HomeMy WebLinkAboutLong Island Sand and Gravel Mining 1970
Lon Island
Sand a"nd Gravel
Mining
,.
" -
LONG ISLAND SAND AND GRAVEL MINING
Prepared by the
New York State Office of Planniog Coordioation
Metropolitan New York District Office
1841 Broadway
New York, New York 10023
July 1970
TITLE:
Long Island Sand and Gravel Mining
AUTHOR:
New York State Office of Planning Coordination,
Metropolitan New York District Office
SUBJECT:
Long Island sand and gravel resources
Site rehabilitation
Model standards for regulating sand and gravel mining
DATE:
July 1970
LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY:
New York State Office of Planning Coordination
SOURCE OF COPIES:
Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information
2285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151
New York State Office of Planning Coordination
488 Broadway, Albany, N.Y. 12207
OPC Metropolitan New York District Office
1841 Broadway, New York, N.Y. 10023
For reference:
HUD Regional Office Library
26 Federal Plaza, New York, N.Y. 10007
Project URBANDOC
33 West 42 Street, New York, N.Y. 10036
Planning Depository libraries
Planning School libraries
HUD PROJECT NUMBER:
NYP 116
SERIES NUMBER:
N.A.
NUMBER OF PAGES: 42
ABSTRACT:
Describes Long Island's sand and gravel resources and production,
its competitive position and the possibility of using this resource
and also maintaining an efficient land use pattern. Sand and
gravel mining is viewed as the first phase of a total reuse plan,
the commercial operation carefully planned, executed and
coordinated with future uses. Model standards for regulating
sand and gravel mining suggest how to achieve this goal.
~~
"11 ^
~, ',', r~,'~ ~~:,
I~'" ,
l' ~<ll I
" " , , '
~ --~!.~~
STATE OF NEW YORK
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT
OFFICE OF PLANNING COORDINATION
STATE CAPITOL
ALBANY, N. Y. 12224
o DAVID BRANDON
DIRECTOR
July 1970
This report summarizes the extent and potential of
the sand and gravel industry on Long Island and proposes
ways for applying sound planning principles to the use of
this valuable natural resource.
The aim is to view sand and gravel mining as the
first step in a carefully thought-out plan for reusing the
land for desirable purposes rather than as an unavoidable
blight on the environment.
The report was prepared by staff members in the
Metropolitan New York District Office of the State Office
of Planning Coordination.
Its publication is part of OPC's contribution to
its own work of formulating a statewide comprehensive
plan, while providing needed information for local planners
and others interested in specific areas and particular
problems.
~
Introduction
As the glaciers of the Ice Age advanced and then
receded, they left as their relic sand and gravel deposits
throughout the 1,200 square miles of Nassau and Suffolk
Counties. The proximity of these deposits to New Yark
City and the rest of the metropolitan area has resulted in a
significant mining industry on Long Island.
While the region has substantially benefited from this
high quality supply of basic construction materials, the
mining industry's impact upon the island's physical environ-
ment has been largely negative. Too often the industry has
been associated with blighted landscapes, scarred terrain,
excessively sloped hills, abandoned processing plants and
equipment, and derelict barges left to rot. These experi-
ences have not been the exclusive domain of the private
operator. "Gypsy" operators have been allowed to mine
and abandon sites without reclaiming them, and local
highway departments have neglected restoration after
extracting fill and paving material.
In recent years, as a result of continued population
growth and the public's greater concern for its environ-
ment, most Long Island municipalities have tightened
restrictions on mining operations. Concurrently, the mining
industry has shown some responsiveness to environmental
needs and to the need for more desirable standards of
operation and rehabilitation. Yet poor practices still occur
and site rehabilitation efforts have generally had mediocre
results.
This study has several purposes. The first is to measure
the magnitude of the Long Island sand and gravel industry
in state and national contexts and to indicate its continued
importance to the economy of the metropolitan area. The
second is to assess means for promoting sound mining
practices and preserving environmental amenities. Third,
the report focuses on the excavation of sand and gravel as
the first phase of a total reuse plan, in which excavation is
carefully planned, executed and coordinated with future
sequential land uses. Finally, the report outlines recom-
mendations for proper utilization of the resources and for a
compatible and efficient land use pattern.
Contents
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Demand for Sand and Gravel ................ I
Trends in the Three States .. . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Long Island Trends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Comparative Use and Value Patterns ......4
Projection of Demand .................5
Land Requirements ...................5
The Competitive Environment . . . . . . . . . . .6
Substitute Materials ....... . . . . . . . . . . . .8
Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
Barge ..............................9
Truck.. .. .. .. . . . .. .. ... . . . .. .. .. . .10
Rail............................. .10
Other Modes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 0
Transportation Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Existing Long Island Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . I I
Mining Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I I
Problems Created by Mining. . . . . . . . . . . .12
Site Reuse ........................ .14
Regulating Mining Operations .............. I 9
Upland Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I 9
Underwater Mining. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
Multi-level Planning ................. .23
Administrative and Legal Controls . . . . . . .29
Upgrading Mining Practices ............30
Appendixes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 I
Suggested Model Standards
Bibliography
\.'H'..'
'"A;
-
;y..,,,:."
-
Demand for Sand and Gravel
Postwar highway construction and home building
(Table 1) has boosted national production of sand and
gravel from 193 million tons in 1945 to 935 million tons in
1966. This increase in demand, generated almost exclu-
sively by the domestic market, has raised per capita
consumption from a prewar figure of 1.82 short tons to
4.75 short tons in 1966. Table 2 reinforces the relationship
between building activity and the demand for sand and
gravel. Of the total production of sand and gravel, over 50
percent is used in paving material and an additional 30
percent in building construction.
UNITED STATES PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION
OF SAND AND GRAVEL, 1940-1966
Annual U.S.
Production
(millions of
short tons)
TABLE 1
Year
U.s. Population
(OOO's)
Annual Per
Capita Consumption
(short tons)
1940 132,122 240 1.82
1945 139,928 193 1.38
1950 151,683 373 2.46
1955 165,270 587 3.55
1960 179,323 721 4.02
1965 194,592 911 4.68
1966 196,920 935 4.75
Sources: Unite a States Bureau of Census
United States Bureau of Mines
1
TABLE 2
UNITED STATES, NEW YORK STATE AND
LONG ISLAND SAND AND GRAVEL SOLD OR
USED BY PRODUCERS, BY USES,1966
Percent of Total Reported Prodnction"""
Type of Use
United States New York State
Long Island
Sand
Building 42.2 50.0 70.2
Paving 36.6 22.6 20.2
Fill 11.8 20.4 8.1
Other" 9.4 7.0 1.5
Total Production
reported
(thousand short
tons) 368,321 20,660 7,731
Gravel
Building 22.7 22.4 64.1
Paving 63.0 44.5 31.1
Fill 11.3 30.0 -
Other"" 3.0 3.0 4.8
Total Production
reported
(thousand short
tons) 566,160 21,243 1,606
Total Production
Sand and Gravel
(thousand short
tons) 934,481 41,903 9,337
. Includes industrial railroad ballast and others
.. Includes railroad ballast and other gravels
... Long Island figures reflect production reported to the United States Bureau of Mines and
are not consistent with production figures contained throughout this report.
Source: United States Bureau of Mines, 1966 Year Book
2
Percentage
Increase
State 1951 1955 1960 1965 1951-1965
New York 1.42 1.62 1.83 2.27 60
New Jersey 1.36 2.08 1.91 2.56 88
Connecticut 1.15 1.95 2.59 3.51 205
Source: United States Bureau of Mines
TRENDS IN THE THREE STATES
Per capita consumption of sand and gravel in New
York, New Jersey and Connecticut is considerably below
national levels. New York per capita consumption (Table 3)
is 2.27 short tons as against a national average of 4.75.
Since 1951, per capita consumption of sand and gravel in
New Jersey and Connecticut has risen at about the same
rate as nationally while New York State's increase has been
less dynamic. These figures and trends indicate a close
relation between urban development and the demand for
sand and gravel, more highly developed and mature areas
demand less per capita than the less urbanized and more
rapidly growing areas.
LONG ISLAND PRODUCTION TRENDS
Current estimates of total sand and gravel production
for Long Island, admittedly imprecise because of incom-
plete reporting, indicate a decline in annual production.
Given the data gaps cited, total production peaked in 1961
with more than 18 million tons, remained at the 17 million
ton level for two years and declined to below 14 million
tons in 1965 (Table 4).
TABLE 3
PER CAPITA CONSUMPTION OF SAND AND GRAVEL
NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY AND CONNECTICUT, 1951-1965
(short tons)
Without further interpretation, however, these figures
may distort the rather wide variations in production
tonnages for the years shown. Since the base year of 1958
was a recession year, the 10.7 million tons were an atypical
level for Long Island. Production rebounded to a more
normal 12 to 14 million ton level in 1959-1960, and in
1961, when massive highway construction for the World's
Fair began in Queens and Nassau Counties, climbed to an
abnormally high 18.2 million tons and remained high
through 1964. These levels resulted from continued World's
Fair construction and from a surge in public and private
construction in New York City. The city's capital budget
provided for accelerated construction of schools and sewage
treatment facilities, and a spurt in private building, partic-
ularly of high-rise luxury multi-family housing, came as
developers rushed to meet construction deadlines under the
old zoning requirements before the new zoning resolution
took effect. Without these construction booms, Long Island
sand and gravel production between 1959 and 1966 would
probably have remained fairly constant at 12 to 14 million
tons annually.
