Skip to main content

Full text of "Mt. Hope molybdenum project. Socioeconomics"

See other formats


BLM   LIBRARY 


88009582 


SOCIOECONOMICS 


TECHNICAL  REPORT   N0.9 


MT.  HOPE  MOLYBDENUM  PROJECT 


View  from  tht   south   looking  north 


U.S.  DEPARTMENT  OF  INTERIOR 

BUREAU  OF  LAND  MANAGEMENT 

BATTLE  MOUNTAIN,  NEVADA 


DECEMBER   1984 


^  \mmi 


$&< 


SOCIOECONOMICS 


.MS 


TECHNICAL  REPORT   N0.9 


MT   HOPE  MOLYBDENUM  PROJECT 


ML   HOPE 


View  from   th«   south   looking  north 


U.S.  DEPARTMENT  OF  INTERIOR 

BUREAU  OF  LAND  MANAGEMENT 

BATTLE  MOUNTAIN,  NEVADA 


DECEMBER   1984 


vO^ 


SOCIOECONOMICS 

TECHNICAL  REPORT   NO. 9 

TABLE   OF    CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Table  of  Contents i 

List  of  Tables ill 

List  of  Figures iv 

CHAPTER  1.0-  INTRODUCTION 1-1 

1.1  Introduction 1-1 

1.2  Project  Description 1-1 

1.3  Baseline  Data  Development 1-2 

1.4  Impact  Analyses  Methodology 1-12 

1.4.1  Project  Sensitive  Components 1-13 

1.4.2  Fiscal  Impact  Analyses 1-14 

CHAPTER  2.0  -  BASELINE  SOCIOECONOMIC  DESCRIPTION 2-1 

2.1  Introduction 2-1 

2.2  Population 2-1 

2.3  Employment  and  Income 2-11 

2.3.1  Employment 2-11 

2.3.2  Income 2-28 

2.4  Selected  Regional  Economic  Activities 2-35 

2.4.1  Mining/Mineral  Exploration 2-35 

2.4.2  Agriculture,  Government  and  Other  Sectors 2-41 

2.5  Local  Government  and  Public  Finance 2-43 

2.5.1  County  and  City  Government 2-43 

2.5.2  Public  Finance 2-51 

2.6  Housing 2-7  0 

2.7  Attitudes   and   Lifestyles 2-77 

2.8  Community   Services   and   Facilities 2-84 

2.8.1  Schools 2-84 

2.8.2  Health 2-87 

2.8.3  Law  Enforcement 2-92 

2.8.4  Fire   Protection 2-95 

2.8.5  Public  Utilities    and    Communications 2-97 

2.8.6  Water   and  Wastewater 2-102 

2.8.7  Solid   Waste 2-104 

2.8.8  Community  Facilities   and   Recreation 2-104 

CHAPTKR    3.0    -    IMPACT   ANALYSES 3-1 

3. 1  Introduction 3-1 

3.2  Assumptions    and   Analysis   Guidelines 3-2 

3.3  Methods    of   Analysis 3-9 


BLM  Library 

D-553A,  Building  50 
D6nvor  Federal  Center 
p  o.  Box  £5047 

CO 


r>*r\ver 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  (cont.) 


PAGE 


3.3.1  Introduction 

3.3.2  Assumptions 

3.3.2.1  Population  -  Housing 

3.3.2.2  Revenues  -  Expenditures 

3.3.3  Methods  of  Fiscal  Analysis 

3.3.4  Sources  of  Forecasting  Data  Base 

3.3.4.1  Introduction 

3.3.4.2  Reference  Sources  -  Published  Data 

3.3.4.3  Verbal  Communication  Sources 

3.3.5  Perspective  on  Analysis  and  Forecasting 

3.3.5.1  Introduction 

3.3.5.2  Discussion 

3.4  Proposed  Action 

3.4.1  Employment 

3.4.1.1  Summary 

3.4.1.2  Employment  Calculations 

3.4.2  Population  Impact 

3.4.2.1  Summary 

3.4.2.2  Population  Calculations 

3.4.3  Housing 

3.4.4  Local  Government  and  Public  Finance 

3.4.4.1  Summary 

3.4.4.2  Fiscal  Impact  Calculations — Generated 
Tax  Reve nue  s 

3.4.4.3.  Fiscal  Impact  Calculations — Distribution 
of  Generated  Tax  Revenues  and  Anticipa- 
ted Expenditures 

3.4.4.4.  Budgetary  Impacts  of  the  Mt.  Hope  Pro- 
ject -  Unadjusted 

3.4.4.5   Budgetary  Impact  of  the  Mt.  Hope 

Project  -  Adjusted 

3.4.5  Attitudes  and  Lifestyles 

3.4.5.1  Summary 

3.4.5.2  Review  of  Assessment  Details 

3.4.6  Community  Services  and  Facilities 

3.5  Alternatives 

3.5.1  Employment 

3.5.2  Population   Impact 

3.5.2.1  Summary 

3.5.2.2  Population  Calculations 

3.5.3  Housing 

3.5.3.1  Summary 

3.5.3.2  Calculations 

3.5.4  Local  Government  and  Public  Finance 

3.5.4.1  Summary 

3.5.4.2  Calculations 

3.  5.4. '3      Budgetary    Impacts    of    the  Mt .    Hope 

Project    -   Unadjusted 

3.5.4.4  Budgetary    Impacts    of    the   Mt .    Hope 
Project    -   Adjusted 


3-9 

3-10 

3-11 

3-16 

3-22 

3-24 

3-24 

3-24 

3-25 

3-26 

3-26 

3-26 

3-27 

3-27 

3-27 

3-29 

3-31 

3-31 

3-42 

3-47 

3-60 

3-60 

3-73 


3-84 

3-143 

3-145 
3-147 
3-147 
3-149 
3-160 
3-168 
3-169 
3-169 
3-169 
3-171 
3-171 
3-171 
3-178 
3-17  9 
3-179 
3-185 

3-185 

3-191 


ii 


TABLE   OF    CONTENTS   (cont.) 


PAGE 


3.5.5  Attitudes   and  Lifestyles 3-194 

3.5.6  Community   Services   and   Facilities 3-195 

3.6        No  Action 3-198 

3.6.1  Employment 3-199 

3.6.2  Population 3-199 

3.6.3  Housing 3-200 

3.6.4  Local   Government   and   Public  Finance 3-200 

3.6.5  Attitudes   and  Lifestyles 3-201 

3.6.6  Community  Services   and  Facilities 3-201 

CHAPTER   4.0   -  LIST  OF    PREPARERS 4-1 

CHAPTER   5.0   -   SOCIOECONOMICS   GLOSSARY 5-1 

CHAPTER   6.0   -  BIBLIOGRAPHY 6-1 

APPENDIX  9-A     Redistribution   of   the   State   Sales   Tax  Components A-l 

APPENDIX  9-B      Information  Pertinent   to  Power  Line  and   State  Route 

278  Activity B-l 


iii 


LIST  OF    TABLES 

TABLE   NO.  TITLE  PAGE 

1-1  Summary   Details    of    the   Proposed   and   Alternatives 

Including  the   No  Action  Alternative 1-11 

2-1  Population   of    Selected   Nevada   Counties: 

1920-1980 2-2 

2-2  Population  Density  of    Selected  Nevada   Counties: 

1920-1980 2-3 

2-3  Population  of    Selected   Incorporated   and   Census 

Designated  Places:      1950-1980 2-6 

2-4  Urban  and   Rural   Population  of   Nevada   Counties: 

1950,    1960,    1970  and    1980 2-7 

2-5  Net  Migration  in  Nevada   By  County:      1970-1980 2-8 

2-6  Population  Projections    for   Selected  Counties 

in  Nevada 2-10 

2-7        Percent  Unemployment  for  Selected  Years 2-13 

2-8        Unemployment  Rate  (Percent)  for  Selected 

Nevada  Counties 2-14 

2-9        Nevada  Employment  by  Industry  by  County 

1971  and  1980 2-15 

2-10       1981  Employment  by  Major  Economic  Sector 

Eureka  County 2-1  7 

2-11       1982  Employment  by  Major  Economic  Sector 

Eureka  County 2-1 8 

2-12       1981  Employment  by  Major  Economic  Sector 

Elko  County 2-19 

2-13       1982  Employment  by  Major  Economic  Sector 

Elko  County 2-20 

2-14       1981  Employment  by  Major  Economic  Sector 

Lander  County 2-2  1 

2-15        1982  Employment  by  Major  Economic  Sector 

Lander  County 2-22 

2-16       1981  Employment  by  Major  Economic  Sector 

Nye  County 2-23 


Iv 


LIST  OF  TABLES  (cont.) 

TABLE  NO.      TITLE  PAGE 

2-17       1982  Employment  by  Major  Economic  Sector 

Nye  County 2-24 

2-18  1981    Employment   by  Major  Economic   Sector 

White   Pine  County 2-25 

2-19  1981   Employment   by  Major  Economic   Sector 

White   Pine   County 2-26 

2-20  Employment    Sector   and  Percent    Share   -  Annual   Review, 

Eureka  County 2-2 7 

2-21  Estimated   Per  Capita  Personal   Income..... 2-29 

2-22  Per  Capita  Personal   Income   by  County: 

Selected  Years    1959-1979 2-30 

2-23                 Estimated   Average  Weekly  Earnings,    Average   Hourly 
Earnings,    and   Average   Hours    for   Selected   Nevada 
Industries:      1970-1980 2-32 

2-24  Value   of    Nonfuel   Production  in  Nevada,    By  County 2-36 

2-25  Selected  Characteristics    of  Counties   in  Nevada: 

1981 2-44 

2-26  Selected   Administrative   Services,    Special  Districts 

and   Programs,    Eureka   County 2-45 

2-27  Selected   Characteristics    of   Nevada's    Incorporated 

Cities:      1981 2-47 

2-28       Type  of  Government  of  Unincorporated  Towns 

in  Nevada:   1981 2-48 

2-29       Selected  Administrative  Services,  Special 

Districts  and  Programs 2-49 

2-30       Selected  Administrative  Services  for  the  Cities 

of  Elko,  Carlin  and  Wells,  Elko  County 2-50 

2-31       Federal  Outlays  by  Federal  Agency  in  Nevada 

by  County:   Fiscal  Year  1980 2-53 

2-32       Sales  Tax  Revenue  Collection  for  Eureka  and 

FJko  Counties 2-59 

2-33       Gasoline  Tax  Revenues  for  Eureka  and  Elko 2-60 


LIST  OF  TABLES  (cont.) 
TABLE  NO.      TITLE  PAGE 


2-34       Cigarette  Tax  Revenues  for  Eureka,  Elko  and 

White  Pine  Counties 2-61 

2-3  5       Distribution  of  Liquor  Tax  Revenues  for  Eureka 

and  Elko  Counties... 2-62 

2-36  Ad  Valorem  Tax  (Property  Tax)  Revenue  and 
Assessed  Valuation  of  Property  for  Eureka 
and  Elko   Counties 2-63 

2-37  Senior  Citizen  Programs   -  Property  Tax  Rebates    for 

Eureka   and   Elko   Counties 2-64 

2-38  Selected   County  Budgets    1979-80,    1980-81 2-65 

2-39  Town  of   Eureka   Budget  Fiscal  Year   1980-81 

and    1982-83 2-67 

2-4  0  Revenues   and  Expenditures   of   Local  Jurisdictions 2-68 

2-41  Number   of   Occupied  Housing  Units    for   Selected 

Counties   in  Nevada    1950,    1960,    1970  and    1980 2-71 

2-42  Value  of  Owner  Occupied  Housing  and  Contract 
Rent  of  Renter  Occupied  Housing  in  Nevada  by 
County:       1970  and    1980 2-72 

2-4  3  Housing   Type   -  Historical   Review  Eureka   County 2-74 

2-44  Housing  Type  -  Historical   Review  Elko  County 2-76 

2-45  Eureka   County  Health  and   Medical   Expenses 

Fiscal   Year    1981-1982 2-90 

2-46  Health  and   Human   Services   Utilized    by  Eureka 

County  Residents 2-91 

2-47  Licensed   Physicians,    Dentists   and   Nurses   by 

County    per    1,000   Population:       1981 2-93 

2-48                 Elko   County   Health   and   Medical    Expenses 
(FY    1981-82)    and    Elko  General   Hospital 
Information   (1980) 2-94 

2-49  Elko   Fire   Protection 2-98 


vi 


LIST  OF    TABLES   (cont.) 
TABLE   NO.  TITLE  PAGE 

2-50  Telephones    in  Use   by  County   for   Selected 

Years:      1960-1981 2-99 

2-51  Newspapers    and   Publications   with  Daily  or  Less 

Than  Daily  Circulation:      1981 2-100 

2-52  Federal/State  Agencies   and   Community 

Organizations   in   the   Town   of  Eureka 2-106 

2-53  Community   Services,    Outdoor   Sport   Facilities 

and   Parks   in  Elko  County 2-108 

3-1  Local   and   Non-Local   Distribution  of 

Total  Workforce 3-5 

3-2  Estimated   Skill  Mix   of   Operational  Labor  Force 3-6 

3-3  Local   and   Non-Local   Employment   and   Populations 3-30 

3-4  Construction  Personnel:      Characteristics 30-32 

3-5  Direct-Hire   Operations   Personnel:      Characteristics 3-33 

3-6  Manpower  Levels    by   Quarter   and   Corresponding 

Family  Characteristics   Direct   Project    Personnel 

Type      (Includes   Local   Hire) 3-34 

3-7  Summary  Manpower  Levels   by   Quarter:      Total 

Professional    and   Labor 3-35 

3-8  Generated   Employment   Multipliers      (By 

Construction   and   Direct-Hire   Personnel) 3-36 

3-9  Generated   Employment   (Non-basic   Jobs) 3-37 

3-10  Manpower  Levels    by   Quarter   and    Corresponding 

Family  Characteristics 3-38 

3-11  Stable   Annual    Populations 3-41 

3-12  Historic   Populations   and   Current    Projections 3-43 

3-13  Employee   Distribution  -   Stabilized 3-45 


vii 


LIST  OF  TABLES  (cont.) 

TABLE  NO.      TITLE  PAGE 

3-14       Stable  Annual  Populations  and  Distribution 

Percentage  Characteristics 3-46 

3-15       Quarterly  Forecasts  of  Project  and  Generated 
Population  Effects  on  Communities:   Case  5-A, 
Proposed  Action 3-48 

3-16       Summary  of  Project  and  Generated  Populations 

by  Place  by  Quarter 3-49 

3-17       Locational  Distribution  of  Workforce  by  Quarter: 

Direct   Project   Personnel 3-50 

3-18       Summary  of  Workforce  Population  Distribution  by 

Quarter:      Direct    Project   Personnel 3-52 

3-19  Estimated   Total   Housing  Units   Needed   for  Peak 

and   Stabilized   Project    Influence  Periods 3-54 

3-20  Estimated   Housing  Type   Preference    of 

Population  Influx 3-55 

3-21  Quarterly  Estimation   of   Housing  Unit   Numbers, 

Type   and   Property   Tax   Revenue:      Operations 
Employment   and   Secondary  Employment,    Proposed  Action...         3-56 

3-22  Construction   Crew  Housing   Demands,    Market 

Values   and   Ad  Valorem  Property  Taxes 3-57 

3-23  Combined   Total   Households    Non-Local   Operations 

and   Generated    Secondary  Employment 3-58 

3-24                 Annual   Tax   Revenues   Generated    by   the  Project 
and   Distributed    to   Jurisdictions   (1982   $) 
Subdivision   Case   5-A 3-65 

3-25                 Net    Project-Related   Mid-Term   Budgetary 
Shortfalls    in   Individual   Accounts, 
Proposed   Action 3-67 

3-26  Expenditures    per   Student    for   Five   Most 

Directly  Applicable   Teaching   Costs 3-68 

3-27  Mine/Process   Plant    Personal    Spending   and   Tax 

Consequences   (Estimated) 3-75 

3-28  Sales   Taxes   Paid    by    Individuals,    $66.95   Per 

Capita/Year 3-78 


viii 


LIST  OF  TABLES  (cont.) 

TABLE  NO.      TITLE  PAGE 

3-29       Forecast  Project  Populations  and  Characteristics: 
Direct  Hire  and  Generated,  Subdivision  Case  5-A 
(Constant  Workforce)  Local  Hires  Excluded 3-80 

3-30       Distribution  of  Ad  Valorem  Residential  Property  Tax 

Revenues  Annually,  Eureka  and  Elko  Counties 3-81 

3-31       Sales  and  Ad  Valorem  Mine/Process  Plant  Property  Tax 
Base,  Tax  Revenues  Collectible  and  Tax  Revenues 
Distribution  -  Eureka  County 3-83 

3-32       Revenues  and  Expenditures  of  Local  Jurisdictions 

(Normal  Annual  Recurrent) 3-87 

3-33       Annual  Revenues  and  Expenditures  Per  Capita,  Towns, 

Counties,  School  Districts  (in  dollars) 3-88 

3-34       Quarterly  Revenues  and  Expenditures  Per  Capita,  Towns, 

Counties,  School  Districts  (in  dollars) 3-89 

3-35       School  District  General  Fund  Expenditures  Per  School 

(Per  Average  Number  of  Schools  in  Each  District) 3-94 

3-36       Total  Expenditures  and  Per  Student  Costs  of  General 

Fund  Budgets  Only  Year  End  1979,  1980 3-95 

3-37       Breakdown  of  School  District  Expenditures  -  I 

Out  of  General  Fund  Only  Annual  Totals:   1978-79, 

1979-80  (  $000) 3-96 

3-38  Breakdown   of    School   District    Expenditures   -   II 

Out    of   General    Fund   Only  Annual   Totals:       1978-79, 

1979-80  (  $000) 3-97 

3-39  Breakdown   of    School   District   Expenditures  -   III 

Out   of    General    Fund   Only  Annual   Totals:      1978-79, 

1979-80  (  $000) 3-98 

3-40  Breakdown  of  School  District  Expenditures  -  IV 
Out  of  General  Fund  Only  Per  Student  Enrolled: 
1978-79,  1979-80  ($000) 3-99 

3-41       Breakdown  of  School  District  Expenditures  -  V 

Out  of  General  Fund  Only  Excluded  Expenses:  1978-79, 

1979-80   (  $000) 3-100 

3-42  School   District    General    Fund    Expenditures    in   Percent 

as    Direct   and    Indirect   Teaching   Costs   (Elko  and   Eureka 

1978-79,    1979-80) 3-101 


ix 


LIST  OF    TABLES   (cont.) 

TABLE   NO.  TITLE  PAGE 

3-4  3                 School  District   General   Fund   Expenditures   in  Percent 
as   Direct   and    Indirect   Teaching  Costs   (1978-79, 
1979-80) 3-102 

3-44                 School  District    General   Fund   Expenditures   in  Percent 
as  Direct    and   Indirect   Teaching   Costs   (1978-79, 
1979-80) 3-103 

3-4  5  Data  for  Regression  Analysis:      Per  Student   Costs 

Variation  with  Number   of   Students 3-106 

3-46                Regression  Model  Predictions    of    Student   Cost  Variation 
With  Change   in  Number   of   Students   ( 1978-79,    1979-80 
Base  Year) 3-109 

3-47                 Regression  Model   Predictions    of   Student  Cost  Variation 
With  Change   in  Number   of    Students   (1978-79,    1979-80 
Base  Year) 3-111 

3-48                 Possible  Application  of    School  District   Regression 
Analysis    of    Declining  Expenditures    Per   Student 
(  1978-79,    1979-80  Base  Year) 3-114 

3-49                Eureka   School   District  Budget    of    1982-83  and  Adjust- 
ments  to   Entries 3-115 

3-50       Application  of  Adjustments  to  Forecast  of  Eureka 

School  District   Revenues   and   Expenditures 3-117 

3-51  Costs   Forecasts    of   School   District    Impacts — 

Adjusted,    Unadjusted 3-118 

3-52  County  Auditor's  Reports   All   Fund   Sources,    Year 

Ending   6-30-82 3-120 

3-53                 Regression  Analysis    of   County  Expenditures    Per  Capita: 
Variation  with   Size   of    Population  (Year  Ending   June   30, 
1982)    Audited    Budgets 3-121 

3-54  Linear   Regression  Models    of    County   Cost 

5-County   Population   Expenditures 3-123 

3-55                 Possible   Application   of    County   Regression  Analysis   of 
Declining   Expenditures    Per   Capita   (Audited   Budget 
Data   Comparisons) 3-125 

3-56       Application  of  Adjustments  to  Forecast  of  Eureka 

County   Revenues    and    Expenditures 3-126 


LIST   OF    TABLES      (cont.) 

TABLE   NO.  TITLE  PAGE 

3-57  County  Cost   Economies   of    Scale — Unadjusted 

and   Adjusted 3-127 

3-58       Net  Quarterly  Expenditures  Generated  by 

Project   as   Year-End   Totals 3-129 

3-59  Annual   Budget   Balances:      Years   4-15 

1987-1998 3-130 

3-60  Ad  Valorem  Residential   Property  Tax  Revenues   and 

Distributions:      Eureka,    Elko  Jurisdictions   Derived 

from  Direct-Hire   and  Generated   Employment 3-133 

3-61  Tax  Revenues   Generated   by  Project   Quarterly  During 

First  Four  Years 3-134 

3-62  Quarterly  Tax  Revenues   Generated   by  Project 

as  Year-End   Totals 3-135 

3-63  Tax  Revenues    Generated   by   Project 

Annually     (Rounded) 3-136 

3-64       Net  Quarterly  Expenditures  Generated  by  Project 

at   Year-End   Totals    and   Project   Generated   Revenues 3-137 

3-65  Annual    Budget   Balances:      Year   4-  Year   5 3-138 

3-66  Extended   Average   Annual    Budget   Balances   in 

5  Year   Intervals 3-139 

3-67  Net   Quarterly  Revenues   and   Expenditures   Generated 

by   Project   as   Year-End   Totals 3-140 

3-68  Annual    Budget   Balances:      Years    4-15 

1987-1998 3-141 

3-69  Net   Project-Related   Mid-Term   Budgetary   Shortfalls    in 

Individual   Accounts 3-142 

3-70  School   Age    Children:      Normal    Populations    (Without 

Project)    Quarterly   First   Four  Years 3-161 

3-71  School   Age    Children:      E.M.C.    and   Generated   Workers 

-  Quarterly   First   Four   Years 3-162 

3-72  School   Age    Children   and    Classrooms  Year   End   Totals 3-163 

3-73  Ideational    Distribution    of   Manpower    by    Quarter:    Direct 

Project    Personnel    (Excludes    Local    Hire) 3-172 


xi 


LIST   OF    TABLES      (cont.) 

TABLE   NO.  TITLE  PAGE 

3-74  Locational   Distribution  of   Generated   Employment 

X   Place  X  Quarter  X  Alternative   Case 3-173 

3-75                Forecast   Project   Populations   and   Characteristics: 
Direct-Hire   and   Generated   Dispersed   Personnel   Case 
(Constant  Workforce)    Local   Hires   Encluded 3-174 

3-76                 Population  Effects   on  Communities   of  E.M.C.   and 
Generated   Populations,    Dispersed   Personnel   Case, 
By   Quarter 3-17  5 

3-77  Mine/Process   Plant   Operations    and  Generated  Housing 

X  Number  and  Type  and   Property  Tax  Revenue,    Dispersed 

Personnel   Case 3-17  7 

3—78  Annual   Tax  Revenue   Generated   by   the   Project   and 

Distributed   to  Jurisdiction  (1982$)    (Decentralized 

Workers   (Case   5-B) ) 3-180 

3-79  Net  Project-Related   Mid-Term  Budgetary  Shortfalls 

in   Individual   Accounts   (Alternate   5-B) 3-182 

3-80  Net   Quarterly  Revenues   and   Expenditures   Generated   by 

Project   as   Year-End   Totals 3-186 

3-81  Tax   Revenues   Generated    by   Project   Annually  (Rounded)...  3-18  7 

3-82  Annual   Budget   Balances:      Year   5-15,   Unadjusted 3-189 

3-83  Extended   Average   Annual   Budget   Balances   in  5-Year 

Intervals,    Unadjusted 3-192 


xii 


LIST  OF  FIGURES 

FIGURE  NO.      TITLE  PAGE 

1-1         State  Map  of  Nevada 1-3 

1-2         Proposed  Project  and  Land  Acquisition  Area  Map, 

Alternative  1-A 1-4 

1-3         Regional  Study  Area  Map  Showing  Proposed  Action 

Component  s 1-5 

1-4  Proposed  Action 1-6 

1-5  Regional    Study  Area  Map   Showing  Alternative 

Components   2  and   3   to   the  Proposed  Action 1-7 

1-6  Alternative   Routing   Corridors   For  Water  Line 

Right-of-Way 1-8 

1-7  Regional    Study  Area  Map   Showing  Alternative   Component   4 

to   the   Proposed  Action 1-9 

1-8        Alternative  Land  Acquisition  Area 1-10 

2-1         Historical  Population  of  Eureka  County,  Nevada 2-5 

3-1         Total  Workforce  Estimate 3-4 

3-2         Historic  and  Projected  Population 

Growth  in  Eureka  County 3-40 


:■:  i  i  i 


CHAPTER  1.0 
INTRODUCTION 

1.1  Introduction 

This  technical  report  presents  detailed  information  concerning  the 
socioeconomic  resource  base  and  any  significant  potential  impacts  to  that 
resource  base  upon  implementation  of  the  proposed  action  and/or  alternatives. 

1 .2  Project  Description 

Technical   Report   No.l    and   Chapter   2.0   of    the  Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum 
Project  EIS   detail   the   proposed   action  and   alternatives.      In  brief,   the  Mt. 
Hope  Molybdenum  Project    Environmental    Impact    Statement   (EIS)    (including   Tech- 
nical  Report   Nos.l   thru  9)    have   been   prepared   in  response   to  an  EXXON  Minerals 
Company   (EXXON)    proposal   submitted   to   the   Bureau  of   Land  Management   (BLM)    for 
the  purchase    of   public   lands    under   Section  203   of   the  Federal   Land   Policy  and 
Management   Act    (FLPMA)    of    1976.      Although   the   land   purchase   proposal    is    the 
action  which  occasions    the   Environmental   Impact   Statement   (EIS)    process, 
there   are   other   federal    decisions   which  must   be  made   before   EXXON  may   proceed. 
Among  these   are   the   granting   of    power,    water    line   and  highway  relocation 
rights-of-way   and    the   approval    of    a  Plan  of    Operation. 

The    primary   purpose    of    the    proposed   sale    of   public   lands   involves 
the   planned    activities   of    EXXON  which   has    for   some   time   been   conducting 
preliminary   feasibility   studies    assessing   the   development    of    a  molybdenum 
deposit    in   the   vicinity   of   Mt.    Hope    near  Eureka,   Nevada.      As   part    of    the   EIS 
process,    EXXON  has   detailed   its    preliminary   plans   concerning   project   develop- 
ment.     The  Mt.    Hope    project    includes    the   development    of    an   open-pit  mine, 
non-mineralized   material   storage   areas   (2),   a    process    plant    complex   of    approx- 
imately   100  acres    and    a    tailings  material    disposal    site.      As   support    features 
to   the    project,   a    proposed   water    line   and    power    line  would    also   be   necessary. 
The   proposed    tailings    pond   site  would,    if    implemented,    require   an   approximate 
six   mile    relocation    of   an   existing  state   highway   (State   Route   278). 


1-1 


Figures  1-1  through  1-8  show  project  area  location  and  depict  the 
proposed  action  and  alternatives  (except  the  location  of  a  subdivision  plat). 
Table  1-1  outlines  the  components  of  the  proposed  action  and  alternatives, 
including  the  no  action  alternative. 

1 .3   Baseline  Data  Development 

Early  in  the  EIS  process,  the  BLM  and  EXXON  agreed  in  a  Memorandum 
of  Understanding  ( MOU)  that  the  EIS  process  of  data  collection,  analysis  and 
documentation  would  be  assisted  by  the  involvement  of  an  independent  third 
party  consultant,  Wyatt  Research  and  Consulting,  Inc.  (WRC).   WRC  initiated 
its  involvement  as  an  oversight  quality  assurance  consultant  in  the  development 
of  a  project  source  document  for  subsequent  use  in  developing  the  Mt.  Hope 
Molybdenum  Project  EIS.   Entitled  the  Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project  Environmental 
Impact  Report  (EIR) ,  the  source  document  included  two  chapters  of  information 
concerning  environmental  resources  (baseline  data  and  impact  analyses)  prepared 
by  WRC  with  assistance  from  the  BLM  and  available  study  results  of  EXXON 
(e.g.,  cultural  resources  consultant  report,  geology,  etc.).   During  the 
preparation  of  the  source  document  and  continuing  throughout  the  EIS  process, 
WRC  has  collected,  reviewed  and  analyzed  pertinent  data  in  each  of  the  neces- 
sary topical  areas  of  environmental  resources. 

This  technical  report  documents  the  majority  of  information  gathered 
and  analyzed  that  was  pertinent  to  socioeconomic  resources.   The  primary 
sources  of  published  socioeconomic  resource  information  included  the  following 
(Chapter  6.0,  Bibliography,  details  individual  source  titles): 

1)  Bureau  of  Business  and  Economic  Research,  University 
of  Nevada,  Reno 

2)  State  of  Nevada,  Nevada  Employment  Security  Department 

3)  State  of  Nevada,  Office  of  Community  Services 

4)  State  of  Nevada,  Nevada  Statistical  Abstract 

5)  State  of  Nevada,  Nevada  Department  of  Taxation 


1-2 


OREGON 


IDAHO 


Winnemuct 


Battle   Mountain 


'Elko 


f}      (•*) 


Car  1 1  n 


.  RENO 


Mt.  Hope 


\Au»tm 


Eureka 


Carson  City 


\ 


\ 


NEVA 


\ 


\ 


\ 


V; 


SI/. 


FRESNO 


CA    LIFORNIA 


BATTLE  MOUNTAIN 
BLM  DISTRICT 


\ 


\ 


\ 


\ 


SCALE    APPROX 


Ely 


Mini 

) 


\ 

LAS 

VEGAS 

\ 
\ 

/     \ 

\ 

(   ' 
\ 

( 
1 
\ 
\ 
\   ) 

SALT  LAKE  CITY 


UTAH 


ARIZONA 


M   Kl.lt 

—I 


IN 


MT     HOPE 
MOLYBDENUM    PROJECT 


STATE    MAP   OF 
NEVADA 


U  S    Department  of  the  Interior^ hum 
Burtou  of  Land  Management 


PROPOSED    LAND    ACQUISITION    AREA  (PROJECT  AREA) 

ESTIMATION    OF    APPROXIMATE    FEDERAL    LAND 

POLICY   AND   MANAGEMENT    ACT  (FLPMA) 
SALE   AREA 


0  12  3  4  5Miles    kj 

0I2345676K 


BASE    USGS    TOPO   QUADRANGLES ,  GARDEN    VALLEY ,  WHISTLER    MTN.,  DIAMOND   SPRINGS 
8  EUREKA, NEVADA. 


PROPOSED  PROJECT  AND  LAND 
ACQUISITION  AREA  MAP 
ALTERNATIVE    I -A 


U.S.    Department  of  the   Interior 
Bureau  of   Land   Management 


'« '•■'  PROPOSED  LAND  ACQUISITION   AREA   BOUNDARY 

*  NOTE:  COMPONENT    5 -A   (HOUSING   SUBDIVISION)  NOT    SHOWN 

ALTERNATIVE     1-A   (  INCLUDING    FLPMA  LAND  SALE  AREA)  SHOWN 
ON   FIGURE    2-1. 

0  12  3  4  5Mile 

I  I  I  I 

MAP 

0         1         2         3        45         678  Km 


BASE    USGS    TOPO    QUADRANGLES  ,  GARDEN    VALLEY,  WHISTLER   MTN.  ,    DIAMOND  SPRINGS 
8.   EUREKA  ,  NEVADA. 


MI   HOPE    MOLYBDENUM   PROJECT 


REGIONAL  STUDY   AREA   MAP 

SHOWING 

PROPOSED    ACTION  COMPONENTS 


U.S.  Department  of   the  Interior  I  FIGURE     1.3 

Bureau  of    Lond    Management 


N  -r     ._  —  -r 


Q 

Z 

o 
< 


< 

> 


1 

I 

> 

(A 

K 

z 

UJ             1 

UJ 

t-          . 

o 

Ul 

« 

z 

--  J 

< 

o 

-< 

in 

CO  o 

_i       —  ■ 

J  > 

< 

O  UJ 

> 

z  z 

ir 

<    . 

UJ 

I 

►- 

a  z 

z        n 

<  •- 

D  * 

^J 

X 

*•    1 
^  J 

O 

1*1 

3 

o? 

.1 

o 

1    o.  **■ 

IT 

►- 

i  2- 

z 

o  1 

o      o  ■ 

UJ 

u 

(M 

13  5 

-T> 

y 

<T 

■"■    ■ 

b  — 

Q 

at 

Z 

Z 

/i 

o 

>- 

UJ 

■* 

> 

/ 

O 

< 

IT 

UJ 

_J 

■' 

UJ 

UJ 

2 

UJ 

' 

_l 

UJ 

►- 

^/ 

X 

O 

s 

a. 

U4 

1 

(A 
u-> 

< 

x  3 

3  O 

O  »- 

y-  z 

z  o 

O  o 
o 


fc   a 


3 

a 


o 


o 

UJ 

-} 
O 

oc 

CL 


3 
Z 
UJ 
Q 
00 
> 
_l 
O 

UJ 
Q. 

o 

I 

2 


Q    < 
Z   ^ 


< 

Z 


Z 

o 

t— 
</} 

o 

u 
< 


• 

■C    o 

*"  c 

h 

E  o 

*-  —I 

h 

Q 
3oi 


< 

1  > 

<n 

X 

I   z 

UJ 

1  u 

>- 

1  o 

UJ 

1   <t 

Z 

*»  J    « 

O 

.< 

o 

coo 

y< 

j 

—   1 

_j> 

«x 

ou 

> 

ZZ 

<r 

<    - 

UJ 

<E 

t- 

■   oz 

z 

s, 

1   <t- 

1            1  3* 

"  1    o 

<r 

r> 

■      " 

Pill 

o 

t- 

2^ 

z 

o  "J 

•-en 

o 

o  * 

OT  I 

OJ 

cr 

1 

a: 

3 

< 

3 

O 

ui 

O 

»- 

a- 

z 

1- 

z 

1- 

0 

z 

o 

i/> 

< 
> 

o 

u 

UJ 

u 

H 

_) 

a: 

T 

4 

UJ 

<r 

UJ 

o 

a 

^i 

UJ 

t- 

<r 

UJ 

ut 

t- 

UJ 

» 

UJ 

I 

UJ 

UJ 

H 

* 

t- 

X 

<  i 

O 

< 

a. 

a. 

'  ) 

tf> 

t- 

UI 

tn 

.n 

IM 

ir> 

o 


O    V. 

O     V) 

1     4,  "J 
k>    £    O 

1      o    ki 

•J    E    u 

■H 

£    3    tl 

X     3     41 

It            kl 

re        ^ 

KI    -1     • 

«  a  -.    • 

k         u 

—    tc    O  X 

--    r    c  x 

41      •     4 

41      •     4 

k    <     U     41 

k  <    w    4 

t     »1     • 

■c   o:  — i    • 

&.    a 

a.    4 

4.     C     O     C 

41    c    c    c 

0)                    *J 

41                    U 

u-    —     k,     C 

tt-    ~     k     c 

c    •  «   o 

C      ■     41     O 

J*     ft-H 

_*    c  — 

.»*    ■©     a.    k 

—  ts    a  l- 

u-    It           ki 

u*    re        w 

->     0.     0     3. 

—   4,    o   a 

C     E     C    It 

o  e  c   re 

k     ~ 

k.  I 

1       C     u 

1        C      4J 

k     C            ki 

uc          kl 

kl    e          c 

«j    c        c 

u    V     ■    0 
5    k    «J    t 

41    It      •    O 

k>   O   as    4 

u    o   f    a. 
■   -•IE 

a    •    f     - 

*j  u  *j   e 

re  ■"    4j    E 

a  c  ■  4 

0     KI 

t  tir 

a.            — 

»           -i 

-M     3    — 

>.   41   — i 

>N     41     — 

*l    U    09    ft 

*^      l_     R      CL 

i  it  H 

c    re  x  -< 

0    4    o-    E 

0    4    «    E 

Z    S    ki    1 

Z   -c  <   ■* 

z  -e  <  — 

41    C     O    c 


u 

^~   1-1 

k 

c 

tte  ^ 

c   >. 

-»; 

a. 

M 

t-l    It 

4     3 

O    E 

c 

<r 

C    E 

U     1 

1 

c 

1 

4->      C 

c 

<->    C 

■D     0 

k    c 

AC 

i 

k     C 

«     1 

re  — 

e 

c   — 

O    kJ 

a  r 

4 

CL   r 

k    X 

9 

u 

k>    u 

03 

a, 

4-       O 

e  - 

£.  «• 

te 

E 

C     4 

z   u 

Z    -o 

<c 

Z    -c 

I  ! 


&  a 


IT 

11 

— 

t 

re 

G 

re 

3 

4 

tk 

U 

OJ 

4 

T 

CT 

IT 

n 

s 

U  -H  kl  kl 


4  -o  -c  t; 

c  c  c  c 

e  u  o  u 

i  T  i  i 


T 

B 

k> 

kl 

tJ 

C 

e 

C 

11 

4 

4> 

c 

E 

C 

0 

0 

0 

a 

e. 

E 

f 

V 

a 

e 

ce 
1 

(J 
1 

6 

c 

O 

CN 

CN 

o 

r*i 

f*l 

u 

u 

u 

ac 

60 

DC 

M 

cc 

ac 

c 

C 

be 

C 

c 

41 

c 

-* 

•^ 

c 

■* 

** 

ki 

k> 

3 

3 

kl 

3 

3 

(A 

a 

0 

C 

3 

O 

O 

0 

OS 

a 

0 

OS 

a. 

•o 

IX 

ec 

C 

41 

-tf 

41 

■9 

41 

-»     41   xn 

0 

V 

> 

1 

> 

1 

tl 

> 

1       >     1 

0. 

c 

c 

*J 

kl 

4-1 

R 

J 

o 

V 

re 

01 

J 

a 

41    re   4i 

00 

c 

u 

E 

u 

c 

Uj    c    u 

c 

k> 

ki 

s 

w 

3    k     3 

4 

41 

D£ 

41 

M 

41 

4i 

6£    4    at 

J 

*- 

4J 

ki 

c 

U. 

U. 

a 

J-    —    u. 

■ 

CL, 

< 

^ 

< 

'-' 

3 

< 

-^  <  w 

H 

1 

CM 

T 

Csl 

V 

cm 

1 

1 

1 

1 

•a* 

4 

41 

41 

> 

> 

> 

*H 

4J 

4J 

U 

re 

m 

re 

c 

c 

C 

k 

w 

k. 

V 

41 

41 

ki 

kl 

kl 

— 

< 

2 

< 

T 

i 

<r 

-T 

V 

4> 

ki 

U 

CO 

V. 

4 

4'  -a 

a  § 


*£ 


3     A 


£  I 


3 
O 


us 


§ 

<M 

41     I 

C  — 

-J    cv 


5  § 


31 


S3 

—  u. 


re 

< 

1 

kt 

X 

4. 

ki 

E 

re 

o 

r 

•o 

tl 

4 

t) 

" 

5 

s^ 

r^ 

re 

1 

~ 

« 

4 

C 

S 

Li 

r 

V 

3 

i 

kl 

U 

E 

c 

B 

i»- 

z 

'S. 

•«-' 

1-11 


6)  U.S.  Department  of  Commerce,  Bureau  of  Economic 
Analysis 

7)  County  of  Eureka  General  Plan,  Eureka  County 

Substantial  personal  communication  was  required  in  Eureka  County  to 
assure  a  data  base  of  adequacy  pertinent  to  specific  Eureka  Counties  entity 
characteristics.   Individual s)  involved  with  the  following  entity  groups 
were  interviewed  to  obtain  the  necessary  specific  data  and/or  to  provide 
supplemental  unpublished  data  (particularly  1982-1983  unpublished  data). 


1 
2 
3 
A 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 


Eureka  County  School  District 

Eureka  County  Commissioners  Office 

Eureka  County  Sheriffs  Department 

Eureka  County  Volunteer  Fire  Department 

Diamond  Valley  Volunteer  Fire  Department 

Crescent  Valley  Volunteer  Fire  Department 

Eureka  County  Public  Works  Department 

Eureka  County  Tax  Assessors  Office 

First  Interstate  Bank  of  Nevada,  Eureka  Branch 

Eureka  County  Clerks  Office 


As  necessary,  the  manner  in  which  the  data  reported  in  the  referenced 
sources  was  collected  (i.e.,  facility  tours,  etc.)  is  discussed  in  appropropriate 
sections  (e.g.,  details  concerning  collection  of  data  regarding  lifestyles 
and  attitudes). 

1  .A   Impact  Analyses  Methodology 

In  the  event  of  any  discrepancies  between  this  technical  report  and 
the  EIS,  the  material  presented  in  the  EIS  shall  supercede  that  which  is  pre- 
sented in  this  technical  report.   Determination  of  potential  impacts  resultant 
of  implementing  the  proposed  action  and/or  alternatives  emphasized  analysis 
of:  1)  project  specific  changes,  in  quantitative  terms,  in  the  baseline 
socioeconomic  characteristics  of  population,  employment  and  income,  housing 
and  local  government;  2)  qualitative  effects  upon  community  facilities  and 


1-12 


services,  as  well  as  the  indirect  effect  of  such  change  upon  community  life- 
styles and  attitudes;  and,  3)  fiscal  impacts  relative  to  project  implementa- 
tion and  the  associated  cost/revenue  receipts  anticipated  to  affect  Eureka 
and  Elko  County. 

1.4.1   Project  Sensitive  Components 

The  population  influx  associated  with  the  employment  opportunity 
provided  by  project  implementation  would  result  in  significant  effects  on 
most,  if  not  all,  socioeconomic  parameters  of  characterization.   Whereas  the 
employment  requirements  of  the  proposed  action/alternatives  would  not 
necessarily  result  in  such  a  comprehensive  effect  in  more  populous  areas 
(inherently  more  capable  of  absorbing  or  masking  the  extent  of  change)  the 
impacts  associated  with  such  an  employment  base  in  a  scarcely  populated  area 
like  Eureka  County  can  be  correctly  assumed  to  encompass  all  parameters  of 
socioeconomic  infrastructure.   The  assumed  population  influx  of  more  than 
1,000  people,  nearly  equal  to  the  county's  present  population  basis,  allowed 
the  initial  assumption  of  comprehensive  impact  effects,  thereby  establishing 
the  mode  or  method  of  impact  analysis  scope. 

Realizing  the  scope  of  socioeconomic  impacts  that  would  be  associated 
with  implementation  of  the  project,  analyses  were  conducted  in  sequential 
step  processes,  initiated  by  estimating  annual  population  increases  and 
then  applying  the  population  factors  upon  each  parameter  of  socioeconomic 
influence;  i.e.,  income  generated  and  expended;  housing  selected  and  subject 
to  income  expenditure;  governmental  financing  as  affected  by  sales  tax  and 
property  tax  receipts;  and,  finally  the  manner  in  which  public  entities 
expended  received  monies  to  support  the  population  communities.   The  analytical 
approach  additionally  incorporated  multiple  non-population  sensitive  factors, 
such  as  mining  proceeds  for  monies  distribution.   For  the  most  part,  however, 
the  non-population  sensitive  factors  were  evaluated  as  a  component  of  the 
fiscal  impact  assessment  conducted  during  latter  analyses. 

In  short,  the  implementation  of  the  proposed  action  and/or  alterna- 
tives would  result  in  the  direct  quantitative  change  of  the  area's  socioeconomic 
infrastructure.   As  such,  the  analysis  of  impacts  first  determined  the  extent 


1-13 


of  change  and  then,  with  a  basis  of  quantitive  characteristics,  the  impacts 
of  the  incurred  changes  were  evaluated  relative  to  fiscal  impacts  within  the 
socioeconomic  infrastructure.   The  evaluation  of  impact  significance  relative 
to  fiscal  effects  was  deemed  appropriate  in  that  the  fiscal  relationships 
within  a  socioeconomic  infrastructure  represent  the  broadest  and  most  compre- 
hensive measurement  or  indicator  of  community  response  to  actions  affecting 
that  community  (i.e.,  the  fiscal  resources  available  to  a  community  and  the 
end  use  of  such  resources,  directly  form  the  basis  of  community  conditions, 
both  quantitative  (e.g.,  numerically  sufficient  school  facilities)  and 
qualitative  (e.g.,  recreational  quality  relative  to  population  served)). 

The  use  of  a  quantitive  analytical  method  additionally  provided  an 
evaluation  reliant  upon  objective  data  interpretations.   Subjective  analyses 
have  been  limited  in  this  EIS  effort  to  the  spectrum  of  community  attitudes 
and  lifestyles,  a  socioeconomic  factor  with  a  high,  inherent  subjectivety 
relative  to  analysis. 

1.4.2  Fiscal  Impact  Analyses 

Implementation  of  the  proposed  action  would  significantly  affect 
public  financing  in  the  region,  having  both  positive  and  negative  effects. 
Seven  jurisdictions  are  involved:   Eureka  and  Elko  counties,  Eureka  and  Elko 
county  school  districts,  the  towns  of  Eureka  and  Carlin,  and  the  City  of 
Elko.   Each  jurisdiction  would  be  affected  differently  under  either  the 
proposed  action,  alternative,  or  no  action  circumstances. 

The  financial  effects  of  project  and  alternatives  implementation 
upon  each  jurisdiction  were  analyzed  extensively  utilizing  conservative 
methodologies.   Section  3.2  of  this  Technical  Report  presents  detailed 
discussion  concerning  the  manner  in  which  the  fiscal  impact  analyses  (as  well 
as  other  components)  pertinent  to  implementation  of  the  Mt.  Hope  project  were 
conducted.   The  following  subsections  summarize  the  methodologies  of  analysis. 

An  analysis  of  fiscal  impacts  fundamentally  requires  the  investigation 
of  revenues  versus  expenditures.   Upon  implementation,  the  proposed  action 
(or  alternative)  would  cause  certain  revenues  to  be  generated  while  simultaneously 


1-14 


causing  area  jurisdictions  to  incur  certain  expenditures.   The  fiscal  balance, 
or  imbalance,  thus  created  between  generated  revenues  and  incurred  expenditures 
significantly  affects  the  eventual  magnitude  and  adversity  of  social  impacts 
resultant  from  the  action  underway. 

To  determine  the  fiscal  impact  of  the  proposed  action,  and  thus  to 
characterize  socioeconomic  impact  as  to  beneficial /ad verse  conditions, 
conservative  and  realistic  measures  were  incorporated  into  the  analyses. 
First,  the  calculation  of  project  generated  revenues  was  conducted  on  a 
directly  traceable  dollar  basis  (i.e.,  tax  monies  generated  by  the  project 
and  project  personnel  were  directly  calculated  and  traced  from  origin  through 
distribution).   The  use  of  directly  traceable  revenues  allows  an  unbiased  and 
accurate  quantitative  establishment  of  definitive  monies  that  are  specific  to 
the  project  but  results  in  an  understated  revenue  value.   Understated  revenues 
result  due  to  the  fact  that  some  generated  tax  monies,  particularly  those 
within  the  General  State  Fund  (see  latter  discussion),  are  distributed  in  a 
manner  not  allowing  appropriate  analytical  inclusion  to  this  EIS  (the  manner 
of  distribution  being  variable  and  annually  determined  as  to  variability). 
Additionally,  local  economies  often  receive  external  financing  beyond  direct 
tax  money  return  which  involves  per  capita  basis  requirements  (e.g.,  grants). 
The  use  of  directly  traceable  dollars  to  project  revenues,  therefore,  results 
in  the  presentation  of  generated  revenues  which  do  not  include  General  State 
Fund  Monies  or  per  capita  special  external  finance  monies  commonly  utilized 
by  the  affected  jurisdictions. 

The  alternative  method  of  revenue  establishment  would  have  involved 
use  of  a  per-capita  ($/person  population)  estimation  procedure  which  assumes 
certain  set  revenue/expenditure  values  per  person  and  disregards  money  source. 
The  per-capita  method  would  require  use  of  data  not  developed  specific  to  the 
project.   Use  of  a  per-capita  revenue  estimation  procedure  was  considered  to 
be  less  suitable  than  the  direct  dollar  trace  method  and  was,  therefore,  not 
utilized  for  final  impact  assessment  procedures. 

The  second  factor  in  the  fiscal  analysis  involved  the  measure  of 
revenues  distribution  to  assess  expenditure  balance  or  imbalance.   The  distri- 
bution of  project  generated  revenues  to  each  jurisdiction  was  also  calculated 


lr  15 


on  the  basis  of  direct  traceability.   Due  to  Nevada  state  tax  laws,  this  method 
of  calculation  resulted  in  an  underestimate  of  distributed  revenues  to  the 
jurisdictions  because  a  large  proportion  of  tax  revenues  (35  percent  of  state 
sales  tax)  are  obtained  and  distributed  by  the  State  under  the  State  General 
Fund  program  in  a  manner  not  allowing  definitive  assumptions  regarding  final 
destination.   Consequently,  the  calculations  of  fiscal  impacts  shown  herein 
are  conservative  since  redistribution  of  these  funds  to  affected  jurisdictions 
is  not  included  in  the  analysis  to  evaluate  the  offset  or  impacts.   Later  dis- 
cussion documents  the  quantity  of  such  monies  but  does  not  account  for  its 
eventual  distribution. 

The  third  factor  in  the  fiscal  analysis  (a  per-capita  determination 
of  jurisdiction  expenditures)  resulted  in  response  to  the  socioeconomic 
framework  of  the  Eureka  area  which  due  to  the  low  population  density  of  the 
affected  Eureka  jurisdictions  (county,  town,  school)  are  highly  sensitive  to 
population  alterations  of  even  minor  extent.   Superimposing  the  tripling  of 
population  anticipated  (in  the  Eureka  Town  area)  upon  the  jurisdictional 
frameworks  without  consideration  of  economies  of  scales  and  without  deemphasiz- 
ing  special  external  financing  would  result  in  a  significant  overstatement  of 
eventual  realized  expenditures. 

Thus  expenditures  were  calculated  for  both  direct  and  secondary 
(non-EXXON)  generated  populations  using  a  project  specific  per-capita  rate 
(1980-1983  budget  basis).   The  fiscal  expenditures  calculated  represent  the 
most-probable  case,  reflecting  the  population  and  direct  cost  modified  per 
capita  rate  anticipated  through  project  implementations.   As  detailed  in 
Section  3.2,  a  linear  regression  analysis  was  made  of  the  relationship  between 
Eureka  County  populations  and  expenditure  levels  and  those  of  Mineral, 
Humboldt,  Lyon  and  Elko  Counties  for  the  period  ending  June  30,  1982.   The 
linear  regression  analysis  permitted  step-wise  comparisons  by  population 
level  of  five  expenditure  items  common  to  each  county,  and  the  total  of  these 
items,  as  costs  per  capita.   The  analysis  furnished  a  predictive  model  of 
declining  per  capita  costs  as  population  rises.   An  identical  analysis  was 
also  made  of  the  Eureka  School  District  with  five  low-enrollment  school 
districts,  using  available  data  of  1979  and  1980.   The  resulting  forecast  for 


1-16 


Eureka  School  District  expenditures  was  used  to  determine  annual  cost  per 
student  based  on  the  anticipated  population  influx  of  the  proposed  action. 

Town  of  Eureka  per  capita  budgeting  was  not  subjected  to  regression 
analysis  effects  due  to  the  diversity  and  statistical  unrealibility  that  its 
base  population  and  county  financing  in  comparison  with  other  similar  entities 
presented. 

An  Elko  model  was  not  formulated,  because  of  insufficient  numbers 
of  counties  or  districts  larger  in  size  to  provide  reasonable  measures  of 
cost  relationships  with  larger  populations.   The  same  problem  disallowed 
further  extended  analysis  of  the  Elko  School  District.   Expenditure  projects 
for  Elko  County  jurisdictions  were  therefore  calculated  by  extrapolation  of 
status  quo  per  capita  rates,  as  exhibited  by  1980-83  budgets. 


1-17 


CHAPTER  2,0 
BASELINE  SOCIOECONOMICS  DESCRIPTION 

2. 1  Introduction 

This  section  presents  the  characteristics  and  statistics  of  the 
existing  regional  socioeconomic  environment,  with  emphasis  on  Eureka  County 
and  some  reference  to  the  four  surrounding  counties  (Elko,  Lander,  Nye  and 
White  Pine). 

2.2  Population 

The  total  resident  population  of  Nevada  as  of  April  1,  1980  was 
800,493  (U.S.  Bureau  of  the  Census,  1980).   This  was  an  increase  of  approxi- 
mately 64  percent  during  the  decade  of  the  1970  's,  making  Nevada  the  state 
with  the  highest  growth  rate  in  the  U.S.  between  1970  and  1980.   However, 
in  1980  the  average  number  of  persons  per  household  in  Nevada  was  second 
lowest  in  the  U.S.  at  2.59. 

Historically,  Nevada  has  been  a  sparsely  populated  state,  particu- 
larly the  central  region.   Populations  within  the  various  counties  have 
fluctuated  significantly,  primarily  in  response  to  mining  booms.   It  was 
around  the  mining  towns  and  ranching  settlements  that  the  earlier  populus 
first  took  hold. 

Historic  population  counts  for  Eureka  County  and  surrounding 
counties  are  shown  in  Table  2-1.   Population  density  for  these  counties  is 
shown  in  Table  2-2.   White  Pine  County  experienced  a  population  decline 
between  1970  and  1980,  demonstrating  the  vulnerability  of  single  economy 
counties  to  national  and  international  economic  fluctuations.   Eureka  County 
is  located  in  the  sparsely  populated  region  of  north  central  Nevada.   Popula- 
tion density  equals  less  than  one  person  per  three  and  one-half  square  miles 
(  1980)  ,  the  second  lowest  county  average  in  the  state.   Historically,  the 
population  of  the  county  has  fluctuated  significantly.   Peak  population 
exceeded  9,000  during  the  intense  mineral  mining  activity  of  the  1880's.   By 
the  1920 's,  diminished  mine  activity  resulted  in  a  decline  of  county  popula- 

2-1 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  2-1   Population  of  Selected  Nevada  Counties:   1920-1980 


COUNTY 

January 
1920 

Elko 

8,083 

Eureka 

1,350 

Lander 

1,484 

Nye 

6,504 

White  Pine 

8,935 

STATE 

77,407 

April  1 
1930 


April  1 
1940 


April  1 
1950 


April  1 
1960 


April  1 
1970 


April  1 
1980 


9,960 

10,912 

11,654 

12,011 

13,958 

17,269 

1,333 

1,361 

896 

767 

948 

1,198 

1,714 

1,745 

1,850 

1,566 

2,666 

4,076 

3,989 

3,606 

3,101 

4,374 

5,599 

9,048 

11,771 

12,377 

9,424 

9,808 

10,150 

8,167 

91,058 

110,247 

160,083 

285,278 

488,738 

800,493 

Source:   U.S.  Bureau  of  the  Census,  Census  of  the  Population  -  Nevada:   1920-80, 


2-2 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 


Table  2-2   Population  Density  of  Selected  Nevada  Counties: 
(Persons  Per  Square  Mile) 


1920-1980 


Total  County1/ 

COUNTY 

Area 

1920 

1930 

1940 

1950 

1960 

1970 

1980 

Elko 

17,181 

0.5 

0.6 

0.6 

0.7 

0.7 

0.8 

1.0 

Eureka 

A, 182 

0.3 

0.3 

0.3 

0.2 

0.2 

0.2 

0.3 

Lander 

5,621 

0.3 

0.3 

0.3 

0.3 

0.3 

0.5 

0.7 

Nye 

18,064 

0.4 

0.2 

0.2 

0.2 

0.2 

0.3 

0.5 

White   Pine 

8,905 

1.0 

1.3 

1.4 

1.1 

1.1 

1.1 

0.9 

STATE 

110,540 

0.7 

0.8 

1.0 

1.5 

2.6 

4.4 

7.2 

UNITED 

STATES 



35.6 

41.2 

44.2 

50.7 

50.3 

57.5 

64.1 

/  In  square  miles. 


Source:   U.S.  Bureau  of  the  Census,  Census  of  the  Population  -  Nevada 
1920-1980  and  Nevada  Department  of  Taxation. 


2-3 


tion  to  approximately  1,350.   Further  population  declines  were  recorded  from 
1940  to  1950  (pop.  767).   Since  1960,  however,  the  county  population  has 
steadily  increased  to  a  1970  census  of  948  and  a  1980  census  population  of 
1,198  (Figure  2-1).   In  1980,  more  than  half  the  county  population  resided  in 
the  unincorporated  town  and  county  seat  of  Eureka.   The  balance  of  the  popula- 
tion resided  primarily  in  the  unincorporated  towns  of  Crescent  Valley  and 
Beowawe  at  the  north  end  of  the  county. 

The  Town  of  Eureka  is  not  considered  an  urban  area  (population  does 
not  exceed  2,500  inhabitants)  and  is  designated  by  census  standards  as  a 
rural  population.   The  unincorporated  towns  of  Eureka,  Crescent  Valley  and 
Beowawe  form  the  nucleus  of  the  population  within  Eureka  County.   This  trend 
of  population  concentration  in  the  incorporated  or  unincorporated  towns  is 
evident  throughout  many  counties  (see  Table  2-3).   The  overall  trend  has  been 
rapid  urbanization  for  the  entire  state  since  1920.   In  1950  for  the  first 
time,  Nevada's  urban  population  was  greater  than  the  rural  population.   This 
shift  in  population  has  continued  for  many  counties  (see  Table  2-4),  resulting 
in  85.4  percent  of  the  population  of  Nevada  residing  in  urban  areas  as  of 
1980. 

On  a  statewide  basis,  most  of  the  population  growth  during  1970  and 
1980  was  due  to  net  migration.  The  net  migration  in  Nevada  by  county  for  the 
period  1970-1980  is  shown  in  Table  2-5. 

Recent  trends  in  population  for  Eureka  County  show  an  increase  of 
26.5  percent  between  1970  and  1980  and  23.6  percent  between  1960  and  1970. 
These  trends  reflect  increased  mining  and  construction  activity  as  well  as 
the  stabilization  of  local  merchant,  farming  and  ranching  employment  bases. 
Sporadic  mining  developments  have  had  similar  effects  on  population  trends  in 
the  Town  of  Eureka.   Overall  population  trends  can  be  evaluated  further  by 
reviewing  each  component.   During  the  period  1960  to  1970,  net  migration 
equalled  26.1  percent  of  base  population  while  the  natural  increase  was  a 
negative  2.5  percent.   Net  migration  during  the  next  decade  (1970-1980) 
decreased  to  approximately  18.9  percent  of  base  population  but  the  natural 
increase  during  that  period  was  a  positive  7.5  percent  of  baseline  (see  Table 
2-5). 

2-4 


lOOOr 


750- 


O 
X 


500- 


3 
Cl 
O 

CL 


250- 


1880  1920  1940  1950  I960 

YEAR 


1970 


1980 


1984  est. 


MT.    HOPE   MOLYBDENUM   PROJECT 


HISTORICAL   POPULATION 

OF 
EUREKA    COUNTY,  NEVADA 


U.S.  Deportment  of  the  Interior 
Burton  of  Land  Mono^ement 


FIGURE 


2-1 


4-1 

<u 

■T-l 

o 
u 

p-4 

E 
3 
C 
<U 

-a 

O 

0) 

a 
o 

3C 


o 

00 
ON 


m 

ON 


T3 
0) 
4J 

cO 
C 

bO 
•H 

05 
CU 

O 

to 
3 
CO 

c 
u 

c 
m 

T3 
CU 
4-t 
CO 
M 
O 

a 
u 
o 

CJ 

c 


-3 

4J 

o 

0) 
C/j 


3 

a 
o 


en 
I 

CNI 


43 

co 
H 


ai 

Ml 

c 

R) 

42 
U 


oo 


ON 


00 


NO 

I 


ON 


nO 


CN 


I 


I 


cn 


m 

ON 

o 

ON 

m 

<r 

eg 

ON 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

00 

o 

-^ 

CO 

m 

■— i 

CN 

o 

CM 

-H 

CN 

~H 

l 

^-s 

o 

00 

>N 

ON 

4-1 

-H 

c 

*w^ 

3 

0 

c 

c_> 

o 

•H 

rH 

4-J 

CO 

CO 

4-1 

rH 

o 

3 

H 

a 

O 

p_ 

NO 


NO 


-H  I 


o 
m 


ON 

in 


ON 

00 


CO 


NO 


m 

CN 

00 

CN 

-* 

ON 

CN 

m 

m 

^ 

in 

00 

— 1 

-H 

m 

r^ 

CN 

z 

r-^ 

00 

CO 

-3- 

ON 

00 


00 


NO 

m 

CN 

-H 

o 

m 

w—i 

ON 

CNI 

r^ 

00 

en 

ON 

vO 

ON 

* 

M 

* 

NO 

«* 

-* 

NO 

-H 

r^ 

r>. 

NO 

~H 

00 

— H 

00 

— 4 

r>. 

o 

CN  — I  -H 


CO 

nO 

00 

CN 

ON 

ON 

O 

r-» 

CNI 

00 


o 

in 

ON 

—i 

r*. 

ON 

r-» 

r^ 

r^ 

■— i 

NO 

O 

—I  ^O 


cn 

O 

CN 


cn 

oo 

ON 

m 

cn 

m 

r^. 

m 

r^ 

ON 

r-^ 

<f 

CN 

cn 

ON 

cn 


0) 

CU 

c 

c 

•H 

•H 

cu 

Pu 

>, 

u 

4-1 

0) 

0) 

OJ 

C 

T3 

o 

4J 

o 

4-1 

3 

c 

4*: 

•H 

4*5 

•H 

01 

O 

CO 

rH 

r; 

rH 

r"j 

>-> 

CJ 

►J 

w 

5 

w 

s 

2 

cu 

2 


O 

4xi 


w 


c 
o 

■H 

4-1 

CO 
iH 
3 
Qi 
O 
Cl, 

0) 

4= 
NO  4-1 

ON  14-1 

•H  O 

C  CO 

■H  3 

CO 
>N  C 

iH  OJ 

W  CJ 


C 

•H 

CO 

4-1 

c 

^ 

~~^ 

3 

4J 

—  1 

O 

•H 

fn 

S 

CJ 

iH 

4-1 

0) 

c 

w 

CJ 

0) 

rH 

•H 

CJ 

4-1 

rH 

4-1 

o 

CO 

4-1 

M 

CO 

4* 

H 

CO 

CO 

CO 

H 

PVi 

PQ 

CJ 

W 

W 

CJ 


w 


>> 

>, 

4-1 

4J 

■H 

•H 

CJ 

43 

CJ 

-H 

CO 

CO 

rH 

a 

CO 

43 

•H 

o 

■-H 

43 

O 

a 

H 

CO 

CJ 

o 

OJ 

CJ 

s 

H 

s 

w 


CO 

CO 

w 


o 

CO 

3 

:n 

CO 

4-1 

c 

•H 

0) 

CJ 

CJ 

OJ 

OJ 

4= 

4= 

4-1 

4-1 

>^ 

14-4 

43 

O 

T) 

3 

OJ 

CO 

X 

01 

01 

)-i 

c 

3 

c 

PQ 

CO 

C/l 


CU 

o 

J- 

3 
O 


2-6 


o 

00 
ON 


"3 
C 
ct) 

o 

ON 


o 

sD 
ON 


o 
m 


s 

3 
O 

u 

CO 
*3 
CO 
> 

0J 

2 


3 

a 

o 

CX 

4J 

.-1 

CJ 

CO 

0) 

i-l 

•I- ) 

3 

o 

C* 

i-l 

ex 

T3 

3 

E 

CO 

3 

C 

s 

<u 

CO 

T3 

43 

43 

U 

>-, 

t=> 

H 

o 

s 

<t 

cu 

1 

a 

CM 

o 

33 

cu 

H 

• 

43 

4J 

CO 

s 

H 

3 
D. 
O 

(X 

O 
00 

on 


CN  | 


PJ  I 


3 

a 
o 

ex 

o 
r*. 

ON 


3 

ex 
o 

CX 


M  I 


3 
CX 

o 

CX 


M  I 


in  cn 

I    sD   sO 


sD 

m 


r-*  oo 

r*.  on 


o> 

CN 


CN 

en 


CN 
CO 


ON 

m 


sO 

-d- 


00 

o 


00 

o 


CO 

o 
m 


on 
so 
m 


m 

oo 

CN 


o\ 


o 

CN 


00 


— *m-HcococNONco 


CM 
CN 


CO 


Csl 

CN 

<r 

m 

00 

o 

on 

i— 1 

CN 

sO 

sO 

i-» 

m 

<* 

<r 

v* 

o 

CN 

<f 

00 

r-» 

•— i 

r-. 

*      1 

r-^ 

CM 

<r 

CN 

00 

00 

-3- 

CN 

CO 

CO 

<r  cn 

m  oo 

o  oo 

— i  -d 


>d 
m 
m 

o> 

00 
ON 

CN 

00 
00 

CO 
CO 

on 

CN 

sO 

00 

on 

00 
00 

sO 
sO 
sO 

in 
m 

i— i 

CN 
Csl 

CN 

—I 

m 

on 
on 
in 

O 
sO 

m 
o> 

sO 

oo 

CO 

-sT 

o> 

r^ 

<3- 

i— ( 

sO 

sO 

CN 

CN 

CN 

00 

CO 

m 

CN 

CN 

m 

00       On       a> 


sO 

in 

ON 

CM 

00 

<* 

On 

CN 

sO 

m 

* 

#» 

* 

1 

1         " 

m 

CN 

00 

r^ 

CO 

i— i 

m 

CN 

ON 

CO 

m 

CO 


co     m 


CM       sO 


c 

CO 

-3- 

-H 

oo 

CO 

o 

cd 

sO 

CO 

■— 1 

ON 

m 

sO 

43 

— * 

r^ 

o 

CN         1 

1      o- 

ON 

>-i 

n 

* 

•t 

A 

1-1 

33 

m 

CM 

sO 

o 

sD 

CO 

oo 
co 

00 
CN 


o 

— H 

vr 

ON 

■— I 

ON 

sO 

-d- 

CM 

sO 

o 

^H 

CM 

O 

CM 

sO 


NO 

,— | 

o 

r^ 

ON 

o 

ON 

ON 

m 

CO 

r- 

sO 

00 

o> 

00 

oo 

vO 

m 

—i       sO       csl       CM       sO 


co     co     m     co     co 


c 

Cs| 

m 

CO 

r» 

o 

CO 

00 

<r 

ON 

<f 

m 

XI 

o 

o 

CO         1 

1         00 

ON 

t4 

A 

#N 

A 

p 

■ — i 

33 

CO 

SO 
CO 

m 

Csl 

u 


1^  sO 

oo  r-» 

sO  <— I 

ON  <f 
ON 


o 

oo 

m 

-h 

CO 

ON 

r~>. 

m 

sO 

i—i 

CO 

i— < 

<r 

ON 

00 

<r 

o 

o 

.—i 

O 

00 

-h 

•—< 

sO 

m 

SO 

CO 

s* 

ON 

r>. 

ON 

sO 

in 

On 

ON 

r- 

o 

<r 

r^ 

sO 

r^ 

CM 

m 

«tr 

-h 

<r 

CO 

pH 

m 

m 

r^ 

m 


On  00 

00  ~* 

I       — '  o 

o  sr 


CO 

1—1 

m 

so 

o 

r^. 

o 

sO 

1— I 

sO 

m 

oo 

on     m 


o      00 

o     m 
r^     m 


o 


CO 


•H 

cn 

r- 1 

>% 

c 

J= 

co 

CO 

4-1 

o 

CJ 

^ 

.-1 

l-i 

c 

CO 

tj 

l-i 

bO 

o 

cu 

3 

1-J 

3 

CO 

3 

Jx! 

E 

O 

CO 

JB 

i-H 

O 

iH 

CO 

O 

U 

U 

U 

a 

W 

w 

cu 

c 

4-1 

•3 

c 

I-l 

3° 

•H 
CX 

JS 

H 

M 

H 

CO 

•H 

>, 

OJ 

O 

0) 

O 

l-l 

J= 

OJ 

o 

OJ 

<u 

•i 

-a 

o 

c 

cu 

CO 

u 

ja 

J-J 

l- 

c 

c 

o 

c 

OJ 

u 

o 

CO 

•H 

3 

3 

CO 

•H 

^ 

•H 

^ 

cu 

•u 

CO 

W 

33 

h-l 

hJ 

hJ 

s 

2 

eu 

CO 

2 

3 

SO 

m 


ON 

CM 
00 

sO 


CM 
O 
<f 

CO 
CT\ 


SO 
CO 
CO 

» 

m 
as 
co 


m 

oo 


o 

O 

o 

CM 


00 

m 
-d- 

oo 
so 


m 

Csl 

SO 


ON 


w 
H 

C72 


•H 
O 


J3 

CO 
43 

C 


4-1 

d 

0) 

S 

cu 

O-  >H 
OJ 
T5    O 

c  o 
•h  m 

C    CN 
co 

3 

»   CO 

^^= 

4-1     4J 

•H 

U    co 

CD 

3  oj 

O  H 
CO 

Ui  J3 

CO  4J 

CJ  -H 

I 

CO 
4J      CU 

3     CJ 
OJ      CO 

E   H 

3      Pi 

i-l 

CU     I 

> 

O     CO 
bo   CO 

cu 

■H     l-i 
CO    CO 

a 

■H   H 

O    CO 

•H      M 

3     3 
3    Dd 

E 

cu    co 

3      4J 

O    3 

CO 
OJ     4-1 

E    -H 

CO  X) 
cj  co 
CU  43 
43  3 
•H 

4-1  cu 

3  V4 

3  O 

O  E 

i-l 
S-.   o 
43 
CO   O 

go 
m 
O     « 

CM 

-3 

3   ih 
CO    O 

>s    CO 
4-1      CU 

•h    a 
u    co 

3   a 

o 

CO      I 

u 

CO     CO 

CO     CO 

OJ 

1  i-l 

ON      CO 
sO 

ON     3 

-H        CO 

43 

3    M 
H    33 


||CN| 


O 
00 
ON 


O 
m 

ON 


co 

-3 
3 
> 

cu 
2 


CO 

iH 

3 

a 
o 

cu 

cu 

4= 


CO 

3 
CO 

3 

CJ 

u 


CO 

3 

CO 
3 
CU 

c_> 

OJ 

43 

4J 


3 
3 
OJ 
i-i 

3 
M 


CO 


OJ 

o 

- 

3 

o 

C/3 


2-7 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  2-5   Net  Migration  in  Nevada  By  County:   1970  -  1980 


County  or 
Area 

1970- 
Births 

-1980 
Deaths 

1970-1980 
Natural  Increase  V 

Net  Migration 
Numbe  r 

1970-1980  2/ 
Rate  (Percent) 

Carson  City 

3,570 

1,845 

1,725 

14,829 

95.9 

Churchill 

2,114 

1,190 

924 

2,480 

23.6 

Clark 

55,090 

24,226 

30,864 

158,935 

58.1 

Douglas 

1,623 

773 

850 

11,689 

169.8 

Elko 

2,827 

1,396 

1,431 

1,880 

13.5 

Esmeralda 

133 

97 

36 

112 

17.8 

Eureka 

155 

84 

71 

179 

18.9 

Humboldt 

1,357 

741 

616 

2,443 

38.3 

Lander 

747 

250 

497 

913 

34.2 

Lincoln 

575 

316 

259 

916 

35.8 

Lyon 

1,691 

993 

698 

4,675 

56.9 

Mineral 

1,141 

621 

520 

-1,354 

-19.2 

Nye 

934 

557 

377 

3,072 

54.9 

Pershing 

479 

391 

88 

650 

24.3 

Storey 

126 

124 

2 

806 

116.0 

Washoe 

21,654 

12,325 

9,329 

63,226 

52.2 

White  Pine 

1,727 

888 

839 

-2,822 

-27.8 

STATE 

95,943 

46,817 

49,126 

262,629 

52.6 

£/   Births  minus  deaths. 

2J      Total  1970-1980  increase  less  natural  increase. 

Source:   U.S.  Bureau  of  the  Census,  1980  Census  of  Population. 


2-8 


Relative    to    the   estimation  of    future  baseline   populations,    the 
prediction   of   net    population   trends   in  an  area  with  a  dynamic   population 
history   such   as   Eureka   County   is  very  difficult.      Literature-based   projections 
of   county  and   town   populations   are  widely   variant   due    to   the    diverse   economic 
and    industrial    assumptions    applied   to   the   period   between   1980   to   2000.      Recent 
projections    of   Eureka,    Elko,   Nye   and  White   Pine   County   populations   by  the 
Bureau   of   Business   and   Economic   Research,    University   of   Nevada   at   Reno   are 
shown  in  Table   2-6.      For  Eureka  County,    the    predictions   suggest   a   population 
growth  of    79  percent   for  the  period  between   1980  and   the  year  2000  (from  popu- 
lation  1,198   to   2,145).      Assumptions   by   the  UNR  Bureau   of   Business   and   Economic 
Research   regarding   the   population  growth  include    increased   mining   activity, 
energy  development   and    outdoor   recreation   activities.      Nearly  any  industrial 
scale   development  would  create  major  changes  due   to   the   low  population  base 
and   its   sensitivity   to   fluctuations.      Within  Eureka  County,   the   Town   of   Eureka 
population  is   projected   to   increase   to   approximately   1,330  by  the  year  2000. 

The    1981-1983  national   recession  has   apparently   produced  a  signifi- 
cant  downward   trend   in  Eureka   population  as    employment   opportunities   decreased. 
Mid-1983   town   population  has   been  estimated  at  450   to  500,    the   decrease    being 
largely  attributable   to   area  mine   closures   and   lack  of   jobs   (County  Commissioner 
D.    Pastorino,    personal   communication,    1983). 

Elko   County   baseline   population  and   trends   are   of   particular  interest 
due    to   the   potentially  affected   communities    of  Carlin  and   Elko   in  the    event 
of    the  Decentralized  Workforce   alternative   (alternative   5-B)    of    the  Mt.   Hope 
Project. 

Elko   County,    adjacent    to    the   northern  part   of   Eureka   County, 
encompasses    17,181   square  miles   and   is    the   second    largest   county  in  Nevada. 
The   communities   of   Elko   and   Carlin  are   in  close   proximity   to   Eureka   County 
and   are   the   primary   trade   and   residential   centers   nearest   the  junction   of 
State   Route   278  (north-south  to   Eureka)    and   1-80  (major   travel   route   to   Reno- 
Salt   Lake  City).      Elko   County  was    established   in    1869  and  has    experienced 
relatively  consistent   patterns    of   population  and   industrial    growth.      The   City 
of   Elko   is   the   county   seat   and    lies   on   the   Humboldt   River.      Its   location 
along   1-80  between   Salt   Lake    City   and   Reno  has   contributed   substantially   to 

2-9 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  2-6   Population  Projections  for  Selected  Counties  in  Nevada 


Projected  Years 


COUNTY 

Eureka 

Elko 

Nye 

White  Pine 


1980 

Total 

1985* 

1990* 

1995* 

2000* 

1,198 

1,451 

1,762 

1,945 

2,145 

17,269 

20,313 

23,789 

26,265 

28,962 

9,048 

11,330 

14,187 

15,664 

17,294 

8,167 

8,752 

12,845 

10,235 

10,235 

*  Source:   Bureau  of  Business  and  Economic  Research/UNR  Projections. 


2-10 


its  socioeconomic  environment.   The  City  of  Carlin  is  located  23  miles 
southwest  of  Elko;  directly  at  the  junction  of  State  Route  278  from  Eureka 
and  1-80.   The  predominant  socioeconomic  influences  in  the  City  of  Carlin 
include  two  major  railroad  operations  and  proximity  to  Elko. 

Several  population  centers  and  associated  industries  contribute  to 
the  general  Elko  County  socioeconomic  environment.   In  1980,  Elko  County 
population  totalled  17,269  individuals;  Elko  City  and  Carlin  populations 
totalled  9,990  or  57.8  percent  of  the  county  population.   Bureau  of  Business 
and  Economic  Research  projections  for  county  population  growth  indicate  a  year 
2000  population  of  28,962  representing  an  increase  of  67.7  percent.   Population 
density  is  just  less  than  one  person  per  square  mile.   Contrary  to  Eureka 
County  distribution,  approximately  half  the  Elko  County  population  resides  in 
an  urban  area  (Eureka  County  100  percent  rural).   The  percentage  change  from 
1970-1980  indicates  that  the  growth  of  rural  areas  (34.3  percent)  is  signifi- 
cantly higher  than  urban  area  growth  (14.9  percent). 

2.3   Employment  and  Income 

2.3.1   Employment 

Employment   in  Nevada   increased  from  the   1975   level   of    260,000   to 
425,300  in  September,    1981   (an  increase   of   64   percent)    as   reported   by  the 
Nevada   Employment    Security   Department   (1981).      Unemployment  was   down   from 
27,800  (1975)    to   15,000  (1981).      The  high  unemployment   rate   of   9.6   percent 
for   1975  dropped   to  4.5   percent   for   1978,    but   rose   to   7.1   percent   in   1981, 
10.1    percent   in   1982  and   11.0   percent   in   1983.      National  unemployment    rates 
varied  from   6.0  percent   in   1978   to   7.6   percent   in   1981,   and   rose  again  to 
reach  9.7   percent   in   1982.      Unemployment    rates    for  Eureka  County,   the   State 
of    Nevada   and   the  United    States   are   shown   in  Table   2-7. 

The   actual    number   of   unemployed  individuals   during  the    1980-82 
biennium  for  Nevada   rose   from   31,800   to   approximately   40,300  ( a  26   percent 
increase).      However,    there  were   20,657   active   employers   ending  fiscal   year 
1982.      Employment   in  Eureka   County  varied   from  a   negative   2.63   percent   annual 
average   growth  ( 1976-1978)    to  a  dramatic  25.66   percent    positive   growth  rate 

2-11 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  2-7   Percent  Unemployment  for  Selected  Years 


1976 

1977 

1978 

1980 

1981 

1982 

1983 

Eureka  County 

5.0 

3.8 

1.8 

5.0 

5.1 

21.6 

12.9 

Nevada 

9.0 

7.0 

4.5 

6.2 

7.1 

10.1 

11.0 

United  States 

7.7 

7.0 

6.0 

7.1 

7.6 

9.7 

10.6 

Sources:   Nevada  Employment  Security  Department,  Nevada  and  County  Labor  Force 
Summaries,  (1976,  1977,  1978,  and  1979)  and  D.  Wright,  personal 
communication,  1983,  U.S.  Department  of  Commerce,  Bureau  of  Economic 
Analysis,  Regional  Economic  Information  System  (for  years  1980,  1981, 
1982). 


2-12 


in  1980-1981.   As  shown  on  Table  2-7,  unemployment  in  Eureka  County  during 
the  period  of  1976  to  1983  ranged  between  a  low  of  1.8  percent  in  1978  to  a 
high  of  21.6  percent  in  1982.   The  1983  unemployment  figures  for  Eureka  County 
equalled  12.9  percent  of  the  labor  force.   Unemployment  figures  during  the 
period  1979-1983  for  the  surrounding  counties  of  Elko,  White  Pine,  Lander  and 
Nye  are  shown  in  Table  2-8. 

The  leading  employment  sector  for  Nevada  continues  to  be  services, 
which  accounted  for  over  42  percent  of  the  total  employment  in  1980.   Trade 
and  government  follow  at  20  percent  and  14  percent,  respectively.   Table  2-9 
shows  state  employment  by  industry  and  county  for  the  years  1971 
and  1980. 

The  most  important  employment  sectors  on  a  regional  five  county 
basis  (Eureka,  Lander,  Nye,  Elko  and  White  Pine  counties)  in  1980  were,  in 
order  of  overall  contribution:   services,  mining,  government  and  construction. 
Eureka  and  Lander  counties  however,  shared  their  largest  employment  sector  in 
mining.  Mining  accounted  for  61  percent  and  51  percent  (1980);  62.8  percent 
and  52.5  percent  (1981);  66.7  percent  and  55.4  percent  (1982),  of  the  total 
county  employment,  respectively.   Employment  by  major  sector  for  1981  and 
1982  in  the  five  county  region  is  shown  in  Tables  2-10  through  2-19.   A 
review  of  employment  sector  percentages  specifically  for  Eureka  County  during 
the  period  1967  to  1981  is  presented  in  Table  2-20. 

Total  employment  for  Eureka  County  (as  measured  by  State  Unemploy- 
ment Compensation  Law  NRS  612  coverage)  in  1982  equalled  43  business  firms 
and  governmental  agencies  (a  decrease  of  7  firms  from  the  previous  year). 
The  industries  of  mining,  trade  and  services  employed  390  persons  (76.5 
percent  of  total  employment)  and  were  distributed  among  32  firms.   Total 
federal,  state  and  local  government  employment  equalled  90  individuals 
in  eight  agencies.   Total  county  payroll  in  1982  (NRS  612)  equalled 
$11,168,137. 


2-13 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  2-8   Unemployment  Rate  (Percent)  for  Selected  Nevada  Counties 

County  1979  }_/  1980  £/      1981  £/      1982  £/      1983  £/ 

Elko 

Nye 

White  Pine 

Eureka 

Lander 

2_l      NRS  612  employment  -  individuals  who  are  covered  under  the  State's  Unemployment 
Compensation  Law  NRS  612. 

_/   Discrepancy  between  total  estimated  employment  and  NRS  612  employment  represents 
individuals  not  covered  by  state  unemployment  compensation  arrangements  (self 
employed). 

_/   Does  not  include  Air  Force  Base  employment  or  Clark  County  residents  who  are 
employed  in  Nye  County. 

Sources:   State  of  Nevada  Office  of  Community  Services,  Eureka,  Nye,  White  Pine, 
Elko  and  Lander  County  Nevada  Profiles,  1982,  1983  and  K.  Sceirine, 
personal  communications,  1984,  Nevada  Security  Department. 


4.2 

4.6 

4.9 

11.1 

8.9 

2.9 

2.7 

4.1 

3.2 

8.7  £/ 

10.3 

6.2 

6.8 

20.1 

22.1 

2.1 

4.6 

4.7 

21.6 

12.9 

4.2 

4.4 

4.8 

10.5 

14.5 

2-14 


H 


>^ 

4-1 

c 

3 

o 

CJ> 

^ 

x>  "~s 

CO 

s^  <u 

>-i    bo 

4-)     CO 

CO     )-i 

3     0) 

*o    > 

C    CO 

H 

tH 

^   CO 

X)     3 

C 

u   c 

4-1 

3    CO 

u 

Q)   w 

<u 

E 

•1-1 

>»o 

o 

O  00 

u 

r—f  <y\ 

P- 

Ou  —i 

R 

E 

W    T3 

3 

c 

5 

CO    CO 

0) 

T3 

T3 

CO    i-H 

XI 

>  r*. 

^ 

01  cr> 

.H 

2   -h 

O 

a 

o> 

<y 

1 

— 

CM 

o 

X 

0) 

H 

• 

X> 

4-1 

CO 

s 

H 

bS 

CO 

CD 

c 

•H 

o 

4-1 

•H 

•H 

4J 

rH 

CO 

•H 

•U 

4J 

1-1 

O 

o 

CX 

O 

cn 

•H 

C 

rH 

CO 

XI 

M 

3 

H 

PU 

o 
oo 
o> 


ooooooooooooooo 
"HCNjo^Dc^cNi^covo-tfoOLno-tfO 
<r  co  tn  oi  m  ocncNi-^-cN<3-csicN 


CN 


ooooooooooooooo 

MNOCOfONHCACONCO^in'^CT\ 

a  ia  n  ci  -h  m  h  h  n  n  n  cm 


CM 


o  o 

o 

O    00 

o 

r^  \£> 

r-~ 

•i 

« 

<r 

ON 

CM 

r-~ 

o  o 

o 

o  <r 

o 

cm  r»» 

-3- 

•s 

CO 

o 

-* 

<r 

o  o  o  o  o 
r-^  O  o  r^  cm 

en 


xoooooocoo 

CMvO^tfOOCTN^^Xl^O 
CM  -H 


o  o 

o  m 

CM  CM 
CO 


OOOOOO0OOO0O0O0O0 
co  x>  o  r^  m        rOvo-jooo^c^NinON 

CM  m    — '   X>  •— •  i— I  !">•    "- 1 


bO 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

C 

00 

CO 

00 

o 

m 

CO 

•H 

a^ 

r^ 

<— 1 

00 

c^ 

— H 

kl 

-H 

a 

ft 

3 

— H 

vO 

4-J 

CJ 

cc 

Ll__i 

4-1 

3 

— 1 

o 

o 

o 

o 

O 

C 

l»N 

ON 

t— 1 

o 

h» 

m 

CO 

CTv 

CM 

1 — 1 

o 

CN 

£ 

. — i 

" 

OoOXiOOwww 

ON       H  y£)   (\|  OO  CO 


O  O  O  X  O  O 

o  <r 

CO  CO 

M 

00 


o  o  o  o  x  o 


^o 


x  o  x  .o  o  o 

CM     — I        O  C^ 
CM  CM  CO 

* 
CO 


ooooooooooooooo 


X 


cm  oo  r^  vo 

CO 


00 


CN 


CO 


o  o 
o  <r 

CO    CM 


OOOOOOXOOO 
O   N   O   N   I —   CO  -*   ^h   >— i 

<r  h  in  h  cm  — i 


o  o  o  o  o  o  o 

H    Ol     H    N     H    O    >J 


ooooooooooooooooo 
fOOofPivoHic»oc^Hin<firifnao^ 

H    in  ^HcOH^PlHHONCMOcO 


oxooooooooooooooo 
co       oHcoOH\Oincnm<rN<tioOcj\ 

i— I  -^    CM  -3"  X  CO—1  COO 


o 
o 


-3- 

Csl 


o 

o 

CM 


o 
o 

0> 


o 
o 

X 

00 


o 
o 
oo 

m 

CM 


o 
o 


o 
o 

CO 

•A 

X 


O 
O 
vjO 


4-J 

•H   H 

CO 

CU 

c 

CJ    ^H 

T3             4-> 

tf 

•H 

1-i 

CO 

rH             -O 

c 

—1 

PL4 

^^ 

!*l 

3  X 

CO 

cO    co  i-t    ^i 

ui  i2   o   <u 

I-t 

CO 

•H     >,    Q) 

^H 

4-1 

o    o  ^J 

— 1 

o 

t-i 

X     0)     O 

0) 

W 

c 

CO    U     U 

bO 

O 

0)     0)   X   TJ 

E    h    E    c 

o 

a  oj 

co    t-i  X 

4-1 

H 

D 

U     3     CO 

3 

M 

3 

O    3 

0» 

>-l     o     CO 

•H 

< 

O 

«£h 

O 

H 

co    3    3    eg 
W  w  EC  J 

•H 

>,  -H 

>-. 

QJ     4J     CO 

H 

CJ 

U   C_5    O 

Q 

Ed 

hJ 

J  s 

Z 

ru  co  s 

s 

CO 

2-15 


~H       CU 

3 

>,  c 

•U   «H 

C     4J 

3    3 

O    o 

cj  o 

N— ' 

^ 

XI     ^N 

03 

5^   CU 

U     bO 

•U      CO 

co    u 

3    CU 

T3    > 

3    fl 

H 

i-H 

>%   CO 

X    3 

a 

*J    c 

4-1 

C    CO 

u 

CU    s_^ 

0) 

E 

'1-> 

►>© 

0 

O    00 

S-I 

iH   0> 

P- 

a  -h 

E 

E 

W    T3 

2 

C 

c 

CO    CO 

CU 

T3 

T> 

CO   —i 

X> 

>  r>. 

t^ 

cu  o\ 

H 

2    -H 

O 

£ 

0*» 

01 

1 

ex 

CN 

0 

X 

cy 

>-i 

• 

x> 

4-1 

co 

s 

H 

0) 

o 

u 

00 

•r-t 

O-N 

> 

-— 

u 

V 

co 

CO 

— H 

4-1 

r-> 

o 

CTN 

H 

— H 

CD 

U 

ai 

c 

4-1 

(0 

cO 

S-I 

4-1 

3 

CO 

CO 

W 

c 

1— 1 

H 

CO 

*> 

CU 

01 

04 

u 

c 

T) 

CO 

3 

c 

CO 

•H 

Cn 

ooooooooooooooooo 

SOOvDNNSvO^HOOn-JiCHOOO 

in^or-.^-HCNinaNONco^cor^ONr-^r-vCN 


m  en  o  m  oo 

^  CN    — I 

CM 


CO 


— I    CM    CN    v© 


vr  n 


ooooooooooooooooo 
r~  co  co  cm  — icMmoc^vo-^-*'- <  s  co  en  * 


*    N    »   S 

o 


in 


CN 


CM    CM    vO 


o  co 

v£5 


ooooooooooooooooo 

H<fOmNOoo^^vonHHinoooo 
On— <  n  m  h        rs  co  en  >o  -h  ^o  cm        co  oo 


CM 


oooooooooo 
sccocoa*»ooo<f-Hco 


m  on  m  co  n 


o  o  o  o 
cm  oo  cn  m 


m  N  n  ian  >j  eg 


rn 


vO 


o 
o  o 

o 


vO 


ooooooooooooooooo 

t^vOOOOCM  HvCO-*0N>JH00*O^ 

n  s  o  n  s  \o  ^  cm  n  vo  co  co  m 


co 


m  h  cm 
o  —i 


CO 


CN 


ooooooooooooooooo 
oomOr~.co  HHinco^ncMHcno* 
o  •*  m  \c  «j  m  h  ri  oo  h        o  co 


r-^  m  —• 


CM 


OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 

onoOn  co  oN(n»cnsNHooo 

cn    H    CM    CO   (M  -H  CM  — H 

O  v© 


ooooooxo 

v£>   C7\   O   r^   — ^ 
^h  00   -h   CN 


OXlOOOOOOO 
<f   CM  N   CM   (M   (\|  h   o   m 

<* 

CO 


U     rH 


C_>  O   CJ 


cn 
CO 

H 

bO   O 
3  .* 

O    rH 

a  w 


CO 
T3 

u 


CO 
CO     3 


M 

CD 
T) 

3 
CO 
-J 


3° 


co 

>^    CU 

2  Cu 


>>    0) 
CU    o 

s-i  45 

o    co 

4->      CO 
CO    S 


CU 

3 


o 
o 

vD 

ON 

CT> 

CO 


o 

O 
vO 

o 

CM 


o 
o 

CM 

in 


o 
O 


oo 

CO 


o 
o 

CO 
ON 


o 
o 

CO 
00 


O 

o 
oo 


o 
o 
o 

CT> 


W 
H 

CO 


cf 

•H 
T3 

c 

3 
O 
Li 


cu 

3 
T3 


CO 

4-1 

o 


CU 
4J 
CO 

4-1 
CO 


CO 
3 
cr 
cu 

4-1 

o 

3 

CO 

S 


O  3 

4J  CO 

x: 

4J 

3  CO 

3  CO 

O  CU 


—  |cm| 


3 
CU 

E 

4J 

S-i 
CO 

o- 
o 
o 

•H 
M 
3 
O 
CU 

CO 


3 

CU 

S 

o 

iH 

a 
E 
w 

co 
-o 

CO 

> 

CU 

z 


<u 
o 

S-i 

3 

o 

CO 


2-16 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table   2-10        1981   Employment   by  Major  Economic   Sector  Eureka  County    1/ 

1981                               Employment                        Payroll             Number   of 
Sector Employment Percent    (618  Total)5/ $000 Firms 


Mining 


388 


62.8 


8,662 


11 


Government   2/ 


102 


16.5 


1,206 


Agriculture 


NA 


NA 


NA 


NA 


Services 


50 


1.1 


424 


10 


Trade 


41 


6.6 


NA 


15 


Construction 


30 


4.9 


NA 


T.P.U.C.  V 
F.I.R.E.  4/ 


<10 


<10 
+  611 


<1 


<1 


+  98.9 


20 


70 


+  10,382 


<3 

<3 

+  50 


1_/   Covered  employment  by  industry  and  payroll  refers  to  those  industries 
whose  employees  are  covered  under  the  State's  Unemployment  Compensation 
Law  NRS  612. 

2/   Number  of  Departments,  Agencies  -  Federal,  State,  local. 

3/      T.P.U.C.   Transportation,  Communication,  Utility  Industries 

4/   F.I.R.E.   Finance,  Insurance,  Real  Estate  Industries 

£/   Employment  Percentage  based  on  NRS  612  covered  Employment  of  618  persons 


Source:   State  of  Nevada  Office  of  Community  Services,  Eureka  County 
Nevada  Profile,  1982. 


2-17 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  2-11    1982  Employment  by  Major  Economic  Sector  Eureka  County  1/ 


1982 

Employment 

Payroll 

Number   of 

Sector 

Employment 

Percent    (510 

Tot, 

al)V 

$000 

Firms 

Mining 

340 

66.7 

8,625 

11 

Government   2/ 

90 

17.6 

1,543 

8 

Agriculture 

NA 

NA 

NA 

NA 

Services 

20 

3.9 

544 

12 

Trade 

30 

5.9 

0 

9 

Construction 

<10 

<1 

0 

3 

T.P.U.C.    3/ 

20 

3.9 

0 

0 

F.I.R.E.    4/ 

0 

0 

86 

0 

Manufacturing 

0 

0 

0 

0 

+500 


+98 


10,798 


+43 


\J      Covered  employment  by  industry  and  payroll  refers  to  those  industries 
whose  employees  are  covered  under  the  State's  Unemployment  Compensation 
Law  NRS  612. 

2/   Number  of  Departments,  Agencies  -  Federal,  State,  local. 

3/   T.P.U.C.   Transportation,  Communication,  Utility  Industries 

4/   F.I.R.E.   Finance,  Insurance,  Real  Estate  Industries 

V   Employment  Percentage  based  on  NRS  612  covered  Employment  of  510  persons, 

Source:   State  of  Nevada  Office  of  Community  Services,  Eureka  County 
Nevada  Profile,  1983. 


2-18 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table   2-12        1981   Employment   by  Major  Economic   Sector  Elko   County    1/ 

1982                                 Employment                          Payroll             Number   of 
Sector Employment Percent    (8,961   Total)5/ $000 Firms 


Mining 

742 

Government   2/ 

1,769 

Agriculture 

NA 

Services 

3,335 

Trade 

1,592 

Construction 

634 

T.P.U.C.    3/ 

455 

F.I.R.E.    4/ 

245 

Manufacturing 

191 

+8,963 


8.3 

17,052 

54 

19.7 

26,943 

34 

NA 

NA 

NA 

37.2 

36,766 

186 

17.8 

16,650 

184 

7.1 

12,495 

98 

5.1 

7,786 

31 

2.7 

3,582 

50 

2.1 

2,528 

12 

+100 

+123,802 

+649 

1/      Covered  employment  by  industry  and  payroll  refers  to  those  industries 
whose  employees  are  covered  under  the  State's  Unemployment  Compensation 
Law  NRS  612. 

2/      Number  of  Departments,  Agencies  -  Federal,  State,  local. 

3/   T.P.U.C.   Transportation,  Communication,  Utility  Industries 

4_/   F.I.R.E.   Finance,  Insurance,  Real  Estate  Industries 

£/      Employment  Percentage   based   on  NRS  612  covered  Employment   of   8,961    persons, 

Source:      State   of   Nevada   Office  of   Community   Services,   Elko   County 
Nevada  Profile,    1982  . 


2-19 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  2-13   1982  Employment  by  Major  Economic  Sector  Elko  County  \J 

1982             Employment           Payroll     Number  of 
Sector Employment Percent  (9,120  Total)5/ $000 Firms 

8.9 

17.7 

NA 
38.4 
16.7 

5.4 

8.7 

2.5 

1.9 
+9,120  +100.2 


Mining 

810 

Government   2/ 

1,610 

Agriculture 

NA 

Services 

3,500 

Trade 

1,520 

Construction 

490 

T.P.U.C.    3/ 

790 

F.I.R.E.   _4/ 

230 

Manufacturing 

170 

19,946 

50 

29,034 

34 

NA 

NA 

42,131 

185 

16,874 

189 

9,633 

91 

8,553 

32 

3,640 

45 

2,725 

12 

+132,536 

+638 

1/      Covered  employment  by  industry  and  payroll  refers  to  those  industries 
whose  employees  are  covered  under  the  State's  Unemployment  Compensation 
Law  NRS  612. 

2/   Number  of  Departments,  Agencies  -  Federal,  State,  local. 

3/   T.P.U.C.   Transportation,  Communication,  Utility  Industries 

4/   F.I.R.E.   Finance,  Insurance,  Real  Estate  Industries 

V      Employment   Percentage   based   on  NRS   612  covered  Employment   of    9,120  persons 

Source:      State   of   Nevada   Office   of   Community   Services,    Elko   County 
Nevada   Profile,    1983. 


2-20 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  2-14    1981  Employment  by  Major  Economic  Sector  Lander  County  1/ 

1981              Employment           Payroll     Number  of 
Sector Employment Percent  (2,195  Total)5/ $000 Firms 

52.5 

17.5 

N/A 

7.0 
19.1 

1.3 

1.1 

1.1 

-0- 
+2,186  +99.6 


Mining 

1,153 

Government   2/ 

384 

Agriculture 

N/A 

Services 

153 

Trade 

419 

Construction 

28 

T.P.U.C.    3/ 

25 

F.I.R.E.    4/ 

24 

Manufacturing 

-0- 

26,205 

30 

5,652 

11 

N/A 

N/A 

1,449 

21 

3,208 

42 

-0- 

7 

549 

6 

374 

4 

146 

<3 

-37,583 

+121 

1/      Covered  employment  by  industry  and  payroll  refers  to  those  industries 
whose  employees  are  covered  under  the  State's  Unemployment  Compensation 
Law  NRS  612. 

2/   Number  of  Departments,  Agencies  -  Federal,  State,  local. 

3/   T.P.U.C.   Transportation,  Communication,  Utility  Industries 

4/   F.I.R.E.   Finance,  Insurance,  Real  Estate  Industries 

V      Employment   Percentage   based   on  NRS   612  covered  Employment   of   2,195  persons, 

Source:      State  of   Nevada   Office  of   Community  Services,   Lander  County 
Nevada  Profile,    1982. 


2-21 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  2-15    1982  Employment  by  Major  Economic  Sector  Lander  County  1/ 

1982             Employment           Payroll     Number  of 
Sector Employment Percent  (1,840  Total)5/ $000 Firms 

55.4 

18.5 

N/A 

4.3 
17.4 

-0- 

2.2 

1.1 

-0- 
+1,820  +98.9 


Mining 

1,020 

Government   2/ 

340 

Agriculture 

N/A 

Services 

80 

Trade 

320 

Construction 

-o- 

T.P.U.C.    3/ 

40 

F.I.R.E.    4/ 

20 

Manufacturing 

-0- 

25,544 

26 

5,531 

12 

N/A 

N/A 

981 

22 

3,060 

40 

-0- 

7 

547 

6 

365 

4 

119 

-0- 

+36,147 


+117 


1_/   Covered  employment  by  industry  and  payroll  refers  to  those  industries 
whose  employees  are  covered  under  the  State's  Unemployment  Compensation 
Law  NRS  612. 

2/   Number  of  Departments,  Agencies  -  Federal,  State,  local. 

3/   T.P.U.C.   Transportation,  Communication,  Utility  Industries 

4/  F.I.R.E.   Finance,  Insurance,  Real  Estate  Industries 

£/      Employment   Percentage   based   on  NRS   612  covered  Employment   of    1,840  persons, 

Source:      State  of   Nevada  Office  of   Community   Services,   Lander  County 
Nevada  Profile,    1983. 


2-22 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table   2-16        1981   Employment   by  Major  Economic   Sector  Nye   County    1/ 

1981                                  Employment                          Payroll             Number   of 
Sector Employment Percent    (7,909  Total)5/ $000 Firms 

16.9 

8.4 

N/A 

50.8 

6.3 

5.3 

1.9 

4.0 

1.2 

+7,508  +94.8 


Mining 

1,340 

Government   2/ 

665 

Agriculture 

N/A 

Services 

4,024 

Trade 

495 

Construction 

421 

T.P.U.C.    3/ 

152 

F.I.R.E.    4/ 

319 

Manufacturing 

92 

34,862 

31 

10,109 

22 

N/A 

N/A 

118,738 

63 

4,331 

103 

11,305 

46 

3,255 

15 

5,513 

15 

1,661 

9 

-189,774 

+304 

1/      Covered   employment   by   industry   and  payroll   refers   to   those  industries 
whose   employees   are   covered  under  the   State's   Unemployment  Compensation 
Law  NRS   612. 

2/      Number  of   Departments,    Agencies   -  Federal,    State,    local. 

3/      T.P.U.C.      Transportation,    Communication,   Utility   Industries 

4/      F.I.R.E.      Finance,    Insurance,   Real   Estate   Industries 

V      Employment   Percentage   based  on  NRS   612  covered  Employment   of    7,909  persons 

Source:      State   of   Nevada   Office  of   Community   Services,   Nye   County 
Nevada  Profile,    1982. 


2-2  3 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  2-17    1982  Employment  by  Major  Economic  Sector  Nye  County  1/ 


Sector 


1982             Employment          Payroll     Number  of 
Employment Percent  (8,640  Total)5/ $000 Firms 


Mining 

1,430 

Government   2/ 

670 

Agriculture 

N/A 

Services 

5,470 

Trade 

480 

Construction 

160 

T.P.U.C.    3/ 

160 

F.I.R.E.    4/ 

170 

Manufacturing 

90 

+8,630 


16.6 

39,833 

32 

7.8 

11,369 

23 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

63.3 

154,252 

65 

5.6 

4,893 

99 

1.9 

3,181 

47 

1.9 

3,611 

15 

2.0 

3,025 

16 

1.0 

1,935 

7 

00.1 

+222,099 

+304 

1_/   Covered  employment  by  industry  and  payroll  refers  to  those  industries 
whose  employees  are  covered  under  the  State's  Unemployment  Compensation 
Law  NRS  612. 

2/   Number  of  Departments,  Agencies  -  Federal,  State,  local. 

3/   T.P.U.C.   Transportation,  Communication,  Utility  Industries 

4/   F.I.R.E.   Finance,  Insurance,  Real  Estate  Industries 

£/      Employment   Percentage   based   on  NRS   612  covered  Employment   of   8,640  persons 

Source:      State  of   Nevada   Office  of   Community   Services,   Nye   County 
Nevada  Profile,    1983. 


2-24 


Mt .  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  2-18    1981  Employment  by  Major  Economic  Sector  White  Pine  County  1/ 


Sector 


1981              Employment           Payroll     Number  of 
Employment Percent  (3,494  Total)5/     $000 Firms 


Mining 

541 

Government   2/ 

797 

Agriculture 

N/A 

Services 

616 

Trade 

748 

Construction 

175 

T.P.U.C.    3/ 

151 

F.I.R.E.    4/ 

98 

Manufacturing 

368 

+3,494 


15.5 

22.8 

N/A 

17.6 

21.4 

5.0 

4.3 

2.8 

10.5 

+99.9 


10,142 

25 

11,461 

22 

N/A 

N/A 

5,838 

72 

6,554 

101 

3,246 

32 

2,695 

16 

1,114 

16 

9,679 

3 

+50,729 

+287 

1/      Covered  employment  by  industry  and  payroll  refers  to  those  industries 
whose  employees  are  covered  under  the  State's  Unemployment  Compensation 
Law  NRS  612. 

2/   Number  of  Departments,  Agencies  -  Federal,  State,  local. 

3_/   T.P.U.C.   Transportation,  Communication,  Utility  Industries 

4/   F.I.R.E.   Finance,  Insurance,  Real  Estate  Industries 

V      Employment   Percentage   based   on  NRS   612  covered  Employment   of    3,494  persons, 

Source:      State  of   Nevada   Office  of   Community   Services,   White  Pine  County 
Nevada  Profile,    1982. 


2-25 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  2-19    1982  Employment  by  Major  Economic  Sector  White  Pine  County  1/ 


Sector 


1982             Employment           Payroll     Number  of 
Employment Percent  (3,040  Total)5/ $000 Firms 


Mining 

360 

Government   2/ 

760 

Agriculture 

N/A 

Services 

570 

Trade 

660 

Construction 

100 

T.P.U.C.    3/ 

200 

F.I.R.E.    4/ 

80 

Manufacturing 

320 

+3,050 


11.8 

25.0 
N/A 

18.8 

21.7 
3.3 
6.6 
2.6 

10.5 
+100.3 


9,148 

22 

10,945 

22 

N/A 

N/A 

6,067 

68 

5,943 

96 

1,585 

29 

2,157 

17 

1,115 

15 

8,195 

3 

+45,155 


+272 


1/   Covered  employment  by  industry  and  payroll  refers  to  those  industries 
whose  employees  are  covered  under  the  State's  Unemployment  Compensation 
Law  NRS  612. 

2/   Number  of  Departments,  Agencies  -  Federal,  State,  local. 

3/   T.P.U.C.   Transportation,  Communication,  Utility  Industries 

4/   F.I.R.E.   Finance,  Insurance,  Real  Estate  Industries 

£/   Employment  Percentage  based  on  NRS  612  covered  Employment  of  3,040  persons 

Source:   State  of  Nevada  Office  of  Community  Services,  White  Pine  County 
Nevada  Profile,  1983. 


2-26 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  2-20  Employment  Sector  and  Percent  Share  -  Annual  Review,  Eureka  County 


Employment  Sector 


1967 


% 


1977 


% 


1981 


% 


Mining 

Government 

Agriculture 

Services 

Manufacturing 

Construction 


36.2 
16.9 
22.3 

D 

0.0 

D 
75% 


43.7 
21.8 
20.2 

D 

D 
<1.6 
87.3% 


55.0 

14.5 

12.3 

7.1 

5.8 

4.3 

99% 


D  -  Data  not   disclosed 

Source:      Nevada   State  Employment   Security   Department,   Nevada   County 
Labor  Force   Summaries,   Nevada  Statistical  Abstract,    1981. 


2-27 


Total   employment   for  Elko   County   (NRS   612)    in   1982   equalled   638 
business   and   governmental   agencies   (a  decrease   of   11   firms    from  the   previous 
year).      The   industries   of    services,    trade   and  mining   employed   5,830  persons   (64 
percent    of    total   employment)    and  were   distributed   among  424  firms.      Total 
federal,    state   and   local   government   employment   equalled    1,610  in  34  agencies. 
Total   county   payroll  in   1982   (NRS   612)    equalled    $132,536,622. 

2.3.2      Income 

The  per   capita   personal    income   for  Nevada   increased   by   122   percent 
between    1970  and    1979,   as   compared   to   the   national   figure    of   118   percent.      In 
1982,   the  per  capita  personal    income   for  Nevada   (Table   2-21)    was   $11,784 
(est.),    slightly  higher   than  the  national  figure   of   $11,056  (est.). 

Wage   and   salary  disbursements   in  Nevada   totalled    $6.5   billion  in 
1981,    making  up  88  percent    of    total   labor  and   proprietor's   income  in   1981. 
The   strongest   sector  was   services,    which   totalled    $1.8   billion  or   29   percent 
of   the   total   personal  income   in    1981. 

Personal   income   data  for  all  Nevada   counties   is   shown  in  Table   2-22 
for   selected  years    1959-1979.      Estimated  weekly  and   hourly  earnings    for 
selected  Nevada   industries   during   the  period   1970-1980  are   shown  in  Table   2-23. 

Total   personal   income   for  Eureka  County  was   $11.5  million  in   1981 
(reported   for  industries    covered  under  the   State's   Unemployment   Compensation 
Law  NRS   612)    and    $11.1   million  in    1982   (down  3.6   percent).      Gross    average 
annual   earnings   in  1980  equalled   $15,369  and   increased   21.2   percent   in   1981 
to   $18,620  (U.S.   Dept.    of  Commerce   revision   expected   for    1981).      The   increase 
in  annual   earnings   from   1980  to    1981    reflected   the   increase   in  employment 
during  that   period.      From   1979-1981,   the   gross  annual  earnings   increased  23 
percent. 

Per   capita   income    for  Eureka   County   between   1977   and    1981    increased 
97.0  percent    from  $5,275   to    $10,390  (1983  dollars).      Eureka  County   per 
capita   income   in   1977  was    32   percent    lower   than   the   Nevada   State   average   of 
$7,808  and   24.5   percent   lower   than   the   national   average.      Recent    events   have, 

2-28 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table   2-21     Estimated  Per  Capita  Personal    Income 


1977  1978  1979  1980  1981  1982 


Eureka  County 

$5,275 

$8,298 

$9,897 

Nevada 

7,808 

8,878 

9,789 

United  States 

6,984 

7,776 

8,657 

$10,356  $10,390  $     N/A 

10,674  11,582  11,784 

9,483  10,495  11,056 


N/A  -  Not    available   at    time   of   printing. 

Source:      T.    Cartwright,    1983,    Personal   Communication,   U.S.    Department   of   Commerce, 
Bureau   of  Economic  Analysis,    Regional   Economic   Information   System. 


2-29 


as 
m 
os 


co 
u 
co 
o> 

01 
4J 

CJ 

V 
iH 

0) 
C/3 


3 

O 

o 

>, 

J3 

0) 

/■> 

0 

CO 

o 

M 

a 

cfl 

a 

.-H 

H 

H 

O 

p-j 

Q 

CO 

c 

r>. 

o 

vD 

4-1 

CO 

OS 

u 

>-l 

i — i 

GJ 

0) 

•I-) 

PLI 

O 

0 

4J 

u 

CO 

p-l 

•u 

-d 

■H 

0) 

B 

a 

4J 

3 

co 

cn 

3 

CJ 

3 

0) 

•i— 

13 

M 

T5 

.O 

0) 

< 

>^ 

a, 

^—^ 

H 

O 

X 

CM 
CN 

0) 

1 

a, 

CN 

o 

W 

0» 

• 

.O 

4-1 

CO 

2 

H 

o 
on 


0) 

4-1 

co 
3 
i-) 

"O 
CO 

3 

-o 
cu 

4-1 

co 

3 
•<— 

< 


NmHiscoaioocnmNHCocooNfoo 
nMororosHioinOHCTivociNC^co 
sDunmmcNOsor^oooor^covocN^CTvtn 

>?cOvjLn^-co<fOcocNfnnco>3--cf<fm 


sHcgHONHMn<fHN>jinNnco 
cofricM^-*'J'rNN-H-Ha>NiA<tocyiN 

C^OO>N\0\OC^NfO<r'^0>-H\OCONO 

mfncn^nNncnfONcnNncon^cn 


HcsicosrNcninO'H<ON>3,ir)CT»innrv 

OONHH»CO^N»ONincMOCO*N 

^co^m<-cM<frnrocMcnn<cf<fro<ffn 
</> 

or-^^HinoOincN-j-ososo-d-ao—icosO 
vOLno-^or-^cNccoooocNr^cNj-^cNoo 
sor>.ONr^ooso<)-cNco-d'OCNoor-^incNON 

roNfo^nN^nroNncorocoro^N 


^OO-Cf^CM^HinHOO^-CfHNHf^N 

inHco\oo\nNcoNC^oOH-Hinin-HN 

Os    »*   — hO^On-^NCNI^ONNN^ONiA 
CMCNCOsOCOCNCOCNCOCNCNCN-3-CNCOCOCN 


— i  as  so  -^  -3-  OHininvO>jNNN^OH 

O^NNCMOiOCOnSMMnOHCO* 

ncNm^OforonNcoNNNNjmrocON 


<f    CO   CT\    ON   00 
ON    OOOOS 


lAvJ-CfsJ-^IvvOnOOvOlflN 

--<-3-CTsaocsjsor^cosoinoo>3- 

NNONcnomcnooMono 

CMNcnNNNcOCMCNCMCMHCNNcOOCO 

ONOOoocMinifl'HiflH-HrooivvOiril45rri 

^rcooOm^coocififnHfONNnN 

(NNNMO^incn\ON00inCN|NCTiNC1 

ncsi-^NcocMcnfOcMNrgHcncifOfOco 


co-cf^-io^co^r^cMooOHrvcovOco 

CO-JOSNiDNmC^LnrOCNHvONC^CMin 

■^•CTsr^cNmr^aocoeoOco-*as-HinOr-« 


CN 


CNsOCNCNCNCNCNCNCN 


CN    CN    CN    CO    CN 


CSNO>'J\OfrlNHSHinH03COn'H0> 

vjONco-^co^^OinoNfNiinniyirM-^o 

NHHOCOONSvOMvCNnClW^H 
CNCNCOr>«CNCOCOCNCNCNCN-HCOCNCNCOCO 


co 

sO 

in 


co 

CN 

OS 

CO 


CN 


m 

SO 
00 

CO 


OS 
-3" 

CO 


00 
ON 

m 

CO 


in 


oo 


m 

CN 


co 


4-1 

•H   H 

CO 

0) 

3 

CJ    H 

T3              4-1 

3° 

•H 

•H 

CO 

-H              T3 

c 

•5 

CU 

^ 

3    ,£3 

CO 

co    eg  H    p 

^  i    O    OJ 

r-l 

•--1     >s 

0) 

4-1 

O     0  ^ 

H 

o 

M 

J3    O) 

Q 

0) 

W 

3 

CO    u    u 

bC 

o 

0)     Ol    .O,   T3 

S    M    e   c 

o 

C     0) 

CO     S-l 

JS 

4-1 

H 

3 

Ut     3    CO 

3 

M 

c 

O    3 

Q) 

U    o 

co 

•H 

<1 

o 

ffl^H 

O 

i-H 

co    3    3    cfl 

W   w   X   kJ 

•H 

^  -H 

>^ 

0)     4J 

CO 

H 

CJ 

CJ    <J    CJ 

a 

UJ 

hJ 

•J  33 

Z 

a-  lo 

3 

s 

C/N 

2-30 


o> 

4J 

sO 

CO 

UO 

LO 

00 

1 — ( 

r~» 

tn 

CN 

00 

X 

«* 

^H 

i-H 

m 

p> 

X 

ON 

CO 

CN 

00 

r^ 

—* 

OS 

r»« 

ON 

r~^ 

>3" 

00 

ON 

CN 

ON 

LO 

in 

i— * 

LO 

X 

3 

NO 

x 

— i 

sO 

- — i 

»— i 

00 

vO 

-H 

CO 

CM 

O 

X> 

- 

p>. 

CO 

sO 

r^ 

i~l 

• 

T3 

ON 

h» 

O 

.— ( 

O 

vO 

ON 

00 

ON 

vO 

00 

X 

r^ 

CN 

x 

CN 

r^. 

ON 

CO 

-H 

i — I 

— ■ 

t-H 

3 

o> 

a* 

S 

r-~ 

ON 

T3 

. — i 

Oi 

oo 

sD 

o 

ro 

iH 

CTi 

CM 

O 

00 

X 

p> 

»-H 

X 

CO 

p>. 

vO 

CO 

o 

4J 

CNJ 

CM 

X 

-* 

0> 

CO 

ON 

o> 

C 

CO 

—1 

CN 

CO 

vO 

- 

NO 

CN 

CO 

CO 

3 

1-1 

•<r 

vC 

«o 

CO 

sO 

00 

P^. 

ON 

CN 

o^ 

oo 

*o 

LO 

*H 

— i 

-C 

in 

X 

<r 

CO 

-* 

LO 

** 

CM 

m 

CO 

>* 

CN 

CO 

CO 

CO 

<r 

CO 

LO 

co 

o- 

TJ 

< 

c/> 

en 

h» 

T3 

On 

0) 

—i 

4-1 

CO 

ON 

1—1 

00 

ON 

CO 

00 

f— 1 

•<f 

CO 

X 

CO 

r^ 

Pn. 

ON 

r^ 

CM 

X 

CO 

o 

<r 

CO 

CO 

r^ 

CM 

ON 

LO 

m 

kO 

CO 

CO 

<r 

o 

X 

ON 

X 

r~- 

1 

3 

r^ 

LO 

CN 

O 

r^ 

00 

CM 

m 

lO 

o 

^D 

lO 

X 

X 

CM 

o 

X 

X 

Os 

i  > 

•3 

00 

r^ 

cr 

—i 

00 

LO 

00 

r-- 

r^ 

vO 

l>» 

r~^ 

v£> 

r~- 

NO 

— < 

NO 

X 

LO 

CO 

i— i 

—1 

on 

a 

c/> 

■— 1 

& 

co 

on 

TJ 

u 

i — i 

Ol 

<f 

co 

«* 

0> 

CO 

O 

00 

<r 

\0 

CO 

ON 

LO 

sr 

LO 

ON 

ON 

CM 

m 

CO 

4-1 

UO 

^C 

CM 

<r 

ON 

CO 

LO 

vC 

^C 

o 

o 

lO 

o 

ON 

1 — 1 

r~^ 

CM 

sO 

0) 

CO 

<3- 

00 

r*« 

^c 

•<r 

ON 

o 

CO 

00 

1— < 

ON 

X 

lO 

ON 

CM 

sO 

m 

X 

(H 

3 

♦• 

i~l 

<r 

m 

<f 

LO 

>* 

CN 

m 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

LO 

co 

<r 

TJ 

-3 

OJ 

< 

c/> 

4-1 

CJ 

0) 

T3 

rH 

01 

0) 

4-1 

00 

sO 

<r 

ON 

00 

—i 

ON 

«* 

o 

-d- 

ON 

ON 

CO 

O 

sO 

<r 

o 

sO 

CO 

CO 

<-H 

CM 

lO 

00 

00 

O 

00 

CO 

V40 

00 

—1 

ON 

r*. 

m 

r>» 

sO 

X 

CO 

<"N 

3 

o 

CO 

LO 

so 

ON 

ON 

CM 

r~- 

r^- 

lO 

in 

<r 

o 

^c 

ON 

»* 

CO 

sO 

•  • 

TJ 

i~> 

So 

01 

T3 

vO 

LO 

S© 

r^ 

LO 

<f 

<r 

LO 

LO 

sj- 

LO 

LO 

lO 

vD 

Vt 

r^ 

LO 

sO 

4-1 

3 

CO 

c 

3 

3 

</> 

3 

•H 

lO 

33 

O 

4-1 

r-> 

u 

c 

o> 

T3 

o 

i — i 

0) 

CO 

o 

sO 

O 

LO 

o 

-H 

r% 

CO 

<r 

<r 

p-H 

r-^ 

m 

r^- 

O 

r-^ 

r^ 

ro 

CJ 

4-1 

co 

<r 

sO 

r^ 

1 — 1 

<r 

vD 

LO 

pv 

<f 

CN 

1 — 1 

-3- 

CM 

X 

CO 

CO 

CM 

-O. 

s-^ 

CO 

3 

r^ 

CO 

o 

rx 

r^ 

o 

X> 

LO 

LO 

X 

<r 

<r 

—4 

— ' 

O 

\0 

CO 

CN 

cu 

•■^ 

ro 

CO 

<!■ 

s* 

co 

co 

CM 

CO 

CO 

CN 

CO 

CO 

CO 

<r 

CO 

<f 

CO 

-d- 

6 

CO 

•3 

0 

u 

< 

</> 

0 

CO 

c 

^1 

M 

rH 

o 

•3 
0) 

H 

Q 

4-1 

o 

^D 

r>> 

LO 

OJ 

00 

00 

>* 

CM 

LO 

O 

r*. 

