SMR - March2002

Sustainable Mineral Roundtable Preliminary Indicator List

March 2002 Participants: Arlene Anderson, Mike Canty, Sie Ling Chiang, Margaret Connelly, Lisa Corathers, Larry Gadt, Ted Heintz, Rob Hendricks, Greg Love, June McAtee, Dave Radloff, Eric Rodenburg, Deborah Shields, Andrew Strasfogel, Tim Stuart, Dirk van Zyl

Editorial changes and comments from the March 2002 meeting are noted in blue, italicized type.

Indicator Review Objectives:

Clarity; completeness
What indicator measures
Readiness for data population

Net meetings or conference calls to refine indicators following group comments.

EI = Environmental Impacts
SE = Socioeconomic Impacts
PC = Productive Capacity

Socio-Economics Benefits: Indicator Categories

Format for Working on Indicators -

                    1.     What issue it addresses

                    2.     What it measures

                    3.     Does data exist?

                    4.     Does the science exist?

                    5.     What data will be required?

                    6.     Adopt descriptive titles that communicate intent?

                    7.     At what scale does it apply?

                    8.     Relevance to sustainability

List of Indicators:
SE 1. Local Economic Benefits [for non-renewable resource dependent counties]

Indicator SE 1.1 -Employment and income to households in energy and mineral sectors
          SE 1.1.1 Direct employment
          SE 1.1.2 Total employment [direct plus indirect and induced]
          SE 1.1.3 Direct income
          SE 1.1.4 Total income [Clarification needed, does this include rents]

issue: providing direct and related jobs and income
direct, indirect, and induced employment and income
data exists - state agencies, federal
Richard Marshall, USFS as data coordinator for this indicator
N/A
Full-time employees (including contractors) and income {and multipliers}.
Why do the multipliers if the data is available?
See above
County scale. (In Alaska, boroughs or U.S. census districts) [Resource dependent]
Employment is a means of getting income and maintaining economic well being,[ to allow investment in capacity at the community level, local reinvestment of rents?,]

SE 1. 2 -Per capita income in nonrenewable resource-dependent counties

Standard of living
Measures annual per capita income in nonrenewable resource dependent areas vs. country as a whole
Yes, state and federal data (commerce)
N/A
Per capita income in communities that are determined to be nonrenewable resource-dependent; threshold to determine resource reliant communities (15 percent income from single 2-digit economic code)
note that this will exclude some counties that derive benefits from mining
Richard Marshall, USFS as data coordinator for this indicator
See above
County, state (In Alaska, boroughs or U.S. census districts)
Effect of industry on raising overall well-being and standard of living of communities

SE 1.3 [was SE 1.4]- Other income to nonrenewable resource dependent counties from resource sector (royalties, contributions in dollars) [Clarify whether this includes transfers into the county and wages, salaries, and everything else.]
Should try to capture all transfers that are associated with the resource sector.

benefits to the community
dollars community has to acquire goods and services
some data exists - royalties and taxes; need to check contributions
Richard Marshall, USFS, as data coordinator for this indicator
N/A
Taxes and royalties distributed to local level; contributions in-kind to local care and services
See above
Counties, state (need to address distribution of taxes and royalties)
Measures ability to support public services

SE 1.4 [was SE 1.5] -Dependency of a nonrenewable resource dependent county on the minerals/energy activity. [This indicator makes most sense as a map]
1.4.1 income
1.4.2 employment
1.4.3 receipts?

The long term viability of a community and its dependence on industry that is developing a finite resource.
It measures direct, and indirect and induced income; employment and receipts (e.g., from taxes, royalties, lease rentals, bonus bids, etc.) derived from the particular industry (mining/resource development, minerals or energy) as a percentage of the total income, employment and receipts in the county.
Data does exist.
Richard Marshall, USFS, as data coordinator for this indicator
Science does exist.
Required data includes the number of jobs, the income, and the tax revenue directly from the industry plus the multiplier for support businesses for the area being measured.
See above.
The scale is local.
Many resource development and/or energy related businesses exist in rural areas where direct and indirect incomes, employment and tax revenues are a substantial portion of the overall income, employment and tax revenue, such that when that business ends, there could be a significant impact.

SE 1.5 [NEW] Nonrenewable resource dependent counties as a percentage of all counties [Clarify and detail this indicator]

relist this indicator as 1.4.4.
Richard Marshall, USFS as data coordinator for this indicator
how can data be normalized across counties?
Can land base in resource dependent counties as a percentage of total land base be captured?

