The Mineral industry of Florida

flstmyb04.xls

flstmyb04.pdf

DFLORIDA
T SANTA HOLMES JAKO
ES AMBIA ROSA OKALOOS County boundary
I Sng)CS GADSDEN LEON H ITN
SHINGT SG P SG O Capital
Pen.sacoI G SG SG ALHOUN T s JEFFE ONTi Zr
SG LIBERTY WAKULLA TALRCo CO- UIOI, r CL Zr Shell
SG ~ ~ ~ ~ B D-UL ALR Cr, ~ CA hl Crushed stone/sand
CS C RA Ti Z STand gravel districts
GLFC FRANKLIN FAYETTE URD SG S
GIL- ALACHA S KaGyp SYMBOLS
DIXIE CHRIS CrCS PUT AMPeat LAGLER Shll(Major producing areas)
LEVYCe Cement plant
CS MARION
FulClay Common clay
* CS 2 SG S~l
ACS Crushed stone
CITRUS Lim Clay hl
CS Peat S INOLE Ful Fullers earth
SUMT 0 Orlando
HERNANDO CS ISSG ORANGE CSGypsum
PASCOGyp-s Synthetic gypsum
CS S
IS Industrial sand
SS CB Ra GY SGB VR G
PINELLAS a p eKaolin
Gyp-s POLK NC IE
ShellR CS ime Lime plant
Shl MANATEE P KEH T
Shl Peat Sheii LUCIE MC2 Magnesium
Gypcompound plant SG 3 DESOTO HIHAD
SGP Phosphate rock
SARASOTA Shell CS S
OSCOL Shel
CS PALM Peat Peat
Sh. S HNDR Pe Perlite plant
Fo t ye s SG S al 4 SGS -ng S ulfur (natural g as)
LEE CS SG LI
BROWARD SG Construction sand
0 100 Kilometers CS COLE = hPGadgve
Peat andllravel
SShell Shell
MianniSteel Steel plant
DADE Ti Titanium minerals
SG
Vm Vermiculite plant
Zr Zirconium
Concentration of
-- mineral operations
Source: Florida Geological SurveylU.S. Geological Survey (2004)




THE MINERAL INDUSTRY OF FLORIDA
This chapter has been prepared under a Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Geological Survey and the Florida Geological Survey for collecting information on all nonfuel minerals.
In 2004, Florida's nonfuel raw mineral production was valued' at $2.32 billion, based upon annual U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data. This was a 12.1% increase from that of 20032 and followed a 2% increase in value in 2003 from that of 2002. The State ranked fourth (fifth in 2003) among the 50 States in total nonfuel mineral production value, of which the State accounted for more than 5% of the U.S. total.
Florida continued to lead the Nation in phosphate rock mining in 2004 by producing more than six times as much as the State with the next highest production. Phosphate rock is produced in only four States. In terms of value, phosphate rock, crushed stone, cement (portland and masonry), and construction sand and gravel continued to be the most important raw nonfuel mineral commodities produced in Florida. The dollar value of these four mineral commodities and the next highest commodity, zirconium concentrates, represented about 94% of the State's total nonfuel mineral value.
In 2004, nearly all of Florida's nonfuel mineral commodities increased in value. Portland cement and crushed stone led the way with increases of $109 million and $83 million, followed by zirconium concentrates and masonry cement, up about $15 million each, fuller's earth, up about $9 million, and construction sand and gravel, up $5 million. Smaller yet significant increases also took place in phosphate rock, peat, industrial sand and gravel, and magnesium compounds. Only rutile showed a decrease, down about $3 million.
In 2003, the State's increase in value mainly resulted from increases in construction sand and gravel, up $27 million, portland
cement, up about $26 million, and masonry cement and crushed stone, up about $19 million each. These increases were partly offset by decreases in the values of phosphate rock, down about $23 million, and fuller's earth and zirconium concentrates, down about $9 million each. Smaller yet significant decreases also happened for peat, rutile, industrial sand and gravel, and magnesium compounds (descending order of change) (table 1).
In 2004, Florida continued to be the only State to process rutile and produce staurolite and remained first in the quantity of masonry cement, peat, and phosphate rock produced. While the State continued to be first of two States that produced zirconium concentrates and titanium mineral concentrates and third in crushed stone, it rose in rank to second from third in magnesium compounds, to fifth from seventh in fuller's earth, and to sixth from seventh in portland cement. Additionally, Florida produced significant quantities of construction and industrial sand and gravel.
The Florida Geological Survey' (FGS) provided the following narrative information. Production and other data in the following text are those reported by the FGS, based upon that agency's own surveys and estimates. The FGS data may differ from some production figures reported to the USGS.
Employment
The Mine Safety and Health Administration (2004 4) reported that for calendar year 2004, 7,103 persons were employed in
Florida's mining operations; this number does not take into account contractors that may be working for some operators. The crushed stone industry employed 3,307 workers, and the sand and gravel industry employed 2,626 workers, and the reminder of the workforce was employed by cement, clay, phosphate, and other operations.
Exploration and Development
Expansion of phosphate mining has been proposed in west-central Florida (Hardee and Manatee Counties), to the south in DeSoto County, and in northern Florida in Lafayette County, involving some 32,900 hectares (ha).
While sand supplies were adequate, the same was not true for cement and gravel and crushed stone. Cement and stone aggregates continued to be imported to Florida, although not in quantities exceeding Florida's production levels. Industry standard distances from the source to construction sites for the Nation commonly have an average transportation trucking range of 80 kilometers (km) based on economics (National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, 2005). In Florida, more than one-half of the crushed stone aggregate comes from the southernmost part of Florida, in particular from Dade County. The remainder of Florida, then, is experiencing progressively larger transportation distances for delivery of stone aggregates, commonly up to 240 km. This, in turn, owing to increasing fuel prices, is elevating aggregate costs to the consumer. In northern Florida, although precise quantities are
The terms "nonfuel mineral production" and related "values" encompass variations in meaning, depending upon the mineral products. Production may be measured by mine shipments, mineral commodity sales, or marketable production (including consumption by producers) as is applicable to the individual mineral commodity.
All 2004 USGS mineral production data published in this chapter are those available as of December 2005. All USGS Mineral Industry Surveys and USGS Minerals Yearbook chapters-mineral commodity, State, and country-also can be retrieved over the Internet at URL http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals.
2Values, percentage calculations, and rankings for 2003 may differ from the Minerals Yearbook, Area Reports: Domestic 2003, Volume II, owing to the revision of preliminary 2003 to final 2003 data. Data and rankings for 2004 are considered to be final and are not likely to change significantly.
James Balsillie, Coastal/Economic Geologist, authored the text of the State mineral industry information provided by the Florida Geological Survey.
4
A reference that includes a section mark ( ) is found in the Internet Reference Cited section.
FLORIDA-2004 11.1




