OPINION
HARKINS, Judge.
Previous proceedings, in the United States Court of Claims, determined that the Government is liable for a permanent taking of plaintiffs’ property, represented by the right to extract and remove dolomite rock from two deposits on Tract 83 on Van-denberg Air Force Base, and that the taking occurred on November 18, 1971. The property taken is part of the mineral interest reserved by plaintiffs’ predessors-in-in-terest when they sold Tract 83 for $22,750 to the Government on October 29, 1941, in connection with the activation of Camp Cooke, an Army installation to train armored and infantry divisions. On the tak[428] ing date, plaintiffs were lessees, through a lease dated July 8, 1971, with the right to extract and remove all riprap rock. The lease did not include sand, gravel, diatoma-ceous material or petroleum products. The term was for 5 years, commencing June 1, 1971, with an option to renew for a period of 5 years on expiration of the original term; at an annual rental of $300 payable on June 1 of each succeeding calendar year, supplemented by monthly payments of 25 cents per ton of rock removed.
On November 18, 1971, plaintiffs were denied permission to survey and drill test a dolomite deposit for riprap rock. Thereafter, on May 2, 1972, plaintiffs for $5,000 purchased all of the reserved mineral interest in Tract 83, including the reversionary interest in the lease retained by the original owners-lessors.
After trial in 1977, the October 18, 1978, trial judge’s opinion stated that there had been a temporary taking of plaintiffs’ right to extract and remove dolomite, that the date of taking was November 18,1971, and that just compensation for the property right temporarily taken was $23,250, with interest from November 18, 1971, to the date of payment. The October 17, 1979, opinion1 of the Court of Claims determined that plaintiffs’ mineral rights had been permanently abrogated by defendant, and remanded the case to the trial division for ascertainment of plaintiffs’ damages. The court specifically refrained from any “intimation that any one method employed by any of plaintiffs’ or defendant’s experts for the.purpose of determining just compensation has been adopted or approved by the court.” The court also stated that “the value of plaintiffs’ entire mineral interest was, in the absence of comparable sales, the fair market value of the minerals in place on the date of the taking.”
The property interest that was taken on November 18, 1971, and which is to be valued in these proceedings on remand, is plaintiffs’ leasehold interest, sometimes termed “operator’s interest” or “working interest”. Defendant has not contested plaintiffs’ right to explore for and remove, under the 1941 and 1972 deeds, all oil, gas, asphaltum and other hydrocarbon substances, and other minerals including diato-maceous earth (except dolomite at a specific site on Tract 83). The value of plaintiffs’ total reserved mineral interest on Tract 83 is not in issue. The property to be valued is the entire mineral interest in the right to extract and remove dolomite from a specific site. This value, the court stated, was to be determined on the basis of evidence already produced by the parties, plus any relevant, non-cumulative additional evidence which either party may desire to offer.
In further proceedings, plaintiffs argued that additional valuation evidence was needed to overcome deficiencies in the record that had been criticized in the trial judge’s October 18,1978, opinion. New evidence, it was claimed, would address credibility questions that resulted from a proliferation of expert witnesses, and the wide variation shown in the record in factors considered, techniques utilized and values ultimately advanced by the experts. Pursuant to plaintiffs’ request, a second trial was held in January 1981; plaintiffs called nine witnesses and defendant called four witnesses. Posttrial briefing was completed January 15, 1982. On October 1, 1982, the case was transferred to the United States Claims Court pursuant to section 403(d) of the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982.2
Evidence relevant to valuation of plaintiffs’ property interest in Tract 83 is contained in the records of both trial sessions.3 In both trials, the parties’ evidence was [429] based on the concept that the taking had been permanent. Notwithstanding the supplemental second trial, the parties’ estimates of the value of the property taken continue to vary widely.
After the first trial, plaintiffs’ final valuation of defendant’s taking of a right of access to the Tract 83 deposits was $4,293,-500; and defendant conceded that the denial of the right to extract and remove dolomite had a value of $23,250. After the second trial, plaintiffs’ final claim is $5,029,-532. During the second trial, defendant’s appraisal expert, at different times, presented three values based on changing volume estimates: $126,000 (8,400,000 tons), $27,000 (1,800,000 tons), and $40-53,000 (2,650,000 tons). Defendant’s final contention is that the property taken has a value of $23,250.
