The Mineral industry of Florida

myb2-2005-fl.pdf

myb2-2005-fl.xls

* USGS
science for a changing world

2005 Minerals Yearbook

FLORIDA



























U.S. Department of the Interior August 2008
U.S. Geological Survey

















CAHOLMES JACKSONFALEGEND
ES AMBIA ROSA OKALOOS CS NASSAU
aCS CS CGADSDEN LEON HAMILTON
G SG SG WALTON ASHINGT SG Ful SG ADISON Gyp-s PJac e Capital
Pensacol SG ST JEFFE ON Ti Zr
BAYe SUWANNE Gi a City

SG LIBERTY WAKULLA TAYLOR CS OL UI i LAY S Crushed stone/sand
GULYFRNKINDFAYTTand gravel districts MgCip GIL- ALACHUA S SGG yp
CHISQ CS Ka
DIXECHRIS PUT AMPeat LAGLER
Shll(Major producing areas)
LEVYCe Cement plant
CS MARION
VOLUSIAClay Common clay
CS Crushed stone

CITRUS Clay
CS Peat SE INOLE Ful Fullers earth
Limep Gypsum plant
HERNANDO CS ISSG ORANGE CS
PASCGyp-s Synthetic gypsum
CSs SG
IS Industrial sand
ILLSBO SG
CS ma P \ B EVRD G
PINELLAS at aINDIANin
P POLK CS RIVER CS Lime Lime plant
Shell CS

Shl MANAEE P KEECHOBE ST
S l S P HAGyp Peat Shell LUCIE SG DESOTO HIGHLANDSplant

SARASOTA Shell CS IS MARTINrock
CS She
Shell GLADES PALMPeat
Shell HSRL YE SG BEACH C
CS H Yr Perlite plant
She a Fort yers SG Shell 4SG SG 4 S-ng Sulfur (natural gas)
LEEPe
BROWARD SG Construction sand
0 100 Kilometers CS SG and gravel
COLLIER Shell
ShllShell Shell
MiaiSteel Steel plant

MONROTi Titanium minerals

CS
CSVm Vermiculite plant

Zr Zirconium mineral

Concentration of
mineral operations




Source: Florida Geological SurveylU.S. Geological Survey (2005)






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 2005, Florida's nonfuel raw mineral production was valued' Exploration and Development at $2.89 billion, based upon annual U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) data. This was a $570 million or a 24.6% increase from Expansion of phosphate mining has been proposed in westthe State's total of $2.32 billion in 2004, which was up 12.1% central Florida (Hardee and Manatee Counties), to the south in from that of 2003. The State remained fourth in rank among the DeSoto County, and in northern Florida in Lafayette County, 50 States in total nonfuel mineral production value, of which the involving some 32,900 hectares (ha). While sand supplies State accounted for more than 5% of the U.S. total. were adequate, the same was not true for cement, gravel, and
Florida continued to lead the Nation in phosphate rock mining crushed stone. Cement and stone aggregates continued to be in 2005 with about 75% of U.S. production, producing more imported into Florida, although not in quantities exceeding than six times as much as the next highest producing State. Florida's production levels. Industry standard distances from Phosphate rock is produced in only four States. In terms of the source to construction sites for the Nation commonly have value, crushed stone moved ahead of phosphate rock as Florida's an average transportation trucking range of 80 kilometers leading nonfuel mineral commodity, followed by phosphate (kn) (50 miles) based on economics (National Stone, Sand
rock, cement (portland and masonry), construction sand and and Gravel Association, 2005). In Florida, more than one-half gravel, zirconium concentrates, and titanium concentrates of the crushed stone aggregate comes from the southernmost
(ilmenite and rutile), the combined values of which represented part of Florida, in Dade County. The remainder of Florida is 97% of the State's total nonfuel mineral value. experiencing progressively larger transportation distances for
In 2005, most of Florida's mined nonfuel mineral delivery of stone aggregates, commonly up to 240 km (150
commodities increased in value, nearly all of which also miles). This, in turn, owing to increasing fuel prices, is elevating
increased in unit value. The largest increases in value took place aggregate costs to the consumer. In northern Florida, although in crushed stone, cement (portland and masonry), construction precise quantities are unknown, stone aggregate is arriving sand and gravel, and phosphate rock, the unit values of each by barges down the Mississippi River and by rail and ships. commodity showing significant increases. A 9.5% increase in A shortage in qualified truck drivers is aggravating delivery crushed stone production led to a 46%, or $314 million, increase accommodations. Florida is experiencing a rapid population in the commodity's total value and close to 11% more cement growth and a shortage of qualified construction personnel production resulted in a more than 22%, or $118 million, to build housing. As aggregate production levels rise, it is
increase in its value. Construction sand and gravel production anticipated that the State's reserves might be exhausted or in rose 28%, the value of which increased by $64 million, a 44% economic jeopardy in a relatively short time. This is partly increase. Phosphate rock, with a relatively marginal increase in owing to public opposition to mining and environmental production, rose by $54 million while moderately increasing concerns, preemption of mining rights because of zoning or in unit value. These were followed by zirconium concentrates, deed restrictions, and (or) other litigation-related land-use up $9 million, and fuller's earth and rutile, up about $6 constraints.
million each. The most significant decreases in value were in Florida's mineral resources reach beyond those of terrestrial magnesium compounds and ilmenite, down about $5 million origin or siting, especially for Florida's excessively broad
and $2 million, respectively. Data on mineral production are continental margins in the Gulf of Mexico. The Florida provided in table 1. Geological Survey's research on the State's marine waters
The Florida Geological Survey2 (FGS) provided the following off the Gulf of Mexico has received recognition by the U.S. narrative information. Production and other data in the following Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service text are those reported by the FGS, based upon that agency's (MMS). A significant number of investigations have been own surveys and estimates. The FGS data may differ from some published or otherwise reported on concerning offshore production figures reported to the USGS. sediments along Florida's Gulf of Mexico coastline. Balsillie
and Clark (2001, p. 1) compiled a comprehensive treatment of