SE 1.6 - The degree to which a county is dependent on a resource affected by the resource development/minerals/energy activity.

[Needs work, or delete]
[display this indicator as a map]
phrasing in a non-negative neutral manner is well-done for this indicator
this indicator may help identify counties in which resource-related conflicts may change resource dependency

A community may be dependent on a resource such as wildlife or land used for grazing which could be affected (positive or negative) by the resource development activity.
Measures could be acres of land, animal unit months or miles of streams.
Unknown
how can data be normalized across counties?
Look at suite of information available from BEA.
*package along w/similar indicator for timber and livestock (forest and range)
Unknown
Data would be project specific and would have to be gathered based on surveys on land and resources within the proposed project boundary.
Richard Marshall, USFS as data coordinator for this indicator
See above
Local scale
If a local community is dependent on a resource that is affected by a resource development project, some alternative may be necessary to offset that effect to insure sustainability of the community.
This indicator may be too labor intensive to develop, relative to its importance. Move to appendix?

SE 1.7 - Annual contributions to the community by minerals and energy sector
discussion of non-financial contributions to community needed

Ensuring that the quality of life in a community where a resource development project locates, is maintained or enhanced.
It measures the dollars of public and private investment in community facilities and programs.
Data exists but may be difficult to obtain.
Richard Marshall, USFS, will populate this indicator with data
The science exists.
Required data includes dollars spent within communities by nonrenewable resource development companies.
See above
This would be a local scale that could be aggregated to the state and national levels.
To sustain a community adequate support facilities and programs are required.

SE 2. National Economic Benefits

SE 2.1 [was SE 2.1.3] Output/labor expenditure for the nonrenewable resource industries

This addresses expenditure on labor per output which would be a measure of labor efficiency.
This measures productivity of labor and allows us to compare the resource development industries with the general economy.
Data exists within the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Economic Analysis, USGS and Department of Energy.
FS - Deborah will take the lead on data population (Tyler Hodge)
The science exists.
Labor, productivity and output data will be required (use standard U.S. Dept. Of Labor data).
See above
This is on a national scale.
This indicator shows the relative efficiency of labor, how technology and capital expenditures have allowed us to produce more materials with less input.

SE 2.2 [was SE 2.3] Tangible reproducible capital
2.2.1 [Stocks] Value of the tangible reproducible capital used in exploration, production, and processing (smelting, refining, pipelines, transportation, etc.)

Capacity to provide mineral and energy commodities, both currently and in the future
Measures the capacity, in inflation-adjusted dollar terms, to explore for, produce, process, and transport mineral and energy commodities.
Depreciated value of capital assets
Is amount of capital in facilities being maintained? Measured in constant dollars.
Yes, but may be difficult to compile
FS - Deborah will take the lead on data population (Tyler Hodge)
Less data for pipelines and transport
Yes
Dollar value of assets used at the various stages
See above
National
Demonstrates the ability to satisfy current and future demand.

SE 2.2.2 [Flows] Dollars spent on buildings, infrastructure, pollution control equipment etc (typically called capital expenditures).
Specifics are defined in national accounts

Investments in capital equipment are an indicator of the health of the resource development and energy industries.
Dollars spent on buildings, infrastructure, pollution control equipment etc. (typically called capital expenditures).
Data exists.
FS - Deborah will take the lead on data population (Tyler Hodge)
Check to see if pollution control equipment expenditures are included?
The science exists.
Capital expenditures annually for the industry.
See above.
The scale is national.
The investment in resource development and energy capital projects is a clear indicator of the sustainability of the industry.

SE 2.3 [was SE 2.5] Investment: Dollars spent annually on exploration [was PC 2.2.1 Amount of Expenditures on Exploration Activities, Clarify and detail]
Needs to be expanded to include oil and gas

SE 2.4 [was PC 2.2] Discovery Rate per $ of Exploration Activity. Exploration Capacity
Is this indicator meaningful?
Eric will follow up on this; Dirk will forward info.
Deb has petroleum info.
What does "discovery rate" mean?

