Sand and Gravel, Con s truc tion—2012 [advance relea s e] 64.1 

# S and and

# Gravel

# , C on s truc tion By Wallace P. Bolen
Domestic survey data and tables were prepared by Michelle B. Blackwell, statistical assistant.

A

total of 812 million metric tons (Mt) of construction sand and gravel was produced in the United States in 2012. Although this was a slight increase of 4 Mt from the revised production of 2011, production was nearly 40% less than the peak production of 1.34 billion metric tons during 2006 and 2012 concluded 3 consecutive years with the lowest levels of U .S. sand and gravel production since 1991. D espite the modest increase, more than one-half of the States had decreased production in 2012 compared with that of 2011. Some regions, however, had increased demand, especially in areas where States have experienced a boom in natural gas and oil production and (or) in areas that had been particularly hard hit during the recent recession and have reported improvements in housing construction.

Construction sand and gravel is a traditional basic building material and is one of the earliest materials used by humanity for dwellings and later for outdoor areas such as paths, roadways, and other constructs. Sand and gravel is very accessible and is widely used throughout the United States and the world. As sand and gravel became less available owing to resource constraint or economic conditions in some locales, builders began to crush bedrock to produce a manufactured sand and gravel often referred to as crushed stone. Sand and gravel and crushed stone combined are defined as construction aggregates. The crushed stone industry is reviewed in a separate chapter of the U .S. Geological Survey (U SGS) Minerals Yearbook; both of these mineral commodities are usually included in reviews of national, State, or local aggregate industries. All percentages in this report were computed using unrounded data.

Although a few States had greatly increased demand related to energy production, demand elsewhere was dampened by the still relatively weak nationwide construction industry. The U .S. Census Bureau reported that the value of construction put in place was up by nearly 9% in 2012 compared with that of 2011 but still nearly 54% less than the peak year of 2006. The improving numbers reported by the U .S. Census Bureau have not yet translated to a corresponding increase in annual sand and gravel consumption (U .S. Census Bureau, undated).

In the United States in 2012, 6,598 construction sand and gravel operations were known to be active (table 6A), 1,093 operations were reported or assumed idle, and 311 operations either were reported to be closed or were assumed to be permanently shut down. O f the 6,598 active operations, 87 were classified as sales or distribution yards only; a sales yard is defined as a fixed location that receives sand and gravel from a distant source and sells it at the yard. Additionally, 167 operations reported that they were either an open pit or a dredge combined with a sales yard that supplemented local production with material from a remote location. A small number of the idle sand and gravel operations reported recycling of asphalt and portland cement concrete. The 6,598 operations with 8,007 active sand and gravel pits were owned by 4,129 companies or government agencies located in all 50 States.

A

review of the data provided by the U .S. Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) revealed 370 newly opened or previously unaccounted for sand and gravel locations that reported at least 500 employee hours of activity during 2012. Information was gathered from these newly recognized operations and is included in the 2012 data. In 2012, of the 6,598 active operations surveyed, 3,135, or 48%, responded to the U SGS canvass. Their total production represented 53% of the 812 Mt produced in 2012. E stimates for operations that did not report were based on prior years’ data and MSHA employee hour reports. Each year, hundreds of sand and gravel operations are idled, closed, or abandoned, and hundreds more are reactivated or opened. The changing location of construction and highway projects is the major factor in decisions to open, idle, or close operations.

According to the U .S. Census Bureau, exports of sand and gravel in 2012 increased by 19% to 426,000 metric tons (t) compared with those of 2011. However, the value of these exports decreased by 10% to $25.5 million compared with the 2011 value (tables 1, 12). Imports of construction sand and gravel increased by 19% in 2012 compared with those in 2011, but the value decreased by 9% to $59.2 million (tables 1, 13). Imports have become a significant source for sand and gravel in some areas of the country but remain a tiny fraction of total consumption. D omestic apparent consumption of construction sand and gravel, which is defined as production for consumption (sold or used) plus total imports minus total exports, was 815 Mt. In addition to this, at least 30 Mt of asphaltic and portland cement concrete was recycled during 2012.

Some information about the production of construction sand and gravel in foreign countries can be found in the U SGS Minerals Yearbook, volume III , Area reports—International. For nonreporting countries, estimates of sand and gravel and crushed stone production can be based on indirect indicators, such as the levels of asphalt and cement consumption.

Production

O f the four major geographic regions, the West continued to lead the Nation in the production of construction sand and gravel in 2012 with 265 Mt, or 33% of the U .S. total (table 2). The Midwest ranked a close second with 256 Mt, or 32%; the South produced 202 Mt, or 25%; and the Northeast produced 89 Mt, or 11%. Compared with that of 2011, production was down slightly in every region of the United States except in the Midwest, where production increased by about 5%.

O f the nine geographic divisions, the Mountain division led the Nation in the production of construction sand and gravel in64.2 [advance relea s e] u. s

. geolo gicAl survey mineral s yearb ook—2012 

### 2012 with 142 Mt, or 18% of the U .S. total, and was followed by the West North Central with 132 Mt, or 16%; the East North Central with 124 Mt, or 15%; and the Pacific with 123 Mt, or 15% (table 2). The largest production increase was in the West North Central division, which rose by 11.5% compared with that of 2011, mainly in response to infrastructure related demand from the rapidly expanding oil and gas activity. Production also increased in the New England (2.5%), South Atlantic (1.5%), and Mountain (1%) divisions. The two largest decreases were in the Middle Atlantic (6.4%) and Pacific (5.2%) divisions.

In 2012, construction sand and gravel was produced in every State (table 3). The leading States with production greater than 25 Mt were, in descending order of tonnage, T exas, California, Minnesota, Arizona, Michigan, Ohio, North D akota, New York, Washington, Colorado, and Wisconsin. The combined production of these 11 States represented about 54% of the national total. In 2012, production decreased in 30 States and increased in 20 States compared with that of 2011. Production increases of greater than 10% were reported in five States— North D akota (35%), R hode I sland (25%), Minnesota (19%), Florida (14%), and Maryland (11%). Production decreases of 10% or more were reported in five States—Hawaii (18%), Louisiana (13%), North Carolina (12%), Illinois (11%), and Iowa (10%).

A

review of the production of construction sand and gravel for consumption by size of operation indicated that 49% of the total production came from 2,016 operations having between 100,000 and 499,999 metric tons (t) of production in 2012, 20% of the construction sand and gravel produced came from 277 operations having between 500,000 and 999,999 t of production, and 15% came from 76 operations having 1 Mt or more of production. The majority of operations (4,229, or 65% of total operations) produced less than 100,000 t in 2012 (16% of the total production) (table 6A).

