U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

BULLETIN 2111 

Industrial Minerals 

of the Midcontinent 

Proceedings of the 

Midcontinent Industrial 

Minerals Workshop 

Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of 

Mines, the Arkansas Geological Commission, the 

Illinois State Geological Survey, the Kansas 

Geological Survey, the Kentucky Geological Survey, 

the Missouri Division of Geology and Land Survey, 

the Nebraska Division of Conservation and Survey, 

and the Oklahoma Geological Survey 
Cover.-Front cover (all front cover photographs courtesy of Mitch Leutger, Aero Views by Mitch, Macdona, 

Texas). Top: Aerial view of Breckenridge Park, San Antonio, Texas, showing Japanese Tea Garden, in center of 

view, situated in old limestone quarry. Left center: Aerial view of Alamo Cement Company quarry, San Antonio, Texas, during operation and early stages of reclamation and development of the Quarry Golf Course. Right 

center: Aerial view of Quarry Golf Course, San Antonio, Texas, as developed at reclaimed Alamo Cement 

Company quarry site. Left bottom: Aerial view of Redland gravel pit (outline), Fiesta, Texas, before reclamation 

and development of Fiesta Texas Theme Park. Right bottom: Aerial view of Fiesta Texas Theme Park, after reclamation and development of Redland gravel pit. Back cover: Japanese Tea Garden in Breckenridge Park, San 

Antonio, Texas, situated in abandoned limestone quarry. Photograph courtesy of the Department of Parks and 

Recreation, San Antonio, Texas. 
Industrial Minerals of the MidcontinentProceedings of the Midcontinent 

Industrial Minerals Workshop 

Edited and compiled by Alfred L. Bush and Timothy S. Hayes 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 2111 

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

Geological Commission, the Illinois State Geological Survey, the Kansas 

Geological Survey, the Kentucky Geological Survey, the Missouri Division 

of Geology and Land Survey, the Nebraska Division of Conservation and 

Survey, and the Oklahoma Geological Survey 

Presentationsanddiscussionsata Workshop, September 16and 17,1991, in 

St. Louis, Missouri, held to probe the issues and options that impact the 

current situation in the field of industrial minerals, the availability, needs, 

problems, and plans for resources in the central midcontinent region of the 

United States 

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1995 
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR I 

BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Gordon P. Eaton, Director 

For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Information Services 

Box 25286, Federal Center 

Denver, CO 80225 

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 

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data 

Midcontinent Industrial Minerals Workshop (1991 :St. Louis, Mo.) 

Industrial minerals of the midcontinent : proceedings of the Midcontinent Industrial 

Minerals Workshop I edited and compiled by Alfred L. Bush and Timothy S. Hayes ; prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of Mines ... [et al.]. 

p. em.- (U.S. Geological Survey bulletin; 2111) 

"Presentations and discussions at a Workshop, September 16 and 17, 1991, in St. Louis, 

Missouri held to probe the issues and options that impact the current situation in the field 

of industrial minerals, the availability, needs, problems, and plans of resources in the central 

midcontinent region of the United States." 

Includes bibliographical references. 

Supt. of Docs. no.: I 19.3:B2111 

1. Industrial minerals-Middle West-Congresses. 2. Industrial minerals-Southern 

States-Congresses. 3. Industrial minerals industry-Middle West-Congresses. 4. Industrial minerals industry-Southern States-"-Congresses. I. Bush, Alfred L. II. Hayes, 

Timothy Scott. III. United States. Bureau of Mines. IV. Title. V. Series. 

QE75.B9 no. 2111 . 

[TN799.6.M54] 

557.3 s--dc20 

[338.2'0978] 94-39031 

CIP 
Ernest R. Achterberg, Member 

Oklahoma Mining Commission 

10641 East 33rd Street 

Tulsa, OK 74146 

Windell R. Adams, Special Assistant to 

the Director 

Arkansas Industrial Development 

Commission 

One Capital Mall 

Little Rock, AR 72201 

Curtis H. Ault 

Mineral Resource Section 

Indiana Geological Survey 

611 North Walnut Grove 

Bloomington, IN 47405 

John E. Ballard, Govemmental Affairs 

Specialist 

University of Missouri Extension 

207 Columbia Professional Building 

Columbia, MO 65211 

Aldo Barsotti, Chief 

Branch of Industrial Minerals 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

810 7th Street NW, MS 5209 

Washington, DC 20241 

Anthony M. Bauer 

Landscape Architectural Program 

Michigan State University 

U.P. and L.A. Building 

East Lansing, Ml48824-1221 

James W. Baxter, Industrial Minerals 

Geologist 

Illinois State Geological Survey 

615 East Peabody Drive 

Natural Resources Building 

Champaign, IL 61820 

Larry F. Beck, President 

Beck Materials, Inc. 

P.O. Box534 

Jefferson City, MO 651 Q1 

Robert C. Beste, Senior Geologist 

Triangle Materials Testing & Consulting 

2115 South River Road 

St. Charles, MO 63303 

Subhash B. Bhagwat, Mineral 

Economist 

Illinois State Geological Survey 

615 East Peabody Drive 

Champaign, IL 61820 

C. Dudley Blancke, Consultant 

Route 6, Box 699 

Hot Springs, AR 71901 

Carl Blomgren, Senior Environmental 

Engineer 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 

7 

726 Minnesota Avenue 

Kansas City, KS 66101 

H. Lynwood Bourne, Consulting 

Geologist 

P.O. Box293 

Northville, Ml 48167 

Kent M. Bratton, City Planner 

City of Cape Girardeau, Mo. 

401 Independence Street 

Cape Girardeau, MO 63701 

Raymond R. Burchett, Research 

Geologist 

Nebraska Geological Survey 

901 North 17th Street 

Lincoln, NE 68588 

Alfred L. Bush, Scientist Emeritus 

U.S. Geological Survey 

P.O. Box 25046, MS 905 

Denver, CO 80225 

WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS 

William V. Bush, Assistant State 

Geologist 

Arkansas Geological Commission 

3815 West Roosevelt Road 

Vardelle Parham Geology Center 

Little Rock, AR 72204 

Benjamin F. Clardy, Senior Geologist 

Arkansas Geological Commission 

3815 West Roosevelt Road 

Vardelle Parham Geology Center 

Little Rock, AR 72204 

John E. Cramer, President 

Casper Stolle Quarry and Contracting 

Company 

Route 1 

Dupe, IL 62239 

Alan T. Dafferner, Geologist 

Vulcan Materials 

P.O. Box 530187 

Birmingham, AL 35253-0187 

Current address: 

Vulcan Materials, Midsouth Division 

P.O. Box7 

Knoxville, TN 37901-6001 

James M. Davis Ill, County EngineerJackson County 

306 West Kansas Avenue 

Independence, MO 64050 

Garland R. Dever, Jr., Geologist 

Kentucky Geological Survey 

University of Kentucky 

228 Mining and Mineral Res. Building 

Lexington, KY 40506 

George E. Dirkes, Executive Director 

Illinois Association of Aggregate 

Producers 

522 West Burlington Avenue 

La Grange, IL 60525 

Patricia Drouillard, Computer Specialist 

U.S. Geological Survey 

P.O. Box 25046, MS 905 

Denver, CO 80225 

J. James Eidel, Principal Geologist, 

Branch Chief 

Mineral Resources and Engineering 

Illinois State Geological Survey 

615 East Peabody Drive 

Natural Resources Building 

Champaign, IL 61820 

Current address: 

4150 Meadow Wood Road 

Carson City, NV 89703 

Mark L. Falloon, Planning Director 

Franklin County Planning Department 

P.O. Box566 

Union, MO 63084 

Louis Griesemer, President 

Griesemer Stone Company 

P.O. Box 2240 

Springfield, MO 65802 

David A. Grisafe, Geologist 

Kansas Geological Survey 

1930 Constant Avenue 

University of Kansas 

Lawrence, KS 66076 

Charles G. Groat, Executive Director 

American Geological Institute 

4420 King Street 

Alexandria, VA 22302 

Current address: 

Executive Director, Center for Coastal, 

Energy, and Environmental Resources 

302 Howe/Russell Building 

Louisiana State University 

Baton Rouge, LA 70803 

Timothy L. Haithcoat, Program Director 

Geographical Resource Center 

University of Missouri-Columbia 

Room 17, Stewart Hall 

Columbia, MO 65211 

Timothy S. Hayes, Geologist 

U.S. Geological Survey 

1608 Mountain View Road 

Rapid City, SO 57702 

Brenda B. Houser 

U.S. Geological Survey, Tucson Field 

Office 

University of Arizona 

Gould-Simpson Building #77 

Tucson, AZ 85721 

Richard J. Hurst, President 

Perry County Stone Company 

HC Route 61, Box 250 

St. Mary, MO 63673 

RobertS. Joice, Long Range Planning 

Manager 

Lexington-Fayette Government Center 

200 East Main Street 

Lexington, KY 40507 

J. Bradley Jones, Executive Director 

Mining Industry Council of Missouri 

P.O. Box725 

Jefferson City, MO 65102 

Anthony R. Kane, Associate 

Administrator for Program 

Development 

Federal Highway Administration 

400 7th Street NW, Room 3212 

Washington, DC 20590 

John D. Kiefer, Assistant State Geologist 

Kentucky Geological Survey 

University of Kentucky 

228 Mining and Mineral Res. Building 

Lexington, KY 40506 

Eva B. Kisvarsanyi 

Division of Geology and Land Survey 

Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources 

P.O. Box250 

Rolla, MO 65401 

Dewayne L. Knott, Biologist 

Environmental Review Branch 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 

7 

726 Minnesota Avenue 

Kansas City, KS 66101 

Morris W. Leighton, Director 

Illinois State Geological Survey 

615 East Peabody Drive 

Natural Resources Building 

Champaign, IL 61820 

D. Anne Lewis, Chairperson 

Missouri Land Reclamation Commission 

13043 Olive Street . 

St. Louis, MO 63141 

Kenneth V. Luza, Geologist 

Oklahoma Geological Survey 

100 East Boyd, Room N-131 

Norman, OK 73019 

John C. Lynch, Legal Counsel 

Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals 

300 West Jefferson, F1-3 

Springfield, IL 62791 

Gerald N. Manchester 

Materials and Research Division 

Missouri Highway and Transportation 

Department 

P.O. Box 220 

Jefferson City, MO 65102 

Charles J. Mankin, Director 

Oklahoma Geological Survey 

100 East Boyd, Room N-131 

Norman, OK 73019 

Bruce H. Mason, Executive Director 

Indiana Aggregates Association 

9595 N. Whitley Drive, Suite 205 

Indianapolis, IN 46240 

Michael McFarland 

Division of Geology and Land Survey 

Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources 

P.O. Box 250 

Rolla, MO 65401 

Joseph P. McGuire, Environmental 

Engineer 

Martin Marietta Aggregates 

Midwest Regional Office 

1303 Southwest 42nd Street 

Topeka, KS 66609 

James M. McNeal 

Office of Mineral Resources 

U.S. Geological Survey 

MS 913, National Center 

Reston, VA 22092 

Kenneth W. McNichols, Executive 

Director 

Iowa Limestone Producers Association 

615 East 14th Street, Suite F 

Des Moines, lA 50316 

Thomas G. McSwiggin 

Permits, Water Pollution Control 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

2200 Churchill Road 

Springfield, IL 62794-9276 
Donald G. Mikulic, Geologist, Industrial 

Minerals 

Illinois State Geological Survey 

615 East Peabody Drive 

Champaign, IL 61820 

Bill B. Moore, Marketing Specialist 

Oklahoma Department of Commerce 

P.O. Box 26980 

Oklahoma City, OK 73126 

Zareh Mozian, Assistant Branch Chief, 

Industrial Minerals 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

Branch of Industrial Minerals 

2401 E Street NW, MS 5010 

Washington, DC 20241 

Dr. Haydn H. Murray 

Department of Geology 

Indiana University 

1 005 East 1Oth 

Bloomington, IN 47405 

James F. Murray, General Manager, 

Missouri Area 

Martin Marietta 

P.O. Box269 

Savannah, MO 64485 

Don O'Donniley, Director 

Jefferson County Planning Commission 

P.O. Box 100 

Hillsboro, MO 63050 

David E. Peel, Principal Planner 

Johnson County Planning Department 

11 0 South Cherry 

Olathe, KS 66061 

Tom Phillips, Planning Director 

Lenexa, Kansas Planning Director 

123550 West 87th Street Parkway 

P.O. Box 14888 

Lenexa, KS 66215 

Robert L. Pinkerton, Executive Director 

Southwestern Illinois Planning 

Commission 

203 West Main Street 

Collinsville, IL 62234 

Current address: 

417 South Minnesota 

Morton, IL 61550 

Marcus D. Ramsey, Stone Plant 

Manager 

Fred Weber, Inc. 

P.O. Box 2501 

Maryland Heights, MO 63043 

Louise Reif, Supervisory Office Assistant 

U.S. Geological Survey 

P.O. Box 25046, MS 905 

Denver, CO 80225 

Brian J. Rice, Manager, Technical 

Aggregate Service 

Material Service Corporation 

222 North LaSalle Street 

Chicago, IL 60601 

Steve Rudloff, Executive Manager 

Missouri Limestone Producers 

Association 

409 East McCarty Street 

P.O. Box 1725 

Jefferson City, MO 65102 

Ardel Rueff 

Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources 

Division of Geology and Land Survey 

P.O. Box250 

Rolla, MO 65401 

Ira R. Satterfield 

Missouri Department of Natural 

Resources 

Division of Geology and Land Survey 

P.O. Box250 

Rolla, MO 65401 

Robert J. Savage, Vice President of 

Geology 

Moline Consumers Company 

131 16th Street 

Moline, IL 61265 

John F. Schmidt, Vice President and 

Treasurer 

Columbia Quarry Company 

P.O. Box 128 

Columbia, IL 62236 

Alan Shapiro, Chief Geologist 

Vulcan Materials Company, Midwest 

Division 

500 West Plainfield Road 

Countryside, IL 60525 

William M. Sheftick, Chief Geologist 

Illinois Department of Transportation 

126 East Ash Street 

Springfield, IL 62704 

Gary B. Sidder, Geologist 

U.S. Geological Survey 

P.O. Box 25046, MS 905 

Denver, CO 80225 

Edward T. Sieben, Senior Planner 

Kane County Development Department 

719 Batavia Avenue 

Geneva, IL 60134 

Bobby Gene Simpson 

c/o Denny and Simpson Stone Company 

Inc. 

Hardin County Materials Co. 

Rural Route #2 

Harrisburg, IL 62946 

Virgil W. Smith, Jr., Vice-Chairman 

Oklahoma Mining Commission 

6021 Harwich Manor 

Oklahoma City, OK 73132 

Leonard A. Solomon, Chairman 

Oklahoma Mining Commission 

1501 Winchester Drive 

Edmond, OK 73034 

Dean Spindler 

Land Reclamation Division 

Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals 

300 West Jefferson 

P.O. Box 10197 

Springfield, IL 62791 

John A. Taylor, Secretary 

Oklahoma Mining Commission 

720 West Wilshire, Suite 101 

Oklahoma City, OK 73116 

Valentin V. Tepordei, Commodity 

Specialist, Industrial Minerals 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

Branch of Industrial Minerals 

810 7th Street NW, MS 5209 

Washington, DC 20241 

Dr. Marshall R. Thompson 

Department of Civil Engineering 

Newmark C. E. Laboratory 

University of Illinois, MC 250 

205 North Mathews Avenue 

Urbana, IL 61801 

Micheal J. Thompson 

Mining Division 

Arkansas Department of Pollution Control 

and Ecology 

P.O. Box 8913 

8001 National Drive 

Little Rock, AR 72219-8913 

Ed Tooker, Geologist 

U.S. Geological Survey 

345 Middlefield Road 

Menlo Park, CA 94025 

Gregory A. Upham, Minerals Geologist 

Department of Conservation/Division of 

Geology 

701 Broadway 

Nashville, TN 37243 

Current Address: 

Department of Environment and 

Conservation/Division of Water 

Pollution Control 

LNC Tower Annex 

401 Church Street 

Nashville, TN 37243-1534 

J. Kurt von Achen, Chairman 

Eudora Planning Commission 

Route 2 

Eudora, KS 66025 

John A. Young, Director 

Division of Environmental Quality 

P.O. Box176 

Jefferson City, MO 65102 
CONTENTS 

Abstract. ......................................................................................................................... . 

Introduction ................................................................................................................... . 

Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................... . 

Welcome: Timothy S. Hayes, Coordinator ................................................................... . 

Kickoff-The highway infrastructure and industrial minerals 

Dr. Anthony R. Kane ............................................................................................. . 

Discussion .............................................................................................................. . 

Issue areas ...................................................................................................................... . 

Industrial minerals resource identification and evaluation 

Dr. Morris W. Leighton ................................................................................. . 

Land-use planning to ensure industrial minerals availability 

Edward T. Sieben .......................................................................................... . 

Economic limitations on industrial minerals availability 

Aldo Barsotti, Valentin V. Tepordei, Dr. Subhash B. Bhagwat.. .................. . 

Environmental issues that affect production and consumption of 

industrial minerals 

Timothy L. Haith coat .................................................................................... . 

Overview of the status of the industrial minerals industry 

C. Dudley Blancke ......................................................................................... . 

Panel sessions-Day 1 ................................................................................................... . 

Resource identification and evaluation .................................................................. . 

Panel presentations ........................................................................................ . 

H. LynBoume ....................................................................................... . 

J. James Eidel ........................................................................................ . 

Ira R. Satterfield .................................................................................... . 

William M. Sheftick .............................................................................. . 

Zareh Mozian ......................................................................................... . 

Discussion ...................................................................................................... . 

Land-use planning and the industrial minerals ...................................................... . 

Panel presentations ........................................................................................ . 

RobertS. Joice ....................................................................................... . 

Robert L. Pinkerton ............................................................................... . 

Kent M. Bratton ..................................................................................... . 

Mark L. Falloon ..................................................................................... . 

D. Anne Lewis ....................................................................................... . 

J. Kurt von A chen .................................................................................. . 

Discussion ...................................................................................................... . 

Cost factors in industrial minerals use ................................................................... . 

Panel presentations ........................................................................................ . 

Dr. Subhash B. Bhagwat ....................................................................... . 

George E. Dirkes ................................................................................... . 

John F. Schmidt ..................................................................................... . 

Louis Griesemer .................................................................................... . 

Discussion ...................................................................................................... . 

Keynote address ............................................................................................................. . 

Dr. Charles G. Groat: "If only Dick and Jane had gone to the mines" ................. . 

Panel sessions-Day 2 ................................................................................................... . 

Mineral production in an environmentally responsible manner ............................ . 

Panel presentations ........................................................................................ . 

John D. Kiefer ........................................................................................ . 

2 

3 

3 

4 

8 

9 

9 

21 

25 

33 

37 

39 

39 

40 

40 

41 

42 

42 

43 

44 

46 

46 

46 

49 

52 

53 

53 

54 

55 

60 

61 

61 

61 

64 

65 

65 

67 

67 

71 

71 

71 

71 

v 
VI CONTENTS 

Carl Blomgren ......................................................................................... 72 

Virgil W. Smith, Jr.................................................................................. 73 

Kenneth V. Luza ........... ................................. ......... ................................ 74 

Micheal J. Thompson.............................................................................. 7 5 

Discussion....................................................................................................... 76 

Environmental costs of ignoring resource data....................................................... 82 

Panel presentations.......................................................................................... 83 

Dr. Charles J. Mankin ............................................................................. 83 

John A. Young ........................................................................................ 84 

Joseph P. McGuire ............................ ,..................................................... 86 

Dewayne L. Knott................................................................................... 87 

Thomas G. McSwiggin ........................................................................... 88 

Discussion . . .... . . . . . . . . .... . . . . .. ... . . . . . . . . .... . . ...... . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . .... . . . . . ..... . . . . . .. .... . . . 90 

Panel summations ...... . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . ... . . . . ..... . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . ..... . . . . . . .... . . . . . . ... . . . . . . ...... . 90 

Resource evaluation-H. Lyn Bourne............................................................ 90 

Land-use planning-Robert S. Joice [by Timothy S. Hayes]......................... 91 

Cost factors-Dr. Subhash B. Bhagwat.. ........................................................ 92 

Environmentally responsible production-John D. Kiefer............................ 92 

Environmental costs of ignoring resource data-Dr. Charles J. Mankin....... 93 

Discussion of issues and options............................................................................. 93 

The need for mapping .......... ........... ..... . . . ............. .... .. .. .. ..... ... . .. ..... . . .. ..... .. .. .. .. 93 

The need for data base systems....................................................................... 96 

The need for public awareness of the importance of industrial minerals .... .. . 96 

The need for mutual sharing of information .. .. ..... .. .. ..... .. .. .. ...... .. ....... .... ........ 97 

The need to adapt to urban sprawl and the question of 

post-mining reclamation............................................................................. 98 

The need to address impact on transportation and the environment............... 99 

The need to be environmentally responsible .................................................. 100 

The problem of regulation .............................................................................. 101 

Environmental costs of ignoring information ................................................. 101 

The need for research and development ......................................................... 101 

The industry's economic problems ................................................................. 104 

Closing statement ............................................................................................ 107 

Summary of issues, options, and recommendations .. .. ........... ...... .. .. ...... .. .. ...... .. .. ...... . .. . 107 

Appendices-Pertinent legislation, permitting procedures, and industrial 

minerals reference list ......................................................................................... 111 

Arkansas.................................................................................................................. 111 

Illinois . . . . .. .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . . .. . .. . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . 112 

Iowa ......................................................................................................................... 113 

Kansas ..................................................................................................................... 115 

Kentucky ................................................................................................................. 116 

Missouri .................................................................................................................. 119 

Nebraska ................................................................................................................. 121 

Oklahoma ................................................................................................................ 124 

Tennessee ................................................................................................................ 125 
1. 

2. 

3. 

4-7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

CONTENTS VII 

FIGURES 

Photograph of shoreline defense (groins), Lake Michigan.................................................................................... 10 

Photograph of riprap for shoreline defense (headwaters), Lake Michigan........................................................... 10 

Diagram showing average annual U.S. per capita industrial minerals consumption............................................ 11 

Photographs showing: 

4. Thornton quarry, Chicago area, Illinois........................................................................................................ 12 

5. Thornton quarry and neighborhood, Chicago area, Illinois......................................................................... 13 

6. Bridgeport quarry, urban sprawl victim and present-day waste disposal site.............................................. 14 

7. Chicago area quarry, growth constrained by urban development................................................................. 14 

Sky lab photograph of urban sprawl, Chicago area, Illinois .................................................................................. 15 

Photograph of underground mine for aggregate, Chicago area, Illinois ............................................................... 15 

Geologic sketch map, showing third dimension.................................................................................................... 16 

11. Map of Illinois, showing status of mapping for sand and gravel........................................................................... 17 

12. Map of Illinois, showing status of mapping for limestone, dolomite, and sandstone . ......... ... . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . .......... ... 17 

13. Map of Illinois, showing location of limestone and dolomite quarries and mines................................................ 18 

14. Photograph of underground mine in carbonate rocks, St. Louis, Mo., area.......................................................... 18 

15. Diagram showing cost of crushed stone transportation by truck........................................................................... 19 

16. Map showing generalized land-use plan, Kane County, Ill., 1976 ........................................................................ 22 

17. 

18. 

19-22. 

23-25. 

26. 

27. 

28. 

29-34. 

Map showing comprehensive land-use plan, 1982-2000, Kane County, Ill ..... ........... ........ ........... .......... ............ 23 

Photograph of bicycle trail at Geneva Dam, Kane County, Ill . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ... . .. . . . . ... . . . . . . ............ ........ ........ .. . . 24 

Maps showing: 

19. Earth materials of Kane County, Ill.............................................................................................................. 26 

20. Bedrock topography, Kane County, Ill......................................................................................................... 28 

21. Distribution and thickness, Tiskilwa Till, Kane County, Ill......................................................................... 30 

22. Stack units, Kane County, Ill........................................................................................................................ 32 

Diagrams showing: 

23. Cost of materials as a part of infrastructure costs........................................................................................ 34 

24. Materials and transportation data, City of Urbana project........................................................................... 35 

25. Materials and transportation data, Route 51 upgrade project....................................................................... 35 

Photograph of downtown Lexington, Ky.............................................................................................................. 46 

Map showing urban service area, Fayette County, Ky.......................................................................................... 47 

Diagrammatic sketch showing the three physical concerns with the environment in mining .... -........................... 4 7 

Photographs showing: 

29. Open pit mine, Fayette County, Ky.............................................................................................................. 48 

30. Clays Ferry pit and underground mine, Fayette County, Ky........................................................................ 49 

31. Unspoiled Kentucky River countryside, Fayette County, Ky....................................................................... 49 

32. Recreation trail through undisturbed area, Fayette County, Ky................................................................... 50 

33. Elk Lick Creek, along quarry property boundary .... ............ ..... ..... .......... ........... ........ ............. ........ .......... .. 51 

34. Elk Lick Creek, showing deposition of quarry product rock, Fayette County, Ky ... ............. ......... ............. 52 

TABLES 

1. Production of aggregates in the Central States region........................................................................................... 27 

2. Estimated U.S. Highway construction expenditures............................................................................................. 29 

3-7. Cost distribution, Federal Aid Highway construction contracts 

3. All highways . . . . . . .......... ... . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . ............. .. . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ........... ......... .............. .. . . . . .. ... . .. . . . ... 31 

4. Illinois........................................................................................................................................................... 33 

5. Kentucky....................................................................................................................................................... 35 

6. Missouri........................................................................................................................................................ 36 

7. Tennessee...................................................................................................................................................... 36 

8. Factors affecting the cost of industrial minerals.................................................................................................... 62 
VIII CONTENTS 

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS USED IN THIS REPORT 

AAAS 

AASG 

AGI 

AIPG 

APA 

ARC-INFO 

ATV 

B.S. 

CFC 

CUSMAP 

DALS 

DCCA 

DDT 

DEQ 

EDF 

EEZ 

EIS 

EPA 

FGD 

FHA 

FOB 

GIS 

GNP 

GSB 

IAAP 

lAC 

IANR 

IDEM 

IDMM 

IDNR 

IDOT 

IEPA 

IHS 

ISGS 

American Association for the Advancement of Science 

Association of American State Geologists 

American Geological Institute 

American Institute of Professional Geologists 

American Planning Association 

A spatial graphic data base system for manipulating geologic, topographic, demographic, 

and other information 

All-terrain vehicle 

Bachelor of Science 

Chlorinated fluorocarbons 

Continental United States Mapping Program 

Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship [Iowa] 

Department of Commerce and Community Affairs [Illinois] 

Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane 

Division of Environmental Quality [Missouri] 

Environmental Defense Foundation 

Exclusive Economic Zone 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Fluid gas desulfurization 

Federal Highway Administration 

Free-on-board (cost to buyer, on carrier, at point of origin) 

Geographic Information System 

Gross National Product 

Geological Survey Bureau [Iowa] 

Illinois Association of Aggregate Producers 

Iowa Administrative Code 

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources [Nebraska] 

Indiana Department of Environmental Management 

Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

Illinois Department of Transportation 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

Interstate Highway System 

Illinois State Geological Survey 

ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 

KAPA-KRMCA Kansas Aggregate Producers Association-Kansas Ready-Mix Concrete Association 

LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank program 

MDIR 

M.S. 

MSHA 

NASA 

NEPA 

NGM 

NHS 

NIMBY 

NIPC 

Minerals Directory [Kansas] 

Master of Science 

Mine Safety and Health Administration 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

National Environmental Policy Act 

National Geologic Mapping program 

National Highway System 

"Not In My Backyard" 

Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission 
NOAA 

NPDES 

NSA 

NSTA 

OAC 

OMB 

PBS 

PR 

R&D 

RCRA 

scs 

SEG 

SEMCOG 

SIMAPC 

SMAC 

SMCRA 

SMARRA 

SME 

USBM 

USGS 

WGA 

CONTENTS 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

National Stone Association 

National Science Teachers Association 

Oklahoma Administrative Code 

Office of Management and Budget 

Public Broadcasting System 

Public relations 

Research and development 

Resource Conservation Recovery Act 

Soil Conservation Service 

Society of Economic Geologists 

Southeast Michigan Council of Governments 

Southwestern Illinois Metropolitan Regional Planning Commission 

State Mapping Advisory Committee [Illinois] 

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act [Missouri] 

State Mining and Reclamation and Resources Protection Act [California] 

Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Western Governors Association 

IX 

Industrial Minerals of the Midcontinent-Proceedings of the 

Midcontinent Industrial Minerals Workshop 

Alfred L. Bush and Timothy S. Hayes, Coordinators and Editors 

ABSTRACT 

The Midcontinent Industrial Minerals Workshop, in St. 

Louis, Missouri, September 16-17, 1991, was the fourth 

U.S. Geological Survey-sponsored meeting on the essential 

role of industrial rocks and minerals in the Nation's social 

and economic framework. The meeting was organized, supported, and the agenda was determined by a group from the 

USGS, the U.S. Bureau of Mines, and the State geological 

surveys of Arkansas, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, 

Nebraska, and Oklahoma, with early assistance in planning 

from the Iowa and Tennessee surveys. As the major industrial rocks and minerals used in the nine-State area of the 

Midcontinent are construction materials, the Workshop 

focused on sand and gravel and limestone-dolomite 

resources and the extraction industry for those materials. 

Because active audience participation was considered vital, 

representatives from industry, universities, geological surveys, planning groups, regulatory agencies, and State legislatures were invited. The audience consisted of 87 attendees 

out of 120 invited participants (no legislators attended). 

The most important conclusions reached by the Workshop were that a need exists (1) to increase public awareness 

of the essential role of industrial minerals and (2) to educate 

land planners and others who make land-use decisions about 

the direct influence of their decisions on mineral resources. 

The theme of educating the public, starting with children and 

their teachers, was the subject of the keynote address by Dr. 

C. G. Groat, "If only Dick and Jane had gone to the mines." 

Four major issues were discussed by five panels, each 

with a panel leader and three or four panel members. Wide 

participation in the discussion followed each panel presentation, some quite spirited. Final sessions summed the presentations and discussions, options for response to each issue 

were discussed, and numerous recommendations were 

adopted. 

In the area of resource evaluation, the need for mapping 

is paramount; geologic, topographic, and many types of 

demographic data need to be acquired, preserved, and made 

available for selective collation. The Workshop fully supported the National Geologic Mapping Act (enacted a few 

months after the meeting) and recommended the establishment of State mapping advisory boards to prioritize State 

needs and projects and also to consult with the Federal 

agency advisory board for the same purposes at the national 

level. The Workshop also recommended the universal use of 

data base systems to handle the collected information, specifically the broad use of Geographic Information Systems 

(GIS) techniques. 

Land-use planning is an issue area that directly impacts 

the availability of construction materials. Undirected urban 

growth (urban spraw 1) can overrun sites of mineral resources 

and prevent their future use. Planning must be based on adequate information, and planners need the assistance of those 

qualified to evaluate both what information is needed and 

how to apply it. The Workshop recommended that resource 

specialists and construction industry representatives take the 

initiative in working with the planners, providing early cooperation in planning rather than simply reactive assistance; the 

mineral resource community has to convince the planning 

community to view these resources as worthy of protection 

and preservation for future use. Planning must consider both 

present-day and long-range usage, but long-range uses 

should not be predicated on present -day trends, for the world 

of 50 years from now may have quite different needs and 

concerns. The Workshop recommended that planners adopt 

the principle of sequential, beneficial land use, recognizing, 

for example, that mineral extraction is a temporary land use, 

and that the sites will be available for other uses later. 

Costs are a major concern of the industry. Regulations 

governing the permits to operate, and legislative actions 

with unforeseen consequences can easily drive up operating 

costs. Zoning and other planning decisions can result in 

major increases in the distance between quarry and user, 

with transportation costs becoming two or three times the 

cost of materials at the quarry. Changes in specifications 

for aggregate can result in increased production of "fines" 

for which the market is very restricted. No panacea for 

these problems is in sight, but the Workshop recommended 

increased emphasis on educating planners and legislators to 

the problems that their actions may cause, and on increased 
2 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

efforts in research and development to identify new uses 

and create new products. 

The relation of the industry to the environment is very 

much a major concern-how to produce constructiol{l materials in an environmentally responsive and responsible manner. What is environmentally responsible depends to a great 

degree on the viewer, and so the industry must contend with 

trying to reconcile the viewpoints of the planner, the public, 

the environmentalist, and the legislator. The options and recommendations are to participate in the drafting of permitting 

and operating regulations and in informing and educating the 

public and the legislators, to preplan to mitigate or avoid 

damage to the visual environment and the surface and 

ground waters, to abate dust and noise and other pollution, 

and to develop and publicize plans for reclamation. The 

basic principle, recommended by the Workshop and previously mentioned, is to adopt and implement sequential, beneficial land use. The industry's trade associations should 

advise, and, where feasible, assist the individual operators in 

how to comply with environmental regulations, and should 

support research and development efforts. 

INTRODUCTION 

This volume of the proceedings of the Midcontinent 

Industrial Minerals Workshop reports on the fourth of a 

series of meetings, held in the western and central parts of 

the United States, to investigate the status of the little-publicized but essential role played by industrial minerals in the 

economic and social framework of the United States. The 

first meeting was held in Tucson, Ariz., in 1988 (reported on 

in U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1905), the second in Los 

Angeles, Calif., in 1989 (USGS Bulletin 1958), and the third 

in Salt Lake City, Utah, in 1990 (USGS Bulletin 2013). The 

Midcontinent Industrial Minerals Workshop convened for 2 

days in mid-September 1991 in St. Louis, Mo. The meeting 

was sponsored by the U.S. Geological Survey, with the 

cooperation of the U.S. Bureau of Mines and the active support and collaboration of the geological surveys of Arkansas, 

Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, and Oklahoma. Because of budgetary restrictions, the geological surveys of Iowa and Tennessee were able to participate to only 

a limited degree in the early planning, and were able to participate only unofficially in the Workshop sessions. 

The composition, focus, and agenda for the Workshop 

were determined by a working group made up of representatives from each of the State and Federal agencies. Early on, 

the desirability of audience participation was recognized and 

emphasized, and so the group came to the consensus that the 

meeting should consist of invited participants, knowledgeable and experienced in dealing with industrial minerals. A 

maximum of about 120 attendees was set, allowing for 15 

participants from each of the seven States, and 5 each from 

the Federal agencies (Geological Survey, Bureau of Mines, 

Environmental Protection Agency). With the inevitable attrition of late cancellations, the meeting attendance totaled 87. 

It was clear from the outset that the problems that beset 

the field of industrial minerals are pervasive throughout the 

Midcontinent, although expressed in a multitude of local situations, and so the program was designed to approach 

regional and local aspects. 

Four major issue areas were selected for discussion: (1) 

resource evaluation; (2) land-use planning; (3) economics of 

industrial rocks and minerals used in construction, and ( 4) 

environmental issues in resource availability. For these 

issues, five panel discussions were planned, with major 

points of view to be presented to the audience by panel members. Panel leaders were selected by the working group, and 

the leaders, in turn, selected three or four panel members. 

The Federal Highway Administration was requested to 

participate in the meeting because the single largest consumer of industrial rocks in the Midcontinent, both in volume and value, is the surface transportation industry. Dr. 

Anthony R. Kane, Associate Administrator for Program 

Development, delivered the "kickoff' speech that set the 

tone for the Workshop. As the Table of Contents indicates, 

talks on the four issue areas and an overview of the industry 

followed. Over the next day and a half, panel discussions 

continued, beginning with the issues of information essential 

to resource availability and following with the issue of 

land-use planning. The importance of public education 

toward the acceptance of rock and mineral extraction had 

been recognized at the start of planning for the Workshop, 

and so Dr. Charles G. Groat, Executive Director of the 

American Geological Institute, was asked to deliver a keynote address on that subject. Panel presentations continued 

with discussions of financial cost factors in industrial minerals, of environmentally responsible production, and of the 

environmental costs of ignoring resource data. A final session summarized the presentations and discussions, and collated a list of "Issues and Options." Open discussion from the 

floor of all presentations was actively encouraged-but need 

not have been. The discussions were courteous, numerous, to 

the point, and at times verged on spirited (the compilers of 

this report have done a little editing). 

All the proceedings and the keynote and banquet 

addresses were taped and transcribed. The following is a virtually verbatim transcript of those proceedings and 

addresses, with a minimum amount of editorial changes. We, 

the editors, have prepared the Abstract, the Introduction, and 

the Summary. We have attempted to summarize those issues 

and those options affecting Midcontinent constructional 

industrial minerals that were the consensus opinion of this 

Workshop. These were not unanimous among Workshop 

attendees. Also, in the Summary, we have, at places, used the 

words of one or another Workshop attendee without giving 

direct credit to the original author. We thank all the Workshop attendees for that editorial privilege. In that issues and 

options summarized were not the unanimous view of all the 
WELCOME 3 

attendees, the reader is advised to refer to the verbatim transcript of the Workshop proceedings below for more detail. 

The views presented are those of the speakers, and do 

not reflect the official position of the U.S. Geological Survey. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

On behalf of the U.S. Geological Survey, the coordinators (Bush and Hayes) express our thanks to many people: 

To the working group: Aldo Barsotti, U.S. Bureau of 

Mines; James W. Baxter, Illinois State Geological Survey; 

William V. Bush, Arkansas Geological Commission; Garland R. Dever, Jr., Kentucky Geological Survey; J. James 

Eidel, Illinois State Geological Survey; Duane A. Everson, 

Nebraska Division of Conservation and Survey; Michael P. 

Foose, U.S. Geological Survey; David A. Grisafe, Kansas 

Geological Survey; Kenneth S. Johnson, Oklahoma Geological Survey; John D. Kiefer, Kentucky Geological Survey; 

Donald L. Koch, Iowa Geological Survey; Zareh Mozian, 

U:S. Bureau of Mines; Ardel Rueff, Missouri Division of 

Geology and Land Survey; and Greg Upham, Tennessee 

Department of Conservation, Division of Geology. 

To Dr. James H. Williams, Director and State Geologist, 

Missouri Division of Geology and Land Survey, for the seminal role he played in energizing the early interest in the Workshop and for enlisting the support of the Missouri Survey. 

To Ardel Rueff, Missouri Division of Geology and Land 

Survey, for invaluable and constantly reliable assistance in all 

the myriad details of arranging for and facilitating the Workshop in St. Louis. He was truly the indispensable person. 

To Lois Jaques of the Missouri Division of Geology 

and Land Survey for assistance with the registration activities at the meeting. 

To Mitch Leutger, Aero Views by Mitch, Macdona, 

Texas, for the excellent aerial photographs on the front cover 

of this publication. They show quarries in San Antonio and 

Fiesta, Texas, "during" operation and "after" reclamation. 

To the Department of Parks and Recreation, San Antonio, Texas, for the photograph on the back cover, of the Japanese Tea Garden in San Antonio, illustrating reclamation of 

an old quarry. 

And finally, to our office staffatthe U.S. Geological Survey in Denver for the essential handling of the voluminous 

correspondence with all the invited participants, for all the 

necessary financial arrangements attendant on the Workshop, 

and for conducting the registration arrangements at the meeting: Louise M. Reif, Louise K. Taylor, Kathryn M. Sloan, 

Geraldine A. Hime, Marjorie L. Keithly, Margaret A. Clemensen, Vicky L. Stricker, Helen A. Kelly, Diane T. Schreiber, 

and Patricia H. Drouillard. 

WELCOME 

Monday morning, September 16, 1991 

Timothy S. Hayes, U.S. Geological Survey 

Good morning, and welcome to the Midcontinent 

Industrial Minerals Workshop. The Workshop is sponsored 

by the U.S. Geological Survey, with the help of the U.S. 

Bureau of Mines, and the active participation of seven Midcontinent geological surveys, the Arkansas Geologic Commission, the Illinois State Geological Survey, the Kansas 

Geological Survey, the Kentucky Geological Survey, the 

Missouri Division of Geology and Land Survey, the 

Nebraska Division of Conservation and Survey, and the 

Oklahoma Geological Survey. Our hosts are the Missouri 

Division of Geology and Land Survey. 

Along with welcoming you, my job is to let you know 

that we have all come here to do a job. This is a Workshop 

and we have come together to address issues that affect the 

availability of industrial minerals for construction in the 

Midcontinent. Our purpose is to point out the critical need 

for industrial minerals for construction that has to be faced in 

the Midcontinent if the infrastructure is to grow or even just 

be maintained. We are tasked first with identifying the issues 

that affect industrial minerals availability and then with producing a list of options available in addressing those issues. 

Each of the seven State geological surveys has contacted a number of individuals with experience in one of the 

following areas: industrial minerals production, industrial 

minerals trade associations, land-use planning, government 

agencies that provide industrial minerals information, government agencies that regulate the minerals industry, State or 

local legislative bodies, educational institutions, environmental organizations, and the press. You were each asked if 

you would be willing to participate in this kind of Workshop 

on the industrial minerals. We hope that everyone who came 

here came with full intent to participate and add to the pursuit 

of our goal of a list of issues and options on these subjects. 

The Workshop is organized around four major identifiable issue areas: First, industrial minerals resource identification; second, land-use planning to ensure industrial 

minerals resource availability; third, economic limitations 

on industrial minerals resource availability; and fourth, environmental issues that affect production and consumption of 

the industrial minerals. This morning we will be listening to 

a series of formalized talks that present in tum an introduction to each of the four major issue areas. Each presentation 

will be given by an expert in that area. These presentations 

will follow a kickoff address by Dr. Anthony Kane of the 

Federal Highway Administration, that will, I am sure, illustrate the critical need for industrial minerals for construction 

in this region of the country. The presentations that introduce 

the issue areas will then be followed by a final presentation 

this morning that briefly presents a view of the state of the 
4 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT -WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

industrial minerals producers in the Midcontinent. The 

Workshop is being recorded and will be transcribed, edited, 

and published as a U.S. Geological Survey bulletin. 

The afternoon session is organized into five panel discussions in which we encourage everyone to participate. 

The panels are composed of individuals with specific experience in each of the four major areas-resource identification, land-use planning, economics of the minerals industry, 

and environmental issues affecting the minerals industry. Of 

course, selected as you were, we realize that everybody in 

this Workshop group has experience that would qualify them 

to serve on one or more of the panels. For that reason, we 

hav,~ charged the panel leaders with keeping formalized presentations this afternoon to a minimum, in order to be able to 

draw on the cumulative experience of this Workshop group. 

Again, we hope that you will make yourself heard in the 

panel discussions. 

In addition to discussing the four major areas that form 

the core of the Workshop, we will have a fifth panel discussion on the environmental costs of ignoring resource data. 

That subject should be particularly stimulating. 

This evening there will be a presentation by Dr. Charles 

G. "Chip" Groat of the American Geological Institute who 

will emphasize the need for education about the role of minerals in our society. He calls his talk "If only Dick and Jane 

had gone to the mines." 

The panel leaders and members have a particularly 

tough task at this Workshop. We have asked them all to meet 

to produce a summary of the discussions. Those summaries 

will be used to get a head start when we reopen each panel in 

tum. That will be followed by a session where any topic can 

be reopened for discussion. In the final half day of the Workshop, we have the job of trying to summarize what has been 

said over the previous day and a half. We hope to frame that 

summary as a list of issues that affect the availability of 

industrial minerals for construction in the Midcontinent and 

to match that list with a list of options on how those issues 

might be addressed. After that summation, we will reopen 

discussion for a final time and ask for everyone's help in 

refining the lists of issues and options. 

It should then take a little over 1 year to transcribe, edit, 

and publish the proceedings from today and tomorrow as a 

USGS bulletin. [Editors' Note: If only it had been so!] Previous bulletins have been published for earlier Workshops 

held in Tempe, Arizona (1988), Marina del Rey, California 

(1989), and Salt Lake City, Utah (1990) on industrial minerals in Arizona, Southern California, and in the Great Basin 

States of Idaho, Nevada, and Utah. We hope that these bulletins will be a resource for everyone involved here, providing some recommendations and expert opinion on which 

policies and perhaps decisions can be based. In hoping that 

the product bulletin becomes an informational resource, we 

are also inviting the State geological surveys to add appendices which list sources of information about each State's 

industrial minerals. We hope we can fill the pages of a 

bulletin with some really substantive suggestions on how to 

ensure the availability of industrial minerals for construction 

in the Midcontinent and how to do so in an environmentally 

responsible way. Because USGS bulletins are distributed to 

earth science libraries worldwide, we may be able to have at 

least a little impact on industrial mineral extraction problems 

internationally as well as domestically. 

The "kickoff' speaker for our Workshop is Dr. Tony 

Kane, the Associate Administrator for Program Development of the Federal Highway Administration. In this position he oversees the Highway Administration's planning, 

environmental, land acquisition, engineering, construction, 

and Federal aid functions. He holds a B.S. in Civil Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, an M.S. in Transportation Planning from Northwestern University, and a 

Doctorate of Business Administration from George Washington University. Dr. Kane has in the past few years served 

as Director for Development of the National Transportation 

Policy for the Secretary of Transportation and directed a 

major agency-wide task force to assess the future of the 

Nation's highways. In his career at the Highway Administration, which goes back to 1972, he has also served as Associate Administrator for Right-of-Way and Environment, 

Director of the Office of Policy Development, and Chief of 

the Transportation Studies Division. This morning we have 

asked Dr. Kane to share his views with us about the critical 

need for resources to rebuild and expand the infrastructure. 

KICKOFF-THE HIGHWAY 

INFRASTRUCTURE AND INDUSTRIAL 

MINERALS 

Dr. Anthony R. Kane, Associate Administrator for Program 

Development, Federal Highway Administration 

Thank you. It is a pleasure to be here today. It is a critical time for infrastructure in this country, particularly for 

transit and highways, as at the Federal level, come September 30th, the 5-year funding program expires, and some of 

you may not know exactly what all the issues are. A lot of the 

news media have been playing the problem up over the last 

few years, and there is a lot of legislation pending right now 

on the Hill. [Editors' Note: Three months after Dr. Kane's 

talk [in December 1991], the highway and transit bill, entitled "The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 

of 1991," was signed into law. The Act, which covers the 

period 1992-1997 inclusive, provides $140 billion from the 

highway and transit accounts of the Highway Trust Fund (a 

6-year period) plus $15 billion in general funds. There is a 

reduction in the fuel tax of 2.5 cents per gallon, which supports deficit reduction, beginning in October 1995.] 

What I thought I would try to do is give an overview of 

where we are today with regard particularly to highway 
THE HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE AND INDUSTRIAL MINERALS 5 

infrastructure in this country, and a summary of a recent 

report to Congress that talks about the condition and status of 

the Nation's highways. Then I want to indicate where we are 

on the Hill, where the House is, where the Senate is, and 

what I expect to happen. My own prognostication is probably going to be wrong; forecasts, in general, about what Congress might do always tend to be wrong. Then, I want to 

touch on a few implications with regard to the group that is 

here today, the impact of investment in highway infrastructure and what that means for all the concerns that you have, 

with regard to your own particular industry. 

I was really impressed at the similarities in a lot of what 

we do. If you just looked at the main categories of topics this 

Workshop is going to focus on, namely, the demand for 

resources, land-use issues, economics and environment, I 

would have thought I was in a transportation conference. 

These are exactly the same kinds of main themes that we 

focus on at all of the highway infrastructure and transit infrastructure conferences. Clearly we are forced to face the same 

kinds of challenges. You are the materials suppliers for 

infrastructure across the board, whether it is in building construction, transit, highways, etc. You have to address so 

many of the same issues but perhaps in a different fashion. 

What I would like to do now is focus on the condition 

and status of the Nation's highways, a little bit on where we 

are heading on legislation, and then come back and close 

with some comments with regard to the industry itself. 

First, let's look at the pavement condition in this country. On the collector roadways, which are the roadways that 

are a step up from the local neighborhood roads and streets, 

about 60 percent of the pavement is in poor or near-poor condition. These terms describe ranges according to a pavement 

serviceability rating; below a certain level, we give it an indication of poor or near-poor. The interstate system has about 

25 percent of its miles in these two categories. What has 

happened over the last 10 or 20 years (particularly the last 15 

years) has been an increased level of investment by the Federal, State, and local governments in pavements. Whether 

you have observed. it in your own particular neighborhood or 

in your own particular State, from a national perspective 

(using the data sample that we have of all roads in this country) those conditions have stabilized. We have tended over 

· the last half a dozen years to keep pace. In other words, 

things are not really getting worse with regard to pavement 

conditions. The miles designated interstate arterials and collectors represent about 1.2 million miles out of close to 4 

million miles of road in the country. Most of the miles are 

local roads and streets, neighborhood roads and streets, land 

access roads. But of those 1.2 million miles of interstate 

arterials and collectors, half of those roads are in poor or 

near-poor condition. To keep a steady pace takes an investment in about 100,000 miles of roads a year in both rehabilitation of the pavement and major reconstruction of the 

pavement. Obviously, a demand is there for aggregates and 

for minerals for the repaving process. I think one message is 

that after a lot of newspaper media play, of VCR films that 

were sent to local Chambers of Commerce, and so forth, we 

have come to acknowledge the problem, and there has been 

an increased level of investment on the pavement side. 

Next consider the deficient bridges in this country. 

There are close to 600,000 bridges in the United States and 

we have an inventory of all of them. Information must be 

submitted by all the States on the condition and status of all 

of the Nation's bridges. This requirement was imposed by 

Congress many years ago, so we have a pretty good idea of 

where we are with regard to bridges. The numbers show that 

about 226,000 bridges of the Nation's 577,000 bridges are 

deficient, either because of structural load-carrying capacity 

or functionally, meaning they are just no longer designed for 

the traffic that they need to serve at the present time. While 

the 15,000 problem bridges on the interstate system (4,000 

structurally inadequate, 11,000 functionally inadequate) are 

a small number compared to the total, that is only today's 

condition. If you forecast the future, as we did, for the next 

25 years, we estimate that 35 percent of the Nation's investment requirements for bridges are going to be in the interstate system. The reason is that they are kind of the baby 

boomer problem. They came on late in the process. But they 

are also very large structures, lots of square footage of bridge 

area, and when you forecast to the tum of the century, that's 

where the real problem is going to be in terms of the bridge 

program. Today you hear about the little local bridges, and 

you hear about the two-lane bridges that have to be shut 

down and about the school buses that can't go across them. 

But in terms of real dollars, the impact is going to be on the 

higher level bridges in this country. 

The real problem and the real message in highways is 

congestion and the degree to which it has been getting worse. 

Every 2 years we have to send a report to Congress on the 

status of the Nation's roads and bridges. We just did that in 

July '91. For the interstate system we show that the peak 

hour volume-to-capacity measure of how much the roads can 

handle (traffic demand versus what the roads theoretically 

are able to carry) is getting worse. Well, when the measure 

reaches a level of 0.95, you are really in a break-down condition. And 51 percent of the interstate miles in urban areas 

are in that state right now. Other arterials are at the 30 percent level, with an 11 percent level for collector roads. If you 

take a look, however, at the growth trend, while I mentioned 

that things have stabilized in the pavement area over the last 

6, 8, 10 years, in the congestion area that is not at all the case. 

In fact, on the interstate system, in just the last 6-year period, 

there has been a 30 percent increase in the amount of traffic 

that is in a congested state. So we are continually tending to 

get worse with regard to congestion in this country. 

The implications of that, as I get into the investment 

requirements, are very significant, because we took a look at 

what you theoretically could try to accomplish in metropolitan areas through very aggressive campaigns to shift people 

to other modes of transit, to increase auto vehicle occupancy, 
6 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

to get people riding in more high occupancy vehicles. And 

even with that it translates to a very, very significant increase 

of lane miles of highways to try and meet the demands that 

are out there. If built, those lane miles of highways clearly 

translate into a significant investmerh, significant, ergo, a 

need for materials. 

Focus again just on the interstate system, because it's 

that road system that is 1 percent of the miles in the country 

but handles over 20 percent of the travel. In '85, 11 percent 

of the pavement was in poor condition, and in '89 we estimated it had dropped to about 10 percent. So there is progress 

on that score. At a slightly different level of congestion, 

where the measure of volume to capacity is over 0.8 (a very 

heavily congested as well as a starting-to-break-down level 

of congestion), in '85, 61 percent of the road miles fell in this 

category, in '89, it was 70 percent. Between 1983 and 1989 

there was a 30 percent increase in that performance category. 

So clearly, congestion is a very high focus of where we have 

to go with regard to new options and new plans for the future. 

Congress also asked us to take a look at what it would 

cost to do something about the infrastructure problem in this 

country. The numbers that we reported in July to the Congress, looking at the lower level, show that on all road systems the present level of investment is about $33 billion a 

year in capital investments. This includes local roads and 

streets, where we estimated the investment that the private 

sector is making as well as the public sector in terms of new 

streets as part of subdivisions. That's not routine maintenance, it's not operating costs, etc.; it's the capital investment side of things. Thirty-three billion dollars, but that 

translates to 1.6 cents per vehicle mile of travel. In my mind 

it's a small number when you look at what it takes to own 

and operate an automobile, between 30 and 40 cents per 

vehicle mile of travel, after you take account of vehicle 

depreciation, insurance costs, fuel costs, etc. So it's a very 

small component when you look at it from that scale. We 

estimated two investment levels in the report to Congress: 

one, just to keep things where they are today, to attempt to 

not let congestion get worse and to attempt to not let pavement get worse. We estimated it would take about $46 billion a year. And then we asked, what would it take to try to 

make things better? Assuming, as I said earlier, a very, very 

rigorous campaign to get more people into other modes of . 

transit, into high occupancy vehicles, etc., we think a realistic estimate of investment comes to $75 billion a year, or 3V2 

cents per vehicle mile of travel. When you compare that to 

what it takes to own and operate an automobile, that doesn't 

sound like much. We just need to get 2 cents a mile of travel 

out of everyone. Well, look at the tax instruments that you 

have to use to get money because most of the highways in 

this country are supported by dedicated user fees. If a typical 

car gets 20 miles per gallon, it would take a 20 cent per gallon gas tax to get 1 cent per vehicle mile of travel. So it 

would take a 40 cent tax to get those 2 cents per vehicle mile 

of travel. But look at the newspapers when a State highway 

department tries to get a 1 cent or 2 cent or 3 cent State gas 

tax passed. Tough time, very tough time. So that is kind of 

the dilemma we are faced with. On the one hand I can sit 

here and say it's a pretty small number, all we need is another 

penny or two per vehicle mile of travel. But then translate 

that into the way you have to raise that money, which traditionally has been through gas taxes, and you get outcries 

from the public of not wanting an increased tax and you 

really get an inability, a lack of leadership on the part of politicians, State, local, and Federal, to make a commitment to 

say that we really need to do something about infrastructure, 

despite a possible drop in a few of the polls. 

But what are we doing right now? I mentioned that the 

highway and transit programs are due to expire. And for the 

last several years, there has been a very, very significant 

effort across the country on the part of all interest groups, 

county officials, State officials, material suppliers, consultants, contractors, etc., to Jocus on. where the highway program should go in the future. The interstate system is 

virtually complete. That was the dream, the vision; in the 

late fifties when Congress authorized the Federal aid highway program, it was to build that interstate system. And 

that's where the bulk of the money has been going. But we 

don't need that level of investment any more because the 

system is virtually complete. So, where might we head? 

Well, the administration has developed a proposal, the Senate has enacted a measure earlier this year, the House of Representatives is in real turmoil with regard to where to go. 

There is tremendous disagreement. The House Committee 

passed a bill out, but did not bring it to the floor, because as 

many of you may have seen in the paper just before the summerrecess, the House of Representatives is going for a 5 cent 

national gas tax increase. And there was really not support 

for the Committee bill in the House. So Speaker Foley 

decided not to put that bill on the floor before recess, because 

he knows it probably would have failed, plus the President 

has come out extremely strongly, saying, "I will veto any 

new package that has an increased gas tax in it." So right 

now we sit with an administration bill that was submitted to 

the Hill (a 5-year program), a Senate bill that was passed, and 

a House bill that has only passed Committee-it hasn't gone 

to the floor. In fact, as we meet today, the leadership in the 

House is trying to make that strategic decision as to whether 

they go back to the Committee and rewrite their highway bill 

without a gas tax, or go to the floor and see if they have the 

votes, and see if they can carry it over the President's threat. 

[See Editors' Note, p. 4.] 

Now as to the funding level: the total transit and highway money is about $105 billion for the 5-year period by the 

administration's proposal, about $124 billion in the Senate 

bill, and $154 billion in the House of Representatives. 

Clearly there's a big difference between $105 billion in the 

administration's proposal and $154 billion in the House proposal. I should mention, however, that the administration 

proposal is over a 113 increase above where we are today. 
THE HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE AND INDUSTRIAL MINERALS 7 

So, even the administration's proposal is a significant 

increase in the level of construction expenditure in the highway area over the next 5 years. I think the message probably 

is that, assuming we ever get the House bill to a vote, if we 

ever get to a House-Senate conference, and if we ever get a 

bill enacted, there is going to be a significant, a very significant level of investment in highway construction. Translate 

that, then, into the industry that you deal with. 

The administration has tried to consolidate the number 

of major programs that we have. Our program is about $17 

billion a year, and we wanted to try and put it in a smaller 

number of categories, so that State and local governments 

had more flexibility in how to use the funds. Well, the Senate 

didn't quite like that idea. They created a whole host of programs including interstate completion money. I mentioned 

the system is almost finished but it still requires a little bit of 

money to finish it. The Senate wanted to target some money 

for annual 3-R maintenance (rehabilitation, restoration, and 

resurfacing) investments in the interstate. They also created 

something called the surface transportation program-a very 

large block grant. In fact, most of the money is right there. 

Senator Moynihan from New York chaired the Senate Committee, and he very much wanted to give State and local governments the ability to use highway money for anything, any 

kind of rail improvement, any kind of transit improvement. 

He is very much moved by the environmental coalitions, by 

the Clean Air Act, and most of the Senate bill is very strongly 

driven by environmental consideration. And in that Senate 

bill is a very strong package of provisions that are very much 

environmentally driven. It has a congestion mitigation program-a special pot of money-to focus on those metropolitan areas that have clean air problems. It has a bridge 

program and a couple of programs that are merely mechanisms to distribute money, in some fair sense as defined by 

the Senate, to individual States. The House of Representatives bill had an even larger number of programs-national 

highway, urban mobility, rural mobility-a flexible category 

of funds that States could do what they want with-safety, 

bridge, and, again, a program to spread money out across the 

States as a function of where the Federal gas tax came in-a 

fairness kind of program. 

Just a couple of points on funding levels. It takes 

between $7 and $8 billion over 5 years to finish the interstate 

system which is clearly almost finished. That's the total 

amount of money required to finish those last few gaps in the 

system in the country. Now we're very much interested in 

having something formally called The National Highway 

System, that is our vision for the future. It would be about 

150,000 miles of arterials, the principal arterials in the country and in the interstate system. In the administration's bill, 

that's where we targeted our resources, to let that be the 

vision for the future. We need to upgrade the 100,000 miles 

of principal arterials that are off the interstate system and put 

the focus there. The Senate at least calls for designating such 

a system, but targeted a very small amount of money from 

what's labeled as STP, their block grant-only about 17 

percent. But they said in their bill that States could use all of 

it if they wanted to on national highway systems. 

In order to get a bill enacted and signed by the President, there will have to be a new concept in Federal programs 

and it will be something called The National Highway System. It will focus and thrust on about 150,000 miles in this 

country, on the principal arterials in the country. In terms of 

the urban and rural program, there was about $22 billion a 

year in the administration bill, our version of a block grant to 

the States to let them use as they saw fit for transit or for 

highways. The Senate had similar concepts; they just 

divided them into categories. I should highlight that for the 

bridge program there was about $11 billion over 5 years in 

the administration's proposal, $13.5 billion in the Senate, 

almost $17 billion in the House. Those levels are starting to 

become a doubling of the level of investment in bridges that 

we have today. So, clearly, there would be a much larger 

investment in bridges from the Federal perspective. That 

matches our forecast of what things are going to be happening with regard to bridge conditions in this country; it's those 

larger bridges that were built in the sixties on the major roadways that are going to be the main problem as we hit the tum 

of the century. 

I guess that's it on the legislation. Will we have a bill? 

Well, in 1987, we went through this same thing, the Congress wasn't trying any major restructuring of the highway 

program, and it still took 7 months to get the final bill. There 

was a real delay and not having those authorizations had 

pretty severe impact on the States. So there is the potential 

for a real impact on the States come October in the absence 

of new surface transportation legislation. Luckily, not a lot 

of construction bids are let in that part of the year, so the 

impact may be a little bit mitigated, but the amount of funds 

that are left over are very small compared to the annual level 

of programs. There will be a significant impact, and lots of 

interest groups from all the construction organizations are 

really trying to encourage Congress to get a new surface 

transportation bill enacted. Lots of pressure is coming from 

State departments of transportation, etc. 