Q1	Issue addressed:
Q2	Measures:
Q3	Does data exist?
Q4	Does science exist?
Q5	What data will be required?
Q6	Descriptive title:
Q7	What scale?
Q8	Relevance to sustainability:

SE 2.5 [was SE 2.9] Dollars invested on research and development

This addresses the ability for industry to develop more cost effective, environmentally friendly, and/or efficient methods to discover and produce mineral and energy commodities. This would include research and development of pollution control equipment. Research into renewable energy would be included.
Not possible to know whether $$ spent on topics listed above.
It measures the dollars spent on research and development by government, universities and private industry.
Data does exist.
FS - Deborah will take the lead on data population (Tyler Hodge)
Identify data gaps in text.
Science does exist.
Dollars spent on research and development by government, universities and by private industry.
See above
National scale
This relates to sustainability in that provides for the ability to change with time to become more efficient and more environmentally friendly.

SE 2.6 [was SE 2.10] Investment in ecosystem enhancement, reclamation, and restoration

This issue addresses improvements in the quantity and quality of ecosystems within and near the project area.
It measures the dollars spent on ecosystem enhancement and restoration projects.
Data exists but may not be publicly available.
        Data will be difficult to obtain.
        Does OSM have this info for coal reclamation?
        Deb and Richard Miller will discuss…
The science does exist.
Data would include dollars spent on ecosystem enhancement and restoration projects.
See above
The scale is state and nationally.
This issue addresses sustainability and enhancement of ecosystems while providing for development.

SE 2.7 [was SE 2.11] Mitigation of hazardous mine features (e.g., adits, shafts, structures, open pits)-number of hazardous mine features mitigated at abandoned and inactive mine sites and the cumulative number mitigated as a percentage of the total hazardous mine features that were inventoried (physical count).
Coal mines fires - possible SE and/or EI indicator?
Subsidence - possible SE and/or EI indicator?
Acid drainage should be SE as well as EI indicator; cross-reference.

This indicator addresses the issue of the exposure of the local population to safety hazards present from past mineral and energy activities
It measures progress toward eliminating safety hazards.
Yes
NPS, BLM, FS, and state offices have data
Dallas Emch and Sie Ling Chiang will deal with data population
Yes
Total number of hazardous mine features in the base year inventory and the number mitigated each year.
See above
local, regional, national
This indicator is relevant to sustainability in terms of quality of life.

SE 2.8 [was SE 2.12] Value of Energy and Mineral Resource Production

Overall benefits
Overall benefits
Yes, but must deal with proprietary concerns
USGS will extract published values from Minerals Commodity summaries; Deb will assist.
This includes co-products.
Yes, but probably use estimated data for economic rents
Commodity prices, volumes, resource development costs, etc.
See above
Scale - national; international needs discussion
Measures the fundamental contribution of E&M to well-being

SE 2.9 [was SE 2.13] Energy and mineral Intensity, use of energy and mineral resources per capita and per dollar [subsumes PC 5.1, PC 5.2, and PC 5.5]
This is not mineral economics' material intensity of use calculation.

resource use efficiency
yes
Ted Heintz, DOI, will populate with data. Eric will extract data.
mostly
E&M flows and stocks; investment $; PCE
See above
National
Improved resource efficiency promotes sustainability

SE 2.10 [was EI 4.2] Energy intensity in extraction by sector

What issue it addresses: Energy use in extraction or processing per unit of output
What it measures: For 1-digit SIC codes (or equivalent NAICS codes), energy use divided by sector output in monetary terms. For specific commodities, energy use per unit of the commodity produced, insofar as data are available.
Do data exist? For sectors, yes. For commodities, to some extent.
Does science exist?
What data will be required? Energy use by sector, value of output by sector. Energy use per commodity, total production of commodity.
Descriptive titles that communicate intent: energy intensity in extraction and processing.
Scale: National
Relevance to sustainability: Lower energy consumption per unit of output indicates greater efficiency in production and less deleterious effects of energy consumption (e.g. air emissions, dam construction for hydropower, surface area used for wind energy, etc.)

SE 2.11 [was SE 2.15] Net trade balance in dollars in energy, minerals (Note: The Productive Capacity Group has similar indicators for volume.)

import dependency, balance of trade (cyclical)
need a long-run measure
yes
mostly, need work on long run measures
imports and exports by commodity
See Above
national and international
net trade balance in various commodities over the long run (to avoid short run potential effects) affects maintenance of U.S. capacities.

SE 2.12 [was SE 2.20] Total Net Income (Operator Profits & Land Owner Rents) [Clarify]

Economic contribution of resource or energy production
Economic contribution of resource development or energy production
Yes, in most cases
Yes
Operator Profits and Land Owner Revenues [net profit?] (Financial Reports)
See above
State and National.
Fundamental measure of the contribution to the economy. Key to economic sustainability. Net profits fuel all economic and other related benefits.