A similar rise and drop occurred in the number of
active operations on Long Island: 23 operators were active
in 1958, compared to 22 in 1967 and a high of 30 in
1961-1963 (Table 5).
TABLE 4
ESTIMATED TOTAL SAND
AND GRAVEL PRODUCTION
FOR LONG ISLAND, 1958-1966
(thousands of short tons)
Year
Total Production
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
10,768
13,772
12,519
18,232
16,837
17,020
15,414
13,090
13,849
Sources: Computations and derivations by State Office of Planning
Coordination from data and information obtained from United
States Army Corps of Engineers. Long Island Rail Road, United
States Bureau of Mines. Tri-State Transportation Commission and
Long Island Sand ana Gravel Producers.
3
TABLE 5
PRODUCTION AlII!) V,.u.UE OF SAND AND GRAVEL BY PRODUCERS,
NASliAU AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, REPORTING TO BUREAu OF MINES
1958-1967
YEAR NASSAU COUNTY
Nl1IlIber of Shl!rt
Tons Value
Qpel'!ltio~ (000) (000)
1958 8 4802 $6137
1959 1 5578 1435
1960 8 5372 1153
1961 8 5994 fJ778
1962 9 6961 1902
1963 8 5314 5670
1964 7 4537 4051
1965 8 4157 4061
1966 8 4947 4611
1967 5 3981 3788
Avelllge
Value
Per Ton
Source: United Stat.. Bureau of Mines
COMPARATIVE USE AND VALUE PATTERNS
The fact that much more of Long Island sand
production goes for building than is true of sources
elsewhere in the nation or state (Table 2) highlights Long
Island's role. It is the primary source for fine aggregates for
high-density, high-rise construction in New York City and
elsewhere in the metropolitan area. Similarly, Long Island
gravel production is more strongly oriented to building than
to paving, the opposite of the national and state focus.
The value of processed Long Island sand in 1966
(Table 6) was lower than the state or national figures
because of its availability, while Long Island gravel, scarcer
than sand, was valued more than 50 percent above the
national and state figures.
SUFFOLK. COUNTY
Value
Per Ton
Nl1IlIberof Short Tons Value
Operations (000) (000)
V slue
Per Ton
$1.28
1.33
1.33
1.13
1.14
1.06
.89
.98
.94
.95
15
11
23
22
21
22
22
18
.18
17
5121
5973
5603
6592
6238
7011
6182
5012
4390
4641
$5651
6441
6119
9647
6391
6242
5844
5220
4511
4471
$1.10
1.08
1.20
1.05
1.02
.88
.95
1.04
1.03
.96
$ 1.03
Value per
Value per Value per Ton Sand
Area Ton Sand Ton Gravel and Gravel
United States $UI $ 1.02 $1.05
New York State 1.00 1.05 1.03
Long Island .85 1.63 .98
4
$ l.lO
TABLE 6
VALUE OF SAND AND GRAVEL,
UNITED STATES, NEW YORK STATE
AND LONG ISLAND 1966
Note: Value at plant of processed material.
Source: United States Bureau of Mines
TABLE 7
CUMULATIVE DEMAND FOR LONG ISLAND
SAND AND GRAVEL BY PRIMARY AND
SECONDARY MARKET AREAS, 1966-2000
(millions of shor~ tons)
Year Primary Market Secondary Market Total
1966- 1970 68 9 77
1966-1980 190 28 218
1966-1990 295 46 341
1966-2000 389 65 454
Source: State Office of Planning Coordination
PROJECTION OF DEMAND
As noted, urbanized and developed areas consume less
sand and gravel per capita than more sparsely settled
growth communities, where highway and building construc-
tion is much more fa pid.
In calculating demand for the island's resources for the
next 20 to 35 years, consumers were placed into three
broad development categories. New York City, the densely
settled, slow growing component of Long Island's market,
will continue to grow in its office sector, to redevelop its
older neighborhoods and to have limited construction of
new highways. Over all, per capita usage should not rise
appreciably.
Most of Nassau County and the most western portion
of Suffolk County, a second category, can anticipate a
growing market for apartments, an appreciable increase in
office buildings and other nonresidential construction, a
lower rate of single family home development, and
additional highways to meet traffic demands. In the
remainder of Suffolk County, the third category, demand
should significantly increase, generated by the rapid
expansion of home building and new highways.
Primary and secondary market areas for Long Island's
sand and gravel were also delineated:
Primary market areas
Secondary market areas
New York City
Nassau County
Suffolk County
New Jersey
Connecticut
Westchester County
According to this analysis (Table 7), continued demand
may vary from approximately 14 million tons annually in
1970-1980 to I I to 12 million tons near the end of the
century, with an anticipated total consumption of 454
million tons over the next 30 years, a reduction from earlier
estimates.
LAND REOUIREMENTS
The 1966 demand for nearly 14 million tons resulted
in the use of more than 2,000 acres of land for sand and
gravel mining (Table 8). This was 23 percent of the total of
9,513 industrially-used acres in the two-county area but less
than four square miles of the island's 1,371 square miles.
5
Cumulative acreage requirements (Table 9) are
intended to relate varying topographic and subsoil con-
ditions to the tonnages which have been forecast. These
show a decreasing need for land as topography becomes
hillier or the excavation deeper, but Long lsiand's relatively
flat topography and its high water table, the area's prime
water source, place primary constraints on extreme depths
or heights.
Based on the tonnages forecast, the maximum acreage
of land being mined for sand and gravel at any time would
be an estimated 2,000 acres, roughly the acreage now being
mined. Dramatic changes in demand or techniques (e.g.,
deep dredging of Long lsiand Sound) could revise this
estimate either way and unforeseen events could shift
demand higher or lower. But these estimates suggest that at
any time over the next three decades the amount of land
being mined on Long Island will justify monitoring these
areas within a broad framework of land use planning.
TABLE 8
THE COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT
The estimates of future demand assume that sand and
gravel in other parts of the metropolitan area will not
replace Long Island's current markets, and that Long lsiand
producers will not serve markets which now have other
sources. Nor do these projections reflect the eventual
possibility that sand and gravel will be mined in Long lsiand
Sound or that other materials will repiace sand and gravel.
Major shifts in upland sources do not appear likely, but
these other sources are briefly reviewed.
State of New Jersey
New Jersey, during 1963, produced 16.7 million tons
of sand and gravel at various locations in Essex, Union,
Middlesex, Monmouth, Mercer, Ocean and Burlington
Counties. However, a recent study of mineral resources
INDUSTRIAL USE OF LAND IN NASSAU
AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, 1966
Nassau County
Town of Hempstead
Town of No. Hempstead
Town of Oyster Bay
Suffolk County
Town of Babylon
Town of Brookhaven
Town of East Hampton
Town of Huntington
Town of Islip
Town of Riverhead
Town of Shelter lsiand
Town of Smithtown
Town of Southampton
Town of South old
Bi-County
Manu-
facturing
Acres
Nonmanu-
facturing
Acres
Percent
in
Mining
Mining
Acres
Total
Acres
2,548 972 1,073 4,593 23
458 533 - 991 0
542 224 1,009 1,775 57
1,548 215 64 1,827 4
2,480 1,340 1,100 4,920 22
860 120 120 1,100 11
460 470 130 1,060 12
20 70 20 110 18
320 170 440 930 47
320 220 180 720 25
70 70 - 140 0
- - 10 10 100
290 40 20 350 6
120 120 160 400 40
20 60 20 100 20
5,028 2,312 2,173 9,513 23
Source: Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, Land Use Analysis, 1966.
6
reports that lllany municipalities prohibit such mining in
areas \vherc it would be appropriate, while others impose
cumbcrsome and yuestioTldblc regulations.
Recent sl uJics by the United States Geological Survey
indicatc significant sand and gravel deposits in the Barnegat
Bay area, which merit cxpJoraUon by shallow off-shore
drilling.
State of Connecticut
Mo~t towns ill COlllJedicut contain deposits. Large
delta deposits, estimated to contain as much as a billion
tons of good quality sand and graveL exist just suutheast of
Bridgeport and near DeVOll at the mouth of the Housatonic
River. Similar quantities, but of inferior quality, have been
deposited at the mOllth of the Cllllllecticut River, Smaller
deposits exist along the stale's coast, bul as yet no
comprehensive assesSlllent of these reserves has been made.
Long Island Sound
The bOI tom of Long bland Sound is cOII1JX.>sed of sand
and graveL its quantity not known but its geologic
TABLE 9
formation and quality similar to the deposits found on
Long Island. Preliminary findings by a marine mineral
identification survey of coastal Connecticut indicate good
quality construction sand and gravel on both the
Connecticut and New York sides of the sound. Detailed
engineering and feasibility studies are needed to determine
the extent and economics of mining these deposits, and to
determine where the mined material could be stockpiled.
Also, an ecological study should be made coincident with
the exploration for minerals to determine any significant
effects on fish and wildlife resources.
