The Mineral industry of Florida

myb2-2006-fl ( .pdf )

myb2-2006-fl ( .xls )

SEUSGS
science for a changing world

2006 Minerals Yearbook

FLORIDA


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


April 2009











FLORIDA


ESCAMBIA


LEGEND


County boundary
Capital
City
Crushed stone/sand and
gravel district boundary


MINERAL SYMBOLS
(Major producing areas)


Cem Cement plant
Clay Common clay
CS Crushed stone
Ful Fuller's earth
Gyp Gypsum plant
Gyp-s Synthetic gypsum


IS
Ka
Lime
MgCp
P
Peat
Per
S-ng
SG
Shell
Steel
Ti
Vm
Zr
,- -- "


Industrial sand
Kaolin
Lime plant
Magnesium compounds
Phosphate rock
Peat
Perlite
Sulfur (natural gas)
Construction sand and gravel
Shell
Steel plant
Titanium minerals
Vermiculite plant
Zircon
Concentration of mineral
operations


PINELLAS 1-1f I

Shell. MANATEE P
em 3
is

SARASOTA
CH


Shell



0 25 50 100 Kilometers
I I area projection
Albers equal area projection


Source: Florida Geological Survey/U.S. Geological Survey (2006).








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 2006, Florida's nonfuel raw mineral production1 was valued
at $3.22 billion, based upon annual U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) data. This was a $310 million, or a 10.7%, increase
from the State's total of $2.91 billion in 2005, which was up
$590 million, or more than 25%, from that of 2004. The State
was fifth in rank (fourth in 2005) among the 50 States in total
nonfuel mineral production value, of which the State accounted
for nearly 5% of the U.S. total.
Florida continued to lead the Nation in phosphate rock mining
in 2006 with more than 65% of U.S. production, producing
more than four times as much as the next highest producing
State. Phosphate rock is produced in only four States. In terms
of value, crushed stone continued as Florida's leading nonfuel
mineral commodity, followed by phosphate rock, cement
(portland and masonry), construction sand and gravel, zirconium
concentrates, and industrial sand and gravel, the combined
values of which represented 97% of the State's total nonfuel
mineral value.
In 2006, increases in the values of crushed stone and cement,
up by $330 million and $100 million, respectively, led Florida's
increase in value for the year. Also up substantially were the
value of construction sand and gravel, by $56 million, and
the value of industrial sand and gravel, by $38 million. The
unit values of each of the four nonfuel mineral commodities
significantly increased, except industrial sand and gravel, which
showed a small increase. A relatively small yet significant
increase took place in the value of zircon concentrates in spite
of a 15% decrease in the commodity's production. The most
significant decrease in value was in phosphate rock, down by
more than $150 million. Decreases that took place in ilmenite,
fuller's earth, rutile, magnesium compounds, and lime were
significantly less.
In 2006, Florida continued to be the only State to produce
rutile (a titanium mineral) and staurolite, and it remained first
in the quantity of phosphate rock, masonry cement, and peat
(listed in descending order of value). While Florida continued
to be 1st of two States that produced zircon concentrates, 2d in
the production of crushed stone, 3d in magnesium compounds,
and 4th in portland cement, it rose in rank to 10th from 11th in
production of construction sand and gravel. The State decreased
to second from first of two States that produce ilmenite (a
titanium mineral concentrate) and to fifth from fourth in the
production of fuller's earth clay.



'The terms nonfuell 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 2006 USGS mineral production data published in this chapter are those
available as of March 2008. 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.
FLORIDA-2006


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 figures reported to the USGS.

Exploration and Development

Florida's phosphate companies own hundreds of thousands
of hectares (ha) of property, but only about 1,500 ha was mined
in 2006. In 2006, 10 new permits were issued that added 980
ha for mining phosphate. In May 2006, The Mosaic Company,
Florida's leading phosphate producer, announced indefinite
closure of three of its facilities. These included the Fort Green
phosphate mine, the Green Bay diammonium phosphate and
monoammonium phosphate concentrates plant, and the South
Pierce granular triple superphosphate concentrates plant (Mosaic
Company, The, 2006a).
In 2006, the State consumed an estimated 130 million metric
tons (Mt) of crushed stone aggregate. Approximately 46% of
the crushed stone aggregate produced in the State was derived
from the Lake Belt region of Dade County (Lampl-Herbert
Consultants, 2007, p. i). Florida continued to experience
progressively larger transportation distances for delivery of
stone aggregates which, coupled with increasing fuel prices,
elevated aggregate costs to the consumer. Owing to rising
aggregate production levels and the State's rapid population
growth, it was anticipated that the State's reserves might well
be exhausted or in economic jeopardy in a relatively short
period of time. Several factors were contributing to the concerns
regarding remaining reserves. These included community and
environmental antimining sentiments, preemption of mining
rights because of zoning or deed restrictions, litigation-related
land-use constraints, and urban sprawl over potential reserves.
Florida's mineral resources reach beyond those of terrestrial
origin, especially for Florida's excessively broad continental
margins in the Gulf of Mexico. FGS research on sand resources
in Florida's marine waters of the Gulf of Mexico has attained
recognition by such agencies as the U.S. Department of the
Interior's Minerals Management Service.