— 1 

<r 

-* 

CO 

X 

CM 

CO 

CO 

ON 

<r 

r> 

00 

O 

ON 

CM 

r»s 

CN 

ON 

X 

<r 

— H 

vO 

CO 

ON 

CM 

-H 

C 

r-~ 

3 

CM 

CO 

lO 

00 

o 

O 

CO 

ON 

CO 

r^ 

— H 

X 

ON 

CN 

^D 

CO 

r^. 

r-^ 

O 

sO 

•<-> 

4-1 

CO 

On 

T3 

m 

«* 

LO 

^D 

vO 

CO 

r^ 

<r 

m 

CO 

<r 

<r 

CO 

O 

m 

vO 

■^■ 

m 

o 

u 

rH 

CO 

<u 

CD 

3 

c/> 

•l-> 

Cu 

o 

co 

a 

0 

4J 

r-~ 

u 

CO 

ON 

-3 

PL. 

4-1 

T5 

-H 

Oi 

«tf 

LO, 

o 

CO 

ON 

00 

vO 

Px 

00 

— i 

O 

CN 

X 

^O 

CO 

CO 

CM 

CM 

•H 

0) 

4-1 

r^ 

vC 

ON 

r-« 

Q 

CM 

O 

CO 

ON 

LO 

<r 

<r 

CO 

O 

co 

O 

m 

ON 

E 

o- 

4-1 

CO 

ON 

CM 

1 — 1 

— H 

LO 

CO 

LO 

r^ 

ON 

X 

^H 

^D 

ON 

p^ 

CN 

X 

m 

CM 

3 

CO 

CO 

3 

C 

CJ 

3 

■!-J 

CO 

CO 

<r 

LO 

<r 

OJ 

LO 

CO 

CO 

CN 

CO 

CO 

CN 

<r 

<r 

<r 

CO 

<P 

0) 

•i-) 

T3 

T3 

U 

-3 

< 

</> 

XI 

CD 

< 

>% 

Cu 

^s 

>H 

O 

>. 

s 

CN 

CN 

4-1 
•H 

rH 

CO 

cu 

3 

01 

1 

CJ 

rH 

-o 

4-1 

be 

•H 

o. 

CM 

•H 

CO 

tH 

~o 

C 

rH 

c 

CU 

^^ 

o 

SO 

3 

xi 

CO 

CO 

J 

rH 

u 

rH 

CO 

•H 

>\ 

0) 

CN 

X 

0) 

4-1 

O 

CJ 

M 

rH 

u 

C 

<u 

O 

u 

Si 

OJ 

o 

CU 

W 

rH 

s 

CO 

u 

u 

tc 

O 

0) 

0) 

1 

•v 

CJ 

3 

o> 

co 

U 

Xi 

4-1 

H 

• 

XI 

3 

JH 

3 

CO 

3 

M 

E 

i-( 

3 

c 

O 

C 

CD 

M 

o 

co 

•H 

< 

4J 

CO 

O 

CO 

Xi 

rH 

0 

rH 

CO 

3 

3 

3 

•H 

:o 

•H 

>^ 

0) 

4-1 

to 

H 

s 

H 

CJ 

CJ 

U 

cj 

Q 

w 

m 

W 

•x. 

hJ 

hJ 

a 

z 

CL, 

X 

3 

5 

C/3 

CO 
CO 

0) 
3 
•H 
CO 

3 
PQ 


3 
CO 
0) 

3 
OQ 

E 
O 


CO 

o> 

4-1 

CO 

E 


CO      • 

rH      O 

3     3 

a  oi 

o   Ptj 

a 
oo  co 

3  -3 
•H  CO 
CO      > 

3    OJ 

OJ    <4-l 

a  o 
o 

H    >^ 

0)  4-1 
>    -H 

0)      CO 

CU 
CO      > 

0)  -H 
4-»      3 

CO   3) 
E 
•H       •> 

•t-1  x: 
co    o 

0>        rH 

co 
oi  o> 
E  co 
o    cu 

0  od 
3 

•H     O 
•H 

CO    s 

4-1      O 

•H     3 

a  o 
co   o 

CJ    w 

u  -a 

01  3 
Ch     cO 


4-1 

CO  rH 

•3  CO 

3 

4-1  O 

3  -H 

Oi  bO 

>h  Oi 

U  Oi 
3 

CJ  •> 


CO 


OJ 
in 

O 

E     rH 
CO 

3     3 
O   < 

T3     O 
0> 


e 
c 
c 
o 

CU  CJ 
M  W 
CO 


ON 
ON 


3 
CO 
OJ 
H 

3 
CO    CO 


-3 

3 


JN      CJ 
-I      U 

OJ 

co    B 


oj  CJ 

MH 

iH      O  • 

O  CO 

UH     4J  X 

3  On 

CO        CU  rH 

Oi    E 

M     4-1  •> 

3    U  C 

bO   CO  B 

•H    O-  0) 

MH      OJ  4-1 

Q  CO 

oj  r>. 

4-1      .x 
CO   x 

4-1       •  3 

X   33  O 

•H 

•O     41  U 

3  JC  co 

CO     4.)  E 

M 

>.  E  O 

4J      O  KH 

3        r4  3 

3  Mh  H 
O 

U    TJ  O 

0)  -rj 

CO    >  B 

^i    -H  O 

0)     0)  3 

>H      CJ  o 

3     Oi  cj 


CM    I 


2-31 


a) 

b0 

CO 

P  ^-\ 

cu    CO 

>   cu 

<    bO 

to 

T3    l-i 

C    CU 

(0    > 

< 

m 

co  H 

bO  tO 

3    3 

•H     3 

c  c 

M  <J 

03  ■>_• 

W 

O 

^00 

rH   Os 

>-i   — ' 

3 

O     1 

PC 

o 

0)  h» 

bOCTi 

CO     —H 

U 

a> 

>  •• 

<      CO 

0) 

•>  «H 

CO     U 

bO  -u 

c    en 

•H     3 

d  T3 

V4       3 

CO  H 

to" 

CO 

>.T3 

rH      CO 

^      > 

0)     CU 

cu  2 

3 

TJ 

oj  cu 

bO  4J 

4-1 

CO    O 

o 

p   a> 

0) 

0)   H 

•l-) 

>   a) 

o 

<    CO 

u 

fa 

-o    P 

01    o 

B 

4J    VM 

3 

CO 

c 

B   co 

cu 

•rH      U 

T3 

4->     3 

J3 

CO     o 

>% 

W   EC 

H 

O 

s 

co 

CM 

a) 

1 

a 

CM 

0 

i 

cu 

iH 

• 

•O 

«j 

CO 

s 

H 

00 

• 

en 


CN 

vO 

m 


00 
CO 


m 

• 
m 
o 

CO 


sO 

• 

«3" 
CM 


bO  cm 

3 


bo|cM 
CO 

u 
cu 
> 
< 

co 

• 

o 

Os 


m 

CM 


CO 
00 


o 


in 

sD 


as 


oo 
-3- 

• 
m 

sD 


CM 

CO 


as 


-3- 


o 


CM 
CO 

• 
00 
\£> 
CO 


00 

o 

• 

-3- 

CO 


00 


m 

CO 


00 

m 

ON 
CM 


o 
-3- 


00 
CM 


as 

m 
CM 


sD 
CO 

• 

m 

CM 


as 

m 

as 

CM 


00 

in 

sO 
CM 


as 


m 

CM 


in 

CM 


sO 

as 


CM 


• 

o 
o 

CM 


as 

00 


00 


as 


m 


sO 


00 


o 


00 
00 

vr 

co 


as 

o 

• 

CM 
CM 

CO 


CM 
CO 

• 
00 

o 

CO 


o 

CO 

• 

in 
as 

CM 


CM 

m 

• 
m 
m 

CM 


vD 
CO 

• 

oo 

CO 
CM 


CO 


as 


sD 


CM 

00 


as 


o 
P-. 


00 


m 


^ 


oo 

CM 

CM 


00 
O 
CM 


sO 


as 
as 


CO 

o 


00 


m 

CO 


CO 


m 
so 


sO 


CM 

>3" 


O 

m 


CM 


m 
>3- 


oo 

CO 


sO 


o 

CO 


o 

CM 


o 

CM 


as 


00 


as 

CO 

m 

00 

O 

■— i 

Os 

OS 

r-» 

i—i 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

00 

CM 

\£> 

r-» 

sO 

o 
>3- 


CO 


-3- 


o 
m 


o 
o 


as 


CO 

<3- 


m 


v© 


as 
o 


v£> 


-3- 


CM 

m 


o 

CM 


>3" 
CO 


^£> 


as 


m 


sD 
CM 


00 

oo 


m 
co 


sO 
CO 


CM 


in 
co 


CM 


CO 

b0| 

3 

•H 

c 
u 
CO 

w 


1-1 

3 
O 
33 

oj 

b0| 
to 

u 

OJ 

> 

< 


00 

m 

sO 

~H 

o 

CO 

oo 

CM 

Os 

s£> 

• 

• 

Os 

• 

m 

• 

m 

• 

\C 


m 


r^ 

00 

<r 

Os 

O 

00 

CO 

—< 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Os 

o- 

m 

<t 

as 
co 


sO 


as 
oo 


CM 

00 


00 

in 


O 


o 
as 


m 

vO 


CO 

o 


00 


M 

0) 
0J 

CD 

b0|O> 
CO 

u 

OJ 

> 

< 


Os 


CO 


00 


CO 


m 
co 


00 

CM 

—i 

CO 

in 

CO 

sO 

CM 

CO 

m 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

<■ 

r>- 

<* 

«* 

CO 

O 


CM 


Os 

O 


CM 

o 


-3- 
CM 


CO 


sO 

o 


sO 
CO 


bO 

3 

3 

3 

O 

O 

•H 

•H 

•H 

U 

4J 

4-> 

3 

CO 

O 

4-1 

O 

3 

O 

•H 

bO 

M 

CO 

S 

3 

4J 

H-l 

cu 

•H 

CO 

3 

B 

•3 

3 

3 

3 

S 

CO 

•H 

O 

CO 

o 

u 

S 

o 

2 

o 

H 

3J 

-8 

bO 

3 

3 

3 

O 

O 

•H 

•H 

•H 

H 

4J 

4-1 

3 

CO 

CJ 

4J 

U 

3 

CJ 

•H 

bO 

i-i 

CO 

rt 

3 

4-1 

14-4 

3 

<u 

•H 

CO 

3 

S 

T3 

3 

3 

3 

E 

CO 

•H 

O 

CO 

O 

^ 

s 

u 

S 

U 

bO 

3 


O 

3 
u 

4-1 
CO 

3 
O 
CJ 


00 
CO 


m 


oo 
co 


m 


00 
CO 


00 


o 

>3" 


00 


00 

co 


00 
CO 


Os 

CO 


o 


Os 


as 
co 


o 


— i        co 


Os 
CO 


3° 
•H 

3 

4-1 
CJ 

tO 

14-4 
g 

CO 


C3> 
CO 


33 


e 
e 
o 


CO 
CO 


^3- 
CO 


m 


^3- 

CO 


m 


o 

tn 

00 

as 

in 

-d- 

CO 

CO 

CO 

co 

Os 

m 

oo 

o 

in 

CO 

CO 

CO 

<T 

co 

CO  — H 


V40 
CO 


00 

m 

co 


o 


o 

m 

oo 

CO 

m 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

-H 

m 

as 

as 

v£> 

•* 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

a\ 

o 

v£> 

-3" 

V© 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

-^ 

vO 

Os 

as 

sO 

<r 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

co 


CO 
u 
H 


u 
O 

a. 
0) 

pel 


to 
u 
ai 

T3 
CU 

fa 


4J 

3 


4-) 
Ui 
CO 

Q. 

0) 

O 


3 

CJ 

cu 

C/j 


3 
i 
o 

iH 

a 
«0 

T3 
CO 
> 
CU 

2 


0) 

o 
u 

3 

o 

C/5 


2-32 


however,   reversed   to   some   extent    the  historical   trend  such   that    the    1979   per 
capita  income   of   $9,897  was   the   fifth  highest   in  the  state,    was    slightly 
higher   than  the   state  average   and    14.3   percent   higher   than  the   national 
average   (see  Tables   2-21   and   2-22). 

The   percentage   of    families  with  incomes   under  poverty  level   in 
Eureka  County,   as   based   on  a   range    of    poverty  income    cut-offs    adjusted   by 
factors    such  as   family   size,    gender  of    family  head,   number  of    children  under 
18  years,    and   farm/nonfarm   residents   equalled    10.4   percent    in   1970.      Census 
data    for    1980  indicated   that    27   percent    of    the  Eureka  County   population  (325 
individuals)    had    annual    incomes   below  designated   poverty   levels    and   that    61 
of   302  families   in   the   county  (20.2   percent)    had   family  incomes   of   less    than 
$5,000. 

Total  personal    income    for  Elko   County  was   $123.8  million  in   1981 
(NRS   612)    and    $132.5   million  in   1982  (7   percent   increase).      Gross    average 
annual   earnings   in   1980  equalled    $12,426   and    increased    11.2   percent   in   1981 
to   $13,816.      The   increase   from   1979   to    1981   was   27   percent. 

Per  capita   income   for  Elko   County  between  1978  and    1980  increased 
29   percent    from  $8,247   to    $10,640.      Median  family  income   for   the  county  during 
the   period   1970-1980  increased    164  percent   ($9,900  -   1970;    $26,100  -   1980). 

Total  personal   income    for  Nye  County  was   $189.8  million  in   1981 
(NRS   612)    and    $222.3  million  in   1982   (17   percent   increase).      Gross   average 
annual   earnings   in    1980   equalled    $20,902  and  increased   14.8   percent   in   1981 
to   $23,995.      The   increase   in  gross   annual   earnings   from   1979-1981   was   30 
percent. 

Per  capita  income   for  Nye   County  between   1978  and    1980  increased    18 
percent    from  $7,008   to   $8,262.      Median  family  income   for  the  county  during 
the  period   1970-1980  increased    102  percent  ($10,200  -   1970;    $20,600  -   1980). 

Total   personal   income    for  White   Pine  County  was    $50.7   million  in 
1981    (NRS   612)    and    $45.2  million  in   1982   (down   10.8   percent).      Gross   average 
annual   earnings   in    1980  equalled    $13,426  and   increased   8.1    percent   in    1981    to 

2-33 


$14,519.      The  increase   in  gross   annual   earnings   from   1979-1981   was   28   percent. 

Per   capita  income   for  White   Pine  County  between   1978  and    1980 
increased   34   percent   from   $6,886   to   $9,259.      Median  family   income   for   the 
county  during  the   period    1970-1980  increased   105   percent   ($9,100   -    1970; 
$18,700  -   1980). 

The   Eureka   County   economy   is   expected   to   continue   as    it   has  with 
sporadic   fluctuations   in   the   economic   sectors    of   mining  and   government.      Most 
future  growth  is   anticipated   to   follow  historical   trends    in  response   to  mining 
and    oil/gas  developments.      Although   the   renovation  of    the   Town  of   Eureka   and 
effective   game  management    programs   are    expected    to   enhance   the   tourist   and 
hunting   service  industries,    significant   population  and   industry  growth  will 
only  be   recognized   as   county   and   area  mining/energy  projects  develop.      The 
uncertainty  in  the  economy   since    1980  resulted  in  negative   development 
throughout   the   region   and   has   affected    the   Eureka   County   economy   in  a 
significant  manner.      The    1982-1990  period   is   projected,    however,    to   potentially 
involve  multiple   industrial   project    developments,    including   the   initiation 
and/or   reopening   of    several   mining   operations. 

The   development    of    almost   any   project   within  the  county  or   proximate 
region  would  affect    the   county's    baseline   economy.      Substantial  project   develop- 
ment  in   adjacent   counties   which   exceeds   that   within  Eureka  County  might   be 
expected   to   result    in  a  net   out-migration  of   population  due   to   difficult    com- 
muter conditions  (e.g.,    mountain  passes   and   a  90  mile   distance    to   the   proposed 
Ely-White  Pine  Power  Plant   project).      Most   proposed   regional   projects   (e.g., 
White   Pine   Power  Plant)    are   expected   to   require   significant   in-migration   to 
support    labor  force   requirements.      Therefore,   multiple   project   development   in 
the   region  could   be   expected   to  significantly  affect    current   demographic 
patterns    and   the  economic   conditions.      Project   developments  within  Eureka 
County  may   also   affect   demographics.      A  majority   of   the   potential   projects 
identified   to  date   propose   locations    near   the   county  borders   which   could 
result    in  an  intracounty  migration   from  the   Town   of  Eureka   to   other   locations. 

In  general,    regional    economic   developments   are   expected   to   create 
higher   employment,   increased   personal  and   per  capita  income  and  the  need   for 

2-34 


more  support  services  and  facilities.   However,  Eureka  County  will  likely 
continue  to  experience  variable  economic  conditions  as  development  proceeds, 
subject  to  the  particular  schedules  and  siting  of  future  industrial  and  mining 
activities. 

2.4   Selected  Regional  Economic  Activities 

2.4.1   Mining/Mineral  Exploration 

The  mining  industry  has  traditionally  been  a  prime  motivator  in 
Nevada's  economic,  social  and  political  history.   The  direct  impacts  of  mining 
in  the  private  sector  are  usually  overshadowed  by  the  gaming  and  tourist 
oriented  economies  of  Reno/Sparks  and  Las  Vegas.   However,  mining  plays  an 
extremely  important  role  in  contributing  to  local  economies  outside  of  the 
metropolitan  gaming  areas.   The  Bureau  of  Business  and  Economic  Research,  UNR 
(1982)  has  reported  that: 

"outside  of  the  State's  major  metropolitan  areas,  over  the 
13-year  period  since  1969,  mineral,  gas  and  oil  exploration, 
development  and  production  accounted  for  73  percent  of  county 
payrolls  (58  percent  of  employment)  in  Esmeralda  County,  82 
percent  of  county  payrolls  (78  percent  of  employment)  in 
Eureka  County,  72  percent  of  county  payrolls  (58  percent  of 
employment)  in  Lander  County,  30  percent  of  county  payrolls 
(23  percent  of  employment)  in  Lincoln  County,  37  percent  of 
county  payrolls  (25  percent  of  employment)  in  Pershing  County, 
40  percent  of  county  payrolls  (36  percent  of  employment)  in 
Storey  County,  and  37  percent  of  county  payrolls  (28  percent 
of  employment)  in  White  Pine  County." 

The  estimated  value  of  Nevada's  mineral  production  for  1982  was  in 
excess  of  $495  million  (based  on  preliminary  nonfuel  estimates  by  the  U.S. 
Bureau  of  Mines  and  an  estimated  price  of  $30/bbl  for  oil).  Nevada  ranked 
14th  among  the  states  in  nonfuel  mineral  production.  Table  2-24  shows  the 
value  of  nonfuel  production  by  county  for  the  period  1978-1980.  Nevada  is 
the  major  producer  of  barite,  gold,  raagnesite  and  mercury  in  the  U.S. 

2-35 


§  8. 


rs    * 


05     O  -H 


4J    -H  T3    ^  "O 


0/    c         u    m 


u   m        —   — ■ 
u    be       .u  *■• 


-  c   c 

Prf      HI     N 


0)    H  3  it     k' 


IJ 

be 

t 

O    V 

4J     *J 

1m 

00    M 

H 

c 

M 

E 

£ 

0* 

41 

V 

•  o 

> 

ij 

> 

4J     4J 

fl) 

0) 

CO 

C      « 

"O 

& 

60 
B 

u 

BO 

1^ 

3 

3 

01 

x.     :■  —     i     ■/ 


(C  &j 


3     2  fe 


*->»-•-•         > 


~-  CO  — 


— .        cm 


<s>| 


M  T5 

£  C 

3  = 


■H  cr    o 


n  | 


-H      —  C 


Z  M.H 


2-36 


More   exploration  is   underway    in  Nevada   than  in  many  other  states. 
The  U.S.    Bureau   of    Land  Management   reported   that  more   claims  were   recorded   in 
Nevada   in   1982   than  in  any  other  western   state   (total    claims   filed   in  Nevada 
equalled  263,997). 

A  total   of    820  federal   geothermal    leases  were   in  effect   by   fiscal 
year    1982   (42.4   percent   increase)    in  Nevada,    accounting   for   a   15.3   percent 
increase   in  total    lease   acreage   (1,353,458  ac). 

Oil  and   gas    exploration  was   down  approximately  35   percent   in    1982. 
Only   12  wells  were  drilled   totalling    103,260  feet.      However,   a    10  percent 
increase   in   federal   oil   and   gas   leases    took   place   for   fiscal  year    1982   (total 
leases    =  11,135).      The   total    lease   acreage   increased    16.8  percent.      The   State 
of   Nevada   received   a   total   revenue   of   $12.6  million  from  the  mineral   industry. 
Mining   is  usually  a  major  part    of    the    tax   base   for  most   of    the   rural    counties 
of   Nevada.      The  mining  industry   paid  an  estimated   $26  million   to   State   and 
local   governments   in  taxes.      For  specific   counties    this   contribution  to   the 
public   sector   is   quite   substantial.      The   Bureau  of  Business   and   Economic 
Research,    UNR  (1982)    reported   that   in   1981    and    1982: 

"mining's   share   of   assessed   values  was    18   percent   in 
Elko   County,    49   percent   in  Esmeralda   County,    76  percent 
in  Eureka  County,    21    percent   in  Humboldt   County,    85 
percent   in  Lander  County,    19   percent   in  Lincoln  County, 
30  percent   in  Mineral   County,    35   percent   in  Nye   County, 
28   percent    in  Pershing   County,    29   percent   in  Storey 
County  and   52   percent   in  White   Pine   County." 

The   extent    to  which   Eureka   County   relies,    economically,    on   the 
mining  industry  is   quite   apparent   and  significantly   greater   than  that    found 
nationally  or  in  other  Nevada   counties.      Fuel  and   non-fuel   mining   industries 
employed   388   persons   and   comprised   11   firms   in   1981.      Total   payroll    amounted 
to   $8,661,917.      Net   proceeds   of   mines    assessed   valuation  for  fiscal   year 
1980-81    equalled    $49,953,725;    fiscal   year    1981-82   equalled   $44,437,068. 
Eureka   County   had    the   second   and   fourth  largest   barite   producers    in   1982    for 
the   state. 

2-37 


Of   the   twelve   oil   and   gas  wells   drilled   in  Nevada   during    1982,    four 
of   these  were  in  Eureka  County  and   accounted   for   over  30   percent    of   the    total 
footage   drilled  for  the  year.      A  new  oil   field  discovery  resulted   from  this 
drilling,   the  Blackburn  field,    located  in  Pine  Valley.      First   year   production, 
from  a   single  well,    amounted    to   approximately   $427,000.      Federal   oil   and   gas 
leases   in  Eureka  County  by   fiscal  year    1982   numbered   to  688  (an  increase   of   seven 
percent).      Federal   geothermal   leases   in  effect   by  fiscal   year   1982   in  Eureka 
County   amounted   to   fourteen. 

In  Elko   County    the  mining   industry   (fuel   and   non-fuel)    for    1981   was 
the   third    largest   economic   sector.      A  total   of   54  firms   employed   742   persons 
and   accounted   for  a   $17,051,878  payroll  (second   largest   contributor  to   the 
total   county  payroll).      Elko  County  net   proceeds    of  mines   assessed   valuation 
totalled    $11,199,440  in  fiscal  year   1981-82.      This   represented   a  86.6  percent 
change    from  fiscal  year    1980-1981   of   $6,000,608.      Although   numerous  mine 
reopenings   occurred   in   late   1982-1983,   net   proceeds   for   1982-1983  are   expected 
to  reflect   the   recessionary  downturn  in  mining. 

Total   federal   oil   and   gas   leases   and  geothermal   leases   in  Elko 
County  by  fiscal  year    1982   numbered    1,849  and  30,   respectively. 

An  account   of    the   exploration  and   development   of    future  mines/earth 
resources    for   the   region  (Eureka,    Elko,   Lander,   Nye  and  White   Pine   counties) 
is  given  below.      All   excerpts   have   been   taken  from  Nevada   Bureau   of  Mines   and 
Geology,   special  publication  Ml-1982  (1983). 

"Newmont  Mining   Corporation  acquired   all  the  property   neces- 
sary  for   the   development    of   its   Gold   Quarry  deposit   in  north- 
ern Eureka   County   late   in  August.      The  purchase   of    land   and 
mineral   rights    totaled    $34.75  million.      The   deposit   contains 
reserves   of    approximately   8  million  oz   gold.      Newmont's   Elko 
Land  and  Livestock  Company   subsidiary  bought   the  223,000-acre 
T  Lazy  S   Ranch,    including   mineral   interests   owned   by   the   ranch. 
The   ranch  encompasses   the   company's  Carlin,    Bootstrap,    Bluestar, 
and  Maggie  Creek  Mines.      Newmont's   Carlin  Gold  Company   separ- 
ately bought    a   10%  interest   in  the  mineral   rights    to   the   Gold 

2-38 


Quarry   property   and   entered   into   a  new  long-term  lease   of    the 
remaining   rights.      Production  is   planned   at    120,000  oz   gold/ 
year  starting  in    1985  or    1986.      (Mining   Congress   Journal, 
November,    1982). 

Carlin  Gold  Mining   Company,    a  wholly-owned   subsidiary  of 
Newmont  Mining   Corporation,   announced   a  new  find  at   Rain, 
some   20  miles   southeast   of    the  Maggie   Creek  Mine   in  Elko 
County.      Intensive   drilling  and   geologic   assessment   is 
still  underway;    blocked-out    reserves   are  estimated   to   con- 
tain 8.3  million  tons   of   ore   averaging   0.083  oz   of   gold/ton, 
including   3. A   million   tons   averaging   0.147   oz/ton.      (Newmont 
Mining  Company    1981   Annual   Report). 

Silver  King  Mines   announced   in  May    its   acquisition  of   Gulf 
Oil's   51%  interest   in  the  Ward  Mine    south   of   Ely,    White 
Pine  County.      Ore   reserves   are   estimated   at    17   million  tons 
of   silver-copper-zinc   ore   in   limestone   replacement   bodies. 
Silver  King  plans    to   sink   parallel,    A, 000-foot   inclined 
shafts.      (Mining  Record,   Denver,    June  30,    1982). 

Duval   Corporation  has   been  developing   its  Fortitude   gold 
deposit   next    to  its   Copper  Canyon   open-pit  mine,    13  miles 
south  of   Battle  Mountain  in  Lander  County.      Over   100  holes 
have   been  drilled  and  stripping  was    planned  for    1982. 
Reserves  were  estimated   at    1A.5  million  metric   tons   averag- 
ing  0.165  oz  gold   and   0.63  oz   silver/metric   ton.      Ore  would 
be  mined   by  open-pit   methods   and   processed  at  Duval's 
existing  facilities;    only  minor  modifications  would  be 
needed.      Production  is    planned   for    late    198A.      ( 1981   Report 
Duval   Corporation). 

AMAX,    Inc.    continued  planning   for  the   possible   development 
of   its  molybdenum  deposit   at   Buckingham,    7   miles    south   of 
Battle  Mountain   in  Lander  County.      In  March   they   applied 
for   permits    to   drill  a   number   of   water  wells   sufficient   to 

2-39 


provide  water   for  a  86,000   tons/day  mill.      No  date  has   been 
set    for   starting  the   project.      (Humboldt   Sun,    Winnemucca, 
March    11,    1982). 

Cortez   Gold  Mines,    a  joint  venture   of    Placer  Amex   Inc., 
Webb  Resources    Inc.    (a  wholly-owned  subsidiary   of   Standard 
Oil   of    Ohio),    Bunker  Hill   Company,    and   Vernon  F.    Taylor, 
Jr. ,    plans    to  begin   production  at   its   Horse  Canyon   gold 
deposit   in  mid-1983.      The  deposit   is   in  Eureka   County,    4 
miles   northeast    of   the  Cortez   mill.      Reserves   are   estimated 
at   3. A  million  short    tons  with  a   recoverable   grade   of   0.055 
oz   gold/ ton.     Mining   is   planned   at   2,000  tons   of   ore/day 
with  an  annual   production   of   40,000   oz   gold.      Open-pit 
methods   will  be   used.      Over   $7  million  will  be   spent   to 
bring  the  mine   into   production.      About    135   persons   will   be 
employed.      (Elko  Daily  Free  Press,   November  8,    1982). 

Cordex  reportedly  has    reserves   of   2.3  million  metric   tons 
averaging   0.11  oz  gold/metric   ton  at   its  Boulder  Creek 
property  near  the  Bootstrap  Mine   in  northern  Eureka  County. 
(Mine  Development  Monthly,   November   19,    1982). 

Elko  Heat  Company  supplied   geothermal  water   to  its   first 
customer,    Vogue   Laundry,    in  December   of    1982.      The    17  5°F 
geothermal   fluid  is   piped   from  a  well   three-quarters    of   a 
mile  west   of   downtown  Elko.      The  heat   company  will  also 
supply  geothermal  water   to  the   Stockman's  Hotel  and  the 
Henderson  Bank   Building.      A  U.S.    Department   of   Energy  grant 
of  $830,000   gave   the   project   its   start   in   1978  (Nevada 
State  Journal,   December   9,    1982).      Total   cost   of    the  pro- 
ject was   approximately   $1.5  million  (Oregon  Institute   of 
Technology,    Geo-Heat   Center  Bulletin,    Summer/Fall   1982). 
The   return  water  (at    100°    110°F)    will   be   stored  in  a   pond 
near  West  River  Street   and  will   be  used   to  irrigate   city 


2-40 


parks  (Elko  Daily  Free  Press,  October  12,  1982).   Elko 
Heat  has  a  consumptive  use  permit  from  the  Nevada  Division 
of  Water  Resources.   Production  of  water  from  the  Elko  Heat 
well  and  a  pump  test  at  Hot  Hole  just  southwest  of  Elko 
have  prompted  complaints  to  the  Division  from  other  owners 
of  geothermal  wells  or  springs  in  the  area.   Several  owners 
report  reduced  flows  or  temperatures  which  may  be  related 
to  recent  drilling  or  pumping  in  the  area  (Elko  Daily  Free 
Press,  19,  August  31,  1982;  October  6,  1982). 

The  City  of  Elko  drilled  several  test  wells  in  Elko  in  1982 
in  a  search  for  geothermal  waters  that  could  be  used  for  a 
sewage  plant  or  to  heat  city  buildings.   A  well  drilled  by 
the  city  near  the  Municipal  Swimming  Pool  in  November  1982 
had  temperatures  over  125°F  at  800  feet.   Water  from  this 
well  may  be  used  for  the  swimming  pool  and  to  heat  City 
Hall  and  the  Convention  Center  (Elko  Independent,  November 
10,  1982). 

2.4.2  Agriculture,  Government  and  Other  Sectors 

Agriculture  and  government  are  major  economic  sectors  for  Eureka 
County.  The  employment  figures  on  a  county  basis  for  these  areas,  as  with 
mining,  are  also  above  state  and  federal  averages. 

In  total,  the  three  employment  sectors  of  mining,  agriculture  and 
government  utilize  7  5  to  85  percent  of  the  county's  employed  workforce. 
Prior  to  1980,  however,  the  sectors  of  agriculture  and  government  experienced 
declining  employment. 

Although  agriculture  is  limited  in  Nevada  due  to  the  semi-arid 
climate,  it  is  a  major  part  of  the  Eureka  County  economy.   There  has  been 
farming  on  Desert  Land  Entries  in  Diamond  Valley,  one  of  the  largest  farming 
districts  in  the  state.   Main  crops  in  the  valley  include  high  altitude 


2-41 


alfalfa  and   small   grain.      Most   of    the  harvest   is   fed   locally   to   beef    cattle 
and   the   remainder   is    sold   and   transported   outside   the   area.      Local   merchants 
of   Eureka   offer  services   and  products   to   the   surrounding  agricultural   and 
mining   communities    of   Diamond  Valley,    Crescent   Valley  and   Beowawe. 

In   1980,   a   total   of    16,000  acres   produced   44,800   tons   of   alfalfa 
hay  in  Eureka  County.      Recent   figures   estimate   that   over  30,000  acres    of 
alfalfa  hay   exist.      Other  hays   for   1980  accounted  for   12,000  acres   and  produced 
15,600  tons.      Total  hay  accounted   for   28,000  acres   and   produced  60,400  tons. 

Cattle   grazing   and   ranching   in  Eureka   County   for   1981    produced 
40,000  head   at   an  average   value   of    $405/head  ($16.20  million   total). 

Government    employment   in  Eureka  County  in   1982   totaled   90  individuals 
and   accounted   for   $1,543,000  in  payroll.      County  government   has   helped   to 
stabilize   the  Eureka  Town  economy  with  county   payroll   providing  a  significant 
economic   input.      Eureka,    despite   a   small  population,   has   been  able   to   continue 
providing  a  variety  of   services   for  a   large  marketing  area. 

Whereas   the  percentage   of  mining   employment  had   been  on  the   increase, 
the    1980-1983  recession  has   particularly  affected  the  mining  industry  as    a 
whole   and   thereby   the  Eureka  County   economy.      Other  economic   sectors    such  as 
construction  and   manufacturing  have   grown   progressively  in  Eureka  County 
although   the  percentage   of    service   industry  employment   remains   substantially 
at   a  lower   level   than  that    found  statewide  or  nationally. 

Elko   County's   dominant   economic   sector  has   been  the   service 
industries,    numbering   3,500  employees   in   1982  and   accounting  for   $42,131,000 
in  payroll. 

Agricultural   activities   in  Elko   County   for   1980  broke   down   to 
26,000  acres   of   alfalfa  hay   producing  65,000   tons;    148,000  acres   of   other 
hays   producing    177,600  tons;    cattle   grazing   and   ranching  producing    195,000 
head   at   $405/head   for   1981    (total   value   of    $79  million). 


2-42 


Government  employment  engaged  1,610  individuals  and  accounted  for 
$29,034,000  in  payroll  for  1982  in  Elko  County.   Gaming  activity  produced 
gross  taxable  revenues  in  1981  of  $45,335,138,  a  20.5  percent  change  from 
fiscal  year  1980  ($37,636,416). 

2.5   Local  Government  and  Public  Finance 

2.5.1   County  and  City  Government 

All  the  counties  in  Nevada  are  governed  by  three  to  seven  elected 
county  commissioners.   In  addition  to  the  commissioners,  some  counties  have  a 
county  manager  position.   Table  2-25  lists  selected  characteristics  of  county 
government  for  Eureka  County  and  the  surrounding  counties. 

Eureka  County  was  established  in  1873  by  the  Nevada  State  Legislature 
in  response  to  mining  induced  population  growth.   The  unincorporated  Town  of 
Eureka  was  designated  the  county  seat,  at  which  time  it  represented  the 
largest  population  center  in  central  Nevada.   Presently,  the  town  and  the 
county  are  governed  by  three  elected  commissioners,  each  representing  a 
different  district  of  the  county.   There  are  two  political  townships  in 
the  County,  each  having  their  own  Justice  of  the  Peace.   The  following 
officials  are  elected:   assessor  (Beowawe),  constable,  clerk/treasurer, 
district  attorney,  justice  of  the  peace  (2),  recorder/auditor  and  sheriff 
(Eureka).   Officials  of  the  Planning  Board  and  T.V.  Board  are  appointed 
(D.  Pastorino,  County  Commissioner,  personal  communication,  1983).   The 
unincorporated  town  of  Crescent  Valley  is  governed  by  an  elected  town  board. 
Eureka  County  is  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Seventh  Judicial  District 
Court,  with  a  courthouse  in  Eureka.   The  number  of  county  employees,  including 
part-time  and  hourly  (temporary),  totalled  49  in  1981  and  47  in  1982. 

Table  2-26  lists  selected  administrative  services  and  special 
districts  and  programs  operating  as  a  function  of  local  government.   These 
districts  and  programs  are  created  by  the  local  government  for  special  issues 
and  the  resolution  of  particular  problems.   County  support  of  services  and 


2-4  3 


00 

on 


CO 

-3 
CO 
> 

0J 
S3 


CO 

a> 

•H 

4-1 

c 

3 

o 

c_> 

u-i 

o 

CO 

o 

•H 

4-1 

CO 

•H 

Ll 

a; 

4-1 

4J 

cj 

CJ 

« 

OJ 

M 

"T-l 

CO 

o 

j3 

Ll 

CJ 

P- 

T3 

e 

01 

3 

4J 

c 

CJ 

0) 

0) 

"O 

iH 

,43 

0> 

>% 

CO 

.H 

O 

s 

m 

Csl 

cu 

1 

a 

CN 

o 

EC 

0) 

r-t 

• 

J3 

4-1 

CO 

s 

H 

Ll 

>,  o 

4-1  4-1 

C  -H 

3  "3 

O  3 


L 

^ 

CD 

4-1 

T3 

c 

l-i 

3 

O 

O 

o 

u 

qj 

od 

l-l 

>^ 

ID 

4-1 

>- 

c 

3 

3 

CO 

O 

CO 

CJ 

a- 

l 

H 

>^ 

4-1 

J*! 

c 

Ll 

3 

Oi 

O 

rH 

CJ> 

CJ 

^ 

CO 

4-J 

L 

c 

qj 

3 

c 

o 

o 

CJ 

•H 

CO 

y-i 

CO 

O 

•H 

• 

| 

o 

o 

z 

CJ 

l-l 

>, 

CD 

4-1 

DO 

c 

CO 

3 

c 

O 

CO 

CJ 

s 

• 

a> 

£> 

u 

to 

03 

4J 

Q 

CO 

w 

p 

Li 

u 

Li 

l-i 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

4-1 

4-1 

4-1 

4-1 

4-J 

T-l 

■H 

•H 

•H 

•H 

T3 

T3 

T3 

-3 

T3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

< 

t 

<fi 

< 
i 

f 

< 

1 

1 

Li 

l-i 

i 

l-i 

1 

l-i 

1 

l-i 

QJ 

(U 

QJ 

0) 

0) 

•3 

T3 

"3 

T3 

-3 

L 

U 

l-i 

l-i 

l-i 

O 

O 

O 

O 

O 

CJ 

O 

CJ 

CJ 

CJ 

0) 

0) 

QJ 

OJ 

OJ 

os 

Pd 

p3 

Pi 

Oi 

CO 

& 


CO 

QJ 


Li 

cu 

Li 

3 
CO 
CO 

1) 

Li 
H 

1 
J*J 

U 

qj 
l-l 

CJ 


en 


co 


CO 

QJ  O 

>->  Z 


CO 

cu 


CO 


o 

z 


CO 

QJ 

>-• 


CO 


z5 


x 

>^ 

J 

C 

CO 

4-1       4-1 

•H 

a. 

C    CO 

o 

qj 

4-» 

o 

3    QJ 

M 

Lj 

CO 

c 

O    CO 

r-i 

3 

3 

o 

CJ 

w 

W 

<d 

H 

CO 
QJ 


CO  CO  CO 

CU  QJ  QJ 

>*  >H  >-l 


CO 


£ 


W 


On 

CO 

CN 

m 

ON 

vO 

r— 

vD 

vjO 

vO 

00 

00 

00 

00 

00 

QJ 

3 

•H 

Pm 

>> 

4-1 

JS 

Li 

QJ 

QJ 

c 

o 

QJ 

•3 

4-* 

3 

Jsi 

Li 

C 

QJ 

•H 

O 

H 

3 

CO 

>. 

J= 

CJ 

W 

W 

hJ 

25 

3 

w 


CM   | 


CO 

o 

•H  CO 

4->  a 

•H  -H 

r-t  X 

O  CO 

0,1  s 

M-l  O 

O  H 


o 

2 


c 

Li 
O 


Jji  J»J  .*  .*  ^J 

Li  L  L  Li  Li 

qj  OJ  QJ  QJ  QJ 


CJ 


CJ 


CJ 


CJ 


CJ 


oo 


CN 


CO 


CO  CO  CO  CO  CO 

QJ  QJ  QJ  QJ  QJ 


CO  CO  CO  CO  CO 

QJ  QJ  QJ  QJ  QJ 

>-i  >— i  J>-<  >— i  J>-< 


QJ 

G 

•H 

P- 

4-1 

j§ 

Li 
QJ 

QJ 

c 

0 

QJ 

T3 

4-1 

3 

JxJ 

Li 

C 

OJ 

•H 

O 

H 

3 

CO 

>-. 

X 

CJ 

w 

W 

-J 

z 

s 

J3 

co 

o 

4-1 

• 

L 

J3 

OJ 

CJ 

Li 

CO 

3 

QJ 

CO 

CO 

Li 

OJ 

O 

Li 

U-i 

H 

01 

S^ 

CJ 

4-1 

CO 

3 

0) 

3 

Ph 

O 

CJ 

OJ 

J3 

-a 

4-1 

3 

CO 

U-I 

i> 

o 

-2< 

Li 

0) 

CD 

CJ 

H 

•H 

a 

4-1 

CO 

f^ 

3 

4J 

►■3 

3 

3 

CU 

O 

3 

CJ 

O 

QJ 

CO 

4-J 

•H 

CO 

Li 

QJ 

CO 

Li 

a 

01 

OJ 

j3 

C/J 

H 

l|CN| 


Li 

O 

4-1 

CO 

C 

•r-l 
T3 

Li 
O 
O 
CJ 

DC 

c 

•H 

c 

c 

CO 
iH 
PL 

QJ 
4-1 

CO 

4-1 
C/3 

JS 


U-I 

O 

•3 

C 

CO 

3 
CO 
0) 
Li 

3 

pa 


QJ 
CO 
3 
3 
O 
CJ 

QJ 
> 

•H 
4J 

CO 


DO 
QJ 
hJ 

CO 
•3 
CO 
> 
QJ 
Z 


QJ 
CJ 

Li 
3 
O 
CO 


2-44 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  2-26  Selected  Administrative  Services,  Special  Districts  and  Programs 
Eureka  County 


Selected  Administrative  Services 


Civil  Defense 

Cooperative  Extension 

Drafting 

Diagnostic  and  Treatment  Center 

Fire  Protection 

Justice  Department 

Juvenile  Probation 


Public  Health  Doctor 

Library 

Police 

Public  Works 

Roads 

Rodent/Weed  Control 

Recreation 


Special  Programs 


Diamond  Valley  Rodent  Control  -  (Town  of  Beowawe) 
Diamond  Valley  Weed  Control   -  (Town  of  Eureka) 


Special  Districts 


Eureka  County  T.V.  District 
Eureka  County  School  District 


Source:   State  of  Nevada  Office  of  Community  Services,  Eureka  County  Profile, 
1982. 


2-45 


facilities   includes   an  eight-person  sheriff's   department,    volunteer  fire 
department   (partial),    county  road   department,    water  and  sewage,    county   pool 
and    library,    T.V.    power   relay,    ambulance  maintenance  and   a  health  clinic  with 
a  full-time  doctor   in   residence. 

Selected   characteristics    and   types   of   government   for  various 
incorporated   cities   and  unincorporated   towns   in  the   surrounding  counties   are 
shown  in  Tables   2-27   and   2-28. 

Elko   County  was   established   in   1869,    with  the  main  industry  being 
open  range   ranching.      The  now-incorporated  City   of   Elko   became   the   county 
seat. 

There  are   eight   political    townships   in   the   county,   which  is  governed 
by  a   county  manager  and   three   elected   county  commissioners.      In   addition,   an 
appointed  seven  member  planning   commission  is   active.      Other  elected   officials 
include  a  county  assessor,    district   attorney,   eight  justices   of   the   peace,    a 
county  clerk,   a   county   treasurer,   a   county   recorder-auditor  and   a  sheriff. 
The  Fourth  Judicial   District   Court   has  jurisdiction  in  the  City  of   Elko. 
There  are   three  municipal   courts  with  jurisdiction  of    the  Cities   of   Carlin, 
Elko  and  Wells. 

Although  somewhat   seasonal   in  number,    total   county  government 
employment   is   approximately  228.      Administrative   services    of   the   county  are 
extensive   and   include   ambulance,   health,    road   maintenance,    recreation,   welfare, 
sheriff   and  the  courts   system.      As   in  Eureka  County,   special   districts   are 
created   for  singular  issues   and   include   T.V.    service,    fire   protection  and 
water   provision.      Selected   administrative   services,   special    districts   and 
programs   for  Elko   County   and   cities  within   the   county   are   shown   in  Tables 
2-29  and   2-30. 

The  City   of   Elko  was   incorporated   in   1917   as   a  charter   city   and   has 
a  five-member  council-manager   governing  body.      The   city  clerk,    manager, 
attorney,    vice  mayor,    municipal   judge    and  planning   advisory  committee   (7)    are 
all   appointed.      The   city  mayor  is   chosen  by  direct   election  and  has  voting 
power   on  the   council.      The   council   members    (4)    are   elected   at   large. 

2-46 


00 


cj 

•3 

3 

4J 

3 

p 

o 

a 

o 
o 
e 

M 


CO 
*3 
fO 
> 

CU 

z 


CO 

o 

•H 

4J 

CO 

•H 

p 

<4H 

CD 

O 

4-1 

4-1 

CJ 

0) 

CJ 

CO 

4-) 

0) 

I-i 

CO 

•<— ) 

CO 

o 

o 

Xi 

p 

CJ 

Cu 

TJ 

e 

CD 

3 

JJ 

c 

o 

m 

cu 

TJ 

<H 

x 

0) 

^ 

CD 

<-\ 

o 

S 

CM 

<u 

1 

o. 

CM 

o 

X 

CU 
H 

• 

X 

u 

CO 

s 

H 

<0 

C  CU 
•H  60 
O   TJ 

•H    3 

C  ^ 


cu 

c 
p 
o 

4-1 


>4 

4-) 


CJ 


J<! 

P 

CU 
H 
CJ) 

>J 

4-> 

CJ 


4-1 

s 

14-1      CU 

o   e 

c 

0)  S-i 
CL  cu 
^  > 

H    O 
O 


4-i 

•H 

CJ 


TJ 
CU 
4J 

3 

•H 
O 

q. 
a 


TJ 

cu 

4J 

c 

•H 
O 

a. 

a 
< 


-3 

CU 


o 

a 
a 
< 


tj 

cu 

4-1 

C 
•H 
O 

a 
a 

< 


tj 

CU 
4J 

c 

•H 
O 

a 

a 
<c 


TJ 

-a 

TJ 

13 

tj 

CU 

CU 

CU 

CU 

cu 

4J 

4-1 

4-1 

4-1 

4J 

3 

c 

C 

3 

c 

•H 

T-t 

•H 

T-l 

•H 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

D- 

o- 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a. 

o- 

a 

C- 

< 

< 

<: 

< 

< 

TJ 

TJ 

T3 

•3 

"3 

CU 

CU 

CU 

CU 

CD 

4-J 

4-) 

4J 

4J 

4J 

c 

c 

c 

3 

3 

•H 

•H 

•H 

•H 

•H 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

a 

< 

< 
p 

CU 

«S 

< 

< 

i-i 

60 

i—i 

!-H 

•h 

•H 

CO 

•H 

•H 

T-l 

CJ 

3 

CJ 

u 

CJ 

c 

CO 

3 

i 

3 

3 

2 

3 

3 

O 

1 

O 

o 

O 

CJ 

1 

•H 

CJ 

1 

CJ 

1 

CJ 

1 

u 

o 

M 

I-I 

I-I 

o 

c 

O 

o 

o 

>, 

3 

>% 

>^ 

>> 

CO 

O 

CO 

CO 

CO 

2 

CJ 

2 
CO 

S 

2 

u 

P 

H 

i-i 

I-i 

CU 

CU 

CO 

0) 

3 

4J 

4-> 

I-i 

4J 

4-1 

p 

p 

CU 

t-l 

I-I 

CO 

CO 

3 

CO 

CO 

X 

JC 

3 

x 

.3 

CJ 

CJ 

CJ 

CJ 

m 

CM 

r^. 

r^ 

in 

r-^ 

1 

-^ 

O 

m 

CM 

CM 

CM 

1 

A 

1 

1 

00 

1 

—t 

CM 

CM 

CM 

o 

1 

1 

1 

1 

H 

m 

r^ 

m 

m 

•H 

CO 

CO 

>^ 

H 

o 

X 

r-| 

4-1 

P 

.*: 

>^ 

X 

T-l 

•H 

CO 

I-I 

iH 

CO 

CU 

CJ 

CJ 

w 

W 

CU 

3 
T-l 

O 

3 

^ 

4-1 

CU 

c 

O 

o 

4-1 

0 

3 

J«5 

.y 

•H 

CU 

J»s 

O 

H 

T-l 

X 

>> 

rH 

CJ 

w 

w 

3 

z 

w 

•3 
0 

sc 

bd 

3 

T-l 

c 
1-1 

CU 

> 
c 


T3 
M 
CO 

PQ 


CU 

bO 

CO 

M 

T3 

CO 

I-i 

tJ 

CO 

3 

4J 

< 

OJ 

60| 

It 
CO 
tJ 


I-I 

o 

CO 

a 


c 

T-l 

o 

•H 

CJ 

0) 

3 

4J 

3 

o 

o 

> 

CJ 

>% 

CQ 

T-l 

•d 

•H 

0) 

o 

4-1 

3 

CJ 

3 

0) 

O 

— 1 

CJ 

w 

3 

4-1 

O 

a 

•H 

UJ 

4-1 

^ 

CJ 

•H 

CU 

a 

rH 

u 

m 


m 


m 


m 


v3-  |     m  | 


"x1 


t-l  I 

CO             CA            CO  CO 

CU            CU           CU  CU 

(H           P-t           }W  {H 


CO 
CU 


o 
SB 


o 
z 


^ 


o 
z 


s 


CO 


CO  CO  CO  CO 

CU  CU  CU  CU 

>-l  >-l  >H  >-l 


>^ 

rH 

o 

4-1 

I-i 

4«; 

•H 

CO 

fH 

CJ 

CJ 

w 

w 


CO 

-O 

CO 
CJ 


OJ 


CO 

CU 
•H 

4-1  CU 

■H  P 

CJ  CO 

>  CO 

CO  CU 

tJ  -h 


CO  O 

I-I 

oj  5 

3  3 


3 


•   CO 

I-I 

^D  CU 
CM     C 

CU 

l-l     DO 

o 

T-l 

SO    rH 

vO  < 
CM 

l-l  • 
CU     CO 

4-1      CU 

a  T-i 

3    4-1 

J3     T-l 

CJ  CJ 

CO  l-l 
CU  CU 
4-1     4-> 

3    U 

4J  3 
3   JT 

4J    CJ 

CO 

TJ  CU 

CU  P 

CO  3 

•H  4-1 

>  3 

CU  <-l 

CC  CO 

•H 

3  60 

T3  CU 

3  tJ 
> 

OJ  CU 

Z  4J 

3 

U     4J 

CU   C/5 

•a 

3     CU 

3   ,3 

4J 

60 
3  iw 


o 


4J 

CO 


CO 


o 


M 
3 

CJ 

<4-l 

O 

CU      • 
CJ  ^ 

3     T-l 

CU    CJ 

Cu    3 

3 

a;  o 

A  CJ 
4-1 
CU 

14-1    X 
O     4J 


3  • 

•H  ^£> 

O  vO 

0)  CM 

a 

C/2     I-i 

cu 

>,    4-1 

XI    ex 

3 

•3   JC 

0)   CJ 


4-1     CO 

co  a) 
3  -H 

►"5    4-1 

<4-l   ^J 

•H    3 

3 

>^  U 
T-l   43 

3 

O    O 

4-1 

3 
3  -I 


3 
60 
I-i 

3 


3 

•  T5 
CD  3 
3  4-> 
O  CJ 

•H  CU 

4J  rH 

CJ  3 
3 

!H         CO 

3    T-l 

-3  -3 

U  P 

3  *H 

5  XI 

4-1 
r*» 

rH  3 
U  X 
CU     4-1 

e-3 

O    3 

"4-1      3 

*  CO 
3  T3 
O     P 


cu 


CTi     g 

ON     O 

IllHlH 


>~>    4-1 


JJ 

CO  *3 

•H  3 

a  3 


CO  P 

0)  o 

I  b 

O  3 

CJ  X 


3  3 

•H  bC 
P 

3  3 

>  -H 
•H 

4-1  4-1 

O  3 
3 

14-1  O 

T-|  > 

W  H 


cM|fo|<r  |m| 


CJ 

(4-1 

o 

3 

3 
60 
3 


3 
*3 
3 
> 
3 
Z 

"3 

3 
3 

3 
3 
3 

P 

3 

pa 


3 
CD 

3 
3 
O 
CJ 

3 
> 

•H 


CO 
•H 
60 
3 

rJ 

3 
"3 
3 
> 

3 

Z 


3 
CJ 

p 
3 
O 
CO 


2-47 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  2-28   Type  of  Government  of  Unincorporated  Towns  in  Nevada:   1981 


County 
Elko 


Eureka 


Lander 


Nye 


White  Pine 


Town 

Jackpot 
Montello 
Mountain  City 
West  Wendover 

Crescent  Valley 
Eureka 

Austin 

Battle  Mountain 

Kingston 

Beatty 

Manhattan 

Pahrump 

Round  Mountain 

Tonopah 

Lund 

McGill 

Ruth 


Type  of  Government y 

Advisory 
Advisory 
Advisory 
Advisory 

Elected  Town  Board 
County  Commissioners 

County  Commissioners 
County  Commissioners 
Elected  Town  Board 

Advisory 
Advisory 
Advisory 
Advisory 
Advisory 

Advisory 
Advisory 
Advisory 


J_/  The  term  Advisory  indicates  whether  the  town  has  a  Town  Board  form  of 
government  with  2  members  being  County  Commissioners  and  3  persons 
residents  of  the  town,  or  the  town  has  a  3  to  5-member  Board  of  Residents 
which  advises  the  Board  of  County  Commissioners  on  town  matters.   If 
there  is  no  town  government  the  town  affairs  are  run  by  the  Board  of 
County  Commissioners. 


Source:   Nevada  Legislative  Counsel  Bureau,  Office  of  the  State  Planning 

Coordinator  and  Department  of  Taxation,  Local  Government  Red  Book, 
Fiscal  Year  1980-1981. 


2-48 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  2-29  Selected  Administrative  Services,  Special  Districts  and  Programs 

Elko  County 

Selected  Administrative  Services 

Ambulance  Juvenile  Control 

Building  Inspector  Justice  Courts 

Data  Processing  Library 

Engineer  Recreation 

Fire  Department  (volunteer)  Road  Maintenance 

Golf  Course  Sheriff 

Health  Services  Welfare 


Special  Programs 


Elko  City/County  Civic  Auditorium  (Town  of  Montello) 
Special  Districts 


Carlin  TV  District  -  (Town  of  Jackpot) 

Elko  TV  -  (Town  of  Mountain  City) 

Northeast  Fire  Protection  District  -  (Town  of  West  Wendover) 

Starr  Valley  Cemetery  District 

Tuscarora  Water  District 

Elko  County  School  District 


2-49 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  2-30  Selected  Administrative  Services  for  the  Cities  of  Elko, 
Carlin  and  Wells,  Elko  County 


City  of  Elko 

Auditor 

Building  Inspection 

Cemetery 

Engineer 

Fire  Protection 

Golk  Course 

Parks  and  Recreation 

Police 

Street/Landfill 

Water/Sewer 


City  of  Carlin 

Ambulance 

Fire  Protection  (volunteer) 

Garbage /Sewer /Water 

Engineer 

Police 


City  of  Wells 

Ambulance 

Auditor 

Community  Health  Nurse 

Fire  Protection  (volunteer) 

Golf  Course 

Library 

Parks 

Police 

Public  Works 

Senior  Citizen  Center 

Sewer 

Swimming  Pool 


2-50 


The  City  of   Carlin  was   incorporated   in   1925  as   a   charter   city   and 
has   a  five-member  mayor-council   governing  body.      The   city  clerk  and  attorney 
are  appointed.      A  municipal  judge   is   appointed  only  if   the  position  of   Justice 
of   the   Peace   of  Carlin  Township  ceases    to   exist.      The   city  mayor  is   chosen  by 
direct    election  and  has  voting   power   on  the   council.      The   vice  mayor   and 
Justice   of   the   Peace   are   also   elected.      The   council   members   (3)    are   elected 
at   large. 

The  City  of  Wells   was   incorporated   in   1927   as   a   charter   city   and 
has   a  five-member  mayor-council   governing   body.      The   city  clerk/treasurer, 
attorney  and   municipal   judge   are   all   appointed.      The  mayor  is   chosen  by  direct 
election  and  has  voting  power  on  the   council.      The  vice  mayor   is   also   elected. 
The   council   members   (3)    are   elected  at   large.      The   unincorporated   townships 
of   Jackpot,   Montello,   Mountain  City   and  West  Wendover  all   have   an  advisory 
type   of  government.      This   entails   a  three   to  five-member  Board   of  Residents 
for  each   town  which   advises   the  Board  of   County  Commissioners   on  town  matters. 

2.5.2     Public  Finance 

The  major  sources   of    revenue   for  Nevada   are   taxes   from  sales   and 
personal  use  and   gaming.      The   combined   taxes    of   these  three  items   account    for 
over   three-quarters    of    the   state's   general   fund   revenues.      The  majority  of 
state  revenues   flow  into   the   general  and  special   revenue  funds.      The   general 
fund   is   the  major  operating  fund  of    the  state   and   receives   its   income   from 
taxes,    licenses,    fees   and  fines,    administrative    charges,   use   of  money  and 
property,    federal   government,    local   governments,    the  University  of   Nevada 
school  fund  and   other   sources.      Special   revenue  funds   are   derived   from  the 
same    sources   as   the  general   funds. 

In  fiscal  year   1982,    gross   revenues   for  the   state  were   $460,973,510, 
an  increase    of   50.8   percent    over   the    previous   year.      (Note:      On  May    1,    1981, 
the  combined   sales   tax   rate  was   increased   from  3-1/2   percent   to   5-3/4  percent 
and  on  July    1,    1981,   the   state   gas   tax  rate  increased   from  six  cents    per 
gallon  to   10-1/2   cents   per  gallon).      Of   this   amount,    $146,088,610  went   to   the 
general  fund;    $36,393,134   to   the  highway  fund;    $7,702,379   to   the   state   distri- 
butive  school  fund;    $268,689,521    to   local   governments,    and   $2,099,866   to 

2-51 


other  miscellaneous  entities. 

Total  federal  government  outlays  in  Nevada  for  the  fiscal  year  1980 
were  $1.86  billion.   The  Department  of  Health  and  Human  Services  was  the 
largest  source  of  Federal  funds,  accounting  for  27  percent  of  the  total, 
followed  by  the  Department  of  Defense  (  19  percent)  and  the  Department  of 
Energy  (17  percent).   Table  2-31  lists  government  outlays  by  federal  agency 
for  selected  counties  in  Nevada  (fiscal  year  1980).   Nevada's  expenditure 
policy  reflects  the  expansion  and  increased  cost  of  government  service.   In 
the  fiscal  year  1980-1981,  total  state  expenditures  were  $764.2  million.   The 
largest  expenditure  being  for  educational  programs  at  34.1  percent  of  the 
total,  followed  by  human  resource  programs  at  21.7  percent  and  highway  traffic 
safety/motor  vehicle  programs  at  20.8  percent.   All  other  state  programs  make 
up  the  remaining  23.4  percent. 

County  Tax  Structure  and  Revenue.   The  tax  structures  for  Eureka  and  Elko 
counties  are  reviewed  in  the  following.   Information  was  taken  from  the  county 
profiles  (1982)  of  the  respective  counties  as  prepared  by  the  State  of  Nevada, 
Office  of  Community  Services  and  the  Nevada  Department  of  Taxation. 

( 1)   Sales  Tax  -  Overall  Tax  Rate;   5.75  percent 

Collection:   Monthly  (from  retail  merchants) 

2  percent  Sales  Tax 

Rate:   2  percent 

Distribution  of  Tax  Revenues:   State  General  Fund 

Legal  Citation:   Chapter  37  4-NRS 

Local  School  Support  Tax 

Rate:   (Up  to  4/81)  1  percent  (from  5/81)  1.5  percent. 
The  5/81  increase  of  .5  percent  terminated  on  6/30/83. 
Reductions  in  this  tax  will  result  in  increased  state 
support  as  guaranteed  by  current  NRS. 


2-52 


3 

O 

u 

r^ 

rO 

tfl 

T3    <^N 

CO     CO 

>     -4 

ai    co 

Z    H 

iH 

3     O 

•H    Q 

>n  <4H 

O     O 

c 

a>    co 

to  -o 

<3   c 

CO 

rH      CO 

CO     3 

-4     O 

CU    J3 

TJ    H 

cu 

fa    c 

•H 

>i  v-' 

43 

O 

4-1 

CO    00 

CJ 

>*  Ov 

<u 

CO  ^ 

•I-) 

H 

o 

4-1      >H 

u 

3     CO 

fa 

O     CU 

JH 

£ 

rH 

3 

CO     r-i 

c 

U     CO 

a) 

01      V 

TJ 

TJ      CO 

Xi 

a>  -h 

>s 

fa  fa 

rH 

O 

£ 

I— 1 

co 

0) 

1 

a 

CM 

o 

PC 

<D 

rH 

• 

XI 

4J 

CO 

s 

H 

O    O 

cr> 

m 

o 

r^. 

ON 

•H 

rH 

00 

t^- 

CN 

ON 

•    U 

o\ 

m 

\0 

m 

m 

4J      CU 

»• 

#s 

* 

fa   4-1 

o 

CN 

CN 

co 

CO     3 

rH 

P    rH 

3° 

• 

■H 

o 

CD 

rH 

3 

CU 

c 

> 

tfi 

CU 

Q 

'4-1 

o 

3 

CO 

• 

X) 

4-1 

u 

D-  ro 

0) 

a 

<-a 

cd 

> 

\d 

<J- 

<r 

as 

m 

0) 

Ih 

<r 

r>. 

oo 

CN 

CN 

X 

CJ 

m 

r^. 

ON 

oo 

CN 

CO 
Uh 

O    3 
CO 

•  e 

4-1      3 

a  pc 

CU 
P    u3 


3 

4H 

O 

o 

•H 

4-1 

• 

CO 

4-1 

O 

a. 

3 

CU 

T3 

P 

fa 

14-1 

O 

CU 

CO 

• 

c 

4-1 

CU 

Cu  <4H 

CU 

CU 

P 

p 

CU 

u 

uh    3 

O     4J 

•      3 

4-i  a 
a,  -H 
0)     Ui 

P    bo 

<C 


x> 

1         o 

m 

r^ 

<r 

r^. 

co 

-h 

^        m 


ON 


«* 

r- 

X> 

O 

n 

\D 

•J- 

CN 

rH 

CN 

O 

nO 

m 

CN 

<r 

vO 

r^ 

on 

nO 

CN 

On 

co 

<4H 

01 

o 

CJ 

u 

rH 

• 

CU 

co 

4J 

E 

r~ 

Cu 

t 

<D 

O 

rH 

P 

u 

m 


ON  ON 

co        co 

rH  CO 


CO 

m 

as 

CO 

.-h 

co 

CO 

o 

m 

o 

vO 

CN 

in 

as 

m 

m 


</> 


CO  rH 


0) 

3 

■H 

fa 

►, 

CO 

M 

4J 

4* 

01 

01 

3 

o 

0) 

TJ 

4-1 

3 

^ 

(h 

3 

CU 

•H 

O 

rH 

3 

cO 

to 

rf 

CJ 

w 

W 

rJ 

SZ 

5 

09 

0) 

O 

3 

■H 

0 

> 

•H 

M 

4-» 

0) 

CCJ 

CO    u 

4-1 

>^    (0 


3 
3 
E 
E 
O 

u 


CJ 
rH      3 

CO    01 
4J    bo 

c  < 

CU 

I   c 
5   o 

O  -H 

tH     4-J 

•h   a 
>   cu 

3     4-1 

fa    O 
M 

fa 


<4H 
O 

>. 

• 

bo 

4-1 

)H 

CU 

CU 

Cv 

3 

p 

fa 

4-1 

bO 


01  01 
CJ  3 
•H     3 

<4h  O 
<4H     CO 

o   u 

CU 

fa 


4J 
I4h     M 

o   o 

Cu 

•     CO 

4-1     3 

a  co 
cu  M 
P  H 


O  r4 

O 

•  XI 

4->  CO 

Cu  rJ 

CU 

p 


Uh     CU 

o   o 


4-»     CO 

Cu   3 
CU    <-} 

p 


<r 

co 

<r 

CM 

rH 

r^ 

co 

CN 

r^- 

CN 

r~ 

m 

CT- 

as 

CN 


o 

r-^ 

r~- 

00 

CN 

v£> 

CN 

^H 

o 

m 

-d" 

rH 

CO 

m 

as 

00 
CN 


m 

CN 


m 

ON 

CO 


I 


00 


\D 


SO 
00 


vd 


CN  00 

m        co 

-H  <t 


-a- 

CO 


CN 

co 


0) 

3 

•H 

fa 

4J 

JS 

CU 

0) 

c 

o 

CU 

T3 

4-1 

3 

M 

M 

3 

0) 

■H 

O 

r-4 

3 

CO 

>N 

rC 

co 

fa 

fa 

uJ 

53 

S 

2-53 


o 

00 

as 


u 

co 
cu 

5H 


co 

o 

CO 
•H 
fa 


c 

3 

o 

c_> 

r^ 

U3 

CO 

H3 

CO 

> 

0) 

S3 

c  ^O 

•h   a; 

3 

>%  3 

O    -H 

(3     4.) 

0)    c 

^1 

H 

CO   r~\ 

U     CO 

01     »h 

"O     CO 

<u  h 

fe    rH 

o 

S^  Q 

J2 

<4H 

4-1 

CO     O 

O 

>> 

QJ 

cO    co 

•<-> 

rH    -O 

O 

■u    C 

u 

3     CO 

0-1 

O    co 

3 

e 

r-4      O 

3 

CO     JS 

3 

Li    H 

0) 

0) 

T3 

TJ     C 

-O 

a;  -H 

>. 

rM      W 

r-l 

O 

s 

rH 

co 

cu 

1 

a, 

CM 

o 

33 

CU 

r-l 

• 

Jn 

4-1 

CO 

s 

H 

CU 

rH 

o 

CO 

•H 

4-) 

> 

CO 

u 

o 

0) 

Cu 

CO 

o> 

U 

c 

c 

o 

cu 

•H 

•r-l 

4-1 

o 

CO 

co 

•O 

c 

r-l 

3 

r 

O 

4-1 

fa 

CO 

2 

CO 

c 

0) 

o 

•H 

■H 

4-J 

4-J 

•H 

CC 

c 

-a 

CO 

C 

E 

3 

3 

0 

rr, 

fa 

•^ 

H 

» 

CO 

4-1 

•u 

CO 

M 

Z 

< 

I 

ri  c 

CU  -H 

co  E 

H  < 
CO 

r4  CO 

a)  cu 

C  O 


8 


<* 

CO 

CM 

o 

LO 

o 

CN 

r-» 

OS 

•— i 

CO 

rH 

~H 

m 

vO 

co- 


I  rH 

Os 
CO 


O 
co 


CM 


as 


c 

CO 

O   TJ 

rJ    m 

CO 

<u   o 

E   CQ 

o 

1 

eb  j*i 

c 

</> 

•    co 

TJ    PQ 

cu 

fa 

>-, 

4-1 

1     -H 

>>  c 

O    3 

rH     4-1 

a.  in 

B   o 

fa     D- 

1 

o- 

rH    o 

co- 

CO 

3     4J 

cr  3 

W     0) 

E 

<u 

c 

•H 

Pu 

^ 

CO 

>M 

4-1 

^ 

0) 

<U 

3 

o 

a; 

T3 

4J 

3 

J*5 

(H 

c 

0) 

•H 

O 

rH 

3 

CO 

■>> 

u 

fa 

w 

rJ 

z 

s 

rH 

>s 

rH 

cO 

CO 

CO 

U 

rH 

4J 

V 

4-1 

0 

-o 

3 

H 

<u 

rH 

O 

(U 


u 

0> 
4-1 

CO 
3 


oa 
ai 

•H 

o 

c 

CU 

00) 

<c 


cu 

4J 

0) 

CO 

'J 

• 

jj 

U 

B 

CO 

rtj 

B 

iH 

E 

O 

CU 

E 

u 

4-1 

0 

C 
H 

CJ 

p 

> 

01 

•rH 

o 

4-) 

•H 

CJ 

> 

CU 

M 

r-l 

o> 

0> 

CO 

co 

CO 

0) 

rH 

o 

•H 

rJ 

U 

3 

c 

O 

3 

to 

O 

c> 

u 

3d 

en 

c 

• 

rt 

c 

0) 

1 

4-) 

T3 

cu 

< 

> 

r? 

• 

3 

4-1 

CO 

o- 

CC 

OJ 

CD 

Q 

H 

H 

cO 
B 
co 


CO 

co 

• 

0) 

C 

c 

•H 

1 

co 

-o 

3 

< 

22 

CO 

_i 

vO 

r~- 

00 

o 

lO 

CN 

r- 

m 

00 

<r 

ON 

00 

vO 

m 

CN 

-3- 

o 

o\ 

r^ 

— H 

CN 
CO 

^H 

r» 

-* 

-d- 

CO 

m 

<N 

O 

vO 

CN 

CO 

CN 

-H 

CN 

r-~ 

00 

o 

CN 


o 

CO 


m 


as 

CN 


00 

as 


o 
o 


4-1 

-a 

c 

co 

^ 

<t 

1 

00 

^3" 

m 

o 

E 

T3 

<r 

sO 

CO 

CM 

u 

(D 

)H 

r^ 

rH 

>-f 

rH 

Sh 

CO 

>JK 

•H 

•H 

O 

rH 

CO 

4-1 

pq 

Cd 

0) 

>> 

co- 

CO 

u 

01 

c 

•H 

fa 

4-1 

^ 

cu 

<u 

3 

co 

0) 

•n 

4-1 

3 

r* 

u 

c 

0) 

•H 

O 

iH 

3 

^ 

r^ 

j3 

C_5 

W 

fa 

z 

S 

o 

00 

as 


fa 


CO 
CO 

> 

CU 

z 


co 

TJ 
3 
3 

fa 


cO 
U 
CU 

-a 

cu 

6m 


3 
o 

•H 
4-) 

3 

•H 

4-1 
CO 
•H 

Q 
o 

•H 

a 
co 

iH 

00 

o 
cu 
o 


cO 

u 

4-1 
CO 
•H 

3 

CO 
0) 

CJ 
•H 

> 

u 

CU 
CO 

4-1 
•H 

3 
3 
S 


cj> 


CU 
CJ 

Sh 

3 
O 

co 


2-54 


Distribution  of  Tax  Revenues:   State  Distributive  School 

Fund 
Legal  Citation:   Chapter  374-NRS 

County  -  City  Relief  Tax  ( CCRT)  (Basic  Tax) 

Rate:   0.5  percent 
Distribution  of  Tax  Revenues: 

In-state  revenues: 

99.5  percent  to  county  of  origin; 

0.5  percent  to  State  General  Fund 

Out-of-State  revenues: 

100  percent  prorated  to  counties  and  cities  based  on 

population. 
Legal  Citation:   Chapter  377-NRS 

Supplemental  County  -  City  Relief  Tax 

Rate:   1.75  percent 

Distribution  of  Tax  Revenues: 

99.5  percent  to  all  governmental  entities  based  upon  a 
prescribed  formula  (see  Chapter  337-NRS  for  formula 
citation).   The  purpose  is  to  facilitate  lower  property 
taxes.   The  SCCRT  terminated  on  6/30/83. 

Legal   Citation:      Chapter   149-NRS  as   amended   to  Chapter 
337-NRS. 

(2)   Gasoline  Tax 

Rate:   Vehicle  and  Aviation  -  $0,105  cents  per  gallon  plus 

optional  county  levy  of  $0.01-$0.04  cents  (as  of  7/1/81). 
Distribution  of  Tax  Revenues: 

Vehicle:  $0.08  cents  (state  tax  and  licenses): 

State  Highway  Fund 

Vehicle:  $.025  cents  (County  tax):  Construction,  maintenance, 
and  repair  of  county  and  city  streets. 

2-55 


Vehicle:   $0.01-$0.04  cents  (Optional  County  Tax):   For  regional 

highway  and  street   construction. 
Aviation:      $0,105   cents   (State   and   County): 

Civil  Air  Patrol  Fund  (state) 

Airport  construction  and  maintenance  (county). 
Aviation:   $0.01-$0.04  cents  (Optional  County  Tax): 

Airport  construction  and  maintenance. 

Petroleum  Inspection  Fees: 

_l 

20th/l    cent   per   imported   gallon  (State  General   Fund) 

Legal   Citation:      Chapter  365-NRS:    Chapter  37  3-NRS 

(3)  Cigarette  Tax 

Rate:      $0.10  cents   per  package    of    twenty 

$150   license   fee  (annually   for  wholesalers) 
Distribution  of   Tax  Revenues: 

100  percent    to   local   governments   (County  and  City). 

Distribution  of    revenues  within  a   county   is   based 

upon  a   population   ratio. 
Legal   Citation:      Chapter   370-NRS 

(4)  Liquor   Tax 

Rates:   Distilled  Spirits:  $2.05/gallon 

Fortified  Wines:  $0.50/gallon 

Light  Wine:  $0.30/gallon 

Beer:  $0.06/gallon 

License  Fees:  Annual 

Importer  Wine,  Beer,  Liquor:  $   500 

Importer  Beer:  150 

Wholesaler  Wine,  Beer,  Liquor:  250 

Wholesaler  Beer:  75 

2-56 


Distribution  of   Tax  Revenues: 

5/19ths   of    collections    on  over  22  percent   alcohol 
concentrations,    which   is   distributed    to   the   county 
and    cities.      Remaining   revenues   are  distributed   to 
the   State  General    Fund,    except   for   $0.15/gallon  which 
is    transferred    to   the   Department    of   Human  Resources, 
Bureau   of   Alcohol   and   Drug  Abuse. 

Legal  Citation:   Chapter  369-NRS. 

(5)   Ad  Valorem  Tax  (Property  Tax) 

Total  Assessed  Valuation  of  Property:   (35  percent  of  taxable  valuation) 

Taxable  value  is  based  on  the  cost  appraisal  approach 
where  value  is  determined  by  establishing  the  replacement 
cost  minus  depreciation.   Taxable  value  depreciation,  unlike 
the  traditional  cost  approach  depreciation,  is  based  on  a 
straight  depreciation  scale.   NRS  also  limits  the  taxable 
value  not  to  exceed  the  market  value.   Ad  valorem  revenue 
is  derived  from  the  five  basic  sources  of  school  district, 
county,  city(s),  town(s)  and  special  district(s).   The  school 
district  ad  valorem  tax  offsets  or  reduces  state  support 
of  the  school  system. 

Tax  Rate  Range  for  the  County: 

The  ad   valorem  tax   rate  is   a   combined    rate   that   includes 
a  local   government   rate,    local   government   debt   rate, 
special   district(s)    rate,    school   rate  and   county   rate. 

Net  Mining  Proceeds  Valuation: 

All  products  produced  and  sold  from  mining  operations  are 
allowed  deductions  for  certain  operational  costs  (by  NRS) 
and  the  resultant  "Net  Proceeds"  are  then  taxed  at  the 


2-57 


ad  valorem  rate  of  the  specific  taxing  district  where 
the  mine  is  located. 

(6)   Senior  Citizen  Programs  -  Property  Tax  Rebate 

Eligibility:      65   years   and   older,    with  an  income 
of    not  more   than  $12,000  annually. 

Rate;  Income   Range   (Annual) 


(  over) 

(but 

not  over) 

(Reba 

te  Percent) 

0 

$ 

4,500 

90 

$  4,501 

7,000 

75 

7,001 

10,000 

50 

10,001 

11,000 

25 

11,001 

12,000 

10 

Tax   revenue    collections    for  Eureka   and   Elko    counties    (1980-81; 
1981-82)    are  shown  in  Tables    2-32  through   2-37.      County  budgets   are  broken 
down   by  sector   for  Eureka   and   Elko   counties   and   shown   in  Table   2-38. 

The   tentative    1983-1984  Eureka  County  budget    of    $1,734,030  represents 
a   negative   34  percent   change   from  the    1981-1982   budget   of    $2,626,060.      This   is 
a  marked   change   from  the   increasing   budget    trends    of   prior  years   (  1980-81 
equalling    $2,104,454  and    1979-80  equalling   $1,587,761).      The  decline   represents 
the   effects   of  both  a   recessionary  economy  and  tax  restructuring.      The   county 
has   substantially  reduced   special  project   budgets   and   overall  expenditures    in 
order   to   accommodate   the   fiscal   constraints.      Eureka  County  budgeting  does 
not    include    the  budget   of    the  Eureka  County   School  District  which   retains 
political   independence. 

On  a   regional    basis,    Eureka   County   has   a  moderately  broad    revenue 
base    from  which  services   are   supported.      During    1981,    legislation  greatly 
reduced   the   local  jurisdiction's    state   reliance  on  assessed   valuation  taxes 
and  substituted  shared   revenue    from  the   statewide   5.75   percent   sales   and  use   tax 
(NRS  Chapter  374).      Increased   state   support,    as  guaranteed   by  current   statute, 
is   planned   to   offset   revenue  losses.      The   effect    of   the    1981   legislation  is 
apparent    in  view  of    revenue /expenditure  data  and   annual   variations    thereof. 

2-58 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  2-32   Sales  Tax  Revenue  Collection  for  Eureka  and  Elko  Counties 


Revenue 


Eureka 
1980-81     1981-82 


Elko 
1980-81     1981-82 


Two  Percent  Sales  Tax 


$235,675    $124,141   $2,504,170  $2,780,960 


Local  School  Support  Tax 

County-City  Relief  Tax 
(CCRT)  (Basic  Tax) 


Supplemental  County-City 
Relief  Tax 
County 
City 


Special  Districts/Townships 


19,^27 

84,164 

1,298,342   2,011,367 

2,438 

40,665 

10,044      79,861 

(6  mo . ) 

(City  of  Carlin) 

589,918     567,712 

(City  of  Elko) 

89,572      78,953 

(City  of  Wells) 

0 

0 


552,582 


12,497 


Source:   State  of  Nevada  Office  of  Community  Services,  Elko  County 
and  Eureka  County  Nevada  Profiles,  1982. 


0 

990,473 

0 

82,700 

(Carlin) 

559,384 

(Elko) 

79,124 

(Wells) 

0 

164,551 

2-59 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table    2-33     Gasoline   Tax   Revenues   for   Eureka   and   Elko   Counties 

County 1980-1981 1981-1982 

Eureka 

County  Tax  $  61,859  $109,020 

Elko 

County  Tax  $420,476  $684,979 

Aviation  -  - 


Source:      State    of   Nevada   Office    of  Community  Services   Eureka   and   Elko   Counties, 
Nevada  Profiles,    1982 


2-60 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table    2-34     Cigarette   Tax   Revenues   for   Eureka   and   Elko   Counties 

County 1980-1981 1981-1982 

Eureka 

County   Tax  $   24,772  $    19,735 

Elko 

Carlin  $  47,282  $   31,270 

Elko  City  277,591  222,288 

Wells  39,327  30,918 


Source:      State   of    Nevada   Office   of   Community   Services   Eureka   and   Elko   Counties, 
Nevada   Profiles,    1982 


2-61 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table    2-3  5     Distribution  of    Liquor   Tax   Revenues   for  Eureka   and   Elko   Counties 
(5/19ths   over   22  percent   alcohol) 


County 


1980-1981 


1981-1982 


Eureka 

County 


$   4,273 


$  3,18  5 


Elko 

County 
Carlin 
Elko   City 
Wells 

State  General   Fund   (statewide) 


$62,912 

$45,907 

8,248 

5,042 

47,873 

35,872 

6,791 

4,989 

$9,189,020 

$11 

,798,960 

Source:      State   of    Nevada   Office   of   Community   Services   Eureka   and   Elko   Counties, 
Nevada  Profiles,    1982 


2-62 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table    2-36     Ad  Valorem  Tax   (Property  Tax)   Revenue   and  Assessed  Valuation 
of   Property   for  Eureka  and   Elko  Counties 


County  1979-1980  1980-1981  1981-1982  1982-1983 


1983-1984 
(Estimated) 


Ad   Valorem   Tax    (Property   Tax) 


Eureka  $      738,888  $      999,710     $  545,082 

Elko  4,381,026  3,496,872  2,838,087 


$  $ 

762,434  1,014,046 


Eureka 
Elko 


N/A 
N/A 


Total  Assessed  Valuation  of  Property 


N/A        $72,410,576      $   68,721,284  N/A 

N/A  N/A        245,730,895        260,518,684 


Source:      State  of   Nevada   Office   of   Community   Services   Eureka   and   Elko   Counties, 
Nevada  Profiles,    1982. 


2-63 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table    2-37     Senior  Citizen  Programs  -  Property  Tax  Rebates   for   Eureka   and   Elko 
Counties 


County 1981-1982 

Eureka  $      364 

Elko  $16,637 


Source:      State   of   Nevada  Office    of  Community  Services   Eureka   and   Elko  Counties, 
Nevada   Profiles    1982 


2-64 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table   2-38     Selected  County  Budgets    1979-80,    1980-81 


County 
Eureka 


Local  Budget  Sector 

School  District 
Total  Cities 
Total  Townships 
Total  Special  Districts 


1979-80 

$1,441,208 

0 

233,358 

36,078 


1980-81 

$1,418,664 

0 

637,684 

44,320 


Eureka  County  Total 


$1,587,761 


$2,104,454 


Elko 


School  District 

Total  Cities  (3) 

Total  Townships  (4) 

Total  Special  Districts  (12) 


$10,523,222 

8,894,790 

1,368,615 

917,513 


$10,284,338 

15,576,873 

1,186,289 

931,929 


Elko  County  Total 


$10,858,424    $13,005,992 


Source:   State  of  Nevada,  Office  of  Community  Services.   Eureka  and  Elko 
County  Nevada  Profiles,  1980  and  1981. 


2-65 


For  example,    approximately   51   percent   of    revenues  were   derived   from  the 

Ad  Valorem  taxes   (0.7964  -   0.7464   per   $100  assessed   value)    in    1980-1981;    but 

only   13  percent  was  derived   from  the  Ad  Valorem  tax   in  1981-82. 

Excluding   debt    service   and   major   capital    expenditures,   the  Eureka 
County   revenues   and   operating   expenses   tend   to  be   population  and  property 
value   sensitive.      The   county   property  tax   base  (total   assessed   valuation)    for 
1982-83   equalled   $68.7   million,   a   five   percent   decrease  from   1981-1982 
($72,410,576).      Comparing  historical   property  tax  revenue   growth  with   total 
revenue   growth,    the   county's    increasing    reliance  on  the  property   tax   to 
support   local  public  services   is   readily  apparent.      The   percentage    of    property 
tax   valuation  attributable   to   net  mining  proceeds   (1982-1983,    $49.95  million 
of   $68.72  million)    indicates   the   significant   value   of   the  mining  industry   to 
the   Eureka   County   economy. 

The  Eureka   Town  budget   and   associated   allocations   for   1980-1981    and 
1982-1983  are   presented   on  Table   2-39.      The   Town  supplements   county   services 
with  health  service  facility   support,    fire   department,    streets   and   sewer 
support.      In  fiscal  years    1979-1980   to    1980-1981   there  was   a    173   percent   gain  in 
the  Town  budget   (from   $223,358   to   $637,685).      However,   a   decline   began  as   a 
result    of   the   recession  and   tax  restructuring   to   the  most   recent    budget    of 
$195,752  in  1982-1983  and   a   tentative    1983-1984  budget   of    $139,709. 

The   tentative    1983-1984   school   district   budget  has   been   set   at 
$1,440,620  which   is   a  decrease   of    seven  percent   from  the   1982-1983   budget   of 
$1,554,448.      The    1983-1984   budget   represents   a   return   to   the   budget    amounts   of 
previous  years   ($1,418,664  in   1980-81    and    $1,441,208  in   1979-1980). 

Table   2-40   lists   revenues   and   expenditures    of   the   local   jurisdictions 
for   recent   year  periods    on  the  basis   of    per  capita. 

Substantial   economic   interaction   exists   between  Eureka  County  and 
the  Eureka   County   School  District.      County  developments   such   as    the   pool   and 
sports   complex  were  arranged   to  be   constructed   on  other  party   property  (i.e., 
pool   on  county   property,    sports   complex   on  school  property).      As   of  May,    1983 
the   school    district  had  an  approximate   debt   capacity  of    $10.3  million  (Wilcox, 

2-66 


1980-1981 
$ 

1982-1983 

$ 

1,091 

433 

0 

884 

870 

1,500 

44,768 

40,000 

2,579 

4,137 

46,663 

52,000 

249,252 

0 

4,856 

0 

20 

0 

2,353 

0 

6,811 

96,798 

Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table   2-39     Town  of   Eureka   Budget   Fiscal   Year   1980-81    and    1982-83 

Revenues 

Ad  Valorem  Taxes 
Supplemental  County  Relief 
Licenses /Fees 
Intergovernmental  Revenue 

Payments  in  Lieu  of  Tax 

Motor  Vehicle  Tax 

State  Gaming  License  Fee 

Grants  (APA  Sewer-Federal) 
Charges  for  Services 

Sewer 

Bail  Forfeit 

Misc.  Sales/Rentals 

Opening  Balance 

Expenditures 

Fire  Department 

Salaries  and  Wages  720  1,000 

Benefits  0  800 

Services/Supplies  2,508  4,000 

Capital  Outlays  1,505  2,700 

Streets /Highways 

Services/Supplies  810  40,000 

Lights  3,078  8,000 

Sewer 

Salaries  and  Wages  56  0 

Services/Supplies  1,783  0 

Capital  Outlay  348,223  0 

Water  Fund  Transfer  0  123,500 

Contingency  0  1,600 

End  Fund  Balance 580 14,152 


2-67 


CO 

s 

o 

•H 

4-1 

CJ 

•H 

X) 

CO 

•H 

u 

3 

>"3 

rH 

CO 

cj 

O 

rJ 

u-< 

o 

CO 

/"s 

0) 

4-1 

M 

c 

3 

0) 

4-1 

M 

•H 

M 

T3 

3 

c 

CJ 

QJ 

0) 

a  pi 

4-1 

X 

o 

M 

rH 

CD 

CO 

•I- ) 

T3 

3 

o 

s 

c 

t-i 

CO 

c 

Pl, 

CO 

< 

e 

0) 

rH 

3 

3 

CO 

s 

3 

E 

QJ 

0) 

H 

T3 

> 

0 

X> 

0) 

Z 

>i 

Qi 

— • 

rH 

O 

S 

o 

0) 

l 

CU 

CM 

0 

PC 

QJ 
iH 

• 

.£> 

4J 

CO 

a 

H 

CN 

O 

4-1 

00 

M 

a 

on 

rH 

3 

1 

w 

O 

— ^ 

ao 

ON 

— H 

u 

a» 

bO 

3 

T3 

•H 

p 

3 

H 

§ 

EC 

M 

o 

rc 

H 

o 

00 
-D 

3 
M 


iH  O 

O     O  -H 

^     O  >-i 

w    o  co 

C/j  >H 


CJ 


°   £ 

o 

o 

^    3 

o 

o 

rH      O 

CN 

00 

W    H 

•> 

* 

CNI 

CN 

CN 

ON 

CO 

<T 

21 

QJ  O 
U  JZ 
3    CJ 


0)     3 

u   o 

3   H 


00 

vO 

.— I 

CN 

CN 

ON 

M 

ff 

00 

CN 

-d 

r^ 

^H 

CM 

ON 


-d 
«d- 

on 


ON 
i— I 
«d 

o 
m 

CN 


CN 


»d 
«d 

#N 

en 
-d- 

o 


ON 
ON 

00 

ON 


ON 

r^ 

00 

en 

ON 
ON 


NO 

O 

ON 

m 
en 


CN 


o 
m 

vO 

ON 

CN 


cO    >, 

-d" 

O 

£    -u 

ON 

o 

0)    c 

nO 

en 

ki    3 

* 

n 

3    O 

r^ 

CN 

w  u 

en 

00 

vO 

ON 

o 
o 

NO 

nO 


CO 

QJ 

M 

3 

co 

4-1 

3 

3 

C 

3 

QJ 

V 

> 

(5. 

qj 

X 

pi 

w 

00 

cn 

ON 

oo 


00 
f— I 

CN 

>d 


00  00 

m  — • 

On  CN 

oo  •* 


on     oo 
cn     en 


oo  CM 

vO  — I 

no  oo 

ON  CN 


>d     m 

00        CN 

•— t        CN 


si-     in 

00        CN 

i-H        CN 


m     rn 

oo      — i 
m      cn 


3 
a 
o 

ex 


4J 

o 

H 


O 

CJ 
C/> 


r^ 

-d 

vD 

en 

o 

en 

• 

• 

• 

en 

CN 

CN 

ON 

00 

CM 

~H 

CN 

CN 

vO 
O 


o 

CN 

• 

o 
-d 

CN 


00 
ON 


cn     -d- 

00         ON 

<r     -d- 


r^ 

en 

ON 

^H 

• 

• 

en 

00 

ON 

m 

• 
m 

CN 


r^- 

00 

en 

•d- 

r^ 

en 

• 

• 

• 

r«» 

o 

r^ 

i»- 

oo 

00 

00 

o 

vO 

-d 

vO 

CN 

00 

• 

• 

en 

m 

<r 

ON 

m 

f-» 

m 

NO 

3 

i-4 

m 

QJ 

• 

• 

Q- 

ON 

m 

O 

v£> 

—4 

/-> 

i— i 

.— 1 

CO 
>N 

CO 

rH 
4-1 

4-) 

3 

3 

O 

QJ 

TJ 

rH 

3 

CO 

^-s 

CO 

4J 

OJ 

4-1 

4J 

C/3. 

u 

3 

•H 

\-x 

3 

QJ 

a 

** — 

4-1 

-o 

CO 

CO 

QJ 

3 

3 

CJ 

4-) 

3 

4-1 

•H 

3 

c 

C/5 

CO 

a 

QJ 

0) 

s-x 

4-1 

CO 

> 

a 

•H 

u 

0J 

X 

B 

Pi 

w 

o 

u 

QJ 

' — 

cx, 

-H 

CD 
QJ 
CJ 

C 
cO 

rH 

CO 
3° 

•H 
CO 

o 


T3 
3 
CO 

3° 


2-68 


personal   communication,    1983). 

The   future   of   Eureka   County   in  terms   of    its    baseline   public   finance 
capabilities   without   the  Mt.    Hope   project   will    largely  be   dependent   upon  five 
determining   factors:      1)   mining   industry   proceeds;    2)    population  growth; 
3)    property  tax  base;    4)    availability  of  government   and  private   financing; 
and    5)    the  impacts   of    1981    legislation  (or  amendment   thereof    in   1983)    limiting 
property   tax   rates   and   government   spending. 

The   tentative    1983-1984  Elko   County  budget   of    $35,218,413   represents 
a   positive  31.4   percent    change   from  the    1982-1983   budget    of    $26,794,711. 
Elko   County   property   tax   base   (total   assessed   valuation)    equalled    $245.7 
million   for    1981-1983  and    $260.5   million   for    1983-1984.      The   property  tax  (ad 
valorem  tax)    rate   for  the   county   ranges   from   $1.5819   -   .9630  per   $100  of 
assessed   value.      In   1981-1982   the   property   tax  revenue  was    $2,838,087,    a 
decrease  of    18.8  percent   from  the   1980-1981    revenue  ($3,496,872).      The   1982- 
1983   property  tax  revenue   of   $762,434  reflected   a  decrease   of   73.1    percent. 
Property   tax   revenue   reductions  were   the   effect   of    1981   legislature  and   are 
to   be   offset   by  increased  state   support,   as   guaranteed   by  statute.      Property 
tax   revenue   for   1983-1984  is   estimated   to  be   $1,014,046,   which  would   reflect 
a  33   percent   increase  in  revenue   from  the   previous   year  ( 1982-1983)    but   still 
a   71    percent  decrease   in  revenue   from  the   1980-1981    total. 

City  of   Elko   budgeting   of   revenues   for  fiscal  year    1982-1983   totalled 
$5,530,543,   a  20.8  percent   change   from  the  fiscal  year   1981-1982   amount   of 
$4,578,313.      Budgeted   expenditures   for    1982-1983  ($7,679,448)    represented   a 
12.2   percent   change   from  the   fiscal  year    1981-1982   amount   of    $6,884,981. 
Major  expenditure   increases   occurred   in  categories   of    culture/recreation  and 
capital   outlay. 

City  of   Carlin  budgeting   of   expenditures   for  fiscal  year   1982-1983 
($394,142)    increased   by   4.79  percent    from  fiscal  year   1981-1982  ($376,100). 
Revenues   for   the   same   period   increased   6.08  percent   from  $324,341   to   $344,076. 

The   tentative    1983-1984  White   Pine  County  budget    of   $6,710,097   repre- 
sents  a  negative    1.6   percent   change   from  the   1982-1983  budget   of    $6,818,195. 

2-69 


As  with  the   case   of   Eureka   and  Elko   Counties,    this   is   also   a   reversal    in 
trend   from  the   previous   years   (1980-81    equalling   $6,845,137  and    1979-80 
equalling    $5,701,865). 

2.6      Housing 

In   1970,    there  were    160,052   housing  units   in  Nevada   (68.6   percent 
increase    from   1950)    of   which  58.5   percent  were   owner  occupied.      By    1980,    the 
housing  unit   total    reached    304,327   of   which   59.6   percent  were   owner   occupied. 
This   represented   a  47   percent   increase   in  housing  units   during  a   ten-year 
period.      Table   2-41   lists    the   number   of    occupied   housing  units   for   selected 
counties   in  Nevada.      The   value   of   owner  occupied   housing  and   renter  occupied 
housing  for  Nevada   counties   are   shown  in  Table   2-42.      Eureka   and  White  Pine 
counties  had  the   second  and   third   lowest   owner  occupied   median  values   ( 1980) 
in   the   state,    respectively.      Eureka   County   contained   605   total   housing  units 
in    1980,    approximately  43  percent    of   which  were   located   in  or   proximal    to   the 
Town  of   Eureka.      The   remaining  housing  unit   balance  was  mostly  dispersed   in 
the   unincorporated   towns    of  Crescent   Valley  and   Beowawe.      Of   605   total  units, 
56  were  designated   as   seasonal    or   second  homes   and   549  units   existed   as 
available   primary  residences.      A  total   of  446   primary  dwelling  units   (81.2 
percent)   were  occupied;    306   by  owner,    140  by  renter.      Vacant   units   accounted 
for  103   of   available   primary   housing  units   (18.8   percent).      Single-family 
units   accounted   for  218   or  39.7   percent   of    the   549  primary  residence  units. 
Mobile   home   units   were   second  in   numerical   rank  order  at    193  units   or  35.2 
percent   of    primary  residence   units,    nearly   three   times    the   state  average   of 
12.1    percent.      Multiple   family   housing   totalled   138  units;    the    number   of 
persons    per  unit   averaged   2.66  in  1980. 

Of   the   total   housing  units   in  Eureka   County,    33.4   percent   (202 
units)    were   built   prior   to   1949,    29.2   percent   (177   units)    were   built   during 
the   period   1950  to  March   of    1970,    and   37.3   percent   (226  units)    were   built 
during  April    of    1970   to   the   year  ending    1980. 

Median  value    of   Eureka   County   single-family  and   mobile   home   units 
in    1980   equalled    $22,700.      Median   cash   rental   for   the   same    period    equalled 
$128   per  month.      Government   assisted   financing   for  home   construction  and/or 

2-70 


CO 

x 

CO 
> 

z 


CO 


c 

3 
O 

u 

-o 

a 

4J 
CJ 

<u 

iH 
0) 
CO 

Li 
o 

u-i 


c 

» 

M 

c  o 

•H   00 

CO  On 

3  -• 

O 

5C  X 

a 

XI     ct) 

QJ 

•H    O 

4-1 

D-  r-~ 

o 

3  On 

CD 

cj  — i 

T 

CJ 

o 

O      « 

u 

o 

(X 

<4-l    X 

O    ON 

B 

<— i 

3 

U 

c 

0)      •« 

CD 

Xi  o 

XI 

B  m 

X 

3  0> 

>N 

Z   — i 

^H 

o 

s 

—< 

<T 

OJ 

1 

ex 

CN 

o 

pd 

<v 

1-1 

• 

X 

4-> 

« 

s 

H 

X 

4J 

ai 

c 

U 

•H 

a; 

01 

a 

a 

c 

3 

L 

3 

CJ 

GJ 

o 

a 

fit 

o 

X 


ON 


x 


>n] 

X 

X 
Oi 

•H 

a 

3 
O 
U 

o 


CN1 

m 

m 

X 

st 

o> 

X 

vO 

X 

X 

r«« 

m 

o 

ON 

r-- 

• 

On 

00 

— i 

m 

X 

co 


CN 

r-*. 

oo 


ON 


o 
x 


oo 


oo 
m 


oo 


oo 
m 


00 


CN 


CNl 

m 


co 


st 

ON 
CN 


ON 


St 

co 


ON 
CNl 
ON 


co 
sf 


st 


ON 

CN 


On 

m 


ON 

St 
00 


st 
st 
CN 

CN 


00 

<t 

m 

IN. 

m 

00 

St 

CO 

m 

m 


(J 

JS 

c 

o 

cu 

3 

4«! 

Lj 

O 

rH 

3 

CJ 

W 

W 

m 


oo 
m 


CN 

x 

o 

co 

CN 


X 

co 

X 
X 


in 

x 

CN 


00 


en 

•—I 

X 

X 

r-« 

X 

00 

o 

On 

X 

X 

r^ 

X 

CN 

st 

o 

CN 

X 

n 

A 

A 

•t 

CN 

•— 1 

CN 

CO 

ON 

o 

X 

X 

st 

co 

r~. 

3 

m 

st 

CN 

CO 

O 

CN 

O 

m 

st 

St 

st 

o 

CO 

M 

A 

ft 

* 

M 

•* 

X 

■— I 

CO 

CO 

st 
O 
CO 

14-1 

o 

CO 

3 

m 

m 

CO 

CO 

X 

CN 

CO 

m 

co 

st 

— H 

i-H 

m 

c 

m 

CO 

00 

00 

— H 

O 

0) 

st 

~H 

CO 

0% 

O 
X 

CO 

3 

CO 

i^ 

st 

ON 

CN 

ON 

o 

c 

I-** 

ON 

o 

rH 

00 

CN 

CD 

r^ 

CN 

m 

m 

ON 

m 

c_> 

#■> 

M 

A 

a 

CO 

— H 

CN 

ON 

cu 

X 

st 

r-i 

o 

st 

<T 

r-~ 

CM 

3 

•* 

** 

CO 

CM 

o 

CU 

m 

Li 

3 

pa 

0) 

& 

c 

•H 

0. 

•  • 

u 

0) 

cu 

cu 

w 

CJ 

X 

4J 

H 

Li 

c 

0) 

•H 

< 

3 

CO 

>N 

X 

H 

O 

iJ 

z 

s 

CO 

CO 

CU 


CO 


2-71 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 


Table  2-4  2  Value  of  Owner  Occupied  Housing  and  Contract  Rent  of  Renter 
Occupied  Housing  in  Nevada  by  County:   1970  and  1980 


County 

Carson  City 

Churchill 

Clark 

Douglas 

Elko 

Esmeralda 

Eureka 

Humboldt 

Lander 

Lincoln 

Lyon 

Mineral 

Nye 

Pershing 

Storey 

Washoe 

White  Pine 

STATE 


Owner    Occupied 

Median   Value 

1970                       1980 

Renter   Occupied 
Median  Rent 
1970                        1980 

$22,700 

$75,200 

$    119 

$   259 

17,100 

58,900 

76 

183 

23,100 

67,800 

136 

264 

28,800 

90,000 

159 

346 

17,700 

49,900 

80 

157 

7,900 

18,100 

- 

103 

5,800 

22,700 

66 

128 

18,400 

51,300 

73 

172 

12,400 

48,700 

81 

162 

10,200 

32,800 

62 

146 

17,600 

59,000 

77 

17  5 

13,000 

33,200 

74 

172 

8,600 

35,600 

70 

155 

11,700 

38,600 

71 

129 

12,100 

70,600 

56 

156 

23,700 

77,600 

119 

294 

10,400 

28,800 

65 

117 

22,400 

- 

123 

- 

Source:   U.S.  Bureau  of  the  Census,  Census  of  Housing,  1970  and  Summary  Tape 
File  1A,  1980. 


2-72 


purchase  (e.g.  FHA,  FMHA  Loans)  was  available  but  not  utilized  in  the  county 
(Wilcox,  personal  communication,  1983).   No  units  received  government  assisted 
financing  for  rental  construction,  operation  and/or  rental  payment  supplements. 

Comparative  review  of  197  0  and  1980  housing  type  data  (Table  2-43) 
indicates  that  100  percent  of  housing  addition  activity  in  Eureka  County  has 
been  multi-family  and  mobile  homes  (negating  single-family  housing,  47.2 
percent  and  52.8  percent  respectively).   Between  1970  and  1980,  an  average  of 
only  17  housing  units  were  added  to  the  housing  stock  per  year.   The  total 
number  of  units  was  44.9  percent  higher  than  in  1970,  excluding  seasonal/second 
houses. 

The  number  of  multiple  family  units  rose  at  a  dramatic  rate  of 
151  percent  during  the  period  of  1970  and  1980.   The  total  number  and  rate  of 
increase  (93  percent)  of  mobile  home  units  demonstrates  substantially 
increased  reliance  upon  that  mode  of  housing,  apparently  indicating  a 
trend  toward  centralizing  population  centers  by  work  place. 

The  10.4  percent  increase  of  vacancy  rate/housing  availability 
( 1970-1980)  may  not  represent  an  entirely  valid  picture  of  the  overall  housing 
trend.   The  large  increase  of  multiple  family  units  would  correspondingly 
allow  a  greater  increase  in  vacancy  ratios  due  to  the  nature  of  tenant  use; 
specifically  apartment  dweller  versus  homeowner  stability.   Although  more 
units  as  a  whole  may  be  available,  housing  size,  age  or  purpose  may  be  the 
determining  factor.   Excess  capacity  in  single  family  housing  may  be  nil, 
whereas  apartment  or  boarding  house  occupancy  may  equal  7  5  to  85  percent,  an 
acceptable  industry  minimum.   In  discussions  held  over  the  period  1981-1983, 
Eureka  County  officials  emphasized  that  the  significant  lack  of  housing 
availability  was  primarily  due  to  age  and  general  condition  of  the  existing 
units. 

Housing  characteristics  in  Elko  County  describe  a  total  of  7,667 
units  in  1980,  of  which  6,350  were  occupied  as  primary  residences.   Urban 
area  housing  accounted  for  47.6  percent  (3,649  units)  of  the  county  total, 
while  rural  area  housing  composed  52.4  percent  (4,018  units).   Of  7,667  total 
units,  468  were  designated  as  seasonal  or  second  homes  and  7,199  units  existed 

2-73 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  2-43  Housing  Type  -  Historical  Review  Eureka  County */ 


Percent 

No. 

.  Unit 

Housing  Type 

1970 

1980 

Change 

Change/Yr, 

Total  Housing  Units 

379 

549 

44.9 

17.0 

Occupied  Units 

347 

446 

28.5 

9.9 

Vacant  Units 

32 

103 

221.9 

7.1 

Single-Family 

224 

218 

-3.0 

-0.6 

Multiple  Family 

55 

138 

150.9 

8.3 

Mobile  Home 

100 

193 

93.0 

9.3 

Persons/Unit 

2.73 

2.66 

-2.6 

NA 

_V  Does  not  include  seasonal  and  second  homes. 

Source:   State  of  Nevada  Office  of  Community  Services,  Eureka  County 
Nevada  Profile,  1982  and  U.S.  Bureau  of  the  Census,  1980. 


2-74 


as   available   primary  residences.      The   total   of   6,350  primary  dwelling  units 
(82.8  percent   of   county   total)    were  occupied   by   3,974  owners   (62.6   percent) 
and   2,376  renters.      Vacant   units   accounted   for  849   of    the  available   primary 
housing  units   (11.8  percent).      Single   family   units   accounted   for   3,906  or 
54.3   percent   of    the   available   primary  residences.      Mobile  home   units  were 
second  in   numerical    rank  order  at    1,823  or  25.3   percent    of    primary  residence 
units,    slightly  greater  than  twice   the   state   average   of    12.1    percent.      Multiple 
family   housing  units   totalled    1,470  or  20.4   percent    of   primary  residence 
units.      The  number  of   persons   per  unit   averaged   2.67   in  1980. 

Of   the   total   housing  units   in  Elko  County,    35.8  percent   (2,744 
units)    were  built    prior   to    1949,    30.6   percent   (2,345  units)    were   built   during 
the   period    1950  to  March   of    1970,   and  33.6   percent  were   built    from  April   of 
1970  to   the  year  ending    1980. 

Median  value   of   Elko   County   single-family  and  mobile  home   units   in 
1980   equalled    $49,900.      Median  cash   rental   for  the  same  year   equalled    $157 
per  month.      In   1981,    there  were   374  units   receiving   rental   construction, 
operation  and/or   rental  payment   assistance.      For   the  same  year  there  were   63 
units   receiving  home   construction,    purchase  or  both  assistance  (not   including 
FHA   loans).      Housing   in  Elko   City   is   reportedly  at   capacity   although  land 
lots   remain   available.      The   Elko  Chamber   of  Commerce   found  new  unit  median 
prices   of    $85,000  and    $75,000  for   30-year-old  units   in   1980.      Median  rent   for 
two  bedroom  apartments    equalled    $335   per  month. 

Comparative    review  of    1970  and    1980  housing   type   data  for  Elko 
County   (Table   2-44)    indicates   that   mobile   home  and  multi-family   housing  is 
responsible   for  most   of    the  housing   addition  activity   (mobile  home    =  43.6 
percent,    muilti-f amily    =  30.5   percent   and  single   family    =  25.9   percent). 
Between   1970  and    1980,    an  average    of    257   units   were   added   to   the   housing 
stock   per  year.      The    total    number   of    units   was   50.4   percent   higher   than  in 
1970  (including  seasonal/second   homes). 

The   number   of    single   family  units   only  rose    16.3   percent   during   the 
period    1970   to    1980.      The    number    of   mobile   home   units   rose   dramatically  at 
the    rate   of    101.8   percent   and   reflects   an  even  greater   reliance   upon  this 

2-75 


Mt .  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  2-44  Housing  Type  -  Historical  Review  Elko  County  V 


Percent 

No.  Unit 

Housing  Type 

1970 

1980 

Change 

Change/Yr, 

Total  Housing  Units 

5,097 

7,667 

50.4 

257 

Occupied  Units 

3,002 

6,350 

111.5 

334.8 

Vacant  Units 

NA 

849 

- 

- 

Single-Family 

3,359 

3,906 

16.3 

54.7 

Multiple  Family 

827 

1,470 

77.8 

64.3 

Mobile  Home 

903 

1,823 

101.8 

92 

Persons /Unit 

NA 

2.67 

- 

- 

_V  Includes  seasonal  and  second  homes. 

Source:   State  of  Nevada  Office  of  Community  Services,  Elko  County 
Nevada  Profile,  1982  and  U.S.  Bureau  of  the  Census,  1980. 


2-76 


type  of  housing,  in  addition  to  an  apparent  trend  toward  centralizing  population 
centers  by  work  place  (as  in  Eureka  County).   The  number  of  multiple  family 
units  rose  at  a  substantial  rate  of  77.8  percent  during  the  1970-1980  period. 

2.7   Attitudes  and  Lifestyles 

Because  it  is  too  early  in  project  planning  phases  to  initiate 
community  field  studies  (e.g.,  comprehensive  questionnaires,  surveys,  etc.) 
in  the  Town  of  Eureka,  this  section  discussion  of  community  attitudes  and 
lifestyles  has  been  prepared  to  reflect  available  data.   The  discussion  is 
based  largely  on  the  results  and  comments  expressed  during  the  scoping  meet- 
ings, in  public  response,  letters  and  verbal  communications  to  the  BLM, 
policies  revealed  in  the  Eureka  County  General  Plan,  as  well  as  the  profes- 
sional experience  of  the  preparers. 

To  determine  the  fiscal  and  socioeconomic  baseline  presented  in  the 
previous  section,  the  WRC  EIS  team  interviewed  numerous  individuals  (both 
private  citizens  and  public  officials)  in  the  Town  of  Eureka  and  Eureka 
County.   While  this  section  largely  represents  an  overview  of  the  literature- 
based  information  available  concerning  the  Eureka  County  peoples  and  their 
lifestyle,  certain  qualitative  views  presented  reflect  both  the  results  of 
WRC  interviews  and  interpretations  of  the  letters  received  and  BLM  forwarding 
of  verbal  comments  from  civic  leaders  in  Eureka.   In  truth,  the  simple 
announcement  of  the  EXXON  Mt.  Hope  project  has  led  to  an  exchange  of  ideas 
about  present  and  potential  lifestyles,  thereby  directly  affecting  the  nature 
of  the  "baseline"  attitudes  and  lifestyles.   As  dynamic  in  fluctuation  as 
attitudes  may  be,  the  point  of  beginning  for  a  "baseline"  characterization 
must  necessarily  be  current  with  EIS  development  regardless  of  the  changes 
perhaps  already  underway.   Lifestyles  can  be  fairly  well  characterized  as 
baseline,  however,  as  the  project  factors  most  significantly  capable  of 
effecting  change  (e.g.  population  influx,  economic  surge,  etc.)  would  not 
occur  or  be  in  place  until  following  implementation  of  the  proposed  action 
or  alternatives. 

Thus,  the  following  discussion  attempts  to  relate  the  current  (post 
announcement,  pre  DEIS  publication)  characteristics  of  Eureka  County  and  Town 

2-77 


lifestyles  and  attitudes.   Historical  characterizations,  derived  from 
literature,  are  presented  as  deemed  relevant.   The  establishment  of  baseline 
conditions  for  impact  analysis  relative  to  lifestyles  and  attitudes  has 
additionally  involved  the  identification  of  community  services  and  support 
facilities  (e.g.  schools,  health  care,  recreation)  of  which  availability  and 
use  factors  provide  important  indicators  of  attitude.   Chapter  3.0  relates 
discussion  concerning  the  anticipated  impacts  of  attitude/lifestyle  relative 
to  project  effects  upon  community  services  and  facilities  and  quality  of 
life,  thereof.   Baseline  conditions  are  presented  elsewhere  in  this  section. 

The  attitudes  and  lifestyles  of  the  people  of  Eureka  County  and 
particularly  the  Town  of  Eureka,  can  historically  be  attributed  to  the 
predominant  influence  of  mining  and  the  overall  physiographic  characteristics 
of  the  area  (e.g.  rugged  terrain,  alternating  mountain  ranges/desert  basins 
and  isolated  location).   As  exhibited  by  the  historical  background  of  its 
"boom  and  bust"  economy  resulting  from  fluctuating  mining  activities,  and  its 
western  rural  character,  a  strong  degree  of  individualism  and  self-reliance 
exists  among  the  population  as  a  whole.   Fiscal  reliance  upon  entreprenurial 
enterprises  (e.g.  country  stores,  ranching,  farming,  etc.)  as  the  sustaining 
mechanism  of  County /Town  residency  has  played  a  major  role  in  attitude 
development. 

The  traditional  social  structures  and  value  systems  associated  with 
remote  rural  areas  of  the  western  U.S.  appear  to  be  characteristic  of  the 
Eureka  County  population,  subject  to  the  continuing  influence  of  mining 
activity  and  fluctuations  thereof.   Residents  have  a  strong  endorsement  of 
rural  values  emphasizing  three  main  points  that  may  be  perceived  as  essential 
to  their  well-being  and  a  positive  quality  of  life.   The  three  points  are  a 
love  for  open  space,  clean  air  and  relaxed  lifestyles.   Many  residents, 
particularly  merchants  and  those  offering  services,  also  have  a  strong 
endorsement  for  moderate  growth  and  economic  and  industrial  diversification. 
But,  an  increasingly  important  influence  upon  the  county  lifestyle  is  the 
trend  toward  immigration  of  urban  people  who  are  attracted  by  the  relaxed, 
unhurried,  rural  atmosphere.   An  associated  "anti-growth"  attitude  appears  to 
have  correspondingly  developed  to  a  limited  extent  and  has  to  some  degree 
contradicted  the  established  attitude  which  has  sought  industry  development. 

2-78 


As  stated  in  a  letter  received  by  the  BLM  (Battle  Mountain)  from  an  individual 
responding  to  the  Mt.  Hope  Project,  "Having  moved  here  from  a  "boom  town",  we, 
along  with  most  of  the  residents  of  Diamond  Valley  have  no  wish  to  be  associated 
with  another  one..."   In  contrast,  a  Eureka  Town  resident  submitted  his 
written  response  at  the  scoping  meeting  as  follows:   "All  for  it.   I  have  two 
10-wheeler  dump  trucks  and  one  18-foot  flat  bed  dump  truck  and  backhoe. 
Ready  to  work".   While  many  residents  may  perceive  a  desperate  need  for 
commercial/industrial  diversification,  there  are  others  who  adamantly  oppose 
any  such  change. 

Additional  insight  into  the  attitudes  and  lifestyles  of  Eureka 
County  residents  are  reflected  in  the  goals  and  objectives  selected  by  the 
Eureka  Citizens  Committee  for  the  Eureka  County  General  Plan  (1974).   A 
unified  set  of  goals  were  recommended,  of  which  nine  of  these  goals  have  been 
abstracted  and  appear  below.   It  should  be  kept  in  mind,  however,  (and  as 
stated  in  the  General  Plan)  that  in  the  case  of  a  mining  boom,  "such  growth 
might  very  well  change  the  courses  of  action  the  Planning  Commission  and 
Board  of  County  Commissioners  have  currently  contemplated  or  can  be  foreseen 
by  this  General  Plan". 

GOAL  1:   That  the  County  protect  farming,  ranching  and  mining  as  they  are 
known  today. 

Objectives:   1.   That  lands  suitable  for  mining  and  agriculture 
be  reserved  for  these  purposes. 

2.  That  a  minimum  size  be  established  for  any  new 
residential  lots  on  mining  and  agriculture  land 
through  the  adoption  of  zoning  ordinances. 

3.  That  a  minimum  size  be  established  for  all  new 
farming  and  ranching  units  through  the  adoption 
of  a  zoning  ordinance. 

A.   That  guidelines  and  ordinances  be  established  to 
provide  for  orderly  progress  in  mining. 

5.   That  future  highways  be  located  so  as  not  to 

interfere  with  agricultural  and  mining  productivity. 


2-79 


GOAL  2:   That  the  County  endeavor  to  protect  its  water  areas,  rangelands, 

mountains,  open  views,  meadow  lands,  and  air  from  development  that 
would  reduce  the  County's  desirability  to  the  local  residents. 

GOAL  4:   That  orderly  and  modest  growth  be  encouraged  in  the  urbanizing  areas 
of  Eureka,  Beowawe  and  Crescent  Valley  only. 

GOAL  5:   That  broader  goods  and  services  be  stimulated  in  the  townsites  of 
Eureka,  Beowawe  and  Crescent  Valley. 

GOAL  7:   That  lands  presently  controlled  by  grazing  agencies  be  defined, 

zoned  and  maintained  to  permit  optimum  private  uses  in  accordance 
with  General  Plan  proposals. 

Objectives :   1.   That  continued  grazing  privileges  for  cattle  and 
sheep  are  essential  to  the  preservation  of  the 
livestock  industry  and  no  further  lands  should  be 
withdrawn  from  uses  unless  compensatory  AUMs  are 
provided. 

2.  That  the  horse  population  be  controlled  and  the  BLM 
be  encouraged  to  manage  these  animals  as  closely 

as  possible. 

3.  That  ordinances  to  protect  the  natural  landscape 
be  developed  by  the  people  of  Eureka  County. 

4.  That  BLM  land  be  made  available  for  private  purchase 
when  need  for  agricultural  and  mining  growth  be 
proved  necessary. 

GOAL  8:   That  the  County  control  the  location  and  extent  of  new  business  and 
industry  by  zoning  or  other  methods. 

GOAL  9:   That  the  County's  historic  resources  be  protected. 

GOAL  11:  That  community  attractiveness  be  sought  through  voluntary  citizen 
efforts. 


2-80 


Objective:   1.   That  all  public  buildings  be  maintained  in  such  a 

manner  as  to  encourage  private  interests  to  upgrade 
the  physical  condition  of  other  structures. 

GOAL  12:  That  residential  improvements  be  encouraged  which  are  in  keeping 
with  individual  neighborhood  desires. 

Major  concerns  expressed  by  Eureka  County  residents  in  regards  to 
the  Mt.  Hope  Project  were  as  follows: 

1.  Surge  in  population  growth; 

2.  Environmental  safety/ecology; 

3.  Land  reclamation/restoration; 

4.  Water  source  and  usage; 

5.  Grazing  allotment  impact; 

6.  Land  acquisition  methods; 

7.  Cultural  resources  impact. 

The  major  concern  with  population  influx  is  viewed   as  meaning   that 
more  community  facilities   will   be   needed,    more   land   for  urban  development, 
more    roads,    etc.      The   possibility   of    a  mining    "bust"   on  the   other  hand,    has 
been   expressed   by  residents   and   is  viewed   as   producing   opposite   or  negative 
effects.      Another  concern  with  population  growth  was   expressed   in  reference 
to   the   preservation  and   protection   of  Eureka,    being  a  National  Historic 
district,   and   that   the   project   workers   would  not   appreciate  or   respect    this. 
Population  influx  is   seen  by   some   residents   as  bringing  adverse   effects  upon 
their   recreation/leisure   lifestyle   due   to  more  individuals   fishing,   hunting, 
poaching  and   general   overuse   of   limited   recreational   areas.      The   topic   of 
hunting  in  Eureka  County   is   already  a  sensitive   subject.      This   is   because 
resident  Eureka  County  hunters   have   been  able   to  enjoy  all    types    of  hunting 
(big   game,    small   game   and   bird)    in  their   "own  backyard".      However,    in  recent 
years   there  has   been  a   great   influx   of    out-of-county  hunters    to  Eureka  County 
because   of    the  abundant   and   diverse   types   of   wild  game.      Residents   of    the 
county   see   the   outside  hunters   as   a   perennial   problem  because   statistics 
reveal    that   a  very   high  percentage   of    the  game   harvested   in  Eureka   County   is 
killed   and   carried   away  by  hunters   who   reside    outside    of   the   county.      Some 

2-81 


bird  hunting  is   closed   to  non-resident  hunters.      Because   of    the  great   influx 
of   outside  hunters   each  year   to  Eureka,    White   Pine,    Elko  and   Lander  counties, 
the   State  Fish  and   Game   Department   recommended   a  quota  system,   which  was 
strongly  critized   by  the   state's   sportsmen.      It  was   especially   unwanted   by 
Eureka   County   residents,   who  would,   under  the   proposed   system,   be   restricted 
to   relatively   few  days    of  hunting  per  year   in  their   own  county.      Eureka 
County   residents   strongly   recommend   that    they  be   allowed    to  hunt   in   their   own 
county  the  entire  hunting  season,   with   the   out-of-county  hunters   being  the 
ones    subjected   to   the  quota. 