South of Long Island
Extensive sand and gravel deposits are found to the
south of Long Island some 60 feet under water along the
southerly slope of the Hudson River Canyon. Although
their exact size and thickness are not known, they are
estimated to contain billions of cubic yards, but mining in
exposed ocean at these depths is not economically feasible
by current dredging techniques.
CUMULATIVE ACREAGE REQUIREMENTS
FOR SAND AND GRAVEL MINING ON
l.ONG ISLAND, 1966-2000
(under varying topographic
and subsoil conditions)
Years
10 foot
bank or pit
excavation
Acres Needed*
20 foot
bank or pit
excavation
30 fool
bank or pit
excavation
40 foot
bank or pit
excavation
] lJ6b-1970 :;,lJ40 1,470 980 735
19bo-IYSO 8.330 4.165 2.777 2.083
196{).Jl)<)O 13.030 b.565 4.343 3,258
19b(,-2000 17.300 8.650 5.767 4,323
*In I'I/>u. th~'n.' \\'~'re 2,173 acres ill us\:"
SUllr<.:c: Cumputations made hy State Office of Planning Coordination based
Oil an ill-pluee wdght of 120 puunds per eubic foot of sand and
gravel.
7
SUBSTITUTE MATERIALS
Crushed Stone
Sizable quantities of crushed stone are imported from
the Hudson River Valley to the New York area as a
substitute for gravel (Table 10). Long Island imported by
barge from 1.4 to 2 million tons of crushed stone annually
during 1957-1966. For the foreseeable future this level will
continue and reserves will be sufficient to meet require-
ments for coarse aggregate.
New technology may possibly alter certain types of
rock, not presently usable for coarse aggregates, to serve as
substitutes for existing sources - for example, low-grade
schists, phyllites, slates, shales, siltstones or soft sandstones.
However, the necessary technological advances are not now
foreseen.
Fabricated Materials
Materials such as plastics or slags and other by-products
may also be considered to serve as substitutes, but the
likelihood is remote. Plastics are many times more costly
than mineral aggregates, slags, a residue of steel production,
are available in a few locations but are not nearly abundant
enough to supply total needs.
8
TABLE 10
CRUSHED STONE IMPORTED TO
LONG ISLAND 1957-1966
(thousands of
short tons)
Quantity
Year Rail Barge
1957 N.A. 1,709
1958 N.A. 1,627
1959 N.A. 2,005
1960 N.A. 1.505
1961 N.A. 1,548
1962 285 1,969
1963 251 1,359
1964 316 1,483
1965 289 1,517
1966 387 2,] ]0
N .A. - not available
Sources: United States Army Corps of Engineers,
Waterborne Commerce, ]965,1966
Tri-State Transportation Commission,
Waterborne Freight Report to the Tri.State
Region, March 1967
Transportation
Transportation is a major factor in the delivered price
of the large bulk, low volume shipments of saod and gravel.
Measured in cents per ton mile, the mode of shipment is
critical to the producer and must relate to distances
traveled.
The three major modes used to ship Long Island sand
and gravel - barge, truck and rail - - have significant cost
differentials. The average cost per ton mile is less than half
a cent for barge, 2.6 cents for rail and 25 cents for the first
mile by truck, decreasing to 5 cents per mile for each mile
thereafter. *
Cost variations favor the use of barge for long haul
shipments and rail or truck for intermediate or short
haulage, with emphasis on truck for short hauls. (Table I I).
BARGE .
Barge shipment is the principal mode for transporting
Long Island sand and gravel to New York City, New Jersey,
Westchester County, Connecticut and areas north of New
York City along the Hudson River. New York City received
"'United States Bureau of Mines
54 percent of the tonnage barged during 1965-1966, New
Jersey 27 percent and Connecticut 10 percent (Table 12).
Relatively minor amounts were barged to the other areas.
As construction needs slackened in these areas, barged
shipments declined from 9 million tons in 1958 to 4.6 in
1966, punctuated by a spurt in 1962 shipments due to
World's Fair construction. The barge will in all probability
continue to be the primary mode serving New York City.
Most ready-mix concrete plants and materials dealers have
waterside locations, but storage space is often limited and
barges are used to stockpile materials.
Conveyor Loading of Barges
9
TRUCK
As barge shipments declined, stepped-up development
on Long Island, particularly in Suffolk County, increased
the local demand for sand and gravel. With relatively short
haulage distances, trucked shipments increased dramat-
ically. In 1966 trucking moved more than 9 million tons of
sand and gravel, an increase of 7.3 million tons above 1958,
primarily to the Nassau-Suffolk area and, to a minor extent,
to nearby points in Queens and the Bronx. The Tri-State
Transportation Commission's 1963 Truck Survey for Long
Island, based on a 3 percent sample for a typical day,
disclosed that the longest trip length of truck transport of
sand and gravel was approximately 30 miles, the shortest
tri p was one mile and the average was six miles.
RAIL
The Long Island Rail Road ships minimal amounts of
Long Island sand and gravel and displays little interest in
increasing this volume. Only 215,000 tons were transported
by rail in 1966, compared with 9 million tons by truck and
TABLE 11
SAND AND GRAVEL PRODUCED
ON LONG ISLAND
BY MODE OF TRANSPORT
1958-1966
(thousands of short tons)
Year Transportation Mode
Truck
Barge* Rail (estimated)
1958 9,088 N.A. 1,680
1959 9,330 N.A. 4,442
1960 9,431 N.A. 3,088
1961 6,940 N.A. 11,292
1962 9,355 206 7,276
1963 7,630 237 9,150
1964 5,811 213 9,390
1965 5 ,030 218 7,842
1966 4,610 215 9,024
N .A. - not available
. Includes an additional 15 percent factor for
barged material not reported to the Corps of
Engineers
Sources; United States Army Corps of Engineers
Long Island Rail Road
United States Bureau of Mines
Tri-State Transportation Commission
Long Island Sand and Gravel Producers
10
4.6 million tons by barge. Very little is shipped to Nassau
County by rail at present, but rail may be used more as
existing operations in Nassau County and western Suffolk
are depleted and mining moves eastward. The use of jumbo
freight cars, whose capacity of 260 tons compares with
present cars of 70 to 75 ton capacity, would also make rail
more attractive for this purpose.
OTHER MODES
At many locations on Long Island, conveyor belts are
used to move material from the mining sites to the
screening plant and loading areas. This mode of transporta-
tion will see increasing use in loading trucks, rail cars and
barges. At Port Washington, for example, a conveyor belt
several hundred feet long has an exclusive right-of-way from
the screening plant to the barge loading area.
TRANSPORTATION OUTLOOK
New York City, because of the location of sand and
gravel destination points, depends almost wholly on water-
borne transportation for its shipments, and this pattern is
not expected to change. However, as mining along the
north shore of Long Island diminishes, mining may shift to
Long Island Sound to continue serving the city market.
Depletion of sand and gravel deposits within Nassau
County will probably increase the use of rail for shipments
on the island, but Suffolk County will continue to rely on
truck for most of its needs.
TABLE 12
REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF LONG ISLAND
SAND AND GRAVEL SHIPPED BY BARGE,
1965,J 966
(thousands of short tons)
Percen tage
distribution
Port Area 1965 1966 1965-66 average
New York City 2,600 2,600 54.0
New Jersey 1,500 1,100 27.0
Connecticut 500 500 lO.O
Westchester County 190 200 4.0
Hudson River 100 120 3.0
Long Island 140 90 2.0
Total 5 ,Q30 4,610 100.0
Source: United States Army Corps of Engineers,
Waterborne Commerce, 1965, 1966.
Existing Long Island Operations
Planning for sand and gravel mining on Long Island
should recognize anticipated demands and the need for
adequate land use and environmental quality controls. This
section focuses on local mining processes and how they
affect the environment.
MINING METHODS
Two basic extraction methods are used on Long Island:
upland excavation with heavy equipment and underwater
dredge mining.
Upland mining uses pit excavation on relatively flat
terrain and bank excavation on hilly sites.
The upland mining and processing of sand and gravel
has four major steps:
1. Clearing- removing or transplanting trees and
vegetation and stripping overburden and topsoil,
removing any material covering the deposit, and
transporting, redepositing or stockpiling it at or off
the site.
2. Excavation - removing materials from the deposit.
3. Transportation - moving the excavated materials
from the mining area to the processing area and
then to the market.
4. Processing - crushing, screening, washing and stock-
piling mined materials to conform to the necessary
standards and specifications. Processing mayor
may not take place at the mining site.
The extraction and processing cycle continues at a site
until the deposits are exhausted. The life span of an
operation varies with the depths of overburden and topsoil,
and the depth of sand and gravel; the composition and
grade of the deposit; the presence of un mineable materials
such as silt, clay or glacial fill; the height of the water table;
the acreage available for mining; and the rate of mining.
A typical site has facilities and equipment for both
extraction and processing. The activities are related and
may be side by side or in separate areas of the same site.
This mining-processing relationship can be affected by the
size of the site, the number of sites under a single operator,
local land use regulations and other factors, but a typical
processing area contains the processing equipment, equip-
ment and materials storage, office and service building,
areas for waste disposal and sedimentation ponds.
Dredging of sand and gravel on Long Island is
performed for commercial mining, channel and navigation
work, beach erosion control and beach nourishment.
Hydraulic or mechanical dredges are used.