Commodity Review

Industrial Minerals

Florida continued to rank among the top ten fastest growing
States (9th), with the second leading gain in population as
nearly 26,800 new residents were arriving monthly (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2006). Owing to Florida's rapid growth, the

2Clint Kromhout, Geologist/Environmental Specialist III, authored the text
of the State mineral industry information provided by the Florida Geological
Survey.







construction industry was hampered by an inadequate supply of
materials, including aggregates, cement, and steel. In 2006, the
mining and processing of basic construction materials, termed
gravel or crushed stone, sand, and cement from limestone
or lime-rock, totaled nearly 65% of the value of all mineral
resources mined in the State.
Cement.-Cement was produced in six counties during the
year. In Alachua, Dade, Hernando, and Suwannee Counties, the
raw materials for producing the cement clinker were acquired
from domestic sources, and in Manatee County the clinker was
imported. Clinker production continued to rise during the year
as construction activity increased.
Clays.-Common clay, fuller's earth, and kaolin were mined
in several locations within the State in 2006. Common clay
was mined primarily in Clay and Lake Counties, although it
was mined in lesser quantities from various other locations
throughout the State. Clay is used mainly in the production
of brick and cement, and in the production of light aggregate
for use in construction. Fuller's earth (attapulgite) was mined
solely in Gadsden County and is typically used as an absorbent
material in pet waste products. Kaolin was mined solely in
Putnam County and is used in the manufacture of paper and
refractories.
Phosphate Rock.-In 2006, three companies, CF Industries,
Inc., PCS Phosphates, and The Mosaic Company, conducted
phosphate rock mining at seven mines in Hamilton, Hardee,
Hillsborough, Manatee, and Polk Counties. The State's
operating mines represented 66% of the domestic phosphate
rock mining capacity. Overall company sales of phosphate
products declined slightly during the year compared with that
of 2005, as a result of mine and fertilizer plant closures, lower
export sales, and higher production costs and natural gas prices,
effectively reaching a 40-year low in phosphate rock production
(Jasinski, 2007).

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. In late 2006, Iluka Resources ceased mining at its
Green Cove Springs operation, owing to an increase in operating
costs and a decline in deposit grade (Gambogi, 2008a). The
company continued to process stockpiled tailings, rich in
zircon (zirconium silicate), from its Green Cove Springs Mine.
However, Iluka's production of zircon concentrate in the State
during the year decreased by 48% compared with that of 2005
(Gambogi, 2008b). Ilmenite, leucoxene, and rutile minerals
found in the heavy-mineral sand deposits of northeastern
Florida are the primary raw materials used in the manufacture of
titanium dioxide pigments. Zircon is used mainly in refractories
and foundry sands, and in ceramics for opacification.

Environmental Issues and Reclamation

The Mosaic Company received mining permits for its
proposed Altman and Ona phosphate rock mine locations
along the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary, the Horse


Creek, and the Peace River in Charlotte County (Mosaic
Company, The, 2006b). The county had been concerned about
the environmental impacts of phosphate mining on creeks,
groundwater, and rivers. Legal challenges to the receipt of the
permits were dropped after changes to the mining permit request
were offered by The Mosaic Company, and monetary constraints
had limited the county's continuance of the challenges. The
Mosaic Company owned approximately 138,000 ha of land in
the State, of which between 41,000 ha and 61,000 ha had been
mined.
As a result of the environmental concerns on phosphate
rock mining voiced in Charlotte County, the counties of
Lee, Manatee, and Sarasota joined with Charlotte County in
collectively urging for an area-wide environmental impact
statement (EIS) to assess the vulnerability of the surrounding
creeks, groundwater, and rivers. Manatee County was
particularly interested in the completion of an EIS, after The
Mosaic Company had proposed expanding its Four Comers
Mine to include the 830-ha Altman tract. Mosaic owns
approximately 4,500 ha of land in Manatee County.
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP),
Bureau of Mine Reclamation, issued 25 nonphosphate permits
during the year. Most were environmental resource permits
and wetland resource permits that pertained to upland and
wetland disturbance and involved about 8,700 ha of land. Some
permits also were issued pertaining to mine expansions and
modifications.
FDEP records indicated that about 67% of the nearly 72,000
ha of land mined for phosphate since July 1, 1975, had been
reclaimed. As of that date, the FDEP had required that all mined
lands be reclaimed and that such reclamation be administered by
the FDEP's Bureau of Mine Reclamation.
In response to a 2002 lawsuit, further challenging the impacts
posed by limerock (crushed stone aggregate) mining in the
Dade County Lake Belt region, the U.S. District Court in Miami
ordered a reassessment of the mining permits issued for about
2,200 ha of wetlands. Environmental groups had challenged
the mining permits issued for this region, arguing that the EIS
prepared by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service had not adequately assessed danger
posed to Miami-Dade County's drinking water supply and
Everglades' wetland habitats. Environmental arguments were
further emphasized after benzene was detected in the Miami-
Dade County well field in 2005. The challenging environmental
groups indicated the possibility that the benzene originated from
petroleum-based explosives utilized during the mining process.
A supplementary EIS reassessing the issuance of the mining
permits was expected to be completed in about 18 months.

