

contributing to a decision-making process that addresses, not only their own, but a wide 

range of objectives and interests. 

Epilog 

James Coxey spoke about the need for a mineral policy at the Fifth 

Forum on Geology of Industrial Minerals (Hoover, 1970). He said, 

“It is a national disgrace that in a country as talented and affluent 

as America we should lack a clearly defined concept for the wellbeing of our natural resources – a concept that could be accepted 

and uniformly applied to all levels of government, by all of 

industry and by all of our people.” 

Over thirty years later we still have not found that elusive concept 

for the well being of our natural resources. The time to act is now! 

11
References: 

Ad Hoc Aggregate Committee, 1998, Minnesota’s aggregate resources – Road to the 21st 

century: Ad Hoc Aggregate Committee for the Aggregate Resources Task Force, 

St. Paul, Minn., 34 p., 

http://www.commissions.leg.state.mn.us/aggregate.resources/aggtf98.pdf 

Aggregate Resources Task Force, 2000, Aggregate Resources Task Force final report to 

the Minnesota Legislature: Aggregate Resources Task Force, St. Paul, Minn., 38p. 

Bates, R.L., 1969, Geology of the industrial rocks and minerals: New York, Dover 

Publications, Inc., 459 p. 

Bauer, A.M., 1991, Mineral resource management programs and the construction 

aggregate industry: Planning and Zoning News, April, 1991, Planning and Zoning 

Center, Inc., Lansing, Mich., p. 5-7. 

Bauer, A.M., 1993, Land use – conflicts and resolutions: Integrating aggregate mining 

into the planning process, in Sidder, G.B., Sims, P.K., eds., Industrial minerals – 

Today and Tomorrow: The raw materials to build the upper Midwest – workshop 

proceedings: Minnesota Geological Survey Report of Investigations 42, p. 42-47. 

Beeby, D.J., 1998, Successful integration of aggregate data in land-use planning – A 

California case study, in Bobrowsky, P. T., ed., Aggregate resources – A global 

perspective: A.A, Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, p. 27-50. 

Bingham, Nancy, 1994, Mining's image -- What does the public really think?: Mining 

Engineering, v. 46, no. 3, p. 200-203. 

Bliss, J.D., Stanley, M.C. and Long, K.R., 2002, Role of megaquarries in future 

aggregate supply: San Luis Obispo, Calif., Aug. 13-16, 53rd Annual Highway 

Geology Symposium, p. 303-315. 

Bolen, W.P., 2000, Sand and gravel, construction: U.S. Geological Survey Minerals 

Yearbook, p. 66.1 – 66.4, 16 tables. 

Crosby, E.J., Hansen, W.R., and Pendleton, J.A., 1978, Guiding the development of 

gravel deposits and of unstable ground, in Robinson, G.D., and Spieker, A.M., 

1978, Nature to be commanded – Earth-science maps applied to land and water 

management: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 950, p. 28-41. 

Department of the Environment, Transport, and the Regions, 2000, Planning for the 

supply of aggregates in England: Department of the Environment, Transport, and 

the Regions, Minerals and Waste Planning Division, Draft Consultation Paper, 70 

p. 

Dunn, J.R., 1983, Dispersed benefit riddle, in, Ault, C.R., and Woodard, G.S., eds., 

Proceedings of the 18th Forum on Geology of Industrial Minerals: Indiana 

Geological Survey Occasional Paper 37, p. 1-9. 

Goldman, H.B., 1959, Urbanization and the mineral industry: San Francisco, Mineral 

Information Service, California State Division of Mines, 11 p. 

Guillet, G.R., 1980, Constraints of industrial minerals -The Ontario experience, in Dunn, 

J.R., Fakundiny, R.H., and Rickard, L.V., eds., 14th Annual Forum on the 

Geology of Industrial Minerals: New York State Museum Bulletin 436, p. 21-26. 

Hoover, K.V., ed., 1970, Proceedings – Fifth Forum on Geology of Industrial Minerals: 

Pennsylvania Geological Survey Bulletin M64, 278 p. 