unknown, stone aggregate is arriving by barges down the Mississippi River, and by rail and ships. In addition, a shortage in qualified truck drivers is aggravating delivery accommodations, as is a shortage in qualified construction personnel in Florida's construction boom. At the currently rising aggregate production levels and because of Florida's rapid population growth, it is anticipated that the State's reserves might well be exhausted or in economic jeopardy in a relatively short period of time. The reasons include community and environmental antimining sentiments, preemption of mining rights because of zoning or deed restrictions, and/or other litigationrelated land-use constraints.
Florida's mineral resources reach beyond those of terrestrial origin or siting, especially for Florida's excessively broad continental margins in the Gulf of Mexico. FGS research on Florida's marine waters of the Gulf of Mexico has attained recognition by such agencies as the Minerals Management Service (MMS). A significant number of investigations have, during the years, been published or otherwise reported concerning offshore sediments of Florida's Gulf of Mexico. Balsillie and Clark (2001, p. 1) compiled a comprehensive treatment of the subject in a regional, subregional, and Florida county-by-county basis for marine waters of Florida's Gulf Coast. Their study was undertaken to identify what is known about potential sources of sediment for beach restoration and maintenance renourishment and, perhaps, for other task-oriented requirements. They annotated publications and reports to the extent that the user will have a grasp of the information and area of applicability of each included work.
Commodities Review
Industrial Minerals
With the understanding that Florida is among the four most population-gaining States, with some 25,500 new residents arriving monthly, it is small wonder that basic materials to support infrastructure, commercial service-providing establishments, and housing have, in turn, been affected. As in recent years, the construction industry has been hampered by an inadequate supply of materials, in particular, in shortages of aggregates, cement, and steel. In 2004, the mining and processing of basic construction materials in Florida (limestone or lime-rock aggregates whether termed gravel or crushed stone, sand, and cement) composed 55.5% of the total nonfuel valuation of all mined mineral resources or mined commodities of the State.
Cement.-High-purity limestone is used to manufacture the clinker for masonry and portland cement. Florida was a major
producer and consumer of both types of cement in 2004. Whereas limestone is mined in a number of counties throughout the State, cement clinker was produced only in Alachua, Dade, Hernando, and Suwannee Counties. Cement plants, which were just grinding plants that used imported clinker, operated in Hillsborough and Manatee Counties. Rinker Materials Corporation, based in West Palm Beach, FL, has acquired seven concrete plants and a small products distribution operation in the northwestern panhandle of Florida (Crestview, Fort Walton Beach, Panama City, Panama City Beach, Pensacola, and Point Washington). Rinker officials have acquired these to expand their operations into the State's northwest where the company has not previously had an operating presence. A Rinker Corp. cement plant expansion is in the works in Hernando County, and three plants in Sumter County are in the permitting phase.
Clays.-Fuller's earth, common clays, and kaolin were mined in several locations in Florida in 2004. Fuller's earth, which was mined in Gadsden and Marion Counties, is typically used as an absorbent material; kaolin, which was mined in Putnam County, is used in the manufacture of paper and refractories. Common clays were mined mostly in Clay and Lake Counties and in small quantities from various locations throughout the State.
Phosphate Rock.-In recent years, the Florida phosphate industry was controlled by some one-half dozen companies in westcentral counties of Florida (Hardee, Hillsborough, Manatee, and Polk). In 2004, however, only three companies controlled phosphate rock mining in Florida: CF Industries, Inc., PCS Phosphates, and Mosaic Company, which acquired mining interests of Cargill, Inc. and IMC Global, Inc. Nine phosphate rock mines were active in 2004, totaling some 122,000 ha, of which Mosaic Company controlled 62.6%, or 75,300 ha.
In 2004, phosphate mining activities resulted in mineral products valued at 35.8% of Florida's total nonfuel mineral production. Even so, Florida's production of phosphate rock, based on FGS estimates, accounted for approximately 75% of the U.S. production and 25% of the world's production. FGS records indicate that some 28 million metric tons of phosphate rock was extracted from Florida mines in 2004. Of note, in January, an important source of phosphate rock mining information, the Florida Phosphate Council, was disbanded; its functions have been slated to be assumed by Mosaic Company, whose corporate offices are based in Minnesota.
Metals
Titanium and Zirconium.-E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. and Iluka Resources, Inc. continued to operate heavy-mineral sand mines in Baker, Bradford, Clay, and Duval Counties. Ilmenite, leucoxene, rutile, and zircon are the primary minerals of interest in the heavy-mineral sand deposits of this region. Ilmenite, leucoxene, and rutile are the primary ingredients in the manufacture of titanium dioxide pigments, which, in turn, are used in the manufacture of lacquers, paint, paper, plastics, and varnish. The major uses of zircon are refractories, foundry sands, and ceramic applications.
Environmental Issues and Reclamation
In 2004, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Mine Reclamation issued 25 nonphosphate permits, largely Environmental Resource Permits (ERP) and Wetland Resource Permits, accounting for 2,750 ha of upland and wetland disturbance
11.2 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK-2004




and mine expansions and modifications. Records indicate that 64% of land mined for phosphate has been reclaimed since July 1, 1975; mined phosphate totaled more than 68,800 ha with 44,500 ha having been reclaimed.
Since July 1, 1975, Florida has required that all mined lands be reclaimed, as administered by FDEP's Bureau of Mine Reclamation. In the past 10 years, more than $325 million has been spent on mandatory as well as other related reclamation projects. Mined land has been reclaimed for agricultural, commercial, industrial, recreational, residential purposes, and as sanctuaries for birds and other wildlife. Since 1980, more than 30 million trees have been planted on reclaimed lands. The mining companies have also donated thousands of hectares to State and public entities for recreation and wildlife habitat. The industry has continued to work with the FDEP and other State and Federal agencies to protect and to restore ecosystems and to benefit wildlife.
Governmental and Related Programs
The erosional impacts of hurricanes Charlie, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne on the coasts of Florida in 2004, resulted in resounding
responses from Federal and State Governments. In 2004, the Florida Legislature added an emergency appropriation of $68.4 million to its $30 million annual expenditure level for beach restoration. These funds are, in part, used to cost-share with local governments and with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers funding of more than $160 million for some 15 Florida beach restoration projects. While most of the funding is used in design phases, dredging and pumping activities, part of this total funding is used for conducting sand search studies in offshore waters. Marine sources of sand for restoration work have been the norm for decades because upland sources have become diminished and/or not economic.
The FGS and the MMS have entered into a multiyear cooperative agreement (cooperative agreement # 1435-0001-30757) with the specific goal of locating and characterizing the areal extent and volume of available sands suitable for beach nourishment lying in Federal waters adjacent to State submerged lands off the northeast coast of Florida. In the second year of this study, 306 km of seismic data were collected offshore Nassau, Duval, and Flagler Counties (Florida Geological Survey, unpub. data). These data were subsequently processed, interpreted, and integrated with the data collected in the first year. A total of 52 vibracores was collected offshore Nassau and Duval Counties. Initial analysis of all vibracore data available for inclusion in FGS-MMS report infers potential reserves of up to 152 million cubic meters of restoration-quality sand offshore southern Duval County. It is anticipated that the analysis of planned vibracores to be obtained for the third year report will facilitate the quality and quantity of potential reserves offshore northern Duval County and all of Nassau County.
The fourth annual Mining Day took place at Florida's State Capitol in 2004. This event was jointly sponsored by the aggregates, phosphate, heavy-minerals, and clay industries in Florida in an attempt to bring awareness of the importance of mining to decisionmakers. Also participating were representatives with presentations from the FDEP's Bureau of Mine Reclamation and the FGS. Some 21 legislative offices were represented, and participants answered inquiries about what makes mining the "backbone of Florida's future" (Florida Limerock and Aggregate Institute, 2004).
The aggregates industry, principally through the Florida Limerock and Aggregate Institute, has been instrumental in conducting a public education program in the elementary schools of Florida communities (Florida Limerock and Aggregate Institute, 2004). This program has received the approval of the State's Department of Education science curriculum section. The program goal is to enhance the science curriculum with more mineral science and mining recognition at the fourth grade level. It is currently targeted to mining areas where the children can be educated as to the work their parents perform and importance of local resources. The program is supported by volunteers from local aggregate mining companies who will donate classroom materials and provide mentoring assistance. In 2004, four schools were engaged in Clermont and Lake County, and five schools, three gifted programs, and a county board of education were engaged in Brooksville, Hernando County. More information about this program and its success can be found on the Web site at URL http://www.flai.org.
As part of an ongoing cooperative effort through the STATEMAP component of the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (a USGS-State of Florida-FGS jointly funded program), in 2004, the FGS completed geologic mapping for the eastern portion of the USGS 1:100,000-scale Gainesville quadrangle and completed the final maps and cross sections for the same area. The completed maps and cross sections are available as part of the FGS Open-File Map Series (Evans and others, 2004).
References Cited
Balsillie, J.H., and Clark, R.R., 2001, Annotated and illustrated bibliography of marine subaqueous sand resources of Florida's Gulf of Mexico, 1942-1997: Florida
Geological Survey Special Publication No. 48, 254 p.
Evans, W.L., III, Green, R.C., Bryan, J.R., and Paul, D.T., 2004, Geologic map of the western portion of the U.S.G.S. 1:100,000-scale Gainesville Quadrangle, northern
Florida: Florida Geological Survey Open-File Map Series No. 93, 2 plates.
Florida Limerock and Aggregate Institute, 2004, Mining day at the State Capitol 2004: FLAI Flavor, Florida Limerock and Aggregate Institute, v. 3, no. 1, May-June,
4 p.
National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, 2005, 50 fascinating facts about stone, sand and gravel: National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, brochure, 6 p.
(Also available at http://www.nssgs.org).
Internet Reference Cited
Mining Safety and Health Administration, 2004, MSHA data file downloads, Preliminary data files for 2004, accessed August 21, 2005, at URL
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/data/mshadata.html.
FLORIDA-2004 11.3