Government Programs

The FGS, through a cooperative agreement with the U.S.
Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service
(MMS), investigated offshore sand sources suitable for
restoration of beaches off Florida's northeast coast. The
investigation was in response to a request by MMS to conduct
a reconnaissance study offshore from the Eglin Air Force Base
to identify desired sands. A report issued on this investigation

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK-2006







included seismic data and representative track lines, maps, grab
sample locations, descriptions, and granularmetric data for the
area in federal waters offshore in Okaloosa County, FL (Phelps
and others, 2007).
In response to the legal challenges by environmental groups
arguing that mining will endanger Miami-Dade County's
drinking water supply and Everglades' wetland habitats, the
Florida Department of Transportation contracted for a study to
assess the status of Florida's aggregate resources. Addressed
in this study were two key questions: 1) What is the future
of aggregate material supply in Florida? and 2) What are the
potential impacts to Florida's economy from the curtailment of
crushed stone production? The study specifically addresses the
physical and economic impact should any or all of the Lake Belt
aggregate mines be closed (Lampl-Herbert Consultants, 2007).
The FGS continued to be an active participant in the
STATEMAP program. STATEMAP is a component of the
congressionally mandated National Cooperative Geologic
Mapping Program (NCGMP), through which the USGS
distributes Federal funds to support geologic mapping
efforts through a competitive funding process. The NCGMP
has three primary components: (1) FEDMAP, which funds
Federal geologic mapping projects, (2) STATEMAP, which
is a matching-funds grant program with State geological
surveys, and (3) EDMAP, a matching-funds grant program
with universities that has a goal to train the next generation
of geologic mappers. In 2006, the FGS completed geologic
mapping for the western portion of the USGS 1:100,000-scale
Lake City quadrangle. The completed products included a
geologic map, cross sections, and a physiographic regions map.
Four cores and numerous hand samples were archived in the
FGS State Geologic Sample Repository for future reference.
The completed maps and cross sections are available as part of
the FGS Open-File Map Series (Green and others, 2006).


References Cited

Gambogi, Joseph, 2008a, 2006 Titanium, in Metals and minerals:
U.S.Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook 2006, v. I, p. 78.1-78.14.
(Accessed October 21, 2008, at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/
commodity/titanium/mybl-2006-titan.pdf.)
Gambogi, Joseph, 2008b, 2006 Zirconium and hafnium, in Metals and
minerals: U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook 2006, v. I, p. 85.1-85.8.
(Accessed October 21, 2008, at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/
commodity/zirconium/mybl-2006-zirco.pdf.)
Green, R.C., Paul, D.T., Evans, W.L., III, Scott, T.M., and Petrushak, S.B., 2006,
Geologic map of the western portion of the U.S.G.S. 1:100,000 scale Lake
City quadrangle, northern Florida: Florida Geological Survey Open-File Map
Series No. 97, 2 plates.
Jasinski, S.M., 2007, Phosphate rock, in Metals and minerals: U.S.Geological
Survey Minerals Yearbook 2006, v. I, p. 56.1-56.10. (Accessed October 21,
2008, at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/phosphate_rock/
mybl-2006-phosp.pdf.)
Lampl-Herbert Consultants, 2007, Strategic aggregates study-Sources,
constraints, and economic value of limestone and sand in Florida: Florida
Department of Transportation, March 12, 126 p. (Accessed October 21, 2008,
at http://www.iti.northwestern.edu/acm/publications/dowding/
Florida%20Aggregate%20Study%20-%202007.pdf.)
Mosaic Company, The, 2006a, Mosaic announces restructuring of phosphates
business: Plymouth, MN, The Mosaic Company news release, May 2, 2 p.
(Accessed October 21, 2008, at http://ir.mosaicco.com/
phoenix.zhtml?c=70455&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=850536&highlight=.)
Mosaic Company, The, 2006b, Mosaic comments on Florida Department of
Environmental Protection final order approving Ona-Ft.Green mine permit:
Mulberry, FL, The Mosaic Company news release, August 1, 1 p. (Accessed
October 21, 2008, at http://ir.mosaicco.com/
phoenix.zhtml?c=70455&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=891034&highlight=.)
Phelps, D.C., Ladner, L.J., Lachance M., Sparr, J., and Dabous A., 2007, A
geological investigation of the offshore Federal area along the coasts of Santa
Rosa and Okaloosa Counties of Florida-Report to the U.S. Department
of the Interior, Minerals Management Service: Florida Geological Survey
unpublished report.
U.S. Census Bureau, 2006, Louisiana loses population; Arizona edges Nevada
as fastest-growing state: Washington, DC, U.S. Census Bureau news release,
December 22, 3 p. (Accessed October 20, 2008, at http://www.census.gov/
Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/007910.html.)


FLORIDA-2006








TABLE 1
NONFUEL RAW MINERAL PRODUCTION IN FLORIDA' 2

(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)

2004 2005 2006
Mineral Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value
Cement:
Masonry 763 97,600 e 902 129,000 e 900 146,000
Portland 5,230 432,000 e 5,730 519,000 e 5,880 602,000
Clays:
Common W W 4 W 3 W
Fuller's earth 234 W 279 39,700 259 24,400
Kaolin 31 3,280 29 3,510 23 2,900
Gemstones, natural NA 1 NA 1 NA 1
Lime 24 2,090 23 2,940 W W
Peat 478 9,710 464 9,450 496 10,000
Sand and gravel:
Construction 29,300 146,000 37,500 210,000 40,000 266,000
Industrial 679 8,520 715 9,410 3,340 46,500
Stone, crushed 105,000 3 680,000 3 116,000 r,' 1,010,000 r'3 127,000 1,340,000
Combined values of magnesium compounds, phosphate
rock, staurolite, stone [crushed sandstone (2004-05)],
titanium concentrates, zirconium concentrates, and
values indicated by the symbol W XX 945,000 XX 971,000 r XX 786,000
Total XX 2,320,000 XX 2,910,000 r XX 3,220,000
eEstimated. 'Revised. NA Not available. W Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data. Withheld values included in "Combined value" data.
XX Not applicable.
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.
3Excludes certain stones; kind and value included with "Combined values" data.










