Gravel resources, urbanization, and future land use, Front Range Urban Corridor, Colorado

Soule, James M.; Fitch, H.R.

doi:10.3133/ofr74178

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 5 publications

(2 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Geologists and engineers became concerned with the situation and documented the effects of sterilization in various parts of the country including Anne Arundel County, Md. (Kuff, 1984), Boulder, Colo. (Crosby and others, 1978), Chicago, Ill. (Mikulic and Goodwin, 1984), Connecticut (Siebert, 1969), Denver, Colo. (Soule, 1974), Los Angeles, Calif. (Goldman, 1959), metropolitan New York, N.Y., (Hudec, 1969), and Ontario, Canada (Guillet, 1980).…”

Section: Resource Sterilizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing and protecting aggregate resources

Langer¹

2002

Open-File Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic Code. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY aggregate operation. Nevertheless, some otherwise high quality aggregate resources may not be developed because of environmental reasons. Aggregate is a high-bulk, low unit value commodity that derives much of its value from being located near the market. Thus, it is said to have a high place value (Bates, 1969). Transporting aggregate long distances can add significantly to the overall price of the product (Leighton, 1991). For example, a city of 100,000 can expect to pay an additional $1.3 million for each additional 10 miles that the aggregate it uses must be hauled (Ad Hoc Aggregate Committee, 1998). Therefore, aggregate operations frequently are located near population centers and other market areas. Despite society's dependence on natural aggregate, urban expansion often works to the detriment of the production of those essential raw materials. "Resource sterilization" occurs when the development of a resource is precluded by another existing land use. For example, aggregate resources that exist under a housing development or shopping center commonly will not be extracted. Bauer (1993) stated that probably the most serious reason for the loss of aggregate resources is the fact that, while resources such as vegetation, soils, archeological sites, endangered species, and so forth are recognized in the community comprehensive planning process as resources of community value, aggregates are not. Furthermore, citizens have their own ideas on how to use the land. Many citizens do not support mining, in part because they do not recognize the dependence of society on aggregate. Personal use is very little, if any, and individuals may not recognize aggregate mining as a necessary land use, even though the need for the commodity is constant. A survey conducted during 1994 (Bingham, 1994) concluded that the public in general believes mining exploits workers, harms the environment, harms the people in nearby communities, and has little personal benefit to the individual. For these and other reasons, citizens may prefer that stone and sand and gravel not be mined nearby (Langer and Glanzman, 1993). This "not in my back yard" syndrome may restrict aggregate development. To protect citizens from the impacts of mining, governments may require permits or impose regulations to control aggregate development. Poulin and others (1994) concluded that permits and regulations restrict development or expansion of aggregate in established areas more than actual resource availability. Weaver (1995) reports that no new crushed stone quarries have been permitted in Connecticut in 15 years, and indications are that estimated sand and gravel supplies in New England could be reduced by at least 90 ...

show abstract

Section: Resource Sterilizationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing and protecting aggregate resources

Langer¹

2002

Open-File Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, it is not presently cost effective to raze buildings in order to mine aggregate from under them. Reports by the Colorado Sand and Gravel Producers Association (1957), the U.S. Geological Survey (Soule and Fitch, 1974), and the U.S. Bureau of Mines (Sheridan, 1967), demonstrate that preemptive land use has eliminated more resources in the CFR than has depletion by mining.…”

Section: Resource Resource Resource Resource Resource a A A A Av V V mentioning

confidence: 99%

Preliminary report on aggregate use and permitting along the Colorado Front Range

Wilburn¹,

Langer²

2000

Open-File Report

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction 1 Acknowledgements 2 Types of aggregate resources in the Colorado Front Range 2 Sand and gravel 2 Crushed stone 2 Resource availability 3 Producing aggregates for use 4 History of Colorado aggregate production 5 History of Colorado Front Range aggregate resource accessibility 7 Future production of aggregates 9 Future supply of aggregates in the Colorado Front Range 14 Sand and gravel 14 Crushed stone 16 Recycling 17 Discussion 18 Summary 20 Conclusions 20 References 21

show abstract

Engineering geologic mapping and potential geologic hazards in Colorado

Soule

1980

Bulletin of the International Association of Engineering Geolog

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gravel resources, urbanization, and future land use, Front Range Urban Corridor, Colorado

Cited by 3 publications

References 5 publications

Managing and protecting aggregate resources

Managing and protecting aggregate resources

Preliminary report on aggregate use and permitting along the Colorado Front Range

Engineering geologic mapping and potential geologic hazards in Colorado

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About