11
PROBLEMS CREATED BY MINING
Numerous sand and gravel operations have severely
harmed the environment. Such flagrant abuses as aban-
doning excavated sites without rehabilitation, objectionable
operating procedures and careless site maintenance have
generated strong opposition and public mistrust of the
industry. Some rehabilitation and redevelopment attempts
have been made, but with two or three exceptions these are
dull and unimaginative - and in some instances reclamation
has created new problems.
Polluted basin in abandoned pit, visible from major highway ,
""~_ i.fIIif.
" ';;
-
":I:<ol
~.
Exposed water table -
a health and water pollution problem
Placer mining, cliff erosion caused by hydraulic dredge
12
Erosion problem caused by improper slope maintenance
. .
. .. },'i,;f
.;' If iT
I\'-:~ '~
I
,
~j~
,
}
J
,.i,:' ,I
/;'
.... t
\
~
. r r
,
Unsightly operatiun visible from highway
Rotting barges abandoned in harbor
Underwater mining practices have been condemned by
conservation groups for disrupting the marine ecological
environment. These practices include excessively deep
channels; dredging of areas not included in the operator's
contract; leaving sunken barges; and deep irregular sink-
holes along the bottom.
In certain harbors and bays along the North Shore, the
marine ecology has suffered from dredging. These areas and
adjacent wetlands provide spawning grounds for shellfish
and a nursery habitat for finfish. Deep holes and channels
created by dredging, allowing less light to penetrate to the
bot.tom, in time inhibit the formation of various algae
which are the base of the marine life food pyramid.
The tendency of pollutants to collect in underwater
excavations causes a water quality problem. Furthermore,
mechanical dredging separates sand and gravel from the silt,
concentrated amounts of which are discharged back into
the water. This silt is an undesirable substrate for the
development of valuable shellfish, settling in heavy sedi.
mentary layers on the bottom with a potentially deleterious
effect on marine life.
Wasteland created by huge excavation
Silting of harbor resulting from sa"d washing operation
13
".
~~;
Dull residential development 011 ol!ce bel/utijiil terrain
,-1 b<1/Jdolled pr()('essill~ plant
Area restored to flat terrain iJwaiting (/CI'elOf'J/Wl!t
-~ __,~ ... . c-:::c......i~_:.'~5.::;;~
v""",--"-'-'~~~~~"~'>"lf~7~~'f;::-::::':
-E-"~~:f~IU .=~ ~.
_.."....,..\.'~.~,~
SITE REUSE
These photographs shO\v how the quality of
restoration varies site to site.
Haphazardly used
for dumping
14
~:':~~~;-';'----~~~-'-" '~~~-
'~;l""':""'~~""? ~_'-"'___'~"__
"[""~~:_~':";'C"~_" ',""">,.j., '~<"'\~Ir>' -_ ,:;."U;;"'--,:._<- _, -
'~:\'",~_ r~.~c.~;:', ~,;C'=:>"""'~
..,.~", --:.:...r3"" '., ","~' ~. "', ',' " :..' I' " ~__
' , ~' "'f!','.~^'::"Ji1i.' >>",.,' "":"';:':;:~;;';$~~'i' '~~,'~~::-=, .~
",,",""'" . ., ":""'~j .~ . ,- "''''9;. 'iiIJlCt[:!J;'f'?'I
-':'i",-~.~, ":',,, .we r~,...:,.., ':"';';:0 "_.-....-.....:?:~~~.:.___
- "'-.iIll:.\:.;'- ' -. _.t,'~, "....;._.~_""", ""
Industria' UCl'C!tif!illf'lI/
Acceptable residential development
A l'Ceptllble inJl/strjal development
Reuse as a recharge basin
/
15
JOINT DEVELOPMENT (Manhasset)
Mining with residential and industrial reuse
:'~~:';~0'
Mining
Residential and mining
16
1-
,
~'w~,~
Residential and mining
Industrial
JOINT DEVELOPMENT (North port)
Mining with recreation and residential reuse
Residential
Residential
Beach
Marina
Rifle range
"".~
.;k''''''-:J
",.
'.~~~~
17
TABLE 13
ZONING ORDINANCES REGULATING
SAND AND GRAVEL OPERATIONS
Year Zones Where Conditions for Activities
Locality Adopted Pennitted Granting Pennits AUowed
Hempstead No land available for sand
(T) and gravel operations
North 1967 I-B industrial district Approval by Zoning Board Manufacturing of sand
Hempstead Oeast restrictive zone) of Appeals and gravel or other
(T) material for processing
or manufacturing of
concrete mix.
Oyster Bay 1953 H industrial Special exception by Sand, gravel, or clay pit,
(T) (light industry) Town Board aner brick and asphalt
public hearing manufacturing.
Huntington 1962 General industry Special exception by Excavation and removal
(T) district Zoning Board of Appeals of sand and gravel
aner public hearing (washing, screening and
processing requires a
separate permit)
Babylon 1962 H heavy industry Approval by the Town Celnellt
(T) district Planning Board and manufacturing
Zoning Board of Appeals
Smithtown 1965 HI heavy industry Permitted by right Mining and
(T) district excavation
Islip 1967 Industrial 2 Town Board Special business
(T) industrial use
Brookhaven 1967 Residential, business Special permit by Sand and gravel mining
(T) and industrial districts Zoning Board of Appeals
Riverhead 1964 Farm I district Permitted by right Central mixing plants for
(T) cement, mortar, plaster or
paving materials
Southampton 1966 H heavy industrial Approval by the Town
(T) district Planning Board and
Zoning Board of Appeals
Southold 1966 B business district Special exception by Excavation of sand and
(T) Zoning Board of Appeals gravel cement blocks
manufacturing
East Hampton 1966 Commercial-industrial Perraitted by right Mining and excavation
(T) (heavy district)
Shelter Island 1957 Business B district Approved by Town Residential, commercial
(T) Board industrial
Port Washington Industrial A district Permitted by right Excavation digging and
North sale of sand and gravel
(V)
Northport 1929 Rehabilitation Allowed as a continuation Excavation, extraction,
(V) district of an existing operation processing and sale of
aner a public hearing sand and gravel
and approval of the
Zoning Board of Appeals
18
Regulating Mining Operations
UPLAND MINING
Controls over sand and gravel operations are included
in town and village zoning ordinances and in other
ordinances specifically designed to regulate the mining
process. Local regulatiuns control areas where mining may
occur, and establish permissible mining practices and
rehabilitation requirements. Town and village planning
boards, boards of appeal and local legislative bodies are all
included in the process of review and regulation.
Zoning
With but four exceptions, the municipalities surveyed
restrict sand and gravel mining and related processing to
industrial districts (Table 13). The Town of Brookhaven
allows mining in residential, business and industrial districts
if the Zoning Board of Appeals issues a special permit. In
the Town of Riverhead, central mixing plants for cement,.
mortar, plaster or paving materials are permitted in its
farming district. The Town of Southold permits the
excavation of sand and gravel as well as cement block
manufacturing in its business district by special exception
of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Village of Northport
has created a rehabilitation district in which existing mining
and processing of sand and gravel is allowed to continue
following a public hearing and approval by the Zoning
Board of Appeals.
Municipal procedures for issuing mining permits and
for regulating permitted activities vary from locality to
locality. For example, the Town of Smith town allows sand
and gravel mining in its HI Industrial Zone, and limits
activities to the actual mining phase. Unlike Smithtown,
Oyster Bay requires :Town Board approval for a permit.
Special Regulat.:ns and Ordinances
This diversity in municipal regulation carries over to
other aspects of mining control (Table 14). The permit life
may range from one to five years, for example. Administra-
tion of local regulations rests with the town engineer in
Oyster Bay, the building inspector in the Town of
Hempstead and the town clerk in East Hampton. Fees range
from $25 per application to as much as $200 for the first
20,000 cubic yards of materials plus one cent for each
additional cubic yard. The amounts required in perfor-
mance bonds also vary from town to town.
There is also a question of regulatory effectiveness
(Table 15). Only five of the II ordinances listed have
standards to control ground water pollution; four have no
provisions for drainage system protection; and two fail to
regulate dust control. No municipality in Nassau County
requires producers to prepare rehabilitation plans for mined
areas; nor has adequate attention been given to truck
access, spillage from vehicles and the proper use of
overburden and stockpiled materials. The aesthetic quality
of mining sites has also been neglected: only four
ordinances require vegetation restoration and only the
Town of Hampton requires shrub landscape screening.
Thus the situation at the local level is ambivalent.
Although municipalities on Long Island have established
control mechanisms, they have been less than imaginative in
designing effective regulations and control. Zoning
ordinances, the first public line of defense agalnst detri-
mental mining practices, are weakened by lack of
uniformity and consistency. The public's second line of
defense, ordinances regulating mining operations,
19
frequently omit controls necessary for effective protection
of the environment. Perhaps deficiencies in local ordinances
are responsible for the increasing denials of permits on
Long Island. The Town of Babylon permits no commercial
excavation, the Town of Brookhaven discourages permit
applications, the Town of Huntington issued only one
permit in 1966 and one in 1967. During the past five years
only two permits out of five applications were approved by
the Town of East Hampton and the Town of Riverhead has
granted only one in the past five years.
Consistent and uniform controls throughout Long
Island would benefit both producers and municipalities. By
providing adequate regulation rather than outright dis-
approval, it would encourage proper use of a valuable
regional resource.