TABLE 1
NONFUEL RAW MINERAL PRODUCTION IN FLORIDA1' 2
(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)
2002 2003 2004
Mineral Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value
Cement:
Masonry 591 64,000 e 674 82,900 e 763 97,600 e
Portland 3,950 297,000 e 4,190 323,000 e 5,230 432,000 e
Clays:
Common W W 94 e 1,280 e W W
Fuller's earth W W W W 234 W
Kaolin 32 3,370 31 3,250 31 3,280
Gemstones NA 1 NA 1 NA 1
Lime -- -- -- -- 24 2,090
Peat 559 11,500 373 7,440 478 9,710
Sand and gravel:
Construction 26,400 114,000 30,900 141,000 29,300 146,000
Industrial 645 8,640 624 7,270 679 8,520
Stone, crushed 97,700 573,000 97,100 587,000 105,000 675,000
Combined values of magnesium compounds,
phosphate rock, staurolite, titanium concentrates,
zirconium concentrates, and values
indicated by symbol W XX 963,000 XX 918,000 XX 945,000
Total XX 2,030,000 XX 2,070,000 XX 2,320,000
eEstimated. NA Not available. W Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data. Withheld values included in "Combined values" data. XX Not applicable. -- Zero.
1Production as measured by mine shipments, sales, or marketable production (including consumption by producers). 2Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown.




TABLE 2
FLORIDA: CRUSHED STONE SOLD OR USED, BY KIND
2002 2003 2004
Number Quantity Number Quantity Number Quantity
of (thousand Value Unit of (thousand Value Unit of (thousand Value Unit
Kind quarries metric tons) (thousands) value quarries metric tons) (thousands) value quarries metric tons) (thousands) value
Limestone 76 95,900 $561,000 $5.85 72 94,000 $567,000 $6.03 78 103,000 $663,000 $6.43
Dolomite 5 1,200 8,540 7.13 5 1,880 12,500 6.64 4 1,030 6,490 6.32
Shell 3 611 3,900 6.38 3 1,250 7,620 6.09 3 1,150 6,110 5.34
Total or average XX 97,700 573,000 5.87 XX 97,100 587,000 6.04 XX 105,000 675,000 6.42
XX Not applicable.
Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits, except unit value; may not add to totals shown. 2Includes limestone-dolomite reported with no distinction between the two.




TABLE 3a
FLORIDA: CRUSHED STONE SOLD OR USED BY PRODUCERS IN 2003, BY USE
Quantity
(thousand Value Unit
Use metric tons) (thousands) value
Construction:
Coarse aggregate (+112 inch):
Macadam W W $13.23
Riprap and jetty stone 37 $393 10.62
Filter stone W W 5.03
Other coarse aggregates 422 4,430 10.50
Total or average 459 4,830 10.51
Coarse aggregate, graded:
Concrete aggregate, coarse 1,510 11,400 7.54
Bituminous aggregate, coarse (2) (2) 4.83
Bituminous surface-treatment aggregate (2) (2) 5.51
Other graded coarse aggregates 10,100 103,000 10.28
Total or average 11,600 115,000 9.92
Fine aggregate (-3 inch):
Stone sand, concrete (3) (3) 4.83
Screening, undesignated 3,820 24,600 6.43
Other fine aggregates 8,830 68,100 7.71
Total or average 12,700 92,700 7.33
Coarse and fine aggregates:
Graded road base or subbase 14,600 52,300 3.59
Unpaved road surfacing (4) (4) 5.24
Crusher run or fill or waste 1,320 6,360 4.82
Other coarse and fine aggregates 3,020 20,900 6.90
Total or average 18,900 79,500 4.20
Other construction materials 599 2,110 3.53
Agricultural limestone (5) (5) 6.53
Chemical and metallurgical, cement manufacture (5) (5) 4.41
Other miscellaneous uses and specified uses not listed 613 2,790 4.55
Unspecified:
Reported 40,300 230,000 5.71
Estimated 9,100 46,000 5.12
Total or average 49,400 277,000 5.60
Grand total or average 97,100 587,000 6.04
W Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included with "Other coarse aggregtes." Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits, except unit value; may not add to totals shown. 2Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included with "Other graded coarse aggregates." 3Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included with "Other fine aggregates." 4Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included with "Other coarse and fine aggregates." sWithheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included in "Grand total or average." 6Reported and estimated production without a breakdown by end use.




TABLE 3b
FLORIDA: CRUSHED STONE SOLD OR USED BY PRODUCERS IN 2004, BY USE
Quantity
(thousand Value Unit
Use metric tons) (thousands) value
Construction:
Coarse aggregate (+112 inch):
Macadam W W $13.78
Riprap and jetty stone 151 $1,580 10.48
Filter stone W W 14.88
Other coarse aggregates 988 11,100 11.21
Total or average 1,140 12,700 11.11
Coarse aggregate, graded:
Concrete aggregate, coarse 3,330 25,000 7.49
Bituminous aggregate, coarse (2) (2) 4.90
Bituminous surface-treatment aggregate (2) (2) 6.06
Railroad ballast (2) (2) 5.51
Other graded coarse aggregates 14,000 154,000 10.95
Total or average 17,400 179,000 10.29
Fine aggregate (-3 inch):
Stone sand, concrete (3) (3) 5.15
Stone sand, bituminous mix or seal (3) (3) 6.06
Screening, undesignated 1,600 11,700 7.30
Other fine aggregates 13,500 102,000 7.56
Total or average 15,100 114,000 7.53
Coarse and fine aggregates:
Graded road base or subbase 17,400 73,300 4.21
Crusher run or fill or waste 1,600 6,590 4.12
Other coarse and fine aggregates 1,370 9,660 7.04
Total or average 20,400 89,600 4.39
Other construction materials 696 2,460 3.53
Agricultural limestone 401 2,820 7.03
Chemical and metallurgical, cement manufacture 4,960 22,100 4.46
Other miscellaneous uses and specified uses not listed 2 17 8.50
Unspecified:4
Reported 39,800 229,000 5.74
Estimated 5,300 24,000 4.57
Total or average 45,200 253,000 5.60
Grand total or average 105,000 675,000 6.42
W Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included with "Other coarse aggregates." Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits, except unit value; may not add to totals shown. 2Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included with "Other graded coarse aggregates." 3Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included with "Other fine aggregates." 4Reported and estimated production without a breakdown by end use.