12
Hudec, P.P., 1969, Long range planning for aggregate materials in metropolitan New 

York, in Hoover, K. V., ed., Fifth Forum on the Geology of Industrial Minerals: 

Pennsylvania Bureau of Topographic and Geologic Survey Mineral Resources 

Report M64, p. 165-177. 

Kiersch, G.A., 1955, Engineering geology: Historical development, scope, and 

utilization: Quarterly of the Colorado School of Mines, v. 50, no. 3, 122 p. 

Kuff, K.R., 1984, Rates of preemption of sand and gravel deposits in an urban area, in 

Glaser, J.D., and Edwards, J., eds., Twentieth Forum on the Geology of Industrial 

Minerals: Maryland Geological Survey Special Publication 2, p. 73-79. 

Langer, W.H., 1988, Natural aggregates of the conterminous United States: U.S. 

Geological Survey Bulletin 1594, 33 p., 2 plates, scale 1:5,000,000. 

______, 1998, A history of aggregate development and geology—the past is the key to 

the future, in, Bélanger, M., Clark, T., and Jacob, H.L., 33rd Forum on Geology 

of Industrial Minerals, Quebec, Canada, Proceedings: Canadian Institute of 

Mining, Metallurgy, and Petroleum, Special Volume 50, p. 27-40. 

______, 2001, Environmental Impacts of Mining Natural Aggregate, in Bon, R.L., 

Riordan, R.F., Tripp, B.T., and Krukowski, S.T., eds., Proceedings, 35th Forum on 

the Geology of Industrial Minerals: Utah Department of Natural Resources 

Miscellaneous Publication 01-2, p. 127-138. 

______, 2002, An overview of aggregate resources in the United States, in Scott, P.W., 

and Bristow, C.M., eds., Industrial minerals and extractive geology: The 

Geological Survey, London, p. 17-42. 

Langer, W.H., and Glanzman, V.M., 1993, Natural aggregate – Building America’s 

future: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1110, 39 p. 

Langer, W.H., Giusti, Cecilia, and Barelli, Giorgio, in press, Sustainable development of 

natural aggregate – With examples from Modena Province, Italy: Society for 

Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc., Preprint, Littleton, Colorado. 

Leighton, M.W., 1991, Industrial minerals resource identification and evaluation, in 

Bush, A.L., and Hayes, T.S., eds., Industrial Minerals of the Midcontinent – 

Proceedings of the Midcontinent Industrial Minerals Workshop: U.S. Geological 

Survey Bulletin 2111, p. 9-20. 

Lenhart, W.B., 1947, Business booming in the west: Rock Products v. 50, no. 2, p. 88-93, 

125, 126. 

______, 1960, Sand and gravel, in Gillson, J.L., ed., Industrial minerals and rocks: The 

American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, New 

York, p. 733-758. 

Lingley, W.S., Jr., and Jazdzewski, S.P., 1994, Aspects of growth management planning 

for mineral resource lands: Washington State Department of Natural Resources, 

Washington Geology, v. 22, no. 2, p. 36-45. 

Lüttig, G.W., 1994, Rational management of the geo-environment – A view in favour of 

“Geobased Planning”, in Lüttig, G.W., ed., Aggregates – Raw materials' giant: 

Report on the 2nd International Aggregate Symposium, Erlangen, p. 1-34. 

Marshall, H.E., and Maxey, J.S., 1950, The role of the geologist in constructing Ohio’s 

highways: Engineering Experiment Station News, v. 12, no. 2, p. 12-14. 

Mikulic, D.G., and Goodwin, J.H., 1984, Urban encroachment on dolomite resources of 

the Chicago area, Illinois, in Glaser, J.D., and Edwards, J., eds., Twentieth Forum 

13
on the Geology of Industrial Minerals: Maryland Geological Survey Special 

Publication 2, p. 125-131. 

Minnesota Planning, 2002, Under construction – Tools and techniques for local planning: 

Minnesota Planning, St. Paul, Minn., 192 p. 

MRTSD, 1998, Investing in Minnesota’s future – An agenda for sustaining our quality of 

life: Minnesota Round Table on Sustainable Development (MRTSD), Minnesota 

Environmental Quality Board, 24 p. 