TABLE 14
Town
Code
Citation
Ordillance 16
. Adopted I2Jl~4S
'Amended B!!S/61.
N. Hempstead
Adopted 10/13/59
Adopted IOjI3(S9
Suffolk County
Babylon
Agency
Administering
Permits
Application
Fee
Buildillg Inspector
Manager of Building
Department
TOWn Engipter
$750/yr.
$750hlO
. acres
East Hampton
(includes dredging)
Ordinance 36
Adopted 6/2/64
Amended 3/2/66
Islip
Adopted 3/23/48
Amended 5/30/59
Ordinanoo'31
Adopted f(5'~
Smith town
Adopted 8/21/35
Adopted 2/XfCl/65 .
Southampton
Ordinance 42
Adopted 5/5/65
20
Town Clerk
$25/application
Building Inspector
$200/20,000 cu.
yds. plus I cent
. Building InspeGlor
Town Engineer
$200/20,000 cu.
yds. plus I cent
per add. cu.
ToWn
Town Clerk
$25/yr.
UNDERWATER MINING
Dredging for sand and gravel deposits has occurred
primarily along the underwater lands of Long Island's north
shore - chielly at Hempstead, Northport and Smith town
Bays and Glen Cove Creek, Oyster Bay, Huntington, Port
Jefferson, Mount Sinai and Mattituck Harbors. The bottom
lands containing these deposits are in the public domain
Bond or
Cash Deposit
Additional
Procedures
$2,000ininimum
Determined by
Town Board
Determined by
Town Board
Notify property
owners within 200 feot
$5,000 lIlinimu;lll if
approv8J by1'<!Wn
Board
Approval by Board
covers 5 years
performance
ApprQW by Town
Board
Public notice and heallllll,
notice to property "
owneis within 200 feet
Public hearing
Public notice and healing,
notice to owners within
200 feet
Determined by
Town, $2,000
minimum
Approval by Town
Board
Determined by
Town Board,
$2,000 minimum
Determined by
Town Board
Determined by
Town Board
Public hearing
Public hearing
Public notice and hearing
and dredging is usually part of a town or county project to
improve a channel or beach, or bay or harbor circulation.
Rather than requiring public expenditures for these
improvements, the usual practice is for the town to allow
commercial dredging - thus getting the work accomplished
while recovering a royalty for each ton of sand and gravel
removed. Without such royalties the improvement of
Huntington Harbor would have cost $2 million; but, since
Agency
Issuing
Permit
Life of
Permit
Town Board
I yr.; more if rehabili-
tation need demonstrated;
rnax. 5 years
~Town !}Qgineer,
Town Board
5 years
Town Board
I year
Town Board
authorizes
town
I year valid between
April I and Oct. I
Town Board
directs town clerk
I year
21
TABLE 15
REGULATIONS IN OPERATION
AND REHABILITATION ~ "d -,
O2 Q Q ,s
S s -
Q 3 "
-0 ~ " ~ ,~ " " :r ~
Q 8 ~ ~ '8
0; <;; " i;;' 'C ~ -
C ~ :r
~ ~ <:.l .:2 E 2 c
'" '" 3 .9 -0 ~ ~ .~ 1!'
u u "d "'- S ;::: ~ '2
c S " u 0. " :D "
" "0 Q -2 " ~ - == ~ R] "
., 0. 5 .~ -S ;;; " " " 3 "
Nassau County " " ~ '0 '" " c;:: Q '" "
~ - ~ - ~ 8 " -a ~ .2'-D Q -
~ '" 0. 0. "d " - u > u
~
Hempstead . . . . . . . .
N, Hempstead ,
. . . . . . .
Oyster Bay . . . . . .
Suffolk County
Babylon
Brookhaven . . . . . . .
K Hampton . . . . . . . . . .
Huntington . . . . . . . .
Islip . . . . . .
Riverhead . . . . . . . .
Smithtown . . . . . . .
Southold . . . . . . . . .
Southampton . . . . . . .
Note: Only major types of regulation are included
the bottom consisted of usable sand and gravel, the town
could sell the mining rights and realize a half million dollar
profiL
local Controls
The Oceanograpltie Committee to the Nassau,Suffolk
Regional Planning Board, the predecessor of the present
Nassau-Suffolk Regional Marine Resources Council, in its
report on The Status and Potential of the Marine
Environment found the "controls on dredging often have
been sloppy or non-existent." Only two Long Island towns,
Brookhaven and East Hampton, have dredging ordinances
and the Town of Islip is preparing one.
22
Federal and State Controls
The (j,S, Army Corps of Engineers and the New York
Stale Office of General Services exercise controls over
dredging. When a dredging project is for navigation pur-
poses, the Corps requires a permit and stale law allows the
extraction of sand and gravel from underwater state lands
only when it is related to navigation or beach nourishment.
]0 either case a license must be obtained from the OffIce of
General Services, the licensee pays a fee for every cubic
yard of material removed, and the license may be revoked
by the Commissioner of General Services for failure to
comply with provisions.
Recommendations
The next few decades will witness significant changes
in the pattern of sand and gravel mining on Long Island.
While demands are expected to continue at approximately
current levels of production, additional population in areas
within commuting distance of New York City and deple-
tion of existing sources will cause the areas suitable for
mining to shift farther and farther eastward.
Thus the potential number of sites available for mining
will be reduced and the regional demand will be satisfied by
fewer jurisdictions, with the heaviest demand placed on the
less urbanized towns. In a regional perspective, this means
that the less populated municipalities will have to make
their resources available to the more highly developed
jurisdictions. In a planning context, it underlines the need
for careful consideration of techniques to insure adequate
sand and gravel in suitable locations and subject to proper
controls.
This section recommends a course of action to improve
the planning and control of sand and gravel mining.
MULTI-LEVEL PLANNING
Planning for sand and gravel operations should proceed
at several parallel but related levels.
Determining Genera' Areas
At the broadest level is a determination of general ar~as
suitable for mining, focusing on matters of regional and
county concern. Here a broad land use perspective emerges,
blending the pattern of future resource utilization with the
current and future land development pattern.
The accompanying map, Land Use Strategy - Sand
and GrlIl!el Mining, on pages 25-27 delineates undeveloped
areas where sand and gravel mining might logically occur.
The highest priority areas recommended (see Site Selection
page 24) are in the western portion of Suffolk County.
Major existing or proposed transportation routes serve most
of the areas directly.
Agricultural lands of high viability and those areas
which should be preserved in their natural state are also
shown. A recent staff study prepared by the Office of
Planning Coordination selected these natural areas for their
unique characteristics.
For each designated area, except those agricultural
lands and natural areas which should be retained in their
present use, a recommended reuse is identified, based upon
the bi-county prototype land use plan. This provides an
initial insight into a given site's reuse potential. Only a small
23
r
I
I
I
fraction of the land area indicated is ever likely to be
mined, and a program of concurrent mining and restoration
would allow only a small portion to be subject to mining at
anyone time.
To determine specific sites with good mining potential
and ones where mining is least likely to disrupt the
environment, it is recommended that the State Department
of Environmental Conservation in cooperation with the
State Geological Survey undertake geological surveys in the
designated mining areas on the Land Use Strategy map.
Regardless of the option used, several general planning
principles should guide the formulation of broad land use
policy respecting sand and gravel mining:
Mining activities should be concentrated as much as
possible within the southern moraine] area, i.e., along
the center spine of Long Island. High quality sand and
gravel, according to qualified geologists, are contained
in the southern or Ronkonkoma Moraine. Further-
more, this general area has efficient transportation by
the Long Island Rail Road and the Long Island
Expressway. This also has the greatest potential for
industrial development, a positive compatibility factor
for acceptable land use relationships during mining and
reuse of mined areas.
Mining along or near the north shore cliffs should be
discouraged. Limitations on mining the cliffs are
designed to preserve one of Long Island's natural
landmarks
Bay and shoreline dredging for sand and gravel should
be prohibited except for needed channel improvement
and other special public improvement projects. To
review and set standards for these projects, the
formation of an Underwater Mining Advisory Council
is recommended. It might logically include representa-
tives of the State Department of Environmental
Conservation, the U.S. Corps of Engineers, the State
Office of General Services and the Nassau-Suffolk
Regional Marine Resources Council. It would meet as
often as necessary to advise the various town boards on
applications for dredging permits.
Care must be taken to avoid providing sand and gravel
at the expense of the environment. Wetlands, prime
agricultural lands and areas with unique flora and fauna
should not, and need not, be mined.
24
Site Selection
Following the designation of general areas for mining,
the next or intermediate level of planning is the selection of
actual sites. This level introduces many new factors which
are significant for the producer and the community. Of
pre-eminent concern to producers are the quality of the
materials at a given site and the economics of mining them,
particularly the transportation costs. To the community,
environmental protection is paramount. At this inter-
mediate planning level, the goal of environmental l'rotec-
tion can best be articulated in terms of a site's IaIld use
relationships and its appropriateness for future reuse. The
following principles could support environmental protec-
tion through proper site selection methods:
Areas with a potential for industrial use and areas
desirable for sanitary landfill should be considered (J1J
highest priority mining sites. In many developing areas,
because the demand for residential use often precedes
the demand for industrial land, the best industrial land
is often usurped by residential development. Sand and
gravel sites offer the attractive possibility of assuring
that prime industrial land will incrementally become
available, in essence a productive form ofland banking
for future needs. Should further study of the effects of
landfill on the groundwater table indicate favorable
results, landfilling of mined areas could reduce public
and private costs and provide future open space and
recreation areas.