TABLE 4a
FLORIDA: CRUSHED STONE SOLD OR USED BY PRODUCERS IN 2003, BY USE AND DISTRICT
(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)
District 1 District 2 District 3
Use Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value
Construction:
Coarse aggregate (+112 inch)2 W W W W 29 356
Coarse aggregate, graded3 W W W W 4,620 50,700
Fine aggregate (-3 inch)4 W W W W 3,250 26,900
Coarse and fine aRgregate5 329 2,810 7,100 27,900 3,800 21,600
Other construction materials
Agricultural6 W W W W W W
Chemical and metallurgical -- -- -- -- W W
Other miscellaneous uses and specified uses not listed -- -- 613 2,790 -Unspecified:8
Reported 2,220 11,100 4,120 19,300 12,800 77,200
Estimated 840 4,100 2,300 11,000 1,900 9,900
Total 3,850 25,300 14,600 66,000 28,300 196,000
District 4
Quantity Value
Construction:
Coarse aRregate (+12 inch)2 W W
Coarse aggregate, graded3 W W
Fine aggregate (-3 inch)4 9,190 62,500
Coarse and fine aggregates5 7,700 27,200
Other construction materials 599 2,110
AgriculturalChemical and metallurgical W W
Other miscellaneous uses and specified uses not listed -- -Unspecified:8
Reported 21,100 123,000
Estimated 4,100 21,000
Total 50,300 300,000
W Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included in "Total." -- Zero. Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown. 2Includes filter stone, macadam, riprap and jetty stone, and other coarse aggregates. 3Includes bituminous aggregate (coarse), bituminous surface-treatment aggregate, concrete aggregate (coarse), and other graded aggregates. 4Includes screening (undesignated), stone sand (concrete), and other fine aggregates. sIncludes crusher run (select material or fill), graded road base or subbase, unpaved road surfacing, and other coarse and fine aggregates. 6Includes agricultural limestone.
7Includes cement manufacture.
Reported and estimated production without a breakdown by end use.




TABLE 4b
FLORIDA: CRUSHED STONE SOLD OR USED BY PRODUCERS IN 2004, BY USE AND DISTRICT
(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)
District 1 District 2 District 3
Use Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value
Construction:
Coarse aggregate (+112 inch)2 W W W W 346 2,250
Coarse aggregate, graded3 W W W W 6,650 73,600
Fine aggregate (-3 inch)4 W W W W 4,810 39,900
Coarse and fine aRgregate5 1,230 6,940 9,390 42,600 1,000 4,740
Other construction materials
Agricultural6 W W W W W W
Chemical and metallurgical -- -- -- -- W W
Other miscellaneous uses and specified uses not listed -- -- 2 17 -Unspecified:8
Reported 2,270 11,300 4,690 21,700 9,480 61,000
Estimated 750 3,400 770 3,300 2,200 9,500
Total 4,880 32,000 15,600 74,700 28,200 208,000
District 4
Quantity Value
Construction:
Coarse aRregate (+12 inch)2 W W
Coarse aggregate, graded3 10,100 95,800
Fine aggregate (-3 inch)4 9,940 71,000
Coarse and fine aggregates5 8,760 35,300
Other construction materials 696 2,460
AgriculturalChemical and metallurgical W W
Other miscellaneous uses and specified uses not listed -- -Unspecified:8
Reported 23,400 135,000
Estimated 1,600 8,200
Total 56,600 360,000
W Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included in "Total." -- Zero. Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown. 2Includes filter stone, macadam, riprap and jetty stone, and other coarse aggregates. 3Includes bituminous aggregate (coarse), bituminous surface-treatment aggregate, concrete aggregate (coarse), railroad ballast, and other graded aggregates.
4Includes screening (undesignated), stone sand (bituminous mix or seal), stone sand (concrete), and other fine aggregates. sIncludes crusher run or fill or waste, graded road base or subbase, and other coarse and fine aggregates. 6Includes agricultural limestone.
7Includes cement manufacture.
Reported and estimated production without a breakdown by end use.




TABLE 5a
FLORIDA: CONSTRUCTION SAND AND GRAVEL SOLD OR USED IN 2003, BY MAJOR USE CATEGORY
Quantity
(thousand Value Unit
Use metric tons) (thousands) value
Concrete aggregate (including concrete sand) 7,180 $39,300 $5.47
Concrete products (blocks, bricks, pipe, decorative, etc.) 953 4,850 5.09
Asphaltic concrete aggregates and road base materials 1,270 5,140 4.02
Fill 3,600 6,580 1.83
Other miscellaneous uses 570 2,320 4.07
Unspecified:3
Reported 11,100 57,800 5.19
Estimated 6,200 25,000 4.04
Total or average 30,900 141,000 4.56
1Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown. 2Includes plaster and gunite sands.
3Reported and estimated production without a breakdown by end use.




TABLE 5b
FLORIDA: CONSTRUCTION SAND AND GRAVEL SOLD OR USED IN 2004, BY MAJOR USE CATEGORY
Quantity
(thousand Value Unit
Use metric tons) (thousands) value
Concrete aggregate (including concrete sand) 9,550 $62,400 $6.54
Plaster and gunite sands 951 5,380 5.65
Asphaltic concrete aggregates and road base materials 724 3,170 4.37
Fill 3,130 7,280 2.33
Other miscellaneous uses 701 4,390 6.26
Unspecified:2
Reported 7,430 34,400 4.63
Estimated 6,800 29,000 4.29
Total or average 29,300 146,000 4.99
Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits, except unit value; may not add to totals shown. 2Reported and estimated production without a breakdown by end use.




TABLE 6a
FLORIDA: CONSTRUCTION SAND AND GRAVEL SOLD OR USED IN 2003, BY USE AND DISTRICT
(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)
District 1 District 2 District 3
Use Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value
Concrete aRregate and concrete products2 470 2,040 W W W W
Asphaltic concrete aggregates and road base materials -- -- W W W W
Fill 550 1,250 1,350 1,490 1,700 3,830
Other miscellaneous uses 4 16 5,450 30,100 4,050 19,500
Unspecified:3
Reported 489 2,440 6,060 32,400 4,590 23,000
Estimated 1,800 7,100 2,800 12,000 1,000 4,200
Total 3,350 12,900 15,600 75,500 11,300 50,400
District 4
Quantity Value
Concrete aggregate and concrete products2 Asphaltic concrete aggregates and other bituminous mixtures -- -Fill
Other miscellaneous uses
Unspecified:3
Reported
Estimated 590 2,100
Total 590 2,100
W Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included in "Other miscellaneous uses." -- Zero. Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown. 2Includes plaster and gunite sands.
3Reported and estimated production without a breakdown by end use.