I asked my staff to focus on one aspect of your industry, 

the amount of aggregates that we use as a result of the Federal Aid Highway Program. We estimated that 214,000,000 

tons of aggregates were used in the Federal Aid Program in 

1990, and that under our construction proposal, which is far 

lower than either the House or Senate proposal, that number 

would jump to 350,000,000 tons by 1996. Under the House 

and Senate bills the numbers would be even larger than that. 

What are some of the other aspects on the aggregate side that 

have been happening recently? Well, one is a real big thrust 

towards enhanced quality construction, and that involves the 

whole spectrum from design to all of the materials used in 

construction, and to construction processes themselves. The 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials just appointed a new task force on construction 
8 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT -WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

quality. I think we will be seeing a much stronger focus on 

things like quality assurance, quality control, changes in the 

specifications that we have nationally in highway construction. Perhaps there will be changes in concepts on bonuses 

and contracting procedures, as well. In addition, there is one 

little area that has taken the attention of a number of the State 

highway departments. Last year, there was a fact-finding 

mission on the way pavements are constructed in Europe, 

where there is much greater focus on initial investment, on 

initial design, on initial materials, on thicknesses. One concept called stonemastic asphalt has created a lot of attention 

and we are testing it now in about six States. It puts stronger 

emphasis on enhanced quality aggregates and on polymer 

additives to the asphalt. It makes a stronger pavement structure, kind of a stone-on-stone composition. The Europeans 

are willing to spend a lot more money on transportation costs 

with, regard to aggregates and will ship from greater distances than we tend to in the United States. Whether or not 

we are ever going to become long-sighted with our 

short -sighted pocketbook, I don't know. The same thing 

could be said and has been said about other aspects of American industry. Highways are not alone. People tend to say, 

"It's greener on the other side, in Japan they do it this way, 

in Germany they do it this way; people take a long-range 

look, they increase front -end costs, because in the long run, 

life-cycle costs are reduced." Whether that will happen to us, 

I don't know, because the tendency has always been to be 

very much short-range oriented with regard to what we do. 

There's going to be a stronger focus on additives and 

new materials in construction. There are going to be some 

other things that the Department is doing which I think will 

impact your industry, and that is with regard to the transport 

costs. We're starting to put a much greater focus on how the 

various transportation modes (airports, railroads, highways) 

tie together. Port access, in particular, is one thing that we 

have a strong focus and review on right now. In addition, we 

are pushing for continued economic deregulation in the 

transportation industry, albeit it affects interstate carriers 

more, whereas most of your industries are affected by 

intrastate carriers. We are also pushing for a lot of "uniformity" measures that we hope will eliminate the paperwork 

burden on the mode of carriers, which translates directly into 

costs. We have that built into the surface transportation legislation; hopefully, it will be enacted. 

Overall, I see a much enhanced highway program in the 

future. I see that demands on the highway program are not 

dissimilar from the demands that you have with regard to 

very strong land use considerations, urban planning considerations, environmental protection considerations. In fact, 

most of the highway programs in metropolitan areas are 

going to be much more strongly driven by environmental 

constraints as we go out in time. Clearly, the House has that 

message. The environmental groups are very strong. They 

have been lobbying very effectively in the Congress. The 

kinds of language that are in both the House and Senate bills 

for future highway programs mean there's going to have to 

be a much more conscious consideration of the environment, 

with planning requirements built into the legislation for 

enabling State and local governments to use planning 

money. 

Thank you. It has been a pleasure. Have a good 

conference. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

Thank you, Dr. Kane. That certainly does show a need 

for the industrial minerals for construction. Dr. Kane is not 

going to be with us all day, so I'll make an exception and 

accept a couple of questions. If we can limit them to just a 

few minutes, we'll entertain those questions. Does anybody 

have anything? 

DISCUSSION 

Dr. Charles J. Mankin, Director of the Oklahoma 

Geological Survey: 

In one of the things that you talked about in your planning, it wasn't clear to me whether you had included changes 

in the cost of transportation fuel in the projected growth of 

use of highway systems. The United States, of course, has 

the cheapest transportation fuel in the world, that's based on 

the fact that world oil prices are at an almost all-time low in 

modem history. In 10 years, most of us believe world oil 

prices will probably double. That's going to have a significant impact on transportation fuel costs in the United States. 

Has that been taken into consideration in the growth and the 

use of the highway system? 

Dr. Anthony R. Kane: 

The answer is "yes." Whether it was taken into account 

adequately, correctly, in the minds of everyone is another 

question, for sure. We recently, in 1990, developed the 

National Transportation Policy. It focused on a number of 

issues, including energy aspects and transportation. Along 

with that, we developed a much more comprehensive analytical report called "A Strategic Look at Transportation" and 

submitted that to the Congress, as well. We focused on those 

increasing energy costs, and tried to utilize the consensus 

forecast from the Department of Energy and forecasts from 

various other economic groups, tried to see what the effect 

would be in the highway demand area, tried to factor that in 

with some of the demand models that we had, to see what 

might be happening. At the same time, we estimated what 

might happen with fuel efficiencies, with alternative fuels, 

with the whole movement in that direction, as well. That, 

too, was put into the equation on highway demand and we 
ISSUE AREAS 9 

estimated what might be the effect on the transit side, etc. 

Even taking all that into account, we had pretty significant 

increased levels of demand on the highway side. A much 

stronger consideration was the demographic changes, and so 

as part of our 30-year forecast, we were looking at where we 

are today in terms of an almost 4 percent annual growth rate 

in vehicle miles of travel and came up with estimates for the 

future of 3, 2, 1 percent, and close to flat projections out to 

the tum of the century. We tried to consider all those things, 

but whether we adequately did or not, you know, is another 

question. 

John A. Taylor; Oklahoma Mining Commission: 

I'm a little puzzled on the relation of that 1.6 cents to 2 

cents per vehicle mile of travel allocation for the funding. 

Dr. Anthony R. Kane: 

Let me restate and see if it's any clearer. I said that typical real costs of owning and operating an automobile today 

are close to 30 to 40 cents per vehicle mile of travel. That's 

the cost of your depreciation, oil, fuel, user fees, etc. That's 

what it really costs you. If you take the total level of investment that private, State, local, and Federal government have 

as capital investment in highway transportation, just rack up 

that total number that's being spent today and divide it by the 

total vehicle miles of travel that are out there, it only equals 

1.6 cents per vehicle mile of travel. So that is the level of 

investment that's being made in highways right now. It's not 

allocated anywhere, it's not a single expenditure; that 1.6 

cents is a collection of everything, it's fuel taxes, it's State 

registration fees, it's general funds. County governments' 

sources of transportation funds are from property taxes and 

general funds. 

John A. Taylor; Oklahoma Mining Commission: 

Let me put the question this way, in order to define it. 

The total investment needed versus the previous investment 

level of 1.6 or 2 cents should leave an allocable figure. What 

would that figure be? 

Dr. Anthony R. Kane: 

I would think, to meet all the needs that are out there, 

3Y2 cents per vehicle mile of travel is about what you have to 

raise. The question is how do you raise that? In your words, 

how do you allocate the needed extra investment requirements? How do you get an extra 2 cents per vehicle mile of 

travel on average out of people? That's the real issue. Do you 

raise property taxes in counties? Do you put tolls on highways? Do you raise the gas tax? And what I tried to say was 

that, in terms of scale, to get an added average highway revenue income of 1 cent per vehicle mile of travel at 20 miles 

per gallon would take a 20 cent gas tax. You don't have to 

have a 20 cent tax. You can raise property taxes and earmark 

it at the county level, you can raise the gas tax, you can raise 

registration fees, you can do a host of things. You can do as 

Maricopa County, Arizona, did and put in a V2 cent sales tax 

and dedicate it to highways. In Phoenix they are going to 

build 400 miles of new freeways, not from highway user fees 

at all, just from dedicated sales taxes. 

ISSUE AREAS 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

I think we had better move on. Let's get directly to the 

subject of industrial minerals, starting with one issue at a time; 

let's begin with discussions of some of the issues that are recognizable in resource identification and evaluation. We have 

asked Dr. Morris Leighton, Brud Leighton, the Director of the 

Illinois State Geological Survey, to speak to us. 

INDUSTRIAL MINERALS RESOURCE 

IDENTIFICATION AND EV ALUATION1 

Dr. Morris W. Leighton, Director, Illinois State Geological 

Survey 

My subject this morning is "Industrial Minerals 

Resource Evaluation." At issue is the economic availability 

of industrial minerals-nonmetallic, nonfuel minerals such 

as sand, gravel, crushed rock, and dimension stone. Specifically at issue is their availability for sustained growth 

envisioned for the construction of highways, roads, bridges, 

buildings, beach replenishment and even for shoreline 

defense structures (figs. 1 and 2). Why should availability of 

these materials be of concern? Aren't these materials available practically everywhere-readily available "off the 

shelf," so to speak? Are we worried about this? Can't we 

take it for granted? Let's briefly examine these questions. 

In approaching these questions, forgive me if I use 

some examples from Illinois along the way-but by so doing 

I believe they are representative of conditions in other States, 

many other States, and, hopefully, they will fill in and help 

to broaden the perspective on this issue of economic availability of industrial minerals and the need for evaluation of 

these resources. 

Let's look first at the question of demand. The increasing population of the United States and the continued reliance 

on highway and road transportation by that population 

1 Remarks authored by Morris W. Leighton, J. James Eidel, James W. 

Baxter, and Subhash B. Bhagwat, all of the Illinois State Geological Survey. 
10 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT -WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

Figure 1. Shoreline defense (groins), Lake Michigan, Chicago, Ill. Photograph from M.W. 

Leighton, from files of the Illinois State Geological Survey. 

Figure 2. Riprap being placed for shoreline defense near the headwaters, Lake Michigan. 

Photograph from M.W. Leighton, from files of the Illinois State Geological Survey. 
ISSUE AREAS 11 

392 pounds 

Clays 

45 pounds 

Aluminum 

7721 pounds 

Stone 

362 pounds 

Salt 

23 pounds 

Copper 

521 pounds 

Phosphate 

rock 

11 pounds 

Lead 

6658 pounds 

Sand and gravel 

11 pounds 

Zinc 

446 pounds 

Other 

nonmetals 

9.5 pounds 

Manganese 

626 pounds 

Cement 

1059 pounds 

Iron and steel 

61 pounds 

Other 

metals 

Figure 3. Annual U.S. per capita consumption (as of 1990) of nonfuel mineral materials (industrial rocks and minerals versus metallic 

products and metals). 

virtually ensure an increasing demand for construction 

aggregate and sand and gravel for the purpose of expanding 

and rebuilding domestic infrastructure. On the average each 

U.S. citizen consumes on the order of 3% tons of aggregate, 

31.4 tons of sand and gravel, V2 ton of steel, more than 500 

pounds of cement, and almost 400 pounds of clay annually 

(fig. 3). The ability to construct and reconstruct the infrastructure depends on the continued availability, at a price the 

economy can bear, of sustainable resources of limestone, 

clay, and other materials used in the manufacture of Portland 

Cement and of crushed stone and sand and gravel resources 

for use in concrete construction and bituminous (blacktop) 

roads. 

With respect to the building and rebuilding of the 

Nation's infrastructure, the U.S. Bureau of Mines estimates 

that: ( 1) over 40 percent of all bridges need repair or replacement; (2) much of the interstate highway system needs 

repairs, as do State and secondary highways and roads; and 

(3) half the schools in America are nearing 50 years in age. 

The Bureau has further indicated that the U.S. lags 

significantly behind Japan, West Germany, France, the 

United Kingdom, Italy, and Canada in public works spending. 

There are numerous Federal and State documents that 

contain estimates and plans for extensive future construction 

and rebuilding programs. In Illinois, for example, the 

Department of Commerce and Community Affairs (DCCA), 

prepared a Five-Year Plan in 1989 that estimated a need for 

a $5.8 billion program to build and rebuild Illinois infrastructure over the next decade. The Illinois DCCA (1989) recommended keeping interstate highways in top condition, 

protecting Illinois' $60 billion road and bridge system, 

developing key major highways, and improving congested 

urban and rural highways. The proposed program would: (1) 

rehabilitate 385 miles of roadway and 177 bridges on the 

interstate system; (2) resurface and widen 3,500 miles and 

rehabilitate 780 bridges on the non-interstate system; (3) 

develop key new economic principal arterials such as U.S. 

51 South, U.S. 67, and Thorndale Avenue; (4) implement a 
12 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT -WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

Figure 4. Thornton quarry in the Middle Silurian Racine Dolomite, Chicago area, Illinois. Photograph from M.W. Leighton, from 

files of the Illinois State Geological Survey. 

concentrated program of road improvements; and (5) infuse 

$525 million into local roads over the next 5 y~ars. 

In another example, a 1991 Office of Technology report 

listed rehabilitation and maintenance of the Federal surface 

transportation system as top priority for Federal legislation. 

The need for building and rebuilding the Nation's infrastructure is most apparent. 

While there are many plans for and estimates of 

required new construction and repair, there appear to be no 

accompanying studies of the source of required resources of 

industrial minerals. The 1991 Office of Technology report, 

however, did note that "resources available for repair and 

preventive maintenance have been insufficient to maintain 

acceptable service levels on highways, bridges, and transit 

facilities across the country." 

Few States and local agencies incorporate the availability of affordable resources in their planning. No mention is 

made as to whether adequate construction aggregates, or 

sands and gravels or water supplies exist to carry out the 

planned programs. Overall, we are not aware of agency 

efforts to determine the amount and source of the construction materials that will be required to meet the new and 

growing demands. The assumption appears to be that these 

are items that can be obtained "off the shelf." Is this true? 

Are they readily available? We believe there is reason to be 

concerned. Let me illustrate. 

In the Chicago area, the production of aggregate materials sufficient to meet requirements for modem construction 

is threatened as sites favorable for the extraction and processing of stone and sand and gravel become limited by 

urbanization. The area provides about 35 percent of the 

crushed stone produced in Illinois. The source is a 

high-purity, premium-quality Silurian dolomite, which 

occurs in a number of places at depths generally less than 50 

feet below the land surface. The well-known Thornton 

quarry in the Silurian dolomite is an example (fig. 4 ). In 

some areas extensive deposits of sand and gravel overlie the 

bedrock surface. But urban sprawl has encircled most of the 

existing quarries and encroached on undeveloped resources, 

as well. This photo of the Thornton quarry (fig. 5) shows 

urbanization-residential encroachment from the north and 

northeast, a cemetery on the southwest-and quarry facilities on the southeast that overlie poor-quality source materials that limit development on the south and southeast. 

Figure 6 shows the Bridgeport quarry, 1 mile from Lake 

Michigan with the Sears Tower in the background. This 

quarry, too, has been overrun by urban sprawl and has more 

recently been used for the disposal of urban waste. Figure 7 

shows the limited potential for growth of another quarry in 

the Chicago area. Urban sprawl, depicted in this Skylab 

Photo of the Chicago area (fig. 8), has led to encroachment 

and forced abandonment of quarries, giving us pause to consider just where future resources will come from-especially 

resources at a reasonable cost. 

Of the 20 major Chicago area quarries that have operated since 1970, 7 are closed or abandoned, 6 have been 

nearly depleted, 2 have resources that are limited by surrounding suburbs, and 1 has been converted to an underground mine as shown in figure 9. Only four quarries have 

adequate resources and room for expansion (but two of those 

are currently being contested). 

The supply of industrial minerals for possible new uses 

also must be considered. For example, the Clean Air Act 

will require that 12.4 million tons of 2.8 percent sulfur coal, 

now burned annually without scrubbers by Illinois electric 

utilities, by the year 2000 will have to comply with the 1.2 

pounds S02/million Btu standard. If this reduction in S02 

emissions is to be achieved by using Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) technology, about 1 million tons/year of CaC03 

(high purity limestone) would be required in addition to 

present production. How will these needs be met? 

In addition to these needs for industrial minerals, information is required in other areas where economic growth 

may be limited by either the apparent absence of adequate 

supplies or by inadequate information. 

So, what information is needed to fill in the gaps in our 

knowledge of the economic availability of industrial minerals and what information must be supplied to the planners to 
ISSUE AREAS 13 

Figure 5. The Thornton quarry, Chicago area, Illinois, looking north-northwest, showing encroachment of residential areas on the north 

and nmtheast, limitation by a cemetery to the southwest (barely seen), and siting of quarry facilities on poor-quality source materials to the 

south and southeast. Photograph from M.W. Leighton, from files of the Illinois State Geological Survey. 

be incorporated in realistic development plans for the future? 

What is needed and where is it needed? 

I contend we need to start with the location of economically available resources themselves. Where are they 

located? To do this, geologic mapping is required (fig. 10), 

especially mapping at an appropriate scale. Considering the 

need to integrate environmental considerations, permitting 

issues., and geology, detailed maps, compiled at the scale of 

1 inch equals 2,000 feet (the common ?Y2 minute quad.), are 

required. 

In the past, investigations of the distribution and potential use of industrial mineral commodities, including construction aggregate materials, have been carried out as an 

integral part by our Survey's program, as they have by many 

State geological surveys and by the USGS. For carbonate 

aggregate materials this has been accomplished through a 

combination of geological mapping of outcrops and outcrop 

areas, description and close-interval sampling of individual 

quarries and quarry ledges, sampling of outcrops that represent potential quarry sites, and detailed chemical analyses 

and physical testing to determine the potential best use of the 

resources. These studies, for the most part, have been done 

on a county or regional basis, and generally at a scale smaller 

than 1:62,500 (1 inch equals approximately 1 mile). 

While considerable regional assessment of industrial 

mineral resource availability has been conducted, we find 

that the most significant handicap in assessing the availability of industrial mineral resources is the lack of large-scale 

geologic maps suitable for the definition of drill targets and 

the estimation of resources. Geologic, chemical, and physical data presented at a scale of 1 :24,000 (1 inch equals 2,000 

feet) or larger are required to define targets and suggest drill 

sites for exploration projects. Such maps will tell us where 

to look to meet economic targets of given specifications. 

They may also tell us where not to look. For example, by reference to old site maps our Survey was recently able to 

inform a prospective producer that half of· the assumed 

resource that he planned to purchase had been previously 

mined out. 

Unfortunately, neither the U.S. Geological Survey nor 

most State geological surveys have sufficiently large programs committed to the timely acquisition of geologic data 
14 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT -WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

Figure 6. Bridgeport quarry in the Middle Silurian Racine Dolomite, looking east with Sears Tower 

in background. Quarry, 1 mi from Lake Michigan, has been overrun by urban sprawl, and has been 

used for waste disposal. Photograph from M.W. Leighton, from files of the Illinois State Geological 

Survey. 

Figure 7. Dolomite quarry in the Chicago, Ill., area, showing expansion of quarry constrained by 

urban development ("urban sprawl"). Photograph from M.W. Leighton, from files of the Illinois 

State Geological Survey. 
ISSUE AREAS 15 

Figure 8. Sky lab photograph of the Chicago, Ill., area, showing extensive spread of urban development. As a result, a number of quarries 

in this area have had to be abandoned. Some of the lightest colored areas are the sites of present or former quarries. Photograph from files 

of the Illinois State Geological Survey. 

Figure 9. Underground mine for aggregate in the Middle Ordovician Galena Dolomite, converted 

from an open quarry, Chicago area. Photograph from M.W. Leighton, from files of the Illinois State 

Geological Survey. 
,,__......,.,.. ............... _ D 

.::::~ 

-

,_._ 

---

......................... _ ...... . 

0 'I .............. 

.=..:-~ t.w~..,..,...__.,_., 

---"-W

-

Q_ 

-

_,.._ .&,..-.,. ~~-~ ... ~ 

~':.= 

-

~ 

:::. 

i 

~ 

~ ...........LJ ................ ~ ~ 

....... f 

~ }i ____ .......... ~ 

(:'41f ....... ~ ......... ,....,i f 

-c;;;;-

,,..,_ .._r::::.....~ 

..... ~ 

--· ................. ,_, l•4;ri4;::::::::: 

--..... a._. 

ffrtO«J{ ·ro GCCK.O§te .,..,...,.o t$~S5 

//h .. :ra!':t,::::- ~,. ,.....,.. .... .,.....,.,._ 

Figure 10. A geologic block diagram, showing the combination of topographic mapping, surficial geologic mapping, and interpretation of the geology to depict rock relationships in 

the third dimension. (Originally published in U.S. Geological Survey Map I-730, by J.D. Love, J.C. Reed, Jr., R.L. Christiansen, and J.R. Stacey, 1972.) 

1--' 

0\ 

~ e 

C/) 

~ 

~ ~ 

~ :::0 

F: 

C/) 

0 

'"rl 

>-3 

:::r: 

tTl 

~ 

s 

n 

0 

z 

>-3 

! 

0 

:::0 

~ C/) 

:::r: 

0 

"'=' 

"'=' :::0 

0 

n 

tTl 

tTl 

0 

z 

0 

C/) 
ISSUE AREAS 17 

I I 

I I 

EXPLANATION 

~=~71 ~ Not applicable 

Figure 11. Status of mapping for sand and gravel in Illinois, 

showing areas adequately mapped as of 1991, and priority levels for 

future mapping. 

at a scale suitable for resource evaluation and estimation. 

The availability of large-scale geologic maps is a significant 

problem in most States. We have looked at this problem 

closely in Illinois (Illinois State Geological Survey, 1992), 

and a team of State geologists together with the USGS has 

examined the problem on a national basis. The rate at which 

detailed mapping is now being accomplished indicates that 

well over 200 years will be required to complete the task, 

both in Illinois and nationwide. Only 3 percent of the State 

of Illinois has been mapped at the 1:24,000 quadrangle scale. 

With respect to detailed mapping of sands and gravels 

in Illinois, our assessment indicates that sand and gravel 

resource maps have only been compiled at the scale of 1 to 

! I 

I I 

EXPLANATION 

I First level 

Second level 

:::;:~,;:::pped 

Figure 12. Status of mapping for limestone, dolomite, and sandstone in Illinois, showing areas adequately mapped as of 1991 and 

priority levels for future mapping. 

62,500 for selected Illinois counties and at smaller scales ( 1 

inch equals 2 miles) for certain multi-county regions. However, there is no map coverage at 1:24,000. Such detailed 

sand and gravel maps should eventually be available for virtually the entire State (fig. 11), because construction using 

these low-unit-cost materials is required throughout the 

State. Highest level needs are the metropolitan areas with 

high population density and rapid development. 

Limestone, dolomite, and sandstone resources in Illinois have been considered separately from those of sands and 

gravels (fig. 12). In Illinois, limestone and (or) dolomite 

(varieties of essentially carbonate rocks) are commodities 

used as aggregate in Portland Cement; as aggregate in 
18 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT - WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

1

1

1 

EXPLANATION 

• Quarries 

• Underground mines 

Figure 13. Location of limestone and dolomite quarries and 

mines, Illinois; note absence of quarries in the Peoria and Bloomington areas, and in the Springfield-Decatur-Champaign corridor. 

concrete structures and in the construction of concrete and 

bituminous (black-top) roads. Carbonate rocks are a source 

of agricultural lime and also are used in various manufacturing and chemical processes. Sustainable supplies of both 

limestone (mainly restricted to the southern two-thirds of the 

State) and dolomite (predominantly in the northern third) are 

required to maintain a healthy construction industry and provide material to support industrial and agricultural uses. 

Detailed mapping with application to quarriable limestone, dolomite, and sandstone resources (fig. 12) is largely 

restricted to unglaciated, rural areas where mapping has been 

related to other commodities (fluorspar, coal). A few 

1:24,000 maps have been completed in southernmost Illinois. Less effort has been expended where bedrock is covered by glacial drift and around rapidly expanding urban 

Figure 14. Underground mine for aggregate in the Upper Mississippian St. Louis Limestone, St. Louis area, Missouri. Photograph 

from M.W. Leighton, from files of the Illinois State Geological 

Survey. 

areas where demand for crushed stone is particularly high. 

Highlighted in this assessment is the need for detailed 

1:24,000 geologic maps of bedrock surface in the counties 

surrounding rapidly expanding urban areas to help locate 

limestone, dolomite, and sandstone resources. We note also 

that detailed mapping should be extended along the Illinois 

and the Mississippi Rivers and to areas underlain by older 

carbonate rocks also down in southern Illinois. 

In addition, we have flagged areas near developing 

communities which may appear to have some limitation in 

growth potential inasmuch as there are no nearby quarries. 

The lack of quarries in those areas is documented in figure 

13. Note especially the absence of quarries in central Illinois 

near Peoria and Bloomington and in the corridor from 

Springfield, through Decatur to Champaign (fig. 13). The 

potential for underground mining in these areas, similar to 

that initiated in Chicago and already underway near St. 

Louis, requires study. One of the underground mines in the 

St. Louis area is shown in figure 14. The utilization of underground space, in such cases, may offer added economic 

incentive. 

Some of the factors that need to be considered in determining the feasibility of underground mining include: (1) the 

market situation, including market demand and distance to 

market; (2) depth to a minable thickness of limestone and 

dolomite; (3) chemical and physical character of the minable 

stone; (4) bedding characteristics of the minable stone; (5) 

presence or absence of bedding planes that may be chosen as 

the roof and the floor of the mine; (6) local and regional 

ground-water conditions; (7) character of the overburden 

and presence or absence of an impermeable layer superjacent 

to the potential mine; (8) availability of mineral rights; (9) 

land-use and zoning regulations; (10) subsidence potential; 

( 11) potential for subsequent use of the created underground 

space; and (12) environmental considerations. 
ISSUE AREAS 19 

9 

8 

7 stone 

6 

z 

0 

1-

cr: 5 • UJ 

a... 

(f) 

cr: 

<( 4 _J 

_J 

0 

0 •• 

3 

2.8 

Delivered price doubles 

at 6-21 miles from 

2 quarry 

0 ~~~~----~----~----~----~----~ 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 

DISTANCE, IN MILES 

Stone price =$4.00/ton FOB quarry 

Sand and gravel price=$2.80/ton FOB pit 

Figure 15. Relation between cost of aggregate and transportation 

distance by truck to site of use, as of 1989. Diagram modified from 

Bhagwat (1989). 

Transportation costs are, indeed, a major consideration 

in selecting sites for obtaining construction aggregates, 

whether such sites are underground or at the surface. The 

relationship of transportation cost of aggregates to the distance between the delivery point and the source was 

investigated by Subhash Bhagwat, of our Mineral Economics and Strategic Planning Section, from a compilation of 

scattered data (fig. 15). To obtain the delivery price, the FOB 

price at the quarry or pit must be added to the transportation 

cost that is illustrated in figure 15. The data suggest that at 

6-21 miles from the quarry, the price of the delivered aggregates is nearly doubled, and at 50 miles the price is about 

three times the quarry price (Bhagwat, 1989). 

In a recent letter from an industry representative, both 

depth of overburden and transportation costs were highlighted as major considerations. While the structure in northem Douglas and southern Champaign Counties commonly 

referred to as the Tuscola anticline was known to exist as 

early as 1916, it wasn't until about 1972 that Keith Walker 

of Shakespeare Oil noted that a map in a then-recent Illinois 

State Geological Survey (ISGS) bulletin showing overburden thickness in and around Tuscola could be useful in 

locating a quarry. Using that map the company determined 

"the most likely spot for a rock quarry, that is a place where 

there was the least amount of overburden" (Harry Temple, 

personal commun., 1987). Removing overburden at a cost of 

$4-6 a yard was regarded as a very expensive item for them 

in opening a quarry. The map proved to be correct, and a 

quarry was opened. He estimated that "just by being located 

in that particular area means that farmers, the county, and 

State of Illinois get their rock in that area at about a dollar per 

ton less than they were otherwise paying. This would be due 

to trucking alone." Based on tons of production per year, he 

calculated a savings of $250,000 to $500,000 per year for the 

farmers, the county, and State. He went on to note that probably that quarry would be there for 50 years and with an 

average tonnage sold a year of 300,000 tons, a total savings 

would be $15 million over 50 years. He recognized that such 

payout represents a very good return on the effort put out by 

the ISGS in mapping that area. The need for such mapping 

elsewhere still exists, and similar considerations of transportation costs and depth of overburden still exist, driving 

industry's choices on selecting suitable quarry sites. The 

same considerations affect our priorities for detailed geologic mapping. 

The value of geologic maps in locating and outlining 

industrial mineral deposits should, by now, be apparent. 

They help to focus industry and government interest on specific, suitable areas for economic development. 

Other needs in establishing the economic availability of 

industrial minerals are identified in the following table. 

Other needs 

1. Drilling, sampling, testing for quantity and quality. 

2. Estimating mining costs. 

3. Integrating technical and operational data. 

4. Assessing legal and regulatory climates. 

5. Assessing impacts, both legal and environmental. 

6. Streamlining regulatory processes. 

7. Analyzing economics and determining benefits/costs. 

8. Developing needed research and service support. 

In general, drilling and sampling and testing for quality are 

carried out by private industry when markets have been identified. However, State agencies can contribute to this identification and to the maximum utilization of resources by 

mapping, preliminary testing, and cost estimation. The goal 

of such a program should be to prioritize deposits on the 

basis of the estimated mining costs. Estimated mining costs 

can be determined by establishing costs versus minable 

quantity relationships and by simulation modeling of mining 

operations. This should be especially applicable to the 

underground mining of stone. Priority for such efforts, as we 

have noted, should be given to major metropolitan areas and 

the corridors connecting them because aggregate consumption is greater in these areas (Bhagwat, 1989). 
20 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

Economic analyses and data handling can be significantly facilitated by modem computer systems and software. 

The Geographic Information System (GIS) permits the 

comparison of digitized geologic maps and the quantity and 

quality of resources with any demographic information. 

Road networks and populations can be directly compared 

with resource locations. GIS can further be of use in developing transportation cost estimates based on the knowledge 

of the location of the deposits, the locations where the stone 

is used, and the rural and urban highway transportation mileage involved (Curran, Bhagwat, and Hindman, 1988). Also, 

benefit/cost analyses should prove helpful in reaching ultimate decisions on allowing access to these resources (Bhagwat ~nd Berg, 1991). 

Government agencies can use the knowledge so developed in the planning of industrial zones, permitting urban 

growth, and protecting the environment while assuring continued economic growth. Cooperation among government 

agencies (at all levels) and the industry is crucial in ensuring 

that industrial mineral resources are economically available 

for future generations. 

Under cooperative arrangements that streamline procedures, industry can be expected to respond appropriately in 

planning the mining and transportation of industrial minerals. The State, counties, and communities can contribute to 

the effort by declaring their development and environmental 

plans well in advance. The permitting procedures constitute 

major cost factors in resource development and need to be 

addressed and satisfactorily resolved. Advance knowledge 

of government policies, plans, and intentions facilitate 

low-cost, long-range planning and commitment on the part 

of industry. If a cooperative effort can be developed to protect the environment while making the best use of resources, 

the overall economic and environmental benefits to society 

will be realized. 

Finally, service and research needs for a healthy industry also must not be neglected. 

Research goals identified by representatives of the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) at a recent meeting of an Illinois Aggregates Task Force indicated the need 

to pursue a number of research areas, including ( 1) the development of automatic sieve analysis, (2) the curtailment of the 

generation of "fines," (3) the establishment of the minimum 

size of test samples, ( 4) improvement in the precision and 

reproducibility of sodium sulfate soundness tests, (5) bett~r 

quantification or the development of substitute tests for the 

"soft and unsound" portion of deleterious materials in deposits of sand and gravel to be used in Portland Cement concrete, i.e., the hurtful, damaging components such as 

ironstone, shale, and various weathered rocks that are more 

susceptible to wear, cracking, expansion, and decomposition 

than other rock types, ( 6) the determination of a simple but 

quantitative means for dust measurements and for the impact 

of sand angularity on the performance of high-quality mixes, 

(7) the development of a program to predict currently 

unrecognized geologic variability in deposits, (8) the detection and remediation of undesirable effects on concrete of 

water-soluble salts in Illinois bases, sub-bases, and soils, and 

(9) the development of an accurate permeability test as an aid 

to improved drainage of highway bases and slabs. 

The issues related to sustained economic availability of 

industrial minerals are thus many and varied. To sum up, the 

availability of sufficient quantities of industrial mineral 

resources to maintain and expand existing infrastructure is 

not "a given." Information on the economic availability of 

resources is not "on the shelf." Detailed geologic mapping 

in priority areas is required. Their evaluation is also dependent on (1) data on quantity and quality; (2) compilation of 

logistical and demographic factors; (3) integration of technical and demographic/logistical data; (4) analyses of regulatory and legal climates; (5) impact analyses-including 

those of a regulatory, environmental, and research nature; 

and (6) economic studies that consider the legal and regulatory aspects and the overall benefit/cost. Sufficient economic quantities of industrial mineral resources to maintain 

and expand the State's and the Nation's infrastructure will 

require a regulatory environment that permits reasonable 

access to resources. The economic building and rebuilding 

of the State's and the Nation's infrastructure will be feasible 

only if industrial minerals are available at the right place, in 

the right amount, with the right quality, at the right price, 

under the right incentives. 

REFERENCES CITED 

Bhagwat, S.B., 1989, Model of construction aggregates demand 

and supply-A Chicago area case study: Proceedings of the 

23rd Forum on Geology of Industrial Minerals, May 11-15, 

1987, Illinois State Geological Survey IMN 102, p. 29-34. 

Bhagwat, S.B., and Berg, R.C., 1991, Benefits and costs of geologic 

mapping programs in Illinois-The case of Boone and Winnebago Counties and its statewide applicability: Illinois State 

Geological Survey Open File Series 1991-5, 1991, 57 p. 

Curran, L.M., Bhagwat, S.B., and Hindman, C.A., 1988, Disposal 

alternatives for material to be excavated from the proposed site 

of the superconducting super collider in Illinois, Illinois State 

Geological Survey EGN 125, 1988, 17 p. 

Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs, 1989, A 

five-year plan, 1989: State of Illinois, 50 p. 

Illinois State Geological Survey, 1992, Geologic mapping for the 

future of Illinois: Illinois State Geological Survey Special 

Report 1, 49 p. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

Let's move into another area of issues and tum to the 

questions of land-use planning for the availability of industrial minerals. We have with us Mr. Ed Sieben from the Kane 

County Development Board in Geneva, Illinois. 
ISSUE AREAS 21 

LAND-USE PLANNING TO ENSURE 

INDUSTRIAL MINERALS AVAILABILITY 

Edward T. Sieben, Kane County Development Board, 

Geneva, Illinois 

Good morning. I am a Senior Planner with the Kane 

County, Illinois, Development Department. Our Development Department includes not just planning, but also zoning, 

subdivision review, and building inspections. Therefore, I 

would like to talk a little today about our experiences in Kane 

County with land-use planning as it relates to mineral 

resource preservation and then some of the regulations 

related to mineral resource extraction and reclamation. 

First a little background on our county. Kane County is 

part of the Chicago metropolitan area, located about 45 miles 

due west of downtown Chicago. The Fox River is basically 

our eastern border and really our urbanized area, with all of 

our largest cities, along the river. Our population is about 

320,000, with the majority, about 89 percent, located along 

the Fox River along the eastern edge of the county. There is 

great population pressure pushing from the east. The fastest 

growing county in the State is Du Page County on our eastem border. Kane County itself has doubled in population 

since 1950, and we increased by 14 percent during the 

1980's. In comparison the State of Illinois grew less than 0.1 

percent during the 1980's. Two toll ways come from the Chicago region (Northwest Tollway, I-90, and the East-West 

Tollway, I-88). 

A land-use plan of the county from 1976 (fig. 16 [later 

plan, fig. 17, placed alongside for comparison]) shows our 

early efforts to concentrate future growth along the urbanized eastern edge and also around our rural villages. We 

have several small villages throughout the county where we 

are trying to concentrate growth. While we do this, we preserve prime farmland and therefore any mineral resources 

that may lie underneath. 

One of our larger cities, Aurora, has a population of 

100,000 people, so it makes up almost a third of our whole 

county. It's Chicago's largest suburb, although it really is a 

city in itself. It is predicted that, by the year 2010, it will be 

Illinois' second largest city with about 146,000 people. Our 

second largest city, Elgin, in the northern part of the county, 

has a population of just over 70,000 people. And St. Charles, 

in the center ofthe county along the river, actually on the eastem edge, is our third largest city, with about 25,000 people. 

One of our unincorporated rural villages in western 

Kane County is appropriately named Big Rock; it has a population of about 500. We range from a city of 100,000 to a 

couple of hamlets ofless than 50 people; we really have quite 

a variety within the county. 

The Fox River is one of our most valuable resources, 

and we have tried to preserve its quality and use for the public's benefit; figure 18, for example, shows one of our bike 

trails along the edge of the river. We also try to protect 

from development other natural resources such as streams 

and other natural areas. However, one of our main areas of 

concern is the preservation of a large amount of Kane 

County's prime farmland, which is among the best in the 

world. Approximately two-thirds of Kane County is still in 

agricultural production, including 83 percent of the unincorporated areas, over which the Development Department has 

jurisdiction. 

Along with preserving prime farmland, we are also preserving subsurface mineral resources for possible future 

extraction. Development pressures from Chicago, plus the 

relatively cheaper prices for farmland, make it essential to 

try to steer development away from some of these potential 

resources. Among the converted uses of the farmland have 

been golf course developments; in fact, right now, we have 

two 700+ acre developments in the planning stages. One of 

them just got preliminary plat approval and the other one is 

still trying to get concept plan approval. 

Residential subdivisions are expanding into the central 

part of the county where the average price of a new home is 

about $250,000. Office buildings are popping up on the 

western edges of Aurora and Elgin along the two tollways, 

so we face construction expanding into these farm areas. 

There is quite a contrast. We must protect future mineral 

resource areas before they are developed upon. The mineral 

resources of Kane County have historically been a source of 

materials for many of the county's homes. Our stone has 

been used to build our churches and government buildings, 

for example, the current City of Batavia City Hall, which 

was a former windmill factory built in the late 1800's. Batavia has a population of about 15,000. 

For the last three decades, Kane County has usually 

been the second leading producer of sand and gravel among 

counties in Illinois. In 1978, over 6,000,000 tons were 

mined, and we are also a leading producer of dolomite. 

Kane County's current land-use plan was done back in 

1982 (fig. 17). We are in the process of updating it right 

now, but it still reflects our thinking in many areas. The gray 

areas on the map, along the river, are the incorporated areas 

over which we do not have jurisdiction. Orange areas are 

those planned for the expansion of these urban areas. Basically we took the land-use plans that were in existence at the 

time for the different cities and showed where they would 

soon be expanding, with different residential development at 

urban densities. This is consistent with our earlier plan of 

concentrating urban development along the river cities or at 

rural villages where infrastructure such as sewer and water 

lines and other services can be expanded. The yellow areas 

are planned for rural residential uses, with generally 1-2 acre 

lots with wells and septic tanks. For example, we have a relatively heavily wooded area to the west of the city of St. 

Charles where the land is a little bit rolling. In the past 30 

years this area has been undergoing residential development, 

so we are trying to concentrate it within certain areas here. 

These areas shown as residential can hold 100,000-150,000 
22 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT- WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

- VIUJANit60 All . A 

- VIIIAN Oh<JW'tH tO ti'H 

- liiAJOII I'U1rllt: Altt!A 

1'01\ IT l>ltlll lhfl! 

- lAit!IANO ITIItAMI 

-tOlLWAY 

- liiAJQIIItCiAO 

- MIIJ4QAI) 

~ 

-~~dfMii ........ ~ .... ---~ .. ~~"*' ........ '(/'~'il:ft_...._ 

~ttl··~ ... ~~~ .... ..,..;::..·-.._.~v~ ....... e.~-...--·~-W ~-

.. ~ .... --~--..----~~ -·~· ......... ~ 

Figure 16. Generalized land-use plan, 1976, Kane County, Ill. Preparation of this plan was financed in part through a comprehensive 

planning grant from the Department of Housing and Urban Development under a contract with the Illinois Department of Local Government Affairs (Consultants: Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc.). 

Figure 17 (facing page). Comprehensive land-use plan, 1982-2000, Kane County, Ill. ~ 
I 

l 

f !J>Hf! 

! I 

I- .. --

fi "i : 

r-... .. 

~ ...... _. I 

~i ~ i .. "' i ......... : 

!-

1 

i " J 

I· ~ 

Rn:.: hto~ t 

C.()\Jt1! ~O Ett6lt •·-~~ ... ._... ............ t ...... 

- Ufft-*n R«W•"t~l "' -·-·.-.-~.,. , .. ~t 

- Con·utulf'ttal, Ott~Ce. Jltuan:h 

... lf\dyttnAll'Qt\1 \.tldY'1H~t, Wtftlhwt-~ 

Aurttwt\.utt 

Jo.tUl'-fh.Qf\nl. PrMUe OJ>~ Spa-u 

Wttf!t .,.,. ., ,u~~-~--~,f~ 

~ t:~ 'fiR t<»CIOO tf11. 

I -

-

KANE COUNTY 

COMPREHENSIVE '"?"" PLANNING PROGRAM 

K•"" '"""'' 0-wtlopm<hr OoJNIItlfHitot GI1¥V6, /llih6t, 1982 -~ ..... -{-~ 

v ..... I:J•411 of ~~~~~~4~ 

._~-..- ~.._o.l'.,.-._ 

-__.._. -~ .... -............. -.-. .............. ---. i9'~.,..,.~.--~ 

23 
24 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

Figure 18. Bicycle trail at Geneva Dam on the Fox River, Kane County, Ill. Original transparency 

by E.T. Sieben. 

people in excess of the population forecast, in order to give 

some leeway to developers. Kane County's year 2010 forecast is for about 430,000 people, so that's about 110,000 

more than we have now. 

The majority of central and western Kane County is 

planned for agricultural uses, about the western two-thirds 

of the map. With the use of the agricultural zoning category, potential mineral resource areas can be protected from 

development. 

It became increasingly important that as part of our 

planning program we needed not only to document the distribution of mineral resources (as we did in the plan), but also 

to adopt policies that would preserve the resources for future 

exploitation, ensure reclamation, and allow for other future 

use. To briefly state some of the county's policies in our current land-use plan, number one is to discourage development, on or adjacent to minable mineral deposits, which 

might eventually interfere with mineral extraction or 

recharge of shallow aquifers. Two, allow well-controlled 

expansion of existing sand and gravel pits and dolomite 

quarries when consistent with adjacent land uses. Three, 

encourage the opening of new mineral resource areas for 

extraction, considering the county and regional growth forecast and market conditions. Four, require land reclamation 

plans before extraction is permitted and require adequate 

buffer zones between mining operations and potentially 

incompatible land uses. Five, encourage research by county 

or other agencies on improved mining and reclamation techniques, and finally, six, is what we have been doing for the 

last couple of years, cooperating with the Illinois State 

Geological Survey and other State or Federal agencies in 

identifying and more precisely mapping areas of mineral 

deposits. 

Figures 19-22 show four of the maps that Morris 

Leighton and his staff have been doing for us, some of the 

mapping he's been talking about. Among them they show 

the potential for mineral resources in the county (fig. 19) and 

we also have a few other maps such as the bedrock topography of Kane County (fig. 20), distribution and thickness of 

the Tiskilwa Till [Member of the Wedron Formation] (fig. 

21), and a stack unit map for the county (fig. 22). The 

long-term benefit will be the protection of mineral resources 

for future generations and will help long-term economic 

development. 

Briefly, now, touching upon regulation and reclamation, the Kane County experience shows that it must be reasonable. Through the zoning ordinance, mining is allowed 

by the granting of a special use within the F-farming district. 

A mining operation license, good for 5 years, is also 

required. An approved reclamation plan is required by the 

licensing process. Semi-annual, on-site inspections check 

the status of the reclamation plan for the area already mined. 

If reclamation is not up to standards, the license can be 

revoked. A performance guarantee in the form of a letter of 

credit is also required. The county can default if the work is 

not being done, and the county can use these funds to make 

sure the reclamation is done right. 

In conclusion, Kane County is well aware that there are 

reasonable limits to the level and amount of regulation. We 

realize it's an important economic activity to provide reasonably priced construction materials for future development. 

Over-regulation and reclamation may make extraction 
ISSUE AREAS 25 

unprofitable. The lack of regulation is also bad because it 

may lead to State preemption of local control and would 

likely lead to poor land-use planning. There must be a balance then between no regulation and too much regulation, 

which requires cooperation among the State, counties, and 

owners and operators. We all must realize the need to plan 

widely for future extraction of mineral resources. In summation of our strategy, then, are the two "P's"-Plan and Preserve-and the two "R's"-Regulate and Reclaim. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

The next issue we will consider deals with the economics of industrial rocks and minerals in construction, and to 

present some of the facts of that issue is Aldo Barsotti, the 

Chief of the Industrial Minerals Branch of the U.S. Bureau 

of Mines. 

ECONOMIC LIMITATIONS ON INDUSTRIAL 

MINERALS AVAILABILITY 

Aldo Barsotti, Chief, Branch of Industrial Minerals, U.S. 

Bureau of Mines 

In 1986, the U.S. Bureau of Mines was asked by the 

Director of the Minerals Management Service, an agency in 

the Department of the Interior, to do an economic reconnaissance of the mineral resources offshore in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), the area between 12 and 200 miles 

offshore. Little information was available on the resources in 

this area, so we took an engineering parametric analysis 

approach, using the little information already available, and 

divided the study into two parts; one was on heavy minerals 

and the other on aggregates. We then looked at seven cities, 

and examined the current markets for aggregates in those cities. This includes the demand for and the resources of aggregates in each metropolitan area. The cities were Boston, New 

York, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Honolulu, and 

San Juan, Puerto Rico. We found that every city was having 

problems, suffering from a shortage of aggregate resources. 

Transportation was a major factor. We also found that for 

New York and Boston, it would be economically feasible to 

mine aggregates known to exist offshore, using conventional 

dredges and delivering from as far as 100 miles offshore to 

the center of the city. There are other factors besides economics that enter into the picture and that prevent mining 

from happening, but essentially we found that given current 

market conditions and methods, there is a potential for mining resources offshore economically. That led the Bureau to 

look more seriously at methodologies for evaluating 

resources. 

A little over a year ago, the Bureau of Mines began a 

study of infrastructure, material costs specifically, trying to 

measure the cost of aggregates as a percentage of 

infrastructure costs. This chart (fig. 23) basically shows 

what we are trying to do. The first bar on the right represents the general components of infrastructure costs. As we 

heard from Dr. Kane, total infrastructure costs could be 

between $124 and $152 billion. These then would be the 

components of that amount. Could those components be 

quantified? If so, could we then delineate the components 

of material costs, i.e. aggregates, steel, cement, and other 

materials? And if so, could we then further delineate the 

cost of individual components in order to identify their significance compared to the total cost of the infrastructure. 

With that as our objective, we have been trying for about a 

year and a half to come up with individual costs for these 

components. One study completed was on the new airport 

in Denver, a 1.7 billion dollar project. Our study came up 

with an estimate that the cost of aggregate would be somewhere between 16 and 20 percent of the total $1.7 billion 

cost. We also have been trying to decipher and evaluate 

data from other agencies to identify material costs in total 

infrastructure costs. In that regard we have been working 

with the Illinois State Geological Survey. We have had 

some failures, but we also have had some success. 

Now, as this is a Workshop, I suggest that both authors 

who have worked on these projects give their presentations. 

The two professionals are Val Tepordei, who is the Aggregate Commodity Specialist for the U.S. Bureau of Mines, 

and Sub hash Bhagwat, who is the Mineral Economist for the 

Illinois State Geological Survey. 

MATERIALS-A MAJOR COMPONENT 

OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE-I 

Valentin V. Tepordei, Branch of Industrial Minerals, U.S. 

Bureau of Mines 

Public works projects represent a very significant part 

of the construction activities .in most areas of the country. 

The importance of public works for promoting economic 

development and national defense has been recognized since 

the founding of the Nation. The basic facilities, equipment, 

services, and installation needed for the functioning and the 

growth of a country, community, or organization became 

known as the infrastructure. Since the beginning of this century, the Nation's infrastructure has grown enormously. 

Much of the core infrastructure, like bridges, water systems 

and sewers, in use today in America's older cities, was put in 

place during the first half of this century. The post-World 

War II period witnessed an even greater growth. In 1956, the 

U.S. Congress created and 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 
26 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

5 MILES 

5 KILOMETERS 
ISSUE AREAS 27 

Table 1. Production of aggregates in the Central States region. 

1989 1990 

Total Total 

Cr. Stone Sand & Gravel Aggregates Cr. Stone Sand & Gravel Aggregates 

Arkansas 18,791 7,500 

Illinois 60,829 33,000 

Iowa 28,049 12,800 

Kansas 15,850 13,000 

Kentucky 48,178 5,500 

Missouri 51,754 10,000 

Nebraska 3,978 15,200 

Oklahoma 23,598 8,500 

Tennessee 52,917 6,100 

Total Region 303,944 111,600 

as %of U.S. total 25.0% 12.4% 

Total U.S. 1,213,400 897,300 

Source: U.S. Bureau of Mines. 

EXPLANATION 

Potential for development of sand and gravel resources 

~; :' 

1

; V1 (: Low 

Moderate 

High 

Geologic and hydrologic features 

Dolomite within 50 ft of surface 

Shale within 50 ft of surface 

Wetlands and lakes 

Pits and quarries 

Small 

- Large 

Road 

-- Municipal boundary 

Figure 19 (above and facing page). Earth materials of 

Kane County, Ill. Modified from Curry, B.B., 1990, Earth 

materials of Kane County (computer cartography by A.L. 

Erdmann): Illinois State Geological Survey Open File 

1990-2d, scale 1:62,500. 

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 

seventies. During the construction of the Interstate Highway 

System, the value of public construction works as a share of 

the Gross National Product (GNP) was about 3 percent. As 

the construction of the Interstate Highway System 

approached completion, the value of public construction 

work started to decline from 3 percent of the GNP in the fifties and sixties to about 2 percent in the seventies and 1. 7 

percent in the eighties. 

Materials in general, and aggregates in particular, are an 

important part of the infrastructure. A significant amount of 

26,291 17,800 8,600 26,400 

93,829 62,700 33,600 96,300 

40,849 29,000 12,100 41,100 

28,850 20,800 13,800 34,600 

53,678 50,100 6,300 56,400 

61,754 53,100 12,200 65,300 

19,178 4,000 16,800 20,800 

32,098 25,300 7,100 32,400 

59,017 54,600 5,500 60,100 

415,544 317,400 116,000 433,400 

19.7% 26.0% 12.5% 20.2% 

2,110,700 1,222,000 927,100 2,149,100 

crushed stone and construction sand and gravel is being 

produced in the Central States region (table 1). Twenty-six 

percent oftotal U.S. crushed stone, 12.5 percent oftotal U.S. 

construction sand and gravel, and about 20 percent of total 

U.S. aggregates (crushed stone and sand and gravel combined) are produced in the nine States of the region. Major 

producing States in the region are Illinois, Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee. The Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1991, submitted to the U.S. Congress by the 

Bush Administration, proposes a substantial increase in Federal funding for surface transportation programs for fiscal 

years 1992 to 1996. [Editors' Note: In December 1991, The 

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 

was signed into law. The Act includes a number of funding 

increases.] Highway programs would increase 39 percent, 

transit capital investments would increase 25 percent, and 

funding for highway safety activities would rise by 34 percent. Total funding for these activities would amount to 

more than $105 billion over a 5-year period. State and local 

projects, financed mostly by State gasoline taxes or toll fees, 

are not included in these programs. While there is a lot of 

debate at the national as well as the State level about how 

much funding would be needed to fix and improve the 

Nation's infrastructure, or how to finance these programs, 

not too much is being said about how to better use these 

funds. A look at the major components of the infrastructure 

projects would help us understand their importance and the 

impact they will have on the cost of the programs. 

The Bureau is doing studies in this area, and for the purpose of this Workshop we concentrated on the Central States 

region. Since the beginning of the construction of the Interstate Highway System, the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHA) and the State Departments of Transportation have 

been collecting and publishing information on the cost and 
28 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT -WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

5 MILES 

5 KILOMETERS 
ISSUE AREAS 29 

Table 2. Estimated U.S. highway construction expenditures. 

1980 1981 1982 

Gross National Product (Billion) $2,732.0 $3,052.6 $3,166.0 

All Public Highways (Billion) $17.4 $17.0 $15.7 

%of GNP 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 

Federal Aid Highways (Billion) $3.6 $6.2 $6.6 

% of All Highways 20.6% 36.4% 41.8% 

Total Construction Aggregates (Mill. Tons) 1746.5 1562.6 1384 

Total Value F.O.B. Plant (Billion) $5.3 $5.0 $4.6 

Total Crushed Stone (Mill. Tons) 983.5 872.6 790 

Total Value F.O.B. Plant (Billion) $3.3 $3.1 $2.9 

Total Constr. Sand & Gravel (Mill. Tons) 763 690 594 

Total Value F.O.B. Plant (Billion) $2.0 $1.9 $1.7 

Source: Federal Highway Administration & 

U.S. Bureau of Mines. 

~ Figure 20 (facing page). Topographic map of the bedrock 

surface, Kane County, Ill. Contour interval25 ft; datum is mean sea 

level. Screened dashed line, municipal boundary. Modified from 

Vaiden, R.C., and Curry, B.B., 1990, Bedrock topography of Kane 

County (computer cartography by A.L. Erdmann): Illinois State 

Geological Survey Open File 1990-2b, scale 1:62,500. 

usage factors of materials on Federal Aid Highway 

construction projects. The basic information for these statistics is provided by the contractors in reports entitled, "Statement of Materials and Labor Used by Contractors on 

Highway Construction involving Federal Funds." The data 

include specifics on total costs of the projects and of the 

major components (total cost of materials and labor) and 

information on total quantities of materials used on the 

projects. According to the Federal Highway Administration, 

the annual costs ranged between $15.7 billion in 1982 and 

$27 billion in 1988 for construction projects on all Federal 

highways (table 2). This total represents about 0.6 percent of 

the Gross National Product. Of this total, between $3.6 and 

$7.8 billion were spent on Federal Aid Highway projects, 

about 20-28 percent of the total for all public highways. As 

reported to the U.S. Bureau of Mines, total value of the U.S. 

production of aggregates, FOB plant, for all the public roads 

was between $4.6 billion in '82 and $8.7 billion in '88. 

The Federal Highway Administration collects data on 

projects larger than $500,000 until 1988, and, beginning 

with 1989 on projects larger than $1 million (table 3). Information about the distribution of major cost components of 

the Federal Aid Highway construction contracts is also available by State (tables 4-7). The distribution of the cost components by State is, in general, similar to that for total U.S. 

The Federal Highway information data indicate that of the 

three major components-labor, equipment and overhead, 

and materials put in place-the total cost of materials is the 

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 

$3,405.7 $3,772.2 $4,014.9 $4,231.6 $4,515.6 $4,873.7 $5,200.8 

$16.6 $19.2 $22.1 $24.1 $25.3 $27.2 $27.2 

0.5% 0.5% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5% 

$5.4 $5.4 $5.2 $6.4 $6.2 $5.8 $7.8 

32.8% 28.0% 23.4% 26.5% 24.6% 21.5% 28.6% 

1516.7 1729.9 1800.9 1906.2 2096.3 2172.2 2110.7 

$5.2 $6.0 $6.5 $7.0 $8.2 $8.7 $8.5 

861.6 956 1000.8 1023.2 1200.1 1247.8 1213.4 

$3.3 $3.8 $4.1 $4.3 $5.2 $5.6 $5.3 

655.1 773.9 800.1 883 896.2 924.4 897.3 

$1.9 $2.2 $2.4 $2.7 $3.0 $3.1 $3.2 

major component, representing between 44 and 48 percent 

of the total construction costs of Federal Highway Aid construction contracts (table 3). The cost of aggregates put in 

place represents the major component among the materials, 

between 9.6 and 15 percent. The other major components 

are bitumens, steel, and cement. The information collected 

by the Federal Highway Administration is also used to generate highway construction material usage factors for the 

U.S. as well as for each State. These average usage factors 

indicate how much aggregate, cement, bitumen, steel, and 

other materials were used on federally funded projects over 

a 3-year period. The average usage factors are reported as 

quantities of materials per million dollar construction contract costs, and represent put-in-place cost. The latest Federal Highway Administration usage factors for 1988, '89, 

and '90 indicate that at the U.S. level an average of about 

20,000-21 ,000 tons of aggregates were used for each million 

dollars spent on highway projects. At an average unit price 

·of $10 to $15 per ton of delivered aggregate this represents a 

total of about $200,000-$315,000 per million spent, or 

20-31.5 percent of the total cost of the project. 

Some conclusions can be drawn from the analysis presented above. (1) The cost of put-in-place materials used on 

Federal Aid Highway construction projects is a,major component of the total cost of the project. (2) The information 

collected by the Federal Highway Administration is not 

always consistent and depends on the contractor's interpretation and understanding of the reporting form; for example, 

there is an item on the form called "Length of the Project," 

that could provide very valuable information. Unfortunately, the mileage lengths reported under this item do not 

represent the actual length of the project, but are the sum of 

consecutive operations over all individual sections of the 

project, and thus are 3-5 times longer than the actual project. 

(3) Some of the data are collected as total values of the major 
30 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

5 MILES 

5 KILOMETERS 
ISSUE AREAS 31 

Table 3. Cost distribution, Federal Aid Highway construction contracts, all highways. 

1980 1981 

Aggregates 12.7% 12.6% 

Portland Cement 6.2% 6.0% 

Bitumens 6.5% 7.2% 

Steel 8.6% 7.4% 

Other 11.9% 11.1% 

Total Materials Cost (Million) $1,652 $2,734 

as % of total construction cost 45.9% 44.3% 

Total Labor (Million) $767 $1,290 

as % of total construction cost 21.3% 20.9% 

Equip. & Overhead (Million) $1,180 $2,148 

as % of total construction cost 32.8% 34.8% 

Total Construction Cost (Billion) $3,599 $6,171 

Source: Federal Highway Administration. 

EXPLANATION 

Tiskilwa Till Member, Wedron Formation 

(Thickness in feet) 

Not present 

<25 

25-50 

50-100 

100-150 

150-200 

200-275 

~'~· ~ .... ,~ Road 

- ----- Municipal boundary 

1982 

12.9% 

5.2% 

7.7% 

8.0% 

11.4% 

$2,966 

45.2% 

$1,299 

19.8% 

$2,296 

35.0% 

$6,561 

Figure 21 (above and facing page). Distribution and 

thickness of the Tiskilwa Till Member in Kane County, 

Ill. Modified from Curry, B.B., 1990, Distribution and 

thickness of the Tiskilwa Till in Kane County (computer 

cartography by A.L. Erdmann): Illinois State Geological 

Survey Open File 1990~2g, scale 1:62,500. 

components, whereas other parts are collected as quantities 

only, with no unit or total value; that creates a problem when 

you try to analyze the information. (4) As a result of heavy 

development along most major highways and metropolitan 

areas, the shipping distances for aggregate are increasing. It 

should be expected that the costs of various materials will 

increase significantly in the future. Therefore, an increase in 

the total amount of funds allocated for infrastructure projects 

may produce a lower volume of final product than in the past. 

(5) And, finally, the States, in our opinion, should start 

implementing programs that would allow them to manage 

their natural resources more efficiently on a long-term basis 

and keep down the prices of basic materials like aggregate. 

The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act program implemented in California should be an example. 

1983 

11.1% 

5.5% 

8.2% 

7.7% 

12.6% 

$2,450 

45.1% 

$1,103 

20.3% 

$1,880 

34.6% 

$5,433 

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 

11.7% 12.3% 15.0% 11.5% 12.8% 

3.5% 5.1% 5.2% 4.8% 5.2% 

8.5% 10.6% 11.2% 8.7% 9.1% 

7.7% 7.2% 5.3% 5.5% 4.8% 

15.4% 12.0% 9.9% 17.7% 14.5% 

$2,509 $2,439 $2,968 $3,001 $2,713 

46.8% 47.2% 46.6% 48.2% 46.4% 

$1,056 $997 $1,267 $1,264 $1,158 

19.7% 19.3% 19.9% 20.3% 19.8% 

$1,796 $1,731 $2,134 $1,961 $1,976 

33.5% 33.5% 33.5% 31.5% 33.8% 

$5,361 $5,168 $6,369 $6,226 $5,847 

MATERIALS-A MAJOR COMPONENT 

OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE-II 

1989 

9.6% 

5.5% 

7.3% 

5.5% 

16.4% 

$3,449 

44.3% 

$1,635 

21.0% 

$2,701 

34.7% 

$7,785 

Dr. Subhash B. Bhagwat, Mineral Economist, Illinois Geological Survey 

Some of the problems that Val has encountered with 

this information on aggregate that he has collected from various agencies give us reason to look at some specific projects 

and to see if we can come up with a somewhat more precise 

estimate of what amount of material is used and what it is 

worth, both in absolute terms as well as in relation to the total 

cost, and try to put it in relation to the number of miles, if 

possible. We decided to take two different projects, one an 

inner-city project in the city of Urbana and another one, 

Route 51 between Bloomington-Normal and La Salle-Peru, 

which is about 70 miles long. 