Stabilizing  factors    to   community  lifestyle   and  attitude   for  the 
Town   of  Eureka  include   the   town's   continuing   role  as   county   seat   and   primary 
population  center,    satisfactory   transportation  routes   allowing   acceptable 
mobility,   and  utilization   of   proximal   lands    for  recreation,    agriculture  and 
ranching.      The   resident   population  of    the   town  has    increased   the   cohesiveness 
of   its   community   through  efforts    to   expand   and   renovate   the    town's   historic 
character  and  promote   tourism.      As  discussed   by  Ganzel  (1976),    the   ranching 
faction   of   the   community  has   a   tendency   to   regard   land  use  and   traditional 
family  mores   as   a  reflection  of   lifestyle   versus   business   related   endeavors 
requiring  an   "outside-world"   perspective.      Townspeople   directly  affected   by 
the   effects   and   influence   of    the  outside  world  economics   and  personal   interface 
possess   a  stronger   sense   of   outward   orientation  reflected   by  the   greater 
acceptance   of   regional   development,    particularly  mining. 

Interviews   additionally  indicated  a  notable   sense   of  community 
pride   and    regard  for  the  Town's    rich  history,    in  addition   to  a  strong   regard 
for   the   community  facilities   and  activities.      Eureka  County,   at   one   time,    was 
merely  a   rugged  frontier  inhabited   only  by  Shoshone  and  Paiute   Indians,    except 
for   the   small  settlements  belonging   to   the   Overland   Stage.      It  was   because   of 
Eureka   Town   that   the   legislature,    in   1873,    created   a   new  county.      Eureka   County 
came   into   being  and  the  Town   of  Eureka   became   the   county   seat,   born   out    of 
the   richest  ore  deposit   outside   of    the  Comstock  at   that   time.      Eureka   is 
still   the   county   seat   and   its   courthouse  has  been  in  continuous    service 
since   1879.      Eureka  has   established   a  well  equipped  health  clinic,   a  new 
library  and   museum,   a   community    pool   and   a  dedicated   and   efficient   volunteer 


2-82 


fire  department.   Social  activities  such  as  the  week  of  annual  rodeo  competition, 
high  school  rodeo  and  Fourth  of  July  Parade  are  held  in  special  regard. 

A  coordinated  Resource  Management  and  Planning  group  (CRMP)  and  a 
Eureka  County  Planning  Commission  are  effectively  operating  within  Eureka 
County  and  the  Town  of  Eureka.   Following  the  announcement  of  EXXON 's  proposed 
project  plans,  considerable  interest  was  and  continues  to  be  expressed  by  the 
members  of  the  Eureka  County  Planning  Commission  to  immediately  begin  planning 
efforts  in  coordination  with  EXXON  that  will  emphasize  transitional  mitigation 
of  any  anticipated  social  and  economics  impacts  upon  the  town  or  county. 
While  the  early  stage  of  project  initiation  has  somewhat  limited  extensive 
planning  design  (but  for  which  this  Technical  Report  is  a  major  initiating 
component  and  mechanism) ,  the  effect  of  the  member  interests  has  been  to 
significantly  indicate  the  strong  personal  and  community  desires  that  industry 
development  not  be  prohibited  but  thoroughly  integrated  into  the  existing 
community  in  as  beneficial  a  manner  as  possible. 

Generally,  the  overall  attitude  of  the  affected  population  toward 
mining  and  industrial  development  appears  to  be  similar  to  that  common  to 
rural  communities  when  confronted  with  potential  rapid  growth,  major  changes 
in  services  provision  (short  term,  long  term)  and  associated  lifestyle  changes 
as  described  by  the  Institute  for  Social  Science  Research  (1974).   The  degree 
of  resistance  to  change  in  Eureka  County  is  anticipated  to  be  somewhat 
different,  however.   The  increased  emphasis  on  development  of  the  Towns  "charm 
from  by-gone  days"  and  an  increased  number  of  in-migration  residents  fleeing 
urban  environments  has  to  some  extent  apparently  created  a  wide  divergence  in 
perspectives  toward  local  development  of  non-tourist  industries.   However, 
the  Town's  cultural  and  historical  mining  and  dramatic  population  background 
may  be  expected  to  reflect  a  community  more  adaptable  to  social  changes 
anticipated  by  project  implementation. 

Divergent  attitudes  of  the  community  population  have,  additionally, 
to  some  extent  been  magnified  by  the  economy  of  the  1980's.   While  the  community 
as  a  whole  appears  to  share  a  positive  attitude  toward  developmental  prescrip- 
tions and  associated  changes  in  lifestyle  (e.g.,  land  use,  population  increase, 
transportation  efficiency,  services  capability,  etc.),  the  level  of  acceptability 

2-83 


and   tolerance   for   change   varies    significantly.      Although  local    business   people 
are  anxious    for   the   benefits    of   economic   growth,   newcomer   groups    "fleeing" 
urban  environments   together  with  some   ranchers    regard   industry  and   mining 
developments   as   a   potential   source   of   highly  negative   impact.      The   perceived 
negatives  may   include   over-population,    shifts   in  status-quo   politics    and 
economic  stature,   and   the    potential   for   varing   mores   and    lifestyles   which 
industrial    in-migrating   populations    are   normally  anticipated    by   some    to 
represent. 

In  summary,    residents   of   Eureka   County   have   a  deep   attachment   to 
their   lifestyle   and   community.      Many  residents  would    like    to   see   economic 
growth,    but    they  wish   this   growth   to   be   of    a   nature   so   that   a   careful   blending 
into   the   old   community   takes   place,   and   on  such  a   scale   that    project-induced 
growth  does   not    severely  disrupt   and   overpower   the   community. 

2.8     Community  Services   and   Facilities 

2.8.1      Schools 


School  services  in  Eureka  County  are  planned  and  administered  by 
the  Eureka  County  School  District.   Although  the  district's  boundaries  are 
the  same  as  the  county's;  it  is  politically  independent  of  the  county.   As  of 
1983,  the  district  operated  three  schools;  one  elementary  (K-6),  one  middle 
school  ( K-8)  and  one  junior/senior  high-school  (7-12).   No  colleges  are 
located  in  the  county.   The  elementary  and  junior/senior  schools  are  located 
in  the  Town  of  Eureka;  the  middle  school  in  Beowawe.   The  1981  combined 
capacity  of  these  schools  was  419  students,  319  in  the  Town  of  Eureka  schools. 
Because  of  the  distance  from  Beowawe  to  Eureka  (117  miles),  26  students 
(1983)  from  Pine  Valley  and  Crescent  Valley  attend  school  in  Carlin  under  an 
agreement  with  the  Elko  County  School  District. 

Enrollment  in  1980-1981  totalled  213  pupils:   107  in  grades  K-6,  86 
in  grades  7-12,  and  20  pupils  were  provided  special  education  service.   The 
1980-1981  enrollment  represented  a  7.6  percent  increase  from  1979-1980. 
Recent  reduction  in  enrollments  ( 170  pupils,  1983)  has  been  attributed  to 
recessionary  migration  out  of  the  county  (S.  Molke ,  Eureka  County  School  District, 

2-84 


Acting   Superintendent,    personal    communication,    1983).      In   1983,    the  Eureka 
junior/senior  high  school  had   an  enrollment   of   approximately  80  students. 
Enrollment   in  grades   K-6  in   1983  included   approximately  80  students   in  Eureka 
and   17   in  Beowawe  (Grades   1-3   and   4-6  combined).      Ten  additional   students   are 
anticipated  in  Beowawe   in    1984   due    to   the  Cortez  Mine   operations   (S.    Molke, 
personal    communication,    1983). 

Total   district   expenditures   for  the  period    1979-1980  equalled 
$982,365,   a   per  pupil   basic   support   cost    of    $4,961.      The    1982-1983  basic 
support    cost  has  been  set   at   $2,866   per   student  which   translates    to   an  actual 
per  pupil   cost    of   approximately  $7,000  (Eureka)    and  $9,000  (Beowawe;    small 
enrollment,    under  capacity   enrollment)    (S.    Molke,    personal   communication, 
1983).      Total   teaching  personnel   equalled   15  in   1979-1980  and    18  in   1982-1983 
(average   teacher/student   ratio   of    1:14.2   and    1:9.4,    respectively).      Two 
nonteaching  personnel  were   employed   during  the    1980-1981  and    1982-1983   school 
years.      In  addition  to   payroll,    district   expenditures   include   housing  support 
(11   mobile   homes,    5  houses,    1983),    library  (approximately   6,400  volumes, 
1981)    and   ongoing   development   of    a  sports   complex.      Salary  payrolls   have 
decreased   from  ranking  first   in  the   state   to   position  nine  as   a  result    of 
budget   cutbacks   (S.    Molke,    personal   communication,    1983). 

Interscholastic   sports   and  music  at   the  high   school   are   emphasized, 
with  major  transportation  provided   by  a   large   converted   commercial   bus.      The 
community   population  is  highly   supportive   of    scholastic  sports   and   4-H  Club 
affairs    (S.   Molke,    personal    communication,    1983).      The  high  school   is   active 
host    to   collegiate   students   (usually   geology  majors)    during  the   summer  when 
area  surveys/study  camps   are   conducted.      Adult   education  night   classes  utilize 
high   school  facilities,    particularly   the   ceramics   equipment   classroom. 
Vocational    training   is   available   utilizing  well-equipped  machine   tooling 
facilities   ( S.    Molke,    personal   communication,    1983). 

Due    to   dispersed   student   populations,    bus   transportation  costs 
represent    a  major   budgetary  and   planning   element.      The    school    district    owns 
sixteen   transportation  vehicles,    nine   of   which   are   dedicated   to   bussing   ( 9   to 
55   passenger   capacities).      Bus   routes   commonly  require   one   hour   or   more    of 
transportation   time   (S.    Molke,    personal   communication,    1983). 

2-85 


The   school   district    owns    limited   acreage   adjacent    to   both  Eureka 
Town   schools. 

Elko  County   school  services   are  planned   and  administered   by   the 
Elko  County  School   District.      The   school    district  boundaries   are   the   same  as 
the   county's,    but   the   district    retains    political   independence   of    the   county. 
The   district   operates   seventeen   schools   which  break  down  as    follows:      six 
elementary,    six  middle   schools,    four  junior/senior  high  schools   and   one 
vocational   school.      There   is   also   advanced   education  at   Northeastern  Nevada 
Community  College   in  Elko   City  which  offers   AA  degrees   (two-year)    as  well  as 
vocational   and  technical   programs.      Total   enrollment   in   1980-1981   equalled 
1,424.      Vocational   enrollment   for  the   same  year  equalled   489. 

Enrollments   in   1980-1981   consisted   of   2,081  students   in  the   elementary 
and   middle   schools   (grades  K-6) ,    1,750  students   in  the  junior/senior   schools 
(grades  7-12)    and   153  students   in  the  vocational   school  (total  students    = 
3,984).      During   the   last   three  years   district   enrollment  has   equalled   3,902 
(1981-82),    3,981   (1982-83)    and   4,047  (1983-84  Feb.   M.    Kenley,    Superintendent's 
Office,    personal   communication,    1984).      The  highest   enrollment  was   4,060  in 
1973,    which  declined   moderately  over  the  next   five  years   and  then  began   to 
grow  again  from   1978  to   the  present. 

In  the  City  of   Elko,    the   district   has   three  elementary   schools   (K-6) 
and   a  junior/senior  high   school  (7-12).      Total   Elko   City   enrollment   in   1982- 
1983  approximated   2,664  students,    more   than  60  percent   of   the   district's    total. 

The  City   of   Carlin  school   facilities   (K-12)    enrolled   325   students 
(1981-82).      While   the   schools   in  Elko   are   virtually  at   capacity,   the   schools 
in  Carlin  are   below  capacity  by  approximately  40  percent   (230  students)    as 
based  upon   1981-82   school  year   data.      Declining  enrollments   at   the  98-student 
high   school   in  Carlin  had    recently   prompted   a   recommendation  by   the   superin- 
tendent   to   close   the  Carlin  senior  high  and   bus   the  students    to  Elko  (Total 
Enrollments:      289  (1982-1983)    and   282   (1983-1984  Feb.)).      This  was  met  with 
severe   criticism  and   resistance    by  Carlin   residents. 


2-86 


Total   district   expenditures   for  the  period   1979-1980  equalled 
$9,507,139,  a   per  pupil   cost    of   $2,606.      The   district's   indebtedness   of    $2.9 
million  (1981-82)    was   substantially  below  its   $32.9  million  debt    capacity. 
Total   teaching  personnel   for    1980-1981   equalled    185  and   non-teaching  personnel 
equalled   31.      Teacher  recruitment   for  Elko   or  Carlin  schools   is   not   a  problem, 
unlike   recruitment   for   the    rural   schools   in  the   districts. 

2.8.2     Health 

Health  care   in  Eureka   and   Elko   counties   is   provided   by  a   number  of 
governmental   agencies   (federal,    state   and   local).      The   national   and   local 
health  entitlement   programs,    hospitals    and   mental   health  services   for  all 
individuals   in  the   state  are   outlined   below.      The  information  has   been 
abstracted   from  Nevada   County   Profile  publications   as   prepared   by   the   State 
of   Nevada,   Office   of   Community   Services   (1982). 

Public  Financed  Health  Care   in  Nevada   has   been  estimated   to 
cost   each   resident   between   $275  and    $300   per  year.      This 
includes  Medicaid  ($70  million  annually),   Medicare  ($105 
million  annually) ,   as   well   as    numerous   categorical  and 
discretionary   programs.      Federal   health  care   expenditures 
in  Nevada   for  fiscal  year    1980   equalled    $143  million. 
State   expenditures   (FY   1980)    equalled   $99  million. 

Hospital   Services   are   typically  grouped   into  three   areas: 
Primary,    Secondary  and   Tertiary.      The   first   two   levels   of 
care   address   health  maintenance  and   treatment    of    illness 
through  commonly  available   technologies.      These  may  be 
distinguished   as   inpatient    services.      The  highest   level 
of    care,    tertiary,    encompasses   specialized   services   for 
which  there   is   a   limited   demand  (i.e.,   neo-natal   intensive 
care,   open-heart    surgery,    burn  centers,    etc.).      Statewide 
bed   totals    equalled   833   secondary  and   2,160  tertiary   for 
a   total    2,993   beds. 


2-87 


Mental  Health  Care   is   provided   through   five   public   institutional 
care  facilities   operated   by   the   State   Division  of  Mental  Health 
and   Mental   Retardation.      Short-term   care   is   administered 
by  the   Nevada  Mental   Health   Institute   (102   licensed 
beds)    and   the  Las  Vegas  Mental  Health  Center  (65 
licensed  beds).      Long-term  mental   health  care  (30 
days   or  more)    is  generally   provided   to   the   severely 
mentally  disabled  and   the   profoundly  retarded.      Facilities 
for  this   type   of    care   include    the  Desert   Developmental 
Center  (78   licensed  beds),   the   Sierra  Developmental  Center 
(78  licensed   beds)    and   the  Eagle  Valley  Childrens   Home 
(15   licensed  beds). 

The  Division  of  Mental   Hygiene/Mental   Retardation 
provides   services    to    rural   residents   through   a  Rural 
Clinics   Program.      Satellite   clinics   are   located   in 
seven  of  Nevada's   communities.      Examples   of   services 
typically  provided   include:      inpatient   services   for 
treatment    of  psychotic,    transitional   care   back   to 
one's   home   environment,    group   and  family  counseling, 
children's   services   including   diagnostic   screening 
and   substance   abuse   counseling   and   treatment. 

There   are   approximately  50  separate  entities   in 
Nevada   providing   Substance  Abuse   Services.      Roughly 
one-half   of   these   receive   federal  funds   through 
the   State's   Bureau   of   Alcohol   and   Drug  Abuse  (BADA). 
Programs    available   range   from  Detoxification  Centers 
to   long-term  residential    care. 

In   rural   Nevada  BADA  partially   supports   six   of   the 
eleven  agencies  who  provide   alcohol   and   drug  abuse 
services.    During    1979-1980,    BADA-supported   programs 
demonstrated   a  77   percent    treatment   completions   rate. 


2-88 


Public  Health  services  in  rural  Nevada  are  available 
through  a  community  health  nursing  program  in  each 
county.   The  program  is  funded  jointly  between  the 
state  and  the  counties,  i.e.,  60  percent/AO  percent 
respectively.   Services  typically  offered  include 
child  health,  communicable  disease  control,  crippled 
children  services,  family  planning,  immunizations, 
tuberculosis  control,  and  WIC  -  the  food  supplement 
program  for  low-income  women  and  children.   During  fiscal 
year  1981,  community  health  nurses  reported  a  combined  total 
of  40,550  clinical  contacts. 

WIC,  the  Women,  Infant,  and  Childrens '  supplemental  food 
program  is  designed  to  assist  children  under  five  years  of 
age  and  women  who  are  pregnant,  post-partum,  and/or 
nursing.   Individuals  who  are  receiving  assistance  must 
be  of  low  income  and  identified  as  "at  nutritional  risk". 
Food  vouchers,  nutritional  screening  and  referrals  to 
other  appropriate  services  are  provided.   The  program  is 
administered  by  the  State  of  Nevada's  Department  of  Human 
Resources. 

A  statewide  radio  system  for  emergency  medical  communications  for 
ambulances  and  hospital  emergency  rooms  was  implemented  in  1978.   The  radio 
system  utilizes  the  state  microwave  sites,  as  well  as  UHF  sites  added  as  part 
of  the  project. 

Eureka  County  has  no  major  medical  facilities.   Residents  requiring 
hospital  services  normally  obtain  such  care  in  the  City  of  Elko,  approximately 
115  miles  north.   The  Town  of  Eureka  has  an  equipped  health  clinic  and  the 
state  has  secured  a  full-time  resident  doctor.   In  times  of  resident  doctor 
absence,  the  state  provides  an  assigned  replacement.   This  state  health  care 
assistance  is  provided  via  the  Nevada  Rural  Health  Consortium.   The  county 
also  maintains  ambulances  and  a  volunteer  organization  supplies  licensed  EMT 
ambulance  attendants.   Table  2-45  depicts  typical  health  and  medical  expenses 
incurred  by  the  county  in  fiscal  year  1981-1983.   Table  2-46  lists  several  of 

2-89 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table    2-4  5     Eureka   County  Health  and  Medical  Expenses  Fiscal  Year    1981-1982 

Expense   Category Expenses 

Rural   Health  Nurse  2,500 

Home   Health  Care  1,700 

Clinic  49,006 

Ambulance  _J_/  35,366 

Indigent  Medical  4,737 

County  Employee    Insurance  49,778 

_y      Includes   purchase   of   new  ambulance 
Source:      Eureka  County  Budget    1981-1982. 


2-90 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  2-46  Health  and  Human  Services  Utilized1/  by  Eureka  County  Residents 


Program 


Benefit 


No.  of  County 
Recipients 


Supplemental    Security 
Income    (SSI) 


Food   Stamps 


Social  Security 


County  Indigent 


Vocational 

Rehabilitation 


Community  Health 
Nursing 


WIC 


County  Senior  Center 


Energy  Assistance 


Monthly  cash  benefits  to  blind 
and  aged,  below  or  at  poverty 
levels. 

Monthly  coupons  to  low  income 
persons,  benefits  value 
variable. 

Monthly  cash  benefits  to  disabled, 
retired  and/or  survivors  of  pro- 
gram covered  individuals.   Approx. 
38  percent  of  state  beneficiaries 
under  65  years. 

Funded  by  county  revenues  entirely, 
paid  to  eligible  persons  not  qual- 
ifying for  other  state/federal 
cash  entitlement  programs. 

Services  designed  to  assist 
disabled  persons  in  obtaining 
meaningful  work.   Multiple  ser- 
vices groups  available.   Number 
of  county  recipients  right 
represent  Nevada  State  Bureau 
of  Vocational  Rehabilitation 
data  only. 

State/County  funded  (60  percent/ 
40  percent,  respectively), 
program  providing  nursing 
services,  including  child  health 
immunizations,  tuberculosis 
control,  etc. 

Women,  Infant  and  Childrens 
supplemental  food  program 
designed  to  assist  low- 
income  persons  identified 
as  "at  nutritional  risk" 
State  administered. 

Congregate  and  home  delivered 
meals  provided  as  well  as  variety 
of  health/welfare  services  to 
aged  and  handicapped. 

Federally  funded  assistance  to 
low-income  persons. 


1  (June,  1981) 


11  (June,  1981) 


117  (1979) 


10  (1980) 


10 


203  (1981) 


11  (1981) 


8,000  meals 


25 


\J   Utilized  term  refers  to  availability  of  statistics. 

2-91 


the  federal  and  state  health  and  human  services  utilized  by  county  residents. 
Table  2-47  lists  licensed  physicians,  dentists  and  nurses  for  Nevada  counties 
per  1,000  population  (1981). 

Elko  County  has  one  58-bed  hospital,  Elko  General  Hospital,  located 
in  the  City  of  Elko.   Hospital  services  are  primary  and  secondary  only.   In 
1981,  the  county  was  estimated  to  have  18  doctors,  7  dentists  and  140  nurses, 
most  of  whom  were  located  in  Elko.   The  county  also  maintains  an  ambulance 
service.   The  recently  formed  Rural  Mental  Retardation  Region  based  in  Carson 
City  serves  mentally  retarded  persons  in  Elko  County.   The  City  of  Carlin  has 
no  medical  facilities  but  operates  an  ambulance  service.   The  City  of  Wells 
also  operates  an  ambulance  service  and  has  a  community  health  nurse.   Long- 
term  medical  care  (30  days  or  more)  for  the  county  is  provided  by  Ruby  Mountain 
Manor.   The  facility  has  73  available  beds  and  ran  a  91  percent  occupancy 
rate  in  1980;  the  average  revenue  per  inpatient  day  was  $31.   Elko  County 
health  and  medical  expenses  for  FY  1981-82  are  shown  in  Table  2-48  in  addition 
to  Elko  General  Hospital  information  (1980). 

2.8.3  Law  Enforcement 

Law  enforcement  in  Eureka  County  is  provided  primarily  by  the  county 
sheriff's  department  and  the  county  court  system.   The  county  sheriff's  depart- 
tment  in  1983  employed  nine  staff  members;  five  sworn  personnel  and  four  civilian 
employees.   Department  operations  are  conducted  from  the  County  Courthouse 
located  in  the  Town  of  Eureka.   If  land  adjacent  (behind)  the  Courthouse  were 
required  for  expansion,  it  would  have  to  be  purchased  from  private  ownership. 
The  county  has  a  Nevada  State  Highway  Patrolman  in  residence. 

Ratio  of  officers  to  population  equals  4.2/1,000,  a  significantly 
low  ratio  but  representative  of  the  large  county  acreage  and  the  distance 
between  population  centers  at  north  and  south  ends  of  the  county. 

Although  the  sheriff's  department  estimates  a  requirement  of  two 
additional  duty  officers,  which  would  increase  the  officer-population  ratio, 
present  budget  constraints  apparently  will  limit  this  expansion  (B.  Carlson, 
Sheriff  and  County  Director  of  Emergency  Management,  personal  communication,  1983) 

2-92 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  2-4  7  Licensed  Physicians,  Dentists  and  Nurses  by  County  per 
1,000  Population:   1981 


County 

Physicians  *■/ 

Dentists^/ 

Nurses 
RN 

3/ 
LPN 

Carson  City 

2.217 

0.531 

6.2 

3.0 

Churchill 

0.431 

0.287 

3.1 

3.3 

Clark 

1.377 

0.405 

3.9 

1.3 

Douglas 

0.978 

0.463 

1.6 

0.4 

Elko 

1.042 

0.405 

4.1 

4.2 

Esmeralda 

0.000 

0.000 

1.3 

0.0 

Eureka 

0.834 

0.000 

1.7 

0.0 

Humboldt 

0.636 

0.318 

2.8 

1.4 

Lander 

0.245 

0.000 

2.9 

0.5 

Lincoln 

0.536 

0.268 

3.8 

0.8 

Lyon 

0.368 

0.074 

1.6 

2.3 

Mineral 

0.643 

0.161 

3.4 

2.1 

Nye 

0.221 

0.111 

2.1 

0.6 

Pershing 

0.293 

0.587 

3.2 

1.5 

Storey 

0.000 

0.000 

2.1 

0.7 

Washoe 

2.500 

0.692 

6.1 

2.2 

White  Pine 

0.612 

0.367 

3.6 

2.2 

STATE 

1.578 

0.463 

4.4 

1.8 

jj      Figures  from  State  Board  of  Medical  Examines,  September,  1981. 
_2y   Figures  from  State  Board  of  Pharmacy,  October  12,  1981. 
2/   Figures  from  State  Board  of  Nursing,  1980. 


2-93 


Mt.   Hope   Molybdenum  Project 

Table    2-48     Elko   County  Health  and  Medical  Expenses    (FY   1981-82) 
and  Elko   General   Hospital    Information   (1980) 


Category Expenditure 

Public  Health  Nurse  $  48,337 

Ambulance  84,626 

Wells  Medical   Center  4,470 

Substance  Abuse  10,000 

Hospital   Capitol   Improvement  31,102 

Indigent  Medical  Fund  151,495 

Employee   Health   Insurance  106,139 


Elko  General  Hospital  Information  1/ 


Occupancy 

Beds  Length   of  Rate  $   Gross 

Licensed  Admissions  Stay    (days)  Percent  Revenues 

58  2,658  4.8  60.6  4,605,000 


_/   Services  provided  are  primary  and  secondary  only. 
Source:   Elko  County  Nevada  Profile,  1982. 


2-94 


The  department's  transportation  and  communication  capabilities  are 
generally  adequate  for  the  limited  staffing  (four  vehicles).   Staffing  levels 
appear  fixed  although  personnel  turnover  was  high  in  1983  (85  percent).   The 
high  turnover  rate  is  assumed  to  be  infrequent  in  nature  primarily  being 
associated  with  change  in  administrations. 

Eureka  County  has  two  justices  of  the  peace  with  jurisdiction  in 
Beowawe  and  the  Town  of  Eureka.  The  Seventh  Judicial  District,  with  three 
courts,  includes  Eureka,  Lincoln  and  White  Pine  counties. 

Law  enforcement  in  Elko  County  is  provided  by  the  Elko  County 
Sheriff's  Office,  the  Elko  Police  Department,  Carlin  Police  Department  and 
the  county  court  system.   The  county  sheriff's  department  in  1982  employed 
21  staff  members;  18  sworn  personnel  and  three  civilian  employees.   The  police 
department  of  Elko  in  1982  employed  44  staff  members;  33  sworn  personnel 
and  11  civilian  employees.   The  police  department  of  Carlin  in  1981  employed 
ten  staff  members;  five  sworn  personnel  and  five  civilian  employees. 

Ratio  of  police  officers  in  Carlin  to  the  city  population  equals 
4.0/1,000.   Ratio  of  police  officers  in  Elko  to  the  city  population  equals 
3.7/1,000.   Ratio  of  sheriff's  department  officers  to  total  county  population 
equals  1.2/1,000.   Ratio  of  total  law  enforcement  officers  (county  and  city) 
to  county  population  equals  3.4/1,000. 

Elko  County  has  eight  justices  of  the  peace  with  respective 
jurisdictions  in  Carlin,  Eastline,  Elko,  Jackpot,  Jarbridge,  Mountain  City, 
Tecoma  and  Wells.   The  Fourth  Judicial  District,  with  one  court,  has  jurisdiction 
in  Elko.   There  are  also  three  municipal  courts  in  the  county.   They  are 
located  in  Carlin,  Elko  and  Wells.   The  21-man  sheriff's  department  has  its 
base  of  operations  in  the  Elko  County  Courthouse. 

2.8.4  Fire  Protection 

Fire  protection  in  Eureka  County  is  provided  by  four  volunteer  fire 
departments  and  federal/state  agencies.   Federal  agency  involvement  is  dictated 
by  respective  jurisdiction  over  public  lands,  particularly  the  BLM,  U.S. 

2-95 


Forest  Service,  and  Division  of  Nevada  State  Forestry  which  provide  varying 
degrees  of  support  at  each  fire  department.   Response  to  fire  situations  is 
generally  reciprocal  between  the  county  and  forest  services  and,  if  requested, 
may  include  out-of-county  activity  (e.g.,  Lander  County)  (J.  Todd,  Eureka 
Volunteer  Fire  Department,  personal  communication,  1983). 

The  largest  county  volunteer  department  is  the  Eureka  V.F.D.  which 
registered  21  volunteers  in  1983.   Administratively  based  in  the  County 
Courthouse,  the  Eureka  V.F.D.  services  one  fire  station  with  major  equipment 
(state  provided)  including  a  4-wheel  drive  2,000-gallon  tanker/pumper,  2.5 
and  1.5  inch  live  lines,  750-gallon  per  minute  (gpm)  pack  capability  truck 
and  one  additional  truck  provided  by  the  U.S.  Forest  Service.   The  Eureka 
V.F.D.  is  financed  in  large  by  city  limit  taxes.   The  fire  insurance  class 
rating,  a  commercial  measure  of  system  adequacy,  is  reported  to  be  7  or  8 
(Todd,  personal  communication,  1983). 

Located  near  the  Town  of  Eureka  (approximately  15  miles  north),  the 
Diamond  Valley  V.F.D.  registers  four  to  eight  volunteers  and  services  a  fire 
station  with  major  equipment  entailing  a  6  x  6  Forest  Service  500-gallon 
pumper  (D.  Conway,  Diamond  Valley  Volunteer  Fire  Department,  personal 
communication,  1983).   Staffing  availability  is  dependent  on  agricultural 
commitments.   Located  within  the  McNary  Fire  District  of  the  U.S.  Forest 
Service,  the  Diamond  Valley  V.F.D.  is  financed  by  state,  federal  ( BLM)  and 
county  monies.   The  Forest  Service  has  provided  the  single  truck  and  USFS 
performs  most  maintenance.   Communication  is  via  one-way  Plectron  radio. 

Other  county  volunteer  departments  include  Beowawe  V.F.D.  and 
Crescent  V.F.D.,  neither  of  which  service  fire  stations.   The  Beowawe  V.F.D. 
registers  four  volunteers,  Crescent  V.F.D.  registers  one  volunteer. 

Fire  protection  in  Elko  County  is  provided  by  fullpaid  fire  depart- 
ments, volunteer  fire  departments  and  federal/state  agencies.   Federal  agency 
involvement,  as  in  Eureka  County,  is  dictated  by  respective  jurisdiction  over 
public  lands,  particularly  the  BLM,  U.S.  Forest  Service  and  Division  of 
Nevada  State  Forestry,  which  provide  varying  degrees  of  support  and  interaction 
at  each  fire  department. 

2-96 


Elko  County  has  21  fire  departments  (19  volunteer  departments  and 
two  paid  departments)  which  enlist  a  total  fire  fighting  force  of  164  men  and 
22  fire  stations.   There  are  30  paid  firefighters  and  134  volunteers. 

The  City  of  Elko  has  five  fire  stations  with  a  15-man  paid  force 
and  a  13-man  volunteer  backup.   The  City  of  Carlin  has  two  fire  stations  and 
a  15-man  volunteer  force.   Table  2-49  lists  Elko  County  fire  protection 
facilities  and  manpower. 

2.8.5   Public  Utilities  and  Communications 

In  1980,  the  average  Nevada  Power  Company  residential  customer  used 
1,187  kilowatt  hours  per  month  while  the  average  Sierra  Pacific  Power  Company 
customer  used  615  kilowatt  hours  per  month.   This  represented  respective 
decreases  of  25  percent  and  12  percent  over  the  peak  residential  customer  use 
year  of  1973. 

In  1970,  the  total  number  of  telephones  in  the  state  numbered 
331,090.   By  March  of  1981  an  increase  of  146.5  percent  had  brought  the  total 
count  to  816,046.   As  seen  in  Table  2-50,  telephone  use  in  Eureka  County  for 
1981  was  the  lowest  in  the  state  (422  phones;  0.05  percent  of  the  state  total) 
White  Pine  County  accounted  for  0.78  percent  (6,374)  of  the  state  total  and 
Elko  County  accounted  for  1.6  percent  (13,257)  of  the  state  total. 

Nevada  had  45  newspapers  and  publications  with  daily,  weekly  or 
monthly  circulation,  22  AM  radio  stations,  19  FM  stations  and  9  television 
stations  in  1980.   Selected  newspapers  and  publications  are  shown  in  Table 
2-51  for  Eureka  and  surrounding  counties. 

Eureka  County  is  provided  electrical  services  by  the  Mt .  Wheeler 
Power  Company  (Southern  Eureka  County)  and  the  Sierra  Pacific  Power  Company 
(Northern  Eureka  County).   Telephone  service  in  Eureka  County  is  provided  by 
Nevada  Bell  (Nevada  Telephone  and  Telegraph  Company).   Natural  gas,  propane 
and  heating  oil  services  are  available  to  county  residents  from  multiple 
companies  based  in  Ely,  White  Pine  County. 


2-97 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  2-49  Elko  County  Fire  Protection 


Fire  Department 

Carlin  VFD  15 

Clover  Valley  VFD  10 

Deeth  -  Starr  3 

Dunphy  3 

Elko  FD  13 
Independence  Valley  VFD    1 

Jackpot  VFD  10 

Jarbridge  VFD  3 

Jiggs  -  Lee  VFD  1 

Lamoille  7 

Metropolis  VFD  1 

Midas  VFD  1 

Montello  VFD  5 

Mountain  City  VFD  1 

Ruby  Valley  VFD  3 

Spring  Creek  21 

Twin  Bridges  5 

Wells  19 

Wendover  9 
Owyhee  Indian 

Reservation  VFD  3 
Freeport  Gold 


Firefighters 
Volunteer     Paid 


15 


Fire 

Stations 


15 


1 
0 
5 
0 
1 
1 
1 
1 
0 
0 

1 
1 

3 
2 
0 
1 

1 

1 
0 


Major 
Equipment  1/ 


1 
1 
15 
1 
3 
2 
1 
2 
1 
0 
1 
1 
3 
5 
1 
5 
3 

2 

0 


V  Major  equipment  refers  to  the  rolling  stock  of  available  firefighting 
apparatus,  namely  pumpers,  tankers,  rescue  and  emergency  items  and 
squad  cars. 

Source:   State  of  Nevada,  Office  of  Community  Services,  Elko  County  Nevada 
Profile,  1982 


2-98 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  2-50  Telephones  in  Use  by  County,  for  Selected  Years:   1960  -  1981 V 


County 

Dec.    1960 

Dec.    1965 

Dec.    1970 

Dec.    1979 

Mar.    1981 

Carson  City 

3,556 

7,084 

10,617 

29,940 

32,000 

Churchill 

2,670 

3,664 

5,117 

9,387 

10,097 

Clark 

55,735 

118,261 

196,165 

485,644 

505,413 

Douglas 

1,607 

4,132 

6,598 

18,618 

19,700 

Elko 

4,191 

5,198 

6,747 

11,938 

13,257 

Eureka 

153 

170 

174 

325 

422 

Esmeralda 

£/ 

£/ 

l! 

396 

498 

Humboldt 

2,092 

2,843 

3,331 

6,138 

6,944 

Lander 

410 

659 

1,056 

2,506 

2,931 

Lincoln 

673 

863 

960 

2,181 

2,438 

Lyon 

1,320 

2,152 

3,216 

6,112 

6,564 

Mineral 

2,088 

2,283 

3,026 

3,659 

3,785 

Nye 

806 

1,643 

2,102 

8 , 5843/ 

10,84  \h 

Pershing 

987 

1,071 

1,136 

1,762 

1,889 

Storey 

215 

293 

370 

770 

977 

Washoe 

45,103 

72,059 

86,109 

179,930 

191,916 

White  Pine 

3,136 

3,552 

4,366 

5,712 

6,374 

STATE 

124,742 

225,927 

331,090 

773,602 

816,046 

_y  Includes  all  telephones,  residential  and  business. 

^j    Data  not  available. 

V  Figure  includes  Nevada  Test  Site. 

Source:   University  of  Nevada/Reno,  Bureau  of  Business  and  Economic  Research. 


2-99 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  2-51  Newspapers  and  Publications  with  Daily  or 
Less  than  Daily  Circulation:   1981 


City      County 
Austin    Lander 


Name  of  Paper 

Reese  River  Reveille 


Daily-Paid 
Circulation 


Less  than  Daily- 
Paid  Circulation 

455 


Battle 

Mountain 

Lander 

Battle  Mountain 

Bugle 

Elko 

Elko 

Elko   Daily  Free 
Independent 

Press 

3,495 

Ely 

White   Pine 

Ely  Daily  Times 

2,517 

Eureka 

Eureka 

Eureka   Sentinel 

Wells 

Elko 

Wells   Progress 

1,700 
2,600 

600 
850 


Source:   1981  Ayer  Directory  of  Publications,  and  1981-1982  Nevada  State  Press 
Association  Directory  of  Nevada  Member  Newspapers. 


2-100 


In  the  project   area,   Mt.   Wheeler  Power  Company  presently  operates 
the  Machacek  Substation  near  the   Town   of  Eureka.      The   Sierra  Pacific   Power 
Company  owns   a  230-kilovolt   power  line   transecting   the  county   east-west.      In 
1971,   Mt.    wheeler  and   Sierra   Pacific  entered  into   contract   providing  Mt. 
Wheeler  Power   capacity   rights   of   40,000  kilowatts   (KW)    during   the  summer 
season  (April   through  September)    and  22,000  KW  during  the  winter   season 
(October   through  March).      Subsequent   power  provision  capacity  was   obtained 
through  Mt.    Wheeler's  membership   with  the   Intermountain  Consumer  Power 
Association  (ICPA)    whereby   the  Mt .   Wheeler  Power  Colorado  River  Storage 
Project   proceeded  and   resulted   in  an  allocation  of  22,000  kilowatt   (KW) 
(summer   season)    and   12,800  KW  during   the  winter   season.      Additional   power 
supply   planning,   both  in  association  with   ICPA  and  independently,   has   included 
Mt.    wheeler  Power  Company   participation  in  the  Desert   Generation  and   Power 
Cooperative  which  has   purchased   100  megawatts   (MW)    in  Utah  Power  and  Light 
Company's   Unit   No.    2,   Hunter  Generating   Station,   Intermountain  Power  Project 
which  will   provide   a  230-kv  power   capacity   to  Mt.    Wheeler  when  constructed 
(proposed    1985-1986),   and   the  White  Pine   Power  Project  which  additionally 
involves   another  230-kv  power  capacity   from  the    1,500  megawatt   (MW)    plant 
proposed  for  operation  in  mid-1989. 

Telephone   service   in  Eureka   County   is  anticipated   to  generally 
remain  as   of   present   although   limited   expansion  and  upgrading   continues   as   an 
ongoing  yearly  activity   (D.    Pastorino,    County  Commissioner,    personal   communi- 
cation,   1983). 

Television  service   is   provided   by   the  Eureka  T.V.   District  which   is 
funded   through  a  county  tax.      A  relay   transmitter  located   on  Prospect   Peak 
operating   at   full   capacity   relays  major  networks   from  Salt   Lake   City   and 
Nevada   (via  Ely  and  Elko-Reno,    respectively).      Two   radio  stations   (FM)    are 
additionally  relayed   via   the  T.V.   District.      One  newspaper,   The  Eureka 
Sentinel,   is   published  weekly   in   the   Town   of   Eureka   and   is    the  main   source   of 
local   and   regional   printed   news   with  an  estimated  weekly  circulation  of    600. 
Several   major   daily  newspapers   routed   from  Ely  and   Elko  are   also   available  in 
the   Town  of   Eureka. 


2-101 


Elko  County  receives  most  of  its  electrical  energy  from  Sierra 
Pacific  Power  Company  (services  county-wide)  and  Wells  Rural  Electric  Company. 
Other  suppliers  in  the  county  include  Idaho  Power  Company,  C.  F.   National 
and  Raft  River  Rural  Electric  Cooperative.   C.  P.  National  receives  all  of 
their  electricity  for  resale  from  Sierra  Pacific  Power  Company.   There  are 
some  areas  which  have  no  electrical  service  and  must  generate  their  own 
electricity  using  diesel  generators.   Wells  Rural  Electric  Company  supplies 
the  electrical  needs  of  consumers  throughout  much  of  central  Elko  County. 
Telephone  service  for  Elko  County  is  provided  by  Cal  Pacific  Telephone  Company, 
Natural  gas,  propane  and  heating  oil  is  available  to  all  county  residents  by 
seven  suppliers:   Southwest  Gas  Company  (natural),  C.  P.  National  (natural), 
Par  Gas,  Wells  Propane,  Chevron,  Arco  and  Continental  Oil.   Southwest  Gas 
Company  supplies  natural  gas  to  the  communities  of  Carlin  and  Elko.   The 
company  also  has  authority  to  service  areas  within  one  mile  of  its  main 
pipeline.   Natural  Gas  is  available  only  in  the  more  urbanized  areas. 
Consumers  in  outlying  areas  must  rely  on  electricity,  liquified  petroleum 
gas  (LPG) ,  or  other  petroleum  products  to  satisfy  their  energy  demands. 
Television  service  is  provided  by  the  Carlin  T.V.  District  and  Elko  T.V. 
which  are  funded  through  a  county  tax.   A  local  AM  radio  station  (KELK)  is 
located  in  Elko  with  an  operating  frequency  of  1,240  kilohertz  (khz)  and 
effective  radiated  power  (watts)  of  1,000/day  and  250/night.   Two  newspapers 
are  published  in  Elko,  the  Elko  Daily  Free  Press  (daily)  and  the  Elko  Indepen- 
dent (weekly).   The  Wells  Progress  is  also  published  weekly  out  of  Wells. 
Circulation  data  for  the  newspapers  are  shown  in  Table  2-51. 

2.8.6  Water  and  Wastewater 

Dependent  on  location,  Eureka  County  residents  are  reliant  upon 
county-provided  water  and  wastewater  services  or  on  independent  means.   The 
county  supplies  water  and  sewer  services  to  the  Town  of  Eureka  residents. 
Some  town  residents  retain  independent  well-water  supply  systems.   Major 
water  services  in  the  county  are  provided  by  the  Crescent  Valley  Water  System 
(Crescent  Valley  service  area  -  1980  population  served,  90)  and  the  Eureka 
Water  Assistance  System  (Eureka  County  service  area  -  1980  population  served, 
450).   Major  wastewater  services  are  limited  to  that  provided  by  the  Eureka 
Wastewater  Treatment  Facility  (1980  population  served,  475).   Residential  and 

2-102 


commercial  water  use   in   1982   equalled  approximately  one  million  gallons   per 
month  (L.    Fiorenzi,   Eureka  Town  Public  Works   Department,    personal   communication, 
1983). 

Due   to   a  shortage   of   water  supply  capacity,    a  moratorium  on  new 
water   connections   existed   during  the   period    1980-1982.      System  improvements 
during   the  period   1982-1983   have   resulted   in  a   cessation  of   the  moratorium 
and   include   the   addition   of    two   additional  wells.      A  300,000   gallon  storage 
tank   is   under  construction  (April,    1983)    and   the  distribution  system  is 
additionally   undergoing  partial    improvement.      Some   undersized   mains    result   in 
difficult    fire   flow  capacity  maintenance. 

The  Town  of   Eureka   sanitary   sewage   collection  system  was   constructed 
in   1981;    the  associated  sewage   treatment   lagoons   were   designed   for   a  50-year 
life,    base   population  level   of   450  with  four   percent   annual   increase. 
Evaporation  and  percolation   lagoons   represent   the   principal  wastewater 
treatment   system  components. 

Elko  County   residents,    depending  upon  location,    are   reliant   upon 
county /city   provided  water  and  wastewater   services   or  on  independent  means. 
Major  water   services   in  the   county  are   provided   by  Carlin  Municipal  Water 
(Carlin  service  area  -   1981    population  served,    2,100);   Elko   City  Water   Supply 
(Elko   service  area  -   1981    population   served,    10,000);    Spring  Creek  Utilities 
(Spring   Creek   service  area  -   1981    population  served,    1,200)    and   the  Wells 
Municipal  Water  Department   (Wells    service   area  -   1981   population   served, 
1,250).      Major  wastewater   services   are   limited   to  those  provided   by   the   Carlin 
Wastewater  Treatment  Facility   (Carlin   service   area  -   1981    population  served, 
1,400);   Elko  Wastewater  Treatment  Facility  (Elko   service  area  -   1981    population 
served,    9,600)    and   the  Wells  Wastewater  Treatment  Facility  (Wells   service 
area  -   1981    population  served,    1,250).      The  Elko   City  water  and  sanitary 
sewer  system  are  both   presently  reported  at   capacity.      The  Carlin  water  system 
reportedly  has    sufficient   capacity   to   support   a  population  of    3,000   to   4,000, 
although  storage   is   currently  near   capacity.      Water  usage   for   the   communities 
(by  average   gallons   per  person  per  day)    are   reported   by  the  Desert   Research 
Institute  (  1975)    as   follows: 


2-103 


Elko  -  385 
Mountain  City  -  220 
Carlin  -  220 
Wells  -  260 
Lamoille      -  300 

2.8.7  Solid  Waste 

Organized  solid  waste   disposal   in  Eureka   County   is   primarily  limited 
to  use    of    authorized    landfill   areas   on   BLM   lands.      The   county   operates   and 
maintains    a  40-acre   landfill   2.5  miles   north  of    the  Town  of   Eureka.      Additional 
landfills    exist   in  Diamond  Valley  (county  road   department  maintains),    Crescent 
Valley   and   Beowawe.      Collection  service   in  the   Town   of   Eureka   is   provided 
primarily  by   the   county. 

Organized   solid  waste  disposal    in  Elko   County   is   limited   to  use   of 
authorized    landfill  areas   op era ted /owned   under  the   administrative   services    of 
Elko,    Carlin,   Wells   and   the   BLM.      The   BLM  major   landfill  site   is   located 
outside   of   Jackpot   (extreme   northeastern  Elko   County)    and   serves   a  population 
of   approximately    1,000  (1981).      The   three  major   city  landfills   are   all   located 
outside   of    their   respective   cities.      The   landfill  sites   of   Carlin,   Elko,   and 
Wells   serve  a   population   of    1,300,    9,000  and    1,200,   respectively  (1981). 

2.8.8  Community  Facilities   and  Recreation 

Eureka   Town   residents   have    recently  focused   interest   in  developing 
and  encouraging  renovation   of   the   town.      This   has   prompted  multiple   projects 
directed   toward   attracting   resident   participation  and   increasing   the   level   of 
personal   satisfaction  with   life   in  the   area.      As   in  the   past,    the   County 
Courthouse   remains    the   focal   point   of    town  gatherings   dealing  with   community 
planning  and   community  affairs.      The   community   facilities    existing  within 
Eureka   County   are   predominantly  located    in  the  Town  of    Eureka.      These   include 
in   part   a   county   swimming  pool   for   summer  use  (constructed    1977),   the   Eureka 
Sentinel   Museum,   Eureka   County   Branch   Library   (1982,    service   provided  under 
contract   with  Elko  County),   Eureka  County  School   District   Library  (6,350 
volumes   held),    community   park,    school  play   area,    outdoor   tennis   court,    rodeo 

2-104 


arena  and  U.S.  Post  Office.   The  school  district  is  presently  constructing  a 
sports  complex  which  is  expected  to  provide  public  use  opportunity.   There  is 
a  Senior  Citizens  Center  which  serves  hot  lunches  daily  and  offers  transportation 
for  the  elderly  and  handicapped  to  Ely  and  Elko.   One  R.V.  park  is  located  in 
south  Eureka  and  five  motels /hotels  (approximately  50  rooms)  are  located  in 
downtown  Eureka.   There  are  two  regional/county  parks  and  30  campsites  within 
the  county.   The  Eureka  Airport  (located  6.5  miles  north  of  Eureka)  has  a 
paved  runway,  tie-down  area  and  public  phone  booth  to  serve  private  and 
charter  aircraft. 

Five  churches  are  located  in  the  area  of  the  Town  of  Eureka: 
Catholic,  Church  of  Latter  Day  Saints,  Episcopal,  Presbyterian  and  Baptist. 
More  than  a  dozen  community  service  and  special  interest  oranizations  function 
in  Eureka  Town,  as  well  as  several  federal  and  state  agency  offices  (see 
Table  2-52). 

Elko  County  has  considerably  greater  community  facilities  and 
recreational  attractions  than  Eureka  County,  mainly  due  to  overall  population 
and  the  City  of  Elko's  position  as  a  regional  trade  center.   Elko  is  located 
approximately  midway  between  Reno  (289  miles)  and  Salt  Lake  City  (237  miles) 
on  recently  completed  1-80.   The  City  of  Elko  also  serves  as  a  tourist  base 
for  campers,  hunters  and  fishermen  visiting  the  nearby  Ruby  Mountains  Scenic  Area. 
Approximately  1,300  motel  rooms  exist  in  the  city  with  a  new  150-room  casino. 
Retail  shopping  is  concentrated  in  an  active  downtown  business  district. 
While  lacking  major  department  or  discount  stores,  three  banks  and  two  savings 
associations  have  branch  offices  in  the  city.   The  city /county  airport  (under- 
going expansion)  is  served  by  United  Airlines  as  well  as  commuter,  charter 
services  and  private  aircraft  (1983). 

Also  located  in  the  City  of  Elko  is  a  new  convention  center  with  a 
926-seat  auditorium  and  six  meeting  or  exhibition  rooms.   A  county  library 
holds  approximately  39,000  volumes  and  is  supplemented  by  33,000  additional 
volumes  at  Northeastern  Nevada  Community  College.   The  City  of  Elko  also  has 
four  city  parks  and  a  city  golf  course.   The  county  maintains  and  operates 
fairgrounds  in  the  city.   The  Northeastern  Nevada  Museum  is  located  in  Elko. 
On  a  county-wide  basis,  there  are  295,000  square  feet  of  playground  areas, 

2-105 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  2-52  Federal/ State  AgenciesJ_/  and  Community  Organizations  in  the 
Town  of  Eureka 


Federal  and  State  Agencies 

The  Soil  Conservation  Service  -  Federal  USDA 

Agricultural  Stabilization  and  Conservation  Service  -  Federal  USDA 

Bureau  of  Land  Management  -  Federal  USDI 

Farmers  Home  Administration  -  Federal  USDA 

State  University  Extension  Service,  Eureka  County  -  State  Agency 

Nevada  Fish  and  Game  -  State  Agency 

Eureka  Conservation  District  -  State  Agency 

Organizations 

Masons  Iphigenia  -  Order  of  the  Eastern  Star 

Odd  Fellows  -  The  Rebekahs 

Knights  of  the  Pythias  -  Pythian  Sisters 

Veterans  of  Foreign  Wars  Post  No.  8194 

American  Legion  Auxiliary  No.  20 

Eureka  Volunteer  Fire  Department 

Emergency  Medical  Services  Council 

The  Lions  Club 

Diamond  Valley  Homemakers 

The  Historical  Society  of  Eureka 

The  Friends  of  the  Eureka  Branch  Library 

Eureka  County  Farm  Bureau 

Future  Farmers  of  America 

4-H 

Nevada  Cattlemens  Association 

The  Eureka  County  Fair  Board 

Simpson  Creek  Muzzle  Loaders 

Eureka  High  School  Rodeo  Club 

The  Eureka  County  Roping  Club 


jj   Offices  or  local  committees  in  Eureka 
Source:   A  Guide  to  Eureka  (Hoekenga,  1983). 

2-106 


885  acres   of   snow-play   areas,    11,619   square  feet   of   swimming  area,    12,495 
acres    of   fishing  lakes,    35   linear  miles    of   fishing  streams   and  seven   linear 
miles   of   hiking /walking   trails.      There   are  also   two  boat   launch   ramps,    100 
boat   slips,    four   swimming  pools   and   2,881   picnic/camping  facilities   (191 
picnic   tables,    five   group  picnic  areas,    1,218   campsites,    1,278  tent/vehicle/ 
trailer  campsites   and   385  hook-up  campsites).      Table   2-53   lists   community 
services,   outdoor  sport   facilities   and  parks   in  Elko  County. 


2-107 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table    2-53     Community   Services,   Outdoor   Sport  Facilities   and  Parks 
in  Elko  County 


Community   Services  Total 

Churches  26 

Motels/Hotels  43 

(number    of   rooms)  (1,659) 

Service   Organizations  105 

Fraternal   Organizations  59 

Theaters    (movie-includes   indoor   &   outdoor   facilities)  2 

Bowling  Establishments  3 

Museums  1 

Outdoor    Sport   Facilities 

Baseball/Softball  Fields  10 

Tennis  Courts  10 

18-Hole   Golf   Courses  2 

9-Hole   Golf  Courses  2 

Golf   Driving   Range   Positions  10 

Basketball  Courts  4 

Hand/Racquetball  Courts  1 

Horseshoe   Pits  1 

Archery  Lanes  4 

Parks 

School  Play  Areas  11 

Neighborhood/City  9 

Regional/County  3 

National  17 

Source:      Elko  County  Nevada   Profile,    1982. 


2-108 


CHAPTER  3.0 
IMPACT  ANALYSES 

3. 1   Introduction 

Implementation  of  the  proposed  action  and  alternatives  would  result  in 
significant  impacts,  both  beneficial  and  detrimental,  to  the  existing  socioeco- 
nomic environment.   Categorized  in  the  following  discussion  by  action  component 
(i.e.,  subdivision  (proposed  action)  dispersed  personnel  case  (alternative  5-B)  , 
and  the  no  action  alternative),  the  analysis  of  potential  socioeconomic  resource 
impacts  was  conducted  with  an  emphasis  on  the  following  major  criterion  of  effects 

1)  Population  -  extent  of  change  in  status;  associated 
impacts  upon  subsistence  and  non-subsistence  factors 
(e.g.,  housing  and  recreation,  respectively). 

2)  Employment  and  Income  -  extent  of  change  in  status 
relative  to  industry  type  and  income  generation 
percentage;  associated  distribution  of  incomes, 
effect  upon  employment  base  status  relative  to 
direct  employment  opportunities  and  indirect  demo- 
graphic alterations. 

3)  Housing  -  extent  of  housing  need  and  capability  of 
local  resources  to  respond;  effect  of  housing 
scenarios  potentially  developed  relative  to  public 
finance,  schools,  and  community  facilities/services; 
and  consideration  of  potential  for  "boom  town  syndrome" 
relative  to  housing  type  distribution. 

4)  Local  Government  and  Public  Finance  -  quantification 
and  distribution  effects  of  revenues/expenditures; 
budget  analyses  -  deficits,  surpluses. 

5)  Attitudes  and  Lifestyles  -  extent  of  changes  to  present 
status. 


3-1 


6)   Community  Services  and  Facilities  -  extent  of  capability 
resource  base  to  accommodate  project  demand;  potential 
for  mitigative  measurements;  service  level  adequacy. 

While  other  potential  impacts  may  be  identified,  some  of  which  are 
included  in  this  Technical  Report,  the  above  listed  points  of  emphasis 
represent  the  items  of  significant  concern  brought  forth  during  EIS  public 
scoping  meetings  and  various  agency  communications. 

Pertinent  assumptions  and  certain  guidelines  to  analysis  of  impact 
specific  to  the  proposed  action  are  listed  in  Section  3.2.   Section  3.3 
presents  a  detailed  summary  of  the  assumptions,  analysis  guidelines  and 
methodologies  utilized  to  perform  the  socioeconomic  impact  analyses.   Results 
of  the  impacts  analyses  are  presented  by  alternative  and  individual  socioeconomic 
factor  (e.g.,  Proposed  Action:   Population,  Employment  and  Income,  Housing, 
etc.)  in  Sections  3.4  through  3.6. 

Implementation  of  the  no  action  alternative  would  generally  negate 
the  occurrence  of  impacts  herein  associated  with  the  proposed  action,  but 
would  correspondingly  result  in  certain  alterations  of  the  socioeconomic 
environment. 

3.2  Assumption  and  Analysis  Guidelines 

The  determination  of  environmental  impacts  upon  the  socioeconomic 
resources  base  required  that  certain  assumptions  be  made  which  would  affect 
conclusions  regarding  significance  of  impact  and  nature  of  impact  (beneficial/ 
detrimental).   Project-specific  assumptions  used  in  the  analyses  are  presented 
below. 

1.   It  was  assumed  that  the  proposed  action  and  alternatives,  particularly 
the  employment  requirements  anticipated  by  EXXON,  described  briefly  in 
Chapter  1.0  of  this  Technical  Report  and  in  detail  in  Chapter  2.0  of  the 
EIS  and  Technical  Report  No.l  would  be  implemented  as  described.   Mitigation 
measures  described  in  the  EIS  would  be  in  place  at  time  designated  and  as 
described.   Assumptions  2  through  16  below  highlight  particularly  important 


3-2 


aspects  of  the  proposed  action  and  alternatives  described,  as  related  to 
socioeconomic  resources. 

2.  It  has  been  assumed  that  the  following  employment  requirements  would  be 
associated  with  the  proposed  action: 

The  workforce  associated  with  construction  and  operation  is  shown  in 
Figure  3-1.   The  construction  workforce  would  peak  at  approximately  940 
people  midway  through  the  three  year  construction  period.   The  operational 
workforce  would  grow  steadily  and  level  off  at  an  estimated  640  employees. 
EXXON  has  stated  that  estimating  the  distribution  of  jobs  is  extremely 
difficult  and  highly  subjective  due  to  the  dynamic  nature  of  population. 
For  the  purposes  of  worst-case  impact  analysis,  the  distribution  of 
permanent  jobs  between  local  people  and  those  that  would  migrate  to  the 
area  (non-local)  has  been  assumed  to  be  that  shown  in  Table  3-1  (the 
basis  of  assumption  being  discussed  in  Section  3.3).   Estimated  skill  mix 
of  the  operational  labor  force  is  shown  in  Table  3-2. 

3.  For  the  purposes  of  impact  analysis,  a  single  proposal  for  housing  of 
construction  workers  was  assumed  appropriate.   Specifically: 

•  A  450-unit  camp  would  be  built  near  the  mine  to  house 
single  and  single-status  personnel.   It  would  be  con- 
structed of  modular  units  for  rooms,  mess  hall/kitchen 
and  other  buildings.   The  workers  would  be  housed  one 
person  to  a  room  and  would  be  provided  three  meals /day, 
maid  service  and  a  recreational  program.   EXXON  would 
provide  for  water  supply,  sanitary  facilities,  road 
access  and  electric  power. 

•  A  415-space,  50-acre  recreational  vehicle  park  would 

be  developed  near  Eureka  or  near  the  mine/process  plant 
to  house  married  or  single  workers  who  own  mobile  homes 
or  campers.   The  park  would  include  a  sanitary  system, 
water  supply,  streets  and  off-street  parking.   At  the 
end  of  construction,  if  located  near  Eureka,  it  may  be 

3-3 


o 

CD 


O 
CD 


o 

to 

CD 


O 
© 
CD 


o 
ft 


o 

CM 
CO 


O 


O 


o 

CO 

^$m^$^ 

O 
CM 

^$i^$^$ 

O 

o 

CM 

«8«^ 

o 

CD 
0> 


(ft 

AC 
IU 

o 


o 

o 


I 


♦ 
O 
10 


o 

CM 


o 

o 


LU  -. 

»- 

QC     , 

o 

On 

Ul 

O 

-^ 

UJ 
O 

u. 

CC 

5  * 

Z 

O 

it 

c    m 

u. 

UJ 

* 

»- 

—    » 

o 

cr 

< 

?  2 

CD 

>- 
_J 

O 

5 

P 

*    0 

o 

CO 

-  -o 

z 

-j 
< 

UJ 

c    c 
•   o 

E  -» 

i° 

UJ 
0. 

o 

i- 

o 

X 

K 

Q   o 

^ 

z 

'     3 

Z>   CD 

o 

(0 


o 

in 


o 


o 
o 

<0 


o 

o 


o 
o 

CM 


o 
o 

o 


o 

o 

CO 


o 
o 

(0 


o 

o 


o 
o 

CM 


ri  o 

z 

(0 


»  UJ 


o 
a 

o 


*     S    O 


u 


o 
o 

CO 

I 

< 
tr 

LU 


O 

X 
X 

LU 

LU 
O 
CC 

O 
CO 


cu 
o 
u 
o 

<4-l 
^. 

u 
o 
13 


o 

H 


3 
^3 


CO 

0 

4J 

3 

O 

i 

CD 

c 

•f-i 

o 

o 

z 

(J 

fc 

-3 

c 

E 

CO 

3 

3 

r- 1 

0) 

CO 

-o 

o 

,3 

H 

O 

S 

-^ 

<y 

1 

a. 

en 

o 

ad 

dJ 

-— ( 

• 

X) 

u 

CO 

S 

H 

o- 


o- 


o  m 


—i  m 


m  m 


en  vo 

CM  O 


m  o 
\D  o\ 


a\  oo 


<r  oo 
o>  r^ 


<r  en 

ON  vO 


on  <r 


o  o 
oo  en 


O  CN 

-3-  -h 


m  <- 


CM  , 


QJ 

— 1 

3 

c 

— 1 

o 

0) 

CO 

c 

u 

c 

c 

0J 

c 

o 

o 

Cu 

o 

tfi 

•H 

■H 

1-1 

4-1 

c 

rH 

4-1 

s 

cu 

o 

o 

CO 

o 

o 

fc 

3 

•H 

o 

3 

•H 

p 

4-1 

o 

M 

4-1 

rH 

4J 

CO 

hJ 

4J 

CO 

J 

CO 

CO 

)-i 

1 

to 

M 

3 

o 

c 
o 

I 

c 
o 

c 

o 

& 

o 

kJ 

u 

o 

z 

u 

O 

H 

on  m 

CM 

m 


m  m 

-3-  CNl 

m 


o  oo 


m 
oo 


vO  nO 

<r  oo 
oo  en 


v£>  CM 

<•  m 
oo  en 


vO  r-«. 
-tf  oo 

00  CM 


vO  en 

-tf  — I 
00  CM 


o  o 

— «  ^T 


O  oo 
\o  m 
en 


m  vo 


<f  CM 


o 


o 
m 


o 

ON 


O 
CM 

00 


o 
m 


o 


o 

CO 


o 

On 
CM 


o 

o 

CM 


o 

On 


O 


o 
>x> 


00 


o 

On 

>> 

iH 

CD 

4J 

CO 

E 

•H 

X 

o 

t-l 

a 

a 

CO 

-^^ 

0) 

a 

o 

X 

• 

4J 

s 

0 

4-1 

• 

JS 

u 

M 

0) 

3 

O 

n 

e. 

M 

cu 

0) 
4-1 

<u 

M 

DO 

CO 

o 

3 

H      • 

O" 

O     CD 

s 

s: 

bO   O 

4-1 

C   -H 

M 

•H     CO 

3 

>    -H 

O 

•H     > 

14-1 

.H     O 

M 

II 

>.  a 

«H 

<y 

4J      00 

<t 

c   s 

E 

0)   -H 

m 

CO 

>j    co 

u 

0) 

^     3 

IV 

H 

3     O 

4-1 

o  .c 

u 

C/D 

CO 

H 

co   aj 

3 

W 

u   u 

cr 

OJ    -H 

O 

^     3 

"3 

p£ 

s-i    a* 

Sj 

§ 

o    cu 

•H 

S    >-< 

.3 

-3 

4-1 

3 

CO     o 

CO 

CO       4-1 

II 

^ 

•3     4-1 

c 

3 

0)     O 

en 

CO 

c   a 

a 

■H 

•  *■■- 

s 

<4-|      CO 

CO 

o 

a)    co 

J3 

u 

t3 

4-1 

o 

c 

CO 

<U     CO 

o 

I-l 

u 

E 

co 

CO     ^"N 

u 

0) 

en 

cu 

H     O 

3 

0)    s 

A 

•H 

C     CO 

u 

s 

3     4-1 

CO 

O     CO 

CJ 

z 

CO    i-l 

>S 

o 

CD 

M 

H 

Cu    bo 

CU 

w 

c 

4-1 

i-H    -H 

i-l 

CO    > 

3 

•  • 

O    -H 

w 

O     U 

cy 

o 

i-4   T3 

erf 

^ 

il 

33 

o 

-"  1 

o- 

c/> 

3-5 


Mt .  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  3-2   Estimated  Skill  Mix  of  Operational  Workforce 

Skill 


Number 


Management/Professional  Staff 

Clerical 

Technicians 

Shovel  Operators 

Heavy  Equipment  Operators 

Drillers /Blasters 

Mechanics 

Welders 

Electricians 

Machinists 

Millwrights 

Process  Operators 

Other 

Total 


130 
34 
39 
16 

127 
14 

104 
18 
20 
4 
28 
53 
53 

640 


SOURCE:   EXXON  Minerals  Company 


3-6 


converted  to  a  permanent  210-lot  mobile  home 
subdivision  to  house  operational  workers. 

•  Limited  number  of  hotel/motel  rooms  in  Elko  or 
Eureka  may  be  retained  to  supplement  housing 
provisions . 

The  following  factors  were  considered  by  EXXON  to  be  appropriate 
for  defining  the  general  criteria  of  construction  housing:  1)  vacancy  rates, 
reportedly  low,  2)  overlap  of  operating  and  construction  jobs  is  such  that 
permanent  housing  cannot  be  prematurely  built  to  temporarily  house  construction 
workers,  3)  short  duration  and  remote  location  is  likely  to  attract  a  large 
number  of  single  workers,  and  4)  a  desire  to  minimize  disruption  to  existing 
communities  . 

4.   For  the  purposes  of  impact  analysis,  two  alternatives,  decentralized  work- 
force (Case  5-B)  and  an  EXXON-assisted  subdivision  (proposed  action,  Case 
5-A)  have  been  assumed  appropriate.   The  proposed  action  and  alternative 
have  been  chosen  in  keeping  with  the  CEQ  guidelines  and  allow  for  a  "worst- 
case  analysis."  This  "worst-case  analysis"  brackets  impacts  in  that 
opposite,  extreme  situations,  i.e.,  maximizing  projected  impacts  to  Eureka 
versus  maximizing  project  impacts  to  other  communities,  can  be  evaluated. 

The  actual  housing  development  scenario  would  lie  somewhere  between  the 
two  alternatives  identified,  and  the  socioeconomic  impacts  would  be  less 
than  those  presented  in  this  Chapter. 

(In  order  to  avoid  undesirable  speculative  purchase  of  real  estate  and 
disruption  of  existing  communities  in  the  Mt .  Hope  area,  care  has  been 
taken  to  avoid  showing  potential  locations  of  subdivision  sites.   This 
omission  does  not  affect  the  ability  to  perform  an  accurate  socioeconomic 
impact  analyses). 

•  Details  of  Proposed  Permanent  Housing.   Under  the  proposed 
action,  EXXON  would  assist  in  the  development  of  a  subdivi- 
sion.  The  subdivision  housing  would  be  available  on  a 


3-7 


free  choice  basis  to  employees.   The  subdivision  may  be 
located  near  the  mine/process  plant  or  the  Town  of 
Eureka. 

This  subdivision  would  require  approximately  150  acres 
of  land  (200  acres  if  the  415  unit  RV  park  previously 
discussed  is  included).   Private  ownership  of  the  land 
required  has  been  assumed.   Single  family  dwellings, 
multifamily  dwellings  and  mobile  home  lots  would  be 
provided  in  proportion  to  anticipated  demand  from  non- 
local workers.   It  has  been  assumed  on  the  basis  of  EXXON 
estimations  that  the  mix  of  unit  types  would  be  approximately 
equal  to  the  mix  of  net  housing  additions  in  Eureka  and 
Elko  counties  over  the  period  1970-1980.   During  that 
period,  single  family  dwellings  accounted  for  32  percent. 
Mobile  homes  represented  the  balance,  or  44  percent,  of  net 
housing  additions. 

The  construction  of  a  variety  of  single  family  housing 
sizes,  types  and  styles  has  been  assumed  on  the  basis 
of  EXXON  plans  to  date.   Multifamily  units  have  been 
assumed  to  be  garden  style  apartments  of  modular  con- 
struction, including  studio,  1,  2  and  3  bedroom  units. 
Consistent  with  county  requirements,  the  new  subdivision 
would  include  adequate  parkland  dedication  and  improve- 
ments.  If  sufficient  retail  services  have  not  been 
conveniently  provided  by  others,  it  has  been  assumed 
per  EXXON  plans  that  the  new  subdivision  would  also 
include  land  for  10,000  to  20,000  square  feet  of  retail 
construction  to  meet  residents'  needs.   The  space  pro- 
vided would  be  adequate  for  such  uses  as  a  small  grocery 
store,  laundromat,  hair  stylist,  dry  cleaner,  variety 
store,  auto  service,  etc. 

•   Details  of  the  Decentralized  Workforce  Housing  Scenario. 

Under  this  alternative,  the  decentralized  workforce  housing 


3-8 


scenario,  it  has  been  assumed  that  non-local  workers 
would  distribute  themselves  among  the  existing  com- 
munities of  Eureka,  Carlin  and  Elko  as  fits  their 
individual  desires  (See  Section  3.4  for  basis  of 
assumption).   For  the  purposes  of  impact  analysis,  the 
distribution  of  the  non-local  permanent  workforce  (total 
525  employees)  has  been  assumed  to  be  the  following: 
356  employees  locating  with  the  Town  of  Eureka  and 
vicinity,  128  employees  locating  in  Elko  City,  and 
41  employees  residing  in  Carlin.   This  alternative 
does  not  involve  consideration  of  an  EXXON-assisted 
subdivision. 

Several  specific  assumptions  related  to  project  plans  and  used  in 
the  evaluation  and  analysis  of  potential  socioeconomic  resource  impacts  are 
discussed  in  the  following  section. 

3.3  Methods  of  Analysis 

3.3.1   Introduction 

In  the  issuance  of  a  forecast  of  any  sort  there  are  a  series  of 
assumptions  and  constant  factors  which  are  utilized  upon  which  the  forecast 
is  based  (e.g.,  for  the  socioeconomic  and  fiscal  impact  analysis  of  the 
proposed  action,  a  primary  factor  was  the  projection  of  populations  of  Eureka 
County  and  its  environs  approximately  fifty  years  into  the  future) .   The  fore- 
casting of  socioeconomic  conditions,  with  or  without  the  consideration  of  a 
major  contributory  factor  such  as  that  represented  by  the  proposed  action, 
particularly  relies  upon  the  establishment  of  certain  initial  assumptions. 
Additionally,  the  establishment  of  assumptions  is  particularly  unique  in  the 
field  of  socioeconomic  concerns  in  that  the  characterizing  components  of  the 
baseline,  e.g.,  population  levels  and  distribution  (demographics),  housing, 
income,  employment,  etc.,  are  especially  dynamic.   Frequently,  the  data  base 
relevant  to  status-quo  lags  the  present  year  by  two,  three  or  more  years, 
particularly  in  areas  undergoing  limited  censusing. 


3-9 


On  the  basis  of  the  assumptions  initially  established  for  analytical 
purposes  and  the  characterization  of  the  status  quo,  a  mode  of  analysis  must 
be  selected  to  suit  the  objectives  of  evaluation.   Whereas,  a  particular 
study  effort  may  be  fulfilled  with  optimistic  projection  methodologies,  a 
conservative  method  of  analysis  best  suits  an  EIS  evaluation  to  assure  an 
objective,  if  not  pessimistic,  analysis,   whichever  methodology  of  analysis 
is  eventually  selected  for  implementation,  the  evaluation  of  socioeconomic 
projections  must  be  accompanied  with  a  clear  understanding  of  the  basis  of 
the  projections,  conservative  or  optimistic. 

As  such,  the  following  presents  the  basis  of  assumptions  relevant 
to  the  individual  impact  projections.   The  detailed  discussion  is  justified 
in  that  the  basis  of  assumptions  are  unique  to  the  Eureka  County  socioeconomic 
environ,  most  particularly  a  result  of  updated  data  and  comparisons  with 
existing  projections  (e.g. ,  HDR,  1980;  Bureau  of  Business  and  Economic 
Research,  UNR)  which  resulted  in  a  determination  that  the  unique  projections 
were  required  to  adequately  assess  current  status  quo  relative  to  potential 
impact. 

It  should  be  noted  that  although  the  discussion  of  assumptions 
additionally  includes  the  reporting  of  some  of  the  results  led  to  by  incor- 
poration of  the  assumptions  into  the  analysis,  the  results  of  the  analyses 
conducted  are  individually  presented  by  socioeconomic  component  and  alternative 
in  Sections  3.4  through  3.6 

3.3.2  Assumptions 

A  special   note   of    importance  must   be   defined   regarding   all   assumptions 
and   results    of   the    socioeconomic   impact   analysis.      Although   project   timing 
remains    uncertain,   a   decision  was  made    to   base   the   analysis   on  a   third  quarter, 
1984   project   start-up  date   in  order   to    limit   the      degree   of   analytical   extra- 
polation from  current   year   data  which  would   be    required   if   project    start-up 
were   set   at   a    later   date   (i.e.,    1988,    1990,   etc.).      Excessive   extrapolation 
from  the   data   base  years    available   (for   the  most   part    1980-1982)    would   diminish 
accuracy   of    projections.      It  must   be   stated   that    the    1984   basis    of    project 
start-up   is   only  an  arbitrary  establishment   of   date   and   that   EXXON  has    expressed 


3-10 


no  specific  date  for  start-up  operations.   All  costs  are  expressed  in  1982 
dollars. 

3.3.2.1   Population  -  Housing 

As  previously  mentioned  for  example  purposes,  a  primary  factor  in 
analysis  of  socioeconomic  conditions  was  the  projection  of  Eureka  County  popu- 
lation approximately  50  years  into  the  future.   As  will  be  described  in  the 
latter  part  of  this  subsection,  the  problem  was  essentially  divided  into  two 
parts:   1)  populations  directly  hired  by  the  mine  and  process  plant  operations; 
and,  2)  secondary  populations  produced  as  a  result  of  the  increase  in  economic 
activity  associated  with  the  mining  activity.   The  importance  of  the  population 
projections  is  immediately  evident  since  nearly  all  other  segments  of  the 
impact  forecasts  are  based  on  the  expected  population  fluctuations  and  distri- 
butions.  Nearly  all  revenues  and  expenditures  are  based  solely  on  population 
with  the  exception  of  revenues  derived  directly  from  the  mine.   Consequently, 
all  considerations  of  housing,  school  rooms,  streets,  hospitals,  public  ser- 
vices, and  available  water  supplies  relate  to  the  original  population  forecast. 

The  relationship  between  the  projected  population  and  other  elements 
of  the  forecast  was  derived  by  reviewing  the  past  records  and  budgets  of 
entities  at  the  local  and  regional  levels.   In  addition,  it  was  also  necessary 
to  compare  the  influence  of  other  similar  economic  developments  to  gain  an 
insight  into  the  impact  of  the  proposed  action  development  on  the  local  popu- 
lations.  The  comparison  was  also  helpful  in  assessing  any  planning  activity, 
or  lack  thereof,  that  may  have  been  associated  with  the  new  development. 

Once  population  projections  and  related  elements  were  fixed,  the 
next  crucial  step  involved  choosing  an  analysis  which  best  represented  the 
type  and  quantity  of  data  that  had  been  gathered.   There  is  no  one  analysis 
or  method  which  is  particularly  better  than  another  in  every  case.   In  some 
instances,  simple  comparisons  and  linear  projections  may  be  just  as  effective 
as  more  complex  statistical  routines  which  may  tend  to  obscure  a  relatively 
obvious  observation.   The  analyses  conducted  for  this  EIS  effort  utilized  a 
combination  of  sources  and  methods  which  were  designed  to  produce  results  as 
accurately  and  objectively  as  possible. 


3-11 


Mine/Process   Plant   Employment.      The  manpower   requirements   during   the   start-up 
phase   of   the  mine  were  fixed  at   940  construction  workers   and  640   operations 
employees.      Non-local   hires   among   these  groups  were  fixed  at   90  percent   of 
construction   employment   (846   persons)    and   82   percent    of   operations    employees 
(525  persons).      The   high   percent    of    non-local   (living   beyond   a   90  mile   driving 
distance    from  Mt.    Hope  and   requiring  housing   provisions)    was    established   by 
review  of    the   relatively  low  labor   force   available   in  Eureka   County,    the 
labor  skill   requirements   established   by   project   design,   and   a   limiting   of 
reliance  upon   other   area  mining   labor  (i.e.,    present   employed   mining  personnel 
would    generally  not    exchange   place   of   employment   as  EXXON  does   not   anticipate 
significant   differentials    in  employment    benefit    relative    to   labor   income 
(EXXON  EIS   Team,    personal   communication,    1983)).      Peak  employment    for   the 
construction  workers    occurred   in   the   period   between   the   second   quarter  of 
1985  through  the   first   quarter   of    1986  and   then  declined   to  none   by  the   end 
of    the    first   quarter   of    1987   (Figure   3-1).      A  maximum  combined   employment 
level    of    1,410  employees   was    projected   for  the   first  quarter   of   year   3  with   a 
steady  decline   thereafter   to   a   stable   640  operations   personnel   by   the   second 
quarter   of   year  4. 

The  household  populations    of    construction  workers   of    non-local 
origin  were    limited   by  the   expected   employment    of   50  percent    of    their   number 
as   single  men  or  men  accepting   single    status   (EXXON  Minerals   Company  and   WRC 
EIS   Teams   estimation).      The   remaining  423  construction  workers  with  dependents 
were   assumed   to  entail   a   total   married   population  of    1,309   of  which   20  percent 
or  262  were   considered   to   be    of    school   age   at   the   peak  level    of    employment 
(School   age   of    20  percent   consistent  with  historic   data,   Chapter  2.0).      It 
was   assumed   that   there  would   be    1.1   workers   per  houshold  (e.g.,   husband/wife, 
parent /child,   etc.   housing   employment   combinations),    resulting   in  a   total 
household   demand   of   385  units   with  3.4   persons   per  household. 

The  household  populations    of    operations   personnel    of    non-local 
origin  were    limited   by  the   expected   employment    of   20   percent    of   their   number 
as    single   persons   (EXXON  Minerals   Company  and   WRC  EIS  Team  estimation).      The 
remaining  80   percent   with  dependents  were   expected   to  have   1.3  persons    per 
family  which  were  workers,    resulting   in  a   total   of   married   personnel   of    420 
within  323  households.      For   this   classification,    there  would   be   3.5   persons 


3-12 


per  household  for  a   total    of    1,131   persons    considered   married  with  dependents. 
The   school   age   children   for  this   group  were   fixed  at   20  percent   or  226   total 
school   age    children. 

The   total   number   of    required   households,    for  both  single   persons 
and   married   personnel   established   the   relative   level   of   demand   for   housing 
among   the   operations    personnel.      Their   further   classification  by  EXXON  project 
planners,    according   to   professional   or   labor   categories,    identified   the 
relative   kind   of   housing   (i.e.,    single   family,    apartment,    etc.)    demand   by 
type  which  was   generalized   in   the    following   distributions:      24   percent    single 
family,    32   percent   apartment    and   44   percent  mobile   home.      This   breakdown  was 
applied   to  all  locations    at  which  mine/process   plant   personnel   might   seek   to 
live,   including  the   proposed  action  subdivision. 

Generated   Populations   and  Employment.      Regional   spending   by  construction  and 
operations    personnel    of    the  mine/process   plant  was   expected   to   generate   new 
employment   (Non-EXXON   businesses)    and   induce   non-local   job   seekers    to  enter 
local    communities.      The   amount   of   generated   employment  was   calculated    to 
correspond   to   the   spending  habits   of    the  mine/process   plant   personnel   stated 
below  as   percentages   of   generated   employment    relative    to  mine/process   plant 
employment. 

Single  Married 

Professional  Local  10.0  20.0 

Professional   Non-local  12.5  25.0 

Labor  Local  5.0  10.0 

Labor  Non-local  7.5  15.0 

The  maximum  levels    of    employment   generated   by  construction  workers 
would   be   expected   to   occur   in   the   period   between   the   third  quarter   of   year   2 
and  the  first   quarter   of   year  3  when   157   persons   of  local   origin  were   employed, 
Peak  levels    of   generated   employment,    arising  from  operations    personnel,   was 
fixed  at   230   persons   which  would   occur   during  the    last    two  quarters    of    1987. 
The   combined   peak  of    299  persons    in  generated   secondary  employment  would   be 
expected    to  occur   in  the   second  quarter    of    year   3.      In  this   same  quarter, 
combined   populations    of    construction,    operations    and   generated   personnel  would 


3-13 


reach   the  maximum  level   of    3,247   persons    in  all  households. 

The   projection  of   generated  secondary  employment,   as   described 
above,   included  the   effects   of    local  hires   for  construction  and   operations, 
as  well   as   those   of   the   non-local   employees.      Local  hires,   therefore, 
contributed   to   generated   secondary  employment,   and   to   the   demand   for  housing 
occasioned   by   generated   employment;    however,    local  hires   did   not   affect   the 
level    of   demand   for  housing.      Generated   populations    arose   ( as    a   percentage    of 
mine/process   plant   and   construction  personnel)    in   the  quarter   following   the 
trigger  level   of  mine/process   plant   and   construction  personnel.      That    is,    as 
each  quarter   produced   a  new  higher   level    of   direct   hires,    it  was   in   the 
following   quarter   that   new  numbers    of    secondarily  employed   arose.      Moreover, 
as   they  rose,   their   numbers   were   subject    to   a    two  quarter   rolling   average    of 
the  preceding   and  present   quarter. 

This   slower   initial    response,   and   subsequent   slower  phase-out    response 
as   construction  activities   subside,    was   consistent  with  the   time   involved   in 
absorbing   locally  unemployed   labor   and   attracting   the   non-local   labor  pool 
initially  and  with   allowing  the   peak   number   of   construction  workers    to   slowly 
diminish  as    construction  activity   terminated.      The   non-coincident   peaks   of 
construction  and  mine/process   plant   employment    therefore,   produce  generated 
secondary  employment    of   the   following  order: 


Year  2                                Year  3  Year  4 

Quarter 1234            1234  123 

Percent  of  Generated  Employment 

Construction        63   92   100  100  100   84   47   15  7    3    0 

Direct  Hire 

Professional       15   35   50   61  73   81   85   92  100  100  100 

Labor              4   15   29   44  58   68   73   83  95  100  100 


3-14 


The  locational  distributions  of  generated  secondary  employment  were 
estimated  to  correspond  as  follows:   7  5  percent  to  the  area  of  residence  of 
the  direct  hire  and  25  percent  to  the  nearest  large  town.   This  distribution 
was  intended  to  reflect  the  place  and  amount  of  spending  by  the  direct  hire. 
For  example,  if  located  in  Eureka,  75  percent  of  the  spending  would  take 
place  in  Eureka  and  25  percent  in  Elko,  causing  a  subsequent  25  percent 
increase  in  secondary  employment  in  Elko  and  a  75  percent  distribution  in 
Eureka. 

Housing  Demands.   On  the  construction  site,  during  initial  development  (years 
1  and  2)  of  the  mine/process  plant  (proposed  action  or  Alternate  5-B) ,  there 
would  be  a  385-unit  recreational  vehicle  (R/V)  park  to  house  married  members 
of  the  construction  crew  and  a  423-unit  man  camp  which  would  house  approximately 
50  percent  of  the  total  construction  employees  hired  on  single  status.   The 
estimated  value  of  the  R/V  park  was  set  at  $2.4  million  or  $6,234  per  unit. 
The  man  camp  was  valued  at  $7  million  or  $16,548  per  unit.   A  local  Eureka 
County  ad  valorem  tax  rate  of  .00748/dollar  was  applied  to  each  type  of 
property  at  quarterly  rates  of  ,00187/dollar  through  the  12  quarter  start-up 
period,  based  on  the  number  of  units  occupied  and  assuming  the  construction 
of  the  facilities  occurred  on  an  as  needed  basis.   As  construction  activity 
declines  and  living  units  vacated,  ad  valorem  taxes  were  continued  through 
the  first  quarter  of  year  3  at  full  value  which  was  computed  at  35  percent  of 
assessed  value  multiplied  by  the  tax  rate.   The  tax  was  discontinued  in  the 
second  quarter  of  year  3  as  a  result  of  the  presumed  disposal  of  the  units  by 
sale,  grant  or  conversion  to  another  use.   (It  should  be  noted  that  the 
living  units  could  be  expected  to  continue  generating  revenues  beyond  year  3 
depending  on  their  disposition.) 

Mine/process  plant  operations  and  generated  employee  housing  demands 
were  first  calculated  by  the  numbers  of  families  (including  single  employees) 
stated  as  households;  then  by  geographic  location  under  the  proposed  action 
Case  5-A  and  the  Decentralized  Workforce  Case  5-B;  and  finally  according  to 
the  nature  of  their  anticipated  demands  for  single  family  units,  apartments 
or  mobile  homes.   The  housing  distribution  was  projected  on  the  basis  of 
historical  data  at  24  percent  single  family,  32  percent  apartments  and  44 
percent  mobile  homes  for  all  locations.   Using  the  respective  market  values 

3-15 


of    $75,000,    $35,000  and    $35,000  (WRC  EIS  Team  estimation  of   pricing);    35  percent 
of   assessed  value;    and   the  ad   valorem  tax   rates   of    . 00748/dollar  for  Eureka 
and    .01176/dollar  for  Elko,    total   tax  revenues  were   calculated   annually  as 
incurred.      The  quarterly  rates   and   revenues  were  taken  at   one-fourth   the 
annual   level.      At   the   time  when   the   ad   valorem  revenues  were   introduced   into 
the   additive   sums    of   all   taxes    paid,   they  were   lagged   one  year  in  order   to 
reflect    the   actual   collection  dates  most   accurately.      The   households    included 
in  the  ad   valorem  property   tax   figures  were   those   of    all  non-local  mine/process 
plant   operations   employees   and    generated  secondary  employees   according   to 
household   location. 

3.3.2.2     Revenues   -  Expenditures 

Mine/Process  Plant  Tax  Revenues.  Tax  revenues  generated  directly  by  the 
mine/process  plant  activities  included  sales  taxes  paid  on  equipment  and 
supplies  during  construction  and  operations  between  year  1  and  the  year  35; 
ad  valorem  taxes  paid  on  the  mine/process  plant  property  itself;  and  net 
proceeds  paid  throughout  the  same  period.  Extended  forecasts  beyond  the 
35-year  period  (1984-2018)  were  set  at  the  year  35  levels  and  not  subjected 
to   further   extrapolation. 

The   sales   tax  base  was  derived   annually  by  multiplying   annual   expen- 
ditures  by   5.75  percent    to   obtain   total  sales   taxes  and  then  reduced  thereafter 
to  3.75  percent   to  yield   locally  distributed  sales   taxes.      The   two  (2)    percent 
differential   represented   the   amount   that  would   be   allocated   to   the   State 
General   Fund  under   1983   statutes.      The   remaining   3.75  percent   produced   a   local 
sales   tax  distribution  as    follows: 

Total  65.22   Percent  03.75   Percent 

School   Support  26.09  1.50 

CCRT  8.695  .50 

Suppl.    CCRT  30.435  1.75 

This   distribution  was   in  accordance  with  existing   legislative   authori- 
zations.     Quarterly  and   annual   amounts    of   sales   taxes    paid   on   the   5.75   percent 


3-16 


rate  were  subjected  to  the  reduction  and  distributions  indicated  in  the  left- 
hand  column  above.   The  annual  amount  of  such  sales  tax  revenues  varied  only 
as  the  expenditure  levels  of  the  mine/process  plant  itself  varied  (the  tax 
rate  and  distribution  was  fixed).   Sales  taxes  paid  by  mine/process  plant 
employees  were  not  included  in  these  figures  but  were  calculated  separately. 

Ad  valorem  property  taxes  paid  on  the  value  of  the  mine/process  plant 
were  specific  to  the  property  of  the  mine/process  plant,  as  the  sum  of  tangible 
investments  less  sales  tax  on  the  property  plus  the  land  costs.   These  do 
not,  however,  include  the  R/V  park  or  the  work  camp  properties  established 
and  operated  during  the  construction  phase,  nor  any  other  properties.   Taken 
at  35  percent  of  the  assessed  value  of  the  property  base  identified  in  millions 
of  dollars  of  market  value,  the  Eureka  County  tax  rate  of  .00748/dollar  was 
applied  to  yield  annual  tax  revenue  amounts  which  varied  only  as  the  property 
base  changed.   The  property  base  tended  to  rise  in  value  throughout  the 
period  in  the  five  year  intervals  used  for  estimates.   The  local  distribution 
of  these  tax  revenues  followed  the  same  pattern  as  those  of  the  revenues 
generated  by  the  net  proceeds  tax  and  was  summed  with  that  tax  as  an  annual 
amount  for  simultaneous  treatment. 

The  ad  valorem  tax  applied  to  net  proceeds  falls  upon  estimated  net 
proceeds  (or  net  revenue)  less  production  costs  of  the  mining,  milling, 
stripping  and  other  costs  of  local  overhead  and  depreciation.   The  Eureka 
County  tax  rate  of  .00748/dollar  was  applied  directly  to  the  balance  achieved 
by  subtracting  costs  from  the  estimated  net  proceeds  on  an  annual  basis.   The 
local  distribution  of  the  combined  net  proceeds  tax  and  mine/process  plant 
property  tax  was  distributed  as  follows: 


Division 

Percent 

School  Support 

66.66 

County 

32.37 

Towns 

0.137 

Special  Districts 

0.833 

The  estimated  annual  values  of  all  mine/process  plant  taxes  paid  were 
derived  from  a  property  base  and  net  proceeds  estimate  fixed  in  constant  1982 

3-17 


dollar  values  and  provided  WRC  by  EXXON.  Tax  revenues  accruing  to  special 
districts  out  of  the  ad  valorem  tax  levy  did  not  appear  in  any  form  on  the 
forecasts.      The  allocation  has,   however,   been  shown  for  informational   purposes. 

Personal   Tax  Computations.      Sales   taxes,    based   on   the   spending  patterns    of 
mine/process   plant   employees   and   the  generated   secondarily  employed   for   the 
initial  35  year   period,   were   calculated  at   $66.95   per  capita   of   household 
populations   (see  Table   3-27).      Using   an  after  federal-tax  net   income   of    70 
percent   and  85   percent   (conservative)    respectively,   a   total  net   disposable 
income   of    $7,577,100  was  derived.      Therefore,    a  mine/process   plant   population 
of   1,236  employees   yielded   total   annual  sales   taxes    of   $82,746  or   $66.95   per 
capita.      It  was   assumed    that   incomes   and   spending   levels   on  fifteen  different 
normal   household  items  would  yield,   annually,   the   same   tax   levies    for  the 
generated   secondarily  employed   as   it  would  for  the  direct   hire  mine/process 
plant    operations    employees.      Lastly,   it  was    assumed   that   combined  spending 
would  yield  annual   tax   revenues   of    $118,830  at   the  stabilized  population 
levels   that  would   be   expected   to   prevail   from  year   4   throughout   the   forecast 
period.      It   should  be   noted   that   only  six  of    the   fifteen  household  expenditure 
items   targeted  incurred  a  sales   tax  since   housing,    electricity,   water,   heating, 
food,    savings,   medical    care,   recreation  and   insurance   are   exempt   from  sales 
taxes.      In  addition,   the   state   sales   tax  applied   to  only   two   of   the   remaining 
six   items.      Clothing  and  household  items   (furnishings   etc.)    were   taxed   at   a 
3.75  percent   rate  in  determining   total  sales   taxes. 

Other  sales    taxes  were   specific   to   gasoline,    cigarettes,    liquor  and 
beer.      These   levies   were  independent    of   the   state   sales   tax  and  were   established 
at   the  following   levels: 


Gasoline 
Cigarettes 
L  iq  uo  r 
Beer 


$0.105/gallon 
$0.100/pack 
$2.05/gallon 
$0.06/gallon 


3-18 


Personal  Expenditures.      Expenditures   on  clothing  were   estimated   at   five 
percent    of   the  normal   after  tax   disposable   income,   or   $14,207  ($378,855  x 
0.0375)    for  the  640  operations   workers'    households.      Household  expenditures 
were   estimated   at   four   percent    of   disposable   income,   or   $11,366  ($303,384  x 
0.0375)    for  the  640  operations  workers'    households.      These   tax  payments    repre- 
sented  17.17   percent   and   13.73  percent   respectively,    of   the   total  sales   taxes 
paid   annually  by   these  employees. 

Expenditures   on  gasoline,    liquor  and   beer  were   calculated   separately 
from  the   budget   and   then  were   entered   later  as    percentages   and   amounts   as   the 
rationale   for  these  expenditures  was   explained.      The   rationale  used   the 
following   logic.      The   total    expenditure    for   gasoline  was   calculated    to   be 
$530,397  based   on  the   consumption  of    407,998  gallons   of  gas   at   a  price   of 
$1.30  per   gallon  and   a   tax  rate   of   $0,105   per   gallon.      This   figure  was   derived 
by  assuming   that   each  employee  would   consume   1.93  gallons   per  day   per  330  day 
work   year.      The   1.93   gallons   was   determined   by  assuming  a   37-mile   average 
each  workday  using   a  19.17   average   mile  per  gallon.      Liquor  expenditures 
totaled   $75,771   or  one   percent   of   disposable   income.      This    expenditure  was 
equivalent    to   a   total   consumption  of   1,263  gallons   at   a  base  price   of    $60.00 
per   gallon.      Individual   consumption  was   estimated  at   0.0054   gallons    per  worker 
per  day   among   640  workers.      At   the   tax   rate   of    $2.05  per  gallon,    the   tax 
yield  was   $2,589  annually.      The   expenditures    for   beer  were   calculated   to  be 
$151,542  annually.      This   figure  was  derived   on  the   basis   of   640  workers 
consuming  0.162   gallons   of   beer   per   day   for  an  annual   total   of   37,885   gallons. 
Using   the   tax   rate  of    $0.06  per  gallon,    the   total   tax   revenues  were   calculated 
to   be   $2,273  annually.      The   calculations    for   cigarette   consumption  were 
similar.      Assuming   40.5   percent   of    the   operations   workers    smoked   one   pack  of 
cigarettes    per  day,   then  the   total    number   of   packs   smoked  annually  was 
calculated   at   94,714   packs.      At   a   tax   rate   of    $0.10  per  pack,    the   annual   tax 
yield   from  cigarette    smoking  was   determined   to  be  $9,471. 

Quarterly  rates    of    the   sales    tax   revenues   derived   from  personal   spending 
were   also   extended   to   the  quarterly   forecasts    of   construction  workers,    as 
well   as    to   the   arriving   mine/process   plant   employees,    and   the   generated 
secondarily  employed.      Local  hires   were    excluded   from  the  quarterly  and 
annual   sales    tax  forecasts,    since   their   former   employments  were   unknown 


3-19 


and   consequently  may  not    contribute   to   the   incremental   tax   revenues   being 
calculated. 

The  distribution  of   state   sales   taxes   and   the   specific   taxes   cited 
were   assumed  as    follows: 

(1)  State   Sales   Tax   5.75  percent 

General   Fund  34.78  percent   (2.0  of    5.75) 

School   Support  26.09  percent   (1.5   of   5.75) 
CCRT  8.7      percent   (0.5   of    5.75) 

Suppl.    CCRT  30.43   percent   (1.75   of   5.75) 

(2)  Gasoline   Tax    $0.105/gallon 

State   Highway  Fund  7  6.20   percent 

County  Roads/Streets  23.80  percent 

(3)  Cigarette  Tax    $0.10/pack 

County /City   Support  100.00  percent 

(4)  Liquor/Beer  Tax    $2.05   &   $0.06  gallon 

County  (if   no   city)  100.00  percent 

County   (if   city)  pro  rata 

Annual   Forecasts.      For   the   seven  local   jurisdictions   receiving  tax  shares 
(Eureka   and  Elko   Counties,    Eureka   and  Elko   School  Districts   and   Eureka,    Elko 
and  Carlin  municipalities) ,   the   calculated   residential   property  and  personal 
sales   tax   revenues  were  distributed   according   to  legislated   authorizations, 
and  place   of   incidence   of   the   tax.      That   is,   the   distribution   of    personal 
residences   and   spending   between  Elko   and  Eureka  jurisdictions,    generally 
identified  the   region  (e.g.      County)    to   receive   the   revenue,    while   the   internal 
distribution  of    the   tax   revenue  was   predetermined,    by  law,    between  the   county, 
school   district   and   the   cities   and/or   towns.      These   two   taxes   appear   in   the 
calculated   revenue   accounts    of   each  jurisdiction. 

The   remaining   taxes   on  mine/process   plant   property,    sales    tax   on  mine/ 
process    plant    expenditures    for   supplies   and   equipment   and   the   net    proceeds   tax 

3-20 


were  placed   in  three  accounts:      Eureka   County,   Eureka   School  District   and 
Eureka  Town.      The   sum  of   these   taxes    for   all   jurisdictions  was   taken   for 
each   of    the   twelve   quarterly  periods   of    start-up  and  for  the  period  of   year  4 
through   year  50  annually. 

Expenditures   forecasted   for  the   seven  jurisdictions  were   per  capita 
rates  multiplied   by  annual   levels    of    population.      The   per  capita   rates  were 
applied   as   follows: 

Eureka  Rate 

Town  (Eureka)  $     115.56 

County  $      795.86 

School   District  $5,687.33* 

Elko  Rate 

Town  (Elko)  $      257.77 

County  $     158.13 

School   District  $2,222.36* 

Town  (Carlin)  $      282.04 

*per  student,    forecast   as    twenty   percent    of   new  added   populations 

In  summary,    all  expenditures  were  derived  from  the  aforementioned 
population  assumptions   and  per  capita   expenditure   rates.      In  addition,   the 
needs    of    each   community   and   especially   the  Town  of   Eureka,    for  typical   or 
required   community   services   such  as   ambulances,    police,    recreation,    churches, 
motels   and  fire  protection  were  derived  using   the  population  projections   and 
historical   precedents   established   both  locally  and   regionally   for  each   service, 
The   same   general   logic  was   applied   to   the   need   for  new  classroom  space.      For 
classroom  size,   a  22  student   class   was   considered   average   in  determining  the 
number   of    new  classrooms  which  would   be   needed   in  each   case.      Therefore,    the 
number   of   classrooms   was   derived   by  dividing  the    number   of   new  students   by  22 
with  an  allowance   for  additional   support   space   such   as   laboratories   and 
administration   offices. 


3-21 


3.3.3  Methods  of  Fiscal  Analysis 

As  discussed  previously,  all  expenditures  were  deduced  by  multi- 
plying projected  populations  by  derived  per  capita  costs.   This  is  a  common 
method  of  analysis  for  economics  and  fiscal  impacts  and  is  quite  valid  as 
long  as  reasonable  population  projections  are  used.   On  the  other  hand, 
revenues  were  not  strictly  derived  on  a  per  capita  basis  but  rather  were 
estimated  on  the  basis  of  historical  precedent.   Historical  precedents  for 
items  of  revenue  were  arrived  at  by  inspecting  the  past  budgets  of  town, 
county  and  state  governments.   After  examining  the  budgets,  it  was  possible 
to  make  revenue  projections  which  were  based  on  specific  tax  authority  applied 
to  each  of  the  budgetary  accounts.   Obviously,  the  population  forecasts  which 
were  utilized  for  expenditures  also  came  into  play  indirectly  since  they  were 
used,  in  some  cases,  as  a  quantity,  or  portion  thereof,  paying  a  specific  tax 
or  forming  a  group  which  represented  a  specific  segment  of  the  taxable  popula- 
tion (e.g.,  a  group  of  homeowners  living  in  single  family  housing  units). 
Other  revenues,  such  as  the  Net  Proceeds  Tax,  were  computed  directly  from 
conservative  estimates  of  potential  output  against  which  the  specific  taxing 
formula  for  a  particular  tax  was  applied. 

Two  methods  of  analysis  were  used  to  prepare  the  forecasts.   The  first 
was  a  strictly  linear  analysis  in  which  expenditures  were  derived  simply  as 
the  product  of  projected  populations  (or  segments  of  populations)  and  per 
capita  costs.   This  method  of  analysis  is  especially  useful  in  comparing 
two  similar  populations  in  uniform  economic  regions  but  may  be  less  accurate 
where  there  are  large  differences  in  populations  and/or  costs.   Therefore,  a 
second  analysis  was  performed  using  the  concept  of  economies  of  scale  wherein 
increases  in  population  are  accompanied  by  decreases  in  per  capita  costs. 
The  economies  of  scale  was  thought  to  be  most  applicable  to  the  Eureka  County 
area  because  Eureka  County  itself  is  sparsely  populated  and  therefore  has  per 
capita  costs  that  are  fairly  high  when  compared  to  per  capita  costs  in  its 
more  populous  northern  neighbor,  Elko  County.   To  apply  the  economies  of 
scale  forecast  to  the  area,  a  linear  regression  analysis  was  made  of  the 
relationship  between  Eureka  County  populations  and  those  of  Mineral,  Humboldt, 
Lyon  and  Elko  Counties  for  the  period  ending  June  30,  1982.   An  identical 
analysis  was  made  of  the  Eureka  County  School  District  and  five  other  low- 

3-22 


enrollment  school  districts  using  available  1979  and  1980  data.   (The  county 
populations  included  step-wise  sizes  of  1,395,  6,286,  11,816,  15,235  and 
19,875  individuals  respectively.   Enrollment  sizes  included  classes  of  114, 
173,  190,  700,  907  and  911.) 

A  linear  regression  analysis  considers  the  relationship,  if  any, 
between  two  variables  in  the  real  world  and  enables  one  to  make  experimental 
observations  of  a  system  using  known  paired  variables  (x,y).   Essentially,  a 
linear  regression  analysis  provides  predictions  based  on  the  "average"  rela- 
tionship between  the  variables.   In  order  to  test  the  effectiveness  of  the 
regression,  a  third  value  called  the  coefficient  of  determination  or  correlation 
coefficient  (r  2),  is  generated,   the  r  2  value  lies  between  0  and  1  and 
indicates  how  closely  the  equation  resembles  the  experimental  data  (the 
closer  r  2  is  to  1  the  better  the  fit). 

In  mathematical  form,  the  linear  regression  approach  solves  the 
equation: 

y  ■  alx+aO 
where : 

£xy  -£x£y/n 

al  =    

£x^2  -  ({x)A2/n 
and 

aO  =  (£y/n)-(al£x/n) 

The  correlation  coefficient  r  2  is  defined: 


r    2  = 


[£xy-£x£y/n]'A2 


[£x'V(£x)A2/n]  [£/V <£yA/n] 


The  results  of  the  linear  regression  analysis,  as  applied  to  expenditure  per 
capita  values,  are  reported  in  Section  3.4. 


3-23 


3.3.4   Sources  of  Forecasting  Data  Base 

3.3.4.1  Introduction 

The  sources  used  in  the  creation  of  the  economics  and  fiscal  fore- 
casts originated,  for  the  most  part,  from  state  and  local  publications  and 
from  conversations  with  the  appropriate  officials  in  government.   This  section 
lists  the  sources  used  under  two  categories:   1)  References  which  included 
budget  publications,  school  enrollment  data  and  similar  information;  and  2) 
verbal  sources  which  included  personal  communications  of  information  from 
individuals  concerning  such  things  as  tax  authority,  local  budgets  and 
applications  of  tax  formulas  to  specific  cases. 

3.3.4.2  Reference  Sources  -  Published  Data 

1.  The  Executive  Budget,  FY  1983-84  and  1984-85,  Vol.  1,  State  of  Nevada. 

2.  Legislative  Appropriations  Report  61st  and  62nd  Nevada  Legislature, 
FY  1981-82,  1982-83  and  1983-84,  1984-85,  Fiscal  Analysis  Division, 
Legislative  Council  Bureau. 

3.  Auditors'  Reports,  June  30,  1982. 

4.  Research  Bulletin:   Enrollment  and  Certified  Personnel  Information, 
Vol.  25  Number  1,  March  1983.   Nevada  Department  of  Education; 
Biennial  Report  of  Selected  Data,  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction. 

5.  Biennial  Report  of  Selected  Data,  Supplement  Number  One,  Department  of 
Education,  July  1,  1978  to  June  30,  1980  inclusive,  Superintendent  of 
Public  Instruction. 

6.  1983  Eureka  County  Profile:   State  Office  of  Community  Services, 
State  of  Nevada.   Draft  Copy. 

7.  1983  White  Pine  County  Profile:   State  Office  of  Community  Services, 
State  of  Nevada.   Draft  Copy. 

8.  Socioeconomic  Technical  Discipline  Report;  Anaconda  Nevada  Moly 
Project.   Environmental  Research  and  Technology,  Fort  Collins, 
Colorado,  1980. 


3-24 


3.3.4.3   Verbal  Communication  Sources 

1.  Josephine  Couperthwaite:   Chief,  Division  of  Assessment  Standards, 
Department  of  Taxation;  State  of  Nevada;  (702)  885-4840. 
Information  provided  by  Ms.  Couperthwaite  was  used  exclusively  for 
questions  concerning  the  Net  Proceeds  Tax,  its  application,  usable 
deductions  and  formulation. 

2.  Lorraine  Wilcox:   Budget  Analyst,  Department  of  Taxation;  State  of 
Nevada;  (702)  885-4892. 

Lorraine  Wilcox  provided  a  large  quantity  of  recent  budget  information 
including  the  revenues  and  expenditures  for  Eureka  County,  Elko 
County,  Town  of  Eureka  and  Elko  City.   She  also  clarified  various 
aspects  of  these  budgets  such  as  the  derivations  of  some  revenues 
and  expenditures. 

3.  Joan  Shangle:   Clerk-Treasurer,  Eureka  County;  (702)  237-5262. 
Information  provided  by  Ms.  Shangle  was  used  for  clarification  of 
county  revenue  procedures. 

4.  Michael  Rebaleti:   Recorder-Auditor,  Eureka  County;  (702)  237-5263. 
Information  provided  by  Mr.  Rebaleti  was  used,  along  with  Joan 
Shangle  (3),  as  a  source  of  information  pertaining  to  revenue  and 
expenditure  items  in  Eureka  County. 

5.  Fred  Artus:   Deputy  Director,  Department  of  Taxation;  State  of  Nevada; 
(702)  885-4892. 

Information  provided  by  Mt.  Artus  was  utilized  to  answer  questions 
concerning  the  application  of  taxes,  such  as  the  ad  valorem  tax,  to 
specific  situations  when  the  use  of  a  particular  tax  was  not  clear. 


3-25 


3.3.5   Perspective  on  Analysis  and  Forecasting 

3.3.5.1  Introduction 

The  previous  part  of  this  methods  section  has  dealt  with  specific 
aspects  of  the  methodologies  involved  in  the  formulation  of  the  economic  and 
fiscal  impacts  of  the  Mt.  Hope  Project  in  Eureka  County,  Nevada.   This  part 
discusses  the  positive  and  negative  aspects  of  the  assumptions,  methods  and 
sources  for  the  purpose  of  presenting  a  balanced  perspective  of  the  environ- 
mental impact  statement.   It  is  hoped  that  this  discussion  will  give  the 
reader  an  appreciation  of  the  magnitude  of  the  problem  of  projecting  popula- 
tions and  economies  into  the  future  in  sparsely  inhabited  areas  having 
a  "boom  or  bust"  history. 

3.3.5.2  Discussion 

The  history  of  Eureka  County  is  typical  of  many  locales  in  the  western 
United  States  in  that  it  has  experienced  periodic  cycles  of  marked  population 
increases  followed  by  abrupt  declines  which  have  been  caused  almost  exclusively 
by  mining  industry  activity  related  to  the  availability  of  various  mineral 
resources  in  the  area.   From  the  last  century  to  the  present,  populations 
have  increased  and  decreased  on  an  irregular  basis  in  Eureka  County.   These 
peaks  and  valleys  make  population  projections  for  the  area  more  of  an  art 
than  a  science  no  matter  how  one  chooses  to  approach  the  problem.   Therefore, 
for  this  work,  the  population  trends  were  derived  very  conservatively  using 
only  actual  employees  hired  by  the  company  and  a  supporting  secondary  population 
which  was  taken  as  a  percentage  of  the  primary  work  force.   These  population 
assumptions  will  be  accurate  as  long  as  all  other  variables  that  have  been 
considered  also  remain  as  projected.   However,  reality  suggests  that  a  system 
consisting  of  a  dynamic  population  and  an  array  of  dependent  variables  will 
not  remain  constant  for  a  50  year  project  period.   For  example,  changes  in 
defense  policy  such  as  the  deployment  of  a  new  missle  system,  may  result  in 
even  larger  populations  than  those  predicted  as  would  the  development  of  another 
major  industrial  project  or  any  other  unforeseen  event.   Therefore,  there 
must  be  an  understanding  from  the  beginning  that  the  populations  projected  for 
Eureka  County  and  its  environs  are  presented  conservatively  and  honestly  using 

3-26 


the  most  reliable  information  available.   More  predictable  than  population 
but  still  subject  to  many  dependent  variables  are  the  spending  and  social 
habits  of  the  future  population.   Revenues  established  for  these  populations 
can  be  changed  rather  quickly  as  the  result  of  political  drift  (that  is  more 
liberal  or  more  conservative  government),  international  events  (such  as  war, 
embargoes  or  changes  in  foreign  governments)  or  the  domestic  economy  (depres- 
sion or  recession).   Even  so,  spending  habits  and  social  behaviors  are  likely 
to  change  more  slowly  and  be  more  predictable  for  a  given  area  than  are  popu- 
lations.  Consequently,  the  method  for  predicting  revenue  by  using  established 
spending  patterns  and  taxing  authority  is  considered  to  be  the  most  accurate 
and  most  reliable  method  available. 

It  should  be  clear  then,  that  these  predictions  are  submitted  as 
exercises  in  probability  and  the  scenarios  presented  are  considered  to  be  the 
most  probable.   The  local  sources,  both  written  and  oral,  which  have  been 
intensively  utilized  to  form  the  data  base  for  these  predictions,  represent  the 
best  available  and  indeed  are,  in  some  cases,  the  only  sources  applicable  to 
the  area.   It  is,  therefore,  intended  that  reviewers  recognize,  as  the  authors 
do,  the  limitations  and  degrees  of  certainty  of  making  predictions.   Because 
the  limitations  and  uncertainties  in  predicting  future  economic  and  fiscal 
events  have  indeed  been  recognized  by  the  analysts  and,  to  the  greatest  extent 
possible,  accounted  for  in  the  predictive  work  conducted,  the  predictions  are 
presented  with  confidence  relative  to  assessment  of  "real"  economics. 

3.4   Proposed  Action 

In  addition  to   the   on-site  development   of   mine/process  plant,    the 

proposed  action  is    to   provide  an  EXXON-assisted  subdivision  (see  Section  3.2). 

The  various   aspects   of    socioeconomic   impacts   resulting  from  this  alternative 
are   discussed  in  this   section. 

3.A.1   Employment 

3.4.1.1   Summary 

The  following  discussion  identifies  the  anticipated  employment 


3-27 


effects   of    implementing   the  proposed   action  relative   to  mine/process   plant 
development.      Section  3.4.2   evaluates   the   employment   influence  upon  population 
levels. 

Construction  on   the  mine/process   plant    complex  at  Mt.   Hope  would 
require   11   quarters   (Figure   3-1).      At   peak  employment,   construction  workers 
would  total    940,    of   whom  it   is   estimated,    for   the  purpose  of   impact   analysis, 
845  would   be  non-local  (90  percent).      Non-local  has  been  defined  as   any 
employees   who   are   expected   to   require   housing   because   of   a   commute   distance 
exceeding   90  miles.      Total    additional   household   populations,    including   depen- 
dents  of    the   incoming   non-local  workers,    would  be   1,732  persons.      This   peak 
level  would   be   sustained   during   four  quarters    of   the  mid-period   of   construction, 

Operation  of    the  Mt.   Hope   Project   would   require   the   sustained   employ- 
ment   of  640  persons   (Figure   3-1),    of   whom  it   is   estimated,    for   the   purpose   of 
impact   analysis   525  or  82   percent   of    the   total  would  be   non-local.      Operational 
employment  would   rise  more    slowly   to   the  full-complement   level  which  is 
expected   to  be   achieved   in  the   tenth  quarter  of    the    12-quarter  start-up  phase. 
Household   populations   of   direct-hire   employees   of  non-local   origin  would   be 
1,236  persons.      This   peak  would  arise   as   construction  neared   completion 
(12th  quarter)    and  would  stabilize   thereafter. 

The  highest   level   of   non-local   construction  and   operations  workers 
and  their   dependents   would  occur  in   the   seventh  quarter   of   the  start-up 
period.      Employment  would   reach   the   level   of    1,410  with  a  total  peak   popu- 
lation  of   2,642  persons. 

Secondary  employment  would  be  generated  from  the  additional   local 
spending   by  construction  and   direct-hire    operations   workforces,   including  that 
of   local   employees   recruited   to   construction  and   operations   staffing.      This 
secondary   employment   and   the   associated   dependents   are   expected   to   be    of   non- 
local   origin,    representing   net   new  employment   and   immigrant   populations. 
Total    generated    employment   was   calculated   from  a   set    of   factors    rather   than 
from  a   single  multiplier.      Analyses   indicate   that   total   secondary  employment 
generated    by  both   the   construction  and    operations   phases   combined  would   be 
387.      The  peak   employments   of    each   are   non-coincident,    and   because   generated 


3-28 


employment  would  be   lagged   one  quarter,   a   highest   quarterly  level   of    299 
would  be   expected   to  occur  (seventh  quarter). 

Combined  peak   employment   levels    of    construction,   operations   and 
secondary  employment  would   be   expected   to  occur  in  the  seventh  quarter  and 
total    1,709  new  workers   (1,410  primary  workers   plus   299  secondary  workers). 
Combined   peak   population  influx  arising  in   the   same  quarter  would   total    3,247 
additional   persons   in  the   affected   area  (2,642  primary  workers   and   dependents 
plus  605  secondary  workers   and   dependents   (see   Section  3.4.2). 

3.4.1.2      Employment   Calculations 

Scheduled  EXXON  employment,    expected   population  increases,    and 
generated  secondary  employment   and   population   details   are   summarized   on  Table 
3-3.      Employment   directly   identified   as   EXXON  payroll   based  was   estimated   and 
provided    by  EXXON.      Total   generated   employment  was   calculated   by  the  WRC  EIS 
Team  from  a   set   of   factors    rather  than  from  a   single  multiplier.      These 
factors   assert   that   spending  habits   are   different   between  single  and   married, 
professional   and   labor,    and   local   and   non-local   employees   occupied   in  the  Mt. 
Hope    construction  and  mine/process   plant   operation.      Based   on  standard  industry 
assumptions,   locally  employed   labor  would  have   the   least   secondary  employment 
multiplier  and   non-local  married  professionals  would  have   the  highest 
multiplier.      Construction  crews,   on  temporary  employment   and  on  single  status 
for  one-half    their  number,   would   take   on  a  low  local-hire  multiplier.      Secondary 
employment   generated   by  construction  would   amount    to   157   persons   and  that    of 
operations   would  amount   to   230  persons   (total   387). 

Of   the   total    1,709  new  workers   during  the   peak  employment   level   of 
construction  and   operation,    1,532  would  be   characterized   as   non-local.      The 
total    1,532  new  labor   force   addition   to   the  Eureka  County  base   labor   of 
approximately  700  in  1983  would   represent   a  significant   increase  of   220  percent 
in   base    labor   pool  (2,232   versus   700).      The   employment    of    approximately    177 
local   individuals   would   represent   an  absorption  of   as  much   as   25  percent   of 
the    1983  Eureka  County  labor   pool  (disregards   other  county    "local"  hires). 
The   significance   of   variability    in   current   Eureka   County   unemployment   rates 
(ranging   from   2.1   and  21.6   percent,    1979  and    1982,    respectively)    is   increased 


3-29 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table   3-3      Local   and  Non-local   Employment    and   Populations 


Year  1 

Year  2 

Year  3 

Year  4 

3Q    4Q 

IQ 

2Q     3Q 

4Q 

IQ 

2Q     3Q 

4Q 

IQ     2Q 

230 

50 

10 

0 

590 

640 

640 

640 

820 

690 

650 

640 

692 

570 

534 

525 

252 

222 

232 

235 

944 

7  92 

766 

760 

Employment    (Total) 

Construct.        50  400  790  940  940  940  940  650 

Operations        10  70  170  260  350  430  470  500 

Total                   60  470  960  1,200  1,290  1,370  1,410  1,150 

Non-local          54  419  853  1,061  1,135  1,200  1,233  996 

Generated            0  39  116  192  238  270  299  298 

Subtotal        54  458  969  1,253  1,373  1,470  1,532  1,294 

Population   (Non-local) 

Construct.        92  737  1,455  1,732  1,732  1,732  1,732  1,198          424            93             19               0 

Operations        21  139  335  506  680  834  910  967      1,142      1,236      1,236      1,236 

Total                 113  876  1,790  2,238  2,412  2,566  2,642  2,165      1,566      1,329      1,255      1,236 

Generated            0  69  211  359  461  536  605  615          540          505          538          548 

Total            113  945  2,001  2,597  2,873  3,102  3,247  2,780      2,106      1,834      1,793      1,784 

Source:      EXXON  Minerals  Company  and   WRC  EIS   Team 


3-30 


in  that  while  high  unemployment  would  be  offset,  the  limited  employment  base 
available  would  require  other-county  participants  in  the  Mt.  Hope  employment 
scheme.   Additionally,  the  increased  labor  attributable  to  mining  would 
significantly  increase  the  mining  sector  industrial/fiscal  influence  within 
the  region.   As  indicated  by  Tables  2-10  and  2-11,  the  mining  employment 
sector  influence  currently  approximtes  62  percent  (1981,  388  of  618  NRS  612 
employment)  and  66.7  percent  (1982,  340  of  510  NRS  612  employment)   £/.   The 
additional  Mt.  Hope  employment  (assuming  a  1982  County  base  employment  of  510 
NRS  612  and  no  transfer  of  340  mining  individuals)  would  represent  a  change 
of  mining  sector  influence  from  62  percent  to  more  than  78  percent  (1,410 
mine/process  plant  employees  plus  340  resident  mining  sector  employees  of 
total  2,219  workforce  (1,709  plus  510). 

Tables  3-4  through  3-10  list  the  calculated  characteristics  and 
assumptions  pertaining  to  the  employment  impact  anticipated  as  a  result  of 
proposed  action  and/or  alternatives  implementation. 

As  indicated  in  the  previous  discussion,  the  population  character- 
istics presented  in  this  section  have  been  utilized  as  the  basis  of  socio- 
economic impact  determination  (e.g.,  housing  demand,  population  distribution, 
fiscal  spending  requirements,  etc). 

3.4.2  Population  Impact 

3.4.2.1   Summary 

The  influence  of  the  new  employment  levels  and  populations  would  be 
experienced  by  Eureka  and  Elko  Counties,  mainly  in  the  towns  of  Elko,  Carlin 
and  Eureka.   Present  population  levels  in  these  jurisdictions  and  projections 


V   "NRS  612  employment"  refers  to  those  individuals  who  are  covered  under  the 
State's  Unemployment  Compensation  Law  NRS  612.   The  discrepancy  between 
total  estimated  employment  of  700  and  NRS  612  employment  of  618  represents 
individuals  not  covered  by  state  unemployment  compensation  arrangements. 