TABLE 6b
FLORIDA: CONSTRUCTION SAND AND GRAVEL SOLD OR USED IN 2004, BY USE AND DISTRICT
(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)
District 1 District 2 District 3
Use Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value
Concrete aRregates (includin concrete sand W W W W 3,140 18,900
Asphaltic concrete aggregates and road base materials -- -- W W W W
Fill 350 386 11 42 2,770 6,850
Other miscellaneous uses 288 1,200 7,350 49,400 1,150 5,900
Unspecified:3
Reported 173 793 1,570 7,820 5,690 25,800
Estimated 2,000 8,500 2,900 13,000 1,100 5,000
Total 2,830 10,900 11,800 69,900 13,900 62,500
District 4
Quantity Value
Concrete aggregates (including concrete sand)2 Asphaltic concrete aggregates and road base materials -- -Fill
Other miscellaneous uses
Unspecified:3
Reported
Estimated 790 3,100
Total 790 3,100
W Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included in "Other miscellaneous uses." -- Zero. Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown. 2Includes plaster and gunite sands.
3Reported and estimated production without a breakdown by end use.

PAGE 2

FLORIDA004 11.1 THE MINERAL INDUSTRY OF FLORIDA This chapter has been prepared under a Memorandum of U nderstanding between the U.S. Geological Survey and the Florida Geological Survey for collecting information on all nonfuel minerals. In 2004, Floridas nonfuel raw mineral production was valued 1 at $2.32 billion, based upon annual U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data. This was a 12.1% increase from that of 2003 2 and followed a 2% increase in value in 2 003 from that of 2002. The State ranked fourth (fifth in 2003) among the 50 States in total nonfuel mineral production value, of which the State accounted for more tha n 5% of the U.S. total. Florida continued to lead the Nation in phosphate rock mining in 2004 by producing more than six times as much as the State wit h the next highest production. Phosphate rock is produced in only four States. In terms of value, phosphate rock, crushed stone cement (portland and masonry), and construction sand and gravel continued to be the most important raw nonfuel mineral commodities produced in Florida. The dollar value of these four mineral commodities and the next highest commodity, zirconium concentrates represented about 94% of the States total nonfuel mineral value. In 2004, nearly all of Floridas nonfuel mineral commodities incr eased in value. Portland cement and crushed stone led the way with increases of $109 million and $83 million, followed by zircon ium concentrates and masonry cement, up about $15 million eac h, fullers earth, up about $9 million, and construction sand and gravel, up $5 million. Smaller yet significant increases also t ook place in phosphate rock, peat, industrial sand and gravel, and magnesium compounds. Only rutile showed a decrease, down about $3 million. In 2003, the States increase in value mainly resulted from increases in constr uction sand and gravel, up $27 million, portland cement, up about $26 million, and masonry cement and crushed stone, up about $19 million each. These increases were partly off set by decreases in the values of phosphate rock, down about $23 million, and fullers earth and zirconium concentrates, down about $9 million each. Smaller yet significant decrea ses also happened for peat, rutile, indust rial sand and gravel, and magnesium comp ounds (descending order of change) (table 1). In 2004, Florida continued to be the only State to process rutile and produce staurolite and remained first in the quantity of masonry cement, peat, and phosphate rock produced. While the State continued to be first of tw o States that produced zirconium concent rates and titanium mineral concentrates and third in crushed stone, it rose in rank to second from third in magnesium compounds, to f ifth from seventh in fullers earth, and to sixth from seventh in portland cement. Additionally, Florida produced significant quant ities of construction and industrial sand and gravel. The Florida Geological Survey 3 (FGS) provided the following narrative information. Production and other data in the following text are those reported by the FGS, based upon th at agencys own surveys and estimates. The FGS data may differ from some productio n figures reported to the USGS. Employment The Mine Safety and Health Administration (2004 4 ) reported that for calendar year 2004, 7,103 persons were employed in Floridas mining operations; this number does not take into account contractors that may be working for some operators. The cr ushed stone industry employed 3,307 workers, and the sand and gravel industry employed 2,626 workers, and the reminder of the workfor ce was employed by cement, clay, phosphate, and other operations. Exploration and Development Expansion of phosphate mining has been proposed in west-central Florida (Hardee and Manatee Counties), to the south in DeSoto County, and in northern Florida in Lafayette County, involving some 32,900 hectares (ha). While sand supplies were adequate, the same was not true for cement and gravel and crushed stone. Cement and stone aggregates continued to be imported to Florida, although not in quantities exceeding Floridas production levels. Industry standard dista nces from the source to construction sites for the Nation commonly have an average transportation trucking range of 80 kilometers (k m) based on economics (National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, 2005). In Florida, more than one-half of the crushed stone aggregate comes from the southernmost part of Florida, in particular from Dade County. The remainder of Florida, then, is experiencing progressively larger transportation distances for delivery of stone aggregates, commonly up to 240 km. This, in t urn, owing to increasing fuel prices, is elevat ing aggregate costs to the consumer. In no rthern Florida, altho ugh precise quantitie s are 1 The terms nonfuel mineral production and related values encompass variations in meaning, depending upon the mineral product s. Production may be measured by mine shipments, mineral commodity sales, or marketable produc tion (including consumption by prod ucers) as is applicable to t he individual mineral commodity. All 2004 USGS mineral production data published in this chapter ar e those available as of December 2005. All USGS Mineral Indu stry Surveys and USGS Minerals Yearbook chaptersmineral commodity, State, and countryalso can be retrieved over the Internet at URL http://minerals.usgs.gov /minerals. 2 Values, percentage calculations, and rankings for 2003 may differ from the Minerals Yearbook, Area Reports: Domestic 2003, Volu me II, owing to the revision of preliminary 2003 to final 2003 data. Data and rankings for 2004 are considered to be final and are not likely to change signif icantly. 3 James Balsillie, Coastal/Economic Geologist, authored the text of the State mineral industry information provided by the Florid a Geological Survey. 4 A reference that includes a section mark () is found in the Internet Reference Cited section.