Figure 24 shows the city of Urbana project. The total 

length of the street that they are building (the Windsor Road 

in southern Urbana) is about 1.2 miles; the total cost of that 

project was about $3.3 million. I am very grateful to the City 

Engineer, Mr. Balbir Kindra, for data on materials. About 

9,000 cubic yards for aggregate trench fill and sub-base 

material, 11,000 cubic yards of Portland Cement and other 

cement and concrete, 600 cubic yards of bituminous concrete, and 412 tons of lime were used. The material was supplied from a quarry about 30 miles from Urbana. Because the 

contract terms always provide in-place dollar figures for calculation of transportation costs, we used tons/per cubic yard, 

standard conversion factors, and a formula that the Illinois 

Department of Transportation uses. Without going into the 

details of the calculations, let me just summarize that the cost 

per ton, FOB mine or quarry, was about $4 a ton, or $8 a 

cubic yard for stone, and $6.80 per cubic yard for sand and 
32 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT -WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

5 MILES 

5 KILOMETERS 
ISSUE AREAS 33 

Table 4. Cost distribution, Federal Aid Highway construction contracts, Illinois. 

.1980 1981 1982 

Total Materials Cost (Million) $140.8 $204.4 _$174.8 

as % of total construction cost 

Labor (Million) 

as % of total construction cost 

Equip. & Overhead (Million) 

as ·% of total construction cost 

Total Construction Cost (Million) 

Source: Federal Highway Administration. 

EXPLANATION 

Stack units 

44.5% 

$79.4 

25.1% 

$96.2 

30.4% 

$316.4 

(surficial lithostratigraphic units) 

Grayslake Peat (Quaternary) 

Cahokia Alluvium (Quaternary) 

Equality Formation (Quaternary) 

46.7% 

$98.7 

22.6% 

$134.2 

30.7% 

$437.3 

Henry Formation (Pleistocene, in part may be 

same age as Wedron Formation) 

Wedron Formation (Pleistocene) 

Yorkville Till Member 

Malden Till Member, loam diamicton 

Malden Till Member, clay diamicton 

Tiskilwa Till Member 

Geologic features 

Bedrock <20 ft below surface 

Bedrock <50 ft below surface 

Outcrop or borehole 

Pits and quarries 

Small 

- Large 

~~= Road 

--- --- Municipal boundary 

Figure 22 (above and facing page). Stack unit map 

(to 50ft) of Kane County, Ill. Modified from Curry, 

B.B., 1990, Stack unit map (to 50') of Kane County 

(computer cartography by A.L. Erdmann): Illinois 

State Geological Survey Open File 1990-2i, scale 

1:62,500. 

45.0% 

$85.0 

21.9% 

$129.0 

33.2% 

$388.8 

gravel. Transportation costs for 30 miles distance varied 

around $3.90 per ton (or $7.80 per cubic yard) of stone. If we 

add that up together, the total cost of materials delivered at 

the construction site amounted to about $300,000 or 9.2 percent of the total cost of construction, which fits pretty nicely 

into the range that Val presented. 

Figure 25 summarizes the federally aided upgrading 

project of Route 51 which is 70 miles long. The details of the 

1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 

_!!_45.6 _!_~24.4 $120.8 $153.6 $183.4 $174.9 $236.2 

48.7% 46.9% 46.3% 48.0% 45.3% 45.9% 46.2% 

$64.2 $60.4 $56.0 $70.3 $88.0 $82.1 $112.4 

21.5% 22.8% 21.4% 22.0% 21.7% 21.5% 22.0% 

$88.9 $80.6 $84.3 $96.3 $133.3 $124.3 $162.2 

29.8% 30.4% 32.3% 30.1% 32.9% 32.6% 31.8% 

$298.7 $265.4 $261.1 $320.2 $404.7 $381.3 $510.8 

36 contracts were provided to me by Mr. Paul Savio of the 

Illinois Department of Transportation's Region 3 offices. 

They add up to a total cost of $200 million, for the entire 

stretch of 70 miles. The data were presented partially in 

cubic yards and partially in tons; they total about half a million cubic yards of sand, gravel, and crushed-stone-concrete 

type materials, plus another half a million tons of the same 

type of materials, and 45,000 tons of lime. There are anumber of quarries in Livingston, La Salle, and Peoria Counties 

and dozens of pits, mostly to the west of the highway, all 

within 20 to 30 miles of the construction site. So we could 

use the same approximate figure of 30 miles of transportation as an average, and the same averages for FOB mine 

price of materials. Using those numbers, the total material 

and transportation accounted for $11.7 million or just under 

6 percent of the total construction cost. 

These summaries of two specific cases seem to verify 

the conclusions from the aggregated data that Val was able 

to put together. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

We tum now to Tim Haithcoat, who is a Program Director of the Geographic Resource Center of the University of 

Missouri, Columbia, for a discussion of environmental 

issues in the resource availability of the industrial minerals. 

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT AFFECT 

PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION OF 

INDUSTRIAL MINERALS 

Timothy L. Haithcoat, Program Director, Geographic 

Resources Center, University of Missouri-Columbia 

Environmental issues and resource availability. We 

have three panels set up for this afternoon that are covering 
34 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT -WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

Infrastructure 

cost components 

Material 

cost components 

Aggregates 

cost components 

: Energy: 

/ 

_Boyalties and taxes : : : : :cement and bitumen : : : : : 

: : : : : : : : : : 8ggregates : : : : : : : : : : 

••• 0 0 0 0 •••• 0 0 •••••• 0 •••••• 0 •• 0 

Figure 23. Cost of materials as a part of infrastructure costs. 

information essential to resource availability, environmentally responsible production, and the environmental costs of 

ignoring resource data. All these sessions overlap significantly with the topic of environmental issues in resource 

availability, which is the proposed topic for my discussion. 

The environmental issue I am about to address, however, may not fall directly into the realm of resource availability as you perceive it. I hope to broaden your perspective 

of environmental issues. What I want to cover within the 

scope of this talk is what I feel is the basic driving force 

behind how accessible these minerals are going to be to your 

industry in the future. The viewpoint I'll be taking will 

become clear in a moment. 

When you think of accessibility, you think of such variables as resource location, possible extraction processes, 

availability of transportation, etc. You think about the tangibles, the logistics. What I want to do, though, is argue that 

the most important environmental issue facing this industry 

is the public's changing attitude regarding environmental 

issues. The mineral industry, as well as many other industries 

that are involved in altering the environment, is going to be 

trying to understand and deal with these perceptual changes. 

How do people perceive the environment around them? How 

do people perceive your industry or business? 

How have and how will these two perceptions combine 

to influence the industrial mineral industry? What are their 

potential impacts and benefits? To examine these issues we 

must first look at two different processes that are currently 

underway inthe United States. The first one is the current 

state of what we'll call the urban form. The cities and 

metropolises that we see today are a product of past processes of population and economic growth and their associ~ 

ated concentration into these entities called cities. These 

cities have since become established due in a large portion to 

the industrial minerals supplying the growth and construction of these cities. Your industry was set up around the 

periphery to-service those growing needs. The cities grew 

and became organized as core centers or core-oriented urban 

areas. This is where the idea of a central business district 

originated. This growth of the city promoted growth of 
ISSUE AREAS 35 

Table 5. Cost distribution, Federal Aid Highway construction contracts, Kentucky. 

1980 

Total Materials Cost (Million) $36.8 

as % of total construction cost 52.1% 

Labor (Million) $16.2 

as % of total construction cost 22.9% 

Equip. & Overhead (Million) $17.7 

as % of total construction cost 25.0% 

Total Construction Cost (Million} $70.7 

Source: Federal Highway Administration. 

City of Urbana 

Federal Aid Highway 

Windsor Road 

Length=1.184 miles 

Total cost=3.28 million dollars 

Materials consumed: 

1981 1982 

$51.8 $72.8 

59.0% 51.4% 

$13.3 $31.3 

15.1% 22.1% 

$22.7 $37.5 

25.9% 26.5% 

$87.8 $141.6 

Trench backfill, sub-base granular material, 

shoulder aggregate, etc. 

Portland Cement and cement concrete 

Bituminous concrete 

Lime 

9,000 yd3 

11,000 yd3 

600tons 

412 tons 

Source of aggregate materials: 

Fairmont quarry, Vermilion County, 30 miles SE. of Urbana 

Estimated price FOB: 

$ 4.00/ton or$ 6.80/yd3 (S&G), $ 8.00/yd3 (Stone)* 

*Higher prices for concrete not included 

Estimated transportation cost: 

$ 3.90/ton or$ 6.60/yd3 (S&G), $ 7.80/yd3 (Stone) 

for 30 non urban miles 

Material and transportation account for about 

$ 300,000 or 9.2 percent of project cost. 

Acknowledgment: Mr. Balbir S. Kindra, City Engineer, Urbana, IL. 

Figure 24. Materials and transportation data, City of 

Urbana, Champaign County, Ill., project. 

concentric rings of socio-economic development around this 

central core. What you see happening today, however, is 

quite different from anything we have seen in the past. In the 

last two to three decades, people have had more money. 

They have more real income to spend. The transportation 

network and the transportation technologies are such that 

they can move around a lot more. Accompanying these 

1983 

$33.5 

42.1% 

$19.4 

24.4% 

$26.7 

33.5% 

$79.6 

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 

$131.4 $21.7_ $38.9 $46.3 $71.9 $28.7 

49.4% 52.5% 52.2% 45.5% 60.6% 46.9% 

$51.2 $8.9 $14.1 $23.8 $17.3 $17.4 

19.2% 21.5% 18.9% 23.4% 14.6% 28.4% 

$83.6 $10.7 $21.5 $31.6 $29.4 $15.1 

31.4% 25.9% 28.9% 31.1% 24.8% 24.7% 

$266.2 $41.3 $74.5 $101.7 $118.6 

Route 51-Federally Aided Upgrading 

Bloomington/Normal to LaSalle/Peru 

Length=70 miles 

Total cost from 36 counties=about $ 200 million 

Materials consumed: 

Sand, gravel and like materials 

Crushed stone, concrete etc. 

Lime 

50,000 yd3 + 200,000 tons 

450,600 yd3 + 330,000 tons 

45,000 tons 

Source of aggregate materials: 

15 quarries in Livingston, LaSalle, and Peoria Counties 

Dozens of pits mostly west of highway 

All within 20-30 miles from site 

Estimated price FOB: 

$ 4.00/ton or$ 6.80/yd3 (S&G), $ 8.00/yd3 (Stone)* 

*Higher prices for concrete not included 

Estimated transportation cost: 

$ 3.90/ton or$ 6.60/yd3 (S&G), $ 7.80/yd3 (Stone) 

for 30 non urban miles 

$61.2 

Acknowledgment: Mr. Paul Savio, Illinois Dept. Transportation, Region 3. 

Figure 25. Materials and transportation data, Route 

51 upgrade project, McLean, Woodford, and La Salle 

Counties, Ill. 

factors is an increase in subsidized suburban housing. Not 

surprisingly, the people responded. Rural people moved into 

the city, or in towards the city. They started working two 

jobs, the farm job and a city job. You had the upper income 

people, who were in close to the city for convenience, moving out of the city's core and into the periphery. This is the 

current phase of urban sprawl that many communities are 
36 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT -WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

Table 6. Cost distribution, Federal Aid Highway construction contracts, Missouri. 

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 

Total Materials Cost (Million) $58.6 $87.6 $94.8 $87.6 $79.4 $95.4 $105.6 $111.0 $67.1 $80.4 

as% of total 51.4% 46.1% 52.1% 58.7% 48.7% 47.2% 44.7% 44.5% 45.8% 48.0% 

Labor (Million) $28.0 $39.5 $46.6 $32.0 $35.1 $49.7 $56.0 $56.6 $32.5 $36.1 

as% of total 24.6% 20.8% 25.6% 21.4% 21.5% 24.6% 23.7% 22.7% 22.2% 21.6% 

---- ~_quip. & Overhead (Million) --~g?_:~ $63.0 -~~~ ~§ __ __!~~:.~ _.!~~Q -~?4.7 $82.1 $46.9 _.!§Q:~ 

as% of total 24.1% 33.1% 22.3% 19.8% 29.8% 28.2% 31.6% 32.9% 32.0% 30.4% ------

Total Construction Cost (Million) $114.1 $190.1 $181.9 $149.2 $163.1 $202.1 $236.3 $249.7 $146.5 $167.4 

Source: Federal Highway Administration. 

Table 7. Cost distribution, Federal Aid Highway construction contracts, Tennessee. 

1980 1981 1982 

Total Materials Cost (Million) $47.5 $106.3 $78.7 

as % of total construction cost 50.4% 46.1% 51.0% 

Labor (Million) $12.5 $29.6 $21.5 

as % of total construction cost 13.3% 12.8% 13.9% 

§]~. & Overhead (Million) $34.2 $94.6 $54.1 

as % of total construction cost 36.3% 41.0% 35.1% 

Total Construction Cost (Million) $94.2 $230.5 $154.3 

Source: Federal Highway Administration. 

trying to catch up with and manage. Look at St. Charles 

[Missouri] and the problems that the St. Charles Cou)1ty 

Planning Department has trying to keep up with the flow of 

people and service industries out of sprawling St. Louis. So 

. what's the problem? They are moving into and around the 

areas encompassed by your industry. You have to "share" 

their space. These people that are moving into these areas 

now are more affluent, more educated, and much more ecologically oriented than they have ever been in the past. These 

people are coming and buying land and building houses right 

on your doorstep. The problem is you, as an industry, cannot 

just pick up and move a quarry very easily. The latitude to 

site a new economically feasible quarry or expand an existing site is becoming very limited. 

Why is it becoming so difficult? The reason as I see it 

is the change in people's perception of the environment. I 

am going to continue this line of thought based on the 

premise that people as a whole now care about the quality of 

their environment, especially the environment that immediately surrounds them. When they perceive that it has 

degraded and it is affecting them personally they will act on 

it. The immediate question is how long does it take for them 

to reach this point? What is their perception of bad? This 

critical point, and its location, has been constantly changing 

through time. To put this into perspective let me toss out an 

idea first composed by Aldo Leopold, the father of modern 

1983 1984 1985 1966 1987 1988 1989 

$75.6 $71.1 $93.2 $97.7 $79.2 $64.5 $87.0 

60.9% 59.5% 55.9% 62.6% 59.9% 62.9% 50.3% 

$17.2 $14.6 $18.2 $18.8 $17.9 $14.5 $25.6 

13.9% 12.2% 10.9% 12.0% 13.5% 14.1% 14.8% 

$31.3 $33.8 $55.4 $39.6 $35.2 $23.6 $60.4 

25.2% 28.3% 33.2% 25.4% 26.6% 23.0% 34.9% 

$124.1 $119.5 $166.8 $156.1 $132.3 $102.6 $173.0 

wildlife management and conservation. He came up with 

three ethics related to the development of human thought and 

their perceived needs. These ethics were successional in that 

they needed to be fulfilled in order. The first ethic is basically man-to-man ethics. These relationships were defined 

through religion with their impact being a stated morality for 

man to follow. The second ethic was man's relationship to 

society. That was defined by the democracy under which we 

now live. The third and final ethic in the successional series, 

was the development of a land ethic-man's relationship to 

the environment. I think we can all agree that the first two 

stages have arrived. The next one to come is the development of a land ethic. 

Is it possible? Let's examine just a few of the activities 

that are now surrounding us. Look at the environmental 

movement, the number of environmental groups being 

formed, the "activists" and their activities. They are having 

a huge media impact and are greatly transforming how the 

average person views an industry. Look at Earth Day and the 

big media and political push behind this event. Look at all 

the conservation measures being passed at the local, State, 

and Federal level. All of these activities are combining to 

form a general ecological attitude that has not been seen 

before. The final outcome of this development is not something that any one of us can foresee, but it will be there! 
STATUS OF THE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS INDUSTRY 37 

So where am I going with all of this? The solution to 

these types of environmental problems and issues isn't just 

physical compliance. I do not feel you can afford the attitude 

of, "Well, we are meeting these standards-thus we are 

okay." People are now evaluating your industry, as well as 

many other industries, as it pertains to their perceived cultural satisfaction. You, as an industry, will need to make 

yourselves aware of this new generation's concept of need. 

In the past, industry standards were set via research related 

to potential physical illness or toxicity limits to man or other 

organisms. What we see today is a very real potential for 

aspects such as social, psychological, cultural, and esthetics 

to become involved in these standards. This may not occur 

at the national level. As a matter of fact it probably won't, 

but it can very easily be legislated at the county or local level 

wherein your business operates. This potential lies in the 

fact that again people have more money and have come to 

expect certain things. Granted, most citizens do not become 

involved in issues or decisions made by local planners, etc., 

and are not accustomed to thinking about these types of 

things. However, this can change, and it usually does when 

one of two things happens. First, if it is in their "backyard," 

then they become activists overnight. The second, however, 

is more subtle: when people are going through their daily 

activities and things just start to pile-up. They see increases 

in taxes. They see increases in schoolroom class sizes. They 

see slow-downs at truck entrances. All these things then 

combine with the new ecological attitude and they start to 

wonder, "Where's the payoff?" and, "Why should I have to 

put up with these things?" It then takes only one person to 

start the ball rolling when he or she decides that it doesn't 

have to be that way, that they can make a difference or cause 

change. That is when city and local councils start to be 

petitioned and it rolls on from there. 

So where does that leave us? Well, people everywhere 

have similar biological, psychological, and social needs. 

Many of the norms and values that man has developed in 

order to satisfy these needs are cross-cultural. The ecological attitude, this land ethic, requires nothing new in terms of 

moral principles. What it does require is your realizing how 

your business, and this industry, are being viewed by the 

general public, your new neighbors. You need a more 

sophisticated look at how you are impacting, or are perceived as impacting, the surrounding environment. The burden of proof will fall on you to convince this new generation 

of the ecological soundness and economic importance of 

your business and this industry. You just can't go on basic 

economics anymore. I think the talk tonight at the banquet, 

"If only Dick and Jane had gone to the mines," will bring up 

a very important point, and that is education. You must educate the populace about what you do, what controlling factors you have, what regulations must be met, and possibly 

what you're currently doing beyond those regulations. 

These types of activities will make for longevity of your 

business and industry in a time and realm where the impact 

of environmentalists and environmentalism is going to be 

rapidly growing. The challenge before you is in the creation 

and distribution of ecologically oriented material on your 

industry, educating the children of today and their parents as 

to what you do and how it is accomplished, and most importantly, becoming more pro-active with this more environmentally oriented populace. The ball is in your court-it's 

your move. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

That was a very broad and interesting view. At this 

point, we want to tum from the attempt to identify the issues 

and ask what the state of the mineral industry is in the Midcontinent. For this we have asked Mr. Dudley Blancke, Consultant in Mining and Public Affairs in Hot Springs, 

Arkansas, to briefly discuss the industry in this area. 

OVERVIEW OF THE STATUS OF THE 

INDUSTRIAL MINERALS INDUSTRY 

C. Dudley Blancke, Consultant, Hot Springs, Arkansas 

I was asked to give an overview of the industrial mineral industry and its problems. I feel like the TV commentator that goes on after a speech by President Bush to tell us 

what the President really meant. I think the previous speakers made their points very clearly and you all understood 

them. I also believe the industrial minerals industry is holding up very well and as the recession slowly recovers this 

industry will improve. 

I notice that about 80 percent of this group is made up 

of government regulators; I really expected a lot more operators to be present. In the nation of Haiti there is a proverb, 

"The cockroach seldom goes to the party thrown by the 

chickens." In that light I can understand the lack of operators. I was fortunate to have worked in Haiti, and one of the 

problems was that English was not the spoken language. 

When I had to discipline someone, I had to use an interpreter. 

After one session where I had been particularly vocal and 

angry, the interpreter said, "Boss, that was the best you ever 

did, I didn't have to add anything this time!" I wonder now 

what I had been saying the other times. Most of us that are 

not with the government find it difficult interpreting the language used to write regulations and to determine what was 

meant by a phrase, or the intent of it. We are obliged to hire 

interpreters to read them for us. In the Ashanti-Twee language in Ghana, there is a word, "medewase oooo," which 

means, "Thank you for a very special favor"; they have 

another word that, to me, sounds exactly the same but means, 

"Be careful, I'm underneath you." You can see how this 

might cause a problem. One must be very careful in interpretation and that certainly includes government regulations. 
38 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

I disagree with some definitions of the oldest profession. I believe mining is the oldest profession. The first 

time man selectively picked up a rock to use as a tool he was 

mining, the first time he grabbed a handful of clay to make a 

pot, he was mining. Today we're making a lot more tools 

and many more pots but we only employ about 3 percent of 

the work force and we're not a controlling factor in the gross 

national product. But without mining, there is nothing. Can 

you imagine a world without tools? You can't even pick up 

a rock to sharpen a stick. There are only two basic industries, mining and agriculture; lose one and we return to a 

nomadic existence. 

The many problems of our industry can be put in two 

categories, internal and external. We are trained to handle 

the internal problems, troublesome employees, weather conditions, equipment breakdowns, etc. The external problems 

that I will discuss are environmental, real estate development, news media, and political. They are all interrelated, 

and you cannot separate one to work on without taking the 

others into consideration. 

The top 10 environmental groups operating in this 

country have a budget of over $250 million, and most of it 

goes to lobbying. Rest assured, with money like that they're 

not going to go away. One of the environmental groups says 

we must stop all highway repair and construction so that 

industry will slow down, which will slow down pollution. 

Stephany Mills wrote in her book, "Whatever Happened to 

Ecology?", published by the Sierra Club in 1989, "I wonder 

what we will substitute for different things when the trucks 

stop running." It's scary. There was one group that objected 

to a project because it destroyed the mood-producing qualities of the area. Thank goodness they lost that one. 

The local groups, that you normally must deal with, 

receive their information from the national groups and truly 

believe that every word is gospel. These local groups are our 

neighbors and they are sincere in what they're trying to do. 

You cannot ignore them, and you sure don't want to get into 

a knock-down fight with them, because that's what the press 

loves-and I guarantee that you will come out on the short 

end. You have to work with them, talk to them, anticipate 

their thrust and disarm them, get a friend to join the group. 

Don't wait for them to hold a public forum, you call it. Don't 

wait for them to speak, you speak first. You set the stage, you 

pick the topics. If they speak first they will air a laundry list 

of factoids that you will· be obliged to answer. When you 

speak first they must address your information. If you call the 

public forum, it looks better. It shows you have nothing to 

hide and that you're not afraid of what they have to say. Tell 

them everything you possibly can. In that way if there is a little information you would rather not make public at the time, 

it is not noticeable. Come out as soon as you can with news, 

good or bad, it looks better than if the group has to force the 

news out. Eventually people will start believing in you. 

Sometimes you can invite them to visit your operation. 

If you can, invite them to help with a particular problem, talk 

to them on a one-to-one basis, no press. In this way they may 

realize that some of your problems are very difficult to overcome and they may be willing to make concessions. You 

should join some pro-industry environmental groups like the 

National Council for Environmental Balance or Consumer 

Alert. You not only get great information but you feel good 

knowing there are people on your side. 

Real estate development, that's a difficult problem. I 

think land-use planning is the answer, but it's sure not easy 

to sell. Go down to the backwoods of Arkansas and tell that 

old man that he can't do with his land what he wants to. You 

better be ready to move because he sure isn't happy. Politics 

plays a big part in this, both in land-use planning and big 

developments. On a small scale you can usually work things 

out by personal contacts. If a big development tries coming 

in, the sooner you get on it the better. Although the minerals 

industry is large, it is made up of many small units, and these 

small parts don't have the clout of the Union Carbides and 

the Anacondas. That's why you don't hear about the land 

that is being taken away from the industrial minerals mining 

industry by urban sprawl. The press covers the land taken 

for wilderness areas and other large areas, but nothing is_said 

about our loss that forces us further from the market place. 

The news media, now there's a case. On national TV 

you see "20-20" and "Sixty Minutes" telling us how and 

where to mine, how to build power plants, how to clean 

chickens, and how to do everything. The Haitians have 

another saying about people like that: "Even though a goat's 

droppings resemble pills, that does not make the goat a pharmacist." These TV programs are full offactoids that the general public take as facts. The same thing happens in the print 

media. You must lobby the news media just as you do the 

politicians. Get to know the reporters on a first-name basis, 

feed them information, give them advance information, get 

them to the point that when an environmental group gives 

them a story, they call you to get your side. This will put both 

stories together. Usually you read the environmental side on 

the front page and by the time you get back, it's on the back 

page if in at all. We started a group in Arkansas called 

Friends of Industry and Technology. We have no dues, no 

newsletters, and very informal meetings, but it does give us 

a forum in the news media. One important thing to remember 

is, don't get crossways with the media. You may not get 

them as supporters but at least try to keep them neutral. 

Remember a reporter is a lot like a computer, the only information they know is what's fed to them. 

The last and certainly not the least is the political arena. 

Although we do pay a lot of taxes, I believe we're getting 

more government than we're paying for-for sure more than 

we need or want. The politicians are the ones that do most of 

the regulations, through government agencies, because they 

are very sensitive to the media and the public. Unfortunately 
PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 1 39 

the public is being educated by the media and most of the 

media has an obvious bias. A good lobbyist is more a teacher 

and bearer of information than he is an applier of pressure 

tactics, although that is important also. Too many times the 

regulations are overly restrictive, like those on asbestos. 

Regulations are in place now and will be expanded to all 

mines that contain any fibrous mineral, even though there is 

not clinical evidence that they are harmful to man. Unfortunately the regulations will be put into law even if proven that 

most fibrous minerals are not harmful. The EPA says that 

any fiber with a ratio of more than 3 in. length to 1 in. in 

diameter will be included; anything smaller than that must be 

a fiber having only two ends. You will have to sample your 

pit and if any fibrous material is present, you will have to 

take special precautions with your employees and the public. 

It has been shown that dioxin is not as toxic as once believed, 

and the Center for Disease Control has said that the people in 

Times Beach should never have been moved out. The Center 

has said that the risk from dioxin by living in Times Beach is 

the same as drinking one beer in a lifetime. Yet the government is going on with the billion dollar project of returning 

Times Beach to a pristine environment. The EPA has admitted that the banning of DDT was political and not based on 

technical information. Unfortunately facts and technology 

don't enter into government regulations. 

Radiation is another problem about to surface, even 

though there is no evidence that low levels of radiation are 

harmful to the public. The parking lots around Danville, Virginia, put out more radiation than is allowed from a nuclear 

power plant. This is from the radioactivity contained in the 

aggregate. I anticipate required testing and restrictions on all 

mines for radiation. Now add a health physicist to your staff. 

Heavy metals will probably be another contaminant you will 

have to deal with. 

I've come to the conclusion that things aren't dangerous 

until they're regulated. The risk from many of these contaminants are taken from a linear graph. It is known how much 

of a material is harmful to a human, it is assumed that a zero 

amount would be harmless. A line is drawn from the high to 

zero and the risk is measured from this line. This is the same 

as saying that if two hundred aspirin will kill a man, then if 

two hundred men each eat one aspirin one man will die. The 

politicians react to this because the press has trained the public to react to it. You have to help the politicians. Feed them 

facts, feed them positive information on the results of their 

acts, be willing to compromise and give the politicians a way 

to save face, make a trade-off offer to help them on a different project if they help you. If you can support them, do so. 

If you can't, try not to oppose them publicly unless you have 

no choice. 

Our biggest failure has been in the education of the public. I gave a talk to a Wildlife Federation group, and during 

the question period one person mentioned that it was a shame 

that mining ruined so much land. I mentioned we didn't ruin 

it, we just changed it, and we didn't change as much as airports do. This person then said, "Yes, but we need airports!" 

I spoke to a group of sixth graders at an environmental 

camp-my talk was labeled, "Why we need mining." One 

of the teachers said, "I wouldn't want to miss this, I'd like 

somebody to show me why we need mining." This is one of 

the people educating our kids. We can talk to each other all 

day but we must get our message out to the people. The public receives most of their information from television, followed by the newspapers and magazines. It's not just the 

"Sixty Minutes" and the "20-20's"; whenever you see a mine 

on TV it's dark, dirty, and dangerous. In Arkansas we have 

many beautiful lakes and of course a few people drown each 

year. They are reported on page two or three, but when 

someone drowns in an old mine pit the front page reads, 

"Youth drowns in old abandoned mine." It is up to us to 

make the changes. 

The best way to do this is get acquainted with the educators, bring them with their students for a field trip. Go to 

the schools and give programs. Support the school programs 

that lean to our industry. We must convince the public how 

important our industry is to the infrastructure, to our standard 

of living, and to our quality of life. 

PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 1 

Monday afternoon, September 16, 1991 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

This afternoon's panel discussions are intended to elicit 

a lot of discussion from all of the people here in the Workshop. The first panel discussion returns to the subject of 

resource identification and evaluation; the panel leader is 

Lyn Bourne, a geologic consultant from Michigan. 

RESOURCE IDENTIFICATION 

AND EVALUATION 

Panel leader: 

H. Lyn Bourne, Consulting Geologist, Northville, 

Michigan. 

Panel members: 

J. James Eidel, Branch Chief for Mineral Resources and 

Engineering, and Principal Geologist at the Illinois State 

Geological Survey. 

Ira R. Satterfield, Director of the Geological Survey 

Program for Missouri, Division of Geology and Land Survey, Department of Natural Resources, Rolla, Missouri. 

William M. Sheftick, Chief Geologist for Aggregates, 

Illinois Department of Transportation, Springfield, Illinois. 

Zareh Mozian, Assistant Branch Chief in the Branch of 

Industrial Minerals, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Washington, D.C. 
40 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT -WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

PANEL PRESENTATIONS 

H. Lyn Bourne: 

My name is Lyn Bourne, that's short for Lynwood. I 

specialize in industrial minerals and I've worked quite extensively with construction raw materials. 

Development of new industrial mineral deposits and the 

continuation of current mining operations require many 

kinds of information. The information may be available 

from local, State, or Federal agencies. The following list 

gives some of the kinds of data that are needed by those who 

participate in the exploration for and the production of industrial minerals. The list is not prioritized because to do so 

implies that some information is less important. Depending 

on which hat you wear and where you sit, some items may 

have less importance. 

Information Essential to Resource Availability 

• Topographic maps. These are invaluable as they 

show most of the surface features, both natural and manmade. The 7V:z-minute quadrangles offer more detail than the 

15-minute variety and are preferred. Most States have pretty 

fair topographic map coverage and these maps are pretty 

basic for any kind of resource evaluation. [Editors' Note: In 

1992 the U.S. Geological Survey completed coverage of the 

conterminous United States with the 7V:z-minute scale topographic maps.] 

• Geologic maps. These often illustrate bedrock formations and (or) surface formations plus structural geologic 

features. Sometimes they are available at the same scale as 

the 7Y2-minute quadrangle maps, but more often only as 

State geologic maps. In June of 1991 Dr. Mankin addressed 

the national need for geologic mapping in an AIPG article 

and pointed mit that the United States is one of the least well 

mapped countries of the industrialized nations, ranging from 

Kentucky with 100 percent coverage of geologic mapping at 

a ?Y2-minute scale, to virtually zero for some other States. 

These are pretty critical kinds of information for planning 

resource availability. In the summer issue of Outlook [1991], 

Eva Kisvarsanyi provided a synopsis of an SEG (Society of 

Economic Geologists) questionnaire that dealt with the 

national status and problems of geologic mapping; it paints a 

pretty bleak picture for geologic mapping, from the standpoints of both funding and staffing. There just aren't very 

many qualified mappers, nor are the schools turning out the 

kinds of students who are capable of doing this. 

• List of operations. Most State geological surveys 

publish, annually, a list of current mining operations. The 

information is usually organized by commodity and county. 

The publication should give the name of the producer, their 

address, the location of the operation, the geologic formation(s) quarried or mined, and a general description of the 

products from that location. 

• List of geologic theses and dissertations. A few State 

geological surveys publish a list of theses and dissertations 

that deal with geologic questions and research that have been 

carried out within the State. Such lists provide the author's 

name, year of the work, sponsoring university, and title of 

the work. Sometimes these are arranged alphabetically, 

chronologically, or topically. Often there are schools outside 

of the State that have students working on research projects 

within the State. It's important that the State Survey put 

together this kind of a reference list so that all the work and 

research that have been done within the State can be tabulated. Such a list serves to give recognition to the authors 

and often provides reference to information that is otherwise 

unpublished. 

• Transportation maps. Transportation is critical to 

industrial minerals because transportation costs often exceed 

(even doubling or tripling) the FOB cost of the material at the 

mine or quarry. Some States and counties publish base maps 

which show the rail and highway networks. Such maps are 

key pieces of information for evaluating potential sources 

and resources. 

• Physical and chemical data. Potential deposits of 

industrial minerals are evaluated on the basis of their physical or chemical properties, some on both. Often the State 

geological survey and (or) the State highway department 

routinely keep records on the physical properties and the 

quality of the various aggregate materials that are available 

within the State, for example the high-friction aggregate 

material where asphalt paving is common, or the durability 

characteristics of materials as they behave either in asphaltic 

pavement or in Portland Cement concrete. These physical 

properties are very important for assessing and exploring for 

new deposits. Chemical data usually come from the State 

geological survey and are an important exploration tool. 

There's no point in looking at a deposit that's recognized as 

having an inferior quality. We have enough problems with 

our highways and local arterial roadways, without searching 

for, or not having access to, the information on which geologic materials offer the best characteristics. 

• Specifications. Most of the published specification 

data relate to physical properties needed to satisfy the construction raw materials needs of the State or county. Chemical specifications vary from user to user, and published data 

usually give only general information. There may be specification changes for raw materials either because something 

has been depleted and is no longer available or new research 

has shown that there are better characteristics to look for; this 

has been especially true in high-friction aggregates or 

skid-resistant materials for wearing courses and asphalt 

pavement. 

• Plat maps. These are the maps that show property 

ownership and size of parcel, usually on a township-by-township basis. They give an overview of land status within the county. Most plat books devote an 8Y2x 11 in. 

page for the ownership within each township. If you are 
PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 1 41 

trying to identify potential deposits within a geologic target 

area, it is very convenient to know the distribution of parcel 

sizes. [Editors' Note: Township plats generally are kept by 

the county Registrar of Deeds.] 

• Land-use and zoning maps. If such maps are available, they are at the local or county level. In today's competition for land use, it is important for a prospective mineral 

producer to learn the current and proposed land use as it 

relates to property underlain by a potential new source. The 

maps which illustrated Kane County, Illinois, are outstanding. There are so many, many counties that may not have the 

resources to publish something that elaborate, but almost all 

counties or townships will have some kind of a zoning plan 

that will have an impact and a bearing on the availability of 

the geologic resources within that political sector. 

• Permit requirements. Local, State, and sometimes 

Federal agencies have the authority to issue permits that 

affect a mining operation. Most States have information 

available that describes the requirements needed to obtain a 

mining permit, or that lists the statutes that may affect an 

operation. It is also important to find out if there are local 

regulations which must be met. It is not always easy to identify the local, State, and Federal permits that are necessary 

either to sustain an ongoing operation or certainly to open a 

new operation. I think it would be very worthwhile if there 

was some kind of clearinghouse within each State where you 

would be able to have access to the kinds of requirements 

that you would have to satisfy. 

• Data base. Two of the first questions to answer are 

what information is available and where it is to be found. 

Some State geological surveys have begun to organize much 

of the information listed here on a computerized data base. 

Such a data base enhances the exploration for new deposits 

by hastening the search for information and offering a more 

comprehensive initial search. 

• Commodity reports. Most of the things I've talked 

about so far are things that are available at State or local 

level. Commodity reports are annual Federal reports that 

give a bird's eye view of the supply and demand factors for 

the various industrial mineral commodities. These reports 

relate State and local trends to national patterns and are 

invaluable for that reason. 

One of the things that I thought of since I printed the 

outline is demographic data. This might be something that 

could be handled in the data base. Knowing where the population shifts are going allows someone to anticipate where 

the aggregate materials are going to be needed, and where 

the greatest degree of competition for land use is going to 

take place. Knowing where to find information on changes 

in demographics is pretty important, whether the data are 

hard counts like the 1980 census, or whether they are an estimate that was done at the Federal level or the State level. 

Some of the research that may go on at a State highway level 

certainly was available in the Federal or the State geological 

bureaus as it relates to any of the industrial minerals 

commodities, but we are focusing mainly on construction 

raw materials here. It's important to know what the latest 

information is on these things. 

These are some of the kinds of information that are 

required to sustain resource availability, but there are two 

other conditions necessary for future success-media awareness and public acceptance. Many industrial minerals, especially construction raw materials, come from surface mining 

operations (pits and quarries) located near urban centers. The 

public takes for granted the supply of industrial minerals 

necessary on a day-to-day basis to sustain their lifestyle. 

However, they oppose (often vigorously) any new operations. We need to make the media more aware of the issues 

and bring them to the attention of the public. There are a 

number of examples of informed people who could offer 

insight for the media. At the Workshop held in California in 

19.89 (USGS Bulletin 1958), Hal McVey presented a scenario which illustrated how people in industrialized societies 

depend on industrial minerals. He talked about how each of 

us is in contact with industrial minerals on a daily basis, 

almost minute-by-minute and hour-by-hour. He cited products and processes which require industrial minerals, such as 

glass, paper, ceramics, carpet, toothpaste, talcum, water filtration, asphalt, concrete, recreation products, salt, medicines, etc. Dr. Colin Bristow, who used to be with English 

China Clays and has recently moved on to teaching in Camborne School of Mines, wrote an interesting article in Industrial Minerals in February 1987, entitled, "Society's 

changing requirements for primary raw materials," in which 

he discusses the role of industrial minerals in the economy 

and the need to identify market trends. He discusses the same 

kinds of concepts that Hal McVey refers to. These are the 

kinds of people, along with most of us here, who can contact 

and talk to the media. The Society for Mining, Metallurgy, 

and Exploration, SME, recently formed a new corporation, 

the Foundation for Public Information and Education. Their 

goal is to have the membership become informed to disseminate information about the mining industry through the 

membership, to take an active role in educating the public 

(children and adults), provide the public and the m~dia with 

factual data about the value of not just industrial minerals but 

of the mining industry in general. 

J. James Eidel: 

I'll attempt to "fine-tune" the outline that Lyn provided. 

Historical information: Don Mikulic at the Illinois Survey 

has put together a list with locations of some 250 quarries in 

the Chicago suburbs that is proving useful. Brud Leighton 

referred to a company that came to the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS) that was involved in a purchase of an 

industrial materials property in the Chicago area. The historical data available provided the knowledge that a large portion of the property had already been mined. It is important 

to know where abandoned and filled quarries are, both for 
42 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT -WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

purposes of determining what has been used to fill them and 

to establish site characteristics for construction and engineering purposes, if facilities are to be constructed over old 

quarries. Sample libraries: A number of the State surveys 

also have major geological samples libraries, in addition to 

the physical and chemical data that are cataloged and 

described in print. These are physical rock sample libraries. 

The Illinois Survey has tens of thousands of oil and gas wells 

that are represented by almost 500 million feet of cuttings 

and close to a million feet of core from past mining operations. There is a good deal of rock in the box, so to speak, that 

can be referred to. A great deal of information can be derived 

in various areas by studying cores and cuttings. Log libraries: Paper records for past wells in States vary, but there are 

not only geophysical logs for a large number of holes, but 

also heading data and descriptive data for water wells, as 

well as oil and mineral tests. At the Illinois Survey there are 

some 313,000 well records, including a good deal of the 

water-well information that may be required for environmental assessment purposes. Regulatory data: When Tim 

Hayes introduced the Workshop and mentioned the USGS 

bulletin that would result from this Workshop, he indicated 

that there would be an appendix from each State describing 

the regulatory information that would be available from that 

State. I would like to add to that a suggestion that there also 

be a flow diagram for each State that illustrates the permitting process, the permits that are required, the agencies that 

are involved, maybe even the time that might be required to 

obtain those permits. [Editors' Note: Such information is 

included in the Appendices of this volume.] The list of statutes that Lyn referred to could include a list of all statutes 

that affect industrial mineral mining. The list could include 

reclamation laws and tax laws. 

The items that Lyn just went through can be placed in 

two categories: the first includes topography, geology, 

demographics, transportation routes, location of quarries, 

physical and chemical parameters, ownership use and land 

planning; all can be part of a data base handled by Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Each one of those layers 

of data can be envisioned as a transparent map. Putting one 

on top of each other, you can envision building up a map 

layer by layer. The information that is required to assess a 

property in any given area can be assembled. This is what the 

Geographic Information System does by computer. It 

enables you to compare large amounts of data in a way that 

otherwise would be physically difficult or impossible. That 

is the route we're going at ISGS. Others are doing the same, 

providing that data first on-line in-house and then on-line to 

operators in the field. 

The second category of information cannot be provided 

as a part of a GIS. These data include bibliographies and 

similar information in text form. 

Finally, I would like to point out that the idea of educating the public is appealing and necessary. Education is not 

just the responsibility of the mining companies. Mineral 

education is also the responsibility of the government agencies. The Shawnee National Forest, in southern Illinois, for 

example, has pamphlets on timber, recreation uses, and 

ATV's. There are descriptions of the hunting and fishing, 

and a number of other attributes of the forest, but there is no 

information on the mineral resources of the forest. Federal 

and State agencies also have a responsibility to get out mineral resource information that the public requires. 

Ira R. Satterfield: 

I don't know that I can add to what Lyn and Jim have 

said. I think that both the Missouri Survey and the Illinois 

Survey basically are doing some of the same things that Jim 

described. It seems to me that the common thread, really, is 

education, and that thread really hasn't been woven very 

well. As a matter of fact, education about the mining industry has been very bad, and the public perception of mining is, 

in fact, worse. The industry is only going to be able to continue operating if the public will allow it to operate. If the 

public doesn't understand what you're doing and why you're 

doing it, they are not going to allow industry to operate. 

What it comes down to is that the job is really ours to do, and 

the problem is that we just talk with each other, we don't 

educate other people. That reminds me of the Stanbull family back in St. James where I'm from. Phil and Pat Stanbull 

had three girls, all one year apart. These girls were very 

active in high school athletics, especially in basketball. Then 

along came Tommy, about 13 or 14 years later. All Tommy 

ever heard at breakfast, lunch and dinner was basketball 

girls, basketball girls. At each meal the main discussion centered around basketball and his sisters and their role in that 

sport. For the first few years of Tommy's life he associated 

basketball only with girls. I asked Tommy one day at a basketball game, "Tommy, are you going to be a basketball 

player when you grow up?" He just stood up right there on 

the bench and put his hands on his hips and said, "No, that's 

a girl's game." Now that's the problem. Just as Tommy's 

perception was that basketball is for girls only, the public 

thinks mining is bad. Just as I had to tell Tommy that basketball is for girls and boys, someone has to inform the general public that mining is good and necessary in today' s 

world. We have to educate the people. And it comes down 

to, as a poet once said, "If you want to look a year ahead, you 

plant a tree; if you want to look 10 years ahead, you plant a 

seed; and if you want to look 25 or 30 years ahead, you educate the people." That's why I think for us, for information 

to be central for resource availability, we're going to have to 

educate the people. And it is everybody's job, that we do 

what we have to do. 

William M. Sheftick: 

I'll talk from a slightly different perspective, at least in 

what type of information is needed. Being part of a State 
PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 1 43 

Department of Transportation and a large user of aggregates 

(in fact, Illinois used approximately 25 million tons of aggregates in 1990) we're very concerned about access to economical, high-quality aggregate. The quality aspect comes into 

play in many cases just as much as where the rock or sand 

and gravel is located. The problem is that many operators of 

our existing sand and gravel pits and stone quarries have 

always taken the easy way out. When they started mining 

they mined some of their better material, their higher quality 

material first. What they currently have left is some of the 

lower quality material. Therefore, they are going to have to 

go out and look for high-quality type material. These are the 

needs to be satisfied in the way of geologic information. 

From my perspective of heading up a quality-testing 

laboratory, there are several things we would like to see in 

the way of available information. These would be: (1) type 

of material, (2) other geologic information, and (3) characteristics of aggregates. 

1. Type of material: This was alluded to in Lyn's talk 

about high-friction material. A high priority of transportation departments is to provide the best road surface and the 

highest friction for the traveling public. We therefore need 

information on the aggregate types we use. Crushed stone. 

In Illinois, in this case, we have dolomite and limestone, and 

the dolomite is a better high-friction aggregate than limestone. We are also interested in sandstone. We have one 

operating source of competent sandstone in Illinois, and it is 

one of the highest friction aggregates that we have. Sand and 

gravel. What kind of compositions are they? Other rock 

types. Illinois is not well blessed with igneous or metamorphic rocks that are used for aggregates. We're a carbonate-based aggregate industry along with some sand and 

gravel of various compositions. 

2. Other geologic information: We need to know the 

amount of material available in general areas. For example, 

in a sand and gravel area, is the material water-deposited 

along streams, and thus of limited extent, or in a lake or pond 

of greater extent? How much is above or below water [the 

water table], because this affects quality. The depth of material available obviously comes into play in the economics of 

developing a deposit. As far as crushed stone goes, what 

thickness is available? What's the formation to be used, 

because a lot of our data is based on age and formation, Silurian dolomites for example. 

3. Characteristics of aggregates: It is also important to 

look at the characteristics, the quality of materials. For 

example, for sand and gravel, how heterogeneous is it? Is it 

a chert gravel as opposed to a very heterogeneous glaciated 

gravel which contains igneous and metamorphic rocks. Is it 

glaciated material such as the big boulder gravels in the Chicago area? How much deleterious material is present? As 

far as transportation and providing high-quality material for 

pavements are concerned, we worry about what we consider 

to be bad actors (deleterious particles) when making or using 

that material in high-type pavements. What age of glaciation 

was it, because weathering conditions of the material 

directly affect quality. For crushed stone, we again look at 

deleterious materials and here you can get fairly specific. 

What specific gravity is the chert? That's important, because 

low-gravity cherts cause problems in concrete. Overall, is 

the crushed stone argillaceous? How much clay is present in 

the crystalline system? Are we going to have problems with 

clay overburden on top of the rock, that tends to fall in and 

cause problems in that manner? Clay pockets in the rock, 

from weathering, cause problems. Shales, if present, are 

obviously deleterious materials. We even get down to looking at grain size or crystalline strength, in the case of some 

of our large-grained limestones which do not hold together 

very well. These are the areas of information that we would 

like to see developed even more than they are. 

Zareh Mozian: 

The Branch of Industrial Minerals is part of the Division of Mineral Commodities in the Bureau of Mines. I'm 

not sure how many of you are aware of our function, but the 

Division is in the information gathering and dissemination 

business. The Branch of Industrial Minerals presently publishes information on approximately 75 minerals, most of 

which are industrial minerals. One of our bread-and-butter 

publications is the annual report, formally called the Mineral 

Yearbook. Once a year, in January, we publish the Mineral 

Commodity Summaries. These cover approximately 90 

minerals, the majority of which are industrial minerals; the 

summaries are two pages each covering the most essential 

kinds of information. We also have another publication, 

"Mineral Industry Surveys"; some are published on a 

monthly basis, some quarterly, a few are semi-annual, and 

quite a few are annual. We are beginning to publish special 

reports that get into analysis of issues involving problems 

with minerals. I think we did something on asbestos a while 

back. In the very near future, we're going to have two publications, one on crystalline silica and one covering the 

issues relating to the proposed regulations of some of the deleterious components of some minerals. 

H. Lyn Bourne: 

Thank you, Zareh. Jim Eidel had a couple of comments 

that he wanted to make and then we are going to open this to 

the floor. 

J. James Eidel: 

A number of the types of data/information that Bill 

Sheftick just referred to, like glaciation, the depth of the 

rocks, their age, the deleterious contents, descriptions of the 

rock, whether there is clay in it, whether there is shale, are 

addressed and recorded by geologic mapping. Lyn referred 

in his introduction to Eva Kisvarsanyi' s questionnaire to the 
44 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

Society of Economic Geologists on what maps are needed, 

and Dr. Leighton talked about the necessity for geologic 

mapping. Charlie Mankin is one of the fathers of the 

National Geologic Mapping Act. It might be appropriate to 

ask him right now to tell us the status of that legislation, 

because the legislation is a way to acquire much of the information referred to by Mr. Sheftick. 

DISCUSSION 

Dr. Charles J. Mankin, Director, Oklahoma Geological Survey, Norman, Oklahoma: 

The issue addressed was one that the Association of 

American State Geologists (AASG) identified some 4 years 

ago as its number one priority, namely, the improvement of 

high-quality detailed geologic mapping for the Nation. As 

has been noted, the United States is indeed the most poorly 

geologically mapped nation in the industrialized world with 

about 18 percent of the Nation mapped at a scale of 1:24,000. 

The Association of American State Geologists formed a 

committee that worked together with a comparable committee from the Geologic Division of the U.S. Geological Survey. Over a 2-year period we developed an implementation 

plan for the establishment of a national geologic mapping 

program. That implementation plan resulted in the introduction of authorizing legislation. A bill has been introduced 

into the Senate by Senator Bennett Johnston with a number 

of co-sponsors as Senate Bill1179. That bill was introduced 

on May 23rd of this year (1991). The House of Representatives, Bill HR 2763, was introduced by Congressman Rahall 

with a number of co-sponsors on June 25. 

The bill essentially authorizes a 4-year program of 

national geologic mapping. The program contains four basic 

elements. It was recognized that there is an important ingredient in this activity for the U.S. Geological Survey. If you 

look in their Organic Act, the USGS is required to study the 

geology and the resources of the Nation and to report the 

results of those investigations. We believe that the most 

appropriate way to study geology is to map it. There is a 

Federal mapping component in the authorization bill which 

is to establish a 12 million dollar initial level in fiscal 1992. 

There is a support mapping component that is to build the 

necessary related data bases and to improve our capability of 

converting field information to printed format either in digitized or other forms for public use. The third component is 

the State geologic mapping component with an initial authorization of $15 million. That mapping component requires 

matching funds on a 50-50 basis in the States. Those mapping efforts, in particular those of the States, were to establish a 1 :24,000 scale for mapping with eventual publication 

at a 1:100,000 scale. A final component, one that was noted 

earlier, is a geologic-mapping education component. As 

many of you know, colleges and universities today are 

increasingly turning out geotechnicians who run fancy 

equipment and machines in laboratories, and increasingly 

are forgetting that geology begins in the field. So this component initially authorizes $500,000 for grants to colleges 

and universities to assist in increasing the training in geologic mapping. 

I might just comment briefly to say that the State geological surveys have been working very, very hard, along 

with a number of other organizations, such as the Society of 

Economic Geology, in supporting this legislation. Hearings 

have been held in both the Senate and House. I think they 

went over well. We are increasing the number of co-sponsors. We expect to have 25 to 35 members of the Senate and 

perhaps 50 or more members of the House as co-sponsors of 

their respective legislation. The bills will be marked up in 

the Senate within the next 2 weeks. We anticipate that the 

markups will go through; we were very pleased to find that a 

number of key members, such as Malcolm Wallop, have 

agreed to co-sponsor. He is a key person in the Senate 

Energy Committee. On the other side, the authorization bill 

in the House will be marked up the first week in October. 

We anticipate that these bills will be voted on by the respective houses, and we would anticipate this legislation being 

enacted into law and signed by the President sometime later 

this fall. [Editors' Note: The National Geologic Mapping 

Act of 1992 was finally passed by the Congress and signed 

into law by the President on May 18, 1992.] This program, 

we think, is critical, it is the number one issue that the Association believes is necessary to meet a variety of our other 

applied needs, the kinds of things that we have to do in dealing with the public on a daily basis. 

Anthony M. Bauer, Landscape Architectural Program, 

Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan: 

My comments are based upon more than 25 years of 

working with mining industries in trying to obtain permits 

for operations and in working with communities in general 

planning for mining operations. I have several issues to 

raise. First, about resources inventory. It seems to me that 

we need to obtain information about these resources from 

three sources. First, the geologic information on the State 

level; for example, I see the State providing data that indicates high probabilities of sand and gravel deposits. Second, 

more specific information would be forthcoming from the 

local government, based upon existing mine sites, well 

records, and road cuts. The third level is the industry's own 

efforts. They, of course, provide site-specific information. 

The key point that is missing in most situations is the local 

level of data. If the local level would be involved in the 

inventory process, then it would be likely that more effective 

planning of mineral resource usage would occur. Today few 

communities consider this step in the planning process. 

The second point I wanuo make relates to the comment 

on the permitting. It has been my experience the permitting 
PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 1 45 

at the State level is the easiest part of the process. They have 

overview, they have oversight, they have general understanding of the issue. It's when you get down to the local 

level where there is a lack of understanding about the role the 

aggregate industry plays in society. A good deal of that 

problem lies in the planning department and the planning 

people themselves, because most planning people do not 

have a physical science background, nor a basic understanding of the nature of the geology or industry. I agree with the 

comments regarding the need to educate the public, but I 

suggest one of the key groups of people that we need to educate are the planning officials and planning people in the 

local communities. 

H. Lyn Bourne: 

I would add the comment that often at the county and 

the State level, you can present rational or factual information and it's debated in terms of accuracy or whatever. But 

often at the local level, the issue becomes emotional and not 

rational; I think that if we are able to educate the public, we 

may be able to tum that reaction around and deal with something that's based more on factual needs and get away from 

some of the emotional issues. 

J. James Eidel: 

I would like to comment on the scale that you referred 

to and the three levels. In Brud Leighton's talk this morning 

he had a bullseye type diagram with three circles. The outer 

circle was the USGS-State program called CUSMAP which 

is mapping geology and resources at a scale of 1:250,000, an 

inch equals 4 miles. CUSMAP is involved in mapping 

industrial minerals. The second scale, the inner circle, was a 

scale of mapping at 1:24,000 or 1 inch equals 2,000 feet, 

which is the scale the National Mapping Act addresses. This 

leaves the bullseye as the local scale providing the detailed 

geology that a mining company requires. The bullseye of the 

map was the geology that a mining company has to consider, 

including close-spaced drilling to find the resource itself. I 

think between that diagram, Tony, and your comment, we 

ought to be able to address and define the level to which you 

refer. 

Dr. Morris W. Leighton: 

This is on a slightly different subject but related to 

information essential to resource availability. Perhaps we 

also ought to list limiting factors or have maps on limiting 

factors, exclusionary areas, for example. Wetlands haven't 

been mentioned to any great extent, yet. Of course, as we get 

into the environmental issues, no doubt some of these will be 

coming out. But perhaps in the question on mineral availability, we should be addressing and listing some of these 

factors as well. 

Edwin W. Tooker, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, 

California: 

I want to add some information about available commodity specialists in both the USGS and USBM. They are 

listed in the appendix of the report on the California Industrial Minerals Workshop in USGS Bulletin 1958 [Tooker 

and Beeby, 1990]. One other thing considered in the California Workshop bulletin has to do with education. This was 

a program that has been very successfully mounted by the 

Nevada Division of Minerals, through which they are educating public school elementary and secondary level teachers. They have a whole series of programs of workshops, 

field trips, etc., and they also provide for continuing education at the University of Nevada. Their idea is that if you 

teach a teacher, you reach a lot of students. They have an 

interesting description of that program in the bulletin. 

H. Lyn Bourne: 

The foundation I referred to as part of SME is selling 

and distributing videotape films that deal with the mining 

industry and is making them available to schools and teachers. And the foundation is active in trying to work with 

teacher organizations, so it's kind of a grassroots thing now, 

but we're hoping for a groundswelL 

Edwin W. Tooker: 

The mining industry in Nevada is sponsoring this, paying for this education program, and they provide scholarships to teachers to go to the universities for courses. It is a 

really important program of public education. 

William V. Bush, Assistant State Geologist, Arkansas Geological Commission, Little Rock, Arkansas: 

Two items that are essential for mineral resource availability are topographic maps and geologic maps. The government agencies that push for these programs are the State 

geological surveys and the U.S. Geological Survey. We 

need the support of the users in obtaining funds for these two 

programs. 

The 7Y2-minute topographic map coverage in the 

United States is complete, but the job is not done. [Editors' 

Note: Despite completion of basic coverage, map revision 

can never be completely up-to-date.] Last week in Rolla, 

Missouri, at the Midcontinent Mapping Center, State surveys 

and other State agencies that support topographic mapping 

made their number one priority the 7Yz-minute topographic 

map revision program. The revision program is almost as 

important as the original mapping program. If we don't keep 

them up to date for the users, then the program has failed in 

its mission. This message needs to be conveyed to the users 

because their support is necessary to obtain adequate funding 
46 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

for the topographic map revision program. It's a monumental 

task. I think there are about 54,000 ?V2-minute topographic 

maps for this country. [Editors' Note: 53,548 maps cover the 

48 conterminous United States.] 

Equally important to the industrial mineral industry are 

the geologic maps. The National Geologic Mapping Program is also a monumental task that will not be a success 

without proper funding. The AASG is pushing for this program, the AASG is behind it, but again the support of the 

users is essential for passage of this legislation and adequate 

funding. Only then can a mapping program get underway. 

Alfred L. Bush, U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado: 

I want to add one comment. I would like to emphasize 

the fact that there is no such thing as an all-purpose geologic 

map. Simply to have mapped a quadrangle at the ?V2-minute 

scale is usually not a final answer. You always map a quadrangle with something in mind; you may not realize the bias, 

but the bias is there. It may be necessary to go back and 

remap that quadrangle at the same scale for a different purpose. The job is really never done. That is not to discourage 

anyone, but it is to say that just because a map is out doesn't 

mean that the job is completed. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

The next panel session is on land-use planning and the 

industrial minerals, and the panel leader is Robert Joice, the 

Long Range Planning Manager of the Lexington-Fayette 

Government Center. 

LAND-USE PLANNING AND THE 

INDUSTRIAL MINERALS 

Panel leader: 

Robert S. Joice, Long Range Planning Manager, 

Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, Lexington, 

Kentucky. 

Panel members: 

Kent M. Bratton, City Planner, Cape Girardeau, Missouri. 

Mark L. Falloon, Planning Director, Franklin County 

Planning Department, Union, Missouri. 

D. Anne Lewis, Chairman, Missouri Land Reclamation 

Commission, Jefferson City, Missouri. 

Robert L. Pinkerton, Executive Director, Southwestern 

Illinois Planning Commission, Collinsville, Illinois. 

J. Kurt von Achen, Chairman, Eudora Planning Commission, Eudora, Kansas. 

PANEL PRESENTATIONS 

RobertS. Joice: 

[With Mr. Joice, James R. Rebmann coauthored a paper 

provided at the conference and also provided considerable 

assistance in preparing Mr. Joice's presentation to this panel. 

Mr. Rebmann is the Senior Environmental Planner of the 

Lexington-Fayette Urban County Division of Planning with 

primary responsibility for planning activities related to 

industrial minerals.] 

Today's panel on land-use planning has a variety of 

persons with backgrounds complementary to the talk we 

heard this morning. We have professional planning directors, and lay persons who have worked in planning, one local 

planning commission chairman, and the other who is chair of 

a statewide committee dealing with planning for industrial 

minerals. I will introduce the problem of planning for quarries in a way which is more specific but I believe complementary to Mr. Sieben's talk [see above, page 21]. We will 

Figure 26. Downtown Lexington, Ky., emphasizing new construction and scale of building. Photograph from RobertS. Joice 

and James R. Rebmann, from files of the Lexington-Fayette Urban 

County Division of Planning. 
PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 1 47 

then have three professional planning directors speak of their 

experiences in Illinois and Missouri. They will emphasize 

the varying local information needs and standards required 

for proper planning. Then we will have two persons who are 

professionally involved in design, but have experiences in 

quarrying regulation from the perspective of a lay committee 

member. Each person will make introductory comments and 

we will have time for questions. 

We've been working on a planning process to write a 

new ordinance in Lexington [Kentucky] for the last couple 

of years. It took that long, actually it's 2 years, and we really 

don't have it adopted yet. But I'm going to emphasize some 

of the problems that I think kind of set the stage of the issues 

here, and then I think each of the panel members will add a 

couple of comments, and we'll open it up. 

Lexington, Kentucky, is, just for your background, the 

heart of the Bluegrass, and it's a diverse community of 

225,000 people. It has a vibrant downtown, a historic tradition over 200 years old, rural horse farms that are well 

known throughout the country, and a lot of suburban development. This is a shot of downtown (fig. 26). There are 

three quarries in town supplying the needs of construction 

and growth. One is about 4 miles from downtown, one's 

about 1 mile from downtown in a different direction, and the 

other is about 12 miles from downtown. In many ways, Lexington's planning and the framework for these kinds of decisions is kind of like Kane County. One difference is that 

Lexington isn't as flat as Kane County, I believe. 

One very important planning concept in Lexington is an 

urban service area boundary (fig. 27). We divide Fayette 

County distinctly into an urban area (unpatterned) and the 

rural area (shaded). Three-quarters of the county is identified as rural, where approximately 6 percent of our people 

live; 94 percent live in the urban area. We specifically 

discourage growth in the rural area to preserve it for horse 

farms and,-frankly, incidentally for minerals and_mining, etc. 