3-31 


09 

CJ 

•H 

4J 

00 

■H 

U 

OJ 

4-1 

O 

CO 

u 

CO 

•C 

o 

«• 

1-1 

V 

c 

c 

o 

CO 

u 

4-1 

CD 

O 

EL, 

(U 

*n 

c 

o 

o 

u 

•H 

ex 

4J 

CJ 

B 

3 

3 

u 

c 

4-1 

o 

CO 

T3 

c 

JO 

o 

>% 

o 

rH 

O 

as 

0) 

t 

Q. 

m 

o 

rr 

0> 

i-H 

• 

Xl 

4-1 

CO 

X 

H 

CO 
TJ 

-^  TJ  H 
O)     Cv     c 

H  *4  £ 
bO  Xi  Oi 
C  »-i  co 
H    CO    3 

c/5  X  O 
EC 


C 

tH     0) 

O     t-i 

o  *o 

J3   -I 
CJ    -H 


c 
o 

TJ  "H 

QJ  4.) 

•H  CO 

P  rH 

H  3 

CX 


CO 

QJ     O 

-e  •*= 

E  V 
3  co 
Z    3 

O 

as 


00 

o 


o 

00 

H 

4-1 

c 

O 

CM 

O 

CJ 

vO 

CNI 

0) 
CX 

«N 

cm        cx> 


O  CN  O 

CN 


^■s 

cy» 

*3" 

o 

• 

CO 

en 

•— 1 

CJ> 

o 

en 


p 

0) 

ex 


00 

en 


oo 

CO 


CO 

4-1 

c 

TJ 

<D 

a) 

TJ 

■H 

C 

►J 

OJ 

X 

CX 

CO 

0) 

22 

o 

5 

&0| 

C 


CTj 


c 

0) 

o   o 
m   i-i 

<u 
ex 


4-1 

c 
o   o 

a) 

cx 


en 

CN 

-a- 


CNI 


en 

CM 


en 

CN 


V40 

en 

CO 

*•* 

CN 

CN 

00 

«* 

«3- 

-a- 

On 


O  ^  vO 
^t  0\  «* 
CT>  00 


0) 
M 

CO     CO 


CO 

CO     0) 


o  o  o 

COh^ 


CO 


CJ 

u 

ex 


c 

O  rH 

n  s 

CJ  O 

3  H  >H 

Xi  CO     I 

4J  O     C 

o 
c_> 


<•  cq 


e 

CO 


c 

o 
o 
m 


CO 
CX 


x: 

01 

> 

01 
CJ 

CO 
CX 

cyj 

o 
o 
-a- 


CO 

Ol 
X 

< 

CO 
01 


en 


u 

IT 
U 

9 

X 

U 


8. 
o 


B 

i 

3 

4-1 

C 

O 

01 

01 

TJ 

M 

X 

•H 

>v 

O 

iH 

O 

r 

m 

01 

l 

a 

rn 

o 

33 

01 

•-i 

• 

XI 

*-» 

<0 

r 

H 

o 

o 
x 
u 


4) 

w 

HO 

■u 

3 

f-t 

o 

o 

X 

X 

OlaO 

O   oo 


Olao 
O  oo 


T3 

-~  -O  «H 

0>  01  o 

-H  i-t  X 

DC  l-<  01 

c  w  n 

•H  B  3 

t/i  £  O 


00  I"/"!    C> 
-3>  CI 


col^lr-  o  cm|©  «m  OMcn  o 
cm  r~  d.  o  -*   — <  «"■> 


IO    vO  vOlOM— i   00    CMlm   f-»   ml 

u-i  i^         cm  on  <r  u-i  cm         — i 
_  04|  —  |         - 


\r\  o 


O 

■D  i-l 
01  4-> 
■W    CO 

I-    3 
0- 


a> 

•V 

•V  fH 

o>  o 

•H  X 

t-  01 

U  CO 

<9  3 

X  o 
se 


c 

"O  01 

0)  T3 

•H  C 

u.  01 

i-i  a 
2* 


K 


a 


— «    CM     O 

r-»  i/-i  r^ 

-N    00 


ciIcm  — « 

CM    r»-    U"l 

c->  CM 


«-<  -slco  — •  <"*J|ao  -3>  uilin  O 
ri  ffip  a>  hN  oo  cnIcm 
—  cMcn  r-  — 


cil-a-lop 


C-)|<N||  OJ 


vO    CMloO 
cm  o 


~3>  n.|r^  © 


o 

00 


i  o\ 


CM| 


-I 


o  cm  oo 


«K  oo 

CM  —   O 


OlcM""*.  ^  cilo  o  ervlc*  o 
pvilvolr-  On  •*!— i  en 
■»  co         cm 


tolcilON  -»  OI<M  oo  cmIcm  O 

O    On|-h   M    —I  ' 


«N    nOIOn  vO 


n|N  — i 
m|-i  ^ 


Oln 


Oln 

2|* 


aololao  <"M  >»H*«  i«.  <t\0  ~3- 
rvilr^lm  <—i  tsilm  yo  c->  CI 
-»|cm|       cm  -,] 


volc-iio  m  ml©  m  ooio  oo 
rgl<f  Itsi  cm  >o|<"i  co  — <l       — 

<S|    — .  ~l 


— i  -3-Icm  cm  vol—  m  — i|o  — < 
n   — <IO   —  CNlm  r-  CM        O 

—  r-|— «  vo  ml— «  — i 


<**|-3-|c*   "^  «*>|r-l  O  vOlO  vO 

fMlokv*  r«  w>  <r  m  rvil      cm 


OlvOloO  00  -*|vO  "^  <*>|0  ri 
<m|vo ko  cm  cmIui  vo  r->|  r^ 
•»|cm|       cm 


mlvDlO  t^   -h|-»  r^   col©  00 

O  >o|      >^  m|— •  — 


mlCMlf-,  ui  cm|o  cm  —  |o  — < 
cm  i-i Uj  eg  u-i|r^  oo  -»l       ■» 


■  oo. 

9\   00 


u->lr-i  cm 
-  -  O 


©   ©  O 
vO    — i   m 


3  8ig  8 

0)    ©    CM   00 
EC. 

09 

u 

01 
l->     (0 

o   c 

a    o 

1-1 

DO  10 
C  0) 
■H      01     I* 


u-i  In  cm  m|r-»  oo 
— i  -<  O  cm  —  o 
-•  m  _  ^ 


M  fc«   H    W  M   t? 

00   ©    ©    CM   O    O 
—   —   CM    00  ON   00 


Olc-i|.<r  cj\  -a-|co  —>  cilo  o 
xrlvOI©  IO  vol— i  in  —  I— < 
vO  in  — «  ^ 


8  8 

oo  o\ 


OlOMrvl   l-    ©|00  CM    -.IO    — i 

si  p  ki  u-i  aolr^  o  in  I       >o 
M3|<»|       <n  — 1|       —c 


gg         gg         o 


IB 
O 

■a 

Im 

■s 

iH 

■a 

c 

0) 

c 

RJ 

>s   C 

0 

X 

o 

C 

c 

4J     O 

1-1 

1-1 

1-1 

0 

i-i 

o 
1-t 

■H     i-l 

S3 

m 
en 

o 

tf) 

in 

m 

i-l     0) 

0) 

I-l 

» 

01 

in 

03    m 

B    > 

Um 

o 

03 

U-I 

OJ 

u 

U     01 

I-I 

g^ 

0 

X 

^ 

o 

U-i 

o 

3^ 

o 

I-i 

CO 

01 

li 

O 

X 

X 

u  x 

Dm 

-1 

fcj 

0- 

u 

a 

1     li 

JS 

3 

Dm 

mJ 

C    Cm 

»    00 

w 

O 

z 

2 

-3 

c 
o 


01 
IS 

(_> 


H      "3 


0) 

CO 

l-l  oi     i- 

O  u-i     O 

X  OX 

rg    0    I-i    CO 

-J    Jm     0m    J 

—I 

u 


01     CO    IM     O 
01 

"S  s 

CO   u 


CO 
CO 

u-i  o    c 

OX           O  X    i-i 

M    «    O    d  »H 

Cm    J    _*    0m  -J     I- 

— I  03 


UJ  0 

O  X 

In  CO 

Dm  I-- 


Si- 


<    CD 


m       3-33 


0) 
DC 
CO 
u 
c 
01 

u 


OJ 

en 

01 
X 

H 


o 

X 

re 


8 

CO 


I 

c 
o 

c  • 

> 

01  O 

I-  ^H 

CO  o> 

00 

•a  § 

c  o 

0  X 

i-t  CO 
0) 

CO  CD 

01  c 

Um  o 

O  H 

u  i-l 

a.  s 

X 


8  3 


-I 


o 

X 
01 

co 

3 

o 


0) 

— I 


re 

3 

o- 

01 


CM| 


CM 


1-1 

cfl 

CD 
>4 


o- 


en 


i-i 


CM 


c 


o- 


CD 


o- 

CM 


C 


<t 


M 

0) 


o 
in 

nO 


O  O 
en  —I 

-H     LO 


o 
st 

nO 


o  o 

o 

<T)    — 1 

IT! 

— i  in 

nO 

O 

o  o 

o 

m 

en  —i 

ON 

—i  m 

nO 

o 

o  o 

o 

en 

en  -o 

CM 

CM 

— '  <r 

00 

o  o 

o 

•~\ 

— 1  ON 

m 

0) 

-h  en 

■~ i 

M 

o  o  o  o  o  o  o 


-i  o>  "^  io  •*  <f  n  ^o 


minenenOOstcM 

^    N   N    Ns    H^ 

m 

o 


mn  <r  -?  <f  o  st  r^ 

CMoOOONCMvO<t 

CM  ^h  — i    en    st 

CM 


m  in  en  en  *o  m  •— <  m 

\D  00  OA  0>  vO  O  00  -^ 

m  CM  CM  CM  On  -H  ON 

NO 


o 

o  o 

o 

.. 

o 

en  st 

l->- 

00 

o- 

<r 

C_J 

M 

H 

C/3 

1— 1 

01 

o 

o  o 

o 

w 

m 

— H 

sD 

H 

O  O  O  o  <*  r-^ 

<f  ^O  00  CO  \D  lO 

rn  »-i  -h  —•  m 


m 
m 

CM 

st 


m 


m 


i-»  en  <T   CM  CM  o  o 
— <  cm  on  r-»  m  m  o 

—I  CM     • 


r-^  en  <r 

— I  CM  ON 


cm  cm  o  o 
r>»  m  m  o 

CM      • 


cnr^cn^j-cMCMOO 

HrtMO\MOiriO 
— I  CM  • 


en 


sn<r  nn  oo 
-^  cm  cti  r^  m  m  o 

-H  CM  • 


CO 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

st 

nC 

en 

en 

m 

ON 

CM 

o 

-H 

ON 

On 

o 

— ■* 

en 

CM  CM 

-* 

-^ 

nO 

~H 

3 

ON 

>* 

CM 

CM 

20 

O 

nO 

O 

-H 

ON 

— H 

00 

vO 

-^ 

<t  \D 

On 

»-h 

en 

st 

00 

st 

St 

en 

en 

CM 

• 

CM 

~^- 

-H 

0) 
0) 

3 
.-1 

— H 

00 

• 

O 

o 

o 

o 

st 

vO 

en 

en 

in 

ON 

CM 

o 

o 

o 

CO 

CM 

in 

St 

00  CM 

St 

o 

en 

r^ 

o 

on 

<r 

CM 

CM 

CO 

o 

sO 

o 

1—) 

On 

fH 

r^ 

n 

ON 

en  on 

On 

en 

en 
i— ( 

c 

M 

w 

00 

<r 

<r 

en 

en 

CM 

• 

• 

O 

o 

o 

o 

z 

<t 

sO 

en 

en 

in 

ON 

CM 

o 

ON 

■^ 

SO 

m 

o 

St 

m  en 

st 

on 

nO 

ON 

g 

on 

sr 

CM 

CM 

00 

o 

vC 

o 

00 

pH 

^o 

in 

r~» 

en  cm 

on 

CM 

CM 

.—1 

o 
oo 

Pi 
w 

Pm 

00 

st 

<r 

en 

en 

CM 

• 

■-H 

ON 

• 

o 

o 

O 

o 

H 

-3- 

nO 

en 

en 

m 

On 

CM 

o 

r*~ 

en 

CM 

»h 

ION 

vO 

r»»  in 

>* 

r«» 

On 

o 

U 

on 

<r 

CM 

CM 

00 

o 

nO 

o 

v£> 

— 4 

m 

en 

en 

CM  oo 

ON 

•—i 

CM 

■— 1 

o 

a£ 
PM 

00 

<r 

<r 

en 

en 

CM 

• 
— -t 

-^ 

en 
m 

• 

o 

o 

o 

O 

H 

on 

rH 

m 

m 

en 

o 

O 

st 

sO 

st 

— < 

en 

en 

NO 

en  m 

ON 

vO 

~H 

nO 

U 

r>. 

i-H 

in 

m 

CM 

o 

CM 

o 

m 

—l 

St 

en 

— 1 

CM  — i 

Is* 

-H 

ON 

pes 

r^ 

en 

en 

en 

CM 

-3- 

CO 

1—1 

NO 

st 

cd 

c 

^.  c 

o 

— I   o 

•H 

•H 

j-i 

uo  m 

a 

c  en 

3 

•H  Q) 

M 

l-i 

■U  4H 

o 

■LJ 

CO  O 

.o 

■a 

u 

u    u 

CO 

c 
o 

8.* 

hJ 

4-> 
O 

CJ> 

o 

H 

c_) 


PE4 


mincMcMOostcM 

<j-  cm  cm  cm  r^  <—<  en 

m 

O 


niviACNIixCO^CO 
CM  CM    -H   in    -H   o 

en 

/-N  CM 

rH  • 

CO 

c 
o 

•H-^ONCMf-^vOONStON 

CO  — *  NO 

en  r-~ 

CD  O 


CMooCMvO— 'OnnOO 

oooocMinr^r^o 
— -I  •<}■         m  fNi  oo  •■H     • 


(NloO(sl\0HONvOO 
OOOONlflNNO 

■"•  st         en  *N  oo  — <     • 


CMoqCM^-hOnvOO 

OOCONinssO 

>-*  st         en  cm  co  — i     • 


eJoo^NtvDcoONO 

ON\£5f-»ONCMONincM 

en  CM    CM    |-^   — I   O 

On 


On  on  O  *■■  en 

CM  CM 

00  cm  en  On 

CM 

cm  in  r>» 

ON  *-*      CO   NO  — ( 

<t  vO 

r^  — <  no  st 

On 

r^  en  -<t 

CM 

st 

00 

en    cm 

~H 

vO  ^H  nO 

CMoOOOOI^OstON 

NxiOrnNCNicNiin 

CM  CM    -H    vO   — '   O 


NO<ten— iCMoNst-^ 

\OvO'0'H\0'iO'HN 

CM  CM    —I    in  <— '  St 

NO 


CMooCMvOOOOOOOO 

mostvo'^stONON 

CM  -H    -^    <t  O 

m 


OcM-H-nenr^Nom 

<tnencMONCMvocM 

— *        -h         en       r^ 

en 


f^ooooostoor^ 
cni  co  -1  n  "^  ON<tm 


COCMnOnOO    Ostst 

en         eg  N   s-h  co 

r- 

o 


oooooooo 


c 
o 

•H 
4-1 
O 

3 
Vj 
j-> 
to 

CI 

o 
u 


o 

3= 


0) 


T3 
CD 


bO  l-i 

C    u 

•H     CO 

oo  s 


CD 
bC 

< 


O  6^S 
O  ^ 

J= 
CJ 

00 


o 
u 


CO 
T3 


O 


x 

I  H 

tJ  s 

CD  O 

(-1  hJ 


u 

I 
c 


-o 

CD 
•H 


3  bO 
P-  < 
O 


tffi 


00 


33    Pn   iH  /^ 
O  SS? 

•         •       O    N*** 


M 
O 

-O 
CO 
►J 


CO 
T3 


a  s 


33 

I  rH 

4J  CO 

o  o 

CD  O 


T3 
d) 
•H 

l-i 

CO 


o 


i—l    CD 
3   M 

o-< 

O 

P-l   r-1    , 

O  i 
•   O  ' 
U>  X! 
CO    O 


3-34 


H 


u 
o 

CO 

►J 

c 
to 


« 

c 
o 

•H 
03 
CO 

OJ 

IW 
o 

Cm 


o 

H 

## 

U 

<u 

4-1 

M 

to 

& 

>^ 

ec 

CO 

1-1 

0) 

> 

0) 

►J 

u 

4-1 

CJ 

CJ 

5 

cu 

o 

t-J 

a 

o 

c 

(-1 

to 

Pu 

S 

0 

s^ 

3 

(-1 

C 

CO 

0) 

p 

-3 

g 

-O 

3 

S^ 

CO 

H 

O 

2 

r~- 

0) 

1 

a 

cn 

o 

re 

CO 

rH 

• 

x> 

4-i 

to 

X 

H 

►J 
W 
2 
Z 
O 
CO 
Dd 
W 

a, 

w 
od 

M 
32 
I 

H 
U 
W 


o- 

CN 


O" 


en 


oi 

CM 


=1 


m  m  m  o  cn  — *  \o 

H    M   O   M    Nn    M 

H     If!    H    ^     fT|    H    (N 


m  m  in  o  cn  — <  ^c 
-H  cn  o  cn  cn  m  cm 


m  m  m  o  en  — <  vo 
— I  cn  o  cn  cn  cn  CM 

"<  m  -h  sj  n  -<  n 


m  m  s  oo  co  m  ^ 
o  oo  ^  oo  w  <f  o 
—i  -^        cn  cn  o  cm 


cy>  -h  cn  as  cn  m  r>« 

oo  -h  oo  cn  m  oo  r^ 

«*        en  cn  oo  -h 


cn  Is-  r»»  o  oo  cn  \D 

co  oo  n  ^  cn  cn  o 
cn        cn  cn  oo  — < 


^h  ctn  «-h  oo  r>-  oo  x> 

-i  in  h  ^  m  n  n 


■— (  o>  cn  r-^  \D  <y\  <f 


OJ 

W) 

<C 

CO 

T3 

• 

rH 

rH 

T3 

rH 

rH 

o 

CO 

OJ 

OJ 

o 

3 

o 

CJ 

H 

■H 

33 

a 

•6 

3 

00 

>-i 

• 

o 

H 

s 

M 

33 

Pn 

C/3 

CC 

i 

•H 

m 

CJ 

c 

CO 

g 

O 
-J 

o 

2 

o 
o 


o 
o 


o 
o 


00 
CN 


CN 

en 
oo 


m 
cn 


o 

4-1 

v£> 

**   — I 

cn 

r^  cn 

CN 

m 

o- 

r-» 

m  p». 

00 

—i   >x> 

m 

CN 

U 

<r 

cn 

CN 

cn  r-«. 

•— i 

• 

01 

4-1 

u 

to 

3 

-h 

o  00 

•— * 

00   CN 

m 

^ 

cr 

CN 

c 

\£> 

00  ""> 

en 

r^  cn 

CN 

cn 

<n 

CN 

CN 

i— I    v^ 

-H 

m 

m 

>% 

Xi 

U 

• 

CO 

CO 

OJ 

u 

>H 

r^. 

m  m 

CN 

cn  cn 

cn 

m 

OJ 

cr 

<r 

— i  <3- 

r»* 

cn  v© 

ON 

— -t 

X) 

CN 

CN 

— i  -d- 

• 

E 

i 

01 

oo 

CN   C7\ 

cn 

r-~  \d 

cn 

00 

4J 

Cr 

CN 

-3-   CN 

-^ 

00  o 

v£> 

00 

tO 

— i 

-H 

<— i 

m 

CN 

o 

o 

• 

tH 

o 
m 


> 

rJ 


o 

T3 

o> 

CO 

3 


OJ 
4J 
id 

CO 

3 

cr 


r>? 


o 

z 


3-35 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table   3-8        Generated   Employment  Multipliers 

(By  Construction  and  Direct-Hire  Personnel) 


Single 

Married   V 

Professional 

Local 

.10 

.20 

Non-Local 

.125 

.25 

Labor 

Local 

.05 

.10 

Non-Local 

.075 

.15 

1) 

Factors  at  left  are 
multiplied  against 
populations  indicated 
2)   Labor  1)  and  2)  quarterly  or 

annually, 


J_/  Household  populations  of  married  personnel. 
PREMISES: 

1.  Existing  regional  work  force  experiences  slack  time  of  40%. 

2.  New  demand  levels  must  generate  new  supply  orders  (or  volume  of  goods  and 
services)  over  50%  of  existing  trade  levels  before  new  jobs  are  generated. 

3.  Existing  market  supplies  of  goods  and  services  are  limited;  local  spending 
will  be  restricted,  and  mail  orders  will  siphon  spending  away  to  non- 
local supply  houses. 

4.  Professionals  and  married  personnel  will  spend  more  than  labor  and  single 
groups,  because  of  higher  incomes  and/or  household  costs,  perceived  job 
stability,  and  responsibility  levels  (personal  and  household  maintenance 
items) . 

5.  Single  status,  including  construction  crews,  limits  spending  due  to 
shorter-term  employments,  higher  savings  requirements,  and  take-home  pay 
to  families  not  in  residence. 

6.  Construction  crews  and  local  hires  are  classed  as  local  labor  in  generating 
employment. 


3-36 


^1 

CO    CM    O 
CM  CM 


—4     CJ\ 
—    CO 


f«1    ■* 
u-1    CM 


r-  *o 

•     • 
O  CO 


-»  in 
cm  in 


r»  ci        r-»  o 


CM| 

COlcM    O 
CMl  CM 


CM     CTl 


O  r-« 
-3"   CM 


O  vO 
r»  cm 


CM    O 


r*»  m 

in  co 

CO    CM 

O  *© 

-*  cts 

in  -u 

r*.  ^o 

co 

CM    —I 

CM    <J\ 

en  cm 

■h 

— i  o>        — •  en        r~  co 

-H  — 1    ,»  — .    — 


in 


•? 

CU 

a 
a 

c 

I 
>» 

-H 

o 

r 

21 

o 


cu 

•H 
r-l 


I 


4) 

-o 

3 

O 

c 


en 

0 


CO 
CO 
-o 
I 

c 
o 

z 


c 

I 

>> 

o 

•H 
a. 

3 


tS 


0) 

a 

H 


O 

> 


0) 


C 
>H  CU 
O     U 

O   "O 

y  -h 


c 

o 
•o  -H 
CU    «j 
■H     «       • 
■i    HO 
t->     3 

sax 
x   o  -— • 


co 

T3  -H 

41  0 

•H  J= 

u  cu 

u  to 

5  g 


COlCM    vO 


o|—  on 

-3-I-"    CM 

co 


col— i  r^ 

CTs    —    CO 


co|\o  r» 
o>|m  m 


on!      as 


IvO    m 
—    CM 


CM  co 
cm  m 


CM   vo 
— .    *£> 

-H     CM 


CM    vO 

co  r-» 


co  o 


ool—  r-» 
cnl— .  ao 


2S     15 


^  oo       mo       -< 


— 1    —  c£>    CM 


00    OS 

ao  m 


O  <n 


Jvo  m 

-»|— I    CM 


vO   C7> 

—  m 


r-»        O  ao 


co 

4-1 

c 

•o   cu 

^n 

<u  -a 

M 

■H    c 

O 

h    v 

co 

u    a, 

*»»• 

.§£ 

^ 

» 

-a-i— ■  co 

OOlCM    vO 


cm  on 

-*   0> 


8 


rs 


volm  -u       — ■  m       -h  co 
^•|      «»       -.cm 


-<  o 


•*|— i  ci 
ooIcm  ^o 


vOlUI    — I 


CM   1-^ 


CM   CM 
CO    CM 


O  — 


i£9t        oo  m        ©  co        r—l 


TJ  I  I       C 

4)  41  -O  3    0 

— <  CD  — (  Q.  —I 

l->  3  O  O    4-i 

U  O  03  CU     CO 

a  £  r-l 


o 

r-t 

a. 
5 


a 


01 

CO 

1     c 

— 1 

3 

3    O 

00 

i-J 

O-  -H 

c 

CO 

O    4-1 

■H 

u 

Oh     CO 

C/J 

CO 

■H 

I     ON 

o 


ON   CM 


r*.  -h  ^ar  Im  — i  cm  loo 
•*  n  ov  p  W  -h  N 
CM   — .  on  CM  r«.  —\ 


•&  inlm  o 

00  CM   CM 


^1 

J! 

a 
* 

<r  o>  «a» 

Os|        00 

co  m  co  leys  -cr  OIcm  oo  cmicm  o 
cm  o  o\\— <  r->  — <| 


Olm  m  — <\<r  r~.  coIcm  —i  — «|-h  o 
~a-l— <  cm  vo  cjs  o  ml— .  »»■  — . I— i 
so  — «  m  .-r        co 


3 

3  1= 

32 


u 

SI 


3.2 


Q      >    >M 
■J    -H.     O 

1    -Q    u 

o 

2^ 

3 

41    U 

O     3 

j 

u   Cu 

Z   Wl 

Cd 

^5 


r>.  -^  ^ICM  CM  ^o|-h  m  -*IO  — < 
s»  en  — i  o  —"  cm  m  rs.  om  o\ 
cm  —  r«.l— <  vo  col— <  — • 


co  m  \o|o»  p«.  -h|^  r^  oolO  oo 
cm  o  >o|       m  co|-<  — > 


Olm  m  cM|r-»  m  cm|o  cm  -^lO  — 
-3"  — <  cm  co U-r  oo  mlr»  oo  ^|       ^ 


a 


a 


+ 

r-5 

t— 1 

0             u             u             u 

q    -a   '4-i    O          iwOCu-iO 
ri  J  i    o  a         o  x  -h    o  oa 
CBI      CUUCOOurd'HIuKI 

0    C    h    a-   ->    -*    cu   _1    u,    Cu   _J 
O    O    3                -H                 « 
nIZO)                   111                   C_> 

+ 
l-l 

N^ 

CO 

r-4 
CO 
4-1 

i> 


<fl 
Id 

41 

C 
41 
00 

ca 

0 


3 
0 
</) 

>s 

OO 


4J 

cd 

VU 

3 

41 

or 

■H 

V 

4J 

0 

<d 

— 1 

4-1 

81 

eg 

41 

u 

l-l 

cs 

o 

4 

00 

41 

c 

4-1 

41 

cfj 

^ 

(J 

(0 

u 

O 

ui 

*— V 

c 

r- 

•H 

•* 

CM 

C 

^^ 

0 

CO 

•H 

CM 

u. 

N^ 

3 

J3 

•o 

•W 

41 

Id 

— i 

Ul 

U 

CO 

u 

■H 

CO 

•o 

e 

*^- 

41 

CU 

u 

rH 

O 

oo 

vw 

c 

CU  ^-v 

5^ 

4-1  CO 
-3  > 
O 

x   o 

4J  -Q 
o   co 

4)  -H 


VH  II     CO 


41    O 


-I    O 

CO  -H 

o 

^^1 


-I      "I 


3-37 


o  o  c  o  o  o 


en  -3-  •-"  en 
—  iA  -9  <j 


8 


en  ©  O  O  O 
en  m  O  in  Is** 


-3 


-1 
•I 


in  in  to  O  en  -a  v£> 

—  N  O  M  "^  n  "^ 


so  *3  o  m  r-*.  m  o** 

— ■  ro  —  CM  CM  .3  CM 

-a  in  -a  <j  en  -a  cm 


o 

o 

cr 

m  m 



O 

CM 

I** 

rsi 

~3   <• 

o 

<r 

— I 

m 

— ' 

-a-  fn 

rg 

CM 

«|-h  ■»  n  o  n  i» 


-a  in  >3  «3  cm  o 


ri 

O 
• 

• 

CM    00   \£> 

£ 

<r 

o 
m 

O 

• 

en  .* 

•I  en 

00   O 
CM   o 

in  o  -3 

CO 

o 

er* 

00 

«3 

CM  o 

— <  m 

00    CM 
CO  m 

o  — < 
cm  en 

CM 

I"!  ©  O  O 

m  en  ©  in 


©  O 

r»  o 

O 


oo  en  cm  oo  in 

o  oo  o  m  en 


oo  <t  — .  © 
oo  ~s  ©  o 


iD   *   N  N    ff> 
•tf    ©    \J    ffi    Ol 


m  r>-  in  o  ^ 

<3  r^  en  \&  O^ 


■V 

c 

o 

D. 


O 

a 

c 

<8 


?\    s 


oo  cm  — ■  cm  cm  m  en 

N    O^    O    ^    ff^    >C    N 

o  N  -3  cin  ^ 


u 
o> 

•*-> 
o 
la 

a. 

e 

3 

c 

0J 

>, 

o 

re 


"I 

*l 
•4 
-I 
"I 
*l 


^   (6   "^N    ^O    OB 

10  ffi  n  (s  -h  oi  in 
•■a  e*\  en  so  in  • —  en 


r~.  en  ©  en  en  cm  oo 
r-  en  ©  en  cm  ^  cm 
— «  cm  m  r~  vO  —  «» 


©  © 

r-  © 

"H    CM 


v©    CM   CM    -9 

©   O  r-   — i 
r»   iC  o  «J 


ifli/i  h^  n-  n 
in  en  00  m  vo  en  oo 
—  m  *j  vO  "^  o^  el 


^  vO  ^  ff>   hn   t/l 

— i  o  -?  m  m  r-  en 


ftjr^cn-*oo©M5cn 

c-omaovc-^ooQ 

•-a  oo  en  <r  aj  ^  cm 

01  — ' 

u 

•H 

X 

I 

4J  m*    C*  — M  00  *"*  IO 

y  m  -h  on  eM  o  on 

ai 

la 


■  -  ©  OO  en 
cm  cm  vc  — < 


C*^>je/\iCfA05 
CC  U1   CM   CM    CM  00    ~* 


c 

o 

gg 

•u 

■o 

• 

u 

pH 

H 

oi 

3 

o 

3 

be 

b 

X 

a  < 

4-> 

^3 

-c 

• 

0 

tr. 

S 

OJ 

X 

0- 

— 1 

c 

u 

H 

•^ 

0 

o 

a 

60 

la 

• 

1 

0 

0 

—I 

C 

- 

u 

u 

£ 

« 

S3 

o 

c 
0 

— 1 

or. 

r 

I 

4-1 

J 

z 

c 

(- 

3 

m 

O  m  cm 

CM   — < 

—   sfj 

in  - .  ^  cm 

•j  *  pin 

—  en 

H 

«-a 

sC   .»    — 1 

en  oo 

— •  w» 

en  cm  cm  yc 

NOvNlfl 

m  m 

O 

\D 

—        -* 

CM 

m 

H 

-» 

00 

r^ 

• 

• 

• 

CO 

U 

vC 

r^  cm  en 

00  r*. 

—4  ^ 

en  ^   en  e^ 

fN   00   00  r^ 

•-.  m 

M 

CM 

O  00  © 

m  in 

— *  •» 

n«  nn 

N  oo  vo  n 

«*  & 

H 

-a             CM 

«3 

—        © 

CM 

r^ 

C/3 

00 

00 

vO 

H    u 

(J)     0) 

S3 

x^ 


>-     3 

j  r 

M 

z;  a> 

<  u 

fcu,     -H 

X 
O     I 

<  « 
y 


—   >C  N   O   0D   O 

en  cm  c/v  -3  m5  © 


-h   vD  r»  O  oo  © 
en  cm  oi  -3-  ve  O 


— i  \C  r~~  ©  oo  © 
en  eM  o\  «9  \D  O 


fi 


vC  O  — <   en   eM 

-   00   N   >fi   O 


O  ©  — i  eM 
cm  oo  MS  m 


O  en  f-  vC  en 
en  cm  m  — «  o> 


©  ©  O  O  O  /-s. 


Cr»  o>  ©  ^   ©  r»» 
en  en  ©  cm  o 


oo  en  m  oo  r».  -a" 
m  cm  oo  "<  m 


iC  r~   —  —  •*  © 
cm  cm  r-  —  © 

© 


m  c^  -*  a-  ©  — i 

—   —  -»    —   vO 

en 


cm  oo  vO  cm  -»  oo 


co 
at  en 

!-i  o 


y  ©  o  o  ©  © 


ct\  in  oo  cm  ©  m 
— '  r~  in  ©  -^  oo 


m  r~  -3"  -*   —i  — 
—  m  •*  m  en  — 


©  oo  er\  en  — '  — i 
—  en  cm  o  ^  -3- 


in  c*  m  —  ©  © 
— i  — i  m  — i  r~- 


— *  m  «*  «3-  en  cm 

en 
© 


©  ©  ©  ©  ©  o 
© 
© 
o 


O  cm  en  o 

i/lO  "^^ 

cm  — i  -<r 


c*  o^1  eo  ^5  oo 

m  en  cc  m  eM 

cm  —  m  — 


e^i  ©  in  v©  on 
«n  ^-  oo  -a  >n 

cm  •"-]  m  — " 


«3*   MS    >0   CM    MS 

m  -^  \o  oo  -^ 

CM    — I   ^    — I 


r-»  —  r-  -a-   en 
•3-   CJs  .g-   _    o 


CM| 


o  o  ©  ©  © 


• 

0) 

V 

01 

la 

^■s 

la 

^*s 

U 

•H 

60 

•H 

60 

4J 

o 

CO      >-N 

X 

eo  /-. 

c 

-J            • 

•J    • 

c 

l-t 

60 

4J 

60 

O                 GO                eM 

ce 

CO                     •     > 

y 

00 

•    > 

■H                  T)      • 

c 

•O       •             »a    < 

01 

■O 

• 

U  < 

4J                      ^-1    <-i      Bl 

y             o   3   &  .. 

3            SB   a.  <   oo 

o 

HH    V   V 

la 

— i 

-a 

01    4J 

«H 

O     3     60  ©      • 

■W 

o 

3 

60O-    • 

CO 

X     D.  <             |a 

O 

X 

CX 

<       u 

»-         "O      •    0           > 

ID 

-o 

•     O             — t     4-1 

"S 

I 

C 

-a    4a 

u   ai    a  r  s.  ^  < 

OJ 

01 

s 

IfcH            ©- 

la 

OJ 

X 

Pa 

H        © 

01    iH     -r4                        O 

U-l 

■-H 

^H 

o    •• 

o 

iH 

-J 

0   •• 

C     C     l-     1-     l-    X'-/ 

o 

c* 

- 

•     •    0  M   eM 

XI 

60 

1- 

• 

• 

OXN 

£ 

la 

u   u  j=  >—  ^ 

JS 

C 

la 

1- 

la 

J=  *-'-_' 

Or(     *     «     H     U 

w  z  r  r  ^ 

•H 

eo 

eo    co    y 

■H 

CD 

CJ 

5 

y 

L0 

2: 

t£W 

CO 

r 

X 

C/l 

>. 

(n 

tn 

03 

CO 

CO 

en  en  — <  oo  © 
CM   C31  r-  oo    ""> 


r«  cm  m  cm  r~ 
en  eM  v£>  — < 


C 

I 
fn 

O  ©  ©  ©  ©  O 
■H 
(X 

B 
W 


4J  -O  • 

CO  HH  CJ 

u  o  3  be 

a  x  a.  < 

c  -o    •  o 

0,  01     0>     X  Pa  <-H 

O  iH   -H  O 

60    la       •  •  O 

r-j  C      1-      1-  la  XT 

co  -H    eo    W  eo  y 

4a  to  JE  SC  3.  to 

i2 


01 

4J 

ce 

la 
01 

c 

01 
60 


aO 

o 


:n 
p 
o 

6C 
01 


01 

-c 
3 


OJ 


-I    <^l 


3-38 


of  baseline  growth  made  by  the  Bureau  of  Business  and  Economic  Research/UNR 
have  been  extrapolated  to  illustrate  anticipated  effects  (Figure  3-2). 

During  the  start-up  phase  of  construction,  the  additional  populations 
associated  with  construction  crews  would  be  concentrated  in  the  Eureka  area 
alone.   These  would  be  housed  in  a  work-camp  provided  to  single  and  single 
status  workers,  and  a  mobile  home,  trailer  and  RV  camp  would  be  provided  for 
those  with  dependents.   (See  Chapter  1.0). 

Distributions  of  Project  Populations.   Non-local  operations  employees  would 
number  525  out  of  the  total  640  scheduled  for  hire.   Preferences  in  housing 
and  location  have  been  assumed,  based  on  employment  status,  pay-scale  and  the 
relative  attractiveness  of  alternative  housing  facilities.   The  expected 
distribution  of  these  employees  at  full  complement  is  compared  for  Case  5-A 
(proposed  subdivision)  and  Case  5-B  in  Table  3-11. 

In  Case  5-A,  the  attraction  of  a  wholly  new  subdivision  in  proximity 
to  employment  at  Mt.  Hope  would  tend  to  concentrate  about  90  percent  of  non- 
local operations  employees.   The  Eureka  community  and  the  subdivision  together 
would  attract  fully  98  percent  of  the  total  (514).   Only  11  professional 
employees  are  expected  to  make  Elko  their  residence. 

As  new  numbers  of  construction  and  operations  workers  arrive  at 
Eureka,  Elko  and  Carlin  for  employment  at  the  Mt.  Hope  Project,  their  family 
members  and  additional  new  arrivals  of  secondarily  employed  people  would  also 
add  to  the  total  new  populations  in  each  community.   It  is  estimated  that  the 
population  increase  in  the  area  will  stabilize  at  an  annual  average  of  1,775 
persons.   Distribution  of  this  subject  population  is  depicted  in  Table  3-11. 

Due  to  the  peak  population  increases  illustrated  in  Figure  3-2  and 
the  manner  of  distribution  in  Case  5-A  (or  5-B)  a  significant  impact  would 
result  to  Eureka  Town.   In  the  peak  period  (7th  quarter),  the  project  popula- 
tions would  be  4.9  times  (3,029  versus  615)  the  expected  population  of  Eureka 
Town  in  that  period  (this  includes  the  subdivision).   In  Case  5-A,  the  towns 
of  Elko  and  Carlin  would  experience  population  increases  of  only  minor  propor- 
tion by  comparison.   In  addition,  their  peak  new  additions  would  occur  in  later 

3-39 


3 

Q. 

o 


< 
CD 


CASE  5-A 

(Proposed  Action  -  Housing 
.  ■*""  Exxon -Assisted 
Subdivision) 


CASE  5-B 
(No  Exxon -Assisted 
Subdivision) 


YEARS 


FIG    3-2 

HISTORIC   AND   PROJECTED   POPULATION   GROWTH 
IN  EUREKA   COUNTY 


Initiate)   project   line  arbitrarily  set  at   midscale   to  demonstrate   tffect. 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  3-11   Stable  Annual  Populations 


Employment 


Proposed  Action  (5-A) 
Subdivision 


Alternative  (5-B) 
Decentralized  Workforce 


Subdiv.    Eureka   Elko 


Carlin    Eureka    Elko 


Household  Populations     1,087 
(Employees)  (461) 


122      27 
(53)    (11) 


99       834      303 
(41)      (355)    (129) 


Generated  Population 


0 


363     168 


31 


274 


234 


TOTAL  POPUALTION 


1,087 


485     195 


130      1,108 


537 


Source:   EXXON  and  WRC  EIS  Teams 


3-41 


periods,  as  operations  employees  and  generated  employment  stabilize.   This 
factor  results  from  the  higher  multiplier  for  secondary  employment  assumed 
for  operations  employees  over  construction  workers,  and  the  continuing  rise 
of  operations  employee  numbers  through  the  period. 

3. A. 2. 2  Population  Calculations 

Normal  Regional  Populations.   The  influence  of  these  new  employment  levels 
and  populations  would  be  experienced  by  Eureka  and  Elko  Counties,  mainly  in 
the  towns  of  Elko,  Carlin  and  Eureka.   Previous  population  levels  in  the 
jurisdictions  of  concern  and  projections  made  by  the  Bureau  of  Business  and 
Economic  Research/UNR  are  shown  on  Table  3-12. 

Mine/Process  Plant  Populations.   The  amount  of  increase  in  these  population 
levels  due  to  the  Mt.  Hope  project  would  correspond  to  the  disposition  of 
project  populations  between  the  three  towns  of  Eureka,  Elko  and  Carlin.   Two 
conditions  have  been  examined,  as  alternative  distributions  of  mine/process 
plant  operations  employees: 

1.  Case  5-A  (a  new  subdivision  near  Eureka  would  concentrate 
populations  within  Eureka  County,  with  limited  populations 
scattered  to  Elko  and  Carlin). 

2.  Case  5-B  (no  special  housing  provided,  and  free  choice  of 
housing  promotes  increased  location  in  Elko  and  Carlin,  due 
to  community  size). 

Construction  crews  would  be  concentrated  in  the  Eureka  area  alone 
and  would  be  housed  in  a  man-camp  provided  to  single  workers  and  those  on 
single  status,  and  an  RV  camp  of  mobile  home-and-trailer  character  for  those 
with  dependents.   The  separate  facilities  would  be  equal  in  size:   423  single 
units  in  the  man-camp,  and  423  RV  facilities  for  the  married-with-dependents. 
As  operations  personnel  increased  in  number  during  each  quarter  of  the  con- 
struction phase,  they  would  be  expected  to  seek  housing  according  to  personal 
preference  in  location  and  type  of  housing,  but  influenced  by  the  presence 
or  absence  of  a  new  community  subdivision  in  close  proximity  to  Mt.  Hope. 

3-4  2 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  3-12  Historic  Populations  and  Current  Projections 


Eureka 

Elko 

County 

Eureka 

County 

Elko 

Carlin 

1920 

1,350 

_ 

8,083 

_ 

_ 

1930 

1,333 

- 

9,960 

1940 

1,361 

- 

10,912 

- 

- 

1950 

896 

- 

11,654 

5,393 

1,203 

1960 

767 

- 

12,011 

6,298 

1,023 

1970 

948 

13,958 

7,621 

1,313 

1980 

1,198 

- 

17,269 

8,758 

1,232 

1985 

1,451 

E 

609 

20,313 

E 

10,339 

E 

1,300 

1990 

1,762 

E 

740 

23,789 

E 

12,109 

E 

1,350 

1995 

1,945 

E 

817 

26,265 

E 

13,369 

E 

1,400 

2000 

2,145 

E 

901 

28,962 

E 

14,742 

E 

1,450 

The  estimates  (E)  of  populations  for  towns  are  based  on  the  1982-83  ratios  of 
town  populations  to  the  county  totals  projected  by  the  Bureau  of  Business  and 
Economic  Research,  University  of  Nevada,  Reno.   For  Eureka,  projected  growth  is 
at  42  percent  of  the  county,  and  for  Elko  at  50.9  percent:   Carlin  is  estimated 
to  grow  at  only  10  persons  per  year. 


3-43 


The  proposed  action  and  alternative  case  have  been  compared  to 
determine  the  measureable  effects  upon  existing  normal  populations  of  the 
towns  of  Elko,  Eureka  and  Carlin  during  the  forecast  period.   With  these 
increases  in  future  populations,  demands  upon  new  housing,  utilities,  and 
services  may  be  traced  to  their  final  budgetary  impacts  upon  normal  recurrent 
revenues  and  expenditures  of  each  jurisdiction  and  upon  capital  accounts  for 
new  construction  of  facilities  (see  Section  3.4.4  and  3.4.5). 

Quarterly  and  Annual  Distributions  of  Project  Populations.   As  previously 
noted,  it  is  expected  that  non-local  mine/process  plant  operations  employees 
would  number  525  out  of  the  total  640  scheduled  for  hire.   By  the  end  of  the 
second  quarter  of  year  4,  construction  would  be  complete  and  the  525  operations 
employees  would  be  the  only  non-local  workforce  remaining  in  the  region 
associated  with  the  Mt.  Hope  Project.   Their  preferences  in  housing  and 
location  have  been  assumed,  relative  to  employment  status,  pay-scale  and 
apparent  attractiveness  of  rival  facilities.   The  expected  distribution  of 
these  employees  at  full  complement  (end  year  4)  is  compared  in  Table  3-13  for 
Case  5-A  and  the  alternative  5-B. 

As  indicated  by  Table  3-13  (Case  5-A  column)  a  wholly  new  subdivision 
in  proximity  to  employment  at  Mt .  Hope  would  tend  to  attract  about  89  percent 
of  non-local  operations  employees.   The  Eureka  community  and  the  subdivision 
together  would  attract  fully  98  percent  of  the  total.   Only  11  professional 
employees  would  be  expected  to  make  Elko  their  residence. 

As  new  numbers  of  construction  and  operations  workers  arrived  at 
Eureka,  Elko  and  Carlin  for  employment  at  the  Mt.  Hope  complex,  their  family 
members  and  additional  new  arrivals  of  generated  secondary  employed  would 
also  add  to  the  total  new  populations  in  each  community.   Peak  populations 
would  be  reached  in  the  first  quarter  of  year  3  and  by  the  end  of  third 
quarter,  year  4  the  population  will  have  been  reduced  to  the  lower  level  at 
which  stabilization  of  annual  volumes  throughout  the  forecast  period  has  been 
predicted.   The  annual  volumes  would  total  1,775  persons,  distributed  as 
shown  on  Table  3-14  for  both  the  proposed  action  and  decentralized  workforce. 
Table  3-14  also  includes  the  estimations  of  generated  populations  distributed 


3-44 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  3-13  Employee  Distribution  -  Stabilized 


Case  5 -A  Case  5-B 

Employment Subdivision Decentralized  Workforce 

Subdiv. Eureka    Elko Carlin Eureka    Elko 

Professional         94         12  11                   70       70 
(117) 

Workers             367         41  —        41         285       82 
(408) 

Total  (525)         461         53  U_                   ^1_        355      129 

Household 

Populations       1,085        122  27         99         834      303 


3-45 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  3-14  Stable  Annual  Populations  and  Distribution  Percentage  Characteristics 


Case  5-A 


Case  5-B 


Eureka   Elko   Carlin     Eureka   Elko   Carlin 


1)   Stable  Annual  Populations: 

1987   3Q  1,571     195 


1,108    537     130 


Case  5-A 


Case  5-B 


Eureka   Elko   Carlin     Eureka   Elko    Carlin 


2)   Generated  Populations: 
Average  Percent 


67      31 


51      43 


Case  5-A 


Case  5-B 


Eureka   Elko   Carlin     Eureka   Elko   Carlin 


3)   Operations  Employees: 

Average  Percent 


98 


68      24       8 


3-46 


according  to  estimated  principal  places  of  expenditure  by  construction  and 
operations  employees.   That  is,  75  percent  in  the  area  of  residence  of  the 
direct-hire  employees  and  25  percent  in  the  largest  near  town.   In  practice, 
because  construction  employment  phases  out  in  year  4,  the  average  effects  of 
the  multiplier  of  construction  crews  and  operations  employees  would  produce  a 
locational  distribution  of  generated  employment  (and  populations)  of  the  kind 
shown  in  the  second  category  of  Table  3-14;  specifically,  the  generated  popu- 
lation's distribution  would  average  67  percent  in  Eureka,  31  percent  in  Elko 
City  and  2  percent  in  Carlin.   Item  3  in  Table  3-14  compares  the  generated 
population  distributions  to  the  locational  distributions  of  the  direct-hire 
operations  employees  at  the  end  of  the  stabilizing  year  4.   Table  3-15  presents 
the  quarterly  forecasts  of  expected  total  volumes  of  combined  populations. 
Table  3-16  details  the  number  of  EXXON  employed  population  versus  generated 
populations  and  anticipated  distribution.   Table  3-17  data  itemizes  workforce 
locational  distribution,  household  characteristics  and  includes  both  construc- 
tion and  operational  employee  types.   Table  3-18  summarizes  the  itemized  data 
of  Table  3-17  by  location. 

It  may  be  seen  (Table  3-15)  that  in  the  peak  quarterly  period  of 
year  3,  first  quarter,  the  project  populations  would  be  4.9  times  the  normal 
population  of  Eureka  Town  in  that  period  (includes  the  subdivision)  (versus 
4.3  times  the  normal  population  in  Case  5-B,  Table  3-72).   The  towns  of 
Elko  and  Carlin  would  experience  population  increases  of  only  minor  proportion 
by  comparison.   In  addition,  their  peak  new  additions  would  occur  in  later 
periods,  as  operations  employees  and  generated  employments  stabilized  (or 
continued  to  rise  as  in  case  5-B,  Table  3-75).   The  peak  lag  would  result 
from  the  higher  multiplier  for  secondary  employment  assumed  for  operations 
employees  over  construction  workers  and  the  continuing  rise  of  operations 
employee  numbers  through  the  period. 

3.4.3  Housing 

A  premise  underlying  the  estimated  population  distributions  of 
operations  employees  is  that  of  multiple  options  in  diversity  and  location  of 
housing.   Evaluation  of  housing  requirements  for  the  construction  workforce 
has  incorporated  the  Chapter  1.0  specifics  regarding  an  RV/work-camp  facilities 

3-47 


■8 

© 

r-i 

o 

X. 
0) 

a 
o 

33 


a 

3 

a 
a 
o 
u 

c 
o 


o 

M-4 

<w 

w 

c 
o 

■H 
4J 

CO 

3 

a 
o 

•v 

Z) 
4-1 
CO 

u 

CU 

c 
cu 
o 

c 

CO 


o 

01 
1"1 

o 

u   c 

0u     o 


o   o 

< 

CO 

4-»  "O 

CO  a) 

tfl  CD 

o  o 

cu  a 

ui  o 

o  u 

>%    • 

H  < 
H     I 

at  m 

4J 

t-i    cu 

CO     CO 

£3 


i 

CO 


XI 
CO 
H 


m  — i 

cn 

ao  — i 

m  r>. 

o 

m  r-~ 

v©  in 

OS 

m  in 

00   00 

v©  m 


«a-  oo 
vo  m 


m 

OS 

oo 


oo 

00 


en  ao 
m  m 


oo  r^ 
CN  oo 
in  m 


m  o 

00 

en  o 

cn  <r 

r*« 

«-"  -3" 

v£>  vO 

00 

m  so 

oo  en 

ct> 

r^  en 

CN  o 

v© 

as  o 

v©  CTn 

00 

-*  as 

cm  r- 

O 

cn  r*. 

cn  m 

s© 

oo  n 

so  m 

oo 

-*  m 

CN 


m  os 

-h    CN 

v©  o 


m 

oo 


v©  OS 
v©  CN 

-d-  o 


en 


o  m 

00  Os 

CN 

o  <r 

>©  OS 

—* 

m 

CO  o 

as  -* 

en 

CN 

m  cn 

o\ 


CN 


O  00 

m  as 

o 

m  r»« 

r^  as 

-H 

r-» 

in  o 

00  — • 

en 

—* 

en  cn 

ON 


— t  m 

CN  OS 

00 

I- t  -* 

00  ON 

-H 

00 

00  O 

|^  — 1 

en 

o 

■-H  CN 

CN 


m  m 

O  OS 

m 

00  -* 

OS  00 

~H 

o 

o  as 

\©  ~H 

cn 

o 

o  — l 

o>  r- 

CN 

— i  r-» 

o  o 

•<r 

m  o 

vo  as 

00 

~3-  as 

r^  m 

O 

r-~  m 

O  O 

00 

oo  O 

vO  r» 

p» 

cn  pn. 

CN 


m  m 

o 

in  m 

O  sO 

CN 

CN  v© 

>©  vt 

r-» 

cn  -^ 

cn  m 

o 

cn  m 

o  cm 

V© 

v©  CN 

s©  as 

v© 

CN  OS 

o  o 

o 

o  o 

O  CN 

o 

O  CN 

^o  os 

s© 

CN  Os 

oo  cn 

00 

\©  cn 

OS  -H 

Os 

OS  — • 

m  -h 

m 

—  ^ 

4J   O 

H 

CO 

E 

o 

eg  u 

z 

J*     3 

cu  u 

M 

3  —s 

U  -i 

cu  H 
•i—)  cO 
O 


o 

H 


P3 


d 

3 
O 
CJ 


o 

H 


O  «">  o 

H  h  a) 

cO  't-) 

>s  a  ° 

4-1     C  u 

o  ^^ 

u 


m 


O   C7\ 


m  cn 
m  cn 
o 


r^  oo 
cn  o 

•*   CN 


O  v© 

cn  oo 

cn  -h 


<r  o 

CN    -h 


CTl    \£l 
\©   CN 


vr  cn 
oo  p>. 
O 


o  m 

OS   CM 
C3S 


-H     O 


o 
cn 


m  o 

o   -H 

cn 


cn  o 

o    r-. 

cn 


o  <T\ 

o 
en 


r*»  oo 

CN 


>*    s© 
CN 


cys  cn 
oo 

CN 


in  o 
oo 

CM 


00  o 
CM 


ON 


4J 
>,^    CJ 

►»  +J  f-j  CB  H 

4-i  -H  co  i-|   rg 

C  O  B  O    4J 

3  M  |-i     O 

O  O  O  Pm   H 

O  J»!  Z 

o  5^-48 


cn 

CM 

CTv 

00 


O 
00 
00 


m 
p>^ 

oo 


v© 

00 


C?s 

m 


oo 


oo 

o 
in 

oo* 


m 

CN 

oo 


CN 

cn 

oo" 


o> 
m 

CM 

oo" 


CO 

en 

en 

o 

oo 

CN 

•h 

o 

CN 

o 

en 

SO 

CN 

v© 

CN 

•>. 

o 

CN 

sD 

00 

00 

-H 

<r 

CM 

+■ 

O 

CN 

en 

in 

—i 

o* 

CO 

^H 

n 

O 

CN 

CN 

00 

■* 

v© 

»H 

1— I 

A 

o 

CN 

-^ 

CN 

r~. 

en 

OS 

-^ 

OS 


00   s© 
00 


OS 


■©  in 

CN    CN 

s© 


OS 


m  o 

m 
OS 


O  4J 

Z  O 

— »  CU 

C  O 

•H  t-i 

-H  Cm 

t-l 

<0 


CN 


cO 

a   o 

3    Z 

O  w 
CJ 

en 


u 

o 

H 


O  <^>   CJ 
CO  t-i 

>>  a  O 

4J   G   m 

O  w 
CJ 


«0 

cu 
>-l 

3 

u 


cu 

-■ 
CO 

u 

cu 

c 

CO 

3 


l-l 

cu 

x: 


CO 

cu 
J-l 

3 
Cd 

CO 

3 


)-l 
cO 

a 


> 
Pi 

-o 

c 

CO 

a 

a 

cO 

CJ 

I 

M 

u 
o 

5 


CO 
CU 
CJ 

a 
o 

•H 
4J 

o 


o 

CJ 


o 

CU 

o 

M 

0- 

E 

a 

0) 

XI 
>n 

rH 
O 

s 

0) 

a 
o 
32 


X 

0) 
CJ 

CO 


X 

c 
o 

•H 
4-1 
CO 
rH 

3 

a 
o 

Cu 
T3 

a; 
j-i 

CO 

u 
o> 

c 
a; 
o 

-a 

c 

CO 


O 
0J 

o 

(X 


M 

CO 


3 
CO 


nO 


I 

cn 


X 
CO 
H 


en 


in 

CO 

cu 


c 


cn 
u 

TO 
CU 


or 

CN 


o- 


cr 


M 

CO 
CU 


CN 


cr 


U 

cO 
0) 


m 

On    CN    — < 

NCOm 

o  on  a>  >3- 

"^■r^ 

OvON 

CN   vO    ON 

o 

eN|r^ 

NCI    ^1 

rH     rH 

CN 

-3- 

00 


CN 


cn 


ro 


CN 


cn 


cu 

CO 

CO 
c_> 


H    s    CO 

cm  cn  m 


S   H    CO 
NSC? 


o  as  on  co 
o 

CM 


cn 

\Cl     — H     1 — 

N   CO    ^ 

O  Os    On  -tf 

ON 

CN    NO    00 

CM   vO    0> 

O 

r^ 

cn  cn  m 

rH     —H 

CN 

<r 

CN    00 

o 

m 

o  en 

<r 

00 

cn  en 

•~o 

r~~  co  io        o  on  on  <r 

CN    IT)    00  ON 


X 

H    N    M 

m  <y\  ~3- 

o  as  on  cn 

o 

<r  no  o 

CN   ^O    ON 

o 

rH 

m  en  on 

i— i  -—I 

CN 

o 

<f 

CO 

r^ 

00 

-* 

— 1 

LO 

r^ 

•— 1 

<r 

1/1 

cn  -h  en        o  o  o  <t 

CM    Os    rH  H    H    (\j 

—i    CM  CM 


CM 


r-^ 

<r  m 

ON 

CT\  ON    00 

o  o  O  00 

-a- 

CM   o 

CM 

— I  00    o 

^H     -H    rH 

CM 

vO   -3" 

o 

^H    CM 

CM 

CM 


CM 

CO  o> 

r*« 

O 

<r  m 

o 

rH 

m  cn 

o^ 

CN 


CM 


cn 

r^ 

00 

LO 

r^- 

On 

O 

O 

00 

cn 

cn 

s 

S 

<r 

i — i 

m 

on 

CN 

<r 

vO 

m 

CN 

CM 

<r 

CN 


_| 

m  cn 

m 

o 

00  -j- 

CN 

o 

r^  -h 

o> 

m 

rn  s  o 

«* 

r»»  r-«  cm 

on 

00             ON 

oo  oo  x        o  on  c?  in 

•-H   NO    00  ON 


m  m  o        o  oo  oo  oo 
>-h  -j-  x  no 


<f    CN    X  O   \0    X    CN 

h  h  cni  en 


r-»-  vo  cn        o  cn  <n  vo 


cn  cm  m        o  o  o  m 

CM    CM  CM 


cn  o  cn 


tn 

s 

3 
O 
CJ 

CO 


o  o  o 


o  o  o  o 


-J 

c 

3 

o 
CJ 


•H  CO 

s  M 

3  0) 

i  >-i 

E  3 

o  w 

CJ 

0) 

2 


CJ 


w 


pa 


c 
•h  cj 

cO 


c_> 


O 


w 


o 

H 


3-49 


% 


•H 

CO 

i 

OJ 

3 

3 

-o 

o 

rH 

3 

•H 

O 

rH 

4J 

> 

O 

CJ 

c 

3 

CU 

•H 

U 

4-1 

bO 
CO 

CO 

CO 

u 

iH 

3 

V 

CO 

O 

> 

4J 

CJ 

CO 

o 

4-) 

3 
•H 

bO 

3 

CO 

•H 

01 

0) 

rH 

•H 

DO  rH 

^H 

3 

o 

•H 

CO 

(-1 

E 

X 

co 

CJ 

(-1 

CM 

T3 

01 
4-> 

T3 

•H 

r4 

3 

3. 

CO 

CO 

CO 
U 

3 
cr 

CO 

0) 

a> 

CN 

M 

w 

•H 

o 

T3 

X 

E 

3 
CO 

X 

CO 

o 

4-1 

»• 

1~) 

CJ 

OJ 

T3 

r^ 

4J 

CU 

■4-1 

CO 

J-I 

OJ 

u 

CO 

h 

aj 

M 

3 

01 

^^ 

CU 

c 

o> 

oo 

<u 

CO 

bO 

0) 

<4H 

o 

CO 

> 

3 

0> 

cu 

H 

u 

CO 

EX 

u 

3 
o 

^>\ 

o 

o- 

3 

^-^ 

co 

O 

cu 

•H 

OJ 

s- 

4J 

CO 

CO 

•H 

0) 

rH 

(J 

E 

3 

•H 

a 

4J 

4-1 

o 

3 

a 

a; 

3 

CO 

3 

CT  rH 

O 

o> 

01 

•H 

CO 

T3 

4J 

X 

<J 

3 

M 

3 

CO 

3 

Ui 

O 

4J 

-a 

•H 

CO 

3 

4J 

3 

• 

CO 

CO 

O 

CO 

rH 

CJ 

c 
o 

CO 

3 

a 

3° 

■H 

3 

o 

4-1 

O 

a 

•H 

CO 

•H 

T3 

rH 

4-1 

bo 

3 

3 

CO 

3 

rH 

a  rH 

•H 

CJ 

o 

3 

4-> 

3 

Ph 

a 

CO 

•H 

o 

U 

• 

N— ' 

■o 

a 

cu 

c- 

rH 

a 

i-l 

• 

O 

-o 

o 

o 

t^ 

X 

CU 

CJ 

01 

4-1 

3 

o 

CO 

CO 

•H 

CO 

u 

3 

u 

1-1 

O 

01 

3 

CO 

CO 

X 

3 

CO 

M 

^ 

0> 

X 

• 

0) 

TJ 

00   4- 

T3 

c 

•o 

(H 

OJ 

OJ 

£ 

(U 

CD 

•rH 

14H 

3 

4-1 

•u 

3 

(-1 

O 

O 

CO 

ft) 

•H 

M 

•H 

U 

2 

M 

S 

OJ 

4-1 

OJ 

O 

01 

g 

3 

cO 

c 

X 

c 

a 

•H 

rH 

a) 

X 

c5 

g 

Cfi 

3 

rH 

o 

3 
3- 

Uj 

X 

rH 

0) 

O 

U-l 

w 

a  a 

D. 

O 

•  • 

•  • 

o 

c 

0> 

o 

^ 

CN 

1 

CD 

C 
CI 

o 
co 
M 

CD 

P- 

4-> 
O 
CD 

T-) 

o 

- 

IX 


u 
CD 
4J 
M 
« 

C 

>^ 

CD 
V 
|m 

o 

U-l 

J*2 
u 

o 

3 


3 

•r-l 
U 
4-1 
05 


Pn 

cfl 

c 

S 

o 

3 

•H 

C 

4-1 

CD 

ca 

TO 

CJ 

JO 

,3 

rH 

O 

2 

r^ 

*— 1 

CD 

1 

a 

CO 

o 

X 

CD 

H 

• 

X 

4-1 

CO 

s 

H 

O" 


o- 


o* 


o  o  o  o  o  o 


<t  st  -j-  -a-  en 


co  co  o   O  -3- 

CN    CM    £S|    N    -H 


<f  ^  ^  o<r  n 

O    O    ON    CM    sO    CM 

—I    —I  CO 


CO  n  vO  "^  H  1^1 
ON  ffi  \D  O  00  >0 
CM    CM    CM    ON    r-t 


co  co  m  on  cn  <t 
CNI  cm  co  o  MO  ON 
-j-  <r  co  co  cm 


co  co  m  on  cm  <t 

CM  CM  00  O  MO  ON 
«*  -St  CO  CO  CM 


co  co  m  o\  cm  <j- 

CM  CM  oO  O  MO  ON 
-3"  St  CO  CO  CM 


co  co  m  on  cm  -j- 

CM  CM  oo  O  MO  ON 
-J"  -J"  CO  CO  CM 


CO  ON  <J-  ■<}■  ON 

ON  \0   00  ON  ON 

CO  ™  ON  — I 


CO    ON    ST    <f-     ON 
ON    \Q    00    ON    ON 

co  cm  as  — • 


CO  On    St  <rj-    ON 

ON    \X>    00    ON    ON 

CO    CM   ON    — ' 


CO   —•    CO   ON   -3- 

ON  -J-    M0   —i    00 

CO    CM   ON    -H 


M0   ON    CM   ON    vO 

to  co  N  fN  m 
cm  cm  r^  — < 


CO    «— I    ON    O    M0 

N    S    Om    -J 

CM    CM   r^    -H 


00   GO    — I    00    ST 

MO   -<t    ON    \0    CO 

CM    — <  vC    -h 


cm  <f  r-~-  o  O 

mo  o  lh  m  -m 
cm  «-h  in  —* 


CO    CM    N   ON    CM 

co  m  — i  o  oo 


O   CO    CM    CM    CM 

■-H   ^-    CO    — I    CM 


O   CO    C^1    CM    CM 

-h   ^j-    CO    — 1    fM 


O    CO    CM    CM    CM 

— i   <j-    CO   -M    CM 


On  o  o  ^-  o 
^  noN 


oo^  m  co  n 

CO    CM    00    —* 


r-~   CM    <t    CM    M0 
CO    CM    00    —I 


r*»  on  cm  m  m 


M0   <f    00    CM    CM 

CM    —i    v£>    — I 


St    00    CO    M0    ON 

^  — i  <r 


cm  on  r~-  m  m 

CM 


cm  on  r^ 


N    ON    N 


m  "I 

CM 


m  m 

CM 


cn  co  ^o  n  ^ 

CM 


CM 


m  o  <t 

CM 


m  m  co  o  o  on 

mo  co  on  r —  m 

CO   CM    ON    -m   M0 

m  m  cm  o  cm  r^. 

cm  o  r~-  r»»  ^n 

-H              CO 

CO    CO    CO    -1    CM 

— I            CM 

r^  m  co  <t 


— *  v©  m  r-»  co 


— i  m  <t  -3-  co 


o-  co  o  c^ 


o  co  fJ  r^. 


O  O  <j  r-^   —<  O 
00    00    M0    "">    — *   St 

i— i  •— i  -m  m  — < 


— H    CM    CO   <j-   CO 

■— I   -J-    CO    — I    CM 


—<  m  <f  co  co 


o  — i 


CO   O 


CM    CM 

O 

o 

<r 

m 

CM 

r^ 

LO 

00  st 

o 

— 1 

— i 

CM    O 

o 

o 

o 

O  o 

CM    CM 

CM 

r^ 

— M 

-M 

a 

«^l 

e 

fM 

CO 

c 

C 

U2 

CD 

CO 

CO 

CJ    J*! 

co 

o 

0 

T3 

*    l-l 

J= 

XI 

■     rH 

T3 

•    rH 

u 

4«l 

•H 

•H 

-o 

^H 

r-l      O 

4-1 

X 

1-1 

rH       O 

-o 

iH 

r-l      O 

C     (0 

a) 

CO 

co 

CD 

OJ 

O 

3    0 

O 

CD 

OJ 

o 

3       O 

<D 

0) 

O 

3      O 

(0    Dm 

CO 

M 

•H 

•H 

rH 

•H 

X 

a  JO 

rH 

•H 

X 

CX  JO 

H 

•H 

X 

CX  JO 

^ 

S   -- 

-a 

• 

rH 

3 

> 

> 

bO 

M 

• 

o   o 

^ 

bp 

M 

• 

o   o 

bG 

1-1 

• 

O    cj 

^   TO 

rH 

rH 

o 

W 

•H 

■H 

c 

Sm 

X 

P-c    C/J. 

c 

u 

X 

D-  CO 

c 

iM 

K 

Pm  co 

0)     CD 

o 

3 

o 

— .. 

TJ 

-o 

•H 

CO 

0) 

•H 

CO 

o 

•H 

CO 

c 

rH    -H 

■x. 

a.  jo 

H 

JO 

JO 

CO 

g 

u 

CO 

g 

J*J 

CO 

X 

o 

00   k 

• 

o 

CJ 

3 

3 

3 

3 

1— 1 

•H 

6  u 

X 

Cm 

co 

CO 

cyo 

w 

w 

4-1 

•H     03 

o 

CJ 

CO   2 

rJ 

TO 

3 

CD 

^~v 

^N 

/-> 

k 

CO 

— < 

CM 

CO 

4J 

o 

Cfi 

a 

e 

o 

o 
u 

u 

Dm 

3-50 

St 
ON 

in 


CO 

CD 
Ui 

3 
W 


c 

s 

o 

CO 

• 

CO 

/^N 

CO 

m 

~H 

-o 

rH 

OJ 

V^1 

T3 

3 

CO 

r-l 

CD 

CJ 

(M 

c 

•H 

•H 

J= 

CO 

rH 

cu 

CO 

|M 

o 

•H 

o 

J= 

rH 

rH 

CO 

CO 

4-1 

CJ 

•H 

O 

rJ 

a 

—  CM 


cm 


vO   nO  -3"   -3"   CO 

^o  >«d  o  — i  -a- 

ts    N    fN    -H 


-^     -H     ff)     \D     lO 

en  cm  on  cm  ^o 
^h        en 


00   m   \£>    — H   00 

co  cn  o>  — i 


M 

TO 
0) 


O" 


vo  ^o  -a-  <}■  en 

»o  \0  o  h  >j 

cm  cm  r-^  <— i 


■— I    t— (    CO    v£>    lO 

fl   CM    ON   CM    vO 
■-H  CO 


con^Hoo 
n  cm  cj\  -h 


o> 

3 
C 


vO   ifi   >J    <f    C) 

^O   \D   O   h   >J 

CM   N   N   H 


•- h  — i  ro  vo  in 
n  cm  c^  cm  vo 

—I  CO 


»  en  \D  h  ex) 
en  cm  o\  -h 


4-1 

c 
o 
o 


en 


H    vO   ffi    O    CM 

0\N   *   h   O 

f"».  -*  -a-  <t  r~» 

\o  <r  co  vo  n 

(M    h   COO* 

en  cm  oo  -h 

CM    •— I    so    --1 

—t        en 

0) 

c 
c 
o 

CO 
M 
01 


U 


CM 


CM    CO    O    Ch    N 

l/N   O   ^O    lA    H 
CM    H    if|    H 


<r  m  en  m  — h 

n  o>  n  m  "*i 

CM 


nD   \£>    O    ~H   «d" 

CM    CM   N    H 


O 
01 

o 
>H 

P-I 


c 


oo  m  o  -3-  m 

<f  o>  m  cm  o 
~h  ~h  lh  •— i 


en  ex*  oo  o>  oo 
cm  oo  no  en  <t 

CM 


\0  <f  on  r^  en 

CM    "H    vO    "H 


•d"  on  r^  o  ^o 

— 1    — 1    en    0>    «5f 

n  cm  rs  h  cm 

-cr  r^  en  oo  On 

CM    CO    *    H   «J 

CM    — *    vO    i-H 

-H    ■— 1    ^> 

CM 

CM 


en 


r-»  r^  en  in  on 

en  -d-  »-h  on  r~^ 

-h  — i  en 


-h  vo  m  oo  en 


-*  oo  <t  O  o 

H     HinH 


Jn 
,£> 

o> 
o 
U 
o 

(4-1 

A! 
M 

O 


to 
0) 


CD- 
CM 


O* 


r>.  on  ^  <■  on 

cm  o  oo  on  m 

— I  CM 


oo  <r  r*.  on  o 


en  o  oo  <r  r^ 
•-h  in  en  en  cm 


on  vj-  o  »h  oo 
en  cm  on  ■— i 


en  ^  h  s  n 
.-•  -h  en 


cm  on  r—  m  in 

CM 


C 

o 

•H 

i-> 
3 


CO 

u 

o 


I 

en 


CO 
H 


u 

CO 
0> 


en 


N    H    C)    CM    \D 

en  cm  oo  —• 


1 1      ^h  m  <r  en  en 


0) 

C 

c 
o 
en 
U 

01 

P-i 
tj 

OJ 
CO 

M 

0> 

cx| 

CO 


^  <f  ^h 


en 


H  CM    CM   ifi   h 


<t  coon 


O  -h  O  cm  O 


CO 

CO 

CO 

Tj 

.    --H 

-a 

•    rH 

TJ 

.    rH 

13    H 

rH      O 

T3   H 

r-l      O 

TJ    rH 

— 1      O 

0) 

0)     O 

3      0 

0)    o>    o 

3      O 

0)     0)     O 

3    O 

H 

•H    X 

a  ,c 

iH  -H  EC 

ax: 

H    -H    3 

P.  43 

j§ 

bp 

t-l       • 

O    cj 

O    cj 

c 

bO  M     • 

O    cj 

c 

>-i   PS 

Pm  en 

P-i  c/> 

•H 

C    U   X 

0-1     C/N 

0) 

•H 

ctj 

o 

■H     CO 

rH 

•H     CO 

u 

cc 

2 

^. 

w  g 

M 

to  2 

3 

H 

CO 

W 

W 

u 

CM 


en 


3-51 


01 

c 
c 
o 

CO 

l-l 

cu 
Cu 


o 

CU 
O 

u 

0- 


o 
cu 
u 

•H 

o 


U 

0) 

•i-l 

CO 

O" 
>N 

c 
o 


3 
rO 


3 

a 

o 

Cu 

cu 

CJ 

l-l 

o 

U-l 

i_> 

^5 

CJ 

U 

01 

o 

i-> 

3 

o 

u 

U-l 

Pn 

O 

B 

>> 

3 

M 

c 

CO 

cu 

B 

-o 

E 

-O 

3 

^ 

c/3 

rH 

o 

s 

00 

~H 

0) 

1 

Q, 

cn 

O 

33 

cu 

-H 

• 

.O 

4-1 

CO 

a 

H 

o- 


o- 


o- 


O   — i   — <  O  N 

—*     <f     F~)     -H     CN 


cn  o>  r^ 


lo  m 

CN 


r^ 

^£> 

O 

O  -tf 

O 

CN 

cn  cn 

■— i 

>* 

CO 

— 1    CN 

\0  m  \D  o  •n 
m  m  n  n  m 
— <  <r  en  — i  cn 


\o  m  n  n  co 
o  oo  oo  <r  >c 

CM    v3-    CO   CO    CN 


P>»   v£>   on   cni  -J- 

oo  — ■*  "H  r-»  m 
co  \o  m  p^  cn 


CI   \D    OO  -i   <f 
O    CN    — I    CN    CN 

m  r^  \o  — i  -vj- 

CN 


CO    O    CO    N  h 

on  o  on  m  -h 

-a-  r-»  m  o  ~a- 

CN 


— I     — I     O     — I    <f 

ON    iTi    \D    CM    M 

■<*■  vo  m  o>  en 


m  co  m  <f  m 
voo  o>  — <  vo  m 
>-r  m  m  f»  cn 


<3"    O    -H    00   — * 

CO    N    -1    OCO 

cn  ~-r  «tf  -*  cn 


N  S  -I  4  vO 
ON  CN  O  00  ^3 
■— I    CN    CN    o 


<$    O    s£>    <Z>    & 

cm  m  ^  on 


CN   ON 


r^  in  m 

CN 


cn  on  r-  m  m 

CN 


cn  oo  ^o  cn  ^ 

CN 


m  o  <f 

CN 


-'s  ^co<f 


— i  vo  m  r^  cn 


—*  m  -^  <}•  cn 


<3-  cn  o  cn 


O  m  cn  r^  ■— ' 


o  — *  — *  cn  o 


o  o  o  o  o 


p 

CO 

CO 

5 

X) 

•  H 

T3 

*     rH 

o 

-a 

-H 

rH     O 

-o 

rH 

rH      O 

H 

*> — 

cu 

0) 

o 

3    O 

cu 

0) 

0 

3      O 

-H 

H 

•H 

33 

ax: 

.H 

•H 

pa 

cc 

CO 

bO 

h 

• 

o   o 

bO 

l-l 

• 

o   o 

M 

CO 

C 

U 

33 

Ph  c/5 

c 

i-l 

a 

CXi    C/J 

0) 

CU 

•H 

CO 

o 

•H 

CO 

u 

r-l 

CO 

£ 

.*! 

CO 

s 

3 

< 

rH 

U 

w 

I 

cn 


J3 

co 
H 


C 

o 

•H 
J-l 

CO 

p 
be 

•H 
CO 
0) 


CU 

43 


CO 
J* 
CU 

l-l 

3 
W 


c 

CO 

c 
o 

•H 
CO 


T3 
-Q 
3 
CO 

cu 

1- 


0) 

c 
c 
o 

CO 

M 

CU 

a 

c 
o 


CN 


3-52 


establishment.      Table   3-19   details    the   total   new  housing   demand   anticipated 
during  peak  and  stabilized   project    periods.      Based   on  historical    type   selection 
in  the  area,    the  housing   type   preference   for  the  project   influx  of   operations- 
related  population  was   estimated  at   24  percent    for  single   family  units,    32 
percent  multi-unit   types   (e.g.,   apartments,    townhomes)    and   44  percent  mobile 
home   units   (Table   3-20).      Housing   value  was    established   as    follows    for   fiscal 
impact    purposes:      single   family  units,    $75,000  each;   multi-unit   and   mobile 
home,    $35,000  each. 

The  number  of    housing  units   and   relative   tax  revenues   produced   by 
type   and   by   quarter   are   also   shown  on  Table   3-21    for   combined   housing   demands 
by  both  operations   employees   and   generated   secondary  employees,    according 
to   their   location  in  Eureka,    Elko   or   Carlin.      Table   3-22  shows   the   relevant 
numbers    of  man-camp   and  RV  park  units,    unit  market  values   of   either   type,    and 
ad   valorem  property  tax  revenues   as   incurred   by  quarter   for   the   construction 
personnel. 

Residential    ad   valorem  property   tax   revenues   of   Eureka  County   and 
Elko  County  have  been  applied   to   these   properties   at   rates    per  dollar   of 
assessed  value   (35  percent   of  market)    of   0.00748  for  Eureka,    and   0.01176  for 
Elko.      Quarterly  revenues    from  ad   valorem  taxation  have   been  taken  at   one- 
fourth  of    these   rates,    or  0.000654  and  0.001029,    respectively. 

These   forecasts   assume   that    secondary  employees  would  either  find 
or  build  housing   equal   in  type  and   cost   to   that   chosen  by  operations   employees. 
They  would   therefore   sustain  the   same   levels    of   taxation  on  residential 
properties.      The   revenues  yielded  quarterly  on  residential   properties   of 
combined   total   populations   are   shown  on  Table   3-21.      The  relative   influence 
of   Case   5-A  upon  ad   valorem  property   tax   revenues   in  Eureka   and  Elko   Counties 
is   summarized  at   the  bottom  of  Table   3-21   where   total  quarterly   sums   are 
shown.      The   total   number  of   housing  units   of   all  kinds    required  quarterly 
(excluding  those   of   the   construction  crew)    is   shown  on  Table   3-23. 

As   illustrated   by  Table   3-19,    peak  housing  demand  would  occur   during 
the   second  year   of    project   start-up   for  Case   5-A,    the   proposed   action.      This 
would   require   substantial    reliance   upon   rental   properties   (e.g.,    houses, 

3-53 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  3-19   Estimated  Total  Housing  Units  Needed  for  Peak  and  Stabilized 
Project  Influence  Periods  1/ 

Year  1       Year  2       Year  3      Year  4-50 
Construction  Workforce 


Work-camp 
RV  Park 

(Subtotal) 

Operation  Workforce  2/ 


18  0 

423 

23 

0 

164 

385 

20 

0 

(344) 

(808) 

(43) 

(0) 

Proposed  Action 

(Case 

5-A) 

Subdivision 

44 

259 

376 

376 

Eureka  Other 

27 

175 

163 

168 

Elko 

11 

75 

65 

67 

Carlin 

0 

4 

3 

3 

(Subtotal) 

(82) 

(513) 

(607) 

(614) 

Decentralized  Workforce 
(Case  5-B) 

Eureka 

Elko 

Carlin 

(Subtotal) 


50 

305 

380 

368 

26 

168 

184 

187 

5 

34 

44 

45 

(81) 

(507) 

(608) 

(600) 

1/  Year  end  totals  are  not  additive,  i.e.,  maximum  housing  numbers  associated 
with  construction  workforce  equals  808  units,  not  the  additive  total  of  years 
1  through  4. 

2/    Includes  generated  secondary  employment  population  housing  demand. 

Source:   EXXON  and  WRC  EIS  Teams 


3-54 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  3-20   Estimated  Housing  Type  Preference  of  Population  Influx 

Year  1       Year  2       Year  3       Year  4-50 

Construction  Workforce 

Work-Camp  180         423  23  0 

RV  Park  164  385  20  0 

Operation  Workforce 

Proposed  Action 
(Case  5-A) 

Subdivision 

-  Single  family 

-  Multi-unit 

-  Mobile  Home 

Eureka   Other 

-  Single  family 

-  Multi-unit 

-  Mobile  Home 

Elko/Carlin 

-  Single  family 

-  Multi-unit 

-  Mobile  Home 

Decentralized  Workforce 
(Case    5-B) 

Eureka 

-  Single  family 

-  Multi-unit 

-  Mobile  Home 

Elko 

-  Single  family 

-  Multi-unit 

-  Mobile  Home 

Carlin 

-  Single  family 

-  Multi-unit 

-  Mobile  Home 


Source:   EXXON  and  WRC  EIS  Teams 


11 

62 

14 

83 

19 

114 

6 

42 

9 

56 

12 

77 

3 

19 

4 

25 

4 

35 

12 

73 

16 

98 

22 

134 

7 

40 

8 

54 

11 

74 

1 

8 

2 

11 

2 

15 

90 

90 

120 

120 

166 

166 

39 

40 

52 

54 

72 

74 

16 

16 

22 

22 

31 

32 

91 

88 

122 

118 

167 

162 

44 

46 

59 

60 

81 

81 

11 

11 

14 

14 

19 

20 

3-55 


CD 

B 

o> 

> 

01 

c* 


s*> 

C 

4-1 

o 

u 

•H 

0) 

4-J 

a 

O 

o 

< 

u 

fa 

T3 

cu 

T3 

CO 

c 

o 

CO 

(X 

o 

o> 

1-1 

a.  fa 

>. 

H 

•> 

4-1 

•• 

c 

CO 

i 

0) 

>s 

43 

o 

E 

rH 

3 

a 

25 

e 

w 

4-1 

•H 

>% 

C 

U 

!=) 

CO 

X) 

bO 

C 

C 

o 

•H 

CJ 

CO 

0) 

3 

en 

o 

sc 

T3 

c 

HH 

CO 

o 

4-> 

c 

a 

o 

01 

■H 

e 

4-1 

>. 

CO 

o 

B 

rH 

•H 

0, 

4-> 

s 

Cfi 

w 

w 

CO 

>^ 

c 

rH 

o 

U 

•H 

QJ 

4-1 

4J 

CO 

U 

>-i 

CO 

o> 

£ 

a 
o 

_< 

CM 
i 

1 

co 

d) 

iH 

43 

CO 

H 

O   O  nO 

O  <f  -* 

*hO 

ry 

On   CM   nO 

~3-  m  r-~ 

h   n   f 

en 

rH     -H 

o  o  no 

(J\   CM    CM 

no  —h  on 

C 

On   CM   nO 

ro  m  r*» 

i-l    CN    CN 

<r 

—1    ^H 

c 


o- 


o  o  no 

ON    CN    nO 


o  o  nO 

On   CM    nO 


h  «j  m 
«<t  m  r-» 


^H    -3"    <f 


SNO 

■-h  cn  m 


vD   h   Oi 
— <    CN    CN 


m  <f  \o 
oo  »-h  Ln 


<r  on  m 
r^  on  co 


coo-J 

nO   On    CN 


N    fO   <f 
nO    00   -* 


CO   O    NO 

m  n  on 


N    O    CO 

co  m  no 


m  -3-  no 
cn  co  <r 


o  <•  on 


CN    CN    CO 


fM  \c  rx 

>t   lA   S 


r-»  co  no 

-*   vD  CO 


n  eg  m 

<f   vO    00 


CN   \0   Is* 

<)■  m  r^ 


r-^  on  oo 
co  <r  no 


On   ON    CO 

cm  co  m 


oo  <r  co 

—•   CM    CO 


NO   ON    CM 


r~-    CO    CM 
-h    rM    CO 


O     NO     NO 

CN    CN    CO 


O    H   N 


O    — (    CM 


O   -h   CM 


O    H   CM 


H     H     N 


-H   w   CM 


O    >0    nO  —i    r-<    CN 

CM    CM    CO 


oo  <r  co 

— '    CM    CO 


\0     —4     ON 

H    N    CM 


co  r-~  co 

rH    rH    CN 


r^   O  «tf 


co  -j-  <r 


i-H    _H    CN 


O    — (    CM 


O    H    CM 


O  O  — ' 


o  o  o 


ooo  ooo  ooo 


vX)  CM   CM 

•-■   CM    CO 


1-^  CO   CM 

—I   CM    CO 


NO   CN    >H 
-H   CM    CO 


NO   CN    ""H 
-4   CM    CO 


oo  -d-  »* 

— i   CN    CO 


«— •  r-»  oo 

CM   CM    CO 


•— '  r*.  oo 

CM   CN    CO 


on  m  "4"! 
rH   CN    CO 


NO   CM    «H 

^   CM    CO 


co  oo  ^ 

HH    N 


r-^  o  in 


co  ^-  >* 


OOO 


fa 


ff 


w 


QJ 

•H            01 

•H             QJ 

•H             0) 

E 

(h 

§            B 

E         B 

B          E 

4-1      O 

0) 

CO     4-1      O 

CO     4-1      O 

CO     4-1      O 

C  S3 

4= 

fa    C   X 

fa    C   33 

fa  a  pc 

£    0) 

4-1 

o 

cu    E    cu 

01    E    QJ 

o>  E  o) 

4-1    iH 

rH     4-1    H 

rH     4-1     rH 

i— (    4-1    i—t 

>-l    «H 

CO 

bOhrl 
C    cO  43 

bO  V4  «H 

C     cO   43 

c 

Cf    CO   43 

CO   43 

M 

■H 

a  o 

0) 

•h   a.  o 

o 

•h   a,  o 

rH 

•h   o,  o 

<3  E 

u 

3 
W 

co  <d  2 

4- 
rH 
W 

w  <  2 

1-1 

CO 

w  <  s 

3-56 


c 

0) 

T3 

•H 

CO 

0) 

Prf 

p*» 

H 

B 

•H 

01 

0) 

B 

E 

M 

CO     4-1 

o 

O 

fa     t3 

33 

rH 
CO 

01    E 

01 

> 

rH     4-1 

rH 

DO    -4 

•H 

•a 

C    co 

43 

< 

■H    fa 

O 

CO    < 

s 

T3 
0) 

D 
U 

c 


co 
cO 

CO 
0) 

s 

0) 

> 

01 

Pi 


1-1 
o> 
a. 
o 
i-i 
fa 


o  o  o  o  o  o 

00   CO   CM    — ■>   <t  CN 

CN    ON   -3-    CO    00  CN 

»       *       -       *■  # 

VO    CO    m    rH  rH 


o  o  o  o  o  o 

CO  CO  >tf  ON    oo    CN 

n  on  <r  co  co  cm 

VO  CO  in  -H  rH 


o  o  o  o  o  o 

CO  CO  CM    rH    <i-  00 

CO  ON  -J-    CO    00  rH 

»  »■  *■         *•  * 

VO  CO  m     rH  rH 


o  o  o  o  o  o 

<f  00  rV  rH    ^f    oo 

CM  00  CO  CO    00    rH 

\0  CO  m  rH  rH 


o  o  o  o  o  o 

<j  co  \o  r^»  -h  o 

H    CO    CM    >?  ON    CO 

»         »         »         *  * 

^O     CO     lO     H  r- ( 


o  o  o  o  o  o 
m  m  on  rH  co  in 
oo  no  on  r-^  o  <f 


m  co  -<f 


o  o  o  o  o  o 

N  CI  N  H  ci  m 
m  •*   N   N   O  M1 


m    (O    >J    H    H    H 


o  o  o  o  o  o 

co  co  rH  m  m  co 

o  rH  co  m  on  co 

in  CO  -3"  •— I  rH 


o  o  o  o  o  o 

m  oo  o  h  o-  oo 

co  no  r^  co  oo  ^ 

<T  CM      CO  rH  1— t 


o  o  o  o  o  o 

on  rH  ro  no  on  m 

rH  O  r~-  O  NO     ON 

CO  CM  CN  rH 


o  o  o  o  O  o 

ex)  —4  r^  Cs  oo  h* 

o  co  r-~  m  co  m 

CN|  H     H 


o  o  o  o  o  o 
s  n  o  <t  >n  10 
r^  m  t»«.  cm  r^  i— i 


O  O  O  o  O  o 

0<ts 


0)      •  0) 

rH    4-1  rH 

bO   U  -H 

C    CO  43 

•h  a  o 
co  <!  S 


CO 
4xi 

01 

3 

w 


0)  •    0) 

rH  4-J    rH 

bO  In    -H 

C  CO  ^ 

•H  P-,  O 

co  <  S 


O     rH 

4tJ     M 
rH      CO 


o  o 

T3   O 

"»«.  O 

00 

<d-  m 

r-~  r>« 

O  </> 

o 

•       rN 

rH 

X    -H 

E 

^N      CO 

QJ    >4h 

3 

H      QJ 

CO     r-f 

>    bO 

c 

T3    -H 

01     CO 

CO 

CO     4J 

0)     CO 

CO     C 

CO    tH 

CO    cO 

-^s     DO 

CO 

S>5 

m  43 

CO      CJ 

CO 

CO   W 

•H 

01       • 

4-1    On 

CO    CN 

M   O 

•— i 

X  o 

CO  O 

4-1        • 

CO    >-i 

M    0 

0) 

>H      U 

3     4J 

w   cr 

m 

•   CM 

s>s     • 

<r 

vt    x 

o>   u 

rH     CO 

•H    rH 

43    rH 

2     ° 

E    T3 

«o 

6-?  NO 

cm  r^ 

CO    — I 

rH 

■H  O 

4-1      • 

r-4 

3    X 

B 

8^8 

«.  in 

&>«   CO 

-3- 

CN     CO 

■H 

• 

>-. 

O 

rH      CU 

O 

•H    4J 

O 

B     * 

CO      >H 

m 

<4H 

m 

0)    TO 

</> 

rH     4J 

01 

r^O 

E 
O 

•H  ^ 

4= 

fa     01 


.   43 


c 

<r 

g 

o 

m 

E 

•H 

vO 

4-J 

o 

-3 

3 

O 

B 

43 

O 

CO 

•H 

• 

M 

o 

4-J 

IH 

o 

CO 

0 

o 

■H 

4rN 

T3 

M 

m 

4-1 

co 

•H 

a*  co- 

in 

•H 

cn 

CM 

4J 

3 

• 

^ 

O 

3 

32 

X 

E 

- 1 


4-> 

u 

CD 
•I-) 

o 
u 

Oh 

E 

a 

0) 
T3 
X> 

>•, 

rH 
O 
SB 

a) 
a 
o 

3= 


4-1 

52 


4-1 
(-1 

<u 

a 
o 
u 

Oh 

s 

<u 

M 

O 
iH 

> 

< 

3 

to 


CO 
01 

3 
rH 

to 
> 

4J 

0) 

u 

to 
53 


to 

-a 
c 
to 

B 
<u 
Q 

3 
•H 

CO 

3 
O 
33 

3 

0) 

u 
u 

c 
o 


o 

2 

4-1 
CO 

c 
o 


CM 
tN 


en 


CO 

H 


C 

CN 


M 

CO 

a< 


o* 


en 

u 

CO 

OJ 


en 


O" 

CN 


C 


CN 

CO 
OJ 


cn 


CN 


o* 


-d" 


CO 

0) 


o 

en 


o  o 


<J"  -d" 


co  o 

*-*  m 

CN   CN 

00   CN 

CO    — 1 

-d-  <t 
O  as 


en  v£> 

as  oo 

o>  ^o 

-d-  m 

CN    CN 

oo  so 

en  m 
CN  oo 
-d-  co 


co  m 
cm  oo 
-d-  co 


co  m 
cm  oo 
<•  CO 


co  m 
CN  oo 
-d-  co 


o  <r 

00   \D 


CO 
4-> 

•H 

s 

33 

bO 
3 
•H 
CO 

3 
O 

33 

a 
o 

•H 
4-1 

o 

3 
»-i 

4J 

co 
c 
o 
u 


T3 
(LI 

•H 

D. 
3 

a 

CJ 

o 


o  o 


vd  m 

vO   CN 


CM   00 

r-~  m 


<t  — i 


O  o 
O  o 
o  <r 

r»-  cn 


o  o 
o  o 
o  o- 

r^  cm 


o  o 

o  o 

o  <r 

r^  cm 


o  o 
o  o 
o  <r 

#•  0 

r^  cm 


m  co 

<f  >d- 

m  cm 

r->  — i 

CO    CO 

00  o 

m  cm 


as  cm 
r~  cm 
as  o 

*  0 

CM    -H 


CM    O 

-d-  m 

CM    CN 

v£>    CM 

CO    — 1 

/ — ^ 

o 

o 

>^ 

o 

u 

</> 

3 
CO 

co 

3 

0) 

o 

3 

U 

a 

H 

o 

1  •* 

CO 

tO    u 

> 

c 

U    to 

o 

c 

4-1 

3 

CD 

-o 

tO   > 

M 

01 

53  a: 

u 

co 

CO 

CO 

53 

CQ 

4J 

c 

0) 

CJ 

to 

CO 

(-1 

o> 

4-1 

a) 

3 

c 

PU| 

H 

CO 

1 

m 

> 

0) 

CO 

> 

^ 

•a 

o 

0) 

1-1 

CO 

4-1 

a 

o> 

CO 

E 

3 

0J 

H 

H 

> 

CO 

c 

TJ 

> 

H 

3 
CO 

T3 

C 

0) 

O 

-a 

CO 

£ 

co 

-a 

> 

<u 

0) 

35 

co 

co 

co 

CO 

M-< 

<J 

EC 

o 

o  o 
m  <r 

-d-  oo 

CM 


o  o 
m  -d- 
<d-  oo 


CN 


o  o 
m  <r 
<t  oo 


CM 


o  o 
m  -d- 
-d-  oo 


CM 


o  o 
m  <r 
<r  oo 


CM 


o  o 

m  -d- 

<r  oo 

CM 


o  o 

m  <r 

«d-  oo 

CM 


o  o 
<r  oo 

•I 

CM 


o  in 
m  o 
O  r^ 


co  oo 
<j-  m 
o  co 


cm  -d- 


a 

I  ¥ 

tO     U 
O     CO 

Oh 

c 

cO   > 

53  as 


— i  o 
oo  r^ 
m  m 

*    # 


-H    O 

00  r^ 

m  m 

*  9 

-d-  -h 


— i  O 
00  |-» 

m  m 

*        0 


— i  o 
oo  r^ 
m  m 


—i  o 
oo  r-» 
m  m 

•*    # 


—i  o 
co  r-^ 
m  m 


-H    O 

oo  r^ 
in  m 

0\         0 


-H    O 

oo  r^ 
m  m 

»         # 

-d-  -h 


in  oo 
co  co 

*«  0 

CO     ^H 


O    ON 

in  v£> 
as  vo 


r^  cm 

CO   00 
CN 


a 

CO  M 

U  CO 

0- 
3 

tO  > 

53  ct 


<D 


vO 


vO 


bC 

3 

O 


tO 
0) 


OJ 

4J 

CJ 

OJ 

^H 

• 

1-1 

-o 

o 

0) 

CJ 

E 

S^ ' 

3 

CO 

r^ 

CO 

00 

co 

*-4 

o 

co 

o 

•H 

• 

01 

<4-l 

CO 

o 

3 

* 

M 

p 

OJ 

3 

X 

0 

4J 

J3 

o 

CO 

3 

CO 

01 

4-1 

O 

to 

4J 

u 

c 

>, 

o 

<-{ 

•H 

u 

CO 

V 

M 

4-) 

OJ 

u 

> 

to 

3 

3 

0 

cr 

CJ 

j= 

U 

■u 

o 

t 

* 

j-i 

»• 

c 

T3 

CO 

CU 

u 

■H 

00^- 

a 

« 

o. 

0) 

to 

H 

CO 

00 

CO 

<r 

t~>» 

>.c 

X 

o 

• 

^H 

CO 

IW 

CO 

o 

o 

a. 

ai 

co 

4-1 

•H 

to 

Q 

OS 

:|CN| 


CO 

4J 

• 

•H 

•~\ 

3 

to 

3 

4-1 

•H 

n 

3 

00 

3 

CO 

N-^ 

CO 

CM 

4J 

<r 

•H 

V 

3 

3 

4-1 

•H 

O" 

3 

co 

3 

CN 

^^. 

#. 

00 

V45 

-d- 

<^ 

m 

- 

U 

sO 

0 

■— t 

</> 

3 

O 

M 

•H 

O 

^H 

^H 

3 

•H 

O 

E 

•H 

tH 

<r 

i-H 

• 

•H 

CM 

B 

U> 

O 

• 

r-«. 

•  • 

<n- 

cu 

4-1 

•H 

•  • 

C7D 

a 

e 

-^ 

CO 

h 

o 

CO 

x 

X 

u 

> 

o 

pej 

3 

4J 
o 

CU 

o 
u 

e 

3 

c 

0) 
T3 
X> 

>s 
H 

O 

X 

0) 

& 

o 

X 


a 
m 

B 

O 
iH 

a 

E 
W 

>> 

CO 
C 

o 
o 

u: 

-a 
<u 

u 

<u 
d 
a) 
o 

-o 

c 

CO 

CO 

C 

o 

•H 
4J 
CO 
l-i 
CD 

a. 
o 


c 
o 

2 

CO 

o 

JB 

(U 
CO 

3 

o 
P3 


cO 

4-1 
O 

H 

a; 

c 

•H 

-O 

E 
o 
c_> 


cn 

CN 
I 

en 


cO 
H 


\0  oo  r^  cn 

CTl     ^H    LT| 

Of 

r-.  v£>  vo 

in  -h  -vr 

m 

en  — i 

en  cni 

Of 


Of 


Of 


\£>  O   OS   cn 

— 4  cn  m 

r^  i~^  so 

\©    ^H  -3- 

en  -h 

en  cs 

v£>  OS  t-- 

N  \0   vD 

cn  ^h 


en 


r-»  so  vo 
en  —( 


m  <r  cn  <r 
m  i^  r^ 

en  — i 


oo  so  cn 

O   OS    00 

cn  ^h 


as  m  in  .3- 

m  s  n 

CN    -H 


0>  •*   vO   M 

rt    Ifl    \C 

CN    -4 


m  -h  cn  cn 
m  cn  m 


Ifl    VO     H     H 
O    S     CO 


cn  r-^ 
<r  cn 


o  o 


as  cm  m 
m  ^  >3- 
cn  cn 


s£>  00  <f 
mo-* 
cn  cm 


r---  as  cn 
-a-  o  <f 
cn  cm 


00  o  as 
cn  — 1  cn 
cn  cm 


cn  <r  cm  <r 

m  \o  00 

00   Os    00 

— 1  0  cn 

CM    -H 

cn  cm 

00  00  <n 

CM    — I 


CN    OS   ON 

-j-  m  cn 

CN    — I 


m  <r  cn 

00    CN    CN 


o  as  <t 


so  o  m 


m  cn  o 


cu 

CO 

CO 

U 

i-H 

(U 

0) 

CO 

3 

CO      • 

C 

<o>    > 

O 

•H 

u 

CO 

>s  T3 

0) 

u 

4-1    X> 

X! 

<u 

•H      3 

4-1 

p-l 

s  w 

O 

X) 

S     to 

CO 

c 

<u 

to 

c 

E  M 

^ 

•H 

CO 

-^ 

•H 

O     OJ 

CD 

O 

rH 

M 

OJ 

O 

r-4 

U     l-i 

»-i 

-^ 

l-l 

cy 

!-J 

M 

M 

3 

3 

H 

CO 

D. 

3 

H 

CO 

S   W 

W 

W 

0 

CO 

W 

w 

U 

<u 

•H 

Z 

Q 

3-58 


apartments,  hotels,  etc.)  until  such  time  that  adequate  housing  becomes 
available.   This  anticipated  reliance  upon  rental  property  has  been  determined 
on  the  basis  that  a  housing  shortage  does  exist  in  Eureka  (Chapter  2.0)  and  a 
further  assumption  that  preproject  development  would  not  occur.   It  should  be 
noted,  however,  that  EXXON  commuters  have  noted  that  preproject  development 
is  considered  to  be  a  necessity,  particularly  with  regard  to  mitigation 
planning  within  Eureka  County.   However,  until  such  time  that  a  preproject 
development  plan  becomes  available,  WRC  has  considered  a  worst-case  assumption 
regarding  housing  shortfalls  to  be  appropriate. 

Shortfalls  in  housing  are  expected  to  result  in  an  increased  reliance 
upon  mobile  homes,  perhaps  much  in  excess  of  the  44  percent  forecasted  for 
the  stabilized  condition.   While  the  Case  5-A  subdivision  scenario  results  in 
a  housing  shortfall,  some  mitigation  may  be  expected  in  that  construction 
requirements  would  be  centralized  and  thusly  focus  industry  response.   An 
increase  in  the  number  and  stability  of  Eureka-based  horaebuilder  and  mobile 
home  dealerships  could  be  anticipated. 

The  total  housing  demand  would  equal  614  units  (Table  3-19).   Under 
the  Case  5-A  scenario,  238  of  the  614  units  would  be  added  to  the  Eureka  and 
Elko/Carlin  housing  stocks.   The  addition  to  Eureka  housing  stock  of  168 
units  would  equal  a  30.6  percent  change  from  the  1980  housing  stock  of  549 
units.   Percent  distribution  of  housing  types  within  Eureka  (Table  3-20)  is 
estimated  to  be  changed  as  follows:   single  family  units  -  39.7  to  31.8 
percent;  multiple  family  units  25.1  to  28.6  percent;  and,  mobile  home  units 
35.2  to  39.6  percent.   Percent  change  of  type  distribution  in  Elko  County 
would  be  miniscule. 

Baseline  housing  requirements  for  Eureka  County  were  estimated  to 
equal  136  units  through  the  four  year  period  of  peak  load  (2.66  persons/unit). 
Thus,  implementation  of  Case  5-A  (development  of  subdivision)  would  result  in 
a  total  Eureka  housing  demand  of  304  (136  +  168,  plus  376  subdivision  units). 

The  effects  associated  with  the  housing  demand  of  Case  5-A  would  be 
significant.   As  discussed  in  Chapter  2.0,  availability  of  housing  in  Eureka 
is  presently  very  limited  even  though  103  units  (  1980)  are  reported  as  vacant. 

3-59 


Discussions   with  county  government   personnel   (  1983)    indicate   that   this   is  due 
to   substandard   housing  unit    conditions   and   second   home   or   seasonal   ownership 
of   units.      Thus,    a   shortfall  of    available   housing  up   to   304  units   over  the 
four-year   period  was   assumed   as   a  worst-case    scenario   although  actual    numbers 
are   expected   to   be   smaller. 

Due    to   the   limited   number  of    homebuilders    and   mobile   home   dealers 
in  Eureka,    the   response    to   the   housing   demands    of  Case   5-A  is   anticipated    to 
require   temporary  but   significant   reliance  upon  self-provided  housing  (trailers, 
campers,    mobile   homes)    by   the   in-migrating   population.      All    available  multiple 
family,    mobile   home,    or  single   family  rentals    are  expected   to   be   absorbed   by 
the    population  influx.      Overcrowding   of    available   or   self-provided   housing 
units  may  occur.      Unauthorized  use   of   public   lands  may  occur.      The  length  of 
time   required   to   ameliorate   this   situation  has   been   estimated   at   one    to   one 
and   one-half   years. 

Indirect    effects   of    the   anticipated   housing  shortfalls,    although 
expected    to   be   short    term,    may  be   significant    in   terms    of    the   communities' 
satisfaction  with  employment    opportunities,    community   relationships   and 
environmental  quality.      Mitigation   of    the    housing  shortfalls   would    largely 
reduce   the   significance   of   direct    and   indirect    effects. 

3.4.4      Local   Government   and   Public   Finance 

3.4.4.1      Summary 

Implementation  of  the  proposed  action  would  significantly  affect 
public  financing  in  the  region,  having  both  positive  and  negative  effects. 
Seven  jurisdictions  are  involved:   Eureka  and  Elko  counties,  Eureka  and  Elko 
county  school  districts,  the  towns  of  Eureka  and  Carlin,  and  the  City  of 
Elko.   Each  jurisdiction  would  be  affected  differently  under  either  the 
proposed  action  Case  5-A,  alternative  Case  5-B,  or  No  Action  circumstances. 

The  financial  effects  of  project  and  alternatives  implementation 
upon  each  jurisdiction  were  analyzed  extensively  utilizing  conservative 
methodologies.   The  detailed  analytical  results  are  presented  in  this  section. 

3-60 


The  following  subsection  summarizes  methodologies  of  analysis,  with 
subsections  thereafter  detailing  the  results  pertinent  to  the  analysis 
conducted. 

Methodologies  of  Analysis.   An  analysis  of  fiscal  impacts  fundamentally 
requires  the  investigation  of  revenues  versus  expenditures.   Upon  implemen- 
tation, the  proposed  action  (or  alternative)  would  cause  certain  revenues  to 
be  generated  while  simultaneously  causing  area  jurisdictions  to  incur  certain 
expenditures.   The  fiscal  balance,  or  imbalance,  thus  created  between  generated 
revenues/incurred  expenditures  significantly  affects  the  eventual  magnitude 
and  adversity  of  social  impacts  resultant  from  the  action  underway. 

To  determine  the  fiscal  impact  of  the  proposed  action,  and  thus 
to  characterize  socioeconomic  impact  as  to  beneficial/adverse  conditions, 
conservative  and  realistic  measures  were  incorporated  into  the  analyses. 
As  briefly  detailed  in  Section  1.4.2,  the  calculations  of  project  generated 
revenues  were  conducted  on  a  directly  traceable  dollar  basis  (i.e.,  tax 
monies  generated  by  the  project  and  project  personnel  were  directly  calcu- 
lated and  traced  from  origin  through  distribution).   The  use  of  directly 
traceable  revenues  allows  an  unbiased  and  accurate  quantitative  establish- 
ment of  definitive  monies  that  are  specific  to  the  project  but  results  in  an 
understated  revenue  value.   Understated  revenues  result  due  to  the  fact  that 
some  generated  tax  monies,  particularly  those  within  the  General  State  Fund 
(see  latter  discussion),  cannot  be  distributed  in  a  manner  allowing  analytical 
inclusion  to  this  Technical  Report.   Additionally,  local  economies  often 
receive  external  financing  beyond  direct  tax  money  return  which  involves  per 
capita  basis  requirements  (e.g.  grants).   The  use  of  directly  traceable 
dollars  to  project  revenues,  therefore,  results  in  the  presentation  of  gen- 
erated revenues  which  do  not  include  General  State  Fund  Monies  or  per  capita 
special  external  finance  monies  commonly  utilized  by  the  affected  juris- 
dictions. 

The  alternative  method  of  revenue  establishment  would  have  involved 
use  of  a  per-capita  ($/person  population)  estimation  procedure  which  assumes 
certain  set  revenue/expenditure  values  per  person  and  disregards  money  source. 
The  per-capita  method  would  require  use  of  data  not  developed  specific  to  the 

3-61 


project.  Use  of  a  per-capita  revenue  estimation  procedure  was  considered  to 
be  less  suitable  than  the  direct  dollar  trace  method  and  was,  therefore,  not 
utilized  for  final  impact  assessment  procedures. 

The  second  factor  in  the  fiscal  analysis  involved  the  measure  of 
revenues  distribution  to  assess  expenditure  balance  or  imbalance.   The 
distribution  of  project  generated  revenues  to  each  jurisdiction  was  also 
calculated  on  the  basis  of  direct  traceability.   Due  to  Nevada  state  tax 
laws,  this  method  of  calculation  resulted  in  an  underestimate  of  distributed 
revenues  to  the  jurisdictions  because  a  large  proportion  of  tax  revenues 
(35  percent  of  state  sales  tax)  are  obtained  and  distributed  by  the  State 
under  the  State  General  Fund  program  in  a  manner  not  allowing  definitive 
assumpti  as  regarding  final  destination.   Consequently,  the  calculations  of 
fiscal  impacts  shown  herein  are  conservative  since  redistribution  of  these 
funds  to  affected  jurisdictions  is  not  included  in  the  analysis  to  evaluate 
the  offset  of  impacts.   Later  discussion  documents  the  quantity  of  such 
monies  but  does  not  account  for  distribution. 

The  third  factor  in  the  fiscal  analysis  (a  per-capita  determination 
of  jurisdiction  expenditures)  resulted  in  a  response  to  the  socioeconomic 
framework  of  the  Eureka  area  which  due  to  the  low  population  density  of  the 
affected  Eureka  jurisdictions  (county,  town,  school)  is  highly  sensitive  to 
population  alterations  of  even  minor  extent.   Superimposing  the  tripling  of 
population  anticipated  upon  the  jurisdictional  frameworks  without  consideration 
of  economies  of  scales  and  without  deemphasizing  special  external  financing 
would  result  in  a  significant  overstatement  of  eventual  realized  expenditures. 

Thus  expenditures  were  calculated  for  both  direct  and  secondary 
(non-EXXON)  generated  populations  using  a  project  specific  per-capita  rate 
(1980-1983  budget  basis).   The  fiscal  expenditures  calculated  represent  the 
most-probable  case,  reflecting  the  population  and  direct  cost  modified  per 
capita  rate  anticipated  through  project  implementations.   The  anticipated 
expenditures  of  the  affected  jurisdictions  as  calculated  are  discussed  in  the 
latter  part  of  this  subsection. 


3-62 


Generated  Tax  Revenues  -  Summary  of  Results.   The  initial  50  years  of  project 
activity  would  result  in  about  123  million  dollars  (approximate  round  number) 
being  generated  in  tax  monies.   Of  the  total  being  generated,  approximately 
102  million  dollars  would  be  directly  distributed  to  the  affected  jurisdictions. 
The  remaining  balance  of  approximately  21  million  dollars  would  represent 
monies  retained  and  indirectly  distributed  through  the  State  General  Fund 
(2.0  of  5.75  percent  State  Sales  Tax).   Although  monies  can  be  distributed  to 
particular  cost  accounts  of  the  jurisdictions  of  origin,  state  law  does  not 
require  it. 

As  detailed  previously,  State  General  Fund  monies  (totaling  21.6 
million  dollars)  have  not  been  included  in  the  budget  balance  analyses  or 
projected  jurisdictional  revenues  which  follow.   While  it  may  be  assumed  that 
significant  General  Fund  monies  would  eventually  be  distributed  to  the 
originating  jurisdiction,  the  quantification  of  those  monies  distributed  is  a 
decision  undertaken  by  legislative  action  as  influenced  by  local,  regional  and 
state  needs.   As  briefly  outlined  in  a  later  discussion,  distribution  of  General 
Fund  monies  to  school  jurisdictions  in  Eureka  and  Elko  Counties  has  historically 
exceeded  the  amounts  paid  in.   The  following  subsections  detail  certain  aspects 
of  past  General  Fund  monies  distribution  and  in  summary,  note  that  the 
distribution  of  General  Fund  monies  occurs  via  sector  title  (i.e.,  public 
safety,  highways)  rather  than  according  to  the  local  jurisdiction  receiving 
state  aid.   The  manner  in  which  distributions  occur  involves  variable  equations 
which  may  change  annually  to  reflect  current  perceptions  of  need.   The 
determination  of  need  is  subject  to  legislative  and  political  entity  review. 

The  most  notable  return  to  local  jurisdictions  is  in  the  form  of 
the  Distributive  School  Fund,  which  is  separate  from  the  1.5  percent  school 
support  tax,  and  which  originates  out  of  the  General  Fund,  accompanied  by 
funds  derived  from  four  other  sources.   This  second  co-mingling  of  funds, 
and  other,  specific,  aids  to  school  programs  (school  lunch,  vocational 
education,  etc.)  not  a  part  of  the  Distributive  School  Fund  but  also  origin- 
ating from  the  General  Fund,  aids  public  schools  in  greater  amount  than  the 
original  2  percent  sales  tax  paid  in  by  all  local  jurisdictions.   In  FY  1982 
and  1983,  such  aid  was  131.8  percent  and  166.1  percent,  respectively,  of  the 
2  percent  paid  in  to  the  General  Fund;  of  the  original  2  percent  sales  tax 

3-63 


paid  in,  91  percent  and  117  percent,  respectively,  was  returned  to  public 
schools  in  the  form  of  the  Distributive  School  Fund. 

The  forecasts  of  Eureka  and  Elko  School  District  revenues  analyzed 
do  not  include  the  return  of  the  2  percent  State  Sales  Tax  in  the  Distributive 
School  Fund,  nor  of  the  specific  aids  separate  from  this  fund  named  above. 
In  FY  1982,  the  Distributive  School  Fund  paid  to  Eureka  A. 2  times,  and  to 
Elko  1.9  times,  the  amounts  recorded  as  paid  in  by  these  counties  in  the  form 
of  the  2  percent  sales  tax.   However,  these  returns  to  elementary  and  secondary 
public  schools  are  by  complex  computerized  formulas,  which  are  characterized 
by  annually  changing  externally-given  parameters  as  well  as  internal  relation- 
ships.  The  significance  of  this  distribution,  while  not  forecasted  herein, 
would  be  expected  to  be  major  in  terms  of  additional  monies  being  received  by 
the  affected  jurisdiction. 

Project  generated  taxes  which  would  be  dispersed  to  the  seven 
jurisdictions  are  detailed  in  Table  3-24  for  the  proposed  action,  Case  5-A 
Subdivision.   Generated  taxes  do  vary  based  on  the  locale  of  population 
residency,  thus  the  alternative  Case  5-B  would  result  in  differing  fiscal 
impacts.   The  Case  5-B  impacts  are  discussed  in  Section  3.5.4. 

As  indicated  by  Table  3-24,  maximum  receipt  of  direct  distribution 
project  tax  revenue  under  Case  5-A  for  the  seven  districts  combined  would 
occur  after  2.5  years  of  project  initiation  and  would  total  $2,383,300.   Tax 
revenues  would  stabilize  in  year  12  and  would  total  $2,399,600.   (Rounding  of 
numbers  not  conducted  to  allow  cross  referencing  with  sections  data  of  this 
Technical  Report.) 

The  revenues  shown  on  Table  3-24  include  residential  property  taxes, 
personal  sales  tax,  mine/process  plant  property  taxes  and  net  proceeds  tax 
derived  from  the  project. 

Expenditures  of  Affected  Jurisdictions  -  Summary  Details.   The  annual  budgets 
in  the  most  recent  period  for  each  of  the  seven  jurisdictions  were  examined 
to  define  recurrent  operating  revenues  and  expenditures  by  type.   Capital 
outlays,  opening  balances  and  closing  balance  carryovers  were  eliminated. 

3-64 


</> 

CN 

00 

ON 


CO 

3 
o 

•H 

4J 

o 

•H 
"3 
CO 

•H 
M 
3 

■-} 


0) 

4-1 

3 


CO 

•H 
O 

T> 

C 
CO 

■u 
O 
CU 
•<-> 
O 
l-i 
Pi 

V 
XI 

4-1 

>s 
JQ 

-O 
0) 

4-1 

CO 
t-i 

01 

c 
cu 
O 


o 

> 

<u 

cu 

•<-l 

Pi 

o 

d 

X 

Pi 

CO 

H 

E 

3 

H 

3 

CO 

CU 

3 

T3 

3 

XI 

s 

S^ 

< 

H 

O 

SS 

-* 

CN 

0) 

1 

a 

m 

o 

32 

cu 

^H 

• 

X 

4-» 

CO 

s 

H 

f 

LO 

01 

CO 

CO 

c_> 

c 

o 

•H 

CO 

•H 

> 

•H 

T3 

JO 

3 

CO 

/-■v 

ij 

< 

H 

O 

H 

v^- 

3 

•H 

p 

H 

3 

U 

o 

CO 

H 

c_> 

o 

>. 

^ 

4-1 

-H 

•H 

W 

o 

to 

o 

r-H 

J* 

o 

r-l 

o 

&J 

s: 

o 

CO 

>% 

o 

4-1 

^ 

3 

tH 

3 

W 

O 

u 

JS 

0) 

3 

u 

O 

3 

H 

w 

CO 

JS 

rH 

O 

cu 

O 

m 

x: 

3 

o 

W 

CO 

J 

4J 

0) 

3 

u 

3 

3 

O 

W 

CJ 

M 

CO 

CU 

>* 

o 

O 

o 

O 

o 

O 

O 

O 

o 

O 

O 

O 

o 

O 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CN 

-i 

en 

o 

v£> 

X 

kC 

^o 

vO 

vD 

'X> 

x> 

vO 

vO 

vO 

i— 1 

CN 

co 

m 

<t 

m 

r-^ 

Px 

r^ 

r^ 

r^- 

o> 

CTv 

Ox 

O 

-i 

o 

00 

^i 

r>» 

oo 

O 

O 

O 

o 

O 

a^ 

o> 

On 

ON 

ro 

<t 

m 

00 

-^ 

CN 

cn 

CN 

CN 

rg 

m 

ro 

en 

m 

— 1 

CM 

—1 

CN 

(N 

CN 

CN 

CM 

CN 

CN 

Csl 

CN 

CN 

CN 

ooooooooooooooo 
oooooooooooooo 


ooooooooooooooo 
ooooooooooooooo 
(M^fi^ncofodMcnncocnflc) 


ooooooooooooooo 
ooooooooooooooo 
-HCNocNromcommcnromcomm 

CMO>    - iOOOOOOOOOOO 


ooooooooooooooo 
ooooooooooooooo 

cNv£>r^r>.r^r-.r»»r>-r^r^r>.r^r^.r>> 


ooooooooooooooo 
oooooooooooooo 


ooooooooooooooo 
ooooooooooooooo 
oNomoooooooooooo 

o^^ot^oooooooo<j--*-<r-^--* 

HinoOOHHHHHHNNNNCM 


ooooooooooooooo  l 

ooooooooooooooo 

ooooooooooooooo 

oMn-i(ji(j\ooooocococoooco 

CO<r-jOONNNNNHHHHH 
-hoOcoOnoOOOOO-h-^-h-h-h 

CO 
4-1 

o  ^ 

CN 
CN  O 

I 

-i   CM    en   -*    !AiOSCOO\0-iCMrr)<f    \f\    \Q 


cu 

Pi 

4J 

•H 
CJ> 

I 

>> 

4-1 

3 
3 

o 

CO 


c 

cu 

E 

0) 

a. 

a. 

3 

CO 

•> 

H 

oi 

CJ 

cj 

X 

CO 

• 

H 

•3 
CU 

u 

01 

u 

•H 

H 

3 
o 

CU 

3 

Pi 

•H 

>. 

H 

4J 

CO 

•H 

CU 

u 

>-. 

>^ 

E 

4-1 

o 

c 

u 

3 

CM 

O 

cj 

U 
CU 

S-J 

>% 

o 

14-1 

cu 

3 

cu 

o 

4-1 

CO 

bO 

4-1 

CO 

CO 

tH 

>1 

CO 

• 

x> 

cu 

3 

T5 

a 

O 
•H 

0) 

H 

4-' 

c 

CO 

1-1 

f>S^ 

CO 

4-1 

S-i 

4-1 

M 

CO 

0) 

0) 

> 

u 

D- 

0 

4-1 

CO 

Li 

3 

cu 

Pi 

CO 

3 

CJ 

C 

s 

•H 

01 

ft 

CW 

> 

o 

•H 

0) 

H 

3 

>J 

CO 

bO 

> 

•H 

at 

CO 

XJ 

T3 

3 

<! 

O 

i— I 

3 

a 

•  M 

c 

<^s 

O 

•H 

H 

Pi 

in 
1 

4J 

U 

x> 

O 

u 

t— i 

c 

CO 

^.^ 

CO 

co 

u 

0 

Q 

CO 
cu 

Q 

H 

>-< 

s 

CO 

cu 

H 

CO 
h- 1 
W 

o 


cu 

CJ 
M 

3 
O 

CO 


3-65 


The  purpose  of  the  budget  analysis  was  to  define  the  source  and  the  amount  of 
revenue,  and  the  departmental  expenditures  by  type  which  are  normal  to  ordinary 
operations.   The  existing  population  and  the  facilities  and  services  to  serve 
that  population  were  presumed  to  give  rise  to  these  "normal"  levels  of  revenues 
and  expenditures.   This  presumes  that  all  facilities  and  services  which  the 
normal  population  requires  are  in  place  and  that  future  changes  in  revenue  or 
expenditure  would  be  in  direct  response  to  changes  in  population  only.   In 
this  way,  incremental  population  changes  of  the  proposed  action  are  measurable 
in  their  effects  upon  future  revenues  and  expenditures. 

The  per  capita  expenditures  of  the  jurisdictions  for  both  normal 
and  new  populations  provided  a  basis  for  estimating  the  expected  increase  in 
normal  operating  budgets  (existing  budget  details  and  associated  per  capita 
rates  (status  quo,  1980-83)  are  summarized  by  jurisdiction  in  Tables  3-33 
and  3-36,  Section  3.4.4.3. 