TABLE 2
FLORIDA: CRUSHED STONE SOLD OR USED, BY KIND1

2005 2006
Number Quantity Number Quantity
of (thousand Value of (thousand Value
Kind quarries metric tons) (thousands) quarries metric tons) (thousands)
Limestone2 88 r 111,000 r $980,000 r 80 117,000 $1,250,000
Dolomite 4 982 7,370 4 713 6,770
Shell 4 4,040 24,000 5 8,640 73,900
Sandstone 2 230 2,210 2 312 3,400
Total XX 116,000 r 1,010,000 r XX 127,000 1,340,000
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.


U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK-2006








TABLE 3
FLORIDA: CRUSHED STONE SOLD OR USED BY PRODUCERS IN 2006, BY USE1

(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)

Use Quantity Value
Construction:
Coarse aggregate (+11/2 inch):
Riprap and jetty stone 154 2,870
Filter stone W W
Other coarse aggregate 1,750 26,700
Total 1,910 29,500
Coarse aggregate, graded:
Concrete aggregate, coarse 3,310 57,200
Bituminous aggregate, coarse (2) (2)
Railroad ballast (2) (2)
Other graded coarse aggregate 7,930 129,000
Total 11,600 190,000
Fine aggregate (-%/ inch):
Stone sand, concrete (3) (3)
Screening, undesignated 1,570 20,600
Other fine aggregate 6,560 87,200
Total 8,130 108,000
Coarse and fine aggregates:
Graded road base or subbase 12,700 76,900
Crusher run or fill or waste 3,740 19,100
Other coarse and fine aggregates 4,680 50,900
Total 21,100 147,000
Agricultural:
Limestone (4) (4)
Poultry grit and mineral food (4) (4)
Other agricultural uses 121 465
Chemical and metallurgical:
Cement manufacture (4) (4)
Lime manufacture (4) (4)
Unspecified:5
Reported 51,400 560,000
Estimated 27,000 280,000
Total 78,700 841,000
Grand total 127,000 1,340,000
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 in "Total."
3Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included with "Other fine aggregate."
4Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included in "Grand total."
5Reported and estimated production without a breakdown by end use.


FLORIDA-2006








TABLE 4
FLORIDA: CRUSHED STONE SOLD OR USED BY PRODUCERS IN 2006, BY USE AND DISTRICT1

(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)

Districts 1 and 22 Districts 3 and 42 Unspecified districts
Use Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value
Construction:
Coarse aggregate (+1V2 inch)3 18 440 1,890 29,100
Coarse aggregate, graded4 857 17,500 10,800 173,000
Fine aggregate (-/ inch)5 946 15,000 7,170 92,800 9 104
Coarse and fine aggregates6 11,700 70,900 9,330 75,200 55 782
Agricultural7 W W W W -
Chemical and metallurgical8 W W W W 396 4,420
Unspecified: 9
Reported 8,100 88,800 43,300 472,000
Estimated 3,600 39,000 24,000 240,000 .
Total 26,600 236,000 100,000 1,100,000 460 5,310
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.
Districts 1 and 2, 3 and 4 are combined to avoid disclosing company proprietary data.
Includes filter stone, riprap and jetty stone, and other coarse aggregate.
4Includes bituminous aggregate (coarse), concrete aggregate (coarse), railroad ballast, and other graded coarse aggregate.
Includes screening undesignatedd), stone sand (concrete), and other fine aggregate.
6Includes crusher run or fill or waste, graded road base or subbase, and other coarse and fine aggregates.
Includes agricultural limestone, poultry grit and mineral food, and other agricultural uses.
8Includes cement and lime manufacture.
9Reported and estimated production without a breakdown by end use.











TABLE 5
FLORIDA: CONSTRUCTION SAND AND GRAVEL SOLD OR USED IN 2006,
BY MAJOR USE CATEGORY1

Quantity
(thousand Value Unit
Use metric tons) (thousands) value
Concrete aggregate (including concrete sand) 9,620 $76,600 $7.96
Concrete products (blocks, bricks, pipe, decorative, etc.)2 1,690 13,500 7.96
Asphaltic concrete aggregates and other bituminous mixtures 748 5,900 7.89
Road base and coverings 1,500 12,500 8.32
Fill 4,860 20,400 4.20
Other miscellaneous uses 1,820 9,680 5.32
Unspecified:3
Reported 8,390 53,300 6.35
Estimated 11,400 74,100 6.50
Total or average 40,000 266,000 6.64
Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown.
Includes plaster and gunite sands.
Reported and estimated production without a breakdown by end use.


U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK-2006








TABLE 6
FLORIDA: CONSTRUCTION SAND AND GRAVEL SOLD OR USED IN 2006, BY USE AND DISTRICT1

(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)


Use
Concrete aggregate and concrete products 2
Asphaltic concrete aggregates and road base materials
Fill
Other miscellaneous uses
Unspecified:3
Reported
Estimated
Total or average


District 1 Districts 2 and 3 District 4
Quantity Value Quantity Value Quantity Value
624 2,630 10,700 87,500
-- -- 2,250 18,400
187 636 4,140 16,600 531 3,160
127 980 1,690 8,700


4,940 32,100
5,880 36,400


8,390 53,300
5,880 38,200
33,000 223,000


576 3,750
1,110 6,910


1Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown.
2Includes plaster and gunite sands.
Reported and estimated production without a breakdown by end use.