For general background, too, Lexington is located on 

the Cincinnati arch. The mineral deposits are primarily limestone in the [Middle] Ordovician-age Tyrone and Camp Nelson Limestones. We have two underground mines and one 

open pit mine. The open pit mine is in the Tanglewood 

Member of the Lexington Limestone [Middle and Upper 

Ordovician], just for your background. 

Now there are three kinds of concerns that we had in 

Lexington (fig. 28). We have problems that are directly 

associated with the mine itself, whether it's a pit style mine 

or a deep quarry. We have problems associated with adjacent lands and the relationships with the mine. Then there 

are problems specifically with transportation, getting the 

materials to and from the site. On the site we outline these 

areas, physical characteristics, etc. 

Figure 29 is an example of an open pit mine that has 

been in existence for many years. It is located right next to 

an interstate interchange, and is a good example of what can 

be done with a played-out site, from a planning perspective. 

N 

1 

Figure 27. Urban service area boundaries, Fayette County and 

City of Lexington, Ky. Urban area unpattemed, rural area patterned. 

Mine site 

... DODD ~ ODD 

... ODD ~ 

ODD Adjacent lands 

Adjacent lands 

Figure 28. The three physical concerns with the environment in 

mining. 

Recreational uses can be made, water-filled areas for ponds, 

a site for a shooting range, etc. Figure 30 is of the Clays 

Ferry underground mine (most of the mining is actually deep 

pit here). It's down below the surface. This is about 12 miles 

from our downtown area. 
48 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

Figure 29. Open pit aggregate mine in Fayette County, Ky. Photograph from RobertS. Joice and 

James R. Rebmann, from files of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Division of Planning. 

The problem with adjacent lands is illustrated by figure 

31, a shot of the Kentucky River and the undeveloped area 

nearby, and by figure 32. 

This is Elk Lick Creek adjacent to a quarry site (fig. 33), 

with spoil deposits very close to the edge of the stream. Figure 34 shows Elk Lick Creek a bit downstream with product 

rock from the quarry, deposited along the creek as a result of 

accidental or sloppy product storage. Gravel and rock flour 

have spilled into the stream, creating a high sediment load, a 

killing effect on the aquatic life, and a violation of the Clean 

Water Act. 

Limestone mining in itself is not a widespread water 

polluter; however, this mine had water in the bottom and as 

they were de-watering it, they were polluting the creek. The 

permits from the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) require adherence and a review of the area, 

so a clean-up of the mine and adjacent Elk Lick Creek was 

required. 

We are always confronted with the issues of adjacent 

lands and politics. For example, the Iroquois Hunt Club, the 

second oldest continuously operating hunt club in the United 

States, is indicative of the kind of activity in the rural part of 

our county. The people there have historic homes and have 

a great deal of interest in the mining problems that developed. Were it not for their interest, perhaps the pollution 

would have gone undetected. 

The hunt club was actually 2 miles away from the specific site, but its presence brings up the importance of planning in the rural area and distinguishing the rural area from 

the urban area. Planning can make the regulatory environment more suitable for mining, but it doesn't always deal 

with the political problems. You still have to have proper 

operation of activities on the site. 

Transportation is another big issue in quarrying. Obviously, you can have trucks that are too big for the roads, and 

you need to have adequate roads nearby. Because of dust 

problems, we have an ordinance that requires trucks to have 

their gravel covered, but it isn't always followed. Obviously 

you need follow-up street cleaning and other such activities 

partially because of materials transportation. 

In 1989, Lexington created the Quarry Committee. The 

committee was charged with protecting the environment 

while maintaining an important industry. This committee 

has discussed many topics of importance relating to environmental concerns, as well as topics dealing directly with planning issues, such as: whether a conditional use permit or an 

exclusive use zone is more appropriate; whether to merely 

enforce existing rules or enact stricter legislation; and 

whether local or State and Federal laws should be most 

directly applicable. 

I'm not going to get in as much information as I'd like 

about our proposed regulation, itself, because we want to 

have more discussion. Papers that briefly talk about what 

we've done and copies of the ordinance are available, but I 

want to make one comment, as most of you are from a background of geology. Recognize that planning regulations go 

with the land and that there are a couple of things here that 

are very important. First of all, it's hard to regulate an ongoing use like quarrying. We regulate it once through the 

land-use planning process and designate whether or not it is 

in an appropriate location, but it is much harder for planning 

and zoning laws to regulate beyond the initial opening of any 

facilities. And you all recognize and we planners recognize 
PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 1 49 

Figure 30. Clays Ferry aggregate pit and underground mine, in 

the Middle Ordovician High Bridge Group (limestones), Fayette 

County, Ky. Photograph from RobertS. Joice and James R. Rebmann, from files of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Division 

of Planning. 

that many of the quarries were existing uses before zoning 

was established. Second, there was a comment made earlier 

about zoning in many counties. Well, I know in Kentucky, 

the majority of the counties do not have county-wide zoning. 

The large urban areas certainly do, but there are many counties that do not have zoning county-wide. Zoning has its limitations, and in our case we had to get considerably more 

detailed in a permitting ordinance than in a typical zoning 

ordinance. 

And, finally, with regard to ordinances that go beyond 

zoning, the comment was made, and I respect it, that you 

need to educate planners. Well, we look at our government, 

and we have a large governmental staff, a large planning 

staff, and a large engineering staff, but the more we get into 

these issues, the more we question the adequacy of our staff 

resources. Do we have a geologist in the engineering department or in the planning department? Not really. We have 

somebody who has a fairly good geologic background in the 

planning department, but not somebody who is capable of 

Figure 31. Unspoiled Kentucky River countryside, Fayette 

County, Ky. Photograph from RobertS. Joice and James R. Rebmann, from files of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Division 

of Planning. 

administering ordinances that could be much more specific 

than those at the State level. And that, of course, is a significant problem that I think every community might have. 

Next, Bob Pinkerton is going to speak. He's the Executive Director of the Regional Planning Commission for the 

eastern side of the Metropolitan St. Louis area, and he has 

many years of experience throughout Illinois. 

Robert L. Pinkerton: 

I want to tell you, relative to some of the comments that 

were made from the floor a few minutes ago, that some of us 

planners do have a physical science background; I'm a geologist that kind of went off in the wrong direction, I guess, 

and became a regional planning director. I did that the day 

after I got my geology degree, so, here we go. 

I think that this panel in particular is oriented differently 

than many of you might be. We are at the working level 

where decisions are made and do not ever forget, please, that 
50 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT -WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

Figure 32. Recreation trail through an undisturbed area in Fayette County, Ky. Photograph from 

RobertS. Joice and James R. Rebmann, from files of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Division 

of Planning. 

when we start talking about planning, we start talking about 

permitting, we are talking about local government, we are 

talking about politics. Not politics in the sense that you may 

relate to the national level where we have big parties and 

major platforms. We're talking about the gut politics of 

someone making a decision on a land-use issue, whether it be 

a permit, or whatever. 

My organization is reluctantly, or relevantly, called, 

SIMAPC, that's the acronym for Southwestern Illinois Metropolitan Regional Planning Commission and its seven 

counties just across the river [from here]. We are one of the 

two regional planning commissions in Illinois that were created by the General Assembly. The other one is up in the 

Chicago area called NIPC (Northeastern Illinois Planning 

Commission). All the rest of the planning commissions in 

Illinois are created by loose associations of counties. But 

because of SIMAPC' s creation by law, we are charged to do 

a number of things. One of those things is oversight in public 

decision making. We spend a lot of time and effort in oversight issues such as, "Why did they do it this way?" Sometimes there is not a good answer to that. 

The SIMAPC area has about everything in it, karst 

topography, floodplains, mine subsidence, and it has [the 

metropolitan problems of] East St. Louis. 

I would also like to comment that all States have their 

own specific laws, and they relate particularly to local organizations. We, in Illinois, are the most proliferated government of all the States, having about 6,500 units of local 

governments, twice the number of any other State, and that 

makes doing business in Illinois a little more difficult. 

However, some of our ancestors did something right in. the 

State of Illinois by allowing the creation of our three Surveys, the Geological Survey, the Water Survey, and the Natural History Survey. And, ladies and gentlemen, we are very 

proud of them. They do a tremendous job of supporting us 

at the local level, and we encourage their budgets and other 

things, for funding is always a problem in Illinois. 

There was a comment made in the prior session that 

there needs to be some sort of a forum or a central place to 

talk about these kinds of issues. Well, in Illinois, we may 

have one, by accident. I call it SMAC, that's the State Mapping Advisory Committee. It's a group that is interested and 

meets throughout the year to look at the USGS mapping 

requirements for the next year; we just had a meeting a couple of months ago to talk about next year's requirements for 

Illinois. 

But that's only one of the things that group talks about. 

Many of the other things are GIS-related because all of these 

folks (I happened to be the only local government guy that 

goes to SMAC meetings) come from the three State surveys, 

from the departments of State government, the EPA's, and 

wherever else land-based technology exists in Illinois government. They talk about the levels of information that they 

are currently working on, and what the availability of that 

information might be. 

The prior group today had a list of things, and I thought, 

"That's my GIS program right there." And, I'll tell you, too, 

that we need your help with GIS. Those of us that are working at the local governmental level have the most limited 

financial assets of anyone. In Illinois we have to get it from 
PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 1 51 

Figure 33. Elk Lick Creek, Fayette County, Ky., adjacent to a 

quarry site, showing quarry spoil deposits along creek, foreground, 

and on slopes of valley in background (through the trees). Photograph from RobertS. Joice and James R. Rebmann, from files of 

the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Division of Planning. 

the counties and from the cities. As many of you know, 

maybe with your personal relationship with your own cities, 

finances are not easy to get, particularly for costly systems 

such as a Geographic Information System. SIMAPC happens to have an ARC-INFO system and we are just now getting started. It took a lot of my current annual budget to even 

acquire the equipment and purchase the program. Now as 

we begin to layer information, we are hoping to rely upon 

many of you to share with us the levels of information that 

you may have. Again, the developers come to us. We work 

with the local governments, whether it be the counties or the 

cities-in SIMAPC there are no county planning agencies, 

just us, and we work with most of the municipalities. We 

need that kind of information, if, in fact, we are to be able to 

address the kinds of issues that are being discussed at this 

conference. Levels of information are essential to the planning community, and as we move into the 1990's, we have 

in Illinois finally broken that real problem and that big gap 

we had from dealing with everything by hand and on paper. 

We've got to be able to do it electronically if we are going to 

assemble all the information, be able to overlay it, and tell 

our county boards and our city councils that here is a rational 

way, for once, of making a decision on a zoning issue. 

Whether that be a quarry or whether it be something else. 

One of the things that I didn't hear this morning I would 

like to bring up. This comes from my years of experience in 

Illinois; I'm the most senior of the planning directors. I've 

been at the Tri-County Planning Commission of Peoria and 

at the Champaign County Regional Planning Commission. 

In fact, I wrote their zoning ordinance about 20 years ago. 

The subject is borrow-pits. I look at dirt as being one of the 

biggest problems that planning agencies have. Particularly 

as one builds interstates, and now supplemental freeways 

and whatever Congress authorizes to succeed the interstate 

system, we still are going to need that "fill" material. Quite 

frankly, we don't have a good record in Illinois of where borrow-pits have been put. We have from time to time through 

the Planning Commissions suggested that those pits be 

located and configured in certain ways so that they have a 

reuse value. When I was in Champaign, they were just finishing Interstate 57, which runs north and south through the 

county. Borrow-pits were all over the place. Little attention 

was given to where they were located. At that time, I 

believe, the Illinois Department of Transportation was 

acquiring the property and then letting the builder dig on that 

property. However, there were so many pits and they were 

so scattered that the Regional Planning Commission there 

had to publish a directory and number all of them; there were 

drowning accidents and people couldn't find that particular 

gravel pit or borrow-pit. I don't see the matter of borrow-pits 

going away- I think we're going to constantly have them. 

When you get into the suburban areas where they're building 

the new highways, we really need to work together to make 

sure the pits are put in properly so that they do have an urban 

reuse value, regardless of what that might be. It could be as 

a residential subdivision, it could be anything. In a way that 

is a reclamation of a site. 

We are building a better technology in planning, and I 

think one of the reasons for that is because we now have so 

many environmental laws. In order to deal with those, we 

have to know what the environmental issues are, what the 

assets are out there, and what the liabilities are with those 

properties. 

We have a program in Illinois called LUST. And when 

I talk to Rotaries I start on that, and everybody sits up and 

then I tell them that's the Leaking Underground Storage 

Tank program. Then they all go to sleep. But along with that 

program goes the Responsible Property Transfer Act. I think 

that is an excellent law, but in order to support the law and 

implement it properly, we have to have this layered information. Where are the old landfill sites? Where are the old 

leaking underground storage tanks? Where are the storage 

tanks we don't know about? All this need for information 
52 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

Figure 34. Elk Lick Creek, Fayette County, Ky., downstream from a quarry site, showing deposition of quarry spoil along the banks, forming terrace deposits several feet thick. Photograph from 

RobertS. Joice and James R. Rebmann, from files of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Division 

of Planning. 

comes about because in Illinois we have finally turned the 

table around to the point of being able to practice land planning in a much more sophisticated way, to deal with all the 

information which is there, but which we cannot handle 

unless we do it electronically. 

RobertS. Joice: 

Our next speaker is from Cape Girardeau [Missouri]. 

He's the Director of Planning Services there. Kent Bratton 

has 15 years of experience, and he also has degrees in geological science. Kent. 

Kent M. Bratton: 

I'm like Bob, I'm another geologist that erred and went 

into planning. I started in January of 1972. I'm a little more 

fortunate in that I had the opportunity to be in the same place 

for 20 years, and, early on, developed a very close working 

relationship with our State geological survey [Missouri Division of Geology and Land Survey]. Back in those days, we 

really didn't know much about anything down in our neck of 

the woods. The bulk of our area was covered with 15' topographic maps, but there was very little geologic mapping. Of 

course, the Missouri Survey was very strongly rooted in mineral resource development and they had just started looking 

at urban planning type issues. Over the years we have had 

the opportunity to work on some pretty unique projects. I 

think there is much more to do, but I'm very comfortable in 

feeling that at least, from their end and our end, we know 

what needs to be done and we know where to get what we 

need to get it done. 

In Cape Girardeau, again, we are fortunate; our limestone and sand resources are not in any great peril and probably won't be for at least the next 10 to 15 years. We have 

a very active planning program and are in a position, I feel, 

to avoid a lot of the problems that some of the larger areas 

are experiencing. One of the things that we are looking at 

hasn't been mentioned yet; to us one of the keys is the 

development and timing of the infrastructure that supports 

development. If you don't put in roads, if you don't put in 

sewers, if you don't put water lines anywhere near these 

places, then you're not going to have development. Now 

that raises other issues and other problems. Again, we may 

be unique, I think, in being able to keep these facilities out 

of these [mineral resource] areas for some time to come. 

From the standpoint of the minerals industry, I think that's 

something that you need to keep in mind as well. When 

you put in a road, or you demand that the government put in 

a road for you and a water line, perhaps to a certain extent 

you are inviting some of the very problems you are trying to 

avoid. Before I took the job at Cape Girardeau I saw this 

happen in one of our northern counties, where they needed 

a major access road. That area of the county was basically 

isolated until that road went in, and at that point the area 

became immediately accessible to everybody. 
PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 1 53 

Two previous speakers have cautioned about not relying on county zoning. Missouri is unique. Under Missouri 

county zoning law, a county zoning authority cannot regulate mines, even if they want to. Only cities can, so there is 

very little control placed on mining, at least out in the rural 

areas. 

There is another aspect of establishing control around 

some of these mineral operations. If a city establishes 

restrictions around a quarry, we may have the specter of a 

"takings" issue if we restrict development. And when we 

deny that property owner a reasonable use of his property, 

then we have taken from him to a certain degree. The 

Supreme Court has been all too willing to say that we have 

to pay for it, and the "we," all too often, is the city or county 

involved. That's another issue we won't spend any more 

time on, but from a planner's standpoint it is very real and it 

is here. 

RobertS. Joice: 

Mark Falloon, our next speaker, is also a Planning 

Director, from Franklin County, here in Missouri. 

Mark L. Falloon: 

Franklin County is located about 50 miles southwest of 

here, adjacent to St. Louis County. It contains about 922 

square miles with about 80,000 people. We deal strictly with 

the unincorporated areas of the county. 

We were granted planning and zoning authority by the 

people in 1966, adopted our first subdivision regulations in 

1970, and adopted our zoning regulations in 1986. Due to 

the finances and funding that the county is able to provide us, 

we pretty much act as referees between developers and 

development, trying to assure quality growth throughout the 

county. And I guess the underlying factor to most all of that 

is to save public funds, to make sure they are used wisely. 

Our zoning order does have authority in about 80 percent of the county, that which is zoned for agricultural, mining, and other extractive industries. We review all these uses 

through a conditional use permitting process. Public hearings must be conducted, public comments solicited, and then 

the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a recommendation which is forwarded to the County Commission. The 

County Commission, three elected officials, makes the final 

decision. 

We don't have many quarries or sand and gravel operations, but we do have a few. One sand and gravel operation 

did decide to relocate, applied for a permit, covered all the 

areas of concern to the public, and eventually was granted 

their conditional use permit. On the other hand, an individual decided he wanted to expand his quarry; he was a 

small-time operator who had an existing quarry of about 5 

acres or less. He decided to relocate, found a farm of about 

150 acres, and decided that he wanted about a 10 acre plot in 

about the middle of it. He presented his case before the Planning Commission, but ignored our recommendation to him 

to conduct a survey and present the survey plat, identifying 

where he intended to conduct his business. He ignored that 

and showed up at the Commission hearing; basically he just 

said he wanted to open up a new quarry, but did not provide 

adequate information and was unable to identify where it 

was going to be located on that farm. It was to be sited wherever it was deemed to be best suited. The end result was that 

he was denied his permit. 

The regulations focus on three things. In our area a permit would probably be granted if these areas of concern 

would be addressed properly, that is (1) what will be the 

effect on the environment, (2) what will be the effect on the 

transportation system (is it going to increase traffic too 

much, is it going to destroy the roadbed, etc.?), and (3) what 

will be the effect on surrounding uses (are you going to 

diminish property values substantially, what have you). The 

hearings are conducted, we keep to the facts, make recommendations based on facts, and then the County Commission 

will provide the political input, the public opinion, and may 

reverse the Planning Commission's recommendation. 

The key to all of it, I think, is education, as was mentioned in the previous panel discussion. 

RobertS. Joice: 

Our next speaker is a landscape architect with 10 years 

experience; she is a gubernatorial appointment to chair the 

Missouri Land Reclamation Commission. 

D. Anne Lewis: 

The Land Reclamation Commission is half statutory 

members: the State Geologist (Dr. James H. Williams), the 

Director of the Department of Conservation, and the Staff 

Director of the Clean Water Commission; and half the 

gubernatorial appointment people: myself (a landscape 

architect), a farmer, a retired SCS (Soil Conservation Service) agronomist, and a representative of the industry that we 

regulate. 

The Commission acts as an out-of-house board of directors for the 25-person professional and technical staff which 

is housed within the Department of Natural Resources, State 

of Missouri. On that staff are geologists, an agronomist, lots 

of foresters, and a professional engineer. The program 

administers the abandoned mine land program (coal mines), 

and we also have primacy to administer SMCRA, again regulating surface coal mining. For 20 years, since 1971, industrial minerals have been regulated by State statute. In the 

absence of any Federal statutes, we are the highest governing 

authority. The industry in Missouri is organized, they are 

vocal, and they are predominantly friendly. The kinds of 

things that we ask of them, and this has been upgraded in the 

last year (I see a smile; I should see several frowns), in the 
54 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

last legislative session, we passed new, I'll call it more stringent, legislation. Right now we are in the final throes, in the 

public comment period on industrial minerals rules and regulations with which we will truly administer the law. 

On the subject of public education, the National Stone 

Association for 14 years has sponsored a competition, a 

national competition, for landscape architects, to come up 

with post-mining land-use site plans, development plans 

specifically for industrial minerals properties. I tried very 

hard to get slides of the winning entries and was unsuccessful. That's a public education opportunity that we've 

missed. I know that these winning entries are published 

every year, in Rock Products magazine, so many of you 

might be aware of them. 

An unconnected thought, but I think the point is to get 

some thoughts out. As we're going to be together for an 

afternoon, you can fire questions at us only if you know what 

we do. From my standpoint, as a landscape architect, I look 

for the creative opportunity allowed industry by regulation. 

By that I mean, in the coal law there is an opportunity that 

you can substitute other property in your reclamation plan if 

you choose to do so. You bring it before the Commission, 

we review it, and if it is decided that it would be more appropriate to reclaim one of your pre-law pits, which happens to 

be adjacent to a State park, for instance, than the pit that you 

are planning on opening, that can be facilitated. 

A similar thing in the coal law is that you can leave 25 

percent of your land "lumpy." I'll just use regular old terms. 

Let it be wildlife habitat; you needn't put it back to grazing 

land or whatever is considered the best use. 

A third unconnected thought, when you look at the 

cadastral ownership maps in southern Illinois, specifically, at 

who owns old mine sites, you'll find diving clubs, raccoon 

hunting clubs, groups of doctors who go out and shoot deer, 

the Audubon Society; you'll find the Eckert family of apple 

orchard fame own a bunch of them, too. I bring this up as 

evidence of an opportunity. There is no other industry in this 

Nation that I can think of that has the capability to move earth 

as easily or as inexpensively as industrial minerals and coal 

operators. If there could be some sort of collaborative venture 

between planning departments and industry, if there were 

some way to work together so that this opportunity to move 

earth could be used to its greatest, mutually beneficial advantage, that would certainly be a happy day in my opinion. 

RobertS. Joice: 

Our final speaker is J. Kurt von Achen, an architect for 

more than 20 years, a Planning Commission Chairman for 

most of 20 years, with an additional few years on the Planning Commission before that. The Eudora [Kansas] , Planning Commission has had the pleasant or unpleasant 

opportunity to review several quarrying applications just 

within the last year. 

J. Kurt von Achen: 

As with Dudley Blancke, my comments are aimed at 

producers because they are who I'll see from my side of the 

table. I am a member of that quasi-political group called 

Planning Commissioners. Maybe it's a good thing there 

aren't too many producers here; I might fear for my life. 

You as producers need the majority of our votes, and you 

will face 3 to 10 of us wherever there are zoning laws. You 

need a majority of our votes before you can get to the real 

politicians that make a decision. It seems to me from the 

comments made by Tim Haithcoat and Dudley Blancke that 

you folks are caught in the swing of environmental ethics, 

and I think my comments will echo what they said, only not 

as eloquently. 

The zoning laws have come in the last 20 years or so, in 

most of our part of the country, and so you are faced with 

many regulations. Zoning regulations are here to protect you 

and me from our neighbor. Planning Commissioners in a 

good part of the country will look at an issue and they will 

make a rational decision. You know a rational decision is 

one you agree with and an emotional decision is one with 

which you do not agree. So, you are no different from the 

rest of the applicants that face us. Zoning laws are to protect 

us from our neighbors, so when you want to change zoning 

on a piece of property, you are going to have to convince us 

that it is in the best interests of the community as a whole. 

Planning Commissioners will decide in favor of your neighbors unless there is an overwhelming community benefit 

from your request for change. 

You have three tools: truth, mitigation, and reclamation. Truth is your best tool, and tell us all of it. Don't tell 

us just 98 percent of the truth, because there is someone in 

the community on the opposition who will point out that 

other 2 percent and it will be a bigger factor than the 98 percent that you brought to us. 

Document truthfully that the community needs the 

product that you are going to produce, and remember that we 

understand that your actions aren't totally altruistic. You are 

in this business to make money just as we are in business to 

make money. Forget the old saying, "If you can't dazzle 

them with brilliance, baffle them with bull." It won't work 

anymore. We are fairly sophisticated and we have some 

sophisticated staff. 

A side comment to one that was made to the last question. I'm going to defend our planning staff. They are professional and they are doing a good job. They are caught with 

something that also affects Planning Commissioners. When 

planning, zoning, and land use came into being, there were 

often some tradeoffs made with governing bodies and with 

residents of counties and cities who did not want any controls 

on their property. Those tradeoffs have come down to us in 

the form of exemptions that allow development in rural areas. 

While we as planners and planning staff can say we want to 

maintain the rural areas, the prime farmland, and to control 
PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 1 55 

urban growth, we are up against city and county commissions 

who will not get rid of those exemptions. We have found that 

in Douglas County, Kansas (my home county), 80 percent of 

the homes built in the last 10 years have been built on unregulated land because of the exemptions. 

Look the planning staff squarely in the face and tell 

them truthfully why you need the material and why the community needs the material. Tell them truthfully how long 

you will be in the pit. Don't try to make us believe you're 

going to sell a million tons of rock a year out of your pit when 

everybody else in the area is working hard to sell half a million tons, and you will be adding to the inventory. Look 

objectively and compassionately at your application and its 

effects on your neighbors. Determine what mitigation activities you would want if you were one of your own neighbors. 

Then come to the table with those mitigations. Don't be 

pushed into them. As John McCoy of Martin Marietta has 

said, "Never try to negotiate conditions at a public hearing." 

Have those things settled in advance. Work with the planning staff so that you know where you are when you come to 

the meeting. 

Reclamation. The State of Kansas doesn't really 

require reclamation of rock quarries at the present time. Reclamation of coal mines is required. However, local jurisdictions will require you to reclaim the property as a condition 

of the permission to quarry. You may not have to show what 

the final development is, as you do in some counties, but you 

will have to show a reasonable reclamation plan. Don't try 

to show us a bunch of fluff. We are sophisticated enough to 

know that the sedimentation pond has to be at the lowest 

point of the property. Don't put it up on the hill and try to 

make us believe that that's where it will be. 

Follow the rules. If the zoning law says, "Post the property," post the property, and keep it posted. Make sure that 

your application is complete in accordance with the zoning 

rules and be sure you are published in the official paper on 

time. Make sure you have covered all the bases with other 

regulatory agencies, because you are unlikely to receive local 

approval until you can show that you either have the other 

permits required or that you are close to obtaining them. 

Approach your neighbors with respect. Talk to-them. 

Give them plenty of information. Work hard to win them 

over before you get to the public hearing. Neighbors who are 

knowledgeable and comfortable with your application will 

not fight you. 

Pursue your application on its merits. Don't try politics. 

The merit of an application, if it's right, will win the day. 

A couple of more "don'ts." Don't belittle your neighbors in public hearings. Recently at a public hearing we had 

an attorney imply that he wasn't going to distribute some of 

the technical information because the community at large 

couldn't understand it. A man well known in the community 

stood up and said, "I may have started my education in a 

one-room school house, but I got my doctorate from MIT. 

I'd like to see the information." That exchange did the applicant great damage. 

Next, don't employ an attorney to represent you who is 

politically connected. A politically connected attorney can 

do one of two things for you: he can give away the store, 

because by giving away the store he gets you the "yes" 

votes and maintains his clout, or everyone concerned on 

this side of the table and in the neighborhood will know 

he's politically connected (that's why you hired him) and it 

will hurt you. 

Finally, don't promise anything you can't deliver. 

Don't promise to have the trucks tarped, because we know 

that most of the truckers are independent contractors, over 

whom you have no control. Zoning regulations, once the 

permit has been given, are very difficult to enforce. Planning Commissioners don't have police powers. We know 

that we cannot enforce many conditions to a permit and, 

therefore, prefer that you volunteer to be a good citizen with 

your application. Remember, good applications do receive 

approval. It is the incomplete, sloppy, and untruthful applications that fail. 

RobertS. Joice: 

Are there any additional comments from the panel? 

Let's throw it open for comments and questions from the 

floor. 

DISCUSSION 

H. Lyn Bourne: 

About 20 years ago, there was a planning group in 

southeast Michigan, the Southeast Michigan Council of 

Governments, SEMCOG, that represented a seven-county 

area around the Detroit metropolitan area. One of the things 

they were charged with doing was to develop a land-use plan 

up through the year 2000. They looked at industrial needs, 

institutional needs, commercial needs, residential, agricultural. But when it came to mines (for all practical purposes, 

we are talking about sand and gravel and quarry operations), 

they merely plotted the existing operations, many of which 

were already depleted at the time that their map went to publication. They made no provision for any additional land for 

mining through the year 2000. Now, I've recognized that 

some of you have a background in geology and by virtue of 

participating in this Workshop are aware of some of the 

problems. My challenge to all the people who are planners 

or landscape architects who are at this Workshop is that 

when you go to your professional meetings where the whole 

audience are planners and landscape architects, that you 

carry these kinds of messages. Prepare a talk that illustrates 

some of the more difficult land-use issues besides the ones 

that may be more common in your industry. 
56 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT -WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

And I comment to Mr. von Achen, one of the comments 

you made was that someone needs to demonstrate they have 

some other permits in place. That's often a Catch-22 

because there is always a question for a new producer at 

which level do you begin the permit process. If you start at 

a level that's too high, the local people may be offended, figuring they've been caught in an end run, and if you start at 

the local level, some of the argument is, "Well, you haven't 

even obtained the necessary permits from the State." So, I 

would suggest that maybe part of the product from the Workshop here is that there is some kind of direction or suggestion 

of where do you start, at which end, or in the middle. How 

do you start that permitting process? 

J. Kurt von Achen: 

Your comment's well taken. And I agree that it is 

somewhat of a Catch-22. But when you get to the local level, 

unless you have at least made the contacts and know the 

requirements of the Water Resources Board and the State 

Historical Society and others who are interested in this and 

that have some control of your permit, the local people are 

probably going to cause you to stop and wait until you go to 

those folks. 

Kent M. Bratton: 

We'll physically tell you to start with us (the city planners) because we feel that in the end, we're going to be most 

affected. We might issue that permit contingent on approval 

from the other permitting agencies, because, by and large, 

we know who those people are. 

H. Lyn Bourne: 

I recognize that it varies from community to community 

and State to State, but I think that that's an issue or topic that 

should come out in the publication. 

Kent M. Bratton: 

We tend to like to keep our folks at home informed as 

well, so that they don't hear from Jefferson City about someone applying for a permit they knew nothing about. 

Robert L. Pinkerton: 

I would like to comment on one of the things that was 

mentioned here: "Why don't the planners include the valuable resources in their comprehensive plans and try to protect them?" That's a real good observation and a good 

comment and a good challenge to us. I'll tell you one thing 

that does happen, though. About 20 years ago, the Martin 

Marietta Corporation, up north of Peoria, had a major, 

high-quality gravel and sand operation that was just about 

depleted except for that portion of the deposit which went 

under a community, Chillicothe, Illinois. We took a look at 

that. Martin Marietta said they weren't really sure what they 

could do. We suggested that they buy out the town, and that 

sounded kind of idiotic. In fact, the community might have 

been better off in doing that, and then that deposit could have 

been protected. When you get into central Illinois, oftentimes there are not good-quality sand and gravel deposits. 

That was one of the fears that we had. Of course, to the local 

politicians, that was not a priority. They looked at the existing sand and gravel operations as an eyesore next to the 

town, and politically it wasn't acceptable to talk about anything like that. Not even coming up closer to the town and 

doing something aesthetically desirable for the community 

in the long run, such as a reusable asset of some sort. So, the 

priorities of the local communities come back upon the planners. They (the communities) really make up our budgets 

and make decisions as to where we can go and what we can 

do. And quite frankly, mining is not a very interesting thing 

to most politicians, unless they are involved somehow economically or can see that it can be an economic resource to 

that community. 

I'll tell you one thing that my organization did a couple 

of years ago. We did a study on the brick and tile industry in 

southwestern Illinois. Our Illinois Geological Survey helped 

us with this, and we located the deposits that could be minable. Our intent was to try to reestablish an industry which 

had gone down. If you had a chance to look around the older 

part of St. Louis, you will see that most of it is masonry. It's 

not masonry because of the ability of the area to provide 

good-quality clay; it's masonry because the unions were so 

strong they had it built into the city's law, until just 20 years 

ago. But when the law was changed, the industry left. 

The bottom line of what we looked at in our study was 

to try to use this resource, which was in southwestern Illinois. There were arbitrary things that we couldn't deal 

with, like back freight-hauls into Illinois from the south, 

like the foreign ownership of long-term investments, and 

like air pollution. We couldn't build a facility in two of our 

counties because, air-quality-wise, the standards already are 

nonattainable. And we couldn't overcome the cost of making a facility meet the standards and be competitive with 

outside brick. 

So, some of us do take a look, and some planning agencies do get involved with these kinds of things. Quite 

frankly, it would help us a lot if you would bring the problems and plans to us. If you are in our area, bring them to us. 

Bring them to a planning staff before you make an application. That's the best possible thing to do. And that's the way 

I think my staff feels most comfortable in working. We can 

maintain confidentiality, at least my agency can, and in Illinois you can. I don't know about the other States. 
PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 1 57 

RobertS. Joice: 

I would like to make one other comment on the educational side that I think would be valuable for both planners 

and geologists. If you, the industry, want to educate planners, 

come to a national planning conference, suggest to the American Planning Association staff that there be an item in the 

conference regarding quarries and mineral issues and pursue 

the issue directly yourself, as well as with planners and planning directors who are knowledgeable about geology. Particularly contact the AP A in Chicago regarding the May 1993 

national conference to be held there. [Editors' Note: Examination of the AP A conference programs for the 1992, 1993, 

and 1994 meetings did not identify any sessions that dealt 

with mineral resources or mineral resource problems.] 

Anthony M. Bauer: 

My comments earlier were not directed to any particular individual. I am pleased to see that we are talking to some 

geologically trained planners, but you are not the norm, so 

my comments about the lack of understanding of the industry by the planning people still hold as a general rule, and I 

think you would have to agree with that. 

A couple of comments that were made earlier about 

resource protection really apply to what I would like to say. 

I preface my comments by saying that in no way am I against 

the need for reclamation. If anything, we need stronger 

enforcement. We need to have tighter regulations in some 

respects, and in other respects develop more realistic regulations related to the specific characteristics of the industry and 

the geologic formations. 

Most communities have regulations relating to the mining of mineral resources and to reclamation standards. But 

few have developed resource protection regulations, regulations that protect the resources from urban development and 

encroachment. I would like to cite two rather significant 

exceptions. One is the State of California in their SMARRA, 

State Mining and Reclamation and Resources Protection 

Act, whose primary purpose is to identify where these 

resources are threatened by urbanization and where critical 

needs for construction aggregates exist. These are obviously 

near and around urban areas. As most of us realize, the construction aggregate industry is an urban land use. Aggregate 

mining is located on the perimeter of urban environments. 

Another resource protection example recently adopted is in 

the Province of Ontario. 

There are two basic objectives of both of these regulations. First is to identify the resources. The second objective 

is to get local communities to insert into their planning process "mineral resources need consideration." The regulations 

do not dictate that resource-bearing lands be set aside, but they 

require local communities to consider, as a part of their planning process, the need for and location of mineral aggregates. 

In some cases, mining may not be appropriate. But in other 

cases, it is a very appropriate land use. As we all know, 

resource location cannot be manipulated or relocated to fit 

"ideal" plans. They must be obtained where nature placed the 

materials. 

The key point here is that there is as great a need to protect resources from urban encroachment as there is to regulate 

the extraction of these resources. 

Let me cite two situations why this is becoming more 

and more important. A couple of years ago the State of 

Maryland undertook a study of their mineral resources. 

They found that 90 percent of their reserves are lost to urbanization and urban regulation. Denver has projected about 10 

years of accessible reserves. They have lost about :20 to 30 

years of actual reserves to urbanization. Their next resource 

base is in the mountains. The argument for not allowing 

mining in the urban areas is protection of the environment. 

How is mining mountainscapes a more effective way of protecting the environment? There is a need for the planning 

profession, for the mining industry, for government officials 

to get together and begin dealing with this increasingly serious problem of resource depletion. 

J. Kurt von Achen: 

I think that's a very good point. We haven't done a 

good enough job of reserving those resources in our part of 

the country. However, sometimes your producers shoot us 

all in the foot. There is a case of two well-known producers 

who assembled rather large tracts of land close to each other. 

One of the producers decided that instead of mining, he 

could have a high-class residential development and make 

more money at it, I assume. So now that producer who is 

now a developer is fighting the other producer who wants to 

open a mine. Come on, guys, let's get it together. 

RobertS. Joice: 

I would like to raise the following as a question, and it's 

based on the previous comment, "Do agriculture and mining 

mix?" I mean a lot of planners are doing well if they can get 

any agricultural preservation on the urban fringe. Mr. von 

Achen made the comment about 5-acre residential lots being 

the majority of the development in what was rural Douglas 

County [Kansas]. That's a major issue, and planners across 

the country try very hard to control the suburban sprawl. It 

seems to me to be very directly related to the mining issue; if 

there can be better control of the sprawl, there probably 

could be better preservation for mining. The question I'm 

asking is, "Can there be a good alliance of mining and farming, or is there really a problem that some ordinances are too 

closely allied with farming?" 

Kenneth W. McNichols, Director, Iowa Limestone Producers 

Association, Des Moines, Iowa: 

I'm the Director of .the Iowa Limestone Producers 

Association, but for the record I'm not here to talk on behalf 
58 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

of the Limestone Producers Association. I'm here also as a 

grandfather and to speak for the generations that succeed us. 

I was born and raised on a farm west of Des Moines, 

Iowa, in Madison County. The farm was adjacent to and part 

of a quarry operation, so literally I tell people that I was born 

in a rock quarry. As I grew up and went through high school, 

I worked in those rock quarries. When I went through college, I continued to work in the rock quarries. I graduated 

from high school in 1954, and between 1954 and 1960 when 

I was getting my formal education, there were approximately 

200 people that worked in the quarries in Madison County, 

Iowa. At that time, Iowa did not have a land reclamation 

law. We were one of the first ones to develop a land reclamation law and part of the reason was because of the dastardly deeds that our forefathers did in wasting the land for 

those quarries and coal mines across the southern part of the 

State. They did nothing. They left giant spoil sites. It was 

bad. The people in Madison County were emotional. They 

developed local zoning before Iowa had a reclamation law 

that literally ran the quarries out of there. 

In 1954 there were 200 people working the quarries in 

Madison County; today there may be 10. There are no 

full-time quarries left in that county. The Des Moines market that was served by Madison County limestone had to find 

another source. The point I want to make here is that it 

seems to me that through the U.S. Geological Survey, the 

Iowa Geological Survey, and the other State geological surveys, one of the things that we need to be working for is the 

orderly extraction of minerals. We need to have some sort of 

a governing body in each one of the States, some sort of a 

board of appeals, some sort of a board of review that we can 

go to when Mr. Zoning Man says, "No, you can't quarry anymore in Madison County," or "Because that's prime farmland you can't expand the boundaries of your present 

quarry." Local zoning boards should not be the final say 

when it comes to the extraction of minerals. 

Unlike the gas stations that you regulate in zoning, and 

unlike the housing developments that you regulate in zoning, 

and unlike the urban sprawl that you regulate in zoning, mineral extraction boundaries go beyond that. Mineral extraction is not limited to the local community as were the other 

examples I mentioned. Local mineral extraction affects a 

much larger segment of our society than just the local community. I think it's just a real shame we put so much power 

in the local zoning board that they can shut down an industry 

forever. When a local zoning board is given sole power, 

they, in essence, can and do stop competition. In Madison 

County, do you think the extraction companies that were 

there wanted anything different? The existing companies are 

nearly always "grandfathered in," so they support tough zoning. They don't want another company to come in and set 

up. That's competition, and the "grandfather" clause plays 

right into the hands of the local established companies. 

This is why I think that we have to have some sort of an 

outside court that we can go to when it comes to mineral 

extraction, and that doesn't only need to happen in Iowa. 

California, as mentioned here earlier, is one of the first States 

that I understand that has done this. I think the U.S. Geological Survey would be very worthy to work in that direction. 

We need this. I don't need it, and the people in this room 

don't need it, but our grandchildren certainly need it. If there 

is going to be any competition or any free enterprise system 

left in the aggregate extraction industry, we must not allow 

local zoning boards to totally control the orderly extraction 

of subsurface minerals. 

Robert L. Pinkerton: 

You're dealing with apple pie and God and everything 

else now. One of the most cherished things in the Midwest 

is that local land-use decisions be made by local government. 

It may not be true on the West Coast and certain other places 

across the United States, but it is in the Midwest and particularly in Illinois. There is a constant battle in the Illinois Legislature, involving whether or not the State should do 

something, and the local governments are saying, "That's our 

responsibility. Don't you dare fool around with that." Now 

there are some major exceptions and they have always started 

with initiatives at the Federal level. Solid waste, for instance, 

where EPA forced the States into implementation of pollution control standards, resulting in the State of Illinois now 

having oversight responsibility on solid waste locations. 

That's a big, messed-up area to talk about and the rules are 

changing constantly. In Illinois, the Legislature, in their infinite wisdom, gave the State Pollution Control Board the 

responsibility for determining where sites for solid waste disposal (landfills) should be. That went to court and out of that 

came joint decision-making with the local governments. So 

what I'm saying is that in Illinois in particular, and I know 

it's true in Wisconsin to some extent, because I practiced 

there, that the business of local decision-making, local governments making land use decisions, is a very cherished item. 

J. Kurt von Achen: 

Quarry applications that are put together in a good manner usually win. The local planning and zoning boards are 

usually looking for reasons to grant your request. It's the 

applications that are flawed, it's those that don't follow the 

rules and regulations that aren't going to make it, and they 

shouldn't make it. But you also have what you're asking for; 

in Kansas it's called the court system. You may challenge 

that local decision in District Court. 

RobertS. Joice: 

Finally, I would add that it is important for plannmg 

commissions, both staff and planners, through the planning 

process to fully consider the information to protect the 

resources, etc., to make responsible decisions. Granted, it 
PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 1 59 

may be that a poor decision is made, but I disagree that mineral resources are very much different than an industrial 

plant. You need mineral resources if you want to grow, if 

there is a large industrial plant going in, or a regional shopping center, or some other facility. If you would like to 

debate that, go ahead. 

Kenneth W. McNichols: 

The problems exist, and again, not with just the local 

zoning people. I appreciate what you're trying to do. We all 

sit on boards where we have responsibility to do these things. 

But the problem exists in State laws that do not recognize the 

need for affordable minerals. Madison County and Polk 

County in Iowa adjoin each other. Now Madison County 

says, "We consider this prime farmland. Polk County is primarily Des Moines, that's urban. We don't like the idea of 

shipping all this aggregate to Des Moines. It's going out of 

the county." What I'm saying is wrong [Editors' Note: 

Refers to currentjurisdiction over mineral development], is 

the very border of what we call the local government. When 

it comes to minerals, I don't think we should be looking at 

those county lines. Society's need for minerals doesn't stop 

at the county lines. In those instances the county lines don't 

mean a thing. For all the other things they do, the zoning 

board regulates, but they don't have anything to do with 

where God put that mineral. 

RobertS. Joice: 

The jurisdictional line-it's the exact same issue if 

Toyota is going to relocate 3,000 jobs in Fayette County or 

if they are going to locate in the county next door. 

Kenneth W. McNichols: 

It's not the same thing, because those people could 

transfer back and forth. You can't take that mineral deposit 

and transfer it. I heard somebody say a little while ago, we 

could economically transport minerals up to 100 miles. I've 

been in the business long enough to know that when you 

transport limestone you double the quarry cost about every 

25 miles. Now does that make it economically feasible? 

Does it make sense to make it four times as expensive 100 

miles away just to get by local zoning? 

We can do this together. We have the technology to 

extract these minerals and to provide jobs in these areas that 

zoning officials want to protect. In nearly every case we can 

extract the minerals in a fashion suitable to the neighbors and 

return the extracted land to the community in a condition as 

valuable as or even more valuable than before extraction. 

Valentin V. Tepordei: 

Just a comment about local responsibility and local 

power to award mining permits. California is the only State 

in the Nation with four State trade associations, because the 

mining permits are granted by the county governments. The 

State has only an advisory capacity. The purpose of the California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act is to plan for 

long-range use of the State's natural resources. Of course, 

the mining permit, in the final analysis, will be your and the 

County Planning Commission's responsibility. But the planning for the long range should be done at the State level, 

because if you start planning at the county level, you are not 

going to care about the county next door. You are going to 

care only about your county. Unfortunately, your aggregates 

cross the county lines both in location and in markets. You 

have to look in a broad range to see the broader picture as the 

State does. That's what the industry needs, long-range planning for mineral resources. 

William V. Bush: 

Local planners used to recognize that industrial mineral 

resources are not always used in the local area. Others may 

be dependent on their resources, just as they are dependent 

on resources from other areas. The "not in my backyard" 

syndrome is not a valid excuse just because the commodity 

is not being used locally. A planner in another State might 

be struggling with a decision on an industrial mineral site 

that may benefit you locally. I think the gentleman [Mr. 

McNichols] made a good point that these commodities have 

to cross local boundaries. 

RobertS. Joice: 

Frankly, the "not in my backyard" syndrome is something that is affecting planning across the country, and it's 

affecting it in all sorts of ways, whether it is a halfway house 

or a quarry or whatever. It's a problem that is difficult for 

planning organizations to deal with. And frankly, there are 

occasions when citizens go too far in trying to prevent all 

sorts of activities that need to take place. 

J. James Eidel: 

Let me emphasize a point we've been making. Mr. 

McNichols basically said that mineral resources may be only 

in one spot on this Earth and you may not find them somewhere else. Unlike all the other resources or all the surficial 

uses of land, they can't be moved, and that's very true. Mr. 

von Achen said that planning commissions needed the facts 

in terms of making a decision. Well, I think maybe the 

answer from this deliberation is that the mining industry or a 

State [geological] survey should bring the facts to the zoning 

commission about where the resource is and where the 

resource isn't; then they could evaluate those facts and the 

competing uses, and say, "Fine, we have no other place to get 

this material, so then the use should be in favor of the mining 
60 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

company." And those facts on mineral resources are the 

facts that are found on geologic maps. 

J. Kurt von Achen: 

That's exactly right. That's what we're asking. Give us 

the ammunition so we can make a decision that is essentially 

against the neighbors, but for the good of the whole community. Unless you bring that to us, we're stuck. 

Aldo Barsotti: 

A comment. Some of these companies you talk to that 

you give permits to mine, they're mining because they are in 

business to produce rock, but that rock that they're talking 

about is used locally, it doesn't go very far, and that may be 

something you might want to take into consideration. And 

that's part of this planning process that Jim [Eidel] was referring to. We need to have more information taken in a 

broader perspective to give to those people who are making 

decisions at the local level as well as the State level. 

Bruce H. Mason, Executive Director, Indiana Aggregates 

Association, Indianapolis, Indiana: 

I would like to reinforce a few points that were made. 

It's exceedingly difficult for any one company to come 

in and identify mineral resources in an area. It's equally difficult to get the attention of what I call the "public policy 

makers." Maybe we need to start at the Statehouse or at the 

Geological Survey or a combination of both. But there is a 

definite need for a public policy to protect mineral resources 

for use by future generations. Individual companies can 

develop and profit from those resources, but society has an 

equal need to have access to those resources so that basic 

needs of society can be met. 

In my professional history, I have had the opportunity 

to work for a government agency and for private industry. I 

also have held elected office and have chaired those "tough" 

meetings where people seemed to worry more about minor 

things such as whether franchise cable TV is going to be 

approved rather than whether their "trash" is going to be 

picked up. 

The public has an unrecognized interest in having 

access to cheap, "quality" industrial minerals, whether it be 

aggregate or some other industrial mineral. The public will 

need these resources to continue to enjoy civilization as we 

know it today. There seems to be "nobody home upstairs" 

who is willing to take on and develop those public policies. 

Somebody has to ensure that the resources needed by 

society are there for public consumption. I must confess that 

I don't know how to start that process. I am frustrated as an 

individual and as a professional in trying to get this need recognized in my own State. I have worked in other States and 

have been equally frustrated because the same problem 

exists in those States. If we're talking about other resources, 

such as trees and wildlife, something might get done. When 

it relates to mineral resources, "It's too close to our backyard." The resources are there for everybody to use, but we 

are limited in our ability to develop and use those resources. 

We just can't seem to get it done. 

Robert L. Pinkerton: 

I think what we're really talking about here are competing objectives. Because, obviously, we have a need for 

resource minerals in our day-to-day life. We have other 

interest groups, and this is a special-interest group here. 

You've got competing interests and objectives, for example 

concerning the mines near Columbia, Illinois, and you'd be 

surprised where these are coming from. We have interest 

groups in Illinois that don't want to see anything scarred up 

in the way of removal of the bluffs that are around here, 

which is where some of our mines are. And they've been 

able to get certain laws or policies enacted by the State of 

Illinois. The pressure is coming from a whole variety of 

places, and I'll guarantee you, it's getting worse. There are 

so many laws on the books now, that I don't know how local 

governments are going to effectively be able to deal with 

them. I mentioned the LUST program. Well, we've got an 

Historic Preservation Agency that deals with land disturbance. If it's a Federal or State project, you've got to do an 

archeological study. We have preservation of agricultural 

land, maybe in direct competition with a minable resource. 

And believe me, in the State of Illinois, our Department of 

Agriculture is paying a lot of attention to that particular 

objective. We have the wetlands, we have all of these kinds 

of things to deal with that we did not have 10 years ago. So 

the cost of doing business is going up, the complexity is 

going up, the time required to get something done is going 

up. I appreciate the efforts of our volunteer planning commission chairmen around the State to try to pull all this 

together in some sort of public local policy decision making. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

That was a very good discussion, about exactly what we 

were hoping for at this meeting. Let's start a discussion now 

on Economics with Panel 3: Cost factors in industrial minerals use. The panel leader is Dr. Subhash Bhagwat, Mineral 

Economist with the Illinois Geological Survey. 

COST FACTORS IN INDUSTRIAL 

MINERALS USE 

Panel leader: 

Dr. Subhash B. Bhagwat, Mineral Economist, Illinois 

State Geological Survey, Champaign, Illinois. 
PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 1 61 

Panel members: 

George E. Dirkes, Executive Director, Illinois Association of Aggregate Producers, LaGrange, Illinois. 

John F. Schmidt, Vice President and Treasurer, Columbia Quarry Company, Columbia, Illinois. 

Louis Griesemer, Griesemer Stone Company, Springfield, Missouri. 

PANEL PRESENTATIONS 

Dr. Subhash B. Bhagwat: 

After this very lively session where the topic touches 

everybody very closely, we are coming back to some of the 

mundane issues of dollars and cents. 

We have three very experienced panelists here and so 

I'll keep my remarks to a very brief 2 or 3 minutes and leave 

it to the panelists to take the issue up and outline some of the 

things that are on their minds. 

We will talk about the costs or factors that affect the 

cost of industrial minerals. We basically talk about two different areas where the cost can come from, some that are 

related to the industry itself, and others that come from external actions or regulations that the industry has to deal with. 

I'll briefly go over them. 

Availability of resources is an internal factor that we 

had ample discussion about this morning. Labor relations 

have not been discussed too much as of now. But that's a 

factor that one has to deal with in differing amounts in every 

industry. Cost of extraction. There are plenty of people here 

to deal with that. Cost of transportation. This was mentioned before as a commodity, especially in the industrial 

construction aggregate industry, where the unit cost is so 

low; commodities are very sensitive to transportation costs. 

And then there is the competition both at the national and 

local level, as well as at the international level in certain 

cases. Believe it or not, aggregates coming in from overseas 

are known on the East Coast. 

As far as external factors go, we have Environmental 

Impact Statements, we have other factors such as the ban on 

CFC's; that doesn't affect the construction industry but does 

affect other industrial minerals such as fluorspar. We have 

another area, urban growth and zoning, we've just had a 

lively -discussion about that. Population densities. Something to take into account while planning, especially 

long-term planning. Where are the high population densities? How are they developing? What are the anticipated 

needs 10, 20 years down the road? Economic growth is a 

fairly generic type of factor that does have some local implications, because the construction industry can move or go 

bust in local areas while the national economy is still growing, and vice versa, so you need to take that into account. 

Taxes and subsidies may not have that much effect in a discriminatory way as far as local construction industry goes, 

but they do matter when it comes to competition between 

States or on an international level. And, finally, a factor that 

is bound to have increasing importance in the long run and 

that is material substitution, materials that do not come from 

traditional sources of mining, they may be manmade materials replacing some of the traditional materials, but, ultimately, we still have to look at the raw materials used for 

those manmade materials. 

So we are looking at two major groups of factors, and 

with that I will just leave the field to George [Dirkes] to take 

up and to outline some of the things that he has in mind. 

George E. Dirkes: 

Most people not acquainted with our industry associated our costs only with operational expenditures, like payroll, equipment, and maintenance. Even some of the people 

in industry are not acquainted with the many more costs, the 

real costs of producing construction aggregates. One of our 

earlier speakers today felt remiss in that he was preaching to 

the choir, but I welcome that. Our people should know all 

our cost factors. There are only 12 of us, I think, in this room 

that are actively involved in the aggregate mining business; 

the rest are in various forms of government or other parts of 

the bureaucracy. Therefore, I have a message to present to 

them today. 

In preparation for today, I decided to make a list of 

major components that make up our cost factors. But after I 

constructed the list, I decided to group it and dissect it, try to 

get it in a little more meaningful presentation, whereby we 

can learn something from it. There are some things to be 

observed here (table 8). I want to say that at best, the list is 

only a good start. 

You will notice that expenditures are divided into three 

categories: high-risk, pre-production, and operational expenditures. Then, to the right, are four columns, one-time, occasional, continual, and uncontrollable expenditures. The plan 

is to analyze the cost, where the money goes, if you were to 

start a pit or a quarry. Most of the items are listed in chronological order; however, sometimes in the real world, one can 

get in front of the other. 

I wish to point out that as you go down the list and read 

all the items upon which you are going to spend 

money-you don't begin making rock until you get to the 

bottom of the list to operational expenditures. 

HIGH-RISK EXPENDITURES are those expenditures 

that are incurred before you get the green light to produce; 

i.e., these expenses cover the cost of finding a deposit, proving it up and obtaining your permits from the various levels 

of government. Associated with these costs are expenses for 

specialists such as engineers, lawyers, scientific and lab people, and, lastly, what it costs when you buy your money. 

You may very well spend money in each one of these pockets and still get shot down. That is, the final testing may 

prove the piece of property you are looking at does not 
62 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

Table 8. Factors affecting the cost of industrial minerals. 

Expenditures 

One time Occasional Continual Uncontrollable 

High-risk expenditures: 

Geological X X 

Financial X X X X 

Exploration and testing X X 

Legal X X X 

Real estate or royalty X X X 

Environmental (discovery) X X 

Permits X X X 

Engineering X X 

Pre-production expenditures: 

Stripping X 

Plant site prep X 

Plant and equipment X X 

Build plant, shop, etc. X 

Operational expenditures: 

Production and maintenance X 

Environmental control X X 

MSHA X X 

Sales X 

Public relations X X 

Reclamation X X 

Waste material X X 

contain enough material to be worthwhile or the material 

may not be of suitable quality. You may also get shot down 

in the permitting section. You may not be able to generate 

enough profit to meet the State and Federal environmental 

requirements. If you are in a situation where there is county 

zoning, you can get shot out of the water at that point also. 

Lastly, if you need to borrow big time money to get going, 

your banker may not feel that there will be the proper return 

on investment to pay off your debt because of your price 

structure. Since you can lose the ballgame at any time during 

this first category of expenses, that is why I call this group 

"high-risk expenditures." If you don't get the green light, 

you lose all money invested up to that point and all you get 

is a tax loss-which is worthless unless you have a profit to 

put it against. 

PRE-PRODUCTION EXPENDITURES: If all that is 

green, then you go into the next set of expenditures. Pre-production expenditures are that set of expenses you must 

undertake after you have been given the green light. Those 

expenses are readily understandable. Stripping, plant site 

prep, plant site purchase, then you have to build the plant, the 

shop, the office, scale house, etc., etc. They are one-time 

expenditures in a normal operation, but this money must be 

spent before you shake out the first rock. 

Finally, we get to production. OPERATIONAL 

EXPENDITURES are those expense items associated with 

the making of rock products. In the old days, 30 or 40 years 

ago, we were usually only concerned with two expense 

areas-production and maintenance and sales and overhead. 

Here I'll include taxes. Taxes are big enough that they could 

be a separate item, but taxes should be considered as part of 

production and maintenance. Today the list is considerably 

longer through the inclusion of additional items that have 

been laid on us by the government over the years. Environmental control costs money. MSHA costs money, but probably is a good expenditure because most of the time the 

MSHA are trying to protect the employee and we're all for 

health and safety. 

Not much money is spent by our industry on R & D 

expenses, and public relations expenses. Our industry is 

sadly lacking in public relations expenditures. This year we 

are stressing it very hard in Illinois. Something is going to 

have to be done. Every speaker today, no matter what subject he spoke of, talked about education, education of the 

regulators, education of the community, and all that comes 

under public relations. 

Reclamation is an ongoing cost that starts when you do 

your stripping. You put your stripped overburden in the 

proper place and it becomes part of your reclamation 

program. 

I conclude the list with an item that many people seem 

to overlook, waste material. Waste material generated has to 

be factored into your cost. If you get 80 percent saleable 

products out of your operation and 20 percent waste, the cost 

of production for the saleable products has to then be 

increased by 25 percent to accommodate the expense of generating waste material. I wonder how many of our operators 

think that way. 

All these expenditures can be classed conveniently on 

the basis of frequency of occurrence. In the one-time 

expense column would be an item that, obviously, only 

occurs once, like site preparation. Some items can occur 

more than once; these are classified as occasional expenses. 

A good examp1e would be the expense for environmental 

discovery. That cost item means that you hire an engineer or 

environmentalist or some such person and they discover and 

file for you all the various environmental permits that are 

needed in order to operate. Normally, this would be a 

one-time expense. However, because those laws and regulations keep changing, keep being added to, you may on occasion have to seek such professional help again. Some items 

have every column checked. For example, legal expense. 

One would hope that you would only have to hire lawyers at 

the onset of your project, a one-time expense. However, the 
PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 1 63 

way things happen, you may have to go back to the lawyer a 

few more times; that would make it an occasional expense. 

Unfortunately, it seems that we are turning to the lawyers 

more and more these days. Therefore, it could very well get 

in the continual expense column. Ditto for the banks and 

ditto if you don't own the property and are buying your mineral on a royalty basis. 

At the far right of the table is a column called uncontrollable expense. This column is probably arguable, but it 

includes those expense items over which you have little or no 

control. Example: The cost of money. You can shop your 

banks, but usually the cost of money is pretty similar. Unfortunately, most of the uncontrollable expenses are rising. 

Not included on this list is research and development 

because most of the individuals in our industry do not spend 

any money on such an item. Because of the price at which 

we sell our product, there is not a whole lot of money left 

over after normal profit for the opening of a replacement pit 

or quarry-let alone research and development or public 

relations. It is my opinion that in respect to pricing, many of 

our operators are sawing off the limb upon which they're sitting; they sell too cheaply. The end result is that upon 

depletion, companies simply go out of business. Or, as 

depletion nears, many companies sell out to larger companies because they can't see their way to bankrolling a 

replacement pit or quarry. 

The price structure of our products determines the 

amount of money that can be dedicated to a reserve fund for 

replacement expenses: Unfortunately, over the years, many 

of our producers have been lulled into a false sense of security by the good market volume the industry enjoyed as a 

whole. There are several things that have to be taken into 

account that will affect this conclusion. One significant 

change over the past 30/40 years is that there are many additional expense items that weren't there one generation ago. 

Expense items such as those which occur as a result of the 

rules and regulations promulgated by government are a significant expense. Add to that what happened to the cost of 

the various insurances over the past generation, and you can 

readily understand why you cannot look at the replacement 

costs for our operations in the same way as before. Things 

have changed dramatically. Getting your hands on a piece 

of real estate that contains mineral is only part of the economic situation. One generation ago that was most of the 

economic equation. 

One of my observations regarding pricing is that in the 

past 30 years, our prices did not increase in keeping with 

many of the common things that make up our daily lives. For 

example, here are six common items and what happened to 

their cost over the past 30 years. The exact amount of the 

increases is open to argument. With the help of one of our 

major companies, I have determined that the price of our 

product has risen only approximately 250 percent over the 

past 30 years. This is on a generalized basis for all products 

averaged together. During that same 30 years, the cost of an 

automobile has risen 500 percent, labor has risen 600 percent, homes have risen 700 percent, the cost of football and 

theater tickets has risen 800 percent, cigarettes have risen 

900 percent, and the cost of a loaf of bakery bread has risen 

about 1,000 percent. 