PAGE 3

11.2 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK2004 unknown, stone aggregate is arriving by barges down the Mississippi River, and by rail and ships. In addition, a shortage in q ualified truck drivers is aggravating delivery accommodations, as is a shortage in qualified c onstruction personnel in Floridas constru ction boom. At the currently rising aggregate production levels and because of Floridas rapid population growth, it is anticipated that the States reserves might well be exhausted or in economic jeopardy in a relatively short period of time. The reasons include com munity and environmental antimining sentiments, preemption of mining rights because of zoning or deed restrictions, and/or other litig ationrelated land-use constraints. Floridas mineral resources reach beyond thos e of terrestrial origin or siting, especially for Floridas excessively broad cont inental margins in the Gulf of Mexico. FGS research on Floridas marine waters of the Gulf of Mexico has attained recognition by such agencies as the Minerals Management Service (MMS). A significant number of investigations have, during the years, been publish ed or otherwise reported concerning offshore sediments of Floridas Gulf of Mexico. Balsillie and Clark (2001, p. 1) compiled a comprehensive treatment of the subject in a regional, subregional, and Florida county-by-county basis for marine waters of Flor idas Gulf Coast. Their study was undertaken to identify what is known about potential sources of sediment for beach restoration and maintenance renourishment and, perhaps, for other task-oriented requirements. They annotated publications and reports to the e xtent that the user will have a grasp of the information and area of applicability of eac h included work. Commodities Review Industrial Minerals With the understanding that Florida is among the four most population-gaining States, with some 25,500 new residents arriving monthly, it is small wonder that basic materials to support infrastructure, commercial service-providing establishments, and ho using have, in turn, been affected. As in recent years, the construction industry has been hampered by an inadequate supply of mater ials, in particular, in shortages of aggregates, cement, and steel. In 2004, the mining and processing of basic construction materials in Florida (limestone or lime-rock aggregates whether termed gravel or crushed stone, sand, and cement) composed 55.5% of the total nonfue l valuation of all mined mineral resources or mined commodities of the State. Cement. High-purity limestone is used to manufacture the clinker for masonry and portland cement. Florida was a major producer and consumer of both types of cement in 2004. Whereas limestone is mined in a number of counties throughout the State cement clinker was produced only in Alachua, Dade, Hernando, and Suwannee Counties. Cement plants, which were just grinding plants that used imported clinker, operated in Hillsborough and Manatee Counties. Rinker Materials Corporation, based in West Palm Beach, FL, has acquired seven concrete plants and a small products distribution operat ion in the northwestern panhandle of Flor ida (Crestview, Fort Walton Beach, Pa nama City, Panama City Beach, Pensacola, and Po int Washington). Rinker officials have acquire d these to expand their operations into the States northwest where the company has not previously had an operating presence. A Rinker Corp. cement plant expansion is in the works in Hernando County, and three plants in Sumter County are in the permitting phase. Clays. Fullers earth, common clays, and kaolin were mined in several locations in Florida in 2004. Fullers earth, which was mined in Gadsden and Marion Counties, is typically used as an absorbent material; kaolin, which was mined in Putnam County, is used in the manufacture of paper and refractories. Common clays were mined mostly in Clay and Lake Counties and in small quantities from various locations throughout the State. Phosphate Rock. In recent years, the Flor ida phosphate industry was controlled by some one-half dozen companies in westcentral counties of Florida (Hardee, Hillsbo rough, Manatee, and Polk). In 2004, howev er, only three companies controlled phosp hate rock mining in Florida: CF Industries, Inc., PCS Phosphates, and Mosaic Company, which acquired mining interests of Cargill, I nc. and IMC Global, Inc. Nine phosphate rock mines were active in 2004, totaling some 122,000 ha, of which Mosaic Company controlled 62.6%, or 75,300 ha. In 2004, phosphate mining activities resulted in mineral products valued at 35.8% of Floridas total nonfuel mineral production Even so, Floridas production of phosphate rock, based on FGS estimates, accounted for approximately 75% of the U.S. production and 25% of the worlds production. FGS records indicate that some 28 million metric tons of phosphate rock was extracted from Florida mines in 2004. Of note, in January, an important source of phosphate rock mining information, the Florida Phosphate Council, was disbanded; its functions have been slated to be assumed by Mosaic Comp any, whose corporate offices are based in Minnesota. Metals Titanium and Zirconium. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. and Iluka Resources, Inc. continued to operate heavy-mineral sand mines in Baker, Bradford, Clay, and Duval Counties. Ilmenite, leucoxene, rutile, and zircon are the primary minerals of i nterest in the heavy-mineral sand deposits of this region. Ilmenite leucoxene, and rutile are the pr imary ingredients in the manufacture of titanium dioxide pigments, which, in turn, are used in the manufacture of lacquers, paint, paper, plastics, and varnish. The m ajor uses of zircon are refractories, foundry sands, and ceramic applications. Environmental Issues and Reclamation In 2004, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Mine Reclamation issued 25 nonphosphate permits, largely Environmental Resource Permits (ERP) and Wetland Resource Permits, accounting for 2, 750 ha of upland and wetland disturbance

PAGE 4

FLORIDA004 11.3 and mine expansions and modifications. Records indicate that 64% of land mined for phosphate has been reclaimed since July 1, 1975; mined phosphate totaled more than 68,800 ha with 44,500 ha having been reclaimed. Since July 1, 1975, Florida has required that all mined lands be r eclaimed, as administered by FD EPs Bureau of Mine Reclamatio n. In the past 10 years, more than $325 million has been spent on mandatory as well as other related reclamation projects. Mined land has been reclaimed for agricultural, commercial, industrial, recreational, residential purposes, and as sanctuaries for birds a nd other wildlife. Since 1980, more than 30 million trees have been planted on reclaimed lands. The mining companies have also donated thousands of hectares to State and public entities for recreation and wildlife habitat. The industry has continued to work wit h the FDEP and other State and Federal agencies to protect and to restore ecosystems and to benefit wildlife. Governmental and Related Programs The erosional impacts of hurricanes Charlie, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne on the coasts of Florida in 2004, resulted in resounding responses from Federal and State Governments. In 2004, the Florida Legislature added an emergency appropriation of $68.4 milli on to its $30 million annual expenditure level fo r beach restoration. These funds are, in part, used to cost-share with local gov ernments and with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers funding of more than $160 million for some 15 Florida beach restoration projects. Wh ile most of the funding is used in design phases, dredging and pumping activities, part of this total funding is used for conductin g sand search studies in offshore waters Marine sources of sand for restoration work have been the norm for d ecades because upland s ources have become diminished and/or not economic. The FGS and the MMS have entered into a multiyear cooperat ive agreement (cooperative agreement # 1435-0001-30757) with the spec ific goal of locating and characterizing the areal extent and volume of available sands suitable for beach nourishment lying in Fede ral waters adjacent to State submerged lands off the northeast coast of Florida. In the second year of this study, 306 km of seismic data were collected offshore Nassau, Duval, and Flagle r Counties (Florida Geological Survey, unpub. data). These data were subsequently processed, interpreted, and integrated with the data collected in the first year. A total of 52 vibracores was collected offsh ore Nassau and Duval Counties. Initial analysis of all vibracore data availabl e for inclusion in FGS-MMS report infers potential reserves of up to 152 million cubic meters of restoration-quality sand offshore southern Duval County. It is anticipated that the analysis of planne d vibracores to be obtained for the third year report will facilit ate the quality and quantity of potential reserves offshore nor thern Duval County and all of Nassau County. The fourth annual Mining Day t ook place at Floridas State Capito l in 2004. This event was join tly sponsored by the aggregates phosphate, heavy-minerals, and clay indust ries in Florida in an attempt to bring awareness of the importance of mining to decisionmakers. Also participating were representatives with presentations from the FDEPs Bureau of Mine Reclamation and the FGS. Some 21 legislative offices were represented, and particip ants answered inquiries about wh at makes mining the backbone o f Floridas future (Florida Limerock and Aggregate In stitute, 2004). The aggregates industry, principally through the Florida Limerock and Aggregate Institute, has be en instrumental in conducting a public education program in the elementary schools of Florida communities (Florida Lime rock and Aggregate In stitute, 2004). Th is program has received the approval of the States Department of Education science curriculum section. The program goal is to enhance the science curriculum with more mineral science and mining recognition at the fourth grade level. It is currently tar geted to mining areas where the children can be educat ed as to the work their parents perform an d importance of local resources. The pr ogram is supported by volunteers from local aggregate mining companies who will donate classroom materials and provide mentoring assistance. In 2004, four schools were engaged in Clermont and Lake County, and five schools, three gifted programs, and a cou nty board of education were engaged in Brooksville, Hernando County More information about this program and its success can be found on the Web site at URL http://www.flai.org. As part of an ongoing cooperative effort through the STATEMAP component of the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (a USGSState of Florida-FGS jointly funded program), in 2004, the FGS completed geologic mapping for the eastern portion of the USGS 1:100,000-scale Gainesvi lle quadrangle and completed the final maps and cross sections for the same area. The completed maps and cross sections are available as part of the FGS Open-File Map Series (Evans and others, 2004). References Cited Balsillie, J.H., and Clark, R.R., 2001, Annotated and illustrated bibl iography of marine subaqueous sand resources of Floridas Gulf of Mexico, 1942-1997: Florida Geological Survey Special Publication No. 48, 254 p. Evans, W.L., III, Green, R.C., Bryan, J.R., and Paul, D.T., 2004, Geologic map of the western portion of the U.S.G.S. 1:100,000 -scale Gainesville Quadrangle, northern Florida: Florida Geological Survey Open-File Map Series No. 93, 2 plates. Florida Limerock and Aggregate Institute, 2004, Mining day at th e State Capitol 2004: FLAI Flavor, Florida Limerock and Aggregate Institute, v. 3, no. 1, May-June, 4 p. National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, 2005, 50 fascinating facts about stone, sand and grav el: National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, brochure, 6 p. (Also available at http://www.nssgs.org). Internet Reference Cited Mining Safety and Health Administration, 2004, MSHA data file do wnloads, Preliminary data files for 2004, accessed August 21, 2 005, at URL http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/data/mshadata.html.