'The terms "nonfuel mineral production" and related "values" encompass cout asis.iThe s u naken toid wht is variations in meaning, depending upon the mineral products. Production may kon aout Teia source ofdedimento each atio be measured by mine shipments, mineral commodity sales, or marketable
production (including consumption by producers) as is applicable to the and maintenance renourishment. They annotated publications individual mineral commodity. and reports so that the user will have a grasp of the information
All 2005 USGS mineral production data published in this chapter are those and area of applicability of each included work. available as of December 2006. All USGS Mineral Industry Surveys and USGS
Minerals Yearbook chapters-mineral commodity, State, and country-can be
retrieved over the Internet at URL http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals.
2Steven Spencer, Professional Geologist, and James Balsillie, Coastal/
Economic Geologist, authored the text of the State mineral industry information
provided by the Florida Geological Survey.


FLORnDA-2005 11.1







Commodities Review Metals

Industrial Minerals Titanium and Zirconium.-E.I. du Pont de Nemours &
Co., Inc. and Iluka Resources, Inc. continued to operate heavyIn 2005, Florida continued to be the only State to process mineral titanium and zirconium-bearing sand mines in Baker, rutile (titanium concentrate) and to mine and produce staurolite. Bradford, Clay, and Duval Counties. Ihnenite, leucoxene, The State also remained first in the quantity of phosphate rock, rutile, and zircon are the primary minerals of interest in the masonry cement, and peat produced (listed in descending order heavy-mineral sand deposits of this region. Ilmenite, leucoxene, of value). Florida continued as first of two States that processed and rutile are the primary ingredients in the manufacture of zirconium concentrates and ilmenite (titanium concentrate), and titanium dioxide pigments, which are used in the manufacture of it rose in rank to second from third in the production of crushed lacquers, paint, paper, plastics, and varnish. The major uses of stone, to fourth from fifth in fuller's earth clay, and to fourth zircon are refractories, foundry sands, and ceramic applications. from sixth in portland cement. While the State decreased to third In December 2005, Iluka Resources, Inc. announced that from second in magnesium compounds, its mines continued to it would undertake a staged closure of its Florida/Georgia produce significant quantities of construction sand and gravel operations during 2006 (Iluka Resources Limited, 2006 1). and industrial sand and gravel.
Florida is among the States gaining the most in population, Environmental Issues, Reclamation, and Awards with some 25,500 new residents arriving monthly. Basic
materials to support infrastructure, the commercial service In 2005, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection sector, and housing have been affected. As in recent years, (EDEP), Bureau of Mine Reclamation issued 48 permits, the construction industry has been hampered by an inadequate largely Environmental Resource Permits (ERP) and Wetland supply of materials, in particular, shortages of aggregates, Resource Permits, accounting for 1,831 ha of upland and cement, and steel. In 2005, the mining and processing of basic wetland disturbance and mine expansions and modifications. construction materials in Florida (limestone or lime-rock Records indicate that 64% of land mined for phosphate has been aggregates, whether termed gravel or crushed stone, sand, and reclaimed since July 1, 1975; the land covered more than 68,800 cement) comprised about 56% of the total nonfuel valuation of ha with 44,500 ha having been reclaimed. all mined mineral resources or mined commodities of the State. Since July 1, 1975, Florida has required that all mined lands
Cement.-High-purity limestone is used to manufacture be reclaimed, as administered by EDEP's Bureau of Mine
the clinker for masonry and portland cement. Florida was Reclamation. In the past 10 years, more than $325 million has a major producer and consumer of both types of cement in been spent on mandatory as well as other related reclamation 2005. Limestone is mined in a number of counties throughout projects. Mined land has been reclaimed for agricultural, the State; cement clinker was produced only in Alachua, commercial, industrial, recreational, and residential purposes Dade, Hernando, and Suwannee Counties. Cement plants that and as sanctuaries for birds and other wildlife. Since 1980, ground imported clinker operated in Hillsborough and Manatee more than 30 million trees have been planted on reclaimed Counties. American Cement Company has applied for an air lands. The mining companies have also donated thousands of construction permit to build a dry process portland cement plant hectares to State and public entities for recreational uses and in Sumterville. The City Commission decided in a unanimous for wildlife habitat. The industry has continued to work with vote that Florida Rock Industries was allowed to double the the FDEP and other State and Federal agencies to protect and to cement-making capacity of its cement plant near Newberry. restore ecosystems and to benefit wildlife. Of the commodities Suwannee American Cement near Branford was issued a permit mined in Florida, phosphate mining is the most land intensive. to double the size of their mill. In 2005, approximately 1,800 ha (4,525 acres) of land was
Clays.-Fuller's earth, common clays, and kaolin were mined mined for phosphate. All phosphate lands disturbed from July 1, in several locations in Florida in 2005. Fuller's earth, which was 1975, have a mandatory reclamation requirement. Reclamation mined in Gadsden and Marion Counties, is typically used as an standards for phosphate lands are detailed in Chapter 62C-16 of absorbent material; kaolin, which was mined in Putnam County, the Florida Administrative Code. is used in the manufacture of paper and refractories. Common Florida Limerock & Aggregate Institute (FLAI), whose clays were mined in Clay and Lake Counties and in smaller members represent about 85% of the construction aggregates quantities from various locations throughout the State. operators in the State, was honored on March 17, 2005, as
Phosphate Rock.-CF Industries, Inc., Mosaic Fertilizer, National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association's (NSSGA) State LLC, and PCS Phosphate Co. are the only active phosphate Association of the Year for 2004 at NSSGA's annual convention mining companies in Florida. The phosphate industry is located in Las Vegas. NSSGA's President and CEO recognized with this in the counties of Hamilton, Hardee, Hillsborough, Manatee, award how highly NSSGA valued and respected the work FLAI and Polk. Mosaic closed its Kingsford mine owing to depleted has done and the Institute's leadership in promoting the interest reserves in September 2005. The closure resulted in the of the aggregates industry in Florida. FLAI was congratulated elimination of 275 jobs. For general information concerning for their successful partnership with NSSGA on numerous phosphate mining, please visit the Florida Department of workshops and seminars that have delivered excellent training Environmental Protection's Bureau of Mine Reclamation Web
site at http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/mines. 3A reference that includes a section mark Q) is found in the Internet
Reference Cited section.
11.2 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK-2005







