Industrial Minerals 

in the Basin and Range Region-

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

' \ 

\ 

' ' \ 

' 

,.--...... ~---- ,, ', \ 

\ 

' ' I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

' 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 2013 
M. lee Allison, Director and State 

Geologist 

Utah Geological Survey 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

William C. Bagby, Chief 

Branch of Western Mineral Resources 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Menlo Park, Calif. 

james Barker 

New Mexico Bureau of Mines 

Socorro, New Mexico 

Aldo F. Barsotti, Chief 

Branch of Industrial Minerals 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

Washington, D.C. 

Douglas P. Bauer 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 

Utah State Office 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

Peter Behrens, President 

Great Salt Lake Minerals and 

Chemicals Corp. 

Ogden, Utah 

Earl H. Bennett, Associate Director and 

State Geologist 

Idaho Geological Survey 

University of Idaho 

Moscow, Idaho 

Robert W. Bernick, Sr. (retired), Vice 

President, Natural Resources 

First Interstate Bank of Utah 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

Charles W. Berry, Professor 

Department of Mining Engineering 

University of Utah 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

Richard C. Bradt, Dean 

Mackay School of Mines 

University of Nevada 

Reno, Nev. 

Steven Brooks 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 

Utah State Office 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

Cheryl Arthur 

Washoe County Department of 

Comprehensive Planning 

Reno, Nev. 

James Batis 

Public Relations 

University of Utah 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

Alfred l. Bush 

Branch of Central Mineral Resources 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Denver, Colo. 

COVER 

WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS 

Dennis P. Bryan, Nevada Division 

Manager 

Sergent, Hauskins, and Beckwith, 

Consulting Geotechnical Engineers 

Sparks, Nev. 

Robert Buchanan, Deputy Director 

Capital Planning Division 

Salt Lake City Corp. 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

Brian W. Buck, Partner 

j.B.R . Consultants Group 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

Frederick Carillo, State Officer 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

Reno, Nev. 

Stephen B. Castor 

Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology 

University of Nevada 

Reno, Nev. 

Jack E. Christensen, President 

Utah Mining Association 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

Douglas Clark, Vice President 

Monroe 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

Gregory E. Conrad, Executive Director 

Interstate Mining Compact Commission 

Herndon, Va. 

Barbara Elkins, Administrative Manager 

Granite Construction Co. 

Sparks, Nev. 

Glenn M. Eurick, Coordinator of 

Environmental Affairs 

American Barrick Mining Co. 

Tooele, Utah 

Michael P. Foose, Deputy Chief 

Office of Mineral Resources 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Reston, Va. 

Robert W. Gloyn, Senior Geologist 

Utah Geological Survey 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

john R. Harmon, President 

Standard Industrial Minerals, Inc. 

Reno, Nev. 

Michael Harper, Assistant Director 

Washoe County Department of 

Comprehensive Planning 

Reno, Nev. 

C. larry Hinderager 

j.R. Simplot Co. 

Pocatello, Idaho 

Garrett R. Hyde, Staff Scientist-Materials 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

Washington, D.C. 

David E. lock 

Department of Geology 

Australian National University 

Canberra, Australia 

Walter Lombardo 

Nevada Department of Minerals 

Las Vegas, Nev. 

John Marz 

Dunn, Draper, Glen, and Marz 

Reno, Nev. 

Scott M. Matheson, Former Governor of 

Utah 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

Edwin H. McKee, Geologist 

Branch of Western Mineral Resources 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Menlo Park, Calif. 

Dianne R. Nielson, Director 

Division of Oil, Gas, and Minerals 

Utah Department of Natural Resources 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

Richard H. Olson, President 

Industrial Minerals Evaluations, Inc. 

Golden, Colo. 

Thomas B. Parsonage, Director of Sales 

and Marketing 

Beryllium Mining Division 

Brush Wellman 

Elmore, Ohio 

Jonathan G. Price, Director and State 

Geologist 

Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology 

University of Nevada 

Reno, Nev. 

WORKSHOP OBSERVERS 

Denise Chirban 

U .S. Bureau of Mines 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

Michael Greeley, State Officer 

U .S. Bureau of Mines 

Tucson , Ariz . 

Timothy S. Hayes, Geologist 

Branch of Central Mineral Resources 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Denver, Colo. 

Clem M . Heagren 

Public Information Office 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

John W . Hosterman, Geologist 

Branch of Eastern Mineral Resources 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Reston, Va . 

Brenda B. Houser, Geologist 

Branch of Western Mineral Resources 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Tucson, Ariz . 

Robert Randolph 

U.S. Forest Service 

Ogden, Utah 

William J. Sandoval, Vice President, 

Planning and Business Development 

j.R. Simplot Co. 

Pocatello, Ida. 

James Scherer, Administrator 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8 

Denver, Colo. 

Donald Seehusen, President 

Idaho Quartzite Corp. 

Boise, Idaho 

Cindy l. Smith, Director, Environmental 

Services 

Dames and Moore 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

Kenneth Santini 

Dunn Geoscience Corp. 

Albany, N.Y. 

Connie Steffan, Research Analyst 

Office of Legislative Research 

Utah State Capitol 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

Val V. Tepordei 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

Washington, D .C. 

Edwin W. Tooker, Workshop Coordinator 

Branch of Western Mineral Resources 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Menlo Park, Calif. 

Bryce T. Tripp, Industrial Minerals 

Geologist 

Utah Geological Survey 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

David l. Weide, Chairman 

Department of Geosciences 

University of Nevada 

Las Vegas, Nev . 

larry I. Weiner, Manager, Development 

and Planning 

American Gilsonite Co. 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

Nicholas T. Zilka 

U .S. Bureau of Mines 

Spokane, Wash . 

Audie King 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

John E. Welsh, Consultant 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

Robert Woody, Business Editor 

Salt Lake Tribune 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

Typical industrial-mineral operations in the Basin and Range States of Nevada, Utah, and Idaho. 

LEFT-Gravel-mining operation of the Granite Construction Co. serving the Reno-Sparks-Carson City, Nev., area. Photograph 

courtesy of Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology. 

TOP-Idaho Quartzite Corp. Hale quarry, showing splitting of quartzite blocks into plates ready for production of tiles. 

Photograph courtesy of Don Seehusen, Idaho Quartzite Corp. 

RIGHT -Great Salt Lake Minerals and Chemicals, Inc., plant facilities near Ogden, Utah, which produce potassium sulfate, 

sodium sulfate (salt cake), and magnesium chloride. Photograph by Howard Newman, Salt Lake Brine Shrimp, Inc. 

Superimposed is the Great Basin physiographic section (solid line) of the Basin and Range Province, based on Fenneman 

(1931 ), and the broader tectonophysical-anomaly area (dashed line), based on Eaton (1979). Areas of high population in 

Nevada, Utah, and Idaho (solid red) are based on a U.S. Air Force defense meteorologic satellite photograph taken on a clear 

night. 
Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range 

Region-Workshop Proceedings 

EDWIN W. TOOKER, Compiler-Editor 

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Mines, the 

Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, the Utah Geological 

Survey, and the Idaho Geological Survey 

Presentations and discussion at a workshop held May 30, 31, and 

june 1, 1990, in Salt Lake City, Utah, to consider the current 

status, regulatory problems, projected needs, and future plans for 

improving the availability of industrial-mineral resources in the 

Basin and Range States of Nevada, Utah, and Idaho 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 2013 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

MANUEL LUJAN, JR., Secretary 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Dallas L. Peck, Director 

Any use of trade, product, or firm names 

in this publication is for descriptive purposes only 

and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

The opinions expressed by workshop participants as reported in 

this publication do not necessarily reflect the official views or 

policies of the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Bureau of Mines, 

the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, the Utah Geological 

Survey, or the Idaho Geological Survey 

Text and illustrations edited by George A. Havach 

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON 1992 

For sale by 

Book and Open-File Reports Sales 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Federal Center, Box 25286 

Denver, CO 80225 

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data 

Industrial minerals in the Basin and Range region : workshop 

proceedings I Edwin W. Tooker, compiler-editor. 

p. em.- (U.S. geological survey bulletin : 2013) 

Includes bibliographical references. 

Supt. of Docs. no. : I 19.3:2013 

1. Mineral industries-West (U.S.)-Congresses. 2. Mines and 

mineral resources-West (U.S.)-Congresses. I. Tooker, Edwin 

Wilson, 1923- . II. Series. 

QE75.89 no. 2013 

[HD9506.U63A 17] 91-45204 

553.6'0979-dc20 CIP 
CONTENTS 

Abstract 1 

Introduction, by E.W. Tooker 1 

Workshop objectives 2 

Highlights of previous workshops 2 

Present situation 3 

Future challenge 3 

Acknowledgments 3 

Welcome, by M.L. Allison 4 

Status of industrial-mineral resources, E.H. Bennett, moderator 4 

Industrial-mineral-supply/demand perspectives for Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and 

the Nation, with a focus on construction materials, by A.F. Barsotti, 

V.V. Tepordei, and G.T. Austin 5 

National perspective for industrial minerals 5 

Supply 5 

Demand 6 

Infrastructure 6 

Regulatory activities 6 

Idaho, Nevada, and Utah industrial-mineral perspectives 7 

Construction aggregates 7 

A national overview 7 

Production and growth 8 

Availability of aggregates- the SMARA solution 8 

Effect of public works: Past and present 9 

National infrastructure needs 10 

Can these resource needs be met? 10 

Construction materials in the Basin and Range region 11 

Idaho 11 

Nevada 11 

Utah 11 

Conclusions 11 

Assessment of present and future production of industrial minerals in the Basin 

and Range region 11 

Industrial rock and mineral production in Utah, 1990, bJ B.T. Tripp 11 

Sand and gravel 12 

Portland cement 12 

Halite 13 

Potash and other salts 15 

Great Salt Lake 15 

Great Salt Lake desert 16 

Paradox Basin 16 

Sevier Lake 16 

Alunite deposits 16 

Phosphate 17 

Crushed stone 18 

Limestone and dolomite 18 

Clays 18 

Gypsum 19 

Miscellaneous commodities 21 

Industrial minerals in Nevada, by S.B. Castor 22 

Aggregate (sand, gravel, and crushed stone) 24 

Barite 24 

Borate 25 

Cement 25 

Contents Ill 
IV Contents 

Status of industrial-mineral resources, E.H. Bennett, moderator- Continued 

Assessment of present and future production of industrial minerals the Basin 

and Range region- Continued 

Industrial minerals in Nevada, by S.B. Castor- Continued 

Clay 25 

Diatomite 25 

Fluorspar 25 

Garnet 25 

Gypsum 25 

Lime and limestone 27 

Lithium carbonate 27 

Magnesia 28 

Perlite 28 

Salt 28 

Silica 28 

Wollastonite 28 

Zeolite 28 

Industrial minerals in Idaho, by E.H. Bennett 28 

Phosphate 29 

Sand and gravel 31 

Pumice 31 

Perlite 31 

Scoria 31 

Garnet 32 

Limestone and cement 32 

Clay 32 

Silica 32 

Building stone 32 

Diatomite 32 

Zeolites 32 

Gypsum 32 

Gem stones 32 

Aluminum recycling 34 

Potential deposits 34 

Future needs and problems in the Basin and Range region, B.W. Buck, 

moderator 34 

Growth of population and limitations on resource availability, by Robert 

Buchanan 35 

Shifting environmental priorities 35 

Factors of urban sensitivity 35 

Beck Street gravel-excavation operation 36 

Developing a proactive stance 36 

Concluding recommendation 36 

Participants' discussion and comments 37 

Recommendations for better industry-government 

cooperation 37 

NDM reply 37 

NBMG reply 37 

UGS reply 37 

IGS comment 37 

Industry environmental concern 38 

Long-range resource planning 39 

Environmental concerns for land, air, and water, by James Scherer 39 

Toxic waste at Superfund sites 40 

Air quality and health protection 40 

Air quality and visibility 40 
Future needs and problems in the Basin and Range region, B. W. Buck, moderator 

Continued 

Environmental concerns for land, air, and water, by James Scherer- Continued 

Increased future cost for mining 40 

Water issues 40 

Industrial-mineral issues delegated to the States 41 

The EPA's new proactive image 41 

Planning avoids conflict 42 

New operating role for the EPA 42 

Concluding thoughts on the future of the EPA 43 

Participants' discussion and comments 43 

Interstate activity in the formulation of regulations governing mine waste, by 

D.R. Nielson 44 

Background- the problem 44 

The States' response 45 

Formation of the MWTF 45 

Regulatory-program position- a solution 46 

What the process cannot do 46 

Participants' discussion and comments 47 

A perspective on regional industrial-mineral problems, J.E. Christensen, 

moderator 48 

Economic problems of industrial-mineral mining, C.W. Berry, convenor 48 

Industrial-mineral marketing, by L.I. Wiener 48 

Occurrence of gilsonite 49 

Mining and marketing of gilsonite 49 

Industrial uses for gilsonite 49 

Marketing factors 49 

Early marketing experience 50 

Current marketing efforts 50 

New marketable products 50 

Marketing matrix 51 

Summary 51 

Participant's comment 52 

The art of financing an industrial-mineral enterprise, by R.W. Bernick, 

Sr. 52 

Typical loan requirements 52 

Cash-flow considerations 52 

CPA assistance needed 53 

Security for the lender 53 

Value added and other considerations 53 

Problem of business deals, taxes, and economic analysis, by C.W. 

Berry 53 

Business deals 53 

Mineral-leasing problems 54 

Tax considerations 54 

Other cost factors 54 

Economic analysis 55 

Economic analysis for the State of Utah 56 

Participants' discussion and comments 56 

Environmental and support-system problems for industrial-mineral mining, 

B.W. Buck, convenor 57 

Land-access issues from the Federal perspective, by S.J. Brooks 

Use of industrial-mineral resources in the Salt Lake District 

Access to locatable-, leasable-, and salable-mineral lands 

Concluding remarks 59 

Problems of mine permitting in the Great Basin, by G .M. Eurick 

58 

58 

58 

59 

Contents V 
A perspective on regional industrial-mineral problems, J.E. Christensen, moderatorContinued 

VI Contents 

Environmental and support-system problems for industrial-mineral mining, 

B. W. Buck, convenor- Continued 

Problems of mine permitting in the Great Basin, by G.M. EurickContinued 

Mining-regulation actions at Mercur, Utah 59 

Federal actions 59 

State actions 59 

County actions 60 

Pending environmental regulatory activity 60 

Conclusions 61 

Environmental problems in planning mining-support systems, by 

C.L. Smith 61 

Legislation 61 

Company economic benefits 61 

Public involvement 62 

Regional socioeconomics 62 

Project development and the environmental-planning 

process 62 

Infrastructure, or support systems 62 

Support systems 62 

Water 63 

Water-discharge systems 63 

Electrical power 63 

Energy fuels 63 

Communication 63 

Transportation 63 

Labor 63 

Other socioeconomic considerations 64 

Example of the Conda-to-Pocatello, Idaho, phosphate-slurry 

pipeline project 64 

Water demand 64 

Wastewater discharge 64 

Fisheries 64 

Access roads 65 

Visual characteristics 65 

Socioeconomics 65 

Conclusion 65 

Participants' discussion and comments 65 

Industrial minerals from the perspective of government, M.L. Allison, 

moderator 68 

Politics and industrial minerals, by Gov. Scott M. Matheson 69 

Public recognition through education 69 

An industry identity gap 70 

Can the industry survive and prosper? 70 

Industry's dependence on government 71 

Options for success 71 

Expanding industrial-mineral opportunities in the Basin and Range region, R.C. 

Bradt, moderator 73 

Potential for the use of industrial minerals in advanced-material applications, 

by G.R. Hyde 73 

What are advanced materials? 73 

Special properties and types of advanced materials 74 

Quantities of component materials required 75 

Conclusions 75 
Expanding industrial-mineral opportunities in the Basin and Range region, 

R.C. Bradt, moderator- Continued 

Governmental and academic research applicable to the industrial-mineral 

industry 76 

USBM research activities, by G.R. Hyde 76 

Resource-availability issues 76 

Environmental issues 76 

Technological issues 76 

New markets, new materials 76 

Conclusions 77 

USGS industrial-mineral-research activities, by M.P. Foose 77 

USGS mineral programs 77 

Types of USGS research activities 78 

Concluding thought 78 

Research potential of the State geological surveys and universities, by 

J.G. Price 79 

79 

79 

What's happening in Nevada? 

Geologic maps are needed 

Mineral-resource reports 

Sources of resource expertise 

79 

Manpower and funding 80 

Providing future employees 

Current research frontiers 

Conclusions 81 

80 

81 

81 

Participants' discussion and comments 82 

New-market development: How it has been done, R.C. Bradt, moderator 84 

Developing new markets for beryllium, a high-value specialty material, 

by T.B. Parsonage 84 

Special properties of beryllium 85 

New-market-development problems 86 

Conclusions 87 

New-product development from low-value material by the Idaho 

Quartzite Corporation, by Donald Seehausen 87 

Origin of the Idaho Quartzite Corporation 87 

New-product development 88 

Marketing strategies 88 

Concluding comments 89 

Participants' discussion and comments 90 

Industrial-mineral opportunities derived from an effective public-relations 

effor 90 

Public education through public-relations expertise and technology, by 

John Marz 90 

Objectives of a public-relations plan 

Operational plan for public relations 

Reaching the general public 

Reaching opinion leaders 

92 

93 

91 

92 

We set up a speakers' bureau 93 

Reaching the legislators 93 

Reaching the press 93 

Concluding thoughts 93 

Participants' discussion and comments 94 

Future actions to meet industrial-mineral needs, J.G. Price, moderator 

What are the problems to be solved? 96 

96 

Industry perspective for high-volume, low-value materials, by Douglas 

Clark 96 

Environmental problems 97 

Contents VII 
Future actions to meet industrial-mineral needs, J.G. Price, moderator- Continued 

What are the problems to be solved?- Continued 

Industry perspective for high-volume, low-value materials, by Douglas 

Clark- Continued 

Zoning and reclamation 97 

Materials specifications 97 

Improved materials-testing methods 98 

Economic-use factor 98 

Industry perspective for low-volume, high-value commodities, by 

J.R. Harmon 98 

The land planner's perspective -local-government regulation of mining 

activities, by Michael Harper 99 

Industry'~ planning responsibilities 99 

Local government's planning responsibilities 100 

The Washoe County planning process 101 

Concluding thoughts 101 

Participants' discussion and comments 101 

Possible resource-constituency activities to help solve industrial-mineral 

problem 104 

Proposal for organizing industrial-mineral coalitions in the Western 

States, by M.P. Foose 104 

Coalition formation 104 

Concluding thoughts 105 

The Interstate Mining Compact Commission, an established regional 

organization, by G.E. Conrad 105 

What is a compact? 106 

The Interstate Mining Compact 106 

Origin 106 

Purpose 106 

Operational philosophy 107 

Benefits 107 

The functions of coalitions 107 

National coalitions 108 

Regional coalitions 108 

Advice for forming coalitions 108 

The principle of cooperative federalism 

Elements of cooperative federalism 

The role of the States 109 

Federal-State balance 109 

Final thoughts 110 

108 

109 

State Geologists' views about the concept of State or regional industrialminerals coalitions, by J.G. Price 110 

Some additional observations about coalitions, by E.H. Bennett 

A Utah perspective on the coalition proposal, by M.L. Allison 

Participants' discussion and comments 113 

111 

112 

Summary of the discussion about the creation of an industrial-minerals 

coalition in the Western States, by E.W. Tooker 118 

What an industrial-minerals coalition should not be 119 

What an industrial-minerals coalition should be 119 

Elements necessary for the success of a coalition 119 

Conclusions 120 

Closing comments from the workshop sponsors and organizing committee, by 

M.P. Foose 120 

References cited 121 

VIII Contents 
APPENDIXES 

1. Program for the third industrial-minerals workshop 124 

2. Significant industrial rock and mineral quarries, pits, and plants in Utah with 

recent production 126 

3. "Strawman" proposal for an industrial-minerals coalition in the Western United 

States as the basis for its consideration by the workshop 130 

4. Structure of a formal coalition such as the Interstate Mining Compact 

Commission, by G.E. Conrad 131 

5. Amendments to California's SMARA legislation, which became effective on 

January 1, 1991 132 

FIGURES 

Photographs of typical industrial-mineral operations in the Basin and Range States of 

Nevada, Utah, and Idaho Cover 

1. Plot of annual production of crushed stone and sand and gravel in the United 

States, 1948-88 8 

2. Plot of annual public expenditures on construction work as a percentage of the 

GNP, 1940-87 10 

3. Plot of annual production of sand and gravel in Utah, 1950-90 12 

4. Sketch map of Utah, showing locations of cement-rock occurrences and cement 

operations in 1990 13 

5. Sketch map of Utah, showing locations of halite occurrences and operations in 

1990 14 

6. Plot of annual production of halite in Utah, 1950-90 15 

7. Sketch map of Utah, showing locations of potash, magnesium chloride, sodium 

sulfate, and alunite occurrences and operations in 1990 15 

8. Photograph of Magnesium Corp. of America (MAGCORP)'s operation on the 

Great Salt Lake for production of magnesium and chloride brine 16 

9. Sketch map of Utah, showing locations of phosphate occurrences and 

operations in 1990 17 

10. Plot of annual production of stone in Utah, 1950-90 18 

11. Sketch map of Utah, showing locations of active limestone and dolomite 

operations in 1990 19 

12. Plot of annual production of lime in Utah, 1950-90 19 

13. Sketch map of Utah, showing locations of active clay operations in 1990 20 

14. Plot of annual production of clay in Utah, 1950-90 20 

15. Sketch map of Utah, showing locations of gypsum occurrences and operations 

in 1990 21 

16. Plot of annual production of gypsum in Utah, 1973-90 21 

17. Plot of value of annual production of industrial minerals and metals in Nevada, 

1950-90 22 

18. Plot of value of annual production of industrial minerals in Nevada, 1950-

90 22 

19. Sketch map of Nevada, showing locations of industrial-mineral operations and 

production in 1989 and (or) 1990 23 

20. Bar chart showing annual production of barite in Nevada, 1952-90 24 

21. Photograph of diatomaceous-earth mine operated by Eagle-Picher near 

Lovelock, Nev. 26 

22. Photograph of Daisy fluorite mine operated by J. Irving Crowell, Jr., and Son 

near Beatty, Nev. 26 

23. Bar chart showing annual production of gypsum in Nevada, 1952-89 27 

24. Photograph of new lime plant operated by Continental Lime, Inc., near 

Wendover, Nev. 27 

Contents IX 
X Contents 

25. Sketch map of Idaho, showing locations of active industrial-mineral operations 

in 1989 29 

26. Sketch map of Idaho, showing locations of potential deposits or occurrences of 

industrial minerals 30 

27. Sketch map of Pocatello, Idaho, area, showing location of the Idaho phosphate 

district 31 

28. Photograph of new filler-lime plant operated by the Idaho Limestone 

Co. 33 

29. Photograph showing typical ridgetop outcrops of Idaho quartzite 33 

30. Photograph of new aluminum-recycling plant operated by International Mill 

Service Aluminum Metal, Inc. (INSAMET), at Hauser Lake, Idaho 34 

31. Diagram illustrating the American Gilstonite Co.'s market-development product 

matrix 51 

32. Diagram illustrating relation between conventional and advanced 

materials 74 

33. Plot of value of annual production per mine worker in Nevada 81 

34. Pie chart showing consumption of Bruch Wellman, Inc., reserves of beryllium 

ore 84 

35. Photograph of Brush Wellman, Inc.'s ore-concentration facility at Delta, 

Utah 85 

36. Photograph of a generic lightweighted beryllium mirror blank, an example of a 

complex precision-formed component that can be made almost directly, without 

machining 86 

TABLES 

1. Production of aggregate in the United States in 1989 7 

2. Regions of major production of crushed rock and sand and gravel in the United 

States in 1989 7 

3. Five leading States in order of production of crushed stone, sand and gravel, 

and aggregate in 1989 7 

4. Growth of production of construction material in the United States between 

1948 and 1989 8 

5. Industrial minerals produced in Nevada 22 

6. Industrial-mineral operations, by location and operator, in Nevada with 

production in 1989 and (or) 1990 24 

7. Value of industrial minerals in Idaho 28 

8. Potential political, business, and technical risks affecting a mining 

operation 55 

9. Calculation of present value using constant money and current (inflated) cashflow 55 

10. Federal-agency environmental regulatory determinations for the Mercur mine, 

Tooele and Utah Counties, Utah 59 

11. State-agency environmental regulatory determinations for the Mercur mine, 

Tooele and Utah Counties, Utah 60 

12. Local-agency environmental regulatory determinations for the Mercur mine, 

Tooele and Utah Counties, Utah 60 

13. Typical material properties of lightweighted beryllium mirror 87 
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 

AC 

AIME 

AMC 

ARA 

AZGS 

BLM 

BWPC 

C ofE 

CAA 

CEQ 

CERCLA 

CMA 

CPA 

CWA 

DCED 

DMG 

DNR 

DOA 

DOC 

DOD 

DOE 

DOGM 

DOH 

DOl 

DOT 

DPS 

EA 

EIS 

EPA 

EPCRA 

FHWA 

f.o.b. 

FWPCA 

GAO 

GIS 

GNP 

HUD 

ICP-MS 

IGS 

IMCC 

MAS 

MC 

MILS 

MOU 

MRDS 

MSHA 

MWTF 

NAMRAP 

NBMG 

NCGMP 

NEPA 

NDM 

NIMBY 

NMA 

NOPE 

NPDES 

OMB 

OSHA 

OSM 

PBS 

PM-10 

PR 

PSD 

R&D 

R-2 

asphaltic cement 

American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers 

American Mining Congress 

Acid Rain Act 

Arizona Geological Survey 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management (DOl) 

Bureau of Water Pollution Control (Utah) 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (DOD) 

Clean Air Act 

Council on Environmental Quality 

Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation Liability Act 

California Mining Association 

certified public accountant 

Clean Water Act 

Department of Community and Environment Development, Division of State history 

Division of Mines and Geology (California Department of Conservation) 

Department of Natural Resources (Utah) 

U.S. Department of Agriculture 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

U.S. Department of Defense 

U.S. Department of Energy 

Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining (Utah Department of Natural Resources) 

Department of Health (Utah) 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Department of Public Safety (Utah) 

environmental assessment 

environmental-impact statement 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Emergency Planning and Community Rights to Know Act 

Federal Highway Administration 

free on board 

Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

General Accounting Office 

Geographic Information System 

gross national product 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry 

Idaho Geological Survey 

Interstate Mining Compact Commission 

Mineral Availability System (USBM) 

materials classification 

Mineral Industry Location System (USBM) 

memorandum of understanding 

Mineral Resource Data System (USGS) 

U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration 

Mine Waste Task Force (EPA) 

National Mineral Resource Assessment Program (USGS) 

Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology 

National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (USGS) 

National Environmental Policy Act 

Nevada Department of Minerals 

not in my back yard! 

Nevada Mining Association 

not on planet Earth! 

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

U.S. Office of Management and Budget 

Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

Office of Surface Mining 

public broadcasting service 

very small (less than 10 !lffi) particulate matter 

public relations 

prevention of significant deterioration 

research and development 

residential-type zoning 

Contents XI 
XII Contents 

RCRA 

ROW 

SIC 

SFS 

SMARA 

SMCRA 

SMCRCA 

T&E 

TEU 

TPY 

TSP 

TV 

UGS 

VIC 

UMA 

UNR 

UNLV 

UPDES 

USBM 

USFS 

USGS 

UST 

voc 

WGA 

WSMA 

XRF 

Resource Control Reclamation Act 

right -of-way 

Standard Industrial Classification (EPA) 

Superfund site 

Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (California) 

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act 

Surface Mining Control Resource and Conservation Act (California) 

threatened and endangered 

20-ft equivalent 

tons per year 

total suspended particulates 

television 

Utah Geological Survey (Department of Natural Resources) 

underground-injection control 

Utah Mining Association 

University of Nevada, Reno 

University of Nevada, Las Vegas 

Utah Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

U.S. Bureau of Mines (DOl) 

U.S. Forest Service (DOA) 

U.S. Geological Survey (DOl) 

underground storage tank 

volatile organic compound 

Western Governors' Association 

Western States Mining Association 

X-ray fluorescence 
Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range RegionWorkshop Proceedings 

Edwin W. Tooker, Compiler-Editor 

ABSTRACT 

This volume is an edited transcript of the sessions at 

the Basin and Range industrial-minerals workshop held in 

Salt Lake City, Utah, in May 1990 (see app. 1 ). The 60 

participants represented a "resource constituency" that 

included major segments of the industrial-minerals industry 

and related, broad public and private scientific, economic, 

land-management-regulatory, and environmental-protection 

components. Interrelated factors, such as the present national and regional status of industrial-mineral reserves and 

resources, future needs for them, and problems of their 

availability both locally and in the interstate region of the 

Basin and Range, were considered during informal roundtable panel presentations and participant discussions. This 

review led to a recognition of the increasing requirements 

for industrial minerals in widely separated local centers of 

rapid population growth in the Basin and Range, the increasing environmental concerns accompanying accelerated 

use of industrial minerals to meet new demands, and the 

interstate problems arising from local congestion, pollution 

control, expanding infrastructure, waste management, and 

reclamation. Panel members evaluated economic problems 

of marketing, taxes, royalties, and financing of industrialmineral production and development of the support systems, 

such as adequate power and water, favorable transportation rates, and availability of skilled labor. Former Governor Scott Matheson of Utah stressed the need to develop 

political support for industrial minerals by increasing the 

visibility and image of the industry through proactive participation with governmental bodies. 

The proposals examined for expanding industrialmineral opportunities in the Basin and Range region include 

development of advanced (high value, low volume) materials for specialized strategic and industrial needs of the future, consideration of new market-development possibilities 

for existing high- and low-value materials, and a strategy for 

increasing the industry's visibility and expanding the role of 

industrial minerals in the domestic economy. The use of PR 

expertise and technology in public education to explain the 

special economic benefits of mining was also described. Finally, a proposal for developing an ongoing discussion 

group or coalition of the resource constituency was advanced to form a visible base of community support and to 

increase understanding of this industry by the public. 

This report is the third in a series to evaluate the status 

of industrial-mineral resources in the rapidly growing regions of the Western United States. The first workshop was 

held in Tempe, Ariz. (Tooker, 1989), and the second in Marina Del Rey, Calif. (Tooker and Beeby, 1990). 

INTRODUCTION 

By E.W. Tooker 

This volume contains the proceedings of the Basin 

and Range industrial minerals workshop held in Salt Lake 

City, Utah, on May 30 through June 1, 1990. This workshop, the third in a series held in the Western United 

States beginning in 1988 in Arizona, followed in 1989 in 

California, completed an examination of the major factors 

that directly or indirectly affect the important, yet poorly 

recognized, industrial-mineral-resource industry. The 

workshop considered the current status of these mineral 

materials, the projected needs for them, some of the problems associated with mining them, and the development of 

a strategy or plan for assuring their future availability in 

the Basin and Range region of Utah, Nevada, and Idaho. 

Workshop sessions were sponsored by the geological surveys of the Basin and Range States (IGS, NBMG, UGS) 

and the USBM and USGS. 

The workshop format was structured as an informal, open-square, face-to-face meeting; panel presentations were followed by discussion or comments by 

workshop participants. A total of 60 participants and observers (see inside front cover) were invited to the workshop to consider the topics presented; they represent 

segments of a "resource constituency" that includes the 

mining industry and supporting public and private 

groups which, in one way or another, provide scientific 

and environmental expertise, economic support, and governmental regulatory and land-management responsibilities. Formal technical papers were not required of 

conveners and panelists, to encourage greater participation and stimulate more lively discussion. The sessions 

were recorded and subsequently transcribed, compiled, 

and edited into their present form. Participants' discussions and comments are anonymous; panelist's replies to discussion are acknowledged. 

Introduction 
Workshop Objectives 

The primary objective of the workshop was to develop a clearer understanding of the availability of and demand for industrial-mineral resources in the Basin and 

Range region of Utah, Nevada, and Idaho, and the mining 

and reclamation problems associated with rock and mineral extraction. As the population of this region increases, 

more land, water, mineral, and energy resources and the 

supporting industry and infrastructures are needed by the 

new residents. These needs lead inevitably to increasing 

risks of degrading area resources. Therefore, there is an 

urgency to alert and educate the public, thereby to assure a 

more balanced consideration of resource needs and the environmental situations that arise in meeting those needs. 

Ancillary goals of the sponsors were to identify and 

meet with the industrial-minerals "grass roots" constituency in this region, to develop a better understanding for 

future resource-program efforts of the sponsoring agencies, 

and to discuss how to share the responsibility for disseminating resource information and technology to both public 

and private decisionmakers. To accomplish these goals, 

the question asked was how a constituency composed of 

such diverse elements as the industrial-minerals industry, 

government agencies, universities, environmental-planning 

consultants, government political managers, and the public 

at large can develop into a credible "force" whose expertise is recognized and acted on. One of the most serious 

difficulties to be overcome in obtaining such a force is the 

fiercely independent and competitive industrial-minerals 

industry itself, which produces a wide variety of commodities, yet shares common problems. 

Highlights of Previous Workshops 

It seems appropriate at the conclusion of this series 

of industrial-minerals workshops to sketch the highlights 

and contributions of the previous sessions. Each workshop 

has contributed distinctive elements to an emerging picture 

that reflect the special resource characteristics of each region. Thus, the intrinsic value of the Arizona, California, 

and Basin and Range workshops is that they consolidate a 

body of information concerning the ·current and future 

availability of industrial-mineral resources that is not available in one place elsewhere. This information, therefore, 

may be unique for the Western United States, which contains vast tracts of Federal and State lands. Moreover, the 

proceedings identify many somewhat-divergent viewpoints, all of which must be considered in developing equitable solutions to resource problems. Thus, the workshop 

proceedings acquaint the broad public and governing officials and regulatory agencies at the Federal, State, county, 

and local municipal levels of the societal importance of 

industrial minerals. The problems to be solved are difficult, but not insurmountable if the warnings and recommendations are acted on promptly. 

The workshops began by defining industrial minerals, demonstrating their importance to the local and regional economies and infrastructures, and reviewing the status 

of the local industrial-mineral industry, and concluded 

with recommendations for improving access to these resources. Each workshop then diverged to consider typical 

industrial-mineral-resource aspects in its particular State 

and region. 

The Arizona workshop proceedings (Tooker, 1989) 

stressed the need for computer access to resource-data systems, reproducible standard analyses, and testing facilities 

for industrial-mineral materials. The impediments to mining industrial minerals that result from a multitude of 

sometimes-overlapping local-, State-, and Federal-agency 

requirements for land management, environmental protection, and reclamation were considered; local planning and 

zoning, State and Federal permitting, and environmental 

constraints were discussed. To help industry and land managers, some governmental and academic computer data (in 

GIS, MAS, and MRDS); new geologic, geophysical, and 

geochemical research; and deposit resource models, which 

should facilitate resource exploration and development, 

were described. The workshop session ended with an 

analysis of the specific needs voiced by the various segments of the resource constituency. 

The California workshop proceedings (Tooker and 

Beeby, 1990) examined the special land-access and permitting issues of potentially withdrawn State and Federal 

lands and of rapidly expanding urbanized (zoned) regions, 

as well as the environmental impact of mining and mitigation of the adverse effects of mining. There have been numerous detailed analyses of the impact of mining in 

existing and proposed wildernesses and wilderness study 

areas (for example, Anderson, 1989; U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management, 1990); however, very little comparable information is available for existing and expanding urban areas in the State. Recognition that these are areas where the 

effects of necessary expanded industrial-mineral-resource 

development will be greatest led to the recommendation 

that these resources be identified, evaluated, and dedicated. 

Then, effective plans should be made for their segmented 

development and for acceptable reclamation of the mined 

lands. The economics of resource production, specifically 

on transportation-infrastructure requirements, and regional 

planning in the State were considered. Assistance available 

to the resource constituency from universities, government 

agencies, and scientific societies was described. Finally, 

the poor image of mining in the public eye and the special 

need for education of that public were addressed, with the 

strong recommendation that an effort to roll back the damaged public image of mining begin as soon as possible. 

2 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
Present Situation 

Although there are repetitions of information and 

recommendations in the three workshops, they cover 

several important current concerns, identify some of the 

overlaps and opportunities for streamlining governmental 

management and regulation of mining, and offer suggestions for ways to expand the uses of industrial minerals 

and an improved public awareness of these resources. 

An editorial in the London Mining Journal (1990) 

summed up the "Catch-22" situation facing the resource 

industry worldwide today. It also showed that the 

industrial-minerals problems are not only U.S. problems; 

the resource situation in Great Britain reflects a contracting domestic mining industry, the mining profession's 

poor job prospects and pay, and mining's tarnished 

image. In the United States, where mining remains an 

important part of the economy, its operational problems 

are also due to adverse public perceptions, particularly 

the association of mining with environmental damage. 

Few people are aware of just how essential mineral resources are to their everyday lives. Mining companies 

have yet to convince society that they are creators of 

wealth and not despoilers of the environment. The editorial concluded that a better understanding of mining's 

role in society for those who will eventually be making 

the key decisions can be achieved only through more effective public earth-science education. 

Economic, environmental, and, possibly, some 

other problems considered in the workshop certainly are 

well known to the workshop participants and some readers but less well known, if at all, to many other readers, 

even some of us within the resource constituency, and to 

the public at large. The seriousness of this lack of information about such problems and their effect on access to 

(production of) necessary industrial minerals made it imperative that these subjects be included in these workshop proceedings. 

Future Challenge 

The potential conflict between industrial-mineral 

mining and environmental protection must be resolved to 

meet society's needs with a minimum of disruptions. The 

industrial-minerals constituency must educate not only 

those currently making the decisions that affect, directly or 

indirectly, the officials in local villages, counties, States, 

and the Federal Government, but also the people who currently vote for decisionmakers. An editorial in Mining 

Magazine (1990) concluded that "too often the mineral 

industry's replies to attacks [on environmental issues] are 

so quiet that the public does not hear." The editorial continued to say that business people should realize that they 

have to sell not only their products but also their business 

existence. To this end, advocacy skills are a true art that 

must be mastered. 

The resource constituency itself has to recognize 

how the present situation developed. From his perspective 

as a mining-company executive and lawyer, Stanley 

Dempsey (1990) traced the evolution of the relation between the environmental movement and mining and considered the primary issues for the 1990's. He concluded 

with these thoughts: 

In retrospect, it seems clear that we have not yet 

reached a national consensus on how to manage the 

environmental impacts of mining in the United States. 

The Nation is spending a lot of money on environmental cleanup, but much of that money goes to lawyers and public-relations firms. Agreement on ways to 

manage the environment and actual physical cleanup 

of waste sites continues to elude us. * * * The political system imposes political solutions to technical and 

economic problems, and there is little collaboration 

between the regulators and members of the regulated 

community. Science takes a back seat to politics. If 

one is optimistic about the future, it is safe to predict 

that the United States will eventually sort out a more 

satisfactory approach to environmental management 

and regulation. * * *. If this occurs, technical people 

will be encouraged to come up with effective mechanisms for managing the environmental impacts of 

mining. 

The workshop participants recognized the need for 

developing broad public support for more effective public 

and private resource management at all levels. One proposal to obtain that support is to mobilize a coalition composed of members who represent the broad range of 

resource issues and technologies. Such an organization 

could begin to put science back into the equation by developing credible, well-balanced information on which to 

make reasonable decisions. The sponsors of the three 

industrial-minerals workshops hope that these proceedings 

volumes and the basic information and thought-provoking 

discussions therein will spur action within a concerned resource community as soon as possible. 

Acknowledgments 

The workshop organizing committee greatly appreciates the encouragement, participation, and support of the 

IGS, NBMG, and UGS and of the USGS and USBM in 

developing the workshop program and in selecting participants who represent the broad resource-oriented constituency in this part of the Basin and Range. Special thanks 

are also accorded the session moderators, conveners, and 

panelists for their vital contributions to the workshop 

Introduction 3 
program. In turn, the committee thanks the workshop 

participants (see inside front cover) for their insights 

and contributions to the discussions that followed the 

presentations. Members of the organizing committee who 

contributed to the tenor and success in planning and assistance in conducting the workshop include E.H. Bennett, 

Idaho State Geologist; S.B. Castor, geologist, NBMG; 

R.W. Gloyn, senior economic geologist; B.T. Tripp, geologist, UGS; C.W. Berry, professor, University of Utah; J.E. 

Christensen, president, Utah Mining Association; Peter 

Behrens, president, Lake Chemical Co.; Glenn Eurick, geologist, American Barrick Mining Co.; D.P. Bauer, geologist, BLM; B.W. Buck, J.B.R. Consultants Group; A.F. 

Barsotti, chief of the Branch of Industrial Minerals, and 

M.J. McKinley, former chief of the Branch of Industrial 

Minerals, USBM; and M.P. Foose, deputy chief, Office of 

Mineral Resources, E.H. McKee, former chief of the 

Branch of Western Mineral Resources, and E.W. Tooker, 

geologist, USGS. 

The organizing committee tenders special appreciation to the following persons, and to those individuals and 

firms who assisted them, for contributions to the success of 

the workshop. J.G. Price, Nevada State Geologist, provided 

practical advice regarding the proposal considered in session 5 for organizing State coalitions of the resource constituency, ana he conducted a pre-workshop survey of the 

Western State geologists' views and opinions about such a 

coalition. B.T. Tripp, UGS, organized and arranged the information poster and literature exhibits used during the sessions. Laboratory tours on June 1, 1990, to the USBM's 

Field Center Laboratory, the UGS' computer-data and 

map-information facility, the National Cold Fusion Institute, and the University of Utah's College of Mines Research Center, as well as a field visit to the Staker Co.'s 

Salt Lake City crushed-rock open pit, followed by a tour of 

the adjoining Monroe precast-prestressed-concrete plant, 

were planned and conducted by C.W. Berry, University of 

Utah. E.W. Tooker coordinated the workshop. 

WELCOME 

By M.L. Allison 

It is my privilege, as director of the UGS and your 

local host sponsor, to welcome you to these sessions. It's 

exciting to see this group assembled here in Salt Lake City 

to discuss industrial minerals, a subject ordinarily perceived to be mundane but one that, in reality, just isn't 

well understood by the general populace. These 2 days 

should begin to dispel those notions. 

This workshop is something sorely needed. Industrial minerals aren't "sexy"; they're not glamorous. Yet, 

the industrial-mineral production in this country last year 

was twice the value of metallic-mineral production. Industrial minerals are a conglomeration of 50-odd commodities, each with unique problems. High-volume, low-cost 

materials mean, for example, that transportation may be a 

major cost factor. Thus, the resource must be located in or 

near urban centers, but these are precisely the areas where 

environmental concerns and urban developments are 

squeezing out the very industry needed to support the 

same centers of urban growth. 

All of us recognize that much can be done to improve the industrial-mineral industries. Some of the solutions are scientific or technical; others are political, 

economic, and social. These latter solutions may be the 

most critical factors governing the development of industrial minerals. Your agenda is quite broad based, covering 

land-use planning, Federal and State land-use policy, research on geologic, mining, and environmental science and 

technology and their transfer, resource identification, and 

data inventory. 

One important reason for our being here is to address how we might better solve some of our problems. 

There are many possible directions to take, but it isn't 

clear which direction is best for most of the people we 

serve or who serve us. What roles should Federal and 

State agencies play in the resource area? How should government interact positively with industry? How can highly 

diversified and competitive industries thrive, and is there 

enough of a common basis for them to work together to 

meet the challenges ahead? 

By tomorrow afternoon, perhaps we'll have a better 

idea of where we need to go and how to answer some of 

the important questions that lie ahead. I look forward to 

that and to the laboratory and industry field tours that follow. Again, welcome to the workshop sessions and to Salt 

Lake City! 

STATUS OF INDUSTRIAL-MINERAL 

RESOURCES 

E.H. Bennett, Moderator 

We begin these proceedings with an overview of 

the national status of industrial minerals, looking at the 

construction-aggregate materials in some detail, in a panel 

discussion by A.F. Barsotti, chief of the USBM's Branch 

of Industrial Minerals in Washington, D.C., and V.V. 

Tepordei, USBM commodity specialist, also from Washington, D.C. There follow presentations of State summary 

assessments of present and future industrial-mineral production from the NBMG by S.B. Castor of Reno, Nev., 

from the UGS by B.T. Tripp of Salt Lake City, Utah, and 

from the IGS by E.H. Bennett, Idaho State Geologist, of 

Moscow, Idaho. On the basis of this information about 

4 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
industrial-mineral materials, we then move to a second 

panel convened by B.W. Buck, a partner of the J.B.R. 

Consultants Group in Salt Lake City, to consider some of 

the future resource needs and problems in the Basin and 

Range region. 

Industrial-Mineral-Supply /Demand Perspectives 

for Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and the Nation, 

with a Focus on Construction Materials 

By A.F. Barsotti, V.V. Tepordei, and G.T. Austin 

Contrary to what many people believe, the United 

States is not totally self-sufficient in industrial minerals. 

When discussing self-sufficiency, a distinction must be 

made between foreign dependency and reliance. Dependency occurs when domestic resources of a particular mineral are insufficient to meet U.S. demand, whereas in the 

case of reliance, the United States may have sufficient resources of a mineral but, for other reasons, usually economic, chooses to rely on foreign sources. The Nation 

depends nearly totally on imports for sheet mica, strontium, gem stones, and natural industrial diamonds; more 

than 70 percent for potash; at least 50 percent for fluorspar, barite, asbestos, and iodine; and less than 50 percent 

for dimension stone, pumice, peat, gypsum, quartz crystal, 

cement, and sodium sulfate. Some of the countries that 

supply significant amounts of minerals to the United States 

are Canada, China, India, Israel, Mexico, the Republic of 

South Africa, and Spain. 

Traditionally, production and consumption of bulk 

construction materials have been limited to local markets. 

In some areas adjacent to navigable waters, markets can be 

regional or interstate in scope. Today, however, because of 

conflicting interests in access to land, environmental restrictions, and, in some cases, general public resistance to 

mining, the costs for delivered bulk materials in many areas have increased to the point where foreign imports from 

as far away as Scotland are becoming commonplace. The 

coastal areas of the United States, despite their vast domestic resources of stone, are now slowly becoming 

import reliant. 

The USBM analyzes industrial-mineral production 

and consumption trends to assist national planning to assure adequate and reliable supplies so as to meet U.S. strategic and economic needs. Such planning also assures that 

the Nation's needs are met at acceptable social, environmental, energy, and financial costs. To complete these 

analyses, USBM commodity specialists monitor approximately 50 commodity industries, which constitute essentially all of the nonmetallic, nonfuel minerals. These 

industries consist of about 8,000 companies operating approximately 30,000 domestic mines, quarries, brine facilities, and processing plants that produced commodities valued at $23.3 billion in 1989. 

National Perspective for Industrial Minerals 

Supply 

Recently, the makeup and structure of the industrialmineral industry has been undergoing major changes and 

adjustments as a result of a shrinking manufacturing sector, new technology, more liberal economic but stricter 

regulatory policies, urban growth, mergers and acquisitions, vertical integration, and a need to rebuild the infrastructure of the Nation. To keep pace with these changes, 

the USBM has broadened its role with respect to industrial 

minerals, by becoming more proactive in the fostering of a 

sound domestic minerals industry and by addressing various problems through policy recommendations and research activities. 

Industrial minerals are grouped into two general 

categories by the USBM- construction materials and 

chemical materials. Fertilizer commodities are an identified subgroup of the chemical materials. Constructionmaterial commodities account for more than 60 percent 

of the total value of industrial-minerals production. Together, three of these commodities- crushed stone, cement, and sand and gravel- represent almost 59 percent 

of the total production value of industrial minerals in the 

United States. 

Sulfur, lime, soda ash, and salt represent more than 

80 percent of the value of chemical materials, not including the fertilizer subgroup, which includes nitrogen, 

peat, phosphate rock, and potash. About 92 percent of 

the sulfur produced in the United States is used in the 

manufacture of sulfuric acid, of which 69 percent is consumed in the making of phosphate fertilizer. Because of 

its desirable properties, sulfuric acid is the most universally used mineral acid and the largest-volume inorganic 

chemical in terms of the quantity produced and consumed. The chemical- and steel-manufacturing industries 

consume 90 percent of the lime produced. The glass and 

chemical industries are the major consumers of soda ash, 

and salt is used principally in the manufacture of chlorine and caustic soda. 

About 80 to 90 percent of the minerals in the fertilizer subgroup produced in 1989 were consumed either directly or indirectly by the fertilizer industry. The Gulf and 

South Atlantic States supply the bulk of the nitrogen, 

phosphate rock, and peat. 

Several of the industrial minerals grouped with the 

construction materials and chemical materials are included 

more for convenience than for their industrial uses. They 

include abrasive materials, clay, feldspar, gem stones, 

graphite, industrial sand and gravel, kyanite, quartz crystal, 

Status of Industrial-Mineral Resources 5 
sheet mica, wollastonite, and zeolites. These industrial 

minerals are used primarily in the refractory, ceramic, 

electronic, paper, plastics, coating, and manufacturing industries. 

Demand 

Demand has decreased for some industrial minerals 

used by the steel and petroleum industries, such as fluorspar and barite. This demand will continue to decrease or 

remain soft until the market for U.S. steel and petroleum 

improves. The phosphate-rock industry underwent a major 

restructuring due to the depletion of low-cost reserves, increased foreign production, continued slack in domestic 

fertilizer demand, and the ban on the use of phosphate 

chemicals in detergents in many parts of the country. 

For other industrial minerals, business in 1989 ranged 

from very good to excellent. Demand for most construction 

materials continued to remain strong, at least partly owing 

to the materials demand associated with the need to rebuild 

the Nation's infrastructure. Until recently, business could 

not have been better for many materials for which growth 

and production are closely tied to the ceramics, refractory, 

electronics, paper, coatings, and plastics industries. 

Infrastructure 

As discussed earlier, the quantities of industrial minerals required to rebuild the Nation's infrastructure are 

very large. The USBM recently began to examine the material requirements and costs associated with this rebuilding. The goals of this study are to determine the extent or 

percentage of material costs as a component of total infrastructure costs and which materials constitute the greatest 

or most significant proportion of material costs. Additionally, the study will determine the most important cost 

components for any significant material-in short, the 

overall industrial-mineral demands and their associated 

costs. 

The FHW A of the U.S. Department of Transportation ( 1989, 1990) provides national and State statistics, including 3-year annual averages of quantities of selected 

materials consumed per million dollars spent on highway 

construction. These materials include aggregates, asphalt, 

cement, concrete pipes, and steel. Using average unit 

prices for each item, assuming that delivery costs are included, material costs are estimated to be almost a third of 

the total highway costs in the United States; the "other" 

component represents administration, capital, labor, expendable items, ROW's, and energy costs. Preliminary examination of State costs suggests that these costs vary 

significantly among the States and from year to year. 

A similar study was done by using public information obtained on the new Denver Airport construction 

project. Current estimates for completion of the first phase 

are about $1.7 billion. The major cost items include land 

acquisition and relocation, new utilities, excavation, terminal construction, runways, parking facilities, and cargo and 

ancillary facilities. Using engineering estimation methods, 

major bulk-material requirements and costs were then calculated. On the basis of preliminary calculations, bulkmaterial costs (for aggregate, cement, and asphalt) are 

estimated to be from 22 to 26 percent of total costs during 

the first phase of construction, depending on the hauling 

distance for aggregates. Hauling aggregate 30 mi for the 

Denver Airport project is estimated to cost as much as $33 

million. 

Regulatory Activities 

Recently, regulatory actions have significantly affected the industrial-mineral industry. As mention earlier, 

the phosphate-rock industry was impaired by the regulatory removal of phosphate from detergents. We're all aware 

of the asbestos issues these days, and even given extraordinary regulations, amazingly, two asbestos mines are still 

producing in the United States. Currently proposed regulatory actions by OSHA and MSHA could adversely affect 

the talc and crushed-stone industries as well. 

The USBM recently completed a study based on 

proposed OSHA regulations on the standards for occupational exposure to asbestos, tremolite, anthophyllite, and 

actinolite. It was estimated that under the proposed regulations, a fourth of the crushed-stone producers would be adversely affected, costing the industry about $22 million 

annually. About 7 percent of that industry would probably 

be forced to close. Additionally, the talc industry could 

lose approximately $12.3 million annually in sales, and at 

least one major producer in the East could shut down. On 

the basis of these findings, the USBM, on behalf of the 

DOl, recommended that OSHA not regulate these nonasbestiform amphibole minerals under the asbestosexposure standard, but that separate rulemaking on the 

regulation of these minerals be proposed. It was also recommended that OSHA incorporate a mineralogic definition of asbestos into its revision. 

A study of the effect on the domestic industrialmineral industry of classifying crystalline silica as a 

potential human carcinogen under OSHA's Hazard Communications Standards is underway. The ramifications of 

this finding could be considerable for the mining industry 

because crystalline silica occurs in a wide variety of rock 

types, including dolomite, limestone, shale, and other industrial-mineral source rocks. Even the general public 

could be indirectly affected because the raw materials for 

many consumer products, such as kitty litter, children's 

play sand, ceramic tiles, paints, and plastics, come from 

deposits that contain crystalline silica. 

6 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
Table 1. Production of aggregate in the United States in 

1989 

[All values in billions of tons] 

Resource Total production Amount used in 

construction aggregate 

Crushed stone------ 1.2 1.03 

Sand and gravel --- .897 .852 

Total----------------- 2.1 1.9 

Table 2. Regions of major production of crushed rock and 

sand and gravel in the United States in 1989 

[All values in millions of tons] 

Region Crushed stone Sand and gravel Total 

South Atlantic -------- 316 77 393 

East North-Central -- 212 177 389 

Pacific ----------------- 87 190 277 

Middle Atlantic ------ 154 66 220 

Mountain -------------- 32 121 153 

Table 3. Five leading States in order of production of crushed stone, sand 

and gravel, and aggregate in 1989 

[All values in millions of tons] 

Crushed stone 

(30.7 percent of 

U.S. total) 

Sand and gravel 

(34 percent of 

U.S. total) 

Total aggregate 

(28.8 percent of 

U.S. total) 

Pennsylvania--- 93.1 California ------ 138.3 California -------- 231.4 

Florida ---------- 84.0 Michigan ------ 48.0 Pennsylvania ---- 132.0 

Texas------------ 76.8 Ohio ------------ 44.4 Texas------------- 121.2 

Virginia--------- 64.1 Texas----------- 43.9 Florida ----------- 108.0 

Illinois ---------- 60.8 Washington 

Idaho, Nevada, and Utah Industrial-Mineral Perspectives 

The USBM estimated the total value of mine production of industrial minerals in Idaho, Nevada, and Utah 

in 1989 at approximately $566 million. The value of production of construction aggregates, largest of the industrial 

minerals, in the tristate area was $179 million, or 32 percent of the total value of industrial-mineral production. 

Phosphate rock was the second largest commodity, followed by cement, salt, lime, diatomite, lithium minerals, 

industrial sand and gravel, and gypsum, which together accounted for 61 percent of the total value of production. 

The remaining 7 percent was barite, clay, dimension stone, 

feldspar, fluorspar, garnet, gem stones, perlite, potassium 

salts, pumice, and sodium sulfate. 

Construction Aggregates 

A National Overview 

Crushed stone and sand and gravel are the two main 

sources of natural construction aggregates in the United 

States, as well as in the world. Both of these natural resources are widely used and produced in every one of the 

United States except Delaware, where only sand and gravel is being produced (Davis and Tepordei, 1985; Tepordei, 

1985). The production of aggregates in a particular area is 

a function of the availability of natural resources, the size 

and growth of the population, and the local economy. 

--- 37.8 Ohio -------------- 98.6 

Crushed stone and sand and gravel have one of the lowest 

average unit values of all mineral commodities. The low 

unit price and large volume of aggregates generally required for most uses, plus the relatively high cost of transportation, force these industries to be local. 

A total of 2.1 billion tons of crushed stone and sand 

and gravel valued at $8.9 billion, f.o.b. at the plant, was 

produced in the United States in 1989. If shipping costs to 

the first point of use are added, the total value of delivered 

aggregates becomes $15 billion to $18 billion. The production of construction materials in the several regions of the 

United States is compared in tables 1 through 3. 

The crushed-stone and, especially, sand-and-gravel 

industries are represented by numerous companies and operations: A total of 5,934 companies operating 9,160 stone 

quarries and sand-and-gravel pits were active in 1987 

through 1988, of which 1,759 companies operating 3,473 

quarries produced crushed stone, whereas 4,175 companies 

operating 5,687 pits produced construction sand and 

gravel. Most of the tonnage, however, comes from large 

operations. The structure of both industries has continued 

to change in the past 10 years, caused primarily by mergers and acquisitions. As a result of these changes, most 

large operations are now owned by only a few companies. 

Preliminary figures for 1989 indicate that the five 

leading crushed-stone companies operated 398 quarries and 

accounted for 19.3 percent of the total U.S. production, 

whereas the five leading sand-and-gravel companies 

Status of Industrial-Mineral Resources 7 
operated 120 pits and accounted for 10.3 percent of the 

total U.S. production. Some of the mergers and acquisitions 

that occurred in the 1980's were associated with an influx 

of foreign capital. At the end of 1989, of the top 10 U.S. 

producers of aggregates, 2 companies were owned by British companies, 1 by an Australian company, and 50 percent 

of I by a Japanese company. Their combined production 

represented 8.3 percent of the total U.S. production. 

Another trend in the aggregate industries is toward 

diversification, especially into intermediate construction 

products, such as ready-mixed concrete and concrete products or construction work. 

Production and Growth 

In the past 40 years, crushed-stone and sand-andgravel production has grown significantly, as listed in table 

4. These data represent an average annual growth rate of 

4.3 percent for crushed rock and 2.6 percent for sand and 

gravel. During this time period, two distinct growth rate 

intervals can be identified (fig. 1 ). 

For sand and gravel: 

• 1948 to 1966, with an average annual growth rate 

of 6 percent; and 

• 1966 to 1989, with an annual growth rate of only 

0 .I percent. 

For crushed stone: 

• 1948 to 1966, with an average annual growth rate 

of 7.4 percent; and 

• 1966 to 1989, with an annual growth rate of only 

1. 9 percent. 

A major reason for the low growth rate since 1967 

in both industries was the significant reduction in the 

Interstate Highway Program during the late 1960's. The 

sand-and-gravel industry has shown a significantly lower 

growth rate than the crushed-stone industry in the past 

two decades, mainly because of the increasing difficulties of developing new mining operations. Restrictive 

zoning regulations, increasing land values, and urbanization, which routinely occurs atop some unmined aggregate deposits, are the major factors responsible for 

slower growth. 

Availability of Aggregates-the SMARA Solution 

Although natural aggregates are widely distributed 

throughout the United States (Langer, 1988), they are not 

always available for production where needed. The significant growth registered by the construction-aggregate industries during the past 40 years has also generated some 

of the major problems facing them today. Sources of construction aggregates are still sufficient for most of the 

country, but more and more metropolitan areas are ex periencing supply difficulties, mostly due to urbanization and 

Table 4. Growth of production of 

construction material in the United 

States between 1948 and 1989 

[All values in millions of tons] 

Year 

1948 

1989 

Crushed rock 

224 

1,240 

Sand and gravel 

319 

897 

restrictions imposed by ex1stmg land uses and zoning 

regulations. Thus, operations are moving farther and farther from consumer markets, and aggregates must be 

brought in from outside the areas, or recycled aggregates 

or artificial aggregates must increasingly be used. 

Because these resources are low-value, high-volume 

mineral commodities, the prices of delivered aggregates 

are drastically affected by transportation distances. Trucking I ton of aggregates a distance of 25 mi in southern 

California adds about $3-5 to the $5-6 average cost of the 

ton. If the shipping distance increases to 60 mi, the shipping costs become $6 to $7 per ton, equal to or more than 

the cost of the aggregates. This case isn't just hypothetical; 

in cities like Boston, New York, Houston, Los Angeles, 

and San Francisco, shipping distances may be 50 to 100 

mi or more, and even higher shipping costs are not at all 

unusual. 

Urbanization, more often than not, has occurred atop 

unmined aggregate deposits without adequate recognition 

of the resources' existence or analysis of the effect of their 

loss. The social and economic consequences of such inadequate planning result in higher consumer costs, environ1400 

(/) 

z 1200 0 Sand and gravel 1-

u. 

0 1000 (/) 

z 

0 

:::::i 800 

::::! 

~ 

~ 600 

z· 

0 400 i= 

u 

::J 

Cl Crushed stone 

0 200 a: / a.. 

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 

YEAR 

Figure 1. Annual production of crushed stone (crosses) and 

sand and gravel (squares) in the United States, 1948-88, 

showing steady growth but with two distinct growth-rate 

intervals (arrows). 

8 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
mental damage, and creation of an adversarial relationship 

between the aggregate industry and the community. 

The effect of premature loss of mineral resources on 

the future development of an area was recognized by the 

State of California early in the 1970's. The Division of 

Mines and Geology of the California Department of Conservation estimated that $17 billion worth of resources, 

primarily construction aggregates, would be preempted 

from mining in California by the year 2000 if then-current 

land-use practices continued. The problem was later recognized by the California Legislature, which passed a bill establishing the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act 

(SMARA) of 1975 (see app. 4; Beeby, 1988; Tooker and 

Beeby, 1990). Although many States and the Federal Government had previously enacted mined-land-reclamation 

laws, California was the first State to address the issue of 

long-term mineral-resource availability. 

Under SMARA, local governments retain all landuse decisionmaking authority relative to the granting of 

mining permits, while responsibility for preparing an accurate, objective, and quantified aggregate-resource inventory is assigned to the State. Designation of specific 

deposits as being "of statewide or regional significance" is 

the second stage of the mineral-resource inventory, if applicable. The resource information is then available for use 

by State agencies, the aggregate industry, and local governments as a basis -for their long-term-planning decisions. 

A resource of more than 50 billion tons of highquality aggregate has been identified and designated 

under SMARA; thus, this program seems to be working 

well in California and may serve as an example to other 

areas of the country. SMARA demonstrates that planned 

management of our natural resources can provide for 

better development of our communities and more efficient management of our environment. 

Effect of Public Works: Past and Present 

Between 80 and 95 percent of the aggregates produced in the United States is used for construction purposes, such as highways, roads, airports, dams, buildings, 

and private homes. Public-works projects represent a significant part of the construction activities in most areas of 

the country, as well as nationally. The importance of public works for promoting economic development and national defense was recognized early in the growth of this 

Nation. Much of the core infrastructure, such as bridges, 

water systems, and sewers, in use today in America's older 

cities was put into place during the first half of the 20th 

century; the post-World War II period witnessed an even 

greater growth. 

In 1956, the U.S. Congress designated the National 

System of Interstate and Defense Highways, also known 

as the Interstate Highway System, and created the Highway Trust Fund to finance its construction and maintenance. The project was intended to promote interstate 

commerce, maintain the Nation's international competitiveness, and strengthen the national defense. It became 

the single largest public-works project ever undertaken by 

a nation. A period of constant growth and rapid economic 

development followed into the 1970's. 

As the construction of the Interstate Highway System approached completion, construction activity decreased, and the aggregate industry became much more 

sensitive to the ups and downs of the economy. The roads 

and highways built during the 1960's and 1970's were 

used by more cars and heavier trucks than originally anticipated and designed for. The volume of maintenance 

and expansion work needed by these roads could no longer 

be adequately supported by the old mechanism in place, 

the Federal Highway Trust Fund. Recognizing this fact, 

the U.S. Congress approved the Surface Transportation 

Assistance Act of 1982, which increased the Federal fuel 

tax from 4 to 9 cents per gallon, increased other fees paid 

by highway users, and extended the Federal Highway 

Trust Fund to September 1988. This long-overdue adjustment of the Federal fuel tax provided the highest funding 

for highways and mass transportation to that date and was 

responsible for the significant increase in the demand for 

aggregates during the past 5 years. 

Still, the Nation's highways and roads are not the 

only part of the infrastructure that is reGQgnized as important for the development of the country. A critical index of 

national economic vitality includes reliable transportation, 

clean water, and safe disposal of wastes. These are basic 

elements of a civilized society and a productive economy. 

(All of these elements will require additional construction 

materials to complete.) In recognition of these needs, the 

U.S. Congress passed the Public Works Improvement Act 

of 1984, which created the National Council on Public 

Works Improvement. The council was instructed to prepare and submit a report on the state of the Nation's infrastructure to the President and the Congress. The final 

report of the council, entitled "Fragile Foundations: A Report on America's Public Works," was released in February 1988. It reported that "the quality of America's 

infrastructure today is barely adequate to meet current requirements and insufficient to meet the demands and support future economic growth and development." The 

Council concluded that the causes for the poor state of the 

Nation's infrastructure are largely monetary. The overall 

investment in public works has slowed in the past 10 to 15 

years, both in absolute terms and in relation to the demands generated by economic growth and increasing environmental concerns (fig. 2). Total public spending for 

infrastructure dropped from 3.6 percent of the GNP in 

1960 to 1.6 percent in 1985. Spending for operations and 

maintenance has remained relatively steady, but costs have 

Status of Industrial-Mineral Resources 9 
increased. Capital spending has dropped drastically, from 

2.3 percent of the GNP in 1960 to just 1.1 percent in 1985. 

Public works, as a proportion of total spending at all levels 

of government, dropped from nearly 20 percent in 1950 to 

less than 7 percent in 1984. 

With nearly $1 trillion of public-works assets in the 

United States, reduced spending over the short term does 

not mean that individual facilities or particular regions are 

in immediate peril. However, a declining infrastructure inevitably will jeopardize the productivity of our economy 

and our quality of life. The Council recommended: 

• That a national commitment be shared by all levels of government, the private sector, and the public to 

vastly improve America's infrastructure. Such a commitment could require an increase of as much as 1 00 percent 

in the amount of capital the Nation invests each year in 

new and existing public works. In 1985, this amount was 

approximately $45 billion. 

• That State and local governments continue to play 

their traditional leadership roles in the construction and 

management of the Nation's infrastructure, and that the 

Federal Government be a full and responsible partner on a 

long-term basis in the national effort to increase and sustain public capital investment. 

In March 1990, the DOT released a comprehensive 

report on U.S. transportation policies and strategies, entitled 

"Moving America, New Directions, New Opportunities." 

This report underlines the fact that "the Nation's vitality 

has always been linked to mobility. Transportation is an 

engine for economic growth and a link between regions, 

businesses, and people. After more than 100 years of industrial and technological development, the U.S. has a mature 

transportation system that was developed decades ago." As 

Americans and American industries have increased their 

7.0 

6.0 

Iz 

w 

u 

a: 5.0 w 

a.. 

~ 

ui 4.0 a: 

::J 

Ii5 

z 3.0 w 

a.. 

X 

w 

2.0 

1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 

YEAR 

Figure 2. Annual public expenditures on construction work 

as a percentage of the GNP, 1940-87. 

reliance on highways for both passengers and movements 

of goods, the highway infrastructure has deteriorated faster 

than originally anticipated. According to FHW A statistics, 

23 percent of the 575,000 highway bridges in the U.S. are 

structurally deficient, and another 19 percent are functionally obsolete. The transportation infrastructure is "now at 

risk," and inadequate maintenance and inefficient use of 

various transportation modes reduces the overall capacity 

of the system and contributes to congestion. 

The report "sets the framework for the future" by 

defining a Federal transportation policy. It outlines shortand long-term milestones and objectives for improving our 

Nation's transportation system. Thus, an eventual greatly 

increased need for construction materials is evident. 