Projects  expenditures  for  each  of  the  seven  affected  jurisdictions 
are  presented  in  Table  3-25.   The  estimation  of  future  expenditures  was 
calculated  for  final  analysis  at  the  population/direct  cost  modified  per 
capita  rate,  the  results  shown  on  Table  3-25. 

As  indicated  in  a  later  discussion,  considerable  variation  exists 
between  the  status  quo  per  capita  ( 1980-83)  and  per  student  costs  rates  of 
Elko  and  Eureka  County  school  districts:   $1,080.78  per  capita  and  $5,687.33 
per  student  for  Eureka;  $282.04  per  capita  and  $2,222.36  per  student  for 
Elko.   The  analytical  review  of  status  quo  per  capita  expenditure  calculations 
clearly  indicated  the  inevitable  overstatement  of  real  costs  if  a  linear 
function  not  responsive  to  economics  of  scale  was  assumed.   Table  3-26  illu- 
strates the  effect  of  population  upon  average  cost  per  student  based  on  the 
analysis  of  the  Nevada's  17  school  districts. 

In  combination  with  the  dependency  of  the  jurisdiction  budgets  upon 
special  revenue  supplements  from  external  sources,  the  necessity  of  establish- 
ing a  population  basis  for  forecasting  future  expenditures  was  further 
analyzed. 


3-66 


-  I 


3 
T3 


U 

o 


V 

IT) 

be 

D 

•a 

>- 

3 

m 

CM 

E 

u 

V 

n> 

H 

1 

OJ 

>* 

T3 

•^ 

*~\ 

r 

o 

o 

"* 

-o 

o 

u 

0) 

o> 

■o 

4-1 

^^ 

V 

CO 

>- 

4-1 

^H 

c 

'J 

01 

o 

01 

as 

■H 

••-1 

l 

u 

o 

4J 

a 

u 

O 

< 

a, 

0) 

—I 

T3 

e 

o 

0) 

3 

u 

V) 

C 

a. 

O 

41 

a. 

T3 

u 

0 

.O 

<u 

u 

>s 

z 

a, 

-H 

O 

T, 

in 
cm 

01 

1 

a. 

en 

o 

3C 

41 

• 

-O 

u 

0J 

T. 

(- 

en  00 

sO  — i 

crs  — . 


sO  00  eM 

so  — 4  m 
o\  —  — < 


CM    00 

rv  — . 


CJs  sr 
CM   m 

m  cm 


»- 


in 

ST 

INI 

— 

ao 

m 

sf 

in 

m 

CM 

H 

— 

IV 
<Ts 

co 

« 

— ' 

rv 

sj- 

m 

r-J 

•• 

— 

so   — <   m 


O   ao 

00    — I 

crs  — ■ 


m 
X 
in 

St- 
irs 
rj 

— ' 

£> 

O 

OO 

<~j 

oo 

O 

— ' 

<-sl 

o 

X' 

CN 

CTs 

O 

m 

— 

o  o 

O   CM 

o  o 


o  o 

O   vC 

vD    — i 


<M    O 

— •  o 

sO   — I 


id  O 

CM   \D 

sO    — 


o  o 

-*    sO 

vO   — « 


sO   — i 

m 


i 


-»  o 

sO 

en   00 

O  CM 

-^ 

so  en 

o  o 

sO    — 1 

in  cr> 

—  o 

o  o 


SO 

X 

X 

en 

so 

* 

— i 

o 

CTs 

og 

O 

O 

CTs 

— 

145   — ' 

cm  <r 

O  en 


<M 

m 

CTs 

<r 

sO 

X 

— ' 

O  rv 
— •  iv 
iv  x 


sO    sO 

m  —i 

IV  o 


CTs  rv 
O  -j- 
»  m 


—         I 


X 

O 

CM 

CT- 

sO 

sO 

X 

ts 

CM 

a;    co 

Isl    u 


u    o 

C    i*j 

oj  * 


>>  o> 

4J     u 

c    3 

3    «-< 
O    -H 

u-§ 


O 
o 

SI 

u 


.3 


3 


-a    3 
c    c 

D.    > 

X    u 

UJ    csL 


O  -H  0)  1) 

H  T3  3  U 

C  C  C 

CO  0>  4>  T) 

i  a  >  ^ 

OJ  X  H)  CO 

u  ui  as  to 

3 

u 


cm  rv 


—  O 

o  -. 


—  o 
o  — 


O  iv 


' 


—  o 
o  — 

CTs 

1 

-■  o 

O  — i 

1 

-i  o 
o  — 

1 

-*  o 
o  — 

3> 

1 

-•  o 

o  — . 

CJs 

1 

—  o 

O  — l 

as 
1 

-*  o 
o  — 

CTS 

CM    X 

Iv    CTs 

rv   c-i 


f^   x 

O    CTs 

x  -i 


s 


-.  o 

o  — i 


-.  o 

o  — 


—  o 
o 


O   tv 


m 


O  o 


en  o 


sO   \D 

n  o 

X    CM 


<"">    SO 

sO  o 

X    CM 


CM    sO 

X  o 

X    CM 


o  x 
as  — 


en  en 
<r  rv 
as  — i 


cm  m 

IV    _ 
OS    00 


o  x 
O  m 


ri  cm 
r--  -a- 


sO    —I 

in  — 
— •  en 


ST 

o 


sT 

0 

4-1 

4J 

O 

— ' 

CO 

3 

m 

4-J 

a 

•W 

to 

c 

■J 

■H 

u 

1—1 

fl 

« 

c 

^^ 

kl 

CJ 

St 

V 

a 

0) 

o 

u 

c 

X 

in 

CI 

V 

o 

4-1 

sz 

0 

4J 

o 

4-1 

c 

14-1 

0) 

ejs 

o 

c 

> 

en 

-^ 

nj 

in 

<» 

-C 

V 

•a 

sO 

m 


o 

CJ 


01  V 

3  O 

c  c 

0)  fl 


4-1 

efl 

4-1 

to 


LU 


—4  01  01 

T3  3  <J 

C  C  C 

0<  OJ  co 

O.  >  — ( 

X  Oi  erj 

lo  as  co 


-o 
c 

01     OJ 


01     01 
3     O 
C 


j    a.  >   h 
<     X     Oi     cO 
E-i   W   a!    co 
O 
H 


racM  | 
u 

V   -3 

C     C 

3'i 


3-67 


c     • 

4-1 

4J  I  oj 

c\-a  ■ 

3 
O    -O 


— i  It  4J 

tn  it)  oj  -h  oj 

II  C  U  -H  M 

U  O  efl  ID  -T3 

3  -W  4J  >  3 

HO  4J  CO  efl  X! 

-I  u 


01    in 

01       U 

j:    3 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  3-26  Expenditures  Per  Student  For  Five  Most  Directly  Applicable 
Teaching  Costs 

State 

Budget  (1980)        Eureka Elko Average 

(Dollar  costs  per  student) 


Administration 

Instruction  1,994  1,243  1,131 

Transportation  645  101  7  9 

Operation 

Maintenance  602  184  189 

Employees ' 
Retirement 
Insurance  413  236  205 

Equipment    for 
Administration 
Instruction  53  5  11 


Total   Direct 

Teaching  Costs  3,707  1,769  1,615 

Excluded 

Outlays  758         138  126 


Source:   WRC  EIS  Team 


3-68 


As  discussed  briefly  in  Section  1.4.2,  a  linear  regression  analysis 
was  made  of  the  relationship  between  Eureka  County  populations  and  expenditure 
levels  and  those  of  Mineral,  Humboldt,  Lyon  and  Elko  Counties  for  the  period 
ending  June  30,  1982.   These  populations  were,  respectively,  1,395,  6,286, 
11,816,  15,235  and  19,875,  thus  permitting  step-wise  comparisons  of  five 
expenditure  items  common  to  each  county,  and  the  total  of  these  items,  as 
costs  per  capita.   The  analysis  furnished  a  predictive  model  of  declining  per 
capita  costs  as  population  rises.   An  identical  analysis  was  made  of  the 
Eureka  School  District  with  five  low-enrollment  school  districts,  using 
available  data  of  1979  and  1980.   Enrollments  of  114,  173,  190,  700,  907  and 
911,  provided  the  step-wise  increases  needed  to  supply  a  predictive  model  of 
per  student  costs  at  different  levels  of  enrollment.   The  resulting  forecast 
for  Eureka  School  District  expenditures  indicated  an  annually  declining  cost 
per  student  based  on  the  anticipated  population  influx  of  the  proposed  action. 

Town  of  Eureka  per  capita  budgeting  was  not  subjected  to  regression 
analysis  effects  due  to  the  diversity  and  statistical  unreliability  that  its 
base  population  and  county  financing  in  comparison  with  other  similar  entities 
presented. 

An  Elko  model  was  not  formulated,  because  of  insufficient  numbers 
of  counties  or  districts  larger  in  size  to  provide  reasonable  measures  of 
cost  relationships  with  larger  populations.   This  was  because  only  one  larger 
county  of  34,000  population  supplied  a  single  reference  point.   Further  step- 
wise progression  was  made  unreliable  by  the  extreme  increase  in  the  remaining 
two  counties'  populations  of  208,000  and  525,000  compared  to  the  relatively 
small  increases  in  Elko  County  populations  which  are  forecasted.   The  same 
problem  disallowed  further  extended  analysis  of  the  Elko  School  District. 
Expenditure  projects  for  Elko  County  jurisdictions  were  therefore  calculated 
by  extrapolation  of  status  quo  per  capita  rates,  as  exhibited  by  1980-83 
budgets. 

The  regression  analysis  indicated  that  without  project  influence 
(continued  baseline  growth  trends),  normal  Eureka  County  school  expenditures 
(as  direct  teaching  costs,  81.5  percent  of  total  in  1979-1980)  are  expected 
to  decline  as  per  student  expenditures  from  $4,702  to  $4,092  during  the  period 

3-69 


of  1984-2000.   In  the  case  of  higher  local  school  enrollments  under  the 
proposed  action,  the  per  student  costs  would  further  decline  from  $4,437  to 
$3,119  (first  year,  34  percent  student  enrollment  increase).   The  resultant 
forecast  of  these  per  student  costs  in  terms  of  annual  total  expenditures  is 
shown  on  Table  3-25. 

The  regression  analysis  and  expenditure/revenue  determinations 
indicate  that  the  aggregate  jurisdiction  budgets  would  initially  expend  1.156 
million  dollars  with  revenues  of  311,000  dollars  (year  1,  Table  3-25).   The 
resultant  budget  deficit  of  $845,000  would  be  offset  thereafter  by  budget 
surpluses  of  $230,000  (year  5)  to  $664,000  (stabilized,  year  15). 

Table  3-25  further  indicates,  however,  that  the  aggregate  budget 
surpluses  are  heavily  influenced  by  the  major  budget  balances  of  Eureka  County 
and  Eureka  School  District  having  a  total  budget  balance  surplus  of  $880,000. 
Eureka  Town  and  Elko  jurisdictions  would  each  incur  budget  deficits,  in  the 
aggregate  totalling  a  negative  $216,000.   The  significance  of  this  disparity 
is  discussed  in  the  following. 

Eureka  County  School  District  revenues  would  exceed  expenditures  by 
year  2.5  of  proposed  action  start-up  and  would  remain  in  surplus  for  the 
forecast  period.   The  modified  per  capita  rate  expenditures  calculated  indicate 
that  upon  annual  stabilization  an  annual  budget  balance  surplus  of  $725,000 
(without  State  General  Fund  monies)  would  be  anticipated.   In  addition  to  the 
budget  results  indicated  substantial  monies  would  be  expected  as  distributed 
revenue  per  the  State  General  Fund  (not  included  as  forecasted  revenue  in  the 
analysis). 

As  with  school  enrollment  economies  of  scale,  county  population 
dependency  was  noted  in  the  comparison  of  Eureka  and  four  other  counties. 
When  expressed  as  expenditures  per  capita,  Table  3-26,  the  levels  of  compara- 
tive cost  show  a  tendency  to  decline  rapidly  as  population  rises.   Utilizing 
the  detailed  expenditure  data  of  the  counties  examined,  the  county  expenditure 
regression  analysis  was  prepared  with  output  representing  the  population/direct 
cost  modified  per  capita  rate. 


3-70 


Per  the  regression  analysis,  county  costs  per  capita  were  shown  to 
decrease  from  $773  to  $733  under  "normal"  (no  project  influence)  conditions 
for  the  period  1984  to  year  2000.   Under  the  conditions  of  the  proposed 
action,  initial  per  capita  costs  would  equate  to  734  (assuming  first  year 
influence  1984),  with  subsequent  reductions  to  a  $679  per  capita  cost.   The 
budgetary  forecast  for  Eureka  County  shows  a  surplus  of  revenues  over 
expenditures  as  early  as  year  2.5.   Deficits  reappear  however,  for  the 
following  two  years  with  surpluses  thereafter  through  the  forecast.   A  main 
cause  of  this  early  surplus,  and  subsequent  fluctuation,  is  a  peak  sales  tax 
revenue  earned  from  mine/mill  expenditures  for  equipment  and  supplies  in  the 
year  of  opening,  45  percent  greater  than  the  year  following. 

As  Table  3-25  further  indicates,  the  Town  of  Eureka  would  incur 
an  excess  of  project  related  expenses  compared  to  revenues.   The  net  annual 
project  related  deficits  would  total  approximately  $55,000.   Excepting  certain 
years  (1,  2,  4  and  5),  the  Eureka  County  budget  surpluses  would  be  sufficient 
to  ameliorate  the  Town  budget  deficits.   In  total,  however,  the  first  10-year 
period  of  project  implementation  indicates  an  aggregate  County-Town  deficit 
of  1.4  million  dollars.   As  discussed  in  Chapter  2.0,  the  Town  of  Eureka  is 
financed  primarily  by  county  funding.   Assuming  that  no  changes  were  to  occur 
in  county  funding,  the  anticipated  Town  budget  deficits  would  represent  a 
significant  adverse  impact  with  or  without  county  financial  support.   Alternate 
means  of  financing  (external  source)  or  reduced  project  related  expenditures 
would  be  required  to  offset  the  anticipated  budget  deficits.   As  stated 
previously,  the  projected  revenue/expenditure  budgets  do  not  include  State 
General  Fund  monies,  a  major  source  of  available  funds.   These  funds  total 
$5.3  million  in  the  first  10-year  period  and,  hence,  represent  a  viable, 
project  specific  source  of  monies  generated  to  offset  budgetary  impacts.   The 
outlay  of  these  monies  has  not  been  assumed  but  it  would  be  expected  that 
substantial  justification  for  such  distribution  could  be  presented  to  the 
legislature. 

While  Elko  jurisdiction  budget  deficits  would  occur,  they  quanti- 
tatively represent  low  percentage  contributions  to  total  budget  allocations. 
For  example,  the  $91,000  Elko  School  District  deficit  represents  less  than 
one  percent  of  total  annual  budget  dollars.   Without  inclusion  of  State  General 

3-71 


Fund  monies  however,  no  manner  of  direct  mitigation  was  identified  to  offset 
the  anticipated  deficits  (as  opposed  to  county  financing  of  Town  in  Eureka). 
As  in  the  case  of  Eureka  Town/County  deficit  mitigation  potential,  it  would 
be  expected  that  substantial  justification  for  state  fund  distributed  monies 
could  be  presented  by  Elko  entities  to  the  legislature. 

Impact  Summary.   The  fiscal  analyses  conducted  to  assess  the  impacts  upon 
public  finance  of  implementing  the  proposed  action  indicate  the  following, 
based  on  the  plans  to  date  and  as  documented  in  this  Technical  Report. 

•  If  implemented,  the  proposed  action  would  result  in 
the  generation  of  tax  dollars  totaling  123.3  million 
dollars  over  a  50-year  period. 

•  Of  the  tax  monies  generated,  21.6  million  dollars  or 
17.5  percent  of  the  total  would  be  distributed  within 
the  auspices  of  the  State  General  Fund  program.   The 
manner  and  amount  of  distribution  has  not  been  predicted 
in  the  analyses  presented  in  this  Technical  Report. 
Jurisdictional  revenues  are  therefore  underestimated  if 
past  experience  holds  true.   Specifically,  the  affected 
jurisdictions  most  frequently  receive  (directly  or  indirectly) 
General  State  Fund  monies  far  in  excess  of  that  originating 
in  the  jurisdiction.   As  documented  in  Appendix  E  of  the  EIS, 
it  is  probable  that  at  least  the  retained  monies  (21.6  million 
dollars)  would  be  distributed  to  the  seven  affected  jurisdictions, 

•  Forecasting  by  use  of  status-quo  per  capita  rates,  while 
allowing  use  of  quantitative  data  unaffected  by  assumptions 
or  historical  conditions,  is  considered  unrealistic  due  to 
the  sensitivity  of  the  Eureka  socioeconomic  frameworks  in 
terms  of  population  influence.   Such  forecasting 
disregards  historical  and  financial  management  trends 

that  clearly  illustrate  valid  reduction  in  per  capita 
costs  as  a  result  of  economies-of -scale. 


3-72 


•  Incorporating  factors  involving  economies-of -scale, 
based  on  Nevada  State  data  bases,  indicates  the 
most  probable  case  of  annual  revenues  exceeding 
expenditures,  thus  resulting  in  Eureka  jurisdictional 
budget  surpluses  as  an  aggregate  total. 

Elko  jurisdictions  would  be  expected  to  experience 
excess  project  expenditures  relative  to  project  generated 
revenues.   This  can  be  anticipated  in  light  of  the 
manner  in  which  tax  revenues  (excepting  State  General 
Fund  monies)  are  directly  distributed  in  return  to 
the  originating  jurisdiction.   The  expected  distribution 
of  the  project  generated  revenues  would  be  weighted 
heavily  in  favor  of  Eureka-based  jurisdictions. 

•  Analysis  of  previous  Eureka  Town  budget  funding  indicates 
substantial  reliance  upon  external  source  financing, 
particularly  Eureka  County  support.   The  forecasted 
proposed  action  impacts  indicate  that  such  external 
source  financing  would  need  to  continue  in  order  that 
budget  deficits  be  ameliorated. 

•  In  total,  project  generated  tax  monies  would  exceed 
annual  jurisdictional  expenditures  except  in  years 
1,  2  and  4.   As  Table  3-25  indicates,  normal 
recurrent  budget  surpluses  (in  total)  from  year  5 
would  approximate  $730,000  to  $1.2  million  annually 
in  year  15. 

3. 4. A. 2   Fiscal  Impact  Calculations  -  Generated  Tax  Revenues 

As  stated  in  the  previous  subsection,  it  has  been  calculated  that 
during  the  initial  50  years  of  Mt.  Hope  project  activity  (as  proposed) 
approximately  123  million  dollars  would  be  generated  as  tax  monies.   As  also 
detailed,  the  manner  of  calculating  tax  revenues  generated  involved  the  use 
of  a  direct-traceable  dollar  methodology  in  order  that  an  unbiased  and 

3-73 


quantitatively  accurate  estimate  of  project  specific  monies  was  established. 
As  such,  revenue  projections  were  derived  wholly  from  ad  valorem  and  sales  taxes 
directly  affecting  the  operation  of  the  mine/process  plant  and  its  employees, 
and  have  not  been  derived  from  per  capita  extrapolations  which  might  be 
indicated  by  present  tax  rates  and  populations  of  the  Eureka  and  Elko 
jurisdictions. 

This  subsection  details  the  specifics  utilized  to  forecast  project 
generated  tax  revenues,  both  in  total  and  as  distributed.   To  conveniently 
categorize  generated  revenues,  the  discussion  is  presented  as  the  analysis 
was  generally  conducted,  i.e.,  revenues  generated  and  directly  attributable 
to  the  increased  population,  revenues  generated  by  actual  mining  activity  (e.g. 
mining  proceeds  tax) ,  and  revenues  which  would  be  received  by  individual 
jurisdiction.   It  should  be  noted  that  while  the  proposed  action  would  result 
in  a  certain  amount  of  tax  revenues  being  paid,  not  all  monies  paid  would  return 
to  the  jurisdictions  within  Eureka  and  Elko  counties.   Thus,  the  revenue 
calculations  pertinent  to  jurisdictional  receipt  of  revenues  are  different 
than  the  total  revenues  paid  into  by  the  proposed  action  supporter  (i.e. 
EXXON  Minerals  Company).   The  discussion  that  follows  isolates  the  revenue 
generated  by  operations  (which  would  be  subsequently  dispersed  to  state, 
county,  city,  etc.)  and  the  actual  revenue  dispersed  to  the  jurisdictional 
entities  of  concern. 

Personal  Spending  and  Sales  Taxes.   The  spending  of  EXXON's  mine/process 
plant  employees  on  normal  personal  and  household  items  has  been  categorized 
in  Table  3-27.   Estimated  average  annual  gross  incomes  have  been  used  to 
arrive  at  net  disposable  income  after  federal  taxes,  and  the  disposition  of 
this  income  among  15  normal  expenditure  items,  including  an  allocation  to 
personal  savings.   This  calculation  produced  an  array  of  taxable  and  non-taxable 
items,  and  a  level  of  sales  taxes  annually  paid  according  to  sales  tax  rates 
in  effect  at  the  present  time  in  the  State  of  Nevada.   In  summary,  total 
annual  income  of  operating  personnel  at  the  Mt.  Hope  project  would  exceed  11 
million  dollars.   EXXON  employees  and  families  would  personally  spend  in 
excess  of  approximately  7.5  million  dollars  (after  20  percent  tax  reduction) 
annually  in  a  total  of  1 5  expenditure  categories. 


3-74 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table   3-27     Mine/Process   Plant   Personal    Spending  and   Tax   Consequences    (Estimated) 


Number 


Single 


Married 


Average 
Incomes 


1)      Direct    Project   Hires 
(Non-Local) 
Professional 
Other 


117 

408 


23 
82 


94 
326 


$29,000 
15,000 


Gross 


After   Fed.    Tax 


2)      Total   Annual   Incomes 
Professional 
Other 
Total 


$3,393,000  (70  percent)    2,375,100 

6,120,000  (85  percent)    5,202,000 

9,513,000  (80  percent)   7,577,100 


Sales  Taxes 


3) 


Percent 

Annual  $ 

Amount  $ 

pending  Levels 

Housing 

30 

2 

,273,130 

0 

Electr. 

4 

303,084 

0 

Water 

3 

227,313 

0 

Heat 

6 

454,626 

0 

Food 

30 

2 

,273,130 

0 

Gasoline 

7 

530,397 

42,840 

Clothing 

5 

378,855 

14,207 

Liquor 

1 

75,771 

2,589 

Beer 

2 

151,542 

2,273 

S  a vi  ngs 

2 

151,542 

0 

Household 

4 

303,084 

11,366 

Medical 

3 

227,313 

0 

Recreation 

1 

75,771 

0 

Cigarettes 

1 

75,771 

9,471 

Insurance,  etc 

1 

75,771 

0 

Total: 

$7 

,577,100 

$82,746 

Kind 


Percent 


$1.30/gal  (407,988  gals.)  51.77 

*  3.75  percent  net  17.17 
$60.00/gal  (1,263  gals.  ) 

$  4.00/gal  (37,885  gals.)  5.88 


*  3.75  percent  net 


-  13.73 


$0.80/pack  (94,714  packs)   11.45 


100.00 


4) 


Per  Capita  (1,236) 


$  66.95 


*Net  of  2  percent  to  State  Fund 


3-75 


State  of  Nevada  Sales  Taxes  are  of  the  following  kinds: 

Total  rate:   5.75  percent 

( of  which) : 

2.0     percent  to  State  General   Fund 

1.5      percent  to  Local   School   Support 

0.5     percent  to  County-City  Relief   (CCRT) 

1.7  5   percent  to  Supplemental  CCRT 

In  addition  to   the   above,    State   Sales   taxes   apply   to: 

gasoline:      10.5  cents   per   gallon 

liquor:          distilled  spirits  $2.05/gallon 

fortified  wines  ,50/gallon 

light  wines  ,30/gallon 

beer  ,06/gallon 

As   indicated   by  Table   3-27,   the  Nevada   Sales  Tax  levies   apply  to 
six   of    the  normal    15  expenditure  categories.      For  the   operations   population 
of    1,236  on  site   from  the   third  quarter   of   year   four,   a   total    expenditure 
level   of    $7,577,100  annually  would  generate   $82,746  in  sales   tax   revenues. 
Tax  revenues   would  be   derived   from  the   following: 

1)  Gasoline:      51.77   percent   of    total,   or   10.5   cents   on  407,998 

gallons,   or   average   consumption   per   employed   operations 
worker  (640)    of   637   gallons   annually,    or   1.93  gallons   per 
330  workdays,   or  37   miles   each  workday  at    19  miles    per 
gallon. 

2)  Clothing   and  household  items:      17.17   percent   and    13.73  percent 

of   total,   or   5   percent   and   4   percent    of    total    disposable 
income. 


3-76 


3)  Cigarettes:      11. 45  percent   of    total,   or  94,714  packs   per  year, 

consumed   by  40.5   percent   of  640  operations  workers   over 
365  days. 

4)  Liquor  and   beer:      5.88  percent   of    total;    1,263  gallons   liquor 

annually  consumed   by  640  operations  workers,   or  0.0054 
gallons   daily  (0.042  pints);    plus   37,885  gallons    of   beer 
annually,   or  0.162   gallons   daily,   or   1.3  pints    per   average 
worker  per  day. 

The  distribution  of    these  various   sales    taxes   to   the   local 
jurisdictions   in  which   the    operations   workers   live,   work,    or   transact  domestic 
business  would   be   partly  determined    by  need,    and   partly  by  location.      That    is, 
spending  in  Eureka  County  would   accrue   tax  revenues    to  Eureka  jurisdictions 
of   County,    School  Districts,   and   the  Town  of   Eureka;    and   spending   in  Elko 
County  would  accrue   to   Elko   County  jurisdictions    alone.      Table   3-28   sets 
forth  the   anticipated   revenue   distributions    of   each   county,    both  as   the 
percentage   and   dollar   amounts,    which  would   go    to   County,    School   Districts, 
and  Towns.      The  derivation  of    these   sums   is   explained   as   a  composite   of    the 
general  sales   tax  rate  and   of    the   specific   levies   on  gasoline,    cigarettes   and 
liquor.      The   composition  of    these   revenues   produces   a  unique   distribution, 
because   individual   levies   are   earmarked   for  specific   budget   supports   and   not 
for  others. 

However,   because   of    earmarking,    fully  2   percent   of    the   5.75  percent 
general  sales   tax  would   be   lost    to   local   jurisdictions   entirely  (34.78   percent 
of    the   total)    as   this   amount  goes    to   the   State  General   Fund.      Gasoline   levies 
of    10.5   cents/gallon  would   be   reduced   to   2.5   cents   as   the   county   portion. 
Cigarette   and    liquor-and-beer   tax   revenues   would   go   directly   to   county  and 
city   jurisdictions.      These   adjustments   to   the   tax   levies    require  a   re-statement 
of    percentage   amounts    provided   by  each   as    part    of   the   total   tax   burden   of 
personal   sales   taxation,   followed    by  a  further   re-statement   of    these   taxes   as 
revenues    to  individual   jurisdictions   receiving  the   funds. 

The  personal   sales   tax   represents   $66.95  per  capita  expenditure 
annually   for   the    1,236   mine/process   plant   operations    population.      This    same 
rate  has   been   extended    to   the   539   population   of   generated   secondarily 

3-77 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table   3-28      Sales   Taxes   Paid   by   Individuals    -   $66.95  Per   Capita/Year 


County 

Schools 

Elko 

Eureka 

Carlin 

Eureka 

As  percent 

79.31 

20.41 

- 

0.28 

- 

X 

$66 

.95/capita 

a) 
b) 

as  percent/year 
percent  quarter 

iy 

53.09 
13.27 

13.65 
3.41 

- 

0.19 

0.047 

- 

— 

— 

Elko 

As  percent 

23.83 

20.41 

45.35 

— 

10.41 

X 

$66 

.95/capita 

a) 
b) 

as  percent/year 
percent  quarter 

iy 

15.95 
3.99 

13.65 
3.41 

30.36 
7.59 

- 

6.96 

~~ 

1.74 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

General 

Sales 

As 

Percent 

Total 

.  Tax 

Distrib. 

Explanation: 

] 

Rate 
Percent 

$66.95 
Paid 

and 

New  Percent 

New 

Percent 

(Ad; 

j .  Percent) 

Percent 

(A) 

1) 

Sales  Tax, 
General 

5.75 

Schools 

1.5 

- 

.40  x  30.90  = 

12.36 

20.91 

CCRT 

0.5 

- 

.133  x  30. 

90  = 

4.11 

6.79 

Supplem.  CCRT 

1.75 

- 

.467  x  30. 

90  = 

14.43 

23.83 

(State  Gener 

al 

Fund) 

(2.00) 

Subtotal 

3.75 

30.90 

2) 

Gasoline  (Road 

s 

Streets) 

51.77  x 

.238 

= 

12.32 

20.35 

($0,025) 

3) 

Cigarettes 

(County,  City) 

11.45  x 

1.00 

= 

11.45 

18.91 

($0.10) 

4) 

Liquor,  Beer 

(County,  City) 

5.88  x 

1.00 

= 

5.88 

9.71 

Total 

100.00 

60.55 

100.00 

Eureka/Elko 

Percent    Counties 

Schools 

Elko   Eureka 

Carlin 

(B) 

Distributed  To: 

i 

School 

(20, 

.41)    ( 

D 

0 

20.41 

0 

0 

0 

CCRTS  1  and  2 

(30, 

.62)   30, 

.34 

-  15.45 

0 

13. 

26    0. 

28 

1.91 

( 

Gasoline 

(20, 

.35)   20, 

,35 

-  6.32 

0 

8. 

81    0 

5.22 

( 

Cigarettes 

(18, 

.91)   18, 

.91 

-  2.06 

0 

14, 

,77    0 

2.08 

Liquor 

(9, 

.71)   9, 

.71 

0 

0 

8. 

51    0 

1.20 

Total: 

79, 

.31 

23.83 

20.41 

45. 

,35    0. 

28 

10.41 

3-78 


employed,   thereby  covering    1,775  persons   annually   through   the  forecast   period. 
Quarterly  rates    amounting  to  one-fourth   the   above   rate  have   been  applied   to 
the   populations   of    construction  workers   and   operations   and   generated  popula- 
tions  during  the   start-up   period.      Local  hires  have   been  excluded   from  these 
calculations,    as   their  former  employments   are  uncertain  and  may  not   contribute 
to   the   incremental   tax   revenues    of    the    proposed   action. 

For   the   total   population  of    1,775  persons,    an  annual   sales   tax 
revenue  volume   of    $118,836  would   be   generated   through  the   forecast    period 
($82,746  attributable   to   direct    hires).      The   amounts   of    sales   tax   revenues 
produced   in  Eureka,    Elko   and   Carlin  (before   distribution)    are   shown  on  Table 
3-29.      By   county,    the   annual   sum  of    sales   tax   revenues  generated  would  be  as 
follows   under   the   proposed  action  Case   5-A:      Eureka  -   $105,170;    Elko  -   $13,660. 

Ad   Valorem  Residential   Property  Tax  Revenues.      As   discussed   in   Section   3.4.3, 
selected  housing   by  direct-hire   and   secondarily  employed   populations   in  the 
towns   of   Eureka,   Elko   and   Carlin  would  be  distributed   among  single   family 
homes   (24   percent),   apartment   units   (32   percent),   and   mobile   homes   (44   percent) 
Table   3-21   (Section  3.4.3,   Housing)    indicates   the  ad   valorem  residential 
property   tax  revenues   incurred  quarterly  during  the   first    four  years   of 
startup.      As  discussed   on  page   3-49,    Section  3.4.3,   housing  values  were 
established  as    follows    for  fiscal   impact   purposes:    single   family   units, 
$75,000  each;   multi-unit   and  mobile  home,    $35,000  each.      Residential   ad 
valorm  property  tax  revenues    of  Eureka  county  and   Elko  County  were   then 
applied   to   these  properties   at   rates   per  dollar  of   assessed  value   (35  percent 
of  market)    of   0.00748   for  Eureka,   and   0.01176   for  Elko.      Quarterly  revenues 
from  ad   valorem  taxation  were   taken  at   one-fourth  of   these   rates,    or  0.000654 
and   0.001029,    respectively.      The  higher  Elko  County   ad   valorem  property  tax 
rate  would  produce  higher  per  unit   revenues,    but   lower  total   revenues 
as    fewer   units   would   be   in   demand   in  Elko   County   than  in  Eureka  County. 

Table   3-30  shows    the   forecast   of   stabilized   annual   ad   valorem 
residential   property   tax  revenues   accruing   to  Eureka  and  Elko  Counties   under 
Case   5-A.      The   sustained   revenue   volume   levels    reflect   stabilized   populations, 


3-79 


-a 
v 

4-1 

tC 
Li 

cu 

c 
o> 

*3 

C 
« 

a; 
L 

•H 

3= 
I 

4-1 

CJ 
O 
Li 


Li 
0) 
4-) 
O 

« 
Li 
CO 

X 

3 
CO 

CO 

c 
o 


3 

fa 
o 

fa 

4-1 

<J 
CU 

o 

Li 
O-i 


co 
CO 

cj 

cu 
u 
o 

fa 


CN 


CO 
H 


0) 
O 

u 
o 

4-1 
J*S 

Li 

O 

E3 

-a 

4J  CU 
C  -3 

co    3 

4-1  rH 
CO      CJ 

C    X 

o  w 

CJ 
^-*    CD 

<D 

<   u 

I      -H 

m  -3 

0)  rH 
CO  CO 
CO    O 

u  o 

rJ 

c 
o 

•H 
CO 


o 

O 

vO 

CO 

^ 

^O 

0) 

—1 

* 

X 

fa 

m 

CO 

y—i 

H 

o 

rH 

CO 

r-» 

CO 

^ 

i—i 

4J 

0) 

O 

L 

m 

H 

3 

o 

w 

.— 1 

O 

* 

CO 

co 

CO 

o 

QJ 

CJ 

CNI 

H 

X 

1 

CO 

CO 

r«« 

CO 

H 

00 
0"n 

a) 

CO 

CO 

T3 

3 

.-1 

O 

o 

X 

X 

I 

Li    T3 

3     4J 
CO 


8 


4-1 

u 

0) 

0) 

Li 

u 

•H 

•H 

33 

Q 

o 

cn 


o 
o 

CN 

CO 


00 
CO 


o 
o 

ro 


ro 


o 

o 


CN 


X> 

ro 
oo 

00 


CN 
CO 


4-1 

r^ 

CO 

00 

rH 

o 

3 

3. 

.— 1 

O 

fa 

00 


m 

ON 


o> 


ro 


00 


vO 


ro 


m 


CO 

ro  oo  <r  <r  <t> 

H    *N    OCO 

4J 

C7\    vD   00    ON    CT\ 

-J-   *£>    CN    -J"    00 

O 

ro  cn  o>  -h 

— «    i-H    <f 

H 

v^>  i —  >h  o>  m 
-^  vo  m  r^  ro 


ro  cm  oo  CN 


o  o  o  o  o 


ro  oo  <r  <3-  as 

CT\    vX>    OO    CT>    ON 
CO    CN    <J\    i— < 


H   fi    m    H    yC 

ro  cn  ctn  ro  v£) 

r-*         ro 


O  ro   CS    CN   CN 

-H    •*     CO     -H     N 


<f  CO<  -J  o 


n  ff^  rs  in  ld 

CN 


CO   CN    00    CN 


o  o  o  o  o 


ro 

m 


x> 

ro 

CN 


CO 

L 

0> 

3 

CO 

CU 

CO 

Li 

O 

•3 

• 

rH 

X 

T3 

• 

H 

< 

•H 

T3 

rH 

H 

O 

4-1 

-o 

rH 

rH 

O 

CO 

CO 

CO 

o> 

0) 

O 

3 

o 

o 

CJ 

01 

o 

3 

5 

T3 

• 

rH 

T3 

• 

rH 

3 

•H 

rH 

•H 

S 

a  x 

H 

•rH 

3S 

fa 

T3 

rH 

^ 

0 

*3    rH 

rH 

O 

s 

> 

cf 

U 

• 

o 

CJ 

CO 

SO 

L 

• 

o 

CJ 

0)    cu 

O 

3 

o 

0) 

CU    o 

3 

O 

o 

•H 

Li 

re 

fa 

w 

J*S 

3 

M 

X 

fa 

co 

H    -H 

X 

ax 

rH 

•H    PS 

fa 

X 

H 

-a 

•H 

CO 

CU 

•H 

CO 

^ 

• 

o 

CJ 

bO 

Li      • 

O 

CJ 

X 

CO 

£ 

Li 

CO 

S 

X 

fa 

co 

3 

Li    X 

fa 

CO 

o- 

CO 

3 

3 

•H     CO 

3 

•H 

CO 

ro 

0) 

CO 

W 

o 

co  2 

•H 
rH 

CO 

g 

*■> 

L 

^ 

Li 

<r 

3 
W 

—1 

CN 

H 

W 

CO 

c_> 

u 

CO 

cu 

>" 

<c 

CO 

u 

CO 

4-1 

•H 

a 
co 

CJ 


el 


m 

c^ 

H 

• 

3 

\£5 

4-1 

v3 

o 

<o- 

H 

* 

3-80 


CO 
g 

< 

CO 
CD 

(1) 
> 

ptf 


4-> 

0) 

a 
o 
n 

IX 


e 

QJ 

•o 

•H 

CO 

0) 

tfS 

B 

^^ 

cu 

M 

co 

o 

CD 

r-J 

•H 

* 

4J 

> 

c 

3 

TJ 

O 

<c 

o 

4J 

U-l 

o 

CJ 

o 

M 

a) 

H 

•'-) 

c 

W 

0 

o 

h 

•H 

X) 

(X 

4J 

c 

3 

CO 

B 

X 

3 
C 

•H 

JS 

0) 

4-1 

QJ 

•o 

03 

M 

XI 

♦H 

3 

>N 

Q 

W 

o 

s 

O 
co 

0) 

1 

D- 

CO 

O 

3C 

a) 

H 

• 

J3 

4-1 

CO 

s 

H 

M 

CO  »* 
0) 


C 

o 

•H 

4->       4J 

c  3 

CJ  -H 

I-  U 

&>  4-1 

CU  CO 


o  o  o 

en  r-~  c\i 

CM  N   -H 

00  00 

m  cnj 


o  o  o  o 

-h  ON  oo  in 
m  r^         — * 


o  o  o 

■vD  O  —i 
m  cm 


o  o  o  o 

r-«   CN  oo  ON 

fO   N  CM 

CO   •>*  — I 


vo  r**  co 

vO  M  H 

•  •  • 

sC  CM  O 

\0  CO 


-* 

r^ 

ON 

o 

m 

CM 

vO 

<r 

v* 

m 

m 

• 

• 

• 

• 

<r 

r^ 

O 

00 

m 

CM 

4J 

c 

3 
O 


CO 

4-> 

o 
H 


a:  c_j 


4-1 

c 

3 
O 


M   <X>   ^ 


O    -H 


3-81 


as  construction  workers  have  departed  and  no  new  generated  populations  are 
arriving.   Comparative  effects  of  Case  5-A  and  Case  5-B  (Section  3.5.4) 
indicate  a  broadened  distribution  of  residential  taxes  under  the  Dispersed 
Personnel  Case  (5-B),  by  which  a  21  percent  reduction  in  Eureka  County  revenues 
(from  $86,620  to  $68,280)  produces  a  3.7  times  increase  in  Elko  County  revenues 
(from  $12,530  to  $43,280). 

This  change  in  revenues  would  arise  from  the  changed  population 
distribution  as  the  Elko  County  population  of  204  under  Case  5-A  would  increase 
to  667  under  Case  5-B,  a  3.4  times  increase.   Because  preponderant  populations 
remain  in  Eureka  County  in  both  Cases  5-A  and  5-B,  Eureka  County  revenues 
from  residential  property  exceeds  that  of  Elko. 

Tax  Revenues  Generated  Directly  by  Corporate  Operations.   As  for  the  tax 
revenues  generated  by  the  employment  base  purchase  of  real  and  personal 
property  (e.g.  housing,  cars,  washing  machines,  etc.)  the  development  of  the 
Mt.  Hope  ore  body  would  similarily  result  in  significant  revenue  generation 
through  the  taxes  paid  on  the  estimated  market  value  of  mine/process  plant 
facilities  (ad  valorem)  and  equipment/supply  purchases  (sales  tax).   The  Mt. 
Hope  development  would,  however,  additionally  result  in  substantial  revenues 
being  generated  by  the  levy  of  the  Eureka  County  net  mining  proceeds  tax. 
The  assessment  of  net  proceeds  taxing  encompasses  the  value  of  products  and 
by-products  generated  by  the  actual  mine/process  plant  operations. 

The  direct  tax  revenues  generated  by  the  corporate  operations  of 
EXXON  Minerals  Company,  paid  in  sales  taxes  and  in  ad  valorem  property  taxes 
during  the  forecast  period,  have  been  grouped  together  in  a  single  table  for 
convenient  reference.   On  Table  3-31  the  estimated  market  value  basis  of  the 
mine/process  plant  and  of  annual  net  proceeds  are  shown  as  the  ad  valorem  tax 
base.   The  estimated  market  value  basis  and  net  proceeds  taxing  information 
was  provided  by  EXXON  Minerals  Company.   Their  assessed  values  at  35  percent 
of  market  are  calculated  and  the  annual  tax  revenues  are  derived.   For  the 
period  following  year  5,  the  forecast  is  provided  in  5-year  intervals,  accord- 
ing to  the  changes  in  average  estimated  values  which  would  occur  at  these 
same  5-year  intervals.   Resulting  tax  revenues  are  expressed  on  an  annual 
basis. 

3-82 


B 

I 

01 

■o 

Si 

>> 

-4 

o 


0) 
3 
C 

> 
0) 
OS 


•o 

c 
eej 


O 
CJ 

a 

01 
3 
C 
01 

> 

01 


01 

o. 
o 
u 

0- 


0)    o 

c  u 

35  <fl 

a  o> 

o>  u 

U     3 

O  M 
1-1 

eO 

>    I 


3 


■S3 


in    u 

01     u 
CO    Q 


o 


O 

■o 
ts 


00 

o 


%o 


NO 
vO 


m 


on 

vO 


00 
NO 


o 
o 


o 

o 


o 
o 


o 

o 


o 
m 

lO 


o  o 

o 

O 

O   CO 

00 

NO 

o  no 

vO 

m 

—  o 

m 

-* 

on  00 

on 

rv 

vO 

-» 

-J 

o  o 

o 

o 

O    CO 

00 

o 

O    nO 

NO 

en 

— >  o 

n 

<9 

ON    CO 

o> 

tv 

NO 

<r 

— 4 

o  o 

o 

o 

o  x> 

CO 

vO 

O  nO 

vO 

pi 

—  o 

en 

-* 

ON   CO 

ON 

iv 

vO 

-3 

- 

o  .» 

o 

~» 

O   vO 

o 

vO 

00   (VI 

(VI 

>3 

vO   ON 

vO 

UO 

CO  ~» 

00 

en 

io 

-r 

- 

O  (VI 

o 

(V| 

in   (V| 

CV1 

-» 

— <  in 

-4 

vO 

o  on 

nO 

U1 

00  ON 

*H 

— < 

m 

u-i 

«H 

o  ^ 

U1 

CO 

o  on 

n 

0^  ^j- 

00 

(V| 

<T    O 

O 

^  \0 

rv 

CO 

— i   ,o 

co 

\0  m 

<T 

rvi 

o  — 

Ov 

8^ 

en 
en 

00 

s 

O  <T 

o  -* 
00  u-i 

(VI    <T 

iv  <r 
in 


O  NO 


-4  v£5 

o       \o 

(M 


O 

m 

-3- 


O 
u-i 


O 

o 

00 


O  00 

O 

00 

m  — < 

00 

On 

PO  (V| 

nO 

00 

O  nO 

en 

on 

iv  (vi 

on 

~4 

01 

-» 

o 

O  oo 

o 

00 

in  — i 

00 

on 

en  cm 

iO 

00 

o  >o 

en 

ON 

rv  evi 

on 

-H 

m 

vj- 

o 

O  00 

o 

00 

in  —i 

(VI 

en 

o  <T 
in  _< 
O  O 

m  (vi 

vt     (VI 


O  O 

O  <* 

m  m 


o> 
m 


— * 
o 


(VI 
(VI 


O 


G 


0) 

o> 
U 

o 


2     J! 


c 

co 

^-v 

o 

c 
o 

<^^ 

m 
<n 

O 

^   9J 

-J 

S     C 

O 

• 

o 

J->     C 

u 

oi    o 

O 

^w- 

o 

ss 

-o 

h 

o 

CO- 

Ui 

O   *"* 

o> 

VJ 

^*^ 

^■s 

u 

s. 

H   B'V 
tfl    ^J     0) 

>  r*.    3 

s_^ 

c 

m 

1)    c 

m 

01 

en 

o 

^H 

3 

• 

O.  -H 

O    rM 

•  • 

0m 

/^s 

•-I 

^^ 

b 

■3 

TJ    O     <fl 

01 

O 

<0 

^— V 

m    3 

<       •   > 

3 

in 

o 

> 

tn 

»< 

iv    TJ 

nj 

^-N 

v,^ 

—1 

tn 

o 

-a 

^>. 

V.^ 

• 

o 

>v         T3 

(0 

01 

</> 

■o 

01 

</> 

m    co 

B 

o 

w    x    0> 
c   <d  en 

3   H    tn 

> 

u 

^^ 

OI 

01 

^_^ 

XI 

vx    01 

O 

o 

0 

m 

u 

+ 

n3    u 

■r-l 

co- 

-o 

u 

in 

o 

ifl 

u 

^-^ 

O            0) 

01 

Ou 

•  • 

01 

u 

•  • 

u 

U    >,  0) 

<n 

^^. 

*l 

0) 

a. 

x| 

■a 

H3  2 

.. 

U     0) 
(0     I-"   < 

CO 
01 

01 

c 

in 

< 

u 

(0 
M 

a>    c 

l-l 

x| 

X.     4)  w 

(0 

-^H 

01 

O 

%  2ia 

(0 
H 

0>     Q. 
U     O  J~« 

co 

< 

T. 

Z 

H 

M    X 

o 

3    u  in 

^s 

,^-N 

^-N 

LO   U 

O 

W    Cu  m 

Cfl 

J3 

o 

O  >n 

m 

SS 

ON 

■D 

on  ^. 

CO 

O 

O 

ON    vO 

r^. 

CO  -< 

.o 

CO 

vD  in 

~* 

evi  o 

— < 

ON 

CO  ON 

en 

CO    00 

(VI 

en 

r>»  en 

O  in 

m 

00  O 

ON 

vC 

on  -» 

CO 

evi  <»• 

O 

o 

ON     O 

r-. 

oo  —> 

vO 

oo 

^o  in 

vt 

evi  O 

— ' 

ejN 

CO    ON 

en 

00    CO 

(VI 

en 

r^  en 

O 

m 

U1 

o 

O 

m 

— > 

O'- 

-* 

00 

o 

in 

in 

oo 

er 

vO 

r^ 

ON 

m 

in 

-» 

ie 

in 

-* 

vO 

r^ 

■* 

cr- 

CO 

ov 

en 

m 

J2 

r-i 

en 

r^ 

en 

m  r-. 

t^ 

r^  en 

co 

in 

00    vO 

p~ 

00  en 

-j 

■H 

-*  <» 

— 

nO  — • 

in 

en 

O  en 

evi 

en  -< 

— 

» 

en  -» 

O 

-*  x> 

-*  — • 

m 

r^  en 

in  co  r- 

evi 

x> 

m 

-» 

O  r^  O 

m 

— -* 

<r 

ON 

en  o  en 

O 

cr 

<r 

r^ 

CO    vO    — < 

(VI 

O 

— i 

00 

T3 

r~  evi  -* 

O 

■* 

C 

en  -h  <r 

r~« 

en 

3 

i-l 
(0 

in  cfj  iv 

-» 

—I 

r-~ 

\D 

14 

O  r^  O 

en 

<r 

ON 

-4 

0) 

en  O  en 

nO 

— • 

en 

in 

c 

m      •-      n 

00 

p 

» 

* 

11 

00    iC    -< 

* 

o 

•H 

00 

o 

r~  evi  «» 

ON 

en 

en  — <  -* 

vO 

en 

01 
4J 

(« 
i-i 

in  evi  evi 

•* 

PM| 

rv 

vO 

ON    f»     ON 

vO 

-* 

OV 

-^ 

o 

in  sn 

00 

— 1 

en 

m 

u 

-*>»—• 

ON 

O 

_ 

00 

*-' 

O  en  r-«. 

IV 

en 

evi 

~*   --  -* 

SO 

m 

T3 

o  o  o 

evi 

co 

en 

vO 

3 

evi  if)  00 

m 

es 

— 4 

m 

^H 

in  .3-  — * 

vO 

—< 

00 

ON 

(J 

X 

O  en  evi 

m 

rsi 

-» 

o> 

en  ^j-  in 

on 

ON 

r-  evi  oo 

en 

01 
1-1 
eej 

in  evi  evi 

-» 

iO 

— - 

ON 

a: 

r-.  \D  — • 

m 

en 

<T 

CO 

m  — <  \o 

nO 

rg 

-» 

vO 

$ 

vO  evi  evi 

-^ 

<r 

evi 

H 

in  t/i  en 

— H 

O 

^r  -4  m 

evi 

m 

v. 

m  r~  r~ 

in 

en 

IV 

vO 

• 

O  evi  in 

m 

evi 

o 

in 

en 

^     — <    ON 

en 

«* 

— * 

NO 

u 

N    ON  vO 

ex 

m 

O 

—•  r^i  r^i 

in 

rj 

m 

NO 


m  in 

On   ON  en 

r-1   o  en 


v.  in 
vO  iv  en  m 
\0  en  — i  CO 

*    NO    O 

no  en  o  O 


X 

c 

rfl 

0 

H 

-^H 

4-1 

in 

3 

01 

-O 

— i 

vH 

TJ 

1- 

LO 

u 

(n 

t-i 

« 

a 

"* 

S.         H 

0 

a. 

|4 

m 

a.        cc          a. 

U 

3          U           3 

tn 

IM 

to       o       t/i 

•H 

O 

B 

a 

-4                .01 

r-< 

>> 

»~! 

O          — i    u 

c 

u 

tn 

• 

m 

O   H    O-   O 

o 

S    P 

u 

vO 

x;  a;   a.^4 

O   CJ     3    erj 

£ 

3 

01 

(J 

O 

o 

Q. 

<n 

tn  U  t/1  > 

'J-, 

O 

H 

to 

t4 

■a 

u 
o 

H 


3-83 


As  noted,  sales  taxes  would  additionally  be  paid  on  expenditures 
for  supplies  and  equipment  during  construction  and  the  operation  of  the 
mine/process  plant  as  estimated  by  EXXON  and  shown  in  Table  3-31. 

These  tax  revenues  would  be  distributed  to  schools,  the  county  and 
the  Town  of  Eureka  (towns).   The  amount  of  sales  tax  revenues  generated  at 
the  5.7  5  percent  rate  is  reduced  to  65  percent  to  correspond  to  the  loss  of 
35  percent  to  the  State  General  Fund,  which  receives  2  percent  of  the  5.75 
percent  rate.   The  distribution  of  those  revenues  which  remain  is  then 
allocated  by  percentage  equal  to  their  present  distribution,  i.e.,  school 
support,  1.5%;  county-city  relief  (CCRT),  0.5%;  and  supplemental  CCRT,  1.75%. 

The  actual  distribution  of  these  proceeds  may  be  to  other  counties 
and  districts  and  towns  than  Eureka.   This  analysis,  however,  assumes  these 
revenues  from  the  sales  tax  would  accrue  to  Eureka  alone.   To  the  extent  that 
these  revenues  leave  the  County  of  Eureka,  the  amounts  which  are  directly 
traceable  to  Mt.  Hope  operations  within  Eureka  are  fully  accounted  herein. 
The  impacts  of  the  monies  distributed  are  presented  in  following  subsections 
dealing  with  revenue/expenditure  budgets  of  the  jurisdictions. 

3. A. 4. 3   Fiscal  Impact  Calculations  -  Distribution  of  Generated  Tax  Revenues 
and  Anticipated  Expenditures 

The  revenues  distributed  to  each  jurisdiction  of  interest  would 
directly  affect  the  capability  and  resources  of  that  jurisdiction  to  mitigate 
the  impacts  of  the  proposed  action  caused  by  increased  population  and  demand 
for  services.   The  manner  in  which  revenues  are  distributed  is  legally  outlined, 
but  these  outlines  vary  on  an  annual  or  less  frequent  basis.   For  the  purpose 
of  this  analysis  revenues  were  distributed  as  defined  by  1983  law  and  legisla- 
tive mandate  (i.e.  State  General  Funding).   Additionally,  historical  budgets 
were  evaluated  to  establish  the  past  record  of  revenue  receipt,  both  in  type 
and  quantity,  by  the  jurisdictions  affected. 

The  following  presents  a  detailed  review  of  historic  budgetary 
trends  and  how  the  proposed  action  might  affect  these  trends  both  in  terms  of 
revenue  source  and  expenditure. 

3-84 


Introductory  Review  of  Historical  Revenues  and  Expenditures.   The  economic 
influence  of  the  proposed  action,  would  primarily  extend  to  seven  (7)  regional 
jurisdictions  : 

1)  Eureka  Town 

2)  Eureka  County 

3)  Eureka  County  School  District 

4)  Elko  City 

5)  Elko  County 

6)  Elko  County  School  District 

7)  Carlin 

The  most  recent  annual  budgets  for  each  of  these  jurisdictions  were 
examined  to  define  annual  ordinary  recurrent  operating  revenues  and  expenditures 
by  type.   Capital  outlays,  opening  balances  and  closing  balance  carryovers 
were  eliminated  as  the  purpose  of  the  budget  restatement  was  to  define  the 
source  and  the  amount  of  revenue  and  the  departmental  expenditures  by  type 
which  are  normal  to  ordinary  operations.   The  existing  population  and  the 
facilities  and  services  to  serve  that  population  were  presumed  to  give  rise 
to  these  "normal"  levels  of  revenues  and  expenditures.   This  presumes  that 
all  facilities  and  services  which  the  normal  population  requires,  are  in 
place,  and  that  future  changes  in  revenue  or  expenditure  would  be  in  direct 
response  to  changes  in  population  only.   In  this  way,  the  effects  of  incre- 
mental populations  of  the  Mt.  Hope  project  on  future  revenues  and  expenditures 
would  be  measurable. 

Per  capita  expenditures  of  these  jurisdictions  for  both  normal  and 
new  populations  were  utilized  to  provide  a  basis  for  estimating  the  expected 
increase  in  normal  operating  budgets.   As  noted  in  the  EIS  and  in  this 
Technical  Report,  the  use  of  per  capita  based  revenues  estimates  would  provide 
less  certainty,  as  the  estimates  would  derive  partly  from  sources  outside  the 
counties  and  towns,  would  sometimes  be  determined  by  formula  affecting  State 
Sales  Tax  distributions,  and  have  been  irregular  over  the  preceding  three 
fiscal  years  in  amount  and  by  place.   Moreover,  the  Mt .  Hope  project  would 
result  in  directly  traceable  revenues  being  contributed  to  the  property  tax 
and  sales  tax  revenue  base  (derived  from  corporate  operations,  employees,  and 

3-85 


the   indirect    employment   of   generated   secondary   populations).      Analysis   of 

both   the   per   capita   revenue  and   expenditure   basis   and    of   the   directly   traceable 

revenue   basis   is  made   herein  for   comparative   purposes. 

The  jurisdictional   budgets   are   summarized  on  Table   3-32.      Only  one 
of   the   seven  budgets   shows    a  surplus   of    revenues   over  expenditures   on  normal 
account;    when   extraordinary   items   are   removed,   none   of   the   budgets   is   in 
balance.      The   imbalance   is   a  partial   measure   of    the   extent    to  which    total 
budgets   depend  upon  special   supplements    to   revenues    from  external   sources. 
The   relevant   populations   within  each  jurisdiction  are   also   shown   on  Table 
3-32.      With  this   basis,    per  capita   revenues   and   expenditures  were   calculated 
as   annual   levels   on  Table   3-33  and   as   quarterly  levels   (for  the    12-quarter 
start-up   period)    on  Table   3-34. 

Historical   annual  per  capita   revenues   and   expenditures   are   summarized 
as    follows: 


Historical 
Per   Capita  Revenue 


Historical 
Per   Capita   Expenditure 


Eureka   Town 
Eureka  County 
Eureka   School 
Elko   Town 
Elko   County 
Elko   School 
Carlin 


$169.15 
543.24 
877.47 
240.20 
93.97 
483.06 
193.37 


$  115.56 
795.86 
1,080.78 
257.77 
158.13 
494.98 
282.04 


While   the   per   capita   figures   reveal   the   imbalance   between   total 
revenues   and    total    expenditures,    line-item  entries  must   be   examined   to   ascer- 
tain  the    source    of   this    imbalance.      In  the   case    of    the    two   school    districts, 
expenditures   per   student   on   total    account  warrant    special   mention:      the   cost 
per   student   in  Eureka   School   District   is   2.5  times   that    of   Elko   School   District, 
although   total    expenditures   by  Elko  were   7.3   times    that   of   Eureka   on  an 
annual   basis   ($9,373,926  in  Elko   compared    to   $1,279,650  in  Eureka).      This 
ambiguity    is   explained    by   the   far  greater   number  of    students   in   the  Elko 


3-86 


4J 

00 

rH 

CJ 

i—l 

0 

•H 

CN 

0 

K 

ft 

Xi 

4-1 

00 

a 

CO 

sf 

W3 

•H 

rH 

o 

ft 

ON 

4-1 

°? 

H 

o 

J2 

O 

•H 

0) 

O 

)-l 

h 

Xi 

4-1 

3 

o 

CO 

W 

co 

•H 

Q 

r-»  m 

ON 

<r 

-<f    nO 

o 

o 

CN  -3- 

1— 1 

on 

ft     •* 

ft 

»• 

nO   -^ 

00 

i— i 

CO  •* 

i—i 

m 

ON    CN 

i—i 

•—1 

>^ 

<r 

o 

4-1 

«* 

M 

c 

». 

rH 

o 

on 

tJ 

o 

r>. 

u 

■—I 

a 

On 

•H 

c 

1—1 

H 

3 

<r 

M 

o 

#i 

CO 

H 

o 

U 

m 

CN 

O 

o 

O 

| 

CN 

--I 

0 

CN 

UJ 

H 

CN 

co 

CN 

O  O  nO 
<•  00  N 

m  no  in 

o\  •J'  m 

r-H  CN 


CN  -H  CO 
O  00  O 

on  on  m 

*  *  * 

m  cn  co 

r-  ■—!  -<t 

— I  CO  ^H 


o 

o 
o 

o 
o 

o 

o 

o 
o 

cm 

O 

O 

m 

CO 

o 

o 

co 

CO 

CM 

r- 

on 

i — i 

CO 

ro 

vT 

M 

4-1 

On 

0) 

c 

vO 

u 

3 

» 

3 

o 

r^ 

w 

u 

CO 

CO 

-cf 

^ 

c 

on 

cu 

3 

ON 

S-i 

o 

ft 

3 

H 

00 

w 

ON 

CO 
> 

< 


O 

a 
a. 

3 
co 


CO 

0) 

cu 


-H  H 


o 

B 

£ 

CO 

cj 

i-> 

co 

o 

co 

rH 

0) 

CO 

3 

•  • 

> 

C 

-H 

cu 

CO 

13 

> 

CJ 

< 

CU 

t* 

3 

CO 

0) 
bO 
(-i 
CO 
x: 
cj 


cr\ 

nO 

p>i 

r-H 

on 

m 

#« 

* 

UO 

r-H 

ON 

in 

ro 

CO 

m 


o  <r  — i 

O 

CO 

vO 

m  cn 

On  r^  o> 

O 

•—( 

1—1 

On   nO 

-J-  00  00 

o 

o 

CN 

«*  <* 

r            r 

* 

*» 

* 

*         •> 

oo  m 

<f 

t-» 

m 

r»  O 

— 1    CN 

nO 

nO 

m 

CM    CN 

r^ 

rH 

m 

rH 

i-H 

I—I 

m 

CN 

o 

nC 

O 

00 

i — i 

no 

-* 

o 

r— 

<r 

m 

in 

ON 

00 

<f 

o 

cm 

o 

CO 

o 

in 

#> 

m> 

* 

«i 

*> 

*• 

+■ 

^ 

ON 

on 

On 

. — i 

in 

—1 

nO 

n 

r~~ 

m 

m 

rsi 

i— i 

CM 

cc 

CM 

in 

00 

— i 

— H 

vO 

<r 

00 

r^ 

CO 

NO 

CO 

r-- 

ON 

CO 

CM 

00 

r-^ 

CO 

m 

#* 

#s 

* 

*. 

*> 

n 

0\ 

r~~ 

oo 

m 

CM 

n 

ON 

00 

—i 

-JD 

m 

00 

CM 

CO 

-xD 

<r 

o 

m 

m 

CN 

^H 

o 
o 
m 

m 


—i  o 

<r  o 

oo  m 

m  r^ 

CM  co 
m 


o 
o 
o 

m 


— <  O  o 

00 

CO 

00 

CO 

r_ | 

O   O 

"H  r^.  O 

r^ 

CM 

CM 

CO 

m 

O   O 

N   N    lT| 

r^ 

CM 

ON 

o 

r-^ 

o  o 

■«          •*         A 

^ 

» 

•t 

*- 

^ 

•"       #" 

n£>  m  <3- 

a\ 

>d- 

ON 

CO 

CO 

CN   -d" 

CO     CO     ^ 

CM 

•<r 

CO 

CN 

CO 

CO  o 

o 

<r 

r-^ 

o 

co  o 

o 

00 

CO 

o 

<*  m 

o 

CO 

i-H 

o 

*• 

0k 

^ 

M 

■—I 

o 

>* 

CN 

m 

U-l 


cd 

4-1 

u 

H 

(-1 

o 

H 

D 

H    Q- 

• 

01 

H 

od   a. 

w 

•H 

pd 

U     3 

CU 

r4 

c_> 

CJ    CO 

4-> 

• 

0> 

^ 

CJ> 

QJ 

4-1 

Pi 

c 

C 

•  HH 

CU 

r-l 

g, 

"^^ 

■X 

CJ 

M 

M 

>H     O     O 

U 

O 

M 

3 

a) 

•  • 

a  o  'H 

CO 

3 

•H 

CU 

o 

X. 

0) 

axx 

bO 

cr 

E 

JC 

CO 

•  • 

4-1 

4-1 

3     CJ     Q) 

•H 

•H 

co 

4-1 

CO 

"8 

O 

CO 
4-t 

to  to  > 

CJ) 

hJ 

CJ 

o 

CJ 

fn 

to 

i— i 

00 
CO 

ON 
ON 


m 

CO 

00 

00   00 

o 

in 

NO 

CO     rH 

CO 

r^- 

00 

ON    CM 

n 

•1 

n 

#v      •> 

o 

CM 

o 

00  -3" 

■— i 

m 

■—I 

r- 1 

v£> 

CO 

<■ 

A 

M 

#» 

<• 

1— 1 

CO 

00 

nD 

00   CO 

<r 

o 

00 

00   00 

•<!■ 

NO 

NO    O 

00 

m 

ON 

CO    — 1 

ON 

o 

CM    —i 

o 

ON 

CO 

ON   CM 

•» 

m* 

A              •! 

+■ 

p» 

A 

*            •> 

-3- 

00 

m  oo 

CO 

00 

NO 

oo  <■ 

o 

m 

CO   O 

<r 

m 

00 

>-H 

00 

i-H 

^H    i—l 

NO 

m 

in 

NO 

ON 

CO 

o 

<r 

LO 

ON 

o 

in 

#v 

^ 

r->. 

r-^ 

NO 

m 

m 

ON 

CO 

o 

ON 

nD 

00 

CM 

— -i 

■—I 

CM 

ON 

#! 

* 

CN 

CO 

ON 

ON 

CM 

CO 

<r 

CM 

nD 

CN 


o 

— H 

UO 

r^ 

NO 

<r 

*• 

» 

ON 

CO 

Is* 

NO 

CN 

m 

c 

CU 

a 
x 

w 


o  oo  oo  m 

U0  i-H  r-H  ON 

<r  cn  o  r» 

r     »     »  + 

co  r^  no  oo 


cm  <r 

r-~  m 

r>«  O 

00  On 

— I  CO 

-3"  00 


ON 
CN 


ON 

ON 

CO 

r-. 

NO 

1 — 1 

00 

CN 

CO 

ON 

o 

00  CN 

ON 

r— 1 

^D    i-H 

ON 

CM 

NO   00 

•s 

* 

*       p 

m 

CO 

m 

co 

CO 

ON   CN 

CO 
ON 
CM 

CN 

CO 

m 


oo 
oo 

CO 

00 


<r  m 
oo  cm 

—I  CM 


o 

in 

o 

o 

o  o 

m 

O 

m 

o 

m 

<•  m 

o 

CN 

o 

CN 

O  r^ 

<r 

CO 

m 

o 

m 

00   CM 

co 

n 

ON 

r^. 

m  cn 

r-» 

CM 

m 

o 

00 

rH     CM 

+. 

#> 

* 

m 

•>    ft 

ft 

* 

•N 

ft 

0t 

ft 

CM 

r*. 

o 

o 

r^  oo 

ON 

sf 

~3" 

CN 

NO 

r^ 

00 

00 

CO 

rH 

CN    CN 

CO 

CN 

CM 

CO 

r- 

ON 

rH 

CN 

CN 

-H 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

m  co 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

00    -H 

nD 

00 

00 

o 

o 

m  cm 

n 

ft 

* 

m* 

n 

r^ 

r^ 

oo 

CN 

m 

nO 

m 

CO 

cu 

•H 

rH 

Cu 

cx 

3 

w 

C 

CO 

CO 

O 

^! 

cu 

CO 

•H 

• 

M 

a 

4J 

4-> 

rH 

O 

•H 

3 

0) 

CO 

3 

•  S 

£ 

CU 

CJ 

cu 

a 

c 

B 

•H 

tH 

o 

•H     CJ 

cu 

4-> 

4-) 

CJ 

3 

Sl, 

S    -H 

CO 

M 

CO 

0) 

O 

52 

^« 

CO 

3 

P, 

•H 

rH 

CO 

a 

•-J 

4-) 

O 

3 

at 

cu 

ft 

CO 

O 

^^ 

•H 

O 

*N 

0) 

0) 

H 

J= 

4-1 

XI 

0) 

CO 

rJ 

u 

3 

CJ 

rJ        CD 

•H 

4-) 

CJ 

u 

rr 

4-1 

CO 

3 

a 

CO 

0)    -o 
C    CO 

d 

CO 

CO 

U 

•H 

rH 

cu 

43 

0) 

r-i 

3 

iH 

4-) 
rH 

o 

PL, 

0)    o 

4J 

ii 

•H 

o 

4-) 

4-1 

O 

0) 

3 

CJ    CtJ 

^> 

X 

rH 

ex 

o 

o 

CJ 

3 

CJ 

3-87 


co 

4-1 
O 
•H 
U 
4-> 
CO 
•H 

o 


o 

o 

4= 
CJ 
CO 


•H 

■u 

C 
3 
O 
CJ 


CO 

c 

o 
H 


CX 

CO 

o 

Li 

CD 

fa 

CO 

<u 

M 

3 

4-1 

•H 

T3 

C 

CD 

ex 

x 

w 

TJ 

C 

ccj 

CO 

CD 

3 

C 

01 

> 

CD 

C* 

H 

CO 

3 

4J 

C 

U 

c 

0) 

< 

/ — < 

•<-> 

co 

o 

H 

L 

L 

CO 

CO 

PM 

a 

^H 

•H 

i-H 

e 

L 

O 

s 

o 

4-1 

-o 

0) 

CO 

c 

T3 

•H 

■H 

X) 

X 

^-^ 

0 

a 

en 

en 

0) 

1 

ex 

en 

o 

3= 

H 

• 

jO 

4-1 

CO 

ss 

H 

o 

iH 

W 


>. 

r*» 

m  en 

sO    <f 

4J 

a\ 

o  en 

sO    Os 

c 

• 

•     • 

•       • 

3 

r-s 

en 

as 

00  cts 

O 

CN 

ejs 

en 

CN 

u 

00 

w 


CO 

•s 

(-1 

3 
W 


o 

• 

en 
00 


—<   00   00 
N    0>   00 


m  oo  <r 

sO  O 


en  so  io 

OMO  CO 

•        •  • 

-3-    00  00 

00  — '  so 

CM  ~H 
CN 


en 

as 


O  en 
<r  cm 


oo 


I     sO 


Os 


m  cm    |     |    as    |    m 

— I    CM  O  <* 


o 

as 

CM 

CM 

i — i 

CM 

• 

• 

• 

o 

OO 

r^ 

<* 

— 1 

<T 

CM 

m 

CM 


sO      I     00 

■-h       m 


r^ 

<m 

CM 

r^ 

St 

CM 

as 

CM 

<r 

o 

CM 

m 

sO 

<— i 

o 

m 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

r^ 

o 

sD 

o 

<t 

<r 

CM 

t»« 

r», 

as 

■— i 

as 

<r 

en 

en 

00 

CM 

<r 

sO 

X 

en 

<* 

T-i     sO 

m  so 

sO 

4-1 

00 

CM 

00   <* 

— <  m 

CM 

c 

1 

• 

•      • 

•     • 

• 

3 

CM 

en 

CM    CM 

in  r^ 

m 

O 

00 

<* 

r~-  <t 

CM    o 

as 

U 

o> 

m 

en 

n 

<r  so 

00    "H 

SO 

^H 

r-»  m 

en  m 

OS 

• 

•     • 

•     • 

• 

Os 

CM 

00    -H 

m 

SO 

sO 

Os 

CO 

QJ 
3 
C 
CD 
> 

pej 


M 

cd 

B    en    4_i 

4J    J3 

CD      CJ     U 

H     4J 

u  a)  o 

O  O 

o  fa   a 

ex 

/~N 

H         ex 

ex    * 

4J 

CO      ^   3 

CO     CO 

3 

>     CO    CO 

H 

01 

OJ 

Pd 

H 

-o 

5   So 

3 

u 

c_> 

O     CO 

3 

4-1 

ai   o 

o   a; 

co 

H     U£ 
CO    -H     O 

u 

0) 

4J 

•5  3 

M 

O    hJ    CO 

-r) 

CO 

CO    CO 

QJ 

o 

OJ 

4J 

Ph 

hJ 

fa 

CO 

v^ 

en 


O    Ifl    -J     H    \0    H    VO 

m  co  i-i  s  o>  m  ai 


<3- 

v£> 

00   00 

m 

en 

en  <-< 

• 

• 

<Js    CM 

.— i 

CM 

*            * 

in 

CM 

00  •* 

CN 

CM 

1—1 

CM 


CM    00 


m  en  c^  o 
en  cm  en 


<t 

vC 

& 

CM 

r^ 

CM 

r^ 

o 

tn 

o 

r^ 

m 

<f 

r^ 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

CM 

--r 

v£> 

CN 

ro 

i — i 

O 

00 

<r 

r-^ 

i— 1 

CTN 

<r 

cm 

I       I     CM 


r-^ 

C^   OS 

cn  as 

CM 

r-~ 

r^ 

O    -H 

en  r^ 

r- 

M0 

• 

•       • 

•     • 

• 

• 

r^. 

en  vO 

en  vO 

en 

<r 

in 

CN  vD 

<r  oo 

en 

CM 

00 

• 
O 
00 

o 


as  en 

•  • 

m  m 

r^  m 


m 


en 

en 

• 

r-. 

oo 
sD 

m 


v>D 

CM 

O 

,H 

m 

o 

n 

o 

CM 

cn 

00 

o> 

i — i 

m 

CM 

00 

cr> 

CM 

o 

— i 

m 

m 

sD 

cn 

en 

CM 

CM 

m 

r^ 

. — i 

as 

r>- 

CM 

On 

CM 

On 

CM 

o 

CM 

en 

r^ 

~H 

CM 

-H 

m 


oo  cn 

o  as 

•     • 

en  en 

O 


m 
m 

I    oo 


TO 

c 

CD 

w 


CO 

0) 

•H 

iH 

ex 

ex 

3 

CD 

CO 

CJ 
•H 

/~N 

•     CO 

• 

4J 

4J 

C  M 

CO 

co 

3 

•H     Li 

4J 

3 

3 

CD 

B    O 

ex 

>-i 

O 

T3 

^^ 

CD 

•H 

3 

o 

♦« 

CD 

4J 

4J 

0 

rC 

CD 

co 

Li 

CO 

CO 

■a  2 

4J 

CJ 

Li 

4J 

CO 

CD 

3 

CD 
Li 

a 

CD 

X! 

L 

3 

4-1 

H 

Li 

CD 

CD    3 

CD 

•H 

o 

4-1 

O 

CD 

CD 

fa 

O   P-i 

X 

fa 

fa 

o 

U 

3 

e«j 

v_x 

00  00 

en  ~h 

C7\  CN 

oo  <t 


0>  00  <T 

so  •— <  in 
cm  en     • 


oo  cm  i-^ 

sD   —*   sD 

sO  00       • 

*      n  sO 

OS   N   SO 


<f  m 
oo  cn 
^h  cm 


<r  m 
oo  cn 

^H    CM 


m  en 
oo  -H 
m  cm 


sD 


OS 


3-88 


co 

o 


4J 
o 

0) 
Cm 


0) 

■o 

£> 
>-, 
H 

O 

s 

cu 
o. 
o 

3= 


O 
O 

o 

CO 


c 

3 
O 

c_> 


o 

H 

CO 

4-1 
•H 

a 
co 
cj> 

f-l 

ai 

Cu 

co 
cu 
M 

3 

4-» 

•H 
T3 

3 

CU 

a 
x 
w 

c 

CO 

CO 

CU 

B 

ai 
> 

CU 


j-j 
m 

3 


CO 

I 

co 


CO 

H 


4-1 

MO 

en  <r 

CM 

co  <r  i-h 

m 

^c 

ON 

ON 

O 

r-~ 

-d"    CN 

ri 

CM    vD   N 

r^ 

CO 

oo 

m 

•H 

• 

•     • 

• 

•       •       • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

M 

o 

M0    CN 

sC 

1 

1 

tH   <r   CN 

CO 

o 

CM 

m 

4J 

CN 

~H 

CM 

r-»        <• 

CN 

vO 

NO 

m 

CO 

1— 1 

m 

•— 1 

m 

•H 

>»• 

N_X 

Q 

m 

r-~ 

t^ 

o 

O    CO 

r-» 

ON 

o 

m 

CO 

ON 

ON 

CO 

ON 

oo  <r 

4-1 

m 

o  oo 

-H 

-a- 

o 

m 

v£> 

o 

r>« 

«* 

<r 

CO    f^ 

c 

• 

•     • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

•    • 

3 

•-N 

co 

on 

1 

CM 

r- 

l    <r 

as 

o 

CN 

- — i 

•— ( 

CO 

r^  r»-    l 

1 

O 

CM 

CN 

CO 

^H 

c_> 

CO 

O            1 

M       — 1 

rH             00 

w       on 

c 

-H 

u-1 

m  mo 

m 

On 

i—i 

<f 

CN 

oo 

ON 

V© 

ON 

CO 

•H 

*>^ 

co 

oo  m 

<r 

-* 

m 

CM 

O 

vO 

CO 

00 

— * 

r-i 

H 

• 

•     • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

u 

00 

CO    UO 

I 

I 

r^ 

1        -H 

o 

— i 

ON 

CO 

OJ 

O     1      1 

CO 

CO 

<r 

CN 

i—l 

r~~ 

— i 

f— 1 

eg 

-H 

CJ 

o 

m  —i 

<r 

M0 

m 

r^- 

m 

CO 

O 

CO 

r^ 

O 

o 

m  oo 

— 

m 

-3- 

p*. 

m 

00 

r^ 

as 

M0 

M 

• 

•     • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

<— i 

o 

<J-     -H 

1 

I 

ON 

l    <r 

«* 

m 

v£> 

1 

o 

—i 

l          I 

00 

W 

M0 

•— 1 

CN 

*-H 

v£> 

-H 

CM 

/"■s 

S~\ 

4-1 

co 

oo  m 

ON 

MD 

CO    CN    00 

O 

CO 

CO 

ON 

CO 

a 

On 

o  o 

m 

1 — 1 

O  O  co 

CN 

ON 

00 

CO 

oo 

•H 

• 

•     • 

• 

• 

•     •     • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

M 

00 

CN    -* 

CM 

— H 

1 

— i    0O   ON 

o 

CO 

00 

1 

1 

1 

CM 

1— » 

4-t 

1— 1 

r~- 

CN 

— i        m 

f-^ 

1 — 1 

CO 

-H 

CN 

CO 

CN 

-H                 ^H 

CM 

1 — 1 

»-H 

-3" 

•H 

•> 

» 

Q 

^H 

-H 

*** 

V^ 

/■"»> 

t^ 

m 

-H 

O     -H 

ON 

On 

CN 

00 

CO 

co 

00 

-J 

O 

<r  o  mo 

00 

4-1 

CO 

00 

CN    M0 

CN 

OO 

00 

m 

<r 

m 

CO 

CO 

CM 

r^  co  r-> 

r*. 

c 

1 

• 

•       • 

• 

• 

• 

3 

CN 

m 

oo  o 

1 

kO 

mo 

1      CO 

00 

CO 

v£> 

CO 

m 

CO 

m  mo  mo 

r-^ 

O 

CO 

en 

— 1     ^H 

r- 

CN 

as 

1 — 1 

CN 

«* 

m  cm 

c_> 

CTN 

i—i 

i-H 

>— 1 

^^ 

m 

CO 

-H 

00   ^3" 

o 

00 

CT\ 

ON 

r^ 

00 

<r 

•*     £ 

CO 

t— 1    M0 

pH 

CO 

o> 

00 

l>. 

ON 

l-H 

CU    § 

• 

•        • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

l-i     O 

CN 

| 

p-~ 

1     CO 

00 

m 

1 

CM 

3  H 

<r 

~H 

CN 

CN 

CN 

W 

CO 

CD 

•H 

U 

H 

V 

a 

CU 

B    w 

4-1 

4J    J= 

a 

CJ 

<D    CD 

U 

M     4J 

3 

•H 

/-*\ 

u     V 

O 

O    O 

• 

CO 

•     4-) 

4J 

o  Pn 

o. 

a      ^v 

c 

■*»». 

CO     CO 

3 

H 

ex 

CX      «  4-1 

CO 

•H 

CO 

4->     3 

3     ai 

CO      » 

3 

3X3 

en   ccj   a» 

cu 

E 

^ 

a^ 

O  T3 

>     CO 

00 

H 

u 

5 

3: 

cu 

•H     3 

CU 

t£ 

H  T3 

3 

Q       -    CU 

4-1     4-1 

CO 

3      g 

— i 

CJ 

H           3 

4-1 

O 

.n 

cu 

CO     U 

CO    CO 

cu 

0 

H 

CJ) 

O     CO     4-1 

•H 

• 

S 

4-1 

0 

i-l     4->      CO 

CU 

3 

ai 

o 

cO 

o   <u  co 

T3 

■a 

■a 

0) 

a 

D     h    144 

U     i-i 

c 

^H     CJ 

■fl 

u 

cu 

V  ^    M 

3 

^3 

S-J 

-C     3    ,H 

o    cu 

0) 

CO   -H 

CO 

4J 

CU 

0) 

3 

OJ 

•H 

o 

4-1     O     CU 

CU    Cm 

> 

o  hJ 

CO 

TJ 

CO 

CO    CO     CD 

& 

o 

Cu 

a 

U, 

Cu 

O  CO  3 

CtS    s-/ 

OJ 

o 

CD 

4-1 

a, 

X 

04 

J 

fc. 

CO 

^^ 

w 

3-89 


School  District  (4,218  compared  to  225,  which  gives  rise  to  per  student  costs 
of  $2,222.36  in  Elko  and  $5,687.33  in  Eureka). 

Line-item  entries  for  expenditures  on  General  Administration,  Public 
Works,  Health,  Fire,  Police,  etc.,  demonstrate  a  similar  pattern:   the  costs 
per  capita  of  population  for  Eureka  County  are  well  above  those  for  Elko 
County,  most  likely  for  the  same  reasons.   These  comparisons  are  as  follows: 


Expenditures  per  Capita:  ( $) 


Eureka  County 


Elko  County 


General  Administration 

Public  Works 

Health 

Fire 

Police 

Justice 

Other  Depts. 

Welfare 

Recreation 

Total 


73.92 

26.10 

93.51 

23.23 

192.80 

105.20 

222.95 

27.02 

31.13 

795.86 


42, 

,50 

8. 

,35 

7. 

,14 

5. 

,71 

33. 

,96 

30, 

,96 

29. 

.51 

not   s 

ihown 

not    shown 

158. 

,13 

The    1983  Elko  County   population   of    18,938  is    16  times   that    of   the 
1983  Eureka   County   population  of    1,184.      This   comparison  further   suggests 
that    unit    operating  costs   decline  with  a   rising  scale   of   population.      The 
validity  of    any  fixed   current   level   of    per  capita  expenditures    for  use   in 
forecasting   expected  future   costs    of    a  government   agency  must   be   subject   to 
serious  doubt,    especially   for  small  populations.      The   only  exception  to    this 
inverse   function   of   costs   with   population   appears    to   be   the    per   capita 
expenditure   levels    of    the   towns:      both  Elko   and   Carlin  spend   more   per   capita 
than  does   Eureka.      The   exception  is   inconclusive,    however,   as   both  Elko  and 
Carlin  provide   services   out   of    the   town  budgets   (police,   recreation,    justice, 
health,   and    "other  departments")    which  in  the   case   of   the   Town   of  Eureka  are 
apparently   provided  under   the   Eureka   County   budget   (see   Table   3-33). 


3-90 


Because  historical  expenditures  cannot  accurately  be  used  for 
forecasting  future  expenditures  by  local  jurisdictions,  the  study  analysis 
required  the  investigation  of  alternative  means  for  evaluating  future  costs. 
The  alternative  means  of  evaluation  most  suitable  for  the  EIS  purposes  was 
determined  to  be  an  examination,  via  regression  analyses,  of  the  probable 
economies  of  scale  that  would  be  realized  as  the  population  influx  of  the 
proposed  action  stabilized  and  became  a  consistent  component  of  the  regional 
economic  infrastructure.   Section  3.3.3,  Methods  of  Fiscal  Analysis,  details 
the  rationale  of  methodology  selection.   The  following  details  the  data 
analysis  performed  to  assure  appropriate  economies  of  scale  determination. 

Economies  of  Scale  Forecasts:   As  noted  in  Section  3.3.3  (pages  3-22  and  3-23), 
a  linear  regression  analysis  was  made  of  the  relationship  between  Eureka 
County  populations  and  expenditure  levels  and  those  of  Mineral,  Humboldt, 
Lyon  and  Elko  counties  for  the  period  ending  June  30,  1982.   These  populations 
were,  respectively,  1,395,  6,286,  11,816,  15,235,  and  19,875,  permitting  step- 
wise comparisons  of  five  expenditure  items  common  to  each  county,  and  the  total 
of  these  items,  as  costs  per  capita.   The  analysis  furnished  a  predictive  model 
of  declining  per  capita  costs  for  increasing  populations. 

An  identical  analysis  was  made  of  the  Eureka  School  District  with 
five  low-enrollment  Nevada  school  districts,  using  1979  and  1980  data. 
Enrollments  of  114,  17  3,  190,  700,  907  and  911  provided  the  step-wise 
increases  needed  to  supply  a  predictive  model  of  per  student  costs  at  dif- 
ferent levels  of  enrollment.   A  forecast  of  rising  student  expenditures  based 
upon  the  historical  per  student  costs  (or  per  capita  costs)  would  inevitably 
over-state  real  costs  by  assuming  an  unrealistic  linear  function  not  responsive 
to  economies  of  scale  (demonstrated  by  this  comparison  to  be  quite  real). 
The  resulting  forecast  for  Eureka  School  District  expenditures  indicated  an 
annually  declining  cost  per  student. 

An  Elko  model  was  not  formulated  because  of  insufficient  numbers 
of  counties  or  districts  larger  in  size  to  provide  reasonable  measures  of 
cost  relationships  with  larger  populations.   Only  one  larger  Nevada  county  of 
34,000  population  was  available  to  supply  a  reference  point.   Further  step- 
wise progression  was  not  appropriate  due  to  the  extreme  increase  in  other 

3-91 


county   populations    (e.g.,    208,000  and    515,000)    compared   to   the   relatively 
small  increases   in  Elko  County   populations   which  have   been   forecasted  (Section 
3.4.2).      The  same   problem  affected   the  potential   for  regression  analysis   of 
the   Elko   School  District. 

The   regression  analyses   permitted   adjustments    to   the   levels   of 
local   government    expenditures    to   reflect   economies    of    scale    for   populations 
and   student   bodies   of   different    sizes.      Comparing   local   government   budgets 
led   to   changes   in   forecasted  spending   levels    for  Eureka  County  and  Eureka 
School  District   specifically.      In   the   following  text,    resolution  of    the 
effects   of   direct    project-related  spending   by  local   jurisdictions   and    of 
the  existence  of    economies   of    scale   are  handled  simultaneously,    in  order   to 
avoid   considerable   duplication   of   tables   and  text. 

Expenditures   Relative   to  Expected  Economies   of    Scale 

Eureka   School   District:    Comparative   data   published   for   the   elementary-and- 
secondary  public   schools    (kindergarten  through  grade    12) ,    for   the   period    1979 
and    1980  supplied   detailed   expenditures   by   type  and   amount    for   the    17    school 
districts  of    Nevada.      While   dated,    its   principal   value  was   comparative, 
permitting  analysis    of   per  student   costs   between  student   bodies   of   different 
size,   in  the  same   calendar  years,    for  which  money  values  were   the   same   for 
each  district.      A  simple   adjustment  was   later  made   to   apply  this   comparative 
analysis   to   the  period   of    analysis   (and   its   costs)    for  Eureka   School  District, 
while   retaining  the   shape    of   the   regression   equation  which  defined   existing 
scale   economies. 

Essential   school   expenditures   for  the   17   districts   have   been  re- 
stated  on  Tables    3-35  through   3-44.      The   total    number   of    schools   and   total 
expenditures   per  school   in  each  district   (Table   3-35)    reveal   that   heavily 
populated  and  urbanized   districts   spend   considerably   more    per   school   than  do 
less   populated   and   more   rural   districts.      Carson  City,    Clark  and   Washoe 
Districts   have   above   average   spending   levels    per    school,    while   Eureka   and   Elko 
are   below  average.      However,   on  an  as   expenditures   per   student   basis,    as 
shown  on  Table   3-36,    the    least    populated    districts   spend   more   than   the   average: 
Eureka   and   Esmeralda   districts   in   1980   spent   $4,464   per  200  and    $4,489  per   112 

3-92 


students  compared  to  the  state  average  of  $1,740.   These  levels  of  expenditure 
reflect  spending  out  of  the  "General  Fund"  of  school  district  budgets,  which 
may  include  receipts  from  State,  County,  School  District,  Federal,  and  Transfer 
Accounts,  and  represents  the  total  of  all  expenditures,  including  capital 
outlays,  evening  school,  transportation,  and  similar  items  which  may  not  be 
equally  shared  by  each  school  district. 

In  order  to  place  all  districts  on  an  equal  level  for  comparative 
purposes,  expenditures  were  restated  according  to  direct  costs  of  teaching: 
instruction,  administration,  operation,  maintenance,  etc.,  as  shown  on  Tables 
3-37  and  3-38.   Five  main  categories  of  expenditure  were  isolated  (each  com- 
posed of  several  code  numbers  and  amounts  which  appear  to  be  normal  operating 
expenditures)  to  produce  a  total  of  direct  teaching  costs,  including  transpor- 
tation of  the  students.   These  were  restated  as  expenditures  per  student 
enrolled  for  each  of  the  17  districts,  as  shown  on  Tables  3-39  and  3-40.   The 
excluded  miscellaneous  outlays  were  also  tabled  and  total  exclusions  identified 
by  code  number  and  type;  these  amounts  as  expenditures  per  student  are  shown 
on  Table  3-41. 

Expenditures  per  student  among  the  17  districts  for  five  most 
directly  applicable  teaching  costs  were  as  follows: 


1980 


Administration  (Instruction) 
Transportation 

1980 


Eureka 


Elko 


Average 


(Dollar  costs  per  student) 


1,994 

1,243 

1,131 

645 

101 

79 

Eureka 

Elko 

Average 

(Dollar  costs  per  student) 


Operation  (Maintenance) 
Employees'  Retirement  Insurance 
Equipment  for  Administration  Instruction 
Total  Direct  Teaching  Costs 
Excluded  Outlays 


602 

184 

189 

413 

236 

205 

53 

5 

11 

3,707 

1,769 

1,615 

758 

138 

126 

3-93 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  3-35  School  District  General  Fund  Expenditures  Per  School 
(Per  Average  Number  of  Schools  in  Each  District) 


School 
District 

Number 
Schools    1/ 

Expenditures 
Per   School    2/ 

1979 

1980 

1979                  1980 
($000) 

Carson  City 

2 

2 

4,852.7 

5,101.3 

Churchill 

2 

2 

2,187.1 

2,505.7 

Clark 

32 

34 

4,069.7 

4,378.3 

Douglas 

2 

2 

2,776.2 

3,295.1 

Elko 

4 

4 

1,641.3 

1,794.9 

Esmeralda 

* 

* 

- 

- 

Eureka 

1 

1 

798.8 

892.9 

Humboldt 

3 

3 

1,065.0 

1,203.4 

Lander 

2 

2 

808.3 

952.8 

Lincoln 

3 

3 

674.7 

744.5 

Lyon 

3 

3 

1,380.6 

1,607.1 

Mineral 

1 

1 

2,426.7 

2,548.2 

Nye 

4 

4 

902.8 

986.2 

Pershing 

1 

1 

1,201.0 

1,324.5 

Storey 

1 

1 

442.9 

557.9 

Washoe 

17 

17 

3,004.1 

3,310.4 

White   Pine 

6 

3 

572.9 

1,189.0 

Totals 

84 

83 

2,749.3 

3,097.4 

*None  listed 

1/      Elementary,  secondary  (Jr.  High,  Jr/Sr.  High,  and  High  School) 
2/      Average:   General  fund  total  expenditures/number  school. 

Source:   Research  bulletin:   Enrollment  and  certified  personnel 
information,  Vol.  25,  Number  1,  March,  1983,  Nevada 
Department  of  Education;  Biennial  Report  of  Selected 
Data,  by  the  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction. 


3-94 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 


Table  3-36  Total  Expenditures  and  Per  Student  Costs  of  General  Fund  Budgets 
Only  1/  Year  End  1979,  1980 


1979 


School 
District 

No. 
Students 

Total 
2/      Expend. 
$ 

Per 
Student 
$ 

Carson  City 

6,192 

9,705,432 

1,567 

Churchill 

2,995 

4,374,122 

1,460 

Clark 

86,211 

130,231,966 

1,511 

Douglas 

3,421 

5,552,484 

1,623 

Elko 

3,614 

6,565,376 

1,817 

Esmeralda 

114 

545,641 

4,786 

Eureka 

173 

798,777 

4,617 

Humboldt 

1,802 

3,195,095 

1,773 

Lander 

903 

1,616,640 

1,782 

Lincoln 

911 

2,024,250 

2,222 

Lyon 

2,478 

4,141,758 

1,671 

Mineral 

1,352 

2,426,695 

1,795 

Nye 

1,618 

3,611,124 

2,232 

Pershing 

700 

1,201,037 

1,716 

Storey 

190 

442,900 

2,331 

Washoe 

31,837 

51,070,534 

1,604 

White  Pine 

1,766 

3,437,784 

1,947 

TOTALS 

146,281 

230,941,615 

1,579 

1980 

No.  Total  Per 

Students    2/   Expend.        Student 


5,942  10,202,607  1,717 

2,972  5,011,354  1,686 

87,425  148,877,362  1,703 

3,557  6,590,131  1,853 

3,766  7,179,478  1,906 

112  502,773  4,489 

200  892,899  4,464 

1,865  3,610,236  1,936 

950  1,905,573  2,006 

921  2,233,370  2,425 

2,640  4,821,320  1,826 

1,379  2,548,242  1,848 

1,721  3,984,832  2,315 

707  1,324,536  1,873 

215  557,914  2,595 

31,700  56,276,094  1,775 

1,662  3,567,069  2,146 

147,734  257,085,790  1,740 


\J      Includes  receipts  from  state,  county,  school  district,  federal  and  transfer 

accounts. 
2/      First  month  enrollment,  unweighted  for  kindergarten  (0-6),  of  K-12  and  special 

ungraded  students:  T-4 , 5  and  T-19,20. 

Source:  Biennial  Report  of  Selected  Data,  Supplement  Number  One,  Department  of 
Education,  July  1,  1978,  to  June  30,  1980  inclusive,  Supterintendent 
of  Public  Instruction. 

Note:   Totals  may  appear  inaccurate  due  to  rounding  of  numbers,  but  are  official. 


3-95 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 


Table   3-37     Breakdown  of    School  District   Expenditures 
Out    of   General   Fund   Only 
Annual   Totals:    1978-79,    1979-80   ($000) 


-  I 


School 

Administration , 

Student 

Opera 

tion, 

District 

Instruction 

Transp 
(1979) 

ortation 
(1980) 

Maintenance 

(1979) 

(1980) 

(1979) 

(1980) 

1/ 

U 

1/ 

Carson  City 

6,293.2 

6,730.5 

456.7 

406.8 

912.0 

998.9 

Churchill 

2,707.5 

3,099.6 

380.4 

466.3 

432.8 

516.7 

Clark 

86,342.4 

96,651.6 

4,923.4 

5,927.3 

14,129.1 

16,088.3 

Douglas 

3,205.5 

3,870.4 

387.8 

505.6 

638.5 

845.0 

Elko 

4,323.9 

4,679.4 

322.7 

380.2 

664.4 

693.1 

Esmeralda 

212.9 

212.3 

89.7 

85.6 

36.4 

49.0 

Eureka 

346.1 

398.8 

112.5 

129.0 

104.1 

120.3 

Humboldt 

2,073.6 

2,172.9 

164.0 

278.1 

351.0 

407.4 

Lander 

1,053.0 

1,170.8 

72.4 

166.7 

155.4 

175.4 

Lincoln 

1,184.0 

1,363.6 

113.4 

123.1 

182.1 

196.8 

Lyon 

2,434.6 

2,824.8 

424.4 

400.6 

442.0 

521.7 

Mineral 

1,432.7 

1,503.8 

161.8 

195.8 

318.8 

361.9 

Nye 

1,977.0 

2,223.4 

310.2 

450.1 

38  2.1 

423.8 

Pershing 

739.9 

802.6 

72.6 

84.6 

136.9 

164.4 

Storey 

27  5.9 

329.4 

20.6 

21.5 

30.3 

45.3 

Washoe 

33,111.7 

36,830.5 

1,473.2 

1,774.6 

5,182.3 

5,835.5 

White   Pine 

2,213.6 

2,194.6 

211.8 

272.1 

304.0 

408.5 

TOTALS 

149,932.5 

167,059.0 

9,697.6     : 

LI, 668.0 

24,402.2 

27,852.0 

1/   100  (all);  200  (all):  Code  Numbers  of  Department  Accounts, 

2/      400  (all,  includes  capital  outlays) 

3/   500  (all);  620  (partial,  excludes  630,690). 


3-96 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 


Table   3-38     Breakdown   of    School   District   Expenditures 
Out    of   General   Fund   Only 
Annual   Totals:    1978-79,    1979-80   ($000) 


-  II 


School 
District 

Employees ' 
Retirement 
Insurance 

Equipment 

for  Admin. 

Instruction 

Tot 
Dir 
Tea chin 
(1979) 

al 

ect 

g  Costs 

(1979) 

(1980) 
1/ 

(1979) 

1! 

(1980) 

(1980) 
It 

Carson  City 

992.0 

1,27  5.9 

145.8 

96.8 

8,799.7 

9,508.9 

Churchill 

525.6 

620.1 

20.4 

22.9 

4,066.7 

4,725.6 

Clark 

14,582.3 

16,267.4 

965.7 

867.9 

120,942.9 

135,802.5 

Douglas 

653.2 

735.3 

75.0 

46.2 

4,960.0 

6,002.5 

Elko 

847.5 

889.8 

16.5 

17.9 

6,175.0 

6,660.4 

Esmeralda 

46.0 

53.0 

5.8 

5.3 

390.8 

405.2 

Eureka 

66.9 

82.6 

9.7 

10.6 

639.3 

741.3 

Humboldt 

290.6 

473.9 

8.1 

19.5 

2,887.3 

3,351.8 

Lander 

135.3 

213.9 

18.6 

20.7 

1,434.7 

1,747.5 

Lincoln 

26  5.4 

298.5 

27.6 

31.1 

1,772.5 

2,013.1 

Lyon 

476.6 

558.8 

8.2 

28.9 

3,785.8 

4,334.8 

Mineral 

300.5 

317.6 

4.8 

4.6 

2,218.6 

2,383.7 

Nye 

398.4 

468.5 

59.7 

53.0 

3,127.4 

3,618.8 

Pershing 

153.1 

178.3 

5.3 

2.6 

1,107.8 

1,232.5 

Storey 

52.4 

61.5 

6.8 

13.0 

386.0 

470.7 

Washoe 

6,961.4 

7,385.6 

298.7 

391.3 

41,027.3 

52,217.5 

White   Pine 

445.7 

462.6 

2.2 

2.0 

3,177.3 

3,339.8 

TOTALS 

27,192.9 

30,343.3 

1,678.9 

1,634.3 

206,899.1 

238,556.6 

1/      721,  722,  730  (partial,  excludes  rentals,  other,  740,  790) 
2/      951,  952  (partial,  excludes  953,  954,  955,  956,  957,  958) 
3/      Due  to  rounding  of  numbers  in  official  budgets,  totals  may  not  appear 
accurate  but  do  represent  the  correct  sums  as  taken  from  state  budgets. 


3-97 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  3-39  Breakdown  of  School  District  Expenditures  -  III 
Out  of  General  Fund  Only 
Annual  Totals:  1978-79,  1979-80  ($000) 


School 
District 

Administration , 
Instruction        1/ 
(1979)           (1980) 

Student 
Transportation    1/ 
(1979)           (1980) 

Operation, 
Maintenance 

(1979) 

(1980) 

Carson  City 

1,016 

1,133 

73.7 

68.5 

147.3 

168.1 

Churchill 

904 

1,043 

127.0 

156.9 

144.5 

173.9 

Clark 

1,001 

1,105 

57.1 

67.8 

163.9 

184.0 

Douglas 

937 

1,088 

113.4 

142.1 

186.6 

237.5 

Elko 

1,196 

1,243 

89.3 

100.7 

183.8 

183.5 

Esmeralda 

1,867 

1,896 

786.8 

764.3 

319.3 

437.5 

Eureka 

2,000 

1,994 

650.3 

645.0 

601.7 

601.5 

Humboldt 

1,151 

1,165 

91.0 

149.1 

194.8 

218.4 

Lander 

1,161 

1,232 

79.8 

76.2 

171.3 

184.6 

Lincoln 

1,300 

1,481 

124.5 

123.1 

199.9 

213.7 

Lyon 

982 

1,070 

171.3 

160.7 

178.4 

197.6 

Mineral 

1,060 

1,091 

119.7 

117.3 

235.8 

262.4 

Nye 

1,203 

1,292 

191.7 

180.2 

236.2 

246.3 

Pershing 

1,057 

1,135 

103.7 

102.7 

195.6 

232.5 

Storey 

1,452 

1,532 

108.4 

95.8 

159.5 

210.7 

Washoe 

1,040 

1,162 

46.3 

46.5 

162.8 

184.1 

White   Pine 

1,253 

1,321 

119.9 

127.4 

172.1 

245.8 

AVERAGE 

1,025 

1,142 

66.3 

79.7 

166.9 

190.4 

1/      Includes  all  categories  of  expense  given  under  this  title,  including  capital 
replacement  of  vehicles. 


3-98 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 


Table   3-40     Breakdown  of    School  District   Expenditures   -   IV 
Out    of   General  Fund   Only 
Per   Student   Enrolled:    1978-79,    1979-80   ($000) 


School 
District 


Employees ' 
Retirement 

Insurance 

(1979)  (1980) 


Equipment 
for  Admin. 
Instruction 
(1979)  (1980) 


Total 
Direct 
Teaching  Costs 
(1979)  (1980) 


Carson  City 

Churchill 

Clark 

Douglas 

Elko 

Esmeralda 

Eureka 

Humboldt 

Lander 

Lincoln 

Lyon 

Mineral 

Nye 

Pershing 

Storey 

Washoe 

White   Pine 


160.2  214.7 
175.5  208.6 

169.1  186.1 
190.9  206.7 
234.5  236.3 
403.5  473.2 
386.7  413.0 

161.3  254.1 

149.2  225.2 

291.3  324.1 
192.3  211.7 

222.3  230.3 
246.2  27  2.2 

218.7  252.2 

275.8  286.0 
218.7  233.0 

252.4  278.3 


23.5  16.3 

6.8  7.7 

11.2  9.9 

21.9  13.0 

4.6  4.8 


50.9  47.3 

56.1  53.0 


4.5  10.5 

20.5  21.8 

30.3  33.8 

3.3  10.9 

3.5  3.3 
36.9  30.8 

7.6  3.7 
35.8  60.5 

9.9  12.3 

1.2  1.2 


1,4  21.1 
1,357.8 
1,402.9 
1,450.0 
1,708.1 
3,428.1 
3,695.4 
1,602.3 
1,581.8 
1,945.7 
1,527.8 
1,641.0 
1,932.9 
1,582.6 
2,031.6 
1,288.7 
1,799.2 


1,600.3 
1,590.0 
1,553.4 
1,687.5 
1,768.6 
3,617.9 
3,706.5 
1,797.2 
1,839.5 
2,185.8 
1,642.0 
1,728.6 
2,102.7 
1,743.3 
2,189.3 
1,647.2 
2,009.5 


AVERAGE 


185.9  207.4 


11.5 


11.2 


1,414.4        1,630.8 


3-99 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table   3-41     Breakdown  of    School  District   Expenditures 
Out    of   General   Fund   Only 
Excluded  Expenses   1978-79,    1979-80 


-  V 


School 
District 

Excluded 
Miscellaneous 
Outlays 

Per   Student 

Mi  seel  lane  ous 

Outlays 

($000) 

J./ 

($) 

(1979) 

(1980) 

(1979) 

(1980) 

Carson  City 

905.7 

693.1 

146.3 

116.6 

Churchill 

307.4 

285.8 

102.6 

96.2 

Clark 

9,289.1 

13 

,074.9 

107.7 

149.6 

Douglas 

592.5 

587.6 

173.2 

165.2 

Elko 

390.4 

519.1 

108.0 

137.8 

Esmeralda 

154.8 

97.6 

1,357.9 

871.4 

Eureka 

159.5 

151.6 

922.0 

758.0 

Humboldt 

307.8 

258.4 

170.8 

138.5 

Lander 

181.9 

158.1 

200.5 

166.4 

Lincoln 

251.7 

220.3 

276.3 

239.2 

Lyon 

356.0 

486.5 

143.7 

184.3 

Mineral 

208.1 

164.5 

153.9 

119.3 

Nye 

483.7 

366.0 

299.0 

212.7 

Pershing 

93.2 

92.0 

133.1 

130.1 

Storey 

56.9 

87.2 

299.5 

405.6 

Washoe 

10,043.2 

4 

,058.6 

315.5 

128.0 

White   Pine 

260.5 

227.3 

147.5 

136.8 

TOTALS 

18,064.3 

18 

,553.2 

123.5 

125.6 

1/      Not  directly  related  to  teaching  or  school  administration;  or,  irregular, 
as  not  all  districts  indicate  expenses  for  these  items. 

Excluded  Codes;  311,  312,  319  miscellaneous  and  auxiliary  services;  321,  322, 
329  health  services;  331,  332,  333,  335,  339  food  service;  341,  342,  343,  344 
student  body  activities;  351,  359  summer  school;  361,  362,  363,  369  evening 
school  and  adult  education;  371,  372,  379  recreation  and  community  service; 
630,  690  maintenance  (equip.,  replacement,  other);  740,  790,  rental  bldgs, 
other  fixed;  830,  840  outgoing  transfers;  851,  859  interfund  transfers; 
930,  941,  942  capital  outlays;  953,  954,  955,  956,  957,  958  equipment 
(auxiliary  food,  vehicles,  shop,  etc.). 


3-100 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 


Table  3-4  2  School  District  General  Fund  Expenditures  in  Percent  as  Direct 
and  Indirect  Teaching  Costs 

ELKO  AND  EUREKA 


(1978-79,  1979-80) 


Per  Student  Costs: 
Elko                    Eureka 

1979 

1980        1979         1980 

Total  $/Student 

$1,817 

$1,906       $4,617        $4,464 

Total  Expenditure 

Administration,  Instruction 

Transportation 

Operation,  Maintenance 

Employees'  Retirement, 
Insurance 

Equipment 


100  percent  100  percent 
65.8  65.2 

4.9  5.3 

10.1  9.6 


12.9 
0.25 


12.4 
.25 


100   percent  100   percent 
43.3  44.7 

14.1  J_/  14.4    1/ 

13.0    1/  13.5    1/ 


8.4 
1.2 


9.3 
1.2 


Total  Direct  Teaching  Costs 


$94.0 


$92.8 


$80.0 


$83.0 


Excluded  Miscellaneous  Outlays       6.0  7.2 

(Number  Students)  (3,614)      (3,766) 


20.0 
(173) 


17.0 
(200) 


1/     Above  17-district  average  by  significant  amount. 


3-101 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table   3-43     School  District   General   Fund  Expenditures   in  Percent   as   Direct 
and   Indirect   Teaching  Costs    (1978-79,    1979-80) 


Per   Student   Costs: 
17-District 


Average  Storey  Pershing 

1979  1980  1979  1980  1979  1980 


Total   $/Student $1,579  $1,740       $2,331        $2,595        $1,716        $1,873 

Total   Expenditure  100  100  100  100  100  100 

percent        percent      percent      percent      percent      percent 


Administration,  Instruction 

64.9 

65.0 

62.3 

59.0 

61.1 

60.6 

Transportation 

4.2 

4.5 

4.7 

3.7 

6.0 

5.5 

Operation,  Maintenance 

10.6 

10.8 

6.8 

8.1 

11.4 

12.4 

Employees'  Retirement, 

Insurance 

11.8 

11.8 

11.8 

11.0 

12.7 

13.5 

Equipment 

0.7 

0.6 

1.5 

2.3 

0.4 

0.2 

Total   Direct 

Teaching  Costs  $92.2  $92.8        $87.2  $84.4  $92.2        $93.1 


Excluded  Miscellaneous 

Outlays  7.8  7.2  12.8  15.6  7.8  6.9 

(Number   Students)  (146,281)    (147,734)        (190)  (215)  (700)        (707) 


3-102 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  3-44  School  District  General  Fund  Expenditures  in  Percent  as  Direct 
and  Indirect  Teaching  Costs  (1978-79,  1979-80) 


Per   Student 

:   Costs: 

Mineral 

Lyon 

Douglas 

1979 

1980 

1979 

1980 

1979 

1980 

Total   $/Student 

$1,795 

$1,848 

$1,671 
100 

$1,826 
100 

$1,623 
100 

$1,853 

Total   Expenditure 

100 

100 

100 

percent 

percent 

percent 

percent 

percent 

percent 

Administration,    Instruction 

59.1 

59.0 

58.8 

58.6 

57.7 

58.7 

Transportation 

6.7 

6.3 

10.2 

8.8 

7.0 

7.7 

Operation,   Maintenance 

13.1 

14.2 

10.7 

10.8 

11.5 

12.8 

Employees'    Retirement, 

Insurance 

12.4 

12.5 

11.5 

11.6 

11.8 

11.2 

Equipment 

0.2 

0.2 

0.2 

0.6 

1.3 

0.7 

Total  Direct 

Teaching  Costs 


$91.4 


$93.5        $91.4 


$89.9 


$89.3        $91.1 


Excluded  Miscellaneous 
Outlays 

(Number   Students) 


8.6  6.5  8.6  10.1  10.7  8.9 

(1,352)        (1,379)    (2,478)      (2,640)        (3,421)    (3,557) 


3-103 


It  may  be   seen  from  these   comparisons    that  Elko   costs   for  its   3,766 
students   in   1980  more   closely  approximated  the   average   of    17   districts   than 
did   the   costs   for  Eureka's   200  students.      The   consistently  high  level   of 
costs   in  Eureka  in  all   categories   reflects  low  school  enrollment   (the  higher 
teacher-student   ratio  accounts   for  the   lack  of   decline  in  administration, 
instruction  and   related   retirement   and  insurance   costs).      The   transportation 
item  has   retained   outlays   for  vehicle   replacements   in  all   17   districts,   as 
this   was   a  repeated  item  in  both   1979  and    1980  for  as  many  as  75   percent    of 
the  districts.      Such  uniformity  of   outlay  was   a  guide   in  selecting   normal 
recurrent    expenditure   items    for   inclusion. 

Restating   these  per  student   costs   as   percentages   of    total    costs 
permits    a  more  critical   view  of   relative   differences   between  seven   districts 
which   encompass   the   range   of    student   enrollment   between  Eureka's   200  students 
and  Elko's   3,766  students.      On  Tables   3-42,    3-43  and   3-44,   Elko  and  Eureka 
are   compared  with  one  another,   the   17-district   average   and  five   other 
districts   of   intermediate  size.      The   data  show  that  Eureka  costs,   as   a 
percentage   of   its   total   outlays,   are  below  average   for  administration, 
instruction  and   employees'    retirement   and  insurance  (not  withstanding 
higher   than  average   per  student   outlays   in  dollars).      Eureka   is   above   average 
in  transportation  costs   and    operation  and   maintenance   costs   as   a   percentage 
of    total   costs.      These  costs   are   both  high  as  dollar  costs   and  high  as   relative 
c  os  t  s . 

Average   total   direct    teaching   costs   for  the   17   school  districts 
amount    to   92.5  percent    of   General   Fund   expenditures.      Elko's   costs   are  marginally 
higher.      Eureka's   costs   average   only  81.5   percent  with  the   highest   level   of   excluded 
miscellaneous    outlays   (18.5   percent    of   General   Fund   expenditures)    among  the   eight 
comparisons    shown  on  Tables   3-42,    3-43,    and   3-44.      This   is   not    because  Eureka 
spends    absolutely  more   than  comparable    school    districts    for  miscellaneous 
items   and   services   but   because   it   spends    relatively  more   for  these  on  a  per 
student   cost   basis.      In  actual   dollar   amounts,   Table   3-41   shows    that   Eureka 
per  student   costs   for  miscellaneous   items    ranked   second   highest,   after  Esmeralda 
(the   district   with  lowest   student   enrollment),    but   in   total   dollars   spent   on 
these   items    ranked   very  low  (fourth  lowest)    with  $151,000  spent   in   1980. 
Both  Esmeralda  and  Eureka   greatly   exceeded    average   dollar   costs    per  pupil   of 

3-104 


$125.6  in  1980;  Esmeralda  by  6.9  times  and  Eureka  by  6  times,  for  excluded 
miscellaneous  items.   This  occurred  because  6uch  costs  are  represented  by 
interfund  transfers  and  support  funds  from  sources  outside  ragular  local 
revenues,  and  for  purposes  not  normally  financed  by  local  revenues,  which  in 
the  case  of  lower  school  enrollment  districts  assume  a  disproportionate 
relative  share  of  total  General  Fund  revenues  when  stated  as  costs  per  student. 

As  noted,  the  linear  regression  analysis  was  prepared  for  Eureka 
School  District  to  determine  the  levels  at  which  costs  per  student  might 
decline  with  higher  enrollments.   Using  total  expenditures  and  total  direct 
teaching  costs  (net  of  excluded  miscellaneous  outlays)  for  six  of  the  districts 
having  the  lowest  enrollments,  Table  3-45  supplied  data  on  the  numbers  of 
students  (input  X)  relative  to  amounts  of  expenditure  per  student  (input  Y) 
for  both  of  the  years  1979  and  1980.    This  X-Y  relationship  was  of  the 
order:   1979  X  and  1979  Y,  followed  by  1980  X  and  1980  Y  for  each  of  the  six 
districts,  so  that  12  pairs  of  data  made  up  the  base  for  the  regression 
analysis. 

Additional  columns  of  input  data  were  prepared  for  more  detailed 
examination.   These  were:   administration  and  instruction,  operation  and 
maintenance,  retirement  and  insurance,  and  the  subtotal  of  these  which 
excluded  transportation  and  school  equipment.   In  this  way,  most  arrangements 
of  expenditures  per  pupil  were  available  for  inspection;  the  subtotal  above 
excluded  two  items  which  were  included  in  the  total  direct  teaching  costs. 
If  transport  vehicles  and  school  equipment  were  to  be  made  available  outside 
the  normal  Eureka  school  budgets,  the  separation  of  these  items  from  normal 
expenditures  would  furnish  a  basis  for  calculating  the  level  of  savings  which 
might  arise. 

The  resulting  system  of  equations  produces  an  objective  statement 
of  the  mathematical  frequency  and  reliability  of  a  data  array  to  predict 
intermediate  points  within  the  data  range.   For  example,  from  Table  3-45  the 
range  of  X-Y  is  from  114  to  950  students  and  $4,786  to  $1,716  per  student. 
The  "model"  of  these  cost  relationships  may  then  be  utilized  to  produce  the 
equivalent  costs  per  student  for  a  range  of  students  from  250  through  475,  in 
increments  of  25.   This  is  within  the  capability  of  the  model,  which  also 

3-105 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  3-4  5  Data  for  Regression  Analysis:   Per  Student  Costs 
Variation  with  Number  of  Students 


Column   Number 

1 

2 

3 

4 

School 

Number 

Total 

Total 

Direct 

District 

Student! 

3    (X) 

Expenditures    (Y) 
(1979)          (1980) 

Teaching 
(1979) 

Costs    (Y) 

(1979) 

(1980) 

(1980) 

Esmeralda 

114 

112 

4,786 

4,489 

3,428 

3,618 

Eureka 

173 

200 

4,617 

4,464 

3,695 

3,706 

Storey 

190 

215 

2,331 

2,595 

2,032 

2,189 

Pershing 

700 

707 

1,716 

1,873 

1,583 

1,743 

Lander 

907 

950 

1,782 

2,006 

1,582 

1,839   1/ 

Lincoln 

911 

921 

2,222 

2,425 

1,946 

2,186    1/ 

Mineral 

1,352 

1,379 

1,795 

1,848 

1,641 

1,729 

Nye 

1,618 

1,721 

2,232 

2,315 

1,933 

2,103 

White   Pine 

1,766 

1,662 

1,847 

2,146 

1,799 

2,009 

Humboldt 

1,802 

1,865 

1,773 

1,936 

1,602 

1,797 

Lyon 

2,478 

2,640 

1,671 

1,826 

1,528 

1,642 

Churchill 

2,995 

2,972 

1,460 

1,686 

1,403 

1,553 

Douglas 

3,421 

3,557 

1,623 

1,853 

1,450 

1,688 

Elko 

3,614 

3,766 

1,817 

1,906 

1,708 

1,769 

Carson  City 

6,192 

5,942 

1,567 

1,717 

1,421 

1,600 

Washoe 

31,837 

31,700  2/ 

Clark 

86,211 

87,425 

1/     Break-line  separating  Eureka  School  District  and  comparable  lower 

enrollment  districts  for  analysis  apart  from  higher  enrollment  districts. 

2/     Washoe  and  Clark  Districts  excluded  from  analysis  (unusual  size  enrollment 
outside  reference  range). 

3/      Subtotal  omits  Transportation  and  School  Equipment. 


3-106 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  3-45  Data  for  Regression  Analysis:   Per  Student  Costs 
(cont'd)    Variation  with  Number  of  Students 


Column  Number 


10 


11 


School 
District 


Administration 

Instruction 
(1979)      (1980) 


Operation, 
Maintenance 


Retirement, 
Insurance 


Subtotal 
Cols.    5-10        3/ 


(1979)      (1980)  (1979)      (1980)  (1979)      (1980) 


Esmeralda 

Eureka 

Storey 

Pershing 

Lander 


1,867  1,896 

2,000  1,994 

1,452  1,532 

1,057  1,135 

1,161  1,232 


319  438 

602  602 

160  211 

196  233 

171  185 


404  473 

387  413 

276  286 

219  252 

149  225 


2,590  2,807 

2,989  3,009 

1,888  2,029 

1,472  1,620 

1,481  1,642 


Lincoln 


1,300       1,481 


200  214 


291  324 


1,791        2,019 


Mineral 

Nye 

White  Pine 

Humboldt 

Lyon 

Churchill 

Douglas 

Elko 

Carson  City 


1,060  1,091 

1,203  1,292 

1,253  1,321 

1,151  1,165 

982  1,070 

904  1,043 

937  1,088 

1,196  1,243 

1,016  1,133 


236  26  2 

236  246 

172  246 

195  218 

178  198 

145  174 

187  237 

184  184 

147  168 


222  230 

246  272 

252  278 

161  254 

192  212 

176  209 

191  207 

235  236 

160  215 


3-107 


describes  the  correlation  coefficient  (degree  of  reliability)  and 
standard  error  of  regression  (range  above  or  below  the  predicted  value  by 
which  the  value  might  vary). 

Predicted  dollar  expenditures  per  student  were  determined  as  shown 
on  Table  3-46.   The  model  is  shown  to  predict  costs  about  20  percent  below  actual 
costs  for  173  students  (the  number  in  Eureka  in  1979)  and  about  18.5  to  22.6  per- 
cent below  actual  for  200  students  (Eureka's  enrollment  in  1980).   This  check 
against  actual  costs  confirms  the  statement  by  the  correlation  coefficient  of 
an  average  0.78  reading,  indicating  less  than  accurate  predictions  (a  reading 
close  to  1.00  offers  the  most  reliable  values).   This  degree  of  error  is 
believed  to  result  from  the  inclusion  of  the  Lincoln  District  in  the  array: 
while  its  student  body  is  about  the  same  as  Lander  (no.  5  in  the  array),  its 
costs  per  student  turn  sharply  upward  above  Lander's.   Because  of  this, 
another  analysis  was  made,  excluding  Lincoln  District,  and  using  the  remaining 
five  low-enrollment  districts. 

For  the  five  district  analysis,  the  10-pair  array  produced  a  higher 
correlation  coefficient  of  0.79  versus  0.78  for  total  expenditures  and  0.78 
versus  0.76  for  total  direct  teaching  costs.   The  predicted  expenditures  are 
shown  on  Table  3-47,  against  the  hypothetical  levels  of  increase  in  the  student 
body.   The  cost  levels  predicted  for  administration,  instruction  and  retirement 
and  insurance  were  of  a  higher  order  of  accuracy;  at  0.85  and  0.84.   Operation 
and  maintenance  costs  were  unreliably  low  at  0.58.   The  multiples  needed  to 
bring  predicted  values  to  the  level  of  actual  values  are  shown  at  the  bottom 
of  Table  3-47.   These  derive  from  comparing  a  known  actual  value  with  the 
model's  prediction  of  the  same  value  (enrollment  of  173  in  Eureka  in  1979). 