to aggregate industry workers, as well as the work they have of potential reserves offshore of northern Duval County and all
completed with Florida legislators, governmental agencies, of Nassau County.
students, and educators in delivering the positive story of the Geologic mapping continued during 2005 with Federal production and use of aggregates as "a model for the industry." matching funding from the STATEMAP program, a component of the USGS National Cooperative Mapping Program, which is
Government Programs congressionally mandated by the National Cooperative Geologic
Mapping Program (NCGMP). The USGS distributes Federal
The erosional impacts of hurricanes Charlie, Frances, Ivan, funds through NCGMP to support geologic mapping efforts, and Jeanne on the coasts of Florida in 2004 brought resounding utilizing a competitive funding process. The NCGMP has three responses from Federal and State Governments. In 2004, the primary components: FEDMAP, which funds Federal geologic
Florida Legislature added an emergency appropriation of $68.4 mapping projects, STATEMAP, which is a matching-funds million to its $30 million annual expenditure level for beach grant program with State geological surveys, and EDMAP, a restoration. These funds are, in part, used to cost-share with matching-funds grant program with universities that has a goal local governments and with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, to train the next generation of geologic rappers. In 2005, the
funding of more than $160 million for some 15 Florida beach FGS completed geologic mapping for the eastern portion of the
restoration projects. While most of the funding is used in design USGS 1:100,000-scale Gainesville quadrangle and completed phases and dredging and pumping activities, part of this total the final maps and cross sections for the same area. The funding is used for conducting sand search studies in offshore completed maps and cross sections are available as part of the waters. Marine sources of sand for restoration work have been FGS open-file map series (Evans and others, 2004). the norm for decades because upland sources have become
diminished and (or) not economic. References Cited
The FGS and the MMS have entered into a multiyear
cooperative agreement (cooperative agreement no. 1435-0001- Balsillie, J.H., and Clark, R.R., 2001, Annotated and illustrated bibliography of
30757) with the specific goal of locating and characterizing marine subaqueous sand resources of Florida's Gulf of Mexico, 1942-1997:
30757)Florida Geological Survey Special Publication No. 48, 254 p.
the areal extent and volume of available sands suitable for Evans, W.L., 111, Green, R.C., Bryan, J.R., and Paul, D.T., 2004, Geologic
beach nourishment that lie in Federal waters adjacent to State map of the western portion of the U.S.G.S. 1:100,000-scale Gainesville
submerged lands off the northeast coast of Florida. In the Quadrangle, northern Florida: Florida Geological Survey Open-File Map
second year of this study, 306 km of seismic data were collected ies No. 93, 2 plates.
National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, 2005, 50 fascinating facts about
offshore in Nassau, Duval, and Flagler Counties. These data stone, sand and gravel: National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association,
were subsequently processed, interpreted, and integrated with brochure, 6 p. (Also available at http://www.nssga.org.)
the data collected in the first year. A total of 52 vibracores were
collected offshore in Duval and Nassau Counties. Initial analysis Internet Reference Cited of all vibracore data available for inclusion in the FGS and
MMS report indicates inferred potential reserves of up to 152 Iluka Resources Limited, 2006 (January 19), December quarter 2005 production million cubic meters of restoration-quality sand are offshore of & exploration report, accessed August 19, 2008, at URL http://www.iluka. southern Duval County. The analysis of planned vibracores for comlDefault.aspxpage=130&did=6.
the third-year report will help identify the quality and quantity


























FLORoDA-2005 11.3








TABLE 1
NONFUEL RAW MINERAL PRODUCTION IN FLORIDA1,2

(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars unless otherwise specified)

2003 2004 2005
Mineral Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value
Cement:
Masonry 674 82,900 e 763 97,600 e 902 129,000 e
Portland 4,190 323,000 e 5,230 432,000 e 5,730 519,000 e
Clays:
Common 94 e 1,280 e W W W W
Fuller's earth W W 234 W 279 W
Kaolin 31 3,250 31 3,280 29 3,510
Gemstones NA 1 NA 1 NA 1
Lime -- -- 24 2,090 23 2,940
Peat 373 7,440 478 9,710 464 9,450
Sand and gravel:
Construction 30,900 141,000 29,300 146,000 37,500 210,000
Industrial 624 7,270 679 8,520 715 9,410
Stone, crushed 97,100 587,000 105,0003 680,000 r,3 115,0003 994,0003
Combined values of magnesium compounds,
phosphate rock, staurolite, stone (crushed
sandstone [2004-05]), titanium concentrates,
zirconium concentrates, and values indicated by
symbol W XX 918,000 XX 945,000 XX 1,010,000
Total XX 2,070,000 XX 2,320,000 r XX 2,890,000
eEstimated. 'Revised. NA Not available. W Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data. Withheld values included in "Combined value" data. XX Not applicable. -- Zero.
Production 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. 3Excludes certain stones; kind and value included with "Combined values" data.