National Infrastructure Needs 

Release of the DOT's report on transportation constitutes a major step forward; it follows the recommendations made by the National Council on Public Works and 

establishes a blueprint for future work on the Nation's infrastructure. The report also indicates that a significant increase in the volume of work for the infrastructure should 

be expected in the next 5 to 10 years. One major unknown 

is the magnitude of this increase. The value of public construction work as a share of the GNP has declined from 

about 3 percent in the 1950's and 1960's, through about 2 

percent in the 1970's, to 1.7 percent in the 1980's (fig. 2). 

If this trend begins to reverse and the share of public 

works returns to 2.5 to 3 percent of the GNP, an increase 

in spending of $40 billion to $60 billion per year could be 

expected. 

Can These Resource Needs be Met? 

The big question that arises is, if such a spending 

increase does occur, how much aggregates, concrete, asphalt, steel, and other construction materials will be 

needed to do the job? Since the beginning of the construction of the Interstate Highway System, the FHW A and the 

State departments of transportation have been collecting 

and publishing information on highway-constructionmaterials-usage factors. These average usage factors indicate how much aggregates, cement, bitumen, steel, and 

other materials were used on Federally funded highwayconstruction projects over a 3-year period. The average 

usage factors are reported as quantities of materials per 

million-dollar construction-contract cost, and so they represent put-in-place costs. The latest statistics available 

from the FHW A, for 1986-88, indicate that at the U.S. 

level, an average of about 20,000 to 23,000 tons of 

aggregates was used for each million dollars spent on 

highway projects. At an average unit price of $10 to $15 

per ton, this usage factor represents a total of about 

10 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
$200,000 to $345,000 in aggregates per million dollars 

spent, or 20 to 34.5 percent of the total cost of the project. 

If average delivered prices instead of put-in-place 

prices are applied to the same average usage factors, the 

cost of aggregates represents about 16 to 18 percent, bitumen 5 to 6 percent, cement 4 to 5 percent, and steel 3 to 4 

percent of the total project cost. The unit prices of materials vary from State to State and even from project to 

project, but still FHW A statistics indicate that construction 

aggregates are a significant component of public-works 

projects. Similar statistics that are available for each State 

provide valuable information for planners, designers, and 

analysts. 

Construction Materials in the Basin and Range Region 

A few statistics regarding the construction-aggregates 

industry within the Basin and Range region will serve to 

show what current needs are being met domestically. What 

the future holds must be assessed realistically; importation of 

these resources will result in greatly increased costs for them. 

Let's review the current status of construction materials in 

the Basin and Range States of Idaho, Nevada, and Utah. 

Idaho 

Idaho ranked 40th nationally in the production of aggregates, 40th in crushed stone, and 42d in sand and gravel. Idaho's 1989 total production of aggregates was 12.9 

million tons valued at $32.5 million, of which 3.3 million 

tons was crushed stone valued at $13.6 million, and 5.8 

million tons was construction sand and gravel valued at 

$18.9 million. Per capita production of aggregates in Idaho 

was 12.9 tons, in comparison with the U.S. per capita production of 8.6 tons. 

Major producers of aggregates in Idaho are the 

Nelson-Deppe Construction Co., Central Pre-Mix Concrete, Seubert Excavators, Inc., the Monsanto Co., and the 

Ash Grove Cement Co. 

Nevada 

Nevada ranked 32d nationally in the production of 

aggregates, 43d in crushed stone, and 13th in sand and 

gravel. Nevada's 1989 total production of aggregates was 

22.3 million tons valued at $79 million, of which 1.9 million tons was crushed stone valued at $8.6 million, and 20 

million tons was construction sand and gravel valued at 

$70 million. Per capita production of aggregates in Nevada 

was 22.1 tons. 

Major producers of aggregates in Nevada are Las 

Vegas Building Materials, Inc., the Gibbons and Reed Co., 

the CSR-W.M.K. Transit Co., Las Vegas Paving Corp., 

the Granite Construction Co., Centex Corp., and Wells 

Cargo, Inc. 

Utah 

Utah ranked 25th nationally in the production of aggregates, 33d in crushed stone, and 22d in sand and gravel. 

Utah's 1989 total production of aggregates was 33.6 million 

tons valued at $61 million, of which 6 million tons was 

crushed stone valued at $19.5 million, and 145.3 million 

tons was construction sand and gravel valued at $41 million. 

Per capita production of aggregates in Utah was 20 tons. 

Major producers of aggregates in Utah are the Geneva 

Rock Products Co., the Lost Dutchman Construction Co., 

the Gibbons & Reed Co., Savage Industries (Savage Rock 

Products), and Monroe, Inc. 

Conclusions 

Even though the value of U.S. production of industrial minerals in 1989 was significant, $23.3 billion, the 

United States is not self-sufficient. We depend on foreign 

imports of certain industrial minerals because we lack adequate domestic resources, but for other industrial minerals 

we rely on foreign sources because of reduced domestic 

productions or because foreign minerals are more economical, not because we lack domestic resources. The production and economics of domestic production are adversely 

affected by conflicting interests in land use, environmental 

restrictions, stricter regulatory policies, and, in some cases, 

general public resistance to mining. 

The demand for most industrial minerals will continue to remain strong in the future and, for construction 

materials, will most likely grow. The growth in demand for 

construction materials will be related to the rebuilding of 

the country's infrastructure. Changing regulatory policies 

and shifts in domestic and world economies may result in 

short-term increases and decreases in the demand for certain industrial minerals. 

The USBM will continue to monitor and analyze the 

industrial-minerals industry to ensure that accurate and timely 

commodities data and information are available to government and industry decisionmakers. The USBM will continue to undertake special studies to augment information 

from its routine commodities work to assure that mineralpolicy decisions can be based on a complete understanding 

of the situation. 

Assessment of Present and Future Production of 

Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region 

Industrial Rock and Mineral Production in Utah, 1990 

By B.T. Tripp 

Utah contains a wide variety of industrial rocks 

and minerals. Mining of these commodities constitutes 

Status of Industrial-Mineral Resources 11 
an important segment of Utah's economy, with sales exceeding $400 million in 1989 (Charles Berry, University 

of Utah, oral commun., 1990). The most important minerals, according to USBM production figures, are construction sand and gravel, Portland cement, halite, 

potassium salts, phosphate, crushed stone, lime, clay, 

and gypsum (Greeley, 1989). 

The DOGM and the USBM provided data essential 

to the production of this article. The mining-operation files 

of the DOGM provided much information about current 

operations (see app. 2); Wayne Hedberg and Holland 

Shepperd of the DOGM also provided important new data. 

Commodity-production graphs were compiled from USBM 

Mineral Yearbook data. 

Sand and Gravel 

The bulk of sand-and-gravel production in Utah 

comes from Pleistocene Lake Bonneville shoreline deposits along the Wasatch Front urban corridor from Provo on 

the south to Brigham City on the north. Sand-and-gravel 

production is divided into industrial-sand and constructionsand-and-gravel operations. Three operators produce industrial sand in the Salt Lake City area: The Salt Lake 

Valley Sand and Gravel Co. produces engine-traction sand 

and mold-making sand for metal casting, Blackhawk Slag 

Products crushes smelter slag to produce grit for sandblasting, and Union Pacific Resources processes slag into railroad ballast, road metal, and sand-blasting grit. The 

construction industry, however, uses most of the sand and 

gravel mined in Utah; 10 large and dozens of smaller operators produce construction sand and gravel. 

There are four major sand-and-gravel-bearing Lake 

Bonneville deposits or benches, which mark long-lived, 

stable shorelines bordering the lake. The two highest, the 

Bonneville and Provo benches, provide most of the sand 

and gravel in the State. The Bonneville bench, which was 

deposited about 15,000 years ago, is now at an elevation 

of 5,090 ft above mean sea level and nearly 900 ft above 

the current elevation of the Great Salt Lake. The Provo 

bench was deposited about 14,000 years ago at the present 

elevation of 4,740 ft above mean sea level (Currey and 

others, 1983). 

Annual production of sand and gravel (fig. 3) has 

increased at a steady rate for the past 30 years, with some 

notable spikes, apparently due to large construction 

projects. The extreme spike in 1957 and 1958 reflects the 

huge amount of sand and gravel used in the base of the 

railroad causeway across the north end of the Great Salt 

Lake during reconstruction of that causeway. The spike 

starting in 1983 reflects the use of sand and gravel to construct dikes around the rapidly rising Great Salt Lake during a period of above-average precipitation. In 1987, about 

21 million tons was produced, the largest production since 

1958. In 1988, 1989, and, probably, 1990, production has 

declined somewhat, in part owing to decreases in newhome building and highway construction. However, the 

long-term production trend is upward. 

Portland Cement 

Two operators now produce Portland cement in Utah 

(fig. 4 ): Ideal Basic Industries, which was recently purchased by Holderbank and renamed Holnam, Inc., and Ash 

Grove Cement West, Inc., which purchased Martin 

Marietta's Leamington cement operation. A third operator, 

the Portland Cement Co. of Utah, recently suspended production from their 400,000-TPY Salt Lake City operation 

after 92 years of production at the same location. 

Holnam, Inc., in Morgan County, uses limestone from 

the Jurassic Twin Creek Limestone (fig. 4), a natural-cement rock, along with silica from the Triassic(?) and Jurassic(?) Nugget Sandstone, gypsum from the Jurassic Arapien 

Shale, and iron ore from the Iron Springs mining district in 

Iron County. The company has recently opened a limestone 

quarry at Poverty Point at the south end of the Lakeside 

Mountains. Material from this quarry presumably will be 

blended with natural-cement rock to produce a uniform product. Fuel used at its Morgan County plant is primarily natural gas, with coal as a backup. Type 1 cement (a general 

construction cement) accounts for about 30 percent of its 

production, and type 2 cement (a sulfate-resistant cement 

with a moderate heat of hydration) about 50 percent. Holnam, 

Inc., also produces several other types of cement. 

Ash Grove Cement West, Inc., uses limestone and 

shale from the Cambrian Ophir Shale adjacent to its plant. 

Silica used in Ash Grove's cement formulation is mined 

from the Permian Diamond Creek(?) Sandstone(?) at the 

Nielson quarry, a few miles east of Ash Grove's plant. 

Kennecott slag and Nucor mill scale are purchased to provide the necessary iron. Gypsum is obtained from the 

Jurassic Carmel Formation on the west flank of the San 

Rafael swell. The 650,000-TPY plant is coal fueled. 

30,000 CJ) 

z 

0 25,000 1- zu.. 

oo 20,000 

t~ 15,000 ::JZ 

0<3:: 

QCJ) 

a:::J 10,000 

a..o I 

1- 5000 

~ 

YEAR 

Figure 3. Annual production of sand and gravel in Utah, 

1950-90. Data from USBM. 

12 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
Halite 

Significant halite resources are found at seven 

places in Utah (fig. 5): in the Paradox Basin, in the Jurassic Arapien Shale near Richfield, in salt domes in the 

Delta area, at Sevier Lake, in the Jurassic Preuss Sandstone in northeastern Utah, in the Great Salt Lake desert, 

and in the Great Salt Lake. In the Paradox Basin near 

Moab, Moab Salt, Inc., a subsidiary of Texasgulf, Inc., 

recovers Pennsylvanian salt from a salt diapir; it employs 

solution mining followed by solar evaporation. In central 

Utah, the Redmond Clay and Salt Co. mines halite underground from the Jurassic Arapien Shale for use as livestock salt and table salt. Near Delta, oil and gas drilling at 

the Argonaut well revealed the presence of a salt dome in 

Tertiary rocks. The saline section in this well is more than 

5,000 ft thick (Mitchell, 1979); no development of this 

deposit has taken place. At Sevier Lake (dry throughout 

most of historical time), Crystal Peak Minerals Corp. is 

developing shallow subsurface brines; it is now producing 

its first salt harvest and hopes to add a potash plant. In 

northeastern Utah, the Jurassic Preuss Sandstone contains 

a poorly known and presently undeveloped salt resource. 

The Great Salt Lake desert in northwestern Utah contains 

a large salt resource in three subsurface aquifers; however, there is no current production of halite from these 

brines. Also in northwestern Utah, the Great Salt Lake 

has long been the site of an important salt industry. Four 

! ----------------"\----)\)i8'l 

1

1 

> o \ Bear! 

' Logan 1 Lake 1 

1

: Brigham City \_ / I 

0~ - /~ : 

I Great )' ---J -----\. I 

1

1 

Salt ,O Ogden ~&"; Loke r'-F' [/. : ~...f· -----; _r- L 

, _________ ~ \ ~ \·.~ --------,-------: 

• 

, i L-\.~, _ __r-~! ----v~-~ II 

o • ~ 1---.../-r--- I ~ 1a 1 Salt ~"'-- ~ , 

~~r-'__ff ,_r--- II ! 

I ,/ \~ I 

~ ~ ~ $ ,.. 

·~ 0 Provo 'J i; ! i 

' Utah , I • ,_./~ . Lake. \_ , I 

~--------------2 NlP~~?·-T~ -. ---- ( 

r-----------------=-1 'a~ 1_1 \ _ _::_~nee -----·r----------

Sevier0 

Lake[)' 

Delta 0 ,,----' ' 'I I ( 

i ! / 

~,----- ----j ~Green River 

(' 0 Richfield i \ _) I \ 

!____________ !- ! \ 0 Moab _ 

I --r-------.. ---·-----------r------- ~ 

i Beave' 0 j ( \ i 

:---------------:-_, _____ L ______________ i) 

I \ (- Monticello I ~ ~- 0 

j Cedar City :· )' 

:----, o L -~ ·-~-~- ---------------~ 

I J I J 1 St. George I __ / 

I 0 1 .._rv-' 

L----------L---.---------_.?,:.•_---------.----------

EXPLANATION 

1 Holnam, Inc. 

1 a Poverty Point Quarry 

2 Ash Grove Cement West, Inc. 

2a Nielson Quarry 

Jurassic Twin Creek 

limestone 

0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES 

Figure 4. Utah, showing locations of cement-rock occurrences and cement operations in 1990. 

Status of Industrial-Mineral Resources 13 
operators now produce halite from the surface brine of 

the lake: the Great Salt Lake Minerals and Chemicals Co., 

the Morton Salt Co., Akzo Salt, Inc., and the American 

Salt Co. Salt is recovered through controlled solar evaporation in shallow harvest ponds. The lake consists of four 

separate brine bodies, owing to density stratification and 

the presence of the railroad causeway. Lighter brine floats 

on denser brine in both the northern and southern arms of 

the lake. The railroad causeway prevents complete mixing of waters between the two arms of the lake. The lake 

brine contains commercial concentrations of sodium, potassium, and magnesium salts but is not particularly rich 

in other salable commodities, such as lithium, bromine, 

and boron (Sturm, 1980). One challenge faced by the 

Great Salt Lake brine industry is the historical variations 

in the elevation of the Great Salt Lake. Falling lake elevation strands salt operations miles from the edge of the 

lake, commonly requiring them to dredge canals to have 

access to the brine. As the lake rises, the salt resource is 

diluted, and the dike system around the sqlar ponds often 

is severely damaged. 

Salt production (fig. 6) has shown a strong growth in 

the past 30 years, with a more than sixfold increase during 

that period. 

EXPLANATION 

~ 1 Great Salt Lake Minerals 

and Chemicals Co. 

Vernal 

0 2 Morton Salt Co. 

3 Akzo Salt Co. 

4 American Salt Co. 

5 Moab Salt Co. 

6 Redmond Clay and Salt Co. 

7 Argonaut Well 

8 Crystal Peak Minerals Corp. 

~~ ~ ~ 1 Bedded salt 

j::;:,; :~?.J Subsurface brines 

0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES 

Figure 5. Utah, showing locations of halite occurrences and operations in 1990. 

14 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
1400 

(/) 

z 1200 0 

f- z'u_ 

oo 1000 

t~ 800 

::JZ 

O<t 600 QCJ) 

a:::J 

a..o 400 

I 

f- 200 

~ 

YEAR 

Figure 6. Annual production of halite in Utah, 1950-90. 

Data from USBM. 

r-----------------\-. ----)v -l 

I ~ 0 

1 

._ Bear I 1 Lake : I Brigham\ Logan ) I I City~ ; 

1 0 -' --, r\ I 

Potash and Other Salts 

Four localities in Utah contain significant amounts 

of potassium and magnesium salts and sodium sulfate: the 

Great Salt Lake, the Great Salt Lake desert, the Paradox 

Basin, and Sevier Lake. In addition, large alunite deposits 

in southwestern Utah may be potential sources of both potash and aluminum (fig. 7). 

Great Salt Lake 

The two Great Salt Lake operations that produce 

salts other than halite are Magnesium Corp. of America 

_/ ' /1 

/_/' :_.;- L--------,--------: EXPLANATION 

1-- ----- -----

Delta0 

Sevier ll!J 

Lake fi 

,---- __ _jj·- ----: )- ; I i 

r . i ·u 

: i 

Vernal 

0 

: / / 

-~---- r_", -- --~ -- -'---

0 ./' 

Nephi ~'-" 

L.'L.,-' 

I 

.J 

I 

J--- -- r' 

lo 

/ Richfield 

---! 

I 

Price 0 _l __ 

) 

J 

II 

-- --- -- --- -- J 6--c_ __ -- --- ~--

I 

I ,--

7 • 

Cedar City 

0 

-- ---i 

I 

,-.\·5: Beaver J ! 

_l --- -- --- -- --- --

I 

L__ ----( ,--

t, 

r' 

1 Great Salt Lake Minerals 

and Chemicals Co. 

2 Reilly Tar and Chemicals Co. 

3 Texasgulf, Inc. 

4 Magnesium Corp. 

of America 

5 Marysvale Alunite 

6 Sheeprock Alunite 

7 White Mountain Alunite 

8 Beauty Knoll Alunite 

~~ ~; ~~ Bedded salt 

~ ~ Subsurface brines 

10 20 30 40 50 MILES 

Figure 7. Utah, showing locations of potash, magnesium chloride, sodium sulfate, and alunite occurrences and operations in 1990. 

Status of Industrial-Mineral Resources 15 
(Magcorp) (fig. 8), which produces magnesium chloride 

brine for conversion to magnesium metal and chlorine gas, 

and the Great Salt Lake Minerals and Chemicals Co., 

which produces potassium sulfate, sodium sulfate (salt 

cake), and magnesium chloride (see cover). An additional 

salt resource, buried at shallow depth within Quaternary 

sedimentary rocks at the north end of the lake, consists of 

a bed of mirabilite, a hydrated sodium sulfate, which 

reaches a maximum thickness of about 32 ft. Construction 

crews discovered the mirabilite while building the original 

wooden-trestle railroad causeway across the lake in 1903 

(Hite, 1964). 

Great Salt Lake Desert 

Reilly Tar and Chemicals Corp. (Reilly Wendover 

Division)' s potash plant produces potassium chloride salt 

and magnesium chloride brine from brines of three subsurface aquifers at the Bonneville Salt Flats near Wendover. 

The shallowest aquifer, generally less than 20ft deep, provides most of the brine, which is gravity drained through 

canals and the plant. Brine "elevators" raise the brine from 

the canals to the evaporation ponds for solar evaporation. 

A froth-flotation circuit separates the valuable sylvite from 

the sylvanite (a sylvite/halite salt mixture) harvested from 

the solar ponds. Less concentrated brine from a deeper 

aquifer is produced from wells as deep as 2,051 ft. Wells 

as deep as 200 ft in an alluvial aquifer north of Reilly's 

plant provide water used in the plant for processing sylvite 

(Bingham, 1980). 

Paradox Basin 

Bedded sylvite, carnallite, and associated subsurface brines underlie a large part of the Paradox Basin. 

The potash resource occurs within 18 of 29 evaporite 

cycles in the Paradox Formation of the Hermosa Group; 

11 of these cycles contain significant amounts of potash 

(Hite, 1961 ). Texasgulf, Inc., produces about 118,000 

TPY of potash by solution mining the rooms and pillars 

of their former underground mine (Phillips, 1975). It 

produces potash from an 11-ft-thick sylvite bed in the 

fifth evaporite cycle down from the top of the evaporite 

sequence. This bed is present at depths of less than 

4,000 ft (Hite, 1964). Water for the solution operation 

comes from the Colorado River. 

Sevier Lake 

Sevier Lake, dry throughout most of historical time, 

contains subsurface brines comparable to those of the 

Great Salt Lake, although the Sevier Lake brines have a 

higher sulfate-to-chloride ratio and a lower Mg content 

(Whelan, 1969). Crystal Peak Minerals Corp. is presently 

producing halite at the south end of the lake and hopes to 

enter the potash market as well. 

Alunite Deposits 

The large alunite deposits of southwestern Utah represent an unconventional potash and aluminum resource. 

These deposits are the largest of their type in the United 

Figure 8. Magnesium Corp. of America (MAGCORP)'s operation on the Great Salt Lake for 

production of magnesium and chloride brine. Photograph by Howard Newman, Salt Lake 

Brine Shrimp, Inc. 

16 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
States. The White Mountain replacement deposit contains 

an estimated resource of 232 million tons of ore containing 

33 percent alunite and an additional 402 million tons of 

ore containing 28 percent alunite (Hall, 1978). A consortium of companies planned to produce aluminum and potash from this deposit in the 1970's but decided that the 

economics at that time were unfavorable. The Marysvale 

vein and replacement deposits were the sites of minor potash production during World Wars I and II. 

Phosphate 

Three categories of phosphate deposits are found in 

Utah (fig. 9): bird and bat guano, which accounted for 

,. I 

r---

,---

1 

I 

I 

I 

Sevier 0 

Lake[) 

Cedar City 

0 

Delta 0 

___ / 

1---

Beaver '\ 

0 ' ( 

I 

L_ __ _ 

L_.___,.--J 

I 

.I 

I 

)--- -- r' 

Richfield 

0 

I 

---! 

I 

_i_ ---

--~ 

''-j 

' . 

minor early production; Mississippian phosphatic shales of 

the Delle Phosphatic Member of the Deseret Limestone 

and the Delle Phosphatic Member of the Little Flat Formation, which have not been exploited; and phosphatic shales 

of the intertonguing Park City and Phosphoria Formations 

of Permian age. The only present commercial operation is 

the Chevron Resources Co.'s Little Brush Creek mine on 

the south flank of the Uinta Mountains in the Park City 

Formation. In the past, trucks hauled phosphate concentrates from Chevron's operation into the Garfield plant at 

Salt Lake City for treatment with sulfuric acid from 

Kennecott Corp.'s smelter; concentrates were also hauled 

to the Phoston railroad terminal for shipment to Canada. In 

May 1986, the Chevron Resources Co. completed a slurry 

-- ____}_ __ 

) 

J 

.J 

b Green River 

--,1 

rMoab 

0 --1 

Monticello 

0 

EXPLANATION 

1 Chevron Resources Co., 

Little Brush Creek mine 

la Rock Springs plant 

lb Phoston terminal (defunct) 

lc Garfield plant (defunct) 

,., Permian phosphate 

outcrops 

@ Mississippian phosphate 

locality 

@ Guano occurrence 

0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES 

St. George I _ ./ ' 

L_--.2:._----- ____;-------------- _,':.-~--------------------

Figure 9. Utah, showing locations of phosphate occurrences and operations in 1990. 

Status of Industrial-Mineral Resources 17 
pipeline through the eastern Uinta Mountains and now 

slurries their concentrates to Rock Springs, Wyo., for treatment with byproduct acid from the oil and gas fields in the 

area (Woody, 1986). 

Crushed Stone 

Utah has nearly unlimited sources of high-quality 

rock suitable for crushed stone throughout the State. Paleozoic carbonates constitute the largest amount of material 

mined for this purpose. The importance of this resource 

will increase as sand-and-gravel deposits along the 

Wasatch Front are depleted, or made inaccessible by residential development. 

Crushed-stone production (fig. 1 0) has increased 

slowly, except during construction of the Great Salt 

Lake railroad causeway in 1957-58 and during construction in 1983-87 to raise the level of the causeway in 

response to the rising waters of the Great Salt Lake. An 

interesting footnote about the quarrying in 1957-58 is 

that only two blasts at the railroad quarry on the north 

end of the Great Salt Lake generated a large part of the 

total production. On July 21, 1957, 1.8 million lb of explosives produced 4 million tons of broken rock. On 

January 15, 1958, 2.14 million lb of explosives produced 

5.9 million tons of rock (Newby, 1980). Seismograph 

stations in California and Colorado measured the second 

blast as a magnitude 3 seismic event (William F. Case, 

UGS, oral commun., 1990). 

limestone and Dolomite 

Cambrian to Mississippian formations provide most 

of Utah's carbonate production. Calcite veins and Holocene 

oolitic sands of the Great Salt Lake are other sources of 

present or past production. The eight operators shown in 

figure 11 produce a wide variety of products. Chemstar, 

Inc., produces dolomitic lime from the Ordovician Fish Ha14,000 CJ) 

z 12,000 0 

Izu.. 10,000 

oo 

~~ 8000 

::::>Z 

O<( 6000 QCJ) 

a:::> 

o..o 4000 

I 

I- 2000 

~ 

YEAR 

Figure 10. Annual production of stone in Utah, 1950-90, 

including crushed and dimension stone before 1977 but 

only crushed stone after that date. Data from USBM. 

ven Dolomite for construction and water treatment. The 

Utah Marblehead Co.'s quarry provides dolomite from the 

Cambrian Lynch Dolomite, which is mined by a contract 

miner and burned at the nearby U.S. Pollution Control, Inc. 

(USPCI)' s kiln to provide dead-burned dolomite for refractory use by Geneva Steel Corp., and to provide dolomitelime for waste stabilization at USPCI' s waste-disposal 

facility. Continental Lime, Inc., located east of Sevier Lake, 

produces high-calcium lime from the Cambrian Dome Formation for various uses, including scrubbing of sulfur dioxide smokestack emissions from the Inter-mountain Power 

plant near Delta. Geneva Steel Corp. quarries its own limestone and dolomite from a Cambrian carbonate section for 

use as a flux at its Orem steel mill. Geneva also ships limestone powder to the coal mines of central Utah for rock dust 

(to coat flows and walls of mines to reduce the possibility 

of coal-dust explosions). The Western Clay Co. mines limestone from the Tertiary Flagstaff Limestone for coal-mine 

rock dust and for crushed stone. Magcorp uses oolitic sand 

from the shores of the Great Salt Lake as a stack-gas neutralizing agent in their process for making magnesium 

metal. The L&M General Engineering and Construction Co. 

apparently will begin producing lime for Hecla's Apex 

mine in Washington County, if it opens. Cedarstrom Clay 

and Calcite produces small amounts of calcite for poultry 

grit from an underground mine in the Mississippian Deseret 

Limestone and Humbug Formation west of Utah Lake. The 

Larsen Limestone Co. produces limestone from the Deseret 

Limestone for sulfur dioxide scrubbing at the Bonanza 

powerplant near Vernal. 

Lime production (fig. 12) has shown a steady increase over the past 30 years. Stockpiling by operators 

may explain the spike in production in 1985. 

Clays 

Utah has an assortment of sedimentary and hydrothermal clays, including bentonite, bloating clay, common 

clay, fuller's earth, halloysite, and kaolinite. The two largest clay producers in Utah are the Interstate Brick Co. and 

Interpace Industries, Inc. (fig. 13), both of which blend 

common clays from many quarries to produce brick. The 

Redmond Clay and Salt Co., Inc., produces bentonite for 

construction and for use in well-drilling fluids. The Westem Clay Co. produces bentonite for use in construction 

and fuller's earth for decolorizing and clarifying. Ute lite 

Corp. mines an organic-rich Cretaceous shale, which expands upon heating into a lightweight aggregate. 

The erratic pattern of clay production (fig. 14) largely 

reflects the cycles in the construction industry. Other factors 

affecting clay production include the demise of the fireclay 

industry in Utah, changing public taste in construction materials, and the capture of some of the commercial building 

market by relatively new, large, rebar-reinforced bricks. 

18 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
r-·---------------\-, ---·)v·l 

I ~ 0 

1

\ Bear I I ~bl 

I Brigham\ Logan ) ~~ 

I City;__ i 0 -' 

-- ' r\ I 

~--

'/1 

/..r :/ L ________ --r·-------: 

,.----- __ __j , . .---: )- :I i <::' 

: ';;___ EXPLANATION .--- r-j 

r -- ·u 0 Salt, 

Lake' ....._;.J ,_ 1 Chemstar, Inc. 

I 

L_ __ 

: i , CJ_~/ --.__,- ,'-- -- ( : 

::·~' ~.:;;..,,: . 

rf' Lake '--, ' 

--- -- 1 ' 4 ) -- l 

Vernal 

0 2 Utah Marblehead (USPCI) 

3 Continental Lime, Inc. 

4 Geneva Steel of Utah 

5 Western Clay Co. ; / ( ' ../ o -~ -- -r -- __,_ __ -- --- -- 7 

Nephi ~. _,_ Price 

I 

6 Magnesium Corp. of America 

1-- ----- ----- --- -- --- 0 

,J 

I 

1---

1 

I 

I ,--

I--

Delta0 

Sevier o.3 LakeD' 

Cedar City 

0 

J ---c_ __ 

0 '\ 

Beaver I 

----T 

I 

L-,__,--' 

I 

J_.5 __ ---! r' I 

l 0 / Richfield 

I 

_l ---

_--j L__ -- --- -- --- -- --- -- --7' 

7 I ~ 

-- _j._ __ 

) 

J 

/ 

q Green 

- River 

\ 

') 

J 

0 Moab __ I 

Monticello 

0 

7 L&M General Engineering 

and Construction Co. 

8 Cedarstrom Calcite and Clay 

9 Larsen Limestone Co. 

0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES 

I • 

0

St.George ' ,- ~-/ , __________ ____!. ______________ __,~---------------------

Figure 11. Utah, showing locations of active limestone and dolomite operations in 1990, including producers of calcite but 

not carbonates used for crushed stone, cement, or dimension stone. 

600 

(/) 

z 

0 500 

_Izu. 

oo 400 

t~ 300 :::>Z 

O<( 

QCJ) 

c::::::> 200 a..o :::c 

I- 100 

~ 0-.o 0 

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 

YEAR 

Figure 12. Annual production of lime in Utah, 1950-90, 

with data withheld for 1953. Data from USBM. 

Gypsum 

Utah has one of the largest gypsum resources in the 

United States. Withington (1964) estimated reserves of 2 

billion tons of material averaging more than 85 weight 

percent gypsum in beds a minimum of 4 ft thick within 30 

ft of the surface. Although numerous geologic formations 

contain gypsum (fig. 15), the Pennsylvanian Paradox Formation of the Hermosa Group, the Jurassic Arapien Shale, 

the Jurassic Summerville Formation, and the Jurassic 

Carmel Formation contain most of the resource. Georgia 

Pacific Corp. produces gypsum from three quarries to feed 

their Sigurd plant, which produces wallboard, plaster, and 

fireproof cores for doors. The U.S. Gypsum Co. mines 

Status of Industrial-Mineral Resources 19 
400 

(f) 

z 350 

0 

_1- 300 ZLL \ oo 250 

B~ :::::>Z 200 

Q<( 

ocn 

a::::> 150 

a..o 100 I 

1-

~ 50 

0 

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 

YEAR 

Arapien Shale gypsum near their Sigurd plant for the 

manufacture of wallboard, plaster, and wallboard joint 

compound. T.J. Peck and Sons, Inc., mines gypsum from 

the Arapien Shale near Nephi for export to a cement plant 

in Inkom, Idaho. H.E. Davis mines gypsum from the 

Arapien Shale near Levan for shipment to Holnam, Inc.'s, 

cement plant in Morgan County. Lanny Jensen mines gypsum from the Jurassic Carmel Formation on the west flank 

of the San Rafael swell for shipment to Ash Grove Cement West's plant at Leamington. Standard Gypsum Products, Inc., mines gypsum from the Early and Middle(?) 

Triassic Moenkopi Formation in Washington County for 

export to the San Joaquin Valley of California for use in Figure 14. Annual production of clay in Utah, 1950-90, 

with data withheld for 1954-55 and excluding one or more 

types of clay for most years. Data from USBM. 

~--

1---

1 

I 

I ,--

Sevier 0 Lake[) 

Cedar City 

0 

Delta0 

,J 

I 

..•. ~--~- ,4c 

Richfield 0 4b 

1 -- / 4a 

---L__ -- --- ~--

0-,\ 1 •;· 

---! 

I 

Price 

0 

Beaver I e ' -- ---r' -- --- _l --- -- --- -- ---

I 

L_ __ _ ---y ,...-

-· 

t, 

r' 

-- f' 

.I' 

-- _j_ __ 

I 

f 

/ 

Q Green . River 

\ 

·, 

-- _! (' 

Vernal 

0 

0 Moab 

Monticello 

0 

J 

' I 

St. George 1 / J

1 

0 - ..r' 

. ----------__i-------------- __ .::::·_--------------------

Figure 13. Utah, showing locations of active clay operations in 1990. 

20 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 

EXPlANATION 

1 Interstate Brick Co. plant 

1a Pelican Point pits 

1b Fivemile Pass pits 

1c Montello pits 

1d Anderton pit 

1e Koosharem pit 

2 Interpace Corp. plant 

2a Pleasant View pit 

2b Clinton pit 

3 Redmond Clay and Salt Co. 

4a Western Clay Co. mill 

4b Aurora pit 

4c Redmond pit 

5 Utelite Corp. 

0 10 20 30 40 50 MILES 
agriculture. The White Cloud claims in Emery County recently produced a small initial production of gypsum, 

probably from the Jurassic Carmel Formation; future development and marketing plans are unknown. 

Gypsum production in Utah (fig. 16) has been erratic, but a general upward trend is recognizable. Production figures before 1973 were withheld to protect industry 

confidentiality. 

Miscellaneous Commodities 

Cf) 

z 

0 

1-

zu.. 

oo 

6~ :::JZ 

O<l: 

QCJ) 

a::::J 

a...o I 

1-

~ 

450 

400 

350 

300 

250 

200 

150 

1950 1960 1970 1980 

YEAR 

Other industrial rocks and minerals that are lower in 

total dollar value than the nine commodities previously Figure 16. Annual production of gypsum in Utah, 1973-90, 

with data withheld for 1950-70 and 1987-88. Data from 

USBM. 

! ----------------"\---- )~ r -~ 

I ' I J I 

I ? 0 \Bear 1 

' Logan I Lake I 

Brigham City\_ / I 0~ / I 

/"'~'------\\ I 

~Ogden J 1 I 

r--F' f./. 