FLORIDA-2006

PAGE 1

2006 Minerals Yearbook FLORIDAU.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey April 2009

PAGE 2

^SG SG SG SG SG SG SG SG SG SG SG SG SG SG SG SG SG SG SG SG SG SG SG SG CS SG CS SG Shell BAKER BAY BRADFORD BREVARD BROWARD CALHOUN CITRUS CLAY COLLIER COLUMBIA DESOTO DIXIE DUVAL ESCAMBIA FLAGLER FRANKLIN GADSDEN GILCHRIST GLADES GULF HAMILTON HARDEE HENDRY HIGHLANDS HILLSBOROUGH HOLMES INDIAN RIVER JACKSON JEFFERSON LAFAYETTE LAKE LEE LEON LEVY LIBERTY MANATEE MARION MARTIN MIAMI-DADE MONROE NASSAU OKALOOSA OKEECHOBEE ORANGE OSCEOLA PALM BEACH PASCO PINELLAS POLK ST JOHNS SAINT LUCIE SANTA ROSA SEMINOLE SUMTER SUWANNEE TAYLOR UNION VOLUSIA WAKULLA WALTON WASHINGTON MADISON ALACHUA PUTNAM HERNANDOSARASOTA CHARLOTTE Cem Cem Cem Cem Gyp Gyp Steel Steel Per Per Per Per Per Vm Cem Gyp-s Lime CS SG CS CS CS CS CS CS CS CS CS CS CS CS Shell CS CS CS CS CS CS CS CS CS CS CS CS CS CS P P P P P P S-ng P Ful Ful Ti IS IS IS IS IS Ka MgCp Peat Peat Peat Peat Ti Shell Zr Shell Shell Shell Clay Shell Shell Shell ClayTallahassee Source: Florida Geological Survey/U.S. Geological Survey (2006).FLORIDAAlbers equal area projection 050100 25KilometersISIndustrial sand County boundary KaKaolin Capital Lime Lime plant City MgCpMagnesium compounds Crushed stone/sand and PPhosphate rock gravel district boundary PeatPeat Per Perlite S-ngSulfur (natural gas) SGConstruction sand and gravel ShellShell Cem Cement plantSteel Steel plant ClayCommon clayTiTitanium minerals CSCrushed stoneVm Vermiculite plant FulFuller's earthZrZircon Gyp Gypsum plantConcentration of mineral Gyp-sSynthetic gypsumoperationsMINERAL SYMBOLS (Major producing areas)LEGEND 1 2 3 4^! 1

PAGE 3

FLORIDA—2006 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 2006, Florida’s nonfuel raw mineral production1 was valued at $3.22 billion, based upon annual U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data. This was a $310 million, or a 10.7%, increase from the State’s total of $2.91 billion in 2005, which was up $590 million, or more than 25%, from that of 2004. The State was fth in rank (fourth in 2005) among the 50 States in total nonfuel mineral production value, of which the State accounted for nearly 5% of the U.S. total. Florida continued to lead the Nation in phosphate rock mining in 2006 with more than 65% of U.S. production, producing more than four times as much as the next highest producing State. Phosphate rock is produced in only four States. In terms of value, crushed stone continued as Florida’s leading nonfuel mineral commodity, followed by phosphate rock, cement (portland and masonry), construction sand and gravel, zirconium concentrates, and industrial sand and gravel, the combined values of which represented 97% of the State’s total nonfuel mineral value. In 2006, increases in the values of crushed stone and cement, up by $330 million and $100 million, respectively, led Florida’s increase in value for the year. Also up substantially were the value of construction sand and gravel, by $56 million, and the value of industrial sand and gravel, by $38 million. The unit values of each of the four nonfuel mineral commodities signi cantly increased, except industrial sand and gravel, which showed a small increase. A relatively small yet signi cant increase took place in the value of zircon concentrates in spite of a 15% decrease in the commodity’s production. The most signi cant decrease in value was in phosphate rock, down by more than $150 million. Decreases that took place in ilmenite, fuller’s earth, rutile, magnesium compounds, and lime were signi cantly less. In 2006, Florida continued to be the only State to produce rutile (a titanium mineral) and staurolite, and it remained rst in the quantity of phosphate rock, masonry cement, and peat (listed in descending order of value). While Florida continued to be 1st of two States that produced zircon concentrates, 2d in the production of crushed stone, 3d in magnesium compounds, and 4th in portland cement, it rose in rank to 10th from 11th in production of construction sand and gravel. The State decreased to second from rst of two States that produce ilmenite (a titanium mineral concentrate) and to fth from fourth in the production of fuller’s earth clay. 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 2006 USGS mineral production data published in this chapter are those available as of March 2008. 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.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. Exploration and Development Florida’s phosphate companies own hundreds of thousands of hectares (ha) of property, but only about 1,500 ha was mined in 2006. In 2006, 10 new permits were issued that added 980 ha for mining phosphate. In May 2006, The Mosaic Company, Florida’s leading phosphate producer, announced inde nite closure of three of its facilities. These included the Fort Green phosphate mine, the Green Bay diammonium phosphate and monoammonium phosphate concentrates plant, and the South Pierce granular triple superphosphate concentrates plant (Mosaic Company, The, 2006a). In 2006, the State consumed an estimated 130 million metric tons (Mt) of crushed stone aggregate. Approximately 46% of the crushed stone aggregate produced in the State was derived from the Lake Belt region of Dade County (Lampl-Herbert Consultants, 2007, p. i). Florida continued to experience progressively larger transportation distances for delivery of stone aggregates which, coupled with increasing fuel prices, elevated aggregate costs to the consumer. Owing to rising aggregate production levels and the State’s rapid population growth, it was anticipated that the State’s reserves might well be exhausted or in economic jeopardy in a relatively short period of time. Several factors were contributing to the concerns regarding remaining reserves. These included community and environmental antimining sentiments, preemption of mining rights because of zoning or deed restrictions, litigation-related land-use constraints, and urban sprawl over potential reserves. Florida’s mineral resources reach beyond those of terrestrial origin, especially for Florida’s excessively broad continental margins in the Gulf of Mexico. FGS research on sand resources in Florida’s marine waters of the Gulf of Mexico has attained recognition by such agencies as the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Minerals Management Service. Commodity Review Industrial Minerals Florida continued to rank among the top ten fastest growing States (9th), with the second leading gain in population as nearly 26,800 new residents were arriving monthly (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). Owing to Florida’s rapid growth, the 2Clint Kromhout, Geologist/Environmental Specialist III, authored the text of the State mineral industry information provided by the Florida Geological Survey.