In 2012, the leading domestic commercial producers of construction sand and gravel were, in descending order of production, O ldcastle Materials, Inc.; CEMEX S. A .B. de C. V .; V

ulcan Materials Co.; Lehigh Hanson, Inc.; MDU Resources Group, Inc.; Martin Marietta Aggregates; Holcim Group/ Aggregate Industries Management, Inc.; T rinity Industries, Inc.; Mitsubishi Materials Corp.; and Granite Construction, Inc. The combined production of these 10 companies was about 159 Mt, or about 19% of the national total. The top 100 producers of construction sand and gravel in the United States in 2012 had a combined production of 349 Mt (43% of the national total), and are listed in table 14. The companies that improved their rank on the list of top 100 producers were almost all serving States that had improved economies related to oil and gas exploration and production, especially North D akota and T exas. Consumption

Production of construction sand and gravel reported to the U SGS by producers was material that was sold or used by the companies. Stockpiled production is not reported until it is sold or consumed by the producer. Because no consumption surveys are conducted by the U SGS for sand and gravel, the sold or used tonnage is assumed to represent the amount produced for domestic consumption and export. Because some of the construction sand and gravel producers did not report a breakdown by end use, their total production was reported under “Unspecified uses, reported.” The estimated production of nonrespondents was reported under “Unspecified uses, estimated.”

O f the 812 Mt of construction sand and gravel produced in 2012, 62% was reported or estimated without a breakdown by end use (tables 4–5). O f the remaining 310 Mt, 42% was used as concrete aggregate; 26% was used for road base and coverings; 12%, for asphaltic concrete aggregate and other bituminous mixtures; 12%, for construction fill; about 1% each, for concrete products, plaster and gunite sands, road stabilization, and snow and ice control; and the remainder was used for golf course maintenance, filtration, railroad ballast, roofing granules, and many other miscellaneous uses.

The reported percentage consumption patterns for construction sand and gravel exclude the unspecified uses. In any marketing or use-pattern analysis based on quantity distribution, the total quantities included in “Unspecified uses” may be distributed among the reported use categories by applying the above percentages.

Additional information regarding production of construction sand and gravel by major uses in each State and State district can be found in the U SGS Minerals Yearbook, volume II , Area reports—D omestic.
Recycling

The U SGS collects recycling statistics from construction and demolition companies. Not all of the companies surveyed responded to the request for information on asphalt and portland cement concrete recycling, and the data shown in tables 10 and 11 do not include estimates for nonrespondents. These data have been combined with recycling data received from aggregate mining companies, including construction sand and gravel and crushed stone producers. Recycling in this industry generally refers to the crushing, screening, and reuse of asphalt and portland cement concretes. Aggregates, construction, and demolition companies and related asphalt and ready-mix companies are often involved in construction projects during which they collect and reuse the materials at the site. Sometimes construction companies haul their materials to a recycling location where the asphalt and (or) portland cement concrete is processed for reuse.

Recycled Asphalt Concrete.

—In 2012, 16.6 Mt of asphalt concrete valued at $134 million was reported as recycled by aggregate, construction, and demolition companies in 49 States (table 10). The leading States, all with more than 500,000 t of recycled asphalt concrete were, in descending order of tonnage recycled, California, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, North Carolina, Michigan, New York, Utah, Kansas, and Connecticut. About 6.2 Mt of asphalt concrete was recycled by 294 sand and gravel companies. Sand and gravel producers who reported the most recycled asphalt concrete were, in descending order, All American Asphalt Co.; Midwest Asphalt Corp.; Kenny Seng Construction, Inc.; The Lane Construction Corp.; and O ldcastle Materials. These five companies recycled about 2.3 Mt of asphalt concrete.Sand and Gravel, Con s truc tion—2012 [advance relea s e] 64.3 

### Recycled Concrete.

—In 2012, about 13.7 Mt of portland cement concrete valued at $102 million was reported as recycled in 47 States (table 11). The leading States, all with more than 500,000 t of recycled portland cement concrete were, in descending order of tonnage recycled, California, Illinois, T exas, Michigan, V irginia, Wisconsin, and Colorado. About 4.7 Mt of portland cement concrete was recycled by 291 sand and gravel companies. Sand and gravel producers who reported the most recycled portland cement concrete were, in descending order, V

ulcan Materials; Kenny Seng Construction; K nopik Crushing, Inc.; K raemer T rucking and Excavation, Inc.; and D an Copp Crushing Corp. These five companies recycled about 1.1 Mt of portland cement concrete.
Transportation

Information regarding the method of transportation of construction sand and gravel from the pit or processing plant to the first point of sale or use is available for each geographic division and the total United States. Reports regarding the method of transportation were provided by the producers of 252 Mt, or 31% of the total U .S. production of construction sand and gravel in 2012. O f this, 79% was transported by truck; 4%, by waterway; 2%, other; and less than 1% by rail (table 7). The “other” category probably indicates customer pickup or was unknown by the respondent but was likely transported by truck. A significant portion of the 252 Mt (about 14%) was not transported and was used at or near the production site, probably for asphalt or portland cement concrete production. Because most producers neither keep records of nor report shipping distances or cost per metric ton per mile, transportation cost data are not available.

Prices

Prices discussed in this chapter are average unit values and are free on board (f.o.b.) plant, usually at the first point of sale or for captive use. This does not include transportation from the plant or yard to the consumer. It normally includes all costs of mining, processing, in-plant transportation, overhead, and profit.

The 2012 average unit value of construction sand and gravel increased by 2.1% to $7.65 per metric ton compared with the revised unit value for 2011. By use, the prices varied from a high of $12.56 per ton for filtration to a low of $4.93 per ton for fill (table 4). The largest increases in price were recorded for sand and gravel used for filtration (36.2%); road stabilization, lime (28.7%); road base and coverings (9.6%); and plaster and gunite sands (5.3%). The largest decreases were for road stabilization, cement (19.8%) and concrete products (9.9%).