-----l\~ (' L.-------~-----~~~ o- i~' 1-...../_,.-------_..--r-- l~----v :J 

Salt \ /'~ n I I 

~~~ ~~)) -J'' I I I . ,/ \ I II o : 

~ ~ '------~ 1 

1 Vernal I 

l 0 Provo 'l ! I 

' Utah 1 I 1 

-( Lake "\ , I ! ___ _________ / Jp~~-T:'---_1 Pri,:----r 

,---------------, 4·~ J \-~-------1 --------! : Delta 0 ! .~· [ .'. I 

I 1-;.la I' Jc .<·:[:<·> .. I

I • -: -: l'• • :-: -: -: -: • • . . . . { ...... . 

(] 

,__ ----llb .·:·:·.·C.;e~n.Ri~e; ·:·. 

Sevier .~ Ja , < < · :9.'. ·. ·. ·. ·. ·. ·. · > > > · Lake Ri hf ld ~ 1 I • > >: \; < < <. >: < < <. > > · 

c~~) 0 2 5 :::~:~:<~~:~:~:~:~::~~~:~:~:~:: r-------------r ... ·;:, .... o ..... ·.1 

I t------,---~ :-::::::-:-t:~:0~::0~:~~:j 

: Beaver '--\., ( < < < · > >~ · > >: < < · > >: < · > ·~ I 0 ) I • • • • •\• • • • • • • •,,, 

~ j_ ·.·.·.···j·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.· 

1

:---------------: ~~---- ----------- ; : ~:;:; :;: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~: ~l 

1 I : < 0> > > M'o~ti·c~ll~ > > > > ·

1 

I I I •.s.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.•.·.~.·.•.•' 

I I ( ............... ·~ 

1 

Cedar City 0 ~' _/ : ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: >: ~----! ~- .---L___ _Jc --------/ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::1 , 

I ,s- . -:-:. :-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: <: I f ':::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::1 1 6 St. George I _,/ . <::::::::: :::::::::: :::::: :J: 

L_ ~----- _j-------------- ____.I::~--------_·_.:~~~:~;~:~:~:: 

I 

I 

t---------- EXPlANATION 

1 Georgia Pacific Corp. 

la Mayfield Quarry 

lb San Rafael Quarry 

2 U.S. Gypsum Co. 

3 T.J. Peck and Sons 

4 H.E. Davis 

5 Lanny Jensen 

6 Standard Gypsum 

Products, Inc. 

7 White Cloud Claims 

~a Arapien Shale gypsum 

~s Summerville 

Formation gypsum 

~c Carmel Formation 

gypsum 

D Paradox Basin gypsum . 

0 10 20 30 40 50 M ILES 

Figure 15. Utah, showing locations of gypsum occurrences and operations in 1990. 

Status of Industrial-Mineral Resources 21 
Table 5 . Industrial minerals 

produced in Nevada. 

High value (more than $500/ton) 

Lithium carbonate 

Specialty clays 

Moderate value ($50-500/ton) 

Barite, ground 

Cement 

Colemanite 

Commodity clays 

Diatomite 

Fluorspar 

Lime and dolime 

Magnesia 

Perlite 

Zeolite 

Low value (less than $50/ton) 

Aggregate 

Barite, crude 

Dolomite and limestone 

Gypsum 

Salt 

Silica 

discussed but that are still important include gem stones, 

silica, scoria, fluorite, and dimension stone. Commodities 

present in significant amounts in Utah but not currently in 

production include barite, diatomaceous earth, magnesite, 

perlite, pumice, wollastonite, and zeolites. 

Industrial Minerals in Nevada 

By S.B. Castor 

The total value of industrial minerals produced in 

Nevada in 1989 is estimated at $255 million, a substantial 

increase over 1988. Nevada's industrial minerals range 

from low-value commodities, such as aggregate, which 

sells for an estimated average price of slightly more than 

$4 per ton, to high-value commodities, such as lithium carbonate and some specialty clays, which may have values 

of more than $3,000 per ton (table 5). 

Industrial minerals now constitute about I 0 percent 

of the total mineral production in Nevada, a relatively 

minor percentage in comparison with that between 1976 

and 1981, when industrial minerals represented more than 

50 to 70 percent of the total value of Nevada mineral production (fig. 17). During this period, a boom in barite production coincided with the metal-mining hiatus between 

the demise of Nevada's copper-mining industry, which 

dominated the 1950's and 1960's, and the dramatic increase in Nevada's gold production following price increases in the early 1980's. The total value of industrial 

minerals produced in Nevada has increased over the years. 

Fluctuations in industrial-mineral production have been influenced mainly by regional construction activity, except 

during the period between 1972 and 1985, when barite 

mining, spurred by increased oil-well drilling, became the 

dominant factor (fig. 18). 

In general, Nevada industrial-mineral operations are 

clustered in the most populated areas to take advantage of 

local markets and transportation facilities. The locations of 

operations with verified production in 1989-90 (exclusive 

of aggregate producers) are shown on figure 19 and listed 

in table 6. 

3000 .------.,.-------.------,---------,-------, 

(/) 

a: 

:) 2000 _J 

0 

D 

u.. 

0 

(/) 

z 

0 

::J 

_J 

~ 1000 

EXPLANATION 

Metals 

- Industrial minerals 

.---------~ Number of Au mines doubles 

o~~ 1950 Rb~~~-- 1960 --1970 1980 

YEAR 

1989 

Figure 17. Value of annual production of industrial minerals 

and metals in Nevada, 1950-90. 

(/) 

a: 

<( 

_J 

_J 200 0 

D 

u.. 

0 

(/) 

z 

0 

::J 

::::! 

~ 

~ 100 

ui 

:J 

_J 

~ 

YEAR 

Figure 18. Value of annual production of industrial minerals 

in Nevada, 1950-90. 

22 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
r-----,------------·a------,------------------------""! 

i i McDermitt j 

1 

\ 

: I i • I 

I \ . I 

r I 

1 Winnemucca I 2 

!----~---- 0 ~--r~-l ! -28-~ L __ , ! 3 j \ 

I I -__j • \ ,20 v ' I I .4 \ 

Elko 

0 

T6 ! +13 7 / \ 

[_ ___ _9~velock / '-~---------------: 

29 ;--- ---------'\ ' 

: ~ ( I \ 

/ Reno J-~4 ( \ I 0 ,-.,.~16 Fallon } j I (15 , 3o ~ 1 o ( , : 21~_/ T8 ' 36 c I ~_]__ ,\'~-~ ( __________ _j_ _____ _j Ely 

0 

"'-. C?rson j ( ~::::::=::=------ • 5 ~ -f.=tty I' ' I ~34 ~' I 

" l__, "'-, ft ~ I 

',, ·~ i ""' ,~T ______ _j 

"'-,: , '""' Tonopah 1 : 

-,~j ~' i \ 

" / ""' I I - , , I I -, / ""' I ', 18.,, '""' [ _______ _j 

" ' T9 I 

''( .33 ! \ 

EXPLANATION 

+ Diatomite 

e Gypsum 

~ Limestone and lime 

• Barite 

T Clay 

X Other: 

Colemanite 

Fluorspar 

Lithium carbonate 

Magnesia 

Perlite 

Salt 

Silica 

Zeolite 

, , I , 

"- I I ' I I 

"-., I I 

" I I ', I \ 

" I I I 

',"'-. Beatty \ i ·JO-¥ X ~-------~-------! 

"-- 19 I .22 I "- 11 \ 23. : 

-,!12 I 31 x37 \ ... 1 ~ I 

''-~8 I Las Vegas 24 1

\ 

-"-.\ , 26. o•• 25 ~~--,'-/,' 

-,_ ~32 ( 

-,_ \ 

-,_ I -,, I 

0 50 MILES -,_ ! 

-,,i 

Figure 19. Nevada, showing locations of industrial-mineral operations and production in 1989 and (or) 

1990, excluding aggregate producers (see table 6). 

Status of Industrial-Mineral Resources 23 
Table 6. Industrial-mineral operations, by location and operator, in Nevada with production in 1989 and (or) 1990 

[See figure 19 for locations] 

Barite 

1. Snoose Creek mine; Circle A Construction 

2. Rossi mine; N.L. Industries Inc. 

3. Argenta mine and mill; Milpark, Inc. 

4. Greystone mine and mill; M.l. Drilling Fluids Co. 

5. P and S mine; Standard Industrial Minerals, Inc. 

Clay 

6. Clay mine and shop; Nevada Cement Co. 

7. Buff mine; Vanderbilt Minerals Co. 

8. Montmorillonite mine; Homestead Minerals, Inc. 

9. Blanco mine; Vanderbilt Minerals Co. 

10. New Discovery mine and mill; Vanderbilt Minerals Co. 

11. Amargosa pit and mill; IMV Division of the Floridin Co. 

Colemanite 

12. Lathrop mill; American Borate Co. 

Diatomite 

13. Colado mine and shop; Eagle-Picher Minerals, Inc. 

14. Moltan mine and plant; Moltan Co. 

15. Clark mine and mill; Eagle-Picher Minerals, Inc. 

16. Section 8 mine; Canyon Resources Minerals Corp. 

17. Hazen pit; Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. 

18. Dicalite mine; Grefco, Inc. 

Fluorspar 

19. Daisy mine; J. Irving Crowell, Jr., & SonGyspum 

20. Empire mine and mill; U.S. Gypsum Co. 

21. Adams mine; Homestead Minerals, Inc. 

22. White-Grow Gypsum mine; GKB Nevada Holdings, Inc. 

23. Weiser Ridge quarry; Georgia Pacific Corp. 

24. North Rainbow pit; Nevada Gypsum & Mining, Inc. 

25. Apex mine and plant; Pabco Gypsum 

26. Blue Diamond mine and plant; James Hardie Gypsum 

Limestone and lime 

27. Pilot Peak quarry and plant; Continental Lime, Inc. 

28. Dry Creek quarry; Min-Ad, Inc. 

29. Marble Hill quarry; Nevada Cement Co. 

30. Limestone mine; Nevada Cement Co. 

31. Apex quarry and plant; Chemstar, Inc. 

32. Sloan quarry and mill; Chemstar, Inc. 

Lithium carbonate 

33. Silver Peak operations; Cyprus-Foote Minerals, Inc. 

Magnesia 

34. Gabbs pit and plant; C.E. Basic, Inc. 

Perlite 

35. Mackie mine; Wilkin Mining & Trucking Co. 

Salt 

36. Huck salt plant, Huck Salt Co. 

Silica 

37. Overton pit and mill; Simplot Silica Products 

Zeolite 

38. Zeolite mine and mill; East West Minerals, Inc. 

Aggregate (Sand, Gravel, and Crushed Stone) 

In 1989, Nevada's aggregate production was about 

20 million tons. The Las Vegas area accounted for more 

than half of this production, even though some operations 

were closed for several months, owing to concerns about 

the impact on the desert-tortoise habitat. More than 98 percent of the production in the Las Vegas area comes from 

alluvial-fan deposits, which are generally mined to shallow 

depths and subsequently reclaimed for sale as residential 

or commercial property. The largest Las Vegas operator, 

Bonanza Materials, Inc., produced more than 2 million 

tons in 1989. 

Total aggregate production in the Reno-SparksCarson City area is less than half that in the Las Vegas 

area; the largest operator, the Granite Construction Co., 

produced about 1 million tons in 1989. An estimated 85 

percent of the production in the Reno-Sparks-Carson City 

area is from river gravels, and the rest is from crushedstone operations. 

Aggregate production in Nevada includes increasing 

amounts of lightweight aggregate consisting mainly of 

crushed rhyolite. The newest producer, the All-Lite Aggregate Co., expects to mine 500,000 tons of rhyolite in 1990 

from its Washington Hill operation east of Sparks. 

Barite 

Nevada barite production in 1989 was 203,000 tons, 

less than 1 0 percent of the production high in 1981 

(fig. 20). Only five Nevada barite producers were active in 

1989, in comparison with a dozen companies during the 

boom years of 1973 to 1985. Almost all Nevada barite has 

been mined from Ordovician and Devonian bedded-barite 

deposits that are present in a 50-mi-wide belt extending 

from the southwest State line to the northeast comer of the 

(/) 3000 

z 

0 

1-

u.. 

0 

(/) 

0 

z 2000 <( 

(/) 

:::> 

0 

:c 

1-

~ 

z' 1000 

0 

i= 

u 

:::> 

0 

0 

a: 

a.. 0 

1952 1960 1970 1980 1989 

YEAR 

Figure 20. Annual production of barite in Nevada, 1952-90. 

24 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
State. The largest producers in 1989 were Milpark, Inc., 

N.L. Baroid, Inc., and the M.I. Drilling Fluids Co. Standard Industrial Minerals, Inc., produces a relatively minor 

amount of barite from a deposit in central Nevada, which 

is refined to paint-grade barite and sells for higher prices 

than barite used for drilling. 

Borate 

In 1989, minor amounts of colemanite were produced from mill tailings at the American Borate Co.'s 

plant in southwestern Nevada. This plant, which ceased 

operations in 1986, originally treated ore from nearby borate deposits in Death Valley, Calif. Because the colemanite was not mined in Nevada, borate was omitted from the 

estimate of the total value of Nevada's industrial minerals; 

however, borates were mined in Nevada between 1870 and 

1939. Ulexite was harvested from Nevada playas, and 

colemanite was mined from deposits in Miocene sedimentary rocks near Las Vegas. 

Cement 

At Fernley, about 30 mi east of Reno, Nevada Cement operates the only cement plant in Nevada, producing 

about 400,000 TPY. Raw materials are mined locally. Tertiary freshwater limestone comes from a deposit 5 mi 

south of the plant and is upgraded, when necessary, with 

high-calcium marble mined 20 mi to the northwest; halleysite clay from a deposit 45 mi northwest and gypsum from 

35 mi southwest of the plant are also used. 

Clay 

The IMV Division of the Floridin Co., the largest 

producer of clay-mineral products in Nevada, mines sepiolite, saponite, and hectorite from Tertiary sedimentary rocks 

in the Amargosa Valley of California and Nevada and processes them at a nearby plant in Nevada. The operation produces more than 20 different specialty- and commodity-clay 

products. Organoclad specialty clays account for less than 

10 percent of production by weight at this operation but 

make up about 70 percent of total revenues. 

Small but valuable amounts of montmorillonite used 

in pharmaceutical and cosmetic products were produced 

by the Vanderbilt Minerals Co. from operations in Esmeralda, Nye, and Pershing Counties in 1989. The Nevada 

Department of Industrial Relations also reported montmorillonite mining in Lyon County. 

Two major U.S. clay producers, the J.M. Huber 

Co. and American Colloid, are attempting to develop 

separate hectorite clay deposits near McDermitt in northwestern Nevada. These developments have been encouraged by increasing consumption and high prices for this 

lithium-bearing smectite, valued for its ability to form 

thixotropic gel when added to aqueous solutions in small 

amounts. 

Diatomite 

Nevada diatomite production in 1989 was 203,000 

tons, approximately the same as in 1988. Diatomite, which 

is used in filtration, filler, and absorbent products, is 

Nevada's second most valuable industrial mineral. In general, diatomite market trends have been flat or slightly 

negative over the past few years because of inroads by 

perlite in filtration products and by talc in fillers. 

In Nevada, diatomite is present in Tertiary lacustrine sedimentary rocks. The largest Nevada producer, 

Eagle-Picher Minerals, Inc., mines diatomite at three 

locations in northern Nevada. The company's largest operation is near Lovelock, where diatomaceous earth is 

mined from a diatomite-bearing sequence as much as 

200 ft thick (fig. 21 ). Three other companies also mined 

diatomite in Nevada in 1989: Grefco, Inc., produces 

filler-grade diatomite; Canyon Resources Corp. produces 

absorbent-grade diatomite; and the Moltan Co. makes cat 

litter from diatomite. 

Fluorspar 

The only producing fluorspar mine in the Western 

United States, operated by J. Irving Crowell, Jr., & Son 

near Beatty, Nev., was shut down in early 1989. The 

Crowell operation had been mining high-grade fluorite underground from veins in Paleozoic limestone at the Daisy 

mine (fig. 22) more or less continuously since the 1920's. 

Garnet 

A deposit of almandine garnet in the Mount 

Moriah area of White Pine County, about 15 mi north of 

Baker, was evaluated in 1988 by a Canadian company, 

but drilling planned for 1989 was not performed because 

of environmental concerns. The area contains a placer 

estimated to contain about 5 volume percent garnet derived from quartz-garnet-biotite-staurolite schist. Demand for garnet abrasives has been spurred by health 

rulings regarding other abrasive materials, particularly in 

California. 

Gypsum 

Gypsum mmmg in Nevada has grown steadily 

through the 1980's (fig. 23), owing to vigorous regional 

construction activity. Production of wallboard from gypsum is an important basic industry in Nevada, particularly 

in the Las Vegas area. 

Status of Industrial-Mineral Resources 25 
In 1989, Pabco Gypsum and James Hardie Gypsum 

were the two largest producers in the Las Vegas area, followed by Georgia Pacific Corp., Nevada Gypsum and 

Mining, and GKB Nevada Holdings, Inc. Most of the 

gypsum mined by Pabco is used in a wallboard plant that 

has an , annual capacity of 600 million ft2• Most of the 

James Hardie production also goes into wallboard produced at the Blue Diamond plant, which has been in 

Figure 21. Diatomaceous-earth mine operated by Eagle-Picher near Lovelock, Nev. White 

diatomite beds are part of a Tertiary lacustrine sedimentary sequence as thick as 200 ft. 

Photograph courtesy of NBMG. 

Figure 22. Daisy fluorite mine operated by j. Irving Crowell, Jr., and Son near Beatty, Nev. 

Photograph courtesy of NBMG. 

26 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
operation since 1941. The Georgia Pacific wallboard plant 

15 mi northwest of Las Vegas began production in 1987 

with an annual capacity of 175 million ft2. ' 

U.S. Gypsum Corp., the largest North American 

gypsum producer, mines gypsum in northern Pershing 

County and processes it at its wallboard plant, in Empire 

in Washoe County. In 1989, U.S. Gypsum was the largest 

gypsum producer in Nevada. Homestead Minerals, Inc., 

mines gypsum from the Adams mine near Carson City for 

sales to agricultural users and cement manufacturers. 

(j) 2000 

z 

0 

flL 

0 

(j) 

0 

z 

<( 

(j) 

~ 

0 1000 I 

f-

~ 

z' 

0 

f= 

u 

~ 

0 

0 

a: 

a... 0 

1952 1960 1970 1980 1989 

YEAR 

Figure 23. Annual production of gypsum in Nevada 

1952-89. 

Lime and Limestone 

Nevada lime production increased in 1989, partly 

owing to startup of Continental Lime, Inc.'s Pilot Peak 

high-calcium lime operation in late 1989 near Wendover 

in Elko County (fig. 24). However, Chemstar, Inc., is the 

most important Nevada lime producer. Regional construction remained strong in 1989, and Chemstar operations in 

southern Nevada, which rely partly on sales of construction lime, were operating at capacity by the end of the 

year. The company mines and processes both dolomite and 

high-calcium limestone at operations near Las Vegas. 

Chemstar is currently exploring for a quality deposit of 

high-calcium limestone in northern Nevada to meet the 

increasing lime needs of the gold-mining industry in that 

area. In 1989, two small companies located near 

Winnemucca produced relatively small amounts of dolomitic limestone for sale to agricultural users. 

Lithium Carbonate 

Cyprus-Foote Minerals, Inc.'s production of lithium 

carbonate from brine at Silver Peak in Esmeralda County 

increased in 1989 relative to 1988. The company, which is 

the world's leading lithium producer, is expanding 

production capacity at a similar operation in Chile; this 

expansion will lead to lower production rates at Silver 

Peak in the future. 

Figure 24. New lime plant operated by Continental Lime, Inc., near Wendover, Nev. Photograph courtesy of NBMG. 

Status of Industrial-Mineral Resources 27 
Magnesia 

Production at C.E. Basic, Inc.'s magnesite mine and 

magnesia plant in Gabbs was down slightly in 1989 relative to 1988, owing to slower sales of dead-burned refractory magnesia. However, caustic-magnesia sales were up 

slightly in 1989. 

Perlite 

The Wilkin Mining & Trucking Co. mines perlite in 

Lincoln County and ships both crude and expanded perlite. 

In 1989, a second furnace was added to the company's 

popping plant in Caliente, increasing the production of expanded perlite. 

Salt 

The Huck Salt Co., which harvests salt from a dry 

lake near Fallon, produced about 13,000 tons in 1989, a 

30-percent increase over 1988. 

Silica 

Simp lot Silica Products' operation in Overton produced about 706,000 tons of silica sand in 1989, a ISpercent increase over 1988. Because Simp lot's silica sand 

requires little beneficiation for use in plate glass, it competes strongly with other silica sources in the southern 

California market. The sand is mined from large reserves 

in the Cretaceous Baseline Sandstone. Development of 

similar sandstone in the same unit about 30 mi northeast 

of Las Vegas is being considered by a Canadian company. 

Wollastonite 

In late 1989, Sikaman Gold Resources, Ltd., a 

Toronto, Ontario, Canada-based company, announced the 

discovery of a major deposit of potential filler-grade 

wollastonite in Nevada. The deposit, which is in the Gilbert mining district in Esmeralda County about 30 mi 

west of Tonopah, is said to contain substantial reserves 

of rock containing more than 50 volume percent wollastonite and high-grade zones containing more than 70 

volume percent. Wollastonite, which has never been 

mined in Nevada, is in demand as a reinforcing filler and 

an asbestos substitute. 

Zeolite 

At its Ash Meadows plant in Nye County, East West 

Minerals, Inc., processed stockpiled clinoptilolite in 1989. 

Increasing sales to aquaculture users overseas pushed production up by about 60 percent over that in 1988. East 

West's mordenite operation in Eastgate in Churchill 

Table 7. Value of industrial minerals in 

Idaho 

[Sources of data: Bennett (1986), Bennett, and others (1989), O'Driscoll (1989), and McNary and others (in press). All values in thousands of U.S. 

dollars] 

Product 1987 1986 

Building stone ----------- 15,300 12,700 

Cement (limestone) ----- 11,000 11,000 

Clay------------------------ 230 206 

Garnet --------------------- 4,000 3,000 

Gem stone ---------------- 500 500 

Perlite --------------------- 100 100 

Phosphate ----------------- 1

47,000 82,000 

Pumice -------------------- 213 178 

Sand and gravel --------- 12,600 28,000 

Total ----------------- 91,000 138,000 

Nonfuel minerals-------- 339,000 269,300 

Percentage of 

industrial minerals --- 27 51 

1

Decrease in phosphate production in 1987 

was due to plant closures. 

County was idle in 1989. Steelhead Minerals, Inc., was 

evaluating two Nevada zeolite deposits in Mineral County 

in 1989. 

Industrial Minerals in Idaho 

by E.H. Bennett 

Idaho is endowed with a wide variety of industrial 

minerals. The most valuable commodities are phosphate 

and sand and gravel (table 7). Other industrial rocks and 

minerals produced in the State include pumice, perlite, 

garnet, limestone, clay, silica, scoria/volcanic cinder, 

building stone, gypsum, and zeolites. In 1988, the USBM 

reported that the value of industrial minerals in Idaho, excluding phosphate, sand and gravel, and crushed stone, 

was more than $48 million. Idaho also has potentially 

commercial deposits of diatomite, bentonite, fluorspar, 

mica, barite, and kyanite; other commodities include manganese, beryllium, thorium, rare earths (black sands), asbestos, feldspar, salt, iron ore, and coal. 

The locations of current operations are shown in figure 25, and of potential deposits or occurrences in figure 

26. Two of the State's newest industrial-mineral plants are 

1M SAMET Inc.'s $15 million aluminum-can-recycling 

plant at Hauser Lake and the new $2.5 million filler-lime 

plant built by Idaho Lime in Grangeville. 

28 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
Phosphate 

The phosphate industry is the largest contributor to 

the value of Idaho's non-fuel minerals (table 7). About 10 

percent of the Nation's phosphate comes from Idaho. The 

USBM notes that the 4. 7 million tons of phosphate rock 

mined in Idaho in 1988 was worth more than $81 million. 

Phosphorus is used in a wide variety of applications, including fertilizer, water softeners, detergents, and food additives. The industry is located in Pocatello and Soda 

Springs in southeastern Idaho (fig. 27); the various plants 

and mines employ about 2,500 people, the largest number 

-------1 

• 

I 

I 

I 

IMSAMETI 

l 

\ 

~ \ 

'\, 

~- ·......._, 

Emerald 1 

• Creek '. 

• Clayburn 

• 

A.P. Green 

Mission Creek 

• Limestone 

\. 

'\ 

• Idaho Lime 

I 

) ~~-

I 

I 

) 

I 

I 

J 

(.Silver Still Gypsum 

'"' 

·-\_ 

( 

I 

I 

Willow Creek 

Jasper 

• • I Unimin 

j.Teague 

Lava Flow 

• Products 

• Grefco 

~--J 

I 

( 

I 

\ I 

( 

I 

""': ·I" \ \ 50 MILES 

\ 

-,_ I 

( '•" ('' \ ~-----~ \, -- . \ r.·-..J ,\ 

Faxe Kalk Spencer : 

Mountain West 

Bark Products 

• 

Clover Creek • 

Opal \ 

\ 

Producers: 

Amcor • .Pumice \ 

• Idaho 

Travertine 

Ash Grove 

• Cement 

Treasure\ 

Oakley National Canyon '\ 

Stone. Perlite> • Calcium I • I 

I Bruneau Jasper Hess Pumice j L. _______________________________ .. ___________ _ 

Figure 25. Idaho, showing locations of active industrial-mineral operations in 1989. 

Status of Industrial-Mineral Resources 29 
of employees in the State's mining sector. The industry is 

divided into two halves, one producing elemental phosphorus (the Monsanto Co., FMC Corp., and the RhonePoulenc Chemical Co.), and the other phosphoric acid (the 

J.R. Simplot Co. and Nu West Industries, Inc.). 

------1 

.si : 

i 

I :•G 

S .• z 

le 

I .o 

::>z I

• D z I Pe • .. I Cl 

I 

0 

D 

• 

Elemental phosphorus is made by melting phosphate 

ore in electric furnaces and capturing the volatilized element. FMC operates the largest such plant in the world in 

Pocatello. Monsanto has an elemental-phosphorus plant at 

Soda Springs, and Rhone-Poulenc ships ore from Idaho to 

EXPLANATION 

As Asbestos 

Ba Barite 

c Coal 

Cl Clay 

D Diatomite 

F Fluorspar 

50 MILES G Gem stones 

Ba • • 

Gn 

Gy 

Ky 

Ls 

M 

p 

Pe 

Pm 

s 

Sa 

Si 

St 

z 

Ls 

Gamet 

Gypsum 

Kyanite 

Limestone 

Mica 

Peat 

Perlite 

Pumice 

Sulfur 

Salt 

Silica 

Dimension stone 

Zeolites 

c 

Ls. • 

Pm \ • • • LsI • Pm St I St 

St Ls \ 

I Ls 

• • Si. \ Si Ls I 

• Si •Ls • • \ D Ls 

I • D • G • • Ls Pm • • Pe Ls :\ 

1

: St Ls • • • ., I 

I Pm• ~·:si Ls Ls Ls j L_-------------------- -~--~--------------------

Figure 26. Index map of Idaho, showing locations of potential deposits or occurrences 

of industrial minerals. 

30 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
a plant at Silver Bow, Mont. Phosphoric acid is made by 

combining phosphate ore with sulfuric acid; the acid is 

then used to make fertilizers. J .R. Simplot operates an 

acid/fertilizer plant in Pocatello, and Nu West Industries a 

plant in Conda Gust north of Soda Springs). 

All of the phosphate ore is mined from open-pit operations in the Phosphoria Formation of Permian age. 

Monsanto operates the Henry mine. Nu West and the 

Conda Partnership (a joint venture with Western Cooperative Fertilizer, Ltd.) get ore from the Mountain Fuels lease. 

Simplot operates the Smoky Canyon mine. FMC currently 

gets ore from several mines but will soon open a new 

mine in Dry Valley south of the Wooley Valley mine, 

from which Rhone-Poulenc gets ore. The ore is transported 

from the mines to the plants by truck (Monsanto maintains 

its own road system), by train, or by slurry pipeline (Simplot pumps slurried ore 27 mi from the Smoky Canyon 

mine to Conda ). 

Byproducts of the elemental-phosphorus operations 

are also valuable. Kerr-McGee, which extracts vanadium 

from ferrophosphorus metal, is the largest producer of vanadium in the country. 

N.A. Degerstrom is completing construction of a 

new plant that will extract gallium and silver from another 

byproduct, treater dust. 

Sand and Gravel 

Sand and gravel, as well as crushed stone, have extensive applications in building and construction and are 

the second most valuable commodities in Idaho after phosphate. More than 40 companies operate sand and gravel or 

0 

Simplot 

plant 

Gay mine Q 

10 MILES 

crushed-stone plants, and several hundred quarries or pits 

are active throughout Idaho. According to the USBM, the 

value of construction sand and gravel in the State in 1988 

was almost $20 million, and crushed stone added another 

$13 million. 

Pumice 

Companies mmmg pumice in Idaho include Hess 

Pumice (Malad), Amcor, Inc., (Idaho Falls), and Producers 

Products (Meridian). Pumice, which is a porous volcanic 

glass, is used as lightweight aggregate for building blocks 

and other construction materials. Hess Pumice grinds pumice to various sizes and sells its product as an abrasive 

(used, for example, in Lava handsoap and pencil erasers) 

and as a polishing medium; the other companies sell pumice for use as an aggregate. In 1988, approximately 57,000 

tons of pumice was mined in Idaho. 

Perlite 

Perlite, another type of volcanic glass, is mined by 

National Perlite (a division of Oglebay Norton) in Malad. 

Because perlite contains water, it expands or pops like 

popcorn when heated. Raw and expanded perlite are used 

as a fireproofing material, as a filtering medium, and as 

lightweight aggregate. 

Scoria 

Scoria also is a type of volcanic glass that is a vesicular cinder material, and generally heavier and darker 

(9 

0 z I ~ 

<( 0 

0 ~ 

Mountain Fuels 

lease 

I 

I 

S'"!loky Canyon 

m1ne 

Figure 27. Pocatello, Idaho, area, showing location of the Idaho phosphate district. 

Status of Industrial-Mineral Resources 31 
than pumice. It is mined by Mountain West Bark Products 

(Rexburg) and Lava Flow Products (Mountain Home) for 

use as briquets in gas barbecues, for landscaping, and for 

aquarium gravel. 

Garnet 

The Emerald Creek Garnet Milling Co. has the largest garnet operation in the United States, producing more 

than 25 ,000 TPY of finished product. The garnets are 

dredged from Emerald and Carpenter creeks in the State's 

largest placer operation. Garnet is used as a filtering medium (swimming pool filters), as an abrasive (for example, 

sandpaper), and for sandblasting. 

Limestone and Cement 

Limestone is an important ingredient in cement. The 

sole cement producer in Idaho is Ash Grove Cement, located in Inkom; the company obtains the limestone and 

silica, the main ingredients for making cement, from pits 

near its plant. Other limestone companies include Treasure 

Valley Calcium, which provides limestone for animal-feed 

supplement and other industrial uses, and the Nez Perce 

Tribe, which sells limestone to a paper mill in Lewiston. 

Idaho Travertine in Idaho Falls quarries travertine for use 

as a decorative building stone. 

Recently, the use of limestone as a filler in paper 

and other products has become important. Clay-based paper is too "acid" and deteriorates relatively quickly, 

whereas lime-filled paper is more stable and lasts much 

longer. Two companies, Faxe Kalk and Idaho Limestone, 

have invested in this market. Idaho Limestone has built a 

$2.5 million filler-lime plant at Grangeville (figs. 25, 28), 

and Faxe Kalk has purchased the White Rock lime deposit. Idaho has several limestone deposits that might be commercially developed, only the most important of which are 

shown in figure 26. 

Clay 

A high-quality firebrick used by the aluminum and 

timber industries is produced by A.P. Greene in Troy. 

Clay used to make the brick is mined near Deary. Claybum Industries ships clay from this same area to British 

Columbia, Canada, for making refractories; the companies mined about 23,000 tons of clay in 1988. 

Silica 

Unimin Corp. is the sole silica producer in Idaho; 

it obtains pure silica sand from ancient lakebed deposits 

near Emmett. The silica is sold to companies that make 

glass bottles and other glass products; it is also used as 

an abrasive in sandblasting. Monsanto and FMC Corp. 

quarry quartzite for silica slag in their elementalphosphorus plants in Soda Springs and Pocatello, 

respectively. 

Building Stone 

Several firms quarry and market Oakley stone, a 

decorative quartzite shipped worldwide as a facing and 

building stone (fig. 29). These companies obtain their 

stone from quarries near Oakley; they include Northern 

Stone Supply, Oakley Valley Stone, Idaho Quartzite 

Corp., the Star Stone Co., and Ernie Ray Hale Quarries. 

The S and 0 Stone Co. quarries quartzite for building 

stone from near Clayton. 

Diatomite 

Diatomite is a material consisting of the microscopic skeletons of small animals called diatoms; the 

skeletons, packed closely together, form a very fine filtering medium, and this is a primary use for the material. 

The wine and beer industries use diatomite to filter their 

products. Potentially important deposits are being developed by Grefco in Owyhee County and by American Diatomite north of Gooding (Clover Creek). 

Zeolites 

Zeolites are a family of minerals that are known as 

molecular sieves. Most applications use zeolites as very 

fine filters; the minerals are used for water softeners, in 

pollution control, as a carrier for fungicides and other 

products, and as an animal-feed supplement. Large deposits of clinoptilolite, one of the zeolite minerals, are found 

in southwestern Idaho near the Idaho-Oregon State line, by 

the old townsite of Sheaville. Teague Mineral Products 

mines zeolite from these deposits ':lnd processes the material at a plant in Adrian, Oreg.; Steelhead Resources also 

owns large deposits in this area. 

Gypsum 

Gypsum is quarried from the Iron Mountain deposit 

near Weiser by the Silver Still Mining Co. All of this material is used for agricultural applications. 

Gem Stones 

Idaho is known as the Gem State, and for good 

reason; many beautiful gem stones are found in the 

State. Active operations include Spencer Opal, near 

Idaho Falls, which is known for spectacular fire opals. 

Jasper is mined in Bruneau Canyon and near the old 

32 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
mining town of Pearl. The famous star-garnet localities 

are at Emerald Creek and vicinity in northern Idaho. 

Star garnet is the State stone. The USFS maintains a 

popular fee-collecting area near Fernwood, and a private 

company, 3D's Panhandle Gems, markets the stones. 

Other well-known gem stones in the State include 

smoky quartz and aquamarine, found primarily in the 

Sawtooth batholith. 

Figure 28. New filler-lime plant operated by the Idaho Limestone Co. at Grangerville, 

Idaho. Photograph courtesy of IGS. 

Figure 29. Typical ridgetop outcrops of Idaho quartzite. Photograph courtesy of Don 

Seehusen, Idaho Quartzite Corp. 

Status of Industrial-Mineral Resources 33 
Aluminum Recycling 

Recently, IMSAMET, Inc., constructed a $15 million aluminum-can-recycling plant at Hauser Lake (figs. 

25, 30). This plant will remelt about 80 million lb of aluminum beverage cans per year. The molten aluminum is 

trucked to Kaiser Aluminum's plant in Spokane, Wash. 

Potential Deposits 

In the past, mica, fluorspar, barite, and black sands 

have been mined in Idaho. Deposits of these materials 

still remain, but they are not commercially valuable at 

present. However, new products and processes can turn 

abandoned mines into active properties. For example, 

recent developments in using rare-earth elements in 

superconductors has spurred interest in the State's blacksand deposits. These deposits were mined for uranium in 

the 1950's, but they contain significant reserves of several rare-earth elements that may be useful in making superconducting materials. In the years to come, industrial 

minerals will continue to play a stable and important 

role in Idaho's mining industry. 

FUTURE NEEDS AND PROBLEMS IN THE 

BASIN AND RANGE REGION 

B.W. Buck, Moderator 

We now begin a consideration of industrial-mineral 

problems and some of the numerous challenges facing this 

industry in the 1990's as it deals with new world markets 

and additional Federal and State regulations, which are increasingly directed at the mining industry. The industrialminerals segment of the mining industry faces some 

challenges that it may not share with many other segments 

of the mining industry. Among these challenges is the 

proximity of developed industrial-mineral deposits to 

urban areas. Some deposit locations are within an urbansuburban environment. This location places the deposit in 

the unenviable position of being a neighbor to recreational 

areas or to expensive homes and subdivisions, and it tends 

to make the permitting of mining operations more difficult. 

Industrial-mineral operators have to deal with the socioeconomic constraints of an urbanized or suburban area. 

Our first panelist, Robert Buchanan, will discuss some of 

those factors and constraints on the industry. He is currently employed as the principal grants-acquisition agent 

to the coordinator for Special Development Projects of 

Salt Lake City Corp.'s Capitol Planning and Programming 

Division. Previously, he was an environmental planner for 

the Salt Lake City Planning and Zoning Division, and earlier he was affiliated for 15 years· with a consulting firm, 

Planning and Resource Associates. 

The next speaker, James Scherer, has been the 

EPA's Administrator for Region 8 since 1988; Region 8 

covers a large part of the United States and the eastern 

part of the Basin and Range region. He will discuss some 

of the Federal policies that affect industrial-mineral operators and their urban neighbors and that constrain and control mineral development, particularly the air-quality/ 

Figure 30. New aluminum-recycling plant operated by International Mill Service Aluminum Metal, Inc. (INSAMET), at Hauser Lake, Idaho. Photograph courtesy of IMSAMET. 

34 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
wastewater regulations that apply to urbanized areas. After 

graduating, Mr. Scherer spent 7 years as a business advisor 

on the Island of Yap in the South Pacific. In 1969, he 

went into private business in Denver, Colo. He served two 

terms in the Colorado Legislature and was chairperson of 

the House Education Committee during 1983-87. 

Finally, we examine the problems that the industry 

faces from State governments, which are taking an increasingly active role in the environmental area, on the impacts 

of mining operations, and in overall resource management. 

Dianne R. Nielson, who is the director of the DOGM, the 

agency that regulates mined-land reclamation in the State, 

will provide a State perspective. Her experience has been 

as senior geologist for the UGS's economic geology program, a consulting geologist in uranium and base metals, 

and geologist for both the Anaconda and Bear Creek Mining Cos. 

In the discussions that follow each of the panelists' 

presentations, participants' questions and comments help 

clarify the panels' positions or expand the subject area 

from personal experiences. 

Growth of Population and Limitations on 

Resource Availability 

By Robert Buchanan 

I'm limiting my remarks to a rather narrow part of 

the announced topic. You'll note that 'my technical and 

professional background is in land-use planning, not natural-resource development. Much of that experience has 

been in working with local governments, and some of it is 

related directly to land-use conflicts. From this experience, 

I've observed that, in many respects, owing to market expansion, it may be more logical to argue that the growth in 

population in urban areas enhances rather than inhibits resource development. However, I'll indicate several of the 

factors that contribute to friction between urban development and the mineral-extraction industry, which, in tum, 

contributes to limitations on the availability of resources. 

Although these factors may be confined to only a small 

part of the mineral-resource business, I think they'll point 

out the conflicts that typically arise, and they may also 

apply to other sectors of the industrial-minerals industry. 

More importantly, I'd like to stress the opportunities to reduce the conflicts that may exist between urban populations and mineral-resource developers. 

Shifting Environmental Priorities 

I suspect that the vital importance of mineral extraction to local economies in the Western United States 

has made us so willing to accept the physical changes 

which mining extraction can bring to the landscape. I've 

seen a community get much more excited about the 

height of a building or the availability of a supermarket 

than about the negative conditions created by an industry. The increased payroll and the infusion of money into 

a local economy can cover a multitude of sins. This observation is not limited just to changes in the immediate 

neighborhood. As environmental planner for Salt Lake 

City, I noted a general absence of concern about the visual impact of the massive Kennecott tailings that were 

accumulating west of the city, or the gravel excavations 

and scars that we see on the sides of the mountains north 

of the city. To emphasize that point, some of you may 

remember the citizen who regularly posted signs for 

commuters on Interstate Highway 80, in Salt Lake City 

near Sugarhouse, complaining about the Federal money 

being wasted to regrade and landscape the freeway 

embankment. 

Environmental concerns, however, are based on a 

changing set of priorities that shift in relation to the formation of social objectives. As a local economy diversifies, 

social priorities almost always change. You can read in the 

newspaper almost daily of objections to practices that, 

until recently, would never have been questioned. The 

challenges by recreationists to cattle grazing on public 

lands is one example, and to smoke from a coal-fired generating plant 100 mi away is another. Previously, such issues never would have been concerns for urban dwellers. 

Factors of Urban Sensitivity 

Let me remind you that local government is highly 

issue oriented and politically responsive, and so city and 

county governments are best equipped to respond directly 

to matters that can be confronted at the microlevel. Local 

complaints about a nuisance chuckhole or a noisy dog will 

often get more attention from the local government than 

such issues as air pollution that may affect the health of 

the whole community. At the same time, local government 

is highly sensitive to political pressures from a vocal advocacy group or to a well-placed individual who can bring 

about changes or decisions that may be totally inappropriate in a communitywide context. 

It doesn't take a degree in economics to understand 

that the value of a resource is commonly based on or determined by proximity to its use or the marketplace. Also, 

note that local government, which commonly has the first 

line of responsibility on location regulations, usually 

doesn't benefit directly from any development of mineral 

deposits. Generally, there are fewer taxes on these commodities than on retail sales. The value to the community 

comes indirectly through jobs and through the convenience 

Future Needs and Problems in the Basin and Range Region 35 
of having the resource available. These are often hidden 

benefits, which become even more obscure as an urban 

economy diversifies and depends less on a limited employment base. Thus, in a diversifying economy, environmental concerns can attain status. 

I can account for our passive acceptance of the excavations around the Salt Lake valley only by their necessity. 

I'm also convinced, however, that such complacency will 

change as the population continues to grow. Let me cite a 

couple of examples of the undercurrent of that change. 

Beck Street Gravel-Excavation Operation 

Several years ago, Salt Lake City began to receive 

some complaints from a neighborhood group about the 

gravel-excavation area on Beck Street, which is immediately north of the State Capitol Building, near Interstate 

Highway 15. There were objections to the dust, the danger from trucks entering and exiting the highway, and 

the noise from blasting and from operating equipment. 

Because the complaining group had some political credibility, an assignment was given to appropriate divisions 

and departments in the city: They were to investigate the 

complaints and make recommendations to elected officials. Rather than attacking the issue piecemeal, dealing 

only with such symptoms as noise, dust, and traffic, the 

question was raised as to the legitimacy of the gravelexcavation operation on Beck Street. Thus, the complaint 

became the subject of a land-use-regulatory review by 

the planning and zoning department. As the investigation 

proceeded, it became obvious that this situation was very 

complex. 

The city proceeded to research the evolution of the 

land ownership, map the sequential changes in the areas 

excavated, and note the general purposes for which the 

material was being used. Distinctions were even made between excavation of material and mining of bedrock, because the zoning ordinance differentiated between mining 

and excavation. The city's legal office examined aspects of 

the nonconforming uses and acquired privileges. The initial finding seemed to indicate that much of the Beck 

Street operation was in violation of city ordinances, with 

substantial grounds for taking corrective legal action. 

It was fortunate for the Beck Street operators that 

the city took this matter so seriously. First, because serious matters take careful deliberation in a bureaucratic 

setting, it took a long time to get a clear picture of the 

situation. By then, the emotionalism that brought the 

matter to the surface had subsided, and no extreme corrective action was taken by the city. Second, once the 

problem of being a compatible neighbor had been raised, 

it provided a forum to begin looking at the problem from 

a comprehensive point of view. Because it had been 60 

years since Salt Lake City adopted its regulatory 

ordinances, those ordinances have only minimal 

consideration of mining and excavation in an urban setting. In a broader perspective, however, the situation has 

spawned a change in the city's regulatory mood, and 

there will be efforts to close what is perceived by some 

people to be zoning loopholes. 

Developing a Proactive Stance 

The point of this example, which affects at least 

some of the industrial-mineral-mining industry, is to open 

an opportunity for me to suggest that some kind of 

proactive measures should be taken by the industry in advance of losing its important stance of having resource 

proximity to urban areas. Let me give you another example to stress this point. 

About an hour's drive north of Salt Lake City is a 

small community that sits on a rather large alluvial fan, 

which is where we usually build our communities because 

of the availability of water. In the mountains above this 

community is a great source of gravel and rock for construction purposes. Not far away is a reclamation project 

which periodically requires that material. Because of the 

history of flooding in this community, several years ago 

the city developed an ordinance that restricted excavations 

through creation of a sensitivity zone, which was tied to a 

geologic-hazard standard. 

Recently, when a request was made to open a new 

excavation site, the application was denied on the basis of 

the sensitivity provision of the zoning ordinance. When the 

community stated that its zoning position was not negotiable, the excavator challenged the validity of the ordinance on the basis of a technicality in the adoption process 

20 years previously. The court agreed with the excavator, 

and he was able to establish his operation in the few 

weeks that it took to enact a new zoning ordinance. Incidentally, the new regulations are even tighter than the 

original ordinance. However, I do see an important missed 

opportunity to form a productive -protective relationship 

between the local community's concerns and the broader 

community, with its needs for access to the resource, and 

the industry. All entities would have benefited by resolution of the conflict through negotiation. Ultimately, the 

battle is always lost to urbanization. 

Concluding Recommendation 

The recommendation that I'd like to offer at this 

workshop is for you to find some way to avoid solutions 

to resource-access problems by direct confrontation. I advocate giving serious consideration to activating an 

industrywide initiative with a mission of improving the 

working relationship between local government and the 

mining industry. I don't know whether such an advocacy 

36 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
position already exists, but if it does, it has such a low 

profile as to be virtually invisible. In my experience with 

local government, I have yet to see it. I believe that a 

proactive approach has merit, is worth considering, and 

certainly is needed. 

Participants' Discussion and Comments 

The following points of discussion and comment on 

future resource needs and problems centered on three main 

topics: (1) recommendations for developing a better relationship between industry and government regulators, (2) 

some positive examples of environmental concern shown 

by industry reclamation actions, and (3) long-range resource planning. Contributions to these sections have been 

grouped under each heading. 

Recommendations for Better Industry-Government Cooperation 

• You're recommending something that we can't directly arrange for here. Some other forum, such as a coalition, which will be considered later on, may be the 

appropriate venue. Your recommendation, however, is an 

important contribution toward assuring that resource development can continue to grow in an environmentally responsible manner. I'd be interested to hear from the State 

representatives and from other agencies how they view 

this suggestion and how this issue would be perceived in 

their respective States. What critical issues should be addressed in this regard? 

NDM Reply 

In Las Vegas, we're growing as rapidly as anywhere 

else in the Nation. One thing I've seen is that some sandand-gravel operators in Las Vegas are being squeezed out, 

owing to a county management plan in concert with the 

BLM. There '11 be some real problems in the next 5 years 

as even more operators are forced out of the valley. As it 

is, the areas where the operators would normally be forced 

to move, some distance away, are probably going to be 

protected as a desert-tortoise habitat. This situation creates 

a double-edged problem. 

Some of the environmental projects that are being 

considered in the Las Vegas area actually are rather innovative. The planners and operators are looking at ways 

in which the sand-and-gravel producers can work together more effectively. The Las Vegas area has a great 

potential for flash floods, and so they're considering 

using sand-and-gravel pits, strategically situated, as 

flood-control basins. Other similar possibilities might be 

studied, depending on the local environment. As you 

said, the operators and government agencies need to be 

more involved in some of the overall planning processes 

in their areas, and the operators also need to spend a lot 

more time informing local-government regulators about 

what's going on, the options, and the impact of the decisions being made. 

NBMG Reply 

The same thing applies in the Reno area, where there 

are problems with opening new operations. Reno is heading away from using river gravels toward using crushed 

stone. Even some of the best attempts to start up crushedstone operations, which would do away with some of the 

problems noted earlier, have met with a lot of resistance. 

Basically, it's the NIMBY syndrome, which also applies 5 

mi away from your house, if not next door. One problem 

in both the Reno and Las Vegas areas, which are rather 

rapidly expanding urban areas, is the lack of basic data on 

where resources are located. One thing that needs to be 

looked at is putting some sort of effort into collecting 

basic information, as, for example, has been done in the 

Sacramento, Calif., area under SMARA. I don't see how 

any planning body can make any rational decisions without having basic geologic data and economic analysis at its 

fingertips. Therefore, the mining industry must participate 

in providing such data. 

UGS Reply 

Along the Wasatch Front and, probably, in other 

areas in the West, we're living in something of a fool's 

paradise because, up to this point, we haven't had to 

worry about sand and gravel; it's so abundant that there 

hasn't been a supply issue. Thus, we're accumulated 

very few resource data on these materials; we don't have 

a GIS data base that county and State planners can use. 

The turning point is coming when we'll no longer have 

the luxury of dealing with an abundance of sand and 

gravel. We can use the experience of people in such areas of the world as southern California, the U.S. east 

coast, and England to serve as models for what our future is going to be like. They have developed and are 

developing serious programs for looking at crushedstone and aggregate resources, and we'll have to follow 

their lead and collect pertinent data and get them into the 

hands of decisionmakers. 

IGS Comment 

One problem I have at these meetings is that we 

always hear the negative side of how sand-and-gravel 

operators in and near cities are being shut down. The 

only way to keep an operation going is to haul everyone 

into court, which means that the cost of sand and gravel 

per yard increases dramatically. What about the success 

Future Needs and Problems in the Basin and Range Region 37 
stories? Are there any out there? Are there any sand-andgravel operators working successfully in urban areas? I 

have no personal knowledge about sand and gravel, even 

in Idaho. There must some successes. There are many 

cities using sand and gravel. How are the operators handling their public relations and the environmental mitigations that are required for them to keep running? Or are 

we closing up shop everywhere in urban areas? I think 

this would be the subject for an interesting study. If a 

consortium is formed, or if the USGS, the USBM, or 

university researchers want to take a look at some of 

these problems, they should be considering the positive 

side of the issue as well as the negative. I have a feeling 

we're going to keep hearing that New York doesn't have 

any sand and gravel because they've built over all the 

sand-and-gravel deposits on Long Island, and Denver is 

going the same way. This is the standard litany. Where' s 

the other side of the story from which we might learn 

how better to deal with the problem here in the Basin 

and Range? 

• There are deposit models that we can follow here 

in the United States in terms of obtaining an adequate 

data base for decisionmaking. Between 1959 and 1975, 

the USGS developed a comprehensive mapping program 

for the Denver-Boulder, Colo., urban corridor (Colton and 

Fitch, 1974; Crosby, 1976). A resource map was developed 

as part of that series of maps that not only located but 

also evaluated industrial-mineral deposits-specifically, 

sand and gravel and aggregates. What will be required, 

however, is some sort of funded cooperative effort, probably involving the USGS, the USBM, and the various 

State geological surveys, to develop exactly that type of 

data base. Mapping of resource information in urban areas, where such information is necessary for planning, 

should have top priority. 

• There's no reason why the sand-and-gravel industry has to be an adversary to further growth. I'm not saying that it's always been compatible, but I think another 

problem is the lack of dialogue there. Once you have your 

community backing, you can make the Beck Street resources available, rather than hauling them from 100 mi out. If 

not, you pay the price! Somehow the industry manages to 

find and deliver these materials, which are as valuable as 

other resources needed by society. We have to advocate 

the protection of a resource, or we lose it. Thus, the industry must speak out. 

Reply: Your point is well taken; it's long been recognized that education of the general population is the 

real problem. The PR that you have to put forth to try 

and counteract some of the negative visibility isn't available at present. There've been some programs on PBS, 

but in general there's no coordinating effort that I'm 

aware of to try to do this. I think the industrial-mineral 

commodities would benefit from such a sustained 

educational effort. 

Industry Environmental Concern 

• At the California workshop last year, we heard 

from the southern California sand-and-gravel people that, 

apparently, there are some good examples of areas where 

they've excavated river gravels, reclaimed the land, and 

installed hotels, golf courses, and parklands. The second 

use of the land was an integral part of the reclamation 

plans. Another example was the sequential use of some of 

the deep excavations in Los Angeles as landfill sites, followed eventually by use as industrial-park areas. These examples illustrate good directions to move in, but the type 

of necessary collaboration required for such good examples of reclamation isn't happening in all areas. 

• One success story about the development of an 

aggregate resource in Virginia was related at the 1990 

Industrial Minerals Forum. The process that the operators went through was nearly as follows. First, they identified a market need in the Washington, D.C., area. 

Second, they looked at the county-board plans and dismissed any area where it was obvious that environmental 

regulation would cause troubles for development and 

production. The most favorable political attributes were 

considered. Then, they went to a geologic map; they 

found the rock types that they thought would be suitable 

and tested them. Next, they went to the zoning people 

and started a proactive process; it wasn't a defensive and 

antagonistic process. Their approach was couched in 

terms of, "We want to develop here, and we want to 

convince you that we're going to be good neighbors, as 

well as good taxpayers." They went to great lengths to 

convince people that the development would involve responsible excavation and crushing activities. Within a 

year, the operators were not only enthusiastic but also 

optimistic. They planned, when the existing quarrying 

operation ends, on turning it into water-storage basins or 

lakefront-property sites, thereby increasing the value of 

the lands as real estate, greater than for the aggregate 

that was extracted. We visited their plant, which was 

beautifully maintained; people could visit it and go away 

with a feeling that the operators were, in fact, responsible partners. The proactive and "let us cooperate with 

you" type of role really paid off. 

• In my opinion, the answer to the question of access to resources is education of the public and the legislative bodies. In spite of many available data bases, 

however, the decisionmakers, especially at the county 

level, are acting without being informed on what resources 

are available. That type of education should be the responsibility of the national as well as the State trade 

38 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
associations. In California, mining permits are granted by 

the counties; the State doesn't have any such power, in 

spite of SMARA (Beeby, 1988). The State acts only in the 

capacity of an advisor, but it supplies the counties with a 

significant amount of unbiased information about the importance of the designated deposits. 

We've heard about the successes in Los Angeles, 

where aggregates are presently being mined, in planning to 

develop those areas being excavated once the excavation is 

completed. It's important for the States to learn more 

about what's available, how important those reserves and 

resources are, and about the economic and environmental 

impacts of hauling aggregates into an area from 50 to 100 

mi away. The NIMBY syndrome is affecting many areas 

of the country, especially around airports, where people 

buy land because it's cheap, build on it, and then 5 to 10 

years later try to shut down the airport. There must be balance, and the only hope for achieving it is much more effective education of the public. 

• Dresser Industries mined a large fluorspar deposit 

that started with complete approval of the project before it 

was begun. It was mined completely and backfilled. The 

area is now used as an example for company promotion to 

obtain access to other areas. This operation was in an English park system. 

The pleas that I hear for industry and local government getting together aren't easy to respond to. This is 

America; we in industry are in competition with one another. To ask us to get together with local governments 

and try to set up working rules withrmt creating a monopoly isn't realistic. You're not going to have one sandand-gravel outfit help another competing sand-and-gravel 

outfit. So, the cities themselves must look for where the 

resource they need is coming from; if they can't obtain it 

nearby, they'll have to pay more for it. I think any sandand-gravel operator would be willing to come in and talk 

with the city council, but if you expect a consortium of 

sand-and-gravel people to come in and help make laws, 

you'll be on shaky ground. There's the additional hazard 

that if one government agency sits down and makes a set 

of rules, another governmental agency may come around 

and says this can't be done because of the antitrust law. 

long-Range Resource Planning 

• There's an interesting development in the State of 

Washington, where a bill was passed in the last session of 

the State Legislature that's effectively a growth-management 

bill, requiring that mineral-resource lands be designated as 

such, if they're not already so characterized, in urban-growth 

areas. Such designated lands will have a long-term significance for the extraction of minerals. Thus, there's an effort 

at the State level in Washington to look at mineral issues in 

a long-term plan. That's a direction in which more States 

and, possibly, local governments should be going. 

• The BLM currently is revamping its management 

plans throughout most of the West. In the Las Vegas area, I 

understand that, through 1995 or so, all of the BLM 's district 

offices will have reviewed their resource-management plans. 

This is an ideal time for the industry or its representatives to 

become involved with the BLM districts. Federal lands will 

be designated areas for mineral-resource use or other uses. 

The trend is toward increasing numbers of restrictions on 

the types of mineral activities permissible on Federal lands. 

I don't think that trend will slow down, so it's imperative 

that people from industry and government land-management 

agencies become involved early in the planning stages. The 

BLM is involving county agencies, and other State and local government agencies as well, in the revamping process. 

Joining in may be one of the best ways, at least on Federal 

lands, to help maintain some areas for mineral entry. Otherwise, we may well have some serious problems if one group 

or another has undue input to the process. We must face the 

fact that environmental groups are taking a larger role in 

developing mandated policies. 

• There is some political reality, particularly in the 

Great Basin, that the States aren't known to be particularly 

active in statewide land-use planning. In fact, it's considered to be the "P" word in some of. these States; you just 

don't talk about land-use planning. In contrast, in the central and eastern parts of the country, land-use planning is 

quite common in both local and State legislative bodies. 

The reality of the situation, however, is that until State 

governments in the Great Basin can acquire the requisite 

data- and it might be a while before that happens- you 

have a major impediment for planning on a statewide 

basis, particularly when so much of the land is under Federal ownership. 

Environmental Concerns for land, Air, and 

Water 

By james Scherer 

EPA Region 8 covers the States of Colorado, Utah, 

Wyoming, North and South Dakota, and Montana and includes some of the Basin and Range region of interest here. 

I haven't been much involved with the problems of industrial-mineral mining that you're talking about. More usually, I'm dealing with heavy-metal mining wastes at SFS's~ 

which are extremely difficult to work with. However, I think 

the problems of SFS's, and some of the environmental concerns that you or we may have with industrial-mineral development in this area, are somewhat similar. 

Future Needs and Problems in the Basin and Range Region 39 
Toxic Waste at Superfund Sites 

Let's consider the types of mining situations where 

we've been heavily involved with toxic wastes and heavy 

metals, some of them here in Utah. We're actively involved with Kennecott in several areas of concern where 

ground-water, surface-water, and air-quality problems are 

being faced. The Sharon Steel site, which isn't far south of 

here, is an SFS in a previously active development area 

containing hazardous materials in great tailings piles. 

These problems epitomize some of the local concerns that 

you're talking about. We're concerned about how we're 

going to deal with the environmental problems in esthetic 

and acceptable ways within a highly urbanized area. As it 

is, the Sharon Steel site not only has serious environmental 

problems but also has additional problems of large heavylead and arsenic soil concentrations that surround various 

homes in that area, and of the impact of these metallic 

materials on the local ground water. The latter may be the 

biggest concern we have. 

Nonetheless, we're often asked to help local economic development by picking up waste-dump materials 

and moving them somewhere else. That isn't the role of 

the EPA. We can't spend money in some of the problem 

areas where the local population might like us to. I've seen 

several examples of dust and air-quality concerns, particularly when we're dealing with heavy metals, such as those 

at the Smuggler mine in Aspen, Colo., and at Leadville, 

Colo. We became deeply involved with these two local 

communities. I think this aspect of environmental protection may be compared to industrial-minerals operations. 

Air Quality and Health Protection 

Let me address some of the local concerns for industrial minerals and what their development might be. If 

you're talking about mining developments near an urban 

area, you're talking about more than environmental concerns. Air emissions and small particulate matter are major 

concerns the West. One criterion for the EPA's getting involved, then, is whether it will have to, or need to, protect 

human health as well as the environment. Most often, human health is one of our immediate concerns. However, if 

there's no population center nearby, that concern isn't 

nearly as sensitive as if the operation were in the middle 

of a population center or close to it. We still have environmental concerns, but, in the case of industrial-mineral production, we find increasingly that these concerns regard 

some of the urbanized problems, such as PM-I 0, which 

are violations in very small particulate matter. In those 

cases, the State has to come to us with a stated mitigation 

plan. Commonly, the reentrainment of dust from an operation, such as sand and gravel or some other minable resource materials, could be a problem for that area's 

meeting its required air -quality attainment. Thus, there'd 

be an effort to put regulatory controls on the operation, 

whether for dust control by watering down the area or 

some more sophisticated method for seeing that the dust 

doesn't get entrained. 

Air Quality and Visibility 

We also see that visibility around a national park, 

which is one place where many of the resource materials 

we're talking about may well occur, is a new concern of 

the Congress right now. If new visibility regulations are 

enacted, it could affect you in your ability to operate as 

industrial-minerals people, as well as affecting the government people who are responsible for the Federal lands surrounding park areas. Whether we'll be able to use those 

natural resources or not, and how we'll be able to, will be 

regulated. -

Increasing Future Cost for Mining 

No matter which concern we're talking about, it's 

about a higher cost of doing business in the years to come. 

The environmental issue will be factored into most everything that we do, whether it's the steel industry or developing industrial-mineral resources, and so all such efforts 

are going to have an environmental factor included. Personally, I agree with that. I think the general public is willing to pay the price to protect the environment. It'll add an 

inflationary factor that I think we'll have to live with in 

this country. Most of the surveys I've seen show that the 

general public will pay that extra price. We're talking 

about the purchase of an automobile that's going to have 

additional equipment on it to cut down on air pollution, or 

about the additional mitigation that might be necessary on 

a project that the industry is trying to develop, which will 

mean that the resource you take out of the ground is becoming increasingly expensive. The consumer will simply 

have to pay the price for that. Thus_, I think that education 

of the public to that reality is an important item, also. 

Water Issues 

When you talk about any type of use of water that 

has to be discharged into U.S. river waters in the processing or reprocessing of minable materials, you again have 

an environmental problem, and the EPA does get involved. 

I don't know whether that happens all or only part of the 

time, but it certainly does occur with acid drainage from a 

gold mine or something of that sort. We refer again to the 

heavy-metal content that might be coming out of the workings, but if it's sand and gravel, I'm not so sure. There'd 

be some water used in processing the resource, and if you 

have to keep air-quality problems down, you may be compounding a water problem. 

40 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
One new problem on the horizon, which everyone 

needs to be aware of, is whether the water is being discharged to a present wastewater-treatment plant, either 

municipally or privately owned. The States to which the 

EPA has delegated program oversight are putting down 

stringent requirements for those municipalities to ensure 

that anything coming into their plants which may be carrying toxic materials needs to be pretreated. There' 11 be local 

pressures to look at the pretreatment of any water that, in 

the past, had been cleaned up by the treatment plant on its 

discharge and that now may have to be pretreated before it 

enters the processing cycle. Now, we're talking about not 

just meeting State numerical standards but also meeting 

standards which ensure that what comes out of a plant 

doesn't kill small minnows and other fish life, so that we 

can improve the quality of the streams in this country. 

I don't know how many mining situations are affected by the wetlands program that we at the EPA have 

embarked on. This program is much stronger and more 

visible today than in the past, and it's one I think everyone 

needs to be aware of. The filling in of any wetlands is 

being watched carefully. President Bush has talked about a 

no-net-loss-of-wetlands policy. The EPA has worked out 

an arrangement with the C of E in an MOU that calls for 

attempting, first, to avoid any loss of wetlands; second, to 

minimize the loss of wetlands; and, third, to mitigate any 

loss. The C of E operated in the past on the assumption 

that if it could be mitigated, any project could be built or 

could go forward. I don't know how many of you deal 

with C of E permits, but I think that, right now, the whole 

issue is still in a state of flux. I'm trying to bring the 

Region 8 view back to Washington, D.C., and to inject 

some degree of sense into this program. We need to look 

at avoidance as the first criterion in making sure that wetlands aren't disturbed. But if there are strong reasons for 

the project to be built-and it shouldn't be only that 

there's additional need- we should allow minimization of 

that impact or provide a mitigation plan for that wetland. 

There might be an opportunity for some positive things to 

be done because, as you begin to talk about some of the 

developments you're considering, the creation of wetlands 

might be a real plus in going out to the general public to 

show what a project can do for the environment. You can 

have some positive as well as negative effects. 

Industrial-Mineral Issues Delegated to the States 

Basically, the issue of the EPA's dealing with industrial minerals involves a fairly heavy delegation of responsibility to both State and local governments. We don't get 

involved unless one of those issues I've just mentioned is 

involved: wetlands, discharge into U.S. waters, or heavymetal toxic and polluting air emissions, particularly in a 

nonattainment area that must reach attainment. Then, the 

EPA might get involved, but our regulatory responsibilities 

say that we should mostly allow local governments to 

make those decisions that they're best equipped to make. 

We get calls from the public frequently. I've had friends 

of mine call and say, "They're going to put a sand-andgravel pit here! Why can't the EPA do something about 

it?" It can be difficult to explain to them that it's not our 

role to act in such cases, that really it's a local zoning 

decision more than anything else. 

The EPA'S New Proactive Image 

You're going to see the EPA taking a more proactive role, not in a strictly adversarial regulatory sense 

but, hopefully, in a positive sense. We'll be trying to 

work with State and local governments on some of the 

things that you've been discussing here which relate to 

excavation mining. One way is through public education, 

which I think is a critical need. Our involvement should 

also be sought out by developers who want to do something and who want to get an analysis of whether there 

are some environmental problems that they (or the EPA) 

might have to deal with. If there are no problems, it's 

better to get that matter off the table right away. For example, the pollution-prevention direction is one area that 

the EPA is going into and that I heartily approve of. We 

should try to do things right to start with, so that we 

don't create something we have to clean up later. Industry has bought heavily into this philosophy. Certainly, 

the environmental ethic that we see active around the 

country today is based on that premise. 

Although I can praise that concept, I'm concerned, 

as many of you are, that we take a balanced approach and 

that we don't complicate the process so much that nothing 

can happen. All too often, that does happen, whether it's 

putting in a solid-waste landfill or any type of mining operation. You were talking about the NIMBY view; I hear 

it's been replaced by the NOPE syndrome. We have to 

attack that attitude in a sensible way, not by being defensive and reactionary, but by being up front. Any project 

that's going to get off the ground should be open for public discussion. If I've seen one thing that the EPA has 

failed to do, it's going out into a community and discussing matters. I could talk about the Sharon Steel site here in 

Utah. To make a decision in a vacuum in Denver, getting 

some input but not putting the decisionmaking process before the public, is a mistake. We tried to do that here; we 

thought we had a solution for the problem, but the community didn't agree. In this situation, the EPA's case was 

just poorly done. 

I've been trying to stress to my people that we 

should be completely up front. Spread out all the options; 

do it very early in the process; get people to understand 

the difficulty of making a decision about what should be 

Future Needs and Problems in the Basin and Range Region 41 
done. Once that's done, the vast majority will support the 

decision. You'll always have a few out there with the 

NIMBY syndrome, who'll try to rabble-rouse, but there 

also are a lot of sensible people who'll buy into something 

that's well thought out and that has, in the long run, good 

environmental impacts. Any project that isn't planned to 

include that type of input today simply won't get off the 

ground. Public education has to be planned. I hope the 

EPA can help, along with the local agencies, in trying to 

improve the planning process. 

Planning Avoids Conflict 

There are many positive mitigation options that can 

be taken. When we talk about the additional cost of doing 

business, it seems appropriate to me that, when you want 

to develop an area, you looks at purchasing more land than 

is necessary, so that there can be peripheral buffer zones. 

If you're looking at having a successful mining project, 

you'll need to have some way to avoid having the project 

situated right in somebody' s backyard; that's simply unacceptable if he was there first. In the example given of the 

airport's location, where people moved in later and complained, I agree 100 percent that their beef isn't well substantiated. That was the developer's fault, as well as the 

local planning division's. 

Industry and the Federal Government ought to get 

more involved up front to help with planning at the local 

level in this part of the country. We have a few SFS' s, as 

at Brookhurst, Wyo., where housing developments were 

put in right next to five existing refineries. The development gets built, and a year later the people are saying our 

drinking water isn't any good! Considering all the territory 

out there where you could have put a subdivision, why it 

went into that particular area is the result of just poor planning. If we can use what information the USGS can give 

us in the way of identifying areas containing resource materials and where they're available, we can do some longrange resource planning. There can be zoning that includes 

buffers of either light industry or commercial zones bordering these areas. We can do a lot better if we try to 

restrict residential use next to where some development 

might be taking place in the future. I think it's incumbent 

on Federal governmental agencies to be as helpful in that 

regard as possible. 

New Operating Role for the EPA 

One exciting thing about my job, after 3 years, is 

that there've been real changes in the EPA. We've grown 

from being strictly a regulatory agency, for which we still 

have some responsibilities. We'll still be the bad guys 

who, if somebody does something wrong and violates 

environmental law, will be there to do something about it. 

However, we're now moving away from duplicating what 

the States are doing in that regard. We've delegated the 

monitoring of air, water, and hazardous waste to the States 

to try to build their capability, so that we can take some of 

our resources, which have been duplicating theirs, and put 

them into more positive approaches and be more of a technical assistant to industry, other Federal agencies, the general public, and local government as much as possible. 

For just a moment, I'd like to switch back to what 

we're trying to do with toxic waste from mining sites. 

We're deeply involved in Region 8 with that issue, and I 

know you have at least a peripheral understanding and involvement in that problem area. We've been working diligently to provide one staff expert who probably knows 

more about mining from an environmental point of view 

than anyone else I've met; he's been working mostly at 

our Washington, D.C., headquarters and with our Region 8 

staff. We've been trying to put together a strategy. Our big 

concern is that Congress will get worked up about mining 

wastes; as its next step, it's going to have the RCRA 

reauthorized. We're concerned that Congress will say that 

all mining wastes should go under subtitle C and be considered toxic wastes; we think that'd be an absolute nightmare. It already is, as we're trying to get the toxic matter 

out of the tremendous volumes of waste material that 

we're currently dealing with. Blanket coverage just doesn't 

make sense. What we're trying to do is preempt Congress' 

getting involved in the mining question, and put something 

into regulations that's workable, that has a buy-in from 

both the industrial and environmental sides, and from the 

States and the Federal Government at the EPA level. We 

just came out in May with our "Strawman II" proposal on 

how we'd regulate mining wastes, which took 2.5 years' 

operation to put together. Still, I hear that various people 

in the industry think it's far too inflexible a plan and isn't 

going to work. I hear also that various environmental 

groups think it's giving away the farm. That kind of talk 

makes me feel good-we must be down the middle, or 

close, anyway-but there'll be a series of hearings, and a 

public hearing in Denver is scheduled in June. Then, we'll 

be going into a final draft sometime next year. 

Basically, the approach that we're taking is one that 

we as Federal agencies need to adopt more often, to build 

on what the States are already doing: flexibility in dealing 

with different mining situations in different States. If we 

get going with national legislation, or national regulations 

that try to cover phosphate mining in Florida, gold mining 

in Colorado, and all the other different types of mining 

operations, we're courting disaster. We've already caused 

more problems than we've solved with some of our legislation, and some of our regulations just aren't applicable 

everywhere. These legislated requirements are going to 

force industry to spend a lot more money than it should 

42 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
for very little environmental benefit in trying to solve a 

particular problem. Industry may have another problem 

that they ought to be doing something about. So, we're 

trying to build on what the States already have in place in 

their mining regulations. 

What we're proposing is that the States submit a 

plan to us, which includes their present regulations; the 

EPA will run it through the Federal Register, and that 

would constitute the Federal plan for that State. If we saw 

some problems with a State's plan, we'd go back to the 

State and try to have it make any necessary changes, so 

there'd be a good solid-waste plan for that State. About 21 

States in which mining is prevalent have regulations already in place. We've been working with the Western 

Governors' Association and given them a grant to help develop this planning concept (see Nielson, this report). 

That's the way the Federal Government ought to be operating. We're getting down to a level where we can see that 

impacts are being analyzed accurately because they're analyzed on the local level. I'm hopeful that this whole process will go forward in the next couple of years and be 

finalized before Congress gets involved with it. I know 

what happens with most of the things Congress get involved with! It has to be essentially generic; the power 

structure for Congress is basically on the east coast and in 

California. We don't always get a fair shake in Region 8 

in the West because we don't have the political power 

base to get that fair shake. We holler and scream all the 

way to the end, but we don't always get our terms met. 

Our new tactic seems like a better way. · 

Concluding Thoughts on the Future of the EPA 

You should now have an idea of where the EPA in 

Region 8 is going these days. These are exciting times, I 

think. I know that you're part of a regulated industry, and 

you may not always think that it's exciting, but if there's 

anything I've been trying to do these past 3 years, it's to 

make the EPA a more responsible and responsive organization. In the past, our image has been extremely poor 

among those in the mining industry, which I think is probably well deserved. I hope that I'm turning that image 

around somewhat in the Denver office. I deal with 630 

employees. It's tough to make cultural changes in people 

who've been there 18 to 20 years, who've done nothing 

except write permits and inspect and enforce regulations; 

that's been their whole life. It's tough to try to turn them 

around into being educators, technical assistants, and helpers, and to change their mindset so that their role isn't necessarily to be bad guys (or only if that's necessary) but to 

try increasingly to capitalize on the positive interests in 

doing things right. We have to do things right, and, hopefully, if we get the whole philosophy in this agency turned 

around, we can be a lot more positive force. 

Participants' Discussion and Comments 

• You mentioned USGS information as being 

helpful. What types of information did you have in mind 

and, if maps, what scale? How can such data help localgovernment people? 

Reply: I can't give you a precise answer, but I know 

that we're wo11dng very closely with the USGS in Denver, 

and this work includes mapping. For example, the EPA 

has provided money for mapping along the Clark Fork in 

Montana, where we're trying to clean up one of the largest 

mining-waste sites. I previously mentioned the study in the 

Denver metropolitan area; that type of information is useful to the EPA. We have a person in our laboratory at the 

Denver Federal Center who's our coordinator with the 

USGS. How USGS information can be applied to localgovernment problems remains to be discovered. The 

USGS probably has a responsibility in that regard. I don't 

know how you stay attuned to all the zoning and planning 

issues that are coming up. The EPA should have an outreach program to find out where decisions are going to be 

made for which we can provide useful technical expertise; 

this would be the proactive stance that the EPA should 

adopt. The local decisionmaker should be given pertinent 

information before deciding about locating a landfill right 

over an important ground-water aquifer. Such uninformed 

decisions have been made in the past, and they've been 

disastrous. Such types of relevant resource-location information that the EPA can glean from the USGS could be 

used a lot, particularly in siting landfills and urban expansion in those areas under EPA purview. 

• What do you see as the main impact of the CAA 

on new mining development? 

Reply: For the past month or so, I haven't followed 

the development of that act because it was being changed 

so much; I decided to wait until it was finalized. I don't 

know whether it will much affect mining, except that sitespecific permitting is going to be a major requirement, and 

there '11 be a fee structure required in every State. Whether 

that'll be true for mining sites, I don't know. However, if 

you're in a PM-1 0 nonattainment area- as for example, 

Utah and Salt Lake Counties in Utah- there may be added 

requirements. The State is now putting together its State 

Implementation Plan to submit for EPA approval. The 

EPA will be looking at all sites where there are emissions 

of small particulates, and it will add some type of requirement through the permitting process. I'd say that's the 

number-one effect on mining. Otherwise, most of the CAA 

is fuel oil and automobile oriented. In those areas, it will 

tighten down. 

• To follow up on the previous question, will there 

be any significant changes in air-quality standards that 

would affect an industry such as oil shale that does put out 

a lot of combustion products? 

Future Needs and Problems in the Basin and Range Region 43 
Reply: Yes, there will be. I can't tell you exactly 

what those standards are, but they're being tightened 

down. In the past week, we've had many discussions 

with the State of Utah about the revapor standard that 

the EPA will set through regulation, not in the law itself. 

Many standards will be changed when the EPA develops 

its regulations. The EPA is committed by law, over the 

next 3 years, to come out with specific regulations to 

actually implement the act; these new regulations will 

change the standards. In Utah, the refineries have been 

concerned that the revapor standards for Utah and Arizona were designated at the lowest level, below that for 

the Los Angeles area. This is hard to believe, so we've 

persuaded Washington to tum that around as inappropriate. Every time Congress does that for an area like Utah, 

which feels that there's a real reason for less stringent 

standards, it has to find another area elsewhere where it 

can save some of the VOC's, because there've been 

some ozone violations here in the Salt Lake area. I don't 

think the numbers are going to be tightened down a 

whole lot, but there'll be many more requirements that 

must be met and a lot more difficult local decisions to 

be made in most cases. State decisions will also be 

required. 

The real success story in such endeavors has been in 

Denver, and the EPA was deeply involved in that success. 

Some people still consider that Denver has a real air-quality 

problem, but it doesn't. A serious problem has been almost 

licked in the past 6 to 7 years. Just 6 years ago, there were 

161 violations for excess carbon monoxide in Denver; this 

past season, there were 2. The number of violations came 

down dramatically to 80, then to 25, 16, 9, and then 2. A lot 

of this success has to be credited to the technology of new 

automobiles and the fact that new automobiles have taken 

the place of old ones. I'm not trying to say that what's been 

done locally does 100 percent of the job, but there've been 

wood-burning bans, and the city council met last night and 

will eliminate leaded fuel in Denver beginning in January 

1991. At the same time, they passed several other strict 

pollution-mitigation ordinances. I think a good job of cleaning up that area has been done. That's the kind of program 

that's going to be required of local governments. The EPA 

will be the catalyst to get them to do many more tough 

things. For mining, however, it's in the particulate and dust 

area that the CAA will have its greatest effect. 

• In the mining industry in the future, if you have a 

particulate source, will you be able to go on stream if you 

mitigate another or lessen another particulate source? I recently heard of a powerplant in southern California that 

was expanding, and to get its air-quality permit, it had to 

buy 150 old cars a year and destroy them. Is this the wave 

of the future? 

Reply: Yes, I think the act does call for a credit system whereby mitigations can be traded or sold. This 

mostly concerns S02

, but there are several other pollution 

areas where I think the free-market approach of trying a 

different approach from the established one is a big part of 

what the administration has been asking for in, and is a 

part of, the CAA. So, yes, you can solve your problem in 

other ways, but it has to be handled, tested, documented, 

and proved to be successful. The EPA always takes a 

pretty stiff look at those tradeoffs to make sure that they 

work. In the case of wetlands mitigation, with which I'm 

most familiar, you'd better be sure you can prove that the 

wetland can be restored or built and will succeed beyond a 

year or two and not fail. Past history has shown that we 

need some tough requirements. Yes, mitigation and the 

whole free-market approach is a good way to move, and 

it'll be a part of the way we at the EPA are going. 

Interstate Activity in the Formulation of 

Regulations Governing Mine Waste 

By D.R. Nielson 

During this workshop, there will be discussions of 

the problems that are limiting an operator's ability to locate, develop, and market industrial-mineral deposits. 

Working through an interstate coalition is one option for 

approaching these problems. I'm going to concentrate on 

the efforts of several States to work with the EPA in establishing a regulatory program that will safeguard the environment while maintaining a workable framework for 

mineral-resource development. That program involves 

mine wastes, not industrial minerals, but the issues are 

similar. 

The focus is on a case study of States' input into the 

EPA's development of a program to regulate mine wastes 