PAGE 4

11.2 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2006construction industry was hampered by an inadequate supply of materials, including aggregates, cement, and steel. In 2006, the mining and processing of basic construction materials, termed gravel or crushed stone, sand, and cement from limestone or lime-rock, totaled nearly 65% of the value of all mineral resources mined in the State. Cement. —Cement was produced in six counties during the year. In Alachua, Dade, Hernando, and Suwannee Counties, the raw materials for producing the cement clinker were acquired from domestic sources, and in Manatee County the clinker was imported. Clinker production continued to rise during the year as construction activity increased. Clays. —Common clay, fuller’s earth, and kaolin were mined in several locations within the State in 2006. Common clay was mined primarily in Clay and Lake Counties, although it was mined in lesser quantities from various other locations throughout the State. Clay is used mainly in the production of brick and cement, and in the production of light aggregate for use in construction. Fuller’s earth (attapulgite) was mined solely in Gadsden County and is typically used as an absorbent material in pet waste products. Kaolin was mined solely in Putnam County and is used in the manufacture of paper and refractories. Phosphate Rock. —In 2006, three companies, CF Industries, Inc., PCS Phosphates, and The Mosaic Company, conducted phosphate rock mining at seven mines in Hamilton, Hardee, Hillsborough, Manatee, and Polk Counties. The State ’ s operating mines represented 66% of the domestic phosphate rock mining capacity. Overall company sales of phosphate products declined slightly during the year compared with that of 2005, as a result of mine and fertilizer plant closures, lower export sales, and higher production costs and natural gas prices, effectively reaching a 40-year low in phosphate rock production (Jasinski, 2007). 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. In late 2006, Iluka Resources ceased mining at its Green Cove Springs operation, owing to an increase in operating costs and a decline in deposit grade (Gambogi, 2008a). The company continued to process stockpiled tailings, rich in zircon (zirconium silicate), from its Green Cove Springs Mine. However, Iluka’s production of zircon concentrate in the State during the year decreased by 48% compared with that of 2005 (Gambogi, 2008b). Ilmenite, leucoxene, and rutile minerals found in the heavy-mineral sand deposits of northeastern Florida are the primary raw materials used in the manufacture of titanium dioxide pigments. Zircon is used mainly in refractories and foundry sands, and in ceramics for opaci cation. Environmental Issues and Reclamation The Mosaic Company received mining permits for its proposed Altman and Ona phosphate rock mine locations along the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary, the Horse Creek, and the Peace River in Charlotte County (Mosaic Company, The, 2006b). The county had been concerned about the environmental impacts of phosphate mining on creeks, groundwater, and rivers. Legal challenges to the receipt of the permits were dropped after changes to the mining permit request were offered by The Mosaic Company, and monetary constraints had limited the county’s continuance of the challenges. The Mosaic Company owned approximately 138,000 ha of land in the State, of which between 41,000 ha and 61,000 ha had been mined. As a result of the environmental concerns on phosphate rock mining voiced in Charlotte County, the counties of Lee, Manatee, and Sarasota joined with Charlotte County in collectively urging for an area-wide environmental impact statement (EIS) to assess the vulnerability of the surrounding creeks, groundwater, and rivers. Manatee County was particularly interested in the completion of an EIS, after The Mosaic Company had proposed expanding its Four Corners Mine to include the 830-ha Altman tract. Mosaic owns approximately 4,500 ha of land in Manatee County. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Bureau of Mine Reclamation, issued 25 nonphosphate permits during the year. Most were environmental resource permits and wetland resource permits that pertained to upland and wetland disturbance and involved about 8,700 ha of land. Some permits also were issued pertaining to mine expansions and modi cations. FDEP records indicated that about 67% of the nearly 72,000 ha of land mined for phosphate since July 1, 1975, had been reclaimed. As of that date, the FDEP had required that all mined lands be reclaimed and that such reclamation be administered by the FDEP’s Bureau of Mine Reclamation. In response to a 2002 lawsuit, further challenging the impacts posed by limerock (crushed stone aggregate) mining in the Dade County Lake Belt region, the U.S. District Court in Miami ordered a reassessment of the mining permits issued for about 2,200 ha of wetlands. Environmental groups had challenged the mining permits issued for this region, arguing that the EIS prepared by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had not adequately assessed danger posed to Miami-Dade County’s drinking water supply and Everglades’ wetland habitats. Environmental arguments were further emphasized after benzene was detected in the MiamiDade County well eld in 2005. The challenging environmental groups indicated the possibility that the benzene originated from petroleum-based explosives utilized during the mining process. A supplementary EIS reassessing the issuance of the mining permits was expected to be completed in about 18 months. Government Programs The FGS, through a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Minerals Management Service (MMS), investigated offshore sand sources suitable for restoration of beaches off Florida’s northeast coast. The investigation was in response to a request by MMS to conduct a reconnaissance study offshore from the Eglin Air Force Base to identify desired sands. A report issued on this investigation