Mining areas should be well removed from residential
areas. Sand and gravel operations generate noise, dust
and heavy truck movement. Despite optimum controls,
these operations can be poor neighbors and should be
well removed from existing residential areas. Similarly,
encroachment of residential development on existing
mining areas should be controlled.
A minimum size of 50 acres should be required for a
commercial mining site. Large mining sites offer several
advantages: they reduce the number of mining
operations, enhance the ability to insure proper
standards, and should improve production efficiency.
Sites of more than 50 acres are suitable for a wide
range of land uses and permit a staged rehabilitation
plan which conforms with the final reuse.
Public agencies should consider the advantage of
acquiring suitable sand and gravel sites for leaseback
and ultimate development. The Nassau-Suffolk
IMoraines are deposits of glacial till, including sand and gravel, left at the edges of a glacier as the ice melts.
Land use strategy
sand and gravel mining
WWER!\'fWYOR/(BAY
'.
"'-/\
":tr
A6~
~
{U,\";/SU.\'f).\v(Sf)
~"
, , 0
C1...l:::1...d~~
,
~
6 ~IL[S
l
I
~:::::------r
1<'4D
.tr
)'"'' I
CJ .' ~j c:>/li --
l ()~ 1 :? ~/'-L:-
o II o4d) )~
~'~~'
""
{,RfATS01THBAY ~t-_~~-
~
<0'Q ~~
~-,---..--~
Fife
25
26
.
~
~
GA,RDINERSBAY
Legend
COUNTY80UNOAIIY
TOW.. BOUNDARY
CITY BOUNDARY
= 4 lANE HIGHWA"'S
_OTHEAHIGHWAVS
~R""LIlOADS
AREASRECOMMENDEOT06EAHAINEO
IN THEIR PRESENl U5E
AECOMMENDEOREUSECATEGORIE$FQRMINING
AAEASBASEDUPONNASSAUISUFFOlK
PRELIMINARY PROTOTYPE LAND USE PLAN. 1968
!Hm~AGR'CULTURALlANDS
OFHIGHYIABILlTY
~~\~~*RESIDENTIAL
"~''''''I.i.
..-:\((:j<OPON,PACE
=CQMMERCIAL
. INDUSTRIAL
~:;I,,;'; NATURAlAR~AS
'OENTlfJEOBVOPC
c::::::=:J MORAINES
o I'OIITS
27
Regional Planning Board's report, Housing - Better
Homes for Better Communities, recommends the
formation of a public development corporation to
acquire sites for public uses and to undertake large
developments. Such an agency could acquire suitable
sand and gravel sites, lease them for mining and
ultimately make them available for needed public uses.
Non-profit industrial corporations could follow a simi-
lar tack by purchasing properties with long-range
industrial potential for temporary sand and gravel
usage. The Suffolk County Department of Public
Works could allow mining on lands that have promise
as sanitary landfUl sites. This approach benefits the
public and private sectors - the public gains through
lower land acquisition and development costs and
assurance that mining practices will be subject to
public scrutiny and inspection, while the producers
have ample sites for mining.
Designing the Site
The third and most detailed type of planning is
planning and designing the mining site. Four major steps
are:
Site analysis.
Operations plan.
Stockpile and rehabilitation plan.
Reuse plan.
Site analysis encompasses a thorough evaluation of the
natural and man-made features of the area to be mined, a
determination of reuse potential and a review of the
environment, plus a qualitative and quantitative assessment
of the deposits on the site. Following this, alternative types
of equipment to be used and operating procedures can be
reviewed.
From these site analysis components a plan of
operations can be formulated which structures the patterns
of mining to strengthen the site's reuse potentials and
sketch the framework for a stockpile and rehabilitation
plan. Once these operating decisions have been reached, a
plan of rehabilitation can be integrated with the plan of
excavation so as to execute both concurrently.
The final step, a master reuse plan for the site, welds
together these elements of site potential, planned excava-
tion and planned rehabilitation. In working toward a
functional and esthetic site reuse through the steps
indicated, certain technical principles have been developed
by the National Sand and Gravel Association:
28
Determine a location for the processing plant area and
the type of screening essential to reduce inherent
conflicts. Landscape the entrance and area adjacent to
the plant. Maintain buildings and equipment. Eliminate
weed-covered waste heaps and accumulations of dis-
carded parts and equipment.
Construct screens of plant materials or overburden
piles where visual or other conflicts such as dust and
noise may occur. (This should be completed as soon as
possible after land is purchased.) Slope overburden
screens and seed with grass or other ground cover. The
designation of overburden screens should correlate
with the proposed land forms, so that the screen can
later be converted into the determined land forms with
minimum grading.
Determine a pattern of excavation to implement the
development of the proposed land forms. Excavate in
proposed land areas first, to permit placement of waste
sand and overburden. If there is a choice of excavating
on either side of a hill or wooded area, consider
starting excavation on the side offering the most
screening.
Stockpile the overburden material in areas designated
for future land forms or in excavated areas where the
material will be spread over the pit floor. Plan the
stockpiling procedure to minimize handling. The
objective is to (I) excavate, (2) stockpile, (3) grade to
the desired land forms. Stockpile material where waste
sand is deposited. Spread the material over the land
form when the operation is complete. Seed stockpiles
if they are to remain any length of time.
Progressively develop excavated areas by grading the
land forms and stockpiles to desired grades. Seed and
plant developed land forms immediately after grading
or within the appropriate planting seasons.
When shallow water or such obstacles as clay veins or
rock outcroppings are encountered, consider their
impact on the character of the proposed development.
Either take advantage of them by creating additional
land area or more interesting land forms or deepen the
water area and remove the obstacle.
Remove all equipment associated with the industry as
soon as excavation is over. Do not permit debris and
abandoned equipment to accumulate. Reduce remain-
ing waste heaps to acceptable land forms, and seed.
In addition, in special situations wnere an obvious
benefit can be attained, the producer should consider:
Acquiring land in addition to the sand and gravel
property to facilitate development of the proposed use
and to provide a buffer between the operations and
surrounding land uses.
Preserving parts of the sand and gravel bearing land for
the proposed development when it is, or contains
features which are, more valuable than the underlying
sand and gravel.
When the future use of a site is determined before
excavation begins and when the excavation process is
organized to develop that use, then the waste heaps, the
shallow, stagnant and small bodies of water, the unusable
rerrmants of land, and the eroding, barren slopes normally
associated with a sand and gravel pit can be eliminated. The
benefits are more than just an economic return through
increased land values. There are intangible benefits of
improved public relations and good will.
Abandoned Sites
Besides the proper planning, mining and restoration of
sites, another important area is of public concern: the
abandoned mining site. The former issue entails upgrading
existing local ordinances, but the latter demands individual
treatment for each site.
Conditions at abandoned sites vary widely, but at best
they are unproductive areas and at worst present serious
health or safety hazards. A detailed survey of each site is
required in order to provide operational recommendations
for improvements. This task is beyond the limits of this
study, but certain guidelines for action are presented.
Depending upon factors unique to each site, a number
of physical improvements can be made: planting, grading,
drainage control, filling of land, removal of equipment,
stream channel repair, pond stabilization and diversion
ditches. Further development for a variety of public
purposes may be warranted.
State enabling legislation permits certain towns,
includIng those in Nassau and Suffolk counties, to rehabil-
itate abandoned sites and assess the costs to the landowner.
\.
\
ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGAL CONTROLS
The multi-faceted planning approach recommended
above requires an interlocking system of administrative and
legal controls to be effective. The need is for a subtle blend
of advisory and regulatory powers stringent enough to
prevent damage to the environment but flexible enough to
allow the economical utilization of a valuable resource.
Regulation of sand and gravel mining is presently a
local responsibility, and guidelines have been recommended
to assist municipalities in this funchon. The first recom-
mendation was for a determination of general areas suitable
for mining. This planning decision, relating closely to the
Bi-County Land Use Plan, should logically be the respon-
sibility of the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board. The
board in cooperation with industry leaders and conserva-
tion groups would advise municipalities on the general
location of mining on Long Island. Furthermore, a basis
exists for further discussion and exchange of views among
the counties and municipalities about site location, land use
relationships and future reuse.
This scheme envisions a strong advisory role for the
counties, with the municipalities retaining the final land use
decision power over sand and gravel mining. This arrange-
ment could be used until it can be demonstrated that the
region, because of municipal prohibition, no longer has
acce:ss to the sand and gravel it needs. Should this happen,
the state should reevaluate the entire matter and propose
legislation to permit proper use of the resource.
There are cogent reasons for defining new roles for
other than municipal government, the chief being the
regional significance of the Long Island sand and gravel
resources and doubts about whether municipalities will
acknowledge this regional character of deposits within their
boundaries. Moreover, the trained personnel and complex
equipmeh( for proper monitoring of sand and gravel
operations may be more available at the state or county
level.
State Administration
To protect Long Island sand and gravel, legislation is
recommended to give the state, possibly through the
Department of Environmental Conservation, key protective
powers over lands with valuable sand and gravel deposits.