SE 2.13 [was SE 2.21] Investment in education and training

Insuring that there are technically educated employees for the industry to meet new and ongoing (retiring) needs.
This measures the dollars spent/donated to provide technical education to current and future employees.
Data exists but may not be readily available.
The science exists.
Dollars spent on education.
See above.
The scale would be national.
Its relevance to sustainability is that this helps provide an ongoing supply of educated potential employees to meet present and future needs.

SE 2.14 [was SE 2.22] National employment and income in energy and mineral sectors [See SE 1.1, the same issues apply to SE 2.14]

        SE 2.14.1 Direct employment
        SE 2.14.2 Total employment (direct plus indirect and induced)
        SE 2.14.3 Direct income
        SE 2.14.4 Total income

issue: providing direct and related jobs and income
direct, indirect, and induced employment and income
data exists - state agencies, federal
N/A
Full-time employees (including contractors) and income and multipliers.
See above
National scale.
Employment is a means of getting income and maintaining economic well being.

SE 3. Recreation and Tourism

SE 3.1 Old mine sites and towns and conversion of mine sites to recreation areas (local effects)

community dependence, resilience
economic contribution of resource development other than commodity
no
N/A
Visitors and dollars at various sites
See above
Scale: community
Diversifies community economies and makes them more sustainable, cultural heritage.

SE 3.2 [was SE 3.3] Outdoor Recreation Activities-level of participation in resource dependent communities (local effects0.

This indicator addresses the issue of how mineral production and transportation activities affect outdoor recreation activities.
It measures changes, both positive and negative, in outdoor participation and valuation associated with mineral production and transportation
Some
Some-some is controversial
Comparative measures (before and after, with and without) of participation in outdoor recreation activities that may be affected by mineral production and transportation
See above
Primarily local and regional, may be aggregated to national
Many people consider outdoor recreation activities to be an essential part of their cultural identity. Thus, their participation in outdoor recreation is crucial to their cultural sustainability.

SE 4. Cultural, Social and Spiritual Needs

Note: These three indicators are applicable to the aggregated number of resource development projects that will measure:
                    1- percent of projects approved and not needing mitigation
                    2- percent of projects approved with mitigation
                    3-percent of projects not approved because compliance requirements made projects unfeasible
.
SE 4.1 Archeology (Pre-historic)- Number of archeology sites (pre-historic) that are eligible for the National Historic Register or other applicable regulatory requirements (e.g. ANCSA §14(h)(1))that are within the proposed project boundaries. As a subset of that number, the number of archeology sites (pre-historic) that are eligible for the National Historic Register that are within the proposed project boundaries and that will be collected and documented because they would have been disturbed by the resource development operations.

This addresses the quantity and quality of archeology sites.
This measures the number of sites, whether they are protected or disturbed and, for sites to be disturbed, it documents knowledge gained regarding the site(s).
Data does exist.
Science does exist.
The federal land management agencies have data that lists the number of sites and their locations.
See #1.
The scale is local to national.
This is relevant to sustainability in that it is a measure and logging of the existence of archeology sites to allow present and future development to go forward. Maintaining the sites preserves the associated cultural values and mitigating the sites provides a written documentation of the knowledge of the sites.

SE 4.2 [was SE 4.3] Historic Sites- Number of archeology sites (historic) that are eligible for the National Historic Register that are within the proposed project boundaries. As a subset of that number, the number of archeology sites (historic) that are eligible for the National Historic Register that are within the proposed project boundaries and that will be collected and documented because they would have been disturbed by the resource development operations.

This addresses the quantity and quality of historic sites.
This measures the number of sites, whether they are protected or disturbed and, for sites to be disturbed, it documents knowledge gained regarding the site(s). This could include historic resource development sites.
Data does exist.
Science does exist.
The federal land management agencies have data that lists the number of sites and there locations.
See #1.
The scale is local to national.
This is relevant to sustainability in that it is a measure and logging of the existence of historical sites to allow present and future development to go forward. Maintaining the sites preserves the associated cultural values and mitigating the sites provides a written documentation of the knowledge of the sites.