In  order  to  bring  all  predicted  values  up  to  the  same  relative 
value  as  the  known  value,  the  multiple  was  applied  to  all  the  predicted  costs 
in  their  respective  columns.   The  calculations  on  Table  3-48  demonstrate  the 
new,  higher  levels  of  costs  per  student  when  all  the  costs  associated  with 
a  student  enrollment  of  173  students  (an  actual  cost)  are  duplicated  by  the 
multiplier.   For  the  hypothetical  array  of  higher  levels  of  enrollment,  the 
declining  levels  of  expenditure  per  student  can  then  be  shown  at  appropriate 
levels. 

3-108 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table   3-46     Regression  Model  Predictions   of   Student   Cost  Variation  With  Change 
in  Number   of   Students    (1978-79,    1979-80  Base  Year) 


A.      Function  of    Six  Lower-Enrollment 

School  Districts 

($):    1/ 

St 

Per 

Student 

Per 

udent 

Total  Exp 

enditures    (Y) 

Total   Direct 

Teaching   (Y) 

1979-80   11 

1979-80 

2/ 

As   Percent    3/ 

Combined 

1979 

1980 

Combined 

Col.    1 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

No.    Students    (X) 

250                                                    3,628 

3,623 

3,632 

2,933 

80.8 

275                                                    3,561 

3,552 

3,570 

2,887 

81.1 

300                                                    3,495 

3,480 

3,509 

2,842 

81.3 

325                                                    3,429 

3,408 

3,448 

2,796 

81.5 

350                                                  3,362 

3,337 

3,386 

2,751 

81.8 

37  5                                                  3,296 

3,265 

3,325 

2,705 

82.1 

400                                                  3,230 

3,193 

3,264 

2,660 

82.4 

425                                                  3,163 

3,132 

3,202 

2,614 

82.6 

450                                                  3,097 

3,050 

3,141 

2,568 

82.9 

475                                                  3,031 

2,978 

3,080 

2,523 

83.2 

Actual  Eureka   Enrollment   and   Predicted  Costs: 

A/ 

173    <79)                                         3,832 

3,844 

3,820 

3,073 

80.2 

200  (80>                                         3,760 

3,767 

3,754 

3,023 

80.4 

1_/  Esmeralda,   Eureka,    Storey,    Pershing,   Lander,   Lincoln. 

II  12  pairs   in  analysis    (X,   Y  of   1979;    plus  X,   Y  1980  as   pairs). 

3/  Percent   shows   this   cost   declines   less   rapidly  than  total   expenditures. 

4/  Reported  Eureka   costs   follow: 

173  -  4,617  -  3,695  80.0 

200  -  -     4,464  3,706  83.0 

Inaccuracy  level  of   regression  prediction   (percent): 

173  -20.5  -20.1     -20.9  -20.2 

200  -18.7  -18.5     -18.9  -22.6 


3-109 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  3-46  Regression  Model  Predictions  of  Student  Cost  Variation  With  Change 
(cont'd)    in  Number  of  Students  (1978-79,  1979-80  Base  Year) 


A.   Estimates: 


No.  of 
Students 

250 
275 
300 
325 
350 
375 
400 
425 
450 
475 

Predicted  Costs  Using  Actual  Enrollment  as  Basis: 

173      $3,832.08     -0-     3,844.29         3,820.47         3,073.13    -0- 
200      3,760.43     1.88    3,766.86         3,754.24         3,023.94    1.63 

LOWER  ENROLLMENT  DISTRICTS 


Percent 

Percent 

Percent 

Percent 

(1   &   2) 

A 

(1)                 A 

(2)                    A 

(3  &  4) 
2,932.86 

A 

$3,627.74 

3.55 

3,623.45 

3,631.57 

2.98 

3,561.39 

1.85 

3,551.80 

3,570.24 

2,887.32 

1.57 

3,495.05 

1.85 

3,480.11 

3,508.91 

2,841.77 

1.56 

3,428.70 

1.89 

3,408.42 

3,447.58 

2,796.23 

1.62 

3,362.35 

1.95 

3,336.74 

3,386.25 

2,750.69 

1.64 

3,296.01 

1.96 

3,265.05 

3,324.92 

2,705.14 

1.67 

3,229.66 

2.03 

3,193.36 

3,263.59 

2,659.60 

1.66 

3,163.32 

2.04 

3,121.67 

3,202.26 

2,614.06 

1.73 

3,096.97 

2.08 

3,049.99 

3,140.93 

2,568.52 

1.76 

3,030.63 

2.13 

2,978.30 

3,079.60 

2,522.97 

1.75 

Esmeralda 

-  ] 

Lincoln 

Esmeralda   -  Lincoln 

(1   &    2) 

(1) 

(2) 

(3   &   4) 

Combined 
4,291.19 

Combined 

Y-intercept 

4,340.36 

4,244.88 

3,388.28 

Y-slope 

-2.65 

-2.87 

-2.45 

-1.82 

Correl.    Coeff. 

-0.78 

-0.78 

-0.79 

-0.76 

Index  of   Determ. 

0.61 

0.60 

0.63 

0.56 

0.39 

0.40 

0.37 

0.42 

1,192.43 

1,287.10 

1,088.55 

350.04 

5,626.25 

513.47 

1,192.44 

4,200.46 

10.00 

3,080.84 

442.93 

10.00 

562.62 

4.00 

4.00 

20.50 

St.   Error  Regr. 

23.7  2 

27.75 

25.76 

20.50 

122,510.06 

121,098.47 

1,184,930.2 

699,275.69 

1,212.49 

852.40 

2,666.36 

2,896.78 

St.    Error    Slope 

0.02 

0.03 

1.00 

0.01 

Range:      Predicted 

Value   t  2x   23. 

,72 

_ 

27. 

,75 

= 

25. 

,76 

= 

Equation:  -2.65  students  +  $4,291.19 


3-110 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table   3-47     Regression  Model  Predictions   of    Student  Cost  Variation  With  Change 
in  Number   of   Students    (1978-79,    1979-80  Base  Year) 


B .      Function   of   Five   Lower-Enrollment    School   Districts    ($):    1/ 

Per   Student   Expenditures  x  Cost  Category 
(1979-80  Combined)    2/ 


No.   of 

Total 

Total 

Admin. 

Oper. , 

Retire. , 

Sub   3/ 

Students 

Expend. 

Direct 

Instruct. 

Maint. 

Insurance 

Total 

173  4/ 

3,847 

3,084 

1,770 

386 

373 

2,528 

200 

3,764 

3,027 

1,744 

378 

366 

2,488 

250 

3,610 

2,920 

1,698 

363 

354 

2,414 

300 

3,456 

2,813 

1,651 

349 

341 

2,340 

325 

3,379 

2,759 

1,6  28 

341 

334 

2,303 

350 

3,302 

2,706 

1,604 

334 

328 

2,266 

375 

3,225 

2,652 

1,581 

327 

322 

2,229 

400 

3,148 

2,599 

1,558 

320 

315 

2,192 

425 

3,071 

2,545 

1,534 

312 

309 

2,155 

450 

2,994 

2,492 

1,511 

305 

302 

2,118 

475 

2,918 

2,438 

1,488 

298 

296 

2,081 

1/      Esmeralda,   Eureka,    Storey,    Pershing,   Lander. 

2/      10  pairs   in  analysis    (X,   Y  of    1979;    plus  X,   Y  1980  as   pairs). 

3/      Preceding   3  columns   only,   which   omits   transportation  and   school  equipment. 

4/      Actual  Eureka  per   student   expenditures  with   173  students: 

173  4,617  3,695  2,000  602  387  2,989 

Multiple  Needed  to  Bring  Predicted  to  Actual: 

173  1.2002  1.1981  1.1299  1.5596  1.0375  1.1824 


3-111 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table   3-4  7     Regression  Model  Predictions   of    Student  Cost  Variation  With  Change 
(cont'd)  in  Number   of   Students    (1978-79,    1979-80  Base  Year) 


Total 

Direct 

Admin. 

Oper. 

Retire. 

Sub. 

Y-intercept 

$4,379.58 

3,454.55 

1,931.07 

435.94 

417.32 

2,784.34 

Y-slope 

-3.08 

-2.14 

-0.93 

-0.29 

-0.26 

-1.48 

Correl. 

-0.79 

-0.78 

-0.85 

-0.58 

-0.84 

-0.81 

Index 

0.63 

0.61 

0.72 

0.33 

0.71 

0.65 

0.37 

0.39 

0.28 

0.67 

0.29 

0.35 

470.55 

345.02 

100.26 

110.34 

28.90 

208.45 

4,705.95 

3,450.18 

1,002.60 

1,103.45 

288.98 

2,084.86 

8.0 

8.0 

8.00 

8.00 

8.00 

8.00 

St.   Error 

Regr. 

24.25 

20.77 

11.19 

11.74 

6.01 

16.14 

1,612,340.5     798,567.95  107,120.96  27,313.65  9,844.09  359,643.21 

4,015.40          2,825.88  1,034.99  522.62  313.75  1,896.44 

St.    Error   Slope                   0.01                   0.01  0.01  0.02  0.02  0.01 

(t  2x   24.25)  +  Predicted  Value 

48.5                  41.5  22.4  23.5  12.0  32.3 


3-112 


Before  applying   the   regression  equations    to   the   levels   of    student 
enrollment   in  Eureka  which  have   been   forecasted,   further  information  regarding 
adjustments  made   to   the  Eureka   School  District   budget   of    1982-83  was   input 
(Table   3-49).      The    1982-1983   budget  was   the   basis    for  calculations   in  the 
final   fiscal   impact   analysis. 

All   revenue   items   have   been  shown  as   reported.      Only  two   types   of 
revenue   out    of   the  nine   shown  on  Table   3-49  have   been  included   in   the   fiscal 
impact   analysis:    ad   valorem  and   local   school  support   (deriving  from  the   1.5   per- 
cent  component   of   the   state   sales   tax  retained   by   the   districts).      The   forecast 
does   not   use   these   tax  amounts   directly   in  the  impact   analysis;    rather,    for 
both   types   of   taxes   the   amounts   paid  in  reflect   the  economic  activities    of 
the  mine/process  plant   operations   and   of  mine/process   plant   employees   and 
generated   employment  within  the  taxing  jurisdiction,   and  do  not   derive   from 
per  capita  extrapolations   of    taxes   paid   by  present   populations. 

Expenditure   forecasts    of   the   impact   analysis  were,    however,   origi- 
nally based   on  per  capita  expenditures   of    the   present   population,    projected 
without    change   through  the   period    197  4-2037.      Total   school   expenditures   in 
the   linear  analysis  were  at   the   level   of    $1,279,650,    after  elimination  of 
nonrecurring  items.      This    amounted   to   $1,080.78   per  capita  and   $5,687.33   per 
student   for  Eureka   School  District.      Table   3-49   shows    the  reduction  in  the 
expenditure   base  ($4,428)    for  Eureka,    which  results    from  the   comparative 
analysis   of   expenditures   by   type   in   17   school   districts. 

The  items   selected   for   inclusion  within  the   category  of    total   direct 
teaching   costs   (which  averaged   81.5   percent   in  the  period   1979-80)   were  as 
follows: 

Admin.,    Instruction 

Regular  $348,073 

Special  37,640 

Vocational  42,640 

Undistributed  220,271 

Operation  and  Maintenance  213,400 

Transportation  134,300 

3-113 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  3-48  Possible  Application  of  School  District  Regression  Analysis  of 
Declining  Expenditures  Per  Student  (1978-79,  1979-80  Base  Year) 


1.   Recognized  Level  of  Error: 

(Adjustment  Needed  to  Bring  Predicted  to  Actual  Expenditures /Student)  1/ 

Eureka  School  District 


No.  of     Total 
Students   Expend. 


173 


1.2002 


Total 
Direct 

1.1981 


Admin. 
Instruct. 

1.1299 


Oper. , 
Maint. 

1.5596 


Retire. , 
Insurance 

1.0375 


Sub    2/ 
Total 

1.1824 


2.     Adjusted  Prediction  of   Expenditures/Student   Using  Multiples  Above: 


173 

4,617 

3,695 

2,000 

602 

38  7 

2,989  3/ 

200 

4,517 

3,6  27 

1,971 

589 

380 

2,942 

250 

4,333 

3,498 

1,919 

566 

367 

2,854 

300 

4,148 

3,370 

1,865 

544 

354 

2,767 

325 

4,055 

3,305 

1,839 

532 

347 

2,723 

350 

3,963 

3,242 

1,812 

521 

340 

2,679 

375 

3,871 

3,177 

1,786 

510 

334 

2,636 

400 

3,778 

3,114 

1,760 

499 

3  27 

2,592 

4  25 

3,686 

3,049 

1,733 

487 

321 

2,548 

450 

3,593 

2,986 

1,707 

476 

313 

2,504 

475 

3,502 

2,921 

1,681 

465 

307 

2,461 

3.     As   Percent   of   Total   Expenditures   Per   Enrollee: 

100  81.5  44.0  13.25 


8.85 


66.1 


NOTE:  "Range"  of  Adjusted  Predictions  (variation  from  single  point 
=~"c~==  given  above)  is  shown  below: 


(t)   48.5 


41.5 


22.4 


23.5 


12.0 


32.3 


1/     Multiple  derived  by  dividing  actual  value  by  predicted  value  for  base  case 
(173  students)  at  S/student.   Constant  multiplier  used  throughout  column. 

2/      Preceding  3  columns  only,  which  omits  transportation  and  school  equipment. 

3/   Prediction  now  equals  actual  for  173  students.   For  200,  prediction  shows 
less  than  actual  in  Eureka. 


3-114 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table   3-49     Eureka   School  District  Budget   of   1982-83  and  Adjustments   to  Entries 


General  Fund  Revenues 


Local 

Ad  Valorem 
School  Support 
Franchise 
Motor  Vehicle 
Tuition 
Other 


State 

Distrib.    School 

Fund 
Vocational   Aid 


$507,100 

343,400 

107,000 

2,500   1/ 

37,500   V 

7,200   1/ 

9,500    1/ 


$530,841    1/ 


525,841    1/ 
5,000   1/ 


Other  Funds 


183,886    1/ 


General  Fund  Expenditures 
Admin.,    Instruct.  $492,293 


Regular 

Special 

Vocational 

Co-Curric. 

Athletics 

(Student   Transp.) 
Food   Services 

Undistributed 

Administration 

Oper.,   Maint. 

Stud.   Transportation 

Total 


Other  Fund  Trans f. 

Contingency 
Unappr.  Balance 

Ending  Total 

Debt  Service 
Other  Funds 

All  Funds 


348,073 
37,640 
42,640 

6,000   1/ 
27,940   1/ 

4,500 
30,000   1/ 

$563,471 

220,271 
213,400 
129,800 

$1,055,764 


$   20,000  1/ 

20,000  U 

14,091  1/ 

1,109,855  1/ 

311,207  1/ 

133,886  1/ 

1,554,948  2/ 


After  Exclusions: 
Net  Revenue  Base 


1982-83 


Ad  Valorem  $343,400 

1.5%   School   Support        107,000 


Total 


$450,400 


1/      Excluded  from  forecast   as   an  item 
not   directly  responsive    to   a   rise 
in  taxpaying  population   (revenues) 
or    school  enrollment    (expenditures), 

2/      Sum  of   Ending  Total,   Debt    Service 
and   Other   Funds   only. 


After  Exclusions: 
Comparative   Distribution   Expenditures 


$198  2-3 

1982-3(%) 

1979-80(%) 

Admin. 

648,624 

58.45 

54.00 

Oper. 

213,400 

19.23 

13.50 

Transp. 

134,300 

12.10 

14.40 

Total 

Direct 

996,324 

89.77 

83.00 

Excluded 

113,531 

10.23 

17.00 

Total        1 

,109,855 

100.00 

100.00 

1.  (Student   Enrollment    209  Unweighted) 
Direct  Cost   Per   Student:    $4,767 

2.  (Students   in  Prior   Study  -    225) 

Direct  Adjusted  Cost   Per   Student:    $4,428 
Direct   Unadjusted  Cost  Per   Student:    $5,687 


3-115 


Total:  996,324        (90  percent) 

Excluded 

Miscellaneous  113,531        (10  percent) 

For  the  209  students   now  shown  as   enrolled  in  Eureka  District, 
the   total   direct    teaching   costs   are   $4,428   per  student   for  the   1982-83   school 
year.      Table   3-50  shows   the   basis    for   the   revenue   forecast  and  the   expenditure 
forecast.      Expenditures   per  student   are  adjusted,   as   before,    for  its  under- 
statement   of   actual  known  costs   (of    $4,767   per  209  students).      To  obtain  this 
multiple,   an  interpolation  between  200  and   250  students  yields    the  prediction 
given  by  the  model   of   costs    for  209  students   of    $3,008  (these   costs   are 
1979-80  costs   as  well  and   the  multiple   of    1.58477   times   $3,008  incorporates 
an   adjustment    for  inflation). 

Predicted   economies   of   scale  with  a  rising   level   of   students   is 
shown  on  Table   3-51:      the   unadjusted   forecast   (using  the   equivalent    of    1979-80 
costs   and   the  understatement   inherent   in  the  model),    produces   the   cost   forecast 
under  Section  I.      The   adjusted   forecast   under   Section  II  brings   costs    to   their 
current   level   and  shows    the   relative   levels   to  which  future  costs  may  decline 
per  student   as   the   student  body  increases.      Over   the   period    1984   -  2000, 
normal   school   expenditures   (without   the  additional   students   resultant   of    the 
proposed   action)    are   expected   to   decline  as    per  student   expenditures    from 
$4,702   to   $4,092.      In  the  case   of   higher  local   school  enrollments   under  the 
proposed   action,   the   per  student   costs  would  further   decline,    with  normal 
enrollment   included   in  total   costs,    from  $4,437   to   $3,119.      The  Dispersed 
Personnel  Case  5-B  (shown  for  comparison,    see   Section  3.5.4)    would  produce 
only  marginal   differences   in  total   direct    teaching   costs   per  student   from 
that   of   the  Case  5-A:      $4,478  in    1984   to   $3,402  in  year  2000.      (The   forecast 
of    these  per  student   costs   in  terms   of   annual   total   expenditures   is   shown  on 
Tables   3-58     and   3-59,   in  company  with  the  Eureka  County   forecast   discussed 
later  in  the   text.      In  summary,    by  Year   3   it  would  be  anticipated   that   revenues 
would   exceed   expenditures   and   remain  in  surplus    for   the   forecast   period) . 

Eureka  County:    Expenditures   of   Eureka  County  were   compared  with  those  of   four 
other   counties   graduated   in  size   of    population   from  Eureka's    1,395   to   Elko's 
19,875.      Budgets   of    these   counties   are   shown  on  Table   3-52.      It  may   be   seen 

3-116 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  3-50  Application  of  Adjustments  to  Forecast  of  Eureka  School  District 
Revenues  and  Expenditures 

Revenues 


Forecast  Basis:    1/ 

1.      Sales   Taxes      3.75%   out   of    5.75%    (omitting    2%   State  General  Fund) 

Paid   by  Mine/Mill   on  Expenditures 

Paid   by  Non-local  new  employees  on  selected  expenditures 

Distribution   to  Local   Jurisdictions:  3.75     =      65.0% 

School   Support  26.090   2/ 

CCRT   (County,   City)        8.695  " 


Supplement  CCRT  30.435 


2.     Ad  Valorem  Property  Taxes 


Paid   by  Mine/Mill  on  Property 

Paid   by  Mine/Mill  on  Net   Proceeds 

Paid   by  Non-local   New  Employees  on  residences 

Distribution   to  Local  Juriscitsion:  100% 

School   Support  66.66 

County  32.37 

Towns  0.137 

Special  Districts  0.835 


Expenditures 
Forecast  Basis: 

1.  Total   direct    teaching   costs    ($996,325  in  base  period),   or   89.77%   of 
total    $1,109,855  before   debt   service   and  other   funds. 

2.  Direct   cost  per  student   996,325/209  =  $4,767,   reduced  by: 

3.  Economies   of    scale,   after   fitting  regression   to   base   cost: 

Model   Interpolation:  Actual  Base:  Multiple 

#200  =   $3,027  #209  =   $4,767 

#250  =   $2,920  (9  =   18%  of    50)       =   $3  008  1.58477X 

Diff:    (50)   =   (107)  (.18  x   107  =   $19) 

4.  Multiple   is  applied   to   linear  regression   column   as   a  constant. 

a)  Normal   student   population   x  per   student   costs 

b)  Normal  plus   project   student   population  x  per   student   costs 

1/      Not   forecasted  on   per   capita  basis,    but   derived   directly  as   shown  from 
specified   forecast   items    (as   in  original  study). 

2/      Local   school   support    (1.5%)    retained   by   school  district.     All  school  support 
revenues   omit   the   return   to   school   district   of   "Distributive   School   Fund" 
out  of    the    2%   state   sales   tax   component  of   the   State  General  Fund,   or   any 
return   out   the    State   General   Fund. 

3-117 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  3-51  Cost  Forecasts  of  School  District  Impacts  -  Adjusted,  Unadjusted 


I.   UNADJUSTED  MODEL  OF  STUDENT  COST  ECONOMIES  OF  SCALE  USING  FORECASTED 
NUMBERS  OF  STUDENTS 


Forecasted  Enrollment:   Eureka 


Cost  Forecast  ($)  4/ 


Case 

Case 

Proposed 

Action    2/ 

Total 

(With)   3/ 

Normal 

5-A 

5-B 

Year 

Normal    1/ 

Case    5-A 

Case    5-B 

5-A 

5-B 

(Alone) 

(Total 

With) 

1984 

228 

78 

66 

306 

294 

2,967 

2,800 

2,826 

5 

27  5 

321 

256 

596 

531 

2,866 

2,179 

2,319 

6 

287 

289 

206 

576 

483 

2,841 

2,222 

2,400 

7 

299 

287 

203 

586 

502 

2,815 

2,201 

2,381 

8 

311 

287 

203 

598 

514 

2,789 

2,175 

2,355 

9 

323 

28  7 

203 

610 

526 

2,764 

2,150 

2,329 

1990 

335 

622 

538 

2,738 

2,124 

2,304 

1 

342 

629 

545 

2,723 

2,109 

2,289 

2 

349 

636 

552 

2,708 

2,094 

2,274 

3 

356 

643 

559 

2,693 

2,079 

2,259 

4 

363 

650 

566 

2,678 

2,064 

2,244 

1995 

370 

287 

203 

657 

573 

2,663 

2,049 

2,229 

6 

377 

664 

580 

2,648 

2,034 

2,214 

7 

38  5 

672 

588 

2,631 

2,017 

2,197 

8 

392 

769 

595 

2,616 

2,002 

2,182 

9 

400 

687 

603 

2,599 

1,985 

2,164 

2000 

408 

287 

203 

695 

611 

2,582 

1,968 

2,147 

II.   ADJUSTED  MODEL  FORECAST  WITH  MULTIPLE  (x  1.58477)  TO  1982/82  BASIS  ($): 


Normal  Enrollment 


Combined  with  Proposed  Action 
5-A     5-B  5-A     5-B 


1984 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

1990 
1 
2 


4,702 
4,542 
4,502 
4,461 
4,420 
4,380 
4,339 
4,315 
4,292 


3 

4 
1995 
6 
7 
8 
9 
2000 


4,268 
4,244 
4,220 
4,196 
4,169 
4,146 
4,119 
4,092 


1984 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

1990 
1 
2 


4,437 
3,453 
3,521 
3,488 
3,447 
3,407 
3,366 
3,342 
3,318 


4,478 
3,675 
3,803 
3,773 
3,732 
3,691 
3,651 
3,627 
3,604 


3 

4 
1995 
6 
7 
8 
9 
2000 


3,295 
3,270 
3,257 
3,223 
3,196 
3,173 
3,146 
3,119 


3,580 
3,556 
3,53  2 
3,509 
3,482 
3,458 
3,429 
3,402 


1_/   0.19  per  capita  county  population  (same  as  base  study). 

2/      Net  annual  project  student  volumes  (year-end  during  quarterly  forecast  period 

1984-1987). 
3/   Combined  normal  plus  proposec  action  Case  5-A,  or  dispersed  personnel  Case  5-B 
4/  Based  on  1979/1980  fiscal  year  cost  model;  to  be  adjusted  x  1.58477. 


3-118 


that  total  revenues  and  total  expenditures  rise  according  to  size  of  popula- 
tion.  When  expressed  as  expenditures  per  capita,  as  on  Table  3-53,  the 
levels  of  comparative  cost  show  a  tendency  to  rapidly  decline,  as  population 
rises.   The  date  base  for  regression  analysis  is  shown  on  Table  3-53  as  well 
as  the  initial  output  from  the  regression  model. 

Six  principal  items  within  the  budgets  of  these  counties,  common  to 
each,  were  included  in  individual  regression  systems: 

General  Government  Streets,  Highways 

Public  Safety  Health,  Welfare 

Judicial  Total  of  above 

Excluded  from  the  above  regression  were  two  items  which  ordinarily 
would  be  included,  but  which,  because  of  zero  expenditures  reported  in  only 
one  or  two  cases,  rendered  all  reported  sums  unusable.   These  items  were 
Culture  and  Recreation  and  Public  Works.   Table  3-52  shows  no  expenditures 
reported  in  one  case  for  the  first,  and  no  expenditures  reported  in  two  cases 
for  the  second. 

The  expenditures  items  listed  for  inclusion  in  the  regression 
analysis  included  all  fund  sources.   This  means  that  locally  derived  revenues 
originating  in  ad  valorem  and  sales  taxes  have  not  been  the  only  source  of 
funds,  and  that  expenditures  have  been  funded  by  interfund  transfers,  special 
funds,  and  authorizations  that  are  not  clearly  detailed.   It  further  means 
that  a  strong  likelihood  exists  that  expenditures  shown  for  each  item  are 
heavily  weighted  with  non-recurring  items,  one-of-a-kind  entries  not  shared 
by  the  other  counties,  and  irregular  expenditures  not  a  part  of  normal  operat- 
ing costs.   While  this  was  undesirable  in  terms  of  conducting  the  regression 
analysis,  to  some  extent  the  heavier  than  normal  costs  represented  offset  the 
necessary  elimination  of  the  two  line  items  which  were  excluded  from  the 
total. 

The  regression  analysis  produced  the  test  results  shown  in  Section 
II  of  Table  3-53:  assuming  Eureka  County's  population  to  rise  from  1,395  to 
2,000,  3,000,  then  4,000,  column  one  shows  costs  per  capita  to  decline  for 

3-119 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table   3-52     County  Auditor's   Reports  All  Fund   Sources,   Year  Ending   6-30-82 

Eureka  Mineral  Humboldt  Lyon  Elko 

Population  1,395  6,286  11,816  15,235  19,875 

(6-01-1982) 

Revenues 

Taxes  204,125  549,916        2,069,535       3,098,690  713,746 

Intergovernmental 
Licenses,    Permits 
Fines,   Fees 
Surcharges 
Misc. 

TOTAL 

Expenditures 
General  Govt. 
Public   Safety 
Judicial 
Streets,   Hiways 
Health,   Welfare 
Culture,   Recreat. 
Public  Works 
Water,   Util. 
Transportation 
Agric.    Ext. 
Contingency 
Debt   Service 

TOTAL 


(First  5  Items)  (2,018,002)    (2,519,164)    (2,895,779)    (4,074,849)    (3,327,066) 

1_/      Included  under  Licenses,    Permits   above. 

II     Break-line:      This   item  and   those  below  exempted  from  later  analysis. 

3/      Capital    Improvements  $345,009 

Industrial   Development  $74  2,212 

47      Capital   Outlay      $751,624 

5/   Other:   $673,725 

SOURCE:      Auditor's  Reports,    6-30-82. 


3-120 


1,444,606 

1,967,247 

879,976 

1,951,887 

3,338,763 

4,339 

121,982 

214,365 

301,080 

364,768 

63,006 

232,889 

332,460 

266,924 

615,149 

25,732 

68,550 

1/ 

0 

0 

164,651 

95,017 

425,600 

431,775 

1,190,341 

1,906,459 

3,245,763 

3,921,936 

6,050,356 

6,222,767 

551,521 

1,057,982 

1,064,398 

1,765,658 

1,155,607 

228,115 

611,666 

804,151 

1,020,405 

925,775 

92,293 

163,069 

345,657 

298,389 

264,852 

476,862 

400,219 

623,225 

929,375 

727,143 

669,211 

286,228 

58,348 

61,022 

253,689 

62,005 

163,896 

0 

85,876 

539,771 

2/ 

0 

297,168 

137,699 

452,577 

0 

22,914 

0 

0 

3/ 

4/ 

0 

0 

110,480 

5/ 

0 

0 

22,647 

0 

39,324 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

7,446 

219,750 

5,100 

279,435 

2,102,921 

2,937,674 

3,386,325 

5,705,623 

5,610,945 

Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 


Table  3-53  Regression  Analysis  of  County  Expenditures  Per  Capita:  Variation  with 
Size  of  Population  (Year  Ending  June  30,  1982)  Audited  Budgets 


Eureka 

Mineral 

Humboldt 

Lyon 

Elko 

I. 

DATA  BASE 

Population  (1982) 

1,395 

6,286 

11,816 

15,235 

19,875 

Est.  Future 

2,000 

- 

- 

- 

20,333 

Est.  Future 

3,000 

- 

- 

- 

20,666 

Est.  Future 

4,000 

- 

- 

- 

21,000 

395 

168 

90 

116 

58 

164 

97 

68 

67 

47 

66 

26 

29 

20 

13 

342 

64 

53 

61 

37 

480 

46 

5 

4 

13 

II. 


Expenditures:   Per  Capita  (1982)  With  1982  Populations  Shown  Above($) 


General  Government 
Public  Safety 
Judicial 
Streets,  Hiway 
Health,  Welfare 


TOTAL  ABOVE  1,447       401         245        268 

OUTPUT  OF  REGRESSION  MODEL: 

Predicted  Values  of  Expenditures  Capita,  with  Population  as  Above  ($), 
Gen'l  Gov't                 320       241         151         95 


168 


20 


Publ.  Safety 


310 
294 
278 

144 


116 


83 


63 


12.5 
7 
1.6 

36 


Judicial 


141 
135 
129 

54 


42 


29 


20 


33 
31 
29.5 


Streets,  Hiway 


53 
50 
48 

242 


175 


99 


52 


7.7 

7 

6 

-11.7 


Health,  Welf. 


234 
220 
206 

319 


211 


90 


15 


-18 
-22 

-27 

-87 


Total 


305 
283 
261 

1,080 


785 


452 


246 


-97 
-104 
-112 

-34 


1,043 
983 
923 


-61 
-81 
-102 


3-121 


each  of  the  six  main  budget  items.   For  Mineral,  Humboldt,  and  Lyon  Counties, 
the  1982  populations  remained  fixed  and  the  predicted  costs  per  capita  may 
be  compared  with  the  actual  costs  shown  in  Section  I  of  Table  3-53.   Consider- 
able variation  from  actual  is  noted,  more  for  these  counties  than  for  Eureka, 
for  which  the  model  tends  to  understate  costs.   The  attempt  to  forecast  Elko 
County  from  this  series  was  demonstrated  to  be  flawed  primarily  because  Elko 
is  the  top  of  the  range  of  entered  data  and  has  no  higher  level  populations 
and  costs  derived  from  larger-size  counties  to  draw  upon  as  a  guide.   Elko 
predictions  from  this  data  base  were  therefore  considered  non-valid.   Larger 
counties  in  Nevada  moved  too  rapidly  to  extreme  size  to  serve  as  valid  entries 
in  the  analysis:  the  next  larger  in  size  was  Carson  City  (33,929),  then 
Washoe  (208,321)  and  Clark  (515,021).   Since  the  maximum  population  increase 
forecasted  for  Elko  would  be  669  (Case  5-B)  or  only  3.3  percent  above  existing 
levels  of  19,875,  the  large  population  increases  available  for  entry  into  the 
model  for  predictive  use  could  not  be  held  to  be  reliable. 

For  the  existing  data  base,  Table  3-54  presents  the  regression 
equations  in  detail,  to  show  that  the  correlation  coefficient  is  at  better 
predictive  levels  (for  the  data  used)  than  was  the  case  with  Eureka  School 
Districts.   That  is,  in  most  of  the  six  items  listed  for  regression,  the 
coefficient  is  0.77  or  higher  (a  number  closest  to  1.00  being  most  reliable). 
For  four  of  the  six  items,  the  correlation  coefficient  is  of  a  higher  order 
than  obtained  in  the  Eureka  School  District  analysis,  which  used  comparisons 
among  the  lowest  school-enrollment  districts.   In  part,  this  reflects  the 
fact  that  irregularities  in  data,  even  among  selected  populations,  will  be 
reproduced  within  the  regression  equation  and  that  no  smooth  and  guaranteed 
route  exists  in  the  real  world  to  "prove"  any  given  level  or  rate  of  decline, 
other  than  to  point  the  general  direction  given  by  the  numeral  entries  into 
the  data  array. 

The  multiple  used  for  restating  the  understated  values  predicted 
by  the  model  of  Eureka  County  costs  is  shown  for  each  of  the  six  cost  items 
in  Section  I  of  Table  3-55.   For  General  Government  expenditures,  the 
multiple  was  $395  actual/$320  predicted  or  1.2344  times.   The  other  multiples 
are  explained  in  the  same  way.   Using  these  multiples  of  correction,  Section 
II  shows  the  corrected  level  of  1982  costs  in  each  item  for  a  population  of 

3-122 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table   3-54     Linear  Regression  Models   of  County  Cost 
5-County   Population  Expenditures 


Gen'l. 

Public 

Judi- 

Streets 

Health 

Gov ' t . 

Safety 

cial 

Hi ways 

Welf. 

Total 

Y- Intercept 

342.85 

152.60 

57.65 

261.59 

349.25 

1 

,163.93 

Slope 

-0.02 

-0.01 

-0.00 

-0.01 

-0.02 

-0.06 

Correl.   Coeff. 

-0.88 

-0.93 

-0.87 

-0.77 

-0.77 

-0.82 

Index  Determin. 

0.77 

0.87 

0.75 

0.60 

0.59 

0.68 

0.23 

0.13 

0.25 

- 

0.41 

0.32 

27.37 

5.39 

4.55 

46.42 

76.07 

153.75 

136.86 

10.78 

22.73 

232.12 

380.35 

768.73 

3.00 

3.00 

3.00 

3.00 

3.00 

3.00 

St.   Error  Regr. 

6.75 

0.68 

2.75 

8.80 

11.25 

16.01 

14,476.64 

28,070.99 

339.76 

13,381.84 

34,533.04 

227, 

,102.96 

269.04 

3,746.40 

41.22 

258.67 

415.53 

1 

,065.61 

St.    Error   Slope 


0.51 


0.00 


0.07 


0.03 


0.03 


0.02 


1.  Per  Capita  Cost  =   Slope  +  Y-Intercept    (Ex:      X=-0.02  +  342.85  for  Col.    1). 

Where  Population  =   Slope 

2.  Correlation  Coefficient   closest   to   one   is   better  predictor   for  data  points 
within  relevant   range   of   per   capita  expenditures. 

3.  Standard  Error  of  Regression  Line   closest   to  zero   is   better   predictor;    actual 
future   costs  will   be  +  2  x   6.75   (Col.    1)   +  the   estimated   costs. 

4.  Standard  Error  of   Slope    (0.51   for   Col.    1)  measures  variable   costs  deviation 
from  actual   equal   to   (slope)   -0.02  +  2  x  0.51.      The   smaller   value   is   the  more 
accurate  predictor. 

For  General  Government   in  Eureka,    the  model  predicts  per   capita   costs   of    $3  20 
(actual    $395).      Expected   Time   Range   given   by  the   data  is   shown  by  the   Standard 
Error  of   Regression: 

(+  2  x  6.75)  or:      13.50  +  320  =  333.50 

13.50  +  320  -  306.50 


3-123 


1,395  and  the  related  predicted  costs  (also  subject  to  the  multiple)  for 
populations  of  2,000,  3,000,  and  4,000.   Sample  results  for  Elko  County  are 
shown  merely  for  comparison. 

Table  3-56  shows  the  six  cost  items  used  for  summary  analysis  in 
the  amounts  obtained  for  1982/83.   The  costs  were  rearranged  from  the  unad- 
justed numbers,  as  they  included  entries  additional  to  those  under  examination 
(e.g.,  as  explained  above,  one-time  costs,  etc.),  and  the  entry  for  culture/ 
recreation  was  omitted,  in  accordance  with  its  omission  in  the  5-county 
regression  analysis.   The  population  of  Eureka  used  in  the  study  (1,184)  and 
the  levels  of  costs  ($905,445)  produced  a  per  capita  base  year  cost  of  $764.73 
as  a  total  cost  of  Eureka  County  per  capita.   This  cost  level  is  below  that 
predicted  by  the  model  and  the  multiple  of  correction  becomes  the  following: 
$765/$l,080  (predicted  value)  equals  0.7083  times  (the  unadjusted  forecast). 

The  forecasted  costs  per  capita  for  Eureka  County  with  rise  in 
population  levels  are  shown  on  Table  3-57  for  normal  populations  without  the 
proposed  action  increase,  for  normal  populations  with  the  proposed  action, 
and  for  the  dispersed  personnel  alternative  case  5-B  (for  comparative  pur- 
poses).  The  forecasted  rise  in  annual  population  levels  is  shown  in  Section 
I  of  Table  3-57,  along  with  the  unadjusted  forecast  of  costs  per  capita  under 
the  three  conditions  of  population  given.   Adjustment  of  the  cost  forecast 
was  made  by  applying  the  multiplier  throughout  to  the  cost  per  capita  shown 
annually  for  1984  (assumed  to  be  year  1  for  analytical  purposes)  through  year 
2000  (year  17).   The  costs  per  capita  have  the  following  tendencies: 

Normal   Subdivision  Case  5-A   Dispersed  Personnel  Case  5-B 


$736 
$702 
$686 


Expenditure  Budget  Summary  for  Eureka  County  and  School  District.   The  pe r 
capita  costs  (school  and  county)  were  combined  with  the  population  growth 
forecasted  as  annual  levels  to  produce  the  annual  total  forecasted  expendi- 
tures shown  on  Tables  3-58  and  3-59.   As  the  forecast  on  Table  3-59  indicates 

3-124 


1984 

$773 

$734 

1990 

$749 

$696 

2000 

$733 

$679 

Mt .  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  3-55  Possible  Application  of  County  Regression  Analysis  of  Declining 
Expenditures  Per  Capita  (Audited  Budget  Data  Comparisons) 


I.   Recognized  Level  of  Error: 

(Adjustment  needed  to  equal  actual  1982  Expend. /Capita)  1/ 


Eureka  Elko  2/ 


At  Population  Level: 


General  Gov't. 
Public  Safety 
Judicial 
Streets,  Hiways 
Health,  Welfare 

Total  Above  1.3398 

II.   Adjusted  Expenditures  per  Capita  Using  Multiples  Above  as  Population  Grows 


1,395 

19,875 

1.2344 

2.9000 

1.1389 

1.3056 

1.2222 

1.4444 

1.4132 

- 

1.5047 

- 

Eureka 

County 

19 

,875 

Elko  County 
20,333  20,666 

2 

Population 

1,395 

2,000 

3,000 

4,000 

21,000 

Gen'l.  Govt. 

395 

383 

363 

343 

58 

36      20 

5 

Publ.  Safety 

164 

161 

154 

147 

47 

43      40 

39 

Judicial 

66 

65 

61 

59 

13 

11      10 

9 

Streets,  Hiway 

342 

331 

301 

291 

- 

Health,  Welf. 

480 
1,447 

459 
861 

426 
819 

393 
776 

- 

Total  Above 

- 

NOTE:   "Range"  of  adjusted  model  predictions  (variation  from  single  point  given 
above)  is  shown  in  notes  on  preceding  table. 

1_/  Multiple  derived  by  dividing  actual  value  by  model-predicted  value  for  base 

case  (i.e.,  with  population  1,395  and/or  19,875).   Constant  multiplier  is  used 
for  each  new  level  of  population  estimated  for  Eureka  and  Elko. 

2/  Large  errors  invalidate  model.  Use  of  Elko  in  last  position  is  reason  for  error 
level,  which  borrows  arithmetic  from  lower  level  populations  rather  than  higher, 
i.e.,  Elko  population  estimates  are  outside  range  of  data  points. 


3-125 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  3-56  Application  of  Adjustments  to  Forecast  of  Eureka  County  Revenues 
and  Expenditures 


REVENUES 


Same   forecast   basis  as  Eureka   School  District.    1/ 

1.  Sales  Taxes    (omitting    2%   to   State   General  Fund) 

2.  Ad  Valorem  Property  Taxes. 


EXPENDITURES 


Forecast  Basis: 

1.      Total  reported  expenditures,   unadjusted,   as   follows,    but   omitting 
"Culture,   Recreation"   from  accounts. 


Unadjusted 
(1982/83) 


Restated   2/ 
(1982/83) 


1. 

Gen'l.  Admin. 

2. 

Public  Safety 

3. 

Judicial 

4. 

Streets,  Hiway 

5. 

Health,  Welfare 

6. 

Fire 

7. 

Health 

8. 

Other  Depts. 

9. 

Other 

10. 

Welfare 

11. 

Culture,  Recreation 

TOTAL 


87,525 
228,270 
124,555 

30,900 

27 ,  500 
110,720 
239,745 
24,230 
32,000 
76,855 

982,300 


351,500  (1+8+9) 
255,770  (2+6) 
124,555  (3) 
30,900  (4) 
142,720  (7+10) 


905,445 


PER  CAPITA  (Population  1,184); 


$764.73   3/ 


1_/      Not    forecasted   on  Per  Capita  Basis,    but   derived  directly  as   shown   from 
specified   forecast   items   (as   in  original  study.) 

2/      Forecast   is   annual   sums  above,    stated   as   Per  Capita  Expenditures  x   county 

population  with  and  without    project,    under   conditions   of  declining  costs    per 
capita  given  by  regression  analysis. 

3/     Adjustment   of  model   is   765/1,080   (Real/Predicted)   =   0.7083   x  Predicted. 


3-126 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  3-57  County  Cost  Economies  of  Scale  Unadjusted  and  Adjusted  1/ 


I.   UNADJUSTED  MODEL  OF  COUNTY  COST  ECONOMIES  OF  SCALE 

1.  Using  Forecasted  Populations. 

2.  Total  County  Expenditures  Basis  (First  5  Items), 


Forecasted  Population  of  County: 


Cost  Forecast  ($) 


Normal 

(+)5-A 

5-B 

Total 

(with) 

Normal 

5-A 

5-B 

5 -A 

5-B 

1984 

1,200 

920 

2/  869  2/ 

2,120 

2,069 

1,092 

1,036 

1,039 

5 

1,451 

2 

,907 

2,564 

4,358 

4,015 

1,076 

907 

922 

6 

1,513 

1 

,640 

1,183 

3,153 

2,696 

1,073 

974 

1,001 

7 

1,575 

1 

,255 

1,106 

2,830 

2,681 

1,069 

9  93 

1,002 

8 

1,637 

" 

" 

2,892 

2,743 

1,065 

990 

999 

9 

1,699 

" 

" 

2,954 

2,805 

1,062 

986 

995 

1990 

1,762 

" 

" 

3,017 

2,868 

1,057 

982 

991 

1 

1,801 

•' 

•• 

3,056 

2,907 

1,055 

980 

989 

2 

1,837 

•  1 

•  i 

3,092 

2,943 

1,053 

978 

987 

3 

1,873 

" 

tt 

3,128 

2,979 

1,051 

975 

984 

4 

1,909 

" 

•  • 

3,164 

3,015 

1,049 

973 

982 

1995 

1,945 

" 

•  • 

3,200 

3,051 

1,047 

971 

980 

6 

1,985 

" 

" 

3,240 

3,091 

1,044 

969 

978 

7 

2,025 

" 

•  i 

3,280 

3,131 

1,042 

966 

975 

8 

2,065 

II 

•t 

3,320 

3,171 

1,039 

964 

973 

9 

2,105 

•  I 

•• 

3,360 

3,211 

1,037 

961 

970 

2000 

2,145 

" 

•  • 

3,400 

3,251 

1,035 

959 

968 

II.   ADJUSTED  MODEL  COST  FORECAST  WITH  MULTIPLE  (0.7083X) 
TO  1982/83  BASIS  ($): 


1984 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 

1990 


Normal 

773 
762 
760 
757 
754 
752 
749 


(Plus) 


Case  5-A 

734 
642 
690 
703 
701 
698 
696 


(or) 


Case  5-B 

736 
653 
709 
710 
708 
705 
702 


1 
2 
3 
4 
1995 


747 
746 
744 
743 
742 


694 
693 
691 
689 
688 


701 
699 
697 
696 
694 


6 
7 
8 
9 
2000 


7  39 
738 
736 
735 
733 


686 
684 
683 
681 
679 


6  93 
691 
689 
687 
686 


1/   Assume  1984  as  Year  1. 

2/   Net  project  populations  added  to  normal  under  alternative  cases:   New 
Community,  or  Dispersed  Personnel. 


3-127 


Expenditures  With  the  Project  are  shown  at  higher  annual  levels  than  Expendi- 
tures Without  the  Project.   The  difference  between  the  two  are  Net  Expendi- 
tures; shown  in  this  fashion  because  annually  reduced  costs  per  capita  of 
county  population  or  of  school  enrollments  would  be  a  joint  product  of  com- 
bined project  and  non-project  populations.   Although  annual  total  expenditures 
would  rise  throughout  the  forecast,  it  is  noted  that  the  Net  Expenditures 
would  decline  annually  to  lower  levels.   The  annual  decline  would  result  as 
stabilized  project  populations  became  a  decreasing  proportion  of  total  annual 
populations,  which  would  continue  to  increase  year-by-year. 

It  is  important  to  note  that  the  regression  analysis  reflects  the 
data  put  into  it,  including  the  unexplained  reasons  for  particular  levels  of 
cost  which  may  bias  the  outcome  of  the  forecast.   The  nature  of  intergovern- 
mental funding  and  of  local  dependence  upon  makeshift  efforts  at  financing 
growing  levels  of  cost,  while  laboring  under  a  State-imposed  cap  on  local 
taxation,  produces  variables  which  would  erode  the  potential  for  accuracy  in 
any  forecast.   The  regression  analysis  itself  translates  a  simultaneous 
condition  affecting  five  or  six  counties  (or  school  districts)  into  an  event 
that  occurs  over  time,  and  applies  this  information  to  Eureka  County  (or 
school  district).   While  mathematically  an  accurate  representation  of  the 
numbers  given,  it  presumes  a  time  dimension  which  the  data  do  not  suggest. 
Alternative  use  of  sequential  years  of  spending,  to  incorporate  the  time 
dimension,  might  focus  entirely  upon  Eureka's  budgets  over  the  period  1975- 
1983.   But  results  of  this  series  would  be  troubled  by  the  fluctuations  in 
Eureka's  population  (or  student  body),  and  by  the  need  to  correct  for  annual 
levels  of  inflation.   This  procedure,  in  the  absence  of  clear  growth  trends, 
would  be  inherently  weaker  than  the  comparative  analysis  used  above  and  was 
therefore  not  implemented  in  the  fiscal  analysis. 

Revenues  Distribution.   The  application  of  the  forecasted  expenditures  (both 
Eureka  County  adjusted  and  Elko  County  unadjusted)  must  be  correlated  to 
detailed  revenue  distribution  projections  in  order  that  a  final  budget  deficit/ 
surplus  evaluation  can  be  conducted. 

Projections  of  future  revenue  requirements  to  support  the  future 
expenditures  confront  two  fundamental  problems.   The  first  of  these  is  that 

3-128 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table   3-58     Net  Quarterly  Expenditures   Generated  By   Project   as   Year-End 
Totals    ($000) 


Year    1 

Year    2 

Year   3 

Year   4 

Subdivision  Case    5-A 

i 

Eureka   County 

Gross   Expenditures 

With  Project 

1,556 

2,798 

2,176 

1,989 

Without   Project 

928 

1,106 

1,150 

1,192 

Net   Expenditures 

628 

1,692 

1,026 

797 

Eureka   Schools 

Gross  Expenditures 

With  Project 

1,358 

2,058 

2,028 

2,044 

Without   Project 

1,072 

1,249 

1,292 

1,334 

Net  Expenditures 

286 

809 

736 

710 

Dispersed  Personnel  Case    5- 

B 

Eureka  County 

Gross  Expenditures 

With  Project 

1,523 

2,622 

1,911 

1,904 

Without   Project 

928 

1,106 

1,150 

1,192 

Net   Expenditures 

595 

1,516 

761 

712 

Eureka   Schools 

Gross  Expenditures 

With  Project 

1,316 

1,951 

1,875 

1,894 

Without   Project 

1,072 

1,249 

1,292 

1,334 

Net   Expenditures 

244 

702 

583 

560 

3-129 


m 


-H 

en  O 

en 

^-  m 

On 

nO  O 

nO 

oo  m 

en 

"O      CO 

CO    CN 

NO 

m  cn 

CN 

00    CN 

NO 

m  cm 

en 

o>   cu 

P 

•^    m 

o> 

rH    n£> 

m 

r-i  m 

NO 

O     NO 

-3- 

AJ       |H 

03 

A          A 

A           A 

0k              0k 

A            A 

CO     3 

<D 

CN    rH 

CN   ^H 

CN    rH 

CN    r-i 

CJ     4-1 

>H 

•H    -H 
•O    "O 

O" 

c   c 

O  -<f 

nO 

oo  m 

en 

m  «3- 

r-i 

r»-  m 

CN 

■H     & 

nO    On 

NJO 

<r  o 

<r 

nD   On 

r^ 

<r  o 

o- 

M 

<»■  -* 

On 

lH    sO 

m 

rH  <J- 

NO 

O   nO 

«* 

co    X 

n3 

A           A 

0%            0k 

0k            0k 

CO     OJ 

CD 

<N  rH 

<M    rH 

CM    rH 

CN    -^ 

>< 

00    ••> 

C    co 

CO 

•H     C 

—i 

On   1^ 

CN 

O    CN 

00 

en  r^» 

NO 

in  cn 

en 

•o    o 

en   v£> 

r~ 

-a-  00 

m 

<!■   nO 

r^ 

en  oo 

m 

d  -h 

Li 

<r  «* 

On 

r-i  m 

m 

rH  -<r 

NO 

o  m 

«* 

0)     4-1 

fO 

*        * 

A      A 

0k            0k 

A           A 

cu  co 

CU 

IN   rH 

CN    rH 

CM    rH 

CN    rH 

CO     rH 

>< 

3 
•o    o 

CM 

CU     rH 

i — i 

oo  en 

nO 

en  rH 

CN 

on  en 

NO 

-J    r-i 

en 

X     co 

m  <r 

r- 

en  no 

r^ 

r-i  <r 

r^ 

CN    vO 

NO 

•H     O 

Li 

■<*  -o- 

On 

rH  m 

m 

rH    ■* 

NO 

o  m 

>3- 

MH 

CO 

a    a 

0k            0k 

0k            0k 

A           A 

CO 

cu 

<N   -H 

CM    rH 

CM   rH 

CM     rH 

14H      4J 

>H 

O     -H 

a 

_ < 

co    co 

-H 

oo  oo 

O 

vD    rH 

m 

O  00 

CN 

en  rH 

CN 

rH      CJ 

On    rH 

00 

cn  «* 

00 

O    r-i 

00 

rH  <r 

P^ 

(U 

u 

m  <»• 

On 

rH    m 

m 

rH    >tf 

NO 

o  m 

<r 

>       tH 

(0 

*>           A 

#S            4M 

0k              0k 

0\              0k 

3       rS. 

0) 

CM     rH 

CM    rH 

CM    rH 

CN    rH 

>^ 

TJ     4-l| 

o 

CU      O 

— ■* 

O   <t 

nO 

ON   On 

o 

00  >tf 

•<r 

rH    ON 

CN 

O      C 

00    On 

00 

rH    rH 

o 

r»-  on 

00 

O    rH 

00 

3 

u 

m  m 

On 

rH  m 

NO 

O  en 

NO 

o  m 

«* 

•o    CU 

CO 

0k       0k 

*•                  4rN 

*      * 

*        0k 

CU       IH 

0) 

CM    rH 

CM    rH 

CM   rH 

CM    rH 

lH        CO 

>-< 

TJ      CO 

c    cu 

ON 

CN    O 

CN 

O  00 

CN 

00  o 

00 

on  oo 

rH 

<0     3 

no  r^ 

00 

r-i    ON 

r-i 

m  p«. 

00 

00    ON 

ON 

d 

u 

m  cNn 

On 

rH    .tf 

NO 

o  en 

NO 

ON   -3- 

>* 

OJ     OJ 

(0 

a     *. 

*-              A 

A           * 

A           A 

rH     > 

CU 

CM    rH 

CM    rH 

CM    rH 

rH    i-H 

CO     CU 

>H 

CJ    Di 
CO 

00 

o  m 

m 

CN   vO 

NO 

on  m 

<r 

r*.  vo 

rH 

14H        • 

-*  o- 

On 

O  P^ 

cvj 

en  «3- 

ON 

r-»  r^ 

o 

O    TJ 

1-1 

m  en 

On 

rM    <* 

NO 

O  en 

NO 

ON    ^> 

m 

•H 

CO 

*           0k 

0S            0S 

•*    •* 

A           A 

CO      CO 

S-*i 

o» 

CM    rH 

CM    rH 

CM    rH 

r-i    r-i 

CU      Ou 

o 

5H 

■H 

o 

B      CO 

o 

O      CU 

<o- 

r-. 

o  o 

O 

en  en 

O 

in  o 

m 

<t  en 

— 1 

C     X 

\~s 

CN    CN 

O 

on  m 

>* 

rH    CM 

On 

no  m 

rH 

O     «0 

Li 

m  m 

O 

o  <■ 

NO 

O  en 

NO 

ON    ^f 

m 

O     4-> 

oo 

cO 

a    * 

* 

0k          0k 

*■         * 

A           A 

CU 

On 

cu 

CM    H 

rH 

CM    rH 

«N    rH 

rH    rH 

TJ 

ON 

>< 

<4H       CU 

rH 

O      4-» 
CO 

r-» 

NO 

CM    00 

<r 

oo  m 

en 

ON    00 

r-i 

rH  m 

nO 

CO    rH 

oo 

00    Is". 

o 

l>.    r-i 

NO 

r>.  r^ 

O 

•*     rH 

CN 

4-1      CU 

ON 

s- 

CN    CN 

o 

o  <• 

NO 

ON   CN 

r^ 

ON    »J 

m 

CJ    u 

r-i 

CO 

a      « 

•> 

•>      •> 

A          A 

A           A 

CU      1 

CU 

CM    H 

rH 

CM    rH 

rH    rH 

rH     rH 

'4-J      4-i 

>H 

14H       U 

m 

CU       CU 

.— i 

T-> 

1 

lO 

on  «a" 

m 

rH  m 

NO 

en  ^3- 

On 

oo  m 

en 

OJ    o 

-a- 

•<r  en 

rH 

vo  r^ 

00 

-*  en 

O 

rH    r«» 

>* 

TJ       lH 

u 

CN    CN 

O 

o  en 

nO 

On  cn 

r-«. 

on  rn 

in 

3     O. 

CO 

CO 

*     a 

0k 

*■       m, 

A           A 

A           A 

rH 

U 

0) 

CM    _| 

rH 

CM    rH 

H    r-i 

rH    rH 

o    S 

CO 

>H 

c   o 

CU 

•H     U 

>H 

14-1 

<r 

CN    CN 

O 

<f    •* 

o 

m  CN 

en 

<f    <t 

o 

CO 

•  • 

H    On 

CN 

-*  en 

r-i 

o  o> 

rH 

on  m 

NO 

OJ        >N 

CO 

i-i 

CM    ^ 

o 

O  en 

r*- 

ON    rH 

r^ 

00  en 

m 

U     rH 

CU 

CO 

*N                       *N 

A 

«K           «N 

CO 

A           A 

A           A 

3     rH 

CJ 

0) 

CN    — ( 

-H! 

CM    —t 

1 

rH      — 1 

— ■<     -H 

4-1       O 

c 

>H 

m 

•H   £    . 

« 

TJ      5    CO 

rH 

»»^ 

cu 

~^. 

c       c 

CO 

4J 

-^ 

CO 

4-1 

-^ 

cu    cu  o 

4J 

CO 

CJ           ^ 

co 

o         ^. 

a  >  -h 

CJ 

CU     4_>    — <  | 

CO 

u 

OJ     4-1    rH 

CO 

X     -H    4J 

0) 

4-1 

•n   3 

cu 

i-I   3 

cu 

CU     Ui    CO 

T-l 

0) 

< 

O     O    CO 

CO                  u 

rH 

O     O     CO 

CO                   u 

CU  rH 

o 

00 

1 

M  -C    Q) 

CU              4J      3 

cu 

Li   J3     CU 

cu              3 

a   TJ    3 

M 

TO 

m 

P-    4->     |H 

h         O   4-i 

c 

O-    4->     i-l 

U                uj 

>.            CJ 

Pli 

3 

^•^2 

3           CU   -H 

c 

1^3 

3                -H 

rH      CO  rH 

PO 

OJ 

4J  4J  i" )  -a 

o 

U    4J             "O 

C      CU    CO 

e 

CO 

•H 

•H     O     O     C 

CO 

•H 

•HO             C 

O     3   CJ 

3 

H 

CO 

»    w  *o          CO 

TJ     CU     l-i     cu 

1-1 

CO     CO   TJ             CO 

tj  cu         cy 

C  t-)          Q, 

C 

C 

CO 

U 

>. 

CU     CU     C           rH 

c  t->  cu    ex, 

cu 

>. 

CU      CU     B             rH 

4J      U    (0 

01 

3 

4-1 

l-i     l-i     CU             O 

0)    o          X 

CX    p     U    w 

CU 

4-1 

U     i-i     0)             O 

3    3    a        o 

cu  o         x 

CJ       >    4-1 

tj 

C 

c 

c 

3     3    D.          O 

0 

O.  Ui    4J  w 

OJ      CU  -H 

.O 

C 

o 

3 

u    U    X          £. 

X   D-    3 

W              O     4-1 

•o 

3 

ui    4J    X         J2 
^H   ^H   W           O 

X  Cu     3 

i— )  pi    Q. 

>> 

< 

•H 

O 

•H    •HW            O 

CU 

O 

W              O     4-1 

O          CO 

.-1 

CO 

o 

TJ    TJ                  CO 

£  r   oi 

CO 

o 

73   T3                  CO 

£   £    (1) 

Ul            CJ 

o 

■H 

C    c  uj 

CO     4-»     4-J    Z 

u 

C      C     4-» 

CO    4-1     4J    Z 

a    • 

S 

On 
in 

> 

•H 

«0 

a>    cu   cu         co 
a  az       .* 

CD    -rl    tH 
O    3    S 

CO 

cu    cu    cu         co 
5.  az       ^5 

CO   -H    -H 

o  s  3 

4J    Ul 

O     X   CU 

0) 

1 

tj 

(U 

XX                  <U 

u 

CO 

cu 

XX                   CU 

r4 

4-1     CU   o- 

Cu 

en 

£> 

u 

WW                 u 

o 

•H 

M 

ww             m 

O 

4J 

o 

3 

3 

3 

Q 

3 

3 

cu        cu 

X 

0) 

CO 

w 

w 

w 

W 

3     C  Ui 

• 

H 

.O 

3-130 

• 

O    -H   CO 

4-1 

CO 

• 

M 

»„^ 

s 

H 

M 

M 

•H 

local  budgets  show  revenue  items  from  local,  state  and  federal  sources;   i.e., 
only  some  of  the  revenues  derive  from  local  populations  (Table  3-54).   This 
means  that  normal  operating  budgets  are  subsidized  out  of  externally  derived 
funds,  and  that  "per  capita"  revenues  as  a  measure  of  future  requirements  is 
without  relevance  to  any  forecast.   Unlike  the  per  capita  expenditures 
discussed  previously  which  relate  to  local  departmental  costs  within  each  of 
the  seven  jurisdictions,  per  capita  revenues  do  not  relate  to  local  revenues 
derived  from  within  the  jurisdictions.   The  jurisdictions  are  not  now  self- 
supporting,  because  local  taxation  derived  from  local  populations  is  insufficient 

The  second  problem  relates  to  the  allocations  of  locally-derived  tax 
revenues.   The  ad  valorem  property  tax  is  allocated,  at  the  discretion  of  the 
Counties,  differently  in  Elko  than  in  Eureka.   School  support  gets  less 
percentage  in  Elko  than  in  Eureka,  county  allocations  are  less  in  Elko  than 
in  Eureka,  and  cities  and  towns  receive  more  in  Elko.   Both  counties  allocate 
to  Special  Districts  a  percentage  of  property  tax  revenues  which  do  not  appear 
in  the  budgets  of  the  seven  jurisdictions  (in  Elko  County  the  amount  is  19 
percent).   Local  budgetary  allocations  are  fixed  by  legislation,  and  existing 
deficits  in  meeting  normal  local  operating  expenditures  are  partly  a  product 
of  this  allocation. 

Local  tax  revenues  derived  from  State  sales  taxes  are  only  partially 
allocated  to  local  budgets,  which  in  turn  receive  externally  derived  funds 
from  "gaming"  and  vehicle  licensure  (statewide).   Local  populations  forfeit 
to  the  State  General  Fund  the  first  two  percent  of  the  5.75  percent  sales  tax 
collected  in  Eureka  and  Elko  Counties,  which  denies  35  percent  of  locally 
generated  sales  tax  revenues  to  the  local  jurisdictional  budgets.   Supplemental 
CCRT  revenues,  which  are  a  component  of  State  sales  taxes,  are  allocated  by 
the  State  according  to  a  formula,  so  that  the  total  amounts  generated  locally 
may  not  remain  within  local  jurisdictions.   Table  3-32  shows  that  $995,000 
CCRT  revenues  were  received  by  five  of  the  seven  jurisdictions.   This  component 
of  the  sales  tax  represents  46.66  percent  of  the  total  tax,  after  loss  of  the 
first  two  percent  to  the  State  General  Fund.   Further  erosion  of  this  component 
of  the  tax  base,  by  formula,  seriously  affects  the  ability  of  local  jurisdic- 
tions to  maintain,  out  of  locally  produced  revenues,  the  budgetary  balance 
demanded  by  local  expenditures.   The  net  result  of  these  tax  trade-offs  is  a 

3-131 


local  dependence  upon  externally  derived  revenues. 

Individual  Revenue  Accounts.   Tables  3-60  through  3-69  provide  detail  concerning 
the  final  forecasted  distribution  of  received  revenues.   The  data  presented 
represent  a  further  examination  of  the  total  generated  project  revenue  base 
discussed  in  Section  3.4.4.2.   (The  following  subsection  details  the  cumulative 
effect  of  the  distributed  revenues  versus  the  net  expenditures  of  the  seven 
jurisdictions.) 

Each  tax  component  entered  into  the  tables  is  based  upon  directly 
traceable  economic  activity  levels  of  the  Mt.  Hope  Project  and  its  attendant 
populations.   In  no  part  of  the  foregoing  analysis  were  revenues  used  which 
originated  in  estimates  of  per  capita  revenues  derived  from  current  jurisdic- 
tional budgets. 

Quarterly  revenue  accounts  are  shown  on  Tables  3-60  and  3-61  accord- 
ing to  relevant  tax  account.   The  quarterly  revenues  are  summed  on  Table 
3-62,  which  distinguishes  between  property  tax  revenues  and  sales  tax  revenues. 
The  property  tax  revenues  are  lagged  one  year  to  reflect  the  time  of  collection. 
There  is,  therefore,  a  carryover  of  property  tax  revenue  from  the  quarterly 
forecast  into  the  annual  forecasts  year  5-6;  for  this  reason,  taxes  incurred 
in  year  4  are  shown  as  year  5  revenues. 

Annual  forecasts  of  individual  tax  components  in  the  total  revenue 
generated  are  shown  on  Table  3-63. 

3.4.4.4  Budgetary  Impacts  of  the  Mt.  Hope  Project  -  Unadjusted 

Unadjusted  Budget  Forecast.   Aggregate  local  tax  revenues  generated  by  directly 
traceable  economic  activities  of  the  Mt.  Hope  project  in  each  of  the  seven 
jurisdictions,  are  compared  in  this  section  with  the  aggregate  levels  of 
expenditures  of  the  seven  jurisdictions  which  derive  from  a  fixed  per  capita 
expenditure  level  based  upon  most-recent-year  budget  accounts  (Tables  3-33 
and  3-39).   The  annual  totals  which  are  compared  reflect  no  adjustments  for  a 
declining  cost  level  per  person  which  most  probably  would  be  encountered  with 
a  rising  population  (see  text  under  following  subtitle  "Adjusted  Budget 

3-132 


<u 
> 


«s 


T3 
CO 

i-f 

•- 

3 
•-) 

O 

rH 
W 


CO 

J* 

a 

n 

3 

W 

.. 

CO 

C 

o 

•H 

AJ 

3 

X) 

•H 

M 

AJ 

CO 

•H 

Q 

T3 

C 

CO 

•"* \ 

CO  </> 

0)  v_/ 

3 

C     4J 

cu   c 

>     m 

0>     B 

Pi    f^ 

O 

3   a. 

H    B 

w 

>% 

AJ  -O 

Li     CU 

01      AJ 

&.   CO 

O     m 

L     0) 

o-   e 

^c^ 

cd 

•H    T3 

•u    3 

3     CO 

CU 

T3     CU 

4J 

•H     M 

CJ 

CO    -H 

cu 

0)   33 

■t-1 

Pi     1 

o 

4J 

M 

B    O 

Du 

CU     CU 

K     !-( 

B 

O    -H 

3 

rH     Q 

g 

CO 

0J 

>    B 

TJ 

o 

XI 

T3     »-i 

<;  u^ 

o 

2 

o 

^ 

<u 

l 

a. 

en 

o 

32 

0) 

iH 

• 

JD 

4-1 

CO 

s 

H 

o- 


o  o  o 

CM   o   CO 

o- 

-3"   O 

St 

*      * 

o- 


o- 


•H  C 

»-i  o 

4-1  >H 

6-^     CO  iJ 

•H  3 

Q  Xi 


O  O  O 
\£>  r-*  co 
in  O 


o  o  o 

m     >£>    CO 

m  o 


<r  r>» 


o  o  o 
m  cn  n 

CM    ON 


o  o  o 

vO   00    CO 
CO    \D 


O   O   O 
-d-  CO  N 

cm  <r 

CO    \D 


O   O    O 

HtntM 

<t   O 
CM    v£) 


O  O  o 
m  v£>  cm 

CM    <f 

—i  m 


o  o  o 

O  v©   CM 

o  m 

on  <r 


o  o 

oo  -j- 

00  CO 

\0  CO 


o  o 

r~->  a> 

o  <r 

CO  -* 


JS 


o 
o 

CJ 


o   o 


AJ 
CO 


CJ 
CU 


o  o  o  o 

O    \D    On    CM 
Os    Os    CM 


o  o  o  o 

—I    — I    0Q    CM 
CO    CTi    N 


o  o  o  o 

— '    "-H    00   CsJ 
00    Oi    CN 


O  O  O  O 

O  -H  — <    CM 

O  O  co 

CM  —i 


o  o  o  o 

oo  m  m  cm 

CM  -H  CO 

CM  — I 


o  o  o  o 
oo  m  m  cm 

CM    —I    CO 


o  o  o  o 

oo  m  CM  CM 

o  o  co 

CM  — I 


o  o  o  o 

•— I    — H    00    CM 
00    ON    CM 


o  o  o  o 

|-v    ^    CM    — . 

<t  rv  csi 


O  O  O  O 
cm  cm  co  -* 
co  <t  — i 


o  o  o 
<^  m  m- 

CM    — i 


o 

o 

1 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

uO 

r*«. 

co 

— H 

r> 

m 

o 

<r 

Os 

r^ 

CO 

o 

^o 

r- 

CO 

CO 

o 

o 

m 

X> 

CM 

m 

o 

vo 

co 

•—I 

oo 

o 

o- 

^* 

CO 

m 

CM 

o 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

<D 

CM 

o 

o 

o 

St 

r>. 

00 

o 

as 

o 

vO 

CO 

o 

m 

CM 

o 

U    W    CJ>    H    C/3 

3 
W 


rJ 

4J 

CO 

•H 

/-N   ^~S    O 

rH 

>,    CO     CO 

O 

AJ    v^/  v^      • 

O 

e    >>  e   o 

J= 

3  *-•    3    cy 

O    -H     O    O. 

o 

o 

Jd 

C/2 

U  O   H  W 

t-i 


0) 

AJ 
U 


w 


3-133 


o 

J3 
CO 


CM 


u 

OJ 


o- 


o  o  o 

r^  csj  r^ 

o  on  m 

•     *-     » 

r>.  o  no 

cm  m 


o  o  o 
no  o  r-. 
o  '-h  m 
*  »  » 
r~-  -h  no 
cm  m 


O  CO 
r-v  On 
co  r-. 


O  o 

C  co 

i--~  on 

co  r~. 


o  o  o 

nO  00  NO  O 

in  n  \o  h 

-3"   m  in  >— i 


o  o  o  o 

mm  vC  o 

-3"    ^"  NO  -H 

-3"     LTl  LP)  ^H 


o  o  o 

co  <t  r^ 

CM 


o  o  o 

fO    <f    N 
CM 


o  o 

nO  CO 
On   00 


O  O 
—i  CM 
ON   00 


O  O 
O  O 
on  r^ 


o  o 

— I     ON 

00   NO 


o  o 

On   00 
CM    in 


o  O 
oo  m 
cm  m 


o  o 

CM    nO 
CO 


o  o 

CM    nO 

CO 


o> 

*3 

c 

3 
O 


-o 

0> 
U 
U 

3 
O 

c 


co 


en 
»-« 
CO 
OJ 

u 

3 
O 


c 

•H 
(-1 

3 
O 


M 

OJ 

4-1 

U 

CO 


4-1 

a 

OJ 

o 
a, 
to 

JP 

•3 

0) 

4J 

CO 
u 

01 

c 

0) 

o 

03 

aj 

s 

a) 
> 

01 

Pi 

X 
CO 
H 


nO 

I 

CO 


•O 
CO 
H 


o- 


o  o  o 

O   N    ON 

O  r^,  -3- 


r-»  »h 


co 

CO 
OJ 
5H 


o- 

co 


CM 


c 


-3- 


CM 

u 

CO 
OJ 

>-" 


CO 


CM 


o- 


o 

St 


to 

OJ 


CO 


< 
I 

m 

Ol 
CO 

CO 

u 

3 

o 


<3- 


O   O  O 

CM   O  On 

On  -J-  -J" 

*■           P  » 

v©   U0  <t 

CM  -J- 


o  o  o 
co  <r  on 

nO   ^H    -<T 

NO   ON    >3" 

co  <r 


o  o  o 

CO    o    ON 

<TN>J 

-3"   <f 


O  <f   o 

m  o  ^ 

O  nO   O 
*•       *>       #> 

nO   00    nO 
CO    CM 


o  m  o 

nO   O   nO 
O-  -h   O 

m  no  no 

CO    CM 


o  o  o 

nO   00    nO 

m  r^  o 

*•  #•  #s 

^3"    CM    nO 
CO    CM 


o  o  o 

>-3"   vO   NO 
CO  no  o 

~        ^        *■ 

co  m  no 

CM    CM 


o  o  o 

on  m  o 

<t   N  S 

+•             #■  *■- 

-H    CM  CM 


o  o  o 
r-^  o  O 

.-I    CM 


X 

CO 
H 

CO 

OJ 


o  o 
o  <r 

ON   o 
O   CO 

NO     r-K 

CM 


o  o 

O  <f 

ON    O 

O   CO 

NO    — I 

CM 


o  o 
o  <r 

On   O 
O  co 

vO    -H 

CM 


o  o 
o  <r 

ON   o 

*        +■■ 

O   CO 

NO    ~H 

CM 


o  o 
-3-  m 

o  — i 

00    CO 
CO    CO 


o  o 
-d-  m 

O     — I 

00   CO 
CO   CO 


O  O 

>cr  m 

O     -H 

oo  co 

CO    CO 


o  o 
-3-  m 

00   CO 
CO    CO 


o  o 

NO  O 

in  m 

On  00 

>— I  vO 


o  o 

NO    o 

m  m 

#*    #. 

ON   00 

•— t    nO 


o 
u 

CO 

0) 

u 

3 

w 


a  co 
o  CO 
i-i 

cO 
3 
O 
co 
U 
oi 


o 
u 

Dl, 


CO 
CO 


H 

erf 
u 


o- 
c_> 


o 

o 

o 

O 

rj 

o 

CM 

ro 

-d- 

NO 

vO 

sO 

m, 

^ 

*■ 

A 

<t 

m 

t— 1 

CM 

— i 

ON 

00 
1— 1 

o 

o 

o 

o 

LP: 

CM 

CM 

CO 

CN 

LP 

NO 

NO 

* 

#t 

» 

A 

<t 

kO 

-H 

CM 

— ^ 

ON 

00 

o 

o 

o 

o 

vD 

■O 

CM 

CO 

r-^ 

r^ 

nO 

NO 

*• 

** 

•^ 

* 

rn 

00 

■— I 

CM 

1 — 1 

ON 

00 

— 1 

o 

O 

o 

o 

<r 

<r 

CM 

CO 

Csl 

CO 

NO 

nO 

#> 

^ 

* 

* 

CO 

o 

_H 

CM 

—1 

■—1 

ON 

00 

O 

o 

o 

o 

. — r 

CN 

NO 

St 

<r 

On 

NO 

1 — 1 

*• 

* 

* 

* 

Cs| 

ON 

CO 

<r 

r— 1 

m 

— H 

O 

o 

o 

O 

m 

m 

NO 

<r 

CM 

CM 

NO 

i — i 

*» 

*N 

«* 

^ 

. — i 

ON 

CO 

<r 

. — i 

m 

f-H 

O 

o 

o 

O 

O 

co 

NO 

<r 

<r 

ON 

NO 

-H 

+■ 

*• 

#■ 

#^ 

On 

00 

CO 

<r 

m 

. — i 

O 

o 

o 

O 

00 

o 

NO 

<r 

00 

nD 

NO 

-H 

* 

*> 

* 

^ 

NO 

NO 

CO 

<r 

in 

— H 

o 

o 

o 

O 

r^ 

m 

00 

o 

o 

. — i 

i— i 

r~^ 

*- 

*■ 

#* 

^ 

ro 

CO 

NO 

CO 

CM 

m 

O 

O 

o 

o 

m 

o-n 

00 

o 

C~) 

CO 

.—i 

NO 

00 

CM 

m 

o 

o 
x. 
o 

co 

o> 

1-1 

3 
W 


a  co 

O    OJ 
(-1   ^H 

0-,    CO 


a 
o 
i-i 

Dl, 


CO 

OJ 
r-i 

CO 

CO 


o  o  o 

CI  ON   s 


o  o  o 

CO   on   On 


o  o  o 

CO   On   CM 


O   O   O 
CM    On    -vt 


o  o  o 

CM    i-(    CO 


o  o  o 

CM    -H    CO 


O   O    O 
CM    -^    -h 


o  o 

*-h   on 


o  O 
m  .3- 


O     NO 

m 


o 

H 


a 
o 
u 


a 
o 
u 

0-4      CO 
OJ 


h4 


o  o 
on  r^ 


o  o 

—>  o 

O   00 


o  o 
m  on 

rH    00 


o  o 
m  no 

-H  oo 


o  o 
m  oo 
O  r- 


O  O 

i-H    t^» 

ON   nO 


O   O 
>*   CO 

r»-  m 


o  o 

CM   O 

•vt   CO 


O   O 

m  o 


o  o 


tH      CO  4-1 


o 

>n.   M 

P-c 


3 
W 


•H 

CO 

3 

• 

s 

3 

• 

T3 

^v^. 

• 

o 

-a 

■H 

OJ 

CO 

U 

•H 

7) 

3 

u 

CO 

nU 

s 

OJ 

O 

0) 

Oi 

Ph 

^ 

oi 

CO 

I-I 

Pl, 


O  O 
^-i  nO 
00   NO 


o  o 

O  On 
O   vO 


CM 


o  o 

00  vO 

cm  r- 

CM 


O  O 
oo  m 
cm  r-. 

CM 


O  O 
00   nO 

O     NO 

CM 


o  o 

^h  r-v 
oo  m 


o  o 
-3-  <r 


o  o 

CM   nO 
00   CM 


o  o 

On   On 
CM 


I     O 


W 


a.  co 

co  o  o) 

iH  U  rH 

O  P-  CO 

o  co 

x;  • 

y  -o  • 

CO  -H  CO 

CO  U 

O  OJ  0) 

^<5  Drf  0-, 

iH 

W 


O   O 
00    00 

cm  «cr 


o  o 
in  co 
co  m 


o  o 
m  on 

CO    NO 


o  o 
in  m 

CO     NO 


o  o 

CM    00 

CO     vj 


o  o 

00    00 
CM    CM 


o  o 

CM   O 
CM   O 


o  o 

CO    t~v 

^  in 


o  o 

<r    On 


I    o 


Ol    CO 
O     OJ 

P-     CO 
CO 


•H    -O  . 

CJ    -H  CO 

CO  M 

O    II  II 

^  prf  Pi 

W 


o  o 

CM    CO 

CO 


o  o 

CM    nO 
CO 


O    O 

CM    On 

CO 


O    O 

cm  r-v 

co 


o  o 

CM    -3" 
CO 


O   O 

CM    ON 
CM 


O    O 

-H     ON 


o   O 


o 


I     o 


o 

3  i-i 

3  P-i 
O 

H  • 

-  "3 

3  -H 

•H  CO 

H  0) 

M  Prf 

CO 
O 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table   3-62      Quarterly  Tax  Revenues   Generated   by  Project   as  Year-End   Totals 
(1   Year   Time   Lag  Property  Taxes)    (  $) 


1984 


1985 


1986 


1987 


1988 


Subdivision  Case  5-A 


Eureka   County 

Property 

0 

27,060 

123,630 

204,990 

Sales 

189 

,900 

817,900 

1,217,300 

690,380 

Total 

190 

,000 

845,000 

1,341,000 

895,000 

Eureka    Schools 

Property 

0 

55,780 

254,580 

422,150 

Sales 

120 

,900 

490,800 

761,740 

425,970 

Total 

121 

,000 

547,000 

1,016,000 

848,000 

Eureka   Town 

Property 

0 

100 

500 

870 

Sales 

50 

460 

420 

280 

Total 

— 

— 

1,000 

1,000 

Elko   County 

Property 

0 

150 

3,120 

4,220 

Sales 

100 

2,280 

3,320 

3,310 

Total 

- 

2,000 

6,000 

7,000 

Elko   Schools 

Property 

0 

290 

6,180 

8,370 

Sales 

90 

1,930 

2,860 

2,780 

Total 

- 

2,000 

9,000 

11,000 

Elko  City 

Property 

0 

40 

950 

1,290 

Sales 

190 

4,330 

6,350 

6,290 

Total 

- 

4,000 

7,000 

8,000 

Carlin  Town 

Property 

0 

0 

70 

80 

Sales 

40 

900 

1,450 

1,440 

Total 

- 

1,000 

1,000 

1,000 

254,550 


520,770 


1,080 


3,790 


7,510 


1,150 


80 


3-135 


sO 
en  on 
— i  on 


ON 

— .   ON 


CO 

O    ON 

— I  (3N 


-I 


T3 

•o 

C 
3 
O 
ctf 


ed 

3 

C 

c 

ao 

< 

in  ao 

Ch 

4J 

■■4 

u 

01 

fn 

0 

n 

Cu 

>n 

r*. 

.a 

-*    30 

ON 

TJ 

— * 

<u 

IJ 

ed 

M 

01 

c 

«<$ 

41 

•r-i    U) 

0    01 

U    3 

a.   c 

01 

6    > 

3     0) 

5    Di 

-Q     t3 

>,  H 

i-i 

0 

r  <■"> 

-O 

0)     1 

B.  en 

0 

X     01 

H 

•  .o 

*_i    a] 

r  h 

ON 
v£>   00 
ON 


O 

o 


o 
o 


o 

o 

o 

9 

a 

o 

o 

Q 

<r 

in 

LT1 

CM 

en 

CM 

en 

-J 

ao 

in 

<r 

~ 

cm 

in 

o 

o 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

-» 

m 

m 

rt 

r~ 

CM 

cn 

CM 

CO 

in 

-3 

o 

CM 

m 

o 

o 

o 

- 

o 

o 

o 

o 

cm 

-» 

— • 

in 

00 

-h 

o 

3 

in 

CM 

CM 

en 

m 

•j 

o 
o 
en 

o 
o 
-3 

O 

o 

o 

o 
m 

o 
o 

CM 

o 

CO 

00 
CM 

m 

00 

cn 

eo 
-3 

CM 

o 

ao 
O 

— < 

o 
o 

CO 

o 
o 
-3 

O 

o 

3 
o 
m 

o 

3 

CM 

o 

G 
CO 

o 

o 


s 


o 
o 


n 


o 

o 


s 


o 
o 


o 
o 


o 
o 

CI 


o 

o 


o 
o 
o 


en   — <  c»1   cm 

00   vO  -I    O 

en  — i  in 


o  o  o  o 

o  o  o  o 

sj.    —    _  CM 

en  — i  vo  cm 

00    vOCM  O 

cn  -h  m 


o  o  o  o 

o  o  o  o 

~3  cjn  — i  cn 

cn  o  *  — < 

oo  -3  cm  -3 


o 

O 

a 

O 

o 

o 

o 

o 

<T 

cr 

— i 

cn 

en 

o 

^c 

oo 

<r 

CM 

<r 

cn 

-3 

o 

O 

O 

o 

O 

O 

o 

3 

-3 

ON 

— 1 

cn 

m 

O 

^D 

00 

<T 

CM 

■* 

en 

■*J 

o  o  o  o 
o  o  o  o 
<r  o>  — <  cn 

no*  -i 

OO   -T    CM    -J- 

cn  — i  ~3 


o  o  o  o 
o  o  o  o 
st  --cn 

cn  O  vo  — i 

co  cn  cm  <r 

cn  — <  ~3 


o  o  o  o 
o  ©  o  o 
-a-  —  — .  cn 

en  3   sD   — < 

oo  cn  cm  <r 

cn  — i  -3 


o  o  o  o 

O    3  O  O 

•J   ->  CO  f-- 

cn  cm  -3  — • 

ao  on  en  r-. 

— i  — ■  ^3 


o  o  o  o 
O  O  o  o 
cm  ~3  —i  in 

00  — i  o  o 
in  cm  cm  cn 

m  ~3 


o 

O 

O 

3 

O 

o 

o 

O 

CM 

<r 

e'- 

m 

00 

— . 

en 

o 

in 

CM 

-3 

cn 

r^ 

•Of 

O 

O 

9 

O 

o 

3 

9 

9 

CM 

>3 

r-- 

in 

00 

— i 

cn 

O 

m 

CM 

•3 

cn 

r^ 

-3 

O 

3 

O 

9 

c 

o 

3 

O 

CM 

<a 

r«« 

in 

8 

— i 

m 

3 

CM 

-s- 

cn 

r^ 

^r 

O  O  o  o 
O  O  o  o 
cm  sj  O  cn 


— •  CM   oo 

cm  O  r~ 

f~  cn 


$ 


o  ©  o  o 
o  o  o  o 
n  -i  o  n 


— I    CM    00 

cm  O  r^ 
r^  cn 


s 


3 

O 

3 

3 

3 

O 

o 

9 

CNI 

<T 

3 

m 

or 

m4 

<N 

on 

m 

CNI 

3 

r^ 

f« 

m 

O  o 

o  o 

c  © 

o  o 

cm  <• 

O  en 

in  cm 

CM    00 

O  r» 

r-.  en 

o  o  o  o 

o  o  o  o 

CM  vj   C3A  en 

oo  — i  e*  oo 

m  cm  r^  r-» 

vO  en 


o 

3 

3 

o 

G 

o 

3 

3 

CM 

<J 

ON 

m 

oo 

— 1 

ON 

00 

in 

CM 

r- 

r> 

vO 

cn 

O 

O  O  O  o 

3 

o 

O  o  o  O 

3 

o 

f»  -*  vO  ~ar 

— I 

ON 

in  -h  m  ^j 

p^ 

o 

m  cm  ex*  o 

r^ 

ej\ 

m  ^ 

oo 

>> 

H 

>\ 

w 

oi 

«j 

b 

^3 

>nU 

u 

< 

2L 

4J    U 

V 

X 

o 

41 

*■•% 

o 

u 

CO 

CL     X 

H 

u 

a. 

01 

O      CO 

aC 

Pm 

V 

— 1 

I-  H 

L> 

en 

m 

>t 

■a 

cO 

04 

O 

o  "3 

CO 

w 

CO 

ie 

.1 

U 

cr 

*H 

-^   o> 

0    -H 

3 

*-i 

3 

/-^ 

—i  — < 

r-i      U 

J=    u 

c 

o 

C 

H 

•H     CO 

a.  o 

o   c 

Q 

u 

4) 

c 

ai 

r  w 

D-H 

CO     CD 

-H 

TJ 

o 

u 

*^fc 

3 

T3 

10 

cn 

^H 

in 

u 

01     41 

ty) 

eg   ■H 

■H 

^ 

u 

i- 

^-^ 

C     C 

^ 

j;   u> 

> 

Oj 

u 

0) 

22 

01     01 

■H 

u 

or; 

o. 

U    OS 

T3 

3 

3 

X 

UJ 

u 

3 

yi 

ed  *-i 

41  0  eej 

—i  u  H 

ecj  Ou 

C/3  (0 

^H  01 

rt  H  H     U 

ed  t<  (fl     o 

c  a:  w  h 

o  ^~ 

C0  cu  u 

Ui  C  c 

01  -H  -rj 

ft-  3E  id 


13 


o  o  o 

r~   o  cj 

on-1 


O  O  o 

N    O    M 

O   en   — • 


O  o  O 
O  o  IN 
>r\  en  —> 


O  O  o 
O  O  <N 
in  en  — i 


o  o  o 

O   O  <N 
in  en  — i 


O  O  O 
O  O  <N 
-3-  en  — ■ 


o  o  o 

O  O  »N 
sr  cn  — i 


O  O  o 
O   O   CM 


O  O  O 
O  3  <N 

•j  n  ■" 


o  o  o 
o  o  <N 
-»  en  — I 


O  O  o 
O  O  <N 
>ar  cn  — < 


o  o  o 

O  O  — 
CD  en  — ' 


O 
O 
oo 


O 

o 

00 


o 
o 

00 


o 

o 

00 


o 
o 

CO 


o 

3 
00 


o 

3 

00 


O 

o 

00 


o 

o 

00 


o 
o 
oo 


o 

o 

00 


o 
o 


3 

O 

o 

9 

1/1 

oc 

r>» 

CM 

O 

C 

o 

3 

m 

X 

r-. 

CM 

O 

3 

9 

O 

U"l 

00 

r> 

^J 

3 

3 

O 

9 

in 

00 

r~. 

CM 

3 

3 

o 

9 

u"> 

OO 

r*. 

CM 

o  o 
o  o 
m  oo 


o  o 
o  o 
m  oo 


o  o 

O  O 

m  oo 


o  o 
o  o 
m  oo 


o  o 

o  o 
m  oo 


o  9 
o  o 
m  oo 


3 

3 

o 

ON 

-3" 

rsi 

CO 

CM 

o  o 

O    3 


3  O 

O   O 

— t    CJ 


o 

o 

o 

o 

~— 

CM 

iO 

o  o 
o  o 

-H     CM 


o  o 
o  o 

—  CM 


o  o 
o  o 

—   CM 


o  o 
o  o 

—   CM 


O  3 
O  3 
M   CM 


o  o 

3  3 
—   CM 


3  3 
O  O 
—   CM 


O  3 
O  3 

—    CM 


o  o 

o  ON 

en  — < 


*-i  eej 
w.  H 

a.  co 

O  41 
M  M 
ft.    ed 

to 

-H  H     Cd 


-C3.H 


3  -H  H 

O  ■H  ed 

h  3:  C 

"^  o 

ed  41  ie 

3 
U 


3  O 


3  O 
00  e-j 


O   O 

00  e-i 

•3 


3   3 

00    CM 

-or 


O  3 

00  CM 


3  O 

00   CM 
-3 


3  3 

00  CM 


O  3 

00  CM 

>3 


O  3 

00  CM 


3  3 

00  CM 

-3- 


O  O 

00  CM 


O  3 

00    CM 


>* 

>« 

Sn 

>. 

•J 

u 

u 

4J 

sJ 

n 

s.3 

8.3 

o 

o 

o 

o 

M     U> 

U     10 

t-l      (0 

t-l     CO 

ft.     41 

ft.     41 

Cu     41 

a.    41 

M 

rH 

"ed   to 

-H 

"ed  lo 

■a 

u> 

«    CO 

•a 

73 

73  to  « 

^  -H 

4J 

r-( 

1-t 

u 

•H 

w 

•rt           w 

*J     t-l     rH 

s  c  * 

3     0)     C 

H 

o 

o 

5 

^■e3 

o 
H 

>> 

s*a 

O 
H 

C    ed  H 

BtJ 

41     C 

4-1 

41     C 

H 

41    S 

0    T3      Q 

u 
to 

"O     O 

■H     4 

u 

3  8 

C 

2  8 

U)    u 

s^ 

Ul     U 

io    u 

3 

CO     Ui 

O     41     41 

o 

41     ii 

o 

01     0) 

41    41 

M  cc  a. 

^ 

o.    ft. 

^ 

ft.  ft. 

Ii 

Q£    Cm 

-H 

rH 

l-( 

cd 

U 

Ul 

Ul 

o 

O 

• 

3 

-a 

in 

41 

* 

Ui 

— * 

u 

Z) 

U 

c 

•H 

U 

9 

03 

3 

V 

m 

>N 

-rt 

B 

O 

Cd 

9 

at 

3 

>N 

m 

-. 

o> 

— h 

c 

o 

TJ 

41 

00 

00 

3 

CO 

O 

-< 

in 

• 

41 

^H 

u> 

CO 

u 

41 

Q. 
O 
Ii 

ft. 

B 
41 


CO 


-I 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table   3-64      Net   Quarterly  Expenditures   Generated   by  Project    at  Year-End   Totals 
and   Project   Generated  Revenues    ($000) 

Year    1    1/        Year    2        Year   3        Year   4 


Subdivision  Case    5-A 

Eureka   County.    Exp, 
Proj.    Revenues 

Eureka   School   Exp. 
Proj.   Rev. 

Eureka   Town   Exp. 
Proj.   Rev. 

Elko   County  Exp. 
Proj.   Rev. 

Elko    Schools   Exp. 
Proj.    Rev. 

Elko  City  Exp. 
Proj.   Rev. 

Carlin  Town  Exp. 
Pr  o j  .   Rev . 


$206 

$1 

,992 

$1 

,815 

$1 

,255 

190 

845 

1 

,341 

909 

280 

2 

,711 

2 

,470 

1 

,701 

121 

547 

1 

,016 

877 

26 

229 

155 

56 

— 

— 

1 

1 

1 

23 

34 

32 

— 

2 

6 

7 

3 

70 

104 

103 

— 

2 

9 

11 

2 

35 

52 

52 

— 

4 

7 

7 

— 

2 

4 

4 

- 

1 

1 

1 

1/   Year   1   calculated   on  basis   of   third  quarter  start-up;    therefore   only  a 
partial  year. 


3-137 


o 

o 
o 


en 


cn 


ON 


00 


u 

CO 

qj 

■ 

i 

u 

CO 

QJ 

r* 

#  t 

CD 

QJ 

o 

s 

(0 

H 

CO 

4J 

« 

u 

CD 

4-1 

1-) 

0) 

o 

bO 

l-l 

•3 

Pi 

3 

CO 

E 

3 

H 

C 

CO 

0) 

3 

T3 

C 

43 

c 

^ 

< 

rH 

O 

53 

m 

v£> 

0) 

l 

O. 

en 

O 

re 

0) 

H 

• 

X> 

■u 

CO 

X 

H 

vO 


UO 


oo  o 

CN1    00 

CNI    v£> 

r-.  cn 

O    -H 

f-»  o 

O    LD 

—i  o> 

m 

co 

-H    O 

m 

O    CM 

CN    \£) 

1— 1 

— t  m 


00  o 

CN    00 

CN    vO 

r^  cn 

O    -H 

Is*-  O 

o>  m 

~h    Os 

m 

m 

-H    O 

m 

O   CN 

CN    -X) 

—4 

00  o 

CN    00 

CN    vjO 

r*.  cn 

O  —i 

r-  o 

as  m 

«— I    OS 

in 

co 

-<  o 

m 

O    CN 

CN   vO 

^H 

oo  o 

CN    00 

CN    \0 

r**  cn 

O  — 1 

r*.  o 

cr.  m 

'-*    OS 

m 

co 

— I  o 

m 

O    CN 

CN    \D 

•— 1 

< 

I 
in 

QJ 

cn 

CO 

u 

c 
o 

•H 

CO 


CO 


CO 


•-<  o 

CN    00 

CN   v£> 

r**  CN 

O   -H 

r>»  o 

oo  m 

~H     C3> 

m 

CO 

-H     O 

m 

O    CN 

CN    v£> 

■— 1 

cr.  o 

00    00 

CN   vO 

Is*  cn 

O    -H 

Is-  o 

O  m 

CO  cr> 

m 

en 

"H    O 

m 

O    CN 

pH  vo 

-H 

-H     CO 


CO 


cr.  o 

00    00 

CN   v© 

r^  cn 

O  —i 

r»  o 

o  m 

cn  a\ 

m 

cn 

— i  o 

m 

O   CN 

i— 1     VJO 

—4 

cr.  o 

oo  oo 

CM   vO 

r-»  cn 

O  m 

co  cr. 

m 

CO 

O    CN 

i— 1    vjO 

r-.  o 
m 


OS   o 

oo  00 

CM   v£> 

r-*  cm 

O  —i 

r-»  o 

o  m 

co  as 

m 

CO 

fH    O 

in 

O    CN 

.— I    \jO 

■— < 

cr,  o 

00    00 

CN   vO 

r-«  cm 

O  —i 

r*.  o 

o  m 

co  as 

m 

cn 

■-<  o 

m 

O    CN 

rH     vO 

•—1 

as  o 

00    00 

CN   sD 

r*.  cm 

O     -H 

r->  o 

o  m 

co  o> 

m 

CO 

— «  o 

m 

O    CM 

I— 1     V© 

— H 

CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


cr.  o 

h»  oo 

r— 1     \£> 

r>«  cm 

o  m 

r—  a\ 

m 

CO 

as  cn 

00    \D 

m 


T3 

4-1 

4-> 

4-1 

4-1 

4-) 

0> 

QJ 

QJ 

QJ 

OJ 

OJ 

03 

z 

z 

Z 

z 

z 

•H 
> 
QJ 

-«_• 

^^ 

v-' 

^s 

**• 

4= 

J3 

A 

J2 

x: 

43 

4= 

a 

4J 

4J 

4-1 

4-1 

4-t 

4-1 

4J 

^s 

•H 

•H 

•H 

3 

•H 

t 

■H 

•H 

12 

43 

x: 

JC 

A 

J3 

43 

43 

4J 

w 

cn 

t-> 

CO 

4-J 

cn 

4-1 

cn 

AJ 

cn 

4-1 

cn 

4-1 

03 

>,  -H 

QJ 

rH 

•H 

QJ 

•H 

QJ 

•H 

QJ 

■H 

QJ 

•H 

QJ 

•H 

0J 

4J    3 

M 

O 

3 

S-i 

3 

M 

3 

U 

cn 

S 

S-i 

3 

M 

3 

u 

C 

3 

0 

3 

p 

3 

>N 

3 

iH 

3 

3 

p 

3 

3    C 

4-1 

X 

C 

4J 

5 

C 

■u 

4-) 

C 

4-1 

o 

C 

4-1 

C 

4J 

5 

3 

4-1 

O  -H 

•H 

u 

•H 

•H 

p 

•H 

•H 

c 

•H 

•H 

o 

•H 

•H 

f^ 

•H 

^ 

o 

•H 

4 

O    co 

T3 

C/2 

CO 

T) 

H 

CO 

•3 

3 

CO 

T3 

X 

CO 

T3 

4-t 

CO 

H 

CO 

O 

C 

O 

a 

O 

C 

O 

O 

c 

o 

o 

C 

•H 

O 

3 

o 

c 

CO 

QJ 

CO 

QJ 

CO 

OJ 

u 

OJ 

C/5 

a) 

U 

QJ 

C 

QJ 

£  -u 

a 

i<! 

4-J 

a 

X. 

4-1 

a 

4-1 

a 

4-1 

a 

4-> 

a 

•H 

4-1 

a 

QJ     QJ 

X 

QJ 

OJ 

X 

QJ 

0) 

x 

o 

OJ 

X 

o 

QJ 

X 

o 

QJ 

X 

iH 

QJ 

X 

)-i   Z 

w 

U 

z 

w 

M 

z 

w 

^ 

z 

w 

M 

z 

w 

^ 

Z 

w 

M 

Z 

w 

3 

3 

3 

^H 

H 

rH 

CO 

W 

W 

W 

w 

w 

w 

U 

3-138 


o 
o 
o 


u 

cO 

I 
in 


en 

0) 

CJ 

3 

to 

<H 

CO 

PQ 

4J 

01 

60 

T3 

3 

CO 

i-H 

CO 

3 

C 

3 

< 

<V 

4J 

bO 

o 

cO 

0) 

(J 

T- ) 

OJ 

o 

> 

Ll 

< 

Pm 

T3 

E 

a> 

3 

T) 

3 

c 

a) 

V 

T3 

4J 

.0 

X 

^ 

w 

H 

O 

S 

go 

no 

Q) 

1 

a. 

ro 

o 

X 

a) 

h 

• 

JO 

4-1 

CO 

s 

H 

P 

m 

CO 

I 

0) 

o 

>< 

in 

on 

u 

<r 

CO 

I 

X 

m 

>H 

sr 

st 

O  PI  H 

00  o  o 

L  st 

m  cm  -h 

On  m  r->- 

CO     1 

CN    ON    OO 

sO  — '  o 

0)  o 

•i 

M        •>        « 

J*    St 

-H 

— M    — 1     — M 

a)  m 


st 

Li  CO 
CO     I 

0)  o 

>>  CO 


ON 

Li  CN 
CO  I 
a)  m 

>M    CN 


st 
L    CN 

CO     I 

<D  O 

>H    CN 


On 

Li   —i 
CO     I 

oj  m 


O   CO   — i 

m  cn  i— i 

CM   ON    CO 


O  co  — ' 
m  cn  -h 

CN    On    00 


O  CO 

m  cn 

CN    ON 


00 


o  n  h 

ION    H 
CN    ON    00 


O  O   00 
m  -^  on 

CN    On    f^ 


00  o  o 
on  m  r-» 

\jo  "*  o 


oo  o  o 
on  m  r^ 

\£>  — <  O 


o 

CO 

—H 

oo  o 

o 

m 

CN 

~H 

On   in 

r^ 

CM 

ON 

00 

.£>    — 1 

o 

oo  o  o 
on  m  r^ 

n£>  —•  o 


00  o  o 

On    m   I — 

\£>   — <   O 


o 

ro  — ' 

00 

o 

O 

m 

CN    ^ 

ON 

1/-N 

r>. 

CN 

On    00 

NO 

"-H 

O 

00  <t   st 
On   CN   st 

nO   — «   O 


CO 

CO 

0) 

0) 

• 

u 

• 

L 

£> 

3 

-O 

3 

•H 

4J 

•H 

4_) 

t-l 

•H 

|M 

•H 

4-1 

•3 

4J 

-D 

3 

3 

c 

s 

/--s 

O 

s. 

o 

0) 

-a 

CO 

o 

PL, 

OJ 

X 

X 

en 

4-1 

w 

4J 

w 

•H 

3 

c 

> 

CO 

4-1 

CO 

4-) 

CD 

i-l 

OJ 

<H 

< 

1 

m 

Z 

a: 

Pm 
CO 

z 

(X 
cn 

J= 

CO 

•  • 

J= 

en 

OJ 

•  • 

4-1 

<u 

CO 

4_) 

CD 

CO 

^ 

•H 

o 

rH 

•H 

o 

CO 

-J 

3 

o 

o 

2 

O 

c_> 

3 

Li 

o 

u 

3 

3 

Pm 

J3 

c 

ex 

c 

O 

•H 

~~^. 

CJ 

•H 

*»», 

o 

C_> 

CO 

X 

CO 

CO 

0) 

•H 

CD 

c 

O 

3 

CO 

CO 

•H 

CO 

•H 

■H 

J*! 

4J 

as 

id 

4-1 

S3 

> 

H 

X 

OJ 

OJ 

•H 

Sm 

z: 

Ll 

z 

-a 

3 

3 

ja 

w 

W 

3 

to 

OJ 

4-1 

CO 

3 

CO 

4J 
O 

z 


CO 
0) 


J3 
4-1 
4-1 


3 
O 

CO 

Li 
3 
O 
CJ 

o 

CO 
OJ 
X 

CO 
H 


Li 
OJ 

Q. 
O 
Li 

Pm 


bO 
CO 


3-139 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table   3-67     Net   Quarterly  Revenues   and  Expenditures   Generated   by  Project   as 
Year-End   Totals    ($000) 


Year    1    1/       Year   2       Year   3       Year  4       Year   5      2/ 


Subdivision  Case   5-A 

Eureka   County  190 

Property  Revenue  0                      27               124               205 

Sales   Revenue  190 

Expenditures  w/project  1,556 

without  928 

Net   Expenditures  628 


Eureka   Schools  121 


Property  Revenue  0  56  254  422  521 

Sales  Revenue  121 

Expenditures  w/project      1,358 

without  1,072 

Net   Expenditures  286 

1/     Year   1    (assumed   1984)   revenues   reflect   one-half   year  mine/process   plant 

startup,    but   1984  expenditures   are  full-year,   with  and  without  mine/process 
plant. 

2/      Property   revenue   generated   in  year  4   carried  forward   to  year  5. 


845 

1,341 

895 

27 

124 

205 

818 

1,217 

690 

2,798 

2,176 

1,989 

1,106 

1,150 

1,192 

1,692 

1,026 

797 

547 

1,016 

848 

56 

254 

422 

491 

762 

426 

2,058 

2,028 

2,044 

1,249 

1,292 

1,334 

809 

736 

710 

3-140 


o 
o 
o 
</> 


co 
o> 

OS 

rH 
I 

CO 
Os 


m 


i 

en 

u 

CO 

01 

>H 

.. 

co 

OJ 

o 

c 

<o 

■a 

u 

CO 

o 

0J 

4J 

T") 

01 

o 

M 

u 

TJ 

D-, 

3 

pa 

e 

3 

rH 

c 

OB 

a 

3 

TO 

C 

XI 

C 

>s 

<c 

o 

S 

00 

n£> 

oj 

1 

a 

en 

o 

35 

Ol 

^H 

• 

Xl 

4-1 

CO 

a 

H 

LO 


CO 


00 


CO 


CO 


00 


n  on 

00  CM   sO 

-3-  LO   ON 

CM  S 


O    <f    vO 

>C    ON   \0 
4    <f    ^ 


CM 


OS 

r-^ 

CM 

CO 

X> 

r^ 

<r 

<r 

os 

». 

* 

CM 

H 

CO  CO   MO 

in  ^  S 

<r  <!■  os 

cn  _T 


oo  co  o 

C>   H   00 
CO    <3"    ON 


CM 


o 

o 

<* 

sO 

CM 

oo 

os 

00 

o 

CO 

CO 

as 

o 

CM 

O 

CM 

CM 

M0 

r^ 

00 

o 

CO 

co 

os 

CM    rH 


o 

m 

m 

<r 

<r 

os 

CO 

CO 

os 

M 

* 

CM 

r-l 

o 

o 

o 

o 

CM 

CM 

CM 

O 

o 

CO 

CO 

o 

CM 


o 

CM 

on 

<r 

CM 

oo 

r^ 

o 

O 

CM 

CM 

o 

OS 

os 

-3- 

lO 

O 

-3- 

CO 

H 

o 

CM 

CM 

O 

m  cm  cm 

iH  mo  m 


00 

m 

CO 

St 

o 

<r 

iH 

vD 

LO 

* 

* 

CM 

rH 

O  CM  00 

-a-  oo  m 

i-t  m  m 

CM  ,_| 


CO    r-l    CM 

co  vO  r^ 
i— i  m  m 

*  0k 

CM    _| 


vo  rH  m 

CM    <■    CO 

rH  m  m 


o>  ON  o 

iH    rH    O 

rH   m  vO 

CM^rH* 


O  00  CM 

H  OS  H 

rH  -3"  M0 

CM  ^ 


CM 

X> 

M0 

c 

s 

CM 

rH 

<3- 

v£> 

a 

0k 

CM 

rH 

CO  CO    O 

os  m  «3- 

O  -3"   v£> 

CM  S 


oo  m  co 

rs  h  ^ 

O   -*    M0 


CM 


rH  m  MO 
mo  r^  oo 
O  co  MO 

cm"  ,-T 


oo 
cc 

o 


v40  O   \D 

00  CM  M3 

h  m  vo 

CM  _T 


m 

-a-  r-i 

vC 

Os  r-^ 

rH 

<r  mo 

*- 

0k 

CM 

rH 

CI  N  vO 
\t  VON 
iH  <3"  sO 

CM    _4 


OS    CO   MO 

H    <-N 
rH    <t    MO 


CM 


O    00   CM 

O     rH    00 
H    <f   O 

0k  0k 

CM    ,_| 


co  -3-  <d- 
r^  os  oo 

O    CO   MO 
CM    ^H 


oo  o  co 

m  sco 

O    CO   MO 

0k  0k 

CM    ^ 


OS 

OS 

m  <j- 

00 

CO 

-3-  os 

OS 

o 

CO  sO 

CM 


mom 

rH     CM    ON 

O    CO   M0 

CM    ,_. 


Os 
Os 

co  h 
s  o 
cm  r^ 

** 

« 

rH 

rH 

ro 

st  OS 

<t 

CO  o 

OS 

cm  r^ 

*> 

* 

rH 

iH 

Os 


OS 


oo  m  co 
m  cm  co 

0\0  <t 

CM    S 


r~~~ 

m 

CM 

<r 

o 

<f 

c 

x> 

<r 

» 

m 

CM 

t— i 

m  cm  co 
co  co  m 

o  m  -j- 

CM    ^T 


KT    rH    CO 
CM    vO    MO 

o  m  vr 


CO  rH    CM 

H  vt    N 

o  m  st 

CM  rH 


rH    OS    CM 

O    rH    00 

o  m  *-f 


CM    .H 


OS 

00 

rH 

00 

OS 

OS 

OS 

<r 

MT 

0k 

0s 

rH 

rH 

r- 

sO 

rH 

r-- 

r*» 

o 

Os 

-3- 

m 

* 

«i 

rH 

rH 

«* 

CO 

rH 

M0 

m 

rH 

Os 

-d- 

in 

#> 

a 

rH 

rH 

rH 

<r 

OS 

m 

rH 
-3" 

sO 
CM 

m 

•* 

•k 

rH 

rH 

00 

m 

CO 

r-H 

r-» 

-3- 

OS 

CO 

m 

*. 

•v 

rH 

rH 

OS 

CM    CM    O 

r^» 

-3" 

<r  o 

o 

m  cm  co 

o 

-3" 

<r  o 

O 

rH    OS    CM 

r^ 

-3" 

CO     r-i 

CO 

O     ON    rH 

V40 

OS 

CO    sO 

OS 

CM    rH    O 

00 

O 

co  r«« 

00 

OS    rH   r— 

oo 

00 

CO    "*» 

M«fcM 

A 

•^ 

CO 

A       A 

0k 

n 

CM    — i    -H 

CM 

rH 

T 

m 

Oi 

rH     r-l 

4-1 

4-1 

4J 

-« 

CD 

4J 

4J 

4-1 

-H 

O 

O           --^ 

o 

CO 

CJ 

o        ^ 

o 

0) 

0)     4-1    — < 

0) 

CO 

o 

cu 

OJ       4-1     rH 

01 

CD 

*!T> 

•c  3 

f-i 

0) 

•<-) 

•o    3 

"-) 

OJ 

< 

O 

O    0    co 

o 

CO 

M 

rH 

o 

O     O     CD 

o 

CO 

M 

i 

rJ 

U  X    0) 

u 

01 

4J      3 

0J 

r4 

M   X    a> 

>H 

cu 

3 

LO 

a 

CX   4-1     Jj 

a 

M 

O     4-» 

c 

a 

(X  u  u 

a 

(H 

4-1 

^^ 

£      &     4J 

^^ 

3 

01    "H 

c 

*-*^ 

^   -H    3 
>     3    4J 

1 — ^ 

3 

•H 

0) 

3 

3 

4-1      4-1 

•<-)  XI 

o 

3 

3 

4-1     4-1 

TJ 

co 

•H 

rl  ° 

"a    oj 

o   c 

CO 

•H 

TJ     QJ 

d 

cj 

CO 

CD      CO    TO 

CO 

CO 

M     01 

p.!   a 

M 

CO 

CO     01  TJ 

CD 

CO 

01 

U 

>> 

QJ 

o>    o)   e 

r-i 

OJ 

C   i-i 

0) 

>> 

aj 

O"    Oi    c 

rH 

QJ 

C    •<-) 

a 

c 

j-j 

c 

3 

B 

P      iJ      QJ 

3   3   a 

O 
O 

3 

ft)    o 

X 

4-1    W 

Oi 

4-1 

C 

3 
P 

In      P      CJ 

3    3  a 

O 
O 

3 
C 

Ol    O 

Cu     IH 

X 

4-1    W 

o 

3 

0) 

4J     4J      X 

X! 

0) 

X   D- 

3 

T3 

3 

cu 

*J     4-1     X 

X 

OJ 

X   Ph 

3 

■H 

O 

> 

•H      -H     rfl 

O 

> 

W 

O     4J 

o> 

o 

> 

•H    H   W 
TJ    TJ 

CJ 

> 

w 

O     4J 

CO 

u 

OJ 

T3    "O 

CO 

OJ 

X 

X    OJ 

CO 

CJ 

QJ 

CO 

0) 

X 

x   o> 

■H 

Pd 

C      C     4-1 

c2 

CO     4-> 

4J    Z 

u 

Di 

C      C     4-1 

Di 

CO     4J 

4J    2 

> 

•H 

CO 

4J 

aa^ 

CO 

4-1 

CO   «H 
O  3 

•H 

3 

o> 
a 

CO 

u 

a  a^ 

CO 

4-J 

CO    H 

o  s 

•H 

TO 

01 

0) 

X    X 

0) 

QJ 

H 

CO 

OJ 

OJ 

X    X 

OJ 

QJ 

M 

X) 

(-1 

^ 

w  w 

(-1 

2 

o 

•H 

h 

2 

w   W 

M 

2 

O 

3 

3 

3 

Q 

3 

3 

CO 

td 

W 

W 

W 

3-141 


- 1 


A3 

3 
TO 


O 


0) 

60 

•V 

3 

03 

B 

a) 

H 

i 

-o 

-^  »-s 

r  o 

o 

■o  o 

a»  '/> 

JJ     s 

IT) 

U 

--"    c 

u 

ai   o 

01 

OS    -l 

"n 

1     u 

0 

i-i    u 

la- 

u   < 

Ou 

<ll 

i—)  tj 

E 

o   u 

3 

i-i    in 

C 

0-      O 

01 

a. 

-a 

u    o 

xi 

01    u 

>> 

z  o- 

~H 

O 

£ 

os 

^D 

0) 

1 

a. 

cs 

0 

I 

01 

•H 

• 

XI 

u 

IT) 

£ 

f- 

c"i  00 
vO  — 
OS  — i 


vO  —  in 
os  —  — 


OS 
<si 

US 

(si 

p 

— 

3* 

m  cm 


«- 


»- 


m 

m 

(N 

•. 

— 

Csl 
U1 

in 

rj 

— 

•£>  — i  m 


o  oo  oo 
oo  — l   i»1 

os  — .   —> 


sO  o 

O0    CI 

oo  o 


us 

00 
US 

T 
in 

-^ 

o  o 

O   sO 

vO  — ■ 


(s|  o 

00    <NI 

os  o 


in  o 
os  csi 
on  o 


o  o 

O  (si 

o  o 


-*  o 

O    CN| 

o  o 


INI 

o 

—4 

^o 

<& 

— i 

■ 

— ■ 

vO   O 
(N|  vO 

vO   — • 


o  o 

vO  — < 


n 

vD 

oo 

M 

— 

m  os 

■D 

\D   00 

— .  o 

00  c-> 

o  o 

v£>  — l 

o 

O 

CNI 

o 

O 

OS 

— 

O     — < 
CNI    ,» 

o  en 


O  r» 
—i  i~- 

!■».   00 


■O   sO 

es  — < 
r-  o 


esi 

US 

os 

•» 

uo 

co 

— ' 

r^ 

os  r»» 

(N 

<T 

o  <r 

^O 

00 

oo  m 

<sl 

oo 

O 

rj 

a\ 

ifi 

" 

00   IN 
(SI  — . 


o 

o 

os 
1 

o 

— 1 

o 

1 

o 

o 

OS 

1 

o 

o 

OS 

1 

o 

o 

OS 

1 

o 

o 

OS 

1 

o  r-» 


J-  00 
c-l  OS 
r--  cs 


—   00 

m  os 


(^  00 
O  OS 
00    f*1 


cs)  o 
l-s    <SJ 


o 

US 


O 


O 


-3* 

o 
m 


O  — 


—  o 
o 


(SI  ei 
t-»  — 
os  00 


O  r-. 
in 


O   sj 

m 


O  O  o 


cs  o 


(si 

sr  — . 

r^ 

c-i 

•o 

C  00 

l-~ 

r~ 

c 

o  n 

cs 

OS 

11 

•    * 

Q. 

1 

(si   (SJ 

X 

u 

■o 

(S| 

CS    (S| 

— « 

OS 

e 

»3*   O 

~* 

O 

(B 

r^  .* 

cs 

vO 

*     - 

m 

0) 

1 

(SJ    _ 

— -4 

01 

1 

3 

C 

01 

CI 

•£>   — < 

in 

vO 

> 

m  -h 

~» 

in 

01 

— <  rs 

00 

—* 

M 

1 

— » 

1 

^ 

ifl 

l-i 

O 

4-1 

01 

■o 

3 

oa 

in 

OJ 

■e 

•J! 

V 

ra 

N 

u 

vH 

— 1 

01 

Ifl 

u 

k 

u 

u 

0 

C 

U-l 

11 

j<; 

(J 

u 

3 

0 
3 

>s   01 

u    u 
C    3 

3    u  X 

O    iH  01     01 

U   "O  3     U 

C  C     C 

TJ    01  01    nJ 

J^     D.  > 


01    "<3 


u  in  ai  ta 

3 

LLl 


« 

0) 

01 

en 

ID 

en 

4J 

01 

01 

01 

01 

0) 

Ol 

IT) 

Ui 

u 

0) 

u 

U 

1- 

u 

1-1 

g 

3 

>»    3 

.—i 

3 

3 

3 

3 

en 

4-» 

0) 

u   u 

U) 

o 

4J 

en 

<-j 

en 

u 

in 

u 

en 

01 

o 

•H 

01 

01 

c  -w 

0) 

01 

o 

■H 

01 

01 

•H 

01 

01 

■H 

o> 

01 

•H 

0> 

1) 

-^  ~^ 

o 

H 

-o 

3 

o 

3    -O 

3 

o 

x: 

-3 

3 

O 

-o 

3 

(J 

-a 

3 

u 

-a 

3 

u 

rj  ts| 

c 

c 

C 

c 

O     C 

C 

c 

u 

C 

C 

c 

c 

C 

c 

e 

C 

c 

c 

C 

c 

Ui 

(0 

5 

0) 

01 

W 

U     01 

0) 

IT) 

10 

01 

01 

(D 

01 

01 

<8 

c 

0) 

% 

<T) 

0) 

0) 

IT) 

01    "O 

■a 

a. 

> 

■a 

Q. 

> 

■a 

Q. 

> 

■a 

a. 

> 

^3 

•> < 

Q- 

iH 

53 

a. 

> 

-H 

c    c 

01 

X 

01 

O    X 

01 

o 

X 

1) 

o 

X 

01 

.-i 

X 

01 

<8 

X 

01 

Ifl 

O  u. 

oo 

u 

UJ 

Bi 

oa 

_■«:  'jj 

OS 

□a 

^ 

w 

Q. 

oa 

Ji 

UJ 

ori 

oa 

u 

UJ 

at 

oa 

H 

u: 

OS 

03 

3 

-^ 

<H 

•— I 

IT) 

O 

b] 

w 

LU 

Ul 

u 

H 

3-142 


T3 
71 


■o 
01 


SI 


o 

U-l 

en    a 

c 

■a 

!-• 

c 

01 

>s 

o 

3 

— i 

u  y 

-o 

u- 

JS 

ID  w 
IJ   a. 

en 

V 

— 1 

01 

01 

±J 

■H 

5C  U 

u 

It 

-l 

1? 

3 

u 

> 

on 

w 

as 

JO 

--- 

• 

U-i 

en 

-^ 

m 

01    ™ 

j-i 

(9 

T 

(J  * 

01 

01 

u 

01 

c  o 

en 

tx 

01 

•*-t 

IT)     i.- 

01 

T3 

c 

c 

C   3 

£ 

3 

01 

1 

c  g 

H 

jO 

U 

01  Tfi" 

-I        <N    I 


Forecast").      Total   revenues   shown  are   the   sum  of  various   taxes  discussed 
previously.      Capital   costs   are  not   included  in  this   evaluation   of   current 
operating  accounts. 

The   Start-Up   Period:      The   first   12  quarters    of    the  construction  period   and 
initial   phase  of   operations   of    the  mine/process   plant  are  summed  as   annual 
totals   on  Table   3-64.      The   seven  jurisdictional   budget    totals  on   current 
account   show  that   in  no  budget   accounts  would  project   revenues  meet   or  exceed 
the   level   of   current   expenditures.      The   total   revenue   shortfall  in   all  seven 
budgets   (unadjusted   to  reflect   economies   of    scale,    one-item  budgets,    etc.) 
combined,   annually  would  be   forecasted   as   follows    1_/: 

Year   1  Year  2  Year  3  Year   4 

Expenditures  $     518  $   5,062  $  4,634  $   3,199 

Revenues  311  1,401  2,381  1,813 

(Deficit)  (207)  (3,661)  (2,253)  (1,386) 

The  Long  Term  Period:      (Year   5   -  Year   15):      The   stabilized  populations   of   the 
longer  term  would  produce   fixed   tax   revenues  derived  from  property   and   sales 
taxes.      However,    operations   of   the   corporation  would   continue   to   produce 
variable   tax   revenues   resulting   from  annual   and  periodic   changes   in  the   levels 
of   expenditure  on  supplies   and   equipment   (State  sales   tax),    a  general   rise  in 
the   level   of   property   asset  valuations,    and   in  net   proceeds  valuations   of 
mine/process   plant   output   (ad   valorem  property   tax). 