under subtitle D of the RCRA. The coalition that was 

formed was the MWTF of the WGA. Let me state at the 

outset that I'm speaking as an active member of that task 

force, but I'm not acting as a representative or spokesperson for either the WGA or the MWTF. Historical background data and figures were prepared by the MWTF. 

The proposed regulatory program is complex. It's 

important to bear in mind that, with the possible exception 

of phosphate operations, the major waste streams which 

are targeted in the RCRA, those of base and precious metals, are more complex and potentially toxic than in most 

operations associated with industrial minerals. 

Background-The Problem 

To begin, let's consider the problem, the basis for 

establishing the MWTF. 

1. Wastes from mining, as well as from extraction and 

processing, including some from industrial-mineral 

44 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
operations, are significant contributors to the overall 

problem of solid-waste management, especially in 

those States and communities with significant levels 

of mining. According to Coppa's (1984) estimates, a 

total of 50 billion tons of mine wastes was produced 

through 1980 from all mining, coal and noncoal, in 

the United States. Furthermore, mine wastes are projected to increase by an additional 5.8 billion tons 

through the year 2000. To put it in a different perspective, albeit one that's not directly related to industrial minerals, in the period between 1910 and 

1980, mill tailings from base- and precious-metal 

operations increased from 46 million to approximately 

300 million TPY. Much of this total represents an effective increase in precious -metals exploration and 

development, including a dramatic increase in the 

number of precious-metal heap-leach operations. 

However, the significant growth in precious-metals 

operations over the past 10 years isn't even a large 

part of those numbers. More pertinent to this workshop, consider that the mining segments which generated the largest volumes of waste, as of 1980, were 

copper- and phosphate-mining operations (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985). 

2. Increasingly, mining wastes that once accumulated in 

areas remote from human population centers are now 

located in the midst of population growth. This congestion is creating new concerns for protecting human 

health and the environment. As noted during other presentations at this workshop, the problem goes beyond 

the issue of management of mine waste to include issues of dust and noise pollution, preservation of scenic 

vistas, planning and zoning of residential versus industrial areas, and prioritizing of mineral- and environmental-resource protection, conservation, and development. 

It's all the baggage that goes along with the NIMBY 

syndrome or, if you prefer, NOPE. It's the issue that 

causes residents along the Wasatch Front to focus on 

development and continued mining of rock aggregate 

north of Salt Lake City. It's the issue in your communities that might cause you to ask whether planning occurred before the location of new housing or 

commercial developments. How much of the development in your community is on top of valuable sandand-gravel or industrial-mineral crushed-rock deposits? 

Consider, for example, that, because of restrictions 

against new quarries along the Front Range, the new 

Denver International Airport may be built with sand 

and gravel imported from Wyoming. These are the 

types of situations encountered every day. 

3. The Congress, through the RCRA, EPA regulations, and 

other laws, has federalized the regulation of the mining 

industry. Heretofore, that regulation had been largely 

within the authority of the individual States. When the 

RCRA was enacted in 1976, Congress made a distinction between high-volume, low-hazard solid wastes, 

such as municipal waste, which they placed under subtitle D, and hazardous wastes, which they placed under 

subtitle C. In 1980, the Bevill amendment specifically 

excluded mining wastes from regulation under subtitle 

C until further studies were conducted by the EPA. In 

1986, the EPA published a regulatory determination 

that certain solid wastes should be regulated under subtitle D, including base and precious metals, phosphate, 

oil shale, asbestos, and overburden from uranium mining. In the new regulatory proposal, which has just been 

released by the EPA, the proposed scope of the regulation has been expanded to include heap- and dumpleach waste units and materials that are contaminated 

by regulated waste material. 

The States' Response 

The States have played and continue to play significant roles in terms of regulation, regardless of what the 

Federal Government has been doing. Furthermore, the 

States have specific interests and concerns in the development of aP-y Federal regulation. The EPA's mission is to 

protect the environment; a State's mission is to promote 

prudent development of its resources in a manner that protects the environment. That distinction, that added aspect 

of the State's mission, makes a big difference in the way a 

State deals with its industries. From that perspective, I 

think the direction that the States took was clear: 

• Protect human health and the environment. 

• Ensure compliance with sound mine-wastemanagement practices. 

• Utilize relevant, site-specific information in regulatory decisions and actions. For example, recognize that 

the phosphate operations in eastern Utah are distinct from, 

and ought to be regulated somewhat differently from, 

phosphate operations along the coast of Florida. 

• Promulgate effective and nondiscriminatory 

regulations. 

• Enable continued mining-industry activity within 

the State. Workability and consistency of regulation are an 

essential component of the mining operation. The uncertainties of the RCRA and of the regulations under subtitle 

D were not conducive to planning and carrying out mining 

operations. Regulatory requirements and related costs need 

to be clear, reasonable, and consistently applied. 

Formation of the MWTF 

The WGA passed a resolution in 1988 in response to 

the EPA's draft regulations. Given that the EPA had 

determined that mining waste should be regulated under 

the RCRA, the EPA should: 

Future Needs and Problems in the Basin and Range Region 45 
• Expeditiously develop a mine-waste-regulatory 

program. 

• Base the program on RCRA subtitle D, as opposed to subtitle C. 

• Allow for meaningful State input before proposing 

regulations. 

• Establish a State-based program. 

• Protect public health and the environment. 

• Account for site-specific, waste-specific, and 

waste-management-specific practices that could be 

adapted within the States and for operations in those 

States. 

• Maximize reliance on existing State regulatory 

programs without creating a new Federal program to 

handle the issue of regulation. This resolution basically set 

the tone for the MWTF. 

The MWTF was formed by the WGA to provide 

guidance to the EPA as the regulatory management 

framework and program were developed. A total of 21 

States across the country participated in the MWTF. 1 In 

addition, we had the advantage of advice and input from 

the Western Interstate Energy Board, which is a coalition of Western States, and from the IMCC, which provided a perspective on the Eastern States. 

This program of proactive participation by the States 

in drafting and evaluating a regulatory framework is a new 

approach for the EPA, as well as for some of the States. 

Furthermore, drafting of the proposed regulatory framework before reauthorization of the RCRA provides an opportunity for statutory changes that will reflect workable 

regulations. 

The MWTF' s objectives were to: 

• Bring the States' perspectives to the EPA and enable the EPA to understand how the States currently are 

regulating mine wastes and what unique characteristics 

justify establishing a program at the State level. 

• Survey State regulatory programs to provide the 

EPA with an updated and complete summary of State programs. This document has been prepared and will soon be 

released by the MWTF. 

• Recommend a regulatory, not just a Federal, 

framework that would be imposed on the States, but one 

that would be workable within the States' programs. The 

EPA drafted "Strawman I," which was their initial draft 

of regulatory-program concepts, and the MWFT reviewed 

it. "Strawman II" has now been released. Many of the 

MWTF's recommendations, however, were not accepted 

by the EPA. 

1

The State members of the MWTF include Alaska, Arizona, 

California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, 

Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, South 

Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and 

Wyoming. 

• Advise the EPA on implementation to establish 

State-based, State-controlled regulatory programs. This work 

is being evaluated by individual States in the coalition. 

• Identify the cost and manpower resources needed 

to implement and maintain a program of regulation for 

mine waste. 

Regulatory-Program Position-a Solution 

Through the discussions with the States and in 

response to the EPA's 1988 "Strawman I" draft of 

Federal-program concepts, the MWTF established a 

regulatory-program position that was clear and probably 

not unexpected. A regulatory program must: 

• Recognize State primacy and maximize existing 

programs-no omnibus permits. 

• A void regulatory duplication on any level; ensure 

clear lines of responsibility and clearly defined lead agencies where there is potential duplication. 

• Establish a performance-standard-based program 

that is site and State specific, that has flexible application 

to recognize the differences betWeen conducting mining 

operations in Minnesota and Nevada, for example, and that 

is multimedia based (soils, water, air, stability). 

• Provide Federal financial and technical support 

and enforcement in nonprimacy States. 

Each State, at its election, will establish a minewaste-management plan that includes the following elements: (1) scope of coverage, (2) implementation and 

enforcement, (3) standards of performance, (4) design and 

operating criteria, (5) performance monitoring, (6) corrective action, (7) closure or reclamation, and (8) financial 

responsibility, surety, or bonding. Aspects of these elements already exist, to one degree or another, either in 

mining-regulatory programs or in programs implementing 

the CWA and the CAA, in the 21 States that participated 

in the MWTF. 

Last week, "Strawman II," the second and, presumably, last of the EPA's draft program concept and discussion documents, was released for public comment and 

review. This document includes many, but not all, of the 

MWFT' s recommendations. In some cases, the MWFT' s 

recommendations have been incorporated within a strong 

Federal role, one that was neither anticipated nor supported by the coalition. 

What the Process Cannot Do 

In consideration of this process as a model for the 

work of an industrial-minerals coalition, we must also recognize the MWFT' s limitations. 

1. The process of interstate coordination is only as effective as the ability to reach some common perspectives 

and positions on issues. For example, there are no 

46 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
guarantees that the EPA will adopt a position supported by the MWFT. The final call, in fact, lies with 

the EPA and with the Congress. "Strawman II" did 

not incorporate all of our recommendations, and some 

of those changes are significant. We may, to the extent that we can't work through an interstate task 

force, move on to other options in addressing those 

issues. 

2. There's a risk that, by taking a proactive position initially, the States will be perceived as supporting any 

regulation of mine waste through subtitle D of the 

RCRA. As noted earlier, what we've done, essentially, 

is draft, not implement, a regulatory program before the 

authorizing law, reauthorization of the RCRA, is in 

place. The counter to this concern is that, as States, 

we've tried it the other way. We attempted to influence 

how a program would be structured after the act was in 

place in the SMCRCA, the CAA, the CWA, and countless other Federal environmental laws. That process 

didn't work; we hope this one will. We've dealt with 

various environmental laws on the Federal level after 

they were enacted and after the regulations had gone 

forward. We've been fairly ineffective in convincing 

Federal regulators of the direction that should be taken 

by the States. 

3. The proposed waste-management program doesn't resolve the significant problem of inactive and abandoned 

mines, the group of mines that the environmental community holds up as the failures of the industry and the 

regulatory agencies, and they're absblutely right. Furthermore, no matter how effectively active sites are 

regulated, the problems associated with inactive/abandoned sites won't be resolved. All the States recognize 

the need for reclamation of these sites. However, the 

RCRA is not the process or forum for addressing these 

issues because it doesn't accommodate reclamation or 

remining/reclamation of inactive/abandoned sites. Reclamation options must be flexible, site specific, and 

State based. The work must be on-the-ground reclamation, not expensive studies and litigation of responsibility. 

4. Finally, we recognize that the solution to the problems 

of mine-waste management or, for that matter, industrial-minerals development isn't any new national program, Federal or State law, or regulatory program. The 

solution really lies in how industry operates on the 

ground. Safe, responsible, nonpolluting mining operations occur where the operator, whether it's a multi-million-dollar consortium or a "mom and pop" operation, 

has the knowledge and forethought to avoid environmental problems and to clean up any accidents 

promptly. It means that the operators and their suppliers 

need to consider the hazards as well as the benefits of 

the products they use and the process or environment in 

which they use them. It means that regulatory agencies 

are staffed with trained individuals who know and can 

evaluate state-of-the-art mining and waste-management 

practices. Regulatory staffs know how mines and processing facilities work, on site, and understand that 

their primary responsibility is to make sure the facility 

can work effectively as permitted. 

The objective is to internalize environmentally sound 

management practices in the permit and in the operator's 

work under that permit on site. It means recognizing the 

limits of the operation and the environment. It means support from the local community, not just because the operation employs 50 percent of its residents but because the 

company is running an environmentally responsible operation. That's the challenge before us. 

Participants' Discussion and Comments 

• Are there EIS's for development wherein you 

evaluate what the denial of a local source of industrial 

minerals might mean in terms of having to transport industrial minerals, let's say, from Wyoming to the Denver Airport site? That option has a certain environmental cost to 

it, also. In addition to increasing the cost of materials due 

to transportation, increases in air and noise pollution and 

highway congestion must be considered. Are there ways to 

weigh these environmental costs? 

Reply: One way that's been suggested and that was 

discussed earlier is through planning. Admittedly, we 

don't do much of this type of planning in many of the 

Western States. We've shied away from it, but more and 

more we're learning, particularly in States with large percentages of Federal lands, that if we don't proactively plan 

on a State level, we're going to get de facto planning from 

the Federal Government. I think the planning process is a 

good place to start. This planning may be in terms of new 

developments or in terms of basic allocation of land use 

and what areas will be allowable for mineral development. 

There's an opportunity within the planning process, 

whether it's on a general scoping level or right down to 

the public-comment period. 

Generally, we don't hear much about whether 

there's going to be participation and concern or whether 

potential conflicts will be discussed in consideration of 

the general mine-plan level in Utah. Most operations in 

which there's potential conflict have already been in existence, or they may be modifying operating plans, but 

they're not establishing new plans. We see this happening in some other resource areas, such as coal in southern Utah. Such questions are legitimate in the planning 

process. What are the actual costs? They may be difficult to ascertain. The more you can say about the cost of 

importing sand and gravel or crushed rock adding X 

number of dollars to the cost per ton, and the more you 

Future Needs and Problems in the Basin and Range Region 47 
can say about importing or bringing materials from another county up to the Salt Lake City-Wasatch Front 

area adding X number of trucks to the interstate system 

over a period of time, the more people can put these 

costs into solid concepts and visualize the full effect of 

the decision. Then, those issues will be discussed. Until 

you can view that part of the problem, the issues won't 

come up. 

• What do you mean by your statement that if the 

States aren't going to plan, the Federal Government is 

going to plan for them in the West? 

Reply: The BLM and USPS are both required under 

Federal law to have land-management plans in place for 

their specific districts. There's been a lot of discussion, particularly in terms of oil-and-gas exploration and development, as to whether those plans are current enough and 

whether the agencies have a significant and reliable data 

base. For the oil-and-gas industry, these conflicts are coming in all the sensitive environmental areas you'd expect, 

like the Rocky Mountains grizzly-bear habitat and operations adjacent to national parks. However, the bottom line is 

that each of those Federal agencies which have responsibility for managing Federal lands is required by law to have a 

current resource-management plan in place and to operate 

in accordance with that plan. If there're going to be deviations from it-for example, to construct a major road for 

access to a mine or a pipeline to transport minerals-the 

BLM and (or) USPS will have to amend the plan. Those 

plans are going to dictate what you can or cannot do on 

those lands without additional public comment. 

In the Western States, State lands are interspersed 

within larger blocks of Federal lands. When the States received school-trust lands, they received them as interspersed 

sections within townships and ranges, for the purpose of 

providing a source of income for school systems in the 

States. Consider managing 32 sections in the township and 

range in one manner with four additional State sections in 

the middle of that, surrounded by Federal lands. It's next to 

impossible to perceive that mines or other major land-intensive operations located on State lands are going to go forward in conflict with major Federal land-management policy 

within the area. That's the basic issue. 

A PERSPECTIVE ON REGIONAL 

INDUSTRIAL-MINERAL PROBLEMS 

j.E. Christensen, Moderator 

The two main industry problem areas to be considered by panel experts include the economic and environmental spheres of activity. The first panel, convened by 

C.W. Berry, professor of mining engineering at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, will examine some of 

the primary economic problems for the mining industry, 

including the development of an industrial-mineralmarketing strategy for a specialty mineral material, Gilsonite; the problems of financing a mineral enterprise in 

the present economic and environmental climate; and the 

art of making business deals, dealing with taxes, and tips 

on making an economic analysis of a mining project. 

The second panel, convened by B.W. Buck of the J.B.R. 

Consultants Group in Salt Lake City, will discuss the environmental problems facing the industrial-mineral 

industry in the Basin and Range region from the perspectives of a government regulator and an industry 

environmental-affairs coordinator. Finally, the critical 

support systems required in the Basin and Range region 

are reviewed. Discussion and comments by the participants and panelists follow the panel presentations. 

Economic Problems of Industrial-Mineral Mining 

C.W. Berry, Convenor 

During this session, we'll discuss some industry 

problems, such as marketing, financing, taxes, and royalties, and some aspects of the economic analysis of an operation. The first panelist is L.l. Weiner, manager of 

development and planning for the American Gilsonite Co., 

a division of Chevron Resources in Salt Lake City. He'll 

describe the new marketing directions that his company 

has taken in recent years. Mr. Weiner is a graduate mechanical engineer; previously, he was affiliated with the 

aerospace industry and the Gulf Oil Co.'s Colorado oilshale program. The second subject for this panel is the allimportant financing of industrial-mineral enterprises. R.W. 

Bernick, now retired from First Interstate Bank, has had 

much experience in mineral financing. For 20 years, he 

was business editor for the Salt Lake Tribune. Thus, he's 

familiar with the business and finan~ial side of financing a 

mining project. I'll complete the panel's economic considerations of deals and taxes and conclude with an economic 

analysis for the State of Utah. 

I ndustriai-Mineral Marketing 

By L.l. Weiner 

New and innovative marketing strategies have become important factors for survival in the competitive industrial-minerals business. The American Gilsonite Co., a 

wholly owned subsidiary of Chevron, provides an example 

of what one industrial-mineral firm has been doing in recent years through development of a focused and aggressive marketing program. The company has modified its 

objectives and developed new products for new markets. 

48 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
But first, let's look at what Gilsonite® resin2 is and what 

it's used for. Then, we'll consider the company's marketing responsibilities, the several controlling marketing factors that are evident, and, finally, current marketing 

experience and product development. 

Occurrence of Gilsonite 

The American Gilsonite Co.'s mine area in the Uinta 

Basin in northeastern Utah is located 35 mi southeast of 

Vernal and nearly due west of Rangely, Colo. Gilsonite 

itself is a naturally occurring asphaltite or saturated hydrocarbon, 98 to 99.9 percent pure, with a specific gravity of 

about 1 and a melting point of 230 to 400°F. The mineral 

is black and shiny, like obsidian. The material occurs in 

parallel, almost-vertical, northeast-trending veins, from 

22 in. to 6 ft wide, which may extend for 8 to 30 mi. The 

veins are found in Tertiary limestone and shale and are 

believed to have been derived by distillation from oily material in the underlying Green River Formation. 

Mining and Marketing of Gilsonite 

Many veins of Gilsonite occur in the region. Each 

vein has a slightly different grade; the grades are differentiated on the basis of the softening point of the material. 

Softening point, which is similar to melting point, is the 

temperature at which Gilsonite becomes soft; this temperature ranges from 300 to 400°F. The difference in its 

softening point is one of the key characteristics that makes 

Gilsonite usable in different industries. The mine is developed by inclined shafts and intersecting tunnels. The veins 

are mined by hand, using an air chipping hammer; the Gilsonite is airlifted into a holding bin, using a vacuum, and 

then is dumped into trucks and taken to the processing 

plant. The plant has three major functions: to size, dry, and 

package the Gilsonite before it goes to the customer. Gilsonite is packaged in 50-lb bags for the United States, and 

25-kg bags for the rest of the world. Some of our customers are now getting the material in bulk bags, and the export foundry industry sometimes receives it in open-top 

containers. 

American Gilsonite is the largest exporter (on a volume basis) in the State of Utah. Exports are measured by 

the shipping companies in what they call a TEU container. 

Last year, approximately 1,400 TEU's were shipped to 40 

countries around the world. 

Industrial Uses for Gilsonite 

Gilsonite is used primarily in four basic industries. 

(1) The foundry industry uses Gilsonite as a greensand ad2

Gilsonite® is a registered trademark of the American Gilsonite Co. 

ditive. The hydrocarbon vaporizes and provides fine casting surfaces. It's used in Germany for casting Mercedes 

and BMW automobile engines. (2) Gilsonite is used as a 

modifier of bitumen or asphalt in road paving, roofing, and 

emulsions; it adds strength characteristics to the asphalt or 

hot mix that is put down. (3) Gilsonite is used in the oilfield industry in two different applications. Adding it to 

oil-well cement reduces slurry weight without loss of compressive strength to the cement. It's also used as a drillingmud additive for plugging depleted sandstone formations 

and to prevent drilling-fluid loss. (4) Gilsonite is used in 

the printing-ink industry. Conventionally, it's used as a 

carbon-black dispersant; it forms a film around the carbon 

black and helps it to disperse. Gilsonite is not used per se 

for its resin component in higher quality black inks because of natural variations in the Gilsonite; it's used as a 

resin in less expensive ink formulations, such as newspaper inks. 

Marketing Factors 

As a part of Chevron Corp., American Gilsonite is 

financially responsible to and dependent on Chevron. The 

cash flows both to and from Chevron; however, American 

Gilsonite is operationally independent. At the minesites, 

we make our own decisions. We're independent marketing-wise; we make our own marketing decisions. Chevron 

Corp. and Chevron Resources do not interfere with our 

plans as long as they see them progressing well and 

money resulting from our production and marketing activities. We have a product-development laboratory here in 

Salt Lake City. It's not an R&D facility, because we don't 

do pure research; we conduct applied research to develop 

new valuable products from Gilsonite. 

The company operation at Bonanza, Utah, has been 

in continuous production for more than 102 years. As 

you can imagine, Gilsonite is a fairly low cost commodity by itself. Transportation costs are a significant 

part of the cost to the customer. When you consider U.S. 

freight rates, overseas shipping rates, and unloading at 

Rotterdam or another port, there are many costs in transporting Gilsonite to the country of use. Because of the 

weak dollar overseas, currently, customers also have a 

currency-adjustment-cost factor added to the ocean 

freight cost. 

Our sales policy is to sell directly to customers or 

through distributors both domestically and around the 

world on a spot basis. We have 18 distributors worldwide, 

and they, in tum, sell to their customers. At American Gilsonite we don't have a contract with any customer. If you 

were to ask me today what our sales would be like in the 

future, I'd only be able to make an educated guess. We 

have to wait for a telex, a fax, or a telephone call to come 

in from overseas or domestically. 

A Perspective on Regional Industrial-Mineral Problems 49 
The American Gilsonite Co. competes with other 

Gilsonite producers, of which there are three in the Uinta 

Basin. We're the largest producer, but the Ziegler Chemical and Mineral Co., headquartered in New York, and the 

Lexco Co., headquartered in Utah, are also in production. 

Other countries claim to have Gilsonite. The Chinese call 

their product rock asphalt, but it's a different material. The 

same is true for the materials occurring in Argentina and 

Estonia, which have oil-shale deposits. Thus, Gilsonite, 

with its high softening point, extremely high purity, and 

unique chemical composition, is unique to the Uinta Basin 

as far as is known. 

Gilsonite also competes with other materials. For asphalt modification, there are 35 other modifiers. In the 

foundry industry, we compete with seacoal. Other materials are used in the oil-field industry. We also have competitors in the ink industry, primarily hydrocarbon resins. 

So, the competition of Gilsonite with other products will 

determine its market price. 

Early Marketing Experience 

Gilsonite has had numerous diverse end uses. We've 

made clay pigeons for skeet shooting and nuclear rods, 

and it's been used to make explosives. The American Gilsonite Co. built and operated an oil refinery near Grand 

Junction, Colo., from 1958 to 1973; we produced gasoline 

and made coke. Gilsonite has also been marketed as a 

product to melt snow because of its black color. 

Current Marketing Efforts 

The company is now concentrating on the four 

basic industries that I mentioned earlier-oil fields, inks 

(including paints and coatings), foundries, and asphaltmodification applications-for its development or marketing strategy before trying to market something new. 

Moving away from the commodity aspect of Gilsonite 

marketing, the new area of company interest is valueadded products. The marketing philosophy for these new 

efforts is as follows: 

• Establish a strategic reason for success. The company must attempt to find a long-term need and to make 

sure that this new product will fit and have synergy with 

the current business. We found out that one of our overseas foundry customers used half the Gilsonite purchased 

for the foundry business and the other half for a kitty-litter 

enterprise. However, kitty litter just wouldn't fit into 

Chevron's overall image or strategy. 

• Establish a competitive advantage. We also have 

to make sure that any new product we develop has a competitive advantage (by "competitive" I mean either in price 

or in function). In looking at our new marketing, we want 

to develop value-added products, for example, using 

Gilsonite as a feed stock instead of as an end-use commodity. That would be a big departure from the way the 

product was viewed in the past. 

• Pursue a few advanced programs. The new business program has to be the proper size-not too big, like 

the refinery, which was a huge monster that just didn't fit in 

comparison with other refineries or into our own operations, and not too small, because we want to carry it through 

to completion. A few years ago, our product-development 

laboratory was working on about 20 different products, and 

it took each one to about 60 percent of completion but none 

to final completion. We've changed that and are now concentrating on a few highly likely best products, and we 

want to go to market early for evaluation. We started off 

with laboratory studies; next, we developed a pilot plant, 

which we ran last year; now, we have a toll production 

where we get our marketing analysis done. 

New Marketable Products 

One development program that we have going on 

now for value-added products is called the ER-resin. ERresin is a purified resin. Effectively, we're purifying Gilsonite by taking out the high-molecular-weight portion and 

any ash and grit. We're left with the lower-temperature 

stable resin, which has a stable viscosity. One past problem with Gilsonite used in the ink industry is that, over a 

period of time, the viscosity rises. That can be a difficult 

problem for an ink producer: He measures the viscosity 

one day, and a week later it's just double, triple, or maybe 

an order of magnitude higher. That's the inherent nature of 

a Gilsonite solution. By eliminating the high-end, highmolecular-weight portion, the so-called asphaltenes, and 

leaving the maltene part, you have a stable, lowerviscosity, lower-softening-point material that also retains 

its carbon-wetting attributes, which is useful in the ink industry. This process drastically affects the way an 

inkmaker looks at the material. With Gilsonite as a 

carbon-black dispersant, the product is of relatively low 

value and represents about 2 to 3 percent of the total formulation. With ER-resin, the value of the product-now 

competing with hydrocarbon resins-increases twofold to 

threefold, and the percentage that can be used in the formulation increases by a factor of as much as 10. The marketing implications of the success of this program would 

be of tremendous significance to American Gilsonite. 

Gilsonite can also be considered for use as a resin in 

asphalt modification. Adding Gilsonite to the blacktop 

used for road paving, which is made up of about 5 percent 

AC and 95 percent aggregate, results in a higher strength 

material. It's been successfully used to decrease the 

amount of deformation caused by heavy traffic stressing 

the highways. For example, it's been used at the entrance 

to the Lincoln Tunnel in New York City, where all the 

50 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
trucks are approaching and stopping and starting as they 

edge forward into the tunnel. We have test strips in the 

United States and all over the world, at interchanges of the 

interstate highways and at crossroads where there's a lot of 

traffic. In certain cases, when you use unmodified asphalt, 

you can get what's called a "rutting and shoving" effect 

when the pavement is overstressed. Gilsonite can help 

mitigate that situation. In high-stress areas, many modifiers 

(I mentioned before that we're competing with about 35 

different modifiers, including all types of polymers, sulfur, 

ground-up tires, and other materials) each claim to do this 

job, but Gilsonite is a low-cost modifier, adding one of the 

lowest costs per ton. Modifiers are being used on only 

about 1 percent of roads, but we believe that about 10 percent of roads or interchanges are amenable to their use. 

So, there's a big market out there. We have a marketing 

program going on that's very costly. Every State and every 

county has its own way of getting a product specified. 

You've to make numerous visits to numerous agencies, 

and if you don't have the staying power, you're not going 

to make it. So, mostly, it's the larger companies that are in 

this marketing business. 

We also have proprietary oil-well products. We've 

developed what we call a borehole stabilizer. In drilling 

for oil in a depleted sandstone reservoir, the circulating 

fluid that contains the muds would ooze out. The Gilsonite 

in there helps plug pores in the borehole walls, so you 

don't have a loss of circulation. We developed our own 

proprietary materials that work either at low or at high 

temperatures. It's given us a competitive advantage in the 

industry against the leader, which was a Philips Oil product. The main thing about this material is that it's water 

dispersible. It is environmentally unacceptable now to continue using oil-based derivatives for drilling; these materials are being phased out in the North Sea and California 

oil fields, so water-based systems are the only way to go. 

We are also conducting research on an advanced 

emulsion project, which is probably the coming thing in 

the ink industry. Right now, many inks are based on solvents, which are becoming environmentally unacceptable. 

In California and, increasingly, in other States and counties, there are VOC limitations. Water-based systems are 

going to be the wave of the future. 

Marketing Matrix 

Henry Romagosa, business development manager of 

the American Gilsonite Co., has made up a matrix to show 

where our products fit in (fig. 31). Existing and new products are shown at the top, and existing and new markets 

on the side. The existing market in the upper left-hand corner represents the commodity sales that we currently have. 

Our new products, such as the resins that we are test 

marketing or the new oil-well-type materials that are going 

into existing markets, are shown. Emulsions and dispersants, which we're working on, are not yet on line for 

those markets; these products will become new market areas. Gilsonite-modified asphalt was an existing market, but 

in the asphalt industry, there's a new market to use the 

modified Gilsonite resin. These are four new ways in 

which Gilsonite can be used in the marketplace. The company is at work on additional marketable products from 

this unique hydrocarbon material. 

Summary 

The marketing strategy that we've taken on to 

change from the old way we did business to our new way 

has been developed in recent years. Whereas once we had 

many projects, now we're focusing on a few projects. We 

used to be production driven- can we make it, and can we 

mine it? Now, we're market driven-can we market it, and 

can we sell it at a profit? We used to be volume driventhe more sales, the better. Now, we're value driven; if we 

have to give up a market, raise our price, or lose that market share because we feel that we're not making sufficient 

money to cover our costs, so be it! 

Might there be philosophic opportunities for you 

there, too? In the old business strategy, we looked for the 

short-term gain; now, it's the long-term gain, to a degree. 

When we project 10 years ahead, we're looking for longterm opportunities. But Chevron is still stock-owner 

driven, and when we tell them this is our 10-year plan, 

they say, "What are you going to look like next year? 

What's your cash-flow, and what's your profit?" Thus, this 

long-range plan has to be moderated to a degree by the 

fact that we're financially responsible to Chevron. In our 

old way of doing business, we wanted to be big; now, we 

just want to be profitable! We're an old-time Utah company hopefully gaining a new lease on life. 

Product 

Existing New 

0) 

c 

·.;::; Greensand ER resin 

(/) 

·x ... w 

additive Oil-well cements Q,) 

~ 

... 

ca 

~ 

s: 

Q) Asphalt Emulsions 

z modification Dispersions 

Figure 31. American Gilsonite Co.'s market-development 

product matrix. 

A Perspective on Regional Industrial-Mineral Problems 51 
Participant's Comment 

• I'm sort of a "drucker," a follower of Peter Drucker 

(1973), the management guru. He addresses American business' transnational activities and some of the things that 

Mr. Weiner was talking about, particularly that we're market driven. This, of course, is the basic problem that we all 

face in the mineral industry and the banking business. These 

types of activities on a transnational scale are going to drive 

our future for the next 50 to 60 years. 

The Art of Financing an Industrial-Mineral Enterprise 

By R.W. Bernick, Sr. 

I've been asked to discuss the problems of dealing 

with lending, and I refer not just to banks but also to all 

sorts of lending sources available to the industrialminerals part of the mining industry. I covered this subject in greater detail in a talk at AIME (Bernick, 1981 ), 

but for the present discussion and limiting ourselves only 

to industrial minerals, I'd say that in today's atmosphere 

of tight credit, lenders will be looking primarily at the 

highest possible equity contributions; under ordinary circumstances, they'll be avoiding highly leveraged project 

financing. For the purposes of your discussion today, 

therefore, I suggest that we take as a model a relatively 

modest-size mine for which the operator would be seeking a production-loan type of credit. Production lending 

is common in the oil-and-gas industry, where you'd assume there's a semideveloped or known deposit and you 

have certain market situations confirmed. We won't go 

into project financing, which had a disastrous record 

during the Depression in the mineral industry, particularly in the taconite business, when a lot of big companies went broke and disappeared. 

Typical Loan Requirements 

A small industrial-mineral project would have to 

present solid market contracts. The American Gilsonite 

Co. is an example of a specialty-mineral company. However, here we're talking about arranging a loan for normal 

or conventional types of industrial minerals, such as a barite company with a modest market position. (1) Such a 

company would have to verify to the banker that it has 

market contracts for the product to cover the term of the 

loan. (2) Its management must have a good track record 

and experience in the mineral field. (3) The equity contribution required at the time of my earlier speech a few 

years ago was 20 to 25 percent. Now, as an approximate 

estimate, there would have to be at least a 35-, 40-, to as 

much as a 50-percent equity contribution. These are tough 

conditions, but there are other opportunities for financing, 

besides bank lending or borrowing from an established institution, that have to meet the regulations of the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Reserve, the 

Controller of Currency, and whatever else is required. ( 4) 

For such loans, the company must also demonstrate that it 

has met all the environmental risks; I emphasize the word 

all. Bankers don't want any surprises in lending; they're 

controlled by risk factors, just like an insurance company. 

They don't want to approve a loan only to find out later, 

"Oh, I forgot to tell you that we have to set aside I 0 

percent of the cash-flow for waste management and disposal and things we didn't think about up front." (5) You 

have to demonstrate your land-ownership or control 

situations because industrial minerals are particularly 

vulnerable to problems in banking. Under the U.S. Federal 

Mineral Leasing Act or other types of leasing of mineral 

rights, increasingly, the Federal, State, county, and city 

governments are all writing new leases with more restrictive operating conditions in response to pressure from 

environmental groups. These leases consume a great deal 

of legal time in the perfection effort, and, even now, many 

of them haven't been tested under administrative-law procedures. These are headaches for financing. I'm not trying 

to discourage you; I'm simply telling you that these are 

obstacles to overcome. 

Beyond these constraints are the additional considerations of depletion and royalties. (6) We have to pay attention to what the depletion allowances are, because 

depletion plays an important role in cash-flow. (7) We 

have to figure out what the royalties are going to be and 

what the royalty factors are. Personally, I believe that, for 

the average industrial mineral (I know the State and Federal Governments wouldn't agree!), the less royalties, the 

better off you are. These royalties are controlled by the 

State and Federal Governments or Indian tribes, and so on, 

and aren't subject to negotiations. If anything, royalties 

tend to go up, not down, but if you're looking at a development on fee lands or properties subject to royalty negotiations, they could be converted to an equity position. One 

of our customers did this when it took its silver-mine royalties and traded them for common stock of the operating 

company, permitting income to them from dividends declared by the operating company. This arrangement also 

gave the royalty owner access to the American Stock Exchange for sale of some of the shares, providing a liquidity 

dimension to the former royalty holding. Furthermore, the 

operating company that had the bank loan was provided an 

enhanced cash-flow, enabling it to reduce bank debt, and 

so on. 

Cash-Flow Considerations 

Generally, the purpose of loans is to meet workingcapital requirements, and repayment is from cash-flow 

52 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
generated by the mining, processing, and sale of industrialmineral products. "Cash-flow" is defined as the amount of 

money available for loan retirement from net profits plus 

depreciation, amortization, depletion, and mine-development deductions. 

CPA Assistance Needed 

Where such mine-development deductions are available and permitted by the taxing authority, I also recommend that you employ a highly experienced CPA. A CPA 

will be required by a bank lender; they lend money only to 

people who have CPA-approved statements. 

Security for the Lender 

The lender may well seek a secured position in the 

lease and the lease-operating rights, the security being the 

stockpile of raw materials available for processing, the 

final product itself, and the equipment owned by the operator. Among the reasons for this seemingly stringent requirement is that, if the operator fails in performance 

under the terms of the loan contract, another operator can 

supplant him, and the market contracts can be completed 

to the satisfaction of both the purchaser of the product and 

the lender. The lender will see that the purchaser of the 

product is protected. A satisfied purchaser is the only way 

the lender gets his money back. The lender will question 

the borrower about the mineral resource and verification of 

its reserves, both proven and probable; proof of ownership; 

his operating rights; environmental health hazards that the 

mining processing may engender; transportation availability; and proof of all costs, including labor, energy, transportation, rents, royalties, water availability (especially in 

the Basin and Range, where it may be scarce) of the type 

and quality necessary to perfect the product. The operator 

has a real problem without that assurance of water 

availability. There are potential gold mines that haven't 

been brought into production because no water was available, and transportation restrictions were such that you 

couldn't haul the ore materials to a place for processing. 

The plant has to be built in certain areas near the mine. 

Availability of waste-disposal sites is essential, also. Access to properties, easements granted by others, insurance, 

and a management track record on mine safety are considered. In other words, you must prove that the project will 

generate the cash-flow necessary to repay the loan within 

the time period agreed upon without cost overruns and unsatisfied risk. Because industrial minerals are labor and energy intensive, in comparison with some other minerals 

(gold, silver, oil, and so on), the discussion of lenders and 

borrowers will center largely on cost, cost, and more 

cost-including, thanks to D.R. Nielson's comments, the 

cost of regulation. In fact, I suggest that the financial 

profile for a loan application be constructed, in the case of 

industrial-minerals lending, from a compilation of all 

costs, because normally such minerals do not lend 

themselves to generate wide margins of profit, such as the 

value-added consideration for a specialty industrial 

mineral. 

Value Added and Other Considerations 

The more you can demonstrate that you can add 

value to your mineral product, as discussed earlier by L.l. 

Weiner, the more the bankers will be interested in lending 

you money. For such metals as gold, you get a large swing 

in commodity prices, and you can structure your loan so as 

to use commodities' "forward hedging," as is common in 

financing sales of precious metals, and so on. 

There is now available a veritable treasure trove of 

contributions, through use of computerized profile development, and so on, to help make it much easier to prepare 

the required documentation. In sitting down with your 

lender, who also has computers, you can figure out many 

of these factors if you set them up right and have the right 

software. Such services are now available to the mining 

industries. 

I might say that I'm not trying to be particularly negative, but this is a highly competitive period that the world 

finds itself in. Persistence is a virtue. I wish you good luck. 

Problems of Business Deals, Taxes, and Economic Analysis 

By C.W. Berry 

My objective is to highlight some of the complex 

problems that mining operators must become involved 

with as modern entrepreneurs. First, we consider how 

business deals are best made. Next, we consider the problems that industrial-mineral operators have with leasing a 

mineral deposit, evaluating tax consequences, and other 

operational and regulatory factors. Finally, we consider the 

advisability and advantages of making an economic analysis, with an example of the benefits accruing to Utah from 

the Utah minerals industry. 

Business Deals 

Successful business arrangements require that you 

define your business wants and then your needs; they can 

be different. Also, when dealing with other people or organizations, you should define their wants and their needs. 

I've been in situations where entrepreneurs claim they 

want something but, actually, they need something else. 

As an entrepreneur, you can help yourself in dealing with 

others by showing that a particular deal is better suited to 

A Perspective on Regional Industrial-Mineral Problems 53 
their needs. You want to avoid commitments, if possible 

avoid production commitments or financial commitments, 

in the event of unforeseen problems. 

I'm sure most of you are familiar with the preferred 

negotiating posture in which you want to get into a winwin situation, in which you both win. You can do this by 

tax advantages or by different commercial advantages that 

you bring to the table, and they bring something else to 

the table. In the less desirable win-lose situation, where 

you win and they lose, the problem is that, in many cases, 

it deteriorates into a lose-lose situation. Normally, the winwin situation is a much better posture. 

Joint participation has the advantage that you share 

the risk. You lessen the capital requirements of each participant, which is especially advantageous if you're new in 

the business. You can take advantage of each side's 

strengths. For example, one side may be strong in operations, the other side in marketing or in financial backing, 

so you try to bring the two joint venturers to the table with 

complementing strengths. The disadvantage is that you 

have to share the rewards. The objectives of each party 

may differ or may become different; the financial strength 

of each party may differ or may become different. These 

are some of the disadvantages of joint participation. 

Mineral-Leasing Problems 

It's common in the petroleum business to have a bonus 

payment (a front-end payment) or a complete bonus payment, which is a buyout. Then, you get into the royalty 

situation. In sand and gravel, for example, it might be common to have a royalty of so many cents per ton or cubic 

yard of product, or maybe a percentage of revenue; or you 

can have a percentage of net-profits interest, with or without land rentals. The advantage of the net-profits interest is 

that it's more risk sharing. In the percentage-of-revenue scenario, you can actually operate at a loss and still have to pay 

royalties; the same is true with the dollars or cents per ton 

of product. Also, you have minimum royalties, and if you're 

the lessee, the operator will want those minimum royalties 

advanced or creditable against operating (earned) royalties. 

Basically, in an analysis of mineral leasing there are 

two questions: (1) What are the economic impacts of the 

deal, both from your standpoint and from the other side's? 

It's a good idea to do the economics not only for your side 

but also for the other side. In some cases, it might even be 

advantageous, for negotiating purposes, to show the other 

side the economic advantages of a particular deal when 

you want to get into a win-win situation. (2) What are the 

risks, both for the deal and for financing? These risks are 

broken down into three categories-political, business, and 

technical. One important thing is that risks can go up or 

down. In exploration, there's an important word-serendipity. Everyone wants that in exploration. 

Tax Considerations 

Tax changes occur. For example, in the United 

States, we've gone from a corporate tax rate of 46 to 34 

percent; that's a positive change. There are many types of 

taxes that you have to consider other than income tax. At 

the local level, there are property taxes on plant and equipment and, possibly, on ore reserves, using either the present-value approach or the production basis. There may be 

other local taxes, such as a State severance and income tax. 

You have to be careful as far as the income-tax rate is 

concerned because it's a percentage of what? In some 

States, you're allowed a percentage depletion allowance 

per the Federal tax; in other States, you're not. So, it's a 

percentage of what? Also, your severance tax can be pretty 

stiff in some States. Another factor is sales and use taxes. 

As far as U.S. operations are concerned, the percentage 

depletion allowance, depreciation, methods of depreciation, 

exploration versus development in terms of expensing, and 

corporate structure can have a bearing on your taxes. For 

foreign operations, the royalties, severance tax, income 

tax, and the creditability of foreign taxes paid against U.S. 

taxes are important to understand. Your depletion allowance, which I think most of you are familiar with, depends 

on two things: (1) It varies with the commodity (for sand 

and gravel it's only 5 percent, whereas for phosphate it's 

14 percent); and (2) it's levied only on your mining activity, so you have to determine where mining stops and 

nonmining starts from a tax standpoint. One test is that if 

there's a chemical change to the product, mining stops. 

Once you have a chemical change, you don't get any further depletion allowance. 

Other Cost Factors 

Several other widely varying factors should be considered. Community relations can be good or bad. Government regulations, such as D.R. Nielson discussed, can 

affect business. Especially in overseas operations, possibilities for expropriation, riots, war, production problems, 

and import/export trade restrictions must be considered. 

I'm sure that the American Gilsonite Co. is concerned 

about these factors. Government support or its absence, 

business risk, union-labor practices, the loss of key personnel, the need to renegotiate business arrangements, and the 

processing of contract changes provide additional uncertainties. If the value added is done by a custom process, 

the processor might change the charges. Certainly, transportation problems in the high-volume, low-value industrial minerals are significant. The market, prices, quality, 

volume, and interest rates are factors that you may not be 

able to control. Capital availability, possible litigation, 

changing infrastructure requirements, and currency exchanges, as, for example, with the Gilsonite business overseas, can affect your operation. The technical risks, such 

54 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
Table 8. Potential political, business, and technical risks affecting a mining operation 

Tax changes 

Community relations 

Political risks 

Government-regulation changes, for example, environmental, 

safety 

Expropriation 

Riots, war 

Halts in production 

Import, export, trade restrictions 

Union-labor problems 

Loss of key personnel 

Business risks 

Renegotiation of business arrangement(s) 

Processing-contract changes 

Transportation problems 

Market: price(s), quality, volume 

Interest rates 

Capital availability 

Possible litigation 

Infrastructure requirements 

Currency exchange 

Technical risks 

Ore grade: inplace and minable, variation 

Ore tonnage, geometry, depth 

Processing recoveries, mineralogy 

Efficiency 

Geotechnical 

Cost changes: operating and capital 

Bench test/pilot test/prototype 

Earthquakes, storms 

Retrofitting 

as ore grade in place, ease of mining, and variations in the 

ore- its quality, tonnage, geometry (reserve), and the 

depth of mining-figure into the business economics. Certainly, the American Gilsonite Co.'s mining costs would 

be much lower if the deposit were massive instead of occurring in thin, steeply dipping veins. Geotechnical costs, 

bench tests, power tests, prototypes, earthquake and storm 

damage, and retrofitting are some additional factors, as 

listed table 8. 

Economic Analysis 

Let's consider some of the problems that we've seen 

in economic analysis. One question is whether you use 

uninflated or inflated dollars. Uninflated dollars are socalled constant or real dollars; inflated dollars are nominal 

or current dollars. In terms of the interest rate used to get 

the present value, what's the value of something if you 

want to buy or sell it? Most operations have a relatively 

long lifetime, and so the time value of money becomes 

important. Let's say, for example, we have a nominal 

interest rate of 15 percent with inflation; the calculations 

are shown in table 9. Let's also say that our inflation rate 

is 5.5 percent. That would give us a real interest rate, 

without inflation, of 9 percent; but in determining the 

present value, if you do it correctly, you'll come out with 

the same percentage in constant dollars. Let's say that we 

have a cash-flow at the end of each of 4 years of $100; 

undiscounted, that has a value of $400. If we discount that 

at the uninflated rate- or at the real rate, which is 9 percent-we come up with a present value of $323.97. Let's 

say we have the inflated dollars at the 5.5-percent inflation 

Table 9. Calculation of present value using constant money and current (inflated) cash-flow 

[Given: nominal interest rate, 15 percent; inflation rate, 5.5 percent; annual constant cashflows, $100 for 4 years] 

Solution: 

Let real interest rate=r: 

1 +r=(1 +0.15)/(1 +0.055)= 1.09; r=9 percent 

Discount factor 1 =(1 +0.09)-n 

Discount factor 2=(1 +0.15)-n 

where n=year 

Constant 

Year cash-flow Discount Present 

factor 1 value 

per year 

1 100 0.9174 91.74 

2 100 .8417 84.17 

3 100 .7722 77.22 

4 100 .7084 70.84 

Total ----- 400 323.97 

Current Discount Present cash-flow factor 2 value 

per year 

105.50 0.8696 91.74 

111.31 .7561 84.17 

117.43 .6575 77.22 

123.89 .5718 70.84 

458.13 323.97 

A Perspective on Regional Industrial-Mineral Problems 55 
.rate, and we have the current cash-flow dollars, which are 

more in terms of numbers of dollars but which don't have 

the same purchasing power. Then, we'd use the discount at 

the nominal or inflated interest rate of 15 percent, and 

we'd come out with the same present value. I've seen 

some situations where companies do the analysis, let's say, 

using 10 percent in constant or uninflated dollars. They 

then say, "Let's look at it with inflation at 5 to 6 percent," 

but they use the same 10 percent. They'd get a higher 

present value, but it'd be fallacious. So, you have to be 

careful to match apples with apples rather than oranges. 

I'd like to make just one final comment on economic 

analysis. I've found in my industry experience and consulting work that a project can be helped by showing the 

economic advantages to the community. I once was involved in making such an analysis for a project in which 

both the environmental impact and the economic impact 

were important. 

Economic Analysis for the State of Utah 

I'd like to go through an analysis that I did for the 

State of Utah for the year 1990 to show the benefits that 

the Utah mineral industry provides the State. This analysis 

includes metals and industrial minerals (beryllium and 

magnesium are included with the metals in this analysis), 

coal, and oil and gas at the wellhead. In 1990, my estimate 

is that the total value of metals will be a little more than 

$1 billion. Industrial minerals, which include Gilsonite, 

phosphate, coal resin, Kennecott's smelter sulfuric acid, 

cement, clays, gypsum, lime, salts, and sand and gravel, 

will total about $400 million. The coal mined in the State 

amounts to 21 million tons, or about $500 million, and 

petroleum about $750 million. These commodities will 

total about $2.7 billion in 1990. 

However, what also is probably important to the 

State is the employment in these industries, which translates into income, sales, and other taxes. For employment 

we have the direct number of 8,600 employees, an addition to mining of 2,300 employees. 

One problem you '11 have, if you go looking at the 

importance of mining in any particular economic sector, is 

that the SIC system is used, which is now administered by 

the OMB; it sets up the classification, sends out the forms, 

and tries to keep the forms simple. Thus, many activities 

that are mining related are actually considered by OMB to 

be manufacturing. In Utah, for example, all of the mineralbrine operations are considered industrial chemicals; 

Kennecott's smelter and refining are considered manufacturing, not mining. Thus, you have to be careful when you 

use the SIC numbers. 

Normally, mining is a good multiplier in terms of 

job creation. For example, if there's a multiplier of 3.3, 

that means that for every job in mining, you create 2.3 

jobs in supporting industries or employees support. In mining, much of the maintenance is done by contract; the employees themselves need clothing, food supplies, and 

entertainment. I try to estimate the population that depends 

on mining. Some people have said that my estimate is 

slightly high, but I use a multiplier of 4.2. For each job, 

both direct and indirect in mining, you have a 3.2 dependence. If you remember, total employment in Utah is 

69,000 people, but for many of those jobs, if a person is 

paid $50 in a quarter (3 months), that person is considered 

employed. Thus, many of those people who are employed, 

such as teenagers at McDonald's, are dependents. Note 

that in mining, the average work week is 42.3 hours, 

whereas overall the average is 34.8 hours; in fact, in the 

service industries, it's less than 30 hours. My end result of 

this analysis is that the proportion of all wages in Utah 

gained in minerals is 11.2 percent. The proportion of 

people who depend on minerals, again including all mining plus oil and gas at the wellhead, is 13 percent. 

For taxes, I've tried to estimate the taxes that are 

paid by the mining corporations, taxes paid by the employees, and taxes paid by the service industries, plus mineral 

royalties. One important thing in terms of Federal royalties 

is that all the States get 50 percent of the amount collected. For example, in Utah, the Federal mineral-leasing 

income for 1990 is estimated at $106 million, of which the 

State of Utah will get $53 million. Then, I include property taxes, severance taxes, and all the other related taxes 

that corporations pay. The individuals who depend on the 

industry pay taxes that include State income tax, sales tax 

on cars, property tax on houses, and other miscellaneous 

taxes that aggregate $137 miUion. The bottom line is that 

the State realizes a total of $423 million in tax and royalty 

payments. The total 1990 tax revenue for the State is estimated at $1.847 billion. Local taxes amount to $968 million. I add in the mineral-leasing revenues. So, we have a 

total for Utah tax and mineral-leasing revenues of $2.873 

billion, of which mining represents ~4.7 percent. One thing 

you might say is that these numbers for the State are too 

low; the State budget might be about $3.5 billion. That's 

true, but the makeup of that difference (about $1.6 billion) 

is from U.S Government grants to the State and revenues 

that the State collects from different sources for services 

rendered, such as driver and hunting licences. 

I think these percentages are fairly significant for the 

industry, and they show that the mining and oil-and-gas 

industries are quite important to Utah. The classification of 

what constitutes mining has to be adjusted to take into account all of mining, not just that accounted for by SIC. 

Participants' Discussion and Comments 

• You mentioned that you estimate the total mineral 

production in Utah at about $2.7 billion for 1990. What 

56 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
percentage of that total is actually leaving the State as a 

profit for the companies, from the value of materials sold? 

This is a question we hear voiced in Nevada quite frequently. The criticism comes that foreign companies (British, Australian, and Canadian) come in and take ore out of 

the State and their profits with it. We have a payroll of 

about $485 million for the mining industries in Nevada. If 

you go through a similar economic analysis, you can come 

up with various figures, depending on how you view it. It 

would be instructive to State officials to see just how 

much of that profit is actually feeding back into the State's 

economy. 

Reply: I don't know. I didn't address the question 

directly as to profit, because I don't know company costs. 

If you could get tax records and other records from the 

companies to arrive at a cost figure, maybe that type of 

analysis could be done. Realistically, many of those 

records wouldn't be available. 

Foreign investors were willing to put up their capital, so they should get a reasonable return. The higher the 

risk, the more the return. Maybe there's economic rent 

there, and it's excessive. Then, you can do it by having an 

excess-profits tax. If you go that route, you'll scare away 

future investors. It's a problem. You want to attract investors, but they have to be able to make an adequate profit. 

In Utah and, probably, in Nevada, more than 65 percent of 

products are exported out of the State. If you export, then 

you import economic activity into the State. Certainly in 

Nevada, just about all the gold that's produced is exported 

from the State. 

• You mentioned royalties assessed under the Mining Law of 1872. There are no royalties on Mining Law 

minerals on public lands. Under the Mineral Leasing Act, 

a fixed cost, a fixed-sum additional royalty, has been allowed in the past. For example, under a standard oil-andgas lease, I believe that in the 1950's, the lease owner got 

5 percent and was permitted to add another 1 percent. 

You're referring to a private royalty in which someone has 

a lease and subleases it to someone else. 

• There are different rules for minerals taken off 

Federal lands. There are three categories of minerals: locatable, leasable, and salable. Locatable minerals fall under the 1872 Mining Law and include such metals as 

silver, gold, copper, and certain industrial minerals. Leasable materials would have a royalty associated for oil and 

gas, coal, Gilsonite, trona, and so on. Salable materials 

don't require a royalty. There's one point that I wanted to 

make, relevant to the economic analysis: Bonding has become quite an issue with mining companies. Even though 

they can go through the analysis and find that they can 

mine a certain product at a profit, they have to go and get 

a bond for the BLM to cover environmental reclamation. 

• Bonding used to be common in the coal industry, 

but there are many problems associated with it. Many of 

the bond brokers went broke. Bonding is an additional insurance cost. It's OK to sell bonds, but trying to collect on 

them can be a problem. 

• I made a survey in Utah last year and found that 

there are no surety companies within Salt Lake City which 

hold bonds on a mining operation. We're requiring operators to come in with a bond in order to operate. We'll have 

to devise a policy to allow them different ways to hold 

bonds. 

The Director of the BLM has announced recently 

(American Mining Congress Journal, 1990) that the BLM 

is implementing its mandatory bonding policy for exploration and mining plans, following instructions released on 

June 27, 1990. The goal of the new policy, which is similar to that for management of coal-mining operations 

under the surface-mining law, is to encourage the States to 

run their own programs. Bonds will be required for all 

plans of operations, unless the operators can demonstrate 

the existence of a State bond within 75 percent of the 

BLM's estimated bond amount or ceiling. Operations 

using cyanide leaching and operators with a record of noncompliance must be bonded at 100 percent of the BLM's 

reclamation-cost estimate. The ceiling amounts for BLM 

bonds are $1,000 per acre for exploration and $2,000 per 

acre for mining operations. The new policy will remain in 

effect until the BLM completes rulemaking addressing all 

issues associated with bonding and mining operations. It 

will be a costly requirement for the industry to bear. 

Environmental and Support-System Problems 

for Industrial-Mineral Mining 

B.W. Buck, Convenor 

We now move into more detailed discussions of environmental constraints and problems that face the industrial-minerals industry. So far, we've have addressed many 

of these issues in general- those constraints caused by 

Federal Government policies and regulations, limitations 

caused by local planning and zoning authorities, and 

various regulations by State governments. The industrialminerals industry has to work within these landmanagement rules. We now want to examining the issues 

further from a different, possibly more detailed perspective. We'll be looking at land-access problems and controls from a Federal perspective; then, we 'II move on to a 

case-history study of environmental permitting and environmental-baseline studies from an industry perspective, in 

which we'll demonstrate the types of permits and programs necessary in Utah but which would be generally applicable to most of the States in the Great Basin. 

We then will discuss the difficulties in providing 

support systems. The Great Basin is aptly named; there are 

A Perspective on Regional Industrial-Mineral Problems 57 
lots of open spaces out there. It's difficult, frankly, and a 

major limitation on mining development to get such 

support services as water and power to mining facilities. 

I'd guess that most of the industry representatives here 

have some personal experience with one or more of these 

topics and should be able to add their comments about 

their past problems during the discussion period. 

The panelists, who will present some practical experiences, include S.J. Brooks, a geologist in the BLM's Salt 

Lake District office, who will address land-access issues 

from the Federal perspective. Mr. Brooks began his professional career logging soils for the Alaska Pipeline Construction Project, then moved on to the USPS in California 

and to BLM projects in Nevada and Utah. G.M. Eurick 

has been environmental-affairs coordinator for American 

Barrick Resources Corp., located in the Mercur mining 

district, Utah, since 1982, where he's had various positions 

in environmental and occupational health. Previously, he 

was operations environmental health officer for the Anaconda Minerals Co. at the Carr Fork mine in Tooele, Utah, 

and was in the environmental-affairs department of the 

Minnesota Power and Light Co. Mr. Eurick will discuss 

land-permitting issues in Utah. Finally, C.L. Smith, who is 

the director of environmental services and senior project 

manager in the Salt Lake City offices of Dames and 

Moore, a geotechnical and environmental engineering 

firm, will consider mining-support-service problems. Previously, Ms. Smith was consultant for support services to 

the DOE's Western Area Power Administration and had 

experience in environmental-project management, data 

management, and cultural resources for Worth Associates 

in San Diego, Phoenix, and Denver. 

Land-Access Issues from the Federal Perspective 

By S.j. Brooks 

I'm going to focus on issues affecting access to 

public lands and how access limitations arise; I'll also 

summarize some of the industrial-mineral activities on 

the Salt Lake District's public lands in the Western 

Desert and how legal access differs for locatable, salable, and leasable minerals. Environmental issues and 

concerns have increased significantly in recent years; 

regulation is prpliferating. At the regional and State levels, major environmental legislation is being revised and 

developed. In the U.S. Congress, the 1872 Mining Law 

and the BLM' s Service Management Program for mining 

activities are undergoing intense scrutiny; the GAO and 

environmental groups are also studying them. We can 

expect to see more concern in the years ahead about 

mineral operations. 

Industrial minerals are commonly overlooked by the 

public, as well as by the BLM, where funding in salablemineral programs could be called the "Rodney Dangerfield" of mineral programs. Funding has never been adequate to ensure timely responses to public needs and 

environmental concerns or to management goals. These 

signs of the times involving ever-increasing demands on 

the public lands, along with public interest in such 

nonconsumptive land uses as recreation and wildlife habi-

. tat, make it imperative that industry improve mining practices and its image, so that mineral development by the 

mining industry is more compatible with the activities of 

other user groups. The current climate is a result of past 

abuses. There's a need on the part of industry to accept a 

role as a steward of the public lands. 

There are many well-publicized examples of public 

lands that cannot be accessed owing to private inholdings. 

The BLM has an easement-acquisition program driven by 

the land-use-planning process that may, in certain circumstances, be of assistance in obtaining such access. Access 

has been acquired for recreation uses, but no one from the 

mining industry has asked for such assistance. 

Use of Industrial-Mineral Resources in the Salt Lake District 

Some of the industrial-minerals activities in the Salt 

Lake District include the following. Magnesium Corp. of 

America uses oolites from the shores of the Great Salt 

Lake to remove sulfate from brines and to scrub chlorine 

from their waste stream. Large amounts of Lake 

Bonneville muds have been used to form dikes around 

evaporation ponds for this corporation. We sell large volumes of Lake Bonneville aggregate deposits for roadbase 

materials. Diatomaceous marl is used by U.S. PCI, Inc., to 

stabilize hazardous wastes and for construction purposes. 

Elba Quartzite is used for building stone and has been obtained from numerous pits in the district. Potash is recovered from brines near Wendover, Utah. We sell some 

topsoil for landscaping, and clay from beds in the Manning Canyon Shale is used to make bricks. I think these 

examples illustrate some of the great variety of uses and 

the need for availability of industrial minerals located on 

public lands. 

Access to Locatable-, Leasable-, and Salable-Mineral Lands 

The resources in the Salt Lake District include minerals that are locatable, leasable, or salable. Access rights 

to these minerals vary. Nonexclusive access across Federal 

lands to projects for locatable minerals is specifically 

granted in the 1872 Mining Law and is included in the 

submission of a plan of operations. Access to leasablemineral operations is by ROW offlease; it's also included 

as a part of the operating plan. For salable minerals, which 

form the bulk of industrial-minerals operations, ROW's 

are not required; access is implicit in the contract. The 

58 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
BLM doesn't guarantee access across private lands, but 

we'll alert potential permittees as to the requirements to 

obtain such access. 

Concluding Remarks 

In conclusion, I'd like to mention that participation 

by an informed and knowledgeable public is important in 

the BLM planning process. We're now completing a planning amendment for the Pony Express Resource Area, 

which covers a large part of the Western Desert, for use 

by offroad vehicles. This plan, which will soon be released 

for public review, proposes some significant restrictions on 

offroad-vehicle use. To date, there has been very little 

feedback from the mining industry. A copy of this document is available for your comment. 

Problems of Mine Permitting in the Great Basin 

By G.M. Eurick 

American Barrick Resources Corp., headquartered in 

Toronto, Ontario, Canada, is a major North American gold 

producer with operations in the United States (Nevada and 

Utah). The difficulties encountered in environmental permitting of these operations are not unlike those encountered by industrial-mineral producers in these States. My 

presentation will focus on our mining operations at the 

Mercur mine in Tooele County, Utah, located about 65 mi 

southwest of Salt Lake City. 

The Mercur operation employs 230 personnel and 

operates on a year-round basis. Ore production is nominally 5,000 tons per day from four active mining sites, 

with an ultimate bonded disturbance area of more than 

1,000 acres. The gold-recovery mechanisms utilized at 

Mercur include the conventional carbon-in-leach circuit, 

the alkaline pressure-oxidation circuit (or autoclave system), and three valley-fill leaching operations. Annual production at Mercur is expected to exceed 100,000 troy oz 

Au throughout its remaining lifetime. 

Mining-Regulation Actions at Mercur, Utah 

To date, a total of 45 regulatory actions have been 

necessary to permit and continue to operate the Mercur 

mine. The bulk of these actions have been by the State; 

there have also been some significant Federal actions and, 

on a lesser scale, some local or county actions. The regulatory overview that I'll describe, though directed at such 

locatable minerals as gold, could apply to just about any 

other salable or leasable material produced in Utah. 

Federal Actions 

The significant Federal environmental determinations at the Mercur project were done initially. The most 

Table 10. Federal-agency environmental regulatory determinations for the Mercur mine, Tooele and Utah Counties, 

Utah 

[Do., ditto] 

Agency 

EPA -----------------------------

Do 1 ---------------------------

Do 1 ---------------------------

Do ----------------------------

BLM ----------------------------

Do ----------------------------

Do ----------------------------

Do ----------------------------

Mine Safety and Health 

Administration. 

National Institute for 

Occupational Safety 

and Health. 

Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, and Firearms. 

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 1 

DOD ----------------------------

Fish and Wildlife Service ---

USBM --------------------------

C of E --------------------------

1

Subsequent State adoption. 

Issue/action 

PSD/review. 

NPDES/permit. 

RCRNnotification. 

Mine-waste exclusion. 

Drilling/permits. 

ROW/permits. 

Plan of operations/permit. 

CERCLA/review (EPA). 

Plan of operations/permit. 

Facility health/review. 

Explosives/permit. 

Radioactive devices/permit. 

Water monitoring/agreement. 

T &E/review. 

Statistics/reporting. 

Non-Federal dams/review. 

significant issue, listed in table 10, concerns the BLM 

plan-of-operations permit that was obtained before operations began. I believe we have less than 500 acres of BLM 

property involved at Mercur. This district is also a historical mining area, and most of the land is privately held. 

The BLM-land part is limited but required a plan, nevertheless. The significant issues are land use, private versus 

State versus Federal ownership, and land access, such as 

how to afford adjacent landowners or royalty holders access and involvement in the operations. The BLM also 

delves into revegetation extensively, and the goal of concurrent reclamation is desirable, though not always achievable, in an open-pit hard-rock-mining operation like that at 

Mercur. Also of significance in table 10 is the EPA's 

mine-waste exclusion, which was promulgated in 1989. 

This regulatory determination essentially excluded numerous mining-waste streams from protection by the Bevill 

amendment. Industry must now seriously evaluate its 

mine-waste streams to determine hazardous versus nonhazardous characteristics. Also significant is the T &Especies review, which was done early in the project. 

State Actions 

The State's involvement at Mercur has been extensive and is ongoing. As noted in table 11, the DOGM 

A Perspective on Regional Industrial-Mineral Problems 59 
Table 11. State-agency environmental regulatory determinations for the Mercur mine, Tooele and Utah Counties, Utah 

[Do., ditto] 

Agency 

DNR, Division of Oil, Gas, 

and Mining. 

DOH, Bureau of Water 

Pollution Control. 

Do---------------------------------

Do ---------------------------------

Do ---------------------------------

DNR, State Engineer -------------

Do ---------------------------------

DOH, Bureau of Air Quality ----

DOH, Bureau of Drinking 

Water and Sanitation. 

Do ---------------------------------

DOH, Bureau of Solid and 

Hazardous Waste. 

Do ---------------------------------

Do ---------------------------------

DNR, Division of State Lands 

and Forestry. 

Do---------------------------------

Do ---------------------------------

DOT ---------------------------------

DCED, Division of State 

History. 

DNR, Division of Wildlife 

Resources. 

DOH, Bureau of Radiation 

Control. 

DPS, Division of Comprehensive EmergencyManagement. 

Issue/action 

Minerals reclamation/permit. 

Construction/permit. 

UPDES/permit. 

VIC/permit. 

Ground-water discharge/ 

permit. 

Water supply/appropriation. 

Dam construction/permit. 

Air operating/permit. 

Facility construction/permit. 

Potable water/approval. 

Facility construction/permit. 

UST program/notification. 

RCRNadministration. 

Mineral leases/approval. 

Exploration/permits. 

Land-use lease/approval. 

ROW /permit. 

Historic and culturaVreview. 

Wildlife impact/approval. 

Radioactive devices/permit. 

EPCRNnotification. 

permit is the primary State action. This permit has been 

modified numerous times and currently is under review for 

ultimate perceived expansion of the operations. In my 

opinion, the important issues of concern to the DOGM are 

(1) drainage and how it affects ongoing operations; (2) ultimate closure; (3) postclosure monitoring and reclamation, 

how it is achieved, and how it will stabilize the ultimate 

configuration of the property; and ( 4) bonding. The 

Mercur operations currently are self-bonded on the basis 

of Barrick's financial strength. We're thankful that selfbonding is a continuing practice in the State of Utah. Also 

significant, as listed in table 11, is the BWPC' s Division 

of Environmental Health permit sequence. Construction, 

UPDES, and ground-water discharge all can be applied to 

any particular facility or component within the facility at 

Mercur. The ground-water-discharge permit is most recent, 

promulgated in August 1989. Our industry is currently 

dealing with the BWPC on implementation of these regulations and application procedures for new ground-waterdischarge permits. 

Table 12. Local-agency environmental regulatory determinations for the Mercur mine, 

Tooele and Utah Counties, Utah 

[Do., ditto] 

Agency 

Tooele County ----

Do ---------------

Do ---------------

Do ---------------

Do ---------------

Do ---------------

Do ---------------

Do ---------------

Utah County ------

Issue/action 

Conditional land use/permit. 

Zoning/permit. 

ROW /permit. 

Access corridor/permit. 

Building code/permits. 

Solid-waste disposaVpermit. 

Public health/review. 

EPCRNnotification. 

Facility construction/permit. 

A most significant item in table 11 is the Bureau of 

Air Quality's operating permit, which requires the monitoring and recordkeeping of pollution incidents, pollutioncontrol-equipment data, and processing-facility statistics. 

The implications here clearly are that, with the anticipated 

reauthorization of the CAA and the work the State of Utah 

is doing on its implementation plans for Utah and Salt 

Lake Counties, more attention will be directed to mining 

operations. The mining industry should maintain a proactive position in these discussions. 

Another noteworthy State regulatory action is the 

Division of Wildlife Resources' wildlife-impact-mitigation 

program. This aspect of our operation is important to 

Barrick and involves close cooperation with the DOGM, 

as well as with Tooele County. 

County Actions 

We've dealt with the local county agencies for the 

permits listed in table 12. The mine is located primarily in 

Tooele County, but it crosses over into Utah County. 

Tooele County is our primary contact and will follow the 

permitting leads of the BWPC and DOGM. However, the 

county has some unique concerns, in (1) what the ultimate 

land use will be as the county reinherits the properties, and 

(2) how the designated lands will be used to support 

wildlife-habitat and recreational purposes, as they were before mining. 

Pending Environmental Regulatory Activity 

I'd like to discuss a few of the more pertinent pending 

Federal environmental regulations or regulatory developments. (1) The mine-waste-regulatory development program 

of the EPA, referred to as "Strawman 1," was released for 

public review a few years ago and strongly criticized. 

"Strawman II" was released for public review last week, 

and it'll probably get similar treatment. The mining industry 

60 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
is heavily involved with the implementation of this process. 

(2) The CAA reauthorization bill has passed both the House 

of Representatives and the Senate; final passage is anticipated this year. That bill probably will affect mining mostly 

in terms of offroad-vehicle emissions from our large industrial equipment. Also, fugitive-dust monitoring for PM-10 

and TSP's and an increase in the hazardous-emission-mitigation effort will require that the mining industry put forth 

greater effort to comply. (3) There is probably no hope that 

the RCRA reauthorization will be passed during this Congressional session; however, it's anticipated to have a top 

priority for next year, once the CAA is out of the way in the 

Congress. 

From the State regulatory perspective, we also expect some actions. (1) The regulations governing extraction of metals by heap leaching are in draft form now and 

under review by a technical advisory committee; they're 

due to be re-released to that committee by June. This will 

become an additional permitting program, as we understand it, to be applied to the heap-leaching industry generally, not specifically for gold. (2) The wellhead-protection 

regulations have now been released for public review. 

Hearings are scheduled in June, and they could strongly 

affect mining operations in proximity to a community's or 

an individual's water supply. 

Conclusions 

In conclusion, I think it's important to understand 

and convey to the general public the fact that mining, any 

type of mining- metal or nonmetal, locatable, leasable, or 

salable- currently is heavily regulated from an environmental standpoint. In my position as an environmental coordinator, I believe that any additional environmental 

regulatory programs should be focused on realized, not on 

perceived, environmental impacts. 

Environmental Problems in Planning MiningSupport Systems 

By C.L. Smith 

I was asked to prepare a brief presentation about the 

support systems associated with industrial-mining operations, which would include the needs for power, water, 

transportation, and labor, consideration of regional 

socioeconomics, and so on, and the problems encountered 

in establishing such infrastructure. The needs and permits 

required depend on many factors, such as the type of industry, its location, and the size of the facility. To address 

the need of each of these factors in detail is impractical 

and most appropriately would require the expertise of a 

design engineer. 

As an environmental planner who's had the opportunity to participate in projects from the preliminary 

planning stage through construction and monitoring during operation, I'll address these issues from my experience in the development of a project in environmental 

planning. I'll start by providing an overview that illustrates the complexity of project development, briefly describe infrastructure, and then provide an example of 

support-system planning within the environmentalplanning process from a project in which I recently 

participated. 

legislation 

A word is needed about legislation. Although we understand and agree with the importance of environmental 

legislation (for example, NEPA, CEQ regulations for 

implementing NEP A, and resource-specific regulations), 

one difficulty has been and will continue to be the interpretation and implementation of regulations. Unfortunately, but necessarily, each agency interprets the 

regulations and guidelines in accordance with its own legal 

mandate. For example, the BLM interprets the guidelines 

differently from the USFS; both are land-managing agencies, but their respective responsibilities are different. Not 

only that, but the regulations change, seemingly often to 

you in industry, I'm sure. 

With the number of requirements that exist and the 

number of agencies that potentially can be involved in a 

project, it can easily become a confusing situation. The 

environmental-planning process suffers from a widespread lack of understanding. As you've most likely experienced, the process can be burdensome, costly, and 

time consuming. I've heard that the environmentalplanning process has three distinct parts: a beginning, a 

muddle, and no end. 

We (companies, agencies, and consultants) are faced 

with identifying ways to place the project-development 

and environmental-planning process in the proper perspective and balance all the issues. Such success has been repeatedly accomplished, but only with persistence and a 

concerted effort in planning and coordination. 

Company Economic Benefits 

When a company considers the development of a facility for mining an industrial mineral(s), it's an understatement to say there are numerous issues that must be 

addressed in detail if that business is going to yield a profitable product. Selection of a location or expansion at an 

existing facility requires tradeoffs among economic return, 

amenity benefits, and environmental costs. 

There are several reasons why a company may decide to locate at a particular site, and as many reasons for 

A Perspective on Regional Industrial-Mineral Problems 61 
government agencies or the community to support or oppose a company's decision. The company's management 

wishes to be close to its market and raw resources, at a 

location that provides a reliable and inexpensive labor 

force, proximity to reasonable transportation and communication networks, and sufficient supplies of energy and 

water. Also, management is attracted to communities that 

offer financial incentives and (or) deferred taxes and local 

financial support. 

As a result of a heightened consciousness of human welfare and the environment through the 1960's, 

1970's, and 1980's, companies need to consider locations where the lives of their employees and employees' 

families are perceived to be attractive, consisting of 