The States having the highest unit value per metric ton of construction sand and gravel were, in descending order, Hawaii ($19.06), Maryland ($11.75), V irginia ($11.39), R hode I sland ($11.34), Louisiana ($11.05), and California ($10.93). The States having the lowest unit value of construction sand and gravel per metric ton were, in ascending order, South D akota ($4.81), Kentucky ($4.90), Minnesota ($4.99), and Wisconsin ($5.00). The construction sand and gravel unit value decreased in 20 States and increased in 30 States (table 3). The States having the largest increases in unit value were, in descending order, D elaware (46%), North D akota (32%), South Carolina (28%), South D akota (27%), Hawaii (22%), Idaho (22%), Utah (22%), and V ermont (22%). The States having the largest decreases in unit value were, in descending order, Alaska (22%), New Hampshire (17%), R hode I sland (12%), Massachusetts (8%), and Florida (6%).
Foreign Trade

The widespread distribution of domestic sand and gravel deposits and the high cost of transportation limit foreign trade to mostly local transactions across international boundaries. U .S. imports and exports were equivalent to less than 1% of domestic consumption.

According to the U .S. Census Bureau, exports of construction sand increased by 37% to 197,000 t compared with that of 2011, but the value decreased by 11% to $19.6 million (table 12). Canada, which was the leading destination, received 70% of the total sand exports, followed by Mexico (12%), and Germany (8%). Exports of construction gravel increased by 8% to 229,000 t compared with those of 2011, but the value decreased by 6% to $5.9 million. Canada, which was the leading destination, received 67% of total gravel exports. Germany was the second leading destination receiving 11% of the gravel exports. The average value of sand and gravel exports in 2012 was $60 per ton, which was down by 24% from $79 per ton in 2011. All of these values may have been relatively high because some higher grade sand and gravel, such as industrial sand and gravel (especially hydraulic fracturing sand used in natural gas and oil drilling), was being misclassified as construction sand and gravel.

In 2012, imports of construction sand and gravel increased by 19% to 4.1 Mt, but the value decreased by 9% to $59.2 million (table 13). Canada was the leading source of construction sand and gravel imports, with 89% of the total. Mexico supplied about 8% of the imports, and most of the remaining 3% was supplied by nine other countries. The average unit value of sand and gravel imports in 2012 was $14.41 per ton, down from $18.82 per ton in 2011.

Outlook

Many economic indicators show an improving economy in the United States and 2013 sand and gravel consumption was expected to increase compared with that of 2012. D ata from the 2013 U SGS quarterly survey of U .S. aggregates producers projected a 4% increase in sales of sand and gravel compared with those of 2012, based on a sample of the leading sand and gravel producers in the United States.

The average price for construction sand and gravel in 2012 increased for the second consecutive year after experiencing the first drop in average price in 2010 since 1990. The 2012 average price exceeded the previous all-time high of $7.51 per ton set in 2009. Improving demand from many sectors and higher fuel costs could keep some upward pressure on sand and gravel production costs for 2013. Higher costs are likely to continue in and near metropolitan areas because, as nearby resources are depleted, more aggregates will be transported from distant sources with the accompanying extra fuel cost.64.4 [advance relea s e] u. s

. geolo gicAl survey mineral s yearb ook—2012 

### Reference Cited

U .S. Census Bureau, undated, Construction spending, historical value

put in place: U .S. Census Bureau. (Accessed March 19, 2014, via http://www.census.gov/construction/c30/historical_data.html.)



### GENERAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION U.S. Geological Survey Productions

Crushed Stone and Sand and Gravel. Mineral Industry Surveys,

quarterly. Historical Statistics for Mineral and Material Commodities in

the United States, D ata Series 140. Natural Aggregate—Building America’s Future. Circular 1110, 1990. Natural Aggregates of the Conterminous United States. Bulletin 1594, 1988. Natural Aggregates—Foundation of America’s Future. Fact

Sheet FS 144–97, 1997. Sand and Gravel. Ch. in United States Mineral Resources,

Professional Paper 820, 1973. Sand and Gravel, Construction. Ch. in Mineral Commodity

Summaries, annual. Stone, Crushed. Ch. in Mineral Commodity Summaries, annual. Stone, Crushed. Ch. in Minerals Yearbook, annual. Other

Aggregates Handbook. National Stone Association, 1991. Aggregates Manager. Aggregates—Sand, Gravel, & Crushed Rock Aggregates for

Construction Purposes. The Geological Society [United Kingdom], 1985. Bates, R

. L ., and Harben, P.W., 1984, Geology of Nonmetallics:

London, United Kingdom, Metal Bulletin Inc., 357 p. Canadian Aggregates. Handbook of Concrete Aggregates. D olar-Mantuani, L

. Noyes

Publications, 1983. Sand and Gravel. Ch. in Industrial Minerals and Rocks (7th ed.),

Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc., 2006. Sand and Gravel. Ch. in Mineral Facts and Problems,

U .S. Bureau of Mines Bulletin 675, 1985. Stone, Sand & Gravel Review.Sand and Gravel, Con s truc tion—2012 [advance relea s e] 64.5 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Sold or used by producers: 2

Quantity 1,060,000 839,000 r 807,000 r 808,000 r 812,000 value 7,900,000 6,300,000 r 5,890,000 r 6,050,000 r 6,210,000 recycled: 3

Quantity 29,100 28,500 26,400 27,300 r 30,300 value 252,000 264,000 201,000 214,000 r 237,000 exports:

Quantity 392 439 381 357 426 value 22,400 23,100 22,600 28,200 25,500 imports:

Quantity 5,430 2,980 2,670 3,440 4,110 value 114,000 66,100 95,900 64,800 59,200

mining companies. taBle 1 Salient u.S. ConStruCtion Sand and Gravel StatiStiCS 1

(thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)

rrevised.
1 data are rounded to no more than three significant digits.
2Puerto rico is excluded from all sand and gravel statistics.
3 asphalt and portland cement concrete recycled by construction, demolition, and aggregate

Quantity r Quantity (thousand Percent value Percent (thousand Percent value Percent region/division metric tons) of total (thousands) of total metric tons) of total (thousands) of total northeast:

new england 36,300 4.5 $317,000 r 5.2 37,200 4.6 $316,000 5.1 Middle atlantic 54,900 6.8 480,000 r 8.0 51,400 6.3 454,000 7.3 Midwest:

east north Central 125,000 15.5 r 776,000 r 12.8 124,000 15.3 766,000 12.4 West north Central 119,000 14.7 r 637,000 r 10.5 132,000 16.3 780,000 12.6 South:

South atlantic 48,600 6.0 389,000 6.4 r 49,300 6.0 409,000 6.6 east South Central 34,500 4.3 r 226,000 r 3.7 33,300 4.1 225,000 3.6 West South Central 120,000 14.8 r 942,000 r 15.6 r 119,000 14.6 930,000 14.9 West:

Mountain 140,000 17.4 r 1,010,000 r 16.7 r 142,000 17.5 1,110,000 17.9 Pacific 130,000 16.1 r 1,270,000 21.1 123,000 15.1 1,210,000 19.5

total 808,000 100 6,050,000 r 100 812,000 100 6,210,000 100 taBle 2 ConStruCtion Sand and Gravel Sold or uSed BY ProduCerS in tHe united StateS, BY GeoGraPHiC diviSion 1

2011 2012

rrevised. 1 data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown.64.6 [advance relea s e] u. s

. geolo gicAl survey mineral s yearb ook—2012 Quantity Quantity (thousand value unit (thousand value unit State metric tons) (thousands) value metric tons) (thousands) value alabama 9,910 $53,600 $5.41 9,060 $54,500 $6.01 alaska 7,710 r 70,800 r 9.18 r 7,080 50,600 7.15 arizona 31,600 r 267,000 r 8.44 r 34,100 301,000 8.83 arkansas 7,990 r 68,200 r 8.53 7,980 68,200 8.56 California 80,600 r 891,000 r 11.05 r 77,100 843,000 10.93 Colorado 26,800 r 198,000 7.39 r 27,700 209,000 7.53 Connecticut 5,560 r 54,200 r 9.75 r 5,280 49,600 9.39 delaware 1,910 11,200 5.90 1,820 15,600 8.58 Florida 12,000 104,000 r 8.61 r 13,700 111,000 8.10 Georgia 5,160 r 30,300 r 5.88 5,410 33,800 6.24 Hawaii 962 15,100 15.67 786 15,000 19.06 idaho 10,500 r 64,000 r 6.07 r 10,000 73,800 7.38 illinois 18,800 121,000 6.44 16,700 113,000 6.79 indiana 18,800 111,000 5.88 18,500 107,000 5.81 iowa 15,200 r 102,000 r 6.75 13,600 89,200 6.54 kansas 9,620 47,100 4.90 9,710 52,200 5.38 kentucky 6,810 r 32,500 r 4.77 r 6,610 32,400 4.90 louisiana 21,400 r 212,000 r 9.94 r 18,500 205,000 11.05 Maine 8,120 r 54,400 r 6.69 8,500 62,700 7.37 Maryland 6,980 83,100 11.89 7,730 90,700 11.75 Massachusetts 9,270 r 93,800 r 10.13 9,470 88,200 9.31 Michigan 32,100 r 179,000 r 5.57 31,600 173,000 5.48 Minnesota 37,200 r 182,000 r 4.91 44,400 221,000 4.99 Mississippi 11,700 r 94,100 r 8.07 11,500 90,500 7.88 Missouri 9,340 r 64,800 r 6.93 9,310 62,500 6.71 Montana 11,100 r 86,400 r 7.80 12,000 90,300 7.50 nebraska 13,000 r 76,300 r 5.86 r 12,900 84,800 6.59 nevada 13,200 r 81,400 r 6.15 r 12,300 84,700 6.86 new Hampshire 6,270 r 54,400 r 8.68 r 6,760 48,600 7.20 new Jersey 11,800 108,000 9.19 11,100 97,600 8.83 new Mexico 9,410 r 74,600 r 7.92 r 10,200 83,200 8.19 new York 30,300 257,000 8.47 28,800 254,000 8.82 north Carolina 8,250 r 47,700 r 5.78 7,220 42,900 5.94 north dakota 21,700 r 116,000 5.37 r 29,300 207,000 7.07 ohio 27,400 219,000 8.02 29,500 234,000 7.94 oklahoma 11,000 r 68,000 r 6.17 11,800 73,200 6.22 oregon 11,300 r 86,900 r 7.66 r 10,400 89,500 8.63 Pennsylvania 12,800 r 115,000 r 8.96 11,600 103,000 8.87 rhode island 2,010 26,000 12.92 2,500 28,400 11.34 South Carolina 7,070 31,400 4.43 6,380 36,300 5.68 South dakota 12,700 47,800 3.78 13,100 63,100 4.81 tennessee 6,100 45,600 7.47 6,110 47,500 7.77 texas 79,200 r 593,000 r 7.49 r 80,800 584,000 7.23 utah 25,300 r 149,000 5.90 r 23,800 172,000 7.22 vermont 5,070 r 33,800 r 6.67 4,700 38,400 8.17 virginia 6,680 r 77,500 11.61 6,470 73,700 11.39 Washington 29,600 r 211,000 r 7.13 r 28,100 214,000 7.64 West virginia 534 4,470 8.36 578 4,890 8.45 Wisconsin 27,900 r 147,000 r 5.26 27,500 138,000 5.00 Wyoming 12,500 r 89,800 r 7.20 r 11,800 100,000 8.51

total or average 808,000 r 6,050,000 r 7.49 r 812,000 6,210,000 7.65

1 data are rounded to no more than three significant digits, except unit value; may not add to totals shown. taBle 3 ConStruCtion Sand and Gravel Sold or uSed BY ProduCerS in tHe united StateS, BY State 1

2011 2012

rrevised.Sand and Gravel, Con s truc tion—2012 [advance relea s e] 64.7 Quantity (thousand value unit use metric tons) (thousands) value Concrete aggregates (including concrete sand) 131,000 $1,050,000 $7.98 Plaster and gunite sands 3,550 37,200 10.49 Concrete products (blocks, bricks, pipe, decorative, etc.) 2,530 20,400 8.05 asphaltic concrete aggregates and other bituminous mixtures 37,200 326,000 8.76 road base and coverings 81,500 570,000 6.98 road stabilization, cement 2,500 14,900 5.98 road stabilization, lime 597 4,430 7.41 Fill 36,800 182,000 4.93 Snow and ice control 3,320 23,400 7.06 railroad ballast 766 8,670 11.32 roofing granules 76 879 11.57 Filtration 736 9,240 12.56 Golf course maintenance sand 763 7,180 9.41 other miscellaneous uses 8,700 84,100 9.66 unspecified: 2

actual 167,000 1,330,000 8.00 estimated 335,000 2,540,000 7.58

total or average 812,000 6,210,000 7.65 taBle 4 ConStruCtion Sand and Gravel Sold or uSed in tHe united StateS in 2012, BY MaJor uSe 1

1 data are rounded to no more than three significant digits, except unit value; may not add to totals shown. 2reported and estimated production without a breakdown by end use.64.8 [advance relea s e] u. s