Because   of   the   disposition   of   the   variable   tax  revenues   collected 
from  mine/process   plant   operations,    only   two   of    the  seven  local  jurisdictional 
budgets   would  be  influenced   by  incremental    changes   in  tax  revenues.      These 
jurisdictions  would   be  Eureka  County   and  Eureka   School  District. 


3-143 


Table   3-65   shows    that    the   accounts  which   sustain  incrementally 
higher   revenues  due    to   mine/process   plant   operations   would   begin  a   reduction 
of   the    budgetary   shortfalls   during  this    period.      The    following  summarizes 
Table   3-65.    1/ 


Ye, 

ar   4 

Year   5 

Ye; 

ar    10 

Year   15 

Eureka  County 
Expend. 
Revenues 

$1 

,250 
909 

$1 

1 

,250 
,009 

$1 
1 

,250 
,009 

$1 
1 

,250 
,098 

Eureka    Schools 
Expend. 
Revenues 

1 

,698 
871 

1 

1 

,698 
,138 

1 
1 

,698 
,138 

1 
1 

,698 
,212 

Eureka   Town 
Expend. 
Revenues 

56 

1 

56 
2 

56 
2 

56 
2 

Elko 

County 

Expend. 

Revenues 

32 

7 

32 

7 

32 

7 

32 
7 

Elko 

Schools 
Expend. 
Revenues 

101 
11 

101 
10 

101 

10 

101 
10 

Elko 

Town 

Expend. 

Revenues 

50 

7 

50 

7 

50 

7 

50 

7 

Carlin 

Expend. 
Revenues 

3 
1 

3 

1 

3 

1 

3 

1 

1/      These   figures   do   not    include    total    revenues   and   expenditures   of    the 
related   local   jurisdictional    budgets. 


3-144 


In  only   the   first   two  accounts   revenue   changes   appear  which   tend 
toward  a  reduction  in   budgetary  deficits   in  the   net   project   accounts.      The 
latter  five   budgets   remain  constant   throughout   the  forecast   period.      On 
overall   aggregate   account,   the   seven  unadjusted   budgets   combined  would   produce 
expenditures  during  year   15  amounting   to  $3,190,000.      Revenues,   not   including 
these  monies   retained  in  the   General   State  Fund,   would   total    $2,337,000, 
resulting   in  a  $853,000  deficit   if   economies   of   scale,   etc.    did   not   apply. 

The  Period   of  Year   15-50:    In  the   extended   forecast   for  the   period   of   year  15 
through  year  50,    there  would  be  no  betterment   of    the  net   project-related 
accounts   in  any  of   the  seven  jurisdictional   budgets.      A  slight  worsening  of 
the  deficit   is   forecasted  for  the  variable-revenue   accounts   of   Eureka   County 
and  Eureka   School   District.      This   would   derive   from  a  decline   of   $550,000 
annually  in  mine /process  plant   expenditures   on  supplies   and   equipment   during 
the   period,    from   $1,650,000  to   $1,100,000  annually,   and  an  anticipated   minor 
decline   in  net   proceeds   values   of  market  production.      The  first   affects   the 
level   of   sales   tax  revenues   and   the   second  the   value   of   ad   valorem  property 
tax   revenues.      (See  Table   3-31). 

These   changes   are   shown  on  Table   3-66,    for  the  variable-revenue 
accounts   which  reflect   such   changes.      The   amounts   shown  are  in  5-year  intervals, 
stated   as   annual   average   revenues. 

3. A. 4. 5      Budgetary   Impacts   of   the  Mt.   Hope  Project   -  Adjusted 

Adjusted  Budget   Forecasts.      As   previously  described   in  detail,   an  analytical 
survey  of    forecasted   expenditures  was   conducted   to  assess   the   potential   for, 
and   likelihood  of,    economy  of    scale  and   real    time   budgeting  within  Eureka 
County  and   School   District   as   a   result    of   eventual  proposed   action  consequence. 
The   regression  analysis   conducted   clearly  indicated   both  the  potential   and 
extent    of   such  real   occurrence  within  Nevada  and  as   such  was   relied  upon  in 
the  final   fiscal   budget   analysis   to  determine   impact   significance. 

To   illustrate   the   effect   (and   expected   most    probable   case  upon 
proposed   action  implementation)    of    the   regression  analysis   results  and 
subsequent    budget   impacts,   Tables    3-67  and    3-68  are   presented   to   detail   budget 

3-145 


forecasts  of  revenues /expenditures  for  Eureka  County  and  Eureka  County  School 
Districts.  (Tables  3-67  and  3-68  are  prepared  in  complement  with  Tables  3-58 
and   3-59  which  detail   adjusted   expenditure  forecasts   only). 

Table   3-25  (reproduced  hereafter   for  facilitating  review  as   Table 
3-69)    the  budgetary   impact   of   expenditure  adjustments   to   reflect   both  realistic 
economies    of    scale  and   direct   cost   budget   items   (e.g.,    direct   teaching  costs). 
The  following   details   the   impact   variation  from  the  invalid   assumption  of 
straight   line   per   capita   expenditure   costing. 

The   Start-up  Period;      The   total   revenue   shortfall   in  all  seven  budgets 
combined   during  the   first    four  years  would   be  as    follows: 

Year   1  Year   2  Year   3  Year  4 

Expenditures  1,156  2,743  2,004  1,972 

Revenues  311  1,402  2,381  1,813 

Surplus/(  Deficit)  (845)  (1,341)  377  (159) 

Contrary   to   the   continued   deficit    expenditures    of   the  Eureka  County 
School  District   under  the  unadjusted  basis,    it  would  be  anticipated   that 
project   revenues  would   exceed   actual   adjusted   expenditures   in  year   3,    continu- 
ally exceeding  such  expenditures  during   the  project   period.      Eureka  County 
expenditures  would  similarly  be   exceeded   by  revenues   received   except   that 
such  would  not   occur  until  year  6.      As   the   regression  analysis   could  not 
encompass  Elko  County  jurisdictions,   nor  the  Town   of  Eureka,   no   variation 
has   been  recorded   in  the  adjusted   fiscal   analysis   presented   on  Table   3-69. 
As   such,   it   remains   anticipated   that    budget  deficits  would   accrue  in  Elko 
jurisdictions   relative   to  direct  matching   of   project    revenues   and   expenditures. 
Again  the   difference  in  revenues   received  would   be   contributory   from  state   tax 
laws. 

The   Period  of  Year   5  to  Year   50:      In   the  net   combined   case   of   all  seven  juris- 
dictional   budgets,    the  direct   project   revenue/expenditure   balance  would 
increase    from  a  surplus   of    $230,000  annually  in  year   5   to   $664,000  annually 
in  year   15.      The  extended   forecast   of   year   15  to  year  50  would,   as  described 

3-146 


previously,    result    in  a  slight   decline   of    revenues   received   but  would   not 
create  a  deficit  match   situation. 

Note  Regarding  General   State  Fund  Monies;      As   indicated   on  Table   3-69,    the 
implementation   of   the   proposed   action  would   result   in  revenues   being  accrued 
to   the  General    State  Fund   ranging   from   $156,000  (year   1)    to   $973,000  (year  3) 
annually  with  a   stabilized   revenue   generation  approximating   $574,000  annually, 
in  excess   of    the   combined    budget   surpluses   of    $664,000.      As  detailed   in 
Appendix  A   of   this   Technical   Report   (Appendix  E   of   the  EIS)  ,  historical   review 
of    the   county  budgets   indicates   eventual   receipt   of    such  monies    in  excess   of 
that   collected  within  the  jurisdiction.      While  not   distributed  in  the  analysis, 
herein,   such   redistributed  monies  would  effectively  contribute   to   significant 
impact  mitigation  within  both  Elko  and  Eureka  Counties. 

3.4.5  Attitudes  and  Lifestyles 

3.4.5.1   Summary 

The  potential   for  impacts  upon  the  general   attitudes   and   lifestyles 
of   the  Eureka  County   population  as   result    of  Case  5-A  implementation  was 
evaluated   on  the  basis   of    two   criteria:      1)    rural   lifestyle;    and   2)    attitudes 
as    to   "ambiance"   of  Eureka  County,    particularly  the   Town   of  Eureka,    resulting 
from  the  cultural   history  (Technical   Report   No.    7)    of    the  area. 

The   population  influx   of   the  Case  5-A  subdivision   scenario  would 
directly  affect    the   rural   lifestyles   of    the   existing  Eureka   County   resident 
populations.      Effects   within  Elko  County  were   determined  insignificant   as   a 
result    of    its   rural/urban  composition  and   larger  population  base  which  would 
effectively  mask  most,   if   not    all,   effects. 

The   rural    lifestyle    presently   associated   with  the   Eureka   area  would 
be  affected   primarily  as   a   result    of   the   expected   population  doubling,    mostly 
with  mining   and  mineral  processing  professionals   and   industrial   labor  (versus) 
ranchers,    small    businessmen,    farmers).      The   different    lifestyles    of   the   in- 
migration  population  would   be   expected  for  the  most  part   to   present   direct 
conflicts   with   the   status   quo.      Although   this   conflict  would   diminish   as    pro- 

3-147 


ject  term  proceeded,  a  short-term  effect  throughout  project  duration  would  be 
expected. 

The  effects  of  the  lifestyle  conflicts  upon  the  resident  population 
would  be  both  direct  and  indirect  as  well  as  beneficial  and  adverse.   Direct 
impacts  would  affect  the  rural  way  of  life  through  concentration  of  the 
population,  increased  traffic  and  congestion,  increased  service  industries  of 
a  specific  nature  versus  the  rural  county  general  store,  etc.   The  extent  of 
this  rural  "urbanization"  would,  however,  be  limited.   The  limited  amount  of 
land  affected,  the  lack  of  significant  impacts  to  agriculture  or  ranching, 
and  the  remoteness  of  the  regional  area  would  continue  to  strongly  support  a 
rural  setting. 

The  primary  impacts  to  local  lifestyles  are  expected  to  be  indirect 
impacts  on  resident  attitudes  and  perceptions  as  project  implementation  proceeds. 
Extremely  difficult  to  quantify  is  the  perception  that  some  residents  will 
regard  the  implementation  of  Case  5-A  as  a  permanent,  negative  change  of  status 
quo.   Correspondingly,  some  residents  would  consider  Case  5-A  implementation 
highly  favorable  in  terms  of  lifestyle  change  due  to  their  perceptions  that  the 
area  status  quo  is  not  complete  and/or  satisfactory  in  terms  of  health  care, 
employment  opportunities,  etc. 

Overall,  the  lifestyle  changes  incurred  as  a  result  of  Case  5-A 
implementation  would  be  perceived  on  an  individual  basis  in  highly  variable 
degrees. 

The  potential  for  impacts  upon  the  ambiance  of  Eureka  County,  especially 
the  Town  of  Eureka,  was  primarily  related  to  the  historic  and  cultural  value  of 
the  Town  itself.   The  effects  of  Case  5-A  were  evaluated  as  to  the  potential 
for  impacting  the  Town's  Historic  District  designation  (Section  3.9  of  the  EIS, 
Technical  Report  No.  7).   The  sources  of  direct  influence  upon  the  historic 
district  criteria  would  be  limited  to  physical  obstruction  or  disturbance 
in  the  locale  of  downtown  Eureka.   The  Case  5-A  scenario  was  not  determined 
to  present  definitive  potential  for  such  impact.   The  Case  5-A  housing  plans 
stipulate  development  of  subdivision  property  in  a  single  unit  area  that 
would  be  infeasible  in  the  downtown  area.   Housing  requirements  not  fulfilled 

3-148 


within  the  subdivision  alone  under  the  Case  5-A  scenario  were  assumed  to  be 
addressed  by  dispersed  housing  located  throughout  the  Diamond  Valley,  Kobeh 
Valley  and  Eureka  Town  perimeter  areas.   The  construction  of  such  housing 
would  not  be  expected  to  create  direct  impacts  upon  the  Historic  District 
area. 

3.4.5.2  Review  of  Assessment  Details 


The  socioeconomic  data  acquisition  programs  pertinent  to  the  pre- 
paration of  the  Mt.  Hope  EIS  (and  by  association  this  Technical  Report)  have 
emphasized  the  compilation  of  state  and  county  published  data  with  subsequent 
confirmation/update  of  the  collected  data  by  personal  communication  with 
Eureka  County  and  Nevada  State  authorities.   The  use  of  qualitative  data  has 
been  very  limited  in  order  that  an  unbiased  approach  to  socioeconomic  assess- 
ments be  maintained. 

The  deemphasis  of  qualitative  data  acquisition  has  been  exercised 
with  particular  care  in  the  discipline  of  social  attitudes  and  lifestyle, 
especially  in  the  aspect  of  in-field  canvassing  of  the  Eureka  Town  and  County 
inhabitants.   This  approach  was  defined  early  in  the  EIS  process  at  the 
request  of  EXXON  management.   As  stated  in  its  project  description  and 
thereafter,  in  the  EIS,  EXXON  considers  the  early  phase  of  its  planning  and 
the  probable  extended  delay  in  initiation  of  actual  project  activity  to  the 
late  1980 's  and  possibly  not  until  the  early  1990 's  to  represent  a  possible 
conflict  with  the  natural  desires  of  the  in-place  population  to  begin  community 
and  individual  reactions  in  1983  and  thereafter  (e.g.,  subdivision  planning, 
land  transactions,  etc.).   It  has  been  the  philosophy  of  EXXON  that 
initiating  extensive  community  and  company  interaction  at  this  early  stage  of 
Mt.  Hope  activity  would  be  premature  and  most  likely  would  result  in  undesireable 
speculation  leading  to  real  estate  and  business  actions  (i.e.,  purchasing/selling 
subdivision  lands).   While  EXXON  management  has  interfaced  with  county 
officials  and  the  Eureka  County  Planning  Commission  on  a  project  definition 
basis,  a  decision  was  made  not  to  conduct  a  comprehensive  in-depth  interview 
canvassing  of  the  populace;  again,  considered  to  be  premature  in  timing 
relative  to  actual  probable  dates  of  project  initiation.   Reliance  upon  the 


3-149 


detailed   and   extensive   fiscal    impact    analysis  was   considered   more   appropriate 
for  quantitative   impact    identification  at   this   point   in  project   development. 

Thus,    the  manner   of    analysis  utilized   to   assess   project    impacts 
upon   social   attitudes   and    lifestyles   has   entailed   deductive,    qualitative 
evaluation  of    scoping   letters,    personal    conversations    of    the  WRC  EIS   Team 
with   some  members    of   the   community,    review  of   the  Eureka  County   General   Plan 
goals /objectives   relative   to   compatability  with  the  proposed   action,   and   an 
overall   reliance  upon  the   professional   experience   of   the  EIS   preparers. 

Identifying  the   difficult    scope   of    qualitative   assessments,   was 
generally  performed   by   1)    a  review  of    the   concerns/issues   brought   forward 
during  the  EIS    scoping   process,   and   2)    use    of   the  manual   entitled    "Guide   to 
Social   Assessment,   Technical    Briefing  Report"   (U.S.D.I.,    1982).      The   summary 
previously   presented   reviews   the  qualitative   assessment    of    project    impacts 
relative   to   the   primary   issues   expressed  during   the  EIS   scoping  process.      The 
following   details,    to   the   greatest    extent    possible  within  the   confines    of   the 
qualitative   data  base   available,    the   assessment   of    sociological  questions 
considered   relevant    to   the   proposed  action  and   as    outlined  in  the  Guide    to 
Social   Assessment. 

Introduction.      The  Mt.   Hope   project  would  be   characterized   as   an  economic/ 
resource  management    project   that   individually  would  primarily  cause    social 
effects  by  changing   the   economic,    demographic,   and   facilities/services   charac- 
teristics  of   the   in-place   communities.      As   such,   a  heavy  emphasis   on  economic 
(see  Fiscal   Impact,    Section  3. 4. A),    demographic   and  facilities/services 
characteristics   is   appropriate   for   evaluating  several   aspects   of  organizational 
and    regulatory  context   and   public  health  and  safety;    two  additional   factors 
affecting  the   change   in   social  structure. 

The  primary   factors    of    social    change   identified  for  the   proposed 
action  are   population  influx  (a  doubling   of   county   population)    and  financial 
( revenues /expenditures  generated    equivalent    to    total   existing   budgets). 

The  major   community  resources    that    can   be   considered   for   impact 
assessment   include    the   following: 

3-150 


1)  Previous   experience   of    the   community  with  development. 

2)  Cultural    characteristics,    particularly  the   presence 
of   unique   populations    such   as  American  Indians, 
land   grant   Hispanics,   or   communities  with  a  strong 
religious   base,    such   as  Mennonites   or  Mormans. 

3)  Population  size   and   demographic  structure. 

4)  Occupational  and  labor  force  characteristics, 
with  particular  attention  to  the  dominance  of 
particular  livelihoods    and/or   technologies. 

5)  Employment   and   income    characteristics    of    the   community. 

6)  Existing  (or  planned)    facilities   and   services   and 
fiscal   resources. 

7)  Institutions    and    organizations,    and   the   regulatory 
structure    of    the   community. 

Preceding  sections    of    this   Technical   Report   have   characterized   the 
baseline   factors    of   the   above   community  resources.      The   following  text    serves 
as   an  overview  of    the   capability  of    the   communities   affected,   most   particularly 
Eureka  Town,    to   adapt    to   the   changes  brought    forward   by  implementation   of   the 
proposed   action.      As   necessary,    salient   factors   of   baseline   characterization  not 
previously  discussed   are   presented   to  assist   in  the   review. 

Historical  Experience.      As   noted   in  the  Guide   to   Social   Assessment: 

"An  understanding   of   the   community's   history  is   needed 
to  understand   the   context    in  which   community   residents  will 
perceive  a   proposed   action.      The  historical   review  should 
focus  on  determining   social   attitudes,    understanding   the 
social  structure   of   the   community,   and   predicting  how 
the   community  may   respond   to  project    inputs.      Of   particular 
importance   is   past    experience  with   1)    similar   projects, 
2)    other   related    types   of   development,    or  3)    community 
emergencies   and    disasters.      A  community   that  has    experienced 
previous   projects   or  other  situations    that   required   coordi- 
nated  response  may  be   far  more   effective   in  adapting  to 
change.      On   the   other  hand,    if   the   previous   experience  was 

3-151 


bad,   it  may   signal    strong   resistance   and   fear   of    change. 

In   addition,    community  residents,   having   experienced    growth, 

may  have   developed   strong   attitudes   regarding   these   issues". 

As   reviewed   in  the   baseline    characterizations    of  Eureka   County 
history  and  population,   Eureka   County   has   experienced,    perhaps  more   than  any 
other   county  in  the   state,    dramatic   flucuations   in   population  and    overall 
living    conditions   as   a   result    of  mining  industry  developments.      The   County's 
cultural   tradition  and   mere   existence   is   directly  tied   to   the  historical 
development   of   mining  projects  with  Eureka   Town  perhaps   being   most   represen- 
tative   of    the  historical   mining-dependent   background.      Perhaps    the   best 
summation  of   Eureka   attitudes   to   date   can  be   represented   by  the   lead-in  to   an 
August   14,    1983   Reno  Gazette  Journal   article   concerning  the    town  inhabitants' 
views    relative    to   the   potential   for  Mt.   Hope   development.      It   read    "Eureka: 
Residents   Love   It   Despite  Boom  or  Bust    Industry"   (Manning,   H. ,    1983). 

Although   a   broad    generalization,    the  quotation  above    seems    to 
apparently  represent   the   underlying   current   theme   of  community   pride   and 
thought;    specifically,    that    regardless   of    the   continuity  or  magnitude   of 
industrial   influence,   the   peoples    of  Eureka  have  managed   to   adapt   and  survive 
in  a  manner  acceptable,    if   not  wholly  desirable.      It   should  be   noted   that   an 
additional   perception   of   the  EIS  team  was   that,   in   some   respects,    two   primary 
groups  within  Eurkea,   Diamond  Valley   ranchers /farmers   and   Eureka  Town  business 
people,    may  be   somewhat   at   odds   concerning  the   degree   to  which  an   open-arms 
attitude   should  be   extended   to   incoming   industry.      However,   an  underlying 
continuity  of   thought   is   apparently   present  which,   in  the  judgement    of   the   EIS 
team,   would  serve   to   beneficially  unite   the   community   in  a  policy  of 
coordinated   adaption.      Specifically,   the   uniting  thought   appears    to   be   that, 
regardless   of    individual   opposition  or  approval,   if   the  project    is   indeed 
going   to   be   developed   it  must   be  done   in  a  manner  assuring  appropriate 
interaction  with   the   existing    community. 

Thus,    several    existing   conditions   within  the   community   can  be 
assessed   specifically  with   a   view   to  historical   precedent   and  the   community's 
desires    for  future  development. 


3-152 


1)  Historical  Adaptability:      The   Town   of   Eureka,    a   National   Historic 
District   due    to   its    preservation   of   buildings   erected   during  the 
last   century  mining   boom  days,    is   considered  unique   and   of    special 
value  (both   culturally  and   economically  as   a   tourist  attraction)    to 
the   in-place   residents.      This    in-place   attitude    regarding   the   town's 
values   has   resulted   in  an   expressed   concern  that,    while  not  wishing 
to   preclude    in-town   residential    or   commercial   development,    such 
development  must   be   conducted   in   a  manner   appropriately  assuring 
preservation  of    the   town's   ambiance   and   integrity   as   an  Historic 
District. 

2)  Historical   Response.      Past   developments   in  mining,    have,    to   some 
extent,    resulted   in  a   random  method  of    residential/commercial 
establishment.      The   potential   for   implementation   of   the   proposed 
action  has   resulted   in  the   continuation,   and  perhaps   an  elevation 
in  the   sense   of   urgency,    of   a  local   debate   regarding  the   need   for, 
and   type   of,    land   zoning   ordinances.      On   the   basis   of  discussions 
with  community  members,    particularly  the   county  commissioners,   it 
seems   apparent   that  while   the  general   community  does   not  wish  zoning 
ordinances   there  may  be   a  reluctant   affirmation   of   the   need   for 
such   should  the  proposed   action  be   implemented.      Thus,    it  would 
seem  that   one   impact   of   the  Mt.   Hope   project  would   be  not   the 
origin  of   land  use  zoning   but   the   forcing  issue   of    zoning 
implementation,   a  reluctant  measure  in  the  minds    of   the  majority 
populace. 

Cultural   Character 

Relative   to   social   impact   assessment,   detailed   analyses   of    cultural 
characteristics   is   likely   to   be   significant   only  when  there   are   unique   racial, 
ethnic,    religious,   or   occupational    characteristics    in   the   community.      Examples 
of    uniqueness   include   the    following:      large  American   Indian   population; 
communities   in  which   a  single    religious  group  was   responsible   for   town 
establishment;    Hispanic   populations    from  Spanish   land   grants;    and,    communities 
in  which   a  unique    trade   or   occupation  has   been  dominant.    (U.S.D.I.,    1982). 


3-153 


The  Eureka  County  population  characteristics  regarding  religion  and 
ethnicity  are  highly  diverse,  and  largely  resultant  of  its  establishment  by 
mining  related  workforces.   The  town  prides  itself  on  the  large  number  of 
cemeteries  that  are  generally  ethnic  in  type.   Church  activity  is  apparently 
as  diverse.   Occupationally,  the  area  characteristics  nearly  epitomize  the  rural 
west,  i.e.,  ranchers  and  farmers  with  independent  small  retail  businesses 
servicing  basic  support  demands. 

The  significant  role  of  government  employment  appears  contrary  to 
the  generally  rural  west  character  of  the  area,  but  has  apparently  been 
established  in  a  manner  indeed  allowing  self  sufficiency  and  locally  aware 
government. 

In  total,  the  broad  cultural  background  of  the  resident  population, 
originally  founded  by  mining  peoples,  would  be  considered  amenable  to  the 
adaptations,  if  any,  required  by  implementation  of  the  proposed  action. 
While  the  geographic  origin  and  cultural  backgrounds  of  the  immigrating 
project  personnel  can  only  be  speculated,  all  probability  exists  that  the 
employment  requirements  of  mining  experience  would  be  translated  into  an 
incoming  populace  with  similar  appreciation  of  the  rural  west,  either  of  an 
in-born  origin  or  an  adopted  nature  by  choice.   While  experience  has  indicated 
that  some  cultural  expansion  has  been  brought  forth  by  incoming  populations  in 
the  arena  of  modern  day  cultural  activity  (opera,  theatre,  art  exhibits, 
etc.),  such  activity  would  also  apparently  seem  to  be  desirable  in  terms  of 
fulfilling  a  need  for  such  in  Eureka  County. 

Population/Demographics 

Historical  and  recent  population/demographic  characteristics  of 
Eureka  County  and  Eureka  Town  have  been  identified  elsewhere  in  this  Technical 
Report  and  other  Technical  Reports. 

Aside  from  an  increase  in  total  numbers  and  age  distribution,  the 
proposed  action  would  cause  no  significant  change  in  county  demographics. 
Eureka  town  would  continue  to  be  the  primary  seat  of  population  and  county 


3-154 


management.      On   a   regional    basis,    Eureka  would   continue   it   position   relative 
to   Elko  County  and   Ely  City   population  centers. 

From   1970  to    1980,    the  median  age   in  Eureka   County   remained 
generally  constant:    30.5  years   in    1970   to  30.1   years    of   age  in   1980.      The   age 
group  of    18-64  increased   4.5  percent   from   1970  to   1980,    representing   63.5 
percent    of    the   county   population.      A  marginal   increase   during  the   same    period 
in  the  age   group  of   65  or  over  resulted   in  a   county   age   distribution  of   6.7 
percent   in    1980.      Children   under   the   age    of    18  represented    29.8   percent    of 
the   county   population.      The  proposed   action  would   result    in  the   immigration 
of    populace   generally  within  the   age   grouping   of    18   to  64.      Percent   distri- 
bution of    children  has   been  assumed   to  be   standard  (22.5  percent).      It   has 
also   been  assumed   that   the  majority   of    immigrating  workforce  would   predominantly 
range   in  age   from  20-45  with  some   evidence   of    the   age   groups    18-20  and   45-64 
(i.e.,    laborer  and  upper  management  work   tasks).      The   long-term  influence    of 
the  age   distribution  described   above  would  not   appear  to   be   significant. 
While  median   age  within  the   county  may   shift  upward   by   perhaps   10%  (33-34 
years) ,    significant  variation  would  not   be   expected   except   in  the   age   distri- 
bution  percent    of  65  or  more.      Presently  at   6   to   7   percent,   the  more   than 
doubling   of    population  (1775  stable)    would   result    in  a  probable   halving   of 
that    age   group's    percent   contribution  (e.g.,    3   to   3.5   percent    population  com- 
position).     Relative   to    "senior  citizen"    community  attitudes   and   available 
services,    most   impact  would   appear   to   be   beneficial.      As   noted  in  previous 
sections,    the  population  increase  would  be   accompanied   by  more  medical, 
social   and   recreational  activities,    important    to  the   age   group  of   65  or   over. 
While   the   increase   in  "crowds"  might   be   perceived   negatively  by   the   same 
group,    overall   access    to   the   community  would  not   be   diminished  and   may  be 
enhanced. 

Occupation/Employment /Income   Characteristics.      The   employment   potential    of 
the    proposed   action,   and   the   effects    thereafter,    represents    perhaps    the  most 
singularly  significant   factor  in   the   social   impacts  anticipated  within  Eureka 
County.      The   sheer  magnitude    of    change   represents   a   causative   force   of    change, 
both  highly  beneficial    and   adverse   in   character. 


3-155 


Relative   to   direct   monetary   and   living   standard   conditions,    the 
implementation   of   the   proposed   action  would   be   considered  a  significantly 
beneficial   action.      While  worldwide   economics  will  always   affect    the   continuity 
of   industrial   activity,    mining   or  any  other  industry,   the   potential   for 
continuity  maintenance  will  also   be   defined    in  large   part   by   the   potential 
for   opportunity  -  i.e.,   the  magnitude,    in  this   case,    to  which  a   resource 
exists   and  which   it   can  sustain  activity.      As   indicated   by   the   anticipated   50- 
plus   year  activity   period,   the  Mt.   Hope  activity  varies   significantly    from 
short-term  mining   venture  activities   of    a  lesser  magnitude.      As   presented   in 
Section   3.4.4   of    this   Technical   Report,    the  Mt.   Hope   project  would   contribute 
in  excess   of    1.2  million  dollars   annually  of   net   tax   revenue   gain  alone.      As 
further   presented  in   Section  3.4.4,   the   impacts    of   economic   influx  would   be 
dramatic,    significantly   increasing   the   potential   for  per   capita  gains    and 
lowering   of    unemployment. 

Similarly  evident   is   the   burden  to  which   the   employment   requirements 
of   the   project   could  place  upon  the   existing  available   labor   force.      In  the 
short-term  period,    significant    in-migration  of   qualified    labor   is   anticipated, 
as   is   the   complete   absorption  of    available   in-place  qualified/semi-qualified 
workforce. 

The  absorption  of    the   available  workforce  would   result    in  certain 
aggravation   of  local   business   requiring  either   1)    the   availability  of   that 
workforce   at   peak  or  special  period  (e.g.,   part-time   labor   replacement   of 
full-time   vacation  time,    tourist    peaks,   rodeo   time,   etc.)    and  2)    the   availabilty 
of    that  workforce   to   indirectly  allow  maintenance  of    the   company's   on-board 
personnel  (i.e.,    less   turnover  as    available   labor   force  is   largely  acquired 
first  by  new  employers).      The   experience   of    the   preparers    indicates    that 
perhaps   the  most   significant   factor   in  community   unease  with  a   new  large 
employer   is   the   loss   of    in-place   employees    to   the   competitively  more   resourceful 
new  employer  (or   in  the   case   of    agricultural/ranching   interest,    the   distraction 
that   higher   payroll   offers   younger   family  members    to   transfer  their   career 
interests   away   from  farming/ranching).      The   inability   to   consistently   compete 
in  terms    of   wage    levels,    benefits,   etc.    can  significantly  affect   the    eventual 
longevity /success   of    a   small,   in-place   business.      In   some   cases,    the   economic 
benefits   derived   from  the   incoming   population   can  be   effectively  managed   to 

3-156 


allow/justify  direct  market   place   competition  for  available  workforce.    In 
other   cases,   employee   loyalty  may  be   the  only  decisive   factor  in  retaining 
qualified   and   experienced  personnel.      While   during  the   short-term  period  of 
project   activity,    extensive   immigration   of   immediately  qualified   personnel 
would   reduce   the   extent    to  which    the   in-place   but   unqualified    county   workforce 
would   be    "extracted"   from  existing   businesses   and  family  endeavors.      The   long 
term  nature  of    the   project  would,   however,    tend   toward  such   extraction  as,    in 
years   5-10,   the   in-place  workforce  would  strive    to   become  qualified  and 
employed.      In   this   regard,    the  proposed   action   represents   an  ironic   dilemma 
in  benefits/detriments   normally  associated  with  the  mining   industry. 
Specifically,    while   providing   beneficial   long  term  employment    opportunities, 
financial    independence   and   a   future   of    career  development,    the  50  plus  year 
period    of   activity  negates   the   indirect   effect   that   short-life  mining   ventures 
(5-10  years   ore  development)    provide   by  allowing    "temporary"  employment   and 
then  an   eventual   return   to   originating  industries   such  as   agriculture  and 
small  business. 

Relative   to   income   characteristics,    the  proposed   action  would 
represent,   in  conservative   terms,   an  economic  boon   to  an  area   presently   under 
the   significant   adversity  of    recession.      The   proposed   action  would   represent 
primarily  a  secondary  income   generator  (versus   primary  via   payroll   to   in- 
place   residents).      Section  3.4.4  details    the  anticipated   levels   of   per   capita 
expenditure  associated  with  the   project   and   generated   employment    populations. 
Indeed,    the  principal   efforts   of    the   community  would  be   structured   to   secure 
such  income  in   a  manner  fulfilling  the  incoming  populations   needs   such  that 
new  competition  (e.g.,   chain  supermarkets)    would  be   inhibited   from  intrusion. 
In  terms    of    social  attitude,   it  has   been  the  observation  of   the  EIS   team  that 
the   in-place   residents   of   Eureka  most   significantly  appreciate   the   long-term 
opportunities   (versus   short-term)    for  sustained   economic   growth 
that    the  50  year   plus  Mt.   Hope   project    life   represents. 

Facilities/Services   and  Fiscal   Resources.      Details    concerning   the   proposed 
action's    quantitative    impacts   upon   the   facilities/services   and   fiscal    resources 
of   the   affected  communities   are   presented   elsewhere   in  this   Technical  Report. 
Regarding   social   attitudes   and    lifestyles,    the  proposed   action  implementation 


3-157 


would   represent   a   focus   of    significanut   challenge,   opportunity   and   dilemma 
for   the   population   of   Eureka  County  and  Eureka   Town. 

As   indicated   in  other   text    discussion,    service   availability   is 
limited   in  the   project   area.      While   not   restricted    to   the   extent   that   signifi- 
cant  adversity   is   reached,    there   appears    to   be   a  predominant   attitude    that 
the   community  would   certainly  benefit    from  an   expansion   of   its    existing   base. 
Financially,   however,    such   expansion   can  only  be   initiated   in  a  gradual 
step-wise  manner,   and   that   many   projects   can  not   be   initiated  at    all   due   to 
the  low  population  support   base. 

The   significance   of    the   proposed   action  lies   in  addressing   both  of 
the    limiting  factors   above   in  a   beneficial   manner.      First,   the   financial 
effects   of    the  project   would  allow  a   significant   fiscal    resource   base   from 
which  community  leadership  could   derive    large   sums    of   monetary  support. 
Second,    the  increased  population,   as  documented   in  Section  3. A. 6,   would  more 
than  adequately   support   in  demand   terms   the   types   of    services/facilities 
expansions   envisioned.      It   has   seemed   apparent,   however,   that   the  anticipated 
activity  would  not    require   extensive   changes   in  the  organizational    or   community 
influence   controls    presently   existing,    although  the   community's   planning   groups 
would  undergo  extensive   activity   requiring  patient   and  persistent   dedication. 
Such  effort   appears    to   be   desirable   by  the   participants,   at   least   as   indicated 
by  past  CRMP  interest   in  the  project.      Additionally,    the   long   term  nature  of 
the   proposed  action  would   be   anticipated   to   direct  more   confidence  on  the 
part   of    fiscal    lending   institutions    to   provide   the   necessary  capital   and 
financial   backing   to  new  business   ventures,   both  directed   from  in-place 
residents   and   incoming   personnel. 

One   particular  aspect    of    the  major  change   in  demand,   as    represented 
by  the  increased  project    population,   that  may  be   adverse    to   the   community 
relates   to    the   probable    cost   of    living   increases   that  would  undoubtedly 
accompany  the   economic   growth   of   the   area.      As   noted  in  Sections   2.6  and 
3.4.3,   housing   demand  within   the   area  would   be   significantly   increased,    with 
the    existing   base    of    housing   availability   generally  considered   poor.      As   the 
economic   influx  of    the   proposed    action  began  to   affect    the   in-place   residents, 
it   would   be   anticipated   that    the   employment   security  and  financial   rewards 

3-158 


brought  about  by  the  project  would  spur  in-place  residents  to  seek  upgraded 
housing.   This  activity  would  be  in  addition  to  the  housing  required  by  the 
immigrating  population.   Understandably,  the  cost  of  real  estate  and  housing 
would  be  anticipated  to  be  magnified  beyond  that  at  present,  thereby  poten- 
tially precluding  the  acquisition  of  housing  by  community  members  not 
financially  benefited  directly  by  the  project  (e.g.,  fixed  income  recipients). 
The  resultant  efforts  of  such  cost  of  living  increases  would  present  a  signi- 
ficant challenge  in  immigration  to  local  authorities,  more  so  than  to  state 
or  federal  agencies.   Again,  it  must  be  assumed  that  without  attaining  suc- 
cessful access  to  the  monies  generated  by  the  project  as  State  General  Funds, 
the  impact  of  such  cost  of  living  increases  (e.g.,  also  food,  medical,  etc.) 
would  be  significant  and  could  affect  perhaps  five  to  ten  percent  of  the 
population  based  on  historical  financial  assistance  records. 

As  indicated  in  Section  3.4.3,  the  expansion  of  services/facilities 
is  anticipated  to  be  generic  in  type.   Specifically  caused  by  the  low  availability 
of  services  at  present,  it  is  less  likely  that  services  expansion  would  be 
directed  in  a  manner  (e.g.,  practicing  pediatrician  versus  general  practioner). 
While  the  proposed  action  would  equate  to  a  more  than  doubling  of  the  current 
resident  population,  the  affected  area  would  remain  rural  in  nature  and  the 
associated  type  of  lifestyle  would  be  anticipated  to  remain  intact. 

Institutions /Organizations /Regulatory  Structure.   As  noted  in  previous  sections 
of  this  Technical  Report,  three  primary  employment  groups  exist  within  Eureka 
County:   mining,  government  and  ranching/agriculture.   Implementation  of  the 
proposed  action  would  significantly  magnify  the  degree  to  which  the  mining 
industry  presently  dominates  the  economic  influence  character  of  the  county. 
This  magnification  of  economic  influence  could  be  negatively  perceived  within 
the  current  political  organizations  of  the  county  and  town.   Rightly  or 
wrongly,  political  decisions  with  an  entity  of  any  size  (e.g.,  city,  county, 
state)  are  frequently  determined  on  the  basis  of  economic  influence,  either 
the  economic  influence  of  individuals  or  industrial  entities.   Based  solely 
on  discussions  with  long-term  Nevada  residents  of  various  occupations  (e.g., 
sociologists,  county  commissioners,  small  business  owners),  the  extent  to 
which  political  decisions  are  made  on  the  basis  of  economic  influence  in  the 
area  appears  to  be  altered  somewhat  on  the  historical  basis  of  employment 

3-159 


origin  in  the  state.   Specifically,  the  ranching  and  agricultural  employment 
sector  has  been  effective  and  active  in  organizing  and  maintaining  its 
influence,  historically  originated,  within  the  state  and  local  governing 
entities.   Thus,  it  would  seem  that  the  secondary  impact  of  political  influence 
caused  by  economic  dominance  would  be  tempered  in  the  area  by  a  dedicated 
organizational  effort  on  the  part  of  local  ranchers /farmers .   The  long  term 
of  project  activity  (plus  50  years)  however,  would  on  a  worst-case  basis  of 
individual  perception  in  the  ranching/agricultural  sector,  would  be  considered 
a  causative  factor  in  an  eventual  influence  shift  toward  further  mining 
influence  and  thereby,  a  potentially  significant  adverse  impact  relative  to 
the  local  representation  of  ranching/agricultural  interests. 

3. A. 6  Community  Facilities  and  Services 

3.4.6.1   Summary 

Schools.   Normal  school  population  growth  has  been  projected  on  Table  3-70. 
Table  3-70  additionally  includes  notes  on  the  derivation  of  per  capita  school 
rates  for  Elko  and  Eureka  counties.   Population  projections  for  Case  5-A, 
proposed  action  subdivision,  indicate  that  an  additional  326  students  would 
require  schooling  at  the  point  of  project  impact  stabilization  (3.75  years 
for  school  population).   Distribution  of  the  students  has  been  estimated  as 
shown  in  Tables  3-71  (Quarterly)  and  3-72  (Annual).   The  number  of  classrooms 
anticipated  to  accommodate  the  additional  student  body  is  also  shown  on  Table 
3-72.   Classroom  requirements  were  determined  on  a  worst-case  basis,  i.e., 
it  was  assumed  that  no  capacity  was  available  in  the  existing  schools. 
Although  this  is  not  presently  the  case  (Chapter  2.0),  the  assumption  was 
deemed  appropriate  for  full  review  of  potential  impact  in  the  event  that  at 
the  time  of  project  implementation  such  a  full  capacity  situation  had  occurred. 

Implementation  of  the  proposed  action  (Case  5-A,  subdivision)  would 
result  in  a  doubling  of  the  present  Eureka  Town  classroom  facility  requirements 
and  more  than  a  doubling  of  present  school  enrollment. 

Beneficial  impacts  would  result  as  the  school  base  enrollment 
achieved  a  level  adequate  to  facilitate  teacher  recruitment  (presently  a 

3-160 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  3-70  School  Age  Children:   Normal  Populations  (Without  Project) 
Quarterly  First  Four  Years 


Year  1 
1984 

Year  2 
1985 

Year  3 
1986 

Year  4 
1987 

3Q    4Q 

1Q 

2Q     3Q 

4Q 

1Q 

2Q     3Q 

4Q 

1Q     2Q 

County: 

Eureka  227        228  240  252  263  275  278  282  284  297  290  293 

Elko  4,332   4,371      4,420      4,447      4,485      4,524      4,562      4,601      4,639      4,678      4,717      4,757 


3-161 


co 

M 
CO 
<P 
J* 

u 

3 
O 
Cu 


Cu 


u 

0) 

4J 

M 

tO 

3 


co 
t-i 

U 

o 

•3 
0) 

4-1 

CO 
0) 

c 
e> 

T3 

c 

CO 


CJ 

to 


c 
<v 

M 

•3 

CJ  -H 
0)  -C 
•o  CJ 

o 

(-i  0) 
p.     bO 

E 

3  H 

C  O 

CD  O 

X:  u 
>■>  CO 

iH 
O 

S    -< 

u  I 
CX  CO 

o 

PS    (1) 

H 

•  .O 

4-)      CO 

S   H 


co 


c 

CN 


c 


vT 


CO 
V 


en 


CM 


CM 


o- 


o- 


CO 


M 

CO 
0) 


c 

CM 


U 

CO 
0) 


co- 
co 


00 

CM 


CTn 
CM 


m 

en 


O   N    C^   N    \D  [un    ■— I    CM  I  CM 
CM    CT\   n£>   CO  CO 


CM 


CO 
CM 


CM 

CN 


as  vo  \o|m  —4  cm|cm 

CJn   \jO   CO  I         CO 


mcM<^co«3-|iocyiCM|rsj 

CM    CTn   ^O    CO  CM 


CO    O    <f    CM    00|m    CO    CM|(N 
N    N    CON    CO|         CO 


CN 
CO 


CM 

CO 


mr-^vjO*x><r|<J'OCM|cM 
\0  — *  m  oo  <H      -3- 


v£>  <d  •&  1*3-  o  cm|cm 
<r  oo  <r|      <r 


ct\  »h  -j-  oo  <r        <r 


>*m^-00C^|cOv£)CM|cM 

c^  h  n  n  to        co 


CM 


O    CTn    m    CO    CM    CM|CM 
-H    vO   CO  CO 


>tf    ON    CM    >£>   00|CM    n£> 

o\         oo  m  CM|       CM 


n  cji  *  in  n  n 


— I    NjO    <"H    —I 


oolo  co  co  cm  m|o  m  o|o 
r*  <t        cm  — i 


<^|m  o  ^-  o  o|o  o  o|o 


< 

l 

m 

cu 

CO 

CO 
U 


C 

o 

•H  t3 

CO  W 

•H  +J 

>  CO 

•H  P 


0J    o 
u  cj 

3 
w 


CJ    ,0 

'     3 


CJ 

o  as 


CO   CJ   ^J    w 
H 
W 


"3 
CU 

u 

CO 
M 

0)    c 

C    -H 
CD    i— I 

c3   u 

cO 

cj 


T3 
CO 

0) 

C 

8 


ocooocMinr-»co|oom 

o>         <■  ^-  H  ^o  >f  N  H 


co 

CTn 


CO    OO   —• 

<r  -a-  — i 


m  co  m  cr 
^  <■  o 


LO    O   CO   00    LO 

\jO    ■*    CM    — I 


\C 

CO    CM 

-H    O 

o  o  nls 

c 

CM    CO 

m  •—• 

\D  m  CM  |— • 

CM 

<— i 

■— i 

00 

co 

CM 


m  n  h 

vO    -H    \£> 


<f  m  h  oo 

0>   O   \jO  O 


-3-  co  oo  in 

•J   CM  H 


\0 


-h  o  ^^  <r  r->. 


o  o  co  r^ 


^    vO   vO   CO  k-   >*   M    N   \C 
CTn    CTi    m    CTn  U^-    in   ■— I  IrH 


^    CTn   CTn   <TkO    00   n£> 
CTn    r*.    -J-    CO    CO    <f    -H 


O   vD 


co^-CTNO^X>|r~CTN^H|r^-^- 

CTn   CT.    m   <T    vO|CM    CO   ^H  | 


co  ctn  o  sr  -^loo  co  oo|m  co 
<J  r>.  «*  n  ■4"|'-i  cm 


^tlo  vo  oo  m|r^  oo  co|cm 

NjO  l-J-     >— I  ■ 


I 

in 

0) 
CO 

CO 

o 


0) 

c 
c 
o 

C/5 

M 

0) 
PL| 

-o 

CD 

(J 
01 

ex 

CO 


co |m  co  o  — >\r-*  o  o|o  o 


c 
o 

•H 

4-1 
CJ 

3 
M 
4-1 

So 

o 


o 

H 
CO 
0) 

3 


"3 
cu 

4-1 

CO 
M 

0J 

c 


CO    o 

c3  M 

H 

W 


CJ 


•3 
<D 

4-1 

CO 
Ui 

cu 

c 

0) 
CJ 


-3 
0) 
4-) 
CO 
M 
(U 
CJ    C 


CO    CM  ON   n£> 


CO    CM   CTn   v£> 


CO    CM   CTn   vO 


CO    CM   CTn   \£> 


<T    CM   O    O 


in  cm 


vO 


3-162 


vO    CM   CM    n£> 


in  cm  -^  vo 


x)  co  cm  o  m 

cy  -n        •— i 


3 
cr 

CU 

Pi 


-H    CM   C^   <f 


H    CO    ^N    N 


o 

H 

CO 

4-1 

-a- 

o 

co 

— i 

C 

cu 

T3 

3 

4-1 

CO 

CM 

o 

o 

O 

o 

CM 

— i 
» — 

4-1 

4-J 

c 

>N 

C 

>N 

co 

3 

4-1 

3 

4-1 

i 

O 

c 

O 

c 

c 

CJ 

3 

CJ 

3 

o 

O 

O 

u 

CO 

CJ 

CO 

CJ 

CO 

M 

M 

CO 

Q) 

o 

V 

o 

CO 

U 

M 

u 

M 

H 

3 

<-t 

3 

^H 

CJ 

W 

U3 

w 

w 

-3 

< 

CQ 

<D 

1 

1 

T3 

m 

m 

-a 

< 

cu 

CO 

co 

CJ 

0) 
CO 

to 

a 

E 
CO 
CJ 
H 

CO 

M 
W 

CJ 


0) 
CJ 

3 

o 

CO 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table   3-72     School  Age   Children  and   Classrooms  Year  End  Totals 


Year    1 


Year   2 


Year   3 


Year   4 


Subdivision 

5-A  Case 

Eureka  Town 

78 

Elko 

5 

Carlin 

0 

Classrooms 

Eureka  Co. 

4 

Elko  Co. 

0 

321 

39 

2 

15 
2 


28  9 

34 

2 

13 
2 


28  7 
35 

1 

13 
2 


Decentralized  Workforce 
Case   5-B 


Eureka   Town 
Elko 
Carlin 
Classrooms 

Eureka   Co. 

Elko   Co. 


64 

15 

3 

3 

1 


256 
87 
18 

12 

4 


206 
96 
23 

10 
5 


204 
99 
23 

10 
5 


Source:      WRC  EIS   Team. 


3-163 


major  problem)    and   enhance   extracurricular  programs.      Primary   impacts  determined 
to   be   detrimental  would  involve   a   significant   and   adverse   lack,  of   classroom 
space.      The  classroom  numbers    associated  with  the   student   influx  are   based   on 
a   22  pupil-per-classroom  ratio.      While   student/classroom   ratios    could   be 
increased  and  probably  would   be  in  the  short   term,    additional  facilities 
would   be   required    to  alleviate   classroom  shortage.      Student  distribution 
would   be   anticipated   to   be   equally   divided   between  the    two   schools    of   Eureka 
(K-6  and   junior/senior  high  school)   which  would  lessen  impact    level   but  would 
require   facility   expansion  at   both  locations. 

As  discussed   in  Chapter  3.0,    the  financial   capabilities   of    the 
Eureka   School  District   (as  measured   by  bonding   capacity)    appear   adequate  to 
accomodate   the  necessary  facility   expansion  costs.      Expansion  costs   for   the 
Case  5-A  scenario  have   been  estimated   on  a   preliminary  basis    to   approximate 
$2.4  million  ($8,400  per  student   capital    construction,    288  students)    or  23 
percent    of   the    1983   district   bonding   capacity  of   approximately   $10.3  million. 

Expenditure  levels    of    the   school  district,   assuming  status   quo   of 
the    per  capita  student   costs,   would   be   adversely  affected   due   to  increased 
staffing   requirements,    facility  maintenance,   etc.      Based   on  a   teacher/student 
ratio   of   1:14,   approximately  23  teachers  would   be   required   to   accommodate   the 
gross   total   student   influx  of   Case  5-A.      Present   staffing   levels   are,    however, 
equal   to  a   teacher/student   ratio   of    1:9.4,   and   if   elevated   to   1:14  would 
result   in  a  required   teaching  staff   addition   of    17.      While   housing  provisions 
for  such  a  staffing  increase  would   not   presently  be  available,    the  homebuilder/ 
mobile   home   dealer  industry  response  anticipated   to  occur  (Section  4.11.1.3) 
would  mitigate   the  problem  in  the   long   term  (+4   year  period).      Short-term 
housing  would   probably  be   addressed   in   a  manner  similar   to   that    presently 
occurring  (e.g.,   mobile   home   supply  maintained   by  school   district). 

As   indicated   in  Tables    3-71   and   3-72,   Elko   County    schools   would   be 
insignificantly  affected   as   only  an  additional   67   students  would  be   expected, 
equalling  a    two   percent   enrollment   increase. 

The   fiscal    impact    of    the   Eureka   and   Elko   County,   enrollment    increases 
is   discussed   in   Section   3.4.4. 

3-164 


Health.      Health  care   services  within   the   Eureka   Town  area  would   be   directly 
affected   by   implementation   of   the   proposed   action  Case   5-A.      The   impacts 
associated  with  the  provision  of    health  care   services   (federal,    state,    county 
and   volunteer)    are   expected   to   progress    from  being   generally  negative   during 
the   early  period  of    construction  ( 1    to   2   years)    to   being   beneficial   during 
the    period   of   late   construction   through   operation. 

The  primary   influence   of    implementing   the   Case   5-A  subdivision 
scenario  upon  health   care   services   would   entail   centralization   of    a 
population  large   enough   to   require  well  developed  health  care   services.      As 
noted  in  Chapter   2.0,   health  care   service   in  Eureka  County  is   limited   by  low 
population  characteristics.      Medical   and   dental  professionals   are  heavily 
reliant  upon  external  funding  and   community  demographics  do  not   provide 
a   self-supportive   establishment   of   health  care   services   beyond   non-hospital 
medical  and   emergency  requirements. 

The  population  projections    associated  with  implementation  of    the 
Case   5-A  scenario  would  theoretically   provide  a  self-sustaining   basis    of 
support   for  approximately   three   to   four   doctors   (1.5  doctors/1,000  population), 
12  to   14  nurses   (4.5  nurses/1,000  population),   one   or   two  dentists   and   one 
medical  health  specialist   (HDR,    1980).      The   expanded   capability  would   be   a 
significant   beneficial    impact    to   the   Eureka   County   population  that   presently 
must   go   to  Elko   for  most   non-basic  medical  and   nearly  all   dental   services. 
It   is   expected   that   the   existing  health  clinic  facility  would   require   expansion 
although  this    impact  would   be   partly,   if   not   entirely,    offset   by  the   location. 

Negative   impacts   associated  with  the   Case  5-A  scenario,    primarily 
incurred   during  the  first    two  years    of    implementation   of   the   proposed   action, 
may  be   found   in  a  shortage   of    health  care   professionals    and    in   the   overall 
quality  of   services    provided.      Additional  staffing  would  probably  require 
supplemental   hiring   or  personnel    reassignments   by   the  Nevada   Rural   Health 
Consortium  until   such   time   that   the    private   professional   sector   responded   to 
the  generated   demand.      Patient   access   and   service   priorities   would   be   altered 
to   accommodate   demand.      While    potentially   significant   in  the   short   term,   the 
negative   health  care   impacts   are   considered    insignificant. 


3-165 


Elko   County  health  care   services   are  not   expected   to   experience 
any  significant   impact.      Hospital   capabilities   are   extensive   relative    to 
the   area. 

Law  Enforcement.      Both  the   county    sheriff's   department   and    county   court 
system   of  Eureka  would   be   directly  affected   by   the   increased   populations 
described   in  Case  5-A.      Elko   County   law  enforcement   agencies  would  be   affected 
only   to   a  minor   extent.      Associated   impacts   are   primarily  of   an  indirect 
nature  (e.g.,   increased   number  of    patrol  vehicles   required)    versus  direct 
impacts   associated  with  long-term  crime   levels. 

In  Eureka   County,    the   Case   5-A  population  increase   of    1,571    (stable 
annual)    would   require   the   addition   of   an  estimated  six   officers,   six   administra- 
tive/support personnel   and   three   patrol   cars.      The   rapid  population  growth 
associated  with  the   construction   period  would   require  a   rapid  fulfillment   of 
the  estimated   requirements.      Although  not   quantified   in  detail,   it   is   expected 
that  jail  facilities   which  are   presently  located  in  the  County  Court   house 
would   require   either  expansion  or   the  establishment   of   a  separate   facility. 
Due    to   the  historic   value   of   the  County  Court   House,   it   is  doubtful  that 
physical   alterations    to   the   building  would  be   desirable   and   it   is   assumed 
that   a  new  facility  would   be   constructed. 

Indirect    impacts   of    project   population  influx  include   a  probable 
need   to  rapidly   train  new-hire   law  enforcement    personnel,    a  management   system 
restructure   to   allow  facilitated    response  and   a  potential   need   to   expand   the 
present  judicial   process   capacity. 

Additional  workload  upon  the  existing   law  enforcement   system  may  be 
anticipated   to   rise   generally  in   proportion   to   the   population  increase.      The   short- 
term   construction  period  may   be   accompanied   by  a  higher   frequency  of   misdemeanor 
occurrences.      This    impact   is   not    expected   to   pose  a   direct   significant    effect. 

No   long   term  Elko   County   law  enforcement   requirements  were   determined 
on  the   basis   of  Case  5-A  impacts. 


3-166 


Fire  Protection.   No  significant  impacts  to  fire  protection  services  were 
identified  as  a  result  of  Case  5-A  implementation.   The  Case  5-A  subdivision 
plans  call  for  provision  of  a  fire  truck  vehicle  and  housing/support  facility. 
The  plans  additionally  assume  that,  if  not  in  emergency  response,  the  equipment 
and  support  personnel  would  be  available  for  use  outside  the  subdivision 
community.   Some  upgrading  and/or  addition  to  the  presently  available  fire 
protection  equipment  (e.g.,  intermediate  sized  support  service  truck)  would 
probably  be  desirable  but  was  not  deemed  significant. 

The  impact  analysis  has  assumed  that  fire  prevention  and  control  at 
the  mine  operation  would  be  EXXON  provided  or  negotiated  with  EXXON  and 
contracted  party. 

Public  Utilities  and  Communications.   No  direct  impacts  of  adverse  significance 
were  identified  relative  to  project  and  population  demands  upon  electrical, 
gas,  telephone  or  general  communication  systems.   Firms  presently  or  potentially 
responsible  for  providing  such  system  services  indicated  that  existing  or 
planned  (directly  or  indirectly  induced)  capacities  would  be  adequate  to 
accommodate  the  projected  demand.   Upgrading  and/or  expansion  would  be  expected 
as  the  need  developed.   Direct  and  indirect  effects  of  the  additional  demand 
on  existing  capacity  are  difficult  to  accurately  quantify  but  have  been 
analyzed  as  possible  within  the  fiscal  impact  analysis. 

The  existing  and  proposed  power  supply  system  available  to  Mt. 
Wheeler  Power  Company  has  been  planned  independently  and  without  consideration 
of  the  proposed  action.  Mt.  Wheeler  Power,  in  its  environmental  impact  report 
has  stated  that  the  estimated  capacity  of  the  Mt.  Hope  action  will  not  exceed 
planned  power  supply  (Appendix  9-B) .   (Appendix  9-B  of  the  EIS  presents  details 
of  the  Environmental  Impact  Report  prepared  by  Mt.  Wheeler  Power  Company 
concerning  provision  of  electrical  services). 

Water  and  Wastewater.   Presently,  the  water  supply  and  distribution  system 
within  the  Town  of  Eureka  is  variable  in  capacity  and  quality.   Present 
capacity  is  considered  excellent  as  a  result  of  recent  well-developments. 
The  water  distribution  system,  presently  undergoing  partial  improvement,  is 
generally  adequate  although  peak  load  capabilities  are  limited  in  some  instances. 

3-167 


Under  Case  5-A  circumstances,  no  significant  adverse  impacts  were 
identified.   New  community  plans  call  for  the  development  and  provision  of 
major  water  supply/distribution  facilities  (e.g.,  wells  and  pump  station, 
storage,  distribution).   Impacts  associated  with  the  requirements  of  generated 
populations  and  Mt.  Hope  employees  not  living  in  the  subdivision  were  evaluated 
in  terms  of  fiscal  budget  expenditure.   The  data  and  results  are  incorporated 
into  the  analysis  of  Section  3.4.4.   In  summary,  no  impacts  of  significance 
were  identified  for  either  the  water  or  wastewater  systems.   Wastewater 
treatment  capacity  within  the  lagoon  system  was  determined  adequate  for  the 
probable  portion  of  residents  requiring  such  services. 

Solid  Waste.   No  impacts  of  significance  were  identified  relative  to  avail- 
ability or  adequacy  of  the  solid  waste  management  system  and  implementation 
of  Case  5-A.   Complete  review  of  fiscal  impact,  minor  in  extent,  is  presented 
in  Section  3.4.4. 

Community  Facilities.   Most,  if  not  all,  of  the  available  community  facilities 
in  the  vicinity  of  Eureka  Town  would  experience  increased  visitation  and/or 
use  if  the  proposed  action  subdivision  was  implemented.   Additional  social 
organizations  (e.g.,  churches,  social  clubs,  etc.)  may  be  expected  to 
develop  in  response  to  demand  although  the  existing  activities/facilities  may 
well  be  adequate  for  and  actually  benefit  from  increased  patronage. 

No  community  facilities  were  considered  to  be  significantly  impacted 
in  a  direct  manner  although  indirect  effects  (e.g.,  displeasure  with  crowding 
of  county  pool)  were  identified  in  variable  degrees. 

3.5  Alternatives 

Alternate  5-B,  the  Decentralized  Workforce,  assumes  that  the  Mt. 
Hope  operational  workforce  would  be  decentralized,  i.e.  no  subdivision  would 
be  developed  as  a  planned  project  component  of  EXXON.   The  alternative  also 
assumes  that  personnel  distribution  by  county  would  be  variable  from  that 
anticipated  by  the  proposed  action,  with  a  larger  percentage  of  people 
locating  in  Elko  County. 


3-168 


As  detailed  in  the  following  sections,  the  variable  distribution  of 
personnel  would  directly  impact  the  socioeconomic  conditions  of  housing, 
employment,  and  fiscal  management  in  a  different  manner  than  that  described 
under  the  proposed  action. 

3.5.1  Employment 

Employment   impact   under  the   alternative   Case   5-B  would   be    ident- 
ical  to   that   described   for   the   proposed   action,    Section  3.4.      Peak  construction 
employment  would  total   940  workers;    operational   employment  would  total    640 
persons.      Combined   peak   employment  would   reach  1,410  with  a   total   peak   popu- 
lation increase  of   2,642.      The   peak   of    construction  and   operational  workforce 
overlap  would  occur  during  the   seventh  quarter   of   the   start-up   period. 

3.5.2  Population  Impact 

3.5.2. 1      Summary 

Under  the  alternative   Case   5-B,   it   is   anticipated   that   a  higher 
percentage    of    population   residency  would   occur   in  the   Elko   City  and   Carlin 
areas.      In   the  Case  5-B  alternative,    67  percent   (355)    of    the   non-local   opera- 
tions   employees   are   expected   to   select  Eureka  as   residence;    33   percent   (versus 
two  percent   in  Case  5-A)    would   choose  Elko   or   Carlin  (170).      This   analysis  was 
based  on  commuting   distance.      Table   3-11   depicts   the   expected   distribution   of 
these  employees.      Figure  3-2   illustrates    the  peak  differential   in  population 
increase   created   by  implementation  of  Case   5-B  versus  Case  5-A. 

The  distribution  of    population  is,   as  under  the   conditions   of   Case 
5-A,    expected   to   significantly   impact   the   Town   of  Eureka.      Additionally,   the 
population  increases   in  the   Elko   jurisdictions    significantly  vary   the   financial 
impacts    to   each  jurisdiction  (Sections    3.4.4  and   3.5.4). 

Under  alternative   Case   5-B,    the   peak   project   population  period  (7th 
quarter)    would   result   in  an  increase    from  approximately   615   to   2,650   persons 
in  the   Eureka   Town  area.      Operational   population  increases  would   total    1,108 
versus   1,572   (Proposed   Action)    in  Eureka  and  537   versus   195  (Proposed  Action) 

3-169 


5x  r 


3 
o. 

O 

UJ 

Z 


to 

< 

CD 


CASE   5-A 

(Proposed  Action  -  Housing 

.  •*"  Exxon  -Assisted 
-^  Subdivision) 


CASE   5-B 

(  No  Exxon  -Assisted 
Subdivision) 


YEARS 


FIG.  3-2 

HISTORIC   AND   PROJECTED    POPULATION   GROWTH 
IN  EUREKA    COUNTY 


Initiate    project    line  arbitrarily  set  at    midsrole'to   demonstrate   effect 


in  Elko  (Table  3-11).   Carlin  would  undergo  a  population  increase  of  130  from 
its  1980  population  of  1,232,  a  change  of  10.5  percent.   The  population 
change  in  Carlin  would  reverse  the  negative  trend  from  1970  to  1980  (a  6.2 
percent  decline).    Population  increases  within  the  Elko  City  area  would 
generally  be  insignificant  in  terms  of  total  population  (an  addition  of  537 
persons  to  the  1981  population  of  9,693). 

3.5.2.2   Population  Calculations 

Tables  3-73  through  3-76  detail  the  specific  results  of  population 
dispersion  estimates  conducted  similarly  to  that  described  for  the  proposed 
action.   As  indicated  by  comparison  with  Table  3-15,  by  midpoint  Year  4  Eureka 
County  project  populations  would  be  reduced  by  one-third  (500  individuals)  as 
Elko  County  amenities  would  attract  employees  in  the  absence  of  a  subdivision. 
The  shift  effect  would  be  a  dramatic  change  for  Eureka  County  whereas  the 
project  contribution  in  percent  population  to  Elko  County  would  raise  only 
minimally  (from  0.4%  to  3.5%). 

3.5.3  Housing 

3.5.3.1   Summary 

Tables  3-19  through  3-23  detail  the  total  new  housing  demand  antici- 
pated for  alternative  Case  5-B  and  the  proposed  action.   Assumed  housing 
characteristics  are  outlined  in  Section  3.4.4  and  presented  in  Table  3-20. 
Table  3-7  7  details  the  total  new  housing  demand  by  quarterly  period  and 
presents  calculated  ad  valorem  taxes  generated. 

As  in  Case  5-A,  peak  housing  demand  would  occur  during  the  second 
year  of  project  start-up  (first  full  year,  year  one  being  two  quarters  only). 
Total  housing  demand  would  equal  614  units.   Under  the  alternative  Case  5-B 
scenario,  a  total  of  368  housing  units  would  be  added  to  the  Eureka  County 
stock.   Percent  distribution  of  type  would  be  affected  as  follows:   single 
family  units  -  39.7  to  33.4  percent;  multiple  family  units  -  25.1  to  27.9 
percent;  and,  mobile  home  units  -  35.2  to  38.7  percent.   Percent  change  of 
type  distribution  in  Elko  County  should  be  miniscule.   Total  addition  to  the 

3-171 


m 
o 
o 
hJ 

CO 
QJ 

"3 
3 

.H 
U 
X 

w 


cu 
c 
c 
o 

CO 

u 

CU 

Pm 


o 

0) 

o 

M 

Pm 


u 

<D 

4-1 

r-l 

CO 

& 

►, 

PQ 

Jm 

CU 

& 

o 

a 

c 

CO 

X 

4-1 

o 

c 

o 

•H 

4-1 

3 

,0 

•H 

M 

4-) 

4-1 

cj 

CO 

(1) 

•H 

•<~> 

Q 

o 

u 

r-l 

Cm 

CO 

c 

B 

o 

3 

•H 

3 

4J 

(1) 

CO 

T3 

CJ 

.O 

O 

^ 

J 

iH 

O 

S 

co 

r-». 

CD 

1 

3, 

m 

O 

X 

0) 

.H 

• 

.o 

■u 

CO 

X 

H 

o- 


c 


c 


QJ 
C 
C 

o 

1X1 
M 

cu 

Cw 

-o 

CU 
Cfi 

(-1 
cu 
a 

CO 


vD    vO  <■   <f    fl 

vO   \£>    O    — i    <f 

N   M   S    H 


\£>  \0  <f   <$   CO 

vO   \D   O   — i   -3" 
CM    N   S    H 


vf)  »C  <t   <f   en 

vO   *   O    H    >J 

N   N   S    H 


H    \C   C^    O    N 
\D  ^    CO    iC    f^ 


CM    00    O   ON    CM 

m  o  >£  u*i  H 
cm  ^h  m  <— • 


00    LTi    O    <■    LO 

>*    ON    LO    CM    O 

i— i   i— i   m    ■— i 


•*    ON   N    O    ^ 

<r  s  ('i  co  ffi 


N   N   CO    in    ON 

tn  <r  -h  on  s 

H     HCl 


N     ON    -J    <f     ON 

cn  o  oo  on  in 

— I  CM 


co  <d-  Is-  on  O 
f*  r-~  m  on  -3- 


N    h    CO   (M   \C 

co  cm  oo  i-H 


H    io<f    f»N    M 


^  >— i  co  vjo  m 

CO    Cs|    ON    N   \D 
—I  CO 


w  rt  ro  vo  ^ 

fl    CM    ON    CM    vO 

^M  CO 


•— i  — i  co  \o  in 

fl    CM   ON   N   vD 

—I  CO 


ONN^hO 
CM   r-l   00   O   vO 

-H  CO 


<r  in  co  m  — i 
cm  on  r*»  m  in 

CN 


CO   ON   00   On   00 
CM    00   "O    CO   -d" 
CM 


H    w    fl    ON    -J 
CM    00   vO    i-H   <f 
CM 


r~.  r*.  — *  o  *o 

i— i  \£>  in  oo  co 


co  o  co  <f  r^ 
<— i  m  co  co  cm 


ON   -^    vO    <-H    00 
CO    tN    ON   «— I 


>*f  -3-  i-i  r^.  r^ 

— I    i-H    CO 


»-t    CN    CM    vO    ■— < 


CO   CO    vO    H   CO 
CO    CM    ON    ^H 


00    CO    vO    —i   00 
CO    CM    ON   -h 


00    CO    nO    —i   00 
CO    CM    ON   -H 


r-»  —t  <r  <t  r*. 
en  cm  oo  — i 


NO     v£>     O     -H    -3" 

CM   CM   r-   -H 


no  -^  on  r^  co 

CM    "—>    vO    ^H 


m  cm  r^  -h  cm 

CM    ■"■ I    vO    ^h 


^CO-JOO 
h  h  in  h 


co  ^  -^  r^  r^ 

h  h  ro 


cm  on  r^  m  in 

CM 


H^    PI    ON 


O   -h   O   CM   O 


cO 

cu 

(-1 

< 

3                    CO 

CO 

CO 

5                 T3 

.    r-1 

13 

*  H 

"O 

.    r-H 

O            T)H 

r-i   o 

T3  "H 

rH      O 

T3 

iH 

^H     O 

H    CU     CJ     O 

3    O 

cu   cu   o 

3    O 

0)     0) 

O 

3    O 

i-t  -H  rc 

a  x 

rH  -h  rr 

a  -c 

H    -H 

X 

a  x 

co    bp  U     • 

a:   s   u  x 

o    o 

00  u     • 

o   o 

3 

Eft: 

• 

o   o 

Cm    CO 

CMS 

Pm   CO 

•H 

X 

Pm    CO 

CU   >H     CO 

o 

•H     CO 

i— 1 

•H     CO 

u  en   g 

J* 

CO    g 

)-i 

CO   S 

3 

rH 

CO 

w 

w 

U 

CO 


m 


CO 

E 

cu 

CO 

u 

0) 

■H 

H 

j-i 

CO 

r-l 

H 

(0 

W 

O 

O 

C_J 

I 


-I 


cu 

CJ 

^1 

3 
O 
CO 


3-172 


ej 

CO 

CO 
u 

CD 

> 


< 

X 

u 

Q> 

4J 

M 

CO 

& 

X 

CU 
V 
CO 
rH 

CL, 

X! 


C 

<u 
B 

o 

a 

B 
W 

-o 

CD 
4J 

CO 
Li 

0) 

c 

3 


o 

•H 

4-) 

3 

J3 

•H 

i-l 

J-> 

4-) 

CJ 

03 

0) 

•H 

•<-) 

o 

o 

1-1 
Pi 

•a 

c 

e 

o 

3 

•H 

C 

4-1 

<u 

CO 

T3 

a 

-O 

o 

>> 

►J 

rH 

O 

E 

<r 

r~- 

0) 

1 

a 

co 

o 

33 

CD 

iH 

• 

.a 

4-1 

CO 

s 

H 

c 


o- 


o- 


N  oo  r^  ^  N 
cn  oo  ^o  co  <* 

CN 


N   O    ON    0O   CO 

csi  on  vo  co  <t 

CM 


CM   C>   1^   vO   CO 
N   CO   O   CO   <f 
CN 


CN  -^-   ■<■   on  m 

N    CO   vO   -i   ~J 
CM 


CD 

c 
c 
o 

CO 

r-l 

CJ 
Ph 

-o 
CD 
en 

cu 

Q. 
CO 

•H 

Q 


oo  -d-  oo  <r  — < 

CN    -h    00    \£3    nO 

— <  CM 


00  <t    On    ON   i-H 

CN   i— I   00   m  v£> 

— <  CM 


vO   CO   On   0\   vO 

N  ON  Mm 

r-l  CN 


(N    H    O    N    Ji 
M    ON    N    ON   <f 


00    CO    v£5    CN    O 

-h  r>-  m  m  •>» 


— <  -*  -*  o  «* 

•H  -^-   co   on  CM 


•j-  m  cm  o  oo 

r-H    r-H    CO 


o  o  o  o  O 


«— i   vO  nO    ^h    ^ 
N  M   vO   m   •* 
CM 


ncon  m  s 

CM   00   ^O    CO    -^- 
CM 


•h  r^  n  o  no 

CM  00   vO   CO    ^3" 
CN 


-H   CO    CO    UO    -* 
CN  00   v£>   — i   <r 
CM 


oo  cm  m  -h  o 

CN   — i    00    vO   vD 
•H  CN 


CONN    *    O 

cm  -h  oo  in  so 

— I  CM 


m  — <  CO  \a0  -a- 
cn  o  Is*  cn  m 

-4  cm 


N  ON    ON   <f    CO 
N  CO    nO  ON   <f 


CON    "I    -ION 
HMAmfO 


r-l   -3-    CO    00    CO 
-H  ^J-    CO    00    Csl 


co  m  cn  on  oo 

-H     -H     CN 


o  o  o  o  o 


co  o  oo  oo  in 

— <  CM 


co  o  °o  oo  m 

-^  CN 


co  o  oo  so  m 

— I  CM 


CN  O   00  \£>   m 

r-l  CN 


<f  o  o  n  h 

co  m  -h  o  o 

n  h  on  n  \o 

N   Cfi  N   cn  1A 

n  on  n  n  in 

— 1            CN 

CM 

CM 

CO  CO    O   — i   I — 

r-H    l-H    CO 


O     CI     O     H     IN 
— I     — I    CO 


CO   CN    ON  i —    vO 
-H  CN 


CO    ■— I    00   CO    ■>£> 
— I  CN 


(N   ON    N   CO    •* 


—•  m  >*  o  co 


O   CM    — *    CO    — I 


o  o  o  o  o 


CD 

4 

C                      CO 

CO 

CO 

3                  T3 

•  H 

T3 

•    rH 

•o 

•    rH 

O          T3   H 

H    O 

T3   H 

rH      O 

T3 

rH 

rH      O 

H  a)  w  o 

3    O 

0)    0)     o 

3      O 

0)    cu 

O 

3     O 

iH    -H    X 

a  jr 

<H   -H    33 

ax: 

rH    -H 

X 

a  x 

J  ££!*• 

o   o 

0h    CO 

bO   t-i      • 

C    H    33 

o   o 

PU    CO 

c 

•H 

tftl 

• 

33 

o   o 

PU    CO 

CD    -H     CO 

o 

•H    CO 

rH 

•H     CO 

M  co  2 

^ 

CO  g 

r-l 

CO    2 

3 

rH 

CO 

W 

W 

CJ 

CM 


co 


3-173 


a) 
H 

co 

i— i 
w 

CO 


0) 
CJ 

3 

o 

CO 


a 

CO 

CO 
c_> 


<U 
3 

a 
o 
co 

S-i 
CU 

Pu 

tJ 
cu 

CO 

u 

V 

a 

CO 


T5 
CU 

4J 
CO 

CU 

3 

CU 

o 
c 

CO 
CU 

u 

•H 

I 

i~> 
v 
cu 


CO 

o 

•H 

4-1 

CO 

•H 

P 

CU   T3 

4J     CU 

CJ   T3 

CO    3 

Ui  iH 

CO    O 

-c   X 

c_>  w 

T>    CO 

3    CU 

CO    U 

•H 

co  33 

C 

O  H 

•H     CO 

4J     CJ 

3  3 

3 

o.'-n 

0    CU 

Pu    u 

u 

4->     O 

4-1 

O    14-1 

CJ 

CU   M 

cu 

t-1   M 

1-1 

o  o 

o 

M  s 

u 

Ph 

P-, 

4-1 

*-»     3 

E 

CO     CO 

3 

CO     4J 

C 

CJ     CO 

0) 

CU    3 

13 

U     o 

.O 

o  o 

^ 

tii  ^s 

H 

O 

S 

m 

r-- 

cu 

1 

a, 

en 

o 

33 

cu 

H 

• 

.O 

4-1 

CO 

g 

H 

o 

o 

r^ 

CO 

J*s 

<r 

0) 

rH 

X 

w 

a\ 

CO 

-3- 

H 

i-H 

CO 

o 

CO 

-bi 

vO 

4J 

CU 

ro 

o 

M 

* 

H 

3 

CT. 

W 

vO 

c 
o 

■H 

4J 

CO 
H 

3 

a. 
o 


I 

Li  *cj 
CU  CU 
3  4J 
CO 


3 


a  cu 

cu  M 

•H  33 

O 


CD- 


O 

co 

C7\ 


o 
en 


o 
o 


o 
o 

oo 


CO 
CN 


OM 
° 


° 
CO 


CU 

CO 

CO 

T3 

ON 

3 

H 

m 

O 

O 

CO 

3= 

J3 

CN 


oo  <r  •-!  oo  o 
x  m  n  <f  on 

(O     CN     CJ\     rH 


UO    O    UO    LTl 

cm  — i  m 


•— i  co  -j-  on  co 

•— t   -d"   CO    •— I   CN 


cm  oo  r^  <r  r^. 

h   vC  \C    H   vO 

CO    O    00    00    LO 

on 

CN    CO    vD    CO   <f 

CM    00    v£>    CO    «* 

—-I            CM 

CO 

CM 

CM 

m 

vD   \D   -J-   <t    CO 

^H    I— 1    CO    vD    LTl 

00    CO    vO    r-H    00 

O 

\D  *o  O  h  <f 

CO    CM    ON    CM    vO 

CO    CM    ON    -H 

CO 

CN   CN   S   H 

— 1              CO 

CN 

cu 

u 

< 

3               co 

CO 

CO 

3               "O 

•  H 

T3 

•     !-H 

T3 

•    rH 

O         -O  H 

H     O 

T3 

iH 

-H     O 

T3 

rH 

H     O 

H   cu   cu    o 

3   2 

0)     01 

O 

3     O 

CU     0) 

0 

3     O 

H   -H   33 

a  x 

rH    -H 

33 

ax: 

i-H    -H 

X 

a-3 

co    bfl  Si      • 
^    3    H   PS 

O    CJ 

Cf^ 

• 

o    o 

3 

EPS 

• 

O    cj 

P-i    C/2 

33 

Pu    C/2 

•H 

33 

Pn    U3 

CU   -H     CO 

O 

•H     CO 

iH 

•H     CO 

H  c/3  s 

M 

C/3    S 

M 

a>  2 

3 

rH 

CO 

w 

w 

U 

CN 


CO 


CO 
00 

00 


CM 

CO 


LTl 

r-. 


O 

H 


CO 

4-1 

•H 

Pi- 
co 

o 
>-l 

CU 

Cu 

UO 

o> 

• 
vO 
vO 


-I 


3-174 


cu 

CO 

CO 

CJ> 


cu 

g 

o 

M 

cu 
eu 

cu 

CO 

n 

a, 

CO 


CO 

3 
o 

•H 

4J 
CO 

iH 

3 

a 
o 

*o 

CU 
•U 
CO 

*-l 

CU 

a 

CU 

o 

X) 

c 

CO 


u 


w 


u-i 

o 

CD 

CU 

•H 

4J 

•H 

0 

0 

o 

u 

c 

o 

CD 

4J 

o 

4-1 

0) 

CJ 

iw 

CU 

M-l 

1-1 

w 

0 

»-l 

c 

M 

Pi 

o 

01 

•H 

4J 

B 

4-1 

S-i 

3 

CO 

« 

C 

H 

9 

CU 

3 

o- 

T3 

a 

JQ 

o 

>s 

^ 

Dm 

-^ 

H 

O 

s 

rx 

CU 

1 

ex 

CO 

0 

3= 

CU 

• 

J2 

4J 

CO 

s 

H 

o- 


o- 


o- 


00   00   vO 

m 

en  oo 

xt  co  oo 

a. 

xt    CO 

v£>  o  \o 

oo 

m  o 

^H     O     ^H 

r-. 

oo  o 

<t  \©  o 

00 

CM    vO 

s£>  o  r» 

00 

m  o 

ITl  <f   o> 

00 

ro  <t 

CO    — I   xt 

rx 

^H     ^H 

*   H   N 

00 

m  -h 

CO   N   O 

as 

rx  cs 

CM    O   C"> 

sO 

ON   O 

*>*o 

00 

<t  <t 

— I   CN 


CM  -h  ro 

o 

CM    — I 

CM    O    CM 

vO 

00  o 

so  —h  rx 

00 

<t  —i 

CM    CM 


m  ro  oo 

i— i 

sO   CO 

i-l  on  o 

UO 

sO   O 

so  m  cm 

00 

-*  m 

CM    CO 


Os    CO    CM 

CM 

— '    CO 

O  -3-  m 

px 

m  -j- 

so  m  ^* 

00 

<r  m 

CM    CO 


CM    CM 


CM    CM 


CM 


CM 


rx,  O  rx. 

O 

r^  O 

O   00   00 

00 

00    00 

sO  CO   Os 

rx 

CO    CO 

in  —<  vo 

o 

m  h 

O   CM    CM 

CM 

CM    CM 

sO   CM    00 

rx 

CO    CM 

co  m  oo 

O 

co  in 

O  sO  sO 

sO 

sO  vO 

so  r-x  co 

sO 

cm  rx 

O   00   00 

o 

O   00 

o  m  m 

o 

o  m 

^o  oo  sr 

sO 

CM    00 

oo  <t  cm 

00 

sO   <t 

as  o  o 

ON 

o>  O 

m  -h  rx 

m 

i-H     ^H 

cu 

4-1 

o 

O 

c 

c 

CO 

■d    H 

>> 

3 

4-1 

rH 

4-1                  4-1 

4-1 

0  '-» 

CJ 

CO 

O  ""s   o 

c 

H    ^H 

cu  H 

PQ 

H   H     CU 

9 

CO 

•t— j  co 

CO   i-l 

c 

co  i 

O     4-1 

>% 

>>   S    O 
■U    U    u 

o 

^  c 

S-i    o 

4-1 

<D    o 

Pi  H 

g 

SOP* 

CO 

U   Z 

3 

3   Z 

M 

3  w 

o 

O   x-/ 

QJ 

W 

c_> 

CJ) 

u 

3 

c"n 

<"-\ 

s~ \ 

w 

•—i 

CM 

CO 

o  m 

in  o 

o 

m  rx 

rx.    -H 

— 1    CO 

l">» 

in  xt 

oo  so 

CO    — i 

-H 

co  rx 

ON 

<t  rx. 

as 

Os 


4-1 

3 

9 
O 

o 

H 

W 


o 


os 


CTs 


00 


00 


—i    CM 

oo 

CM 


oo 


ON 

m 

CM 
00 


CM 


— h  m 

CM    00 

00 

~H    CO 

00   o 

*-<    C-4 

00 

00   CO 

r-  >«o 

CO     -H 

o 

»■*  t^. 

CM 


CO    CO 

O     fs. 

m 

00  o 

Os    OS 

^    CM 

o 

O    CN 

so  m 

CO     -H 

o 

o  r^ 

CM 


CO    CO 

fx    ~* 

CO 

ro  <t 

O   00 

O   CM 

CM 

ro  o 

so  m 

CO     r^ 

Os 

oo  rx 

» 

M 

■ft 

■ft 

o 

-H 

00 

O 

.— 1 

CM 

m  oo 

m  —i 

o 

O  Os 

-H     ^£> 

O  — i 

<* 

MO  rx 

m  m 

CO    -H 

00 

sO  \D 

M 

« 

M 

•» 

o 

-H 

oo 

O 

-H 

CM 

r^  r^ 

CM    I-x 

rx 

s©   CO 

CM  <t 

o  o 

m 

oo  m 

<t  m 

CO     -H 

rx 

xt   vO 

m 

•1 

M 

«t 

o 

■— ( 

00 

o 

-H 

CM 

OS   CM 

O  f- 

<r 

co  as 

CO    vD 

O    ON 

rx 

i— i  in 

CO    <t 

CO 

vO 

co  m 

M 

PI 

A 

•* 

o 

•— 1 

00 

o 

-H 

CM 

<t    CO 

rx  o 

-H 

CM   CO 

m  ^h 

ON   00 

Os 

xt    OS 

CM  <t 

CM 

m 

— <  xt 

M 

m 

A 

t* 

o 

■— ( 

00 

O 

-H 

CM 

OS   so 

<r  o 

oo 

"^  vO 

vO   i— i 

Os  vO 

o 

rx  rx. 

—l    CO 

CM 

m 

Os   CO 

Os 


xt    00 

OS   00 

in 

00    vO 

00    OS 

00   CO 

CM 

xt    CO 

o  —■ 

CM 

xt 

00    CM 

OS 


Os   CO 

m  <t 

CM 

\D  rx 

os  rx 

oo  —i 

xt 

CM    00 

Os 

CM 

CO 

sO 

Os 


<t  as 

m 

<t 


Os 


H 

0) 

4-) 

/~s 

CO 

CJ 

o 

CO 

e 

3 
CO 

CO 

g 

4-1 

o 

4-1 

iH 

4-1               *-> 

o 

2 

O 

cO  ^*> 

O  '"^    o 

o 

CU   iH 

X*' 

cu  H 
i-j   cO 

P3     rH 

H  H    CU 

25 

•!-)     CO 

CO 

cO   i-l 

x^ 

O     4J 

C 

O     4J 

frfi 

>s    S     O 

J-i    o 

•H 

»-i    o 

4-1      iJ      i-l 

O 

P-.  H 

i-l 

&4    H 

3    O 

3    O   PM 

M 

P 

3  Z 

3   Z 

rH 

CO 

O    s-' 

O  x^ 

W 

c_> 

CJ) 

CJ) 

CM 


co 


3-175 


CU 

co 

TO 

o 


<v 

c 

G 

o 

CO 

u 

<u 

CM 

T3 
CU 
03 

H 
cu 
a. 

CO 
•H 

o 


en 

e 
o 


3 

o- 
o 
(X 

-o 
cu 

4J 

TO 
U 
O 

c 

CO 

C 
TO 


w 

uh 

o 

CO 

cu 


E 

B 

o 

co 

/"\ 

c  *o 

o   cu 

3 

(0    3 

■U    -H 

a  aj 

4J 

cu   c 

o 

Mh     O 

0) 

14H     O 

•I-) 

W  w 

o 

1-1 

C     In 

Cu 

o   cu 

•H     4.) 

£ 

4->      (-1 

3 

TO     TO 

3 

H     3 

o 

3    O" 

-a 

a 

.o 

o    >, 

^ 

Cm  ,o 

fH 

o 

s 

v© 

1** 

cu 

1 

a 

cn 

o 

x 

cu 

fH 

• 

.© 

4-1 

TO 

S3 

H 

o- 


o- 


o- 


mom 

r-  o  r— 


CNl    CN 


cn  cn 


cn  cn 


cn  m 


—*    CN 


o  o  o 
r-»  \o  cn 
vo  oo  m 


in 

o 


o  o 
m  ^3- 
<■  o 

CN    —i 


CN    *X> 

oo 

CN 

O   v© 

O   »© 

vO 

O 

f"-  \© 

1*-  o 

r-^ 

r- 

■<t  o 

CN    i-l 


o 

-d- 

<f 

O 

<t 

•<»■ 

o 

—( 

i— i 

O 

*-H 

— i 

r>. 

i— i 

00 

r» 

m 

i-« 

** 

ft 

^ 

.—i 

fH 

CM 

f-i 

r>- 

CN 

On 

r^. 

^O 

CN 

as 

O 

On 

ON 

On 

O 

■x. 

<* 

O 

v© 

r^ 

>* 

CN    -H 


in  -h  \o 

m 

— i  — ' 

(5>  C   C\ 

on 

00  o 

v©  i—  r*. 

\© 

-3"    — < 

cn  cm 


CM 

— i  on 

CM 

m  — i 

(JS 

ON    00 

ON 

r^  on 

^O 

m  cn 

v© 

on  in 

cn  cn 


O    fH    -H 

O 

i— 1    fH 

ON   -h   O 

on 

ON    — i 

vO  m  CN 

vO 

oo  m 

cn  cm 


m  cn 

00 

m 

cn 

cn 

00    00 

v© 

00 

in 

00 

N©    CO 

O 

\o 

r^ 

m 

cn  cm 


o  on  cn 

o 

cn  cn 

00   CM   o 

00 

00    CM 

vO   N    ON 

v© 

in  cm 

cn  cm 


in  on  oo 

m 

cn  cn 

r-~  r^  -3- 

r-^ 

cm  r-» 

*    N   ^ 

^D 

<— i  r-» 

cn  -h 


o 

O 

O 

r— 

O 

© 

\© 

CN 

00 

O   \D 

n© 

o 

s£>   v© 

\©   O 

v© 

\© 

CN   O 

n©   — i 

r^ 

v© 

-4t   — i 

• 

O 

1 

O 

CU 

•a 

o 

s 

TO 

4J 

TO   H 

>, 

3 

fH 

4-J 

4-1 

O 

4-1 

TO 

O     4-1 

c 

H 

u 

m 

H    O 

o 

0) 

i-H 

cu 

o 

TO 

■fj 

TO 

>-, 

>%•'- 

co 

^ 

O 

4-1 

4-1 

W    o 

CU 

U 

o 

S 

C       IM 

TO 

u 

Cm 

H 

3   Cm 

M 

3 

o 

O 

cu 

W 

CO 

U 

u 

3 

,»"> 

s—* 

•— s 

w 

fH 

CN 

cn 

O  r^ 

r^ 

m 

O 

in 

O 

cn  r-^ 

—4    fH 

CM 

cn 

cn 

vO 

r^ 

vO  <}■ 

ON    >X> 

m 

in 

-H 

vO 

O 

cn  r*. 

n 

m 

n 

Wk 

0k 

•* 

o 

fH 

fH 

fH 

as 

CN 

fH 

fH 

CN 

O  00 

00 

oo 

00 

v£> 

o 

«4?r  v£> 

m  o 

m 

CN 

CM 

m 

CM 

cn  cn 

00   \D 

-* 

in 

fH 

SO 

o 

fH  r*. 

o 

fH 

fH 

^h 

as 

CM 

^ 

■"' 

CM 

o  cn 

cn 

o 

r^ 

r^. 

o 

o  o 

as  on 

00 

CN 

CN 

<* 

r^- 

O    CN 

r»-  m 

cn 

in 

fH 

\o 

ON 

O  r^ 

A 

A 

M 

n 

A 

^ 

o 

fH 

fH 

fH 

oo 

CN 

t-H 

fH 

CN 

o  cn 

cn 

o 

1 1 

fH 

o 

<r  <r 

cn  oo 

fH 

f— < 

CM 

cn 

CN 

vO  o 

r>»  m 

cn 

m 

i-H 

V© 

as 

00   Is" 

O  fH  fH  fH 


O  fH 


O  fH  fH  fH 


O  fH  <-H 


00  fH 


o  oo  oo 

O     ^     -H 

o 

as  as 

N   vO   O 

O    fH    fH 

r- 

-H  r^ 

vO  in  cm 

in  fH  vo 

oo 

r^  ^o 

00  •— i 

CM 


O  \0   s£> 

O  f^  r^ 

o 

cn  cn 

fH  <]■  in 

as  o  as 

CN 

r^  m 

vo  m  fH 

-4*  ^  in 

00 

in  so 

00 


00 


00 


CN 


O   v£> 

vO 

O   sO   \0 

O 

CN    CN 

m  m 

O 

oo  as  r-x 

r^ 

m  m 

in  <}■ 

O 

-*        m 

r^ 

cn  m 

cm  cn  m 

cn  o  cn 

o 

oo  cn 

as  fH  o 

s  co  in 

CN 

r-^  as 

o-  <r  as 

<r       m 

r^- 

fH     O- 

in  \o 

fH 

m  o 

m 

o 

vO  ^o 

cn  fH 

m 

vD   sO 

CM 

r>. 

<r  r^ 

<r  cn 

r^. 

«* 

m 

vO 

cr>  cn 

o 

O 

fH 

fH 

00 

o 

fH 

•— i 

CM 

r>>  as 

vO 

r>«  oo 

m 

o 

fH  rx 

r>-  as 

r-x 

in  cn 

as 

CN 

as  cn 

cn  —" 

in 

<t 

<t 

vO 

\D   CM 

» 

#> 

* 

n 

m 

m 

o 

o 

fH 

fH 

00 

o 

fH 

fH 

CN 

o  cn 

cn 

o  <r 

<f 

o 

rx  r^ 

cn  r~. 

as 

m  fH 

vO 

r^ 

CN    00 

cn 

cn 

<f 

-4f 

m 

<■ 

•i 

ft 

m 

•t 

n 

•t 

o 

o 

fH 

fH 

00 

o 

fH 

fH 

CN 

cm  r^ 

ON 

cn  cn 

m 

m 

ON    ON 

V© 

sO 

<* 

>* 

CN 

cn 

CM 

CN 

-* 

«* 

m 

CM 

A 

•s 

m 

M 

#» 

M 

O 

O 

fH 

fH 

00 

O 

fH 

fH 

CN 

B 


o 

/-\ 

cu 

^^    TO 

• 

o 

4-1 

^■N 

g 

3 

fH     O 

• 

TO 

TO  H 

1 

O. 

rH 

4-1 

4-1 

2     4J 

TO    /~N 

O     4-> 

o 

0 

^^  o 

CO       • 

H    O 

2 

0> 

rH 

cu 

fH 

>,e 

CU 

>-• 

•1—1 

TO 

C    -rp 

TO 

^•r-, 

0 

4-1 

•H     O 

4J 

•U     O 

4-1     O 

O 

i-l 

o 

fH     U 

o 

c  z 

3    *-> 

^ 

CM 

H 

U    CM 

H 

3  w 

3   CM 

fH 

TO 

O 

o 

Ed 

CO 

CO 

CO 

3-176 


0) 
3 
3 
0> 
> 

04 

X 
cO 
H 


u 

"J 
a. 
o 
>-i 
ex 

CI 
tO 

<u 
rx 
>n 

H 

•a 

c 

CO 

0) 

•§ 

3 
SB 

X 
3° 


CO 

3 

O 

X 

-a 

0) 

4-1 

CO 

M 

<D 

C 

CJ 

o 

*o 

s 

CO 

co 

c 

o 

1 — .. 

•H 

-H 

4-1 

CO 

0) 

f-i 

CO 

01 

CO 

ex  c_> 

o 

1-i 

4-1 

0) 

c 

C 

CO 

c 

4-1 

H 

o 

CJ 

CX 

CO 

0) 

ix 

•I-) 

CO 

01 

o 

CO 

ex 

s-l 

qj 

CX 

cj 

"3 

o 

01 

E 

(-1 

CO 

3 

CX 

^ 

3 

*««« 

OJ 

0) 

id 

a 

-a 

c 

CO 

XI 

•H 

•H 

>> 

s 

O 

H 

O 

s 

r*. 

aj 

1 

ex 

m 

o 

SB 

H 

• 

X 

4-1 

CO 

s 

H 

vo  m  oo 

h  oo  eg 

— i  <f  o 

c 

CO    H    IT| 

u*i  vO  ^ 

-H     — H     CM 

en 

— <    ~H 

o- 


o- 


o- 


r-*  m  on 

co  -h  m 


neon 
m  \©  on 


-H    <f     O 


no  m  oo 

— <  oo  CO 

— H  ^t  o 

oo  — i  m 

m  vo  o> 

^    ^H    CM 

in  ^  s 
oo  — i  m 


co  -^  co 
oo  -4  m 


OMTi-J 

r-»  o  <r 


sD    ^   ON 

r--  o  co 


ON    i— I   v© 
vO    On   CM 


oo  r>.  vo 

m  n  o 


O    sO    CM 
UO    ^O    On 


O   N    OJ 

m  ^o  o> 


Os  N 
in  vo  o> 


On  >0   ih 
«J  vO   ^ 


m  o  cm 

<f    nO    00 


00   »H    o 

co  m  r-. 


<}■    ON    ■— 1 

om  <f 

-*  m  on 

m  m  m 

00 

o>  co  en 
cm  co  m 


— i  m  o 


CM   CM 


OMn  m 
•h  N  ci 


Non 


»H    <f    On 


O  <f  on 


ON    (SI   N 


on  cm  r-~ 


oo  -^  m 


r-»-  on  co 


in  oo  O 


co  m  no 


CM    CM 


o  o  o 


B 

E 

*"d 

4J      O 

[X4 

3  PC 

0> 

B    OJ 

-~l 

4J   .H 

¥ 

IX    -H 
CO  -O 

•H 

a  o 

C/3. 

<:  s 

•H 

0) 

E 

E 

CO 

4-1 

c 

Pn 

c 

D3 

a> 

i 

o 

iH 

4-J 

.— i 

EP 

•H 

•H 

ex 

O 

0O 

<C 

s 

•H 

o 

E 

E 

CO 

4-1 

o 

[^ 

c 

PC 

OJ 

B 

o> 

rH 

4-J 

--( 

tf 

X 

•H 

a. 

0 

0O 

< 

s 

X 

0) 

a 
o 

x 

ex 


o  o  o 

vD  O^ 

i— i  v©  m 

•*  n  n 


o  o  o 
cm  vo  m 

«*    CM   CO 


o  o  o 

no  o  r^ 

-h  vo  m 

<r  CM  CO 


o  o  o 

HNst 

i— i  m  in 

<f    CM   CO 


o  o  o 
—<  o  in 

omst 

-3-    CM   CO 


o  o  o 

(M  s  m 

00  CO   CM 

CO  CM   CO 


o 

o 

O 

CO 

oc 

<T 

VO 

On) 

— i 

* 

•» 

m 

CO 

CN 

ro 

o 

<r 

O 

O 

<-o 

m 

sT 

* 

o 

00 

CO 

* 

Osl 

eN 

O 

O 

o 

O 

<r 

o> 

SO 

r- 

CO 

o  o  o 

co  co  co 

—I  co  oo 

r-  *■             * 

CM  -H     — I 


o  o  o 

O   nO   O 
<f    00   CM 


o  o  o 
co  <f  m 
m  co  <f 


o  m  in 
m  <f  <f 


co 


CO 

a.  o 

<  S 


o  o  o 

r>-  on  -h 

-^  in  m 

<r  cm  co 


o  o  o 

r^  ct>  in 

~*  m  m 

<f  cm  co 


o  o  o 

r«.  on  m 

h  in  m 

<r   CM  CO 


o  o  o 

On  csl  —* 

o  m  in 

<r  cm  co 


o  o  o 

ON  \0  — I 

o  m  in 

*  *  * 

<r  cm  co 


o  o  o 

ON  x>  — * 

o  in  in 

<r  cm  co 


o  o  o 

o  cm  r*- 

o  m  o- 

<r  cm  co 


o  o  o 

00  On  CO 

vO  CM  <-t 

CO  CM  CO 


O   O    O 
•— I    ON     \0 


CO 


Csl 


o  o  o 

m  vo  vo 

<r  cm  o 

CM  —4  CM 


o  o  o 
m  m  co 
m  On  co 


o  o  o 

NOO    O 

m  co  m 


o  o  o 
oo  <r  <r 


01 

--I 

• 

4-) 

0) 

EP 

U 

CO 

•H 

•H 

a 

O 

cyN 

<c 

S 

o  o  o 

O  CO   vO 

on  n  n 


o  o  o 

O  CO  no 

on  m  ^ 


o  o  o 

O    CO    n£> 

on  m  r-» 


o  o  o 

O    CO    CM 

ON   mN 


o  o  o 

CM    CO    CM 

co  m  n 


o  o  o 
co  <x>  m 
r-^  <r  \o 


o  o  o 
co  vo  in 

N  ^    iO 


o  o  o 
in  cm  n 
\o  <r  m 


o  o  o 
r^  <r  o 
m  co  m 


o  o  o 

~H     O     00 

<r  co  co 


o  o  o 

<j-  ON  CO 
CM    -H    CM 


o  o  o 
oo  oo  oo 


o  o  o 


OJ  .    OJ 

tH  4-1   iH 

C  CO  X 

•h  a.  o 

C/3  <    S 


0) 
•H 

xj 


CM 
CO 


Ss? 

CM 


0) 
rH 

3° 

•H 
CO 

CO 


3 

•H 
M 

4J 
CO 

•H 

-a 

HP 

•H 
CO 

3 
O 
PC 


3-177 


Elko   County   housing   stock  would   equal    less   than  3.3   percent   of    the   1980   7,667 
unit   stock.      Evaluating  the   urban   housing  stock  only  (3,649   of    7,667   units), 
the   additional   housing   demands    represented   by  the  decentralized  workforce 
case  would   equal  an  increase   of   less   than   seven   percent. 

Baseline  housing    requirements   for  Eureka   County  were   estimated    to 
equal   136  units   through   the   four-year  period  of   peak  load  (2.66  persons/unit). 
As   such,    total  Eureka  County   housing   demand  would   be   reached  in  the    fourth 
year  of    project    activity    to   a  total   of   504  housing  units  versus   680  in  the 
proposed  action  (376  subdivision  units,    304  non-subdivision  units). 

As   indicated  for  the   proposed   action,    the   effects   associated   with 
the   housing   demands    of   either   the   proposed  action  or  alternative  Case   5-B 
would  be   significant.      The   low  availability  of   housing   and   limited   number  of 
home  builders /mobile   home   dealers    in  Eureka  would   create   a  significant   housing 
shortfall,   requiring  the   temporary  reliance  upon  self-provided   housing 
(trailers,    campers,    mobile   homes).      All  available   rental   housing  would  be 
expected   to   be   absorbed   by  the   population  influx.      The   term  of   adverse   impact 
caused   by  implementation  of    the   alternative   Case  5-B  is   expected   to   be   con- 
siderably longer  than  that    experienced  under   the   condition   of   the   proposed 
action.      Two  and   one-half   years    or  more  (versus   1   to   1.5  years    in  the   proposed 
action)    may  be   required  before   the   housing  shortfall   might   be   ameliorated. 

Whereas   the  planned    development   of   a  housing  subdivision  (proposed 
action)    mitigates   a   portion   of   the  anticipated  housing  shortfall   caused   by 
project    implementation,   no   such  mitigation  action  has   been  assumed  under   the 
alternative  Case  5-B,   Decentralized  Workforce    scenario.      The   absence   of 
such   action  was   considered   significant,   directly  affecting   the   level   of 
adverse   impact   anticipated. 

3.5.3.2      Calculations 


(See    Section   3.4.3) 


3-178 


3. 5. A   Local  Government  and  Public  Finance 

3.5.4.1   Summary 

As   presented   in  Section  3.4.4,    implementation  of    the   alternative 
Case   5-B  or   the    proposed   action  would  significantly  affect   public  financing 
in  the   region,   both  beneficially  and   adversely. 

The  methods    of   fiscal  analysis   utilized  between   case  assessments 
were   identical.      Thus,    the   directly   traceable   project   dollar   revenues   and   per 
capita   expenditure   calculations   were   conducted  simultaneously   for   the 
proposed   action  and   alternative   Case   5-B.      Section  3.4.4  presents   a  detailed 
review  of    the  methodologies   utilized.      Summary   discussion  and  tabular   data 
concerning  the  fiscal    impacts   of    the   alternative   Case   5-B  are  presented    in 
the    following. 

Generated  Tax  Revenues.      A  total   of    approximately   114  million  dollars   would 
be   generated  in  the  first  50  years    of    project   activity  with  approximately   93 
million  dollars    being   directly  distributed   to   the  jurisdictions    of   origin. 
State  General   Fund   monies    equalling  approximately   21   million  dollars  would 
be   generated   and   available   for  distribution  (18.5  percent   of    total    revenue 
generated) . 

Project   generated   taxes  which  would  be   dispersed   to   the   seven 
jurisdictions   are   detailed   in  Table   3-78.      Earliest  maximum  revenues   (without 
State  General   Fund  monies)    from  the  project   tax   contribution  would  equal 
$2,386,400  at   year   2.5  with  the   consistent   revenue   level   of   $2,408,600   being 
achieved   during   the   eleventh  full  year  of    project   initiation. 

Comparison  with   revenue    distributions   in  the   proposed   action  case 
indicates    that   a   shift   of   monies    from  Eureka  jurisdictions    to   Elko   juris- 
dictions occurs    under  the   alternative  Case   5-B.      The   revenue  shift  would 
reduce   total   Eureka   project    revenue  monies   by   3   percent   (Eureka   County)  ,    1.8 
percent    (Eureka   School   District),   and    13   percent   (Eureka   Town).      The   shift    in 
revenues  distribution,   while   not    particularly   significant   in  Eureka  jurisdiction 
totals,   substantially  increases   Elko   jurisdictional   receipts   which  are  much 

3-179 


CN 

00 


s 
o 

•H 
4-> 
O 

•H 

CD 

•H 
U 

3 
•-> 


TJ 

CU 

4J 

3 

X> 

•H 

M 

4-1 

CO 

•H 

Q 

T3 

3 

CO 

4J 

U 

CU 

•1-5 

o 

M 

PUi 

CU 

-3 

4J 

r^CQ 

X>     1 

m 

"3 

CU     0) 

4-1     CO 

CO    CO 

u  u 

0)  w 

c 

cy   co 

c3   h 

cu 

CO    ^ 

CU     M 

3     O 

3   3 

4-1 

<D 

o 

>   TJ 

CU 

CU     0) 

T- > 

Pd     N 

o 

•H 

u 

X    H 

Ph 

CO      CO 

H    Li 

e. 

4-1 

a 

rH      3 

c 

CO     CU 

cu 

3     O 

T3 

3    cu 

X» 

3   Q 

>> 

<  ^ 

H 

O 

2 

00 

r>. 

0) 

I 

Ql, 

CO 

o 

X 

CU 

H 

• 

XI 

4-1 

CO 

S 

H 

/-~\ 

rH 

CO 

4-1 

o 

H 

^-^ 

3 

•H 

3 

rH 

3 

P 

o 

CO 

H 

U 

O 

t*. 

-^ 

4-1 

rH 

•H 

U 

U 

CO 

rH 

O 

o 

^ 

o 

rH 

X 

w 

O 

CO 

^ 

o 

4-1 

-* 

3 

rH 

3 

w 

O 

U 

J2 

0) 

3 

l-l 

O 

3 

H 

w 

CO 

JS 

rH 
O 

CU 

O 

L 

J3 

3 

O 

W 

X 

3 

4-1 

CU 

3 

l-l 

3 

3 

O 

W 

U 

Ll 

CO 

CU 

SH 

o 

o 

O 

O 

o 

o 

O 

O 

o 

O 

O 

o 

o 

O 

O 

LO 

o 

o 

c 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

o 

rn 

CN 

<r 

CO 

in 

m 

sC 

vO 

vO 

■o 

t£ 

^c 

x> 

\0 

\D 

i — i 

CN 

^D 

-a- 

CN) 

CN 

uo 

m 

un 

LH 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

i — i 

O 

X 

OJ 

CO 

X 

~H 

t— i 

^H 

—1 

O 

O 

O 

o 

O 

-cr 

en 

oo 

pH 

— ' 

CN 

CN 

CN 

CN 

<t 

<J- 

<r 

•<r 

<f 

i — i 

CN 

~J 

^J 

CN 

CN 

CN 

CN 

CM 

CN 

CN 

CN 

CN 

CN 

ooooooooooooooo 
ooooooooooooooo 

^Hf~N.u~)Cy\fj>CTiCT>C^C?^CTiCyvC^cy>CTNC7N 

cN<r-<f-*»*-*<r<t"<r<J'-cr-<f<i-<J" 


ooooooooooooooo 
ooooooooooooooo 

*X>XCNC7nOOOOOOOOOOO 
—<cncmcncncncs1cncn|cncn«ncncn 


ooooooooooooooo 
ooooooooooooooo 

rO-H>3-XXXXXXX»»XXX 
\OCOCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCNCN 


ooooooooooooooo 
ooooooooooooooo 

CO   uo    uO   cN    v*D   V40    \40  V40    ^40   \0    vD   *»D    ^O   \0    ^O 


vO 


'HNMCMNcMCMCs|Nc\J(NnN 


O    O 
O 


ooooooooooooo 
ooooooooooooo 


mXOCNCNCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCOCO 


ooooooooooooooo 
ooooooooooooooo 
ooooooooooooooo 

■h  co  -*  o  ^  crv  -- i  ■— i  .— i-HLOLOi-omm 

CN<fO\£)-^'-^-3-<3-^"vtCOcOCOcOCO 

HinOWHHHHHHNNNNN 


ooooooooooooooo 
moooooooooooooo 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 

crv-Hmoxxo^aNCTNC^TOxxxx 

xco— <x^r^.xxxxxxxxx 

Hconoo^a\^o>WffiOoooo 


CNl 


OJ 


Nn<riri\ONcooNOHNfo>fioin 

r-l    i-t   i-t    —I   _«   fH      I 
V40 


r-l 

CO 

cu 

>% 

9 

o 

«-l 

r-l 

CO 

CU 

>> 

CU 

3 

O 

oo 

CO 

rH 

CD 

cu 

X 

CO 

H 

^ 

4-1 

L 

0) 

a 

o 

u 

P-l 

e 

cu 

r-l 

o 

rH 

CO 

> 

-o 

< 

•  #1 

H 

pej 

u 

c_> 

w 

« 

H 

ec: 

c_> 

U 

Li 

O 

«4-l 

CU 

4-1 

CO 

4-J 

U5 

>% 

• 

X 

3 
O 

TJ 

■H 

CU 

4-1 

3 

CO 

•H 

•H 

CO 

Li 

4J 

CO 

CU 

> 

U 

4-1 

CO 

3 

cu 

CO 

3 

O 

3 

•H 

CU 

IH 

> 

•H 

CU 

3 

u 

bO 

• 

•H 

B 

cu 

CO 

CO 

T3 

cu 

3 

o 

H 

H 

3 

O 

C/5 

3 

O 

M 

•H 

• 

l 

W 

4-1 

-o 

vO 

u 

O 
3 

cu 

Ll 

i—i 

r-l 

CO 

CO 

3 

Li 

cu 

o 

CO 

.. 

o 

3 

CU 

at 

Q 

•H 

tH 

o 

Li 

3 
O 

-ll 

CNl 

C/l 

3-180 


lower   in  base  amount   than  Eureka  jurisdictions    (Table   3-76).      Elko   County 
revenues   increase    from  $7,100   to   $22,600  (318  percent    change),    Elko   School 
District   from   $10,300  to   $32,800  (318  percent   change),   Elko   City   from   $7,300 
to   $24,000  (328  percent    change)    and   Carlin   from  $1,500  to   $4,900  (326   percent 
change) . 

The   revenue   shift   corresponds   directly  to   locale   of    residency, 
which   under  the  Decentralized  Workforce   scenario  is  more   equally  distributed 
between  Eureka   and   Elko   Counties,    and   the  jurisdiction  in  which   levying   of 
personal  sales   and   residential   property  taxes   occurs. 

Expenditures   of  Affected  Jurisdictions.      Table   3-79  presents   the   forecasted 
project-related   expenditures    for  each   of   the  affected  jurisdictions   under   the 
conditions   of   alternative   Case  5-B.      The  analysis  of   expenditures  was   conducted 
similarly  to   that   for  the  proposed   action.      Specifically,   modified   population/ 
direct   cost    per   capita  rates   were   utilized  in  the   final  analysis    to   determine 
probable   expenditures. 

Stabilized  project-related   expenditures   among  the   seven  jurisdictions 
would   total   approximately   $1,896,000  with  resulting   budget   balances   being  a 
positive   $513,000  (total    revenues   equalling   $2,409,000).      However,    by  indi- 
vidual  jurisdiction,   substantial    variation  in  budget   balances  would   be   expected 
as   a   result    of   distribution   techniques.      The   Eureka  jurisdictions    (county, 
school,    town)   would   experience   a   positive   $1,105,000  budget   surplus   although 
by  item  the  Town  of    Eureka   budget  would  be   in  deficit  by  $119,000. 

As   with  the   proposed  action,   approximately   $500,000  would   be   gener- 
ated  annually  by  the  project   which   have   not   been  included   in  the   budgetary 
balance   calculations.      Similarly,   substantial  justification   for  the   distri- 
bution of    such  monies   from  the  General    State   Fund  would   appear   feasible   and 
appropriate    for   legislature   introduction. 

In   sharp   contrast    to   the   Eureka  jurisdiction  budget   surplus,    the 
Elko   jurisdictions   (Elko   County,    school,    city  and   Carlin)    would    experience 
total   budget   deficits   approximating    $592,000.      In   comparison,    the  projected 
Elko   deficits    under   the    proposed   action   scenario  would   approximate   $161,000 

3-181 


-"■ 1 


to 

3 

vO 

-o 

T* 

U 

> 

BJ 

id 

0) 

•o 

S~ 

c 

01 

•50 

-o 

3 


01 

H 
1 

-a 

T-l      ^"S 

r  o 

o 

•o  o 

D    to 

*-l    ^ 

to 

u 

—i  en 

u 

01     I 

U 

OS    in 

0 

id     01 

Id 

y   > 

X 

01  -* 

i-i  *j 

s 

0     to 

3 

l-i    c 

2    < 


.o 

CO 

uo 

00 

US 

a 

— 

SO     ON 

rs 

sO 

Os    O 

H 

-C 

CO   -» 

m 

in 

—■  oo 
r»  oo 

vo  o 


CM 

us 

rs 
cni 

■ 

"* 

vO 

CO 

r^ 

CO 

so 

o 

— ' 

n 

tn 

m 

CI 

~3 

rg 

— ' 

■o  rs 
sC  m 


s© 

sO 


sO  00 
r--  oo 
so  o 


f»> 

us 

e 

m 

<t 

rj 

— 

o  Os 

— •  o 

ON    -3 


sO  0> 
CM  O 
0>   -3 


mo  o> 
rs  O 
as  -3- 


o> 

s© 

os 

sO 

-3 

US 

tM 

CO 

cc 

X> 

£ 

3 

— I 

<f   o>  ^ 

00  oo  o 
\©   On   ro 


00   O   — * 

00    00    O 

o  ct\  n 


r  I 

m 

r^ 

CI 

-* 

Ci 

— 

-o  rs 

vD  rs 


rs 

ps  -* 

rs 

n 

US    tM 

r-l 

rs 

-d 

— 1 

o>  -3 

-3-    — l 


•* 

os 

o> 

CO 

^c 

OS 

us  os  -3 

OS   00    OS 
vO  Ov   (M 


— I   00 

O  r» 


—  — i   O 

—  <*   en 
us  -d  so 


OS 

-d 

1 

i-~  m 

— >  cm 

Os 

1 

v©  r-i 
so  rs 
rs 

rs 
rs 
r-i 

r-  -3 
in  tM 

os 

1 

r~-  CO 
— "   tsl 

^3 
OS 

1 

so  rs 
so  rs 
rl 

rs 
rs 
m 

1 

r»  -3 
m  <si 

<SI   —i 

m  -h 


r-  rs  <r 
— <  rsi  os 


OS   00 

Os 

rs  os 

O  r^ 

\o 

-3  — < 

r^  os 

(N| 

us  — 

sO  r-i 

so  to 


so  rs 

sO  rs 

rs 


so  rs  n 

sO 

rs         rs 


m  o 

-h   00    sD 


_ 

m 

sO 

-d 

rs 

t"S 

» 

— ' 

o  o 

*£>  sO 

m  oo 


ci  >» 

00  o 
m  o 


o 

N 

— A 

rs 

m 

CO' 

— ■ 

m  os  so 
o>  00  o 
in  —»  ^f 


tM  r-i   Os 
O  -»   m 

r^  in   -h 


sO  m  fl 
vO  rs   r-i 


^O  rs 
sO  rs 


v£>  rs 

sO  rs 


m 

0) 

to 

m 

>s 

01 

—i 

OJ 

01 

4J 

h 

o 

Id 

id 

c 

3 

o 

3 

g 

3 

3 

4J 

IB 

JZ 

4-1 

0) 

*- ' 

tn 

0 

—1 

0) 

01 

u 

■H 

0) 

01 

o 

iH 

OJ 

u 

TJ 

3 

<J 

to 

T3 

3 

u 

H 

■g 

3 

C 

C 

c 

C 

C 

e 

c 

C 

JL 

0J 
> 

to 

■a 

to 

01 

a 

0) 

> 

to 

5 

01 

a 

01 

> 

u 

X 

01 

0) 

X 

01 

<« 

01 

X 

0) 

u 

(d 

oi 

ca 

Id 

UJ 

£ 

ao 

Id 

LO 

M 

a 

3 

3 

Ui 

to 

Ul 

to 

tfl 

01 

0) 

u 

tn 

1-. 

>s 

3 

^d 

3 

id 

id 

tn 

o 

id 

01 

0) 

§ 

-d 

01 

01 

o 

■H 

0J 

01 

u 

-a 

3 

o 

£■ 

T3 

3 

u 

c 

0 

S 

C 

c 

o 

C 

C 

c 

to 

c_> 

0) 

01 

«0 

to 

01 

01 

19 

■a 

a. 

> 

13 

a. 

> 

— i 

o 

X 

0) 

o 

X 

01 

td 

03 

_«: 

UJ 

£ 

OD 

.* 

Id 

ad 

CO 

-H     01     01 


j*  uj  n:  oa 


01 

S3    3  o 

c   c  c 

0)     01  to 

O-    >  .H 

X     01  (0 

UJ    ai  CO 


— I    O-    30 

>n  O  in 

Os    -*    -» 


rs  vo 

rs 

r^ 

sO  — i 

in 

OS 

OS    <M 

rj 

•J- 

rg  vO 
Os  — < 
Os   CM 


tM 

rs  vO 

rs 

O   — l 

O    Csl 

1 

Csl   CM 

«sl 

-»  rs 

rs 

tM    00 

O  -< 

OS  rs 
-3-   CO 

O   — I 


O  in 

f~    tM 

O   CO 


-»    00 
—  r-i 


in  -3 

— "  o 
O   -3 


in  _ 
OS   — i 

-3   rs 


■C  u-i 

c  o 

3 

U-  0 


o  -    •- 


-i  u    u 


3 
OS 


o 
o 
-o 


01 

<d 
ij 

to 


OJ 

c 


a  > 

•H    to 

S3 

•H       ■ 

t«     01 

D.  AJ 
tO 
■Q    id    < 

c  co- 
al 

01   • 
i-l   si 
u  u 

0J 

—I  *-> 

0  3 
I-    o 

o.  j: 

oe 

a   3 

0  o 

Id  u 

Ud  si 
id 
•o 

v  a 

u  o 

to  -j 

U     id 

01  3 
C  ^3 
II    -J 

SO      »d 

id 
te    w> 

41    -d    i 
■r*    S 
C     01 


<i-i    in    S 


H 
O 
H 


tOtsl   | 
Id 

u  -o 
c   c 

O  u. 


i->     0) 

o    ao 

c  h 

3 
O    dO 


to  to 

0)  c 

U  o 

3  --I 

SO  i-l 


S3 

C  01 

3  —I 

U.  .C 


0  B 
J=  tfl 
to    01 

>s  " 

l-  V5 

■0  -J 

id  U3 
01 

too 


»d    -H        •     01 


3-182 


tO  0) 

Id  01 

01  -H 

c  c 

01  o 

u  e 


o  u 

c  u 

tt  Id 

SI  3 

c  o 

0)  to 


-  I      r-i  I 


annually.      The  budget  differentials   are  derived  from  the   large   expenditure 
variations   caused   by  the  increased   population  without   project   tax   base   support: 
under  the   proposed   action  total   expenditures   approximate   $186,000  versus 
$677,000  in  the   alternative  Case  5-B;    with  revenues   escalating   from   $25,000 
(proposed   action)    to   only  $85,000  under  the  alternative   Case  5-B. 

As   Table   3-79  further  indicates,   the  jurisdiction   of  Eureka   School 
District  would  be   expected   to  experience   significant   budget   surpluses 
throughout    project    life.      While   the   more    equal   distribution   of    population 
results   in  reduced   expenditures,    total    revenues   received   vary  little   from 
that    of   the   proposed   action  due   to   the  originating   source   location  (Eureka 
County)    of    these  generated   monies    (the  mine/process   plant   itself).      The  more 
consistent   and   extensive   budgetary  surpluses   are  contrary   to  the   fiscal 
impacts  expected  for  the  proposed   action  in  which   the   initial   Eureka   County 
budgets    progress    from  deficits    to   low  amount   surpluses   and  the  Eureka   School 
District   budget   shows    an  initial    budget   deficit   of    $165,000  (Table   3-25) 
versus   a   budget  deficit   of    $123,000  in  the   alternative  Case   5-A  scenario. 