The findings of fact, and the final valuation of $28,000 for plaintiffs’ property that was taken, is based upon the record compiled in both trial sessions.
FACTS
I. The following findings of fact were incorporated in the October 18, 1978, opinion of the trial judge, and were not ruled upon by the United States Court of Claims in its October 17,1979, opinion. These findings are consistent with the evidence adduced in the second trial and are adopted in this court.
1. Tract 83 contains approximately 876.-26 acres; the dolomite deposit in issue on Tract 83 occupies approximately 22.54 acres. The deposit in issue appears on the surface as two bodies — an eastern body and a western body (hereinafter sometimes the “eastern deposit” and the “western deposit”).
2. (a) Plaintiffs’ geologist (Weaver), by interpretative mapping techniques, plotted the eastern deposit and the western deposit as single, unified masses. Defendant’s geologist (Merrill), utilizing outcrop mapping techniques, plotted nine groups of deposits: groups A and B in the eastern body and groups C, D, E, F, G, H, and I in the western body. Group C was a collection of five separately delineated outcroppings. Defendant’s geologist acknowledged that groups A and B very probably were connected at depth and that group C possibly could be connected beneath the surface.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
OPINION
HARKINS, Judge.
Previous proceedings, in the United States Court of Claims, determined that the Government is liable for a permanent taking of plaintiffs’ property, represented by the right to extract and remove dolomite rock from two deposits on Tract 83 on Van-denberg Air Force Base, and that the taking occurred on November 18, 1971. The property taken is part of the mineral interest reserved by plaintiffs’ predessors-in-in-terest when they sold Tract 83 for $22,750 to the Government on October 29, 1941, in connection with the activation of Camp Cooke, an Army installation to train armored and infantry divisions. On the tak[428] ing date, plaintiffs were lessees, through a lease dated July 8, 1971, with the right to extract and remove all riprap rock. The lease did not include sand, gravel, diatoma-ceous material or petroleum products. The term was for 5 years, commencing June 1, 1971, with an option to renew for a period of 5 years on expiration of the original term; at an annual rental of $300 payable on June 1 of each succeeding calendar year, supplemented by monthly payments of 25 cents per ton of rock removed.
On November 18, 1971, plaintiffs were denied permission to survey and drill test a dolomite deposit for riprap rock. Thereafter, on May 2, 1972, plaintiffs for $5,000 purchased all of the reserved mineral interest in Tract 83, including the reversionary interest in the lease retained by the original owners-lessors.
After trial in 1977, the October 18, 1978, trial judge’s opinion stated that there had been a temporary taking of plaintiffs’ right to extract and remove dolomite, that the date of taking was November 18,1971, and that just compensation for the property right temporarily taken was $23,250, with interest from November 18, 1971, to the date of payment. The October 17, 1979, opinion1 of the Court of Claims determined that plaintiffs’ mineral rights had been permanently abrogated by defendant, and remanded the case to the trial division for ascertainment of plaintiffs’ damages. The court specifically refrained from any “intimation that any one method employed by any of plaintiffs’ or defendant’s experts for the.purpose of determining just compensation has been adopted or approved by the court.” The court also stated that “the value of plaintiffs’ entire mineral interest was, in the absence of comparable sales, the fair market value of the minerals in place on the date of the taking.”
The property interest that was taken on November 18, 1971, and which is to be valued in these proceedings on remand, is plaintiffs’ leasehold interest, sometimes termed “operator’s interest” or “working interest”. Defendant has not contested plaintiffs’ right to explore for and remove, under the 1941 and 1972 deeds, all oil, gas, asphaltum and other hydrocarbon substances, and other minerals including diato-maceous earth (except dolomite at a specific site on Tract 83). The value of plaintiffs’ total reserved mineral interest on Tract 83 is not in issue. The property to be valued is the entire mineral interest in the right to extract and remove dolomite from a specific site. This value, the court stated, was to be determined on the basis of evidence already produced by the parties, plus any relevant, non-cumulative additional evidence which either party may desire to offer.