This legislation should provide for preservation standards,
mining permit policies and operator licensing. It should also
empower the state to develop procedures and regulations
for overseeing mining operations, to prepare plans for
reclaiming and rehabilitating abandoned sites, and to
establish licensing procedures to regulate producers. All
producers of sand and gravel would report to the state each
year on their production and the state would also have the
authority and personnel to inspect sand and gravel
operations.
To strengthen the state in these functions, federal
legislation could help with the cost of developing adequate
29
plans and enforcing regulations for existing and future
mining operations. Such federal legislation could require
the states to establish surface mining control programs in a
specified time, providing for federal intervention if a state
failed to act. State plans would have to provide for a permit
system for mining operations; control of erosion, flood and
water and air pollution; reclamation of mined areas;
adequate enforcement procedures; adequate state funding
and personnel and, if needed, training programs.
Also desirable is state legislation to create an Interstate
Mining Commission to study the effects of mining opera-
tions on the pattern of development. In the area of
reclamation, the commission could recommend legal and
administrative procedures to improve the efficiency and
economic yield of mining, to safeguard potential mining
sites, to cooperate with the federal government and to
consult with other party states on mineral resource develop-
ment.
State legislation could also strengthen the state's
control of dredging and its controls on the use of state
owned lands for sand and gravel mining. Finally, the town
and village laws on sand and gravel mining could be
amended to provide for the removal of abandoned or
unused equipment and to require restoration of land to safe
level grades, at the owner's or operator's cost.
UPGRADING MINING PRACTICES
To assist municipalities in improving mining practices,
an appendix of this report presents model standards for a
more uniform and consistent approach to the problems a
municipality faces in this field.
Of the four phases - premining, mining, rehabilitation
and reuse - the model standards deal with the first three.
30
For the premining phase, while the land is in its natural
state, the ordinance develops procedures for permit applica-
tions, setting forth certain planning requirements. Town
planning boards have the key administrative role, with the
assistance of such other officials as the town engineer and
town clerk. This is in distinct contrast to the melange of
various town officials, boards and legislative bodies which
now review mining applications throughout Long Island.
The planning requirements also ensure the town, in advance
of mining, of complete technical information about the site
in its unmined and its post-mining states - knowledge
essential if the board is to decide soundly on the mining
application.
The model standards appendix also proposes the
concept of the "'planned mining area," in which certain
land uses are permitted. The idea is to provide an
appropriate temporary land use category supported by
adequate environmental protection controls specifically
designed to regulate sand and gravel mining, not other
industrial or commercial land uses.
For the mining phase, minimum site standards and
setback, screening and fencing requirements are established.
But additional controls are offered to prevent water
pollution, air pollution and spillage from vehicles; to
minimize safety hazards; and to provide for landscaping,
slope maintenance and topsoil preservation. Equipment in
use must be properly maintained and abandoned equipment
must be removed within a specified time.
More important, these fairly common regulatory tech-
niques are presented in a detailed planning context which
links a mining operations plan, a topographic restoration
plan and a general restoration plan to the site's ultimate
reuse potential. Hence, the standards carry over beyond
actual mining to the complete restoration and rehabilitation
of all mining areas.
I
I
Appendix 1
MODEL STANDARDS FOR ORDINANCES
REGULATING SAND AND GRAVEL MINING
GENERAL GOALS
This section sets forth a series of standards which can
be used to prepare various types of ordinances to control
sand and gravel mining. These standards have been drawn
with the following general goals:
To protect the community from the deleterious effects
of sand and gravel mining.
To promote sound land use planning practices before,
during and after excavation, in accordance with a
comprehensive mining and restoration plan approved
by the community.
To preserve and assure continued availability of a
critical mineral resource by providing sufficient space
in appropriate locations for mining sand and gravel and
for related activities.
SPECIFIC PURPOSES
\
The specific purposes of these standards are;
To preserve sand and gravel deposits of commercial
quality which are appropriately located as to transpor-
tation modes (Le., truck, barge, rail) and market areas
and which have a long enough life span to justify the
producers' investment in extractive, processing and
restoration equipment.
To promote planned, systematic mining of sand and
gravel deposits so as to facilitate the planned, contin-
uous and concurrent restoration of mined land, leading
to its complete rehabilitation.
To assure continuity of operation at a given location
until a deposit is fully utilized, provided there is
conformity with the standards established.
Through proper land use controls, sign controls and
performance standards, to minimize or eliminate
deleterious effects on adjacent or nearby land uses and
to prevent the emergence of blighting influences.
PERMITTED USES
The following uses are permitted in planned mining
areas:
Extracting, processing and storing of sand and gravel,
and the structures and equipment necessary to carry
out these functions.
Reuses permitted as part of the rehabilitation process
provided for in the development plan, e.g., sanitary
landfill.
Public and private recreation uses, provided that no
permanent improvements or structures would prevent
the economical use of land for mineral extraction.
Agricultural uses, including the expansion, restoration
or alteration of existing buildings.
SITE STANDARDS
Minimum Site Size
The minimum site size shall be 50 acres, unless
contiguous to an existing permitted mining operation.
Minimum Setback Requirements
Extraction processing and storing of sand and gravel
shall not be conducted within 100 feet of an existing street
or highway, or within 30 feet of the right-of-way line of
any existing public utility; nor shall such operations be
conducted within 100 feet of the boundary of any zone
where such operations are not permitted; nor shall opera-
tions be conducted within 30 feet of the boundary of an
adjoining property not in mining use but within an area in
which mining is permitted.
Fencing and Screening
All access to any mining operation within one-half mile
radius of a residential district shall be barred by chain link
or similar fencing no less than six feet high.
Structures
All structures within a planned mining area shall be
maintained so as to assure that they will not fall into
disrepair, will not become dilapidated and will conform
with all applicable local codes. A schedule of maintenance,
subject to municipal approval, shall be submitted on
31
January 1 of each year indicating the maintenance to be
undertaken during that year. Failure to submit or to
conform to such schedule shall be grounds for suspension
of the mining permit. All structures that have not been used
for a period of one year shall be removed from the planned
mining area.
All equipment and structures shall be dismantled and
removed by the mining site operator not later than six
months after termination of mining operations or expira-
tion of the permit.
Roads
All access roads from planned numng areas to public
highways or streets shall be paved, treated or watered so as
to minimize dust. Access routes to planned mining areas
shall be aligned to minimize intrusion into residential
neighborhoods.
OPERATING STANDARDS
Equipment
All equipment used in a planned mining area shall be
maintained in good repair and operated in such a manner as
to minimize noise, vibration, smoke and dust.
Hours of Operation
Operating hours for excavating, mining or processing
shall be restricted to between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. on
weekdays, except in case of a public emergency or
whenever repairs to equipment are required.
Dust
All storage areas, yards, service roads or other
untreated open areas within the boundaries of a planned
mining area shall be improved with landscaping, paving or
other appropriate materials to minimize dust or other wind
blown air pollutants.
Waste Products
No waste products or process residues from a planned
mining area shall be disposed of in any stream, bay or other
natural drainage system.
32
Safety
Safety regulations within the site and in surrounding
areas are to be strictly adhered to. This includes observing
posted traffic speeds.
Spillage
To prevent spillage from overloaded vehicles and wind
blown air pollution, all truckloads of sand and gravel shall
be covered with tarpaulin or other suitable material.
Lateral Support
All operations shall be conducted in a safe manner,
with respect to hazards to persons; physical damage to
adjacent land or improvements; and damage to any street
by reason of slides, sinking or collapse.
Topsoil Preservation
Where topsoil is removed, sufficient arable soil shall be
set aside for respreading over the excavated area in
accordance with the restoration plan. Such overburden
stockpiles shall be treated to minimize the effects of
erosion by wind or water upon public roads, streams or
adjacent land uses and shall not be sold or removed from
the property.
Overburden
All overburden shall be stockpiled in windrows or
concentrated piles and stabilized in an acceptable manner
so that it does not become a source of dust.
Banks
During mining, the banks of all excavations shall be
maintained at a slope not greater than one and one-half feet
horizontal to one foot vertical.
Screen ing
Mining areas should be screened by judicious use of
plants and overburden material at the perimeter.
I
Roadside Landscape
Existing trees and ground cover along public road
frontage shall be preserved, maintained and supplemented
by selective cutting, transplanting and addition of new
trees, shrubs and other ground cover for the depth of the
roadside setback.
APPLICATION AND PLANNING
REOUIREMENTS
Application for Permit
Pre-ftling Meeting
The producer shall meet with the town planning board
and a representative of the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Plan-
ning Board to discuss in general terms the appropriateness
of the proposed mining operation, including the character
of the site, the impact on existing development, and its
future development potential.
Filing
Applications for permits to operate within a planned
mining area will be accepted only from duly licensed sand
and gravel mining operators.*
Applications shall be submitted for approval to the
town planning board; shall be accompanied by a ftIing fee
of $10 per acre of which a maximum of $250 will be
non-refundable if the application is rejected or withdrawn;
and shall be supplemented by this supporting documenta-
tion:
,
,
\
"
Vertical Aerial Photograph, enlarged to a scale of one
inch equals 200 feet, from original photography flown
at a negative scale no smaller than one inch equals
1,000 feet, and certified as flown not earlier than two
months prior to date of application. The vertical aerial
photogra ph shall cover:
- All land requested in permit application.