PAGE 5

0 TABLE 1 NONFUEL RAW MINERAL PRODUCTION IN FLORIDA1, 2 (Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars) 2002 2003 2004 Mineral Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Cement: Masonry 591 64,000 e 674 82,900 e 763 97,600 e Portland 3,950 297,000 e 4,190 323,00 0 e 5,230 432,00 e Clays: Common W W 94 e 1,280 e W W Fuller's earth W W W W 2 3 4 W Kaolin 32 3,370 31 3,250 31 3,280 Gemstones NA 1 NA 1 NA 1 Lime ----24 2,090 Peat 559 11,500 373 7,440 478 9,710 Sand and gravel: Construction 26,400 114,000 30,900 141,000 29,300 146,000 Industrial 645 8,640 624 7,270 679 8,520 Stone, crushed 97,700 573,000 97,100 587,000 105,000 675,000 Combined values of magnesium compounds, phosphate rock, staurolite, titanium concentrates, zirconium concentrates, and values indicated by symbol W XX 963,000 XX 918,000 XX 945,000 Total XX 2,030,000 XX 2,070,000 XX 2,320,000 eEstimated. NA Not available. W Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data. Withheld values included in "Combined values" data. XX Not applicable. -Zero. 1Production as measured by mine shipments, sales, or marketable production (including consumption by producers). 2Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown.

PAGE 6

0 TABLE 2 FLORIDA: CRUSHED STONE SOLD OR USED, BY KIND1 2002 2003 2004 Number Quantity Number Quantity Number Quantity of (thousand Value Unit of (thousand Value Unit of (thousand Value Unit Kind q uarries metric tons) (thousands) value q uarries metric tons) (thousands) value q uarries metric tons) (thousands) value Limestone2 76 95,900 $561,00 0 $5.85 72 94,000 $567,00 0 $6.03 78 103,00 0 $663,00 $6.43 Dolomite 5 1,200 8,540 7.13 5 1,880 12,500 6.64 4 1,030 6,490 6.32 Shell 3 611 3,900 6.38 3 1,250 7,620 6.09 3 1,150 6,110 5.34 Total or average XX 97,700 573,000 5.87 XX 97,100 587,000 6.04 XX 105,000 675,000 6.42 XX Not applicable. 1Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits, except unit value; may not add to totals shown. 2Includes limestone-dolomite reported with no distinction between the two.

PAGE 7

TABLE 3a FLORIDA: CRUSHED STONE SOLD OR USED BY PRODUCERS IN 2003, BY USE1 Quantity (thousand Value Unit Use metric tons) (thousands) value Construction: Coarse aggregate (+1 inch): Macadam W W $13.23 Riprap and jetty stone 37 $393 10.62 Filter stone W W 5.03 Other coarse aggregates 422 4,430 10.50 Total or average 459 4,830 10.51 Coarse aggregate, graded: Concrete aggregate, coarse 1,510 11,400 7.54 Bituminous aggregate, coarse (2) (2) 4.83 Bituminous surface-treatment aggregate (2) (2) 5.51 Other graded coarse aggregates 10,100 103,000 10.28 Total or average 11,600 115,000 9.92 Fine aggregate (inch): Stone sand, concrete (3) (3) 4.83 Screening, undesignated 3,820 24,600 6.43 Other fine aggregates 8,830 68,100 7.71 Total or average 12,700 92,700 7.33 Coarse and fine aggregates: Graded road base or subbase 14,600 52,300 3.59 Unpaved road surfacing (4) (4) 5.24 Crusher run or fill or waste 1,320 6,360 4.82 Other coarse and fine aggregates 3,020 20,900 6.90 Total or average 18,900 79,500 4.20 Other construction materials 599 2,110 3.53 Agricultural limestone (5) (5) 6.53 Chemical and metallurgical, cement manufacture (5) (5) 4.41 Other miscellaneous uses and specified uses not listed 613 2,790 4.55 Uns p ecified:6 Reported 40,300 230,000 5.71 Estimated 9,100 46,000 5.12 Total or average 49,400 277,000 5.60 Grand total or average 97,100 587,000 6.04 W Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included with "Other coarse aggregtes." 1Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits, except unit value; may not add to totals shown. 2Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included with "Other graded coarse aggregates." 3Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included with "Other fine aggregates." 4Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included with "Other coarse and fine aggregates." 5Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included in "Grand total or average." 6Reported and estimated production without a breakdown by end use.

PAGE 8

TABLE 3b FLORIDA: CRUSHED STONE SOLD OR USED BY PRODUCERS IN 2004, BY USE1 Quantity (thousand Value Unit Use metric tons) (thousands) value Construction: Coarse aggregate (+1 inch): Macadam W W $13.78 Riprap and jetty stone 151 $1,580 10.48 Filter stone W W 14.88 Other coarse aggregates 988 11,100 11.21 Total or average 1,140 12,700 11.11 Coarse aggregate, graded: Concrete aggregate, coarse 3,330 25,000 7.49 Bituminous aggregate, coarse (2) (2) 4.90 Bituminous surface-treatment aggregate (2) (2) 6.06 Railroad ballast (2) (2) 5.51 Other graded coarse aggregates 14,000 154,000 10.95 Total or average 17,400 179,000 10.29 Fine aggregate (inch): Stone sand, concrete (3) (3) 5.15 Stone sand, bituminous mix or seal (3) (3) 6.06 Screening, undesignated 1,600 11,700 7.30 Other fine aggregates 13,500 102,000 7.56 Total or average 15,100 114,000 7.53 Coarse and fine aggregates: Graded road base or subbase 17,400 73,300 4.21 Crusher run or fill or waste 1,600 6,590 4.12 Other coarse and fine aggregates 1,370 9,660 7.04 Total or average 20,400 89,600 4.39 Other construction materials 696 2,460 3.53 Agricultural limestone 401 2,820 7.03 Chemical and metallurgical, cement manufacture 4,960 22,100 4.46 Other miscellaneous uses and specified uses not listed 2 17 8.50 Uns p ecified:4 Reported 39,800 229,000 5.74 Estimated 5,300 24,000 4.57 Total or average 45,200 253,000 5.60 Grand total or average 105,000 675,000 6.42 W Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included with "Other coarse aggregates." 1Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits, except unit value; may not add to totals shown. 2Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included with "Other graded coarse aggregates." 3Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included with "Other fine aggregates." 4Reported and estimated production without a breakdown by end use.