. geolo gicAl survey mineral s yearb ook—2012 region/division Quantity value Quantity value Quantity value Quantity value Quantity value northeast:

new england 3,130 29,100 96 1,350 191 1,380 1,890 18,500 4,130 34,900 Middle atlantic 7,470 72,500 337 3,180 259 2,500 2,200 18,200 4,260 34,800 Midwest:

east north Central 19,100 106,000 156 894 316 2,370 6,810 47,300 12,300 75,600 West north Central 15,000 95,000 338 1,990 358 2,870 7,370 42,100 25,000 136,000 South:

South atlantic 16,200 151,000 262 2,220 609 4,910 1,470 10,100 495 3,590 east South Central 10,500 65,800 125 651 468 2,930 1,750 14,100 1,200 8,540 West South Central 27,300 200,000 460 3,810 24 352 1,580 13,600 4,220 44,500 West:

Mountain 12,200 115,000 256 3,370 164 1,000 5,780 57,400 20,800 149,000 Pacific 20,300 213,000 1,520 19,800 143 2,080 8,380 105,000 12,300 102,000

total 131,000 1,050,000 3,550 37,200 2,530 20,400 37,200 326,000 84,600 589,000

Quantity value Quantity value Quantity value Quantity value Quantity value northeast:

new england 1,740 8,190 639 5,180 44 473 25,400 217,000 37,200 316,000 Middle atlantic 2,020 11,500 1,180 8,080 11 99 33,700 303,000 51,400 454,000 Midwest:

east north Central 8,220 36,500 860 4,230 33 281 76,000 493,000 124,000 766,000 West north Central 5,170 18,500 224 1,420 12 172 78,800 482,000 132,000 780,000 South:

South atlantic 4,710 17,300 34 255 5 47 25,500 219,000 49,300 409,000 east South Central 934 3,790 3 42

-- -- 18,300 129,000 33,300 225,000 West South Central 3,500 15,800 7 152 24 669 81,900 651,000 119,000 930,000 West:

Mountain 4,340 21,700 277 3,330 226 2,130 97,900 761,000 142,000 1,110,000 Pacific 6,180 48,400 99 727 414 4,800 74,100 717,000 123,000 1,210,000

total 36,800 182,000 3,320 23,400 769 8,670 512,000 3,970,000 812,000 6,210,000 --Zero.
1 data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown. 2includes road and other stabilization (cement and lime). 3 includes reported and estimated production without a breakdown by end use. Fill Snow and ice control railroad ballast other uses 3 total Concrete products asphaltic concrete aggregates and other bituminous mixtures road base and coverings 2 (including concrete sand)

Concrete aggregates Plaster and gunite sands decorative, etc.) (blocks, bricks, pipe taBle 5 ConStruCtion Sand and Gravel Sold or uSed BY ProduCerS in tHe united StateS in 2012, BY GeoGraPHiC diviSion and MaJor uSe 1

(thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)Sand and Gravel, Con s truc tion—2012 [advance relea s e] 64.9 Quantity Size range number of Percent (thousand Percent (metric tons) operations of total metric tons) of total less than 25,000 2,041 33 19,100 3 25,000 to 49,999 1,016 15 33,400 4 50,000 to 99,999 1,172 17 76,900 9 100,000 to 199,999 1,065 16 138,000 17 200,000 to 299,999 518 7 115,000 14 300,000 to 399,999 270 4 84,000 10 400,000 to 499,999 163 3 66,000 8 500,000 to 599,999 87 2 43,800 6 600,000 to 699,999 78 1 45,800 5 700,000 to 799,999 48 0.7 32,300 4 800,000 to 899,999 37 0.3 28,400 3 900,000 to 999,999 27 0.2 23,200 2 1,000,000 to 1,499,999 38 0.2 40,000 5 1,500,000 to 1,999,999 24 0.3 37,600 5 2,000,000 to 2,499,999 11 0.1 22,600 3 2,500,000 and more 3 0.3 4,820 2

total 6,598 100 812,000 100

` taBle 6a ConStruCtion Sand and Gravel ProduCtion in tHe united StateS in 2012, BY SiZe oF oPeration 1

1 data are rounded to no more than three significant digits.64.10 [advance relea s e] u. s

. geolo gicAl survey mineral s yearb ook—2012 Quantity Quantity Size range number of Percent (thousand Percent number of Percent (thousand Percent (metric tons) operations of total metric tons) of total operations of total metric tons) of total less than 25,000 409 37.7 3,800 4.3 744 30.6 7,080 2.8 25,000 to 49,999 200 18.4 6,480 7.3 370 15.2 12,300 4.8 50,000 to 99,999 189 17.4 12,400 14 505 20.8 33,400 13 100,000 to 199,999 148 13.6 19,300 21.7 419 17.2 53,900 21.1 200,000 to 299,999 76 7 17,000 19.2 160 6.5 35,200 13.7 300,000 to 399,999 27 2.5 8,280 9.3 98 4 30,400 11.9 400,000 to 499,999 16 1.5 6,480 7.3 52 2.1 20,800 8.1 500,000 to 599,999 7 0.6 3,630 4.1 23 0.9 11,400 4.4 600,000 to 699,999 5 0.5 2,840 3.2 18 0.7 10,600 4.1 700,000 to 799,999 4 0.4 2,640 3 15 0.6 10,000 3.9 800,000 to 899,999 2 0.2 1,500 1.7 10 0.4 7,640 3 900,000 to 999,999

-- -- -- -- 6 0.2 5,160 2 1,000,000 or more 3 0.3 4,220 4.8 15 0.5 18,300 7.1

total 1,086 100 88,600 100 2,434 100 256,000 100

Quantity Quantity Size range number of Percent (thousand Percent number of Percent (thousand Percent (metric tons) operations of total metric tons) of total operations of total metric tons) of total less than 25,000 212 20 2,080 1 676 33.5 6,130 2.3 25,000 to 49,999 129 12.2 4,380 2.2 317 15.7 10,300 3.9 50,000 to 99,999 165 15.6 10,700 5.3 313 15.5 20,400 7.7 100,000 to 199,999 190 18 25,000 12.4 308 15.2 40,200 15.2 200,000 to 299,999 126 11.9 28,000 13.9 157 7.8 35,100 13.2 300,000 to 399,999 79 7.5 24,900 12.4 66 3.3 20,400 7.7 400,000 to 499,999 44 4.2 17,900 8.9 51 2.5 20,800 7.8 500,000 to 599,999 28 2.6 14,100 7 29 1.4 14,700 5.5 600,000 to 699,999 27 2.6 16,200 8 28 1.4 16,300 6.1 700,000 to 799,999 14 1.3 9,530 4.7 15 0.7 10,100 3.8 800,000 to 899,999 8 0.8 6,270 3.1 17 0.8 13,000 4.9 900,000 to 999,999 11 1 9,460 4.7 10 0.5 8,610 3.2 1,000,000 or more 25 1.3 33,000 16.4 33 1.5 49,400 18.6