As  described  for  the  proposed   action,    the  Town  of   Eureka  would   incur 
expenditures   in   excess    of   revenue  without   direct   county   support.      In  the 
case  of    alternative   5-B,    the  negative   balance  would  total   approximately   $119,000 
versus   the   proposed  action  balance   of   a  negative   $55,000.      Contrary   to  the 
proposed   action,   however,    the  early  balance   surpluses   of   Eureka   County 
($167,000  and   $269,000  in  years   4  and   5,    respectively)    under   the   alternative 
5-B  scenario  could  accommodate   the  supplemental   assistance   to  mitigate   the 
Eureka  Town   budget   deficit.      The   first   ten  years    of   project   impact  would 
result    in  a  net   County/Town  budget   surplus   of   approximately  $183,000  in  the 
alternative  Case  5-B  (versus   a   budget   deficit    of    1.4  million  dollars). 
Correspondingly,    however,    the  jurisdictions   in  Elko   County  would  experience   a 
10  year   total   budget   deficit    of   approximately   6.1   million  dollars   versus   that 
of    1.6  million  dollars    in  the   proposed   action  scenario. 

Fiscal    Impact   Summary  of   Results.      The   fiscal   analyses   conducted    to   assess 
the   impacts  of    implementing   the   alternative   5-B   Case,    Decentralized   Workforce, 
indicate   the    following,    based   on   the   plans    to   date   and  as  documented   in 
this   Technical   Report. 

3-183 


•  If   implemented,    the   alternative   5-B   scenario  would   result    in  the   genera- 
tion  of   tax  dollars   totalling  approximately  114.5  million  dollars   over 

a  50  year  period. 

•  Of   the   tax  monies  generated,    21.2  million  dollars   or  18.5  percent   of 
the   total  would   be   distributed  within  the   auspices    of   the   State  General 
Fund   program.      As  described   for   the   proposed   action,    the  jurisdictional 
revenues   are   understated   by   the  WRC  fiscal   impact   analysis   discussed   in 
this   Technical   Report   in  order  that   a   traceable   and   conservative   dollar 
estimates   can  be   evaluated.      As  documented  in  Appendix  A  of   this   Techni- 
cal  Report,   it   is   probable   that   at   least   the   18.5  percent   retained 
monies   (21.2  million  dollars)   would   be   distributed   to   the   seven  affected 
jurisdictions. 

•  The   stabilized   annual   total   jurisdictional   budget  would  approximate 
2.4  million  dollars    of   revenues   and   1.9   million  dollars    expenditures 
for  an  aggregate   budget   balance   surplus   of    $500,000.      The  jurisdictions 
of  Eureka  County  and  Eureka   School   District  would,   upon  stabilization, 
incur   budget   surpluses   of    $442,000  and   $802,000,    respectively.      The 

Town   of  Eureka  would,    however,   incur   a  deficit   budget   balance   of    $119,000 
annually.      Historically,    the  Town  of   Eureka  has   relied  upon  external 
fund   sources    to   offset   incurred   budget  deficits.      The  Eureka  County 
budget   surpluses   could,   as   in  the  past,    provide   one   source   of    the 
required   deficit   financing. 

•  The  jurisdictions   of    Elko   County,   Elko   School  District,   Elko   City   and 
the   Town   of  Carlin  would   experience   budget   balance   deficits    totalling 
in  the  aggregate   approximately  $592,000  on  an  annual   basis.      This 
amount   of   budget   deficit   represents   a  367   percent   increase   from  the 
budget   shortfalls    anticipated   in  the   proposed   action  ($161,000). 
Excepting  the   distribution   of   State   General   Fund   monies,    no   consistently 
mitigating  source  of    funds  was   identified   to   ameliorate   the   $592,000 
annual    budget   deficits. 

•  The   total   project   generated    tax   monies,    including   those   retained   by 
the  General   State   Fund,    would    exceed  jurisdictional    expenditures   by 

3-184 


approximately  1.1  million  dollars  annually  (versus  1.2  million  dollars 
in  the  proposed  action). 

3.5.4.2  Calculations 

Table   3-80  and   3-81   detail    the   source  of    revenues  generated 
annually  by   the   project.      Expenditures  were  calculated  utilizing  the  metho- 
dologies described   in  Section  3.4.4   (also   see  Tables   3-51,    3-57,    3-58,    3-59 
and   3-68). 

3.5.4.3  Budgetary   Impacts   of   the  Mt.   Hope   Project  -  Unadjusted 

Unadjusted   Budget   Forecast.      Aggregate   local   tax  revenues   generated    by 
directly   traceable   economic  activities   of    the  Mt.   Hope   project   in  each   of 
the   seven  jurisdictions,   are   compared   in  this   section  with  the   aggregate 
levels   of   expenditures   of   the   seven  jurisdictions  which  derive   from  a 
fixed   per  capita   expenditure   level   based  upon  most-recent-year   budget 
accounts   (Tables   3-33  and   3-39).      The   annual   totals   which   are   compared 
reflect   no   adjustments   for  a  declining   cost   level  per   person  which  most 
probably  would  be   encountered  with  a  rising  population  (see   text   under 
following  subtitle   "Adjusted   Budget  Forecast").      Total   revenues   shown  are 
the   sum  of   various   taxes  discussed  previously.      Capital   costs   are   not 
included  in  this    evaluation  of   current   operating  accounts. 

The   Start-Up  Period:      The  first    12  quarters   of    the   construction  period  and 
initial  phase  of   operations   of    the  mine/process   plant  are   summed   below. 
The   seven  jurisdictional    budget    totals   on   current   account   show  that   in  no 
budget   accounts   except  Eureka   County   ($880,000  revenues  versus   825,000 
expenditures)    would   project   revenues  meet   or   exceed   the   level   of   current 
expenditures.      The   total    revenue    shortfall   in  all  seven  budgets   (not 


3-185 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table   3-80     Net   Quarterly  Revenues   and   Expenditures   Generated   by  Project    as 
Year-End   Totals    ($000) 


Year  1  1/ 


Year  2 


Year  3 


Dispersed  Personnel  Case  5-C 


Eureka   County 

189 

Property  Revenue 

0 

Sales   Revenue 

189 

Expenditures  w/project 

1,523 

without 

928 

Net   Expenditures 

595 

Eureka   Schools 

121 

Property  Revenue 

0 

Sales  Revenue 

121 

Gross  Expenditures 

With  Project 

1,316 

Without 

1,072 

Net   Expenditures 

244 

832 


27 
805 

2,622 
1,106 
1,516 

543 

55 

487 


1,951 

1,249 

702 


1,315 

120 

1,195 

1,911 

1,150 

761 

1,004 
248 
756 


1,875 

1,292 

583 


1_/  Year  1  revenues  reflect  one-half  year  mine/mill  startup,  but  expendi- 
tures are  full-year,  with  and  without  mine/mill. 


3-186 


-I 


-a 

ai 
-o 
c 

3 
O 
ai 


0 
u 


0) 

••-1 

to 

O 

o 

u 

3 

a. 

C 

11 

e 

> 

3 

1) 

i> 

J3 

3 

>i 

H 

—4 

o 

r 

_* 

ao 

V 

l 

a. 

en 

o 

X 

V 

-* 

• 

-O 

fc 

<T) 

r 

H 

o  o  o  o  o 

O  O  O  o  o 

O    O    —    m    CM 

CM  oi  —  en  cm 

en  — ■  m 


o  o  o  o  o 

o  o  o  O  o 

O  O  ~>  m  cm 

N   S\  -h  n  N 

N   m  vO  J  O 

en  —  m 


o  o  o  o  o 

O  O  o  O  o 

O  O  — •  m  cm 

rvi  oi  -j  en  cm 

(VI    in   \D  -J  O 

m  — i  m 


o  o  o  o  o 

o  o  o  o  o 

O    O  ~*  in  CM 

CM    Ol   — .  en  (M 

N    1ft   iC  ^  O 

co  — i  m 


o 

o 

O 

a 

o 

o 

o 

o 

Ifl 

-J 

r*. 

m 

in 

in 

m 

m 

<r 

«* 

<r 

en 

r~- 

-* 

O 

o 

O 

O 

o 

o 

O 

-_> 

in 

CM 

r-. 

m 

in 

in 

en 

m 

~* 

— i 

sT 

en 

o  o  o 

o  W  00 
in  — < 

O  O 

o  o 

\0  oi 

o 
o 

rs 

o  o  o 

COO 
CO    £>  CM 

O   O   O 

o  o  o 

o  o  o 

o  ■*  o 

BINps 

- 

CM    — I 
CM     — 1 

O 

in  n  o> 

CI    CM 

«?  co  o 

CM            CM 

sr           -3 

o  o 

o  Oi 

in   -h 

O 

CO 

O  O 
O   O 
vO    Ol 

o 

o 

o  o  O 

o  o  o 

00   vO  tsl 

O  O  o 
o  o  o 

OvO'J 

o  o 
o  o- 

Oi  CM 

o 

o 

- 

CM    — 1 

CM     _c 

o 

csi   co  oi 
en   cm 

st   en  o 

CM            CM 

«» 

<T 

o  o  o  o 

o  o  o  o 

in  m  n  in 

in  in  en  in 

-3  -h  ^  en 


O  O  O  o 

O  O  O  o 

in  cm  rs  in 

m  in  en  in 

<r  —  -3  en 


o  o  O 
o  o>  CO 
m  — < 

o  o 
o  O 

iO    C7> 

O 

o 

rs 

o  o  o 

O   O  o 

00    vO   N 

o  o  o 

o  o  o 
O  id  <r 

o  o 

o  -* 
en  cm 

O 

o 

— 

CM    — < 
CM    — 

O 

n  n  oi 
en  cm 

-3  en  o 

CM             CM 

>» 

«* 

COO 
O  en  ao 
in  — i 

O  O 
O  o 
iO  Oi 

O 

o 

rs 

O  O  O 

O  o  o 

00   iO   CM 

o 

O 

o 

O  o 
o  o 
in  -* 

o  o  O 

o  -»  o 

ffi    N    N 

- 

CM    — I 
CM    — « 

O 

n  n  o\ 
en  cm 

-3 
CM 

en  o 

CM 

-I        -3 

o  o  o  o  o 

o  o  o  o 

o  o  o 

o  o 

o 

o  o  o 

O 

O  O 

o  o  o 

o  o  o  o  o 

o  o  o  o 

O  0>  00 

o  o 

o 

coo 

O 

o  o 

o  <*•  o 

O   O   —   in   CM 

in  cm  r»  m 

m  —i 

\0    Ol 

r» 

00    iO    CM 

O 

vO  -* 

31    CM    N 

N  oi  —  n  cm 

in  in  m  in 

~* 

CM    —1 

o 

cm  en  o> 

-* 

en  o 

-3           -3- 

CM   in    iO    <T    O 

-3  — <  -3  <o 

CM    — < 

-^ 

m  cm 

CM 

CM 

en  — t  m 

r»  -3 

O  O  o  o  o 
o  o  o  o  o 

O  O  Oi   m  o 
CM   Ol    O    vO    — < 

cm  m  ~3  cm  <r 
en  — .  •* 


O  O  o  o  o 

O  O  O  O  o 

O  O  en  — i  en 

CM    Ol    O  iC  — I 

cm  in  -3  cm  <r 

en  —i  ~r 


O  O  O  o  o 

O  O  O  O  o 

O  O  CJi  — i  en 

CM   Ol    O  iO  — I 

cm  in  s)-  cm  -3 

en  — .  -3 


O  O  O  O  o 

o  o  o  o  o 

O  O  Oi  — <  en 

CM  Oi  O  \D   — i 

CM  m  ■*  CM   vT 

en  — i   -3 


O  O   O   O  O 

o  o  o  o  o 

O  O   — i  — •  en 

CM  oi   O  uo  — I 

cm  m  en  cm  -3 

en  — •  ~3 


O  o  O  o  O 

O  O   O   o   O 

O   O   — '   — i   en 

(Si    Ol    O    lO    — < 

CM  in  en  eM   -3 
en  — i  ~3 


O  o  o  o  o 

o  o  o  O  o 

O  O  — «  00  r~ 

CM    Ol    CM  <T  — 

cm  in  oi  en  r-. 

-H  _i  -3 


O  O   O  O 

O   C    O  O 

in  cm   O  en 

m  m  cm  oo 

-3-  — ■   O  r- 

r»  en 


O  O  o  o 

o  o  o  o 

in  cm  O  en 

m  m  cm  oo 

-3  — i  O  r-» 

r»  <n 


o  o  o  o 
o  o  o  o 
in  cm  O  en 

in  in  cm  oo 

>3  —  O  r» 

r»  en 


O  O  O  O 

O  O  O  O 

in  <si  O  en 

in  in  cm  oo 

-3-  — i  O  r» 


O  O  O  O 
O  O  O  O 
m  cm  Oi  en 

m  m  oi  oo 

-31   — <   r»  r» 
ic  en 


O  O   O  O 

o  o  o  o 

in  cm  oi  en 

in  m  oi  oo 

-3   — •  r>»  r- 
\D  en 


O  O  o  o 

O  O   O  O 

~3   e-J   iO  vT 

vT  in   in  >3 

~»   — ■  Oi  O 

en  <t 


o  o  o 

O  o 

o 

o  o  O 

O 

o  o 

o  o  o 

O  Oi   00 

o  o 

o 

o  o  o 

o 

o  o 

o  <r  o 

<T   —< 

i£)   Oi 

p^ 

00  iO  ni 

O 

vO  -3 

Oi  CM  r^ 

cm  — '         — '         en  cm 


o  O  o 

O  Oi  ao 
-3    "H 

o  o 

o  o 

vO   oi 

o 
o 

o  o  O 

O   O   O 
00    i©    CM 

O 
O 
O 

o  o 

o  o 

iO  <3 

O  O  O 

O  -»  o 

Oi  CM  r. 

-• 

(M    — « 

CM    — < 

O 

CM  en  Oi 

en  cm 

CM 

en  o 

CM 

>3         -3- 

O  O  o 

O   Oi    00 
-3   — 1 

O  o 
o  o 

sD    Ol 

O 
O 

O   O   O 

o  o  o 

00  i£>   CM 

O 

o 
o 

o  o 
o  o 

iO   -3 

o  o  o 

O  -3  O 
0>  Mrs 

— 

CM    —> 
CM    — 1 

O 

cm  en  oi 
en  CM 

-3 
CM 

en  o 

CM 

-3           -3- 

O  o  o 

O   Oi   00 
-3   — 

o  o 

o  o 

iO   Oi 

O 

o 

o  o  o 

o  o  o 

00    iO    CM 

O 
O 

o 

O   O 

o  o 

■O   <T 

o  o  o 

O  ~3   O 

0<NS 

- 

CM    — . 

CM   — < 

O 

cm  en  oi 

en  cm 

CM 

en  o 

CM 

-3           ~3 

4)     CO 


H 
>i  u 

U     (J 

u  «_• 
01 


II     C8 


Cu     01     O 


u  (TJ 

C  >H 

3  u 

0  a 

<J  D 

T3      O 

IT)  -r*     (D 

Ji  CD     l-i 

01  V      V 
l-i  OS    Cu 


X  H 

cu   ai 

cu         U 


(0    i-l 


CO    (/} 


O  O  o 

O   Oi   00 
-3   — 


O  o  o 
O   Ol   00 


o  O  o 

O   Oi   00 

ao  — i 


u    o    g 


o  o 

o  o 

iO   Oi 

o 
o 

o  o  o 
o  o  o 

00    iO    CM 

O 
O 
O 

o  o 

o  o 

i£>   <3 

o  o  o 

O   <3   O 
Oi  CM  r~ 

U 
(0 
01 
Si 

CM    —1 

CM   -* 

o 

cm  en  oi 
en  cm 

-3- 
CM 

en  o 

CM 

~3          -3 

CO         O 
O    O  O 

vO   Oi         r» 


O   O   o 
O   O   O 

00    vO    CM 


O   O  O 

o  o  o 

O    vOit 


o  o  o 

O    -3    O 
Old's 


o  o 

o  o 

cm   in 


O 

o 


cm  en  oi 
en  cm 


O  O  o 
O   O   O 


O  O  O 
O  O  O 
Oi   in  ^3 


O  O  O 

0  -3  o 

01  CM    IS 


oi   to 


eo  a. 

*s  3 

at  oj  c/] 

S     c  s_. 


Qi-<  H     >l  P"-*  "H  >i^ 


a.  H 
o 

U     9) 

Cu     01 
i— I 

—I     CO 


c 

to     OJ  c 

TJ  O 

0)  <h  a 

j^    m  u 

Ol     0)  D 

id  as  cu 
3 
U 


cfl 
S  (O 


01     01 

c    c 


•H      (0 


CO  9> 

J*  c 

0)  -H 

ti  £ 

3 

UJ 


^3  H 

C  a! 

O  U 

ui  c_> 

Ui  S-- 

OJ 


u 

01 

el 

8. 

X 

(fl 

V     CO 

a.  H 

H 

O-r- 

o 

o 

O 

u. 

tn 

u 

a) 

U,      0) 

Cu 

0) 

Cu 

0) 

Cu     OJ 

i—l 

— 1 

n) 

i-< 

CO 

-H      CO 

m 

T) 

to 

T) 

C/J 

<0   to 

f-i 

•-< 

—1 

P 

•H 

0 

IJ 

n 

u> 

^3 

iJ    — 1 

5 

c 

>l 

C 

o 

C     (TJ 

01 

c 

u 

OJ 

S 

H 

Oi    C 

u 

-n 

o 

•H 

-o 

o 

T3     0 

1/5 

•w 

U) 

o 

— 1 

oo 

C 

T-l         0) 

CD 

hi 

tfl 

u 

•H 

<n    u 

O 

0) 

01 

o 

CD 

V 

-H 

01     11 

J^ 

cc 

Cu 

-^ 

QJ 

Cu 

Ul 

as  cu 

— 1 

■H 

Cfl 

UJ 

UJ 

O 

3-187 


be 

30 

-o 


OJ 


V 

0 


CO 

> 


-a 
< 


-I 


adjusted   to   reflect   economies   of    scale,   one-item  budgets,    etc.)    combined, 
annually  would   be   forecasted   as   follows    1/ : 

Year    1  Year   2  Year   3  Year  4 

Expenditures  $      502  $   4,803  $   4,220  $   2,766 

Revenues  310  1,401  2,386  1,781 

(Deficit)  (192)  (3,402)  (1,834)  (985) 

The  Long  Term  Period:      (Year   5  -  Year    15):      The   stabilized  populations   of    the 
longer   term  would   produce  fixed   tax  revenues   derived   from  property  and  sales 
taxes.      However,   operations   of    the   corporation  would   continue   to   produce 
variable   tax  revenues   resulting  from  annual  and   periodic   changes   in  the   levels 
of   expenditure  on  supplies   and   equipment   (State   sales   tax),   a   general   rise   in 
the   level   of    property  asset   valuations,   and  in  net   proceeds  valuations   of 
mine/process   plant   output   (ad   valorem  property   tax). 

Because   of   the   disposition  of   the  variable  tax  revenues   collected 
from  mine/process   plant   operations,    only  two  of    the  seven  local  jurisdictional 
budgets   would   be  influenced   by  incremental   changes   in  tax  revenues.      These 
jurisdictions  would   be  Eureka   County   and  Eureka   School  District. 

Table   3-82  shows   that   the   accounts   which  sustain  incrementally 
higher   revenues  due   to  mine/process   plant   operations  would  begin  a   reduction 
of   the    budgetary   shortfalls   during  this   period.      The   following  summarizes 
Table   3-82.    1/ 


1/      These   figures  do   not    include    total    revenues   and   expenditures   of    the 
related   local   jurisdictional    budgets. 

3-188 


M 

CO 

01 

>l 

u 

CO 

01 

>H 

P 

CO 

0) 

JH 

t-i 

CO 

qj 

>H 

(-1 

CO 

QJ 

(X 

*-l 

CO 

QJ 

>H 

/""N 

W 

o 

CO 

o 

QJ 

o 

>H 

</> 

\s 

•X) 

M 

0> 

CO 

4-J 

0) 

03 

>H 

3 

1~3 

"O 

CO 

1^ 

C 

CO 

C3 

OJ 

#* 

in 

i-H 

! 

M 

in 

CO 
OJ 

t-i 

>H 

co 

0) 

>< 

CO 

•  • 

QJ 

CO 

>> 

OJ 

o 

c 

(0 

3 

4-1 

pa 

a 

OJ 

4J 

1-1 

0) 

o 

bO 

M 

T3 

Pm 

3 

B 

3 

H 

C 

CO 

QJ 

3 

"3 

C 

4=> 

C 

>> 

< 

o 

S 

CM 
00 

01 

1 

o. 

m 

o 

X 

QJ 
H 

• 

43 

4J 

CO 

s 

H 

rn 


CTn 


oo 


^D 


oo  m 

CO   O 

CM   O 

en  r-- 

CO   vO 

<t  r^ 

m  r^ 

vO   CM 

CT\   CM 

CM 

CM    »H 

CO  \D 

cm  m 

CO 

O   00 

1—4     i—l 

«-H 

i-H 

CO 

•"* 

0) 

C 

c 
o 
co 

OJ 

Dm 

CD 

CO 

(-1 

QJ 
Cu 
CO 


oo  m 

CO   O 

CM   O 

co  r-^ 

CO    v£> 

<r  r^ 

in  r--. 

vD   CM 

<^  CM 

CM 

CM    — I 

CO   vO 

cm  in 

co 

O   00 

i— 1     r—i 

i—4 

-H 

CO 

-H 

oo  m 

CO   O 

CM   O 

co  r^ 

CO   vD 

st  r-^ 

m  r^ 

v£>   CM 

<3>  CM 

CM 

CM    — I 

CO  >x> 

cm  m 

CO 

o  oo 

1—4    — 1 

-—4 

-^ 

CO 

i—i 

O  m 

co  o 

CM   O 

co  r^ 

CO  vO 

<r  r*. 

m  i — 

m  cm 

O   CM 

CM 

CM    —I 

CO   v£) 

cm  in 

co 

o  oo 

•— 1    -H 

i—l 

— < 

CO 

i—4 

oo  m 

o\  O 

CM   o 

co  r-~ 

CO    \£> 

<r  r^ 

m  i>. 

r-»  cm 

— <    CM 

CM 

CM    i-H 

CO   vO 

cm  m 

co 

CT\   00 

r— 1     —4 

i—l 

~H 

CO 

i—i 

oo  m 

a*  o 

CM   O 

co  i>» 

CO  vO 

-tf  r^ 

m  r^. 

r-s.  cm 

—4   CM 

CM 

CM    -^ 

CO  vO 

cm  m 

CO 

CTi   00 

i-H     —- 1 

i—4 

-H 

CO 

i— i 

oo  m 

o>  o 

CM   O 

CO    (^ 

CO  vD 

<f  r^ 

m  r^ 

r-.  cm 

H   CM 

CM 

CM    -H 

CO   v£> 

cm  m 

CO 

a^  oo 

-H    r—l 

-H 

-H 

CO 

-H 

oo  m 

<^  o 

CM   O 

CO   1^ 

CO  SO 

sr  r^ 

m  r^. 

r-~  cm 

i—l    CM 

CM 

CM    -H 

CO  ^o 

cm  m 

CO 

cr>  oo 

-H     r-1 

i— I 

i-H 

CO 

i—4 

oo  m 

&■>  O 

CM   O 

co  r^. 

CO  vO 

<*  r^ 

in  r^ 

r-  CM 

*-*   CM 

CM 

CM    — H 

CO  v£> 

cm  m 

CO 

CT>   00 

i—i   i—l 

i—l 

—4 

CO 

i—i 

oo  m 

o>  o 

CM  O 

co  r^ 

CO  \£5 

-*  r^ 

m  r^ 

l-~   CM 

•H   CM 

CM 

CM    — i 

CO  o 

cm  m 

co 

C?\   00 

i—l    i-H 

i—4 

-H 

CO 

1— 1 

o  m 

O  O 

<~*  o 

CM   O. 

CM  \0 

<r  r» 

in  r-^ 

00   CM 

v£>  CM 

CM 

CM   -H 

CO  vO 

cm  m 

co 

00   00 

00    —4 

i — I 

-H 

CO 

i—i 

*U  -u 

u 

4J 

4-1 

4-1 

QJ    oj 

QJ 

QJ 

OJ 

0) 

co  2 

z 

Z 

z 

z 

> 

oi  s: 

<*-/ 

>^^ 

v~-> 

>-• 

43 

4= 

43 

4= 

4= 

43 

oi  w 

■u 

4-1 

4-1 

4-1 

4-1 

4-1 

*-^  T-i 

•H 

•H 

•H 

•H 

•H 

•H 

„  S 

S 

S 

S 

s 

:s 

S 

j= 

43 

43 

43 

4T 

J= 

43 

4-)     CO 

CO 

U 

CO 

W 

CO 

4J 

CO 

4-J 

CO 

4J 

CO 

4J     CO 

>i-H    CJ 

H 

•H 

0) 

«H 

QJ 

•H 

01 

•H 

QJ 

■rl 

QJ 

•H     OJ 

4J    3     U 

O 

2= 

u 

S 

Vj 

S 

1-1 

CO 

3 

(-4 

s 

M 

S    M 

6         3 

o 

3 

c 

3 

t^ 

3 

iH 

3 

3 

c 

3 

3    C    4J 

£. 

C 

4-) 

5 

C 

4J 

4-1 

c 

4-J 

O 

C 

4-1 

c 

4-1 

3 

C     4-1 

On  j 
O     CO  T3 

O 

•H 

•H 

o 

■H 

•H 

3 

•H 

•H 

O 

•H 

•H 

>. 

•H 

•H 

O 

■H   iH 

CO 

CO 

•O 

H 

CO 

X) 

3 

CO 

T3 

4= 

CO 

T3 

4-1 

CO 

Ti 

E-4 

CO   T3 

O    C 

O 

C 

rj 

c 

O 

e> 

C 

O 

CJ 

C 

•H 

O 

c 

O    C 

CO             QJ 

CO 

5> 

CO 

g. 

u 

OJ 

cn 

QJ 

CJ 

QJ 

C 

QJ 

i!  w   a 

^ 

4-) 

cx 

^*5 

4-J 

4-1 

a, 

4-1 

a 

4-1 

a, 

•H 

4-1     EX 

QJ     QJ    X 

QJ 

01 

X 

QJ 

OJ 

X 

o 

QJ 

X 

o 

0> 

X 

o 

QJ 

X 

r-l 

QJ     X 

U  Z   W 

U 

iz 

w 

h 

z 

w 

M 

SB 

w 

4^ 

z 

Ed 

4«! 

Z 

Ed 

U 

Z   Ed 

3 

3 

3 

i-t 

H 

rH 

CO 

Ed 

W 

W 

W 

Ed 

Ed 

u 

3-189 


Year  4 

Year   5 

Year   10 

Year    15 

Eureka  County 

Expend. 

$      880 

$      978 

$     978 

$1 

,068 

Revenues 

825 

825 

825 

825 

Eureka   Schools 

Expend. 

1,120 

1,120 

1,120 

1 

,120 

Revenues 

860 

1,119 

1,119 

1, 

.119 

Eureka   Town 

Expe  nd . 

120 

120 

120 

120 

Revenues 

1 

2 

2 

2 

Elko   County 

Expend. 

117 

117 

117 

117 

Revenues 

22 

23 

23 

23 

Elko   Schools 

Expend. 

366 

366 

366 

366 

Revenues 

32 

33 

33 

33 

Elko   Town 

Expend. 

157 

157 

157 

157 

Revenues 

24 

24 

24 

24 

Carlin 

Expend. 

37 

37 

37 

37 

Revenues 

5 

5 

5 

5 

Eureka   County   remains    the   only  local   budget   during   the   forecast 
period  (Case   5-B)    to   receive  a   budgetary  surplus    from  net    project-related 
activities.      The  Eureka   School  District    budget   is   the   only  other  variable- 
revenue    budget,   and  succeeds   in   reducing  the   project-related   deficit    from 
$260,000  in  Year  4   to   $243,000  by  Year   15.      All  other  budgets   remain  in 
shortfall    during  the   period. 

3-190 


It   is   notable    that   the   comparison  between  Case   5 -A  and  Case   5-B 
shows   an  improvement    for  Case   5-B  in  achieving  the   surplus   on   current   account 
for  the  Eureka  County  budget,    and   in  a  substantially  reduced   shortfall  in  the 
Eureka   School   District   budget. 

On  overall   aggregate  account,    the  seven  budgets   combined  produce 
expenditures  during    1998   amounting  to   $2,985,000   for  Case   5-B. 

The   Period  of  Year    15-50:    In   the  extended  forecast   for  the  period  of   year   15 
through   year  50,    there  would   be  no  betterment    of   the  net   project-related 
accounts   in  any  of    the   seven  jurisdictional   budgets.      A  slight  worsening   of 
the   deficit   is    forecasted   for   the   variable-revenue   accounts   of  Eureka  County 
and  Eureka   School  District.      This  would   derive   from  a  decline  of    $550,000 
annually  in  mine/process   plant   expenditures   on  supplies   and   equipment   during 
the   period,    from  $1,650,000  to   $1,100,000  annually,   and  an  anticipated   minor 
decline  in  net   proceeds   values   of  market   production.      The  first  affects   the 
level   of   sales   tax  revenues   and   the   second   the   value   of   ad   valorem  property 
tax   revenues.      (See  Table   3-31). 

These   changes   are   shown  on  Table   3-83,    for  the  variable-revenue 
accounts   which  reflect   such   changes.      The   amounts   shown  are  in  5-year  intervals, 
stated   as   annual   average    revenues. 

3. A. A. 5     Budgetary   Impacts   of   the  Mt.    Hope  Project   -  Adjusted 

Adjusted  Budget  Forecasts.      As   previously  described   in  detail,   an  analytical 
survey  of    forecasted   expenditures  was   conducted   to  assess   the   potential   for, 
and   likelihood  of,    economy  of    scale  and   real   time   budgeting  within  Eureka 
County  and   School  District   as   a   result   of    eventual   proposed  action  consequence. 
The   regression  analysis   conducted   clearly   indicated   both   the   potential   and 
extent    of   such   real  occurrence  within  Nevada  and  as   such  was   relied  upon  in 
the   final   fiscal   budget   analysis    to  determine   impact    significance. 

To   illustrate   the   effect   (and   expected   most    probable   case  upon 
alternative   Case   5-B  implementation)    of    the   regression  analysis   results   and 
subsequent    budget    impacts,   Tables    3-80  and   3-68  (Section  3.4.4)    are   presented 

3-191 


o 
o 
o 


•o 

J-l 

CD 

3 

ct) 

s 


0) 
4J 

c 


CO 
01 

>-> 
I 
m 


CO 

0) 

CJ 

s 

«T3 

1-1 

CO 

CO 

4-1 

0> 

M 

•o 

3 

CO 

H 

CO 

3 

B 

3 

<J 

0) 

4J 

C)0 

CJ 

CO 

o> 

u 

•fj 

OJ 

o 

> 

u 

< 

Om 

T3 

E 

0) 

3 

T3 

3 

a 

01 

01 

"3 

4-1 

XI 

X 

tn 

w 

H 

O 

a 

m 

oo 

0) 

l 

a 

CO 

o 

EC 

0) 

iH 

• 

Z3 

4-1 

CO 

s 

H 

ON 

m  cn 

.— I 

O     -H 

o 

m  <r 

CN    ON 

-H 

cn  cn 

r*. 

CO     1 

CO   CO 

CO 

i—l    i-H 

o 

o1  m 

*•       •* 

>H     <t 

i-H     i— 1 

■— < 

co    l 

0)  o 


oj  m 

>-<  cn 


f->  cn 

cfl  I 

cu  o 

>*  cn 


as 

U   CN 

CO     I 
cu  m 

>-!    CN 


J-i  CN 
CO     I 

0)  o 

>■<  CN 


ON 

CO     I 

oi  m 


U~< 

CN 

CN 

CT\ 

CO 

CO 

m 

CN 

CN 

ON 

co 

00 

u~, 

CN 

OJ 

ON 

CO 

00 

m 

CN 

CN 

ON 

00 

00 

m 

CN 

CN 

ON 

00 

00 

m 

ON 

CN 

r^ 

00 

00 

CO     T-l 

o>   u 

i->    4-> 

3    C 

4->      O 

•H   U 

TJ 

C   -1 

OJ    rH 

O.  -H 

0) 

X  s 

CO 

w  \ 

CO 

OJ 

U 

4->      3 

CJ   -H 

.— i 

Z   2 

01 

c 

J= 

c 

•  •     4-1 

o 

>■,  -H 

co 

4J     S 

l-i 

s 

CJ 

=>    3 

0- 

O  -H 

CJ     C3 

•0 

O 

CJ 

CO 

CO 

#    *-> 

u 

OJ     0) 

CJ 

J-i  z 

ex 

3 

co 

w 

o  ~h 

CN    CO 

00  —i    -H 


cn  cn 

00  ~*    r* 


O    "H 

cn  cn 

00  .-i    —I 


cn  cn 

00  —I     — I 


cn  cn 

00  ~H    —l 


o  m 
cn  o 


-a  u 
c 
cu  i—i 

CUrH 

x   -H 

w  s 

4-1  Ol 
0)  3 
S3    -H 

ss 


CO 


4-> 


o  s 

o 

JC  c 

CJ  -H 

co  co 

o 

CO 

A!  4-1 

0)  Ol 

u  z 

3 

w 


Oi 
4-) 

Cfl 

3 
i-) 

•a 

CO 

4-1 

o 

z 


M 

CO 
0> 

>. 

X 

4-1 

X 

•H 
Cfl 

o 

4-1 
4J 


3 
O 

CO 

M 

3 

CJ 
CJ 

O 

CO 
01 

8 

H 


0) 

a 
o 

M 

cu 


bO 
CO 


^1 


3-192 


to  detail   budget   forecasts   of    revenues /expenditures   for  Eureka   County   and 
Eureka  County  School  Districts. 

Table   3-25  (reproduced  hereafter   for  facilitating   review  as  Table 
3-69)    the   budgetary   impact    of    expenditure   adjustments    to  reflect   both  realistic 
economies   of    scale  and   direct    cost   budget   items   (e.g.,   direct    teaching   costs). 
The   following   details   the   impact   variation   from  the  invalid  assumption  of 
straight   line  per  capita  expenditure   costing. 

The   Start-up  Period:      The   total   revenue   shortfall   in  all  seven   budgets 
combined   during  the   first   four  years   would   be  as   follows: 

Year   1  Year  2  Year  3  Year   4 

Expenditures  2,495  3,015  2,141  2,070 

Revenues  311  1,404  2,387  1,825 

Surplus /(Deficit)  (2,189)  (1,611)  246  (245) 

Contrary   to   the   continued   deficit   expenditures    of   the  Eureka  County 
School  District   under  the  unadjusted   basis,    it  would  be  anticipated   that 
project   revenues  would   exceed   actual   adjusted   expenditures   in  year   3,    continu- 
ally exceeding  such  expenditures  during   the  project   period  (as   in  Case   5-A) . 
Eureka  County  expenditures   would  similarly  be   exceeded   by  revenues   received 
except   that   such  would  occur   in  year  2   instead   of   in  year  6  as   in  the  proposed 
case.      As   the   regression  analysis   could   not   encompass  Elko  County  jurisdic- 
tions,   nor  the  Town  of   Eureka,   no  variation  has   been  recorded   in  the  adjusted 
fiscal  analysis    presented   on  Table   3-78.      As   such,   it   remains   anticipated 
that   budget  deficits  would  accrue   in  Elko  jurisdictions    relative   to  direct 
matching   of    project   revenues   and   expenditures.      Again  the   difference  in 
revenues   received  would   be   contributory   from  state   tax   laws.      As   can  be   noted, 
however,   significant   variation  exists   between  the   Elko   School   District    budget 
deficits   of    the  proposed   action  and   that   of   alternative   Case   5-B. 

The  Period  of  Year   5   to  Year   50:      In  the  net   combined   case   of   all  seven  juris- 
dictional  budgets,    the  direct    project    revenue/expenditure   balance  would 
increase    from  a  surplus    of    $134,000  annually  in  year   5   to   $513,000  annually 

3-193 


in  year  15.   The  extended  forecast  of  year  15  to  year  50  would,  as  described 
previously,  result  in  a  slight  decline  of  revenues  received  but  would  not 
create  a  deficit  match  situation. 

Note  Regarding  General  State  Fund  Monies;   As  indicated  on  Table  3-79,  the 
implementation  of  the  alternative  Case  5-B  would  result  in  revenues  being 
accrued  to  the  General  State  Fund  ranging  from  $154,000  (year  1)  to  $960,000 
(year  3)  annually  with  a  stabilized  revenue  generation  approximating  $566,000 
annually,  in  excess  of  the  combined  budget  surpluses  of  $513,000.   As  detailed 
in  Appendix  A  of  this  Technical  Report  (Appendix  E  of  the  EIS)  ,  historical 
review  of  the  county  budgets  indicates  eventual  receipt  of  such  monies  in 
excess  of  that  collected  within  the  jurisdiction.   While  not  distributed  in 
the  analysis,  herein,  such  redistributed  monies  would  effectively  contribute 
to  significant  impact  mitigation  within  both  Elko  and  Eureka  Counties. 

3.5.5  Attitudes  and  Lifestyles 

As  in  the  analysis  of  the  proposed  action,  the  potential  for  impacts 
upon  the  general  attitudes  and  lifestyles  of  the  Eureka  County  population  as 
result  of  Case  5-B  implementation  was  evaluated  on  the  basis  of  two  cri- 
teria:  1)  rural  lifestyle;  and  2)  historical  "ambiance"  within  Eureka  Town. 

The  population  influx  of  Case  5-B  scenarios  would  directely  affect 
the  rural  lifestyles  of  the  existing  Eureka  County  resident  populations.   As 
in  Case  5-A,  however,  the  effects  within  Elko  County  upon  implementation  of 
the  Case  5-B  alternative  were  determined  insignificant  as  a  result  of  its 
rural/urban  composition  and  larger  population  base. 

The  dispersed  population  characteristics  of  Case  5-B  would  largely 
be  the  determining  factor  in  local  population  attitudes  toward  the  project. 
Contrary  to  the  proposed  action,  Case  5-B  personnel  would  be  required  to  ful- 
fill housing  and  recreational  needs  without  the  benefit  of  a  centralized, 
available  complex.   Significant  competition  for  scarce  housing  would  be 
expected  to  result  in  conflicts  between  local  residents  wishing  to  upgrade  or 
purchase  new  homes  simultaneous  to  in-migration  of  the  workforce.   Location 
siting  of  housing  could  be  an  irritant  to  locally  established  land  use  patterns; 

3-194 


a  concern  that  has  been  emphasized  to  date.   The  potential  that  a  dispersed 
population  may  be  implemented  would  be  expected  to  undergo  immediate  local 
scrutiny  with  probable  zoning  ordinance  debates  being  undertaken  and  initiating 
conflicts. 

Overall,  the  Case  5-B  alternative  increases  the  likelihood  of  resi- 
dent negative  perceptions  due  to  its  intrinsic  random  approach  to  integration 
within  the  community.   With  regard  to  Historic  District  effects,  under  the 
Case  5-B  scenario  circumstances,  no  significant  potential  for  impact  was 
identified.   The  increased  housing  requirements  would  be  expected  to  exert 
some  pressure  upon  property  located  within  and  in  proximity  of  the  Town. 
Extensive  use  of  such  properties  to  accommodate  the  natural  desire  to  group 
housing  units  near  service  facilities  would  present  a  potential  for  impacts 
on  the  Historic  District.   A  quantified  probability  of  such  an  impact  could 
not  be  assessed.   Based,  however,  on  the  currently  high  and  increasing  resident 
and  local  government  desires  to  maintain  and  improve  the  quality  of  the 
Historic  District,  it  was  determined  that  impact  potential  was  low.   The 
determination  was  based  on  the  assumption  that  restrictive  land  controls 
such  as  zoning  ordinances  and  architectural  specifications  would  be  established 
and  enforced. 

3.5.6  Community  Facilities  and  Services 

3.5.6.1   Summary 

Schools.      Population  projections   for  Case   5-B  indicate  that   an  additional 
total   of  326  students   (same  as    proposed  action)    would   require   schooling  at 
the  point   of   project    impact    stabilization  (3.75  years   for  school  population). 
Distribution   of   the   students   and   number   of   classrooms   required  have   been 
estimated   as   shown  in  Table   3-70. 

As   in  the  analysis   of    the   proposed  action,    classroom   requirements 
were   determined   on  a  worst-case   basis   with   the   assumption   that   full   capacity 
use   had    been  achieved   at   the  affected   schools. 


3-195 


Under  the  Case  5-B  scenario,  the  dispersed  population  of  personnel 
would  result  in  a  30  percent  decrease  in  required  Eureka  classroom  space  from 
that  of  the  proposed  action:  10  versus  13.   The  additional  requirements 
would  still  represent  an  impact  of  significance  to  the  district  school  system. 
In  terms  of  expansion,  Case  5-B  costs  to  Eureka  have  been  estimated  to  equal 
approximately  $1.4  million  or  13.6  percent  of  district  bonding  capacity. 

Teacher  requirements  under  the  Case  5-B  scenario  would  equal  approx- 
imately 14  and  8  for  the  1:14  and  1:19.4  (upgraded)  ratios,  respectively. 
The  reduction  of  teacher  staffing  requirements  (39  and  53  percent,  respectively) 
in  comparison  to  the  Case  5-A  requirements  would  result  in  licensed  housing 
provision  difficulties  as  well  as  lower  district  budget  expenditures. 

The  variations  in  district  expansion  requirements  relative  to  Case 
5-A  and  Case  5-B  directly  reflect  an  associated  increase  of  expenditure 
requirements  by  the  Elko  County  School  District  under  Case  5-B  circumstances. 
While  the  dispersal  of  costs  associated  with  staffing,  facility  expansion, 
etc.  would  be  beneficial  to  the  Eureka  County  School  District,  a  substantial 
inequity  of  costs  would  be  accrued  to  the  Elko  County  school  system.   Under 
Case  5-B  circumstances,  the  impact  budget  deficits  significantly  increases 
for  Elko  County  (see  previous  sections,  3.4.4  and  3.5.4). 

Health.   As  in  the  proposed  action,  health  care  services  within  the  Town  of 
Eureka  area  would  be  directly  affected  by  implementation  of  the  Case  5-B 
alternative.   The  impacts  associated  with  the  provision  of  health  care 
services  (federal,  state,  county  and  volunteer)  are  expected  to  progress  from 
being  generally  negative  during  the  early  period  of  construction  ( 1  to  2 
years)  to  being  beneficial  in  nature  during  the  period  of  late  construction 
through  operation. 

Case  5-B  implementation  would,  however,  result  in  a  diminished 
potential  for  beneficial  impacts  and  would  probably  extend  the  period  of 
negative  impacts  related  to  staffing  and  facility  shortages.   It  is  expected 
that  the  private  professional  health  care  sector  would  respond  to  population 
demand  as  in  the  proposed  action  Case  5-A  but  that  response  time  might  be 
extended  and  less  specific  in  terms  of  area  of  need  (e.g.,  Town  of  Eureka). 

3-196 


The  increased  distribution  of  population  to  Elko  is  expected  to  result  in  a 
probable  expansion  of  existing  hospital  facilities  (i.e.,  building  wing 
addition  of  10  to  20  rooms). 

Law  Enforcement.   Both  the  county  sheriff's  department  and  county  court 
system  of  Eureka  would  be  directly  affected  by  the  increased  populations 
induced  by  Case  5-B.   Elko  County  law  enforcement  agencies  would  be  affected 
only  to  a  minor  extent  under  the  alternative  case.   As  in  Case  5-A,  the 
associated  impacts  are  primarily  of  an  indirect  nature  (e.g.,  increased 
number  of  vehicles)  versus  direct  impacts  associated  with  long-term  crime 
levels. 

Under  Case  5-B  circumstances,  the  dispersed  location  of  the  project 
population  would  require  the  additional  employment  of  three  duty  officers, 
three  administrative/support  personnel  and  one  or  two  patrol  vehicles. 
Additional  facilities  within  the  county  would  also  probably  be  required. 

Elko  County  law  enforcement  requirements  resulting  from  Case  5-B 
implementation  are  expected  to  be  limited  to  the  necessary  staffing  addition 
of  one  or  two  duty  officers. 

As  in  the  proposed  action,  additional  workload  upon  the  existing 
law  enforcement  system  may  be  anticipated  to  rise  generally  in  proportion  to 
the  population  increase.   The  short-term  construction  period  may  be  accompanied 
by  higher  frequencies  of  misdemeanor  occurrences  but  is  not  expected  to  pose 
a  direct  significant  effect. 

Fire  Protection.   No  significant  impacts  to  fire  protection  services  were 
identified  for  the  Case  5-B  alternative.   The  dispersed  location  of  the 
additional  population  of  Case  5-B  would  generally  limit  the  need  for  major 
improvement  requirements  such  as  an  additional  fire  department  station.   An 
additional  fire  truck  and  support  equipment  would  be  required  to  provide 
for  adequate  service  capabilities.   The  volunteer  personnel  system  would  also 
probably  require  supplement  with  a  paid  fire  protection  workforce  of  two  to 
five  employees. 


3-197 


Public  Utilities  and  Communications.   As  in  the  analysis  of  the  proposed 
action,  no  direct  impacts  of  significance  were  identified  relative  to  project 
and  population  demands  upon  electrical,  gas,  telephone  or  general  communication 
systems.   The  dispersed  population  may  tend  to  facilitate  any  system  expansion 
requirements  simply  due  to  magnitude  of  expansion  required. 

Water  and  Wastewater.   Impacts  upon  the  water  and  wastewater  systems  of  Elko 
and  Eureka  following  implementation  of  Case  5-B  were  analyzed  in  terms  of 
local  county  budget  expenditures.   As  in  the  Case  5-A  analyses,  cost  of 
system  developments  and  annual  maintenance  were  incorporated  in  the  budget 
expenditure/revenue  impact  assessment.   Capital  expenditures,  difficult  to 
accurately  assess  because  of  unknown  residential  location,  were  assumed  to  be 
limited  because  counties  are  not  likely  to  authorize  a  high  cost  mainline 
extension  to  widely  dispersed  residences. 

Solid  Waste.   No  impacts  of  significance  were  identified  relative  to  avail- 
ability or  adequacy  of  the  solid  waste  management  system  upon  implementation 
of  the  Case  5-B  alternate. 

Community  Facilities.   As  described  for  Case  5-A  impacts,  most,  if  not  all, 
of  the  available  community  facilities  in  the  vicinity  of  Eureka  Town  would 
experience  increased  visitation  and/or  use  if  Case  5-B  was  implemented.   To 
perhaps  a  lesser  extent  than  in  the  proposed  action,  additional   social 
organization  (e.g.,  churches,  social  clubs,  etc.)  may  be  expected  to  develop 
in  response  to  demand. 

Under  the  Case  5-B  alternative,  indirect  effects  (e.g.,  displeasure 

with  crowding  of  county  pool)  were  identified  to  be  significant.  The  lack  of 

a  subdivision  recreational  area  would  be  significantly  adverse  in  light  of 
the  increased  population  use  demand. 

3.6   No  Action 

Due  to  project  location,  Eureka  County  and  its  immediate  environs 
including  the  county  seat,  Eureka  would  reap  the  major  share  of  the  benefits 
and  liabilities  resulting  from  implementation  of  the  proposed  action  at  Mt. 

3-198 


Hope.   These  geographic  and  governmental  entities  will  also  be  the  objects  of 
consequence  in  the  event  no  project  is  initiated  at  Mt.  Hope.   It  is  the 
intent  of  this  section  to  explore  the  consequences  of  the  no  action  alternative, 
which  assumes  that  project  development  would  not  occur. 

3.6.1  Employment 

In  the  absence  of  the  Mt.  Hope  project,  the  employment  and  economic 
base  of  Eureka  County  would  become  more  dependent  on  the  agricultural  sector 
located  in  Diamond  Valley.   At  the  present  time,  this  base  is  not  suffi- 
cient to  sustain  the  County  and  the  latter  relies,  somewhat  heavily,  on 
outside  funds  to  support  its  economy.   In  the  absence  of  the  project,  the 
economy  would  remain  in  its  present  condition  and  subject  to  variations  in 
agricultural  markets.   With  respect  to  the  latter,  the  agricultural  sector  in 
Diamond  Valley  is  vulnerable  to  several  uncontrollable  factors,  including 
the  availability  of  water  and  extreme  weather  conditions.   Therefore,  the 
economic  base  will  also  be  subject  to  severe  out-of-phase  fluctuations. 

The  economic  base  of  Elko  County  and  Elko  City  would  largely  be 
unaffected  by  implementation  of  the  no  action  alternative  because  of  its 
broad  base  of  support.   Its  economic  base  would  therefore  continue  as  projected. 

Under  the  no  action  alternative,  employment  and  income  in  Eureka 
County  would  largely  follow  the  economy  discussed  above  and  would,  as  a 
result,  remain  slightly  depressed  during  the  good  cycles  and  moderately 
depressed  in  poor  cycles.   The  reason  for  these  dampened  cycles  is  because 
the  singular  agricultural  base  would  not  allow  income  and  employment  to 
accelerate  during  good  economic  times  nor  would  it  cease  under  poor  economic 
conditions.   This,  of  course,  describes  a  condition  of  stagnation  which 
could  be  comfortable  for  some  financially  established  inhabitants  but  dis- 
couraging for  many  others. 

3.6.2  Population 

The   population  of    Eureka   County    is   basically   split   between   the   Town 
of   Eureka  and   the    rural   county   population.      These   populations,   subject    to 

3-199 


extreme   periodic  fluctuations,    have   been  slowly  degrading  for  the  past   60 
years    from  lack  of   a   stable   industrial   base.      The   total   population   of   Eureka 
County  now  stands    at   approximately   2,000  with   1,200  inhabitants   located   in 
rural  areas   and   the   remainder  in  Eureka.      It   is   anticipated  that   the 
population  of   Eureka   County   under   the   no   action  alternative  would  stabilize 
at   approximately    1,800  inhabitants   with   a  mix   of  600  in  the   Town   of  Eureka  and 
the   rest   in  the  rural   areas.      These  projections   exclude   the   addition  of    any 
new  industrial   or  governmental   projects   within,   or  in  close   proximity,    to 
Eureka  County.      The   impact   of   no  project   on  the  Elko   County   area  will  be 
slight  with  fairly  steady  growth  occurring  as   projected. 

3.6.3  Housing 

As  discussed  previously,  the  populations  of  Eureka  County  and  Town 
have  been  slowly  diminishing.   It  is  anticipated  that  the  levels  will  continue 
to  diminish  in  the  future  without  the  mine  project  or  similar  undertakings 
being  started.   Therefore,  the  present  housing  along  with  a  very  limited 
amount  of  new  housing  would  be  sufficient  to  meet  the  basic  needs  of  Eureka 
County  and  its  environs  in  the  immediate  future.   However,  there  would  be 
little  incentive  for  newcomers  to  make  an  investment  in  long-term  private 
housing  (mortgages  of  10  years  or  more)  if  the  economic  conditions  of  Eureka 
County  were  stagnant.   It  is  expected  that  newcomers  would,  for  long  periods 
of  time,  rely  upon  temporary  or  mobile  habitations  which  would  exaggerate  the 
stagnant  image  to  the  point  that  it  would  undermine,  even  further,  the  tendency 
for  long-term  investment  in  the  county.   The  existing  housing  conditions  of 
Eureka  County  would  additionally  tend  to  impact  resident  use  in  that,  without 
economic  stimilus,  presently  available  but  poor  quality  housing  would  undergo 
no  significant  impetus  for  improvement  or  abandonment.   The  impact  of  the  no 
action  alternative  on  Elko  County  and  the  Town  of  Elko  would  be  minimal  for 
reasons  stated  previously. 

3.6.4  Local  Government  and  Public  Finance 

The  no  action  alternative  presents  a  more  limited  financial  horizon 
to  Eureka  County  and  its  inhabitants  than  does  the  proposed  action.   The 
total  monetary  resources  generated  by  the  project  over  a  50  year  period  would 

3-200 


exceed  100  million  dollars.   This  would  not  necessarily  mean  the  County  would 
receive  an  economic  windfall  because  of  the  large  expenses  involved  in  provid- 
ing the  necessary  public  services  for  a  growing  population.   In  the  absence 
of  the  project,  however,  the  County  would  continue  to  require  an  infusion  of 
revenue  from  outside  sources  and  would  continue  to  lack  the  financial  leverage 
necessary  to  support  large  scale  or  more  developed  public  service  projects 
without  state  or  federal  backing.   Elko  County,  with  its  much  larger  population 
and  broad  tax  base  would  not  be  adversely  affected  to  any  great  degree,  and 
would  in  fact  not  experience  the  project  related  deficits  expected  under  the 
proposed  action  or  alternatives. 

3.6.5  Attitudes  and  Lifestyles 

In  the  absence  of  the  project,  the  lifestyles  and  attitudes  of  the 
residents  will  remain  essentially  unchanged.   This  is,  of  course,  beneficial 
to  those  who  are  comfortable  (large  landowners,  etc.)  or  those  who  desire 
sparse  population  to  achieve  a  degree  of  solitude.   On  the  other  hand,  a 
status  quo  situation  would  also  create  a  feeling  of  despair  or  hopelessness 
in  some,  especially  in  the  young,  which  would  undoubtedly  cause  out-migration 
of  those  who  are  able  to  go  causing  further  stagnation. 

3.6.6  Community  Facilities  and  Services 

Schools.   Because  of  slowly  diminishing  populations,  the  present  school 
system  within  Eureka  County  would  be  sufficient  to  satisfy  demand.   However, 
there  will  be  very  few  funds  available  for  large  improvements  or  additional 
supplies  without  outside  help.   It  is  anticipated  that  there  will  also  be  a 
lack  of  incentive  for  new  teachers  to  locate  in  the  system  if  the  economic 
sector  achieved  the  degree  of  stagnation  discussed  previously.   The  Elko 
school  system  would  be  insulated  from  these  problems  because  of  its  larger 
size  and  because  most  of  the  project  impact  would  occur  in  Eureka  County. 

Health.   In  the  absence  of  the  project,  health  care  facilities  in  Eureka 
County  would  remain  virtually  unchanged  or  may  even  deteriorate  slightly. 
Without  new  resources,  there  would  be  no  incentive  or  funds  for  the  construc- 
tion of  new  facilities.   Without  new  facilities,  medical  professionals 

3-201 


would  not  wish  to  locate  or  relocate  in  the  county.   This  would  force  Eureka 
County  to  become  more  dependent  on  the  medical  resources  of  Elko  County. 
There  would  also  be  less  likelihood  of  new  facilities  for  the  aged  and  infirm 
in  the  Eureka  County  area  causing  a  hardship  on  those  who  require  nursing 
home  care  and  the  families  that  may  be  forced  to  travel  long  distances  to 
find  adequate  care. 

Law  Enforcement.   In  the  absence  of  the  Mt .  Hope  project  it  is  anticipated 
that  little  change  would  occur  with  respect  to  law  enforcement  activity  in 
Eureka  County  and  its  local  subdivisions.   With  a  stable  or  declining  popu- 
lation and  a  relatively  flat  economy,  law  enforcement  activity  could  remain 
at  its  present  level  for  an  indefinite  period  of  time.   There  would  be  require- 
ments, from  time  to  time,  for  new  equipment  and/or  personnel  as  a  result  of  a 
normal  turnover  of  personnel  and  hardware.   Larger  purchases  would  most 
likely  be  financed  using  outside  grant  money  from  state  or  federal  sources. 
Elko  County  and  Elko  City  would  not  be  affected  by  the  no  action  alternative 
in  any  appreciable  way  in  terms  of  its  law  enforcement  activities. 

Fire  Protection.   As  with  law  enforcement,  it  is  anticipated  that  there 
would  be  little  change  in  the  manner  or  degree  of  fire  protection  in  Eureka 
County  in  the  absence  of  the  Mt.  Hope  project.   Fire  equipment  and  personnel 
would  remain  largely  at  the  present  level  with  few  changes  in  personnel 
quantity  or  hardware.   Elko  City  and  Elko  County  would  continue  to  grow 
slowly  but  steadily  as  projected  and  would  not  be  influenced  greatly  by  the 
absence  of  the  project. 

Public  Utilities  and  Communication  .   It  is  anticipated  that  few  changes 
would  occur  in  Eureka  County  and  Town  in  public  utilities  and  communications 
without  the  project.   New  innovations  in  communications  technology  do  not 
come  swiftly  to  areas  of  little  or  no  growth.   The  present  system  of  utilities 
are  adequate  for  the  present  population  and  will  remain  adequate  for  a  consid- 
erable period  of  time  in  view  of  the  projected  growth  for  Eureka  County 
without  the  project  or  any  other  activity  of  an  equivalent  size.   The  Eureka 
County  population  will  be  somewhat  reliant  on  Elko  County  and  City  for  access 
to  the  most  up-to-date  advancements  in  communications  since  Elko  is  located 
on  important  transportation  corridors  and  would  most  likely  be  the  recipient 

3-202 


of  new  technology  at  a  much  faster  rate.   With  the  possible  exception  of 
inter-communication  between  Elko  County  and  Eureka  County,  the  absence  of  the 
project  would  have  no  appreciable  impact  on  the  public  utilities  or  commun- 
ications systems  of  Elko  County  and  City. 

Water  and  Wastewater.   In  the  absence  of  the  project,  the  facilities  and 

system  of  water  supply  would  continue  to  be  developed  along  present  lines  and 

would  be  adequate  to  meet  rising  demands  as  long  as  sufficient  controls 

govern  their  usage.   The  Town  of  Eureka  would  also  have  sufficient  supplies 

to  support  its  activities  at  its  present  and  projected  population.   The 

water  supplies  of  Elko  County  and  its  political  subdivisions  would  be  unaffected 

in  the  absence  of  the  project. 

The  wastewater  facilities  of  Eureka  County  and  Eureka  Town  would  be 
sufficient  to  meet  the  demands  of  both  the  rural  and  town  populations  in 
the  absence  of  the  project  because  of  the  limited  growth  projections.   The 
facilities  would  most  likely  be  maintained  at  their  present  levels  with 
occasional  renewal  as  facilities  reach  optimum  life.   As  in  the  case  of 
public  utilities,  renewal  of  equipment  would  require  the  use  of  outside  fund- 
ing from  state  or  federal  sources.   The  absence  of  the  project  would  have  no 
appreciable  impact  on  the  wastewater  facilities  of  Elko  County  or  Elko  City. 

Solid  Waste.   Since  there  would  be  little  growth  anticipated  for  Eureka 
County  in  the  absence  of  the  project,  the  present  solid  waste  disposal  system 
would  be  sufficient  to  handle  the  demand  in  the  foreseeable  future.   The  no 
action  alternative  would  have  no  impact  on  solid  waste  disposal  planning  in 
Elko  County. 

Community  Facilities.   It  is  anticipated  that,  in  the  absence  of  the  project, 
the  population  of  Eureka  County  would  continue  to  have  only  limited  access 
to  common  social  services.   Social  service  programs  are  usually  most  accessible 
in  areas  of  dense  population  or  where  populations  are  growing  rapidly  and 
thereby  causing  a  demand  for  the  services.   Since  practically  no  growth  is 
projected  for  Eureka  without  the  project  it  is  unlikely  that  new  social 
service  programs  will  become  established  in  the  County.   Elko  County,  which 
already  has  considerably  more  to  offer  in  the  way  of  public  and  private 

3-203 


social  service  programs,  would  not  be  affected  by  the  no  action  alternative. 
In  some  cases,  the  social  service  programs  in  Elko  County  may  partially 
serve  the  needs  of  some  residents  of  Eureka  County  and  it  is  likely  that  this 
relationship  would  continue  in  the  future. 

As  in  the  case  of  social  services,  community  facility  resources  are 
more  prevalent  in  densely  populated  areas.   Therefore,  because  little  growth 
is  projected  for  Eureka  County,  community  facilities  would  remain  basically 
as  they  are  at  the  present  time  in  the  absence  of  the  project.   In  Elko 
County,  community  facilities  would  continue  to  grow  modestly  in  response  to 
the  steady  increase  in  the  population  base  projected  for  the  area.   The  no 
action  alternative  would  not  have  a  significant  impact  on  the  community 
facilities  of  Elko  County  or  City. 


3-204 


CHAPTER  4.0 
LIST  OF  PREPARERS 

4.1   BUREAU  OF  LAND  MANAGEMENT 

BERTON  E.  BRESCH,  Nevada  State  Office  Sociologist 

B.A.  Sociology,  California  State  University,  Sonoma 
M.A.  Counseling,  California  State  University,  Sonoma 

Experience  includes  nine  years  experience  with  Bureau  of 
Land  Management;  socioeconomic  review. 

TERESA  McPARLAND,  Area  Geologist 

B.A.  Geology,  Stephens  College,  MO. 

Experience  includes  four  years  experience  with  Bureau  of  Land 
Management;  coordinator,  writer-editor;  geology  review. 

PAUL  E.  MYERS,  Nevada  State  Regional  Economist 

B.S.  Economics,  University  of  Nevada,  Reno 

Experience  includes  eleven  years  with  Bureau  of  Land  Management; 
economics  review. 

NEIL  D.  TALBOT,  Area  Manager. 

B.S.  Range  Management,  Utah  State  University,  Logan. 

Experience  includes  twenty  years  with  Bureau  of  Land  Management; 
team  leader. 


4-1 


ED  TILSEY,  Nevada  State  Environmental  Specialist. 

B.S.  Wildlife,  University  of  Montana. 

Experience  includes  nine  years  in  environmental  protection  with 
Bureau  of  Land  Management;  overall  document  review. 

4.2   CONSULTANTS 

ROBERT  C.  WYATT,  Project  Manager 

B.S.  in  Biology,  University  of  Miami 

Post  Graduate  Study,  Biology,  University  of  Miami 

Mt.  Hope  Project:   Responsible  for  coordination  of  environmental  discipline 
impact  analyses  (except  cultural  resources)  and  direction  of  the  third 
party  EIS  scientific  team;  technical  and  regulatory  (NEPA)  oversight  and 
management  of  EIS  documentation;  and  liaison  and  coordination  with  the 
Bureau  of  Land  Management  (BLM)  and  EXXON. 

Experience  includes  management  and  technical  analyses  of  environmental 
impact  studies  involving  surface  and  underground  mines,  nuclear  and 
coal-fire  electrical  generating  plants,  petrochemical  and  mineral 
process  facilities,  and  hazardous  waste/nuclear  disposal  site  regula- 
tory analysis.   Professional  experience  involving  activity  in  23  states, 
Mexico  and  Puerto  Rico  has  included  the  technical  critique  and  environ- 
mental discipline  analysis  of  hydrology,  air  quality,  chemical  and 
mine  engineering,  terrestrial  and  aquatic  biology,  socioeconomics, 
land  use,  pollutant  toxicity  and  regulatory  compliance. 

WARREN  K.  GILBERT,  Economist 

B.A.  in  Economics,  University  of  Washington 
M.A.  in  Economics,  University  of  Washington 
Post-Graduate  Diploma,  New  York  Institute  of  Finance 


4-2 


Mt.  Hope  Project:   Responsbile  for  analysis  and  technical  report  prepara- 
tion involving  socioeconomic  baseline  characteristics  and  project  impacts. 

Professional  experience  in  excess  of  26  years  includes  national  and  inter- 
national finance  analyses;  industry  and  agribusiness  preinvestment  studies, 
forecasts  and  market  analysis;  regional  and  urban  economic  base  studies, 
economic  activity,  resource  utilization  and  growth  analyses.   Projects 
include  U.S.  Department  of  State  (Agency  for  International  Development) 
and  Export-Import  Bank  of  the  United  States  representation. 

ALAN  EASTMAN,  Planner,  Impact  Analyst 

B.A.  in  Geography,  Mankato  State  University 

M.A.  in  Urban  and  Regional  Planning,  University  of  Iowa 

Mt.  Hope  Project:   Assisted  in  the  characterization  and  analyses  of 
socioeconomic  conditions. 

Professional  experience  includes  cost  and  feasibility  analysis  of  state 
agency  plans  and  projects;  impact  and  managerial  analysis  of  human 
resource  service  delivery  entities  in  the  areas  of  education,  criminal 
justice,  aged  and  developmentally  disabled;  location  and  economic 
feasibility  analysis  for  private  industry  and  government;  and  impact 
analysis  of  regional  investment  decisions.  As  a  planner  for  more  than 
twelve  years,  project  activity  has  involved  watershed  assessments,  urban 
field  development  (economic  and  social  impact),  recreation  demand  studies 
and  transportation  planning.   Employment  has  included  responsiblities 
as  Social  Services  Coordinator  for  the  Nebraska  State  Planning  Office. 

C.  MICHAEL  COWAN,  Land  Use  Analyst 

B.S.  in  Geology,  University  of  Nebraska 

M.S.  in  Ecology-Zoology,  University  of  Nebraska 

Ph.D  in  Ecology-Zoology,  University  of  Nebraska 


4-3 


Mt.  Hope  Project:  Responsible  for  baseline  determinations  and  impact 
analyses  concerning  land  use  patterns  and  project  plans.  Assisted  in 
technical  analysis  and  report  preparation  of  socioeconomic  impacts. 

Professional  experience  in  excess  of  thirteen  years  has  emphasized  the 
performance  and  interpretation  of  social,  economic  and  habitat  studies 
relative  to  land  use  modification  plans  (watershed  reservoir  developments, 
mine  operations,  transportation  systems  and  mineral  processing  facilities 
siting).   Researched  and  developed  the  Vertically  Integrated  Geographic 
Information  System  (VIGIS)  for  the  management  and  planning  of  natural 
and  urban  resources. 

KEVIN  P.  MULLEN,  Regulator/Environmental  Analyst 

B.S.  in  Pre-Med/Biology,  Stonehill  College,  North  Easton,  Massachusetts 
M.S.  in  Biology,  Northeastern  University,  Boston,  Massachusetts 

Mt.  Hope  Project:  Responsible  for  quality  assurance  in  documentation 
of  EIS  technical  reports. 

Professional  experience  includes  marine  and  tropical  ecology/impact 
assessment  and  transfer  of  technology.   His  managerial/administrative 
experience  includes  environmental  and  planning  studies  for  the  petroleum, 
chemical,  mining/metals  and  utilities  industries.   He  has  contributed  to 
baseline  and  impact  assessments  related  to  nuclear  and  fossil-fuel  power 
plants,  offshore  energy,  coastal  oil  fields,  port  development,  and 
agri-business.   He  has  eight  years  international  experience  in  coastal 
resources  planning  and  development,  higher  education  and  formulation 
of  environmental  regulations. 

DIANE  YARBERRY,  Data  Coordinator 

B.A.  in  Education,  Texas  Christian  University 

Mt.  Hope  Project:   Responsible  for  baseline  data  acquisition,  preliminary 
assimilation,  and  performance  of  literature  search  activities. 


4-4 


Professional  experience  includes  the  management  supervision  of  several 
environmental,  engineering  and  legal  compliance  documentation  efforts 
involving  major  surface  and  underground  coal  mines;  the  performance  of 
literature  based  data  search  and  acquisition  projects  emphasizing  the 
disciplines  of  hydrology,  biology,  soil  and  pollution  control  systems; 
and  the  analysis/communication  of  project-specific  regulatory  procedures, 

4.3   EXXON 

KIT  R.  KRICKENBERGER,  Environmental  and  Regulatory  Affairs 

B.S.  Geology/Chemistry,  Bowling  Green  State  University 
Ph.D.  Marine  Geochemistry,  University  of  Maryland 

Mt.  Hope  Project:   Responsible  for  overall  supervision  in  preparation 
of  EIR,  liaison  and  coordination  with  BLM  and  other  federal  agencies. 

Experience  includes  management  of  large  multi-disciplinary  environmental 
consulting  group  preparation  of  many  site-specific,  regulatory  and  pro- 
grammatic NEPA  compliance  documents  for  several  federal  agencies. 

CHARLES  F.  LANO,  Engineering  Advisor 

B.S.  Civil  Engineering,  Georgia  Institute  of  Technology 

Mt.  Hope  Project:  Project  core  team  member  responsible  for  coordinating 
electrical,  socioeconomic,  community  development,  communications,  trans- 
portation, general  facilities  on-off  site,  and  manpower  studies. 

Experience  includes  supervision  or  management  of  railway  maintenance, 
brick  manufacturing  petroleum  marketing  terminal  and  mine  production 
operations. 

FRIENDSWOOD  DEVELOPMENT  COMPANY 

(need  names  from  EXXON) 


4-5 


CHAPTER  5.0 
SOCIOECONOMICS  GLOSSARY 

Ad  Valorem  Taxes.   In  proportion  to  the  value;  imposed  at  a  rate  percent  of 
the  value  as  stated  in  an  invoice.   In  Nevada  refers  to  property  tax. 

Basic  Employment.   Employment  that  responds  to  changes  in  demand  outside  the 
local  economy  and  which  supports  additional  employment,  i.e.,  the  non-basic 
or  service  sector  employment. 

"Boom  Town  Syndrome".  A  rapid  development  in  population  and  importance  of  an 
area;  a  rapid  settlement  and  development  of  a  town  or  district  due  to 
widespread  expansion  of  economic  activity  usually  due  to  mining/mineral 
exploration. 

Census .  A  count  of  the  population  and  a  property  evaluation;  a  periodic 
governmental  enumeration  of  population. 

Decentralized  Workforce.   Refers  to  the  dispersion  or  distribution  of  housing 
for  the  workforce;  housing  units  are  not  centralized  or  in  the  same  area 
as  the  mining  project. 

Demographics.   Of  or  relating  to  demography.   Relating  to  the  dynamic  balance 
of  a  population  esp.  with  regard  to  density  and  capacity  for  expansion 
or  decline;  statistical  study  of  human  populations. 

Economic  Base.   The  economic  base  of  an  economy  refers  to  the  total  of  its 
basic  employment  and  the  sectors  in  which  that  employment  occurs. 

EMT' s.   Emergency  Medical  Technicians;  persons  trained  and  certified  to 
provide  emergency  medical  treatment  necessary  to  sustain  life. 

Fiscal.   Of  or  relating  to  taxation,  public  revenues,  or  public  debt. 

Fiscal  Year.  An  accounting  period  of  12  months. 

Jurisdiction.  The  power,  right,  or  authority  to  interpret  and  apply  the 
law;  the  limits  or  territory  within  which  authority  may  be  exercised; 
control. 

Labor  Force.  All  persons  16  years  of  age  or  over  within  a  specified 
geographic  area  who  are  either  employed  or  unemployed. 

Subsistence/Non-Subsistence.   The  condition  of  remaining  in  existence; 

inherence;  means  of  subsisting  as  the  minimum  necessary  to  support  life; 
a  source  or  means  of  obtaining  the  necessities  of  life. 


5-1 


CHAPTER  6.0 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 

6. 1   Bibliography  of  Citations 

Bureau  of  Business  and  Economic  Research,  University  of  Nevada,  Reno.   1983. 
"An  Analysis  of  the  Economic  Impact  of  the  Mining  Industry  on  Nevada's 
Economy". 

Conger,  Thomas  A.   1974.   County  of  Eureka  General  Plan.   (Sharp,  Krater 
and  Associates,  Inc.) 

Henningson,  Durham  and  Richardson  (HDR).   1980.   M-X  Environmental  Technical 
Report  (ETR)  27,  Economic  Model.   December  22. 

HDR.   1980.   M-X  ETR  28,  Social  Model.   December  22. 

HDR.   1980.   M-X  ETR  29,  Public  Finance  Model.   December  22. 

HDR.   1980.   M-X  ETR  30,  Indirect  Effects  Index  for  Impacts  Analysis. 
December  22. 

HDR.   1980.   "Socioeconomic  Impact  Estimates  for  Eureka  County,  Nevada". 

Prepared  for  United  States  Air  Force  Ballistic  Missile  Office  Norton  Air 
Force  Base,  California.   December  22. 

Kenley,  M.   1984.   Personal  Communication.   Superintendents  Office,  Elko 
Independent  School  District. 

Manning,  Helen  and  McMillian,  Doug.   1983.   "Eureka:   Residents  Love  It  Despite 
Boom  or  Bust  Industry".   Gazette  Journal.   Reno,  Nevada.   August  14. 

Nevada  Bureau  of  Mines  and  Geology.   1983.   The  Nevada  Mineral  Industry  -  1982. 
Special  Publication  MI-1982. 

"Nevada  Review  of  Business  and  Economics".   University  of  Nevada,  Reno. 
Various  issues. 

Rush,  Gary  Alfred.   1976.   An  Analysis  of  Real  Property  Transfers  in  Elko 
County,  Nevada.   Masters  Thesis,  University  of  Nevada,  Reno. 

Sceirine,  K.   1984.   Personal  communication.   Nevada  Security  Department. 

State  of  Nevada.   1981.   "Nevada  Statistical  Abstract  -  1981".   December. 

State  of  Nevada.   1981.   State  of  Nevada  Reply  to  EIS  for  M-X  Missile 
System.   2  volumes.   May. 

State  of  Nevada  Department  of  Conservation  and  Natural  Resources.   1982. 

Financing  Guide  for  Community  Water  and  Wastewater  Systems  in  Nevada. 
190  p.   29-C76WP/5:5. 

State  of  Nevada,  Governor's  Office  of  Planning  Coordination.   1982.   Biennial 
Report  of  Nevada  State  Agencies. 


6-1 


State  of  Nevada,  Office  of  Community  Services.   1982.   Elko  County  Profile. 

.   1982.   Eureka  County  Profile. 

.   1982.   Lander  County  Profile. 

.   1982.   Nye  County  Profile. 

.   1982.   White  Pine  County  Profile. 

6.2   Complete  Bibliography 

Bureau  of  Business  and  Economic  Research,  University  of  Nevada,  Reno.   1983. 
"An  Analysis  of  the  Economic  Impact  of  the  Mining  Industry  on  Nevada's 
Economy". 

Bureau  of  Business  and  Economic  Research,  University  of  Nevada,  Reno.   1983. 
Population  Projections  for  Eureka  County. 

Carlson,  B.   1983.   Personal  communication.   Sheriff,  Eureka  County. 

Cartwright,  T.   1983.   Personal  communication.   U.S.  Department  of  Commerce, 
Bureau  of  Economic  Analysis,  Regional  Economic  Information  System. 

Conger,  Thomas  A.   1974.   County  of  Eureka  General  Plan.   (Sharp,  Krater 
and  Associates,  Inc.) 

Conway,  D.  1983.   Personal  communication.   Diamond  Valley  Volunteer  Fire 
Department. 

Desert  Research  Institute.   1980.   Industry  Activity  Inventory:   Nevada 
M-X  Siting  Area.   A  report  to  Fugro  National,  Inc.   May. 

Figurski ,  D.   1983.   Personal  communication.   Union  Pacific  Railroad,  Carlin, 
Nevada. 

Fiorenzi,  L.   1983.   Personal  communication.   Eureka  Town  Public  Works  Dept. 

Friendswood  Development  Company.   1982.   Community  Development  Study,  Mt. 

Hope  Project,  Eureka  County,  Nevada  for  EXXON  Minerals  Company.   March. 

Henningson,  Durham  and  Richardson  (HDR).   1980.   M-X  Environmental  Technical 
Report  (ETR)  27,  Economic  Model.   December  22. 

.   1980b.   M-X  ETR  11,  Geology  and  Mining.   December  22. 

.   1980.   M-X  ETR  28,  Social  Model.   December  22. 

.   1980.   M-X  ETR  29,  Public  Finance  Model.   December  22. 


1980.   M-X  ETR  30,  Indirect  Effects  Index  for  Impacts  Analysis 
December  22. 


6-2 


.   1980.   "Socioeconomic  Impact  Estimates  for  Eureka  County,  Nevada. 

Prepared  for  United  States  Air  Force  Ballistic  Missile  Office 
Norton  Air  Force  Base,  California.   December  22. 

Hoekenga,  Marion  P.  1983.   A  Guide  to  Eureka:   Entertainment,  Recreation, 
Merchants  and  Services. 

Institute  for  Social  Science  Research.   1974.   A  Comparative  Case  Study  of 

the  Impact  of  Coal  DeveJ opment  on  the  Way  of  Life  of  People  Living  in  the 
Coal  Areas  of  Eastern  Montana  and  Northeastern  Wyoming.   University  of 
Montana,  Missoula. 

Iseraldi,  J.   1983.   Personal  communication.   County  Clerk's  Office,  Eureka 
County  Tax  Assessor. 

Kenley,  M.   1984.   Personal  Communication.   Superintendents  Office,  Elko 
Independent  School  District. 

Manning,  Helen  and  McMillian,  Doug.   1983.   "Eureka:   Residents  Love  It  Despite 
Boom  or  Bust  Industry".   Gazette  Journal.   Reno,  Nevada.   August  14. 

Molke,  S.   1983.   Personal  communication.   Acting  Superintendent,  Eureka 
County  Schools. 

Mt.  Wheeler  Power,  Inc.   1983.   EIR  Report,  230  kV  Transmission  System. 
January  31. 

Nevada  Bureau  of  Mines  and  Geology.   1983.   The  Nevada  Mineral  Industry  -  1982. 
Special  Publication  MI-1982. 

Nevada  Employment  Security  Department.   1976-1979.   Nevada  County  Labor  Force 
Summaries. 

"Nevada  Review  of  Business  and  Economics".   University  of  Nevada,  Reno. 
Various  issues. 

Pastorino,  D.   1983.   Personal  communication.   Eureka  County  Commissioner. 

Rush,  Gary  Alfred.   1976.   An  Analysis  of  Real  Property  Transfers  in  Elko 
County,  Nevada.   Masters  Thesis,  University  of  Nevada,  Reno. 

Sceirine,  K.   1984.   Personal  communication.   Nevada  Security  Department. 

Smith,  Roy.   1975.   Final  Report.   Research  and  Development  Project  in  Career 
Education.   March. 

State  of  Nevada.   1981.   "Nevada  Statistical  Abstract  -  1981".   December. 

State  of  Nevada.   1981.   State  of  Nevada  Reply  to  EIS  for  M-X  Missile 
System.   2  volumes.   May. 

State  of  Nevada  Department  of  Conservation  and  Natural  Resources.   1982. 

Financing  Guide  for  Community  Water  and  Wastewater  Systems  in  Nevada. 
190  p.   29-C76WP/5:5. 

6-3 


State  of  Nevada,  Governor's  Office  of  Planning  Coordination.   1982.   Biennial 
Report  of  Nevada  State  Agencies. 

State  of  Nevada,  Office  of  Community  Services.   1982.   Elko  County  Profile. 

.   1982.   Eureka  County  Profile. 

.   1982.   Lander  County  Profile. 

.   1982.   Nye  County  Profile. 

.   1982.   White  Pine  County  Profile. 

Todd,  J.   1983.   Personal  communication.   Eureka  Volunteer  Fire  Dept. 

U.S.  Bureau  of  the  Census,  1980. 

United  States  Department  of  Interior  (U.S.D.I.),  Bureau  of  Land  Management.   1983, 
Draft  Shoshone  -  Eureka  Resource  Management  Plan  and  Environmental  Impact 
Statement.   Battle  Mountain  District,  Nevada. 

U.S.D.I.,  Bureau  of  Land  Management.   1980.   Final  Environmental  Impact 
Statement,  Anaconda  Nevada  Moly  Project. 

U.S.D.I.,  Bureau  of  Land  Management.   1982.   Guide  to  Social  Assessment. 
July. 

Wilcox,  L.   1983.   Personal  communication.   Budget  Analyst,  Nevada  Department 
of  Taxation. 

Wright,  D.   1983.   Personal  communication  for  1980-1982  data.   U.S.  Dept.  of 
Commerce,  Bureau  of  Economic  Analysis,  Regional  Economic  Information 
Systems. 


6-4 


APPENDIX   9-A 


A-l 


APPENDIX  9-A 

STATE  GENERAL  FUND  PROGRAM 

REDISTRIBUTION 


1.0   Introduction 

Nevada  State  sales  taxes  are  com- 
posed of  four  separable  tax  levies 
which  are  earmarked  as  to  use: 

Local  school  support  1.5% 


State  General  Fund 
County  city  relief 
Supplemental  CCRT 
Total 


2.0 

0.5  (CCRT) 

1.75 

5.75% 


The  fiscal  impact  analysis  con- 
ducted for  the  Mt.  Hope  EIS  has  taken 
full  account  of  the  distribution  of 
each  levy  among  the  revenue  sources 
of  counties,  school  districts  and 
towns  with  the  exception  of  the  2 
percent  allocation  to  the  State 
General  Fund.   The  final  use  of  these 
revenues  is  described  in  the  following 
section,  where  it  is  seen  that  the 
main  employment  of  the  2  percent 
sales  tax  component  in  the  past  has 
been  to  provide  additional  support  to 
the  public  school  system. 

2.0  Redistribution  Summary 

In  fiscal  years  1981  and  1982,  the 
2  percent  sales  tax  amounted  to  ap- 
proximately $130  million  and  repre- 
sented about  37  percent  of  total 
general  fund  revenues  of  the  state. 
General  fund  revenues  were  constituted 
of  taxes,  licenses,  fees  and  fines, 
service  charges,  and  interest  earnings, 
as  shown  on  Table  A-l.   Authorizations 
and  appropriations  out  of  this  fund 
are  recommended  by  the  Governor,  auth- 
orized by  the  legislature  and  approved 
by  the  Governor,  for  individual  fiscal 
years.   These  authorizations  are  main- 
ly by  sector,  as  listed  below,  for 
which  projects  and  programs  within 
each  sector  are  only  generally  iden- 
tified in  the  Legislative  Approp- 
riations Reports.   Table  A-2  details 
prior  allocations  (fiscal  years 


1981-82  and  1982-83). 

General  Government 
Education 


Human  Resources 


Public  Safety 


Regulatory 
Conservation, 
Agriculture, 
Energy 
Highways, 
Department  of 
Motor  Vehicles 
Miscellaneous 


The  amounts  allocated  to  education 
in  1981  and  1982  out  of  the  State 
General  Fund  included  funds  for  the 
University  system  and  related 
facilities,  as  well  as  for  the 
elementary  and  secondary  school 
system.   The  education  allocations 
totalled  $195  million  and  $224  mil- 
lion, or  about  52.5  percent  of  the 
total  general  fund  disbursements,  and 
as  much  as  143  percent  and  172  percent 
of  the  amount  paid  in  to  the  general 
fund  in  the  form  of  the  2  percent 
sales  tax.   The  allocation  totals 
indicate  that  other  funds  from  the 
commingled  revenues  of  the  general 
fund  were  added  in  these  years  to  the 
education  allocation,  for  return  to 
the  public  school  system. 

The  allocations  to  the  elementary 
and  secondary  school  system  derive 
from  a  formula  which  initially 
guarantees  an  average  basic  dollar 
support  to  each  student  in  the  system, 
adjusted  by  the  amount  of  funds  avail- 
able from  the  1.5  percent  local  school 
support  tax,  to  be  balanced  by  state 
aid  in  the  form  of  a  Distributive 
School  Fund.   This  calculation  is 
shown  on  Table  A-3  for  two  recent 
fiscal  years.   The  amounts  of  state 
aid  responsibility  shown  on  Table 
A-3,  after  local  responsibility,  are 
$157  million  and  $183  million,  or 
equivalent  to  115  percent  and  141 
percent  of  the  2  percent  state  sales 
tax  paid  in  to  the  general  fund.   In 


A-2 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table  A-l      Relationship  of    2   Percent   State   Sales   Tax   to   State 
General   Fund   Total   Revenues    ($000) 

Actual  Estimates 

1981-82  198  2-83 

GENERAL  FUND  REVENUES; 

1.  Taxes 

Sales   and  Use^_/ 

Gaming   -   State 

Gaining  -  County 

Liquor 

Insurance 

Casino  Entertainment 

Real  Estate  Transfer 

Laetril,  Gerovital  Mfg. 

Property 

Subtotal 

2.  Licenses 

Subtotal  8,343  6,492 

3.  Fees,  Fines 

Subtotal 

4.  Service  Charges 

5.  Interest,  etc. 

6.  Other 

TOTAL  367,466  352,360 


136,574 

130,311 

155,868 

161,850 

15 

0 

9,106 

8,580 

14,869 

15,900 

20,023 

16,800 

0 

0 

115 

115 

14 

0 

336,584 

333,556 

995 

1,046 

434 

430 

19,600 

9,727 

1,510 

1,109 

J_/   Sales   and  Use   Tax   as  %   Total  General   Fund  Revenues:    37.2%   (1981-82) 
and   37.0%    (1982-83). 

Source:      The  Executive  Budget,   FY   1983-84   and    1984-85  Volume    1,    State   of 
Nevada 


A-3 


Mt.    Hope  Molybdenum  Project 

Table   A-2      Relationship  of    2   Percent    State   Sales   Tax   to   State 
Authorizations  Out    of   General   Fund    ($000) 

1981-82  1982-83 

Approved  Approved 


SUMMARY   APPROPRIATIONS  AND  AUTHORIZATIONS: 

General   Government 

Education1/ 

Human  Resources 

Public   Safety 

Regulatory 

Conservation,   Agriculture,    Energy 

Highway,    Department   of  Motor  Vehicles 

Miscellaneous 

TOTAL   GENERAL  FUND  376,039  422,652 


Total   Other  Funds 
GRAND  TOTAL 


21,482 

22,453 

195,555 

224,450 

89,011 

97,142 

28,227 

33,456 

13,658 

13,566 

9,531 

9,424 

1,847 

1,780 

15,728 

20,381 

V  Education  as   %   Total   Disbursements   Out   of   General   Fund:    52.0%    (1981-82) 
and    53.1%   (1982-83). 

Education  Disbursements   as   %    Sales   Tax  Revenue:    143.2%   (1981-82)   and 
172.2%   (1982-83). 

Note   that   Education   includes  University   and   Other  Facilities   additional    to 
Dept.    of   Education   (primary,    secondary)   on  this   table. 

Source:      Legislative  Appropriations  Report,   61st  and   62nd  Nevada  Legislature, 
FY    1981-82,    1982-83  and    1983-84,    1984-85,   Fiscal  Analysis  Division, 
Legislative   Counsel  Bureau.      Sept.    1,    1981;   Aug.    22,    1983. 


A-4 


Mt.  Hope  Molybdenum  Project 


Table  A-3   State  Calculation  of  Distributive  School  Fund  Resources 

(Total  School  District  Support  Levels)  Department  of  Education 


Adjusted  Enrollment 
(X)  Avg.  Basic  Support 

Total  Basic  Support  ($000) 
Special  Educ.  Units  ($000) 
Adult  Diplomas  ($000) 
Fed.  Impact  Aid  Replacement 

TOTAL  NEED  ($000) 

Local   Responsibility    ($000)    1/ 
State   Responsibility    ($000) 


1981-82 


148,103 
1,6  29 

241,289 

15,697 

1,000 

3,327 

261,313 

(103,898) 
157,415 


1982-83 


150,545 
1,818 

273,497 

16,672 

1,000 

4,327 

295,496 

(112,000) 
183,496 


1982-83 
Revised 

146,838 
1,786 

262,673 

16,672 

1,582 

1,612 

282,195 

(95,314) 
186,881 


Resources   Outside   of   Guaranteed    Support:      ($000) 

Ad  Valorem  Taxes 

Motor  Vehicle 

PL  81-874    (Impact  Aid) 

Other 

Transfers 

TOTAL   OUTSIDE  REVENUES 

TOTAL   REVENUES 


44,000 

50,581 

(not 

8,635 

9,493 

specified) 

1,000 

- 

6,384 

6,735 

10,341 

10,341 

70,360 


77,150 


35,808    2/ 


331,673  3/     372,646   3/     318,003   3/ 


Total   Per   Enrollee    ($) 


2,239 


2,475 


V      Local   School   Support   Tax   (1.5%) 

II      Shown  as  a  reduction  to  state  responsibility  in  this  year. 

3/      Sum  of    TOTAL  NEED   and   TOTAL  OUTSIDE   REVENUES.      State    Support   out   of 
General   Fund   (State   Responsibility)    is    following  %   of   State    Sales   Tax 
Revenues:    115.3%   (1981-82)   and    140.8%    ) 1982-83). 

Source:      Legislative  Appropriations  Report,    61st   and   62nd   Nevada   Legislature, 
FY    1981-83,    1983-85,    Fiscal  Analysis   Division,    Legislative   Counsel 
Bureau,    Sept.    1,    1981,   Aug.    22,    1983. 


A- 5 


these  calculations,  financial  resourc-  revenue  items: 

es  outside  the  general  fund  are 

recorded:  ad  valorem  taxes,  motor 

vehicle  taxes,  t;tc.  ,  apparently  as 

supplemental  funds  which  may  be  drawn 

upon  failing  sufficient  funds  from 

"guaranteed  support"  from  the  State 

General  Funds. 


It  is  noted  that,  while  taxes  paid 
in  to  the  state,  such  as  vehicle, 
cigarette,  liquor,  gasoline,  gaming, 
etc.  ,  return  to  the  local  jurisdictions 
in  support  of  towns,  counties  and 
school  districts,  these  taxes  are 
specific  levies  not  associated  with 
the  State  Sales  Tax,  or  the  2  percent 
component  of  that  tax.   Such  specific 
levies  are  shown  in  the  budget  analy- 
sis of  the  Eureka  and  Elko  jurisdic- 
tions as  revenues  to  local  govern- 
ments deriving  from  the  state.   These 
tax  revenues  are  only  partly  fore- 
casted in  the  EIS  fiscal  impact 
analysis,  as  they  are  derived  from 
spending  by  the  new  project-related 
populations,  specifically  gasoline, 
cigarette  and  liquor  taxes. 

Final  allocations  to  the  elemen- 
tary and  secondary  school  system 
(kindergarten  through  grade  12)  out 
of  the  State  General  Fund  are  of  two 
kinds:   the  Distributive  School  Fund 
and  miscellaneous  specific  alloca- 
tions to  the  handicapped,  for  voca- 
tional education,  school  lunch  pro- 
grams, etc.   These  separate  author- 
izations are  shown  on  Table  A-4. 
The  Distributive  School  Fund  alone 
in  FY  1982  and  1982  amounts  to  $124 
million  and  $152  million,  respec- 
tively, or  91  percent  and  117  per- 
cent of  the  2  percent  state  sales  tax 
revenues  in  the  general  fund.   This 
appears  to  be  the  amount  in  each  year 
finally  settled  upon  as  final  for 
these  programs.   It  is  seen  that  in 
addition  to  the  general  fund  revenues 
absorbed  in  the  school  support  package, 
Table  A-4  lists  the  availability  of 
federal  funds  and  other  funds,  which 
include  an  assortment  of  unrelated 


federal  slot  tax  rebates; 
federal  mineral  and  lease  taxes; 
out-of-state  local  school  support 

taxes; 
interest  earnings  of  permanent 

school  fund. 

These   funds   are   commingled  with 
the   support    to   education   given   by 
the   State  General   Fund   (and   the   2 
percent   state   sales   tax),    such   that 
the   total   revenue   returned   to   local 
school    districts   in  the   form   of   the 
Distributive    School   Fund,    or   as 
specific   allocations    to   school    lunch, 
vocational   education,   etc.,   is   a 
composite   of  various   state   and 
federal    revenues,    in  addition   to    the 
State   General  Fund   revenues   and  the 
inferred  percentage   relationship   of 
the   2   percent   state   sales   tax. 

As   stated  in  Chapter  4.0  of    the 
EIS  and   Section  3.4.4   of   this  Techni- 
cal Report,    the   forecast   of    revenues 
to   local  jurisdictions   contained  in 
the   fiscal   impact   analysis  does   not 
include   this   redistribution   of   the 
2  percent   sales   tax,   or   the  Distri- 
butive   School   Fund,    or   specific   aids 
to   education  described   above.      The 
amounts   paid  in   to   the   State   General 
Fund   in   the   form  of    the   2   percent 
sales   tax,    by  Eureka  and  Elko  Counties 
in  Fiscal  Year   1981-82,   are   reported 
to   be:    $124,141  and   $2,780,960  re- 
spectively,   for  which   they   received, 
in  return,   in  the   School  Distributive 
Fund,    $525,841    (Eureka,    1982/3)   and 
$5,395,979   (Elko,    1981/2).      This 
amounts    to  a  repayment    of   4.2  times 
for  Eureka   and    1.9   times   for  Elko,    in 
Distributive   School   Funds   only. 


A- 6 


Mt.   Hope  Molybdenum  Project 


Table   A-4      State  Allocations    to   Department   of    Education  Out    of    General   Fund 
By  Type   of  Authorized   Expenditure    ($000) 


1981-82 


1982-83 


GENERAL  FUND  ALLOCATIONS 


1.  Miscellaneous: 

Education  Administration 
Care  of  Deaf  and  Blind 
Professional  Standards  Committee 
Vocational  Education 
Adult  Basic  Education 
School  Lunch 

Sub-Total  General  Fund 

2.  Distributive  School  Fund:  \J 

Out  of  General  Fund 
Federal  Funds  3/ 
Other  Funds  3/~~ 

Sub-Total  D.  S.  Fund 

3.  Total  Education  Allocation: 

Total   General   Fund 
Total  Federal 
Total   Other 

GRAND   TOTAL  ALL  FUNDS 


793 

825 

527 

584 

8 

8 

324 

3  28 

15 

15 

360 

360 

2,027 

2,120 

124,412 
24,892 

If 

152,573    2/ 
10,500 

8,811 

27,237 

157,415 

190,310 

126,440 
43,295 
10,356 

180,091 


154,693 
30,830 
30,852 

216,375 


\J     Apportionments  by  formula,  based  on  guaranteed  dollars  per  pupil,  taking 
account  of  local  school  support  tax  contributions  in  each  school  district, 
and  state-imposed  limits  on  local  taxing  authorities. 

2/      Equal  to  91%  and  117%,  respectively,  of  2%  State  Sales  Tax  Component  of 
State  General  Fund.   Earmarked  items  for  education  under  1.  Miscellaneous 
may  be  not  by  formula  and  specific  as  to  place.   $1  million  each  for 
construction  and  vocational  equipment  is  included  in  D.  S.  Fund. 

3/  Includes  Federal  Slot  Tax  Rebates,  Federal  Mining  Land  Lease  Tax,  Out-of- 
State  Local  School  Support  Tax,  and  Interest  Earnings  on  Permanent  School 
Fund. 

Source:   Legislative  Appropriations  Report,  61st  and  62nd  Nevada  Legislature. 


A- 7 


APPENDIX   9-B 


B-l 


APPENDIX  9-B 
INFORMATION  PERTINENT  TO  POWER  LINE  AND  STATE  ROUTE  278  ACTIVITY 


1 .0   Introduction 

Initiation  of  the  Mt .  Hope  project 
has  included  planning  participation 
by  both  Mt.  Wheeler  Power,  Inc.  (elec- 
tric power  requirements)  and  the 
Nevada  Department  of  Transportation 
(State  Route  278  relocation).   This 
Appendix  presents  pertinent  data  pre- 
sented by  both  groups  during  the  Mt. 
Hope  EIS  period.   Both  Mt.  Wheeler 
Power,  Inc.  and  the  Nevada  Department 
of  Transportation,  would  individually 
apply  for  right-of-way  granting, 
although  the  EIS  serves  to  address 
environmental  considerations. 

In  1983,  Mt.  Wheeler  Power,  Inc. 
(MWP)  provided  an  Environmental  Impact 
Report  (EIR)  to  allow  EIS  preparers 
access  to  information  necessary  to 
evaluate  impact  extent  and  to  formu- 
late mitigation  planning  if  necessary. 
Section  2.0  of  this  Appendix  abstracts 
the  MWP  EIR  and  includes  notes,  as 
necessary,  concerning  mitigative 
changes  incorporated  into  the  MWP 
plan  as  a  result  of  EIS  preparers 
review. 

The  Nevada  Department  of  Transpor- 
tation (NDOT)  directly  responded  to 
an  EXXON  request  for  plans  relative 
to  realignment  of  State  Route  278. 
In  response,  the  NDOT  presented  a 
topographic  map  depicting  realign- 
ment routing,  discussed  plans  of 
cultural  and  surface  water  (McBrides 
Spring)  avoidance,  and  provided 
details  of  construction  workforce 
personnel,  equipment  and  scheduling. 
Section  3.0  of  this  Appendix  is 
limited  to  a  duplicate  copy  of  a 
detail  letter  received  from  the  NDOT. 
The  additional  data  provided  by  the 
NDOT  has  been  directly  incorporated 
into  Chapters  2,  3  and  4  of  the  EIS. 


2.0  Mt.  Wheeler  Power  EIR  Information 

The  transmission  system  proposed 
for  the  Exxon  Mt.  Hope  Project  is  a 
230  kV  a-c  system  designed  to  deliver 
50  MW  from  the  Mt.  Wheeler  Power, 
Inc.  (MWP)  230  kV  system  to  the 
project  site. 

The  power  requirements  for  the 
project  are  of  such  magnitude  (50 
MW) ,  it  is  assumed  that  reliability  of 
electric  service  will  require  that 
the  project  have  alternate  sources  of 
power  to  the  EMC  site.   A  new  230  kV 
power  line  will  be  constructed  to  the 
MWP  Gonder  Substation  near  Ely, 
Nevada  from  MWP  Utah  resources  by 
1985  or  early  1986. 

In  addition,  MWP  will  have  addi- 
tional resources  by  1989  from  its 
participation  in  the  White  Pine  Power 
Project  (WPPP)  1500  MW  Plant  in  White 
Pine  County,  Nevada.   Construction 
of  this  generating  plant  is  scheduled 
to  begin  in  July,  1984.   Three  (3) 
prime  sites  remain  under  consideration 
at  the  present  time  and  selection  for 
the  final  location  is  to  be  made 
during  June,  1983,  providing  the 
selection  date  remains  on  schedule 
(MWP  EIR,  1983). 

Since  the  MWP  report  was  being  pre- 
pared during  January,  1983,  MWP 
developed  preliminary  plans  to  provide 
the  power  requirements  of  the  project 
from  any  one  of  the  three  (3)  White 
Pine  Power  sites  still  under  con- 
sideration. 

2. 1  Location 

Figure  No.  B-l  shows  the  MWP  system 
within  its  certificated  service  area. 
The  three  (3)  prime  sites  for  the 
WPPP  are  also  shown  as  well  as  the 
proposed  routing  of  the  various 


B-2 


AREA   MAP 


Figure   B-l 


power  line  alternatives.   (Technical 
Note:  Only  that  portion  of  the  power 
line  from  Machacek  substation  to  the 
Mt.   Hope  project  site  has  been  eval- 
uated in  the  EIS.   In  accordance  with 
the  NEPA  concept  of  tiering,  the 
analysis  of  other-line  development  by 
Mt.  Wheeler  Power  has  been  conducted 
in  other  EIS  work  and  is  scheduled  to 
occur  regardless  of  the  Mt.  Hope  pro- 
ject development.   Additionally,  the 
the  EXXON  Mt.  Hope  project  plans  only 
incorporate  power  line  access  from  the 
Machacek  substation  as  opposed  to  the 
various  alternatives,  e.g.,  direct 
access  from  WPPP,  discussed  in  the 
MWP  information  provided  below). 

a.  Assume  SOUTH  SPRING  VALLEY  Site 
selected  for  WPPP  -  A  230  kV  line 
would  be  constructed  by  the  WPPP  to 
the  MWP  Gonder  Substation.   From 
Gonder  Substation  to  the  Machacek 
Substation,  a  66.5  Mile  230  kV 
line  would  be  constructed  parallel 
to  the  Sierra  Pacific  Power  Company 
(SPPCO)  230  kV  line.   From  the 
Machacek  Substation,  a  23  Mile  230 
kV  line  would  be  constructed  to  the 
Mt.  Hope  site. 

b.  Assume  NORTH  STEPTOE  VALLEY  Site 
selected  for  WPPP  -  a  76  mile,  230 
kV  line  would  be  constructed  direct 
to  the  EMC  Plant  Site  as  well  as  a 
23  mile,  230  kV  Line  from  the 
Machacek  Substation  to  the  Mt.  Hope 
site. 

c.  Assume  BUTTE  VALLEY  Site  selected 
for  WPPP  -  a  54  mile,  230  kV  line 
would  be  constructed  direct  to  the 
EMC  Plant  Site  as  well  as  a  23 
mile,  230  kV  line  from  the  Machacek 
Substation  to  the  Mt.  Hope  site. 

d.  An  alternate  to  (c)  above  would 
consist  of  a  17.5  Mile,  230  kV 
line  constructed  southwest  to 
intercept  the  230  kV  corridor  of 
the  SPPCo  230  kV  line,  then  33.5 
miles  of  230  kV  to  the  Machacek 
Substation,  then  23  miles  of  230 


kV  line  from  the  Machacek  Substa- 
tion to  the  Mt.  Hope  site. 

e.    The   right-of-way   requirements   for 
230  kV  power   line  would   vary 
from   110  to   125   feet   in  width  and 
would   require   from  13.3   to   15.2 
acres   per  mile   of   line. 

2.2  Construction  Activities 

2.2.1   Duration 

The  duration  of  the  construction 
of  the  project  is  estimated  to  be  50 
weeks  if  the  North  Steptoe  Valley 
Site  is  selected  and  38  weeks  if  the 
Butte  Valley  site  is  selected.   The 
construction  period  for  the  other 
alternative  routings  lie  between  the 
above  maximum  and  minimum  periods. 
Time  to  construct  from  the  Machacek 
substation  to  the  Mt.  Hope  site  is 
estimated  to  equal  11.5  weeks. 

Area  to  be  Disturbed.   Some  amount 
of  land  clearing  would  be  necessary 
to  permit  movement  of  construction 
equipment.   Land  clearing  would  be 
restricted  to  the  minimum  necessary 
for  the  safe  construction  and  opera- 
tion of  the  line  and  would  consist  of 
crushing  and  uprooting  brush.   Clear- 
ing of  desert  vegetation  would  be 
restricted  to  the  minimum  required 
for  placement  of  poles,  anchors  and 
wire  pulling  sites. 

Pole  site  clearing  would  normally 
require  a  circular  space,  approxi- 
mately on  a  5  foot  (5')  radius  to 
protect  the  wood  poles  from  wild 
fires.   This  clearing,  normally  an 
ongoing  operation  and  maintenance 
activity  to  protect  the  pole  line 
from  fire,  has  been  eliminated  from 
planning  in  order  to  assure  minimum 
environmental  disturbance. 

Removal  of  trees  would  be  limited 
to  those  that  constitute  a  hazard  to 
the  power  line  and  whose  tops  are 
within  20  feet  of  the  conductor  and 


B-4 


which   cannot    be   topped.      The   clearing 
of    trees  would   be   done  wherever 
possible   after   conductor  installa- 
tion  to  minimize   tree   trimming  or 
removal   to  provide   a  feathered   right- 
of-way. 

2.2.3  Construction  Labor  Force 

The   power    line   construction 
labor   force  would  be   composed   of    the 
major   skills   or   categories   of   lineman, 
groundmen,   operating   engineers, 
electrical  workers,   non-manuals   and 
'others'.      Non-manuals   would  predomi- 
nantly be   field  engineers,   surveyors 
and   inspectors.       'Others'   would 
include    office   personnel   and  support 
personnel   such   as    superintendents, 
foremen,    mechanics,   fuel   and   lubemen. 

It   is   estimated   that   the   total 
labor   force  necessary   to   accomplish 
the   proposed   construction  would  number 
between  45  and  60  people  working  one 
eight   to   ten  hour   shift   a  day,    five 
days   a  week. 

2.2.4  Construction  Equipment 
Requirements 

Typical  230  kV  power  line 
construction  equipment  would  be 
approximately  as  follows: 


Cars 

Pickups  1/2  Ton 

Office  Trailer 

Dozer 

Road  Grader 

4x4  Pickups 

Truck/Tractor 

with  Auger 
Air  Compressor 
Backhoe 
6x6  Flat  Bed 

Trucks 
Fuel/Lube  Trucks 
25-Ton  Crane 


Pole   Trailer 

Wire  Trailer 

Reel  Stands 

Fork  Lift 

Conduct  or /Static 
Line 

Tensioners 

Traveler   Truck 
with  6-Ton  Boom 

Conductor 
Travelers 

6x6  with  Aerial 
Platform 

4x4   6-Man  Carry- 
Alls 


2.2.5     Access   Roads 

Existing  public   and  private   roads 
would  be  used  where   available.      Some 
roads  may   require  upgrading  to   accom- 
modate  construction   traffic.      All 
existing   roads   used  for   construction 
would   be   left   in  the   same  or   better 
condition  than  originally   found. 

New  access   roads   would   be   con- 
structed  along   the   power   line 
right-of-way  where   suitable   existing 
roads   are  not   available.      Access 
roads   would   consist    of    a  main   road 
running   the   length  of    the   power 
line   right-of-way  with  stub   roads 
providing  access   to   each   structure 
location.      At   times   it  would   be 
necessary   to   locate  access   roads 
outside   the   right-of-way   limits  due 
to   geological,   ecological   or   topo- 
graphical  consideration.      In  these 
cases,    all  applicable   permits  would   be 
obtained  and   all   regulations    adhered 
to. 

All  access   roads  would  be   con- 
structed in   accordance  with   the 
specifications   and   regulations    of    the 
entity  having  jurisdiction   of   the 
lands   crossed. 

All  fences    crossed   by   the   power 
line  would   be   provided  with   a  gate  as 
required   by   the   landholder,    to  provide 
access    for   the   construction   force   as 
well  as   operation/maintenance   person- 
nel  after   construction  was   completed. 

2.3     Maintenance  Activitites 


2.3.1      Duration 

Maintenance  would  include    the 
operations   needed   to  keep   the    lines 
and   associated   facilities    in  service. 
The    lines   and   right-of-way  would   be 
inspected   during   planned   periodic 
ground  patrols,    approximately   two 
times   per  year.      Emergency  patrols   by 
air   as   well   as    emergency  maintenance 
on   the   ground  would   be   performed   in 


B-5 


the  event  of  any  line  failure. 

2.3.2  Area  to  be  Maintained  Clear  of 
Vegetation 

In  some  cases  it  may  be  necessary 
to  clear  taller  vegetation  to  aid  in 
fire  prevention. 

2.3.3  Maintenance  Personnel 

Routine  patrols  would  consist  of  a 
lineman  and  groundman  making  a  struc- 
ture inspection  of  the  pole  line.   In 
emergencies  as  many  as  fifteen  (15) 
to  twenty  (20)  personnel  would  be  uti- 
lized to  complete  repairs  as  rapidly 
as  possible. 

2. 3. A  Maintenance  Equipment 

Vechicles   for  maintenance  would 
primarily  consist   of    four-wheel   drive 
pickup   trucks   and   rubber-tired  winch 
trucks.      Tracked   vehicles  would   be 
needed  only  during  times    of   emergency 
repair. 

2.3.5  Access  Roads 

Access  roads  constructed  during 
the  construction  of  the  power  line 
would  be  utilized  for  all  main- 
tenance and  emergency  repair  of  the 
line. 

2.4  Transmission  Structures 

2.4.1   230  kV  Structure  Drawings 

Figures  B-2,  B-3  and  B-4  represent 
standard  REA  structure  drawings  for 
230  kV  Construction.   Dimension  and 
conductor  spacing  is  shown  for  each 
of  these  drawings. 

Figure  B-2  -  Tangent  Structure 

(TH-230) 
Figure  B-3  -  Medium  Angle  Structure 

(TH-233) 
Figure  B-4  -  Deadend  Structure 

(TH-235) 


2.4.2      Structure  Hazards 

Hazards    to   people,    due    to   the 
structures,   would   be   the  possibility 
of  collisions   with  the   pole(s)   and 
guy  wires   by  off-road  vehicles   and 
aircraft   collisions   with  the   struc- 
ture^)  and   conductor(s)   during 
inclement  weather.      The  guy  wires 
would  have   an  8  foot   yellow  marker 
attached   from  the   ground    line  up   the 
guy   strand. 

The   structure  would   not    be   a  hazard 
to   livestock  or  wildlife    except    for 
raptors  who  use   the   structure  as   a 
predatory   perch  and  will   be  an  easy 
target   for  the   "sportsmen". 

2.5  Mitigating  Measures 

2.5.1      General 

Power   lines  would   be   located 
parallel   to   existing  power    line 
rights-of-way  when  practicable. 
Power    lines  would   be   located,    wherever 
possible,    to  use   the   natural   terrain 
as   background   on   screening. 

Existing  access   roads  would   be  used 
where   practicable.      Soil    excavated 
during   construction  would  be   evenly 
distributed   over  cleared  areas. 
Watering   of   access   road  surfaces 
would   be   done   if  necessary   to  mini- 
mize  fugutive   dust   emissions. 

2.6  Environmental  Criteria 

The  policy  and  practice  of  Mt. 
Wheeler  Power,  Inc.  is  to  protect  the 
environment  of  the  service  area  to 
the  fullest  extent  practicable  within 
the  constraints  of  technological  and 
economic  feasibility  while  fulfilling 
its  primary  responsibility  of  supply- 
ing low  cost  electric  service  to  its 
consumers. 

In  this  regard,  the  design,  con- 
struction, cleanup,  restoration  and 
maintenance  of  the  proposed  project 


B-6 


Q 

E 

S 

o 
x: 

O 

Cx. 

E 
o 

• 

u 

o 

c 
o 

1 

o 

c 

o 

o 

o 

c 

» 

• 

n 

.9 
Xi 

E 

•» 

o 

x: 

• 

c 

o 

• 

S 

• 

M 

X> 

o 

*» 

X. 

? 

O 

o 

2 

«* 

x> 

o 

3 

~ 

xa 

o 

e 

t- 

O 

«> 

o 
o 

•> 
C 

• 
E 
o 

c 

• 
o 
ex 

•o 

T) 

• 
> 
O 

x: 
o 

3 

m 
m 

*> 
a 

o 

x: 

| 

6 

XL 

■o 

• 

a 
E 
* 

•A 

c 
» 

E    ■ 

m 

~ 

•> 

£■ 

*• 

«S 

o 

w 

• 

T3 

O 

m 
• 

O 

c 

c 
o 

e 

u 

• 

c 
«  2 

3 

o 

o 

*> 

o 

C  Tr 

• 

■1 
o 

C 

« 

o 

c 

C> 

Xj 

o 

°n 

ID 

III 

m 
< 

o 
o 

XJ 

o 

c 

< 

l/> 

T3 

C 
3 
O 

fc 

3 

o 

Q 

x: 

O    t, 

H-    ■> 

Q. 

o 

- 

cvi 

•A 

o 

CL 

* 

HO 

lb 

* 

r-OT 

z 

• 

* 
* 

B-7 


DC. 


-r 


m- 


^ 


"*K 


!ZZIZ"~~rZ3  t lJ_=: 


jffl 


^>  i 


i 


I" 


~^0 


~¥ 


I 


— >  CpE=:3ffl 


Si 

I 


& 


sgffll 


"Hi 


«|2 


2 

li 

CO 

I 

CD 


O 


i 

if  i 

i1*  'til1 

iis»;  J! 


I      ! 
Ill  I 


B-8 


1 


Hi 


«  M 


g  ■  II  I    h  ? 


g!  -•!-•  Kll  . 

o  k  J?  it  **  r- 


—         M  »       •"    . 


•Tl 


0 


J  as 
I  25 

All 


<i>—  - 


\ 


51   O  •  oi  £  |   • 

33 


<*-2i2'Z;" 


O   Q«JO,tfl 


:±± 


V  OCX)      * 


i"7  "**     r> 


irrn 


X  — "A 


x      I    _ 
-J     w     a 

5  I 

x  »-  ; 
?S3 


<     ■     M 


i 
00 


O 


====lSE.~ -~ -A  kzzsz. 


.». 


9^-^E==:-f^=ii 


1° 


: • lj 


ib 


£2i£ 


^^1,/ 


I 


"*& 


►I 


I 


<N 


Jfc=fcj: 


5  « 
II 

X 

V: 


5| 

-   k 


•nunuiiuil 


!  * 


«  T 


B-9 


would  follow  the   applicable   criteria 
in  the    "Environmental   Criteria   for 
Electric  Transmission   Systems"  pub- 
lished  jointly  by  the  U.S.    Department 
of    Interior   and   the  U.S.    Department 
of  Agriculture. 

In  addition,   the   stipulations    of 
the  jurisdictional   agencies   involved 
would   be   strictly   followed. 

2.7      Power   Supply  Planning   -  Mt. 
Wheeler  Power,    Inc. 

On  February  24,    1971   a  contract 
between  Mt.    Wheeler  Power,    Inc.    (MWP) 
and   Sierra  Pacific  Power  Company 
(SPPCO)   was   signed.      This    contract 
provided  MWP  with  capacity  rights   of 
40,000  kW  during   the   summer   season 
(April   through  September)   and  22,000 
kW  during   the  winter  season   (October 
through  March). 

Subsequent    to   this   contract,    MWP 
joined  the   Intermountain  Consumer 
Power  Association   (ICPA)    in  Utah 
whereby   ICPA  acted  as   agent    for   the 
MWP  Colorado  River   Storage   Project 
(CRSP)    allocation   of  22,000  kW  during 
the   summer  season  and    12,800  kW  dur- 
ing the  winter   season. 

In   the  mid-70's,    it   became   apparent 
that    all   the  members    of    ICPA  would 
require   additional   power   supplies. 
The   planning   by   ICPA  has   resulted   in 
MWP  participating  in  the   following 
power  supplies    for  its   system. 

a.  Formation  of   Desert   Generation  and 
Transmission  Cooperative    (DG&T) 
which   purchased    100  MW  in  Unit   No. 
2   of   the   Utah  Power  and   Light 
Company  Hunter   steam-electric 
generating  station. 

b.  DG&T  has   under   construction   its 
Bonanza  No.    1,    400  MW   (360  Net) 
steam-electric  generating  station 
in   Utah  which  is    to   be    operational 
by  January,    1985. 


c.    Intermountain  Power  Project    (IPP) 
which  is  constructing  a   1,500  MW 
Plant   in  Utah  and  which   is   to   be 
operational   in  mid-1986.      It   is 
from  this   plant    that   a  new  230  kV 
power   line  will   be   constructed   to 
the  MWP  Gonder   Substation  North 
of  Ely,   Nevada   to   increase   capacity 
to   the  MWP  System.      MWP  anticipated 
construction   of   this   line   in    1985, 
prior   to   operation  of    the   IPP 
Plant. 

On  its   own,   MWP  is   a  participant 
in  the   proposed  White   Pine   Power 
Project    (WPPP)    to   be   located   in  White 
Pine  County  and  which  will   be   a    1,500 
MW  Plant    that    is   to   be   operational    in 
mid-1989.    Included  in  the  WPPP  plan- 
ning is   another  230  kV  power   line   to 
be   interconnected  with  the  MWP  System. 

MWP  has,    acting   through   its   agent 
ICPA  and  on  its   own,    developed   a 
future  power  supply  for  its   system. 
The   Exxon  Mt.   Hope   project   potential 
load  was   not    included   in  any  of    this 
planning  and  if  development    proceeded, 
it  would   only  be  necessary   that 
Exxon  notify  MWP  at   least    four    (4) 
years    in  advance   of   the   operational 
date   of   the  Mt.   Hope   project    so   that 
MWP  could  schedule   the   required 
capacity. 

3.0      Nevada  Department   of 
Transportation 

Figure  B-5  and   B-6  depict   a  dupli- 
cate  copy  of   information  in   part, 
received  from  the  Nevada  Department 
of   Transportation  concerning  the 
proposed   realignment   of   State  Route 
278. 


B-10 


TRANSPORTATION   BOARD 

Bl»»K     M     l»t«X     Gotunoi     Cll»iim«n 
•MIAN  Mr  KAY     Atloinmt  Gmni'm' 

STATE  OF  DEVROR  darhu  *  oainis  &..■•  coni>o»«< 


DEPRRimEnT  OF  TRRnSPORTRTIOn 

1RJ  SOUTH  STEWART   STRUT 
CARSON  CUT    NEVADA     «trw 


June  8,  1963 

Hi.  Jit  Krickenberger  Eixon  -  Mt.  Hope 

tuon  Mineral*  Company  SR  276 

P.  0.  Box  4508 
Houston,  TX   77210 

Dear  Ha.  Krickenberger: 

The  following  information  ia  submitted  in  accordance  with  our  cooperative 
Agreement  No.  R150-83-010.   Attached  ia  a  map  which  depicts  the  general 
alignment  based  on  previously  submitted  contours.   Also  attached  is  a  typical 
section  which  shows  the  anticipated  widths,  alope  configurations  and  a  typical 
drainage  atructure  croaaing. 

In  general,  the  6.0  mile  project  is  estimated  to  cost  $3,400,000  with  an 
estimated  start  to  finish  time  of  one  conatruction  seaaon. 

Overall  cut  and  fill  volumes,  paving  deacript iona ,  deptha  and  the  number 
and  type  of  drainage  structures  will  not  be  made  available  until  more  detailed 
design  work  ia  accomplished. 

A  summary  of  other  pertinent  detaila  follows: 

Area  Disturbed  During  Construction 

84  Ft.*  width  20,592  feet 

105  Ft.*  width  9,504  feet 

126  Ft.*  width  1,564  feet 

Area  Permanently  Diaturbed 

80  Ft.*  width  20,592  feet 

100  Ft.*  width  9,504  feet 

120  Ft.*  width  1,584  feet 

Equipment  Typically  on  Site  During  Conatruction 

TYPE  H.P.      POWERED      NUMBER 

Dozers  D-8  300  Diesel  2 

Scrapers  631  450  "  5 

Backhoie  1  Cu.  Yd.  55  "  1 

Loaders  966  200  "  2 

Rollers  (Pneum.)  100  "  2 

Rollers  (Steel)  87  "  2 

Trucks  (Hauling)  200  "  10 

Trucks  (Water)  150  "  2 

Motor  Grader  135  180  "  2 

Crushing  Plant  300  "  1 

Hot  Plant  100  "  1 

Paver  122  "  1 

It  ia  estimated  a  work  crew  of  30-50  persons  will  be  required  working  an  8- 
hour  day,  40  hour  week.   The  work  crew  will  likely  consist  of  operating 
engineers,  teamsters  laborers  and  fence  erectors. 

As  an  additional  note,  our  Agreement  No.  S150-63-010  atates  in  the 

preambles  the  project  extends  from  approximate  mileposts  Ell  51.44  to  El)  56.55. 
Those  are  apparently  in  error  with  the  actual  mileposts  being  EU  15.00*  to 
EU  22.00*.   1  apologize  for  any  inconvenience  this  may  have  caused  you. 

If  you  have  any  questions  please  contact  Bill  Bowman,  Project  Designer  at 
(702)  885-5609  or  myself. 


Sincerely , 

Hichael  W.  HcFall 

Aasistant  Chief  Road  Design  Engineer 

HVM:kl 

Attach. 

cc  :   Jim  Creas 


B-n  FIGURE    B-5 


a' 
I    2 


o 

I 
CD 

LU 

O 


o 

o 

E 

o 

o 

0> 

O 

a 

3 

-C 

b 

•V 

■o 

>> 
X> 

£ 
O 

jr 

r1  cj 

.£ 

o  a 

i£> 

.c 

3 

u 

X1*    v 

I/) 

a. 

w      3 

to 

c 

.       1 

1/) 

c  ° 

D 

r 

3  3 

0  D 

1 

>> 

S  m 

H 

r 

Z  H 

PI  PI 

5f 

3 

O 

Co 

3    0         O 

P     j-i-              m. 

1 

03 

f  n 

O 

!^r  !-'. 

» 

i  U        --J 

03 

JO 

_:        12                    2 

O 

O 

;""     H 

^3 

^ 

*J 

P) 
50 

"'        IZ 

OWEF 

BLM  Library 

D-553A,  Building  50 

Denver  Federal  Center 

j  P.  0.  Box  25047 

1 
1 

LD< 

mv 

er, 

CO 

80225-0047