PAGE 9

TABLE 4a FLORIDA: CRUSHED STONE SOLD OR USED BY PRODUCERS IN 2003, BY USE AND DISTRICT1 (Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars) District 1 District 2 District 3 Use Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Construction: Coarse a gg re g ate ( +1 inch ) 2 W W W W 29 356 Coarse a gg re g ate g rade d 3 W W W W 4,620 50,700 Fine a gg re g ate ( inch ) 4 W W W W 3,250 26,900 Coarse and fine a gg re g at e 5 329 2,810 7,100 27,900 3,800 21,600 Other construction materials ------A g ricultural6 W W W W W W Chemical and metallur g ica l 7 ----W W Other miscellaneous uses and specified uses not listed --613 2,790 --Uns p ecified:8 Reported 2,220 11,100 4,120 19,300 12,800 77,200 Estimated 840 4,100 2,300 11,000 1,900 9,900 Total 3,850 25,300 14,600 66,000 28,300 196,000 District 4 Quantity Value Construction: Coarse a gg re g ate ( +1 inch ) 2 W W Coarse a gg re g ate g rade d 3 W W Fine a gg re g ate ( inch ) 4 9,190 62,500 Coarse and fine a gg re g ates5 7,700 27,200 Other construction materials 599 2,110 A g ricultural6 --Chemical and metallur g ica l 7 W W Other miscellaneous uses and specified uses not listed --Uns p ecified:8 Reported 21,100 123,000 Estimated 4,100 21,000 Total 50,300 300,000 W Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included in "Total." -Zero. 1Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown. 2Includes filter stone, macadam, riprap and jetty stone, and other coarse aggregates. 3Includes bituminous aggregate (coarse), bituminous surface-treatment aggregate, concrete aggregate (coarse), and other graded aggregates. 4Includes screening (undesignated), stone sand (concrete), and other fine aggregates. 5Includes crusher run (select material or fill), graded road base or subbase, unpaved road surfacing, and other coarse and fine aggregates. 6Includes agricultural limestone. 7Includes cement manufacture. 8Reported and estimated production without a breakdown by end use.

PAGE 10

TABLE 4b FLORIDA: CRUSHED STONE SOLD OR USED BY PRODUCERS IN 2004, BY USE AND DISTRICT1 (Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars) District 1 District 2 District 3 Use Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Construction: Coarse a gg re g ate ( +1 inch ) 2 W W W W 346 2,250 Coarse a gg re g ate g rade d 3 W W W W 6,650 73,600 Fine a gg re g ate ( inch ) 4 W W W W 4,810 39,900 Coarse and fine a gg re g at e 5 1,230 6,940 9,390 42,600 1,000 4,740 Other construction materials ------A g ricultural6 W W W W W W Chemical and metallur g ica l 7 ----W W Other miscellaneous uses and specified uses not listed --2 17 --Uns p ecified:8 Reported 2,270 11,300 4,690 21,700 9,480 61,000 Estimated 750 3,400 770 3,300 2,200 9,500 Total 4,880 32,000 15,600 74,700 28,200 208,000 District 4 Quantity Value Construction: Coarse a gg re g ate ( +1 inch ) 2 W W Coarse a gg re g ate g rade d 3 10,100 95,800 Fine a gg re g ate ( inch ) 4 9,940 71,000 Coarse and fine a gg re g ates5 8,760 35,300 Other construction materials 696 2,460 A g ricultural6 --Chemical and metallur g ica l 7 W W Other miscellaneous uses and specified uses not listed --Uns p ecified:8 Reported 23,400 135,000 Estimated 1,600 8,200 Total 56,600 360,000 W Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included in "Total." -Zero. 1Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown. 2Includes filter stone, macadam, riprap and jetty stone, and other coarse aggregates. 3Includes bituminous aggregate (coarse), bituminous surface-treatment aggregate, concrete aggregate (coarse), railroad ballast, and other graded aggregates. 4Includes screening (undesignated), stone sand (bituminous mix or seal), stone sand (concrete), and other fine aggregates. 5Includes crusher run or fill or waste, graded road base or subbase, and other coarse and fine aggregates. 6Includes agricultural limestone. 7Includes cement manufacture. 8Reported and estimated production without a breakdown by end use.

PAGE 11

TABLE 5a FLORIDA: CONSTRUCTION SAND AND GRAVEL SOLD OR USED IN 2003, BY MAJOR USE CATEGORY1 Quantity (thousand Value Unit Use metric tons) (thousands) value Concrete aggregate (including concrete sand) 7,180 $39,300 $5.47 Concrete p roducts ( blocks bricks p i p e decorative etc. ) 2 953 4,850 5.09 Asphaltic concrete aggregates and road base materials 1,270 5,140 4.02 Fill 3,600 6,580 1.83 Other miscellaneous uses 570 2,320 4.07 Uns p ecified:3 Reported 11,100 57,800 5.19 Estimated 6,200 25,000 4.04 Total or average 30,900 141,000 4.56 1Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown. 2Includes plaster and gunite sands. 3Reported and estimated production without a breakdown by end use.

PAGE 12

TABLE 5b FLORIDA: CONSTRUCTION SAND AND GRAVEL SOLD OR USED IN 2004, BY MAJOR USE CATEGORY1 Quantity (thousand Value Unit Use metric tons) (thousands) value Concrete aggregate (including concrete sand) 9,550 $62,400 $6.54 Plaster and gunite sands 951 5,380 5.65 Asphaltic concrete aggregates and road base materials 724 3,170 4.37 Fill 3,130 7,280 2.33 Other miscellaneous uses 701 4,390 6.26 Uns p ecified:2 Reported 7,430 34,400 4.63 Estimated 6,800 29,000 4.29 Total or average 29,300 146,000 4.99 1Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits, except unit value; may not add to totals shown. 2Reported and estimated production without a breakdown by end use.

PAGE 13

TABLE 6a FLORIDA: CONSTRUCTION SAND AND GRAVEL SOLD OR USED IN 2003, BY USE AND DISTRICT1 (Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars) District 1 District 2 District 3 Use Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Concrete a gg re g ate and concrete p roduct s 2 470 2,040 W W W W Asphaltic concrete aggregates and road base materials --W W W W Fill 550 1,250 1,350 1,490 1,700 3,830 Other miscellaneous uses 4 16 5,450 30,100 4,050 19,500 Uns p ecified:3 Reported 489 2,440 6,060 32,400 4,590 23,000 Estimated 1,800 7,100 2,800 12,000 1,000 4,200 Total 3,350 12,900 15,600 75,500 11,300 50,400 District 4 Quantity Value Concrete a gg re g ate and concrete p roduct s 2 --Asphaltic concrete aggregates and other bituminous mixtures --Fill --Other miscellaneous uses --Uns p ecified:3 --Reported --Estimated 590 2,100 Total 590 2,100 W Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included in "Other miscellaneous uses." -Zero. 1Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown. 2Includes plaster and gunite sands. 3Reported and estimated production without a breakdown by end use.

PAGE 14

TABLE 6b FLORIDA: CONSTRUCTION SAND AND GRAVEL SOLD OR USED IN 2004, BY USE AND DISTRICT1 (Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars) District 1 District 2 District 3 Use Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value Concrete a gg re g ates ( includin g concrete sand ) 2 W W W W 3,140 18,900 Asphaltic concrete aggregates and road base materials --W W W W Fill 350 386 11 42 2,770 6,850 Other miscellaneous uses 288 1,200 7,350 49,400 1,150 5,900 Uns p ecified:3 Reported 173 793 1,570 7,820 5,690 25,800 Estimated 2,000 8,500 2,900 13,000 1,100 5,000 Total 2,830 10,900 11,800 69,900 13,900 62,500 District 4 Quantity Value Concrete a gg re g ates ( includin g concrete sand ) 2 --Asphaltic concrete aggregates and road base materials --Fill --Other miscellaneous uses --Uns p ecified:3 Reported --Estimated 790 3,100 Total 790 3,100 W Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included in "Other miscellaneous uses." -Zero. 1Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown. 2Includes plaster and gunite sands. 3Reported and estimated production without a breakdown by end use.