TABLE 2
FLORIDA: CRUSHED STONE SOLD OR USED, BY KIND

2004 2005
Number Quantity Number Quantity
of (thousand Value of (thousand Value
Kind quarries metric tons) (thousands) quarries metric tons) (thousands)
Limestone 77 r 102,000 r $666,000 84 110,000 $963,000
Dolomite 4 1,030 7,260 r 4 982 7,370
Shell 3 1,150 6,110 4 4,040 24,000
Total XX 105,000 680,000 r XX 115,000 994,000
rRevised. XX Not applicable.
Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown. 2Includes limestone-dolomite reported with no distinction between the two.


















11.4 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK-2005








TABLE 3
FLORIDA: CRUSHED STONE SOLD OR USED BY PRODUCERS IN 2005, BY USE

(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)

Use Quantity Value
Construction:
Coarse aggregate (+112 inch):
Macadam W W
Riprap and jetty stone 51 927
Filter stone 119 1,910
Other coarse aggregate 706 6,770
Total 876 9,600
Coarse aggregate, graded:
Concrete aggregate, coarse 2,620 41,400
Bituminous aggregate, coarse (2) (2)
Other graded coarse aggregate 13,600 185,000
Total 16,200 226,000
Fine aggregate (-3 inch):
Stone sand, concrete (3) (3)
Stone sand, bituminous mix or seal (3) (3)
Screening, undesignated 1,410 17,600
Other fine aggregate 9,800 104,000
Total 12,400 128,000
Coarse and fine aggregates:
Graded road base or subbase 14,000 66,200
Crusher run or fill or waste 2,040 7,920
Other coarse and fine aggregates 10,700 101,000
Total 26,700 175,000
Other construction materials 2,650 12,700
Agricultural:
Agricultural limestone 620 5,080
Other agricultural uses 54 240
Total 674 5,320
Chemical and metallurgical:
Cement manufacture 6,150 18,200
Chemical stone (3) (3)
Sulfur oxide removal (3) (3)
Total 6,950 29,300
Special, other fillers or extenders (4) (4)
Other miscellaneous uses and specified uses not listed 84 798
Unspecified:5
Reported 41,300 348,000
Estimated 6,900 60,000
Total 48,200 408,000
Grand total 115,000 994,000
W Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included with "Other coarse aggregate." Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown. 2Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included with "Other graded coarse aggregate." 3Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included in "Total." 4Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included with "Unspecified: Reported." sReported and estimated production without a breakdown by end use.





















FLORIDA-2005 11.5








TABLE 4
FLORIDA: CRUSHED STONE SOLD OR USED BY PRODUCERS IN 2005, 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 (+1'2 inch) W W 18 363 W W
Coarse aggregate, graded3 W W W W 5,730 87,300
Fine aggregate (-3 inch)4 W W W W 3,250 38,600
Coarse and fine aggregates5 476 4,610 9,690 44,200 3,590 21,600
Other construction materials 272 2,000 -- -- 2,380 10,700

Agricultural 378 2,730 -- -- 296 2,590
Chemical and metallurgical7 -- -- W W W W
Special8 -- -- -- -- W W
Other miscellaneous uses and specified uses not listed -- -- -- -- 84 798
Unspecified:9
Reported 2,580 18,500 3,800 30,000 13,500 115,000
Estimated 1,200 11,000 1,500 13,000 1,100 9,700
Total 5,770 53,800 17,900 110,000 33,500 302,000
District 4 Unspecified districts
Quantity Value Quantity Value
Construction:
Coarse aggregate (+112 inch) W W -- -Coarse aggregate, graded3 9,500 123,000 -- -Fine aggregate (-3 inch)4 W W -- -Coarse and fine aggregates5 13,000 105,000 -- -Other construction materials -- -Agricultural- -- -Chemical and metallurgical7 W W 554 6,180

Special- -- -Other miscellaneous uses and specified uses not listed -- -- -- -Unspecified:9
Reported 21,100 183,000 -- -Estimated 3,000 26,000 -- -Total 57,000 522,000 554 6,180
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 aggregate.
3Includes bituminous aggregate (coarse), concrete aggregate (coarse), and other graded aggregate.
4Includes screening (undesignated), stone sand (bituminous mix or seal), stone sand (concrete), and other fine aggregate.
sIncludes crusher run or fill or waste, graded road base or subbase, and other coarse and fine aggregates.
Includes agricultural limestone and other agricultural uses.
7Includes cement manufacture, chemical stone, and sulfur oxide removal.
8Includes other fillers or extenders.
9Reported and estimated production without a breakdown by end use.
