In further proceedings, plaintiffs argued that additional valuation evidence was needed to overcome deficiencies in the record that had been criticized in the trial judge’s October 18,1978, opinion. New evidence, it was claimed, would address credibility questions that resulted from a proliferation of expert witnesses, and the wide variation shown in the record in factors considered, techniques utilized and values ultimately advanced by the experts. Pursuant to plaintiffs’ request, a second trial was held in January 1981; plaintiffs called nine witnesses and defendant called four witnesses. Posttrial briefing was completed January 15, 1982. On October 1, 1982, the case was transferred to the United States Claims Court pursuant to section 403(d) of the Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982.2
Evidence relevant to valuation of plaintiffs’ property interest in Tract 83 is contained in the records of both trial sessions.3 In both trials, the parties’ evidence was [429] based on the concept that the taking had been permanent. Notwithstanding the supplemental second trial, the parties’ estimates of the value of the property taken continue to vary widely.
After the first trial, plaintiffs’ final valuation of defendant’s taking of a right of access to the Tract 83 deposits was $4,293,-500; and defendant conceded that the denial of the right to extract and remove dolomite had a value of $23,250. After the second trial, plaintiffs’ final claim is $5,029,-532. During the second trial, defendant’s appraisal expert, at different times, presented three values based on changing volume estimates: $126,000 (8,400,000 tons), $27,000 (1,800,000 tons), and $40-53,000 (2,650,000 tons). Defendant’s final contention is that the property taken has a value of $23,250.
The findings of fact, and the final valuation of $28,000 for plaintiffs’ property that was taken, is based upon the record compiled in both trial sessions.
FACTS
I. The following findings of fact were incorporated in the October 18, 1978, opinion of the trial judge, and were not ruled upon by the United States Court of Claims in its October 17,1979, opinion. These findings are consistent with the evidence adduced in the second trial and are adopted in this court.
1. Tract 83 contains approximately 876.-26 acres; the dolomite deposit in issue on Tract 83 occupies approximately 22.54 acres. The deposit in issue appears on the surface as two bodies — an eastern body and a western body (hereinafter sometimes the “eastern deposit” and the “western deposit”).
2. (a) Plaintiffs’ geologist (Weaver), by interpretative mapping techniques, plotted the eastern deposit and the western deposit as single, unified masses. Defendant’s geologist (Merrill), utilizing outcrop mapping techniques, plotted nine groups of deposits: groups A and B in the eastern body and groups C, D, E, F, G, H, and I in the western body. Group C was a collection of five separately delineated outcroppings. Defendant’s geologist acknowledged that groups A and B very probably were connected at depth and that group C possibly could be connected beneath the surface.
(b) The eastern deposit is approximately 1,800 feet along its southern boundary and approximately the same distance, although irregular or jagged, along its northern boundary. The eastern deposit varies from a maximum of 384 feet to a minimum of 180 feet in width, with an average width of approximately 300 feet. The eastern deposit probably has a depth of more than 100 feet and possibly may go down several hundred feet. Plaintiffs’ geologist asserted that the western body was one continuous mass, approximately 2,400 feet long, and varying in width from 200 to 300 feet. Plaintiffs’ expert estimated that the western deposit would extend at least to a 100-foot depth and probably to a much greater depth. Plaintiffs’ geologist estimated that the eastern deposit encompassed an area of 444.000 square feet (or 10.19 acres) and, at a depth of 100 feet, contained a volume of 1.644.000 cubic yards; at a depth of 150 feet, the volume would be 2,467,000 cubic yards. The western deposit encompassed 538.000 square feet (or 12.35 acres). At a 100-foot depth, its volume would be 1,993,-000 cubic yards; at a 150-foot depth, the volume would be 2,989,000 cubic yards. Total volumes, according to plaintiffs’ estimates, for both deposits at the 100-foot depth would be 3,637,000 cubic yards and, at the 150-foot depth, 5,456,000 cubic yards.