available quality housing, shopping, entertainment, education, esthetic surroundings, outdoor recreation, and 

community services. 

Public Involvement 

Also, in recent years (approx 8-10 years), companies 

have had to become more sensitive to citizen and agency 

perspectives, issues, and concerns. The perspectives are diverse. The populations of certain geographic areas may 

consider equally income and benefits and impacts to the 

environment, whereas the populations of other areas may 

focus on one or the other. 

Regional Socioeconomics 

Economic benefits from a development within a 

region begin with increased employment during construction of the facility and continue during the operation of the facility. This employment produces increasing 

regional income with the purchase of goods and services, 

which leads to increasing tax revenues. Increasing tax 

revenue and community wealth may lead to community 

growth, expansion of community services, and improved 

amenities. 

However, the proposed facility also may create some 

short- and (or) long-term costs to the region, such as displacement and relocation of some residents; increasing activities (for example, traffic) during construction; need for 

additional housing (temporary or permanent), materials 

and space in schools, and other public services; loss of 

land for other beneficial uses; and loss of attractiveness 

due to environmental degradation. 

Project Development and the Environmental-Planning Process 

Generally, there are four levels of project design and 

planning: (I) preliminary planning; (2) initial identification 

of potential sites and comparison of site options (or a regional siting study); (3) evaluation of process-design 

options, or development of the project description with 

site-specific considerations in mind; and ( 4) detailed 

assessment of the consequences at the selected site or at 

all alternative sites. Environmental planning essentially is 

a process of arbitration, of choosing between often mutually exclusive uses of land, and of ensuring that a new 

land use proceeds only with an acceptable level of impact. 

The process is complex, involving an assessment of the 

proposal and the development site and a prediction of the 

impact of the new development on the natural, human, and 

(or) cultural environment. 

Infrastructure, or Support Systems 

The infrastructure, or support systems, are the auxiliary or contributory facilities that are needed or required 

for the construction and (or) operation of a mine. The need 

for and extent of these facilities depends on the location of 

the facility, the type and size of the operation, and regulatory requirements. One of the most common problems that 

I've seen in the past has been the focus on permitting the 

mine and directly associated mine operations and neglecting plans for support systems. Fewer problems arise if the 

entire proposed action is carefully planned and addressed 

simultaneously. The lack of planning does not occur as 

much now as in the past-agencies, companies, and consultants are now much more aware of project-development 

requirements. 

Support Systems 

The proposed rrnmng operation will need several 

support systems that may include the following: 

• public access to the facility 

• hauling by access road, rail, or pipeline 

• use of public highways if hauling long distances 

by truck 

• labor (temporary construction personnel, permanent operations and maintenance personnel) 

• solid-waste disposal. 

Some of the support systems that I will discuss 

here are linear facilities, such as roads, rail lines, pipelines, and powerlines, which will vary in length, depending on the distance of the facility from the closest 

highway, water source, or power source. Linear facilities 

may be included in the facility permit in some cases, or 

a separate permit may be required, depending on the 

land use or jurisdiction (for example, the mine may be 

on private land, and the linear facility may cross land 

that is administered by the BLM). Much of the time, a 

single corridor may be used for all the linear facilities 

needed (for example, the overhead powerline and communication line will parallel the access road, under 

which is buried a water pipeline). 

62 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
Water 

The two primary considerations are (1) demand for 

water and (2) water discharge. In most cases, both considerations require permitting. Industrial- and potablewater supplies must be sufficient in both quantity and 

quality. Sources of water could include surface-water 

bodies (natural or artificial), ground water, municipal 

supplies, or a combination of sources, but whatever the 

source, usage should not interfere with existing regional 

uses. 

Because of local variations in the availability of 

water from season to season and from year to year, many 

operators have chosen to construct a reservoir( s) to assist 

in ensuring that a constant water supply is available. Generally, this may entail calculation of: 

• surface inflow and outflow 

• water imports and exports 

• precipitation 

• consumptive use (processes or evapotranspiration) 

• changes in ground and surface water storage 

• subsurface inflow and outflow. 

If the water is used from off site, transporting the 

water could require hauling by tank truck or siting and 

construction of an aboveground or underground pipeline. 

An underground pipeline is normally preferable- it costs 

more to install, but it generally doesn't interfere with surface land uses and isn't vulnerable to vandalism, as is an 

aboveground pipeline. 

Water-Discharge Systems 

As most of you are aware, discharge of wastewater 

is heavily regulated and is evaluated and monitored on a 

case-by-case basis, and so designs of water-discharge systems are site specific. 

Electrical Power 

The company must determine the amount of electricity that will be required for the industrial operation 

and employee workspace. Also, the company must consider whether power will be generated on site or provided by a commercial source, or both. Generating 

power on site may require permitting, depending on the 

fuel used and potential emissions. Use of a commercial 

source will require a contractual agreement with the local electrical-utility company and siting and constructing 

a powerline, which may require permitting. The amount 

of power will dictate the size of the powerline (for example, 12, 48, 160, or 230 kV, single wood pole, Hframe wood pole, steel-lattice tower). A powerline (most 

often an overhead line) may interfere with adjacent land 

uses (for example, airspace, radio transmission, agricultural practices). 

Energy Fuels 

Similarly, the company must determine whether or 

not energy fuels, such as natural gas, will be used at the 

facility. The company must consider the quantity to be 

consumed and the method of delivery, for example, by 

pipeline or tanks. 

Communication 

Several modes of communication are availabletraditional telephone lines, which would have similar problems to those described for transmission lines; microwave 

for operation signaling or voice, which must be strategically placed for sending and receiving; and (or) fiber optics, which can be buried and typically create fewer 

impacts than a pipeline. 

Transportation 

Modes of transportation include roads, railroad, conveyance systems (mechanized belt or pressurized pipeline), 

and, in very rare cases, air transport (for example, in a 

remote area during disruption of normal transport service). 

A road(s) is usually needed to access the mine for transportation of personnel, delivering supplies, and hauling 

(for example, raw materials, product, waste). Railroad 

spurs are commonly constructed from a main track to the 

facility for hauling raw materials and (or) product. Conveyance systems can be used both on and off site for 

transporting the mined materials. Roads should be well 

planned and engineered. Direct impacts that typically can 

be caused by the construction of roads include erosion, 

segmentation or fragmentation of wildlife or plant habitat, 

interference with land uses, and intrusion on the visual 

characteristics of an area viewable to the public. Also, the 

construction of a road in a remote area, if not barricaded 

by a gate or other means, allows the public access that 

may result in damage to natural resources or disturbance to 

prehistoric or historical archeologic sites. Railroads should 

be well planned and engineered for similar reasons. 

Conveyance systems, such as mechanized belts, are 

usually constructed above ground. Although physical impact to the environment can be minimized, segmentation 

to habitat, interference with land uses, and intrusion on the 

visual characteristics of an area can occur. 

Pressurized pipelines for transporting materials are 

not yet common. A pipeline constructed to transport phosphate slurry will be described later as an example, so I 

won't provide any details about the system here. 

Labor 

There are many factors to consider with regard to 

the temporary or permanent labor force: 

A Perspective on Regional Industrial-Mineral Problems 63 
• How many individuals will be required temporarily and (or) permanently? 

• Will the work force be hired from the local communities or outside the region? 

• Is there adequate temporary housing for the 

nonlocal construction workers? 

• Is there adequate housing for the incoming permanent employees? 

• Will there be a need for transportation of the work 

force to and from the jobsite? 

• Are there adequate goods and services for temporary or permanent employees and the families of the employees (for example, food, schools, churches, law 

enforcement, fire protection, medical, and so on)? 

Other Socioeconomic Considerations 

The following items add to the considerations that 

effective support systems require: 

• economic analyses, as discussed here earlier by 

C.W. Berry 

• effects on commerce and industrial levels (community and regional) 

• availability of public utilities 

• effects on community and social structure 

• effects on land values 

• tax benefits to the community 

• effects on rent structure 

• effects on local government. 

Example of the Conda-to-Pocatello, Idaho, Phosphate-Slurry 

Pipeline Project 

A recently completed project provides a positive example of careful and coordinated planning. Sincere and 

concerted cooperation among the agencies, the company, 

and the consultant resulted in a successful project that proceeded without major problems or disagreements. Last 

year, I was Dames and Moore's project manager to conduct environmental-planning studies and prepare the 

required environmental document for the J .R. Simp lot 

Co.'s 60-mi-long, buried phosphate-slurry pipeline from 

Simp lot's facility at Conda to its manufacturing plant at 

Pocatello, Idaho. The pipeline was to be an expansion of a 

27-mi-long pipeline that has been operating since 1984. 

The primary purpose of this pipeline was to eliminate 

hauling the phosphate ore by rail, thereby eventually reducing the costs of transportation and allowing for a more 

consistent supply of ore (that is, the pipeline would operate 24 hours a day, whereas the railroad operates within 

the regular work week). A notably positive consequence of 

the pipeline is the fact that all outdoor handling and storage of the ore could be eliminated, thereby reducing the 

amount of fugitive dust. Air quality is a problem in that 

area, so, from that perspective, the project was welcome. 

Before the award of the environmental-studies 

contract, Simplot engineers had considered both the engineering and major environmental constraints of various alternative corridors and selected a preferred route for the 

pipeline. The BLM and USFS, however, were somewhat 

concerned about the appearance to the public of having a 

route "predetermined" before an objective study, so we designed and conducted a rigorous environmental overview 

of the region to identify all potential, feasible alternative 

corridors. 

Early in the project, as part of the "scoping" process 

and the public-involvement program, we prepared and distributed a project newsletter to relevant agencies and the 

interested public to inform them of the project and to solicit comments. The comments indicated concerns about: 

• water demand (amount needed, interbasin transfer) 

• wastewater discharge 

• effects on trout fisheries at stream crossings 

• water quality at stream crossings 

• access roads allowing/inviting unwanted traffic 

into remote areas 

• effects of construction on the visual characteristics 

of the area (land scars and tree removal) 

• regional socioeconomic effects (reduction of jobs 

at Simplot, the railroad, and others within the region). 

Water Demand 

Water for operation of the pipeline would originate 

from a ground-water source at Simplot's mine facility. Use 

of the water had been permitted since 1981, and normal 

usage for the new section of pipeline would not exceed 

what was already permitted. 

Wastewater Discharge 

The water present in the slurry mixture would be 

used directly in the production process at the Pocatello facility, thereby reducing the amount of water extracted for 

the process from wells at the Pocatello facility. The water 

from the slurry would become part of the liquid-fertilizer 

product or would be evaporated from dryers in the production of dry-fertilizer products; no water would be discharged into streams, ponds, or reservoirs. 

Fisheries 

The potential impact on trout fisheries and concerns 

about water quality at stream crossings were reduced by 

committing to use a special construction technique. A 

metal culvert would be placed in the stream along its flow. 

The stream would then be diverted through the culvert 

with the use of sandbags and hay bales. Then, the trench 

would be excavated perpendicular to and under the culvert, 

64 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
the pipe installed, and the streambed reclaimed. Some 

sedimentation was expected, but not nearly as much as if 

the streambed were trenched with no precautions. 

Access Roads 

First, the alternative corridors were sited to take advantage of existing roads for access- construction costs 

would be lower, and fewer impacts would be introduced. 

In one remote area, an existing dirt road would have to be 

widened during construction, and the agencies were concerned that the widened road would be more inviting to 

more traffic, which was undesirable. Simplot committed to 

returning the road to its original width after construction 

through that area was completed. In construction areas 

where no roads exist or are wanted, Simplot committed to 

constructing no access roads, and all vehicles would drive 

overland. Vegetation above ground would be crushed during construction activities but would regenerate from the 

roots. Also, bare soils would be reclaimed immediately. 

Visual Characteristics 

A swath for the pipeline would have to be cut through 

a few stands of trees. The USFS was concerned that the 

obvious, visible swath would invite recreationists to create 

a new offroad-vehicle corridor through the forest. Trees cannot be planted over the pipeline, but Simplot committed to 

coordinate with the USFS to selectively cut trees, so that 

the swath would not be so obvious, and to plant trees strategically to screen the ROW swath from view. 

Socioeconomics 

Reduction in labor was a concern. The new operation would require fewer Simplot employees; however, 

transfers and natural attrition of workers were expected to 

accommodate much of the reduction. Toward the end of 

the project, a rather interesting concern arose from the railroad union. The use of the slurry pipeline to replace rail 

transportation might have affected employment with the 

railroad. However, the railroad would continue to serve 

other mines in the area, and we were able to demonstrate 

that any reduced rail-transport volume was likely to be offset by ore shipments from a proposed mine, which would 

eventually ship more ore than the Simplot Co. had. 

Coincidentally, as the environmental document was 

distributed for review, the Kraft Co. announced that it would 

be closing its plant in Pocatello, which employed about 

400 people at the time. We were concerned that this announcement might affect the decision on the pipeline project. 

Though not directly related to the Simplot project, it could 

have been perceived as a cumulative effect in the region; 

however, the issue did not arise as part of this project. 

Conclusion 

This has been only a brief and cursory overview of 

the support systems that may be needed for a mine 

operation, with some examples of the environmental problems encountered in developing such systems for a new 

project or expansion of an existing project. Both foreseen 

and unforeseen environmental problems occur in nearly 

every project, but through understanding and careful coordination between the agencies and companies, and with the 

assistance of a competent environmental-planning consultant, as well as an effective public-involvement program, 

most of these problems can be resolved. 

Participants' Discussion and Comments 

• How long would it take to get a typical mediumsize aggregate operation going in the Basin and Range 

region? 

Reply: It would, of course, depend on the location. If 

on public lands, it would depend on the administrative 

agency, such as the BLM or USFS. The USFS may require more time to permit because it tends to have more 

restrictions. It's difficult to say what the total time for 

project development would be. If an EA or EIS is prepared, it's been our experience that an EA process can 

take anywhere from 3 to 16 or 24 months, and an EIS can 

take 18 to 24 months; if it's a major project, it could require 36 months or more. For a medium-size project, it 

could take 18 months just for the EIS, not including permitting or all the project development. A minimum schedule could be at least 6 months if the project is well 

planned and organized, the designs are ready, and no problems with permitting or environmental assessment are 

pending. Much depends on the issues, concerns, and controversy associated with the project. 

• How do you determine whether you need an EA 

or EIS? Is it true that a lot of that's purely political? 

Reply: First of all, it may be more appropriate for 

the representative from the BLM to tell you what the requirements are. There are three types of documentation in 

the Federal system: categorical solution, EA, and EIS. Selection of the type of document is both objective and subjective; there are regulations that guide the decision, but it 

also requires professional judgment. If, after the project is 

reviewed and no potential or significant impacts are found, 

the type of project fits an established list of projects for 

which effects are known to be minimal, the agency may 

prepare a brief document, a categorical solution. That isn't 

the usual process. An EA is the "first look" at the affected 

environment, the first step in determining whether or not 

an EIS is warranted. If it's demonstrated that the project 

will have little or no "significant" effect, then an EA may 

be adequate. If more potentially serious effects are identified in preparing the EA, an EIS may be required; an EIS 

A Perspective on Regional Industrial-Mineral Problems 65 
is based on a more detailed, rigorous analysis. Public involvement and review are required, which lengthen the 

project schedule. In the beginning, if the agency identifies 

a potentially heavy impact for a project, the agency may 

decide to forego preparation of an EA and begin the 

environmental-planning process by requiring an EIS. Usually, the agency is able to determine the type of document 

at the beginning. The agency uses the regulations as a 

guide but must also use its knowledge of all the environmental resources and consider the concerns of interest 

groups and citizenry. Is it controversial? There may not be 

many environmental problems, but there may be controversy associated with a project in the public's eyes. In that 

case, an agency may choose to complete an EIS just to 

make sure that all "bases are covered," and assure to satisfy itself that the public is satisfied. 

The answer to the second question is "Yes"; in some 

cases it's highly political. In other cases, it can be 

straightforward and smooth as silk. It can't be predetermined. Knowing the area, the community, and the agencies is helpful in determining the climate. Does the region 

you'll be working in typically demonstrate opposition to 

that type of project? If the communities have strong feelings about one aspect of the environment, they may oppose the project; or the agency may have strong feelings 

about the sensitivity of a particular resource. It's difficult 

to say without referring to a particular project. 

At the beginning of the environmental-planning process, an agency is required to identify the range or scope of 

issues, concerns, and opportunities to be addressed in the 

studies and, subsequently, in the environmental document. 

If some impacts are anticipated to be significant at that 

time, the decision will be made to do an EA or EIS. 

In addition, some agencies I've worked with begin 

with an EA, complete all the inventory studies and the impact assessment, and then conclude at that point, if significant problems exist, to proceed with an EIS. When we 

conduct the studies for an EA, we try to do it in the detail 

required for an EIS, just in case. If the analyses are adequate, then all the agency has to do is change the cover, 

more or less. Most of the projects we're contracted to do 

are major and (or) controversial, so beginning with a detailed EA is warranted, although such thoroughness isn't 

always warranted. 

• In making an EA or EIS, how important is the 

socioeconomic evaluation or study? 

Reply: That can be highly important; it alone can 

trigger the document into an EIS or EA containing a more 

detailed socioeconomic study. It depends on the particular 

issue. Once again, it comes down to a determination of 

importance. If you're evaluating a large mine near a small 

town that doesn't have the infrastructure to support the intended new employment in the area, that may trigger the 

need for an EIS. Conversely, if you have a large operation 

at some distance from an area with a large population, it 

will haye a different level of impact, and an EA may be 

adequate. 

All of those environmental resources that are variables discussed earlier are addressed to some appropriate 

extent, and most of them are addressed adequately in the 

initial study. Then, you know the seriousness of the problems, and in some cases socioeconomics may not be a 

problem. The impacts identified may be entirely beneficial 

to the region. In an example of a 1 00-mi-long transmission 

line that was constructed across several counties, the economic benefits are both short and long term. The community is going to gain from goods and services during 

construction and obtain revenues from the long-term presence of that transmission line. 

Whether the impact is beneficial or adverse, it's 

addressed in the analysis. In fact, most agencies and 

developers want those positive elements included in the 

document to help offset the negative. 

• Do you have any idea what percentage of the 

startup costs at Mercur were related to environmental 

concerns or regulations? How a,bout ongoing operating 

costs? 

Reply by G.M. Eurick: Mr. Buck can best answer 

the first part of your question because he was involved in 

making most of the startup permitting studies for Getty, 

which was the original developer. Ongoing costs for environmental concerns are less than 1 percent of the current 

operating costs. The cost to permit the new dump-leach 

area 3 project will be substantially higher than it was to 

permit dump-leach areas 1 and 2. The cost to continue to 

operate our containings department will go up at some increment because we have to get a ground-water-discharge 

permit for tailings containment for the lifetime of the property. Those associated costs for ongoing operations will go 

up, but overall it's insignificant. 

Reply by B. W. Buck: For the Mercur operation, the 

percentage of total capital invested for environmental baseline studies, consultants, lawyers, and so on, was about 

0.15 percent of the total. By the time we were done, the 

capital investment was close to $100 million. 

• When you made the regional analysis, you considered quality. What factor determines the quality of the 

material? 

Reply: That was primarily the opportunity for the industry engineers. They may have a particular grade of 

mineral in mind when they process and sell. If they specify grades 1, 2, or 3 and they need grade 2 and we can find 

only grades 1 and 3, then those site locations aren't going 

to do them any good. 

• You're saying that the proponent is defining quality? 

Reply: Yes; it's not necessarily a part of the environmental analysis. What I was showing in the regional versus site-specific analysis is that we can help as a part of 

66 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
the project development. We can, along with a company's 

engineers and geologists, help determine site locations by 

identifying that, for example, there are five sites which are 

suitable for mining from an engineering point of view; 

however, one is a known wilderness study area, and another is adjacent to a Native American sacred site. Those 

two sites are eliminated. So, environmental planning can 

assist in conjunction with the proponent's work. It's not 

necessarily part of an EA or EIS; it's part of the 

proponent's planning process and helps him get a step 

ahead. Whenever we do regional environmental analysis, 

we include it in the description in the EA or EIS to help 

substantiate and strengthen the producer's planning. It's 

just another positive aspect to show the public and the 

agency that the proponents have looked at a lot of aspects, 

and the agencies appreciate this effort. 

• Do you evaluate need as part of your analysis? 

Reply: Yes; that's a requirement of the CEQ guidelines. The first chapter of the environmental report is usually a description of the project, its purpose, and the need 

for it. The next chapter is usually a description of all the 

alternatives that were considered. The next chapter is a description of the existing environment, as it is right now. 

The next chapter is a description of the impact that's been 

predicted and a discussion of the mitigation measures. 

Some agencies may arrange it a little differently, but essentially that's what ends up in the document. 

• Let me rephrase the question. Who defines the 

need for the product and determines whether, in fact, that 

should be a factor, assuming that the environmental option 

essentially describes the environment and is, indeed, a part 

of the environment? 

Reply: There are certain procedural requirements authorized by NEPA that call for an evaluation of need. For 

locatable minerals, we have to address the means that meet 

the NEP A requirement. 

• How do you define need? What facts are going to 

define need? Is it the fact that the economy of the area 

which that material is going to serve isn't served by a sufficient amount of that type of material? Do you just go out 

in a free market? 

Reply: Frequently, that's the case. As a consultant, I 

can't define a need for a material; the owner defines that 

need. I'm simply writing a document on behalf of the lead 

agency, which has complete responsibility for the content 

of the document and the content of the studies leading to it. 

The agency isn't going to allow a company to have as its 

purpose the need for a project just to make money. Of course, 

that's part of it; they want to mine something or develop 

something for a profit. However, there has to be a (societal) 

need for it. There has to be a demand; that's the basis for 

need. It's up to the agency to consider it. We've helped the 

developers establish their basis of need in terms of the community, the region, the Nation, and even internationally. 

• Assuming that a feasibility study is done for a 

company or that the company did one, are you involved at 

that point? Are you involved after the study is done? Are 

you talking about bringing about the decision that the 

company wants to go forward with, for example, their decision to invest? 

Reply: It varies from project to project. In one case, 

I was involved with the company from the very beginning 

of the project and later monitored the operation. In other 

projects, because consultants cost the company money, the 

company will develop the feasibility, complete all the preliminary engineering and planning, and then go to the 

agency to apply for the permit. A lot of work still remains, 

but once the company goes to the agency and the agency 

says, "Well, you have to do an EA or EIS," that's when 

the consultant usually enters the picture; we usually prepare the EA or EIS. Sometimes followup work, such as on 

cultural resources, is required. We could be contracted to 

do the excavation and testing of those sites and assist in 

making recommendations for treating the sites or for conducting a biologic assessment, and so on. In most cases, 

because of the cost involved, we primarily conduct the 

studies and prepare the documents. We prefer being involved in the upfront work because it helps the company's 

credibility with the agency. 

Reply by B.W. Buck: Let me add that the environmental resources and EIS and permitting issues are typically addressed in a feasibility investigation, but feasibility 

studies are more focused on whether there are any fatal 

flaws regarding the environmental issues, which could 

make the project too expensive to construct because of environmental constraints. For example, you may need to 

have a waste-disposal site, and there's no way you can get 

approval for the waste-disposal site where you need it; it 

may have to be in the next county. That makes the operation uneconomic; we need to know that in a feasibility 

study. However, you wouldn't go into that in the permitting and baseline studies; instead, you'd make what we 

call a fatal-flaw analysis, which typically is part of the feasibility study. 

• I think I know what Mr. Harper was getting at in 

his reference to specific aggregate sources, where you 

might have several choices in a metropolitan area. A new 

company comes in with an EA that's perfectly fine and 

has no problem, but to go into business, this new company 

has to put somebody else out of business; or maybe he 

thinks he's going to get all the business. Well, he might 

not, and he might be shut down, and then you'd have an 

inactive operation. The bonding requirements may be such 

that he can't reclaim the operation adequately. I think 

that's a quandary ~ith local governments: There may be 

too many of one type of operation out there, and somebody won't live up to the expectations of the local 

government. 

A Perspective on Regional Industrial-Mineral Problems 67 
Reply: These issues come before us now in the permitting process. What's the need for the product? You can 

do the environmental-impact analysis until every item is 

taken care of. The bottom line is that if you have a powerful-enough interest group out there arguing about the need 

or defining needs, these groups may interpret their solution 

irrespective of the information available. That's the kind of 

major issue facing the mining profession. We have now, in 

my opinion, the situation where no one makes a decision 

based on socioeconomics anymore. It's based on environment as a whole, and unless your EA is clean, no one will 

make a decision to overturn what someone may consider a 

less than adequate environmental study because of the socioeconomic demands for it. You can have a problematic 

project, but it creates socioeconomic benefit; I've never 

seen a project in all the years I've prepared EIS' s and 

EA' s ever try to prove that. 

• For most aggregate (sand and gravel) socioeconomics under Federal law, salable minerals are an entirely discretionary action on the part of the BLM. We try 

to emphasize the free-market availability of the material. 

One example we worked on out in the Dugway area involved a new gravel pit. We took a look around and found 

a couple of pits on private land. The operator would've 

had to open up his new pit on public land, so we denied 

the application. 

• That comes to the crux of the problem: It depends 

on the kind of mineral and what the owner's rights are. If 

the mineral is locatable and the owner has claims under 

the 1872 Mining Law, he has the right to develop that resource. He could develop it and go broke because there's 

no market for it, but he doesn't have to show a need to the 

Federal Government, for example, because he has vested 

rights under that law to develop it. However, if the mineral 

commodity is leasable or salable, one which the proponent 

of the project doesn't have a vested interest in or a property right to, the denial of developing that deposit 

wouldn't be unconstitutional; it wouldn't be taking away 

his property rights. The agencies that control the property 

can make a decision based on need, whether or not they 

can prove it. So, it depends on the type of commodity. 

• Yes; for locatable minerals, as long as the proposal doesn't involve undue and unnecessary risk, as defined in the regulations, we (BLM) have no discretion 

involved. For leasable minerals, if we've developed an 

area open for lease process and someone has a lease, it's 

hard to deny a proposal. 

• Every mining operation in our county, even those 

that are close to land administered by the BLM or USPS, 

involves public hearings. For most of the mining operations in my county, in my opinion, there's no longer a desire to accept the owner's need. The property owner, the 

lessee, has the admonition that, yes, we have a need-and 

he can prove it. Has anyone done anything about--{)r are 

there organizations out there that are looking at-the idea 

of defining "need" in terms of factors, so that, in fact, the 

environmental issues don't become the only controlling 

items in permitting for or disapproving of that type of use? 

This is a problem that should be looked at. Companies 

need to start helping to find the need. It's in their enlightened best interest to do so. 

INDUSTRIAL MINERALS FROM THE 

PERSPECTIVE OF GOVERNMENT 

M.L. Allison, Moderator 

It is my pleasure to introduce our speaker, Scott M. 

Matheson, Governor of Utah from 1977 through 1984, to 

talk about "Politics and Industrial Minerals." Governor 

Matheson is uniquely qualified to address this subject, because he was governor at the time of ( 1) the proposal to 

deploy the MX missile system in Utah and Nevada, (2) the 

confrontations over the "Sagebrush Rebellion," and (3) the 

negotiations with President Reagan over the "New Federalism." He also brought an intimate working knowledge of 

the mineral industry and mineral issues to the State Capitol 

in Utah. Not content just to respond to issues that were 

affecting this State and the other States in the Rocky 

Mountains region, he actually set the agenda that we're 

continuing, empowering State officials in Utah and giving 

the State a mindset that it should be in charge of its own 

destiny and not rely on the central government to run its 

affairs. There is recognition among the people in Utah 

with whom I talked that, owing to his efforts and attitudes, 

the mineral industry in the State is now in much better 

shape, as a whole, than before he came into office. 

Gov. Matheson received a political-science degree 

from the University of Utah and went on to get a law degree from Stanford University. Before his election as Governor in 1976, he worked as counsel for the Union Pacific 

Railroad and the Anaconda Co., among others. He also 

worked as a city and county attorney in various parts of the 

State. In 1968, he became the youngest president of the 

Utah Bar Association. He served as chairman of the National Governors' Association in 1982 and 1983, and he 

has subsequently been a leader for Western water policy. 

After leaving the governorship in 1985, having served two 

terms, he joined the law firm of Parson, Bailey, and Latimer 

in Salt Lake City, and presently he is on the board of directors of that firm. He practices primarily in the areas of 

natural resources, railroad, and corporate law. In 1985, he 

was appointed the chairman of the Democratic National 

Policy Commission, and he continues to serve on the boards 

of several corporations, including such resource companies 

as the Williams Co. and Bonneville Pacific Corp. He is the 

author of the book "Out of Balance" (Matheson and Kee, 

1986). I'd like to quote a remark about the contents of that 

68 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
book and his work from the back cover by a nationally 

known commentator: "Scott Matheson is universally considered by political observers to have been one of the outstanding governors produced by any American State in 

modem times. This book helps to show why." 

Politics and Industrial Minerals 

By Gov. Scott M. Matheson 

One thing that's important to me, because I happen 

to think that natural resources are absolutely indispensable 

to the future of public and private life in our State and the 

Nation, is the need to recognize that need. You're part of 

an industry that does know. Frankly, I don't know anything about the technical subjects of this workshop, but I 

do know how the current political situation affects your 

industry. I'll get to that in a minute, but first let me thank 

you for your invitation to spend a brief time tonight talking to you about the importance of your efforts here. I met 

earlier with the Utah State geologist and his staff, and we 

tried to think of a simple title for my comments as a nonprofessional in the area of industrial minerals, but as one 

who understands the political realities of our society. We 

decided that an appropriate title would be "Politics and Industrial Minerals." 

I'm aware now, after meeting with M.L. Allison and 

his staff of experts in the minerals field, that this workshop 

is covering the current status, projected needs, and future 

plans for industrial minerals in the Basin and Range 

region, with the objective of fostering cooperation between 

the industry, on the one hand, and government, on the 

other, in the discovery, extraction, and utilization of industrial minerals. Those of you with professional and technical backgrounds already understand the nature and scope 

of the subject of industrial minerals, as well as the public 

responsibility associated with the industry; but what I want 

to tell you is something you don't already know, I suspect. 

For the average citizen of Utah and the surrounding States 

from which you come who, like me, is not a part of the 

inner sanctum of industrial minerals, the industrialminerals category of the Great Basin extractive-mineral industry is a complete mystery. You should know that your 

knowledge is not shared by the public at large; the subject 

matter is the biggest secret in town! I conducted a little 

survey by telephoning several people in the naturalresources industry with whom I practice law every day and 

asking, "What do you know about this industrial-minerals 

component of the extractive industry?" They responded, 

"We don't know what you're talking about. We're in the 

copper, iron, uranium, or coal business. We're not familiar 

with the sand-and-gravel, phosphate, or clay business. We 

know almost nothing about those activities." 

What I now know is that this workshop is dealing 

with a big mystery. The public doesn't really know what 

you do, and neither do the hardrock and coal mineralindustry people. They don't know what you're trying to 

accomplish in terms of making your part of our economy a 

valuable and productive part of society. So, I'd like to 

begin my comments tonight by introducing a subject about 

which you know a great deal, though not from your own 

perspective. 

Public Recognition Through Education 

I'd like you to think about industrial minerals as 

something that individuals from another perspective know 

very little about. It's absolutely essential, therefore, to take 

from this workshop a crystal-clear understanding that its 

subject matter isn't well known to the average citizen, or 

maybe to only a very few citizens. If that's true-and this 

is my thesis tonight- it's also a fact that those who earn 

their living from the industrial-minerals industry probably 

aren't recognized in the economic community of Utah and 

the surrounding States as major economic producers in the 

natural-resource industry. The natural-resource-extraction 

industry is big business in Utah- well over $1 billion last 

year. However, if you sat down and talked to people who 

don't know anything about it, very few would know that 

the industrial-minerals section had much to do with that 

performance. I suspect that we'd first think of hardrock 

minerals and coal when we talk about the natural-resources 

business in Utah, or whatever State we come from. Accordingly, one perspective I hope to leave with you tonight 

is that the subject matter desperately needs public education, and it needs ongoing public discussion to give it 

sufficient emphasis if this industry wishes to grow and 

develop in what I consider to be a new, competitive 

environment involving other natural-resource-extraction 

industries. 

Let me talk about the public image and the economics of industrial-mineral commodities in Utah and elsewhere. The primary problem with the industrial-minerals 

industry is that we basically take it for granted. The group 

of commodities that make up industrial-minerals production, in my view, holds our vital public infrastructure together. How do you build the bridges and roads and dams 

that keep our society functioning if you don't go to this 

particular industry to provide the resources and the components to do it? I wonder, though, whether we as citizens 

really think about it. I can assure you that, when I talked 

to my wife about this assignment, she had no idea what I 

was talking about. When I telephoned several people, they 

didn't know either. Now, this isn't scientific, but anecdotal, evidence; my thesis is that this industry is the big 

undiscovered business in our State, performing a valuable, 

absolute! y necessary, service of providing the basic 

Industrial Minerals from the Perspective of Government 69 
components-and nobody really knows what you're 

doing! So, my first point is that we take you for granted. 

One interesting thing that I've found is that sand, 

gravel, and cement provide the basic building blocks of 

society. As Governor, I understood that we don't deal in 

specifics but in philosophical points of view about how 

society can succeed in a competitive environment. We 

have to build highways, dams, and foundations; we have 

to pave roads; we have to provide runways for airports; we 

have to provide for general construction of buildings, and 

so on. Phosphate, limestone, clays, and other miscellaneous commodities all penetrate the entire fabric of modem industrialized society, but most people don't recognize 

that. They build our communities and our society, and 

each, in his or her own way, much too often thinks only in 

terms of the ultimate economic benefits to the local community, as well as the appropriate and suitable management of the environment in which we use them. However, 

the industry is hardly the shining star of the economic vitality of the State of Utah. I suspect that's true in other 

States as well. The industrial-minerals industry fails miserably to stir emotion over its role in the economic vitality 

of our community and how it can continue to grow and be 

vibrant. 

There's an increasing use of the commodities of 

which I speak in the Great Basin, and as a matter of fact, 

as the world population increases, so does the demand for 

the Earth's minerals. Industrial commodities come from all 

parts of the globe. Today, as never before, the producers, 

processors, and consumers of industrial minerals operate 

on a worldwide scene, as they continue to more heavily 

influence our worldwide industrial society. What does that 

mean in Utah? How is that affecting our economy? How 

many of these basic materials are being imported into this 

State that might just as well be produced here? Well, industrial-mineral production in 1989, including uranium, 

geothermal, and saline resources, generated $390 million 

in revenues, 21 percent of the mineral business in Utah. 

That's pretty good! Utah continued as a significant producer of cement, lime, phosphate, potash, salt, gypsum, 

clays, sand and gravel, and crushed stone. All of that production indicates to me that the business is rocking down 

the track, doing the best it can. However, I wonder 

whether or not it knows where it's going and who's deciding the policy of whether it succeeds or not. Therefore, the 

first point I've made to you tonight is that we in U tab 

certainly take this industry for granted. 

An Industry Identity Gap 

The second point is a little more subtle-the industry 

suffers from a lack of identity. When I think of the great 

diversity of industrial minerals in the field, I think there's 

an acute problem of identity. The perlite "institute" may 

speak for perlite, and the national sand-and-gravel association speaks for the producers of sand and gravel, but I 

know of no agency that speaks for the entire field of industrial minerals. For example, the mineral industries have 

traditionally meant metal mining, and economic geology 

has been equated with metallic ore deposits. Many of the 

universities from which some of you come are dominated 

by what's been called the "metallic mentality." And the 

image of the immense field of industrial minerals seems 

destined to continue to be somewhat vague and unfocused. 

It sometimes helps to be reminded that the value of the 

industrial minerals consumed annually in the United States 

is twice that of the metallic minerals. 

Can the Industry Survive and Prosper? 

Let me tum now to the question of how the industry 

under this set of circumstances can survive and prosper. 

How does anybody make a living in this business? If its 

importance to us is only infrastructure oriented, how do 

we make the business succeed? I can tell you, much of the 

statistical information shows a decline in the production of 

industrial minerals in Utah. Utah presently is on the downside, not the upside; this statement is also true in the surrounding areas. The increase in regulatory requirements on 

the part of Federal, State, and local governments upon the 

extraction process has become a real burden. It's an insidious trend that's creeping up on the outside of this process, 

and no one I'm aware of has really quantified it in a way 

to make sufficient sense, so that this industry can react 

positively and in our best interest. The matter is further 

compounded, if I may say so, by the mom-and-pop nature 

of many industrial-mineral-extraction efforts. Competition 

with large businesses, which normally are hardrock metals 

and related corporations, is difficult because the industrialminerals industry operates basically . as small operations in 

scattered geographic locations, although this situation 

hasn't prevented governmental processes at all levels from 

imposing supervisory controls in the areas of tax. I'm sure 

you've all read about the problem in connection with severance taxes for industrial minerals. Economic problems 

and environmental concerns are hurting this industry. 

The trend in recent years has been to impose 

greater burdens on those operations and to increase environmental costs, all in the name of improving public 

health, public safety, and the way our society lives. All 

of that is good! Philosophically, I doubt whether anyone 

here would disagree with that, because it makes sense 

and it's in the public interest. We need to provide a 

healthy, safe environment in which industrial minerals 

are produced. At the same time, however, the industry 

hasn't developed sufficient political size or visibility. It 

certainly doesn't have much political clout in Utah to 

make certain that it receives a fair policymaking 

70 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
commitment from every level of government in changing 

how people in that industry make their living and meet 

the public policy; it seems to be the forgotten end of the 

mineral business, something that's there but which nobody thinks about or cares much about. 

Industry's Dependence on Government 

About 10 or even 12 years ago, it may not have 

made any difference, but today the industrial-minerals industry totally depends for its success on the processes of 

the Federal, State, and local governments. I want to emphasize the local. You may think that the Feds and States 

control everything. Not so-the people who run local 

government have as much influence over the success of 

the industrial-minerals industry as the State and Federal 

Governments. But all levels of government are important 

for you to know, if success is your objective. 

The problem is not only from the top, where Federal 

and State governments impose regulations. I've followed 

the legislative process for many years. Let me tell you, the 

world of doing business is related not to the company 

boardroom but to the Federal, State, and local government 

boardrooms. That's where policy is made, and business reacts to their decisions. Businesses don't decide how to 

make a profit on the basis of philosophical business decisions anymore, but on the basis of public policy set by the 

legislature, the executive branch, and the regulatory agencies of government. Whatever these agencies decide, business responds; it's a reactive relationship. This isn't just 

true for the industrial minerals, but basically it's also how 

we do business across the board. We do business on the 

basis of the Internal Revenue Act of 1986, as amended. 

Isn't that a nice way to go out and "do the right thing" 

about serving the needs of the public? But that's a given 

these days. 

As I see it, the industry hasn't developed sufficient 

size and clout to make its issues and concerns and its impact known. Local government has a big role in regulation. 

We always think of the Federal and State governments as 

deciding everything for these extractive industries, but you 

know, there's as much control over the success of the 

sand-and-gravel industry from local urbanization and the 

zoning capability of local governments as there is at the 

higher levels. It's true that you have to take into consideration the Feds, the State, and the local municipal group, 

but if you've ever driven around the comer up in North 

Salt Lake, you can see the sand-and-gravel operations by 

the scarring on the hillside. People in that neighborhood 

are getting quite upset about the scars, traffic, and dust. 

The net effect at the local level is to reduce the number of 

areas where deposits can be mined. We zone away where 

you can mine, and, even where you can, we put conditions 

on an operation, and your ability to operate is foreclosed 

because those conditions commonly are so burdensome 

that the economics of the process won't allow the business 

to flourish- in fact, you can't even proceed in the business. It becomes essential under those circumstances to 

provide some resource protection in local planning and 

zoning regulations. I wonder how many of you participate 

in planning and zoning meetings to protect your opportunities to develop those resources locally. 

Options for Success 

It's even more important that the industry have 

something to say about its own future at the State and national levels. Wouldn't it be fair to have the industry sit 

down and help decide what public policy is before public 

policy is made and before industry has to spend dollars to 

meet that policy? What are we going to do about that? I've 

done some more telephoning and found out that there's no 

industrial-mineral association in Utah- in fact, I don't 

think there's any such association in the Western Statesorganized to cope with the overall public-policy concerns 

of this industry. My point tonight is that, if this industry is 

worthy of support, shouldn't it have an opportunity to participate effectively in the government side of its existence, 

which controls the economics and future of its success? 

How do you do all that? Let me give you a couple of 

suggestions. The closest organization to fill that need in 

Utah is not the industrial-minerals industry at large but the 

UMA, which at the moment basically looks after hardrock 

metals and coal. Did you know that the coal people 

weren't even in that organization 10 years ago? But coal 

and hardrock metals have since joined to work together; 

they needed each other to make sure that that particular set 

of industries had an opportunity to survive in the governmental policymaking process. It's fair to say that industrial 

minerals do not command a large membership in the 

UMA; there may be one or two members at best. I deal 

with a few major oil companies that are in the resource 

business, and they do have a big impact. This is an exception, simply not the rule. In addition, there's no single organized committee or subgroup assigned to watch out for 

the industrial-minerals industry in the UMA. The net effect 

is that the UMA, which incidentally is highly supportive 

of the industrial-minerals industry, looks out for you on an 

ad hoc basis. I'll tell you, ad hoc isn't a good way to look 

out for an industry in the legislative, executive, and regulatory processes of government. I've been there, and I can 

tell you that you lose when you go at it by that approach. 

Thus, my own conclusion is that the industrialminerals industry is, at this point in time, at a high political risk for its economic future at all levels of government. 

Even though the industry provides the basic bedrock of 

sustenance to our American society, I'm not sure anybody 

really cares, because I'm not sure anyone understands 

Industrial Minerals from the Perspective of Government 71 
what the industry does. If that's true, it seems to me that 

we have both an opportunity and an obligation to do 

something about it, and so this workshop may be such an 

opportunity to, at least, expose that concept here and later 

in the public sector. Because no other better organization 

exists in Utah and the intermountain West, I'd suggest that 

a beginning would be to sit down with the UMA and see 

whether they'd be willing (I've already called them, and 

they're willing) to take in the industrial-minerals industry. 

They'd like to be helpful; they need your support, and 

your industry needs their support. 

It's important, however, that the industry maintain a 

separate identity with a separate agenda, with the ability to 

maintain independent influence over the public process 

that affects it. That, in my opinion, is a worthwhile thing 

to do. Initially, face the fact that nobody knows about you. 

You need an educational program; the public needs to 

know how important this industry is, what it does for society and for the vast infrastructure. When I was Governor, I 

spent a year of my life as chairman of the National Governors' Association, fighting for improvements in the public 

infrastructure. We're letting this infrastructure deteriorate 

before our very eyes in the United States of America, and 

we don't seem to be concerned that we're not doing much 

about it. It has no "sex appeal." The industrial-minerals 

industry doesn't, either. The fact that this industry is necessary isn't enough; it has to be more than necessary. The 

UMA, in my view, is a good ally to look to. They have 

experts in the fields of taxation, economics, wage relations, regulation, and all the other issues that affect this 

industry. I'd suggest that the industry put a small committee together and go sit down with Jack Christensen, president of the UMA, asking the UMA to evaluate the overall 

needs of the industry as part of an educational process. 

Second, the regulatory world is upon us. Environmental issues are a part of the present equation. The nature 

of the public process from the regulatory point of view is 

that the environmental side of this equation is becoming 

largely a way of life. We might as well face up to the fact 

that we're not going to go out and destroy our environment 

for the sake of what we want to gain; we're going to go out 

and cope with the environment as a part of economic gain. 

I'll tell you, this is the name of the game in the 1990's in 

the United States of America. We're going to have to realize that economic viability must be attained. If we're not 

smart enough to find a way to do that, we're all going to be 

losers, and not just on the industrial-minerals side-the 

economy of the entire Nation will be at risk. 

Finally, the organization of small lobbying groups or 

coalitions makes a lot of sense to me. However, I wonder 

whether the industrial-minerals business knows how to 

lobby. It's not easy; you have to know what to do. The 

UMA is pretty smart in this area. I must confess that my 

law firm represents that association, but, as a result, I 

know what kind of job they can do. It represents the industry, but at present the industrial-minerals part isn't getting a fair shake in the front lines. It's time that you 

people organize and put together a small group to learn the 

lobbying game, and dedicate yourselves to political agendas and face up to the realities of the lobbying process. 

Let me tell you something: The legislative leaders will 

welcome your input to explain where you're coming from 

and to educate them. They'd be willing to participate cooperatively for the benefit of the industry. If you're not 

present before legislative committees and the legislature 

passes a law, and you come up later and try to right a 

wrong, it's too late. The money is all on the table, and the 

policies are in place. You'd have to go back to the beginning of the process to change the rules. So, you need to 

get there before the policy is fixed. 

That's nothing new to most of you, and I apologize 

for repeating the obvious. But you know something-I've 

been in politics for a long time, and I've found that you 

have to repeat the obvious a lot. This industry needs to 

have the obvious repeated. It's time to start sitting down 

and doing the practical, commonsense things that all of 

you can think of and know are needed. 

Let me conclude with this final comment. In the past 

generation, the problems of the natural-resource industries, 

particularly those associated with mining and extraction, 

have gradually moved away from business- and financialand technical-problem decisionmaking to regulatory government and political processes. More often than not, the 

success of the business depends more on the political process than on the usual business process. It's not how smart 

are the lawyers or the chief executive officer or whoever 

in the company is the defending individual; thus, individuals have to know the political process. If political processes are ignored, the business will be in deep trouble. 

More often than not, that's what happens, and that same 

trend will continue in the 1990's. If you've followed 

public policy, think of any social problem that's come up 

in the past generation. Let's take Brown v. Board of 

Education; let's talk about education. How do you think 

the problem of access of minorities to the schools was 

solved? That's a social problem. It wasn't solved in the 

business environment; it wasn't solved in the schools; it 

was solved in the public arena and in the courts. The truth 

of the matter is, that's where public problems are being 

solved these days. The legislatures, the governors, the 

regulatory process, and the courts are solving more problems, or attempting to, than the business people are able to 

solve all by themselves. That trend will continue. An environmental concern took me to Washington a couple of 

weeks ago, and a U.S. Senator said we can protect the environment by the acid-rain bill, the CAA, and so on. 

That's true. It's now a new ballgame; the environmental 

concern continues to demand more management of our 

72 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
resources to the exclusion of the traditional methods of extracting and processing industrial minerals. Anyone who 

wishes to succeed in this industry will simply have to join 

in and compete according to the new rules and new facts 

of life. The sexual facts of life haven't changed, but the 

political and business facts of life have really changed. 

That's the point that we all have to know and understand tonight: Recognition that the government is there and 

that the political aspects of the industrial-minerals industry 

aren't going to go away. You must provide a strategic game 

plan to deal with the political situation in an effective way, 

so as to allow continued growth and success of the industry. May I conclude by saying that's a worthy objective, 

and I wish you great success for the good of all Utahns. 

EXPANDING INDUSTRIAL-MINERAL 

OPPORTUNITIES IN THE 

BASIN AND RANGE REGION 

R.C. Bradt, Moderator 

The expansion of opportunities for the development 

of industrial minerals in the Basin and Range is a timely 

and far-reaching topic, for which the organizers have assembled a worthy group of experts. We begin with a consideration of the expanding development of advanced 

materials, which will require broadening the search for industrial minerals used as primary constituents or filler materials, as well as expanding industrial-mineral production 

through research by State and Federal Government agencies 

and academia. We next consider examples of new industrialmineral market development of high- and low-value materials. Finally, we examine the successful use of PR techniques 

to educate the public in support of industry expansion. 

Our first speaker, G.R. Hyde, who comes to us from 

Washington, D.C, is a staff physical scientist in the 

USBM's Minerals and Materials Division and manages its 

substitute-materials research program. He will discuss advanced-material potential and research in the USBM. M.P. 

Foose, Associate Chief for Development of Assessment 

Technology in the USGS' Office of Mineral Resources in 

Reston, Va., will describe research activities in the USGS. 

Representing research programs in the State geological 

surveys and universities is J.G. Price, director of the 

NBMG and the Nevada State Geologist. 

Potential for the Use of Industrial Minerals in 

Advanced-Material Applications 

By G.R. Hyde 

The wide range of advanced materials requires virtually every stable element in the periodic table and includes 

many of the industrial minerals. I hope to explore with you 

the potential use of industrial minerals in advanced materials and to impress upon you the importance of determining 

the domestic availability of these minerals. We will also 

talk about advanced materials and identify some of the 

properties that make them "advanced." Then, we'll look at 

some examples; you'll recognize that industrial minerals 

are used in many of those examples. The bottom line is 

that we need to find out just what minerals will be needed 

and where they're located, because advanced materials are 

going to be important to the Nation's economy in this and 

the coming decades. 

We've arrived at a situation today in which the materials picture has changed. There's a new relation between 

materials and society. Historically, we've taken natural 

materials, such as wood, stone, iron, and copper, and made 

things out of them. Then, we began to take rocks and extract the metallic values from them. Today, we start with a 

societal need and, essentially, put together a material, atom 

by atom, molecule hy molecule, to get the special physical 

properties that we require. The new high-temperature superconductors are a typical example of such activity: Yttrium, barium, copper, and oxygen are combined to obtain a 

specific physical property-superconductivity. 

The key to the importance of advanced materials is 

the fact that they're an enabling technology- they create 

economic opportunities. The President's Council of Economic Advisors has recently cited three potential areas for 

economic growth in the United States: information processing, biotechnology, and materials. Information processing and biotechnology, however, depend on our ability to 

develop materials with particular properties. Advanced 

materials are an enabling technology- they enable many 

other things to happen. For example, our whole information-processing industry is based on the transistor, which 

derives its utility from the unique solid-state electronic 

property of a junction between two types of semiconducting materials. 

Because materials are an enabling technology, 

they're high on the agendas of every advanced nation. 

These nations see materials as keys to economic growth 

and competitiveness. Materials are getting a lot of attention, even at the White House level today. That fact is exemplified by the positive executive-branch response to a 

recent study by the National Research Council, "Materials 

Science and Engineering for the 1990's- Maintaining 

Competitiveness in the Age of Materials." Advanced materials are extremely important in shaping the global 

economy. 

What Are Advanced Materials? 

I asked our director that question, and he said, 

"That's simple- titanium 20 years ago." He was correct. 

Expanding Industrial-Mineral Opportunities in the Basin and Range Region 73 
As an advanced material becomes more widely used and 

standardized, it will ultimately become a commodity. 

Many of today's advanced materials are not really 

"materials" but an engineering concept. A schematic diagram (fig. 32) shows the basic difference between conventional and advanced materials. If you look at conventional 

commodity materials, they're obtained by digging ore out 

of the ground, extracting the metal (or nonmetal), and 

using that material to make various products. You can 

look at advanced materials as the result, essentially, of taking components from many different ores (several different 

metals, possibly some nonmetals) and combining them by 

a unique processing technology to make a single product 

with particular required properties. Advanced materials are 

an engineering step in the development of a device; 

they're much more intimately related to the product than 

are conventional materials. 

Special Properties and Types of Advanced Materials 

Industrial minerals play an important part in achieving some of the desired properties of such advanced materials as polymers, composites, optics, electronics, and 

ceramics. Polymers are certainly one of the most widely 

used advanced materials. Most plastics have industrial 

minerals as fillers; in fact, it's a large market, I understand. These plastics include the polyethylenes; some of 

the more expensive materials like Teflon and Kevlar, 

which is as strong as steel at one-third the weight; and 

Vespel, which is a high-temperature plastic that's not 

cheap at $2,700 per pound. USBM research at the Idaho 

National Engineering Laboratory has produced a polyphosphazine material-a high-temperature plastic that retains its properties from cold temperatures to as high as 

250°C. That material is based not on hydrocarbons or petroleum but on phosphorus. Polymers are important in the 

CONVENTIONAL 

MATERIALS 

Products 

A B C D 

"¥' 

Metal 

ADVANCED 

MATERIALS 

Product 

A 

Processing 

technology 

I I \ 

Metal Metal Metal 

Figure 32. Relation 

00~ between conventional and advanced 

materials. 

upcoming picture of advanced materials; clearly, industrial 

minerals will play a major role. 

Composites are materials that give a very high stiffness, very high strength, and very light weight. Carbonfiber epoxies may be the most widely known composites; 

they were the primary material of construction for Voyager, the aircraft that Dick Rutan and Jena Yeager piloted 

around the globe without refueling. Boron-fiber epoxies, 

silicon carbide/metal-matrix composites, and aluminummatrix/silicon carbide fiber materials are providing increased strength and stiffness-to-weight ratios. These 

properties are important because every pound of weight 

you save in aircraft construction represents a savings of 

$1,000 over the life of the airplane, so if you can take a 

few thousand pounds off the weight of the aircraft, you've 

saved quite a bit of money over a 20-year aircraft lifetime. 

Structural properties are clearly important, and materials 

research is continually trying to achieve light weight and 

high strength. 

Optical and electronic materials also are extremely 

important. I don't need to repeat the example of hightemperature superconductors that have attracted so much 

attention recently, particularly in the computer field, but 

optical materials are becoming more interesting for futuregeneration computers. We're reaching the point where, 

rather than switch electrons around, we want to switch 

light around-it's faster. The field of photonics is growing. Both people and computers talk to each other now by 

means of fiber optics, and with optical devices in the near 

future, we' 11 be switching those light beams around without having to translate them first into electrical signals. 

For that, we need indium phosphide and gallium arsenidephosphide emitters and detectors; these three-five semiconductor materials are important. Silicon, by the way, won't 

work in this application because its optical-transmission 

band is in the infrared part of spectrum; it transmits heat 

rather than light. Lithium-niobium trioxide doped with titanium is presently used as an optical switch; by applying an 

electrical field, a beam of light can be switched from one 

side of the device to the other. 

Most of us are familiar with the term "rare earth" 

materials. Neodymium is one of the rare-earth elements 

used for very strong permanent magnets. If you own an 

automobile that was built since 1986, chances are that the 

starter has such a magnet. Neodymium magnets allow you 

to build a motor that's one-third the physical size and get 

the same power out of it. 

We now come to the corrosion and thermal properties 

of materials. Let's consider jet-engine turbine blades. When 

you stop to realize that those blades operate at about 1 ,200°C 

and spin around anywhere from 20,000 to 50,000 rpm, you 

can see the problems faced by the design engineer. The pull 

on the white-hot blades by centrifugal force at those speeds 

is tremendous. Under such conditions, tremendous stresses 

74 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
are exerted on blade materials. We want to make engines 

operate even hotter, and, to get more efficiency out of them, 

we want to maintain light weight and try to minimize friction. We want our airplanes to fly higher and faster. 

We're pushing conventional materials to the point 

where we can't get the properties we need from conventional cast-metal alloys; we have to go to unique processing technology to achieve nonequilibrium material 

structures and compositions. This processing technology 

uses rapid solidification to freeze under nonequilibrium 

conditions. For example, you quench in an excess number 

of atom vacancies, which then undergo reactions during 

cooling to the point where they tend to disperse and 

strengthen the material. We're making such things as 

shape-memory alloys, which can be deformed and then, on 

applying a small amount of heat, will come back to their 

original shape again. 

Ceramics also have a lot of promise as advanced 

materials, particularly ceramic-matrix composites. Ceramics have one fatal flaw, however: They're subject to catastrophic failure. There's been talk about using ceramics in 

aircraft, but an employee of one aircraft manufacturer said, 

clearly, that he'd never fly on an aircraft which has ceramic structural parts in it! Ceramic composites-maybe. 

The fracture-toughness problem still exists for ceramics, 

but ceramic materials like beryllium oxide are used in the 

heat shield for the space shuttle. We have silicon carbide 

and silicon nitride ceramic materials for rotors in turbochargers and heat exchangers. Then, there's the family of 

piezoelectric ceramics and the whole family of refractories, which are used a lot in furnaces and are made from 

such clays as aluminum oxide, magnesium oxide, and 

magnesium silicate. 

Quantities of Component Materials Required 

Because raw-materials costs are generally only a few 

percent of the cost of an advanced material, many people 

fall into the trap of neglecting raw-material-supply issues. 

We talk about advanced materials, and people say, "Yes, 

but you don't need a large quantity of them. You're talking about high value but small quantities. It's really the 

processing technology that's important." This isn't always 

the case. Consider, for example, the superconducting 

supercollider. It takes about 2 million lb of niobium and 

titanium, each, just to make the superconductors for the 

magnets in that device, not to mention the specialized 

structural materials needed to support those magnets. As 

you can imagine, the forces from these strong fields tend 

to make the magnets try to fly apart or collapse on one 

another. The large structures needed to support such magnets must be made from materials that can provide the 

strength and yet be nonmagnetic. Such structures may well 

require sizable quantities of exotic materials. 

Let me attempt to quantify some requirements. If 

you took all the electric motors produced annually in the 

world today and substituted neodymium permanentmagnet motors, a recent study by the European Economic 

Community found that you'd use about 4 times the present 

world production capacity for that element. If you built a 

600-mi superconducting transmission line with existing 

low-temperature superconductor technology, using, for example, Nb3

Sn, it would take about 10,000 tons. We have 

about 250,000 mi of electrical-transmission lines in the 

country today, and if you ascribe to the theory that nobody 

wants a powerplant in their own backyard, then you begin 

to realize the magnitude of materials requirements for 

power transmission. 

Also, there's the metal scandium, which we don't 

hear much about. It turns out that if you take scandium, 

for which I think the production capacity is measured in 

kilograms per year, and put about 0.5 percent into aluminum, you can make that aluminum superplastic. In other 

words, you can stretch the new aluminum alloy about 200 

or 300 percent when you form it. This new property opens 

up a whole new area for the manufacturing technology of 

aircraft parts. If you look at the million or so tons of aluminum that might be affected by that and you put 0.5 percent scandium in it, you can see how the market for 

scandium is likely to increase. As advanced materials become parts of consumer products, we're no longer talking 

about small quantities of the constituent elements-we're 

talking about very large amounts or very large increases in 

raw-materials requirements. This possibility opens a whole 

new direction for expansion of the high-value-industrialmineral industry. 

Conclusions 

To sum up, advanced materials are complex mixtures of chemicals, alloying elements, processing technology, and other things that are continually changing; 

we're not talking about a single element. The problem 

is, if we're going to begin to incorporate advanced materials into consumer products and enjoy their benefits 

(that is, consumer products as opposed to military applications), we'll need both adequate and assured supplies. 

A manufacturer isn't going to risk the capital investment 

to use an advanced material without sufficient quantities 

available. In some cases, we need to find primary sources instead of relying on byproduct sources. We need 

extraction technology that will allow us to win these materials from small deposits. 

The key point I want to make in this discussion is 

that we need to know what's available domestically; we 

need to find out now before the lands are all locked up for 

other reasons and we lose access to the materials therein. I 

think the important point is that we need to get out there 

Expanding Industrial-Mineral Opportunities in the Basin and Range Region 75 
and find out what and how much of these materials we 

have available in this country. We need geologic models 

to guide us in looking for some of those elements that will 

become components or constituents of advanced materials. 

We need the capabilities of the geological community to 

look for sources of virtually every stable element in the 

periodic table, because we don't know which elements will 

be the next front runners and impart appropriate properties 

to some new advanced material. 

Governmental and Academic Research 

Applicable to the Industrial-Mineral Industry 

USBM Research Activities 

By G.R. Hyde 

Yesterday, our speakers reviewed some of the problems faced by the industrial-minerals community. These 

problems can be grouped into four general categories: ( 1) 

resource-availability issues, (2) environmental issues, (3) 

technological issues, and ( 4) issues related to the development of new markets and new materials. I'll use these four 

categories of problems as a framework within which to 

discuss USBM research capabilities. Then, we can discuss 

how these capabilities may be focused to provide specific 

opportunities for technology transfers that will be beneficial to the industrial-minerals industry-that is, how can 

the USBM best assist industry through cooperative research programs? 

Resource-Availability Issues 

The USBM has two organizational functions: the Information and Analysis Directorate and the Research Directorate. Resource-availability issues are addressed 

primarily by the Information and Analysis Directorate, 

which collects and disseminates minerals and materials 

data, performs economic and resource analyses, and provides minerals and materials information for use by policymakers. For example, the policy-analysis group recently 

completed studies on the effects of acid-rain legislation on 

the respective prices of copper and aluminum. In addition, 

I'm sure most of you are familiar with the publications 

"Mineral Commodity Summaries" and "Minerals Today" 

published by this directorate. 

Environmental Issues 

The acute need for new environmental technology in 

the minerals industry has led to the formation of a new 

Division of Environmental Technology in the USBM' s 

Research Directorate. However, the USBM has continually 

addressed technological solutions to environmental problems throughout its history. For example, basic research in 

solid-liquid separation of ultrafine particles has paved the 

way for new technology in dewatering phosphate slimes. 

Byproducts from wastes and tailings have become key 

constituents of advanced or engineered materials. USBM 

research has made possible the recovery of scandium from 

processing waste. (Scandium, you'll recall, is an important 

element that gives aluminum the property of superplasticity.) The USBM has helped develop methods for stabilizing and revegetating tailings to minimize wind and water 

erosion. More recently, it has helped develop methods for 

closing down cyanide-leaching heaps. 

Technological Issues 

USBM research activities cover much of the materials-production cycle, all the way from extraction, 

processing of bulk materials, processing engineered materials, fabrication (for example, sintering of ceramics), 

recycling, and, to some extent, waste disposal, so that, in 

many cases, we cover almost the entire life cycle of a 

material from a technological point of view. Our mining 

research is investigating inplace and borehole mining 

methods for extracting copper and other elements. Our 

Comminution Generic Technology Center here at the 

University of Utah is focusing on automated grinding of 

minerals and materials. Using advanced imaging and 

computer-assisted tomography, we're laying the groundwork for building sensors for online analysis of particle 

size and composition. 

Regarding the physical-separation technology relevant to industrial minerals, the USBM developed a flotation method to recover 13 percent more phosphate from 

Western ores. If the new high-temperature superconductors 

become practical magnetic separators, we'll know the 

ultra-high-magnetic-field properties of many minerals in 

advance through our present research in this area. 

Chemical-separation research in· application to industrial minerals includes leaching of aluminum from domestic clays and leaching phosphate values with acid-alcohol 

mixtures. 

These are only a few highlights of our research 

aimed at industrial minerals. You should keep in mind that 

USBM research is directed toward obtaining an understanding of processes to provide the tools for use by industry for application to a specific deposit. 

New Markets, New Materials 

USBM research has contributed to the development 

of new materials and markets through such efforts as assessing phosphogypsum as a constituent of aggregate, understanding the ion-exchange properties of zeolites, and 

76 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
developing acid/salt-resistant sulfur concrete. Industrialminerals production is a regional activity, and so we have 

research centers in most of the region represented at this 

meeting. In addition to Tuscaloosa, Ala., and Rolla, Mo., 

we have facilities in Albany, Oreg., Reno, Nev., and here 

in Salt Lake City, Utah. We also have a major contract 

research program at the Idaho National Engineering 

Laboratory, as well as smaller programs at several 

universities-the University of Idaho, Moscow, the University of Nevada, Reno, and here at the University of 

Utah. Our research activities are located in geographic areas to best address regional problems, such as those found 

in industrial-minerals production. 

Conclusions 

Let me conclude with a few brief words on governmental industrial, and academic cooperative research. Why 

cooperate? Industrial-minerals problems are regional, and 

R&D is expensive and high risk. Economic benefits from 

new technology help all companies, not only the ones paying for it. To reduce the risk to individual companies, such 

mission-oriented agencies as the USBM provide most of 

the funding. The Technology Transfer Act protects intellectual-property rights with flexibility. 

How do we cooperate? First, we must commit to 

joint generic-technology development on common problems. Then, we must work together as partners in planning, funding, and carrying out the research, utilizing 

Federal, university, and private laboratories. Above all, we 

must recognize the need for new funding to undertake additional work. 

USGS Industrial-Mineral-Research Activities 

By M.P. Foose 

USGS Minerals Programs 

I'd like to begin my discussion of the contributions 

the USGS could make in the area of industrial-minerals 

research by first tackling the more general subject of the 

overall USGS minerals program. Simply stated, the overriding objective of minerals work in the USGS is to ensure 

the long-term availability of mineral resources. To accomplish this, the USGS has three specific programs: 

1. NAMRAP primarily involves the assessment of mineral potential on specific tracts of lands that may 

range in size from a few thousand acres to an entire 

State. Much of this work focuses on BLM or USFS 

lands for which mineral-resource information is 

needed to make land-use decisions; industrial minerals have always been a part of this land-assessment 

process. However, the USGS has encountered numerous problems when assessing industrial minerals, 

which generally haven't received the attention we'd 

like to give them or which they deserve. Over the past 

5 years, the USGS has been working to change this 

situation, and these workshops are partly an outgrowth of that effort. 

2. The Strategic and Critical Minerals Program focuses 

mainly on the potential for strategic and critical minerals on a global or national scale or within large geologic regions. Not surprisingly, much emphasis is 

placed on elements like platinum and chromium. 

However, this program also supports other commodity-specific studies and includes the work of USGS 

specialists who deal with industrial minerals ranging 

from abrasives to zeolites, including sand and gravel, 

dimension stone, and the rare-earth elements. As a 

part of these commodity-based studies, the USGS 

maintains a computerized data base on mineral deposits and occurrences. Known as MRDS, this system 

contains about 83,000 records, of which more than 

19,000 include information on industrial-mineral deposits or occurrences. This information is used to facilitate USGS mineral-resource-assessment work, but 

it's also widely used by various other Federal agencies and by State and private groups. 

3. The research program on the genesis of ore deposits 

provides information on how ore deposits form, generates concepts on how new deposits might be found, 

and develops tools to locate undiscovered deposits. 

Most of this basic research has focused on metallicmineral commodities and has recently been synthesized into a compilation volume that summarizes both 

the geologic and the grade-tonnage characteristics of 

metallic-mineral deposits. This volume has proved to 

be a fundamental document used in regional mineralresource assessments. In an effort to strengthen our 

ability to deal specifically with industrial minerals, 

the USGS is now putting together a similar volume 

for these minerals. 

From this quick outline of the scope of the USGS' 

minerals work, I hope I've shown that the USGS is trying to strengthen its understanding and ability to evaluate industrial-mineral resources. However, I'd like to 

comment on why this process is sometimes difficult. 

Clearly, the feasibility of a sand-and-gravel operation 

may be directly affected by its location and the local 

transportation network. Similarly, small changes in 

chemical composition can radically change the usefulness of zeolites, and color variations can markedly affect 

the use of decorative stone. These and many other factors may all be important in evaluating an industrialmineral resource. Many of the political factors, however, 

are locally controlled, and a Federal agency, such as the 

USGS, often has great difficulty in dealing with them. 

Expanding Industrial-Mineral Opportunities in the Basin and Range Region 77 
As a result, much excellent work on the geology of industrial minerals has been done by the State geological 

surveys and by private industry. 

Nonetheless, several issues require some Federal 

participation in industrial-minerals research. Increasingly, industrial minerals are becoming involved in various national and international issues. Let me briefly 

mention two of them. First, land-use decisions are being 

made almost every day in Washington, D.C. Some of 

these decisions, such as wilderness-related legislation, 

may affect the way large areas are utilized for the foreseeable future. The USGS is repeatedly asked to provide 

mineral-resource information about these areas before a 

land-use decision, and it must be able to represent the 

potential for industrial minerals, as well as for metallicmineral commodities. Second, some parts of the Nation 

are beginning to experience real problems with industrial-mineral-resource availability. Many rapidly growing 

urban areas are either running out of the industrial minerals needed to sustain growth, or the costs of these 

resources are increasing rapidly. In some cases, largetonnage, low-cost materials are now being imported 

from Europe, Mexico, or Canada, and so, to a certain 

degree, industrial minerals are becoming a national and 

international concern. 

To address these needs, the USGS believes that there 

needs to be an increased effort at the Federal, State, and 

local levels. To foster this effort, the USGS began sponsoring these workshops. 

Types of USGS Research Activities 

Turning now to what specific types of research the 

USGS should be and is, in part, doing on industrialmineral resources, we find that the activity falls into three 

categories: (1) research on the geologic controls of 

deposits, (2) research on how these deposits can be 

detected, and (3) the development of regional mineraldeposit information. 

Geologically, the USGS mapping program will assist in the location of new deposits and in the identification of areas favorable for industrial-mineral resources. 

Clearly, it would make sense to do this mapping in conjunction with the State geological surveys. This work 

should involve both onshore and offshore studies, especially in such areas as New England, where offshore 

industrial-mineral deposits are assuming increasing 

importance. 

Along with mapping, the USGS is developing new 

models and concepts about how these deposits form, 

where they are most likely to occur, and what their characteristic features are. As was done previously for metallic-mineral commodities (Cox and Singer, 1986), the 

USGS is preparing a "models" book on the industrial 

minerals that will meet some of these needs. Models for 

some industrial minerals were described by Orris and 

Bliss (1989), but the research program is only just 

underway. 

I'm also struck by the need for basic geomorphologic studies that better define the surficial processes 

which form many industrial minerals. For example, recent 

USGS work (Dohrenwend, 1989) has shown that more 

than half of northern Nevada is covered by basins containing less than 1 km of fill and that deep basins make up 

less than 20 percent of the total basin area. The shallowness of these basins is unexpected and has important implications for the types of industrial minerals that they may 

contain. 

More work also needs to be done on how to locate 

and evaluate industrial-mineral resources. There are many 

established tools, that work well, but there are also potential new tools of which the following are examples. 

• Gamma-ray spectroscopy, which measures the 

natural radiation emitted by potassium, uranium, and thorium, is a potential tool in locating some zeolite deposits. 

• Electromagnetic methods can be used to quickly 

map the thickness of alluvial deposits or to identify and 

delineate clay bodies. 

• The spectral reflectance of many minerals is 