Those numbers relate to our daily life and our quality of 

life and also relate to our margin of profit. The figures for 

labor and automobiles can certainly be correlated with our 

industry, as the increase in the cost of an automobile should, 

in general, have some relationship to the increase in the cost 

of our equipment. If you study these numbers, it appears that 

there is a paradox, how can equipment, labor, and services 

rise at a rate that is two or three times greater than the rise in 

the cost of our product and yet we are still able to stay in 

business? Part of that answer lies in the analogy that I made 

earlier about sawing off the limb we are sitting on. Many of 

our smaller and medium-sized companies do not have the 

reserve funds they used to have. Many of these same companies do not have any surplus funds for items that I consider 

necessary, such as community relations and R & D. There 

are mitigating factors that would also explain this paradox-at least explain it in part. One is the fact that the volume produced by our industry, as a whole, has increased 

significantly over the past 30 years. Therefore, we make less 

per unit but sell more units to derive some total profit. It is 

the philosophy of that equation that creates bigness of producers and causes the demise of smaller operators. The philosophy of producing more-for-less has an end point in 

classical economics. When that end point is reached, the 

more-for-less advantage is gone and the pricing structure 

must be adjusted upward. In the interim, while the marketplace is seeking that point in time of adjustment, many suffer 

because of financial restraints. 

Our own industry suffers from the lack of R & D in two 

areas, R & D on our products and R & D for the equipment 

we utilize. With regard to R & D concerning our products, I 

have good news and bad news. The good news is that the 

IAAP (Illinois Association of Aggregate Producers) does 

have an ongoing R & D program in place and our first 

research product under this new program is underway. Similarly, the National Associations are undertaking a significant effort for a joint-ventureR & D program. The bad news 

is that this may be too little too late. Already there are ominous rumblings that the superhighways in Europe are far 

superior to ours. That comes as a bitter pill since most Americans think that we are leaders in that area. With regard to R 

& D concerning the equipment we utilize in the production 

of our material, my observation is simple. The equipment 

industry is in the same kind of sit~ation as the aggregate 

industry, hurting for profits. Because of that, R & D has suffered. In essence, with regard to our equipment, all we are 

doing is making it bigger. It is this bigness that has helped 

the industry survive the disparity of cost increases, when you 

use an 80-ton quarry truck instead of the 20-ton truck of 30 

years ago, you save the expense of three operators. 
64 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

However, like most things, there is an end point to the bigness solution. Not everybody's operation will lend itself to 

a large quarry truck. The smaller and medium-sized operators who are suffering from the price equations cannot tum 

to bigness or high volume as a solution for their problem. 

Most of these small and medium-sized operators are a 

needed part of the supply network. When they are gone, they 

cannot be replaced by a large producer. A large producer 

cannot survive on their low tonnage. Therefore, when that 

day comes, the material will have to be shipped in from 

greater and greater distances. Hence, at that point, the cost 

of aggregates in that area will go up-not because of the 

price of aggregates but because of cartage. When the small 

and medium-sized operators are gone, we have eliminated 

the basis for competition. 

John F. Schmidt: 

I won't belabor all of the various cost factors that Mr. 

Dirkes has hit; however, one thing that needs mentioning and 

that has impacted our cost is the trend to smaller aggregates. 

Most of the products specified by highway groups and engineers today are 1" or less in size. In crushing our limestone 

down to 1" minus, we make more dust, agricultural limestone. Our market for aglime is limited at best. It used to be 

that we'd get an exceptionally good aglime sales market 

every 10 or 12 years, but it now has been much longer than 

that since we've had one. So we do have unwanted byproducts that result from making our prime products, that add to 

the cost of the prime product. 

We have gotten increased competition from a new area 

in the past couple of years and it's growing-that is the competition from recycled asphalt and concrete. Certainly recycling is desirable, but for those who are in the virgin product 

industry, it does cut into our market. 

In the area of quality control, we are experiencing 

increased costs, as the State of Illinois is introducing a quality assurance program that requires the quarries to do the 

testing that heretofore has been done by State inspectors. 

Over and above our quarry costs, the item of transportation has been mentioned any number of times. When I 

started with the quarry back in 1952, about 70 percent of our 

products moved by rail. Today this figure is less than 10 percent. In the fifties and sixties, the railroads would grant special rates for road jobs so we could use them to ship our 

products as there weren't as many quarries around the State. 

The railroads are not competitive for our business today, 

unless it's something in trainload quantities where we can 

move the same cars back and forth on a regular basis. With 

the advent of better highways, the interstate system, and 

increased load limits, the majority of our products are now 

transported by truck. 

I asked one of our haulers to give me some comments 

on the primary factors that affected his costs. For simplicity 

and brevity, they are listed as follows in outline form: 

I. Distance 

A. Actual road miles traveled from aggregate 

source to job site and return (round trip 

mileage) 

1. Mileage from truckers' garage to quarry 

2. Mileage from job site to garage at end of work 

day 

a. fuel cost 

b. wages 

c. equipment wear 

II. Volume 

A. Routing 

1. Interstate highways 

2. State highways 

3. City streets 

a. load limits 

b. power lines 

B. Deadlines 

1. Loading hours and dumping hours per day 

2. Minimum tonnage per day 

III. Volume 

A. Regular haul, systematic (i.e. asphalt plant-batch 

plant) 

B. One shot deal 

1. Parking lot 

2. More than one-day job 

IV. Product 

A. Riprap 

1. Rough trailers 

a. usually heavier 

b. less pay load 

c. easy to tum over 

d. loading in pit 

B. Aglime 

1. Wetdown 

2. Tarp 

C. Manufactured sand 

1. Tight tailgate latches 

2. Taping inside of gate 

V. Gross revenue 

A. Minimum $44.00 per hour 

B. $350.00 per 8-hour day 

C. Overtime 

VI. Specialty service items 

A. Tailgate load 

B. Dumping in spreader box 

C. Multiple dumping of a load 

D. After working hours loading 

E. Saturday loading 

There are no doubt other factors that have been omitted 

in this pricing logic. However, this schematic should give 

one some ideas about what goes into the mix that ultimately 

determines a freight rate. 
PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 1 65 

Louis Griesemer: 

I'm an area manager for three separate companies, for 

the Griesemer Stone Company in Springfield, Missouri, 

whose underground limestone operation has been in continuous operation for 45 years in the same location, for the J oplin Stone Company in Joplin, Missouri, where a surface pit 

has been in operation for 27 years, and for the Parkville 

Stone Company in Parkville, Missouri, where there is an 

underground operation. 

I think one element here needs a little more emphasis 

and that's the cost of public relations. I know a little bit 

about those tangible and intangible costs. For 40 years we 

didn't do any public relations and then we went to a zoning 

case about 3 or 4 years ago. We thought we were doing a real 

good job. In Springfield, Missouri, we had a nice underground operation. We used to kid about being a low-profile 

company. We found out just how low profile it was when we 

got to the zoning hearing and found out nobody in town 

knew what we did. That turned out not to be a plus. 

In order to tum that around, we've started over again 

with some basic advertising and community relations, a lot 

of tours for school groups, Cub Scouts, whoever wants to 

come in. We certainly encourage them to come in. One of 

the problems with being a producer, we don't think much 

about public relations because our customers are almost captive customers. We don't do a lot of advertising to bring in 

members of the general public. The general public are not 

our direct customers, they are indirect customers. We are 

selling products to them through asphalt and through concrete plants. They don't really know where that material is 

coming from. We don't put our names on newspaper ads 

saying what we sell, and, "Come in and get a load of gravel," 

because, like a lot of quarries, we consider pick-up trucks to 

be a nuisance out on the lot and sometimes a hazard. So, 

when it came to the type of public relations we go after, most 

of ours are public service announcements. We support the 

PBS station in Springfield, Missouri. On Tuesday evenings, 

if you watch the McNeil-Lehrer News Hour, you'll see that 

it's brought to you by Griesemer Stone Company. And we 

added a line at the very end of the announcement from the 

Missouri Mining Industry Council, "If it can't be grown, it 

has to be mined." Just a very basic statement, trying to get 

our point across that the minerals industry is very important 

to the community. 

If you don't think that point is missed, I would invite 

you to a quarry zoning meeting, where some aggregate producer is trying to get zoning, and see the misconceptions by 

the general public about what we do. I know there are a lot 

of operations that don't present a good face for our industry, 

and the good producers bear the brunt of that. What we need 

instead of all the headlines about the bad things that happen, 

we need to make the good things available to the public. 

There was talk earlier in another panel about the beautification contests, the landscaping contests at the national level. 

Those stories are in our trade journals where they don't do 

any good in public relations. We are preaching to the choir. 

That publicity needs to be in the local papers, and we need to 

make more effort in getting those things down to the local 

level-get them out to the public who are going to go to the 

zoning and planning meetings. Then perhaps they'll see that 

there is a balance to these issues. 

John F. Schmidt: 

I just want to make one more comment. In the public 

relations area, the two national organizations that represent 

our industry, the National Stone Association and the 

National Aggregate Association, are sponsoring a public 

relations seminar, so it is something that is being addressed 

at the national level as well as the State level. 

Dr. Subhash B. Bhagwat: 

Most of the points that were covered here were cost factors that occur within the industry as Mr. Dirkes' chart 

shows, but there are a number of them which are imposed on 

the industry from outside. Some of the questions seem to be 

getting the same answer. Educate! Things that you do as 

well as things that you don't do come haunting us. I can tell 

you from experience that education is one of the things that 

pays, and the earlier, the better. Four years ago in my son's 

first grade class, I took a box of minerals and showed the kids 

what these minerals are and I did something similar to what 

Mr. Griesemer just said. If it has to be used, if it cannot be 

farmed, it has to be mined. I pointed out to several children 

what kind of minerals are involved in the things that were 

around them, and, to my surprise, it was the teacher who was 

more impressed than the kids, because she didn't know much 

about minerals at all. I guess I cannot overemphasize that 

factor of educating. 

DISCUSSION 

Marshall R. Thompson, Department of Civil Engineering, 

University of Illinois, Newmark C.E. Laboratory, 

Urbana-Champaign, Illinois: 

I feel a little bit like a fish out of water, too. I'm a 

Civil Engineering Professor in Research and Education, primarily dealing with highway materials and pavement 

analysis and design. 

I heard this morning concerns about the fact that we are 

depleting our highest quality materials. I would suggest that 

an option, that has been considered in the past and has proven 

effective, is to learn how to use lower quality materials that 

are more readily accessible to a project site. Therefore, material transportation costs are reduced. Unfortunately, as we 

move into using "off-standard" materials, it takes more engineering, more testing, etc. That is obviously a cost factor we 

have to consider. 
66 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

A few comments relative to recycling. Recycling is 

here to stay, folks. I don't think that we're ever going to see 

anybody backing away from recycling. Solid waste disposal 

is a major hangup. There were times when they tried to 

declare asphalt concrete a material that you couldn't "put in 

a solid waste disposal area." I think even at this time, in 

some cases, that is a major problem and concern. I think that 

the aggregate industry is going to have to learn how to compete with recycled materials, whether it's concrete, asphalt 

concrete, etc. Recycling is a part of the scene that we are 

now operating in and it will have to be considered. 

In terms of how to get dollars for research and development, product development, etc., I think certain things such 

as check-off taxes offer potential. At the University of Illinois in the agronomy area, we are fortunate in having moneys 

that are derived from a tax that is assessed against each bushel 

of corn and (or) soybeans produced in the State of Illinois. 

Now, if you folks get behind a program of that sort, you can 

generate funds for research and development, for public education, or for whatever the need may be. For example, in 

Europe it is not uncommon to assess a tax against highway 

construction to support a research and development program. 

In Belgium, there is a tax against each and every highway 

project, based on the price of the project, that goes toward R 

& D activities. I think these kinds of activities perhaps give 

us ways of generating support. 

We are getting called upon to use crushed glass bottles 

in asphalt concrete. Right? There are all kinds of proposals 

like that around. And those materials are competing in the 

marketplace. In some cases, they aren't materials that give 

us the same quality you would like to have in high-quality 

construction. If we need higher quality construction, we 

may have to learn how to do it with lower quality material. 

Dr. Subhash B. Bhagwat: 

George, would you like to take a shot at that tax? 

George E. Dirkes: 

I would rather our producers raise the price and control 

the program and the money ourselves, than get into the hands 

of the bureaucrats, and then have them give it back to us as 

they see fit. I feel it would be a more efficient use of money 

that way. 

Marshall R. Thompson: 

I think it would be worthwhile to check in and see how 

the com-soybean guys do this. 

Curtis H. Ault, Mineral Resource Section, Indiana 

Geological Survey, Bloomington, Indiana: 

A question for Mr. Griesemer. You're involved with 

underground mining of limestone and dolomite. Would you 

care to make some kind of a generalization as to comparisons 

of cost for underground mining as compared to open pit 

quarrying in your experience? 

Louis Griesemer: 

We have surface mining in Joplin and underground in 

Kansas City and in Springfield. The costs vary more due to 

the geology than to the fact that we are underground or at 

surface. Generally when you're surface mining, you're taking off several feet of overburden, and that cost is offset in 

underground mining. Your labor costs may be higher underground, and your capital machinery costs also may be higher 

because you're dealing with more specialized machinery. 

Each of our three sites has unique costs; even the two underground sites are not strictly comparable. In the Kansas City 

area, for instance, we're roof-bolting, and operations in that 

facility cost more than in Springfield where we do not have 

to roof-bolt. So, it's very, very hard to generalize. 

I'd say each site has its own specific costs. The nice 

thing about the cost of transportation being so high, is that it 

protects you. Everybody within the same area has nearly the 

same geology and has to put up with those same conditions. 

In Springfield it would be very difficult for us to compete the underground versus open pit quarries. Fortunately, 

our underground working is right on the border of the city 

limits, which gives us about a 7-mile haul advantage over 

any open pits which cannot locate as close. 

Let's talk about land use and compatibility. We have all 

types of zoning around us at our 400-acre site in Springfield, 

and we, ourselves, are partly industrially zoned and partly 

agriculturally zoned. We are a grandfathered mining operation. To the east of us is more agriculture zoning. To the 

north of us it is commercial-industrial, and to the south of us 

is a very, very nice residential area. We are blasting less than 

2,000 feet from that residential area. Of course, being underground, we're just concerned with ground vibration and not 

air blast. 

But we are developing the underground facility. We 

have 1.2 million square feet of underground storage, so we 

end up being our own worst neighbor. We have a lot of 

industrial customers in those facilities that we have to protect; they don't want blast damage to their structures, and we 

want to continue their leasing from us. 

So, I think we can be creative in this industry, to be 

compatible. When we are talking about land use and protecting particular areas, I think we need to look at the geology of 

those particular areas to see if maybe an underground mining 

operation might be compatible. 

I want to add a comment about the recycled materials. 

I don't see them necessarily as a competitive problem. I 

think that's probably an industry that we should be in as well. 

The "recycled" industry requires that there be some sort of 

stockpile lot which we already facilitate. Very often, we are 
KEYNOTE ADDRESS 67 

talking about blending virgin and recycled materials, so I 

don't see recycling as something that is out there against us. 

I think it is part of us. We are mining the highways, in effect. 

That's where the resource is, and that's where we should go 

after it. 

H. Lyn Bourne: 

One of the things that hasn't been discussed in the economic factors is profit. That may be too obvious, but a few 

years ago that concept was considered obscene. I think that 

it has been demonstrated internationally that the free enterprise system works better than some of the other economic 

systems. Profit is important, because if you can't demonstrate a profit, trying to win investors or borrowing money 

from a bank won't fly. So, in your list of economic factors 

that influence industrial minerals, whether they're aggregates or whatever, profit is important. 

Dr. Subhash B. Bhagwat: 

I think that's what Mr. Dirkes was alluding to when he 

said that, over the years we have been selling the shop, that 

the profit margins have been squeezed. I assume that was 

also the point he made in saying that he would prefer to raise 

the prices and have the money to do the R & D rather than 

give it to somebody else. 

KEYNOTE ADDRESS 

Midcontinent Industrial Minerals 

Workshop Banquet 

September 16, 1991 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

For several of our Workshop members, our banquet 

speaker tonight is an old friend, just returning to the region. 

Chip Groat is a former State Geologist and Director of the 

Louisiana Geological Survey, and we have, of course, four 

other State Geologists or Assistant State Geologists here in 

our Workshop tonight. 

Chip is now the Executive Director of the American 

Geological Institute in Alexandria, Virginia. AGI is the 

umbrella organization for 19 different associations of geoscience professionals. Common to a1119, and thus a particular interest to AGI, has always been the subject of 

geoscience education. Chip has a Bachelors Degree from the 

University of Rochester, a Masters from the University of 

Massachusetts, and a Ph. D. from the University of Texas at 

Austin, all in geology. Prior to his 12 years as Director of the 

Louisiana Geological Survey, he also served as Assistant to 

the Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Natural 

Resources and administered Louisiana's Coastal Zone Management Program. Chip was an Associate Director, and Acting Director of the Bureau of Economic Geology at the 

University of Texas in Austin and then served 2 years as 

Chairman of the Department of Geological Sciences at the 

University of Texas at El Paso. He has also had some particularly appropriate experience as a geologist. He has consulting experience with talc deposits in the Trans-Pecos; zeolites 

in Coastal Plain volcanic sedimentary rocks; limestone, clay, 

and other nonmetals on University of Texas lands; and he 

has experience in Gulf Coast sand and aggregate resources. 

He has represented both Texas and Louisiana on the Interstate Mining Compact Commission. On the other hand, he 

has also been involved in studies of the environmental 

effects of mining and in mined land reclamation planning. 

Chip will talk to us tonight about the need for education 

about the role of minerals in our society, in a talk he's going 

to call, 

"IF ONLY DICK AND JANE HAD 

GONE TO THE MINES" 

Dr. Charles G. Groat, Executive Director, American Geological Institute, Alexandria, Virginia2 

I am using that title tonight because I got to thinking 

about Dick and Jane and realized that there are probably 

many people out there who remember Dick and Jane. There 

are probably a few of you who are too young, maybe a few 

of you that are too old. Then I realized that there are some 

State Geologists here and I figured that there are also a few 

who haven't been to school. So, with that in mind, even with 

the various handicaps, I'm going to use Dick and Jane to 

paint a picture. 

We remember, "See Spot. See Spot run. Run, Spot, 

run." I don't remember too much about Dick and Jane other 

than those little catch phrases that went on and on, but one 

thing I do remember in that primary school reader was Dick 

and Jane going to the farm. I don't now remember whether 

it was Farmer Jones' or Farmer Brown's, but I do remember 

the little pictures in the book, and you see Farmer Brown 

with the cows, and they would say something appropriate, 

"See the cows. See the cows moo." And out of that picture 

of Dick and Jane at the farm, the crops and the cows, the 

chickens, and Farmer Brown milking the chickens, and all 

the things that they do on the farm, you get this warm, fuzzy 

2Current (1993) address: Executive Director, Center for 

Coastal, Energy, and Environmental Resources, E302 Howe/Russell Bldg., 

Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803. 
68 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

picture of agriculture: how pleasant it is, how American it is, 

what an honorable profession it is. This is the backbone of 

our country. These are the resources we have to have to 

live-the food-and what better thing can a person aspire to 

than being a farmer? And so pastoral and important it was, 

that it made it into the Dick and Jane reader, as an example 

of what America was all about. 

My teacher didn't tell me that to create all that farmland 

millions and millions of acres of forests and prairie land had 

to have their ecosystems destroyed, that untold populations 

of wild animals and wild plants had to be destroyed. That in 

the process of creating our tremendous agricultural system in 

the country, we created one of the worst erosion problems in 

the world, that we had the Dustbowl as a result of poor agricultural practices. And there was created in the Federal government, within the Department of Agriculture, a huge 

bureaucracy, the Soil Conservation Service, whose chief 

mission was to deal with the environmental problems, the 

erosion problems caused by the agricultural industry. 

She didn't tell me that the pesticides and the fertilizers 

that we had to put on that land to maintain its productivity 

were polluting the surface waters, were polluting the ground 

waters, to the point where the Department of Agriculture 

now has one of the bigger ground-water quality initiatives in 

the Federal government. 

I was never told that there was anything other than 

good, warm fuzzy things about agriculture when I was introduced to it in grade school. 

I wonder what the public perception of minerals and the 

resources we take from the ground would be if Dick and Jane 

had gone to the mines? What if it was presented to the kids 

in elementary school in those formative years that there are 

resources, there are industrial minerals, there are metals, 

there are energy resources, that are the backbone of this 

country. That mining is an honorable profession, that it is 

something that we have to do, and that the image left with the 

kids as they leave the early grades and move up in the school 

is this warm, fuzzy picture of mines and machines, and minerals coming out of the ground and minerals being processed. 

If we look at mining, on the other hand, just the opposite 

is true. Unfortunately, today, if kids are introduced to minerals at all, they aren't really introduced to them as we know 

them. What they're often introduced to is mining in the context of some environmental horror story. It's in the context 

of a list of those things that we have to stop doing, because 

we're ravaging the land, we're digging these holes, or we're 

creating polluted streams, or we're destroying ecosystems. 

Never even mentioning why it is those holes are there, what 

it is that is coming out of the ground, what role the material 

that's coming out of the ground plays in society. Not even 

mentioning that. So, if mining is taught, or if mentioned, or 

resource extraction is taught or mentioned at that same level 

that Dick and Jane were going to the farm, it's generally by 

a well-intentioned teacher who has to teach science and who 

teaches environmental things because that is what he or she 

is most familiar with. When mining or resources come into 

the picture, it's on that list of environmental concerns that we 

have, things that we need to stop or we need to do somewhere else. 

So the unfortunate picture, then, of that part of the 

resource picture of this country is not the good side, not the 

productive side, not the essential side of it, but the negative 

side. And so most kids, if they come out of school in the 

early years at all having heard about resources or having 

heard about mining or industrial minerals, they have heard 

only the side that we were never told when we learned about 

agriculture, at least in my years. They've heard about the 

negative side. 

Well, obviously, mining, like agriculture, does have 

environmental problems. We do have concerns. You're 

spending a fair amount of time at this conference addressing 

those in an open forum and discussing the issues that surround the development of the minerals that we all know we 

have to have. But the sad fact is that our schools, elementary 

and secondary schools, our colleges, our Federal and State 

agencies, and the industry itself are not doing a very good job 

educating kids and adults, alike, about the role that resources 

play, the role that minerals play. And we are paying the price 

for it today. 

I've spent a lot of time, more than I ever thought I 

would since I went to AGI, involved in education, education 

programs, and trying to get smarter than I was about education and how it takes place. And I have learned that it's in 

those Dick and Jane years, those fuzzy, warm years, that kids 

have their impressions made. That's where they get turned 

on or turned off to science. That's where their paths, their 

directions, their feelings about things are developed. And if 

they come out of those first few years in elementary school 

with a negative image of something or with a positive image 

of something, it sticks with them. Not that it's never moderated or modified as they go through school, but it sticks. And 

it's amazing the percentage of career decisions that are actually made back in those early years because of the impressions that are made then. 

It's a fact that the science part of the elementary curriculum, where kids would first hear about minerals, rocks, 

geology, or resources, is being taught by a million and a half 

elementary teachers who teach science 20 minutes a day on 

the average. In many schools, it's not taught at all. Those 

teachers who are responsible for teaching the young kids science in elementary schools may have had little or no science 

in their college education. If they had any, the chances are it 

was biology. And most likely it was a survey course. The 

chances that they had any geology or earth science, at least 

most of the generation that is teaching in the elementary 

grades today, are pretty slim. In fact 67 percent or so of the 

teachers who are teachjng today are ill-prepared, because of 

little or no science background, to teach any kind of science 

at all at the elementary level. 
KEYNOTE ADDRESS 69 

So when these teachers, realizing they have to teach science, reach for something they're comfortable with, something that's relevant, something that's on the TV, something 

that's in the newspapers that the kids will relate to, they 

reach for the environmental story. Not that that's totally 

inappropriate, but they have no background, no experience, 

nothing to draw on that tells them that perhaps there is 

another side. There is a resource side, particularly when 

they're talking about mining, that is just as important to convey and it really ought to be the first thing to convey. 

This situation is unfortunate. In our dealing with science teachers at AGI and with the Presidential Award winners honored each year by the President for excellence in 

teaching elementary math and science, we are exposed to the 

opportunity to have an impact. When we interact with these 

elementary teachers, they look at our name tags that say 

"American Geological Institute," and say, "Oh, a geologist, 

boy we need more of that stuff, those kids are really excited 

by rocks. They are interested in everything that has anything 

to do with the Earth. They want fossils. They like going out 

and digging around streams and hunting for fossils and identifying minerals. They have more natural curiosity about the 

world they live in, the Earth, and the processes, and the 

things that come out of it, than anything else." They say, 

"We need more of that stuff." These are the teachers handling the Dick and Jane years. So, here's a bunch of kids 

with a natural curiosity, a natural fascination with the world 

about them who probably would be really excited by a mine, 

would really be excited by the fact that the limestone they're 

digging out there or the clay minerals, or whatever it is, is 

going into something that their classroom is constructed of, 

that they deal with in everyday life. They're not getting it. 

It's not in their curriculum. The teachers aren't presenting it. 

So, at that time, when positive images could be presented about our mineral resources, when the setting is right 

for presenting this as well as the problems that go along with 

the use of our resources, whether they are living or nonliving, they're not getting it. 

How do you teach the kids? How do you get that image 

across? How do you get that information across? Again, I'm 

not talking about a whitewash image. I'm not talking about 

warm, fuzzy, naive "Dick and Jane" necessarily. I'm talking 

about the reality that we need those resources, about setting 

the stage properly. How do we teach the kids that? 

I think the most important question is, how do we teach 

the teachers? Because that's where it has to be done. It's the 

teachers who have to go into the classroom, and not only 

understand, but be comfortable teaching it. 

And the time is right to do something about it. That's 

what is exciting and stimulating about these times and the 

atmosphere of tremendous concern across the country about 

the quality of science education. And frankly, it's because of 

our competitiveness. We don't like to see the fact that we 

rate down near Portugal somewhere, in the quality of the test 

results that our kids show in science and math. All of this 

concern over science education motivated the President, 

motivated the Congress to build large science reform movements, to do as we usually do to solve problems: throw 

money at it. As a result the National Science Foundation, the 

U.S. Department of Education, and the Department of 

Energy and other Federal agencies have lots of money to put 

into science teaching reform, into science education reform. 

There is an atmosphere where change is called for and funds 

are available. The improvement must start at the elementary 

level. The American Association for the Advancement of 

Science, the largest professional organization of scientists, 

has Project 2061 aimed at improving the scientific literacy of 

all Americans. They have revisited the science curricula, 

come up with some guidelines for what ought to be taught. 

The National Science Teachers Association has their Scope 

Sequence and Coordination program for the teaching of science in the middle schools and high schools. And there is a 

tremendous appetite for science standards to be sure we are 

bringing everybody up to some reasonable level of science 

comprehension. 

There's a lot of activity. And most of it to be successful 

is aimed in two directions: at the teachers and at what is 

being taught. I really think we have to go back to doing 

everything we can as a community that's concerned about 

minerals, concerned about resources, and make sure that the 

teachers come out of their pre-service training, their college 

years, having had some exposure to the earth sciences. If the 

earth sciences motivate kids, if the earth sciences can tum 

kids on to science, if not make scientists out of all the kids, 

at least let them understand that science can be interesting, 

that it can be relevant, then we should take advantage of it. 

Earthquakes and landslides on the negative side, and mineral 

resources on the positive side, are important parts of their 

lives. If they can understand this at a very early age, then 

they are going to leave the elementary years thinking that 

science is interesting, science is relevant. It's useful. But the 

teachers have to be able to tell them that. They have to both 

take that natural curiosity outdoors and bring earth science 

into the classroom. 

We have to reform pre-service training in the sciences 

to equip our teachers, especially at the elementary level. 

We've got to work through the universities and the State 

education departments where the action is, to make sure that 

science teachers teaching elementary education have science, that they have some earth science, and that resources 

are an important part of that earth science curriculum. Not 

all earth science courses taught in colleges do resources justice, so we must work to encourage faculty members to 

include resources in their courses. 

We also have to work in in-service training, the training 

the teachers get after they're out of college and in the classroom. Realizing that most of the elementary teachers are 

deficient in sciences, there's a lot of money being put 

forward to try to retread, to retrain them after school, during 

school, and in summer programs. If we don't do something 
70 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT -WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

about the pre-service, we're going to be doing in-service or 

remedial training forever. It needs to be a two-pronged 

effort. 

This is one place that earth scientists with an interest in 

resources can play an important role. If we can develop the 

incentives for teachers to get into in-service programs, if we 

can create teacher workshops and institutes like those we had 

in the sixties and seventies, and if we can make resources an 

important part of that program, we can ensure that the earth 

science the teachers get does include a resource perspective. 

We can also create materials for teachers to use in the 

classroom. This is where we probably have done more and 

had less effect than we think we have. AGI had an education 

conference back in February, and we invited the Federal 

agencies who were turning out materials for the schools. 

Representatives from NOAA, NASA, EPA, USGS, and others in the Federal geoscience spectrum brought the materials 

they're turning out. We had lots of teachers there, too. And 

we found out many teachers feel that a lot of this very well 

intentioned classroom material, designed by people in government agencies, in the industry, in the oil business, or in 

the minerals business, never gets used. Why? Because the 

teachers don't understand it. They don't know how to use it. 

It's too much. It's too technical. It's too detailed. It's too 

long. They have 20 minutes a day for science and it doesn't 

fit the curriculum. It's flashy, and it's pretty, and it's 

detailed, and it makes the geologists sit back and say, "Boy, 

this is fantastic stuff." But to that overworked elementary 

teacher who has to teach math, science, English, geography, 

music, social studies, and other subjects, to be thrown these 

wonderful stacks of materials that are way over his or her 

head, and whose science background may be one college 

biology course, the material won't do what we all had hoped 

it would. Materials are important, but materials alone don't 

fill the gap, especially if they are targeted too high. We have 

to be very careful about what we put in their hands. It has to 

be something they're comfortable with. 

We also can get involved with the curriculum. The science reform movement that is going on today in the U.S. still 

has an open door. The AAAS program, the NSTA program, 

are still building model curricula. They're going out into the 

school districts around the country and they are getting 

teachers involved. Whenever materials and curricula are 

designed, you need that reality check of having teachers to 

say, "That won't work," or "That's great," or "You've got to 

do it this way," or "Don't do that, that's stupid." Let them 

help write, let them participate in all of these things. As we 

in government, industry, and universities get involved in the 

business of shaping curricula and working with science 

reform movements, we must be sure we have the teacher perspective. 

Work through your professional associations, or 

through AGI; all the professional associations have their 

finger in the science education pot today. Those of us that 

have mineral interests, energy resource interests, and 

associated environmental interests ought to be pressing on 

our professional societies to be sure that this great science 

reform movement that's sweeping the country doesn't pass 

us by, that we have our chance to get a balanced perspective 

on resources into the curriculum and into the schools. 

Finally, in terms of how we help, how we work with 

teachers, there's the opportunity for the involvement of professional earth scientists in the classrooms themselves. 

There is nothing more humbling than to go in front of a class 

of 6- or 7- or 8-year-old kids and try to communicate with 

them. You really get an appreciation for attention spans, and 

what does and doesn't interest kids. There are many partnering programs out there now, professionals in the classroom 

programs, being sponsored either by school districts or by 

professional associations that give geoscientists, engineers, 

chemists, and biologists a chance to go into the classroom 

and work with the teacher. Most of these programs have 

realized that the professional has to be trained before he or 

she does it, because you can go in there and lay the largest 

egg in the world if you shoot too high, and don't play to their 

interests. But the kids really get excited if they get somebody in there that's good, and it is a very pleasant feeling to 

have kids respond and get involved. 

If what you present fits the curriculum, if it fits the 

teacher's lesson plan, it takes the pressure off them. They 

have their 20 minutes filled that day. They don't have to 

worry about it, and you can have a tremendous influence and 

make an important contribution if you do it and do it well. 

People from industry and people from universities need to 

take the opportunity to work with the teachers and get in the 

classroom to bring the mineral story to the students. We as 

professionals recognize the role that minerals play in our 

society, and we admit there are environmental and land-use 

problems associated with resource development. We are 

responsible for getting a balanced view of these realities into 

the minds of the people of this country, and the minds of the 

school kids is where it has to start. 

It's true that the idyllic picture of agriculture portrayed 

in "Dick and Jane" never really existed. Today we can't 

teach that simplistically. Our professional ethics demand and 

our consciences demand that we teach people about the way 

things really are. We should teach them about the importance 

of resources, and we must include the negative things, the 

tradeoffs that have to be made, and the risks that we have to 

take to live in the modem world today. What we really also 

have to do is face the fact that the basic understanding, the 

fundamental importance, of the very resources this meeting 

is about, is not recognized by the teachers who teach, thus by 

the kids who are taught, and therefore by those kids as they 

become mature adults and voting adults. As a result we are 

missing an opportunity to inform right now, with the science 

reform that's underway, with the tremendous attention that's 

being paid to science, to have another shot at it. We have to 

do everything we can to work on education programs through 

teachers, the universities, principals, and Parent Teachers 
PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 2 71 

Associations to get resources, both energy and mineral 

resources, the place they deserve beside Farmer Jones and 

agriculture. If we work with the teachers and work with the 

school systems to build those understandings, to get them 

across to the daughters and sons of Dick and Jane, we might 

get them on their way to the mines. We might even get them 

there before they get to the farm. 

PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 2 

Tuesday morning, September 17, 1991 

Tzmothy S. Hayes: 

Welcome to day 2 of our Workshop. Our discussion 

continues with the panel on mineral production in an environmentally responsible manner. The panel leader is John 

Kiefer, Assistant State Geologist for the State of Kentucky. 

MINERAL PRODUCTION 

IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY 

RESPONSIBLE MANNER 

Panel leader: 

John D. Kiefer, Assistant State Geologist, Kentucky 

Geological Survey, Lexington, Kentucky. 

Panel members: 

Carl Blomgren, Senior Environmental Engineer, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Kansas City, Kansas. 

Virgil W. Smith, Jr., Vice-Chairman, Oklahoma Mining Commission, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 

Kenneth V. Luza, Oklahoma Geological Survey, Norman, Oklahoma. 

Micheal J. Thompson, Enforcement Administrator, 

Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, 

Little Rock, Arkansas. 

PANEL PRESENTATIONS 

John D. Kiefer: 

Dr. Charles Mankin asked me just a minute ago what 

I'm going to cover that hasn't already been covered. Actually, at least some of what I'm going to cover has already 

been discussed in a somewhat different context, but I think 

some of these points need to be reemphasized. 

I was on the planning group for this meeting, and perhaps 

the story I'm going to tell had a lot to do with getting the initial 

planning for this Workshop started. Our goal was to develop 

a forum or Workshop which would deal with the more 

practical or applied issues in mining and quarrying, operations that currently are impacting our expanding urban areas. 

Mineral production in an environmentally responsible 

manner-what does that really mean? What does it mean to 

be environmentally responsible? Let's take a look at what it 

might mean and then get into some discussion with our panel. 

Yesterday, Tim Haith coat made the point, and I think it 

was a good one, that what we're dealing with are perceptions, perceptions coming from a lot of different perspectives. First, we might have the governmental, regulatory 

agency, perspective. They develop regulations which they 

hope will protect the environment for the future. These often 

may appear to be very stringent, especially from industry's 

point of view. But, in fact, this may not really be true. Regulations, as we know, must work with the least common 

denominator, and at times must generalize in order to cover 

all situations for a broad area. Regulatory agencies are also 

plagued by the common problems of inadequate funding, 

which in tum leads to chronic understaffing and a lack of the 

trained, qualified personnel who would enable them to properly enforce the regulations. Therefore, although the intentions may be admirable, regulatory agencies frequently do 

not achieve the desired results. Often perceptions are tempered by basic reality, and the end results are not what those 

drafting the regulations might have anticipated or hoped for. 

What about industry? Well, industry's perception 

always has to be tempered by the infamous bottom line, 

despite the fact that industry will frequently claim that, "We 

have to live here also so we are just as concerned about the 

environment as anybody else." The end result more typically is that to industry, "environmentally responsible" 

means adhering to the letter of the law, doing what's necessary to obtain the permit, to obtain the approval of the regulatory agency. For lack of a better term, it may also mean 

cutting some comers, if the opportunity presents itself. Not 

because they want to wantonly despoil the environment or 

cause problems, but, because we're not talking about a 

high-profit margin commodity, you have to keep that bottom 

line in mind or you're not going to stay in business. So, you 

do what you have to do to remain viable. 

And then there's the public. What's their perception? 

It depends to a large extent on "whose ox is being gored," or 

to put it another way, your proximity to the extraction site. It 

also depends to a great extent on the educational level of the 

persons you're dealing with and their environmental mind 

set. As Dr. Chip Groat indicated last night, somehow the 

very idea of mining, or to use the term "exploitation," of natural resources sounds like something that is inherently environmentally irresponsible. You're going to tear up the Earth 

and take something out. Add to this the fact that the "not in 

my backyard" syndrome, the "NIMBY" syndrome, is 

becoming nearly as prevalent in regard to siting quarries and 

mines as it is to siting landfills, and you have a major 

problem. It's becoming very difficult to site a new quarry. 

You then have a potentially volatile situation and a great 

need for communication and education. The public perception is one of dust, noise, blasting, heavy traffic, and a big 
72 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT -WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

hole in the ground that you can't do much with after the operators leave. In short, it's something that the public understands little about, but which they know is certainly going to 

disturb their environment. You also have the perception of 

such people as planners, but that's highly variable and generally follows the trend of the public and is influenced by the 

incumbent politicians who are going to follow the perceptions that will give them the most votes. This may or may 

not be the correct choice. It follows the logic of a public that 

indicates in polls that it is willing to pay the cost of a better 

environment, but then votes the politicians out of office 

when they raise taxes to do so. 

Our question then is how do we reconcile these different perceptions? Can we? In fact, do we even need to? In 

my opinion, the answer is "yes," and the reconciliation has 

to be via public relations and education, but I'll get back to 

that in a moment. 

I want to look at an example of the type of problem that 

brought us here and what can happen if you don't focus on 

environmentally responsible mining. A company, which I 

would like to consider a normally very responsible company, applied for a zoning variance to expand their operation, which is a combined surface and underground 

operation. They had already had some minor problems with 

dust, blasting noise, spoil washing into streams, and siltation. These were minor problems but led to poor public 

relations and could have been avoided, for the most part, by 

careful planning. To expand in their planned manner necessitated mining beneath a small but unique and environmentally sensitive stream. The quarry is in a relatively rural 

area, and the stream flows in a series of falls and rapids, 

including some unique travertine falls deposits, through a 

highly faulted and fractured area into a major river. The 

stream and its tributaries flow along and through a nature 

preserve owned by an elderly lady, a former college biology 

teacher, who has willed the preserve to the county, including 

money to support the preserve after her death. Maps showing the extent of the underground operation were not available. Mined-area maps are not required in Kentucky so the 

extent of the mined area was not known. At the hearing we 

were assured that the mine was dry, the rock was sound, 

showed few fractures, and was impermeable. In fact, the 

operators even brought around 2V2 ft sections of core that 

were taken in the mine, and said, "Look at this sound rock. 

Totally impermeable. No fractures in it." As any of you 

know, you usually can pull a piece of core from somewhere 

and it looks like a nice, sound piece of rock, but that's not 

what the water flows through. That's not where the problems are. Most of the water flows through the fractures 

between the solid sections. of rock. ·The review board was 

told that mining beneath this stream could be accomplished 

successfully with no environmental impact. Of course, 

there were doubts. Mining beneath the stream can be done, 

but it's .a fairly expensive process and must be done carefully. However, there was an attempt to bring in some big 

name consultants and bulldoze the issue past the zoning 

board. It didn't work. The opposition hired a consultant 

who had noticed on aerial photographs a change in the vegetation pattern. His presentation was not particularly convincing, but it was just enough to sow the seed of doubt so 

that a judge ordered an independent survey of the mine. 

That survey showed that the company had not only already 

mined under the stream but actually had mined limestone 

from beneath the nature preserve. The stream was already 

showing signs of stress and reduced flow. The inspection 

also showed that the mine was not dry, and a considerable 

amount of water was standing in some places in the mine. 

Of course, a major lawsuit followed. Add this to the fact 

that the company had also been cited for dumping stone in 

the creek, although they maintained that the stone had 

washed in during rainfall. They were risking disaster which 

could have been avoided by some careful initial planning. 

Where does it leave you when you ultimately get in that 

situation? What impact does this have on expanding not 

only that quarry, but any quarries in the vicinity? And, for 

that matter, siting new quarries in the State? How does the 

public, then, and any other zoning board, view the quarry 

industry? Obviously, it does a great deal of damage to the 

industry's credibility. It's going to cause problems for a 

long time to come. In fact, the urban county government 

formed a committee to develop a quarry ordinance, as Bob 

Joice discussed yesterday. 

I believe the ultimate answer lies in being "up front," as 

Mr. von Achen mentioned yesterday. You've got to present 

the facts and deal with them in an honest manner. You've 

got to educate the public to what you're doing. As Chip 

Groat said last night, I've gone into a lot of classrooms and 

asked the students what they know about limestone. Where 

do cement and concrete come from? Usually what you get is 

a lot of blank stares. The public knows little about the source 

of this important commodity. What do they know about 

quarrying? Again you don't get much of an answer. So I 

think what some of you are doing is the right approach, conducting educational trips to the quarry, passing out educational information, putting together audio-visual information 

about quarrying and mining. That's what we have to do. We 

must not hide from the public, we have to be up front about it. 

Now I call on the members of our panel to give us a little insight into the problems in their areas, and what they 

would consider environmentally responsible mining. 

Carl Blomgren: 

My career extends for about 40 years through EPA and 

its predecessors, and with the State of Iowa. This is my first 

opportunity to speak to a specialty group of this type and I 

appreciate it. 

In the Midcontinent region, we in EPA Region 7 carry 

out the programs of EPA in Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and 

Iowa. I believe a representative of the State of Missouri will 
PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 2 73 

discuss the Missouri requirements on mineral production on 

a panel that follows, and therefore I feel a responsibility to 

talk only about what the Federal impact is on the extraction 

and handling of industrial minerals. 

But before I say anything which might be judged to be 

critical of industrial minerals extraction, I would like to tell 

you that as a product of the Depression I lived in the county 

seat town in Monroe County, Iowa, and we kids thought the 

old "Cottonwood Pits," where the railroads extracted the 

clay and fired it for use as ballast, were just about the greatest 

place going. We didn't have any of the modern-day swimming pools or the fun things that kids enjoy today. Well, so 

much for clay extraction-it left a great residual benefit for 

poor kids. 

First I'd like to discuss EPA's requirements that you 

might encounter in the planning stage of a mine or quarry 

operation of this type. Some of this is particularly true in 

parts of the Missouri River where there is extraction of sand 

around Kansas City; those activities require a permit from 

the Corps of Engineers under the Rivers and Harbors Act, 

Section 10. The Corps consults with us and we coordinate in 

making comments about those permits, but the direct responsibility is with the Corps. 

Another aspect of initiating a project on or near the 

waters of the United States would be application for a Section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act. This requirement originated with Public Law 92-500 in 1972. It places 

initial and primary responsibility on the Corps of Engineers 

with a supportive and review role by EPA. These regulations 

are commonly called the dredge and fill regulations. 

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

Permit, commonly referred to as NPDES, is required where 

an excavation involves dewatering operations. This section 

of statute also was a result of the passage of 92-500 in 1972. 

There has been a recent amendment to the Clean Water Act 

which requires EPA and the States to look into controlling 

storm water runoff. In this regard there will be a period for 

a lot of sampling to determine just what is taking place and 

if there is any degradation in water quality before any regulatory impacts will be felt. 

Iowa has sought and, I believe, has received authority 

from the State Legislature to issue general permits, which 

won't require permits for each individual operation, but will 

apply to all of an operator's facilities of that type in the State. 

I would also add that it is rare in the administration of these 

permits and compliance activities that EPA oversees or takes 

enforcement actions where a State has failed to do so. 

There are some added requirements when spoil or fines 

from sand and gravel operations or when limestone or other 

aggregate materials are accumulated or stored, and there is a 

possibility for either fugitive dust or dust emanating from 

rock crushers. There is a separate document which outlines 

requirements covered by either the State of Missouri or 

EPA in the case of fugitive dust from these operations, and 

by the new source performance standards which must be 

complied with after August of 1993 for the installation of 

crushing machinery. 

Yesterday, we heard an endorsement of geographic 

information systems technique (the GIS). The EPA is 

responsible for collecting a lot of geologic data. There is a 

lot of drilling at sites where the owner of the facility is 

required to take corrective action under the Resource Conservation Recovery Act, or where the potentially responsible 

parties are drilling to determine the extent of contamination 

at a Superfund site. I would certainly endorse putting these 

data in a format and system that can be used by others, 

because now data come to us in paper form, become a part of 

the file on that site, and probably are not usable to others. 

This is a rather brief explanation of the Federal environmental role in the extraction and handling of industrial minerals, but my research has shown that these are the only 

requirements that apply to these kinds of operations. 

Virgil W. Smith, Jr.: 

I'd like to establish that besides being a member of the 

Mining Commission, I'm a retired general manager of the 

Dolese Brothers operations in Oklahoma, where I've been 

involved in quarry operations for 37 years. 

There is obviously a unanimity of opinion on the things 

that we need to do. I have something that I present here as a 

confession and a sermon. I hope that (at my 69 years I'm 

older than most of the people in the room) most of you don't 

have to get as old as I am to learn that you set an example. 

You are setting an example every day of your life. You don't 

have a choice. You set the example whether you want to or 

not. That's a pretty heavy burden to lay on yourself if you 

accept it. 

The notes that I made before I came say that management should be leadership. Leadership in business as well as 

in the family is the setting of examples. Business is a vital 

part of the local community, therefore an important member 

of the community family. All of management's actions are 

examples seen by the employees and the members of this 

community. Reluctant participation in environmental issues 

is an unacceptable example, an obvious message to the community that environmental issues are not seen as important 

by industry. It is imperative that industry take the initiative 

in all areas of community relationships. Why wait to be 

forced to comply with regulations and be perceived as a poor 

neighbor? An industry that leads the community in the area 

of environmental issues can expect to reap the benefits 

received by the image presented by this positive example. 

I want to emphasize that all particulate matters aren't 

the same. During my career I have worked in fairly 

high-purity limestone quarries, and I have never known a 

single person to have any physical problems with limestone 

dust. The benefits of the limestone dust that emanate from a 

quarry are very, very measurable. The farmer that has a field 

next door gets free ag-lime; it works, and I've seen it work 
74 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT -WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

for years and years and years. Twenty-five to thirty years 

ago, as I drove I'd see the dust billowing from a quarry, and 

I could see it 3 or 4 miles before I got there. I was happy. 

But now if you see it half a mile away you're unhappy. 

There's been that much change, because of the environmental control. But in defense of good clean limestone dust, it 

does help. It also helps the air quality, because the limestone 

dust kills the sulfides in the air. So it's not all bad. [Editors' 

Note: The reference is to the dust neutralizing the acidity of 

water vapor, the acidity results from oxidation of sulfides to 

form sulfuric acid.] 

I'm also concerned about environmental issue agencies 

that measure particulate matter but don't determine what the 

particulate matter is. One farmer makes more dust in a day 

than any quarry in the whole State of Oklahoma. And that's 

all particulate matter. 

Another issue someone talked about is education. The 

National Stone Association does have an excellent VCR presentation on blasting. It is available to you, if you contact 

them, and it's a good community relationship item. 

Another point is that there should be equitable inspection by environmental agencies. As a manager of a leading 

producer in the State of Oklahoma, I can assure you that we 

received more inspections and had more requirements 

imposed upon us than anybody else in the State. We were 

required to comply with regulations, whereas small producers were never inspected. This to me is unacceptable, but it 

happens, and it happens continually. 

There was an allusion to recycling, yesterday. I have 

been personally involved, hands-on, with the installation and 

operation of five different recycling set-ups. I am a strong 

supporter of recycling. In Oklahoma City practically every 

ton of stone that comes into town has to be hauled 70 miles. 

So, the economics of recycling are very, very positive. 

Among the points to consider, if you recycle, you have 

fewer trucks on the highway. If you have fewer trucks, 

you're putting less rubber on the road, less burning it up, and 

you'll have lower diesel fuel costs. You won't have to mine 

as much iron ore in Minnesota to make steel to make fewer 

trucks to haul rock and fewer ships to haul oil all the way 

from Saudi Arabia, to run the diesel in that truck that goes up 

and down the road. Recycling is really a worldwide environmental issue. Another point-I ran into serious conflict with 

the general sales manager, who wanted to work with a nice 

clean, virgin, specification stone. But if you take machinery 

and set up a three-stage cleanup in a recycling plant, you can 

make three different products. One of them you may have to 

throw away or use for fill, one of them can be miscellaneous 

crusher run (suitable for road rock driveways), the third one 

can even be State specification-traffic-bound surface 

coarse rock. All that can be achieved in a recycling plant. 

We had one case where we even paid the contractors a dollar 

a ton to bring their broken-up concrete and dump it next to 

our plant, and then we could crush it for a dollar a ton. And 

we could sell it for $4 a ton. The haul rate from a quarry to 

Oklahoma City is in the range of $6.50 to $7.00 per ton. 

We're talking about a product that at the quarry is only worth 

$2 a ton. That's a workable cost-to-sales price ratio. 

So, I'm a strong supporter of recycling. Dust control in 

a recycle plant is very easy, because all you're going to do is 

use water. All base materials require moisture and so you 

have a compatibility of your dust control with the design 

specifications of the end product. 

John D. Kiefer: 

Thank you, Virgil. You made some key points, especially in the area of recycling. As Virgil pointed out, it's no 

longer our decision. Recycling is here. It is not just a 

national but an international problem. I would also call 

attention to Mr. Smith's point about industry being the leaders. Instead of sitting back and letting things happen and 

then getting caught in a trap where you don't have much of 

a choice to direct the functions of your industry, you need to 

play a leadership role and make sure the public understands 

what constraints you are working under, and just how important that product really is to the consumer. You've got to 

keep hammering at that point to educate them. 

Kenneth V. Luza: 

Our organization, like many of the other State Surveys, 

is primarily a research and public service organization. The 

Oklahoma Geological Survey serves as a resource to the 

mining industry and to various State agencies that regulate 

and issue permits to the mining industry. Unfortunately, 

regional and local planners do not utilize our organization 

for information. Valuable geologic information, such as the 

thickness, distribution, and occurrence of sand and gravel 

resources, is not being incorporated into any regional and 

(or) local plans in Central Oklahoma. 

The sand and gravel and stone producers play a major 

role in the present and future·development of a community. 

Small as well as large operators spend very little effort to 

inform and educate the public. This lack of effort is, in part, 

responsible for the public's very negative perception of the 

mining industry. 

Mine operators need to get more involved in education 

and the development of better community relations. For 

example, mine/plant tours can be offered for youth groups, 

school groups, service organizations, and visitors on selected 

days. For example, I took a group of Boy Scouts to a sand 

and gravel operation. Now, what can you say about a dredge 

sand and gravel operation? You don't have a big hole in the 

ground to look at. You have a lake, and piles of sand that 

have been sized. We had an excellent tour. We went on a 

Saturday when the plant wasn't running, which gave us an 

opportunity to have a close-up view of the processing equipment. In this part of the State, the gravel is set aside; sometimes it is used as a decorative rock in flower beds. The 
PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 2 75 

gentleman who was giving us the tour said, "Well, kids, 

you'll find some fossils in this gravel pile, fossil bones," and 

we weren't there more than 5 minutes when one of the boys 

found a bison tooth. So we spent another hour on this rock 

pile looking for additional fossils. When the boys went back 

home they told everybody what a fantastic time they had. 

This positive experience gave the young boys and adult leaders a different perspective on the mining industry. 

I think it's a very important part of the need for education 

(a common thread through this entire meeting) for the operators to get more involved in a community in the educational 

process. The school teachers will be tickled to death to know 

that you have an operation and you welcome visitors and students. You can make it very interesting and tell them where 

this material goes. Most of them don't know. Displays and 

(or) visual aids can be used to explain how the commodity is 

extracted, processed, and used in the community. Furthermore, the various regulations that govern mine development 

and land restoration as mining proceeds can be explained. 

John D. Kiefer: 

Again, Ken has emphasized the educational aspect. Just 

having a small shelter at your quarry where teachers can bring 

the school children can be a positive step. Perhaps have a few 

pictures of your operation, something to show what your 

product is, what it is used for, and so on. You will be amazed 

what that can do for public relations. Also, the aspect of mine 

planning, one ofthe things I didn't mention, can be so important. I have worked with several companies where they 

worked with the community on the initial mine plan to 

develop something for the future. When the company left, 

the community was going to have something-a lake, with a 

park surrounding it, for example. If you can work something 

like that into the plan, even if it's 30 or 40 years down the 

road, it's a tremendous benefit and public relations plus. 

Micheal J. Thompson: 

I've only been involved with the environmental regulation of the mining industry in Arkansas for about 31

/2 years, 

though I have been involved in environmental regulations 

for more than 16 years. Environmental regulation in the 

mining industry in Arkansas has been active since 1971. 

Regulation was not received well by the mining community 

at first, but it is now accepted as part of doing business. 

Though none of the operators has indicated that implementing environmental preservation practices saves them money, 

many have indicated that their image as a good neighbor has 

improved, and in some cases good reclamation of affected 

land has actually made it possible to obtain mineral leases 

they might not otherwise have been able to obtain. 

The Mission Statement of the Arkansas Department of 

Pollution Control and Ecology is, "To protect and enhance 

the environment by the control and abatement of pollution 

that might adversely affect water, air, and land, in a manner 

consistent with the economic welfare and well-being of all 

Arkansans." The citizens of the State of Arkansas are very 

protective of their stream quality, their air quality, and the 

pristine natural setting of the land. They do not want to see 

mining stopped in Arkansas, but they do want it carried out 

in a manner that will protect the public health and 

environment. 

Over the past few years, public awareness and concern 

over the environmental soundness of mining operations and 

their seemingly inherent threat to the public health and 

well-being have grown significantly in Arkansas. The concerns expressed range from the suspended solids that can get 

into nearby waterways from leaking or overflowing ponds or 

surface water runoff, to concern over the contents of water 

that has come into contact with spoil material, ore, and (or) 

process waste. These concerns involve both active and inactive mine sites. 

The concerns expressed by the citizens of Arkansas are 

not unlike those being expressed in other States. This is evident from the recent actions being taken by the Environmental 

Protection Agency to bring the control of mine process waste 

under the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) and 

the control of storm water under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). 

The technology and methodology for controlling mine 

process waste are going to be unique in each State due to the 

variations in geology from State to State. For this reason, 

many States have sought to have input in the law-making 

process that will result from EPA's efforts to control mine 

waste under RCRA. Through initial efforts made by the 

Western Governors' Association (WGA), the EPA provided 

some funding to the WGA to incorporate its considerable 

expertise in non-coal mine problem abatement into the 

rule-making process. EPA recognized from the input of the 

WGA that all States to be affected by mine waste regulations 

should be involved. The Interstate Mining Compact Commission which represents a significant number of the eastern 

States, including Arkansas, and whose purpose is "achieving 

and maintaining an efficient and productive mining industry 

and increasing economic and other benefits attributable to 

mining," worked with EPA to arrange funding for participation in the rule-making process by the remaining interested 

States in which mining takes place. Through this ongoing 

cooperative effort, the States have been able to apprise the 

EPA of the uniqueness of the problems each State has and 

the importance of State participation in the development of 

the rules that are promulgated. 

Another issue that rose out of this cooperative effort, 

that was consistent with the concerns in Arkansas, was what 

to do about abandoned or inactive non-coal mines. Every 

participating State has abandoned or inactive mines that are 

creating, or have the potential to create, environmental hazards and pose a threat to human health and safety. This is an 

issue that will no doubt be addressed in the future. 
76 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

As indicated in the Mission Statement, the Arkansas 

Department of Pollution Control and Ecology is aware of the 

need for economic well-being of all Arkansans. It is the 

desire of our Department to be able to work with each 

owner/operator from the very beginning of his mine operation to assist him in the development of the mine plan and 

reclamation plan, in hopes that we can assist him in setting 

up his mining operation to comply with the environmental 

laws in the most economic fashion available to him. 

I would also like to comment on a couple of other things 

that have already been mentioned. Planning ahead is so very 

important. We would like all our mine operators to come 

and visit us, from the time they decide they want to mine in 

a particular area, and let us work with them so that we can 

advise them of the kinds of things that they may have to 

address to protect the environment in the area where they 

want to mine. 

Also, image is very important. A lot of folks simply 

don't even know how mining touches their daily lives. They 

don't think about the fact that the brick on their home came 

from a clay mine, or that the sheetrock in their home was 

mined. I just don't think a lot of people recognize the importance of mining as they do for farming. People know that 

when they eat food it came from a farm, but they don't realize that a lot of the daily products they deal with, other than 

farming, may have come from a mining operation. 

I think education is necessary. If the mine operators can 

educate both the people in Arkansas and the rest of the country on how important mining is and how much it touches 

their daily lives, I think they'd be a lot more receptive to different proposals and actions of the mining operators. 

John D. Kiefer: 

Thanks, Mike. This pretty well sums up our presentation. To pull it all together, you need to have good PR, you 

need an educational component, and the whole process must 

be cooperati'.re with the public, the public officials, and with 

the regulatory agencies. I cannot emphasize the latter 

enough. I know that in many cases you consider the regulations a nuisance. However, if you fight them, it's going to 

make it even more difficult. I can use the situation in Kentucky as an analogy. 

The oil and gas industry did not want the State to have 

primacy in the matter of underground injection controls. The 

industry fought the issue, and the State did not get primacy. 

As a consequence, the EPA took it over. Now the industry's 

problems have increased. Now it takes 6 months to a year to 

get a permit, and even then, if it's kicked back, it may take 

them 2 years to obtain. Instead of working with local people 

who have the interest of the State at heart, the industry is 

working with people who may have little real knowledge of 

their operation or the local geology. It is much better to 

cooperate and try to work within the regulations. Maybe you 

can make some changes for the better. But if you fight them, 

it may result in a problem for all of us. 

DISCUSSION 

C. Dudley Blancke: 

Mike mentioned the uniqueness in each State. I think 

you should carry that further-the uniqueness of each mine. 

The regulations should take into consideration that the location, the material you are mining, and its occurrence make 

land reclamation conditions entirely different for each 

operation. 

James F. Murray, Martin Marietta, Savannah, Missouri: 

I would like to present a couple of points from an operator's standpoint. One of the biggest problems that we have 

with regulatory agencies is the inadequacy or the educational 

level of the inspectors that come out to tell us what we have 

to do, to help us put together our mining plans. Specifically 

here in the State of Missouri. A lot of operators have problems with the air quality section, in that when you apply for 

a new air permit or a construction air permit, the inspectors 

come out and do a survey and try to help you put together the 

restrictions on your permit. Unfortunately, a lot of times, 

you get people out of the agencies that have never been in a 

rock quarry before, have never seen dust corning from a 

plant, and have never seen trucks moving rock in the stockpile area, kicking up dust. you have these kinds of inexperienced people regulating our industry, which makes it very, 

very tough. 

Fortunately, there are commissions, like the one Virgil 

Smith sits on, and here in the State of Missouri the Air Quality Commission and the Land Reclamation Commission, 

where we as producers can go if we don't like or agree with 

something that the inspector has done. That's another step 

that helps us, but here, again, that takes away time and effort 

from our responsibility to, number one, make a profit, and 

that's the only reason that any operator in this room is in 

business today. We also realize responsibility to the environment, to our neighbors. I don't think there's an operator 

in this room that would not like to consider himself a 

good-quality corporate citizen who tries to comply with all 

the regulations that are set forth, but we have to do it in such 

a fashion and cooperative manner that, number one, we 

make a profit. 

There also was one point that Virgil Smith made, relative to differential treatment by these regulatory bodies with 

regards to writing citations to different producers. I think 

Virgil made a statement that the company he worked for was 

one of the largest producers in the State of Oklahoma, and I 

am sure that the air quality 'people and MSHA (Mine Safety 

and Health Administration), all those people just love to 
PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 2 77 

come on to his property. They knew that company was 

probably trying to do the absolute best that they could to 

comply with some of the restrictions and requirements of 

the law. I'm sure these inspectors would go to another 

quarry site that maybe wasn't quite as big as what Virgil 

had, and a lot of times they would overlook a lot of things 

that are in the regulatory book. Large producers have a real 

tough time with that. Martin Marietta is a very large producer, and we feel that we are singled out and get selective 

treatment by a lot of these government agencies. I don't 

know what you can do about it, you live with it. We've 

come to the point where we think MSHA and a lot of other 

folks have a tendency to nitpick so they can perpetuate their 

jobs, which makes it pretty tough. 