PAGE 5

FLORIDA—2006 11.3included seismic data and representative track lines, maps, grab sample locations, descriptions, and granularmetric data for the area in federal waters offshore in Okaloosa County, FL (Phelps and others, 2007). In response to the legal challenges by environmental groups arguing that mining will endanger Miami-Dade County’s drinking water supply and Everglades’ wetland habitats, the Florida Department of Transportation contracted for a study to assess the status of Florida’s aggregate resources. Addressed in this study were two key questions: 1) What is the future of aggregate material supply in Florida? and 2) What are the potential impacts to Florida’s economy from the curtailment of crushed stone production? The study speci cally addresses the physical and economic impact should any or all of the Lake Belt aggregate mines be closed (Lampl-Herbert Consultants, 2007). The FGS continued to be an active participant in the STATEMAP program. STATEMAP is a component of the congressionally mandated National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP), through which the USGS distributes Federal funds to support geologic mapping efforts through a competitive funding process. The NCGMP has three primary components: (1) FEDMAP, which funds Federal geologic mapping projects, (2) STATEMAP, which is a matching-funds grant program with State geological surveys, and (3) EDMAP, a matching-funds grant program with universities that has a goal to train the next generation of geologic mappers. In 2006, the FGS completed geologic mapping for the western portion of the USGS 1:100,000-scale Lake City quadrangle. The completed products included a geologic map, cross sections, and a physiographic regions map. Four cores and numerous hand samples were archived in the FGS State Geologic Sample Repository for future reference. The completed maps and cross sections are available as part of the FGS Open-File Map Series (Green and others, 2006). References Cited Gambogi, Joseph, 2008a, 2006 Titanium, in Metals and minerals: U.S.Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook 2006, v. I, p. 78.1-78.14. (Accessed October 21, 2008, at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/ commodity/titanium/myb1-2006-titan.pdf.) Gambogi, Joseph, 2008b, 2006 Zirconium and hafnium, in Metals and minerals: U.S. Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook 2006, v. I, p. 85.1-85.8. (Accessed October 21, 2008, at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/ commodity/zirconium/myb1-2006-zirco.pdf.) Green, R.C., Paul, D.T., Evans, W.L., III, Scott, T.M., and Petrushak, S.B., 2006, Geologic map of the western portion of the U.S.G.S. 1:100,000 scale Lake City quadrangle, northern Florida: Florida Geological Survey Open-File Map Series No. 97, 2 plates. Jasinski, S.M., 2007, Phosphate rock, in Metals and minerals: U.S.Geological Survey Minerals Yearbook 2006, v. I, p. 56.1-56.10. (Accessed October 21, 2008, at http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/phosphate_rock/ myb1-2006-phosp.pdf.) Lampl-Herbert Consultants, 2007, Strategic aggregates study—Sources, constraints, and economic value of limestone and sand in Florida: Florida Department of Transportation, March 12, 126 p. (Accessed October 21, 2008, at http://www.iti.northwestern.edu/acm/publications/dowding/ Florida%20Aggregate%20Study%20-%202007.pdf.) Mosaic Company, The, 2006a, Mosaic announces restructuring of phosphates business: Plymouth, MN, The Mosaic Company news release, May 2, 2 p. (Accessed October 21, 2008, at http://ir.mosaicco.com/ phoenix.zhtml?c=70455&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=850536&highlight=.) Mosaic Company, The, 2006b, Mosaic comments on Florida Department of Environmental Protection nal order approving Ona-Ft.Green mine permit: Mulberry, FL, The Mosaic Company news release, August 1, 1 p. (Accessed October 21, 2008, at http://ir.mosaicco.com/ phoenix.zhtml?c=70455&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=891034&highlight=.) Phelps, D.C., Ladner, L.J., Lachance M., Sparr, J., and Dabous A., 2007, A geological investigation of the offshore Federal area along the coasts of Santa Rosa and Okaloosa Counties of Florida—Report to the U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service: Florida Geological Survey unpublished report. U.S. Census Bureau, 2006, Louisiana loses population; Arizona edges Nevada as fastest-growing state: Washington, DC, U.S. Census Bureau news release, December 22, 3 p. (Accessed October 20, 2008, at http://www.census.gov/ Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/007910.html.)