unique and can be used to find some industrial-mineral deposits, especially clay minerals and talc, and, possibly, 

even to distinguish the Mg content of limestone. 

• Integration of ore-deposit models and regional 

geologic studies can identify areas favorable for such 

industrial-mineral deposits as phosphates, high-calcium 

limestone, barite, and zeolites. 

Finally, data and information systems need to be 

maintained and upgraded. I've already briefly discussed 

MRDS, which can be a tremendous resource to local, 

State, and Federal agencies working on industrial-minerals 

and land-use issues. Similarly, the USGS is developing a 

GIS, which integrates geologic data with geologic models 

in defining areas of high mineral-resource potential. GIS's 

of this type that also contain information about property 

boundaries, transportation routes, and locations of population centers may significantly improve the land-use decisionmaking process. 

Concluding Thought 

These are only a few of the areas of industrialminerals research in which the USGS is or should be involved. In closing, however, I'd like to return to one of 

my earlier points: Any such research will be most effective 

only when done as part of a program that recognizes local 

needs, and this research will be strengthened if it both supports and is supported by companion studies by academia 

and the State geological surveys. 

78 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
Research Potential of the 

State Geological Surveys and Universities 

By j.G. Price 

My assignment is to discuss some of the research 

capabilities of the State geological surveys and universities. I'd like to point out some of the aspects of expertise 

available, in part, as demonstrated by the publications of 

the State geological surveys and universities, as well as 

some of the equipment that can assist industrial-mineral 

research. Some other issues I hope to cover include the 

availability of scientific manpower, the funding situations within State geological surveys and universities, 

the supply of future employees that the universities produce for the resource constituency, and technology transfer from the universities to the industry. Finally, I want 

to describe some of the frontier areas in industrialmineral research. 

What's Happening in Nevada? 

I'd like to give some examples from the NBM G and 

UNR, which are somewhat similar to institutions in the 

other Western States. The NBMG is similar to some State 

geological surveys but differs from other surveys in some 

respects. About a third of the State geological surveys 

have administrative links to their respective State universities. That's the case in Nevada, but the. UGS reports directly to the Governor and is a direct-line State agency. 

The IGS is more like the NBMG, in that it operates administratively through a State university. We at the 

NBMG have a much closer tie to UNR than do many 

other State geological surveys; in fact, we're a part of the 

Mackay School of Mines. Some of the issues that I'll mention this morning will show that link between the NBMG 

and UNR. However, the main contributions of the State 

geological surveys and universities to industrial-mineral 

research are made in spite of administrative organizational 

differences. 

One of the main points that I wish to stress with 

regard to expertise is that the staffs within the NBMG, 

UNR, and all the other State universities have the local knowledge which is needed for studies of industrial 

minerals, such as information about the locations of resources and the processing needs for them within local 

areas. The long-term involvement of the State geological surveys in this area is shown by their series of publications. Geologic maps and regional geological reports 

are the basis for all the current work on industrial minerals, including resource assessment and research on 

how these deposits form and where we're likely to find 

new ones. 

Geologic Maps Are Needed 

Currently, much of the Western United States is covered fairly well by 1:250,000-scale geologic maps, but 

that's not good enough to address the issues of industrial 

minerals. What we really need in terms of geologic mapping is the type of detail on a 1:24,000-scale map, the 

typical 71

/,-minute topographic quadrangle provided as a 

base map- by the USGS' National Mapping Division. 

There's an initiative out on the street right now, the 

NCGMP, seeking funding for an increase in geologic mapping. That initiative is probably the most important thing 

that we can get behind right now to address industrialminerals questions. The program will involve cooperative 

work with the States, in which Federal and State moneys 

are matched, thereby softening the blow on the Federal 

Government in terms of the dollars to be allocated to the 

program. It will increase funding to the USGS for geologic 

mapping, specifically, and for work that supports geologic 

mapping, such as radiometric dating, paleontologic work 

to assist stratigraphic correlations, geochemistry, and geophysics to back up the mapping efforts. That program also 

has a component for support of the universities, where the 

needs of the industry will be addressed by expanding the 

source of trained mappers. We've lost much of our capability to do geologic mapping within the United States, 

and the NCGMP will give us back that capability. The ultimate goal of the NCGMP is to cover the entire United 

States at a reasonable scale, 1:24,000, with color compilation at 1:100,000 scale. The Association of American State 

Geologists and the USGS are going through the justification process with the executive branch and through Congress to get that program moving forward. We look 

forward to new funding forthcoming in support of that 

critical informational area within another couple of years. 

The NBMG and the USGS jointly have been producing 

numerous 1 :24,000-scale geologic maps, and we hope to 

produce more of them and the 1: 100,000-scale full-color 

maps as this new program comes into being. 

Mineral-Resource Reports 

The NBMG is also producing mineral-resource maps 

at a scale of 1:100,000, the first three of which came out 

last year. We intend to increase that program and mesh it 

with the proposed 1:100,000-scale geologic-mapping program as it develops over the next several years. The State 

geological surveys traditionally have been the primary 

sources of specific-commodity reports on industrial minerals. A few examples from the NBMG include industrialmineral reports on zeolites, clays, talc, evaporites, 

fluorspar, barite, and gypsum. We're currently working on 

a commodity report on borates, and we've just initiated a 

program on aggregates that will lead, eventually, to aggregate-resource publications as well. 

Expanding Industrial-Mineral Opportunities in the Basin and Range Region 79 
Sources of Resource Expertise 

The overall scientific expertise within the State geological surveys and universities encompasses not only the 

staff they may have but also the equipment that's available. The universities are the primary places, along with 

some of the national laboratories, with regard to computing power. We're involved with the USGS and USBM in 

compiling some major data bases. M.P. Foose mentioned 

MRDS; most of the Western States have maintained versions of that resource-information data base, and they may 

also have other, more detailed, local data bases. The 

USBM has a comparable data base, MILS, and the States 

are using both of these data bases, embellishing and expanding them. Recently, the NBMG started a data base on 

resources and reserves, as we11 as on production, that's becoming a popular item. Along with the USGS, we're entering into GIS, and the universities are doing much of the 

fundamental work in developing these systems. We're 

building GIS links through the State geological surveys 

and universities into the local-government agencies that 

may use such information. In about 85 percent of the landuse applications for geographic information in the Western 

States, one GIS is preferred. We're trying to coordinate 

efforts at the State level to ensure that the national GIS 

layers which are being developed by the USGS and the 

layers which are being developed by the State geological 

surveys and other State agencies can be brought together 

and used at the county and city levels. 

Remote-sensing facilities are extensive at some universities, and that's a capability that fits into the industrialmineral-resource picture quite well. Urbanization is a 

major issue with regard to industrial minerals. D.L. Weide 

was telling me yesterday about a series of airphotos that 

he has for the Las Vegas area; he can almost do a motion 

picture from year to year showing how the area is expanding rapidly. The remote-sensing facilities that are available 

at the universities put us in the position of being able to 

address many urbanization issues. 

One new development at the Mackay School of 

Mines is the fact that the Computer Science Department is 

now within the university as part of the School of Mines. 

Administratively, we now have the ability to work much 

closer with computer scientists, and we're anticipating being able to develop some new areas of research and expand some areas as well. 

Research equipment for chemical analysis is also 

available in the universities, which traditionally are the 

places where new analytical work is developed. Several 

universities throughout the country are the primary 

analytical-chemistry developers. The State geological surveys and universities are commonly the initial developers, 

testers, and users of new analytical equipment, and they 

demonstrate its usefulness; a good example is ICP-MS. 

The Texas geological survey had the first ICP-MS used in 

geologic applications in the United States. XRF and neutron-activation facilities are available in the universities, as 

well as in several Federal agencies. The NBMG has at its 

fingertips most of the inorganic analytical facilities, as do 

most of the State geological surveys throughout the West; 

we also have selected organic analytical capabilities. The 

university chemistry, biochemistry, and biology departments have analytical capabilities to cover almost anything 

that we at the NBMG can imagine. We have capabilities 

for microanalysis and measurement of physical properties, 

which are quite important for many industrial-mineral applications. Process instrumentation is quite good. The 

universities, especially those with traditional miningengineering programs, are the leaders in research on the 

processing of industrial minerals. 

Manpower and Funding 

I'd like to touch briefly on the issues of manpower 

and funding. One real benefit of the universities with regard to their research capabilities is their flexibility in utilizing faculty, undergraduates, graduate students, and staff 

scientists. There generally is a large group of people who 

work on specific research problems. We at the universities 

are involved with funding these efforts from nearly every 

conceivable source. The name of the game in research is, 

by and large, to do the work where the funding is available. If the funding isn't available, then go out and try to 

generate the interest to get that funding. Much of the work 

in the industrial-minerals area is funded directly or indirectly through the Federal Government. G.R. Hyde mentioned the generic centers that the USBM manages, such 

as the comminution center here in Salt Lake City. It's appropriate that State and local governments provide at least 

partial funding for some of their projects, because they 

concern local issues; industrial minerals generally fall into 

this category. Industry is, in fact, a major funder of numerous projects in which we're involved: An example at the 

NBMG is our geochemical sampling and characterization 

program, which involves basic data collection-the type of 

study in which the State geological surveys ought to be 

involved. We're sharing the cost of collecting these data 

with industry. Essentially, industry is providing the money 

for the analytical work, and we put up the geologists' salaries to collect and describe the samples. The companies 

that participate then get the first chance to look at the data. 

For example, if we discover a new high-calcium lime resource from those data, they'l1 have the opportunity to go 

do something about it within a year; but after a year, all 

the data become public information. We believe that 

everything we do in the State geological surveys has to 

eventually enter the public domain. 

80 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
Providing Future Employees 

The universities have a major function of providing the future employees for industry, government, and 

other universities; that function is the most effective 

means of technology transfer. We have frequent discussions with the USBM about the technologies that are developed in our laboratories and why these technologies 

aren't being used by industry. I'd venture to say that if 

you called up the USBM or some of the generic centers 

and discussed your process problems with the experts 

there, you may find out that, 15 years ago, somebody in 

the Federal Government or the universities had already 

solved that problem. Another way to find out is to hire 

the people who've been trained at the universities where 

that information is being developed; that may be the 

most efficient and effective means for technology transfer. The universities in the Western States are producing 

some of the real experts in those areas that industry 

needs. 

Current Research Frontiers 

Let me mention briefly some of the frontiers in research, some of the areas that are requiring fundamental 

research, and other areas that depend on good applied research. I've already mentioned the initiative for an 

NCGMP. Geologic mapping is a fundamental research 

tool; it's part of what you need to do in terms of research 

to figure out where industrial minerals are and what the 

grades of different advanced-material commodities are. 

There are several areas of future research to assist geologic 

mapping. M.P. Foose mentioned the avarice data that are 

acquired from remote sensing. New advances are being 

made in remote sensing that give us opportunities to do 

lithologic (rock type) mapping, actually locating individual 

mineral and chemical constituents of the rocks. Classic 

geologic mapping goes out and maps formations, not necessarily what the rock types are. What industry really 

needs, especially in the industrial-mineral area, is this 

rock-type mapping. 

New analytical techniques are breaking ground 

with regard to mineral-resource assessment. Certainly, 

the universities are well tied into that research. Geophysical techniques can provide a better way of estimating the thicknesses of overburden and what the water 

situation is likely to be as we get deeper into the pits. 

We have to be able to assess deeply buried resources, 

ground-water quality, and the effects of pumping that 

water as we develop deeper deposits. Borehole analysis 

is an area of geophysics in which a considerable amount 

of research can certainly add to new advances in the industrial-minerals area. Materials handling is an area 

where research is going forward and needs to continue. 

Automation and robotics, certainly as applied to underground mining, are hot areas that link computer-science 

specialists with the mining folks. G.R. Hyde mentioned 

in place borehole (solution) mining, an area of research 

in which the universities have been heavily involved for 

some time with the USBM. Reclamation is another 

timely area of research. 

Conclusions 

I'd like to conclude by just showing why we're all 

doing this and getting back to the fundamentals. The impressive productivity of Nevada's mines for about the past 

12 years is shown in figure 33. In 1989, the average 

Nevada miner produced about $176,000 worth of mine 

products. Folks in industry might want to go back and take 

a look at their own operations and figure out where they 

fit on this curve and whether or not their company is producing that much. It's been impressive that we in Nevada 

have been able to stay well above inflation, such that productivity has increased significantly in real terms within 

the past few years. The reason for these increases is 

largely greater efficiency, because in addition to good 

people working for you, you're using new technology. 

You're picking up technology that's being developed by 

the industry, by the universities, and by the State and Federal laboratories, and you're applying it out in the field. 

The only way we can stay competitive is to keep our productivity high, and productivity is the reason why we're in 

the research business. 

0:: 

w 

~ 160 0:: 

zO -s >-' t:ffi >0... 120 f=(f.) 

uc:: 

:::><( o....J o_J 

0::0 c...O 

wu. 80 t:Jo 

<((/.) 

c::O 

wz 

~;;; :::> 40 

0 

I 

f1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 

YEAR 

Figure 33. Value of annual production per mine worker in 

Nevada (exclusive of petroleum and geothermal energy). 

Expanding Industrial-Mineral Opportunities in the Basin and Range Region 81 
Participants' Discussion and Comments 

• I've wondered about the advisability of using 

some of the high-technology minerals like neodymium, for 

which there are only so many tons of material that exist in 

recoverable deposits. Is it practical to use it in lowtechnology applications, like a nonessential part for a car? 

Is there any reason for a national direction on strategic and 

critical uses of some of these materials for which uses are 

inverse to their small supply? Shouldn't some things be 

reserved for high-technology medical or strategic uses 

rather than put into consumer goods? 

Reply by ]. G. Price: That may be true for some 

commodities. We're talking about the whole periodic 

table, and some materials, as far as we know, exist only in 

small quantities. I don't think there's much of a problem 

with neodymium because, fortunately, there are many deposits around this country and elsewhere (China, for example) that we can tap. Your point may be more appropriate 

for elements like scandium and some of the much less 

common materials. 

• Those who want to develop a national mapping 

program can refer to the one State that the USGS did a 

few years ago. I think it was Kentucky, and they made a 

complete coverage at 7Y2-minute scale. Where are funds 

going to come from to mount a campaign even approaching that type of coverage for the rest of the United States? 

Reply by M.P. Foose: Mapping is a fundamental 

task that the USGS should be and wants to be engaged in, 

and it's trying to do the best it can with current dollar and 

staff resources. We're like most other government agencies, right now, that are in a very tight financial situation. I 

venture to guess that it's not going to improve soon. The 

number-one Federal issue is the deficit. We're not going to 

see many major new funding proposals go forward. The 

USGS is not, in effect, the master of its own destiny in 

many respects. We can't just go out and do whatever we 

want with the funds that we have; those funds come with 

strings attached. Thus, we can't increase our mapping activity unilaterally; those funds have to be justified and 

made available, and we can't make them available to ourselves. That's a Congressional action, so, ultimately, it 

comes down to the fact that the people of the United 

States, the user community, the constituents who want that 

specific product done must go to their elected officials and 

say, in effect, "I'm an important constituent; this is an important task that the Federal Government should be engaged in, and I want you to look after my interests." The 

public should be doing that at all levels. Without that type 

of input, little will happen. In my personal opinion, industry hasn't provided that input at the Federal level to the 

degree that it should. But without that type of input, the 

decisionmaking processes in Washington go on but don't 

reflect the concerns of industry and the needs for the mapping that industry wants. In effect, I'm hitting the ball 

back in~o the public's court-maybe not just industry but 

whoever else feels the need for geologic mapping. 

Comment by ].G. Price: The mapping initiative actually has a fairly strong momentum at this point. Legislation will be drafted, possibly this summer, that will get 

sponsorship from key Senators and Representatives. Once 

that's in place, we in the State geological surveys will get 

the word out to the folks in industry, to the environmental 

organizations that are also concerned with mapping efforts, 

and to the general public. We'll ask those people to show 

their support for the initiative to their own congressional 

delegations. 

The funding that you asked about will come from 

the initiative-in other words, the initiative will call for 

new moneys to be appropriated to the USGS and DOl. It 

will call for matching moneys coming from the States. Exactly how that gets worded in the end will be decided by 

the congressional delegations, but essentially we'll start off 

with a proposal that will initiate authorization legislation 

to create the program. Once that legislation is passed, there 

will follow appropriation legislat~on, so there'll be two 

pushes to try to move the legislation through the Congress 

and Executive Branch successfully. A draft of the legislation is being discussed among the USGS and State geologists. Ultimately, the money has to come out of the 

Federal budget and the budgets of the States. You can take 

the point that, when you have all the other pressing social 

needs within this country, is it likely that we'll be able to 

increase money for geologic mapping? It's likely that we 

can increase money for such mapping if we can demonstrate to the Congress that, in fact, it's a major issue, as 

important as some other current social issues. There's a 

big pie called the Federal budget. There's never been a 

Congress that's had more money than programs on which 

to spend it. The situation now is no different from what it 

was 100 years ago: It's a matter of setting priorities and 

deciding what's most important. We think, for various reasons, that the NCGMP initiative is important and will be 

able to fly. 

• I'm a little unclear about the relationship between 

the USGS and the State geological surveys, particularly 

with regard to industrial minerals. Mapping is one thing, 

but how do you perceive it will operate? The States have 

always had the lead in industrial minerals. What's the plan 

for cooperation between the several State agencies and the 

USGS? 

Reply by M.P. Foose: With regard to industrial 

minerals, the USGS is feeling its way as it tries to 

strengthen its program efforts in that direction. I think 

most of the specific work on industrial minerals that's 

done is probably most appropriately done at the State and 

local levels. The State geological surveys have a strong 

role to play in accomplishing the specific work that needs 

82 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
to be done. We've established a field center in Reno, Nev., 

to strengthen the direct interactions between USGS and 

NBMG activities. In the past, most of that work has been 

focused on metallic-mineral commodities, because that's 

where the USGS' traditional interests have been. As we 

strengthen our activities with regard to industrial minerals, 

I'd anticipate that the field center will become the arena of 

exchange of program priorities where we can transfer and 

test some of the concepts and regional and national research results which have been done by the USGS, 

whether it's remote sensing, ore-deposit models, or new 

geophysical tools, to assist the States in their more specific 

mapping activities of looking at the distribution and resources of particular deposits. 

The USGS began to evaluate what it could do in the 

industrial-minerals area, and the industrial-mineralsworkshop concept was adopted to examine the needs in 

this program area. In 1988, the first industrial-minerals 

workshop was held in Tempe, Ariz., sponsored by the 

AZGS and the USGS. In 1989, the second workshop at 

Marina Del R~y, Calif., was sponsored by the DMG and 

the USGS. Now, we're a part of the third workshop sponsored by the State geological surveys of Nevada, Idaho, 

Utah, the USBM, and the USGS. These workshops are another attempt to bring the State geological surveys, the industry, and the other parts of the resource constituency 

together and, in the process, begin to develop a wider program concern for industrial minerals. 

Reply by ].G. Price: Some examples can be given 

to show how the USGS and NBMG have interacted, including the provision of some State-appropriated moneys 

for cooperative work with the USGS. The source of these 

funds is in a piece of legislation that's been passed by the 

Nevada Legislature every 2 years and, we hope, will be 

continued. I made a list recently, when the Chief Geologist of the USGS came through Reno, of all the cooperative programs that we currently have with the USGS; it 

amounted to about 20 different projects. The industrialminerals area is one in which we can use some of those 

funds for cooperation with the USGS. The local USGS 

field office in Reno has centerpiece projects; they pick a 

particular area to focus on and use that as the main field 

center's research project for several years. Right now, 

they're working on the second year of a 2-year project 

looking at Jurassic-Triassic mineralization in western 

Nevada and eastern California. NBMG scientists are 

working cooperatively on that project. As it winds down, 

they'll start up a new project that may be for 2 years or 

longer. The USGS has asked for our input, and one area 

where we've given it is the potential for industrial minerals, specifically aggregate materials around the expanding metropolitan areas in Nevada (see cover). Another 

area of cooperation we're trying to develop is a better 

relationship and funding base, so we can address the 

issue of upgrading the USGS' computer system for mineral resources (MRDS). This system contains several 

thousand records for the State of Nevada, many of which 

have never been thoroughly checked in the field and 

which also need to be looked at in more detail. We've 

proposed to the USGS to evaluate those records, specifically to upgrade those needing it and to make the system 

more usable for the State of Nevada. This data base will 

include the industrial minerals. 

Moderator's comment: Because each of the panelists is a public servant, you each might comment briefly 

on the best mechanism for the public to get help from or 

interact with your staff. 

Reply by G.R. Hyde: The USBM encourages direct 

communication with its staff. The first important step is 

to pick up the telephone and find a knowledgeable staff 

person. The USBM would also appreciate your keeping 

us in the technical loop. We'd like information from the 

public, so when we're at meetings holding discussions 

about issues that the USBM or USGS can help you with, 

keep us informed. If you're having a meeting at which 

we might provide or derive insights, call us and let us 

know what you're trying to do; we might be able to send 

someone to visit and at least listen to what's going on. It 

was interesting yesterday to hear discussions with some 

of the environmental planners, people who have to take 

a problem and bring it into reality and build a system 

that will work. We also need input from them regarding 

mineral and mining technology. So, keep the communication loop open both ways- asking for help and offering your information, advice, and expertise. 

Reply by M.P. Foose: The USGS also encourages 

direct communication. I'm always amazed at the effort that 

the Government makes to answer any request that comes 

in. We can get a letter from someone in Iowa saying that 

he has a great cobalt deposit in his backyard; somebody 

came along and said that his rock ledge has cobalt in it. 

That letter will come in to our Director, and somebody's 

going to spend a significant amount of time drafting a 

reply. We'll spend that amount of time for that type of 

letter; however, we'll spend a lot more time when somebody comes to us with a serious professional query. In the 

Basin and Range, in particular, we've targeted the information area as one in which we'd like to increase our activity. We've established field centers in Tucson, Ariz., 

Reno, Nev., and Spokane, Wash., as local offices where a 

taxpayer can come in for information or advice. The centerpiece projects in those areas increase our visibility and 

our interaction with the State geological surveys and the 

mining industry. I'd ask you to direct inquiries to those 

field centers in our Western region. You can also talk to 

Bill Bagby, chief of the Branch of Western Mineral Resources, headquartered in Menlo Park, Calif. Call these 

people, talk to the geologists, and I'm sure you'll get a 

Expanding Industrial-Mineral Opportunities in the Basin and Range Region 83 
response. If you don't, keep talking, or go higher in the 

system. In my experience, it seems to work. 

Reply by ].G. Price: In the NBMG we're all information resources, and each one of us in a State geological 

survey has the function to serve the public. The NBMG 

has three geologic-information specialists whose primary 

job is to answer questions from the public. If those persons 

can't answer the questions or point out the NBMG's and 

others' publications (including journal articles) that might 

contain the answer, we'll then refer them to one of our 

other staff experts. If an industrial-minerals question 

comes up that can't be answered by our frontline folks, we 

bounce it over to Steve Castor. If he can't answer the 

question, we go look for Keith Papke, our emeritus staffer 

and long-time industrial-minerals specialist. Direct communication is a major part of what we do. As the director 

of the NBMG, I can assure you that's taken into consideration when it comes around to annual reviews and merit 

raises. We look at what people do in terms of interaction 

with the public, as well as scientific productivity (in-house 

and outside). It's part of what we seriously consider to be 

our jobs. 

New-Market Development: 

How It Has Been Done 

R.C. Bradt, Moderator 

We now consider examples of how some creative 

parts of the industrial-minerals industry are helping themselves to overcome difficulties and move forward in the 

days ahead, by developing new markets for their products 

and by joining in coalitions to foster PR activities that will 

be beneficial to the industry. Two examples of the development of new markets for industrial-mineral materials 

follow. First, Tom Parsonage, director of sales and marketing for the Beryllium Mining Division, will tell about 

Brush Wellman, Inc.'s efforts to expand the market for 

86 percent, 

21st century 

beryllium, a high-unit-value material. We recognize that 

beryllium is a metal, by definition, but its uses are primarily as an industrial mineral; in fact, beryllium and Brush 

Wellman, Inc., are included in the Industrial Minerals Directory (1987, p. 520). Next, Donald Seehusen, president 

of Idaho Quartzite Corp., will demonstrate what's been 

done with quartzite, a low-unit-value material, to expand 

its market. 

Developing New Markets for Beryllium, 

a High-Value Specialty Material 

By T.B. Parsonage 

Brush Wellman has been active in developing new 

markets for beryllium, a relatively high price material 

used principally in applications that require its light 

weight, high strength, and high thermal conductivity. 

This unusual metal is one-third lighter than aluminum, 

yet it's six times stiffer than steel on a weight-for-weight 

basis. Beryllium is used as an alloy and metal in aerospace and defense applications, as an alloy and oxide in 

electrical and electronic components, and as alloy, metal, 

and oxide in other applications. 

Brush Wellman is an R&D-based firm with special 

expertise in extractive metallurgy, is publicly owned, and 

is headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio. It's the world's only 

fully integrated supplier of engineered beryllium materials, 

which include metallic beryllium, beryllium alloys, and 

beryllia ceramics. Annual sales amount to about $350 million; most sales are for commercial applications, and the 

rest are for defense applications. Brush Wellman has a 

strong base in Utah; its primary source of beryllium ore, 

bertrandite, is from their Spor Mountain mine at the edge 

of the Thomas Range and Great Salt Lake desert in western Utah. On average, each ton of ore contains 4 lb of 

beryllium. Proven ore reserves will assure an adequate 

supply of beryllium at least through the first half of the 

21st century (fig. 34). 

7 percent, 

--r- past 18 years 

7 percent, 

next 1 0 years 

Figure 34. Consumption of Brush Wellman, Inc., reserves of beryllium ore. 

84 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
A concentrate of beryllium hydroxide, which is extracted from the ore at the mill in Delta, Utah (fig. 35), is 

the feedstock for all of Brush Wellman's beryllium products. New R&D technology is being applied at the Delta 

mill as part of an expansion and modernization program. 

The program objectives are to reduce waste and to provide 

added protection for the environment. The beryllium hydroxide concentrate is shipped to a complex of plants at 

Elmore in northwestern Ohio, where the material is processed into metallic beryllium, beryllium alloys, and beryllium oxide powders, the starting materials for beryllia 

ceramics. Beryllium can be purchased in different grades 

for specific applications as block, bar, sheet, plate, and foil 

forms. 

Special Properties of Beryllium 

Beryllium has a unique combination of mechanical 

and thermal properties. In addition to being lighter than 

aluminum, beryllium metal has a high resistance to deflection under heavy loads. It absorbs heat better than any 

other metal, is the best thermal conductor, and has a high 

thermal diffusivity (that is, high dimensional stability 

when exposed to extremes of cold and heat). Because of 

these desirable properties, the largest market of beryllium 

has been for strategic and spaceborne applications, such as 

load-bearing structures for satellites and other spacecraft, 

components for inertial-guidance systems, mirrors, and optical benches for space telescopes. 

Although beryllium is an expensive engineering material, the weight savings provide an enormous payback in 

spaceborne systems. For every kilogram of weight saved, 

launch costs are reduced by from $9,000 to $20,000. An 

all-beryllium optical-tracking system weighs only about 

one-sixth as much as a comparable all-aluminum system. 

Because of the low inertia of its active beryllium components, which includes the mirror, it acquires targets faster; 

and because of its stiffness and dimensional-stability characteristics, the s ys tern tracks targets more accurate! y. 

Weight savings are important also for airborne systems. 

Payloads of beryllium instruments, for example, which 

weigh as much as 7 times less than those constructed from 

conventional materials, enable additions to the payload or 

fuel supplies. 

Figure 35. Brush Wellman, Inc.'s ore-concentration facility at Delta, Utah. Beryllium hydrox ide concentrate is 

produced and sent to the Elmore, Ohio, fabrication facility, where metallic beryllium, beryllium alloys, and 

beryllium oxide powders for beryllia ceramics are produced. Photograph courtesy of Brush Wellman, Inc. 

Expanding Industrial-Mineral Opportunities in the Basin and Range Region 85 
New-Market-Development Problems 

Getting a foothold in the tactical optical-systems 

market wasn't easy. In our traditional markets, materials 

selection is performance driven: Designers select the 

best material for the job, regardless of the cost. In the 

tactical optical-systems market, however, materials selection becomes cost driven: Designers may have to. select a lower-cost material than beryllium, even if this 

means paying a penalty in terms of reduced system 

performance. 

Brush Wellman's market research for tactical optical-system materials discovered that designers were considering various alternative materials. In the case of 

structural applications, such as targeting pods, the competition came from aluminum, graphite-epoxy composites, silicon carbide-aluminum metal-matrix composites, and 

titanium. In the case of mirror applications, the competitors were aluminum, fused silica and other glasslike materials, fused silicon carbide-a ceramic-and silicon 

carbide-aluminum metal-matrix composites. None of these 

materials enhances performance as much as beryllium, but 

they were all lower in cost. A new family of engineering 

materials, metal-matrix composites-such as aluminum 

stiffened with silicon carbide particles-were being promoted as alternatives to beryllium and were acceptable in 

performance for some applications. They also were very 

cost competitive with beryllium. 

Faced with the possibility of being priced out of an 

attractive new market, the R&D staff was challenged to 

find a new, more efficient process to make beryllium components more cost competitive and to increase optical 

market-performance characteristics. The staff was successful in perfecting a new technology, hot isostatic pressing, 

for forming beryllium components to near-net shape directly 

from beryllium powders in a single step (fig. 36). When a 

customer needs a component, he sends a drawing of that 

component. Traditionally, we'd cut a block of beryllium 

from a billet and rough-machine it into a blank that matched 

the component shape; the customer would then machine it 

for the finished product. This method is inefficient in both 

time and personnel, and the cost is high. In contrast, the 

new system reduces the cost of beryllium optical components by 25 percent or more, making beryllium cost competitive with other high-performance engineering materials; 

the near-net-shape processing technology results also in improved material properties (table 13). We can produce complex components directly by this process, forming structures 

that don't require machining, resulting in reduction of production costs. The material properties are stronger because 

the powder is compacted isostatically and properties are 

uniform in all directions, resulting in superior dimensional 

stability. In addition, the R&D staff has developed a new 

mirror material that's easier to polish than previous materials; it also has reduced optical scatter and thus provides 

sharper images, higher reflectivity, and brighter images with 

Figure 36. Complex precision-formed components like this generic lightweighted beryllium 

mirror blank can be made almost directly by the hot-isostatic-pressing process and do not 

require machining. Photograph courtesy of Brush Wellman, Inc. 

86 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
Table 13. Typical material properties of lightweighted beryllium mirror 

Materia I property 

Ultimate strength (103 lb/in2) ------

Yield strength (103 lb/in2) ----------

Elongation (percent) ----------------

Grain size (~.tm) ----------------------

Variation in coefficient of ---------

thermal expansion in two 

directions (ppb;oF). 

Density (percent of theoretical) ---

Direct hot 

isostatic pressed 

49.5 

31.3 

4.4 

12.1 

10.1 

99.9 

Vacuum 

hot pressed 

35.0 

25.0 

2.0 

20.0 

100.0 

99.3 

sharper focus. They've also developed new structural materials from beryllium. 

A new process, cold isostatic pressing, also has been 

developed. It has the advantage that blanks can be formed 

very close to net shape, reducing machining to a minimum 

and leading to high-volume production. Materials produced in this way cost 35 percent less than through making beryllium blanks by conventional technologies. The 

materials are now cost competitive with blanks made from 

competing materials, and their optical performance is 

better. 

Conclusions 

As the preceding examples show, !idvanced processing technologies have had a tremendous effect on Brush 

Wellman. We've been able to penetrate new markets and 

qualify beryllium for a broader range of applications in 

traditional markets. We've also been able to develop new, 

higher-performance materials to satisfy special customer 

needs. Looking ahead, the R&D staff are developing entirely new beryllium-based materials, such as lightweight, 

stiff foams of beryllide intermetallic compounds for hightemperature applications. We see many new market opportunities in the electronics business. Our strategy for 

entering these new emerging markets is simple: Continue 

to develop new, more efficient processes and new, higher 

performance engineered materials. Our policy is to offer 

the right materials for new applications at the right time 

and at the right price. 

New-Product Development From Low-Value Material by 

the Idaho Quartzite Corporation 

By Don Seehusen 

Idaho is known throughout the world. Last year in 

Japan, I explained that I was from Idaho. A Japanese 

man said, "Ah, famous potatoes." I guess we're well 

known for our potatoes; it's on our license plates. Actually, Idaho is the gem State, but we also have one of the 

more interesting and, possibly, more mundane materials, 

quartzite; it's a down-to-earth material that you walk on, 

and it comes in many different colors. However, this 

low-unit-value material wasn't always the highly desirable architectural material it is today. Basically, I'll describe a case history of how quartzite materials were 

made extremely useful for the building trades and how 

they're marketed. 

Origin of the Idaho Quartzite Corporation 

We started our quartzite business in 1973. Quartzite 

had been sold for many years as a bulk-stone product extracted from the ground in a flagstone form. We began by 

trying new marketing techniques with a stone product that 

had been used for years and years. Stone is one of the 

oldest building materials, if not the oldest building material, in various parts of the world. We've developed numerous new products made from quartzite: tiles, bulk 

flagstones (which were the traditional material), stone wall 

blocks, and rock-cast walls. Rock-cast walls represent a 

technique that we developed during the early 1970's in 

what is now known as Silicon Valley, Calif. I was in the 

construction business, involved in tiltup constructed buildings. It turned out that quartzite was an excellent material 

for casting architecturally into the face of industrial-building tiltup wall panels. For those of you who're familiar 

with buildings in that area, all of the stone-faced buildings 

in northern California were done with quartzite from Idaho 

and Nevada. We obtained a patent on that process and 

started using so much quartzite materials that we went to 

Idaho and obtained a quarry. Thereby, we got into the 

stone business through the back door. 

We were fortunate to have obtained a beautiful 

deposit of quartzite (see cover). In fact, quartzite is probably the hardest building material produced commercially in the world today. We have four different 

colors- gray, gold, light green, and white, a new color 

that we're just starting to produce in southern Idaho. We 

also have a couple of quarries near the Idaho-Utah State 

line. Our materials are exported to Europe and Japan; I 

even have a distributorship in Fiji, of all places, where 

they're using quartzite as a paving material. We import 

some quartzite materials from other deposits in the 

world. There's a black variety- mesquite charcoal- that 

comes from the middle of Sweden; a similar deposit extends into Norway. We bring in quartzite material from 

China- a unique mauve variety called Mandarin mauve; 

all of the sidewalks in downtown Reno, Nev., are partly 

made of Mandarin mauve quartzite. We also have a 

light-gray quartzite imported from South Africa, and 

we're researching Russian quartzite. 

Expanding Industrial-Mineral Opportunities in the Basin and Range Region 87 
New-Product Development 

We made a video about the company that shows 

how we've marketed our products. This tape was made 

primarily for architects, for a couple of reasons: (1) A lot 

of people can't see our quarries, and (2) it shows how 

quartzite has been used effectively. Descriptions of a few 

of the quartzite products shown have been abstracted from 

the tape. The following information shows how remarkably adaptable Idaho quartzite is in many situations. 

The Idaho Quartzite Corp. owns and operates four 

quarries in Idaho. Our geologist has determined that these 

quarries contain more than a thousand-years' supply of 

gold, gray, light-green, and white premium-quality quartzite. The unusualness of these deposits is that the quartzite 

is layered about every 'lSths of an inch; these layers are 

separated by mica planes that formed as the rock was 

metamorphosed. Quarriers unearth large stone slabs and 

then split them into the thinnest sheets possible by carefully chiseling along the mica planes until the stone breaks 

apart (see cover). This naturally rough face is similar in 

texture to that of a flame-treated granite. The coefficient of 

friction is 7, which rates in the highest nonskid category. 

Idaho quartzite's bending strength has been tested to 3,000 

lb/in2

, which is twice that of most granites. 

When the quarrier has finished the splitting process, 

the pieces are sorted for thickness, quality, and color 

dominance. The sorted and crated materials are then 

shipped as flagstone or sent to our plant to be cut into 

tiles. At our plant, the stone is again sorted for size, thickness, and color; the material is then cut with diamond saws 

specially designed for this purpose. Because Idaho quartzite rates 8.5 on the Mohs hardness scale, it must be cut 

with diamond saws, the only material that's harder; quartzite is significantly harder than granite. Each piece of stone 

is precision cut and checked for squareness. Metric measurements are used not only for accurate workmanship but 

also because it's preferred in the industry, especially overseas. The tiles are cut into nominal 8- by 8-in. pieces that 

are actually 195 by 195 mm. A high percentage of our tile 

is produced in 8- and 12-in. sizes; pieces as large as 24 by 

24 in. are also available. In addition, bulk flagstone is 

stocked, and the company has a reliable network of domestic and foreign sources from which other types of rock 

materials are obtainable. 

Idaho quartzite can be laid like any standard tile, either by mortar setting or in a medium-bed application. 

Pieces are standard width by random lengths. Completed 

projects are scattered around the world as confirmation 

that quartzite is valued for many types of applications. The 

largest quartzite project in the United States, and one of 

the largest in the world, was recently completed in Reno, 

Nev., which was 175,000 ft2 in area. To minimize field 

cutting on a project of this size, the architect chose to use 

a random modular pattern composed of pieces of stone in 

sizes 6 by 12, 12 by 12, and 12 by 18 in. within a 10- by 

10-ft control joint. Any combination of these sizes fits 

within the pattern without requiring cutting. Idaho 

quartzite's compressive strength is more than 30,000 

lb/in2

, and in Reno, fire trucks and automobiles run over 

the tiles with no adverse effect on the stone. 

. Another excellent example of Idaho quartzite's usefulness is on the floor of the lobby of a mass transit station 

of the Miami, Fla., Metro system. Thousands of people 

cross this floor daily. Idaho quartzite is a heavy-traffic material; it can be used indoors and outdoors in any climate. 

Idaho quartzite is used effectively on stairs and as patio 

flagstones, and because it's so hard, it's recognized as an 

ideal material for golf-course clubhouses; golf cleats won't 

damage this stone. Because of Idaho quartzite's unique 

color, economy, and superior performance, it's used in the 

Tropics, where slip hazards are of concern. Black algae 

grows on most absorbent materials in warm climates and 

becomes slick when it rains. Because quartzite's absorbance rate is only 0.2 percent, it won't support the growth 

of algae and thus remains highly slip resistant. Finally, 

Idaho quartzite is inert and harder than sand, so the beauty 

of quartzite's surface cannot be destroyed by tracked-in 

beach sand. Quartzite is cooler on bare feet than concrete 

under the tropical sun. 

Brick-shaped builders are another product available 

from our quarries; they're used to make rugged dimensional walls. A stone wall block is a simple idea of taking 

an 8- by 16-in. piece of quartzite and gluing it onto a concrete block, so that it can be laid up in one shot out in the 

field, where labor is expensive. By doing it in this way, 

making the block in the factory and installing it in the 

field, we save about a third of the cost of a stone wall; it 

also makes a beautiful wall. Office builders use our builders as a main architectural feature because they're maintenance free. 

Video presentations are shown quite often to architectural groups. Not many people want to drive all the way 

up to the middle of Idaho and out to our quarry areas to 

take a look, so it's better to bring the quarry to them and 

make a positive presentation with the whole package together, rather than doing it piecemeal. 

Marketing Strategies 

How do we market a new product of low value like 

this? We, first of all, find a need, and then we fil1 it. We 

started off trying to sell the product in various ways. We 

looked at other products of similar nature. How were they 

sold? Mostly, in the old days, bulk stone was sold through 

stone yards. If you wanted to build a little barbecue out in 

the back yard, you'd go down and buy some brick or stone 

and some sand and cement from a local building-materials 

88 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
supplier. By chance, he might have some quartzite sitting 

in the back comer of the yard, but he's not typically an 

aggressive salesperson. 

We wanted to do something more than chance sales, 

so we got into the marketing of stone through distributors, 

but many of the people that we tried to set up as distributors said, "Well, we've never heard of this product before. 

We don't know how its going to sell, so we don't want to 

stock any of it." Mter going through that scenario for a 

while, we decided that probably the best thing to do would 

be to sell our product to architectural firms, project by 

project, and Reno represented the last rather large project 

that we sold directly in that way. That process becomes 

self-defeating because you have only a few people trying 

to sell across the Nation and around the world. It's a difficult to sell a product project by project. 

Next, we decided to expand our operation from two 

to three salespersons to a whole series of distributors. 

About a year and a half ago, we took on a line of about 40 

distributors of ceramic-tile products. These fellows sold 

similar things (in marble and granite- mostly produced in 

Italy- as well as ceramic tiles) to architectural specialists; 

they went in and specified with architects. Now, our sales 

force is more than 100 persons, and the results are starting 

to show. We've also come up with the sample book of 

actual pieces of the tiles, which has helped considerably in 

letting architects see a sample to decide whether they want 

to try the material or not. 

Another interesting marketplace is overseas. Right 

now, we export about 25 percent of our product overseas, 

mostly to Europe and Japan, because the existing markets 

there for stone products are rather large. Here's a new 

product on the marketplace, or at least new colors, that 

they haven't seen before. 

We also transformed our material from a simple, 

low-value product into a value-added product by cutting 

the stone into various sizes and shapes for use in different 

applications. That's helped to give a wider appeal to the 

product and more business volume. One thing that we 

have to do yet is to gage the back of the stone- cut the 

back off so that the tile is uniformly thick and can be used 

in many applications where it can't right now. Marble and 

granite come out exactly 10 mm thick. We need to be able 

to do that, too, and it's expensive because our product is 

so hard, but we're looking into it. 

In marketing a product, you have to ask yourself, 

"Am I going to make a market or fill a market?" Making a 

market is more difficult to do. We started with a product 

that people didn't know, a specialty item. What we really 

want to do is make it a commodity that everyone knows 

and build a commodity-market position; then, we could fill 

a good part of that market. It's much harder if you have to 

make the market with a specialty product. Now, we're 

slowly making a specialty product into a commodity. 

As I mentioned before, we're also marketing by 

identifying new ways of using stone. Our patented rockcast process is one way. That product goes up and down 

with the interest rates, depending on where building is 

going on. We have one project on the drawing boards right 

now in Boise, Idaho. We licensed the rock-cast product 

out during the major recession of 1979 to 1982. Things 

slowed down, and we really haven't gotten back into promoting that product line as much as before because of 

other things going on now. 

The other way we market our product is to let 

people know what's been done. We advertise; our sample 

books are probably one of our more lasting advertisements. We put quite a bit of money into those books every 

year. Our distributors help with that and are passing out 

these books to architectural offices all over the world. 

We get into trade publications, also, as illustrated by 

the story about Reno that appeared in one of the stone-tile 

trade magazines. That article was helpful in giving credibility to our product. Magazine articles are great. Sometimes, we happen to sponsor the writing of a particular 

article, and the magazines use it verbatim because they 

want it. Magazines are lazy and would rather take something for nothing and put it in their magazine. The residual 

value of something like that is also great. Therefore, if you 

want to market a product or tell something about it, write 

the story for them. The publishers may modify it a bit, but 

they'll usually publish it sooner or later. The result is that 

you can hand out reprints for years later. 

The other thing we've done recently is a video, 

which has been helpful to our distributors because of the 

technical product information in it. We've extended this 

tape and added a lot of question-and-answer sessions taken 

at a distributor meeting. When you have 100 people selling for you on a regular basis, you have to educate them 

equally; we felt that the video was an excellent way to 

accomplish this. We also give talks around the country, 

like this one today. I was at a trade conference the other 

day talking about the European Economic Community. We 

do this on a regular basis; it helps a lot for people to know 

about our products. 

Concluding Comments 

In 1973, when we first started, people were saying, 

"What's quartzite?" Then, about 5 years ago, they were 

saying, "Gosh, what a beautiful product; where has this 

been?" Now, architects are saying, "We're going to use 

either quartzite or granite." So, we've come a long way. 

There's a big community out there to which we sell-the 

architectural community- and it's a big educational process that really helps our sales. Education is teaching 

people about something that they may know nothing 

about. So, you now know something about quartzite. 

Expanding Industrial-Mineral Opportunities in the Basin and Range Region 89 
Participants' Discussion and Comments 

• I happen to be from Reno, Nev., and I agree that 

the quartzite downtown is beautiful. However, they've had 

some trouble cleaning it. Were you aware of that? 

Reply: I was there about 10 minutes after a lady 

dropped some nail polish on it. That doesn't help any! 

With 6,000 people an hour going across those sidewalks, 

the city needs to do a regular maintenance program, and 

Reno, as I understand it, hasn't done that; it hasn't spent 

the money to keep up its sidewalks. All materials, even 

concrete, have to be maintained. Reno is an interesting 

town; it has some of the worst conditions in the United 

States as far as climate is concerned. When we were laying stone down one morning, the guys started out in Tshirts, by noontime they had their jackets on, and by 3 

p.m. there was a foot of snow on the ground. You can 

have as many as three or four freeze-thaw cycles in one 

day, which, on most materials, would be very difficult. 

Let me interject another item here. I happen to sit on 

the board of directors of the Marble Institute of America. 

This name is a misnomer because it's really the dimensional-stone institute of America. Our official title hasn't 

changed since 1944, when the organization was founded. 

The United States is sound asleep right now in the dimensional-stone marketplace. We're importing huge amounts 

of material from Italy-granite, marble, tiles, and slabs. I 

noted last night, while checking in, that the registration 

counter of this hotel is made out of Swedish Balmoral MG 

granite-right here in Salt Lake City. Why don't we have 

an industry producing marble and granite in this country? 

The answer is that we're sound asleep, and other countries 

are outpacing us. As a group from industry addressing a 

group in government, one thing we need to do is help 

identify deposits of marble and granite in the United 

States. Only the Cold Springs Granite Co. has done this; 

they have a virtual monopoly on domestically produced 

granites. The marble- and granite-tile business is growing 

by leaps and bounds with available new technology to produce granite and marble tiles at very low prices. We, the 

dimensional-stone industry in the United States, really 

haven't taken up the challenge. It's business as usualmom-and-pop shops, primarily, and smaller contractors. 

Everyone is buying from Italy. I was in Mexico the other 

day. They have some very beautiful marbles-15 types, to 

be exact-that are absolutely gorgeous. The reason they 

haven't been used as widely as they could be is that the 

technology of cutting and polishing those marbles hasn't 

been developed to where it needs to be. The Mexicans are 

coming on fast with Italian equipment to produce marble 

and granite at $3 to $4 per square foot (distributor price). I 

think it would behoove us as a group to recognize that the 

dimensional-stone business is growing rapidly. Marble 

usage has grown 684 percent in the past 7 years; granite 

usage has grown 2, 100 percent during this same timespan. 

Those statistics may be somewhat old now, but they indicate a very large growth trend. Ceramic tile is also coming 

on strong. All of these materials are coming from overseas. We're sitting here not identifying comparable materials that we have. We have marbles; we have granites; and 

we need to do more as a group to get our act together. We 

should be able to outproduce the Italians. Italian products 

are about a $3,000 container load away from this marketplace. If we could produce the material here at the same 

price as they're producing it at over there, we'd have a 

terrific competitive advantage. I think there are some 

things as an industry and government that we need to 

work on together to try to identify, and I know that from 

the industry side, there are many people who'd be willing 

to do that. It's very capital intensive to buy the new machines, to open quarries, and to stock materials in the 

quarries and open new marketplaces. There aren't that 

many people doing it yet, but, believe me, it's going to 

happen soon. 

• Dimension stone traditionally has been very 

labor intensive. Is that going to be a limiting factor for 

dimension-stone production? 

Reply: The answer is no. There are mechanized 

techniques. We've brought in a Swedish technique that we 

don't want to show anybody yet. It's very simple, but it's 

basically to drill, blast, and haul away to split all winter. 

What you see on the cover is a summer operation. It 

makes sense to leave all the waste, which isn't much, in 

the quarry, but it also makes equal sense to be able to 

work all year round with a steady force. Labor is the least 

limiting factor; the greatest limiting factor is the marketplace for our product. The production process is pretty 

straightforward. 

Industrial-Mineral Opportunities Derived from 

an Effective Public-Relations Effort 

Finally, in this session, we consider how to best get 

across the message about the importance of mineralresource development. Without widespread public backing 

that can be developed through education, the industry will 

be severely handicapped or eliminated from the local 

scene. John Marz of Dunn-Draper-Glen-Marz, a PR firm 

in Las Vegas, will describe a recent project undertaken by 

them for the NMA. 

Public Education Through Public-Relations Expertise and 

Communications Technology 

By john Marz 

It's always good to address a group of people who, I 

think, need the type of services that our company provides. 

90 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
I'm not here to sell you anything, but I hope you'll gain a 

better understanding of some of the situations in which 

you may find yourselves and some of the things you can 

do to deal with those situations. I'm going to focus my 

remarks on our recent experiences in Nevada and give you 

some background about some of the things that we did. As 

you may or may not know, the mining industry of Nevada 

faced some monumental challenges from the legislature 

during the past year. The legislature wanted to take some 

of the protections on the taxing of mining out of the constitution, which the mining industries in the State have operated under; it wanted to redirect the way mining in 

Nevada was going to be taxed. The NMA and some of the 

mine operators in the State accepted the task that needed 

to be faced. How could they tell people about the mining 

industry in Nevada and stop the plan to amend the constitutional provision regarding mining taxes? 

You may not think PR and advertising go hand in 

hand with the mining industry, but I'm going to show you 

how they do. People in the mining industry had two 

options. It doesn't make any difference what you're mining, whether it's precious metals or industrial minerals, 

and it doesn't matter what your product is. When it comes 

to meeting the public, you can either (1) direct your own 

PR and have the story go out the way you want it to, or 

(2) sit back and rely on other people to tell your story for 

you. If you sit back and rely on someone else to tell your 

story, you're taking a big risk, because you don't know 

how that story is going to come out. You don't know what 

other people are going to say about you, and you'll find 

that it doesn't take a large group to start formulating public opinion. It can be done with three environmentalists 

who don't like you digging up the earth; if they're vocal 

enough, they can cause you lots of problems. Or it can 

start with a bunch of hunters who don't like cyanide in 

ponds, which kills ducks; then, all of a sudden, you have 

headlines on the front pages of newspapers saying that 

miners are killing the wildlife. The ability to tell your 

story is now out of your hands and in someone else's 

hands. Once you lose that type of control, PR becomes 

difficult, so, as I go through what I call a little scenario in 

Nevada, I hope you can look at your own positions and 

maybe draw some parallels. More important, I hope our 

experience will give you encouragement that you can put 

your case before the public. 

Objectives of a Public-Relations Plan 

The first thing you need to do when it comes to PR 

is identify your goals. What do you want a PR plan to do 

for you or your industry? What's the end result? Next, you 

need to identify the people whom you need to influence. 

In Nevada, we identified four basic publics that we needed 

to talk to, and we identified them in terms or degrees of 

importance. First, we had the general public who knew absolutely nothing about mining in Nevada. Second, we had 

what we considered opinion leaders- influential business 

people in the State who were highly vocal, who had high 

profiles. Third, we had the legislators- they were a target 

that we certainly needed to address. Finally, there was the 

press. We talked with people in each one of these groups 

in different ways. I'll show you some examples of the 

things we did. 

Before we began a PR plan, we decided that we 

needed to find out exactly what people in the State of 

Nevada knew, or didn't know, about mining. We hired a 

research firm and spent about $20,000 on this research. We 

polled 800 people in the State over the telephone and asked 

them specific questions about mining to find out what they 

did or didn't know. It was really amazing: The public knew 

virtually nothing about mining! They didn't know how mining affects the State; they didn't know how many people 

were employed in mining. What they thought was that mining is a bunch of people going out and digging holes and 

sinking shafts with shovels and mules. That's literally what 

we found, and you may wonder how anyone could think 

that these days. Well, it's very easy if you aren't in this 

industry. Most people just don't know, because 92 percent 

of the mining is done in rural Nevada. Mining doesn't affect the people in Reno or Las Vegas from a day-to-dayliving standpoint; it does affect people in such mining towns 

as Winnemucca, Elko, Wells, Tonopah, and Goldfield, but 

their populations are small. When we polled the people out 

there, they knew what the effect is, but nobody else did in 

the centers of the State's population. What you also need to 

understand in any situation is that the majority are going to 

make things happen when it comes to public opinion. The 

people whom we really needed to address were in Las Vegas and Reno; we needed to develop a campaign that would 

speak to those people. 

Next, we identified subjects that we needed to talk 

about and areas in mining that people didn't really understand. We broke these down into some basic issues. We 

wanted to talk about taxation, how mining in Nevada 

helped as far as tax income was concerned, what kind of 

contribution mining made to the tax base of Nevada. We 

wanted to talk about the overall economic factors for mining in the State, how many millions of dollars were poured 

into the State because of mining and how that affected the 

citizens of the State, whether they lived in rural Nevada or 

not. We wanted to talk about the social and economic effects of mining on the State of Nevada. There are many 

things which, once we started to dig into it, we found that 

mining companies were doing for the citizens of the State, 

which the citizens never even knew about. The mining 

companies just went about doing them anyway. Those 

were the basic areas that we wanted to cover in the PR 

and advertising program that we initiated. 

Expanding Industrial-Mineral Opportunities in the Basin and Range Region 91 
Operational Plan for Public Relations 

I'm going to show you some examples of the 

things that we did for the NMA, so you can get an idea 

of the PR messages that we sent out. I have to tell you 

that the two specific goals of this campaign were both 

very simple. First, we wanted to educate the citizens of 

the State on what mining does for Nevada; second, we 

wanted to persuade the public to pass a ballot question 

that aimed to raise mining's taxes in the State, but which 

would also protect the mining industry's position with 

regard to taxes already secured in the Nevada Constitution. Both of those goals were reached, through what I 

would consider one of the most aggressive PR and advertising projects ever launched on the public by any 

mining association or industry that I know of in the 

Western United States. First, I'm going to show you 

some TV spots we produced that talked about the areas 

which I just mentioned, addressing taxes, the economy, 

and social effects. 

Reaching the General Public 

The following are six examples of what was said in 

brief spot commercials on TV: 

( 1) "How does mining keep your taxes low? Well, in 

1987, mining paid over $40 million in taxes to Nevada and 

its counties. Those dollars helped pay for schools, parks, 

and public services that people depend on. Without 

mining's contribution, those tax dollars might have to 

come from you. It's simple, and simply another way that 

mining works for all of us." 

(2) "Mining has an effect on the environment. So do 

airports, ski resorts, and shopping malls. Mining's job is 

providing the natural resources we depend upon. In doing 

that job, the mining industry is doing more than it's ever 

done to protect and reclaim the land. Mining has an impact 

on the environment-no argument, no apology. Mining 

has a job to do, and it's working for us." 

(3) "This is State Senate Joint Resolution 22. What 

does it do? It raises the taxes that Nevada's mining industry is paying by 150 percent-from $40 million in 1987 to 

over $76 million in 1989. Mining supports SJR 22. It offers a stable and predictable tax rate. What does it mean to 

you? Stay tuned!" 

(4) "Mining gives jobs to 11,000 Nevadans. In some 

counties, mining employs one out of every two people. 

Those mining jobs create another 14,000 jobs and another 

14,000 paychecks, which pay for goods and services that 

other Nevadans provide. It's simple, and simply another 

way of saying that when mining works, so do a lot of 

people who don't work in mining." 

(5) "I've told you about SJR 22, which raises the 

taxes on Nevada's mining industry by 150 percent. Should 

you care about that? Only if you care about better schools, 

improving our highways, building more parks, and helping 

people. SJR 22 would help and provide one more public 

service. It's called helping to keep your taxes from going 

up." 

(6) "Is mining a people business? It is to the families 

of 11,000 people who work in Nevada's mining industry. 

It is to a mother with a child in a day-care center built by 

a mining company or to a student on a mining scholarship. 

It is to anyone who uses a park or a library built with 

mining tax dollars. Maybe we don't all work in mining, 

but mining works for us." 

Along with those TV ads, we ran newspaper ads that 

had the following headlines. A brief commentary that follows explains the thrust of the messages: 

( 1) "One of the chairs we help endow is a school 

chair." This ad talks about mining's contributions to education in parts of the State of Nevada. 

(2) "Mining gave him a job." The man is an appliance 

salesman. This ad points out that every dollar that's generated in the mining industry generates more dollars outside 

the mining industry; it goes to pay the salaries of those 

people who are providing goods and services. Believe it or 

not, when you start multiplying those dollars, especially in 

Nevada, they head into astronomical numbers. 

(3) "Portrait of a tax cutter." This ad shows a photograph of a man working a piece of heavy machinery at a 

mine. 

(4) "She depends on mining or depends on you." 

This ad shows a woman in a senior-citizen center that's 

provided by the State, which tax dollars go to support. 

(5) "Some people's idea of mining is pretty old fashioned." This ad shows a photograph of a man and wagon 

with a mule team. What we talked about here was the new 

technology available and that mining now is a very hightech business. Because of the technology and mining's 

ability to use that technology, mining is able to do the 

things it does in the State of Nevada. Two of the mining 

companies literally built a school out in rural Nevada, and 

this ad said that not all the valuable cargo which we 

helped transport comes from a mine. Not only did they 

build the school, but they also bought the school buses that 

transported all the children in that county to that school. 

( 6) "Endowed chairs at both universities in Reno and 

Las Vegas." This ad talked about the mining industry's 

commitment to higher education. 

(7) "Not all important discoveries are made in the 

ground." In Battle Mountain, one of the mining industries 

donated X-ray equipment to the hospital, which needed it 

badly. So this ad talked about other things that mining was 

doing for the citizens of the State of Nevada. 

The main idea behind these TV and newspaper ad 

campaigns, which ran for about a year and a half, was, 

literally, to educate the general public in the State of 

92 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
Nevada about the benefits of mining and what mining was 

really doing for the people, whether they were directly involved or not. 

Reaching Opinion Leaders 

We developed a series of eight direct-mail pieces 

that went to opinion leaders within the State. A list of 

2,000 persons was developed, and we mailed these pieces 

on a monthly basis. They answered questions about mining that were not well understood by many people. We 

wanted to make sure that those people who have influence 

over the legislature were up to speed on the effects of mining on the State of Nevada. We took topics from everywhere, from the environment to all of the steps that the 

mining industry is taking to reclaim the land. We really 

tried to educate the people in the State about what mining 

is doing. 

We Set Up a Speakers' Bureau 

The NMA had committees on taxation, environment, 

reclamation, and many other pertinent subjects. We had a 

list of topics that were available to be discussed on the 

speakers' bureau list, and we sent people out from the mining industry into the community- to Rotary, Lions, and 

other service clubs. There were about four meetings per 

month throughout the State at which representatives from 

the mining industry would meet with these organization and 

talk about what mining was doing in the State. We prepared 

a video tape (8 minutes long) for that purpose. The speakers 

would go into a service organization, play the tape, give a 

prepared speech that we helped them with, and then open 

up the session for questions and answers. 

Reaching the Legislators 

We met with the legislators on a one-to-one basis, 

and we used all the information pieces that had been prepared. Lobbyists who were employed by the various mining companies did the talking. Each of them targeted a 

legislator in the State; each lobbyist had so many legislators that he was responsible to contact. The lobbyists went 

through the same educational process with the legislators 

that we tried on opinion leaders and the general public. 

Reaching the Press 

The last group that we wanted to target was the 

press. During this whole campaign, the press suddenly became very interested in mining; mining got to be a very 

hot topic. The Governor and some of the State legislators 

were after the mining industry. Any time you have a hot 

topic, obviously the press gets very interested. I work with 

the press every day, and I've found that either they can 

help you or they can hurt you, but most of them are openminded people who are willing to report the facts if somebody is willing to educate them on the facts. What we did 

both north and south, in Nevada, is literally gave all the 

press people opportunities to visit working mines. As we 

took them through mines, various people from the mining 

industry joined them to talk about taxation and economic 

impact on the State and to give the press information on 

the environment, on reclamation, and on wildlife protection. Any time a reporter went through a mine, someone 

was there from the mining industry who could answer his 

questions. Then, we gave reporters all the backup information we felt they needed to put in their files, so, when mining issues came up, they would have a handy resource 

available. They met people from the mining industry 

whom they could call and talk to. They could call up 

someone in the mining industry and say, "OK, the Governor (or the Sierra Club) is saying this or that about reclamation. What's your side of the story?" The reporters 

didn't have to search for people with answers; instead, 

those people were readily available to them. It turned out 

to be quite valuable for the mining industry; it made some 

good friends with the press, and the press appreciated the 

effort that the mining industry went through. 

Concluding Thoughts 

I read this morning's business section of the Salt 

Lake Tribune. On the front page was an article talking 

about your workshop. It mentioned the fact that industrial 

minerals aren't the most glamorous of mineral materialsnot like gold and silver. These resources include aggregate, sand, gravel, cement, and other industrially important 

minerals being mined. As far as I see it, there's no difference. When you dig a hole in the ground or when you 

affect certain people, you've got to be prepared to answer 

to the press. You've got to be able to answer to the general public, and the more mining that goes on in a particular region, the more prepared you have to be. As mining 

grows and its economic effect grows in a particular region, 

you'll find that all sorts of people get interested in mining, 

mainly government people. 

You have to be prepared to present your story to a 

bunch of publics. If you're in a position where you think 

you need to do that, I'd suggest that you carefully analyze 

what your goals are, know what you want to say, and then 

decide what public you need to talk to and who specifically you need to address. Then, design specific programs 

to address those people. The other thing I'd suggest that 

you do is find out at the end whether or not you had any 

effect. We conducted a survey at the end of the Nevada 

campaign to find out from the general public if their 

awareness of mining and their perception of mining had 

Expanding Industrial-Mineral Opportunities in the Basin and Range Region 93 
changed. After a year and a half, we determined that it had 

changed significantly. More people were aware of mining 

a year and a half after the program started than before it 

started. Not only were they better aware of it, but they also 

had a better idea of the effect of mining on the State of 

Nevada. As far as the campaign was concerned, it turned 

out to have a distinctly positive result for mining. 

Participants' Discussion and Comments 

• Why was the mining tax increased by so much 

in the State, and why did the industry support that tax? 

Usually, the mining (or other) industries are fighting 

such increases. 

Reply: Some background is needed to explain why 

the Nevada mining industry supported the tax increase. In 

the original Nevada Constitution, which the miners helped 

write, a ceiling of 5.5 percent was placed on how much 

the mining industry could be taxed in Nevada. The current 

battle was very simple. If this ceiling were taken out of the 

constitution, it would put the mining industry at the whim 

of the legislature to be able to tax them at will. Alternatively, the industry supported raising mining taxes to the 

maximum of what legally (constitutionally) can be taxed. 

The industry felt that it was to their benefit to raise their 

own taxes to that limit and keep themselves protected by 

the provisions of the constitution, rather than risk taking 

themselves out of it and having to fight tax battles year 

after year. It did go to a vote of the public, and the vote 

was the largest win on any ballot question in the history of 

the State of Nevada-it was 3:1 in favor of the proposition. Nevada's mining industry, for the present, is still protected under the constitution. 

• I understand that now there's another initiative to 

raise taxes again on the mining industry. 

Reply: As long as the mining industry is healthy, there 

are going to be initiatives. The one thing that I've found in 

working in this arena is, if there's a need for money, government is going to go after those people who they think 

are healthy, to get that money. I'm sure there's going to be 

another battle in the legislature, and probably in the years 

to come in Nevada there'll be more initiatives on the ballot 

about amending the Constitution. I'm not saying that, in 

the long term, the mining-tax-issue war has been won in 

Nevada; I'm saying that that particular battle was won very 

handily by using the methods I've outlined. 

• One difference between what you just related and 

the industrial-minerals operators is that most industrialmineral operations are small activities; they aren't major 

mining ventures that can invest hundreds of millions of 

dollars to fight such initiatives. How do you see putting 

together a group that could be identified as industrialmineral producers in the State, which could become a 

single, effective entity? 

Reply: I don't know how you'd do that; I've not 

been good at putting groups together. But there is a need. 

There've been some newspaper articles in southern 

Nevada that were critical of the sand-and-gravel industry 

because of dust and traffic. As you may or may not know, 

southern Nevada has been getting more mining activity, so 

the people there are getting more interested. It's not just 

precious metals; it's the industrial minerals like sand and 

gravel that are becoming known by the public. Mining is 

developing there because of the growth in population 

that's happening down there. As that area grows and those 

problems expand, mining's going to be an issue that the 

people who are mining those particular minerals will have 

to address sooner or later. If it were me, and I were in that 

industry, I'd start talking to my competitors and say, 

"We're going to have a problem down the road; I think 

we'd better sit down and figure out how we can address it 

now," because, as I said, once you let people start doing it 

for you, start telling your story, then you have no control 

over it. The best way to get an acceptable message out is 

to control the story. You control what goes out into the 

marketplace as far as information .is concerned, and you 

try to develop a program that gets your point of view 

across, rather than let someone else do it for you. 

• The value of PR at the individual-company level 

can't be overlooked. As environmental planners, we find 

that the projects which are most successful are those by 

companies that have a g~od, positive PR program. When 

companies, no matter what size, move into a community 

and become a part of it, they work with local government, 

are on the boards of directors of community groups, play 

on local softball or soccer teams, and buy uniforms for the 

little league. It's true that the smaller the company, the 

less time or money is available to donate, but such indications of community support are appreciated. One reason 

the company proposal that I mentioned yesterday went so 

smoothly to approval was that the company had a long 

history of positive visibility in the community. 

Reply: The 1990's are going to be the decade of the 

environment. Everything that you read is centered on the 

questions of protecting or preserving the environment. Any 

time your company has anything to do with the environment, you're going to be in the public eye, and there are 

things you can do to make that a positive image. I suggest 

that you start looking at that problem soon, because the 

public is going to start looking at you. Probably this is 

truer in the 1990's than ever in the past. If you can forge 

your own destiny, as far as public opinion is concerned, 

then you'll be ahead of the game. If you don't already 

have PR expertise on your staff or have access to it, as 

individual companies or a group, I'd suggest in the 1990's 

that you look at this option. 

• It was suggested last night by Gov. Matheson 

that the Utah industrial-minerals people join the UMA. 

94 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
There are differences between industrial minerals and 

metals, and, in Nevada, the NMA is dominated by gold 

producers. What would be your perception of the mining 

industry's acceptance of the sand-and-gravel industry 

joining its association, rather than forming a separate association? Traditionally, the aggregate producers haven't 

joined in mining-association activities-they may have 

their own producers associations. 

Reply: I believe that industrial-minerals producers 

can join the NMA, and there already are some sand-andgravel producers in that association. I know that there 

aren't just gold and silver producers in that association. 

There are obvious differences in the types of mining operations, but they need not preclude working together. 

• In Utah, some of the sand-and-gravel operators are 

part of the UMA, but there's a group of industrial minerals 

that may not be represented. Another distinction is 

between small and large operators. The groups that you 

frequently don't see in mining associations are the momand-pop operators, the small operations; these are the 

groups that the public sees and that the environmental 

community voices concern about. It may not always be a 

question of metals versus nonmetals and industrial minerals, but of an organization that effectively serves the small 

as well as the large companies. 

Reply: I think that's always a problem. 

• What did the PR campaign that you showed us 

cost? 

Reply: It cost $1.0 million and was paid for by contributions from mining companies in the State as a special 

assessment on NMA members. Remember, their goal was 

to put a limit on the taxes they were going to pay. That 

million dollars saved them lots of money. I don't know if 

you can calculate how much it'll save them in the long 

run, but in the short run, it saved them about $40 million. 

The investment was probably worth it! 

• There's a tendency in Australia for the smaller 

industrial-mineral companies to choose to be under a 

policy of co-conglomeration. None of us likes to be considered overwhelmed by large corporations. Under this 

policy, the smaller companies are able to still have their 

independence. There are distributions of profits under 

their control. The corporate entities provide services, 

press releases, media presentations, and so forth, which 

largely overcomes the difficulty of competition within 

associations. There seems to be a problem, for example, 

in the UMA, where we have metal producers versus 

industrial-mineral producers. In Australia, we don't have 

that problem because some corporations have an integrated system whereby companies producing metals 

may, at the same time, have a magnesite refractory business as well. It also makes spending in service areas, 

taxation and lobbying, and press releases a cheaper 

alternative. 

Reply: There's one thing I want to point out- and I 

don't want this to sound critical, but you have to understand something. The only people out there who distinguish between metals and industrial minerals are the 

people in the industry. For the general public, a mine is a 

mine; they don't care whether it's for gold, sand and gravel, copper, or whatever. As far as they're concerned, that 

mine has the same impact on the environment; they don't 

care what the product is because they're not that well informed. I think, then, the biggest thing you or any industry 

needs to overcome is thinking that everybody knows as 

much about your industry as you do. Let me tell you the 

reason why we did the TV spots and for the way we did 

them. We had a large audience with people on the PR 

committee in the NMA. They wanted to go out and show 

mines; they wanted us to go out and film these big holes 

in the ground. We said "No; that's not a good thing to do 

right now. Let's talk to people; let's tell them a little about 

mines and the impacts that they have on society, not about 

big holes in the ground. Such films probably would do 

more harm now than good." These mining people, though, 

were proud of those holes in the ground, of what they 

were accomplishing, that they had giant machines moving 

millions of tons of earth and rock. This was their environment and the greatest thing in the world; "Let's let everybody see it!" We said, "Bad idea!" We literally had to 

fight them off. But you in the industry see things a lot 

differently from how the public sees them, and that's one 

thing you need to understand. People don't distinguish 

such differences. You know your business, your industry; 

nobody else does. 

• What's happened since the original campaign 

ended? Are the ads still on TV and in the newspapers? 

Reply: No; the ad portion of the campaign is no 

longer running. The speaker bureau is still running. We 

still do direct mailings to opinion leaders. There's still an 

ongoing contact to develop favorable press for the NMA, 

but now it's sitting back and waiting for the second storm 

to hit. And it will hit. 

• Comment by E.H. Bennett: I'd like to tell the 

users and producers here today to turn to the State geological surveys for help with PR; they're there and available for the long run. In Idaho, we put together a canned 

PR program every year that relates the accomplishments 

and contributions for the entire mining industry of the 

State; this program is presented to 40 or 50 service organizations each year. It's not a million-dollar campaign, but it 

seems to meet the needs for information in Idaho. 

The point I'm trying to make is that we treat all 

parts of the mining industry the same. In my earlier 

presentation, I reported about $4 million of clay production in Idaho, but you should note that we glossed over 

that number and talked about the jobs related to mining. 

How many people are employed in that industrial 

Expanding Industrial-Mineral Opportunities in the Basin and Range Region 95 
organization? The Idaho Quartzite Corp. gets more pictures in our presentation than J.R. Simplot, and Simplot 

is part of one of the largest privately owned corporations 

in the world. You're absolutely right-in a 20- to 30-

minute talk, the distinction between a gold mine and a 

clay-pit operation is merged. 

The thing to do is convince the population of the 

State how great this whole minerals industry is. There are 

a huge variety of mineral resources, and we stress the accomplishments of the industry. We're number one in the 

United States in garnet production. Number one in garnet 