(c) Both parties’ experts agree that the two deposits lie between the Hondo fault to the south and the Monterey formation to the north. The Hondo fault separates deposits to the south that were formed in the Mesozoic period and are much older than either the subject deposits or the adjacent Monterey formation, which consists of a continuous sequence of dominantly siliceous shales, to the north. Plaintiffs’ geologist depicted the Hondo fault as forming the southern boundary of the eastern deposit, coinciding with the southern boundary of the western deposit at its eastern end, and as lying from 100 to 200 feet south of the [430] remainder of the southern boundary of the western deposit. Defendant’s geologists concur that the Hondo fault is in the general location depicted by plaintiffs’ geologists, although one of defendant’s geologists (Merrill) did not map the Hondo fault because it was not evidenced on the surface.
(d) The expert witnesses were in substantial disagreement as to the effects produced on the dolomite deposits by geologic activity along the Hondo fault. Plaintiffs’ experts interpret the observable geologic phenomena as indicative of a series of faults perpendicular to the Hondo fault, which had fractured transversely a continuous dolomite deposit. Defendant’s experts, on the other hand, interpret the same geologic phenomena as indications of extensive fracturing and churning of the dolomite deposits, with a resultant intermixture of heavily siliceous materials.
(e) One of defendant’s geologists (Bowen) asserted that the deposits were breccia that consisted of at least six different kinds of rock, in effect “a group of fragments cemented together.” He listed, as kinds of rock, dolomite, high calcium limestone, Monterey shale, pebbly magnesian limestone, solid quartz, massive quartz, and vein quartz, and characterized the deposits as a combination of rocks or a combination of minerals. The eastern deposit he identified as “silicified limestone breccia,” in which the carbonate had been replaced by quartz; the western deposit to him had less brecciation and appeared to be more pure than the eastern deposit, but was shallow and lenti-cular. Both deposits, described as mixed rocks and not dolomite, were estimated to contain no more than 2 million tons of limestone or dolomite.
(f) Another of defendant’s geologists (Merrill) identified the eastern deposit as consisting of heterogeneous carbonate rock, which he termed siliceous calcitic dolomite, and the western deposit as being composed of a series of lenticular bodies, in which other material, such as the Monterey platy shales, some sandstones, and other rocks were present. The western body was not viewed as a continuous body of carbonate rock, but it was possible that the lenticular bodies could go to depth, and that the western deposit approached, in some areas, a 95 percent purity in dolomite. Faulting and fracturing in the deposits made him doubt that any large-sized derrick stone could be produced, but the deposits would be suitable for production of medium-sized riprap. He estimated that the quantity of rock suitable for this purpose, in both deposits, would be approximately 1,695,230 tons.
(g) The Los Angeles District, Corps of Engineers geologist (Ferguson), reported the dolomite deposit as having an approximate overall length of 1,500 feet and a width varying from 500 to 1,000 feet. He questioned whether the deposit could produce substantial quantities of large-sized derrick stones. His February 25, 1976, report stated:
5. The most striking visual feature of this deposit are the close spaced joints as seen in the upper flanks of the outcrop. These joints have been caused by movement along the nearby Hond[o] Fault. It is then reasonable to assume that many of these open joints persist to some depth, thus raising doubt that this deposit is capable of producing sizeable quantities of large sized derrick stone or facing rock. However, the deposit may be suitable for production of rip rap 4" to 12" in size. * * *
(h) Defendant’s quarry expert (Woodward) viewed the deposit as common rock, and not a mineral deposit, but concluded that the deposits presented no serious mining problems. His report states, in part:
There would be no serious mining problems. The deposit is quite accessible. The development of low faces (no higher than 30 ft.) could be done very easily. Most of the tonnage occurs above ground and there would be no stripping or wasting of material. The deposit could also be mined 50 ft. below grade. This would produce another 750,000 tons. However, this would mean that either about 224,000 tons of the 750,000 tons would have to be left in place or an additional 224,000 tons of rock would have to be mined in order [431] to develop the necessary slopes to meet the safety standards of the various governmental regulatory bodies, which would increase the cost accordingly.
(i) The eastern body has virtually no overburden and the site could be prepared for quarrying expeditiously. It is less obvious that the western body can be quarried economically; the western deposit, however, could be prepared for quarrying in less than a week.