PAGE 6

11.4 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2006 QuantityValueQuantityValueQuantityValue Cement: Masonry76397,600e902129,000e900146,000 Portland5,230432,000e5,730519,000e5,880602,000 Clays: CommonWW4W3W Fuller's earth234W27939,70025924,400 Kaolin313,280293,510232,900 Gemstones, naturalNA1NA1NA1 Lime242,090232,940WW Peat4789,7104649,45049610,000 Sand and gravel: Construction29,300146,00037,500210,00040,000266,000 Industrial6798,5207159,4103,34046,500 Stone, crushed105,0003680,0003116,000r, 31,010,000r, 3127,0001,340,000 Combined values of magnesium compounds, phosphate rock, staurolite, stone [crushed sandstone (2004-05)], titanium concentrates, zirconium concentrates, and values indicated by the symbol WXX945,000XX971,000 r XX786,000 TotalXX2,320,000XX2,910,000 r XX3,220,0001Production 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.eEstimated. r Revised. NA Not available. W Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data. Withheld values included in "Combined value " data.3Excludes certain stones; kind and value included with "Combined values" data. Mineral XX Not applicable. TABLE 1 NONFUEL RAW MINERAL PRODUCTION IN FLORIDA1, 2(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars) 200420052006 NumberQuantityNumberQuantity of(thousandValueof(thousandValue Kindquarriesmetric tons)(thousands)quarriesmetric tons)(thousands) Limestone288 r 111,000 r $980,000 r 80117,000$1,250,000 Dolomite 49827,37047136,770 Shell44,04024,00058,64073,900 Sandstone22302,21023123,400 Total XX116,000 r 1,010,000 r XX127,0001,340,0002Includes limestone-dolomite reported with no distinction between the two. TABLE 2 FLORIDA: CRUSHED STONE SOLD OR USED, BY KIND120052006 r Revised. XX Not applicable.1Data are rounded to no more than three significant digits; may not add to totals shown.

PAGE 7

FLORIDA—2006 11.5 UseQuantityValue Construction: Coarse aggregate (+1½ inch): Riprap and jetty stone1542,870 Filter stoneWW Other coarse aggregate1,75026,700 Total 1,91029,500 Coarse aggregate, graded: Concrete aggregate, coarse3,31057,200 Bituminous aggregate, coarse(2)(2)Railroad ballast(2)(2)Other graded coarse aggregate7,930129,000 Total 11,600190,000 Fine aggregate (inch): Stone sand, concrete(3)(3)Screening, undesignated1,57020,600 Other fine aggregate6,56087,200 Total 8,130108,000 Coarse and fine aggregates: Graded road base or subbase12,70076,900 Crusher run or fill or waste3,74019,100 Other coarse and fine aggregates4,68050,900 Total 21,100147,000 Agricultural: Limestone(4)(4)Poultry grit and mineral food(4)(4)Other agricultural uses121465 Chemical and metallurgical: Cement manufacture(4)(4)Lime manufacture(4)(4)Unspecified:5Reported51,400560,000 Estimated27,000280,000 Total 78,700841,000 Grand total 127,0001,340,0003Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included with "Other fine aggregate."4Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included in "Grand total."5Reported and estimated production without a breakdown by end use. TABLE 3 FLORIDA: CRUSHED STONE SOLD OR USED BY PRODUCERS IN 2006, BY USE1(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars) 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 in "Total."

PAGE 8

11.6 U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2006 Uns p ecified districts UseQuantityValueQuantityValueQuantityValue Construction: Coarse aggregate (+1½ inch)3184401,89029,100---Coarse aggregate, graded485717,50010,800173,000---Fine aggregate (inch)594615,0007,17092,8009104 Coarse and fine aggregates611,70070,9009,33075,20055782 Agricultural7WWWW---Chemical and metallurgical8WWWW3964,420 Unspecified:9Reported8,10088,80043,300472,000---Estimated3,60039,00024,000240,000---Total26,600236,000100,0001,100,0004605,3109Reported and estimated production without a breakdown by end use.5Includes screening (undesignated), stone sand (concrete), and other fine aggregate.6Includes crusher run or fill or waste, graded road base or subbase, and other coarse and fine aggregates.7Includes agricultural limestone, poultry grit and mineral food, and other agricultural uses.8Includes cement and lime manufacture. Districts 1 and 22Districts 3 and 42 4Includes bituminous aggregate (coarse), concrete aggregate (coarse), railroad ballast, and other graded coarse aggregate. 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.2Districts 1 and 2, 3 and 4 are combined to avoid disclosing company proprietary data.3Includes filter stone, riprap and jetty stone, and other coarse aggregate. TABLE 4 FLORIDA: CRUSHED STONE SOLD OR USED BY PRODUCERS IN 2006, BY USE AND DISTRICT1(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars) Quantity (thousand Value Unit Usemetric tons)(thousands)value Concrete aggregate (including concrete sand)9,620$76,600$7.96 Concrete products (blocks, bricks, pipe, decorative, etc.)21,69013,5007.96 Asphaltic concrete aggregates and other bituminous mixtures7485,9007.89 Road base and coverings1,50012,5008.32 Fill4,86020,4004.20 Other miscellaneous uses1,8209,6805.32 Unspecified:3Reported8,39053,3006.35 Estimated11,40074,1006.50 Total or average40,000266,0006.641Data 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 5 FLORIDA: CONSTRUCTION SAND AND GRAVEL SOLD OR USED IN 2006, BY MAJOR USE CATEGORY1

PAGE 9

FLORIDA—2006 11.7 District 1Districts 2 and 3District 4 UseQuantity ValueQuantity ValueQuantity Value Concrete aggregate and concrete products26242,63010,70087,500---Asphaltic concrete aggregates and road base materials----2,25018,400---Fill1876364,14016,6005313,160 Other miscellaneous uses1279801,6908,700---Unspecified:3Reported----8,39053,300---Estimated4,94032,1005,88038,2005763,750 Total or average5,88036,40033,000223,0001,1106,9103Reported 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.2Includes plaster and gunite sands. TABLE 6 FLORIDA: CONSTRUCTION SAND AND GRAVEL SOLD OR USED IN 2006, BY USE AND DISTRICT1(Thousand metric tons and thousand dollars)