SE 4.3 [was SE 4.2] Sacred Sites for Indigenous People

Where are there land use conflicts between resource development and sacred sites to indigenous peoples?
It measures the number and location of Traditional Cultural Properties and describes why they are considered sacred.
Data exists.
Science probably does not exist.
The federal land managers have inventories of these sites.
See #1.
The scale would be local, state and national.
This is relevant to sustainability in that it is a measure and logging of the existence of archeology sites to allow present and future development to go forward. Maintaining the sites preserves the associated cultural values and mitigating the sites provides a written documentation of the knowledge of the sites.

SE 4.4 Subsistence Activities of Indigenous Peoples: level of participation and level of harvest [local effects]

This indicator addresses the issue of how mineral production and transportation activities affect subsistence activities of indigenous peoples
It measures increases or decreases in subsistence activities associated with mineral production and transportation activities
Some-much is informal
Not applicable
Comparative statistics (before and after, with and without) on measures of participation and success of harvest in subsistence activities.
See above
Primarily limited to the local indigenous group
Crucial to the sustainability of cultures of indigenous peoples

SE 4.5 Injury rates and occupational disease rates attributable to resource development [local effects]

Health effects on the working population
Injury and fatality rates on the job and occurrence of occupational illnesses
Fatal injuries, non-fatal injuries, occupational illness disability claims
N/A
Fatal and non-fatal injury rates, occupational illness disability claims
See above
Local, state, national
Measures short and long-term quality of life

SE 4.6 Disease rates (decreases or increases) due to resource development activity in resource-dependent communities

Positive or negative health effects on people in the community
Positive or negative health effects on people in the community
Some - epidemiology is costly
Yes - methods exist
Medical records?
See above
Very site-specific rates
Negative health effects reduce net benefits

SE 4.7 Social effects within a community reliant on resource development [local effects, these must be compared against a baseline, e.g., other rural communities, or the nation as a whole].
            SE 4.7.1 Domestic Violence Rates
            SE 4.7.2 Suicide Rates
            SE 4.7.3 Violent Crime Rates
            SE 4.7.4 Substance Abuse Rates

Impacts of resource dependency on social organization variables.
Measures antisocial behavior and other symptoms of stress and anxiety in resource-dependent areas vs. other areas
Yes
Yes
Domestic violence, suicide, violent crime, and substance abuse rates
See above
Local
Relates to sustainability in terms of quality of life

5. Equity

Note: Location of resource development projects is often not a discretionary option, i.e.mines or petroleum deposits must be developed where the resource is located.

SE 5.1 - Environmental Justice: The percentage of households below the poverty line in resource development dependent counties (In Alaska, borough or census district) versus the percentage of households below the poverty line for non-resource development dependent counties [Local effects]

The issue is whether the low income population is being disproportionately affected by mineral or energy development.
It measures the percentage of households below the poverty line in resource development dependent counties versus the percentage of households below the poverty line for non-resource development dependent counties
Data does exist.
The science does exist.
Data needed includes resource development income as a percentage of total income; and the number of households in a county and the number of households in the same county that are below the poverty line.
See indicator.
The scale would be county, state and national.
This is relevant to sustainability because it deals with maintaining or enhancing the quality of life of low income populations.

SE 5.2 - Environmental Justice: The percentage of population by minority group, in resource development dependent counties (In Alaska, borough or census district) versus the percentage of population by minority group for non-resource development dependent counties

The issue is whether the minority population is being disproportionately affected by mineral or energy development.
It measures the percentage of population by minority group, in resource development dependent counties versus the percentage of population by minority group for non-resource development dependent counties.
Data does exist.
The science does exist.
Data needed includes population counts by minority group, resource development income as a percentage of total income for each county.
See indicator.
The scale would be county, state and national.
This is relevant to sustainability because it deals with maintaining or enhancing the quality of life of minority populations.

APPENDIX A - Move to Legal and Institutional Framework Domain

SE 2.19 [To move to Legal and Institutional Framework] Relative sector knowledge of resource development, minerals and energy.

This issue is the knowledge, or lack thereof, by students, of natural resource development and resource development- derived energy sources.
Percentage of students at various grade levels that are provided instruction in resource development, minerals, energy, geology, and product use as part of a certified curriculum
maybe...state offices of public instruction
N/A
see #2
See above
National

Education in the topics listed in Item 2 would lead to individuals having a more informed basis for providing input on resource issues relating to sustainability.