11.6 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK-2005








TABLE 5
FLORIDA: CONSTRUCTION SAND AND GRAVEL SOLD OR USED IN 2005, BY MAJOR USE CATEGORY

Quantity
(thousand Value Unit
Use metric tons) (thousands) value
Concrete aggregate (including concrete sand) 11,500 $79,400 $6.92
Plaster and gunite sands 1,370 8,350 6.08
Asphaltic concrete aggregates and road base materials 2,290 20,000 8.73
Fill 6,370 20,100 3.15
Other miscellaneous uses 2,420 9,500 3.93
Unspecified:
Reported 7,140 38,200 5.35
Estimated 6,410 34,300 5.35
Total or average 37,500 210,000 5.60
Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown. 2Reported and estimated production without a breakdown by end use.






TABLE 6
FLORIDA: CONSTRUCTION SAND AND GRAVEL SOLD OR USED IN 2005, BY USE AND DISTRICT1,2

(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)

District 1 Districts 2 and 3 District 4
Use Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value
Concrete aggregates (including concrete sand)3 660 2,550 12,200 85,200 -Asphaltic concrete aggregates and road base materials -- -- 2,290 20,000 -- -Fill 659 855 5,180 16,100 531 3,070
Other miscellaneous uses -- -- 2,420 9,500 -- -Unspecified:4
Reported -- -- 7,140 38,200 -- -Estimated 2,270 12,200 4,050 21,600 92 494
Total 3,590 15,600 33,300 191,000 623 3,570
-- Zero.
Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown.
2Districts 2 and 3 are combined to avoid disclosing company proprietary data.
3Includes plaster and gunite sands.
4Reported and estimated production without a breakdown by end use.































FLORIDA-2005 11.7

PAGE 1

2005 Minerals Yearbook FLORIDAU.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey August 2008

PAGE 2

y t i CS L O B M Y S L A R E N I M ) s a e r a g n i c u d o r p r o j a M (d n a s / e n o t s d e h s u r C s t c i r t s i d l e v a r g d n a y r a d n u o b y t n u o C h t r a e s r e l l u F d n a s l a i r t s u d n I S I m plant u s p y G s p y G y a l c n o m m o C m u s p y g c i t e h t n y S e n o t s d e h s u r C1t n a l p t n e m e C S C l a t i p a CD N E G E Lm e C y a l C l u F p y GG S l l e h S D R A V E R B G S o d n a l r O E L O N I M E S A I S U L O V A L O E C S O S C E G N A R O R E L G A L F l l e h S S N H O J p y G T S l l e h S t a e P G S G S S I t a e P y a l C E KA L2a p m a T G S H G U O R O B S L L I H m e C S C S I S C O C S A P R E T M U S S C m e C S U R T I C S C S C N O I R A M S C Y V E L G S l u F S C S If o n o i t a r t n e c n o C s n o i t a r e p o l a r e n i m m mineral u i n o c r i Z r Z t n a l p l e e t S s l a r e n i m m u i n a t i T t n a l p e t i l u c i m r e V d n a s n o i t c u r t s n o C l e v a r g d n a g n S ) s a g l a r u t a n ( r u f l u S l l e h S i T m V G S ll e h S l e e t S m u i s e n g a M t n a l p d n u o p m o c k c o r e t a h p s o h P e m i L t n a l p e m i L t n a l p e t i l r e P r e P t a e P t a e P P p C g MS C S C N I T R A M M L A P H C A E B T S E I C U Ln i l o a K a Kr e P m e C G S E D A D D R A W O R B4r e P i m a i M S C G S R E V I R S C N A I D N I E E B O H C E E K O S C E O R N O M R E I L L O C G S Y R D N E H G S S I S D N A L H G I H S C S E D A L G S C t a e P S C S C E T T O L R A H C0E E L K L O P P S C G S P E E D R A H S C p y G O T O S E D t a e P m V p y G E E T A N A M m e C G S S C A T O S A R A S3l l e h Ss r e t e m o l i K 0 0 1l l e h S S A L L E N I P G S a K M A N T U P S I A U H C A L A S Cm e Cr e P e l l i v n o s k c a J p y GA D I R O L FU A S S A N A T N A S A S O R g n S S E M L O H N O S K C A J N O T L A W N O T G N I H S A W N O S I D A M A I B M A C S E A S O O L A K O N E D S D A G N O E L N O T L I M A H G S y a l C i T D R OF L O C A I B M U Y A L C L A V U D l e e t S N O I N U D A R B i T R E K A B r Z T S I R H C L I G E T T E Y A F A L E E N N A W U S N O S R E F F E J R O L Y A T A L L U K A W r e PS CY T R E B I L Y A B N U O H L A C1N I L K N A R F F L U G p C g M G S a l o c a s n e Pr e PO D N A N R E H S C E I X I D P p-s y G S Ce e s s a h a l l a TG S l u F G S G S G S S C G S G S G S G S S Is r e y M t r o FS C m e C l l e h S l l e h S l l e h S l l e h S l l e h S l l e h S l l e h S S C l l e h S l l e h S l l e h S l l e h S l l e h S G S r Z r Z r Z i T i TSource: Florida Geological Survey/U.S. Geological Survey (2005) CS CS CS CS SG e m i L CS P SG S C G S CS P