John D. Kiefer: 

You made several key points. The issue with the regulatory agencies and poorly trained personnel is a major problem. It is something you're not going to change. It's there 

and you have to learn to deal with it. It is a problem in Kentucky. They cannot pay well, and therefore when people learn 

their jobs, good workers move on and go with a consulting 

firm or a mining company. The same is true with every 

State-the situation is there and it's not going to go away. 

Another problem that I have noticed, when I have 

accompanied surface mining reclamation inspectors, is the 

variation among the different inspectors and the way they 

perceive the mining operations. There is a lot of variation in 

degree of enforcement within the State, among the different 

inspectors. 

John A. Taylor, Secretary, Oklahoma Mining Commission, 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: 

The last couple of days I keep hearing· about public 

awareness, public relations, the public should know, the public needs to know, land use, pollution. You know, increasing 

troubles relating to environmental problems and the public 

and what are we going to do about it and what are we doing 

about it. Different States doing different things, and it's all 

a matter of communicating with the public. I'm sure we all 

agree, and we've had some good suggestions here. I can't 

help but point out that there's an increasing history of this in 

some organizations. 

At the Oklahoma Department of Mines a little over a 

year ago, we made a small but good start, to enhance public 

awareness. We created a position for a public relations person on the staff, who designed and caused to be designed a 

set of panels, and redid the literature we've always had in the 

Department of Mines. We borrowed information from several States and got a chance to see how the other States are 

doing. It's quite interesting to see that some States are doing 

a lot and some not very much. And so we have a person 

whose job it is besides designing this, to go around and make 

this available at gatherings, at the State capitol, at schools to 

school children, at the Lions Clubs, and various other places. 

All to foster public awareness. 

It might be useful to point out another industry and how 

they handle it. An industry that's had quite a lot of problems 

the last 70 years is the oil industry. They still have problems. 

About 15 years ago, the American Petroleum Institute caused 

to be designed about 12 canned slide shows with written 

material and slides on different subjects on the oil industry. 

I can think of a parallel thing in the mining industry, so that 

any given subject would be covered by one of these shows or 

a combination thereof. Copies were made. They were sent 

to every State, to the National Petroleum Council State 

office. These were made available to the Kiwanis Clubs and 

the various organizations you can think of. It really permeated throughout. They were pretty simple but were descriptive. They were designed for the public, public information, 

public awareness. What is our industry about? What does it 

do? We're all amazed about how much the public does not 

know about us. I think they know less than we think, but it 

appears to me that maybe we, as a mining industry, could coalesce in some fashion and learn from some of the States that 

have done this more, and arrive at some commonality, and 

design some material that can be useful, and be made available by our various States, our various Bureaus of Mines or 

Mining Commissions for distribution to the public for better 

public awareness to start building this threshold of availability and knowledge that can help us all. 

That's just an observation. I might add that I was 

co-chairman of the group 15 years ago that started this program in the oil industry and so have some knowledge of it. 

And it helped a lot and it's still available and is still working. 

Bruce H. Mason, Executive Director, Indiana Mineral 

Aggregates Association, Indianapolis, Indiana: 

I would like to make a couple of comments, my first 

directed toward reclamation. A number of years ago, the 

industry approached the legislature in Indiana and said that 

reclamation's time had come. We in the industry, after a lot 

of comment by our members, agreed that we should support 

a reclamation law. There was a unanimous opinion on this 

position. The industry approached the legislature and a law 

was passed. The industry was assured that the rules written 

to implement the law would be applicable to our business. 

Needless to say, the rules, as they were written, were more 

applicable to coal than they were to sand and gravel pits and 

limestone and dolomite quarries. The hue and cry that arose 

from the industry concerning the implementation of those 

rules prompted the legislature to repeal the act. 

I would like to get some comment from the panel on 

how they would address a problem such as this. When 

industry takes a responsible step and says, "We think this 
78 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT -WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

ought to be done," how can you assure that the rules that 

need to be written will be applicable and not something 

"from outer space" that won't apply to the industry? In this 

case the rules written would have put a lot of companies out 

of business. The rules didn't recognize the discrete differences between sites, as the gentleman from Martin Marietta 

[Mr. Murray] so eloquently said, and the retired mining engineer [Mr. Blancke] also pointed out. Each site has to be considered on its own merits. 

Secondly, I wish to address another issue, permits. 

Industry in Indiana has had problems with permit writers. The 

Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) 

has a revolving door with its permit writers. This is due to a 

lack of funding and low fees, payments for the services rendered by IDEM. There is the perception by industry that the 

present services rendered by IDEM aren't worth what industry is paying in fees. I talked (representing this industry) to 

the IDEM people, about the problem of receiving permits in 

a timely fashion. I was informed by IDEM that, "Well, you 

really don't have a problem." We polled our members and 

found out that out of 40 members, 18 were having problems 

receiving permits in a timely fashion. Now, 40 members 

doesn't sound like much, but that represents permits for about 

130 to 140 pits or quarries. I went back to the agency and 

said, "There is a problem, and we think we know what the 

problem is. It's a lack of understanding." 

In the aggregate business, we have our own vocabulary 

concerning equipment. When industry personnel were sending in their permit applications, they were listing equipment 

according to their vocabulary. IDEM in some cases wasn't 

sure what the terms being used meant. We knew what we 

were talking about, but IDEM didn't. The outcome of those 

meetings with IDEM was that the problem of using improper 

terms lessened. 

The industry also lobbied through the legislature for 

increased funding for IDEM. We asked that the department 

be adequately funded. We accomplished that. IDEM now 

has new permit writers on staff and, on August 2nd, industry 

will be taking some of these new permit writers on a tour of 

some of the plants. We will be able to show the permit writers what a crusher, a screen, a conveyor, and transfer points 

look like. We will be able to demonstrate what particulate 

emissions are, see fugitive dust, etc. We think that the secret 

to solving some problems is to improve communications 

with the agencies. 

Another thing we've attempted to do is work with our 

geological survey and State agencies to get what we call the 

"Adopt a School Program" going. We are trying to encourage our producers to adopt a school district and to provide 

the schools with visual aids and resource materials necessary 

so that the district may properly inform their students about 

the natural resource base and society's needs for these 

resources. These students are going to be citizens who in the 

future will sit in judgment on this industry. 

D. Anne Lewis: 

There are common experiences among many of us in 

this room. Bruce Mason's comment was that when the rules 

and regulations for industrial minerals were drafted, they 

came out having a great similarity to the coal rules and regulations. We had the identical experience in Missouri. 

After our first version of rules and regulations was published in the State Register, industry, maddened by the stringency, the similarity to coal law, and the perception that they 

had not been adequately consulted or collaborated with, took 

the case to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules and 

had the entire document nullified. There were industry people, present in this room, that were then invited to be part of 

a task force. I think that this probably happens again and 

again unless there is a collaborative effort of the technical 

staff in the land reclamation programs and the industry to 

work together from the onset. In defense of our situation, I 

would say that so much of this comes down to human chemistry. We found that once we took out our brand-new 

out-of-state staffdirector and our paid executive directors of 

the industry organizations and segregated their personalities 

and perhaps mostly the brand-new-ness of the director from 

Wyoming with a whole different kind of attitude than being 

a Missourian, and brought in a mediator with a gentle disposition, that things eased up a bit. That mediator in fact~ will 

be on the next panel, John Young, the Deputy Director of 

DEQ (Division of Environmental Quality). 

So, I'm intrigued to hear it said that the State of Indiana 

had the same problem. We're hopefully trying to fix ours. 

Virgil W. Smith, Jr.: 

In the State of Oklahoma, when some regulations were 

to be promulgated, Dolese Brothers Company retained the 

services of a retired executive vice president who was an 

attorney, and he participated in the drawing up of the rules 

and regulations. When he got through with them, he handed 

them to me, and I proofread them. Industry needs to participate in the drawing up of the rules and regulations. You 

cannot let some uninformed person make the rules for the 

way you live. Industry must participate. And, it's going to 

cost you some money, but you have to participate. 

Micheal J. Thompson: 

When you went to your legislature and requested reclamation regulations, did you not have a public hearing process that you could go to and have input into the regulations 

that were to be promulgated? You know, that's usually your 

best opportunity, if you don't have an opportunity to go and 

sit down with those people who are writing the regulations to 

begin with. Most State agencies, if they are like ours, are 

open to anyone who wants to come in and talk and express 

their concern. 
PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 2 79 

Virgil W Smith, Jr.: 

But I disagree with the timing. It's too late then. You 

need to get in at the beginning, not at the end. 

Kenneth V. Luza: 

The process doesn't stop after everyone is happy and 

they agree with what the committee has decided in terms of 

rules and regulations. It's not over. It's just beginning. You 

have to contact your State legislators and get your feelings 

and opinions across to them. Actually, you're just starting. 

This whole process might take years. 

John D. Kiefer: 

I think that the approach of going to the legislature and 

getting the salaries of the regulatory group increased is an 

interesting approach. It is one that is pretty realistic, because 

if the natural resources regulatory people in the State are trying for increases, they generally don't have much impact. 

But if industry goes in and says, "Look, you're regulating 

this industry, which is important to the State, with people 

that are unqualified to do the job that they're doing," that's 

going to have a lot more impact. 

Another approach that has been used, along that same 

line, is to go and talk to the legislature and tell them what the 

problem is. Get a certain amount of experience or qualification requirements written in to the regulations, perhaps 

including some kind of short course which industry could 

teach. "Look, we're going to teach you guys what a quarry 

is about, and what the problems are, and so on, what we're 

actually dealing with. We're going to take you down into a 

quarry and show you what we deal with day-to-day." Maybe 

a week's course like that would help solve that problem. As 

I said, it's a difficult problem, one that all the States deal 

with, and it's not going to go away. 

Haydn H. Murray, Professor of Geology, Department of 

Geological Sciences, Indiana University, Bloomington, 

Indiana: 

I want to emphasize a point that was made by Mike 

Thompson, that good reclamation can very much help a 

company in leasing. I was in industry for 17 years with a 

kaolin company, and by showing the landowner examples of 

good reclamation, we were able to get a number of leases 

that we would not have otherwise gotten. Therefore, good 

reclamation practices can be advantageous. So that is a very, 

very important point. 

I want to bring up another point that Lyn Bourne made 

yesterday. That is that the Society for Mining, Metallurgy, 

and Exploration (SME) has formed a foundation to better 

educate the public. They are printing a number of brochures 

on the mining industry designed to show the public the 

importance of mining, which includes industrial minerals. 

Dr. Charles J. Mankin: 

I would like to echo a comment that Ken Luza made 

earlier concerning planners. One of the things that I noted, 

some 25 years ago when I became State Geologist, was that 

95 percent of the people in the State of Oklahoma dido' t 

know we had a State survey, and the other 5 percent didn't 

care. So I felt that it was important to get some improved 

visibility for the organization in the State in terms of what its 

constitutional responsibilities were. We were chartered in 

the Constitution upon Statehood and charged with rather 

specific responsibilities. I spent a good deal of time trying to 

develop communication with other State agencies, with the 

industry, and with various groups around the State. This is 

an activity that the staff and I continue to this day, giving 

talks on, as we call it, the "smothered steak and cold pea circuit," to Lions Clubs, Rotary Clubs, various groups around 

the State, because I think it is very important that we communicate something about the importance of the geology and 

resources of our State and their importance to the economy 

of the State and the region. 

We've had very good results. We've had good communication with the industry. We have excellent communication with our other State agencies. We work very closely 

with them, although we have no regulatory responsibility, 

and we do provide technical support services in our area of 

capability. But we have had no success in communicating 

with planners. Every contact that, to my knowledge, we 

have had with planners in the State of Oklahoma has been at 

our tmttatwn. We attempted to communicate with the 

sub-state-planning districts and had limited success in that 

area. About the time we would develop communication with 

the director of one of the sub-state-planning districts, that 

individual would leave, and we would have to start all over 

again. There was absolutely no institutional memory preserved from that process. I have never had a planner in the 

State of Oklahoma contact me for any reason whatsoever. 

Every contact that my organization has made, to my knowledge, has been at our initiation. We have written letters and 

they largely go unanswered. We've done everything that we 

know how to do, and we have been unsuccessful. It is the 

singular failure that I can cite-there are probably other failures-but it is the largest singular failure that I can cite in the 

25 years that I have been the State Geologist in Oklahoma. 

C. Dudley Blancke: 

I find that many of the regulations are written, I'm sure, 

with good faith, but they become ridiculous when you put 

them into operation. In the State of South Dakota, to obtain 

an exploratory drilling permit, you must run a survey on the 

wildlife in the area. They're very frightened about losing the 
80 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT -WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

last one or two blackfooted ferrets. We wanted to drill in a 

farmer's field. We had· to drill in the time of the year he 

wasn't using it. As soon as we were through, he was going 

to plow up the whole field and plant it in crops. Yet we were 

obliged to run a wildlife survey on that piece of property. 

The regulations must be flexible, and they must be 

open-ended and be willing to accept something different. 

In Wyoming, at the Gas Hills uranium mine, they 

expect us to plant sage in the reclaimed area. Now, you can't 

go to the local farmer's market and buy sage seed. It's quite 

expensive. At the same time, the rancher next to our property was getting government grants to kill the sage on his 

pasture because of the cattle. 

So, when you start looking at the regulations that all of 

your agencies put out, I think you had better start looking at 

the practical use of them. 

Marshall R. Thompson: 

Could someone comment concerning the status of 

RCRA? What's the status of that legislation? 

Micheal J. Thompson: 

I couldn't tell you what the status of the legislation is. 

All I know is that a committee has been set up that's allowing 

the States to have a small level of participation in the 

rule-making process. 

Carl Blomgren: 

Starting back about 5 or 6 years ago, our administrator 

met with the Western Governors and we [the EPA] have 

gone through two iterations of the RCRA. I don't believe 

they apply to sand and gravel and quarries. There are other 

kinds of mining all over the country that were a problem, but 

particularly in the West. The phosphate mining industry in 

Florida is also one. So, we've gone through Stra\Yman One 

and Strawman Two, which were drafts of proposed rules to 

establish mining waste recovery programs in the States, with 

EPA oversight under Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Now there have been three 

meetings of interest groups (environmentalists, industry people, and Federal and State government people) that have 

been held across the country. I think there was one in Washington about a month and a half ago [mid-1991], and there's 

one scheduled in Denver and one in San Francisco. 

Now RCRA is also up for reauthorization, and there 

will be some question about whether Strawman Two can be 

tied in to Subtitle D. There are two areas of regulation 

involv,ed-Subtitle C concerns hazardous waste controlled 

under RCRA; Subtitle D started out dealing primarily with 

landfills. We recently revised the rules on landfills, and I 

saw on television on Sunday [September 15, 1991] that EDF 

(the Environmental Defense Foundation) doesn't like the 

rules. There's some question whether SubtitleD gives adequate authority to adopt any regulations like Strawman Two. 

But RCRA is up for reauthorization. I don't know what the 

Congress is going to do. About the three meetings I mentioned, I've gotten the minutes from the one in Washington. 

If anybody' s interested, you can circulate a sheet and sign up 

and I'll send you a copy of those minutes. There was a lot of 

discussion, and industry people were present. The meeting 

was set up under some authority that the Congress had given 

for setting up groups to discuss mining issues. 

The Strawman Two is about 2 or 3 years old, the Strawman One is 2 or 3 years-it seems to have a life of its own, 

but I don't know where it's going. 

RobertS. Joice: 

I want to make a further comment on communication 

with planners. Recognize that, at least in Kentucky, and I 

think it's true in many States, there is no statewide planning 

organization as part of the government. There is no department of planning for the State of Kentucky. There are no city 

planners or urban planners or even regional planners who 

work for the State of Kentucky. There are a few planners in 

the regional districts, which in Kentucky are Area Development Districts, but not every regional development district 

has one. In summary, over half of the counties in Kentucky 

don't have planners. But where there are planners, let me 

suggest what you should do. You should go out, seek them 

out, try to communicate with them, and particularly provide 

information as was shown for Kane County, Illinois, and in 

Kentucky. The geologic information gives us better information to help work on a plan and get integrated into the 

plan. Even if the planners leave, the information may remain 

and be useful. One of the great statements on behalf of planning made in the 19th century was, "Make no little plans," 

you should make big plans. They stir man's imagination, 

and they last much longer than the planner. And, if you can 

get your geologic information in a plan as they appear to 

have done in Kane County, it will last, and it will be used the 

next time they make a decision about a quarry. Even if the 

planner is long-gone, that important and comprehensible 

information is there. 

Don O'Donniley, Director; Jefferson County Planning Commission, Hillsboro, Missouri: 

That certainly made my job a little easier. I think those 

comments are particularly appropriate. It is true, very few 

States have planning at all. I keep wondering if some of 

these issues we're talking about pay you to really assign 

them to the appropriate levels of government. Some of the 

issues about site-specific regulations sound as though we 

have States trying to regulate where it really ought to be a 

matter for local regulation. Some of the issues about not 

being able to communicate what the basic economic needs 
PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 2 81 

are suggest that we have a failure to communicate the essentials of the economic base of the entire State. It would be 

more appropriate to address these issues at a State level. 

Planning grew out of an urban environment, out of the 

police power protecting adjoining property owners against 

the adverse impacts of other uses. And really there hasn't 

been a lot of thought in our country because of our fear of 

central planning and central regulation about positive economic growth. The French do a much better job of this. Lots 

of other western democracies do, but I think there are some 

issues here about having State planning. I think it's a 

short -sighted aspect of our society not to realize that there 

are critical concerns at a State level that need to be addressed 

by a professional staff. Not one that's just limited to planners, but a planning effort in a variety of fields that would 

begin to address the issues that have been brought up here, 

and some others as well. 

Anthony M. Bauer: 

I would like to make one comment that is slightly different from the present train of thought. It ties into both the 

environmental issue and the education issue. One of the 

things I've found is that people perceive mined land as being 

useless. The public doesn't realize how much mined land 

has been developed within their own communities. I studied 

parts of two communities, Toronto and Detroit, by looking at 

historic photographs, maps, and USGS aerial maps. I found 

a remarkable number of mine sites that were identified in the 

earlier documents but were lost in the most recent maps. We 

followed through on the work and found that these "lost 

sites" had been converted into beautiful subdivisions, school 

sites, church sites, parks, and residential areas. There is a tremendous reservoir of information right in your local community. If you look at some of the historic data, you will find 

numerous examples of reclaimed and developed mine sites. 

A side note, I visited one rather beautiful residential 

lake-oriented project. The mining was started in the fifties 

and was developed in the seventies and eighties. I talked 

with some of the people living in the development, and they 

were upset, almost to the person, when they found out they 

were living in a gravel pit. 

One bit of information that we can use in illustrating the 

development potential of mine sites is the historic data in 

urban areas, because when these urban areas started, the 

operating mines were a lot closer to the center of the city than 

they are right now. It is a good source of data for building a 

case for how mining operations have always been associated 

with urban growth and development. 

John D. Kiefer: 

In Kentucky, I might add, our problem usually is not in 

finding old pits and quarries. Especially with the quarries, if 

you have a water table in the right position, leaving the 

quarry as a lake and designing a park or subdivision around 

it is a nice idea. In some cases here in the St. Louis area, I 

understand some quarries have been used successfully for 

landfills. But in general, our problem is that the quarry 

leaves a big hole in the ground, with a big high wall which is 

dangerous and creates a liability situation, and there is not a 

whole lot you can do about it. I'm interested in what somebody commented on yesterday--contests that were conducted for architectural designs for reclamation. I would like 

to see some of the things that have been recommended for 

dealing with that type of quarry. 

John A. Taylor: 

I'd like to address Mr. Kiefer's comment on leaving a 

big hole in the ground. 

In Breckenridge Park in San Antonio, there is a tremendous big hole in the ground from a quarry, with sheer, 

straight sides. They built the most beautiful Japanese gardens in that, back before World War II. Adjacent to it is an 

opera amphitheater, and the walk along the high edge where 

one can look down below and finally wind down into it, has 

been designed as part of the beauty. During World War II, 

they converted the name from "Japanese" to the "Chinese" 

Gardens. But now it's back to "Japanese" Gardens again, 

and it's a joy and a beautiful place. Nothing but a sheer wall, 

quote, dangerous, unquote, hazardous hole in the ground, 

until they did that. 

John D. Kiefer: 

I have to comment on that because I find that interesting. About 3 or 4 years ago, I attended a meeting in San 

Antonio, and one of the field trips there was to another large 

quarry in San Antonio. The situation there was similar, the 

quarry had been donated to the city to use as a park, but it 

hadn't been developed because they were wondering how 

they were going to handle the large high wall. Already a 

couple of children had climbed over the fence and fallen and 

had been injured. The city was very much concerned about 

the liability problem. So, that solution doesn't always work 

out successfully. 

Ira R. Satterfield: 

I would like to address planning a little bit. We at the 

Missouri State Survey have had some good relationships 

with planners. They have come to us and we have been 

involved with them. Back in the mid-seventies we brought 

all the planners in the State together at a Workshop. At that 

time there were 20 planning districts. We brought the planners to Rolla, where our agency is, and went through all of 

the things that we thought we could do to help them, from 

geological and hydrological aspects. Out of that, a lot of 

fruitful things came. One of them, a Charles County report, 
82 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

was done back in the late seventies, a complete geologic 

resource and environmental assessment of that county. We 

have been involved in Perry County where Kent Bratton, a 

planner with some geological background, who was here on 

a panel yesterday, realized that our services could help them 

plan; and Perry County utilized our services. In some cases 

the county actually paid us to do specific projects. Also, we 

have contractual agreements with other planning districts 

and counties to do geological and hydrological studies. The 

Survey has what we call geologic-hydrologic county 

reports. These reports contain maps at 1: 100,000 scale. 

There are between 12 and 15 individual maps-maps of 

basic geology (rock, surficial, water, hazards, wells, etc.) 

and interpretive maps showing assessments of minerals and 

potential environmental problem areas. All the maps are 

GIS products at 1:100,000. Kent Bratton asked at lunch 

yesterday if the Survey would consider Cape Girardeau 

County as the next county report. Well, as a matter of fact, 

the Survey just completed a prioritization of counties for 

about the next 18 months. After that Cape Girardeau 

County could be a good candidate. 

My point is that some planning districts, counties, and 

agencies are utilizing geology, and I think it's up to us to 

begin to publicize how geology fits into their planning. I 

don't know who it was yesterday, it may have been Bob 

Joice, that indicated that the planners are having a meeting 

here sometime in the future, a national or sectional meeting. 

I think these are opportunities where we ought to try to make 

our point, as geologists of State Surveys, to get on their 

agenda and communicate with them what we do and how our 

services would fit into their work. 

D. Anne Lewis: 

In October of this year [ 1991] in Kansas City, the 

American Society of Landscape Architects is having a 

national convention. Within the professional society there is 

a reclamation committee. Tony Bauer is on it, I'm on it, and 

many people who think about the issues that we've all talked 

about this last day are on it. In my capacity as a Commissioner, I've alerted some of the coal mine industry that they 

might put on a mine tour for those interested parties. Thus 

far, we have no one from the industrial minerals contributing 

in any fashion. I know that the original request that went out 

indicated we'd like to have a non-coal tour, as we have seen 

quite a bit on coal. Is there anyone who wishes to somehow 

contribute to an education session at this national convention 

in the spirit of sharing? 

John D. Kiefer: 

I might put a plug in for going in the other direction-the Geological Society of America, to which many of 

us geologists belong, has a geology and public policy 

committee. I think we're hitting on something that we need 

to do, we need both to educate each other and to get some 

interchange among the different groups. For example, we 

need to get some planners to come in and talk at our meetings, and vice versa-some geologists at the planning meetings, at the landscape architects meetings-and we need to 

tell each other what some of our mutual problems are and 

how we might be able to better cooperate. 

John F. Schmidt: 

John, you had asked about the Landscape Architects 

competition that is sponsored by the National Stone Association. I believe Anne Lewis alluded to it yesterday. I'm 

sure that if you contact Bob Bartlett, the Association president in Washington, he would be happy to supply pictures. 

In addition, the National Stone Association puts on an 

annual "About Face" competition for their members to 

improve quarry appearances in their communities. They 

have various competitions to improve the entrance to the 

quarries, maybe some screening to shield the community 

from some of the things that aren't quite as pleasant appearance-wise. We are trying to address those things through 

our national association. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

The final panel addresses the subject of the environmental costs of ignoring geologic and resource information, 

and the leader of the panel is Dr. Charles Mankin, Director 

of the Oklahoma Geological Survey. 

ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS OF 

IGNORING RESOURCE DATA 

Panel leader: 

Dr. Charles J. Mankin, Oklahoma Geological Survey, 

Norman, Oklahoma. 

Panel members: 

John A. Young, Deputy Division Director, Division of 

Environmental Quality, Department of Natural Resources, 

Jefferson City, Missouri. 

Joseph P. McGuire, Environmental Engineer, Martin 

Marietta Aggregates, Midwest Regional Office, Topeka, 

Kansas. 

De wayne L. Knott, Biologist, Environmental Review, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Kansas City. 

Kansas. 

Thomas G. McSwiggin, Permit Section, Division of 

Water Pollution Control, Illinois Environmental Protection 

Agency, Springfield, Illinois. 
PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 2 83 

PANEL PRESENTATIONS 

Dr. Charles J. Mankin: 

I hope all of you understand the problem that the fifth 

panel has, being the wrap-up panel for this session. As I look 

over the comments of the first four panels and all of the audience discussion, I'm having great difficulty trying to figure 

out what we can say that is new and different, or how we can 

say what has already been said in a new and exciting way. 

So we have a real challenge for us and if any of you have any 

ideas, I'd be happy to relinquish this slot for someone who 

would like to take a stab at it. 

I'm obligated by the Association of American State 

Geologists at every public gathering to make some comment 

about geologic mapping. I won't further dwell on that matter 

because we have already said a lot about it. I will only leave 

you with the comment that we still believe it is the number-one priority for geological activity in this country. 

I can't help but think that two bumper stickers I saw in 

Washington this past spring seem to encapsulate all the 

issues that we have been talking about yesterday and so far 

today. Most of you have heard or seen these two bumper 

stickers in the past. One of them said, "If it can't be grown, 

it has to be mined." And the other one said, "Mining-free, in 

'93." I think we have a way to go before we bring these two 

disparate groups together at a common place for discussion 

of some compromise between those two positions. 

I'm also reminded of something with which all of you 

are familiar. But, unfortunately, the general public is not, 

and this goes to this heart of this issue of education. I would 

like to comment on that before entering into the principal 

topic that we were supposed to address today. 

There's one act passed by the Congress and signed by 

the President of the United States that has received very 

widespread public support. That one act has removed more 

land from other potential uses than all that mining has 

affected since this country was founded. That act is the 

Interstate Highway Act. That act would receive, obviously, 

widespread public support. I can't help but note that without 

mines, that system would not exist. Yet, for the most part, 

the public is totally unaware that there is some connection 

between mines and something as important to the freedom of 

the motoring public as the Interstate Highway Act. 

Our topic today is the environmental costs of ignoring 

resource information. That's a fairly broad subject. It has a 

kind of negative connotation, which is unfortunate. We'll 

try to put, as they say in Washington, a "positive spin" on it. 

Obviously, such issues range from the very immediate to 

what we might describe as deferred environmental costs. Let 

me just talk quickly about two examples, then tum to the 

panel for their observations on this particular subject. 

One example that comes to mind is the city of Denver, 

Colorado. Denver has been a rapidly growing metropolitan 

area for a number of years. It's sprawled out over a lot of 

mesas and a lot of areas along the Front Range of the Rocky 

Mountains. Because Denver, like a lot of other cities, has 

had little or no planning that has involved a recognition of 

the importance of resources, most of the areas of the best 

sand and gravel deposits in that region have been covered up 

by subdivisions. So it is necessary, in further expansion 

around Denver, to go to areas where mining will have a 

greater environmental impact in acquiring sand and gravel or 

aggregates than would have occurred had some planning 

taken place-to set aside for resource development and 

sequential use some of the important sand and gravel deposits that now are under houses. In the development of the new 

airport near Denver, Colorado, there is the possibility that 

the supply of sand and gravel for the construction of the runways and other related taxi-ways, and parking facilities, and 

roads, and so on, will have to be obtained from Wyoming 

because that may be the closest source of available material. 

My suspicion is, knowing something about the geology of 

that area, that there must be appropriate sand and gravel 

deposits in the area around eastern Colorado, in the vicinity 

of that airport. Unfortunately, no detailed geologic mapping 

exists for the area, so we don't know if there are any sand and 

gravel deposits there or not. I will leave that as my one plug 

for a continued effort on geologic mapping. 

Let me just talk quickly about the other end of deferring 

environmental costs. As you know, as many in the industry 

know, it is increasingly difficult if not impossible to site a 

new cement plant in the United States. Fugitive dust problems and other issues relating to the production of cement are 

making it exceedingly difficult to do so. Most of us in this 

room probably know, but the public is unaware, that there 

has been an increasing migration of the cement industry to 

Mexico where environmental regulations are substantially 

less, and where we are now obtaining a significant portion of 

the cement that is being used in the United States. We are 

transferring our environmental issues into Mexico, which is 

not dealing with them in the same manner that we [the U.S.] 

are attempting to deal with them. We are putting the domestic cement industry on an uneven playing field with the 

importation of cement that is produced under a different set 

of environmental and health and safety regulations than that 

which is being produced in the United States, and, therefore, 

continuing to make these operations less and less financially 

attractive. That, of course, we could extend to other industries: the steel industry (you know we used to have one of 

those in this country), the glass and ceramic industry, and a 

few things like that. What we are doing by these processes 

is that we are "protecting our environment at the expense of 

the environment of others." 

The last time I looked, Planet Earth was one structure, 

and we all seem to live on the same planet. So screwing up 

the environment overseas or in an adjacent country in an 

effort to preserve ours makes very little long-term sense in 

my judgment. We don't seem to be too concerned about that, 

and as a consequence, it seems to me that ignoring resource 
84 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT -WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

information and ignoring the consequences of these issues, 

in fact, encourages the idea behind "Mining-free, in '93." 

We're not going to quit building highways or repairing highways or constructing buildings. There are not enough caves 

to go around, and we killed all the buffalo so there are not 

enough hides to build tents; so we're going to have to mine 

or obtain from the ground those materials to continue to 

maintain our society. If we don't get it from the United 

States, we'll have to import it, and thereby mess up someone 

else's environment. I would hope that we could begin to 

understand that in a broader context; some of the myopia of 

the "NIMBY" syndrome, not only of "not in my backyard" 

but not in my State or not in my country, has to be tempered 

with the view that if we really don't want these things to happen, we ought to recognize that we shouldn't expect to benefit from those activities. 

John A. Young: 

I'm Deputy Division Director of the Division of Environmental Quality, one of five divisions within the Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources. 

I've been with the Department for 18 years and in this 

position about 5 years. We carry out all of the basic environmental regulatory functions for the State of Missouri. We 

regulate all of the hazardous wastes, solid wastes, air pollution control, land reclamation, soil and water conservation, 

public drinking water, and water pollution. We also have a 

laboratory plus an environmental emergency response team. 

That gives you the broad scope of our Division. 

I was struggling with what to say before I got here yesterday, and after listening to all the topics, I'm struggling 

even more because most of the things have probably already 

been said. I would like to make just a couple of comments 

on some things that have already been raised. 

Yesterday, there was a speaker who commented, 

"When we want regs, we just go pass them." In other words, 

we do this without any problems and without any difficulties. I am a survivor of something that was less than "we just 

go pass them." Anne Lewis, the Chairman of the Land Reclamation Commission, who has the promulgation authority, 

alluded to this earlier. Most States have an administrative 

rules committee made up of members of the General Assembly. I don't know if all States have that or not. What happened in Missouri was that there was not as good an attempt 

as possible to work with the industry on the implementation 

and writing of regulations to implement an amended land 

reclamation law. In about September and October of 1990 

the staff of the commission went forward with about a 62- or 

63-page proposal. Apparently there were miscommunications or poor communications that ended up with the proposed regulations being thrown back at us by way of the 

Administrative Rules Committee. The Commission was 

then saddled with "Well, what do we do next?" I was 

enlisted, or maybe volunteered, to participate in a work 

group that met from January through May of this year 

[ 1991]. At least one of the members is here today that 

participated in that committee. We had a struggle in developing those regulations over whether to have one set of regulations that regulated limestone, sand and gravel, clay, and 

barite, or to have more than one set. We decided upon a single set, which was very difficult to accomplish. However, I 

am pleased to announce that there was a consensus among 

the limestone people, the cement people, the clay industry, 

and the sand and gravel people. They recommended regulations (with a couple of minor exceptions) to the Land Reclamation Commission, and the Commission is in the process of 

finally proposing those regulations. So the comment that 

someone said, "Let's do it up front," is vital-I think it's 

obvious that it's important to do that. 

My personal experience was that removing the association presidents and lobbyists from the negotiations on regulations and dealing directly with the people who knew 

exactly the problems that were presented in their mine locations, whether it be a clay pit or limestone quarry, allowed us 

to get down to business, and we ironed the regulations out. 

So I would encourage all the States' regulatory agencies to 

try and approach this, directly with the guys who make their 

living extracting the mineral. Talk to them about the problems and the reality of implementing regulations. 

Another point I want to make is that public relations has 

to be emphasized quite heavily. We do not regulate blasting 

in the industrial minerals sector in Missouri, but we do in the 

coal mines because of the Federal act. A majority of the 

mine operators, in my opinion, can improve their public relations. This does not apply to all the people that I've worked 

with, but I'll give you a quick example of what I mean. We 

got a call last week from a neighbor to a quarry, and she said, 

''They're throwing flyrock into my front yard and my kids 

are playing there; it's a dangerous situation." Of course, we 

had to explain that we don't regulate blasting (the people we 

referred them to are in mine safety, and sometimes that is not 

very productive either). The comment that was made, 

though, that is frustrating to us, is that the quarry operator 

was reported to have said, "Okay, we'll tell you when we're 

going to blast, so you can go inside your house." That is not 

good public relations, and that does not give industry a good 

image for being good citizens. 

So, we have people in the industry that, frankly, don't 

give a damn about their neighbors, and I think those are the 

people we need to bring into the fold and get them to understand the value of good public relations. They do not characterize the industry in Missouri, in my opinion. I think that 

was a very isolated example, but that kind of comment can 

do a lot of damage. There was a previous comment about 2 

percent versus 98 percent disclosure-well, that 2 percent 

becomes a serious problem in an instance like this. 

Let me give you one other quick overview. There are 

311 permits presently for industrial minerals operations in 

Missouri, covering approximately 1,000 sites. We have 
PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 2 85 

several sites in any given permit. Eighty percent of those 

are limestone quarries, about 10 percent are sand and gravel 

operations, 5 percent are clay operations, and the others are 

made up of granite, barite, and others, about 15 mining 

operations. The majority of Missouri sites are in the 5-acre 

or less range. Although there are a lot that are considerably 

bigger than that, they do not make up the majority of the 

1 ,000 sites. As a matter of fact, in the flint clay area south 

of the Missouri River, most of those sites are even 1 acre or 

less. So we're not talking about a major land disturbance in 

a lot of cases. 

One final comment I might make about remarks made 

in the discussion earlier when it was alluded to that in the 

State of Missouri we don't know what we're doing as a regulatory agency. I would have to take exception to that. We 

have made an attempt, specifically, to have our air pollution 

people visit sites, and some of the people in this room have 

had tours of their facilities by our air people. It is acknowledged that some problems can be created by turnover in 

agency personnel. The other thing I would point out is that 

about 2 years ago, we implemented and expedited a permit 

process across the board for all environmental permits. In 

the air pollution field we have done an exceptional job of 

getting permits out within the statutory time limits. The 

facts aren't the way they were portrayed in the discussion 

following Panel 4. That is not to say that we don't have 

things that we need to take care of and that we need to 

become better educated about. We will do that as we learn 

what those problems are. 

I'm not sure how to totally solve the problem of inconsistent inspectors. We didn't have too much inconsistency 

for about 15 years in land reclamation areas, because we 

have one inspector and he did it one way. That's how much 

(how little) resources we have. For 1,000 sites, for 311 permits, we have had a secretary and one technical staff member 

who issued all the permits, did all the bond release reviews, 

etc. We are probably having some growing pains, because 

we already have four or five staff people now for these 1,000 

sites. So inconsistencies are there. They can only be dealt 

with if we are made aware of them; I would leave it at that. 

Now, one of the things I came to talk about is a difficult 

topic. What I'm going to say will probably bother some of 

you, but I think that we need to be thinking ahead. In 1971, 

in our first Land Reclamation Act, there was not a requirement dealing with topsoil removal. So for 18 or 19 years, in 

Missouri, we had hundreds of mining sites that did not 

remove and save topsoil, or if they did, it was at their own 

discretion. Many of them did not, and that is a lost resource. 

Whether it fits in the category of the topic today, we hope 

that that's past and it will not happen in the future, because 

one of the things that the new Act did was to require topsoil 

removal and replacement for reclamation purposes. I would 

point out that many of the people in the mining industry 

probably aren't aware and do not utilize things like public 

soil surveys and information that is readily available from 

government agencies. I think that lack of use probably prevents them from appropriately planning for saving a very 

valuable resource, "topsoil." This may sound a little silly 

that you go hundreds of feet in some places to get your material but that first foot or two can be critical to the success of 

the reclamation. If the topsoil is set aside and used at the end 

of the process, then reclamation is a snap. 

There are three areas that I would suggest you should 

consider checking into,· maybe even before it appears that 

you're into a controversial situation, either at a resource 

agency or possibly hiring a consultant, depending on the 

price. I realize the price of the product is very high, so extraneous expenses would be scrutinized very closely. 

First, threatened and endangered species. There's a tremendous amount of information in the resource agencies to 

help you find out a little bit about what might be in your area. 

Second is cultural resources. There is information 

available in the State agencies about cultural resources. We 

have found that these issues have to be dealt with. At a 

recent meeting I was with a Ponca Indian from Oklahoma, 

two Indians from Iowa, plus other citizens against a landfill. 

The Indian Nations are becoming more active across the 

country in part because they are interested in burial mounds, 

in archeological sites that may be tied back to their ancestors. 

I would suggest to you to take a look at that issue before it's 

thrown in your face at a public hearing. Have a letter from 

the Cultural Preservation Officer or someone that basically 

clears that site from being a significant archeological site. 

And the third issue, wetlands, is undergoing a great 

national debate right now. You probably should check in the 

planning stages with the four Federal agencies that deal with 

wetlands. We've had good success in Missouri in getting the 

Federal agencies out on various projects to identify whether 

or not you truly have wetlands. 

These may be issues that companies look at all the time, 

and I think the more sophisticated companies do. However, 

when you look at 311 permits in Missouri, I can guarantee 

you, there are a lot of companies that aren't very sophisticated and probably have a very small staff that wouldn't recognize the need to even look at these issues. 

So how do you prevent problems? First, preplan on 

some of these issues, or if you don't you might not operate. 

Secondly, investigate your environment, so that you will not 

destroy a resource that you will regret having destroyed and 

which may get you in legal difficulties. My experience in 

working with the mining industry is that there 'is mistrust 

about coming to any agency, Federal or State, and saying, 

"Hey, I'm planning to do this. Could you tell me a little bit 

about the area?" They [companies] really don't want to do 

that. That's my personal experience. Some of you may do 

business differently than that. 

That is difficult for us to understand, at times, maybe 

because we're on the regulatory side of the equation. However, I think that we would all be better off, if we can work 

toward a better way for the people of the industry to come to 
86 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

the State or Federal agencies just to gain technical information and not initiate an adversarial situation. 

We have discussed internally providing a technical 

resource section within the division, so that we can give out 

basic information without arousing the "Hey, they're about 

to do something in this area," response and without having 

repercussions in the industry from the agency contact. 

Dr. Charles J. Mankin: 

Thank you, John, we appreciate those remarks. You 

have identified some important issues that need to be considered; there are related resources in connection with the primary commodity that the mining operation might be 

undertaking to achieve, so recognition that there are other 

resources of a cultural nature or endangered species is 

important to consider. We'll hear a little later from the panel 

about related issues on water, but our next panelist is Joe 

McGuire, Environmental Engineer of Martin Marietta 

Aggregates. 

Joseph P. McGuire: 

As this is the last panel, and as we are the last presenters, I really didn't know how much more I can say after what 

Mr. Young has just said. And so I'm taking off just a little 

bit differently here. 

I handle environmental concerns with Martin Marietta, 

permitting concerns for pretty much the Midwest-mainly 

in Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa, and Wisconsin, and 

I've had some dealings in South Dakota, Minnesota, and 

Oklahoma. This has given me an opportunity to deal with a 

multitude of agencies at various levels. 

I'm going to come a little bit from the operator's side in 

dealing with Dr. Mankin's paper, which talked about mapping deposits to protect them and to use them for future. The 

classic example he gave, which was also mentioned yesterday, was Denver. Sometimes, I feel like we in the industry 

might take a bad rap in some regards for moving from one 

deposit to another. But in the last few years, because of environmental groups and encroachment of residential areas on 

our mining sites, we are oftentimes forced to leave an active 

deposit because we can't get the permit extended or are 

unsuccessful in getting other deposits. I think the loss that 

Dr. Mankin was alluding to is that we not only lose the 

deposit, which is a very important part of the environment, 

but as we move from that deposit, we disturb another area. 

So from the environmental cost, I think that issue is very 

important. Mining can only be done where deposits are and 

where we have the ability to effectively mine them. 

I'll pose a question to the folks in this room. It would 

seem to me that if a mineral deposit is identified by a group 

like USGS, and if a mine operator presents a reasonable, 

responsible plan to mine that deposit, and if the regulatory 

agencies involved review that plan, and in their opinion, see 

that it would be appropriate to mine it, why are mine operators all across the country losing these deposits because we 

can't obtain the permits? Because of pressure from environmental groups or a few neighbors. If this is important to the 

public and a benefit to the public, why are these deposits 

being lost forever? 

It would seem to me that this trend of losing deposits 

needs to be fully evaluated by a group like this and a strategy 

needs to be developed to reverse this trend of losing mineral 

deposits forever. 

We, as operators (and we have heard this a couple of 

times), are asked to bring plans that are responsible and are 

environmentally sound. We are asked to support our position with documentation, and are asked to be quite truthful 

when we present our information in the various hearings. 

But it seems that even when we as operators do this, we go 

to the hearings and we still lose even though the plan is reasonable and it's responsible. 

Based on my experience of working in several States 

with several planning commissions and other regulatory 

agencies, we lose to those groups or individuals who come to 

hearings and present information or accusations that are 

unfounded. The question I'm asking is, what do we do as 

operators to work with the groups to reverse this? 

I felt a little bit uncomfortable as I sat through the panels yesterday. I seemed to sense a little of an adversarial role 

between regulatory agencies-particularly the planning and 

zoning representatives and the operators who spoke. I feel, 

personally, that is not the case. I'm currently working on my 

dissertation at Iowa State. My research has been focused on 

the area of regulatory agencies, specifically planning and 

zoning. As part of my research, I developed a questionnaire 

and sent it to 194 licensed aggregate producers in the State 

of Iowa and to the planning director, and (or) his designee of 

all the 99 counties in Iowa. I am currently extending this 

research to Kansas. I want to share just a few things, preliminary kinds of things, that I'm finding out. I had a 4 7 percent 

return rate on the questionnaires. I was pleasantly surprised 

by the number of counties that responded; out of 99, I had a 

74 percent return rate. In Iowa aggregate producers' returns, 

the rate was 32 percent. The problems identified by the 

aggregate producers were blasting, dust, traffic, and reclamation. Public officials identified the same kinds of things, 

blasting, dust, traffic, location of the mine site in relation to 

other existing land uses, water concerns, visual intrusion 

(meaning the impact of the mine site on surrounding area), 

and reclamation. In the questionnaire I tried to identify what 

factors contribute to where the mining industry is today. 

Both groups, regulatory agencies and producers, indicated 

that mining industry operates somewhat irresponsibly. In 

other words, we probably don't operate as best we can. 

The lack of information provided to those involved or 

impacted by mining operations was a very important factor. 

A lot of the image of the mining industry today is a result of 

previously unregulated practices. That is an important factor. 
PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 2 87 

Another factor contributing to problems as the industry sees 

it, is an increased awareness and pressure from environmental groups. 

During yesterday's panel discussions and even more 

this morning, we touched on inadequate mine plans and reclamation practices. My research indicated a way for both 

operators and regulators to resolve some of the concerns. 

Operators need to become more responsible, they need to 

develop and improve reclamation practices, develop and use 

sound mining plans, and work closer to regulatory agencies. 

Both sides need to provide educational sessions, focusing on 

issues. From my experience in dealing with planning and 

zoning folks and other agencies, I strongly agree with some 

of the comments that were made. Do that from the beginning, share what you're doing, work the process. That is 

what it is. It is a process. Obtaining permits is not a thing of 

"do this, do this, and do this." It is a process that begins here 

and it deals with the term "final reclamation," or "final use 

plan." In several very heated permit processes that we have 

gone through, we have worked with the planning and zoning 

people and with those individuals who felt that they might be 

impacted. We succeeded if we dealt in terms of a final use 

plan, a final reclamation plan. Rather than submit something 

in 1991 which deals with the final use and defines what this 

place is going to look like in the year 2050, we are questioning whether a 1991 plan is the proper final use for that land 

50 years from now. Shouldn't that "final" plan be involved 

in moving toward a concept of what might happen? We used 

that several times in working with planning and zoning, and 

it really works. It is a good way to approach neighbors' legitimate concerns about what is going to happen. I think we 

would probably be more honest, as operators, in talking 

about a concept versus something in black and white, that 

none of us will be around to see. 

Dr. Charles J. Mankin: 

Thank you, Joe. Joe brought up some interesting 

points; certainly that point dealing with the issue of being 

required to abandon existing mine sites because of the 

encroachment of other land use of presumably higher value 

is one that needs to be addressed. Preventing continued 

recovery from an existing resource and requiring that organization to relocate an operation does, in fact, involve environmental costs. It has seemed to me for a long time that 

some effort ought to made in the planning process to recognize the existence of a mining operation and provide some 

protection for its continued existence in an area. 

In a related example, not dealing with mining at all, 

but just an example that illustrates the point: In Norman, 

Oklahoma, prior to World War II, a small airport was 

located in the town. Around that airport was a large, 

set-aside area for protection of the airport. Construction in 

the flight paths was not allowed at the end of the runways in 

order to protect' the citizens from the possibility of 

small-plane accidents. Unfortunately, the city in its infinite 

wisdom has now allowed development of the approaches on 

the south side of the airport. As you can imagine, there is 

great consternation on the part of the citizens who have 

bought homes in that area that, in fact, this airport is now 

endangering their lives. The airport existed long before that 

area was developed. It is an area that had been set aside, but 

unfortunately developers were able to convince the city's 

planning commission that that area should be developed. 

Now development is in competition with the airport, a lot of 

unhappy people are not existing in a cooperative way with 

the airport, and there are those who are working very hard 

to get the airport closed down. 

The next person on the program is Dewayne Knott from 

the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. 

Dewayne L. Knott: 

By way of introduction, I feel as though I come to this 

panel fairly well rounded in that I spent 10 years with the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Seven of those 10 years 

were spent as a field regulatory person, a wetlands biologist. 

I've spent plenty of time in quarries, plenty oftime on dredging operations. 

I've seen how it works, and I've come to understand your 

needs and the problems that you face. And, whenever I met 

with you, I tried to cause you to understand the problems that 

I faced, coming from a regulatory agency. I now work for 

the EPA and have for the last 3 or 4 years, and I'm looking 

at the same questions as I review environmental documents. 

In addition I have spent 22 years working one way or the other 

with the Air Force as an Environmental Officer and have a 

fairly solid foundation with environmental regulations. 

I found it interesting that I was asked to be on this panel 

discussing resources. I just recently returned from Kuwait 

where I was working in the oil fields, and I'm not too sure 

that when Saddam Hussein lit those fields that he was thinking too much about the consequences of his actions either to 

the resource commodity itself or the damage done to those 

fields, as well as to the environmental and ecological 

resources involved. 

I have been sitting in the back of the room the last couple of days, and I couldn't help but notice the number of 

graying and balding heads, my own included. I did a little 

figuring, and it occurs to me that there is probably somewhere upwards of a thousand years of experience and knowledge sitting in this room. That's impressive. I feel like this 

panel and perhaps the panel before have been a little bit like 

preaching to the choir. Because you are here, you're taking 

some action and interest in plannin,g and in resource responsibility, not only from your own points of view in extracting 

the resource but also in protecting other natural resources 

that can be damaged during that extraction process. 

It scares me a little that I don't see very many young faces 

in this room. Someone on the previous panel mentioned 
88 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

corporate knowledge and a memory bank of corporate experience. I don't know if you guys left all the young people at 

home to run the place while you're here in St. Louis having 

a good time, but it's a little bit scary to me. 

There are all sorts of resources. There is, of course, the 

product resource, the resource that you extract from the 

ground. But there are other types of resources that I want to 

talk about. There's a dynamic, living resource that includes 

terrestrial wildlife, animals, insects, plants, funguses. There 

is also aquatic wildlife, including fish, plants, insects, and 

amphibians, and also the avian community. If you don't 

think that any of these critters or plant materials can cause 

you a problem, all you need do is look at the experience with 

the snail darter, an example which is oft-used and probably 

most known, and more recently, the spotted owl, which 

brought two very large operations, in one case a project and 

in another case an industry, to a halt. 

Regardless of which side of the resource issue you find 

yourself on, the fact of the matter is reality, and reality is that 

those concerns are with us. They are with us as regulatory 

agencies, and they are with you as producers. 

Another group of resources that I want to mention are 

static resources, which include soil, air, and water, and a 

resource that I haven't heard mentioned yet is aesthetics (vistas). This is a resource that needs to be considered in your 

planning process. What is this place going to look like while 

you're there, what's it going to look like after you have 

gone? Quiet is a resource. There is probably not a person in 

this room who at one time or another has not said, "I wish I 

could find just a little peace and quiet." It's a valuable 

resource, and it's getting to be more and more valuable in our 

society. All you need do is step out the door of this hotel and 

hear the din of the freeway. It's something that you need to 

look at, and you can be good neighbors in that regard. Chief 

among the static (nonliving) resources is water. And I 

believe Tom is going to address that here in a few minutes. 

I have a suggestion to help you in your planning process; I heard you talk an awful lot about planning. Twenty 

years ago this last April I believe it was, the National Environmental Policy Act was passed by Congress, and what that 

Act basically did was hold the Federal government's feet to 

the fire of its own environmental policies. That Act has been 

around for 20 years, and even though you are private producers involved in an industry that is not federally funded, you 

still can use this document as a planning tool. You're not 

bound by it, and it isn't a law you have to observe, but is a 

good planning tool. You can use this Act as a guideline in 

developing your own scoping and planning process. It takes 

you step by step, and if you follow the NEP A guideline, you 

will probably serve yourself well. The reason that use as a 

guideline is important is because the Act engages in the alternative decision-making process. We've already talked about 

the Clean Water Act and under it, Section 10 and Section 

404, but you have the Endangered Species Act, Fish and 

Wildlife Coordination Act, Farmland Protection Policy Act, 

National Historic Preservation Act, Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Act, the Wilderness Act, Wetlands Protection, Floodplain 

Management, and others. The NEP A document can help 

guide you through all of those. 

I want to reinforce a statement made earlier. Don't be 

afraid to come to the State or Federal resource agencies and 

ask us for information. The Fish and Wildlife Service has 

ready lists available on threatened and endangered species. 

And the State has lists of State endangered and threatened 

species. Ask them for the lists. The Historic Preservation 

Office can help you with cultural concerns. Likewise, other 

agencies have information and help available to you that can 

answer your resource questions. 

Dr. Mankin was right when he spoke of the planet Earth 

and the "Not in My Backyard" syndrome. Out of sight and 

out of mind simply does not apply any more. The Earth, 

which is the only home we have, is also the only backyard 

we have. 

Dr. Charles J. Mankin: 

Thank you, Dewayne, you brought up some interesting 

points for additional discussion. I'm sure it will elicit some 

comments from the audience. The issue of water is one that 

has not been widely discussed at this meeting, and yet it is 

critical to everything that we do. The protection of water 

resources, as a part of the mining process, is something that 

has to be done, not only because it is the law, but because it 

is the right thing to do. 

Following as the wrap-up person for this panel, who 

will elaborate further on the issue of water and other matters, 

is Thomas McSwiggin with the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. 

Thomas G. McSwiggin: 

In my section we have permit programs that deal with 

the subject of water, and most of the efforts that we put forth 

are in the NPDES which is directed only towards surface 

water. We deal with some 2,500 NPDES permits across the 

State. Of that 2,500, probably less than 200 are related to the 

mining industry, and of that 200, perhaps 75 or 80 are 

directed toward the coal industry, which, incidentally, 

receives most of our attention from that portion of the 

agency's resources that we do devote to mining. The reason 

for that has been that over the past 14 years that I've managed this particular program, water has been a subject that 

has never really attracted any particular spotlight until somebody ended up with his well dry because the quarry or limestone or gravel pit next door de watered it. That's a resource 

issue, and it's one that is brought to us quite often, but unfortunately, it's one that we cannot deal with because we are 

basically a quality-of-water not a quantity-of-water agency. 

It's a rather difficult story to explain to the person at the other 

end of the telephone line that although he's made every 
PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 2 89 

attempt to find an agency in Illinois that could control his 

problem, there really isn't any solution except to go to the 

local circuit court and bring his own case. 

As we have moved through this period of history with 

the NPDES, we started looking at the surface water quality 

problems, and over the years we've had quite a variety of 

issues brought forth. One of the focuses nationally today 

with the NPDES permit system is the prevention of the discharge of toxic materials. Looking at the operations of 

aggregate production over the years, we really haven't had 

that many problems, except for what may seem to be a sideline for your operations and that's the handling of fuels and 

lubricants. It has caused us a few concerns here and there, 

particularly as we've had some releases of these materials 

due to improper handling, basically storage. For the most 

part, the handling has been pretty sound. We haven't seen 

that many problems, but we've had cases of overfill, and 

broken pipelines, and that type of thing. 

But, looking ahead at the toxic aspects of surface water 

control, we're likely to see more focus in the future placed 

upon some of the waste materials that you leave at a site. 

The coal industry has probably been one of the prime examples for us over the years, as they leave their gob piles with 

the sulfur materials and acid formation taking place. We've 

seen some massive toxic discharges in Illinois. We've had 

some streams that appear to be crystal clear. You can look 

at every rock, count the grains of sand on the bottom, but 

then you note when you stick a pH meter in there, the pH is 

2, and that's why it's so clear. Fortunately, a lot has been 

done to correct that over the years. 

As we proceed, surface water is perhaps going to be our 

main focus. So, it gets into an issue of researching some of 

those incidental materials that may be in the formation that 

you're looking at. What would be the fate of those materials 

that were left to weather? And what would be the likely 

result of runoff from that particular site? 

The other issue that is becoming more and more prominent in the public's mind is that of ground water. For years, 

ground water was kind of ignored by the public. They knew 

it was there. They never gave it much thought until it was 

tapped and used as a resource, for public water supplies. Particularly in northern Illinois, it is the main source of public 

water supply. In southern Illinois, surface water happens to 

be the main source because there isn't that much ground 

water available in economic quantities. Over the years, however, the private individual who depends on the private well 

has just started to develop an awareness of the resource that 

he's been tapping and not thinking about. We are starting to 

see these concerns, concerns to the point that now underway 

in Illinois is a regulatory effort to establish separate 

ground-water quality standards. These standards will set 

numerical limitations for certain materials and establish a 

procedure for developing numbers for other materials that 

may be found in ground water. One of the things that goes 

with every water quality regulation is that it is designed to 

protect a use. Most surface water quality standards were 

designed to protect that water for what we call general use, 

which includes protection of public water supply, aquatic 

life, livestock watering, irrigation, general uses to which you 

could put a surface stream. More stringent regulations were 

basically developed for all this water supply. 

That same concept is carrying over into the establishment of ground-water standards and what will be a general 

resource classification. Ground waters will be protected 

because they are a general resource and maybe some day will 

have to be tapped to be used for water supply as we undergo 

economic development and expansion of population in certain areas. Of course, there will be a set of numbers and procedures for the establishment of standards for protection of 

public water supply. 

So we're looking at this increased emphasis. We have, 

to some extent, awakened America on ground water and now 

we are starting to see some concerns raised. I feel that we 

will be devoting a lot of attention to it over the next few 

years. In the repertoire of permits besides the NPDES, we do 

have a State mining permit which does focus to some extent 

on ground water. 

In recent years we have started to ask for a closure plan. 

In Illinois what we're looking for is a plan that will protect 

the water resources in the area once the facility is closed. We 

really don't have jurisdiction to look at any other particular 

aspect of the closure such as visual, plant life, or wildlife 

establishment. Those are programs administered by other 

agencies in the State. 

We're looking at a brighter spotlight over the next few 

years, more focused on ground water. I would like to also 

mention that most water quality agencies in the United States 

maintain inventories of surface water quality data. We have 

a policy in Illinois, and I'm sure some of the other States do, 

of sharing that data when we receive a request. There is a lot 

of information there. The situation on ground-water data is 

a little more fragmented-we don't have a lot of data available in our shop. I think the State Water Survey, which is a 

sister agency to the State Geological Survey, does have quite 

a bit of data on ground water. My experience has been that 

they're willing to share it as well. 

So some information is available, but we seldom get 

requests for it unless we are dealing with something relatively 

big. The last time I was involved in a request looking at water 

quality data, was when they wanted to close Chanute Air 

Force Base over in eastern Illinois. It's kind of the reverse 

of what we normally deal with, closing of a base, but we're 

looking at the impact on water quality of that particular action. 

Dr. Charles J. Mankin: 

Thank you, Tom. This panel, has attempted, then, to 

identify those kinds of resources that are not commonly considered in connection with the recovery of a commodity, 

namely those resources that relate to soil as a resource, 
90 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

wildlife, endangered species, the vistas, the resource of 

quiet, the resource of air, and importantly, the last two speakers have commented in particular on surface and 

ground-water resources. Those are important issues that 

have to be considered in connection with this overall process. It is because it's not only the law, but it is indeed the 

proper thing to do. 

Let me open the floor for discussion from the audience. 

DISCUSSION 

Anthony M. Bauer: 

Regarding the last speaker's comment, I think here is 

another very good example of why the industry needs to be 

brought into the planning process and be actively involved in 

the process of developing regulations to make sure that the 

regulations and standards distinguish and recognize the difference between various kinds of mining activities and sites. 

Otherwise you are going to be automatically identified with 

acid drainage and a lot of other unrelated issues. 

I would like to comment on what Joe McGuire said 

about the importance of pre-mine planning. While a good 

mine plan is no guarantee of success, no matter how sophisticated the plan, it is becoming an essential part of the industry's effort to open new mine sites. Two years ago I received 

a grant from the National Aggregate Association to study 

mine projects around the country. There is one common 

denominator that has occurred, to varying degrees, across the 

country. It is that the planning effort is becoming more 

intensive, more expensive, and longer to complete. One 

hundred thousand dollar consulting fees on major projects 

are not uncommon. It is becoming a very expensive process, 

and very time consuming. 

Dealing with the State regulators has not been a problem in my experience. They appreciate and understand the 

significance of information produced by qualified people. 

They review those data in an objective way. They have the 

standards. They equate these standards to the plans you 

present. The problem is back on the local level. What's happening across the country is that cases are prepared with an 

attorney on your side, in anticipation that you will lose your 

case at the local level and will take it to the court. The 

chances you're going to get local approval are decreasing. 

It's common in Michigan, it's common on the West Coast, 

it's common on the East Coast. And so the problem isn't 

dealing with the standards set by State regulators, the problem is not having an opportunity to deal with the issues in an 

objective way at the local level. I don't care what type of 

plan you prepared; I don't care how you approach this 

project; I don't care how well you developed the plan, the 

local communities are saying in increasing numbers, "We do 

not want sand and gravel operations in our back yard." 

Dr. Charles J. Mankin: 

Thank you. Do we have another comment? 

H. Lyn Bourne: 

About 20 years ago, in the early 1970's, the Colorado 

Legislature gave a mandate to the Colorado Survey. They 

asked them to map the aggregate resources within the eight 

most populous counties in Colorado, so that the aggregate 

resources would be recognized for what they were for future 

development plans, and so on. In spite of the success of the 

mapping program, it really didn't carry much weight, as Dr. 

Mankin pointed out. As the resources are being depleted, the 

ones that are geologically available are not legislatively 

available, and they simply cannot get permits for those. 

So, there is the cost of ignoring environmental factors, 

you're wasting other resources. You're wasting the roads, 

and the railroads, and the fuel to bring a resource to market, 

when it's right there. 

Dr. Charles J. Mankin: 

Very good point. Any comments from the panel on 

that? Or other questions or comments from the audience? I 

suspect that all of you share the views that the panel has and 

that is, as Yogi Berra was wont to remark, "It's deja vu all 

over again," and with those prophetic words, I'll close this 

particular session. 