total 1,058 100 202,000 100 2,020 100 265,000 100

1 data are rounded to no more than three significant digits. taBle 6B ConStruCtion Sand and Gravel ProduCtion in tHe united StateS in 2012, BY reGion and SiZe oF oPeration 1

northeast Midwest

South West

--Zero.Sand and Gravel, Con s truc tion—2012 [advance relea s e] 64.11 not not region/division truck rail Water other transported specified total northeast:

new england 7,550

-- -- 118 1,630 27,900 37,200 Middle atlantic 12,800 11 276 378 1,520 36,400 51,400 Midwest:

east north Central 32,000 33 3,170 210 5,050 83,400 124,000 West north Central 35,400 29 660 56 7,760 88,400 132,000 South:

South atlantic 16,300 23 33 10 862 32,100 49,300 east South Central 7,730 102 2,900 1,550 529 20,500 33,300 West South Central 24,000 476

-- 26 3,140 91,300 119,000 West:

Mountain 29,800

-- -- 1,090 6,460 105,000 142,000 Pacific 34,300 36 3,920 1,340 8,830 75,000 123,000

total 200,000 713 11,000 4,780 35,800 560,000 812,000 taBle 7 ConStruCtion Sand and Gravel Sold or uSed BY ProduCerS in tHe united StateS in 2012, BY GeoGraPHiC diviSion and MetHod oF tranSPortation 1

(thousand metric tons)

-- Zero.
1 data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown.

Stationary no plants or dredging total active region/division Stationary Portable and portable unspecified operations operations northeast:

new england 267 203 48 22

-- 540 Middle atlantic 243 202 43 36 22 546 Midwest:

east north Central 513 380 74 69 90 1,126 West north Central 522 478 35 91 182 1,308 South:

South atlantic 147 63 12 49 67 338 east South Central 106 27 7 11 45 196 West South Central 294 91 17 36 86 524 West:

Mountain 551 602 69 74 11 1,307 Pacific 1 379 235 52 31 16 713

total 3,022 2,281 357 419 519 6,598

as one operation. taBle 8

nuMBer oF ConStruCtion Sand and Gravel oPerationS and ProCeSSinG PlantS in tHe united StateS in 2012, BY GeoGraPHiC diviSion

Mining operations on land

-- Zero.
1 an undetermined number of operations leased from the Bureau of land Management in alaska are counted64.12 [advance relea s e] u. s

. geolo gicAl survey mineral s yearb ook—2012 Stationary no plants or dredging total active State Stationary Portable and portable unspecified operations operations alabama 33 6 2 7 13 61 alaska 1 35 28 4 8 2 77 arizona 78 81 14 3

-- 176 arkansas 33 13 3 1 2 52 California 198 85 25 5 7 320 Colorado 105 125 11 17 5 263 Connecticut 35 19 14

-- -- 68 delaware 4

-- -- 3 4 11 Florida 27 7

-- 6 17 57 Georgia 21 4 2

-- 15 42 Hawaii 13 7

-- -- -- 20 idaho 43 83 3 12 3 144 illinois 58 15 6 3 27 109 indiana 71 32 12 1 12 128 iowa 39 77 4 6 28 154 kansas 33 48 2 9 36 128 kentucky 6 3 2 1 9 21 louisiana 60 10

-- 15 36 121 Maine 76 72 9 11

-- 168 Maryland 23 3 3 6 3 38 Massachusetts 74 20 6

-- -- 100 Michigan 126 141 30 20 16 333 Minnesota 169 173 19 40 6 407 Mississippi 48 14

-- 3 12 77 Missouri 40 8 2

-- 28 78 Montana 95 77 10 14

-- 196 nebraska 43 20 2 7 82 154 nevada 51 31 9 5

-- 96 new Hampshire 35 44 9 2

-- 90 new Jersey 28 8 3 5 10 54 new Mexico 50 46 9 6 1 112 new York 163 162 31 24 7 387 north Carolina 35 20 4 20 12 91 north dakota 140 69 4 9

-- 222 ohio 101 49 12 19 32 213 oklahoma 29 11

-- 4 34 78 oregon 38 43 4 8 1 94 Pennsylvania 52 32 9 7 5 105 rhode island 12 3 5 1

-- 21 South Carolina 13 13 1 3 11 41 South dakota 59 83 2 20 2 166 tennessee 19 4 3

-- 11 37 texas 172 57 14 16 14 273 utah 82 87 12 4

-- 185 vermont 34 45 5 8

-- 92 virginia 21 15 2 11 5 54 Washington 95 72 19 10 6 202 West virginia 4 1

-- -- -- 5 Wisconsin 155 143 14 26 3 341 Wyoming 48 72 1 13 2 136

total 3,022 2,281 357 419 519 6,598

counted as one operation. taBle 9 nuMBer oF ConStruCtion Sand and Gravel oPerationS and ProCeSSinG PlantS in tHe united StateS in 2012, BY State

-- Zero.
1 an undetermined number of operations leased from the Bureau of land Management in alaska are Mining operations on landSand and Gravel, Con s truc tion—2012 [advance relea s e] 64.13 Quantity Quantity (thousand value unit (thousand value unit State metric tons) (thousands) value metric tons) (thousands) value alabama 254 $5,340 $21.01 296 $5,680 $19.20 alaska 71 1,220 17.30 69 1,180 17.15 arizona 116 1,060 9.11 125 2,010 16.11 arkansas 19 212 11.05 26 260 10.14 California 2,020 15,500 7.65 1,880 15,400 8.20 Colorado 349 2,320 6.66 352 2,330 6.61 Connecticut 126 544 4.31 543 3,650 6.71 delaware (3) 5 15.29 91 605 6.65 Florida 224 2,660 11.90 211 2,350 11.13 Georgia 286 4,630 16.21 241 4,110 17.08 Hawaii

