The skill levels for doing inspection and enforcement activities would require that the inspector be thoroughly familiar with mining and reclamation operations and standards, and also be abreast of improvements in the reclamation field. Federal training programs already are being developed to train individuals in the necessary skills. It should be noted that there also could be judicial costs associated with the enforcement of a mining regulatory program. Though these would not be direct costs to the tribal regulatory program, they could affect the tribe as a whole and its judicial system, depending on the size of the increased caseload which might result. 4. Designation of Lands Unsuitable For Mining The designation process is essentially a land-use planning process, rather than part of the process for regulating existing surface coal mining and reclamation operations. It is possible that the designation process may not be required for approved tribal programs, since tribes already have a number of mechanisms for prohibiting mining on lands deemed unsuitable for that purpose, including existing land-use planning activities and leasing or contractual powers. If a designation process is required for Indian lands, it may be no more than a variation on these existing mechanisms. The designation of Indian lands unsuitable for mining could track the requirement for states, i.e., simply set up i.e., simply set up a data base and inventory system and provide a procedure to receive and handle any petitions to designate lands as unsuitable. It also could be more intensive, providing for an initial review of all tribal lands for designation purposes as well well as the features of a state designation process. This more intensive approach is similar to that required for federal lands. (Section 522 (b) of the Act). In either event, designation of particular lands as unsuitable for mining probably would occur in two phases, one general in scope and the other more detailed. First, the regulatory authority could determine whether any existing and hard criteria required designation of the land as unsuitable for mining. For example, proposed mining might be located on an alluvial valley floor, be inconsistent with the tribe's existing land-use plans, or it might conflict clearly with cultural or religious values. If a determination not to allow mining is made at this stage then the expensive and time-consuming review of the land's reclamation feasibility need not be conducted. Second, if the regulatory authority had reached no decision on the basis of these general criteria, it could then conduct a detailed review review of the feasibility of reclaiming the specific site proposed for mining. As a practical matter, of course, these "two phases" represent the extremes on a whole range of intensity. The costs, staffing and skill levels associated with the designation process vary widely, based on a number of factors. First, the extent and character of tribal mineral lands will determine the scale of wholesale review of the lands, the number of petitions for designation of various tracts as unsuitable, and the relative ease or difficulty of making a determination. Second, the resources devoted to land designation may vary as a function of the level of intensity of the tribe's designation system. If the state model is followed, then there will be no initial review costs, but there may be many petitions to handle on a piecemeal basis. If the federal lands model is followed, then there will be the costs associated with an initial review of tribal lands, but there may be fewer, if any, petitions to process. Third, financial and staffing requirements will vary depending upon the amount of scrutiny which is given to lands under review or under petition. Designation at the first level will require a require a small commitment of resources. Tribes, for example, may already know what lands are of utmost significance to their tribal identity and may take steps immediately to insure that no mining activity occurs in those areas. Designation at the second level will be more costly and require more staffing, since a reclamation feasibility study will require the work of various specialists. Fourth, the costs associated with the designation process will depend to a large extent on the quality and comprehensiveness of the tribe's existing data base and inventory system for tribal lands. If the tribe's land-use planning process already is sufficiently operable and effective, relatively little resources would be needed to implement a designation system. For a tribe that is only now beginning to approach its land and resources in systemmatic fashion, staff time devoted to implementing a full designation system could be quite large. Finally, it should be noted that these various cost factors have an impact on each other. For example, the size of the tribal territory will affect the cost of developing an adequate data base. The adequacy of the data base in turn will affect the ease of conducting an initial lands review and of processing petitions. Subject to the factors outlined above, it is likely that a mediumintensity designation system could be developed and implemented by most tribes' existing planning, environmental protection, or natural resources staffs. It is estimated that the services required would average half-time for a land-use planner and half-time for an environmental specialist for the first year, and one-tenth time for a land-use planner for subsequent years. In this instance the cost, including support, would be $38,000 for the first year, and $3,800 per year thereafter. FEDERAL FUNDING AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO STATES Several federal funding, technical assistance, and educational and training programs have been developed to aid states in achieving the mining reclamation and control standards set forth in the Act. In order to place the cost and staff needs discussion of this chapter in the context the types of assistance programs which would likely be available to tribes, and to aid tribes in evaluating the actual impact of cost factors and staffing requirements of the alternative regulatory models, the federal assistance programs currently available to states are des cribed below. Federal Funding for State Program Development and Implementation States are eligible to receive federal funding for the development and implementation of approved state programs. If tribes are to be treated as states for regulatory purposes, then it is reasonable to assume that federal funding similarly will be available for tribal programs. The Secretary of Interior is authorized to make annual grants to the states for both development of a state program and implementation of a state program. (Section 705 of the Act; 30 CFR Part 735). "Development" grants may be used to cover the costs of developing: New or revised state laws, regulations and procedures; Revised or expanded inspection systems; and other per Training programs for inspectors and New or revised organizational structures; Information and communications systems, including |