New England Governors’ Conference, 1995, Construction aggregate resources of New 

England – An analysis of supply and demand: New England Governors’ 

Conference, Inc., Boston, 10 sections, variously paged. 

Poulin, R., Pakalnis, R.C., and Sinding, K., 1994, Aggregate resources - Production and 

environmental constraints: Environmental Geology, v. 23, p. 221-227. 

Reilly, B. 2000, Rapid industry consolidation expected to continue. Aggregates Manager, 

v. 4, no. 12, p 31-34. 

Resource Renewal Institute, 2001, The state of the States – Assessing the capacity of 

States to achieve sustainable development through green planning: Resource 

Renewal Institute, San Francisco, 104p. 

Schwochow, S.D.,1980, The effects of mineral conservation legislation on Colorado’s 

aggregate industry, in Proceedings of the Fifteenth Forum on Geology of 

Industrial Minerals: Colorado Geological Survey Resource Series no. 8, p. 30-39. 

Schwochow, S.D., Shroba, R.R., and Wicklein, P.C., 1974, Sand, gravel, and quarry 

aggregate resources – Colorado Front Range counties: Colorado Geological 

Survey Special Publication 5-A, 43 p. 

Shadmon, A., 1968, Quarry site surveys in relation to country planning, in International 

Geological Congress: Report of the Twenty-Third Session, Czechoslovakia, v. 12, 

p. 125-132. 

Shaler, N.S., 1895, Preliminary report on the geology of the common roads of the United 

States: U.S. Geological Survey 15th Annual Report, p. 255-306 

______, 1896, The geology of the road-building stones of Massachusetts, with some 

consideration of similar materials from other parts of the United States: U.S. 

Geological Survey 16th Annual Report, p. 283-341. 

Siebert, H.L., 1969, Connecticut's declining sand and gravel resources, in Hoover, K.V., 

ed., Fifth Forum on the Geology of Industrial Minerals: Pennsylvania Bureau of 

Topographic and Geologic Survey Mineral Resources Report M64, p. 43-54. 

Southwick, D.L., Jouseau, M., Meyer, G.N., Mossler, J.H., and Wahl, T.E., 2000, 

Aggregate resources inventory of the seven-county metropolitan area, Minnesota: 

Minnesota Geological Survey Information Circular 46, 91 p. 

Soule, J.M., 1974, Gravel resources, urbanization and future land use, Front Range Urban 

Corridor, Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 74-178, 29 p. 

Tepordei, V.V., 1997, Natural aggregates – Foundation of America’s future: U.S. 

geological Survey Fact Sheet FS 144-97, 4 p. 

______, 2000, Stone, crushed: U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook, p. 73.1 – 

73.6, 26 tables. 

Thoenen, J.R., 1954, Sand and gravel industry produces largest tonnage of minerals: 

Rock Products, v. 57, no. 5, p. 104, 106, 108, 111-116. 

14
U.S. Department of Labor, 1981, Report to the Denver Construction Committee on sand 

and gravel operations at Chatfield Dam and Recreation Area: U.S. Department of 

Labor, Office of Construction Industry Services, 4p. and exhibits A-I. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 2002, Mineral commodity summaries 2002: U.S. Geological 

Survey Mineral commodity summaries, 197 p. 

Walther, Pierre, 1987, Against idealistic beliefs in the problem-solving capacities of 

integrated resource management: Environmental Management, v. 11, no. 4, p. 

439-446. 

World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, Our common future: The 

World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford University Press, 

Oxford, 400 p. 

Weaver, B., 1995, Overview of the aggregate industry, SME 1995 Annual Meeting: 

Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc., Preprint No. 95-222, 3p. 

Werth, J.T., 1980, Sand and gravel resources – Protection, regulation, and reclamation: 

American Planning Association Report no. 347, 33 p. 

Wilburn, D.R., and Langer, W.H., 2000, Preliminary report on aggregate use and 

permitting along the Colorado Front Range: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File 

Report 00-258, 22 p. 

15