-- -- -- -- -- -- idaho 76 521 6.84 30 207 6.78 illinois 1,080 7,190 6.65 1,500 9,560 6.37 indiana 122 981 8.04 123 2,020 16.41 iowa 28 289 10.14 85 917 10.79 kansas 722 3,790 5.25 604 2,250 3.73 kentucky 114 649 5.68 367 1,330 3.63 louisiana 85 597 7.03 129 1,250 9.68 Maine 142 1,910 13.40 118 1,580 13.41 Maryland 116 914 7.90 206 1,790 8.68 Massachusetts 337 3,240 9.60 403 4,010 9.94 Michigan 838 3,530 4.21 966 3,930 4.07 Minnesota 769 7,130 9.27 1,190 9,070 7.64 Mississippi 11 23 2.17 11 23 2.17 Missouri 88 589 6.70 188 1,430 7.60 Montana 71 736 10.40 39 456 11.82 nebraska 85 660 7.75 81 589 7.30 nevada 125 976 7.79 229 1,090 4.75 new Hampshire 204 1,180 5.78 283 3,060 10.83 new Jersey 43 257 5.92 194 1,450 7.50 new Mexico 78 578 7.39 236 1,360 5.77 new York 550 4,060 7.39 715 6,500 9.09 north Carolina 1,030 7,470 7.28 1,100 8,370 7.59 north dakota 96 684 7.16 55 259 4.72 ohio 84 750 8.95 72 538 7.42 oklahoma 49 541 11.03 91 1,000 11.00 oregon 91 667 7.31 79 561 7.15 Pennsylvania 834 5,730 6.87 1,350 9,740 7.21 rhode island 77 739 9.54 31 707 22.90 South Carolina 241 3,370 13.96 214 3,300 15.38 South dakota 119 1,210 10.20 81 716 8.84 tennessee 132 1,700 12.83 139 1,780 12.85 texas 208 2,410 11.61 226 2,410 10.67 utah 132 1,270 9.60 670 5,370 8.02 vermont 44 573 13.15 98 1,080 10.97 virginia 389 4,000 10.29 276 2,480 9.01 Washington 181 1,150 6.37 123 910 7.39 West virginia 11 34 3.02 11 34 3.02 Wisconsin 547 3,970 7.25 453 3,280 7.24 Wyoming 43 319 7.41 36 320 8.99

total or average 13,500 110,000 8.16 16,600 134,000 8.08

3 less than 1⁄2 unit. 2estimated quantities and values have been recalculated. taBle 10 reCYCled aSPHalt ConCrete Sold or uSed BY ProduCerS in tHe united StateS, BY State 1

2011 2 2012

-- Zero.
1 data are rounded to no more than three significant digits, except unit value; may not add to totals shown.64.14 [advance relea s e] u. s

. geolo gicAl survey mineral s yearb ook—2012 Quantity Quantity (thousand value unit (thousand value unit State metric tons) (thousands) value metric tons) (thousands) value alabama (3) (3) $9.89

-- -- -- alaska 112 562 5.02 24 395 16.54 arizona 71 640 8.99 69 596 8.68 arkansas 1 7 7.72 1 8 6.94 California 2,800 21,200 7.58 2,140 15,900 7.43 Colorado 426 2,980 7.00 504 3,370 6.68 Connecticut 77 533 6.94 74 603 8.16 delaware 1 13 10.99 69 313 4.52 Florida 550 2,330 4.23 473 1,640 3.46 Georgia 117 986 8.42 116 906 7.83 Hawaii 6 81 13.55 4 51 14.31 idaho 18 120 6.61 (3) 1 12.09 illinois 1,710 13,600 7.93 1,460 10,300 7.07 indiana 180 1,400 7.79 130 1,150 8.79 iowa 265 1,470 5.53 197 1,460 7.37 kansas 317 2,330 7.33 334 2,860 8.58 kentucky

-- -- -- -- -- -- louisiana 31 519 16.50 35 597 16.96 Maine 33 227 6.90 23 144 6.21 Maryland 323 3,110 9.63 307 2,950 9.59 Massachusetts 199 1,040 5.23 191 1,270 6.66 Michigan 1,040 7,200 6.93 962 6,160 6.41 Minnesota 832 6,090 7.31 477 3,450 7.23 Mississippi 62 413 6.72 62 417 6.75 Missouri 54 393 7.24 20 118 5.88 Montana 25 120 4.84 14 110 8.12 nebraska 116 1,340 11.53 88 952 10.81 nevada 50 300 6.03 30 178 6.01 new Hampshire 152 825 5.42 159 852 5.37 new Jersey 157 1,140 7.30 374 3,180 8.51 new Mexico 2 13 7.71 2 12 6.64 new York 179 1,740 9.71 155 1,280 8.26 north Carolina 264 2,970 11.25 218 2,370 10.90 north dakota 32 327 10.21 50 320 6.37 ohio 445 3,540 7.96 396 2,930 7.40 oklahoma 84 1,030 12.27 308 2,810 9.13 oregon 59 452 7.67 56 428 7.59 Pennsylvania 350 1,750 5.00 326 1,640 5.02 rhode island 15 139 9.25 14 121 8.92 South Carolina 245 3,510 14.34 185 2,430 13.09 South dakota 79 667 8.42 167 1,680 10.03 tennessee 30 157 5.28 39 250 6.36 texas 275 2,280 8.28 1,440 11,100 7.75 utah 162 1,360 8.37 488 4,550 9.32 vermont 21 115 5.38 9 48 5.39 virginia 876 7,490 8.55 611 5,220 8.55 Washington 365 2,490 6.81 286 1,710 5.99 West virginia

-- -- -- -- -- -- Wisconsin 589 3,050 5.18 553 3,000 5.42 Wyoming 90 544 6.06 46 358 7.80

total or average 13,900 105,000 7.53 13,700 102,000 7.47

2estimated quantities and values have been recalculated. -- Zero.
1 data are rounded to no more than three significant digits, except unit value; may not add to totals shown.

3 less than 1⁄2 unit. taBle 11 reCYCled Portland CeMent ConCrete Sold or uSed BY ProduCerS in tHe united StateS, BY State 1

2011 2 2012Sand and Gravel, Con s truc tion—2012 [advance relea s e] 64.15 Sand Gravel value, value, Country or territory Quantity f.a.s. 2 Quantity f.a.s. 2 north america:

Bahamas, the 2 439 (3) 30 British virgin islands (3) 46 4 56 Canada 138 6,450 154 3,720 Mexico 23 4,010 3 128 St. lucia 2 79

-- -- trinidad andtobago 1 115 (3) 37 other 2 480 9 305

total 168 11,600 170 4,280 South america:

argentina 2 789

-- -- Brazil (3) 86 1 39 venezuela 1 289 16 27 other 1 157 (3) 37

total 4 1,320 17 103 europe:

denmark

-- -- 1 30 Germany 16 3,900 26 891 ireland (3) 84 4 158 netherlands (3) 40

-- -- united kingdom 4 902 1 60 other 1 121 3 114

total 21 5,050 35 1,250 asia:

China 2 492

-- -- Japan 1 239 7 251 korea, republic of 1 272 (3) 3 other (3) 320 (3) 10

total 4 1,320 7 264 oceania (3) 157 (3) 6 Middle east (3) 32 (3) 16 africa (3) 62 (3) 12

Grand total 197 19,600 229 5,930

2Free alongside ship. value of material at u.S. port of export; based on transaction price, including all charges incurred in placing material alongside ship.
3 less than 1⁄2 unit.