PAGE 3

FLORIDA—2005 11.1THE MINERAL INDUSTRY OF FLORIDAThis 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 2005, Florida’s nonfuel raw mineral production was valued1 at $2.89 billion, based upon annual U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data. This was a $570 million or a 24.6% increase from the State’s total of $2.32 billion in 2004, which was up 12.1% from that of 2003. The State remained fourth in rank 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 2005 with about 75% of U.S. production, producing more than six times as much as the next highest producing State. Phosphate rock is produced in only four States. In terms of value, crushed stone moved ahead of phosphate rock as Florida’s leading nonfuel mineral commodity, followed by phosphate rock, cement (portland and masonry), construction sand and gravel, zirconium concentrates, and titanium concentrates (ilmenite and rutile), the combined values of which represented 97% of the State’s total nonfuel mineral value. In 2005, most of Florida’s mined nonfuel mineral commodities increased in value, nearly all of which also increased in unit value. The largest increases in value took place in crushed stone, cement (portland and masonry), construction sand and gravel, and phosphate rock, the unit values of each commodity showing signi cant increases. A 9.5% increase in crushed stone production led to a 46%, or $314 million, increase in the commodity’s total value and close to 11% more cement production resulted in a more than 22%, or $118 million, increase in its value. Construction sand and gravel production rose 28%, the value of which increased by $64 million, a 44% increase. Phosphate rock, with a relatively marginal increase in production, rose by $54 million while moderately increasing in unit value. These were followed by zirconium concentrates, up $9 million, and fuller’s earth and rutile, up about $6 million each. The most signi cant decreases in value were in magnesium compounds and ilmenite, down about $5 million and $2 million, respectively. Data on mineral production are provided in table 1. The Florida Geological Survey2 (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 gures reported to the USGS.1The 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 2005 USGS mineral production data published in this chapter are those available as of December 2006. All USGS Mineral Industry Surveys and USGS Minerals Yearbook chapters—mineral commodity, State, and country—can be retrieved over the Internet at URL http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals.2Steven Spencer, Professional Geologist, and James Balsillie, Coastal/ Economic Geologist, authored the text of the State mineral industry information provided by the Florida Geological Survey.Exploration and Development Expansion of phosphate mining has been proposed in westcentral 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, gravel, and crushed stone. Cement and stone aggregates continued to be imported into 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) (50 miles) 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 Dade County. The remainder of Florida is experiencing progressively larger transportation distances for delivery of stone aggregates, commonly up to 240 km (150 miles). This, in turn, owing to increasing fuel prices, is elevating aggregate costs to the consumer. In northern Florida, although precise quantities are unknown, stone aggregate is arriving by barges down the Mississippi River and by rail and ships. A shortage in quali ed truck drivers is aggravating delivery accommodations. Florida is experiencing a rapid population growth and a shortage of quali ed construction personnel to build housing. As aggregate production levels rise, it is anticipated that the State’s reserves might be exhausted or in economic jeopardy in a relatively short time. This is partly owing to public opposition to mining and environmental concerns, preemption of mining rights because of zoning or deed restrictions, and (or) other litigation-related 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. The Florida Geological Survey’s research on the State’s marine waters off the Gulf of Mexico has received recognition by the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Minerals Management Service (MMS). A signi cant number of investigations have been published or otherwise reported on concerning offshore sediments along Florida’s Gulf of Mexico coastline. Balsillie and Clark (2001, p. 1) compiled a comprehensive treatment of the subject on a regional, subregional, and Florida county-bycounty basis. Their study was undertaken to identify what is known about potential sources of sediment for beach restoration and maintenance renourishment. They annotated publications and reports so that the user will have a grasp of the information and area of applicability of each included work.

PAGE 4

11.2 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2005Commodities Review Industrial Minerals In 2005, Florida continued to be the only State to process rutile (titanium concentrate) and to mine and produce staurolite. The State also remained rst in the quantity of phosphate rock, masonry cement, and peat produced (listed in descending order of value). Florida continued as rst of two States that processed zirconium concentrates and ilmenite (titanium concentrate), and it rose in rank to second from third in the production of crushed stone, to fourth from fth in fuller’s earth clay, and to fourth from sixth in portland cement. While the State decreased to third from second in magnesium compounds, its mines continued to produce signi cant quantities of construction sand and gravel and industrial sand and gravel. Florida is among the States gaining the most in population, with some 25,500 new residents arriving monthly. Basic materials to support infrastructure, the commercial service sector, and housing have been affected. As in recent years, the construction industry has been hampered by an inadequate supply of materials, in particular, shortages of aggregates, cement, and steel. In 2005, the mining and processing of basic construction materials in Florida (limestone or lime-rock aggregates, whether termed gravel or crushed stone, sand, and cement) comprised about 56% 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 2005. 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 that ground imported clinker operated in Hillsborough and Manatee Counties. American Cement Company has applied for an air construction permit to build a dry process portland cement plant in Sumterville. The City Commission decided in a unanimous vote that Florida Rock Industries was allowed to double the cement-making capacity of its cement plant near Newberry. Suwannee American Cement near Branford was issued a permit to double the size of their mill. Clays. —Fuller’s earth, common clays, and kaolin were mined in several locations in Florida in 2005. 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 in Clay and Lake Counties and in smaller quantities from various locations throughout the State. Phosphate Rock. —CF Industries, Inc., Mosaic Fertilizer, LLC, and PCS Phosphate Co. are the only active phosphate mining companies in Florida. The phosphate industry is located in the counties of Hamilton, Hardee, Hillsborough, Manatee, and Polk. Mosaic closed its Kingsford mine owing to depleted reserves in September 2005. The closure resulted in the elimination of 275 jobs. For general information concerning phosphate mining, please visit the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s Bureau of Mine Reclamation Web site at http://www.dep.state. .us/water/mines. Metals Titanium and Zirconium. —E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc. and Iluka Resources, Inc. continued to operate heavymineral titanium and zirconium-bearing 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 are used in the manufacture of lacquers, paint, paper, plastics, and varnish. The major uses of zircon are refractories, foundry sands, and ceramic applications. In December 2005, Iluka Resources, Inc. announced that it would undertake a staged closure of its Florida/Georgia operations during 2006 (Iluka Resources Limited, 2006§3). Environmental Issues, Reclamation, and Awards In 2005, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Bureau of Mine Reclamation issued 48 permits, largely Environmental Resource Permits (ERP) and Wetland Resource Permits, accounting for 1,831 ha of upland and wetland disturbance and mine expansions and modi cations. Records indicate that 64% of land mined for phosphate has been reclaimed since July 1, 1975; the land covered 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, and 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 recreational uses and for 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 bene t wildlife. Of the commodities mined in Florida, phosphate mining is the most land intensive. In 2005, approximately 1,800 ha (4,525 acres) of land was mined for phosphate. All phosphate lands disturbed from July 1, 1975, have a mandatory reclamation requirement. Reclamation standards for phosphate lands are detailed in Chapter 62C-16 of the Florida Administrative Code. Florida Limerock & Aggregate Institute (FLAI), whose members represent about 85% of the construction aggregates operators in the State, was honored on March 17, 2005, as National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association’s (NSSGA) State Association of the Year for 2004 at NSSGA’s annual convention in Las Vegas. NSSGA’s President and CEO recognized with this award how highly NSSGA valued and respected the work FLAI has done and the Institute’s leadership in promoting the interest of the aggregates industry in Florida. FLAI was congratulated for their successful partnership with NSSGA on numerous workshops and seminars that have delivered excellent training 3A reference that includes a section mark (§) is found in the Internet Reference Cited section.