PANEL SUMMATIONS 

Tuesday afternoon, September 17, 1991 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

Now I would like to go back and summarize. I've 

asked each panel leader to prepare a summary and each has. 

In order to get an overview of the past day and a half of discussion, I'd like these to be presented one right after the 

other. Then, in order to try to fulfill a promise that we 

would try to come up with some options to go with these 

recognized issues, I want to go back to the first summary, 

item by item, and see if there is an option or several options 

that this group would recommend and support in addressing 

that particular issue. 

First panel, Lyn Bourne, on resource evaluation. 

RESOURCE EVALUATION 

H. Lyn Bourne: 

In addition to the items on that list that we passed out to 

you yesterday, there were a couple of other items that we 
PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 2 91 

want to include, based on some of the comments that we had 

after our presentation. One was a need to identify exclusionary areas such as wetlands. The other one that came out was 

that demographic data would be part of the information 

essential to resource availability. Jim Eidel suggests that we 

could probably break this list into two components. One 

component would lend itself to a GIS data base that would 

in elude such data as topography, geology, and location of 

resources, the demographics, transportation routes, physical 

and chemical parameters, and some of the ownership, 

land-use, and (or) planning maps. The second category 

would be things like a bibliography of theses and dissertations, permit procedures, timing or sequence necessary for 

permitting, and pertinent legislation that impacts the mining 

industry. 

Based on those concepts, one issue that we see is mapping. This would involve two of the three levels of inventory 

that Tony Bauer suggested, public domain mapping at the 

State level, and certainly the ?Y2-minute quadrangle geologic maps. In our written article summation, we'll include 

some of the comments from Dr. Mankin. 

The second issue that we see is a data base system that 

would be available (probably at the State level) that would 

include a lot of the items and kinds of information that will 

be necessary for resource availability. 

A third issue is public awareness, whether this is handled as PR (public relations) or some kind of an educational 

exchange of ideas much as we've had here. The issue is to 

move away from an adversarial position of regulators and 

operators, and try to move toward more cooperation. We're 

basically all in this together, and we need to identify ways 

that we can work together. So as an issue, public awareness 

is going to be important. 

One of the recommendations that Jim Eidel makes, 

and I concur with Jim, is that the publication that comes 

from this Workshop should include an appendix. That 

appendix, or one of the appendices, would include State 

regulations, possibly on a State-by-State basis, that deal 

with permitting, with new operations. If there is information available from the EPA, some of whose people are 

present here, we would like to include that in a list as part of 

this appendix. [See Appendices.] 

LAND-USE PLANNING 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

Bob Joice had to leave. He was the leader of the second 

panel on land-use planning. He left a written list that is 

framed into a 1-10 arrangement, although it does have a few 

comments. Bob writes: 

"Planning is number one, identifiable as an issue. Planning is intended and designed to be an open, rational 

decision-making process to protect the local community and 

bring pertinent information to bear on an essentially political 

decision. As such, complete truth and full disclosure are 

essential, as is adequate geologic information which clarifies 

the necessity of a proposal. 

"Two. Planning is only one of the ways local government relates to industrial minerals. Zoning, as a part of the 

planning process, focuses upon the single decision to locate 

and authorize the initiation of an activity, such as quarry 

operations. Zoning, thus, has limited capabilities for influencing proper on-going operation of a mine. 

"Three. One overall objective of proper urban planning, very directly related to the preservation of mining 

resources and the compatibility of uses adjacent to quarries, 

is the control of urban sprawl with such techniques as urban 

service area boundaries and provision of limitations on 

growth inducing facilities. This should probably become a 

recommendation that those involved in mining should 

encourage good local planning, especially using techniques 

to control urban sprawl. Those efforts will assist in preserving mining opportunities. 

"Four. As with most petitioners seeking local approval 

for specific land-use activity, quarry operators must recognize potential negative impacts and propose appropriate 

ways to mitigate them. The primary items to address are 

transportation impacts and environmental impacts, particularly on adjacent and nearby lands. 

"Five. Although quarries are very long term activities 

and reclamation plans for later use are difficult to envision, 

such plans are critical. Communities very much want to 

know what will happen after quarry closure and, obviously, 

they want good things to happen. 

"Six. The entire planning process is composed of people, those living near a site, those making decisions, and 

those with similar interests. The stone industry must work 

with interested persons openly to reach these common goals. 

"Seven. Better education of citizens and planners and 

overall better public awareness regarding geology can only 

help. 

"Eight. This is perhaps a two-way street where government geologists should learn more about planning and 

become involved in such planning. 

"Nine. The primary influence of State and local government on industrial minerals appears to be regulatory. As 

is common in other planning areas, such as agricultural 

resources or historic resources, those involved in planning 

should be encouraged and assisted to view mineral resources 

as worthy of protection and preservation. 

"And, ten, as with education, geologists should work 

supportively with planners in projects of mutual interest, 

particularly Geographic Information Systems or simply geologic mapping for use in a comprehensive plan." 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

Let's move on. Dr. Subhash Bhagwat on cost factors. 
92 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

COST FACTORS 

Dr. Subhash B. Bhagwat: 

I'm the only one of the panel left here this afternoon. 

We have put together ten items that, simultaneously, may be 

issues, but they may be just points in some cases. 

One. Cost increases with insufficient price increases 

have squeezed profits over the past two decades, and the 

result is a lack of money for research and development. 

Two. There is inability or unwillingness on the part of 

aggregate producers to engage in public relations and inform 

the public about their genuine economic problems. 

Three. Many subheadings of operational costs are actually beyond producer control, but the industry is not doing 

enough to influence them through taking to PR or other lobbying efforts so laws can be influenced at the beginning. 

Four. Recycling of concrete and asphalt is here to stay. 

It's environmentally desirable. Industry should join in and 

take advantage of it and find ways of living with it instead of 

resigning to it. 

Five. Production is moving farther away from consumption sites. Cost of transportation is often a multiple of 

the cost of production. Work is needed to find ways of 

cheaper transportation alternatives. 

Six. High-quality specifications are reducing the available resources stock, but prices are not rising proportionately. That latter could be an indication that currently, at 

least, supply is adequate, but is it going to stay that way? 

That's the question we'd like to have investigated. 

Seven. Underground extraction can be economically 

competitive under certain circumstances and should be taken 

into serious consideration wherever possible. 

Eight. A check -off system as a means of raising R & D 

(research and development) money should be given consideration, with appropriate controls in place so that the industry can determine how the money is to be spent. 

Nine. The aggregate industry should keep an eye on 

substitute materials such as fly ash, slag, and others that can 

take the place of naturally occurring aggregate materials. 

Adaptation to that situation and getting into that business on 

time could be very important. 

Ten. Increasing quantities of fines for which there is little demand introduces a cost factor that affects the supply of 

the rest of the material. New ways need to be found to mine, 

wash, and use the fines. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

John Kiefer on environmentally responsible production. 

ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSffiLE PRODUCTION 

John D. Kiefer: 

The concept of environmentally responsible mineral 

extraction is largely a matter of perception, and your 

perception is largely a function of perspective: industry, regulatory, political, planning, environmental, or general public. 

The only way to reconcile these differences in perspective is 

through communication, good public relations, education, 

and cooperation among all the parties concerned. Failure to 

do so will impact us all, but it will have the most direct and 

obvious impact on industry. It is therefore imperative that 

industry take a leadership role. The cost of doing so is far less 

than the cost of inaction. Act. Don't wait for things to happen 

and then react. 

Environmental responsibility goes far beyond just 

meeting the permit obligations. You cannot just say that you 

are a part of the community, you must show that you are a 

part by your actions. 

Industry needs to play a part in the drafting of regulations and a leading role in working with and educating those 

enforcing the regulations. Poorly paid and poorly trained 

permit writers, regulators, and inspectors seem to be a universal problem and one that won't soon be resolved. To be 

antagonistic and uncooperative simply makes the situation 

more untenable. The best policy, is, again, to meet the situation head-on by working with the inspectors and regulatory 

authorities to make sure that they get the proper training and 

are aware of the problems and constraints under which you 

must operate. Such steps as informative quarry tours, informational pamphlets, slides, videos, and well-designed training manuals and short courses can help. In one State, an 

organization of aggregate operators went to the legislature to 

request that regulatory personnel be paid a more adequate 

salary, so that better trained and more qualified people could 

be hired and retained. 

In regulations, although the Federal agencies such as 

the Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection 

Agency have some regulatory authority over aggregate producers' dredging and filling, dewatering, and fugitive dust 

emissions, most of the regulation is done at the State level. 

One area regulated by EPA, which will have a major impact 

on mines and quarries in the near future, is in the new storm 

water discharge requirements. This could impose a heavy 

burden on industry. However, most regulatory responsibility, such as NPDES permitting, lies with the States. This 

puts the regulation at a more local level, which is as it should 

be, because the environment and conditions in each State are 

different. In fact, inspectors need to realize that each quarry 

is different, and there needs to be some flexibility in the 

application of the regulations. 

Good long-range planning is also a key and must contain an end result that leaves a usable piece of property in 

the community. Lakes, parks, subdivision land, and land-

. fills are some of the possibilities. Working with community 

leaders to develop long-range plans can be important in 

public relations and leave the community with the feeling 

that they are going to get something beneficial out of the 

process. 
PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 2 93 

Finally, recycling has already been noted. Recycling 

must become a viable part of the industry. Recycling 

materials must be considered as a by-product of the operation, 

and it's beyond the point of that being our decision. It's a 

worldwide problem. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

For the fifth and final panel, Dr. Mankin on the environmental cost of ignoring resource data. 

ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS OF 

IGNORING RESOURCE DATA 

Dr. Charles J. Mankin: 

There are two of us left from panel five for the rest of 

you to pick on in case we don't properly reflect your views 

on this matter. 

The findings of panel number five are essentially as follows. The panel identified two kinds of issues relating to the 

environmental costs of ignoring resource information. 

The first issue is ignoring resource information related 

to the commodity to be mined, for example, sand and gravel, 

limestone, and gypsum. And the second issue is the array of 

other resources that may be affected by the extraction of an 

industrial mineral resource. That list of other resources 

includes such things as soil, surface and ground water, wildlife endangered species, cultural, vistas, air, fossils, archeological, and the list goes on. Ignoring commodity resource 

information in the planning process can lead to land-use 

practices that prevent access to those resources. This, in 

tum, can lead to the development of those commodities elsewhere at greater environmental costs, and we cite here the 

Denver example. 

Ignoring the existence of resources that can be affected 

by mining can produce adverse environmental consequences 

to one or more of those related resources that I previously 

described. A solution to the issue of ignoring commodity 

resource information is better planning through improved 

information. A solution to the issue of ignoring other potential resources related to the extraction of a commodity is 

improved education of the mining operators to recognize the 

need for recognition and mitigation of adverse impacts on 

those resources. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

Thank you. The five panels provided a combination of 

both issue identification and some recommendations or 

options. 

DISCUSSION OF ISSUES AND OPTIONS 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

What I intend to do now is try to return to things which 

are recognizable issues and try to determine if this Workshop 

can come to a consensus on listing one or more options on 

the addressing of that issue. 

THE NEED FOR MAPPING 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

Lyn Bourne started with identification of issues. The 

first issue that was identifiable is the need for mapping. And 

I want someone, if they would, please, to comment on 

whether this meeting should say, "We should do this about 

the need for mapping." I think it was pretty well accepted all 

along that we should support, for instance, the National Geologic Mapping Act. 

Anthony M. Bauer: 

I would like to suggest that State resources mapping 

efforts be influenced by critical areas of need, in terms of 

urban land-use pressure and in terms of the marketplace. In 

other words, the mapping agencies should identify the combination of market and resource location in areas where there 

currently are high concentrations of people. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

Is there discussion on that? First off, is there a really 

full consensus that this Workshop should support a National 

Geologic Mapping Act? Does anybody disagree? [Editors' 

Note: There was no disagreement.] Now, let's talk a little 

bit about Tony Bauer's suggestion. 

Dr. Charles J. Mankin: 

I think that's an excellent suggestion. It's a suggestion 

that the two committees, one from the Association of American State Geologists and the other of members of the Geologic Division of the USGS, recognized early on. I don't 

think anyone, either from the State or the Federal level, had 

the view that we would start at one comer of the State or one 

comer of the country and systematically march across the 

country mapping each quadrangle in tum. Rather, we recognized that, because this is going to be a process that will take 

years to complete, there are areas within each State, indeed, 

areas throughout the United States, that ought to have priority consideration. These areas include those things that 

we're dealing with here today, such as the identification of 

resources and in other parts of the country also include such 
94 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

areas as natural hazards that need more detailed delineation 

for purposes of mitigation. Every State has planned to have 

an advisory committee that would contribute to the development of priorities for each State and the State mapping program, as a part of our process, part of the implementation 

plan. The Federal government would have a group of Federal agencies that would contribute to the planning effort at 

the Federal level, as a part of its effort. So there would be a 

State contribution to the priorities within individual States, 

for the State mapping effort, on a matching funds basis, and 

the Federal mapping effort would be driven by national 

needs, to recognize critical national priorities. 

We treat the most critical areas first, and go down this 

priority list, and eventually, when all else is through, we'll 

map Black Mesa in the Panhandle of Oklahoma! 

J. James Eidel: 

I would like to point out, Tony, that that process is 

already in progress in Illinois. The Illinois State Geological 

Survey formed an Illinois Mapping Advisory Committee. 

Every interested or involved State agency and every industry 

is represented on that committee. George Dirkes represents 

the aggregate producers in Illinois on that committee. We 

have submitted a report to the Senate in Illinois on the status 

of geologic mapping. There are priorities involving 

resources and environmental requirements, including industrial minerals. Bi:ud Leighton's talk, yesterday, on resource 

evaluation illustrated the priorities including industrial minerals, including requirements imposed by urban corridors. 

The point is, a forum has been established in Illinois to 

accept industrial mineral producers' points of view for inclusion in the priorities. If those urban corridors are supported 

by some other mapping requirements, there is additional 

support for mapping corridors ftrst. 

During the committee deliberation, Al Bush mentioned 

the bias of mapping. The process of determining priorities 

from a spectrum of the community's requirements, including 

all agencies and industries, is a way to get rid of some of that 

bias. You look at why you need those maps and then you 

ftnd the mappers that are going to provide the information 

from a broad spectrum of views, not just from a single mapper's particular view. Bias is overcome in this fashion. 

Alfred L. Bush: 

The bias I meant to indicate is in fact a point of strength, 

it is not a personal bias, one that says, "I don't want to map 

sand and gravel, I want to map gold deposits." It's a bias 

that's built in by the intent of the mapping at the time. Where 

did the funds come from? When I was mapping the Western 

San Juan Mountains in Colorado, the reason I was there was 

to look for uranium-vanadium deposits. I expanded it 

because of my own interests in mapping the mountains to see 

what kind of intrusive rocks were there, etc., etc., but the 

focus always was clearly on the uranium-vanadium. I must 

say that I didn't look at sand and gravel in the San Juans as 

any kind of particularly important feature. I lumped them all 

as colluvium, alluvium, or something like that. That's the 

kind of bias I mean. It's not an intentional disregard, rather 

a setting of priorities. 

On the other hand, I would mention this. There will be 

areas in the United States where you can map in the traditional way, using geologic contacts, formational contacts-and that's great for certain objectives. But if you are 

after a particular kind of sandstone, or sandstones that are 

useful in the area, you forget formational boundaries [or they 

become somewhat secondary] and you start to use units that 

say, "In this area, this rock sequence has 80 percent useful 

sandstone. That kind of grouping is appropriate to my objective." That's the kind of bias that I meant, and that's what I 

also meant by saying there is no such thing as a single, 

all-purpose geologic map. 

J. James Eidel: 

I believe I understand the situation. Let me add one 

comment about how we are trying to overcome the bias you 

refer to. Hydro geologists are beginning to talk about a whole 

new stratigraphy, hydrostratigraphy. If a geological survey, 

whether it be a State or the Federal survey, can make the 

individual mapper aware of a broad spectra of mapping 

needs or priorities-even new concepts such as hydrostratigraphic units can be mapped. A mapper, whoever he or she 

may be, can acquire the broadest information. It becomes a 

matter of education of the mappers in order to acquire comprehensive information. There is a new effort to acquire 

information of what was mapped previously as Quaternary 

alluvium in a form that can be usable in determining not only 

whether it may include sand and gravel in it, but other units 

that have environmental impact. The bias issue is being 

addressed. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

I thought that Al's comment allowed the possibility of 

a recommendation that might say something to the effect that 

"the geologic mapping should emphasize economic units." 

In that way, it would serve the purpose of recognizing the 

need for the data, and it might then contribute to providing 

that data. 

Are there people who would disagree and oppose seeing something like that come out as a recommendation? 

Aldo Barsotti: 

My concern there is that economics can be very dynamic 

and you're into a ftxed product. And this is one of the biggest 

problems we have with mapping, economic factors. 
PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 2 95 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

Can we say "economically interesting unit"? 

Aldo Barsotti: 

You have controversy as to what is a resource or what 

is simply a rock, and that has a long time element in it. We're 

talking about what's economic today may not be economic 

tomorrow, and vice versa. 

If you're going to do it, I would suggest strongly that 

you perform a rigorous exercise to clarify and standardize 

the word and how you interpret it. Otherwise I think you're 

asking for a lot of problems. 

James W. Baxter, Industrial Minerals Geologist, Illinois 

State Geological Survey, Champaign, Illinois: 

I want to point out that we have talked many times here 

about the use of GIS systems. Through the use of multi-layers in a GIS system, we can combine the information that we 

have on a standard geologic map with any number of different parameters within formations or even crossing boundaries between different formations. So, through use of GIS, 

we get around some of these things. Jim Eidel has pointed 

out that we can plot things like chemical properties and physical properties and use them in the GIS system to get the 

information that is needed. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

I think that maybe that comment addresses what I said; 

a GIS system can include the factors that influence economic 

value, value that will change over time. 

H. Lyn Bourne: 

I guess what I would add to sum up the mapping issue 

is to go along with Jim Eidel' s suggestion that there be a map 

advisory committee. We know that Illinois has done it, and 

Ira Satterfield suggested earlier that Missouri does it. I suspect that if somebody' s going to spend the money and go to 

the trouble to establish a geologic mapping program, then, 

indeed, they will want some kind of advisory committee, so 

that there will be a base map that's going to be useful and 

provide the most information. Rather than try to pigeon-hole 

something by today's standards, I think we should just recommend geologic mapping with a map advisory committee. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

Support for the National Geologic Mapping Act and for 

State Mapping Advisory Committees? 

Ira R. Satterfield: 

I think we would oppose the economic aspect of it, 

because I think you're opening a real can of worms, because 

identifying recent geologic hazards may have much more 

impact than some other needs. I think we would oppose singling out just one area. 

James M. McNeal, Office of Mineral Resources, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 

I want to point out that there is on the board, on the 

docket, a mechanism for getting input into prioritizing geologic mapping under the NGM (National Geologic Mapping) program, that's the A-16 process. A-16 is an OMB 

(Office of Management and Budget) Circular; however, it 

was just recently revised and in that we solicit mapping 

requirements from the user community, wherever they may 

be, prioritize them, see where the majority of demands lie, 

and complete maps accordingly. So that's on the docket. 

Dr. Charles M. Mankin: 

Can I just ask a question on that issue? I know A-16 

historically, in the National Mapping program, was only 

topographic mapping. I know it now includes geologic mapping as well as soils and other kinds of things ... 

James M. McNeal: 

It includes geochemical and geophysical mapping. 

Dr. Charles J. Mankin: 

... developing mechanisms for soliciting that kind of 

requests for information. The National Mapping program 

does that annually, but has the Geologic Division come up 

with a mechanism for soliciting information? 

James M. McNeal: 

Actually, the A-16 exists; we're in the process of 

extending to the user communities the knowledge that the 

A-16 process exists to get requirements in. So, we're at the 

very beginning of the opportunity to do that. 

Dr. Charles M. Mankin: 

You'll be developing ... 

James M. McNeal: 

Exactly, yes, we are developing the mechanism for 

soliciting information. 

Dr. Subhash B. Bhagwat: 

I would like to come back to the economic aspect that 

was mentioned earlier. I agree that it could open up a 

tremendously big area of influence when you talk about 
96 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

economics, but it does so especially if we look at geologic 

hazards. That would have a potentially even larger economic impact than resources, per se. Resources we can 

import, but geologic hazards come from our own underground activities and geologic situation; the measures that 

we take to mitigate them have potential economic benefits 

that are so tremendous that we shouldn't forget that aspect. 

True, bringing geologic hazards in as an additional argument 

here can open up a field to work with, but I would like to 

emphasize that has a tremendous economic side to it in itself. 

THE NEED FOR DATA BASE SYSTEMS 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

The next thing that Lyn Bourne's panel identified as an 

issue was the need for data base systems, suggesting that 

they be at the State level. I don't think there's going to be 

much controversy in saying that the meeting here would support data base systems giving the kinds of resource information that Lyn Bourne's panel listed and recommending GIS 

systems. Bob Joice's panel reiterated a support of geologic 

education and Geographic Information Systems approaches 

and specifically stated that the Geographic Information Systems approach should be used in comprehensive plans. I 

don't think there are negatives to that statement. [Editors' 

Note: There was no disagreement.] 

THE NEED FOR PUBLIC AWARENESS OF THE 

IMPORTANCE OF INDUSTRIAL MINERALS 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

Similarly, on the third issue-a need for public awareness. I don't think there is going to be any controversy on 

that. Can someone frame that as an option or a recommendation? In the summary of the Joice panel, among "suggested improvements," he pointed out that "There should be 

better education of citizens and planners and overall better 

public awareness regarding.geology" and "This is perhaps a 

two-way street, where geologists should learn more about 

planning and get involved in that planning." 

Haydn H. Murray: 

I want to say that educating is something that all of us 

in the industrial minerals field should be doing every day. 

We should go out of our way to speak to service clubs, to 

schools, to make them aware of the importance of industrial 

minerals. Most people, I would estimate 99 percent of the 

public, do not realize that practically everything they touch 

and use every day has an industrial mineral component. I 

like to point out that in all of the industrialized countries of 

the world, the value of industrial minerals far surpasses the 

value of metallic minerals. If you look at the standard of 

living of the various countries of the world, those that have 

the highest standards of living have industrial minerals that 

are available and affordable. We who are associated with 

industrial minerals must be ambassadors who can carry our 

message to the general public. 

J. James Eidel: 

We've touched on a broad spectrum of public awareness issues and ways to do it. We talked about publications 

that could be transmitted, and Haydn just talked about a personal touch that's required to get it across. Maybe, we could 

look at the number of suggestions we've had through all our 

panels and divide them into two categories: one, the items 

that we've talked about producing, that people could use to 

get the point across, and number two, the methods that we've 

talked about, to get the point across. People have talked 

about Lions Clubs and schoolrooms and now Haydn talks 

about how we do it. But if we separate this issue into two 

items, one, what needs to be published for use, and two, how 

we're going to use it, then maybe we can divide it into two 

issues that, one, requires dollars for publishing, and, two, 

requires definition of the method to solve the problem by 

using that information. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

That seems to be a suggestion for a recommendation 

that education appear in all the options that we're going to 

recommend, in just about every list. Greater education is 

needed, and that is a suggestion that we first recommend that 

every opportunity be taken for involving ourselves, the 

industry involving itself, in education as to the needs for 

industrial minerals and the roles of those minerals in society. 

We should then come forward with a couple of recommendations, one on publication, saying we would like to publish 

these kinds of materials or see these kinds of materials published, the second saying that we should construct a list of 

ways to effectively use the information. 

William V. Bush: 

The educational process statement might be rephrased 

from "public awareness" to "establishing our credibility" 

with the public about industrial minerals. The public is 

already aware. We can provide all the technical data, the 

geologic maps and the derivative maps, but without credibility the public will not have confidence in the information 

we're providing, and it will go unused in the planning 

process. It will also give the public a better understanding of 

the importance of industrial minerals. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

I find that pretty uncontroversial, and so I've added that 

the industry should work to establish greater credibility. 
PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 2 97 

Dr. Charles J. Mankin: 

I would suggest that rather than focus entirely on industry, I think this is a problem for all of us. I think industry, 

State and Federal agencies, all of us recognize the important 

role that industrial minerals play in society, and because of 

their importance, all of us have a stake in it. I would urge that 

we broaden that from industry, to industry, State and Federal 

agencies, and other interested groups. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

No problem. Going back to the question. Should we 

write ourselves a list of things that need to be published, to 

aid in education? I don't think anybody's willing to try it 

right now, Jim. 

J. James Eidel: 

It's in all of our discussions. It's already reported. 

Those things will fall out. 

[Unidentified speaker from floor]: 

I would say the only difference is each one of these 

things might be focused on different audiences. 

James M. McNeal: 

As you said, the education issue has hit every one of the 

panels. But my perception, each of those different panels, to 

greater or lesser degrees, are addressing different audiences 

for education. And so when we're talking about education, 

I think we need to take a look at who the audience is, who 

we're trying to reach, and what would be appropriate for 

them. I wouldn't want to give a kindergartner or a first 

grader the same information I want to give a public planner. 

The point is, we need to make sure we have targeted the audience properly and get the appropriate information to them. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

We'll return to education when we get to other panels 

and I'd like to push ahead and do that. 

THE NEED FOR MUTUAL SHARING OF INFORMATION 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

The next issue is one of the more interesting ones to discuss while there are still a lot of folks here. Bob Joice's point 

goes to the sharing of information and cooperation. He says, 

"The entire planning process is composed of people, those 

living near a site, those making decisions, and those of 

similar interests. The stone industry must work with the 

interested persons openly to reach common goals." He recognized a need for truth and full disclosure by industry operators when dealing with planning agencies. That's an issue 

and a recommendation. It's a recognition that cooperation is 

needed, but as it is worded, it's kind of hard on the stone 

industry. Anybody who would not support that? 

J. Kurt von Achen: 

It's still part of sharing information. 

Joseph P. McGuire: 

As I indicated this morning, I worked in several States, 

and I don't know if I like that. It insinuates that mine operators are not honest people, and I don't appreciate that. I 

guess if we're going to do that, let's carry the step further and 

put the planners in the same category and say that they ought 

to be honest in return. I have experienced some of that the 

other way, too. So, I would like to see something to qualify 

that or just eliminate it. I don't believe all operators are dishonest, and that's what that implies. 

J. James Eidel: 

You might call it "full disclosure" and "full consideration of what is disclosed." That puts the weight of determining validity on both sides. "By all parties," Charlie 

[Mankin] says. 

H. Lyn Bourne: 

I would just underline that, because the implication is 

that no operator is credible. There are some bad people out 

there, but a publication from a Workshop like this, with a 

statement like that, implies that there. are no honorable operators and that's not true. 

A/do Barsotti: 

I suggest you eliminate the word "disclosure." It has a 

negative connotation. Put "sharing" instead. "Full sharing 

of information by all." 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

As long as I don't hear people saying, "No, don't use 

it," I'm going to go ahead and use it. 

Right now, what I'm going to use is we're basically 

bringing a recommendation for "truth and full sharing of 

information by all parties in the planning process." 
98 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

THE NEED TO ADAPT TO URBAN SPRAWL AND THE 

QUESTION OF POST -MINING RECLAMATION 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

Next, Bob Joice wrote that a recognizable issue is that 

zoning and planning have limited capabilities for influencing 

proper on-going operation of a mine. I'm not sure if it's an 

issue. There are plenty of regulators. Is it an issue? 

A third thing that Bob wrote constitutes a recommendation, an option. He noted that one overall objective of proper 

urban planning, related to the preservation of mineral 

resources and the compatibility of the uses adjacent to 

quarries, is control of urban sprawl, with such techniques as 

service area boundaries and limitation provisions on 

growth-inducing facilities. 

J. Kurt von A chen: 

I think there needs to be some work on that. First of all, 

after 2 days you've convinced me. Industrial minerals are 

important and we need to map them. Let's assume that's 

done. Let's assume that around my little town there are two 

quarries that have 10-15 years of production left, and we 

have also identified a good deposit of limestone that sits 

underneath George and Mary Abel's farm. And that we have 

tried to limit urban sprawl, but George and Mary Abel are 70 

years old, third generation on this farm. They're done. They 

sell their property to a developer, contingent upon their getting zoning for a residential development. And they come to 

our poor old planning commission and they need to do it, 

because they need to sell their land. We've got plenty of 

reserves so no producer wants to buy that land and hold it for 

the next 15 to 20 years. How do we tell them "no"? We can't 

tell them "no." We can't just plain take their property rights 

away, so there need to be some new mechanisms or legislation, and that's where you guys are going to have to do something to help, to allow us somehow to get that land into the 

public domain, if we, in fact, must hold on to it for the minerals underneath it. 

The next thing you've got to figure out is how, when 

the time comes, you justly award those minerals to some 

producer. 

Dr. Charles J. Mankin: 

I don't disagree with that view. I think it's an issue that 

everybody has to wrestle with, and I don't think we can propose that we set up a rigorous plan that said that here's a tract 

of land that will be held in perpetuity until such time as these 

minerals have a potential for use. 

I think the important thing that needs to be done in the 

planning process at all levels is to recognize that mineral 

resources are one of several issues that need to be addressed. 

Up until now I have seen little evidence, at least in our State, 

that any planning activity at any level gives any consideration whatsoever to commodities or to mineral resources as 

a part of the planning process. It doesn't mean that you set 

an area aside for mineral development, just as you won't set 

an area aside in advance for housing development until 

someone comes in and comes before you and says, "I want 

this area zoned for housing." Generally, that's the first time 

you really give that serious consideration. 

So all we're asking is that at that time, you look at competing land uses to the extent it is possible, you recognize the 

value of sequential land use, and you take into consideration, 

in this process, that minerals play a role that should be given 

consideration. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

At this point, I am trying to modify what Bob Joice 

wrote, to give myself some headstart down the road. I'm not 

sure, Kurt, were you actually suggesting that something be 

recommended or listed as an option? 

J. Kurt von Achen: 

Well, I guess my comments were different. I thought it 

was more imperative to maintain some of these sites. 

You've got to recognize that when you come in down the 

road, you're going to have a tough time because of what has 

developed. And so, if we need to save the mineral sites, 

somehow, once they are mapped, then you folks have to help 

us get some mechanism by which we can do that. I guess 

what I was trying to say was maybe there should be some 

study or recommendation or some effort out of this group to 

consider the point of how do we, as the public, maintain or 

preserve the minerals. And, I don't know how to do it. 

J. James Eidel: 

We're at a very interesting point in this discussion. I 

think Charlie [Mankin] is right in saying that perhaps the recommendation that should come from this group is that we 

want it to be assured that county planners will take industrial 

minerals into their planning process. The next step that Kurt 

is referring to may be a legal step, an individual State issue 

in determining what legislation may be required in an area of 

severe urban sprawl that needs industrial minerals. Maybe 

now we're at a point where we need to look at that issue 

State-by-State. Maybe the collective recommendation 

would be for the States to take off from this point, and 

address whether there are individual areas where legislation 

needs to be considered. 

J. James Eidel: Comment after session: "Planners, however, should be aware of location and quantity of resources 

available, and should consider them." 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

That leads into another point. It's obvious that rock 

quarries are very long term activities and reclamation plans 
PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 2 99 

for later use are difficult to envision, but such plans are critical. Communities want to know what will happen after 

quarry closure and obviously they want good things to happen. That's an issue. Is there a recommendation that should 

specifically address that? 

Anthony M. Bauer: 

I would like to raise some reservations about the idea of 

identifying end uses as part of the reclamation plan. There is 

no one in this room who can predict land-use patterns that are 

going to occur in 25 to 50 years. I think it is more important 

that language related to land-use planning consider things 

like "building usable land, stable land, reproductive land, 

and accessible land," rather than require definition of specific land uses. There was a suggestion earlier that the 

designer indicate appropriate concepts of land use. In my 

opinion, that would be somewhat acceptable, but oftentimes 

you get into debates about that end land use rather than 

debates about the mining and reclamation process itself. I 

don't think it is relevant or productive to worry about a land 

use 50 years down the road. I think it's more important to 

build a productive environment or a usable site. 

J. Kurt von A chen: 

I totally concur. We can't predict it. Don't show land 

use. I think it would be useful to worry about how it drains, 

how stable it is. Get it reclaimed into some usable form, but 

I don't propose showing specific land-use development. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

Okay. The question that I ask is should something be 

written in the list of options on what to do about the question 

of post-mining reclamation uses? We say that reclamation 

plans are essential and there probably can't be too much disagreement with that. Is there something that should be written or recommended about taking specific action? Is that 

something that should be listed as an issue? Just that there is 

a need for post-mining reclamation plans, but without a recommendation or option? 

Dr. Charles J. Mankin: 

It seems to me that one of the things that would be valuable in this process would be to recognize that mining is a 

temporary use of the land. In fact, I think we should have a 

statement that mining represents a temporary use of the land, 

and that mining and reclamation plans should recognize the 

concept of sequential land use. And, leave it at that. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

Now Bob Joice had written that an overall objective of 

urban planning is the control of urban sprawl with such 

techniques as urban service area boundaries and the limitation provisions on growth-inducing facilities. These are 

directly related to preservation of mining resources and the 

compatibility of uses adjacent to quarries. We had gotten 

into the question of whether we should say that States should 

look toward the possibility of legislation. And you wrote as 

a recommendation, that land planners should include the 

need for industrial minerals in all planning considerations, 

then went on to say, in those areas where options by a planning commission to preserve access are limited, local and 

(or) State governments should consider legislation to preserve access to industrial minerals for the purpose of maintaining adequate quantities of industrial minerals at a 

reasonable price. Okay. All of that is partly substituted for 

what Bob Joice had written in rough form. 

J. James Eidel: 

I don't think we fully addressed what he said about the 

boundaries. Boundaries are a concept that is entirely new to 

me. Could the planners comment? I don't think we've 

addressed that issue. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

I think Jim's right. Bob Joice's statement here is fairly 

specific. It recommends that land-use planning adopt specific courses. Is that right, Kurt? 

J. Kurt von Achen: 

It seems to, and that's my problem. I don't think we 

have the legal authority to do that kind of thing right now. I 

think it's going to take some State legislation to enable us to 

preserve that. You just can't take away people's property 

rights. That's what you're asking to do. There has to be a 

line drawn someplace. When you want to tell a man he can't 

use his property for anything, because you want to preserve 

it for the next 25 years so that you can get the minerals out, 

you have problems. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

Can it be written that States, individual States, should 

individually explore the possibility of legislative or regulatory consideration of recognized industrial mineral resources 

and that this meeting recommends the recognition of sequential land use? 

THE NEED TO ADDRESS IMPACT ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

Next we come to the fourth issue raised by Bob Joice's 

panel, which says that as with most petitioners seeking local 
100 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT -WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

approval for specific land-use activities, quarry operators 

must recognize potential negative impacts and propose 

appropriate ways to mitigate them. The primary items to 

address are transportation impacts and environmental 

impacts, particularly on adjacent or ·nearby lands. That 

would, again, constitute something that would go in a list of 

options or recommendations. 

Is it something that needs a lot more discussion, and is 

it something that should be in the list of options and recommendations? 

I don't see any particular trouble with it. I particularly 

look to the producers, now. 

Haydn H. Murray: 

Would that come as a part of "full sharing"? [Editors' 

Note: This refers to the preceding discussion on the need for 

the mutual sharing of information.] 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

It might well go under that. 

Dr. Charles J. Mankin: 

That's somewhat like our panel's comment on the issue 

of other resources, as well. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

I don't think we're going to be able to take it all apart, 

because it all is interconnected. I think we're going to come 

back to the question of how do we say that the full sharing of 

the information is needed? 

THE NEED TO BE 

ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

I want to go on now with an attempt to refine some of 

the recognizable issues and options. I sat down with John 

Kiefer just a minute ago and took apart in that way what he 

had written earlier, and I'll start into it now with the subject 

of environmentally responsible production. 

The first issue is, "The 'concept of environmentally 

responsible mineral extraction is largely a matter of perception, and perception is largely a function of perspective. 

There are industry perceptions, regulatory perceptions, political perceptions, planning perceptions, environmental perceptions, and the perceptions of the general public. In 

addressing that as an option, the only way to reconcile the 

difference in perspective is through communication, good 

public relations, education, and cooperation among all 

parties concerned. Failure to do so will impact us all, but 

will have the most direct and obvious impact on the industry. 

Therefore, it is imperative that industry take the leadership 

role. The cost of doing so is far less than the cost of inaction-act, don't wait for things to happen and then react." 

Is there anything that the people from industry would 

like to see changed about what that says? [Editors' Note: 

There were no comments.] 

Second issue, "Environmental responsibility goes far 

beyond just meeting permit-regulation obligations. We cannot just say that we are part of the community, we must show 

that we are part of it by our actions." The option is, "Industry 

needs to play a part in the drafting of regulations and a leading role in working with and educating those enforcing the 

regulations." 

Third issue, "Poorly paid and poorly trained permit 

writers, regulators, and inspectors seem to be a universal 

problem and one that won't soon be resolved." The option, 

"The best policy is to meet the situation head-on by working 

with inspectors and regulatory authorities to make sure they 

get the proper training and are aware of the problems and 

constraints under which the industry operates. Such steps as 

informative quarry tours and informational pamphlets, 

slides, and video and well-designed training manuals and 

short courses can help." 

Let's go on to another issue. "One area regulated by 

EPA, which will have a major impact on mines and quarries, 

is a new storm water discharge requirement. This could pose 

a heavy burden on the industry." 

James J. Murray: 

Well, yes, that's a true statement, but that also applies 

to a lot of other businesses than just quarries. You look at 

any regulation, and it ends up costing business or industry 

money. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

What is the answer to that? 

James J. Murray: 

That's what I was just going to ask. 

Timothy J. Hayes: 

Is that something, first off, that wants some discussion? 

John D. Kiefer: 

I mentioned that because it was one of the issues raised 

by a panel member. Obviously storm water discharge is 

going to be a major problem for quarries and mines, but 

many don't realize the full impact of that requirement. I'm 
PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 2 101 

wondering if perhaps by posing it as an issue, trade associations will look into it to find out what the true impact will be 

and maybe to frame the manner in which industry is going to 

have to respond. As a small producer this may not impact 

you as much. Martin Marietta probably has personnel that 

handle the issue internally, but there are lots of other small 

quarries, small operators out there, that need help and that 

don't know how to deal with these regulations and permits, 

and they need some guidelines to go by. That's basically 

what I'm suggesting. It is an issue, and somehow it needs to 

be dealt with for the industry in general. 

James J. Murray: 

I agree with that. Unfortunately a lot of the smaller 

operators don't even belong to any associations or trade 

organizations. It's tough to get those quarry operators into 

the fold, as it were, but that's a true statement. I think that's 

something that probably needs to get out to the industry as a 

whole. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

Can that be listed as an option, that this Workshop 

would try to make a general effort at getting information out 

through the trade associations? 

James J. Murray: 

I would think so. 

THE PROBLEM OF REGULATION 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

This next thing is something that doesn't really have an 

issue attached, but is a recommendation or an option. It says 

most of the regulatory responsibility for such as NPDES, 

blasting, and reclamation lies with the States. The final comment from the Joice panel is, "The primary influence of State 

and local government on industrial minerals appears to be 

regulatory. As is common in other planning areas, such as 

agricultural resources or historic resources, those involved in 

planning should be encouraged and assisted to view mineral 

resources as worthy of protection and preservation." This 

puts the regulation at a more local level, which is as it should 

be, because the environment and conditions in each State are 

different. In fact, we need to realize that each quarry is different and there should be some flexibility in the application 

of regulations. That statement is a recommendation. Unless 

somebody has a problem with it, it's going to be listed as 

such. 

John D. Kiefer: 

I guess the option goes back to that education issue 

again, but the suggestion or recommendation is that the 

regulatory agencies need to be more flexible in their application of the regulations. 

ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS OF 

IGNORING INFORMATION 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

At this point, we are now through to the panel on environmental costs of ignoring resource information. The summary by Dr. Mankin framed the issues and options pretty 

well. Should I read it again, or can people remember it, and 

we can move ahead? The panel identified two kinds of 

issues relating to the environmental cost of ignoring resource 

information. The first is ignoring resource information relating to the commodity to be mined, e.g., sand and gravel, 

limestone/gypsum, etc. The second is the array of other 

resources that may be affected by the extraction of an industrial minerals resource. That list of other resources includes 

soils, surface and ground water, wildlife endangered species, 

cultural, vistas, fossils, archeological, and air. If commodity 

resource information is ignored, the planning process can 

lead to land-use practices that prevent access to those other 

resources. This can lead to the development of those commodities elsewhere and at greater environmental costs, and 

they cite the Denver example. Ignoring the existence of 

resources that can be affected by mining can produce adverse 

environmental consequences to one or more of the related 

resources. A solution to the issue of ignoring commodity 

resource information is better planning through improved 

information. A solution to the issue of ignoring other potential resources related to the extraction of a commodity is 

improved education of mining operators to recognize the 

need for recognition and mitigation of adverse impacts on 

these resources. 

THE NEED FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

We'll go on, then, to cost factors. I'm going to be listing issues, with a few later that are not exactly issues. For 

the first one, the panel concludes that cost increases with 

insufficient price increases have squeezed profits over the 

last few decades, and the result is a lack of money for 

research and development. The next question is, is there 

something that should be listed an option to try to address 

that? Doesn't seem so. 

The second issue is that there is an inability or unwillingness on the part of aggregate producers to engage in public relations and to inform the public about their genuine 

economic problems. The question again, then, is there something that can be recommended to address that issue? 
102 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

Dr. Subhash B. Bhagwat: 

George Dirkes made a suggestion on this point, and I 

think it falls in the area of education or information. If we 

have included something in the area that producers ought to 

make contacts with the public as well as with government 

agencies at all levels, then this item will be included in that 

statement. 

As far as the first point with regard to the inadequacy of 

funds, there is a point down on the list where one of the 

members of this audience suggested that the check-off system should be investigated as a possibility of raising funds. 

It is like the com producers who pay a certain amount, a 

penny or two a bushel, into an account and then use that 

amount of money to do all kinds of things, including some 

research funding. A similar system could pay some unspecified amount into an account and then that accumulated total 

can be disbursed for research as well as for other activities 

that would benefit the industry and serve both the purposes 

of cost reduction as well as information dissemination. 

It was recommended because, if applied to all producers, it doesn't give anybody a cost disadvantage. The 

amount should be so low that it shouldn't make an impact on 

total cost. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

That brings a quick return to the point. One, the issue 

was a lack of money for research and development. And the 

question is, should we list as an option in addressing this 

check-off system, an income tax check-off system? 

Dr. Subhash B. Bhagwat: 

No, it's not an income tax. Check-off is a system where 

a penny or two per ton, maybe, are diverted into a fund that 

is controlled by the industry with regard to disbursement, 

and that money can be used then for research. It's not something that goes into a government account. It is a separate 

thing that stays under major control by the producers. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

The producers, then, should look into establishing a 

check -off system? 

Dr. Subhash B. Bhagwat: 

Yes. 

J. James Eidel: 

This is one way to raise money. There are others. A 

number of you are aware that the National Stone Association 

and the National Aggregate Association currently are 

creating a foundation to provide money for research, for a 

national center on industrial minerals, and a number of States 

or universities have been applying or are expected to apply 

for that. 

There is fairly broad recognition in this country that the 

independent producers are not able to conduct research at the 

scale of their operations and that maybe there should be 

efforts made to raise money to provide research on their 

behalf. There is a great deal of research going into oil and 

gas now on behalf of the independent operator. 

I would suggest that we provide a recommendation that 

calls for looking into the raising of funds for industrial mineral research and development, in general, and that we 

explore the ways and use the mechanism that Subhash just 

mentioned as an example of how it may be raised. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

Jim's suggestion is to broaden the possible recommendation from this Workshop to merely suggest that options 

should be investigated for raising research and development 

money with the specific purpose of researching for the 

industrial minerals. 

Ira R. Satterfield: 

I would like to add for consideration a mineral 

check-off list. Dollars could be used in part for R & D, but 

mostly for education, just as it is in agriculture on beef, 

pork, com, and soybeans. That check-off was basically to 

aid marketing. Yes, a lot of dollars did go into the research 

part of R & D, but the main thing was to get the public 

aware that there was "another white meat" out there besides 

chicken, pork. That's what the check-off was designed to 

do. You have to spend to inform the public about industrial 

minerals. If the people don't get informed, no change is 

going to happen. 

Dr. Subhash B. Bhagwat: 

I agree fully with what you are saying. It's true, com 

boards are using the money. They are called com-marketing 

boards in most States. The reason it came up in our panel 

here was the statement by aggregate producers that costs are 

rising and something needs to be done to rationalize and to 

lower the cost of production, because prices are not rising. 

So, the main thrust in this particular case was how to get 

those costs down, and that's why this point came up. But, 

true, there are a lot of items that will need the money, and this 

should be considered. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

It sounds like agreement with what I wrote, saying that 

in addition to mentioning the check-off system for R & D, 
PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 2 103 

check-off funds could also be used as a possible source of 

funds for education efforts. 

Virgil W. Smith, Jr.: 

I suspect that local material producers are not going to 

sit still for a levy against their tonnage to support research 

and development. I suspect Martin Marietta will not sit still 

for it. I know that Dolese in Oklahoma has been offered 

opportunities over and over again to join a State organization 

to support the production of stone and sand throughout the 

State of Oklahoma, and in my 37 years, they have steadfastly 

refused to join any such organization. It's strictly a matter of 

competition. We're meddling now into a competitive field, 

because the big boys that I've addressed are not going to give 

money so they can help the little boys compete with them. 

That's what you're asking for and they are not going to do it. 

[Editors' Note: The financial suggestion by Jim Eidel was 

for a general funding, not a levy on operators.] 

William V. Bush: 

I think this is an area where government should not get 

involved. Industry has done a very good job in research 

and development of their products. I don't know if they 

want government involved in marketing, research, and 

development. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

In what Subhash said, there wasn't a suggestion that 

government become involved; that suggestion was perhaps 

implied by Jim Eidel. There was the suggestion that opportunities for research and development funding should be 

investigated and then, specifically regarding a check-off system, that the producers themselves should consider establishing a check-off system. Is that still not acceptable? 

James F. Murray, Martin Marietta, Savannah, Missouri: 

Regarding Virgil Smith's comment about the larger 

producers getting into a check-off type of system, we've 

been involved in a few things like that and that would be 

very, very tough to do fo~ any producer regardless of size. 

Also, I think Jim Eidel made mention of the National Aggregates Research Foundation. The NSA (National Stone Association) has raised close to $4,000,000 for an on-going 

research program on aggregates, and that is one big step. I 

think that any other recommendations about a check-off system or some type of funding will fall on deaf ears. I don't 

think that would be part of the scope of this group. 

J. James Eidel: 

There may be a way to resolve it without dropping it. 

What George Dirkes was referring to, in terms of what 

needed to be done, was derived from a meeting between the 

Illinois Department of Transportation, Southern Illinois University, the Illinois State Geological Survey, and the Illinois 

Association of Aggregate Producers. We sat down and 

looked at what was needed from the producers' point of 

view, from the Illinois Department of Transportation's point 

of view, and came up with a list of research topics that Brud 

Leighton mentioned in his talk. 

Maybe we're back to looking at this as a State issue, 

because we won't resolve the larger companies/smaller 

company point of view. We have exactly the same major 

company/smaller company situation that exists in the oil and 

gas industry. Maybe a compromise would be to come again 

to the individual State point of view. Explore the need for R 

& D from the State point of view instead of from a much 

broader point of view. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

I'm a little uncomfortable. It's obvious from the two 

producers that this is something they feel is not in the scope 

of the meeting, at least on the regional basis. I wonder if that 

isn't a pretty conclusive statement, if it isn't in the scope of 

the meeting in their view, then it, as they are part of the meeting, is not in the scope of the meeting. What I'm inclined to 

do is strike both the suggestion of a check-off system and the 

first issue, that cost increases with insufficient price 

increases have squeezed profits, and the result is a lack of 

money for research and development. Does that follow? 

James F. Murray: 

I think we might just make a statement that there is a 

need for research development and forget about anything 

else. Just have that as a statement. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

Okay. 

Virgil W. Smith, Jr.: 

What has squeezed the profit level is competition, pure 

and simple. You've got three quarries side by side, and 

they're fighting one another. And I don't fabricate examples, I'm talking about a real example. They're chopping 

one another up, and they're not going to put money in the pot 

to help each other. 

J. James Eidel: 

Let me make one last comment on this subject. The five 

Illinois operators that were represented here have left. 

George Dirkes was representing those operators. They are 

relatively small operators that have mineral resources in a 
104 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

quarry or two. I'm not sure that the small operator wouldn't 

wish some research to be done that helps the Department of 

Transportation in his State to accept his product. One of the 

problems is what to do with the fines. Maybe we need some 

generic way to market fines. I don't think we should stop 

thinking about the small operator who has no opportunity to 

do any research at all and needs information to maintain his 

market. 

THE INDUSTRY'S ECONOMIC PROBLEMS 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

An issue listed by the panel on costs is, "There is an 

inability or unwillingness on the part of the aggregate producers to engage in public relations and inform the public 

about their genuine economic problems." 

First off, is that an accurate representation? 

James F. Murray: 

I don't think that's a fair representation, to be quite bonest. Just about all of the large companies have some type of 

PR programs and quite a few of the smaller companies have 

them locally as well. I don't think that's really a true representation of most of the companies in the aggregate industry. 

Also, you had a statement in there about the general economic condition. Is that right? 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

No. It actually was, "There is an inability or unwillingness to inform the public about the industry's general 

economic problems." 

James F. Murray: 

Well, that falls on every business concern. Everybody 

has economic problems. General, is that what you said? 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

That's what it said. 

James F. Murray: 

Well, that's a pretty broad spectrum applicable to anybody that has money invested. So I don't know if that's 

applicable. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

What that was pointing to was the statement that industrial minerals producers should expend more effort in education. Is this true? 

James F. Murray: 

I'd agree with that. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

What I was going to suggest is to simply get it reworded 

that way in the list of options. Is that fair? [Editors' Note: 

There were no negative expressions.] 

The cost panel recognized another issue. "Many subheadings of operational costs are beyond producers' control. 

However, the industry is not doing enough to influence public education." Again, that is probably not an objectionable 

issue, is it? Many of the operational costs are beyond the 

producers' control. [Editors' Note: There were no negative 

comments.] 

Next statement: "Recycling of concrete and asphalt is 

economic and environmentally desirable. The industry 

should join it and take advantage of it instead of resigning to 

it." Is it a recommendation or option? Agreeable? I don't 

see disagreement so I am going to assume it's agreeable. 

Next: "Production is moving farther away from consumption sites. Cost of transportation is often a multiple of 

the cost of production. Cheaper transportation alternatives 

are needed." That's both an issue and an option. Can we 

divide them that way? That production is moving farther 

from the consumption sites and the cost of transportation is 

a multiple of the cost of production is a fact. 

Haydn H. Murray: 

One of the things that was not brought out in the discussion of transportation costs is the advantage of water transportation. It is available in most of these States which have 

major river systems. I know for a fact that from Evansville, 

Indiana, to Chicago, the cost of transportation by truck is 

about $22 or $23. You can put that same material on a barge 

and go to Chicago for less than $4, by going down the Ohio 

River to the Mississippi and then up the Illinois River. Water 

transportation will become more important in the future 

because of its low cost. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

Thanks. That's easy to add to the list of options. 

Cheaper transportation alternatives are needed; that was 

one, obviously. Are there others? 

Next on the list of issues: "Higher quality specifications are reducing the available resource stock, but prices are 

not rising proportionately. The latter is an indication that 

supplies are abundant." Is that true? 

Dr. Subhash B. Bhagwat: 

Let me clarify the wording there. What we are talking 

about are specifications for the aggregate which require a 
PANEL SESSIONS-DAY 2 105 

higher quality (meaning better) and better products are 

demanded. In the process, some of the resources, which do 

not meet those specifications, will be cut out of the market. 

And, yet, it seems prices are not rising, and one of the suggestions was that it's because of the intense competition, 

which means that several people are offering that quality 

material at the market, and that's why the prices are not rising. 

If that's true, maybe the producers can take some position regarding that. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

I think that would be worthwhile. 

Virgil W. Smith, Jr.: 

Producers may have several layers of quality in their 

quarries. One layer of quality called concrete aggregate. 

One layer in the quarry they call asphalt aggregate. They 

work them separately in the Tulsa area. There are many 

quarries in southern Oklahoma (the general range of my 

experience) with excellent-quality limestone, dolomite, rhyolite, etc. There are also quarries in the Viola Limestone 

[Upper Ordovician] that are not acceptable. There are new 

specifications now that require 5,000 psi (pounds per square 

inch) compression of concrete as opposed to the old standard 

of 3,500 psi. It takes a better aggregate. There is a new 

freeze and thaw test that you have to submit your stone to 

350 cycles. 

Many quarries have been disqualified in the State of 

Oklahoma because of the freeze-thaw test, and I'm sure 

that's the case nationwide. So the fellow that has a good 

quarry, or a good ledge in his quarry, is in a position to 

charge a higher price, and he is going to do that if he can. 

The low-quality-material quarry will be shut down or the 

producer's going to sell the material to a secondary market. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

The question that Dr. Bhagwat then asks is, does the 

fact that the price is not rising indicate intense competition-what you said is consistent with that. He noted that 

higher specification aggregates should reduce available 

stocks. His question then is, does the fact that prices are not 

rising indicate that supplies of high-quality, high-specification aggregate are adequate? 

Virgil ~V. Smith, Jr.: 

Well, in Oklahoma, yes, in some areas, in other areas, 

no. I'll tell you a quick story. During World War II, officers 

from Fort Sill went out to the Dolese Brothers Quarry to survey available resources for the military. They went back and 

turned in a report in cubic miles. The Arbuckle Group 

[Upper Cambrian and Lower Ordovician] there is 6,000 feet 

thick, and it's a long ridge, so there's no shortage of 

high-quality material in that particular part of the State. 

Jump back up to Tulsa or go over to Pryor, a fellow just sold 

stone there for $5.7 5 a ton at a quarry for class A stone, 

which ordinarily sells for around $4, because he did have a 

high quality and nobody else did. 

Valentin V. Tepordei: 

The fact that the price of aggregate did not increase too 

much is mostly due to automation and to high efficiency and 

larger equipment used by the industry. I have a graph that 

shows that the unit price of aggregates in constant dollars 

stayed almost flat for the last 20 or so years. The producers 

are not losing money. They are still making a relatively good 

profit margin, but they compensated for the increase in 

actual costs by automation and high-efficiency equipment. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

All of this leaves me to wonder if it is a true issue, that 

higher quality specifications are reducing the available 

resource stock. If that is true, it is not an issue. 

I think from here on, it's not really issues, is it? The 

next point is, "Underground extraction can be economically 

competitive under appropriate circumstances, especially 

when due credit can be taken for the utilization of underground space for other commercial purposes. This option 

should be given consideration." That's a recommendation. 

We discussed the next point earlier about consideration 

being given to an R & D plan, and determined it probably 

shouldn't appear here. 

Next is also a recommendation, "The aggregate industry 

should keep its eyes open for other substitute materials such 

as flyash, slag, etc., competing with its materials. Adaptation 

to changing demand and supply situations is crucial." 

Dr. Subhash B. Bhagwat: 

Louis Griesemer mentioned that new materials, as well 

as recycling, are becoming more important. Over a longer 

period of say 20 to 30 years, materials do get substituted and 

that is the only point that it tries to make. It_ is neither an 

issue, as far as I see, nor an urgent recommendation in that 

sense. It is a point of interest that was noted and we felt that 

it was important enough to include, that's all. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

The next point could be an issue. It says that, "Increasing quantities of fines with little demand for them pose a cost 

factor." And it also presents a possible option, that new ways 

to mine, wash, and use fines are needed. I would like to hear 

from the industry again. Is it an issue? 
106 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

James W. Baxter: 

I'm not from industry, but I would like to point out that 

we are again identifying an area for R & D. We're going to 

have to say that R & D funding is a problem. However, just 

a few minutes ago, we backed off completely from making 

any sort of recommendation whatsoever for any type of 

funding and even from the idea of seeking new avenues for 

creating R & D funds. It seems to me that we could include 

some sort of generic statement about research funding. I 

think everybody would recognize that we do have the need 

for industrial mineral research into ways of not only meeting 

the problems that the individual producers have with fines 

but also with finding new markets and new uses for fines and 

of attacking other sorts of problems. 

James F. Murray: 

Obviously, every producer has a problem with generation of fines. That's something that's definitely not peculiar 

to any one operation. But that's a production problem that 

every plant experiences. If we want to talk about specific 

production problems, we could spend 2 or 3 weeks on every 

one, and generation of fines is just another discrete production problem. I really don't know how that fits into what 

we're looking at, when we're talking about mineral 

resources, or the protection thereof, or whatever. 

Dr. Subhash B. Bhagwat: 

John Schmidt on our panel brought up this issue when I 

was talking with him before he left. The point he was making was that, because of the mining methods or because of 

changes in specifications of required material, more of the 

mines' extracted materials are going unsold; that means that 

if previously 1 out of 10 tons was not sold, now it may be 2 

out of 10, and the cost of that has to be borne by the 8 tons 

that are being sold. So, it does turn out to be a cost factor if 

more of your tonnage is not being sold, whatever the reason, 

in this case because of fines. The remedy to that would be 

either to take care that not so much fines are produced or that 

fines produced are sold in some form. We thought that was 

a factor affecting the cost and therefore it was included. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

I'm not so sure Jim Baxter's question wasn't well taken. 

But, if we include a statement about fines (at least as a problem factor), would we not also include an R & D statement? 

The alternative is to not include a statement about fines. 

Virgil W. Smith, Jr.: 

The specification writers (State Highway, Corps of 

Engineers, etc.) control the amount of fines that are produced-it's not totally true, but they greatly influence the 

amount of fines that are produced by any production process. 

Historically, the first time that I ever loaded a car of rock for 

production of concrete ready-mix in Oklahoma City, the 

rock had to pass a 1 5/8 in. square opening, and it had less 

than 10 percent passing the 3/8 in. screen. Nowadays, the 

specification is size number 57. They may have changed the 

name lately, but anyway, it is 100 percent past inch and a 

half, 95-100 percent past 1 inch, and 25-60 percent passing 

the Y2 in. screen. 

As people demand pumpability and workability of concrete, they want to get rid of the harshness created by larger 

particles. So, it is fairly common for people to specify size 

number 67 which is 100 percent past the 1 inch screen. 

Last fall I was involved with an order of half-inch chips 

down to Texas from southwestern Oklahoma. We couldn't 

meet the production requirements from the high-silica 

quarry, so we hauled 6,000 tons of high-silica material 20 

miles to a high-production limestone plant, where we processed it, and when we got through, we had 35 percent chips, 

and 65 percent screenings. That's my lesson to you today in 

crushing. That's what happens when you crush rocks. You 

make fines. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

That perhaps is the answer, we're into a problem that 

we're not going to do anything about. If that is the case, I 

would like somebody to say that it probably doesn't belong 

in the summary. 

Garland R. Dever, Jr., Kentucky Geological Survey, Lexington, Kentucky: 

As you're talking about cost factors here, and it certainly appears that there may be a cost factor if you lose 65 

percent of your stone, could you simply use fines as an 

example of the type of cost factors that producers are 

encountering on a day-to-day basis in their operations? 

Maybe that would solve all the problems. Just as an example, rather being a specific issue, since, as the man from Martin Marietta pointed out, he can give us 2 weeks of problems 

to talk about. So this would be an example that was brought 

out by the panel during their discussions. 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what has to happen. There 

won't be any kind of a listing of options, addressing some of 

these cost factors, but some of these examples of costs will 

be given. 

J. James Eidel: 

Let me point out a fact with respect to the National 

Stone Association R & D funding plan. The foundation goal 

is $4,000,000. During the first year only $40,000 is available 
SUMMARY OF ISSUES, OPTIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 107 

for research nationally. It is to be doubled the second year. 

The dollars available are still minuscule. The NSA plan is 

not going to solve any national R & D needs for some time. 

More money is needed. 

CLOSING STATEMENT 

Timothy S. Hayes: 

The reason we have dragged everybody back in here is 

to ask for some post-meeting help on framing some kind of 

a recommendation about education, the subject that came up 

over and over again. [Editors' Note: We later received several oral and written communications that did help us find 

where the consensus lay, as now incorporated into the summary.] We have said a number of things in a disconnected 

fashion: that the industry itself should take every opportunity to communicate the need for, and role in society of, 

industrial minerals; that the industry and both State and local 

agencies should establish their credibility. "Education" 

recurred all through the meeting and was easily the most 

common thread. In our summary, we are going to close with 

some kind of a statement that emphasizes that point. 