~ All contiguous land which is or has been used by
the owner or lease~holder applicant for sand and
gravel extraction, processing, storage or other
permitted use.
- All lands within one-half mile of proposed planned
mining area.
- All public or private roads which provide access to
property.
The boundaries of these items shan be delineated, using
colored overlays Or according to the instructions of the
town planning board.
Identification Plat, prepared by a surveyor certified by
the State of New York, at a scale of one inch equals
100 feet. This plat shall show:
"See recommendations Page 29 relating to licensing.
Boundary of the entire planned mining area by
courses and distances.
Site topography and natural features including
location of water courses within the planned
mining area.
Average thickness of overburden in the area of
proposed operations.
- Means of vehicular access to the proposed opera-
tion.
- Any additional information required by the town
planning board.
Geological and Engineering Survey prepared by a
geologist and engineer licensed by State of New York,
indicating:
- Quality of material to be excavated.
- Depth of water table throughout the planned mining
area for which permit is sought.
Sectional Map at a scale of I inch equals 200 feet
covering the area within one mile of the boundaries of
the land included in the permit application, showing
existing classification of all land appearing on the map
as shown in the official zoning map, and all roads,
streets, alleys, parks and other public or governmental
areas in public ownership or on public rights-of-way, or
proposed on master plans of local and regional plan-
ning agencies, and all railroad rights-<lf-way within the
area covered by the map, and the names thereof, and
corrected by a engineer or surveyor licensed by State
of New York as to property lines.
Operations Plan for operation of the sand and gravel
deposit, to be presented on a transparent overlay at the
same scale as the vertical aerial photograph and
delineating:
Area of active excavation.
Area requested for excavation.
Area of active settling ponds and washing plant
facilities.
Area requested for settling ponds and washing
facilities.
Area of existing treatment facilities and sand and
gravel storage.
Area requested for treatment facilities and sand and
gravel storage.
Area of production facilities for resource-related
industry.
Area requested for production facilities for
resource-related industry.
33
Restoration Plan, to require an orderly continuing
restoration of all land permitted ta be excavated far its
resources, with these objectives:
- To prevent soil erosion which may menace life or
limb, endanger property or affect the safety,
usability or stability of any public property; and
~ To prepare the rrtined land, by grading, fertilizing
and planting on approximately an annual basis, for
its ultimate reuse at the expiration of the time limits
set forth in the perrrti!.
The plan for restoration shall be submitted in three
parts: a general plan as an overlay for the vertical aerial
photograph, a restoration contour plat, and a descrip-
tion of restoration methods and materials proposed for
renewal of topsoil and replanting.
A general plan for restoration shall be presented un a
transparent overlay at the same scale as the vertical
aerial, showing:
- General area of completely restored land.
General area of restoration underway.
General area currently used for topsoil and over-
burden storage.
General area proposed for restoration during period
of special permit.
General area proposed for topsoil and overburden
storage.
The acreage for each item shown on the overlay
shall be indicated on plan.
A restoration contour plat shall be prepared on the
same base as the identification plat required above,
to indicate the general grades and slopes ta which
excavated areas are to be backfilled.
A description of the methods and materials pro-
posed for restoration of topsoil to the required
fertility and the amount and type of planting shall
be filed as part of the restoration plan, subject to
approval of the county agricultural agent.
All these parts of the restoration plan shall be reviewed
by the town planning board and subject to its approval,
with the advice of the county planning agency.
Performance Bond ~ no perrrtit shall be issued until the
applicant has filed with the town clerk a bond with
surety satisfactory to the town council as to form,
sufficiency and execution. Such bond shall be not less
than $1,500 for each acre of land to be used for the
operation described in the application and shall
guarantee that either upon termination of the permit
or of the operation, whichever may occur first, the
34
ground surface of the land so used shall be restored in
conformity with the specific requirements and the
standards set forth in the restoration plan. The
applicant shall fIle with the performance bond an
agreement signed by himself and by the landowner, if a
different person, granting the town the right of access
to perform all necessary rehabilitation of bonded
property in the event of forfeiture of the performance
bond. When and if the portions of the bonded property
are completely rehabilitated in accord with the
approved restoration plan for the entire sand and gravel
operation at that location, and such restoration is
certified by the town, the performance bond protec-
ting the restored acreage shall be returned to the
applicant by the town clerk in exchange for a
maintenance bond guaranteeing maintenance of all
restored areas for not less than two years.
Advisory Review of Permit Applications - prior to
public hearing held by town planning board, all maps,
overlays and data filed with the application shall be
subject to advisory review by:
~ Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board;
- County planning agency;
- New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation.
The town planning board shall be responsible for
receiving and processing all applications for planned
mining area permits and shall accept for filing only
applications completely documented as herein
required. The technical staff of the town engineer shall
make a field inspection of each subject property and
prepare a detailed written report as to the compat-
ibility of the proposed mining application with the
adopted master plans for the vicinity, and with the
operation and space standards herein required. The
town planning board shall be responsible for coordi-
nating the reviews by other agencies herein required, so
that all reports are incorporated in the complete me
presented for the decision of the town planning board
within 90 days after a completely documented applica-
tion is fIled.
Duratioll of Permit shall be for five years, subject to
annual review and recertification by the town planning
board. A letter requesting permit continuance shall be
subrrtitted to the town planning board on or before the
anniversary date of the original permit issuance. Upon
receipt of such request the town engineer shall inspect
the mining site to determine compliance with all
provisions of this ordinance. He shall make his filldings
I
!
!
known to the planning board in a written status report.
Based on this report the planning board shall make a
determination to recertify or terminate the subject
permit.
Public Hearing shall be held by the town planning
board within 60 days from rhe time of submission of a
completed application for approval. Said hearing shall
be advertised in a newspaper of general circulation in
the town at least five days before such hearing.
Five- Year Permit Renewal Applications shall be subject
to the bond review and hearing requirements set forth
above and include:
Vertical aerial photograph at the same scale and
including the same information required in the
original application, but flown no more than two
months prior to date of application for renewal.
- Operations plan on transparent overlay for vertical
aerial photograph, including same information
required in original application, brought up to
date.
- Restoration plan on transparent overlay for vertical
aerial photograph, including same information
required in original application brought up to date,
showing restoration accomplishments. Also, a
description of any changes from the original
application in methods, materials or location of
restoration activities.
,
"
\
RESTORATION STANDARDS
Timing
Restoration shall be a continuing operation, subject to
field and aerial review by the town engineer. Grading,
topsoil replacement and replanting of the area designated
for restoration shall continue during the permit period.
Slope
All banks shall be left in accordance with topography
established in restoration plans, with no slope greater than
two feet horizontal to one foot vertical.
Quality of Restored Topsoil
The topsoil replaced shall be as specified by the county
agricultural agent.
Cover and Planting
Upon replacement of the topsoil, a ground cover shall
be planted to hold the soil, according to standards
established by the county agricultural agent and the State
Department of Environmental Conservation.
Abandoned Uses
If on-site mining or processing operations are not
carried out continuously for one year at any location, the
same will be considered to have been abandoned, and, prior
to any further excavation or processing, a new permit will
be required.
35
Appendix Z
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ahearn, Vincent P. Jr. Land Use Planning and the Sand and Gravel
Producer. Silver Spring, Maryland: National Sand and Gravel
Association.
American Aggregates Corporation. Project I Parklands. Greenville,
Ohio.
Bauer, Anthony M. Simultaneous Excavation and Rehabilitation of
Sand and Gravel Sites. Silver Spring, Maryland: National Sand and
Gravel Association, 1965.
Bureau of Statewide Planning. Mineral Resources as a Land Use in
New Jersey. New Jersey: Department of Conservation and Eco-
nomic Development, December, 1966.
Central Lane Planning Council. Sand and Gravel. Eugene, Oregon.
1968.
Fairfax County Planning Division. Natural Resource Development
Plan. Fairfax. Virginia, 1961.
Jensen, David R. Selecting Land Use for Sand and Gravel Sites.
Silver Spring, Maryland: National Sand and Gravel Association,
1967.
Johnson, Craig. Practical Operating Procedures for Progressive
Rehabilitation of Sand and Gravel Sites. Silver Spring, Maryland:
National Sand and Gravel Association, 1966.
36
Metropolitan Planning Commission. Sand and Gravel Resources.
Portland, Oregon. January, 1964.
Schellie, Kenneth L., and Rogier, David A. Site Utilization and
Rehabilitation Practices for Sand and Gravel Operations. Silver
Spring, Maryland: National Sand and Gravel Association, 1963.
Sheridan, Matthew 1. Urbanization and Its Impact on the Mineral
Aggregate Industry in the Denver, Colorado, Area. U.S. Department
of Interior, Bureau of Mines, Washington: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1967.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Restoring Surface-Mined Land.
Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, April, 1968.
U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines. Surface Mining and
Our Environment. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1967.
U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Mines. Conflicts in the
Utilization of Mineral Lands. Washington: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1969.
Williams, Frank E. Urbanization and the Mineral Aggregate
Industry, Tucson, Arizona, Area. U.S. Department of Interior,
Bureau of Mines, Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1967.
I
I
i