Source: u.S. Census Bureau. taBle 12 u.S. eXPortS oF ConStruCtion Sand and Gravel in 2012, BY CountrY 1

(thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)

-- Zero.
1 data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown.64.16 [advance relea s e] u. s

. geolo gicAl survey mineral s yearb ook—2012 value, value, Country or territory Quantity c.i.f. 2 Quantity c.i.f. 2 antigua and Barbuda 1 19 5 124 australia (3) 631

-- -- Bahamas, the 98 1,630 4 149 Canada 2,950 43,100 3,660 40,000 China 14 2,880 7 2,500 Colombia 13 181 26 81 France 4 647 2 301 Germany 2 876 4 928 Mexico 306 7,510 326 4,910 new Zealand 7 2,240 5 1,860 norway

-- -- 43 4,700 Peru 3 765 8 1,020 vietnam 28 2,230

-- -- other 18 2,050 14 2,640

total 3,440 64,800 4,110 59,200

2 Cost, insurance, and freight. value of material at u.S. port of entry; based on taBle 13 u.S. iMPortS For ConSuMPtion oF ConStruCtion Sand and Gravel, BY CountrY 1

(thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)

purchase price and includes all charges (except u.S. import duties) in bringing material from foreign country to alongside carrier.
3 less than 1⁄2 unit.

Source: u.S. Census Bureau. 2011 2012

-- Zero.
1 data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown.Sand and Gravel, Con s truc tion—2012 [advance relea s e] 64.17 2012 2011 2012 2011 rank rank Company rank rank Company 1 1 oldcastle Materials, inc. 51 59 e.r. Jahna industries, inc. 2 4 CeMeX S.a.B. de C.v. 52 79 Mark Sand & Gravel Co. 3 3 vulcan Materials Co. 53 43 Southern aggregates llC 4 2 lehigh Hanson,inc. 54 89 Quikrete Co. 5 6 Mdu resources Group, inc. 55 95 alleyton resource Corp. 6 8 Martin Marietta aggregates 56 100 northern improvement Co. 7 7 Holcim Group/aggregate industries Management, inc. 57 67 Southwest rock Products, llC 8 12 trinity industries, inc. 58 99 Crockett County Mining, ltd 9 5 Bureau of land Management 59 39 JMaC resources, inc. 10 11 Mitsubishi Materials Corp. 60 78 liberty Materials, inc. 11 9 Granite Construction, inc. 61 53 Wright Materials, inc. 12 10 lafarge north america inc. 62 57 Watson Gravel, inc. 13 15 CalPortland Co. 63

— Colorado County Sand & Gravel Co. llC 14 16 teichert 64 74 Hilltop Basic resources, inc. 15 14 Fisher industries 65 87 Seven Points Sand & Gravel, inc. 16 31 ash Grove Cement Co. 66 56 the Heritage Group 17 13 Colas, inc. 67

— Megasand enterprises, inc. 18 17 Clyde Cos., inc. 68 66 McMurry ready Mix Co. 19 20 WM. d. Scepaniak Construction 69

— Jobe Materials, l.P. 20 18 edw. C. levy Co. 70 46 new enterprise Stone & lime Co., inc. 21 21 Mathy Construction Co. 71 83 Sundre Sand & Gravel, inc. 22 23 texas industries, inc. 72

— tri-City Paving, inc. 23 29 l.G. everist, inc. 73

— S&S aggregates Co. 24 26 Miles Sand and Gravel Co. 74

— FnF Mining inc. 25 19 Fordyce ltd. 75

— Pinnacle Materials llC 26 25 Gila river indian Community 76 47 eucon Corp. 27 22 nugent Sand Co. 77 55 tiller Corp. 28 33 the olen Corp. 78

— Phoenix San-Man inc. 29 49 Chandler aggregates, inc. 79

— City transfer, inc. 30 40 aggregate Construction, inc. 80 75 Miller Springs Materials, llC 31 51 Strata Corp. 81 71 B.r. amon & Sons, inc. 32 32 dan Gernatt Gravel Products, inc. 82 72 Simpson Construction Materials, llC 33 61 a. lindberg & Sons inc. 83 54 irving Materials, inc. 34 28 r.e. Janes Gravel Co. 84

— Fred Weber, inc. 35 36 u.S. Concrete, inc. 85 58 nBr Sand llC 36 82 Chaney enterprises l.P. 86 37 Standard Sand & Silica Co. 37 30 all american asphalt Co. 87 50 Mulzer Crushed Stone, inc. 38 48 Multisources ltd. 88

— Superstition Crushing llC 39 34 FSt Sand & Gravel, inc. 89

— rieth-riley Construction Co., inc. 40 44 dolese Bros. Co. 90 76 Capital Sand Co., inc. 41 27 Holliday rock Co. 91

— Jurgensen Cos. 42 41 Salt river Pima-Maricopa indian Community 92

— Hunter Sand & Gravel llC 43 38 amboy aggregates 93

— Baldwin Sand & Gravel Co. 44 69 las vegas Paving Corp. 94

— lindy Paving, inc. 45 45 Central Specialties, inc. 95 86 nebco, inc. 46 35 Summit Materials, llC 96

— M.r. tanner Mining, inc. 47

— knopik Crushing, inc. 97 85 rasmussen Group, inc. 48

— Pine Bluff Materials llC 98

— Hanson Custom Crushing, inc. 49 42 York Building Products Co. 99 97 aggregate resources, inc. 50 65 Memphis Stone & Gravel Co. 100

— eastern Colorado aggregates taBle 14 tHe toP 100 ProduCerS oF ConStruCtion Sand and Gravel in tHe united StateS in 2012 1

— not in the top 100 producers of construction sand and gravel in the united States in 2011.
1 in descending order of tonnage produced.