The other reason for returning to this late session is to 

describe what will happen from now forward. Our procedure from here on will be to transcribe all that we have said; 

then we will send transcripts to those persons who spoke in 

order that they can make sure that what they said was exactly 

what they intended to say. The next step will be editing. If 

statements were repeated through the course of the meeting, 

they may be edited to appear in a more appropriate subject 

area, and therefore they may appear out of the sequence that 

took place here at the meeting. We will probably move 

things to more appropriate subject positions in the Workshop, so I want people to know that their statements may 

appear in a different time sequence than they expected. We 

will take some editorial liberties to make the transitions as 

smooth as they can be. [Editors' Note: After reading the 

transcription, there seems to us to be no need to alter the 

sequence of statements. The transcript appears here with an 

absolute minimum of editing.] 

There are probably going to be future industrial minerals Workshops. The next one is not scheduled, but we'll try 

to make sure that people hear about it. [Editors' Note: The 

fifth Workshop was held in Minneapolis in September 

1992.] 

The last thing that may deserve saying is that it's our 

present intent that everybody who was registered for the 

meeting eventually will receive a Bulletin, and everyone 

who has said anything at the meeting will probably be seeing 

a transcripted portion of what they said before that Bulletin 

can come out. The time frame from that to a Bulletin is 

approximately a year and a half. [Editors' Note: That turned 

out to be optimistic.] 

One more thing, perhaps, is for the people at the State 

geological surveys. We're going to be getting together with 

you again to ask about appendices, and then try to use appendices, as we have stated earlier, to produce a list of "here's 

where the informational resources in each State are." We 

may also decide to consolidate a list of "this is what the permitting processes here in Oklahoma are, or this is what they 

are in Illinois," or something like that. So we will also be 

back in touch with the State Survey folks to ask for their 

input into an appendix of that type. [Editors' Note: See 

Appendices.] 

With that, I'm glad to adjourn. 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES, OPTIONS, 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

[Editors' Note: This summation represents the consensus of the Workshop attendees, as we have interpreted that 

consensus. We do not suggest that there was unanimity of 

opinion on options and recommendations.] 

The overriding focus of the Midcontinent Industrial 

Minerals Workshop turned out to be twofold-public awareness and education (they are slightly different facets of a single problem)-education of the public, and of government 

agencies at all levels, to the essential need of our civilization, 

of our kind of lifestyle, for industrial rocks and minerals, particularly for construction materials. 

In the paragraphs that follow, most issue areas discussed at this Workshop are presented. Wherever possible, 

for those issues where the Workshop identified options to 

address an issue, the option follows directly after the issues' 

identification. The summary concludes with the assembled 

consensus recommendations. 

Considerable overlap is evident in the issue areas identified by the Workshop, and to a considerable degree in the 

options for addressing those issues. The recommendations 

developed from the Workshop are not unique, they have not 

sprung fullblown into our view from an act of instant inspiration. They are the results of much experience, give and 

take of ideas, compromise, and a general conviction that 

there is much to be done for the welfare of our environment 

and the construction materials industry. 

One way of categorizing the issues dealt with in the 

Workshop is by grouping them into those that are external to 

the industrial minerals industry and those that are internal-issues that exist whether or not construction materials 

are involved or extracted, and those that arise with or from 

extraction. In the first group are included resource evaluation, much of land-use planning, and some portion of the 

responsibility to restore and preserve our environment, an 

environment friendly to human and all other inhabitants. In 

the second group are the direct economic costs (materials, 

labor, transportation, power), the direct environmental costs 
108 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT -WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

(pollution, preservation, reclamation, recycling) and the 

indirect costs of ignoring resource data (the impact on some 

resources and on some social problems by the extraction of 

another resource). 

In the issue area of resource evaluation there is immediate concern for adequate mapping of sources of construction materials (and their environs) and for identification of 

wetlands, unstable ground (both surficial and in the subsurface), or any competing resource that may prevent use of a 

materials source. Resource availability is constrained by 

location, and so there is a pressing need for demographic 

data for the areas where the resources occur: where do the 

people live, what is that geographic environment, where are 

their work places, what and where are the means of transportation, communication, and power transmission? It is vital 

that the public become aware that the industrial mineral 

resources are both essential and limited in quantity and location. To meet these needs there are good options and opportunities for action that have the support of this Workshop: 

support for the recently passed National Geologic Mapping 

Act and increased or initiated use of Geographic Information 

Systems (GIS) methods of data acquisition, analysis, and 

presentation. GIS will allow many factors to be selectively 

isolated or combined to present data. Another opportunity is 

for provision for easy access to published data such as bibliographies of theses, dissertations, and the like. Critical areas 

of need (the confluence of people, land pressure, and market 

areas) must be identified and concentrated on. Priorities will 

have to be established to focus on resources, or hazard areas, 

or transportation routes, for example. 

Land-use planning is an issue area that involves many 

problems. Demographic and resource data are essential 

tools for the planner. The decisions are ultimately political, 

but they need to be based on pertinent information, fully disclosed, and those discussions should be made after open discussion. Ideally the standard is the most beneficial use of the 

land; pragmatically we must deal with many contending 

forces. Urban sprawl is a major problem whether construction materials are impacted or not. The siting of transportation routes and access to power complicates the situation and 

restricts the options for alternative uses. Among options in 

influencing the directions in which urban growth propagates 

and controlling its extent are techniques such as zoning, 

establishment of urban service areas, and setting limits on 

the size of facilities that encourage unrestricted growth. 

Zoning is effective, however, only at the stage of initiating 

an activity; it has no effect on already established activities. 

Although land-use planning should not attempt to 

define long-range usage in the light of present-day concepts, 

it should view the needs for reclamation in order to allow for 

long-term, sequential, beneficial use. That means it is necessary to get input into the decision-making process from the 

public, from the State and local regulatory agencies, from 

industrialists, economists, agronomists, geologists, from 

those who live in the affected area, and from those outside 

the area who are affected by activities within the area. 

The construction materials industry has to be particularly concerned with land-use planning. The industry's 

options include working closely with the planners, persuading them to view mineral resources as worthy of protection 

and preservation, supporting the staffing of planning departments by fully trained, broadly educated personnel, and conducting effective and cooperative efforts to inform the public 

about needs, plans to prevent undesirable effects, and 

long-range mitigation and reclamation. This is a return to the 

Workshop's focus on a need for public awareness and education. 

Costs are an overriding issue with the industry, and 

there are perhaps more cost issues than options to deal with 

them. Rising costs unmatched by price increases squeeze 

profits and result in little investment for research and development. General economic problems, including some operational costs that are not in the control of the producer, can 

be made worse by legislative actions at both the local and the 

State level. A partial antidote is increased emphasis on 

acquainting and educating both legislative bodies and the 

public with the problems of the industry-this is a significant part of good public relations. Urban sprawl has contributed to increasing the distance between quarry and user, so 

the cost of transportation may double or triple the cost of 

material at the quarry. Cheaper alternative transportation 

methods (rail, water) might be feasible in some circumstances. Underground extraction is an option with much less 

surface disturbance, and it might be economically feasible 

for some sites, particularly where the mine-to-user distance 

could make for significantly lower transportation costs. 

Once mined, the underground space created can be turned to 

profitable use in warehousing, thus offsetting the greater 

costs of mining underground. Changing specifications for 

"high-quality" materials can reduce available stock and may 

contribute to an increased amount of "fines," which already 

pose a problem because of low demand-another example of 

rising costs. An option might be found through increased 

research and development into mining, washing, and usage. 

Recycling and substitute materials present both a problem 

and an opportunity for producers; the option seems to be that 

if you can't compete with them-join them, and benefit from 

past experience in supplying and handling construction 

materials. How to pay for research and development (a need 

noted in several instances above) presents a major problem. 

At this time support from the State or national producers 

associations is the only region-wide identified option to fund 

such research and development. A tax -supported program 

seems an unlikely alternative. This Workshop did not come 

to any consensus on who should properly conduct such R & 

D, nor was there any consensus on who should properly pay 

for it. Competition among the industrial minerals producers 

appears to stand in the way of possible funding options. 
SUMMARY OF ISSUES, OPTIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 109 

The very concept of environmentally responsible production depends on the position from which the issue area is 

viewed. What is environmentally acceptable to the industry 

is not necessarily acceptable to a planner, a politician, an 

environmentalist, or the general public. Reconciliation of 

these points of view is essential, and the tools for that are 

education (again), communication, cooperation, and good 

public relations, the last particularly by the construction 

materials industry, which in this context has the most to lose. 

For the industry the options are to participate in the 

drafting of permitting and operating regulations, in cooperating with the regulators, in taking whatever actions are possible in assuring the regulators are well trained and that there 

is continuity in their personnel. On-site tours, educational 

materials, training manuals and short courses, support for the 

regulatory budget before the legislatures, all can be useful. 

At the other end of the operating schedule, long-range planning for reclamation is vital for the industry and the environment. The options for sequential, beneficial use can include 

lakes, parks, golf courses, subdivisions, and landfills (which 

can in tum be later reclaimed), with public participation in 

the planning an essential part of the process. If the industry 

can win the public's trust, it is probably better to wait until a 

site finally approaches closing-so that changes with time 

can better direct the best reclamation. 

The other facet of environmentally responsible mineral 

extraction is the cost to the environment brought on by ignoring resource data. One very critical issue is that concern for 

the very local environment by the public (the NIMBY (Not 

In My Backyard) syndrome) can lead to importing needed 

materials from long distances at high costs. Ultimately every 

taxpayer pays these elevated costs. These costs not only 

include the cost of the materials, they also include wear and 

tear on roads, railroads, and equipment, as well as unnecessary fuel consumption. The second part of that same issue is 

that acquiring materials from areas where environmental 

controls are less stringent can lead to a form of exporting pollution, to moving environmental impacts of mining to sites 

that may be less able to recover from those impacts. 

There are inadvertent effects on the spectrum of 

resources that are not only mineral, but include surface and 

ground water, wetlands, soils, the living resources of terrestrial, avian, and aquatic life, and the static resources of vistas 

and archeological sites. 

The options available to deal with these environmental-cost issues put emphasis on adequate preplanning by 

planners and mine operators, by permitters and regulators, 

and all of these boil down, once again, to education, communication, and cooperation. 

In summation, the Workshop's recommendations are 

numerous. 

The needs for public awareness, education, and mutual 

sharing of information go hand in hand. The resource community (the operators, geologists, and first-level consumers 

of construction materials) must reach out to the public, the 

planners, the regulators, and the legislators, through appearances at planning and zoning meetings, at committee hearings, at church groups and service clubs, at education 

association meetings and training sessions, and at schools to 

reach the future citizen early in the learning process. Means 

to disseminate information need to be examined and supported-the geological community now does so through the 

efforts of the American Geological Institute and the Geological Society of America, targeted mostly at teachers who deal 

with earth science in a general way. The industry should 

emphasize similar outreach, focused on the industrial rocks 

and minerals, by public relations efforts and educational 

endeavors through the State and national stone and aggregate 

producers associations, and locally by operators providing 

tours of quarries, mines, and plants, and of reclamation areas 

either in process or successfully completed. Industry must 

also establish greater credibility by taking the first steps in 

dealing with potential problems and by early cooperation 

rather than simple reaction. In all these efforts the resource 

community must target its audience carefully, and get the 

appropriate information to each of the various groups with 

which it deals. 

The Workshop fully supported the effort to enact a 

National Geologic Mapping Act [Editors' Note: The act 

became law in May 1992], and it recommends the establishment of State mapping advisory boards to prioritize the 

needs for mapping, based on critical areas of need (land pressure-population growth-resources-geologic hazards). The 

Workshop recognizes the need for a Federal agency advisory 

committee to establish national priorities in conjunction with 

State needs. 

A major area of concern for the resource community is 

the impact of planning, for urban or metropolitan or county 

or regional purposes. Those who plan have to be aware of 

the interrelationships among the many factors with which 

they deal. The Workshop recommends the establishment of 

data base systems that ensure the collection, preservation, 

and easy manipulation of the data on resources, hazards, 

transportation, power access, soils, flood plains, water availability, demographic patterns, and industrial sites. The technique widely known as GIS, Geographic Information 

Systems, allows for the segregation of such data and their 

integration selectively into many forms, by the capacity to 

overlay many different kinds of data onto combined maps. 

The Workshop emphasizes the desirability of GIS systems 

and fully supports and recommends their use. 

The resource community and the planning community 

must work closely together. To avoid the loss of virtually 

irreplaceable mineral resources to urban sprawl, planners 

must give consideration to the need for and the location of 

immovable, nonrenewable resources. The Workshop recommends that the industry emphasize to the planning and 

regulating community that each extraction site, each quarry 

or mine, is unique, and that regulations must be flexible to 

deal equitably and effectively with them all. The Workshop 
110 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

recognizes that establishment of the principle of sequential, 

beneficial land use is essential, and recommends that planners also recognize this principle as essential. Mining is a 

temporary land use, and reclamation of the ground allows for 

further beneficial use. The planning process requires full 

and truthful sharing and consideration of information by all 

the parties involved. Where urban sprawl is involved or 

anticipated, the concepts of service area boundaries (a type 

of zoning) and of limiting undesirable-growth-inducing 

facilities should be considered. Provision of a process to put 

into some type of "holding bank" resource areas that will be 

needed for use at some appropriate date needs to be examined, and probably addressed by State legislative action. 

Owners must be compensated adequately to give them an 

incentive to do something other than going into the types of 

development that would preclude future use of a mineral 

resource. More formally stated, the Workshop recommends 

that, "Land planners should include the need for industrial 

minerals in all planning considerations. In those areas where 

options by a planning commission to preserve access are 

limited, local and (or) State governments should consider 

legislation to preserve access to industrial minerals for the 

purpose of maintaining adequate quantities at a reasonable 

price." 

Preservation of the environment and prevention of its 

degradation involve public, planners, and industry alike. 

The principle of sequential, beneficial land use recognizes 

that. Industry must take a leadership role in environmentally responsible mineral extraction at the pit or mine, by 

recognizing the potential negative impacts of extraction and 

by proposing and employing appropriate methods to mitigate those impacts. Away from the pit, industry must play 

that role in public relations, by good communication, by 

education, by cooperation among all the parties concerned 

(regulators, permitters, planners, public). It must be a good 

neighbor, continuing to constantly abate noise and dust, to 

reduce transportation problems, to devise innovative and 

attractive reclamation techniques and projects. As a whole, 

the industry must help its operators to deal with new and 

frequently confusing regulations designed to protect and 

preserve the environment-one such dealing with 

storm-water discharge. The Workshop suggests that dealing with regulations is an appropriate opportunity for the 

trade associations to help their members. Industry can also 

be environmentally responsive and responsible by participating in recycling of construction materials, which can be 

economically fruitful as well. 

And finally, both the Workshop and the industry recognize the need for increased research and development. However, with competition from producers standing in the way of 

the introduction of some sort of voluntary check -off system 

by members of the trade associations, it seems unfortunately 

likely that the industry will continue to depend solely on the 

funds dedicated by the National Stone Association. 
APPENDICES-LEGISLATION, PROCEDURES, AND REFERENCES 111 

APPENDICES-PERTINENT 

LEGISLATION, PERMITTING 

PROCEDURES, AND INDUSTRIAL 

MINERALS REFERENCE LIST 

ARKANSAS 

Pertinent legislation and permitting procedures 

1. Responsible Agency/Division: 

Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology 

Surface Mining and Reclamation Division 

8101 Interstate 30 

Little Rock, AR 72219 

(501) 570-2817 or 562-7444 

FAX (501) 562-2541 

Contact: Floyd Durham, Division Chief 

Mike Thompson, Head, Non-coal permits 

2. Objectives of the industrial minerals program: 

The objective of permitting is to assure that open-cut 

mining is conducted in a manner that will protect the 

public health and safety and the environment and 

reclaim the land such that it is returned to a useful purpose. 

The objective of the inspection program is to assure 

compliance with the applicable laws and regulations. 

The Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and 

Ecology is the primary regulatory agency for open-cut 

mining. 

3. Legal steps to open mining operations: 

To obtain an open-cut mining permit, an applicant must 

comply with the following requirement: 

a. Submit a permit application 

b. Submit an application fee 

c. Provide proof of the right to mine the land 

d. Submit a mining plan 

e. Submit a reclamation plan 

f. Submit the required maps 

g. Post a reclamation bond 

h. Notify adjacent land owners 

1. Notify the public of the permit application 

in a newspaper of local circulation. 

These requirements are contained in Regulation 15, 

which was written pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated 15-57-301 through 15-57-319. 

4. Post-operation (closing) legal steps: 

All land affected by open-cutmining operations must be 

reclaimed in accordance with the requirements of Arkansas Code Annotated 15-57-301 through 15-57-319 and 

Regulation 15 written pursuant thereto. This could 

include, but may not be limited to, grading, revegetation, 

water diversion or water treatment. Final release from 

reclamation liability must come from the Department of 

Pollution Control and Ecology with advice from a Land 

Review Committee. 

5. Local or county laws applicable in the above-mentioned 

categories: 

None. 

Industrial minerals reference list 

Sites for purchasing or obtaining information about industrial minerals topics: 

1. State Geological Survey list of publications: 

Arkansas Geological Commission 

Maps and Publications Section 

V ardelle Parham Geology Center 

3815 West Roosevelt Road 

Little Rock, AR 72204 

(501) 524-9165 

FAX (501) 663-7360 

2. University-related list of publications: 

Contact the various universities, Geology Departments. 

3. Pertinent State organizations: 

Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology 

Surface Mining and Reclamation Division 

8101 Interstate 30 

(501) 570-3827 or 562-7444 

FAX (501) 562-2541 

Arkansas State Mine Inspectors Office 

Arkansas Department of Labor 

616 Garrison Street, Suite 205 

Ft. Smith, AR 72901 

(501) 783-2103 

4. State mineral industry directory: 

Arkansas Geological Commission 

V ardelle Parham Geology Center 

3815 West Roosevelt Road 

Little Rock, AR 72204 

(501) 324-9165 

FAX (501) 663-7360 

5. Production reports: 

Arkansas Geological Commission 

V ardelle Parham Geology Center 

3815 West Roosevelt Road 

Little Rock, AR 72204 

(501) 324-9165 

FAX (501) 663-7360 
112 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

6. State laws: 

Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology 

Surface Mining and Reclamation Division 

8101 Interstate 30 

Little Rock, AR 72219 

(501) 570-2817 or 562-7444 

FAX (501) 562-2541 

Arkansas Geological Commission 

V ardelle Parham Geology Center 

3815 West Roosevelt Road 

Little Rock, AR 72204 

(501) 324-9165 

FAX (501) 663-7360 

Arkansas State Mine Inspectors Office 

Arkansas Department of Labor 

616 Garrison Street, Suite 205 

Ft. Smith, AR 72901 

(501) 783-2103 

ILLINOIS 

Pertinent legislation and permitting procedures 

1. Responsible Agency/Division: 

Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals 

300 W. Jefferson St. 

Suite 300, P.O. Box 10137 

Springfield, IL 62791-1137 

(217) 782-6791 

Drilling permits: 

Duane Pulliam 

Oil and Gas Division 

(217) 782-7756 

Land Reclamation: 

Dean Spindler 

Land Reclamation Division 

(217) 782-4970 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

2200 Churchill Road 

Springfield, IL 62708 

(217) 782-3397 

Water Pollution: 

Thomas McSwiggin 

Permits, Water Pollution Control 

(217) 782-0610 

Air Pollution: 

Don Sutton 

Permits, Air Pollution Control 

(217) 782-2113 

Land Pollution: 

Larry Eastep 

Land/Permits, Land Pollution Control 

(217) 782-6782 

2. Objectives of the industrial minerals program: 

To ensure environmentally sensitive use of land and 

water. 

3. Legal steps to open mining operations: 

Permits for the operation of pits and quarries: 

The following permits are ordinarily required for the 

installation and operation of pits and quarries in Illinois: 

a. 

b. 

c. 

Special use permit. Most pits and quarries operate in lands zoned for agriculture under a special 

use permit issued by local (usually county) zoning agencies. State agencies are not necessarily 

involved in this permitting process. Applications 

submitted and reviewed by the zoning board are 

then referred to the county board of supervisors 

for approval. Some counties require that a copy 

of the application also be submitted to the county 

soil and water conservation district whose 

response and report is required for the application to proceed. 

Mining permit. A mining permit is required if 

the operation is to disturb more than 10 acres of 

land/year or involve the removal of more than 10 

feet of overburden. The application goes to the 

Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals 

(IDMM) and at the same time is filed with the 

county clerk. IDMM prepares an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) from information furnished by the applicant on a questionnaire that 

must be submitted upon application for the permit. The county has 45 days in which to respond. 

If no objections are lodged, IDMM issues the 

permit in a minimum of 60 days after the date of 

the application. If there are objections and call 

for a public hearing, the time period is extended 

indefinitely. Permits are for 3 years and are 

extendable for 1 year. Permits must be required 

for lateral expansion. If, after 3 years, no development has occurred on the property, the 1-year 

extension is limited to 1

4 of the original acreage. 

IDMM permits are required for surface, not 

underground mines. 

Construction and operating permits. Construction and operating permits from the Illinois 

Environmental Protection Agency (IEP A) are 

required. Applications must be accompanied by 

an EIS prepared by the applicant. 
APPENDICES-LEGISLATION, PROCEDURES, AND REFERENCES 113 

d. 

e. 

Dredging permits. Dredge operations require a 

permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

Applicable regulations and codified laws. 

62 Illinois Administrative Code 300.10-300.180. 

State of Illinois Public Act 77-1568, Surface 

Mined Land Conservation and Reclamation Act. 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Title 

35, Subtitle D, Mine Related Pollution. 

4. Legal steps to close mining operations: 

a. 

b. 

Permitted operations must complete reclamation 

plans within 1 year of closure. 

Applicable regulations and codified laws. 

62 Illinois Administrative Code 300.10-300.180. 

State of Illinois Public Act 77-1568, Surface 

Mined Land Conservation and Reclamation Act. 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency Title 

35, Subtitle D, Mine Related Pollution. 

5. Local or county laws applicable in above-mentioned 

categories. 

Any not superseded by State law. 

Industrial minerals reference list 

Sites for purchasing or obtaining information about industrial minerals topics: 

1. State Geological Survey list of publications: 

Publication Sales 

Illinois State Geological Survey 

615 East Peabody Drive 

Champaign, IL 61820 

Orders: (217) 333-4747 

2. University-related list of publications: 

None that we are aware of. 

3. Pertinent State organizations: 

Mineral Resources and Engineering Branch 

Illinois State Geological Survey 

615 East Peabody Drive 

Champaign, IL 61820 

Requests: (217) 333-5116 

Illinois Department of Mines and Minerals 

330 W. Jefferson St. 

Suite 300, P.O. Box 10137 

Springfield, IL 62791-1137 

(217) 782-6791 

4. State mineral industry directory: 

Publication Sales 

Illinois State Geological Survey 

615 East Peabody Drive 

Champaign, IL 61820 

Orders: (217) 333-4747 

5. Production reports: 

Publication Sales 

Illinois State Geological Survey 

615 East Peabody Drive 

Champaign, IL 61820 

Orders: (217) 333-4747 

Pre-publication production data, when available: 

Mineral Economics Section 

Illinois State Geological Survey 

615 East Peabody Drive 

Champaign, IL 61820 

Requests: (217) 333-7409 

6. State laws: 

See listings above of responsible agencies under "Pertinent 

legislation and permitting procedures." 

IOWA 

Pertinent legislation and permitting procedures 

1. Responsible Agency/Division: 

Bureau of Mines and Minerals 

Division of Soil Conservation 

Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship 

(DALS) 

Wallace State Office Building 

Des Moines, lA 50319 

(515) 242-5003 or 281-6142 

Contact: Joe Pille 

Geological Survey Bureau (GSB) 

Energy and Geological Resource Division 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) 

109 Trowbridge Hall 

Iowa City, lA 52242-1319 

(319) 335-1575 

FAX (319) 335-2754 

2. Objectives of the industrial minerals program: 

The objectives of the Department of Agriculture and 

Land Stewardship mineral program are limited to 

enforcing the laws and regulations contained in Code of 

Iowa, Chapter 83A, and The Iowa Administrative Code 

(lAC) 27-Chapter 60(83A). 

The objectives of the Geological Survey Bureau-Iowa 

Department of Natural Resources mineral program are 

limited to enforcing the rules contained in Code of 

Iowa, Chapter 305.12 through 30-5.14. 
114 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

3. Legal steps to open mining operations: 

Iowa Code Chapter 83A requires mining operators to 

license, register, and bond all mining sites, specifically 

83A.7, 83A.13, 83A.14, 83A.23, and 83A.24, and 

(lAC) 27 -60.20(83A), -60.30(83A), -60.40(83A). 

4. Legal steps to close mining operations: 

Iowa Code Chapter 83A requires site reclamation, specifically 83A.17 and 83A.19, and (lAC) 27-60.80 

(83A). 

5. Local or county laws applicable in the above-mentioned 

categories: 

Local or county zoning laws may affect the opening, 

especially siting, of a new mineral extraction location; 

however, that information is not maintained by State 

agencies. 

Industrial minerals reference list 

Sites for purchasing or obtaining information about industrial minerals topics: 

1. State Geological Survey list of publications: 

Geological Survey Bureau 

Energy and Geological Resource Division 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

109 Trowbridge Hall 

Iowa City, IA 52242-1319 

(319) 335-1575 

FAX (319) 335-2754 

(All industrial minerals pertinent to Iowa: crushed 

stone, sand and gravel, gypsum, clay, silica sand, 

cement rock, and underground mining regulations) 

2. University-related list of publications: 

Iowa State Mining and Mineral Resources Research 

Institute 

288 Metals Development Building 

Ames, IA 50011 

(515) 294-7936 

(Coal, gypsum, mine reclamation, mineral processing) 

3. Pertinent State organizations: 

Iowa Limestone Producers Association, Inc. 

615 East 14th Street, Suite F 

Des Moines, lA 50316 

(515) 262-8668 

FAX (515) 262-0299 

(Crushed stone markets/suppliers) 

Geological Society of Iowa 

109 Trowbridge Hall 

Iowa City, lA 52242-1319 

(319) 335-1580 

Attn: Paul Van Dorpe, Secretary-Treasurer 

(Field trip guidebooks to quarries, pits, and outcrops 

around the State) 

Central Materials Laboratory 

Iowa Department of Transportation 

800 Lincoln Way 

Ames, lA 50010 

(515) 239-1204 

(Geologic records for quarries and pits from which the 

State of Iowa purchases road materials, and aggregate classification of those materials) 

Office of Accounting 

Iowa Department of Transportation 

800 Lincoln Way 

Ames, lA 50010 

(515) 239-1588 

(Aggregate Source Information, a listing of recently 

active quarries and pits) 

4. State mineral industry directory: 

Bureau of Mines and Minerals 

Division of Soil Conservation 

Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship 

(DALS) 

Wallace State Office Building 

Des Moines, lA 50319 

(515) 242-5003 or 281-6142 

Contact: Joe Pille 

(List of Registered Mineral Sites and Producers, a listing of all currently registered mineral production 

sites) 

5. Production reports: 

U.S. Bureau of Mines-IFOC 

P.O. 25086 

Denver Federal Center 

Denver, CO 80225 

(303) 236-3400 

Attn: Jeanne Zelten, Minerals Officer for Iowa 

(Production survey statistics) 

FOIA Officer for the 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

2401 East Street N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20241 

(202) 634-1340 

(Production survey statistics) 

Geological Survey Bureau 

Energy and Geological Resource Division 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

109 Trowbridge Hall 

Iowa City, IA 52242-1319 

(319) 335-1575 

FAX (319) 335-2754 

(Limited production survey statistics) 
APPENDICES-LEGISLATION, PROCEDURES, AND REFERENCES 115 

6. State laws: 

Bureau of Mines and Minerals 

Division of Soil Conservation 

Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship 

(DALS) 

Wallace State Office Building 

Des Moines, IA 50319 

(515) 242-5003 or 281-6142 

Contact: Joe Pille 

(Rules and regulations for all types of surface mining 

and surface operations related to underground 

mining) 

Geological Survey Bureau 

Energy and Geological Resource Division 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources 

109 Trowbridge Hall 

Iowa City, IA 52242-1319 

(319) 335-1575 

FAX (319) 335-2754 

(Rules related to mapping extent of underground mine 

workings) 

KANSAS 

Pertinent legislation and permitting procedures 

1. Responsible Agency/Division: 

a. Nonfuel industrial minerals: 

b. 

c. 

At the present time, no State agency is involved 

since the nonfuel industrial mineral operations 

are not State regulated. Usually, the responsible 

agency is a city or county planning commission. 

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment is involved with respect to group permits 

and compliance to the storm water discharge 

rules of the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Operations are also inspected by personnel of the 

Mine Safety and Health Administration. 

Coal: 

Kansas Department of Health and Environment 

Surface Mining Section 

P.O. Box 1418 

Pittsburgh, KS 66762-1418 

(316) 231-8540 

Murray Balk, Chief 

Oil and natural gas: 

Kansas Corporation Commission 

202 West 1st Street 

Wichita, KS 67202 

(316) 263-3238 

Dave Williams 

d. Exploratory drilling: 

Shallow exploratory wells for industrial minerals 

are not regulated. However, the Kansas Corporation Commission (see address above) does like 

to know about such drilling in order to ensure 

proper plugging and to avoid possible contamination of fresh-water aquifers by salt-bearing 

waters. 

2. Objectives of the industrial minerals program: 

The Kansas Geological Survey is not involved in any 

regulatory capacity but does act in an advisory role with 

respect to providing information relating to possible 

sources of industrial minerals, past and present pit and 

quarry locations, properties of deposits that have undergone testing, and similar information. Data bases of 

past and present mineral operations and most test 

results compiled over the years are available for purchase. In addition, the Survey may perform laboratory 

research on industrial mineral samples in order to assist 

a new company get started or help a small company that 

does not have the resources to perform such testing. 

3. See number 5. At the present time in Kansas, there are 

no statewide regulations pertaining to permitting, quarrying, and reclamation. One exception to this general 

rule occurs whenever the mining is expected to change 

the course of a drainage. In this case the State Water 

Board must approve the planned activity. 

During the past 2 years (1991-92), bills have been proposed that would place permitting and reclamation 

under State regulations, but none has made it out of 

committee. It is generally acknowledged that it is only 

a matter of time before State regulations become law. 

4. See number 5. 

5. All aspects of permitting, mining, and reclamation of 

nonfuel industrial minerals in Kansas lie with the 

respective county and (or) city governments. Permits, 

environmental impact statements when necessary, etc., 

are usually brought before the county and (or) city planners and eventually approved by the respective 

planning commission. Since there are 105 counties in 

Kansas, there are 105 sets of rules to follow. 

Industrial minerals reference list 

Sites for purchasing or obtaining information about industrial minerals topics: 

1. State Geological Survey list of publications: 

Free upon request from: 

Office of Sales and Publications 

The Kansas Geological Survey 

1930 Constant A venue 
116 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

The University of Kansas 

Lawrence, KS 6604 7 

2. University-related list of publications: 

None with respect to industrial minerals at Kansas University, largely because the Kansas Geological Survey 

is located on the campus of the University. With regard 

to other universities in Kansas, one should write 

directly to the Department of Geology of schools 

including: 

Emporia State University, Emporia, KS 66801-5087 

Fort Hays State University, Hays, KS 67601 

Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506. 

Wichita State University, Wichita, KS 67208-1595 

3. Pertinent State organizations: 

4. 

Kansas Department of Transportation 

Research Materials Laboratory 

2300 Van Buren 

Topeka, KS 

(913) 296-2231 

Patrice Pomeroy, Public Information Department 

Landon State Office Building 

Topeka, KS 

(913) 296-3769 

Mine Safety and Health Administration 

444 Southeast Quincy 

Topeka, KS 

(913) 295-2636 

Kansas Department of Health and Environment 

Environment Division 

Forbes Building 740 

Topeka, KS 66620 

(913) 296-1535 

Pertinent State industry organization: 

KAPA-KRMCA 

(Kansas Aggregate Producers Association-Kansas 

Ready-Mix Concrete Association) 

Ed "Woody" Moses, Executive Director 

800 Southwest Jackson 

1408 Merchants National Bank Building 

Topeka, KS 66612 

(913) 235-1188 

State mineral industry directory: 

The Directory of Kansas Mineral Producers is available 

from the Office of Sales and Publications of the Kansas 

Geological Survey in computer printout form. The cost 

(1992) is $5.00 plus an additional $2.50 for handling 

and postage. The Directory can be obtained in two 

forms. MDIR.3 is an alphabetical listing of producers 

for each commodity while MDIR.4 lists producers by 

county. Commodities include limestone (crushed and 

building), dolomite, sandstone (crushed and building), 

gypsum, salt, sand and gravel, clay, volcanic ash, coal 

and chats. The Survey also has two maps for sale, one 

showing the active operations while the other shows 

abandoned quarry locations. 

5. Production reports: 

Production reports are not available except for yearbook chapters in cooperation with the U.S. Bureau of 

Mines. Many producers of industrial mineral commodities consider their production as confidential information and the Survey does not provide individual 

company production data. 

6. State laws: 

Not applicable. 

KENTUCKY 

Pertinent legislation and permitting procedures 

Remarks: The outline used elsewhere in these appendices 

has been modified to present the information on Kentucky. 

In Kentucky, contacting the local governmental unit (county, 

city, town) is the first step. 

A. 

A. Outline of steps to open, operate, and close an 

industrial minerals operation. (Opening and 

closing an operation generally involve the same 

agencies, statutes, and regulations.) 

B. County and City Government 

C. Commonwealth of Kentucky 

License/permit 

Agency 

Statutes and regulations (number and title) 

STEPS REQUIRED TO OPEN, OPERATE, AND 

CLOSE INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OPERATION 

1. Contact local governmental unit (county, city, 

town) to determine the zoning classification, if 

any, for proposed site (see County and City Government below). 

2. Obtain permission from zoning authority to open 

and operate industrial minerals facility. 

3. 

4. 

Obtain applicable licenses and permits from 

Commonwealth of Kentucky agencies listed 

below. 

Information about performance and site-closing 

requirements should be obtained from State and 

local governmental agencies during the permitting and licensing process. 
B. 

c. 

APPENDICES-LEGISLATION, PROCEDURES, AND REFERENCES 117 

COUNTY AND CITY GOVERNMENT 

1. Local Zoning 

Zoning in Kentucky is enacted by local governmental units (county, city, town) and, consequently, varies across the State. A first step in the 

process of opening an industrial minerals operation should be to contact the local governmental 

unit in order to determine the zoning classification, if any, for the proposed site. 

2. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government 

State's only merged city-county governmental 

unit has enacted ordinances regulating mining and 

quarrying: 

a. Zoning Ordinance 30-92 (Current contact 

person: Christopher King (606) 258-3184) 

b. Chapter 8 of Code of Ordinances (Current 

contact person: James Rebmann (606) 

258-3175) 

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 

1. Reclamation License and Permit 

Non-coal Review Section 

Division of Field Services 

Department for Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement 

Natural Resources and Environmental Protection 

Cabinet 

No.2 Hudson Hollow 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

(502) 564-2340 

Current contact person: Bob Mason 

Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 350 Surface 

Coal Mining 

Title 405 Kentucky Administrative Regulations 

Natural Resources and Environmental Protection 

Cabinet 

Department of Surface Mining Reclamation and 

Enforcement 

Chapter 5 Surface Effects of Non-coal Mining 

2. Construction Permit 

Division for Air Quality 

Department for Environmental Protection 

Natural Resources and Environmental Protection 

Cabinet 

316 St. Clair Mall 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

(502) 564-3382 

Current contact person: James Miller 

3. 

4. 

Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 224 Environmental Protection 

Title 401 Kentucky Administrative Regulations 

Natural Resources and Environmental Protection 

Cabinet 

Department for Environmental Protection 

Division for Air Quality 

Chapter 50 General Administrative Procedures 

Chapter 51 New Source Requirements; 

Nonattainment Areas 

Chapter 53 Ambient Air Quality 

Chapter 59 New Source Standards 

Chapter 63 General Standards of Performance 

Kentucky Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (KPDES) Permit 

Water Withdrawal Permit (if applicable) 

401 Water Quality Certification (if applicable) 

Division of Water 

Department for Environmental Protection 

Natural Resources and Environmental Protection 

Cabinet 

14 Reilly Road 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

(502) 564-3410 

Current contact person: Larry Sowder 

Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 151 Geology 

and Water Resources 

Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 224 Environmental Protection 

Title 401 Kentucky Administrative Regulations 

Natural Resources and Environmental Protection 

Cabinet 

Department for Environmental Protection 

Division of Water 

Chapter 4 Water Resources 

Chapter 5 Water Quality 

Blaster's License 

Explosives and Blasting Division 

Department of Mines and Minerals 

Public Protection and Regulation Cabinet 

P.O. Box 14080 

Lexington, KY 40512-4080 

(606) 254-0367 

Current contact person: Lawrence Schneider 

Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 351 Department of Mines and Minerals 

Title 805 Kentucky Administrative Regulations 

Public Protection and Regulation Cabinet 

Department of Mines and Minerals 

Chapter 4 Division of Explosives and Blasting 
118 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

5. 

6. 

7. 

Clay Mine License 

Licensing Division 

Department of Mines and Minerals 

Public Protection and Regulation Cabinet 

P.O. Box 14080 

Lexington, KY 40512-4080 

( 606) 254-0367 

Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 351 Department of Mines and Minerals 

Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 352 Mining 

Regulations 

Title 805 Kentucky Administrative Regulations 

Public Protection and Regulation Cabinet 

Department of Mines and Minerals 

Chapter 3 Surface Mining Safety Standards 

Chapter 5 Division of Mining 

Approval of aggregate sources and products for 

State contract work 

Division of Materials 

Department of Highways 

Kentucky Transportation Cabinet 

1227 Wilkinson Boulevard 

Frankfort, KY 40622 

(502) 564-3160 

Current contact person: Wesley Glass 

Registration for severance tax 

Revenue Cabinet 

P.O. Box 181 

Frankfort, KY 40602 

(502) 564-3667 

Current contact person: Stacey Crume 

Kentucky Revised Statutes Chapter 143A 

Natural Resources Severance and Processing 

Taxes 

1. State Geological Survey list of publications: 

Kentucky Geological Survey 

228 Mining and Mineral Resources Building 

University of Kentucky 

Lexington, KY 40506-0107 

(606) 257-3896 (606) 257-5500 

2. University-related list of publications: 

George W. Pirtle Geological Sciences Library 

1 OOA Bowman Hall 

University of Kentucky 

Lexington, KY 40506-0059 

(606) 257-5730 

3. Pertinent State organizations: 

State Government Information 

Finance and Administration Cabinet 

84 Capitol Annex 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

(502) 564-3130 

Kentucky Geological Survey 

228 Mining and Mineral Resources Building 

University of Kentucky 

Lexington, KY 40506-0107 

(606) 257-5500 

Regulatory Agencies 

See items 1-7 above (under C. Commonwealth of 

Kentucky). 

4. State mineral industry directory: 

Kentucky Geological Survey 

228 Mining and Mineral Resources Building 

University of Kentucky 

Lexington, KY 40506-0107 

(606) 257-5500 

(All industrial mineral commodities) 

Regional Office of State Activities 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

P.O. Box 18070 

Pittsburgh, PA 15236 

(412) 892-4423 

(All industrial mineral commodities) 

Division of Management Services 

Transportation Cabinet 

1026 State Office Building 

Frankfort, KY 40622 

(502) 564-6927 

(Aggregate Source Book: crushed stone, sand and 

gravel) 

Department of Mines and Minerals 

Public Protection and Regulation Cabinet 

P.O. Box 14080 

Lexington, KY 40512-4080 

( 606) 254-0367 

(Clay) 

5. Production reports: 

Regional Office of State Activities 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

P.O. Box 18070 

Pittsburgh, PA 15236 

(412) 892-4423 
APPENDICES-LEGISLATION, PROCEDURES, AND REFERENCES 119 

(Summary data for all nonfuel commodities, unless 

withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary 

data) 

Department of Mines and Minerals 

Public Protection and Regulation Cabinet 

P.O. Box 14080 

Lexington, KY 40512-4080 

(606) 254-0367 

(Clay) 

6. State laws: 

Legislative Research Commission 

407 State Capitol 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

(502) 564-8100 

MISSOURI 

Pertinent legislation and permitting procedures 

1. Responsible Agency: 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources: 

a. Land Reclamation Program 

P.O. Box 1368 

Jefferson City, MO 65102 

(314) 751-4041 

Charles Stiefermann, Director 

(Permits) Tom Cabanas 

(Enforcement of land reclamation regulations) 

b. Air Pollution Control Program 

P.O. Box 1368 

Jefferson City, MO 65102 

(314) 751-4817 

Cindy Kemper, Director 

(Permits) Randy Raymond 

(Enforcement of clean air regulations) 

c. Water Pollution Control Program 

P.O. Box 1368 

Jefferson City, MO 65102 

(314) 751-6721 

Nicholas Di Pasquale, Director 

(Permits) Richard Laux (314) 751-1300 

(Enforcement of clean water regulations 

including NPDES permits and 

401/404 approvals) 

d. Geological Survey Program 

Wellhead Protection Section 

P.O. Box 250 

Rolla, MO 65401 

(314) 368-2165 

Ira Satterfield, Director 

(Permits) Bruce Netzler (314) 368-2171 

(Regulation and permitting of well drilling 

including exploratory test drilling and 

plugging standards) 

e. Dam Safety Program 

P.O. Box 250 

Rolla, MO 65401 

(314) 368-2175 

Russell Adams 

(Registration and inspection of all 

nonagricultural dams over 35 feet 

in height) 

Missouri Department of Labor and Industrial Relations 

Division of Labor Standards 

P.O. Box449 

Jefferson City, MO 65102 

(314) 751-3403 

Clarence Barton, Assistant Director, State Mine 

Inspector 

(Mine safety inspection for clay and shale, silica sand, 

and granite) 

Office of Secretary of State 

Corporations Division 

600 West Main 

Jefferson City, MO 65101 

(314) 751-3200 

Linda Oliver, Director 

(Responsible for the registration of all businesses operating in the State) 

2. Objectives of the industrial minerals program: 

To ensure environmentally responsible and safe mining 

practices. 

3. Legal steps to open mining operations: 

Regulations and permitting requirements vary greatly 

with commodity and type of mining planned, but, in 

general, three permits are necessary-land reclamation, 

clean air, and clean water. Public hearings may be 

required, and in addition, cities and counties with zoning regulations may require additional hearings and 

permitting procedures. 

Land reclamation: 

Applicable statutes: RSMO 444.760 to 444.789 

Applicable rules: In preparation 

Air pollution control: 

Applicable statutes: RSMO 643.075 

Applicable rules: 10 CSR 10-6.060, 10 CSR 10-6.020 

Water pollution control: 

Applicable statutes: RSMO 644 
120 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

Applicable rules: 10 CSR 20-6.010, 10 CSR 20-6.0111 

The following may apply: 

Well-head protection (Geological Survey): 

Applicable statutes: RSMO 256.600 

Applicable rules: In preparation 

Dam safety: 

Applicable statutes: RSMO 236.400 to 236.500 

Applicable rules: 10 CSR 22-3.0020 and 10 CSR 

22-3.040 

Mine safety: 

· Applicable statutes: RSMO 293.010 to 293.690 

Business registration: 

Applicable statutes: RSMO 351.010 to 351.720 

(General and Business Corporations) 

4. Legal steps to close mining operations: 

Regulations vary, but all environmental regulations 

must be met and in particular all reclamation must be 

completed before bonding is released. See items listed 

under "Legal steps to open mining operations," some of 

which may apply. 

5. Local or county laws applicable in the above-mentioned categories: 

Most urban and some rural counties have zoning, and, 

although requirements vary, all require some type of 

special use permit and public hearings. 

Industrial minerals reference list 

Sites for purchasing or obtaining information about industrial 

minerals topics: 

1. State Geological Survey list of publications: 

Publications 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

Division of Geology and Land Survey 

P.O. Box 250 

Rolla, MO 65401 

(314) 368-2125 

2. University-related list of publications: 

Some universities and colleges may also provide information on industrial minerals in Missouri. 

3. Pertinent State organizations: 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

Geological Survey Program 

P.O. Box 250 

Rolla, MO 65401 

(314) 368-2100 

James H. Williams, State Geologist 

(314) 368-2149 

Ira Satterfield, Geological Survey Program 

Director 

Geologic Mapping and Resources 

(314) 368-2155 

A.W. Rueff 

(314) 368-2139 

(Industrial minerals, producers directory, 

mineral statistics) 

Missouri Highway and Transportation Department 

Division of Materials and Research 

P.O. Box 270 

Jefferson City, MO 65201 

(314) 751-2551 

William L. Trimm, Division Engineer 

(Inspects and tests all material used in the construction 

and maintenance of the State highway system) 

Department of Economic Development 

Economic Development Programs 

P.O. Box 1157 

Jefferson City, MO 65101 

(314) 751-4241 

Garry Taylor, Deputy Director 

(Administers and coordinates numerous programs to 

improve the economic conditions of the State) 

Missouri Limestone Producers Association 

P.O. Box 1725 

Jefferson City, MO 65102 

(314) 635-0208 

Steve Rudloff, Executive Manager 

(Industry organization representing crushed limestone 

producers) 

Mining Industry Council of Missouri 

P.O. Box 725 

Jefferson City, MO 65102 

(314) 635-7308 

Randy Scherr, Director 

(Mineral industry organization representing all types of 

mining, including the industrial minerals barite, 

cement and lime, clay, industrial sand, sand and 

gravel, and stone) 

4. State mineral industry directory: 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

Division of Geology and Land Survey 

P.O. Box 250 

Rolla, MO 65401 

(314) 368-2139 

A.W. Rueff 
APPENDICES-LEGISLATION, PROCEDURES, AND REFERENCES 121 

Missouri Limestone Producers Association 

(Members only) 

Address in item 3. 

Mining Industry Council of Missouri 

(Members only) 

Address in item 3. 

5. Production reports: 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

Intermountain Field Operations Center 

Building 20, Denver Federal Center 

Denver, CO 80225 

(303) 236-3400 

Jeanne Zelten 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

Division of Geology and Land Survey 

P.O. Box 250 

Rolla, MO 65401 

(314) 368-2139 

A.W. Rueff 

6. State Laws (environmental): 

Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

P.O. Box 176 

Jefferson City, MO 65102 

(314) 751-4817 

See also addresses listed under item 1. 

NEBRASKA 

Pertinent legislation and permitting procedures 

1. Responsible Agency/Division: 

Regulatory Agency: 

There is no central State agency in Nebraska to handle 

permitting for mineral operations. Industrial mineral 

operations fall under the jurisdiction of a variety of city, 

State, and Federal agencies as well as local government 

organizations through zoning regulations. Permits 

related to the environment are issued by various agencies for quarries, pits, and mines. 

a. Private property: 

No contact or regulatory agency for quarrying or 

mining on private property. 

b. State property: 

Board of Educational Lands and Funds 

555 North Cotner Boulevard 

Lincoln, NE 68505 

(402) 471-2014 

(In charge of leasing for oil, gas, and surface 

minerals on State land) 

Department of Environmental Quality 

301 Centennial Mall South 

P.O. Box 98922 

Lincoln, NE 68509-8922 

(402) 471-2186 

(Regulatory agency for mineral exploration drilling, 

waste disposal, underground mining, air and 

water quality) 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Regulatory Office 

1430 Central A venue, Suite 4 

Kearney, NE 68847 

(308) 237-1403 

(In charge of permits for operations in or near 

waters of the United States) 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Mine Safety and Health Administration 

Rocky Mountain District Office 

Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health 

Box 25367, Denver Federal Center 

Denver, CO 80225-0367 

(303) 231-5465 

(Mining inspections for noise, dust, and mining 

safety) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Uranium Recovery Field Office 

Box 25325, Denver Federal Center 

Denver, CO 80225 

(303) 231-5800 

(In charge of permits for uranium mining) 

c. Federal property: 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

1101 Washington Boulevard 

New Castle, WY 82701 

(307) 746-4453 

(In charge of leasing for surface or subsurface mineral resources including oil and gas on Federal 

or split estate lands. Also in charge of oil and 

gas leasing on Indian Land in Nebraska, but surface minerals on Indian Land are leased by individual Indian Tribal Councils) 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

Wyoming State Office 

2515 Warren A venue 

Cheyenne, WY 82001 

(307) 775-6256 
122 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT -WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

(In charge of leasing for geothermal resources on 

Federal land in Nebraska) 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Regulatory Office 

1430 Central Avenue, Suite 4 

Kearney, NE 68847 

(308) 237-1403 

(In charge of permits for operations in or near 

waters of the United States) 

Responsible non-regulatory Agency/Division: 

Nebraska Geological Survey 

Raymond R. Burchett, Director 

Conservation and Survey Division (IANR) 

Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources 

901 N. 17th Street 

University of Nebraska-Lincoln 

Lincoln, NE 68588-0517 

(402) 472-7520 

2. Objectives of the industrial minerals program: 

To inventory, describe, and encourage industrial mineral production in an environmentally wise-use manner 

and to report to the public the results of these studies. 

3. Legal steps to open mining operations: 

a. Contact local County Board of Commissioners for a 

permit to open a quarry or mining operation, or the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, if applicable, at 

address in item 1. 

Section 404 Permit. A permit and prior authorization is required before any dredging or filling operation is performed on any water of the United 

States, including wetlands. 

Section 10 Permit. A permit is required for dredging in any stream of the United States defined as 

navigable. 

b. State laws 72-301 through 72-311 permit leasing 

and exploration on State land. 

See applicable entries under item 1 above. 

4. Legal steps to close mining operations: 

Contact appropriate agency that issued the permits. 

5. Local or county laws applicable in the 

above categories: 

Each city and county has the authority to regulate 

industrial minerals through zoning ordinances and 

land-use planning. 

Industrial minerals reference list 

Sites for purchasing or obtaining information about 

industrial minerals topics: 

1. State Geological Survey list of publications: 

Nebraska Geological Survey 

Conservation & Survey Division (IANR) 

113 Nebraska Hall, 901 N. 17th Street 

University of Nebraska-Lincoln 

Lincoln, NE 68588-0517 

(402) 472-7523 

(Listing of mineral resource publications) 

(To obtain county soils maps and reports) 

(To obtain topographic maps) 

2. University-related list of publications: 

Nebraska Geological Survey 

Conservation & Survey Division (IANR) 

113 Nebraska Hall, 901 N. 17th Street 

University of Nebraska-Lincoln 

Lincoln, NE 68588-0517 

(402) 472-7523 

(To obtain a list of all masters theses and doctoral dissertations from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln) 

Department of Geology Library 

Bessey Hall 10 

12th and U St. 

University of Nebraska-Lincoln 

Lincoln, NE 68588-0332 

(402) 472-2653 

(To obtain references on mineral-related subjects) 

Other colleges in Nebraska may also be able to provide 

information on industrial minerals. 

3. Pertinent State or Federal organizations: 

Board of Educational Lands and Funds 

555 North Cotner Boulevard 

Lincoln, NE 68505 

(402) 471-2014 

(In charge of leasing for oil, gas, and surface minerals 

on State land) 

Department of Environmental Quality 

301 Centennial Mall South 

P.O. Box 98922 

Lincoln, NE 68509-8922 

(402) 471-2186 
APPENDICES-LEGISLATION, PROCEDURES, AND REFERENCES 123 

(Regulatory agency for mineral exploration drilling, 

waste disposal, underground mining, air and water 

quality) 

Nebraska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission 

P.O. Box 399 

Sidney, NE 69162 

(308) 254-4595 

(Regulatory agency for oil and gas industry including 

underground injection wells) 

Health Department 

State of Nebraska 

301 Centennial Mall South 

Lincoln, NE 68509 

(402) 471-2133 

(Regulatory agency for any radiometric measurements) 

Nebraska Department of Water Resources 

301 Centennial Mall South 

Lincoln, NE 68509 

(402) 471-2363 

(In charge of permits for domestic and municipal water 

wells) 

Nebraska Department of Roads 

Box 94759 

State House Station 

Lincoln, NE 68508 

(402) 471-4567 

(Information on materials resources for State construction work) 

Nebraska Department of Revenue 

501 Centennial Mall South 

Lincoln, NE 68509 

(402) 471-2971 

(Collects severance tax on oil, gas, and uranium) 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

Wyoming State Office 

2515 Warren A venue 

Cheyenne, WY 82001 

(307) 775-6256 

(In charge of leasing for geothermal resources on Federalland in Nebraska) 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management 

1101 Washington Boulevard 

New Castle, WY 82701 

(307) 746-4453 

(In charge of leasing for surface or subsurface mineral 

resources including oil and gas on Federal or split 

estate lands. Also in charge of oil and gas leasing on 

Indian Land in Nebraska, but surface minerals on 

Indian Land are leased by individual Indian Tribal 

Councils) 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Regulatory Office 

1430 Central A venue, Suite 4 

Kearney, NE 68847 

(308) 237-1403 

(In charge of permits for operations in or near waters of 

the United States) 

U.S. Soil Conservation Service 

100 Centennial Mall North 

Federal Building 

Lincoln, NE 68508-3866 

(402) 437-5322 

(To obtain county soils maps and reports) 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

Uranium Recovery Field Office 

Box 25325, Denver Federal Center 

Denver, CO 80225 

(303) 231-5800 

(In charge of permits for uranium mining) 

U.S. Department of Labor 

Mine Safety and Health Administration 

Rocky Mountain District Office 

Metal and Nonmetal Mine Safety and Health 

Box 25367, Denver Federal Center 

Denver, CO 80225-0367 

(303) 231-5465 

(Mining inspections for noise, dust, and mining safety) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 7 

726 Minnesota A venue 

Kansas City, KS 66101 

(913) 551-7006 

(Air and water quality, waste disposal) 

4. State mineral industry directory: 

Nebraska Geological Survey 

Conservation and Survey Division (IANR) 

113 Nebraska Hall, 901 N. 17th Street 

University of Nebraska-Lincoln 

Lincoln, NE 68588-0517 

(402) 472-7523 

(Contains a listing of all active quarries, pits, and mines 

and associated information) 

Nebraska Concrete & Aggregates Association 

2701 N. 61st St. 

Lincoln, NE 68507 

(402) 464-1897 
124 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT -WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

(Contains a listing of sand and gravel operators belonging to the association) 

5. Production reports: 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

Building 20, Denver Federal Center 

Denver, CO 80225 

(303) 236-0435 

(The Mineral Industry of Nebraska, Mineral Industry 

Surveys) 

Nebraska Geological Survey 

Conservation & Survey Division (IANR) 

113 Nebraska Hall, 901 N. 17th Street 

University of Nebraska-Lincoln 

Lincoln, NE 68588-0517 

(402) 472-7523 

(Annual Report on Mineral Operations Review in 

Nebraska) 

6. State Laws: 

Applicable State laws and regulations can be obtained 

from the individual State agencies that have administrative responsibility for each of these laws. Refer to the 

list of laws above. 

OKLAHOMA 

Pertinent legislation and permitting procedures 

1. Responsible Agency/Division: 

Oklahoma Department of Mines 

Non-Coal Division 

4040 North Lincoln, Suite 107 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 

(405) 521-3859 

Contacc: Douglas J. Schooley, Administrator 

2. Objectives of the industrial minerals program: 

To provide for the reclamation and conservation of land 

disturbed by mining and to preserve natural resources 

to encourage the productive use of such lands after 

mining. 

3. Legal steps to open mining operations: 

Specific statutory requirements for penmttmg of 

non-coal mining operations are found under Title 45, 

Chapter 8A of "The Mining Lands Reclamation Act," 

sections 721-738. Non-Coal Rules and Regulations, 

OAC 460:10, sections 1-31 cover the permitting process, bonds, and blasting plan. 

Submit the following: 

a. 

b. 

c. 

d. 

e. 

f. 

Formal application: operator's name, address, 

phone; mining method, legal description, acreage 

requested. 

Reclamation plan, with maps. 

Location map (one per land section). 

Blasting plan. 

Reclamation bond. 

Public notification by local circulation 

newspaper. 

4. Post-operation (closing) legal steps: 

As of April 30, 1993, new statutory regulations were 

being prepared, encompassing significant changes from 

the preceding regulations. Contact the Non-Coal Division of the Oklahoma Department of Mines at the above 

address for current status. 

5. Local or county laws applicable in the above-mentioned categories: 

Most major metropolitan areas have local laws and regulations affecting the mining of industrial minerals 

through zoning procedures. 

Industrial minerals reference list 

1. State Geological Survey List of Publications: 

Oklahoma Geological Survey 

100 East Boyd, Room N-131 

Norman, OK 73019 

(406) 325-3031 

2. University-related List of Publications: None of the 

State Universities publishes reports, journals, or books 

dealing with mineral resources, but there are three universities with M.S. and (or) Ph. D. programs in geology 

that produce theses and dissertations that may be of use 

in mineral-resource evaluation. 

School of Geology and Geophysics 

University of Oklahoma 

100 East Boyd, Room 810 

Norman, OK 73019 

( 406) 325-3253 

School of Geology 

Oklahoma State University 

105 Noble Research Center 

Stillwater, OK 74078 

(405) 744-6358 

Department of Geosciences 

University of Tulsa 

Tulsa, OK 74104 

(918) 631-2517 
APPENDICES-LEGISLATION, PROCEDURES, AND REFERENCES 125 

3. Pertinent State Organizations: A "Directory of Oklahoma," containing descriptions of all State agencies, is 

available from: 

Oklahoma Department of Libraries 

200 NE 18th Street 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 

(405) 521-2502 

4. State Mineral Industry Directory: 

Oklahoma Geological Survey 

100 East Boyd, Room N-131 

Norman, OK 73019 

(405) 325-3031 

5. Production Reports: In annual report of: 

Oklahoma Department of Mines 

4040 North Lincoln, Ste. 107 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 

(405) 521-3859 

6. State Laws: 

Oklahoma Department of Mines 

4040 North Lincoln, Ste. 107 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 

(405) 521-3859 

TENNESSEE 

Pertinent legislation and permitting procedures 

1. Responsible Agency/Division 

Mining Section, Division of Water Pollution Control 

Department of Environment and Conservation 

2700 Middlebrook Pike 

Knoxville, TN 37921 

(615) 594-6035 

Contact: Carl Tenut 

2. Objectives of the industrial minerals program: 

To regulate the surface mining of minerals other than 

coal; to protect the environment by proper methods of 

mining and reclamation. 

3. Legal steps to open mining operations: 

Comply with Tennessee Mineral Surface Mining Law 

of 1972, sections 59-8-201 to 59-8-22. 

a. Obtain mining permit and NPDES permit: 

1. Provide name of organization, offices, 

responsible parties, site location. 

2. Provide maps. 

3. Submit mining and reclamation plans. 

4. Publish public notice. 

5. Post bonds as appropriate. 

4. Post-operation (closing) legal steps: 

Comply with Tennessee Mineral Surface Mining Act of 

1972, section 59-8-208. 

a. Reclaim 

1. To approximate original contours of 

surface. 

2. Vegetate. 

5. Local or county laws applicable in the above-mentioned categories: 

Some counties have their own mining, reclamation, and 

zoning laws. 

Industrial minerals reference list 

Sites for purchasing or obtaining information about industrial minerals topics: 

1. State Geological Survey list of publications: 

Tennessee Department of Environment and 

Conservation 

Division of Geology 

Map Sales and Publication Office 

Land C Tower, 13th Floor 

401 Church Street 

Nashville, TN 37243-1530 

(615) 532-1500 

2. University-related list of publications: 

Tennessee Department of State 

Division of Publications 

James K. Polk State Office Building, Suite 500 

Nashville, TN 37243-0310 

(615) 741-2650 

3. Pertinent State organizations: 

Tennessee Department of State 

Division of Publications 

James K. Polk State Office Building, Suite 500 

Nashville, TN 37243-0310 

(615) 741-2650 

4. State mineral industry directory: 

Tennessee Department of Environment and 

Conservation 

Division of Geology 

Map Sales and Publication Office 

L and C Tower, 13th Floor 

401 Church Street 

Nashville, TN 37243-1530 

(615) 532-1500 
126 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS OF THE MIDCONTINENT-WORKSHOP PROCEEDINGS 

5. Production reports: 

Tennessee Department of Environment and 

Conservation 

Division of Geology 

Map Sales and Publication Office 

Land C Tower, 13th Floor 

401 Church Street 

Nashville, TN 37243-1530 

(615) 532-1500 

Manuscript approved for publication September 15, 1994 

Published in the Central Region, Denver, Colorado 

Photocomposition by Mari L. Kauffmann 

Graphics by contributors and B. Wayne Hawkins 

Edited by Lorna Carter 

U.S. Bureau of Mines 

810 Seventh Street NW, MS 9800 

Washington, D.C. 20241-0001 

6. State Laws: 

Tennessee Department of State 

Division of Publications 

James K. Polk State Office Building, Suite 500 

Nashville, TN 37243-0310 

(615) 741-2650 

*U.S. GCJVElMHf1' PRINriR; OFFICE: 1995-673-Q46/86088