SE 3.2 New (active) mine sites

community dependence, resilience
economic contribution of resource development other than commodity
no
N/A
Visitors and dollars at various sites
See above
Scale: community
Diversifies community economies and makes them more sustainable

APPENDIX B - Deletions/Lowest Priority

SE 1.3 - Average wages in mineral and energy resource sectors

issue: economic benefits at sector level
measures personal income from resource sector in dollars
data exists-state agencies, census
N/A
Wages paid to workers in resource sectors
See above
Local
Measures the primary source of personal income from resource sector employment for maintaining economic well-being

SE 2.21 - Labor expenditures
    · 2.1.1 Labor expenditure/$GDP for the entire United States economy
      2.1.2 Labor expenditure/$GDP produced by the resource development industries

SE 2.2 - In situ dollar value (net economic value) of resources
            SE 2.2.1 Identified Resources-Technically Extractable
            SE 2.2.2 Reserves

Measures the dollar value of known extractible resources of commodities (Identified Resources-Technically Extractable) and the dollar value of the current working inventory of energy and mineral companies (Reserves). Note: The Productive Capacity Group has similar indicators, but measured in physical units rather than dollar values.
Future materials supply potential (Identified Resources-Technically Feasible) and current working inventory (Reserves).
Data on physical units is available. Data on net economic values may not be readily available.
Yes
Data on identified resources, reserves, and net economic values.
See above
National
Ability to meet demand in both the short run (Reserves) and the long run (Identified Resources-Technically Extractable)

SE 2.4 - Value of mineral and energy use (price x quantity + consumer surplus)
Note: This may involve some double counting with Indicator 2.2.

Benefits of mineral and energy consumption
Dollar value (including consumer surplus) of mineral and energy consumption
Data on price, quantity available; data on consumer surplus not readily available
Yes
Market prices, quantities consumed, consumer surplus
See above
National
Shows how the flows of benefits from mineral and energy consumption have changed over time.

SE 2.7 - Capacity and grid of energy delivery systems. (Note: The Productive Capacity Group has similar indicators.)

This indicator addresses the location and the capacity of electricity, gas and petroleum distribution systems. It would be an indicator of constraints to growth and costs of energy.
This indicator measures carrying capacity versus usage for power, natural gas and petroleum.
Data exists.
The science does exist.
For electricity, the capacity and usage of the distribution grid in megawatts/megawatt-hours; for natural gas, the capacity and usage of the distribution pipelines in million cubic feet; for petroleum, the capacity and usage of the distribution pipelines in barrels.
See above
It applies at local, state, regional and/or national scales.
Energy delivery systems are required to power all residential, industrial and commercial activities.

SE 2.8 - Petroleum and metal refinery capacity. (Note: The Productive Capacity Group has similar indicators.)

This indicator addresses capacity and usage of petroleum and metal refineries. Metal refineries would also include metal smelters. It also indicates the dependence of the United States on foreign countries for strategic metals.
It measures the petroleum and metal refining capacity in the United States and the usage of that capacity.
Data does exist.
Science does exist.
Required data would include petroleum refining and usage capacity and metals (for each) refining (including smelting) capacity and usage.
See above
The scale would be national.
The nation's supply of petroleum products is dependent on sufficient refining capacity. The nation's independence from other countries for strategic metals is dependent on sufficient metal refining capacity. The ability to develop marginal ore reserves in the United States is dependent on the location of refineries (including smelters) in the United States.

SE 2.14 - Degree of Recycling and Reuse (Note: The Productive Capacity Group has similar indicators.)

Recycling, reuse, re-manufacturing
Materials retained in economic system
Mostly - some loops missing
Yes
Materials flows in each loop
See above
National
Increased recycling conserves the resource. The attribute of recyclability makes metals more akin to a renewable resource. Recycling has potential to reduce unit environmental costs of extraction and disposal if viewed over multiple cycles. Because of the costs of collection, recycling may not be economical.

SE 2.18 - Percent of available substitute non-resource development products in use per sector

The issue is the diversity of resource development products used.
Trends in substitute non-resource development product use by sector
Uncertain availability
N/A
Extensive data collection and analysis of available substitutes and relative adequacy may be required.
See above
National
Relative use of substitute non-resource development product s inversely relates to demand for resource development products and provides trends of relative public and business sector demand.

SE 2.23 - Average wages in mineral and energy resource sectors

economic benefits at sector level
measures personal income from resource sector in dollars
data exists-state agencies, census
N/A
Wages paid to workers in resource sectors
See above
National
Measures the primary source of personal income from resource sector employment for maintaining economic well-being