production means 27,000 tons of finished product a year; 

that's 1 day's production for a heap-leach operation. What 

the public realizes is that we're number one; people like to 

be number one. We use the analogy of the bulk-hull displacement of an aircraft carrier compared to the 30,000 or 

35,000 tons of ore per day that's running through the 

Thompson Creek mill. This means that about three aircraft 

carrier Enterprises are run through that mill every week. 

People begin to understand that it's a big deal to produce 

that much ore, and they begin to understand that a deposit 

can be more than just a bad or dirty hole in the ground. I 

think you're right-you can't promote an individual segment of the industry in a short period of time, especially if 

you're a service-oriented organization or even a mining 

association. 

Reply: The other thing I was suggesting, if you're 

looking at doing a PR program, is that consistency is the 

key in grading the success of any program. You can't get 

into it and think that you're going to do it in a 6-month 

period; you need to make a long-term commitment. If 

mining is going to have an effect on the region for a long 

period of time and you're going to be in the public eye, 

you need to make a long-term commitment to a PR program. Whether it's large or small, you need to know what 

you want to do, and you need to identify what people 

think of you. The ftrst thing you need to know is what 

people out in your areas think about mining. What things 

are going to come down the road that will affect mining? 

If you can start telling your story now, the things that are 

coming down the road are going to have less of an effect 

than if you waited until the last minute. That, in fact, is 

what most people do--they react rather than plan. PR is 

just like anything else: If you plan for it, and the planning 

is correct, you can save yourselves a lot of heartache and 

grief down the road. 

• In Nevada, there was another group formed to 

combat the tax issue; it was called "Nevadans Against 

Mining Taxes." It was, I believe, separate from the NMA. 

Was that group effective? Did they help in the overall effort, or did they complicate matters? It was headed up by 

some of the equipment dealers and some of the mines. 

They solicited fund from many sources. 

Reply: That campaign ran mainly in rural Nevada. 

Its objective was to muster support for what the group was 

trying to do with its own workers. It did the job. 

FUTURE ACTIONS TO MEET 

INDUSTRIAL-MINERAL NEEDS 

j.G. Price, Moderator 

The organizing committee has chosen two panels to 

consider appropriate future actions to assist society in 

meeting its serious needs for industrial minerals. The first 

panel will consider the important problems faced in gaining access to and mining of these materials, and in trying 

to regulate industry activities in the best interests of the 

public. The second panel will look into the possibility of a 

public process to address these problems systematically. 

This panel will consider the formation of some form of a 

representative coalition organization in which the information essential for solving resource problems can be collected and placed in proper channels for action. After these 

presentations, discussion and comments will be invited 

from the workshop participants. 

What Are the Problems to be Solved? 

Having looked at opportunities for expanding 

industrial-mineral development in the Basin and Range 

region, we now return to consider the problems that 

must be resolved before examining future actions that 

may lead to the solutions of those problems. This first 

panel will look at the major problems from industry and 

land-planning perspectives. Douglas Clark is vice president of Monroe, a producer of crushed-rock aggregate in 

Salt Lake City, Utah; he speaks for the large-volume, 

low-value materials. John Harmon is president of Standard Industrial Minerals in Reno, Nev.; he gives us his 

perspective as a producer of a low-volume, high-value 

commodity. Finally, Michael Harper, assistant director 

of the Department of Comprehensive Planning for Washoe County, provides the point of view of a government 

land planner. 

Industry Perspective for 

High-Volume, Low-Value Materials 

By Douglas Clark 

When I received an invitation to speak to you, I 

looked at the title, "high-volume, low-value" and 

thought that someone had been looking at our profit-and96 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
loss statement. It truly is an appropriate title for the 

sand-and-gravel industry. I sometimes get the feeling 

that we're rather insignificant. The reason I say that is 

that a recent USBM (1990) publication shows the total 

production of sand and gravel and crushed stone in 50 of 

the United States; there was a lot of tonnage, but the 

value was approaching only $7 billion. For you and me, 

that's a lot of money, but that isn't much money in the 

business world today. If you look at the major companies on the New York Stock Exchange, you '11 find a 

considerable number that approach or exceed that 

amount in sales volume. Getting closer to home, if you 

combine the value of aggregates in the three adjoining 

states, Utah, Idaho, and Nevada, production approaches 

$120 million. Again, for us that's a lot of money, but in 

the business world that really isn't much. In spite of our 

business insignificance, however, our operational problems are not insignificant. I propose to discuss some of 

the most important problems or issues for the sand-andgravel and crushed-stone operators in this area and elsewhere. These problems are, I suspect, common to most 

industrial-mineral commodities of this type. 

Environmental Problems 

The nature of the sand-and-gravel business will continue to make compliance with safety and environmental 

regulations an ongoing headache, but we must master 

these problems if we plan on being in business tomorrow. 

I think I can say with some assurance, speaking for the 

industry in Utah, that it's not our desire to be known as 

polluters; it's not our desire to destroy the environment we 

live in. Some of the toughest environmental regulations 

now affecting us are those standards relating to the PM-10 

program. We've heard considerable comment about the 

PM-10 program already. The requirements for reduction 

of emissions that the operators are going to be meeting on 

our properties truly will be a challenge for us. The PM-10 

program for reduction of diesel emissions from those units 

that are powered by diesel engines is 20 percent. I'm sure 

you're all aware that most of our transportation is done by 

large hauling units using diesel engines. There's no question that this requirement will seriously affect how we do 

business. Also, the proposed "long study" by this agency 

to encourage reduction of travel along the Wasatch Front 

will significantly affect the sand-and-gravel industry. 

Those operations involved in blasting face real potential problems. Commercial and housing developments 

spring up ever closer to these operations. These same developments are the potential issuers of complaints against 

ground vibration from blasting activities. We used to think 

that we were an island unto ourselves; that's no longer the 

case. We used to think those housing developments were 

far away, but they're coming closer and closer to our activities, and we must respond positively, if possible, to 

their concern for the environment. 

Zoning and Reclamation 

Reclamation activities are becoming more intensified. Even small communities now demand a mining plan 

and a reclamation plan before a mining permit is issued. 

The activation of new pit or quarry sites depends on the 

reclamation track record of previous owners and operators 

at mine, pit, or quarry sites. I've been interested in this 

aspect, and I've watched developments across the country. 

Some recent activities by governmental agencies in the 

Denver, Colo., area introduced some highly interesting 

concepts in relation to a new zoning designation, MC. The 

only use by right under MC zoning is the conservation of 

commercial-quality aggregate deposits. In other words, the 

operator can conserve aggregate deposits while putting 

surrounding landowners on notice that someday the designated property may be mined. I think that concept has real 

merit. In this country, we've literally covered up vast deposits of high-quality aggregate with real-estate and commercial developments. Those deposits probably now will 

never be used. We're forcing the operators to move farther 

out- out sometimes to aggregate deposits that are not of 

the best quality- so I think this factor must be considered 

by those of us in this region. 

At the same time, in neighboring Jefferson County, 

Colo., which has fairly extensive deposits of aggregates, the 

county will now issue mining permits with the county's 

requirement that the operations be subject to an annual review. The potential exists, every year, that the entire operation could be shut down for noncompliance or perceived 

noncompliance. Without question, this type of regulation is 

going to force the operator to stay on his toes. Can you 

imagine making an investment as an investor in a sand-andgravel or crushed-stone operation, knowing that you could 

be out of business next year or the year after? That could be 

a tough and regressive regulation and could force more extensive transportation of materials from outside that county. 

Materials Specifications 

We live in world of quality. "Quality" is becoming 

the keyword for all people involved in construction; specifications are focused to achieve that goal. Let's look at the 

problem of gradation of fine aggregate. As you know, 

most of our sales are to concrete producers. As traditional 

sources of sand are depleted and new sources become 

available to us farther from the marketing area, we'll have 

to ask regulating agencies to allow broader limits on 

gradation in fine aggregate. As the good deposits become 

Future Actions to Meet Industrial-Mineral Needs 97 
depleted, we're forced to look for deposits that are not 

quite so nice in gradation and so are not conducive to 

making workable concrete. Also, we're finding many operators now who are forced to crush the large fragments 

into smaller ones to produce sufficient fine aggregate from 

the remaining, less desirable resources available to them. 

Thus, we'll have to recognize this limitation and possibly 

accept more "manufactured" sands in the Basin and Range 

region. 

Aggregate requirements for pumping concrete present a special case. Concrete placement by pumping has become a predominant method. As you drive around the city, 

you see these large pumping outfits that pump concrete to 

almost unlimited heights. But there's one serious problem: 

Not all concrete aggregates are suited for efficient placement by pumps. New methods must be developed to improve the pumpability of these aggregates; this technology 

will become more necessary in the future. When the concrete-pump manufacturer designed and built that monster, 

he didn't come around to various producers in the country 

to determine whether his pump would or could handle the 

existing diverse types of aggregates. In most cases, we try 

to make our aggregate fit his machine, so that the concrete 

aggregate is pumpable and will serve the requirements of 

the purchaser of the materials. 

Improved Materials-Testing Methods 

We need to work on test methods for aggregates. 

I'm talking about the need not only for better but also 

for more reproducible tests. There continues to be an 

inconsistency of results between different laboratories 

testing a sample of the same aggregate. Believe it or not, 

many times, one split from a sample of aggregate is 

found to be acceptable to the testing agency of the 

purchasing agent, whereas another testing laboratory 

finds the same material unacceptable. We need to look at 

this problem to improve the specifications and the way 

materials are tested. 

Economic-Use Factor 

In conclusion, I want to talk about the economics of 

construction. Both a basic advantage of and a basic requirement for construction materials made with aggregate 

is that they be economical, that mixtures and gradations 

for use in paving or structural applications be designed to 

make the best use of the aggregates readily available. I'm 

saying that we need to tailor specifications to allow some 

flexibility in specified values, where equal performance 

can be demonstrated. I'm not here asking or pleading that 

we cheapen the product with the idea that we could use 

my aggregate. I'm saying, let's look at the end results that 

we're trying to achieve. If we can achieve those results 

with the available aggregate materials, then I think we're 

truly looking at the economics in construction. Believe me, 

we all suffer from the inefficiencies of having to haul aggregates too far too many times. 

I hope that I've given you something of a synopsis 

of the most serious problems that the sand-and-gravel and 

crushed-stone businesses face. Although they seem simple 

and obvious, they're not going to be overcome simply or 

by the industry alone. We need help! 

Industry Perspective for 

Low-Volume, High-Value Commodities 

By j.R. Harmon 

As I've listened to the recitation of existing and 

anticipated problems confronting the industrial-minerals 

industry, I've wondered how we in the mining industry 

can begin to make headway in solving them. Education 

of the public is one means of presenting our need for 

industrial minerals of all types and for the land and 

equipment to mine them. Under t~e aegis of State mining associations, professional mineral societies, and service clubs, industry has tried to make its case. The 

NDM's plan for educating teachers in the elementary 

and high schools through seminars, workshops, and 

teaching support to prepare them to educate their students seems to have great promise. The CMA is also trying to develop ambitious programs to educate the public. 

There's room for the government sector to participate in 

these efforts. 

Many industrial-minerals operations, other than for 

sand and gravel and, possibly, fertilizer materials, are 

rather small and do not involve disturbing large areas of 

land, but these deposits are where they are and not where 

we might like them to be. It would be nice to have five 

areas from which we could select one that was the least 

environmentally sensitive in which to mine high-quality 

white barite, kaolinite, sericite, or garnet; these are generally the small-volume, high-value types of commodities. I 

might say, as an aside, that these materials sometimes 

seem to be low-volume, low-value commodities, for, in 

most cases, their value is not particularly high after the 

costs of mining, processing, and shipping them to the 

buyer are considered. 

A major problem for my company is going to be 

responding to the new environmental laws on stricter 

particulate emissions. When grinding dry to -400 mesh, 

total dust recovery is very difficult. In all my 25 years' 

involvement with Standard Industrial Minerals, except 

for a major addition of grinding and classification equipment in 1967, more than 80 percent of our capital improvements have been for dust-mitigation equipment. 

For the past 3 years, more than 40 percent of our gross 

98 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
profit has been spent on upgrading the dust collection 

and mitigation operations during processing of barite. 

We're not opposed to having clean air, and we know 

that we must comply with EPA regulations to stay in 

business, but for the small company, the costs to meet 

these regulations are high. 

Another serious problem that we face, and which I 

would hope will clear itself up with time and our perseverance, is the issuance of conflicting signals by BLM and 

USFS regulators. Most of our experiences with these government agencies have been favorable, and their staffs 

seek to be helpful and cooperative while trying to stay 

within the legal directives' rules. Once in a while, 

however, this system simply fails, and our costs rise 

appreciably. 

I can relate one incident that happened to our company. In May 1987, we filed a plan of operation with the 

USFS. A few minor changes were requested, and on July 

16, an appendix was filed. For 7 months, the district 

ranger refused telephone calls made at least every 2 

weeks to find out if we could go ahead and mine the 

deposit. I considered sending a letter to the ranger's superiors in Washington, D.C. Our attorney took over and 

found out that the district ranger had never opened our 

application; it was found on his desk. Our plan of operation, involving 3,000 ft of 12 ft-wide roadway, a 0.75-

acre mine, and a 1-acre stockpile, was finally approved 

on April 6, 1988. This delay cost our small company 

over $300,000 in lost sales. 

A second example involved the BbM. At an iron operation, we had stockpiled ore on an approved %-acre site, 

1.1 mi from our minesite, in anticipation of its shipment to 

cement plants. Our trucker tried to avoid the stockpiling 

for several months because of the steep road and the loss 

of several truck differentials. He decided to start stockpiling again on the already-leveled site of a reject dump from 

a previous operation; this site would have been easier to 

reach and service. A local BLM official stopped us from 

doing this, saying that, because we hadn't used that area 

for 1 year, we couldn't use the site now. We were unsure 

of the basis for this rule, and so, not desiring confrontation, we applied for a permit to use this site. Eight differentials later, and for a bond of $4,000, we obtained the 

permit. Once again, the delay was not only frustrating but 

also costly. 

Better education of the government-agency personnel or just our getting to know them better might have 

resolved these types of problems sooner. We could also 

add on these extra costs to our customers. In the case of 

barite, however, we find that the Chinese are exporting to 

the west-coast ports. Will they also raise their prices? 

There still remain problems of proper handling of hazardous materials like crystalline silica. We hope that the technology to do so arrives in time. 

The land Planner's Perspectivelocal-Government Regulation of Mining Activities 

By Michael Harper 

I'm pleased to be invited to share my perspective as 

a planner with you on the issue of industrial-mineral mining. The primary problem, as I see it, is the variety of multi jurisdictional regulations that the mining industry is 

required to comply with. We want to dispel the impression 

that the sole purpose of planners is to regulate the heart 

and soul out of the mining industry, and that regulations 

are made just to create employment for the planners. 

Therefore, I'll try to concentrate on the planning that the 

mining industry needs to do, not on the regulations, and on 

local government's responsibilities toward developing effective, less painful planning processes. The Washoe 

County planning process is sketched as an example. 

Industry's Planning Responsibilities 

It's imperative that industry take responsibility for 

understanding and working with the planning process. The 

first step in that direction is to become familiar with the 

master plans of the community or area: (1) Find out 

whether the property under consideration is shown to be 

appropriate for mining activity. If it's not shown to be appropriate, discover what the process for amending the master plan is. (2) Recognize that the master plan is what 

guides most decisionmaking where discretionary permits 

are required. (3) Also, recognize that if a change is going 

to be proposed to permit mining, the applicant should 

identify what will result when the material being mined is 

exhausted; mining is considered to be a transitory state by 

most local-government agencies. (4) Take time to develop 

plans for the ultimate, permanent use of the land if an 

amendment is to be proposed. (5) Notwithstanding the 

amendment process, insist that local government identify 

appropriate mining districts through the master-planning 

process. The applicant should determine, up front, where 

good minable material exists and plan for the exploitation 

of that resource. 

Another critical step is knowing the process of applying for permits before committing significant dollars to 

formulating development plans. We can tell you what 

regulations will cause delays, because you have to win 

over the county commissioners, who get elected by the 

folks who are next door to your mine and, in fact, probably don't want you there. Don't assume that every community welcomes mining, and don't assume that local 

governments have regulations which may be less stringent 

than the current State or Federal regulations. The fact that 

there's no need to get a permit to operate the deposit 

doesn't stop local government from shutting you down. 

Future Actions to Meet Industrial-Mineral Needs 99 
Professional advice is needed. Above all, don't use the example that the last county in central Nevada, in which you 

operated, dido 't have stringent regulations and was glad to 

see you come in. In fact, the current community or county 

probably doesn't care where you were located last time. In 

such counties as Washoe, mining isn't a big industry. Mining is commonly looked upon in Washoe County by certain segments of the population as a negative intrusion. I 

can't recall when a mining operation was turned down in 

that county, but that's probably because it's well regulated. 

You should accept the fact that different levels of 

government will regulate you on the same matters or issues. To explain that the BLM is already regulating your 

deposit and to ask why the county is looking at it again is 

futile. I'll tell you that the regulations of local government 

differ from those of BLM or the USPS or the NDM. If 

possible, attempt to get these government agencies together before you submit applications, so that the same information can be used when and where it's relevant to the 

same issue. 

When making applications, get to know who the interested players are, whether they be government regulators, special-interest groups, or individuals. By the way, 

most environmentalists live in the house next door; they're 

not folks who were born in a different part of the country 

and somehow became environmentalists. They're people 

who are really concerned. Planning staffs generally are 

good resources for identifying these players. Contact the 

players, preferably before the application is submitted. 

You may not get a positive reaction from them for your 

proposal, but you '11 know what the issues are and be ready 

and able to address them in your application. I'm glad to 

hear that you realize this is the decade of the environmental movement; if you don't believe it, you may want to 

reconsider what business you're in. Find out who those 

folks are-your neighbors, the Sierra Club, the hunting 

group, and the Board of County Commissioners. You need 

to contact them. I know that some of you have gone 

through that public-contact process and come out with less 

than positive experiences. The bottom line, however, is 

that local-government permitting bodies expect you to 

make that effort. 

Next, find out what an approval will likely result 

in with regard to specific conditions. Financial and reclamation conditions are almost always pro forma. I've 

heard a couple of comments about mitigation and bonding and that financial insurance for mitigation is the 

wave of the future. I can tell you that we've had that 

wave for the past 10 to 15 years. We've required that 

you bond for the improvements for mitigation and reclamation. We have a condition which says that every year 

we reexamine your reclamation bond and readjust that 

bond. I'm sorry to say that there's a huge distrust between the industry and the regulating bodies. It's not just 

a planner's opinion of tract-lease standards that we have 

too many mine holes in Washoe County; you only have 

to look at them as you drive into Sparks. That's not your 

fault, but that's the legacy that you have to live with. 

Many government agencies are beginning to get involved in regulating some or all of the operations of the 

mining industry. Therefore, it's advisable to have a good 

summary of what the mining operation consists of. Most 

planners have very little knowledge of what happens after the material is removed from the ground. A good operations plan will permit a reduction in the number of 

conditions imposed on the mining operation. 

Finally, identify the benefits of mining the material 

that you're seeking. I'm pleased to see that, apparently, 

there's a subject to be talked about later concerning the 

idea of how to create a consortium, how you start getting 

down to educating the regulators and environmentalists. 

Educate the planning staff and the public on exactly 

what's being mined and what it's used for. Many planners 

don't realize what types of materials you're producing. 

When the community is arguing against XYZ, Inc.'s aggregate pit, explain how this will argue against a close-in, 

cheap source of material to surface their driveways. Identify the consumers and where they're located, because 

many of us don't realize who they are; the consumers generally are the purchasers of products that are used every 

day. Identify the need for the material and why the particular location of the mining activity has a good source of 

that material. Such factors as cost, convenience, amount of 

reserve therein, and so on should be included. 

Local Government's Planning Responsibilities 

Local government should be responsible for developing procedures that meet identified legislative intent, not 

just for gathering lots of information that suits specialinterest groups but that may be unrelated to consideration 

for a use permit. You should expect and demand that the 

administrative process meet legislative· needs. These regulative processes should be clear and identify specified 

needs and results from implementation of the regulations. 

Industry should have certain expectations of the process. I 

cringe when I hear how long it takes EIS' s to be done. All 

they do is evaluate the impacts and alternatives; an arbitrary decision still has to be made. 

All levels of local government should be involved in 

a coordinated process of regulating the mining industry. 

Such issues as timing, using the same information for different levels of applications, identifying lead agencies, and 

coordinating the conditions of approval should be anticipated and agreed on through interlocal agreements. In our 

county, for example, we try to find out exactly where the 

process is. When dealing with BLM and the EPA, we'll 

suggest that you use the material which was created for 

100 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
the environmental application to us; it doesn't make sense 

to create another document. We need to know where one 

part of the process stops and the other begins, but the 

same information should be used by both. In Washoe 

County, we have MOU's with BLM and the USFS; our 

program gets approved first. If an EIS is required, we'll 

tell you not to make application to us until you've completed the EIS; then, we can coordinate the process with 

BLM by telephone. 

The Washoe County Planning Process 

Local government should take it upon itself to identify areas of appropriate resource extraction through the planning process. Washoe County is embarking on this procedure 

at the direction of its Board of County Commissioners, which 

has recognized that the location of mining activity hasn't 

always followed a rational process or been justified from a 

logical point of view. To this end, the commissioners have 

charged the planning department with the responsibility of 

creating a process for eventually identifying appropriate mining-activity locations and, furthermore, developing appropriate guidelines and regulations to ensure the orderly 

development of these mining resources. Our Board of County 

Commissioners got concerned last year about what it saw as 

a plethora of open-pit sites in an area of the county that it 

considered to be scenic or believed should be so considered; it was ready to propose a reform statute. The industry 

representatives who were monitoring this discussion indicated that this procedure wasn't a good step. Instead, a twophase program was developed. 

(1) The first step was to survey current mining operators regarding the type, location, and amount of material being excavated, the available reserves, and the use of 

the material. To date, the county has received outstanding 

cooperation from the mining operators. (2) The second 

step was to send me to this workshop to become more 

familiar with the topic of industrial minerals and to meet 

experts in the field. (3) The third step will be to convene a 

user committee of producers and users to formulate a work 

program for a contractor, who will analyze the types and 

locations of industrial minerals in the county. We hope 

that this work program will be a starting point for solicitation of funds from the users and producers to fund the 

contractor. ( 4) A fourth step will be to select a contractor 

to perform the above work and assist the committee in developing standards for the types of materials to be extracted for the identified uses. We'll need a more in-depth 

survey of materials and of potential sites. The committee 

will be responsible for reviews and for publishing maps. 

(5) The fifth step will be to develop a testing process and 

to identify where testing facilities are or should be located, 

so as to determine whether the material being mined meets 

the standards developed in step 4. (6) Finally, a report will 

be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners with 

recommendations for guidelines and new regulations. 

From this program, we hope to get moving in the next 

year and a half, with the idea that we can begin to settle 

these types of problems quickly and amicably. 

This is a good example of the type of initiative that 

local government can take. It's a process that the mining 

industry can take part in for its own self-interest, as well 

as for ensuring good societal decisions. We hope that this 

plan may serve as an example for other county governments to copy. 

Concluding Thoughts 

I've come away from these sessions with a greater 

appreciation of where you are, and I hope that we can, at 

least in Washoe County, expect that the planners I represent will work with you more effectively. I like to think 

that planning is problem solving, not problem creating. We 

need to work together in the best interest of our constituents, the people here and those yet to come. 

Participants' Discussion and Comments 

• I gather from your presentation that you aren't 

particularly fond of the sand-and-gravel people insofar as 

planning is concerned! 

Reply: I hope I didn't give the impression that I 

have an intrinsic dislike for your industry, but the sandand-gravel people have tended to be ignorant because they 

don't want to take the initiative to learn the rules. I think 

that "planning" tends to be mentioned with a snarl by 

some industry folks who'd lead you to believe that planners have similar attitudes toward miners. Yes, I believe 

that some of the sand-and-gravel industry have selfimposed blinders. 

• Does your department have some minimum guidelines for planning? Are people aware of them? 

Reply: Yes, we do have a standard set of conditions 

that we hand out at the time an application is made. That 

doesn't mean that all conditions are imposed, but they do 

indicate what conditions are or were specified at the time 

of application: materials to be provided to the U.S. Department of Mining Operations, who to go to, what the general 

period of time is, and so on. We supply a different application for mining operations from the one for general-use 

permits. 

• Do you have designated areas for sand and 

gravel? 

Reply: We don't at present, and that's why we want 

to get into the new process studies to designate those areas. The Board of County Commissioners feels, and industry representatives agree, that we probably have too many 

substandard sand-and-gravel operations in Washoe County. 

Future Actions to Meet Industrial-Mineral Needs 101 
One desire of this study is to create a minimum standard 

of sand-and-gravel materials for the purpose of public use 

and then to see whether that translates into a more equitably regulated industry. 

• In future zoning, the one problem I see in evaluating aggregate sources is that, once you zone something, 

you exclude alternative uses, and as technology changes 

and the public's needs change, some of those areas not 

zoned for aggregate could turn out to be some of the better 

aggregate sources. What would be the mechanism to reopen the zoning classification? 

Reply: Our zoning ordinance is 42 years old, which 

means that it's about 39 years too old. We're trying to 

revamp our ordinances, called the Development Code, so 

that, in fact, the situation you have just suggested, in 

which a new source area that's identified in a previously 

zoned area, can be produced. We're looking at a land-usedesignation overlay that would extend for the life of that 

material for which it would be reserved. It wouldn't be the 

underlying use, but it would create an overlay that had 

temporary preference for mining over the underlying use. 

San Bernardino County, Calif., does that; they have a map 

process and a designation process. We have a GIS that 

will permit us to do that kind of mapping. 

• How does your agency deal with conflicts over 

BLM land that might be within your general jurisdiction, 

where you technically don't have zoning priorities or 

where you can't zone? How are these conflicts resolved? 

Reply: First of all, we zone all BLM lands. This 

isn't done under an MOU with BLM; we just go ahead 

and do it as part of our enabling legislation. Let me rephrase the question: If we get into situations in which conflict arises, we have an MOU with BLM to address 

jurisdictional issues. If the BLM disagrees with the classification the county has shown for a particular use on a 

property, the first thing we do is to move toward negotiation. We remind BLM of the long-term MOU, remind 

them that there are certain acts of Congress which say that 

the BLM should, to the extent possible, cooperate with 

local- and State-government regulations. I don't think it's 

unclear to anyone that we've been zoning BLM and USFS 

lands since the 1940's. 

• We've had an interesting case in the Las Vegas 

Valley in which someone had staked millsite claims on 

BLM land in an R-2 residential neighborhood. The county 

zoning people were furious, but when they took it to court, 

it was thrown out, and the millsite claims were sustained 

because the county had no jurisdiction. 

Reply: I think that's just an example of the county 

having a poor working relation with BLM. I have one person on my staff part of whose job it is to keep in constant 

contact with the Federal-agency people. 

• How do you decide about the need for permitting 

a new deposit? 

Reply: Yesterday, I may have told you that one 

problem we seem to be facing is identification of the 

need for a particular product. For example, I'd say that 

in a 1-mi radius in the Truckee River canyon east of 

Sparks there are probably five or six pits, and we may 

get an application for another one. The first question that 

comes up is, what's the need for this new pit? What's 

the basic reason that it should be permitted? We probably don't have sufficient information about the projected use of this material. The proposed study exercise 

should provide such information, so that when someone 

comes in and says, "I want to open this pit," and the 

county realizes that it looks like the material is for local 

consumption but, in fact, it's needed for a project outside of the area, the county can make an informed, 

balanced decision regarding the pit's approval. Environmentalists sometimes forget that they're making the taxpayer pay for something but, in effect, only transferring 

the money from one pocket to another. 

• In the planning and zoning process, are you taking 

into account or are you aware of the resources in your 

area? Are you cooperating with the State geological survey? Do you know when you zone something for housing 

development whether you have a deposit in that area or 

not? 

Reply: The answer to your first question is, no; we 

don't know. That's one reason why the proposed study is 

necessary. We're working with the NBMG, who convinced me to spend the taxpayers' money for the study. 

• You were saying earlier that you're facing the 

problem of identifying the need for a product as you were 

going through the aggregate study. Do you go through the 

same process when you're zoning for casinos, warehouses, 

and residences? 

Reply: Yes; we do. For example, we have a standard 

in our ordinance that indicates how much commercial 

floor area per population is appropriate, assuming that the 

need for commercial uses is met by that formula and that 

unacceptable impacts are not created. Do we do that for 

housing? To the extent that we can, yes. In a mix of housing we try to identify whether, in fact, the cost of housing 

meets a range of housing needs. We're starting to move 

into the area of special-cost housing that judicious planners can validate as meeting the community's needs. To 

the extent that we can, we try to identify that, at least, in 

our staff reports. We've seen the planning process move 

toward that in areas of limited land resources. 

• In the Sacramento study that your office mentioned, I think it said that per four-person family, you need 

684 tons of aggregate per year. I don't know how your 

study came out, but if you took the 684 tons times the 

230,000 persons in our community, do we have that 

amount of the resource available? That might be your basis for determining the county's needs. 

102 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
Reply: One thing I wanted to make clear to everyone is that we tend to staff committees without intending 

to lead the committee. We want to create a balance between industry, which we assume is desirous of having 

as positive a view as possible, and the users, who want 

as much material as they need at as reasonable a price as 

possible. Although we haven't structured preliminary 

plans, those are the best estimates of the need for planning to meet aggregate requirements that we have at the 

moment. 

• I was interested in your comment about how, if 

you're going to try to develop a mineral deposit in one 

county, you shouldn't just assume that zoning regulations 

and permitting requirements in that county are the same as 

in another. Is there a trend among the counties in Nevada 

to make the regulations and zoning requirement more uniform, or is there is a trend in the opposite direction? Do 

the counties want to apply their own set of criteria, more 

and more? 

Reply: There are two trends. The Nevada Division 

of Lands, which is a land-management organization, has 

created a model mining-reporting program. My experience 

is that most rural counties of Nevada are uncomfortable 

about imposing too much regulation, because mining tends 

to be the major, if not the only, industry that's keeping 

their tax revenues flowing. Those counties seem to be taking their lead from the State's suggestions and imposing 

them on mine operators. The Nevada Division of Environmental Protection has mandated reclamation regulations; in 

fact, Washoe County is seeking an exception to those 

regulations because we believe that the State regulations 

will be weaker. The county doesn't want to be in a position of selecting a weaker set of regulations. 

• Let me preface my comment with the statement 

that well-established channels of communication are 

critical. In any operation, the local management should 

have comfortable, first-name-speaking relationships with 

everyone- BLM, the USFS, and city and county permitting personnel. But my question refers to the statement 

about someone coming in after he's done all the planning 

and before he talks to you. Right or wrong, I think there's 

often a perception that most city and local government offices have a live microphone hooked up to the local newspaper. What kind of assurance is there of confidentiality 

for competitive and other reasons? The industry may not 

want that kind of publicity. How do you deal with that 

problem? 

Reply: First, that scenario isn't so. We keep preliminary information private. I always tell an applicant not to 

put anything in the application that he doesn't want disclosed publicly, but information provided on an informal 

preapplication basis is kept confidential. 

• One of the key things that an operator might not 

want to disclose is the location of the deposit. 

Reply: We have a process early on, when applicants come in, that's essentially a staff-only conference. 

The information is kept confidential at that point. We do 

tell people that their application is a public document 

and we can't hide information. We do suggest that they 

be careful about answering the questions. But our regulations don't require that a mining company disclose 

things like their financial ability. Usually, we don't even 

require them to disclose the type of material that's going 

out, although we may have to get to that eventually as 

the area study progresses. 

• We'd like some assurance that the informal prediscussion can be kept confidential. 

Reply: We do take notes, but we don't make them 

publicly available. 

• My comment is on the taxation that mining in 

Nevada raises. I think there's been some misunderstanding 

of that issue. In Nevada, mining values are taxed the same 

as for everyone else on all the equipment, buildings, and 

so on. In addition, the State Constitution states that mining 

will be charged the net full proceeds of mining tax, which 

would be based on a property-tax rate set by the constitution, with a limit of $5 per $100 value, an amount that was 

the limit anyone could be charged as a property tax. The 

mining tax is a tax on the total sale of whatever is mined 

during a specific period of time less the actual expenses 

incurred during that time. Allowable expenses are listed by 

the constitution; for example, expenses in an engineering 

job outside of the State, or any work done, such as office 

charges from Texas, aren't allowed. 

About 15 years ago, Nevada changed its tax structure from relying heavily on property taxes to a reduction 

in property taxes and a large increase in the sales tax. 

When it did that, it gave a legal windfall to the mining 

industry, and places that had been paying $4.20 to $4.50 

property tax per $100 suddenly dropped to $1.90 or less. 

About that time, I was the president of the NMA. We attempted to make this look better; somebody was going to 

come down on us. We were way ahead of it, and we 

thought we owed something, so we agreed among our clientele that we'd suggest to the legislature that mining be 

taxed at the constitutional limit (5 percent) of net proceeds. That was placed on the ballot because it required a 

change to the constitution. At the same time, there were 

many bond issues, and the voters refused all the proposed 

tax increases. That vote killed it. Then, along came the 

idea of a gold tax, because of the excess profits on gold. 

The suggestion in the legislature was that a tax of $10 or 

$15 per troy oz be placed on mining. They didn't say anything about silver, barite, or other minerals- it was strictly 

on gold. The NMA then went back to the idea of increasing the tax on mining in the constitution. Not a whole lot 

was being given up. This tax structure passed and is now 

operative. 

Future Actions to Meet Industrial-Mineral Needs 103 
Possible Resource-Constituency Activities to 

Help Solve Industrial-Mineral Problems 

This second panel will explore a possible course of 

joint action by the public and private sectors of the 

industrial-mineral constituency to overcome their problems 

and thus ensure that industrial-mineral resources can be 

made available economically and in a timely fashion. Having reviewed some of the industry and land-planning 

problems to be resolved for the continued timely production of industrial minerals, the organizers of the workshop 

felt impelled to do more than merely listen and then leave 

without considering a way to respond to what has been 

said here. One such alternative plan is to organize the 

industrial-mineral constituency to develop the political leverage and effective public support for finding equitable 

solutions to problems of resource availability, access to 

lands, and environmental protection. M.P. Foose offers a 

generalized "strawman" proposal (see app. 3) as a point of 

departure for discussion by workshop participants. His 

suggestion for developing local or regional coalitions of 

the resource constituency is only that-a suggestion. To 

amplify the composition and operation of the concept, 

G.E. Conrad, executive director of the IMCC in Herndon, 

Va., describes a well-established, highly structured, regional coalition of 17 Central and Eastern States that has high 

political visibility and has had notable success in projecting the mining-industry viewpoint. Mr. Conrad also offers 

advice for the formation of coalitions, whether as formal 

organizations like the IMCC or as informal discussion 

groups. J.G. Price, director of the NBMG and the Nevada 

State Geologist, E.H. Bennett, director of the IGS and the 

Idaho State Geologist, and M.L. Allison, director of the 

UGS and the Utah State Geologist, comment individually 

from their State's perspective on the coalition concept and 

offer further suggestions for consideration by the workshop participants in the discussion and comments that 

follow. 

Proposal for Organizing Industrial-Mineral Coalitions in 

the VVestern States 

By M.P. Foose 

One overriding objective of the USGS' and USBM's 

mineral programs is to ensure the long-term availability of 

mineral resources for the Nation. In addressing these availability issues, especially for the industrial minerals, we 

believe that there needs to be increasing collaborative effort at the Federal, State, and local levels. To foster this 

collaboration, at least for the industrial minerals, the 

USGS and State geological surveys have conducted two 

earlier workshops, at Tempe, Ariz., and Marina Del Rey, 

Calif. (Tooker, 1989; Tooker and Beeby, 1990). 

A logical and pertinent question now at this workshop in is, "Where do we go from here?" I think this 

workshop has successfully raised a great many important 

issues of regional scope. Conceivably, the USGS and 

USBM could continue to sponsor more such workshops, to 

cover the entire country in reasonable order and time. 

However, there certainly would be much repetition of the 

issues and information already expressed here and earlier 

in Arizona and California, without any action being taken 

on the recommendations that have already been made. 

Nonetheless, these workshops could also be the start 

of something new, and some of you may have ideas as to 

what that could be. I'm going to take a few minutes to 

outline just one proposal. 

Coalition Formation 

State or regionally focused coalitions or forums 

could be developed to address critical industrial-minerals 

issues of multistate regions. These coalitions could consist 

of representatives of the private-sector industry and users, 

academia, State- and local-government groups, and some 

Federal Government representatives. When confronted 

with such a proposal, I think it's reasonable to ask three 

questions: (1) "What is such a coalition going to do and 

try to accomplish?", (2) "Why should such an organization 

be generated?", and (3) "Who's going to pay for it?'' 

I don't have a final answer to the first question, and 

I emphasize that, ultimately, an answer must come from 

the State-based groups who are most concerned about 

industrial-mineral resources, and by and for whom most of 

the work should be done. I can speculate, however, about 

some of the roles that individual groups could play. Local 

groups can identify the zoning and growth issues that they 

are confronted with, much as Gov. Matheson has suggested. The coalition could operate under the aegis of 

State mining associations or the State geological surveys, 

which are knowledgeable agencies th~t have the proven 

leadership and can help the local people identify and address priority issues for their area. Informational interactions could be possible with State legislative and 

regulatory agencies and with local planning and zoning 

groups that are involved in sizing and shaping growth, 

transportation needs, and environmental issues, while looking at future demands for local industrial minerals. The 

participation of State geological surveys would serve to 

identify industrial-mineral resources, characterize deposit 

types, and indicate quantities of materials. Academic institutions might have a role in this process in various ways, 

including project staffing, urban-planning research (including development of a working GIS), research on uses and 

mining technology, or establishment of laboratories to facilitate testing of industrial minerals. The Federal Government would certainly play a role in this process, as has 

104 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
been discussed here already. Some of the types of research 

that the Federal establishment might be engaged in were 

discussed in previous workshop proceedings. It's my view 

that its most important contribution lies in an advisory capacity and in its capability to provide broad-based commodity research and an information structure that supports 

region-specific activities at the State level. This sketch 

does not cover all possible roles, and not all of these proposals may have high priority, but I hope it provides a 

general idea of the coordinated activities that a coalition 

might be able to accomplish. 

The answer to the second question may be more obvious. These workshops have shown, in my opinion, that 

there's a real need to improve the effectiveness with which 

industrial-mineral issues are understood and being addressed. Time and time again, we see that urban growth 

goes forward with very little thought as to where the materials needed to sustain that growth will come from. The 

individual States can address these issues to a certain degree; however, sharing expertise and experience in solving 

problems between State coalitions could be a more positive step. Some resource issues are becoming more than 

single-State issues; an interstate coalition may be more effective than one State trying to go it alone. 

The answer to the third question will depend on the 

scope and scale of a coalition. If started modestly, possibly 

as a State-wide periodic discussion group among the concerned industrial-mineral constituency, the cost might be 

minimal and divided across the board by the participants' 

employers as their investment in the future of industrial 

minerals. If, however, a more ambitious coalition is developed, such as that which G.E. Conrad will discuss, funding 

becomes a serious and critical matter that must compete 

with other of the organization's priority budget items. Currently, I can assure you that neither the USGS nor the 

USBM has available funds to support a more ambitious 

plan. Clearly, then, new funds would be needed, and the 

Federal Government may be the best source of them. In 

that case, we may have another argument in favor of an 

interstate coalition, considering that a group of States 

acting in concert may be more effective in obtaining funds 

than one State acting alone. 

Concluding Thoughts 

Let me conclude with several observations. First, the 

formation of a coalition must be State led and focused on 

local interests. It might be best to begin by considering a 

modest State coalition, possibly within the sponsorship of 

a mining association, that would meet at least annually to 

discuss the state of the industry, its problems, and strategies to mitigate problems. As confidence, interest, and 

support for the coalition concept grows, it might make 

sense to become more structured and affiliated with an interstate organization like the IMCC or the Association of 

Western State Governors, which have access to high levels 

of Federal and State government. G.E. Conrad will develop this proposal and the benefits that may devolve from 

such an association. As a basis for discussion of the coalition concept, the organizers of the workshop drafted a generalized "strawman" proposal (see app. 3) that was 

provided to J.G. Price, the Nevada State Geologist, who 

circulated it among his Western State geologist colleagues 

for comment; he will report on their reactions. In conclusion, some pertinent comments from the participants in 

this workshop are included. 

Conceivably, a State or group of States may indicate 

that a coalition is unnecessary. Competition within the industry or higher priorities in the State geological surveys 

may preclude joining forces. Interstate interests may be too 

diverse, their needs too dissimilar, or their organizational 

structures too incompatible to add this new level of activity. Conversely, other States or regional groups of States 

may embrace the concept as a useful way to address joint 

industrial-minerals problems in their regions. In that case, 

development of a coalition may be an effective way to 

gain a local support constituency and continue the work 

begun by these workshops. Our sole intent here is to introduce an action alternative to recognize and deal with the 

current political/business environment. What happens to 

the concept ultimately depends on the local industrialmineral constituency. 

The Interstate Mining Compact Commission, 

An Established Regional Organization 

By G.E. Conrad 

State and Federal officials and regulators are required to mount a monumental effort to focus properly on 

the issues surrounding the development of our abundant 

mineral wealth, so as to assure production in an environmentally sound manner. We are pressed from all sides to 

perform our regulatory or research roles regarding mineral 

production so as to satisfy environmental, multiple-use, socioeconomic, and industrial concerns. Our charge from the 

citizenry of the country or respective States, as contained 

in duly enacted laws, is essentially to establish and maintain programs of land and other resource development, restoration, and regulation that assure adequate supplies of 

needed minerals and yet cope with the impacts of their 

production. 

One mechanism that government has for accomplishing these objectives, especially in an area such as 

mineral development, is through coalitions -local, regional, and national. A practical reason for the use of 

coalitions is that, in many cases, mineral development 

and some of its environmental impacts do not respect 

Future Actions to Meet Industrial-Mineral Needs 105 
State or other artificial boundaries. Minerals must be 

mined where we find them, and the environmental consequences of mineral development may spread beyond 

even the best designed and projected permit area. When 

we include the economic impacts that may arise from 

interstate competition, the need for interstate cooperation 

becomes obvious. In fact, such concerns have led to Federal preemption on several occasions, as evidenced by 

CW A, CAA, SMCRCA, and recent efforts to revise the 

1872 Mining Law. The value of coalitions is that they 

provide an avenue for cooperation among States, between governments (local, State, or Federal), and even 

among several affected parties, such as government, industry, and conservationists. Possibly the most formal 

type of coalition that exists today is the interstate compact, of which the IMCC is an example. 

What Is a Compact? 

A compact is both a statute and a contract; it's almost always a statute in each of the jurisdictions which is 

party to it. Even in those cases where this definition may 

not be strictly true, the instrument has the force of statutory 

law. U.S. Supreme Court decisions have established that 

interstate compacts are not only statutes but also contracts. 

For the first 150 years of our Nation's history, compacts were used exclusively as a method of resolving 

State-boundary disputes. Most recently, however, they've 

served as a method of facilitating interstate cooperation on 

various matters of interest to State governments. Since 

World War II, several trends have surfaced. The number 

of regional and national compacts in comparison with bilateral compacts has increased considerably. Another trend 

has been the increasing number of service compacts in the 

areas in which the States have long played a dominant 

role, such as education, transportation, and taxation. 

Generally, a compact is initiated by individual States 

and has only States as parties. In comparison, certain regional planning and multistate water-resource-planning 

agencies have been created by Federal statute; all of these 

agencies include the Federal Government as a party. 

A compact may be used when a binding effect is 

desirable, such as when a specific project is to be accomplished. For informal planning or communication activity, 

some States have established voluntary conferences, councils, and coalitions without entering into a compact. Examples of these bodies are the National and Western 

Governors' Associations. Some of the details in forming a 

compact are described in appendix 4. 

I'd like to discuss compacts by providing you with 

some background on their formation, use, structure, and 

success, using the IMCC as an example. I'll conclude by 

identifying what I see as some of the benefits of coalitions, 

leaving you with a plug for cooperative federalism. 

The Interstate Mining Compact 

Origin 

The Interstate Mining Compact fits into the mold 

of a traditional compact as just described. This compact 

had its beginnings in April 1964, when the Council of 

State Governments held a meeting in Roanoke, Va., on 

surface mining that was attended by State and Federal 

legislative and administrative officials, mining-industry 

representatives, and conservationists. That fall, in the aftermath of this meeting, the Southern Governors' Conference called on the Council of State Governments to 

assist the States in developing one or more compacts to 

deal with surface-mining problems. These initiatives led 

to the subsequent adoption in many States of strengthened laws and programs for regulating surface mining; 

to supplement these intrastate activities, the Interstate 

Mining Compact was drafted and became available for 

consideration by the States in their legislative sessions of 

1966. 

The Interstate Mining Compact was thus conceived, 

and Kentucky became its first member, followed by Pennsylvania and North Carolina. With the entry of Oklahoma 

in 1971, the compact was declared to be in existence and 

operational. In February 1972, permanent headquarters 

were established in Lexington, Ky., and an executive director was retained. Since the establishment of a permanent headquarters, 13 additional States-West Virginia, 

South Carolina, Maryland, Tennessee, Indiana, Illinois, 

Texas, Alabama, Virginia, Ohio, Louisiana, Arkansas, and 

New Mexico-have become members. 

Purpose 

The Interstate Mining Compact is designed to be advisory and not regulatory, and its defined purposes are as 

follows. 

• To advance the protection and restoration of the 

land, water, and other resources affected by mining. 

• To assist in the reduction or elimination or counteraction of pollution or deterioration of land, water, and 

air attributable to mining. 

• To encourage (with due recognition of relevant 

regional, physical, and other differences) programs in each 

of the party States that will achieve comparable results in 

protecting, conserving, and improving the usefulness of 

natural resources, to the end that the most desirable conduct of mining and related operations may be universally 

facilitated. 

• To assist the party States in their efforts to facilitate the use of land and other resources affected by mining, so that such use may be consistent with sound 

land-use, practices, public health, and public safety, and, to 

this end, to study and recommend, wherever desirable, 

106 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
techniques for the improvement, restoration, or protection 

of such land and other resources. 

• To assist in achieving and maintaining an efficient 

and productive mining industry and in increasing economic and other benefits attributable to mining. 

Participation in the compact is gained through the 

enactment of legislation by the States authorizing their 

entry into the compact; the States are represented by their 

respective governors, who serve as commissioners. The 

compact also provides for the establishment of a mining 

advisory body within each State, consisting of representatives from conservation groups, the mining industry, and 

other public and private interests. 

Operational Philosophy 

Among the Interstate Mining Compact's powers are 

the study of mining operations, processes, and techniques; 

the study of conservation, adaptation, improvement, and 

restoration of land and related resources affected by mining; the gathering and dissemination of information; the 

making of recommendations; and cooperation with the 

Federal Government and any public or private entities with 

an interest in any subject within the purview of the 

compact. 

The compact acts through several committees that 

have responsibility for particular subject matter or policy 

areas, including environmental affairs, mineral resources, 

legal issues, abandoned mine lands, resolutions, and finance. The Governors are represented tm these committees by duly appointed delegates from their respective 

States. 

The IMCC was founded on the premise that the mining industry is one of the most basic and important in the 

Nation. Our manufacturing activities, transportation systems, and the comfort of our homes depend on the products of mining. At the same time, it is essential that an 

appropriate balance be struck between the need for minerals and protection of the environment. We recognize that 

the individual States have the power to establish and maintain programs of land and other resource development, restoration, and regulation appropriate to cope with the 

surface effects of mining. The IMCC would not shift responsibility for such programs, but our 17 member States 

believe a united position in dealing with the Federal Government and others affords us a decided advantage. Our 

commission feels strongly that a collective voice is important in our efforts to retain some semblance of States' 

rights. 

Over the years,. the IMCC has become an organization of national scope in Washington, D.C., serving as the 

eyes, ears, and spokesperson for the mining States. It 

strives to represent the interests of the mining States effectively in their dealings with Capitol Hill and the executive 

agencies, in an effort to articulate the concerns and recommendations of the States in their role as primary regulators 

of mining activities within their borders. 

Benefits 

I believe that the IMCC performs several meaningful 

and critical benefits and services which greatly assist the 

States in the development of their mineral resources and in 

their implementation and administration of regulatory responsibilities under such statutes as the 1977 SMCRA, 

FWPCA, RCRA, and CAA. Among the issues actively engaged in by the compact are Federal oversight of the States 

by OSM, State program grants under titles IV and V of 

SMCRA, the State program-amendment process and other 

significant OSM rulemakings, administration of the Applicant Violator System, and a various programs under EPA 

auspices. New issues on the horizon include ground-water 

protection, mine-waste programs, mineral-research projects, 

and national strategic- and critical-material policy. 

The IMCC administers the COALEX search service, 

a computerized legal-research and informational network 

available only to the States through a grant with OSM. The 

entire subject of information exchange is an important part 

of what the compact is about. We recently completed a 

report on the regulation of noncoal solid minerals throughout the country that we've distributed to all 50 States. 

The compact also is active in recognizing the accomplishments of the industries that we regulate. Each year, the 

compact presents a national reclamation award in both the 

coal and noncoal categories. We believe that such a program highlights the positive work which the mining industry and the States together are doing in the way of 

environmental protection. 

The real value of multistate organizations like the 

IMCC is their ability to coordinate actions and to speak 

with one voice on issues of importance to the States. Without such opportunities and forums, the States are left to 

fend for themselves or, worse yet, are criticized as being 

unable to handle issues or effectively resolve problems that 

are uniquely within their own province. This view, then, 

serves as a justification for Federal preemption, and the 

States find their authority being superseded by national 

legislation. 

The Functions of Coalitions 

Depending on the issue or subject area, a lesser or 

greater degree of organizational formality will be called 

for, including the breadth of geographic reach. Mineral development, I believe, calls for a combination of both regional and national coalitions, each serving different 

needs. It's important for the regional coalitions to have access to and to communicate with one another, so as to 

Future Actions to Meet Industrial-Mineral Needs 107 
share common issues and information and to learn from 

one another's experiences in similar areas or undertakings. 

National Coalitions 

For example, the IMCC, which has been predominantly concerned with Eastern and Midwestern mineral issues, also works closely with the Western Interstate 

Energy Board, which focuses on Western mineral and energy issues. We've found that, although our perspectives 

may differ, there is substantial overlap in terms of our experiences on a whole panoply of issues, particularly with 

respect to surface coal mining and reclamation. Close coordination and even joint working sessions of our organizations and member States have resulted in a more 

effective and concerted voice on issues of mutual concern 

in our dealings with Washington. The IMCC also works 

closely with other State organizations, including the Mine 

Waste Task Force of the Western Governors' Association, 

the Association of Abandoned Mine Land States, the National Association of State Land Reclamationists, and the 

Conference of Government Mining Attorneys. These efforts have all resulted in better coordination on issues of 

mutual interest and in a fuller understanding of the issues 

among the affected States. 

I should note here that the IMCC also maintains coordination with other nongovernmental coalitions representing affected parties who have an interest in many of 

the same issues, including the AMC, the National Coal 

Association, the National Wildlife Federation, the Environmental Law Institute, and the National Stone Association. 

A better understanding of the positions of the regulated 

industry and the environmental community enhances our 

ability as regulators to be more responsive, more responsible, and more effective. 

Regional Coalitions 

There's clearly a need, in my view, for regional coalitions focused on mineral development. Continual emphasis and study is needed on the state of the mining industry, 

its potential for development, and the attendant environmental, socioeconomic, and multiple-use impacts. These 

efforts call for research, planning, information gathering 

and sharing, and coordination. To the extent that a regional 

coalition can accomplish any of these objectives, mineral 

development in the region will be well served. 

Several aspects of an effective coalition must be 

considered, however-not unlike those taken into 

consideration in the formation of an interstate compact, including resources, infrastructure, organizational aspects, 

communication methods, and necessary approvals from local, State, or Federal governmental authorities. The more 

informal such a coalition can be kept, the better it will 

function on a regional level. Also, to the extent that its 

coalition can operate under the auspices of or in connection with existing organizations with established infrastructures that can lend support to the coalition, the chances of 

success are enhanced. Such a relationship is likely to bolster the legitimacy of the coalition in the eyes of those 

who must approve it, and provides the needed support and 

consistency of operation. Even under such a scenario, the 

coalition can operate as a credible, recognizable, and freestanding organization with its own identity, goals, and objectives. 

Advice for Forming Coalitions 

On the basis of our 19 years of experience as a 

multistate organization, I want to mention several other aspects of coalition building. We can call them Conrad's 

Critical Criteria for Coalition Success. 

1. Define the coalition's purposes and objectives. Identify the particular issues you intend to pursue, and 

stick to them. In this regard, remember that there are 

other State and industry coalitions already covering 

certain issue areas, and there's little sense in duplicating their efforts. Instead, coordinate with them to the 

extent possible. 

2. Be realistic about the goals of the coalition and its anticipated accomplishments. 

3. Prepare an organizational plan as to how the coalition 

will be run, who the players will be, and what the respective responsibilities will be. Consider the relationships between the coalition and other groups. 

4. Obtain all necessary approvals for moving forward with 

the coalition and its work early on. Be aware of political considerations here. 

5. Be prepared to give it your all. The initiatives proposed 

take energy, commitment, coordination, and perseverance. They also require resources-both personnel and 

monetary-and you should be cognizant of where this 

support is coming from on a yearly basis. 

6. Consider the implications of pursuing certain issues 

through the coalition, especially in terms of how it's 

constituted (that is, the Federal Advisory Committee 

Act) and how the parties will resolve issues in the final 

analysis (will the Feds tum to individual States or companies if the coalition doesn't "represent" interests?). 

The Principle of Cooperative Federalism 

To the extent that any coalition involves the States 

and the Federal Government binding together, the likelihood of its success is enhanced. At the same time, however, the States should not fail to recognize that they have 

a unique role to play in the area of mineral development 

and environmental protection. There needs to be a sensi108 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
tivity, then, to the issue of State-Federal relations, and, as 

a representative of State governments, I'm duty bound to 

make my speech about the need for and the value of cooperative federalism. Perhaps Thomas Jefferson said it 

best when he claimed that State governments are in a 

better position to serve the people because they are closer 

to the people. 

Elements of Cooperative Federalism 

Two principles emerge as we chart the course of 

mineral development and environmental protection in general. First, there's clearly a role for a significant Federal 

presence. Second, as a balancing principle, environmental 

programs must involve the States in a substantive role as 

environmental action is assimilated into the local environmental and social order. These principles are the basis for 

a sound federalism in which each level of government 

works within its proper sphere and authority to serve to its 

citizens. Healthy tension between the States and the Federal Government works to moderate excessive action or 

inaction. 

Environmental protection and resource management call for a stabilizing Federal presence, but the Federal Government must guard against fostering 

well-intentioned programs that produce costly activity 

without progress. Problems are inevitable with Federal 

legislation that paints the entire Nation with the same 

broad stroke. Americans live in a land of diverse environmental conditions and problems; Federal regulation 

of our environment must reflect the diversity of this 

country's many regions. Efforts to achieve and sustain a 

cleaner world require a balanced partnership between the 

States and the Federal Government, an arrangement that 

recognizes and builds on the relative strengths of the 

partners. 

The Role of the States 

For their part, the States shoulder the primary responsibility for planning, designing, implementing, and enforcing programs to achieve Federal and State goals and 

standards. This responsibility involves exercising discretion 

in the design and operation of environmental programs as 

long as program goals are achieved. It also involves the 

right to establish standards more stringent than Federal minimums, in accordance with the States' fundamental obligation to protect their citizens' health and welfare. 

The States recognize that a strong Federal presence 

in setting national goals, providing assistance, and exercising performance-based oversight is appropriate in 

environmental programs, but the States must have flexibility in implementing and achieving Federal goals. The 

attempt to define one solution and technique for all 

occurrences of a problem is impractical in a country as 

diverse as ours. Flexibility is also one of the best incentives the Federal Government can offer for innovative and 

speedy environmental protection. For their part, the States 

must be willing to continue shouldering the responsibility 

and demonstrating their ability to administer the public 

trust competently. 

Federal-State Balance 

Given the appropriateness of cooperative federalism 

as the most effective, efficient, and constitutionally sound 

method of operating a major environmental program, the 

key to its success rests, to a large degree, on attitude. A 

relationship of any kind, be it a marriage, a business, or a 

State-Federal partnership, is only as good as the partners 

make it; it depends for its success on mutual trust and respect, effective communication, common understanding, 

and a desire to make the relationship work. A commitment 

is required whereby both parties see the accomplishment 

of a common objective as worthwhile and worth striving 

for. 

The importance of attitude simply cannot be overlooked. The ultimate success of a regulatory program in 

which implementation and oversight responsibilities are divided between the States and the Federal Government depends on how you come into the debate on cooperative 

federalism. A predisposition by a Federal decisionmaker or 

policymaker toward a heavy "national" influence will affect his or her ability to reflect openmindedly and evenhandedly on matters of primacy. Similarly, an overly 

aggressive attitude about States' rights to the exclusion of 

an appropriate oversight role by the Federal Government 

will preclude any successful cooperative effort. Striking an 

effective balance between the States and the Federal Government is the goal of the federal system, and approaching 

such a balance with the right attitude is the key to its 

accomplishment. 

Unfortunately, in the eyes of many in the Federal 

Government, the States are little more than interest groups 

that must lobby and litigate to protect the interests of their 

citizens. Nor has Congress shown much interest in correcting the growing imbalance in our federal system; Congress, the courts, and presidents have continued to expand 

Federal powers at the expense of the States'. Two startling 

indicators of the erosion of State and local authority are as 

follows: 

• More than half of all the Federal statutes preempting State and local authority in the Nation's 200-year history have been enacted during the past 20 years, adding up 

to about 190 statutes out of some 354. 

• More than 35 percent of all U.S. Supreme Court 

rulings declaring a State or local act to be unconstitutional 

have been issued during the past 25 years. 

Future Actions to Meet Industrial-Mineral Needs 109 
Final Thoughts 

The fact is, however, that the States are able, willing, and eager to govern effectively. As one noted expert 

in the field tells it, "If any lessons are to be learned from 

the organization of effective institutions today, it is that 

noncentralization, networking, and diversity work better 

than hierarchies. The kind of hierarchy that has developed 

in the federal system-one in which State and local governments are viewed as lower levels-undermines the capacity for innovation, adaptation, and flexibility originally 

built into our federal system." 

This workshop is evidence not only of the States and 

the Federal Government cooperating to achieve a common 

goal but also, perhaps just as importantly, of incorporation 

of the regulated industry as part of an effective coalition. I 

salute your efforts and wish you all the best as you move 

forward on this exciting new front. To the extent that the 

IMCC can be of assistance to you, we'd welcome the opportunity. In particular, we also look forward to cosponsoring a similar workshop with the USGS and State geologists 

in the Eastern and Midwestern States in the near future. 

State Geologists' Views About the Concept of 

State or Regional Industrial-Minerals Coalitions 

By j.G. Price 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to offer 

some perspectives from the NBMG and from the geological surveys of some of the other Western States regarding 

an industrial-minerals coalition. 

I've received comments from many of the Western 

State geologists concerning this matter, and I'm pleased to 

say that, in general, the proposal is viewed to have some 

merit. That proposal, as presented to us in draft form (see 

app. 3), envisions a consortium with representatives from 

the industrial-minerals industry; academia; geological and 

mining surveys; local, State, and Federal land managers 

and regulators; environmental planners; and major users of 

resources and related geoscience information. We do think 

that many issues need to be addressed and discussed more 

fully by all the States that may be involved. We therefore 

propose to discuss the concept of an industrial-minerals coalition informally over the next few months and then formally at the next meeting of the Western State geologists. 

E.H. Bennett, Idaho State Geologist, and M.L. 

Allison, Utah State Geologist, will be giving us some of 

their views as well, and we have other representatives of 

geological surveys with us, in particular, James Barker 

from New Mexico. In addition to these States, we've had 

comments from Arizona, California, Colorado, Montana, 

Oregon, and Washington; Alaska and Hawaii were omitted 

by the USGS. 

Please allow me to note some of the issues and 

concerns that have been voiced by the Western State geologists. We don't have a standard disclaimer for such 

matters, so I take full responsibility for any misrepresentations in the following remarks. 

• Because the term "industrial minerals" covers 

such a broad range of commodities, from low-value products like crushed rock for which prices depend highly on 

transportation costs, to high-value products like lithium 

carbonate, there is concern that a broad-based industrialminerals coalition won't be able to adequately address 

some specific issues. Many producers of one commodity 

have little in common with producers of another. Coalitions based on commodities rather than regions of the 

county may be more appropriate. 

• The structure of a coalition should be examined 

carefully because some of the most important issues affecting the minerals industry involve Federal laws and 

regulations. Direct participation of the main regulatory 

agencies, including the BLM, USFS, MSHA, OSHA, and 

EPA, should be considered. Other affected agencies, such 

as HUD and the DOT and DOC, could also have a role in 

such a coalition. However, if a major purpose of the coalition becomes lobbying for more Federal funds to support 

research on industrial minerals, then direct participation of 

the Federal agencies may be inappropriate. 

• Many States feel that any formal coalition should 

be initiated by the States themselves and that participation 

should be optional. Many of the issues are local and need to 

be addressed at the State and local levels. For example, the 

State of Washington recently passed legislation that requires 

consideration of the long-term significance of mineral extraction in managing urban growth. A coalition, committee, 

or working group suggested by the States may be somewhat 

different from what M.P. Foose has presented here. 

• Some States feel that a coalition is not needed to 

identify industrial-minerals issues and problems to be 

solved. That is, we already know what the problems are 

(such as the attitudes that "no one wants a pit or quarry 

within 100 mi of them," and "[industrial minerals are] 

common or found everywhere and [therefore] don't need 

to be developed"). The need for better industrial-mineralresource information can be met by increased efforts on 

the part of the DOl. 

• The USBM and State geological surveys or bureaus of mines need to continue to collect and disseminate 

accurate mineral production and resource data in a timely 

manner. The USBM should increase its efforts and should 

work closely with State agencies to collect the best statistics and to publish them as quickly as possible. The 

USBM should also expand its efforts on evaluating market 

demands, especially from foreign markets. 

• The Federal agencies (USGS, USBM, BLM, and 

USFS) should continue to encourage involvement of local 

110 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
experts on the staffs of the State agencies in Federal resource evaluation and analysis. 

• The USGS and State geological surveys need to 

continue to provide the basic framework for exploration 

and development in the minerals industry: geologic maps, 

geophysical data on subsurface structure and thickness of 

overburden, and physical and chemical characteristics 

(grades) of the materials. The USGS should increase its 

emphasis on geologic mapping. Geologic maps are the 

basis for exploration, resource assessment, and land-use 

planning. Rapidly expanding metropolitan areas should be 

mapped in detail on a timely basis because established 

urban areas commonly are difficult to map. The USGS 

should continue to work with the Association of American 

State Geologists and with its sister bureaus and agencies in 

the Federal Government to see that the NCGMP initiative 

is implemented as soon as possible. That initiative calls for 

complete geologic mapping of the United States in digital 

format for easier use by regulators and land-use planners; 

the maps will be generally at a scale of 1:24,000, with 

final publication at 1:100,000. For the initiative to be successful, there will have to be widespread support from industry, government agencies, and the general public. 

We're convinced that such support can be won. 

• In the areas of land-use policy, such as wilderness 

areas, the USBM and USGS need to demonstrate a commitment to undertake meaningful resource evaluations of 

industrial minerals, not just metallic-mineral resources. 

Some States feel that without strong commitments on the 

parts of the USBM and USGS to increase efforts in these 

areas, an industrial-minerals coalition would be ineffective. 

• A coalition involving State and Federal agencies 

could have significant benefits in several areas, such as 

GIS, information and technology sharing and transfer, and 

assuring the availability of Federal lands for industrialmineral production. Many State and local governments in 

the West are using compatible GIS software, which will 

allow much quicker dissemination of information and 

greater ease of using the information than were previous! y 

available. 

• We recognize that part of the effort which the 

USGS is undertaking with organizing workshops on industrial minerals (here in Salt Lake City, last year in California, and the year before in Arizona) may be laying the 

groundwork for an initiative to increase Federal funding 

for research on industrial minerals. In general, we agree 

that more should be done in geologic mapping; determinations of the qualities or grades of industrial-mineral resources; collection of production statistics; research on mining, 

material handling and separation, and marketing; education 

of the public about industrial-mineral issues; and better incorporation of information into Federal land-use decisions. 

In summary, most Western State geologists believe 

that there's merit in the proposal to meet regularly to discuss issues regarding industrial minerals. We plan to discuss the coalition concept at our upcoming meeting. 

Some Additional Observations About Coalitions 

By E.H. Bennett 

I want to thank the sponsoring organizations for 

holding this workshop. It's been useful to exchange ideas, 

especially when we meet participants, such as those from 

the regulatory agencies, whom we don't normally converse 

with. You sometimes get a different slant on matters during exchanges of ideas. However, after a while at such 

meetings, you begin to hear the same things repeated. 

Let's hope that Gov. Matheson's advice about the need to 

repeat the obvious is true! 

What's the situation in Idaho? (1) Today's the IGS 

is doing as much as it can to help in the education of our 

citizens on the importance of mining. Several speakers 

have already addressed that need. I'm not sure, considering our income from the State, that we can do much more. 

(2) We try to support all of the industries within our State. 

(3) I think our industrial-minerals industry is unique in its 

own right; certainly, all the industries in other States are 

unique. You may have, for example, a commodity such as 

phosphate for which the industry in Utah doesn't have a 

particularly strong voice. In Idaho, the phosphate industry 

is half of the Idaho Mining Association; it has a built-in 

group speaking for it at the State and national levels. In 

the past, it's been an extremely effective spokesperson for 

the industry. ( 4) With respect to the laws that all of us 

have to follow, all of the agencies, coalitions, or compacts 

that are working on behalf of the mining industry in 

Washington, D.C., also have to comply. I'm not sure 

whether another coalition will do much more to solve that 

problem for you when they haven't been able to do anything for you so far. The AMC, which is the national organization that speaks for the whole industry, with all the 

money behind it, looks at the problem of defending the 

1872 Mining Law. It gets no argument from anybody in 

the industry about the 1872 law, yet that law is still constantly under fire. Thus, many organizations that are already out there have a "full plate" just trying to deal with 

the regulations that are coming on line. In my opinion, 

they haven't been extremely effective in being able to look 

out for specific aspects of the industry's viewpoints in 

dealing with those regulations. 

The States are all different. The Idaho Legislature 

operates differently from the Nevada Assembly. The industry in our State differs from that in other States. I'm 

not quite sure how well a coalition would work when 

you're trying to work at the State legislative level. Coming 

in to talk with the Idaho Legislature about a joint interstate 

problem involving a specific industrial mineral would be 

Future Actions to Meet Industrial-Mineral Needs 111 
extremely difficult, particularly if you're trying to address 

four or five States at the same time. 

Still, I don't want to throw a wet blanket on the concept of an industrial-minerals coalition. The Western State 

geologists are, in my opinion, a very close-knit group; 

most of us have known each other for a long time, and I 

have a lot of respect for my colleagues. Therefore, I echo 

Jon Price's sentiments in the need to talk to some of the 

other States more to get their opinions on these matters 

and to see where the States would want to go. If there's 

going to be a coalition, I think it needs to come from the 

States, not the Federal Government. Otherwise, it becomes 

a Federally oriented program, which won't necessarily be 

focused at the State level. I also suggest that we discuss 

this concept at Madison, Wise., at the next Association of 

American State Geologists meeting, and I'll be most interested in the views of my colleagues in the West. 

Funding is going to b~ a problem for a coalition. 

How many projects do we want to sponsor? Our requests 

for support, as Don Hull, the Oregon State Geologist, calls 

them, are "precious silver bullets." How many bullets do 

we want to shoot off to our congressional delegations at 

one time? Right now, incredible as it is, all of the State 

geologists are in accord that we want to have the proposed 

national geologic-mapping program go forward. It's a very 

large program for the State geological surveys; we're talking about a $50-million-per-year Federal program. We're 

going to be asked pretty soon to go to our congressional 

delegations seeking their support for that national program. 

For how many other programs do we want to go to them 

asking for their support at the same time? I don't think too 

many! We all have to watch our supply of "silver bullets" 

very closely, and we don't want to shoot unless we're 

pretty sure we can hit the target and get some return from 

it. Therefore, I think, in general, we're in favor of looking 

at an industrial-minerals coalition, but not at the expense 

of our first priority, a geologic-mapping program. 

The industrial minerals have many problems that are 

inherent in each of the different commodities, and it'll be 

difficult for a coalition to address them effectively. I suggest, from the Idaho viewpoint, that we'll want to discuss 

this concept carefully with our colleagues. 