(j J At least 1.5 to 2 million tons of mineral suitable for riprap purposes can be recovered from the Tract 83 deposits. The actual dimensions of the deposits and the volume of mineral that could be removed by conventional quarrying methods cannot be determined without further investigation, such as core drilling or test excavations.
3. (a) The Tract 83 deposits are suitable for use as hard rock in riprap and for similar uses in the construction industry. Stone used for riprap purposes may be classified by size (plaintiffs), as follows:
(1) 4" — 12" (filter stone and light erosion protection);
(2) 6" — 18";
(3) 12" — 24";
(4) 20" — 40"; and
(5) derrick stone, 4' — 7' (6 to 20 tons);
and by weight (defendant), as follows:
Small stone not of riprap size and less than 25 lbs.;
25 — 100 lbs.;
100 — 500 lbs.;
500 — 1000 lbs.;
1 ton — 5 tons [derrick stone];
10 tons — 20 tons [derrick stone].
(b) Derrick stone, used almost exclusively on breakwater and marine developments, is referred to, interchangeably, as “armor stone” or “capstone.” In the Army Corps of Engineers’ design memorandum for the Port San Luis, California, project, stone sizes are graded as Core Stone “C” (4-ton, 200-lb., 20-lb., 1-lb., and # 4-sieve sizes); Core Stone “B” (4-ton, 1,000-lb., 200-lb., 20-lb., and 1-lb. sizes)’ and capstone in eight sizes from A — 3 to A — 13. Capstone “A — 3” stones have a 6-ton maximum, with not less than 50 percent by weight in pieces 3 tons or more and no stone less than 2 tons in weight; capstone “A-13” stones have a 22-ton maximum, with not less than 50 percent by weight in pieces 13 tons or more and no stone less than 7 tons in weight. The Army Corps of Engineers geologist testified that dolomite from Tract 83 would be within the perimeters of the specification guide for the Port San Luis, California, project.
(c) Other construction uses for which the Tract 83 deposits are suitable include aggregate, railroad ballast, roofing granules, terrazzo chips, asphalt concrete (blacktop), magnesian limestone for plaster, and decorative garden stone.
(d) Dolomite has the following additional uses:
Magnesium Refractories and Chemicals
Dead-burned dolomite
Periclase brick
Chrome-magnesia brick
Magnesium oxide
Hydrated magnesia
Magnesia pharmaceuticals
Magnesium chemicals
* * * * * *
Agriculture
Soil conditioner
Animal and plant food
Ingredient in insecticides and fungicides
Miscellaneous Uses
Manufacture of glass
Source of carbon dioxide
Source of metallic magnesium[.]
(e) Consumption of dolomite in California in 1970 was estimated in Bulletin No. 194, California Division of Mines and Geology, “The Mineral Economics of the Carbonate Rocks” (1973), as follows:
[432]*4321970
Use
Quantity in short tons
Value
1. Magnesian Lime 362,199 $2,710,922
2. Concrete aggregate and road base 50,212 109,033
3. Dead burned dolomite 43,073 75,360
4. Magnesium chemicals 27,468 130,473
5. Terrazzo chips 23,363 446,160
6. Glass manufacturing 21,503 88,347
7. Soil conditioners 12,783 31,958
8. Refractory stone 11,464 57,320
9. White surfacing 10,608 31,739
10. Poultry grit 8,126 24,378
11. Roofing granules 3,208 42,987
12. Magnesium metal 1,403 18,800
13. Steel flux 943 2,358
14. Building stone 469 3,865
15. Riprap
16. Miscellaneous (mainly aggregates of unspecified type) 31,514 52,807
TOTALS 608,336 + $3,826,507 +
" Not available for 1970; in 1969, quantity was 15,494 short tons, value was $32,235.