PAGE 5

FLORIDA—2005 11.3to aggregate industry workers, as well as the work they have completed with Florida legislators, governmental agencies, students, and educators in delivering the positive story of the production and use of aggregates as “a model for the industry.” Government Programs The erosional impacts of hurricanes Charlie, Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne on the coasts of Florida in 2004 brought 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 and 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 no. 1435-000130757) with the speci c goal of locating and characterizing the areal extent and volume of available sands suitable for beach nourishment that lie 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 in Nassau, Duval, and Flagler Counties. These data were subsequently processed, interpreted, and integrated with the data collected in the rst year. A total of 52 vibracores were collected offshore in Duval and Nassau Counties. Initial analysis of all vibracore data available for inclusion in the FGS and MMS report indicates inferred potential reserves of up to 152 million cubic meters of restoration-quality sand are offshore of southern Duval County. The analysis of planned vibracores for the third-year report will help identify the quality and quantity of potential reserves offshore of northern Duval County and all of Nassau County. Geologic mapping continued during 2005 with Federal matching funding from the STATEMAP program, a component of the USGS National Cooperative Mapping Program, which is congressionally mandated by the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP). The USGS distributes Federal funds through NCGMP to support geologic mapping efforts, utilizing a competitive funding process. The NCGMP has three primary components: FEDMAP, which funds Federal geologic mapping projects, STATEMAP, which is a matching-funds grant program with State geological surveys, and EDMAP, a matching-funds grant program with universities that has a goal to train the next generation of geologic mappers. In 2005, the FGS completed geologic mapping for the eastern portion of the USGS 1:100,000-scale Gainesville quadrangle and completed the nal maps and cross sections for the same area. The completed maps and cross sections are available as part of the FGS openle map series (Evans and others, 2004). References CitedBalsillie, 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. 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.nssga.org.)Internet Reference CitedIluka Resources Limited, 2006 (January 19), December quarter 2005 production & exploration report, accessed August 19, 2008, at URL http://www.iluka. com/Default.aspx?page=130&did=6.

PAGE 6

11.4 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2005 QuantityValueQuantityValueQuantityValue Cement: Masonry67482,900e76397,600e902129,00 0 ePortland4,190323,000e5,230432,00 0 e5,730519,00 0 eClays: Common94e1,280eWWWW Fuller's earthWW234W279W Kaolin313,250313,280293,510 GemstonesNA1NA1NA1 Lime----242,090232,940 Peat3737,4404789,7104649,450 Sand and gravel: Construction30,900141,00029,300146,00037,500210,000 Industrial6247,2706798,5207159,410 Stone, crushed97,100587,000105,0003680,00 0 r, 3115,00 0 3994,00 0 3Combined values of magnesium compounds, phosphate rock, staurolite, stone (crushed sandstone [2004-05]), titanium concentrates, zirconium concentrates, and values indicated by symbol WXX918,000XX945,000XX1,010,000 TotalXX2,070,000XX2,320,000rXX2,890,00 0 TABLE 1 NONFUEL RAW MINERAL PRODUCTION IN FLORIDA1, 2(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars unless otherwise specified)3Excludes certain stones; kind and value included with "Combined values" data. 200320042005 MineraleEstimated.rRevised. NA Not available. W Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data. Withheld values included in "Combined val ue" data.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. XX Not applicable. -Zero. NumberQuantityNumberQuantity of(thousandValueof(thousandValue Kindquarriesmetric tons)(thousands)quarriesmetric tons)(thousands) Limestone277r102,00 0 r$666,00 0 r84110,00 0 $963,00 0 Dolomite 41,0307,260r49827,370 Shell31,1506,11044,04024,000 Total XX105,000680,000rXX115,00 0 994,00 0 rRevised. XX Not applicable.1Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown.2Includes limestone-dolomite reported with no distinction between the two. TABLE 2 FLORIDA: CRUSHED STONE SOLD OR USED, BY KIND120042005