A Utah Perspective on the Coalition Proposal 

By M.L. Allison 

In response to the coalition proposal, we can all 

agree that there are needs, and there are problems that 

need to be resolved; there are even problems that we need 

to avoid, and some that haven't come up yet. We have to 

be more effective and more efficient in what we're doing. 

The question is, how? I wonder whether this is the right 

way to do it-through a coalition as presently proposed. I 

wonder whether these are the right players to be involved 

in it. I'd like to run through the draft version of the coalition proposal and select a few points to comment on in 

response to some of the specific concerns that we have. 

1. The coalition will obtain Federal or institutional funding. E.H. Bennett has just pointed out that this is a 

problem. We have problems getting funding just to 

keep our ongoing programs alive and well as they 

stand. To go out for new money is tough, especially 

when the proposed national-mapping program is as high 

a priority for the UGS as for other State geological surveys. 

2. The coalition should be addressing policy issues. Sometimes, the State geological surveys go out and do that, 

but most of us are nonregulatory agencies; we're scientific agencies or technical agencies that are there to 

work with industry. We're your supporters, but as soon 

as we get in a position of going out to talk about regulatory actions, permitting, or environmental concerns, 

suddenly we're getting into a whole new area that 

we've never dealt with. We'd be taking on some burdens and baggage that may be bad for us and, possibly, 

for the industry in the long run. 

3. The coalition will be concerned with research and technology transfer. There's a proposal here to publish results on a regular basis. There's a lot of money 

involved when we start dealing with publications, technology, and research. The question is, "Who's going to 

pay for this?" The idea of applying new technologies to 

industrial minerals, to develop cooperation between 

academic institutions and the Federal or State governmental agencies sounds good, but, in part, it may duplicate program roles that we presently have. A 

tremendous amount of money and effort may be required to establish a new industry-inclusive forum for 

research and technology transfer. I doubt that the Westem States are going to be willing to fund some kind of 

multi-million-dollar program solely for the benefit of 

industrial minerals, and Federal partiCipation in funding 

a coalition at any level seems moot. We're opposed to 

the idea of creating another large bureaucracy that 

might involve a lot of the UGS' or other State geological surveys' time and manpower. 

4. The coalition will advise on Federal land-use policies. 

We agree that there are certain policy issues which are 

similar for all the Western States. These issues deal 

mostly with BLM-type questions of land use; other factors, such clean air, noise pollution, and mined-land 

reclamation, are all distinct from State to State and even 

from area to area within a State. It appears to us that 

some difficulty will arise in defining and prioritizing 

land-use-policy issues. California and Arizona, for example, have different problems from those in the Great 

Basin States. Additionally, there are organizations, such 

112 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
as the Utah Resources Development Coordinating Committee, and broader regional entities, such the Western 

Governor's Association, that already deal with some of 

these issues and coordinate comments on Federal policies. 

5. The State Geologists will form committees to encourage 

the coalition. We agree on a need to identify and categorize industrial minerals within the States and to 

work with the industrial-minerals industry in identifying 

new sources of these minerals. This type of economic 

evaluation is within the USBM's general area of activity. The USGS' traditional role is geoscience research, 

resource information and analysis, and study of other 

geologic phenomena. We believe that these Federal 

agencies already have programs in place that are dealing with such problem areas. 

6. The coalition will establish local funding support. 

Again, as mentioned earlier, we have the problem of 

where do we get this money. E.H. Bennett has noted a 

possible misfire in using our "silver bullets" for this 

proposal. 

7. There's a proposal to establish a Federally funded 

grants program. This is very vaguely worded, and it 

raises some concerns again. Where will the grants go? 

Who's going to pay for them? Who's going to run the 

granting program? How much money out of that program budget will actually go into grants, and how much 

will stay within the granting agency to supervise and 

run the program? Again, we have the concern over a 

whole new bureaucracy, a lot of money being set aside 

from other programs into this one. We don't see what 

the benefit to the States is. 

We agree with some of the goals stated in the 

"strawman" proposal, but we think that approach is neither 

necessary nor desirable at this time. It's uncommon that a 

coalition would assume or be given a broad charter to 

cover such areas as land-use planning, Federal and State 

land-use policy, research and technology transfer, and 

basic-resource identification and inventory. We believe 

that this proposal encompasses far too many issues to be 

truly effective. We'd prefer a much-scaled-down agenda 

that could be organized and implemented through existing 

channels, such as the Western Governors' Association, 

possibly the local mining associations, or associations of 

industrial-mineral industries for geologists in industry, and 

that could work within established Federal and State 

guidelines. I'll have to be convinced a bit more about the 

overall value of this proposal. 

Participants' Discussion and Comments 

The following discussion offers both suggestions and 

cautions about the development of some form of continuing problem-solving coalition or forum and reemphasizes 

the special needs for public education and understanding 

of the problems that currently face the industrial-mineral 

industry. 

Comments by M.P. Foose: At the outset, I'd like to 

correct what may be a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the coalition proposal, which I presented as a 

"strawman." First, any coalition should be locally driven, 

consider local issues, and be run by local individuals from 

the industrial-minerals constituency, which certainly has to 

include industry representatives. During the early formulation stage, the coalition should not require much money, 

but State or industry funds may well need to be available 

if a significant body of work beyond the discussion phase 

is to be accomplished. In the absence of State funds, there 

is only one other source of funding- the Federal Government. To attract the attention and support of the Congress, 

a well-justified and broadly supported program must be 

developed. 

Second, the USGS actually doesn't see a coalition 

as something that it's ever going to directly benefit from. 

The USGS, however, is concerned with the way industrial minerals are being treated. A forum where improvements can be discussed and then forwarded to those 

responsible for making changes would be beneficial to 

all. Right now, industrial-mineral decisions are being 

made without planning, and the Nation risks losing many 

potential resources. 

Third, it would be encouraging if industry could 

and would take care of itself and somehow spontaneously organize itself to consider the issues we've been 

talking about during the past day and a half. But I don't 

see any evidence that industry will do that, or even that 

it "can" do that, considering its great diversity. We've 

held previous workshops in Arizona and California. Industry has taken part in those workshops, but basically 

business is continuing in Los Angeles and Arizona in the 

same way as before. I'm willing to be convinced that, as 

a result of being here today, industry will form a group 

which will effectively address these issues on a continuing basis. If it can't, then the question is, who "can" do 

that? In my opinion, that leadership must come from 

some part of the State and local resource constituency, 

which can provide a broad-enough base to exert influence. We suggested that the State geological surveys, as 

part of the constituency, might form the rallying point 

around which a coalition could be organized. There almost has to be some government guidance from the resource constituency, but clearly a government agency 

shouldn't take on any activities that might seem to involve a conflict of interest. 

This "strawman" has some drawbacks, but I hope 

those aren't the sole focus of our discussion. Rather, I'd 

like to hear other "strawman'' proposals. The important 

question is, "What do other people think can be done to 

Future Actions to Meet Industrial-Mineral Needs 113 
change the way industrial minerals are treated, not only in 

Utah but also nationwide?" 

• I can agree with many of the points brought up 

during the past 2 days about the need for industry and 

government agencies to deal with industrial-mineral problems. But I have to agree with those speakers who indicate 

that it's not the proper role of State and Federal agencies 

to pursue a coalition type of endeavor, as it's been proposed. If we're going to have a Western industrial-minerals coalition, it needs to be industry initiated, industry 

organized and operated, and industry funded. For example, 

I think the NDM has acted correctly as a liaison between 

State government and the mining industry, but it's not that 

NDM's role to do the job for either of them. The NDM 

can help them, can advise them in many cases, and can go 

to bat for them when it agrees with their position. Government representatives run the risk of compromising agency 

positions by taking an active lobbying role, which much of 

the coalition's proposal would seem to be. Many problems 

and projects could be brought up for consideration and action by a coalition like this-in particular, mapping 

projects and industrial-resource inventories-that are appropriate roles for State and local governmental agencies 

and academia to be involved with. To have a governmentrun coalition would run the risk of missing input from industry representatives sitting down and actively organizing 

the coalition; it wouldn't go anywhere, because the people 

most affected wouldn't be involved. 

If I were to make a suggestion, it would be to pursue the kinds of things we've discussed here at the 

workshop, possibly at a Western industrial-minerals conference where we can bring all the parties together. 

From my standpoint, as a government employee, I'd encourage industry representatives from the State mining 

associations to take a more active role and, with government support, become involved in your own State in 

mining-related issues. 

Reply: The committee's idea wasn't to form a coalition at this workshop but to consider, before proposing 

further action, whether it was a practical concept worth developing, what its objectives would be, and who should be 

involved. It seemed that a local organizational structure 

was needed as a catalyst to get the State-level discussions 

moving; a State geological survey was such a possible organization. But you're correct that more industry representative should become involved in any such planning, and 

the suggestion of using the State mining associations to 

catalyze further local discussion and action is excellent. 

• As an industry representative, I tend to agree with 

those speakers who stress that any industrial-minerals coalition needs to be industry driven. I liked the presentation 

this morning on the Nevada educational program. Those of 

us in the mining industry need to work together to educate 

the public and regulators. Every one of us drives a car 

that's made out of materials which have to be mined, and 

all of us. live in houses that are made of mined materials. 

We all need to work together to support the industry. 

Granted, the industry may have some skeletons in its 

closet-things done in the past-but we're working on 

cleaning them up with the help of the government. These 

problems must be resolved. I think that education of what 

the mining industry does for the public and the country is 

essential. 

I also agree that the planning bodies of State and 

local governmental agencies should be mandated to dedicate localities which need to be set aside for future resource development, so that we're not tripping over each 

other. Several industries, not only sand-and-gravel operations, have been shut down because communities have 

built right up to mine boundaries and people complain 

about dust, noise, and so on. My company encouraged a 

landfill project to become our neighbor just so we would 

have more protection from encroaching summer-home development. I've seen many parts of the lightweightaggregate industry in the United States shut down just 

because of encroachment by the villages. So I agree, we 

need to do something as a group. It needs to be industry, 

not government, driven; however, I appreciate that the 

government is trying to help. 

• One thing I've observed here is that we're not 

always lacking systems, processes, or involved agencies 

which are aware of what the problems are. Sometimes, 

they're not finding effective ways to deal with them at this 

point because they don't have the necessary information; 

they're not talking to their clients early enough. Maybe the 

issue isn't a need for a new system or framework for fixing the problem. Maybe the problem, in fact, is, how do 

we work within the existing structure or with an existing 

framework? How do we target to be more effective in using what's there already before we start looking for a new 

organization to address the issue? It's taken considerable 

effort to put a coalition group together to go forward effectively, as G.E. Conrad and others have indicated. 

Maybe our energy will be better channeled in seeing how 

much more effective we can be using our present system 

better. 

Reply: This suggestion is excellent, but it doesn't 

answer the key question of what present system can and 

will do the job. There's still a need to find a leadership 

"home base," such as a local mining association, to convene and stimulate a local forum into developing some action. One of the first objectives of this group would be to 

examine the present operating structures and identify a 

leader. 

Suggestion by G.E. Conrad: There may be value in 

segregating resource issues into two different areas. We've 

heard about some public-policy matters characterized as 

"political issues" during the past 2 days. There've also 

114 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
been several more informational-technical-scientific issues. 

The type of issue has a large bearing on the type of coalition that States, local governments, or any type of industry 

organization might select in deciding how to pursue an initiative with regard to the issue at hand. When I think of 

the types of issues the IMCC traditionally has been involved in, most people would consider them to be public 

policy, sometimes even political issues on behalf of the 

States. The success of the IMCC as a coalition of States 

has been due, in large part, to the fact that the issues are 

structured in such a way that we can develop a similar 

mindset with regard to how they're presented to the Congress, to a regulatory agency, or to the industry. 

For example, consider the mapping initiative that the 

State geologists are concerned about. They came to the 

IMCC and said that they needed some support for their 

proposal. With a minimal amount of discussion, we could 

see the merit of it, and so we adopted a resolution supporting their request. That added some weight to what they're 

trying to accomplish. What we can do that they can't is 

take the resolution to Capitol Hill, go before appropriations committees, and say, "OK, congressman, this $50 

million is really important; we need this money for these 

reasons." That's something IMCC can do for the States, 

but the groundwork wasn't laid by me but by "a coalition 

of State geologists," and without them doing their jobs, I 

couldn't take the next step. It's an example of how you 

can work with organizations that are already in place and 

why some work better in advancing new or different needs 

of the States. There are other policy issues that definitely 

find their way before an organization like the IMCC and 

that work well because they cross over State boundaries or 

mineral issues. There are several OSM issues on the coal 

side that may have specific impacts on States, but because 

of the way they're currently framed, we can develop an 

overall State position on the issue. Then, we move forward 

with the issue on their behalf. 

How this is done has to do with defining where 

specific issues fall and what backing or opposition is out 

there. One issue we've heard a lot about during the past 

2 days is zoning and the impact local governments are 

having on planning, and on the State's ability to control 

things. It's an issue that's been raised by the IMCC 

States within the past few years, and at our next annual 

meeting, we're going to have a couple of speakers address that issue. I went to the National Association of 

Counties to try to get some ideas as to who might be 

able to address that issue. I asked it if, as an institution, 

it had given any thought about the impact that zoning 

and local planning have on mineral operations. Their answer was "yes," and they were able to give us several 

speakers to address that issue. There are other organizations out there that you can work with to advance the 

concerns and positions of the States with regard to the 

zoning and perm1ttmg issue. It's a matter of searching 

them out, and there may be more of them out there than 

we realize. 

Comment by E.H. Bennett: In Idaho, when we have 

such concerns, we ask the Idaho Mining Association to 

address them. Sometimes it works out quite well, and 

sometimes less well. We look to them to help within their 

sphere of influence, rather than ask for involvement by a 

nonregulatory State agency. The real value of a State geological survey to the State is that of a credible nonregulatory agency which has no axe to grind. When we get up in 

front of a group, we can discuss the positive features of 

mining, and many people believe us. However, when the 

Idaho Mining Association gets up to give an eloquent talk 

about the benefits of mining in the State, the audience may 

question their objectivity. You can see that the mining association has its value when operating within its sphere of 

influence in the State, and we think the geological survey 

has its role. These shouldn't be confused or integrated. 

Reply by G.E. Conrad: It's very important to distinguish the respective roles that agencies play within State 

government. These roles are defined carefully for good 

reasons. We have to be careful in the IMCC about mixing 

and matching, one example of which was in the Mine 

Waste Task Force. Some States have two distinct representatives sitting at the table in the State coalition- one from 

the environmental health department and the other from 

the natural-resources department. They both have different 

perspectives on how they'll regulate mine waste, and they 

differ on the operations of natural-resource industries in 

their State. Those arguments are all placed on the table as 

we try to resolve the issue at hand. 

• What goal do you see industry taking in a 

coalition? 

Reply: I think it would depend on the purpose of 

the coalition or on its objectives. Depending on how you 

define the purpose of a regional coalition, I could envision that the industry could participate at least as an advisor in whatever discussions might occur within the 

coalition. It all comes down to defining the basic purpose of any coalition before the roles and responsibilities 

for each of the participants can be ascertained. One thing 

that can't be discounted is the fact that there may already be opportunities for industry to find a way to 

move forward with initiatives, as, for example, within 

the AMC. Some AMC members didn't feel that they 

were particularly well represented within the larger 

scheme of the AMC, which represents basically the large 

mineral producers. The result was that the coal and the 

cement producers set up separate councils within AMC 

which would provide them the opportunity to focus on 

the needs of their particular industry. I'd suspect that 

there's an opportunity to do that same type of thing, as 

Gov. Matheson said, within organizations like the UMA 

Future Actions to Meet Industrial-Mineral Needs 115 
or within organizations in the east like the Virginia Aggregate Association, which already is specifically focused on aggregates, but they could develop specific 

councils as well. 

Comment by M.P. Foose: My personal view after 

having gone through several industrial-mineral workshops 

is that we see common problems in different areas. There 

seems to be little common focus and no way to try to 

solve these local and regional problems on a regular basis. 

Once more at this meeting, the same problems have been 

addressed, and I hope this workshop won't end without 

recommending some way(s) to keep going whatever momentum we've established. 

I was hoping that some organizational instrument 

would be proposed to consider unresolved industrialmineral problems in Utah, Nevada, and Idaho. Whether 

convened as a part of the State mining associations or 

other existing agency, I don:t see that such a coalition 

needs to be an expensive operation, particularly at the beginning. I think, though, that it ought to be done for both 

industry's and the region's own self-interests. If we just sit 

back and let things go on the way they have, then a real 

opportunity will have been missed to face the real and approaching issues. I proposed the development of coalitions, not to expand the USGS, USBM, or any Federal 

agency's programs but as a vehicle to address regional 

needs. I hope that this focus isn't lost in discussions 

among the State geologists. 

• As a part of the primary-wealth-production industry of this country, I'd resist adding more levels of organization. There's a feeling among most people in the 

bureaucracy that this country won't take care of itself by 

following the marketplace. But I think it will! The marketplace is going to decide whether a gravel pile is worth 

digging up. It's worked that way quite well, and it may not 

work as neatly as we'd like to have it, but it's worked 

better than anything else in the world that I know about. 

The day will come when it's worth moving a house to get 

at the gravel beneath it; that house will be bought and 

moved. In the meantime, legislating or trying to push 

people in one direction or the other is counterproductive. 

I've heard two suggestions over and over again during the 

past 2 days. The first is education, and it's a two-way 

street; before you can teach someone something, that person has got to want to learn. The second is, "Who pays?" 

As a member of private industry, I know the answer to 

that one, and so do you. 

• We're talking more about aggregates than other 

types of industrial minerals here, and from my experience, 

I've seen that the sand-and-gravel industry and the rock 

industry have been reluctant to join the mining associations. I don't think there's an aggregate association in 

Utah or Nevada, as such, that would perform the same 

function independently. I think the aggregate producers 

ought to reassess their position and join the mining associations. They'd make these associations stronger and 

probably more effective, but I have a hard time seeing 

how industry and regulatory agencies can get into bed with 

each other; I don't think that's going to happen. 

• One subject that's come up here-and it seems to 

comes up at every meeting of this type-is the need for 

education. Whether we mine or not depends on the marketplace. That's fairly true, but I don't think it's as true 

now as it was about 5 years ago. Probably, it won't be as 

true 5 years hence as it is now. There are many other factors that may supersede the marketplace as far as determining whether an operation is going to make it or not. 

Much has to deal with public perception, regulations, and 

things like that. First of all, the USGS and USBM have 

done a real service by getting these workshops organized 

and getting us together. I wonder, if there were to be a 

long-term focus or a coalition of some sort, whether it 

should be an educational coalition, which could involve industry and government in a nonpolitical way. Nobody is 

adversely affected. Groups like the USGS, USBM, and 

State mining associations are already in the business of 

gathering data and disseminating it. I think it'd be within 

their realm to further that role. If government agencies 

took a strong role in creating an educational forum or 

whatever, it would facilitate getting factual information, so 

that the general public and other public agencies can make 

intelligent decisions (hopefully) on where mining is or 

isn't allowed, what kinds of laws will affect them, and so 

on. My recommendation is that if we're searching for a 

long-term goal, it has to be public education, nothing else. 

You can't have good government or an effective industry 

without it. 

• The WSMA's directors hold several meeting every year. I think that the USGS and USBM should talk to 

that organization and explain where the major problems 

for the industrial-minerals industry lie. These concerns 

may not have been addressed by the WSMA; for example, 

the WSMA may not be aware of the aggregate problem. 

The WSMA may be the interstate group to look to as a 

home for a coalition to take on the political aspects of 

dealing with industrial-mineral problems. 

• I agree that the WSMA would be a good place to 

assign the political aspects of helping the industrial-minerals 

industry. There could be separate subcommittees or councils set up in the related State mining associations. I can't 

see a coalition of State and Federal governmental agencies 

commenting on political issues to any extent; instead, they 

should concentrate on identifying industrial minerals. 

Comment by E.H. Bennett: I was amazed at conversations during the dinner sessions at the Industrial Minerals Forum in Portland, Oreg., last year as we sat with a 

group of geologists who've been interested in industrial 

minerals all of their careers. They didn't discuss strikes 

116 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
and dips, geologic structures, or the types of veins or deposit models; they know where all the deposits are. There 

are dozens of deposits sitting out there awaiting development if market conditions will allow. What they did discuss around the table were topics like- if this new Federal 

regulation comes in, this material over here is going to be 

a substitute for the one that's going to be eliminated over 

there, and so the deposits over here are the ones that are, 

therefore, worth looking at. 

Right after the Portland meeting, one consultant was 

in my office going through all the IGS files that we have 

on limestone deposits in Idaho. We've been collecting this 

information for 70 years or more in Idaho. We have maps 

up to our necks, many of them never published. Most of 

the State surveys have similar extensive files on indigenous industrial-mineral commodities. We know where 

many industrial materials are located, but it's true that a 

favorable market condition determines whether or not a 

deposit is economically minable. Do we need more organizations doing the same thing? 

• Contrary to what others may have said here, I 

don't think all the industrial minerals have been found. 

Take the barite boom in the 1970's; suddenly, a new resource was identified. Lightweight aggregates, which 

hadn't been recognized a few years ago, are now in production. As technologies change, different things can be 

used for different purposes. A lot of this type of knowledge has to be set down in a publication somewhere; that's 

where help is needed. I don't think the States should get 

into commenting on regulatory or wilderness-study-area 

designations; those questions are strictly political. 

Moderator: As we're winding down here, what do 

you see as the benefits of your having spent 2 days and 

the government having sponsored these presentations and 

discussion? What lasting benefit has accrued to encourage 

conducting such USGS-USBM workshops in other parts 

of the country? 

• I don't feel quite so lonely anymore; I see that 

other people have the same problems as I have. That's one 

benefit I've gotten out of this meeting. 

Moderator: Do you think industry is going to spontaneously self-organize into lobby groups? Do you see that 

members of the industrial-minerals industry will hold 

hands and go forward to take care of this problem? 

• I think they'll have to! I look at several government operations that have been running for the past several 

years, and I haven't seen them help industry out much, so 

I think the industry has got to hold hands and work together. I'm willing to participate as much as I can to do it, 

and to work with government agencies to help find ways 

to obtain logical answers. We've done enough bashing of 

the State and Federal agencies; that doesn't resolve anything. The industry has to work together to give the public 

a positive image of the mining industry and not have it 

looked on as a rapist of the Earth. We generate a lot of 

good commodities and materials for people. That's the 

story that has to get out to the public. 

• What's the reason for an apparent lessening of industry participation in this workshop? Is the concern for 

industrial minerals less? 

• I don't think enough industry people were invited. 

There are also obvious problems: Government people tend 

to be more meeting animals than industry people, and the 

timing of the meeting at the end of the month may have 

been bad for industry folk- it's budget time. 

Comment by E.W. Tooker: About 50 percent of the 

participants who accepted our invitation were from industry or related consultants, and an additional number of 

those asked were unable to accept the invitation. A few of 

those who accepted were unable to be present only at the 

last minute. This apparently was a busy time because several industry participants accepted with our understanding 

that they could be present during part or on all of one day, 

owing to previous business commitments in Salt Lake 

City. 

The original purpose of this workshop was to 

convene a group small enough to encourage informal 

roundtable discussions. The maximum these facilities 

could handle in that fashion was about 70. At the outset, 

the organizing committee recognized that there'd be many 

people who couldn't be included. In addition, the region to 

be covered, originally a four-State effort, was to include a 

broad constituency of government, academia, industry, 

banking, and environmental disciplines. This design limited how many persons from industry could be invited. 

Judging from the participation of those present, the 

level of concern for industrial minerals is no less here than 

in the other workshops. 

• This meeting has worked out quite well. We've 

aired many different viewpoints that otherwise we might 

not have. I'd have been happier to see more industry 

people here, and I'm disappointed that the industry turnout 

was so limited. 

After listening to all of this, I conclude that it's the 

folks in industry who, if they feel the need for something 

to happen, will have to get together and do it themselves, 

but I think it's great that they could talk with Mike Harper 

and see where he's coming from, and listen to someone 

who's actually done a PR campaign for the mining industry. And it was good to hear the industry viewpoint as 

well. 

• As someone from industry, I appreciate the opportunity and invitation to attend this workshop. We did get 

two notices and had ample time to arrange to be here. I'm 

sorry that more industry people couldn't make it. What 

I've gained from this workshop is confirmation that we 

haven't gotten the industry message out to the people. I've 

been overwhelmed by the effect or the accomplishments 

Future Actions to Meet Industrial-Mineral Needs 117 
that well-organized environmental groups like the Sierra 

Club have made. It's difficult for us to compete in the 

marketplace if we're losing all the reserves or ground 

where we need to prospect or where the minerals are. I'm 

not sure how we can combat that effectively unless we get 

organized. We haven't played a strong enough part; each 

of us from industry has to be more vocal and participate 

actively, and I think this participation should be mainly 

through the State mining associations. Most of us belong 

to the AMC, but from an industrial-minerals standpoint, 

we don't see a lot of influence there. I confess that as matters stand, I don't see the industrial-minerals industry cooperating much, because we're all working with different 

products and in different areas. Can we afford to drop the 

matter here? 

Comment by James Barker: As the representative of 

the New Mexico Bureau of Mines, I'd like to second one 

of the recommendations by Jon Price that DOl support of 

industrial minerals be increased. Specifically, the USGS' 

industrial-minerals program commitment needs to be 

strengthened and its expertise developed. The philosophy 

seems to have been that the State geological surveys 

should take on this work. Decades ago, the States rescheduled some of their geologists to increase the work on industrial minerals. If new funds aren't available, I'd suggest 

that the USGS follow the States' example and redirect personnel to demonstrate their finn commitment to industrial 

minerals. 

Reply by E. W. Tooker: To paraphrase an old saying, 

those who ignore the bad decisions of history are compelled to repeat them. The fact is that, in the past, well 

before my time, several of the powerful State geological 

surveys insisted that the industrial-minerals part of economic geology was reserved for them. That may have 

been an appropriate allocation of effort in the days when 

the impacts of industrial-minerals studies truly were local 

(State) affairs. In more recent years, however, with mobile 

populations and increasing need for the interstate distribution of these resources, there's now a greater call for some 

Federal involvement. One of our purposes in organizing 

this workshop was to help us begin to understand that new 

role and to define it more clearly. In addition to what M.P. 

Foose has already said about restriction in the USGS' unilateral program and fund reallocation, it's also a fact that 

the USGS has a substantial industrial-minerals program in 

comparison with its other competing programs that also 

must respond to national objectives, which generally differ 

from those of the States. 

I wouldn't argue that the USGS' industrial-mineral 

efforts shouldn't be reprioritized or that more staff should 

be redirected to this part of the Federal effort. However, I 

don't believe that the Federal effort should compete with 

or duplicate those of the States. Those arguments aside, 

the "strawman" proposal suggests only that the USGS or 

USBM participate in a coalition and make a contribution, 

if asked.· One topic for serious consideration by a coalition 

might be to examine and offer suggestions for redefinition 

of the roles and interrelations of the State geological surveys, the USBM, and the USGS to upgrade support of industrial-mineral programs across the board. 

• Another way the DOl can help the industry in 

their development of industrial-minerals on Federal lands 

is by greater involvement of State agencies in the formulation of BLM resource-management plans. The BLM has 

geologists who collect data from private-industry, State 

geological survey, USGS, and USBM sources to support 

the management plan. The State offices should review 

these plans, and reviewers from private industry and other 

governmental agencies should be solicited. It's particularly 

critical that corporations review the plan, which sets up the 

rules and regulations for entry onto Federal lands. All too 

often in the past, the BLM has received too few comments 

from the mining industry. 

Reply by E.H. Bennett: Of the 84 thousand mi2 in 

Idaho, two-thirds is Federal land. I have at least 20 linear 

feet of land-use plans from the USFS and BLM on my 

library shelves. You must be patient with State agencies 

that have limited staffs to comment meaningfully on the 

plans; they're comprehensive and difficult documents to 

read and analyze. 

• Does the BLM or USPS make regular archeologic 

studies on Federal lands, or do they wait until someone 

wants to use the land? There seems to be a long wait for 

the decision to let industry go ahead to develop a resource. 

Reply by D.P. Bauer: Under the 1872 Mining Law, 

decisions on areas smaller than 5 acres must be made 

within 15 days. That means that after 15 days you can 

begin operations. For a plan of operation, we try to meet a 

30-day requirement, but sometimes when getting into archeology or threatened and endangered species, we have to 

allocate another 60 days to confer with other agencies. 

Other State and county agencies and planning boards will 

take much longer. Keeping in close touch with the BLM 

and supplying pertinent information early on will help 

speed up decisions. 

Summary of the Discussion About the Creation of an 

Industrial-Minerals Coalition in the Western States 

By E.W. Tooker 

It is clear to me as compiler-editor of these workshop proceedings that, although the concept of a coalition 

of the industrial-minerals constituency3 was considered 

3Defined as a group or body that patronizes, supports, or offers 

representation in a substantive way. 

118 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
from many points of view, no clear conclusions or recommendations for developing and implementing a coalition 

program, if at all, were made. Time simply ran out, and 

the session ended with the subject unresolved. Although 

this commentary is not strictly a part of the workshop proceedings, I am inserting it before the closing statement to 

coalesce and focus the various lines of reasoning expressed during session 5. This summary may, in effect, 

represent the sowing of the seeds of an idea whose time to 

sprout may come, though possibly not entirely as envisioned here. We hope that this presentation and discussion 

will stimulate further consideration by the reader, whether 

as a workshop participant or as a concerned citizen. 

A major objective in introducing the coalition concept at the workshop was an attempt to find a way to mobilize the industrial-mineral-resources constituency to act 

together as a whole, to derive equitable solutions to the 

problems of resource availability, and to provide pertinent 

and unbiased information to the public and governmental 

decisionmakers on a timely basis. In concept, the "coalition" was to be broader than a way to lobby for permitting 

sand-and-gravel operations. Accelerating population 

growth in the Western States will require increasing 

amounts of industrial minerals to construct homes, find 

jobs, and provide food and essential infrastructures. Meeting these needs will entail confrontation, in many cases, 

and will require a process for resolution. Michael 

McMahon (1990) offered some good advice for industry 

actions in his article, "Dealing with Environmentalism and 

Economics in the '90s." The problem cannot be considered as just an industry problem and resolved by industry 

action alone; McMahon suggested that the issues are bigger than any one company and that only coordinated, enlightened, industrywide response and outside support from 

a third party [the resource constituency(?)] can provide 

necessary legitimacy with government and environmental 

advocacy groups. The question, then, is, how can a positive, coordinated, and credible support activity be organized and maintained in the public interest? If not a 

coalition, then what? 

The "strawman" proposal for a coalition (see app. 3), 

presented to catalyze spirited participants' discussion of 

the concept, which indeed occurred, has several flaws. The 

comments from the Western State geologists and participants have helped to begin shaping an instrument more 

pertinent to present political and societal realities. These 

comments fall into three main categories: (1) what a coalition should not be, (2) what it should be, and (3) program 

elements essential for success. 

What an Industrial-Minerals Coalition Should Not Be 

It was a nearly unanimous conclusion that a coalition 

should not become a lobbying group on policy issues, organized specifically for the benefit of industry or other 

members of the constituency. Further, the coalition should 

not be organized by the Federal or State regulatory or geological agencies, although they may offer information or 

expertise in support of its deliberations. The organization 

of a coalition should not be contrary to Federal and State 

laws. A coalition should not be just another organization 

as ineffectual as some of the present national (coalition) 

organizations are; its contributions should not be considered as biased and self-serving. Finally, a coalition should 

not be in competition with existing organizations for Federal or State funds. 

What an Industrial-Minerals Coalition Should Be 

Ultimately, a coalition should be an organization 

dedicated to meeting real public needs. It should be as 

noncontroversial and nonpolitical as possible and seek 

competent advice and information from all sources, so that 

its recommendations have credibility among most, if not 

all, segments of society. A coalition could also become a 

focus for public education and a source of information 

about industrial-mineral resources. An industrial-minerals 

coalition should include the resource constituency that is 

represented at this workshop, as well as other Federal and 

State agencies that may also have peripheral interests in 

industrial minerals. A coalition should be an instrument to 

encourage greater involvement and input from and by Federal, State, and local regulatory bodies, as well as from the 

environmental constituency. 

Elements Necessary for the Success of a Coalition 

1. Identify a leadership entity to convene the industrialminerals constituency and derive the common objectives and purposes for the coalition. Make use of 

existing organizations in forming coalitions; do not create new ones. A Federal-agency official was deemed inappropriate as a coalition leader. Although the State 

geologists present were not eager to take on a leadership role, they should not be ruled out. One acceptable 

suggestion for an initial convenor-sponsor was the 

president of a State mining association; for example, 

the coalition could become a subcommittee of the mining association. If the State groups are broadened at 

some future time to form a regional coalition, there exist several interstate organizations that could shelter and 

guide the regional coalition. 

2. Begin the coalition modestly at the individual-State 

level; any regional joining of State coalitions should 

await special need. Start small, possibly as an annual 

discussion or educational workshop session to explore 

the status of industrial-mineral resources and the 

industry's commodity /public-policy problems. Initial 

Future Actions to Meet Industrial-Mineral Needs 119 
emphasis ought to be on problems of universal concern 

to the constituency and the public, such as education 

regarding problems of industrial-mineral availability 

and demand. For example, the SMARA program in 

California should be investigated by the Basin and 

Range States. Within a coalition, it might be advantageous to segregate public-policy from technical/scientific issues. Controversial public-policy issues should 

probably be avoided or deferred until the coalition is 

more broadly based and credibly well established and 

its input is clearly identified as infor-mational. Examples of special-purpose regional coalitions in operation 

were detailed by D.R. Nielson and G.E. Conrad. 

3. The Federal and State agencies can provide advice, 

when asked, and facilitate technology transfer, the formation of GIS' s, and resource-information collection 

and dissemination. These agencies should provide information for consideration by land-use policymakers. 

4. A coalition must have strong industry support without 

compromising proprietary interests. The main industrial-mineral commodities should be represented; some 

members may wish to participate at first in commodity 

subcommittees of the coalition. 

Conclusion 

The discussion and comments of the workshop participants regarding the advisability or practicality of organizing coalitions for fostering local problem solving 

seems to lead to the conclusion that something of the 

sort needs to be discussed further. The seed idea has 

been planted here, and, if the concept of an industrialmineral coalition seems to have some value in a State, 

the State mining association could well take the lead in 

arranging for further discussion of the possibilities, objectives, and possible organization of a State resource 

coalition in some form. Federal agencies may be willing, 

when asked, to support such coalitions with advice and 

information. Thus, a recommendation from the workshop 

participants, if it can be so categorized, would seem to 

be that, in view of its potential merit, the coalition suggestion should first be investigated in more depth at the 

State level. 

CLOSING COMMENTS 

By M.P. Foose 

I'd like to thank everybody for being here and 

showing your personal priorities by contributing to the 

success of this workshop through participation in panels 

or in discussion sessions. Many of you had to take time 

out of your busy schedules and incurred an added expense. Therefore, on behalf of the Geological Surveys of 

Nevada, Utah, and Idaho, the USBM, and the USGS, I 

offer our sincere appreciation for your support of this 

workshop. I think we've achieved some important understanding and clarifications in the past 2 days. It's my 

sincere hope that we've generated some conversations 

which will echo through the corridors of industry, 

academia, State and Federal agencies, and environmental 

planners during the next several years. Such excitement 

and dedication is necessary if we can begin to change 

the way industrial minerals are regarded in the eyes of 

the public and if we can start to work more effectively to 

plan how to wisely extract and use these resources in 

ways that meets societal needs, industry requirements, 

and environmental responsibilities. 

We've covered a lot of ground in the past 2 days, 

beginning with a look at the status of industrial-mineral 

resources in the Basin and Range region of Utah, Nevada, 

and Idaho. Panelists examined the future needs for industrial minerals and the problems in obtaining them. The serious problems as seen from an industry perspective 

focused on economic and environmental issues. Then, 

Gov. Matheson gave us his insights on how the industrialminerals industry must learn to deal with political entities. 

Insights on how to expand industrial-mineral opportunities 

in the Basin and Range by making use of the USBM, 

USGS, State geological surveys, and university research 

was followed by examples of how the industrial-minerals 

industry itself develops new markets and educates the public by using PR techniques. Finally, we concluded with 

considerations of the most serious problems yet to be resolved and the suggestion of forming a coalition or discussion group within individual States to begin working 

together to solve them. These subjects effectively rounded 

out the many-faceted industrial-minerals situation in the 

Western United States, which we have attempted to examine during the three workshop sessions. 

I'd like to thank a few people here who've made this 

workshop possible. The organizing committee and moderators, panel conveners, and panelists all have done yeoman service in completing this last stop in the cycle of 

three Western State industrial-mineral workshops. The 

proceedings volumes from all of these sessions will become useful basic documents for developing new Federal 

and State industrial-mineral-program directions and strategies for education of the public. Carol Olsen, UGS, and 

Susan Garcia, USGS, have been sitting quietly, taking care 

to record these sessions; their tapes will permit compiling 

a written record to document what's been said here. I want 

to extend special thanks to the UGS for being a generous 

on site host; it's made a great difference in being able have 

strong support during the planning and convening of the 

workshop. We thank Charles Berry, University of Utah, 

who was responsible for organizing the laboratory and 

120 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
aggregate and precast-prestressed-concrete plant visits. To 

you all, our grateful thanks. 

Finally, I'd especially like to acknowledge the 

workshop coordinator, E.W. Tooker. About 4 years ago, 

he recognized the benefits that could accrue from holding these workshops, and began working to make them 

happen. The success of this and the previous two workshops is a testament to his hard work and commitment to 

these issues. 

We'd encourage any of you, either as a workshop 

participant or as reader of this volume, to comment further 

or extend the discussions with appropriate State Geologists 

or the resource-program chiefs of the USGS or USBM 

(see inside front cover). 

REFERENCES CITED 

American Mining Congress Journal, 1990, BLM issues mandatory bonding policy for mine reclamation: American Mining Congress Journal, v. 76., no. 9, p. 6. 

Anderson, S.C., 1989, Minerals of the California desert and their 

significance to California's economy, in The California 

Desert Mineral Symposium Compendium: Sacramento, 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, p. 7-46. 

Beeby, D.J., 1988, Aggregate resources- California's effort 

under SMARA to ensure their continued availability: Mining Engineering, v. 40, no. 1, p. 42-45. 

Bennett, E.H., McNary, S.W., Lowe, N.T., Neumann, T.R., 

Rains, R.L., Zilka, N.T., Mayerle, R.T., Leszcykowski, 

A.M., Olson, J.E., and Gabby, P.N., 1989, Principal deposits of industrial minerals in Idaho, in Geitgey, R.P ., and 

Vogt, B.F., eds., Industrial rocks and minerals of the Pacific Northwest: Forum on the Geology of Industrial Minerals, 25th, Portland, Oreg., 1989, Proceedings: Oregon 

Department of Geology and Mineral Industries Special 

Paper 23, p. 31-37. 

Bennett, E.H., 1986, Idaho's phosphate industry: Idaho Geological Survey GeoNote 08, 2 p. 

Bernick, R.W., 1981, Talk presented to the American Institute of 

Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers, Utah Section, Nov. 12, 1981 [and to the College of Mines and Mineral Industries, April 9, 1987]. 

Bingham, C.P., 1980, Solar production of potash from the brines 

of the Bonneville Salt Flats, in Gwynn, J.W., ed., Great 

Salt Lake- a scientific, historical, and economic overview: 

Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Bulletin 116, p. 229-

242. 

California Mining Journal, 1990, SMARA significantly amended 

in 1989/90 Legislative session: v. 60, no. 4, p. 54. 

Colton, R.B., and Fitch, H.R., 1974, Map showing potential 

sources of gravel and crushed-rock aggregate in the Boulder-Fort Collins-Greeley area, Front Range urban corridor, 

Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map 1-855-D, scale 1:100,000. 

Coppa, L.V., 1984, Copper, lead, zinc, gold, and silver waste 

disposal activities and practices in the United States: U.S. 

Bureau of Mines Open-File Report OF-4-85, 195 p. 

Cox, D.P., and Singer, D.A., eds., 1986, Mineral deposit models: 

U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1693, 379 p. 

Crosby, E.J., 1976, Map showing nonmetallic mineral resources 

(except fuels) in bedrock, Front Range urban corridor, 

Colorado: U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map 1-965, scale 1:100,000. 

Currey, D.R., Atwood, Genevieve, and Mabey, D.R., 1983, Levels of Great Salt Lake and Lake Bonneville: Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Map 73, scale 1:750,000. 

Davis, L.L., and Tepordei, V.V., 1985, Sand and gravel, in Mineral facts and problems, 1985: U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 675, p. 689-704. 

Dempsey, Stanley, 1990, Mining and the environment: A retrospective: Golden, Colorado School of Mines, Mines Magazine, v. 80, no. 8, p. 3-6. 

Dohrenwend, J.C., 1989, Concealed resources in the Basin and 

Range province, in Tooker, E.W., compiler-ed., Arizona's 

industrial rock and mineral resources- workshop proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1905, p. 33-36. 

Drucker, P.F., 1973, Management- tools, responsibilities, practices: San Francisco, Harper & Row, 839 p. 

Eaton, G.P., 1979, Regional geophysics, Cenozoic tectonics, and 

geologic resources of the Basin and Range province and 

adjoining regions, in Newman, G.W., and Goode, H.D., 

eds., Basin and Range Symposium and Great Basin Field 

Conference guidebook: Denver, Colo., Rocky Mountain 

Association of Geologists, p. 11-38. 

Fenneman, N.M., 1931, Physiography of western United States: 

New York, McGraw-Hill, 534 p. 

Gillilard, W.N., 1951, Geology of Gunnison Quadrangle, Utah: Lincoln, University of Nebraska Studies, new ser., no. 8. 

Greeley, M.N., 1989, The mineral industry of Utah in 1989: 

U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook (preliminary), 

3 p. 

Hall, R.B., 1978, World nonbauxite aluminum resources-alunite: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1076-A, 

p. Al-A35. 

Hite, R.J., 1961, Potash-bearing evaporite cycles in the salt 

anticlines of the Paradox Basin, Colorado and Utah: U.S. 

Geological Survey Geological Survey Research, p. D135-

D137. 

---1964, Salines, in Hilpert, L.S., ed., Mineral and water resources of Utah: U.S. Geological Survey report to the U.S. 

Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Document 91-12, p. 177-185 [Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Bulletin 73). 

Industrial Minerals Directory (1st ed.), 1986: Worcester Park, 

Surry, U.K., Metals Bulletin Books, 704 p. 

Langer, W.H., 1988, Natural aggregates of the conterminous 

United States: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1594, 33 p. 

London Mining Journal, 1990, A secondary role: London Mining Journal, v. 314, no. 8074, p. 459. 

McNary, S.W., Lowe, N.T., Neumann, T.R., Rains, R.L., Zilka, 

N.T., Mayerle, R.T., Leszcykowski, A.M., Olson, J.E., and 

Gabby, P .N ., in press, Principal deposits of industrial minerals (excluding phosphate) in Idaho: U.S. Bureau of Mines 

Special Publication. 

Matheson, S.M., and Kee, J .E., 1986, Out of balance: Salt Lake 

City, Utah, Peregrine Books, 302 p. 

References Cited 121 
McMahon, M.E., 1990, Dealing with environmentalism and economics in the '90s: American Mining Congress Journal, 

v. 76,no. 7,p. 10-11. 

Mining Magazine, 1990, Time to speak out: v. 162, no. 6, 

p. 399. 

Mitchell, G.C., 1979, Stratigraphy and regional implications of 

the Argonaut Energy No. 1 Federal, Millard County, Utah, 

in Newman, G.C., and Goode, H.D., eds., Basin and Range 

Symposium and Great Basin Field Conference guidebook: 

Denver, Colo., Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists, 

p. 503-514. 

National Council on Public Works Improvement, 1988, Fragile 

foundations: A report on America's public works: Washington, 226 p. 

Newby, J.E., 1980, Great Salt Lake railroad crossing, in Gwynn, 

J.W., ed., Great Salt Lake, a scientific, historical and economic overview: Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Bulletin 116, p. 393-400. 

O'Driscoll, M.O., 1989, U.S. Pacific Northwest: An outpost of 

industrial mineral wealth: Industrial Minerals, no. 259, 

p. 19-57. 

Orris, G.J., and Bliss, J.D., 1989, Industrial-rock-and mineralresource-occurrence models, in Tooker, E.W., compiler-ed., 

Arizona's industrial rock and mineral resources-workshop 

proceedings: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1905, p. 39-

44. 

Phillips, Margie, 1975, Cane Creek mine solution mining project 

Moab potash operations, Texasgulf, Inc., in Fassett, J.E., 

and Wengerd, S.A., eds., Canyonlands: Four Corners Geological Society Field Conference, 8th, Guidebook, p. 261. 

Sturm, P.A., 1980, The Great Salt Lake brine system, in Gwynn, 

J.W., ed., Great Salt Lake, a scientific, historical and economic overview: Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Bulletin 116, p. 147-162. 

Tepordei, V.V., 1985, Stone, crushed, in Mineral facts and problems, 1985: U.S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 675, p. 757-

768. 

Tooker, E.W., compiler-ed., 1989, Arizona's industrial rock and 

mi~eral resources-workshop proceedings: U.S. Geological 

Survey bulletin 1905, 93 p. 

Tooker, E.W., and Beeby, D.J., compiler-eds., 1990, Industrial 

minerals in California: Economic importance, present availability, and future development: U.S. Geological Survey 

Bulletin 1958, 127 p. 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1990, Moving America, new 

directions, new opportunities: Washington, 129 p. 

---1989, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Federal-aid highway construction materials usage factors, 1986-87-88, Bulletin: Washington, 

7p. 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1990, Affected environments, chap. 3 of Utah BLM Statewide wilderness environmental impact statement, final: Salt Lake City, v. 1, 

p. 77-111. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985, Report to Congress: Wastes from the extraction and beneficiation of metallic ores, phosphate rock, asbestos, overburden from 

uranium mining and oil shale: Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 279 p. 

U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1990, Sand and gravel, construction, and 

sand-and-gravel, industrial, in U.S. ~ureau of Mines Mineral Commodity summary, 1990, p. 144-145. 

Whelan, J.A., 1969, Subsurface brines and soluble salts of subsurface sediments, Sevier Lake, Millard County, Utah: Utah 

Geological and Mineral Survey Special Studies, no. 30, 

13 p. 

Withington, C.F., 1964, Gypsum and anhydrite, in Hilpert, L.S., 

ed., Mineral and water resources of Utah: U.S. Geological 

Survey report to the U.S. Senate Committee on Interior and 

Insular Affairs, Document 91-12, p. 177-185 [Utah Geological and Mineral Survey Bulletin 73]. 

Woody, R.H., 1986, Utah phosphate, Wyoming sulfur mix at 

$250-million fertilizer complex: Salt Lake Tribune, September 7, p. 1F-2F. 

122 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
APPENDIXES 1-5 
Appendix 1. Program for the third industrial-minerals workshop 

INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE BASIN AND RANGE IN UTAH, NEVADA, AND IDAHO: 

CURRENT STATUS, PROJECTED NEEDS, AND FUTURE PLANS 

A Workshop Sponsored by the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Utah Geological Survey, Nevada 

Bureau of Mines and Geology, and Idaho Geological Survey 

May 30, 31, and June 1, 1990 

University Park Hotel 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

Registration-7:30 to 8:00a.m., Bonneville Ballroom 

Session l, Wednesday morning, May 30, Bonneville Ballroom 

8:00a.m. 

8:10 

10:00 

10:20 

10:30 

10:50 

11:00 

11:25 

11:45 

12:00 m. 

1:30 p.m. 

1:50 

Introduction and welcome, by M.L. Allison 

Status of industrial-mineral resources, E.H. Bennett, moderator 

National supply/demand, focused on the industrial minerals produced in the Basin and Range, by 

A.F. Barsotti and V.V. Tepordei 

Regional summaries of present and future production of industrial minerals in Utah, by B.T. Tripp~ in 

Nevada, by S.B. Castor; and in Idaho, by E.H. Bennett 

Discussion and additional comments 

Break 

Future needs and problems in the Basin and Range region, B.W. Buck, moderator 

Growth of population and limitations on resource availability, by Robert Buchanan 

Discussion 

Environmental concerns for land, air, and water, by James Scherer 

Discussion and comments 

Lunch 

Interstate activity in the formulation of regulations governing mine waste, by D.R. Nielson 

Discussion and comments 

Session 2, afternoon, May 30, Bonneville Ballroom 

2:05p.m. 

2:55 

3:20 

4:30 

Industry perspective, a regional view, J.E. Christensen, moderator 

Economic problems of industry, Charles Berry, convenor 

Industrial-mineral marketing, by Larry Wiener 

The art of financing an industrial-mineral enterprise, by Robert Bernick 

Business deals, taxes, and economic-analysis problems, by C.W. Berry 

Discussion and comments 

Break 

Environmental and support-system problems, Brian Buck, convenor 

Land-access issues from the Federal perspective, by Steven Brooks 

Problems of mine permitting in the Great Basin, by Glenn Eurick 

Environmental and mining support systems, by C.L. Smith 

Discussion and comments 

Session 3, evening, May 30, Bonneville III 

6:00p.m. 

7:00 

8:00 

Industrial minerals from the perspective of government, M.L. Allison, moderator 

Social hour 

Dinner 

Politics and industrial minerals, by former Governor S.M. Matheson of Utah 

124 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
Session 4, morning, May 31, Bonneville Ballroom 

8:00a.m. 

8:20 

9:05 

9:25 

9:40 

10:50 

11:30 

Opportunities for resource growth in the region, R. C. Bradt, moderator 

Advanced material potential in the Basin and Range area, by G.R. Hyde 

Research potential in government and academia, by Garret Hyde (USBM), M.P. Foose (USGS), and J.G. 

Price (NBMG and universities). 

Discussion and comments 

Break 

New market development: How it has been done 

Developing new markets for beryllium, a high-value specialty material, by T.B. Parsonage 

New product development from low-value material by the Idaho Quartzite Corporation, by Donald Seehusen 

Discussion and comments 

Public education through public-relations expertise and technology, by John Marz 

Discussion and comments 

Lunch 

Session 5, afternoon, May 31, Bonneville Ballroom 1 

3:30p.m. 

4:30 

5:00 

5:10 

Future actions to assist in meeting industrial-mineral-resource needs, J.G. Price, moderator 

What are the problems to be resolved? 

Industry perspective for the high-volume, low-value materials producer, by Douglas Clark 

Industry perspective for the low-volume, high-value commodities producer, by John Harmon 

Land planner's perspective, by Michael Harper 

Future activities to assist in problem resolution 

Proposal for organizing industrial mineral coalitions in the Western United States, by M.P. Foose 

Example of an established regional organization in the East and Central United States, by G.E. Conrad 

State Geologists' views on the viability and usefulness of State or regional industrial-mineral coalitions: For 

the NBMG and other State geological surveys, by J.G. Price; for the IGS, by E.H. Bennett; and for the 

UGS, by M.L. Allison 

Discussion and comments 

Closing acknowledgments and thanks to the participants from the workshop organizers and sponsors, by 

M.P. Foose 

Adjournment 

Visits to laboratories and industry plants, June 1, 1990 

7:45a.m. 

8:00 to 9:20 

9:30 to 10:00 

10:30 to 10:50 

11:00 to 11:40 

12:00 m. to 

12:55 p.m. 

1:00 

1:30 

4:00 

Leave University Park Hotel 

USBM field-center laboratory facility 

UGS computer-data laboratory and map information 

National Cold Fusion Institute facilities 

University of Utah College of Mines Research Laboratories 

Lunch, Union Building, University of Utah 

Travel to the Staker Co., Salt Lake City, crushed-rock (aggregate) pit and facilities 

Monroe precast-prestressed-concrete plant 

Return to University Park Hotel 

Appendixes 1-5 125 
... 

~ 

0'1 

:; 

Q. 

~ [ 

~ ;· 

~ Ill 

iii 

;· 

..... 

::::r 

t'D 

Ill = 

Ill 

;· 

Ill 

::I 

Q. 

~ 

Ill 

::I 

OCI 

t'D 

~ 

t'D 

OCI 

o· 

::I 

I 

:E 

~ ~ 

Ill 

::::r 

0 

"C 

~ 

a 

n 

t'D 

t'D 

Q. 

;· 

OCI 

Ill 

Appendix 2. Significant industrial rock and mineral quarries, pits, and plants in Utah with recent production 

[Location is listed as township (T.), range (R.), and section (sec.) of the cadastral land grid. Most locations are referenced to the Salt Lake Base and Meridian, but one operation located within the Sixth 

Principal Base and Meridian (in Wyoming) is denoted by an X following the section number. Dashes, no data. Do., ditto] 

Quarry, pit, or 

plant 

Devil' s Slide plant 

and quarry. 

Poverty Point quarry ----

Leamington (Chaffin) --

cement plant 

& quarry. 

Nielson quarry -----------

Great Salt Lake 

Minerals and 

Chemicals ponds 

and plant. 

Morton Salt ponds 

and plant. 

Akzo Salt ponds and 

plant. 

American Salt ponds----

plant. 

Moab Salt plant----------

Redmond Clay and 

Salt pits and plant. 

Crystal Peak ponds 

and plant. 

Great Salt Lake 

Minerals and 

Chemicals ponds 

and plant. 

Operator 

Ideal Basic--------------

Industries, Inc 

do ---------------------

Ash Grove Cement 

West, Inc 

do ---------------------

Great Salt Lake 

Minerals and 

Chemicals Co 

Morton Salt Co --------

Akzo Salt Co -----------

American Salt Co -----

Texas gulf, Inc----------

Redmond Clay 

and Salt Co. 

Crystal Peak 

Minerals Corp. 

Great Salt Lake 

Minerals and 

Chemicals Co. 

Commodity 

Cement rock, 

sandstone. 

High-Ca limestone -----

High-Ca limestone, 

shale. 

Sandstone----------------

Sodium chloride --------

do ----------------------

do ----------------------

do ----------------------

do ----------------------

do ----------------------

do ----------------------

Location 

County T., R., sec. 

Cement 

Morgan --------

Tooele----------

Juab ------------

do ------------

Halite 

Weber ----------

Salt Lake-------

Tooele ----------

Tooele ----------

Grand -----------

Sanpete---------

Millard ---------

4 N., 4 E., 19 

1 N., 8 W., 16 

14 S., 3 W., 33 

14 s., 3 w., 11 

6 N., 3 W., 6 

1 S., 2 W., 5 

1 S., 4 W., 34 

1 S., 6 W., 22 

26 S., 20 E., 24 

20 s., 1 w., 14, 

23, 24, 25 

24 S., 12 W., 16 

Potash, magnesium chloride, and sodium sulfate 

Potassium sulfate, Weber---------- 6 N., 3 W., 6 

sodium sulfate, 

magnesium chloride. 

Age/formation 

Jurassic Twin Creek Limestone. 

Triassic/Jurassic Nugget 

Sandstone. 

Mississippian Great Blue 

Limestone. 

Cambrian Ophir Shale-------------------

Permian Diamond Creek(?) ------------

Sandstone. 

Recent surface brines --------------------

do ----------------------------------------

do ----------------------------------------

do ----------------------------------------

Pennsylvanian Paradox Formation ----

Jurassic Arapien Shale ------------------

Quaternary lake sedimentary 

deposits. 

Use/products 

Cement. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Road salt, watersoftening salt, 

and livestock 

salt. 

Table salt, road 

salt, watersoftening salt. 

Do. 

Road salt, watersoftening, 

livestock salt. 

Road salt. 

Livestock salt, 

table salt. 

Road salt, watersoftening salt. 

Recent surface brines -------------------- Fertilizer, detergent, 

paper making, 

road-dust 

suppression. 
>-

-= -= f"l) 

:::s 

Q. 

>(" 

f"l) 

"' .... 

I 

1.11 

.... 

t...:l 

....... 

Reilly Wendover 

ponds and plant. 

Texasgulf mine, 

ponds, and plant. 

Magcorp ponds and 

plant. 

Little Brush Creek 

mine and mill. 

Phoston terminal 

(defunct) 

Garfield plant ------------

Rock Springs 

fertilizer plant. 

Chemstar, Inc., 

quarry and kiln. 

U.S. Pollution 

Control, Inc., kiln. 

Marblehead quarry ------

Cricket Mountain 

quarry and kiln. 

Keigley quarry -----------

Redmond quarry---------

Oolite claims -------------

Beaver Dam quarry -----

Pelican Point calcite 

mine and mill. 

Pelican Point 

limestone quarry 

and mill. 

Reilly Tar and Potassium chloride----- Tooele---------- 1 S., 19 W., 14 

Chemicals Co. 

Texasgulf, Inc--------- do ---------------------- Grand----------- 26 S., 20 E., 24 

Magnesium Corp. Magnesium chloride--- Tooele---------- 2 N., 8 W., 10 

of America. 

Chevron ----------------- Phosphate----------------

Resources Co. 

do ------------------------------------------------------

do ------------------------------------------------------

do --------------------- Phosphate fertilizer ----

Chemstar, Inc ---------- Dolomitic lime ---------

U.S. Pollution ----------------------------

Control, Inc. 

Utah Marblehead Dead-burned dolomite, 

Lime Co. dolomitic lime. 

Continental High-Ca limestone -----

Lime, Inc. 

Geneva Steel of Utah. Dolomite, limestone ---

Western Clay Co ------ High-Ca limestone -----

Magnesium Corp. Calcareous sand --------

of America. 

L&M General High-Ca limestone -----

Engineering. 

Cedarstrom Calcite Calcite -------------------

and Clay. 

Larsen Limestone High-Ca limestone -----

Co . 

Phosphate 

Uintah ----------

Wasatch--------

Salt Lake-------

.Sweetwater, 

WY. 

2 S., 22 E., 31 

2 S., 5 E., 6 

1 S., 3 W., 10; 

18 N., 104 W., 9, 

15, 16, 17 (X) 

Limestone and dolomite 

Tooele ---------- 1 S., 7 W., 25 

do ------------ 1 N., 9 W., 2 

do ------------ 2 N., 9 W., 22 

Millard --------- 21 S., 10 W., 36 

Utah ------------ 9 S., 1 E., 27 

Sevier ---------- 21 S., 1 E., 5, 

7, 18, 7, 8 

Tooele ---------- 3 N., 6 W., 19, 

24; 3 N., 7 W., 

9, 16, 17, 20, 31 

Washington---- 43 S., 18 W., 2 

Utah ------------ 6 S.,1 E., 30, 31 

Utah ------------ 6 S., 1 E., 31 

Quaternary and Holocene lake Fertilizer. 

sedimentary deposits. 

Pennsylvanian Paradox Formation.---- Do. 

Holocene surface brines----------------- Magnesium metal. 

Permian Park City Formation ---------- Fertilizer raw 

material. 

Fertilizer. 

Ordovician Fish Haven Dolomite ----- Masonry mortar, 

dolomitic lime. 

Cambrian Lynch Dolomite ------------- Refractories, waste 

disposal. 

Cambrian Dome Formation------------- Flue-gas desulfurization water 

treatment, metalsmelting flux. 

Cambrian Bluebird Dolomite, Metal-smelting 

Cole Canyon Dolomite, flux, coal-mine 

Herkimer Limestone. dusting. 

Tertiary Flagstaff Limestone ----------- Coal-mine dusting. 

Holocene oolitic sand-------------------- Flue-gas neutralization. 

Mississippian Redwall Limestone ----- Gold heap leaching. 

Mississippian Humbug Formation, Poultry grit, 

Deseret Limestone Great Blue livestock-feed 

Limestone. supplement. 

Mississippian Deseret Limestone ------ Flue-gas 

desulfurization. 
.... 

~ 

= 

;-

Q. 

c 

~ 

[ 

~ 

:r 

~ Appendix 2.-Continued 

:r 

;. 

I'D 

~ = 

Ill 

:r 

~ 

:I 

Q. 

;lll:l 

~ 

:I 

CJQ 

I'D 

;lll:l 

I'D 

CJQ 

s· 

:I 

k 

Q 

.. 

~ 

Ill 

::r 

Q 

"C 

""C 

Q 

I") 

I'D 

I'D 

Q. 

:r 

CJQ 

Ill 

Quarry, pit, or 

plant 

West Jordan plant-------

Pelican Point pits: 

Powell pit --------------

Smoky Joe pit---------

Jim Gay pit ------------

Black Shale pit -------

Fivemile Pass pits -------

Montello pits -------------

Anderton pit--------------

Koosharem pit -----------

Harrisville plant ---------

Pleasant View pit--------

Clinton pit ----------------

Redmond Clay pits------

Western Clay Co. mill--

Aurora pit-----------------

Redmond pit -------------

Utelite quarry and -------

kiln aggregate. 

Operator Commodity 

Interstate Brick Co-------------------------------------

do ---------------------

do ---------------------

do ---------------------

do ---------------------

do ---------------------

do ---------------------

do ---------------------

do ---------------------

Interpace Corp ---------

do ---------------------

Common clay-----------

do ----------------------

do ----------------------

do ----------------------

do ----------------------

do ----------------------

do ----------------------

do ----------------------

do ----------------------

do ----------------------

Location 

County 

Clays 

Salt Lake -------

Utah ------------

do ------------

do ------------

Utah ------------

Tooele ----------

Box Elder ------

Summit---------

Piute ------------

Weber ----------

Box Elder ------

T., R., sec. 

3 S., 2 W., 12 

6 S., 1 W., 3 

7 S., 1 W., 9 

7 S., 1 W., 12, 13; 

7 S., 1 E., 7, 18 

6 S., 1 W., 36 

7 S., 3 W., 4, 5 

9 N., 17 W., 7; 

9 N., 18 W., 12 

4 N., 4 E., 33 

27 S., 2 W., 2, 

11 

6 N., 1 W., 6 

7 N., 2 W., 13 

do --------------------- do---------------------- Utah ------------ 5 S., 1 W., 8, 9 

Redmond Clay and 

Salt Co. 

Western Clay Co------

do ---------------------

do ---------------------

Utelite Corp ------------

Bentonite ----------------

Fuller's earth------------

Bentonite ----------------

Bloating shale ----------

Sanpete ---------

Sevier-----------

do ------------

do ------------

Summit ---------

20 S., 1 W., 14, 

23,24, 25 

22 S., 1W., 4 

21 S., 1 W., 31 

21 S., 1 W., 2 

1 S., 5 W., 5, 18 

Age/formation 

Mississippian Manning Canyon 

Shale. 

do ----------------------------------------

do ----------------------------------------

do ----------------------------------------

Mississippian Long Trail Shale 

Member of the Great Blue 

Limestone. 

Tertiary Salt Lake Formation ----------

Cretaceous Henefer Formation ---------

Tertiary Dry Hollow Formation -------

Precambrian and Cambrian 

weathered schist. 

Mississippian Manning Canyon 

Shale. 

Use/products 

Brick. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Jurassic Arapien Shale ------------------ Construction clay, 

drilling mud. 

Tertiary Bald Knoll Formation 1 -------

Jurassic Arapien Shale ------------------

Cretaceous Mancos Shale ---------------

Filtration. 

Construction clay. 

Lightweight 

aggregate. 
> "'C 

"C 

~ 

:I 

c.. 

:;:c· 

~ 

Ill 

... 

I 

(J1 

... 

N 

loC 

Georgia Pacific plant 

and pits. 

Mayfield quarry ---------

San Rafael quarry -------

U.S. Gypsum plant 

and pits. 

Nephi quarry -------------

Davis quarry -------------

Welch quarry-------------

Bloomington Hills 

quarry. 

Whitecloud quarry ------

Georgia Pacific 

Corp. 

do ---------------------

do ---------------------

U.S. Gypsum Co ------

T .J. Peck and Sons ----

H.E. Davis--------------

Lanny Jensen 

(operator). 

Standard Gypsum 

Products. 

Sutherland Brothers ---

1 Bald Knoll Formation of Gillilard ( 1951 ). 

Gypsum ------------------

do ----------------------

do ----------------------

do ----------------------

do ----------------------

do ----------------------

do ----------------------

do ----------------------

do ----------------------

Gypsum 

Sevier ----------

Sanpete---------

Emery ----------

Sevier ----------

Juab -------------

do ------------

Emery ----------

Washington----

Emery ----------

22-23 S., 1-2 W. 

19 S., 2 E., 30 

22 S., 9 E., 19 

22 S., 1 W., 14, 

15, 22, 23; 

22 s., 2 w., 36; 

23 S., 2 W., 1 

12 S., 1 E., 27; 

13 S., 1 E., 3 

14 S., 1 E? 

22 S., 9 E., 29 

43 S., 15 W., 17, 

18, 19, 20 

24 S., 13 E., 15 

Jurassic Arapien Shale ------------------

do ----------------------------------------

Jurassic Carmel Formation -------------

Jurassic Arapien Shale ------------------

do ----------------------------------------

do ----------------------------------------

Jurassic Carmel Formation -------------

Triassic Moenkopi Formation ----------

Jurassic Carmel Formation -------------

Wallboard, plaster, 

cores for fireproof doors. 

Do. 

Do. 

Wallboard, plaster, 

wallboard joint 

compound. 

Cement retarder. 

Do. 

Do. 

Agricultural 

gypsum. 

? 
Appendix 3. "Strawman" proposal for an industrial-minerals coalition in the Western United States as the basis for its consideration by the workshop 

Coalition Objectives.-The purpose of forming a 

Western States Industrial Minerals Coalition would be to 

address the serious issues that affect the availability of 

these commodities and to ensure that they remain available 

for use as the States continue to grow and as land-management plans evolve. State participants would be the foundation of any interstate coalition. 

It is envisioned that a consortium of representatives 

from committees in each of the participating States would 

meet regularly, or as needed, to consider local and State 

industrial-mineral problems or concerns and the best ways 

to solve or ameliorate them. The State-committee constituencies ought to be broadly inclusive groups representing 

the industrial-minerals industry, academia, geological and 

mining surveys, local, State, and Federal land managers 

and regulators, environmental planners, and major users of 

resources and related geoscience information. For the most 

part, Federal-agency participation in the State committees 

and the regional coalition may be primarily as a facilitatoradvisor and support resource. 

A formal or informal coalition of the State committees could then establish and prioritize the significant regional and local resource issues presented by each State. 

The coalition might also identify the program areas for 

which States can contribute needed information or perform 

needed research. The coalition could address how best to 

obtain public visibility through publications, hearings, or 

public forums. Finally, the coalition would need to act 

jointly to obtain funds from Federal, State, or other institutional sources if that is necessary to support high-priority 

joint projects. 

The principal immediate objectives of the coalition 

would be to identify and address policy issues affecting 

industrial-minerals availability. However, the ultimate effectiveness of the coalition would be measured by its performance of specific tasks, one of which might be the 

application of new technologies to industrial-minerals issues. State agencies and academic institutions should cooperate with the Federal Government to identify the 

investigations needed to bring new technologies to bear on 

industrial-minerals issues. Examples of such contributions 

might be the implementation of a GIS, materials testing 

and applications research, or regional resource evaluations. 

This research and the other activities of the coalition 

should be published regularly, so that its workings are 

made available to the general public. The Western United 

States industrial-minerals coalition would also provide a 

way to advise on Federal land-use policy issues, such as 

those involving interactions with the BLM or the USFS. 

Proposed organizational plan.-The State geologists 

(or State mining associations) in the West could appoint 

committees composed of members of the resource constituency from each State. From this representative group, 

a steering committee could be selected to examine the 

State's current and projected (10-20 year) resource position, prioritize the importance to the State, and recommend 

action(s) on them or propose special subcommittee studies. 

The steering committee could also begin the process of establishing local sources of funding support to assure continuity of the special activities of the committee. The 

coalition would consist of representatives from the State 

committees; such a coalition would have the option to 

stand alone as a new organization or to become affiliated 

as a committee or subgroup in an existing interstate organization, such as the Interstate Mining Compact Commission or the Western State Governors' Association. 

Suggestions for coalition actions.-The following 

are several problem areas that might be considered by the 

State coalitions. These are issues that were identified during the Arizona and California industrial minerals workshops. Other topics could be added as the coalitions 

become more fmnly established. 

1. Develop a broadly based, unified, and clearly visible 

resource education position for the West that expresses the importance of and need for industrial minerals, particularly those required to provide housing, 

food, jobs, and economic infrastructures. This effort 

could also provide a reliable source of information for 

policy decisions. 

2. Make periodic reviews of the status of resource development, identify priority problem areas that may exist, and consider solutions from the broad perspective 

of the coalition members. 

3. Foster information and technology sharing and transfer, share expertise and personnel, and develop closer 

ties with universities to assist faculty and student research and develop jobs. Seek establishment of a 

source of funds to strengthen industrial-minerals research and technology and to assess the needs for and 

availability of industrial minerals. 

4. Provide a central source of reliable resource information for government and private users and develop the 

method(s) to ensure that this information gets to the 

right place at the right time. 

130 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 
Appendix 4. Structure of a formal coalition such as the Interstate Mining Compact Commission, by G.E. Conrad 

Organizing a Compact 

Three basic steps in formulating an interstate compact have developed through practice: 

• Negotiation 

• Drafting of the compact document 

• Ratification 

Negotiation and drafting were done by joint commissions composed of governor-appointed representatives of each participating State until 1930. Since the 

1930's, the procedure has been less formal. Usually, a 

proposed compact is drafted by State officials who want 

to address a particular problem. Negotiation with other 

States is accomplished through interstate forums or 

regional conferences. 

Another method of negotiation and drafting is for a 

group like the National Conference of State Legislators 

or the Council of State Governments to propose an interstate compact. The first State to enact the compact is the 

offerer, and States that subsequently enact the compact 

are acceptors. Ratification of a compact by each member 

State is almost always done by enacting the compact as 

a statute. 

Formal approval of the U.S. Congress is sometimes 

required before a compact can become effective. The U.S. 

Constitution provides the following: "No State shall, without the consent of Congress, . .. enter into any agreement 

or Compact with another State ... " U.S. Canst., Art. I, Sec. 

10, cl. 3. 

Congressional consent to a compact is required only 

for those agreements that affect the political balance 

within the Federal system or affect a power delegated to 

the National Government. The consent requirement applies 

only to those compacts tending to increase the political 

power in the States at the expense of the Federal Government. See Virginia v. Tennessee. 

The U.S. Supreme Court developed a two-part test to 

use in deciding whether a compact impermissibly enlarges 

State power: (1) whether the compact attempts to authorize 

member States to exercise any powers they could not exercise in the absence of a compact; and (2) whether there 

has been delegation by the States of their sovereign power 

to the commission administering the compact. See United 

States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission, 434 U.S. 

452 (1978). 

In spite of the test developed in Multistate, uncertainties remain in trying to determine when congressional 

consent is required. A recommended "safe course" is that, 

if the compact enters a field of Federal concern and sensitivity, such as nuclear energy, air and water pollution, 

flood control, or air transportation, the States should seek 

congressional consent. 

There are several common and general features of an 

interstate compact, including: 

• Purpose provisions 

• Definition of terms 

• Who will administer the compact (be it an existing 

agency, individual administrator, or newly created 

agency) 

• If an intergovernmental agency is created: 

-what the internal management and powers of the 

agency will be 

-what law will govern the agency's finances, personnel 

policies, and the judicial review of its acts 

• What event will make the compact take effect (for 

example, enactment by a certain number of States) 

• Provisions for amendment and review 

• Withdrawal or termination clauses 

• Construction and severability provisions 

• Enabling and consent legislation 

Advantages and Disadvantages of Coalitions 

There are several arguments for and against the use 

of interstate compacts, including: 

For: 

• The interstate compact is a means for the States to 

preserve their positions in the federal system and to reduce the burden on the Federal Government. 

• The interstate compact is the best device for bridging 

jurisdictional barriers. 

• There are certain types of interstate activity in which 

there is a need for uniformity. 

• The compact device has been widely used to establish 

permanent channels of interstate relations and consultations, notably by creating an interstate study commission. 

• The interstate compact can be the most effective way 

for the establishment of joint agencies of two or more 

States. 

• Compacts take precedence over ordinary State statutes; therefore, they represent one of the most powerful 

constitutional tools for intergovernmental action. 

Against: 

• It can take years to negotiate, enact, and secure consent 

to a compact. The difficulty of amending compacts and 

the need for Congressional consent to changes makes 

compacts inflexible. Including provisions for the method 

of amendment and review in a compact can help reduce 

this problem. 

• Enactment of a compact usually reduces a State's sovereign power, and so the State should weigh the benefits 

derived from the compact against that possible loss before joining an interstate compact. 

Appendixes 1-5 131 
Appendix 5. Amendments to California's SMARA legislation (Beeby, 1990), which became effective january 1, 1991 

[Reprinted from California Mining Journal (1990)] 

SMARA Significantly Amended 

In 1989/90 Legislative Session 

Sacramento, Ca!ifornia-Californi:t's 

Surface Mining and Reclamation Act 

(SMARA) has been significantly amended by Assembly Bills 3551 and 3903. 

The amendments, which take effect 

January 1, 1991, substantially change 

the role of regulators and the requirements of surface mining operations 

for mining and reclamation practices 

statewide. 

The new provisions of law are as 

follows: 

Amend Section 2207 of the Public 

Resources Code (PRC) to require that 

an annual report containing specified 

information, together with a reporting 

fee, be submitted to the State Geologist on any mining claim operation 

within California. The same report 

(minus a reporting fee and information 

on mineral production and commodities produced) would also be submitted by the operator to the lead agency. 

Reporting is required by July 1, 1991 

for the first year, and by an anniversary 

date established by the Department of 

Conservation annually thereafter. 

Establish the maximum per mine 

fee at $2,000, and a minimum per mine 

fee at $50. Require the State Mining 

and Geology Board ("the Board") to 

establish, by regulation, a fee schedule, and to adjust that schedule 

annually to maintain the program 

within the limits established by law. 

o Define "idle mines" and require 

interim management plans for mines 

desiring to maintain idle status (as 

opposed to active or abandoned 

status). 

o Authorize the State Geologist to 

collect costs associated with completing mineral land classification studies 

on behalf of a petitioner, from that 

petitioner. 

Require lead agencies to adopt 

statements of findings when allowing 

land uses in classified and/or designated resource areas that would preclude future development of the identified mineral resource. Requires that 

these statements be forwarded to the 

State Geologist and the Board. 

Require financial assurances of all 

surface mining operations to guarantee sit3 reclamation. Require that 

financial assurances be payable to 

the lead agency and the State Geologist. that financial assurances be 

submitted to the State Geologist for 

his review and comment, a review and 

approval period for financial assurances, a financial assurance appeals 

process to the Board, and that the 

Board establish regulations expanding the criteria for types of acceptable 

financial assurances. 

Require State Geologist action to 

forfeit financial assurances and complete reclamation in specified cases. 

Establish noticing and hearing 

procedures for the Board to follow 

when determining lead agency jurisdiction, and allow operators to bring a 

lead agency jurisdictional issue to the 

Board's attention. 

o Require the Board to adopt specific minimum, verifiable reclamation 

standards (to be in place by January 1, 

1992). 

o Authorize lead agencies to charge 

mining operations for their costs of 

administering SMARA. 

o Require lead agencies to annually 

inspect min!ng operations to determine SMARA compliance, and require 

lead agencies to notify the State Geologist of inspection results. Lead agencies, when conducting such inspections, must utilize a State-issued form. 

Require lead agencies to forward 

132 Industrial Minerals in the Basin and Range Region-Workshop Proceedings 

1! U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1992--687-362 

copies of approved permits, approved 

reclamation plans, amendments to 

peimits and reclamation plans, and 

proof of inspections to the State 

Geologist. 

Amendments and issues arising 

from these amendments are very 

complex. The Board indicates that it 

will be very active in the coming 

months developing policies and procedures to assist in the implementation of these provisions. Regulations 

for the fee schedule, reclamation 

standards, Board assumption of lead 

agency duties, financial assurances, 

appeals processes, and administrative penalties/violations processes 

will be developed. Readers that would 

like to receive notification of Board 

activities in this regard may request to 

be added to the Board's mailing list by 

contacting the Board's Secretary, Ms. 

Blanda Duncan, State Mining and 

Geology Board, 1416-9th Street, 

Room 1326-A, Sacramento, CA 

95814, (916) 322-1082. 

SMARA applies to all surface mining operations in California, including 

projects located on federally managed lands. The SMARA "lead 

agency" for these projects remains 

the city or county jurisdiction. 

Reclamation plan approvals, including the new requirement for financial 

assurances of all surface mining 

operations, must be obtained from the 

SMARA lead agency. 

Questions may be referred to Ms. 

Deborah Herrmann,Special Representative, State Mining and Geology 

Board, 1416-9th Street, Room 1326-A, 

Sacramento, CA 95814, (961) 322-

1082. 0