(f) Plaintiffs’ appraisal expert (McVay) estimated the demand and market value of secondary uses for dolomite from the Santa Barbara-Los Angeles area as follows:
A. Soil supplement— 5 tons/year
B. Ceramics— 96 tons/year
C. Pharmaceuticals (deducting amount purchased from ceramic industry) 40 tons/year
TOTAL 141 tons/year
In order to capture this market it will be necessary to slightly undersell Kaiser Minerals of San Francisco:
Assuming lower price of $50/ton
141 tons/year @ $50/ton = $7,050.00/year
(g) The Tract 83 deposits contain mineral dolomite of sufficient purity for all primary and secondary uses listed in findings 3(a) through 3(f). Availability of markets for dolomite from Tract 83 for any of these uses, however, is dependent upon factors additional to chemical composition of the mineral deposits. All parties agree that the Tract 83 deposits would be suitable for use as riprap, including derrick stone, and other construction rock usages, but differ on quantities available and market demand for such uses.
4. (a) There is a market for riprap in the geographical area of Tract 83; such market is limited (1) by the distance over which stone can be hauled economically from its source and (2) the proximity of competing rock sources. The quantity of dolomite in the Tract 83 deposits suitable for riprap and other construction uses probably is sufficient to satisfy the demand that reasonably can be anticipated to arise in the next 25 years. Most riprap is used in connection with federal, state, and local government projects, and the larger sized derrick stone is used only in connection with marine projects such as ocean breakwaters. Very few successful rock quarries are based solely on production of riprap; fines, however, are produced as a byproduct of large stone production and are available for sale when there is a market. Plaintiffs’ quarry expert (Schmidt) estimated that the Tract 83 dolomite deposits, when quarried in a fashion to produce a maximum amount of armor stone, would yield about 40 percent armor stone in the A-10 to A-13 sizes, and [433] about 60 percent smaller stone. Defendant’s geology expert (Bowen) estimated the Tract 83 deposit could be expected to yield 40 to 50 percent riprap of all sizes, but under 5 percent of the 10-to-20 ton derrick stones when quarried in such a fashion.
(b) Armor stone is a premium size, and is difficult to produce in pieces 8 tons or larger. Quarries that are able to produce large armor stones in quantity are not numerous, and the geographical area within which armor stone competes is a much larger market area than the market are for the general run of quarry rock. The market area for armor stone, to be used in connection with any particular project, is dependent upon a number of factors, including size of project, number and capabilities of supply sources within an acceptable area, and modes of transportation available. Water transportation, when available, substantially extends the radius in which armor stone may be marketed. The geographical area within which armor stone is likely to find a market is substantially larger than the market area for smaller riprap from the same source.
(c) The primary trading area for the Tract 83 deposits, in which materials from that source would have a competitive advantage over materials from all other sources, would be limited to a radius of approximately 15 miles from the deposit. In general, the primary trading area would be limited to projects in the Lompoc, California, area. The geographical area within which the Tract 83 deposits would be competitive with other quarries would extend to a radius of from 50 to 55 miles for ordinary stone sales. For governmental projects that require armor stone, the market area in which the Tract 83 deposits could compete would extend to a radius of from 100 to 150 miles.
(d) Plaintiffs’ appraisal expert (McVay) estimated the average demand for stone from the Tract 83 deposits as approximately 60,000 tons per year.
(e) Defendant’s expert geologist on mineral economics of carbonate rocks (Bowen) estimated probable market demand in Santa Barbara County and vicinity, for 25 years, as follows:
Commodity
Probable Market (Short Tons)
1. Riprap [all sizes] 2,000,000 plus
2. Road Base (all types probably can be made from the Tract 83 stone) 30,000,000
3. Asphalt Concrete (Blacktop) 25,000,000
He estimated the amounts probably available from Tract 83, as follows:
Commodity
Rock Probably Available from the Tract 83 Limestone Deposit
Percent of Available Rock
1. Riprap Small stone not of riprap size and less than 25 lbs. 1,000,000-1,200,000 50 - 60
25-100 lbs. 200.000 - 225,000 10-12
100-500 lbs. 175.000 - 200,000 8-10
500-1000 lbs. 100.000- 120,000 5 - 7.5
1 ton - 5 tons 100.000- 150,000 5 -7
5 tons-10 tons 50.000 - 75,000 2.5 - 3.5
10 tons-20 tons 25.000 - 30,000 1.5 - 2
2. Road Base (all types probably can be made from the Tract 83 stone