PAGE 7

FLORIDA—2005 11.5 UseQuantityValue Construction: Coarse aggregate (+1 inch): MacadamWW Riprap and jetty stone51927 Filter stone1191,910 Other coarse aggregate7066,770 Total 8769,600 Coarse aggregate, graded: Concrete aggregate, coarse2,62041,400 Bituminous aggregate, coarse(2)(2)Other graded coarse aggregate13,600185,000 Total 16,200226,000 Fine aggregate (inch): Stone sand, concrete(3)(3)Stone sand, bituminous mix or seal(3)(3)Screening, undesignated1,41017,600 Other fine aggregate9,800104,000 Total 12,400128,000 Coarse and fine aggregates: Graded road base or subbase14,00066,200 Crusher run or fill or waste2,0407,920 Other coarse and fine aggregates10,700101,000 Total 26,700175,000 Other construction materials2,65012,700 Agricultural: Agricultural limestone6205,080 Other agricultural uses54240 Total 6745,320 Chemical and metallurgical: Cement manufacture6,15018,200 Chemical stone(3)(3)Sulfur oxide removal(3)(3)Total 6,95029,300 Special, other fillers or extenders(4)(4)Other miscellaneous uses and specified uses not listed84798 Uns p ecified:5Reported41,300348,000 Estimated6,90060,000 Total 48,200408,000 Grand total 115,000994,0003Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included in "Total."4Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included with "Unspecified: Reported."5Reported and estimated production without a breakdown by end use. W Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included with "Other coarse aggregate."1Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown.2Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included with "Other graded coarse aggregate." TABLE 3 FLORIDA: CRUSHED STONE SOLD OR USED BY PRODUCERS IN 2005, BY USE1(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)

PAGE 8

11.6 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2005 UseQuantityValueQuantityValueQuantityValue Construction: Coarse a gg re g ate (+1 inch)2WW18363WW Coarse a gg re g ate, g rade d 3WWWW5,73087,300 Fine a gg re g ate (inch)4WWWW3,25038,600 Coarse and fine a gg re g ates54764,6109,69044,2003,59021,600 Other construction materials2722,000----2,38010,700 A g ricultural63782,730----2962,590 Chemical and metallur g ica l 7----WWWW S p ecial8--------WW Other miscellaneous uses and specified uses not listed--------84798 Uns p ecified:9Reported2,58018,5003,80030,00013,500115,000 Estimated1,20011,0001,50013,0001,1009,700 Total5,77053,80017,900110,00033,500302,000 Unspecified districts QuantityValueQuantityValue Construction: Coarse a gg re g ate (+1 inch)2WW---Coarse a gg re g ate, g rade d 39,500123,000---Fine a gg re g ate (inch)4WW---Coarse and fine a gg re g ates513,000105,000---Other construction materials-------A g ricultural6-------Chemical and metallur g ica l 7WW5546,180 S p ecial8-------Other miscellaneous uses and specified uses not listed-------Uns p ecified:9Reported21,100183,000---Estimated3,00026,000---Total57,000522,0005546,1807Includes cement manufacture, chemical stone, and sulfur oxide removal.8Includes other fillers or extenders.9Reported and estimated production without a breakdown by end use.3Includes bituminous aggregate (coarse), concrete aggregate (coarse), and other graded aggregate.4Includes screening (undesignated), stone sand (bituminous mix or seal), stone sand (concrete), and other fine aggregate.5Includes crusher run or fill or waste, graded road base or subbase, and other coarse and fine aggregates.6Includes agricultural limestone and other agricultural uses. District 4 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 aggregate. District 1District 2District 3 TABLE 4 FLORIDA: CRUSHED STONE SOLD OR USED BY PRODUCERS IN 2005, BY USE AND DISTRICT1(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)

PAGE 9

FLORIDA—2005 11.7 Quantity (thousand Value Unit Usemetric tons)(thousands)value Concrete aggregate (including concrete sand)11,500$79,400$6.92 Plaster and gunite sands1,3708,3506.08 Asphaltic concrete aggregates and road base materials2,29020,0008.73 Fill6,37020,1003.15 Other miscellaneous uses2,4209,5003.93 Uns p ecified:2Reported7,14038,2005.35 Estimated6,41034,3005.35 Total or average37,500210,0005.601Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown.2Reported and estimated production without a breakdown by end use. TABLE 5 FLORIDA: CONSTRUCTION SAND AND GRAVEL SOLD OR USED IN 2005, BY MAJOR USE CATEGORY1District 1Districts 2 and 3District 4 UseQuantity ValueQuantity ValueQuantity Value Concrete a gg re g ates (includin g concrete sand ) 36602,55012,20085,200 --Asphaltic concrete aggregates and road base materials ---2,29020,000 --Fill6598555,18016,1005313,070 Other miscellaneous uses ---2,4209,500 --Uns p ecified:4 Reported ---7,14038,200 --Estimated2,27012,2004,05021,60092494 Total3,59015,60033,300191,0006233,5703Includes plaster and gunite sands.4Reported and estimated production without a breakdown by end use. -Zero.1Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown.2Districts 2 and 3 are combined to avoid disclosing company proprietary data. TABLE 6 FLORIDA: CONSTRUCTION SAND AND GRAVEL SOLD OR USED IN 2005, BY USE AND DISTRICT1, 2(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)